Secondary School Communicative Competence Analysis PDF

Tema 4: La competencia comunica va. Análisis de sus componentes. Topic 4: Communica ve competence. Analysis of its components. 1. Introduc on, jus fica on and relevance of the present topic As language teachers, we must understand what we are teaching, which is, simply put, how to communicate with ot...

Tema 4: La competencia comunica va. Análisis de sus componentes. Topic 4: Communica ve competence. Analysis of its components. 1. Introduc on, jus fica on and relevance of the present topic As language teachers, we must understand what we are teaching, which is, simply put, how to communicate with other people by using a specific language and in what ways that language can perform specific func ons in any kind of situa on. Thus, the final objec ve of any language teaching is that the student achieves a certain degree of what we call ‘communica ve competence’, with all of its components. This concept of ‘communica ve competence’ is defined as the knowledge that enables someone to use a language effec vely and their ability to actually use this knowledge for communica on. Being communica ve competence the acknowledged aim of all language instruc on, it is contemplated in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, its Companion Volume, and the Official Curriculums for Secondary Educa on and Bachillerato, both at a na onal and regional level: our students are expected to have a func onal knowledge of English and appropriate communica ve skills to use both in wri en and oral communica ve situa ons. The present topic provides an analysis of the components of communica ve competence and explores its applica on to the teaching of English as a foreign language. 2. Language and communica on In its simplest defini on, language is “a system of agreed-upon symbols and the rules to manipulate them func onally in context”. In its most common use, the term refers to the so-called “natural languages” (those forms of communica on used by humans). In linguis cs, the term refers to the human cogni ve ability of crea ng and using language. The defini on of language may result therefore in: 1) Language is systema c. 2) Language is a set of arbitrary symbols. 3) Those symbols are primarily vocal, but they may also be visual. 4) The symbols have conven onalized meanings to which they refer. 5) Language is used for communica on. 6) Language operates in a speech community or culture. 7) Language is essen ally human, although possibly not limited to humans. 8) Both language and language learning have universal characteris cs. Since language is a means of communica on, we should learn (and teach) how to be good communicators. Thus, communica on may be defined as the process of transferring informa on from a sender to a receiver with the use of a medium, or as a con nuous process of expression, interpreta on and nego a on which depends on the co-opera on of all the par cipants. 3. Linguis c vs. communica ve competence Ferdinand de Saussure dis nguished between langue – the common gramma cal knowledge shared by speakers of a given linguis c community – and parole – the way in which that knowledge is manifested in each individual speaker. In the 1960’s, Noam Chomsky dis nguished between competence – the fluent and intui ve na ve speaker’s knowledge of his/her language – and performance – the actual use of language in concrete situa ons. Competence = competence + performance The term communica ve competence was coined by Hymes (1972) as a reac on to these dis nc ons, in order to consider the socio-cultural and func onal rules of language. For him, communica ve competence referred to that aspect of our competence that enables us to convey and interpret messages and to nego ate meanings interpersonally with a specific context. Therefore, language had to be appropriate to the context. Thus, communica ve competence was defined as the ability not only to apply the gramma cal rules of a language to form correct u erances, but also to know when to use these u erances appropriately. Jurgen Habermas also sees communica on as more than just gramma cally correct language, and Halliday sets his metafunc ons in a social context of language as social behaviour. Within the context of situa on (register), he signals three aspects in any situa on that have linguis c consequences (field, tenor and mode). Cummins, in turn, proposed a dis nc on between cogni ve/academic language proficiency (CALP) and basic interpersonal communica ve skills (BICS). They were later modified into context-reduced (CALP) and context-embedded (BICS). Widdowson also talks of communica ve competence as being fundamental, and defines it as a set of strategies or crea ve procedures. 3.1. The elements of communica ve competence Canale and Swain dis nguished four components of communica ve competence: 1) Gramma cal competence (words and rules): the mastery of the linguis c code of a language, including “knowledge of lexical items and of rules of morphology, syntax, sentence-grammar seman cs and phonology”. 2) Discourse competence (cohesion and coherence): it is concerned with the connec on of a series of u erances to form a meaningful whole. Discourse means everything from simple spoken conversa on to lengthy wri en texts. 3) Sociolinguis c competence (appropriateness): it requires an understanding of the social context in which language is used (the roles of the par cipants, the informa on they share and the func on of the interac on).  