Topic 3
The communication process. Functions of language. Language in use.
The negotiation of meaning.
Table of contents
0. INTRODUCTION
1. THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS
1.1. Notion of communication. Semiotics
1.2. Language and communication
1.3. Jakobson’s Communicative Model
2. LANGUAGE FUNCTIONS
2.1. Jakobson
2.2. Halliday
3. LANGUAGE IN USE
3.1. Chomsky’s notions of competence and performance
3.2. Sociolinguistics: Hymes and Canale and Swain
4. NEGOTIATION OF MEANING
4.1. Austin’s Speech Act Theory
4.2. Brown’s Politeness Theory
5. TEACHING IMPLICATIONS
6. CONCLUSION
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY
The topic under scrutiny is number 3 in the set, which is aimed at the analysis of
several aspects concerning communication.
Humans have the capacity to use complex language, far more than any other
species on Earth. We cooperate with each other to use language for
communication. The communication by means of language is probably one of
the most frequent and relevant actions of the daily life. Language is an essential
tool that enables us to live the kind of lives we do. Can you imagine a world in
which machines are built, farms are cultivated, and goods and services are
transported to our household without language? Is it possible for us to make
laws and regulations, negotiate contracts, and enforce agreements and settle
1
disputes without talking? Much of contemporary human civilization would not
have been possible without the human ability to develop and use language for
communication.
To carry out this dissertation, we will endeavor to clarify the relation between
language and communication, by resolving around the existing theoretical
background with regards to the communicative process, language functions,
language in use and negotiation of meaning. We will also comment on the
major teaching consequences of all the elements hitherto treated in the EFL
classroom, but also on how these can be materialized in an effective teaching
methodology. Finally, we will conclude this document with a proper conclusion,
as well as some references to bibliography.
The importance of this topic lies on the fact that we deal with the process of
communication, which is the essence of human life. It is also of paramount
importance to highlight the idea that, as stipulated in the current legislation to
regulate our educational system, students should achieve a series of Objectives
and Competences with concerns to foreign languages. Among them, we may
highlight Objective i) as well as Competence in Linguistic Communication. On
this account, it seems noteworthy that our students do not only apprehend
English grammar rules, but also to exploit them in effective communicative
extracts, observing language functions, language in use and negotiation of
meaning.
According to Crystal (1985), different research works throughout the 20 th
century in the field of Human and Social Sciences confirmed that human beings
have been uniquely endowed with the ability of communicating by means of
language. Such researchers were then attracted by the phenomenon of
communication, conceived as the exchange of meanings among individuals
through a common system of symbols to fulfil a pursued objective. Their first
conclusions set the foundations of Semiotics, a branch of Linguistics centred on
the development of communication by virtue of such system of symbols.
As a result of all the studies which were carried out during the early 20 th century,
it was possible to determine a premier distinction in communication: verbal and
non-verbal. Their main difference emerges from the nature of the system of
2
symbols which facilitate the exchange of information: whereas verbal
communication utilizes the linguistic code, non-verbal communication turns to
any other system other than language. Besides, this major discrimination led to
the comprehension of the uniqueness of human communication, for verbal
communication may be either oral or written.
Notwithstanding the type of verbal communication, it should be note that its
hallmark is the presence of language. Halliday conceives that language is an
instrument of social interaction with a clear communicative purpose. He did also
find a series of features which make language rather distinctive, including the
facts that language is highly productive, it allows temporal displacement, duality
is feasible (that is to say, the codification of intrinsic messages), it is arbitrary
and transmissible from one generation to the other. Furthermore, Halliday did
explore Semiotics to conclude that verbal communication is generally
materialized in oral or written discourse, which is certainly subject to certain
rules; and non-verbal communication comprises extralinguistic and
paralinguistic devices, such as gestures or gaze directions.
