1.

LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION

Human communication processes are complex. We differentiate verbal and non-verbal, oral
and written, formal and informal communication. Communication is defined as the exchange of
meanings between individuals through a common system of symbols (Halliday 1985). However,
there isn’t a universally accepted definition for this term. This is because there are over 50 different
ways that try to explain communication from one or another perspective.

From an anthropological perspective, the origins of communication are to be found in the

very early stages of life when there was a need for animals and humans to communicate basic
structures of the world and everyday life. Over the course of centuries, this verbal code was to be
developed into a highly elaborated signaling system, both spoken and written, which became an
essential tool of communication for human beings (Crystal 1985).

Regarding the types of communication (Halliday 1985), the field of semiotics distinguishes
two: verbal and non -verbal communication. Thus, when the act of communication is verbal, the
code is the language, which may result in oral or written form, as when we are having a
conversation or reading a magazine. When we refer to non-verbal communication, visual and tactile
modes are concerned, such as gestures, facial expressions, body language, or touch, and even some
uses of the vocal tract are possible by means of paralanguage, such as whistling or musical effects.

Language can therefore be defined as the institution whereby humans communicate and
interact with others by means of habitually used oral-auditory arbitrary symbols. (R.A Hall: 1964).
According to Halliday (1975), language may be defined as an instrument of social interaction with a
clear communicative purpose.

Within a language teaching theory, many approaches and theories stem from a fundamental
question: How can we help students who are learning a second language in a classroom setting,
become proficient in that language? Following Ellis (1985), we may define proficiency as the
learner’s knowledge of the target language viewed as communicative competence. In this sense, the
term proficiency brings about the notions of competence and performance which are one of the
main tenets in Chomsky’s theory of transformational grammar (Richards & Rodgers 2001). He
defines competence as one’s implicit or explicit knowledge of the system of the language (the
idealized native speaker’s underlying competence) whereas performance refers to one’s actual
production and comprehension of language in specific instances of language use. This fundamental
distinction has been at the centre of discussions of many other researchers, and in fact, it has been
reviewed and evaluated from various theoretical perspectives which will be examined further.

2. COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

The notion of communicative competence is linked to the dialectical relationship

between language and culture which has concerned linguists, philosophers and researchers for
many years. However, it was not until the early 20th century that cultural studies enters the
second language teaching curriculum, and for the first time, traditional views on language
teaching are challenged. One of the first references to language and the necessity of an
appropriate context of communication was provided by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in
1651. He offered in his work The Leviathan (chapter XXV) an ethnographic approach to the
nature of language. There, he makes reference to an emphasis on social action rather than on
texts in order to achieve the effectiveness of communication.

Some centuries later, in 1921, Shweiter and Simonet (1921) argued about the necessity
of including a system of basic information into second language teaching, which involved a
wide range of general topics, among which we may find geography, history customs, traditions,
holidays and rituals of a foreign language country.

Another approach traces back to the middle of the 20th century, when the American
linguist Robert Lado (1957) argued that knowledge of a foreign language culture is essential
for foreign language learners to create the same atmosphere of native speakers’ interaction.

Parallel to these theoretical challenges, we find our next linguist under consideration,
Noam Chomsky, who also challenged, successfully, behaviourist models of language learning.
Chomsky proposed in his work Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965), a theory called
Transformational Generative Grammar, according to which learners do not acquire an endless
list of rules, but limited set of transformations with which language users can form an
unlimited number of sentences. As stated previously, for him, there are two main concepts
under revision, competence and performance. While competence refers to the innate
knowledge of language an ideal speaker-listener has in an homogeneous speech community,
performance refers to the actual production and rules of language use. According to Chomsky,
within his theory of linguistic competence and performance, linguistic knowledge is separated from
grammatical features.

There were reactions to Chomsky’s notion of linguistic competence. Mainly three

approaches showed a disagreement that went on in the early 1970s, and centred on whether
communicative competence included sociocultural competence

Campbell and Wales felt that appropriateness of language is even more important than
grammaticality. For them, the idea of communicative competence was the ability to produce
utterances which are not so much grammatical but, more important, appropriate to the context
of situation (1970).

Halliday (1972) rejected Chomsky’s dichotomy of competence and performance as

Chomsky’s model did not provide an explicit place for socio-cultural features.

