¡Descarga Communicative Competence in Foreign Language Teaching y más Resúmenes en PDF de Inglés solo en Docsity!
UNIT 4
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE. ANALYSIS OF ITS
COMPONENTS.
OUTLINE
1. INTRODUCTION.
1.1. Aims of the unit. 1.2. Notes on bibliography.
2. A THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE: ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT.
2.1. The notion of communication: a basis for a theory of communicative competence. 2.1.1. Communication and language teaching. 2.1.2. Communicative competence: an issue in foreign language education. 2.1.3. A communicative approach to language teaching. 2.2. On defining communicative competence: a linguistic and pragmatic approach. 2.2.1. Fluency over accuracy. 2.2.2. The introduction of cultural studies: a basis for an etnography of communication. 2.3. A historical overview of the development in a model of communicative competence. 2.3.1. Earlier approaches: Hobbes (1651), Schweiter and Simonet (1921), and Lado (1957). 2.3.2. Chomsky (1965): competence and performance. 2.3.3. First reactions to Chomsky’s model: Campbell and Wales (1970), Halliday (1972), and Hymes (1972). 2.3.4. Sandra Savignon (1972, 1983) 2.3.5. Widdowson (1978) and Munby (1978). 2.3.6. Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983). 2.3.7. On revising Hymes and Canale and Swain’s models: Wolfson (1989) and Bachman (1990). 2.3.8. Present-day approaches: B.O.E. (2002).
3. AN ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE COMPONENTS.
3.1. On the analysis of communicative components: a model assessment. 3.1.1. Grammatical competence. 3.1.2. Discourse competence. 3.1.3. Sociolinguistic competence. 3.1.4. Strategic competence. 3.2. Related areas of study. 3.2.1. Discourse analysis. 3.2.2. A speech act theory. 3.2.3. Interactional competence. 3.2.4. Cross-cultural considerations.
4. PRESENT-DAY DIRECTIONS REGARDING COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE.
4.1. Multimedia and hypermedia contexts. 4.2. Implications into language teaching.
- CONCLUSION.
- BIBLIOGRAPHY.
1. INTRODUCTION.
1.1. Aims of the unit.
The aim of this unit is to offer a broad account of the concept of communicative competence, and its importance in society, and especially, in the language teaching community, from its origins to present-day studies. This presentation will start by offering the most relevant bibliography in this field as a reference for the reader, and by presenting our study in three different sections.
The first section will start by reviewing the origins and nature of the communication process in order to provide a link to the concept of communicative competence through, first, the notion of language, and then, through a theory of foreign language teaching. Within this framework, key concepts related to communicative approaches will be under revision, such as proficiency, competence and performance. In a second section, this theoretical background accounts for a theory of communic ative competence from a linguistic and pragmatic point of view, and suggests the issues we will refer to in analyzing the development of communicative competence models. From this anthropological perspective we are also able to see that the concerns that have prompted modern theories of communication were similar to those that, at other times when language was not developed yet, have always been concerned with how to communicative successfully. Besides, an overview of the origins and nature of the term will lead us to provide a socio-cultural approach within the introduction of culture studies to foreign language teaching, known as the etnography of communication, in which a foreign language is approached from a pragmatic and linguistic point of view.
Within the third section of our discussion, we shall provide an acccount of the development of the most influential models within a theory of communicative competence, the most relevant figures in this field and their contributions will be overviewed, together with an assessment model of communicative competence. Furthermore, we will give an account of related issues to this model theory. A fourth section will be devoted to present-day directions in the communication process within a classroom and natural setting, regarding the evolution of media use for the development of communicative competence among foreign language learners. Besides, we will offer some of the implications of this approach to language teaching. Finally, a conclusion will be offered in order to broadly overview our present study, and bibliographical references will be presented in a last section by means of sections on each issue.
1.2. Notes on bibliography.
Several sources have contributed to provide a valuable introduction to the origins and nature of communication and to the concept of language. Thus, David Crystal, Linguistics (1985), Halliday, Spoken and Written Language (1985), Halliday, Explorations in the Functions of Language (1975) and Wilga M. Rivers, Teaching Foreign-Language Skills (1981). The theoretical background to the relationship between the communication process and language teaching is given by Larsen- Freeman, An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research (1991); and Widdowson, Teaching Language as Communication (1978). Four generally excellent surveys of both a theory of communicative competence, and a communicative approach on language teaching are Ellis , Understanding Second Language Acquisition (1985); Canale and Swain, Theoretical bases of communicative appro aches to second language teaching and testing (1980); Canale, From Communicative Competence to Communicative Language Pedagogy (1983); Hymes , On communicative competence (1972); and Richards & Rodger Approaches and methods in language Teaching (2001). A precious background to the introduction and influence of cultural studies on
Hence, regarding types (Halliday 1985), the field of semiotics distinguishes verbal and non -verbal communication as part of the analysis of both linguistic and non-linguistic signs as communicative devices in all modes and contexts. Thus, when the act of communication is verbal , the code is the language, which may result in oral or written form, as when we are watching a film, having a conversation, or reading a magazine. When we refer to non-verbal communication, visual and tactile modes are concerned, such as gestures, facial expressions, body language, or touch, and even some uses of the vocal tract are possible by means of paralanguage , such as whistling or musical effects.
