De León - García-Sanchez - 2020 - Language Socialization...

Annual Review of Linguistics
Language Socialization at the

Intersection of the Local and
Access provided by Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Valparaiso on 03/11/21. For personal use only.
the Global: The Contested

Trajectories of Input and
Annu. Rev. Linguist. 2021.7:421-448. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Communicative Competence
Lourdes de León1 and Inmaculada M. García-Sánchez2
1
Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social (CIESAS-México),
México City 14000, México; email: lourdesdeleonp@gmail.com
2
School of Education and Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles,
California 90095-1521, USA; email: igarcias@ucla.edu
Annu. Rev. Linguist. 2021. 7:421–48 Keywords

First published as a Review in Advance on
language socialization, input, communicative competence, multiparty
October 12, 2020
communication, multimodal communication, mobility
The Annual Review of Linguistics is online at
linguistics.annualreviews.org Abstract
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-
This article provides a critical review of the theoretical underpinnings of two
030538
core concepts in language socialization research: input and communicative
Copyright © 2021 by Annual Reviews.
competence. We organize our discussion along two major lines of inquiry:
All rights reserved
(a) the historical-local and (b) the language contact–globalization bodies of
work. The first part of the article contests the persistent view that input re-
duces to vocabulary and grammatical structures. To this end, it provides ev-
idence for a more multifaceted approach to input that involves multiparty
participant frameworks and multimodality in culturally diverse language
socialization ecologies. In this vein, it problematizes language gap studies
that are based on middle-class language acquisition models of mother–child
dyadic verbal input. The second part of the article challenges monolingual,
developmental, and speaker-based models of communicative competence
that assume a linear evolution from lesser to greater communicative compe-
tence and from more peripheral to more central community membership. It
also offers evidence for how communicative competence is socioculturally
constructed and, sometimes, interactionally distributed.
421
1. INTRODUCTION
Research on language socialization (LS) has inspired four decades of profuse studies regarding how
novices acquire communicative competence at home, in institutions, and within diverse commu-
nities of practice across their life spans. The theoretical principles of LS have evolved to keep pace
with changes in communities over multiple generations, geographies, and socioeconomic trans-
formations (Duff 2010, Duff & Hornberger 2008, Garrett & Baquedano-López 2002, Ochs &
Schieffelin 2012). Since the foundation of this field, LS studies have been situated at the interdis-
ciplinary intersection of anthropology, linguistics, and developmental psychology, among other
fields. This dialogue has expanded from historically rooted monolingual communities and lower-
income homes in the United States to educational institutions, workplaces, and postindustrial
families in the Global North as well as bi-/multilingual postcolonial and transnational diasporic
communities.
The foundational principle guiding LS research is that language is a critical vehicle for social-
izing children (and other novices) to become competent members of their speech communities.
This process involves two critical factors—the communicative environments in which novices or
newcomers learn languages and the competences they acquire by becoming speakers of a lan-
guage. In line with this principle, this review traces the theoretical underpinnings of two heavily
contested core concepts in LS: input and communicative competence.
LS studies have persistently challenged theories of input centered on middle-class families,
which have led to models of language deficit or a so-called language gap to explain academic
failure and intergenerational poverty (Hart & Risley 1995; see also Ochs & Kremer-Sadlik 2020,
Paugh & Riley 2019, Sperry et al. 2018). In contrast to such models, LS research has proven that
there are multiple pathways to becoming a competent speaker, even if not all of these paths are
equally sanctioned institutionally. Similarly, the concept of communicative competence—which
is also rooted in studies of monolingual historical communities—has undergone criticism in light
of the sociolinguistics of postcolonialism, mobility, and globalization.
We organize our discussion along two major lines of inquiry:1 (a) historical-local and (b) lan-
guage contact–globalization bodies of work. The historical-local line focuses on ethnographic and
longitudinal documentation of LS processes in relatively monolingual language communities2
with some historical continuity.3 It is rooted in seminal studies of LS in small-scale non-Western
societies (Ochs 1988, Ochs & Schieffelin 2017, Schieffelin 1990, Schieffelin & Ochs 1986). This
line of inquiry has since extended to other historically rooted ethnolinguistic communities, such
as Canada (Pesco & Crago 2016), Japan (Burdelski 2012, Burdelski & Minegishi 2012, Clancy
1986, Takada 2013), the Mayan (México) (Brown 1998, 2012; Brown & Gaskins 2014; de León
2007, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2017b, 2017c, 2018; de León Pasquel 2005; Pfeiler 2007; Reynolds 2008),
and the white middle-class United States (Ochs & Taylor 1992, Ochs et al. 1992).4 Research in
other Asian societies is also expanding (Fung 1999; Howard 2007, 2012; Shohet 2013), mostly fo-
cusing on areal topics of politeness and affect socialization. Another major area for collaborative
1 Duff (2008) refers to two “waves” when reviewing major historical junctures in LS studies, whereas we draw
our heuristic distinction in historical and epistemological terms.

2 We use the term language community as Silverstein defines it (e.g., Silverstein 1998, 2014), to mean sharing
both linguistic repertoire and communicative norms as the basis for common denotational meanings.
3 For reasons of space, we focus on more contemporary publications whenever possible. There are several rich
reviews covering different periods of LS studies, such as those by Duff (2010), Duff & Hornberger (2008),
Garrett & Baquedano-López (2002), and Ochs & Schieffelin (2012, 2017), among others.
4 For LS studies in several ethnic communities, we refer readers to Duff & Hornberger (2008).
422 de León • García-Sánchez

research has been Western middle-class families in the United States, Sweden, and Italy (Aronsson
& Cekaite 2011; Goodwin & Cekaite 2018; Ochs & Kremer-Sadlik 2013, 2015).
The language contact–globalization line of inquiry focuses on processes of bi-/multilingual
socialization and can be divided into two broad strands. The first concentrates on the sociolin-
guistic realities of formerly colonized communities now undergoing processes of language contact
and language shift. Among these are Pacific (Kulick 1992, Kulick & Schieffelin 2004, Makihara &
Schieffelin 2007, Riley 2007, Watson-Gegeo & Gegeo 1986) and Amerindian societies (de León
2016, 2019; Field 2001; Hauck 2016, 2018; Makihara 2013; Meek 2011; Minks 2013; Pesco &
Crago 2016; Reynolds 2008; Rindstedt 2001), formerly enslaved Afro-American creolized popu-
lations (Garrett 2005; Minks 2013; Paugh 2012, 2019), and other postcolonial populations world-
wide (Gilmore 2016, Howard 2012, Moore 2006). The second strand addresses LS processes
among increasingly transnational, deterritorialized language users, including communities associ-

ated with the so-called mobility turn or mobility paradigm5 (Baquedano-López 2000, Duranti et
al. 1995, Fader 2009, García-Sánchez 2014, González 2001, Kyratzis et al. 2009, Lo 2009, Mangual
Figueroa 2011, Ward 2019, Zentella 2005).

Straddling the historical-local and the language contact–globalization lines of inquiry, many
studies have addressed the challenges faced by children who have transited from minoritized com-
munities to hegemonic cultures, in what has been called the discontinuity paradigm (Burdelski &
Howard 2020a, García-Sánchez & Orellana 2019a, Heath 1983, Philips 1983, Wortham & Rymes
2002). This phenomenon finds resonance in comparable challenges faced by adult newcomers who
are trained to speak and perform as professionals, in both mono- and multilingual environments
(Cook 2018; Jacobs-Huey 2003, 2007; Lønsmann 2017; Mertz 2000; Roberts 2010; Sarangi &
Roberts 2002).
Having offered examples of these major lines of inquiry, we acknowledge that these bodies of
work have been in dialogue for years, and many studies defy neat categorization. For example,
studies conducted in relatively isolated and monolingual Indigenous communities can be appro-
priately viewed as part of the historical-local line of inquiry. Yet, many such communities are
not purely monolingual because of their legacies of (post)colonialism, and the intensification of
physical and digital mobility means that such communities have experienced accelerated language
shift with increased levels of bi-/multilingualism. Hence, they have also been studied through
the language contact–globalization line of inquiry. We follow conventional classifications in the
field that lump together postcolonial and transnational communities, mostly because of the pres-
ence of language contact phenomena in both. However—as researchers who focus on Indigenous
Amerindian communities and transnational migrant populations—we are acutely aware that there
are different sociohistorical dynamics in operation.
This review has two major parts. The first part (i.e., Sections 2 and 3) provides a critical
overview of studies of children’s communicative competence and environments (e.g., input and
child-directed speech) in monolingual communities associated with the historical-local line of
inquiry in present-day debates. The second part (i.e., Section 4) problematizes the notion of com-
municative competence in relation to bi-/multilingual communicative environments. In Section 4,
we also examine a key corollary of this problematization: the relationship between communicative
competence and community belonging within multilingual and multicultural contexts of language
contact and globalization.
5 For
the most cogent articulation of this paradigm’s implications in language scholarship, we refer readers to
Canagarajah (2017).
www.annualreviews.org • Contesting Input and Communicative Competence 423

2. REVISITING LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATION RESEARCH
FROM THE HISTORICAL-LOCAL PERSPECTIVE
This section presents a critical review of studies of input and communicative environments in
language acquisition (LA) and LS. To this end, it provides evidence supporting a multifaceted ap-
proach to input that encompasses multiparty participant frameworks and multimodality in cul-
turally diverse LS ecologies. It thereby problematizes language gap studies that are based on
middle-class LA models of mother–child dyadic verbal input and focused on lexical and gram-
matical qualities.
Section 2.1 presents an overview of studies from the last four decades that have examined a
diversity of communities in which children are socialized with minimalist linguistic pedagogies
(Meek 2019). We present evidence for a variety of multiparty configurations wherein children
play different participatory roles, most predominantly as third-party addressees and overhearers.
Section 2.2 delves into the interactional foundations of LS. It examines a collection of studies that
are based on ethnographically rich microanalysis and that reveal the power of multimodality in
LS. It contests reductionist views of input limited to an inventory of linguistic forms by showing
the interplay of semiotic resources (visual, oral, corporeal, and haptic) in LS across communities.
2.1. Unpacking the Input: Interaction and Multiparty Language

Socialization Across Cultures
LS research examines how novices become full-fledged speakers of a language in the process of
developing communicative competence, which involves the ability to speak, think, feel, act, and
interact in the social world (Ochs 1996). Ochs & Schieffelin (2017, p. 6), who have long held that
learning a language cannot be reduced to the comprehension and production of vocabulary and
grammatically well-formed utterances, argue that “language is more than a formal code, more than
a medium of communication, and more than a repository of meanings. Language is a powerful
semiotic tool for evoking social and moral sentiments, collective and personal identities tied to
place and situation, and bodies of knowledge and belief.” They claim that acquiring communicative
competence depends on three factors. The first is input that conceives of language as a vehicle for
social and cultural learning, referred to as socialization through language and socialization into
language (Ochs & Schieffelin 2012, 2017; Schieffelin & Ochs 1986). The second is that a full-
fledged input cannot be reduced to speech but, rather, includes a wide array of semiotic resources
(e.g., vocal, gestural, corporeal) together with affect. Finally, input is grounded in interactional
interchanges that position the novice as a coconstructor of meaning, not simply a passive recipient
for socialization.
Therefore, we argue for a multimodal approach to language and in favor of the variety of mul-
tiparty configurations and communicative ecologies in which it is socialized. Although these argu-
ments have been advanced for decades, a bias remains in some LA studies that consider the input
as conventionally lodged in face-to-face interaction of the caregiver–child dyad. Considerable re-
search has focused on the centrality of direct input to children’s early language development. These
studies, which refer to a so-called word gap or language gap, claim that middle-class caregivers
address their children with words of higher quantity and quality, resulting in richer language devel-
opment (e.g., vocabulary, syntactic structures, language processing abilities) that predicts higher
academic achievement (Hart & Risley 1995, Hoff 2003, Huttenlocher et al. 2010). Psychologi-
cal and anthropological studies have problematized these claims, highlighting their ethnocentric
biases and their role in articulating and reproducing structural inequality (Paugh & Riley 2019)
(see also Avineri et al. 2015; Miller & Sperry 2012; Miller et al. 2005; Ochs & Kremer-Sadlik 2015,
2020; Pace et al. 2017; Sperry et al. 2018).

