International E-publication: Publish Projects, Dissertation, Theses, Books, Souvenir, Conference Proceeding with ISBN.  International E-Bulletin: Information/News regarding: Academics and Research

An exploration of teachers’ perception and practice of teaching sociolinguistic aspects in the EFL speaking classroom with reference to Ilu Aba Bor Zone, eight selected preparatory schools

Author Affiliations

  • 1Mettu University, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Department of English Language and Literature, Mettu, Ethiopia
  • 2Mettu University, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Department of English Language and Literature, Mettu, Ethiopia
  • 3Mettu University, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Department of English Language and Literature, Mettu, Ethiopia
  • 4Mettu University, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Department of English Language and Literature, Mettu, Ethiopia

Int. Res. J. Social Sci., Volume 6, Issue (9), Pages 35-54, September,14 (2017)


The main purpose of this study was to explore preparatory school EFL teachers’ perception and practice of teaching sociolinguistic aspects in the EFL speaking classroom. For this purpose, some selected preparatory schools from Ilu Aba Bora Zone were selected. To collect the necessary data, 8 preparatory schools English language teachers were selected as the participants of the study. And the instruments used to collect data were semi-structured interview, focus group discussion and non-participant classroom observation. To analyse, the collected data, qualitative data analysis method was employed. That is, data collected through semi-structured interview, focus group discussion and non-participant classroom observation were described and discussed. From the analysis of data, different findings were obtained. The study reveals that all the participants agreed with the importance of teaching sociolinguistic aspects in the speaking lesson. However, the majority of the English language teachers perceived that it is impossible as well as infeasible to teach sociolinguistic aspects in the speaking class. As a result, majority of the teachers do not practice teaching sociolinguistic aspects in the speaking classroom. In addition, most of the teachers do not contextualize their speaking lessons to their students in order to practice teaching sociolinguistic aspects during the speaking lesson. As the result of the study shows, the teachers of English language themselves have misunderstanding about the concept sociolinguistic competence. That is they think it is not worthwhile to speak about sociolinguistic competence in the speaking lesson. The respondents reported that they face different factors that hinder them from practicing sociolinguistic aspects in the speaking class. Based on the findings, conclusions were drawn and recommendations were forwarded to improve the teachers’ teaching methodology.


  1. Canale M. and Swain M. (1980)., Theoretical Bases of Communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing., Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
  2. Hudson F. (1996)., Ethnographic Micro analysis., S.L.Mckay and N.H. Horenberger.eds. Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Spolsky B. (1998)., Sociolinguistics., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  4. CUP (2001)., Common European Framework Of Reference For Languages, Cambridge., CHAVEZ, M. Learners‘ Perspectives on Authenticity [online]. Eric, 1994, 1-24 [citovane 2014-5-17]. Dostupne z:
  5. Littlewood W. (1981)., Communicative language Teaching., CUP. ISBN 0521 281547
  6. Brown G. and Yule G. (1991)., Teaching the Spoken Language., New York: CUP. ISBN 0521273846
  7. Saville-Troike M. (1984)., What really matters in second language learning for academic achievement?., TESOL Quarterly, 18(2), 199-219.
  8. Hymes Dell (1996)., Ethnography, Linguistics., Narrative Inequality, London: Taylor and Francis.
  9. Crystal D. (2005)., How language works: how babies babble, words change meaning, and languages live or die., New York: Penguin Group. ISBN 978-1-5833-3291-7.
  10. Wolfson N. (1990)., The Bulge: A Theory of Speech Behavior and Social Distance., Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 2(1), 55-83. [citovane 2013-12-26]. Dostupne
  11. Gumperz J.J. and Wilson R. (1971)., Convergence and creolization: a case from the Indo-Aryan! Dravidian border in India., Pidginization and Creolization.
  12. Brown D.H. (2000)., Principles of language learning and teaching., (4th ed.), New York: Longman, 49-58.
  13. Bachman L. (1990)., Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing., Oxford University Press.
  14. Broersma D. (2001)., \\\"‘You’re So White, So Fat, and So Hairy!\\\": Developing Sociolinguistic Competence in a Second Language.\\\", Helping Learners Develop Second LanguageProficiency, 200-205.
  15. Cohen A. (1996)., Speech acts., Sociolinguistics and Language teaching, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 383-420.
  16. Murphy B. and Neu J. (1996)., My grade’s too low: The speech act set of complaining., Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language,New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter, 191-216.
  17. Blum-Kulka S. and Olshtain E. (1984)., Request and apologies: A Cross-Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP)., Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196-213.
  18. Olshtain E. and Weinbach L. (1993)., Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining., Interlanguage pragmatics, 108.
  19. Tanck S. (2004)., Speech Act Sets of Refusal and Complaint: A Comparison of native and non- native English speakers production., TESOL, College of Arts and Sciences, American University 2004 [citovane 2013-12-26]. Dostupne z:
  20. Ervin-Tripp S. (1990)., Speech Act and Social Learning [online] University of California, Berkeley, 123-153. [citovane 2014-5-12]. Dostupne z:, undefined
  21. King K. and Silver R. (1993)., Sticking points. Effects of instruction on NNS refusal strategies., Working papers in Educational Linguistics, 9(1), 47-82.
  22. Schiffman H. (1996)., Linguistic Culture and Language Policy., London: Routledge.
  23. Kramsch C. (1998)., language and culture., OUP. ISBN 0 19 4372146
  24. Hall S. (1997)., Representation: cultural representations and signifying practices., London: SAGE Publications, ISBN 0761954325.
  25. Guest M. (2002)., A Critical ‘Checkbook’ for Culture Teaching and Learning., ELT Journal, 56(2), 154-161.
  26. Ur Penny (1996)., A course in language teaching: practice and theory., New York: CUP. ISBN 05-214-4994-4.
  27. Regan V. (1995)., The acquisition of sociolinguistic native speech norms: effect of a year abroad on L2 learners of French., The linguistic impact of study abroad [citovane 2014- 5-9]. Dostupne z:
  28. Syaharom Abdullah (1995). Thai Tesol Annual Conference, January 1995, University Utara Malaysia., undefined, undefined
  29. Kilickaya F. (2004)., Guidelines to evaluate cultural content in textbooks., The internet TESL Journal, 10(12).
  30. Byram M. (1989)., Cultural Studies and Foreign Language Education., Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  31. Bhatia K. (2004)., Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-Based View., Hong Kong, AandC Black.
  32. Kasper G. (1990)., Linguistic Politeness: Current Research Issues., Journal of pragmatics, 14(2), 193-218.
  33. Ide S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment; Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic, Politeness. Multilingua-journal of cross-cultural and interlanguage communication, 8, 223-248., undefined, undefined
  34. Education Commission (1994)., Working Group Report on Education Standards: Hong Kong., The Government Printer.
  35. Cortazzi M. and Jin L. (1996)., Cultures of learning: Language classrooms in China., Society and the language classroom, 169, 206.