According to Halliday (1975), language may be defined as an instrument of social interaction with a clear communicative purpose. Among the most prominent design features of human language, an auditory-vocal channel is to be highlighted in opposition to tactile, visual or other means of communication. Human beings are also able to reproduce and produce an infinite number of messages in any context of space and time, thanks to the arbitrariness of language which allows humans to combine sounds with no intrinsic meaning so as to form elements with meaning. And finally, we may mention as the last feature, a traditional transmission, since language is transmitted from one generation to the next by a process of teaching and learning. This feature is the aim of our next section which links communication and language teaching in order to provide a meaningful framework to the notion of communicative competence.
2.1.1. Communication and language teaching.
From a historical perspective, Howatt (1984) has demonstrated that many current issues in language teaching are not particularly new. For instance, in the seventeenth century, the theologian Jan Amos Komensky (1592-1670), Comenius, who was said to be the founder of didactics , that is, the art of teaching, already stated the reasons for learning a foreign language. He claims that through language, we come to a closer understanding of the world since language refers to things in the world. Upon this basis, he claims that for men to retrieve something of their old collective wisdom, it is necessary for them to learn each other’s languages. Therefore, first, there is no point in learning another language if one has not mastered one's own, and secondly, that we also have to learn the language of our neighbours so as to be able to communicate with them. He states that only after that, should one take on the learning of one of the classic languages, such as Latin, Hebrew, Greek or Arabic. On the practice and use of communication, he adds that the grammar rules should aid and confirm usage , so that the learner, then, can have frequent opportunities to express him or herself, in different situations.
In the words of Widdowson (1978), these opportunities Comenius mentions to communicate with others, have to do with the ability to communicate in a foreign language and the ability to interpret and produce meaning, which is an important goal for language learners, especially for those who need to fulfill roles as family members, community members, students, teachers, employers or employees in an foreign language speaking environment. While there are many influential factors in second language learning, as the learner characteristics such as age, personality, and intelligence, the critical dimension in language learning is interaction with other speakers.
Similarly, in the words of Larsen-Freeman (1991), one learns to do by doing, since people learn to walk by walking and they learn to drive by driving. Therefore, it makes sense, then, that people learn to communicate by communicating, and similarly, those learners who engage in the regular use of their second language and receive the greater quantity of input will most likely demonstrate a greater ability to use their second language. Learners must actively work and practice extensively
on communicating to develop skills in communication. It follows, then, that learners should be provided with as much speaking time as possible, both in and out of the classroom. However, we should not forget that communicating successfully implies not only a correct use of structure and form, but also to communicate intelligibly and appropriately for students to achieve a successful interaction. This ability to communicate is the aim of our next section where we will provide an approach to the notion of communicative competence and its relationship to language teaching.
2.1.2. Communicative competence: an issue in foreign language education.
In this section, it is relevant to conceptualize first some key issues related to the concept of communicative competence in order to fully understand the term and its relevance in foreign language teaching. Therefore, the concepts of proficiency, competence and performance will be under revision as follows.
Within a language teaching theory, many approaches and theories stem from a fundamental question which addresses the way we, teachers, can help students who are learning a second language in a classroom setting, become proficient in that language. Another question arises, then, in relation to what it means to be proficient in a language, and to what a learner has to know in terms of grammar, vocabulary, sociolinguistic appropriateness, conventions of discourse, and cultural understanding in order to use a language well enough for real world purpose. Following Ellis (1985), we may define proficiency as the learner’s knowledge of the target language viewed as linguistic competence or communicative competence. Common synonyms for the term are expertise, ability, or competence within implications at a high level of skill, well-developed knowledge, and polished performance. As we have seen, the term proficiency brings about the notions of competence and performance which must be also reviewed.
These two notions of competence and performance are one of the main tenets in Chomsky’s theory of transformational grammar (Richards & Rodgers 2001). This distinction addresses competence as the idealized native speaker’s underlying competence, referring to one’s implicit or explicit knowledge of the system of the language whereas performance addresses to an individual performance, referring to one’s actual production and comprehension of language in specific instances of language use. Chomsky believed that actual performace did not properly reflect the underlying knowledge, that is, competence, because of its many imperfections at the level of errors and hesitations.
