Hikyoung Lee, 1996

Question 3. The communicative language program is now a popular model for 
teaching ESL. The justification for this model is often attributed to Hymes's 
notion of communicative competence first put forth in the 1960s. Answer BOTH 
of the following:
a) To what extent do recent trends in language teaching and materials 
development reflect the original notion of communicative competence as used by 
Hymes?
b) In what specific ways has the term "communicative competence" been 
reinterpreted?
In you answer please cite the work of FIVE (5) different scholars on this topic.

0. Introduction
Recent trends in teaching English as a second language have been centered around the
notion of communicative language teaching. Ellis (1994) states that one of the main goals
of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) is the description and explanation of the learner's
linguistic or communicative competence.

I. Hymes's notion of communicative competence

Dell Hymes set forth the concept of communicative competence in order to amend
restrictions found in the original notion of competence defined by Noam Chomsky
(1965). Chomsky was the first to define a dichotomy between competence and
performance. Competence was defined as consisting of the mental representation of
linguistic rules that constitute the speaker-hearer's internal grammar while performance
was described as consisting of the use of this grammar in the comprehension and
production of language (Ellis, 1994). Furthermore, in describing linguistic theory
Chomsky stated the following:

Chomsky (1965)
Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a
completely homogeneous speech-community, who knows its language perfectly
and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory
limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or
characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual performance.

1
However, Hymes (1971) pointed out that this concept showed restrictions in the sense
that it was totally independent of sociocultural factors. What Hymes discovered was that
1

although Chomsky's dichotomy was adequate for interpreting abstract grammatical

theories of the mind, it was insufficient in explaining aspects of language learning which
are influenced by reality. Reality in the sense that speech communities may not be
completely homogenous, individuals show variation, and language use can not be
separated from social factors.

On first glance, it may seem that the communicative aspect of language is related to
Chomsky's notion of performance rather than competence (Hymes, 1971). However,
although performance is an explicit entity, social aspects are said to not only affect
outward performance but inner competence itself (Hymes, 1971). In this respect, Hymes
claimed the following prerequisite to a theory of communicative competence.

Hymes (1971)
... a theory is required that can deal with a heterogeneous speech community,
differential competence, the consitutive role of sociocultural features that can take
into account socio-economic differences, multilingual mastery, relativity of
competence, expressive values, socially determined preception, contextual styles
and shared norms for the evaluation of variables.

Thus, with the emergence of the notion of communicative competence came the
reinterpretation of Chomsky's notion of competence as 'linguistic competence.'

In another work, Hymes (1972: cited in Hornberger, 1989) defined communicative

competence as comprising of an individual's capabilities in terms of both knowledge of
and ability for use of language. An elaboration is found in the four kinds of judgments
Hymes proposes about language use which are as follows:

Hymes (1972; cited in Hornberger, 1989)

1) whether (and to what degree) something is formally possible
2) whether (and to what degree) something is feasible in virture of the means of
implementation available

1 Hymes (1971) cites Bloomfield (1927) as stating "... differential competence within a heterogeneous
speech community shaped by acculturation."

2
 3) whether (and to what degree) something is appropriate (adequate, happy
successful) in relation to a context in which it is used and evaluated
4) whether (and to what degree) something is in fact done, actually performed,
and what its doing entails

These notions are further developed in Hymes's model of communicative competence, as

they characterize the individual's underlying knowledge and ability for language use
(Hymes, 1972: cited in Hornberger, 1989).

Hymes (1972): 4 models that characterize the individual's underlying knowledge

and ability for language use
1) degree of possibility: refers to what is possible given the individual's linguistic
system; i.e. the individual's knowledge of the phonology, morphology, lexicon,
syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of the languages in the speech community.
2) degree of feasibility: refers to what is feasible given the psycholinguistic
capacity of the individual, e.g. the individuals' memory and perception.
3) degree of appropriateness: refers to what is appropriate given the nature of the
communicative event, i.e.. the characteristics of the setting, participants, ends, act,
key, instrumentalities, norms and genre of the event
4) degree of occurrence: refer to what occurs or does not occur given possibility,
feasibility, and appropriateness, or a lack thereof. Thus, it included both what my
be possible, feasible, and appropriate but nevertheless not done: and what is not
possible, feasible, nor appropriate but is nevertheless done

Therefore, Hymes was fully aware of the abstractness in attempting to offer a definition
of competence. Hymes's insight is found in the fact that his standpoint was "of the person
not the communicative system" and that communicative competence is " by definition
variable within individuals, across individuals, and across speech communities, and
includes rules of use as well as rules of grammar."

