Concepts of Sociolinguistic Competence

The actuality of the course paper lies in the growing importance of communication skills in today's globalized world. Sociolinguistic competence refers to the ability to use language appropriately in various social contexts and situations. With the increase in internationalization and multiculturalism, the need for individuals to possess sociolinguistic competence has become more crucial than ever before.
The aim of this course paper is to provide a detailed analysis of sociolinguistic competence, its components, and how it can be developed. The paper seeks to explore the ways in which a person's linguistic proficiency, cultural background, and social context influence their use of language. Additionally, the paper aims to identify some of the challenges that individuals may face in developing sociolinguistic competence, such as dialectal variation, linguistic biases, and stereotyping.
The practical value of this course paper is significant. By understanding the importance of sociolinguistic competence, individuals can improve their communication skills and enhance their ability to navigate social situations effectively. In particular, the paper can be of great benefit to language learners who wish to improve their communicative competence in a second language, as well as to professionals who interact with people from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
Structure of the paper. It is concluded that introduction, two chapters including four parts, conclusion, glossary and bibliography.

CHAPTER I. RELATED LITERATURE

1.1. Concepts of Sociolinguistic Competence

The definition of sociolinguistics has given rise to much debate. According to Pierre Achard, as cited by Boutet and Maingueneau (2005), sociolinguistics is a meeting point (or a point of confusion) of three topics with different origins: the ‘sociological’ question of the place of language in human societies and the social process, the ‘linguistic’ question of language variations and the problems these pose to linguistic theory, and the ‘practical’ question of the social use of language.
Boutet and Maingueneau (2005) view sociolinguistics as characterized by certain theoretical positions on language and language activity and by a common methodological posture, going beyond differences in schools and approaches. Among common theoretical premises, focus is on heterogeneity as the founding principle. In regard to methods, there exist the construction of fields of inquiry, the observation of social situations, and the gathering of linguistic data.²
In the Marxist theory of society, the theory of social interaction elaborated by Marxist sociology and the fundamental theses of Marxism on language as a social phenomenon constitute the philosophical foundation of the sociolinguistic theories. There is a precise line of demarcation between Marxist sociolinguistics and sociolinguistics oriented towards bourgeois positivist sociology (Vejcer, 1986).
Sociolinguistic competence can be defined quite simply as knowing and understanding how to speak given the circumstances you are in such as the status of participants, the purposes of interactions, and the norms or conventions of interactions (Schroeder, 2010).
Markee (2015), on the other hand, states that sociolinguistic competence is a mediated action. It is mediated by constellation of factors, including language learners’ histories, their knowledge of variable L2 forms and their meaningful potential, and the forms of support made available to them in interaction. It is an action in the sense that it emerges in concrete communicative activity – it is something learners do rather than a property of an individual learner.
Since the end of the 1980s, emerging approaches have introduced new fields of inquiry and specific theoretical interrogations, such as the sociolinguistics of work and urban sociolinguistics.Today, a broad vision of the discipline clearly prevails. Evidence for this is
Françoise Gadet’s position whereby “the study of real language practices in a social context is part of sociolinguistics in the broad sense” (as cited by Boutet&Maingueneau, 2005).
The shift of focus from historical to synchronic problems causes changes in our theories of language. Modern linguists see the relationship between linguistic variants and social facts which can be examined through dialect variation and superposed variation. Dialect variation refers to differences in geographical region and social background while superposed variation refers to distinctions between different types of activities carried on within the same group (Gumperz, 2011).
There are three factors that determine the language behavior of a community. The first factor, attitudes to language choice, denotes that social norms of language choice vary from different situations and from different communities such as social acceptance, public communication, private knowledge, and language loyalty. The second factor, varietal distribution, simply means that speech differences increase as the geographical distance increases due to large gaps in communication. The third factor, verbal repertoire, a concept used to analyze the relationship between a particular language and the socioeconomic complexity of the community (Gumperz, 2011).
The existence of social norms in a particular community limits the freedom of intercommunication so as to preserve the native language. On the other hand, social change causes the breakdown of social norms which results to breakdown of language barriers between varieties. Nowadays, urbanization and globalization contribute to the gradual transition of languages.
According to Dell Hymes, (cited by Gumperz, 2011) in his book Language in Social Groups, states that structural abstractions of a single variety of language out of the complex varieties could represent the speech behavior of a community. This analysis explains that the culture of a specific community depends on the type of language they use. Thus, the simpler the language, the more primitive is their way of life.
Another factor of sociolinguistic competence is intra-language variation. Jackobson,
(cited by Gumperz, 2011) states that a number of scholars “regard linguistic communication within a speech community, as an interconnected system of subcodes.” This statement concludes that linguistic complexity within a particular society can be understood in terms of the relation among diverse systems of different extent. It simply indicates that linguistic complexity is determined through social complexity.
