Volume 31, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238



This paper analyses socialization processes in the interaction between two Belgian, Dutch-speaking sisters, aged 10 and 8, more specifically with regard to power dynamics and establishing the roles of socialization target and agent. Socialization is collaborative, but usually entails some division of roles, which is intricately linked to power dynamics. Consequently, socialization efforts, and the socialization roles of target and agent, can be discarded or contested as part of these power dynamics. The analysis shows that socialization efforts between the sisters are often accepted, but also regularly contested and resisted. Moreover, the data indicates that roles and goals of some socialization efforts are so unclear that the boundaries between socialization efforts and interactional actions that aim to gain control become blurred. In conclusion, socialization must not only be considered in terms of its learning potential, but also as a power struggle with intricate and complex negotiation dynamics.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Blum-Kulka, S.
    1997Dinner Talk. Erlbaum: Mahwah.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Blum-Kulka, S., and C. Snow
    2004 “Introduction: The Potential of Peer Talk.” Discourse, 6 (3): 291–306.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brody, G., Z. Stoneman, and C. MacKinnon
    1982 “Role Asymmetries in Interactions among School-Aged Children, Their Younger Siblings, and Their Friends.” Child Development, 53 (3): 1364–1370. 10.2307/1129027
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1129027 [Google Scholar]
  4. Cho, H.
    2018 “Korean – English Bilingual Sibling Interactions and Socialization.” Linguistics and Education45: 31–39. 10.1016/j.linged.2018.03.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2018.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  5. Duff, P.
    2010 “Language Socialization.” InSociolinguistics and Language Education, ed. byN. Hornberger and S. L. McKay, 427–452. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847692849‑018
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847692849-018 [Google Scholar]
  6. Duff, P., and S. May
    2017Language Socialization (3rd ed.). Cham: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Duff, P., and S. Talmy
    2011 “Language Socialization Approaches to Second Language Acquisition: Social, Cultural, and Linguistic Development in Additional Languages.” InAlternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition, ed. byD. Atkinson, 95–116. London: Taylor & Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dunn, J.
    2015 “Siblings.” InHandbook of Socialization, ed. byJ. Grusec and P. Hastings, 182–201. New York: Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Ervin-Tripp, S., G. Jiansheng, and M. Lampert
    1990 “Politeness and Persuasion in Children’s Control Acts.” Journal of Pragmatics14: 307–331. 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90085‑R
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90085-R [Google Scholar]
  10. Goodwin, M. H., and A. Kyratzis
    2007 “Children Socializing Children: Practices for Negotiating the Social Order Among Peers.” Research on Language and Social Interaction40 (4): 279–289. 10.1080/08351810701471260
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701471260 [Google Scholar]
  11. Grusec, J., and P. Hastings
    2015Handbook of Socialization (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hakulinen, A.
    1999 “Conversation Types.” InHandbook of Pragmatics, ed. byJ. Östman and J. Verschueren. Amsterdan/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Heritage, J.
    2012 “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (1): 1–29. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  14. Heritage, J., and G. Raymond
    2005 “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly68 (1): 15–38. 10.1177/019027250506800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  15. Keel, S.
    2016Socialization: Parent-Child Interaction in Everyday Life. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315609706
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315609706 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kendall, S.
    2007 “Introduction: Family Talk.” InFamily Talk: Discourse and Identity in Four American Families, ed. byD. Tannen, S. Kendall, and C. Gordon, 3–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ladegaard, H. J.
