There have been reformulations of the different components of knowledge that underlie Canale and Swain’s influential model of communicative competent, the model, in its slightly modified form by Canale (1983), still forms the conventional framework for curriculum design and classroom practice associated with communicative language teaching many educational contexts.
The notion of communicative competence described in the model entails for competencies, which are commonly refer to as grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence. The first and for most is grammatical or formal competence, which refers to the Chomskyan concept of linguistic competence; it is the native speaker’s knowledge of the syntactic, lexical, morphological, and phonological features of the language, as well as the capacity to manipulate these features to produce well-formed words and sentences. It provides the linguistic basis for the rules of usage which normally result in accuracy in performance.
The second, sociolinguistic competence, deals with the social rules of language use, which involve an understanding of the social context in which language is used. Such factors as the role of the participants in a given interaction, their social status, the information they share, and the function of interaction are given importance. Social context here refers to the culture-specific context embedding the norms, values, beliefs, and behavior patterns of a culture. Appropriate use of the language requires attention to such constructs.
Next comes discourse competence, which is the ability to deal with the extended use of language in context. This is ordinarily achieved through the connection of a series of sentences or utterances to form a meaningful whole. These connections are often quite implicit: ideas are linked to each other based on general knowledge of the world as well as familiarity with a particular context. Where these conceptual and experiential bonds are weak or inadequate, the meanings inferred from them are likely to be erroneous. Studies in contrastive rhetoric provide ample evidence for culture-specific thought patterns and organization differences that lead to serious misunderstandings. In such cases, formal cohesive devices normally used to establish overall coherence among propositions fall short of achieving adequate interpretation.
The last component in the model is strategic competence, which is defined as the ability to cope in an authentic communicative situation and to keep the communicative channel open. This requires the knowledge of communication strategies that one can use to compensate for imperfect knowledge of rules or for factors such as fatigue, inattention, and distraction which limit the application of such rules.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING AS ENCULTURATION
The communicative approach considers target language-based communicative competence to be essential in order for foreign language learners to participate fully in the target language culture. As such, the target language culture and its inhabitants, the native speakers, are elements crucial to the success of the teaching model. Learners are not only expected to acquire accurate forms of the target language, but also to learn how to use these forms in given social situations in the target language setting to convey appropriate, coherent, and strategically effective meanings for the native speaker. Thus, learning a foreign language becomes a kind of enculturation, where one acquires new cultural frames of reference and a new world view, reflecting those of target language culture and its speakers. Proponents of this view perceive foreign language teachers as ‘Gatekeepers’ who equip their learners with the four competencies of communication with a view towards enabling them to gain access to educational or economic opportunities within the target language setting.
As various communicative features underlying the sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic competencies in the target language culture are different from those in the learner’s own culture, it is suggested that teachers develop target language communicative competence in learners by integrating language and culture. This is found to be both ‘pedagogically and educationally sensible’, as it is said to offer ‘a multidimensional perspective or experience’ for the learners (Porto 1996).Integrating language and culture is seen by some as fundamental purpose of language learning for it gives learners experience of another language, and a different way of coping with reality. It also enables them to use the language as it is used by its native speakers. In the case of English, for instance, EFL teachers are asked not only to familiarize their students with the cultural characteristics of Britain but also to increase their awareness of the cultural diversity of the country, while at the same time teaching a standard variety of English so as not to offend the native speakers, and to be understood by them (Bex 1994). This, in fact, lead many ELT educators to train their students to improve their sociolinguistic competence in English or, worth, to ‘act’ in English, as they are believed to ‘need to become English-speaking people who speak their native language, assuming the body language, intonation, and life view of English speakers’ (Latulippe 1999).
Having thus reviewed the basic tenets of the communicative orthodoxy, we question the validity of the pedagogic model whose focus is on native speaker competence in the target language setting. This is discussed in reference to ELT under three different headings, by examining their utopian, unrealistic, and constraining essence of the notional communicative competence from the view point of English as International Language (EIL).
