OUTLINE 1. INTRODUCTION. 1.1.Aims of the unit. 1.2.Notes on bibliography. 2.A THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE: ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT. 2.1.The notion of communication: a basis for a theory of communicative competence. 2.1.1.Communication and language teaching. 2.1.2.Communicative competence: an issue in foreign language education. 2.1.3.A communicative approach to language teaching. 2.2.On defining communicative competence: a linguistic and pragmatic approach. 2.2.1.Fluency over accuracy. 2.2.2.The introduction of cultural studies: a basis for an etnography of communication. 2.3.A historical overview of the development in a model of commun icative competence. 2.3.1.Earlier approaches: Hobbes (1651), Schweiter and Simonet (1921), and Lado (1957). 2.3.2.Chomsky (1965): competence and performance. 2.3.3.First reactions to Chomskys model: Campbell and Wales (1970), Halliday (1972), and Hymes (1972). 2.3.4.Sandra Savignon (1972, 1983) 2.3.5.Widdowson (1978) and Munby (1978). 2.3.5.Widdowson (1978) and Munby (1978). 2.3.6.Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983). 2.3.7.On revising Hymes and Canale and Swains models: Wolfson (1989) and B achman (1990). 2.3.8.Present-day approaches: B.O.E. (2002). 3.AN ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE COMPONENTS. 3.1. On the analysis of communicative components: a model assessment. 3.1.1. Grammatical competence. 3.1.2. Discourse competence. 3.1.3. Sociolinguistic competence. 3.1.4. Strategic competence. 3.2.Related areas of study. 3.2.1. Discourse analysis. 3.2.2.A speech act theory. 3.2.3. Interactional competence. 3.2.4. Cross-cultural considerations. 4.PRESENT-DAY DIRECTIONS REGARDING COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE. 4.1.Multimedia and hypermedia contexts. 4.2.Implications into language teaching. 5. CONCLUSION. 6. BIBLIOGRAPHY.
1. INTRODUCTION. 1.1. Aims of the unit. The aim of this unit is to offer a broad account of the concept of communicative competence, andits importance in society, and especially, in the language teaching community, from its origins topresent-day studies. This presentation will start by offering the most relevant bibliography in thisfield as a reference for the reader, and by presenting our study in three different sections. The first section will start by reviewing the originsand nature of the communication process inorder to provide a link to the concept of communicative competence through, first, the notion oflanguage, and then, through a theory of foreign language teaching. Within this framework, keyconcepts related to communicative approaches will be under revision, such as proficiency,competence and performance. In a second section, this theoretical background accounts for a theoryof communicative competence from a linguistic and pragmatic point of view, and suggests theissues we will refer to in analyzing the development of communicative competence models. Fromthis anthropological perspective we are also able to see that the concerns that have promptedmodern theories of communication were similar to those that, at other times when language was notdeveloped yet, have always been concerned withhow to communicative successfully.Besides, anoverview ofthe origins and nature of the term will lead us to provide a socio-cultural approachwithin the introduction of culture studies to foreign language teaching, known as the ethnography ofcommunication, in which a foreign language is approached from a pragmatic and linguistic point ofview. Within the third section of our discussion, we shall provide an account of the development of themost influential models within a theory of communicative competence, the most relevant figures inthis field and their contributions will be overviewed, togetherwith an assessment model ofcommunicative competence. Furthermore, we will give an account of related issues to this modeltheory.A fourth section will be devoted to present-day directions in the communication processwithin a classroom and natural setting, regarding the evolution of media use for the development ofcommunicative competence among foreign language learners. Besides, we will offer some of theimplications of this approach to language teaching. Finally, a conclusion will be offered in order tobroadly overview our present study, and bibliographical references will be presented in a lastsection by means of sections on each issue. 1.2. Notes on bibliography. Several sources have contributed to provide a valuable introduction to the origins a nd nature of communication and to the concept of language. Thus, David Crystal,Linguistics (1985), Halliday, Spoken and Written Language(1985), Halliday, Explorations in the Functions of Language(1975)and Wilga M. Rivers, Teaching Foreign-Language Skills (1981). The theoretical background to therelationship between the communication process and language teaching is given by LarsenFreeman, An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research (1991); and Widdowson, Teaching Language as Communication(1978). Four generally excellent surveys of both a theory of communicative competence, and a communicative approach on language teaching are Ellis,
Understanding Second Language Acquisition(1985); Canale and Swain, Theoretical bases ofcommunicative approaches to second language teaching and testing (1980); Canale, FromCommunicative Competence to Communicative Language Pedagogy(1983); Hymes, Oncommunicative competence(1972); andRichards & Rodger Approaches and methods in languageTeaching (2001). A precious background to the introduction and influence of cultural studies on
works on communicative competence models and approaches, see the most relevant surveys on the issue. Thus, Canale and Swain, Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language
teaching and testing (1980); Chomsky, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax(1965); Halliday, Linguistik,
Hymes,On communicative competence (1972); Munby, Communicative Syllabus Design (1978); Savignon, Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice (1983); and Celce-Murcia,
Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (1979). Since the spread of multimedia use in a
