This article was downloaded by: [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ]On: 20 December 2014, At: 09:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Years: An International ResearchJournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceye20

What's worth talking about?Meaning‐making in toddler‐initiatedco‐narratives in preschoolElin Eriksen Ødegaard aa Bergen University College , NorwayPublished online: 19 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Elin Eriksen Ødegaard (2006) What's worth talking about? Meaning‐making intoddler‐initiated co‐narratives in preschool, Early Years: An International Research Journal, 26:1,79-92, DOI: 10.1080/09575140500507892

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09575140500507892

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

What’s worth talking about?

Meaning-making in toddler-initiated

co-narratives in preschool

Elin Eriksen Ødegaard*

Bergen University College, Norway

To elaborate narratives, toddlers are dependent on adult co-construction. Both children and

teachers make meaning and learn together. This article examines what themes toddlers introduce

in mealtime conversations in preschool. The object of analysis is 39 toddler-initiated co-narratives

constructed by toddlers and teachers in 15 videotaped meals during a case study in Norway in

2003/2004. (In Norway children from one to six years old attend preschool.) The results unfold

variations of co-narratives about important life themes. Emotions not only influenced what was

said and how it was said, they also constituted issues in children’s lives. The stories were about

anger, fear, loss and desire. The utterances and voices in the co-narrations bear a polyphony of

cultural meaning.

Keywords: Toddlers; Co-narratives; Emotions; Lived experience; Meaning-making; Learning

In this article the lead actors are two girls and seven boys, one to three years old, and

four women—one teacher, two assistants and one researcher behind the cameras.

We will take a close look at the construction of meaning around the table during

meals in a Norwegian preschool in the autumn of 2003 and the spring of 2004.

The preschool is situated in the middle of a suburban neighbourhood in which

apartments predominate, and the children’s parents are generally skilled and

unskilled workers in the service, health and school sectors. Most of the families are

Norwegian-born.

Mealtimes seem to constitute a place and a time for conversations in this

preschool. The adults make an effort to invite the children to talk about shared

events in their preschool life. Events, even those that may be experienced as dramatic

from a child’s point of view, are generally related in a joyful tone. The atmosphere is

usually calm. Candles and flowers make the meals intimate. Sometimes the sound of

laughter, cries and shouts breaks the tranquillity. The children participate in various

ways, the youngest mostly by listening to the conversations. In the group observed

*AL, Bergen University College, Landassvingen 15 5096 Bergen, Norway.

Email: Elin.Eriksen.Odegaard@hib.no

Early Years, Vol. 26, No. 1, March 2006, pp. 79–92

ISSN 0957-5146 (print)/ISSN 1472-4421 (online)/06/010079-14

# 2006 TACTYC

DOI: 10.1080/09575140500507892

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

9:35

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

there are two girls and four boys born in 2001, and three boys born in 2002. The

oldest boys are the most eager to initiate co-narrations.

This study is part of a case study of toddlers’ and teachers’ meaning-making and

participation in preschool. The object of analysis in the part presented here is the co-

narrations constructed during meals in a preschool. The aim of my study is to

explore meaning construction and to discuss learning issues. In what follows I will

argue for a pedagogical discourse of meaning-making and learning in preschool

groups for toddlers. Talkative children initiate conversations and introduce new

narrative themes. Quiet children listen to their friends’ and the adults’ meaning-

making. In this way learning is influenced by the cultural voices of children, as well

as those of preschool teachers.

Construction of meaning in co-narratives

Co-narration is a matter of collaboration where both adults and toddlers are learners

in a broad sense. According to Ingrid Pramling Samuelsson and Maj Asplund

Carlsson (2003), we take it for granted that children learn in preschool, but what

children learn has seldom been the focus of academic research. The main focus in

this study is the content in the co-narratives: What are the toddler-initiated co-

narratives about? How do the adults’ cultural voices co-construct learning content

within the narrative form?

Children initiate co-narratives that express meaning in relation to a variety of

themes. The concept ‘co-narrative’ is used to describe the narrative that is developed

in collaboration (for example Miller et al., 1992; Engel, 1995; Hoigard, 1999;

Odegaard & Birkeland, 2002). The concept ‘co-narrative’ has been selected in order

to highlight the process of meaning construction, its unfolding and framing, as

unfolded in videoanalysis. Narratives are a form of connected discourse that creates

a higher order of meaning (Polkinghorne, 1988). Yet co-narrations are also

multiparty discourse and conversations. Vibeke Grover Aukrust (1995) describes the

kinds of conversations that toddlers participate in as ‘Here and now’, referring to

conversations in the present tense; and ‘There and then’, referring to conversations

where toddlers use language about past and future events. In this study the term ‘co-

narration’ is used to refer to the process of two-party or multiparty discourse, where

adults and children participate in constructing stories about events in the past or

future tense. Thus, for the purpose of this study, ‘co-narratives’ are stretches of

connected discourse that give an account of an event.

