ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Linguistics
and
Education
j ou rn a l h om ep a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / l i n g e d
Triadic
conflict
mediation
as
socialization
into
perspective
taking
in
Swedish
preschools
Asta
Cekaite
LinköpingUniversity,58183Linköping,Sweden
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Articlehistory: Received3October2018
Receivedinrevisedform24April2019 Accepted2August2019
Availableonline31October2019 Keywords: Conflictmediation Teacher-studentinteraction Perspectivetaking Languagesocialization Multipartyinteractions
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
Thispaperisavideo-ethnographiclanguagesocializationstudythatexaminesthediscursive,linguistic andembodiedfeaturesoftheteachers’andchildren’swaysofconflictmediationandresolution.Thestudy describesthewaysinwhichyoungchildren(threetofive-yearolds)inseveralpreschoolsinSweden arebeingsocializedintotheinteractionalcompetencesandperspectivetakingnecessaryformanaging conflictsituations.Itisshownthatteacher-guidedconflictresolutionwasaccomplishedthroughtriadic interactionsinvolvingtheteacherasamediator.Teachersusedquestionstoencourageanddirectchildren toconveytheirvolition,wants,andwishestotheirpeers,andrequestedtheotherchildrentolisten.Itis arguedthatsuchdiscursivepracticessocializechildrentoperspectivetaking,andthatthissocialization islinkedtowidersocietalnormsofSwedishpreschoolsandSwedishsociety,namelydemocraticvalues ofequality,agency,individualism,andsolidarity.
©2019TheAuthor.PublishedbyElsevierInc.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-ND license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1. Introduction
Earlychildhoodeducationsettingsareorganizedaroundvarious
societallypoignantnormsandvaluesandtheyconstitute
signifi-cantandmultifacetedarenasforchildren’ssocialization.InSweden,
where preschools are attended by 95% of one to five-year-old
children,socializingchildrenintomorallyandemotionally
appro-priate,societallyvaluednormativeconductusuallyisconsidered
tobepartofteachers’institutionalresponsibilities.The
socializ-ingpotentialsofadult-childinteractionsinsituationsthatrevolve
aroundmundanemoralissues–especiallypeerconflicts–provide
afruitfulsiteforuncoveringotherwiserarelyarticulated
norma-tivesocio-culturalassumptionsofhowtoperformactions,express
emotionsandmaintainrelationships.Children’speerconflicts
pro-vide occasions for socialization into interactional competences,
comprising discursive ways of handlingconflict situations and
maintainingsocialharmony.Teachers’discursivepracticesarethus
contextdependent(Ochs,1996).Teacherscanexertovertorcovert
socialcontrol,providingchildrenwithpossibilitiesorlimitingtheir
space for negotiationor resistance. They can alsodemonstrate
attentiontochildren’sperspectives,ordisciplinethem(Ahn,2016;
Cekaite,2013;Demuth,2013).Perspectivetakingcanconstitute
animportantfeatureofconflictresolution,becausetheabilityto
understandothers’perspectivesisoneofthesignificant
charac-E-mailaddress:asta.cekaite@liu.se
teristicsofhumansocialityanddevelopment(Tomasello,2019).
Itisassociatedwiththesocialactor’sorientationtowardsothers;
itmakesitpossibletounderstandandattendtotheother’sneeds
andthereforeconstitutesoneofcornerstonesofmoral
accountabil-ity(Keane,2016).Notably,somediscursivepracticescancomprise
variousnormativedilemmas(e.g.,regarding alignmentof
adult-child, individualvs. collectiveperspectives,Goodwin&Cekaite,
2018).
Byadoptingalanguagesocializationperspectivewhichviews
languageuseas inextricablyrelated tothe indexingof cultural
values(Ochs,1996),thepresentstudyexaminesthelinguistic,
dis-cursiveandembodiedorganizationofteacher-mediatedchildren’s
peerconflictresolutioninpreschoolsinSweden.Itdiscusses
chil-dren’ssocializationbyexaminingwidelyusedteacherstrategies,
herecalled–triadicconflictmediation–thatencourageandguide
childrenbothtoarticulatetheirownandtotakeintoaccounttheir
opponents’perspectives,andhighlightsthesocialandmoralnorms
thatarebeingimplementedbythediscursivepractices.Thestudy
isbasedonavideo-ethnographyfromthreepreschoolsinSweden
(forchildrenfromthreetofive-yearsold)conductedduringaperiod
ofapproximatelyoneyear.Themethodsadoptedcombinea
micro-analyticapproachtoeverydaymultimodalinteractions(Goodwin,
2006)withethnographicfieldworkoflanguagesocialization
prac-tices(DeLeón,2012).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2019.100753
1.1. Theoreticalperspective
Thepresentstudyisinformedbyalanguagesocialization
per-spective(e.g.,Schieffelin&Ochs,1986; seeintroduction tothis
specialissue).Fromthisperspective,socializationisaprocessof
assigningsituationalmeaningstoparticularlinguisticand
embod-iedactsandforms(i.e.ofindexingtemporalandspatialmeanings,
social identities, social acts as well as affective and epistemic
stances,Ochs,1996:410).Socialinteractionisviewedas
partic-ipationwithinsociallysituatedactivitiesandasaccomplishment
withindynamicallyevolvingcontextualconfigurationsthatentail
language,thematerialenvironment,facialexpressionsand
embod-ied action (Goodwin, 2018). In particular, affective and moral
stances reflect and instantiate culturalexpectations, social and
moralvalues.Inordertobeabletoparticipateinvarious
socio-culturalcommunitieseffectively,socialactorsneedtoproduceand
interpretbehaviorinawaythatalignswiththenorms,practices
andvaluesof thecommunity (Ochs,1996:129),and beableto
taketheperspectiveofothers.Accordingly,children’sacquisition
ofsocioculturalcompetence,languageandembodiedrepertoires
andmoralnormsareprocessesthatmutuallyinformoneanother.
Importantly,childrenareviewedasagentsinthesocialization
pro-cesswhoalignwith,resist,orignoreadults’actions.
Moral accountability is inextricably linked to social actors’
orientation to the perspectives and actions of others. Based
oninteractionalandethnomethodologicallyinspiredapproaches,
heremoralityisconceivedasamundane,“inherentandcommon
featureofeverydayencounters,situatedwithinthebasicstructure
ofdiscourse”(Bergmann,1998:283;Keane, 2016).Accordingly,
themoralorderisinvoked,negotiated,andevencontestedwhen
breachesinsocialpracticeoccur(Bergmann,1998;Goffman,1971):
thecategorizationofaneventasproblematicprovidesthegrounds
onwhichtoblameoraccountforsocialactionsthatdepartfrom
thenormativeorder.
1.2. Children’sconflictsineducationalsettingsanddiscursive
socializationstrategies
Interactionalresearchonchildren’speergroupsshowsthat
chil-drencanholdeachotheraccountableforbreachesofsocial and
moral order by, for instance, engaging in sophisticated
discur-sivepractices –she-said-he-said–narrativesthat articulateand
justifyvariousversionsandothers’perspectivesonproblematic
events(Goodwin,1990).Educationalsettingsalsoprovideasocial
spacewherepeergrouprelationsandfriendshipsarenegotiated
andestablished(Bateman,2015;Björk-Willén,2018;Evaldsson&
Melander,2016;HolmKvist,2018).Indivertibly,theyarerecurrent
sitesofpeerconflictsandnegotiationsofsocialorder;moreover,
theyaresiteswherechildren’ssocialrelationsareshapedinthe
peergroup,aswellasbyteachers(Burdelski,2015;Cekaite,2012b;
Danby&Theobald,2012).