classroom setting is l argely a matter of study, the question of techological developments is of importance. For current statistics and bibliography, see Krashen and Terrell, The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom ( 1983). For applications of a communicative competence theory to both classroom and natural settings,see the studies and surveys on thejournals ofAsociacin Espaola de Lingstica Aplicada (AESLA) published by the Universities of Alcal,Barcelona and Len, listed in the bibliography section. The advanced student may consult acompendi um of information on both traditional and recent topics on Internet. For further referenceson specific projects offered by the Ministry of Education, see Revista CERCLE del Centro Europeode Recursos Culturales Li gsticos y Educativos (Servicio de Programas n Educativos. Consejera deEducacin y Cultura) and within a technological framework, see http://www.britishcouncil.org . 2.A THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE: ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT . This section, in briefly reviewing the origins of the communication process, provides a backgroundfor discussion of a theory of communicative competence, and suggests the issues we will refer to inanalyzing the development of communicative competence models. From this anthropologicalperspective we are also able to see that the concerns that have prompted modern theories ofcommunication were similar to those that, at have always been concerned with how to communicative successfully. 2.1. The notion of communication: a basis for a theory of communicative competence. From an anthropological perspective, the origins of communication are to be found in the very earlystages of life when therewas a need for animals and humans to communicate basic structures of theworld and everyday life. It is relevant to establish, then, a distinction betweenhuman and animalsystems of communication as their features differ in the way they produce and express theirintentions. Before language was developed, non-verbal codes were used by humans to conveyinformation by means of symbols, body gestures, and sounds, as it is represented in pictorial art andburial sites. However, since prehistoric times the way of improving communication preoccupiedhuman beings as they had a need to express their thoughts with words. This non-verbal code was tobe developed into a highly elaborated signaling system, both spoken and written, which became anessential tool of communication for human beings (Crystal 1985). Historically speaking, various attempts have been made to conceptualize the nature ofcommunication and to explore its relationship to human language regardingtypes, elements andpurposes. For several millennia many linguists andphilosophers have approached theconcept oflanguage from different domains of knowledge, such as philosophy, psychology, anthropology, andsociology among others, in order to offer an account of the prominent features of human languagein opposition to other systems of communication.other times when language was not developed yet
Hence, regarding types (Halliday 1985), the field of semiotics distinguishesverbal and nonverbalcommunication as part of the analysis of both linguistic and non- linguistic signs as communicativedevices in allmodes and contexts. Thus, when the act of communication isverbal, the code is thelanguage, whichmay result in oral or written form, as when we arewatching a film, having aconversation, orreading a magazine. When we refer ton o n - verbal communication,visual andtactile modes are concerned, such as gestures, facial expressions, body language, or touch, and evensome uses of the vocal tract are possible by means ofparalanguage, such as whistling or musicaleffects. According to Halliday (1975), language may be defined as an instrument of social interaction with aclear communicative purpose. Among the most prominent design features of human language, anauditory-vocal channel is to be highlighted in opposition to
tactile, visual or other means ofcommunication. Human beings are also able to reproduce and produce an infinite number ofmessages in any context of space and time, thanks to the arbitrariness of language which allowshumans tocombine sounds with no intrinsic meaning so as to form elements with meaning. Andfinally, we may mention as the last feature, a traditional transmission, since language is transmittedfrom one generation to the next by a process of teaching and learning. This feature is the aim of ournext section which links communication and language teaching in order to provide a meaningfulframework to the notion of communicative competence. 2.1.1. Communication and language teaching. From a historical perspective, Howatt (1984) has demonstrated that many current issues in languageteaching are not particular ly new. For instance, in the seventeenth century, the theologian Jan AmosKomensky (1592-1670), Comenius, who was said to be the founder ofdidactics , that is, the art ofteaching, already stated the reasons for learning a foreign language. He claimsthat throughlanguage, we come to a closer understanding of the world since language refers to things in theworld. Upon this basis,
he claims that for men to retrieve something of their old collective wisdom,it is necessary for them to learn each others languages.Therefore, first, there is no point in
learning another language if one has not mastered one's own, and secondly, that we also have to learn the language of our neighbours so as to be able to communicate with them. He states that only
after that, should one take on the learning of one of the classic languages, such as Latin, Hebrew,Greek or Arabic. On the practice and use of communication, he adds that the grammar rules shouldaid and confirm usage, so that the learner, then, can have frequen t opportunities to express him or herself, in different situations.
In the words of Widdowson (1978), these opportunities Comenius mentions to communicate withothers, have to do with the ability to communicate in a foreign language and the ability to interpretand produce meaning, which is an important goal for language learners, especially for those whoneed to fulfill roles as familymembers, community members, students, teachers, employers oremployees in an foreign language speaking environment. While there are many influential factors insecond language learning, as thelearner characteristics such as age, personality, and intelligence,the critical dimension in language learning is interaction with other speakers. Similarly, in the words of Larsen-Freeman (1991), one learns to do by doing, since people learn towalk by walking and they learn to drive by driving. Therefore, it makes sense, then, that peoplelearn to communicate by communicating, and similarly, hose t learners who engage in the regular
use of their second language and receive the greater quantity of input will most likely demonstrate a greater ability to use their second language . Learners must actively work and practice extensively
on communicatingto develop skills in communication. It follows, then, that learners should beprovided with as much speaking time as possible, both in and out of the classroom. However, weshould not forget that communicating successfully implies not only a correct use of structure andform, but also to communicate intelligibly and appropriately for students to achieve a successfulinteraction. This ability to communicate is the aim of our next section where we will provide anapproach to the not of ion communicative competence and its relationship to language teaching. 2.1.2. Communicative competence: an issue in foreign language education. In this section, it is relevant to conceptualize first somekey issues related to the concept ofcommunicative competence in order to fully understand the term and its relevance in foreignlanguage teaching. Therefore, the concepts of proficiency, competence and performance will beunder revision as follows. Within a language teaching theory, many approaches and theories stem from a fundamentalquestion which addresses the way we, teachers, can help students who are learning a secondlanguage in a classroom setting, become proficient in that language.
