Brumfit, Christopher

Teaching communicative competence

pp. 47-54

Brumfit, Christopher, (2001) Individual freedom in language teaching : helping learners to develop a dialect of their own,
Oxford: OUP

Staff and students of University of Southampton are reminded that copyright subsists in this extract and the work from
which it was taken. This Digital Copy has been made under the terms of a CLA licence which allows you to:

access and download a copy;

print out a copy;

Please note that this material is for use ONLY by students registered on the course of study as stated in the section
below. All other staff and students are only entitled to browse the material and should not download and/or print out
a copy.

This Digital Copy and any digital or printed copy supplied to or made by you under the terms of this Licence are for use in
connection with this Course of Study. You may retain such copies after the end of the course, but strictly for your own
personal use.

All copies (including electronic copies) shall include this Copyright Notice and shall be destroyed and/or deleted if and
when required by University of Southampton.

Except as provided for by copyright law, no further copying, storage or distribution (including by e-mail) is permitted
without the consent of the copyright holder.

The author (which term includes artists and other visual creators) has moral rights in the work and neither staff nor students
may cause, or permit, the distortion, mutilation or other modification of the work, or any other derogatory treatment of it,
which would be prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author.

Course of Study: LING6001 - RESEARCH AND ENQUIRY

Title: Individual freedom in language teaching : helping learners to develop a dialect of their own
Name of Author: Brumfit, Christopher
Name of Publisher: OUP
4 Teaching communicative competence

Introduction

I now move to the goals of teaching. The term 'communicative competence' still
provides the most widely accepted metaphor in current foreign language
teaching theory The purpose of this chapter is to analyse the m a j o r features of
this concept, and to relate them to the practice of language teaching.
The use of the term is probably more common in applied linguistics than in
any other discipline. Although by the mid-1970s reference to 'communicative
language teaching' was becoming widespread, a number of writers nearly a
decade earlier referred independently to 'communicative competence' speciHcalK
m opposition to Chomsky's formal definition of linguistic competence in terms
of language structure. In 1965 he distinguished between competence and
performance as follows: 'We thus make a fundamental distinction between
competence (the speaker-hearer's knowledge of his language) and performance
(the actual use of language in concrete situations)' (Chomsky 196S; 4), The reason
for alternative formulations being necessary was primarily the problematic nanii c
of the term 'performance', which Chomsky left largely unspecified, it '-eemed lo
include not only lapses in performance which result from tiredness or any oihei
inefficient functioning of human speech capacities, but also other appaientU
rule-governed language activities such as attainment of acceptable speech
(Chomsky 1965: 10-15) and stylistic variation (C homsk\ 1965: 27).
In effect Chomsky's wa) of distinguishing between knowledge and perloi mancc
enabled linguists to continue to analyse idcali/xd language with some cleai
principles of idealization to refer to. Some linguists, however, denied the usefulness
of the distinction. The British linguist, Halliday for example, comments that il
the distinction is simply meant to con\ey the difference between what can and
cannot be described tidiK b\ a grammarian, then it is unnccessar\. If, on tlx
other hand, it is meant to establish a major distinction in principle, ele\ating
psychological knowledge above sociolmguistic responsiveness, it is ilangeioiisb
misleading (Hallida\ 1970: 145).
Halliday's subsequent work (for example, 19^5, 1978) pro\ ides .tn alteinatnc
tradition for c o m m u n i c a t e e language teaching to turn to, but it has been Ics^
influential m Europe and N o r t h ,\inerica than that associated with tin t u r n
'communicative competence'. This tradition accepts the need for a distinction,
but tries to refine the definition of both parts b\ extending 'competence' toco\ci
48 Individual freedom in language teaching

all rule systems exploited by language users. Such an argument clearly underlies
discussion in Wales and Marshall (1966) and Cooper (1968), and the term
'communicative competence' itself is used by Jakobovits (1970), H a b e r m a s
(1970), Hymcs (1972) and Savignon (1972) a m o n g others.

S e c o n d language teaching

It is interesting to relate these dates to discussion of second language teaching.

