4. Language Socialization

398 Kathleen C. Riley 28 Language Socialization KATHLEEN C. RILEY Introduction Elinor Ochs and Bambi B. Schieffelin developed the concept of language socialization in the early 1980s to refer to the two intertwined processes by which humans learn to become competent members of their speech communities – i.e., “socialization through the use of language and socialization to use language” (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986: 163). The first half of this formulation expresses the notion that individuals acquire sociocultural knowledge, skills, and values by witnessing and participating in verbal interactions and speech routines. The second half is shorthand for the idea that through engagement in social interaction individuals acquire not only the phonology, morphology, and syntax of their linguistic code(s) needed for communicating thoughts and information (i.e., what Chomsky (1965) refers to as linguistic competence) but also many more subtle conversational resources for signaling who they are, how they feel, and what they want to accomplish (i.e., what Hymes (1971) termed communicative competence). This chapter looks first at the development of the paradigm and its methodology and then moves on to examine some of the key axiomatic issues of language socialization studies. Evolution of a Theoretical Approach and Its Methodologies As articulated by Ochs and Schieffelin in a series of jointly authored publications (e.g., 1984, 2007), the foci, theoretical frameworks, and methodologies of the language socialization approach have been developed out of crossfertilization between psycho- and sociolinguistic studies of language acquisition and anthropological studies of socialization and the use of language in context. Language Socialization 399 The psycholinguistic program for studying child language acquisition was inspired in large measure by the Chomskyan structuralist tenet of linguistic universality (Brown, 1973). However, some of these researchers (e.g., Slobin, 1985–97) insisted on studying language acquisition cross-linguistically, attending not only to universal regularities but also to sociolinguistic variation in order to understand how children learn to pick out particular linguistic forms and map them onto the particular social meanings and practices to which they are being simultaneously exposed. Initially, Ochs and Schieffelin (1979) applied the term developmental pragmatics to this study of how competent members of a society learn not only the phonological and morpho-syntactic structures of a language (i.e., Chomsky’s linguistic competence), but also how to use it in contextually appropriate ways (i.e., Hymes’ communicative competence). However, soon after, Ochs and Schieffelin (1984) saw the theoretical need to highlight the fact that children acquire not only linguistic resources and the ability to use them, but also a host of cultural knowledge that on the one hand facilitates the former but on the other hand is itself also learned via discourse. They posited then that the acquisition of linguistic and communicative competence is not wholly determined by an innate language organ, but also influenced by culture-specific socialization practices. This theoretical development rested heavily on earlier anthropological studies of socialization (e.g., Mead, 1961 [1929]), yet the problem with these earlier studies was that they had never looked at the acquisition of sociocultural knowledge and practices in sufficiently situated or micro-interactive detail. Instead, for the formulation of their new paradigm of language socialization, Ochs and Schieffelin borrowed from recent developments in linguistic anthropology (see Chapter 7, Linguistic Anthropology, this volume) in order to merge in theory (as was already the case in developmental practice) these two processes: socialization as a dynamic and language-rich process, and acquisition of communicative competence as a culturally coded experience. Language socialization shares with linguistic anthropology its commitment to analyzing the relationship between linguistic practice, cultural knowledge, and societal structure within both Western and non-Western settings. Intrinsic to this framework is the notion that language both encodes culture and is employed by culture in contextually sensitive ways – what Silverstein (2004) refers to as the language–culture nexus. Couched within this broader framework, a methodology was developed for examining the interaction between forces of linguistic and sociocultural reproduction and change within the locus of everyday verbal interactions among children and their caregivers (Garrett, 2007). This methodology is derived partly from psycholinguistics, partly from the ethnography of speaking (Gumperz & Hymes, 1972), and partly from conversational analysis (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). What is borrowed directly from psycholinguistic studies is the longitudinal approach in which a novice’s development