Learning language and becoming part of a culture are ongoing processes in

children’s lives. When toddlers are invited into verbal co-construction, or when their

verbal initiatives are extended by a more competent person, the participants’

understandings are stretched beyond the ‘here and now’ (Dickinson & Tabors,

2002). Jerome Bruner (1986, 1987) claims that narratives are crucial to man’s

understanding and self-construction, and that narrative imitates life, as life imitates

narrative. Kenneth Gergen (1997) goes further, considering narratives to be socially

constructed. He claims that meaning is constructed in the narrative form in a social

80 E. E. Ødegaard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

9:35

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

setting, rather than mirroring the real world inside the individual’s mind. Narratives

are dialogical constructions that are open for continuous change as the discourse is

extended in the social setting.

The stories told will construct memories and develop images of future events.

Both adults and children are participants and raise issues. In an everyday situation,

such as a mealtime, the learning content is constructed in the narrative form in

everyday language. The stories give shape to what is considered to be worth talking

about, the joys and problems in daily life. Through participation children learn to

construct narratives, to adjust to others, and to stretch their understanding (Rogoff,

2003).

However, teachers are also learning in the process of co-narration. When they co-

construct narratives based on children’s initiatives, they have the opportunity to

learn about children’s world-making. In their effort to understand the utterances of

young children, to interpret and make sense of what the children might want to

express or tell, the teachers also have the opportunity to stretch their understanding

of children’s experiences.

The child’s initiative is met with an interpreted answer that bears meaning. Words

in themselves bear no meaning, since this is constructed in human interaction

(Bakhtin, 1981; Matre, 2000; Dysthe, 2001). The utterances in the co-narratives

have a meaning-making potential. In multiparty discourse, which is the predominant

form during meals in preschool, several listeners will be drawn into the conversation

and a number of issues may be raised.

In conversations with small children, the adult will always be a co-constructer. In

this effort the adult will not always be able to interpret the child’s intentions, and the

child may not have any special intention in making the initiative. The co-narration

can be constructed on the basis of the teacher’s answers and the direction the

response gives. In multiparty discourse there will be several participants, so the

content of the co-narration may be random. The initial intentions may well

disappear, as interest is caught by a new topic. A negotiation or struggle may occur

regarding what the story is going to be about. When a participant utters a word or

a sentence, s/he will anticipate some form of active answer such as agreement,

sympathy, resistance or support (Bakhtin, 1981). Multiparty conversations are a

complex and rich source of material for the study of meaning-making and learning.

A survey of the literature indicates that earlier studies of children’s narrative

construction and multiparty conversations have focused on children of three and

upward (McCaabe & Peterson, 1991; Snow, 1993; Matre, 2000; Dickinson &

Tabors, 2002, Georgakopoulou, 2002). In contrast, studies that consider children

under three years old have focused on monologues (Nelson, 1989; Aukrust,

1993) and two-party dialogues (Aukrust, 1995, 1996, 1997a, b). These studies stress

narrative language development, but they also shed light on pragmatics and cultural

performances. We must bear in mind that this kind of conversation is not universal.

According to Barbara Rogoff (2003) such conversation seems to be specialized,

intended to prepare children for school in western societies; thus, it occurs most

frequently in middle-class communities.

Meaning-making in toddler-initiated co-narratives 81

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

9:35

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Stories constructed in the mealtime setting in a Norwegian preschool will unfold

what is considered worth talking about there and then.

Transcription and the researcher’s reconstruction of the narratives

In the analysis and interpretation of the videos I have tried to understand the process

of meaning construction: how the utterances bear a polyphony of cultural meaning

and how contextual learning is embedded in the co-narration process for both

children and adults. From a social constructionist perspective it may be considered

problematic to identify the starting point or initiator in a co-narration. Where does a

narrative begin and where does it end? Is it possible to identify the beginning of

communication? According to Gergen (1997) an individual’s utterance possesses no

meaning in itself, for ‘we are already in a relational standing with others and the

world’ (p. 264).

What happens before the video recording begins, both immediately before and in

the longer perspective, is in one way or another part of the conversations. Life

experiences from outside the preschool setting will be included in the utterances and

words that are used (Bakhtin, 1981). The children’s home world is brought in as

parents’ stories that are told to the teachers. Against this background the teachers

will be able to retell these stories in new constructions and participate in co-

narrations about family events with the children (Odegaard, 1998).

I have chosen to construct the transcriptions so as to start with the first utterance

that refers to future or past events and end when the narrative thread is broken. It

can be difficult to interpret one- to three-year-old children’s utterances as referring

to future or past events. The interpretations depend therefore on the co-narrative’s

inner coherence.

