How Politeness Helps Us Understand and Teach Language

 When we speak, we’re not just sharing ideas—we’re also building relationships. This is where politeness comes in. In the field of pragmatics (the study of how meaning is shaped by context), politeness helps us understand how people protect each other's feelings and social identity. This is known as “face,” or our emotional and social self-image—the version of ourselves we hope others will respect (Yule, 2014).

Imagine “face” as a kind of invisible mask we wear in conversations. When someone speaks in a way that respects your mask, it feels good. But when someone is too direct or dismissive, it can feel like a slap—it threatens your face. That’s what researchers call a face-threatening act.

What Is a Face-Threatening Act?

A face-threatening act (FTA) is any expression that challenges someone’s dignity, freedom, or desire to belong. For example, telling someone “Give me that book” might sound bossy unless you're in a position of authority—like a teacher or supervisor. In most situations, such directness can come off as rude.

Now, compare that with “Could you pass me that book?” This small change makes a big difference. It softens the request, respects the other person’s freedom to say no, and shows consideration. This is what we call a face-saving act—a way of expressing something without threatening the other person’s social or emotional space.

Two Sides of the Face: Negative and Positive

According to Yule (2014), we all have two basic needs in communication:

• Negative face: the desire to be independent and not feel imposed upon.
• Positive face: the desire to feel accepted, appreciated, and included.

Let’s break it down:

• If I say, “I’m sorry to bother you, but could I ask a favor?”, I’m protecting your negative face by showing I don’t want to pressure you.
• If I say, “Let’s figure this out together—you and I have the same challenge”, I’m appealing to your positive face, by building connection and solidarity.

Understanding this difference is powerful. It helps us teach language in a way that includes not just grammar and vocabulary, but also empathy and social awareness—skills our learners need in real life.

Culture, Politeness, and Misunderstandings

Politeness is not universal—it changes from culture to culture and even from one language to another (KhirAllah, 2020). In some cultures, being direct shows trust and closeness. Saying “Pass me the salt” at dinner may feel completely natural. In others, that same phrase might sound harsh or demanding.

Let’s say someone asks, “Are you using this chair?” Depending on your cultural background, you might wonder: Do they want me to move? Are they just curious? The truth is that they might be making a polite request without saying it directly.

And it is that pragmatics—the ability to understand what someone intends to say, beyond the literal words—is where real communication happens. If we ignore this layer of language, we risk misunderstanding each other, even when our grammar is perfect.

Why This Matters for You as a Future Bilingual Teacher

As a bilingual teacher in training, this knowledge is a tool you can use daily. You’ll work with learners from different cultures and language backgrounds. Some may sound too direct, while others may seem too hesitant—not because they’re rude or shy, but because they’re expressing politeness in the way they’ve learned.

The more we teach our students about face, politeness, and cultural norms, the more confident, respectful, and effective they become in real-world conversations. And the more we reflect on our own language use, the better we connect—with our students and with each other.

References

KhirAllah, G. (2020). MEBS01 Sociolingüística y Pragmática [Coursebook].

Yule, G. (2014). The Study of Language (5th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

 

Language Acquisition and Identity

 Language acquisition is much more than just learning grammar rules or memorizing vocabulary. It is a deeply personal and social journey in which our identities—how we see ourselves and how others see us—are constantly shaped and reshaped. As bilingual teachers in training it is essential to understand how language learning is interwoven with identity formation, negotiation, and expression.

Understanding Identity in Language Learning

Identity is not a fixed label. It is a dynamic, lived experience shaped through social interaction. Elise DuBord (2014) draws an important distinction between identity formation—the personal process of shaping who we are—and identity as the version of ourselves perceived or constructed by others. This ongoing negotiation happens largely through language.

But language does more than reflect who we are. It constitutes identity. Every time we choose a word, switch a register, or adapt our tone, we are subtly (or not so subtly) performing a version of ourselves. Research in linguistic ethnography confirms that language and social identity continuously influence and shape one another (KhirAllah, 2021).

We don’t usually notice it, but we perform multiple identities throughout our day—teacher, student, friend, sibling—and each of these roles comes with different linguistic styles. In fact, William Labov (1966) observed how people shift speaking styles depending on the context. For instance, a person might speak more formally when answering interview questions, but use a relaxed tone with friends. This phenomenon is known as style-shifting.