This fundamental distinction has been at the centre of discussions of many other researchers, and in fact, it has been reviewed and evaluated since then from various theoretical perspectives which will be examined in the section devoted to the development of a communicative competence model (Canale & Swain 1980). However, we will highlight in this section one of the main rejections to Chomsky’s view of language, proposed by the American anthropologist Dell Hymes in his work On communicativ e competence (1972). Here he felt that there are rules of language use that are neglected in Chomsky’s approach, as native speakers know more than just grammatical competence. Hymes, with a tradition on sociolinguistics, had a broader view of the term which included not only grammatical competence, but also sociolinguistic and contextual competence. For Hymes, the notion of communicative competence is the underlying knowledge a speaker has of the rules of grammar including phonology, orthography, syntax, lexicon, and semantics, and the rules for their use in socially appropriate circumstances. Therefore, we understand competence as the knowledge of rules of grammar, and performance, they way the rules are used.
The verbal part of communicative competence comprises all the so-called four skills: listening, reading, speaking and writing. It is important to highlight this, since there is a very common misunderstanding that communicative competence only refers to the ability to speak. It is both
fluency is seen as an important dimension of communication. Fourth, communication is intended to involve the integration of different language skills, and finally, the principle that claims for learning as a process of creative construction which involves trial and error.
However, this communicative view is considered an approach rather than a method which provides a humanistic approach to teaching where interactive processes of communication receive priority. Its rapid adoption and implementation resulted in similar approaches among which we may mention The Natural Approach, Cooperative Language Learning, Content-Based Teaching, and Task-Based Teaching. It is difficult to describe these various methods briefly and yet fairly, and such a task is well beyond the scope of this paper. However, several up-to-date texts are available that do detail differences and similarities among the many different approaches and methods that have been proposed (see Richards & Rodgers, 2001).
2.2. On defining communicative competence: a linguistic and pragmatic approach.
The aim of this section is to approach the notion of communicative competence from an emphasis on fluency rather than on linguistic accuracy, since learners need many different opportunities to communicate without having to concentrate on structure and form. Upon this basis, the introduction of cultural studies is under revision as an important aspect of communicative competence. As far as background knowledge and cultural expectations on the foreign language are concerned, communicating with people from other cultures involves not only linguistic appropriateness but also pragmatic appropriateness in the use of verbal and non-verbal behavior. This issue is examined within an ethnography of communication theory in order to approach a foreign language from a pragmatic and linguistic point of view.
2.2.1. Fluency over accuracy.
Today, communicative competence is the central aim of foreign and second language teaching, providing a number of suggestions as to how teachers can give pupils optimum frameworks for acquiring a good communicative competence. This notion no longer describes just a particular proficiency or skill, but makes reference to more than listening and speaking, 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, then, two components to communicative competence under review.
The first component is linguistic competence , which involves the mastery of several features. Thus, first, the sound system and the written system in order not to sound unusual to the cultural and linguistic ear although the grammar may be perfect. Secondly, the syntax, or word order of interactions where perhaps the word meaning is correct, but the word is out-of-date or awkward, or simply that a phrase is not appropriate in the context. Thirdly, the stress, pitch, volume, and juncture as a passage from one sound to another in the stream of speech. Finally, the semantics, or meanings of words and phrases, and the how, when, where, and why they are used in a language. This usually takes place when we think of children’s amusing or embarrassing comments as they learn to communicate, or we deal with a person whose writing or speaking is different to the native language. This feature is to be found culturally implied, not explicitly taught.
The second component includes pragmatics competence which deals with knowing the appropriateness of communication formats, verbal and non-verbal responses and interactions in many contexts. Among an endless list of skills, we shall 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, such as frequency and pattern of eye contact and facial expressions, or personal space and body movement. Next, another feature is to establish rapport, taking turns, and not to talk excessively, as well as initiating, contributing relevance to, and ending a conversation. Fourthly, we may highlight the fact of being comprehensible, supplying all necessary information and requesting clarific ation when necessary. And finally, it is important 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, making the speaker feel perplexed, uneasy or distrustful. 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. Today’s classrooms often have a wide diversity of skills, abilities, experiences, cultures, lifestyles and languages that can provide a wonderful opportunity for students to expand and enhance their communicative competence by means of providing our students with fully–developed experiences concerning acceptable communication.
