Social Dimensions and Processes in

Second Language Acquisition:

Multilingual Socialization in
Transnational Contexts
PATRICIA A. DUFF
University of British Columbia, Department of Language and Literacy Education, Education Centre at Ponderosa
Commons, 6445 University Blvd, Vancouver, BC Canada, V6T 1Z2 Email: patricia.duff@ubc.ca

Social aspects of second language acquisition (SLA) and the contexts in which people attempt to learn
and use languages and seek to become integrated within new and changing cultures have been exam-
ined for decades from various theoretical perspectives. In this article, I present some of the ways in which
‘social’ experience is being theorized in SLA and in broader fields that intersect with SLA, such as lin-
guistic anthropology. I then discuss how the Douglas Fir Group (DFG, 2016) originally portrayed the
many interlinking factors affecting SLA in our multilingual world on several analytic levels and suggest
ways of perhaps reconceptualizing the model while retaining its powerful heuristic value. Next, I describe
language socialization research as 1 productive social approach and provide examples of research in 2
transnational domains—study abroad and heritage language learning—that demonstrate a multiscalar
approach to examining social dimensions of language development and use. The article ends with a
discussion of transdisciplinarity in SLA research. I suggest possibilities for team-based research projects
that aim to understand cases from multiple, integrated perspectives on different scales of analysis, and
then provide a brief reflection on some of the troubling political ideologies that SLA researchers who
embrace multilingualism must now confront on a daily basis.
Keywords: multilingualism; second language acquisition; language socialization; multilingual socializa-
tion; language ideologies; identities; agency; heritage language; study abroad

SOCIAL ASPECTS OF SECOND LANGUAGE
acquisition (SLA) and the contexts in which peo-
ple attempt to learn and use languages and seek
to become integrated within new and changing
cultures have been examined for decades from
various theoretical perspectives (e.g., Atkinson,
2011; Batstone, 2010; Block, 2003; Duff, 2017).
To state the obvious, there can be no learning—
or human existence—in a contextual vacuum.
The social dynamics of learning have been fore-
grounded in SLA with the use of such phrases as
the social turn, sociocultural theory, socialization, (so-
cial) identity, social class, (social) power, social cogni-
tion, (social) interaction, social networks, (social) ecol-
The Modern Language Journal, 103 (Supplement 2019)
DOI: 10.1111/modl.12534
0026-7902/19/6–22 $1.50/0

C National Federation of Modern Language Teachers
Associations
ogy, and (social) context (among others), drawing
on numerous different, yet often intersecting, the-
oretical frameworks. Context, sometimes a proxy
term for social, environmental, or ecological aspects
of language experience, refers not only to imme-
diate contexts of language experience but also to
distributed transnational ties, networks, and imag-
inaries, as well as histories. Of course, not all as-
pects or levels of context are directly or deeply rel-
evant to all SLA processes or may be consciously
attended to by learners. Researchers must there-
fore determine how they will theorize and opera-
tionalize context in their studies (Duranti & Good-
win, 1992).
This article examines how ‘social’ experience is
currently theorized in SLA and in related fields. I
review how the Douglas Fir Group (DFG, 2016),
which I was part of, originally conceptualized
factors affecting SLA in our multilingual world
across different levels or scales and suggest ways
Patricia A. Duff
of reconceptualizing the model to better cap-
ture the dynamic inter-relationships within and
across macro–meso–micro levels. Next, I discuss
language socialization research as one current so-
cial approach informed by linguistic anthropol-
ogy, which takes into account these within- and
cross-level processes. I then outline the ways in
which research in two important transnational
domains—study abroad research and heritage
language learning research—has taken a multi-
scalar approach to examine social dimensions
of learning. The article ends with a discussion
of transdisciplinarity in SLA research, a concept
foregrounded in DFG (2016), and suggests possi-
bilities for team-based research projects that aim
to understand cases from multiple, integrated per-
spectives on different scales of analysis.
SOCIAL APPROACHES TO SLA
Many current approaches to SLA are funda-
mentally social. They are also cultural, cognitive,
and linguistic and are concerned with embodied,
sentient human beings engaged in language ac-
tivity in various material and symbolic ways. So-
ciocultural research in its many different forms
is a case in point with its focus on people’s so-
cial and cognitive processes within cultural activ-
ity settings (e.g., Lantolf, Poehner, & Swain, 2018;
Lantolf, Thorne, & Poehner, 2015; Storch, 2017;
Swain & Deters, 2007; Zuengler & Miller, 2006).
Ecological and sociocognitive views of learning
(e.g., Atkinson, 2011, 2014; Atkinson et al., 2018;
DFG, 2016; Kramsch, 2002; Steffenson & Kram-
sch, 2017; van Lier, 2004), likewise, conceptual-
ize the social as inseparable from the individ-
ual learner’s embodied cognitive and emotional
functioning. Thus, many theoretical approaches
without the word “social” in their nomenclature
are also considered social or sociocognitive by
their proponents; these include Complex Dy-
namic Systems Theory (De Bot, Lowie, & Ver-
spoor, 2007; Larsen–Freeman, 2019, this issue)
and, increasingly, work in psychology, such as mo-
tivation research, which now, in some studies, fo-
cuses on more holistic and situated considera-
tions of “persons-in-context” (time/space/place)
(Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009; Ushioda, 2009, 2017).
Other research on learners’ motivation not based
in psychology but reframed as the more dynamic
construct of investment has drawn heavily on soci-
ological theory and metaphors from economics
for some time (Darvin & Norton, 2015). Con-
versation analysis (CA), too, with its origins in
sociology and its commitments to understand-
ing the organization of social interaction among
7
interlocutors and its affordances for learning, at-
tends to social dimensions of language use in
micro-interactional ways (see Hall, 2019, this is-
sue). One CA-inspired (or associated) approach,
for example, examines how people orient to
particular social membership categories (Sacks,
1992; Schegloff, 2007) in their own and others’
speech (e.g., as a “Chinese language learner”
or “foreigner”). Invoking such categories or cat-
egorization devices may have consequences for
learners’ identities and opportunities for prac-
tice and thus further development (Surtees,
2018). Usage-based and emergentist approaches
to SLA, for their part, also assume that learn-
ers have extensive (social) exposure to lan-
guage demonstrating strong form–meaning map-
pings, provided initially in most cases through
oral interaction with a focus on shared mean-
ings (DFG, 2016; Ellis, 2019, this issue; Ellis,
O’Donnell, & Römer, 2015; Ortega, 2019, this is-
sue). Neurobiological SLA research (e.g., Schu-
mann, 1997; Schumann et al., 2004), too, as-
serts that learning is mediated by a variety of
emotional, attentional, and other systems in the
mind/brain, but arises from social experience
in concert with these mechanisms. Indeed, one
of the 10 themes discussed in DFG (2016) cap-
tures this very point: that “language learning
is situated and attentionally and socially gated”
(p. 27). Social–interactionist approaches that
were the hallmark of SLA, and especially task-
based SLA, for several decades are also ‘social’
insofar as the interactions are situated (in class-
rooms, in small group work, or in research labs
with interlocutors) and lead to various kinds of
input, interaction, output, and corrections that
are associated with second language (L2) devel-
opment (see examples in Batstone, 2010; Mackey
& Polio, 2009).