Another question arises, then in relation to what it means to be proficient in a language, and to what a learner has to know interms of grammar, vocabulary, sociolinguistic appropriateness, conventions of discourse, andcultural understanding in order to use a language well enough for real world purpose. FollowingEllis (1985), we may defineproficiency as the learners knowledge of the target language viewed aslinguistic competence or communicative competence. Common synonyms for the term areexpertise, ability, or competence within implications at a high level of skill, well -developedknowledge, and polished performance. As we have seen, the term proficiency brings about thenotions of competence and performance which must be also reviewed. These two notions of competence and performance are one of the main tenets in Chomskys theoryof transformational grammar (Richards & Rodgers 2001). This distinction addressescompetence asthe idealized native speakers underlying competence, referring to ones implicit or explicitknowledge of the system of the language whereas performance addresses to an individualperformance, referring to onesactual production and comprehension of language in specificinstances of language use. Chomsky believed that actual performace did not properly reflect theunderlying knowledge, that is, competence, because of its many imperfections at the level of errorsand hesitations. This fundamental distinction has been at the centre of discussions of many other researchers, and infact, it has been reviewe and d evaluated since then from various theoretical perspectives which willbe examined in the section devoted to the development of a communicative competence model(Canale & Swain 1980). However, we will highlight in this section one of the main rejections toChomskys view of language, proposed by the American anthropologist Dell Hymes in his work On
communicative competence(1972). Here he felt that there are rules of language use that are
neglected in Chomskys approach, as native speakers know more than just grammaticalcompetence. Hymes,with a tradition on sociolinguistics, had a broader view of the term whichincluded not only grammatical competence, but also sociolinguistic and contextual competence. ForHymes, the notion of communicative competence is the underlying knowledge a speaker has of therules of grammar including phonology, orthography, syntax, lexicon, and semantics, and the rulesfor their use in socially appropriate circumstances. Therefore, we understand competence as theknowledge of rules of grammar, and performance, they way the rules are used. The verbal part of communicative competence comprises all the so-called four skills: listening,reading, speaking and writing. It is important to highlight this, since there is a very commonmisunderstanding that communicative competence only refers to the ability to speak. It is both
productive andreceptive. All of us have developed communicative competence in our nativelanguage, oral proficiency and later, possibly, written proficiency. The acquisition ofcommunicative competence in a foreign or second language therefore takes place on the basis of thefact that we already have a native language. So we are dealing with the development of two systemsthat interact. The question of how this occurs has been investigated in research on fields such asbilingualism (Canale 1983). Another issue under study is the importance of fluency over accuracywhen developing communicative competence in a foreign language, to be discussed in our nextsection. 2.1.3. A communicative approach to language teaching. The period from the 1950s to the 1980s has often been referred to as The Age of Methods, during which a number of quite detailed prescriptions for language teaching were proposed (Canale & Swain 1980). Situational Language Teaching evolved in the United Kingdom while a parallel method, Audio-Lingualism, emerged in the United States. Both methods started to be questioned by applied linguists who saw the need to focus in language teaching on communicative proficiency rather than on mere mastery of structures.
In the middle-methods period, a variety of methods were proclaimed as successors to the thenprevailing Situational Language Teaching and Audio-Lingual methods. These alternatives werepromoted under such titles as Silent Way, Suggestopedia, Community Language Learning, andTotal Physical Response. It was in 1971 when a British linguist, D.A. Wilkins promoted a system inwhich learning tasks were broken down intounits. This system attempted to demonstrate thesystems of meanings that a language learner needs to understand and express within two types:notional categories (time, sequence, quantity or frequency) and categories of communicativefunction (requests, offers, complaints). In the 1980s, the rapid application of these ideas by textbookwriters and its acceptance by teaching specialists gave prominenceto more interactive views oflanguage teaching, which became to be known asthe Communicative Approach or simply Communicative Language Teaching. In the 1970s and 1980s,an approach to foreign and second language teaching emerged both inEurope and North America ocusing f on the work of anthropologists, sociologists, andsociolinguists. It concentrated on language as social behaviour, seeing the primary goal of languageteaching as the development of the learner's communicative competence. Parallel to the influence ofthe Council of Europe Languages Projects, there was an increasing need to teach adults the majorlanguages for a better educational cooperation within the expanding European Common Market.Learners were considered to need both rules of use to produce language appropriate to particularsituations, and strategies for effective communication.The movement at first concentrated onnotional-functional syllabuses, but in the 1980s, the approach was more concerned with the qualityof interaction between learner and teacher rather than the specification of syllabuses, andconcentrated on classroom methodology rather than on content.This promoted a view of languageas creative and rule governed within the framework of communicative approaches. Scholars such asHymes (1972), Halliday (1970), Canale and Swain (1980) or Chomsky (1957) leveled theircontributions and criticisms at structural linguistic theories claiming for more communicativeapproaches on language teaching. Among the most relevant featuresthat Communicative Language Teaching claimed for, we willhighlight a set of principles that provide a broad overview of this method.The first principle claimsfor students to learn a language through using it to communicate. Secondly, there is an emphasis onauthentic and meaningful communication which should be the goal of classroom activities. Thirdly,
fluency is seen as an important dimension of communication. Fourth, communication is intended toinvolve the integration of different language skills, and finally, the principle that claims for learningas a process of creative construction which involves trial and error. However, this communicative view is considered an approach rather than a method which providesa humanistic approach to teachingwhere interactive processes of communication receive priority.Its rapid adoption and implementationresulted in similar approaches among which we may mentionThe Natural Approach, Cooperative Language Learning, Content-Based Teaching, and Task-BasedTeaching. It is difficult to describe these various methods briefly and yet fairly, and such a task iswell beyond the scope of this paper. However, several up-to-date texts are available that do detaildifferences and similarities among the many different approaches and methods that have beenproposed (see Richards & Rodgers, 2001). 2.2. On defining communicative competence: a linguistic and pragmatic approach. The aim of this section is to approach the notion of communicative competence from an emphasison fluencyrather than on linguistic accuracy, since learners need many different opportunities tocommunicate without having to concentrate on structure and form. Upon this basis, the introductionof cultural studies is under revision as an important aspect of communicative competence. As far asbackground knowledge and cultural expectations on the foreign language are concerned,communicating with people from other cultures involves not only linguistic appropriateness but alsopragmatic appropriateness in the use of
verbal and non-verbal behavior. This issue is examinedwithin an ethnography of communication theory in order to approach a foreign language from apragmatic and linguistic point of view. 2.2.1. Fluency over accuracy. Today, communicative competence is the central aim of foreign and second language teaching,providing a number of suggestions as to how teachers can give pupils optimum frameworks foracquiring a good communicative competence. This notion no longer describes just a particularproficiency or skill, but makes reference to more than listening and speaking, reading and writing. Itis the ability to use appropriately all aspects of verbal and non-verbal language in a variety ofcontexts, as would a native speaker (Canale 1983). There are, then, two components tocommunicative competence under review. The first component is linguistic competence, which involves the mastery of several features. Thus,first, the sound system and the written system in order not to sound unusual to the cultural andlinguistic ear although the grammar may be perfect. Secondly, the syntax, or word order ofinteractions where perhaps the word meaning is correct, but the word is out-of-date or awkward, orsimply that a phrase is not appropriate in the context. Thirdly, the stress, pitch, volume, and junctureas a passage from one sound to another in the stream of speech.Finally, the semantics, or meaningsof words and phrases, and the how, when, where, and why they are used in a language. This usuallytakes place when we think of childrens amusing or embarrassing comments as they learn tocommunicate, or we deal with a person whose writing or speaking is different to the native language. This feature is to be found culturally implied, not explicitly taught. The second component includes pragmatics competence which deals with knowing theappropriateness of communication formats, verbal and non-verbal responses and interactions inmany contexts. Among an endless list of skills, we shall highlight first, the appropriateness of actionand speech in view of the speakers roles, status, ages and perspectives. Secondly, the use of non-
