Translanguaging space through pointing gestures: Multilingual family literacy at a science museum

Translanguaging and spatial repertoire

Since the term translanguaging was coined by Williams (1994), it has been conceptually expanded and populated by many scholars. Among others, García and her colleagues (García, 2009; García and Li, 2014) contributed to theorizing translanguaging not only as pedagogical practices but also as a theory of language, defining it as “multiple discursive practices in which bilinguals engage in order to make sense of their bilingual world” (García, 2009: p. 45, original emphasis). That is, translanguaging as a theory of language (Li, 2018) views how a speaker draws on their entire communicative repertoire to accomplish their communicative needs, without strict adherence to the boundaries of named languages (Blackledge and Creese, 2017; García and Li, 2014). Translanguaging extends beyond linguistic exchange to include a broader semiotic repertoire (Blackledge and Creese, 2017; Zhu et al., 2020) such as gestures, posture, and other non-verbal forms of communication, which are particularly significant in multilingual contexts when co-participants in an encounter share few overlapping linguistic resources.

Human interaction is a multifaceted process that involves participants using various semiotic resources available at a particular time and space (e.g., Goodwin, 2018; Kendon, 1990; McNeill, 2005). Kress and Van Leeuwen (2011) argue that all meaning-making is inherently multimodal and therefore research on human interaction must consider linguistic, visual, audio, gestural, and spatial elements in the analysis. Thus, Morgenstern (2023) underscores the need for an exhaustive study of orchestration between different semiotic modes in interaction by using gesture studies alongside a range of multimodal approaches. Similarly, Jewitt and Mackley (2018) note that a multimodal approach extends its attention beyond textual analysis to include how texts are performed and utilized.

From this perspective, it is necessary to integrate all semiotic resources used in communication to fully understand the complex meaning-making processes. Recent research on translanguaging and multilingualism extends its attention beyond linguistic features to include multimodality as part of translanguaging repertoires. A multi-ethnic and multilingual karate club in East London (Zhu et al., 2020) is a good example of the role of multimodality in translanguaging practices. In the karate club, a translanguaging space, defined as a social space created for and by translanguaging (Li, 2011), is created through the orchestration of multiple semiotic repertoires alongside linguistic elements. Zhu et al. (2020) show how verbal utterances are integrated into body movements. Similarly, in a multilingual city market in Birmingham, UK, Blackledge and Creese (2017) show that butchers and customers use gestures as part of their translanguaging repertoire when they rarely share common linguistic resources. These examples show how multilinguals creatively use available resources to create social spaces (Li, 2011). Given the importance of embodied actions in multilingual interactions, scholars (Canagarajah, 2018; Pennycook and Otsuji, 2015) employ the concept of spatial repertoire to encompass the connection between “the sets of skills developed through personal life paths and the specific locations where these language resources are utilized” (Pennycook and Otsuji, 2015: p. 83). The concept of spatial repertoire emphasizes the broad range of skills individuals adopt and adapt through interactions to meet their evolving communication needs. The spatial repertoire concept further expands on the idea of translanguaging by exploring how these practices emerge outside the home, particularly in public educational spaces. In other words, people interact in settings like restaurant kitchens (Pennycook and Otsuji, 2015) and science museums (Choi, 2022) with both their historically accumulated repertoires (Blommaert and Bakus, 2013; Rymes, 2014) and emerging shared resources within the sociocultural and material environment (Canagarajah, 2018; Sharma and Canagarajah, 2023). This underscores the importance of gestures and objects in shaping learning opportunities and enhancing interactions.

The notion of the linguistic landscape adds another dimension to understanding multilingual family learning in museums. Given its emphasis on encompassing all written language in the public sphere to understand one’s language and literacy practices in a particular time and space, the idea of linguistic landscape requires reflection on the sociolinguistic environment and its influence on literacy practices (Kusters et al., 2017). Research on linguistic landscapes from a translanguaging perspective would attend to how signs in these places inform people’s language practices. Recognizing the role of signs in language practices enhances comprehension of the relationship between linguistic diversity and physical spaces like schools or museums. Viewing the linguistic landscape through a translanguaging lens highlights the interactive relationship between language use and the physical environment. That is, multilingual practices influence and are influenced by the linguistic landscape (Blommaert, 2013; Gorter and Cenoz, 2015). At science museums, the linguistic landscape, which includes linguistic signage, interactive exhibits, and the museum’s layout, mediates multilingual families’ literacy practices (Choi, 2022).