The basis of Hymes's communicative competence lies in research in the sociology of

language and sociolinguistics . An early observation of Hymes is that of the child's
2

sociolinguistic competence. He states that sociolinguistic competence (more broadly

2 A distinction is made between the sociology of language and sociolinguistics. The former interpreted as
the use of language as a means in reaching an analysis of social phenomenon. The latter intrepreted as the
use of social factors as a means in reaching an analysis of linguistic phenomenon.

3
communicative competence) is in the child's "ability to participate in its society as not
only a speaking but communicating member. What children acquire, an integrated of
sociolinguistic description must be able to describe (Hymes, 1974)."

The various social aspects affecting language as well as reinterpretation of the speech
community is seen in the research of Gumperz (1972). Here Gumperz mentions that
verbal interaction is a social process in which utterances are selected in accordance with
socially recognized norms and expectation and that speech is not constrained by
grammatical rules alone (1972). In addition, the concept of variation is introduced in
Gumperz's definition of speech community in that the "speech community is a field of
action where the distribution of linguistic variants is a reflection of social facts (Gumperz,
1972)." In this light, Hymes also offers an alternative description of the "completely
homogenous speech community" of Chomsky's by stating that the speech community is "
a necessary term that postulates the basis of description as a social rather than a linguistic
entity (Hymes, 1972)."

Another aspect that social influences entails is the notion of appropriateness and the
pragmatics of language use. Knowledge of grammatical rules does not necessarily entail
the knowledge of pragmatics. Therefore, language is seen to be a social process as seen in
the aforementioned description of the child by Hymes. Therefore, Hymes's notion of
communicative competence is the combination of linguistic + pragmatic knowledge
(Hymes, 1971 cited in Ellis, 1994). The following are definitions of communicative
competence and communicative performance (Hymes, 1971; Canale and Swain, 1980
cited in Ellis, 1994).

communicative competence: includes knowledge the speaker-hearer has of what

constitutes appropriate as well as correct language behavior and also of what
constitutes effective language behavior in relation to particular communicative
goals.

communicative performance: the actual use of linguistic + pragmatic knowledge

in understanding and producing discourse

II. The communicative language program

In wake of the shortcomings of past teaching methodology there were attempts at a
holistic approach toward second language learning emerged recently. Holistic in the

4
sense that language learning is seen to encompass a wide array of perspectives that are
theoretical and empirical that focus not only on language itself but language target and
language competence (Pica, 1995). Thus, the social ramifications of interactive
3

communication were incorporated into the communicative language program.

As the 'real' use for language in 'real' situations arose, the communicative language
program focused on the communicative competence of the learner. In this light, major
modifications of past teaching methodology seem to have exploded all at once in
communicative language teaching. Nunan (1991; cited in Brown, 1994) cites the
following characteristics of communicative language teaching:

Nunan (1991; cited in Brown, 1994)

1. An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target
language.
2. The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.
3. The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language but
also on the learning process itself.
4. An enhancement of the learner's own personal experiences as important
contributing elements to classroom learning.
5. An attempt to link classroom language learning with language activities outside
the classroom.

An appendix to this list is found in Finocchario and Brumfit (1983; cited in Brown,
1994). The following are some further characteristics of communicative language
learning:

Finocchario and Brumfit (1983; cited in Brown, 1994)

Contextualization is a basic premise.
Effective communication is sought.
Attempts to communicate may be encouraged from the very beginning.
Communicative competence is the desired goal.

As can be seen from the last characteristic of the aforementioned list, an explicit cry out
for communicative competence is shown. Another communicative view of language is

3 Note the use of wording "language" competence and not "linguistic" competence.

5
given in Richards and Roger (1986). They state the characteristics of communicative
language teaching as follows:

Richard's and Rogers (1986)

1. Language is a system for the expression of meaning.
2. The primary function of language is for interaction and communication.
3. The structure of language reflects its functional and communicative areas.
4. The primary unites of language are not merely its grammatical and structural
features, but categories of functional and communicative meaning as exemplified
in discourse.

