Communicative Competence in English Language Teaching Mayumi WATANABE＊and Michiyo HIRANo＊＊

Communicative Competence in English Language Teaching

Mayumi WATANABE＊and Michiyo HIRANo＊＊

（Received November 1，1996）

Abstract

We will propose a perspective of communicative competence in English language

teaching． The framework presented here is two−fold：linguistic competence in accordance with the theoretical framework of four components of communicative

communicative sensitivity as an attitudinal aspect in communication」皿ofder to examine these two aspects， the teaching situation will be restricted to English language teaching

1． Introduction

In this paper we will discuss communicative competence in English as foreign or second language．

Communicative language teaching has spread out over language classrooms in Japan． Teachers prepare

       ●      0      9         ．

モ盾高高浮獅奄モ≠狽奄魔?@activities to change the classes from grammar−centered to communlcatlon onnteractlon一 centered． They are making effoft to foster the communicative competence．

However， we still hear that native speakers of English（NSE）complain that Japanese are mde． Some

fifst time as Naotsuka and Sakamoto（1981）feport。 Other NSEs have been asked their weight or other highly personal questions without any considelation．

Do those incidents happen in communication among native speakers of Japanese？The answer will be

…．・J・p・n・・ea・k・・ch q…ti・n・・nly t・m・mb・・s・f・n・ ・・w・f・mily・・ve・y・1・・e丘i・nd・・H・weve「・we

・peak・・s・f E・g藍i・h． Why・・e」・p・n・・e…ud・i…mmunicati・n i・E・gli・h？Wh・t i・th・d・f・ct i・E・gli・h

      ・       ・

Panguage classes？These questions motivate us to think well about communicatlve competence as a startlng point or as a fundamenta量aspect of English language teaching．

＊ Ibaraki Christian High School， Hitachi， Ibamki 319−1221，Japan

＊＊@Depa質ment of English， Faculty of Educat量on， Ibamki University， Mito， Ibaraki 310−8512， Japan

2・Comm皿icative Competence in ESL、1EFL、 Education

In this section， we will try to reorganize communicative competence． We will present a tw（γfold mode1．

The first aspect is language competence and the second is communicative sensitivity． There are a lot of

（1990）points out． In this paper， linguistic competence will be examined in accordance with Canale s theoretical framework．

2．11ntercultulal Communication

Culture is defined very broadly and defined differently accoπding to different fields of study． We here adopt an anthropological definition to concern culture． Culture influences the formation of the values of each member of a cultural group． According to Scollon and Scollon（1995：126）， ℃ulture is any of the customs，

wor豆d view， language， kinship systems， social organization， and other taken−forgranted day−by−day practices

When people who have different cultulal backgrounds communicate with each other， this can be

c°n・id・・d・・i・t・・cult・・a1・・mmunicati・n・Lik・wi・e， w・m・y say th・t m・・t・・mmunicati・n・d…i・f・・eig・

or second language are intercultural communication except the case in which the participants have the same

Africa．

Similarly， when a native speaker of Japanese communicates in English with someone whose native

language is English， this communication may automatically be recognized as intercultural communication。

Th・c・mmunicati・n c・n b・di・id・d i・t・tw・ki・d・・0・・i・c・mmunicati・n i・・n E・gli・h 1・ng・・g…ci・ty

（6xch・ng・・t・dent・）・・nd th・・th・・i・・n・i・J・p・n wh・・e E・gli・h i・af・・eig・lang・・g・． Thi・p・p。， wil1

discuss the latter type of communication．

Acc・・di・g t・R・vi・ed C・u・se・f St・dy（1989）by B…d・f Educati・・， the aim・f E・gli・h藍ang・・g・

teaching in Japan is fostering communicative competence with recent world−wide communicative movement．

H°w・v・ら・・m・NSE・emp1・y・d・・E・gli・h i・・t・・ct・・s wh…en・tive speak・・s・f E・gli・h，・ep・・t i・・ulti・g behavior by Japanese people including their students even now（personal communication with severaI

1・ng・・g・teach・・s i・Mit・・ity）・This sh・w・th・t th・c・mmunicative c・mp・t・nc・p・e・ently b・i・g t・・ght needs to be re−examined．

