Communicative competence (grammatical, sociocultural, discourse, and

strategic subcompetences). A term devised by Dell Hymes and based on the

linguistic notion of competence. Noam Chomsky, for instance, distinguished
between competence and performance. Competence refers to speakerlisteners knowledge of the grammatical system of a language, their ability
to produce grammatically-correct sentence and recognize ungrammatical
sentences. This is an idealized concept, which Chomsky contrasted with
performance: the actual utterances produced by speakers, with all their
hesitations, disfluencies etc. (e.g. Chomsky, 1957). While Chomsky was
concerned with the knowledge of an ideal speaker-listener, Hymes, as a
sociolinguist, was concerned with the study of contextualized speech: he
famously declared that a child who produced any sentence without due
regard to the social and linguistic context would be a social monster
(1974:75). Communicative competence, therefore, refers to what a speaker
needs to know, and what a child needs to learn, to be able to use language
appropriately in specific social/cultural settings.
Competence (knowledge of language) vs. performance (communicative
skills) vs. proficiency (both).
Competence: It is the implicit system of rules that constitute a persons
knowledge of a language. This includes a persons ability to create and
understand sentences, including sentences they have never heard before,
knowledge of what are and what are not sentences of a particular language,
and the ability to recognize ambiguous and deviant sentences. For example,
a speaker of English would recognize I want to go home as an English
sentence, but would not accept a sentences such as I want going home
even though all the words in it are English words. Competence often refers
to an ideal speaker/ hearer, that is and idealized but not a real person who
would have a complete knowledge of the whole language. A distinction is
made between competence and performance, which is the actual use of the
language by individuals in speech and writing.
Performance: A persons actual use of language. A difference is made
between a persons knowledge of a language (competence) and how a
person uses this knowledge in producing and understanding sentences
(performance). For example, people may have the competence to produce
an infinitely long sentence but when they actually attempt to use this
knowledge (to perform) there are many reasons why they restrict the
number of adjectives, adverbs, and closes in any one sentence. They may
run out of breath, or their listeners may get bored or forget what has been
said if the sentence is too long. In second and foreign language learning, a
learners performance in a language is often taken as an indirect indication
of his or her competence, although other indexes such as grammaticality
judgements are sometimes considered a more direct measure of
competence. There is also a somewhat different way of using the term
performance. In using language, people often make errors. These may be
due to performance factors such as fatigue, lack of attention, excitement,

nervousness. Their actual use of language on a particular occasion may not

reflect their competence. The errors they make are described as examples
of performance.
Proficiency: The degree of skill with which a person can use a language,
such as how well a person can read, write, speak, or understand language.
This can be contrasted with language achievement, which describes
language ability as a result of learning. Proficiency may be measure through
the use of a proficiency test.
Complexity vs. accuracy vs. fluency (CAF) vs. idiomaticity
(performance criteria used to test L2 proficiency).
Complexity: A composite measure of language use, normally reflecting the
length of utterances and the amount of subordination used. In studying a
second language learners discourse or interlanguage complexity is one
measure of L2 development.
Accuracy: Accuracy involves the correct use of the target language, with
correct generally interpreted as meaning according to L1 speaker usage.
While accuracy is often the goal of L2 learning, it is not always viewed as
the most helpful yardstick by which to measure learners language
proficiency because it engages the comparative fallacy which views
successful L2 learning in terms of target-like accuracy only and does not
consider the nature of the interlanguage system. Indeed, some
interlanguage structure has been found to develop in stages, with some of
those stages possibly being ungrammatical; however, even though the
learners language production is inaccurate it may still show improvement if
the inaccurate language is at a higher developmental stage than previous
production. The production of inaccurate language is therefore potentially
desirable since it may represent the necessary progression through one of a
series of stages towards target language proficiency. Accuracy is also
commonly used in SLA research to determine if a particular treatment has
any effect on L2 learning. There are several ways in which accuracy can be
measured. One option is to view it as a global phenomenon in which the
entire set of learner production is rated according to its target-likeness. To
that end, researchers may provide a holistic accuracy score, or they may
take a more analytic approach, by counting the number of errors. One way
to do this is to calculate the percentage of error free clauses. Learner
production is divided into c-units or t-units and the ratio of error free clauses
compared to the number of clauses containing errors is calculated. One final
way to investigate overall accuracy is by counting the number of errors per
x number of words. Another approach to accuracy examines the target-like
use of specific components of language, such as verb tense or article use.
The percentage accuracy score for each structure can be calculated by
using obligatory-occasion analysis or target-like use analysis. Accuracy is
most often used to refer to grammar, but the term may also apply to
pronunciation, vocabulary and pragmatics. Accuracy is often measured