It is precisely owing to Halliday’s observations that a communicative approach
of language teaching is justified. The historical development of language is
sustained on the fact that human beings were eager to be involved in
communicative instances in which information would be exchanged. Likewise,
being in contact with real communicative excerpts may contribute to our
students’ motivation and, thus, to the enhancement of their skills and
competences in English. However, we may find other elements in
communication which must be contemplated to ensure the success of this
communicative approach.
One of the core aspects which we as teachers should reconnoitre is the fact
that the link between language and communication results into a
communication process (Pathak, 2014), a linguistic facet which has been
deeply scrutinized by different scholars to establish how communication may be
realized. One of the precursors who tackled the conception of communication
process was Saussure, who, under the influence of Structuralism, detected two
major processes which conform the communication process: audition and
3
phonation. Saussure’s theoretical milestone appeared to be of great relevance
for certain authors belonging to the American Literary Theory, although they
noted that other elements were indispensable for communication to occur. As
such, Shannon affirmed that any communication process should comprise a
sender, a receiver, a channel where the exchange is produced and a message,
both as input and output. Moles went beyond, for he remarked the importance
of language for messages to match the intended meanings, that is, he
highlighted the noteworthiness of the linguistic code (Richards and Schmidt,
2014).
Being aware of the importance of the linguistic code in communicative
occurrences, Jakobson, one of the most influential figures of Russian
Formalism, presented his model of communication process. Jakobson’s model
is indeed one of the most prominent theoretical advances in the field of
Linguistics up to date, and viewed that communication should be produced
thanks to the co-existence of the following elements: a sender who transmits a
message to a receiver, such message in a specific code and channel of
transmission, all this being produced in a specific context.
Jakobson’s model resulted to be of great originality for he assumed the premier
role of the linguistic code in communication by suggesting the existence of
functions of language. In other words, he demonstrated how each of the
elements of his communicative model could be reinforced thanks to language.
Consequently, he unearthed the upcoming functions of language: emotive or
expressive, focused on the sender and aimed at expressing emotions; conative,
centred on the receiver and encouraging their involvement; referential, with
concerns to the context and the shared schemata between the sender and the
receiver; poetic, concentrated on the potentialities of the code; metalinguistic,
which clarities the message; and phatic, which ensures the continuity of the
channel.
As stated by Jackson and Stockwell (2010), Jakobson’s functions of language
implied a brand-new object on analysis in the field of Linguistics and, therefore,
several were the experts who dug out this aspect. Among such intellectuals, we
may mention once again Halliday, who embraced a more practical classification
4
of functions of language and introduced a scheme moving from the abstract to
the specific. As a consequence, he affirmed a correlation of macrofunctions of
language, which are ideational (the use of language to convey information,
ideas, and knowledge about the world), interpersonal (the use of language to
establish and maintain social relationships between people) and textual (the use
of language to organize and structure messages into coherent and meaningful
units of communication).
As a result of all these theoretical advances, it appeared to be unquestionable
that, if verbal communication is uniquely achievable by human beings, language
learning should contemplate the process and elements integrated in
communication. This posture implied significant breakthroughs in the field of
Linguistics in general, and Applied Linguistics in particular, seeking a theoretical
response to the process of Second Language Acquisition (Cook, 2016).
Language learning was traditionally conceived to follow the schemes of
Behaviourism, that is, based upon repetitive patterns. This view commenced to
be questioned as Human and Social Sciences witnessed a great developing
productivity and several voices raised their concerns on this account.
One of the first individuals searching such theoretical response was Chomsky,
who, challenging Behaviourist precepts, and under the influence of Cognitivist
models, assumed that languages are innately learnt by human beings. For
Chomsky, every person possessed what he referred to as the Language
Acquisition Device, allowing them to store the linguistic apparatus (what he
considered to be a competence) which is necessary to employ language in any
communicative situation (regarded as performance).
