TEMA 4 – LA COMPETENCIA COMUNICATIVA. ANÁLISIS DE SUS COMPONENTES.
Commmunicative competence. Analysis of its components.
OUTLINE
1. INTRODUCTION
2. COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
2.1. On defining “communicative competence”
2.1.1. Fluency over accuracy
2.1.2. Communicative competence: an issue in foreign language education
2.1.3. A communicative approach to language teaching
2.1.4. The introduction of cultural studies: a basis for an etnography of communication
3. A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
3.1. Chomsky: competence and performance
3.2. Halliday
3.3. Hymes
3.4. Sandra Savignon
3.5. Widdowson
3.6. Canale and Swain; and Canale
4. AN ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE ELEMENTS
4.1. Grammatical competence
4.2. Sociolinguistic competence
4.3. Discourse competence
4.4. Strategic competence
5. CURRENT DIRECTIONS REGARDING COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
5.1. Multimedia and hypermedia context
5.2. Implications into language teaching
6. CONCLUSION
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. INTRODUCTION
In the words of the writer Eric F. Douglas, “competence in communication does not come easily. Ground rules, like rules
of the road, are necessary to avoid crashing into one another while we try to communicate”. This is why the aim of this
topic is to offer a broad account of the concept of communicative competence, and the importance in society, and
especially, in the language teaching community.
The first section will start by reviewing communicative competence as a concept, mentioning the importance of fluency
over accuracy, the communicative approach of language teaching and an introduction of ethnography of communication.
The next section will develop different models of communicative competence such as the ones of Chomsky, Halliday,
Hymes, Sandra Savignon, Widdowson and Canale & Swain. Following this section, there will be a further explanation of
the communicative competence elements, being these grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse
competence and strategic competence. Finally, the last section will be focused on the current directions regarding
communicative competence, such as the multimedia and hypermedia context and the implications of this into language
teaching.
2. COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
The term was first coined by Hymes (1972) in relation to the speaker’s knowledge of how to use the language
appropriately. Apart from the linguistic knowledge, the use of the language in appropriate ways to fulfill proper social
functions requires other types of knowledge, such as social, strategic, etc.
2.1. On defining “communicative competence”
2.1.1. Fluency over accuracy
Communicative competence is the central aim of foreign and second language teaching. This notion no longer describes
just a particular proficiency or skill, but makes reference to more than listening and speaking, reading and writing. It is the
ability to use appropriately all aspects of verbal and non-verbal language in a variety of contexts, as would a native speaker
(Canale, 1983). There are two components to communicative competence under review.
The first component is the linguistic competence, which involves the mastery of several features. First, the sound system
and written system in order not to sound unusual to the cultural and linguistic ear although the grammar may be perfect.
Secondly, the syntax. Thirdly, the stress, pitch, volume, and juncture as a passage from one sound to another in the
stream of speech. Finally, the semantics and how, when, where, and why they are used in a 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 interactions in many contexts. We should highlight first,
the appropriateness of action and speech in view of the speakers’ roles, status, ages, and perspectives. Secondly, the use
of non-verbal codes. Next is to establish rapport, taking turns, and not to talk excessively, as well as initiating,
contributing relevance to, and ending a conversation. Fourthly, the fact of being comprehensible, supplying all necessary
information and requesting clarification when necessary. And finally, a feature that involves 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. In
developing communicative competence, learners need many opportunities to communicate without having to
concentrate on structure and form, as being understood is much more important than using correct vocabulary or
grammar.
In communicative language teaching, the emphasis is on fluency and comprehensibility as opposed to accuracy. Fluency
in speaking can be thought of as the ability to generate and communicate one’s ideas intelligibly and with relative ease
but not necessarily with accuracy (Canale & Swain, 1980).
We, as teachers, can provide opportunities for students to develop context-sensitive behaviour in order to become more
aware of, and more adept at responding appropriately to social contexts.
