Doctoral Dissertation
The Conceptualization of Communicative Competence in Secondary EFL Classrooms in Hungary
Andrea Juhász
Supervisor: Kata Csizér, PhD, habil.
Eötvös Loránd University Faculty of Education and Psychology
Doctoral Dissertation
Andrea Juhász
The Conceptualization of Communicative Competence in Secondary EFL Classrooms in Hungary
Doctoral School of Education
Head of the doctoral school: Éva Szabolcs, DSc
Language pedagogy PhD programme
Head of the doctoral programme: Krisztina Károly, PhD, habil.
Members of the doctoral defence committee:
Chair: Péter Medgyes, DSc Opponents: Melinda Edwards, PhD
Judit Sárvári, PhD Secretary: Gyula Tankó, PhD
Members: Dorottya Holló, PhD, habil.
Vilmos Vass, PhD Jasmina Sazdovska, PhD
Supervisor: Kata Csizér, PhD, habil.
Budapest, 2015
Abstract
The aim of the present research study was to explore the way communicative competence is conceptualized in the teaching and learning process in secondary EFL classrooms in Hungary. Empirical data was gathered from various sources: the analysis of intermediate EFL coursebooks, in-depth semi-structured interviews with a group of EFL teachers (N=6) and a questionnaire study with secondary school students (N=212) to gain a comprehensive picture of the construct. The results of the research indicated that (a) both teachers and students gave preference to the spoken aspects of communicative competence, (b) there was a certain mismatch between teachers’ and students’ expectations and the content of coursebooks, and (c) it was possible to prepare students for language exams and teach communicatively at the same time. The findings have implications for teachers, students, coursebook writers and other policy makers in the field of EFL teaching.
Table of contents
Acknowledgements ... 4
List of tables ... 5
List of figures ... 6
1 Introduction ... 7
1.1 Background and rationale ... 7
1.2 Aims of the study ... 8
1.3 Overview of the dissertation ... 9
2 Review of the literature ... 11
2.1 The emergence of the concept of communicative competence ... 12
2.2 The multi-dimensional perspective ... 14
2.3 The cognitive aspect ... 16
2.4 The added pedagogical dimension ... 18
2.4.1 Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrell’s (1995) framework for communicative competence ... 19
2.4.2 Terminological differences between Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrell’s (1995) model and previous frameworks ... 23
2.4.3 New theoretical aspects ... 24
3 Empirical background ... 27
3.1 Individual components of communicative competence ... 28
3.1.1 Strategic competence ... 28
3.1.2 Pragmatic competence ... 31
3.1.3 Actional (functional) competence ... 34
3.1.4 Sociocultural competence ... 40
3.1.5 Competences in comparison ... 42
3.2 Teachers’ perception of communicative competence ... 43
3.3 Coursebooks and other materials ... 46
3.4 Rethinking existing communicative competence theories... 49
3.5 Computer-based intervention studies... 50
3.6 Multilingualism ... 51
3.7 Limitations of earlier research ... 52
4 Research methods ... 54
4.1 Research aims and research questions ... 54
4.2 Research design ... 55
4.3 Overview of data sources and methods of analysis ... 55
4.4 Participants and materials ... 57
4.4.1 Coursebooks ... 57
4.4.2 Teachers ... 57
4.4.3 Students ... 58
4.5 Instruments... 61
4.5.1 Interview schedule ... 61
4.5.2 Questionnaire ... 65
4.6 Data collection and data analysis ... 74
4.6.1 Coursebook analysis ... 74
4.6.2 Interview study ... 77
4.6.3 Questionnaire study ... 78
4.7 Quality criteria in the research project ... 79
4.8 Limitations of the research design ... 80
5 Coursebook analysis: Results and discussion ... 82
5.1 Description of coursebooks ... 83
5.1.1 New English File ... 83
5.1.2 New Headway (3rd edition) ... 85
5.1.3 Solutions ... 86
5.2 Types of language practice ... 88
5.3 Distribution of the components of communicative competence ... 94
5.3.1 The proportion of activities definitely developing the components of communicative competence ... 94
5.3.2 The global proportion of activities developing the components of communicative competence ... 97
5.4 Summary of the findings... 99
5.5 Limitations of the coursebook analysis ... 102
6 The teachers’ perspective: Results and discussion of the interview study... 103
6.1 Research context ... 104
6.1.1 Teacher participants ... 104
6.1.2 Schools ... 107
6.2 The development of the components of communicative competence ... 108
6.2.1 Teachers’ preferences for the components of communicative competence ... 109
6.2.2 Teachers’ preferences synthesized ... 115
6.2.3 The evaluation of individual components ... 116
6.2.4 Summary of the interview data on the components of communicative competence ... 124
6.3 Issues in ELT methodology from a communicative perspective ... 126
6.3.1 Skills development ... 126
6.3.2 Vocabulary building ... 133
6.3.3 Teaching grammar ... 134
6.3.4 The use of L1 in the EFL classroom ... 135
6.3.5 Error correction and feedback ... 137
6.4 Disposition towards coursebooks ... 141
6.5 Summary of the findings... 142
6.6 Limitations of the interview study ... 145
7 The students’ perspective: Results and discussion of the questionnaire study 146
7.1 Results of the questionnaire study ... 147
7.1.1 Reliability indices of the scales ... 147
7.1.2 Descriptive statistics... 152
7.1.3 Correlations among the scales ... 160
7.2 Summary of the results ... 164
7.3 Limitations of the questionnaire study... 165
8 Conclusion... 168
8.1 Summary of findings ... 168
8.1.1 Q1 How do the components of communicative competence emerge in intermediate EFL coursebooks widely used in Hungarian secondary schools? ... 168
8.1.2 Q2 How do secondary school EFL teachers aim to develop their learners’ communicative competence? ... 169
8.1.3 Q3 What importance do intermediate Hungarian secondary school EFL learners attach to the components of communicative competence? ... 171
8.1.4 Synthesis of the findings ... 172
8.2 Pedagogical implications ... 173
8.3 Limitations ... 175
8.4 Directions for future research ... 176
References ... 177
Appendix A: Initial interview schedule (Hungarian) ... 190
Appendix B: Initial interview schedule (English) ... 191
Appendix C: Final interview schedule (Hungarian) ... 192
Appendix D: Final interview schedule (English) ... 194
Appendix E: Classroom observation sheet... 196
Appendix F: List of coursebooks and supplementary materials evaluated in the coursebook analysis ... 198
Appendix G: Initial version of the questionnaire (Hungarian) ... 199
Appendix H: Initial version of the questionnaire (English)... 203
Appendix I: Final version of the questionnaire (Hungarian) ... 207
Appendix J: Final version of the questionnaire (English) ... 210
Appendix K: Quotes from the interviews cited in the dissertation (Hungarian) . 213
Acknowledgements
My warmest and heartfelt thanks go to my supervisor, Kata Csizér, for her constant guidance, patience, and confidence in me throughout the research. Without her constructive feedback and sense of humour, writing this dissertation would have been unattainable.
