Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: Insights and issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I describe the relationship between language socialization and sociocultural theory (SCT) and the implications of this connection for second language socialization (SLS) studies. I first describe the theoretical compatibility of language socialization and SCT by examining the basic tenets of each and then also explore how language socialization scholars have explicitly or implicitly drawn on SCT and how SCT scholars, in turn, have positioned research on socialization with respect to their theory. Second, I illustrate two common current theoretical and analytic approaches to research in SLS that exemplify: (1) a focus on indexicality in language learning, and (2) a community of practice orientation to SLS, which also embraces sociocultural theory (Lave & Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998). Third, I illustrate how the community-of-practice approach, combined with SLS, helps account for findings in a sociocultural study of Korean exchange students' experiences of language and literacy socialization at a Canadian university. I conclude by suggesting future directions for SLS studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".