1

Communicative Competence in CLT Framework

Ebissa Bekele Abate1; Professor K. Durga Bhavani

2

Dept of English, Osmania University, Hyderabad, India

Email: barnabas_bekele@yahoo.com

Abstract

Subsequent to the emergence of modern foreign language instruction, a number of language

teaching methods and approaches had been appearing and disappearing successively following

changes in the ideology of linguistic and learning theories. Grammar translation, direct

method, Audiolingualism, humanistic approaches and so forth had been in application in many

countries with slight modifications. However, none of these methods were able to respond to

learners’ diverse communicative needs. Therefore, to compensate the failures of the methods,

a more eclectic approach, CLT, emerged in to ELT in early 1970s. Thus, this article mainly

intended to briefly explain the essence of CLT and the motives behind its application in ESL

contexts.

1. Introduction

After long journey, following footsteps of language and learning theories, language teaching

methods have reached at the level of an approach which gives precedence to learners in the

instructional process, communicative approach. It emerged before four decades with the aim

of aiding learners’ language use for communicative purpose in different socio-cultural

contexts. Subsequent to its emergence, many countries welcomed the approach in to their

contexts though there was a difference in the understanding of the approach. Thus, some

countries which executed the approach with conscious understanding and careful investigation

of its relevance, appropriateness, practicality and suitability in their context, have entertained

the bests of the approach.

On the other hand, many practitioners and scholars in the areas of applied linguistics and

language teaching methodologies hardly had uniform conceptions regarding the approach

itself. The approach reflects different concepts when viewed from different perspectives

mainly because of the broader and extended conceptual and theoretical positions on which it

was premised (Hiep, 2007). Despite the fact, the definition sprung up from a linguistic theory

which conceives language as a means of social interaction and its goal is to enhance

2

communicative competence via expression, interpretation and negotiations of meaning.

Similarly, CLT was conceived as an approach which contains spectrum of methods intended

to develop learners’ competence in target language use (Celce-Murcia, 1991). Moreover, the

approach colligates multiple methods that focus on aiding learners to communicate sensibly in

the target language (Nunan, 1999). The views indicate that the aim of the approach is to

advance learners’ communicative competence in the target language via carefully designed

procedures of teaching integrated skills which warrant continuum relationship between

language and communication. The objective of this abstract is: (1) to disclose the essence of

CLT approach; and (2) to address the goals of the approach which is termed as communicative

competence.

2. What is CLT?

CLT is a recent most widely used foreign/second language teaching approach introduced in

the early 1970s. Because of some reasons the approach has been defined and understood

differently by different scholars. Despite the fact, most definitions start with a theory which

dictates language as a vehicle for expression of meaning; and whose goal is to enhance

communicative competence (Savignon, 1972). As to (Richards & Rodgers, 2001), CLT is

regarded as an approach to language teaching which reflects certain model, research

paradigm/theory. The approach covers varieties of methods that focus on helping learners

communicate meaningfully in the target language in varied socio-cultural contexts. Methods,

procedures, techniques and activities in CLT favor learners and their learning wants.

Therefore, the goal is to enhance meaningful communication in the target language through

carefully designed procedures of teaching integrated skills which grant consolidation between

language and communication. Richards set CLT as “a set of principles about the goals of

language teaching, how learners learn a language, the kinds of classroom activities that best

facilitate learning, and the roles of teachers and learners in the classroom” (Richardes, 2006, p.

2).

CLT emanated from integrated disciplines including linguistics, sociology, anthropology,

philosophy, psychology, educational research, and the purpose is the application of methods

that promote the development of purposive language use via learners’ participation in the

pedagogic process. On top, the approach considers socio-political nature of langue learning

and follows careful integration of policymakers, linguists, researchers, educators, teachers and

3

learners in planning, execution and evaluation of communicative instructional curricula

(Savignon, 2002).

3. What Does CLT Entails?

As indicated earlier, the very definition of CLT begins with an indication of the primary goal

of the approach. Accordingly, the elemental rational behind the application of CLT was to

develop learners’ communicative ability. Similarly, Savignon (1972) also claimed that the

goal of CLT is to enhance learners’ communicative competence. The final destiny of the

approach is thus the formulation of learners’ communicative ability which may include

different sub-sectors: grammatical competence, strategic competence, discourse competence

and sociolinguistic competence. The approach primarily emanated from cognitive learning

perspective that humans have instinctive cognitive ability to comprehend the subsectors of

communicative competence. The sectors are synchronized together and cannot be complete in

the absence of the other.

