Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE IN LANGUAGE TEACHING (1.2) (Interpretations of…
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE IN LANGUAGE TEACHING (1.2)
Pressures in the marketplace, on the political front, and in society at large work along with dissatisfaction with the old ways to effect changes that, given the proper leadership and encouragement, result in the redefinition of methods and goals.
Teaching always has been and always will be as much art as it is science. That this is so, however, should not deter us from elaborating methods, systematically trying them out, and judging the results.
The temptation has been to look for theoretical developments as the basis for new methodologies, which are then defined, tested, and refined to meet program goals.
The development of the concept of communicative competence as it relates to language teaching can be traced to two sources, one theoretical, the other practical.
It looks at language not as individual behavior but as one of many symbolic systems that members of a society use for communication among themselves
Theoretical issues
Language as social behavior
In the mid-twentieth century, linguist Noam Chomsky directed linguis- tic studies away from structuralist concerns with procedures for isolating phonemes and morphemes in linguistic descriptions.
structural linguists like Bloomfield (1933) and others had focused on "surface" features of phonology and morphology, Chomsky concerned himself with "'deep" semantic structures, or the way in which sentences are understood.
Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech community, who knows its language and is unaffected by such gramatically irrelevant conditions
It was the concern with meaning that led the anthropologist and linguist Dell Hymes to take issue with the formulation of linguistic competence proposed by Chomsky.
In opposition to Chomsky's view of the "ideal speaker-listener" as a nonexistent abstraction, Hymes looks at the real speaker-listener in that feature of language of which Chomsky gives no account: social interaction.
Part of a theory of communicative competence
The linguist's problem is to explain how a child comes rapidly to be able to produce and understand (in principle) any and all of the grammatical sentences of a language
We then have to account for the fact that a normal child acquires knowledge of sentences not only as grammatical but also as appropriate.
Divides linguistic theory into two parts: linguistic competence and linguistic performance.
Members of a community will behave and interpret the behavior of others according to the knowledge of the communicative systems they have available to them. This knowledge includes, but is not limited to, the formal possibilities of the linguistic code.
The grammatical factor is one among several which affect communicative competence." An adequate theory of competence must be sufficiently general to account for all forms of communication.
Functions of language
The work of british linguist M.A.K Halliday adds another perspective to the elaboration of a theory of communicative competence, that of the functions of language
context of situation was first used by bronislaw malinowski (1923, 1935) an anthropologist who worked with primitive languages and problems of meaning equivalence in translation
firth a british historian-turned-linguist who subsequently used the term to idetify those environmental features- the people, their behavior, the objects involved, the words used, and so forth that are relevant to the interpretation of a particular communicative act.
Firth and Malinowski differed in their use of the term, however, and these differences are reflected in current sociolinguistic views. Malinowski used the term context of situation only in relation to primitive languages; Firth viewed it as part of a more general linguistic theory.
Halliday and Hymes are concerned with language in a social setting, Halliday goes even further than Hymes in his rejection of Chomsky's distinction between competence and performance. Whereas Hymes redefines competence to include ability for use, Halliday rejects the distinction itself as either unnecessary or misleading
A language function has to do with what is said as opposed to how something is said. Language is used for an infinite number of purposes
Classroom issues
While philosophers, linguists, and anthropologists have explored theoretical models of the relationship between communication and language, language teaching methodologists have pursued the development of strategies that respond in their own way to the distinction between language form and language function.
Institutes concerned with foreign languages were established according to the general language proficiency of the participants; Level 1 represented the top level, and Level 4 was for those whose skill was virtually nonexistent
This development has been led by teachers, curriculum coordinators, and learners who have sought to make communication not only a stated goal but an attained goal of L2 programs.
Audiolingual Methods
Regardless of level, all language institutes shared a core program in applied linguistics
Existing grammar-translation and reading methods of L2 teaching were described as rusty old keys that had been replaced by a new, scientific method based on the structural analysis of spoken language.
A daily seminar introduced concepts, such as phonemes, allophones, morphemes, and allomorphs, on which this analysis was built.
Audiolingual Materials
The teacher's manual directed teachers to "insist on normal speed and high quality intonation and pronunciation at all times" learners were not to look at written material of any kind.
