1 Introduction

Language Socialization in Classrooms

Matthew J. Burdelski and Kathryn M. Howard

1.1 Introduction
In societies across the globe, an immense amount of energy and resources is
poured into educational enterprises aimed at teaching and learning in various
classroom settings. These endeavors instill students with academic
knowledge and promote their acquisition of skills in creating new and
competent members. Yet, there is a profoundly cultural organization of
learning in classrooms. Classrooms are complex and dynamic spaces where
teaching and learning are mediated by specific languages, communicative
resources and practices, and culturally informed activities. Thus, as students
participate in classroom discourse and activities they not only develop
knowledge and skills, but also are socialized into a “habitus” (Bourdieu,
1991), or a set of ideas, beliefs, preferences, and practices that afford and
enable, as well as constrain and limit, their actions in the social world. As the
formation of knowledge/skills and personhood/subjectivity are intertwined,
these dimensions of human activity and the ways in which they mediate
learning and development over time are the focal concern of scholarship in
the field of language socialization (e.g., Ochs and Schieffelin, 1984; Schief-
felin and Ochs, 1986). Although social theory has long assumed that schools
are fundamental sites of cultural reproduction, language socialization
research seeks to document this reproduction as well as its change and
transformation through the identification and analysis of the particulars of
culturally and locally organized routines, activities, and practices (e.g.,
Garrett and Baquedano-López, 2002). In bringing together a set of papers
based on ethnographic and linguistic research conducted in a range of
diverse communities, this volume aims to highlight scholarship that critically
discusses and systematically examines the process of language socialization
in classrooms.
An enduring tradition of research on discourse and interaction over the past
few decades has uncovered a wealth of information on the structural organiza-
tion and communicative practices of teaching and learning activities in

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 2 Matthew J. Burdelski and Kathryn M. Howard

classrooms (e.g., Bloome et al., 2004; Cazden, 1988; Erickson, 1982, 1996;
Hicks, 1996; Margutti and Piirainen-Marsh, 2011; Markee, 2015;1 Mehan,
1979; Mehan and Griffin, 1981; Resnick, Asterhan, and Clarke, 2015). Over a
similar period, an emerging body of scholarship has documented the process of
language socialization in classrooms (e.g., Baquedano-López, 1997; Bur-
delski, 2010; Cekaite, 2012; Cook, 1999; Duff, 1993; Fader, 2001; Friedman,
2010, 2016; García-Sánchez, 2010; He, 2000, 2015; Heath, 1982; Howard,
2009; Kanagy, 1999; Klein, 2013; Lee and Bucholtz, 2015; Lo, 2009; Moore,
2006; Ohta, 1994; Philips, 1983; Poole, 1992; Talmy, 2008; Willett, 1995;
Vogel-Langer, 2008; Zuengler and Cole, 2005). As there is an immense
amount of interest in classroom interaction in the fields of anthropology,
applied linguistics, communication, conversation analysis, and education, this
volume seeks to build upon prior research on language socialization and
classroom discourse by examining ways in which communicative practices
in classrooms – with their distinctive turn-taking organization, activities,
participant roles, and goals – are a vehicle for socializing child, adolescent,
and adult learners into language and culturally meaningful realities. Here, we
consider such culturally meaningful realities to be constructed and subjective,
rather than given and objective.
The volume reveals how a language socialization perspective can shed
greater light on the role of classroom discourse as a medium of learners’
development and growth, and at the same time show how detailed analyses
of classroom discourse can illuminate the field of language socialization
by highlighting teaching and learning as a robust, dynamic, and culturally
organized process. The papers have implications for how to work with
teachers, graduate students, and colleagues to investigate classrooms by
interrogating both the more visible/hearable interactions (e.g., teacher-
fronted lessons) and invisible/unhearable ones (e.g., peer interactions con-
ducted in a quiet voice as the teacher is conducting a lesson). In these ways,
the volume offers a theoretically grounded and thematically organized
collection of studies on language socialization in classrooms. The individual
chapters span a range of continents (Asia, Europe, and North America),
languages (Danish, English, Corsican/French, Hindi/English, Japanese,
Russian, and Swedish), settings (e.g., urban and rural, religious and secular),
and learners (e.g., first language [L1], second language [L2], immigrant,
heritage, child, and adult). The chapters all focus on classroom discourse
from a common theoretical perspective – language socialization – in seeking
to foster coherence and a better understanding of teaching and learning in
classrooms, and the theoretical, practical, and policy implications thereof. In
the remainder of this chapter, we present the theory and methodology of
language socialization, and summarize the structure of the volume and
chapters.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Introduction 3

1.2 Language Socialization

Language socialization is a theoretical and methodological framework that
explores the acquisition, reproduction, and transformation of knowledge and
competence across the lifespan. As originally articulated in the 1980s by Elinor
Ochs and Bambi Schieffelin (Ochs and Schieffelin, 1984; Schieffelin and
Ochs, 1986) – and later updated by them and their former students and
colleagues (e.g., Duff, 2010; Duff and May, 2017; Garrett and Baquedano-
López, 2002; Howard, 2014; Kramsch, 2002; Kulick and Schieffelin, 2004;
Ochs and Schieffelin, 2011, 2017; Paugh, 2016) – language socialization was
proposed as a distinctive field of inquiry to bridge and build upon research on
children in the fields of anthropology (where language was often glossed over)
and language acquisition (where culture was often glossed over). Based on the
assumption that language socialization begins from the moment a child enters
the social environment, the central tenet of the theory is that the acquisition of
language and culture are intertwined and mutually interdependent, principally
involving “socialization through the use of language and socialization to use
language” (Schieffelin and Ochs, 1986, p. 163). In other words, as children
and other less experienced members participate in situated interactions with
more experienced members, they develop an ability to understand and use
language and discursive practices in situationally appropriate ways, while
being socialized into systems of cultural meaning that include ways of speak-
ing, feeling, and acting that are necessary for functioning in the communities
they inhabit. Although the process of language socialization occurs where
there are asymmetries of knowledge, competence, and experience, this process
is bidirectional in that not only are novices socialized by experts but also
experts are socialized by novices into new identities, stances, and actions. The
roles of relative expert and novice can shift during an interaction depending on
the prior experiences of participants, topic of talk, language being used or
talked about, and other dimensions of the social situation (e.g., Duff, 2008;
Pontecorvo, Fasulo, and Sterponi, 2001; Takei and Burdelski, 2018).
Research on language socialization examines the ways in which culturally
specific linguistic, embodied, and material resources – including prosody,
word choice, syntax, turn-taking, activities, code choice, genre, bodily com-
portment, gesture, and objects – and communicative practices and routines are
the vehicles for socializing less experienced individuals into a range of cultural
meaningful realities that are not essential (i.e., given, objective) but rather
constructed and subjective. These realities include identities, stances,
ideologies, morality, social acts and activities. In their early comparative study
of White middle-class American (WMCA), Western Samoan, and Kaluli
caregivers that launched the field of language socialization, Ochs and
Schieffelin (1984) argued that “baby talk,” or linguistic accommodation

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 4 Matthew J. Burdelski and Kathryn M. Howard