Child-directed speech has figured in long-term debates about LA and LS (Ochs & Kremer-
Sadlik 2020). LS research has been organized around four ethnographically grounded tenets re-
garding child-directed speech: (a) it is not present in all cultures; (b) children’s communicative en-
vironments show cultural variation; (c) interactions with children may be organized in multiparty
participant frameworks with caregivers of various ages, rather than in the idealized face-to-face
dyad (de León 1998, 2012; Ochs & Schieffelin 1984, 2012; Ochs et al. 2005; Sperry et al. 2018);
and (d) parental theories and ideologies shape interactional styles with infants. Several decades of
cross-cultural research have shown that child-directed speech is the exception in infant socializa-
tion (Casillas et al. 2020; Cristia et al. 2019; Gaskins 2006; LeVine et al. 1994; Ochs & Schieffelin
1984, 2017; Ochs et al. 2005; Shneidman & Goldin-Meadow 2012).
Seminal research by Ochs (1988) and Schieffelin (1990) in Samoa and Papua New Guinea has
revealed the variety of interactional arrangements in which children participate and has pointed
out the infrequency of dyadic arrangements with child-directed speech. De León (2012) argues
that Mayan children learn language in multiparty participation frameworks that reflect a cultural
preference for involving children in triadic interactional routines, such as prompting and teas-
ing. With respect to children’s participatory roles, Schieffelin (1990) highlights three-party ar-
rangements for interactional routines involving infants, with their mothers as animators (see also
Watson-Gegeo & Gegeo 1986). Pfeiler (2007) also reports three-party exchanges in prompting
routines in Yucatec Mayan socialization. In such exchanges, children may be focal addressees or
third-party targets in speech addressed to others. Triadic interactional formats provide a participa-
tory structure that socializes children’s attention to listen to relevant conversation about them and
around them. These formats play a central role in the socialization of participatory competence
in multiparty formats.
Children also occupy other participatory roles—for example, as bystanders or overhearers of
speech not addressed to them in multiparty interactions. Brown (1998), for instance, claims that
children learn verbs in Mayan Tzeltal through overheard conversational repetition in which verbs
are highlighted across conversational turns. Meek (2011) reports that children learning Kaska ac-
quire knowledge of language varieties by hearing the linguistic practices of the people around
them, overhearing adult conversations, and receiving commands. Miller et al. (2012) report that
Taiwanese children in Taipei learn narrative storytelling as overhearers by age 3 years at a rate dou-
ble that of Euro-American children. Hauck (2016) indicates that Aché adults in Paraguay ignore
speech that children direct at them, and the children learn instead by observing. Other researchers
have shown that multiparty input contributes to discourse competence in humor, appropriate lan-
guage use, and narrative skills (Blum-Kulka & Snow 2002, Heath 1983, Meek 2019, Sperry et al.
2018).
LS evidence has motivated some psycholinguistic researchers to evaluate the contribution of
overheard speech in LA despite dominant models supporting child-directed speech as the primary
source of LA. Akhtar et al. (2019) point to the “robustness” of word learning through overhear-
ing. The authors state that all children, across cultural contexts, learn some of their language
by overhearing. Other scholars have examined directed input in communities where overheard
speech represents a large proportion of early language input (Casillas et al. 2020, Cristia et al.
2019, Shneidman et al. 2012). In a comparative, quantitative study, Shneidman and colleagues
(Shneidman & Goldin-Meadow 2012, Shneidman et al. 2012) have identified distinct patterns
of early input for US and Yucatec Mayan children. They claim that Mayan children receive input
mostly in overheard speech from other children, whereas children in the United States receive lin-
guistic input predominantly in child-directed speech from adults (Shneidman & Goldin-Meadow
2012). Casillas and colleagues’ (2020) study of Mayan Tzeltal input provides quantitative evidence
embedded in long-term qualitative research, showing that Mayan Tzeltal infants receive minimal

direct input yet extract the linguistic information they need, with no delays compared with de-
velopmental parameters. Cristia et al. (2019) find similar results among the Tsimane of lowland
Bolivia and outline comparable results for other nonindustrial populations.
In connection to possible mechanisms of learning language through overhearing, Brown &
Gaskins (2014) propose that such mechanisms could be based on the principles of LOPI (learn-
ing by observing and pitching in), a model that has been advanced for many Indigenous cultures
(Correa-Chávez & López-Fraire 2019; Gaskins & Paradise 2010; Rogoff et al. 2003, 2015; see
also de León 2012, 2015). Brown & Gaskins (2014, p. 201) suggest that children may be attuned
to others’ language and interactions and “able to profit from overheard speech in ways unlike
those infants in societies where child-centered face-to-face interaction is the norm.” Research by
Akhtar et al. (2019) on learning by overhearing similarly shows that multiparty socialization and
observational learning ecologies afford more opportunities for developing overhearing skills. This
argument is consistent with the results of several studies in rural and urban societies. Hauck (2016)
claims that Aché children from Paraguay are socialized into a cultural mode of attending to a cer-
tain set of mostly verbal behaviors as language, rather than being addressed directly. Likewise,
Meek (2019, p. 105) argues that ideologies of LS in Indigenous communities foster “linguistically
minimalist pedagogies” framed in cultural expectations that children will participate as silent lis-
teners and learn from the speech and actions of others. Pedagogies associated with LOPI learning
are not exclusive to Indigenous communities. Heath’s (1983) and Miller’s (1982) seminal stud-
ies with low-income families in the United States reveal comparable home language pedagogies
based on learning by overhearing. Recent work by Sperry et al. (2018) documents low-income
young children in South Baltimore learning oral narratives as bystanders to stories told by family
members (p. 1315). Miller et al. (2012) report similar findings for Taiwanese children learning
narrative storytelling.
LS and LA research has provided evidence that children can learn by overhearing. Neverthe-
less, finer ethnographic research is necessary to assess children’s roles as listeners and observa-
tional learners. Future microanalytic qualitative research should focus on the temporal unfolding
of participational and attentional frameworks cued by multimodal information (e.g., speech, gaze,
gesture, body orientation) on a microinteractional level in children’s everyday communicative en-
vironments (Kidwell 2005). In this vein, de León (2012) has examined how Tzotzil Mayan infants’
pointing actions, gaze, and posture reveal their intentional participation as listeners engaging in
joint attention with other participants in activities in which they are immersed. In a comparative
study of Tzeltal Mayans and inhabitants of Rossel Island (Papua New Guinea), Brown (2012)
reports on the integration of gaze and pointing in infant–caregiver interaction. Despite the dif-
ference in interactional styles, she finds that pointing for joint attention emerges during the 9-
to 15-month period in both cultures (see Liszkowski et al. 2012). Her study also reveals distinct
practices of joint attention across cultures, which she terms “the cultural organization of atten-
tion” (see also Liszkowski et al. 2012, Salomo & Liszkowski 2012). Akhtar et al. (2019) have also
shown that joint attention can be displayed in multiple ways that do not reduce to dyadic joint
attention with child-directed speech, which conventionally involves ostensive communication.
Attentional socializing practices are oriented around local parental ideologies that generate
preferences for the organization of attention and coordination of social action with young children
(Solomon 2012). Consequently, the organization of attention has different effects on how children
orient through particular activities and in relation to other participants, a topic that relates to
Ochs & Schieffelin’s (1984) seminal distinction between situation-centered and child-centered
socialization. More research is needed to determine the interplay of different semiotic modalities
in the sociocultural organization of attentional trajectories amid participation frameworks within
communicative environments where children learn as participant listeners.

Thus far, our critical review of input studies has argued for the central role of multimodality,
participation frameworks, and the organization of attention in children’s LS. Yet, other sociocul-
tural dimensions intersect in the larger ecologies in which language is socialized. Accordingly,
Ochs et al. (2005) have proposed a model of child-directed communication organized around
the community’s habitus (Bourdieu 1977) of communicative practices. From this perspective, it
is evident that in each community there is at least one habitus of child-directed communication.
Participation frameworks such as face-to-face child-directed speech are not the norm in many
cultures and may be unfavorable in atypical language development situations (Solomon 2012).
Habitats, activities, and objects vary cross-culturally, as do parental ideologies about communi-
cation with children. As argued above, psychological verbal assessment pertaining to language
gap interventions is shaped by middle-class LS habitus and ideologies that reproduce mainstream
cultural values (Riley 2012). As a result, the LS ecologies of nondominant groups appear to sig-
nal low socioeconomic status and are viewed as indicating language deficits. These models and
socioeconomic categories homogenize the ethnic and linguistic heterogeneity of populations by
“naturalizing” the childrearing practices of middle-class families associated with WEIRD (West-
ern, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) societies (Henrich et al. 2010; see also Blum
2017).
A final point is that LS research has long demonstrated that multiparty socialization involves
an input that is socially distributed among a wide range of socializers and does not reduce to just
one caregiver (Cristia et al. 2019, de León 2012, Hauck 2016, Lieven & Stoll 2013, Ochs 1988,
Schieffelin 1990). In particular, siblings’ input can be higher in frequency than any adult input
(Shneidman & Goldin-Meadow 2012). In fact, studies have extensively documented the role of
peer LS in middle childhood, highlighting the importance of children’s cultures as learning envi-
ronments (Cekaite et al. 2014; de León 2007, 2013, 2017b; Goodwin & Kyratzis 2012; Reynolds
2008). Further research is needed on how multiage peer group environments contribute to LA
and socialization, especially in situations where children may have varying levels of communica-
tive competence and linguistic development in multiple languages (Cho 2018; de León 2019;
García-Sánchez 2010b, 2017; Paugh 2012, 2019). We explore this topic in the second half of this
review.
In sum, several decades of LS studies across various communities have demonstrated the pre-
dominance of multiparty interactional configurations and the diversity of communicative ecolo-
gies in which children and newcomers are socialized. The childrearing practices of WEIRD fam-
ilies are just part of a wide variety of language learning ecologies.
2.2. Interactional Foundations, Multimodality, and Embodied Practices

Across Time and Space
It has been argued that social interaction and language learning stem from our biological endow-
ment, which forms part of the “interaction engine” that facilitates cooperation and mental coordi-
nation with others (Levinson 2006). LS researchers have consistently emphasized the interactional
foundations of learning language. They have drawn on Goffman’s (1981) work on interaction or-
der, on ethnomethodological and conversation analytic approaches (Goodwin 1990, 2006a; Sacks
et al. 1974; Sidnell 2009; Wooton 1997), and on studies of embodied communication (Cekaite
2010, 2016; C. Goodwin 2018; M.H. Goodwin 2006a,b, 2017; M.H. Goodwin & Cekaite 2018;
Streek et al. 2011).
Foundational LS studies debating the quality of input and child-directed speech identify in-
teractional routines as “the contingent and the coconstructed product of sequentially organized
communicative acts, both verbal and nonverbal” (Garrett & Baquedano-López 2002, p. 343). In

contrast to the conventional definition of input, which constructs the infant as a receptive vessel for
language, interactional routines (e.g., prompts, teasing, directives, questions, threats, storytelling)
demonstrate children’s emerging skills as semiotic agents who cooperatively construct meaning
with others. These routines are performed through an array of semiotic resources, such as for-
mulaic language and target linguistic forms like morphemes, lexicon, phrases, pragmatic particles,
intonational units, registers, and speech styles. They involve several semiotic modalities embodied
in corporeal practices (e.g., bowing, shaking hands, lowering one’s head to show shame), facing
formations (Goodwin 2006b), and “shepherding” (i.e., physically directing a child to do an ac-
tion) (Cekaite 2010, Goodwin & Cekaite 2018). They also involve other tactile forms of sociality,
such as soothing (Cekaite & Kvist 2017), handshaking, hugging, and kissing, overlaid with other
modalities—a combination recently referred to by Goodwin (2017) as “haptic sociality” (see also
Cekaite & Mondada 2020).

A rich collection of LS studies in Asian societies highlights the multimodal complexity of in-
teractional routines involving linguistic, corporeal, and affective performances. These routines so-
cialize respect, politeness, indirection, empathy, filial piety, asymmetrical reciprocity, and shame.
Burdelski (2012) and Cook & Burdelski (2017) claim that, before the age of 3 years, Japanese chil-
dren display politeness competence by engaging with others through expressions and associated
embodied actions, including greetings, offerings, expressions of thanks, and apologies. Both stud-
ies indicate that by age 3, these children have acquired addressee honorifics—although referent
honorifics are challenging to use, even for young adults. Cook (2018) has explored how new em-
ployees in Japan are trained to become competent shakaijin (mature, contributing adults in society)
to enact professional personae. This training involves learning a multimodal register that displays
deference and demeanor through reference honorifics, voice quality, bodily movements, and style.
Such studies reveal the importance of multimodal LS practices across the life span. Shohet (2013)
has documented how toddlers are socialized to embody the Vietnamese ethic of hy sinh (typically
translated as ‘sacrifice’) by regular prompting and instruction to perform relevant linguistic and
corporeal practices. Other studies have found common themes related to indirection, politeness,
hierarchy, and affect in China (Fung 1999, Fung & Chen 2001), South Korea (Lo & Fung 2012),
and Thailand (Howard 2007, 2012). These LS orientations are also seen in Asian immigrant dias-
poras (He 2012; Lo 2009; Park 2006, 2008; Song 2017). These areal studies report the recurrence
of conventional multimodal embodied practices that index cultural values and local ideologies in
connection with politeness, respect, affect, and their associated lexicalized resources. These prac-
tices provide strong evidence against a reductionist view of input as limited to the verbal channel.
They demonstrate that input instead consists of semiotic resources involving appropriate discur-
sive and corporeal competences.
More recently, LS research has expanded to the field of embodied communication, using
microanalytic and talk-in-interaction approaches enhanced by increasingly sophisticated video-
ethnographic analytic methodologies (C. Goodwin 2018, M.H. Goodwin & Cekaite 2018, Streek
et al. 2011). These methods refine the analysis of moment-to-moment embodied practices in
sequences of interaction and enhance ethnographic perspectives on how children are socialized
in their everyday lives. Research by Goodwin (1990, 2006a) on multiethnic and multiclass peer
groups is of particular importance in showing the complexities of children’s social organization
with respect to participation, affect, and forms of exclusion through semiotic resources (see also
García-Sánchez 2016a). Recent studies have analyzed multimodal directive strategies used by par-
ents to capture and monitor children’s attention in postindustrialized middle-class families. These
strategies may involve parents and children negotiating so-called activity contracts to carry out
personal and family tasks (Aronsson & Cekaite 2011; see also Goodwin 2006b, Klein & Goodwin
2013, Ochs & Kremer-Sadlik 2015), parents shepherding children to perform activities (Cekaite

