UNIT 4

COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE. ANALYSIS OF ITS

COMPONENTS.

OUTLINE
1. INTRODUCTION.
1.1. Aims of the unit.
1.2. Notes on bibliography.
2. A THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE: ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT.
2.1. The notion of communication: a basis for a theory of communicative competen
ce.
2.1.1.
Communication and language teaching.
2.1.2.
Communicative competence: an issue in foreign language education.
2.1.3.
A communicative approach to language teaching.
2.2. On defining communicative competence: a linguistic and pragmatic approach.
2.2.1.
Fluency over accuracy.
2.2.2.
The introduction of cultural studies: a basis for an etnography of communication
.
2.3. A historical overview of the development in a model of communicative compet
ence.
2.3.1.
Earlier approaches: Hobbes (1651), Schweiter and Simonet (1921), and Lado
(1957).
2.3.2.
Chomsky (1965): competence and performance.
2.3.3.
First reactions to Chomsky s model: Campbell and Wales (1970), Halliday (1972),
and Hymes (1972).
2.3.4.
Sandra Savignon (1972, 1983)
2.3.5.
Widdowson (1978) and Munby (1978).
2.3.6.
Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983).
2.3.7.
On revising Hymes and Canale and Swain s models: Wolfson (1989) and Bachman
(1990).
2.3.8.
Present-day approaches: B.O.E. (2002).
3. AN ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE COMPONENTS.
3.1. On the analysis of communicative components: a model assessment.
3.1.1.
Grammatical competence.
3.1.2.
Discourse competence.
3.1.3.
Sociolinguistic competence.
3.1.4.
Strategic competence.
3.2. Related areas of study.
3.2.1.
Discourse analysis.
3.2.2.
A speech act theory.
3.2.3.
Interactional competence.
3.2.4.
Cross-cultural considerations.
4. PRESENT-DAY DIRECTIONS REGARDING COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE.
4.1. Multimedia and hypermedia contexts.
4.2. Implications into language teaching.
5. CONCLUSION.
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY.
1/25
1. INTRODUCTION.
1.1. Aims of the unit.
The aim of this unit is to offer a broad account of the concept of communicative
competence, and
its importance in society, and especially, in the language teaching community, f
rom its origins to
present-day studies. This presentation will start by offering the most relevant
bibliography in this
field as a reference for the reader, and by presenting our study in three differ
ent sections.
The first section will start by reviewing the origins and nature of the communic
ation process in
order to provide a link to the concept of communicative competence through, firs
t, the notion of
language, and then, through a theory of foreign language teaching. Within this f
ramework, key
concepts related to communicative approaches will be under revision, such as pro
ficiency,
competence and performance. In a second section, this theoretical background acc
ounts for a theory
of communic ative competence from a linguistic and pragmatic point of view, and
suggests the
issues we will refer to in analyzing the development of communicative competence
models. From
this anthropological perspective we are also able to see that the concerns that
have prompted
modern theories of communication were similar to those that, at other times when
language was not
developed yet, have always been concerned with how to communicative successfully
. Besides, an
overview of the origins and nature of the term will lead us to provide a socio-c
ultural approach
within the introduction of culture studies to foreign language teaching, known a
s the etnography of
communication, in which a foreign language is approached from a pragmatic and li
nguistic point of
view.
Within the third section of our discussion, we shall provide an acccount of the
development of the
most influential models within a theory of communicative competence, the most re
levant figures in
this field and their contributions will be overviewed, together with an assessme
nt model of
communicative competence. Furthermore, we will give an account of related issues
to this model
theory. A fourth section will be devoted to present-day directions in the commun
ication process
within a classroom and natural setting, regarding the evolution of media use for
the development of
communicative competence among foreign language learners. Besides, we will offer
some of the
implications of this approach to language teaching. Finally, a conclusion will b
e offered in order to
broadly overview our present study, and bibliographical references will be prese
nted in a last
section by means of sections on each issue.
1.2. Notes on bibliography.
Several sources have contributed to provide a valuable introduction to the origi
ns and nature of
communication and to the concept of language. Thus, David Crystal, Linguistics (
1985), Halliday,
Spoken and Written Language (1985), Halliday, Explorations in the Functions of L
anguage (1975)
and Wilga M. Rivers, Teaching Foreign-Language Skills (1981). The theoretical ba
ckground to the
relationship between the communication process and language teaching is given by
Larsen-
Freeman, An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research (1991); and Wid
dowson,
Teaching Language as Communication (1978). Four generally excellent surveys of b
oth a theory of
communicative competence, and a communicative approach on language teaching are
Ellis,
Understanding Second Language Acquisition (1985); Canale and Swain, Theoretical
bases of
communicative appro aches to second language teaching and testing (1980); Canale
, From
Communicative Competence to Communicative Language Pedagogy (1983); Hymes, On
communicative competence (1972); and Richards & Rodger Approaches and methods in
language
Teaching (2001). A precious background to the introduction and influence of cult
ural studies on
2/25
language towards an ethnography of communication, is provided by Hymes, Foundati
ons in
Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach (1974) and Canale and Swain, Theoreti
cal bases of
communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing (1980). Among t
he general
works on communicative competence models and approaches, see the most relevant s
urveys on the
issue. Thus, Canale and Swain, Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language
teaching and testing (1980); Chomsky, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965); Ha
lliday, Linguistik,
Phonetik und Sprachunterricht (1972), and An Introduction to Functional Grammar
(1985);
Hymes, On communicative competence (1972); Munby, Communicative Syllabus Design
(1978);
Savignon, Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice (1983); and Ce
lce-Murcia,
Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (1979). Since the spread of mul
timedia use in a
classroom setting is largely a matter of study, the question of techological dev
elopments is of
importance. For current statistics and bibliography, see Krashen and Terrell, Th
e Natural Approach:
Language Acquisition in the Classroom (1983). For applications of a communicativ
e competence
theory to both classroom and natural settings, see the studies and surveys on th
e journals of
Asociación Española de Lingüística Aplicada (AESLA) published by the Universities of Alc
alá,
Barcelona and León, listed in the bibliography section. The advanced student may c
onsult a
compendium of information on both traditional and recent topics on Internet. For
further references
on specific projects offered by the Ministry of Education, see Revista CERCLE de
l Centro Europeo
de Recursos Culturales Lingüísticos y Educativos (Servicio de Programas Educativos.
Consejería de
Educación y Cultura) and within a technological framework, see http://www.britishc
ouncil.org.
2. A THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE: ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT.
This section, in briefly reviewing the origins of the communication process, pro
vides a background
for discussion of a theory of communicative competence, and suggests the issues
we will refer to in
analyzing the development of communicative competence models. From this anthropo
logical
perspective we are also able to see that the concerns that have prompted modern
theories of
communication were similar to those that, at other times when language was not d
eveloped yet,
have always been concerned with how to communicative successfully.
2.1. The notion of communication: a basis for a theory of communicative competen
ce.
From an anthropological perspective, the origins of communication are to be foun
d in the very early
stages of life when there was a need for animals and humans to communicate basic
structures of the
world and everyday life. It is relevant to establish, then, a distinction betwee
n human and animal
systems of communication as their features differ in the way they produce and ex
press their
intentions. Before language was developed, non-verbal codes were used by humans
to convey
information by means of symbols, body gestures, and sounds, as it is represented
in pictorial art and
burial sites. However, since prehistoric times the way of improving communicatio
n preoccupied
human beings as they had a need to express their thoughts with words. This non-v
erbal code was to
be developed into a highly elaborated signaling system, both spoken and written,
which became an
essential tool of communication for human beings (Crystal 1985).
Historically speaking, various attempts have been made to conceptualize the natu
re of
communication and to explore its relationship to human language regarding types,
elements and
purposes. For several millennia many linguists and philosophers have approached
the concept of
language from different domains of knowledge, such as philosophy, psychology, an
thropology, and
sociology among others, in order to offer an account of the prominent features o
f human language
in opposition to other systems of communication.
3/25
Hence, regarding types (Halliday 1985), the field of semiotics distinguishes ver
bal and non -verbal
communication as part of the analysis of both linguistic and non-linguistic sign
s as communicative
devices in all modes and contexts. Thus, when the act of communication is verbal
, the code is the
language, which may result in oral or written form, as when we are watching a fi
lm, having a
conversation, or reading a magazine. When we refer to non-verbal communication,
visual and
tactile modes are concerned, such as gestures, facial expressions, body language
, or touch, and even
some uses of the vocal tract are possible by means of paralanguage, such as whis
tling or musical
effects.
According to Halliday (1975), language may be defined as an instrument of social
interaction with a
clear communicative purpose. Among the most prominent design features of human l
anguage, an
auditory-vocal channel is to be highlighted in opposition to tactile, visual or
other means of
communication. Human beings are also able to reproduce and produce an infinite n
umber of
messages in any context of space and time, thanks to the arbitrariness of langua
ge which allows
humans to combine sounds with no intrinsic meaning so as to form elements with m
eaning. And
finally, we may mention as the last feature, a traditional transmission, since l
anguage is transmitted
from one generation to the next by a process of teaching and learning. This feat
ure is the aim of our
next section which links communication and language teaching in order to provide
a meaningful
framework to the notion of communicative competence.
2.1.1. Communication and language teaching.
From a historical perspective, Howatt (1984) has demonstrated that many current
issues in language
teaching are not particularly new. For instance, in the seventeenth century, the
theologian Jan Amos
Komensky (1592-1670), Comenius, who was said to be the founder of didactics , th
at is, the art of
teaching, already stated the reasons for learning a foreign language. He claims
that through
language, we come to a closer understanding of the world since language refers t
o things in the
world. Upon this basis, he claims that for men to retrieve something of their ol
d collective wisdom,
it is necessary for them to learn each other s languages. Therefore, first, there
is no point in
learning another language if one has not mastered one's own, and secondly, that
we also have to
learn the language of our neighbours so as to be able to communicate with them.
He states that only
after that, should one take on the learning of one of the classic languages, suc
h as Latin, Hebrew,
Greek or Arabic. On the practice and use of communication, he adds that the gram
mar rules should
aid and confirm usage, so that the learner, then, can have frequent opportunitie
s to express him or
