Tema 04 Communicative Competencedefinitivo 552gg

1. Introduction: 2. DEFINING COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE Noam Chomsky Jürgen Habermas M. Halliday Dell Hymes Widdowson Bachman and Palmer Canale and Swain 3. Models of communicative competence Canale and Swain’s Model Bachman and Palmer’s Model Common European Framework of Reference’s Model 4. Conclusion Teaching Inference Bibliography

INTRODUCTION This topic constitutes the epistemological source of any course of Foreign Language Learning. It not only provides with a deep understanding of , but also……..

Throughout this unit I will analyse the current models of communicative competence by considering the contributions made from different fields of study. amongst them the model porposed by the CEFRL, which is the model for teaching and assessing languages in all Europe. Language, Communication and Communicative Competence Before embarking on this task, I would like to address briefly the concepts of language and communication, which constitute the subject matter of study for deg models of communicative competence. Communication is a complex process that reflects the complexity of human thinking, therefore a proper definition cannot be simplified as shown bellow: “Communication is a process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or behavior” (Webster, 1983, p. 266).

When we communicate we transmit (as by speech, signals, writing, or behaviour) information (thoughts and emotions) so that it is satisfactorily received and understood. Human beings do not exchange data–we understand information. Communication researchers refer to the process as “sharing meaning” and prefer to define communication as “the management of messages for the purpose of creating meaning.” The field of communication focuses on how PEOPLE use MESSAGE to generate MEANINGS within and across various CONTEXTS, CULTURES, CHANNELS, and MEDIA. On the other hand, the complexity of human communication is reflected in its main tool: language. From prehistoric times, the human language has developed in a highly elaborated signaling system, which set us apart from animals.

2. DEFINING COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE

© J. A. NIETO & C. M. NIETO

2

Currently, it is well established that learning a foreign language is, from both a linguistic and a communicative view, a matter of mastering “competence” and “performance’, these were first described as a language theory by the American linguist Noam Chomsky in (1958) as an attempt to give an of what languages are and how they are learnt. Since then, these notions have been reviewed and discussed to determine the nature of communicative competence and performance. In the late 50's Chomsky's book 'Svntactic Structures' introduced Transformative Generative Grammar into the field of linguistic studies, challenging some tenents of the structuralist school of thought which had dominated diverse range of fields for the last fifty years (since the 1900s); although structuralists and generativists are interested in the structures of languages, generativist linguists realised the inadequacy of earlier taxonomic classification of structures to explain the nature of language. Chomsky suggested that the basic principles of any language are determined in the mind and that all human beings share the same principal linguistic structure (Universal Grammar), regardless of socio-cultural differences. This structure is innate and has the potential to generate all the well-formed sentences in a language (Generative Grammar). Proof of this is the fact that all children have the capacity to generate sentences that had never been taught to them (creativity). Chomsky's transformational theory converges around the two primary concepts of 'competence' and 'performance and defines competence' as the "speaker-hearer's knowledge of his language", According to him linguistic theory concerns itself solely with competence. But competence is an Idealised concept. It is the knowledge that an 'ideal speaker-hearer' has of the language 'system operating within his homogeneous speech community. In contrast 'performance' is "the actual, use of language in concrete situations'~. Chomsky says that "a recqrd of natural speech will show numerous false starts, deviations from rules, changes of plan in midcourse and so on", Performance e'xemplifies an incomplete and imperfect representation of the ideal speaker-llstener ' s competence and is treated as being irrelevant by theoretical and descriptive linguists.

In the 1960s and 70s Chomsky’s description of the competence and performance triggered an intensive debate among linguists, later to be picked up by applied linguists. What is at issue for most of them, is not necessarily the nature of a Chomskyan view of competence but its limited scope; (in fact Chomsky’s general cognitive view of language can also be found in the Common European Framework of Reference), on the other hand, his notion of performance, which is described as irrelevant © J. A. NIETO & C. M. NIETO

3

details of language behavior is completely disregarded as a part of linguistic theory or research.

Dell Hymes, in reaction to Chomsky’s limiting definition of the scope of linguistic theory, coined the term communicative competence, he was pioneering the study of the relationship between language and social context and that was the beginning of today’s communicative competence models of language, which have served as a goal for communicative language teaching.