verbal codes, such as frequency and pattern of eye contact and facial expressions, or personal spaceand body movement. Next, another feature is to establish rapport, taking turns, and not to talkexcessively, as well as initiating, contributing relevance to, and ending a conversation. Fourthly, wemay highlight the fact of being comprehensible, supplying all necessary information and requestingclarification when necessary. And finally, it is important a feature that involves creating smoothchanges in topic, and responding to timing and pauses in dialogue. These pragmatics elements are so powerful that the message can become distorted if some of themare missing, making the speaker feel perplexed, uneasy or distrustful. In developing communicativecompetence, learners need many opportunities to communicate without having to concentrate onstructure and form, as being understood is much more important than using correct vocabulary orgrammar. Todays classrooms often have a wide diversity of skills, abilities, experiences, cultures,lifestyles and languages that can provide a wonderful opportunity for students to expand andenhance their communicative competence by means of providing our students with fullydevelopedexperiences concerning acceptable communication. In communicative language teaching, the emphasis is on fluency and comprehensibility as opposedto accuracy. Fluency in speaking can be thought of as the ability to generate and communicate onesideas intelligibly and with relative ease but not necessarily with accuracy (Canale & Swain 1980).Experiencing fluency also builds a sense of comfort, confidence, and control in those learners wholack strong pragmatics competence. We, teachers, can provide opportunities for students to developcontextsensitive behaviour in order to become more aware of, and more adept at respondingappropriately to social contexts. Since
pragmatics competence is a crucial survival skill in life andin the workplace, students need to develop this competence in an appropriate conversationalcontext. Therefore, we shall examine some cultural implications within this issue in our nextsection. 2.2.2. The introduction of cultural studies: a basis for an etnography of communication. As we have mentioned in the preceding section, communicative competence also covers conditionsthat affect communication by means of socio-cultural competence in order to facilitatecomprehensible interaction or to provide general knowledge of the world and of human nature. Yet,speakers draw on their competence in putting together grammatical sentences, but not all suchsentences can be used in the same circumstances. Thus, Give me the salt! and Could you pass methe salt, please? are both grammatical, but they differ in their appropriateness for use in particularsituations. Speakers use their communicative competence to choose what to say, as well as how andwhen to say it. It is fair, then, to highlight again the importance of being understood rather thanusing correct vocabulary or grammar. Hymes (1974) and others have stated that second language acquisition must be accompanied by acultural knowledge acquisition in addition to communicative competence. Communicating withpeople from different cultures implies not only choosing the appropriate words but also using theappropriate verbal and non-verbal behaviors. So far, the more knowledge the learner has to facilitateunderstanding about a topic from a different culture, the easier it is for the learner to be an activeparticipant, and to speak with ease and fluency. This often involves acquiring information about lifeexperiences such as driving rules, etiquette, family life, business, or how justice works. Once theconstraint of a lack of background knowledg e and information is eliminated, the learner has anopportunity to work on developing fluency and building communicative competence. There are several important strategies that a student should learn about the underlying cultural rules that guide conversation in the environment where they are speaking, such as using gestures, taking
turns, or maintaining silence. By means of using these verbal and non-verbal communicationstrategies, the learner may enhance the effectiveness of communication (Canale and Swain 1980).These strategies vary from culture to culture, and they makerelevant, therefore, the acquisition of acultural knowledge in order to communicate effectively. This tradition on cultural studies was first introduced in a language teaching theory in the early1920s and improved in the 170s by 9 the notion of theethnography of communication, a conceptcoined by Dell Hymes. It refers to a methodology based in anthropology and linguistics allowingpeople to study human interaction in context. Ethnographers adhering to Hymes' methodologyattempt to analyze patterns of communication as part of cultural knowledge and behavior. Besides,cultural relativity sees communicative practicesas an important part of what members of aparticular culture know and do (Hymes 1972). They acknowledge speech situations, speech events,and speech acts as units of communicative practice and attempt to situate these events in context inorder to analyze them. Hymes' (1972) well-known SPEAKING heuristic where capital letters acknowledge for differentaspects in communicative competence, serves as a framework within which the ethnographerexamines several components of speech events as follows. S stands for setting and scene (physicalcircumstances); P refers to participants includingspeaker, sender and addresser; E means end(purposes and goals); A stands for act sequence (message form and content); K deals with key(tone and manner); I stands for instrumentalities (verbal, non-verbal and physical channel); N refersto norms of interaction (specific proprieties attached to speaking), and interpretation (interpretationof norms within cultural belief system); and finally, genre referring to textual categories. This interpretation of communicative competence can serve as a useful guide to help secondlanguage learners to distinguish important elements of cultural communication as they learn toobserve and analyze discourse practices of the target culture in
context. As for actual ethnographers,second language learners must have the opportunity to access the viewpoints of natives of theculture being studied in order to interpret culturally defined behaviors. The issue of culture understudy will be discussed in our next section where different interpretations of communicativecompetence are examined from early approaches to present-day studies. 2.3. A historical overview of the development in a model of communicative competence. The present section considers the relationship between culture and language as a constant concernof second and foreign language researchers and educators worldwide. These two terms, culture andlanguage, are directly related to the notion of communicative competence as cultural and linguisticstudies provide the basis for a communicative approach in language teaching. Therefore, upon thisbasis, this section is aimed to provide a historical a ccount of the different approaches to thedevelopment of a communicative competence model byconsidering the contributions of the mostprominent linguists within this field from the very beginnings to present-day studies, 2.3.1. Earlier approaches: Hobbes (1651), Schweiter and Simonet (1921), and Lado (1957). The notion of communicative competence and its development is linked to the dialecticalrelationship between language and culture which has preoccupied linguists, philosophers andresearchers for many years. However, it was not until the early twentieth century that a systematic
introduction ofcultural studies enters the second language teaching curriculum, and for the first time, traditional views on language system are challenged. One of the first references to language, as a system of signs, and the necessity of an appropriatecontext of communication was provided by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in 1651. On revisingthe natural condition of mankindregarding counsel, Hobbes unconciously offered in his workThe
Leviathan (chapter XXV) an ethnographic approach to the nature of language.Thus, he explains how fallacious is is to judge of the nature of things, by the ordinary and inconstant use of words,appeareth in nothing m ore, than in the confusion of Counsels, and Commands, arising from theimperative manner of speaking in them both, and in many other occasions besides. For the words
Doe this, are the words not onely of him that Commandeth; but also of him that giveth Counsell;
and of him that Exhorteth; and yet there are but few, that see not, that these are very differentthings; or that cannot disti nguish between them, when they perceive who it is that speaketh, and towhom the Speech is directed, and upon what occasion. This occasion 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 also challenged the view that language is only
a system of signs and that language awareness included only the knowledge of grammar, lexicon,and phonetics (Bloomfield 1933). They argued about the necessity of including a system of basicinformationinto 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 foreignlanguage country. Though the range of the topics may seem very limited nowadays, the reader mustbear in mind that this was the first challenged to the old traditio nal view of language system.