together with fluency and complexity in order to provide an overall view of

learners L2 production capabilities.
Fluency: The features which give speech the qualities of being natural and
normal, including native-like use of pausing, rhythm, intonation, stress, rate
of speaking, and use of interjections and interruptions. If speech disorders
cause a breakdown in normal speech (e.g. as with aphasia or stuttering), the
resulting speech may be referred to as disfluent, or as an example of
disfluency. In second and foreign language teaching, fluency describes a
level of proficiency in communication, which includes:
a) the ability to produce written and/or spoken language with ease
b) the ability to speak with a good but not necessarily perfect command of
intonation, vocabulary and grammar.
c) the ability to communicate ideas effectively.
d) the ability to produce continuous speech without causing comprehension
difficulties or a breakdown of communication.
It is sometimes contrasted with accuracy, which refers to the ability to
produce grammatically correct sentences but may not include the ability to
speak or write fluently.
Idiomaticity: The degree to which speech is not simply grammatical but
also native-like in use. For example, it pleases me that Harry was able to be
brought by you (said by a host/hostess to a guest at a party) is
grammatical but not native-like or idiomatic, whereas I am so glad you
could bring Harry is both grammatical and idiomatic.
Components of an L2/L2 components (phonology-ortography, lexis,
morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics-discourse).
Components of an L2: From a Chomskyan point of view, the speakers
competence is the knowledge of a certain language in the mind. That
knowledge is divided in components; those components comprehend your
knowledge about lexical aspects, morphology, syntax, etc. Every oral
language has 6 components: orthography, phonology, the semantic and
lexical components, morphology, syntax and pragmatics.
(comprehensible) input hypothesis (Krashen) vs. (comprehensible)
output hypothesis (Swain).
Input hypothesis. A central component of Krashens monitor model, the
input hypothesis argues that comprehensible input is necessary and
sufficient for L2 acquisition. Input is made comprehensible by its linguistic
and social context. For example, if learners were to encounter an unknown
word, the best way for them to learn it is to rely on the context of the
sentence/utterance that the word appears in or to be able to identify it from
the context of the physical environment. As such, interaction or negotiation

of meaning does not play an important role in the input hypothesis. Another
component of the hypothesis is that output occurs as a result of input and
acquisition, but it does not play a role in the learning process. The input
hypothesis does not see an important role for explicit L2 instruction. Instead,
the role of a classroom teacher is to provide an acquisition rich environment
for the learners. Acquisition rich means that there is plenty of
comprehensible input for the learners. When plentiful amounts of input are
provided, learners will be able to progress along the natural order of
acquisition.
Output hypothesis. In 1985, Merrill Swain suggested that not only did
learners need comprehensible input for L2 learning, but they also needed to
produce comprehensible output. She based this hypothesis on her
observation of the French immersion programs in Canada in which English
L1 elementary school students study in French. She, and others researchers,
found that, in spite of years of L2 input, learners often were not able to use
accurately some common grammatical structures. Additionally, she noted
that these learners did not have many opportunities to produce the
language. Therefore, she argued that the learners would benefit from
producing the language. When learners actually had to produce the
language, they would have to think about what grammatical structures
would encode the meanings they were trying to convey. This attention to
grammatical features is unlike what can happen with input in which learners
can rely primarily in semantic cues to understand and utterance. If learners
are pushed to produce language that is comprehensible, they will then have
to process the language syntactically rather than just semantically. In this
way, Swain suggested that output is also a crucial part of the L2 learning
process, something that had not been promoted until this point. Swain also
proposes several functions for output. First, it can have a noticing triggering
function in that, as learners are trying to produce output, they may realize
that they do not have the linguistic resources to produce the correct form.
As such, learners may notice the gap between their own interlanguage
system and the target language system. Another function of output is
hypothesis testing. When producing output, learners can try out new forms
and gauge the kind of reaction they get from their interlocutors. If learners
try out a new form, and the conversation continues as normal, they can
assume that the linguistic structure has been used correctly. If, however, the
communication breaks down or if the learners receive corrective feedback,
then they may realize that their hypothesis was incorrect and that it needs
to be modified. The final function of output is a metalinguistic (reflective)
one. As learners produce language, they are able to think about what they
hear and to reflect on it.
Connectionism/emergentism.
Connectionism. It is a general theory of learning that is not specifically
limited to language learning; however, in SLA, connectionism refers to a
group of models of language processing and learning that are usage-based.

