CULTURAL DISCONTINUITY BETWEEN HOME AND

SCHOOL LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATION PATTERNS:

IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHERS
SHERRI LOVELACE, P H D , CCC-SLP
Arkansas State University

TIFFANY R . WHEELER, MA
Transylvania University

Cultural discontinuity refers to the lack of cohesion between two

or more cultures. Upon entry into school, differences in the
functional use of language among culturally and linguistically
diverse children have been found to account for the discontinu-
ity they experience. Because children come to school socialized
to language in culture-specific ways, the discourse structure and
communication styles used by many children from culturally and
linguistically diverse populations is incongruent with that of the
teacher's style of interaction. This discontinuity between home
and school language socialization pattems can have a negative
impact on academic achievement. In this paper we delineate
some of the issues that illustrate the incongruence between home
and school cultures and their implications for teachers.

What is Language Sociatization?
Language is a means by which we com-
municate, but it is more than just a means
of communication. It conveys a wealth of
information other than the primary con-
tent of the message. By this we mean that
language serves multiple functions. We
use it to exchange, share, report, and define
experiences. It structures meaning, deter-
mines how we see things, is the carrier of
our culture, and affects our worldviews
(Sue & Sue, 2003). Children are social-
ized to develop skills necessary to become
competent members within their cultural
and linguistic communities. Through lan-
guage sociahzation, verbal and nonverbal
communication pattems convey the val-
ues, beliefs, and models of interaction
within a particular community. This inter-
action of language and culture serves to
socialize the child not only to the use of lan-
guage but also to the cultural group with
which he identifies (Hamers, 2004). Thus,
all children come to school socialized to
language in culture-specific ways.
Theoretical Framework
While theories of socialization vary to
some degree, the common thread between
disciplines is that language and culture
play critical roles in the organization of
socializing contexts (Schieffelin & Ochs,
1986). Interactionist, phenomenological,
and sociocuitural views of language social-
ization originate with the model developed
by Hymes (1967). In the absence of a
body of systematic knowledge and theory,
Hymes proposed a model for investigat-
ing the interaction of language and social
environment. He suggested that an ade-
quate study of language recognizes that
communities differ in pattems and roles

303
304 / Education Vol. 127 No. 2

assigned to language with regard to beliefs, among African American, Latino Ameri-
values, and reference groups and that these cans, Native Americans, immigrants, and
variables affect language use and acquisi- the poor (Heath, 1982; Foster, 1992; Gay,
tion by children. 2000; Harris, Kamhi, & Pollock, 2001).
Literature from a number of researchers To illustrate. Champion and colleagues
building on Hymes' model suggests that (2003) found that on a standardized assess-
the leaming of the appropriate use of lan- ment of vocabulary given to African
guage is related to the impact of culture American children, young adults in the
on early experiences (Heath, 1982; Crago, community had strong altemative respons-
1992; Marshall, 1995). The prominent es for 75 of the items missed by several
theme is that language socialization is an children. The authors posited that these
interactive process grounded in subjective test items evoked the strong alternative
experiences. It is the process by which responses from children who had not yet
children learn the verbal and nonverbal acquired the standard meanings of the
communication pattems within their par- words necessary to receive credit on the
ticular community. Within this paradigm assessment, though they were correct in
every interaction is viewed as a potential- the home culture. These findings high-
ly socializing experience in which children light the discontinuity that can occur
gradually leam the rules and customs of between home language use and teacher
their language community (Schieffelin & expectations of language in school. When
Ochs, 1986). In this regard, children leam educators are unaware of children's cul-
the power dynamics, norms, and rituals of turally influenced language styles,
communication of their home culture miscommunications may arise that can
which may not be congment with that of lead to misperceptions and misunder-
the mainstream school culture. standing about interactional patterns,
intelligence, and academic potential (Cole-
Cultural Discontinuity of Language man, 2000). Cultural discontinuity occurs
Patterns in the Home and School when teachers invalidate, penalize, or
The language socialization pattems of directly punish students who use cultural-
children from culturally and linguistical- specific language characteristics of their
ly diverse (CLD) groups often differ from home environment to communicate in the
that which they encounter upon entry into school setting.
the mainstream school environment. The
differences can exist in the form of pro- Interaction Styles
nunciation, vocabulary, grammatical Unspoken conversational rules orga-
stmcture, and use of cultural specific lan- nize the ways teachers and students interact
guage forms in social interaction (Wolfram, with each other (O'Connor, 1989). In tra-
Adger, Christian, 1999). Indeed, research ditional classroom discourse many teachers
has shown that differences in the functional follow the common Initiation-Reply-Eval-
use of language at home and at school can uation (IRE) discourse sequence in
interfere with academic achievement allocating student turns during a lesson