4. The Essence of Communicative Competence

Autonomous, group learning and communicative functions emerged to be the main concern of

linguists and learning theorists since early 1970s. As a result, applied linguists and educators

began to advocate an approach which enhances learners’ communicative competence through

various cooperative learning activities (Farell & Jacobs, 2011). Afterwards, applied linguists,

educators, teachers and learners have switch off their attention from traditional and solitude

approach which gives precedence to the mastery of structural aspects of language to the one

which promotes communicative competence in second/foreign language classes (Mehmet,

2006).

The central concept in CLT, communicative competence, has been interpreted and represented

by different scholars from diverse fields (Hymes, 1971); (Widdowson, 1983); (Canale &

Swian, 1980); (Bachman, 1990); (Brown, 2007). Hymes introduced the concept of

communicative competence and conceived it as the ability to encode and decode messages and

to negotiate meaning interpersonally within particular contexts (Hymes, 1971). He further

contends that communicative competence is not constrained only to the mastery of

representations, interpretation, negotiation and analysis of meaning, but also the knowhow of

what to say to whom, when and in what situation (ibid.). Widdowson, after making distinction

4

between competence and capacity, defined communicative competence in terms of knowledge

of linguistics and sociolinguistic conventions, and put more focus on actual language use

(Widdowson,1983). Canale and Swine understood communicative competence as combination

of underlying system of knowledge and skills required for communication. Language

knowledge as to their view contains: knowledge of structural principles, socio-cultural

contexts, and discourse principles. Conversely, the skill dimension in communicative

competence refers to how individuals use the language knowledge at their disposal in actual

communication (Canale, 1983). Communicative competence is “the ability to use language in

a true communicative setting, which is in a dynamic exchange in which linguistic competence

must adapt itself to the total informational input, both linguistic and paralinguistic of one or

more interlocutors” (Savignon, 1972, p.8). Literature in second and foreign language

pedagogy indicates that communicative competence is characterized by unique features as

dynamism; inter personality, relativity and conceptuality. But some researchers and

practitioners (Bachman, 1990); (Stern, 1986); (Tylor, 1988) associate communicative

competence with language proficiency which do not bother much about language knowledge,

but an abstract, mental and unobservable ability used in the context of communication

(Richards, 1985a).

Researchers were also insisted in exploring out the earnest source of linguistic and socio

cultural competences and how it could be acquired and developed in children’s life time.

Hymes presented basic foundation of communicative competence claiming that “children

acquire socio-cultural rules such as when to speak, when not, what to talk about, with whom,

in what manner at the same time as they acquire knowledge of grammatical rules” (Hymes,

1972, p. 277). The socio-cultural environment in which children grow up is fertile ground for

inception and development of communicative competence mainly in their first and primary

language. But, in the case of second/foreign language learners, communicative competence

emerges through the use of CLT principles and practices in foreign/second language contexts.

All the competences of communication were synchronized together to serve common purpose

of developing learners’ communicative proficiency and it is impossible to detach one from the

other. ELT instruction in classroom context should fairly treat the components of

communicative competences, for the general goal cannot likely be attained in the absence of

the other.

5

5. Models of Communicative Competence

As to the literature in second/foreign language teaching, learning and assessment, there are

widely receipted models of language proficiency that teachers are supposed to teach, learners

are likely to master, testers are expected to measure, and program evaluators must evaluate in

line with it. The most commonly acknowledged models include Canale and Swine’s Model,

Bachman’s Model and Common European Framework Model. The details will be taken-up

separately.

5.1 Canale and Swine’s’ Model

The model introduced by (Canale & Swian, 1980), was deviant from previous models for it

regards communication as an active process which can be realized through language use. The

model includes four sub-sectors: grammatical, sociolinguistics, strategic and discourse

competences (Canale,1983). Effective execution of communicative approach (CLT) results in

the formation of the aforementioned communicative competence sectors. In simple expression,

the practitioners recommended learners, teachers, materials writers and testers to align their

pedagogic practices in accordance with the proposed theoretical framework of communicative

competences.

The scholars described grammatical competence as an aspect of competence which

encompasses the knowledge of lexical items and rules of morphology, syntax, semantics and

phonology (Canale & Swine, 1980). In the construction of grammatical competence, as a

component of communicative competence, the readers have specified no single aspect of

grammar to be selected over the others. Rather, they stress that grammatical competence will

be an important concern for any communicative approach whose goal is providing learners

with the knowledge of how to determine and express accurately the literary meaning of the

utterance.

