See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/42798583
Communicative Competence
Article · January 2005
DOI: 10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/01275-X · Source: OAI
CITATIONS
READS
80
29,491
1 author:
Theresa Lillis
The Open University (UK)
114 PUBLICATIONS 6,718 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Theresa Lillis on 02 January 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
1
Communicative Competence
Theresa Lillis
Theresa.Lillis@open.ac.uk
Pre-published version 2005
Published version: Lillis, Theresa (2006) Communicative competence. in K. Brown (ed)
Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier. ISBN: 13: 978-0-08-044299-0.
Pages 666-673.
Pdf version of Encyclopedia available at https://www.pdfdrive.com/encyclopedia-oflanguage-and-linguistics-d158774309.html, November 2020
The phrase ‘communicative competence’ was introduced by the North American linguist
and anthropologist, Dell Hymes, in the late 1960s (Hymes, 1962/1968, 1971). He used it to
reflect the following key positions on knowledge and use of language:
•
•
•
•
The ability to use a language well involves knowing (either explicitly or implicitly)
how to use language appropriately in any given context.
The ability to speak and understand language is not based solely on grammatical
knowledge.
What counts as appropriate language varies according to context and may involve a
range of modes – for example, speaking, writing, singing, whistling, drumming.
Learning what counts as appropriate language occurs through a process of
socialization into particular ways of using language through participation in
particular communities.
Hymes’s juxtaposition of the word ‘communicative’ with ‘competence’ stood in sharp
contrast at the time with Noam Chomsky’s influential use of the term ‘linguistic
competence,’ which Chomsky used to refer to a native speaker’s implicit knowledge
of the grammatical rules governing her/his language (Chomsky, 1957, 1965). Such
knowledge, Chomsky argued, enables speakers to create new and grammatically
correct sentences and accounts for the fact that speakers are able to recognize
grammatically incorrect as well as correct sentences such as, in English She book the read, or
in Spanish plaza yo a la voy (‘square I am going to’). While accepting the importance
of grammatical knowledge, Hymes argued that in order to communicate effectively,
speakers had to know not only what was grammatically correct/incorrect, but what was
communicatively appropriate in any given context. A speaker therefore must possess more
than just grammatical knowledge; for example, a multilingual speaker in a multilingual
context knows which language to use in which context and users of a language where there
are both formal and informal forms of address know when to use which, such as vous
(formal) and tu (informal) in French. Hymes famously stated that a child who produced
language without due regard for the social context would be a monster (1974b: 75).
The emphasis that Hymes placed on appropriateness according to context, in his use of the
term competence, challenged Chomsky’s view about what exactly counts as knowledge of a
2
language – knowledge of conventions of use in addition to knowledge of grammatical rules.
In addition, and more fundamentally, Hymes problematized the dichotomy advanced
by Chomsky between ‘competence’ and ‘performance’ and the related claim about what the
study of linguistics proper should be. Chomsky’s interest was in the universal
psycholinguistics of language, the human capacity for generating the syntactic rules of
language. His interest in knowledge, captured in his use of ‘competence,’ was therefore at
an ideal or abstract level rather than in any actual knowledge that any one speaker or group
of speakers might possess. For Chomsky, the focus of linguistics as a discipline should
be on understanding and describing the general and abstract principles that make the
human capacity for language possible. In contrast, ‘performance’ or actual
utterances – that is, what people actually say and hear with all the errors, false starts,
unfinished sentences – could add little to an understanding of the principles
underlying language use and was therefore not deemed to be a relevant focus of linguistic
study.
Hymes acknowledged the value of the more abstract and idealized approach that Chomsky
advocated, not least because such a universalistic approach challenged any theories of
language based on genetic differences or notions of racial hierarchy (Hymes, 1971: 4).
However, he argued that there were other important dimensions to the study of language
that should not be so readily excluded from linguistics as a scientific field. Hymes’s own
interest in language was in large part driven by a concern for language questions arising in
real life contexts, such as why children from economically advantaged and disadvantaged
social backgrounds differ in the language they use. Chomsky’s and Hymes’s different
aims for developing language theory are nowhere more clearly evident than in Hymes’s
comment on Chomksy’s (1965: 3) now famous statement, on the purpose of linguistic
theory: ‘‘Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a
completely homogenous speech-community, who knows its language perfectly.. . .’’ Hymes
(1971:4) comments: ‘‘The theoretical notion of the ideal speaker-listener is unilluminating
from the standpoint of the children we seek to understand and to help.’’