herself, in different situations.
In the words of Widdowson (1978), these opportunities Comenius mentions to commu
nicate with
others, have to do with the ability to communicate in a foreign language and the
ability to interpret
and produce meaning, which is an important goal for language learners, especiall
y for those who
need to fulfill roles as family members, community members, students, teachers,
employers or
employees in an foreign language speaking environment. While there are many infl
uential factors in
second language learning, as the learner characteristics such as age, personalit
y, and intelligence,
the critical dimension in language learning is interaction with other speakers.
Similarly, in the words of Larsen-Freeman (1991), one learns to do by doing, sin
ce people learn to
walk by walking and they learn to drive by driving. Therefore, it makes sense, t
hen, that people
learn to communicate by communicating, and similarly, those learners who engage
in the regular
use of their second language and receive the greater quantity of input will most
likely demonstrate a
greater ability to use their second language. Learners must actively work and pr
actice extensively
4/25
on communicating to develop skills in communication. It follows, then, that lear
ners should be
provided with as much speaking time as possible, both in and out of the classroo
m. However, we
should not forget that communicating successfully implies not only a correct use
of structure and
form, but also to communicate intelligibly and appropriately for students to ach
ieve a successful
interaction. This ability to communicate is the aim of our next section where we
will provide an
approach to the notion of communicative competence and its relationship to langu
age teaching.
2.1.2. Communicative competence: an issue in foreign language education.
In this section, it is relevant to conceptualize first some key issues related t
o the concept of
communicative competence in order to fully understand the term and its relevance
in foreign
language teaching. Therefore, the concepts of proficiency, competence and perfor
mance will be
under revision as follows.
Within a language teaching theory, many approaches and theories stem from a fund
amental
question which addresses the way we, teachers, can help students who are learnin
g a second
language in a classroom setting, become proficient in that language. Another que
stion arises, then,
in relation to what it means to be proficient in a language, and to what a learn
er has to know in
terms of grammar, vocabulary, sociolinguistic appropriateness, conventions of di
scourse, and
cultural understanding in order to use a language well enough for real world pur
pose. Following
Ellis (1985), we may define proficiency as the learner s knowledge of the target l
anguage viewed as
linguistic competence or communicative competence. Common synonyms for the term
are
expertise, ability, or competence within implications at a high level of skill,
well-developed
knowledge, and polished performance. As we have seen, the term proficiency bring
s about the
notions of competence and performance which must be also reviewed.
These two notions of competence and performance are one of the main tenets in Ch
omsky s theory
of transformational grammar (Richards & Rodgers 2001). This distinction addresse
s competence as
the idealized native speaker s underlying competence, referring to one s implicit or
explicit
knowledge of the system of the language whereas performance addresses to an indi
vidual
performance, referring to one s actual production and comprehension of language in
specific
instances of language use. Chomsky believed that actual performace did not prope
rly reflect the
underlying knowledge, that is, competence, because of its many imperfections at
the level of errors
and hesitations.
This fundamental distinction has been at the centre of discussions of many other
researchers, and in
fact, it has been reviewed and evaluated since then from various theoretical per
spectives which will
be examined in the section devoted to the development of a communicative compete
nce model
(Canale & Swain 1980). However, we will highlight in this section one of the mai
n rejections to
Chomsky s view of language, proposed by the American anthropologist Dell Hymes in
his work On
communicativ e competence (1972). Here he felt that there are rules of language
use that are
neglected in Chomsky s approach, as native speakers know more than just grammatica
l
competence. Hymes, with a tradition on sociolinguistics, had a broader view of t
he term which
included not only grammatical competence, but also sociolinguistic and contextua
l competence. For
Hymes, the notion of communicative competence is the underlying knowledge a spea
ker has of the
rules of grammar including phonology, orthography, syntax, lexicon, and semantic
s, and the rules
for their use in socially appropriate circumstances. Therefore, we understand co
mpetence as the
knowledge of rules of grammar, and performance, they way the rules are used.
The verbal part of communicative competence comprises all the so-called four ski
lls: listening,
reading, speaking and writing. It is important to highlight this, since there is
a very common
misunderstanding that communicative competence only refers to the ability to spe
ak. It is both
5/25
productive and receptive. All of us have developed communicative competence in o
ur native
language, oral proficiency and later, possibly, written proficiency. The acquisi
tion of
communicative competence in a foreign or second language therefore takes place o
n the basis of the
fact that we already have a native language. So we are dealing with the developm
ent of two systems
that interact. The question of how this occurs has been investigated in research
on fields such as
bilingualism (Canale 1983). Another issue under study is the importance of fluen
cy over accuracy
when developing communicative competence in a foreign language, to be discussed
in our next
section.
2.1.3. A communicative approach to language teaching.
The period from the 1950s to the 1980s has often been referred to as The Age of
Methods, during
which a number of quite detailed prescriptions for language teaching were propos
ed (Canale &
Swain 1980). Situational Language Teaching evolved in the United Kingdom while a
parallel
method, Audio-Lingualism, emerged in the United States. Both methods started to
be questioned by
applied linguists who saw the need to focus in language teaching on communicativ
e proficiency
rather than on mere mastery of structures.
In the middle -methods period, a variety of methods were proclaimed as successor
s to the then
prevailing Situational Language Teaching and Audio-Lingual methods. These altern
atives were
promoted under such titles as Silent Way, Suggestopedia, Community Language Lear
ning, and
Total Physical Response. It was in 1971 when a British linguist, D.A. Wilkins pr
omoted a system in
which learning tasks were broken down into units. This system attempted to demon
strate the
systems of meanings that a language learner needs to understand and express with
in two types:
notional categories (time, sequence, quantity or frequency) and categories of co
mmunicative
function (requests, offers, complaints). In the 1980s, the rapid application of
these ideas by textbook
writers and its acceptance by teaching specialists gave prominence to more inter
active views of
language teaching, which became to be known as the Communicative Approach or sim
ply
Communicative Language Teaching.
In the 1970s and 1980s, an approach to foreign and second language teaching emer
ged both in
Europe and North America focusing on the work of anthropologists, sociologists,
and
sociolinguists. It concentrated on language as social behaviour, seeing the prim
ary goal of language
teaching as the development of the learner's communicative competence. Parallel
to the influence of
the Council of Europe Languages Projects, there was an increasing need to teach
adults the major
languages for a better educational cooperation within the expanding European Com
mon Market.
Learners were considered to need both rules of use to produce language appropria
te to particular
situations, and strategies for effective communication. The movement at first co
ncentrated on
notional-functional syllabuses, but in the 1980s, the approach was more concerne
d with the quality
of interaction between learner and teacher rather than the specification of syll
abuses, and
concentrated on classroom methodology rather than on content. This promoted a vi
ew of language
as creative and rule governed within the framework of communicative approaches.
Scholars such as
Hymes (1972), Halliday (1970), Canale and Swain (1980) or Chomsky (1957) leveled
their
contributions and criticisms at structural linguistic theories claiming for more
communicative
approaches on language teaching.
Among the most relevant features that Communicative Language Teaching claimed fo
r, we will
highlight a set of principles that provide a broad overview of this method. The
first principle claims
for students to learn a language through using it to communicate. Secondly, ther
e is an emphasis on
authentic and meaningful communication which should be the goal of classroom act
ivities. Thirdly,
6/25
fluency is seen as an important dimension of communication. Fourth, communicatio
n is intended to
involve the integration of different language skills, and finally, the principle
that claims for learning
as a process of creative construction which involves trial and error.
However, this communicative view is considered an approach rather than a method
which provides
a humanistic approach to teaching where interactive processes of communication r
eceive priority.
Its rapid adoption and implementation resulted in similar approaches among which
we may mention
The Natural Approach, Cooperative Language Learning, Content-Based Teaching, and
Task-Based
Teaching. It is difficult to describe these various methods briefly and yet fair
ly, and such a task is
well beyond the scope of this paper. However, several up-to-date texts are avail
able that do detail
differences and similarities among the many different approaches and methods tha
t have been
proposed (see Richards & Rodgers, 2001).
2.2. On defining communicative competence: a linguistic and pragmatic approach.
The aim of this section is to approach the notion of communicative competence fr
om an emphasis
on fluency rather than on linguistic accuracy, since learners need many differen
t opportunities to
communicate without having to concentrate on structure and form. Upon this basis
, the introduction
of cultural studies is under revision as an important aspect of communicative co
mpetence. As far as
background knowledge and cultural expectations on the foreign language are conce
rned,
communicating with people from other cultures involves not only linguistic appro
priateness but also
pragmatic appropriateness in the use of verbal and non-verbal behavior. This iss
ue is examined
within an ethnography of communication theory in order to approach a foreign lan
guage from a
pragmatic and linguistic point of view.
2.2.1. Fluency over accuracy.
Today, communicative competence is the central aim of foreign and second languag
e teaching,
providing a number of suggestions as to how teachers can give pupils optimum fra
meworks for
acquiring a good communicative competence. This notion no longer describes just
a particular
proficiency or skill, but makes reference to more than listening and speaking, r
eading and writing. It
is the ability to use appropriately all aspects of verbal and non-verbal languag
e in a variety of
contexts, as would a native speaker (Canale 1983). There are, then, two componen
ts to
communicative competence under review.
The first component is linguistic competence, which involves the mastery of seve
ral features. Thus,
first, the sound system and the written system in order not to sound unusual to
the cultural and
linguistic ear although the grammar may be perfect. Secondly, the syntax, or wor
d order of
interactions where perhaps the word meaning is correct, but the word is out-of-d
ate or awkward, or
simply that a phrase is not appropriate in the context. Thirdly, the stress, pit
ch, volume, and juncture
as a passage from one sound to another in the stream of speech. Finally, the sem
antics, or meanings
of words and phrases, and the how, when, where, and why they are used in a langu
age. This usually
takes place when we think of children s amusing or embarrassing comments as they l
earn to
communicate, or we deal with a person whose writing or speaking is different to
the native
language. This feature is to be found culturally implied, not explicitly taught.