is studied by recording and analyzing their talk over a significant period of time. The ethnography-of-speaking approach lends to language 400 Kathleen C. Riley socialization studies a methodology that emphasizes the ethnographic analysis of sociocultural factors governing who engages how in socially significant types of speech activities. From conversational analysis, language socialization takes its focus on the micro details of how, turn by turn, conversation accomplishes various social ends. By contrast with psycholinguistic studies that rely on experimentation or elicitation, the latter two methodologies depend on the analysis of discourse in its naturally occurring contexts, an approach that has informed the methodology formulated by Ochs and Schieffelin. Thus, language socialization studies begin with long-term ethnographic engagement in the community in order to establish the macro and micro sociocultural contexts for immediately observed interactions. Secondly, language socialization studies analyze data culled from interactions recorded in their natural contexts regularly over an extended period of time. Third, researchers use participants as assistants in the transcription process, eliciting their commentary not only about what was said and what it means, but also about all the social background information implicit in the interactions. Researchers are looking here for consultants’ patterned expressions of metapragmatic awareness – i.e., their consciousness of how members of their speech community are communicating – as well as of language ideology – i.e., their beliefs about the value and functioning of language in general and specific linguistic forms in particular (Schieffelin, Woolard, & Kroskrity, 1998). These data are then also analyzed as part of the socializing context. To summarize, researchers observe the linguistic input and participant structures of situated conversations over developmental time as well as tease out the sorts of cultural presuppositions that shape the socializing process, such as local expectations about developmental stages. Not all those that claim to be studying language socialization use an ethnographic methodology and the longitudinal analysis of naturalistic discourse (e.g., Bayley & Schechter, 2003); nonetheless, citing the paradigm implies an understanding that language socialization is the result of culturally contextualized linguistic interactions that might be studied in this way. For instance, Williams and Riley’s work (2001) with Franco-Americans in northern Vermont relies on interviewing family members about childhood domestic interactions in order to reconstruct the socialization patterns that resulted in variable FrenchEnglish bilingualism and eventually language shift. This methodology was indicated here because the context of acquisition was no longer available for study. However, most of the studies discussed in this chapter have conducted language socialization research over developmental time using discourse analysis and the ethnographic method. Axiomatic Issues of the Language Socialization Paradigm As discussed above, the language socialization paradigm has made a definitive contribution to the psycholinguistic study of language acquisition as well Language Socialization 401 as to the anthropological study of the transmission of the language–culture nexus by showing that individuals learn language and culture in linguistically and culturally specific and interrelated ways. In addition to looking more closely at this interrelationship, this section also illustrates a number of other key issues and variables that influence our understanding of how exactly language socialization is accomplished. Socialization through and into language Because social interactions are organized and mediated by way of cultural semiotics, the socialization of language and the socialization of culture are inextricably intertwined over interactive, psychosocial, and historical time. Nonetheless, these two processes may be and sometimes are separated for analytic purposes as some studies focus primarily on the transmission of communicative knowledge and behavior while others target the reproduction of sociocultural structures and values. When the acquisition of communicative resources is highlighted, research may focus on indexically loaded grammatical forms, socially organized speech acts, culturally significant speech genres, or entire identity-marking codes. For example, Ochs (1988) examines how Samoan children acquire ergative markers and affect features as a result of specific interactive routines. By contrast, Garrett (2005) analyzes how children develop some degree of competence in Kwéyòl in order to engage in curses and other self-asserting genres in St. Lucia. Other studies have focused on the acquisition of an expanded set of communicative forms ranging from body language (Haviland, 1998) to literacy (Heath, 1983). However, research of this genre also addresses the cultural values that fashion the