Linguistic Anthropology notion of contextualization cues, linguistic Anthony Giddens, Mikhail Bakhtin, Michel Foucault through which'speakers signal and listeners Clifford Geertz, Paul Ricoeur);(c) the use of the what the activity is, how semantic content concept of ideology in trying to understand how derstood and how each sentence relates speakers conceptualize what constitutes appropriate precedes or follows(Gumperz 1982, p 131). Typical and interpretable language; and (d) the introduction examples of contextualization cues are intonational and wider adoption of new recording technologies patterns, paralinguistic features(e.g, tempo, pausing),(e. g, video, digitized images ), and their implications choice of code(e.g, English vs. Spanish), use of key for the definition of what constitutes an empirically words, and formulaic expressions. They can be studied adequate representation of speaking or, more broadly order to make sense of both successful and communication successful communication-crosstalk' was the ame with which miscommunication between people with different cultural backgrounds came to be known 4. New trends Gumperz's research on South Asian speakers of The last two decac des have seen the development of English in the UK In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the notion of language and other cultural resources. Three of the context was also being revisited by a number of other most important ones are language socialization, multi esearchers within linguistic anthropol michael lingualism, and the study of the linguistic dimensions Silverstein(1976) proposed a model of indexicalit of power and control that could be adapted to the sociocultural study language in and as context. He identified linguistic (i.e, they can be interpreted only on the basis of an 4. Language Socialization existential connection with some independently es- Although the acquisition of communicative com- tablished aspect of context) to highly creative (i.e, petence was always meant to be an important part of constitutive of their own context). Deictic terms like the program in the ethnography of communication, this'in'this room is cold are presupposing because it the field of language socialization did not fully develol is assumed that the room must exist for the utterance until the mid-1980s when elinor ochs and Bambi to be interpretable, whereas second-person pronouns Schieffelin(1984)defined it as(a)the process of getting (e.g, you in English, tu in Spanish)are creative, given socialized through language and (b)the process of nat they establish the identity of the addressee/ getting socialized to language, and offered some recipient while simultaneously creating the role of specific directions for research. By applying an an- addressee/recipient in the ongoing speech event. thropological reading to prior work on language anguages that have socially differentiated second- acquisition, they reframed it as embedded in culturally person pronouns (e.g, the classic T/V type of dis- specific expectations about the role of children and Spanish tu/Usted, German guages, French tu/cous, adults in Western societies and, particularly, in white tinction of many European lan or tu/Lei)are more extreme examples of systems in neither one of the two speech communities they had which words are used to activate or establish the studied (i.e in Papua New guinea and in Samoa) relevant social coordinates of equality /inequality, have a register corresponding to what is known as olidarity /power. The study of indexicality has be- baby talk'or'motherese, Ochs and Schieffelin not come a major focus of interest in contemporary only demonstrated that simplification in talking to ustic anthropology, and has been accompanied by infants, contrary to what was suggested by some a renewed interest in the role of the human body in the linguists and psycholinguists, is not universal, but stablishment of the referential grounding of most also, and more importantly, that simplification in communicative acts(Hanks 1990) talking to infants correlates with other forms of A more recent effort toward the definition of context accommodation to children, and local conceptual- is Elinor Ochs's(1996)model for the construction of izations of children and their place in society social identities. which is based on a number of Although related to child language acquisition situational dimensions established through language studies, language socialization studies examine the use:social acts, activities(a sequence of two or more cultural implications of what is being done with, to, acts), and affective and epistemic stances around, and through talk to children, with the theor The 1990s saw a rethinking of the concept of context etical assumption that learning is a two-way street in part due to: (a) a renewed awareness of the role of and that both experts and novices may come out of theory and methodology in defining the difference routine social encounters with new ways of thinking between the message and its context(Duranti and acting, and feelin Goodwin 1992);(b) the influence of a number of Language socialization is conceptualized as a never theorists from other disciplines(e. g, Pierre Bourdieu, ending process because speakers never stop learning 8903notion of contextualization cues, linguistic features through which ‘speakers signal and listeners interpret what the activity is, how semantic content is to be understood