Unit 3: The Process of Communication. The Functions of Language.

The use of Language: Speech Acts. The Negotiation of Meaning.

 Introduction.

To say that language serves as an instrument of communication is to utter a truism.

Indeed, it is difficult to imagine any satisfactory definition of the term “language” that
did not incorporate some reference to the notion of communication. Furthermore, it is
obvious, or has appeared so to many linguists, that there is an intrinsic connection
between meaning and communication, such that is impossible to account for the former
except in terms of the latter.

But, what is communication? The words “communicate” and “communication” are used
in a fairly wide range of contexts in their everyday sense. We talk as readily of
communication of feelings, moods and attitudes as we do of the communication of
factual information. There is no doubt that these different senses are interconnected, and
various definitions have been proposed which have sought to bring them under some
very general, but theoretical, concept defined in terms of social interaction or the
response of an organism to a stimulus.

By communication we mean the intentional transmission of information by means of

some established signaling-system. The principal signaling-systems employed by
humans beings for the transmission of information, though not the only ones, are
languages.

Languages, then, are fundamental parts of human beings, and in order to learn to use a
language, most of us have to become involved in it as an experience. We do this by
using languages for real communication.

That is, when we pronounce sentences in isolation, we manifest our knowledge of the
language system of English, that is, these sentences are mere examples of correct
English usage. But, we are generally required to use our knowledge of the language
system in order to achieve some kind of communicative purpose.

Words and sentences have meaning because they are part of a language system and this
meaning is recorded in grammars and dictionaries. This can be distinguished from the
meaning that sentences take on when they are put to use in order to perform different
acts of communication.

Although developing the pupils’ ability to communicate at a very early stage was one of
the primary aims of foreign language teaching since its beginning, it has taken a great
effort to define precisely the nature and form of communication and to put into practice
a pedagogical system capable of delivering it.

The ability to communicate plays a decisive role in the language programme of most
European countries. However, modern approaches insist on this communication not
being only of an audio-visual experience, but a total one which must include gestures,
behavior, mime and other aspects occurring in first language communication
traditionally neglected in the foreign language classroom.

1. Communication.

Communication, the exchange of meanings between individuals through a common

system of symbols, has been the concern of scholars since ancient times. Yet, since
about 1920 the growth and apparent influence of communication technologies have
attracted the attention of many specialists who have attempted to isolate communication
as a specific facet of their particular interest. In the 1960s, mass-media communication
was sometimes associated with many contemporary psychological and sociological
phenomena.

By the late twentieth century, the main focus of interest in communication tended to be
centered upon the mass communication industries, persuasive communication and the
use of technology to influence dispositions, processes of interpersonal communication
as mediators of information, dynamics of verbal and non-verbal communication
between individuals, perception of different kinds of communication, use of
communication technologies for social and artistic purposes, including education…

In short, a communication expert may be oriented to any number of disciplines in a field

of enquiry that has, as yet, neither drawn for itself a conclusive roster of subject matter,
nor agreed upon specific methodologies of analysis.

The English literary critic and author Richards offered one of the first –and in some
ways still the best– definitions of communication as a discrete aspect of human
enterprise: “Communication takes place when one mind so acts upon its environment
that another mind is influenced, and in that other mind an experience occurs which is
like the experience in the first mind, and is caused in part by that experience”.

Loosely speaking, communication implies the transmission of a signal (a message) from

the encoder’s mind to the listener’s. In this sense, that signal (message) will be
considered to be communicative if it is intended by the sender or speaker to make the
receiver or listener aware of something of which he was not previously aware.

Whether a signal is communicative or not rests upon the possibility of choice, or

selection, on the part of the sender. If the sender cannot but behave in a certain way, that
is, if he cannot choose between alternative kinds of behavior, then he obviously cannot
communicate anything by behaving in that way.

“Communicative” means “meaningful for the sender”. But there is another sense of
“meaningful”, and for this we will reserve the term “informative” and the cognate
expressions “information” and “inform”.

A signal will become “informative” if, regardless of the intentions of the sender, it
makes the receiver aware of something of which he was not previously aware.
“Informative” therefore means “meaningful to the receiver”. If the signal tells him
something he knew already, it tells him nothing: it is uninformative.