Fifteen videotaped meals have been transcribed. Based on the above strategy, 39

co-narrations were identified that were initiated by the toddlers. If I had chosen to

start the narrative with the children’s nonverbal initiatives that constitute the scaffold

for a co-narration, the sample would have consisted of more toddler-initiated co-

narrations. In some of the co-narrations there is no linear story, but rather several

stories in one. This makes the start and end points of the narration uncertain. In

some samples ‘here and now’ comments that do not follow the thread may occur,

but if someone picks up the thread again, the exchange is considered to be a co-

narration.

In the process of transcription and analysis I first identified the co-narrations from

the videotape and transcribed them. I tried to be in dialogue with the text. I

repeatedly read the transcribed narratives trying to find variations, similarities and

patterns in order to categorize them. In every narrative there will be several possible

interpretations depending on the perspective of the interpreter. Categorization will

reduce variations and distinctions.

I studied the co-narrations with different expectations. Initially, I was uncertain

whether I would find any toddler-initiated co-narrations at all, and if I did, I had no

idea what they would be about. I expected to find joy, as I remembered the

82 E. E. Ødegaard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

9:35

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

atmosphere at the preschool as being pleasant and cheerful. The fact that I had

recently read about toddlers’ concerts of laughter (Lokken, 2000), might have

further shaped my prior understanding of relations. So when I discovered another

kind of issue in the toddler-initiated co-narratives, I was at first surprised. Their

narration unfolded dramas, disputes and emotions! Not only were emotions

expressed in the narrators’ voice and body language, but they were also raised as

themes that were worth talking about.

In order to analyse the text in greater depth, I selected the videotapes with the

segments selected for this article and watched them together with the staff at the

preschool. Including several watchers’ perspectives was fruitful for the interpreta-

tion. However we should bear in mind that, even though several watchers may agree

on an interpretation, it does not necessarily make the interpretation any closer to a

certain ‘truth’. Agreement can be understood as being based on shared attitudes or

use of the same paradigm.

Two-year-olds trying to come to grips with the problems of life

In the process of co-narration, a story is being constructed. Negotiations arose in the

course of some of the co-narrations. Some voices were persistent, others were not.

Most of the narratives in this study were constructed by a limited number of

people, often one or two teachers and one or two children. The language, the

narrative form and the themes in co-narrations can all constitute objects of learning

for the group. Some children introduced themes in the conversations, while others

were tacit or active listeners.

Sander, one of the eldest boys, was the most talkative child. He initiated most of

the co-narratives. Indeed, we might say that Sander was an active participant and

contributed to developing the learning content in this group. The two girls, Ane and

Henrietta, initiated two co-narratives each and they seldom joined in the

conversational discourse. The one-year-olds who were present seldom made verbal

contributions. However, according to Rogoff (2003) and Rogoff et al. (2003),

taciturnity is no indication of the extent of participation. Learning can take place by

observing and ‘listening in’, since the silent children participate in the shared meal.

The children and the adults communicated nonverbally with gazes and gestures, and

the adults also included silent children in the conversations, for example, by use of

names, physical touch and eye contact.

Let us take a closer look at what is worth talking about from the perspective of

some of these children. The results of this study showed that these toddlers initiated

stories related to problems in their lives, and often expressed their feelings regarding

the troublesome issues. They initiated conversations and co-constructed meaning on

the emotions of anger, fear, loss and desire in an effort to make meaning and take

control of these important life themes.

Anger and fear are two interwoven emotions. Fear can easily turn into anger and

anger can easily arouse fear. However, it is not the identification of a clear emotion

that is the issue here, but rather how emotional states become a theme in the process

Meaning-making in toddler-initiated co-narratives 83

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

9:35

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

of meaning-making. The first co-narration to be considered developed at the lunch

table:

The birthdays—a story of anger

The group has just returned from a play at the theatre called ‘Baby theatre’. The

adults have initiated many co-narrations about the excursion; then Ane, who is

almost three years old, takes the initiative. She moves closer to Frida, the assistant,

and says: ‘Frida? Dad’s got birthday cake’. And then Frida answers: ‘On his

birthday?’ Ane gets halfway onto her chair: ‘Yes!’

Frida develops the exchange by asking if the cake tasted good, at the same time as

Andreas, who is the same age as Ane, shouts: ‘Ane! Ane! Ane!’ Ane answers ‘Yes’ to

Frida’s question and it looks as if she is going to continue when Frida cuts in:

‘Andreas has something to tell us!’ Ane turns her head demonstratively away from

Andreas and indicates her anger in both her body language and facial expression as

she makes a grimace and wrinkles her eyebrows! Andreas, a hand on each side of his

stomach, exclaims in stern tone: ‘Ane! Me birthday at home, afterwards me birthday

in preschool’.