functions and appropriateness of these forms of speaking. For example, in an analysis of the socialization of specific Japanese communicative forms (e.g., indirect directives and expressions of empathy), Clancy (1986) examines the cultural values such as conformity associated with these forms as well as the close-knit social structures made possible by these forms. By contrast, other language socialization studies focus primarily on the acquisition of sociocultural structures, knowledge, practices, values, and identities. For example, Paugh (2005b) looks at how American children in dual-earner households are engaged through dinner-time conversation in an understanding of how and what it means to “work.” And in her research with Navajo children, Field (2001) examines the maintenance of traditional notions of authority and community as these are invested in indigenous triadic participant structures. While they highlight the transmission of culture, these studies are, nonetheless, also sensitive to language and interaction at a number of levels: the lexicon associated with cultural beliefs and practices, the speech genres or narrative forms used, and the speaking roles allocated to participants. For example, Baquadeno-Lopèz (1997) reveals how Latino identity is effectively socialized as a consequence of language choice (Spanish vs. English) and the collaborative engagement of children in narratives of Our Lady of Guadalupe in doctrina classes in a Los Angeles parish. 402 Kathleen C. Riley Schieffelin’s (1990) work with the Kaluli in Papua New Guinea demonstrates very clearly how processes of cultural and linguistic socialization cannot be disentangled. According to Kaluli language ideology, children’s babbling and language-play is considered ‘soft’ and purposeless and is symbolically associated with death and decay via the sounds of certain birds, who are thought to be spirits of the dead. Thus, adults believe that children’s language must be intentionally ‘hardened’ and that use of a baby-talk register would be detrimental to this project. Instead, once children have demonstrated their readiness to learn to halaido ‘hard language’ by producing the words for ‘breast’ and ‘milk’, adults instruct them to say culturally appropriate things to others in socially appropriate ways using well-formed syntactic constructions. These ideologically loaded socialization routines not only expose children to the forms, meanings, and functions of the language but also engage them in emotionally charged, socially organized interactions that teach them local values and behaviors. The ways and means and models of language socialization Three closely related principles govern our assumptions about how exactly language socialization occurs: when, to whom, by whom, in what contexts, under what constraints, and toward what ends. First is the notion that language socialization must be studied as a form of apprenticeship across the lifespan rather than as a form of computer programming that occurs only in early childhood. Secondly, language socialization is understood to be an interactive or dialogic process that nonetheless operates within structural constraints. Third, the language socialization paradigm assumes that language and culture are multiple, heterogeneous, and ever-transforming targets being acquired over a range of variable social and cultural contexts. Apprenticeship across the lifespan First of all, language socialization research rests on the assumption that language, culture, and social membership are acquired by unique agents (i.e., as apprentices not computers) across the lifespan (i.e., not merely as young children) and as a result of the socializing practices of others of varying ages and competencies. Thus, many researchers actively eschew an ageist and normative perspective which focuses only on mature community members as the ideally competent socializers of developmentally “normal” children. The traditional psycholinguistic model of learner-as-computer highlights young children’s cognitive processing of linguistic input provided by adult speakers whereas the language socialization model of the learner-as-apprentice foregrounds cultural influences on the use and acquisition of interactive forms by novices of all ages through interaction with initiates of all ages (Kramsch, 2002). For instance, early work by Schieffelin (1990) with the Kaluli and by Ochs (1988) in Language Socialization 403 Samoa highlights the important roles played by older siblings in the socialization of their younger siblings as well as the ways in which older siblings continue to learn communicative practices appropriate to their new statuses. More recently, Dunn’s (1999) work with university-aged Japanese students’ acquisition of polite registers demonstrates how the socialization of communicative competence may continue well into adulthood. Additionally, the computer model takes off from the assumption that most healthy individuals will inevitably succeed at acquiring competence in the