Allan Bell’s (1984) Audience Design Theory explains this well: we adjust our style in response to the people we are interacting with. So, speaking is not just about transmitting information—it's about shaping identity in real time.

Three Levels of Identity

According to sociolinguistic research, identity operates on three interconnected levels:

1. Macro-level: Broad demographic categories like age, gender, ethnicity, and class.
2. Local ethnographic level: Cultural practices and roles embedded in specific communities.
3. Interactional level: Identity as something dynamic, created in each social interaction.

This last level is especially important in language classrooms. Here, identity isn’t something we carry into the room—it’s something we build through our words and actions.

Bucholtz and Hall (2005) outlined five principles for understanding identity in linguistic practice: Emergence, Positionality, Indexicality, Relationality, and Partialness. In this course, we will focus on Positionality and Indexicality.

Positionality: Who We Are in Relation to Others

Positionality helps us understand how our social identities—like gender, nationality, or religion—affect how we use language and how others perceive us. These identities are not static. They shift over time and space, especially in response to political, historical, and social forces.

When we speak, we often position ourselves by associating with or distancing from specific groups. For example, a student might emphasize their academic vocabulary to signal alignment with scholarly communities or downplay certain features to avoid being linked to a marginalized group. This is not superficial; it’s a reflection of how we navigate power, privilege, and belonging.

In public discourse—especially political or national conversations—this becomes even more visible: we see contrasts like we/they, colonizer/colonized, or modern/underdeveloped being constructed through language.

Indexicality: The Social Meaning of Language

Indexicality refers to the idea that certain words, pronunciations, or phrases carry social meanings. For instance, saying running with a full /iŋ/ sound might signal education or formality, while saying runnin’ could signal casualness or regional identity. These differences can influence how people are perceived in different settings, such as job interviews or classroom discussions.

Indexicality works both directly—as when someone says, “I am Colombian”—and indirectly, through presuppositions or subtle cues. When someone says, “You know, she wears tracksuits all the time,” they may be indirectly indicating the subject’s identity (e.g., athlete, working class), while also revealing something about their own.

Understanding indexicality helps us become more aware of how language shapes our perceptions and how learners may feel empowered or limited by these perceptions in their second language (L2) experiences.

Identity and Second Language Acquisition (SLA)

Before the 1970s, second language acquisition was seen largely as a psychological process. But thanks to scholars like Firth and Wagner (1997, 2007), sociolinguistics brought attention to the fact that language learning is also a social and embodied experience. Language learners do not just learn forms—they also negotiate identities in new communities.

Naoko Morita (2012) highlights two major theoretical paths in SLA:

• Sociocultural frameworks, like language socialization and community of practice, where learning L2 means gaining not just competence but also membership in a community.
• Poststructuralist and feminist perspectives, introduced by Bonnie Norton (1995, 2000), which examine how power relations and access influence language learners' identities and their opportunities to participate.

Norton’s concept of investment is key. While motivation focuses on personal reasons to learn (like career or travel), investment considers how learners’ desire to engage with a language is shaped by their social positioning and the opportunities (or barriers) they face. For example, migrants may want to learn English, but if they’re excluded from meaningful interactions, their identity as learners—and their progress—can be stifled.

Morita (2012) studied two Japanese students and found that learners are socially and historically shaped. When learners feel they must hide or silence parts of their identity, it negatively affects their learning. This is why it is so important for language teachers to create safe, reflective spaces—like journals or group discussions—where learners can explore who they are in and through their new language.

Understanding the deep connection between language and identity empowers us as educators. When we recognize that every student brings a complex self into the classroom—and that learning a language is also learning how to be in a new world—we can support their growth not just as language users, but as whole human beings.

So, as you prepare your lessons or reflect on your students’ progress, ask yourself: How is this activity helping my learners negotiate their identity? What kind of identities does this classroom allow—or limit? How can I support my students in feeling seen, valued, and heard in their L2 journey?

References

Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13(2), 145–204.

Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4-5), 585–614.