Larger-scale sociological and sociolinguistic
research that examines and critiques social
structure, hierarchy, ideologies about language,
issues of inclusion/exclusion, human agency, and
different forms of capital involved in second lan-
guage learning is increasingly finding its way into
SLA as well. Such concerns are especially acute
in contexts of globalization and transnational
migration (Block, 2014, 2015; Block & Corona,
2014; Blommaert, 2010; Duff, 2015; Hornberger
& McKay, 2010; Shin, 2014). Much of this work
builds on Bourdieu’s (1977, 1991) Practice The-
ory and related theoretical foundations. Research
looking at the development of voice in another
language, borrowing from Bakhtin (1981), is also
social in a sense because, it is argued, language is
inhabited by the voices of others (both through
8 The Modern Language Journal, 103, Supplement 2019
the history of the language’s development and
artifacts, and in our own lives) and is therefore by
its very nature heteroglossic, dialogic, and arising
from prior social experience (see Hall, Vitanova,
& Marchenkova, 2005). An important aspect of
learning and using language, then, is appropri-
ating or approximating those voices for one’s
own purposes (see LaScotte & Tarone, 2019, this
issue). Voice might seem to be a property of an in-
dividual, but it arises from histories of interactions
or encounters with others’ words through a vari-
ety of modalities. (Hearing or using the phrase
“fake news,” for example, and its collocates con-
jures up individuals (one prominent politician,
in particular), debates, and political rhetoric
associated with a particular time, place, social
context, agenda, tone, and political regime in the
United States and others who have appropriated
that term for their own strategic ends; in other
words, it “indexes” certain ideologies and stances
that are prominent in the current news media
and bears the traces of prior users of the term.)
Language socialization is yet another social ap-
proach (Duff & May, 2017; Duff & Talmy, 2011)
with origins in linguistic anthropology and related
fields that also engages with Bourdieu’s concepts
(especially habitus and field) in SLA.
This is by no means an exhaustive list of ap-
proaches to SLA that deem social contexts and
factors in learning to be integral to processes in-
volved in the construction and performance of
language. Unfortunately, scholars often concep-
tualize and research these factors (cognitive, so-
cial, emotional/affective, etc.) as independent,
separated by a “gap” or chasm or parallel non-
intersecting paths (e.g., cognitive versus social ap-
proaches in SLA; Hulstijn et al., 2014; Zuengler
& Miller, 2006). Yet calls for “bridges” across such
gaps too often go unheeded or uncrossed.
THEORIZING THE SOCIAL IN DFG (2016)
AND BEYOND
Social dimensions of SLA, not surprisingly, are
given considerable prominence in DFG (2016),
with over 140 occurrences of the word social or
its variants and derivatives. One reason for this
emphasis, apart from converging theoretical
perspectives depicted in that essay, is that DFG
conceptualizes SLA in global, real-world mul-
tilingual educational contexts and not just in
individual learners’ minds/brains. DFG is con-
cerned with what language learning entails, from
a number of disciplinary vantage points, and
also with what educators, teacher educators, and
policy makers should know and do in response
to the issues and opportunities confronting
society in the 21st century. These are decidedly
socioeducational concerns.
DFG (2016) emphasized ideological structures,
viewed as a macro set of social/societal factors
in that model (see Figure 1), identity (depicted
as a meso-level construct, together with power
and agency, as part of socioinstitutional roles and
relationships), and interaction or social action
(micro-level phenomenon). Naturally, all of these
social components or scalar levels interact or co-
produce one another; furthermore, none of the
factors (e.g., ideology, identity, interaction) are
contained within one level alone, which is why
some other theorists have used the biological
(botanical) metaphor of rhizomes (or “rhizomatic
approaches,” borrowing from Deleuze & Guattari,
1987) to describe similar processes—all parts are
present and interacting somewhat unpredictably
at every level of the system or organism. One
could use a genetic (DNA) analogy as well or
the kinds of models adopted by Dynamic Sys-
tems scholars (e.g., Larsen–Freeman, 2019, this
issue). The point here is that just as ideologies
circulate at a macro level (e.g., in national pol-
icy statements or public discourse that might priv-
ilege English-only institutions, or, alternatively,
particular forms of bilingualism), these ideolo-
gies are also instantiated, interpolated, taken up,
performed, or resisted at more meso and micro
levels as well, in decisions, for example, about
which language to use (or teach, learn) in a par-
ticular setting or at a particular moment or in
admonishments (through individual speech acts)
regarding the use of one language (or variety
or register) when another is expected. Change
over time, within an individual, within and across
languages, and within society, would not occur
without such cross-level dynamics. Official and en-
acted ideologies are not always the same, however,
and indeed may be quite contradictory. The no-
tion of indexicality suggests that particular linguis-
tic forms, actions, or displays (i.e., semiotic re-
sources) necessarily point to larger social contexts
and meanings (Cook, 2008; Silverstein, 2003), as
I illustrated with the expression fake news earlier.
These actions or dispositions, whether conscious
or un/sub-conscious, both reflect and project
or (re)produce ideologies surrounding L2-only
use, bi- or multilingualism, the relative social sta-
tus of particular languages, or the legitimacy of
codeswitching or vernacular language use versus
more formal standard registers.
Similarly, power, another social construct shown
in the DFG (2016) figure as a “meso-level” phe-
nomenon and a dimension of social identities,
Patricia A. Duff
FIGURE 1
The Multifaceted Nature of Language Learning and Teaching (DFG, 2016, p. 25) [Color figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
exists or is (re)produced at a macro level, as well
as in interactions at the micro level, and particu-
larly when participants do not enjoy equal status
or standing. Seen in this way, interrupting some-
one or correcting them publicly can be (micro-
interactional) acts demonstrating unequal power
relations and a sense of entitlement or authority
on the part of one of the participants in an in-
teraction vis-à-vis another. The same principle of
multiscalarity holds with identity. Both power and
identity are negotiated and enacted or performed
in social interactions at micro-interactional levels
as well as in larger circulating discourses and in-
stitutional structures. Agency, too, shown in the
diagram at the meso level under the heading of
“social identities,” may be displayed in individual
acts at a micro level through a particular prag-
matic speech act, for example, such as a complaint
or request, or a sentence-final particle or tone of
voice that mark (or index) a certain stance. But
agency is also commonly discussed, as a construct,
in relation to larger (dynamic) systems or macro-
level structural constraints that mediate individu-
9
als’ actions and choices (see Deters et al., 2015;
Larsen–Freeman, 2019, this issue). Thus, opting
to take (or not take) a particular language course,
to drop a course, switch instructors, resist speak-
ing a language, use an unexpected register or
form of speech or writing, or engage in particu-
lar kinds of playful, translingual language prac-
tices may be manifestations of socially mediated
agency that work across levels from macro to mi-
cro, and vice versa. Duff and Doherty (2015) illus-
trate some of these agentic processes and systems
in relation to the learning of L2 Mandarin and
English.