Ane looks at Andreas, shaking her head jerkily while she says in a low tone: ‘Ta, ta,

ta, ta, ta!’ Frida interpret these sounds and responds: ‘Yes, Ane’s daddy had a

birthday-cake on his birthday’. Andreas, still with a stern voice, says: ‘Me birthday!’

Ane raises her fist in the air and shouts out to Andreas: ‘Me talk!’ Frida intervenes:

‘No, it was Andreas’ turn to talk’. Andreas shouts back at Ane: ‘Ane! Talk!’ Then he

bends forward in a sudden move and says with stifled anger: ‘Ah! Me talk’.

The conversation faded away when Marit (teacher) entered the room and Frida

asked her how the trip to the theatre had been. The power struggle over who was to

tell their story continued between these two children later in the same meal.

The tone of anger and competition that prevailed between these two children, as

illustrated in this co-narrative, was observed for a period in their play activities as

well. Andreas often initiated the game by turning the light off in the bedroom,

hallway or bathroom. Ane was usually active in these games, often playing the scary

role. Since they continued this pattern later in the same meal, we can anticipate that

they were still engaged in a power struggle for control of the story.

Is this a story about birthdays? Yes, it is, but there is more to it than that. Anger

was placed in a narrative context where the emotional form also became the content.

Anger became the object of learning due to the way Frida met the children’s anger.

She did not tell them to be quiet, indicating that angry negations were not taboo in

this preschool culture. Frida made an indirect effort to mediate in the conflict by

making Ane aware of Andreas’ turn and of his right to talk, and by making Andreas

aware of the fact that Ane’s daddy had had a birthday cake. Of course the camera

and the presence of an observer may play their part in the way the story developed;

nevertheless, the story illustrates certain modes of cultural performance. The story

also shows how emotions that are reflected in both actions and conversation content,

in this case anger, are returned in kind. One child’s angry voice stimulates an angry

84 E. E. Ødegaard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

9:35

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

answer. Anger can be an understandable reaction in situations characterized by, for

example, frustration, defensiveness and disappointment. Biologically, anger can also

be a reaction to tiredness. Toddlers’ anger is often explained in this way. However,

such a biological explanation overlooks children’s meaning-making.

Similar emotional conflicts were described in Corsaro’s cross-cultural study of

four-year-old preschool children (2003). In the white middle-class groups in the

USA, the teachers and parents looked upon verbal disputes as negative and they

sought to shield the children from such situations.

Oppositional talk among children provides them with possibilities for defining,

redefining and challenging their social identities and status in the group. When the

adult becomes involved in children’s disputes, not to shield or stop them, but rather

to acknowledge and appreciate the conflict, both adults and children can learn to see

the importance of diversity and dissension in life.

Another emotion children struggle to cope with is fear. The following co-

narration, which took place at lunch one day, illustrates Sander’s effort to come to

grips with a frightening event in life. Fear is a defence against danger and can be a

matter of survival. But what a child and an adult experience as scary may vary, as we

shall see:

‘Gloomy Santa Claus’—a story of fear

Birthe, the assistant, has commented on the Christmas paper bags on the wall. The

children have just finished drawing on them and Birthe pays them a compliment.

Sander, almost three years old, looks up at Birthe and says: ‘Going to Lagunen’.1

Birthe answers: ‘Who has been to Lagunen? Have you been to Lagunen?’ Sander

continues: ‘Chist … Chistmas tee’. Birthe’s voice seemed astonished: ‘Christmas

tree? Is there already a Christmas tree at Lagunen?’

Sander answers with certainty: ‘Yes’. Then Frida, the assistant, joins in: ‘They

have put up the lights in the centre of town’. Sander looks at Frida with a wrinkle

between his brows and continues the story: ‘Then come Santa Claus’. Birthe begins

an answer: ‘He came’, she then turns to Lucas who is struggling with a big piece of

bread: ‘Do you want me to help you a little?’ Marit, the teacher, picks up the thread:

‘Have you been to Lagunen and done some shopping?’ Sander looks rather worried,

he leans backward and says: ‘Gloomy Santa Claus there was’. Marit follows this up

with a great deal of surprise in her voice: ‘Was there?’ ‘Yes’, said Sander. Marit

continues: ‘What did the Santa do then?’ Sander replied with a more relaxed facial

expression: ‘It was angry’.

In this narrative Sander and the adults co-narrate a story from Sander’s home

context. He seemed to be remembering a scary event, and he wanted to share it.

Birthe’s comment on the Christmas paper bags apparently triggered his memory.

Sander initiated the story, he followed up with more information, and he came up

with a plot. Birthe and Marit scaffolded his story with questions. Although Frida’s

comment on Christmas preparations elsewhere did not follow the thread, Sander

continued his story. It seems that this story developed because of Sander’s eagerness

Meaning-making in toddler-initiated co-narratives 85

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

9:35

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

to tell about a scary event. There was an interruption that could have stopped the

story, when Birthe turned to Lucas with a ‘here and now’ comment, but Marit

picked up the thread and repeated the question ‘Have you been to Lagunen …’ With

this repetition she supported and encouraged Sander to go on telling his story.