Among various resources for family learning in museums, signage text is fundamental to literacy at museums given that visitors engage with written language in a specific way while exploring an exhibit (Choi, 2022). From a translanguaging perspective, the translation of signage texts, often occurring with other meaning-making activities during their family literacy events at museums, is the moment when translanguaging space is constructed (Choi, 2022). I view the translation of signage by multilingual family members as translanguaging when it (re)echoes the direct words from the signage text for interpreting exhibits or text-echo (see Christidou, 2013, and below for more details) in multiple languages. These moments challenge the perception that composing in two languages is a linear process of text-making and transferring it to another text.

Family learning and pointing gestures in museums

Museum learning is organized by visitors who use specific practices with diverse semiotic resources, to engage interlocutors with exhibits in and through their interaction. Research on museum learning (Ash, 2004; Falk and Dierking, 2000) highlights that visitors build shared knowledge and use not only languages but also gestures and objects to engage their co-participants with scientific inquiry around exhibits. For example, Christidou (2013) finds that pointing gestures play a fundamental role in constructing tagging and telling activities in museums. Christidou demonstrates how pointing gestures are used as “a social tool establishing joint attention” and “a referential tool as it allows an object, or an aspect of it, to stand out” (p. 58). These two functions are fundamental to family literacy at the museum. Pointing gestures, as commonly used communicative resources, have been examined in many fields of study. As a referential device (Christidou, 2013), they are often accompanied by deictic words to draw the interlocutor’s attention to a particular object or direction (Goodwin, 2018; Kendon, 1990; Mondada, 2014). Research on human interaction shows that pointing gestures are not simple but complexly situated within social interactions. Rowe (2019), in her study on the role of pointing gestures in early children’s writing during adult-child interactions, shows that young children use deictic gestures to “establish the page and its contents as the focal point for interaction” (p. 16). Mondada (2014) shows “the importance of gaze and body alignments as a condition for pointing” (p. 114). Given the interactionally constructed nature of pointing, Mondada argues that co-participants construct pointing and that pointing gestures should thus be understood as an interactional phenomenon.

Regarding specific practices used in museums, Christidou (2013) identifies three categories of performances used in museums: “attracting an audience, telling and tagging, and animating through ‘displaying doing’” (p. 121). When it comes to attracting an audience Christidou highlights some actions as means to invite “others to participate in the perceptual range of the commenter’s personal encounters” (p. 124). Tagging, which bridges “the visitors and exhibition content together (p. 122)” often comes with or is followed by telling, which is broken down into two acts, text-echo and storytelling. Text-echo refers to quoting direct words from the signage text provided for interpreting exhibits, whereas storytelling is an event when visitors add to the quoted text to engage their interlocutors with the exhibits. Lastly, animating through displaying doing refers to “performances visitors carried out to bring to life aspects of exhibit” (p. 123). By using these practices, visitors co-construct their shared vision of a particular phenomenon. Given that each family has specific cultural backgrounds and agendas that shape the way they create their teaching and learning, it is important to understand how a bilingual family organizes these categories of performances with specific language and literacy practices. Although there has been increasing interest in multimodal research, especially in the context of museum research, family interactions are rarely examined from a multimodal perspective. While a few studies have investigated multilingual family learning at museums (e.g., Ash, 2004; Choi, 2022), relatively little is still known about their translingual and multiliterate practices in the context of museums. Additionally, no work has been conducted up to now to examine how multilingual families construct museum practices such as the three categories of performances (attracting an audience, telling and tagging, and animating through displaying doing). Therefore, this study examines how a multilingual family uses language and literacy practices with diverse semiotic resources to construct their museum learning and teaching. Specifically, this study aims to address the following research questions:

   1. How does a multilingual family use translanguaging practices to organize their family learning in museums?

Study participants

Jun (pseudonym), the focal participant, was a first-grade child at the time of the study. He had been in the U.S. for two and a half years with his mother and father because of his father’s postdoctoral researcher position at a Midwestern state university. Jun had no exposure to English before coming to the U.S. After arriving, Jun lived in an urban area and attended an English full-time laboratory preschool for 1 year and then a full-time kindergarten in a public charter school. To prepare Jun to adjust to the Korean educational system when they returned to Korea, Jun’s father (a postdoctoral researcher in science) and mother (a doctorate in education) strived to maintain Jun’s oral and written Korean language skills and cultural knowledge in academic settings. This effort included having Jun read books and study subjects (e.g., math) with workbooks in Korean, enrolling him in a Korean heritage language school offered by a Korean community in the area, and taking him to the science museum once or twice a month to expose him to math and science in both languages.

During their visits to a local science museum, Jun and his mother would regularly engage in rich hands-on experiences, enabling Jun to delve into scientific concepts and discourses. Jun’s mother believed that their visits to the museum enhanced Jun’s science literacy for school. Jun’s mother also expected Jun to expand his science literacy in Korean through interactions with her around exhibits in Korean. For Jun’s literacy development in both Korean and English, Jun’s parents encouraged him to read signage texts and talk in Korean about the scientific phenomena he observed in the museum. Their museum visits with other Korean families and their children also created opportunities for Jun to use Korean at museums.

As a parent of a multilingual Korean child, I wanted to understand how Korean parents engaged their children in language and literacy practices in both languages at museums. Since the family interacted mostly in Korean, I also spoke to them mostly in Korean during the research. His mother and I naturally discussed raising bilingual children in the USA and the role of parents in enhancing our children’s bilingualism and biliteracy.

Data collection

I observed Jun and his mother’s experiences in a science museum in the United States 10 times over 18 months. Each time, the family invited me in advance to observe them, and I followed them from their entrance to the museum until their departure. The family stayed in the facility for approximately 3 hs each time. I observed and videotaped their interactions at the science museum (about 30 h in total).

To better understand the family’s needs and how they addressed them, I conducted three interviews and 10 informal discussions with the child’s mother, taking place before, during, and after the observation. Jun’s mother explained what brought them to the museum, what they would do, and how long they would stay. I structured these conversations informally because I wanted my participants to feel relaxed and connect with me as a person with shared experiences, rather than just a researcher. These conversations also helped me build a relationship with the participants, which allowed me to join their family learning as a fellow speaker, not just as an ‘outsider’ or ‘researcher.’

I first sought to understand the role of language mixing in a child’s science learning. After identifying moments wherein the language mixing occurred, I conducted interviews and playbacks of video recordings with Jun’s mother to understand those moments better. She confirmed my analysis and emphasized the role of signage texts in her engagement with Jun and their discussions of scientific phenomena. Centering on reading signage texts as a way the family engaged in scientific discourse, I referred to my transcripts of events to understand where reading signage texts led to language mixing or switching and what actions incorporated the text into the family’s meaning-making about observed phenomena.

Analytical process

Within the ethnographically informed discourse analysis, I was also guided by the concept of multimodality, acknowledging the intricate ways in which verbal communication, gestures, and other elements synchronize to perform actions (Stivers and Sidnell, 2005). This perspective allows for eschewing prioritizing language use over practices with other semiotic resources. I considered as actions not only language use but also gestures, gaze, posture, and manipulation of objects that constitute the participants’ literacy practices and events. Thus, in transcribing those actions, I was mindful of the inherent multimodality of interactions, which necessitated careful consideration of what behaviors to document and how (Mondada, 2019).

Jun’s family interaction in the museum varied depending on context (e.g., why they visited the museum, whom they came with, what the material environment around the exhibit was during the interaction, etc.). Events where Jun and his mother engaged with an exhibit and its signage text together in a specific way were meticulously documented to understand what resources they used within their literacy practice and how those resources constituted their instruction. Jun’s mother viewed reading signage texts as a great opportunity for Jun to expand his literacy skills and expand his knowledge and linguistic repertoire in both English and Korean. She also believed that reading signage texts allowed her to find ways in which she would tap into her prior knowledge (e.g., gravity) and use Korean to help Jun understand the scientific concepts behind the exhibits. Therefore, most literacy events occurred in a similar pattern, with Jun’s question followed by Jun’s mother’s suggestion that Jun read the given signage texts.