I am also grateful to my tutors in the PhD program, who helped and supported me in various ways at different stages of the research. I would also like to thank the members of the Dissertation Proposal Committee, Dorottya Holló, Krisztina Károly and Péter Medgyes, for their invaluable feedback.
Special thanks go to the students and the teachers who were willing to participate in this study for their precious time and energy.
On a personal level, I would like to thank my good friend, Niki Montgomery, for her invaluable remarks on the wording of the dissertation. I am also indebted to my family who provided tremendous help by looking after my children. Above all, I would also like to thank my husband who encouraged me and persevered with me through the ups and downs of the research, and who was always willing to provide another cup of coffee.
List of tables
Table 1 Overview of Bachman’s (1990) framework for communicative language ability (based on Bachman, 1996, pp. 84-104)
Table 2 Overview of Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrel’s framework of communicative competence (based on Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei &
Thurrell, 1995, pp. 9-29)
Table 3 Methods of data collection and data analysis in relation to the research questions
Table 4 The distribution of the first (L2), second (L3) and third (L4) foreign languages learnt
Table 5 Internal reliability coefficients in the pilot study
Table 6 The proportion of types of practice in the three evaluated units of the coursebook series (number of tasks and percentages)
Table 7 Summary of teacher participants’ biographical data
Table 8 Teacher participants’ order of preference for the components of communicative competence
Table 9 Internal reliability coefficients and the number of components extracted before the application of correction methods in the main study
Table 10 Internal reliability coefficients and the number of components extracted after the application of correction methods in the main study
Table 11 Final scales of the communicative competence components Table 12 Mean and standard deviation values of the scales
Table 13 The results of paired samples t-tests between the communicative competence scales
Table 14 Significant correlations between the components of communicative competence and the contact variables
List of figures
Figure 1 Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrel’s dynamic model of communicative competence (based on Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei & Thurrell, 1995, p. 10) Figure 2 The number of students of different ages in the sample investigated in
the questionnaire study
Figure 3 Sample table on the results of the different types of practices in the New English File intermediate coursebook
Figure 4 The proportion of activities dedicated to the development of the components of communicative competence in the ‘definitely developing communicative competence’ category in the three evaluated units
Figure 5 The global proportion of activities dedicated to the development of the components of communicative competence in the three evaluated units Figure 6 Synthesis of teachers’ orders of preferences
Figure 7 Rank order of the perceived importance of the components of communicative competence
Figure 8 Comparison of the mean values of communicative competence scales with reference to male and female participants
Figure 9 Comparison of the mean values of communicative competence scales with reference to English as a first (L2) and second (L3) foreign language
1 Introduction
1.1 Background and rationale
Foreign language communicative competence has always been a thoroughly researched area in the field of English language teaching (ELT), and a great deal of attention has been paid to its development in both English as a second (ESL) and foreign language (EFL) classrooms (Alami, 2014; Alibakshi & Padiz, 2011; Beebe, Takahashi & Ullis-Weltz, 1990; Zha, Kelly, Park & Fitzgerald, 2006). In spite of the abundance of research on the development of certain facets of communicative competence, such as pragmatic, sociocultural or strategic competence (Bardovi-Harlig
& Hartford, 1990; Boxer & Pickering, 1995; Dörnyei, 1995; Dörnyei & Thurrell, 1991;
Faerch & Kasper, 1989; Olshtain & Blum-Kulka, 1985), other aspects, as important as they might be, have not been given sufficient attention.
Studies exploring discourse competence, for instance, have been few and far between (Jalilifar, 2010; Kathpalia & Carmel, 2011; Nunan, 1985). Additionally, hardly any research projects have been undertaken to perform a comprehensive examination of communicative competence in the foreign language classroom (Nazari, 2007; Szenes, 2006). Equally few empirical studies have investigated the way EFL coursebooks attended to the development of communicative competence (Richards, 2005; Gómez- Rodriguez, 2010; Koran, 2015). Likewise, the investigation of teachers’ perception on this issue has also been a neglected research area (Nazari, 2006; Nishino, 2007; Szenes, 2006). Therefore, the need to add new dimensions to previously conducted research is substantial.
1.2 Aims of the study
The present dissertation aims to fill the void indicated above by presenting a comprehensive picture of the concept of communicative competence. Different approaches to the construct, i.e., those of the student, the teacher, and the coursebook have been investigated to explore the way communicative competence is addressed in EFL classrooms in schools of secondary education in Hungary.
The scope of this research project is the investigation of the way communicative competence is conceptualized in the teaching and learning process. Within this broader scope, the following research questions have been formulated:
Q1 How do the components of communicative competence emerge in intermediate EFL coursebooks widely used in Hungarian secondary schools?
Q2 How do secondary school EFL teachers aim to develop their learners’
communicative competence?
Q3 What importance do intermediate level Hungarian secondary school EFL learners attach to the components of communicative competence?
To answer these research questions, different sources of data were collected and analysed. First, EFL coursebooks were subjected to examination, with special emphasis on the way they aim to develop communicative competence, and the proportion and nature of the tasks they dedicate to its distinct components. Second, in-depth interviews were conducted with EFL teachers to explore their beliefs on developing communicative competence. Third, a questionnaire study was conducted to tap into students’ attitudes to the components of communicative competence.