DuBord, E. (2014). Negotiating transnational identities in the Spanish language classroom. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 11(3), 164–191.

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300.

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 800–819.

Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Centre for Applied Linguistics.

Morita, N. (2012). Identity and second language learning. In L. Ortega (Ed.), The Encyclopaedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 2672–2678). Wiley-Blackwell.

Norton, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9–31.

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity and Educational Change. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.

 

Pragmatic Strategies in Everyday Communication

 Understanding how people use language to show respect, avoid conflict, or express themselves more softly is essential for effective and empathetic communication in any second language. As future bilingual teachers, being aware of these strategies helps not only your own language development but also how you guide your students. Let’s explore some key pragmatic tools: politeness, indirect speech, hedging, euphemism, and culturally embedded expressions like false friends, proverbs, and idioms.

1. Courtesy and Politeness in Language

Politeness is about more than just saying "please" or "thank you." It's a way to express respect, soften requests, and manage how we relate to others in social situations. Linguist Geoffrey Leech (1983) emphasized that polite communication shifts focus from the speaker to the addressee, creating a more respectful exchange.

However, as Dr. Ghufran KhirAllah (2020) notes, politeness is not always necessary. Sometimes people choose not to be polite if the situation doesn’t call for it—for example, an audience booing instead of applauding after a performance. Politeness varies in degree and form, depending on the context. A violinist might respond to applause with a bow, while a football player might celebrate a goal with an expressive dance. These are different ways of returning or acknowledging social value.

There are two main types of politeness:

• Positive politeness aims to build closeness and show appreciation. Think of compliments, apologies, and thank-you notes.
• Negative politeness helps avoid imposing on others. It often includes indirect language, like saying, "Could you possibly open the window?" instead of *"Open the window."

2. Indirect Speech Acts (ISAs)

When we speak indirectly, we don’t always say what we mean word for word. For example, the question "Can you post this letter?" might not be a real question—it’s probably a polite request. Philosopher J.L. Austin (1962) pointed out that the structure of a sentence and its meaning can be different. This led to the study of indirect speech acts in pragmatics.

Using the word "please" often signals to the listener that we’re making a request, even if the sentence looks like a yes/no question. Some expressions are conventional (like "Can you please close the door?"), while others are more subtle or non-conventional (like "It’s cold in here" to suggest someone close the window).

In many cultures, indirectness is a way to be polite, especially when making requests or suggestions.

3. Hedging: Softening Our Speech

Hedging is when we use language that makes a statement less direct or more cautious. It helps express uncertainty or avoid sounding too strong. For example:

• "I think it might rain tomorrow" is softer than *"It will rain tomorrow."
• "This could be a useful method" sounds more open than *"This is the best method."

Linguist George Lakoff (1972) introduced the concept of hedges in his work on fuzzy concepts—those that aren't completely clear-cut. Words like "rather," "somewhat," "possibly," or "would" are common hedges.

In academic and cross-cultural communication, hedging shows respect for the listener's perspective. It’s especially important for second language learners to develop this skill to avoid sounding overly direct, which might come across as impolite or aggressive (Markkanen & Schröder, 2010).

4. Euphemism: Speaking Gently

Euphemism means using gentle or less direct words to talk about unpleasant or sensitive topics. For example:

• Instead of "He died," we say *"He passed away."
• Instead of "She's poor," we say *"She's experiencing financial hardship."

According to Hojati (2012), euphemisms can protect listeners from strong emotions or harsh realities. They are widely used in media and everyday life, but can sometimes be misleading—like when military reports say "collateral damage" instead of "civilian deaths."

Understanding euphemisms helps learners handle difficult topics with care and cultural sensitivity.

5. Cultural Nuances: False Friends, Proverbs, and Idioms

• False friends are words in two languages that look or sound alike but mean different things. For example, in Spanish, "embarazada" means "pregnant," not "embarrassed."
• Proverbs express cultural wisdom and are usually metaphorical. For example:
• "People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones"—don’t criticize others if you have similar faults.
• "All that glitters is not gold"—not everything shiny is valuable.
• Idioms are fixed expressions with meanings that can’t be guessed from the individual words:
• "Kick the bucket" = to die
• "By and large" = generally speaking
• "Take coals to Newcastle" = do something unnecessary

These expressions are essential for sounding natural in a second language, but they also carry cultural meanings that learners need to understand.