UTOPIAN VIEW OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
Communicative competence, with its standardized native speaker norms, as is utopian as the notion of the idealized native speaker-listener: it was the concern with meaning which gave rise to attempts to take issue with Chomsky’s construct of linguistic competence. The ideal native speaker-listener was considered to be a nonexistent abstraction, and emphasis was placed instead on the real native speaker-listener in relation to language use or language performance. Hence, it became necessary to integrate the linguistic code with a small ‘c’ concept of culture, referring to daily customs and ways of life and mainstream ways of thinking and behaving. Members of a given culture, according to this view, are said to behave and to interpret the behavior of others in reference to the communicative systems they have available to them. It is this monolithic perception of language and culture that has made the current native speaker-based model of communicative competence utopian in character. Languages, English included, often have several dialects. One cannot claim that there is one correct and appropriate way to use English, in the sense that one set of language patterns is somehow inherently superior to all the others. If certain language patterns are preferred over others, this is certainly done according to social values and not according to linguistic norms. If preferred language patterns, commonly associated with accuracy and appropriacy, are the outcome of judgements of social acceptability within the English-speaking culture, along the lines of Kachru’s (1986) ‘Inner Circle’ contexts (e. g. England), it follows that it will be linguistically invalid to impose such patterns on Kachru’s ‘Outer Circle’ countries (e. g. India), where English is used as a second language by millions of English-speaking bilinguals, let alone their transfer to ‘Expanding Circle’ countries (e. g. Turkey), where English is not even a second language.
Who then is the ‘real’ native speaker-listener typifying accurate and proper language use, if not another abstraction, or an idealization? Paikeday (1985) in his book entitled The Native Speaker is Dead!, shows native speakership as a linguistic myth, and argues that its true meaning is neither more nor less than a proficient user of the language. Rajagopalan (1999), noting the growing the critique of the native speaker concept in ELT circles, calls the construct ‘at best a convenient myth the linguists have got used to working with and at worst the visible tip of an insidious ideological iceberg’ (p. 203). In the same vein, Kramsch questions the notion of native speakership by birth or education or membership in a native speaker community, and posits a conceptual framework where the competence of the bilingual nonnative speaker who operates at the border between the two languages is taken as a pedagogic model. This involves ‘adaptability to choose which forms of accuracy and which forms of appropriateness are called for in which social context of use’ (1995:10). Yet many stereotypes are still being perpetuated in the EFL materials of Britain and the United States due to communicatively-oriented considerations of use taking precedence over those of usage. Only by producing instruction of materials that emphasize diversity both within and across cultures can one perhaps avoid presenting English meanings in fragmented and trivialized ways, where communicative functions are conceived as simple speech acts realized through specific structures, and where situational content generally portrays an idealized image of the English-speaking culture. It is perhaps time to rid the ELT field of its educational vision and practices based on a utopian notion of communicative competence involving idealized native speaker norms in both language and culture. Nevertheless, this will be difficult to achieve, as ‘generations of applied linguistic mythmaking in the indubitable superiority and the impregnable in infallibility of the “native speaker” has created stereotypes that die hard’ (Nayar 1994:4).
UNREALISTIC VIEW OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
Communicative competence, with its standardized norms, fails to reflect the lingua franca status of English: social and economic globalization has necessitated the use of an international means of communication in the world. English has become the language of international communication. It was estimated as early as 1985 that the number of people who used English world wide either as their native or nonnative language was one and a half billion. English is likely to remain the basic international medium of communication well into the twenty-first century and within a short period of time the number of people who speak English as a nonnative language may well exceed the number of its native speakers. Even now English is the world’s primary vehicle for storing and transmitting information. An estimated 75% of the world’s male is in English. 80% of computer data is in English and 85% of all information stored or abstracted is in English (Thomas 1996).
