See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283711223

Communicative Competence: Its Definition, Connection to Teaching, and

Relationship with Interactional Competence

Research · November 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3214.2807

CITATIONS READS

2 24,571

1 author:

Lynn David Tarvin

University of Central Missouri
4 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Lynn David Tarvin on 11 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Running head: COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 1

Communicative Competence:

Its Definition, Connection to Teaching, and Relationship with Interactional Competence

Lynn David Tarvin

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Education Specialist

University of Missouri

2014
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 2

An immigrant moves to a new country, a student of any age enters a second or foreign

language classroom, and a business person meets a colleague from around the world for the first

time. These three scenarios present possible situations where one’s first language skills are

insufficient to achieve self- or other-imposed expectations of interactions with speakers of

another language. Communicative competence (CC), a term in the Second Language Acquisition

(SLA) literature with an evolving definition over the last fifty years, and its successive notion,

interactional competence (IC), must guide the curricular choices second-language teachers make

as they seek to help their students successfully navigate scenarios where interaction in the second

language (L2) is an expected part of their daily lives.

Origin and Definition

Communicative competence can be defined as the ability to use language, or to

communicate, in a culturally-appropriate manner in order to make meaning and accomplish

social tasks with efficacy and fluency through extended interactions. This definition is a

synthesis of positions noted below in the research literature since the 1960s. The following

paragraphs point to the origins of CC and will clarify the basis of each part of the definition put

forward.

Initial Origin

In one of the first discussions in the literature about competence, Chomsky (1965)

distinguishes between “competence (the speaker-hearer’s knowledge of his language) and

performance (the actual use of language in concrete situations) [emphasis in original]” (p. 4).

According to Chomsky (1965), deviations from the ideal in actual performance do not reflect

competence: “A grammar of a language purports to be a description of the ideal speaker-

COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 3

hearer’s intrinsic competence” (p. 4). Chomsky’s view is that any errors in production may

therefore be related one of many elements, including competence, that affect performance.

However, much of the applied linguistics research refers to Hymes’ work as being

seminal to CC. Hymes (1972) reacts against Chomsky’s definition, because he feels that

Chomsky “omits almost everything of sociocultural significance” (p. 280). Knowing how to

form grammatically correct sentences is insufficient to have CC. Instead, Hymes (1972)

advances, “the goal of a broad theory of competence can be said to show the ways in which the

systematically possible, the feasible, and the appropriate are linked to produce and interpret

actually occurring cultural behavior [emphasis in original]” (p. 286). Communicative

interference, caused by socio-linguistic differences such as register, lexico-syntax, or pragmatics

between dialects of a language or between separate languages can cause well-intended,

grammatically correct locutions to be misinterpreted (Hymes, 1972). When an L2 speaker does

not understand how a native language (L1) speaker will take up a message, the intent of the

encoded message and the impact of the decoded message will not be the same.

Hymes’ (1972) theory has driven much of the further research within CC. Hymes’

explains his theory through four lenses necessary for CC: possibility, feasibility,

appropriateness, and occurrence. 1) Possibility refers to whether a locution is grammatically

possible. Does the language, for example English, have an acceptable lexico-syntax to achieve

the locution? 2) Feasibility refers to whether the interlocutors can make use of the locution, due

to psycholinguistic factors such as memory limitations or inability to process multiple nested

clauses. Even if a locution is grammatically possible, is it so long or complex that interlocutors

are incapable of processing the language? 3) Appropriateness refers to whether the locution

meets the cultural expectations for the desired interaction in that context. Even if a locution is
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 4

grammatically possible and feasible, is it appropriate to the local setting such that the intent of

the speaker-writer is taken up, as intended, by the listener-reader? Or, are there cultural miscues

that prevent the message from being understood as intended? 4) Occurrence refers to whether

the locution is made or not. As Hymes (1972) writes, “Something may be possible, feasible, and

appropriate and not occur” (p. 286). It is worth asking why it does not occur and how that

impacts communication. A statement might be grammatically correct, mentally feasible, and

culturally appropriate; but if it is interrupted by another action or the speaker is too timid to

speak the statement, the communication does not occur.

Although Chomsky (1965) and Hymes (1972) begin to address the concepts of

competence and performance and Hymes (1972) specifically provides four guiding questions as

a framework for understanding CC, neither of these sources directly address acquiring CC of a

second language. The following research has taken up Chomsky’s and Hymes’ theories,

developing them more thoroughly in SLA contexts. By considering the subsequent development

of the concept of CC by various researchers, a comprehensive definition of CC may be more

fully synthesized.

Subsequent Development

The literature begins to position CC in SLA contexts with the intent of providing a

framework for developing second language course syllabi. Canale and Swain (1980) specifically

address CC’s definition and development in an article focused on second language teaching.

Canale and Swain (1980) use CC “to refer to the relationship and interaction between

grammatical competence…and sociolinguistic competence” (p. 6). This mirrors Hymes’ (1972)

claim that grammar rules are incomplete without rules of use. Canale and Swain’s (1980)

purpose in asserting this definition is to provide guidelines for how to develop communicative
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 5

course syllabi, namely that grammar and sociolinguistics features must both be included in

second language coursework and both must be assessed, as well. This is in sharp contrast to the

grammar-centered syllabi found in most coursework by Canale and Swain (1980).

Savignon (1991) also mentions a divergence between more grammar-based and notional-

functional syllabi. Savignon (1991) recounts the European development as being “derived from

neo-Firthian systemic or functional linguistics that views language as meaning potential and

maintains the centrality of context of situation” (p. 263). Notional-functional syllabi have been

developed in Europe using this paradigm, where curricula are developed based on students’

needs for communication rather than on a stratified sequence of grammatical structures that grow

increasingly more difficult. At the same time, developments in the United States have centered

on Hymes’ reaction to Chomsky’s theories.

In developing her own definition and application of CC, Savignon (2002) mentions that

Hymes uses CC “to represent the ability to use language in a social context, to observe

sociolinguistic norms of appropriateness” (p. 2) and maintains that “Hymes’ focus was not

language learning but language as social behavior [emphasis in original]” (p. 2). Savignon

(2002) herself uses the term CC “to characterize the ability of classroom language learners to

interact with other speakers, to make meaning, as distinct from their ability to recite dialogues or

perform on discrete-point tests of grammatical knowledge” (p. 3). Therefore, Savignon’s

paradigm focuses on what a second language learner can do with the language in authentic

settings, not just on the ability to memorize chunks of language for artificial, planned

experiences.

Not only does CC include the ability to make meaning in authentic contexts, it also

includes an assumption of facility. In his study of interlanguage analysis, Pallotti (2010)

COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 6

distinguishes between CC and linguistic competence, but he also indicates that CC is “further

divided into efficacy (the ability to reach one’s communicative goals) and fluency (the ability to

do so smoothly, quickly and effortlessly)” (p. 173). Pallotti’s definition, including fluency with

its describing adverbs of “smoothly, quickly, and effortlessly” seems to shift the focus from

merely being able to negotiate meaning—regardless of the accompanying false starts and halted

language—to a concept where the negotiation of language happens with a great deal of

automaticity.