1.3 Overview of the dissertation
Following the introduction, Chapter 2 outlines the theoretical background relevant to the study. The first part of the chapter describes the evolution of communicative competence since it was first proposed by American anthropologist Dell Hymes in 1971. After a brief description of the most important interpretations of the term, the second part of Chapter 2 elaborates on the theoretical framework of chosen for the present research project: the communicative competence model of Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrell (1995).
Chapter 3 reviews the most important findings of previous empirical research conducted in the field of second or foreign language communicative competence. The limitations and problematic issues of previous research studies are addressed, highlighting the research niche that called for conducting the present study.
Chapter 4 presents the research design and methodology used in the current project. The description of the participants is followed by a detailed account of the planning and piloting of the research instruments, i.e., the interview schedule and the questionnaire. Quality criteria and steps of quality assurance are also discussed, together with the limitations of the research design.
Chapter 5, 6 and 7 evaluates the results of the study. Chapter 5 contains the findings of the comprehensive analysis of the intermediate edition of three EFL coursebook series. Chapter 6 discusses the results of the interview study with six Hungarian secondary EFL teachers. Chapter 7 evaluates the results of the questionnaire survey with a group (N=212) of Hungarian secondary school students on the importance they attach to the components of communicative competence and the variables affecting their opinions.
The conclusions of the current research results are summarized in Chapter 8, with an emphasis on providing answers to the main research questions the present research set out to explore. Pedagogical implications as well as the limitations of the study are also considered. Finally, directions for further research are indicated.
2 Review of the literature
Owing to its complexity, the understanding of communicative competence has undergone considerable change since the appearance of the term and has been influenced by such disciplines as psychology, sociology and pedagogy. Most definitions, though, agree that communicative competence involves one’s linguistic skills as well as social knowledge about what, when and how to say in certain situations. Nevertheless, since the term was used slightly differently by various scholars, it is necessary to examine it in more depth.
As communicative competence is a multifaceted construct, not surprisingly, it has been described by researchers in several ways, everyone putting the emphasis on a different aspect. Hedge (2000), for instance, forms her definition on the basis of the term ‘authenticity’, defining communicative competence as a concept which “sets out to involve learners in purposeful tasks which are embedded in meaningful contexts and which reflect and rehearse language as it is used authentically in the world outside the classroom” (p.71).
This section of the dissertation aims to describe the evolution of the term communicative competence since it was first proposed by Dell Hymes (1971), guiding the way through Canale and Swain’s multi-dimensional model (1980) and Bachman’s cognitive model (1990) to Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrel’s pedagogically motivated framework1 (1995). After a brief description of the first three interpretations,
1 The words model and framework are used as synonyms in the dissertation
Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrel’s model, chosen as the theoretical framework for the current project, is discussed in more detail.
2.1 The emergence of the concept of communicative competence
As it was mentioned above, the term communicative competence was suggested by the American socio-linguist Dell Hymes in 1971. Hymes first aimed at extending a major contemporary linguist’s, Chomsky’s (1965) definition of the term competence, claiming that learning a language should entail more than the simple memorization and application of grammatical rules. Hymes pointed out that Chomsky’s distinction between competence and performance was superficial; it cannot be applied to properly describe linguistic behaviour. According to Chomsky,
Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener in a completely homogeneous speech community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitation distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual performance. (1965, p.3)
Hymes, though, also called attention to the fact that Chomsky’s theory only considered homogeneous speech communities, thus excluding sociocultural factors that also largely affect language acquisition and learning.
As opposed to Chomsky’s theory, Hymes brought the individual, not the communicative system, into focus. In Hymes’s words, “It cannot be assumed that the formal possibilities of a system and individual knowledge are identical. … I should take competence as the most general term for the capabilities of a person” (1972, p.282).
Hornberger agrees with Hymes in defining communicative competence as “by definition variable within individuals, across individuals and across speech
communities, and includes rules of use as well as rules of grammar” (Hornberger, 1989, p.216). It is clearly demonstrated in these quotes that what Hymes wanted to emphasize were the individual speaker’s underlying knowledge and the understanding of patterns of use.
In his model, Hymes made a clear-cut distinction between two kinds of competence. The first, linguistic competence, concerns the production and understanding of grammatically correct utterances, whereas the second, communicative competence, involves what is appropriate or acceptable to say in a particular situation.
He incorporated the twin notions of knowledge and ability into his definition of communicative competence, defining them as the “knowledge as to when to speak, when not, and as to what to talk about with whom, what, where and in what manner…
and the ability to accomplish a repertoire of speech acts, to take part in speech events, and to evaluate their accomplishment by others” (Hymes, 1972, p.277).
Hymes’s framework, described in detail in his pioneering work On Communicative Competence (1972), consists of four components, possibility, feasibility, appropriateness and occurrence, which he interpreted in the following way (Hymes, 1972, p.284).
possibility: the extent to which something is possible within the individual’s linguistic system and grammatical knowledge
feasibility: what is achievable within the psycholinguistic capacity of the individual
appropriateness: to what extent something can be considered appropriate or acceptable in a particular communicative situation
occurrence: to what degree something is actually done
As significant as Hymes’s definition of communicative competence was, some of its elements were challenged by several academics. Cazden (2011), for instance, refuted Hymes’s own parallelism between Chomsky’s grammaticality and his appropriateness.
She also claimed that both grammaticality and appropriateness, being “evaluative terms” (Cazden, 2011, p.367) needed criteria for distinction, which both linguists failed to provide. However, in spite of the contradictions, Hymes’s framework proved to be a milestone in speaking about linguistic behaviour, and served as a basis for subsequent, more elaborate communicative competence models.
