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.

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.

1 | P a g e

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 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

2 | P a g e

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 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.

3 | P a g e

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.

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

4 | P a g e

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 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.

5 | P a g e

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

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

6 | P a g e

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, 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.

7 | P a g e

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 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).

8 | P a g e

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 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.

9 | P a g e

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 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 sociolinguistics are explored here such frame and

footing and contextualized cues, contextual presuppositions, and situated inference.

10 | P a g e

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 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.

11 | P a g e

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 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?

12 | P a g e

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 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.

13 | P a g e

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 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.

14 | P a g e

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 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 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

15 | P a g e

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.

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

16 | P a g e

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, 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

17 | P a g e

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.

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

18 | P a g e

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 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.

19 | P a g e

References

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.

20 | P a g e