One further extension development to the concept of CC is that it occurs in an interactive

process. Hall and Pekarek Doehler (2011) extend the notion of CC to IC in this way: “Central to

competent engagement in our interactions is our ability to accomplish meaningful social actions,

to respond to c-participants’ [sic] previous actions and to make recognizable for others what our

actions are and how these relate to their own actions” (p. 1). L2 speakers demonstrate IC when

they make appropriate use of language in extended, turn-taking. They understand, according to a

situational specific socio-cultural context, the intent of the language moves made by the other

interlocutors in the setting, and the L2 speakers know how, again according to that same context,

to make further language moves such that their communicative output will be taken up in the

manner that the L2 speakers intend.

Synthesized Definition

To restate the initial claimed definition, CC can be defined as the ability to use language,

or to communicate, in a culturally appropriate manner in order to make meaning and accomplish

social tasks with efficacy and fluency through extended interactions. This definition can be

analyzed as follows. First, L2 speakers must have the ability to use language itself, including the

ability to form grammatically possible and feasible locutions (Hymes, 1972). Second, L2
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 7

speakers must demonstrate the inclusion of the socio-cultural component of cultural

appropriateness (Hymes, 1972; Canale & Swain, 1980). Third, L2 speakers must be able to

make meaning, not merely regurgitate memorized phrases or answer correctly on discrete

grammar point tests (Savignon, 2002). Fourth, L2 speakers must use language in ways that are

effective in accomplishing their desired tasks in a facile, almost unconscious manner (Palloti,

2010). Finally, L2 speakers must be able to achieve these communicative tasks in social,

extended interactions wherein they have the skills and understanding to decode and encode

messages with appropriate socio-cultural intent (Hall & Pekarek Doehler, 2011). Through

understanding these components, second-language instructors can more clearly understand the

intended goal or outcome of their courses.

Necessity to Focus on Communicative Competence in Teaching

“The role of the language teacher is to help learners get along in real-life situations”

(Savignon, 1997, p. 114). L2 speakers must be able to process and interact with the language

they experience in order to succeed in the sociocultural contexts in which they find themselves.

Whether in the classroom, the grocery store, or the workplace, if L2 speakers do not have access

to this language, they have less opportunity and less power to interact as equal members of social

interactions. CC as a goal, through various Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)

methodologies, allows L2 speakers the cultural and linguistic knowledge needed to handle the

interactional challenges presented to them.

When preparing to teach L2 speakers a second or foreign language, teachers must realize

that correct L2 grammar and denotative meanings are insufficient to prepare those L2 speakers

for real interactions in the target language. L2 speakers must understand the intent of

communication, embedded in specific cultural settings, in order to fully demonstrate CC

COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 8

(Savignon, 1997). The following research discusses the value of CLT, measurement of CC, the

role of pragmatics within CLT, differing opinions within academia of the value and purpose of

language courses, critiques of applying CC theory to curriculum, difficulties of implementing

CLT, and the future of CLT.

Value of Communicative Language Teaching

The tension between a focus on grammar and a focus on communicating meaning has

created an either/or mindset in language instruction. However, putting these two foci in conflict

is inaccurate: L2 speakers must not only make themselves understood to native language

speakers but also use correct grammar in the process (Canale & Swain, 1980). Canale and

Swain’s (1980) components of CC can be defined as follows: “grammatical…knowledge of

lexical items and rules of morphology, syntax, semantics and phonology; sociolinguistic…

knowledge of rules of language use; strategic…knowledge of strategies to overcome

communicative problems; and, discourse…knowledge needed to participate in literacy activities”

(Hall & Pekarek Doehler, 2001, p. 3). Savignon (1997) uses these four components to develop a

study comparing a CLT approach with a traditional grammar approach. Students in the CLT

group perform better on grammar assessments than students whose instruction focuses solely on

grammatical structures. Furthermore, students experiencing a CLT approach are also able to

communicate more easily in spontaneous communicative interactions than do students who only

experience traditional grammar teaching (Savignon, 1997). When L2 speakers experience

pedagogical opportunities for communicative practice (using language authentic contexts rather

than isolated, grammar drills), their facility for more natural use develops. Lightbown and Spada

(2013) conclude that Savignon’s study “offers support for the hypothesis that meaning-based

instruction is advantageous, not that form-based instruction is not” (Chapter 6, Section 1, para.
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 9

21). While CLT does provide an opportunity for students to be creative in their use of language,

it does not have to exclude a focus on form.

Teachers can help language learners acquire variations of textbook language by

appropriating a “sociocultural framework of pragmatics as mediated action” (Van Compernolle,

2013, p. 358). In Van Compernolle’s (2013) study, the tu vs. vous formality dichotomy helps

students know when to use the pronouns on or nous and when to leave out or use the negative

particle ne. Students learn not just what the words mean, but what kind of attitude the students

will convey based on these language and grammatical choices. When teachers begin with

“meanings – concepts – that are important for learners to appropriate rather than forms or

structures” (Van Compernolle, 2013, p. 358), students begin to make situation-specific

appropriate use of formal and informal language markers without mediated support. This

framework uses dynamically-administered scenarios to simultaneously assess students’ current

competence with expressing a concept while also guiding the students who are unable to perform

independently. While direct instruction, awareness-building, and noticing are useful in language

study, they are insufficient to lead to competence (Van Compernolle, 2013). Van Compernolle

(2013) and Savignon (1997) both demonstrate that focusing on meaning while also drawing

attention to form can lead L2 speakers to CC, including appropriate grammar usage.

Measurement of Communicative Competence

One aspect of teaching and learning for which teachers are accountable is reporting

progress that students make, often in a quantifiable form. Several monographs address how to

quantify CC (i.e., identify or label a CC level) in terms of the Common European Framework of

Reference for Languages (CEFR), including some discussions considering the validity of

comparing proficiency levels to CC (Bartning, Martin, & Vedder, 2010). Teachers should
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 10

hesitate using a focus on errors for assessing beginners’ proficiency levels; instead, teacher must

understand the sophisticated development of a learner’s interlanguage: “one should always bear

in mind that…‘accuracy growth’ and ‘interlanguage development’ do not represent the same

construct” (Pallotti, 2010, p. 163). Teachers should also be careful to focus on the meaning and

intent of proficiency level descriptions rather than converting proficiency level to a numerical

percentage (Pallotti, 2010). Numerical scores may be easy to calculate, but they do not describe

the nuances of language development that teachers must consider as they develop lessons.