(e.g., grammatically simple sentences, repetition), is neither a universal prac-

tice nor a necessary condition for language acquisition to occur, as was
previously assumed. Rather it is culturally variable and influenced by beliefs
and ideas, or ideologies (see Section 1.2.3), about how children acquire
language and their roles and statuses in relation to others in society. They
showed that although WMCA caregivers verbally accommodate to children’s
perspectives and presumed competence by treating them as equal conversa-
tional partners through a great deal of communicative scaffolding, in the highly
stratified society of Western Samoan caregivers do not make such verbal
accommodations, as children are expected to accommodate to others of higher
status. These caregivers use a “minimal grasp” strategy that requires children
to repeat or reformulate their unclear utterances (i.e., child accommodates
speech to others), rather than expand or guess the meaning of children’s
unintelligible utterances (i.e., caregiver accommodates speech to the child in
WMCA society) (Ochs, 1988). Similarly, among the Kaluli of Papua New
Guinea, baby talk is also not observed, but for a different cultural reason:
Kaluli children are viewed to be naturally “soft” and have to be “hardened”
(e.g., to use language to be assertive), and thus baby talk is not considered
helpful for this goal (Schieffelin, 1990). These observations suggest that
“child-directed communication” (Ochs, Solomon, and Sterponi, 2005) is influ-
enced by cultural notions and ideologies of children’s roles, rights, and
responsibilities in society.
Although early language socialization research primarily focused on domes-
tic settings, research conducted around the same time by Heath (1982) and
Philips (1983) explored schooling practices in diverse communities in the
United States. Both of these studies documented ways that language socializa-
tion processes in the home, including speaking and literacy activities, converge
and diverge from those in classrooms, and discussed the pedagogical and
social implications of domestic language socialization practices on children’s
participation and success in school. Heath’s (1982) study of three nearby
communities in the US Piedmont Carolinas – Maintown (White middle class),
Roadville (White working class) and Trackton (Black working class) – found
that the process of language socialization in White working-class homes
prepared children, although less well than the children in the White middle-
class homes, for participation and success in school. This preparation included
participating in bedtime stories, using everyday language, such as addressing
adults and older children with politeness formulae, and gaining familiarity with
the structuring of the classroom environment (e.g., through question–answer
sequences). In comparison, in the Black working-class community, Heath
observed a discontinuity between home and school socialization in relation
to literacy activities and everyday language use that presented children with an

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Introduction 5

unfamiliarity of classroom practices, such as responding to teacher questions

that ask for what-explanations, or labeling of shapes, colors, and numbers.
Similarly, Philips’ (1983) study of the Warm Springs Reservation in the US
Northwest state of Oregon, examined discontinuities between home and school
language socialization by aiming to provide an ethnographically grounded
account of Native American children’s reluctance to speak and participate in
predominantly Anglo classrooms. She showed that discursive and socialization
practices in domestic settings, such as long periods of Native American
children’s keen observation of others in tasks, group-facing discussion, and
talking while engaging in physical activity, did not translate well to the Anglo-
American classrooms where the children often sat in rows and were expected
to demonstrate their verbal competence and academic knowledge, which was
immediately subjected to public scrutiny and evaluation by the teacher and
peers. From a pedagogical perspective, Philips suggested that teachers need to
become more aware of the different socializing practices of children in the
home and their own implicit assumptions about communication and children’s
participation in their classrooms. The findings of these two pioneering studies
suggest that when language socialization practices in the home are radically
different from those at school, children may have trouble participating in
classroom discourse and achieving academic success; however, when these
practices are relatively congruent, children might have an easier time partici-
pating in classroom discourse and achieving academic success.
In the early 1990s, language socialization research in classrooms expanded
to examine second language (L2) classrooms both inside and outside the
United States. In a study at a US university in two English as a second
language (ESL) classrooms, Poole (1992) observed how the teachers’ practices
reflected a White middle-class communicative style in speaking with less
competent members (as articulated by Ochs and Schieffelin, 1984), though
the teachers had different ways of organizing the students in the classroom
spaces and engaging them in activities. One teacher, who had the students sit in
rows, conducted a great deal of discursive accommodation, such as by provid-
ing (1) “test questions” or known-answer questions, (2) incomplete (fill-in-the-
blank type) utterances, and (3) expansions, in scaffolding students’ displays of
competence. The other teacher, who organized the students in a semi-circle,
engaged the students in an activity beyond their level of L2 competence by
providing a great deal of scaffolding, such as offering words and expressions
for the students to say and repeat. Poole also observed that both teachers
tended to use first person plural pronouns (we, us, and our) to downplay their
authority and power (see Section 1.2.4) and create solidarity by inviting
students to accomplish an activity together. She showed that the teachers,
however, shifted to first person reference (student name or pronoun) when

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 6 Matthew J. Burdelski and Kathryn M. Howard

evaluating individual work, which conveyed independence and competence in

having accomplished the task.
Around the same time, Duff (1993) conducted a first- and second-language
socialization study of several classrooms in different schools in Hungary that
were either English-medium (or “non-traditional”) or Hungarian-medium (or
“traditional”) (see also Duff, 1996 for an analysis of one Hungarian-medium
classroom). Importantly, her research occurred during the dissolution of the
Soviet Union (end of 1991), which was a period of rapid social change in
Hungary as well (as it was originally one of the Eastern Bloc countries heavily
controlled by the Soviet Union). The change included gradually moving
toward Western values of democracy, egalitarianism, and critical thinking.
Duff was able to observe ways in which classroom practices reflected and
constituted ongoing changes and tensions in the larger Hungarian society. She
focused on a traditional and ritualized classroom activity known as felelés (oral
recitation/examination), in which students were required to memorize a text or
summarize the previous day’s lesson and repeat it back as an assessed
performance in front of the class. She observed that while some of the
English-medium language classroom teachers abandoned this activity entirely,
others who continued with it attempted to modify it in order to give the
students more autonomy in line with the new democratic values, such as by
replacing the teacher-selected presentations with student-volunteered pre-
planned presentations. Her findings suggest that the tensions and problems
experienced in the modified style of classroom assessment, such as difficulty
with balancing student respect for the teacher and maintaining teacher author-
ity and discipline in the classroom with the new Western-style practices of
overt praise and fostering student independence, was a microcosm of the
tensions observed in the larger society upon moving toward a more democratic
ideology.
Since the late 1990s, the scope of language socialization research in class-
rooms has further expanded into ethnically, linguistically, and culturally
diverse settings (e.g., Garrett and Baquedano-López, 2002), such as class-
rooms with immigrant and migrant children, children learning a heritage
language, and adults and children learning a second or additional language.
With a few exceptions (e.g., Howard, 2009; Moore, 2006), studies have mainly
focused on communities in North America and to a lesser extent in Europe, as
the training of graduate students and researchers in language socialization
theory and methodology has largely occurred in the United States (see Duff,
Chapter 12 in this volume). Language socialization research in North America
and Europe has primarily investigated diversity within a society. Researchers
who have done such fieldwork in other cultures (e.g., Howard, 2009; Moore,
2006) have been able to make what anthropologists often call the strange
familiar by striving to make sense of the practices of a social group and (upon

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Introduction 7

returning to their home country) the familiar strange by broadening their

understanding of practices that had been previously taken for granted. This
too has implications for training of graduate students and collaboration with
colleagues, such as by encouraging them to reflect upon and critique their own
classroom practices.
By offering this volume of 10 case studies based on ethnographic and
linguistic research in schools and classrooms (and in some cases in settings
beyond them) within Europe (four chapters), India (one chapter), and the
United States (five chapters), we highlight ongoing and dynamic work being
conducted on language socialization where multiple languages, cultures,
genres, and “communicative repertoires” (Rymes, 2010) are in play. In the
remainder of this chapter, we unpack language socialization theory, method-
ology, and prior research by detailing the following five dimensions of lan-
guage socialization theory, especially as they relate to classrooms:
(1) indexicality, (2) practices, (3) ideologies, (4) power, authority, and agency,
and (5) participation frameworks.