Whenlookingthroughthelensofmundanemorality,thereisa
greatdealofvariabilityindiscursivesocializationpracticesamong
educationalsettingsindifferentcultures.Researchshowsthatthe
ascriptionandnegotiationofmoralagency–suchasintentionality
andaccountabilityforuntowardactions–canbeaccomplishedin
rathercontrastingways.Theteacherscanattendtotheinstitutional
orindividualchild’sperspectives,useprohibitionsorexertcovert
controlinordertoachievechildren’saccountabilityand
compli-ance.Forinstance,Lo(2004,2009)hasshownthatKoreanheritage
languageteachersdeployedpresumptivequestionsinmaking
stu-dentsaccountableandassigningthemculpabilityforwhatadults
viewedassocioculturallyinappropriateconduct.InaThai
class-room,children wereheldaccountablefor actinginsocially and
morallyappropriateways(e.g.,displayingrespect,byspeakingand
actinginanaffectivelylevelledmannertowardsadults,Howard,
2009).InastudyofAmericanmiddle-classpreschools,Ahn(2010)
examinedteachers’discursivestrategiesusedforconflict
resolu-tion.Ahn’sstudyshowsthatpreschoolteachersaimedtoinculcate
in the children so-called practices of ‘emotion metanarrativity’
(2010: 99) and to encourage children to articulate their inner
emotional perspective tothe others. The teachers taught them
to communicate emotionsby using verbalizations suchas ‘say
‘Ifeel sad’ (when you do this to me)’and configure
verbaliza-tionsasdiscursivemovestopreventandmakepeersaccountable
for theiruntoward acts.Thiskindof meta-leveltalk
conceptu-alizedemotionsasatransparentandspontaneousexpressionof
anindividual’sfeelingsandarticulationofheraffective
perspec-tive.However,assuggestedbyAhn,intheyoungchildren’speer
groupsocialinteractions,emotionmetanarrativitywasexploitedas
apowerfuldiscursivetoolinordertoadvancetheirsocialpositions,
toincludeorexcludemembersofthepeergroup.
Inastudyofa preschool,Burdelski(2013,this specialissue)
showsthatadultsmediatedinchildren’sconflictsandother
inter-actionsbyusinga‘triadicgloss’(e.g.,reportingonechild’sactions
orfeelingstoanotherandusingformulaicexpressionsinorderto
teachchildrenwhattosay).However,inanotherstudy,Japanese
preschoolteacherstookalessinterventionistapproachby
encour-agingchildrentoworkouttheconflictsontheirown(unlessthey
escalatedtoomuch)(Tobin,Wu,&Davidson,1991).Yetanother
wayofaddressingchildren’sdistressinconflictsisdocumentedin
Moore’s(2013)studyofaRussianpreschool.Here,adultcaregivers’
admonishmentsdemanded children to constraintheirnegative
emotions:teacherssocializedchildrentoacquireawarenessthat
theirnegativeemotionsarepubliclymonitoredanddisapproved
oftheirpeers(seealsoAhn,2016onKoreanteacher’sprompting
childrentomodifytheirconductbyshowingconcerntoteacher’s
negativefeelings).1 Itisnotonlyteachers,butalsocaregiversin
informalsettings,whosocializechildren’sawarenessofthe
oth-ers’perspectives.Clancy’s(1999)researchwithJapanesechildren
showsthatcaregiversformulateand‘quote’thefeelingsandneeds
ofotherstoencouragechildrentotaketheirperspective.Multiparty
familydiscourseisshowntoprovideaneedforperspective-taking
andunderstandingdifferentsocialactorswithvaryingauthority,
andknowledge(Blum-Kulka&Snow,2002).
Researchalsodemonstratesthattheadults’positioningasan
institutionalauthoritywithresponsibilitiestocareforandtoteach
children is inextricably related totheir responsibilities to
han-dle morally intricate and ambiguous situations. Adults can be
calleduptorespondto,ortomediatein children’sconflicts on
thebasisofpeergroupmembers’reports,accusations,ormorally
poignant negative affectivestances, such as crying.As
demon-strated by studiesonadults’ verbalresponses toreports about
children’snormativetransgressionsininformalfamily(Sterponi,
2014) and formal (Cekaite, 2012a, 2013) educational settings,
adults’responsesdiscursivelyaccomplishedamoralsenseofthe
events.Variouswaysofformulatingquestions(‘whathappened?’,
‘howcome?’vs.‘whydidyoudothat?’)aboutthechild’salleged
normative transgressionsascribed children various moral
posi-tionsorotherwiseevaluatedtheirconductvis-à-viseachother.The
adultspositionedchildren asculpableorgave them‘thebenefit
ofdoubt’;andprovidedorconstrainedtheinteractional
possibil-itiesforarticulatingtheirmoralpositionandperspective.Moral
order was instantiated through accounting practices employed
tonegotiate responsibility and(re-) categorize theproblematic
event(e.g.,Sterponi,2003).Asdemonstratedinastudyon
chil-dren’speerconflictsinaSwedishkindergartenclassroom(Cekaite,
1Analternativeapproachtochildren’sresistantactionsduringconflicts
con-ceptualizeschildren’sresistanceaswaysofdemocracylearninginpreschool,see
2012a),thereportedpastactionswerenot‘objectively’or
‘substan-tially’wrong,andtheirmoralvalenceascomplaints,accusations
andcounter-accusationswasascribedwithintheteacher-initiated
triadic framework for children’s perspectival tellings (see also
Burdelski,thisspecialissue;Moore,thisspecialissue).Inall,
pre-viousstudiesshowthatteachers’conflictmediationcansocialize
variousvaluesandnorms,andprovidechildrenwithsignificantly
differentparticipatoryrightsandlearningopportunities.
2. Method
2.1. Data,settingandparticipants
Thedatainvolveamulti-sitedvideo-ethnographyconductedin
threeregularSwedishpreschools forthreetofive-year-old
chil-drenduringaone-yearperiod.2InSweden,publicpreschoolsare
attendedbyapproximately95%ofchildren,andconstitutethemain
earlychildhoodsettingsfor“educare”:theyprovidechildcareand
educatechildren.Approximately15childrenandthreeeducators
fromeachpreschool(45childrenand10educatorsintotal)
partic-ipatedinthestudy.Twopreschoolswerelocatedinamiddleclass,
andoneinalow-socioeconomicarea.3
Video-recorded data (approximately 30hours in each
preschool)waslogged,andrecurrentinteractionaleventsnoted.
Peerconflictsin therecordingsfromthethree preschoolswere
identified(54intotal).Conflictsusuallyoccurredduringchildren’s
freeplay,whichconstituteda significantpartofdailyactivities.
The peer conflicts involving teacher-mediation were viewed
repeatedly,interactionallyanalyzedandtheircommondiscursive
featuresacrossthesitesdiscerned.Situationswheretheteachers
tookaprominentroleinconflictresolutionwereselectedfor
fur-theranalysis.Thecategoriesevolvedinductivelyandtheanalyses
werediscussedatlocalandinternationalseminars.Repeateddata
sessionswithinaresearchgroupcontributedtoidentificationof
recurrentsocioculturalfeaturesoftheencounters.
Theanalyticalmethodsadoptedcombineethnographic
field-work with a microanalytic approach to everyday interactions
(Goodwin,1990;Goodwin&Cekaite,2018),whichmeansthattalk
is studiedassocial action, produced bytheparticipantswithin
embodied participation frameworks (Goodwin, 2018; Goodwin
&Goodwin, 2004).Such an approach entailsdetailed attention
tointeractionalwork,exploredthroughtheparticipants’
sense-makingorientations,whicharedisplayedonaturn-by-turnbasis
inverbalandembodiedactions,embeddedwithinandindexicalof
socioculturalnormsandvalues.