4) Strategic competence (communica on strategies): related to the verbal and nonverbal communica on strategies used to compensate for breakdowns in communica on due to performance variables or to insufficient competence. Van Ek later added socio-cultural competence to these four components. This competence includes (i) social contextual factors, (ii) stylis c appropriateness factors, (iii) cultural factors, and (iv) non-verbal communica ve factors. Further modifica ons of the defini on of communica ve competence were captured in Bachman’s (1990) schema za on of what he simply calls Language Competence. Since the publica on of the CEFRL, strong emphasis has been laid on “intercultural competence”, somehow replacing Van Ek’s socio-cultural competence. Intercultural competence allows individuals to manage rela ons between self and others. The use of the term inter- suggests a comparison between the foreign culture and the learner’s own culture (‘cultural awareness’ and ‘cultural otherness’). This competence is the basis of understanding among people, and is not limited to language ability. In the development of intercultural awareness, we may highlight the following skills: - The ability to bring the culture of origin and the foreign culture into rela on with each other. - Cultural sensi vity and the ability to iden fy and use a variety of strategies for contact with those from other cultures. - The capacity to fulfil the role of cultural intermediary between one’s own culture and the foreign culture. - The ability to overcome stereotyped rela onships. Finally, an essen al concept within intercultural competence is that the student has proficiency of varying degrees in several languages and experience of several cultures. This is not seen as the superposi on or juxtaposi on of dis nct competences, but rather as the existence of a complex or even composite competence on which the user may draw. 4. Implica ons for the language classroom: the Communica ve Approach A focus on communica ve language teaching, and therefore on the development of communica ve competence, appeared during the last two decades of the 20th century. In this approach, communica ve prac ce cons tutes an essen al part of the learning process. In this sense, the communica ve approach has also been called ‘the experience approach’, considering that students learn by doing; by communica ng. Thus, it can be deemed as a student-centred approach. Indeed, within this approach the learner is a central and ac ve par cipant who must nego ate, interact and cooperate with others, while the teacher is just a facilitator, selec ng the tasks, researching, and organising resources. The communica ve approach includes three main objec ves: - Development of communica ve competence o Including gramma cal and discourse elements, as well as social, cultural and pragma c features of language. o Language for use (knowledge of rules for effec ve communica on) rather than usage (knowledge of linguis c use). - Fluency rather than accuracy. - Crea ve applica on. 4.1. Theore cal assump ons The general principles of this approach can be broken down into: General principles - Communica on principle: learning is promoted by ac vi es involving real communica on. - Task principle: learning is enhanced by ac vi es in which language is employed to carry out meaningful tasks. - Meaningfulness principle: language must be meaningful to the student. View of language - Language is primarily a means of making meaning. - Language is the vehicle to do authen c communica ve work. - The structure of language reflects its func onal and communica ve uses. - The primary units of language are categories of func onal and communica ve meaning. View of learning - Holis c approach to language teaching and learning.  - Problem – solving nego a on between prior and new knowledge. - Focus on the process rather than on the final product. - A en on to content rather than form. 4.2. Important concepts Important concepts in the communica ve approach are: - Coopera ve learning: the work of all the par cipants is crucial in the achievement of the task. - Interac ve learning: learners have to work to understand each other and express their own meaning. - Content-centred educa on: learners acquire language most efficiently when their focus is on content rather than form. - Task-based learning: the ini al focus is on meaning, and it is only a er the task has been performed that forms are studied. This way, the produc on stage is brought to the beginning of the lesson. Following a task-based sequence, learners will ac vely look for forms instead of receiving them passively from the teacher. Also, language is presented as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. Other current approaches such as project-based learning, problem-based learning, flipped classroom and gamifica on are also based on the communica ve approach. 5. Conclusions and implica ons in the language classroom All in all, it con nues to be widely accepted that communica ve competence must be the goal of language educa on. This stands in contrast to previous views in which gramma cal competence was given priority. The guidelines enshrined in the CEFRL promote the use of an ac on-oriented approach for learning in which learners are viewed primarily as “social agents” who have tasks to accomplish in a given set of circumstances. Thus, we can consider that the acquisi on of vocabulary, grammar, discourse rules, etc. is useless if the learner cannot use them for the func onal purpose of transmi ng and receiving thoughts. In this sense, no onal-func onal syllabi deserve special a en on. However, even if our approach to language teaching is communica ve, func onal and instrumental, we cannot overlook the importance of forms, since forms should also form part of our students’ total linguis c repertoire. Thus, an effec ve way of looking at the language is to depart from the discourse func ons that may be conveyed in interac on and explore the linguis c features embodying those meanings. 6. Bibliography 6.1. References for this topic 6.2. Legal framework