LANGUAGE AND ACTIVITY

MINI-COURSE

Yrjö EngeströmUniversity of Helsinki

Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research

FOUR THEMES• INSTRUMENTAL AND SEMIOTIC

LAYERS OF MEDIATION IN ACTIVITY• INSTRUMENTALITIES• CONTRADICTIONS AND HISTORY

MAKING• RE-MEDIATION, DOUBLE

STIMULATION, AGENCY

BODY ANDPHYSICALINSTRUMENTS

LANGUAGE:TALK ANDTEXT

BODY ANDPHYSICALINSTRUMENTS

LANGUAGE:TALK ANDTEXT

PICTURES,VISUALIMAGES

GESTURES,FACIALEXPRESSIONS

RHYTHMS AND SOUNDS

Subject

Object

Outcomesense,meaning

Rules Community Division of labor

Instruments:tools and signs

Production

Exchange Distribution

Consumption

ACTIVITY IS A HARMONICA

01(08:22) Pekka Give it through the other side.02(10:01) Antti I have to turn the other way, I must turn.03(31:05) Antti How is the length?04(32:02) Pekka This is too long.05(33:05) Antti By how much?06(35:13) Pekka Half a centimeter.07(36:16) Antti No more than that?08(37:20) Pekka Not now, but then there is that, the hole is in its place.09(41:20) Antti The hole is in its place?10(42:09) Pekka Yes, but it is too long. It should be sawed off in this end.11(44:17) Antti Yes, I’ll take it.12(65:21) Pekka Nail side the other way...13(68:11) Antti What?14(69:14) Pekka The other way the nail side.15(102:05) Antti Wait, I’ll put this end first.16(103:23) Pekka Yes.17(105:24) Antti Well?18(106:13) Pekka Yes!19(109:02) Antti Did it go now?20(109:17) Pekka Yes, it did!21(110:06) Antti Now let’s hit nails.

22(136:07) Antti That was it.

TRANSCRIPTTHE LENGTH OF THE ENTIRE EPISODE IS 2 MINUTES AND 26 SECONDS

[IN THE FOLLOWING, PEKKA ASKS ANTTI TO PUSH A PLANK UNDERNEATH THE HOUSE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PILLAR BECAUSE IT IS ABOUT TO GO INTO THE WRONG SIDE. ANTTI STATES THAT HE MUST HIMSELF FIRST CHANGE THE SIDE IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO PUSH THE PLANK INTO THE CORRECT SIDE. THIS IS THE DISTURBANCE no. 1.]

01(08:22) Pekka Give it through the other side.02(10:01) Antti I have to turn the other way, I must turn.

[IN THE FOLLOWING THE TRANSCRIPT EXPLAINS ITSELF. THIS IS THE DISTURBANCE no. 2.]

03(31:05) Antti How is the length?04(32:02) Pekka This is too long.05(33:05) Antti By how much?06(35:13) Pekka Half a centimeter.07(36:16) Antti No more than that?08(37:20) Pekka Not now, but then there is that, the hole is in its place.09(41:20) Antti The hole is in its place?10(42:09) Pekka Yes, but it is too long. It should be sawed off in this end.11(44:17) Antti Yes, I’ll take it.

[IN THE FOLLOWING, PEKKA INDICATES THAT WHEN A PLANK IS PUSHED INTO ITS PLACE UNDERNEATH THE HOUSE WITH THE NAILS STICKING OUT ON THE DOWNSIDE, THE LONG NAILS SCRAPE THE DIRT AND MAY GET STUCK IN THE DIRT – THAT’S WHY THE PLANK SHOULD BE PUSHED INTO ITS PLACE THE NAILS STICKING OUT ON THE UPSIDE, AND BE TURNED AROUND FOR HAMMERING ONLY WHEN IT IS IN ITS PLACE. ANTTI ACTS ACCORDINGLY AND PUSHES THE PLANK INTO ITS PLACE TURNED UPSIDE DOWN COMPARED TO THE FIRST ATTEMPT. ANTTI’S ACTION IS THE ONLY - BUT SUFFICIENT – CONFIRMATION FOR PEKKA THAT ANTTI HAS INDEED HEARD AND UNDERSTOOD PEKKA’S UTTERANCE. THIS IS THE DISTURBANCE no. 3.]

12(65:21) Pekka Nail side the other way...13(68:11) Antti What?

14(69:14) Pekka The other way the nail side.