For this study, I focused on Jun’s family interactions where Jun and his mother organized two of their collaborative activities at a museum, constructing joint attention and constructing telling (Christidou, 2013), with their translanguaging repertoires and pointing gestures. To address the research questions, I selected two literacy events from a day that exemplified the family’s collaborative sense-making and highlighted the role of pointing in translanguaging literacy practices. On March 3, 2018, the family explored the Dinosaur Gallery for about an hour, engaging with exhibits of ancient dinosaurs that made nests, laid eggs, and tended to their babies. Since most exhibits in the gallery consisted of objects and a substantial amount of text, reading signage texts with pointing gestures was observed to connect the text to other resources available in the museum. These particular events effectively demonstrated how Jun and his mother used pointing gestures to navigate and make sense of the text-rich exhibits, providing a clear example of their translanguaging literacy practices in action.

An in-depth analysis was conducted to illuminate ways in which Jun and his mother orchestrated diverse resources in their translanguaging literacy practices and how pointing gestures play a significant role in multilingual families’ engagement in content literacy at museums with their translanguaging practices. The process of analysis within an event was as follows. First, employing a multimodal transcription system (e.g., Mondada, 2018), I created transcripts of the interactions that included spoken words and images of moments in videos. This transcription system represents the confluence of actions with different semiotic resources, especially when language mixing and gestures co-reference and/or are put in a complementary relationship to make meaning. Second, I parsed each event into chunks that thematically tied a series of actions together, wherein particular participatory demands are required, such as an interaction of a question-answer (Bloome et al., 2022). Using this approach, I mapped how an event around an exhibit was interactionally organized. By viewing the event as a joint interaction, I focused on how Jun and his mother involved each other in their sense-making and built their family activities.

Event 1

This event occurred when Jun and his mother engaged with exhibits about animals’ eggs. Right before this event, Jun and his mother were at an exhibit about different birds’ eggs (size and shells). The exhibit Jun and his mother explored in this event was about eggshell architecture, which provided descriptions of three types of eggshells (one-/two-/three-layered) and their specimens under a microscope. There was a screen on the wall that presented what the microscope showed. Figure 1 shows the layout of the exhibit and four sections within the signage text. This example highlights how deictic expressions (words and pointing gestures) were used to establish joint attention, followed by text-echo and its translation. It opens with Jun gaining his mother’s attention by asking a question about the exhibit (line 1):

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Eggshell architecture.

Although Jun invited his mother to engage with the object he was exploring, his mother directed him to read the signage text, as she normally did in most of their explorations of exhibits. In lines 1-3, while she was focusing on the text, Jun was still navigating the microscope and what it projected on the screen. Her call for attention to the text (line (2) failed to establish joint attention partly because she quickly retracted her pointing gesture, giving Jun little chance to recognize her pointing, and partly because her request for attention was to the signage text in general, not specific enough to guide him to look for specific information Figures 2–6.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Mother's pointing and Jun's gaze.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

 Jun shifts his gaze.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Mother points to underline.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 5.

Mother points to underline.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 6.

Alligator.

In lines 5-11, Jun’s mother read the text and provided some content and words she found from the text to help Jun engage with the exhibit and interpret what he would observe. Here, her attempt to attract him and construct joint attention failed again in part because this action was performed without direct deictic expressions such as ‘look’ and ‘here’, and she quickly retracted her pointing gesture, performances commonly used to attract an audience. As a result, Jun did not shift his gaze toward the direction or location his mother pointed at, until line 12, when she used a deictic verb, “봐봐 [look].” In contrast, pointings by Jun’s mother in lines 12-13 drew Jun’s attention to the object (line 12, see Figure 2) and texts (line 13, see Figures 3 and 4). It is observable that her pointing, accompanied by a detailed description (line 12) and a deictic expression, ‘여기' [here] (line 13), demarcated the area to which Jun was asked to pay attention. In line 12, the mother connected her talk to what they previously observed, the largest egg named Emu. Here she said, ‘봐봐' [look] and held her pointing for 2.5 s. These sequential actions made Jun shift his gaze toward the direction in which she was pointing. It is important to note that Jun’s attention shifted toward the object she was indicating even before she used another deictic expression, ‘저기' [over there] (line 12), and ‘여기 봐봐' [look here] (line 13). Once Jun’s attention to the relationship between an object and part of the signage text was established (section 4 in Figure 1), Jun’s mother offered a text-echo of section 4 (lines 13-14) and its Korean translation (line 15). She underlined the text while reading it aloud, a typical practice she called “reading in museums.” Her translation in line 15 is not a direct word-for-word translation. Instead, it relocates “eggs” from the object position to the subject position, even though “eggs” is omitted. This translation highlights a characteristic of the emu’s eggs that have more than three layers, rather than describing what the emu does. Jun held his gaze at the text until she finished the text-echo and translated it into Korean. This translation allowed Jun to focus on the eggs with layers (line 16).