1.1. The Nature of Communication.

Though communication between humans is a very complex phenomenon, scholars have

found certain characteristics which seem to apply in every situation:

- It is a form of social interaction and is therefore normally acquired and used in

social interaction.

- Involves a high degree of unpredictability and creativity in form and message.

- Takes place in discourse and sociocultural contexts which provide constraints on

appropriate language use.

- Is carried out under limiting psychological and other conditions such as memory
constraints, fatigue and distractions.

- Always has a purpose.

- Involves authentic language.

- Is judged as successful or not on the basis of factual outcomes.

If we want our teaching to be really communicative we will have to follow these

characteristics.

Harmer(1983) puts them in this way: “We can say that when one person speaks

- He wants to speak, it is his decision to address someone.

- He has a communicative purpose, i.e. he wants something to happen as a result

of what he says.

- He selects from his language store and uses the language he feels appropriate for
his purpose”.

These generalizations apply to both written and spoken linguistic codes. On the other
hand, the person’s listening:

- wants to listen to something.

- is interested in the communicative purpose of what is being said.

- processes a variety of language.

All these factors were not traditionally taken into account when designing language
learning activities. It is only with the advent of the Communicative Approach to
Language Teaching that real communication enters the classroom.
 2. Communication in the Foreign Language Class.

During the 1970s, there was a widespread reaction against methods that stressed the
teaching of grammatical forms and paid no attention to the way language is used in
everyday situations. A concern developed to make foreign language teaching
“communicative”. The goal of language teaching is to develop what Hymes referred to
as “communicative competence”: that aspect of our competence that enables us to
convey and interpret messages and to negotiate meanings interpersonally within specific
contexts.

Nevertheless, and despite the so many efforts and some evident outcomes, scholars
noticed a series of psychological features that influence on communication, in general,
and in the development of communication in the foreign class, in particular:

- Desire to communicate: Spontaneous verbal expression is not solely the product

of knowledge of and skill in using a language code. It presupposes that “the
student has something to communicate”. Silent students in the classroom often
have nothing to say at that moment. The teacher may have introduced a topic
which they find uninteresting or about which they know very little and, as a
result, they have nothing to express, whether in the native language or the
language they are learning.

As well as having something to say, the student must have the desire to
communicate this message to some person or group of persons. Students who
find their teacher unsympathetic and their classmates uncongenial may well feel
that what they would like to say can be of little interest. Others may be very
conscious of their limitations in the new language and feel that, by expressing
themselves in it, they are laying themselves open to ridicule or censure. For
many reasons like these, students may prefer to remain silent.

- Comprehension as well as expression: Since conversation is essentially

interaction between people, comprehension plays a role as well as skill in
expression. Students may have acquired skill in expressing themselves in the
new language when it is spoken at a normal speech of delivery in conversational
situation. For this to happen, however, students need much practice in listening
to the language before attempting sustained conversation. They also need
practice in seizing on the elements of a preceding utterance and incorporating
these into their response. This will provide them with the breathing space
necessary for the formulation of their own contribution to a continuing verbal
exchange.

- Personality factors: In a class group, the teacher must be alert to recognize

personality factors which are affecting participation in the new language. Some
students are talkative, others are shy or taciturn. These characteristics affect
student performance in the oral part of the lesson.
 Some students are by nature cautious or meticulous; others are unduly sensitive
and therefore easily embarrassed or upset if found to be in error or not
understood. Students in these categories often prefer to say nothing rather than
take the risk of expressing themselves incorrectly, whether in a first or a second
language.

- Limitations of expression: In attempting to use the new language to express their

own thoughts, students find themselves in an abnormally constricting situation,
where their choice of expression is severely limited. At their age, they are
accustomed to being able to demonstrate orally the maturity of their thought and
the breadth of their knowledge. Finding themselves now limited to expressing
themselves in simple language, they feel frustrated and exasperated.

Teachers must be aware of this inhibiting factor and conscious of their own advantage
of fluent expression in the new medium. They need to show great restraint in their own
contributions to the conversation or discussion, patience with the students’ attempts to
use the new tool and respect for the fact that, although their students may be limited in
their powers of expression in the new language, they are not really the persons this
limitation might make them appear to be.