(Au, 1993; Cazden, 1988; Cazden &
Mehan, 1989). The teacher initiates the
sequence by asking a question, usually a
known information question that elicits
information from the students that the
teacher already knows; the student
responds; and the teacher evaluates the
response. Students are expected to assume
a passive-receptive posture as they sit qui-
etly while the teacher talks (Gay, 2000;
Kochman, 1985) and generally have to wait
until permission is granted to participate in
classroom discussion (Au, 1993; Philips,
1983). Students are also expected to only
talk when they are allocated a tum and may
not ask their own questions or make com-
ments about other students' responses.
This language pattem generally aligns with
the cultural traditions associated with the
white, American, middle class.
In contrast, members of some CLD
groups such as African Americans, Latino
Americans, and Native Hawaiians typi-
cally display a communication style that is
characterized as participatory-interactive
(Gay, 2000; Kochman, 1985). Many
African Americans gain entry into a con-
versation through assertiveness, not by
waiting for permission by an "authority"
(Gay, 2000). In these interactions, some-
times referred to as call-response, speakers
expect audience members to give encour-
agement, make comments, or display some
type of movement as they are speaking.
Au (1993) observed a similar commu-
nicative style, in Hawaiian children which
she described as "taUc-story". In talk-story,
she noted that Native Hawaiian students
who adhere to traditional cultural values
often work coUaboratively or talk togeth-
er to tell about their experiences to create
Language Socialization .../305
a story. However, both Au (1993) and Gay
(2000) found that students who display a
participatory-interactive discourse style in
mainstream school environments are often
perceived negatively and may be penal-
ized for being "rude" or "talking out of
tum". O'Connor (1989) reported that CLD
students' inability to participate in the class-
room discourse stmctures preferred by the
mainstream school is linked to adverse
affects on academic success.
Further evidence has been demonstrat-
ed in studies by Michaels (1981) and
McMillon and Edwards (2000) of "shar-
ing time" (i.e., a time where students
describe an object or discuss personal
events) by young school-age children. The
authors found that oral narratives were
more "acceptable" when they mirrored the
teacher's own literate styles and expecta-
tions. That is, when there was a focus on
a central issue and facts were arranged in
a logical, linear order with explicit cohe-
sion forms and factual information.
Michaels (1981) referred to this pattem as
a "topic-centered" narrative which most
White children used. In contrast, African
American students had a tendency to share
"topic associating," episodic narratives,
where more than one topic was addressed,
characterized by a series of implicitly asso-
ciated personal anecdotes. In both
investigations, it was noted that when stu-
dents used a "topic associating" style,
teachers tended to interrupt them more
often with negative comments, suggesting
a devaluation or bias toward this type of
language pattem.
In general, these findings underscore a
discursive pattem between home and the
typical passive-receptive school interac-
306 / Education Voi. 127 No. 2
tion styles, which can have a negative
impact on CLD students' academic
achievement. One can conclude that lan-
guage socialization pattems either provide
or deny access to key literacy-related expe-
riences, depending, ironically, on the
degree to which teacher and children's lan-
guage pattems are congment. Therefore,
it has been suggested that for children from
these groups to be successful in school they
must develop new ways of interacting with
language (Wolfram, Adger, Christian,
1999) and develop competencies in navi-
gating between the language uses of home
and school (Caughy, O'Campo, Randolph
& Nickerson, 2002). However, the bur-
den does not lie solely with students.
Because discursive pattems between home
and school language can limit access to
quality instruction, teachers must facili-
tate new competencies by engaging in
practices that are reflective of the diversi-
ty rooted in the racial, cultural, and
individual differences of students in their
classrooms (Bennett, 2003; Gay, 2000).
Teachers as Cultural Mediators
Teachers have a responsibility to create
leaming environments that establish con-
tinuity between home and school. The
problems associated with cultural discon-
tinuity can be diminished by utilizing
flexible practices that allow for the appro-
priate convergence, or separation, of home
and school language pattems. To accom-
plish this task, teachers must begin to
function as cultural mediators. Mediators
are individuals in the majority culture, who
serve as providers of information or guides
about areas that CLD individuals may not
have access to, might misinterpret, or oth-
erwise have to learn by trial and error
(deAnda, 1984). Thus, as most educators
in the American school system are mem-
bers of the majority culture, we posit that
classroom teachers are in a unique position
to serve as cultural mediators. As cultur-
al mediators, teachers engage in responsive
practices that use "cultural knowledge,
prior experiences, frames of reference, and
performance styles of ethnically diverse
students to make leaming encounters more
relevant to and effective for them" (Gay,
2000, p. 29). Instmction and activities are
planned with recognition, acknowledge-
ment, and integration of the cultural ethos
of children in the classroom.
More specifically, teachers as cultural
mediators instmct children from a frame-
work of culturally responsive teaching.
Culturally responsive teaching is a peda-
gogical paradigm that affirms the cultures
of students (Gollnick & Chinn, 2004). It
views the cultures and experiences of stu-
dents as strengths and reflects students'
cultures in the teaching process (Bennett,
2003; Gollnick & Chinn, 2004). Cultur-
ally responsive teaching uses various
imphcit and explicit cultural ways of know-
ing and understanding in educating
students from both mainstream and diverse
populations.
Features of Culturally Responsive Teaching
High teacher expectations. Teacher
expectations are often based on general-
izations about a group. Teachers tend to
regard individual differences based on cul-
tural differences as deficits or
disadvantages (Bennett, 2003). Self-ful-
filling prophecies about how well a student
will perform are often established early