Given the lingua franca status of English, it is clear that much of the world needs and uses English for instrumental reasons such as professional contacts, academic studies, and commercial pursuits. In this context, much communication in English involves (and will increasingly involve) nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker interactions. How relevant, then, are the conventions of British politeness or American informality to the Japanese or Iranians say when doing business in English? How relevant are such culturally-laden discourse sample as British railway time tables or American newspaper advertisements to industrial engineers from Romania and Egypt conducting technical research in English? How relevant is the importance of Anglo-American eye contact, or the socially acceptable distance for conversation as properties of meaningful communication to Finnish and Italian academicians exchanging ideas in a professional meeting? Such samples point to the need for a radical rethink in terms of a modified and expanded definition of the traditional notion of communicative competence.
CONSTRAINING VIEW OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETANCE
Communicative competence, with its standardized native speaker norms, circumscribes learner and teacher autonomy: the idea that the language presented in the classroom should be as authentic as possible, so as to represent the reality of native speaker language use, has been one of the tenets of the communicative approach. Real communicative behavior in this context is defined strictly in terms of the parochial milieu and the fuzzy notion of the native speaker. As such, the multiplicity of uses of English around the world involving encounters not only native speakers and nonnative speakers, but also nonnative speakers and nonnative speakers, is not even recognized. In the same vein, corpus descriptions of English contain databases of native speaker usage, influencing model situation in ELT course books which involve interactions of native speakers with native speakers.
Clearly, with authenticity being dependent on the authority of the native speaker the notion of learner autonomy suffers dramatically, as it focuses on the activation of learners’ own experience in the use of language as part of their learning. As Widdowson (1998) observes the language which is real for native speakers is not likely to be real for nonnative speakers. For language to be authentic in its routine pragmatic functioning, it needs to be localized within a particular discourse community. It follows that the more the language is localized for the learners, the more they can engage with it as discourse.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that real communicative behavior aught to be redefined in relation to the reality of English as an International Language, entailing not only the uses of English that are real for its native speakers in English-speaking countries, but also the uses of English that are real for its nonnative speakers in communities served by languages other than English. Only then can be speak of autonomous language learning, taking into account the meaningful background provided by the indigenous language and culture of the learner.
Native speaker-based authenticity further restricts the nonnative speaker teachers’ autonomy on two accounts. First, with English embedded in the native speaker culture its teaching remains inseparable form teaching native speaker culture. As such, learners’ own culture is peripheralized, if not completely ignored. Yet this is the area where nonnative speaker teachers are at their best, due to the linguistic background and life experience they share with their students. Instead of developing new systemic data in relation to the learners’ already established familiar schematic knowledge, as is the case with native language learning processes, they feel intimidated by native speaker norms of use and usage, and also find themselves in the potentially awkward position of equipping their students with aspects of the native speaker’s sociolinguistic and strategic competencies.
Secondly, as multicomponent language users, in whom the co-existence and interaction of two languages is a fact of life, nonnative speaker teachers are hinder from raising multicomponent minds due to the educational system’s obsession with the often monolingual native speaker. Rarely are goals set, or situations and roles devised that are appropriate for foreign language learners; seldom are language corporal used that entail interactions between nonnative speakers; virtually no teaching method is utilized taking into consideration the learner’s native language.
As a reaction to restrictions on learner and teacher autonomy based on the adherence to the notion of native speaker-based authenticity, several attempts have been made to deculturize or nativize English in various degrees. One common approach has been to design instruction of materials where cultural content chiefly comes from the familiar and indigenous features of the local setting so as to motivate the students and enhance their language learning experience. This has been done, albeit on a small scale, in a number of countries. In addition to educators’ efforts to incorporate the local cultural background into the language learning process, language learners themselves have develop varieties of English, such as Dutch English or German English, barring a measure of each country’s particular cultural and linguistic background and unique experience with English as well as manifesting certain distinctive features in the areas of pronunciation, lexis, syntax, and pragmatics (Berns 1988).