2.2 The multi-dimensional perspective
In the 1980s, Canale and Swain published influential studies in the conceptualization of communicative competence (Canale & Swain, 1980; Canale, 1983), defining it in terms of three components, linguistic, sociolinguistic and strategic competence. The authors defined communication and communicative competence as concepts “to be based in sociocultural, interpersonal interaction, to involve unpredictability and creativity, to take place in a discourse and sociocultural context … to be carried out under performance constraints, to involve use of authentic language, and to be judged as successful or not on the basis of behavioural outcomes” (Canale &
Swain, 1980, p.29). A few years later, Canale proposed a reconsidered framework in which a fourth component, discourse competence, was added to the previous ones (Canale, 1983).
As the authors perceived it, communicative competence entails the following dimensions:
grammatical competence: the mastery of lexical items and rules of morphology, syntax, semantics and phonology in order to be able to form utterances
sociolinguistic competence: the mastery of sociocultural rules of use and rules for discourse
strategic competence: verbal or non-verbal communication strategies that may be taken advantage of to compensate for breakdowns in communication due to insufficient language proficiency, unsatisfactory competence, or performance variables
discourse competence: the ability to combine linguistic structures into larger, meaningful units, i.e., creating cohesive and coherent texts
As Hornberger (1989) pointed out, Canale’s (1983) model relied strongly on Hymes’s (1971) framework of communicative competence and overemphasized the importance of the appropriateness factor. Also, this model did not include linguistic functions, regardless of the pivotal role they hold in communicative language teaching.
In spite of its shortcomings, Canale’s framework was the first to call attention to the importance of communication in language teaching, thus shifting the focus onto more practical aspects over theoretical ones. However, the scope of the distinct components of the model was still in need of elaboration.
2.3 The cognitive aspect
The model proposed by Bachman in 1990 referred to communicative competence as communicative language ability, describing it as “consisting of both knowledge, or competence, and the capacity for implementing, or executing that competence in appropriate, contextualized communicative language use” (Bachman, 1990, p.84). His framework of communicative language ability, which was constructed on the basis of extensive language testing research, included three principal components: language competence, strategic competence and psychophysiological mechanisms. For an overview of the model, see Table 1.
Table 1 Overview of Bachman’s (1990) framework for communicative language ability (based on Bachman, 1996, pp. 84-104)
COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE ABILITY
LANGUAGE COMPETENCE
STRATEGIC COMPETENCE
PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL MECHANISMS
ORGANIZATIONAL COMPETENCE PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE
TEXTUAL COMPETENCE
ILLOCUTIONARY COMPETENCE
SOCIOLINGUISTIC COMPETENCE
phonology and graphology
morphology
syntax
vocabulary
cohesion
rhetoric
ideational functions
manipulative functions
heuristic functions
imaginative functions
dialects and varieties
registers
natural or idiomatic expressions
cultural references
assessment
planning
execution
The first constituent, language competence, was defined as “a set of specific knowledge components that are utilized in communication via language” (Bachman, 1990, p. 84). Language competence was further divided into two subcategories, organizational and pragmatic competence. Organizational competence includes grammatical competence, i.e., the knowledge of grammatical rules and items of
vocabulary, and textual competence, i.e., the ability to combine linguistic structures into cohesive and coherent texts. The second subcomponent, pragmatic competence, involves illocutionary competence, i.e., how utterances relate to communicative goals, and sociolinguistic competence, i.e., how utterances are associated with the characteristics of the context of communication.
The second component, strategic competence, was described as the relationship between linguistic competence and the situation in which the communication occurs.
The third main constituent of the model, psychophysiological mechanisms, was defined as the underlying neurological and psychological processes of the communicative action (Bachman, 1990).
Bachman and Palmer constructed a revised framework for communicative competence, in which they replaced the term competence with knowledge (Bachman &
Palmer, 1996). While two major components of the model, language competence and strategic competence, were left unchanged, psychophysiological mechanisms were not included in the framework. The scope of some of the subcategories was broadened or alternatively reduced; for instance, in the new model, pragmatic knowledge incorporated functional, sociolinguistic and lexical knowledge. Strategic competence was viewed as “a set of metacognitive components, or strategies, which can be thought of as higher order executive processes that provide a cognitive management function in language use, as well as in other cognitive activities” (Bachman & Palmer, 1996, p.70).
Bachman and Palmer’s revised model was undoubtedly one of the most elaborate frameworks. The components of the model roughly corresponded to the steps involved in the accomplishment of a communicative goal, i.e., using linguistic knowledge as a basis that is shaped by the communicative context and the underlying metacognitive processes. Nonetheless, despite its considerable merits in terms of applicability to
language teaching and testing, this model also failed to make a clear distinction between the illocutionary (or functional) component, described as knowledge, and the strategic component.
2.4 The added pedagogical dimension
As Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrell (1995) pointed out, it would be logical to presume that communicative language teaching (CLT) should be grounded covertly or overtly in some model of communicative competence. However, very little empirical data has been gathered to define the content of a communicative language syllabus.
Thus, a pedagogically motivated model was proposed by the researchers, emphasizing the fact that although communicative language teaching should mainly rely on a theoretical framework, “there has been no serious endeavour to generate detailed content specifications for CLT that relate directly to an articulated model of communicative competence” (Celce-Murcia et al., 1995, p. 5). They asserted that content specifications for a communicative syllabus were not linked with any comprehensive communicative competence framework.
The problem with previous models of communicative competence was their essentially theoretical nature, which made it difficult, if not impossible, to be taken as the basis of a communicative language teaching syllabus. Therefore, Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrell proposed a new theoretical model for communicative competence, giving detailed descriptions of the scope its components from a pedagogical perspective.
2.4.1 Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrell’s (1995) framework for communicative competence
Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrell’s (1995) model has five major components, which roughly correspond to the constituents of Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) revised framework. The central component of the model is discourse competence, in which
“the lexico-grammatical building blocks, the actional organizing skills of communicative intent, and the sociocultural context come together and shape the discourse, which, in turn, also shapes each of the other three components” (p. 9). These four constituents are interrelated, and influenced by the speaker’s strategic competence, i.e., their ability to counterbalance deficiencies in the communication process. The dynamic nature of the model is established by one- and two-way arrows; for further details see Figure 1.