Another approach traces back to the middle of the twentieth century, when the American li nguist 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. This approach,proposed by Lado, emerges from a method on comparing first and second language cultures inorder to help learners get a better understanding of the second language realities. However, Ladosmethod was not to be applied to a classroom setting as audiolingual and grammar translationmethods were the dominant approaches in second language teaching by that time. Therefore, histheoretical discoveries were not to be considered again until the 1970s, when social sciences startedto emerge as a relevant issue within the field of language teaching. Parallel to these theoreticalchallenges, we find our next linguist under consideration, Noam Chomsky, who also challenged,but this time successfully, behaviourist models of language learning. 2.3.2. Chomsky (1965): competence and performance. As we have previously mentioned, there was a variety of theoretical challenges to the audio -lingual method in the 1960s, among which we may mention, apart from Lados, that of the linguist Noam Chomsky which became a turning point in the development of subsequenttheories on 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. Chomskys theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely
homogeneous speech community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by suchgrammati cally irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention andinterest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his k nowledge of the language in actual
performance (1965 p.3). For him, then, there are two main concepts under revision, competence and
performance. To him, competence refers to the innate knowledge of language an ideal speaker-listener has in an homogeneous speech community, and performance refers to the actual productionand rules of language use. According to Chomsky, then, within his theory of linguistic competenceand performance, being respectively, grammaticality and acceptability, linguistic knowledge isseparated from sociocultural features. His distinction served as basis for work of many otherresearchers as it is stated in the following sections. 2.3.3. First reactions to Chomskys model: Campbell and Wales (1970), Halliday (1972) and Hymes (1972). In the 1970s, there was an increasing interest and, therefore development, in social sciences,parti ularly sociology and c anthropology, which resulted in a considerable broadening in scholarsunderstanding of the concept of culture. There were reactions toChomskys notion of linguisticcompetence. Mainly three approaches showed a disagreement that went on in the early 1970s, andcentered on whether communicative competence included grammatical competence or not. Thus,Campbell and Wales (1970), Halliday (1972), and Hymes (1972). They thought that there wererules of language use that were neglected in C homskys view of language, and that linguisticcompetence represented only part of what one needs to know to be a competent language user. With respect toCampbell and Wales approach, we may say that they felt that appropriateness oflanguage is even mo re important than grammaticality. They accepted the distinction proposed byChomsky regarding competence and performance, but pointed out that Chomsky neglected theappropriateness of utterance to a particular context of situation or, in other words, its socioculturalsignificance. Therefore, they referred to Chomskys view as grammatical competence and to theirsas communicative competence. 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
In relation toHalliday (1972), we shall mention that he rejected Chomskys dichotomy of competence and performance as he thought the potential of meaning was covered both by knowing
and doing. To Halliday, language is a mode of human behavior, and therefore, a mode of social
interaction. Besides, he proposed the notion of language functions by means of which the context
of a situation provides a first approximation to the specification of the components of the communication situation (1985). Thus, three macro-functions, such as the ideational, interpersonal,
and textual, were the basis for another set of seven micro -functions, listed as follows.Firstly, the
instrumental to express desires and needs. Secondly, the regulatory where rules, instructions,
orders, and suggestions are included. Thirdly, theinteractional, where we may include patterns ofgreeting, leave-taking, thanking, good wishes, and excusing. Fourth, thepersonal function whichencourages students to talk about themselves and express their feelings. Fifth, theheuristic functionfocuses on asking questions. Next, theimaginative function, which is used for supposing,hypothesizing, and creating for the love of sound and image. Finally, we find theinformativefunction which emphasizes affirmative and negative statements. Regarding Dell Hymes approach, he also pointed out that Chomskys competence-performancemodel did not provide an explicit place for sociocultural features, adding that Chomskys notion ofperformance seemed confused between actual performance and underlying rules of performance.Hymes recasts the scope of the competence concept because there is a lack of empirical support inChomskys model, and he feels that there are rules of use without which the rules of grammarwould be useless. Hymes introduced the concept ofcommunicative competence, paying specialattention to the sociolinguistic component, which connected language and culture.
Hymes (1972) stated that native speakers know more than just grammatical competence. So far, heexpands the Chomskyan notions of grammaticality (competence) and acceptability (performance)into four parameters subsumed under the heading ofcommunicative competence as somethingwhich is first, formallypossible; secondly,feasible in virtue of the available means; thirdly, appropriate, in relation to a context in which it is used and evaluated; and finally, something which is in factdone, and actually performed. Alinguistic example of these parameters is provided by asentence that may be grammatical, awkward, tactful and rare, representing the users knowledgeand ability in communicating. Hymess model is, then, primarily sociolinguistic, but includes Chomskyspsycholinguisticparamet of linguistic competence. It is er also primarily concerned with explaining language use insocial contexts, although it also addresses issues of language acquisition. As a result, Hymessmodel for communicative competence included grammatical, sociolinguistic and contextualcompetences.Hymess model inpired subsequent model developments on communicativecompetence, such as those of Canale and Swain (1980) and Bachman (1987), as we shall see infurther sections. 2.3.4. Sandra Savignon (1972, 1983). Simultaneously to Hymess introduction of the concept of communicative competence as a reactionto Chomskys theory, the first well-recognized experiment of communicative language teachingwas taking place at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. 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 approachwhere learners were encouraged to make use of their foreign language in a classroom setting, bymeans of equivalents of expressions such as Excuse me..., Please, repeat..., How do you say thisin Italian...? in order to communicate rather than feign native speakers.