Thepresentconflictmediationanalysisisbasedontheentire
collectionofconflictmediationepisodes(54cases,representing
three preschools). It revealedsimilar discursivepatterns that a
numberofteachersacrossthepreschoolsusedwhenresponding
tochildren’sconflicts.Themaincharacteristicsinvolve
socializa-tionstrategiesbasedonteachers’:i)invitingbothsides’tellingof
theevents;ii)usingvariousquestionformatstoguidethe
chil-dren’stellings,andiii)arrangingchildrenintotriadic“participation
frameworks”(Goodwin&Goodwin,2004).Theresultsreportedin
thepresentstudyexemplifythecorefeaturesofthefindings.In
2TheRegionalEthicalBoardhasapprovedtheproject.Writtenandoral
infor-mationwasprovidedtothestaffandparents,andthosewhowishedtoparticipate signedaconsentform.Participationwasvoluntaryandthestaffandparentswere informedoftheirrighttowithdrawfromthestudyatanytime.Whilevideo record-ing,theresearcherwassensitivetothereactionsofthechildrenandthestaff, andstoppedwhenthereweresignsofdiscomfort.Thenamesandimagesofthe participantsareanonymized.
3Thepresentstudyispartofaproject‘Communicatingemotions,embodying
morality’(PIA.Cekaite).FinancialsupportfromSwedishResearchCouncilis grate-fullyacknowledged.ThanksChildUnitparticipantsfortheircomments.
ordertobeabletodemonstratethetemporalcomplexityofconflict
resolutionpractices,anextendedtrajectoryofconflictandconflict
resolutionwasselectedforthepresentationinthisarticle.The
par-ticularcaseofconflictmediationoccurredinapreschoollocatedin
amultiethnicpreschoollocatedinalowsocioeconomicarea.
2.2. Children’sparticipatoryrightsinsocietyandeducational
institutionsinSweden
AstrongemphasisinSwedishsocietyatlarge,andintheearly
childhoodeducation,isplacedontheactiveparticipatoryrightsof
children.AnimportantgoaloftheSwedisheducationalsystemis
tofosteregalitarianvaluesandequalityinschoolsandsociety.For
instance,theSwedishNationalCurriculumforpreschool(policy
thatismandatoryforallpreschoolsinSweden)detailseducators’
responsibilitytofosterchildren’srespectforothersandtheir
per-spectives,assistthemindevelopingtheirabilitytounderstandtheir
rightsandobligationsandtakeresponsibilityfortheiractions.This
alsoincludesassistingchildrenindevelopingtheirabilitiesto
lis-ten,reflectonandunderstandtheother’sperspectivesaswellas
abilitiestoformpersonalstandpointsandexpressthemtoothers
(CurriculumforthePreschool,2018).Embeddedwithintheimplicit
andwidelyacceptednotionsofthequalitiesofgoodcitizenship,
thesetasksechothewider societaldemocraticideologyof
chil-dren’sparticipatoryrights (seealsoAronsson,2012,Goodwin&
Cekaite,2013onparent-childrelations)and“egalitarian
individ-ualism”in Sweden(Cekaite,2012b), accordingtowhich people
shouldbetreatedasequals,infundamentalworthorsocial
sta-tus.Simultaneously,thereisastrongemphasisontheindividuals’
possibilitiesforself-realization,andinfallibilityofone’swantsand
wishes.
3. Findings
In video-ethnographic data collected in three different
preschools in Sweden, a characteristicand prevalent discursive
organizationofteachers’andchildren’sdealingwithchildren’speer
groupconflictswasdiscerned.Thisdiscursiveorganizationishere
calledtriadicteachermediation,whereteacher/mediatorandtwo
or morechildren participated.It involves phaseswhere:i) one
childinformsabouttheviolation;ii)theteacherinitiatesthetwo
children’stellingsabouttheproblematicevent;iii)theteacher
sug-gestsaresolution,requestingthetwochildren’salignmentwith
andconfirmationoftheproposedsolution.Inthefollowing,this
triadicmediationanditssocializationpotentialsintoperspective
takingwillbedescribed.Thestudypaysparticularattentiontothe
embodiedfeaturesandspatialorganizationofthismediation(i.e.,
whathereiscalledthetriadic/multipartyparticipationframeworkof
moralaccountability).
3.1. Reportinganormativetransgressionandachievinga
preliminaryproblemdefinition
The child’s initialinforming about a problematic event was
accomplishedasareportoftheinfractiontotheteacher,an
insti-tutionalauthoritywhocansetthingsright.Thereportarticulated
thechild’sperspective;itwasdesignedinvariousways,e.g.asa
verbaltellingabouttheuntowardact,apublicdisplayofanegative
affectivestance(i.e.,crying),causedbythenormativeinfraction.In
Extract1a-b,theconflictarisesduringchildren’sfreeplayandis
initiallyindicatedbyachild’sloudcrying.Thechildrenareplaying
anddancinginthe‘pillowroom’withoutteacherspresent.When
JohnieclimbsontothewindowsillandMiranpullshimbacksohe
fallsdownontothesofa,Johnieimmediatelystartscrying.
Exerpt1aParticipants:teacher,boysJohnie(3.5y.),Babir(4y.),
01. Johnie: U:HU:HUHUHU((crying)) 02. Babir: ‘u:hu:huhuhu’((mockcrying)) 03. Johnie: U:HU:HU
04. Teacher: ((enterstheroom)) 05. Johnie: ((approachesteacher))
06. Teacher: ((stopsmusic,sitsclosetoJohnie))
07. Johnie: MIRANPUTTARSÅMEDMINTRÖJA:((Fig.1)) MIRANPULLSMYSWEATSH:IRT
LIKETHIS((sobbing)) 08. Teacher: Jaha:komdå!Kom!
Ohye:scomehere!Come!((touchesJohnie’s shoulder,bringshimcloser,hugshim, putshimonherlap))
09. Johnie: UHUHU
10. Teacher: Jagskatröstadiglite. Iwillcomfortyoualittle.
11. Johnie: HANDROGMINTRÖJASÅDÄ:R!((Fig.2)) HEPULLEDMYSWEATSHIRTLIKE THI:S!((demonstratespullingtheT-shirt)) 12. Teacher: [Jaha:
Aha:
13. [((Miran,Felis,Babir,Milasitquietly)) 14. Johnie: uhuhhu
15. Teacher: Gillarintedudet? Don’tyoulikethat? 16. Johnie: ((shakeshishead‘no’)) 17. Teacher: Nä,iblandkanjagocksåtyckaatt 18. jagintevillattnåndrarilinnensåhär.
No,sometimesIalsothinkthatIdon’t wantanybodypullingmyshirtlikethis. ((lookingatBabir))
19. Johnie: uhhuhhu
20. Teacher: Så.Dåkanmansäga’nejdetgörjaginte’. OK.Thenyoucansay’noIdon’t(wantto)’. 21. Johnie: Detgörjaginte:.
Ido:n’t(wantto).((whiningvoice)) 22. Johnie: Jabra::.
Yesgoo::d.
Johnie’sloudcryingcallstheteacher’sattentionandinvokes
herinstitutional responsibilitiestoattendtothepotential
prob-lemandsheenterstheplayroom(lines1-4).WhenJohniereports
anuntowardeventwithanaccusatorystatement‘Miranpullsmy
sweatshirtlikethis’,theteacheraffirmsJohnie’stelling‘Ohyes’and
physicallycomfortshim(lines7-8).Sheputshimintoherlapand
embraceshim(e.g.,onaffectionatetouchinpreschoolsseeCekaite
&Bergnéhr,2018)arrangingarelationallysignificantbodily
for-mation.BygesturingtoJohnietocomeandthenscoopinghimup
intoherlap,theteacherpositionsthetwochildren(assumedto
beinvolvedintheproblematicevent)tositclosetoeachother.In
thisway,theteacherestablishesanembodiedmultiparty
frame-workofparticipationinaremedialinterchange(Goffman,1971).