Figure 1 is a two-dimensional representation,
or heuristic, of the dynamic interplay among nu-
merous factors as individuals engage with others
in multilingual contexts and in the process learn
and use languages. Although the intent is to show
ecologies of learning and interactions within and
across levels (the “levels” themselves being highly
essentialized abstractions), the figure cannot
easily capture multiple timescales—the relation-
ship of the present to the past and future—or
10
FIGURE 2
A Multiscalar Portrayal of SLA [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
the manner in which these macro–meso–micro
dynamics and particulars may change and differ
concurrently or sequentially across contexts for
a given learner: for example, within the home,
at school, or in the wider community. To use a
different analogy, imagine that a Google Earth
search tool allows us to zoom in from a conti-
nental view to a municipal and then residential
street view to see a person’s house and, though
not possible yet fortunately, to enter that home
and observe interactions within it. This macro–
micro zoom function at present cannot to my
knowledge also show us change over time—
that is, the neighborhood landscape 100 years
ago, last year, and today—or the interactions
in the home over a certain period of time. Nor
can it trace the movements of people as they
participate in social activities outside the home
with others. To capture this information, addi-
tional vectors (three- or four-dimensional, the
latter of which [4D] can account for time) such
as those shown two-dimensionally in Figure 2
would be needed, and other ways of mapping
factors across multiple settings (a point to which I
will return). Figure 2 is overly simplistic for other
reasons as well because time and space appear
far too linear and seamless; for example, the past
is necessarily integral to any future aspiration
or action and even though past actions such
as educational experiences may be finished,
they may still be very much present in people’s
consciousness and decisions. This interdisci-
plinary notion of scalarity is not new, of course,
and it is at the heart of Nexus Analysis, among
other approaches to SLA and applied linguistics
more generally, that view an action or event
(i.e., a concrete observable form of practice)
The Modern Language Journal, 103, Supplement 2019
in relation to its broader historical/temporal
and sociocultural discourse context (Scollon &
Scollon, 2007).
The common binary of “macro” and “micro”
levels of analysis, and other aspects of scales, while
perhaps helpful conceptual tools in gaining an
understanding of situations of language learning
and use, have nonetheless been problematized
by other scholars (e.g., Canagarajah & De Costa,
2016; Wortham, 2012). Concerns include difficul-
ties in assigning phenomena to what appear to
be discrete, preconceived, stable levels (scales),
or conflating within the same “macro” level both
global and local ideologies, and seemingly assign-
ing such macro factors a determinist role in phe-
nomena occurring at different scales. Canagara-
jah (2018) and Li Wei (2018) elaborate on, and
illustrate, some of the problems with using tra-
ditional, static, structuralist categories related to
time and space or even languages themselves.
Social–contextual components of SLA are,
in addition to creating potential learning af-
fordances and constraints, implicated in the
provision (or denial) of access to opportunities to
learn and use languages. In Figure 1, access is pre-
sumably a meso-level concern insofar as it involves
sociocultural institutions and communities. Ac-
cess to ample opportunities to learn and use one’s
L2 in classrooms or in immersive experiences in
study abroad or other sojourns is usually taken
for granted and indeed represents particular lan-
guage teaching and learning ideologies. However,
Ranta and Meckelborg (2013) and others (e.g.,
Kinginger, 2008; Surtees, 2018; Zappa–Hollman
& Duff, 2015) found that L2 adult learners’ access
to meaningful oral exposure to, and interactions
with, L2 speakers outside of their classes (as well
Patricia A. Duff
FIGURE 3
Some Social Dimensions of Potential Relevance to SLA [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
as inside them in some cases), even in interna-
tional Anglophone universities, is often minimal,
despite circulating ideologies and expectations
(often found in program marketing and recruit-
ment materials) to the contrary. And even when
paired with an interlocutor, access to L2 speech
opportunities might be impeded when the in-
terlocutor switches to another shared language
(e.g., the learner’s first language [L1] instead
of L2) or takes a turn at talk without giving the
learner sufficient opportunity to speak, thereby
denying the learner opportunities to practice the
L2. At a higher level in Figure 1, if an Anglophone
institution chooses not to offer courses in a parti-
cular L2 (based on ideological, historical, po-
litical, economic, or other factors) or blocks
heritage learners of that language from en-
rolling in courses, this is a macro/meso-level
constraint on access to L2 exposure, interac-
tion, and instruction. Thus, attending to social
structures and processes to a greater extent in
SLA entails considering the nature and con-
sequences of different kinds of SLA access,
experience, participation, and outcomes for in-
dividuals and their communities along different
scales.
Social dimensions of SLA are studied in numer-
ous ways, often by examining different intersect-
ing characteristics of individuals, as shown in Fig-
ure 3, with sample lines drawn between some of
the variables to suggest the kinds of intersections
(also called intersectionalities) that might be im-
portant and could affect learning opportunities,
experiences, and outcomes (see Duff, 2017). (Not
all of these would be relevant in every learning
context; but they are associated with issues of ac-
11
cess, equity, positioning, identity, and so forth.)
These factors or variables may operate at all lev-
els, such as with ideologies and beliefs about gen-
der and SLA (see Carr & Pauwels, 2006; Kissau,
2006, 2007), or age and SLA (e.g., Marinova–
Todd, Marshall, & Snow, 2000). Thus, many fac-
tors and ways of theorizing them come into play
when considering social processes in SLA. In
what follows, I describe one ‘social’ approach to
SLA, language socialization, and how it attempts
to bridge the macro–meso–micro elements in
Figure 1.
LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATION AND SLA
Much of my own research and that of stu-
dents and colleagues I have worked with has ex-
amined processes of language socialization (LS)
in multilingual contexts (see Duff & May, 2017;
Duff & Talmy, 2011; Duranti, Ochs, & Schieffe-
lin, 2012; and Garrett & Baquedano–López, 2002,
for overviews of LS). Language socialization re-
search normally takes into account multiple lev-
els or scales, as shown in Figure 1, but typically
with a “slice” back and forth through the layers
(see Figure 4). This cross-scalar shifting enables
researchers to examine ideologies (Woolard &
Schieffelin, 1994), histories and identities (Ochs,
1993), and social interaction patterns (see exam-
ples in Burdelski & Howard, 2019; and Duranti
et al., 2012) that contribute to the learning and
performance of language and culture as indexed
through focal linguistic forms and practices; these
same forms and practices signal competent (or
less competent) participation and membership in
particular cultures and communities. LS research
12
FIGURE 4
Language Socialization Within the DFG Framework (2016) [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
also investigates those processes that contribute to
the alienation and social exclusion of newcomers,
a subject of increasing importance in critical LS
research within and across educational spheres,
particularly with racialized minority students in
post-immigration diaspora contexts (e.g., in Swe-
den, Spain, the United States; see, e.g., chapters
in Burdelski & Howard, 2019; and Duff & May,
2017).
An important concept in LS noted earlier is
indexicality (see Ochs & Schieffelin, 2017; Silver-
stein, 2003)—the notion that the linguistic forms,
routines, and cultural practices being learned
have salient social meaning and resonances: They
point to (i.e., index) and may reproduce or trans-
form structures and relationships beyond the im-
mediate interaction. Indexicality is somewhat sim-
ilar to Gumperz’s (1982) earlier concept of con-
textualization cues. Part of language teaching and
learning is designed to help learners understand
those cues or signs, in form, function, and use,
and how these cluster by genre, register, event,
or other aspects of context. Learners and other
users of language must also ascertain the deeper
sociocultural meanings these forms hold or ref-
erence. The wider goal, then, is to have people
The Modern Language Journal, 103, Supplement 2019
understand how language works as a semiotic sys-
tem within particular contexts of use (e.g., com-
municative events or types of interaction). This fo-
cus on indexicality means that the LS researcher
is likely to be very selective about identifying and
studying as units of analysis those linguistic or
paralinguistic signs that have clear social and cul-
tural significance, signaling such information as
group membership, hierarchy, morality, and epis-
temic/affective stance, among other possible foci.
Then the researcher examines how these forms
are used in everyday contexts and how newcomers
are socialized into such uses and understandings
as they take part in language-mediated activities.