Learning in connectionism is not based innate language learning

mechanism, as it is in UG accounts. Rather, learning occurs as learners are
exposed to input over and over again. Each time a specific linguistic item is
encountered in the input, it is reinforced in the learners cognitive system.
Thus, the connection between that word and the rest of the interlanguage
system is strengthened. Furthermore, learners are able to extract patterns
of language used (what might be called rules in other approaches) based
on the input. Learners interlanguage is distributed across a network of
interconnected, simple processing units. In this model, language is not
stored discretely or symbolically (i.e. in rules), but resides in a network of
connections between numerous simple processing units (similar to the way
in which neural networks operate in the brain). Repeated encounters with a
stimulus affect the strength between these connections. As an example,
seeing the words by the way written together will strengthen the
relationship between them and facilitate retrieval the next time these words
are encountered (i.e. by the will trigger way). In this way, connectionism
attempts to explain not only how knowledge is stored but also how it is
learned. Experiments have had some success in showing that a computer
program based on a connectionist model can acquire morphemes, in a
similar fashion as do language learners.
Emergentism. A theory of SLA that proposes that patterns in L2 knowledge
emerge as a result of exposure to the target language. Emergentism sees
language as a complex, dynamic system that develops in sometimes
unsystematic and surprising ways. It sees language learning as similar to
other, general, types of learning, and it does not see a role for a unique
language learning component of the brain.

Contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH):

The hypothesis that L2 acquisition consists of a transfer of L1 habit to the
L2. In the 1960s contrastive analysis was used to explain why some
languages or elements of a language were more difficult for specific L1
speakers to acquire than others. Such information had a direct effect on L2
pedagogy. It was thought that L2 acquisition involved the gradual learning of
the differences between the L1 and L2. The greater the differences between
structures in the L1 and L2, the more difficult the acquisition of the target
language was thought to be. Furthermore, structures in the L1 that were
similar to structures in the L2 were more easily transferable by learners.
These ideas came to be known as the contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH).
The strong form of the CAH claimed that difficulties in L2 learning could be
predicted by differences between the L1 and L2. However, researchers
discovered that the difficulties that learners had with certain structures (as
evidenced by learners errors) were not always predicted by differences
between the L1 and target language. A weak version of the CAH suggested
that contrastive analysis could be useful in explaining some of the linguistic
errors that were actually produced by learners. Later empirical research