Hymes was highly critical of a theory that explicitly set out to ignore the impact of social
context on how language is used and hence the competence/performance dichotomy set up
by Chomsky (echoing in some ways the langue and parole distinction made by Saussure,
1916). At a specific level, his key reasons for challenging such a dichotomy can be
summarized as follows (based on Hymes, 1962/1968; 1971; 1974b):
• The dichotomy itself is problematic. It presupposes that knowledge can be
understood without reference to use, yet analyzing actual use of language is key to
exploring underlying principles for such use. Hymes argued that ‘‘performance data’’
should be considered a legitimate focus for linguistic study both in its own right and
as data that reflects knowledge underlying any performance.
• The dichotomy is built on a series of abstractions: ideal speaker-listener,
homogenous speech community, perfect knowledge of language.
• Chomsky’s notion of speaker-listener does not acknowledge or account for the
differences in reception competence and production competence evident in many
contexts, as in children from some social backgrounds understanding formal school
language yet not producing it.
3
•
•
•
What counts as knowledge of language is reduced to only one aspect of knowledge,
namely grammatical knowledge, when there are clearly other aspects to knowledge
of language that are important, such as when to use which language, or varieties of
languages, and in which contexts.
Within an approach that focuses on competence as idealized knowledge, it is the
abstract system of language that becomes the focus rather than speakers’/groups of
speakers’ use of language.
Given the focus on knowledge as a set of abstract rules underlying use, actual use is
relegated to only a marginal position in the scientific study of language. Hymes
(1972a: 282) offers communicative competence as a more general and
superordinate term to encompass the language capabilities of the individual that
include both knowledge and use: ‘‘competence is dependent upon both (tacit)
knowledge and (ability for) use.’’
While Hymes argued against the foundational dichotomy between competence and
performance proposed by Chomsky, he was not dismissing the value of the distinction
entirely. Hymes refers to communicative competence as ‘‘abilities in a broad sense’’ of how
to use language, whereas performance is always a specific use of language that reflects
some of that competence (2003: 321). Thus any specific performance may partially reflect
the nature of the conventions governing an individual or a community’s knowledge of
language. In setting up a framework for developing an adequate theory of language,
Hymes argued that both what is known (competence) and what is actually done
(performance) must be taken into account. Such a framework involves exploring and
accounting for the following:
1. Whether (and to what degree) something is formally possible
2. Whether (and to what degree) something is feasible
3. Whether (and to what degree) something is appropriate
4. Whether (and to what degree) something is in fact done, actually performed
(Hymes 1972a: 284–286).
Questions 3 and 4 are central to the socially oriented approach to the study of language
advocated by Hymes. In contrast to Chomsky and his claim to linguistics as a subfield of
psychology and philosophy, Hymes seeks to claim a space for the study of
language within ‘‘a science of social man’’ (Hymes, 1971: 6).
A Key Concept in an Emerging Sociolinguistic Tradition
Emphasis on the notion of communicative competence formed part of Dell Hymes’s call for
a new field of study, the ethnography of communication, sometimes called the ethnography
of speaking (Hymes, 1962/1968; Gumperz and Hymes, 1972/1986). There are a number of
concepts and categories presupposed by the notion of communicative competence, which
continue to be highly influential in sociolinguistics and in many socially oriented
approaches to study of language.
Sociocultural Context
Given the importance attached to knowledge of the social conventions governing language
use, understanding the context of language use is considered to be central. Exploring such
4
context, that is, the cultural, historical, and social practices associated with the language use
of any particular group or community of people, involves detailed descriptions and
classification of language use organized around the following key questions. What are the
communicative events, and their components, in a community? What are the
relationships among them? What capabilities and status do they have, in general and in
particular cases? How do they work? (Hymes, 1974b: 25).