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). Experiencing fluency also builds a sense of comfort, confidence, and control in those learners who lack strong pragmatics competence. We, teachers, can provide opportunities for students to develop context-sensitive behaviour in order to become more aware of, and more adept at responding appropriately to social contexts. Since pragmatics competence is a crucial survival skill in life and in the workplace, students need to develop this competence in an appropriate conversational context. Therefore, we shall examine some cultural implications within this issue in our next section.
2.2.2. The introduction of cultural studies: a basis for an etnography of communication.
As we have mentioned in the preceding section, 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 of human nature. Yet, speakers draw on their competence in putting together grammatical sentences, but not all such sentences can be used in the same circumstances. Thus, ‘Give me the salt!’ and ‘Could you pass me the salt, please?’ are both grammatical, but they differ in their appropriateness for use in particular situations. Speakers use their communicative competence to choose what to say, as well as how and when to say it. It is fair, then, to highlight again the importance of being understood rather than using correct vocabulary or grammar.
Hymes (1974) and others have stated that second language acquisition must be accompanied by a cultural knowledge acquisition in addition to communicative competence. Communicating with people from different cultures implies not only choosing the appropriate words but also using the appropriate verbal and non-verbal behaviors. So far, the more knowledge the learner has to facilitate 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. This often involves acquiring information about life experiences such as driving rules, etiquette, family life, business, or how justice works. Once the constraint of a lack of background knowledge and information is eliminated, the learner has an opportunity to work on developing fluency and building communicative competence.
There are several important strategies that a student should learn about the underlying cultural rules that guide conversation in the environment where they are speaking, such as using gestures, taking
introduction of cultural studies enters the second language teaching curriculum, and for the first time, traditional views on language system are challenged.
One of the first references to language, as a system of signs, and the necessity of an appropriate context of communication was provided by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in 1651. On revising the natural condition of mankind regarding counsel, Hobbes unconciously offered in his work The Leviathan (chapter XXV) an ethnographic approach to the nature of language. Thus, he explains how fallacious is is to judge of the nature of things, by the ordinary and inconstant use of words, appeareth in nothing more, than in the confusion of Counsels, and Commands, arising from the imperative manner of speaking in them both, and in many other occasions besides. For the words Doe this, are the words not onely of him that Commandeth; but also of him that giveth Counsell; and of him that Exhorteth; and yet there are but few, that see not, that these are very different things; or that cannot distinguish between them, when they perceive who it is that speaketh, and to whom the Speech is directed, and upon what occasion. This “occasion” makes reference to an emphasis on social action rather than on texts in order to achieve the effectiveness of communication.
Some centuries later, in 1921, Shweiter and Simonet also challenged the view that language is only a system of signs and that language awareness included only the knowledge of grammar, lexicon, and phonetics (Bloomfield 1933). They argued about the necessity of including a system of basic information into second language teaching, which involved a wide range of general topics, among which we may find geography, history customs, traditions, holidays and rituals of a foreign language country. Though the range of the topics may seem very limited nowadays, the reader must bear in mind that this was the first challenged to the old traditional view of language system.
Another approach traces back to the middle of the twentieth century, when the American linguist Robert Lado (1957) argued that knowledge of a foreign language culture is essential for foreign language learners to create the same atmosphere of native speakers’ interaction. This approach, proposed by Lado, emerges from a method on comparing first and second language cultures in order to help learners get a better understanding of the second language realities. However, Lado’s method was not to be applied to a classroom setting as audiolingual and grammar translation methods were the dominant approaches in second language teaching by that time. Therefore, his theoretical discoveries were not to be considered again until the 1970s, when social sciences started to emerge as a relevant issue within the field of language teaching. Parallel to these theoretical challenges, we find our next linguist under consideration, Noam Chomsky, who also challenged, but this time successfully, behaviourist models of language learning.
2.3.2. Chomsky (1965): competence and performance.
As we have previously mentioned, there was a variety of theoretical challenges to the audio-lingual method in the 1960s, among which we may mention, apart from Lado’s, that of the linguist Noam Chomsky which became a turning point in the development of subsequent theories on language learning. Chomsky proposed in his work Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965), a theory called Transformational Generative Grammar , according to which learners do not acquire an endless list of rules, but limited set of transformations with which language users can form an unlimited number of sentences. Chomsky’s theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual
performance (1965 p.3). For him, then, there are two main concepts under revision, competence and performance. To him, competence refers to the innate knowledge of language an ideal speaker- listener has in an homogeneous speech community, and performance refers to the actual production and rules of language use. According to Chomsky, then, within his theory of linguistic competence and performance, being respectively, grammaticality and acceptability, linguistic knowledge is separated from sociocultural features. His distinction served as basis for work of many other researchers as it is stated in the following sections.