The second component includes pragmatics competence which deals with knowing the
appropriateness of communication formats, verbal and non-verbal responses and in
teractions in
many contexts. Among an endless list of skills, we shall highlight first, the ap
propriateness of action
and speech in view of the speakers roles, status, ages and perspectives. Secondly
, the use of non

7/25
verbal codes, such as frequency and pattern of eye contact and facial expression
s, or personal space
and body movement. Next, another feature is to establish rapport, taking turns,
and not to talk
excessively, as well as initiating, contributing relevance to, and ending a conv
ersation. Fourthly, we
may highlight the fact of being comprehensible, supplying all necessary informat
ion and requesting
clarification when necessary. And finally, it is important a feature that involv
es creating smooth
changes in topic, and responding to timing and pauses in dialogue.
These pragmatics elements are so powerful that the message can become distorted
if some of them
are missing, making the speaker feel perplexed, uneasy or distrustful. In develo
ping communicative
competence, learners need many opportunities to communicate without having to co
ncentrate on
structure and form, as being understood is much more important than using correc
t vocabulary or
grammar. Today s classrooms often have a wide diversity of skills, abilities, expe
riences, cultures,
lifestyles and languages that can provide a wonderful opportunity for students t
o expand and
enhance their communicative competence by means of providing our students with f
ully developed
experiences concerning acceptable communication.
In communicative language teaching, the emphasis is on fluency and comprehensibi
lity as opposed
to accuracy. Fluency in speaking can be thought of as the ability to generate an
d communicate one s
ideas intelligibly and with relative ease but not necessarily with accuracy (Can
ale & Swain 1980).
Experiencing fluency also builds a sense of comfort, confidence, and control in
those learners who
lack strong pragmatics competence. We, teachers, can provide opportunities for s
tudents to develop
context-sensitive behaviour in order to become more aware of, and more adept at
responding
appropriately to social contexts. Since pragmatics competence is a crucial survi
val skill in life and
in the workplace, students need to develop this competence in an appropriate con
versational
context. Therefore, we shall examine some cultural implications within this issu
e in our next
section.
2.2.2. The introduction of cultural studies: a basis for an etnography of commun
ication.
As we have mentioned in the preceding section, communicative competence also cov
ers conditions
that affect communication by means of socio-cultural competence in order to faci
litate
comprehensible interaction or to provide general knowledge of the world and of h
uman nature. Yet,
speakers draw on their competence in putting together grammatical sentences, but
not all such
sentences can be used in the same circumstances. Thus, Give me the salt! and Could
you pass me
the salt, please? are both grammatical, but they differ in their appropriateness
for use in particular
situations. Speakers use their communicative competence to choose what to say, a
s well as how and
when to say it. It is fair, then, to highlight again the importance of being und
erstood rather than
using correct vocabulary or grammar.
Hymes (1974) and others have stated that second language acquisition must be acc
ompanied by a
cultural knowledge acquisition in addition to communicative competence. Communic
ating with
people from different cultures implies not only choosing the appropriate words b
ut also using the
appropriate verbal and non-verbal behaviors. So far, the more knowledge the lear
ner has to facilitate
understanding about a topic from a different culture, the easier it is for the l
earner to be an active
participant, and to speak with ease and fluency. This often involves acquiring i
nformation about life
experiences such as driving rules, etiquette, family life, business, or how just
ice works. Once the
constraint of a lack of background knowledge and information is eliminated, the
learner has an
opportunity to work on developing fluency and building communicative competence.

