Topic 4

Communicative Competence: analysis of its components.

Table of contents

0. INTRODUCTION
1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.1. Communication and Semiotics
1.2. Halliday’s notion of Language
1.3. Jakobson’s model of Communicative Process
2. EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGE LEARNING
2.1. Behaviourism
2.2. Cognitivism: Chomsky
2.3. Sociolinguistics: Hymes, Canale and Swain
3. COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
3.1. Grammar Competence
3.2. Sociolinguistic Competence
3.3. Discursive Competence
3.4. Strategic Competence
4. TEACHING IMPLICATIONS
5. CONCLUSION
6. BUBLIOGRAPHY

The topic under scrutiny is number 4 in the set, which is aimed at the analysis of
at the analysis of several aspects concerning the so-called Communicative
Competence.

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. However, not all
linguistic communication is based on language itself. There are a social and
cultural knowledge that a speaker needs to know to be communicatively
competent in a speech community; that is to say, what Dell Hymes defined as
Communicative Competence.

1
Introduced by Hymes and further developed by Canale and Swain, the notion of
Communicative Competence is sustained on a theoretical background related
to the field of Linguistics, as we will expose in the first part of this paper. The
second part will be devoted to a thorough scrutiny of its components, as
suggested by its precursors, and by signalling the major impacts and
implications they have on language teaching in CSE and Bachillerato stages.
Having said that, we will 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 provide a
proper conclusion, as well as some references to bibliography.

The importance of this topic lies on the fact that we deal with the idea of
Communicative Competence, which has been highly influential in the field of
linguistics, but also in the field of education. 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, that is, by applying communicative approaches by virtue of
Communicative Competence.

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 communicative
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 communicative process was
Saussure, who, under the influence of Structuralism, detected two major
processes which conform the communicative process: audition and phonation.

3
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 communicative 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.

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 communicative process (Richards and
Schmidt, 2014). 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.

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

4
considered to be a competence) which is necessary to employ language in any
communicative situation (regarded as performance).

However, as stated by Hudson (2010), the 1970s witnessed a new tendency in

the fields of Linguistic 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 if formed by the following three major elements:
Grammar Competence, Sociolinguistic Competence and Discourse
Competence; the three of them allowing language learners to be involved in real
communicative instances.

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. Accordingly, they 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 a matter of fact, these
four competences are viewed in the legislation in force (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), as we will demonstrate by poring over the analysis of
them apiece.

Firstly, the Grammar Competence is centered on the linguistic code itself to

safeguard communication respecting the rules of language. It does therefore
justify the approach of different syntactic-discursive contents pursuant to the
law, chiefly divided into Grammar and Lexicon. By dint of them, not only may
our students acquire the necessary tools to express their impressions and
emotions, but also they may avoid ambiguity in their utterances. 

5
Secondly, the Sociolinguistic Competence is related to the social relevance of
discourse conveyed in interaction. It does account for the examination of
different aspects under the influence of Pragmatics in language, such as the
appropriate use of greetings or honorific forms. Thanks to this competence, our
students may embrace the idiosyncratic facets of language in use, including
extralinguistic and paralinguistic ones, and be aware of the proper ways of
showing attitudes in English.

Thirdly, the Discursive Competence is linked to the ability of verbalizing

thoughts into utterance and the combination of them to create discourse
accordingly. This competence relies on the capability of watching the rules of
cohesion, or the surface scaffolding of discourse in linguistic means; and
coherence, or the accessibility to ideas exposed in discourse. It does further
give grounds for tackling oral and written comprehension and production,
concretized in very specific objectives under blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4 pursuant to the
law.

Finally, the Strategic Competence deals with a range of linguistic devices and
communication strategies to ensure effective communication and maintain
communication continuity. The mastery of this competence can help students
become more successful and confident communicators in the target language.

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
Spanish Language and French Language.

It is noteworthy to mention that the content of this topic deals with Competence
in Linguistic Communication since it revolves around the application of
communicative approaches in the EFL classroom. It also touches on
Competence in Cultural Expression and Awareness, because learning a
language is also learning a culture.

In view of the teaching method which may best fulfil the objectives of
Communicative Competence, Harmer’s ESA Model (2007) appears to be a

6
remarkable option. Harmer created this model with the objective of keeping
foreign-language students emotionally involved in their learning process in three
main phases: engage, study and activate. All these phases may integrate the
four components of Canale and Swain’s Communicative Competence. Firstly,
the Engage Phase, which awakes the student’s attention thanks to any evoked
emotion and seeks their participation, regards the Sociolinguistic Competence
(that is to say, how should these emotions be verbalized culturally speaking),
the Discursive Competence (as students may express their thoughts either in
oral or written) and the Strategic Competence (for they must encounter the
means to express themselves). Secondly, the Study Phase, which presents a
series of linguistic tools to be used, is rather connected to Grammar
Competence (as it resolves around Grammar and Lexicon) and to Discursive
Competence (since, again, students may create discourse in focused practice).
Lastly, the Activate Phase combines them all, as it is grounded on free and
communicative language practice, helping our students to improve and avoid
frustration by virtue of obtaining palpable results. 

In conclusion, this essay has been an attempt to offer an in-depth insight of the
components of Communicative Competence and how these are reflected on our
current syllabus. Being unarguably related to communicative processes,
language learning should consider Grammar, Sociolinguistic, Discursive and
Strategic Competences. All these Communicative Competence components
guarantee an effective and successful process of language learning, something
which facilitates our students’ future personal and professional realization. To
sum up, Communicative Competence is of extraordinary noteworthiness for
teachers of English.

This analysis is foregrounded on a series of relevant and influential figures in

the fields of Linguistics and Teaching, to wit:

- 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.

7
 - 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.

We will wrap up with the following wise words by Paulo Freire: Only through
communication can human life hold meaning.