Communicative Competence and Language Teaching: A Review

Introduction to Communicative Competence

In recent years, the area of study termed "communicative competence" has received widespread attention as an alternative and successful method of teaching foreign language students. The desired outcome of the language learning process is the ability to communicate competently, not the ability to use the language exactly as a native speaker does (NCLRC, 2004).

Communicative competence is made up of four competence areas: linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic. Linguistic competence is knowing how to use the grammar, syntax, and vocabulary of a language. Sociolinguistic competence is knowing how to use and respond to language appropriately, given the setting, the topic, and the relationships among the people communicating. Discourse competence is knowing how to interpret the larger context and how to construct longer stretches of language so that the parts make up a coherent whole. Finally, strategic competence is knowing how to recognize and repair communication breakdowns, how to work around gaps in one's knowledge of the language, and how to learn more about the language and in context.

Theoretical Development of Communicative Competence

By definition, the term "communicative competence" applies not only to the grammatical rules of a language used to form correct utterances, but also to knowing when to use these utterances appropriately (Wikipedia, 2005).

Although now a well-known term, the earliest foundation for the notion of communicative competence emerged in 1965 through Chomsky's model in his influential Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, where he examined competence and performance. According to Chomsky, competence was the perfect knowledge of an ideal speaker-listener in a homogeneous speech community. Chomsky's position received criticism as a result of his theory that linguistic knowledge is separated from sociocultural features. In his view, linguistic theory was concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener in a completely homogeneous speech community who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors in applying knowledge of the language in actual performance (Anonymous, 2005).

Traditionally, communicative competence consisted of four main components: (1) grammatical competence, or words and rules; (2) sociolinguistic competence, or appropriateness; (3) discourse competence, or cohesion and coherence; and (4) strategic competence, or the appropriate use of communication strategies (Wikipedia, 2005).

In 1972, the notion of communicative competence changed dramatically through a concept developed by Dell Hymes in opposition to Chomsky's concept of the ideal speaker, in which Hymes referred to the ability to use speech appropriately in varying social contexts (Carel, 1997). According to Hymes, Chomsky's competence/performance model did not provide an explicit place for sociocultural features, and Chomsky's notion of performance appeared confused between actual performance and the underlying rules of performance. Instead, Hymes offered a new definition of communicative competence encompassing four dimensions: (1) whether and to what degree something is formally possible; (2) whether and to what degree something is feasible given the means of implementation available; (3) whether and to what degree something is appropriate in relation to a context in which it is used and evaluated; and (4) whether and to what degree something is in fact done, actually performed, and what its doing entails (Anonymous, 2005).

Halliday's research studies from 1971–72 followed the work of Hymes and also rejected the dichotomy of competence and performance. According to Halliday, "meaning-potential" covered both knowing and doing, and consisted of a separation of the macro and micro functions of language. The macro functions included: (1) ideational; (2) manipulative; (3) heuristic; and (4) imaginative (Anonymous, 2005). Under Halliday's theory, language operated as a mode of human behavior and social interaction, in which the context of situation provides a first approximation to the specification of the components of the communication situation (Anonymous, 2005). Subsequently, in 1981, Munby theorized that the four aspects of a language user's knowledge and ability were grammatical, psycholinguistic, sociocultural, and de facto (Anonymous, 2005).

Building on prior research, Canale and Swain studied four components of communicative competence in 1980 and 1983, respectively: (1) grammatical competence, concerned with mastery of the language code itself; (2) discourse competence, concerned with mastery of how to combine grammatical forms and meanings to achieve a unified spoken or written text across different genres; (3) sociolinguistic competence, addressing the extent to which utterances are produced and understood appropriately in different sociolinguistic contexts depending on contextual factors; and (4) strategic competence, composed of mastery of verbal and non-verbal communication strategies called into action either to compensate for breakdowns in communication or to enhance the effectiveness of communication (Anonymous, 2005).