Sociolinguistic competence as (Canale & Swine, 1980), refers to socio-cultural rules of use

and rules of discourse. The proper mastery of these rules is crucial in interpreting utterances

for social meaning particularly when there is low level of transparency between the literal

meaning of an utterance and the speakers’ intentions. Socio-cultural rules of use specify the

ways in which the utterances are produced and understood appropriately with respects to the

components of communicative events. The focus of these rules is on the extent to which

6

certain propositions and communicative functions are appropriate within a given socio-cultural

groups based on contextual factors as topic, role of the participants, setting and norm of the

interaction. In addition, the secondary concern of sociolinguistic competence was the extent to

which appropriate attitude, registrar and styles are conveyed by particular grammatical forms

within a given socio-cultural context.

Strategic competence is verbal and non-verbal communication strategy that can be called in, to

correct breakdowns in communication due to performance variables or insufficient

competences (Canale & Swian, 1980). It is systematic means of mending for communicative

failures created in an interaction. As to this model, strategic competence integrates two major

components. The first aspect is the one that relates to grammatical competence (how to

paraphrase grammatical forms that one has not mastered or cannot recall momentarily), and

the second aspect relates to sociolinguistic competence (various role playing strategies (how to

address strangers when we are unsure of their social status). Knowledge of sociolinguistic

rules many be helpful at the beginning stage of second language learning, and it is expected

that the need for certain strategies may change as function of age and second language

proficiency. Moreover, the strategies are most likely to be acquired through experience in real

life interaction, but not through classroom practices that integrate no meaningful

communication.

(Canale, 1983), described discourse competence as mastery of rules that determine ways in

which forms and meanings are combined to achieve a meaningful unity of spoken or written

texts. The unity of a text is enabled by cohesion in form and coherence in meaning. Cohesion

is achieved by the use of cohesive devices which help to link individual sentences and

utterances to a structural whole. The means for achieving coherence for instance repetition,

progression, consistency, relevance of ideas etc., enable the organization of meaning, i.e.

establish a logical relationship between groups of utterances. The readers proposed the value

of the framework in four main areas of second language teaching: syllabus design, teaching

methodology, teacher training and material development. The model will be further illustrated

under figure-2.1.

7

Figure-5.1: Canale and Swine’s Model of Communicative Competence (CC)

5.2 Bachman’s Model of Competence

Canale & Swian’s model was the most influential frameworks of communicative competence

in the context of foreign language teaching, learning and testing. Later, Bachman introduced a

model which capitalizes on the central role of meta-cognitive strategies that explain the

interaction of knowledge and affective components of language use (Fulcher & Davidson,

2007). He believed that the current framework extends the former models as “it attempts to

characterize the process in which various components interact with each other and with

context in which language use occurs” (Bachman, 1990, p. 81). Bachman criticized the earlier

models for they dismantled the integrity of skills and linguistic components, and their failures

to state the relationship between the two, arguing that “it was difficult to see whether the

knowledge components were understood in their theories as simply manifested in skills in

different modalities and channels, or whether they are fundamentally different in quality”

(Bachman, 1990:83). Thus, Bachman developed three central components for language ability

that are essential to define ones competence in effective language use for communication.

These includes: strategic competence and psychophysiological mechanisms (Bachman, 1990,

p. 84).

Communicative Competence

Grammatical Competence

Strategic Competence

Sociolinguistic Competence

Discourse Competence

8

The first component termed as language competence consists of organizational competence

and pragmatic competence. The organizational competence is further divided into grammatical

competence and textual competence. Canale & Swine’s grammatical competence and

Bachman’s language competence are consonant with each other in that, both comprise of

abilities to control the formal structure of language. Textual competence however, pertains to

the knowledge of conventions for cohesion and coherence, and rhetorical organization of

written and spoken texts. Moreover it includes conventions for language use in conversations,

containing establishing, starting, maintaining and terminating conversations. Bachman’s

textual competence can, thus, be said to have qualities of both the parts of (Canale & Swian,

1980) discourse competence as well as the part of strategic competence.

Bachman’s pragmatic competence, the other component in language competence, focuses on

the relationship between what one says in his/her communicative acts and what functions

he/she intends to perform through his/her utterances. This concerns illocutionary force of an

utterance, or the knowledge of pragmatic conventions for performing acceptable language

functions (Bachman,1990), which embodies illocutionary competence under the pragmatic

competence. Illocutionary competence enables a speaker to use his/her language to serve

varieties of functions and a hearer to interpret the illocutionary force of an utterance or

discourse required of him/her. One needs more than illocutionary competence to successfully

execute an act to intend certain communicative function. S/he must have knowledge of

appropriateness based on the language use in context in which s/he finds her/himself when

engaging in a communicative exchange. Bachman calls it sociolinguistics as an annex of

pragmatic competence.

