1.0] Introduction

 

A student understands the meaning of a conversational dialogue but the grammar disturbs him. Our student is familiar with dialogues where questions are followed  by answers and where speakers courteously paraphrase each other. “Do you have any brothers or sisters?” would be followed by “No, I haven’t” or “Yes, I have.”, economically practising the interrogative and declarative moods. Conversations in reality are often not so symmetrical and, for once, the dialogue in the book was not artificial and hence the disturbance. An external moderator wishes to fail a teacher who delivered a lesson that was in many ways  well executed. Our teacher taught a “traditional” lesson with exchanges governed by closed questions and highly controlled language. There were few opportunities for the students to use the language freely either with the teacher or between themselves. What unites these two situations are the issues of communication, both what it is and how communication is developed.

 

It might be thought that the teacher who taught the “traditional lesson” and those who continue to teach “traditionally” are responsible for the students who have problems dealing with “real” conversations. But this is too simplistic as in the case of our student the other class members were clearly amused by his discomfort. They clearly knew something about language, whether by acquisition, learning or transfer, that he did not. And it is also useful to remember that many of today’s teachers of English are the successful product of traditional methods. However, the external moderator was in a position to elevate communication and communicativeness over all other criteria This example shows the risks run by teachers who fail to conform. Those who omit to read the scriptures and follow the orthodoxy risk excommunication! I do not feel this is an isolated case as Michael Swan (1990) states;

“Currently teachers feel guilty about not being communicative. Mechanical structure practice is out: it would be a brave trainee teacher who used a substitution table in his or her RSA practical exam.” (p.92)

 

As a member of that guilty congregation, I intend to review some of the literature that communicative teaching is based on. However, it is not an innocent reading. I plan to do it from the perspective of a teacher working with Turkish speaking students looking for guidance on what to teach. The following section examines some of the differences that exist over some basic concepts.

 

 

 

2] Communication, Competence and Performance

 

Canale (1983) provides a definition of communication as;

“.. the exchange and negotiation of information between at least two individuals through the use of verbal and non-verbal symbols, oral and written/visual modes, and production and comprehension processes.” (p.4)

He lists the following characteristics of communication as;

1] a form of social interaction

2] involving a high degree of unpredictability and creativity

3] taking place in discourse and sociocultural contexts that constrain appropriate language use.

4] limited by psychological constraints

5] having a purpose

6] involving authentic language

7] being judged as successful or not by the achievement of the communicative purpose.

 

These characteristics could provide criteria for evaluating a text (spoken or written) as communicative. It would be wrong, however, to claim more than this, and it should be stated that descriptions of language cannot simply be translated into prescriptions for how to teach and learn languages. For example, children talking to themselves would not be involved in communication according to the first characteristic yet rehearsal is recognised as a valid learning strategy. Taylor (1988) also makes this point in relation to the concept of competence which is explored later below. Competence may specify what a learner needs to know and do but how it helps a learner acquire this knowledge is a separate issue.

 

It is worth noting that the degree of unpredictability is open to discussion. For Halliday, (1985) it is the very predictability of language that accounts for the success with which people communicate. However, a distinction should be made between native and non-native speakers. Native speakers are able to use the context of situation to anticipate what meanings are being exchanged. Non-native speakers are required to cope not only with a language that is unfamiliar but also with  situations that might be outside their experience. Even the topics of conversations may be different. For example, there are very few vegetarians in Turkey and consequently most people there are not familiar with arguments in favour of a meat-free diet. Any discussion on vegetarianism in Turkey with  Turkish teenagers would have a different starting point than one with group of English teenagers where there could be vegetarian members of the group.

  

Theory, like communication, is purposeful being constructed to explain and in the case of natural science predict events. Similarly, linguistic theories are shaped by the purpose of the researcher. Depending on the researcher’s orientation, language can be studied primarily as knowledge or it can be studied as behaviour. Cook (1988) describes Chomsky’s characterisation of these approaches as Internalized (I) Language linguistics and Externalized (E) Language linguistics respectively. It is out of a debate between these two approaches as represented by Hymes and Chomsky that important conceptual distinctions in communicative language teaching arose. 

