Chapter 5

Language
and
Communication
 Knowing a language
• What does it mean to know a language well and to
use it successfully?
Answers to this question vary considerably, both
historically and culturally, and between
individuals. Because answers depend on the
perspective of the person who is being asked the
question.
There are many cases where someone knows the
rules of a language but is not a successful
communicator. In other words, knowing the
grammar and vocabulary of the language is one
thing. Being able to put them to use involves other
types of knowledge and ability as well.
 Linguistic Competence
Isolating the formal systems of language (i.e. its pronunciation,
grammar and vocabulary) either for learning or for analysis, is a useful
first step. However, the adoption of the traditional language-teaching
method need not imply that this is all that learning a language
involves but only that a sound knowledge of the rules and an
accurate, if slow, deployment of them is the basis for further
development.
Chomsky’s idea is that “ the human capacity for language is not the
product of general intelligence or learning ability, but an innate,
genetically determined feature of the human species. We are born with
considerable pre-programmed knowledge of how language works, and
require only minimal exposure to activate our connection to the particular
language around us. “

***In this view, the newborn infant brain already contains a universal
grammar (UG) which forms the basis of competence in the particular
language the child goes on to speak.
***Linguistic competence is seen as modular, that is to say separate from
other mental abilities.
According to Chomsky’s view, …..
a- language, as an object of academic enquiry , becomes something more
biological than social.
b- similarities between languages outweigh differences.
c- language is separated from other factors involved in its use such as
body language or cultural knowledge
 Communicative competence
• The term is offered as a deliberate contrast to Chomsky’s
linguistic competence.
• Dell Hymes observes that a person who had only
linguistic competence would be quite unable to
communicate.
• Those who had only linguistic competence, according to
Hymes, would be a kind of social monster producing
grammatical sentences unconnected to the situation in
which they occur.
What is needed for successful communication, Hymes
suggested, is four types of knowledge:

• Possibility
• Feasibility
• Appropriateness
• Attestedness
1- Firstly, a communicative competent speaker knows what is formally
possible in a language, i.e. whether an instance conforms to the rules of
grammar and pronunciation.
• Knowledge of possibility is not sufficient in itself for communication.
• a communicatively competent speaker may know the rules, be capable
of following them, but nevertheless break them deliberately. This is
often the case when people want to be creative, or intimate, or to talk
about something for which the language has no existing terms.
2- A communicative competent person knows what is feasible. This
is a psychological concept concerned with limitations to what can
be processed by the mind, and is best illustrated by an example
• The notion of feasibility may seem a rather academic one, and of
little relevance to the practical applications of knowledge about
language.
• Feasibility does nevertheless have some important consequences
for applied linguistics. It bears upon the important issue of making
information easily accessible.
• We might want to criticize it not on the grounds that it is
ungrammatical, but rather on the ground that it is not very feasible
and thus unnecessarily obscures important information.
3- Knowledge of appropriateness is the third component of
communicative competence . This concerns the relationship of
language or behavior to context, and as such covers a wide range
of phenomena. Its importance is clear if we consider its opposite,
inappropriateness.
(should learners of a language necessarily adopt the way in
which it is used?)
• For applied linguists there is no avoiding such issues. Language
creates our identities and allows us to communicate with others.
Its study must be concerned with who imposes upon whom, and
with the limits of social coercion and dissent.
 4- Hymes’ fourth component of communicative competence is
knowledge of attestedness, i.e. ‘whether…is done’.
• At first glance, this seems rather puzzling. Surely occurrence can
be accounted for by the other three parameters?
• Take, for example, the phrase ‘chips and fish’. From one point of
view this is possible (it does not break any grammar rule), feasible
(it is easily processes and readily understandable), and appropriate
(it does not contravene any sensitive social convention).
Nevertheless, it does not occur as frequently as ‘fish and chips’
 The influence of communicative
competence
• Directly or indirectly, the notion of communicative competence
has been very widely drawn upon in all areas of applied
linguistics.
• In first-language education, it was invoked to justify a shift
away from developing only mechanical language skills towards
a more rounded capacity to communicate, a trend which has
now largely reserved.
• The biggest single influence has been upon teaching of English
as a foreign language.
• The communicative approach aimed to develop learners’ capacity
to use the language effectively.
• This approach should be beneficial, allowing teachers and learners
to achieve more balanced view of what successful communication
involves. Yet despite the carful advice of those applied linguists
who introduce Hymes’ ideas to the language-teaching profession,
the idea quickly became distorted and misinterpreted.
(The four parameters of Hymes’ model were not taken as
integral parts of a complex model of communication but rather
as discrete areas to be developed separately. They were even set
against each other with focus on appropriateness being seen as a
replacement for one on possibility )
• One of the strengths of the concept of communicative
competence is that it does not assume that knowledge
necessarily leads to conformity. Knowing that is
appropriate to a particular situation, relationship, genre, or
culture, does not mean that you necessarily do it.