2010), or parents and children recycling trajectories of directives in different socio-spatial organi-
zations to achieve mutual engagement (Goodwin 2006b). De León (2017b) and Ochs & Izquierdo
(2009) have demonstrated that directives are infrequent in nonindustrialized families and involve
different socio-spatial configurations regarding body hexis.
Goodwin & Cekaite’s (2018) study on the everyday interactions of American and Swedish fam-
ilies analyzes embodied practices in the choreography of activities related to control, care, and
creativity. Goodwin (2017) has explored forms of embodied displays that require two parties for
mutual tactile performance (e.g., embraces, kisses, handshakes). Recent research has demonstrated
how touch and affect are deeply intertwined in early infancy through haptic affective practices by
which infants and their mothers engage in moment-to-moment interactions (de León 1998, Katila
2018; see also Rogoff 2003). Cekaite & Kvist (2017) have analyzed crying–soothing sequences in
caregiver and children interactions as “bodily emotion socialization” (p. 121), which can “inculcate
the socioculturally sensitive norms and expectations related to the shaping of affective relations”
(p. 125). These studies reveal the prominent role of touch in the interactive construction of in-
timacy and human sociality (Cekaite & Mondada 2020, Goodwin 2017). In sum, recent studies
of multimodality and embodied interaction have significantly enriched our understanding of LS
processes by providing evidence against prevailing views of input that are centered on inventories
of linguistic forms and referential meanings (Blum 2017, Ochs & Kremer-Sadlik 2020).
3. INPUT AND DIVERSE VERBAL ENVIRONMENTS ACROSS

CONTEXTS AND LANGUAGE VARIETIES
Before we move from the historical-local to the language contact–globalization lines of inquiry,
we should mention that an important aspect of early LS research regarding diverse inputs and
verbal environments and their impact on language development addressed the transition be-
tween home/community and educational settings. What is now referred to as the discontinuities
paradigm focused on the rich interactional patterns of language use that constitute primary so-
cializing verbal input for children from Indigenous, minority, and/or working-class backgrounds.
The paradigm also focused on how this wealth of communicative and linguistic knowledge was
often illegitimated in secondary LS contexts—namely, schools—where the preferred communica-
tive practices, language varieties, and interactional routines found in classrooms were consistently
shown to be more aligned with those socialized in middle-class, predominantly white, monolingual
homes (Cook-Gumperz 1977, Heath 1983, Miller 1982, Philips 1983, Watson-Gegeo & Gegeo
1996). These early studies demonstrated how the restrictive linguistic input in educational insti-
tutions (which tends to be monolingual and relies heavily on standard forms of national languages
as correct and appropriate) negatively affected minoritized children’s participation in schools and
their overall academic success.
While, because of space limitations, we cannot discuss here the large body of literature that
has been produced within this paradigm, we highlight a few of the major issues related to en-
trenched biases about input that have been discussed in the sections above. At least initially, the
critical mass of research produced in the home–school discontinuity framework was an impor-
tant force in counteracting deficit ideologies that blame the educational failure of children from
nondominant communities on their supposed linguistic deficits. Because it partly attempted to
explain the differential educational achievement of children from nondominant social groups, the
discontinuities paradigm also became one of the most generative frameworks used to study the
language and literacy development of transnational migrant and other children from linguistically
nondominant backgrounds (e.g., Delpit 1995, Farr & Domínguez Barajas 2005, González 2001,
Pease-Alvarez & Vasquez 1994). These studies consistently demonstrated how communicative

institutional practices, which privilege WEIRD monolingual understandings of child language
learning and a communicative habitus centered upon referentiality (Blum 2017), fail children from
nondominant groups by not allowing them to build on their bidialectal and/or bi-/multilingual
full linguistic repertoires.
In the last two decades, however, we have witnessed how proponents of word gap hypotheses
have co-opted many of the findings of the original home–school discontinuities studies, ostensi-
bly to show how poor children fail to arrive school-ready to classrooms because of the kinds and
amounts of verbal input in their families and communities. These developments have prompted
a renewed interest in LS research on children’s diverse early verbal environments (Miller et al.
2005, Sperry et al. 2018). They have also prompted much debate among LS scholars about pro-
grams aimed at increasing direct talk to children. These programs have been characterized as
simple, rather than systemic, solutions that are based on a “continuing misrecognition” (Miller &
Sperry 2012, p. 109) of the verbal abilities and communicative environments of nondominant, low-
income, bidialectal and/or bi-/multilingual children (see also Heath 2015, Paugh & Riley 2019).
Furthermore, some recent work has shown how the misrecognition of the sociolinguistics of input
variation and the systematic institutional illegitimation of language varieties spoken by nondomi-
nant groups persists beyond the elementary school years to secondary schools (Charity Hudley &
Mallinson 2014) and even to college and higher education (Charity Hudley & Mallinson 2018).
The work of Charity Hudley & Mallinson, in particular, has made key contributions in helping
the field understand that, beyond a matter of cultural and linguistic disconnection among contexts
of LS, the restrictive linguistic input of many educational institutions is deeply implicated in up-
holding larger systems of racism and social inequality. In that regard, such work has pushed the
field of linguistics to reimagine the central role it can have in contributing to educational equity
and justice.
These developments have also prompted theoretical reevaluations of the discontinuities
research framework itself, particularly its ideological reification of the differences between
home/community and school linguistic input, which may have unwittingly perpetuated the idea
that the more prestigious linguistic practices sanctioned in schools are not found in the verbal
input of nondominant communities. In a recent edited volume, for example, García-Sánchez &
Orellana (2019a) argue that these mismatches became a common framing assumption that may
have biased LS researchers to look for differences, which are often the most salient, while over-
looking many similarities in children’s verbal environments. Many contributors to that volume
(e.g., Ek 2019, Marin 2019) identify points of continuity across children’s verbal environments
and add that the discontinuities often do not reside in the nature of the linguistic practices or
cognitive strategies themselves (as they are often naturalized) but, rather, emerge from differences
in the social organization and goals of activities.
4. REVISITING COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE AND COMMUNITY

BELONGING IN THE AGE OF MULTILINGUALISM AND MOBILITY
In this section, we attend to LS processes in the increasingly transnational, deterritorialized, un-
bounded, and bi-/multilingual sociolinguistic realities of many language users and communities
around the world. These processes are characterized by global flows that involve the movement,
whether physical or technology mediated, of people, ideas, and communicative and semiotic re-
sources. The so-called mobility turn (see footnote 5) has had a profound impact in all areas of
contemporary inquiry into human social behavior, including LS. Indeed, with its long tradition
of investigating the complex relationship between communicative practices (whether mono- or
bi-/multilingual) and language ideologies as tied to larger sociocultural dynamics, LS research

is particularly well suited to the study of communities characterized by linguistic heterogeneity,
mobility, and diversity. It is therefore not surprising that two of the most productive areas of LS
research in the last 20 years have been devoted to processes of bi-/multilingual development (or
lack thereof ) and to phenomena of language contact, syncretism, and shift among formerly col-
onized and enslaved peoples and Indigenous nations (e.g., de León 2019, Garrett 2005, Gilmore
2016, Hauck 2018, Kulick 1992, Makihara & Schieffelin 2007, Meek 2011, Minks 2013, Paugh
2012, Reynolds 2008, Riley 2007, Ward 2019) as well as among immigrant, transnational, and
diasporic communities (e.g., Baquedano-López 2000, Duranti et al. 1995, Fader 2009, García-
Sánchez 2014, González 2001, Kyratzis et al. 2009, Lo 2009, Mangual Figueroa 2011, Zentella
2005).
In the last 10 years, a significant number of review articles have been devoted not only to
the field of bi-/multilingual socialization and processes of language contact and shift in postcolo-
nial and transnational communities but also to more specialized themes and subthemes within
that broad field. These reviews have focused, among other topics, on LS in relation to language
shift, endangerment, and revitalization (e.g., Garrett 2012, Nonaka 2012, Pesco & Crago 2016);
second-language, foreign-language, and heritage-language socialization (e.g., He 2012, Steffensen
& Kramsch 2017); LS and migration, including reviews discussing specific immigrant or diasporic
communities (e.g., Baquedano-López & Mangual Figueroa 2012, Bayley 2017, García-Sánchez &
Nazimova 2017a, Song 2017); and LS and multilingualism across home and educational contexts
(Mangual Figueroa & Baquedano-López 2017, Moore 2017, Pahl 2017). However, rather than
provide an exhaustive meta-review of the literature cited above, we limit our discussion to rethink-
ing communicative competence in linguistically and culturally heterogeneous communicative en-
vironments and its implications for the relationship between language and community belonging
in diverse societies.
4.1. Rethinking Communicative Competence in Diverse Contexts

In Sections 2 and 3, we have described the interactional and usage-based epistemological stance
that LS research has traditionally taken toward the sources of linguistic competence. We have
acknowledged the key analytical role that communicative competence has played in microinterac-
tional, ethnographic accounts of language and culture development, almost from the inception of
this field of study. More than other developmental paradigms, LS research has taken a multimodal
and multifaceted view of communicative competence that transcends the pragmatic sense with
which Hymes (1972, p. 277) imbued his original formulation of the concept. This comprehensive
approach notwithstanding, communicative competence itself has been a focus of intense scrutiny
and critical reformulation. There were two early points of contention. One was based on the
tendency to treat communicative competence as a teleological developmental fact and as essential
knowledge (whether linguistic, sociolinguistic, discursive, pragmatic, or sociocultural) needed
to use language as a tool for social action. The second was to treat communicative competence
as residing within individual speakers and as something that can be contextually demonstrated
and/or performed relatively unproblematically. These assumptions remain part of an entrenched
perspective because the notion of competence, much like the models of input discussed above,
also has strong roots in psycholinguistics. However, for more than a decade already, some LS
scholars have argued that the development and performance of communicative competence,
particularly in communities of practice characterized by multilingualism and other forms of
communicative diversity, is far from a neutral, value-free process. In one of the most compre-
hensive and frequently cited programmatic reviews of the field, Garrett & Baquedano-López
(2002, p. 346) pointedly ask, “How is competence assessed and evaluated, and by whom?. . . How

might evaluations of competence be negotiated and contested?” They argue that communicative
competence must also account for the cross-cutting dimensions of power and identity that
organize the heterogeneity of language and culture. Goodwin (2004) also has strongly criticized
conceptions of communicative competence as transparent knowledge that resides in individual
actors. He emphasizes competence as a social practice emergent in multimodal and embodied
interactions that can be organized to allow individuals who may not possess certain kinds of
linguistic knowledge—such as individuals with language-related disabilities (e.g., aphasia)—to
achieve interactional competence. Along with other scholars cited above (see Sections 2.2 and
3), Goodwin (2004) demonstrates multimodal aspects of language-in-interaction as centrally
contributing both to successful performance and to assessments of communicative competence.
In the last decade, these earlier critiques have gained traction in the literature. Longitudinal
studies documenting newly arrived immigrant children’s development of cultural and linguistic
competence have taken aim at communicative competence as a stable, unilinear trajectory. Cekaite
(2007, 2012), for example, has studied Kurdish and Somali immigrant children’s development of
interactional competence in Swedish primary schools. Describing the interplay among children’s
verbal contributions to multiparty classroom talk (including increasing mastery of turn-taking
rules), children’s affective (sometimes noncompliant) stances, and teachers’ socializing responses,
Cekaite has shown that immigrant children’s development of communicative skills is tied to the
multifaceted learner identities they come to occupy over time, which, in turn, affect the commu-
nicative affordances they have for participation. Cekaite has further shown how this process is
often nonlinear and does not necessarily follow a normative developmental pathway toward more
central participation, competence, and membership.
Other research on immigrant children’s language development has also called into question
competence as a property of individual speakers, showing instead that to understand language
learning in bi-/multilingual communicative encounters, we must broaden our understanding of
communicative competence to account for how it is often socially distributed. Analyses of child-
language-broker-mediated interactions, for example, have shown how children and adults dynam-
ically redistribute and pool together different kinds of expertise and dimensions of communicative
competence (including bilingual, sociolinguistic, sociocultural, pragmatic, and strategic) to help
resolve misunderstandings and achieve intersubjective understandings to accomplish communica-
tive and social goals (Eksner & Orellana 2012, García-Sánchez 2019, Guo 2014, Reynolds &
Orellana 2014). Beyond immigrant child-language-broker-mediated communication, the inter-
actional fluidity among speakers in the roles of “expert” and “novice” in bi-/multilingual, transna-
tional environments has been a recently developing area among LS scholars, whether in family
dinnertime conversations (Takei & Burdelski 2018), in child–peer interactions (García-Sánchez
2017), or between adult native and second-language speakers (Friedman 2020). Findings show that
the shifting distribution of who can claim and/or display authoritative communicative competence
and expertise at a given moment in an interaction often belies age-based, native–nonnative, and
other reified distinctions traditionally associated with these roles; rather, it depends on language
choice and other discursive (e.g., topic) and contextual (e.g., speakers’ experience and background
knowledge) dimensions of the encounters, including what other corporeal and material semiotic
channels speakers have access to during these interactions. This shifting distribution also creates
more positive communicative affordances for participation in multilingual communities, which
can, in turn, affect the affective stances speakers display toward linguistic difference and diversity,
particularly among highly mobile populations. For example, Mitsuhara’s (2019) work among mul-
tilingual peer groups in West Bengal shows that children’s repeated experiences of not understand-
ing some of the languages in their sociolinguistic environments—in which they may have varying
levels of communicative competence or none at all—lead to the development of linguistic empathy