Emeneau, (cited by Gumperz, 2011) introduced then the “areal approach to linguistic relationships.” He insisted that the existence of structural borrowing proves the relationship of language and social environment.
Linguistic analysis as defined by Nadel, (cited by Gumperz, 2011), is a social communication within a linguistic community may be viewed in terms of functionally related roles. He regarded that speech behavior is one of the attributes that gives information on the nature of the role behavior expected in a community. Thus, speech behavior reflects the role of an individual in a given society. This does not only limit to the role but also to the status, gestures, etiquette of the individual.
Nadel’s approach was further developed by Firth (cited by Gumperz, 2011), introducing the concept “interactional setting”. He stated that role behavior varies in accordance to the “linguist’s context of situation or environment.”
Recent studies on the correlation between language use and the behavior introduced the totality of communication roles within the society. Fischer (cited by Gumperz, 2011) called this as the “communication matrix”. It is stated that each role has a specific code or subcode which is the basis for a role behavior. Subcodes are dialects or styles of the same language while codes are genetically distinct languages.
On the contrary, Schneider (cited by Gumperz, 2011) said that some social scientists disagree on this theory since the relationship of speech behavior and social environment is limited to specific cases.
These contexts are the different factors that try to explain the relationship between language and society.
Poor language ability, academic study problems and cultural differences are three main problems which foreign national students confronted in English speaking developing countries like in the Philippines.
Under poor language ability are different pronunciation, limited vocabulary, errors in formulating sentences, trouble of expressing oneself, and poor voice projection. Most foreign national students feel bashful because they lack confidence of their language level and are afraid of the mock of some local students (Chen, 2014).
Academic study problems are bilingual method or code-switching, lack of guidance, and examination point of view. Bilingual method or code-switching may help slow learners to some extent but reduces the real learning process as a whole. Teachers tend to do codeswitching which complicates the understanding of the foreign national students. Lack of guidance from parents and others to get acquainted with the English language is also one of the reasons (Kannan, 2009).
Another reason under academic problem is the examination system. This makes students’ rote memorization rather than testing their analytical and creative skills. In this process, students memorize lessons, reproduce them in exam halls and forget them in the same day itself (Kannan, 2009).
The third reason is cultural differences, especially differences in expectations concerning how acquaintances and friends behave, and is the source of human relations among foreign national students. Language barriers cannot be fully be avoided with the existence of cross-cultural differences (Chen, 2014).
Beck (2009) focused on her study the fourth perspective of speech behavior – the dialectical relationship between speech behavior and social behavior – which according to her has been the least investigated. In her paper speech behavior and social environment: selective interactions in the American South, she argued that ethnomethodologists correctly maintain that social relations determine speech behavior. Different styles of speech behavior are adopted when speaking with a particular interactant. Her study presents that the style of speech chosen is determined by the roles and statuses of the interactants. ³
Espenshade and Fu (2013) supported Beck’s study on speech behavior in their paper an analysis of English-Language proficiency among U.S. immigrants*. They argued that the English-language proficiency among U.S. immigrants is determined by the cultural and other traits that U.S. immigrants acquire either at birth or while growing up in their home countries, the human capital and other endowments they possess at the time they migrate to the United States, and the skills and other experiences they accumulate after their arrival in the United States.
In their study personality dimensions, psychosocial-demographic variables, and English language competency in predicting level of acculturative stress among Turkish International students indicates marital status, English language competency, social connectedness, adjustment difficulties, neuroticism, and openness to experience are predictors of acculturative stress. This means that acculturative stress, in the same way, could also affect the sociolinguistic competence of international students.
While, Ismail (2013), in his graduate thesis onexposure, attitudes, motivation and achievement in ESL among Malay Learners: a socio-psycholinguistic study aims to investigate the standard of competence and the degree of some learner variables affecting competence among Malay learners of ESL and the strength of that correlation. Unfortunately, his study reveals that the results do not always display high correlation. Thus, the learner variables used in his study is not that significant as predictors of sociolinguistic competence.
Another study from Fox and Livingston (2007), in their study Latinos online: Hispanics with lower levels of education and English Proficiency remain largely disconnected from the internet showed a predictor of sociolinguistic competence. Their study shows that internet use is higher among fluent English speaking Latinos than those who have limited English abilities. This is due to that websites often use the English language. Thus, we can link sociolinguistic competence to internet literacy transcending to communication revolution.
Hammadou (2011), on the other hand, had seen other determinants of sociolinguistic competence. In her study Interrelationships among prior knowledge, inference, and language proficiency in foreign language reading focuses on comprehending a second language. She said that comprehension does not just understand words, sentences, or even texts, but involves building a model within the mind of the comprehender. It is stated in her study that in second language (L2) research, background knowledge has also been proven to play a significant role in comprehension. Thus, cultural familiarity affects comprehension than preteaching of vocabulary. ⁴