 

An often quoted starting point is Chomsky’s (1965) “Aspects of the theory of syntax” where he states his view of theory thus;

“Linguistic theory is 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 (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual performance.” (p.3)

 

Each of the assumptions has the effect of limiting the number of variables to be considered. While it is normal to simplify the conditions that exist in the world when constructing a theory or model, it is also necessary to examine the effects of doing so. What is the effect of assuming perfect knowledge? Again this assumption is made in other disciplines but it has far reaching implications. Logically, perfect knowledge means there are nothing unknown hence there can be no change or development. It is essentially a static view. As Taylor (1988) suggests Chomsky is concerned with product rather than process. Already its limitations for teaching which is concerned precisely with change is signalled. In fact, Chomsky seems to view performance as an imperfect source of data from which “an underlying system of rules”(p.4) could be recovered. He states;

“We thus make a fundamental distinction between competence (the speaker-hearer’s knowledge of his language) and performance (the actual use of language in concrete situations).” (p.4)

This competence is sometimes termed “linguistic competence” (see Stern (1992) p.73)

 

Hymes (1972) offers a more detailed criticism of Chomsky’s assumptions and in doing so proposes a return to a more customary demarcation between  competence and performance. His criticism is based on considering certain empirical evidence. Thus Hymes’ focus is at a different level of abstraction to Chomsky’s. For while Chomsky is concerned with the structure of language available to the “ideal speaker-hearer” , Hymes is concerned with the difference between “what one imagines and what one sees”. Taking up the issue of language development among disadvantaged children he says;

“To cope with the realities of children as communicating beings require a theory within which sociocultural factors have an explicit and constitutive role.” (p.271)

Besides differing levels of abstraction, this also shows a view of language as a social rather than mental construct. He rejects the notions of a homogeneous community with perfect knowledge and contrasts it with evidence of differential competence within a heterogeneous speech community (p.274). Even in a monolingual community an individual does not only use a single style. In fact, the style might be expected to vary with the function of the language. Similarly, children learn to distinguish between varieties at the same time as they acquire grammatical knowledge. They “acquire competence as to when to speak, when not, and as to what to talk about with whom, when, where, in what manner”(p.277) This leads him to make the statement;

“There are rules of use without which the rules of grammar would be useless.”(p.278.

Hymes rejects Chomsky’s view of competence and suggests that “Competence is dependent upon both (tacit) knowledge  and (ability for) use” .(p.282) However, it is still an abstraction being related to potential rather than demonstrated ability. While he recognises that it is possible to talk about theoretical performance, he uses performance for actual use and actual events. In recasting these terms Hymes also declares his aim to link linguistic theory with theory of communication and culture.

 

 

3] Communicative Competence

 

Having discussed  the term “competence”, the term “communicative competence” can be introduced. Brown (1987) gives a succinct definition.

“Communicative competence, then, is that aspect of our competence that enables us to convey and interpret messages and to negotiate meanings within specific contexts.” (p.199)

Part of this definition indicates that besides being related to a particular situation competence is also tied to the interaction of the participants. Thus meaning is not unambiguous but has to be clarified. Meaning can also change some time after the event as new information becomes available. The frequently heard expression “Oh, so that is what he meant when he said .......” shows that meaning can be re-evaluated. Pride (1979) says that communicative competence is the possession of an individual language user and is with respect to the speech communities that the individual belongs.

 

Other writers have given a more systematic description. Canale and Swain (1980) propose that communicative competence “refer to relationship and interaction between grammatical competence, or knowledge of the rules of grammar, and sociolinguistic competence, or the knowledge of the rules of language use.” (p.6) Later in their article they add a third component, strategic competence. Canale(1983)  revises this framework further. There are four parts;

a) Grammatical Competence

Under this heading he includes “features and rules of language such as vocabulary, word formation, sentence formation, pronunciation, spelling and linguistic semantics.”(p.7) 

Grammar is an important part of communicative competence. Canale and Swain reply to Hymes stating;

“Just as Hymes was able to say that there are rules of grammar that would be useless without rules of language use, so we feel that there are rules of language use that would be useless without rules of grammar.”(p.5)

Unfortunately, while stating the necessity of grammatical competence, they give no indication of how it is achieved.

b) Discourse Competence

The division between grammatical competence and discourse competence is the usual distinction between sentence-level grammar and intersentential relationships. Canale uses this term to describe the skill and knowledge to combine utterances in spoken and written texts with coherence and cohesion. This would include cohesive devices “such as pronouns, synonyms, ellipsis, conjunction and parallel structures.”(p.9) Including descriptions of discourse competence in language teaching allows teachers to deal with exchanges such as Widdowson(1978 p.2) poses;

A: What did the rain do?