among the children. Linguistic empathy engenders the kind of interactional cooperative stances
that promote communicative success, and it aids language learning and development. Taken to-
gether, these studies also point to the centrality of multimodality and multiparty, multiage partic-
ipation frameworks for the development of communicative competence, as we have noted above.
Other studies examining bi-/multilingual development and maintenance across immigrant
generations, while not focusing on communicative competence per se, have also provided an orig-
inal perspective by attending to sources of input that are not usually considered as mediating such
development in multilingual settings. These studies have examined how, given the ideological
rifts that often accompany language varieties in linguistically diverse migration contexts, there are
other linguistic strategies that facilitate bi-/multilingual development of communicative compe-
tence apart from what are usually considered more traditional sources of verbal input. The explicit
cultivation of immigrant children’s metalinguistic awareness has been one of the most productive
of these strategies. Such strategies include conversations about transliteration between Bengali
and Roman script for British Bangladeshi children (Al-Azami et al. 2010), historical linguistic con-
nections between Arabic and Spanish for Moroccan immigrant children in Spain (García-Sánchez
2019), and the metacommunicative strategies Latino immigrant children in the United States rou-
tinely use when translating for adults (Orellana & Reynolds 2008). Regarding Indigenous nations,
Hauck (2016) has argued how children’s metalinguistic awareness, in particular their ability to
differentiate among words from different codes in their multilingual repertoire, could be critical
for processes of language shift and syncretism in communities undergoing rapid change, such as
the Aché of eastern Paraguay.
Communicative competence has been further critiqued as tied to an idealized native speaker
(or an idealized speaker of a standard linguistic variety). In this regard, it has been viewed as ill
equipped to account for the linguistic heterogeneity that is often common in multilingual situ-
ations associated with globalization and mobility (Besnier 2013, Kataoka et al. 2013, Makihara
2013) and in situations of minority language endangerment and revitalization (Hauck 2018, Jaffe
2013, Meek 2019), including unevenness in grammatical competence and politicization of lan-
guage practices. Analyzing forms of multilingualism among the Rapa Nui, Makihara (2013) has
persuasively argued that because the theoretical model underpinning communicative competence
is based on an ideal monolingual, homogeneous community, it leads researchers to mistake for in-
competence the varying levels of knowledge and proficiency in speakers’ multilingual repertoire
that are often found in bi-/multilingual settings (see also Jaffe 2013). Rather, in these settings
where speakers must mobilize multilingual communicative resources to participate in everyday
interactions and social engagements, being strictly monolingual would be closer to their emic
notions of communicative incompetence. In her review of Indigenous language endangerment,
Meek (2019, p. 95) has similarly highlighted the “vibrant and complicated amalgams of linguistic
practices, socializing discourse, and cultural ideologies” of endangered languages in childhood.
In addition to reconfiguring communicative competence in relation to bi-/multilingual mod-
els, these critiques have brought to the forefront how in the context of mobility and globalization,
which is rife with sociolinguistic hierarchies, competence cannot be understood only in relation to
speakers. With an analytic and ethnographic focus on performance, the study of communicative
competence must incorporate the language ideologies—about what counts as effective commu-
nication and who can be seen and heard as a competent speaker—that underpin sociolinguistic
inequalities. For example, in his study of beauty pageants in Tonga, Besnier (2013) has docu-
mented how if a person is wealthier, that person’s English is more positively evaluated regardless
of demonstrated proficiency. This critical line of inquiry is currently being extended by scholars
who are more directly questioning the exclusive privileging of the speaker in traditional models of
communicative competence. Recent examinations of communicative situations, both face-to-face

(García-Sánchez & Nazimova 2017b) and technologically mediated in online and other digital
environments (de León 2017a,b,c), in which the communicative competence of racial minorities,
immigrants, and Indigenous people is challenged—often regardless of their demonstrated lin-
guistic knowledge and competent participation—highlight the key role of the hearer and other
participants in how communicative competence is interactionally and socially produced. Build-
ing on the concept of the “listening subject” that Inoue (2003) has developed in her research on
language and gender, as well as on a later reformulation of this notion in raciolinguistic terms
by Flores & Rosa (2015), recent research is beginning to uncover how differential assessments
of communicative competence both shape social identities and are, in turn, shaped by racialized
models of personhood and identity. A final area of critique of communicative competence that the
mobility paradigm has made relevant involves environments where mass and social media have be-
come major socializing agents. These communicative environments have become fertile ground
for rethinking this analytic construct because digital settings are characterized by simultaneity and
one-to-many participation frameworks (Goebel 2013, Yamaguchi 2013), unlike the face-to-face
monolingual interactions that underpin traditional approaches to communicative competence.
4.2. Language and Community Belonging in Multilingual

and Multicultural Societies
An ongoing concern in LS has been to understand how developing communicative competence
in culturally appropriate ways is connected to processes of belonging and group membership,
along with its identity and affiliation corollaries. Because such connections hinge on the complex
dialectic between community and competence, two concepts have been fundamental to captur-
ing empirically and theoretically the never-neutral, often-contested nature of linguistic and so-
ciocultural membership and its gradient, limitary boundaries. One of these concepts is speech
community (Gumperz 1968), which, like the concept of communicative competence, also derives
from the ethnography of communication tradition, and which centers linguistic diversity and the
intrinsic heterogeneity of language use across contexts. The second is the concept of commu-
nity of practice (Lave & Wenger 1991), which derives from sociocultural theory and highlights
the socially embedded and participatory nature of learning. LS researchers, in conversation with
scholars from related ethnographic traditions in sociolinguistics (e.g., Bucholtz 1999, Eckert &
McConnell-Ginet 1992, Mendoza-Denton 2008), have engaged in continuous development and
elaboration of these concepts. Perhaps because mobility and hybridity are bound to put issues of
community belonging, language development, and identity in sharper relief, much of this probing
has come from LS scholars working in transnational and postcolonial settings characterized by
multilingualism, language contact, and change (Baquedano-López & Kattan 2007, Baquedano-
López & Mangual Figueroa 2012, García-Sánchez 2016a, Garrett 2005, Meek 2011, Mitsuhara
2019, Schieffelin 1994), who have tried to account for how communicative affordances shape (and
in turn are shaped by) varying levels of belonging to multiple communities, often in contexts of
marginalization.
In breaking down the conflation of language(s), territory, and, in many cases, even popula-
tions, the mobility shift has led researchers to theoretical interventions that illuminate forms of
community belonging that are less bounded, more deterritorialized, and able to account for the
many forms of displacements and dislocations of modernity. This approach questions assumptions
that explicitly tie linear and teleological developmental pathways from more peripheral to more
central community membership to higher levels of bi-/multilingual development and/or commu-
nicative competence (see also Section 4.1). We summarize several notable examples of these theo-
retical trends. Building on Anderson’s (1991) concept of “imagined communities” as introduced in

sociolinguistic and applied linguistic research by Kanno & Norton (2003), Song (2012) brings this
model to LS research, exploring bilingual development among Korean transnational families who
engage in early study abroad with their children in the United States. She traces how families’ lin-
guistic investment in English and Korean shifts, including LS strategies within the family, depend-
ing on their changing affiliations to the multiple communities (both back in South Korea and in
the United States) to which they imagine themselves belonging or to which they aspire to belong.
Diasporic ethnoreligious communities of practice have particularly afforded LS researchers
fertile ethnographic ground on which to interrogate ideas about community membership and
belonging, especially as tied to communicative competence and language development. On the
basis of research on Yiddish LS among secular Jewish communities in the global diaspora, Avineri
(2014) has introduced the concept of “metalinguistic community.” In the context of Avineri’s study,
this notion refers to a group of social actors who engage in discourse about Yiddish—usually
as endangered or in need of maintenance efforts. The metalinguistic fretting fuels a nostalgia-
based socialization into, once again, an imagined community of the Jewish diaspora, which usu-
ally translates into genre-specific uses of Yiddish, often limited to religion and culture. For Yid-
dish metalinguistic communities, these discourses and forms of use supersede socialization into
language competence and more comprehensive everyday use of Yiddish. Legitimate belonging
is also often contested among orthodox, nonliberal Jewish communities in the global diaspora,
in which the specter of community exclusion, and even ostracism, looms large for those individ-
uals who fail to remain on the religious path (Fader 2009, 2020). As Benor (2012) has shown
in her research among liberal Jews who decide to become frum (orthodox) later in life, be-
ing in the religious path, which is inseparable from community membership, involves an ardu-
ous process of multilingual LS for these adult newcomers, including learning how to parallel
Yiddish in English grammar and vocabulary as well as peppering interactions in English with
lexical items from Hebrew and Yiddish. Most importantly, a great deal of effort is devoted to
learning how to pronounce Yiddish and Hebrew words in a way that will be evaluated as correct.
Attention to phonological and pronunciation features to mediate exclusion and belonging has also
been documented in other ethnoreligious diasporas. For example, Taha’s (2017) research among
a second-generation Muslim immigrant women’s halaqa (study circle) in the United States has
shown how some community members use mock-foreign accents, as well as features of their own
and their families’ nonnative English speech, to negotiate larger discourses that position them as
dangerous outsiders.
Relatedly, because in migration contexts there are usually multiple refracting contradictions
and tensions between linguistic and sociocultural membership, on the one hand, and institutional,
legal, and political belonging, on the other hand, García-Sánchez (2014) has called into ques-
tion the often-taken-for-granted notions of community insider and outsider. In her work with
Moroccan immigrant youth in Spain, she has examined what negotiating participation and belong-
ing means in ontological-social domains of simultaneous exclusion and inclusion, where speakers
are positioned (and may even experience themselves) as being both outsiders and insiders to vary-
ing degrees at the same time. This negotiation includes how speakers’ ambiguous statuses struc-
ture (and are structured by) communicative affordances and bilingual development into varieties
of Spanish and Arabic. The literature on LS and community belonging has also challenged other
key oppositions, such as traditional (often uncritically ascribed to children’s heritage communities
and languages) versus modern (often ascribed to contexts organized around so-called Western val-
ues), as well as other problematic notions, such as cultural authenticity, that are common in many
studies of bi-/multilingual children’s development. This literature has highlighted instead the cul-
turally and linguistically diverse sets of resources that migrant and/or postcolonial families draw

