“The origins of language must not be found in the prosaic side of life, but rather in its poetic side:

speech didn’t
emerge as a result of seriousness, but as a result of happy play” Otto Jespersen

The topic under scrutiny is number 3 in the set, whose name is “The Communication Process. Functions of
Language. Language in Use. The Negotiation of Meaning.”
The dissertation will be divided in 5 sections: in section 1, we will start off by briefly introducing the importance
and the content of this topic. Then, in section 2, we will delve into The Communication Process. Afterwards, in
section 3, we will comment on the Functions of Language. Following this, we will shed light on Language in Use.
Afterwards, the Negotiation of Meaning. Finally, in section 5, we will bring this topic to an end with a proper
conclusion and an insightful teaching approach of its content in the ESL Classroom.
1. INTRODUCTION
This unit aims at describing communication in its different manifestations, and language in particular, within the
greater framework of other means of communication. Language as a unique human mean of communication will be
studied. First, as an essential tool in shaping and transmitting our thoughts, emotions and the world around us.
Finally the actual use of language will be considered and some considerations regarding its learning and teaching will
be pointed out.
This unit has been foregrounded on some of the most relevant scholars in the field, namely James Lee and
VanPatten Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen (1995); Dell Hymes, D. On Communicative
competence (1972) and M.A.K Halliday, Explorations in the Functions of Language (1973).
2. THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS
Without any doubt, there is more to communication than just one person speaking and another one listening.
Human communication processes are quite complex. We differentiate verbal and non-verbal, oral and written,
formal and informal, and intentional and unintentional communication. Communication has traditionally been
defined as the exchange of meanings between individuals through a common system of symbols. However, the
concept of communication is not a simple nor there is a universally accepted definition for this term. In fact, the
concept of language has been approached by many linguists, but the most outstanding definition comes from
Halliday (1973) who defines it as an instrument of social interaction with a clear communicative purpose.
Nevertheless, language may be studied as part of a much wider domain of enquiry, that is semiotics.
2.1. The Codification of Language: Semiotics
Semiotics is the science in charge of the study if the structure of sign systems. Semiotics is especially concerned with
the way in which we create and perceive meanings using all our senses and in all possible human contexts. For this
reason, it is crucial that our point of view goes beyond semiology. Semiotics initially distinguishes two types of
systems according to their dependence on linguistic signs: linguistic and non-linguistic. When the act of
communication is verbal, the code is the language. Also, non-verbal communicative uses of the vocal tract are
possible by means of paralanguage, such as whistling or musical effects. When we refer to non-verbal
communication, visual and tactile modes are concerned.
- In Non Verbal Communication, visual and tactile modes are concerned. As a case in point, some of these can
consist of signals, signs and symbols. These three are related components of communication processes
found in all known cultures as they do not relate primarily to the visual conception of words or language.
Each is apparently and increasingly more complex modification of the former, and each was probably
developed in the depths of prehistory before.
Saussure distinguished in every sign:
a) A signifier or acoustic image of the sign
b) A signified, the concept or object which is evoked
Then, according to Saussure, for a communicative act to occur effectively, there must be a close relationship
between the signifier and the signified, that is, between form and content.
- Verbal Communication: For human beings, a relevant aspect is to communicate verbally, expressing
thoughts with words. For the speaker to produce many differentiated sounds, only humans have been
endowed with a highly sophisticated speech organ. Hence, this complex organ consists of consonants and
 vowels which are part of our vocal apparatus as a limited set of speech sounds. What is more, kinesics (body
language) and proxemics (cultural determined interactions) may involve vocalisations as accompaniments to
non-verbal phenomena.
2.2. Models of Communication
2.2.1. Saussure’s Model
Saussure (1983) devised a circular communication model on the basis of two premises. On the one hand, the
first premise claims that communication is linear in that two people communicate in a way that a message is
conveyed from one to the other. On the other hand, the second premise states that the participants in the
communication process are both simultaneously active, in the way that they do not only listen. On the basis of
this understanding, Saussure shows the mechanisms of a dialogue. First, acoustic signals are sent from a speaker
to a receiver. Saussure outlined two processes within this framework. The first one is phonation where the
sender formulates mental signs in the mind and then gives acoustic shape to them. The second one is audition,
and it is the opposite process of the receiver transforming the acoustic message into mental signs.
2.2.2. Shannon’s and Moles’ Linear Model
In the second half of the twentieth century, we find two prominent figures within American literary theory,
whose communication models inspired other linguists’ models on communicative functions as we will see in next
sections. Thus, we refer to Shannon’s and Moles’ theory on communication process. For him, communication is
basically explained by certain elements such as a sender, a receiver, a channel, a message shaped in the way of
input and output, and finally, external factors such as noise. During the 1960s, another American linguist, Moles,
added the code as a crucial element for sender and receiver to communicate successfully. For Moles, the sender
and receiver must have a fundamental set of codes in common for successful communication. No matter if the
speakers share or not the same language. Both of them have to rely on known words when communication is
hardly impossible.