Although attempts to deculturize of nativize English have a number of educational merits, they are not too different from communicative orientations to teaching English through the generally unrealistic, often idealized, and at times monolithic norms of the native speakers and their culture(s). As such, they fall short of recognizing the international status of English, and fail to provide an alternative to the conventional view that a language cannot be thought separately from its culture. This view is certainly sensible in the case of foreign language instruction, yet it fails miserably when it comes to teaching an international language, whose culture becomes the world itself.
CONCLUSION
The conventional model of communicative competence, with its strict adherence to native speaker norms within the target language culture, would appear to be invalid in accounting for learning and using and international language in cross-cultural settings. A new pedagogic model is urgently needed to accommodate the case of English as a means of international and intercultural communication. This model should take into account the following criteria:
1. Successful bilinguals with intercultural insights and knowledge should serve as pedagogic models in English as an International Language (EIL) rather than the monolingual native speaker.
2. Intercultural communicative competence should be developed among EIL learners by equipping them with linguistic and cultural behavior we should enable them to communicate effectively with others, and also by equipping them with an awareness of difference, and with strategies for coping with such difference (Hyde 1998).
3. The EIL pedagogy should be one of global appropriacy and local appropriation, in that it should prepare learners ‘to be both global and local speakers of English and to feel at home in both international and national cultures’ (Kramsch and Sullivan 1996:211).
4. Instructional materials and activities should involve local and international contexts that are familiar to language learners’ lives.
5. Instruction of materials and activities should have suitable discourse samples pertaining to native and nonnative speaker interactions, as well as nonnative and nonnative speaker interactions. Discourse displaying exclusive native speaker use should be kept to a minimum, as it is chiefly irrelevant for many learners in terms of potential use in authentic settings (Widdowson 1998).
It is time for ELT to consider the implications of the international status of English in terms of appropriate pedagogies and instructional materials that will help learners become successful by lingual and intercultural individuals who are able to function well in both local and international settings.
REFERENCES
Berns, M.1998. ‘The Cultural and Linguistic Context of English in West Germany’. World Englishes 7/1:37-49.
Bex, A. R. 1994. ‘The problem of culture and English language teaching in Europe’. IRAL 32/1:57-67.
Canale, M. 1983. ‘From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy’ in J. C. Richards and R. W. Schmidt (eds.). Language and communication. London: Longman.
Crystal, D. 1985. ‘How many billions? The statistics of English today’. English today 1:7-11.
Hyde, M. 1998. ‘Intercultural competence in English language education’. Modern English Teacher 7/2:7-11.
Kachru, B. 1986. The Alchemy of English: Oxford Pergamon Press.
Kramsch, C. 1995. ‘The privilege of the nonnative speaker ‘.Plenary address at the Annual TESOL Convention, April, Long Beach, California.
Kramsch, C. and P. Sullivan. 1996. ‘Appropriate pedagogy’. ELT Journal 50/3:199-212.
Latulippe, L. 1999. ‘Lessons learnt from being a students again’. TESOL Matters 9/2:13.
Nayar, P. B. 1994. ‘Whose English is it?’ TESL/EJ [On-line serial], 1/1, F1. URL: http://berkeley.edu/~cwp/TESL-EJ.html.
Paikeday, T. M. 1985. The Native Speaker is Dead! Toronto and New York:PPI.
Porto, M. 1996. ‘Integrating the teaching of language and culture’. IATEFL Newsletter 132:14-15.
Rajagopalan, K. 1999. ‘Of EFL teachers, conscience, and cowardice’. ELT Journal 53/3:200-6.
Thomas, L. 1996. ‘Language as power: A linguistic critique of US English’. The Modern Language Journal 80/2:129-40.
Widdowson, H. G. 1998. ‘Context, community, and authentic language’. TESOL Quarterly 32/4:705-16.
1 comment