Regarding the scope of communicative competence, Savignons experiment is considered to be oneof the best-known surveys as it shed light on the development of research in this field. Sheintroduced the idea of communicative competence as the ability tofunction 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 ofgestures and facial expression in her interpretation and later refined herdefinition of communicative competence to comprise of the following six relevant aspects (1983).Thus, the first feature is the individualss willingness to take risks and express themselves in foreignlanguage and to make themselves understood, that is, the notion ofthe negotiation of meaning.Secondly, the fact that communicative competence isnot only oral, but written too. Thirdly, anapproach to appropriateness as depending oncontext. Here we refer to the appropriate choices of
register and stylein terms of situation and other participants. Fourthly, she states that only
performance is observable asit is only through performance that competence can be developed,
maintained, and evaluated. In the fifth place, she claims for communicative competence to be
relative, and not absolute, as it comes in degrees because it depends on the cooperation of all
interlocutors. Finally, she talks about degrees of communicative competence which, for her, is
difficult to measure.
Savignons model was not the only result of those theoretical and empirical investigations whichwere carried out in the early 1980s in the field of communicative language teaching. Among othermodels of communicativecompetence currently used worlwide, we shall mention those of Canale& Swain (1980), van Ek (1986), and Bachman (1990). Though not able to agree on operationaldefinitions of the components of communicative competence, all scholars recognized thesociocultural component to be an inseparable part of foreign language communicative competence. 2.3.5. Widdowson (1978) and Munby (1978). In the 1980s, extensive research in Communicative Language Teaching served as a theoretical andmethodological basis for the emergence of several approaches that aimed to co-teach language andculture. Since language is the means of expression of ones identity, the sociocultural environmentplayed, then, an important role in an individuals cultural identity development. Parallel to thisapproach, cultural literacy, ethnographic, and sociocultural studies established a connectionbetween language and culture, although they differed in the context of application. As a result, therewas a need to examine a number of issues connected with identity, culture, and language teaching inorder to prepare students for adequate intercultural communication, and to help them overcome andeliminate generalizations about a foreign language culture and society. Many researchers, among them, Widdowson (1978) and Munby (1978), claimed that, incommunication, the way people use the language may affect the way they are most likely to beperceived by others. The issueslinked to identity, culture, and language teaching were presented asmultiple deviations from the norm within a cultural diversity of the modern world. Thus,approaches to discourse analysis, a speech act theory, interactional competence and cross-culturalconsiderations were examined as a sociocultural phenomena. These issues become especiallyimportant when we are talking about foreign languages, as they propose possible ways of increasingthe effectiveness of foreign language communication. Within this theoretical background and from a discourse-based approach,Widdowson (1978)proposes a distinction between the concepts ofuse andusage. According to him, both concepts areto be linked to the aspects of performance, asusage refers to the
manifestation of the knowledge ofa language system whereas the notion ofuse means the realization of the language system asmeaningful communicative behavior. This duality is based on the notion ofeffectiveness for
communication, by means of which an utterance with a well -formed grammatical structure may or
may not have a sufficient value for communication in a given context. Therefore, he claimed that whether an utterance has a sufficient communicative value or not is determined in discourse. Similarly,Munby (1978) contends that grammatical competence should be included in the notion ofcommunicative competence under two main theoretical basis. First, he states that grammaticalcompetence and communicative competence need to be developed separately and secondly, he goesfurther by saying that grammatical competence is not an essential component of communicativecompetence. The main tenets of his Communicative Competence model are presented under thebasis of a linguistic encoding, a sociocultural orientation, a soc iosemantic basis of linguisticknowledge, and a discourse level of operation. However, reactions to this approach soon emerged from linguists in this field, as for instance, the influential theorists Canale and Swain, among others. They claimed that both grammatical
competence and sociolinguistic competence are important elements within this framework, and thatteachers who agree that grammatical competence is part of communicative competence might stillseparate them in teaching (1980). However, they added that second language learning would
proceed more effectively when grammatical usage is not abstracted from a meaningful context. For a detailed account of this approach, we shall move on to our next section. 2.3.6. Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983). As we have previously mentioned, the development of Hymes theory of communicativecompetence was one of the reactions to Chomsky's somewhat limiting definition of the scope oflinguistic theory on communica tive competence.Communicative competence, as Hymes proposedit, goes further than just grammatical knowledge and includespsychological and socio linguisticfactors that address the fact that communication takes place in a context. It seems a particularlyrelevant idea to those interested in second language learning, as the relevance a theory of of communicative competence to language by means of testing was first noted by Cooper (1968) and explored by Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983). Language tests involve measuring asubjects knowledge of, and proficiency in, the use of a language. Communicative competence,according to them, is then a theory of the nature of such knowledge and proficiency. Upon thisbasis, a preference model appears to be a useful way to characterize communicative competence,and at the same time, it has many advantages over competing models. The notion of communicative competence was examined by various groups of researchers,including those in second language learning likeCanale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983).They formulated a theoretical framework that, in the modified version of Canale (1983), consistedof four major components of communicative competence, thus grammatical, sociolinguistic,discourse, and strategic aspects. We shall mention first, the grammatical competence, which deals with the mastery of the linguisticcode itself. This aspect is important for students to attain a higher level of proficiency whereaccuracy is important. Secondly, he sociolinguistic t competence is concerned with the appropriateuse of language in particular social situations to convey specific communicative functions such asdescribing, narrating, or eliciting among others, including the participants and the rules forinteraction. This competence is particularly difficult to attain as the skilled use of appropriateregisters requires sensitivity to cross-cultural differences. Thirdly, the discourse competenceconcerns the mastery of how to use language in order to achieve a unified spoken or written text indifferent genres, that is, cohesion and coherence of utterances in a discourse. This cohesion ofthought is attained by means of cohesive devices, such as pronouns and grammatical connectors,together with a unity of thought and continuity in a text. Finally,the strategic competence makesreference to the mastery of verbal and non-verbal communication strategies by