Marit provided a scaffold for Sander, so he was able to extend the story by making

the surprising point: Santa Claus was gloomy. Here there is a twist in the story. This

information runs counter to expectations, and Marit acts surprised. Her voice goes

up when she says: ‘Was there?’ It was possible at this point for Marit to learn

something about Sander’s understanding and experience of Santa Claus: Santa

Claus was angry. This differs from the common adult understanding of Santa Claus

as a friendly old man who brings gifts and eats porridge. Stories about the friendly

Santa Claus who lived in the preschool attic were initiated and told by the teachers

several times during November and December. It may be anticipated that children

who are engaged in co-narration have learnt that experiences are worth telling. Two

teachers met Sander’s initiative with scaffolding questions and bits of their own

associations. His facial expression shifted from very wrinkled and worried at the

climax of his story, to a more relaxed expression as they moved away from the scary

experience. He seemed to have come to grips with the experience, although it is

impossible to know whether his conception of Santa Claus as a ‘gloomy’ figure had

been amended.

This narration opens up yet another reflection. Marit revealed an aspect of her

own life world when she asked: ‘Have you been to Lagunen and done some

shopping?’. The shopping centre is a place for shopping, at least for adults. With this

utterance she revealed a central cultural activity. In Sander’s consciousness Lagunen

may not be a place for shopping. Nevertheless it is a place where a number of things

can happen. For him Lagunen is a place where there is a Christmas tree and where

one risks a scary meeting with Santa Claus.

On another occasion, an excursion to the city aquarium was followed by a

late lunch, during which Marit initiated many narratives based on their shared

experiences.

‘Frida is gone’—a story about loss

After sitting silent throughout the long meal, Henrietta began to talk. While Birthe,

the assistant, talks to Andreas, Henrietta, who is not yet two years old, says quietly:

‘Fidagone, Fidagone, Fidagone, Fidagone, Fidagone’.2 She repeats her utterances

with a certain rhythm. Birthe answers: ‘Frida?’ Henrietta continues: ‘Fidagone,

Fidagone’. Again Birthe tries to understand: ‘Gone?’ Henrietta continues:

‘Fidagone, Fidagone, Fidagone’. Birthe talks to some other children, ignoring

Henrietta’s chant. After a while Marit, the teacher, takes up the narrative: ‘Where

did Frida go?’ Henrietta looks at Marit and repeats: ‘Fida?’ Then Benjamin, who is

the same age as Henrietta, joins in: ‘Fida’. Marit answers Benjamin: ‘Fida, yes, she is

having a break at the moment. She is resting’. Benjamin repeats: ‘Fida!’ Marit

repeats her answer: ‘Yes, she is having a little rest. She will come back to you

86 E. E. Ødegaard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

9:35

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

afterwards’. Benjamin repeats again: ‘Fida, rest’. Marit changes her voice to sound

like a child, like Benjamin’s voice: ‘Rest’. Benjamin repeats again: ‘Rest’. Then

Henrietta addresses Birthe again: ‘Fidagone, Fidagone, Fidagone’. Birthe doesn’t

pick up the thread that’s offered to her. She starts to ask Marit about the bread for

the Friday breakfast and this co-narration seems to fade out. But Henrietta

continues to ask for Frida while the adults are talking. Birthe finally responds when

her quiet chant turns into shouting: ‘Fidagone!’ Then Birthe answers: ‘We cannot

shout for Frida. It will hurt her ears’. Henrietta returns once more in a more quiet

tone: ‘Fidagone’. Then she turns her attention to her foodbox and the co-narration

stops.

This is a co-narrative in which the participants construct meaning about the fact

that not everybody is present. The children in this group often ask about those who

are not present. All these questions about where the missing person is may be

understood as the children’s effort to understand and construct a meaning about

where the others are and why they are not present. What makes this a co-narrative is

Marit’s support.

Henrietta’s repetitions may also allow another interpretation: she might be tasting

the sounds and the rhythm in language. But the fact that Henrietta’s utterances

came in a context where Frida was actually absent and that she was so persistent,

seem to support the interpretation that Henrietta is trying to make meaning of the

fact that Frida was gone.

Birthe ignored Henrietta’s utterances after a while. Perhaps she did not consider

Henrietta’s utterances to be meaningful or was simply tired of Henrietta’s

repetitions. Or maybe it is Henrietta’s verbal style that makes it difficult for the

adults to pick up on her initiative. Henrietta seldom takes the initiative in talk and

she is seldom invited to participate in co-narrations. Her statement, ‘Fidagone’, is

said first in a low tone and not directed to anyone in particular. In a complex reality,

such utterances are hard for the adults to catch and follow up. It is the video that

helps us to catch such a small detail.