1.2.1 Indexicality
Central to the process of language socialization theory is “indexicality”
(e.g., Agha, 2005; Bucholtz, 2009; Inoue, 2004; Jaffe, 2016; Ochs, 1990,
1992; Silverstein, 1976, 2003), or the notion that the referential and social
meanings of language resources are contextually bound. Indexicality enables
language to both reflect and constitute the social “context” (Duranti and
Goodwin, 1992), such as identities, stances, social acts, social activities, and
other culturally meaningful realities that are co-constructed (Ochs, 1992).
Ochs (1992) proposed two levels of indexicality in relation to cultural
meaning: direct and indirect. She argued that linguistic forms directly index
social acts and epistemic/affective stances, which in turn indirectly index or
constitute particular identities (e.g., in many classrooms, the person who
primarily initiates and evaluates talk is constituted as the teacher). Language
socialization research in classrooms has shed light on ways teachers convey
the social indexical meanings of linguistic forms. In an elementary classroom
in a Northern Thai village, Howard (2009) observed how teachers instructed
students to use honorific forms when addressing other teachers as an index of
social hierarchy and respect, as reflective and constitutive of relationships in
the larger Thai society. In a Russian heritage-language school affiliated with
an Orthodox Christian church in the United States, Moore (Chapter 4 in this
volume) shows how teachers made assessments of church objects to index
positive affective stances in socializing children to membership in an Ortho-
dox Christian community. In a Swedish language classroom for recently
arriving immigrant children, Cekaite (Chapter 6 in this volume) finds that

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 8 Matthew J. Burdelski and Kathryn M. Howard

when defining ostensibly unknown words for children (e.g., ‘to nag’)
teachers used language and embodied resources to index positive and play-
fully negative affective stances in locating the words within egalitarian
parent–child relationships (e.g., parents nag children and children nag
parents) that are highly valued in Swedish society. In a graduate program
for teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) at a US
university, Friedman (Chapter 8 in this volume) observes ways
in which teachers engaged students in metalinguistic practices that displayed
authoritative epistemic stances, such as identifying and explaining grammat-
ical errors and citing authoritative sources of grammar use (e.g., the APA
manual), in socializing students to use language in ways that indexed an
identity as competent TESOL professionals. Thus, teachers in classrooms
across the globe use specific communicative resources as an index of cultur-
ally meaningful realities in ways that implicitly convey these meanings
to students.
While language socialization research has often focused on the use of
linguistic and other semiotic resources to index widely circulating culturally
meaningful realities, the process of language socialization also involves
the use of such resources to index more particularized, novel meanings in
creating new and hybrid identities, performing social actions, and displaying
stances (e.g., Jaffe, Chapter 5 in this volume). As pointed out by Ochs
and Schieffelin (2011), a challenge for language socialization research and
theory is to account for how both creativity and conformity are indexed in
learners’ lives. These dual aspects have been documented especially within
studies of peer language socialization (e.g., Goodwin and Kryatzis, 2011;
Paugh, 2012; Reynolds, 2007). This body of research is especially relevant
to classrooms. In a Japanese preschool classroom, Burdelski (2013) showed
how three-year-old girls used addressee honorific (desu/-masu) forms, which
traditionally index out-group relationships and public personas (e.g., Cook,
1996), to create social distance and display affective stances in excluding
an older boy from their play. In an honors Language Arts classroom at a
US high school, Rymes and Leone-Pizzighella (Chapter 7 in this volume)
show how students used various communicative resources to index
“unofficial” classroom stances (ironic, witty, uncertain) within “side inter-
actions” with nearby peers (such as by whispering an exchange in order
to confirm an answer to the teacher’s question) that positioned themselves
and peers in various roles and relationships (e.g., “friend,” “confidant,” “less/
more expert”).
In sum, the process of language socialization in classrooms and
beyond entails learning to understand linguistic and other semiotic resources
not only in indexing well-established culturally meaningful realities, but
also in imagining, instantiating, and establishing novel and innovative ones.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Introduction 9

1.2.2 Practices
Language socialization occurs through everyday “communicative practices” or
“socializing strategies” (Ochs and Schieffelin, 2011), constructed through a
rich “ecology of sign systems” (Goodwin, 2000), including linguistic,
embodied, and material resources (Ochs, Solomon, and Sterponi, 2005). In
classrooms, some of the key practices or strategies that have been examined
include the following:
(1) questions (e.g., Heath, 1982; Poole, 1992)
(2) error correction or repair (e.g., Burdelski, Chapter 10 in this volume;
Friedman, 2010; Jaffe, Chapter 5 in this volume)
(3) elicited repetition and prompting (e.g., Burdelski, 2010; Bhattacharya
and Sterponi, Chapter 9 in this volume; Jaffe, Chapter 5 in this volume;
Karrebæk, Chapter 11 in this volume; Moore, 2011)
(4) assessments or evaluations (e.g., Burdelski and Mitsuhashi, 2010; Lo,
2016; Moore, Chapter 4 in this volume)
(5) accounts (e.g., Karrebæk, Chapter 11 in this volume)
(6) fill-in-the-blank utterances (Jaffe, Chapter 5 in this volume; Poole, 1992)
(7) directives (e.g., He, 2000)
(8) modeling and demonstration (e.g., Burdelski, Chapter 10 in this volume;
Moore, 2006)
(9) reported speech (e.g., Moore, Chapter 4 in this volume)
(10) narrative or storytelling (e.g., Baquedano-López, 1997, 2000; Ikeda,
2004)
(11) “participant examples” (Cekaite, Chapter 6 in this volume; Ikeda, 2004;
Moore, Chapter 4 in this volume, Wortham, 1992).
These practices are embedded within and constitute classroom routines and
activities in ways that encourage students’ acquisition of academic knowledge
and skills together with their formation of personhood and subjectivity. In an
ethnically diverse Danish kindergarten classroom, Karrebæk (Chapter 11 in
this volume) shows how teachers used accounts and requested accounts from
children in relation to their not bringing rye bread in their lunchboxes, social-
izing them to norms and values of healthy eating practices that are valued by
the school program and the mainstream society. In a classroom activity
focusing on collaboratively constructing poetic texts in Corsican as a heritage
language, Jaffe (Chapter 5 in this volume) shows how the bilingual Corsican-
French teacher used fill-in-the blank utterances2 followed by rising intonation
that invited students to self-correct portions of their texts. The findings reveal
how children were socialized to becoming competent poets and to acquiring
a poetic genre valued among Corsican speakers. Other studies have
shown how practices inside and outside classrooms can be interpreted by

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 10 Matthew J. Burdelski and Kathryn M. Howard

members and non-members of the culture in very different ways. In a taek-

wondo lesson at a Korean heritage-language school in California, Lo (2016)
observed how an instructor responded to a student’s taekwondo moves and
displayed attitude by producing “negative” assessments as a form of shaming
(see Lo and Fung, 2011) – a social emotion, as it requires a person to be
immersed among others. Although this episode was interpreted in post hoc
interviews by the Korean teacher and Korean informants as indexical of
caring and concern for the student’s skill and social development, non-
Korean observers typically viewed it as being potentially harmful to the
students’ emotional development and self-esteem. In addition to linguistic
resources, the discursive architecture of classroom practices is constructed
from material and embodied resources that socialize novices into specific
ways of acting in the social world. At a Japanese heritage-language school
in the United States, Burdelski (Chapter 10 in this volume) observes how
teachers prepared the children for a preschool graduation ceremony by
modeling and demonstrating how to receive the graduation certificate
(e.g., bowing toward the principal, receiving the certificate with both hands).
The teacher then engaged the children during individual rehearsal by using
touch and bodily manipulation to instruct them to coordinate their verbal
and embodied actions, which socialized them in how to use bodily conduct
in a formal, ritual performance that is highly valued in the Japanese educa-
tional system and society.
In sum, communicative practices built from a range of multimodal resources
are the vehicle through which novices are socialized to and through language.
By participating in the process of language socialization in classrooms,
novices gain familiarity with the practices.