Oiler presented a paper entitled 'Language communication and second language
learning' at the AILA Congress in Cambridge in 1969, C a n d h n presented one on
'Sociolinguistics and communicative language teaching' to the lATEFL Conference
in London m 1971 and Widdowson's influential paper 'The teaching of English
as communication' was published in English Language Teaching in 1972.
Certainly in language teaching there has been a move away from the idea of
language as a static, reified s> stem to be learnt, towards a view of communication
as a fluid and negotiable system to be performed, hi a widely quoted paper Allwright
asked 'Are we teaching language (for communication)? or Are we teaching
Loniniunication (via language)?' (Allwright 1977: 2). From such a reorientation,
various teaching techniques, packaged teaching methods, sets of teaching materials,
and views of the learning process were developed. Even though the resulting
teaching was highly variedmore a matter of the abstract principles of an
'approach' than the specific prescriptions of a ' m e t h o d ' t h e r e is considerable
agreement among methodologists about the desirable changes in teaching
method, and preferred justifications for particular language learning strategies.
A large number of commentators have discussed the principles of communicative
language leaching. Particular characteristics that have been isolated include the
following: fU,

1 A concern to identify the needs of leai ners and focus on them

2 An emphasis on concc'ptual structures and speech^act^('notions' and 'functions')
in syllabus organi/ation ' '
1 lolerance of language \ a n a t i o n in the classroom, including mixing target
language and mother tongue
4 A concern foi individualization and a u t o n o m o u s learning
^ A siippoi ti\e environment, including a reduction of the teacher's role as sole
ai bilei o^ coi lect language
6 I olei ation of ei lors as an ine\ itable part of the language acquisition process
Piesentation ol language items in context rather than in isolation
8 A concern to use 'authentic' materials (that is, materials not originally
constructed for language teaching purposes at all)
9 Techniques that encourage 'natural' language work, especially m oral activity:
group- and pair-work, role-play, information-gap exercises.

None of these features, except perhaps the second item on syllabus organization,
IS unique to c o m m u n i c a t n c language teaching, but all have recei\ed greater
emphasis as p a r t of this movement than at other times in the recent past.
However, the significant point for the history of language teaching may not be
these features in themselves so much as the justifications that have been produced
in support of them.
It will at once be apparent that these features concentrate on three ma|oi
aspects of language. First, there is a concern for the learner's individual language
needs (1 and 4); second, an unwillingness to use language without immediate
'face' validity and a concern for realistic contexts (2, 7, 8 and 9); and third, a
recognition that language use and language learning produce variable levels ol
response (3,5, and 6).
These different aspects interact, of course, but thev embody a claim that.

1 Different social situations demand different language use

2 Individuals, since they are likely to encountei different social situations, will
have differing needs for the kinds of language they require
3 Giving individuals opportunities to develop their own language system,
rather than rigidly reproduce a target model, will help them to acquire a
flexible system for future use m unpredictable circumstanccs.

C o m m u n i c a t i v e c o m p e t e n c e and l a n g u a g e teaching

Let us consider these characteristics in relation to the ma]oi elements in

communicative competence, as these have been proposed by commentators.
The most explicit general discussion of this concept is that of H vines (1972). In
a paper which was circulated in a number of different veisions, he concentrates
his definition of communicative competence on four ma]or questions-

I would suggest, then, that for language and for other forms ol communication
(culture), four questions arise:

1 Whether (and to what degree) something is formally possible;

2 Whether (and to what degree) something is leasibic m virtue of the means
of implementation available,
3 Whether (and to what degiec) something is appropi late (adequate, happ\,
successful) in relation to a context in which it is used and evaluated,
4 Whether (and to what degree) something is m fact done, actually pci lormcd,
and what its doing entails.
(Hymes 1972 281)

The first of these relates to formal linguistic compciencc. The second K S O K C S

the problem of the utterance which breaks no giammatical rules but which is too
complex to pioccss (for example, to cite (,anale and Swain's 1980 example, 'the
cheese the rat the cat the dog saw chased ate was green'). I he ihiid is concei ncd
with language appropriate to context, and the lourih to the probabiliiv of
occurrence of a particular utterance.
50 Individual freedom tn language teaching