He defined Communicative Competencee as as the mastery that the native speaker possesses to know “when to speak, what to talk about, with whom, when, where and in what manner.” In Hymes’s view, a person who acquires communicative competence acquires both knowledge and ability for language use. This includes concepts of appropriateness and acceptability —notions which in Chomsky are associated with performance— and the study of competence will inevitably take into consideration variables such as attitude, motivation, and a number of sociocultural factors. The actual theory of communicative competence that he suggests implies four types of knowledge: 1. Whether something is formally possible  Grammatical System 2. Whether something is feasible in virtue of the means of implementation available  Psycholinguistic 3. Whether something is appropriate in relation to a context in which is used and evaluated  Socio-cultural 4. Whether something is in fact done, actually performed, and what its doing entails  Probabilistic Communicative competence is thus viewed by Hymes as the interaction of grammatical, psycholinguistic, socio-cultural and probabilistic systems of competence. For Hymes, the field of study for any linguistic theory are the speech events , these are activities governed directly by rules of language use. A major aspect of the ethnography of speaking is the analysis of speech events in relation to their constitutive components. These are: The setting Setting (physical time and place), Scene ( psychological or cultural setting). Participants (speaker and hearer) E A © J. A. NIETO & C. M. NIETO

4

K I N G

The second criticism of Chomsky’s view of competence concerned the functional dimension of language. Michael Halliday developed the SystemicFunctional linguistics, which is based on a conceptual framework that is functional rather than formal. He is interested in language in its social perspective and so he is concerned with the formal features of language use to for the language functions realized by speech. I.E. He had a different orientation, grammar is the study of meanings and how meanings are expressed rather than a study of forms and what the form mean So for Halliday language is a system, a set of options available to the individual (lbp) which fulfils social functions and that is reflected in the linguistic structure of actual speech (ALP). Halliday describes language as a semiotic system, "not in the sense of a system of signs, but a systemic resource for meaning". For Halliday, language is a "meaning potential" Funcionalism is the theory underlying systemic functional grammar. Meaning potential: according to halliday (1976 p.9) the human beign has a potential capacity to mean what he wants to mean in a certain context, therefore, meaning potential is defined as a set of options and the ability to select appropriately within them. The situation will determine language functions which will be fulfilled by language systems (options) which contain grammatical structures.

SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS In 1973, Halliday developed a theory of language with three level of analysis: behaviour potential, meaning potential and lexical-grammatical potential. At the heart of this approach is his language-defining notion of meaning potential; the sets of options in meaning that are available to the speaker-hearer. This meaning potential relates behaviour potential to lexical-grammatical potential: what the speaker can do -> can mean -> can say. These stages display systematic options at the disposal of the speaker. That is, a social theory determines behaviour options (what the speaker can do which are translated linguistically as semantic options © J. A. NIETO & C. M. NIETO

5

(what he can mean) which are encoded as options in linguistic forms (what he can say), the options at each stage being organised as network of systems. According to systemic functional linguistics , we communicate meaning on 3 levels simultaneously: metafunctions the ideational metafunction involves the examining of processes that are described and understood in language. Interpersonal  the relationships between the participants and the context in which they are. Textual  is connecting language together to make cohesive and coherent. : certain recognizable configurations of linguistic resources in context . there are three main dimensions of variation that characterize any . Field, tenor, mode. Sandra Savignon (1972) defined communicative competence as “the ability to function in a truly communicative setting —that is in a dynamic exchange in which linguistic competence must adapt itself to the total informational input, both linguistic and paralinguistic of one or more interlocutors”. Successful communication, however, would depend not only on the individual willingness to take a risk and express oneself in the foreign language, but also on one’s resourcefulness in using the vocabulary and structures to make oneself understood. Several years later, in 1983, Savignon notes furthermore that communicative competence is relative, not absolute, and depends on the cooperation of all the participants involved’. She points out the following characteristics: 1. Communicative competence is a dynamic rather than a static concept which depends on the negotiation of meaning between two or more persons who share some knowledge of the language. 2. Communicative competence applies to both written and spoken language. 3. Communicative competence is context-specific, in that communication always takes place in a particular context or situation. 4. It is important to bear in mind the theoretical distinction between competence and performance. “Competence is what one knows. Performance is what one does”. 5. Communicative competence is relative and depends on the cooperation of all those involved. Simultaneously to Hymes’s introduction of the concept of communicative competence as a reaction to Chomsky’s theory, the first well-recognized experiment of communicative language teaching was taking place at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The American linguist, Sandra Savignon (1972), was conducting an experiment with foreign language learners, particularly adults, in a clasroom at a beginners level. It was an attempt towards an interactional approach

