THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL INTERACTION LEARNING PREFERENCE

TO SOCIOLINGUISTIC COMPETENCE
AMONG FIRST YEAR EDUCATION STUDENTS OF
CEBU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY-DANAO CAMPUS

__________________________________________________________________________

A Research Proposal
Presented to
College of Education
Cebu Technological University
Sabang, Danao City

______________________________________________________________

In Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Course
Language Education Research
ENGL 228

By:

(Group 2)

Aribal, Aimie Rose

Calzada, Kier
Jayme, Liza
Rubio, Venice Marie
Sugarol, Renelyn
Turtoza, Shane
 CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE

Rationale of the Study

The notion that people learn disparately is widely accepted. Educators

know that some students opt for certain methods of learning more than

others. These behavioral propensities referred to as learning styles from a

student's unique learning preference and an apprehension of them will assist

educators in the planning of small-group and individualized instruction.

Grasha (1996) defined learning styles as "personal qualities that influence a

student's ability to acquire information, to interact with peers and the teacher,

and otherwise to participate in learning experiences.” One of the learning

styles is through social interaction. It is a learning style preference where

students learn efficaciously and efficiently through immersing themselves to

other individuals, may it be teachers, co-students, friends, experts and even

their parents. Students are labeled as much more competitive when

interacting with people. It is evident that there are numerous students who are

inclined in engaging themselves in a dyadic interaction, group discussions,

forums, meetings and even brainstorming inside the classroom. They are

stimulated by dialogue with others and seem to have a strong sense of

intuition regarding others' opinions and preferences. They learn best in these

kinds of context which made them hone their social interaction preference.

The portal of sociology is social interaction. Social interaction is fundamental

to students learning especially in language learning because interacting with

other people has proven to be quite effective in assisting the learner to

organize their thoughts, reflect on their understanding, and find gaps in their

reasoning which would lead to the awakening of their communicative

competencies. To put it in a nutshell, social interaction is the key factor and

foundation of the social processes, social group, social structure, social order,

social function and most importantly language through communication.

Learning through social interaction is one of the key components in the

development of one communicative competence which is the sociolinguistic

competence. It is now widely recognized that learning a language involves

much more than memorizing linguistic rules and structures. Becoming an

effective communicator also involves accounting for contextual factors such

as formality, politeness and aspects of identity which are reflected in the way

we use language. It is imperative then, that pedagogical approaches aim to

develop knowledge and awareness of these contextual factors and improve

sociolinguistic competence. Knowing a language involves not only the

production of correct sentences but also the ability to use them appropriately

in different situations. Initially, the sociolinguistic competence aimed only at

recognizing the sociolinguistic rules of language use, i.e. the ability to use

language in different sociolinguistic contexts, to communicate within limits

imposed by a subject of discussion or to use the appropriate grammatical

forms for different communicative functions in different sociolinguistic context.

Through interaction, learners develop their communicative ability. In this

process, they build knowledge about how to ask, answer, and discuss

different topics with learners. It provides the means for relating language

competencies to features of the context of situation in which language use

takes place and to the language user’s knowledge structure. Given that
students learn the most through social interaction, however, they lack the

appropriate usage of language in an appropriate setting. This problem leads

to the emergence of the paucity in their sociolinguistic competence. According

to Mugford (1999), learners using the language they are learning to enrich the

knowledge they possess through interaction has a strong role in the formation

of their sociolinguistic competence. Consolidated sociolinguistic competence

will serve as the foundation for learners to be able to change as language

evolves. Without sociolinguistic ability, even the most perfectly grammatical

utterances can convey a meaning entirely different from what the speaker

intended because there are several factors that are to be considered when

communicating such as age, gender, status of the participants and the

formality of the setting. Provided that students are more knowledgeable when

engaging with others, they also need to be knowledgeable in analyzing

situation in communicating as part of their knowledge.

Theoretical-Conceptual Framework

This study will usher the theoretical assumption that the phenomenon of

the influence of social interaction learning style preference to sociolinguistic

competence is associated to Bruner’s (1976) Social Interactionist Theory

(SIT). It is an explanation of language development emphasizing the role of

social interaction between the developing child and linguistically

knowledgeable adults. It is based largely on the socio-cultural theories of

Soviet psychologist, Lev Vygotsky. According to Vygotsky (1934), much

important learning occurs through social interaction with a skillful tutor. The

tutor may model behaviors and/or provide verbal instructions. Vygotsky refers

to this as cooperative or collaborative dialogue. One seeks to understand the

actions or instructions provided by the tutor (often the parent or teacher) then

internalizes the information, using it to guide or regulate their own

performance. Vygotsky believed that language develops from social

interactions, for communication purposes. Vygotsky viewed language as

man’s greatest tool, a means for communicating with the outside world.

