AUTHORS: N.H. Hornberger and S.L.

McKay
TITLE: Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching
PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press
YEAR: 1996
Said R Rizi, PhD Department of ELT, East Mediterranean University,
Northern Cyprus

Summary
The objective of this fairly written book is to acquaint the reader – the
language teacher in this case – with the field of sociolinguistics and how it
can shed some light on language teaching, especially for those teachers
who deal with students coming from “linguistically diverse” backgrounds.
The book stands out from the crowd in that it eloquently combines
sociolinguistics with language teaching in one volume, something that is
without antecedent. The book comes with added significance with respect
to the increasing support for socially embedded views of language and
language pedagogy. Very few books ever embark on such a daunting task
and the majority treat these two subjects safely separately. Well-balanced in
its focus, line of convergence and comprehensiveness, Sociolinguistics and
Language Teaching fills a gap in the fields of sociolinguistics, applied
linguistics, and language teaching. Introductory books on sociolinguistics do
not usually consider the language classroom, teacher or students; applied
linguistics collections usually only focus on the second/foreign language
classroom disconnected from its social context (see, however, Philipson,
1992, and Pennycook, 1995, inter alia, which, however, do not focus on
interactional studies); and language teaching books focus on classroom
pedagogy without considering any such sociolinguistic aspect of
teaching/learning and interaction. This collection capitalizes on the social
aspect within and toward language classroom interaction, be the language
at issue an FL or an L2.

1|Page
The book comes in five sections and 14 chapters in total, with a laudable
collection of articles written by some of the most influential figures in the
field, including McCay, Wiley, Rickford, Cohen, and Erickson to name a few.

Chapter 1, Part I – Language and society

This chapter deals with three heavy-weight issues in language pedagogy:
language attitudes, motivation, and standards. The chapter in general
examines the impact of social and political contexts on social attitudes
towards particular languages and language varieties, in addition to
individual motivation to learn a language.

Drawing on language as a social and individual identity construct, the

author Mary McGroarty reiterates “teacher accountability” towards certain
aspects of language instruction, upgrading him or her from a passive
imparter of linguistic knowledge to a facilitator of success through linguistic
mastery, something which is influenced by a myriad of variables, including
motivation and attitudes of teachers, students, and their parents.

To be fair to applied linguistics collections, it should be added that they

sometimes emphasize the social aspect and that is when their theme is
bilingual education studies, or the socio-cultural-historic aspect which so
explicitly appears in minority bilingualism studies. Sociolinguistics and
Language Teaching focuses on language teaching in general, combining the
fields of bilingual education and foreign language studies instead of looking
at them as separate entities. Surprisingly, the collection, does not mention
L1 teaching studies, although it does have implications for that area. L1
teaching studies have sometimes also missed out on societal embedding
within the real world: their textbooks have usually depicted idealized
language and situations. The same comment applies to FL teaching and FL
teaching studies which also tend to be geared towards a homogenous
context that does not exist. Therefore, the book has contributions for a wide

2|Page
variety of scenarios ranging from bilingual/multilingual to bidialectal, to
first/second/foreign language classrooms.

The volume is suitable for a wide audience including countries whose

first/official language is not English. This is an important point in a world
where nations usually claim to be monolingual, and erase
bilingualism/multilingualism. Actually, not only is minority
bilingualism/multilingualism invisible in these countries but also minority
bidialectalism. This point is well discussed by Shridar (pp. 47–50). All in all,
the book should find its place in postgraduate courses in applied linguistics,
sociolinguistics, language and education, language and diversity and
bilingual education. It is a suitable introduction to research for both
teachers and novice researchers.

Chapter 2, Part I – Societal multilingualism

Written by Kamal Stridhar, the chapter has an indepth look at the issue of
bilingualism and multilingualism, dealing with them as worldwide
phenomena. The writer distinguished several types of multilingualism, i.e.
territorial principle of multilingualism in which the country as whole is
multilingual but individuals are mainly monolingual and personality
principle multilingualism in which the state promotes multilingual
individuals. Several reasons for multilingualism are offered: immigration,
cultural contact, and annexation or colonialism.

Stridhar believes innatist theories of language are inadequately equipped to

explain multilingualism and a functional approach to language as
represented by Ferguson (1959), Fishman (1972), Halliday (1973), and
Hymes (1974) with considerable attention to the social use of language
should be called upon. Whatever approach we select, the notions of verbal
repertoire and language choice play a central role to the discussion of
multilingualism. Verbal repertoire refers to the total range of linguistic
resources available to an individual or community, where as language use is
analyzed in terms of “Who uses what language with whom and for what

3|Page
purpose?” We must bear in mind that the linguistic resources or the
repertoire of a multilingual community are not equally distributed in terms
of power, prestige, vitality, or attitude, making some languages more
valued than others, a fact that is captured in the term asymmetrical
principle of multilingualism. Such a principle can lead to several
sociolinguistic phenomena such as diglossia, code switching, and code
mixing.