2.3.3. First reactions to Chomsky’s model: Campbell and Wales (1970), Halliday (1972) and Hymes (1972).
In the 1970s, there was an increasing interest and, therefore development, in social sciences, particularly sociology and anthropology, which resulted in a considerable broadening in scholars’ understanding of the concept of culture. There were reactions to Chomsky’s notion of linguistic competence. Mainly three approaches showed a disagreement that went on in the early 1970s, and centered on whether communicative competence included grammatical competence or not. Thus, Campbell and Wales (1970), Halliday (1972), and Hymes (1972). They thought that there were rules of language use that were neglected in Chomsky’s view of language, and that linguistic competence represented only part of what one needs to know to be a competent language user.
With respect to Campbell and Wales ’ approach, we may say that they felt that appropriateness of language is even more important than grammaticality. They accepted the distinction proposed by Chomsky regarding competence and performance, but pointed out that Chomsky neglected the appropriateness of utterance to a particular context of situation or, in other words, its sociocultural significance. Therefore, they referred to Chomsky’s view as grammatical competence and to theirs as communicative competence. For them, the idea of communicative competence was the ability to produce utterances which are not so much grammatical but, more important, appropriate to the context in which they are made (1970).
In relation to Halliday (1972), we shall mention that he rejected Chomsky’s dichotomy of competence and performance as he thought the potential of meaning was covered both by knowing and doing. To Halliday, language is a mode of human behavior, and therefore, a mode of social interaction. Besides, he proposed the notion of language functions by means of which the context of a situation provides a first approximation to the specification of the components of the communication situation (1985). Thus, three macro-functions, such as the ideational, interpersonal, and textual, were the basis for another set of seven micro-functions, listed as follows. Firstly, the instrumental to express desires and needs. Secondly, the regulatory where rules, instructions, orders, and suggestions are included. Thirdly, the interactional , where we may include patterns of greeting, leave-taking, thanking, good wishes, and excusing. Fourth, the person al function which encourages students to talk about themselves and express their feelings. Fifth, the heuristic function focuses on asking questions. Next, the imaginative function, which is used for supposing, hypothesizing, and creating for the love of sound and image. Finally, we find the informative function which emphasizes affirmative and negative statements.
Regarding Dell Hymes ’ approach, he also pointed out that Chomsky’s competence-performance model did not provide an explicit place for sociocult ural features, adding that Chomsky’s notion of performance seemed confused between actual performance and underlying rules of performance. Hymes 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 sociolinguistic component, which connected language and culture.
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. Among other models of communicative competence currently used worlwide, we shall mention those of Canale & Swain (1980), van Ek (1986), and Bachman (1990). Though not able to agree on operational definitions of the components of communicative competence, all scholars recognized the sociocultural component to be an inseparable part of foreign language communicative competence.
2.3.5. Widdowson (1978) and Munby (1978).
In the 1980s, extensive research in Communicative Language Teaching served as a theoretical and methodological basis for the emergence of several approaches that aimed to co-teach language and culture. Since language is the means of expression of one’s identity, the sociocultural environment played, then, an important role in an individual’s cultural identity development. Parallel to this approach, cultural literacy, ethnographic, and sociocultural studies established a connection between language and culture, although they differed in the context of application. As a result, there was a need to examine a number of issues connected with identity, culture, and language teaching in order to prepare students for adequate intercultural communication, and to help them overcome and eliminate generalizations about a foreign language culture and society.
Many researchers, among them, Widdowson (1978) and Munby (1978), claimed that, in communication, the way people use the language may affect the way they are most likely to be perceived by others. The issues linked to identity, culture, and language teaching were presented as multiple deviations from the norm within a cultural diversity of the modern world. Thus, approaches to discourse analysis, a speech act theory, interactional competence and cross-cultural considerations were examined as a sociocultural phenomena. These issues become especially important when we are talking about foreign languages, as they propose possible ways of increasing the effectiveness of foreign language communication.
Within this theoretical background and from a discourse-based approach, Widdowson (1978) proposes a distinction between the concepts of use and usage. According to him, both concepts are to be linked to the aspects of performance, as usage refers to the manifestation of the knowledge of a language system whereas the notion of use means the realization of the language system as meaningful communicative behavior. 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. Therefore, he claimed that whether an utterance has a sufficient communicative value or not is determined in discourse.
Similarly, Munby (1978) contends that grammatical competence should be included in the notion of communicative competence under two main theoretical basis. First, he states that grammatical competence and communicative competence need to be developed separately and secondly, he goes further by saying that grammatical competence is not an essential component of communicative competence. The main tenets of his Communicative Competence model are presented under the basis of a linguistic encoding, a sociocultural orientation, a sociosemantic basis of linguistic knowledge, and a discourse level of operation.
