COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE.

ANALYSIS OF ITS COMPONENTS

The aim of this unit is to present the concept of communicative competence and its
importance in language teaching. In the first section we will examine the origins and nature
of the communication process through the notion of language and theory of foreign language
teaching. We will revise concepts such as proficiency, competence and performance. In the
second section we will approach communicative competence and the development of its
models. In the third section we will provide an account on the components of communicative
competence. In the fourth section we will explore the present-day directions and the
evolution of media use. Finally, the implications to language teaching and a conclusion to
overview the present study as well as the relevant bibliography used for this unit.

Historically speaking, various attempts have been made to conceptualise the nature of
communication and explore its relationship to human language in order to offer an account
on the features of human language. As seen in theme 3, language was defined by Halliday
as the instrument of social interaction with a clear communicative purpose. The field of
semiotics distinguishes between verbal and non-verbal communication. We should not forget
communication implies the correct use of structure and form and to communicate intelligibly
and appropriately.

When analysing communicative competence, we should look into some key concepts such
as proficiency, competence and performance. We may define proficiency as the
learner's knowledge of the target language viewed as linguistic or communicative
competence. The notions of competence and performance are essential in Chomsky's
theory. Competence refers to the implicit or explicit knowledge of the system of language
while performance refers to the production and comprehension of language in specific
instances. The first refers to the mechanical aspects of language, necessarily implicit in what
the (ideal) speaker-listener can say. Everything else comes under performance, “the actual
use of language in concrete situations,” most explicitly understood to do with encoding and
decoding. Chomsky associates his views of competence and performance with the
Saussarian conceptions of “langue” and “parole”.

Hymes believed there were other language rules that Chomsky omitted since native
speakers know more than just the grammatical competence. For him, the notion of
communicative competence is the underlying knowledge of grammar including phonology,
lexicon or syntax and the socially appropriate use. That is, competence are the rules of
grammar and performance (the rules of use). The verbal part of the competences comprises
the so-called four skills: reading, writing, listening and speaking. Hymes distinguished four
aspects of Communicative Competence:
a) Systematic potential. Systematic potential means that the native speaker possesses a
system that has a potential for creating a lot of language. This is similar to Chomsky's
competence. We study if an utterance is possible according to the forms of expression
available.
b) Appropriacy. Appropriacy means that the native speaker knows what language is
appropriate in a given situation. An utterance will be appropriate in relation to a context.
c) Occurrence. Occurrence means that the native speaker knows how often something is
said in the language and act accordingly. This means that an utterance should not only be
possible from a grammatical point of view. It should also be actually performed.
d) Feasibility. Feasibility means that the native speaker knows whether something is
possible in the language. Even if there is no grammatical rule to ban twenty-adjective
prehead construction we know that these constructions are not possible in the language.

Now, we will approach communicative competence from an emphasis of fluency rather than
linguistic accuracy. Communicating with people from different cultures involves linguistic
appropriateness but also pragmatics in the use of verbal and non-verbal behaviour.
Communicative competence can be defined as the ability to use all aspects of language in
a variety of contexts as a native. Here we can distinguish:

Linguistic competence includes the mastery of sound and written system; the syntax or
word order where the word meaning may be correct but nor appropriate in a context. Third,
the stress, pitch, volume and juncture. Fourth, the semantics or meanings of words and how
they are used.

The second concept, the pragmatics competence, deals with the appropriateness of
communication in several contexts. First, in view of the speakers ́ roles, status, age and
perspectives. Secondly, verbal codes such as frequency and pattern of eye contact, body
movement and facial expressions. Thirdly, to establish rapport, taking turns, initiating and
ending a conversation. Fourthly, being comprehensive, giving enough information and
resquesting clarification. Finally, creating smooth changes of topic and responding to timing
and pauses. These elements are so powerful that the message can be distorted if some of
them are missing.

In communicative language teaching, fluency and comprehensibility are more important than
accuracy. Fluency builds a sense of comfort, confidence and control in learners who lack
pragmatic competence. Learners may need opportunities to communicate without paying
attention to form, as being understood is more important than using correct vocabulary. For
instance, in my lessons I use role-plays in which students need to communicate within a
context or debates in which pragmatic elements are important as they have to respect each
other's turn and contribute to continuing the conversation.

