Topic 4 – Communicative competence.

Analysis
of its components

This topic deals with the so-called Communicative Competence. However, the
concept of Communicative Competence (from now on, I will call it CC) has not
always existed. Thus, my answer will begin with a definition of what is now
understood as CC, followed by a brief historical account of the different steps taken
to formulate the concept of CC. Finally, I will apply this concept of CC to the
teaching of English as a foreign language, by analysing the components that the
Spanish Educational Authorities find relevant.

I am going to start by presenting a very general definition of communicative

competence. We understand Communicative Competence as the knowledge which
enables someone to use a language effectively, and their ability to actually use this
knowledge for communication. The term is most usually attributed to Dell Hymes’s
paper “On Communicative Competence”. However, since Hymes, the term CC has
been widely used in sociolinguistics and language teaching, often in rather vague
and conflicting ways. Current confusion over the term is attributable partly to the
many developments and interpretations of the original notion, partly to
misunderstanding and simplifications of it, and partly to its fashionable status.

Because of the many interpretations of the notion of CC I am going to explore some

of the different approaches to the notion of communicative competence. Chomsky
established a distinction between competence and performance. For him,
competence refers to the innate knowledge of a language an ideal speaker has in a
homogeneous speech community. This knowledge is conceived as an idealized
static knowledge of phonological and syntactic rules. Performance, on the other
hand, refers to the actual production and rules of language usage. According to
Chomsky, only the competence was the field of studies for linguists.

Hymes criticized the narrowness of Chomsky’s theories on language use, and

proposed that there were other kinds of knowledge, rules of use, that enabled
actual speakers to use the language effectively, and without which the rules of
grammar would be completely useless. He also claimed that Chomsky did not deal
with the competence of individual users, but only of an idealized speaker-hearer.
He stresses the need for a theory that can deal with a heterogeneous speech
community, differential competence (that is, variation between individuals), the
constitutive role of sociocultural features, socioeconomic differences, multilingual
mastery, and so on. Hymes introduced then the concept of communicative
competence, paying special attention to the sociolinguistic component, which
connected language and culture. Hymes stated that native speakers know more
than just communicative competence. He expands Chomsky’s notion of
grammaticality (competence) and acceptability (performance) into four parameters
subsumed under the heading of communicative competence as something which is
first, formally possible; secondly, feasible in virtue of the available means; thirdly,
appropriate in relation to a context in which it is used and evaluated; and finally,
something which is done, and actually performed. The reason these rules exist is
that, although one can have linguistic competence, and consequently is able to
produce linguistically correct sentences, if s/he lacks the knowledge of the
competence for use, s/he will not be able to communicate effectively. For instance,
someone could ask: “Is it raining?” and another person could answer: “The new
Pope’s face is scary”. As can be seen, both are linguistically correct sentences, but
none of them has achieved effective communication, since the answer does not
respond to the question’s needs. Any sentence must be linguistically correct; must
be feasible regarding aspects such as memory limitations, effects of properties
such as nesting, embedding, etc; must be appropriate in a given context; and must
actually occur in the language.

CC rapidly became a fashionable notion, especially in language teaching, and there

were other theories that complemented and implemented Hymes’ one. In the
consequent proliferation of theoretical writings and language teaching materials,
there is often considerable vagueness, confusion and simplification, reflecting more
the commercial advantages of invoking the term than any serious attempt to
develop a rigorous model.

An outstandingly influential study that should be taken into consideration when

considering the concept of CC, is the one carried out by Canale and Swain (1980).
They presented a three-part CC consisting of:

· Grammatical competence: knowledge of the language code, including knowledge

of lexical items and of rules of morphology syntax, sentence-grammar semantics,
and phonology.

· Strategic competence: verbal and non-verbal communication strategies that may

be called into action to compensate for breakdowns in communication due to
performance variables or to insufficient competence.

· Sociolinguistic competence, which is further broken down into socio-cultural

competence -knowledge of the relationship of language use to its non-linguistic
context- and discourse competence -knowledge of rules for the combination of
utterances and communicative functions, which may be conceived as knowledge of
factors governing the creation of cohesion and coherence.

This study was further developed by Canale (1983) by altering the original scheme
and separating discourse competence from sociolinguistic competence, to make it
an autonomous fourth sub-competence. Moreover, according to Canal, the main
goal to attain with strategic competence is not only to compensate for breakdowns
in communication, but also to enhance the effectiveness of communication.

The Spanish educational authorities further modified this model in the 90s by also
separating socio-cultural competence and making it autonomous. According to
the Real Decreto 1006/1991, Communicative Competence is finally made up of 5
sub-competences:

· GRAMMAR COMPETENCE, which states that an able speaker has a

subconscious knowledge of the grammar rules of his own language which allows
him to make accurate sentences in that language. In a foreign language, a pupil
shows grammatical competence when he produces adequately accurate language
by applying the rules he has learned to form structures, using the vocabulary he
knows and pronouncing well.

· DISCOURSE COMPETENCE, which states that an able speaker knows what

language is appropriate in a given situation and can produce longer stretches of
language, appropriately linked to form a meaningful, unified whole.

· SOCIOLINGUISTIC COMPETENCE, which states that an able speaker can adapt

the language he used to a specific context. That is to say, depending on who he is
talking to, what they are talking about and so on, s/he may use formal, informal,
technical, non-technical language and so on.

· STRATEGIC COMPETENCE, which states that an able speaker can use verbal
and non-verbal communication strategies to improve the effectiveness of
communication, that is to say, he can paraphrase, use synonyms, ask for
clarification…

· SOCIOCULTURAL COMPETENCE, which states that an able speaker is familiar

with the social and cultural context in which native speakers use their language.