2・2・Linguistic Competence

2．2．1Canale，s Theoretical Framework of Communicative Competence

After Hymes（1971）proposed the communicative competence against Chomsky s distinction between

c°mpetence and p・・f・・m・nce・th・th…yh・・exp・nd・d t・th・th…etical f・am・w・・k by C・n・丑・（1983）． Th・

framework includes knowledge and skill which are comprised of the four components of communicative

competence：glammatical， sociolinguistic， discourse， and strategic competence．

Grammatical competence Iefers to the mastery of Iinguistic rules related to Ianguage structure． An examp1・・f thi・c・mp・t・nc・i・the ability t・exp・ess and・nd・・st・nd lit・・al meani・g i・・1・ng・・g・．

Sociolinguistic competence includes appropriateness of meaning and form． Both components are determined

according to sociocultural norms such as formality or politeness with particular verbal and non−verba1

communicative behaviour． Discourse competence is related to the unity of text through the concepts of

meaning and appropriateness of form respectively in a given situation． Strategic competence involves the verbal and nolrverbal means in communicative situation． This component is tw（トpronged：compensatory or

encounter communication breakdowns caused by the limited conditions such as linguistic inability， slipping of one s mind on some idea， and so on． Enhancement strategy works to impfove the effectiveness of immediate communication． This theoretical framework is widely accepted in the field of language teaching．

The inustration of these components has become the driving force behind the clarification and embodiment

1994：174）in nature in the early period． Although Canale presents his framework as communicative

competence， we can regard it as language competence because the components relate to linguistic featufes of

context in the rest of this paper． The four components reviewed above will be treated as the components of 1inguistic strategies which form the linguistic competence．

2．2．1Competence as Linguistic Strategies

For users of a language， a1蓋of the linguistic knowledge and skills that aπe used to communicate verbally

      o

モ≠氏@be called linguistic strategies． It is possible to regard the features of each component as strategles．

Although even native speakers of a language use strategies such as paraphrasing， circumlocution or asking one s interlocutor fbr help，1eamers or teachers sometimes do not realize their use in a fofeign or second

example， we can regard the coherent sentence contilluum as discourse strategies． Likewise， choosing a socially appropriate expression can be a sociolihguistic strategy． Grammatical competence also woτks as a strategy to make a sentence meaningful・

Communication is to carry out meaning． We have to make the most of our knowledge and skills to carry out our meaning． In a communication， these components woτk and judge apPropriate utterances in a given situation simultaneously as illustrated in figure 1． In rest of this section， we will explain how we choose particulaf sentences as appropriate utterances in accoldance with a given situation by expanding insufficient elements of Canale s framework．

Discourse Co叩etence

Strategic Co旧petence

Grammatical      Socio、inguistio Co冊petence      Competeoce

Figure 1：Four Components of Linguistic Competence

Discourse is a production of communication． In other words， we are making discourse as a result of communication． Sociolinguistic and grammatical competence support the process of making discourse at the bottom． Strategic competence plays a role of activating and invokillg language use in compensation and enhancement．

When a communicator utters something， he or she carries out propositional meanings or communicative purposes． The three components；grammatica1， sociolinguistic and discourse competence work simultaneously。 The strategic competence compensates for works of the other three competences with regard to communicator s needs．

Canale s（1983）basic notion of discourse competence is represented by cohesion and coherence in his framework Discourse competence is here complised of three kinds of sub−competence；coherence，

inference， and sustainment of discourse． Coherent discourse is realized by the appropriateness of meaning

copjunctions， and information structures． The following exchange introduces the use of cohesion devices．

（1）A：What did the rain do？

B：The crops were destroyed by the rain．

（2）B ：It destroyed the crops．      （Widdowson，1978：2）

Both of the utterances are grammatically appropriate as discrete sentences in（1）． B s utterance is， however，

inappropriate from the discoursal point of view． There are two inappropriate points． One is concerned with use of a pronoun． The other relates to information structure。 On the former， a noun which appeared in a previous utterance should not be repeated in the fo110wing utterance． The rain should be it。 On the Iattef，

the answer to A s question about crops is new information， which should be placed at the end of B s utterance． Thus， B s utterance in（2）is appfopriate。 Coherence can be realized without cohesion devices as in the following example from Widdowson（1978：29）．