Johnieembellisheshisaccusationbyshowingwhathashappened:
hedemonstrativelypullshist-shirtandoverlayshiscomplaintwith
anaffectivestance,positioninghimselfasavictimofMiran’s
unto-wardconduct(line11).
Theteacher’scomfortingactionsarepublic–visibleandaudible
–fortheentirechildren’sgroup(lines8,10;15).Johnie’saffectively
chargedaccusationsaresuccessfulinmediatinghisindividual
neg-ativeexperience: theteachernot onlycomforts Johniewithan
embracebutalsousesaquestion‘Don’tyoulikethat?’to
expli-cateandmakepublichisnegativestancetowardsMiran’sphysical
actionsofpulling(line15).
Johnieconfirmstheteacher’sinterpretationbyshakinghishead
(signalingthathedoesnotlikethat,line16)andtheteachermakes
publichisnegativeexperience,linkingitcausallytothepeer’s
phys-icalaction.HergazeatBabir(whomsheostensiblyassumestobe
theculpablechild,despiteJohn’s accusationof Miran)indicates
thattheaffirmationofJohnie’snegativefeelingsandher
comfort-ingisnotonlydirectedatthecryingchild,butalsoatthealleged
perpetrator(lines17-18).Oneofthewaysthatthechildrencan
gainknowledgeabouthowtointerpretandnarrativelyconstruct
theirmoralaccountabilityandemotionsisthroughhearingadult
andotherpeers’narratives(Bruner,1990;Cekaite,2013).Here,the
teacher’spersonalexample(Griswold,2010)‘nosometimesIalso
thinkthatIdon’twantanybodypullingmyshirtlikethis’
verbal-izesanaligningsensorialandaffectiveexperience,anindividual
evaluativeperspective,andsupportsthecryingchild’semotional
stance.Theteacher’ssuggestionandprompttoJohnietotellMiran
thathedoesnotwanthimtopullhisshirt(‘thenyoucansay‘noI
don’t(wantto)’,line20)instructsandmodelsverbalwaysof
pre-emptingtheconflictualsituationandnegativeemotionsthatneed
training(theteacherusesanauxiliaryverb‘gör’‘do’toretroactively
refertothevolitionverb‘vill’inherpreviousutterance,line15-18).
Theteacherpromptsthechild(usingelicitedimitation)toconvey
hisexperience(negativewantsandpreferences)(lines20-22).
Theteacher’ssolicitationofthecryingchild’stellingisa
sig-nificantandrecurrentsocializingstrategyintheSwedishcultural
context (see also Cekaite, 2013on similar accountability
prac-tices in a kindergartenclassroom) thatprovidesthe child with
opportunitiestoarticulatehis/herownperspective.Importantly,
theratificationofthecryingchild’snegativeexperiencedoesnot
resultintheteacher’soutrightdiscipliningoftheimplicatedchild
orageneralstatementofrules.Rather,theteacherusesdiscursive
strategiesthatsolicittheotherparticipant’stellingand
perspec-tive,aswillbedemonstratedinEx.1b.Suchstrategycanbeseenas
aneverydaydiscursiveimplementationofademocraticand
egal-itariansociety,where children areencouragedand expectedto
verbalizetheirviews.
3.2. Solicitingandlisteningtochildren’salternativeversionsof
events:enactingandsocializingtherighttospeakandbeheard
For theSwedishpreschool teachers,gettingonly onechild’s
(the‘victim’s’)perspectiveontheuntowardeventisnotenough
to achieve a solution and to finish a remedial interchange
(Goffman,1971).Theteachers’conflictresolutioninvolved
medi-atingbetweenthechildrenbyassigningequalspeakershiprights
both tothe‘victim’ and thealleged perpetrator intelling their
versionoftheconflictualevent.Usually,theteachersposed
open-endedquestionsaboutwhathadhappenedandinvitedatelling
(Goodwin&Goodwin,2004).Thisdiscursivepracticewas
multi-dimensional:Theteachersengagedthechildrenintheimmediate
conflictresolutiononthebasisofthealternativeversionsofthe
problematic event. By soliciting and scaffolding children’s
per-spective taking, teachers socialized them into societally valued
democraticdiscourseandprovidedchildrenwithopportunitiesfor
egalitarianparticipation.
InEx.1b(animmediatecontinuationof1a),theteacher
contin-uestheconflictmediationbyaskingtheallegedperpetratorBabir
‘whathappened?’;however,sheself-correctsandinvitesan
open-endedtellingwithaquestion‘doyoualsowanttotell’(lines23-24).
Theteacher’schoiceoftheverb‘berätta’‘tell’,volitionmodal‘vill’
‘want’andtheinterrogativesyntacticformatindexthatheisinvited
totellhisversionandthatheisofferedanextendedinteractional
floor.With a conjunction ‘också’ ‘too’theteacher makesa link
betweenthissolicitationofastoryandtheprevious(thealleged
victim’s)one.
Excerpt1b
23. Teacher: Vadhände-villduocksåberättaBabirdå? 24. Villduocksåberätta?
Whathappe-doyoualsowanttotell,Babir? Doyoualsowanttotell?
25. Babir: ()kandet-först(.)förstgjordejagmedMiran. ()canit-first(.)firstIdidwithMiran. 26. ((MiranrepeatedlytriestoengageBabirinplay.
TeachertriestogetMiran’sattention)) 27. Teacher: NejmenMirannunuavbrötduBabir 28. närhanskulleberätta.
29. Nufårdulyssnaistället.
NobutMirannowyouinterruptedBabir whenhewasgoingtotell.
Nowyouhavetolisteninstead. 30. Babir: FörstförstgårvidärtillSteve.
Atfirst,atfirstwegotoSteve. ((continuesstoryaboutboys’dance))
31. Teacher: Ochsenkomniinhär.((Fig.3)) 32. OchsentogduiJohnieströja.
Andthenyoucamehere.
ThenyougrabbedJohnie’ssweatshirt. 33. Babir: Nejinteja:g.Miran.
Nonotme:.Miran.
34. Teacher: VardetMiransomdrogitröjan? WasitMiranwhopulledtheshirt? ((toJohnie))
35. Johnie: ((nods))
36. Teacher: Hmhm.((lookingatMiran)) 37. Teacher: Detkan-detkanjuvarasåattmaninte 38. Tyckeromattnåndrariklädernaattdet 39. Kanjagkännanåndrariminakläderna.
40. Miran?FörstårduvadJohniemenade?
41. Hanvillinteattduskadraitröjan. Itcan-itcanbelikethisthatonedoesnot likesomeonepullingone’sclothesand Ifeelthatwhensomeonepullsmyclothes.
Miran?DoyouunderstandwhatJohnie meant?Hedoesnotwantyoutopullhisshirt. ((demonstratespulling))
42. Miran: ((looksdown)) 43. Teacher: Tänkerdupådetdå?
So,areyouthinkingaboutthis? 44. Miran: ((nodsslightly))
WhenBabirtellsabouttheboys’dancingbutisinterrupted
sev-eraltimesbyMiranwhotriestodiverthimintoplay,theteacher
reprimandshimbytellinghimthatheshouldlistentoBabirinstead
(lines27-29).Theteacher’sdisciplininghereshowsthatindividuals
notonlyhavetherighttospeakbuttheyalsohavetolistentothe
otherpartiesandengageinmutualperspectivetaking.Babir
pro-ceedswithhistelling,buthisstorydoesnotmentionthealleged
untowardactofhimpullingJohnie.Inresponse,theteacheraddsa
temporalnarrativelinktotheboy’suntowardact‘Thenyougrabbed
Johnie’ssweatshirt’(lines31-32).