According to Vygotsky's Sociocultural Theory, language plays two critical

roles in cognitive development: (1) It is the main means by which adults

transmit information to children; and (2) Language itself becomes a very

powerful tool of intellectual adaptation. This theory is supported by the claim

of Troike and Blackwell (1986) which posits that language use is related to the

social organization of the group, which is likely to include differences in age,

sex, and social status, as well as differences in the relationship between

speakers, their goal of interaction, and the setting in communication takes

place. People have distinct abilities on how to appropriately communicate with

others which solely depends on various social settings. In this manner, one is

able to exercise and use his sociolinguistic competence. According to Ya

(2008), the specific ability to use language in various ways that may fit in

various social settings in which the communication takes place is called

sociolinguistic competence, and without this ability, even the most perfectly

grammatical utterances can convey a meaning entirely different from what the

speaker intended because there are several factors that are to be considered

when communicating such as age, gender, status of the participants and the

formality of the setting. One of the factors that make sociolinguistic

competence so hard to acquire is the variance in cultural rules of speaking as

well as the social, cultural and pragmatic elements that inherently exist in that

competence. To put it differently, what is appropriate in one cultural situation

might be entirely inappropriate in another one. The language learner often

cannot differentiate between the rules of speaking of his or her native context

and those of the target context. Sociolinguistic competence is that which

involves knowing what is expected socially and culturally by users of the

target language. Knowledge of language alone does not adequately prepare

learners for effective and appropriate use of the target language. Learners

must acquire the rules and norms governing the appropriate timing and

realization of speech acts. Understanding the sociolinguistic side of language

helps learners know what comments are appropriate, how to respond non-

verbally according to the purpose of the talk (Brown, 1988). In his book

‘Discourse Analysis’: The Sociolinguistics Analysis of Natural Language,

Stubbs (1987) has suggested that the understanding of social network is as

important as the understanding of linguistic form. It means that the

understanding of context is urgent. Schriffin (1995) outlines her point about

context in sociolinguistics as being stated: “Interactional Sociolinguistics and

Ethnography of Communication” also view context as ‘knowledge’, and they,

too, include ‘knowledge of situation,’ these approaches, however propose

frame works and construct through which to analyze ‘situation’ as part of

knowledge. Context, as Kramsch (2020) asserts may refer to any aspects of

an occasion in which a speech-act takes place, including the social setting

and the status of both the speaker and the person who's addressed. Our

choice of words is constrained by the context in which we use the language.

Our personal thoughts are shaped by those of others. In addition, social

context looks at the relationship between language and power and attitudes to

language. The language that someone uses may influence other people's

attitudes towards them (Brown, 1982). Since a speech act—communication—

takes place in definite but varied sociolinguistic situations, both linguistic and

extra-linguistic factors have been taken into consideration. The approach

takes cognizance of the fact that the social roles and the psychological

attitudes of the participants toward each other in a conversation (employer—

employee, teacher—pupil, doctor—patient, parent—child, for example), the

place and time of the communication act, and the activity or topic being

discussed will determine to a large extent the form, tone, and appropriateness

of any oral or written message. There's a function of an utterance in the

discourse and thus finding out if utterances are whether intended to evoke a

response, whether it is a response itself, whether it is intended to mark a

boundary in the discourse, and so on in accordance with Speech Act Theory

(Holdcroft and Smith, 1990). While people continue to grow as a language

learners, they should establish relationships with native speakers. Be aware

of the ways in which they communicate and don’t be afraid to ask questions. It

is important to inquire about things such as, “Can I say this to a man (as a

man or woman)? Can I say this to a friend? An elder?” Be aware of the fact

that in many cultures, there is a distinction between the way one would speak

to a man or a woman and this is not only influenced by the gender of the

audience but that of the speaker too. Language learners should listen to their

feedback and try to adapt it to their communication style at the next

opportunity. As a language learner, it is their job to play “detective.” To be

determined to learn how interaction takes place in each and every

communication situation so that they will be prepared when they find

themselves in those very situations (Dell, 2017).

Social interaction learning style is a factor in developing sociolinguistic

competence. Mugford (1999) claims that learners using the language they are

learning to enrich the knowledge they possess through interaction has a

strong role in the formation of their sociolinguistic competence. Consolidated

sociolinguistic competence will serve as the foundation for learners to be able

to change as language evolves. Linguistic usage is closely related to social

relationships and interactions between individuals. Social interactions within

the peer group do have an influence on children's linguistic usage and

learning through daily interactions at an early age (Nardy et. al, 2014). Grasha

and Riechmann (1974) and Alba-Juez (2009) further look at the social and

affective perspective that deals with patterns of preferred styles for interacting
with teachers and peers. This allows a language users create meaning via

social interaction.

According to Giglioli (1980), social interaction plays an important role in

learning. Interacting with other people has proven to be quite effective in

assisting the learner to organize their thoughts, learning language and using

it. The role of social interaction is to provide supporting structures or

scaffolding for individual competencies and thus to mediate language learning

through communicative patterns and other semiotic tools appropriately, reflect

on their understanding, and find gaps in their reasoning (Van Lier and Lantolff,

2000). Magnan (2008) argues that learning is seen as developing when

learners engage in social interactions, often with more capable social

members. Within this approach, learners are seen as active agents because

they learn by the act of socializing with others. Sociocultural theory

recognized that use and learning are inseparable and that consciousness

emerges from practice. Constructivist theories emphasize the role and

dynamism of interactions as a matter of language transactions and extend

such notions to include key elements of awareness, autonomy, and

authenticity in theories of practice for pedagogical design. Speakers and

listeners chisel and achieve competency through interactions and their

feedback. Furthermore, cultural knowledge and awareness enhance the

resolution of the available and practical language lexicon and contextualizes it

with ecologically valid situational knowledge (Long, 1996; Van Lier, 2014;

Sample, 2013; Rebstock, 2017). Language teachers should consider the

language classroom as a forum that can be enriched through the

fundamentals of sociolinguistics so that students obtain the opportunity to use

their linguistic knowledge and put it to the test in situations that will enrich a

great number of competencies (Hudson, 1988 and Trudgil, 1984).

The reviewed literature paved for the conceptualization of this study which

will determine the influence of social interaction learning style preference to

sociolinguistic competence. The conceptual paradigm shows the theories

anchor on this study and the issues needed to be answered.

“THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL

INTERACTION LEARNING JEROME BRUNER’S
PREFERENCE TO SOCIAL INTERACTIONIST
SOCIOLINGUISTIC THEORY based on LEV
COMPETENCE AMONG VYGOTSKY’S
CTU-DANAO FIRST YEAR SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY
EDUCATION STUDENTS”

SOCIAL
INTERACTION
LEARNING STYLE
HELPS IN
DEVELOPING SOCIAL CONTEXT
SOCIOLINGUISTIC INFLUENCE THE
COMPETENCE APPROPRIATE
USE OF ROLES OF SOCIAL
LANGUAGE INTERACTION IN
STRENGTHENING
SOCIOLINGUISTIC
COMPETENCE
Statement of the Problem

This study will generally determine the influence of social interaction

learning preference to sociolinguistic competence.

Specifically, answers to the following queries will be sought:

1. How does social interaction learning style help in developing sociolinguistic

competence?

2. How does social context influence the appropriate use of language?

3. What are the fundamental roles of social interaction in strengthening

sociolinguistic competence?
Significance of the Study

The findings of this study will be of great benefit to the following:

Students. As the direct recipient of the study, the results will highly benefit the

students as it will provide them with valuable information to develop, utilize

and strengthen their social interaction learning preference as it strongly

influence the choice and use of language in an appropriate setting.

Teachers. The given data will allow the teachers to gain much understanding

on the importance of social interaction learning preference in the appropriate

use of language. This will allow the teachers to design and create techniques

in molding the preferred learning style of the students as this will significantly

contribute to the development of the communicative competences of the

students.

Parents. They will assimilate a much deeper understanding on how they

could help their children in strengthening their social interaction learning style.

This will permit them to seek relevant ways on guiding their children to utilize

an appropriate language in communicating with different people in different

social context.

Community. The community will accumulate valid and purposeful insights in

providing small steps or actions where they could help mold the student’s

social interaction learning style, thus producing a sociolinguistically competent

citizen in the community.

Future Researchers. The findings of the study will assist the future

researchers in making their own research in replica to this study. They could

get information and ideas in this study when they want to know or dig deeper

on the nature of the social interaction learning preference and its usefulness

to the use of language in an appropriate social settings. They could also

navigate on other communicative competences such as grammatical,

discourse and strategic competence.

Definition of Terms

The following terms are operationally defined in order to make easy

understanding of the problem and avoid ambiguous meaning to terms which

can be otherwise interpreted in different ways. To upgrade the knowledge and

understanding of the readers of this study, these terms are defined according

to how they are used in the study:

Cognitive Development. It is the process through which a person perceives,

thinks about, and comprehends his or her environment.

Communication Style. The broad ways in which people tend to

communicate with others.

Constructivist. People believing that humans experience the world and

reflect upon those experiences, they build their own representations and

incorporate new information into their pre-existing knowledge (schemas).

Discourse. Interchanging of ideas formed from organized knowledge of the

persons talking considering and being rooted on the language used and

concrete contexts.

Intellectual Adaptation. Vygotsky's term for method of thinking defined to be

that children internalize through social interaction with the more

knowledgeable members of the community.

Knowledge of Situation. How the person knows the setting they are in while

interacting with others. It's also how a person see and learn things and start to

identify the big issues and you start to recognize patterns.

Learning Style Preference. It pertains to the preferential way in which the

learner assimilates, imbibes, processes, and remembers information. It is a

pedagogic milieu in which students are. most likely to learn.

Linguistic Usage. The choice of language a person is applying in a setting

he/she is into.

Scaffolding. A way of molding a person by not totally spoon feeding but

rather facilitating learning all the way through.

Social Interaction. Any relationship between two or more individuals and

considered to be one of the pillars that made the human's survival possible or

building block of the community.

Social Interaction Learning Preference. It is a learning style preference in

which the learner learns effectively through establishing connection and

conversing with others. Learners strategize in their acquisition of knowledge

and information through interaction which would allow them to undergo

changes as a result of the experiences and exposure they have in various

situations with different people.

Social Interactionist Theory (SIT). As Bruner asserts, it is a clarification of

dialect advancement emphasizing the part of social interaction between the

developing child and phonetically learned grown-ups.

Social Setting. It refers to the physical and social environment in which

people live or something occurs or develops. It encompasses the people and

institutions with whom the individual interacts, as well as the culture in which

one is educated or lives.

Sociocultural. It involves social and cultural aspects. The best example for

this is to have a discernment or knowledge with regards of the people around

you as well as their family backgrounds.

SocioIinguistic Competence. It is an integral part of communicative

competence on how the person communicate appropriately by using the right

words, expressions, and attitude towards a specific topic, setting, and

relationship.

Speech Act. It is an utterance made by a speaker with having the intention of

something towards the listener.

Target Language. A language which a person intends to learn.

 Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

a. Learning Style Preference

Learners have distinct learning styles that are thought to be natural. It is

generally accepted that the manner in which individuals choose to or are

inclined to approach a learning situation has an impact on performance and

achievement of learning outcomes. Learning styles have been the focus of

extensive research and as a result there exist a variety of definitions,

theoretical positions, models, interpretations and measures of the construct

(Cassidy, 2004). An individual’s learning style is said to develop as a result of

particular cognitive style. Reynolds (1997) posits that personal cognitive

abilities acquired in the course of a long socialization process are referred to

as learning styles. Riding and Cheema (1991) warned of the potential of

confusing learning style with ability, suggesting that learning style exists

independently of ability. Some tasks may seem easier for one individual than

another simply because the task may be better suited to one individual’s

cognitive style. Learning styles may be considered both as a stable structural

trait and a dynamic process state. Cassidy (2004) suggests a learning style

may exist in some form, but that the structure is to some degree responsive to

experiences as well as the situational demands to enable change and

adaptive behaviour. Advocates of learning styles have developed and tested

models of

learning styles based on theoretical models of the preferred way in which

individuals approach tasks or learning situations. The importance of learning

style on a learner's capacity to understand the subject as delivered was a

common thread running across all of the literary pieces. All sources stressed

the need of instructors and facilitators including numerous different types of

learning styles into their training to fulfill the needs of all learners. Failure to

include multiple ways, on the other hand, was posed as a sure way to

generate lopsided outcomes, with successful outcomes only realized by those

students whose preferred learning styles were incorporated into the supplied

teaching. “Perhaps the most vital development in American education today is

the concept of individual learner’s preferences” (DeBello, 1990). This

contention is widely supported by further study (Green & Parker, 1989;

Kirkpatrick 1983; Miller & Rose, 1975) addressing the importance of learning

style associated with learning outcomes. One particular way of organizing

research on learning styles is that of Curry (1983). Curry’s categorization of

learning style research is analogous to the layers of an onion; each of these

layers is a person’s characteristics that make up “style.” It is a metaphor to

represent the inner and outer layers of the construct –instructional preference,

social interaction, information processing, and cognitive personality style. In

order to achieve optimal learning results, both the student and the facilitator

must identify and understand their preferred learning styles. Throughout the

research process, a common theme arose on the necessity of learners

defining their preferred learning styles. Going beyond a given style preference
"label" – with special regard to weaknesses and strengths, and how to

manage both – was posed as vital to sound data usage, as it relates to the

identification tools. Similarly, it was suggested that facilitators collect such

information early in the learning process so that the knowledge could be

utilized to tailor what and how the learning material was presented. In

addition, suggestions found throughout the works analyzed advise that for

each learning event, information delivery and resources should enable a

number of learning styles preferences wherever possible.

b. Social Interaction Learning Preference

The most important thing to be aware of is that learners do not all see the

world in the same way. They may have very different preferences than you for

how, when, where and how often to learn. Much of the most important

learning happens through social interaction. According to Gardner (1983), an

interpersonal learner learns best by sharing, comparing, and relating. This

type of learner processes the world outside herself/himself, and is comfortable

is everyone else is comfortable. This type of learner is also good at

understanding people, is good a leading others, and mediating conflicts.

Grasha (1996) asserts that learning style is a personal quality that influences

a student’s ability to acquire information, to interact with peers and teachers

and otherwise participate in learning experience (p41). Grasha and

Riechmann assessed the learning styles of college students on the different

ways individuals approach the classroom environment (Keefe, 1979). As they

look from the social and affective perspective that deals with patterns of

preferred styles for interacting with teachers and peers, their styles are

classified as social interaction scales (Grasha, 1984). If you have a strong

social style, you communicate well with people, both verbally and non-

verbally. People listen to you or come to you for advice, and you are sensitive

to their motivations, feelings or moods.

c. Communicative Competence

The term “competence” is derived from the concept of “performance”

firstly proposed by Chomsky in the 1960s. The former is the linguistic

knowledge of the idealized native speaker, an innate biological function of the

mind that allows the speaker to generate the indefinite set of grammatical

sentences that constitutes the target language whilst the latter is the actual

use of language in concrete situations. However, according to Campbell and

Wales (1970), Chomsky’s competence omitted the linguistic ability referring to

the production or use of utterances which are grammatically incorrect, but

appropriate to the context or the situational and verbal context of the

utterance. In a similar fashion, Hymes (1972) emphasized that in addition to

the linguistic competence, the language user has another intuitive system in

which the rules of grammar would be useless. That is, he or she can adjust

his or her language use based on the factors as the topic, situation and

human relations. Based on his argument, he proposes the concept of

“communicative competence” which includes both linguistic competence and

implicit and explicit knowledge, both the rules of grammar and contextual or

sociolinguistic knowledge of the rules of language use in contexts. To put it

simply, Hymes states that communicative competence involves the following:

what is formally possible, what is feasible, what is the social meaning or value

of a given utterance, and what actually occurs.

 After Hymes, the concept of communicative competence continued to

develop. Canale and Swain (1980) defined communicative competence in the

context of second language teaching as a synthesis of knowledge of basic

grammatical principles, knowledge of how language is used in social settings

to perform communicative functions, and knowledge of how utterances and

communicative functions can be combined according to the principles of

discourse. Based on their view, communicative competence comprises four

areas of knowledge and skills. These are grammatical competence (also

called linguistic competence) or the acquisition of phonological,

morphological, syntactic and semantic rules. In other words, it is the mastery

of the language code itself. The next one is the sociolinguistic competence

which refers to the learning of pragmatic aspects of various speech acts such

as the cultural values, norms and other socio-cultural conventions in social

contexts. Specifically, the styles and registers of speech are influenced by the

topic of discourse, the social status, gender and age of the participants.

Another area of knowledge of rules is the discourse competence which

stresses the importance of the mastery of how to combine grammatical forms

and meanings to achieve unified written text in different genres such as

narratives, argumentative essays, academic papers etc. Basically, this type of

competence is related to the cohesion (grammatical links) and coherence

(appropriate combination of communicative functions) in a variety of

discourse. Finally, strategic competence is the mastery of verbal and

nonverbal communication strategies to compensate for communication

breakdowns (e.g. activating background knowledge, contextual guessing etc.)

due to limiting conditions or insufficient competence and to enhance the

effectiveness of communication.