This chapter also discusses other sociolinguistic phenomena such as

convergence and transfer. As Stridhar explains an extreme effect of
language contact is linguistic convergence when one language undergoes
extensive structural modification in the direction of the dominant language.
Such a linguistic diffusion is observed in some parts of India where Urdu
belonging to the Indo-European family and Kannada and Telugu from the
Dravidian family come into regular contact. Language transfer is a forceful
sociolinguistic phenomenon which plays an important role in language
change. Language transfer takes place when the interlocutors share the
same languages and transfer naturally does not affect mutual intelligibility.

At the end Stridhar introduced six implications for language teaching with
respect to bilingualism.

1. Bilingualism is not indicative of low level of intelligence as claimed by

some dubious research. Thus teachers must revise their attitudes
towards the status of multilingualism.
2. Teachers must reassess the significance of English in the learners’
linguistic repertoire, recognizing the existence of other equally important
languages used by the individual or the community.
3. Due to the complementary aspect of language, it is not realistic to expect
native-link competency in all aspects of the language.
4. A certain amount of familiarity with other languages available to the
learners is advised for the teacher.

4|Page
5. Teachers must develop a tolerant attitude to code-switching among
minority group learners.
6. As multilingualism signifies a great amount of give and take between
languages, teachers must avoid expecting learner to keep their
languages compartmentalized as code switching is inevitable in those
situations.
Chapter 3, Part I – World Englishes
Kachru and Nelson introduce discuss the topic of world Englishes and its
relationship with teaching of English. World Englishes is seen in two
diasporas (Kachru 1992): 1) migrations of English-speaking people from the
British Isles to Australia, New Zealand, and North America, 2) colonialization
of Asia and Africa by English speakers. Central to the discussion of world
Englishes is the concept of dialect and the distribution of power reflected
through it. Or, as the writers put it “It is my dialect versus your dialect.”
Although some 45 countries use English as their official language (Table 1, p
75), it is the English spoken in England and North America (Canada and
USA) which is generally accepted without much ado, though it must be
reminded that other “standard” dialects are equally intelligible to the
listener/reader.

The writers, recognizing the inadequacy of a prescriptive approach to

language, promote a descriptive study of world Englishes. Such a study,
they believe, would see the true merit of English as a widely spoken
language in the world today that has empowered people across the world to
communicate with even minimum knowledge of this language. The use and
users of English are depicted in three concentric circles comprising of an
Inner Circle including the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, New
Zealand ordered in terms of their population. The Outer Circle includes
countries where English has been institutionalized for long. This circle
encompasses India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Singapore, South Africa, and Zambia.
The last and the biggest circle is the Expanding Circle that houses countries

5|Page
in which English is studied for specific purposes. Countries like China,
Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Korea, and Nepal fall into this circle.

Considering such a diverse variety of Englishes it won’t be surprising to see

that the term native speaker is subject to serious questioning. While
speakers of the inner circle seem to be quite tolerant of each other, certain
degrees of intolerance are expected toward speakers of the outer circle.
This attitude was specially expected of the speakers of the mother country
who would not recognize the fact that English had undergone change in the
new settlements, rendering such changes as inappropriate and a result of
careless use.

The diversity of world Englishes then necessitates the recognition of

context-specific communicative competence within different communities,
hence calling to question the notion of deficit linguistics. It is therefore
difficult to render hyphenated-Englishes, Black or Hispanic, non-standard.
Another issue raised by the writers is “intelligibility”. Drawing on the
definition of dialects as mutually intelligible variants of a given language, it
is argued that most of these world Englishes are undeserving of being
called English since they are not mutually intelligible.

World Englishes also contain pedagogic implications. While it is possible to

defend the notion of one world one standard, not much can be done to stop
varieties of English from spreading through trade, education, and day to
day communication. As Davies (1990) states, teaching involves giving
choices. Users must be aware of differences but the choice is totally theirs.
The recognition of world Englishes by “the old variety English-speaking
nations” brings them into contact with the potentials of other cultures and
their literatures. Even their discourse, written or spoken, can be looked into.
And perhaps nowhere does the issue of world Englishes and standardization
stand but as in assessment. Lowenberg (1993) admits that testing does
indicate proficiency in English as a world language.