Ethnography of Communication
In order to explore how language is used in context, Hymes argued for an ethnographic
approach to the study of communication or ways of speaking (Hymes, 1974a). This involves
researchers setting out to systematically observe the activities of any given community,
through immersing themselves in such activities and collecting a range of data, such as
recordings, field notes, and documentation. In this methodology both ‘etic’ and ‘emic’
approaches are considered important and complementary; the etic approach refers to
observation from the outside as it were, that is, the researcher seeks to observe in detail
the communicative activities – or speech events – of participants in a community; the emic
involves exploring such events, from the inside, to determine how participants make sense
of and understand such events and interactions. Ethnographers emphasize the importance
of emic accounts to any theory of language; for example, only an emic perspective
would enable a researcher to understand that a clap of thunder may in some cultural
contexts be considered to be a communicative act (as in the case of the Ojibwa reported by
Hymes, 1974b: 13), or that certain types of communication are permitted to men
in some contexts while proscribed in others, such as the disciplining of children (as reported
by Philipsen, 1975).
In an attempt to build a descriptive framework of how language is used in different
contexts, Hymes, drawing on anthropologists such as Malinowski(1923, 1935), developed a
series of categories to map out the relevant contextual aspects to language use, such as
speech event and speech community.
Speech Event
This is a category (after Jakobson, 1960) that reflects the idea that all interaction is
embedded in sociocultural contexts and is governed by conventions emerging from those
contexts. Examples of speech events are interviews, buying and selling goods in a
shop, sermons, lectures, and informal conversation. The speech event involves a number of
core components identified by Hymes, which are signaled in his mnemonic device
SPEAKING. [See Table 1].
Table 1 SPEAKING – acronym invented by Dell Hymes (1972b) to specify relevant
features of a speech event
S-settings and scenes. Setting refers to time, place, physical circumstances. Scene
refers to the psychological or cultural definitions of the event: for example what
‘counts’ as
a formal event varies from community to community.
P-participants Who is involved, as either speaker/ listener, audience.
5
E-ends Ends can be defined in terms of goals and outcomes. Goals refer to what is
expected to be achieved in any event: outcomes refers to what is actually achieved.
Goals and outcomes exist at both community and individual participant level: for
example, the conventional goal of a wedding ceremony may be marriage, however,
individuals within that event may have other goals.
A-acts Speech events involve a number and range of speech acts, particular types
of utterances such as requests, commands, and greetings.
K-keys The tone, manner, and spirit in which acts are done, for example, serious or
playful. Specific keys may be signaled through verbal or/and non-verbal means.
I-instrumentalities The particular language/language varieties used and the mode of
communication (spoken, written).
N-norms Norms of interaction refer to rules of speaking, who can say what, when,
and how. Norms of interpretation refer to the conventions surrounding how any
speech may be interpreted.
G-genres Categories or types of language use, such as the sermon, the interview, or
the editorial. May be the same as ‘speech event’ but may be a part of a speech
event. For example, the sermon is a genre and may at the same time be a speech
event (when performed conventionally in a church); a sermon may be a genre,
however, that is invoked in another speech event, for example, at a party for
humorous effect.
Speech Community
While the term speech community was not coined by Hymes (the most notable earlier use
being that of Bloomfield, 1933), Hymes’s elaboration of the term certainly contributed to its
prominence in sociolinguistic approaches to the study of language. The acquisition of
communicative competence takes place within speech communities: speech communities
are constituted not just by a shared variety or language, but shared sets of norms and
conventions about how those varieties can and should be used. Through everyday
interaction with others in a speech community, a child learns how to use language
appropriately, that is, according to the norms of any given speech community. Some events
inevitably involve people from different speech communities, which may create tensions: as
in for example school classrooms where participants share a common language but may not
be members of the same speech community (Hymes, 1972c).
Diversity
Acknowledgement of diversity and variety between and across language use, in
communities and individuals, is a basic position in Hymes’s work and is a central tenet in
sociolinguistics. Such diversity manifests itself in countless ways: the very existence of
language varieties, both as languages and varieties within languages; the range of
conventions governing the use of such varieties in different contexts (such differences have
been documented in relation, notably, to social class, ethnic group, gender); the
6
different values attached to particular usages (for example, the values attached in different
communities to such phenomena as silence, eloquence, and interruptions).