LS is an interdisciplinary approach to the learn-
ing of language and culture (Watson–Gegeo,
2004). Source disciplines for LS research include
sociology (e.g., Bourdieu, 1977, 1991; Schegloff,
2007), cultural psychology (e.g., Rogoff, 1990;
Vygotsky, 1978), linguistic anthropology (e.g., Du-
ranti et al., 2012; Ochs & Schieffelin, 2017),
functional linguistics (e.g., Halliday, 1978), soci-
olinguistics, and various other fields (e.g., Lave
& Wenger, 1991, whose backgrounds were so-
cial anthropology and computer science, re-
spectively, but whose notion of Community of
Patricia A. Duff
Practice (CoP) is often used in LS research in the
field of education). Variants of interdisciplinary
social network (practice) theory are also being
incorporated into some LS research as well (e.g.,
Zappa–Hollman & Duff, 2015).
However, there are challenges in attempt-
ing to conduct interdisciplinary—let alone
transdisciplinary—LS research. Such attempts
entail bringing together multiple theoretical
frameworks and levels of analysis, often (when
relevant) including a deep historical understand-
ing of particular learning situations or learning
trajectories, as well. An additional challenge is
selecting suitable linguistic units of analysis (e.g.,
particular sentence-final grammatical particles,
pragmatic routines, lexis, syntax, intonation con-
tours) and being able to track their use and/or
development across speakers, events, communi-
ties, and time, to ascertain where, when, and how
the linguistic elements are taken up (if at all)
by the learners. In doing so, the researchers are
also interested in how identities and ideologies
are taken up, expanded, and enacted. More
often than not in existing research, the linguistic
analysis is used to describe observed norms and
apparent ideologies surrounding language use
and community membership, participation, and
teacher/learner identities, with less actual docu-
mentation of linguistic development or increasing
participation in cultural activities over time (Duff &
Talmy, 2011). This is because it is so complicated
to examine and document elements within and
across multiple levels/scales and developmental
trajectories simultaneously.
Ideally, LS research, and other approaches to
SLA and applied linguistics, should also offer
theoretical contributions and not just descrip-
tions of linguistic/cultural ethos, or habitus,
or the analysis of evolving language practices.
These many dimensions of LS—multilevel, scalar
analysis; theoretical import; linguistic analysis (of
elements/practices drawing on one or more
individuals’ multilingual repertoires); cultural
knowledge; across instances of relevant social
experience; and with a developmental, temporal
orientation (see Figure 5)—mean that LS is a po-
tentially ideal site for transdisciplinary team-based
studies—or could contribute an LS perspective
to other transdisciplinary work. Figure 5, like the
other figures in this article, is limited, however, be-
cause it cannot capture the many overlapping lan-
guages, activities, and forms of knowledge (some
of them in competition with one another, and oth-
ers co-existing or co-mingling easily) with which
learners may be engaged at any given time (not to
mention, over time). Most of the work to date that
13
has successfully addressed these elements com-
prehensively has been in dissertations or book-
length treatments of the subject matter where the
researcher has devoted years to the study and re-
porting of the work. How one might usefully bring
divergent and detailed disciplinary perspectives
to bear in the analysis of a small number of cases,
for example, in such a way that there is an accept-
able degree of analytic and theoretical integration
remains to be seen. Yet, it would be very informa-
tive to capture how different researchers would
view the same case(s) and linguistic profiles and
interactions, from their respective disciplinary
points of reference, and what recommendations
each would make for future educational inter-
vention or accommodation, possibly. This is my
challenge to the field for future collaborative
research.
LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATION EMBRACING A
MULTILEVEL, MULTILINGUAL, SCALAR
APPROACH: TWO EXAMPLES
In what follows, I discuss two concrete domains
(among the many others that exist) in which LS
research has taken place in recent years: (a) study
abroad research and (b) heritage language learn-
ing research. I also indicate how in each domain
the research has addressed questions attempting
to span the different levels of analysis suggested
earlier.
Study Abroad
Study abroad (SA) research traditionally
tended to be quantitative, looking at differences
between foreign language learners’ pre- and post-
sojourn language scores on various measures
of proficiency. In recent years, there has been
more combination of quantitative and qualitative
approaches (or qualitative-only research) in SA,
often involving several focal cases in order to
better understand students’ backgrounds, goals,
types of motivation, and experiences (socializa-
tion) abroad, in addition to any gains in language
proficiency they might demonstrate, such as L2
fluency or pragmatics (see case studies of SA in
Duff, 2018; Kinginger, 2008, 2009, 2017). In ad-
dition to these aspects of experience, the ‘social’
and other contextual dimensions of study abroad
have been examined at the macro–meso–micro
levels by means of language socialization research
to answer the following types of questions:
(a) Which kinds of students avail themselves
of, or are eligible for, SA sojourns? What
14
FIGURE 5
Language Socialization Across Time, Space, and Linguistic/Cultural/Social Systems [Color figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
language requirements or policies exist
that might contribute to or preclude cer-
tain students’ participation in SA? To what
extent is SA program participation a func-
tion of students’ social backgrounds (and
possession/lack of various forms of cap-
ital), gender, race (and various intersec-
tionalities), and parental education lev-
els, and learners’ prior socialization into
the value of multilingualism and career
options? (See, for example, Kinginger’s,
2004, case study of “Alice,” an atypical
American L2 learner of French, and other
learners of French featured in Kingin-
ger, 2008.) How are students and their
ethnolinguistic backgrounds positioned
or viewed by their host universities, lo-
cal populations, and host families—e.g.,
based on nationality, race, gender, sexu-
ality, age, proficiency level, and so forth,
and what impact do these factors have
on their linguistic experiences and sense
of agency as L2 learners/users? How are
these positionings related to students’
identities and investments in L2 learning
or multilingualism and their future tra-
jectories (Darvin & Norton, 2015)? What
The Modern Language Journal, 103, Supplement 2019
social networks and practices are learn-
ers embedded in while abroad and which
languages (or language varieties) medi-
ate their relationships and interactions
(Zappa–Hollman & Duff, 2015)? How do
these networks and practices support their
language development and other aspects
of social participation?
(b) What ideologies are associated with SA
experiences involving particular pair-
ings of sending/receiving countries and
the perceived (relative) status of the
languages being learned (e.g., English
L1 and Arabic, Russian, or Japanese
L2, or vice versa)? Ideologies might in-
clude: the claimed internationalization
of campuses and the fostering of ‘global
citizenship’ through the provision of
overseas sojourns; the romanticization
or exoticism of dwelling on a short-term
basis in other cultures as ‘consumers’ of
those cultures; neoliberal or instrumental
discourses related to learning high-impact
languages or becoming multilingual in
preparation for the 21st century economy
or other perceived benefits (e.g., per-
ceptions of cosmopolitanism); discourses
Patricia A. Duff
encountered when coming from coun-
tries whose political regimes or policies
(e.g., those of the United States) may be
popular/unpopular in host countries, as
in Kinginger’s (2008) study in France;
and circulating beliefs or assumptions
that students will become fluent in an-
other language and assimilated in the
local culture within a few months (see
further discussion of these considerations
in Kubota, 2016, and Surtees, 2018).