There are several important strategies that a student should learn about the und
erlying cultural rules
that guide conversation in the environment where they are speaking, such as usin
g gestures, taking
8/25
turns, or maintaining silence. By means of using these verbal and non-verbal com
munication
strategies, the learner may enhance the effectiveness of communication (Canale a
nd Swain 1980).
These strategies vary from culture to culture, and they make relevant, therefore
, the acquisition of a
cultural knowledge in order to communicate effectively.
This tradition on cultural studies was first introduced in a language teaching t
heory in the early
1920s and improved in the 1970s by the notion of the ethnography of communicatio
n, a concept
coined by Dell Hymes. It refers to a methodology based in anthropology and lin g
uistics allowing
people to study human interaction in context. Ethnographers adhering to Hymes' m
ethodology
attempt to analyze patterns of communication as part of cultural knowledge and b
ehavior. Besides,
cultural relativity sees communicative practices as an important part of what me
mbers of a
particular culture know and do (Hymes 1972). They acknowledge speech situations,
speech events,
and speech acts as units of communicative practice and attempt to situate these
events in context in
order to analyze them.
Hymes' (1972) well-known SPEAKING heuristic where capital letters acknowledge fo
r different
aspects in communicative competence, serves as a framework within which the ethn
ographer
examines several components of speech events as follows. S stands for setting an
d scene (physical
circumstances); P refers to participants including speaker, sender and addresser
; E means end
(purposes and goals); A stands for act sequence (message form and content); K de
als with key
(tone and manner); I stands for instrumentalities (verbal, non-verbal and physic
al channel); N refers
to norms of interaction (specific proprieties attached to speaking), and interpr
etation (interpretation
of norms within cultural belief system); and finally, genre referring to textual
categories.
This interpretation of communicative competence can serve as a useful guide to h
elp second
language learners to distinguish important elements of cultural communication as
they learn to
observe and analyze discourse practices of the target culture in context. As for
actual ethnographers,
second language learners must have the opportunity to access the viewpoints of n
atives of the
culture being studied in order to interpret culturally defined behaviors. The is
sue of culture under
study will be discussed in our next section where different interpretations of c
ommunicative
competence are examined from early approaches to present-day studies.
2.3. A historical overview of the development in a model of communicative compet
ence.
The present section considers the relationship between culture and language as a
constant concern
of second and foreign language researchers and educators worldwide. These two te
rms, culture and
language, are directly related to the notion of communicative competence as cult
ural and linguistic
studies provide the basis for a communicative approach in language teaching. The
refore, upon this
basis, this section is aimed to provide a historical account of the different ap
proaches to the
development of a communicative competence model by considering the contributions
of the most
prominent linguists within this field from the very beginnings to present-day st
udies,
2.3.1. Earlier approaches: Hobbes (1651), Schweiter and Simonet (1921), and Lado
(1957).
The notion of communicative competence and its development is linked to the dial
ectical
relationship between language and culture which has preoccupied linguists, philo
sophers and
researchers for many years. However, it was not until the early twentieth centur
y that a systematic
9/25
introduction of cultural studies enters the second language teaching curriculum,
and for the first
time, traditional views on language system are challenged.
One of the first references to language, as a system of signs, and the necessity
of an appropriate
context of communication was provided by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in 1651.
On revising
the natural condition of mankind regarding counsel, Hobbes unconciously offered
in his work The
Leviathan (chapter XXV) an ethnographic approach to the nature of language. Thus
, he explains
how fallacious is is to judge of the nature of things, by the ordinary and incon
stant use of words,
appeareth in nothing more, than in the confusion of Counsels, and Commands, aris
ing from the
imperative manner of speaking in them both, and in many other occasions besides.
For the words
Doe this, are the words not onely of him that Commandeth; but also of him that g
iveth Counsell;
and of him that Exhorteth; and yet there are but few, that see not, that these a
re very different
things; or that cannot distinguish between them, when they perceive who it is th
at speaketh, and to
whom the Speech is directed, and upon what occasion. This occasion makes reference
to an
emphasis on social action rather than on texts in order to achieve the effective
ness of
communication.
Some centuries later, in 1921, Shweiter and Simonet also challenged the view tha
t language is only
a system of signs and that language awareness included only the knowledge of gra
mmar, lexicon,
and phonetics (Bloomfield 1933). They argued about the necessity of including a
system of basic
information into second language teaching, which involved a wide range of genera
l topics, among
which we may find geography, history customs, traditions, holidays and rituals o
f a foreign
language country. Though the range of the topics may seem very limited nowadays,
the reader must
bear in mind that this was the first challenged to the old traditional view of l
anguage system.
Another approach traces back to the middle of the twentieth century, when the Am
erican linguist
Robert Lado (1957) argued that knowledge of a foreign language culture is essent
ial for foreign
language learners to create the same atmosphere of native speakers interaction. T
his approach,
proposed by Lado, emerges from a method on comparing first and second language c
ultures in
order to help learners get a better understanding of the second language realiti
es. However, Lado s
method was not to be applied to a classroom setting as audiolingual and grammar
translation
methods were the dominant approaches in second language teaching by that time. T
herefore, his
theoretical discoveries were not to be considered again until the 1970s, when so
cial sciences started
to emerge as a relevant issue within the field of language teaching. Parallel to
these theoretical
challenges, we find our next linguist under consideration, Noam Chomsky, who als
o challenged,
but this time successfully, behaviourist models of language learning.
2.3.2. Chomsky (1965): competence and performance.
As we have previously mentioned, there was a variety of theoretical challenges t
o the audio-lingual
method in the 1960s, among which we may mention, apart from Lado s, that of the li
nguist Noam
Chomsky which became a turning point in the development of subsequent theories o
n language
learning. Chomsky proposed in his work Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965), a
theory called
Transformational Generative Grammar, according to which learners do not acquire
an endless list
of rules, but limited set of transformations with which language users can form
an unlimited number
of sentences.
Chomsky s theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a compl
etely
homogeneous speech community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected
by such
grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts
of attention and
interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the
language in actual
10/ 25
performance (1965 p.3). For him, then, there are two main concepts under revisio
n, competence and
performance. To him, competence refers to the innate knowledge of language an id
eal speakerlistener
has in an homogeneous speech community, and performance refers to the actual pro
duction
and rules of language use. According to Chomsky, then, within his theory of ling
uistic competence
and performance, being respectively, grammaticality and acceptability, linguisti
c knowledge is
separated from sociocultural features. His distinction served as basis for work
of many other
researchers as it is stated in the following sections.
2.3.3. First reactions to Chomsky s model: Campbell and Wales (1970), Halliday (19
72) and
Hymes (1972).
In the 1970s, there was an increasing interest and, therefore development, in so
cial sciences,
particularly sociology and anthropology, which resulted in a considerable broade
ning in scholars
understanding of the concept of culture. There were reactions to Chomsky s notion
of linguistic
competence. Mainly three approaches showed a disagreement that went on in the ea
rly 1970s, and
centered on whether communicative competence included grammatical competence or
not. Thus,
Campbell and Wales (1970), Halliday (1972), and Hymes (1972). They thought that
there were
rules of language use that were neglected in Chomsky s view of language, and that
linguistic
competence represented only part of what one needs to know to be a competent lan
guage user.
With respect to Campbell and Wales approach, we may say that they felt that appro
priateness of
language is even more important than grammaticality. They accepted the distincti
on proposed by
Chomsky regarding competence and performance, but pointed out that Chomsky negle
cted the
appropriateness of utterance to a particular context of situation or, in other w
ords, its sociocultural
significance. Therefore, they referred to Chomsky s view as grammatical competence
and to theirs
as communicative competence. For them, the idea of communicative competence was
the ability to
produce utterances which are not so much grammatical but, more important, approp
riate to the
context in which they are made (1970).
In relation to Halliday (1972), we shall mention that he rejected Chomsky s dichot
omy of
competence and performance as he thought the potential of meaning was covered bo
th by knowing
and doing. To Halliday, language is a mode of human behavior, and therefore, a m
ode of social
interaction. Besides, he proposed the notion of language functions by means of w
hich the context
of a situation provides a first approximation to the specification of the compon
ents of the
communication situation (1985). Thus, three macro-functions, such as the ideatio
nal, interpersonal,
and textual, were the basis for another set of seven micro-functions, listed as
follows. Firstly, the
instrumental to express desires and needs. Secondly, the regulatory where rules,
instructions,
orders, and suggestions are included. Thirdly, the interactional, where we may i
nclude patterns of
greeting, leave-taking, thanking, good wishes, and excusing. Fourth, the persona
l function which
encourages students to talk about themselves and express their feelings. Fifth,
the heuristic function
focuses on asking questions. Next, the imaginative function, which is used for s
upposing,
hypothesizing, and creating for the love of sound and image. Finally, we find th
e informative
function which emphasizes affirmative and negative statements.
Regarding Dell Hymes approach, he also pointed out that Chomsky s competence-perfor
mance
model did not provide an explicit place for sociocult ural features, adding that
Chomsky s notion of
performance seemed confused between actual performance and underlying rules of p
erformance.
Hymes recasts the scope of the competence concept because there is a lack of emp
irical support in
Chomsky s model, and he feels that there are rules of use without which the rules
of grammar
would be useless. Hymes introduced the concept of communicative competence, payi
ng special
attention to the sociolinguistic component, which connected language and culture
.
11/ 25
Hymes (1972) stated that native speakers know more than just grammatical compete
nce. So far, he
expands the Chomskyan notions of grammaticality (competence) and acceptability (
performance)
into four parameters subsumed under the heading of communicative competence as s
omething
which is first, formally possible; secondly, feasible in virtue of the available
means; thirdly,
appropriate , in relation to a context in which it is used and evaluated; and fi
nally, something which
is in fact done, and actually performed. A linguistic example of these parameter
s is provided by a
sentence that may be grammatical, awkward, tactful and rare, representing the us
er s knowledge
and ability in communicating.
Hymes s model is, then, primarily sociolinguistic, but includes Chomsky s psycholing
uistic
parameter of linguistic competence. It is also primarily concerned with explaini
ng language use in
social contexts, although it also addresses issues of language acquisition. As a
result, Hymes s
model for communicative competence included grammatical, sociolinguistic and con
textual
competences. Hymes s model inpired subsequent model developments on communicative
competence, such as those of Canale and Swain (1980) and Bachman (1987), as we s
hall see in
further sections.
2.3.4. Sandra Sa vignon (1972, 1983).
Simultaneously to Hymes s introduction of the concept of communicative competence
as a reaction
to Chomsky s theory, the first well-recognized experiment of communicative languag
e teaching
was taking place at the University of Illinois at Urbana -Champaign. The America
n linguist, Sandra
Savignon (1972), was conducting an experiment with foreign language learners, pa
rticularly
adults, in a clasroom at a beginners level. It was an attempt towards an interac
tional approach
where learners were encouraged to make use of their foreign language in a classr
oom setting, by
means of equivalents of expressions such as Excuse me... , Please, repeat... , How do y
ou say this
in Italian...? in order to communicate rather than feign native speakers.
Regarding the scope of communicative competence, Savignon s experiment is consider
ed to be one
of the best-known surveys as it shed light on the development of research in thi
s field. She
introduced the idea of communicative competence as the ability to function in a
truly
communicative setting - that is, in a dynamic exchange in which linguistic compe
tence must adapt
itself to the toal informational input, both linguistic and paralinguistic, of o
ne or more interlocutors
(1972).
She included the use of gestures and facial expression in her interpretation and
later refined her
definition of communicative competence to comprise of the following six relevant
aspects (1983).
Thus, the first feature is the individuals s willingness to take risks and express
themselves in foreign
language and to make themselves understood, that is, the notion of the negotiati
on of meaning.
Secondly, the fact that communicative competence is not only oral, but written t
oo. Thirdly, an
approach to appropriateness as depending on context. Here we refer to the approp
riate choices of
register and style in terms of situation and other participants. Fourthly, she s
tates that only
performance is observable as it is only through performance that competence can
be developed,
maintained, and evaluated . In the fifth place, she claims for communicative com
petence to be
relative, and not absolute, as it comes in degrees because it depends on the coo
peration of all
interlocutors. Finally, she talks about degrees of communicative competence whic
h, for her, is
difficult to measure.
12/ 25
Savignon s model was not the only result of those theoretical and empirical invest
igations which
were carried out in the early 1980s in the field of communicative language teach
ing. Among other
models of communicative competence currently used worlwide, we shall mention tho
se of Canale
& Swain (1980), van Ek (1986), and Bachman (1990). Though not able to agree on o
perational
definitions of the components of communicative competence, all scholars recogniz
ed the
sociocultural component to be an inseparable part of foreign language communicat
ive competence.
2.3.5. Widdowson (1978) and Munby (1978).
In the 1980s, extensive research in Communicative Language Teaching served as a
theoretical and
methodological basis for the emergence of several approaches that aimed to co-te
ach language and
culture. Since language is the means of expression of one s identity, the sociocul
tural environment
played, then, an important role in an individual s cultural identity development.
Parallel to this
approach, cultural literacy, ethnographic, and sociocultural studies established
a connection
between language and culture, although they differed in the context of applicati