2.1.2. A communicative approach to language teaching
The period from the 1950s to the 1980s has often been referred to as “The Age of Methods”. Situational Language
Teaching evolved in the UK while a parallel method, the Audio-Lingualism, emerged in the US. Both methods started to
be questioned by applied linguistics who saw the need to focus in language teaching on communicative proficiency rather
than on mere mastery of structures.
Wilkins promoted a system in which learning tasks were broken down into units. This system attempted to demonstrate
the systems of meanings that a language learner needs to understand and express within two types: notional categories
and categories of communicative function. In the 1980s, the rapid application of these ideas by textbook writers and its
acceptance by teaching specialists gave prominence to more interactive views of language teaching, which became to be
known as the Communicative Approach or simply Communicative Language Teaching.
In the 1970s and 1980s, an approach to foreign and second language teaching emerged both in Europe and north America.
It concentrated on language as social behaviour, seeing the primary 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
Common Market. The movement at first concentrated on notional-functional syllabuses, but in the 1980s, the approach
was more concerned with the quality of interaction between learner and teacher rather than the specification of
syllabuses and concentrated on classroom methodology rather than on content. Scholars such as Hymes, Halliday, Canale
& Swain, or Chomsky 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 for, it is important to 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, there is an emphasis on authentic and meaningful communication which
should be the goal of classroom activities. Thirdly, fluency is seen as pretty important. Fourth, communication is intended
to involve the integration of different language skills, and finally, it claims for learning as a process of creative
construction which involves trial and error.
However, this is considered an approach rather than a method which provides a humanistic approach to teaching where
interactive processes of communication receive priority. Its rapid implementation resulted in similar approaches among
which we may mention The Natural Approach, Cooperative Language Learning, Content-Based Teaching, and Task-Based
Teaching.
2.1.3. The introduction of cultural studies: a basis for an ethnography of communication
Communicative competence also covers conditions that affect communication by means of socio-cultural competence in
order to facilitate comprehensible interaction or to provide general knowledge of the world and the human nature. Not
all sentences can be used in the same circumstances. For example, “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, as well as how and when to say it.
Hymes (1974) and others have stated that second language acquisition must be accompanied by a cultural knowledge
acquisition in addition to communicative competence. Communicating implies not only choosing the appropriate words
but also using the appropriate verbal and non-verbal behaviours. The more the knowledge the learner has to facilitate
the understanding about a topic from a different culture, the easier it is for the learner to be an active participant, and to
speak with ease and fluency. 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 underlying cultural rules that guide
conversation in the environment where they are speaking, such as using gestures, taking turns, or maintaining silence.
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 theory in the early 1920s and improved in
the 1970s by the notion of the “ethnography of communication”, a concept coined by Hymes. It refers to a methodology
based on anthropology and linguistics allowing people to study human interaction in context. Cultural relativity sees
communicative practices as an important part of what members 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 analyse them.
Hymes’ (1972) SPEAKING heuristic serves a framework in which the ethnographer examines several components of
speech events as follows:
- S: setting and scene.
- P: participants (speaker, sender, and addresser)
- E: end
- A: act sequence
- K: key
- I: instrumentalities
- N: norms of interaction and interpretation
- G: genre
This interpretation of communicative competence can serve as a useful guide to help second language learners to
distinguish important elements of cultural communication as they learn to observe and analyse discourse practices of the
target culture in context.
3. A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
These two terms, culture and language, are directly related to the notion of communicative competence as cultural, and
linguistics studies provide the basis for a communicative approach in language teaching.
3.1. Chomsky: competence and performance
Chomsky introduced “competence” and “performance” as part of the foundations for his generative grammar. He
distinguished the underlying knowledge of language from the way language is actually used in practice. According to him,
language performed may be affected by things as attention, stamina, memory, etc.
Competence is a person’s underlying linguistic ability to create and understand sentences, including sentences they have
never heard before. It includes phonetics, phonology, syntax, semantics and morphology and it enables native speakers
to recognize ambiguous sentences or accept apparently meaningless sentences as syntactically correct.