The specific ability to use L2 in various ways that may fit in various social

settings in which the communication takes place is called sociolinguistic

competence, and without this ability, even the most perfectly grammatical

utterances can convey a meaning entirely different from what the speaker

intended because there are several factors that are to be considered when

communicating in L2 such as age, gender, status of the participants and the

formality of the setting. Specifically, sociolinguistic competence can be

generally divided into two areas. One is appropriateness of form, that is,

pragma-linguistics, which signals “the particular resources that a given

language provides for conveying particular illocutions” (Leech, 1983, p. 11);

the other is appropriateness of meaning, that is, socio-pragmatics, which

defines the ways in which pragmatic performance is subject to specific

sociocultural conventions and values (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993). For non-

native speakers, the misunderstandings they come across in the cross-

cultural realization of communicative acts generally arise from their failure in

appropriate use of pragma-linguistic and socio-pragmatic competence (Yu,

2006).

In addition, Ya (2008) argues that one of the factors that make

sociolinguistic competence so hard to acquire is the variance in cultural rules

of speaking as well as the social, cultural and pragmatic elements that

inherently exist in that competence. To put it differently, what is appropriate in

one cultural situation might be entirely inappropriate in another one. The

language learner often cannot differentiate between the rules of speaking of

his or her native context and those of the target context.

These rules of speaking can be gradually acquired when the learner is

immersed in the target culture. This is a time consuming process though. As

for the second or foreign language context, raising learners’ awareness about

the rules of speaking might help them acquire these skills more efficiently and

in less time (Mizne, 1997).

It is clear that sociolinguistic competence is a multifaceted and multi-

layered one that requires knowing how speakers of a language use it to

communicate in a way that will not bother one another. Such social, cultural

and pragmatic aspects would be hard to acquire without being integrated into

the culture, however, it is not impossible. Access to books, listening materials,

videos and any materials that reflect the culture of the target language

community is available. There are also more opportunities available that

enable people from different cultures and countries to come together whether

face-to-face or online. However, how these resources are brought together

and how they are implemented and made use of by language teachers in the

classrooms are the key issues in the teaching of sociolinguistic competence.

This leads to the question of how second or foreign language teachers can

develop the sociolinguistic competence of their learners? As Mizne (ibid.)

discusses, one of the problematic areas about this issue is that both culture

and sociolinguistic features are difficult to teach particularly when the learners

are not yet competent in the second or foreign language. Another problem is

that these cultural and sociolinguistic aspects of a language are

unconsciously ingrained within the learner, which makes it hard for the
teachers to integrate them in the language classrooms. Finally, the cultural

elements of a language are generally introduced as an add-on topic through

textbooks or supplementary materials, while sociolinguistic features are left for

the language learner to learn on his or her own through experience (Mizne,

ibid.). In other words, there are not enough materials designed and developed

to introduce the cultural and the sociolinguistic aspects of the target language

in classrooms. Even if there are, the human resources who should use them

in the classroom seem to be lacking. The present study will also elaborate this

factor on the basis of the data collected from teachers themselves.

Based on the discussion above, it is obvious that Canale and Swain’s

(1980) framework attempts to highlight the kinds of knowledge and skills that

a second language learner needs to be taught. From this perspective, the

development of the theoretical basis for a communicative approach in the

second language teaching will depend on an understanding of the nature of

human communication.

d. 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.

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).

e. Teaching Sociolinguistic Competence

There are two basic ways of introducing and teaching sociolinguistic

competence. One of them is resorting to cultural models where students are

explicitly or implicitly taught cultural elements ingrained in language use

and/or integrating speech acts as situations where learners are forced to use

language in consideration of socio-pragmatic factors such as social statues of

the hearer, the degree of imposition, or the content of the request. Classroom

environment may not be an appropriate context where sociolinguistic

competence can be developed due to several reasons unique to any learning

experience in an EFL context such as non-authenticity of the content of the

materials. For example, Izumi (1996) highlights that in developing

sociolinguistic knowledge, most non-native speakers (NNS) who teach

English

experience challenges such as their own lack of knowledge, the existing

curriculum requirements, the various teaching goals, student motivation, and

evaluation procedures. These factors play a critical role in the process of

learning how to use language in an appropriate way because the major

concentration of most EFL learners is devoted to learning what the rules of

language are and how they can produce grammatical sentences rather than

how they can produce appropriate sentences that fit the specific social

context. For example, whatever the proficiency level of EFL learners is, there
is usually room for development in their socio-pragmatic use of language

because Bardovi and Harlig (1996) claim that proficiency does not improve

concomitantly with the ability to use foreign language appropriately by

operationalizing their sociolinguistic competence. Izumi (1996) concludes that

for all the challenges in learning and teaching of sociolinguistic competence, it

is possible to help students to promote and acquire this competence by

raising their awareness in the rules of sociolinguistic use of language as

argued by Ellis (1991).

Omaggio (2001) highlights three main reasons why sociolinguistic

competence is not often treated as a topic in its own right and as an

indispensable aspect of language teaching: a) Language teachers often think

that they do not have time for sociocultural teaching due to time constraints in

their curriculum. b) Teachers may not have enough confidence in believing

that they can teach sociocultural aspect of foreign language learning well. c)

The teaching of sociocultural competence often involves dealing with student

attitudes which teachers usually find very challenging when trying to guide

their students to understand and appreciate the logic and meaning of the

target culture.