2.2.3. Jakobson’s Model
Jakobson’s model has become the best-known model to be followed on language theory. Following Jakobson
(1960), this model can be used for a number of different purposes in the study of language and communication.
It was introduced to explain how language works as the code of communication. Jakobson states that all acts of
communication, be they written or oral, are based on six constituent elements. In his model, emotive, conative,
phatic, metalingual, and poetic, will be broadly examined in the next section. Regarding the six elements in
Jakobson’s model, any particular act of communication takes place in a situational context, and it involves a
sender (or addresser) and a receiver (or addressee). It further involves a message which the sender transmits
and which the receiver interprets. The message is formulated in a particular code, and for the whole thing to
work, sender and receiver must be connected by a channel through which the message is sent.
3. FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE
Historically speaking, Plato was said to be the first to discuss an instrumentalist definition of language, and
according to this definition, language primarily serves the purpose of communication, as it is a linguistic tool.
Some centuries later, an anthropological perspective, brought about by Bronislaw Malinowski, states that
language has only two main purposes: pragmatic and ritual. For him, the pragmatic function refers to the
practical use of language, either active by means of speech or narrative by means of written texts. Among all the
existing proposals, coming from linguists such as Malinowsky, Saussure, Bühler, Halliday and Jakobson, we
highlight the considerable impact of Jakobson’s work in all the literary and linguistic fields to which he
contributed, such as anthropology, psychoanalysis discourse analysis, and especially in semiotics, where the
structure of sign systems is studied.
3.1. Bühler Communicative Functions
From Plato’s instrumental approach, Karl Bühler devised a model which described the communicative
functions according to the instrumental approach given by Plato. From this instrumental approach, the main
purpose of language is to communicate. Bühler defines the term language according to the Greek term
‘organum’ which means ‘tool’. Accordingly, he claims that language is an organum for one person to
communicate with another about general things. Hence, the three main functions of language Bühler
distinguishes in his model are expressive, conative and representational functions. The expressive function is
oriented towards the speaker, addressed to in first person. The conative function is oriented towards the
addressee in second person, and finally, the representational function is oriented towards the rest of reality in
third person.
3.2. Halliday’s Communicative Functions
To Halliday (1985), language bridges from the cultural meanings of social context to sound or writing, by
moving from higher orders of abstraction to lower ones, thus, semantics, lexicogrammar and phonology.
Accordingly, messages combine an organization of content according to the receptive needs of the speaker and
listener, and the meaning they are expressing. For Halliday, there are three macro-functions that, in
combination, provide the basic functions on learning a foreign language. Thus, the macro-functions are mainly
three, the ideational, the interpersonal, and the textual.
Interpersonal meanings are shaped by the resources of modality and mood to negotiate the proposals between
interactants in terms of probability, obligation or inclination, and secondly, to establish and maintain an ongoing
exchange of information by means of grammar through declaratives, questions, and commands. Textual
meanings are concerned with the information as text in context at a lexicogrammatical level. Phonology is
related arbitrarily to this function as its abstract wordings includes intonation, rhythm and syllabic and phonemic
articulation.
Halliday proposes seven basic functions on language use and they are 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 personal 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.
3.3. Jakobson’s Model of Communicative Functions
Jakobson extended other linguists’ models to his theory of communicative functions. For instance, he adapted
Bühler's tripartite system of communicative functions, adding three more to his, and somehow his model
reminds us of those of Moles', except for one, namely context. The emotive function focuses on the first person,
and reflects the speaker’s attitude to the topic of his or her discourse. It resembles Bühler's expressive function.
The addresser's own attitude towards the content of the message is emphazised by means of emphatic speech
or interjections. Jakobson’s model of the functions of language distinguishes six elements, that are necessary for
communication to occur. In theory, each function is intended to achieve communication. However, this does not
necessarily mean that each function is always present.
The conative function is directed towards the addressee, and it is centred on the second person. Ilustrated by
two grammatical categories, the vocative and the imperative. This function is similar to Bühler’s appelative
function. The referential function refers to the context, and emphasizes that communication is always dealing
with something contextual, what Bühler called representative. This function can be equated with the cognitive
use of language, which highlights the informational content of an utterance, and virtually eliminates the focus on
the speaker or on the addressee. The phatic function helps to establish contact between two speakers, and
refers to the channel of communication. The metalinguistic function deals with the verbal code itself, that is, on
language speaking of itself, as an example of metalanguage. The aim is to clarify the manner in which the verbal
code is used, for instance, when the code needs clarification through questions such as "Sorry, what did you
say?" The poetic function deals with the message as a signifier within a decorative or aesthetic function of
language. This is achieved by means of rhetorical figures, pitch or loudness.