Participants sat in a semicircle and repeated after me both as a group and individually. Repeating sounds, words, groups of words, and finally entire utterances, everyone in the class tried to imitate my pronunciation and pattern of intonation
although the method itself was not the direct result of linguistic theory, its advocates sought support from structural linguistics.
This approach included comparison of the structures of the L2 with those of the L1 to reveal the problems that would be encountered by the learner. . Mimicry and memorization were considered the most efficient route to L2 use.
Language behavior is not a matter of solving problems but of performing habits so well learned that they are automatic
Interpretations of communicative competence
Since the introduction of the term communicative competence into the lan- guage teaching literature there have been numerous interpretations of its meaning
Methodologists have tended to focus on one or another facet of what can best be called a philosophy of language rather than a method, The term has become even more confused through its use to describe methodologies that have remained essentially audiolingual in practice.
Without attempting to survey many interpretations that have been lent to communicative competence in the writings of language teaching methodologists, it seems useful for of charting a course for the future development of communicative language teaching to identify those interpretations that have had a widely felt influence on our present understanding of the concept.
An alternative view is that grammar should not be the initial focus at all, One first learns how to convey meaning, how to participate in speech events
The experience of communication may lead, in turn, to a structural or functional analysis of the language, but this experience is not dependent on prior analysis.
From Surface Structure to Meaning
She points out that many "communica- tive activities" in language classrooms, though they provide useful practice in the manipulation of linguistic forms, are devoid of "social meaning" in the sense that they are not an accurate reflection of L2 culture.
Role playing that is culturally situated may be useful in developing communicative competence only if the teacher gives attention to the appropriateness in the second culture of alternative responses
Communicative competence, as Paulston defines it, is not a necessary goal of every language program. In her words, "It is valid to ask how much communicative competence one needs to teach in foreign language teaching"
Paulston's concern for cultural context strikes a proper note of caution in a discussion of the implications of the concept of communicative competence for L2 programs
All language is interpreted in a social frameroork of some kind, even if it is only "French for the classroom" or "Spanish for pattern practice."
Within a classroom context, for example, the meaning of a particular utterance may be no more than the demonstration of formal accuracy to earn A on a test.
The meaning, whatever it might be, depends on a common understanding among the participants involved in a given transaction. This understanding will grow from shared experiences
Teachers, too, whether they are native or nonnative speakers of the language they are teaching, move toward the learners and come to understand them.
Almost half the English speakers in the world, for example, are nonnative speakers who use varieties of English in a world context. These varieties have distinctive linguistic, sociolin- guistic, and communicative features.
From meaning to surface structure
Classroom goals of communicative competence are considered met when learners are provided with systematic practice in the use of structures and vocabulary that have been previously introduced and drilled.
For Widdowson the initial focus of 12 study must be the interpretation of discourse: The learner's task is one which involves acquiring a communicative competence in the language, that is to say, an ability to interpret discourse emphasis added in both places whether the emphasis is on productive or receptive behavior"
Although the acknowledged aim of all language instruction is the acquisition of communicative competence, the traditional focus has been on linguistic skills, which do not in and of themselves ensure the acquisition of communicative abilities.
Linguistic skills and communicative abilities, or usage and use, should never be treated in isolation from each other. As Widdowson puts it, "What the learner needs to know how to do is to compose in the act of writing, comprehend in the act of reading, and to learn techniques of reading by writing and techniques of writing by reading"
Learners will initially acquire vocabulary and then use it creatively to convey their meaning. the vocabulary and structures they use will come from experiences in interpreting meaning in both spoken and written discourse
Specificacion of context
The third general perspective in communicative language teaching has to do not with the learning process itself but with the selection of the language to which the learner is exposed
Grammar-based textbooks often pursue a paradigm for the sake of completeness, regardless of its usefuness for the communicative needs of the learner.
As Wilkins has pointed out, "One danger in basing a course on a system- atic presentation of the elements of linguistic structure is that forms will tend to be taught because they are there, rather than for the value which they have for the learner"
Wilkins defines a notional syllabus as "any strategy of language teaching [emphasis added] that derives the context of learn- ing from an initial analysis of the learners need to express such meanings
Communicative function, or social purpose, determines the notional, or semantic, features of an utterance. Its focus is the identification of contexts and topics of communication as a basis for syllabus design.