Unit 4

Communicative competence.
Analysis of its components.
0. INTRODUCTION

1. LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION

2. COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

3. ANALYSIS OF ITS COMPONENTS

3.1. THE GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE

3.2. THE SOCIOLINGUISTIC COMPETENCE

3.3. THE DISCOURSE COMPETENCE

3.4. THE STRATEGIC COMPETENCE

4. COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE AND THE

SPANISH CURRICULUM

5. TEACHING IMPLICATIONS

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
0. INTRODUCTION
According to LOMCE… (+)
Throughout this unit we will analyse thoroughly the concept of communicative competence. We will
first look at communication and try to define it in connection with language. We will also look into
language as the unique way by which human beings communicate trying to frame its characteristics
by establishing similarities and differences with other means of communication. Then we will
consider communicative competence from a historical perspective.

1. LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION

From an anthropological perspective, the origins of communication are to be found in the very early
stages of life when there was a need for animals and humans to communicate basic structures of the
world and everyday life. It is relevant to establish, then, a distinction between human and animal
systems of communication as their features differ in the way they produce and express their
intentions.
Before language was developed, non-verbal codes were used by humans to convey information by
means of symbols, body gestures, and sounds, as it is represented in pictorial art and burial sites.
However, since prehistoric times the way of improving communication preoccupied human beings
as they had a need to express their thoughts with words. This verbal code was to be developed into a
highly elaborated signalling system, both spoken and written, which became an essential tool of
communication for human beings (Crystal 1985).
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. 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.
Language can therefore be defined as the institution whereby humans communicate and interact with
others by means of habitually used oral-auditory arbitrary symbols. (R.A Hall: 1964). 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.
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 in his book The problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages (1923), 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. The ritual function is concerned with the use of language associated to ceremonies, and
also referred to as magic.
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, 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 performance 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
communicative 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, the way the rules are used.
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).

2. COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

The notion of communicative competence and its development is linked to the dialectical relationship
between language and culture which has preoccupied linguists, philosophers and researchers for
many years. However, it was not until the early twentieth century that a systematic introduction of
cultural studies enters the second language teaching curriculum, and for the first time, traditional
views on language system are challenged.
Hobbes (1651)
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. He makes
reference to an emphasis on social action rather than on texts in order to achieve the effectiveness of
communication.
Shweiter and Simonet (1921)
They argued about the necessity of including a system of basic information into second language
teaching, which involved a wide range of general topics.
Robert Lado (1957)
Another approach traces back to the middle of the twentieth century, when the American linguist
argued that knowledge of a foreign language culture is essential for foreign language learners to create
the same atmosphere of native speakers' interaction.
Chomsky (1965): competence and performance.
For him, 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 a
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.
Campbell and Wales (1970), Halliday (1972) and Hymes (1972)
There were reactions to Chomsky's notion of linguistic competence. Mainly three approaches showed
a disagreement that went on in the early 1970s, and centred on whether communicative competence
included grammatical competence or not.
Campbell and Wales felt that appropriateness of language is even more important than
grammaticality. 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.
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.
Hymes (1972) stated that native speakers know more than just grammatical competence. So far, he
expands the Chomskyan notions of grammaticality (competence) and acceptability (performance)
into four parameters subsumed under the heading of communicative competence as something which
has
1. First, a systematic potential. e.g. a native speaker has a system for producing grammatically
correct language.
2. Secondly, feasible in virtue of the available means; e.g. no grammatical rule bans 20 adjective
pre-head construction, however, we know that these constructions are not possible in language
3. Thirdly, appropriate, in relation to a context in which it is used and evaluated; e.g. native speakers
know what is appropriate in a given situation
4. Fourth, something which is in fact occurrence, e.g. native speakers know how often something is
said in language.
Hymes's model is primarily concerned with explaining language use in social contexts, although it
also addresses issues of language acquisition.
Canale and Swain (1980)
Canale and Swain 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.
Under this perspective, knowing a language is not only knowing its grammar but also knowing how
to use it with whom and in what situations. Knowing a language implies a combination of knowledge
and skills. There are therefore rules of use and without these, grammar is useless.
Knowledge would refer to what one knows (consciously or unconsciously) about the language and
about other aspects of communicative language use. Skills would refer to how well one can perform
this knowledge in actual communication situations, that is the realization of that knowledge in actual
situations. The idea here is that both knowledge and skill underlie actual communication in a
systematic and necessary way, and are thus included in communicative competence. The realization
of knowledge and skills under limiting psychological and environmental conditions (memory and
perceptual constraints, distractions, fatigue, nervousness, interfering background) is ACTUAL
COMMUNICATION. "Actual communication" reflects nothing but the reality that communicative
competence is only INDIRECTLY REFLECTED in communication.