B: The crops were destroyed by the rain

While B’s reply is grammatically correct, it lacks cohesiveness. Normally “rain” or “it” would be expected to be the subject of B’s sentence (what is known), followed by what happened (what is unknown or new).  

Regarding the language learner, Cook (1989) writes that in order to an effective participant in discourse he or she “needs to be able to identify what type of discourse he or she is involved in, and predict how it will typically be structured.”(p.49)  

c) Sociolinguistic Competence

This relates to the appropriate production and  understanding of  utterances  according to contextual factors. These factors are outlined by Thomas(1995) who uses Hymes’ SPEAKING mnemonic.

 

Situation                       The setting or scene

 

Participants                   Speaker, hearer, audience etc.

 

Ends                            The outcomes or goals of individuals

 

Act sequences              Message, message content

 

Key                              Tone, manner or spirit of act

 

Instrumentalities            Channel or mode(written or spoken)

 

Norms                          Norms of interpretation and interaction

 

Genre                           Categories such as joke, lecture or advertisement

 

d) Strategic Competence

Strategic competence is the ability to use verbal and non-verbal communication techniques to;

1) compensate for communication breakdowns that might result from a  lack of competence in areas such as vocabulary.

2) enhance the effectiveness of communication.

Examples of 1) might include drawing a picture or substituting a foreign word for unknown English word.

 

An alternative framework (illustrated below) is offered by Bachman(1990), describing what he terms communicative language ability. Communicative language ability combines competence and performance “in appropriate contextualised communicative language use”(p.84).Bachman is concerned with the issue of testing and relates communicative competence to the idea of proficiency in language.

 

His interest in testing leads him to separate strategic competence from language knowledge. The justification for this being that two people may have the same knowledge and control over a language but have differing degrees of success in using this knowledge. This has implications for test validity. Evidence in the classroom of these differential abilities is sometimes found after placement testing. Students with similar or identical grammar scores are not equally able to participate in the class. Bachman also sees strategic competence as something that is always available to the learner and native speaker alike and not just when a breakdown in communication occurs. 

 

 

He equates communicative competence with language competence, which he then further divides into organisational competence and pragmatic competence. Organisational competence is combined Canale’s grammatical and discourse competence which is described above. Discourse competence is termed textual competence by Bachman. Pragmatic competence is concerned with the relationship between language users and the context (p.89) and is divided into Illocutionary competence and Sociolinguistic competence. Illocutionary competence is an ability to produce and comprehend an utterance appropriately in a particular context. A complete description draws both on speech act theory and Halliday’s functional view of language. Under sociolinguistic competence he includes sensitivity to differences in dialect, register and naturalness.

 

While these competencies can be analysed separately, they are expected to be available and used by the language user simultaneously.

 

The description of communicative competence gives a fuller description of language than previous grammar based models, but before it is used to guide what to teach we need to place  the learner within the framework. Shaw (1992) does this by looking at the degree to which the competence described is universal, language-specific or culture- specific.  He gives the example of teaching the process approach to writing. This might be a skill the language learner is already familiar with from their L1 (a part of universal competence) and perhaps more attention could be paid to the language in such a situation. At a simpler level a part of communicative competence in English is being able to distinguish between /s/ and /z/ both receptively and productively. For Turkish students this competence already exists in their L1 so it need not be taught. While it is dangerous to make cultural generalisations based on personal experience, an example at the cultural level is the use of a telephone in a friend’s home. It relates to the differences in “free” goods, things that anyone can use without seeking permission.  As Thomas (1983) comments;

“Generally speaking, what an individual regards as “free goods” varies according to relationships and situation” (p.105) I think in England I would to ask permission to use a friend’s telephone and expect permission to be given.  In Turkey I have found my friends do not find it necessary to ask permission to use the telephone so while linguistically competent they do not make a request. This is an example of what Thomas calls a “sociopragmatic failure”.

 

Since many books advocating communicative teaching are produced for an international market distinguishing the particular communicative needs of a student or group is an important step in deciding what to teach .