（3）A1：That s the telephone。

B2：1 m in the bath．

A3：0．K．       （Number is added．）

This exchange does not have any cohesion devices． However the coherence of this discourse is obvious．

The utterance AI may be recognized as Requesting． B2 may be Excusing and Denying the request． A3 is understood as accepting the excuse． That is to say， coherent discourse can be made appropπiately， even if

Inference describes the ability to jump to a conclusion about a speaker s mealling in a particular discourse with all resources that listeners have． Scollon and Scollon（1995：10）introduce two main sources for inference． One is the Ianguage they have used and the other is our knowledge of the world．

Inference stπongly relates to interpretation rather than production． Listeners try to find linguistic cues

appearing in the discourse in which they are involved． Then they make use of their knowledge of the world

interlocutor sutterances． This competence helps language learners interpret not only a written text but also a

incidentally that speakers decide the language they use by taking into concern the interlocutor s inference

system・

Sustainance of discourse has two attitudinal aspects：attitude to active participation in the」R）reign

strategies such as fillers． These attitudinal aspects are strongly co皿ected to communicative sensitivity． Non 一native speakers tend to be worried about grammatical correctness． As the result， they sometimes forget to pafticipate and contribute to make the discourse enjoyable． Language teachers should put more emphasis on attitudinal aspect and encourage language learners to make the discourse longer and enjoyable before they emphasize grammatical correctness． However， this is not meall to slight the significance of grammatical

Politeness strategy is a typical element of sociolinguistic competence． However， it seems to be very difficult to cover all of the rules or expressions in a language course． This might be a factor to prevent teachers from teaching sociolinguistic competence． Then， we can start to teach expressions such as May I

of teaching sociolinguistic strategies． These expressions are used in a communication in a native language．

To leam these kinds of expressibns will help learners increase communicative sensitivity． Furthermore，

knowing these expressions will help learners to avoid sociopragmatic failure not only in a communication in asecond or foreign language but also in an intercultural communication in their native language．

We will examine the following extract from Hatch（1992：136−7）．

（4）A：Hi Marianne， how are ya？

B：Fine      

A：㎜α∫αわ8傭朔∫cα4

B：Oh thanks， it is， isn t it？1 m so embaπassed−Keiko gave it to me n you know these aren t cheap．

A：OhIkno：w

       ．

a：mm so how have you been？

This extract is the discourse among native speakers of American English． According to Hatch（1992），

compliments are frequently given between the opening and the first topic of conversation just as comments on the weather and last night s basketball game． They are also given in the preclosing of conversation like the invitation as bonding， or linkage to co−preclosing or closing． In a discourse， compliments are not the

than compliment in real communication． In this extract， the compliment is used as the preparatory speech act

The structufe of compliment is （compliment solicit）compliment act＋acknowledgement（agree／deny／

πedirect focus）＋bridge （Hatch，1992：138）in this situation． The use of compliments as bonding behaviour is appropriate from a sociolinguistic view． It is also appropriate from the discoursal point of view to use

compliment effective． Speaker A uses sociolinguistic knowledge to decide the register he uses． For example，

he makes use of ya instead of you in order to express the friendly attitude to B in a casual situation． He

also uses grammatical competence to make the sentences understandable for B． Backnowledges the

compliment with the sociolinguistic strategy of acceptance instead of strategies of agreeing， denying， and going off the focus of compliments． B introduces the first topic by using sociolinguistic and discourse

different from this example． The following discourse represents it．

（5）A：Ireally like your scarf．

B：Ohh nooo it s nothing．

A：No， I really like it．

B：It s not new．

A：Istill like it anyway．

B：（．4）（（smiles））

A：Uhh， we11， are you uh going to class？       （Hatch，1992：138）

Speaker B is a Japanese speaking English in extract（5）． In comparison with extract（4）， B fails to find

that the compliment is the filler between opening and the first topic from a discoursal point of view． The compliments are repeated by A， because B does not nominate or shift the first topic． Speaker A seems to be confused slightly and he shifts the topic by himself． This failure or difficulty is derived from the Japanese

1anguage leamers need to acquire sociolinguistic competence at the discourse leveL