Privileging diversity as a universal of language shifts the emphasis away from any differential
status attached to varieties, or the notion that difference signals deficiency in any way. All
varieties are seen as equally valid, although some are acknowledged to be more appropriate
in particular contexts.
Appropriateness
This is a key presupposition to the notion of communicative competence and is a central
notion in sociolinguistics. As discussed, communicative competence presupposes the
following; that a language user’s knowledge – competence – is more than just grammarbased; that knowledge of language requires knowledge of the appropriate social
conventions governing what and how something can be said, to whom and in what
contexts. Appropriateness thus involves both linguistic and cultural knowledge
(Hymes, 1971: 14).
Within sociolinguistics, a focus on appropriateness of language use is said to indicate a
descriptive (how language is used) rather than a prescriptive (how language should be used)
approach to language diversity.
Socialization
People learn the rules of use through everyday interaction within speech communities. It is
through such interaction that children acquire knowledge about appropriate language use,
that is, communicative competence (Hymes, 1971: 10). Hymes indicates that socialization is
not constituted by a rigid trajectory and suggests that both ‘‘a long and short range
view of competency should be adopted’’ (1972a: 287). From his perspective, the short range
view concerns innate capacities as they emerge in the first years of life, and the long range
concerns continuing socialization through life. What this short/long range implies is that
competence is not static. In some instances, quite drastic changes can be made to an
individuals’ competence; as when a child whose home language variety is significantly
different from the school variety. Of course, as Hymes emphasizes, such extensions or shifts
in competence are not necessarily straightforward; there are plenty of opportunities for
misunderstanding to occur when receivers/listeners accustomed to the language varieties
of one community engage in communication with those from another.
Communicative Competence in Other Domains
The notion of communicative competence has been highly influential in fields beyond
linguistics, such as education, sociology, and psychology. In some instances the basic
assumptions surrounding the term have been maintained, and in others extended
or problematized. Probably nowhere has the impact of the notion been more powerful than
in the teaching of languages, including the teaching of English as a second or foreign
language. Whereas the emphasis in language teaching had been on grammatical and
syntactic accuracy, following the work of Hymes and others (Gumperz and Hymes,
1972/1986), there was a significant turn towards communicative language teaching:
this shift involved the teaching and learning of language considered to be appropriate to
specific situations, based on what speakers actually use, rather than what they are
7
presumed to use (Paulston, 1992). Assessment of language learning has been influenced
accordingly, with a focus on students’ capacity to communicate, rather than the ability to
produce grammatically correct sentences (Hall and Eggington, 2000). The extent to which
this more situational approach to second and foreign language teaching prevails is a matter
of debate, but the impact of communicative competence is widely acknowledged (Firth and
Wagner, 1997).
The use of the term has also been extended and modulated in other domains. For example,
Culler (1975) developed the influential notion of literary competence to describe readers’
knowledge of the conventions required in order to interpret literary texts. Academic
communicative competence has been used to refer to knowledge of the conventions
governing the use of language in academic communication (Berkenkotter et al., 1991). Both
uses refer to knowledge of specific textual features, such as metaphor in the case of literary
competence and argument in academic competence, as well as knowledge about what
counts as specific text types or genres (academic, literary) in particular cultural
contexts.
Other uses of ‘communicative competence’ have developed, alongside and in
contradistinction to the Hymesian term. Habermas (1970) uses the term communicative
competence more in line with Chomsky’s linguistic competence, to the extent that he is
interested in theorizing an ideal speech situation, rather than elaborating a sociolinguistic
description of actual situations and utterances. In contrast, Bernstein’s interest was in an
elaboration of actual use of language, particularly within the context of schooling. However,
he offered a critique of the way in which ‘competence’ models implied an exaggerated
capacity of individual rational choice and control over language use, without due attention
to ‘‘distribution of power and principles of control which selectively specialize modes of
acquisition and realizations’’ (Bernstein, 1996: 56). The need to theorize power in relation to
competence and language use is a key strand in other studies re-examining the notion of
communicativecompetence in more recent times.