More precisely, Bachman discusses four abilities pertaining to sociolinguistic competence: the

ability to be sensitive to regional and social language varieties; the ability to be sensitive to

differences in register; the ability to produce and interpret utterances based on naturalness of

language use, or what (Pawley & Syder, 1983) refer to as a native-like way of communication,

and ability to understand cultural reference and figures of speech (Bachman, 1990, pp. 95-98).

In Bachman’s framework, sociolinguistic competence and illocutionary competence were

categorized together to form speaker’s pragmatic competence, which also associated with

grammatical competence to constitute ones’ own comprehensive language competence.

9

Strategic competence refers to the psycholinguistic model of speech production that subsumes

planning and excision phases. Bachman criticized strategic competence described in

interactional and production approach, as well as recent models on (Canale & Swian, 1980)

for it undermines the role of strategic competence in communicative language use. He claims

that strategic competence is a valuable part of communicative language use, not just that in

which the language abilities are deficient and must be compensated by other means. He

advanced (Faerch & Kasper, 1984)’s formulation providing general descriptions of strategic

competence in communicative language use adding components like: assessment, planning

and execution (Bachman, 1990).

The last competence of communicative ability as to Bachman’s framework includes

psychophysiological mechanisms involved in language use. It refers to learners’ competence

in using auditory (sound) and visual (light) as well as neuromuscular skills in communication

(reception and production) process which constitutes an important aspect of language ability.

Bachman’s framework of language ability seems complex and difficult to understand in

relation to other frameworks. But it is so impressive more broad to widen readers’

understanding of the level to which we teach, learn and assess learners’ langue performance.

The diagrammatic illustration bellow (fig 1.2) could make the difficulties of understanding the

model more comprehensible.

10

Figure- 5.2: Bachman’s Framework of Communicative Language Ability (CLA)

Communicative Language Ablity (CLA)

Language Competence

Organizational Competence

Gramatical Competence

Textual Competence

Pragmatic Competence

Illoctionary Competence

Sociolinguistic Competence

Strategic Competence Psychophysiological

Mechanisms

11

5.3 Common European Framework Model

The CEF model is a recent trend meant for language learning, teaching and assessment. The

document describes common bases for elaboration of curriculum guides, syllabus,

examination, textbooks and other instructional practices across Europe. The model describes

what learners have to learn in order to use a language for interaction, and what language and

skills they have to develop so as to be able to act effectively. The model also defines levels of

proficiency which allows learners’ progress to be measured at each stages of learning on

lifelong bases. CEF model subsumes three genres of competences: linguistic, sociolinguistic

and pragmatics (CEF, 2001). Linguistic competence in CEF model refers to learners’ ability

to use language items for communicative purposes. It stresses on mastery of phonology,

morphology, semantics, lexis, grammar, orthographic and orthoepic competences (CEF,

2001).

Sociolinguistic competence on the other hand refers to the control of intrinsic wills and skills

for appropriate language use in various socio-cultural contexts. The model focuses on some

comprehensive aspects of competences as politeness conventions; markers of social relations

between generations; interpretation and expression of flock wisdom, register variation,

dialects and accentuates. Sociolinguistic competence has strong zeal to affect all interaction

among representatives of diverse cultures, though participants may often be unaware of its

influence.

Pragmatic competence in Common European Framework (CEF) model subsumes three major

components: The functional uses of language resources, drawing on scenarios or scripts of

interactional exchanges; the mastery of discourse, cohesion and coherence, the identification

of text types and forms, irony and satire. Moreover, pragmatic competence also includes

planning competence which refers to logical and procedural sequence of messages in

accordance with interactional and transactional schema.

Strategic competence in Common European Framework (CEF) model is dedicated to the

discussion of communicative language use. The competence is conceived as strategy used in

the broadest sense. It is not only constrained and limited to schemes of maintaining

communication breakdown; but also on the use of comprehensive communication strategies.

As to Common European Framework model, the use of strategies can be compared with the

application of meta-cognitive principles on different forms of language activities: reception,

interaction, production and meditation. The diagram below provides précis explanation of the

model.