6|Page
Chapter 4, Part I – Language planning
This chapter touches upon five major issues under the topic of language
planning: 1) the basic assumptions underlying language planning, 2) key
definitions and types of language planning, 3) orientations and approaches,
4) goals, and 5) legal challenges. In a discussion of language planning,
some questions are raised:

1. How do assumptions about language influence language planning?

2. How does attributing higher status to some varieties of language

affect the status of all varieties?

Recognizing that language is used as an instrument of social control it must

be then asked “What attitudes do scholars and laypeople have towards
language diversity? (Crawford, 1992; Haugan, 1973, 1992)”

At the definition level, language planning is involved in corpus planning

(coining new words, reforming spelling, adopting new script), advocating
proper or preferred variety as well as use (Williams, 1992). In addition, the
level at which language planning takes place and the ones involved in it
need to be defined clearly. Here distinction must be made between
government and the state. The state (the apparatus by which the dominant
groups maintain power) uses language planning to solidify and expand its
power. Language planning can also be defined in terms of implicitness and
explicitness.

Different views upheld by scholars towards language planning have resulted

in development of differing approaches and perspectives towards language
planning, some seeing language as a problem, some as right, and others
see it as a source (Ruiz, 1984). Whichever view of language I advocated, it
must be borne in mind that language planning involves goal-setting which
can be language related or politically and economically oriented. The
former encompasses issues such as language shift policy, language
maintenance, and language enrichment. The political goals incorporate
objective such as “nation building”. The economic goals of language
7|Page
planning are related to international trade and communication. Moreover,
language planning can affect distribution of wealth and national economy
through promotion of literacy. Language in education planning too should
be seen in light of sociopolitical and economic factors and overall
governmental policy (Judd, 1991) that may be inclusive or exclusive of
minority groups.

Part II – Language and Variation

Chapter 5, Part II – Regional and social variation
Richards stresses that teachers should study dialects to be better prepared
when dealing with vernaculars, and naturally have a more successful
influence on their students’ achievement. The chapter introduces the
reader, hereby the savvy teacher, with common concepts and terminology
in sociolinguistic studies, such as dialect maps and isoglosses. These
imaginary lines will demonstrate dialect area that are lexically,
phonologically, and syntactically distinct. Also, the chapter explains reason
for language change and appearance of regional dialects.

Language variation can also take place on the social continuum with
respect to age, gender, social class and networking. Research by Labov
(1991), Rickford (1986), Eckert (1989) and other is illuminating in the
respect. The chapter proceeds with suggesting teachers make use of
available resources, audio and video, to acquaint themselves and their
students with regional and social varieties, and for enhancement of
individual and social identity.

Chapter 6, Part II – Pidgins and Creoles

Nicholas introduces the sociolinguistic phenomena of pidgins and creoles
and the consequences for education and for teachers should these varieties
be ignored. Attitudes to these varieties are different, and not often quite
favorable. Nicholas quotes Harris (1986) who summarizes three conditions
for the emergence of a pidgin language: 1) lack of effective bilingualism, 2)
need to communicate, and 3) restricted access to target language. Creole,

8|Page
on the other hand, develops when pidgin is nativized and the children of
pidgin-speaking parents hear it as their most important language. Hugo
Schuchardt (1980s) was one of the pioneers of research on pidgins and
creoles. However, Turner (1949) made significant comparative studies
between varieties of Creole spoken in Georgia and California and some
languages of West Africa.
As with language varieties, teachers must be able to recognize and
understand pidgin and creoles even if they are not officially used in the
classroom. Vasquez, Pease-Alvarez, and Shannon (1994) see such
acquaintance necessary for development of curricula. Use of videos can be
helpful to show to the children how their peers speak in different
geographical settings.

Chapter 7, Part II – Language and gender

Rebecca Freeman and Bonnie McElhinny take on a consciousness-raising
task in this chapter beginning with an introductory section on feminist
movements in the United States during the later 1960s and 1970s. By
examining and revealing “gender-based ideologies” in both written and
spoken discourse and social practices as shown in the diagram by
Fairclough (1989), they give us a good place to start from on the issue of
gender. Attention is drawn to a number of sexist practices and alternatives
in English discourse with examples given from forms of address – Mr., Miss,
Mrs., and Ms. – as well as from what Matyna (1983) calls the he/man
approach to language with a number of strategies to reform lexical sexism.