This next section will provide an account on the different approaches to the communicative
competence model. When cultural studies entered the curriculum, traditional views were
challenged. 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 Dell Hymes. It refers to a methodology based in
anthropology and linguistics allowing people to study human interaction in context. Hymes'
well-known SPEAKING heuristic where capital letters acknowledge different aspects in
communicative competence, serves as a framework within which the ethnographer
examines several components of speech events as follows. S stands for setting and 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
deals with key (tone and manner); I stands for instrumentalities (verbal, non-verbal and
physical channel); N refers to norms of interaction (specific proprieties attached to speaking),
and interpretation (interpretation of norms within cultural belief system); and finally, genre
referring to textual categories.
As we have seen, the notion of communicative competence and its development is linked to
the dialectical relationship between language and culture which has preoccupied linguists,
philosophers and researchers for many years. However, one of the first references to
language as a system of signs and the necessity of an appropriate context was provided by
philosopher Thomas Hobbes.
He mentions “occasion” as an emphasis of social action to achieve effectiveness.
Centuries later, Schweiter and Simonet argued about the necessity to include a system of
basic information involving general topics such as geography, history, traditions or rituals of
the target culture.
Furthermore, Robert Lado argued that knowledge of a foreign language culture is essential
to create the same atmosphere of native speaker´s interaction. However, it was not applied
in the classroom as the grammar translation approaches were dominant at that time.

Chomsky became the turning point in the development of theories on language learning. He
proposed a theory, Transformational Generative Grammar, according to which learners
enquire limited sets of transformations with which learners can form unlimited sentences. For
him, competence is the innate knowledge of language an ideal speaker-listener has in a
community and performance is the actual production and rules of language use. Linguistic
knowledge is separated from sociocultural features.

However, three approaches by Hymes, Halliday and Campbell and Wales showed
disagreement as they thought rules of language were neglected and linguistic competence
represented only a part of what someone needs to be competent.

Campbell and Wales felt that appropriateness of language is more important than
grammaticality. They accepted the distinction of competence and performance by Chomsky
but said he neglected the context. They referred to their views as communicative
competence and his as grammatical competence. For them, it is the ability to produce
appropriately to a context.

In relation to Halliday, he rejected the notions of competence and performance as he

thought the potential meaning was covered by knowing and doing. For him, language is a
mode of social interaction. Language functions provide the elements of communication
through the context. He proposed three macro-functions (ideational, interpersonal and
textual) as well as seven micro-functions: instrumental, regulatory, interactional, personal,
heuristic, imaginative and informative.

Hymes pointed out the model did not provide an explicit place for sociocultural features and
that performance seemed confused between performance and rules of performance. He
thought it lacked empirical support and introduced the concept of communicative
competence paying attention to sociolinguistic components. He defines communicative
competence as possible, feasible, appropriate in relation to the context and done, that is
performed.

Sandra Savignon conducted one of the best-known surveys in the development of this field
with foreign language learners, specifically adults with a beginner level. It was an
interactional approach in a classroom setting by means of equivalents of expressions such
as “please repeat'' or “how do you say this…?”. She included the use of gestures and facial
expressions as well as six aspects for foreign language. The first is the willingness to take
risks and express themselves and to make themselves understood, that is the negotiation of
meaning. Secondly, the fact that communicative competence is written too. Thirdly, the
appropriate choices of register and style in terms of situation and other participants. Fourthly,
performance is observable and the only way competence can be developed, maintained and
evaluated. Fifth, she claims for communicative competence to be relative as it depends on
cooperation of all interlocutors. Finally, she talks about degrees of communicative
competence, which are difficult to measure.

Other approaches started establishing relations between language and culture. Widdowson
and Munby claimed the way we use language affects the way others perceive us. Identity,
culture and language are linked. Widdowson proposes a distinction between use and usage.
Usage is the manifestation of language while use means the realization of language as a
communicative behaviour. This duality is based on effectiveness for communication, in which
an utterance well formed cannot be valued in a context.
Munby contends that grammatical competence should be included in communicative
competence but it needs to be developed separately and as a non essential component of
the competence.

However, reactions to this approach emerged from linguistics such as Canale and Swain.
They claimed grammatical and sociolinguistic competence are important and teachers can
separate them in teaching even if they consider it to be part of communicative competence.
They formulated the communicative competence with four major components that will be
revised later on.

Hymes and Canale and Swain have been redefined by other linguists. Hymes´approach was
reinterpreted by Wolfson. He outlines a model of rules of speaking derived from Hyme´s
pedagogic purposes. His model faces the issue of miscommunication within the framework
of the frequent use of compliments by Americans.

On the other hand, Canale and Swain were revised by Lyle Bachman, who proposed a tree
model similar to them with three components of communicative language proficiency:
language competence, strategic competence and psychophysiological mechanisms. His
interest in testing leads him to separate strategic competence from language knowledge.
The justification for this being that two people may have the same knowledge and control
over a language but have differing degrees of success in using this knowledge.

