Concepts of Sociolinguistic Competence

2.2. Socio-cultural Perspective
On Motivation. Table 8.1 points out an overall weighted mean of 4.49 using a fivepoint Likert scale which indicates that the respondents generally account for strong motivation towards the English language. Further data analysis also shows that motivationindicator 9 generally obtained the highest rating (mean: 4.70) compared to how the other indicators are rated. This analysis points to the fact the respondents generally find the English language useful for further studies.
Accordingly, motivation was also seen as one of the predictors of sociolinguistic competence by Gardner (2012), Ismail (2013), and De Guzman, et al. (2006). However, analyzing closely the prevalent cause of motivation of the respondents based on the said indicators, it may indicate a greater leaning on that type of motivation known as “instrumental motivation”.
Gardner (in Unciano, 2006) proposed a typology of language-learning motivation by distinguishing instrumental from integrative motivation but in which he regarded the latter as the more stable type of motivation associated with the motivation manifested by learners who achieve higher levels of English proficiency.
The findings of Unciano (2006) in his study also corroborates with Gardner’s contention as those subjects with relatively higher measures of proficiency also coincide to having higher levels of integrative motivation compared to their accounts of instrumental motivation.
Can-Do Tasks. Table 8.2 states an overall weighted mean of 4.35 using a five-point Likert scale which indicates that the respondents are generally confident in performing tasks using the English language. Moreover, among the indicators set for this phenomenon, it was indicator 9 that generally obtained the highest ratings (mean: 4.50), pointing out that the respondents are generally confident in using the English language when it comes to verbally communicating gratitude to someone or thanking someone for that matter. The profile variable was also employed by Mizne (1997) and ((Educational Testing Service [ETS], 2010) with their respective findings. Conversely, the indicator that generally obtained their lowest rating is indicator 2 (mean: 4.12) and is concerned with verbal communications involving
“refusal to an offer”.
A phenomenological analysis patterned from the method used by Unciano (1997) can bring forth a noteworthy observation when comparing the respondents’ highest-rated indicator with the lowest-rated indicator that reveals a hermeneutic contrast between them. It is likely that an interception of cultural elements is at play here wherein courtesy gestures of
“thanking” is more culturally favorable even considering the variety across the national cultures of the respondents and that gestures of “refusal” are culturally inconvenient. It is not far that this may also be associated with the confidence of verbally communicating
“thankfulness” in a sociolinguistically appropriate execution than doing so for a culturally uninviting gesture of “refusal”.
Table 9 presents the statistically processed results of the students’ performance in the TOEIC Model Test. As reflected therein, majority of the respondents obtained above average scores (mean: 14.7) and where the standard deviation is set at 8.627. As such, the mean of their scores falls within the range described as “Above Average”. Since the conceptual framework of this study intends to use the results of the performance test to obtain a passing glimpse at the respondents’ status of sociolinguistic competence however not limiting its evidence only to the results of such test, then it may be inferred that the status of their competence generally lies somewhere above standard expectations and which can be regarded as meritorious for that matter.
Table 10 indicates the distribution of the respondents into the five levels that measure the extent of a learner’s sociolinguistic competence as established in this study. The criteria used to establish the leveling is theory-informed. It was found that 44.0 percent of the respondents have “Average” status of sociolinguistic competence in contrast to 12.0 percent that have “fair” status. These represent the extreme poles in the range of status obtained by the students that characterize their sociolinguistic competence.
Table 11 provides the more detailed results of the students’ performance in the TOEIC Model Test reflecting each of their ratings obtained. Highest score obtained was 25 out of the 28 questions. Out of the fifty (50) respondents, twenty one (21) appear to approximate the standard level of competence required.
This finding was not primordially anticipated considering the input from the survey that majority of them have a residency period in the Philippines for barely a year wherein it would have implied a fairly normal expectation that they are still in the initial stages of social adjustment which involves the conditions that set their sociolinguistic competence as well. Unless that this can be explained for the fact that prior to their arrival in the Philippines is that they have likewise stayed in other countries that uses English as a lingua franca so that their acculturation to such sociolinguistic requirements have long started even prior to the start of their residency in the Philippines. ⁹
Another possible explanation is that the cultures in their respective countries are fairly analogous to Philippine culture so that the tense requirements for acculturation is reduced as there is less adjustments to be made. However since these conditions have not been anticipated at the stage of the conceptualization of the research problem, then no variables have been set to inquire into these information but which may be further explored if parallel research inspired from this study will be subsequently conducted.