and influence interaction between teacher
and students throughout the school year.
Students who are perceived positively are
advantaged in instructional interactions,
whereas those who are viewed negatively
are disadvantaged (Gay, 2000). Research
suggests that children leam and behave in
a manner that is expected of them (Rosen-
thai & Jacobson, 1992). Therefore
educators must develop strategies to over-
come negative expectations they may have
for certain students and plan instmction to
promote academic success for all students.
Student voices. Teachers, as cultural
mediators, encourage students to speak
from their own experiences and allow stu-
dents to make sense of subject matter
within their own realities (Gollnick &
Chinn, 2004). Typically the discontinuity
between the home and school interaction
style in the classroom relegates many stu-
dents from CLD groups to be silent or
dismptive in the classroom because their
voices are not accepted as legitimate or do
not match that of that of the school envi-
ronment (Gollnick & Chinn, 2004;
LeMoine, 1999; Wolfram, Adger, & Chris-
tian, 1999). Culturally responsive
pedagogy requires teachers to recognize
this discontinuity and employ practices
that permit and encourage different cul-
tural voices to contribute to classroom
interaction.
Varied instructional formats. Because
children have different leaming styles, var-
ied forms of engagement is necessary for
students to both learn and display what
they know. For many children from diverse
populations, learning is an active and affec-
tive process (Gay, 2000). Research has
suggested that when instmctional practices
Language Sociaiization ...12,07
are consistent with the cultural orientations
and leaming styles of CLD students, their
achievement improves significantly (Allen
& Boykin, 1992; Au & Mason, 1983; Del-
pit, 1995; Foster & Peele, 1999). Using
varied instmctional formats provide con-
tinuity between the ways CLD students
leam at school and at home within their
cultural communities.
While these features of culturally
responsive teaching are by no means
exhaustive, they highlight characteristics of
classroom instruction that is consistent
with the cultural orientations of CLD stu-
dents. These features teach to and through
the strengths of students incorporating mul-
ticultural information, resources, and
materials into all subjects and skills rou-
tinely taught in classrooms (Gay, 2000).
To do this kind of teaching requires draw-
ing from a wealth of cultural knowledge,
experiences, contributions, and perspec-
tives. We posit that using the features of
culturally responsive teaching is reflective
of a cultural mediator.
Conclusions
Many cultural variables have a signifi-
cant impact on how and when we choose
to communicate and how we behave and
interact in various settings (Coleman,
2000). The cultural community in which
we live and identify with influences these
variables. Individuals from different cul-
tural groups are socialized to different
repertoires and make differential use of
particular language pattems. Some cul-
tures socialize their children in ways that
are more compatible with the values and
norms of American schools (Kagan & Gar-
cia, 1991) while others do not.
308 / Education Vol. 127 No. 2