on to socialize their children (Gregory et al. 2010, Meek 2019) and the internal heterogeneity and
dynamism (García-Sánchez 2010a) of children’s heritage communities.
Bridging the dialectic of micronegotiations of community membership with macrosociolog-
ical processes of belonging has been one of the most productive areas of focus and important
contributions of LS research into language and community belonging in multilingual contexts.
More specifically, it has shown how language practices and verbal routines have profound impli-
cations for the sociohistorical processes regulating notions of sociopolitical, economic, linguistic,
cultural, and affective belonging to national and transnational polities (Bhattacharya & Sterponi
2020, Friedman 2010, García-Sánchez 2013), to postcolonial and ancestral Indigenous nations
(de León Pasquel 2005, Hauck 2018, Makihara 2013, Meek 2019, Minks 2013, Paugh 2012, Riley
2007), and to diasporic and heritage communities (Bhimji 2005, Klein 2013, Lo 2009). Such im-
plications have been demonstrated in analyses of address terms used in family conversations (Zhu
2010); translanguaging practices among siblings and peers (Cho 2018, de León 2019, García-
Sánchez 2010b, Gregory et al. 2015, Kyratzis et al. 2009, Paugh 2019); the use of honorifics and
greetings in online environments and other forms of digitally mediated communication (Arnold
2019, Lam 2004); repetitions, corrections, and assessments used in religious socialization (García-
Sánchez 2010a, E. Moore 2020, L. Moore 2013); and interactional practices and verbal routines
used in classrooms, including storytelling, dialogic debate, repair, error correction, shaming, and
prompting (Baquedano-López 2000, Burdelski & Howard 2020a, Copp Jinkerson 2012, García-
Sánchez 2016b, Karrebæk 2020, Taha 2013, Welji 2017). Moreover, this rich body of research
has shown that these everyday language practices in families and institutional settings under-
gird the shift, vitality, or maintenance across generations of minority, immigrant, and Indigenous
languages.
Beyond these familial and educational institutional contexts, the deterritorialization of lan-
guage and community that globalization and mobility have heightened is most evident in the pro-
liferation of multilingual, often also transnational, workplaces. This phenomenon has translated
into a resurgence of studies regarding processes of LS in adulthood (e.g., Chu 2015, Cook 2018);
such research has particularly focused on adult immigrant LS into professional communities of
practice and on internationalized bi-/multilingual work environments (e.g., Duff et al. 2000, Li
2000, Lønsmann 2017, Roy 2003, Sarangi & Roberts 2002, Vickers 2007) as well as adult im-
migrant LS into bureaucratic paths toward obtaining citizenship (Griswold 2010). This growing
interest has renewed the promise that the LS paradigm holds to document bi-/multilingual devel-
opment throughout the life span and beyond the early years. In reenergizing a line of inquiry that
has been historically important in the development of LS research (for comprehensive reviews,
see, e.g., Duff 2017, Roberts 2010), these studies have foregrounded initial LS work that was
conducted in both professional training schools and actual workplaces and laid a strong founda-
tion for examining how neophytes come to acquire multiple linguistic and communicative norms
of professional discourses. Among this earlier work, we want to highlight Philips’s (1988) and
Mertz’s (2000, 2007) studies in US law schools, which show how through the acquisition of spe-
cialized legal language and through dialogic genres of argumentation in classrooms, law students
are socialized into the discursive structures of legal reasoning and into a worldview that privileges
narrow legal contexts at the expense of the broader social contexts. Jacobs-Huey’s (2003, 2007)
linguistic ethnography among African American cosmetology students is also important because
it shows how for speakers from nondominant groups, LS into professional conduct goes beyond,
for example, learning to distinguish between specialized and lay hair terminology. For the women
in Jacobs-Huey’s study, becoming successful cosmetologists also involved fraught political nego-
tiations at the intersection of racial identity and ideologies of professionalism. These negotiations

reverberated in their apprenticeship role-play interactions, which included, among other things,
learning how to craft diagnostic questions of clients, avoid forms of talk that would be evaluated
as “loud,” and use “mother wit.”
Similarly, in multilingual and diverse work environments, identity dimensions, such as immi-
gration status, national origin, and/or race and ethnicity, are often inseparable from how (often
perceived) linguistic competence can shape newcomers’ professional trajectories, including their
successful access to skilled labor markets and their inclusion in professional communities and or-
ganizations. Roberts’s (2010) warning that outsourcing, globalization, and so-called low-skill ver-
sus high-skill migration can create radically different conditions for LS in work environments is
particularly relevant in this regard. Looking at the interplay between language ideologies that po-
sition certain forms of bi-/multilingualism as more valuable than others (particularly those involv-
ing European languages with a global status) and the microinteractional demands of professional
discourses and genres in both everyday interactions with coworkers (Li 2000) and more formal
training encounters (Duff et al. 2000), these LS studies have shown how immigrant candidates
often fail to meet communicative expectations in gatekeeping encounters that are key to obtain-
ing promotions or professional licenses (Roberts et al. 2008, Sarangi & Roberts 2002). Even for
newcomers with higher status conferred by their position as English-language experts, feelings of
not belonging to organizational cultures in the workplace can be deeply consequential (Lønsmann
2017).
In integrating complex historical-sociological and microinteractional processes of belonging,
this body of work has emphasized the linguistic agency and creativity of speakers, particularly
those traditionally considered novices, thus challenging assumptions of passivity that other theo-
ries of development have traditionally associated with newcomers, learners, and other neophytes.
LS researchers have documented how novices and newcomers develop hybrid linguistic codes,
registers, and other forms of multilingual syncretism as creative responses to negotiate mem-
bership (e.g., Gilmore 2016, Said & Zhu 2017) and how they use their fledging communicative
resources to resist exclusion (e.g., García-Sánchez 2014, Mökkönen 2013) and to fit into families,
workplaces, and multiple communities (e.g., Fogel 2012, Lønsmann 2017). The focus on learners’
language use has also highlighted how LS occurs by way of everyday communicative strategies
constructed through a larger ecology of other meaningful practices in communities of practice
(Mendoza-Denton 2008). Not surprisingly, much recent scholarship has focused on multimodal-
ity and materiality, particularly in relation to texts (e.g., Baquedano-López 2008), and on how
digital environments and online communities provide a socialization space for speakers to learn
heritage/minority languages and cultures and to create new multilingual practices that can travel
across global sites (e.g., Baquedano-López 2008; de León 2017c, 2019; Lam 2008; Pahl 2017;
Paulson 2019; Thorne et al. 2009).
5. CONCLUSION
This critical review has laid out the theoretical underpinnings of two central pillars in LS—input
and communicative competence—and traced their multifaceted nature and contested trajectories.
Our discussion has been informed by nearly four decades of LS research, which we separate into
two heuristically defined lines of inquiry: historical-local and language contact–globalization.
We conclude that LS research is shaped by three epistemological agendas: (a) using anthro-
pological lenses to decenter and deconstruct prevailing theoretical biases about input in LA re-
search; (b) constructing its own theoretical edifice through empirical research that foregrounds
the inherent diversity of the communicative practices, habituses, and ecologies through which a

language is learned; and (c) revising and deconstructing core theoretical constructs and the deficit
ideologies predicated by understanding those constructs too narrowly in light of new processes
of language contact, postcolonialism, mobility, and globalization. These three agendas allow us to
observe the emergence of an explicit anthropolitical stance (Paugh & Riley 2019; see also Zentella
1997) against the reification of core constructs and their perceived neutrality to account for the
complexity of LS phenomena.
When addressing the theoretical foundations that gave rise to the historical-local line of in-
quiry, LS scholars have argued against understandings that reduce input to grammar and lexicon
in the particular communicative ecologies of white, middle-class families in the United States.
They have also provided arguments that challenge prevailing deficit models, such as so-called
language gaps based on dominant-language ideologies of what counts as good input and appro-
priate linguistic and academic development. These arguments unveil the problems of the ethics of
intervention, which are intended to reeducate caregivers to adopt hegemonic LS styles that priv-
ilege reflective referential practices associated with Western academic discursive practices (Ochs
& Kremer-Sadlik 2020).

The second part of our review, involving the language contact–globalization line of inquiry,
argues that LS has proven theoretically strong and methodologically flexible in accounting
for linguistic and cultural shift in hybrid, globalized, bi-/multilingual settings. Centering bi-/
multilingual speakers in diverse settings with marked sociolinguistic hierarchies has produced
shifts that actively call into question teleological developmental pathways, both empirically and
theoretically. These pathways assume a linear evolution from lesser to greater communicative
competence and from more peripheral to more central community membership (as well as a di-
rect one-to-one correlation between these two processes). Decentering idealized, monolingual
speakers (often also white and middle-class) as the normative locus for the study of linguistic
competence has led to new understandings of how communicative competence is sociocultur-
ally constructed and, sometimes, even interactionally distributed. This has included rethinking,
for example, the reified distinctions between expertness and novicehood, as well as challenging
problematic distinctions between full-fledged and truncated grammatical (in)competence of bi-/
multilingual speakers. This decentering has also illuminated the complex sociopolitical dynam-
ics surrounding competence, and how these dynamics structure sociolinguistic hierarchies that
are naturalized as (in)competence or language deficit by schools, institutions, and workplaces—
whether related to diverse verbal environments or to performance of standard varieties of national
languages.
Finally, the reconfiguring of the intertwined connections among language, culture, place, and
identity that has accompanied higher levels of globalization and mobility has allowed schol-
ars to reclaim the role of language(s) in how people develop a sense of place (Schieffelin
2003) and also to theorize new relationships among language(s), materiality, and a wide array
of (meta)communicative practices in communities that are becoming less bounded by territory.
These trends have deepened our understanding of processes of language contact, hybridity, and
syncretism within and across generations; they have also opened new avenues to investigate how
the socializing possibilities of digital environments are being used by communities, especially to
ensure the vitality of minoritized and endangered Indigenous languages.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that
might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful for the constructive criticism of an external reviewer. Any errors or misconceptions
are our responsibility.
LITERATURE CITED
Akhtar NJ, Tolins J, Fox Tree JE. 2019. Young children’s word learning through overhearing: next steps. In
International Handbook of Language Acquisition, ed. JS Horst, J von Koss Torkildsen, pp. 427–41. London,
UK: Routledge
Al-Azami S, Kenner C, Ruby M, Gregory E. 2010. Transliteration as a bridge to learning for bilingual children.
Int. J. Biling. Educ. Biling. 13(6):683–700
Anderson B. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. New York: Verso
Arnold L. 2019. Language socialization across borders: producing scalar subjectivities through material-
affective semiosis. Pragmatics 29(3):332–56
Aronsson K, Cekaite A. 2011. Activity contracts and directives in everyday family politics. Discourse Soc.
22(2):137–54
Avineri N. 2014. Yiddish endangerment as phenomenological reality and discursive strategy: crossing into the
past and crossing out the present. Lang. Commun. 38:18–32
Avineri N, Johnson E, Brice-Heath S, McCarty T, Ochs E, et al. 2015. Invited forum: bridging the “language
gap.” J. Linguist. Anthropol. 25(1):66–86
Baquedano-López P. 2000. Narrating community in doctrina classes. Narrat. Inq. 10(2):429–52
Baquedano-López P. 2008. The pragmatics of reading prayers: learning the act of contrition in Spanish-based
religious education classes (doctrina). Text Talk 28(5):581–602
Baquedano-López P, Kattan S. 2007. Growing up in a bilingual community: insights from language socializa-
tion. In New Handbook of Applied Linguistics, ed. P Auer, L Wei, pp. 57–87. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Baquedano-López P, Mangual Figueroa A. 2012. Language socialization and immigration. See Duranti et al.
2012, pp. 536–63
Bayley R. 2017. Language socialization in Latino communities. In Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Vol. 8:
Language Socialization, ed. PA Duff, S May. New York: Springer. 3rd ed. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-02327-4_25-2
Benor SB. 2012. Becoming Frum: How Newcomers Learn the Language and Culture of Orthodox Judaism. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
Besnier N. 2013. Language on the edge of the global: communicative competence, agency, and the complexity
of the local. Lang. Commun. 33:463–71
Bhattacharya U, Sterponi L. 2020. The morning assembly: constructing subjecthood, authority, and knowledge
through classroom discourse in an Indian school. See Burdelski & Howard 2020b, pp. 181–99
Bhimji F. 2005. Language socialization with directives in two Mexican immigrant families in south central
Los Angeles. In Building on Strength: Language and Literacy in Latino Families and Communities, ed. AC
Zentella, pp. 60–76. New York: Teach. Coll. Press
Blum SD. 2017. Unseen WEIRD assumptions: the so-called language gap discourse and ideologies of lan-
guage, childhood, and learning. Int. Multiling. Res. J. 11(1):23–38
Blum-Kulka S, Snow C. 2002. Talking to Adults: The Contribution of Multiparty Discourse to Language Acquisition.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Bourdieu P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice, transl. R Nice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Brown P. 1998. Conversational structure and language acquisition: the role of repetition in Tzeltal adult and
child speech. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 8(2):197–221
Brown P. 2012. The cultural organization of attention. See Duranti et al. 2012, pp. 29–55
Brown P, Gaskins S. 2014. Language acquisition and language socialization. In The Cambridge Handbook of
Linguistic Anthropology, ed. NJ Enfield, P Kockelman, J Sidnell, pp. 187–226. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Univ. Press
Bucholtz M. 1999. “Why be normal?”: language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Lang. Soc.
28:203–23