Figure 1 Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrel’s dynamic model of communicative competence (based on Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei & Thurrell, 1995, p. 10)
The five components of the model are accurately defined by the authors, highlighting the differences from previous models and definitions (pp. 9-23).
discourse competence: the selection, sequencing, and arrangement of words, structures, sentences and utterances to achieve a unified spoken or written text
linguistic competence: the basic elements of communication (the sentence patterns and types, the constituent structure, the morphological inflections, and the lexical resources, as well as the phonological and orthographic systems needed to realize communication
actional competence: the competence in conveying and realizing communicative intent by performing and interpreting speech acts and speech act sets
sociocultural competence: the speaker’s knowledge of how to express messages appropriately within the overall social and cultural context of communication, in accordance with the pragmatic factors related to variation in language use
strategic competence: an inventory of skills that allows a strategically competent speaker to negotiate messages and resolve problems or to compensate for deficiencies in any of the other underlying competencies One considerable merit of this model is a very detailed and content-specific description of each of its component, with a particular emphasis on actional and sociolinguistic competences. Celce-Murcia et al. (1995) maintain that since every language learning situation is different, communicative competence as such is a rather relative and flexible construct. This statement is in accordance with Bern’s (1990) findings, who, five years earlier, claimed that there was a need for a framework that is
“sufficiently flexible to adapt to diverse contexts of language learning and use” (p.
169). However, the authors also stated that the different constituents of the model need further elaboration to be able to make it more fitting to language teaching. For more details and a comprehensive overview of the content specifications of the five components, see Table 2.
Table 2 Overview of Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrel’s framework of communicative competence (based on Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei & Thurrell, 1995, pp. 9-29)
DISCOURSE COMPETENCE LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE ACTIONAL COMPETENCE SOCIOCULTURAL
COMPETENCE STRATEGIC COMPETENCE
COHESION
cohesion
ellipsis
conjunction
lexical chains
DEIXIS
personal
spatial
temporal
textual
COHERENCE
content schemata
theme-rheme development
management of old and new information
propositional structures
temporal continuity
GENRE
CONVERSATIONAL STRUCTURE
openings / reopenings
topic establishment and change
holding and relinquishing the floor
interruption
backchannelling
preclosings / closings
adjacency pairs
SYNTAX
phrase structure
word order
sentence types
special constructions
modifiers / intensifiers
coordination / correlation
subordination
embedding
MORPHOLOGY
parts of speech
inflections
derivational processes
LEXICON
content and function words
fixed phrases
(semi-)formulaic chunks
collocations
idioms
PHONOLOGY
segmentals
supresegmentals
ORTHOGRAPHY
letters
phoneme-grapheme correspondence
spelling
mechanics and punctuation
LANGUAGE FUNCTIONS
interpersonal exchange (greetings, introductions, invitations, offers, making / breaking engagements, expressing gratitude, compliments, congratulating)
asking for / giving information
opinions [(dis)satisfaction (dis)agreeing, (dis)approving]
feelings
suasion (suggesting,
requesting, instructing, giving orders, advising, warning;
persuading, encouraging, discouraging; permissions)
problems (complaining, criticizing, admitting, denying, regretting, forgiving)
future scenarios (wishes, hopes, desires, plans, goals, intentions, promising;
predicting, speculating, discussing possibilities)
SPEECH ACTS
SOCIAL CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
participant variables (age, gender, etc.)
situational variables (time, place, social situation)
STYLISTIC APPROPRIATENESS FACTORS
politeness conventions and strategies
stylistic variation (degrees of formality, registers)
CULTURAL FACTORS
sociocultural background knowledge of the target language community
awareness of dialect or regional differences
cross-cultural awareness
NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATIVE FACTORS
kinesic factors (body language)
proxemic factors (use of space)
haptic factors (touching)
paralinguistic factors (nonvocal noises)
silence
AVOIDANCE / REDUCTION STRATEGIES
message replacement
topic avoidance
message abandonment
COMPENSATORY STRATEGIES
circumlocution
approximation
non-linguistic means
restructuring
word-coinage
literal translation from L1
foreignizing
code switching
retrieval
TIME-GAINING STRATEGIES
fillers
hesitation devices
self and other repetition
SELF-MONITORING STRATEGIES
self-initiated repair
self-rephrasing
INTERACTIONAL STRATEGIES
appeals for help
indicators of non-/mis- understanding
responses
comprehension checks
2.4.2 Terminological differences between Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrell’s (1995) model and previous frameworks
Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrell’s (1995) model takes Canale’s revised model (1983) and Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) framework as a starting point; however, there are certain terminological differences which need further discussion. Celce-Murcia et al. use the term linguistic competence, for instance, instead of the commonly accepted grammatical competence. The purpose of the introduction of the different technical term is to indicate that along with morphology and syntax, it also contains vocabulary, phonology and orthography.
The term actional competence replaces Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) previously used functional competence. According to the authors, the reason for this change reflects the different viewpoints of the two models. Whereas Bachman and Palmer’s model relies on Halliday’s (1973) concept of functional language use, Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrell’s pedagogical framework is based on Wilkins’s (1976) and van Ek’s (1977) descriptions of speech acts.
The last substantial variation occurs in the pragmatic-sociolinguistic dimension of communicative competence. Bachman (1983) uses the term pragmatic competence to refer to Canale’s sociocultural competence. Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrell, however, reflect on the assumption that pragmatic competence is a much broader term, including not only sociocultural competence, but actional (or, in Bachman’s model, functional) competence as well. Though the differences mentioned above might seem to be of little significance, it is essential to keep the various terms and their scope in mind.
2.4.3 New theoretical aspects
The first significant element of change was reflected in the description of the scope of linguistic competence, where Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrell (1995) intended to place emphasis on the importance of the so-called lexico-grammatical building blocks, or ‘formulaic constructions’ (Pawley, 1992), which should be an essential part of a speaker’s vocabulary. Widdowson, for example, described communicative competence as “a matter of knowing a stock of partially pre-assembled patterns, formulaic fireworks, and a kit of rules to make whatever adjustments are necessary according to contextual standards”, as opposed to being “a matter of knowing rules for the composition of sentences” (1989, p. 135). However, Celce-Murcia et al.