In the earlier stages, the teacher should not expect students to express in the foreign
language sophisticated ideas and concepts for which they cannot possibly know the
accepted forms of expression and which they cannot be expected to discuss with any
degree of refinement within the narrow confines of their foreign language knowledge.

2.1. Non-Verbal Communication.

When we communicate, our understanding of the communicative event is not based on

the verbal component only. Interpreting does not operate on the verbal text but on
discourse as a whole, which is not purely verbal. Spoken discourse is a good example
because spoken communication is not realized by speaking, which is purely verbal, but
also by such paralinguistic devices such as gesture, facial expressions, etc. All these
devices are conveyed through the visual medium. While linguistic abilities may operate
on a verbal layer, communicative abilities operate on both the verbal and the non-verbal
features of discourse.

It is important to note that some of these non-verbal acts are culturally related, e.g.:
different cultures may use different gestures, beckoning (telling someone to come here)
can be carried out with the palm of the hand facing up or down. People used to the
former can interpret the latter to mean ‘Go away!’. In Spain we can use both meaning
‘Come here!’, but in England only the one with the palm of the hand facing up will be
used. The study of gestures has being called kinesics.

Of more cross-cultural significance are the theories involved in the study of proxemics.
Proxemics involve the ways in which people in various cultures utilize both time and
space as well as body positions and other factors for purposes of communication. The
silent language of non-verbal communication, studied by the U.S. anthropologist
Edward Hall, includes the physical distance maintained between individuals, the body
heat they give off, odors they perceive in social situations, angles of vision they
maintain while talking, the pace of their behavior and the sense of time appropriate for
communication under different conditions. Proxemics is a totally empirical subject, and
many of its findings are open to question, but it has succeeded in calling attention to
major features of communication dynamics rarely considered by linguists.

Non-verbal communication seems to have little place in a language teaching

environment. However certain attempts have been made to use extralinguistic responses
to linguistic messages in language instruction. The best-known is the Total Physical
Response (TPR) Method.

3. The Process of Communication.

The English literary critic and author Richards offered one of the first –and in some
ways still the best– definitions of communication as a discrete aspect of human
enterprise: “Communication takes place when one mind so acts upon its environment
that another mind is influenced, and in that other mind an experience occurs which is
like the experience in the first mind, and is caused in part by that experience”.

Richards’ definition is both general and rough, but its application to nearly all kinds of
communications –including those between men and animals (but excluding machines)-
separated the contents of messages from the processes in human affairs by which these
messages are transmitted.

One of the most productive schematic models of a communication system emerged

from the speculations of the linguist Roman Jakobson (who developed the traditional
model of language as elucidated particularly by the Austrian psychologist Bühler). The
simplicity of Jakobson’s model, its clarity, and its surface generality proved attractive to
many students of communication in a number of disciplines, although it is neither the
only model of the communication process extant nor one that is universally accepted.
As originally conceived, the model contained the following elements:

CONTEXT

ADDRESSER/ MESSAGE ADDRESSEE/

ENCODER __________ DECODER

CONTACT

(Channel)

CODE
Jakobson says that in any act of verbal communication, the six constituents of the
revised model are: (1) the source or addresser, who sends a message, (2) to the receiver
or addressee (3). To be operative the message requires a context (4) referred to
–“referent” in another nomenclature–, sizable by the addressee, and either verbal or
capable of being verbalized. (5) A code fully, or at least partially common to the
addresser and addressee (or in other words, the encoder and decoder of the message);
and finally, a contact (6), a physical channel and psychological connection between the
addresser and the addressee, enabling both of them to enter and stay in communication.

However, the significance of a message, which comes from the listener's side, is
dependent on three factors:

1. There is the linguistic information which is extracted from the signal. What
the listener perceives is not necessarily what was emitted by the speaker.

2. The situational context of the message affects what listeners perceive to be

the relationship between what they have heard and what has been said and
also their expectations of what will follow.

3. The comprehended message is dependent on what the listener perceives to be

the intentions of the speaker.

3.1. The Context: A Key Factor.

Context is defined as:

- The parts of a piece of writing, speech, etc. that precede and follow a word or
passage and contribute to its full meaning.