Performance is a real-world linguistic output. It may be flawed because of memory limitations, distractions, shift of
attention and interest and errors or other psychological factors. The performance may not be fault free, even though his
competence is perfect. It is important to make a distinction because it allows those studying a language to differentiate
between speech error and not knowing something about the language.
3.2. Halliday
In 1985, Halliday declared in his work An Introduction to Functional Grammar, that “the value of a theory lies in the use
that can be made of it”. Halliday emphasizes the functions of language in use by giving prominence to a social mode of
expression. At this point, meaning is considered as a product of the relationship between the system and its environment,
constructing reality as configurations of people, places, things, qualities, and different circumstances.
To Halliday, messages combine an organization of content according to the receptive needs of the speaker and listener,
an the meaning they are expressing. There are three macro-functions that provide the basic functions on learning a
foreign language: ideational, interpersonal, and textual. Ideational represent our experience of phenomena in the world
framed by different processes and circumstances which are set in time by means of tense and logical meanings.
Interpersonal is shaped by the resources of modality and mood to negotiate the proposals between interactants in terms
of probability, obligation or inclination, and to establish and maintain an ongoing exchange of information by means of
grammar through declaratives, questions, and commands. Lastly, textual is concerned with the information as text in
context at a lexicogrammatically level.
On combining these interrelated functions, Halliday proposes seven basic functions on language use, and they are listed
as follows:
1. Instrumental: desires and needs.
2. Regulatory: rules, instructions, orders, and suggestions.
3. Interactional: patterns of greeting, thanking, good wishes, etc.
4. Personal: talk about yourself and express your feelings.
5. Heuristic: asking questions.
6. Imaginative: supposing, hypothesizing, and creating for the love of sound and image.
7. Informative: affirmative and negative statements.
Halliday’s functional grammar model provides a description of how the structure of English relates to the variables of the
social context in which the language is functioning. It is uniquely productive as an educational resource for teaching how
the grammatical form of language is structured to achieve purposes in a variety of social contexts.
3.3. Hymes
Dell Hymes pointed out that Chomsky’s competence-performance model did not provide an explicit place for sociocultural
features, adding that Chomsky’s notion of performance seemed confused between actual performance and underlying
rules of performance. He recasts the scope of the competence concept because there is a lack of empirical 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, paying special attention to the sociolinguistics component, which
connected language and culture.
Hymes (1972) stated that native speakers know more than just grammatical competence. He expanded the Chomskyan
notions of grammaticality and acceptability into four parameters subsumed under the heading of communicative
competence as something which is first, formally possible, secondly, feasible in virtue of the available means, thirdly,
appropriate, in relation to a context, and finally, something which is in fact done.
Hyme’s model is, then, primarily sociolinguistic, but includes Chomsky’s psycholinguistic parameter of linguistic
competence. It is also primarily concerned with explaining language use in social contexts, although it also addresses
issues of language acquisition. His model inspired subsequent model developments on communicative competence, such
as those of Canale and Swain and Bachman.
3.4. Sandra Savignon
Simultaneously to Hymes, the first well-recognized experiment of communicative language teaching was taking place at
the University of Illinois. The American linguist, Sandra Savignon in 1972, was conducting an experiment with foreign
language learners, particularly adults, in a classroom at a beginner’s level. It was an attempt towards an interactional
approach where learners were encouraged to make use of their foreign language in a classroom setting, by means of
equivalents of expressions in order to communicate rather than feign native speakers.
Savignon’s experiment is considered to be one of the best-known surveys as it shed light on the development of research
in this 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 competence must adapt itself to the total information input,
both linguistic and paralinguistic, of one or more interlocutors.
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 (Savignon, 1983). The first feature is the
individual’s willingness to take risks and express themselves in foreign language and to make themselves understood
(negotiation of meaning). Secondly, communicative competence is not only oral, but written too. Thirdly, the approach
to appropriateness as depending on the context. fourthly, only performance is observable as it is only through
performance that competence can be developed, maintained, and evaluated. Fifthly, communicative competence to be
relative, and not absolute, as it comes in degrees because it depends on the cooperation of all interlocutors. Finally, she
talks about degrees of communicative competence which is difficult to measure.