But sexual racism, they argue, goes beyond lexical and syntactic choices
we make in language use. They way women are portrayed in the press and
in medical texts is equally sexist. Stereotyping too is rife in language about
women’s speech which if present “silence n’y a”. women’s speech is
misinterpreted at times by the very same people who study it. Lakoff (1970)
sees it as deficient, while Jenkins (1986) and Painter (1980) believe women
“don’t tell jokes.” Others like Holmes (1984) pins women’s use of hedging

9|Page
to their uncertainty. It’s therefore possible to how scholar differ in the way
they view women’s language. While Lakoff portrays a helpless picture of
women, Kalcik (1975) believes that women are more nurturing and
cooperative than men. We find, however, Tannen’s dual-culture model
description of men and women more realistic when she says than men
approach the world as individuals in a hierarchical social order, while
women approach the world as individuals in a network. Yet even Tannen’s
model has its own critics such Eckert & McConnell-Ginet (1992) who believe
power and dominance relations are not involved in Tannen’s model. Thorne
(1990) ponts out some weaknesses in gender studies that lead to
overgeneralizations about men and women, boys and girls, when the
researchers get into the habit of “get-your-data-and-run” type of study.
Thorne suggests that rather than comparing men with women, each group
should be studies separately in their own right.

Gender discussion has implications for schools which as the writers discuss
are sites where gender-based inequities can be challenged through careful
selection of materials and syllabi. Schools themselves are not immune to
gender differentiation, and studies show a number of biased practices in
mainstream English-speaking classrooms (Swan, 1993).

Part III – Language and Interaction

Chapter 8, Part III – Ethnographic microanalysis
This chapter looks at the microlevel of both social and linguistic analysis,
touching upon the role and linguistic realization of such phenomena as
situated co-membership, contextualized cues, sociolinguistic transfer,
interpretive mismatch, and oppositional discourse in face-to-face
interaction. This chapter begins with an overview of the perspective method
and findings of the ethnographic microanalysis of social interaction also
known as microethnography. The writer briefly traces the intellectual roost
of microethnography and proceeds to highlight the emphases on nonverbal
as well as verbal aspects of interaction, on the improvisational and

10 | P a g e
situationally strategic aspects of interaction, on the importance of the
interlocutors’ activity in connection with the activity of speaker, in addition
to the importance of the power and politics in immediate social encounters.

Erickson identifies two emphases that have a significant bearing on

language teaching. One is the situated character of communication in social
interaction as observed by Goffman (1964) who described the social
situation as the basic unit in which everyday life finds substance. The other
emphasis in the microethnographic perspective involves the immediate
ecology of relations between participants in a given situation.

Being eclectic in its origins, ethnographic microanalysis combines five types

of work, i.e. context analysis, the ethnography of communication and
interaction sociolinguistics, Goffman’s approach to interaction, conversation
analysis, and continental discourse analysis. The first approach, context
analysis, takes an ecological or system approach to the study of interaction.
Ethnographic microanalysis developed by linguistics anthropologists lays
the emphasis on variation in language form and in language function, the
purpose of speaking and the implicit meaning of stylistics choices speakers
make. The third approach comes from the work of Goffman (1959) who
viewed interaction in terms of strategy and rituals, emphasizing the
importance of situation. The fourth contributor to ethnographic
microanalysis comes from conversation analysis in sociology known as
ethno-methodology as a reaction to the theoretical assumptions of
structure-functionalism. The fifth emphasis takes roots in continental
discourse analysis as carried out by Hebermas (1979) and Fauclt (1979). It
studies paths of habitual practice in everyday life while emphasizing power
relations.

With respect to the behavioral organization of verbal and nonverbal activity

in interaction and symbolic or political construction of situation, four issues
are discussed. 1) Listening in relation to speaking – review of taped
audiovisual interactions has revealed that listening by no means is a

11 | P a g e
passive activity and involves constant dissemination of information
including affirmation, disapproval, indifference, interest, etc to the speaker
and other listeners involved. 2) Rhythm and cadence in interaction –
analysis of the conduct of speech and nonverbal behavior in interaction has
revealed fascinating discoveries regarding timing and synchronization of
interlocutors in terms of pitch, speed, body movement, eye contact, etc
between the participants. 3) Situated social identity – it is the analysis of
the relationships between the social background of speakers and their
speech style in terms of dialects, politeness, and indirectness. One reason
why we constantly adjust our speech with respect to the milieu is the
multidimensionality of our identity as shown by Goffman. 4) Culture
differences as boundary or border – Barth (1969) identifies between
situations in which cultural differences in interethnic relations work as
boundaries between unpoliticizied power-sharing groups or as problematic
border between different-power holding groups.

Ethnographic studies contribute to the success of language pedagogy by

informing the teacher of the importance of listening in relation to speaking,
the role of rhythmic organization of conversation and synchronization in
interaction, the effect of situation on interlocutors’ identity and co-
membership, and the significance of the cultural differences in
communication style regarded as boundary or as border between the
participant.

