Search

This article provides a critical review of the theoretical underpinnings of two core concepts in language socialization research: input and communicative competence. We organize our discussion along two major lines of inquiry: ( a) the historical-local and ( b) the language contact–globalization bodies of work. The first part of the article contests the persistent view that input reduces to vocabulary and grammatical structures. To this end, it provides evidence for a more multifaceted approach to input that involves multiparty participant frameworks and multimodality in culturally diverse language socialization ecologies. In this vein, it problematizes language gap studies that are based on middle-class language acquisition models of mother–child dyadic verbal input. The second part of the article challenges monolingual, developmental, and speaker-based models of communicative competence that assume a linear evolution from lesser to greater communicative competence and from more peripheral to more central community membership. It also offers evidence for how communicative competence is socioculturally constructed and, sometimes, interactionally distributed.

Bringing together ethnographic approaches to childhood, linguistic anthropology, and relational–feminist perspectives on care, this review focuses on the role of children as interactional brokers of care, a role that has been underappreciated. Building from the premise that, through language, children perform a fundamental form of other-oriented care—that of mediating another person's ability to express themselves—this review explores the material, political, moral, and affective dimensions of children's interactional care work. Attention to the interactional–relational aspects of children's caregiving shows the extent to which children are involved in facilitating the circulation of care and enabling community care networks, and it opens up new possibilities for how we conceptualize care: It illuminates the processes through which care practices are organized, negotiated, and enacted at the intersection of the local and the global; it reveals care as a reciprocal, distributed interactional achievement; and it helps us transcend dichotomies that have characterized scholarly thinking about care.