1.2.3 Ideologies
Communicative practices and language resources in classrooms, and the
choices of language, dialect, or register, as well as who teaches, are mediated
by ideologies that are shaped by (and in turn shape) social, political, and
economic concerns (e.g., Althusser, 1971; Blommaert, 1999; Errington,
1999; Jaffe, 1999; Kroskrity, 2004; Riley, 2011; Rumsey, 1990; Silverstein,
1979; Woolard and Schieffelin, 1994). Language ideology refers to “common-
sense notions about the nature of language” (Rumsey, 1990, p. 346) and
“beliefs, or feelings, about language as used in social worlds” (Kroskrity,
2004, p. 498), such as “unexamined cultural assumptions” (Riley, 2011,
p. 493) about language use and episodes taken up for metalinguistic and
metapragmatic commentary that can become a focus of contestation and
challenge in interaction. Language ideologies play a role in sustaining

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Introduction 11

languages, dialects, and communicative practices, and can also contribute to

change and even “erasure” (Irvine and Gal, 2000), or the process whereby
persons, activities, and language features are made invisible because they are
inconsistent with a given ideological position. Most centrally, ideologies are
conveyed within everyday human action (Jaffe, 1999).
Language socialization research has examined ways in which ideologies are
related to identity and undergird processes of language shift and language
maintenance in communities and societies (e.g., Bunte, 2009; Garrett, 2005;
Jaffe, Chapter 5 in this volume; Klein, 2013; Kulick, 1992; Makihara, 2005;
Paugh, 2005; Riley, 2007). In a Dominican community, Paugh (2005)
observed a language policy to introduce the vernacular (Patwa) into classroom
literacy activities, but found that rural villagers expressed an ambivalence
that these efforts would succeed as they continued to face dominant policies
and ideologies in social life that devalued and excluded Patwa from insti-
tutional discourse and the desired professions. In classrooms, language
ideologies undergird educational activities, discursive practices, and socializa-
tion strategies. In a school in Spain with many immigrant children from
Morocco, García-Sánchez (Chapter 2 in this volume) shows how an ideology
of “tolerance” toward immigrant children was an aspirational value of the
school that shaped class content and practices, but points out that this
ideology was both supported and contested within the wider community.
Her observations reveal subtle and overt exclusion of Moroccan children by
their Spanish peers in activities as representing a microcosm of the struggles
and wider tensions concerning the flow of immigrants in Spain. In some
classrooms, language ideologies of “purity” (Friedman, 2010; Klein, Chap-
ter 3 in this volume) and “correctness” (Burdelski, Chapter 10 in this
volume) that are tied to identity and stance are revealed in certain practices
such as error correction. In a study of a Sikh education program at a
gurdwara in Southern California, Klein (Chapter 3 in this volume) shows
how, during a class discussion in English, a student (who had been born in
Punjab and lived there until the age of 12) displayed a “purist language
ideological notion” by initiating a correction of another student’s Anglo-
phone pronunciation of the word Sikhs. Klein suggests that the student’s
correction indexed an authoritative stance and the positioning of himself as a
gatekeeper of the language ideology that links native pronunciation of the
membership category Sikh with authentic Punjabi identity.
In these ways, language ideologies play a role in language shift and main-
tenance, and impact the codes, genres, registers, and discursive practices used
in classrooms. Language ideologies themselves are also conveyed by teachers
and students in subtle and overt ways through metalinguistic and
metapragmatic discourse surrounding what is (in)correct.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 12 Matthew J. Burdelski and Kathryn M. Howard

1.2.4 Power, Authority, and Agency

Human interaction and language socialization occur within asymmetrical
relations of power and authority (e.g., Bourdieu, 1991; Foucault, 1980) that
are manifested in everyday discursive practices (e.g., Goodwin and Cekaite,
2018; Philips, 2004; Summerson, 2010). Power and authority emerge, unfold,
and are achieved in interaction in ways that ascribe and “position” (Davies
and Harré, 1990) self and others in relation to action, knowledge, and ability
(e.g., Evaldsson and Tellgren, 2009; Goodwin, 2006; Shohet, 2013). Power
and authority can be not only displayed, but also concealed or modulated, and
sometimes projected onto third parties. In her research on Japanese mother–
child interaction, Clancy (1986) observed that by projecting power (in the form
of linguistic directives) onto a non-present third party (such as a teacher, father,
or doctor), mothers positioned themselves as an equal in relation to the child
(e.g., Clancy, 1986). As social actors with agency (e.g., Ahearn, 2001), relative
novices not only acquiesce to power/authority and thereby co-construct it, but
also contest, undermine, resist, or ignore it through their own actions and
silences.
In institutional settings such as classrooms, relational categories (e.g.,
teacher–student) are instantiated through discursive practices. The teacher–
student relationship is an inherently asymmetric one, in which teachers display
or downplay their power/control, authority, and knowledge in ways tied to
stance and identity. At a school in a suburban New Delhi community, Bhat-
tacharya and Sterponi (Chapter 9 in this volume) show that during the daily
Morning Assembly children were required to repeat and recite a school pledge
in unison after the teacher. They argue that both the content and performance
of the pledge socializes Indian children to literacy and obedience to authority
as an important value in Indian society based on the master–disciple relation-
ship. Conversely, in English-speaking classrooms at a US university, Rounds
(1987) showed that teachers often downplayed their power and authority
through the use of first person plural pronouns (we, us, and our) as a non-
inclusive referential (meaning you, students) in directing the students’ actions
(e.g., “Let’s look at the problem we [=you] had to do for today”). She argued
that this pronoun use indexed stances of alignment and group togetherness as
part of an American democratic ideal. Students may resist teachers’ ascription
or positioning of them in relation to acts, stances, and identities (see Chapters 6,
8, and 3 in this volume, by Cekaite, Friedman, and Klein, respectively). Within
peer groups, children can create their own power and authoritative structures in
ways that exclude other children (e.g., Goodwin, 2006), which either fly under
the radar of adults or are noticed and subject to teacher intervention. At the
Spanish school mentioned above, García-Sánchez (Chapter 2 in this volume)
observes that having ostensibly noticed that Spanish children were excluding a

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Introduction 13

Moroccan peer on the playground the teacher stepped in and destabilized this
peer-constructed power structure of exclusion by asserting his own power and
authority in encouraging the children to include the peer.
In sum, power/authority and agency are crucial to the process of language
socialization in and around classrooms, as teachers display, modulate, or mask
their power and authority, and novices align or contest it and form their own
kinds of power and authority among peers.