means of both theunderlying knowledge about language and communicative language use or skill. The main goal toattain with this competence is first, to compensate for breakdowns in communication, and secondly,to enhance the effectiveness ofcommunication. On this issue, further comments will be examinedlater in the section of the model assessment. 2.3.7. On revising Hymes and Canale and Swains models: Wolfson (1989) and Bachman (1990) . As mentioned before, the notion of communicative competence intended by Hymes was furtherdeveloped and revised by other linguists, among which we may mention Canale and Swain as theirreinterpretation of Hymes model is considered to be one of the most improved and effectiveversions of the notion of communicative competence. However, both models have undergonefurther reinterpretations and developments when addressing communication oriented teaching in aclassroom setting. Hymes sociolinguistic approach was, then, to be reinterpreted by a languageteaching professional, Wolfson (1989) who worked on cross-cultural considerations. Besides,
Canale and Swains model also had its developments and contributions, such as that of Bachman (1990) among others. Both approaches are examined in this section. Regarding Wolfsons model (1989), it is relevant to recall part of Hymes theory when he states thatthere is more in his term than the concept of communicative competence. Two further ideas arespecially important, such as linguistic routines and sociolinguist interference. Hymes describessome texts as having sequential organisation beyond the sentence, either as activities of one person,
or as the interaction of two or more (1972). Sociolinguistic interference, he notes, arises during
contacts between cultures with differing systems of communicative competence, includingdifferently structured linguistic routines. Our understanding of the mechanics of this interferencehas been developed by work in contrastive rhetoric andcrosscultural communication generally,but only recently have some of these insights found their way in to the classroom setting. So far, Wolfsons model mainly focuses on communicative competence, and outlines a model of rules of speaking derived from Hymes with pedagogic purposes. Wolfson points out that grammatical competence is an intrinsic part of communicative competence, but stating that in manycases, the term communicative competence is misinterpreted by language teachers and curriculumdevelopers as the separation of grammatical competence. His model presents an issue of cross-cultural miscommunication within the framework of compliments.Wolfson was working on asurvey for learners with different cultural background to understand certain rules of the interactionprocess regarding cultural communication patterns, in particular, on why Americans complimentedso frequently. On revising Canale and Swains reinterpretations, we shall refer toLyle Bachman (1990) whosemodel was similar to Canale and Swains, but differently arranged. Bachman proposed a tree modelof communicative competence for a theoretical framework of communicative language ability,where we may distinguish three major components of communicative language proficiency. Thus,language competence, strategic competence, and psychophysiological mechanisms. The first component,language competence is related to the knowledge of language a learner has, which includes two major abilities used in com municating through language. Thus, firstly, the
organizational competencewhich deals with the control of formal structure of language
(grammatical competence) and the knowledge of how to construct discourse (textual competence).Secondly, thepragmatic competence , which is related to firstly, a functional use of language(illocutionary competence or how to perform speech acts) and secondly, the knowledge ofappropriateness to context in which language is used (sociolinguistic competence). The second component is the strategic competence which refers to mental capacities underlyinglanguage use, pointing out that Canale and Swains model did not describe the mechanisms bywhich strategic competence operates. So far, he works within the framework ofan interactional
view as compensation for communication breakdowns, and a psycholinguistic view to enhance
rhetorical effects of utterances. Therefore, he distinguishes three phases in his model: assessment,
planning and execution. In relation to the third component, we shall refer to psychophysiological mechanisms as physical means of producing language through first, a visual or auditory channel, and secondly, through a productive or receptive mode. 2.3.8. Present-day approaches: B.O.E. (2002). According to the Ministry of Education, since Spain entered the European Community, there is aneed for learning a foreign language in order to communicate with other European countries, and aneed for emphasizing the role of a foreign language which gets relevance as a multilingual and
multicultural identity. Within this context, getting a proficiency level in a foreign language implieseducational and professional reasons which justify the presence of foreign languages in thecurricula at different educational levels. It means to have access to other cultures and customs aswell as to foster interpersonal relationships which help individuals develop a due respect towardsother countries, their native speakers and their culture. This sociocultural framework allows learnersto better understand their own language, and therefore, their own culture. The European Council (B.O.E. 2002), and in particular the Spanish Educational System within theframework of the Educational Reform, establishes a common reference framework for the teachingof foreign languages, and claims for a progressive development of communicative competence in aspecific language.Students, then, are intended tobe able to carry out several communication tasks
with specific communicative goals within specific contexts . In order to get these goals, several
strategies as well as linguistic and discursive skills come into force in a given context. Thus, foreignlanguage activities are provided within the framework of social interaction, personal, professionalor educational fields. Therefore, in order to develop the above mentioned communication tasks in our present educational system, a communicative competence theory includes the following subcompete nces. Firstly, the
linguistic competence(semantic, morphosyntactic and phonological). Secondly, the discoursecompetence (language functions, speech acts, and conversations). Thirdly, the sociolinguisticcompetence(social conventions, communicative intentions, and registers among others). Fourthly,
thestrategic competence will be included as a subcompetence of communicative competence withinthis educational framework. So far, students will make use of this competence in a natural andsystematic way in order to achieve the effectiveness of communication through the differentcommunication skills, thus,productive (oral and written communication),receptive (oral andwritten comprehension within verbal and non-verbal codes), andinteractional. The foreign language learning process will help students improve their educational and professionallife from a global perspective as it will help themdevelop their personality, social integration,interest topics and, in particular, to promote their intellectual knowledge. Furthermore, these aspectswill allow learners to be in contact with the current scientific, humanistic and technologicaladvances within other areas of knowledge. To sum up, the learning of a foreign language isintended to broaden the studentss intellectual knowledge as well as to broaden their knowledge onother ways of life and social organization different to their own. Furthermore, the aim is to getinformation on international issues, to broaden their professional interests and consolidate socialvalues to promote the development of international communication. 3. AN ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE COMPONENTS . This section is intended to provide an account of the analysis of communicative competencecomponents according to one of the most relevant figures in this field, Dell Hymes, Canale andSwain, Widdowson, Savignon, and Tarone among others. In order to do so, this section will bedivided into two main issues. The first part will present a brief background to the notion ofcommunicative competence in order to link this term to Canale and Swains assessment model oncommunicative competence components. Besides, a model assessment based on Canale andSwains model on communicative competence will be depicted in order to
mention the four maincompetences currently applied to educational systems. Finally, the second section will summarizethe main related areas of study whichtake part in the communicative competence model.