on. As a result, there
was a need to examine a number of issues connected with identity, culture, and l
anguage teaching in
order to prepare students for adequate intercultural communication, and to help
them overcome and
eliminate generalizations about a foreign language culture and society.
Many researchers, among them, Widdowson (1978) and Munby (1978), claimed that, i
n
communication, the way people use the language may affect the way they are most
likely to be
perceived by others. The issues linked to identity, culture, and language teachi
ng were presented as
multiple deviations from the norm within a cultural diversity of the modern worl
d. Thus,
approaches to discourse analysis, a speech act theory, interactional competence
and cross-cultural
considerations were examined as a sociocultural phenomena. These issues become e
specially
important when we are talking about foreign languages, as they propose possible
ways of increasing
the effectiveness of foreign language communication.
Within this theoretical background and from a discourse-based approach, Widdowso
n (1978)
proposes a distinction between the concepts of use and usage. According to him,
both concepts are
to be linked to the aspects of performance, as usage refers to the manifestation
of the knowledge of
a language system whereas the notion of use means the realization of the languag
e system as
meaningful communicative behavior. This duality is based on the notion of effect
iveness for
communication, by means of which an utterance with a well-formed grammatical str
ucture may or
may not have a sufficient value for communication in a given context. Therefore,
he claimed that
whether an utterance has a sufficient communicative value or not is determined i
n discourse.
Similarly, Munby (1978) contends that grammatical competence should be included
in the notion of
communicative competence under two main theoretical basis. First, he states that
grammatical
competence and communicative competence need to be developed separately and seco
ndly, he goes
further by saying that grammatical competence is not an essential component of c
ommunicative
competence. The main tenets of his Communicative Competence model are presented
under the
basis of a linguistic encoding, a sociocultural orientation, a sociosemantic bas
is of linguistic
knowledge, and a discourse level of operation.
However, reactions to this approach soon emerged from linguists in this field, a
s for instance, the
influential theorists Canale and Swain, among others. They claimed that both gra
mmatical
competence and sociolinguistic competence are important elements within this fra
mework, and that
teachers who agree that grammatical competence is part of communicative competen
ce might still
separate them in teaching (1980). However, they added that second language learn
ing would
13/ 25
proceed more effectively when grammatical usage is not abstracted from a meaning
ful context. For
a detailed account of this approach, we shall move on to our next section.
2.3.6. Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983).
As we have previously mentioned, the development of Hymes theory of communicative
competence was one of the reactions to Chomsky's somewhat limiting definition of
the scope of
linguistic theory on communicative competence. Communicative competence, as Hyme
s proposed
it, goes further than just grammatical knowledge and includes psychological and
socio-linguistic
factors that address the fact that communication takes place in a context. It se
ems a particularly
relevant idea to those interested in second language learning, as the relevance
of a theory of
communicative competence to language by means of testing was first noted by Coop
er (1968) and
explored by Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983). Language tests involve me
asuring a
subject s knowledge of, and proficiency in, the use of a language. Communicative c
ompetence,
according to them, is then a theory of the nature of such knowledge and proficie
ncy. Upon this
basis, a preference model appears to be a useful way to characterize communicati
ve competence,
and at the same time, it has many advantages over competing models.
The notion of communicative competence was examined by various groups of researc
hers,
including those in second language learning like Canale and Swain (1980) and Can
ale (1983).
They formulated a theoretical framework that, in the modified version of Canale
(1983), consisted
of four major components of communicative competence, thus grammatical, sociolin
guistic,
discourse, and strategic aspects.
We shall mention first, the grammatical competence, which deals with the mastery
of the linguistic
code itself. This aspect is important for students to attain a higher level of p
roficiency where
accuracy is important. Secondly, the sociolinguistic competence is concerned wit
h the appropriate
use of language in particular social situations to convey specific communicative
functions such as
describing, narrating, or eliciting among others, including the participants and
the rules for
interaction. This competence is particularly difficult to attain as the skilled
use of appropriate
registers requires sensitivity to cross-cultural differences. Thirdly, the disco
urse competence
concerns the mastery of how to use language in order to achieve a unified spoken
or written text in
different genres, that is, cohesion and coherence of utterances in a discourse.
This cohesion of
thought is attained by means of cohesive devices, such as pronouns and grammatic
al connectors,
together with a unity of thought and continuity in a text. Finally, the strategi
c competence makes
reference to the mastery of verbal and non-verbal communication strategies by me
ans of both the
underlying knowledge about language and communicative language use or skill. The
main goal to
attain with this competence is first, to compensate for breakdowns in communicat
ion, and secondly,
to enhance the effectiveness of communication. On this issue, further comments w
ill be examined
later in the section of the model assessment.
2.3.7. On revising Hymes and Canale and Swain s models: Wolfson (1989) and Bachman
(1990).
As mentioned before, the notion of communicative competence intended by Hymes wa
s further
developed and revised by other linguists, among which we may mention Canale and
Swain as their
reinterpretation of Hymes model is considered to be one of the most improved and
effective
versions of the notion of communicative competence. However, both models have un
dergone
further reinterpretations and developments when addressing communication oriente
d teaching in a
classroom setting. Hymes sociolinguistic approach was, then, to be reinterpreted
by a language
teaching professional, Wolfson (1989) who worked on cross-cultural consideration
s. Besides,
14/ 25
Canale and Swain s model also had its developments and contributions, such as that
of Bachman
(1990) among others. Both approaches are examined in this section.
Regarding Wolfson s model (1989), it is relevant to recall part of Hymes theory whe
n he states that
there is more in his term than the concept of communicative competence. Two furt
her ideas are
specially important, such as linguistic routines and sociolinguist interference.
Hymes describes
some texts as having sequential organisation beyond the sentence, either as acti
vities of one person,
or as the interaction of two or more (1972). Sociolinguistic interference, he no
tes, arises during
contacts between cultures with differing systems of communicative competence, in
cluding
differently structured linguistic routines. Our understanding of the mechanics o
f this interference
has been developed by work in contrastive rhetoric and cross-cultural communicat
ion generally,
but only recently have some of these insights found their way in to the classroo
m setting.
So far, Wolfson s model mainly focuses on communicative competence, and outlines a
model of
rules of speaking derived from Hymes with pedagogic purposes. Wolfson points out
that
grammatical competence is an intrinsic part of communicative competence, but sta
ting that in many
cases, the term communicative competence is misinterpreted by language teachers
and curriculum
developers as the separation of grammatical competence. His model presents an is
sue of crosscultural
miscommunication within the framework of compliments. Wolfson was working on a
survey for learners with different cultural background to understand certain rul
es of the interaction
process regarding cultural communication patterns, in particular, on why America
ns complimented
so frequently.
On revising Canale and Swain s reinterpretations, we shall refer to Lyle Bachman (
1990) whose
model was similar to Canale and Swain s, but differently arranged. Bachman propose
d a tree model
of communicative competence for a theoretical framework of communicative languag
e ability,
where we may distinguish three major components of communicative language profic
iency. Thus,
language competence, strategic competence, and psychophysiological mechanisms.
The first component, language competence is related to the knowledge of language
a learner has,
which includes two major abilities used in communicating through language. Thus,
firstly, the
organizational competence which deals with the control of formal structure of la
nguage
(grammatical competence) and the knowledge of how to construct discourse (textua
l competence).
Secondly, the pragmatic competence , which is related to firstly, a functional u
se of language
(illocutionary competence or how to perform speech acts) and secondly, the knowl
edge of
appropriateness to context in which language is used (sociolinguistic competence
).
The second component is the strategic competence which refers to mental capaciti
es underlying
language use, pointing out that Canale and Swain s model did not describe the mech
anisms by
which strategic competence operates. So far, he works within the framework of an
interactional
view as compensation for communication breakdowns, and a psycholinguistic view t
o enhance
rhetorical effects of utterances. Therefore, he distinguishes three phases in hi
s model: assessment,
planning and execution. In relation to the third component, we shall refer to ps
ychophysiological
mechanisms as physical means of producing language through first, a visual or au
ditory channel,
and secondly, through a productive or receptive mode.
2.3.8. Present-day approaches: B.O.E. (2002).
According to the Ministry of Education, since Spain entered the European Communi
ty, there is a
need for learning a foreign language in order to communicate with other European
countries, and a
need for emphasizing the role of a foreign language which gets relevance as a mu
ltilingual and
15/ 25
multicultural identity. Within this context, getting a proficie ncy level in a f
oreign language implies
educational and professional reasons which justify the presence of foreign langu
ages in the
curricula at different educational levels. It means to have access to other cult
ures and customs as
well as to foster interpersonal relationships which help individuals develop a d
ue respect towards
other countries, their native speakers and their culture. This sociocultural fra
mework allows learners
to better understand their own language, and therefore, their own culture.
The European Council (B.O.E. 2002), and in particular the Spanish Educational Sy
stem within the
framework of the Educational Reform, establishes a common reference framework fo
r the teaching
of foreign languages, and claims for a progressive development of communicative
competence in a
specific language. Students, then, are intended to be able to carry out several
communication tasks
with specific communicative goals within specific contexts. In order to get thes
e goals, several
strategies as well as linguist ic and discursive skills come into force in a giv
en context. Thus, foreign
language activities are provided within the framework of social interaction, per
sonal, professional
or educational fields.
Therefore, in order to develop the above mentioned communication tasks in our pr
esent educational
system, a communicative competence theory includes the following subcompetences.
Firstly, the
linguistic competence (semantic, morphosyntactic and phonological). Secondly, th
e discourse
competence (language functions, speech acts, and conversations). Thirdly, the so
ciolinguistic
competence (social conventions, communicative intentions, and registers among ot
hers). Fourthly,
the strategic competence will be included as a subcompetence of communicative co
mpetence within
this educational framework. So far, students will make use of this competence in
a natural and
systematic way in order to achieve the effectiveness of communication through th
e different
communication skills, thus, productive (oral and written communication), recepti
ve (oral and
written comprehension within verbal and non-verbal codes), and interactional.
The foreign language learning process will help students improve their education
al and professional
life from a global perspective as it will help them develop their personality, s
ocial integration,
interest topics and, in particular, to promote their intellectual knowledge. Fur
thermore, these aspects
will allow learners to be in contact with the current scientific, humanistic and
technological
advances within other areas of knowledge. To sum up, the learning of a foreign l
anguage is
intended to broaden the students s intellectual knowledge as well as to broaden th
eir knowledge on
other ways of life and social organization different to their own. Furthermore,
the aim is to get
information on international issues, to broaden their professional interests and
consolidate social
values to promote the development of international communication.
3. AN ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE COMPONENTS.
This section is intended to provide an account of the analysis of communicative
competence
components according to one of the most relevant figures in this field, Dell Hym
es, Canale and
Swain, Widdowson, Savignon, and Tarone among others. In order to do so, this sec
tion will be
divided into two main issues. The first part will present a brief background to
the notion of
communicative competence in order to link this term to Canale and Swain s assessme
nt model on
communicative competence components. Besides, a model assessment based on Canale
and
Swain s model on communicative competence will be depicted in order to mention the
four main
competences currently applied to educational systems. Finally, the second sectio
n will summarize
the main related areas of study which take part in the communicative competence
model.
16/ 25
3.1. On the analysis of communicative components: a model assessment.
During the past 25 years, communicative language teaching has been the dominant
approach to the
teaching of foreign and second languages. Much of this ascendancy is due to the
sociolinguist Dell
Hymes (1967) who in a series of articles developed the notion of communicative c
ompetence.
Hymes was convinced that Chomsky s (1965) notion of competence defined as a speake
r-hearer s
underlying mental representation of grammatical rules was far too narrow. Instea
d communicative
competence takes us one step further than purely grammatical competence, into th
e area of
pragmatics which deals with the use of language in everyday communicative situat
ions.
Communicative Competence is therefore concerned not only with what is grammatica
l but also
what is appropriate in a given social situation.
The most important study on developing the notion of Communicative Competence fr
om Dell
Hymes work has been done by Canale and Swain (1980). There is also a useful disc
ussion of this in
Swain (1980) which is especially useful for those approaching communicative comp
etence from a
second language acquisition point of view. Here the notion of Communicative Comp
etence is
divided up into four subcomponents which have been mentioned before, thus, gramm
atical,
discourse, sociolinguistic, and strategic competence are glossed below.
3.1.1. Grammatical competence.
This heading subsumes all knowledge of lexical items and of rules of morphology,
syntax, sentencegrammar
semantics and phonology (Canale and Swain 1980). It therefore refers to having c
ontrol
over the purely linguistic aspects of the language code itself, regarding verbal
and non-verbal
codes. This corresponds to Hymes grammatical aspect and includes knowledge of the
lexicon,
syntax, phonology and semantics. Thus, it involves rules of formulations and con
straints for
students to match sound and meaning; to form words and sentences using vocabular
y; to use
language through spelling and pronunciation; and to handle linguistic semantics.