Appropriacy is an important concept on sociolinguistic competence． This concept is concerned with

registel， formality， and politeness expression and in which the discourse has to be produced and interpreted

Participants relates to the social distance among the participants in a certain communication． Purpose refers to a goal or an aim of having communication， for example， whether participants want to make friends with each other or whether they want to achieve transaction．

The notion of appropriacy is judged by the sociolinguistic rules which are der量ved from social norms ih

（Thomas，1983）or communication breakdowns whether or not an utterance is grammatically correct．

Native speakers of a language tend to recognize a grammatical deviation as a mistake while they tend to take a sociol童nguistic deviation as intentiona1． The reason seems to be that in a native language we develop the most part of sociolinguistic competence naturally through home training， school discipline， and so on．

We do not develop this competence through cognitive learning． This leads us to think that a deviation of sociolinguistic rules must be done intentionally． Some teachers might misunderstand that we can put aside

2．3Sensitivity as a Constituent of Communicative Competence

There are competent speakers who can communicate with little interference． They are assumed to be competent to speak appropriately and to be good at avoiding oHecovering from sociopragmatic failures．

Their main capacity could be sensitivity to communication． We count this psychological aspect as

communicative competence and call it communicative sensitivity． By distinguishing communicative

sensitivity from linguistic competence， we come to put the same weight on the sensitivity as linguistic

We should start to nurture tactful communicators in language classrooms before con㏄ntrating on the

linguistic phase of communication， This sensitivity is not only concerned with the Ianguage classroom but also with routine communication in a certain community． This is an attitudinal aspect of communication． In communication， palticipants try to avoid rudeness or tπy to be polite． This seems to be carried out more smoothly in intracultural communication than in intercultural communication．

This competence has two functions；prevention and compensation． Prevention works to control things

which a participant will carry out． For instance， a communicator checks whetheτutterances and behavior are offensive oHude or not with this sensitivity and avoids rude behavioL

Communication is basically interpefsonal regardless of the participants cultural background because we communicate with each other as individuals when we engage in daily communication． When we

oπganizing grammatical sentences and with social distance to an interlocutor and we forget that we are talking to an individual． In such situations， the communication in foreign language may become a kind of Ianguage practice and we forget that the communication is reaL If we did something inappropriate to our interlocutor， we should apologize or do somethlng to compensate for our behavioL We call this competence

Language teachers should emphasize this aspect of competence and give students opportunities to raise communicative sensitivity． We can raise the sensitivity through discussion． We can ask them to discuss how they are trying Ilot to be rude， and what makes them glad and comfortable or sad and uncomfortable ill their

3．Conc1皿sion

We have re−examined communicative competence． Communicative competence is comprised of

components of communicative competence． Communicative sensitivity consists of preventive and

behave inappropriately， they recover the behavior with compensation． This attitudinal aspect of competence is the basic of lillguistic competence． Language teachers should put more emphasis on this competence in the

Re鈍rences

Canale， M．1983． Ffom Communicative Competence to Communicative Language Pedagogy． In J． C．

Richards and R． W． Schmidt（eds．），加π8麗αgεαη4 Cαη脚η cα∫∫oπ． London：Longman．

Hatch， E．1992．α5co郡γ5εαπ4 Lα〃8配αg8 E伽cα∫∫oη． Cambridge：Camblidge University Press．

McCarthy， M． and R． Carter．1994． Lαπ8郡αgεα∫D∫5co配r∫ε：Pε75ρεα∫vεノ∂r Lαηgμα8ε7セαc痂ηg． London：

Longman．

Noatsuka， R．， N。 Sakamoto．1981． M躍麗α 乙肋4εr∫∫αη4ごη8ρプD切セrεη∫α伽rε∫． Tokyo：Taishukan．

Scollon， R． and S． W． Scollon．1995．傭θ7ω」∫脚1 Cαη腿π cα加π オD ∫coπr∫ε吻ρroαc乃． Oxford：

Blackwell．

Thomas， J．1983． CrosぴCultural Pτagmatic Failure， ！霊〃1 θ4 L加gκ ∫∫ c∫， Vo1．4， No．2，91−112．

Widdowson， H． G．1978．】6εαc伽8加η8μα8θα5 Co脚3雇cα∫ oη． Oxford：Oxford University Press．