As bilingual teachers in training, developing your pragmatic awareness means being able to communicate not just correctly, but appropriately. Language isn’t just about grammar—it’s about relationships, emotions, and intentions. By understanding politeness, indirectness, hedging, euphemism, and cultural expressions, you’ll be better equipped to help your students become thoughtful and sensitive language users.

References

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.

Hojati, A. (2012). A study of euphemisms in the context of English-speaking media. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(3), 560–5671.

KhirAllah, G. (2020). Sociolingüística y pragmática. MEBS01 Course Materials.

Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts. University of Chicago.

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. Longman.

Markkanen, R., & Schröder, H. (2010). Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts. Walter de Gruyter.

 

Understanding Pragmatics in Everyday Communication

 Pragmatics, a key branch of linguistics, explores how people use language in real-life situations. It's not just about what words mean in theory (semantics), but how they function in context. As bilingual teachers in training, understanding pragmatics helps you guide learners not only in grammar and vocabulary but also in using language meaningfully and appropriately in various social situations.

1. What Is Pragmatics?

Pragmatics can be traced back to thinkers like Charles Morris and Rudolf Carnap (1934). However, it gained greater visibility thanks to scholars like Stephen Levinson (1983), who emphasized its scope by defining it as the study of "those principles that explain why some sentence combinations—like 'Fred's children are hippies' when Fred has no children—don't make sense in use."

Zufferey (2014) describes pragmatics as the study of language in use and the behaviour of its users, while Green (1996) sees it as the interpretation of intentional human actions—verbal or nonverbal—to accomplish communicative goals.

2. Semantics vs. Pragmatics

According to Recanati (1987), semantic meaning refers to the literal meaning of words, while pragmatic meaning depends on the speaker’s intention and the context. Consider this example: A lifeguard throws a volleyball near a swimmer struggling in the ocean. Semantically odd, but pragmatically, it signals a rescue.

3. Key Pragmatic Concepts

a) Deixis

Deixis refers to words like here, there, now, yesterday, you, me, which rely heavily on context to be understood. For example: "I’ll see you there." – Where is there? Only the speaker and listener know.

Types of deixis:

• Personal deixis: me, you, him
• Spatial deixis: here, there
• Temporal deixis: now, then, tomorrow

b) Reference

George Yule (2014) defines reference as how language is used to identify something or someone. For example: "Where’s the spinach salad sitting?" (said by a waiter referring to a customer)

Words like he, she, it, my friend, or names like Chomsky are understood based on who is speaking and the situation.

c) Indexicality and Anaphora

These involve referring back to something already mentioned. Example: "We saw a video about a boy. He was washing a puppy. It was enjoying the bath."

d) Presupposition

Presuppositions are assumptions about what the listener already knows. For example: "When did you stop smoking?" assumes the person used to smoke.

4. Speech Acts

According to Lyons (1968), an utterance is any stretch of talk. When we say something like, “I promise to help,” we’re doing more than speaking—we're performing a speech act.

• Direct Speech Acts: literal and explicit (e.g., “Did you eat?”)
• Indirect Speech Acts: implicit and polite (e.g., “Can you pass the salt?”)

Yule (2014) also introduces the concept of face, or the emotional/social identity we want others to recognize. Politeness strategies help maintain others’ face:

• Face-threatening: “Give me that book.”
• Face-saving: “Could you pass me that book, please?”

Types of face:

• Negative face: the desire for autonomy (freedom from imposition)
• Positive face: the desire to be liked or included

5. Speech Act Theory (SAT)

a) John Austin’s Theory

Austin (1962) identified three levels:

• Locutionary Act: The act of producing sounds and words.
• Illocutionary Act: The speaker’s intention (promising, thanking, warning).
• Perlocutionary Act: The effect on the listener (being persuaded, amused).

b) John Searle’s Reformulation

Searle argued that not all speech acts are explicit. A simple, “It’s cold in here,” might mean “Please close the window.”

c) Paul Grice’s Cooperative Principle

Grice (1967) proposed that effective communication depends on cooperation, guided by four maxims:

• Quantity: Be informative, not excessive.
• Quality: Be truthful.
• Relation: Be relevant.
• Manner: Be clear and orderly.

d) Relevance Theory

Sperber and Wilson (1995) argued that communication depends on cognitive effort vs. benefit. Listeners prefer messages that offer more insight with less mental work. For example: “You’ve won $500” is more relevant and impactful than “You may have won $10, $500, or $1,000.”