3.1.2. Sociolinguistic competence.

Sociolinguistic competence refers to the knowledge which the learner has to acqu
ire of the
sociocultural rules of language. This type of knowledge requires an understandin
g of the social
context in which language is used: the roles of the participants, the informatio
n they share, and the
function of the interaction (Savignon 1983). Other relevant figures in this fiel
d, such as Canale and
Swain (1980) defined this competence in terms of sociocultural rules of use, and
rules of
discourse. Thus, regarding sociocultural rules of use, this competence is linked
 to the notion of the
extent to which utterances are produced and understood appropriately in differen
t sociolinguistic
contexts depending on contextual factors such as status of participants, purpose
s of the interaction,
and norms or conventions of interaction.
Regarding the rules of discourse, it is defined in terms of the mastery of how t
o combine
grammatical forms and meanings (1980). When we deal with appropriateness of form
, we refer to
the extent to which a given meaning is represented in both verbal and non-verbal
form that is
proper in a given sociolinguistic context. Thus, communicative functions , attit
udes, propositions
and ideas. In relation to meaning appropriateness, this competence is concerned
with the extent to
which particular communicative functions and ideas are judged to be proper in a
given situation, as
for instance, commanding, complaining and inviting.
3.1.3. Discourse competence.
This is in many ways connected to the large body of research which has been accu
mulated over the
last 25 years in the field of discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is primaril
y concerned with the
17/ 25
ways in which individual sentences connect together to form a communicative mess
age. One of its
main figures, Widdowson (1978) proposed a distinction between the concepts of us
e and usage,
where usage refers to the manifestation of the knowledge of a language system an
d use means the
realization of the language system as meaningful communicative behavior.
This competence addresses directly to the mastery of how to combine grammatical
forms and
meanings to achieve a unified spoken or written text in different genres (Canale
and Swain 1980).
By genre is meant the type of text to be unified, thus, a scientific paper, an a
rgumentative essay, and
oral and written narrative among others. For them, the unity of a text is achiev
ed through cohesion
in form and coherence in meaning. Cohesion deals with how utterances are linked
structurally and
facilitates interpretation of a text by means of cohesion devices, such as prono
uns, synonyms,
ellipsis, conjunctions and parallel structures to relate individual utterances a
nd to indicate how a
group of utterances is to be understood as a text. Yet, coherence refers to the
relatioships among the
different meanings in a text, where these meanings may be literal meanings, comm
unicative
functions, and attitudes.
3.1.4. Strategic competence.
Finally we come to the fourth area of Communicative Competence. In the words of
Canale (1983),
strategic competence is the verbal and nonverbal communication strategies that m
ay be called into
action to compensate for breakdowns in communication due to performance variable
s or due to
insufficient competence.This is quite a complex area but in a simplified way we
can describe it as
the type of knowledge which we need to sustain communication with someone. This
may be
achieved by paraphrase, circumlocution, repetition, hesistation, avoidance, gues
sing as well as
shifts in register and style. According to Canale and Swain (1980), strategic co
mpetence is useful in
various circumstances as for instance, the early stages of second language learn
ing where
communicative competence can be present with just strategic and socio-linguistic
competence.
This approach has been supported by other researchers, such as Savignon and Taro
ne. Thus,
Savignon (1983) notes that one can communicate non-verbally in the absence of gr
ammatical or
discourse competence provided there is a cooperative interlocutor. Besides, she
points out the
necessity and the sufficiency for the inclusion of strategic competence as a com
ponent of
communicative competence at all levels as it demonstrates that regardless of exp
erience and level of
proficiency one never knows all a language. This also illustrates the negotiatio
n of meaning
involved in the use of strategic competence as noted in Tarone (1981).
Another criterion on strategic competence proposed by Tarone (1981) for the spea
ker to recognize a
meta-linguistic problem is the use of the strategies to help getting the meaning
across. Tarone
includes a requierement for the use of strategic competence by which the speaker
has to be aware
that the linguistic structure needed to convey his meaning is not available to h
im or to the hearer. As
will be seen later, strategic competence is essential in conversation and we arg
ue for the necessity
and sufficiency of this competence.
3.2. Related areas of study.
The four components of communicative competence are linked to some studies and t
heories which
do not fit into one component of Communicative Competence and overlap several co
mponents.
Thus, research areas such as interactional competence, a speech act theory or th
e field of pragmatic
transfer cannot be categorized as a part of only one competence. Thus, a speech
act theory overlaps
discourse, sociolinguistic and strategic competence. Therefore, we will offer a
brief account of the
18/ 25
four main research areas which are related to communicative competence and that
cannot be framed
within only one competence of those mentioned above.
3.2.1. Discourse analysis.
The term discourse traces back to Latin discursus which means a conversation. In
general, it refers
to a talk, conversation, dialogue, lecture, sermon, or treatise whereas in lingu
istics, it is related to a
unit or piece of connected speech or writing that is longer than a conventional
sentence
In 1960s, the term discourse is related to the analysis of connected speech and
writing, and their
relationship to the contexts in which they are used. Discourse analysts studied,
then, written texts,
conversation, institutionalized forms of talk, and communicative events in gener
al. Early
researchers as Zellig Harris in the US in the 1950s, were interested in the dist
ribution of elements in
extended texts and the relationship between a text and its social situation. In
the 1960s, the
American linguistic anthropologist Dell Hymes studied speech in its social setti
ng as a form of
addres). The work of British linguistic philosophers such as J. L. Austin, J. R.
Searle, and H. P.
Grice was influential in the study of language as social action, through speech-
act theory,
conversational maxims, and pragmatics (the study of meaning in context) in gener
al.
In the 1970s, research in the United Kingdom was influenced by the functional ap
proach to
language of M. A. K. Halliday, in turn influenced by the Prague School. His syst
emic linguistics
emphasizes the social functions of language and the thematic and informational s
tructure of speech
and writing. Halliday related grammar at the clause and sentence level to situat
ional constraints,
referred to as field (purpose of communication), tenor (relationships among part
icipants), and mode
(channels of communication). Parallel studies were taking place in America by re
levant figures in
this field, such as John Gumperz and Dell Hymes. Their research included the exa
mination of forms
of talk such as storytelling, greeting, and verbal duels in different cultural a
nd social settings.
Alongside the conversation analysts, in the sociolinguistic tradition, William L
abov's studies of oral
narrative have contributed to a more general knowledge of narrative structure. S
uch work has
generated a variety of descriptions of discourse organization as well as studies
of social constraints
on politeness and face-preserving phenomena. These overlap with British work in
pragmatics.
3.2.2. A speech act theory.
This term was used in the 1960s by philos ophers of language such as J. L. Austi
n, in How to Do
Things with Words (1962), to refer to acts performed by utterances which conveye
d information.
Thus, giving orders and making promises. Within a speech act theory, we may dist
inguish a
conventional semantic theory by studying the effects of locutionary, illocutiona
ry and perlocutory
acts. They mean respectively, performative utterances on speakers and hearers th
at result through or
as a result of speech, secondly, acts that occur in speech, and thirdly, respons
es which hearers called
perlocutionary acts.
There are a wide range of kinds of speech act. Among the most relevant surveys o
n speech act
theories, we shall mention John R. Searle, who in his work Speech Acts in 1979,
recognizes five
types. Firstly, representative speech act, where speakers are committed in varyi
ng degrees to the
truth of the propositions they have uttered, by means of swearing, believing, an
d reporting.
Secondly, directives, where speakers try to get hearers to do something by comma
nding, requesting,
or urging. Thirdly, commissives, which commit speakers in varying degrees to cou
rses of action by
means of promising, vowing, and undertaking. Fourthly, declarations, whereby spe
akers alter states
of affairs by performing such speech acts as I now pronounce you man and wife. F
ifth, expressives,
where speakers express attitudes, such as congratulating and apologizing.
19/ 25
According to Austin (1962), in order to be successful, speech acts have to meet
certain felicity
conditions. Thus, a marriage ceremony can only be performed by someone with the
authority to do
so, and with the consent of the parties agreeing to the marriage. Speech acts ma
y be direct or
indirect. For instance, compare Shut the door, please and Hey, it's cold in here
, both of which are
directives.
3.2.3. Interactional competence.
This area of study points out that inability of or insensitivity to foreign lang
uage discourse may lead
to impede communication more than grammatical inaccuracy. With the weaking of co
nfidence in
the Chomskyan paradigm, there seems to be a multiplicity of analytical research
investigating real
rather than idealised language behavior, involving among many others, approaches
all of which
impact on the work carried out in language classrooms. One of those approaches i
s interactional
competence. Linguists such as Schmidt (1983), Long and Porter (1985), and Pica a
nd Doughty
(1985) worked on the dynamics of spoken interaction and kinesics. They all share
d the view of
interactional competence as the main tenet of communicative competence.
This area of study is related to the discourse and sociolinguistic competence, a
s the grammatical
competence may mislead learners into thinking that certain rules of use may alwa
ys be conveyed by
using conventional forms. In order to make effective discourse productions, lear
ners need to
approach their speeches from a conscious sociolinguistic perspective, in order t
o get considerable
cultural information about communicative settings and roles. Without overstressi
ng the constraints
on participants, it is clear that space-time loci, organisational context, conve
ntional forms of
messages, and preceding communications, in fact all components of communicative
events, serve to
increasingly restrict the range of available choices. The analysis of communicat
ive events must
include due consideration of rules for interaction and norms of interpretation w
hich allow
application of the techniques and insights developed by conversation and interac
tion analysis.
It is clear that such rules operate at several levels of generality. For instanc
e, we may specify rules
for interaction operating globally over wide cultural systems, over social sub-g
roups, over specific
professional communities, within specific communicative events, and even wit hin
specific stages or
acts of an event. Communicative behavior is not limited to the creation of texts
. We also expect to
find regular correspondences concerning paralinguistics, kinesics and proxemics
in oral interaction,
and also to norms relating to la yout and graphic design in writing. However, th
is kind of rules relate
to more than the social acceptability of the forms of communication.
3.2.4. Cross-cultural considerations.
Main researches on the field of cross-cultural rethorical considerations, such a
s Holmes and Brown
(1987) and Wolfson (1981), point out that it is not the responsibility of the la
nguage teacher qua
linguist to enforce foreign language standards of behavior, linguistic or otherw
ise. Rather, it is the