3. ANALYSIS OF ITS COMPONENTS

3.1. THE GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE
It 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. Thus included here are features and rules of
the language such as vocabulary, word formation, sentence formation, pronunciation, spelling and
linguistic semantics. Such competence focuses directly on the knowledge and skill required to
understand and express accurately the literal meaning of utterances. Grammatical competence will
be an important concern for any second language programme.
3.2. THE SOCIOLINGUISTIC COMPETENCE
It 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 difference. Thus addresses
the extent to which utterances are produced and understood appropriately in different sociolinguistic
contexts depending on contextual factors such as the status of the participants, purposes of the
interaction, and norms and conventions of the interaction.
Appropriateness of utterances refers to both appropriateness of meaning and of form. Appropriateness
of meaning concerns the extent to which particular communicative functions are judged to be proper
in a given situation. For example, it would generally be inappropriate for a waiter in a restaurant to
command a customer to order a certain menu item regardless of how the utterance was expressed
grammatically.
Appropriateness of form concerns the extent to which a given meaning is represented in a verbal or
non-verbal form that is proper to the given situation. For example, a waiter trying to take an order
politely in a tasteful restaurant would be using inappropriate language although grammatically correct
if he said "Ok guys, so what are you going to have?
There is a tendency in many second language programmes to treat sociolinguistic competence as less
important than grammatical competence. This tendency seems odd for two reasons. First, it gives the
impression that grammatical correctness of utterances is more important than appropriateness of
utterances in actual communication. Second, this tendency also ignores that sociolinguistic
competence is also crucial in interpreting sentences for their social meaning. So when an utterance is
not clear from its literal meaning it is important to know its social meaning.
3.3. THE DISCOURSE COMPETENCE
It 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.
This competence addresses directly to the mastery of how to combine grammatical forms and
meanings to achieve a unified spoken or written text in different genres (Canale and Swain 1980). By
genre is meant the type of text to be unified, thus, a scientific paper, an argumentative essay, and oral
and written narrative among others. For them, the unity of a text is achieved through cohesion in
form and coherence in meaning. Cohesion deals with how utterances are linked structurally and
facilitates interpretation of a text by means of cohesion devices, such as pronouns, synonyms, ellipsis,
conjunctions and parallel structures to relate individual utterances and to indicate how a group of
utterances is to be understood as a text. Yet, coherence refers to the relationships among the different
meanings in a text, where these meanings may be literal meanings, communicative functions, and
attitudes.
For example, let's consider the following utterances:
Speaker A: That's the telephone Speaker B: I'm in the bath Speaker C: O.K.
Although there is no overt signal of cohesion among these utterances, Widdowson points out that
they do form coherent discourse to the extent that A's first utterance functions as a request that B's
reply functions as an excuse for not complying with A's request, and that A's final remark is an
acceptance of B's excuse.
It is reasonably clear that this notion of discourse knowledge and skill is totally different from that of
grammatical competence or sociolinguistic competence. Discourse competence would therefore
imply being able to encode and decode messages of the type above. This competence can be better
understood if we present an example were there is no cohesion nor coherence.
 A: What did the rain do? B: The crops were destroyed by the rain.
B's reply is grammatical and sociolinguistically appropriate within our framework, but does not tie in
well with A's question. The violation in this example seems to be at the level of discourse and to
involve the normal organization of sentences and texts in English in which topic (shared information)
precedes comment (new information). This principle of discourse restricts the grammatical form of
utterances that can co-occur with A's questions filtering out compatible forms from incompatible ones
regardless of their grammaticality and their appropriateness. This interaction of grammatical,
sociolinguistic and discourse rules is suggestive for the complexity of communicative competence.
3.4. THE STRATEGIC COMPETENCE
It 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 due to
limiting conditions in actual communication, such as momentary inability to recall and idea or
grammatical form, or to insufficient competence in one or more of the other areas of communicative
competence, and secondly, to enhance the effectiveness of communication, such as deliberately slow
and soft speech rhetorical effect. For example, when one does not remember a given grammatical
form, one compensatory strategy that can be used is paraphrase such as “The place where trains go”
or “The place for trains”. Of course such strategies need to be limited to resolving grammatical
problems: actual communication will also require learners to handle problems of sociolinguistic
nature, such as how to address strangers when unsure of their social status, and of a discourse nature,
such as how to achieve coherence in a text when unsure of cohesive devices.
This is quite a complex area but in a simplified way we can describe it as the type of knowledge
which we need to sustain communication with someone. This may be achieved by paraphrase,
circumlocution, repetition, hesitation, avoidance, guessing as well as shifts in register and style.
According to Canale and Swain (1980), strategic competence is useful in various circumstances as
for instance, the early stages of second language learning where communicative competence can be
present with just strategic and socio-linguistic competence.
What most linguists agree with is that communication strategies are crucial at the first stages of
second language learning. Two possible objections to actually teaching such strategies in the second
language classroom are that they are universal and are picked up in mastering the first language.
However, in Canale and Swain, it is pointed out that although a general strategy such as paraphrase
is indeed universal and used in first language communication, learners must be shown how such a
strategy can be implemented in the second language, for example what the equivalents forms are for
power vocabulary items such as English ‘place’, ‘person’, and ‘thing’. Furthermore, learners must be
encouraged to use such strategies rather than remain silent if they cannot produce grammatically
accurate forms, and must be given the opportunity to use them. The potential value of such strategies
to the second language learner can perhaps be highlighted more if we think of the teacher of the
second language as a learner of the first language.
The point is that if teachers are trained in the use of techniques to make themselves understood in the
second language by learners, then learners should be also instructed in such techniques.

4. COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE AND THE SPANISH CURRICULUM

According to the Ministry of Education, since Spain entered the European Community, there is a
need for learning a foreign language in order to communicate with other European countries, and a
need for emphasizing the role of a foreign language which gets relevance as a multilingual and
multicultural identity. Within this context, getting a proficiency 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, 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. 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:
1. Firstly, the linguistic competence (semantic, morphosyntactic and phonological).
2. Secondly, the discourse competence (language functions, speech acts, and conversations).
3. Thirdly, the sociolinguistic competence (social conventions, communicative intentions, and
registers among others).
4. Fourthly, the strategic competence. 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.
To sum up, the learning of a foreign language is intended to broaden the students' intellectual
knowledge as well as to broaden their knowledge on other ways of life and social organization
different to their own.
5. TEACHING IMPLICATIONS
Present-day approaches deal with a communicative competence model in which first, there is an
emphasis on meaning over form, and secondly, motivation and involvement are enhanced. This
requires to create classrooms conditions which match those in real life and foster acquisition,
encouraging learning. The success partly lies in the way the language becomes real to the users. Some
of this motivational force is brought about by intervening in authentic communicative events.
Otherwise, we have to recreate as much as possible the whole cultural environment in the classroom.
Recent technological multimedia tools, which utilize audio-visual formats can provide many of the
contextual cues that traditional textbook formats can not. Second, the linear nature of textbooks
affords students a rather restricted experience of the content and does not allow for navigational
freedom or interactivity that modern technological tools such as CD ROM and hypertext provide
learners
Recent developments in foreign language education have indicated a trend towards the field of
intercultural communication, where the Ministry of Education proposes several projects within the
framework of the European Community. These projects consist mainly of real students’ exchanges,
such as first, Erasmus projects and Comenius, for learners to acquire a foreign language in the target
culture; and Plumier projects, for learners to use multimedia resources in a classroom setting where
learners are expected to learn to interpret and produce meaning with members of the target culture.
In essence, they all call for the contextualization of language (Cummings 1983).
In short, it can be stated, that knowing a language goes beyond the mere learning of grammatical
structures. Competence in a language under the communicative competence perspective, involves a
knowledge of the culture, the sociolinguistic conventions as well as of the necessary strategies to
overcome difficulties in communication. Unless opportunities are given to language learners to
explore and be exposed to the different aspects a language involves, efficient and proficient
communication will not be achieved.