We have delineated some of the issues and indirect messages received from main-
that illustrate the incongruence between stream America and explore its impact
home and school socialization practices upon the language socialization process of
and have suggested the use of culturally immigrants, African Americans, Latino
responsive practices as a means of reduc- Americans, Native Americans, Asian
ing it. Research has indicated that teachers Americans, and the poor.
who use culturally responsive practices
that is supportive of students' home culture,
language, values, and strengths can posi-
tively impact academic achievement (Gay, REFERENCES
2000; Ladson-Billings, 1995, LeMoine, Au, K. H. (1993). Literacy instruction in multi-
cultural settings. Orlando, FL: Harcourt
2001). This teaching approach is based
Brace.
dn the assumption that academic achieve-
Bennett, C. (2003). Comprehensive Multicultural
ment and knowledge of and pride in one's Education Theory and Practice (Fifth ed.).
own cultural and linguistic group are inter- Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
actional (Gay, 2000). We hope that the Caughy, M. O., O'Campo, P. J., Randolph, S. M.,
issues highlighted in this paper will serve & Nickerson, K. (2002). The influence of
as a springboard to reduce the discontinu- racial socialization practices on the cognitive
and behavioral competence of African Ameri-
ity and resulting educational inequities that can preschoolers. Child Development, 75(5),
stem from difference between home and 1611-1625.
school language pattems. Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The
language of teaching and learning.
Future Directions Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
In this paper we have discussed how Cazden, C , & Mehan, H. (1989). Principles from
the interaction of language and culture sociology and anthropology: Context, code,
classroom, and culture. In M. Reynolds (Ed.),
serves to socialize children both to the use Knowledge base for the beginning teacher.
of language and to the cultural group with Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
which they identify. While the disconti- Champion, T. B., Hyter, Y. D., McCabe, A., &
nuity of home and school patterns of Bland-Stewart, L. M. (2003). "A matter of
language use has specific implications for vocabulary": Performances of low-income
teaching children from CLD populations, African American Head Start children on the
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test - til. Com-
the literature does not discuss the impact munication Disorders Quarterly, 24(3),
of societal influences on the socialization 121-127.
process. Given the varied assimilation Coleman, T. J. (2000). Clinical Management of
and acculturation processes among CLD Communication Disorders in Culturally
groups, it is recommended that future Diverse Children. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
research examine how society influences Crago, M. B. (1992). Ethnography and language
the socialization process for these children. socialization: A cross-cultural perspective.
If American schools are to become truly Topics in Language Disorders, 12(3), 28-39.
pluralistic, it is both necessary and expe-
dient that researchers recognize the direct

deAnda, D. (1984). Bicultural socialization: Fac-
tors affecting the minority experience. Social
Work, 29(2), 101-107.
Foster, M. (1992). Sociolinguistics and the African
American community: Implications for liter-
acy. Theory Into Practice, 31(4), 303-311.
Gay, G. (2000). Cutturally Responsive Teaching:
Theory, Research, and Practice. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Gollnick, D. M., & Chinn, P C. (2004). Multicul-
tural education in a pluralistic society (6th
ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Merrill
Prentice Hall.
Hamers, J. F. (2004). A sociocognitive model of
bilingual development. Journal of Language
and Social Psychology, 23(1), 70-98.
Harris, J. L., Kamhi, A. G., & Pollock, K. E. (Eds.).
(2001). Literacy in African American commu-
nities. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Heath, S. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means:
Narrative skills at home and school. Language
Socialization, 11, 49-76.
Hymes, D. (1967). Models of the interaction of
language and social setting. Journal of Social
Issues, 23(2), 8-28.
Kagan, S. L., & Garcia, E. E. (1991). Educating
culturally and linguistically diverse preschool-
ers: Moving the agenda. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 6, 417-443.
Kochman, T. (1985). Black American speech
events and a language program for the class-
room. In C. B. Cazden, V. P John, & D. Hymes
(Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom
(pp. 211-261). Prospect Heights, IL: Wave-
land.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of
culturally relevant pedagogy. American Edu-
cational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
LeMoine, N. R. (2001). Language Variation and
Literacy Acquisition in African American Stu-
dents. In J. L. Harris, A. G. Kamhi & K. E.
Pollock (Eds.), Literacy in African American
Communities. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Language Socialization .../ 309
Marshall, S. (1995). Ethnic socialization of
African American children: Implications for
parenting, identity development, and academ-
ic achievement. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 24(4), 377-396.
McMillon, G. T. & Edwards, P A. (2000). Why
does Joshua "hate" school...but love Sunday
schooli Language Arts, 78, 111-120.
Michaels, S. (1981). Sharing time: Children's
narrative styles and differential access to liter-
acy. Language in Society, 10, 423-442.
O'Connor, T. (1989). Cultural voice and strategies
for multicultural education. Journal of Educa-
tion, 171(2), 57-74.
Philips, S. (1983). The Invisible Culture: Com-
munication in Classroom and Community on
the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. New
York: Longman.
Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1992). Pymalion
in the class: Teacher expectation and pupils'
intellectual development (Rev. ed.) New York:
Irvington.
Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language
socialization. Annuals of Reviews of Anthro-
pology, 15, 163-191.
Scott, J. C , & Marcus, C. D. (2001). Emergent
Literacy: Home-School Connections. In J. L.
Harris, A. Kamhi & K. E. Pollock (Eds.), Lit-
eracy in African American Communities.
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2003). Counseling the Cul-
turally Diverse: Theory and Practice (Fourth
ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Wolfram, W., Adger, C. T., & Christian, D. (1999).
Dialects in Schools and Communities. Mah-
wah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.