As can been seen in this view, Richards and Rogers (1986) not only incorporate the basic
notion of acquisition of communicative competence but also a functional view of
language and the discourse functions language entails.

In addition, there are various other interpretations of the communicative language

program (Brown, 1994) such as learner-centered Teaching, Cooperative Learning,
Interactive Learning, and Whole Language Education, Content-centered Education, and
Task-based Learning. Although as seen from the terminology used, the minor focus of
these approaches differ slightly but the basic idea that language learning should be
communicative is the same.

In learner-centered teaching the emphasis has been shifter from the teacher to the learner.
In communicative terms this implies that techniques which enhance a student's sense of
competence and self-worth are valued (Brown, 1994). In Cooperative Learning, the basic
notions are somewhat similar to Community Language Learning in that learning arises
through cooperative and collaborative efforts. The former implies that students should
help one another reach a common goal, while the latter implies that students have an
obligation to work together (Pica, 1995). As for Interactive Learning, the goal is to
enhance and promote opportunities for interaction among learners (Brown, 1994). Here,
real language is advocated and the emphasis is on negotiation. In Whole Language
Education, a holistic approach to teaching language is taken (Brown, 1994). Although a
rather comprehensive title which could mean almost anything, Whole Language
Education basically looks at a balanced view of the four skills involved in language
learning. Content-centered Education is "the integration of content learning with
language teaching (Brinton, Snow, and Wesche, 1989: cited in Brown, 1994). This

6
approach appears to focus on a wide array of language content which not only provides
language learning but acquisition of general knowledge as well. Lastly, in Task-based
Learning, communicative tasks are introduced to the learner to enhance real-life language
use (Brown, 1994). For instance, tasks are accomplished in pairs or groups which in turn
focuses on interactive communication.

Further extensions of the above mentioned communicative approaches have been

introduced recently. An example, is the extension of the Task-based syllabus into three
new syllabuses. According to Long and Crookes (1992) the new syllabuses are 1) the
procedural syllabus; 2) the process syllabus; and 3) the task-based syllabus. All three
syllabuses reject the linguistic elements as the unit in language teaching and concentrate
on tasks (Long and Crookes, 1992). In addition, interaction/input and negotiation studies
have been conducted by Long (1980, 1983), Pica (1987, 1991, 1992), and Schacter
(1986). These studies show that interaction and input are two-way functions which
facilitate communication in the classroom.

Recently a flux of materials centered on communicative activities have been introduced.

Pica (1995) gives the following taxonomy of the communicative activities found in L2
texts:

Pica (1995)
1. interaction/task oriented: jig-saw, information-gap, problem solving, decision-
making, opinion-exchange/discussion
2. non-interaction: matching, information-transfer, skimming and scanning

Pica also provides guidelines in choosing and using communication tasks (Pica, 1995).
She states that communication tasks 1) contribute comprehensible input for language
learning; 2) provide a context for feedback to learner to judge their comprehensibility and
modify their output; and 3) help learners restructure their internal grammar.

In addition, Richards and Rogers (1986) state the following communication principles
which should be incorporated into communicative language teaching materials.

Richards and Rogers (1986)

1. the communication principle: Activities that involve real communication
promote learning.

7
 2. the task principle: Activities in which language is used for carrying out
meaningful tasks promote learning.
3. the meaningfulness principle: Language that is meaningful to their learner
supports the learning process

Shaw (1982) describes recent attempts to incorporate communicative approaches in

foreign language materials. Shaw states that "various attempts have been made, with
increasing success, to develop categories for framing communicative objectives in
meaningful and relevant terms." Shaw further looks into the possibilities of situation,
contextual, topical, thematic, and notional-functional syllabuses. In addition Shaw states
a need for materials to concentrate more on progressions rather than drawing up
inventories of activities and that a "reconciliation of communicative and grammatical
objectives" should be reached.

III. Hymes and the communicative language program

At first, it appears that the recent trends in the communicative language program all seem
to internalize Hymes's original notion of communicative competence. However, upon
close scrutinization some deviance and descprencies can be found.

