Communicative Competence

Communicative competence is a theory that seeks to understand an individual's ability to effectively convey meaning within given contexts. The most widely-accepted components of this ability include grammatical competence, discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence. While the theory of communicative competence has been greatly influential in changing the nature of classroom instruction, some controversy exists over how much students learn from implicit and direct methods of instruction, and over how to best assess communicative competence. Current trends indicate that communicative competence will continue to be an important theory in language classrooms, though the direct instruction of language forms may become more prevalent in the near future.

Keywords Communicative Competence; Communicative Language Teaching; Discourse Competence; Form Focused Instruction; Grammatical Competence; Negotiation of Meaning; Register; Socio-cultural Competence; Sociolinguistic Competence; Speech Act Theory; Strategic Competence

Overview

When people use language, they use much more that just words. A successful conversation requires speakers to choose language forms that make sense and are appropriate to a particular context. To be appropriate, speakers must consider the social expectations that govern a context such as taboos and the level of formality. They must use their grammatical knowledge to accurately structure their ideas in understandable phrases and sentences. They must use intonations and stresses that support the intended meaning of their words, and they must constantly interpret verbal and non-verbal feedback in order to choose their next set of utterances.

To negotiate such a sophisticated interaction requires participants to have communicative competence. Communicative competence describes one's ability effectively communicate meaning to a variety people across a variety of contexts.(Hymes, 1972). According to the widely-cited framework produced by Canale & Swain (1980) there are four components of communicative competence. These are grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence and strategic competence.

Grammatical competence includes knowledge of vocabulary, pronunciation, sound-letter relationships, and the rules of word and sentence formation. This category of communicative competence has been traditionally associated with language learning.

Sociolinguistic competence describes an individual's ability to produce and understand appropriate utterances within a given context. Included in this domain is the use of speech acts, which are formulaic utterances, used in specific situations to achieve actions like thanking, greeting, requesting, responding, etc. This category also includes an individual's understanding of etiquette in a variety of social situations.

Discourse competence refers to an individual's ability to combine grammatical forms and meanings to create a unified text in different genres. Genres may be written (i.e. a narrative, or argument) or spoken (i.e. the distinctive speech styles found in regional, age, gender, and class groups) (Sato, 1990). Investigations within this domain have found that miscommunication can occur when individuals have differing discourse styles (Sato, 1990).

The last component, strategic competence, refers to an individual's ability to compensate for a lack of linguistic knowledge. For example, a speaker who doesn't know the word "triangle" may describe the shape by saying "it's a shape with three straight sides" so that the listener can understand the speaker's intended meaning and supply the correct word.

While these four components seem to be widely accepted in the literature, a few adaptations to the basic framework have been proposed. One change is to add a socio-cultural competence component, which describes an individual's ability to understand how culture affects communication (University of Minnesota(b), 2007). Another redesign of the framework is the creation of five categories including discourse (the core competency), linguistic, actional, socio-cultural and strategic (Celce-Murcia, Dornyei, & Thurrell, 1997).

History

Linguistic Theory: Chomsky & Hymes

The communicative competence concept began developing in the early 1970s, when Hymes (1972) rejected Chomsky's (1965) theory concerning a distinction between linguistic competence and linguistic performance. According to Chomsky, linguistic theory was mainly concerned with the study of an ideal listener or speaker, who, in an ideal homogenized speech community, unaffected by interferences such as memory loss, distractions, and other random limitations, would produce a perfect grammar. Chomsky called the idealized capacity for language production a speaker's competence and the actual language produced the speaker's performance. Performance, according to Chomsky, rarely realizes the idealized possibilities of which a speaker is capable.

Hymes rejected several aspects of Chomsky's theory on the grounds that it did not account for socio-cultural factors that affect performance. Instead of viewing language performances that strayed from a perfect, idealized usage as mistakes, Hymes argued that these performances actually demonstrated another type of competence: the ability to apply social rules to language.

Hymes broadened the definition of competence, arguing that there are several components of communicative competence, only one of which is grammatical knowledge. He suggested four questions that an integrated theory of linguistics, communication, and culture (aka communicative competence) must be concerned with. These were:

• Whether, and to what degree, something is formallypossible

• Whether, and to what degree, something isfeasible in virtue of the means of implementation

• Whether, and to what degree, something isappropriate (adequate, happy, successful) in relation to the context in which it is used and evaluated

• Whether, and to what degree, something is in factdone, or performed, and what its doing entails (Hymes, 1972, p. 281).