showed that differences between the L1 and L2 do not necessarily produce

difficulties for learners, and researchers identified certain developmental
stages that learners, regardless of their L1s, go through in acquiring the
target languages, during which their interlanguage differs from the target
language norm. As an example, Zobl (1980) studied the learning of direct
object pronouns in French and English by L1 speakers of those languages. In
English, the direct object pronoun always follows the verb.
I see her.
But in French, the direct object pronoun comes before the verb.
Je la vois.
I her see
I see her
The contrastive analysis hypothesis would predict that French L1 learners of
English would put the direct object before the verb as they do in their L1.
*I her see.
The CAH would also predict the English L1 learners of French would put their
direct objects after the verb.
*Je vois la.
I see her
While the latter is a common error made by English L1 learners of French,
the former error is almost never made by French L1 learners of English.
Thus, a difficulty predicted by the CAH is not supported by learners actual
production of the target language. In adittion, it was found to be difficult to
compare language as they need to be described along the same theoretical
lines in order to have a point of comparison. As a result of these difficulties,
use of contrastive analysis has declined; however, it is acknowledged that
the characteristics of a learners first language can influence the learning of
a second language, and this has been referred to as cross-linguistic
influence. Nevertheless, current thinking on L2 learning is that both L1
influences and developmental factors must be taken into account in order to
explain L2 learning.
Corrective feedback types (explicit correction, recast/reformulation,
clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation,
repetition, multiple feedback types, avoidance).
It occurs in response to learners production errors. As such, it provides
negative evidence to learners about what is not possible in the target
language. The usefulness of corrective feedback for L2 learning has been
debated in SLA. Some argue that corrective feedback may be embarrassing

for learners and that it does not affect learners interlanguage system. Other
researchers argue that corrective feedback, particularly during
communicative language teaching can help learners notice the difference
between their own L2 production and the correct target language form.
Corrective feedback can occur in several different ways, with several broad
distinctions made regarding their characteristics. One dimension, related to
the noticing hypothesis, concerns the explicitness of corrective feedback.
Some researchers argue that more implicit types of feedback are beneficial
while other researches counter that more explicit types are needed for
acquisition to occur. Another contrast in types of feedback is whether the
feedback is input-providing, with the teacher providing the correct form, or
output-prompting, with the teacher encouraging the learner to self-correct
the error. Opponents of input-providing feedback suggest that learners may
simple mimic the correction without mentally processing it, while outputprompting feedback involves learners in deeper mental processing as they
search for the correct form. Three of the most common forms are recast,
elicitation or metalinguistic feedback. Recast, which reformulate the
incorrect utterance, tend to be more implicit, but they provide the correct
form for the learners. Elicitations provide an opportunity for learners to selfcorrect, and thus are argued to be better for L2 learning. Metalinguistic
feedback is more explicit, which may interrupt the communicative flow, but
this type makes the error more noticeable. Studies that have compared
different types of feedback have produced varying results. In general,
corrective feedback appears to be beneficial and it would seem that more
explicit feedback options may be somewhat more effective.
Critical period hypothesis (CPH) vs. sensitive period (in L2
acquisition).
Critical period hypothesis (CPH). The period during which a child can
acquire language easily, rapidly, perfectly and without instruction. In
Lennebergs original formulation of the CPH, this period was identified as
ranging from age 2 to puberty. Lenneberg believed that brain lateralization
is complete at puberty, making post-adolescent language acquisition
difficult, with complete learning of a second language a goal unlikely to be
realized. Some researches now hold that the critical age for the acquisition
of phonology may be as early as 5 or 6, while there is perhaps no age limit
for the acquisition of vocabulary. Some theorize that there is not critical
period at all, that it is possible to learn a second language perfectly after
puberty, while others argue that there is a steady decline in language
learning ability with age, with no sharp breaks identifying a critical period.
For this reason, the term sensitive period is sometimes preferred. Whether
critical period related learning deficits are biologically, socially, cognitively
or affectively based has also been the subject of much dispute.
Declarative vs. procedural knowledge.
Declarative. A sentence type whose primary role is in making statements,
for example, the car has arrived is a declarative, in contrast to questions