The first criticism is found in Shaw (1982). Shaw interpretation of Hymes's notion is that
its stress is on socio-linguistic knowledge. This is said to lead to "the drawback of
omitting the skills and strategies we require." In this light, Shaw turns to the notion of
"communicative potential (Trim, 1973; cited in Shaw, 1982). She cites Trim as follows:

Trim (1973; cited in Shaw, 1982)

... a knowledge of the conventions governing the appropriate use of language
situations; an ability to recognize and respond appropriately to situations which
have a significant linguistic component...
... a command of the necessary stages to steer and control linguistic operations

In this light, Shaw attempts to focus on distinguishing knowledge and skills and
strategies. She also states that an integrated approach which takes into account specific
communicative aims.

In a different assessment of the communicative language program, Savignon (1983) looks

at empirical research conducted in second language acquisition and in second language

8
classrooms. However, she advocates the approach of Canale and Swain (1980) who 4

developed a general overview of communicative competence as comprised of the four

components of grammatical competence, socio-linguistic competence, discourse
competence, and strategic competence. She stresses a kaleidoscopic view which
encompasses learner variables, communicative competence, setting or situation, and
strategies and processes which interact together in language acquisition. All these factors
should be taken into consideration in application to materials and teaching.

More importantly, Savignon (1983) devotes a whole section on the area of testing which
is vital in providing an assessment of how much communicative competence a learner
has acquired. For instance, she evaluates tests which attempt to measure "the integration
of components of communicative competence in different specified contexts of language
use" with such tests being cloze tests, dictation tests, and oral interviews. This aspect was
foreseen by Gumperz (1970) in that "a systematic study of communicative competence
requires special elicitation techniques capable of capturing the speaker's skill in
responding appropriately to significantly different social stimuli."

In addition, Savignon supplies the following outline of the difficulties the notion
communicative competence entails.
1) communicative competence is a dynamic rather that a static concept. It depends
on the negotiation of meaning between two or more persons who share to some
degree the same symbolic system. In this sense, the, communicative competence
can be said to be an interpersonal rather than an intrapersonal trait.
2) communicative competence applies to both written and spoken language, as
well as to many other symbolic systems
3) communicative competence is context specific. Communication takes place in
an infinite variety of situations, and success in a particular role depends on one's
understanding of the context and on prior experience of a similar kind. It requires
making appropriate choices of register and style in terms of the situation and the
other participants.
4) There is a theoretical difference between competence and performance.
Competence is defined as a presumed underlying ability, and performance as the
overt manifestation of that ability. Competence is what one knows. Performance

4Elaboration of Canale and Swain (1980) will be taken up later in the anlaysis of reinterpreation of
Hymes's notion of communicative competence.

9
is what one does. Only performance is observable, however, it is only through
performance that competence can be developed, maintained, and evaluated.
5) Communicative competence is relative, not absolute, and depends on the
cooperation of all the participants involved. It makes sense, then, to speak of
degrees of communicative competence.

One notion which must be kept in mind in assessing the application of Hymes's
communicative competence is the very word 'competence.' The difficulties of eliciting
learners' linguistic competence has been seen in various studies using grammaticality
judgment tasks. In this sense, not only the elicitation of competence in a general sense but
the teaching and learning of competence appears to be considerably abstract. As
competence in any sense is not a tangible element at all. In addition, the socio-cultural
aspect emphasized by Hymes is susceptible to an infinite array of variables and
possibilities. To elaborate further on this point, one can attempt to imagine all the
possible situations (in a social as well as cultural context) that any language usage is 5

involved in. Furthermore, the possible number of interlocutors involved in

communicative language use is infinite as well. Therefore, any teaching method and
according teaching materials will all fathom limitations on what is 'actual' or 'real'
communicative contexts.

To further abstract away from the notion of communicative competence, the acquisition
of socio-cultural factors seems rather difficult in a formal instruction setting. A
distinction concerning whether the language is learned in a second language classroom or
a foreign language classroom can be made in accordance. For instance, if the only
interaction or chances of communication are only in the classroom as in foreign language
acquisition, the chances of authentic as well as motivated acquisition of communicative
competence appears to be substantially low. In addition, the learners together form their
own speech community and thus engage in unique social interactions and develop their
own social norms within the society of the classroom. This is a synthetic environment
which is different from the incredibly heterogeneous speech community found in the
world outside the classroom.