The teacher’s solicitation of the children’s tellings is clearly
directedatthechildrenaskeyparticipantsintheconflict–the
‘victim’andthealleged‘perpetrator’–whomtheteacherinvites
toverballyarticulatetheirperspectivesontheevent.However,in
thiscase,theteachererroneouslyassumesBabir’sculpabilityand
histellingdoesnotproduceanalternativeperspective.Uponthe
clarificationofmisunderstanding(lines34-35),theteacherengages
Miran in a conflictresolution. Sheunpacks and articulates the
victim’sperspectiveandensuresthe‘perpetrator’s’alignmentby
solicitinghisactivedisplayofunderstandingtheotherchild’s
per-spective’Miran?DoyouunderstandwhatJohniemeant?Hedoes
notwantyoutopullhisshirt’(lines37-41).Thesolutiondealswith
theindividualchild’spreferences,andtheteacherusesadiscursive
“activitycontract”(“spokenagreementsaboutfuturecompliance
that makechildren morally accountablefortheirfuture actions
(andforfailedaction)”,documentedinparent-childinteractions
in Sweden,seeAronsson&Cekaite,2011:139). Byformulating
anactivitycontract,theteacherscaffoldstheperpetrator’s
under-standingofthenormativeappropriatenessofone’sactionsfrom
theindividualperspective–likesanddislikes–oftheotherchild
andestablishesthechild’spromiseofmoralaccountability.
Thelackofthetransgressor’sknowledgeaboutthepeer’s
indi-vidual preferences is considered by the teacherto be causally
relatedtothechild’smisconduct.Conflictresolutionistemporally
bi-directional:itdealswithretrospectivenormativeevaluationof
thepasteventsandinvolvesprospectiveorientationtothe
distri-butionofknowledgebetweenthepeergroupmembers.Notonlyis
MiranrepeatedlyinformedaboutJohnie’sindividualperspective,
buthealsoneedstopubliclydisplayandconfirmhiscurrent
under-standingandhisabilitytoactaccordinglyinthefutureencounters
(lines43-44).Inrelationtolanguagesocializationintoperspective
taking,thediscursivestrategiesusedbytheteacherdemonstrate
thatchildren’smoralaccountabilityisinvokednotthrough
child-directedreproachesanddiscipliningbutbyimplicitmeans;thatis,
byseekingthechild’salignmentandindividualunderstandingof
whatconstitutesproblematicconduct.
3.3. Solicitingthechildren’stellingofanindividualperspective
withinatriadicparticipationframeworkofmoralaccountability
Asdemonstrated,theteachersolicitedmultipleperspectiveson
theproblematicevent.Thisdiscursiveactivitywascharacterized
byatriadicparticipationframeworkandconsecutiveallocationof
speakershiprights.Inanembodiedway,theteacherenactedthe
roleofamediatorbypositioningtheinvolvedchildren withina
triadicparticipationframeworkintheproximityofeachotherina
face-to-faceformation(Kendon,1990).Thisbody-spatial
arrange-mentwasaninextricablepartofteacherconflictmediationandcan
beseenasanembodiedframeworkofmoralaccountability.
Animportantpartofsocializingthechildrenintoperspective
takinginvolved modelingthechildren’sinteractionaland social
todiscernandverballyexpresstheirvolition–whattheydoanddo
notwant.Theteacherrepeatedlymodelledthechildren’ssocialacts
forexpressing,assertingandlisteningtoeachother’sperspectives.
These perspectivesrepresented individual likes, dislikes, wants
anddesires.Theteacher’srepeateddeploymentofthemodal‘vill’
(denotingvolition)andotherlinguisticresourcesservedas
socializ-ingdiscursivetools,indexicalofthesocietalviewsthatforeground
andvalueindividual’sintegrity.
InEx.2a,thechildren’s(JohnieandMiran’s) conflictevolves
againduringtheircontinuationof play-running-dancing.Johnie
gets pinched byMiran and he goesto anotherroom toreport
Miran’suntowardacttotheteacher.Theteacherstopswhatshe
isdoingandaccompanieshimtotheplayroom,wheresheinitially
reproachesMiranbyimplicitlyinvokingtheactivitycontract.She
referstotheirprioragreement‘whatdidwesay?’.Grammatical
andprosodicfeatures(pasttenseandemphasisontheverb‘say’)
marksherquestionasareproach.
Exerpt2a
01. Teacher: Nufårvistängaavdet.
Wehavetoturnitoff(cdplayer)now. 02. Teacher: Miran.Vadsavi?
Miran.Whatdidwesay?
03. (1.0)
04. Teacher: Detärnåntingsomduintevill.((Fig.4)) Thereissomethingthatyoudon’twant.
((toJohnie))
05. Johnie: ((affirmativelyshakeshishead)) 06. Teacher: DåfårdusägatillMiran.
ThenyouhavetotellMiran. 07. Johnie: Jagsa’SLUTA’
Isaid’STOP’((enactsgesture)) 08. Teacher: Hurvillduattdetskavanärdudansar?
Howdoyouwantittobewhenyoudance? 09. Johnie: ((startsjumping-runningaround,
showinghowhedances)) 10. Teacher: Ne-Johnie.
No-Johnie.
11. Teacher: Berättahurdetskavaranärduskadansa? Tellushowitshouldbewhenyou aredancing?
12. Johnie: Sådä:rvilljagdansa.((Fig.5))
Iwanttodancelikethi:s.((runsinacircle)) 13. Teacher: Ok.Ochse:n.
OK.Andthe:n.
14. ((MiranandStevestarttoteasinglylaugh atJohnie’sdance.Teacheradmonishes themmildly))
Theteachersitsinbetweenthetwoboysattheireyeleveland
isafocusoftheirattention.Theteacher’sbodyposture,together
withhergestureandfacialexpression,indicates‘active’and
‘seri-ous’listening,takinginthechild’sperspective.Thisspatial-bodily
positioningnotonlyconfiguresacommonfocusofattentionfor
thechildren but also positions theminto thespatial and aural
proximityofeachother(seealsosimilarparticipationframeworks
arrangedbytheteacherinEx.1a-b).Theteacher,throughherbodily
posture,displaysattentivelisteningofJohnie’stalk,andher
pre-parednesstoattendtoMiran,theallegedlyguiltychild’sviews.
Theembodiedtriadicparticipationframeworkprovidesconditions
for a multipartyexplication ofvarious perspectives in thatthe
teacherpositionsthetwochildrenasspeakersandlisteners.Inthis
embodiedframeworkofmoralaccountability,theteacherguides
thechildren’stalkasarticulationoftheperspectiveofonechildto
theother(Ex.2b).Notableistheteacher’suseofvariouslinguistic
resourceswithinthesemanticfieldofvolitionofindividualchildren
whoaresolicitedtopresentandtolistentoeachother,ratherthan
totheteacher’sinstitutionalauthority.Theteacheruseslinguistic
resourcesthatindexandemphasizetheindividualchild’srightto
self-determination,andhonorsindividualpreferencesandchoices
(‘howdoyouwantittobewhenyouaredancing?’;‘thereis
some-thingthatyoudonotwant’,seealsoEx.1a.,‘hedoesnotwantyou
topullhisshirt’).Socializationintoindividualperspectivesthereby
constitutesapartoftheteacher’sdiscursivepracticesastheadult
accentuateschildren’sagency,theirrighttomakechoicesabout
whattheywant,ordonotwant,andinvokesthepeers’
responsi-bilitiestorespecteachother’schoicesandperspectives.