Similarly, Ya (2008) reports lack of context where students use language

communicatively, but suggests that as most of foreign language learning

occurs in the classroom setting, providing opportunities to use authentic and

natural language seems to be difficult to achieve. Ya (ibid.) discusses several

sources which impede learning and teaching of sociolinguistic competence.

Among them is transfer from L1, which involves transferring of L1

sociocultural patterns into the L2 sociolinguistic rules of language use, often

due to the limited knowledge of sociolinguistic competence of L2. One of the

reasons for such limitation is that, as Holmes and Brown (1987) argue, explicit

teaching of discrete grammatical rules, segmental level of pronunciation, and

lexical items seem easier, during which sociocultural aspects of

communicative competence are thought to be incidentally acquired. However,

this is a problematic claim because knowing rules of language along with how

to pronounce individual words and what they mean may not necessarily

ensure knowing the sociolinguistics contexts in which they might be used. The

knowledge about sociolinguistic values of linguistic forms is constructed on

the basis of the social context and cultural environments where language is

naturally used. The functions and socio-pragmatic values of forms are

attached to them in actual communication. From a pedagogical perspective,

the situation seems complex for the teachers who are expected to help

students promote communicative competence in the classroom setting, which

can be developed by close interaction with native speakers. This also leads to

a critical debate which is devoted to the teachers’ own sociolinguistic

competence because to be able to effectively teach sociolinguistic

competence, teachers need to have knowledge and practice of this

competence to an extent that they can help students develop it. However,

having come from the same educational system which lacked proper

instruction on improving learners’ sociolinguistic competence, most teachers

either neglect teaching what they themselves feel weak or teach this

competence with an ineffective mode of instruction.

f. Teaching and Learning Activities to promote Sociolinguistic

Competence
 In respect to speaking and writing as a means of acquiring communicative

competence, they can interconnected with the content that would help to

develop sociolinguistic competence. One of such themes mentioned in

Richards (2016) relates to culture. And specifically, how is language

associated with this area of human interaction. Providing pupils with

abundance of space for activities focusing on development of

communicational

interchange aiding relevant information about sociolinguistic aspects this

procedure can represent one of the patterns for teaching. Offering different

ways of dividing students into groups combined with materials presenting

various social real-life situations with teacher assistance can become a

valuable source for development of sociolinguistic awareness. Respecting

different learning styles, information regarding the above mentioned cultural

and social aspect of life can be transferred in other ways, e.g. writing, listening

and reading ensuring a wide selection of topics that will be motivational and

authentic. Materials on culture should be prepared in order to encourage

pupils to learn more about different cultures and the life of children or

teenagers of the same age. Real contact with their peers may have been

proved as the strongest motivation. Besides activities focusing on

communication, Richards (2016, p. 158) lists some activities that lead learner

to expand their cognitive abilities in analysis, synthesis and evaluation. These

higher level thought processes lay foundations for the use of the critical

thinking as a tool for the problem-solving in situations that may occur in their

lives. This way of thinking should be inevitably interlinked with moral attitudes
and values in order to seek actively for meaningfulness standing behind

cultural differences or social reactions.

g. Language and Social Interaction

People use language to cooperate and to interact to person in society. We

talk to our friends, our families and our associates by using language. Without

language people can, not express their opinions, ideas, and their minds. The

study of relationship between language and society is called sociolinguistics.

According to Hudson (1980:4), sociolinguistics is the study of language in

relation to society.

From the definition above, we see that sociolinguistics concerns with

investigating relationship between language and society to obtain the goal of

a better understanding of the function of language as a means of

communication. Language that we use in our everyday life is not only

specified by linguistic factors but also social factors (Wardhaugh, 1964). He

also states that social factors such as education, social status, age, sex or

gender may influence or determine the language use. On closer examination,

there are few, if any, context-independent gender differences in language

(Romaine, 2000). Furthermore, language is also influenced by situational

factors such as who is the speaker, who is the addressee, where the

utterance takes place, when and how it takes place.

 Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This part will discuss the research design, environment, respondents,

instruments, data gathering procedure and statistical treatment of data.

Research Design

The study will use a descriptive survey design. This survey approach will

anchor on such factual data to gather information about varying subjects that

could be precisely interpreted. In administering the questionnaires follow

immediately upon the approval and permission of the subject instructor where

the researchers will be administered and the results will be evaluated and

analyzed by the researchers using numerical interpretations in deriving the

needed data of this study specifically in determining the influence of social

interaction learning preference to sociolinguistic competence.

Research Environment

The study will be conducted at Cebu Technological University-Danao

Campus located at Sabang, Danao City because this institution is highly

accessible for the researchers to conduct their study. In a context where

educational institutions are asked to temporarily stop face-to-face classes,

CTU moved their classes to online and distance education platforms. The

students are attending online classes at home. Now that distance learning is a

key mode of education delivery, rather than face-to-face learning, the

researchers will conduct their research through online survey by using any

online platforms.

Respondents

The researchers estimated that there are approximately more than 300

first year education students in CTU-Danao. The respondents are all first year

education students with different field of specialization—English, Math,

Science and TLE. The researchers will only cater 50 students and in doing so,

the researchers will use the probability sampling particularly the systematic

method. This method requires the complete information about the population.

There should be a list of information of all the individuals of the population in

any systematic way.