4. LANGUAGE IN USE: THE NEGOTIATION OF MEANING
Since the time of the Swiss Ferdinand Saussure (1857-1931) it has become customary to distinguish between
two aspects of language: Parole and Langue. On the one hand, parole is affected by the purposes of the
speakers, their emotions, or the circumstances of the utterance. On the second hand, in Saussure’s words,
langue is “the systematic patterning underlying individual utterances which makes it possible for one person to
understand or be understood”. This first insight served Chomsky to make a distinction between Competence and
Performance. He believed that language had a surface structure (form) and a deep structure (meaning).
Language was not learnt by means of habit formation processes but as a result of cognitive processes through
what he called a language acquisition device (LAD). It was this device who could be accounted for the creative
aspect of language. According to Chomsky, the native speaker has an internalized “system of rules “ that allows
him to generate all the grammatical sentences of the language. The speaker-hearer is not conscious of this
system; nevertheless, it determines the form of all utterances. This is what Chomsky calls competence.
Performance would then be the production of utterances in actual communication situations.
However the concept of Competence will be later redefined by other linguists; thus, Campbell and Wales
(1970), Halliday (1972), and Hymes (1972) 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.
-Canale and Swain
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: grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic competences. 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. 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. 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.
Under these perspectives, knowing a language is not only knowing its grammar but also knowing how to use it.
Knowing a language implies a combination of knowledge and skills. The realization of knowledge and skills under
limiting psychological and environmental conditions (fatigue, nervousness , interfering background) is ACTUAL
COMMUNICATION. It is in this actual communication situations where the Negotiation of Meaning becomes
essential as strategy for the achievement of communication.
-Negotiation of Meaning
Written language was the traditional basis for the study of grammar. However, with the development of
recording equipment, modern linguists have had greater opportunities to examine in depth characteristics of the
spoken language. Their analysis of speech data has shown which patterns are implemented in oral
communication and how they diverge from accepted patterns of the written language. The use of language in
speech will diverse greatly from the language used in writing. As far as we are concerned, problems of
communication affect us all in many aspects of day-to-day living, and can cause serious trouble. It is incredibly
easy to be unintentionally misunderstood, or to speak ambiguously, or vaguely. An excellent example of difficult
communication is in the doctor-patient relationship, where most patients find it very difficult to get the right
words to describe their symptoms whereas for doctors, the problem is to formulate a diagnosis in words which
the patient will understand.
Negotiation of Meaning is defined as an attempt/effort to overcome comprehension problems. When L2
learners interact with one another or with native speakers through conversation, their language development is
promoted. One area of frequent focus is negation for meaning (NfM) “the process by which two or more
interlocutors identify and then attempt to resolve a communication breakdown”. It is a repair-oriented process,
distinct from generic negotiation of meaning. Long (1996) suggests that by causing learners to do the work of
negotiation with native or more competent speakers, NfM triggers beneficial changes and results in a more
effective language learning experience. Lightbown and Spada (2006) define NfM as “interaction between
speakers who make adjustments to their speech and use other techniques to repair a breakdown in
communication.” Long (1996) gives the examples of adjustments such as simplification or elaboration. While
simplification truncates complex sentences by employing fewer verb tenses and modifiers as well as the
reduction of semantic content, the elaboration makes use of repetition.
-The Role of Negotiation
 Krashen (1985) claims that language acquisition takes place as learners come to be able to process input that
contains language slightly above their current developmental level of language comprehension. According to Lee
and VanPatten (1985) Negotiation consists of interaction during which the speakers come to terms, reach an
agreement, make arrangements, resolve problems or settle an issue. This negotiation takes place therefore, in
both, first and second language acquisition. For many years, and following Krashen’s comprehensible input
hypothesis, it was believed that comprehensible input was enough to trigger acquisition. However, other second
and first language acquisition theories such as Swain’s comprehensible output hypothesis highlighted the
relevance of output in this process. Employing the notion of comprehensible input, Long (1996) argues that
input is made more comprehensible through the NfM process. The term negotiation here refers to the
modification and restructuring of interaction between interlocutors when they experience comprehension
difficulties.
-Negotiation and Feedback
Strategies and tactics can help to expand resources as their main contribution is to keep the channel open,
facilitating the acquisition of new lexis and grammatical rules. Signals such as repetitions, clarification requests,
confirmation checks, and recasts are examples of negative feedback. When there is a communication
breakdown, negative feedback can be implemented explicitly through overt error correction or implicitly
through NfM strategies. The main types of corrective feedback in ESL are:
Comprehension checks: these are made by the speaker to check if the preceding utterance has been correctly
understood by the listener. They usually consist of questions, either tag questions, repetition with rising
intonation, or questions or any expression established whether the message is understood by the addressee,
such as: Do you understand?