Speech Act Theory

Following Hyme's introduction of the term, the field of research on communicative competence quickly expanded. In the field of pragmatics, speech act theory (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969, 1975), which classifies language according to communicative functions, became a prominent means for analyzing communicative competence. According to the theory, communicative functions are realized through the performance of speech acts – minimal units of discourse – such as thanking, greeting, requesting, apologizing, etc. Through the study of speech acts, linguists have developed a more specific understanding of what kind of language is deemed communicatively competent in specific contexts.

Language Acquisition

Language acquisition researchers sought to understand when and how communicative competence is learned. Studies on the language of children suggest that by the age of three or four, children are already varying their register – defined as systematic language patterns used in specific types of situations – to meet the demands of context (Anderson, 1990). In the second language acquisition field, researchers compared the development of communicative competence in native speakers to language learners in order to identify and understand existing differences. A major question linguists asked in this field was how an individual's knowledge of first language rules for communicative competence affected his or her ability to competently communicate in his or her second language.

Strategic Competence

In the 1970s, Savignon added to the definition of communicative competence by using the term to describe second language learners' ability to communicate with other speakers in a classroom. She identified coping strategies such as asking for information, seeking clarification, and using referential strategies to negotiate for meaning as practices, which, when employed, could enhance a learner's overall ability to communicate. Additionally, she found that when learners had the chance to practice these coping strategies, they not only improved their communicative competence, but they also performed no worse on tests of discrete grammatical knowledge than students who did not get this practice. These findings were important for future applications of the theory in the classroom. Canale & Swain (1980) dubbed these coping strategies "strategic competence", and they became part of the oft-cited framework for communicative competence discussed above (Savignon, 2002).

Applications

Communicative Language Teaching

In the classroom, the language teaching method that seems to have been most impacted by theories of communicative competence is communicative language teaching (CLT). Though the theory and approach share the term communicative, it is not the case that CLT is a direct product of the theory. Rather, CLT is based on several multidisciplinary theories related to communication and language, though communicative competence is one prominent theory (Savignon, 2002). The guiding principles behind CLT are that communication is the conveyance of meaning and that teaching should focus on the learner. In the classroom, a learner's performance may vary as part of a natural pattern of development and competence is always viewed as being relative. No prescribed methodology exits for CLT, but teachers are expected to choose methods that engage students in using language for a variety of authentic purposes. Culture and diversity are viewed as integral to a student's language experience and to the shaping of communicative competence (Burns, 1990 as cited in Savignon, 2002).

Negotiation of Meaning

In programs that emphasize communicative competence, negotiation of meaning plays a central role. The concept of negotiating for meaning is derived from Long's interaction hypothesis which states that interacting and negotiating for meaning encourages language acquisition by making language input more comprehensible for learners, helping learners to notice where their language is deficient, and forcing learners to modify output to be understood (Keck, Iberri-Shea, Tracy-Ventura, & Wa-Mbaleka, 2006).

For instance, learners may be given a task which requires them to interact with one another in the second language. When students encounter language they do not understand, they must negotiate with one another to arrive at a meaning by using strategies like asking questions or using descriptive references. Tasks that encourage negotiation and that are frequently used in the classroom include peer interviews, problem-solving conversations relevant to student issues (e.g., negotiating rent), journal dialogues, and debates (Majhanovich & Hu, 1995).

Viewpoints

Assessment

Several controversial issues surround the theory of communicative competence, though these issues have more to do with how communicative approaches to teaching should be implemented rather than with the concept itself. One significant issue that arises is how communicative competence should be assessed. Traditionally, language assessments measured a learners' grammatical knowledge by having them answer discrete test-items. However, these kinds of tests were later deemed inappropriate for assessing communicative competence because competence has since come to be understood as relative to and dependent on context. Thus, more holistic, authentic assessments, such as having students write essays or participate in conversations, must be used (Savignon, 2002).

Yet when such assessments are used, the determination of a learner's errors becomes more difficult. For instance, in assessing grammatical competence, raters must not only identify grammatical errors, but must also determine the severity of the error. Typically, errors that interfere with intelligibility or that may cause a listener or reader to negatively judge the language producer would be considered more severe than minor errors that do not impede comprehension. The University of Minnesota provides a good example of the complicated nature of these judgments in its Virtual Assessment Center.