Burdelski M. 2012. Language socialization and politeness routines. See Duranti et al. 2012, pp. 275–95
Burdelski M, Howard KM. 2020a. Introduction: language socialization in classrooms. See Burdelski & Howard
2020b, pp. 1–26
Burdelski M, Howard KM, eds. 2020b. Language Socialization in Classrooms: Culture, Interaction, and Language
Development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Burdelski M, Minegishi H. 2012. Formulaic language and language socialization. Annu. Rev. Appl. Linguist.
32:173–88
Canagarajah S. 2017. The nexus of migration and language: the emergence of a disciplinary space. In The
Routledge Handbook of Migration and Language, ed. S Canagarajah, pp. 1–28. London: Routledge
Casillas M, Brown P, Levinson SC. 2020. Early language experience in a Tseltal Mayan village. Child Dev.
91(5):1819–35
Cekaite A. 2007. A child’s development of interactional competence in a Swedish L2 classroom. Mod. Lang. J.
91:45–62
Cekaite A. 2010. Shepherding the child: embodied directive sequences in parent-child interactions. Text Talk
30(1):1–25
Cekaite A. 2012. Affective stances in teacher-novice student interactions: language, embodiment, and willing-
ness to learn. Lang. Soc. 41:641–70
Cekaite A. 2016. Touch as social control: haptic organization of attention in adult-child interactions. J. Pragmat.
92:30–42
Cekaite A, Blum-Kulka S, Grøver V, Teubal E, eds. 2014. Children’s Peer Talk: Learning from Each Other.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Cekaite A, Kvist MH. 2017. The comforting touch: tactile intimacy and talk in managing children’s distress.
Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 50(2):109–27
Cekaite A, Mondada L. 2020. Touch in Social Interaction. London: Routledge
Charity Hudley AH, Mallinson C. 2014. We Do Language: English Language Variation in the Secondary English
Classroom. New York: Teach. Coll. Press
Charity Hudley AH, Mallinson C. 2018. Dismantling “the master’s tools”: moving students’ rights to their
own language from theory to practice. Am. Speech 93(3–4):513–37
Cho H. 2018. Korean-English bilingual sibling interactions and socialization. Linguist. Educ. 45:31–39
Chu JB. 2015. Between legal and social truths: the management of intertextual gaps in the construction of
narrative authority in a US mock trial competition. J. Appl. Linguist. Prof. Pract. 12(2):123–43
Clancy P. 1986. The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese. See Schieffelin & Ochs 1986, pp. 213–50
Cook HM. 2018. Socialization to acting, feeling, and thinking as Shakaijin: new employee orientations in a
Japanese company. In Japanese at Work, ed. HM Cook, JS Shibamoto-Smith, pp. 37–64. Cham, Switz.:
Palgrave Macmillan
Cook HM, Burdelski M. 2017. Language socialization in Japanese communities. In Encyclopedia of Language
and Education, Vol. 8: Language Socialization, ed. PA Duff, S May, pp. 309–22. New York: Springer.
3rd ed.
Cook-Gumperz J. 1977. Situated instruction: language socialization of school age children. In Child Discourse,
ed. S Ervin-Tripp, C Mitchell-Kernan, pp. 103–21. New York: Academic
Copp Jinkerson A. 2012. Socialization, language choice, and belonging: language norms in a first and second grade
English medium class. PhD Diss., Univ. Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finl.
Correa-Chávez M, López-Fraire A. 2019. Learning by observing and pitching in: implications for the class-
room. See García-Sánchez & Orellana 2019b, pp. 24–40
Cristia A, Dupoux E, Gurven M, Stieglitz J. 2019. Child-directed speech is infrequent in a forager-farmer
population: a time allocation study. Child Dev. 90(3):759–73
de León L. 1998. The emergent participant: interactive patterns in the socialization of Tzotzil (Mayan) infants.
J. Linguist. Anthropol. 3(2–3):131–61
de León L. 2007. Parallelism, metalinguistic play, and the interactive emergence of Zinacantec Mayan siblings’
culture. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 40(4):405–36
de León L. 2012. Language socialization and multiparty participation frameworks. See Duranti et al. 2012,
pp. 81–111

de León L. 2013. ‘The j’ik’al is coming!’ Triadic directives and emotion in the socialization of Zinacantec
Mayan children. In Maya Daily Lives: Proceedings of the 13th European Maya Conference (Paris, December
5–6, 2008), ed. A Breton, P Nondedéo, pp. 185–96. Markt Schwaben, Ger.: Anton Saurwein
de León L. 2015. Mayan children’s creation of learning ecologies by initiative and cooperative action. In
Advances in Child Development and Behaviour, Vol. 49: Children Learn by Observing and Contributing to
Family and Community Endeavors: A Cultural Paradigm, ed. M Correa-Chávez, R Mejía-Arauz, B Rogoff,
pp. 153–84. Waltham, MA: Elsevier
de León L. 2016. Indigenous language policy and education in Mexico. In Encyclopedia of Language and Educa-
tion, Vol. 1: Language Policy and Political Issues in Education, ed. T McCarty, S May, pp. 407–38. New York:
Springer. 3rd ed.
de León L. 2017a. Communicative competences, stances, and language ideologies in Mayan youth mediascapes. Paper
presented at the 116th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC,
Nov. 29–Dec. 3
de León L. 2017b. Emerging learning ecologies: Mayan children’s initiative and correctional directives in their
everyday enskilment practices. Linguist. Educ. 41:47–48
de León L. 2017c. Texting amor: emerging intimacies in new courtship practices among Tzotzil Mayan youth.
Ethos 45(4):462–88
de León L. 2018. Medialects in the creation of Mayan peer cultures: romantic texting as a new literacy prac-
tice. In Linguistic and Material Intimacies of Cell Phones, ed. JA Bell, JC Kuipers, pp. 101–27. New York:
Routledge
de León L. 2019. Playing at being bilingual: bilingual performances, stance, and language scaling in Mayan
Tzotzil siblings’ play. J. Pragmat. 144:92–108
de León Pasquel L. 2005. La Llegada del Alma: Lenguaje, Infancia y Socialización Entre los Mayas de Zinacantán.
México City: INAH-CIESAS
Delpit L. 1995. Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: New Press
Duff PA. 2008. Language socialization, participation and identity: ethnographic approaches. In Encyclopedia of
Language and Education, Vol. 3: Discourse and Education, ed. M Martin-Jones, AM de Mejía, N Hornberger,
pp. 107–19. New York: Springer. 2nd ed.
Duff PA. 2010. Language socialization. In Sociolinguistics and Language Education, ed. N Hornberger, SL
McKay, pp. 427–52. Bristol, UK: Multiling. Matters
Duff PA. 2017. Language socialization, higher education, and work. In Encyclopedia of Language and Education,
Vol. 8: Language Socialization, ed. PA Duff, S May. New York: Springer. 3rd ed. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-02327-4_19-1
Duff PA, Hornberger N, eds. 2008. Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Vol. 8: Language Socialization. New
York: Springer. 2nd ed.
Duff PA, Wong P, Early M. 2000. Learning language for work and life: the linguistic socialization of immigrant
Canadians seeking careers in health care. Can. Mod. Lang. Rev. 57:9–57
Duranti A, Ochs E, Schieffelin BB, eds. 2012. The Handbook of Language Socialization. Malden, MA: Wiley-
Blackwell
Duranti A, Ochs E, Ta’ase EK. 1995. Change and tradition in literacy instruction in a Samoan American
community. Educ. Found. 9:57–74
Eckert P, McConnell-Ginet S. 1992. Think practically and look locally: language and gender as community-
based practice. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 21:461–90
Ek L. 2019. Linking church and school: language and literacy practices of bilingual Latinx Pentecostal youth.
See García-Sánchez & Orellana 2019b, pp. 107–23
Eksner HJ, Orellana MF. 2012. Shifting in the zone: Latina/o child language brokers and the co-construction
of knowledge. Ethos 40(2):196–220
Fader A. 2009. Mitzvah Girls: Bringing Up the Next Generation of Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton Univ. Press
Fader A. 2020. Hidden Heretics: Jewish Doubt in the Digital Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Farr M, Domínguez Barajas E. 2005. Latinos and diversity in a global city: language and identity at home,
school, church, and work. In Latino Language and Literacy in Ethnolinguistic Chicago, ed. M Farr, pp. 3–27.
Mahwah, NJ/London: Lawrence Erlbaum

Field M. 2001. Triadic directives in Navajo language socialization. Lang. Soc. 30(2):249–63
Flores N, Rosa J. 2015. Undoing appropriateness: raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in educa-
tion. Harvard Educ. Rev. 85(2):149–71
Fogel LW. 2012. Second Language Socialization and Learner Agency: Adoptive Family Talk. Bristol, UK: Multiling.
Matters
Friedman DA. 2010. Becoming national: classroom language socialization and political identities in the age of
globalization. Annu. Rev. Appl. Linguist. 30:193–210
Friedman DA. 2020. Negotiating epistemic authority and co-constructing difference: socializing nonnative
speaker teachers in a US graduate program in TESOL. See Burdelski & Howard 2020b, pp. 158–78
Fung H. 1999. Becoming a moral child: the socialization of shame among young Chinese children. Ethos
27(2):180–209
Fung H, Chen ECH. 2001. Across time and beyond skin: self and transgression in the everyday socialization
of shame among Taiwanese preschool children. Soc. Dev. 10(3):419–37

García-Sánchez IM. 2010a. The politics of Arabic language education: Moroccan immigrant children’s social-
ization into ethnic and religious identities. Linguist. Educ. 21(3):171–96
García-Sánchez IM. 2010b. Serious games: code-switching and identity in Moroccan immigrant girls’ pretend
play. Pragmatics 20(4):523–55
García-Sánchez IM. 2013. The everyday politics of ‘cultural citizenship’ among North African immigrant
school children in Spain. Lang. Commun. 33:481–99
García-Sánchez IM. 2014. Language and Muslim Immigrant Childhoods: The Politics of Belonging. Oxford, UK:
Wiley Blackwell
García-Sánchez IM. 2016a. Language socialization and marginalization. In The Routledge Handbook of Linguistic
Anthropology, ed. N Bonvillain, pp. 159–74. New York: Routledge
García-Sánchez IM. 2016b. Multiculturalism and its discontents: essentializing ethnic Moroccan and Roma
identities in classroom discourse in Spain. In Raciolinguistics: How Language Shapes Our Ideas About Race,
ed. HS Alim, J Rickford, A Ball, pp. 291–309. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
García-Sánchez IM. 2017. Friendship, participation, and multimodality in Moroccan immigrant girls’ peer
groups. In Friendship and Peer Culture in Multilingual Settings, ed. M Theobald, pp. 1–33. Bingley, UK:
Emerald
García-Sánchez IM. 2019. Centering shared linguistic heritage to build language and literacy resilience among
immigrant students. See García-Sánchez & Orellana 2019b, pp. 139–60
García-Sánchez IM, Nazimova K. 2017a. Language socialization and immigration in Europe. In Encyclope-
dia of Language and Education, Vol. 8: Language Socialization, ed. PA Duff, S May. New York: Springer.
3rd ed. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02327-4_30-2
García-Sánchez IM, Nazimova K. 2017b. When communicative competence is not enough: intersectionality, compe-
tence, and legitimate belonging. Paper presented at the 116th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropo-
logical Association, Washington, DC, Nov. 29–Dec. 3
García-Sánchez IM, Orellana MF. 2019a. Everyday learning: centering in schools the language and cultural
practices of young people from non-dominant backgrounds. See García-Sánchez & Orellana 2019b,
pp. 1–23
García-Sánchez IM, Orellana MF, eds. 2019b. Language and Cultural Practices in Communities and Schools: Bridg-
ing Learning for Students from Non-Dominant Groups. New York/London: Routledge
Garrett PB. 2005. What a language is good for: language socialization, language shift, and the persistence of
code-specific genres in St. Lucia. Lang. Soc. 34(3):327–61
Garrett PB. 2012. Language socialization and language shift. See Duranti et al. 2012, pp. 515–35
Garrett PB, Baquedano-López P. 2002. Language socialization: reproduction and continuity, transformation
and change. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 31:339–61
Gaskins S. 2006. Cultural perspectives on infant-caregiver interaction. In Roots of Human Sociality: Culture,
Cognition and Interaction, ed. NJ Enfield, SC Levinson, pp. 279–98. Oxford, UK: Berg
Gaskins S, Paradise R. 2010. Learning through observation. In The Anthropology of Learning in Childhood, ed.
DF Lancy, J Bock, S Gaskins, pp. 85–117. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira
Gilmore P. 2016. Kisisi (Our Language): The Story of Colin and Sadiki. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell

Goebel Z. 2013. Competence to comprehend and knowledging. Lang. Commun. 33:366–75
Goffman E. 1981. Footing. In Forms of Talk, ed. E Goffman, pp. 124–59. Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press
González N. 2001. I Am My Language: Discourses of Women and Children in the Borderlands. Tucson: Univ. Ariz.
Press
Goodwin C. 2004. A competent speaker who can’t speak: the social life of aphasia. J. Linguist. Anthropol.
14(2):151–70
Goodwin C. 2018. Co-operative Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Goodwin MH. 1990. He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization Among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana
Univ. Press
Goodwin MH. 2006a. The Hidden Life of Girls: Games of Stance, Status, and Exclusion. Oxford, UK: Blackwell
Goodwin MH. 2006b. Participation, affect, and trajectory in family directive/response sequences. Text Talk
26(4/5):513–42
Goodwin MH. 2017. Haptic sociality: the embodied interactive construction of intimacy through touch. In
Intercorporeality: Emerging Socialities in Interaction, ed. C Meyer, J Streek, JS Jordan, pp. 73–102. New York:
Oxford Univ. Press
Goodwin MH, Cekaite A. 2018. Embodied Family Choreography: Practices of Control, Care and Mundane Creativity.
London/New York: Routledge Taylor Francis
Goodwin MH, Kyratzis A. 2012. Peer language socialization. See Duranti et al. 2012, pp. 365–90
Gregory E, Lytra V, Ilankuberan A. 2015. Divine games and rituals: how Tamil Saiva/Hindu siblings learn
faith practices through play. Int. J. Play 4(1):69–83
Gregory E, Ruby M, Kenner C. 2010. Modelling and close observation: ways of teaching and learning between
third-generation Bangladeshi British children and their grandparents in London. Early Years 30(2):161–
73
Griswold OV. 2010. Narrating America: socializing adult ESL learners into idealized views of the United
States during citizenship preparation classes. TESOL Q. 44(3):488–516
Gumperz JJ. 1968. The speech community. In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, ed. DL Sils, RK
Merton, pp. 381–86. New York: Macmillan
Guo Z. 2014. Young Children as Intercultural Mediators: Mandarin-Speaking Families in Britain. Bristol, UK:
Multiling. Matters
Hart B, Risley TR. 1995. Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. Baltimore,
MD: Brookes
Hauck JD. 2016. Making language the ideological and interactional constitution of language in an indigenous Aché
community in Eastern Paraguay. PhD Thesis, Univ. Calif., Los Angeles
Hauck JD. 2018. The origin of language among the Aché. Lang. Commun. 63:76–88
He AW. 2012. Heritage language socialization. See Duranti et al. 2012, pp. 487–509
Heath SB. 1983. Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press
Heath SB. 2015. The simple and direct? Almost never the solution. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 25(1):68–70
Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A. 2010. The weirdest people in the world? Behav. Brain Sci. 33(2–3):61–83
Hoff E. 2003. The specificity of environmental influence: Socioeconomic status affects early vocabulary de-
velopment via maternal speech. Child Dev. 74(5):1368–78
Howard KM. 2007. Kinship usage and hierarchy in Thai children’s peer groups. J. Linguist. Anthropol.
17(2):204–30
Howard KM. 2012. Language socialization and hierarchy. See Duranti et al. 2012, pp. 341–64
Huttenlocher J, Waterfall H, Vasilyeva M, Vevea J, Hedges LV. 2010. Sources of variability in children’s lan-
guage growth. Cogn. Psychol. 61:343–65
Hymes DH. 1972. On communicative competence. In Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings, ed. JB Pride, J Holmes,
pp. 269–93. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin
Inoue M. 2003. The listening subject of Japanese modernity and his auditory double: citing, sighting, and
siting the modern Japanese woman. Cult. Anthropol. 18(2):156–93
Jacobs-Huey L. 2003. Ladies are seen, not heard: language socialization in a Southern, African American
cosmetology school. Anthropol. Educ. Q. 34(3):277–99