3.4. Scaffoldingchildren’stellingandparticipatoryrights
ThepresentdatacorpusfromthreeSwedishpreschoolsshows
thattheteacherscreatedanextendedinteractionalspaceforthe
children’s articulation of their story and allocated the children
speakershiprightstomakepublictheirperspectives.However,it
isalsoapparentthatthechildren’stellingsinconflictmediation
werenotentirelyfreebutwerediscursivelyguidedbytheadults.
Teacherscaffoldingandguidingofthechildren’sparticipationto
correspondwiththeinstitutionallyadvocatedmoralperspective
ofwhatisrightandwrongbecameespeciallyvisiblewhen
chil-dren,forinstance,haddisplayedalackofinterest,understanding,
orreluctance,orhadproducedonlyminimalortopicallyirrelevant
verbalcontributions.
AsdemonstratedinEx.2b,oneofthechildreninvolvedinthe
conflictispositionedasthe‘principal’(theonewhoseviewsare
rep-resented)andtheotherchildasthe‘recipient’(theonetowhoman
utteranceisaddressed)(Goffman,1981).Innumerouscaseswhen
thechildrendidnotexpandontheteacher’squestions,theteacher
activelyguidedthecontentoftheirresponsesandcollaboratively
constructedarepresentationoftheindividual’sperspective.Here,
theteacherdirectsseveralquestionstoJohnieabouthis
experi-ences,butwhenshedoesnotreceiveappropriateresponsesshe
startsguidinghistalk.
Exerpt2b
15. Teacher: KännerduattMiranjagardigdå
16. ellerhur?
YoufeelthatMiranischasingyou, don’tyou?((toJohnie))
17. Johnie: (Fig.6)((dances,triestostandonhishead)) 18. Teacher: Johnie.(0.6)Johnie!
19. Johnie: Ja.
Yes.((slowlygetsupfromthefloor)) 20. Teacher: VillduinteattMiranskajagadigellerhur?
Youdon’twantMirantochaseyou, doyou?((looksatMiran)) 21. Johnie: Nej.
No.
22. Teacher: Hurdå?Hurdåmenardu? How?Howdoyoumean? 23. Teacher: SpringerduefterJohniedå?
AreyouchasingJohnie?((toMiran)) 24. Miran: Nej!
No!
25. Teacher: Nej?Hurmenardudå?
No?Howdoyoumean?((toJohnie)) 26. Miran: Nej.
No.
27. Teacher: Nej.Jagförstårintehurdumenarriktigt. No.Idon’tactuallyunderstandwhat youmean.((toJohnie))
28. Johnie: ((looksatteacherbutdoesnotrespond)) 29. Teacher: Vipratadeförrutattduinteska 30. jagaJohnie.
Wetalkedbefore,thatyoushouldnot
chaseJohnie.((toMiran)) 31. Miran: Va?
What?
32. Teacher: Mensågjordedudetändå. Butthenyoudiditanyway. 33. Johnie: ((nodsdemonstratively)) 34. Teacher: Mh.VetduhurJohniemenardå? 35. VetduhurJohniemenar?
Mh.DoyouknowwhatJohniemeans then?DoyouknowwhatJohniemeans?
((pointsasMiranwhohasdisengaged fromconversation))
36. Miran: Nej. No.
38. Teacher: Dåfårduberättalite.
Thenyouneedtotellhimalittle. ((toJohnie))
39. Johnie: ((talksaboutMiran’sSpiderman costume,runsarounddancing)) 40. Teacher: A.Mendåtänkerdulitegrann.
Yeah.Butyouhavetothink(aboutthis) abit.((touchesMiran))
41. Johnie: Annadetärdanstilldig.
Anna(teacher)thisismydanceforyou. ((runsaround))
TheteacherguidesJohnie’stalkbyaskinghimquestionsand
directinghisresponsestoMiran.SherepeatedlyusesYes/No
ques-tions,formulatingaversionofhisexperiencesandstancestowards
Miran’sactions:‘YoufeelthatMiranischasingyou,don’tyou?’,’You
don’twantMiran tochase you,do you?’ (lines15-16,20).The
teacherrepresentsJohnie’sperspective toboth participants:by
publiclyandcollaborativelyformulatingJohnie’sperspective,she
constructsMiran’schasingactasproblematicandcausallylinksit
toJohnie’snegativeexperience.Thistriadictellingdoesnotinvolve
directquotesandtheteacherenactingthechild’stalk(cf.triadic
glossing,Burdelski,2015).Rather,itscharacteristicformat
com-prisescollaborativelyconstructedutterancesthat representand
confirmthechildren’sperspectivesandseekthechild’s(Johnie’s)
alignment with the teacher’s formulation (lines 15, 20-22, 27,
34-35).Theteacher’sdiscursiveguidancegivesJohniethe
oppor-tunity tocorrect the teacher’sinterpretation of hisperspective
(hiswishes)incasetheteacher’sglossdoesnotreflecthisviews:
Johnieaffirmstheteacher’stalk,agreeingthatchasingisnot
some-thinghewantsorlikesandtheteacher’sversionofthedispute
iscollaborativelyestablishedasa‘correct’versionoftheevents.
However,whentheteacheraddressesMiranwithaquestion‘Are
youchasingJohnie?’(line23),herepeatedlyrefusestoagreewith
this morally poignant formulation and conflicting versions are
producedbyJohnnieandMiranaboutthechasing.Asconflict
pre-emptingmoves,theteacherrepeatedlysolicitstheallegedlyguilty
child’s(Miran’s)perspectiveandworkstoelicithispublicdisplay
ofhisunderstanding,aimingtoestablishmoralintersubjectivity
betweenthepeers(e.g.,addressingMiran‘doyouknowwhatJohnie
meansthen?’,lines35).Theteacher’sconflictresolutionis
associ-atedwithinculcatingknowledgeabouttheindividualperspectives
withaninquiry,ratherthanareproachordiscipliningofthe
cul-pablechild(lines34-35;38).
Inall,Ex.2a-bshowhowtheteacherrepeatedlytriestoengage
thechildrenintosituatedperspective-takingthroughtheuseof
verbalizations,whichisatthecoreofconflictprevention(e.g.,‘do
youknowwhat Johniemeans?’).Thesediscursivestrategiesare
highly focused onanindividual’s preferences. They alsoreflect
normativeexpectationsandassumptionsthatunderstandingthe
other’sperspective–understandingalterity(Bakhtin,1981)–is
importantforthedevelopmentofthechildasamemberofSwedish
society. Discursively, the teacher’s solicitation of the involved
children’stalk(including therepeatedarticulation oftheir
per-spectives, Ex. 1a-b) not only creates conditions for egalitarian
participation, but alsoconstitutes an interactional template for
youngchildren’sdevelopmentofinteractionalcompetences.Here,
the children receive guidanceon how toproduce verbally and
morallyconvincingtellingofuntowardevents.Perspectivetakingis
thusnotmerelyacognitivefeature,characterizingthechild’s
devel-opment,butis trainedand exercisedindiscursivepractices (cf.
multipartyparent-childinteractions, Blum-Kulka&Snow,2002;
DeLeón,2012).
In addition, theteacher scaffolds thechildren’s verbalskills
forpreventingnegativeemotionsandphysicalnormative
trans-gressions.Teacherconflictmediationconstitutesaninstitutionally
guidedbutdialogicallyconstructedgroundformoraland
interac-tionalsocialization,whichthechildrennotonlyalignedwithbut
alsore-interpretedandresisted.