Re-examining Communicative Competence
The work of Hymes is central in sociolinguistics as a field and continues to reverberate
across socially oriented approaches to the study of language in a range of disciplines,
including applied linguistics, education, communication studies, and social psychology.
In recent times, there have also been significant re-examinations of communicative
competence and related notions, as they have come to be used in sociolinguistics, from
both critical and post structuralist approaches.
Re-examining Appropriateness
The notion of appropriateness is central to communicative competence and central to the
field of sociolinguistics whose empirical goal has been to explore patterns of language use,
according to the norms of any given community. However, the use of such a notion has
been critiqued by some because it serves to emphasize norms and underplay differences
within any given community or communicative context.
8
Fairclough (1995), for example, like Bernstein mentioned above, argues that a model of
language based on appropriateness assumes shared views among all users about what
counts as appropriate, ignoring struggles and tensions in any given interaction; for
example, tensions evident in interactions between institutional representatives and clients,
men and women, or speakers from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Research in
some socially oriented approaches to language, such as feminist linguistics and critical
discourse analysis, has made visible the power dynamics in communicative events,
within and across communities (Cameron, 1992; Wodak, 1992; Chouliaraki and Fairclough,
1999).
In the same vein, emphasis on a normative notion of communicative competence in second
and foreign language teaching has been critiqued by theorists of second language
acquisition. Norton (2000) states that although it is important for learners to understand
the conventions of the target language, it is also important for them to explore ‘‘whose
interests these rules serve’’ (2000: 15). She argues that any definition of communicative
competence should include an acknowledgement of the importance of the right to speak
(Bourdieu, 1977); such a right to speak, or be heard, is not granted to all speakers in all
contexts. Thus for example, immigrants using a foreign language may find that, although
familiar with the conventions governing a particular use of that language, they may not be
granted the right to speak or be heard in some contexts.
Re-examining Speech Event and Speech Community
While Hymes always indicated that he used the word ‘speech’ to mean all types of
communicative modes/channels, sociolinguistic research has tended to focus on the spoken
word. In more recent times, explicit attention has been paid to other modes of
communication, thus extending the use of core concepts. For example, those working within
literacy studies have used existing terms to signal a specific focus, such as ‘‘writing event’’
(Basso, 1974), ‘‘literacy event’’ (Heath, 1983; Barton and Hamilton, 1998). Likewise, Swales
(1990) has argued that the term discourse community is more useful than speech
community, as a term for describing and accounting for practices around written texts.
Some theorists have argued that the word ‘speech’ signals that language is considered more
significant than other practices, or that language is somehow divorced from other social
purposes and activities, and have argued that the notion of practice, including the notion of
‘‘community of practice’’ is more all encompassing and powerful (Eckert and McConnellGinet, 2003; see also discussion about ways in which ‘practice’ is used in Schultz and Hull,
2002).
A more fundamental challenge to the notion of speech community comes from theorists
emphasizing the ways in which recent historical changes, notably globalization, powerfully
influence the ways in which people engage in the world and disrupt traditional notions of
community and community membership. Through a whole range of technological, social,
and economic developments – shaping modes of labor, travel, and communication –
individuals’ relations to others are more diverse and fluid, less restricted by time and space.
The extent to which speech community with any presumed identifiable boundaries
continues to be a meaningful category of observation and analysis is debatable within the
context of a rapidly changing world (Rampton, 1998; Collins,
2003).
9
Re-examining the Notion of Speaker
Just as the notion of speech community has been challenged, so too have prominent labels
used to categorize individuals in relation to communities – such as social class, ethnicity,
linguistic repertoire, and gender. Such terms, because they often denote fixed sets of
attributes and capacities, have been recognized as problematic, particularly by post
structuralist writers who stress that identity is always in process. Indeed, the relationship
between language and identity has established itself as a key area for research. Such work
tends to challenge the idea that language use reflects categories of identity (I speak
as I do because I am a working class woman) and emphasizes, rather, how individuals
actively construct aspects of social and personal identity through their use of language in
specific contexts (in speaking as I am, I am constructing and representing myself as
a working class woman). While it is recognized that such constructions of identity are not
free floating but are regulated by the specific contexts and interactions in which they occur
(Cameron, 1997a), the fluidity of identity tends to be emphasized. In these approaches,
the term ‘performativity’ rather than ‘performance’ is used, in order to signal how identity is
enacted or performed through interaction (Cameron, 1997b; Butler, 1990/1999).