Despite the above mentioned inherent problems concerning acquisition of communicative

competence in Hymes's sense, the bright side is the fact that recent developments are
5Speech is not specifically pointed out at this point because it would lead to a further discussion in speech
acts and furhter mirco aspects of language.

10
aware of these limitations and are continuously seeking to provide more reality integrated
methods of teaching. In addition, Hymes's original conceptualization of communicative
competence seems to be a thread which is holding all the various approaches found in the
communicative language program together. If seen in a fundamental sense, Hymes's
notion is an extension of 'linguistic competence' which has been applied to second
language learning. Although various extensions of this basic notion and even different
terminology such as 'communicative potential (Trim, 1973 as cited above) have been
introduced they are all just descendants of Hymes's communicative competence.

IV. Reinterpretations of "communicative competence"

1. Various reinterpretations
Now a look into the various reinterpretations of communicative competence will be
looked into . This overview will provide further insight into the extent recent trends in
6

second language acquisition have reflected Hymes's original notion.

1.1 Canale & Swain (1980), Canale (1983); cited in Savignon (1983)
Canale and Swain distinguished four components of communicative competence. They
are as follows:
Canale and Swain (1980); as cited in Savignon (1983)
1) grammatical competence: the mastery of linguistic code, the ability to
recognize the lexical, morphological, syntactic, and phonological features of a
language and to manipulate these features to form words and sentences
2) sociolinguistic competence: requires an understanding of the social context in
which language is used; the rules of the participants, the information they share,
and the functions of the interaction
3) discourse competence: concerned not only with the interpretation of isolated
sentence but with the connection of a series of sentences or utterances to form a
meaningful whole
4) strategic competence: strategies that one uses to compensate for imperfect
knowledge of rules, or limiting factors in their application such as fatigue,
distraction, and inattention

Thus Canale and Swain attempt to provide a wide-rang view of communicative

competence which encompasses four components.

6 A random order of presentation is adopted for the present purposes.

11
1.2 Kachru and Nelson (1996)
Kachru and Nelson (1996) offer a 'distinct' view of communicative competence in
compliance to new Englishes which are developing all over the world at the present time.
They assert that rules of speaking change with time and place and therefore have adopted
a functional approach to reinterpreting communicative competence. Their research has
foundations in the work of M.A.K. Halliday. Halliday (1983; cited in Kachru and Nelson,
1996) asserts that "language function is that every text created by a language user
involves interpersonal, ideational, and textural functions" functions here having to do
with "social relationships, individual identity, meaning potential, and the ability to
construct recognizable and situationally appropriate discourse."

The central notion of Kachru and Nelson (1996)'s interpretation of communicative

competence is 'change' over time. In this sense, language usage is said to be brought
about and formed over time by its very use and that social rules are susceptible to change
also. Therefore the key element in communicative competence in their terms is
considerations of "appropriateness in all facets of a language, including rate of speech
and level or register of lexis." Furthermore, they acknowledge "cultural-situational
distinctiveness" in that different situations exist across cultures. Thus, Kachru and
Nelson's view of communicative competence has transcended cultural as well as time
dimensions.

1.3 Schiffrin (1996)

Schriffrin (1996) in giving an overview of interactional sociolinguistics advocates the
redefiniton of Hymes's communicative competence made by Gumperz (1982). Gumperz
redefined Hymes's in interactional terms as stating "the knowledge of linguistic and
related communicative conventions that speaker must have to create and sustain
conversational cooperation." Therefore, a learner acquires communicative competence in
the sense that the obtained knowledge governs "the appropriate use of language in
concrete situations of everyday life for instance, learning how to engage in a
conversation, shop in a store, be interviewed for a job etc."

1.4 Saville-Troike (1996)

Saville-Troike's interpretation of communicative competence can be seen from stemming
from Hymes's notion of the ethnography of speaking. She states that speakers'
"communicative competence includes knowing the alternatives and the rules for

12
appropriate choice from among the alternatives and the rules for appropriate choice from
among the alternatives or for switching between them." In this light, communicative
competence is said to involve the speakers' cultural as well as social knowledge.