4. Concludingdiscussion
The present study examined the discursive, linguistic and
embodiedfeaturesoftheteachers’andchildren’swaysof
organiz-ingandparticipatinginconflictmediationandresolution.Indoing
so,itdescribedthewaysinwhichchildreninpreschoolsinSweden
arebeingsocializedintotheinteractionalcompetencesnecessary
formanagingconflictsituations.Thestudydocumentedhowpeer
conflictresolutionwasaccomplishedasteachertriadicmediation,
locatedwithinembodiedmultipartyframeworksof
accountabil-ity,howchildrenweresocializedintoperspectivetaking,andhow
moralnormswereinvoked,inculcatedorresisted(seealsoCekaite,
2012a;Burdelski,thisspecialissue;Moore,thisspecialissue).The
studyrevealedtheambiguityandcomplexityofconflictresolution
thattheteachersconfiguredasegalitariandiscourse,butthatthey
werenotalwaysabletoachievebecauseofthelackofthechildren’s
activeandnormativelyappropriateparticipation.
4.1. Triadicconflictmediation
Thecharacteristicfeatureofconflictresolutiondocumentedin
2018,seealsoresearchonkindergartenandprimaryclassrooms,
Cekaite,2012b,2013)wasassociatedwiththeestablishmentof
atriadicparticipationframework withinwhichtheparticipants
togetherexplicatedmoralandemotionalmeaningsand
perspec-tives.Theembodiedmultipartyconstellationofparticipantsserved
asinteractionalinterpretiveframeworksinthejointinvestigation
andevaluation,andmoralsanctioningandsocializationofthe
chil-dren’sfuture actions and social relations.Strongemphasis was
placedonallparties’righttobeheardaswellasontheimportance
oflisteningtoothersandtryingtounderstandtheirperspective.
Telling one’s own and listening to the opponent’s versions
ofeventsasforms ofperspective takingwasguidedand
struc-turedthroughtheteachers’epistemicquestionsthatinvokedmoral
accountabilities of the parties (cf., Sterponi, 2014). Through a
rangeofdiscursiveconstructions,morallyacceptableconductand
responsibilitieswereprimarilylinkedtothechild’s–individual
actor’s–preferencesratherthantoadultauthorityandcollective
values.Suchconflictresolutionpracticesthatencouragechildren
tofocusonothers’perspectivescanberelatedtosocietalvalues
(includingthetaskssettotheteachersbytheSwedishNational
Curriculum)tofosterandsocializechildrenintotheunderstanding
ofindividualfreedomandintegrityandtheequalvalueofall
peo-ple.Theyoungchildren(threetofiveyearsold)weresocializedto
pre-emptconflictbytakingintoaccounttheindividual’spersonal
choices,volition,andemotionalstates.Theunderlyingnormative
expectations,indexing the wider cultural normsof democracy,
justiceandequality,children’sparticipatoryrights,individualism,
andgroupsolidaritywereinstantiatedthroughtheteacher’sand
thechildren’s discursivestrategies. The teacher’s triadic
medi-ation within an embodied framework of mutual accountability
canbeseen as“theculturalstructuringof everydaylife” (Ochs,
1996),involvingunderstandingone’srightsandobligations,
tak-ingresponsibilityforone’sactions,listening,reflecting,expressing
one’sownopinionsandunderstandingother’sopinions.This
child-centered approach is in line with the broader social values in
Swedishsocietymoregenerally,andinSwedishschools in
par-ticular.
4.2. Elicitationofperspectivetakingwithinanembodied
frameworkofmoralaccountability
Teachers’ solicitation of children’s alternative versions of
theproblematic eventswithin triadicparticipation frameworks
openedupaninteractionalspacetoengageintheprocessof
social-izingthestudentsinhowtomanageconflictverbally(e.g.,Ahn,
2010).Thechildrenweresocializedtodeployverbaland
embod-iedresources,todiscerntheirindividualvolition,wants,wishes
andpreferences (e.g.,whataction theylikeor not)andto
ver-ballyarticulatetheirperspectivestotheirpeers.However,inmany
casesyoungchildren’sverbalparticipationwasminimal.For
var-iousreasons(lackofinterestorunderstanding,reluctance),they
repeatedlydigressedfromparticipatinginwaysrequestedbythe
teacher.Notably,theteachers’interactionalworktoestablishand
sustainanegalitariandiscursiveorganizationofconflictresolution
demonstrates their orientation to justice, rights, and
responsi-bilities.Discursivestrategiesemployedallowedeachindividual’s
positiontobearticulatedtowardstheteachers,andotherpersons
involvedintheconflict.Theteachersaimedtosecureajustaccount,
attimesscaffoldingandguidingchildren’sperspectivetaking.In
suchways,triadicteachermediationconstitutedaninteractional
traininggroundforthechildren’suseofdiscursivestrategiesfor
handlingfutureconflictsituationsandpre-emptingconflicts.This
kindofmediationinstantiatedthenotionofmorality that
con-veyedstrongorientationtowardsindividual’srightstoarticulate
one’sperspectiveandtobeheard,implementingsocietal
egalitar-ianindividualism,whereindividual’sperspectivesareputinthe
foreground,simultaneouslyashumans’equalvalueisstated.
4.3. Dilemmasassociatedwithtriadicconflictmediation
Importantly,someoftheimplicationsofthestudyarerelated
tothedilemmasembeddedwithinthediscursiveimplementation
of theegalitarian and individualistic societalviews. The
teach-ers’solicitationoftellingsfromboththe’victim’and’guiltychild’
wasindexicalindexicalofwidersocietalviewsonchildren’srights
anddemocracy,andtheconceptualizationofchildrenofvarious
agesascompetentandreceptivetorationalargumentation(e.g.,
Aronsson & Cekaite, 2011; Goodwin & Cekaite, 2018 on
simi-lardiscursiveorganizationinSwedishparent-childinteractions).
Suchargumentationandmoralreasoningwerenotneutral.Rather,
thesediscursivepracticeswereimplicitlysteeredbytheteachers
towardsaparticularmoralview.Theteachersdidnotarticulate
orpresentthisviewexplicitlyastheirownorinstitutional
nor-mativestance.At times,suchtriadic teachermediationand its
implicit moralinstructionswereunsuccessful inthat a
particu-lar,institutionallydesirabledirectionofmoralinstructionwasnot
easilyaccomplishedinsocialinteractionwiththeyoungchildren
whodidnotengageinthetellingsinexpectedways.Theadultsin
suchcasesassistedandsteeredthechildrenintheproductionof
theinstitutionallyrelevantnormativediscourse.Paradoxically,by
usingopen-ended,polarandtag-questions,theystrictlyscaffolded
thechildrenintotakingontheinstitutionalnormsofconduct.At
thesametime,theydownplayedthearticulationof,fortheschool
orsociety,acommonsetofrules,normsandexpectations.
Bymodelingthechildren’sdeploymentofthelinguisticand
dis-cursivefeaturesthatforegroundedtheindividualchild’swishes,
ratherthangeneralmoralnorms,institutional expectationsand
values,thepreschoolteachersconveyedpositivestancestoward
children’sindividualrightsinrelationtotheirpeersandindexed
theviewof social relationshipsas beingaboutindividual
pref-erences.Duringconflictresolutionpractices,theteacherscanbe
seentoworktofosterdemocraticvalues,perspectivetakingand
equality,aswellaschildren’sparticipatoryrights,foregrounded
bywidersociety.Simultaneouslyteachers’primaryorientationto
individual’sprivateemotionalstatessocializedindividual-directed
empathy,rather than commonalityand sharedmoral
responsi-bility.Such practicesmakeitpossibletodiscursivelyinstantiate
children’s rights toparticipation and agency, atthe same time
astheymayfosterindividualismanddownplaythesharedmoral
order,commonalityandsharednessofmoralvalues.