One of the main rejections to Chomsky’s view of language, was proposed by the
American anthropologist Dell Hymes in his work “On communicative competence” (1972). In
this work, he felt that there are rules of language use that are neglected in Chomsky’s
approach, as native speakers know more than just grammatical competence. Hymes had a
broader view of the term which included not only grammatical competence, but also socio-
linguistic and contextual competence. For Hymes, the notion of communicative competence is
the underlying knowledge a speaker has of the rules of grammar including phonology,
orthography, syntax, lexicon, and semantics, and the rules for their use in socially appropriate
circumstances. Hymes’s model inspired subsequent model developments on communicative
competence, such as those of Canale and Swain (1980) Savignon (1972, 1983).

Canale and Swain formulated a theoretical framework that, in the modified version of
Canale (1983), consisted of four major components of communicative competence, thus
grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic aspects. Under this perspective, knowing
a language is not only knowing its grammar but also knowing how to use it with whom and in
what situations. There are therefore rules of use and without these, grammar is useless.

Today, communicative competence is the central aim of second language teaching,

providing a number of suggestions as to how teachers can help students achieve a good
communicative competence. This notion makes reference to more than listening and speaking,
reading and writing. It is the ability to use appropriately all aspects of verbal and non-verbal
language in a variety of contexts, as would a native speaker (Canale 1983). The Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages (2001) abbreviated as CEFR, is a guideline
used to describe achievements of learners of foreign languages across Europe. Its model of
communicative competence have the following components:
1. LINGUISTIC COMPETENCES is concerned with knowledge of the language per se, its
form and meaning
• lexical competence Ability to recognise and use the vocabulary of a language in the way
native speakers do (fixed expressions: formulae or idioms// word-formation processes //
polisemy, synonymy...)
• grammatical competence is the ability to produce the grammatical resources of a
language and to use them effectively (classes of verbs: lexical or auxiliary// phrases, clauses
and sentences // tense formation...)
• semantic competence deals with the speaker’s awareness and control of the organization
of meaning (relation of words to general context: connotations, anaphora// interlexical
relations: synonymy, antonymy)
• phonological competence involves the knowledge and skill in the perception and
production of phonemes, the distinctive features of phonemes, and word stress and
intonation.
• orthographic competence involves the knowledge and skill in the perception and
production of the symbols used for writing (spelling, punctuation)

2. SOCIOLINGUISTIC COMPETENCES is the knowledge and skills required to deal with

the social dimension of language use (Knowing how to use and respond to language
appropriately. Knowing when to be quiet, when to talk, when to give compliments, when to
apologise etc... ) It includes:
• linguistic markers of social relations, for instance greetings or conventions for turn-
taking.
• politeness conventions (please, thank you, May I…?)
• expressions of folk wisdom, such as idioms, proverbs and so on.
• register differences, regarding differences in level of formality: frozen, formal, neutral,
informal, familiar and intimate.
• dialect and accent, which concerns the ability to recognize the linguistic markers of
factors such as social class, regional or national origins, occupational group, etc.

3. PRAGATIC COMPETENCES involves being able to use the language to achieve our
communicative intentions, following the rules of appropriateness and politeness which
dictate the way the speaker will understand and formulate speech acts (It is very important
as some cross-cultural studies affirm that the way speech acts are realised vary accross
languages and it is responsible for misunderstandings):
• discourse competence, which is the ability to organize, structure and arrange discourse,
so as to produce coherent and cohesive stretches of language.
• functional competences the ability to use spoken discourse and written texts in
communication for particular functional purpose (functions of language: phatic, connnative,
referential...)
• design competence the ability to use schemata which underlie communication (How are
written texts laid out: essay, CV// How stories or jokes are told...)

3. ANALYSIS OF ITS COMPONENTS

The grammatical competence deals with the mastery of the linguistic code itself. This
aspect is important for students to attain a higher level of proficiency where accuracy is
crucial. Thus included here are features and rules of the language such as vocabulary, word
formation, sentence formation, pronunciation, spelling and linguistic semantics.

The sociolinguistic competence is concerned with the appropriate use of language in