Vocabulary growth can be used as a diagnostic tool to determine proficiency level, such as found

in the CEFR (Milton, 2010). L2 speakers’ word choices reveal how broadly and deeply they can

interact with topics. Beginning speakers will demonstrate word choices concerning very

specific, personal experience topics while advancing speakers will be demonstrate word choices

about less immediate topics, as well. CC growth can also be observed “both at the level of

expanding one’s range of communicative activities and at the level of performing them in

increasingly more complex and sophisticated ways” (Hulstihn, Alderson, and Schoonen, 2010, p.

12). In order for a student to fully develop his or her communicative competence, both breadth

and depth must take place in the classroom activities an L2 speaker experiences.

Role of Pragmatics in Communicative Language Teaching

As mentioned above, mastery of surface level structures, understanding denotative word

meanings and being able to construct grammatically correct sentences, is insufficient for

achieving CC. L2 speakers must be able to navigate the sociocultural contexts in which they

must actually use the language. For example, if a child who forget to bring bread to the table, a

parent, as an authority, might remark, “Where’s the bread? Who set the table? I don’t see the

bread” (Savignon, 1997, p. 19). The child is to infer that an indirect command is being given
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 11

without the parent using a grammatically imperative sentence. This understanding of nuance, of

knowing the meaning intended by the speaker within the specific context, goes much deeper than

explanations provided by dictionary definitions or grammar textbooks. Pragmatics creates a lens

in which to understand CC in real life situations where intentions and expectations of linguistic

and behavioral interactions are often left implicit.

Research in SLA often does not match practice in the classroom. Ishihara (2007) writes,

“Although pragmatic ability (the ability to use language effectively to achieve a specific purpose

and understand language in context) has been recognized as an essential component of

communicative competence…, pragmatics has not been fully incorporated into today’s

second/foreign language (L2) teaching and teacher education [emphasis in original]” (p. 21).

Lessons on why and when to use specific speech acts such as thanking or apologizing, beyond

simply how to form the words for the speech act, help students to understand cultural

appropriateness better. Journaling allows students to compare their own cultural experiences

with the expectations of the new culture and creates a metapragmatic awareness in students that

allows them to process “the cultural ideologies underlying the L2 use” (Ishihara, 2007, p. 32) and

helps them to make choices of “how to express themselves through the L2” (Ishihara, 2007, p.

32). While students may be overwhelmed by the amount of information developed through a

lesson based on pragmatics, an explicit approach in which students are taught to use noticing

techniques may “[provide] an insider perspective of the target culture” (Ishihara, 2007, p. 32)

often lacking in formal language instruction.

Vásquez and Fioramente (2011) echo the importance of teaching pragmatics to students

and are concerned about the lack of pragmatics instruction within ESL master’s degree programs

in the United States. In their words, “to be a competent language user, an individual must have
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 12

the ability to produce utterances which are grammatical as well as appropriate to the context in

which they are made, considering the participants, their relationships, as well as the (often

unstated but assumed) social rules for interaction” (Vásquez & Fioramente, 2011, p. 1).

Pragmatics within ESL instruction may be narrowed to the areas of speech acts, language

functions, and linguistic politeness, with explicit instruction needed in each area (Vásquez &

Fioramente, 2011). While ESL teachers may be prepared to help ELLs form language structures

(Hymes’ possibility and feasibility criteria), these teachers might not be prepared to address

Hymes’ appropriateness criterion in their curricula. Teachers may not have identified the

indirect language needed for appropriate interactions in the L2, taking this understanding for

granted. Assignments with real-world applications can help teachers and their students to

understand the implications of pragmatics and thus their importance (Vásquez & Fioramente,

2011).

Teachers may be reluctant to participate in voluntary professional development offerings

focused on pragmatics, even though the research clearly calls for it as part of CC and shows

instruction in pragmatics to be effective (Vellenga, 2011). Teachers may feel pragmatics are not

as important as teaching linguistic features or that there is no time in language courses to

integrate pragmatics. In Vellenga’s (2011) study, teachers are encouraged to use contrastive

analysis with their students to compare L1 and L2 approaches to speech acts such as greetings,

requests, and refusals. Some teachers, who use English-only methodologies, report feeling

confused about asking students to think about how these speech acts occur in the L1 but value

this approach when they receive appropriate training, nonetheless. One participant in Vellenga’s

(2011) study specifically recognizes the need for awareness building of American pragmatics for
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 13

ESL teachers, as these teachers might take for granted American routines or expectations and not

know what items to help their students notice.

Zapata (2005) likens Ishihara’s insider perspective to Byram’s intercultural

communicative competence and Kramsch’s third place, “the intersection between the native and

target cultures where learners have a deep understanding of both” (Zapata, 2005, p. 261).

Zapata’s study demonstrates how comparison of native speaker experts’ analyses of a piece of

literature with university level L2 students’ analyses leads students to understand not just the

language of the story but also the cultural context in which it is written. The native speakers’

analyses consistently articulate a religious theme, even though no religious ideas are mentioned

in the story, but the L2 students do not address this theme. This comparison helps the L2

students to see how cultural aspects frame the way in which native speakers interpret the

language around them.

Differing Opinions in Academia About Purpose and Content of Language Courses

The literature presents several articles centered on a division among foreign language and

second language teachers between a focus on literature instruction and a focus on language

instruction that often takes the form of CLT. Rifkin (2006) points out a tendency within SLA

pedagogies to focus only on oral language and reiterates that the ACTFL Proficiency guidelines

and the National Standards for Foreign Language Learning do not give higher precedence to

speaking over listening, reading, and writing. Rifkin states that a dichotomy does not exist

between “teaching toward literacy” and “teaching for proficiency” (p. 263), using proficiency as

a synonym for communicative competence. Rifkin advocates, “The curriculum for

communicative language instruction should require the interpretation of written and spoken texts,

including literary texts, in their cultural context at the introductory and intermediate levels for all
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 14

languages…as preparation for ever greater and more sophisticated learning challenges at each

step of the curriculum” (p. 263). Likewise, Tucker (2006) states that CC’s “received

understanding as a unidirectional, primarily oral mode of functional meaning-making must give

way to new appreciations of dialogical communicative performance as a relational and

collaborative act of subjective negotiation” (p. 265).

Steinhart (2006) uses the terms CC and content to identify the two ideological camps,

with language (i.e. CC) being the focus of beginning and intermediate courses and content the

focus of advanced courses. According to Steinhart, language and content should be present in all

courses, regardless of the level. Elementary programs should have an interactive oral focus and

to an extent secondary programs should, as well. However, all programs should have a full-

spectrum articulation goal leading toward use of the language to learn content. Some teachers

might be unwilling to teach content using the L2 because the teachers themselves are unskilled in

the areas of content to study, due to the mostly oral approaches used in the teachers’ own

language studies. Interweaving the four language skills together can be difficult, especially at

the university level where students of all proficiency levels must quickly move toward advanced

content work. Steinhart (2006) offers, “Perhaps we should…consider how communicative

competence might be addressed, spiraled, and extended through the collegiate sequence of

language study” (p. 260). In other words, the ability to understand, create, and appropriately use

language should be a part of all language coursework, not just the beginning classes.