3.1. On the analysis of communicative components: a model assessment. During the past 25 years, communicative language teaching has been the dominant approach to theteaching of foreign and second languages. Much of this ascendancy is due to the sociolinguist DellHymes (1967) who in a series of articles developed the notion of communicative competence.Hymes was convinced that Chomskys (1965) notion of competence defined as a speakerhearersunderlying mental representation of grammatical rules was far too narrow. Instead communicativecompetence takes us one step further than purely grammatical competence, into the area ofpragmatics which deals with the use of language in everyday communicative situations.Communicative Competence is therefore concerned not only with what is grammatical but alsowhat is appropriate in a given social situation. The most important study on developing the notion of Communicative Competence from DellHymes work has been done by Canale and Swain (1980). There is also a useful discussion of this inSwain (1980) which is especially useful for those approaching communicative competence from asecond language acquisition point of view. Here the notion of Communicative Competence isdivided up into four subcomponents which have been mentioned before, thus, grammatical,discourse, sociolinguistic, and strategic competence are glossed below. 3.1.1. Grammatical competence. This heading subsumes all knowledge of lexical items and of rules of morphology, syntax, sentence grammar semantics and phonology(Canale and Swain 1980). It therefore refers to having control
over thepurely linguistic aspects of the language code itself,regarding verbal and non-verbalcodes. This corresponds to Hymes grammatical aspect and includes knowledge of the lexicon,syntax, phonology and semantics.Thus, it involves rules of formulations and constraints forstudents to match sound and meaning; to form words and sentences using vocabulary; to uselanguage through spelling and pronunciation; and to handle linguistic semantics. 3.1.2. Sociolinguistic competence. Sociolinguistic competence refers to the knowledge which the learner has to acquire of the sociocultural rules of language. This type of knowledge requires an understanding of the social
context in which language is used: the roles of the participants, th e information they share, and the function of the interaction (Savignon 1983). Other relevant figures in this field, such as Canale and
Swain (1980) defined this competence in terms of sociocultural rules of use, and rules of discourse. Thus, regarding sociocultural rules of use, this competence is linked to the notion of the
extent to which utterances are produced and understood appropriately in different sociolinguisticcontexts depending on contex tual factors such as status of participants, purposes of the interaction,and norms or conventions of interaction .
Regarding the rules of discourse, it is defined in terms of the mastery of how to combine
grammatical forms and meanings (1980). When we deal with appropriateness of form, we refer to the extent to which a given meaning is represented in both verbal and non-verbal form that isproper in a given sociolinguistic context . Thus, communicative functions, attitudes, propositions
and ideas. In relation to meaning appropriateness, this competenc e is concerned withthe extent to which particular communicative functions and ideas are judged to be proper in a given situation , asfor instance, commanding, complaining and inviting.
3.1.3. Discourse competence. This is in many ways connected to the large body of research which has been accumulated over the last 25 years in the field of discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is primarily concerned with the ways in which individual sentences connect together to form a communicative message. One of itsmain figures, Widdowson (1978) proposed a distinction between the concepts ofuse andusage,whereusage refers to the manifestation of the knowledge of a language system anduse means therealization of the language system as meaningful communicative behavior. This competence addresses directly to the mastery of how to combine grammatical forms and
meanings to achieve a unified spoken or written text in different genres (Canale and Swain 1980).
By genre is meant the type of text to be unified, thus, a scientific paper, an argumentative essay, andoral and written narrative among others. For them, the unity of a text is achieved through cohesionin form andcoherence 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 and parallel structures to relate individual utterances and to i ndicate how agroup of utterances is to be understood as a text. Yet, coherence refers to the relatioships among thedifferent meanings in a text, where these meanings may be literal meanings, communicativefunctions, and attitudes. 3.1.4. Strategic competence. Finally we come to the fourth area of Communicative Competence. In the words of C anale (1983), strategic competence is the verbal and nonverbal communication strategies that may be called into
action to compensate for breakdowns in communication dueto performance variables or due to insufficient competence.This is quite a complex area but in a simplified way we can describe it as
the type of knowledge which we need to sustain communication with someone. This may be achieved byparaphrase, circumlocution, repetition, hesistation, avoidance, guessing as well as
shifts in register and style. 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. This approach has been supported by other researchers, such as Savignon and Tarone. Thus,Savignon (1983) notes that one can communicate non-verbally in the absence of grammatical ordiscourse competence provided there is a cooperative interlocutor. Besides, she points out the
necessity and the sufficiency for the inclusion of strategic competence as a component of
communicative competence at all levels as it demonstrates that regardless of experience and level ofproficiency one never knowsall a language. This also illustrates the negotiation of meaninginvolved in the use of strategic competence as noted in Tarone (1981). Another criterion on strategic competence proposed by Tarone (1981) for the speaker to recognize ameta -linguistic problem is the use of the strategies to help getting the meaning across. Taroneincludes a requierement for the use of strategic competence by which the speaker has to be awarethat the linguistic structure needed to convey his meaning is not available to him or to the hearer. Aswill be seen later, strategic competence is essential in conversation and we argue for the necessityand sufficiency of this competence. 3.2. Related areas of study. The four components of communicative competence are linked to some studies and theories whichdo not fit into one component of Communicative Competence and overlap several components.Thus, research areas such as interactional competence, a speech act theory or the field of pragmatictransfer cannot be categorized as a part of only one competence. Thus, a speech act theory overlapsdiscourse, sociolinguistic and strategic competence. Therefore, we will offer a brief account of the