language of their speech community. By contrast, an apprentice model allows for the study of individuals who do not achieve the norm with respect to linguistic, communicative, or cultural competence (i.e., may be considered “failures” by the standards of their speech community). For instance, Kulick and Schieffelin (2004: 352) have examined the ways in which the introduction of new social standards into a community (as happened in the case of Christian missionizing among the Kaluli) may result in the variable socialization of “different kinds of culturally intelligible subjectivities” – i.e., some adults become “good subjects” and some are reformulated as “bad.” In a similar vein, Wortham (2005) looks at how a ninth-grade student was discursively transformed from a “good student” into a “disruptive student” over the course of the school year in a US high school science class. Children may be similarly mis-socialized in variable ways, not only by adults but also by other children, i.e., through peer socialization. For example, Ochs (2002) takes “abnormal” learners as her subjects – two autistic children – whose engagement in and apprehension of the world is shaped by their social interactions with other “normal” children and adults. Paugh’s (2005a) study of code choice in Dominica similarly highlights the ways in which the discourse of children among themselves proves to be an important site for examining the processes by which codes are maintained (in this case Patwa) in ways that are specifically disapproved by adults in the speech community (who say they want their children to speak only English). Thus, while much of the early language socialization research focused on normal children acquiring language and culture from normal adults, a growing number of studies look at the socialization of adults by other adults as well as the socialization of children by their peers in ways that do not necessarily produce fully ratified speaking members of a culture. Dialogic socialization within structural constraints Language socialization studies have from the beginning addressed tensions between structural domination and strategic agency. While language socialization is clearly sensitive to authority, whether informal or institutional, language socialization is also understood to be a dialogic process of co-construction (i.e., a two-way interaction between apprentices and their “masters”). In either case, researchers refrain from taking an egocentric perspective that privileges individual intention (of either the novice or the teacher). Here we look briefly at the impact of power structures on how learners learn and 404 Kathleen C. Riley then survey the interactionist approaches that challenge these notions of structural constraint. Early sociolinguistic discussions of the effects of macro-political-economic phenomena on socialization include Bernstein’s analysis of how the “restricted code” of the British working class results in reducing their educability (1971). In a similar vein, Bourdieu (1991) elaborated the notion that certain distinctive semiotic practices or habitus are valued on the symbolic market place due to their association with those who occupy socially powerful positions, and that access to this symbolic capital will be restricted to the few who are socialized early on to occupy these positions. Linguistic anthropologists also began to study how communicative restraint takes shape at the interactive level. For instance, Philips (1970) examined how the communicative styles learned by Warm Springs Indian children in the home affected the ways they interacted and therefore achieved at school. And Heath (1983) focused on how differences in the way white and black, working-class and middle-class American children are exposed to literacy practices in the home have a huge impact on their success in learning to read at school. When put together with Ochs and Schieffelin’s theoretical and methodological tools, these enquiries have made it possible to ask how exactly hegemonic ideologies and practices are produced and reproduced at the local level. For example, colonial power relations can be seen to have real-world consequences in northern Canada where Crago et al. (1993) have examined the influence of mainstream North American beliefs on language socialization within Inuit homes. And in Corsica, Jaffe (2001) has examined the impact of interpolating French language ideologies and pedagogical practices into Corsican classrooms, even when teaching the Corsican language. Similarly, in the domain of gender relations, Farris (1991) explores how, in Taiwan school yards, boys and girls voice dominant ideologies of how and about what men and women ought to communicate, thus reproducing a long tradition of Chinese gender inequality. Fader’s (2006) study of the language socialization of “faith” among the Hasidic community in Brooklyn identifies the everyday practices through which mothers engage their daughters in the reproduction of gender inequality. Important in