The University divides grammatical errors into two categories: those of form, and those of style. For example, a speaker may make a formal error by misusing the present perfect tense in saying "We have had a great time at your house last night." On the other hand, an stylistic error may be made in saying "the CD is lost," since a passive verb form is used when a native speaker would probably chose the active form "I lost the CD." (University of Minnesota (a), Test Construction, 2007, p. 1).

The first mistake, misusing the verb tense, would be a minor error, since the speakers' meaning is preserved. However if the meaning was garbled, it would be a major error. The severity of stylistic errors depends how well they transmit meaning, too. Major stylistic errors, while grammatically correct, may unintentionally annoy the listener or strike him or her as rude (University of Minnesota (a), 2007).

As can be inferred from the example above, there is a general lack of precision in assessing communicative competence. There is no universal scale for assessment, and correctness depends heavily on context and the speaker's purpose. This has been a source of frustration for some teachers and administrators, yet it has also led to new innovations in testing techniques and the development of new scales for rating language proficiency. Two examples of such projects include a large scale project in Europe to develop language proficiency scales and the redesign of the Test of English to Speakers of Other Languages to conform to communicative principles (Hudson, 1996; North, 2000 )

Direct vs. Implicit Instruction

A second complication in implementation of the communicative concept in CLT classrooms is related to the issue of direct vs. implicit instruction of language forms. In the absence of well-developed descriptions of communicative competence, multiple approaches to CLT developed in which the only common trait appeared to be a focus on preparing learners for real-life communication rather than on form. Celce-Murcia et. al. (1997) write that this was especially true in the 1970s and 1980s when both CLT and communicative competence were first being articulated. Implicit instructional methods, which engaged students in life-like activities (e.g., role-plays, problem-solving, etc.) and which allowed students to discover language principles on their own, were the norm. Although CLT does not prevent teachers from focusing on form (e.g., syntax, grammar, morphology, etc.), its emphasis on meaning over form has been interpreted by some as a directive to abandon form-focused instruction.

The implicit approach has been unsatisfactory to some teachers and students who feel that some attention to form is beneficial for acquisition. Majhanovich & Hu (1995) point out that while only 20% of the program in Savignon's seminal experiment was actually devoted to communicative competence, the term has often come to mean the abandonment of linguistic instruction. They cite Higgs and Clifford (1982) and Higgs (1985) who note that this is a problem since, when students learn language in an environment that does not provide adequate instruction on form, students' language proficiency tends to plateau at a lower level of proficiency and their grammatical mistakes tend to become fossilized. Higgs and Clifford take issue with Savignon's definition of strategic competence because they say that it fails to take into account what the students can communicate and how well they can communicate it. As Majhanovich & Hu summarize the issue, "It is one thing to be able to communicate basic survival needs and quite another to negotiate, for example, an economic treaty" (p. 69). For many who voice similar concerns such as these, communicative approaches are most beneficial when instruction is balanced with attention to form.

In the 1990s, research in cognitive psychology and linguistics began to confirm the benefits of form-focused approaches. Schmidt (1990) articulated the noticing hypothesis which states that, in order to acquire new linguistic forms, language learners must first notice the forms. For the use of the language to become automatic, the learner must first pay attention to a learning objective and be given sufficient practice with the learning objective. Other researchers cited evidence that language acquisition is improved when form-focused instruction and corrective feedback are provided within a communicative situation (Russell & Spada, 2006).

Celce-Murcia et. al. (1997) suggest that in light of the extensive research that is now available on the components of communicative competence, a new evolution of CLT is occurring which will include more direct teaching of form within communicative settings. They refer to Dornyei & Thurrell's earlier work that suggests three ways teachers can add this component to their CLT classrooms:

• Adding specific language input (formulaic language in particular) to communicative tasks

• Raising learners' awareness of the organizational principles of language use within and beyond the sentence level

• Sequencing communicative tasks more systematically in accordance with a theory of discourse level grammar. (Celce-Murcia et. al, 1997, p. 148).

Today, the controversy surrounding form-focused instruction continues as teachers, researchers, and administrators try to determine which approaches work best within particular groups of students.

Terms & Concepts

Communicative Language Teaching: An approach to teaching languages that emphasizes the definition of communication as the conveyance of meaning. The approach draws on several theories of language, but communicative competence is one of the primary theories behind the approach.