6. Nonverbal Communication

It’s not just about speaking! Communication also includes:

• Oculesics (eye behavior)
• Haptics (touch)
• Kinesics (body language)

Nonverbal cues can regulate conversations, express emotions, or emphasize spoken words. Think of how a teacher’s raised eyebrow can say, “Are you sure about that?” without a word.

The truth is that understanding pragmatics empowers you not only to explain what language learners say, but why they say it—and how. It's a human, interactive process rooted in real life, not just textbook rules. You’ll find that even the smallest expressions carry emotional and social meaning, and by teaching these nuances, you help students become true communicators, not just speakers.

References

Green, M. (1996). Direct and indirect speech acts. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Foundations of Speech Act Theory (pp. 89–106). Routledge.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.

Morris, C. (1934). Foundations of the Theory of Signs. University of Chicago Press.

Recanati, F. (1987). Meaning and Force. Cambridge University Press.

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd ed.). Blackwell.

Yule, G. (2014). The Study of Language (5th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Zufferey, S. (2014). Pragmatics. Edinburgh University Press.

Carnap, R. (1934). Logical Syntax of Language. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Harvard University Press.

Searle, J. R. (1980). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.

Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press.

 

Understanding First and Second Language Acquisition

 Language is not just a tool we use—it’s part of who we are. And as bilingual teachers in training, understanding how languages are acquired can transform the way you see your students—and yourself. Let’s explore this topic in a clear, relatable way, with real examples, grounded theory, and gentle human insight.

1. First Language Acquisition (L1): Growing into Language Naturally

When does it begin? From birth. Infants begin acquiring their first language without needing grammar lessons or textbooks. They do it by listening, watching, and interacting.

In fact, children are not usually corrected when they make mistakes. And even if they are, they tend to stick with what feels natural to them. Consider this real interaction cited by Yule (2010):

Child: Want other one spoon, Daddy.

Father: You mean, you want the other spoon?

Child: Yes, I want other one spoon, please Daddy.

Despite the correction, the child returns to their original phrasing. Why? Because language acquisition at this stage is more about intuition and internal patterns than rules.

Caregiver Speech: Adults often speak to children using simplified forms like “choo-choo” or “tummy.” This kind of talk—called caregiver speech—is repetitive, engaging, and interactive. It creates a supportive environment where babies feel safe to experiment with language.

Stages of First Language Acquisition

Based on research by David (1989) and Yule (2010), we can observe:

• Cooing and Babbling (0–8 months): Early vocalizations like [i], [u], [ba-ba-ba], [ga-ga-ga].
• One-word Stage (12–18 months): Words like cat, cup, or even creative forms like [ʌsæ] that stand for full sentences.
• Two-word Stage (18–24 months): Phrases like mommy go or more juice. Vocabulary expands beyond 50 words.
• Telegraphic Speech (2.5+ years): Children begin forming full but simplified sentences like Daddy go bye-bye.

How Does L1 Develop?

• Morphology: Children begin to use grammatical markers like -ing, -s, and possessives (Mom’s hat).
• Syntax: They start forming basic questions and negatives (e.g., No want that! → I don’t want that.)
• Semantics: Sometimes, they overextend meanings. For example, calling the moon a ball because it’s round.

2. Second Language Acquisition (L2): A Conscious Journey

What’s the difference? While L1 is acquired naturally, L2 is often learned intentionally.

• Acquisition involves gradual development through natural communication.
• Learning is more conscious, involving grammar rules and vocabulary lists (Yule, 2010).

Methods of Learning L2

• Grammar-Translation: Focuses on grammar rules and vocabulary memorization.
• Audiolingual: Emphasizes spoken patterns and drills.
• Communicative Approaches: Centres on functional language use (e.g., learning to ask for things in a store).