1.2.5 Participation Frameworks

The process of language socialization generates various “participation frame-
works” (e.g., de León, 1998; Goodwin and Goodwin, 2004; Ochs, Solomon,
and Sterponi, 2005) that structure novices’ development in culturally specific
ways. Inspired by Goffman’s (1981) original formulation, the notion of par-
ticipation frameworks has come to be viewed as a dynamic configuration of
actors in which linguistic, material, and embodied resources are used in ways
that afford, promote, and change, as well as constrict and limit, the engagement
of social actors in interaction (Ochs, Solomon, and Sterponi, 2005). Goffman’s
deconstruction of the categories of “speaker” (e.g., “author,” “animator,”
“figure,”) and “recipient” (e.g., “addressee,” “overhearer,” “observer”) into
various roles has invited researchers to look beyond a dyadic model of
communication in examining ways novices are positioned in various roles in
multiparty interaction. Among the Kaluli of Papua New Guinea, Schieffelin
(1990) observed that caregivers use elema routines (X elema ‘X, say’) to
position children as “animator” of an utterance in encouraging them to use
language to be confrontational and assertive. In a Zinacantec Mayan commu-
nity, de León (1998) showed how caregivers use a reported speech frame
(‘he/she says’) to ventriloquize the wants and needs of infants and toddlers
based on their proto-vocalizations and gestures. She argued that this positioned
children within a complex participation framework as “embedded speakers,”
and was an important means through which these children “emerge” as social
actors in everyday life.
Classrooms are inherently multiparty participation frameworks through
which students are positioned and position themselves in various roles (e.g.,
addressee, observer). Philips’ (1983) study of language socialization in homes
and classrooms on the Warm Springs Reservation suggests that Native
American children’s participation in the Anglo-American classrooms was
restricted in relation to their Anglo peers. She argued that this was because
forms of participation in Anglo-American classrooms (such as the IRE
routines and sequences discussed below) were quite different from those in
Native American homes, where children engaged in a great deal of observation
before being required to participate in direct ways.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 14 Matthew J. Burdelski and Kathryn M. Howard

A fundamental turn-taking structure observed in many classrooms is IRE

routines (e.g., Mehan, 1979), canonically composed of teacher Initiation,
followed by student Response and teacher Evaluation, where teachers have
the power and authority (see Section 1.2.4) to select who speaks next and to
evaluate the student’s answer. While these routines are an emergent structure
that is interactionally achieved (see Rymes and Leone-Pizzighella, Chapter 7
in this volume), their content and preferred organization are culturally specific
(e.g., Cook, 1999). In an honors Language Arts classroom for gifted high
school students in the United States, Rymes and Leone-Pizzighella argue that
the predictability of the IRE routines enables students to anticipate the flow of
classroom discourse whereby in the interstices of and in overlap to the routine,
or what they call “unofficial” space, students accomplish various actions
(e.g., confirm a candidate answer to the teacher’s question), display affective
and epistemic stances, and perform identity work with peers. They show how
the students also performed this work in the “official” space of the classroom, or
IRE routines, such as by answering the teacher’s questions about the Shake-
spearean text in which they inserted their own linguistic markers of suburban
youthfulness (e.g., “like”). In some classrooms (Cekaite and Moore, Chapters 6
and 4 in this volume), teachers use “participant examples” (Wortham, 1992) that
position the students as “figures,” or characters, in hypothetical scenarios, such
as in explicating the meaning of unfamiliar words. Such examples may socialize
children not only to the meaning of words but also into culturally specific
meanings related to relationships (Cekaite, Chapter 6 in this volume) and
affective stance (Moore, Chapter 4 in this volume). In a TESOL program for
graduate students in the United States, Friedman (Chapter 8 in this volume)
shows how, in introducing an example sentence from the textbook in which the
students were asked to delete a word from a sentence in order to make it
grammatical, the instructor used reported speech to “animate” what the non-
native speakers of English in the classroom were likely thinking (Teacher: “the
nonnative speakers are laughing like HA how would I have ever found that
right?”), ascribing particular knowledge of English to them (as deficient) in
relation to their native-speaking peers.
In sum, participation is an essential dimension of language socialization in
classrooms through which teachers and students are positioned in relation to
various kinds of social actions, stances, and identities.

1.3 Research Methodologies

The chapters in this volume take a linguistic and an ethnographic approach to
the study of human development (see Garrett, 2008; Kulick and Schieffelin,
2004; Ochs and Schieffelin, 2011) through observations and recordings of
focal children and teachers within specific educational activities in classrooms.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Introduction 15

As Ochs (2000, p. 230) has observed in relation to language socialization

methodology:

the gaze and camera lens of the data collecting researcher is primarily directed at the
activities undertaken rather than zooming in and tracking the actions of any one
participant. Activities (e.g., telling a story, playing a game, preparing and consuming
food, attempting to solve a problem, having an argument) are examined for their social
and linguistic organization, including the spatial positioning of more or less experienced
participants, the expressed stances, ideas, and actions that participants routinely provide
or elicit and, importantly, the response that such expressions receive.

In this volume, some of these activities include reciting a pledge during

Morning Assembly (Bhattacharya and Sterponi, Chapter 9), throwing a ball
in a group and dancing (García-Sánchez, Chapter 2), eating lunch (Karrebæk,
Chapter 11), constructing verses of a poetic genre (Jaffe, Chapter 5), reviewing
answers to a homework assignment on Shakespeare’s Hamlet (Rymes
and Leone-Pizzighella, Chapter 7), discussing prescriptive grammar rules
(Friedman, Chapter 8), and rehearsing how to receive a graduation certificate
(Burdelski, Chapter 10). Recordings were done longitudinally (from a few
months to a few years) in order to capture how language, including “micro-
movements of bodies, gestures, and verbal acts” (Ochs and Schieffelin, 2011,
p. 12), was being used by participants in socially situated ways and how this
use relates to cultural meanings that may have broader social and political
implications. During the recordings, the primary researcher or a member of the
research team was usually co-present in order to monitor the equipment and in
some cases shadow participants who moved around the classroom or other
spaces. This co-presence can subject language socialization researchers to
criticism that the methodology is too invasive of people’s lives or unduly
influences the interactions being observed. As language socialization research-
ers are highly sensitive to people’s lived worlds, a great deal of care is taken in
finding a balance between participating as an “outsider” of the observed
community (e.g., developing a rapport with participants) and stepping back
from the interactions in order to capture what is typical and ordinary. In order
to elucidate the particulars of interaction and relate them to broader cultural
meanings, recordings are essential. Participants usually become so engrossed
in their daily activities that the video equipment and the camera person are
rarely attended to. Nevertheless, the videographer does have a “participation
status” (Goffman, 1981) (see Section 1.2.5), typically as an “observer” or
sometimes as an “addressee” and is thus not completely immune from shaping
the interactions.
Recordings of interactions were played back by researchers a number of
times, in some cases while working with participants or informants, to identify,
transcribe, and analyze the particulars of what people were doing in order to

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 16 Matthew J. Burdelski and Kathryn M. Howard

arrive at more generalized understandings. Some researchers employed play-

back sessions of the recordings with participants, while others utilized semi-
structured interviews with teachers and students (Jaffe, Chapter 5), in order to
reveal various perspectives of the recorded interactions, uncover participants’
ideologies that motivated their practices, and obtain other information that
informed their analyses. In many cases, materials were supplemented with
fieldnotes and observations of interactions that could not be recorded (e.g., due
to the sensitivity of the scene).
In some of the chapters, some new methods have emerged in relation to
language socialization research in classrooms, as researchers involved teachers
and students in shaping the activities that were observed. Jaffe (Chapter 5)
participated in a language revitalization effort of the Corsican language by
working with teachers and students at two elementary schools on Corsica to
introduce and carry out a poetry project in the heritage language, which was
ultimately performed between the students of the two schools at another site
(a museum). Rymes and Leone-Pizzighella (Chapter 7) worked closely with a
classroom teacher in order to bring insights from linguistic anthropology and
sociolinguistics to develop the teacher’s classroom lessons. In these ways, the
study of language socialization in classrooms affords researchers the oppor-
tunity to collaborate with teachers and students in order to mutually inform the
analysis and shape the pedagogical practices being documented.