(1995) suggested that, owing to its complex nature, lexical knowledge could belong to more than one component of communicative competence. The systematic parts of the lexicon should be considered part of a speaker’s linguistic competence, whereas lexical phrases and expressions belonged to actional and discourse competences.
Considering actional and sociocultural competencies, Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrell (1995) highlight the importance of separating the actional dimension of communicative competence from the sociocultural factors within the broader concept of pragmatic competence. The authors claim that there are instances when effective actional performance is implemented without any sociocultural appropriacy, and the other way round; it is possible to be stylistically appropriate without achieving the expected illocutionary objective.
With regard to actional competence, an important limitation of Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrell’s (1995) model is that it only takes into account direct speech acts. Indirect speech acts, such as ‘You want to be back by 6 o’clock’, meaning ‘Be
back by 6 o’clock!’, are seldom included in ELT syllabuses, which might imply that the most frequent realization forms for all speech acts are the direct ones. However, Levinson (1983) draws attention to the fact that the majority of speech acts are commonly realized indirectly. Preston (1989), on the other hand, claims that non-native speakers of a language often face difficulties understanding such indirect speech acts and, as a result, tend to underuse them, even at high proficiency levels.
Furthermore, in connection with speech acts, Celce-Murcia et al. also point out that almost all data is elicited, not naturalistic data. They claim that “until authentic spontaneous speech acts are collected and analysed, it would be premature to apply the existing research findings uncritically” (p. 21). However, in the absence of more reliable research, the available data do provide useful insights into the acquisition of speech acts. Gathering empirical data on speakers’ spontaneous use of speech acts could be a possible direction of research in the future.
Concerning strategic competence, the researchers underline the importance of the future inclusion of explicit strategy training in language teaching syllabuses (Dörnyei &
Thurrell, 1991, 1992; Dörnyei, 1995). It is presumed that such strategy instruction raises learners’ awareness about the communicative potential of communication strategies, helps them to be more willing to take risks, presents them with linguistic devices to help them cope with breakdowns in communication, and provides opportunities to practice strategy use (p. 29). They admit that even though limiting the scope of strategic competence to the acquisition and use of communication strategies might be a relatively narrow interpretation, it is definitely worth introducing strategy training in the foreign language classroom.
I find Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrell’s (1995) model the most convincing and the one applicable to applied linguistics research and language teaching in general.
Not only does it emphasize the dynamic and interrelated nature of communicative competence, but it is also the first to place pedagogic aspects in the focus. Additionally, the specifications of the scope of its components also help to understand the complexity of communicative competence.
Accordingly, it was chosen as the underlying theoretical framework for the current research project. The research instruments, the interview schedule and the questionnaire, were both constructed on the basis of this model. Similarly, the categories for the coursebook analysis reflected the components of communicative competence as defined by the authors.
3 Empirical background
Unsurprisingly, there is no shortage of empirical research conducted in the area of foreign or second language communicative competence, on account of the complexity of the construct (Dörnyei & Thurrell, 1991; Boxer & Pickering, 1995; Bardovi-Harlig, Hartford, Mahan-Taylor, Morgan & Reynolds, 1998; Chang, 2010; Salemi, Rabiee &
Ketami, 2012). Several studies examined communicative competence from one specific perspective. Cai (2007), for instance, investigated the development of communicative competence through various means of cooperative learning techniques, others focused on the use of literature in the developmental process (Al Alami, 2014). There is also a fair number of studies focusing on either a distinct component, or the comparison of two components of communicative competence. However, not many studies look into teachers’ beliefs, perceptions and classroom practices, and there are even fewer that analyse coursebooks in terms of their potential to develop foreign language communicative competence.
The preceding chapter has provided a comprehensive account of the most significant theories and models of communicative competence, describing in detail the theoretical framework for the current research project. The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the most important empirical findings of the field, calling attention to the limitations of previous research.
3.1 Individual components of communicative competence
A good deal of research has been undertaken to explore and describe a distinct component of foreign language communicative competence, although the individual components are not addressed to the same extent. Strategic competence and the teachability of communication strategies has become a popular topic of interest, as well as the development of pragmatic competence and its sub-components, actional and sociocultural competence. Linguistic and discourse competence, however, have so far received insufficient attention.
3.1.1 Strategic competence
Empirical research into the development of strategic competence is generally based on the interpretation that it is “the ability to express oneself in the face of difficulties or limited language knowledge” (Dörnyei & Thurrell, 1991, p.16).
Likewise, Canale and Swain (1980) define strategic competence as a collection of
“verbal and non-verbal communication strategies that may be called into action to compensate for breakdowns in communication due to performance variables and to insufficient competence” (p.30). On the other hand, communication strategies can be explained in a narrow and a broader sense. Corder, in accordance with Canale and Swain (1980) and Faerch & Kasper (1983), defines communication strategies as “a systematic technique employed by a speaker to express his (or her) meaning when faced with some difficulty” (1981, p. 103). Canale (1983) and Tarone (1981), on the other hand, go a step further in giving a more comprehensive definition, claiming that communication strategies are not only a means of compensating for lacking competence, but also attempt to improve the efficacy of communication.
To bridge the gap between theory and practice, Dörnyei and Thurrell (1991) offer a wide array of language exercises to facilitate the development of strategic competence. The authors claim that the most neglected component of communicative competence by both coursebooks and, as a consequence, by teachers is strategic competence, making activities designed to include strategy training in actual language teaching few and far between. They propose strategy training activities, such as
‘nonsense dialogues’, for instance, where students have to compose short dialogues which consist of fillers, and only a limited number of content words, for example, names of cities, can be used (p. 19).