For language teachmg, we could comment that the first coincides more or less
with the knowledge-orientated traditional views of language acquisition. Most
language teaching has assumed that mastery of the idealized system is a necessary
pedagogic goal. The second is to a great extent irrelevant to language teaching; in
so far as processing constraints are a given, learners are unlikely to be tempted to
do what IS physically impossiblenor has there been any suggestion that
constraints on feasibility vary from one language to another. The concern for
what IS appropriate is central to all three of the features of communicative
language teaching referred to above. And with the fourth there appears to be
some confusion in discussion over what exactly Hymes means. Canale and
Swain (1980: 16) claim that this is simply a matter of the relative rarity of the
utterance ('God be with you' versus 'Goodbye'). Hymes himself (1972; 286)
relates this to several features, the notion of frequency of occurrence, the need to
allow for authenticated occurrenccs that have not been predicted by rules for
each of the other three, and (associated presumably with this latter feature) the
need to allow for the language to change by having new forms. However, he
claims somewhat strangely that 'something may be possible, feasible and
appropriate and not occur', which raises the problem of how appropriacy can be
evaluated for a non-occurring item. But this is a technical discussion which
would be inappropriate to pursue further here. For our argument, it is enough to
note that a concern for the unpredictable in language use and language
development may be related to this characteristic of communicative competence,
and that unpredictability has been made a key feature by some language teaching
theorists.
1 lymcs has been primarily concerned to clarify the role of models in linguistic
study In a more recent commentary on the issue of communicative competence,
he states-

1 here appear to be three choices for linguistics. One is to consider linguistics

to be what in one respect it always has been, the skilled study of the structure
and history of particular languages, language families, and language groups.
A second choice is to accept the expansion of scope of recent years in terms of
the foundations ... which Chomsky has sought to give it. A third choice is to
icgard the expansion oi scope of recent years as requiring foundations deeper
than those that Ghomskv is prepared to recogni/e, foundations that include
the social sciences and social life. From this third point of view, the expansion
ol scope would not be a reaching out, is it were, but a reaching down. What
one leaches is not a periphery or an implementation but a deeper grounding.
(] lymes 1985: I 1)

In this discussion, then, the rules of use that are being sought have a role m
defining the nature of language. However, in so far as they remain to be
formulated, their usefulness to applications like language teaching can only be
metaphorical. We may \\ ish to act as if something is true, but the opportunities
 Teaching commiintcative competence 51

to test and falsify specific proposals have been too few for us to act with total
confidence.
The most extensive paper that has discussed communicative competence
from a specifically pedagogic perspective is Canale and Swain's opening article m
the first issue of the journal Applied Linguistics, in 1980. They survey in greatei
detail many of the issues touched on in this chapttr, and list three areas as a basis
for their theoretical framework. These areas are; giammatical competence,
sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence, hi a latei paper Canale
(1983) subdivided sociohnguistic competence into sociohnguistic and discourse
competences, and this fourfold formulation has become the pieferied basis loi
subsequent discussion. Grammatical competence relates appioximateI\ to
Hymes' 'possibility', and sociolinguistic competence to Hymes' 'appropi lacv',
but the other two are new elements. 'Discourse competence' lefeis to the abilit)
to construct cohesive and coherent texts in writing or in speech, and 'stiategic
competence' to strategies for resolving communication difficulties.
It IS clear that this breakdown relates much more closely lo the features of
communicative language teaching listed earliei all nine of them can be used in
support of each of the four elements in Canale and Swain's formulation.
Recent discussion has been more concerned with the implications of these
models for testing and measurement (Bachman 1990; M c N a m a i a 1996). Bachman
(p.87) refers to 'organisational competence', which subdivides into 'gi ammatical'
and 'textual competence', and 'pragmatic competence', which subdivides into
'illocutionary' and 'sociolinguistic competence'. But, as M c N a m a i a (p.88)
points out, while there are difficulties about achieving Hymes' desiie foi a model
of the ability to use language, the problem will not go away.