Re-examining Context
The work of Hymes placed the importance of context centrally within the concern of
linguistics and advocated ethnography as the key organizing methodological tool with which
to observe language use. However, there has been considerable debate about what
constitutes context and how context should be conceptualized and explored. Two significant
and quite distinct approaches to the study of context can be found in conversation analysis
and critical discourse analysis: the former orients inwards as it were towards language, the
latter orients outwards towards the social world. Conversation analysts argue that speakers
construct and represent relevant aspects of context through their actual interaction
and that these can be empirically observed (Schegloff, 1997). In contrast, critical discourse
analysts (Fairclough, 1995) and feminist linguists (Cameron, 1992) have signaled the
limitations to approaches that seek to understand context through empirical observation
alone: there have been calls to draw on social, critical, and post structuralist theorists and
philosophers such as Foucault, Habermas, Bourdieu, and Bakhtin, in order to explore the
ways in which language use is related to ideology and power, and in order to explore how
phenomena such as globalization are influencing communicative practices. Some of this
work tends to explore language use through the lens of such theory and pays only minimal
attention to examining contexts empirically (Chouliaraki and Fairclough, 1999), whereas
others drawing on ethnographic traditions such as Hymes’s, aim to establish an approach
that draws on both empirical observation and specific aspects of social theory (Rampton,
1995; Lee, 1996; Maybin, 1999).
Attempts have a been made to integrate levels of analysis at the macro level of society with
micro levels of actual utterances; Gee (1996) for example uses the terms big ‘D’ discourse to
refer to the former and little ‘d’ discourse to refer to the latter; Fairclough (1992) has
developed a three-layered framework to explore such relations, which he refers to as a
textually oriented discourse analysis (TODA).
10
See also: Assessment of Second Language Proficiency; Chomsky, Noam (b. 1928); Codes,
Elaborated and Restricted (Bernstein); Communicative Language Teaching; Context,
Communicative; Discourse, Foucauldian Approach; Ethnomethodology; Habermas, Jurrgen
(b. 1929); Identity in Sociocultural Anthropology and Language; Identity: Second Language;
Intercultural Pragmatics and Communication; Speech and Language Community.
Bibliography
Barton D & Hamilton M (1998). Local literacies: reading and writing in one community.
London: Routledge.
Basso K (1974). ‘The ethnography of writing.’ In Bauman R & Sherzer J (eds.) Explorations in
the ethnography of speaking. Cambridge: CUP. 425–432.
Berkenkotter C, Huchin T & Ackerman J (1991). ‘Social context and socially constructed
texts.’ In Bazerman C& Paradis J (eds.) Textual dynamics and the professions. Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin Press. 191–215.
Bernstein B (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: theory, research, critique.
London: Taylor and Francis.
Bloomfield L (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
Bourdieu P (1977). ‘The economics of linguistic exchanges.’ Social Science Information 16,
645–668.
Butler J (1990/1999). Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. New
York/London: Routledge.
Cameron D (1992). Feminism and linguistic theory (2nd edn.). Basingstoke/London:
Macmillan.
Cameron D (1997a). ‘Theoretical debates in feminist linguistics: questions of sex and
gender.’ In Wodak R (ed.) Gender and discourse. London: Sage Publications.
Cameron D (1997b). ‘Performing gender identity: young men’s talk and the construction of
heterosexual masculinity.’ In Johnson S & Meinhof U (eds.) Language and masculinity.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Chomsky N (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky N (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chouiaraki L & Fairclough N (1999). Discourse in late modernity: rethinking critical discourse
analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Collins J (2003). ‘Language, identity, and learning in the era of ‘‘expert guided’’ system.’ In
Wortham S & Rymes B (eds.) The linguistic anthropology of education. Connecticut: Praeger.
31–60.