Students’ interactions today, with other students who have multi-national, multi-lingual,

and multi-cultural backgrounds, are very different from when CLT first developed in the 1970s

(Kramsch, 2006). At that time, most students’ interactions were with other monolingual students

who belonged to single ethnicities and cultures. Teachers must now think of students not as
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 15

future tourists but as future international workers. This correlates with a shifted goal in second-

language courses from an awareness and ability to parse the L2 to an ability to use the L2 in

authentic contexts. Therefore, teachers must “view language and culture, that is, grammar and

style, vocabulary and its cultural connotations, texts and their points of view, as inseparable” in

order to “foster the three major components of symbolic competence: the production of

complexity, the tolerance of ambiguity, and an appreciation of form as meaning” (Kramsch,

2006, p. 251).

Critiques of Applying Communicative Competence Theory to Curriculum

Not all researchers agree with making a direct connection between the theory of CC and

its application to classroom practice. Leung (2005) harshly critiques what he describes as

misapplication of Hymes’ (1972) and Canale and Swain’s (1980) original works to current

curricula development. In the context of teaching English as a Second Language and English as

a Foreign Language, Leung suggests that too much reliance has been placed on the idealized

native-speaker, without giving recognition to the wide variety of Englishes, both as L1s and L2s,

that exist throughout the world. Teachers and publishers can overly homogenize cultural

stereotypes when they create course syllabi, especially by relying on a teachers’ intuitions as

native English speakers. This lack of diversity moves away from Hymes’ idea of

appropriateness which should be localized to social interactions between specific interlocutors

(Leung, 2005).

The universal application of CLT to all language learning environments requires some

foundational assumptions: 1) Western pedagogical methods transfer to any learning

environment; 2) all language acquisition occurs through interactive communication; 3) the

standard for CC as achieved through CLT is native speaker proficiency (Jenkins, 2006a). In
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 16

regards to the first and second assumptions, CLT may not transfer, for example, to the Asia-

Pacific region. In regards to the third assumption, not all L2 speakers of English have native

English speakers as their target audience (Jenkins, 2006a). In parts of the world where many

English serves as a common L2 for many people groups to interact together, English as a Lingua

Franca (ELF) makes more sense as a target proficiency than Standard British or American

English (Jenkins, 2006a). Calling for recognition of ELF in contrast with English as a Foreign

Language (EFL), Jenkins (2006a) suggests that most SLA research takes Hymes’ socio-cultural

appropriateness component out of context, expecting that native speaker proficiency is normative

and naming non-native-speakers’ variations as errors instead of standard forms of ELF within a

specific context.

The impact of what form of an L1, in this case English, is standard can significantly

control feedback that language learners receive, especially in educational settings. If Standard

British or American English provides the only acceptable language forms that students may

produce, students may receive lower scores on English language assessments for using ELF or

English as an International Language (EIL) forms (Jenkins, 2006b). Current examinations do

not account for the possibility of another non-native English-speaker being the target audience

member; if a student modifies his pronunciation or vocabulary in order to meet the needs of

another L2 English-speaker by increasing mutual intelligibility, the student will be scored lower

for not having used the expected standardized forms (Jenkins, 2006b). Conversely, if a student

uses Standard English forms, including idioms, that his or her interlocutor does not understand,

the student will be scored higher even though the student knowingly prevented the

communication from progressing (Jenkins, 2006b). “From a sociocultural perspective, [non-

native speaker] creativity is to be expected” (Jenkins, 2006b, p. 45). EIL and EFL forms need to
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 17

be granted equal power status and afforded the same acceptance level of correctness as Standard

British and American English.

Communicative Competence in Multilinguals

L2 speakers who develop CC in the target language also have CC in their L1. This

ability to maneuver effectively in both languages can be called multicompetence. The L1

knowledge influences the L2 language being learned. “No matter how advanced L2 users are in

the L2, their L2 knowledge is different from that of native speakers of that language” (Hall,

Cheng, & Carlson, 2006, p. 221). An interlanguage, specific to the L2 learner, develops as the

learner navigates back and forth between the two languages. Interlanguage is not an expression

of linguistic deficits but rather a demonstration of the process the L2 learner is going through as

he or she develops CC. Not only does the L1 influence the L2, but also the L2 impacts the L1, as

well, in a process called bidirectional transfer. While not always the case, L2 learners typically

have more varied communicative experiences than do monolinguals (Hall et al., 2006). These

findings demonstrate that first language acquisition research can be difficult to apply to SLA, as

the experiences and understandings of multilinguals and monolinguals may be quite disparate.

Difficulty in Implementation of Communicative Language Teaching

Even if CC is considered a desirable goal of language learning and CLT is considered the

desirable pedagogical approach for achieving CC, implementing CLT comes with several

substantial challenges. In discussing the difficulties of implementing CLT methodology,

Gatbonton and Segalowitz (2005) define one aspect of CC as automatic fluency. Teachers may

feel that automatic fluency is unattainable, and they may also resist implementing CLT because

it is not as tangible as the grammatical approaches they have experienced before. Furthermore,

CLT requires much more student interaction than a teacher-centered classroom of years past.
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 18

In one CLT methodology, ACCESS, a teacher explains some minimal language aspects

before a specified task (Gatbonton and Segalowitz, 2005). Then, the students participate in said

task where they have a gap of information and a genuine need to acquire that information. “The

activities must lead to the use of utterances that have clear pragmatic functions (be useful in real

world communication) and that have high re-use potential” (Gatbonton & Segalowitz, 2005, p.

333). Teachers may lead students to a focus on form as long as the activity “improve[s]

students’ knowledge of the targeted utterances” (Gatbonton & Segalowitz, 2005, p. 334) and the

students have already experienced the utterances upon which the class would focus. Corrective

feedback within this model includes “prompting and sociolinguistically authentic interventions

(e.g., recasts, repetitions, confirmation checks, and elicitations)” (Gatbonton & Segalowitz, 2005,

p. 337) but only on the targeted utterances. Corrective feedback is not provided for off-topic

utterances. This approach “rejects the view that students should only be exposed to correct

versions” (Gatbonton & Segalowitz, 2005, p. 340) of the targeted utterances, instead allowing

incorrect forms to provide opportunities for learning. ACCESS uses language analysis only as a

means to achieve automatic fluency. While the authors suggest that ACCESS could be extended

to all four language modalities, the interactive nature seems to focus on oral language, the very

concern about CLT mentioned above by university-level language instructors.