Discourse Competence: The component of communicative competence that describes an individual's ability to combine grammatical forms and meanings to create a unified text in different genres. Genres may be written or spoken.

Form-Focused Instruction: Typically refers to direct instruction of grammatical points at the sentence level. However, it can also be used to include direct instruction of larger, discourse-level forms such as paragraph or essay structure.

Grammatical Competence: The component of communicative competence that includes knowledge of vocabulary, pronunciation, sound-letter relationships, and the rules of word and sentence formation.

Negotiation of Meaning: The process that individuals go through when they must use language with others to construct an understanding of the language.

Register: The systematic language patterns utilized in specific types of situations (e.g., formal school register vs. informal home register).

Sociocultural Competence: The component of communicative competence that is complementary to sociolinguistic competence. It describes an individual's ability to consider how culture influences language in context.

Sociolinguistic Competence: The component of communicative competence that describes an individual's ability to choose appropriate language for a particular context. This domain includes knowledge of speech acts and etiquette.

Speech Act Theory: A pragmatic theory that classifies language according to its communicative functions. Through speech act studies, linguists have developed a more specific understanding of how language is used to achieve purpose.

Strategic Competence: The component of communicative competence that describes an individual's ability to compensate when linguistic knowledge fails. Asking questions, seeking clarification and using referential strategies fall into this domain.

Bibliography

Andersen, E. (1990). Acquiring communicative competence: Knowledge of register variation. In R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 1-25). New York: Newbury House.

Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and learning. Applied Linguistics, 1 , 1-47.

Cazden, C. B. (2011). Dell Hymes's construct of 'communicative competence'. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 42, 364-369. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=69734091&site=ehost-live

Celce-Murcia, M., Dornyei, A., & Thurrell, S. (1997). Direct approaches in L2 instruction: A turning point in communicative language teaching? TESOL Quarterly, 31 , 141-152.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Houghton, S. (2013). Making intercultural communicative competence and identity-development visible for assessment purposes in foreign language education. Language Learning Journal, 41, 311-325. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=91825338&site=ehost-live

Hymes, D. H. (1972) On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Great Britain: Penguin Books.

Hudson, T. (1996). Assessing second language academic reading from a communicative competence perspective: relevance for the TOEFL® 2000 test. Educational Testing Service RM-96-06, TOEFL-MS-04. Retrieved September 3, 2007, from http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.c988ba0e5dd572bada20bc47c3921509/?vgnextoid=7986457727df4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD&vgnextchannel=d35ed898c84f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD

Keck, C. Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In J.M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research in language learning and teaching (pp. 91-131). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

Leung, C., & Lewkowicz, J. (2013). Language communication and communicative competence: A view from contemporary classrooms. Language & Education: An International Journal, 27, 398-414. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89600620&site=ehost-live

Majhanovich, S., & Hu, J. (1995). Communicative strategies for intermediate level second language classes. In G. Duquette (Ed.), Second language practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, LTD.

Molina, C. (2011). Curricular insights into translingualism as a communicative competence. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 2, 1244-1251. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=67614699&site=ehost-live

North, B. (2000). The development of a common framework scale of language proficiency. New York: P. Lang.

Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research in language learning and teaching (pp. 133-164). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

Sato, C. J. (1990). Ethnic styles in classroom discourse. In R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 107-119). New York: Newbury House.

Savignon, S. (2002). Communicative language teaching: linguistic theory and classroom practice. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching: contexts and concerns in teacher education (pp. 1-40). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics. 11, 129-58.

Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. (1975). The classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5, 1-24. University of Minnesota Virtual Assessment Center. (2007). Test construction. Retrieved September 3, 2007, from www.carla.umn.edu/assessment/VAC/research/construction.html University of Minnesota Virtual Assessment Center. (2007) Theory of language assessment. Retrieved September 3, 2007, from

http://www.carla.umn.edu/assessment/VAC/research/theory.html

Suggested Reading

Scarcella, R. C., Andersen, E. S., & Krashen, S. D. (Eds.). (1990). Developing communicative competence in a second language. New York: Newbury House Publishers. Savignon, S. (1997). Communicative competence: theory and classroom practice: texts and context in second language learning (2nd ed.). New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies. Savignon, S. (Ed.). (2002). Interpreting communicative language teaching: contexts and concerns in teacher education. New Haven: Yale University Press.