The conceptual problem

In fact, there is a major problem with these and all similar foi mutations foi oui
practices as language teachers. In the rest of this chapter I piopose to examine
this, and some of the implications it has for us.
The problem is that models of this kind appeal static when ihev arc used lo
specify language teaching goals. This is pai tiv because it is not alwavs clcai w iiat
puipose they are intended to serve. Aie they specifications that will enable us
letiospectively to describe what people have done with languagein the p a s t '
Oi are they actually prescriptions for the future in all but name.' Aic ihe\ the
bases for pedagogic devicesinstruments to be discaided as soon as the
acquisition task has been completed, or aie they necessary pel manent elements
ill the equipment of the language-user' Whereas C h o m s k \ ' s h\[loihcsis is ili.ii
the human mind, at its curient evolutional y stage, is consu ucled in such a \va\ as
to necessitate acquisition of paiticular g i a m m a i s appiopiiate foi an\ natur.il
language, built into the notion of 'communiiainT C O M P L L L N C T ' is A V I L V \ of
negotiable and socialK constructed interaction.
52 Individual freedom in language teaching

Let me illustrate what I mean by p r o p o s i n g a slight modification to the

various formulations so far discussed. There is a sense in which b o t h H y m e s , and
Canale and Swain, seem to see the language user/learner as a passive victim of
the inherited rule systems of the p a s t t h e r e seems to be an almost Whorfian
determinism in the discussion of apparently fixed rules waiting to be described.
W h a t happens if we suggest that users construct their own responses to rule
systemsthat probabilities in language are only there because of tacit
agreement by language users, including language learners?
If we re-establish linguistic free will;

1 'Possibility' and 'grammatical competence' become sets of conventions to be

negotiated according to the capacity of the language to express adequately
the needs of the language user. In practice this is unlikely to m e a n that most
users or learners will p r o d u c e substantial variation f r o m n o r m a l usage, but it
may mean
(a) that variation in the form of certain types of item will occur fairly
fiequently: for example, m i n o r syntactic variation (like using Learning How
lo Mean as the title of Halliday's 1975 b o o k , to express a generalization a b o u t
learning by violating the 'rule' that ' m e a n ' must take a direct object), or new
coinages ('/Vis' or 's/he');
and (h) that foreign learners may in fact reflect in their use of foreign terms,
whether 'interference' or false coinages, ideological or cultural needs that
cannot easily be a c c o m m o d a t e d in current conventional target language (see
Brumfit 1978 for an e x a m i n a t i o n of this issue with reference to Chinese and
Lnglish and R a m p t o n 1995b for a very detailed exploration of second
language use as sociolect).
2 'Appropriacy' and 'sociolinguisnc competence' will become far more
problematic, and much more negotiable. These are the areas of language
where there is alreadv wide cultural difference, and where the practice of
teaching is most strongly charged with ideology A language has g r a m m a r but
It IS a culture, not a language, that has conventions of a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour,
and cultures cross linguistic boundaries. Physicists share many cultural
practices across languages to the exclusion of non-physicists who share each
individual physicist's languages. M e m b e r s of religious, political, social,
academic or artistic groups will also share cultural practices to the exclusion
ol their language-sharing brethren, and these practices will be reflected m
a p p r o p r i a t e local modiHcaiions of the language of wider c o m m u n i c a t i o n .
Whose language is the leainei to l e a r n ' W h o says what is polite or rude?
Politeness, deference, lelcNaiiLC, emotions, to name only a few of the difficult
areas, arc all socialK lonsti iicted concepts. W h a t class, what educational
level, what episremolog\, what degree of submission or opposition do our
statements about language appiopnacv impose on learners? T h e more complex
the society, the more hkch that there will be man) foieign language learneis
I elating to it: the m o i e l o m p l c s the group the w ider the cultural \ a r i a t i o n . We
ma), il we wish, oppose \ a n a n o n (and indeed a case can be m a d e for being
 paisimoniOLis with tolerance of varietybut that is a moral ease, not a
linguistic one). What we cannot do is claim that theie is an inviolate essence of
a language independent of the people who use it. O u r defence of a historical
and stylistic sense of the nature of any language has to be based on a defence
of what It has expressed, and needs to continue to express, not on the
linguistic and cultural system in itself.
3 The issue of 'feasibility' will be scarcely changed. There will be many consti aints
on our capacities to process, recall, and produce language that will have to
remain totally outside our control. This area will remain interesting but onh
marginally relevant to language teaching.
4 'Discourse' and 'strategic competences' will be subject to similai flexibility to
that discussed undei 2 above. As mentioned m that section, even the natuie of
relevance is subject to cultural variation, as comparative rhetorical studies
have suggested. The kinds of strategic responses that will be rec|uiied m
different circumstances will be dependent on the goodwill, flexibility, and
linguistic experience of interlocutois, as well as on geneial giound rules. It is
still an open question to what extent the featuies referred to in this section and
m section 2 really differ massively from culture to cultuic. Out notion ol
culture in language teaching often lelies on stereotypes, and as we saw in
Chapter 3 steieotyping may be d\ sfunctional Ate there no 'silent' cultures in
France, Britain, Germany or the US, or are they restiicted (as steieotypes
suggest) to Finland or Japan? Is hteiacy a major language learning determinant
for all members of these countries? Fiow homogeneous is an\ national
ciiltuie? Is It not possible that the degree of o\cilap, gi\en goodwill, bciwccn
an\ two societies, is greater than the degree of potemial ineompiehension'
(How else can we account foi so manv siieeess(ul language leai n e i s 4