However, reactions to this approach soon emerged from linguists in this field, as for instance, the influential theorists Canale and Swain, among others. They claimed that both grammatical competence and sociolinguistic competence are important elements within this framework, and that teachers who agree that grammatical competence is part of communicative competence might still separate them in teaching (1980). However, they added that second language learning would
proceed more effectively when grammatical usage is not abstracted from a meaningful context. For a detailed account of this approach, we shall move on to our next section.
2.3.6. Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983).
As we have previously mentioned, the development of Hymes’ theory of communicative competence was one of the reactions to Chomsky's somewhat limiting definition of the scope of linguistic theory on communicative competence. Communicative competence, as Hymes proposed it, goes further than just grammatical knowledge and includes psychological and socio-linguistic factors that address the fact that communication takes place in a context. It 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 (1968) 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. Upon this basis , 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.
The notion of communicative competence was examined by various groups of researchers, including those in second language learning like (^) Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983). They formulated a theoretical framework that, in the modified version of Canale (1983), consisted of four major components of communicative competence, thus grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic aspects.
We shall mention first, the grammatical competence , which deals with the mastery of the linguistic code itself. This aspect is important for students to attain a higher level of proficiency where accuracy is important. Secondly, the sociolinguistic competence is concerned with the appropriate use of language in particular social situations to convey specific communicative functions such as describing, narrating, or eliciting among others, including the participants and the rules for interaction. This competence is particularly difficult to attain as the skilled use of appropriate registers requires sensitivity to cross-cultural differences. Thirdly, the discourse competence concerns the mastery of how to use language in order to achieve a unified spoken or written text in different genres, that is, cohesion and coherence of utterances in a discourse. This cohesion of thought is attained by means of cohesive devices, such as pronouns and grammatical connectors, together with a unity of thought and continuity in a text. Finally, the strategic competence makes reference to the mastery of verbal and non-verbal communication strategies by means of both the underlying knowledge about language and communicative language use or skill. The main goal to attain with this competence is first, to compensate for breakdowns in communication, and secondly, to enhance the effectiveness of communication. On this issue, further comments will be examined later in the section of the model assessment.
2.3.7. On revising Hymes and Canale and Swain’s models: Wolfson (1989) and Bachman (1990).
As mentioned before, the notion of communicative competence intended by Hymes was further developed and revised by other linguists, among which we may mention Canale and Swain as their reinterpretation of Hymes’ model is considered to be one of the most improved and effective versions of the notion of communicative competence. However, both models have undergone further reinterpretations and developments when addressing communication oriented teaching in a classroom setting. Hymes’ sociolinguistic approach was, then, to be reinterpreted by a language teaching professional, Wolfson (1989) who worked on cross-cultural considerations. Besides,
multicultural identity. Within this context, getting a proficie ncy level in a foreign language implies educational and professional reasons which justify the presence of foreign languages in the curricula at different educational levels. It means to have access to other cultures and customs as well as to foster interpersonal relationships which help individuals develop a due respect towards other countries, their native speakers and their culture. This sociocultural framework allows learners to better understand their own language, and therefore, their own culture.
The European Council (B.O.E. 2002), and in particular the Spanish Educational System within the framework of the Educational Reform, establishes a common reference framework for the teaching of foreign languages, and claims for a progressive development of communicative competence in a specific language. Students, then, are intended to be able to carry out several communication tasks with specific communicative goals within specific contexts. In order to get these goals, several strategies as well as linguist ic and discursive skills come into force in a given context. Thus, foreign language activities are provided within the framework of social interaction, personal, professional or educational fields.
Therefore, in order to develop the above mentioned communication tasks in our present educational system, a communicative competence theory includes the following subcompetences. Firstly, the linguistic competence (semantic, morphosyntactic and phonological). Secondly, the discourse competence (language functions , speech acts, and conversations). Thirdly, the sociolinguistic competence (social conventions, communicative intentions, and registers among others). Fourthly, the strategic competence will be included as a subcompetence of communicative competence within this educational framework. So far, students will make use of this competence in a natural and systematic way in order to achieve the effectiveness of communication through the different communication skills, thus, productive (oral and written communication), receptive (oral and written comprehension within verbal and non-verbal codes), and interactional.
The foreign language learning process will help students improve their educational and professional life from a global perspective as it will help them develop their personality, social integration, interest topics and, in particular, to promote their intellectual knowledge. Furthermore, these aspects will allow learners to be in contact with the current scientific, humanistic and technological advances within other areas of knowledge. To sum up, the learning of a foreign language is intended to broaden the students’s intellectual knowledge as well as to broaden their knowledge on other ways of life and social organization different to their own. Furthermore, the aim is to get information on international issues, to broaden their professional interests and consolidate social values to promote the development of international communication.