Future of Communicative Language Teaching Instruction

While many consider CLT to be a natural outgrowth of CC research, further language

pedagogy approaches are still being created. Post-CLT methodologies have now developed,

such as Task-Based Language Teaching, Focus on Form, Cooperative Language Learning, and

Content-Based Instruction (López Rama & Luque Agulló, 2012). Some researchers find that

neither extreme of the CLT spectrum—1) a shallow end where grammar was explicitly taught
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 19

and 2) a deep end where grammar was completely avoided so as not to impede communication—

has been capable of leading students to communicative competence (López Rama & Luque

Agulló, 2012). The shallow end leads students to know a great deal about grammar while being

incapable of communicating, and the deep end leads students to communicate, but inaccurately.

“Communicative competence has given way to a broader view in which socio-cultural,

pragmatic and discourse issues are combined with a notion of language based on computational

analysis” (López Rama and Luque Agulló, 2012, p. 182). With this move to integrate corpus

linguistics, these post-CLT methodologies still are informed by Hallidayan ideas of function, and

should include an attention to grammar. Teachers seem more willing to integrate grammar and

communication of meaning, recognizing that “conscious knowledge can become unconscious or

automatized…and, alternately, unconscious knowledge can be analyzed” (López Rama and

Luque Agulló, 2012, p. 183). It seems that in order to achieve CC, both a meta-awareness of

language development and opportunities for authentic language use must exist, together, in the

second-language classroom.

Another extension of CLT concerns multimodal competence. While a shift from more

traditional grammar/structure-based pedagogy to communicative/function-based pedagogy is in

process, currently CLT focuses only on verbal meaning. The internet and other resources now

provide students with extensive access to both verbal and visual meaning representations. The

same concerns of building competence in contextually appropriate verbal communication cross

over to the need to build competence in contextually appropriate visual communication.

Teachers need to address how verbal and visual communication together influence and change

the intent and impact of the other, including how this interrelation changes in different cultures.
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 20

An additional goal of the language classroom, then, is to help students “become competent in

interpreting and constructing appropriate meanings multimodally” (Royce, 2007, p. 374).

Relationship between Communicative Competence and Interactional Competence

While communicative competence and CLT have been well developed in the literature

over the last forty years, IC is a more recent notion. Frequently referenced early works by

Kramsch and Hall will be cited as seminal pieces upon which newer research builds. This

section will define IC, contrast IC with CC, discuss requisite skills and tools for IC learning and

assessment, provide examples of IC development, and demonstrate IC in educational settings for

different age levels.

Definition of Interactional Competence

In an oft-cited article, Kramsch (1986) critiques the ACTFL/ETS Proficiency Guidelines

as input-output, static, linear, and accuracy-focused, arguing that the guidelines assessed items

easy to test without assessing one’s ability to participate in authentic discourse. An example

might include assessing if a student can form a question, but not assessing the function the

question would have within a discourse (such as using a rhetorical question to stall for more

time). “Pragmatic failure,…the inability to understand what is meant by what is said,”

(Kramsch, 1986, p. 369) can cause just as much communication breakdown, if not more, as a

forgotten adjectival ending or verb conjugation. Therefore, language study should lead to IC

with a goal of “intercultural understanding” (Kramsch, 1986, p. 370).

Many researchers have attempted to define and clarify the concept of IC, with varying

levels of overlapping ideas. IC requires more than pragmatic competence; it also required shared

knowledge (Young, 2011). IC focuses on “co-construction,” an incorporation of “a range of

interactional processes, including collaboration, cooperation, and coordination” (May, 2009, p.

COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 21

398 and considers “how individual competence is connected to, and partially constructed by both

those with whom [a language learner] is interacting and the larger sociohistorical forces” (Lee,

2006, p. 353). Furthermore, IC is “necessary for sustaining social interaction and relies upon the

speakers’ ability to use resources drawn from interactive practices” (Masuda, 2011, p. 520).

Other definitions of IC include, “the ability to develop and manage topic issues in practice-

relevant ways” (Hall, 1995, p. 39), “a learner’s ability to co-construct appropriate linguistics

forms, registers, and sequential routines in appropriate contexts in order to accomplish discursive

practices” (Hellermann, 2007, p. 85), “the ability to appropriately and effectively participate in

conversations” (Todhunter, 2007, p. 605), and “a competence that accounts not only for

linguistic changes, but also for the changes in the participation methods of an L2 speaker in a

particular community of practice” (König, 2013, p. 227). The recurring theme found in these

definitions includes a focus on initiating and responding appropriately and successfully in

conversations with others.

Hall and Pekarek Doehler (2011) define IC as “the context-specific constellations of

expectations and dispositions about our social words that we draw on to navigate our interactions

with others, [implying] the ability to mutually coordinate our actions” (p. 1). Hall and Pekarek

Doehler’s explanation seems to derive from Hymes’ initial notion of CC: “It includes

the…resources conventionally used for producing and interpreting turns and actions…so that

they are recognizable for others, and to repair problems in maintaining shared understanding”

(Hall & Pekarek Doehler, 2011, p. 2). L2 speakers must know when and how to take a stance in

an interactive setting as well as when and how to respond to another interlocutor. They must

overcome communication barriers that arise during these interactions through various strategies

such as circumlocution.
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 22

Within this context-based IC paradigm, grammar takes on a different meaning. Rather

than a prescriptive set of rules found in textbooks, grammar becomes a group of patterns that are

experienced repeatedly within those contexts. Language learners come to anticipate those

patterns and are able to move from “peripheral to fuller participation” (Young & Miller, 2004, p.

519). Once language learner’s IC has developed more, their “interactional involvement, in turn,

helps [their] grammars stay in shape” (Hall, 2004, p. 610).

Differences from Communicative Competence

While CC research does inform IC, each views the L2 speaker from a different

viewpoint. IC requires engaging with another person in a situation while CC is focused on the

individual alone: “IC is distributed across participants and varied in different interactional

practices….IC is not what a person knows, it is what a person does together with others

[emphasis in original]” (Young, 2011, p. 430). IC develops in context-specific situations where

language learners “[participate] with more experienced others in specific interactive practices”

(Young, 2011, p. 20). IC “is not an individual achievement;…it is co-constructed by all

participants in an interaction” (Young, 2011, p. 32). Masuda (2011) differentiates CC as being

context independent and IC as being “a co-construction in an interactive episode…specific to the

practice” (p. 520). Pekarek Doehler (2013) concurs that IC is concerned with the specific

context and that generalizations cannot be separated from the context in which the interaction

takes place. The research on IC repeatedly points to the experience of co-construction as an

essential part of IC.

Hall and Pekarek Doehler (2011) claim that prior CC research has focused on the skill of

speaking, the language of an individual, rather than on the skill of interaction, the language of

two or more interlocutors negotiating meaning together. In contrast, the CEFR defines the
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 23

receptive skills of listening and reading and the productive skills of speaking and writing, along

with the interactive skills of speaking and writing. The CEFR notes that “the acquisition of

receptive competences does not automatically guarantee that learners also have interactional

competences” (Vetter, 2011, p. 356).