As can be seen, any use of language is not static. One does not decide on an
appropriate piece of language, says it, and then walks away (except in especially
dramatic situations). In conversation with another person one constantly has to
interpret what is being said as the conversation continues. So, by equating this
mobile feature of language, it can be explained the aforementioned evolution in the
study of CC, since it varies, as language through a conversation does.

The most recent view is that offered by the Council of Europe. According to the
Council of Europe, communicative competence can be broken down into three sub-
competences: linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence and pragmatic or
discourse competence. Strategic competence can also be added.

Thus, now I have dealt with the two first parts of my essay dealing with what is
understood as CC, and the evolution in the study of CC up until now, I will move
onto the final section which deals with the application of CC to the teaching of
English as a foreign language. Although Hymes´s original paper was not concerned
with language teaching, but with providing a theoretical framework which could
describe the knowledge and capabilities of the successful language user, his model
has exerted a considerable influence on all aspects of language teaching and
assessment, including overall approach.

I should begin this final section of my essay by saying that the final objective of the
teaching of a foreign language is achieving effective communication in that
language. This objective is nothing new: since the beginning of the 20 th century it
has been recognised that methods based exclusively on the teaching of grammar
and translation have not met the needs of most learners. Efforts have been made
to identify today’s needs and to find the best, quickest and most effective way of
teaching a foreign language. Let’s see the most relevant features of communicative
approaches to language teaching:

· Learner-centred teaching: the learners take on more active roles in the classroom
and the teacher plays the part of “facilitator” or “resource person”. Pair or group
work, role play and games are sorts of activities which help reduce the dominant
role of the teacher in the class. Teachers have to cater for the specific needs of the
group as a whole, but at the same time, making sure that individual aspirations are
given due attention. On the other hand, they must pay attention to meaning and
form simultaneously.

· More emphasis is being put in the correlation of linguistic forms to situational

settings and the cultural environment in general. Notional or functional syllabuses
are often used. They provide a major alternative to the emphasis of formal
language teaching. Here the content of a course is organised in terms of the
meaning that learners require in order to communicate in particular functional
contexts. Major communicative notions include the linguistic expression of time,
duration, frequency, sequence, quantity, location and motion. Major communicative
functions include evaluations, persuasion, emotional expression and the
establishing of social relations.

· More emphasis is put on the use of language than on the analysis of its structure;
on the internalization of rules which generate sentences than on the mechanical
memorization of endless and often meaningless lists of phrases and structures.

· The achievement of spontaneous communication and fluency becomes the main

objective, even at the expense of grammatical correctness and accuracy. Errors
and mistakes are considered as a normal part of the learning process.

· The traditional presentation of language, that is, catalogues of words, phrases and
sentences, is rejected in favour of the introduction of larger chunks of language. In
other words, both teachers and learners are encouraged to use genuine language
in meaningful situations, which implies operating with units of meaning above the
phrase or sentence level.

· Emphasis is often given to oral comprehension and production in contrast to the

often exclusive attention to written skills found in more traditional methods.

· The need for increased attention to the teaching of lexis to avoid the frequent
phenomenon of a structurally competent but communicatively incompetent
student. E.g. Have you fire = Are you a match’s owner?

The ability to manipulate the structures of a language correctly is only a part of

what it is involved in learning a language. There is “something else”, the ability to
be appropriate, to know the right thing to say at the right time. In Hyme’s words,
”there are rules of use without which the rules of grammar would be useless”.

· Methodology: Classroom practice should correspond as closely as possible to real

life use of language. It is important to make sure that there are communication gaps
in situations in which the learners are asked to perform, that is to say, the disparity
in knowledge and experience that exists between people involved in
communication with each other. Much of the interaction between the teacher and
the learner in the classroom is extremely artificial because there is no
“communication gap” between the participants.

· Authentic material: There is nothing wrong in itself with creating special texts for
specific purposes. Scripted material is useful for presenting specific language items
economically and effectively. However, authentic material gives students a taste of
“real” language” in use, and provides them with valid linguistic data for their
unconscious acquisition processes to work on.
Taking into account what I have previously said about CC and its sub-
competences, I can state that communicating effectively therefore consist of being
able to produce lots of language, lots of correct language, but also to use it
appropriately, depending on who the speaker is speaking to, where he is, why he is
speaking, how he is communicating, the channel he is using and what he is
speaking about. As can be seen, the term CC adapts perfectly well to this act of
communicating effectively as main objective of teaching a foreign language. In
communicative language teaching, the emphasis is on fluency and
comprehensibility as opposed to accuracy. Experiencing fluency builds up a sense
of comfort, confidence and control in those learners who lack other competences.

The Spanish educational authorities incorporated the term CC into their objectives
for the teaching of English as a foreign language, that of developing communicative
competence in our pupils, and see this competence as comprising five sub-
competences. By breaking down CC into these five sub-competences and trying to
promote them in our pupils we, as teachers, will be helping them in the language
learning process and making them more effective at communicating in English.

The aforementioned sub-competences could be developed in different ways. For

instance, Grammar Competence can be developed through exercises on grammar,
vocabulary and pronunciation. Discourse Competence, through helping pupils’
comprehension and production of a wide variety of longer oral and written texts
such as letters, dialogues and compositions; socio-linguistic competence, through
activities practising functional language that will help then to learn how language is
used in society; strategic competence can be promoted by teaching them how to
cope with “gaps” in knowledge, by asking for information from others, by inferring
meaning and by seeking information in dictionaries and textbooks. Finally, socio-
cultural competence can be raised by providing pupils with information about
aspects of life in English-speaking countries and encouraging them to compare
these with their own lives.

All in all, I can conclude this last section of my presentation by saying that, by
building confidence, increasing knowledge and raising awareness of these aspects
in our pupils, we will help to develop their communicative competence.