teacher s job to equip students to express themselves in exactly the ways they cho
ose to do sorudely,
tactfully, or in an elaborately polite manner. What we want to prevent them bein
g
unintentionally rude or subservient.
Thus, Holmes and Brown (1987) address three types of failure. Firstly, a pragmat
ic failure which
involves the inability to understand what is meant by what is said. Secondly, th
e pragmalinguistic
failure which is caused by mistaken beliefs about pragmatic force of utterance.
Finally, the
sociopragmatic failure which is given by different beliefs about rights and ment
ionables. Another
instance is brought about by Wolfson (1981) in developing sociocultural awarenes
s. According to
this model, this type of awareness will lead to a discussion of the differences
between the cultural
20/ 25
and social values of a first language learner and the foreign language community
. He goes further
on studying cross-cultural miscommunication in the field of compliments, when le
arners from a
different cultural background do not understand certain behavior rules from the
foreign language
target culture.
The literature on cross-cultural communication breakdown is vast, as it is relat
ed to a number of
aspects such as size of imposition; taboos; different judgement of power and soc
ial distance
between different cultures; and different cultural values and priorities. Theref
ore, important
pedagogic advantages may be expected from further developing this approach. Thes
e include more
realistic learning activities, improved motivation, new types of achievable obje
ctives, and mainly, a
new sensitivity to cultural communication patterns, and the potential to transfo
rm a passive attitude
to authentic texts into an active engagement in developing the effectiveness of
communication
practices in a classroom setting.
4. PRESENT-DAY DIRECTIONS REGARDING COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE.
Although traditionally, foreign language teachers have used media, or devices we
use to store,
process, and communicate information, technological developments have altered th
e type of media
foreing language students encounter. In the 1950's and 1960's, foreign language
teachers who used
the Audio Lingual Method departed from traditional textbooks and introduced audi
otaped dialogues
to the learning situation. With the emergence of video, foreign language student
s had access to
more contextualized language use and greater opportunity for comprehensible inpu
t that facilitates
second language acquisition (Krashen and Terrell 1983). More recently, researche
rs have begun
investigating multimedia, and hypermedia contexts for foreign language and cultu
re acquisition.
This section first examines the use of video in the foreign language domain and
then, explores
multimedia and hypermedia contexts for the acquisition of communicative competen
ce. In the
second part, we will broadly overview the implications of a communicative approa
ch into language
teaching.
4.1. Multimedia and hypermedia contexts.
From a practical perspective in education, providing experiences for contact wit
h language in
context may prove difficult for foreign language teachers. Constrained by lack o
f sufficient access
to the target culture, teachers often rely on textbooks and classroom materials
in teaching language.
These materials, most of them linear in nature and lacking in interactivity may
not necessarily
provide the required environment for the acquisition of communicative competence
. Although a
lack of empirical evidence exists, proponents of video for use in the foreign la
nguage classroom
suggest that this medium can inc rease the amount of comprehensible input access
ible in the foreign
language classroom. It is suggested that through the medium of video, students r
eceive massive
doses of comprehensible input, and that video can provide target language speech
or texts that
include challenging yet understandable portions. Furthermore, when the target la
nguage is
presented in context, in the form of video, the meaning of specific words and ut
terances becomes
clear to the learner.
Furthermore, they may not necessarily provide all aspects of discourse activity,
thus paralinguistic
and extralinguistic behavior that accompany speech. Hypermedia and multimedia en
vironments
21/ 25
may also provide a more appropriate context for students to experience the targe
t culture
(Warschauer 1996).
Present-day approaches deal with a communicative competence model in which first
, there is an
emphasis on significance over form, and secondly, motivation and involvement are
enhanced. This
requires to create classrooms conditions which match those in real life and fost
er acquisition,
encouring learning. The success partly lies in the way the language becomes real
to the users,
feeling themselves really in the language. Some of this motivational force is br
ought about by
intervening in authentic communicative events. Otherwise, we have to recreate as
much as possible
the whole cultural environment in the classroom. Recent technological multimedia
tools, which
utilize audio-visual formats can provide many of the contextual cues that tradit
ional textbook
formats can not (Cummings, 1994). Second, the linear nature of textbooks affords
students a rather
restricted experience of the content and does not allow for navigational freedom
or interactivity that
modern technological tools such as CD ROM and hypertext provide learners. Contra
ry to
multimedia formats, traditional textbooks, linear and non-interactive, may not p
rovide the
appropriate context for the acquisition of communicative competence.
This method relies on a notion of communicative competence which takes place fir
st, in foreign
language classrooms where the effectiveness of communication is to be acquired,
and secondly, in
multimedia and hypermedia environments which support the acquisition of communic
ative
competence. Recent developments in foreign language education have indicated a t
rend towards the
field of intercultural communication, where the Ministry of Education proposes s
everal projects
within the framework of the European Community. These projects consist of real s
tudents
exchanges, such as first, Erasmus projects, for learners to acquire a foreign la
nguage in the target
culture for three, six or twelve months; Comenius projects, for learners to trav
el to the target culture
up to two weeks; and Plumier projects, for learners to use multimedia resources
in a classroom
setting where learners are expected to learn to interpret and produce meaning wi
th members of the
target culture. In essence, they all call for the contextualization of language
(Cummings 1983).
4.2. Implications into language teaching.
Some research has reported successful and meaningful cultural learning through t
he use of
ethnographic methods (Robinson-Stuart & Nocon 1996). However, the practicality o
f implementing
ethnographic approaches to foreign language and culture learning is questionable
. For example,
oftentimes, students do not have direct access to members of the target culture,
or to a range of
individuals representing much of the communicative repertoire of that culture. F
urthermore,
traditional means of contact with the target culture, such as textbooks do not p
rovide a proper
context for ethnographic investigation. In order to access another culture and u
nderstand its
members practices and perspectives concerning these practices, second language l
earners must have
the opportunity to experience them in context, as do true ethnographers. In orde
r to understand
communicative practices, second language learners must see members of the target
culture use them
in authentic situations and must have access to the ground of meaning attached t
o those practices.
As previously noted, the main tenet of Foreign Language Learning is for foreign
language learners
to acquire language within its social context. Thus, since the nature of languag
e demands
interlocutors concurrently interpret and produce language in order to create mea
ning and effectively
communicate, foreign language learners must exercise both receptive and producti
ve skills
simultaneously. The National Standards reflect these interdependent properties o
f communication
22/ 25
necessary for successful interactions, emphasizing both the productive and the r
eceptive skills. Yet,
as students increase their ability to produce in the target language, then they
will most likely
increase opportunities for meaningful input (Krashen & Terrell 1983). As an exam
ple of some
standards, we shall mention some of them, such as standard number one where stud
ents are
expected to understand and interpret written and spoken language on a variety of
topics, and
standard number two by means of which students demonstrate an understanding of t
he relationship
between the practices and perspectives of the relationship between the practices
and perspectives of
the culture studied. These are just some instances among many others.
In essence, textbooks generally provide students prescriptive phrases with which
to communicate
without providing insights as to contextual influences on these utterances. They
also often fail to
represent the linguistic repertoire of speech communities as they typically depi
ct a rather monolithic
speech community, neglecting to portray the heterogeneous nature of the target c
ultures' speakers.
Essentially, if the goal of foreign language teaching is to develop communicativ
e competence
among foreign language students, then we must address sociolinguistic aspects of
language and
provide students opportunities to access the meaning associated with language pr
actices. By
ignoring these aspects of communication in the foreign language classroom, we ar
e not providing
our students essential elements of human interaction, for spoken language must b
e presented in the
full context of communication.
5. CONCLUSION.
A review of the literature in this survey revealed that although recent developm
ents in foreign
language education have indicated a trend towards approaching the acquisition of
a second
language in terms of communicative competence, traditional resources have proven
inadequate.
Students are expected to learn to function properly in the target language and c
ulture, both
interpreting and producing meaning with members of the target culture. However,
providing
experiences for contact with language in context has been problematic. Limited a
ccess to the target
culture has forced teachers to rely on textbooks and other classroom materials i
n teaching language,
and these materials may not necessarily furnish a sufficiently rich environment
for the acquisition of
communicative competence, including many aspects of discourse activity, such as
paralinguistic
and extralinguistic behavior. Hypermedia and multimedia environments may provide
a more
appropriate setting for students to experience the target language in its cultur
al context.
For over twenty years, many researchers have concentrated on the development of
the notion of
communicative competence, among which we may mention Savignon (1972, 1983); Hyme
s (1972);
Canale and Swain (1980); and Bachman (1990) in an attempt to mention the most re
presentative
figures in this field. The theme of communicative competence emerges upon the ba
sis that language
and communication are at the heart of the human experience, and therefore the ma
in aim is for
students to be equipped linguistically and culturally in order to communicate su
ccessfully in a
pluralistic society and abroad. Furthermore, it is said that foreign language te
achers must focus on
the sociolinguistic and cultural aspects of language for students to be familiar
with and
knowledgeable of the target language and culture or cultures.
For generations, language teachers have attempted to overcome this obstacle with
the use of realia,
or authentic materials in the classroom. However, the use of these materials doe
s not necessarily
result in an interpretation of the intent of the message that matches those memb
ers of the target
culture. Without an understanding of native viewpoints, second language and cult
ure learners may
be incapable of accessing and interpreting the meaning of communication in the t
arget language as
intended by members of that culture.
23/ 25
 6. BIBLIOGRAPHY.
On the origins and nature of communication and the concept of language
David Crystal, Linguistics (1985)
Halliday, M.A.K. (1985), Spoken and Written Language. Victoria: Deakin Universit
y.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1975), Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edwa
rd Arnold
Rivers, W. 1981. Teaching Foreign-Language Skills. Chicago: The University of Ch
icago Press.

