Researching Language Socialization

Abstract

A key aspect of language socialization is the development of communicative competence, which involves acquiring proficiency in the use of a given language (or languages) as well as the culturally based knowledge that one needs in order to use language in culturally intelligible, socially appropriate ways (Garrett and Baquedano-López, 2002; Ochs and Schieffelin, 1984; Schieffelin and Ochs, 1986a). Since its initial formulation in the early 1980s, the language socialization research paradigm has been resolutely interdisciplinary, combining the perspectives and insights of scholars in anthropology (particularly linguistic anthropology), linguistics (particularly applied linguistics), education, and other fields united by their commitment to investigating the relationships among language, culture, and society. A basic assumption of language socialization researchers is that the acquisition of language is inseparable from the acquisition of other kinds of social and cultural knowledge. Language socialization research is thus concerned with the “microgenesis” of communicative competence (Schieffelin and Ochs, 1996), which comprises but also goes well beyond linguistic competence in the narrower generativist sense. Communicative competence also comprises the practical knowledge, much of it prediscursive if not preconscious, that one must have to use language as a social tool, to engage in talk as a social activity, and to coconstruct meaningful interactive contexts with others. However, the paradigm’s methodological emphasis on qualitative depth over quantitative breadth may pose certain challenges in this same regard, and in some cases may make it necessary for language socialization researchers either to partner with researchers of a more quantitative orientation or to find ways of integrating some such methods (e.g., large-scale surveys) into their own studies. The kind of strongly integrative comparative framework that characterized the first generation of language socialization studies, and that gave researchers a basis for sorting out the universal and culturally specific aspects of socialization, is now lacking. One consequence of this is that contemporary studies tend to be more narrowly ethnographic, and more preoccupied with the specific theoretical concerns of the various disciplines; on the whole, today’s researchers seem to be less inclined than their predecessors to consider the potential for their work to yield insights into the universal aspects of language socialization, and of communicative practice more generally. The paradigm’s founders, meanwhile, have upheld their commitment to this important line of inquiry (Ochs and Schieffelin, 1995; Schieffelin and Ochs, 1996), offering hope that this and other unifying themes and integrative frameworks will receive greater attention in coming years.