1.4 Summary of Parts and Chapters in the Volume

The volume is divided into four parts. Following this introduction, Part I,
Socializing Values, Dispositions, and Stances, highlights how everyday class-
room routines, practices, and activities are vehicles for socializing cultural
dispositions, values, and stances in ways that are crucial for becoming compe-
tent members of classrooms and communities. The section consists of three
chapters, focusing on children and adolescents in different languages and
communities. In Chapter 2, Inmaculada M. García-Sánchez examines the
classroom as a site for socializing tolerance (a socio-politically contested value
in the community) in preventing exclusion of immigrant Moroccan children by
their peers in a rural Spanish elementary school. García-Sánchez analyzes
episodes in which children subverted the socialization of tolerance and how
teachers dealt with those subversions. Specifically, she shows ways that some
children attempted to exclude their Moroccan peers from participating with
them in classroom activities, and ways that teachers intervened (or did not
intervene) such as by avoiding labeling discrimination and prejudice overtly in
negotiating the politics of inclusion and diversity among the children.
In Chapter 3, Wendy Klein presents an analysis of Sunday classes held at a
gurdwara (Sikh temple) for Sikh youth in urban Southern California by

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Introduction 17

focusing on the mutual socialization of teachers and students. While bridging

the domains of religious schooling and immigrant communities, Klein focuses
on how teachers took on the roles of mentor in advising these youth on how to
respond to their non-Sikh peers outside the classroom who categorized them in
negative ways using racial, ethnic, and religious stereotypes. She examines
how students with various backgrounds in the heritage culture (some were
born in the United States, while others had arrived from India in early or later
childhood and adolescence) socialized their peers and teachers. In Chapter 4,
Ekaterina Moore takes us to an elementary school classroom in an urban
community in the United States, in which children are learning Russian as a
heritage language at a school affiliated with the Orthodox Christian Church.
Moore investigates how children are socialized into appropriate stances,
values, and feelings toward religious practices that index what it means to be
an Orthodox Christian and shows how the children aligned with and resisted
those stances using words and prosodic devices.
Part II, Socializing Identities, examines socialization into identities tied to
society, roles, and knowledge, and considers their fluidity. The section is
comprised of four chapters, focusing on child and adult learners. In Chapter 5,
Alexandra Jaffe focuses on elementary school children’s socialization to the
role of “poet” and to the poetic genre of Chjam’è rispondi (Call and Response)
in a French–Corsican bilingual school on the island of Corsica. Against the
backdrop of language revitalization of Corsican in schools that she participated
in and helped shape, Jaffe traces the longitudinal process of children’s written
production of poetic texts in the classroom to oral performances both inside
and outside the classroom in shaping and transforming this traditional genre.
She shows how this process socialized the children not only to existing social
identities but also to new identities as poets in the heritage language. In
Chapter 6, Asta Cekaite takes us to a Swedish elementary school where she
focuses on teachers’ vocabulary explanations to children from various
immigrant backgrounds. Cekaite shows how the teachers’ explanations, often
in the form of narratives and participant examples, were sites for positioning
children in identities embedded in traditional Swedish family and society. She
also shows how the children co-constructed and at times resisted this position-
ing. In Chapter 7, Betsy Rymes and Andrea Leone-Pizzighella focus on an
honors Language Arts class in a US high school. In identifying what they call
“contrapuntal” interaction among peers that occurs in tandem to the teacher’s
lesson, the authors detail the ways in which the teacher encouraged such
interaction, and in the process provided a space for peer socialization. In
Chapter 8, Debra Friedman examines L2 socialization and identity construc-
tion in relation to a different setting and type of learners: US-raised and
international students in methods courses within a graduate program on teach-
ing English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) at a US university.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 18 Matthew J. Burdelski and Kathryn M. Howard

She details discourses of difference in the ways the teachers positioned US-born
and international graduate students in relation to knowledge about English, and
the ways the international students positioned themselves and challenged their
status as relative “novices” in claiming expertise over the teacher, shedding light
on the fluidity of expert–novice roles in classrooms involving adult learners.
Part III, Language Socialization and Ideologies, examines socialization to
and through ideologies. In Chapter 9, Usree Bhattacharya and Laura Sterponi
present a study of children at a village school in suburban New Delhi, India.
Employing Althusser’s (1971) notion of ideological state apparatus in relation
to schooling, the authors explain that a central ideology in Indian society is to
incorporate individuals into power structures where teachers, parents, and
elders are the primary sources of knowledge. They examine the verbal,
corporeal, and spatial ways in which the daily routine of the Morning Assem-
bly in classrooms is a key site for socializing children into dispositions of
authority and knowledge in relation to schooling and the broader community.
In Chapter 10, Matthew Burdelski examines language ideologies surrounding
“correctness” and attention to embodied form and detail in a Japanese-as-a-
heritage-language (JHL) preschool classroom in the United States by focusing
on socialization into the linguistic, material, and embodied moves required of
children in receiving a preschool graduation certificate for an upcoming
ceremony. By using verbalization, touch, and guided manipulation of chil-
dren’s bodies, the teachers implicitly conveyed to children the importance of
the body in presenting a public self in a highly valued formal ritual in Japan.
In Chapter 11, Martha Karrebæk focuses on an ethnically diverse kindergarten
classroom in Denmark where ideologies about health in the school and main-
stream Danish society shaped the kinds of talk about food during lunch time.
She shows how teachers often requested accounts from children, especially
from the children from immigrant families where food practices were often
very different from the mainstream society, socializing children to an ideology
surrounding healthy eating habits.
In Part IV, consisting of Chapter 12, Patricia Duff provides a commentary
on the contributing chapters, details how language socialization theory informs
understandings of classrooms, and identifies what the chapters contribute to
language socialization theory. She also provides suggestions for future
research on language socialization in and out of classrooms.

Notes
1 This edited volume examines classroom and interaction from various perspectives,
and includes a part titled “The Language Socialization Tradition” consisting of four
chapters that examine language socialization in (and out) of classrooms.
2 In an examination of classroom discourse from a conversation analysis perspective,
Koshik (2002) refers to these as “designedly incomplete utterances.”