    2009 “Pragmatic Cooperation Revisited: Resistance and Non-cooperation as a Discursive Strategy in Asymmetrical Discourses.” Journal of Pragmatics41 (4): 649–666. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.021 [Google Scholar]
  18. Landmark, A. M. D., P. Gulbrandsen, and J. Svennevig
    2015 “Whose decision? Negotiating Epistemic and Deontic Rights in Medical Treatment Decisions.” Journal of Pragmatics, 78: 54–69. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.007 [Google Scholar]
  19. Maybin, J.
    2006Children’s Voices: Talk, Knowledge and Identity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511958
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511958 [Google Scholar]
  20. Mcelwain, N. L., and B. L. Volling
    2006 “Preschool Children’s Interactions With Friends and Older Siblings: Relationship Specificity and Joint Contributions to Problem Behavior.” Journal of Family Psychology19 (4): 486–496. 10.1037/0893‑3200.19.4.486
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.4.486 [Google Scholar]
  21. Moore, L.
    2008 “Language Socialization and Second/Foreign Language and Multilingual Education in Non-western Settings.” InEncyclopedia of Language and Education, ed. byP. Duff and N. Hornberger, 175–185. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑30424‑3_205
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_205 [Google Scholar]
  22. Nilep, C.
    2009 “Sibling Interaction and Symbolic Capital: Toward a Theory of Political Micro-Economy.” Journal of Pragmatics41: 1683–1692. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  23. Pepler, D., R. Abramovitch, and C. Corter
    1981 “Sibling Interaction in the Home: A Longitudinal Study.” Child Development52 (4): 1344–1347. 10.2307/1129530
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1129530 [Google Scholar]
  24. Pontecorvo, C., A. Fasulo, and L. Sterponi
    2001 “Mutual Apprentices: The Making of Parenthood and Childhood in Family Dinner Conversations.” Human Development44: 340–361. 10.1159/000046155
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000046155 [Google Scholar]
  25. Rowlett, B. L.
    2020 “Second Language Socialization in the Margins: Queering the Paradigm.” Multilingua (online first). 10.1515/multi‑2019‑0057
    https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2019-0057 [Google Scholar]
  26. Schieffelin, B., and E. Ochs
    1986 “Language Socialization.” Annual Review of Anthropology15: 163–191. 10.1146/annurev.an.15.100186.001115
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.15.100186.001115 [Google Scholar]
  27. Seals, C. A.
    2017 “Dynamic Family Language Policy: Heritage Language Socialization and Strategic Accommodation in the Home.” InFamily Language Policies in a Multilingual World, ed. byJ. Macalister and S. H. Mirvahedi, 185–204. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Stevanovic, M., and A. Peräkylä
    2012 “Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (3): 297–321. 10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260 [Google Scholar]
  29. Streeck, J.
    1983Social Order in Child Communication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pb.iv.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.iv.8 [Google Scholar]
  30. Streeck, J., and S. Mehus
    2005 “Micro-Ethnography: The Study of Practices.” InHandbook Of Language And Social Interaction, ed. byK. Fitch and R. Sanders, 381–404. Mahwah: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Tannen, D., S. Kendall, and C. Gordon
    2007Family Talk: Discourse and Identity in Four American Families. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195313895.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195313895.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. van der Schaaf, N.
    2016 “Kijk eens wat ik kan!” Sociale praktijken in de interactie tussen kinderen van 4 tot 8 jaar in de buitenschoolse opvang. Phd Dissertation: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Weidner, M.
    2012 On the Organization of Polish Doctor-Patient Communication. PhD Dissertation: University of Antwerp.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2015 “Telling Somebody what to Tell: “Proszę mi powiedzieć” in Polish doctor–Patient Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics78: 70–83. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.006 [Google Scholar]
  35. Wilson, J., and K. Stapleton
    2007 “Authority.” InHandbook of Pragmatics, ed. byJ. Östman and J. Verschueren, 1–26. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hop.11.aut2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.11.aut2 [Google Scholar]
  36. Zukow, P. G.
    1989 “Communicating Across Disciplines: On Integrating Psychological and Ethnographic Approaches to Sibling Research.” InSibling Interaction Across Cultures, ed. byP. G. Zukow, 1–5. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4612‑3536‑1_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3536-1_1 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): connection; deontic authority; family talk; power; sibling interaction; socialization
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error