44 Hughson T. Ong But before moving on, I provide three good reasons why such a contemporary model can be applied to the first-century sociolinguistic setting. The first reason is that the social use of language is part of a soci- ety’s culture which enables people to observe and predict with reasonable accuracy what an individual is likely to do or say in a linguistic situation, as well as to interpret it35. This leads to my second reason that, as an individual who has resided in two multilingual societies for a considerable period of time, I have observed that language seems to function quite similarly and constantly in these two culturally different societies36. For instance, whereas I normally speak a mixed language at home both in the Philippines and Canada37, it is incumbent for me to switch to an- other language outside of home, either to accommodate my conversation partner(s) or because the sociolinguistic situation necessitates the use of the society’s lingua franca38. The last reason is that sociolinguistics has the right tools and concepts to reconstruct the actual sociolinguistic situ- ation in the absence of much historical data, since its theories are based on relatively constant and consistent patterns of language communica- tion observed from various societies39. For instance, aspects of describing whether a social occasion is formal or informal apply cross-culturally40. 35 Cf. Cotterell, “The Nicodemus Conversation”, 237. 36 I was born, raised, and educated in the Philippines until my family and I moved to Canada in 2007. 37 Three kinds of choices, code-switching, code-mixing, and variation within a single code, that operates in a continuum are available to a language user. Code-mixing, where words (borrowing), phrases, or larger units of one language is used while speaking in an- other language, and which is very difficult to differentiate from the other two, more or less describes the typical linguistic scenario at home. See R.W. Fasold, The Sociolinguistics of Society (Oxford 2001) 181. 38 Even for a monolingual, the “informal type” of language used at home can be con- trasted with the more “formal or reserved type” of language used outside of the home. Another is switching between standard and vernacular forms of English, such as the inclu- sion or omission of the verb “to be” in a particular linguistic situation. For an example, see J. Holmes, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (New York 2001) 373-74. This phenomenon is called diglossia “where two varieties of language exist side by side throughout the com- munity, with each having a definite role to play”. See C.A. Ferguson, “Diglossia”, Word 15 (1959) 325-40. 39 These general patterns in the relationship between language and society are called sociolinguistic universals. See Holmes, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 376-80. 40 J.T. Irvine gives four aspects of formality that apply cross-culturally, which one normally considers when describing social occasions as formal or informal. These are: (1) increased code-structuring (extra rules or conventions to the codes that organize behavior in a social setting); (2) code consistency (greater consistency of the use of code and be- havioral rules in formal situations); (3) invoking positional identities (involves the social identities of the participants); and (4) emergence of a central situational focus (a main focus of attention in a more formal gathering). J.T. Irvine, “Formality and Informality in Communicative Events”, in J. Baugh ‒ J. Sherzer (eds.), Language in Use: Readings in Sociolinguistic (Englewood Cliffs 1984) 214-18.