Does the transparency of this co-narration make the learning content more visible?

Adults usually know where the absent group members are. Children, in this case

Henrietta, take the initiative to make meaning of Frida’s disappearance. Marit gave

her an explanation, which may or may not have had meaning for Henrietta. She

continued to ask for Frida. This fact can lead us to believe that Marit’s answer was

not enough. Marit used the child-oriented concept rest, to explain that Frida was

having a break. Henrietta should be familiar with what rest means, yet she continued

to ask for Frida.

Another reflection on this co-narration concerns Benjamin’s decision to join in the

repetition: ‘Fida’. He often repeats his questions many times, even if they are

answered. Taking a learning perspective, it might be suggested that this kind of

discourse is learnt while participating in similar conversations.

The next co-narrative arose at breakfast. Marit had just initiated a co-narrative

about what was going to happen after breakfast regarding a gathering in the

playground.

Meaning-making in toddler-initiated co-narratives 87

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

9:35

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

I want my dummy—a story of desire

Sander (almost three) looks in the direction of the hallway, where his dummy is lying

on his shelf, and he says in a low voice: ‘My dummy’. He than repeats this a little bit

louder and with a rhythm: ‘Mama dummy Mama dummy Mama dummy’. Frida,

the assistant, replies: ‘The dummy is lying on your shelf’. Marit, the teacher,

explains in a friendly voice: ‘You didn’t want your dummy. Do you remember when

you came this morning? You said to … [the name of his stepfather]: ‘‘The dummy

up on the shelf’’, you said’. Sander keeps looking hopefully out into the hallway:

‘Ha’. Marit follow his gaze and says: ‘You wanted the dummy to lie up on the shelf’.

Sander uttered: ‘Hæ?’ Marit repeats: ‘You wanted the dummy to lie up on the shelf’.

Sander concludes: ‘Together with the mittens’ and Marit agrees: ‘Together with

your mittens’.

In this co-narrative it may seem as if Sander was expressing his longing for the

comfort of his dummy, but the adults did not give in to his request. He tried to gain

control over his desire, and his body language and tone of voice indicated that he was

not persistent. He did not ask them for it directly, but simply expressed his desire in

a low voice. He asked for his mother, even though she was not present. Perhaps he

might have learnt from experience that his mama would give in to such a request,

while the teachers would not. He did not protest strongly, nor did he cry for it. Most

likely such behaviour in the past had been met with replies like: ‘You can have your

dummy when you go for your nap’. Such a statement expresses the mainstream

attitude towards dummies that is shared by teachers in Norway. All the children

know that this is the rule, and Sander seemed to acknowledge this after being

reminded of his earlier statement. Marit’s refusal of Sander’s implicit request was

not made in a strong authoritarian voice, but rather in an educative tone, appealing

to Sander as a competent human being who must take responsibility for his own

choices. The discourse of children as autonomous individuals was evident on several

occasions in this preschool culture (Sommer, 2003; Jans, 2004).

The closing of this co-narration may indicate that Sander accepted this attitude.

He may have learnt, or at least been reminded of, what the teachers’ attitude is to

dummies during the day. This co-narration is an example of social control,

illustrating what Rogoff (2003) calls the cultural system of indirectness in teachers’

educative strategies.

Emotions as issues in meaning-making

Meaning-making in the child-initiated co-narratives was about life problems in a

broad sense. In order to understand these findings, Bruner’s work (1996) provides

some insight. He claims that, to be worth telling, a narrative must run counter to

expectations, and his answer to my question ‘What’s worth talking about?’ is:

‘Stories worth telling and worth construing are typically born in trouble’ (p. 142).

Of course the question may be raised as to whether these co-narrations are actually

about serious life themes such as anger, fear, loss and desire. We can always question

what a story is about. Nevertheless, the toddler-initiated co-narratives unfold

88 E. E. Ødegaard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

9:35

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

variations of how children are constantly constructing meaning and trying to take

control of important experiences. Life is dramatic for these children and is filled with

emotions. Such matters are worth talking about and need stories. By initiating

stories, the children are trying to make meaning out of situations and emotional

states. The teachers respond to some of these initiations and participate in

developing meaning in these co-constructions. In this process children learn cultural

patterns for the expression and enactment of emotions, and ways of coming to grips

with problems encountered as part of life.

In an individualistic tradition the notions of anger, fear, loss and desire are seen as

states that effect social processes. According to Bruner, actions have reasons: ‘What

people do in narratives is never by chance, nor is it strictly determined by cause and

effect; it is motivated by beliefs, desires, theories, values, or other intentional states’

(1996, p. 136).