Nevertheless, as stated by Hudson (2010), the 1970s witnessed a new
tendency in the field of Linguistics upon which Anthropology exerted a notorious
influence: Sociolinguistics. As such, certain scholars, such as Hymes, claimed
that Chomsky’s notion of competence was insufficient, and reckoned that
language learning should be subject to language in use (Yule, 2014). Hence, he
introduced the notion of Communicative Competence, which implied a
considerable milestone in the field of Applied Linguistics. Hymes did affirm that
Communicative Competence is formed by the three major elements: Grammar
5
Competence (mainly centred on the code, as Halliday’s Textual Macrofunction),
Sociolinguistic Competence (focused on the social effects of utterances, as
Halliday’s Interpersonal Macrofunction) and a Discourse Competence (the
ability to combine utterances to create discourse, comparable with Halliday’s
Ideational Macrofunction in the sense that learners should improve their ability
to turn thoughts into words).
Canale and Swain expanded upon Hyme’s Communicative Competence by
adding a fourth competence called Strategic Competence, which allows
individuals to overcome disruptive situations in communication, as well as
compensating for any possible breakdowns. The other competences in Hyme's
scheme, such as Grammar Competence, Sociolinguistic Competence, and
Discourse Competence, all contribute to the overall ability to communicate
effectively and prevent misunderstandings. Accordingly, Canale and Swain
asserted that it is possible to find four components under the pilgrim of
Communicative Competence: Grammar Competence, Sociolinguistic
Competence and Discourse Competence and Strategic Competence.
As pointed out by Yule (2014), from these theoretical stances with concerns to
language in use, it is possible to infer that speakers are in a constant process of
negotiation of meaning. Negotiation of meaning is in fact a key aspect in the
process of communication for it to be successful: as a result, its development in
the context of CSE and Bachillerato is vital to avoid possible frustrations.
Language learners should be aware of the fact that any utterance embeds an
implicit or intrinsic intention, ergo it is crucial to be in constant negotiation.
As a matter of fact, Austin, by means of his Speech Act Theory, demonstrated
that utterances go beyond their mere codification. He concluded that any
speech act is formed by:
- a Locutionary Act: the utterance itself.
- an Illocutionary Act: the attributed force by the speaker. Searle identified
five basic primitive illocutionary points:
Assertives: speech acts that state what the speaker believes to be
the case or not. Statements of fact, declarations, conclusions, and
descriptions are all examples of the speaker representing world as
6
he or she believes it is. For example: the speaker states “the door is
open” and he or she believes that it is.
Directives: speech acts that the speaker uses to get someone else to
do something. They express what the speaker wants. They are
command, orders, request, and suggestions. They can be positive or
negative. For example: the speaker gives the command “open the
door” and he or she wants the door to be opened.
Expressives: speech acts that express what the speaker feels. They
express psychological states and can be statements of pleasure,
pain, likes, dislikes, joy, or sorrow. For example: the speaker
exclaims “I like your coat” and he or she means it.
Declaratives: speech acts that change the world via their utterances,
but only if speakers have the authority to change it. For example: “I
now pronounce you husband and wife.”
Commissives: speech acts that speaker uses to commit him/herself
to some future actions. They express what the speaker intends. They
are promises, threats, refusals, pledges. They can be performed by
the speaker alone, or by the speaker as a member of a group. For
example: the speaker says “I will open the door” and he or she
intends to do it.
- and a Perlocutionary Act: the effect produced on the addressee, such as
being offensive for using imperative and not the structure “may you…
please?” in British English; or even being shocked by a too close
customary-oriented relation in American English.
The addressee's position, as studied under the notion of Perlocutionary Act, is
an important factor in communication. Actually, Brown upheld that the speaker's
public image is a crucial element in the negotiation of meaning. The speaker
must maintain a balance between rationality and face-saving strategies in their
selection of appropriate utterances to achieve their intended objective. This
balance between rationality and face-saving strategies gives rise to different
Politeness Strategies. Positive Politeness Strategies prioritize preserving the
face, while negative Politeness Strategies prioritize rationality. By understanding
7
and utilizing these different strategies, speakers can effectively communicate
and achieve their goals while also maintaining their public image.