© J. A. NIETO & C. M. NIETO

6

where learners were encouraged to make use of their foreign language in a classroom setting, by means of equivalents of expressions such as ‘Excuse me...’, ‘Please, repeat...’, ‘How do you say this in Italian...?’ in order to communicate rather than feign native speakers. Regarding the scope of communicative competence, Savignon’s experiment is considered to be one of the best-known surveys as it shed light on the development of research in this field. She introduced the idea of communicative competence as the ability to function in a truly communicative setting- that is, in a dynamic exchange in which linguistic competence must adapt itself to the toal informational input, both linguistic and paralinguistic, of one or more interlocutors (1972). She included the use of gestures and facial expression in her interpretation and later refined her definition of communicative competence to comprise of the following six relevant aspects (1983). FEATURES. The theories of communicative competence that we have examined so far have focussed mainly on the interrelation between language and social context. These theories cannot be considered to be inte grative since they devote relatively little attention to how individual utterances may be linked at the level of discourse and do not provide an integration in the different components of communicative competence. The theoretical framework that underlies Munby’s model of communicative competence consists of three major components: Socio-cultural orientation, socio-semantic view of linguistic knowledge, and rules of discourse. To make the discussion of teaching both linguistic and communicative competence clear, Widdowson distinguishes two aspects of performance: "usage" and "use." He explains that "usage" makes evident the extent to which the language demonstrates his knowledge of linguistic rules, whereas "use" makes evident the extent to which the language demonstrates his ability to use his knowledge of linguistic rules for effective communication. (Widdowson, 1978) He also distinguishes two aspects of meaning: "significance" and "value." Significance is the meaning that sentences have in isolation from the particular situation in which the sentence is produced. Value is the meaning that sentences take on when they are used to communicate. (Widdowson, 1978). Thus acquisition of linguistic competence is involved in use. Widdowson suggests that the classroom presentation of language must ensure the acquisition of both kinds of competence by providing linguistic and communicative contexts. Linguistic context focuses on usage to enable the students to select which form of sentence is contextually appropriate, while communicative context focuses on use to enable the students to recognize the type of communicative function their sentences fulfil. Widdowson suggests that the selection of content should be made according to its potential occurrence as an example of use in communicative acts rather than as an example of usage in of linguistic structure. (Widdowson, 1978) Grammar must be

© J. A. NIETO & C. M. NIETO

7

based on semantic concepts and must help a learner to acquire a practical mastery of language for the natural communicative use of language. According to Canale and Swain (1983) communicative competence refers to both knowledge and skill in using this knowledge when interacting in actual communication. They adopted the term communicative competence, or knowledge of the rules of grammar, and socio-linguistic competence or knowledge of the rules of language use. Communicative competence is to be distinguished from communicative performance, which is the realization of these competencies and their interaction in the actual production and comprehension of utterances. As a conclusion and following Breen, Candlin, Morrow and Widdowson, communication is understood here to have the following characteristics: 1. It is a form of social interaction. One is not dealing with perfect competence in a homogeneous speech community but the reality of differential competence in a heterogeneous speech community. 2. It involves a high degree of unpredictability and creativity in form and message. 3.It takes place in course and socio-cultural contexts. 4.It is carried out under psychological conditionings, memories constrains, fatigue and distractions. 5.It always has a purpose (promise, order….) 6.It involves authentic contexts. 7.It is judged as successful or not on the basis of actual outcomes.

3. Models of communicative competence IN 1990S SCHOLARS SUCH AS CANALEE ANS CAME UP WITH COMPONENTS THEY SAW AS NECESSARY TO BE COMPONENTS OF CC

Although most of the theories referred to so far were not developed with foreign language teaching in mind, they have had, since the 1970s, a considerable effect on pedagogy. Recent theoretical and empirical research on communicative competence is largely based on three models of communicative competence: the model of Canale and Swain, the model of

© J. A. NIETO & C. M. NIETO

8

Bachman and Palmer and the description of components of communicative language competence in the Common European Framework (CEF).

A. Canale and Swain’s model. The theoretical framework/model which was proposed by Canale and Swain (1980, 1981) had at first three main components, i.e. fields of knowledge and skills: grammatical, sociolinguistic and strategic competence. In a later version of this model, Canale (1983, 1984) transferred some elements from sociolinguistic competence into the fourth component which he named discourse competence.