The teachability of communication strategies, though, has also been a controversial issue among researchers, some arguing for while others against the inclusion of strategy instruction in the ELT curricula and coursebooks. Kellerman, Ammerlaan, Bongaerts and Poulisse (1990) claim that there is no point in teaching communication strategies, since strategic competence develops in a speaker’s native language and can easily be transferred to target language use. Several studies (Bialystok, 1990; Kellerman et al., 1990; Kellerman, 1991; Canale & Swain, 1980) maintain that the emphasis should be placed on the teaching of the foreign language itself, not strategies. Kellerman’s remark “teach the learners more language and let the strategies look after themselves” (p. 158) perfectly reflects the opinion of the researchers who are against explicit strategy training, concluding that communication strategies are more easily acquired in real-life communication. Academics in favour of strategy instruction, on the other hand, insist that strategy training is indeed achievable and necessary, supported by empirical data gathered in several research studies (Elshirbini, 2011; Le Pichon, De Swart, Vorstman & Van Den Bergh, 2013; Lin, 2013;
Tarone, 1984; Willems, 1987).
The effects of integrating direct and indirect approaches in developing the strategic competence on a sample of Egyptian EFL learners in an experimental study were investigated by Elshirbini (2011). Considerable improvement was noticeable in the students’ speaking skills in the experimental group. The findings were in line with Dörnyei’s (1995) results, which demonstrated that both the quality and quantity of the use of communication strategies had a significant effect on students’ fluency, not only at higher, but also at lower proficiency levels. Alibakshi and Padiz (2011), who undertook a quasi-experimental study into the long-term effects of strategy training, added that the positive effects of teaching communication strategies were stable even after a long interval.
Moore (2006) investigated the strategies spontaneously developed by bi- and plurilingual children when they had to solve a task that required the comprehension of a text in a third language. The findings indicated that competence in two or more languages, and especially an increased linguistic awareness, might serve as resources to overcome communication breakdowns. The results confirmed the long-standing assumption that the metalinguistic abilities shown by bilingual children in approaching new languages facilitated further language learning (Bialystok, 2001; Cummins, 2000).
Personally, I share the viewpoint of the ones in favour of strategy instruction in the debate of whether foreign language strategy training is worth devoting time and energy to. Empirical evidence (Alibakshi & Padiz, 2011; Elshirbini, 2011) clearly shows that it does have a positive effect on the development of learners’ overall communicative competence. However, more empirical data is necessary in order to specify the ideal methods and content of such strategy training.
3.1.2 Pragmatic competence
It is commonly accepted that being able to communicate with native speakers appropriately and correctly is crucial (Boxer & Pickering, 1995). The importance of pragmatic competence, which is a comprehensive term covering actional and sociocultural competence, is indicated by the massive amount of research conducted into its development, either in its broader sense, or one of the two subcomponents separately.
As Bardovi-Harlig, Hartford, Mahan-Taylor, Morgan and Reynolds claim, Speakers who do not use pragmatically appropriate language run the risk of appearing unco-operative at the least, or more seriously, rude or insulting. This is particularly true of advanced learners whose high linguistic proficiency leads other speakers to expect concomitantly high pragmatic competence. (1996, p. 324)
The inconsistency between a language learner’s grammatical and pragmatic competence was also noted by Faerch & Kasper (1989), who stated that it is not uncommon for language learners to develop a high degree of grammatical competence in the absence of a similar degree of pragmatic competence. Olshtain and Blum-Kulka (1985) observed that pragmatic behaviours, such as apologizing, requesting or suggesting, are often developed late, if ever.
Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei (1998) investigated the extent to which L2 learners of English learning in a classroom environment are aware of differences in the speech production of non-native and native speakers in terms of grammar and pragmatics.
They collected empirical data from a sample (N=655) of ESL and ELF learners and their teachers to uncover whether the environment (ESL or EFL) or the learner’s proficiency level influence the degree of awareness. The results of the study revealed
that ESL learners considered pragmatic errors to be more serious than grammatical ones; EFL learners, on the contrary, classified grammatical errors as more serious than pragmatic errors. The same discrepancy was observed between the two samples of teachers, i.e., ESL and EFL teachers. Considering language proficiency, it was noted that higher levels of proficiency were associated with an increased awareness of errors, the direction of which (pragmatic or grammatical) depended on the context.
Youn (2014) investigated the relationship between ESL learners’ pragmatic competence, linguistic competence and proficiency level by contrasting the syntactic complexity of written pragmatic performance, with two independent criterion measures, language proficiency and overall pragmatic performance. The results indicated that learners’ written pragmatic competence was not in line with their proficiency levels, thus confirming previous research findings (Bardovi-Harlig, Hartford, Mahan-Taylor, Morgan & Reynolds, 1996; Bardovi-Harlig & Dörnyei, 1998; Faerch & Kasper, 1989;
Kim & Hall, 2002; Olshtain & Blum-Kulka, 1985). It was also noted that learners with a higher level of overall pragmatic competence produced longer and more complex utterances and used more subordination, denoting the essential role of syntactic complexity in expressing pragmatic functions.
The development of pragmatic competence in an English as a lingua franca (ELF) context was examined by Murray (2012), who claimed that it was essential to develop language learners’ pragmatic competence in a way that did not impose on them the values of a particular target language community and world view, and made them ready to participate in ELF communication. Looking at the pedagogical implications of this research field, he proposed three strategy types to develop pragmatic competence in the language classroom: inductive, deductive and empirically based strategies. The latter
on the pragmatic aspects of ELF interactions. He concluded that raising pragmatic awareness was especially useful in ELF learning situations, where classes were comprised of linguistically and culturally diverse learners. He argued against the direct development of pragmatic competence and the explicit teaching of pragmatics, placing the emphasis on providing the learners with a “pragmatic toolkit of strategies” (p. 324) which would enable them to perform appropriate speech in a linguistically diverse, ELF environment.