Key Concepts

• Transfer: When learners apply L1 structures to L2 (e.g., Take it from the side inferior).
• Interlanguage: A unique learner language with features not fully from L1 or L2 (e.g., She name is Maria).

3. Language, Identity, and the Self

We don’t just use language—we become through language.

Identity is the story we tell about who we are. It’s personal, social, and dynamic. As DuBord (2014) explains, it includes both how we see ourselves and how others see us.

According to Bucholtz and Hall (2005), identity operates at multiple levels:

• Macro: Age, gender, ethnicity
• Local: Cultural roles in specific communities
• Interactional: Shaped moment by moment through conversation

Positionality

This refers to how social categories (e.g., being a woman, a student, or Afro-Colombian) shape how we speak—and how we’re heard. Our words carry signals about who we are, and who we are not.

Indexicality

This is the way language points to social meaning. For example:

• Saying /iŋ/ in walking can signal formality or education.
• Saying /in/ (walkin’) might signal casualness.

So, imagine someone using casual speech in a job interview—how might it be perceived?

4. Diversity and Language Teaching: A Call for Awareness

Language acquisition doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It’s shaped by who we are, where we come from, and how we are treated.

• Self-esteem, cultural heritage, and identity all affect how students learn (Miller et al., 2009).
• Teachers have the power to either reinforce stereotypes or celebrate difference.

According to Lakoff and Johnson, cultural groups define themselves through metaphors and symbols. A subculture’s way of speaking reflects its worldview—and we, as teachers, must listen.

Your students' language choices show how they see themselves and the world. Are we empowering them to speak their truth?

Whether it's a toddler forming their first sentence or an adult learner navigating a second language, acquisition is more than memorization—it's identity, emotion, and connection.

As future bilingual educators, your role is to guide, empower, and recognize the profound human journey that language represents. The truth is, every word your students learn builds not just their vocabulary—but their voice.

References (APA 7th ed.)

Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4-5), 585–614. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054407

DuBord, E. (2014). Constructing identities through language: The interplay of identity and discourse in multilingual settings. Journal of Language and Identity, 5(1), 45–60.

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Miller, J., Kostogriz, A., & Gearon, M. (2009). Culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. Multilingual Matters.

Yule, G. (2010). The study of language (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

 

Understanding Critical Sociolinguistics in Real Life

 In this journey through sociolinguistics, we’ve explored how language is far more than just a tool for communication. The truth is that language shapes the way we experience the world, how we relate to others, and even how society includes or excludes certain voices. That’s why critical sociolinguistics matters—because it helps us see language not just as variation, but as a mirror of deeper social dynamics and inequalities.

1. What Does “Critical” Mean in Sociolinguistics?

To study language critically means going beyond “what changes where.” It means asking why those variations happen and how they connect to power, identity, and inequality. For example, why is it that certain ways of speaking are praised while others are mocked or ignored? As we’ve seen through Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), language can quietly reproduce social differences—often without us noticing.

🔎 Try this: Think of a classroom where students switch between standard and regional varieties of Spanish or English. Which one is corrected more often? Why?

As Heller et al. remind us, every research project is deeply personal because it’s done by people with histories, emotions, and social locations (Heller et al., 2017).

2. How Do We Study Sociolinguistics Critically? A Step-by-Step Approach

Let’s break it down into manageable steps you can relate to.

a) Start with a Research Question

Formulating a research question is like planning a journey—you need a clear destination. Good questions are:

• Based on previous research
• Aimed at enriching the field
• Practical and simple (Holmes & Hazen, 2013)

🧠 For example: “How does gender affect the use of English code-switching in teenage students from bilingual schools in Barranquilla?”

b) Design Your Project Thoughtfully

Before jumping into fieldwork, take time to imagine what your study will look like. This includes:

• Reviewing past studies
• Outlining your methods
• Anticipating fieldwork challenges
• Planning your timeline

📌 Tip: Share your plan with peers or mentors. Their questions may help you clarify your thinking.

c) Do the Fieldwork (Gather Your Data)

You can collect data through:

• Interviews
• Surveys
• Observations
• Online interactions (like WhatsApp chats or TikTok comments!)