CONSTRUCTION ACTIONS TRANSCRIPTTHE LENGTH OF THE ENTIRE EPISODE IS 2 MINUTES AND 26 SECONDS

[IN THE FOLLOWING ANTTI NOTICES THAT PEKKA HAS PUT HIS END OF THE PLANK UP, CONNECTED TO THE END OF ANOTHER PLANK WHICH IS ALREADY IN ITS PLACE. BUT ANTTI CANNOT RAISE UP HIS END OF THE PLANK BECAUSE IN THE PILLAR TO WHICH THE PLANK MUST BE ATTACHED THERE IS A PROTRUSION WHICH PREVENTS THE RAISING OF THE PLANK (see the figure below). THEREFORE ANTTI ASKS PEKKA TO LET HIM RAISE FIRST HIS END OF THE PLANK. PEKKA DOES NOT IMMEDIATELY REALIZE THAT THIS MEANS THAT HE MUST LOWER HIS END OF THE PLANK (thus the two-second pause between turns 16 and 17). ANTTI’S TURN ‘Well?’ (turn 17) ALERTS PEKKA TO REALIZE THE SITUATION AND HE LOWERS HIS END OF THE PLANK IN A WAY THAT MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR ANTTI TO RAISE HIS END OF THE PLANK – AND THUS ALSO THE WHOLE PLANK - INTO ITS PLACE. THIS IS DISTURBANCE no. 4.]

15(102:05) Antti Wait, I’ll put this end first.16(103:23) Pekka Yes.17(105:24) Antti Well?18(106:13) Pekka Yes!19(109:02) Antti Did it go now?20(109:17) Pekka Yes, it did!21(110:06) Antti Now let’s hit nails.

22(136:07) Antti That was it.

Antti’s end of plank

Pekka’s end of plank

Another plank already inits place

Protrusion in pillar

Speaker A ObjectA (incl.possiblepreviousutterances)

Instruments:Words, gestures,etc.

OutcomeA:Voicedutterance

ObjectB:Previousutterance

Speaker B

Instruments:Words, gesturesetc.Contextualization:

Appropriatedutterance

OutcomeB:Voicedutterance

Community:Speaker’s social language

Rules:Speechgenres

Division of labor:Interlocutors

Division of labor:Interlocutors

Community:Speaker’s social language

Rules:Speechgenres

To understand an action, we need to look at it together with its consequences, namely the ways in which the recipients of the action appropriate and contextualize the action.

Action is thus seen as an issue of responsibility and accountability. Note that there may be many interlocutors/inter-actors rather than just one like in the figure above.

Sequences of inter-action are seen as spiral- or network-like formations rather than linear strings - they are textures or intersecting trails.

What are the different actions of contextualization --both external and internal? They include at least actions directed inward (one’s own memories, experiences, feelings), actions directed outward (objects and people in the environment), and actions directed toward assumed commond ground of shared (internalized) cultural resources such as concepts, myths, etc.

What are the layers of activity -- the harmonica model! They are modes or modalities, such as talk/text, body and physical instruments, rhythm and sound, gesture, picturing, etc.

CONSEQUENTIALITY OF TALK AND ACTION:TOWARD A NEW UNIT OF ANALYSIS OF INTERACTION

THE DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF

COLLABORATIVE CAREYrjö Engeström

University of California, San Diego, and University of HelsinkiRitva Engeström

University of HelsinkiHannele Kerosuo

University of Helsinki

Applied Linguistics, 24/3, 286-315 (2003)

QUESTIONS

• HOW TO OVERCOME THE GAP BETWEEN THE HISTORICAL AND THE SITUATED IN ANALYSES OF DISCOURSE?

• HOW TO OVERCOME THE GAP BETWEEN FUTURE-ORIENTED ENVISIONING AND CONSEQUENTIAL DECISION-MAKING IN PRACTICAL TRANSFORMATION OF WORK?

Figure 1. Conceptual model of the care agreement practice

DATA• VIDEOTAPE AND TRANSCRIPT OF THE

PREPARATORY MEETING BETWEEN PATIENT AND HIS/HER PRIMARY PHYSICIAN

• VIDEOTAPE AND TRANSCRIPT OF THE LABORATORY SESSION ATTENDED BY THE PATIENT, THE PHYSICIAN, OTHER HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS, AND THE RESEARCHER-INTERVENTIONISTS

FOUR TYPES OF DISCOURSE IN THE DATA

• (1) co-narrating • (2) making joint decisions • (3) modeling• (4) gaining a voice