5. Transcriptionconventions
: :prolongedsyllable AMP :relativelyhighamplitude (()) :furthercommentsofthetranscriber ? :denotesrisingterminalintonation . :indicatesfallingterminalintonation
bro :soundsmarkedbyemphaticstressareunderlined kommer :indicatestalkinSwedish
(.) :micropause
(0.5) :pauselengthinseconds come :translationtoEnglish
[ :indicatesoverlapintalkornonverbalacts
ConflictsofInterest
Theauthorsdeclarethattheyhavenoknowncompeting
finan-cialinterestsorpersonalrelationshipsthatcouldhaveappearedto
References
Ahn,J.(2010).‘I’mnotscaredofanything:Emotionassocialpowerinchildren’s worlds.Childhood,17,94–112.
Ahn,J.(2016).“Don’tCry,You’reNotaBaby!”:Emotion,roleandhierarchyinKorean languagesocialisationpractice.Children&Society,30,12–24.
Aronsson,K.(2012).Dailypracticesandthetimepoliticsoffamilylife.InM. Hede-gaard,K.Aronsson,C.Hojholt,&O.Ulvik(Eds.),Children,childhoodandeveryday life(pp.75–90).Charlotte,NC:InformationAgePublishing.
Aronsson,K.,&Cekaite,A.(2011).Activitycontractsanddirectivesineveryday familypolitics.DiscourseinSociety,22(2),1–18.
Bakhtin,M.(1981).Thedialogicimagination.Austin:UniversityofTexas.
Bateman,A.(2015).Conversationanalysisandearlychildhoodeducation.The co-productionofknowledgeandrelationships.Surrey:AshgatePublishing.
Bergmann,J.(1998).Introduction:Moralityindiscourse.ResearchonLanguageand SocialInteraction,31,279–294.
Björk-Willén,P.(2018).Learningtoapologize:Moralsocializationasaninteractional practiceinpreschool.ResearchonChildrenandSocialInteraction,2,177–194.
Bruner,J.(1990).Actsofmeaning.Cambridge,MA:HarwardUniversityPress.
Burdelski,M.(2013).“I’msorry,flower”Socializingapology,relationships,and empathyinJapan.PragmaticsandSociety,4(1),54–81.
Burdelski,M.(2015).Reportedspeechasculturalglossanddirective:Socializing normsofspeakingandactinginJapanesecaregiver-childtriadicinteraction. Text&Talk,35(5),575–595.
Blum-Kulka,S.,&Snow,C.(Eds.).(2002).Talkingtoadults:Thecontributionof multi-partydiscoursetolanguageacquisition.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Cekaite,A.(2012a).Affectivestancesinteacher-novicestudentinteractions: Lan-guage,embodiment,andwillingnesstolearn.LanguageinSociety,41,641–670.
Cekaite,A.(2012b).Tattlinganddisputeresolution.InS.Danby,&M.Theobald(Eds.), Disputesineverydaylife:Socialandmoralordersofchildrenandyoungpeople(pp. 165–193).NewYork:Emerald.
Cekaite,A.(2013).Socializingemotionallyandmorallyappropriatepeergroup con-ductthroughclassroomdiscourse.LinguisticsandEducation,24,511–522.
Cekaite,A.,&Bergnéhr,D.(2018).Affectionatetouchandcare:Embodiedintimacy, compassionandcontrolinearlychildhoodeducationinSweden.EuropeanEarly ChildhoodEducationJournal,26(6),940–955.
Clancy,P.(1999).ThesocializationofaffectinJapanesemother-childconversation. JournalofPragmatics,31,1397–1421.
Danby,S.,&Theobald,M.(2012).Disputesineverydaylife:Socialandmoralordersof childrenandyoungpeople.NewYork:Emerald.
DeLeón,L.(2012).Languagesocializationandmultipartyparticipationframeworks. InA.Duranti,E.Ochs,&B.Schieffelin(Eds.),Thehandbookoflanguage socializa-tion(pp.81–111).Malden,MA:Wiley-Blackwell.
Demuth,C.(2013).Socializinginfantstowardaculturalunderstandingofexpressing negativeaffect:ABakhtinianinformeddiscursivepsychologyapproach.Mind, CultureandActivity,20,39–61.
Evaldsson,A.-C.,&Melander,H.(2016).Managingdisruptivestudentconduct: Neg-ativeemotionsandaccountabilityinreproach-responsesequences.Linguistics andEducation,37,73–86.
Goffman,E.(1971).Relationsinpublic.NewYork:BasicBooksInc.
Goffman,E.(1981).Formsoftalk.UniversityofPensylvaniaPress.
Goodwin,C.(2018).Co-operativeaction.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Goodwin,C.,&Goodwin,M.H.(2004).Participation.Handbookoflinguistic anthro-pology.WileyBlackwell.
Goodwin,M.H.(1990).He-said-she-said.IndianaUniversityPress.
Goodwin,M.H.,&Cekaite,A.(2013).Calibrationindirective/responsesequencesin familyinteractions.J.Pragmat.,46,122–138.
Goodwin,M.,&Cekaite,A.(2018).Embodiedfamilychoreography:Practicesofcontrol, careandmundanecreativity.Routledge.
Goodwin,M.(2006).Thehiddenlifeofgirls.Malden:BlackwellPublishing.
Griswold,O.(2010).TheEnglishyouneedtoknow.Thelanguageideologyina citizenshipclassroom.LinguisticsandEducation,22,406–418.
Johansson,E.,&Emilsson,A.(2016).Conflictsandresistance:Potentialsfor democ-racylearninginpreschool.InternationalJournalofEarlyYearsEducation,24, 19–35.
HolmKvist,M.(2018).Children’scryinginplayconflicts:Alocusformoraland emotionsocialisation.ResearchonChildrenandSocialInteraction,2,153–176.
Howard,K.(2009).“WhenmeetingKhunteacher,eachtimeweshouldpayrespect”. StandardizingrespectinaNorthernThaiclassroom.LanguageandEducation,20, 254–272.
Kendon,A.(1990).Spatialorganizationinsocialencounters:TheF-formation sys-tem.InA.Kendon(Ed.),Conductingsocialinteraction(pp.209–238).Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.
Keane,W.(2016).Ethicallife:Itsnaturalandsocialhistories.Princeton:Princeton UniversityPress.
Lo,A.(2004).EvidentialityandmoralityinaKoreanheritagelanguageschool. Prag-matics,2–3,235–256.
Lo,A.(2009).LessonsaboutrespectandaffectinaKoreanAmericanheritage lan-guageschool.LinguisticsandEducation,20,217–234.
Moore,E.(2013).“Childrenarealllookingatyou”Childsocialization,directive tra-jectoriesandaffectivestancesinaRussianpreschool.PragmaticsandSociety, 4(3),317–344.
Ochs,E.(1996).Linguisticresourcesforsocializinghumanity.InJ.Gumperz,&S. Levinson(Eds.),Rethinkinglinguisticrelativity(pp.407–437).NewYork: Cam-bridgeUniversityPress.
Schieffelin,B.,&Ochs,E.(1986).Languagesocializationacrosscultures.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.
Sterponi,L.(2014).Caughtred-handed:HowItalianparentsengagechildrenin moraldiscourseandaction.InC.Waynryb,&H.E.Recchia(Eds.),Talkingabout rightandwrong:Parent-childconversationsascontextformoraldevelopment. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Curriculumforthepreschool,Lpfö18.Stockholm:Skolverket,2018.
Tobin,J.,Wu,D.,&Davidson,D.(1991).Preschoolinthreecultures:Japan,Chinaand theUnitedStates.Yale:YaleUniversityPress.
Tomasello,M.(2019).Becominghuman:Atheoryofhumanontogeny.Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.