Savignon’s model was not the only result of those theoretical and empirical investigations which were carried out in the
early 1980s in the field of communicative language teaching. Though not able to agree on operational definitions of the
components of the components of communicative competence, all scholars recognized the sociocultural component to
be an inseparable part of foreign language communicative competence.
3.5. Widdowson
Widdowson (1978) proposed a distinction between the concepts of use and usage. 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 language system as meaningful communicative behaviour. This duality is based on the
notion of effectiveness for communication, by means of which an utterance with a well-formed grammatical structure
may or may not have a sufficient value for communication in a given context. He claimed that whether an utterance has
a sufficient communicative value or not is determined in discourse.
3.6. Canale and Swain; and Canale
It seems 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 Cooper and explored by Canale and Swain
(1980) and Canale (1983). Language tests involve measuring a subject’s knowledge of, and proficiency in, the use of a
language. Communicative competence, according to them, is then a theory of the nature of such knowledge and
proficiency. A preference model appears to be a useful way to characterize communicative competence, and at the same
time, it has many advantages over competing models.
They formulated a theoretical framework that, in the modified version of Canale (1983), consisted of four major
components of communicative competence. They are the following:
- Grammatical competence: mastery of the linguistic code itself.
- Sociolinguistic competence: concerned with the appropriate use of language in particular social situations to
convey specific communicative functions such as describing, narrating, or eliciting among others.
- Discourse competence: mastery of how to use language in order to achieve a unified spoken or written text in
different genres.
- Strategic competence: mastery of verbal and non-verbal communication strategies by means of both the
underlying knowledge about language and communicative language use or skill.
4. AN ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE ELEMENTS
4.1. Grammatical competence
All knowledge of lexical items and of rules of morphology, syntax, sentence-grammar semantics, and phonology (Canale
& Swain, 1980). It refers to having control 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. It involves rules of formulations and constraints for students to match sound and meaning, to
form words and sentences using vocabulary, to use language through spelling and pronunciation, and to handle linguistic
semantics.
4.2. Sociolinguistic competence
It refers to the knowledge which the learner has to acquire of the sociocultural rules of language. Canale and Swain (1980)
defined this competence in terms of sociocultural rules of use, and rules of discourse. Concerning sociocultural rules of
use, this competence is linked to the notion of the extent to which utterances are produced and understood appropriately
in different sociolinguistic contexts.
Regarding the rules of discourse, it is defined in terms of the mastery of how to combine grammatical forms and meanings.
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. 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, complaining, commanding and inviting.
4.3. Discourse competence
Discourse analysis is primarily concerned with the ways in which individual sentences connect together for form a
communicative message. This competence addresses directly to the mastery of how to combine grammatical forms and
meaning to achieve a unified spoken or written text in different genres (Canale & Swain, 1980). By genre is meant the
type of text to be unified, for example, a scientific paper, an argumentative essay, among others. The unity of a text is
achieved 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. Coherence refers to the relationships among the
different meanings in a text, where these meanings may be literal meanings, communicative functions, and attitudes.
4.4. Strategic competence
In the words of Canale (1983), strategic competence is the verbal and non-verbal communication strategies that may be
called into action to compensate for breakdowns in communication due to performance variables or due to insufficient
competence. 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, hesitation, avoidance, guessing as well as shifts in register
and style. According to them, strategic competence is useful in various circumstances as for instance, the early stages of
second language learning where communicative competence can be present with just strategic and sociolinguistic
competence.
This approach has been supported by other researchers, such as Savignon and Tarone. Savignon (1983) noted that one
can communicate non-verbally in the absence of grammatical or discourse competence provided there is a cooperative
interlocutor. She pointed out the necessity and the sufficiency for the inclusion of strategic competence as a component
of communicative competence at all levels.
Another criterion on strategic competence is the use of the strategies to help getting the meaning across. Tarone (1981)
includes a requirement 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 him or to the hearer.