It is also important to note that her translation is a form of indirect reported speech, evidenced by the ending of the verb “있대.” This speech indicates that it is the text that says it, not her. Jun’s mother often used this form of speech in her translation presumably because she wanted Jun to pay attention to the text as guidance for interpreting exhibits. The text-echo and its translation in the form of indirect reported speech demonstrate her creative translanguaging practice that engaged Jun with scientific discourse. Jun’s mother’s utterances, combined with pointing gestures, constructed and engaged Jun in a translanguaging space. Jun attended to the relationship among the object, the signage text, and its translation, as his mother asked him to look at (lines 12-13). As the interaction continued, Jun and his mother established another moment of joint attention, creating an environment for text-echo and its translation, albeit in a slightly different way.

In lines 17-26, although the dialogue continued from Jun’s question (line 16), it is not clear that Jun and his mother were building joint attention and shared understanding because Jun shifted his gaze away from the text. In line 27, Jun’s mother moved her pointing finger to the text (section 3 in Figure 1) and said, “그리고 여기 있다 [and here it is].” Despite her use of the deictic word, 여기 [here], along with pointing at the text, Jun’s attention remained on section 4 until his mother had a short pause while reading the word “feathered,” indicating difficulty pronouncing it. Jun then shifted his gaze to the text she was reading and pointing at (see Figure 5), and corrected her pronunciation. After Jun’s correction, his mother continued reading the text with her pointing finger, and Jun’s gaze remained on the text she was pointing at.

This moment shows that joint attention could be constructed without a connection to an object if Jun engaged with the signage. By helping her pronounce a word in the signage text, he paid attention to the text. In line 31, his mother offered a translation of the text she read from the signage. The form of her translation is slightly different from line 15 in Transcript 1-1, where she used indirect reported speech. Instead of indirect reported speech, she made a tag question, recycling part of the previous sentence she had just read. In doing this, she slightly changed the phrase from “bird-like feathered dinosaurs” to “날아다니는 공룡들” [flying dinosaurs]. She might have believed that this simplified rephrasing allowed Jun to tap into his prior knowledge. Then, she provided the same information from the text she previously read in the form of a statement, “있어,” rather than the reported speech, “있대” (line 15, Transcript 1-1). She found that using the signage text in this way increased her authority in interactions with Jun. In an interview with her on January 10, 2017, she mentioned that signage text allowed her to position herself as knowledgeable:

“준이 엄마의 단어 선택이 되게 제한적이라고 느낄 수도 있는데, 집에서는, 근데 ‘아 엄마가 이런 교과적인 학교에서 배울 수 있는 단어를 과학관을 가면 설명해줄 수도 있구나’를 느낄 수 있는 것 같아요. 그래서 그런 면에서는 되게 좋다고 느꼈어요. [Jun may have felt that I have limited English vocabulary from the interaction in the home. However, he seemed to think, ‘mom could explain the content vocabulary I had learned from school in the science museum.’ I like it.]”

Event 1 shows that Jun and his mother established joint attention by using deictic expressions (words and pointing gestures) and that joint attention was required for translanguaging space in which text-echo and its creative translation were performed and the signage text, Jun’s mother’s translation, and her speech in lines 31-32 were juxtaposed. However, joint attention and text-echo were not always exclusively sequentially organized. Joint attention could be established while text-echo was performed.