Requisite Skills for Interactional Competence

IC develops as language learners participate in context-specific conversations, and this

development is necessary for “competent participation in a community’s significant practices”

(Hall, 1995, p. 39). Understanding the socio-culturally expected interactions set up by an initial

utterance allows interlocutors to anticipate specific lexical features, prepare their responses that

follow turn-by-turn, and know better how to recover from misunderstandings (Hall, 1995).

In order to develop IC, language learners must integrate a variety of skills. Young’s

(2000) six-component framework of IC includes: “rhetorical script…, specific register…,

strategies for taking turns…, management of topics…, patterns in interaction…, and signaling

for boundaries” (Young, 2000, p. 8-10). Strategies for taking turns, topic management, and

signaling for boundaries are identify specific skills necessary for IC (Hall & Pekarek Doehler,

2011).

The development of the above skills requires “(1) guided practice in those interactive

practices considered significant by and to the learners, and (2) the systematic study of L2

interactive practice, including their conventional resources and typical meanings, their varied

uses by the participants of the practices and the consequences engendered by these uses” (Hall,

1999, p. 137). Learners must notice the language that co-exists with a specific context and

recognize that the context limits the language choices that they may make. Specifically, teachers

must guide learners to recognize patterns of interaction. Items to analyze include “setting(s),…
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 24

participants,… expected goals or outcomes of the activity,… topic(s),… constitutive speech acts

and their sequential development,… participation structures,… and the formulaic openings,

transitions, and closings (Hall, 1999, p. 146-148). Beginning language learners should focus on

more ritualized contexts, while more advanced learners can consideration variations found in less

ritualized contexts.

While linguistic proficiency and contextual awareness are necessary for communication

to take place, an internal motivation is also necessary: “successful communication is not just

about shared knowledge of linguistic cues but also, and perhaps more importantly, a shared

willingness to cooperate” (Hall, Hendricks, & Orr, 2004, p. 81). Language users draw an

identity from their ability to use language, with this identity affecting motivation for learning

more language. While interaction with more proficient language users can increase IC, the L2

speakers desiring growth must feel welcome within the interaction. If the more proficient

language users view themselves as collaborators in the process alongside the L2 speakers,

instead of the experts who have more power than the L2 speakers, the L2 speakers’ motivation

and sense of identity will be more likely to push them to develop greater L2 proficiency (Hall et

al., 2004). In the classroom, teachers need to be intentional about building this collaborative

dynamic wherein all students have valuable ideas to offer to the class.

Teachers are likely to view students who employ greater classroom interaction as “active,

creative, and successful” (Hall & Walsh, 2002, p. 191) language users. Typically, teachers use

an initiation-response-evaluation (IRE) format of question and answer in the classroom. This

process does not lead students to extended interactions, however, and opportunities for language

growth are lost. If teachers change the third component evaluation to follow-up, thus an IRF

format, the interaction is extended and students have an opportunity to demonstrate their desire
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 25

to use the language (Hall & Walsh, 2002). As mentioned previously, language learners need

opportunities for interaction in order for their IC to grow.

Tools for Interactional Competence Learning and Assessment

When focusing specifically on developing IC of L2 speakers, conversation analysis (CA)

can help to identify changes in L2 speakers’ language and interaction choices. “Foundational to

CA is the idea that individuals in talk-in-interaction are competent individuals who, in sharing

social group membership, share knowledge on which they draw in the accomplishment of their

interactional activities” (Hall, 2009, p. 2). CA, unconcerned with the correctness of language,

identifies how interlocutors make use of language and other resources in a given interaction and

must be based on non-elicited speech (Pekarek Doehler, 2013). “It has been suggested that the

development of L2 IC can be understood and studied in terms of a change in participants’

methods for accomplishing L2 talk-in-interaction” (Hall & Pekarek Doehler, 2011, p. 7). An

analysis of the changes an L2 speaker makes in a recurring interactional task over time can

reveal the acquisition of both language and socio-culturally appropriate behaviors that has

occurred (Hall & Pekarek Doehler, 2011).

L2 IC requires the acquisition of several context-specific conversation development

strategies. Interactional moves that L2 learners must acquire to competently participate in L1

interactions include “turn-taking, opening or closing conversations, prefacing stories, proffering

disagreements,” (Pekarek Doehler, 2013, p. 150). Other aspects include “gaze and bodily

contact,…systematic procedures,…precision timing and the sequential organization of actions

and turns at talk” (Pekarek Doehler, 2013, p. 150). CA allows a focus on L2 speakers’

appropriation of resources rather than on comparison to native-speaker language, for “in the

coordination of these resources for all practical purposes…lies the L2 speaker’s interactional
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 26

competence” (Pekarek Doehler, 2013, p. 155). Furthermore, L2 speakers demonstrate IC

through discursive practices, “recurring episodes of social interaction in context…of social and

cultural significance to a community of speakers” such as “greeting, leave-taking, and picking up

a child from school” (Young, 2011, p. 427). By analyzing actual transcripts of what people say

in order to accomplish certain goals, teachers and L2 learners can identify what is necessary to

achieve those goals in terms of interaction and communication. Teachers can also identify areas

where their L2 speakers need to continue to develop.

CA can lead adult language learners to be “better able to anticipate, interpret, and engage

in culturally recognizable practices through talk-in-interaction when using the target language”

(Fujii, 2012, p. 102). Other benefits include “[helping] learners both to overcome certain

psychological barriers to language learning and also to notice a number of aspects of L2

interactions which otherwise may have escaped them” (Fujii, 2012, p. 112). Language learners

are sometimes unwilling to mimic the culturally appropriate behavior that they notice. Although

language learners need to be aware of L2 pragmatics, they should not be compelled to assimilate

into the L2 culture mindlessly. While teachers should expose language learners to L2 norms, L2

speakers must have the choice of whether or not to use native speaker-like language forms (Fujii,

2012). Choosing to appropriate a culture’s linguistic moves and behaviors is part of one’s

identity, and the student, himself or herself, should make his or her own identity decisions, not

the teacher. When language learners recognize how L2 norms impact how language is created

and received, learners “develop a critical awareness of language use and…are empowered to

make choices about whether to participate and, when doing so, how to use the resources in ways

that will enhance the realization of their own individual goals” (Hall, 1999, p. 150).
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 27

Hellermann (2007) stated that IC development is evident when looking at how a learner

modifies his or her interactions to these discursive practices in similar situations over time.

Assessing IC, therefore, should focus more on paired and group student interaction, rather than

interaction solely between teacher and student (May, 2009). With this in mind, IC assessment

must look at the interaction as a whole, rather than the IC of any one participant. In contrast to

typical teacher-student language proficiency interviews, “paired speaking tests have the potential

to elicit features of interactional competence, including a range of conversation management

skills” (May, 2009, p. 415). Raters used to the traditional teacher-student interviews may find

that the relational dynamic between dyad members impacts how the participants respond in the

interaction, and this dynamic can cause raters great difficulty in determining how to assess fair

individual scores.