TechnicalPreparation9

Co-Narra ting123

MakingJointDecisions19

Modeling66

Modeling4

Gaining aVoice52

Modeling208

PREPARATORY CONSULTATION LABORATORY SESSION

Figure 2. Succession and numbers of turns of discourse types in the two meetings

THREE TYPES OF HISTORY-MAKING

(Spinosa, Flores & Dreyfus, 1997)• ARTICULATION

basic pattern of the activity is not changed, but important practices or values that have become vague, confused or lost are recovered and a new coherence is thus achieved

• CROSS-APPROPRIATIONpractices, ideas or tools are taken over from other activities or social worlds;

this may or may not change the whole pattern of the activity

• RECONFIGURATIONa marginal aspect of the activity becomes dominant and the entire

pattern is radically transformed; reconfiguration requires constant awareness of anomalies; the notion of reconfiguration comes close to the concept of expansion elaborated in activity theory

Co-narrating XMaking joint decisions XModeling X XGaining a voice X X

Articulation Cross-appropriation Reconfiguration

199 Researcher 2: What are we going to do with this agreement, what will be done with it now?

200 Researcher 1: Isn’t it so that O [the GP] will follow the situation at this point…

201 Researcher 2: …Yes but this…

202 Researcher 1: …because there aren’t clearly identified partners yet, before these are cleared up, these

ongoing examinations and tests and their results.

203 GP: Yes, we still miss the signatures, so…

204 Researcher 2: Well.

205 Researcher 1: Or what do you have in mind?

206 Researcher 2: Well, I just asked, what do you think, now that such a document has been prepared, so…

207 Researcher 1: Or all this groundwork, yes.

208 Researcher 2: Groundwork, what will be done with it. And now that O [the GP] refers R [the patient] to

different places, would it be good if those different places to which she sends her for a

specific problem, if they got to know about this whole picture in which this specific is…?

209 GP: Well, do I understand correctly, that I’d attach to it [the referral] this whole bundle, if

someone there wants to quickly glance through it. How much would it then…? If I’m

completely honest, having worked as a replacement for a specialist at one time, I sense that

the less extra [paperwork] one got beyond one’s own specialty the happier most colleagues

were. So what is the standpoint of the seniors here…?

210 Researcher 1: This is an interesting question when there is so much material coming from the personal

physician.

211 GP: Does it make a difference for how the process gets started in that end [in specialized hospital

care]? Because if one learns this, […] so that one just learns to use this tool, then one just does

it. Surely at some point this will be moved from paper-and-pencil over to the other type…

212 Researcher 1: …Soon, over to Pegasus… [computerized medical records system currently being implemented

in the primary health care system of Helsinki]

213 GP: …yes, so surely it will be much easier in there …or somehow to pick it up from there. Or maybe

some aid might do it there, or something like that…

214 Nephrologist: But in my opinion, when someone has done this work, this will be useful for all.

215 Researcher 1: There is no reason not to send it all with a small statement, telling that ‘here is background

information which may be helpful, and I am ready to discuss if needed’, something like this.

216 Researcher 3: I think H [researcher 2] was thinking ‘why not attach this care agreement to the next referral’.

217 GP: Yes, but in my opinion it would also require these care calendars.

218 Researcher 3: Aha, those should be added to it, yes.

219 Researcher 1: Those calendars were clearly very important tools for you when you sorted through all of this.

220 GP: Yes, that’s how I started to make sense of the reality in which the lady had lived the years before

returning to Finland and after it.

221 Researcher 1: Yes.

222 GP: It was not easy in the first consultation. I kind of thought when I was writing down those

calendars that if I only had had this kind of a tool then. So that I would have been able to

arrange these issues at once according to some jointly agreed-upon model. I experienced this as

very good.

223 Researcher 1: Right, yes.

224 GP: I mean, the first contact is heavy because there are so many things, and they have to be sorted,

and that takes time. But it pays off in the longer run.

225 Researcher 1: Excellent, well, let’s quickly sum this up. Surely it is like you A [nefrologist] said, when such a

work has been done, there is no sense in keeping it to one’s self. […] And it will be nice to hear

what kind of feedback you’ll get on your referrals. […]

226 GP: I could include an attachment, or an attachment to a referral I already sent.

227 Nephrologist: May I say something?

228 Researcher 1: Yes.

229 Nephrologist: Now before this work is completed, it may be that somebody kind of, not gets aggravated but

wonders, if these care agreements begin to come in, before this practice has been officially fixed

and its implementation announced.

230 Researcher 1: Right, so in this case…

231 Nephrologist: …So this is at an early stage. So I think that if we now send it, surely the physician who receives

the referral is glad to get as much information as possible. But it may require a small explanation.