Remember to respect your participants’ privacy while gathering demographic details—age, gender, ethnicity, migration background—because these details help you understand the social context.

Balasubramanian (2009) outlines a clear model: identify variables, select participants, gather speech samples (both formal and informal), and then analyze how often different features appear.

d) Analyse the Data

This is where it gets exciting. In critical sociolinguistics, analysis is mostly qualitative—but you can include numbers too!

Example: You may find that 80% of your female participants use a certain discourse marker. The next step is to explore why this happens. What social pressures or identity markers are involved?

🎯 Keep in mind: The aim is not to prove what you expect, but to follow what the data tells you.

e) Write and Discuss Your Findings

Writing is not just a final step—it’s a space for reflection. Be honest. If your hypothesis wasn’t confirmed, that’s okay. What matters is that your interpretation is grounded in evidence, not personal bias.

Brew & Lucas (2009) emphasize that your identity shapes your research—consciously or not. Be aware of this influence, but don’t let it blur your judgment.

3. Research as a Personal and Social Experience

Doing research isn’t just about facts—it’s also about being human. Every teacher-researcher brings their own story, background, and emotions into the process. That’s not a weakness; it’s a strength.

🌱 The key is to reflect: How do your personal experiences shape your interests, questions, and interpretations?

4. Methodologies You Can Use in Sociolinguistics

Depending on your focus, you can choose from various methods:

• Historical analysis: Track how a language has changed over time.
• Corpus linguistics: Analyse large text databases to find patterns.
• Sociophonetics: Study how pronunciation varies across regions, identities, or social groups.
• Morphosyntactic analysis: Examine how grammar and sentence structures differ across languages.
• Sociolinguistic lexicography: Explore how words reflect social changes, such as how new pronouns or slang terms gain popularity.

Each method offers a unique lens. The important thing is to stay curious and grounded in your context.

At its heart, critical sociolinguistics invites us to ask not only what is happening with language, but why it matters, who benefits, and who is left out. As future bilingual educators, your voice and perspective are essential. When you conduct research, you’re not just collecting data—you’re giving meaning to the language realities your students live every day.

✨So, trust your curiosity. Let your questions emerge from the classroom, your community, your own linguistic journey. And remember: the most powerful research is the one that builds bridges between theory and lived experience.

📚 References

Balasubramanian, C. (2009). Register variation in Indian English. John Benjamins Publishing.

Brew, A., & Lucas, L. (2009). Academic research and researchers' identities. In Brew, A. & Lucas, L. (Eds.), Academic research and researchers' identities (pp. 110–125). McGraw-Hill Education.

Heller, M., Pietikäinen, S., & Pujolar, J. (2017). Critical sociolinguistic research methods: Studying language issues that matter. Routledge.

Holmes, J., & Hazen, K. (2013). Research methods in sociolinguistics: A practical guide. Wiley-Blackwell.

Sociolinguistic Data Collection. (n.d.). Teaching exercises. Retrieved from https://sociolinguisticdatacollection.com/teaching-exercises/

 

Intercultural Communicative Competence: Making Sense of Symbols, Rituals, and Language in Everyday Life

 Understanding and navigating cultural differences isn't just an academic pursuit—it’s a practical skill that shapes how we teach, learn, and interact in real life. For bilingual teachers in training, especially those developing their intercultural awareness, grasping the essence of Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) is key. But what does that mean in practice?

What is Intercultural Communicative Competence?

At its core, ICC is the ability to understand both our own cultural patterns and those of others, so we can communicate meaningfully and respectfully across cultural boundaries (Studies in Ethnopragmatics, Cultural Semantics, and Intercultural Communication, 2020). It’s not only about speaking a language correctly—it’s about understanding the cultural values and beliefs that shape how people use language, both verbally and non-verbally.

Language Mirrors Culture

Language reflects the heart of a culture. As scholars have shown, each culture has unique communicative behaviors rooted in its beliefs and social values. This means that everyday expressions, gestures, and even silences carry meaning.

The Power of Symbols

Symbols are everywhere—in alphabets, emojis, traffic signs, and even emojis. According to Kendall et al. (2005), pragmatics studies how symbols function in context, while semantics looks at what they mean more abstractly. Think of how the letter "A" stands for a sound, or how a red circle with a line through it universally signals “not allowed.”