Examples of Interactional Competence Development

If language learners have the opportunity to speak repeatedly with more experienced

speakers in similar contexts, these language learners will increase their IC (Masuda, 2011).

Masuda’s study reviews the acquisition of the interactional particle (IP) ne by Japanese as a

Foreign Language Learners in a study abroad program. This IP allows turn-taking in a

conversation to move forward, as ne is used in manners such as “displaying and seeking

agreement or confirmation, initiating interaction, introducing a new topic, and mitigating face

threatening acts” (Masuda, 2011, p. 521). Repeated interactions with a focus on ne lead some

learners to move from infrequent, and sometimes incorrect, use further along a continuum

towards non-formulaic, intentional use in conversations with native-speakers. However,

language learners’ beliefs about identity roles associated with a form (e.g. a male learner finding

ne to be too effeminate) can prevent the learner from developing IC with that form. Moreover,
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 28

language learners at lower proficiency levels are slower to build their IC due to less ability to

initiate and participate in conversations with native speakers (Masuda, 2011).

When considering L2 request approaches, some universal or cross-cultural trends tend to

happen with request interactions (Taleghani-Nikazm and Huth, 2010). According to CA,

speakers receive acceptance responses more often to offers than to requests. Therefore, a request

might contain pre-request hedging, such as a question to raise the topic, a demonstration of the

need for an acceptance response, or an expression of preference. This attention to requests is

part of the general CA sequence organization concept, and L2 speakers with lower proficiency

levels struggle more with negotiating the sequences needed to make a request (Taleghemi-

Nikazm & Huth, 2010). Sequence organization, in relation with lexis and syntax, can be used to

triangulate results to “show how notions regarding the sociality, appropriateness, directness, or

politeness of L2 learners’ talk emerges from the data as collaborative achievements” (Taleghemi-

Nikazm & Huth, 2010, p. 189). Thus, sequence forms part of Hymes’ appropriateness

component of CC in an interactional setting.

The discursive practice of writing conferences can lead a novice student to improve his

language through revision talk (Young & Miller, 2004). Through these writing conferences, not

only does the student increase his IC but the instructor does, as well. In Young and Miller’s

(2004) study, the instructor initially models the expected turns to be taken during the writing

conference, but over time the instructor learns which turns the student can take up. Eventually,

the student takes up all of the expected turns except those that solely belong to the instructor.

Interactional Competence in Education at Different Age Levels

Hall’s (1995) study indicates that foreign language classrooms provide little modeling of

what these interactions should look like and little opportunity for students to experience extended
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 29

talk interactions, such that students can learn how to appropriately manage a topic in

conversation in their new local cultural settings. L2 speakers need both the modeling and the

opportunity for interactional practice to succeed in interactions with other speakers of the target

language (Hall, 1995). In the following paragraphs, L2 IC growth is discussed for a young child,

for high school students, and for adults.

Cekaite (2007) addresses the IC that develops in a 7-year-old Kurdish girl in an

immersion classroom in Sweden, observing that the girl must learn “not only socialization to the

cultural norms of the target culture, but also socialization into the interactional norms and

practices appropriate to a specific classroom activity” (Cekaite, 2007, p. 46). Cekaite (2007)

remarks that “children need initially to acquire analytic representations of pragmatic knowledge,

and more or less fully develop them by school age, whereas adults may rely on universal

pragmatic knowledge, acquired through participation in a variety of communities of practice” (p.

47). Cekaite’s study considers how the girl participates in multiparty conversational activities in

the classroom setting. At first, the girl is mostly silent and considered a compliant student.

Then, as the girl’s L2 proficiency improves, she demonstrates culturally inappropriate behavior

because, while she has language to express herself, she does not understand how and when to

make her voice heard in the context of the classroom. By the end of the year, the girl’s IC grows

in parallel with her improved language proficiency, and she participates in culturally appropriate

ways both in response to others and through self-initiated speech acts. Cekaite’s (2007) study

demonstrates that linguistic proficiency grows at a different rate than IC, and both are required

for successful interaction in specific contexts. Teachers must not anticipate that linguistic

proficiency growth is predictive of IC growth, or vice-versa. Both must be monitored and

instructed in tandem but without a specific rate linked between them.

COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 30

IC development in the classroom happens when students take part in “exchanges that are

spontaneous, topically coherent, and extend over multiple turns” (Todhunter, 2007, p. 605),

which can be difficult to do in a school setting. Instructional conversation in high school can

provide a natural interaction within the school setting where IC can be developed as students

interactively learn about curricular concepts. Providing a transition between formal instructional

activities, this conversation allows opportunities for authentic question and response between

teachers and students and for students to initiate target language conversations. When necessary,

the teacher can help students with necessary repairs in context and keep the conversation moving

forward. Furthermore, students can co-construct their understanding of the teacher’s target-

language speech. “Interactionally competent speakers negotiate meaning in order to repair

communication breakdowns. However, achieving mutual understanding does not always lead to

resolution or awareness of grammatical form” (Todhunter, 2007, p. 614). Instructional

conversation allows teachers to lead students to correct grammatical forms while the students

also build their IC.

Hellermann’s (2007) study is concerned with the IC of beginning adult L2 English

learners through dyadic interactions. Students with lower English proficiency participate in little

pre-task talking, as opposed to students with higher English proficiency who spend some time in

small talk before beginning paired-work tasks assigned by the teacher. Furthermore, paired

students will adopt teacher-modeled language and peer language or mutually use available verbal

and non-verbal resources together as they attempt to prepare for and participate in teacher-

assigned tasks (Hellermann, 2007).

Using the concept of topic as her lens for understanding IC, König (2013) studies how

how a German-speaking au pair initiates conversations using self-selected topics during a year
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 31

stay with a French-speaking family. Over time, the au pair increases her sensitivity in how to

garner the other family members’ attention in order to address a topic of her interest. Even

though the au pair is an advanced French L2 speaker, her linguistic structures do not improve

significantly in the year-long study. Nevertheless, the manner in which those linguistic

structures are employed does show an increase of IC (König, 2013). At an adult level, this also

demonstrates the different rates of linguistic and IC growth.

Adult learners may “rely to some extent on their L1 interactional competence” as they

interact in the L2 (Barraja-Rohan, 2011, p. 485). L1 interactional skills and knowledge do not

automatically transfer to L2 IC. By using CA to identify IC features missing from students’

speech (e.g. response tokens, assessments, and adjacency pairs), teacher-modified lessons can

make adult students explicitly aware of these items. These lessons can lead to student

conversations which demonstrate greater integration of the initial lacking IC skills (Barraja-

Rohan, 2011).

Conclusion

Second and foreign language teachers must instruct much more than mere syntactic and

lexical structures because students in L2 language classes need to know how to interact

effectively with the L2 world around them, in schools, in the community, and at work.