 

4] Which language - Language varieties and appropriateness

 

Communicative competence includes sensitivity to dialect or variety and differences in register. In teaching terms it  should be asked which varieties learners  need to understand , and the other side of this equation  what sort of language  learners need to produce. There are choices to be made particularly for teacher who may be seen or looked to as a model. For example, my uncle can ask “How bist getting on then you?” and  I can happily ask my mother “Where be me shoes?”. In my dialect “to be” is a regular verb which would make it easier to teach. However, I would not teach these forms to my current students except as curiosities. While linguistic descriptions can avoid prescription,  teachers have  to select which samples of language to use in class and are required to make assessments about students’ language. Along with the idea of communicative competence arises the idea of standards even if of an apparently simple binary “successful or not successful” type. The question then becomes “Which standards?” or perhaps even “Whose standards?”. There exists a heterogeneous speech community and some speakers may be members of several speech communities being able to move between them. Hymes points out “fluent members of communities often regard their languages, or functional varieties, as not identical in communicative adequacy.”(p.274). It is also the case that native speakers are not uniformly competent and there may be areas where instruction is necessary (see Shaw). That native speakers have gaps in their competence indicates comprehensive competence cannot be a realistic goal for most language learners. In the section that follows I plan to examine the issue of standards with respect to two areas: language variety and appropriateness.

 

For Stalker(1989)  “There is no golden book of correctness rules”(p.187). However, he argues standard American English fulfils certain functional roles and  that a knowledge of its features is necessary in certain contexts to make an appropriate linguistic choice. Thus an awareness of standard American English should be part of communicative competence. In defining what standard American English is he seems to suggest it is an ideal (p.185). “It is that form of language that we use when we engage in communication events with strangers, people beyond the group of people whom we regard as “our group””.(p.186). Some learner’s accents evoke negative stereotypes with some native-speakers (Zuengler (1989) which may result in the learner being discriminated against.  Stalker suggests standard American English maximises the success of an encounter with a stranger.(p.190).

Unfortunately, Stalker does not specify whether he is talking about language learners in the USA or not. While it might be accepted that for certain language users standard American English is a useful variety to know and be able to use, Stalker’s argument can not be said to make the case for standard American English as the variety to know even within the USA. Milroy (1991) suggests “the socially functional nature of a varied repertoire”(p.123). Distinctive codes are maintained, even ones that are considered low status, for a purpose. Linguistic variety can function  to show solidarity with or alternatively mark social distance from an interlocutor. Speakers may wish to do either.  Communicative competence would suggest that language learners need access to these varieties if they are to function in an environment where the variety is used.

 

Talking specifically about second language learners in a second language setting, Zuengler (1989) poses the question “What language varieties are available as target choices?”(p.81). She points out that learners may have their own target models distinct from the standard. This may be the result of influence from peers, parents or others, illustrating the importance of group solidarity. Although Zuengler refers to the learners as IL (interlanguage) speakers suggesting a transitory or developmental state for their language variety,  this may not be the case. Richards (1979) writes;

“The evolution of lasting non-standard varieties of a standard language is a consequence of the perception by the immigrant of the larger society, and a reflection of the degree to which the immigrant groups have been admitted into the mainstream of the dominant culture.”(p.88) 

In such a situation the learner needs to be helped to extend the range of linguistic choices open to them in a way that does not add to feelings of exclusion.

 

There seems to be an implicit assumption that language learners are learning a language to converse with native speakers. Consequently, the standards of competence to aspire to are often with reference to native speaker norms. With learners in a second language setting, this may be a reasonable assumption. These assumptions are also evident when discussing a foreign language setting as the shown by the following quotes from Richards;

“In a foreign language setting there is always an effort to acquire an overseas standard form of English, and not some local form of English.”

“In foreign language contexts, the English lesson is the occasion to bring a sample of American or British life into the classroom, and the lessons are about the life and people in English-speaking countries”(p.107)

This is also seen in Munby(1978) where he gives an extensive list of English varieties all of which relate to some national standard of English (p.163).

My personal teaching experience suggests that some language learners are going  to be using English to converse with other non-native speakers. For example, my students are Turkish speakers studying English to enter an English medium university in North Cyprus. Besides lecturers from USA and the UK, lecturers from Poland, Russia, China, Azerbaijan and Arab speaking countries will deliver lessons in English. Some students also plan to enter the tourist industry where they are more likely to use English as a means of communication with non-English speaking tourists. This leads me to concur with Macaulay(1988) who says;

“Attention should be given to comprehension of non-native varieties of English, since learners may have to communicate in English with other non-native speakers, and in such situations ease of understanding should not be taken for granted.”(p.123)

It also seems strange to expect that their interaction would be by English native speaker norms. Breen and Candlin (1980) suggest ;

“Communicating is not merely a matter of following conventions but also of negotiating through and about the conventions themselves. It is convention-creating as well as a convention following activity.”(p.90)

Following on from this, if learners are conceived of as having an equal role in a communicative event, then they also play a part in the convention construction. While there is an important role for culture in language teaching, material  about British or American life sometimes simply makes learning more difficult and is not that interesting to students who are not going to visit either country in the near future. Culture differences regarding what is thought of as “polite” behaviour and its linguistic expression could be explored with reference to the learners own values.