All the subject-matters which have been heretofore resolve conduce to the
improvement of our students’ communicative competence in English: certainly,
the need to cognize the code to create utterances and discourse, but also, they
should be conscious of the social effects that such utterances may imply.
Indeed, all these issues are well depicted in our current educational legislation
(i.e., LOMLOE 3/2020, RD 217/2022, Decree 65/22 (CSE) and 64/22
(Bachillerato) Madrid; LOMLOE 3/2020, RD 217/2022, Decree 82/22 (CSE)
and 83/22 (Bachillerato) CLM; LOMLOE 3/2020, RD 217/2022, Decree
235/22 (CSE) and 251/22 (Bachillerato) Murcia), which comprehends that
students must adhere to a series of Syntactic-Discursive Contents with the
purpose of enhancing their written and oral comprehension and production
skills.
Additionally, our educational laws affirm that education should be encouraged
from a homogeneous perspective, hence the necessity of the relations brought
about by interdisciplinary connections. In this regard, the nature of the content
of this topic allows us to establish associations with other subjects such as
French Language, because all the elements previously studied are also treated
in the French classroom.
It is noteworthy to mention that the content of this topic deals with Competence
in Linguistic Communication and it also touches on Personal, Social and
Learning to Learn Competence when it deals with how students learn to
negotiate meaning in a foreign language.
As for the teaching method which may fulfil the objectives above, the Engage-
Study-Activate Model proposed by Harmer (2007) happens to be one of the
best options. Harmer created this model with the objective of keeping foreign-
language students emotionally involved in their learning process in three main
phases: Engage, which awakes the student’s attention and seeks their
participation; Study, which presents a series of linguistic tools to be used; and
Activate, which evokes the exploitation of such tools in real and meaningful
8
communicative interactions. Of course, it is in this phase that we must provide
students with negotiating strategies and techniques to overcome their
communicative problems in an attempt to make communication as real as
possible.
In conclusion, this essay has been an attempt to offer an in-depth insight of
different issues related to communication. To do so, we have examined the
existing theoretical background regarding the communicative process, language
functions, language in use and negotiation of meaning. Being unarguably
related to communication processes, language learning should take into
account all these subject-matters since they contribute to our students’
academical and professional realization and, thus, it is the responsibility of
teachers of English to incorporate these elements into their teaching to ensure
their students' success.
This analysis is foregrounded on a series of relevant and influential figures in
the fields of Linguistics and Teaching, namely:
- Cook, V. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. (5th Ed.).
New York: Routledge, 2016.
- Crystal, D. Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1985.
- Harmer, J. How to Teach English. Harlow: Pearson, 2007.
- Hudson, R. Sociolinguistics. (2nd Ed.). Cambridge: C.U.P., 2010.
- Jackson, H and Stockwell, P. An Introduction to the Nature and
Functions of Language. (2nd Ed.). New York: Continuum, 2010.
- Pathak, A. The Communication Process. Singapore: Communication
Analytics, 2014.
- Richards, J. and Schmidt, RW. Language and Communication. London:
Routledge, 2014.
- Yule, G. The Study of Language. (5th Ed.). Cambridge: C.U.P., 2014.
Naturally, we have also consulted: LOMLOE 3/2020, RD 217/2022, Decree
65/22 (CSE) and 64/22 (Bachillerato) Madrid; LOMLOE 3/2020, RD
217/2022, Decree 82/22 (CSE) and 83/22 (Bachillerato) CLM; LOMLOE
3/2020, RD 217/2022, Decree 235/22 (CSE) and 251/22 (Bachillerato)
Murcia.
9
We will wrap up with the following wise words by Paulo Freire: Only through
communication can human life hold meaning.
10