The essential aspects of the theoretical framework presented here concern the nature of communication, the distinction between communicative competence and actual communication and the main components of communicative competence.

Canale and Swain have proposed a theoretical framework for communicative competence. This framework includes four main competencies: In Canale and Swain (1980, 1981), grammatical competence is mainly defined in of Chomsky’s linguistic competence, which is why some theoreticians (e.g. Savignon, 1983), whose theoretical and/or empirical work on communicative competence was largely based on the model of Canale and Swain, use the term «linguistic competence» for «grammatical competence». Grammatical COMPETENCE

SOCIOLINGUISTIC STRATEGIC COMPETENCE COMPETENCE

DISCOURSE COMPETENCE

1. Grammatical competence is concerned with mastery of the linguistic code (verbal or non-verbal) which includes vocabulary knowledge as well as knowledge of morphological, syntactic, semantic, phonetic and orthographic rules. This competence enables the speaker to use knowledge and skills needed for understanding and expressing the literal meaning of utterances.

2. Sociolinguistic competence concerns to the way grammatical forms can be used appropriately in various contexts to convey specific communicative functions Persuading, describing, narrating, etc) i.e. the knowledge of the sociocultural rules of language and discourse. It addresses the extent to which utterances are produced and understood appropriately in different sociolinguistic contexts depending on contextual factors such as status of participants, purposes of interaction, and norms or conventions of interaction. Appropriateness of utterances refers to both appropriateness of meaning and appropriateness of form:

© J. A. NIETO & C. M. NIETO

9

 Appropriateness of meaning concerns the extent to which particular communicative functions (commanding, complaining and inviting); attitudes (politeness and formality) and ideas are judged to be proper in a given situation.  Appropriateness of form concerns the extent to which a given meaning is represented in a verbal and/or non-verbal form that is proper in a given sociolinguistic context. E.g. Waiter (OK. What are you and this broad gonna eat). Sociolinguistic competence is crucial in interpreting utterances for their social meaning.

3. Discourse competence Canale (1983, 1984) described discourse competence as mastery of rules that determine ways in which forms and meanings are combined to achieve a meaningful unity of spoken or written texts. The unity of a text is enabled by cohesion in form and coherence in meaning. Cohesion is achieved by the use of cohesion devices (e.g. pronouns, conjunctions, synonyms, parallel structures etc.) which help to link individual sentences and utterances to a structural whole. The means for achieving coherence, for instance repetition, progression, consistency, relevance of ideas etc., enable the organisation of meaning, i.e. establish a logical relationship between groups of utterances. In the theory of discourse, according to Canale and Swain, the clearest and most directly and applicable description of discourse for second language teaching is that discussed by Widdowson (1978). He makes a fundamental distinction between cohesion and coherence in spoken or written discourse. Coherence is a semantic concept concerned with the meaningful connections. Cohesion is a relational concept concerned with how propositions are linked structurally in a text and how literal meaning of a text is interpreted.

4. Strategic competence. In the model of Canale and Swain, strategic competence is composed of knowledge of verbal and non-verbal communication strategies that are recalled to compensate for breakdowns in communication due to insufficient competence in one or more components of communicative competence. These strategies include paraphrase, circumlocution, repetition, reluctance, avoidance of words, structures or themes, guessing, changes of and style, modifications of messages etc. Canale (1983) pointed out that this competence can also be used to enhance the effectiveness of communication. In a qualitative sense, it is different from the other three components of communicative competence in that it is not a type of stored knowledge and it includes non-cognitive aspects such as self-confidence, readiness to take risks etc. However, since it interacts with other components, it enables learners to deal successfully with a lack of competence in one of the fields of competence. Taking into consideration the results of prior theoretical and empirical re-search, in the late 1980s, Bachman proposed a new model of communicative competence

© J. A. NIETO & C. M. NIETO

10

or, more precisely, the model of communicative language ability. That model was, however, slightly altered by Bachman and Palmer in the mid-1990s.