Communicative competence and now interactional competence, along with their associated

pedagogies, provide goals that teachers may strive to help their students attain. When an L2

speaker can comprehend, respond to, and initiate interactions with native target language

speakers in ways in which the L2 speaker can understand the meaning, intent and cultural

expectations of the interactions, these goals will have been achieved.

COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 32

References

Barraja-Rohan, A. (2011). Using conversation analysis in the second language classroom to

teach interactional competence. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 479-507.

Bartning, I., Martin, M., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2010). Communicative proficiency and linguistic

development: intersections between SLA and language testing research. Eurosla.

Retrieved from http://eurosla.org/monographs/EMhome.html

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.

Cekaite, A. (2007). A child's development of interactional competence in a Swedish L2

classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 45-62.

Fujii, Y. (2012). Raising awareness of interactional practices in L2 conversations: Insights from

conversation analysis. International Journal of Language Studies, 6(3), 99-126.

Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. (2005). Rethinking communicative language teaching: A focus

on access to fluency. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(3), 325-353.

Hall, J. K. (1999). A prosaics of interaction: The development of interactional competence in

another language. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning

(pp. 137-151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hall, J. K. (1995). "Aw, man, where you goin'?": Classroom interaction and the development of

L2 interactional competence. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 37-62.

Hall, J. K. (2009). Interaction as method and result of language teaching. Language Teaching,

43, 1-14).

Hall, J. K. (2004). Language learning as an interactional achievement. The Modern Language

Journal, 88, 606-612.

COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 33

Hall, J. K., Cheng, A., & Carlson, M. (2006). Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory of

language knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 220-240.

Hall, J. K., Hendricks, S., & Orr, J. J. (2004). Dialogues in the ‘Global Village’: NNS/NS

collaborations in classroom interaction. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 1(2), 1-26.

Hall, J. K., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). L2 interactional competence and development. In J. K.

Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. K. Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and

development (pp. 1-18). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Hall, J. K., & Walsh, M. (2002). The links between teacher-student interaction and language-

learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 186-203.

Hellermann, J. (2007). The development of practices for action in classroom dyadic interaction:

Focus on task openings. The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 83-96.

Hulstijn, J. H., Anderson, J. C., & Schoonen, R. (2010). Developmental stages in second-

language acquisition and levels of second-language proficiency: Are there links between

them? In I. Bartning, M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and

linguistic development: intersections between SLA and language testing research (Vol. 1,

pp. 11-20). Eurosla. Retrieved from http://eurosla.org/monographs/EMhome.html

Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride, & J. Holmes (Eds.),

Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Ishihara, N. (2007). Web-based curriculum for pragmatics instruction in Japanese as a Foreign

Language: An explicit awareness-raising approach. Language Awareness, 16(1), 21-40.

Jenkins, J. (2006a). Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA. International Journal of

Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 137-162.

Jenkins, J. (2006b). The spread of EIL: a testing time for testers. ELT Journal, 60(1), 42-50.
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 34

König, C. (2013). Topic management in French L2: A longitudinal conversation analytic study.

EUROSLA Yearbook, 13(1), 226-250.

Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern

Language Journal, 70(4), 366-372.

Kramsch, C. (2006). From communicative competence to symbolic competence. The Modern

Language Journal, 90(2), 249-252.

Lee, Y. (2006). Towards respecification of communicative competence: Condition of L2

instruction or its objective. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 349-376.

Leung, C. (2005). Convivial communication: recontextualizing communicative competence.

International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 111-144.

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.) [Kindle Cloud

version]. Available from Amazon.com.

López Rama, J., & Luque Agulló, G. (2012). The role of grammar teaching: From

communicative approaches to the Common European Framework of Reference for

Languages. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 7, 179-191.

Masuda, K. (2011). Acquiring interactional competence in a study abroad: Language learners'

use of the interactional particle ne. The Modern Language Journal, 95(4), 519-540.

May, L. (2009). Co-constructed interaction in a paired speaking test: The rater's perspective.

Language Testing, 26(3), 397-421.

Milton, J. (2010). The development of vocabulary breadth across the CEFR levels. In I. Bartning,

M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development:

intersections between SLA and language testing research (pp. 211-231). Eurosla.

Retrieved from http://eurosla.org/monographs/EMhome.html

COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 35

Pallotti, G. (2010). Doing interlanguage analysis in school contexts. In I. Bartning, M. Martin, &

I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: intersections

between SLA and language testing research (Vol. 1, pp. 159-190). Eurosla. Retrieved

from http://eurosla.org/monographs/EMhome.html

Pekarek Doehler, S. (2013). Social-interactional approaches to SLA: A state of the art and some

future perspectives. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 4(2), 134-160.

Rifkin, B. (2006). A ceiling effect for communicative language teaching? The Modern Language

Journal, 90(2), 262-264.

Royce, T. (2007). Multimodal communicative competence in second language contexts. In T. D.

Royce & W. L. Bowcher (Eds.), New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse

(pp. 361-390). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Savignon, S. J. (1997). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice (2nd ed.).

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Savignon, S. J. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL Quarterly,

25(2), 261-277.

Savignon, S. J. (2002). Communicative language teaching: Linguistic theory and classroom

practice. In Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in

teacher education. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.

Steinhart, M. M. (2006). Breaching the artificial barrier between communicative competence and

content. The Modern Language Journal, 90(2), 258-262.

Taleghani-Nikazm, C., & Huth, T. (2010). L2 requests: Preference structure in talk-in-

interaction. Multilingua, 29(2), 185-202.

COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 36

Todhunter, S. (2007). Instructional conversations in a high school Spanish class. Foreign

Language Annals, 40(4), 604-621.

Tucker, H. (2006). Communicative collaboration: Language, literature, and communicative

competence redefined. The Modern Language Journal, 90(2), 264-266.

van Compernolle, R. A. (2013). Concept appropriation and the emergence of L2 sociostylistic

variation. Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 343-362.

Vásquez, C., & Fioramente, A. (2011). Interpreting pragmatics into the MA-TESL program:

Perspectives from former students. TESL-EJ, 15(2), 1-21.

Vellenga, H. (2011). Teaching L2 pragmatics: Opportunities for continuing professional

development. TESL-EJ, 15(2), 1-27.

Vetter, E. (2011). Exploiting receptive multilingualism in institutional language learning: The

case of Italian in the Austrian secondary school system. International Journal of

Bilingualism, 16(3), 348-365.

Young, R. F. (2000, March). Interactional competence: Challenges for validity. Paper presented

at the meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Vancouver, BC.

Young, R. F. (2011). Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing. In E.

Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2,

pp. 426-443). New York: Routledge.

Young, R. F. (2013). Learning to talk the talk and walk the walk: Interactional competence in

academic spoken English. Iberica(25), 15-38.

Young, R. F., & Miller, E. R. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL

writing conferences. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 519-535.

 COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE 37

Zapata, G. C. (2005). Literature in L2 Spanish classes: An examination of focus-on-cultural

understanding. Language Awareness, 14(4), 261-273.

View publication stats