 

In terms of accent to be produced, it is also interesting that Munby’s list fronts RP (Received Pronunciation). According to Macaulay this accent is spoken by only 3% of the population of Britain.  While teaching books on pronunciation advocate “intelligibility” as a goal (see, for example, Dalton & Seidlhofer 1994)), dictionaries still use RP as a basis for guidance on pronunciation. One area in which this could lead to over intervention in a student’s speech is the pronunciation of /r/. Collin’s Cobuild English Dictionary (1995) says of RP “ “r” is only pronounced /r/ when the next sound is a vowel” (p.xxxviii). In its entries it follows RP over this rule  despite the fact that it also says most accents in English do not follow this pattern.

 

5 Conclusion

Communicative competence is an important concept that influences all areas of teaching. Its evolution has influenced how many  teachers view language with it increasing seen as a social construct broader than a set of grammar rules.

From the above review communicative competence has implications for;

1) What is taught in the classroom

2) How it is tested

The concept of communicative competence can also be applied to the classroom itself. Teachers who determine what topics can be spoken about, when it can be spoken about and for how long it can be spoken about leave a limited space for learners to occupy. Consequently, Johnson (1995 p.165) talks about classroom communicative competence. Learners need to be informed of the norms and expectations that are to operate in the classroom and why. So referring back to our original teacher a third factor needs to be mentioned and that is. 

3) Roles in the classroom

A more varied role for the teacher would open the possibility of a different range of communicative exchanges for the learner. However, the communicative classroom does not exist in isolation from the society it is in nor from the classroom practice of other subjects. Just as communicative competence is context specific, effective communicative classroom practice may prove to be culturally specific.  

 

Bibliography

 

Bachman, L.F. (1990) Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing Oxford: Oxford University Press

Breen, M.P. & Candlin, C.N. (1980) “The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching” Applied Linguistics Vol.1, No.1. 89-111

Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980) “Theoretical bases of the communicative  approaches to second language teaching and testing.” Applied Linguistics Vol.1, No.1. 1-47

Canale, M.(1983) “From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy” in Richards, J.C. & Schimdt, R.W. Language and Communication Harlow: Longman

Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax MIT Press

Cook, G. (1989) Discourse Oxford: Oxford University Press

Cook, V.J. (1988) Chomsky’s Universal Grammar Oxford: Blackwell

Dalton, C. & Seidlhofer, B. (1994) Pronunciation Oxford: Oxford University Press

Hymes, D.H. (1972) “On communicative competence” in Pride, J.B. & Holmes, J.  Sociolinguistics Harmondsworth: Penguin p.269-293

Johnson, K. (1995) Understanding communication in  second language classrooms Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Macaulay, R. (1988) “RP R.I.P.” Applied Linguistics Vol.9, No.2. 115-124

Milroy, James & Milroy, Leslie (1991) Authority in Language 2nd Ed. London: Routledge

Pride, J. (1979) “Introduction” in Pride, J. (ed) Sociolinguistic Aspects of Language Learning and Teaching Oxford: Oxford University Press p.viiii-xi

Shaw, P. (1992) “Variation and Universality in Communicative Competence: Coseriu’s Model” TESOL Quarterly Vol.26, No.1. 9-25

Stalker, J.C. (1989) “Communicative Competence, Pragmatic Functions, and Accommodation”  Applied Linguistics Vol. 10, No. 2 182-193

Stern, H.H. (1992) Issues and Options in Language  Teaching Oxford: Oxford University Press

Swan, M. (1990) “A critical look at the communicative approach” in Rossner, R. & Bolitho, R. (eds)  Currents of Change in Language Teaching Oxford: Oxford University Press

Taylor, D.S. (1988) “The meaning and use of the term “competence” in Linguistics and Applied Linguistics” Applied Linguistics Vol.9, No. 2 148-169

Thomas, J. (1983) “Cross Cultural Pragmatic Failure” Applied Linguistics Vol.4, No.2.91 -112

Thomas, J.(1995) Meaning in Interaction Harlow: Longman

Zuengler, J. (1989) “Identity and IL Development and Use” Applied Linguistics Vol.10, No.1. 80-96