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Introduction 19

REFERENCES
Agha, A. (2005). Voice, footing, enregisterment. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology,
15(1), 43–59.
Ahearn, L. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30,
109–137.
Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays (translated by
B. Brewster). New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
Baquedano-López, P. (1997). Creating social identities through doctrina narratives.
Narrative Inquiry, 10(2), 1–24.
Baquedano-López, P. (2000). Narrating community in doctrina classes. Narrative
Inquiry, 10(2), 1–24.
Blommaert, J. (ed.) (1999). Language Ideological Debates. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bloome, D., Carter S. P., Christian B. M., Otto S., and Stuart-Faris, N. (2004).
Discourse Analysis and the Study of Classroom Language and Literacy Events:
A Microethnographic Perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power (translated by G. Raymond and
M. Adamson). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bucholtz, M. (2009). From stance to style: gender, interaction, and indexicality in
Mexican immigrant youth slang. In A. Jaffe (ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic
Perspectives (pp. 146–170). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bunte, P. (2009). “You keep not listening with your ears!”: language ideologies,
language socialization, and Paiute identity. In P. Kroskrity and M. Field (eds.),
Native American Language Ideologies (pp. 172–189). Tucson, AZ: University of
Arizona Press.
Burdelski, M. (2010). Socializing politeness routines: action, other-orientation, and
embodiment in a Japanese preschool. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1606–1621.
Burdelski, M. (2013). Socializing children to honorifics in Japanese: identity and stance
in interaction. Multilingua, 32(2), 247–273.
Burdelski, M. and Mitsuhashi, K. (2010). “She thinks you’re kawaii”: socializing affect,
gender, and relationships in a Japanese preschool. Language in Society, 39(1),
65–93.
Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cekaite, A. (2012). Affective stances in teacher–novice student interactions: language,
embodiment, and willingness to learn. Language in Society, 41, 641–670.
Clancy, P. M. (1986). The acquisition of Japanese communicative style. In E. Ochs and
B. B. Schieffelin (eds.), Language Socialization across Cultures (pp. 213–250).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, H. M. (1996). Japanese language socialization: indexing the modes of self.
Discourse Processes, 22(2), 171–197.
Cook, H. M. (1999). Language socialization in Japanese elementary school: attentive
listening and reaction turns. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1443–1465.
Davies, B. and Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: the discursive production of selves.
Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 20(1), 43–63.
De León, L. (1998). The emergent participant: interactive patterns in the socialization of
Tzotzil (Mayan) infants. Linguistic Anthropology, 8(2), 131–161.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 20 Matthew J. Burdelski and Kathryn M. Howard

Duff, P. A. (1993). “Changing times, changing minds: language socialization in

Hungarian-English schools.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
California, Los Angeles, CA.
Duff, P. A. (1996). Different languages, different practices: socialization of discourse
competence in dual language school classrooms in Hungary. In K. Bailey and D.
Nunan (eds.), Voices from the Language Classroom: Qualitative Research in
Second Language Education (pp. 407–433). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Duff, P. A. (2008). Language socialization, participation and identity: ethnographic
approaches. In M. Martin-Jones, A.-M. de Mejia, and N. Hornberger (eds.),
Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd Ed., Vol. 3: Discourse and
Education (pp. 107–119). New York, NY: Springer.
Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization. In N. H. Hornberger, S. L. McKay, and S.
Lee (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Education: New Perspectives on
Language and Education (pp. 427–454). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Duff, P. A. and May, S. (eds.) (2017). Language Socialization: Encyclopedia of
Language and Education, 3rd Ed. New York, NY: Springer.
Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (eds.) (1992). Rethinking Context: Language as an
Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Erickson, F. (1982). Classroom discourse as improvisation: relationships between
academic task structure and social participation structure in lessons. In L. C.
Wilkinson (ed.), Communicating in the Classroom (pp. 153–181). New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Erickson, F. (1996). Going for the zone: the social and cognitive ecology of
teacher–student interaction in classroom conversations. In D. Hicks (ed.),
Discourse, Learning, and Schooling (pp. 26–62). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Errington, J. (1999). Ideology. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9(1–2), 115–117.
Evaldsson, A.-C. and Tellgren, B. (2009). “Don’t enter – it’s dangerous”: negotiations
for power and exclusion in preschool girls’ play interactions. Educational and
Child Psychology, 26(2), 9–18.
Fader, A. (2001). Literacy, bilingualism, and gender in a Hasidic community.
Linguistics and Education, 12(3), 261–283.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings,
1972–1977 (edited by C. Gordon; translated by C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J.
Mepham, and K. Soper). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Friedman, D. (2010). Speaking correctly: error correction as a language socialization
practice in a Ukrainian classroom. Applied Linguistics, 31, 346–367.
Friedman, D. (2016). Our language: (re)imagining communities in Ukrainian
language classrooms. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 15,
165–179.
García-Sánchez, I. M. (2010). The politics of Arabic language education: Moroccan
immigrant children’s socialization into ethnic and religious identities. Linguistics
and Education, 21(3), 171–196.
Garrett, P. B. (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.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Introduction 21

Garrett, P. B. (2008). Researching language socialization. In K. A. King and N. H.

Hornberger (eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Vol. 10: Research
Methods in Language and Education (pp. 189–201). Boston, MA: Springer.
Garrett, P. B. and Baquedano-López, P. (2002). Language socialization: reproduction
and continuity, transformation and change. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31,
339–361.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction.
Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522.
Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. H. (2004). Participation. In A. Duranti (ed.),
A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 222–244). Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Goodwin, M. H. (2006). The Hidden Life of Girls: Games of Stance, Status, and
Exclusion. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Goodwin, M. H. and Cekaite, A. (2018). Embodied Family Choreography: Practices of
Control, Care, and Mundane Creativity. New York, NY: Routledge.
Goodwin, M. H. and Kyratzis, A. (2011). Peer language socialization. In A. Duranti, E.
Ochs, and B. B. Schieffelin (eds.), The Handbook of Language Socialization
(pp. 365–390). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
He, A. W. (2000). The grammatical and interactional organization of teachers’
directives: implications for socialization of Chinese American children.
Linguistics and Education, 11(2), 119–140.
He, A. W. (2015). Literacy, creativity, and continuity: a language socialization
perspective on heritage language classroom interaction. In N. Markee (ed.), The
Handbook of Classroom Discourse and Interaction (pp. 304–318). Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Heath, S. B. (1982). Questioning at home and at school: a comparative study. In G. D.
Spindler (ed.), Doing the Ethnography of Schooling: Educational Anthropology in
Action (pp. 102–131). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Hicks, D. (ed.) (1996). Discourse, Learning, and Schooling. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Howard, K. (2009). “When meeting Khun teacher, each time we should pay respect”:
standardizing respect in a Northern Thai classroom. Linguistics and Education, 20
(3), 254–272.
Howard, K. (2014). Language socialization. In Oxford Bibliographies Online.
Retrieved September 4, 2018 from www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/
document/obo-9780199766567/obo-9780199766567-0111.xml
Ikeda, E. (2004). Socializing missionary ideologies through narrative. Texas Linguistic
Forum, 47, 81–95.
Inoue, M. (2004). What does a language remember? Indexical inversion and the
naturalized history of Japanese women. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 14
(1), 39–56.
Irvine, J. T. and Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P.
V. Kroskrity (ed.), Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities
(pp. 35–84). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.
Jaffe, A. M. (1999). Ideologies in Actions: Language Politics on Corsica. Berlin and
New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 22 Matthew J. Burdelski and Kathryn M. Howard

Jaffe, A. M. (2016). Indexicality, stance and field in sociolinguistics. In N. Coupland