(has the car arrived?), or imperatives (run!). Some sentences with

declarative form may have hidden imperative force: its a bit cold in here
may be intended as a polite request that a window be closed.
Declarative knowledge. Declarative knowledge is information that
consists of consciously known facts, concepts or ideas that can be stored as
propositions. For example, an account of the tense system in English can be
presented as a set of statements, rules or facts, i.e. it can be learned as
declarative knowledge. This can be contrasted with procedural
knowledge, that is knowledge concerning things we know how to do but
which are not consciously known, such as how to ride a bicycle or how to
speak german. Procedural knowledge is acquired gradually through
practice, and underlies the learning of skills. Many aspects of second
language learning consist of procedural rather than declarative knowledge.
Procedural knowledge. Knowledge of how to perform and activity, i.e. the
how to level of knowledge involved in employing a skill such as using a
computer or operating a videocamera.
Developmental sequences/ developmental stages/ stages of development/
orders.
Developmental sequences. A succession of phases in acquiring new
linguistic forms. An important issue in theories of second language
acquisition is whether learners errors result from language transfer or are
sometimes developmental errors. It has been suggested that a
developmental sequence may explain how many learners acquire the rules
for negation in English. Learners may first produce forms such as I no like
that (instead of I dont like that) and No drink some milk (instead of I
dont want to drink any milk), even when the learners mother tongue has
similar negation rules to English. As language learning progresses, a
succession of phases in the development of negation is observed, as no
gives way to other negative forms such as not and dont. A
developmental sequence is thus said to occur with the development of
negation in English.

Differential success/ultimate attainment (an internal dimension

within L2 acquisition only).
Differential success / ultimate attainment: It refers to the final level of
achievement in an L2. This process usually does not have an absolute end,
but it does have it in a lot of instances, and in the case of students that end
takes place when they end their studies. This can lead to what is called the
end of the learning process. Then the question is, what is your ultimate
attainment, the level of proficiency at the end of the process? That end is
variable and flexible, but in most of the cases, it fades away when you finish
your degree. So, one important thing is that there are people with similar

learning history, and however, they usually have differences in their end of
the learning process. When the learning of a language starts, one can never
be sure of the final level. Motivation, aptitude and attitude are some
important factors that influence your level of differential success.
Display/test questions vs. referential/ genuine questions (in
teacher-student classroom discourse)
Display question. A question which is not a real question (i.e. which does
not seek information unknown to the teacher) but which serves to elicit
language practice. For example: Is this a book? Yes, this is a book. It has
been suggested that one way to make classes more communicative is for
teachers to use fewer display questions and more referential questions.
Referential questions. A question which asks for information which is not
known to the teacher, such as what do you think about animal rights?.
Face-to-face, one-to-one interaction (with more proficient
interlocutor; see sociocultural theory).
Face-to-face interaction. Communication between people in which the
participants are physically present. In contrast there are some situations
when speaker and hearer may be in different locations, such as a telephone
conversation.
Sociocultural theory. A learning theory derived from the work of the
Russian psychologist Vygotsky which deals with the role of social context in
learning. Sociocultural theory emphasizes the central role that social
relationships and participation in culturally organized practices play in
learning. In second language learning research sociocultural theory
emphasizes the role that social interaction plays in learning and the nature
of language as a communicative activity rather than as a formal linguistic
system. Second language learning is viewed as resulting from the
sociocultural activities in which the learner participates.
Feedback: corrective/ negative feedback vs. positive feedback vs.
back channel feedback/cues
Corrective feedback: It occurs in response to learners production errors.
As such, it provides negative evidence to learners about what is not possible
in the target language. The usefulness of corrective feedback for L2 learning
has been debated in SLA. Some argue that corrective feedback may be
embarrassing for learners and that it does not affect learners interlanguage
system. Other researchers argue that corrective feedback, particularly
during communicative language teaching can help learners notice the
difference between their own L2 production and the correct target language
form. Corrective feedback can occur in several different ways, with several
broad distinctions made regarding their characteristics. One dimension,
related to the noticing hypothesis, concerns the explicitness of corrective
feedback. Some researchers argue that more implicit types of feedback are