all of this work is the endeavor to look not only at the macro structures of inequality, but also at micro structures of authority as they are interactively constructed – whether in the home between parents and children, at school between students and teachers, or in the street and at work among peers. For instance, some researchers (e.g., Field, 2001; Wortham, 2005) demonstrate how the authoritative voice of the teacher can be traced to their possession of the dominant code as well as to their age, ethnicity, institutional status, and/or assigned role in the participant structure. This instantiated authority as “expert” provides their socialization moves with a force they might otherwise lack. However, the teachings of an “expert” are not necessarily incorporated by a novice. How is that? Language Socialization 405 Kramsch’s (2002) ecological model makes explicit the notion that socializing practices and authorities are determined by social forces that must be deconstructed rather than accepted as willful acts and conscious agents. Similarly while individuals variably acquire the linguistic and cultural knowledge and practices to which they are exposed, they need not be treated as strategic actors “choosing” to “accept” or “resist” the resources being offered to them. Instead, socialization is interactively achieved, mediated sometimes by communicated intentions but more frequently by unconscious preconceptions. As Kulick and Schieffelin (2004) articulate it, subjectivities are dialogically produced as a compromise between authoritative transmission and creative (but not necessarily conscious) agency. Explicitly interactive or dialogic approaches have been undertaken by researchers in a number of contexts and with a variety of goals. Zentella’s (1997) work with New York Puerto Ricans focuses an anthropolitical lens on the tension between dominant communicative norms and local community practices resulting in the interactive socialization of Spanglish, a code-switching code which effectively expresses a synthetic Nuyorican identity. Similarly, Riley (2001) examines how children in the Marquesas are socialized to code-switch (between French and ‘Enana) in ways that may on the one hand re-frame the immediate interaction or may on the other express their dialogic identity as both French and Polynesian. And in his work with Indian, Pakistani, Jamaican, and Anglo youth in England, Rampton (1995) has formulated his notion of crossing as the dialogic trying on of ethnicities that are not one’s own. With more of a focus on the micro-interactional participant structures, He (2004) investigates how novices contribute (or not) to their own socialization via the negotiation of speech roles in Chinese heritage language classrooms. Field (2001) explores the ways in which Navajo children engaged in triadic participant directives learn not only what to say in ways appropriate to their speech community, but also how these forms may be used to assert their own positional needs. And de León’s (1998) work with Mayan children contributes to the literature on how infants emerge as conversational participants due to their immersion in polyadic interactions. Work along these lines supports the point made in the previous section that not all language socialization “succeeds” in the construction of normative members of a speech community. Instead, this lack of success underscores the final point to be outlined in the next section, which is that definitive speech community norms do not exist at all except as ideological reifications. Language and culture as multiple, moving targets Patterns of language socialization vary across a wide array of linguistic, cultural, and social contexts; additionally, the communicative resources, cultural knowledge, and social competencies being acquired are multiple, heterogeneous, and constantly transforming objectives (i.e., more like moving targets than set skills to be definitively mastered). Thus, researchers seek a specifically non-ethnocentric perspective, examining both the dynamic effects of micro 406 Kathleen C. Riley and macro structures on specific patterns of socialization as well as the impact of socialization on its encompassing structures. Given its emergence out of the disciplines of anthropology and sociolinguistics, language socialization research has always highlighted the diversity of cultural contexts, socializing situations, and forms of interactional input (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986; Garrett and Baquedano-López, 2002; Bayley & Schecter, 2003). Studies have been conducted in societies ranging from smallscale and homogeneous (e.g., Schieffelin’s, 1990 analysis of the Kaluli of PNG just after first contact with European missionaries) to large-scale and heterogeneous (e.g., Miller’s, 1982 work with working-class American families) as well as in societies resulting from the collision of small-scale and complex in a globalizing world (e.g., work by Crago et al., 1993 with Inuit families). And although