(ed.), Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates (pp. 86–112). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kanagy, R. (1999). Interactional routines as a mechanism for L2 acquisition and
socialization in an immersion context. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1467–1492.
Klein, W. (2013). Speaking Punjabi: heritage language socialization and language
ideologies in a Sikh education program. Heritage Language Journal, 10(1),
36–50.
Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: a pedagogical practice for
eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on
Language and Social Interaction, 35(3), 277–309.
Kramsch, C. (ed.) (2002). Language Acquisition and Language Socialization:
Ecological Perspectives. London: Continuum.
Kroskity, P. (2004). Language ideologies. In A. Duranti (ed.), A Companion to
Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 496–517). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Kulick, D. (1992). Language Shift and Cultural Reproduction: Socializing, Self, and
Syncretism in a Papua New Guinean Village. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kulick, D. and Schieffelin, B.B. (2004). Language socialization. In A. Duranti (ed.),
A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 349–368). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Lee, J. S. and Bucholtz, M. (2015). Language socialization across learning spaces. In
N. Markee (ed.), The Handbook of Classroom Discourse and Interaction (pp.
319–336). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lo, A. (2009). Lessons about respect and affect in a Korean-American heritage
language school. Linguistics and Education, 20(3), 217–234.
Lo, A. (2016). “Positive and negative assessment: metalinguistic understandings of praise
and criticism in Korean American interactions.” Paper presented at the 115th
American Anthropological Association Annual Meeting, Minneapolis (November).
Lo, A. and Fung, H. (2011). Language socialization and shaming. In A. Duranti, E.
Ochs, and B. B. Schieffelin (eds.), The Handbook of Language Socialization (pp.
169–189). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Makihara, M. (2005). Rapa Nui ways of speaking Spanish: language shift and
socialization on Easter Island. Language in Society, 34(5) 727–762.
Margutti, P. and Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2011). The interactional management of
discipline and morality in the classroom: an introduction. Linguistics and
Education, 22(4), 305–309.
Markee, N. (ed.) (2015). The Handbook of Classroom Discourse and Interaction.
Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Mehan, H. (1979). What time is it Denise? Some observations on the organization and
consequences of asking known information questions in classroom discourse.
Theory into Practice, 18(4), 285–292.
Mehan, H. and Griffin, P. (1981). Sense and ritual in classroom discourse. In
F. Coulmas (ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized
Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague: Mouton Press.
Moore, L. C. (2006). Learning by heart in Qur’anic and public schools in northern
Cameroon. Social Analysis: The International Journal of Cultural and Social
Practice, 50(3), 109–126.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Introduction 23

Moore, L. C. (2011). Language socialization and repetition. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, and

B.B. Schieffelin (eds.), The Handbook of Language Socialization (pp. 209–226).
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and Language Development: Language Socialization and
Language Acquisition in a Samoan Village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E. (1990). Indexicality and socialization. In J. W. Stigler, R. A. Shweder, and G.
Herdt (eds.), Cultural Psychology: Essays on Comparative Human Development
(pp. 287–308). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking
Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (pp. 335–358). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E. (2000). Socialization. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9(1–2), 230–233.
Ochs, E., Solomon, O., and Sterponi, L. (2005). Limitations and transformations of
habitus in child-directed communication. Discourse Studies, 7, 547–583.
Ochs, E. and Schieffelin, B.B. (1984). Language socialization: three developmental
stories. In R. A. Shweder and R. A. Levine (eds.), Culture Theory: Essays on
Mind, Self, and Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E. and Schieffelin, B.B. (2011). The theory of language socialization. In A.
Duranti, E. Ochs and B.B. Schieffelin (eds.), The Handbook of Language
Socialization (pp. 1–21). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Ochs, E. and Schieffelin, B. B. (2017). Language socialization: an historical overview.
In P.A. Duff and S. May (eds.), Language Socialization: Encyclopedia of
Language Education, 3rd Ed. (pp. 3–15). New York, NY: Springer.
Ohta, A. S. (1994). Socializing the expression of affect: an overview of affective
particle use in the Japanese as a foreign language classroom. Issues in Applied
Linguistics, 5, 303–325.
Paugh, A. (2005). Acting adult: language socialization, shift, and ideologies in
Dominica, West Indies. In J. Cohen, K. T. McAlister, K. Rolstad, and J.
MacSwan (eds.), ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on
Bilingualism. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Paugh, A. (2012). Playing with Languages: Children and Change in a Caribbean
Village. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.
Paugh, A. (2016). Language socialization. In N. Bonvillian (ed.), The Routledge
Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 125–139). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Philips, S. U. (1983). The Invisible Culture: Communication in Classroom and
Community on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. New York, NY: Longman.
Philips, S. U. (2004). Language and social inequality. In A. Duranti (ed.), A Companion
to Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 474–495). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Pontecorvo, C., Fasulo, A., and Sterponi, L. (2001). Mutual apprentices: the making of
parenthood and childhood in family dinner conversations. Human Development,
44, 340–361.
Poole, D. (1992). Language socialization in the second language classroom. Language
Learning, 42(2), 593–616.
Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., and Clarke, S. N. (2015). Socializing Intelligence
through Academic Talk and Dialogue. Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 24 Matthew J. Burdelski and Kathryn M. Howard

Reynolds, J. F. (2007). “Buenos días/((military salute))”: the natural history of a coined

insult. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 40, 437–465.
Riley, K. C. (2007). To tangle or not to tangle: shifting language ideologies and the
socialization of Charabia in the Marquesas, French Polynesia. In M. Makihara and
B. B. Schieffelin (eds.), Consequences of Contact (pp. 70–95). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Riley, K. C. (2011). Language socialization and language ideologies. In A. Duranti, E.
Ochs, and B. B. Schieffelin (eds.), The Handbook of Language Socialization (pp.
493–514). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Rounds, P. L. (1987). Multifunctional personal pronoun use in an educational setting.
English for Specific Purposes, 6, 13–29.
Rumsey, A. (1990). Wording, meaning, and linguistic ideology. American Anthropologist,
92(2), 346–361.
Rymes, B. (2010). Communicative repertoires and English language learners. In
M. Shatz and L. C. Wilkinson (eds.), The Education of English Language
Learners: Research to Practice (1st ed.) (pp. 177–197). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Schieffelin, B. B. (1990). The Give and Take of Everyday Life: Language Socialization
of Kaluli Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schieffelin, B. B. and Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 15(1), 163–246.
Shohet, M. (2013). Everyday sacrifice and language socialization in Vietnam: the
power of a respect particle. American Anthropologist, 115(2), 203–217.
Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In K. H.
Basso and H. A. Selby (eds.), Meaning in Anthropology (pp. 11–55).
Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In P. R. Clyne, W. F.
Hands, and C. L. Hofbauer (eds.), The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units
and Levels (pp. 193–248). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life.
Language and Communication, 23(3–4), 193–229.
Summerson, C. E. (2010). Enactments of expertise. Annual Review of Anthropology,
39, 17–32.
Takei, N. and Burdelski, M. (2018). Shifting of “expert” and “novice” roles between/
within two languages: language socialization, identity, and epistemics in family
dinnertime conversations. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and
Interlanguage Communication, 37(1), 83–117.
Talmy, S. (2008). The cultural productions of the ESL student at Tradewinds High:
contingency, multidirectionality, and identity in L2 socialization. Applied
Linguistics, 29(4), 619–644.
Vogel-Langer, A. (2008). Becoming One Nation: Explorations into Language Use and
Identity Formation of Germany’s Post- and Pre-Unification Generations.
Saarbrücken: Verlag.
Willett, J. (1995). Becoming first graders in an L2: an ethnographic study of L2
socialization. TESOL Quarterly, 29(3), 473–503.
Woolard, K. A. and Schieffelin, B. B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 23, 55–82.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Introduction 25

Wortham, S. (1992). Participant examples and classroom interaction. Linguistics and

Education, 4(2), 195–217.
Zuengler, J. and Cole, K. (2005). Language socialization and L2 learning. In E. Hinkel
(ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp.
301–316). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316946237.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press