In this study focus is on emotions as social constructions. The discussion of

emotional states is not, therefore, an attempt to identify the emotions inside the

individual child. This is not to say that I question the biological side of man; we

come into the world with hormones, heart beat and blood pressure. Children are

born with senses, innate reflections and emotional states. However, I would suggest

that we need to alter the way we understand emotions by trying to discover how

emotions are embedded in cultural patterns. Emotional states are made meaningful

when they enter dialogical discourse. Thus, relational patterns can be seen as

emotional scenarios, for which there are informal scripts embedded in the culture

(Hundeide, 1989; Gergen, 1997).

In preschool research, emotions tend to be actualized. For example, according to

Pramling Samuelsson and Asplund Carlsson (2003) and Lindahl (1999), the

emotional component may be seen as interwoven with the cognitive component in

learning and is an aspect of bodily experience.

Gunvor Lokken’s research (2000, 2004) is along similar lines, depicting

competent toddlers in positive emotional states such as joy, expressed in concerts

of laughter. She also points out that expressive gestures are our first language, and

that the process of meaning making is performed by a body in action (Lokken,

1999). The joy found in Lokken’s study and the seriousness found in the current

study can tell us something about the existence of different toddler cultures. The

most talkative child in this study, Sander, initiates a lot of stories with serious and

emotional themes. In other toddler groups there might be different voices playing

the dominant role.

Anger, fear, loss and desire are crucial life themes in the adult world, as is evident

in literature, drama and films. When it comes to the youngest children, we are used

to thinking of them as occupied with ‘the here and now’. The findings of this study

indicate that crucial life themes are also important to the talkative toddlers in this

preschool, and the focus of their participation in co-narrations. In the process of

telling, the children co-constructed experience and the resultant co-narrations made

it possible for them, through the process of meaning-making, to take control of, and

come to grips with, the problems in their lives.

Meaning-making in toddler-initiated co-narratives 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

9:35

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

In co-narration both children and teachers are learners

In these analyses I have organized the material so as to demonstrate how learning in

preschool is a discourse where children as well as teachers contribute to the content

of learning in every-day activities. Both children and adults learn through

participation and in co-construction. By picking up on a child’s initiative and

participating in the construct of a co-narrative, the adults gain insight into how

children view and construct the world. Emotions not only influence what is said and

how it is said, but more importantly, they constitute actual issues in children’s lives.

In the teachers’ voices and contributions it is possible to see how cultural processes

manage emotional issues and how culture pervades children’s everyday activities. In

the children’s contributions it is evident that they engage in negotiations regarding

what the story is really about and in developing the stories, often through the

introduction of turning points and themes that surprise the teachers. Children are

not passive recipients being shaped by cultural processes, but are active co-

constructers.

Meaning and thinking are constructed during dialogues and discourse. In the

stated aims for pedagogical institutions we are used to formulations related to

children’s learning. Words such as ‘care’ and ‘safety’ have characterized the aims for

toddlers in Norwegian preschool, and learning does not seem to be an articulated

aim for this age group to the same extent as for the older children. Nevertheless,

young children actually learn rapidly. These co-narrations reveal that during co-

construction the adults made meaning about how the children think and experience

the world. Thus, culture and meaning are constructed, and knowledge is produced

for all age groups. This article can serve, therefore, as an argument in support of a

discourse of meaning-making and learning for toddlers in preschool.

When children challenge conventions, show emotional distress and raise serious

life themes, a discourse of care and confidence might motivate teachers to offer

comfort or introduce diversionary manoeuvres. In contrast, a discourse of learning

and meaning construction might enable teachers to recognize the learning potential

of such situations for both teachers and children. While comforting a child, the adult

may also be observing the child as a learner.

In co-narration toddlers learn cultural patterns for expressing and enacting

emotions, and ways of coming to grips with problems encountered in life. These

toddlers’ initiatives in co-narrations show that they have something important to tell,

and that humans of all ages may be preoccupied with crucial life themes and strong

emotions.

Notes

1. Lagunen is the name of a shopping centre in Bergen.

2. In Norwegian she says ‘Fidaenne’, which is babytalk for the English translation: ‘where Frida?’

In order to validate the interpretation of the child’s utterance, this cut was selected for a review

together with the staff at the preschool. We discussed whether the child’s utterance could be

about her hands, saying ‘where are my hands?’ but we agreed upon the interpretation above.

The staff said that Henrietta often asked for group members who were not present.

90 E. E. Ødegaard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

9:35

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

References

Aukrust, V. G. (1993) Etter at lyset er slukket [After the light has been switched off], Tidsskrift for

norsk psykologforening, 30, 1061–1068 (Oslo).

Aukrust, V. G. (1995) Fortellinger fra stellerommet [Stories from the nursery room] (Oslo,

Pedagogisk Forskningsinstitutt).

