See Duff et al., “Learning Language for Work and Life”; Jacobs-Huey, Becoming
Cosmetologists; Philips, “The Language Socialization of Lawyers”; see generally Berger and
Luckmann,Social Construction of Reality. Here Silverstein would speak of second-order
indexicalities of identity. Silverstein, “Indexical Order.”
Finkelstein, “Studies in the Anatomy Laboratory,” 23.
See Turner, Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors; Van Gennep, Rites of Passage; see also
Goffman, The Presentation of Self.
Turner, Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors, 259.
Id., 195–198. Note that while neophytes are in a liminal state, separated from
society, they would technically be referred to as “initiands”; on their return to society, they
would gain the status of “initates.” Through much of the text of this book, I eschew the
more technical vocabulary in discussing law students as initiates, but it should be recalled
that while they are in law school (and particularly in their first year), the correct technical
term would be initiand.
Van Gennep, Rites of Passage, 11.
P. Garrett and Baquedano-Lopez, “Language Socialization”; see also Brenneis
and Macaulay, “Learning Language.” In addition to issues of morality and personhood,
P. Garrett and Baquedano-Lopez point to both narrative and linguistic ideology as im-
portant foci for ongoing research on linguistic socialization. As we will see, new forms
of narrative and mediating linguistic ideology are indeed important parts of the linguistic
socialization process in law schools.
Bourdieu and Passeron, Reproduction.
See, e.g., Anyon, “Social Class and School Knowledge”; Collins, “Socialization to
Text” and “Differential Treatment and Reading Instruction”; J. Gee, “Narrativization of
Experience”; Heath, Ways with Words and “Toward an Ethnohistory of Writing”; Mehan,
Learning Lessons; Michaels, “Narrative Presentations”; Philips, “Participant Structures and
Communicative Competence”; Wortham and Rymes, Linguistic Anthropology of Education.
Wortham points to several basic tenets that have anchored the linguistic anthropology of
education: connection of micro- and macrolevel processes, examining linguistic patterns
in use, and a focus on the speaker’s point of view. Wortham, “Introduction.” In addition,
he would add four more central foci that he sees as promising avenues for moving the field
forward: creativity, indexicality, regimentation, and poetic structure. These concepts ob-
viously fit within the Silversteinian framework outlined earlier.
See, e.g., Goody and Watt, “Consequences of Literacy”; Olson, “Utterance to Text.”
See, e.g., Gough, “Implications of Literacy”; Scinto, “Text, Schooling, and the
Growth of Mind”; Scribner and Cole, “Literacy without Schooling”; Street, Literacy in
Theory and Practice.
Scribner and Cole, “Literacy without Schooling.”
Street, Literacy in Theory and Practice; see also Baton, “Literacy in Everyday
Contexts.”
Collins, “Literacy and Literacies,” 75–76 (emphasis added).
In a similar vein, work following in the tradition of L. S. Vygotsky focusing on
linguistic mediation in children’s development has demonstrated that the same task, using
the same combination of writing and speech, may be absorbed differently depending on
the culturally constructed perceptions and approaches people bring to it. See Saxe et al.,
“The Social Organization of Early Number Development;” Wertsch, Vygotsky and the So-
cial Foundation of Mind and Culture, Communication, and Cognition.
Collins and Blot, Literacy and Literacies, xviii; Heath, Ways with Words.
See, e.g., Cazden, Classroom Discourse; Cook-Gumperz, “Schooling and Literacy”;
J. Gee, “The Narrativization of Experience in the Oral Style”; Mehan, Learning Lessons;