12

Figure-5.3: CEF Model of Communicative Language Competence (CLC)

To windup, the three communicative competence models discussed above though seem

different in many respects; all share language competence as common denominator for all

models. Moreover, the common goal of the models is to transverse a message to foreign

language practitioners including: planners, learners, teachers, testers and material writer to

align their pedagogical action in line with the proposed components of communicative

proficiency. But because of its simplicity and comprehensive nature, Canale & Swine’s

model have got extensive and wider popularity in the description of goals in language

learning, teaching, testing and research, even after the introduction of the most inclusive and

recent trends.

6. Conclusions

CLT is the most recent and extensively used foreign/second language pedagogy in many

parts of the world. In fact there are some the so called ‘recent language teaching approaches’

like Natural approach, Task based approach, Language emersion, lexical approaches, content

based approach, cooperative language learning approach which emerged in post CLT. Even

the so called ‘post method conditions’ were introduced science the 2000. However, all the

methods were explicitly relied on CLT approach. I mean some of the approaches were not

even widely used as EFL/ESL language instruction; while, others were not complete

language teaching approaches (lexical approach). But CLT served as a backbone for all of

these EFL/ESL approaches. The goal for CLT as has been indicated in the earlier discussion

is the promotion of learners’ communicative competence. Here, the competences were

Communicative

Competences

Linguistic

Competence Sociolinguistic

competence Pragmatic

Competence

Discourse Competence

Functional

Competence

Design Competence

13

stratified in to diverse categories on the bases of diverse models: Canale & Swine model,

Bachman model and Common European Framework models. Thus EFL/ESL curriculum

planners, teachers, testers and learners must consider these models and their respective

subsectors in running pedagogical practices in their specific contexts. The whole practice of

language teaching directly based on the communicative competence subsectors. Thus as the

comprehensive communicative competence cannot be attained in the absence of one of the

communicative subsectors, the practitioners must pay due attention to each of the competence

subsectors.

7. References

Bachman, L.(1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brown, H. (2007). Principles of Language learning and Teaching (5th ed.). Longman: Person Education.

Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In R. JC, & S. RW, Language and Communication (pp. 1-47). London: Longman.

Canale, M., & Swian, D. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics(1), 1-47.

CEF.(2001). Common Europian Framework of Reference for Langauages:Learning,Teaching and Assisment. Cambridge: CUP. Retrieved April 20, 2014, from Council of Europe: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf

Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Language and communication: A time for equilibrium and. (J.E.Austic(ed), Ed.) ELT, 223-237.

Farell, S. T., & Jacobs, M. G. (2011). Essentials for Successful English Language Teachng. NewYork: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2007). Language Testing and Assessment . London & New York: Routledge.

Hiep, H. H. (2007, July 3). Communicative language teaching: unity with in the diversity. ELT Journal, 61, 193-201.

Hymes, D. (1971). 'Competence and performance in linguiastic theory'. In R.Huxley, & E.Ingram, Language Acqusition:Models and Methods (pp. 3-28). London: Accademic press.

Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative Competence. (P. J., & H. J., Eds.) Penguin: Harmonthworth.

Mehmet, S. B. (2006). Teachers' Perceptions of CLT In Turkish EFL Setting:Theory Vs Practice. Un published M.A.Theses. Adana.

Nunan. D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston,MA: Heinle & Heinle. Pawley, A., & Syder, F. (1983). Two pazzels for linguistic theory: Native like selection and

native like fluency. In J. Richards, & R.Schmidt, Language and communication (pp. 191-226). London: Longman.

Richards, C. J. (2006). Communicative Language Today. Cambridge: Cambridge Universty press.

Richards, J. (1985a). Planning for proficiency. Prospects 1,2. Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd

ed.). Oford: Oxford University press. Savignon, J. (2002). Interprating CLT:Context and concerns in teacher education. London:

Yale University Press. Savignon, S. (1972). Communicative Competence: An experment in Foreign language

teaching. Philadelphia: The Center For Curriculum Development, Inc.

14

Stern, H.(1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford Uiversity Press.

Tylor, D. (1988). The meaning and use of the term competence in linguistics and applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 9, 148-169.

Widdowson, H. (1983). Learning Purpouse and Language Use. Oxford: Oxford Univrsity Press.

***************************************

Ebissa Bekele Abate received his MA [TEFL] in 2012 from Adama Science and Technology University [ASTU], Ethiopia. He taught EFL at Nekemte Poly Technique College, Wollega, Ethiopia from 2004-2010. He also served in Federal Government Communication Affairs (FGCAO) as Media Expert (2012-2014). Currently, he is doing his PhD (ELT) at Osmania University, Hyderabad, Telengana State, India, with his research focusing on teaching Practices.