Event 2

Event 2 occurred a few minutes after Event 1. Event 2 shows that Jun corrected the connection between an object and a signage text Jun’s mother was establishing, proposing a new connection by using pointing and deictic expressions. This connection Jun proposed was taken up by Jun’s mother, resulting in constructing joint attention and translating the text into Korean.

Similar to the latter part of Event 1 (Transcript 1-2), Event 2 shows Jun’s active involvement in establishing joint attention. In line 19, Jun involved his mother in his inquiry, drawing her attention to the object he was observing (an example of section 3) by asking a question. In her response to this request, his mother used a pointing gesture and a deictic word, “여기 [here],” and read the text in section 2 (see Figure 6), proposing the connection between the text and the object. Then, in line 21, Jun interrupted his mother’s text-echoing, saying that section 3 text was relevant to the object. In proposing a new connection, Jun used pointing and a deictic word, “이거 [this],” twice. Once the problem was fixed, his mother did text-echo (lines 22-25) again.

After line 25, there was silence for 5 s. During this time, based on the connection between what was projected on the screen and signage text, Jun seemed to suggest moving to section 4 in line 26, by locating the section 4 specimen under the microscope (Figure 7). However, his mother seemed not to recognize this suggestion and stayed on section 3 (line 27) where her pointing gesture indicated the image in section 3 (Figure 8).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 7.

Jun locates the specimen under the microscope.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 8.

Jun points at the section.

Next, Jun said something, pointing at the section 4 text. This would suggest that he wanted his mother to perform a text-echo, but she remained silent for 1.6 s. As his mother often did, Jun did a text-echo of the text in section 4, underlining the text with a pointing finger. The subsequent silence for 4.6 s suggested that Jun wanted his mother to take the floor and perform her telling. Based on what Jun just read, his mother performed a telling. It is important to note that Jun’s mother’s original speech in Korean (line 33) has no subject for the two verbs, but she was pointing at the second 4 texts at this time. That is, her speech was complemented by her pointing gesture that indicate what was relevant context that determines how the speech should be interpreted. In doing so, his mother was able to draw on her linguistic repertoire and explain the phenomenon to Jun in Korean. In line 33, Jun’s mother used indirect reported speech again with “없대,” indicating that what she said was a translation of the signage text. However, she did not translate the text word-for-word, changing “doesn’t organize itself into layers” to “링이 없대” [it is written that it has no rings]. This way of translating, following the text-echo, demonstrated her creative translanguaging practice.

Jun extended the conversation by posing a question (line 35). Here, Jun’s speech and embodied actions indicated different things. His words in the question were understood as “(it has no rings) like eggshell?” That is, Jun was asking a question by recycling what was previously said. However, as he produced the utterance, he turned to his mother and pointed at section 1 of the text. Recognizing these two separate topicalizations, his mother responded to both in line 36, with a short confirmation about his question (line 35) and an explanation of an alligator as an example of the section 1 animal by recycling the signage text (lines 36-37).

Jun’s mother’s speech in lines 36-37 was a form of indirect reported speech, indicating that she was translating. At this time, her translation did not follow any preceding text she could translate. Instead, the source text she translated was referenced through her pointing gesture rather than spoken words. Without text-echoing the source text, she indicated that she was translating by pointing at it. Thus, she used a pointing gesture to have Jun perceive her speech as a translation in translanguaging.

The findings highlight how Jun and his mother used various semiotic resources in organizing museum practices, building joint attention and telling (Christidou, 2013), in the process of constructing a translanguaging space. Among resources, pointing played a crucial role in building joint attention when it was coupled with other actions such as deictic expressions within a museum environment. By pointing, Jun and his mother engaged each other with signage texts and exhibits. Pointing also facilitated the connection between objects and signage texts by making the relationship visible. Using this simple act, Jun was able to correct which texts were to be juxtaposed and suggested further connections to be made. Jun’s mother also used pointing gesture to have Jun perceive her speech as a translation in translanguaging. These two events show that pointing involved both Jun and his mother in reading signage texts and allowed Jun’s mother to translate and translanguage.