particular social situations to convey specific communicative functions such as describing,
narrating, or eliciting among others, including the participants and the rules for interaction. This
competence is particularly difficult to attain as it requires sensitivity to cross-cultural
difference. Appropriateness of utterances refers to both appropriateness of meaning and of
form. Appropriateness of meaning concerns the extent to which particular communicative
functions are considered to be proper in a given situation. For example, it would be
inappropriate for a waiter in a restaurant to command a customer to order a certain menu
item even though the utterance was grammatically correct. Appropriateness of form concerns
the extent to which a given meaning is represented in a verbal or non verbal form that is
proper to the given situation. For example, a waiter trying to take an order politely in a tasteful
restaurant would be using inappropriate language although grammatically correct if he said
“Ok guys, so What are you going to have? There is a tendency in many second language
programmes to treat sociolinguistic competence as less important than grammatical
competence. This tendency seems odd since it gives the impression that grammatical
correctness of utterances is more important than appropriateness of utterances in actual
communication.
The discourse competence concerns the mastery of how to use language in order to
achieve a unified text in different genres. Unity of a text is achieved through cohesion in form
and coherence in meaning. Cohesion deals with how utterances are linked structurally and
facilitates interpretation of a text by means of cohesion devices, such as pronouns, synonyms,
ellipsis, conjunctions. Yet, coherence refers to the relationships among the different meanings in a
text, where these meanings may be literal meanings, communicative functions, and attitudes. For
example let’s consider the following utterances:
Speaker A: That’s the telephone
Speaker B: I’m in the bath
Speaker C: O.K.
Although there is no overt signal of cohesion among these utterances, Widdowson points
out that they do form coherent discourse to the extent that A’s utterance functions as a request
that B’s reply functions as an excuse for not complying with A’s request, and that A’s final
remark is an acceptance of B’s excuse. It is reasonably clear that this notion of discourse
knowledge and skill is totally different from that of grammatical competence or sociolinguistic
competence. This competence can be better understood if we present an example were there is no
cohesion nor coherence. A: What did the rain do? B: The crops were destroyed by the rain.
B’s reply is grammatical and sociolinguistically appropriate within our framework, but does
not tie in well with A’s question. The violation in this example seems to be at the level of
discourse and to involve the normal organization of sentences and texts in English in which topic
(shared information) precedes comment (new information).

The strategic competence makes reference to the mastery of verbal and non-verbal
communication strategies to compensate for breakdowns in communication and to enhance
the effectiveness of communication due to limiting conditions. According to Canale and Swain
(1980), strategic competence is useful in various circumstances as for instance, the early stages
of second language learning where communicative competence can be present with just
strategic and socio-linguistic competence. Terrell (1977, p 334) argues strongly that
communication strategies are crucial at the beginning stages of second language learning.

We may establish a common typology half-way between the contributions of Tarone (1983) and
Celce-Murcia et al. (1995:28). So the classification of communication strategies would be done into
five main subtypes: achievement or compensatory strategies, time-gaining strategies, avoidance,
self -monitoring strategies, and interactional strategies.

1. ACHIEVEMENT STRATEGIES are subdivided into

• Approximation, the use of a vocabulary item or structure, which the learners
knows is not correct, but which shares enough semantic features in common with
the desired item (i.e. ‘scarf’ for ‘a piece of clothing you wear around your neck in
winter’, ‘fish’ for ‘carp’).
• Circumlocution, the learner describes the characteristics or elements of the objects
or action instead of using the appropriate item or structure (i.e. She is smoking
something. I don’t know what its name is).
• Word coinage, the learner makes up a new word in order to communicate a
desired concept (i.e. ‘airball’ for ‘balloon’, ‘vegetarianist’).
• Literal translation, the learner translates word for word from the native language
(i.e. I have eight years old).
• Language switch, the learner uses the native language term without bothering to
translate (i.e. Can you send me that “carpeta”?).
• Appeal for assistance, the learner asks for the correct form (i.e. The bus was
very ... -What is it?).
• Mime, the learner uses non-verbal strategies in place of a lexical item or action
(i.e. frowning = angry).
•
2. AVOIDANCE STRATEGIES
• Topic avoidance, the learner tries not to talk about concepts unknown in the target
language.
• Message abandonment, the learner begins to talk about a concept but is unable to
continue and stops in mid-utterance.
3. TIME-GAINING STRATEGIES
• Fillers, hesitation devices and gambits (i.e. Well, actually, er, where was I?)
• Self and other-repetition.
4. SELF-MONITORING STRATEGIES
• Self-initiated repair (i.e. Well, I mean...; that is, ...; that is to say...).
• Self-rephrasing with over-elaboration (i.e. This is for students and pupils when you
are free at school).
5. INTERACTIONAL STRATEGIES
• Appeal for help, which can be direct (i.e. What do you call this?) or indirect (i.e. I
don’t know the word in English).
• Indicators of misunderstanding requests, indicating repetition (i.e. Pardon? Or Could
you say that again, please?), clarification (i.e. What do you mean by...?), or
confirmation (i.e. Did you say...?).
• Expressions of non-understanding, such as verbal ones (i.e. Sorry, I’m not sure I
understand) or non-verbal (i.e. raised eyebrows, blank look).
• Interpretive summary (i.e. You mean this? / So what you are saying is this?).
• Comprehension check whether the interlocutor can follow you (i.e. Am I making
sense?), what you said was correct or grammatical (i.e. I said that?), the interlocutor is
listening (i.e. on the phone: ‘Are you still there?’) or whether the interlocutor can hear
you (i.e. Are you listening to me?/Can you hear me?).

4. COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE AND THE CURRICULUM

According to the educational authorities, since Spain entered the European Union, there
has been a need for learning a foreign language in order to communicate with other European
countries, and a need for emphasizing the role of a foreign language. Within this context, getting
a proficiency level in a foreign language justifies the presence of foreign languages in the
curricula. It means to have access to other cultures and customs as well as to foster
interpersonal relationships which help individuals develop a due respect towards other
countries, their native speakers and their culture. Students, then, are intended to be able to
carry out several communication tasks with specific communicative goals within specific
contexts. In order to get these goals, several strategies come into force in a given context.
Therefore, in order to develop the above mentioned communication tasks in our present
educational legislation establishes that, Foreign Language subject must not only contribute to
communicative competence in the foreign language, but also to a set of key competences of the
whole stage, such as Competence in Linguistic Communication, Competence for Socialization
and citizenship or Competence for Learning How to Learn etc. The foreign language learning
process will help students improve their educational and professional life from a global
perspective as it will help them develop their personality, social integration, interest topics and, in
particular, to promote their intellectual knowledge. To sum up, the learning of a foreign language
is intended to broaden the students’ intellectual knowledge as well as to broaden their
knowledge on other ways of life and social organization different to their own. Furthermore, the
aim is to get information on international issues, to broaden their professional interests and
consolidate social values to promote the development of international communication.

5. TEACHING IMPLICATIONS

As it has been stated before, the notion of communicative competence has been highly
influential in the field of linguistics, but also in fields such as education, sociology and psychology.
Probably its greater impact has been in language teaching. Whereas the emphasis in language
teaching had been on grammatical accuracy, the works by Hymes and Canale and Swain, meant a
significant move to Communicative language teaching, whose main is the students’ capacity to
communicate, rather than the ability to produce grammatically correct sentences. When talking
about the Communicative Language Teaching, it is relevant to mention a set of features that provide
a broad overview of this method:
1. The first principle claims for students to learn a language through using it to communicate.
2. Secondly, there is an emphasis on authentic and meaningful communication which should
be the goal of classroom activities.
3. Thirdly, fluency, which is the ability to generate and communicate one’s ideas intelligibly. It
is an important dimension of communication, in contrast with the previous idea of accuracy,
which is the ability to produce language with few errors.
4. Fourth, communication is intended to involve the integration of different language skills.
5. Finally, the principle that claims for learning as a process of creative construction which
involves trial and error.

The rapid adoption and implementation of Communicative Language Teaching resulted in

similar approaches, such as The Natural Approach, Cooperative Language Learning, Content-
Based Teaching, known as CLIL, and Task-Based Teaching. Recent developments in foreign
language education have indicated a trend towards the field of intercultural communication, where
the educational authorities have been proposing several projects within the framework of the
European Union. These projects consist of real students exchanges, such as, the Erasmus+ projects,
for learners to acquire a foreign language in the target culture. In short, it can be stated, that
knowing a language goes beyond the mere learning of grammatical structures. Competence in a
language under the communicative competence perspective, involves a knowledge of the culture,
the sociolinguistic conventions as well as of the necessary strategies to overcome difficulties in
communication.
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Canale, M. From Communicative Competence to Communicative Language Pedagogy, in J.

Richards and R. Schmidt (eds.). Language and Communication. London, Longman. 1983.

Canale, M., and M. Swain,. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language
teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1 (1). 1980

Crystal , David. Linguistics. Handsworth: Penguin ,1985

Ellis, R.Understanding Second Language Acquisition . Oxford University Press.1985

Halliday, M.A.K. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold , 1975

Howatt, A.P.R. A History of English Language Teaching. Oxfrod: Oxford University Press. 1984.

Krashen, S., and T. Terrell.The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford:
Pergamon. (1983)

Larsen-Freeman, D. And M.H. Long. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research.

London: Longman. 1991.

Lee, J & VaPatten B. Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1995

Munby, J. Communicative Syllabus Design: A Sociolinguistic Model for Defining the Content of
PurposeSpecific Language Programmes. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 1978.
Hymes, D. On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.),
Sociolinguistics,pp.269-93.

Harmondsworth:Penguin. 1972. Richards, J., & Rodgers T. Approaches and methods in language
Teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001.

Rivers, W. Teaching Foreign-Language Skills. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1981

Savignon, S. Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. Reading, Mass.:

AddisonWesley. 1983.

Widdowson, H.G. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1978