3. AN ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE COMPONENTS.
This section is intended to provide an account of the analysis of communicative competence components according to one of the most relevant figures in this field, Dell Hymes, Canale and Swain, Widdowson, Savignon, and Tarone among others. In order to do so, this section will be divided into two main issues. The first part will present a brief background to the notion of communicative competence in order to link this term to Canale and Swain’s assessment model on communicative competence components. Besides, a model assessment based on Canale and Swain’s model on communicative competence will be depicted in order to mention the four main competences currently applied to educational systems. Finally, the second section will summarize the main related areas of study which take part in the communicative competence model.
3.1. On the analysis of communicative components: a model assessment.
During the past 25 years, communicative language teaching has been the dominant approach to the teaching of foreign and second languages. Much of this ascendancy is due to the sociolinguist Dell Hymes (1967) who in a series of articles developed the notion of communicative competence. Hymes was convinced that Chomsky’s (1965) notion of competence defined as a speaker-hearer’s underlying mental representation of grammatical rules was far too narrow. Instead communicative competence takes us one step further than purely grammatical competence, into the area of pragmatics which deals with the use of language in everyday communicative situations. Communicative Competence is therefore concerned not only with what is grammatical but also what is appropriate in a given social situation.
The most important study on developing the notion of Communicative Competence from Dell Hymes work has been done by Canale and Swain (1980). There is also a useful discussion of this in Swain (1980) which is especially useful for those approaching communicative competence from a second language acquisition point of view. Here the notion of Communicative Competence is divided up into four subcomponents which have been mentioned before, thus, grammatical, discourse, sociolinguistic, and strategic competence are glossed below.
3.1.1. Grammatical competence.
This heading subsumes all knowledge of lexical items and of rules of morphology, syntax, sentence- grammar semantics and phonology (Canale and Swain 1980). It therefore 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. Thus, 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.
3.1.2. Sociolinguistic competence.
Sociolinguistic competence refers to the knowledge which the learner has to acquire of the sociocultural rules of language. This type of knowledge requires an understanding of the social context in which language is used: the roles of the participants, the information they share, and the function of the interaction (Savignon 1983). Other relevant figures in this field, such as Canale and Swain (1980) defined this competence in terms of sociocultural rules of use , and rules of discourse. Thus, regarding sociocultural rules of use, this competence is linked to the notion of the extent to which utterances are produced and understood appropriately in different sociolinguistic contexts depending on contextual factors such as status of participants, purposes of the interaction, and norms or conventions of interaction.
Regarding the rules of discourse, it is defined in terms of the mastery of how to combine grammatical forms and meanings (1980). When we deal with appropriateness of form, we refer to the extent to which a given meaning is represented in both verbal and non-verbal form that is proper in a given sociolinguistic context. Thus, communicative functions , attitudes, propositions and ideas. In relation to meaning appropriateness, this competence is concerned with the extent to which particular communicative functions and ideas are judged to be proper in a given situation , as for instance, commanding, complaining and inviting.
3.1.3. Discourse competence.
This is in many ways connected to the large body of research which has been accumulated over the last 25 years in the field of discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is primarily concerned with the
four main research areas which are related to communicative competence and that cannot be framed within only one competence of those mentioned above.
3.2.1. Discourse analysis.
The term discourse traces back to Latin discursus which means a conversation. In general, it refers to a talk, conversation, dialogue, lecture, sermon, or treatise whereas in linguistics, it is related to a unit or piece of connected speech or writing that is longer than a conventional sentence
In 1960s, the term discourse is related to the analysis of connected speech and writing, and their relationship to the contexts in which they are used. Discourse analysts studied, then, written texts, conversation, institutionalized forms of talk, and communicative events in general. Early researchers as Zellig Harris in the US in the 1950s, were interested in the distribution of elements in extended texts and the relationship between a text and its social situation. In the 1960s, the American linguistic anthropologist Dell Hymes studied speech in its social setting as a form of addres). The work of British linguistic philosophers such as J. L. Austin, J. R. Searle, and H. P. Grice was influential in the study of language as social action, through speech-act theory, conversational maxims, and pragmatics (the study of meaning in context) in general.
