In order to successfully negotiate symbolic gatekeeping events (e.g., job interviews) and be accepted as ‘one of us’ at work, professionals need to be linguistically competent and socioculturally proficient in a) the varieties that make the linguistic ecosystem of a professional setting and b) relevant dominant societal ideologies. We provided evidence supporting this position through multiple projects over the years in different geographical contexts and professional domains. Our findings are consistent; language at work does not operate in a societal vacuum and the negotiation of workplace access cannot be studied outside the context of powerful ideologies that different societies and groups within society subscribe to.

In this paper we seek to reflect on what is now a given; the theoretical, analytical and methodological tools we have available for moving the study of linguistic in/exclusion forward. We reflect on completed and ongoing research to introduce a heuristic which draws on the concepts of peripherality/marginality and topographies of practice in studying emplaced, embodied interaction at work. We provide a synthesis of our previous work focused on professionals successfully spanning boundaries and the processes by which employees can be legitimised to challenge linguistic exclusion.

We connect sociolinguistic work to the diversity agenda and problematise the ways in which change can be achieved and the role of socio/linguistic evidence for challenging exclusion. Indeed, research on voice and silence in organisational contexts has suggested that employees are more likely to remain silent if they challenge majority views and have no support from (senior) colleagues. This has been further supporting by data showing that commitment to a diversity agenda at senior levels of an organization is central in creating a (socially) inclusive workplace environment. We close the paper with recommendations for a paradigm shift in the study of linguistic inclusivity and by extension linguistic in/justice.