3.2 Bachman and Palmer’s model (1990) According to Bachman and Palmer (1996), many traits of language s such as some general characteristics, their topical knowledge, affective schemata and language ability influence the communicative language ability. Their model of language ability is comprised of two broad areas – language knowledge and strategic competence or what they called ”communicative proficiency” or communicative language ability (CLA) which can be described as consisting of language competence or the set of specific knowledge components that are utilized in communication via language, and strategic competence or the capacity for implementing, or executing that competence in appropriate, contextualized communicative language use and psychochomotor skills or the neurological and psychological processes involved in the actual execution of language as a psychological phenomenon. Language competencies were classified into two types: Organisational competence (morphology, syntax, vocabulary, cohesion and organisation. Pragmatic

competence includes not only elements of Bachman and Palmer’s sociolinguistic competence, but also those abilities related to the functions that are performed © J. A. NIETO & C. M. NIETO

11

through language use. Each of these consists of several categories in language use, these components all interact with each other:

1. Organisational competence: comprises those abilities involved in controlling the formal structure of language for producing or recognising grammatically correct sentences, comprehending their propositional content, and ordering them to form texts. These abilities are of two types:

a. Grammatical competence: includes those competencies involved in language use. These consist of a number of relatively independent competencies such as the knowledge of vocabulary, morphology, syntax, and phonology/graphology.

b. Textual competence includes the knowledge of the conventions for ing utterances together to form a text. Textual competence is involved in conversational language use. Conventions have been discussed in of “maxims” (Grice, 1975).

2. Pragmatic competence:

Pragmatics is concerned with the relationship between utterances and the acts that speakers intend to perform through these utterances. It refers to the organisation of the linguistic signals and how they are used to refer to persons, ideas and feelings.

a. Illocutionary competence is the ability to express and interpret the function performed in saying something. For example, the statement “It’s cold in here” may function as an assertion, a warning, or a request to turn the heater on. The theory of speech acts (Searle) makes a distinction between I. Speech acts: Searle distinguishes three types of speech acts: Utterance acts (act of saying something) Propositional acts (referring to something or predication) Illocutionary acts (function performed in saying something) Perlocutionary act (as the effect on the hearer) II. Language functions: several macro functions can be considered: Ideational function (to express meaning in of our experience of the world) Manipulative function (to affect the world around us) Regulatory function (to control the behaviour of others) Interactive function (to form, maintain or exchange relationships) Heuristic function (to extend our knowledge of the world) Imaginative function (aesthetic purposes to extend our environment)

b. Sociolinguistic competence: is the sensitivity to or control of the conventions of language use that are determined by the features of the specific language use context. It enables us to perform language functions in ways that are © J. A. NIETO & C. M. NIETO

12

appropriate to that context (sensitivity to differences in dialect or variety to differences in and naturalness the ability to interpret cultural references and figures of speech). Sociolinguistic competence involves sensitivity to variations in , since the illocutionary force of utterances virtually depends on the social contexts in which they are used. Pragmatic competence consists of illocutionary competence, that is, knowledge of speech acts and speech functions, and sociolinguistic competence. ‘Sociolinguistic competence’ entails the ability to use language appropriately according to context. It thus includes the ability to select communicative acts and appropriate strategies to implement them depending on the contextual features of the situation. In Bachman’s model, pragmatic competence is not subordinated to knowledge of grammar and text organization but is coordinated to formal linguistic and textual knowledge and interacts with ‘organizational competence’ in complex ways.

2. Strategic competence

is the recognition of language use as a dynamic process, involving the assessment of relevant information in the context, and a negotiation or meaning on the part of the language . We can consider three components in relation to the strategic competence: 1. Assessment: enables us to identify the information that is needed for realising a particular communicative goal in a given text or to identify what language competencies are at our disposal (native language, second or foreign language) and also to evaluate the extent to which the communicative goal has been achieved. 2. Planning: formulates a plan whose realization is expected to achieve the communicative goal. 3. Execution: draws on the relevant psychophysiological mechanisms to implement the plan in the modality and channel appropriate to the communicative goal end the context.

d. Psychophysiological mechanism: in

order to fully characterise language use, however, it is also necessary to consider the psychophysiological mechanisms that are involved in language use. We can distinguish the visual from the auditory channel and the productive from the receptive mode. In receptive language use, auditory and visual skills are employed, while in productive use the neuromuscular skills are employed.

3.3 Communication Competence according to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEF) The last model we will refer to is the model or description of communicative language competence in the CEF (2001), the model which is intended for the © J. A. NIETO & C. M. NIETO

13

assessment as well as for the learning and teaching languages. It includes three basic components – language competence, sociolinguistic competence and pragmatic competence. Thus, strategic competence is not its componential part. It is interesting, however, that each component of language knowledge is explicitly defined as knowledge of its contents and ability to apply it.