If communicative competence is to encompass everything involving language use and

other communicative dimensions in specific social settings this entails linguistic,
interactional, and cultural components (Saville-Troike, 1996). One focus that Saville-
Troke makes here is the fact that there is always the possibility of transfer of
communicative competence from the learner's first language into the second language.

1.5 Richards et al (1992)

A dictionary interpretation of communicative competence can not be omitted. The
following is found in the Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics.

the ability not only to apply the grammatical rules of a language in order to form
grammatically correct sentences but also to know when and where to use these
sentences and to whom.
Communicative competence includes:
a) knowledge of the grammar and vocabulary of the LANGUAGE
b) knowledge of rules of speaking
c) knowing how to use and respond to different types of SPEECH ACTS, such as
requests, apologies, thanks, and invitations
d) knowing how to use language appropriately
When someone wishes to communicate with others, they must recognize the
social setting, their relationship to the other person, and the types of language that can be
used for a particular occasion. They must also be able to interpret written or
spoken sentences within the total context in which they are used.

Dictionary entries somewhat offer a rather stigmatized interpretation. As can be seen

from this entry, the macro- as well as micro- levels of communicative competence are all
considered.

V. Revisiting Hymes
Lastly are presented Hornberger's (1989) personal communications with Hymes. The first
one entails the conception of communicative competence.

13
 Hymes (1985; personal communication with Hornberger (cited in Hornberger,
1989)
"The argument for a conception of communicative competence was that there is
more in competence itself, underlying knowledge, ability, than Chomsky granted.
The slogan "rules of use" as well as "rules of grammar" expressed that view."

The second personal communication concerned Hymes's intentions in his model of

communicative competence which characterized the individual's underlying knowledge
and ability for language use.

Hymes (1985; personal communication with Hornberger (cited in Hornberger,

1989)
"...the need to allow for a dimension beyond the control or intention of the use of
language."

In conclusion, the aforementioned reinterpretations of Hymes's notion appear to show

that various modifications have been attempted at extending the original notion of
communicative competence. In addition, Hymes seems to have been well aware that his
initial intentions were not going to be misinterpreted but reinterpreted to fit the emerging
needs of a social approach to the learning of a second language.

References

Brown, H.Douglas. (1994). Teaching by Principles. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall

Regents.

Celce-Murcia, Marianne, ed. (1991). Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language.

USA: Heinle & Heinle.

Chomsky, Noam. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge; MIT Press.

Ellis, Rod. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. London: Oxford
University Press.

Gumperz, J.J. (1970). Sociolinguistics and communication in small groups. In Selected

Readings in Sociolinguistics. J.B. Pride & Janet Holmes (Eds.). (1972). Great
Britain: Penguin

14
Gumprez, John J. & Dell Hymes, eds. (1972). Directions in Sociolinguistics. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston

Hornberger, Nancy H. (1989). Tramites and transportes: The acquisition of second

language communicative competence for one speech even in Puno, Peru. Applied
Linguistics, Vol. 10. No. 2. Oxford Univerisity Press

Hymes, Dell H. (1971). On communicative competence. In Pride, J.B. & Janet Holmes.
(1972). Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings. Great Britain: Penguin.

Hymes, Dell. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics.: An Ethnographic Approach.

Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

McKay, Sandra Lee & Nancy Hornberger, eds. (1996). Sociolinguistics and Language
Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, David. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology. Great Britain: Prentice Hall
International.

Pica, Teresa. (1995; fall). Course materials for EDU 527/627. Department of Educational
Linguistics. University of Pennsylvania.

Pride, J.B. & Janet Holmes. (1972). Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings. Great Britain:
Penguin.

Richards, Jack, John Platt, & Heidi Weber. (1985). Longman Dictionary of Applied
Linguistics. London: Longman.

Savignon, Sandra J. (1983). Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom

Practice. USA: Addison-Wesley.

Saville-Troike, Muriel. (1982). The Ethnography of Communication (2nd ed.). Great

Britain: Basilblackwell.

Wolfson, Nessa. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. New York: Newbury
House.

15