Table 12 indicates the results from the statistical correlation between two sets of variable, i.e. the sociolinguistic competence of the respondents and their profile variables. Statistically, those variables found to be significantly related to sociolinguistic competence are native language (0.017), attitude (0.014), motivation, and can-do tasks (0.020). The quantitative values are assessed relative to the threshold set previously under the Methodology that significance in relationship shall be tested at 0.05 level of significance so that any value below this threshold were statistically declared as indicative of significance in relationship.
The foregoing narrative deals on an intensive explanation and discussion of the profile variables that were found to be significantly related to sociolinguistic competence. Since the statistical analysis used is correlational, even as significant relationships were established between these sets variables, care was taken as not to necessarily infer a case of causality between the two phenomena or that one is a factor to the other. The proven significant correlation merely establishes the close association between the variables but not necessarily implying causation.
Native language was one of the variables found to have a significant relationship with sociolinguistic competence and where this profile variable also registers under sociostructural perspective. This fact alone implies that sociolinguistic competence has a sociostructural perspective and is a fact that has likewise been asserted in some of the pertinent works in literature cited in Chapter 3. The findings of this study reinforce the continuity of such scholarly contentions.
Figure 3 isolates the statistical data relative to the correlational procedure conducted to prove the significant relationship between native tongue and sociolinguistic competence.
It is noteworthy that majority of the respondents who fall within the range of “Competent” (status of sociolinguistic competence) speak Arabic, Igbo, and Tamil. It appears then that the linguistic structures of these particular languages and probably even their reference culture can have positive associations with the development of sociolinguistic competence. Much that inference cannot be pushed to the extent of saying that having these languages as a mother tongue can reinforce sociolinguistic competence in English; nevertheless, it can be inferred that having these languages as a mother tongue do not provide significant obstruction to the development of sociolinguistic competence in English.
Assuming that the concerned respondents are typical representatives of persons belonging to their culture and that no extraneous variables differentiating them from the rest are present, then it may be further generalized that those who speak these languages will not be far from having the same experience in their attempt to approximate sociolinguistic competence in English. In this context, it will be meritorious to note Emeneau’s, (cited by Gumperz, 2011) assertion that the existence of structural borrowing proves the relationship of language and social environment.

Fig. 3 Sociolinguistic Competence on the Native Language of the Respondents
In further relation, Gardner (2012) in his Socio-psychological Theory also used sociostructural perspective to explore on the influence on bilingualism of ‘objective’ community characteristics. Both demographic and political aspects, together with socio-economic status are under this perspective. In this study, the variable native language is deemed significant. ¹⁰
Figure 4 likewise isolates the data as to the results of the correlational statistics. With the previous confirmation of the significance in the relationship between these variables, it also implies that sociolinguistic competence is associated with learner characteristics since attitude is billeted under this profile-variable category used to determine the status of relationship between attitude and sociolinguistic competence.
Noteworthy is the finding that majority of the respondents that are competent have a positive attitude towards learning the English language. Again, the correlational method does not merit the inference that there is any causal relationship between these variables; nevertheless it can be safely inferred that imbibing positive language-learning attitude can set
an environment where a learner’s cultivation of the development of his / her sociolinguistic competence is not obstructed. It is indeed recommendable at this point that appropriate statistical analysis such as “predictor analysis” may be employed in some future research to prove the extent at which attitude can be a direct or indirect factor in the development of sociolinguistic competence.
Relative to the above findings, Gumperz (2011) said that one of the factors that determine the language behavior of a community is the attitudes to language choice. This 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.
Figure 5 isolates the data as to the results of the correlational statistics used to determine the status of relationship between motivation and sociolinguistic competence. With the previous confirmation of the significance in the relationship between these variables, it also implies that sociolinguistic competence is associated with learner characteristics since motivation is billeted under this profile-variable category.
This in fact already represents the second significant variable under such category so that this can further imply an apparently greater strength of correlation between learner characteristics and sociolinguistic competence more than the other profile-variable categories.
Accordingly, data shows that a significant fraction of the majority of the respondents with “Competent” status of sociolinguistic competence, are also the ones who display strong levels of motivation in learning the English language. This concurs with the parallel set of findings of Unciano (2010) in his study wherein high levels of motivation were also associated with students having relatively higher levels of English proficiency.
However, Unciano’s instrument to assess the students’ motivational orientation technically allows for determining the level of the students’ motivation relative to the specific types of motivation as suggested by Deci & Ryan (1985 in Unciano 2010), which includes three sub-types of instrinsic motivation, three sub-types of extrinsic motivation, and amotivation. In the study of Unciano, significant correlation was found between levels of English proficiency and intrinsic motivation (in all its three sub-types). It was proven that the relationship is linear in nature wherein increase in levels of English proficiency implies a parallel increase in levels of intrinsic motivation. Even if this study adopted an alternative instrument aside from that used by Unciano, the data derived therein and the analysis of the results of correlation sort of reinforced the previously established findings of Unciano’s research.