In the 1970s, research in the United Kingdom was influenced by the functional approach to language of M. A. K. Halliday, in turn influenced by the Prague School. His systemic linguistics emphasizes the social functions of language and the thematic and informational structure of speech and writing. Halliday related grammar at the clause and sentence level to situational constraints, referred to as field (purpose of communication), tenor (relationships among participants), and mode (channels of communication). Parallel studies were taking place in America by relevant figures in this field, such as John Gumperz and Dell Hymes. Their research included the examination of forms of talk such as storytelling, greeting, and verbal duels in different cultural and social settings. Alongside the conversation analysts, in the sociolinguistic tradition, William Labov's studies of oral narrative have contributed to a more general knowledge of narrative structure. Such work has generated a variety of descriptions of discourse organization as well as studies of social constraints on politeness and face-preserving phenomena. These overlap with British work in pragmatics.
3.2.2. A speech act theory.
This term was used in the 1960s by philos ophers of language such as J. L. Austin, in How to Do Things with Words (1962), to refer to acts performed by utterances which conveyed information. Thus, giving orders and making promises. Within a speech act theory, we may distinguish a conventional semantic theory by studying the effects of locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutory acts. They mean respectively, performative utterances on speakers and hearers that result through or as a result of speech, secondly, acts that occur in speech, and thirdly, responses which hearers called perlocutionary acts.
There are a wide range of kinds of speech act. Among the most relevant surveys on speech act theories, we shall mention John R. Searle, who in his work Speech Acts in 1979, recognizes five types. Firstly , representative speech act, where speakers are committed in varying degrees to the truth of the propositions they have uttered, by means of swearing, believing, and reporting. Secondly, directives , where speakers try to get hearers to do something by commanding, requesting, or urging. Thirdly, commissives , which commit speakers in varying degrees to courses of action by means of promising, vowing, and undertaking. Fourthly, declarations , whereby speakers alter states of affairs by performing such speech acts as I now pronounce you man and wife. Fifth, expressives , where speakers express attitudes, such as congratulating and apologizing.
According to Austin (1962), in order to be successful, speech acts have to meet certain felicity conditions. Thus, a marriage ceremony can only be performed by someone with the authority to do so, and with the consent of the parties agreeing to the marriage. Speech acts may be direct or indirect. For instance, compare Shut the door, please and Hey, it's cold in here , both of which are directives.
3.2.3. Interactional competence.
This area of study points out that inability of or insensitivity to foreign language discourse may lead to impede communication more than grammatical inaccuracy. With the weaking of confidence in the Chomskyan paradigm, there seems to be a multiplicity of analytical research investigating real rather than idealised language behavior, involving among many others, approaches all of which impact on the work carried out in language classrooms. One of those approaches is interactional competence. Linguists such as Schmidt (1983), Long and Porter (1985), and Pica and Doughty (1985) worked on the dynamics of spoken interaction and kinesics. They all shared the view of interactional competence as the main tenet of communicative competence.
This area of study is related to the discourse and sociolinguistic competence, as the grammatical competence may mislead learners into thinking that certain rules of use may always be conveyed by using conventional forms. In order to make effective discourse productions, learners need to approach their speeches from a conscious sociolinguistic perspective, in order to get considerable cultural information about communicative settings and roles. Without overstressing the constraints on participants, it is clear that space-time loci, organisational context, conventional forms of messages, and preceding communications, in fact all components of communicative events, serve to increasingly restrict the range of available choices. The analysis of communicative events must include due consideration of rules for interaction and norms of interpretation which allow application of the techniques and insights developed by conversation and interaction analysis.
It is clear that such rules operate at several levels of generality. For instance, we may specify rules for interaction operating globally over wide cultural systems, over social sub-groups, over specific professional communities, within specific communicative events, and even wit hin specific stages or acts of an event. Communicative behavior is not limited to the creation of texts. We also expect to find regular correspondences concerning paralinguistics, kinesics and proxemics in oral interaction, and also to norms relating to la yout and graphic design in writing. However, this kind of rules relate to more than the social acceptability of the forms of communication.
3.2.4. Cross-cultural considerations.
Main researches on the field of cross-cultural rethorical considerations, such as Holmes and Brown (1987) and Wolfson (1981), point out that it is not the responsibility of the language teacher qua linguist to enforce foreign language standards of behavior, linguistic or otherwise. Rather, it is the teacher’s job to equip students to express themselves in exactly the ways they choose to do so- rudely, tactfully, or in an elaborately polite manner. What we want to prevent them being unintentionally rude or subservient.
Thus, Holmes and Brown (1987) address three types of failure. Firstly, a pragmatic failure which involves the inability to understand what is meant by what is said. Secondly, the pragmalinguistic failure which is caused by mistaken beliefs about pragmatic force of utterance. Finally, the sociopragmatic failure which is given by different beliefs about rights and mentionables. Another instance is brought about by Wolfson (1981) in developing sociocultural awareness. According to this model, this type of awareness will lead to a discussion of the differences between the cultural