(c) At a more micro–interactional level, what
actual opportunities do SA participants
have to use and improve their L2 while
abroad? What kinds of language social-
ization do they experience within for-
mal education contexts such as classroom
learning-focused activities, and in infor-
mal venues such as during dinner con-
versations with host families, in service
encounters in commercial spaces, or in
casual interactions with friends or ac-
quaintances in dormitories or other sites
(Cook, 2008; Diao, 2016; Kinginger, 2017;
Surtees, 2018)? Who do they interact with,
and how often, for how much time, and
to what linguistic/cultural effect? What
kinds of language input and feedback
are provided, if any, by these interlocu-
tors (Séror, 2009; Storch, 2017; Surtees,
2018) as part of their language socializa-
tion and how do these interventions af-
fect their subsequent performance or at-
titudes? How is their attention drawn to
salient linguistic features? Do they inter-
nalize and reproduce these features sub-
sequently of their own accord?
(d) How do these factors (points a–c) map
onto students’ SLA developmental trajec-
tories? What linguistic elements are most
likely to develop under these conditions?
And what is the significance of those
linguistic items or proficiency domains
within those cultural contexts and to the
individuals involved?
In sum, questions such as these explore the
SA learner’s experiences and development within
and across various levels of social context and ex-
perience. Indeed, without understanding these
factors, it might be impossible to interpret the
linguistic and other processes and outcomes of
their sojourns or even their decisions to persist
with learning the language afterward, or not (see
Kinginger, 2008, for examples).
15
Heritage Language Learning
Heritage language (HL) learning is another
context in which a growing amount of language
socialization research is taking place (see, e.g.,
Burdelski & Howard, 2019; He, 2014, 2015, 2017;
Klein, 2013; Son, 2017). This work increasingly
aims to bring together analyses at various levels
of granularity or scale, over time, and across so-
cial contexts (home, school, community) and lan-
guages. Again, in addition to tracking learners’
linguistic/multilingual trajectories (both retro-
spectively and prospectively), or describing their
engagements with the language at home or in
school settings, HL research asks a number of
questions of a sociocontextual and historical na-
ture that map onto students’ SLA (or multilin-
gual) experiences:
(a) What is the status and history of the
heritage language, culture, and popula-
tion in the diaspora setting in relation to
the dominant language and culture? How
does that history affect HL learners’ and
others’ dispositions toward the heritage
language? (See, for example, Mizuta’s
[2017] dissertation on Chinese as a HL
in the Canadian diaspora from a histor-
ical as well as contemporary perspective
along three timescales; or Son’s [2017]
dissertation on postcolonial “Zainichi” Ko-
rean HL learners in Japan—that is, youth
of Korean heritage whose families have
resided, often for generations, in Japan
without Japanese citizenship status.) Is the
international and local status of the HL
(or a related variety) that is being taught
changing and, if so, in what ways? For ex-
ample, how is the status of Mandarin and
Cantonese changing within Chinese dias-
pora communities and schools in North
America, Australia, and the UK (Duff &
Doherty, 2019; Mizuta, 2017)? Is the HL
being taught in formal contexts the same
variety used and valued in the HL home or
wider (diaspora) community? Who is eli-
gible to, or indeed chooses to, study the
language in formal instructional contexts
in either weekend K–12 or weekday K–16
programs, and why? Must learners in the
programs personally lay claim to the her-
itage of the HL or, rather, can students hail
from other ethnolinguistic backgrounds
and participate regardless? That is, can
non-HL-background students study in HL
classes, and vice versa? How are such
16
FIGURE 6
Intersecting Language Ideologies, Identities, and Practices Among Zainichi Koreans (adapted with
permission from Son, 2017, p. 262) [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
policies and decisions determined? How
do language ideologies locally (within ed-
ucational institutions, homes, and com-
munities) and globally position those lan-
guages and their speakers, and with what
consequences for learners?
(b) How, and why, do parents, teachers, text-
books, and peers socialize youth through
routine practices (e.g., songs, anthems,
pledges, other texts) and into the HL
and into particular ethnolinguistic iden-
tities and ideologies associated with the
language and culture? How, and why, do
students respond to (take up, resist, alter,
transform) those expectations and prac-
tices?
(c) How, and with whom, do students use
the HL (and which varieties)? Does their
use conform to the expectations of others
(parents, teachers, mentors, peers)? What
kinds of instruction or feedback—both
explicit and implicit—are provided to
convey norms to the students (e.g., about
language purity, expected registers or gen-
res, valued vernaculars)?
(d) How does HL learners’ linguistic develop-
ment unfold over time? To what extent
are their developmental pathways similar
to or different from those of students not
coming from the same HL backgrounds?
What other languages in their repertoires
are they simultaneously availing them-
The Modern Language Journal, 103, Supplement 2019
selves of by means of translingual or other
practices (e.g., Li Wei, 2018)?
The complexity of such multiscalar, multilin-
gual questions and analyses can be seen in
Son (2017). Her study explores factors affecting
Zainichi ethnic Korean residents in Japan and the
languages they learn and use across the different
social spaces of their everyday lives. To fully ap-
preciate learners’ dispositions toward and uptake
and use of the various languages (and varieties)
in their midst and their often conflicted identities
and translingual/multilingual practices, one must
also understand the status and history of the long-
established, but socially and politically marginal-
ized, Korean diaspora community in Japan. Also
relevant are the deep-seated desires of Zainichi
Koreans regarding their political futures and na-
tionalities, and changing sensibilities in the 21st
century regarding relations between Japan and
North Korea that have begun to threaten the very
existence or sustainability of these HL schools
in Japan and their highly politicized Korean-
medium curriculum and traditional language
variety.
This history provides the dramatic backdrop for
Son’s analysis of contemporary multilingual so-
cialization in that context for these Zainichi Ko-
rean youth and families. Of particular interest in
her analysis are the students who are attending
North Korean-aligned Chongryun (K–12) schools
in Japan in which the standard Northern Korean
Patricia A. Duff
variety is the language of instruction. Figure 6 con-
tains my highly simplified version of Son’s more
detailed, nuanced account. In fact, each circle in
the figure could contain its own distinct version
of Figure 1, revealing the different language ide-
ologies, policies, identities, and practices incul-
cated at school and in students’ homes and peer
groups. Juxtaposed among students’ repertoires is
the very formal North Korean variety (denoted by
NK in the figure) into which they are socialized
at school and the local vernacular “Zainichi” Ko-
rean (ZK) language, which incorporates elements
of several different regional dialects of Korean
(South Korean, North Korean) and Japanese, and
is favored at home and in their peer groups (of-
ten in combination with Japanese) as a marker of
in-group membership status. The standard South
Korean (SK) variety is now also being used by
some students due to their exposure to popular
South Korean culture (e.g., K-pop TV dramas,
music) and the so-called Korean Wave, but its use
by students was interpreted by youth in her study
as “showing off.” At the same time, because of that
Korean Wave and forces of globalization, Zainichi
Korean youth were being positioned differently
than before in Japan. Japanese (J), the language
of the wider community in Japan and sometimes
their own home language, had its own status: It
was not at all favored within these Korean Chon-
gryun HL schools, yet was used by students and
their families in their daily lives outside of school.
English (E in the figure), a school subject and a
language of perceived future global opportunities
(via university entrance, work, or travel) as well as
pop culture, also had some cachet; but for these
students the main interplay was among the three
or more varieties of Korean and then Japanese.