Chapter 9, Part III – Interactional sociolinguistics

Deborah Schiffrin reviews the intellectual underpinnings of interactional
sociolinguistic approach, depicting to us what lies at the core of
interactional sociolinguistics, that is, Goffman’s idea about how self and
society are maintained in everyday social interaction as well as Gumperz’s
view of language as a socially and culturally constructed system of symbols
that can be utilized in ways that reflect macrolevel social meanings and
create microlevel social meanings. Key concepts of interactional

12 | P a g e
sociolinguistics are explored here such frame and footing and
contextualized cues, contextual presuppositions, and situated inference.

Interactional sociolinguistics offers a theoretical and methodological

perspective on studying language use in everyday life interactions.
Goffman’s analysis of face-to-faceinteraction has provided insight into ho
particular social life circumstances reflect and give meaning to thise
circumstance. Goffman’s theories draw upon the works and ideas of Emile
Durkheim who argued that society can be studied not as a sum of its
individuals but as a unit sui gensis. Goffman also was inspired by George
Simmel (1950) and his analysis of form and meaning in small social groups.
The unique focus of Goffman is on the relationship between self and society
at a microlevel of analysis. He proposes that one way of viewing the self as
a social construct is through the notion of face defined as the positive social
valus a person effectively claims for him/herself.

Gumperz (1982) on the other hand, as he mentions in the introduction to

his collection of essays, seeks to develop interpretive sociolinguistic
approaches to the analysis of real time processes in face-to-face
encounters. His research is grounded in the assumption that the meaning,
structure, and use of language are socially and culturally relative. Gumperz
defines two types of code switching – situational code switching and
metaphorical code switching. In the former, switching is done in accord to
changes in participants’ definition of each other’s rights and obligations
while in the latter switching is done withing a situation to convery a
different view of that situation and ther relationship. Gumperz also
develops connections between culture, society, individual, and code
(1982a) which is a framework built upon his earlier ideas about culture,
society, language, and self.

Gumperz identifies conversational mechanisms which he calls

contextualized cues, aspects of language and behavior that relate what is
said to contextual presuppositions or background knowledge that allows

13 | P a g e
situated inferences to be made about the intelocutors’ intent.
Contextualized cues can affect the basic meaning of a message and are
almost never consciously observed or given conventional meanings.
Gumperz believes that when listeners share such cues interactions develop
smoothly. In sum, we should say Gumperz’s concept are both rooted in the
individual and gounded in the view of self and what is does as a member of
a social and cultural group and a participant in the social construction of
meaning.

Interactional sociolinguistics can introduce a new perspective to the

understanding of classroom interactions which can also positively affect our
teaching. Evidently, there is more to leaning a language than taking in a list
of vocabulary and grammar rules. As the chapter demonstrates language is
a system of norms and rules that are embeddd in the culture. Hence re-
affirmation of the emphasis on teaching students to develop communicative
competence. Lessons, therefore, should include discussion of the possible
social meanings of different forms of interaction, and how different words,
intonation, systactic forms, and so on help define meaning in any
interaction. In addition to providing guidelines for materials developers and
currilculum designers, interactional sociolinguistics will help studens and
teachers better understand the interactional dynamics of their classroom,
which will in trun do its share it helping students to develop the required
level of communicative competence in the arget language.

Chapter 10, Part III – Intercultural communication

Int his chapter Keith Chick constructs a bridge extending between the
previous two chapters on ethnographic microanalysis and intercultural
sociolinguistics and the following two chapters on the ethnography of
cimmuication and speech acts. Here he provides a contrastive review of the
speech act approach which extracts paticualr linguistic feature froma
lalarge corpus for subsequent catergorization and counting with the
approach of interactional sociolinguistics which analyzes a limited number

14 | P a g e
of whole interactions in a bid to uncover the interpretative or inferential
proessess of the interlocutors. He uses his research in South Africa to
illustriate his ideas an show how sociolinguistic transfer as well as other
kinds of interpretative mismatch iclduing mismatches in interpreting
contextualiztion cues, frames of reference, and face needs, produce
intercultural miscommunication. In the end he calls for awareness training,
in particular critical awareness training, so that language learners will be
able to make profound and reflective choices.