However, a slight deviation may be seen at where this study previously explained that the main characteristic of the respondents’ high level of motivation seem to be symptomatic
of “Instrumental Motivation” rather than “Integrative Motivation”.
This may be a little bit contradicting the findings of Unciano in a way that the conceptual features of “Instrumental Motivation” seem to parallel with Deci & Ryan’s “Extrinsic Motivation”. If drawing from such premises, it appears that this study may be asserting that it is the high level of extrinsic motivation that is significantly associated with sociolinguistic competence.
On the other hand, this may not figure to be a contradiction if considering the fact that Unciano was looking for variables significantly associated with English proficiency and which presupposes proficiency in the linguistic level.
In contrast, this study deals more on finding which variables closely associate with sociolinguistic competence. It may be opined that sociolinguistic competence would distinctly require a higher degree of Extrinsic Motivation in language learning than an Intrinsic Motivation for a fact that the application of such competence is targeted towards extrinsic social elements.
This now makes full reinforcement of the previous claim that learner characteristics boasts of stronger correlation to sociolinguistic competence, especially that the present variable completes the total inventory of profile variables registered under such category. It is highly recommendable for future research to explore on the further confirmation of this finding and likewise explore on the breadth of its generalizability across other nationalities of respondents not covered by this study.
As reflected in the figure, majority of the respondents that are competent are also the ones who are confident on the can-do tasks prescribed in the learning of the English language.
Relative to this finding, the English Testing Service who administered a self-assessment inventory to TOEIC examinees in Japan and Korea in 2009 found that the everyday language tasks in English of the respondents has a significant relationship with their TOEIC speaking test scores ((Educational Testing Service [ETS], 2010).
As a way of providing further confirmation to such previous research findings, this study offers an additional information by also asserting that the close association of this variable is not merely applicable to speaking test scores but to sociolinguistic competence as well.
Another research finding from a different study, i.e. by Guo (2006) also corroborates with this study’s finding wherein Guo investigated on the relationship between language proficiency level and use of communication strategies wherein the latter are linked to this study’s context of can-do tasks.
In a way, skills relevant to the deployment of communicative strategies are invoked when performing can-do tasks and it appears that such skills are likewise closely associated to having relatively high levels of sociolinguistic competence.
In terms of socio-structural perspective, most of the respondents (24.0 percent) are Nigerian. Majority (52.0 percent) are 21-25 years old. There are more males (82.0 percent) than females (18.0 percent). Furthermore, the largest representation in terms of mother tongue is Arabic (34.0 percent).
Based on socio-cultural perspective, approximating almost half of the respondents (36.0 percent) have studied the English language within 0-5 years, while majority (60.0 percent) have only stayed in the Philippines 0-1 year. In addition, majority of the respondents (64.0 percent) are always exposed to the English language.
In terms of language learning characteristics, majority (54.0 percent) report to have a strong attitude towards learning the English language, and an even greater majority (78.0 percent) claim to be strongly motivated in learning English. Moreover, majority of them
(70.0 percent) also incur confidence in accounting for “can do tasks” easily using the English language.
The performance and scores of the respondents in the TOEIC Model Test of the respondents indicate majority of them (44.0 percent) obtaining above average score (mean:
14.7; standard deviation: 8.627). Moreover, the distribution is negatively skewed (-.601) and above the mean. Its kurtosis (-.956) indicates a platykurtic in which the test scores are tightly clustered above the mean.
Considering the 5-point competence scale used ranging from highly competent (highest scale) to needs improvement (lowest scale), approximating majority of the respondents (44.0 percent) registered to the range “competent” and above, while a marginal 12.0 percent fared as “fairly competent”.
The established variables fared differentially in the status of relationship with sociolinguistic competence, wherein those there were found significantly related are “native language, attitude, motivation, and can-do tasks” at a pre-established rate of .05 level of significance.
“Native language” which was found significantly related (0.017) points to the fact that the students identified to be socio-linguistically competent also speak Arabic, Igbo, and Tamil.
“Attitude” which was also found to be significantly related (0.014),also indicates those who are socio-linguistically competent also manifest a positive attitude towards learning the English language. Another significantly related variable, i.e. “motivation” (0.042) shows that the respondents who are socio-linguistically competent likewise have a strong motivation towards learning the English language.
Furthermore, “can-do tasks” which was also found to be significantly related (0.020), indicates that majority of those who are are socio-linguistically competent also exhibit confidence in performing can do tasks easily using the English language. ¹¹