5. CURRENT 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 the type of media foreign language students encounter. In the
1950s and 1960s, the Audiolingual Method introduced audiotaped dialogues to the learning situation. Years later,
researchers have begun investigating multimedia and hypermedia contexts for foreign language and culture acquisition.
5.1. Multimedia and hypermedia contexts
Providing experiences for contact with language in context may prove difficult for foreign language teachers. Constrained
by lack of sufficient access to the target culture, teachers often rely on textbooks and classroom materials in teaching
language. These materials may not necessarily provide the required environment for the acquisition of communicative
competence. It is suggested that through the medium of video, students receive massive doses of comprehensible input,
and that video can provide target language speech or texts that include challenging yet understandable portions.
Nowadays, not we can find videos in real context in platforms like YouTube or social networks such as Twitter, TikTok or
Instagram, with which students may relate and find easier to learn vocabulary or improve skills like listening or even
speaking. This is because when the target language is presented in context, in this case in the form of video, the meaning
of specific words and utterances becomes clear to the learner. Hypermedia and multimedia environments may also
provide a more appropriate context for students to experience the target culture.
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 creating classrooms conditions which
match those in real life and foster acquisition, encouraging learning. Some of this motivational force is brought about by
intervening in authentic communicative events. Otherwise, we have to recreate as much as possible the whole cultural
environment in the classroom. 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 computers,
interactive board or projectors.
This method relies on a notion of communicative competence which takes place first, 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 communicative competence.
5.2. Implications into language teaching
The practicality of implementing ethnographic approaches to foreign language and culture learning is questionable. For
example, sometimes, 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. Furthermore, traditional means of contact with the
target culture, such as textbooks do not provide a proper context for ethnographic investigation. Nevertheless, we must
point out that nowadays, more often than not, students have the help of conversation auxiliaries at school who come
from English speaking countries. Also, some high schools offer exchanges with students from other countries which give
them the opportunity to learn the foreign language in a real context.
In order 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 to those practices.
In essence, textbooks generally provide students prescriptive phrases with which to communicate without providing
insights as to contextual influences of these utterances. They also fail to represent the linguistic repertoire of speech
communities as they typically depict a rather monolithic speech community, neglecting to portray the heterogeneous
nature of the target cultures’ speakers. If the goal of foreign language teaching is to develop communicative competence
among foreign language students, then we must address sociolinguistic aspects of language and provide students
opportunities to access the meaning associated with language practices. By ignoring these aspects of communication in
foreign language classroom, we are not providing our students essential elements of human interaction, for spoken
language must be presented in the full context of communication.
6. CONCLUSION
A review of this topic has been developed throughout different sections. First, I referred to the communicative
competence as a term, in an attempt to define it and set the basis for the rest of the topic. Then, a historical overview of
the development of the model of communicative competence was explained, mentioning the models of Chomsky,
Halliday, Hymes, Sandra Savignon, Widdowson and Canale & Swain.
After that, there was an analysis of the elements of the communicative competence, being those grammatical,
sociolinguistic, discourse and strategic competence. In the last section, I focused on the current directions regarding
communicative competence, taking into account the multimedia and hypermedia contexts, and the implications into
language teaching which is of special relevance for us as teachers.
For generations, language teachers have attempted to overcome students’ goal of achieving communicative competence
with the use of realia or authentic materials in the classroom. However, the use of these materials does not necessarily
result in an interpretation of the intent of the message that matches those members of the target culture. What it is clear
is that without an understanding of native viewpoints, second language and culture learners may be incapable of accessing
and interpreting the meaning of communication in the target language as intended by member of that culture. As the
philosopher Frantz Fanon said, “to speak a language in to take on a world, a culture”.
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and
testing. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education.
- Canale, M. (1983). “From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy”. In C. Richards & R.
Schmidt (Eds.): Language and Communication. New York: Longman.
- Hymes, D. (1972). “On communicative competence”. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.): Sociolinguistics.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
- Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
- Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. Reading, Mass.: AddisonWesley.
- Tarone, E. (1981). Some Thoughts on the Notion of Communication Strategy. TESOL Quarterly.
- Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.