Ideograms represent concepts (e.g., ♻️ for recycling), while pictograms resemble the objects they signify (e.g., 🚻 for restrooms). These symbols are often language-independent but culturally grounded. Understanding them helps us decode the world more effectively.

Signs vs. Symbols

Carl Hausman (1989) described signs as icons that require interpretation—they don't mean anything until we assign them meaning. Byron Kaldis (2013) explains that signs can be:

• Indexes (linked by cause or effect),
• Icons (based on resemblance),
• Or symbols (arbitrary and agreed upon).

James Forte (2014) reminds us that both signs and symbols gain meaning through social interaction. In teaching, recognizing this can help students better interpret classroom instructions and cultural cues.

Rituals: Language in Action

Rituals, from daily greetings to holiday traditions, are cultural practices built on shared trust. According to Bax (2010), rituals maintain coherence in society and often express values non-verbally. Whether it’s a birthday celebration or a religious ceremony, these actions carry messages just as powerful as words.

Historical pragmatics explores how rituals have evolved over time, showing us how cultures change yet maintain core symbolic practices.

Taboos and What They Reveal

According to Yule (2010), taboo terms are avoided because they challenge norms related to religion, politeness, or societal rules. Swear words, for example, shift with cultural change (Gehweiler, 2010), and what’s taboo in one society might be perfectly acceptable in another (Senft, 2010).

Taboos can involve language (e.g., expletives), actions, or behaviours. Understanding them is crucial to avoid miscommunication and to show cultural respect.

Liminality: The Space Between

Victor Turner (1969) described liminality as the “in-between” stage—transitional moments in life when people undergo change, such as a student becoming a teacher. These stages are often marked by rituals, which help individuals and societies cope with transformation.

Bax (2010) and Thomassen (2016) connect liminality with imagination and social reconstruction. It’s in these “in-between” spaces that we open ourselves to new cultural understandings.

Courtesy and Politeness in Language

Politeness is more than good manners—it’s a cultural transaction. Geoffrey Leech (2014) argues that positive politeness builds closeness through offers, compliments, or apologies, while negative politeness avoids intrusion or offense.

Indirect Speech Acts (ISAs), like "Can you close the window?", rely on shared understanding. They often reflect a society’s value on politeness and are culturally bound. For example, hedging phrases like “sort of,” “rather,” or “maybe” soften speech and are part of pragmatic competence (Lakoff, 1972).

Euphemisms: Softening the Message

We often use euphemisms to talk about sensitive topics—death, unemployment, or bodily functions. Saying someone "passed away" instead of "died" is a classic example. Euphemisms protect emotions, maintain social harmony, and sometimes even express sarcasm (Hojati, 2012).

False Friends, Proverbs, and Idioms

False friends are tricky—they look similar in two languages but mean different things. Proverbs and idioms are also culturally dense: “Kick the bucket” means “to die,” not a physical action. Understanding them requires more than translation—it needs cultural immersion.

Intercultural communicative competence is not about mastering perfect grammar. It’s about learning how language, culture, and meaning weave together in our daily lives. For bilingual teachers in training, this competence is a bridge to creating inclusive, respectful, and effective learning environments.

References (APA 7th Edition)

Bax, M. (2010). Ritual and ritualization. In Journal of Pragmatics.

Forte, J. (2014). Signs, symbols, and society: A sociocultural theory of symbolic interaction.

Gehweiler, E. (2010). Taboo and language change. In Pragmatics and Society.

Hausman, C. (1989). Metaphor and art: Interactionism and reference in the verbal and nonverbal arts.

Hojati, A. (2012). A sociolinguistic study of euphemistic strategies in English and Persian.

Kaldis, B. (2013). Encyclopedia of philosophy and the social sciences.

Kendall, D., Murray, J. H., & Linden, R. (2005). Sociology in our times. Cengage Learning.

Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts.

Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford University Press.

Senft, G. (2010). The Tongan taboo system. In Language and Culture.

Thomassen, B. (2016). Liminality and the modern: Living through the in-between.

Turner, V. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure.

Yule, G. (2010). The study of language (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press.