This chapter is mainly concerned with three research questions:

1. What are the sources of intercultural miscommunication?

2. What are the social factors of such miscomuunication?

3. What can be done to improve intercutlrual miscommunication?

As Chick explains the souces of intercultural miscommunication can be

traced back to the distinictive nature of the value systems, pervasive
configuarion of social relations, and dominanat ideologies of cultural groups.
Chick provides examples of sociolinguistic research that addresses the
three questions listed above. Chick’s main concern in the first example lies
in a study of the selectd speech acts some researchers have chosen for
their studies as a basis for addressing the questions about the sorues and
consequences of intercultural miscommunication. One source of
intercultural miscommunication is sociolinguistic transfer which refers to
the use of rules of speaking one’s own speech community or cultural groups
when interacting with members of another community. Wolfson (1983), for
example, refers to the high frequency with which maricans compliment
leads to their being perceived as “effusive, insincere, and possibly
motivated by ulterior considerations” (1989, p 23).

Another potetialsoruc of intercultural miscommunication as suggested by

the results of different studies is the differecen in the frqunecy of choice of
the compliment response strategy of no acknowledgement. This is of

15 | P a g e
particular use to SLA and with respect to the generally observed
phenomenon among languge learners who opt to remain silent when they
believe their lainguistic resources are not adequate to form a response
suitable to the situation they are in. although no acknowledgement is itself
a response strategy, it is still regarded as absent of response, and has the
potential to be misunderstood if it occurs too frequently.

Interactional sociolinguistics and intercultural communication studies allow

to trace connections between patterns of sociolinguistic behavior and
ideologies and societal structures. Because they rely on limited number of
interactions and examples, they do not show the cumulative effect of
multiple sources of intercultural miscommunication. In this approach
idealization of the source is limited and data is analyzed in fine detail. Citing
the example from a post-examination interview between a native South
African English-speaking professor and his ethnically diverse students,
Chick identifies several sources of intercultural miscommunication, one of
which involves a mismatch of interpretative frames of reference. Another
source of miscommunication has to do with the fact that one language is
tone while the other is not.

Chick however refers tot doubts about the significance of sociolinguistic

studies of intercultural miscommunication and whether the findings may
lead to psotive social change or whether they reinforce the status quo. In
addition, the deterministic interpretations offered by sociolinguists on some
occasions and of their failure to take into account the economic and political
factors sufficiently cast further doubts on the outcome of these studies. As
a result, it is suggested that if sociolinguists wish their studies to be used
for emancipatory rather hegemonic purposes, the need to put more
emphasis on the relationships between sociolinguistic conventions and the
social order. However, as Wolfson (1989, p 31) argues “the acquisition of
sociolinguistic rules can be greatly facilitated by teachers who have the
necessary information at their command and who have the sensitivity to

16 | P a g e
use their knowledge to in order to guide students and help them to
interpret values and patterns which they would otherwise have difficulty in
interpreting. Fairclough (1992) too insists tht it is not enough to foster
awareness but also critical awareness. Learners need to know there is a
cost involved in being unaware of sociolinguistic conventions that may lead
to their being assigned to social identities with which they are not
comfortable.

Part IV – Language and culture

Chapter 11, Part IV – The ethnography of communication
In this chapter Murriel STroike reviews the basic concepts, methods, and
language teaching applications of the ethnography of communication as
introduced by Dell Hymes in 1962. Seville identifies the principle concerns
of this approach, to be 1) the relationship of language form and use of
patterns and functions of communication, 2) to world view and social
organization, 3) to linguistic and social universals and inequalities. Servill
maintains that the significance of the ethnography of communication goes
beyond cataloging of human communication behavior, and may unltimately
lead to formulating a truly adequate universal theory of language and
human behavior.

The concern for patterns and functions of communication is basic to

linguistics in that it has also been discovered that much of linguistics
behavior is rule-govrned which means it can descriptively formulated
(Dittman 1983). In such a study the goal is to discover and formulate
context-spcific rules which can be desecriptive, statements of recurring
regularity, or prescriptive, metagonitive statements of how people should
act. Together such rules form expectations that are shared by members of a
speech community.

Research on rules for language use, ethnomethodology, has traditionally

focused on small units of communication such a telephone conversations,
service encounters, etc. In contrast, an ethnography of communication

17 | P a g e
approach has a larger view of language and looks for strategies and
conventions that affect larger units of communication through a more
holistic approach. In other words, the ethnography of communication is
interested in communicative conventions which operate at a societal level.
Interestingly enough, even within a society in which rules of phonology,
grammar, and vocabulary are shared, strategies language use can be
employed to demonstrate power relations as well as socioenconomic strata.
In addition, use of different languages or language variations can serve as a
social identification function that would determine one’s position on the
social strata.