Jacobs-Huey L. 2007. Learning through the breach: language socialization among African American cosme-
tologists. Ethnography 8(2):171–203
Jaffe A. 2013. Minority language learning and communicative competence: models of identity and participa-
tion in Corsican adult language courses. Lang. Commun. 33:450–62
Kanno Y, Norton B. 2003. Imagined communities and educational possibilities: introduction. J. Lang. Ident.
Educ. 2(4):241–49
Karrebæk MS. 2020. Talking about lunch: diversity language and food socialization in a Danish kindergarten
classroom. See Burdelski & Howard 2020b, pp. 224–46
Kataoka K, Ikeda K, Besnier N. 2013. Decentering and recentering communicative competence. Lang.
Commun. 33:345–50
Katila J. 2018. Touch between child and mother as an affective practice: reproducing bodies in haptic nego-
tiations of intimate space. In Affective Inequalities in Intimate Relationships, ed. T Juvonen, M Klehmaien,
pp. 202–17. London: Routledge

Kidwell M. 2005. Gaze as social control: how very young children differentiate “the look” from “a mere look”
by their adult caregivers. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 38(4):417–49
Klein W. 2013. Speaking Punjabi: heritage language socialization and language ideologies in a Sikh education
program. Herit. Lang. J. 10(1):36–50
Klein W, Goodwin MH. 2013. Chores. In Fast-Forward Family: Home, Work, and Relationships in Middle-Class
America, ed. E Ochs, T Kremer-Sadlik, pp. 111–29. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Kulick D. 1992. Language Shift and Cultural Reproduction: Socialization, Self, and Syncretism in a Papua New
Guinean Village. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Kulick D, Schieffelin BB. 2004. Language socialization. In A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, ed. A
Duranti, pp. 349–68. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell
Kyratzis A, Tang YT, Koymen BS. 2009. Codes, code-switching and context: style and footing in peer group
bilingual play. Multilingua 28:265–90
Lam WSE. 2004. Second language socialization in a bilingual chat room: global and local considerations. Lang.
Learn. Technol. 8(3):44–65
Lam WSE. 2008. Language socialization in online communities. In Encyclopedia of Language and Education, ed.
N Hornberger. Boston: Springer. 2nd ed. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_214
Lave J, Wenger E. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Univ. Press
LeVine R, Miller AL, Dixon S, Richman AL, Leiderman PH. 1994. Child Care and Culture: Lessons from Africa.
Levinson S. 2006. On the human “interaction engine.” In Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and In-
teraction, ed. NJ Enfield, SC Levinson, pp. 153–78. Oxford, UK: Berg
Li D. 2000. The pragmatics of making requests in the L2 workplace. Can. Mod. Lang. Rev. 57:58–87
Lieven E, Stoll S. 2013. Early communicative development in two cultures: a comparison of the communicative
environments of children from two cultures. Hum. Dev. 56:178–206
Liszkowski U, Brown P, Callaghan T, Takada A, Vos C. 2012. A prelinguistic universal of human communi-
cation. Cogn. Sci. 36:698–713
Lo A. 2009. Lessons about respect and affect in a Korean American heritage language school. Linguist. Educ.
20(3):217–34
Lo A, Fung H. 2012. Language socialization and shaming. See Duranti et al. 2012, pp. 169–89
Lønsmann D. 2017. A catalyst for change: language socialization and norm negotiation in a transient multi-
lingual workplace. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 27(3):326–43
Makihara M. 2013. Language, competence, use, ideology, and community on Rapa Nui. Lang. Commun.
33:439–49
Makihara M, Schieffelin BB, eds. 2007. Consequences of Contact: Language Ideologies and Sociocultural Transforma-
tions in Pacific Societies. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
Mangual Figueroa A. 2011. Citizenship and education in the homework completion routine. Anthropol. Educ.
Q. 4(3):263–80

Mangual Figueroa A, Baquedano-López P. 2017. Language socialization and schooling. In Encyclopedia of Lan-
guage and Education, Vol. 8: Language Socialization, ed. PA Duff, S May. New York: Springer. 3rd ed.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02327-4_11-1
Marin A. 2019. Seeing together: the ecological knowledge of Indigenous families in Chicago urban forest
walks. See García-Sánchez & Orellana 2019b, pp. 41–58
Meek BA. 2011. We Are Our Language: An Ethnography of Language Revitalization in a Northern Athabaskan
Community. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
Meek BA. 2019. Language endangerment in childhood. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 48:95–115
Mendoza-Denton N. 2008. Homegirls: Language and Cultural Practice Among Latina Youth Gangs. Malden, MA:
Blackwell
Mertz E. 2000. Teaching lawyers the language of law: legal and anthropological translations. John Marshall
Law Rev. 34(1):91–117
Mertz E. 2007. The Language of Law School: Learning to “Think Like a Lawyer.” New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Miller PJ. 1982. Amy, Wendy, and Beth: Learning Language in South Baltimore. Austin: Univ. Tex. Press
Miller PJ, Cho GE, Bracey JR. 2005. Working class children’s experience through the prism of personal sto-
rytelling. Hum. Dev. 48:115–35

Miller PJ, Fung H, Lin S, Chen ECH, Boldt BR. 2012. How Socialization Happens on the Ground: Narrative
Practices as Alternate Socializing Pathways in Taiwanese and European-American Families. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 77, No. 1, Ser. No. 302. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell
Miller PJ, Sperry DE. 2012. Déjà vu: the continuing misrecognition of low-income children’s verbal abilities.
In Facing Social Class: How Societal Rank Influences Interaction, ed. ST Fiske, HR Markus, pp. 109–30. New
York: Russell Sage
Minks A. 2013. Voices of Play: Miskitu Children’s Speech and Song off the Coast of Nicaragua. Tucson: Univ. Ariz.
Press
Mitsuhara T. 2019. Moving toward utopia: language, empathy, and chastity among mobile mothers and children in
Mayapur, West Bengal. PhD Thesis, Univ. Calif., Los Angeles
Mökkönen AC. 2013. Newcomers navigating language choice and seeking voice: peer talk in a multilingual
primary school classroom in Finland. Anthropol. Educ. Q. 44(2):124–41
Moore E. 2020. Affective stance and socialization to Orthodox Christian values in a Russian heritage language
classroom. See Burdelski & Howard 2020b, pp. 71–90
Moore LC. 2006. Changes in folktale socialization in a Fulbe community. Stud. Afr. Linguist. 11:176–87
Moore LC. 2013. Qur’anic school sermons as a site for sacred and second language socialization. J. Multiling.
Multicult. Dev. 34(5):445–58
Moore LC. 2017. Multilingual socialization and education in non-Western settings. In Encyclopedia of Language
and Education, Vol. 8: Language Socialization, ed. PA Duff, S May. New York: Springer. 3rd ed. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02327-4_12-1
Nonaka AM. 2012. Language socialization and language endangerment. See Duranti et al. 2012, pp. 610–30
Ochs E. 1988. Culture and Language Development: Language Acquisition and Language Socialization in a Samoan
Village. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Ochs E. 1996. Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, ed. J Gumperz,
S Levinson. pp. 407–37. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Ochs E, Izquierdo C. 2009. Responsibility in childhood: three developmental trajectories. Ethos 37(4):391–413
Ochs E, Kremer-Sadlik T, eds. 2013. Fast-Forward Family: Home, Work, and Relationships in Middle-Class America.
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Ochs E, Kremer-Sadlik T. 2015. How postindustrial families talk. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 44:87–103
Ochs E, Kremer-Sadlik T. 2020. Ethical blind-spots in ethnographic and psychological approaches to the
language gap debate. Lang. Soc. 2(170):39–67
Ochs E, Schieffelin BB. 1984. Language acquisition and socialization: three developmental stories. In Culture
Theory: Essays on Mind, Self, and Emotion, ed. RA Shweder, RA LeVine, pp. 276–320. Cambridge, UK:
Ochs E, Schieffelin BB. 2012. The theory of language socialization. See Duranti et al. 2012, pp. 1–22
Ochs E, Schieffelin BB. 2017. Language socialization: an historical overview. See Duff & Hornberger 2008,
pp. 3–16

Ochs E, Solomon O, Sterponi L. 2005. Limitations and transformations of habitus in child-directed commu-
nication. Discourse Stud. 7:547–83
Ochs E, Taylor C. 1992. Science at dinner. In Text and Context: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Language Study,
ed. C Kramsch, S McConnell-Ginet, pp. 29–45. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath
Ochs E, Taylor C, Rudolph D, Smith R. 1992. Storytelling as theory-building activity. Discourse Process. 15:37–
72
Orellana MF, Reynolds JF. 2008. Cultural modeling: leveraging bilingual skills for school paraphrasing tasks.
Read. Res. Q. 43(1):48–65
Pace A, Luo R, Hirsch-Pasek K, Michnick Golinkoff R. 2017. Identifying pathways between socioeconomic
status and language development. Annu. Rev. Linguist. 3:285–308
Pahl K. 2017. Language socialization and multimodality in multilingual urban homes. In Encyclopedia of Lan-
guage and Education, Vol. 8: Language Socialization, ed. PA Duff, S May. New York: Springer. 3rd ed.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02327-4_9-1
Park E. 2006. Grandparents, grandchildren, and heritage language use in Korean. In Heritage Language De-
velopment: Focus on East Asian Immigrants, ed. K Kondo-Brown, pp. 57–86. Amsterdam, Neth.: John
Benjamins
Park E. 2008. Intergenerational transmission of cultural values in Korean American families: an analysis of the
verb suffix -ta. Herit. Lang. J. 6:21–53
Paugh AL. 2012. Playing with Languages: Children and Change in a Caribbean Village. New York: Berghahn
Paugh AL. 2019. Negotiating language ideologies through imaginary play: children’s code choice and rescaling
practices in Dominica, West Indies. J. Pragmat. 144:78–91
Paugh AL, Riley KC. 2019. Poverty and children’s language in anthropolitical perspective. Annu. Rev.
Anthropol. 48:297–315
Paulson D. 2019. Livestream in the context of ethnographic fieldwork: a new media literacy. CAS Voices
from the Field Blog, Mar. 31. https://criticalasianstudies.org/commentary/2019/3/31/dave-paulson-
livestream-in-the-context-of-ethnographic-fieldwork-a-new-media-literacy
Pease-Alvarez C, Vasquez O. 1994. Language socialization in ethnic minority communities. In Educating Second
Language Children: The Whole Child, the Whole Curriculum, the Whole Community, ed. F Genesee, pp. 82–
102. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
Pesco D, Crago MB. 2016. Language socialization in Canadian Indigenous communities. In Encyclopedia of
Language and Education, Vol. 8: Language Socialization, ed. PA Duff, S May. New York: Springer. 3rd ed.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02327-4_21-1
Pfeiler B. 2007. “Lo oye, lo repite y lo piensa.” The contribution of prompting to the socialization and lan-
guage acquisition in Yukatek Maya toddlers. In Learning Indigenous Language: Child Language Acquisition
in Mesoamerica, ed. B Pfeiler, pp. 183–202. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer
Philips SU. 1983. The Invisible Culture: Communication in Classroom and Community on the Warm Springs Indian
Reservation. New York: Longman
Philips SU. 1988. The language socialization of lawyers: acquiring the ‘cant.’ In Doing the Ethnography of School-
ing: Educational Anthropology in Action, ed. G Spindler, pp. 176–209. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland
Reynolds JF. 2008. Socializing puros pericos (little parrots): the negotiation of respect and responsibility in
Antonero Mayan sibling and peer networks. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 18(1):82–107
Reynolds JF, Orellana MF. 2014. Translanguaging within enactments of quotidian interpreter-mediated in-
teractions. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 24(3):315–38
Riley KC. 2007. To tangle or not to tangle: shifting language ideologies and the socialization of Charabia in
the Marquesas, French Polynesia. In Consequences of Contact: Language Ideologies and Sociocultural Transfor-
mations in Pacific Societies, ed. M Makihara, BB Schieffelin, pp. 70–95. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Riley KC. 2012. Language socialization and language ideologies. See Duranti et al. 2012, pp. 493–514
Rindstedt C. 2001. Quichua children and language shift in an Andean community: school play and sibling caretaking.
Work. Pap., Fac. Arts, Univ. Linköping, Linköping, Swed.
Roberts C. 2010. Language socialization in the workplace. Annu. Rev. Appl. Linguist. 30:211–27
Roberts C, Campbell S, Robinson Y. 2008. Talking like a manager: promotion interviews, language, and ethnicity.
Res. Rep. 510, King’s Coll. London, London, UK