1. Language Competence Language competence or linguistic competence refers to the knowledge of and ability to use language resources to form well-structured messages. The subcomponents of language competence are: Lexical competence concerning the knowledge of, and ability to use the vocabulary of a language, both of lexical elements (including single lexical items and fixed expressions for different functions –greetings, proverbs, archaisms, phrasal verbs, collocations, etc.-) and grammatical elements: articles; quantifiers; demonstratives; personal pronouns; question words and relatives; possessives; prepositions; auxiliary verbs and conjunctions. Grammatical competence Grammatical competence is the ability to understand and express meaning by producing and recognising well-formed phrases and sentences in accordance with the set of principles governing the assembly of elements into sentences. Semantic competence refers to the learner’s awareness and organization of meaning. Phonological competence involves a knowledge of, and skill in the perception and production of phonemes, syllable structure, stress, rhythm and intonation, etc. Orthographic competence involves a knowledge of and skill in the perception and production of the symbols used for writing (letters): The proper spelling of words. Punctuation marks and their conventions of use. Typographical conventions and varieties of font, etc Logographic signs in common use Orthoepic competence may be defined as the application of orthographic competence in combination with some competences belonging to the semantic and phonological categories. It implies being able to produce a correct pronunciation from the written form. This may involve: Knowledge of spelling conventions. Ability to consult a dictionary. Knowledge of the implications of punctuation marks for phrasing and intonation. Ability to resolve ambiguity (homonyms, syntactic ambiguities, etc) in the light of the context.

2. Sociolinguistic Competences (CEFR 5.2.2, p 118 and foll.; CEFR 2.1.2, p. 13) refers to possession of knowledge and skills for appropriate language © J. A. NIETO & C. M. NIETO

14

use in a social context. Since language is a social phenomenon, its use requires sensitivity to social norms and customs which affect to an important degree all linguistic communication between representatives of different cultures, even if the participants are frequently unaware of them. These social norms affect, amongst other factors, rules of address, greetings and politeness, the way in which relations between generations, sexes, people of different social status, social groupings are expressed through special language markers, linguistically codified rituals, differences in , dialect and accent, through vocal rhythms, for example. Linguistic competence leads us to consider social and intercultural parameters and the way in which they influence language use.

3. Pragmatic Competences. Pragmatic competence (CEFR 5.2.3, p. 123 & foll.; CEFR 2.1.2, p. 13) involves the functional uses of linguistic resources (carrying out language functions, speech acts). It also involves mastery of discourse, cohesion and coherence, the recognition of text types and genres, using irony or parody. Even more than in the case of this factor than for linguistic competence, the development of pragmatic skills is strongly influenced by interactive experience and by the cultural environment. The last component in this model -pragmatic competence- involves two subcomponents: 3.1 discourse competence is the ability to arrange sentences in sequence so as to produce coherent stretches of language. It includes knowledge of and ability to control the ordering of sequences in of: topic/focus; turn-taking; text design concerning how information is structured in order to carry out diverse macrofunctions such as description, narrative, exposition, etc and the ability to structure and manage discourse in of: thematic organisation; coherence and cohesion; logical ordering; style and ; rhetorical effectiveness; the cooperative principle. 3.2 functional competence is concerned with the use of spoken discourse and written texts in communication for particular functional purposes. Conversational competence requires not only knowing which particular functions (microfunctions) are expressed by which language forms, but to be aware that, in interaction, each initiative leads to a response and moves the interaction further on, according to its purpose, through a succession of stages from opening exchanges to its final conclusion.

4. Conclusion There is a striking similarity in the conceptualization of communicative competence between three models that are frequently used at present. From the moment of its introduction into the linguistic discourse, the notion of communicative competence has been constantly changed and adapted to the context of its use. Nevertheless, their definitions were very close in meaning to the definition of © J. A. NIETO & C. M. NIETO