232 Researcher 1: Just so.

233 GP: Yes.

*The excerpt demonstrates how modeling began to approach and resemble making joint decisions. In other words, the participants were working on a future-oriented model (turn 231: “this is at an early stage”), yet they were also working out a here-and-now decision (turn 226: “I could include an attachment”).

*What was future-oriented and configurative about this decision was that the participants agreed that not only would the new documents (care agreement, care map, care calendar) be attached to the referrals of this patient – they would also be introduced by a short note that explains to the receiving specialist what these new documents are all about. Such an introductory note was to have a standard text (a general template), signed by the respective managing physicians of the primary care and the hospital. Yet, this general note was to be prepared quickly, so that this particular physician would use it in the particular referrals for this particular patient.

*It seems that to overcome the gap between action and imagination in history-making, it may be necessary to bring them closer to one another and occasionally merge articulative decision-making and configurative modeling, the particular and the general.

ANSWERS• ANALYZE DISCOURSE IN

INTERVENTIONS WHERE PEOPLE MAKE HISTORY IN SITU!

• BY FOCUSING ON OBJECTS THAT REQUIRE BOTH GENERAL LONG-TERM RECONFIGURATION OF THE ACTIVITY AND PARTICULAR HERE-AND-NOW CHANGES, BRING TOGETHER ACTIONS OF CONFIGURATIVE ENVISIONING AND ARTICULATIVE DECISION-MAKING

CONTRADICTIONS, DOUBLE STIMULATION

AND INSTRUMENTALITY

BACK TO THE CONSTRUCTION SITE...

Contradictions in the activity system of Antti, the carpenter

Subject:CARPENTER vs.

FATHER

Object:BIG CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT ALONGWITH DAY JOB

Outcomesense,meaning

Rules:STAY HOME

WITH FAMILY

Community Division of labor

Instruments:tools and signs

Source: Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. (available online at: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm)

Production

Exchange Distribution

Consumption

Contradictions in the activity system of Antti, the carpenter

Subject:CARPENTER vs.

FATHER

Object:BIG CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT ALONGWITH DAY JOB

Outcome: PROJECTTERMINATED

sense,meaning

Rules:STAY HOME

WITH FAMILY

Community Division of labor:ATTEMPT TO BRING IN

ASSISTANT PEKKA

Instruments:tools and signs

Source: Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. (available online at: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm)

Production

Exchange Distribution

Consumption

Subject

Rules Community Division of labor

Instruments

Subject

RulesCommunity

Instruments

Division of labor

Potentially shared object

Source: Engeström, Y. (2001) Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133-156.

Two Interacting activity systems

FROM CONTRADICTIONS TO EXPANSION BY MEANS OF DOUBLE

STIMULATION

THE LEWIN EXPERIMENT“In experiments involving meaningless situations, Lewin found that the subject searches for some point of support that is external to him and that he defines his own behavior through this external support. In one set of experiments, for example, the experimenter left the subject and did not return, but observed him from a separate room. Generally, the subject waited for 10-20 minutes. Then, not understanding what he should do, he remained in a state of oscillation, confusion and indecisiveness for some time. Nearly all the adults searched for some external point of support. For example, one subject defined his actions in terms of the striking of the clock. Looking at the clock, he thought: ‘When the hand moves to the vertical position, I will leave.’ The subject transformed the situation in this way, establishing that he would wait until 2:30 and then leave. When the time came, the action occurred automatically.” (Vygotsky, 1987a, p. 356)

CAUSALITY IN THE LEWIN EXPERIMENT

• 1. INTERPRETIVE: THE SUBJECT INTERPRETS THE LOGIC OF THE SITUATION AS THAT OF AN EXPERIMENT, WHICH REQUIRES FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS

• 2. CONTRADICTORY: AS TIME GOES BY AND NOTHING HAPPENS, A CONTRADICTION EMERGES BETWEEN OBEDIENT FOLLOWING OF INSTRUCTIONS AND THE WISH TO LEAVE, TO CONTINUE ONE’S OWN BUSINESS

• 3. AGENTIVE: BY USING THE HANDS OF THE WATCH, THE SUBJECT MAKES HERSELF ABLE TO DECIDE AND LEAVE

FIRST STIMULUS:AMBIGUOUS SITUATION; TO STAY OR

TO LEAVE

SECOND STIMULUS:THE HANDS OF THE WATCH

DOUBLE STIMULATION IN THE LEWIN EXPERIMENT

“The person, using the power of things or stimuli, controls his own behavior through them, grouping

them, putting them together, sorting them. In other words, the great uniqueness of the will consists of man having no power over his own

behavior other than the power that things have over his behavior. But man subjects to himself the power of things over behavior, makes them serve his own purposes and controls that power as he

wants. He changes the environment with the external activity and in this way affects his own

behavior, subjecting it to his own authority.” (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 212)