- The conditions and circumstances that are relevant to an event, fact, etc.

The first definition covers what we may call linguistic context, but as we can infer from
the second definition, linguistic context may not be enough to fully understand an
utterance understood as a speech act. In fact, linguistic elements in a text may refer not
only to other parts of the text, but also to the outside world, to the context of situation:

REFERENCE

Linguistic Context Context of Situation

Endophora Exophora

Anaphora (to preceding text)

Cataphora (to following text)

The concept of context of situation was formulated by Malinowski in 1923. It has been
worked over and extended by a number of linguists, especially Hymes and Halliday.
Hymes categorizes the communicative situation in terms of eight components while
Halliday offers three headings for the analysis:

Context of Situation

Hymes: Halliday:

Form and content of text. Field.

Setting. Mode.

Participants. Tenor.

Ends (intent and effect).

Key.

Medium.

Genre.

Interactional norms.

We shall here analyze Halliday’s more abstract interpretation as it practically subsumes

Hymes’. The terms field, mode and tenor describe how the context of situation
determines the kinds of meaning that are expressed.

The field is the total event in which the text is functioning, together with the purpose
activity of the speaker or writer (the communicative situation, “functionality”); it thus
The mode is the function of the text in the event, including, therefore, both the channel
taken by the language, and its genre or rhetorical mode as narrative, didactic, persuasive
and so on.

The tenor refers to the participants who are taking part in this communicative exchange,
who they are and what kind of relationship they have to one another. It is clear that role
relationship, i.e. the relationship which people have in an act of communication,
influences the way they speak to each other. One of the speakers may have, for instance,
a role which has a higher status than that of the other speaker or speakers, e.g.
headmaster – teacher; lieutenant– sergeant.

If we analyze an English lesson in our school we can see that the field of discourse is
language study, i.e. colors. We as teacher are imparting, and pupils are acquiring
knowledge about colors in our target language. The tenor of discourse refers to two
types of participants: teacher-pupils.
We have fixed role relationships defined by the educational institution and society at
large. Teacher is in higher role, even when we play the role of participants, and there
may be temporary role relationships between pupils, depending on their personality. As
far as the mode is concerned, we can say that the language used is going to be
instruction and discussion language. The channel will be both spoken and written. Field,
mode and tenor collectively define the context of situation of a text includes the subject-
matter as one element in it.

4. The Functions of Language.

The question “Why do we use language?” does not seem to require an answer. The
usual response to that question tends to be “to communicate our ideas”, and, indeed, this
must surely be the most widely recognized function of language. Whenever we tell
people about ourselves, or our circumstances, or ask for information about others and
their circumstances, we are using the language in order to exchange facts and opinions.
This use of language is often called referential, propositional, or ideational. It is the
kind of language which will be found in any spoken or written interaction where people
wish to learn from each other.

So what do we understand by the notion functions of language? In the simplest sense,

the word “function” can be thought of as a synonym for the word “use”, so that when
we talk about functions of language, we may mean no more than the way people use
their language, or their languages; that is, they expect to achieve by talking and writing,
and by listening and reading, a large number of different aims and purposes. We could
attempt to list and classify these in some way or other, and a number of scholars have
attempted to do this, hoping to find some fairly general framework or scheme for
classifying the purposes for which people use language.

4.1. Classification of Linguistic Functions.

Language, apart from being a structurally, hierarchically organized system, is also

functional. Function will be interpreted not just as the use of language but as a
fundamental property of language itself, something that is basic to the evolution of the
semantic system. This amounts to saying that the organization of every natural language
is to be explained in terms of a functional theory. In connection with this functional
aspect of language, we can distinguish, following Halliday, three main functions of
language:

- Ideational: language serves for the expression of content. It is to organize the

speaker’s or writer’s experience of the real or imaginary world, i.e., language
refers to real or imagined people, things, actions, events, states, etc.

- Relational-interpersonal: language is the instrument to establish and maintain

social relations between people. It includes forms of address, speech, function,
modality, etc.
 - Textual: language serves for making connections with language itself and with
features of the situation in which it is used.

But there are a number of familiar classifications of linguistic functions: for example,
that put forward by Malinowski. A quite different classification is that associated with
the Prague School and later extended by Roman Jakobson, who on the basis of the six
factors of his own model of communication distinguished six different functions of
language:

- Referential: defines the relationship between message and the idea or object to
which it refers.