Culler J (1975). Structuralist poetics. London: Routledge/ Kegan Paul.
Eckert P & McConnell-Ginet S (2003). Language andgender. Cambridge: CUP.
Fairclough N (1992). ‘The appropriacy of appropriateness.’ In Fairclough N (ed.) Critical
language awareness.London: Longman. 233–252.
Fairclough N (1995). Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. London:
Longman.
Firth A & Wagner J (1997). On discourse, communication and (some) fundamental concepts
in SLA research. Modern Language Journal 81(3) 285–300.
Gee J (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: ideologies in discourses (2nd edn.).
Basingstoke: Falmer Press.
Gumperz J J & Hymes D (eds.) (1972/1986). Directions in sociolinguistics: the ethnography of
communication.Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
11
Habermas J (1970). ‘Towards a theory of communicative competence.’ In Dreitzel H P (ed.)
Recent sociology No. 2. New York: Macmillan. 114–148.
Hall J K & Eggington W G (2000). The sociopolitics of English language teaching. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Heath S B (1983).Ways with words: language life and work in communities and classrooms.
Cambridge: CUP.
Hymes D (1962/1968). ‘The ethnography of speaking.’ In Fishman J A (ed.) The ethnography
of communication. The Hague: Mouton. 99–138.
Hymes D (1971). ‘Competence and performance in linguistic theory.’ In Huxley R & Ingram E
(eds.) Language acquisition: models and methods. New York: Academic Press.
Hymes D (1972a). ‘On communicative competence.’ In Pride J B & Holmes J (eds.)
Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth:Penguin. 269–285.
Hymes D (1972b). ‘Models of the interaction of language and social life.’ In Gumperz J &
Hymes D (eds.) Directions in sociolinguistics: the ethnography of communication. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell. 35–71.
Hymes D (1972c). ‘Introduction.’ In Cazden C, John V & Hymes D (eds.) Functions of
language in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. xi–lvii.
Hymes D (1974a). ‘Ways of speaking.’ In Bauman R & Sherzer J (eds.) Explorations in the
ethnography of speaking. Cambridge: CUP.
Hymes D (1974b). Foundations in sociolinguistics: an ethnographic approach. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hymes D (2003). Now I know only so far: essays in ethnopoetics. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Jakobson R (1960). ‘Closing statement: linguistics and poetics.’ In Sebeok T A (ed.) Style in
language. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press. 398–429.
Lee A (1996). Gender, literacy and the curriculum: rewriting school geography. London:
Taylor and Francis.
Maybin J (1999). ‘Framing and evaluation in 10–12 year old school children’s use of
appropriated speech, in relation to their induction into educational procedures and
practices.’ Text 19, 4.
Norton B (2000). Identity and language learning: gender, ethnicity and educational change.
London: Longman.
Malinowski B (1923). ‘The problem of meaning in primitive languages.’ In Ogden C K &
Richards I A (eds.) The meaning of meaning. London: Kegan Paul. 451–510.
Malinowski B (1935). Coral gardens and their magic (2 vols.). London: Allen and Unwin.
Paulsten C B (1992). Linguistic and communicative competence: topics in ESL. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Philipsen G (1975). ‘Speaking ‘‘like a man’’ in teamsterville: culture patterns of role
enactment in an urban neighbourhood.’ Quarterly Journal of Speech 61, 13–22.
Rampton B (1995). Crossing: language and ethnicity among adolescents. London: Longman.
Rampton B (1998). ‘Speech community.’ In Verschueren J et al. (eds.) Handbook of
pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Saussure F de ([1916] 1959). In Bally C & Sechehaye A (eds.) Course in general linguistics.
Baskin W (trans.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Schultz K&Hull G (2002). ‘Locating literacy theory in outof-school contexts.’ In Hull G &
Schultz K (eds.) School’sout: bridging out-of-school literacies with classroom practice. New
York/London: Teachers College Press. Columbia University. 11–31.
12
Schegloff E A (1997). ‘Whose text, whose context?’ Discourse and Society 8, 165–187.
Swales J (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wodak R (ed.) (1992). Language power and ideology. Oxford: Blackwell
View publication stats