Instrument

The main instrument for the study is a self-designed questionnaire. The

questionnaire will generally consist of three (3) sections: section A will contain

statements that will test the student's level of frequency on how does social
interaction learning style help in developing sociolinguistic competence.

Options will range from always to never; section B will contain affirmations

that will answer how does social context influence the appropriate use of

language. Options will range from always to never; and section C will contain

assertions that will test the students level of agreement or disagreement

pertains to the fundamental roles of social interaction in strengthening

sociolinguistic competence. Options will range from strongly agree to strongly

disagree.

Data Gathering Procedure

Systematic sampling will be used by the researchers to determine the

sample size to be included in this study. Now the researchers will decide the

size of the sample. Let (n) be the sample size (N) be the population size. The

researchers will intend to collect a systematic sample of 50 students in a

population of 300. They will number each element of the population from 1-

300 and will choose every 6 th individual to be a part of the sample (dividing the

population size 300 by the sample size 50, yielding 6). The researchers will

choose number 4 as a starting point at random. Every sixth member on the

list is chosen from number 4 forward (10,16, 22 and so on). The researchers

will assure that accurate data will be collected from the respondents. All the

results will be calculated, tabulated, analyzed and interpreted.

Statistical Treatment of Data

 The statistical treatments will follow immediately after all the data are

gathered. The statistical tools that the researchers will employ are the

weighted mean and average weighted mean.

Weighted Mean. This will be used in determining the extent the respondents

have rated the independent variables based on the rating scale. The formula

in getting the weighted mean is as follows:

WM = Ʃfw
N
where,

WM = weighted mean

f = frequency

w = weight in the rating scale

N = number of respondents

Average Weighted Mean. This will be used in determining the general

description of the given variables or factors. The formula in getting the

average weighted mean is as follows:

AWM= ƩWM
N
where,

AWM = average weighted mean

WM = weighted mean

N = total number of variables

References

Alba-Juez, M. (2009). From communicative competence to communicative

language pedagogy. In R. W. Jack C. Richards, Language and

Communication (p. 2-27). London: Longman.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: bringing

pragmatics and pedagogy together. In Bouton, L. F. (Ed). Pragmatics

and Language Learning. Monograph Series, 7, 21-39.

Boutet, T., and Maingueneau, J. (2005). Language in Social Groups.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Brown, H. D. (1982). Principles of Language Teaching and Learning.

New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Brown, J. D. (1988). Understanding Rresearch in SecondLlanguag eLearning.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bruner, J. (1976). Social Interactionist Theory. Teaching children to read:

Putting the pieces together. Upper Sadle River, NJ: Pearson Education,

Inc.

Campbell, R., & Wales, R. (1970). The study of language acquisition. New

Horizons in Linguistics, 242-260.

Canale, M., and Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative

approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied

Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.

Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning Styles: An overview of theories, models, and

measures. Educational Psychology, 24(4), 419 - 444.

Curry, L. (1983). An Organization of Learning Styles Theory and Constructs.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational

Research Association. Montreal: Quebec.

DeBello, T. (1990). Comparison of eleven major learning style models:

Variables, appropriate populations, validity of instrumentation, and the

research behind them. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning

Disabilities, 6, 203-222.

Dell, A. (2017). Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order. Cambridge:

Polity Press.

Ellis, R. (1991). Communicative competence and the Japanese learner. JALT

Journal, 13(2), 103-129.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New

York: Basic Books, Inc.

Giglioli, P. P. (Ed.). (1980). Language and Social Context.

Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd.

Grasha, A. (1984). A rational approach to developing and assessing the

construct validity of a study learning styles scale inventory. Journal of

Psychology 87:213–223.

Grasha, A. (1996). Teaching with style: A practical guide to enhancing

learning by understanding teaching and learning styles. Pittsburgh:

Alliance Publishers.

Green D., & Parker, R. (1989). Vocational and academic attributes of students

with different learning styles. Journal of College Student Development,

30(5), 395-400.

Holdcroft, J. & Smith, T. (1990). Child social ethology and peer relations: a

developmental review of methodology and findings. Acta ethologica

2:1-11.

Holmes, J., and Brown, D. F. (1987). Teachers and students learning about

compliments. TESOL Quarterly, 21(3), 523-546.

Hudson, R. (1980). Sociolinguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hudson, A.A. (1988). Sociolinguistics, 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. Sociolinguistics, 269293,

269-293.

Izumi, K. (1996). Teaching sociolinguistic knowledge in Japanese high

schools. JALT Journal, 18(2), 327-340.

Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Keefe, W., & Ferrell, B. (1990). Developing a defensible learning style

paradigm. Educational Leadership, 48(2), 57-61.

Kirkpatrick, J. (1983). A three-step model for more effective presentations.

The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 62(3), 178-179.

Kramsch, C. (2020). Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization:

Introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 98: 296–311.

Lantolf, J. P., & Van Lier, K. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second

language acquisition. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford hadnbook of

applied linguistics. Oxford: University Press.

Leech, G.N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman.

Long, H. (1996). Native Speaker/ Non- Native speaker conversation in the

Language classroom. Washington.

Magnan, S. S. (2008). The unfulfilled promise of teaching for communicative

competence: insights from sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf & M. E.

Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second

languages (pp. 351-381). London: Equinox Publishing.

Markee, N. (2015). The Handbook of Classroom Discourse and

Interaction. Oxford, UK:Wiley-Blackwell.

Miller, W., & Rose, H.C. (1975). Instructors and their jobs. Chicago: American

Technical Society.