early language socialization research (e.g., Ochs, 1988) tended to focus on the domestic sphere, since the beginning studies have also been conducted in a wide range of formal to informal contexts, including high schools (Wortham, 2005), heritage language classrooms (He, 2004), and religious training classrooms (e.g., Baquedeno-López, 1997). Some research spans elementary school and home contexts (e.g., Heath, 1983; Field, 2001). Other informal venues include the street and the playground (e.g., Farris, 1991; Zentella, 1997). Workplaces are a sphere attracting more recent attention (e.g., Bayley & Schecter, 2003). In all of these studies, the heteroglossic nature of languages, ideologies, and speech communities is a given. Even in the smallest scale societies, researchers examine the socializing effects of contrasts in the speech styles and belief systems between men and women or upper- and lower-rank members of the community (e.g., Ochs, 1988; Schieffelin, 1990). These contrasts become far more complex as soon as new ecologies are formed out of colonial contact, globalization, immigration, and urbanization (e.g., Kulick & Schieffelin, 2004). Additionally, in some of this work, even the notion of “context” is problemetized. For instance, in Moore and Moritz’s (2005) research on the acquisition of Arabic literacy by Fulbe children, non-verbal aspects of the context and the socialization process are highlighted. And when studying classroom identity formation, Wortham (2005) looks not only at recurrent speech events within static social contexts but also at semiotic events that transform along a continuum of timescales: from social-historical transformations across millenia to microgenetic interactions lasting several seconds. This diversity of socializing contexts and linguistic input has contributed to theoretical examination of the universals and cross-cultural differences involved in communicative acquisition as well as the role of language in the development of sociocultural knowledge and identities. Finally, just as language socialization is sensitive to the heterogeneous contexts (both micro and macro) within which it unfolds, so does it also have an impact on those contexts. That is, language socialization represents a dynamic link in the dialectical transmission and transformation of language and culture. First of all, novices have the capacity to dramatically alter linguistic Language Socialization 407 usage within a heteroglossic economy, contributing to the production of creoles, to new patterns of code-switching, and to language shift and maintenance (Kulick, 1992; Zentella, 1997; Garrett, 2005; Paugh, 2005a; Howard, 2007). Secondly, through their playful constructions of new linguistic forms, communicative practices, and interactional contexts and relationships, apprentices have the potential to transform the cultural concepts, emotional values, and social identities enacted through linguistic exchanges (e.g., Cook-Gumperz, Corsara, & Streeck, 1986; Rampton, 1995; Riley, 2001). Such heteroglossic, interactivist approaches are the only way to comprehend how structurally sensible transformation rather than inevitable reproduction occurs. Conclusion The study of language socialization is the study of two interconnected processes. On the one hand, verbal interaction allows for the transmission of sociocultural beliefs, structures, and practices. Simultaneously, cultural belief systems and social contexts affect the ways in which individuals acquire the communicative competence needed to interact successfully within a speech community. While it is taken as axiomatic that socialization contributes to a consensual understanding of a shared set of communicative values, it is also understood that (1) no unified community or body of values can be assumed; (2) consensus must be considered more of a temporary and contextually dependent interactive achievement; and (3) rather than being imposed by older experts onto younger novices, socialization is an interactive sharing that may happen at any point in the life cycle. The result of these fine points is that language socialization becomes a powerful yet fluid paradigm for understanding how the culture–language nexus is both produced and transformed over interactive, developmental, and historical time. That is, just as variable contexts have an impact on the socialization of individuals, so does the socialization of individuals through developmental time have a cumulative effect over historical time on the larger aggregates of language, culture, and society. Given this interplay between macro and micro structures (i.e., the impact of economics, politics, religion, and education on domestic language socialization issues and vice versa), many studies (e.g., Heath, 1983; Zentella, 1997) have been conducted with an eye toward the potential applicability of their findings to real-world practices, policies, institutions, and values. REFERENCES Baquedano-López, Patricia (1997). Creating social identities through doctrina narratives. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 27–45. 408 Kathleen C. Riley Bayley, Robert & Schecter, Sandra R. (eds.) (2003). Language Socialization in Bilingual and Multilingual Societies. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Bernstein, Basil B. (1971). Class Codes and Control: Theoretical Studies towards a Sociology of Language. London: Routledge. Bourdieu, Pierre (1991). Language and Symbolic Power, trans. Gino Raymond & Matthew Adamson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1982.) Brown, R. (1973). A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Clancy, Patricia M. (1986). The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese. In Bambi B. Schieffelin & Elinor Ochs (eds.), Language Socialization across Cultures (pp. 213– 250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook-Gumperz, Jenny, Corsaro, William A., & Streeck, Jürgen (eds.) (1986). Children’s Worlds and Children’s Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Crago, Martha B., Annahatak, Betsy, & Ningiuruvik, Lizzie (1993). Changing patterns of language socialization in Inuit homes. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24, 205–223. de León, Lourdes (1998). The emergent participant: Interactive patterns in the socialization of Tzotzil (Mayan) infants. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 8(2), 131–161. Dunn, Cynthia D. (1999). Reflections on the future work of anthropology and education: Toward the study of communicative development as a lifespan process. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 30(4), 451–454. Fader, Ayala (2006). Learning faith: Language socialization in a Hasidic community. Language in Society, 35(2), 207–229. Farris, Katherine S. (1991). The gender of child discourse: Same-sex peer socialization through language use in a Taiwanese preschool. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 1(2), 198–224. Field, Margaret (2001). Triadic directives in Navajo language socialization. Language in Society, 30(2), 249–263. Garrett, Paul (2005). What a language is good for: Language socialization, language shift, and the persistence of code-specific genres in St. Lucia. Language in Society 34(3), 327–361. Garrett, Paul (2007). Researching language socialization. In Patricia Duff & Nancy Hornberger (eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, (vol. 10): Research Methods and Methodology (pp. 189–201). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Garrett, Paul & Baquedano-López, Patricia (2002). Language socialization: Reproduction and continuity, transformation and change. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 339–361. Gumperz, John J. & Hymes, Dell (eds.) (1972). Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Haviland, John B. (1998). Early pointing gestures in Zincantán. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 8(2), 162–196. He, Agnes (2004). Novices and their speech roles in Chinese heritage language classes. In Robert Bayley & Sandra R. Checter (eds.), Language Socialization in Bilingual and Multilingual Societies (pp. 128–146). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Heath, Shirley B. (1983). Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Howard, Kathryn M. (2007). Language socialization and language shift among school-aged children. In Patricia Duff & Nancy Hornberger (eds.), Encyclopedia of Language Socialization 409 Language and Education, (vol. 8): Language Socialization (pp. 187–199). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hymes, Dell (1971). On Communicative Competence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Jaffe, Alexandra (2001). Authority and authenticity: Corsican discourse on bilingual education. In Monica Heller & M. Martin-Jones (eds.), Voices of Authority: Education and Linguistic Difference (pp. 269–296). Westport, CT: Ablex. Kramsch, Claire (ed.) (2002). Language Acquisition and Language Socialization: Ecological Perspectives. London: Continuum. Kulick, Don (1992). Language Shift and Cultural Reproduction: Socialization, Self and Syncretism in a Papua New Guinean Village. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kulick, Don & Schieffelin, Bambi B. (2004). Language socialization. In Alessandro Duranti (ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 349–368). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Mead, Margaret (1961 [1929] ). Coming of Age in Samoa. London: Cape. First published (1929), New York: William Morrow & Co. Miller, Peggy (1982). Amy, Wendy and Beth: Language Learning in South Baltimore. Austin: University of Texas Press. Moore, Leslie & Moritz, Mark (2005). Dimensions of context in Koranic literacy socialization. Ninth International Pragmatics Conference. Riva del Garda Congressi, Riva del Garda, Italy. Ochs, Elinor (1988). Culture and Language Development: Language Acquisition and Language Socialization in a Samoan Village. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, Elinor (2002). Becoming a speaker of culture. In Claire Kramsch (ed.), Language Acquisition and Language Socialization (pp. 99 –120). London: Continuum. Ochs, Elinor & Schieffelin, Bambi B. (eds.) (1979). Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. Ochs, Elinor & Schieffelin, Bambi B. (1984). Language acquisition and socialization: Three developmental stories and their implications. In R. A. Shweder & R. A. LeVine (eds.), Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self, and Emotion (pp. 276–320). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, Elinor & Schieffelin, Bambi B. (2007). Language socialization: An historical overview. In Patricia Duff & Nancy Hornberger (eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, (vol. 8): Language Socialization (pp. 1–13). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Paugh, Amy (2005a). Multilingual play: Children’s code-switching, role play and agency in Dominica, West Indies. Language in Society, 34(1), 63–86. Paugh, Amy (2005b). Learning about work at dinnertime: Language socialization in dual-earner American families. Discourse and Society, 16(1), 55–78. Philips, Susan (1970). Participant structure and communicative competence: Warm Springs children in community and classroom. In J. E. Alatis (ed.), Bilingualism and Language Contact: Anthropological, Linguistic, Psychological, and Social Aspects (pp. 370–394). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Rampton, Ben (1995). Language crossing and the problematisation of ethnicity and socialization. Pragmatics, 5, 485–513. Riley, Kathleen C. (2001). The Emergence of Dialogic Identities: Transforming Heteroglossia in the Marquesas, F.P. Doctoral dissertation, CUNY Graduate Faculty. Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A., & Jefferson, Gail (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. 410 Kathleen C. Riley Schieffelin, Bambi B. (1990). The Give and Take of Everyday Life: Language Socialization of Kaluli Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schieffelin, Bambi B. & Ochs, Elinor (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15, 163–191. Schieffelin, Bambi B., Woolard, Kathryn A., & Kroskrity, Paul V. (eds.) (1998). Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Silverstein, Michael (2004). “Culture” concepts and the language–culture nexus. Current Anthropology, 45(5), 621–652. Slobin, Dan Isaac (ed.) (1985–97). The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition (5 vols.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Williams, Robert S. & Riley, Kathleen C. (2001). Acquiring a slice of Anglo-American pie: A portrait of language shift in a Franco-American family. In R. D. González (ed.), Language Ideologies: Critical Perspectives on the Official English Movement, (vol. 2): History, Theory, and Policy (pp. 63–90). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wortham, Stanton E. F. (2005). Socialization beyond the speech event. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15(1), 95–112. Zentella, Ana Celia (1997). Growing Up Bilingual: Puerto Rican Children in New York. Malden, MA: Blackwell. FURTHER READING Boggs, Stephen T. (1985). Speaking, Relating, and Learning: A Study of Hawaiian Children at Home and at School. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Briggs, Jean (1995). The study of Inuit emotions: Lessons from a personal retrospective. In J. A. Russell, J-M. Ferndez-Dols, A. S. R. Manstead, & J. C. Wellenkamp (eds.), Everyday Conceptions of Emotion (pp. 203–220). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Doucet, Rachelle (2003). Language Ideology, Socialization, and Pedagogy in Haitian Schools and Society. Doctoral dissertation, New York University. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness (1990). He-Said She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Ochs, Elinor (1991). Misunderstanding children. In Nikolas Coupland, Howard Giles, & John M. Wiemann (eds.), “Miscommunication” and Problematic Talk (pp. 44–60). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Ochs, Elinor & Schieffelin, Bambi B. (1983). Acquiring Conversational Competence. London: Routledge. Riley, Kathleen C. (2007). To tangle or not to tangle: Shifting language ideologies and the socialization of charabia in the Marquesas, French Polynesia. In Miki Makihara & Bambi B. Schieffelin (eds.), Consequences of Contact: Language Ideologies and Sociocultural Transformations in Pacific Societies (pp. 70–95). New York: Oxford University Press. Schieffelin, Bambi B. (1994). Code-switching and language socialization: Some probable relationships. In J. F. Duchan, L. E. Hewitt, & R. M. Sonnenmeier (eds.), Pragmatics: From Theory to Practice (pp. 20–42). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Schieffelin, Bambi B. & Gilmore, Perry (eds.) (1986). The Acquisition of Literacy: Ethnographic Perspectives. Westport CT: Praeger. Scollon, Ron & Scollon, Suzanne B. K. (1981). Narrative, Literacy, and Face in Interethnic Communication. Norwood NJ, Ablex.