15

communicative competence, i.e. all those were defined as knowledge and abilities/skills for use. This shows that theoreticians, especially those in the field of applied linguistics, after years of theoretical and empirical research on communicative competence have reached an agreement that a competent language should possess not only knowledge about language but also the ability and skill to activate that knowledge in a communicative event. However, while it is relatively simple to define, observe and evaluate the basic knowledge that makes the concept of communicative competence. It is not that simple to understand, describe and evaluate the ability for use. It has been assumed that the ability for use refers to the application of different cognitive processes and affective factors in language use. Consequently, the answers about the content of ability for use, its relationship to the components of knowledge and factors in real language use have still been looked for in both theoretical and empirical field of research. The answers to these questions will provide a better understanding of the relationship between competence and performance which has to be looked into from both a psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspective. Despite the insufficient insights into the concept of communicative competence, there is almost unanimous agreement among scientists that, first, the conclusions about communicative competence of learners will be and should be drawn by observing and testing their communicative performance, and secondly, that it is not necessary, and practically impossible, to measure all components of communicative competence, i.e. communicative performance that are stated in the theory. TEACHING INFERENCE The linguistic communication competence refers to the use of language as a means of both oral and written communication as well as a device for learning and controlling behaviour and emotions. Communication in foreign languages also demands capacities such as mediation and intercultural understanding. Learning to communicate is to establish links with other people, approaching other cultures that gain in consideration and sympathy as they become less unknown... This competence contributes to the creation of a positive personal image and fosters constructive relationships with other people and with the environment. The development of the linguistic competence is crucial to solve problems and learn to live in harmony with others. A communicative approach to teaching prompts a rethinking of classroom teaching methodology in order to promote communicative competence. It is argued that learners learn a language through the process of communicating in it, and that communication that is meaningful to the learner provides a better opportunity for learning than through a grammar-based approach. The overarching principles of communicative language teaching methodology can be summarized as follows: ·

make real communication the focus of language learning

© J. A. NIETO & C. M. NIETO

16

·

provide opportunities for learners to experiment and try out what they know

·

be tolerant of learners' errors as they indicate that the learner is building up his or her communicative competence

·

provide opportunities for learners to develop both accuracy, and fluency

·

link the different skills such as speaking, reading and listening, together, since they usually occur together in the real world

·

let students induce or discover grammar rules

In applying these principles in the classroom, new classroom techniques and activities are needed, as well as new roles for teachers and learners in the classroom. Instead of making use of activities that demand accurate repetition and memorization of sentences and grammatical patterns, activities that require learners to negotiate meaning and to interact meaningfully are required.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Crystal, D. “Linguistics”. Penguin, 1971 Halliday, Mak. “An Introduction to Functional Gr.” E. Arnold, London 1985. Halliday, Mak & Hassan, K. “Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social Semiotic Perspective”. OUP, 1990. Hymes, D. (1970). ‘On communicative competence’, in Gumperz and Hymes (eds) McLaren, Neil & Madrid, Daniel. “ A handbook for TEFL”. Marfil 1996. Richards, J. “Language and Communication”. London, Longman, 1983. Wells, G. et al. “Learning through Interaction. The Study of Language Development”. CUP, 1981. Widdowson, HG. “Teaching Language as Communication”. OUP, 1985. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Council for Cultural Cooperation. Education Committee. Language Policy Division. Strasburg, 2001

© J. A. NIETO & C. M. NIETO

17

Appendix

2. Sociolinguistic Competences (CEFR 5.2.2, p 118 and foll.; CEFR 2.1.2, p. 13) refers to possession of knowledge and skills for appropriate language use in a social context. The following aspects of this competence are highlighted: Linguistic markers of social relations are language elements that mark social relationships, rules of appropriate behaviour, and expressions of peoples’ wisdom, differences in and dialects and stress. They are widely diverse in different languages and cultures, depending on such factors as relative status, closeness or of discourse. This can be seen in: Use and address forms: formal, eg. Sir, Madam, Miss; informal, eg. John!; familiar, eg. Dear, darling. Greetings: on arrival, eg. Hello! Good morning!; introductions, eg. How do you do? Conventions for turn-taking. Politeness conventions. They vary from one culture to another and are frequent source of inter-ethnic misunderstanding, especially when polite expressions are literally interpreted, eg. please, thank you. Expressions of folk wisdom are fixed formulae which both incorporate and reinforce common attitudes and are frequent and ordinary in popular culture: idioms, familiar quotations, proverbs. differences. They are the differences between varieties of language used in different contexts. We deal with differences in level of formality. Dialect and accent. Sociolinguistic competence also includes the ability to recognise the linguistic markers of factors such as social class, regional or national origin, occupational group, etc. Such markers include: lexicon, grammar, phonology, vocal characteristics (rhythm, loudness, etc.), paralinguistics and body language.

© J. A. NIETO & C. M. NIETO

18