DOUBLE STIMULATION AS MECHANISM OF EXPANSION

DOUBLE STIMULATION• AGENTIC INTENTIONAL ACTION AND WILL EMERGE

IN A CONTRADICTORY SITUATION (FIRST STIMULUS)• INTENTIONAL ACTION HAS TWO PHASES:

PREPARATION (OR DESIGN) AND EXECUTION• PREPARATION IS DIFFICULT: A NEW MEDIATING

ARTIFACT (TOOL/SIGN) IS INVENTED OR ADOPTED, IT IS INVESTED WITH MEANING SO THAT IT ENABLES ONE TO CONTROL ONE’S BEHAVIOR FROM THE OUTSIDE (SECOND STIMULUS)

• EXECUTION IS EASY; IT LOOKS ALMOST LIKE A CONDITIONED REFLEX

“By using this approach, we do not limit ourselves to the usual method of offering the subject simple stimuli to which we expect a direct response. Rather, we simultaneously offer a second series of stimuli that have a special function. In this way, we are able to study the process of accomplishing a task by the aid of specific auxiliary means; thus we are also able to discover the inner structure and development of higher

psychological processes.The method of double stimulation elicits manifestations of the crucial processes in the behavior of people of all ages.

Tying a knot as a reminder, in both children and adults, is but one example of a pervasive regulatory principle of human

behavior, that of signification, wherein people create temporary links and give significance to previously neutral stimuli in the context of their problem-solving efforts. We

regard our method as important because it helps to objectify inner psychological processes…”

(Vygotsky, 1978, p. 74-75)

5/1/05 © 2004 Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research 30

QuickTime™ and aDV - PAL decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

CHANGE LABORATORY IN A MIDDLE SCHOOL, 1998

5/1/05 © 2004 Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research 31

QuickTime™ and aDV - PAL decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

CHANGE LABORATORY IN A BANK, 2003CHANGE LABORATORY IN A HOSPITAL,2001

CHANGE LABORATORY IN DIFFERENT WORK SITES SINCE 1995

CHANGE LABORATORY SESSION IN A HEALTH CARE SETTING

Models,visions

Ideas, solutions,tools

Mirror; everydaytroubles

MODEL, VISION IDEAS, TOOLS MIRROR

FUTURE

NOW PAST

Subject

CommunityRules Division of labor

Object> Outcome

Tools * Videotaped work situations* Customer feedback* Statistics * etc.

Workers

ScribeVIDEOS

ARCHIVES,LIBARY

PC

Practitioners

Researcher-interventionists

Video projector

Video camera

PROTOTYPICAL LAYOUT OFTHE CHANGE LABORATORY SPACE

CHARTING THE SITUATION:Something must be done;committment to change

ANALYZING THE SITUATION:How did we work in the past (history)?What are our present troubles and contradictions?

CREATING A NEW MODEL:How do we want to work in the year 2010?

CONCRETIZING AND TESTING THE NEW MODEL:What changes do we want to try next month?

IMPLEMENTING THE NEW MODEL:Putting into practice the first stepsPushing for the next steps

SPREADING AND CONSOLIDATING:Teaching others what we learnedCodifying the new rules, etc.

INTERVENTION IN THE JAKOMÄKI MIDDLE

SCHOOL

SECOND STIMULUS IN THE JAKOMÄKI CASE

• RESEARCHERS OFFERED THE TRIANGULAR MODEL OF ACTIVITY AS SECOND STIMULUS

• TEACHERS ADOPTED THE CONTRADICTORY NOTION OF ’APATHY’ AS THEIR TRUE SECOND STIMULUS

WHAT? IMAGES, PROTOTYPES, RECOGNITION DEVICES,

DECLARATION DEVICES, LISTS

WHO, WHAT, WHEN?STORIES, NARRATIVES

IN WHICH LOCATION?CLASSIFICATIONS, CATALOGUES, REPOSITORIES

HOW, IN WHICH ORDER?ALGORITHMS,

SCRIPTS, HEURISTIC RULES

WHY?SYSTEMS MODELS

WHERETO?

GERM CELLMODELS

EPISTEMIC LAYERS OF INSTRUMENTALITY