If the concept of communieative competence is to be applied to language

teaching, it must centre on learners, foi the\ are the sole jusiifiiation foi
language teaching as a profession. If it ecnttes on leai net s, it must hetome i lai
moie d\ namie concept than it often ajipeais lo be This is not the place to
exploie in detail the implications of this foi partieulai societies, indeed, in a
sense it would be an impei tinenee foi an outsidei to lr\ to do so (toi a fullei
development of this aspect of the discussion, with a Canadian base, see
Ashvvoi th 1985). But the kinds of imphealions can be listed.

1 haeh act of language teaching takes place w ithin a pai tieulai social, political,
economic, religious and ideological setting. 1 aeh aet of language tiaehmi; is
(if the above aigument is accepted) an iinei \ention to which leai net s need to
lespond. Planning and teaehei piepaiation need lo leeogni/e this eoniexl,
and to ask some of the questions im|ihed bv this
2 Learners aie opting for a relationship with some kind of Ianniiai2,e~usmti,
eommnnitv. What soi t is i t ' \X hat soi t is implied b\ (he ni.itei i lis being used '
What fieedom of choice do the leai nets have' I low rich is the langiiasic to
whieh thev ate e x p o s e d '
3 To what extent does the methodology of classroom practice allow learners to
be free to use their own language to express themselves as fluently as possible?
If It has not proved possible for this to develop to any extent, is it because such
a goal IS impossible to achieve, or is it because it has n o t been pursued with
great determination? W h a t other means of learning effectively how to vary
and develop one's own language can there be, a p a r t f r o m reading, writing,
and conversing as naturally, freely, and fluently as one's current language
knowledge enables one to?
4 W h a t IS the model of the target culture, the original culture, and the learner's
position m relation to the target culture, t h a t is presented in written materials
provided for language learning?
5 W h a t arc the relations between language teachers and the parental and other
communities f r o m which their learners come? W h o makes the choices a b o u t
what languages are learnt, who learns them, what is the bias towards oracy
and literacy in the p r o g i a m m e ' And so on.

I do not of course wish to suggest that solutions to these issues can be arrived
at easily or w i t h o u t either expertise or careful t h o u g h t . N o n e the less, they are all
areas in which a more learner-centred use of the concept 'communicative
competence' would lead us to haise more closely, analyse more closely, a n d
p e r h a p s b e more effective and perceptive language teachers. Certainly, if it is to
be ' t a u g h t ' , communicative competence has to describe a more d y n a m i c and less
passive set of qualities.