Each language code, and indeed each utterance
produced by teachers, parents, and students as
well as their peers, and the contents of their text-
books and corrections by teachers, indexed dif-
ferent ideologies, identities, and histories/futures
in relation to Japan, the Korean peninsula, the
world beyond, and their alignment with different
social groups. Student-created posters on class-
room walls, with the words (in Korean): ‘Let’s Cor-
rect Awkward [i.e., incorrect] Language’ (Son,
2017, p. 126), also indexed language ideologies
of correct, pure Korean language use. The inter-
secting circles in Figure 6, as well as the areas
in which they do not overlap, represent tensions
between what constitutes being a good, patriotic
Zainichi Korean and student (especially within a
Chongryun school) and the distinct forms of habi-
tus instilled in the three social spheres (or fields,
in Bourdieu’s, 1977, 1991, terms). Learning for-
17
mal registers of Korean at school, including for-
mal greetings and honorifics, was thus laden with
historical, moral, sociopolitical, situational mean-
ings, and notions of language purism, and yet
was often viewed with considerable ambivalence
by students, given their own positionalities, histo-
ries, sociolinguistic preferences, and aspirations.
SLA researchers could certainly study students’
development and use of different varieties of Ko-
rean in terms of honorifics, formulaic speech, pro-
nouns, lexis, pronunciation, grammar, and so on,
but the full significance of their HL learning, or
their switching among variants of the same lan-
guage (or Japanese), would be limited without
also considering the larger sociological, sociolin-
guistic, political, and attitudinal context.
As in the study abroad research discussed ear-
lier, there is much room in HL research of this
sort to work back and forth across levels/scales,
communities, and transnational and temporal
spaces to understand both linguistic and non-
linguistic processes that influence SLA and mul-
tilingualism. In a very different context, Fried-
man’s (2010a, 2010b) studies of conservative L1
mainstream Ukrainian teachers’ corrections of
students who used Russian forms in their classes
in post-Soviet Ukraine showed how macro and
micro levels can be investigated with an explicit
language socialization focus (i.e., the provision of
corrective feedback). The teachers’ intention in
Friedman’s research was to preserve (or restore)
the purity of Ukrainian language by purging non-
Ukrainian (specifically Russian) elements. Some
of the corrected students were L1/HL speakers of
Russian, however, so such corrections had politi-
cal, social, and linguistic meanings. The challenge
for applied linguists doing research of this sort is
to simultaneously and rigorously attend to all (or
enough) relevant levels and scales of analysis and
also provide sufficient evidence of development
or to give equal weight to social–contextual and
linguistic aspects of SLA as they unfold over time.
TOWARD A TRANSDISCIPLINARY SLA?
Not surprisingly, given my interest in language
socialization, SLA, and case study research in
multilingual, transnational contexts (e.g., Duff,
2014, 2015), I propose more longitudinal, case-
based research drawing on different source
(sub-)disciplines that can be triangulated in
integrated and innovative ways. Such cases would
be helpful for theoretical as well as practical
purposes—for example, in teacher education
or graduate programs as case-based learning or
pedagogy. The LS work described in the previous
18
section is already quite interdisciplinary in that it is
informed by several source disciplines (e.g., his-
tory, sociology, political science, cultural psychol-
ogy, anthropology, linguistics, education). A mul-
tidisciplinary approach would be case- or problem-
based and would bring various scholars’ expertise
to bear on, say, an understanding of a child’s or
adult’s L2 development (or incipient bilingual-
ism) or a multilingual family and its members’
linguistic repertoires and changes over time.
In other fields, particularly in clinical environ-
ments, a multidisciplinary team-based approach is
standard. For example, in cancer research and
clinical practice, the patient with a particular dis-
ease is the case and teams of members from dif-
ferent areas of specialization—general practition-
ers, surgeons, pathologists, medical and radiation
oncologists, hematologists, geneticists, genomic
researchers, physical therapists, nutritionists, so-
cial workers, counselors, and so forth—offer an-
alytical, diagnostic, and therapeutic perspectives
on the patient’s case, but without necessarily
having deep, current expertise in each other’s
areas of specialization (which are constantly evolv-
ing, as are their own). Yet they know that a tu-
mor or other unusual cell growth must be un-
derstood within the context of the whole person
(taking into account their age/history, family his-
tory, biochemistry, lifestyle, environment, comor-
bidities, etc.) from the molecular, genetic, and
biochemical levels on up. They also know that it
is the unique interactions and mutations across
the components and scales in the human ecosys-
tem that influence normal versus abnormal cell
growth, treatment, eradication, recurrence, and
resistance, albeit in remarkably unpredictable
ways. In SLA, in contrast, multidisciplinary re-
search seems to be quite rare in understanding in-
dividual learners or families, unless perhaps there
are special clinical concerns or needs; such cases
might require multidisciplinary teams comprising
social workers, speech therapists or psychologists,
diagnosticians, testers, educators, and tutors.
Transdisciplinarity is even rarer in SLA research,
despite the liberal use of the phrase now (e.g., De
Costa & Norton, 2017; DFG, 2016). In other fields,
transdisciplinarity is often invoked in connection
with the need to solve complex real-world issues
such as climate change (or, more broadly, global
change or sustainability science) or epidemics. To
solve such global problems, experts from such di-
verse fields as economics, meteorology, oceanog-
raphy, and human and physical geography must
work together, internationally, and in partnership
with various non-science-sector agencies, stake-
holders, practitioners, and publics. The goal is the
The Modern Language Journal, 103, Supplement 2019
co-production of holistic, integrated, team-based
understandings and policy recommendations for
risk mitigation and sustainability strategies that
may be transformative (e.g., Klenk & Meehan,
2015; Mauser et al., 2013).
What would constitute truly transdisciplinary
research and practice in SLA? Perhaps because
the stakes in SLA/multilingualism (or language
loss/obsolescence) may seem less critical to the
public than diseases or climate crises—although
they may in fact be very consequential for in-
dividual learners/users of language, and their
families, as well as society—there has been little
research that examines individuals from the
variety of perspectives that could be applied to
SLA cases: sociological, geographical (e.g., migra-
tion studies), psychological/cognitive, linguistic
(across different sub specializations), and anthro-
pological, among others, and at different levels
of granularity within their respective domains.
Importantly, there would need to be a way of
pulling together the different analyses as well,
into a coherent account. The intention would not
be to pathologize language learners or groups
or SLA itself, as might be done in research on
disease or environmental problems. However, the
research would still need to be issue-driven, to
obtain a robust understanding of the language-
in-person-in-context (= temporal, spatial, geopo-
litical, educational, legal/migration status, social,
affective), and thus generating an understanding
of the developmental SLA processes within the
context of their lives. Genuine cross-fertilization
and collaboration across our respective areas
of study in SLA, including among the group
of authors in this special issue, and our com-
mentators, is still nascent. In this respect, DFG
(2016) and this special issue are innovative at-
tempts to create discursive spaces to exchange
perspectives and find common ground and
possibilities for future projects and theory build-
ing. Unfortunately, scholars’ lack of expertise
in disciplinary areas outside of their own or
lack of desire to transcend epistemological
boundaries to understand and solve real-world
problems makes transdisciplinarity somewhat
elusive as a goal of collaborative research in our
field.