and how each sentence relates to what precedes or follows’ (Gumperz 1982, p. 131). Typical examples of contextualization cues are intonational patterns, paralinguistic features (e.g., tempo, pausing), choice of code (e.g., English vs. Spanish), use of key words, and formulaic expressions. They can be studied in order to make sense of both successful and unsuccessful communication—‘crosstalk’ was the name with which miscommunication between people with different cultural backgrounds came to be known (thanks especially to a BBC program centered around Gumperz’s research on South Asian speakers of English in the UK). In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the notion of context was also being revisited by a number of other researchers within linguistic anthropology. Michael Silverstein (1976) proposed a model of indexicality that could be adapted to the sociocultural study of language in and as context. He identified linguistic signs along a continuum from highly presupposing (i.e., they can be interpreted only on the basis of an existential connection with some independently es￾tablished aspect of context) to highly creative (i.e., constitutive of their own context). Deictic terms like ‘this’ in ‘this room is cold’ are presupposing because it is assumed that the room must exist for the utterance to be interpretable, whereas second-person pronouns (e.g., ‘you’ in English, tu in Spanish) are creative, given that they establish the identity of the addressee} recipient while simultaneously creating the role of addressee}recipient in the ongoing speech event. Languages that have socially differentiated second￾person pronouns (e.g., the classic T}V type of dis￾tinction of many European languages, French tu}Šous, Spanish tu}Usted, German du}Sie, and Italian tu}Voi or tu}Lei) are more extreme examples of systems in which words are used to activate or establish the relevant social coordinates of equality}inequality, solidarity}power. The study of indexicality has be￾come a major focus of interest in contemporary linguistic anthropology, and has been accompanied by a renewed interest in the role of the human body in the establishment of the referential grounding of most communicative acts (Hanks 1990). A more recent effort toward the definition of context is Elinor Ochs’s (1996) model for the construction of social identities, which is based on a number of situational dimensions established through language use: social acts, activities (a sequence of two or more acts), and affective and epistemic stances. The 1990s saw a rethinking of the concept of context in part due to: (a) a renewed awareness of the role of theory and methodology in defining the difference between the message and its context (Duranti and Goodwin 1992); (b) the influence of a number of theorists from other disciplines (e.g., Pierre Bourdieu, Anthony Giddens, Mikhail Bakhtin, Michel Foucault, Clifford Geertz, Paul Ricoeur); (c) the use of the concept of ideology in trying to understand how speakers conceptualize what constitutes appropriate and interpretable language; and (d) the introduction and wider adoption of new recording technologies (e.g., video, digitized images), and their implications for the definition of what constitutes an empirically adequate representation of speaking or, more broadly, communication. 4. New Trends The last two decades have seen the development of several new projects involving the interface between language and other cultural resources. Three of the most important ones are language socialization, multi￾lingualism, and the study of the linguistic dimensions of power and control. 4.1 Language Socialization Although the acquisition of communicative com￾petence was always meant to be an important part of the program in the ethnography of communication, the field of language socialization did not fully develop until the mid-1980s, when Elinor Ochs and Bambi B. Schieffelin (1984) defined it as (a) the process of getting socialized through language and (b) the process of getting socialized to language, and offered some specific directions for research. By applying an an￾thropological reading to prior work on language acquisition, they reframed it as embedded in culturally specific expectations about the role of children and adults in Western societies and, particularly, in white middle-class families. Using their discovery that neither one of the two speech communities they had studied (i.e., in Papua New Guinea and in Samoa) have a register corresponding to what is known as ‘baby talk’ or ‘motherese,’ Ochs and Schieffelin not only demonstrated that simplification in talking to infants, contrary to what was suggested by some linguists and psycholinguists, is not universal, but also, and more importantly, that simplification in talking to infants correlates with other forms of accommodation to children, and local conceptual￾izations of children and their place in society. Although related to child language acquisition studies, language socialization studies examine the cultural implications of what is being done with, to, around, and through talk to children, with the theor￾etical assumption that learning is a two-way street, and that both experts and novices may come out of routine social encounters with new ways of thinking, acting, and feeling. Language socialization is conceptualized as a never￾ending process because speakers never stop learning 8903 Linguistic Anthropology