- Emotive: determines the relationship between message and encoder; it expresses

the attitude of the sender towards the object, that is to say, his/her mood.

- Conative: particularizes the relationship between message and decoder. By

means of this function, the encoder intends a reaction on the part of the decoder.

- Phatic: establishes the relationship between encoder, channel and decoder. The
aim is to consolidate, end or keep a communicative interact going.

- Metalingual: sees the relationship between code and message. Language is used
to communicate something belonging to language itself, to the code.

- Poetic: determines the relationship that the message maintains with itself. It is
the way of expression, not the content of the message, which is paramount.

5. The Use of Language.

5.1. Speech Acts.

In a typical speech situation involving a speaker, a hearer, and an utterance by the

speaker, there are many kinds of acts associated with the speaker’s utterance. Speech
acts are defined as the simple utterance of sentences; acts of verbal behavior (Quirk et
al.). Whenever a speaker is performing a speech act, he is producing an utterance.

The linguist who first talked about speech acts was Austin (1962), who devoted much of
his time to the analysis of particular utterances produced by speakers. Austin put
forward one distinction that turned out to be relevant about the subject: he distinguished
between performative utterances and constative utterances.

A performative utterance implies the performance of action together with the simple act
of saying something (such verbs as name, bet, bequeath,...are used in this way).

A constative utterance merely presents a simple statement. Austin talks about three
different types of speech acts:
 1. Locutionary acts: they simply consist in the utterance of a meaningful string;
they are just acts of saying something.

2. Illocutionary acts: special attention to the communicative intention of the

speaker is paid. By performing these types of speech acts we may ask a
question, make a statement, give orders, warn, advise...

3. Perlocutionary acts: acts of verbal behavior identified by means of the effect

that a given utterance produces on the thought or action of the
listener/hearer.

In connection with the three types of speech acts, linguists consider three types of
speech force: locutionary force, illocutionary force and perlocutionary force. Since our
main concern are illocutionary acts, we will center our study on them in order to provide
a thorough idea of the distinct forces they can convey. Searle speaks of propositional
meaning of an illocutionary act and of illocutionary force. Considering the following
example:

Will John leave the room?

John will leave the room.
John, leave the room!
I would like that John left the room.
If John will leave the room, I will leave also.

We will come to the conclusion that the fact that John leaves the room is the “common
content” or “propositional meaning” of the sentences given; nevertheless, the
illocutionary force rendered by each sentence is that of a question, statement/assertion,
order/command, wish and intention respectively.

Searle points out that the particular force of an act of verbal behavior is indicated by
means of the so-called function indicating devices (a kind of instrument used to show
the particular function that a given utterance has). The most representative ones being:
word order, intonation, punctuation, stress, and performative verbs.

6. The Negotiation of Meaning.

The meaning of a linguistic form can be defined as the situation in which the speaker
utters it and the response which it calls forth in the hearer. The speaker’s situation and
the hearer’s response. In this sense, communication involves the continuous evaluation
and negotiation of meaning on the part of the participants.

When learners of a foreign or second language interact with native speakers or other
learners, they often experience considerable difficulty in communicating. This leads to
substantial interactional efforts by the conversational partners to secure mutual
understanding. This work is often called the “negotiation of meaning”. This contributes
to Second Language Acquisition in a number of ways.
On the part of the native speaker this involves, according to Long, the use of:

- Strategies: These are conversational devices used to avoid trouble; examples are
relinquishing topic control, selecting salient topics, and checking
comprehension.

- Tactics are devices for repairing trouble; examples are topic switching and
requests for clarification.

Other devices such as using a slow pace, repeating utterances, or stressing key
words can serve as both tactics and strategies.

The learner also needs to contribute to the negotiation of meaning. However, as it is a

joint enterprise, he can do so by:

- Giving clear signals when he has understood or not understood.

- Refusing to give up (persistence).

- Using extra linguistic resources.

The result of the negotiation of meanings is that particular types of input and interaction
result. In particular it has been hypothesized that negotiation makes input
comprehensible and in this way promotes Second Language Acquisition.