beneficial while other researches counter that more explicit types are
needed for acquisition to occur. Another contrast in types of feedback is
whether the feedback is input-providing, with the teacher providing the
correct form, or output-prompting, with the teacher encouraging the learner
to self-correct the error. Opponents of input-providing feedback suggest that
learners may simple mimic the correction without mentally processing it,
while output-prompting feedback involves learners in deeper mental
processing as they search for the correct form. Three of the most common
forms recast, elicitation or metalinguistic feedback. Recast, which
reformulate the incorrect utterance, tend to be more implicit, but they
provide the correct form for the learners. Elicitations provide an opportunity
for learners to self-correct, and thus are argued to be better for L2 learning.
Metalinguistic feedback is more explicit, which may interrupt the
communicative flow, but this type makes the error more noticeable. Studies
that have compared different types of feedback have produced varying
results. In general, corrective feedback appears to be beneficial and it would
seem that more explicit feedback options may be somewhat more effective.
Cues (in language teaching): A signal given by the teacher in order to
produce a response by the students. For example in practicing questions:
Cue

Response

Time

What time is it?

Day

What day is it?

Cues may be words, signals, actions, etc.

Communicative competence. The ability to use language in a variety of
settings, taking into account relationships between speakers and differences
in situations. The term has sometimes been interpreted as the ability to
convey messages in spite of a lack of grammatical accuracy. Canale & Swain
propose their own theory of communicative competence that minimally
includes three main competencies: grammatical, sociolinguistic and
strategic competence. Grammatical competence includes knowledge of
lexical items and of rules of morphology,syntax,sentencegrammar
semantics, and phonology. Sociolinguistic competence is made up of two
sets of rules: sociolinguistic rules of use and rules of discourse. They believe
that knowledge of these rules will be crucial in interpreting utterances for
social meaning. Strategic competence is made up of verbal and non-verbal
communication strategies that may be called into action to compensate for
breakdowns in communication due to performance variables or to
insufficient grammatical competence.
Communicative competence is made up of four competence areas:
linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic. Linguistic competence is
knowing how to use the grammar, syntax, and vocabulary of a language.
Linguistic competence asks: What words do I use? How do I put them into
phrases and sentences?

Sociolinguistic competence is knowing how to use and respond to language

appropriately, given the setting, the topic, and the relationships among the
people communicating. Sociolinguistic competence asks: Which words and
phrases fit this setting and this topic? How can I express a specific attitude
(courtesy, authority, friendliness, respect) when I need to? How do I know
what attitude another person is expressing?
Discourse competence is knowing how to interpret the larger context and
how to construct longer stretches of language so that the parts make up a
coherent whole. Discourse competence asks: How are words, phrases and
sentences put together to create conversations, speeches, email messages,
newspaper articles?
Strategic competence is knowing how to recognize and repair
communication breakdowns, how to work around gaps in ones knowledge
of the language, and how to learn more about the language and in the
context.Strategic competence asks: How do I know when Ive misunderstood
or when someone has misunderstood me? What do I say then? How can I
express my ideas if I dont know the name of something or the right verb
form to use?
Corrective feedback. An indication to a learner that his or her use of the
target languages is incorrect. Corrective feedback can be explicit (for
example, in response to the learner error he go- no, you should say
goes, not go) or implicit (for example, yes, he goes to school every
day), and may or may not include metalinguistic information (for example,
dont forget to make the verb agree with the subject).
Avoidance: It takes place when the learner is not sure if the word or the
expression are right or wrong, so instead of making a mistake, he/she
prefers not to write or say it. The learner would rather say or write
something he/she is sure of. This is called avoidance because the person
avoids the error on purpose.
Sensitive period: It is similar to Critical period, but less strong. Instead of
being something critical, it is a period in which there is more sensitivity or
less sensitivity, so the implication would be: it helps more, it helps less
The limits are much dimmer in this case; it is not something absolute, but
something relative.
Target language: The goal is to learn and to improve a concrete language.
Overall, inside that target language, there is a Target culture, which is the
culture that represents a certain language that you want to know a little
more. When less international languages than English are learnt, as Italian,
the target culture is only Italy, or Greece when you study Modern Greek. But
in the case of English it is much broader and ambiguous, because there are
a lot of places in which English is spoken as a mother language.