Language competence is related to the knowledge a learner has of the language using: the
organizational competence and how to construct a discourse. Secondly, pragmatic
competence, related to a functional use of language and the context in which it is used.

The strategic competence refers to the mental capacities underlying language use, which
were not described by Canale and Swain. As a compensation of communication breakdowns
and psycholinguistic view to enhance the rhetorical effect of utterances. It is always
available to the learner and native speaker alike and not just when a breakdown in
communication occurs. We can distinguish three phases: assessment, planning and
execution.
Finally, psychophysiological mechanisms refer to the means of producing language
through the visual and auditory channel and the productive or receptive mode.

In the following section we will explore the communicative elements based on Canale and
Swain's model currently applied to our educational system: grammatical, sociolinguistic,
discourse and strategic.

The grammatical competence deals with lexical items, morphology, syntax,

sentence-grammar semantics and phonology. For example, in the context of the classroom
this has been traditionally applied with vocabulary and grammar exercises such as fill-in the
gaps.

Sociolinguistic competence is the ability to convey communicative functions within a social

situation by understanding the roles of participants, the information they share and rules of
interaction. They are also defined as rules of discourse. That is, how to combine
grammatical forms and meaning. Appropriateness deals with to what extent a word is
appropriate in a context. Meaning appropriateness is about the extent to which
communicative functions such as complaining are proper in a situation. In my lessons, I play
a video clip of a dinner conversation and have learners compare the interaction, such as
choice of topic and turn taking, with what they are familiar with. The clip is used as a prompt
to promote critical reflection rather than stereotypes.
There is a tendency in many second language programmes to treat sociolinguistic
competence as less important than grammatical competence. This tendency seems odd for
two reasons. First, it gives the impression that grammatical correctness of utterances is
more important than appropriateness of utterances in actual communication. Second, this
tendency also ignores that sociolinguistic competence is also crucial in interpreting
sentences for their social meaning. So when an utterance is not clear from its literal meaning
it is important to know its social meaning.

Discourse competence is the use of language to achieve a unified spoken or written text
with cohesion and coherence through cohesive devices such as connectors in different
textual genres. Cohesion deals with how utterances are linked structurally and facilitates
interpretation of a text by means of cohesion devices, such as pronouns, synonyms, ellipsis,
conjunctions and parallel structures to relate individual utterances and to indicate how a
group of utterances is to be understood as a text. Yet, coherence refers to the relationships
among the different meanings in a text, where these meanings may be literal meanings,
communicative functions, and attitudes. As for my lessons, students have to identify
connectors in texts and reflect on their use.

The Strategic competence refers to the use of verbal and non-verbal strategies by
compensating breakdowns in communication and enhancing the effectiveness. This can be
achieved by paraphrase, repetition, guessing or shifting register. This competence is
essential as regardless of experience, one never knows all a language. Personally, I teach
my students to avoid misunderstandings by asking to repeat “Can you repeat please”, “sorry
what did you say?” and by offering synonyms: “so you meant...”.

From a practical perspective in education, providing students with language in context may
prove difficult for teachers. Materials such as textbooks do not provide the required
environment for acquisition of communicative competence and restrict experience, freedom
and interactivity. Through video, students perceive massive doses of comprehensible input.
Personally I use authentic materials such as videos of tv series to present different context
so students can analyse the vocabulary used. Present-day approaches have an emphasis
on significance over form and motivation and involvement are enhanced. This requires
creating classroom conditions which match those in real life to foster acquisition. According
to the current educational laws (Organic Law 3/2020 and Royal Decree 217/2022) the main
aim of studying languages is to produce language within its social context. This is reflected
in standards such as: students are expected to understand and interpret written and spoken
language in a variety of topics. By ignoring these elements of communication in the
classroom, we are not providing essential elements of human interaction.

To conclude, students are expected to learn to function in the target language and culture by
interpreting and producing meaning with natives. However, providing experiences for contact
with language in context has been problematic. Multimedia environments provide a more
appropriate setting for students to experience the target culture. The notion of
communicative competence has developed with Savignon, Canale and Swain and Hymes as
the need to communicate successfully in a pluralistic society. In order to do this, teachers
have to use authentic materials as a tool to understand native viewpoints.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Crystal, D. 1985. Linguistics. Harmondsworth, England. Penguin Books.

Halliday, M.A.K. 1975. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London:Edward Arnold.
Hymes, D. 1972. On Communicative competence. Harmondsworth: Penguin.