On communication process and language teaching

Howatt, A.P.R.. 1984. A History of English Language Teaching. Oxfrod: Oxford Uni
versity Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. And M.H. Long. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acqui
sition
Research. London: Longman.
Widdowson, H.G. 1978. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford Univers
ity Press.

A theory of communicative competence and communicative approaches to language te

aching

Canale, M., and M. Swain, 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to

second
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1 (1).
Canale, M. 1983. From Communicative Competence to Communicative Language Pedagog
y, in J.
Richards and R. Schmidt (eds.). Language and Communication. London, Longman.
Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition . Oxford University Pr
ess
Hymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.)
,
Sociolinguistics, pp. 269-93. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language Teaching
(2nd ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Introductions to cultural approaches and the influence of sociolinguistic on lan

guage

Canale, M., and M. Swain, 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to

second
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1 (1).
Hymes, D. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Phila
delphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.

On a development of communicative competence models

Canale, M., and M. Swain, 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1 (1).
Celce-Murcia, M., and L. McIntosh, eds. 1979. Teaching English as a Second or Fo
reign Language.
Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Halliday et al. 1972: Halliday, M.A.K., Angus McIntosh; Peter Strevens, Linguist
ik, Phonetik und
Sprachunterricht (ubersetzt von Hans Dietmar Steffens), Heidelberg: Quelle & Mey
er, 1972.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arn
old.

24/ 25
Hymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.)
,

Sociolinguistics, pp. 269-93. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Munby, J. 1978. Communicative Syllabus Design: A Sociolinguistic Model for Defin
ing the
Content of Purpose-Specific Language Programmes. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ
ersity
Press.
Savignon, S. 1983. Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. Read
ing, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley.

Multimedia use in a classroom setting

Cummings, L. et al. (1993). HyperNexus: Journal of Hypermedia and Multimedia Stu
dies.
Krashen, S., and T. Terrell. 1983. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in
the Classroom
(1983). Oxford: Pergamon.
Warschauer, M. (1996).Computer Learning Networks and Student Empowerment. System
, 24 , 1
p.1-14. Wyatt, D. (1984). Computer assisted teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 1
7 (4), 393-407.

For applications of a communicative competence theory to both classroom and natu

ral settings
Revistas de laAsociación Española de Lingüística Aplicada (AESLA):
De la Cruz, Isabel; Santamaría, Carmen; Tejedor, Cristina y Valero, Carmen. 2001.
La Lingüística
Aplicada a finales del Siglo XX. Ensayos y propuestas. Universidad de Alcalá.
Celaya, Mª Luz; Fernández-Villanueva, Marta; Naves, Teresa; Strunk, Oliver y Tragant
, Elsa. 2001.
Trabajos en Lingüística Aplicada . Universidad de Barcelona.
Moreno, Ana I. & Colwell, Vera. 2001. Perspectivas Recientes sobre el Discurso.
Universidad de
León.
Revista de CERCLE, Centro Europeo de Recursos Culturales Lingüísticos y Educativos.
Web pages: http://www.britishcouncil.org/education/teachers/txeurope.htm

25/ 25