The contextual aspects which exerted an effect on the development of pragmatic competence were also scrutinized. Xu, Case and Wang (2009) investigated the extent to which length of residence in the target language community and overall language proficiency influence foreign language pragmatic competence. A questionnaire was administered to a sample of international students of various mother tongues living in the US. Results indicated that both factors had a significant impact on pragmatic competence, with overall language proficiency having a stronger effect. Hu (2014) similarly investigated the effect of overall language proficiency and overseas experience, i.e., experience in the target language community, in a sample of Chinese EFL students. Contrary to Xu, Case and Wang’s findings, results revealed that there was no substantial difference in the acquisition of pragmatic competence between students with high and low overall language proficiency, but a significant difference was observed in the development of pragmatic competence between students with and without overseas experience. The reason for the contrasting findings may lie in the difference between the two contexts, i.e., ESL and EFL contexts. In the ESL context, where learners are continuously exposed to the target language, pragmatic competence develops together with the linguistic competence and the other components, and the higher a learner’s proficiency level is, the more developed his or her pragmatic
competence is. In an EFL learning situation, on the other hand, where learners have a limited number of opportunities to be exposed to authentic language use at every proficiency level, pragmatic competence is under-developed and even a short immersion in the target language environment results in noticeable development.
Recent years have seen an upsurge in the number of publications on the development of pragmatic competence and its role in foreign language teaching and learning (Hu, 2014; Murray, 2012; Xu, Case & Wang, 2009; Youn, 2014). Not only has it become a popular topic of interest, focusing on the description of learners’ pragmatic competence, but a number of specific reference and activity books focusing on its development were also published (Kasper & Rose, 2002; Yule, 1996). One notable example is the coursebook Pragtivities (Ronald, Rinnert, Fordyce & Knight, 2012), which is a resource pack for teachers to complement regular coursebook material.
Specific activities in various sociocultural contexts and about different linguistic functions are offered along with detailed descriptions, photocopiable sheets and the methodological background.
3.1.3 Actional (functional) competence
The actional or functional component of pragmatic competence is a relatively well-researched area, although certain speech behaviours have received more attention than others (Chang, 2010). It must be noted, however, that most of the studies were cross-sectional (Beebe, Takahashi & Ullis-Weltz, 1990; Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1986;
Faerch & Kasper, 1989; House & Kasper, 1987; Kasper, 1989; Takahashi & Beebe, 1987) or investigated learners of a single proficiency level (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1991, 1992; Hartford & Bardovi-Harlig, 1992). As Kasper & Schmidt (1996) pointed
pragmatics and speech acts, were scarce, with the notable exception of Schmidt (1983), Ellis (1992) and Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (1993). These studies will be discussed in more detail in this chapter.
3.1.3.1 Suggestions
Among the several types of speech acts, the way suggestions are treated in the EFL classroom has always been a widely researched topic area. Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (1993) conducted a longitudinal research project into the acquisition of this speech act, comparing native speakers’ and highly proficient non-native university students’ acquisition and use of suggestion and rejection during a period of one school semester. In terms of suggestions, data coming from early sessions showed that non- native speakers tended not to initiate suggestions, and even if they did, they used them less frequently than their native speaker peers. Considering rejections, it was observed that non-native speakers used them more frequently, however, with less success. Data from later sessions showed that non-native speakers, over the course of time and given appropriate feedback, tended to get closer toward native speaker norms in their ability to use speech acts efficiently. However, it was also demonstrated that the sociocultural appropriateness of the utterances did not show any significant change.
A number of experimental studies have also been conducted into the use of suggestions. Salemi, Rabiee and Ketabi (2012) investigated a sample of Iranian learners, randomly assigned to four experimental groups and a control group in a pre- test-post-test-delayed post-test design. The four experimental groups received explicit instruction and explicit feedback on the use of suggestions, explicit instruction and implicit feedback, implicit instruction and explicit feedback and implicit instruction and implicit feedback, respectively. Results indicated that the experimental group receiving
explicit instruction and explicit feedback performed significantly better on both the post-test and the delayed post-test. However, it was also noted that the effects of instruction tended to increase, or even disappear, after a few weeks. Koike and Pearson (2005), conducting a similar experimental study on the influence of explicit and implicit feedback, found that although the explicit instruction and feedback group’s performance was significantly better on closed-ended items, the implicit instruction and feedback group demonstrated better results on the open-ended test items, such as dialogues. Koike and Pearson also concluded that the effects of instruction and feedback were not retained in the long run.
3.1.3.2 Requests and refusals
Research into the realization of requests and refusals has also been copious (Takimoto, 2006, 2008; Haggan, 2010; Chang, 2011; Farahian, Rezaee & Gholami, 2012; Zhu, 2012). However, to successfully realize such speech acts, learners need a high level of appropriateness and substantial sociocultural knowledge. Takimoto (2006) looked into the realization of speech acts among Japanese EFL learners in an experimental research project. Members of the two treatment groups received structured input considering polite requests, and structured input accompanied by explicit feedback. It was observed during the post-test that both treatment groups showed an increase in the quality of request realization, but there was no significant difference between the two treatment groups, indicating that feedback was not imperative for the development of actional competence. Farahian, Rezaee and Gholami (2012) came to similar conclusions on the efficacy of direct input and explicit instruction on the realization of refusals.
Takimoto (2008), in another experimental study, examined whether there was any difference in the effect of deductive and inductive instruction on the realization of syntactically more complex requests. It was observed that the treatment groups performed significantly better on the post-test and the delayed post-test, as well;
however, the deductive instruction group showed a reduction in the positive effect of the treatment on the delayed post-test. The author concluded that, consistent with Bruner’s (1961) observation, learners’ performance was significantly better when they had to discover underlying rules deductively than when they were explicitly told about the rules.
In recent years, research on the realization of speech acts has begun to focus on electronic communication. Haggan (2010) investigated the difference in language use in text messages by native and non-native speakers of English. Another popular research topic was the language of emails, which has become a very important medium for interpersonal, academic and business communications due to its high transmission speed (Crystal, 2001). However, despite the high efficiency of email communication, it is also a delicate issue, since to be able to write appropriate emails requires a great deal of pragmatic and sociocultural knowledge.
Zhu (2012) compared Chinese English major and non-English major university students’ requestive strategies and found that no significant difference was observed between the two samples. As a matter of fact, both groups exhibited an equally low level of sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic competence. Similarly, Chang (2011) also observed that in comparison to a learner’s linguistic competence, sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic competencies were usually underdeveloped. He highlighted the fact that there was no consistency in research findings in this aspect as they suggested two conflicting patterns: pragmalinguistic competence preceded the acquisition