CONCLUSION
As this special issue of the Modern Language
Journal demonstrates, many of us are commit-
ted to fostering creative explorations and dis-
cussions of new, synergistic ways of doing and
viewing ‘SLA’ in the future in a manner that
Patricia A. Duff
builds on insights from DFG (2016) and no-
tions of transdisciplinarity. Indeed, we must con-
sider such possibilities in light of the worrisome
resurgence of rightwing, authoritarian, nation-
alist political regimes and discourse in many
parts of the world, the stigmatizing of multilin-
gual, minoritized, racialized populations (espe-
cially refugees, asylum seekers, and immigrants),
and the vilification of those who may speak the
dominant language with an ‘accent’ or are in
other ways deemed to be deficient or Other by
unwelcoming members of society. Sadly, with in-
creasing transnationalism and transmigration—
processes that should be highly conducive to SLA
and multilingualism—have come many deeply
troubling trends: the forced expulsion, rejection,
incarceration, or genocide of certain minority
populations and their languages, xenophobia, lin-
guicism, and neocolonialism, and other forms of
prejudice and oppression. Such trends run com-
pletely counter to the loftier goals of SLA, mul-
tilingualism, and respect for linguistic diversity
and human dignity, and require ongoing vigi-
lance and advocacy by all of us.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I wish to express my deep gratitude to Heidi Byrnes
for her crucial roles, first, in conceiving of this special is-
sue post-Douglas Fir Group (2016), and second, in deftly
steering this volume—including the completion of my
own chapter—to publication within our very tight time-
frame. Due to circumstances beyond my control, I was
unable to produce this article in time for our invited
commentators to begin reviewing the set. For that rea-
son, most did not have access to it when preparing their
responses.
REFERENCES
Atkinson, D. (Ed.). (2011). Alternative approaches to second
language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
Atkinson, D. (2014). Language learning in mindbody-
world: A sociocognitive approach to second lan-
guage acquisition. Language Teaching, 47, 467–483.
Atkinson, D., Churchill, E., Nishino, T., & Okada, H.
(2018). Language learning great and small: En-
vironmental support structures and learning op-
portunities in a sociocognitive approach to second
language acquisition/teaching. Modern Language
Journal, 102, 471–493.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays
by M. M. Bakhtin. M. Holquist (Ed.). (C. Emerson
& M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of
Texas Press. (Original work published in 1934.)
19
Batstone, R. (Ed.). (2010). Sociocognitive perspectives on
language use and language learning (pp. 3–23). Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acqui-
sition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Block, D. (2014). Social class in applied linguistics. Lon-
don: Routledge.
Block, D. (2015). Social class in applied linguistics. An-
nual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 1–19.
Block, D., & Corona, V. (2014). Exploring class-based
intersectionality. Language, Culture and Curriculum,
27, 27–42.
Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. [Trans.
R. Nice.] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. [Trans.
G. Raymond & M. Adamson]. Cambridge, UK:
Polity Press.
Burdelski, M., & Howard, K. M. (Eds.). (2019). Lan-
guage socialization in classrooms: Culture, interaction
and language development. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Canagarajah, S. (2018). Translingual practice as spa-
tial repertoires: Expanding the paradigm beyond
structuralist orientations. Applied Linguistics, 39,
31–54.
Canagarajah, S., & De Costa, P. (2016). Introduction:
Scales analysis, and its uses and prospects in ed-
ucational linguistics. Linguistics and Education, 34,
1–10.
Carr, J., & Pauwels, A. (2006). Boys and foreign language
learning: Real boys don’t do languages. New York: Pal-
grave Macmillan.
Cook, H. M. (2008). Socializing identities through speech
style: Learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Bris-
tol, UK : Multilingual Matters.
Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2015). Identity and a model of
investment in applied linguistics. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 35, 36–56.
De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A Dynamic
Systems Theory approach to second language ac-
quisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10,
7–21.
De Costa, P. I., & Norton, B. (Eds.). (2017). Transdis-
ciplinarity and language teacher identity. Modern
Language Journal, 101 (Supplement 2017), 1–105.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Deters, P., Gao, X., Miller, E. R., & Vitanova, G. (Eds.).
(2015). Interdisciplinary approaches to theorizing and
analyzing agency and second language learning. Bris-
tol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Diao, W. (2016). Peer socialization into gendered L2
Mandarin practices in a study abroad context: Talk
in the dorm. Applied Linguistics, 37, 599–620.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (Eds.). (2009). Motivation,
language identity and the L2 self. Bristol, UK: Mul-
tilingual Matters.
Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary frame-
work for SLA in a multilingual world. Modern Lan-
guage Journal, 100 (Supplement 2016), 19–47.
20
Duff, P. (2014). Case study research on language learn-
ing and use. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
34, 233–255.
Duff, P. (2015). Transnationalism, multilingualism, and
identity. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 35,
57–80.
Duff, P. (2017). Social dimensions and differences in
instructed SLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.).
The Routledge handbook of instructed second lan-
guage acquisition (pp. 379–395). New York: Rout-
ledge/Taylor & Francis.
Duff, P. (2018). Case study research in applied linguis-
tics. In E. Litosseliti (Ed.), Research methods in lin-
guistics (2nd. ed., pp. 305–330). London: Blooms-
bury.
Duff, P., & Doherty, L. (2015). Examining agency in (sec-
ond) language socialization research. In P. Deters,
X. Gao, E. Miller, & G. Vitanova (Eds.), Interdisci-
plinary approaches to theorizing and analyzing agency
and second language learning (pp. 54–72). Bristol,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Duff, P., & Doherty, L. (2019). Learning “Chinese” as
heritage language: Challenges, issues, and ways
forward. In C.–R. Huang, Z. Jing–Schmidt, & B.
Meisterernst (Eds.), Routledge handbook of Chinese
applied linguistics. New York: Routledge/Taylor &
Francis.
Duff, P., & May, S. (Eds.). (2017). Language socialization.
Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd. ed.).
Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Duff, P., & Talmy, S. (2011). Language socialization ap-
proaches to second language acquisition: Social,
cultural, and linguistic development in additional
languages. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative ap-
proaches to SLA (pp. 95–116). London: Routledge.
Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (1992). Rethinking context:
Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Duranti, A., Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (Eds.). (2012).
The handbook of language socialization. Malden, MA:
Wiley–Blackwell.
Ellis, N. C. (2019). Essentials of a theory of language cog-
nition. Modern Language Journal, 103 (Supplement
2019), 39–60.
Ellis, N. C., O’Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U. (2015).
Usage-based learning. In B. MacWhinney & W.
O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence
(pp. 163–180). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Friedman, D. (2010a). Becoming national: Classroom
language socialization and political identities in
the age of globalization. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 30, 193–210.
Friedman, D. (2010b). Speaking correctly: Error cor-
rection as a language socialization practice in a
Ukrainian classroom. Applied Linguistics, 31, 346–
367.
Garrett, P. B., & Baquedano–López, P. (2002). Language
socialization: Reproduction and continuity, trans-
formation and change. Annual Review of Anthropol-
ogy, 31, 339–361.
The Modern Language Journal, 103, Supplement 2019
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hall, J. K. (2019). The contributions of conversa-
tion analysis and interactional linguistics to a
usage-based understanding of language: Expand-
ing the transdisciplinary framework. Modern Lan-
guage Journal, 103 (Supplement 2019), 80–94.
Hall, J. K., G. Vitanova, G., & Marchenkova, L. (Eds.).
(2005). Dialogue with Bakhtin on second and foreign
language learning: New perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The
social interpretation of language and meaning. Lon-
don: Edward Arnold.
He, A. W. (2014). Heritage language socialization. In A.
Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The
handbook of language socialization (pp. 587–609).
Malden, MA: Wiley–Blackwell.
He, A. W. (2015). Literacy, creativity, and continuity: A
language socialization perspective on heritage lan-
guage classroom interaction. In N. Markee (Ed.),
The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction
(pp. 304–318). Malden, MA: Wiley–Blackwell.