Another dimension on the ethnography of communication is the speech

community which is deined as sharing the same language (Lyons 1970),
sharing rules of speeking and interpretation of speech performance (Hymes
1972), and sharing sociological understanding and presumptions with
regard to speech. Any community in a complex society might be part of a
larger one or, conversely, subdivided into smaller groups. It’s also not
expected that a community be linguistically homogenous. It will include a
communicative repertoire or range of languages, language varieties, and
cultureal dimensions. On the other hand, individuals may simultanesouly
seek membership of more than one community be it discrete or
overlapping.

The definition of speech community becomes more complex when it is

expanded from first to second language situation. Thus distinction is
inevitable regarding learning a standard language or leanring a foreign
language. For speakers of nonstandard varieties, learning involves adding a
schooled variety to their communicative repertoire. Unlike standard lae
learners, students of a foreign language within the context of their mother
culture, have little opportunity to interact and as a result to develop a
communicative repertoire. Students of a second language, however, will not
be learning it automatically as apart of enculturation, but of acculturation or

18 | P a g e
second culture learning and adaptation. Except for those who begin as
children, few of these second language learners become fully-fledged
members of the second language speech community. Having recognized
the intrinsic relationship of language and culture and the ways patterns of
communicative behavior and cultural systems interact, it is interesting to
see how the vocabulary of a language catalogs the things that are
important to a society, an index of the way experience is categorized and a
record of past contacts and borrowings. Examples of thes can be seen in
how NNSs and NSs assign colors names to different segment of the
spectrum. This has the potential for a big number of misunderstandings
when languages are intepereted differently. The grammar of a language
reveals how time and speace are segmented and organized. For instance, in
Classical Greek future was regarded an event behind us since we cannot
see it but the past is in front of us since we see it.

Within the ethnography of communication the notion of communicative

competence (Hymes 1966) plays a central role. Communicative
competence involves leaning not only the language code but alsowhat to
say and to whom. This concept has important implications for selection and
sequencing in language teaching curricula. Traditional linguistic description
has generally been interested in phonology, grammar and lexicon of a
language, which evidently constitute part of a speaker’s code for
communication. To this, we should add paralinguistic or non-verbal
phenomena, and knowledge of variants. Another dimesion of
communicative competence involves interaction skills. For example,
knowing who may or may not speak in a certain settings, what rounines
should be taken in turn taking, how requests should be made, etc. are some
of the interactional skills at a speaker’s command. To this dimension we
need to add cultural competence, the total set of knowledge and skills
which speakers being into a situation.

19 | P a g e
Doing the ethnography of communication is an arduous task that requires
fieldwork including aboservation, interviews, joing group activities, and
testing the validity of one’s perception. Such research specially benefits
from comparative studies. Dtra is collected in a naturalistic setting. Data
can be collected through several modes such as observation, library
research, archalogical and sociological surveys, folkloric analyses, and so
on. The communicative units involved in such stuies are situation, event,
and act. The situation is the context within which the communication takes
place. The event has a unified set of components, some participants, some
general purposes, some general topic, some tone/key. The communicative
act is synonymous with a single interactional function, such as referential
statement, a request, or command.

Ethnography of communication has strong applications for educational

issues. Research by Erickson and Mohart (1982) for instance shows that
some classroom practices may have a negative impact on learners who
come from different cultural backgrounds. Ethnographic investigations are
also of value to the study of both first and second language acquisition.
Such studies have increased our understanding of strategies children use to
communicate with one another in spite of limited skills (Wong, Fillmore,
1976, 1979). In addition, reading and writing skills can largely benefit from
ethnography of communication. And finally, it contributes to the cultivation
of a different rather than a deficient view toward student performance.

Chapter 12, Part IV – Speech act

In this chapter Andrew Cohen introduces a research approach based on
ethnography of communication that focuses on the identification and cross
cultural comparison of speech acts. He draws on the work of philosophers
Austin and Searle, who define speech act as a functional unit in
communication. Cohen takes on defining speech acts and explains how this
field of dicosurse has been applie to SLA. According to Austin (1962)
utterances have three types of meaning including preposional/locutionary,

20 | P a g e
illocutionary, and prelocutionary. The process of ddefining speech acts has
undergone a shift in the recent years from an intuitively-based anecdotal
approach to a moe empirical one, in which the main task of the researcher
has been to determine the speech act sets – the set of strategies NSs use.
To do so, it is necessary to determine the pre-conditions and interactional
goals of the speech act to identify the performative and semantic
prerequisits for the realization of the goals.

In addition, empirical research has demonstrated that successful sue of

speech acts depends on certain sociolinguistic and sociolcultural abilities,
the sociocultural ability refers to selecting speech acts which are 1) status-
conscious 2) culture-bound, 3) age-sex appropriate, and 4)
class/occupation-conscious. Data collection methods involve naturally
occurring data, role plays, discourse completion tools, and verbal report
interviews. The complexity of speech acts and their realization require
careful development of research methods for describing speech acts.