Rogoff B. 2003. The Cultural Nature of Human Development. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
Rogoff B, Mejía-Arauz R, Correa-Chávez M. 2015. A cultural paradigm—learning by observing and pitch-
ing in. In Children Learn by Observing and Contributing to Family and Community Endeavors: A Cultural
Paradigm, ed. M Correa-Chávez, R Mejía-Arauz, B Rogoff, pp. 1–22. Waltham, MA: Academic
Rogoff B, Paradise R, Mejía-Arauz R, Correa-Chávez M, Angelillo C. 2003. First-hand learning through intent
participation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 54:175–203
Roy S. 2003. Bilingualism and standardization in a Canadian call center: challenges for a linguistic minor-
ity community. In Language Socialization in Bilingual and Multilingual Societies, ed. R Bayley, S Schecter,
pp. 269–85. Bristol, UK: Multiling. Matters
Sacks H, Schegloff E, Jefferson G. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conver-
sation. Language 50:696–735
Said FFS, Zhu H. 2017. “No, no maama! Say ‘Shaatir ya Ouledee Shaatir’!” Children’s agency in language use
and socialization. Int. J. Biling. 23(3):771–85

Salomo D, Liszkowski U. 2012. Sociocultural settings influence the emergence of prelinguistic deictic gestures.
Child Dev. 83(6):1296–307
Sarangi S, Roberts C. 2002. Discoursal (mis)alignments in professional gatekeeping encounters. In Language

Acquisition and Language Socialization: Ecological Perspectives, ed. C Kramsch, pp. 197–227. New York:
Continuum
Schieffelin BB. 1990. The Give and Take of Everyday Life: Language Socialization of Kaluli Children. New York:
Schieffelin BB. 1994. Codeswitching and language socialization: some probable relationships. In Pragmatics:
From Theory to Practice, ed. JF Duchan, LE Hewitt, RM Sonnenmeier, pp. 20–42. New York: Prentice
Hall
Schieffelin BB. 2003. Language and place in children’s worlds. Tex. Linguist. Forum 45:152–66
Schieffelin BB, Ochs E, eds. 1986. Language Socialization Across Cultures. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
Shneidman L, Arroyo ME, Levine SC, Goldin-Meadow S. 2012. What counts as effective input for word
learning? J. Child Lang. 40:672–86
Shneidman L, Goldin-Meadow S. 2012. Language input and acquisition in a Mayan village: How important
is directed speech? Dev. Sci. 15(5):659–73
Shohet M. 2013. Everyday sacrifice and language socialization in Vietnam: the power of a respect particle. Am.
Anthropol. 115(2):203–17
Sidnell J. 2009. Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. New York: Wiley
Silverstein M. 1998. Contemporary transformations of local linguistic communities. Annu. Rev. Anthropol.
27:401–26
Silverstein M. 2014. How language communities intersect: Is “superdiversity” an incremental or transforma-
tive condition? Lang. Commun. 44:7–18
Solomon O. 2012. Rethinking baby talk. See Duranti et al. 2012, pp. 121–49
Song J. 2012. Imagined communities and language socialization practices in transnational space: a case study
of two Korean “study abroad” families in the United States. Mod. Lang. J. 96:507–24
Song J. 2017. Language socialization in Korean transnational communities. In Encyclopedia of Language and
Education, Vol. 8: Language Socialization, ed. PA Duff, S May. New York: Springer. 3rd ed. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-02327-4_24-1
Sperry DE, Sperry LL, Miller PJ. 2018. Reexamining the verbal environments of children from different
socioeconomic backgrounds. Child Dev. 90(4):1303–18
Steffensen SV, Kramsch C. 2017. The ecology of second language acquisition and socialization. In Encyclopedia
of Language and Education, Vol. 8: Language Socialization, ed. PA Duff, S May. New York: Springer. 3rd ed.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02327-4_2-1
Streek J, Goodwin C, LeBaron C. 2011. Embodied Interaction: Language and the Body in the Material World.
Taha MC. 2013. The pitfalls of democracy and debate: authority and inequality in classrooms in Southeast
Spain. Crossroads Lang. Interact. Cult. 9:29–54
Taha MC. 2017. Discourse as virtue ethics: Muslim women in the American Southwest. Palgrave Commun.
3(1):17026. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.26

Takada A. 2013. Generating morality in directive sequences: distinctive strategies for developing communica-
tive competence in Japanese caregiver-child interactions. Lang. Commun. 33(4):420–38
Takei N, Burdelski M. 2018. Shifting of “expert” and “novice” roles between/within two languages: language
socialization, identity, and epistemics in family dinnertime conversations. Multilingua 37(1):83–117
Thorne SL, Black RW, Sykes JM. 2009. Second language use, socialization and learning in Internet interest
communities and online gaming. Mod. Lang. J. 93:802–21
Vickers C. 2007. Second language socialization through team interaction among electrical and computing
engineering students. Mod. Lang. J. 91:621–40
Ward S. 2019. Learning language, transforming knowledge: language socialization in Amdo Tibet. PhD Thesis,
NYU, New York
Watson-Gegeo KA, Gegeo DW. 1986. Calling-out and repeating routines in Kwara’ae children’s language
socialization. See Schieffelin & Ochs 1986, pp. 17–50
Watson-Gegeo KA, Gegeo DW. 1996. Keeping culture out of the classroom in rural Solomon Islands schools:
a critical analysis. Educ. Found. 8(2):27–55
Welji HN. 2017. Learning to be “good”: the ethics of socialization and the socialization of ethics in Amman, Jordan.
PhD Thesis, Univ. Calif., San Diego

Wooton AJ. 1997. Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Wortham S, Rymes B, eds. 2002. Linguistic Anthropology of Education. Westport, CT/London: Praeger
Yamaguchi M. 2013. Reconsidering communicative competence in Web 2.0 environments: “Asians in the
library” and four parodic responses on YouTube. Lang. Commun. 33:376–89
Zentella AC. 1997. Growing Up Bilingual: Puerto Rican Children in New York. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Zentella AC, ed. 2005. Building on Strength: Language and Literacy in Latino Families and Communities. New
York: Teach. Coll. Press
Zhu H. 2010. Language socialization and interculturality: address terms in intergenerational talk in Chinese
diasporic families. Lang. Intercult. Commun. 10(3):189–205

LI07_TOC ARjats.cls November 28, 2020 13:59
Annual Review
Contents of Linguistics
Volume 7, 2021
Linguistics Then and Now: Some Personal Reflections

Noam Chomsky p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
The Respiratory Foundations of Spoken Language
Susanne Fuchs and Amélie Rochet-Capellan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p13

Cracking Prosody in Articulatory Phonology
Dani Byrd and Jelena Krivokapić p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p31

Prosody and Sociolinguistic Variation in American Englishes
Nicole Holliday p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p55
The Motivation for Roots in Distributed Morphology
David Embick p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p69
The Morphome
Martin Maiden p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p89
Serial Verb Constructions
Joseph Lovestrand p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 109
Logophoricity, Perspective, and Reflexives
Isabelle Charnavel p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 131
Noncanonical Passives: A Typology of Voices in an Impoverished
Universal Grammar
Julie Anne Legate p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 157
Resumptive Pronouns in Language Comprehension and Production
Aya Meltzer-Asscher p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 177
Syntactic Structure from Deep Learning
Tal Linzen and Marco Baroni p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 195
Evidentiality, Modality, and Speech Acts
Sarah E. Murray p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 213
Shifty Attitudes: Indexical Shift Versus Perspectival Anaphora
Sandhya Sundaresan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 235
Frames at the Interface of Language and Cognition
Sebastian Löbner p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 261
LI07_TOC ARjats.cls November 28, 2020 13:59
The Linguistics of the Voynich Manuscript

Claire L. Bowern and Luke Lindemann p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 285
Syntactic Change in Contact: Romance
Roberta D’Alessandro p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 309
The Classification of South American Languages
Lev Michael p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 329
The Origin and Dispersal of Uralic: Distributional Typological View
Johanna Nichols p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 351
Cognacy Databases and Phylogenetic Research on Indo-European

Paul Heggarty p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 371
Acquisition of Sign Languages

Diane Lillo-Martin and Jonathan Henner p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 395
Language Socialization at the Intersection of the Local and the Global:
The Contested Trajectories of Input and Communicative
Competence
Lourdes de León and Inmaculada M. García-Sánchez p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 421
Birdsong Learning and Culture: Analogies with Human Spoken
Language
Julia Hyland Bruno, Erich D. Jarvis, Mark Liberman, and Ofer Tchernichovski p p p p p p p 449
The Use of Corpus Linguistics in Legal Interpretation
Neal Goldfarb p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 473
Environmental and Linguistic Typology of Whistled Languages
Julien Meyer p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 493
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Linguistics articles may be found at
http://www.annualreviews.org/errata/linguistics

De León - García-Sanchez - 2020 - Language Socialization...

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

De León - García-Sanchez - 2020 - Language Socialization...

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

De León - García-Sanchez - 2020 - Language Socialization...

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annual Review of Linguistics

Language Socialization at the

the Global: The Contested

Annu. Rev. Linguist. 2021. 7:421–48 Keywords

our heuristic distinction in historical and epistemological terms.

422 de León • García-Sánchez

among increasingly transnational, deterritorialized language users, including communities associ-

Figueroa 2011, Ward 2019, Zentella 2005).

www.annualreviews.org • Contesting Input and Communicative Competence 423

2.1. Unpacking the Input: Interaction and Multiparty Language

424 de León • García-Sánchez

www.annualreviews.org • Contesting Input and Communicative Competence 425

426 de León • García-Sánchez

2.2. Interactional Foundations, Multimodality, and Embodied Practices

www.annualreviews.org • Contesting Input and Communicative Competence 427

Cekaite & Mondada 2020).

428 de León • García-Sánchez

3. INPUT AND DIVERSE VERBAL ENVIRONMENTS ACROSS

www.annualreviews.org • Contesting Input and Communicative Competence 429

4. REVISITING COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE AND COMMUNITY

430 de León • García-Sánchez

4.1. Rethinking Communicative Competence in Diverse Contexts

www.annualreviews.org • Contesting Input and Communicative Competence 431

432 de León • García-Sánchez

www.annualreviews.org • Contesting Input and Communicative Competence 433

monolingual interactions that underpin traditional approaches to communicative competence.

4.2. Language and Community Belonging in Multilingual

434 de León • García-Sánchez

www.annualreviews.org • Contesting Input and Communicative Competence 435

436 de León • García-Sánchez

www.annualreviews.org • Contesting Input and Communicative Competence 437

& Kremer-Sadlik 2020).

438 de León • García-Sánchez

www.annualreviews.org • Contesting Input and Communicative Competence 439

440 de León • García-Sánchez

www.annualreviews.org • Contesting Input and Communicative Competence 441

of shame among Taiwanese preschool children. Soc. Dev. 10(3):419–37

442 de León • García-Sánchez

www.annualreviews.org • Contesting Input and Communicative Competence 443

pp. 202–17. London: Routledge

444 de León • García-Sánchez

rytelling. Hum. Dev. 48:115–35

www.annualreviews.org • Contesting Input and Communicative Competence 445

446 de León • García-Sánchez

and socialization. Int. J. Biling. 23(3):771–85

Sarangi S, Roberts C. 2002. Discoursal (mis)alignments in professional gatekeeping encounters. In Language

www.annualreviews.org • Contesting Input and Communicative Competence 447

PhD Thesis, Univ. Calif., San Diego

448 de León • García-Sánchez

Linguistics Then and Now: Some Personal Reflections

Susanne Fuchs and Amélie Rochet-Capellan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p13

Dani Byrd and Jelena Krivokapić p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p31

The Linguistics of the Voynich Manuscript

Cognacy Databases and Phylogenetic Research on Indo-European

Acquisition of Sign Languages

You might also like