Aukrust, V. G. (1996) Learning to talk and keep silent about every day routines, Scandinavian

Journal of Educational Research, 40, 311–324.

Aukrust, V. G. (1997a) Skal vi lage pulver? [Do you want to make powder?] Nordisk psykologi:

teori, forskning, praksis (København, Akademisk forlag).

Aukrust, V. G. (1997b) Hva har du gjort i barnehagen i dag da? [What have you done in preschool

today?] Tidsskrift for norsk psykologforening, 34, 997–1009 (Oslo).

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981) The dialogical imagination. Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (Austin, TX,

University of Texas Press).

Bruner, J. (1986) Actual minds, possible worlds (Harvard, MA, Harvard University Press).

Bruner, J. (1987) Life as a narrative, Social Research, 54(1), 1–17.

Bruner, J. (1996) The culture of education (Harvard, MA, Harvard University Press).

Cote, L. (2002) Language opportunities during mealtimes in preschool classrooms, in:

K. Dickinson & P. Tabors (Eds) Beginning literacy with language (Illinois, Brookes

Publishing), 205–222.

Corsaro, W. (2003) We’re friends right? Inside kids’ culture (Washington, DC, Joseph Henry Press).

Dickinson, K. & Tabors, P. (2002) Beginning literacy with language (Illinois, Brookes Publishing).

Dysthe, O. (Ed.) (2001) Dialog, Samspel og Læring [Dialogue and learning] (Oslo, Abstrakt Forlag).

Engel, S. (1995) The stories children tell, making sense of the narratives of childhood (New York, W. H.

Freeman).

Georgakopoulou, A. (2002) Greek children and familiar narratives in family contexts: en route to

cultural performances, in: S. Blum-Kulka & C. Snow (Eds) Talking to adults. The contribution

of multiparty discourse to language acquisition (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum), 33–54.

Gergen, K. (1997) Realities and relationships. Soundings in social construction (Harvard, MA,

Harvard University Press).

Hundeide, K. (1989) Barns livsverden—en fortolkende tilnærming til studiet av barn [Children’s

lifeworld—a hermeneutic approach to children’s study] (Otta, J. W. Cappelens Forlag).

Hoigard, A. (1999) Barns sprakutvikling muntlig og skriftlig [Children’s language development]

(Oslo, Universitetsforlaget).

Jans, M. (2004) Children as citizens—towards a contemporary notion of child participation,

Childhood, 11(1), 27–44.

Lindahl, M. (1999) Lærende smabarn [When toddlers learn] (Oslo, Pedagogisk Forum).

Lokken, G. (1999) Challenges in toddler peer research, Nordisk Pedagogikk, 3, 145–155.

Lokken, G. (2000) Toddler peer culture—The social style of one and two year old body-subjects in every

day interaction. Dr. Polit Avh. NTNU, Trondheim.

Lokken, G. (2004) Toddlerkultur [Toddler peer culture] (Oslo, Cappelen Akademiske Forlag).

Matre, S. (2000) Samtaler mellom barn [Child dialogue] (Oslo, Det norske samlaget).

Peterson, C. (Ed.) (1991) Developing narrative structure (New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum).

Miller, P., Mintz, J., Hoogotstra, L., Fung, H. & Potts, R. (1992) The narrated self: young

children’s construction of self in relation to others in conversational stories of personal

experience, in Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38(1), 45–67.

Nelson, K. (1989) Narratives from the crib (Harvard, MA, Harvard University Press).

Odegaard, E. E. (1998) ‘Fortell om meg da jeg var liten’—fortellingen som mulighet i samarbeidet

mellom barnehage og hjem [‘Tell me a story about me as a child’ Narratives in parent–

teacher cooperation], Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift, 6, 375–384.

Odegaard, E. E. & Birkeland, L. (2002) Tusen erfaringer søker fortellinger [A thousand experiences

seek stories] (Bergen, Høgskolen i Bergen).

Meaning-making in toddler-initiated co-narratives 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

9:35

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Polkinghorne, D. (1988) Narrative knowing and the human sciences (New York, State University of

New York Press).

Pramling Samuelsson, I. & Carlsson, M. (2003) Det lekande larande barnet i en utvecklingspedagogisk

teori [The playing learning child in a pedagogical developmental theory] (Stockholm, Liber).

Rogoff, B. (2003) The cultural nature of human development (Oxford, Oxford University Press).

Rogoff, B., Paradise, R., Mejı Arauz, R., Correa-Chavez, M. & Angelillo, C. (2003) Firsthand

learning by intend participation, Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 175–204.

Snow, C. (1993) Families as social context for literacy development, New directions for child

development (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass), 11–24.

Sommer, D. (2003) Barndomspsykologiske facetter [Childhood perspectives] (Gylling, Systime

Academic A/S. Narayans Press).

92 E. E. Ødegaard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 0

9:35

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14