A more recent survey of communicative competence by Bachman in 1990, termed "organizational competence," included both grammatical and discourse (or textual) competence, as well as pragmatic competence, which encompasses both sociolinguistic and illocutionary competence (Wikipedia, 2005). Savignon, who introduced the idea of communicative competence to foreign language teaching, originally defined it as the ability to function in a truly communicative setting — a dynamic exchange in which linguistic competence must adapt itself to the total informational input, both linguistic and paralinguistic, of one or more interlocutors (Carel, 2005). Savignon's 1983 research included the use of gestures and facial expression in her interpretation. According to Savignon, communicative competence comprised the following five qualifications: (1) communicative competence is a dynamic interpersonal trait that depends on the negotiation of meaning between two or more persons who share some knowledge of a language; (2) communicative competence applies to both written and spoken language; (3) communicative competence is context-specific, and the communicatively competent language user knows how to make appropriate choices in register and style to fit the situation in which communication occurs; (4) competence is what one knows, performance is what one does, and only performance is observable — however, it is only through performance that competence can be developed, maintained, and evaluated; and (5) communicative competence is relative and depends on the cooperation of those involved (Carel, 2005).

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT): Origins and Principles

The current model of communicative competence has been revised to include grammatical competence (knowledge of the abstract language system), discourse competence (cohesion/coherence, Gricean maxims, conversational competence, and speech acts), and sociolinguistic competence (appropriacy of language form, language function, interactional patterns, sociocultural values and constraints, and speech acts) (Anonymous, 2005). Strategic competence now involves the capacity to assess speech situations properly, drawing on sufficient background knowledge — including social values, taboos, interactional patterns, interlocutor personality, and topic selection — along with precise evaluation of communicative effectiveness. Some researchers have argued that certain studies and theories do not fit neatly into one component of communicative competence and overlap several components. As a closing note, the definition of communicative competence varies depending upon learners' needs and the contexts in which it is used.

The origins of the communicative approach began among educators and linguists who had grown dissatisfied with the audiolingual and grammar-translation methods of foreign language instruction. They felt that students were not learning enough realistic, whole language and that, as a result, these students did not know how to communicate using appropriate social language, gestures, or expressions — in brief, they were at a loss to communicate in the culture of the language studied (Orellana, 1997). Interest in and development of communicative-style teaching grew rapidly in the 1970s; authentic language use and classroom exchanges where students engaged in real communication with one another became quite popular (Orellana, 1997). In the intervening years, the communicative approach has been adapted to the elementary, middle, secondary, and post-secondary levels, and the underlying philosophy has spawned different teaching methods known under a variety of names, including notional-functional, teaching for proficiency, proficiency-based instruction, and communicative language teaching (Orellana, 1997).

Through the influence of communicative language teaching, it has become widely accepted that communicative competence should be the goal of language education, in contrast to previous views in which grammatical competence was commonly given top priority (Wikipedia, 2005). The understanding of communicative competence has been influenced by the field of pragmatics and the philosophy of language concerning speech acts. In recent years, a trend in foreign language education has emerged toward the development of communicative competence among foreign language students (Carel, 2005). Researchers expect students to learn to function properly in the target culture and to interpret and produce meaning with members of that culture. Researchers have called for the contextualization of language; however, the reality of providing experiences for contact with language in context has been difficult for foreign language teachers (Carel, 2005).

Communicative language teaching places great emphasis on helping students use the target language in a variety of contexts and on learning language functions. The primary focus is on helping learners create meaning rather than helping them develop perfectly grammatical structures or acquire native-like pronunciation. This means that successfully learning a foreign language is assessed in terms of how well learners have developed their communicative competence, which can loosely be defined as their ability to apply knowledge of both formal and sociolinguistic aspects of a language with adequate proficiency to communicate. Communicative language teaching is usually characterized as a broad approach to teaching, rather than as a teaching method with a clearly defined set of classroom practices (Wikipedia, 2005).