In 1960-80, (American) linguistic anthropology (e.g., Gumperz and Hymes , ) developed an empirical, ethnographic approach to (the details of) language (use), its social context, and variation across speakers and situations, affinities and differences. It overlapped with (Labovian) sociolinguistics — and was distinct from Chomsky’s formal, ‘universal’ approach. It defined, refined or created ‘units’ of analysis, e.g. speech community/community of practice; speech event (ethnography of communication, the SPEAKING mnemonic); everyday speech and interaction; verbal and non-verbal contextualization cues (interactional sociolinguistics); communicative habits of speakers (e.g., diglossia); indexes/indices connected to the context which help social identity formation. Thus, it defined language as a cultural practice and social resource and linked the details of performance with broader conditions of use.

In 1980-2000 interdisciplinary conversations led to new domains of inquiry: (1) language socialization: language acquisition and full participation in social groups by children and newcomers related to cultural norms, practices, attitudes; (2) language ideologies: ideas about social and linguistic relationships, linked to issues of power, politics, and economics; (3) verbal performance: creative and aesthetic uses of language and other forms of artistic expression.

Language is not a neutral medium of communication; it is embedded in social contexts and is a force that is socio-historically-politically determined.