Mizne, C. A. (1997). Teaching sociolinguistic competence in the ESL

classroom. Senior Thesis Projects, 1993-2002.

http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_interstp2/20.

Mugford, W. (1999). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press.
Nardy, A., Aurélie, C., Chevrot, M., Jean-Pierre, R., & Barbu, Stéphanie, O.

(2014). The acquisition of sociolinguistic variation: looking back and

thinking ahead. Linguistics, 51(2):255-284.

Omaggio, A.C. (2001). Teaching languages in context: Proficiency-oriented

instruction, 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Rebstock, L. (2017). The language of children and adolescents: the

acquisition of communicative competence. Oxford: Blackwell.

Reichmann, S.W. & Grasha, A.F. (1974). A rational approach to developing

and assessing the construct validity of a study learning styles scale

inventory. Journal of Psychology 87:213–223. Reigeluth, C.M.

Reynolds, M. (1997). Learning Styles: a critique. Management Learning,

28(2), 115-133.

Richards, E. (2016). Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of

Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Riding, R. J., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles: An overview and

integration. Educational Psychology, 11, 193-215.

Romaine, A. (2000). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Essex, London:

Pearson Education Limited.

Sample, P. (2013). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning.

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Schriffin, D. (1995). Approaches to Discourse. UK: Blackwell.

Stubbs, M. (1987). “Discourse Analysis”. The Sociolinguistic Analysis of

Natural Language. Great Britain: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

Troike, I. and Blackwell, P. (1986). Sociolinguistics: An Introduction.

Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.

Trudgil, U. (1984). Introducing Applied Linguistics. Great Britain: Hazel

Watson & Viney, Ltd.

Van Lier, K. (2014). The Experience of Collaborative Assessment in Learning.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vejcer, A. D. (1986). Contemporary Sociolinguistics: Theory, Problems,

Methods. Amsterdam, NLD: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Vygotsky, L. (1934). Socio-cultural Theory. Understanding reading problems:

Assessment and instruction. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Wardhaugh, R. (1964). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Basil

Blackwell Ltd.

Ya, L. I. U. (2008). A study of language teaching from a sociolinguistic

perspective of communicative competence. Canadian Social Science,

4(3), 80-86.

Yu, M. C. (2006). On the teaching and learning of l2 sociolinguistic

competence in classroom settings. Asian EFL Journal, 1-24.

 RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Respondent,

We, the BSED-ENGLISH 2D Students of Cebu Technological University-

Danao Campus, Sabang, Danao City are conducting a research study entitled

“The Influence of Social Interaction Learning Preference to

Sociolinguistic Competence among First Year Education Students of

Cebu Technological University-Danao Campus.” In connection to this, we

would like to respectfully ask permission to allow us to administer the

research questionnaire to you. We believe that you can give reliable data that

would answer our research questions.

In return of this request, the gathered data will be treated with utmost

confidentiality.

Thank you,

The Researchers
Name (optional): _______________________________

I. Directions: Please indicate your level of frequency on how does social

interaction learning style help in developing sociolinguistic competence. Put a

"√" mark inside the column that corresponds your answer.

Always Sometimes Never

1. I use social interaction as my

learning style preference.

2. I enjoy interacting with people

while learning.
3. I am fully aware of the words I

am saying while in bond with

others.
4. I notice that social interaction

learning style helps me build my

sociolinguistic competence.
5. I feel that I am slowly achieving

my sociolinguistic competence.
6. Social interaction truly helps me

in developing my sociolinguistic

competence.
7. I feel comfortable in socializing

with other group of students.

8. I am aware that social interaction

helps in building my sociolinguistic

competence.
9. While socializing, I choose

proper words in conversing with

others.
10. While interacting and learning

with others, I consider its

advantage on the development of

my sociolinguistic competence.

II. Directions: Please indicate your level of frequency on how does how does

social context influence the appropriate use of language. Put a "√" mark inside

the column that corresponds your answer.

 Always Sometimes Never
1. I experience struggles when I

experience the reality of

communicating with a real

Anglophone, especially in the distinct

use of English in various actual social

situations that seem to be so different

from the English used in the academic

setting.
2. I am able to adjust my speech to fit

in the social situation.

3. My teacher raise social and cultural

awareness so I would know how to

interpret the surrounding environment.

4. My environment helps me to

become more linguistic competent.

5. I am able to discern the nuances of

words and use them accordingly.

6. As politeness differs across culture

and social contexts, I am given with

benefit of the doubt.

7. I adjust my way of speech to be

able to fit in the nature of my

environment.
8. In school, I create a mistake on

language usage during my English

classes.
9. I find it hard in speaking concrete

language in the present setting.

10. I adapt and adjust to change on

the area of my context.

III. Directions: Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with

the following statements pertaining to the fundamental roles of social

interaction in supporting sociolinguistic competence. Put a ‘√’ mark on the box

provided before each choices.

 Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly

Agree Disagree
1. Social interaction develops

my skills and strategies for

using language to

communicate meaning as

effectively as possible in a

concrete situation.
2. Social interaction helps me

to practice language in

different social contexts. That

is, I need to know how to ask

for clarification, repetition, or

explanation.
3. Through social interaction, I

develop my communicative

ability.
4. Through social interaction, I

build knowledge about how to

ask, answer, and discuss

different topics with others and

allows me to use appropriate

language in encountering

different groups of people.

5. Social interaction allows me

to engage in negotiating

meaning by trying to make

myself understood even when

my knowledge of the target

language is lacking.
6. Social interaction allows me

to know the appropriate and

inappropriate use of language.

7. Learning how to use the