Confirmation checks these are made by the listener to establish that the preceding utterance has been heard
and understood correctly. They include repetition ac- companied by rising intonation any expression that the
speaker would like to make sure that it is understood, as in A: I was chuffled. B: You were pleased? A: Yes.
Clarification requests these are made by the listener to clarify what the speaker has said and include statements
such as “I don’t understand,” wh questions, yes/ no questions, and tag questions or any expressions that elicits
clarification of the utterance such as: What?, Huh? Uh?
Recasts: A recast is a technique used in language teaching to correct learners' errors in such a way that
communication is not obstructed. To recast an error, an interlocutor will repeat the error back to the learner in a
corrected form. Recasts are used both by teachers in formal educational settings, and by interlocutors in
naturalistic language acquisition. Student: "I want eat." Teacher: "What do you want to eat?"
Repetition: refers to the teacher’s repetition, in isolation, of the student’s erroneous utterance. In most cases,
the teacher adjusts his/her intonation so as to highlight the error A. Laws job B. Laws job?
Metalinguistic feedback: contains either comments, information, or questions related to the well-formedness of
the student's utterance, without explicitly providing the correct form. A. “How do you say ‘Ka’ in English?” B
“Mosquito.”
Explicit correction: refers to the explicit provision of the correct form. Student.“’Ka’ is bite.” Teacher.“Oh, a
mosquito is biting.”
Elicitation: Elicitation refers to at least three techniques that teachers use to directly elicit the correct form from
students. First, teachers elicit completion of their own utterance by strategically pausing to allow students to “fill
in the blank”. Second, teachers use questions to elicit correct forms. Third, teachers occasionally ask students to
reformulate their utterance. Student: “’Ka’ is bite.” Teacher: “A mosquito is...?”
Self-repetition: these include the speaker’s partial, exact, or expanded repetitions of lexical items from his or her
own preceding utterances.
Negotiation leads interlocutors to modify their output as they receive feedback on their utterances. Lyster and
Ranta (1997) examined the effectiveness of various types of feedback in ESL classrooms. They find that types
such as negotiation strategies (clarification requests, repetition, elicitation, and metalinguistic feedback lead to
student-generated repair, while explicit types such as correction and recasting do not.
 In a similar vein, Grice argued that speakers intend to be cooperative when they talk. For Grice “cooperative”
means that the speaker knows that each utterance is a potential interference in the personal rights, autonomy
and wishes. That is why “what is said” refers to the lexical-semantic meaning whereas “what is meant” indicates
the pragmatic meaning which cannot be understood on the basis of knowledge. Grice formulated the principle
of cooperation that underlies conversation, as follows:
Grice’s cooperative principle is a set of norms that are expected in conversations. It consists of four maxims that
we have to follow in order to be cooperative and understood.
-Maxim of Quality: as speaker, we have to tell the truth or something that is provable by adequate evidence.
-Maxim of Quantity: we have to be as informative as required.
-Maxim of Relation: our response has to be relevant to the topic of discussion.
-Maxim of Manner: we have to avoid ambiguity or obscurity; we should be direct and straightforward.

5. CONCLUSION AND TEACHING APPROACH

The content of this topic connects with the fact that it is essential to consider the process of a second language
acquisition in the classroom. The teaching implications are obvious since teachers should promote, not only output,
but also interaction activites that imply the need of negotiation of meaning. Information gap activities and problem
solving activites that involve the learners in interaction forcing them to negotiate meaning in order to complete the
given tasks are highly productive in achieving students acquisition. Needless to say, when communication is
effective, both the student and the teacher benefit. Communication makes learning easier, helps students achieve
goals, increase apporttopicies for expanded learning, strengthens the connection between student and teacher, and
creates a verbal positive experience.
At classroom level, the content of this topic is the perfect excuse to deal with the Learning to Learn Competence since it
revolves around how learners learn to negotiate meaning in a foreign language and is thus related to Order ECD/65/2015, where
the relationships among contents, assessment criteria and key competences are established.

The bibliography that I have consulted for the elaboration of this topic has been: Scientific bibliography and Educational Bibl.
Lightbown and Spada, P. N. (2006) How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press | David, N. (2003) Practical
English Language Teaching. N York: MacGraw-Hill | Krashen, S. (1985) The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London:
Longman| Council of Europe (2001) CEFR: Learning, Teaching and Assessment. London:CUP | Lazar, G. (2002) Literature and
Language Teaching. 7th Printing. Cambridge:CUP | Richards, J. & Rodgers (2001) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching:
London:CUP