Despite the great interest in speech act theory, relatively few studies have
been carried out in this regard, and even fewer on untutored acquisition of
oral speech acts behavior among non-native speakers. As for the
implication of such studies and the speech act theory, we come across what
Wolfson indicated regarding the extent to which ethnographic analyses and
studies can be used to enhance teaching and improve communicative
competence. Cohen too ends the chapter with a word of encouragement
and caution to language teachers, casting doubts on whether those speech
acts that are highly culture specific and context bound are in fact teachable.

Chapter 13, Part IV – Literacty and Literacies

Sandra Mckay relates the form and use of literacy to culture and social
context. She emphesizes two views of literacy, one as a social practice and
as an individual skill and the other as a comibination of a variety of research
methods, surveys, ethnographic research, and text analysis. The dominant
assumption is this chapter is that literacy is multidimensional.

21 | P a g e
The view of literacy as a skill envisages four levels of literacy according to
Wells (1987): formative, functional, informational, and epistemic. However,
listeracy as an individual skill is often realized in the relationship between
written and oral language as well as the relationship between literacy and
cognitive development. From the sociocultural perspective, it is observed
that societies attached different values and that it actually means
throughout history. This value shift is in positive correlation with rising
literacy in a given society. As result, literacies become more complex and
include higher levels of knowledge and skills.

Street (1991), however, distinguishes between what he calls ideological

literacty and autonomous model of literacy. He argues the belief that
liateracy per se is beneficial to cognitive development, and that these are
new forms of interaction that eventually promote it. On another dimesion,
Langer (1987) believes that the development of mass media and computers
as well as the internet has affected the narrow definition of literacy which
has traditionally been synonymous with the ability to read and write.

MaKay also identifies different research methods that commonly correspond

to a particular view of literacy. In his view, a view of literacy as a skill often
makes use of surveys, while proponents of a social-practice view of literacy
employ an ethnographic research method. However, those who emphasize
the social aspect of literacy are more in favor of text analysis, which is also
used by those who want to examine texts for power relationships. Literacy
can also affect society by determining who can read and write and for what
purpose. By looking at the literacy history of a community we can find out
about the literacy distribution in that particular community. In addition we
can also study communities in the way that deal with texts. For instance,
Heath (1983) found out that Trackton, a working class African-American
community, used writing only when they had to.

Ballard and Clanchy (1991) argue that a culture’s attitude towards

knowledge can be demonstrated along a continnum that ranges from those

22 | P a g e
who values conserving knowledge to those who value extending it. Literacy
and power seem to be intertowined as well. In Fairclough’s opinion all
linguistic interactions reflect social order which can be used to maintain to
change the status quo. In a more recent and stronger tone, there is the
Freirian view to cirtical approach to literacy that advocates all education
involves intervention.

McKay lists a number of implications for the literacry classroom. First,

collaborative involvement with text on the part of students is necessary.
Second, as literacty is connected with power, students need to develop
critical readership. Therefore it is important that teachers encourage
collaborative literacry skills in the classroom and help students read with a
critical eye. McKay shows in this chapter that the view of literacy as an
islolated, individual skill linked to cognitive development has been
superseded by a recognition that literacty practices are part of a wider
socioclutural practices that involve talk, interaction, values, and beliefs
(Gee, 1992).

Chapter 14, Part IV – Language and education

In the closing chapter the co-writer of this book, Nancy Horberger, offers
her insights and experiences while writing this book. She gives examples pf
vignettes that illustrate the ways in which language and culture interact
with policy and program. She states that the book began with a conceptual
framework that distinguishes between societal and linguistic perspectives
and macrolevel and miscrolevel of analysis. But the book ends with an
attempt to bring together all the highlighted sociolinguistic dimensions that
are important in a learner’s language and literacy development.

References

23 | P a g e
Ball, Martin J. (2005). Clinical Linguistics. Malden, USA. Blackwell Publishing
Ltd.
Chambers, J. K., Trudgill P & Schilling-Estes N (2003). The Handbook of
Language Variation and Change. Maiden, USA. Blackwell Publishing.
Eckert P, McConnell-Ginet, S (2003).Language and Gender. New York.
Cambridge.
Holmes, J and Meyerhoff , M (2003. The Handbook of Language and Gender.
Maiden, USA. Blackwell Publishing
Llamas, C, Mullany, L & Stockwell, P (2007). The Routledge Companion to
Sociolinguistics. New York. Routledge.
Philipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. London: Oxford University Press.

24 | P a g e