He, A. W. (2017). Heritage language socialization. In P.
Duff & S. May (Eds.), Language socialization. Ency-
clopedia of language and education (3rd. ed., pp. 17–
42). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Hornberger, N., & McKay, S. (Eds.). (2010). Sociolinguis-
tics and language education. Bristol, UK: Multilin-
gual Matters.
Hulstijn, J. H., Young, R. F., Ortega, L., Bigelow, M.,
DeKeyser, R., Ellis, N. C., … Talmy, S. (2014).
Bridging the gap: Cognitive and social approaches
to research in second language learning and
teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36,
361–421.
Klenk, N., & Meehan, K. (2015). Climate change and
transdisciplinary science: Problematizing the inte-
gration imperative. Environmental Science & Policy,
54, 160–167.
Kinginger, C. (2004). Alice doesn’t live here anymore:
Foreign language learning and identity construc-
tion. In A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Nego-
tiation of identities in multilingual contexts (pp. 219–
242). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning in study
abroad: Case studies of Americans in France. Mod-
ern Language Journal, 92(S1), 1–124.
Kinginger, C. (2009). Language learning and study abroad.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kinginger, C. (2017). Language socialization in study
abroad. In P. Duff & S. May (Eds.), Language
socialization. Encyclopedia of language and educa-
tion (3rd ed., pp. 227–238). Cham, Switzerland:
Springer.
Kissau, S. (2006). Gender differences in motivation to
learn French. Canadian Modern Language Review,
62, 401–422.
Kissau, S. (2007). Is what’s good for the goose good
for the gander? The case of male and female
Patricia A. Duff
encouragement to study French. Foreign Language
Annals, 40, 365–378.
Klein, W. (2013). Heritage language socialization and
language ideologies in a Sikh education program.
Heritage Language Journal, 10, 36–50.
Kramsch, C. (Ed.). (2002). Language acquisition and lan-
guage socialization: Ecological perspectives. London:
Continuum.
Kubota, R. (2016). The social imaginary of study abroad:
Complexities and contradictions. The Language
Learning Journal, 44, 347–357.
Lantolf, J., Poehner, M., & Swain, M. (Eds.). (2018). The
Routledge handbook of sociocultural theory and second
language development. New York: Routledge/Taylor
& Francis.
Lantolf, J., Thorne, S. L., & Poehner, M. (2015). So-
ciocultural theory and second language develop-
ment. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories
in second language acquisition (pp. 207–226). New
York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Lanvers, U. (2017). Contradictory others and the habitus
of languages: Surveying the L2 motivation land-
scape in the United Kingdom. Modern Language
Journal, 101, 517–532.
Larsen–Freeman, D. (2019). On language learner
agency: A Complex Dynamic Systems Theory per-
spective. Modern Language Journal, 103 (Supple-
ment 2019), 61–79.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Le-
gitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
LaScotte, D., & Tarone, E. (2019). Heteroglossia and
constructed dialogue in SLA. Modern Language
Journal, 103 (Supplement 2019), 95–112.
Li Wei. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of
language. Applied Linguistics, 39, 9–30.
Mackey, A., & Polio, C. (Eds.). (2009). Multiple perspec-
tives on interaction: Second language research in honor
of Susan M. Gass. New York: Routledge/Taylor &
Francis.
Marinova–Todd, S. H., Marshall, D. B., & Snow, C. E.
(2000). Three misconceptions about age and L2
learning. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 9–34.
Mauser, W., Klepper, G., Rice, M., Schmalzbauer, B. S.,
Hackmann, H., Leemans, R., & Moore, H. (2013).
Transdisciplinary global change research: The co-
creation of knowledge for sustainability. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5, 420–431.
Mizuta, A. (2017). Memories of language lost and learned:
Parents and the shaping of Chinese as a heritage lan-
guage in Canada. (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion). University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
BC.
Ochs, E. (1993). Constructing social identity: A lan-
guage socialization perspective. Research on Lan-
guage and Social Interaction, 26, 287–306.
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (2017). Language socializa-
tion: An historical overview. In P. Duff & S. May
(Ed.), Language socialization. Encyclopedia of lan-
guage and education (3rd. ed., pp. 3–16). Cham,
Switzerland: Springer.
21
Ortega, L. (2019). SLA and the study of equitable multi-
lingualism. Modern Language Journal, 103 (Supple-
ment 2019), 23–38.
Ranta, L., & Meckelborg, A. (2013). How much expo-
sure to English do international graduate students
really get? Measuring language use in a naturalis-
tic setting. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69,
1–33.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive de-
velopment in social context. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (vol. 1). Edited
by G. Jefferson, introduction by E. Schegloff. Ox-
ford, UK: Blackwell.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). A tutorial on membership cate-
gorization. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 462–482.
Schumann, J. (1997). The neurobiology of affect in language.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Schumann, J., Crowell, S., Jones, N., Lee, N., Schuchert,
S., & Wood, L. (2004). The neurobiology of learn-
ing: Perspectives from second language acquisition. New
York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2007). Nexus analysis: Re-
focusing ethnography on action. Journal of Sociolin-
guistics, 11, 608–625.
Séror, J, (2009). Institutional forces and L2 writing feed-
back in higher education. The Canadian Modern
Language Review/La revue canadienne des langues vi-
vantes, 66, 203–232.
Shin, H. (2014). Social class, habitus, and language
learning: The case of Korean early study-abroad
students. Journal of Language, Identity, and Educa-
tion, 13, 99–103.
Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialec-
tics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communi-
cation, 23, 193–229.
Son, J. (2017). Language socialization in the post-colonial
Korean diaspora in Japan: Language ideologies, identi-
ties, and language maintenance. (Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation). University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, BC.
Steffenson, S. V., & Kramsch, K. (2017). The ecol-
ogy of second language acquisition and social-
ization. In P. Duff & S. May (Eds.), Language
socialization. Encyclopedia of language and educa-
tion (3rd. ed., pp. 17–42). Cham, Switzerland:
Springer.
Storch, N. (2017). Sociocultural theory in the L2
classroom. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.),
The Routledge handbook of instructed second
language acquisition (pp. 69–83). New York:
Routledge.
Surtees, V. (2018). Peer language socialization in an in-
ternationalized study abroad context: Norms for talk-
ing about language. (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion). University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
BC.
Swain, M., & Deters, P. (2007). “New” mainstream SLA
theory: Expanded and enriched. Modern Language
Journal, 91, 820–836.
22
Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational
view of emergent motivation, self and iden-
tity. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.),
Motivation, language identity and the L2 self
(pp. 215–228). Bristol, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Ushioda, E. (2017). The impact of global English on
motivation to learn other languages: Towards an
ideal multilingual self. Modern Language Journal,
101, 469–482.
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of lan-
guage learning: A sociocultural perspective. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of
higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
The Modern Language Journal, 103, Supplement 2019
Watson–Gegeo, K. A. (2004). Mind, language, and
epistemology: Toward a language socialization
paradigm for SLA. Modern Language Journal, 88,
331–350.
Wortham, S. (2012). Beyond macro and micro in the
linguistic anthropology of education. Anthropology
and Education Quarterly, 43, 128–137.
Woolard, K., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1994). Language
ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23, 55–
82.
Zappa–Hollman, S., & Duff, P. (2015). Academic En-
glish socialization through individual networks of
practice. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 333–368.
Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. R. (2006). Cognitive and so-
ciocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds?
TESOL Quarterly, 40, 35–58.