COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE : A PEDAGOGICALLY MOTIVATED MODEL WITH CONTENT SPECIFICATION
It is reasonable to assume that communicative language teaching (CLT) (Widdoson, 1978; Savignon. 1983, 1990) should be based implicitly or explicitly on same model of communicative competence .Given the immediate practical need that many applied linguist and language others are experiencing in connection with designing language syllabi and constructional material as well as assessment instrument in accordance with it principle (ef. Sauvignon, 1990). Another attempt to look at models of communicative competence and their content specification a pedagogical prospective seems warranted.
Our current effort has been motivated by our belief the potential of a direct, explicit approach to the teaching of communicative, which would require a detailed description of what communicative competence entail in order to use the sub-components as a based in syllabus design. However, we believe, an informed approach concerning the communicative CLT will be conducive to the teaching of communicative language activities regardless of whether one’s philosophy of language teaching/learning implicit, indirect language acquisition (e.g Krashen, 1982) or more implicit, focused language instruction (e.g. Rutherford & Sharwood Smith 15: Spada & Lightbown, 1993. Schmidt, 1990, 1993).
Linguists and applied linguist have not always used the term “competence” the same way, so brief discussion of this matter is useful as a preliminary, Tailor (1988) points out that among applied linguist, Stern (1983) equated competence “with” proficiency” while Savignon (1983) viewed competence as dynamic. In contract, Taylor notes that linguist like Chomsky (1965 and senquent work ) use “competence” to refer only to rather static knowledge, which includes any nation of “capacity” or “ability.” Like Chomsky, Taylor views “competence” as a state or product, not a process; he distinguishes between “competence” and “proficiency,” saying that the latter, which describes as the ability to make use of competence, is dynamic and relates to process and function.
There are two further comments we would like to make outset. First our model was developed from an L.2 perspective but a great deal of it is assumed to have validity for describing L.1 use as well. Second, we acknowledge the seminal work of the late Michael Canale, done in collaboration with Merrill Swain (Canale & Swain, 1980; Canale 1983).
EXISTING MODELS OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
This model posited four component of communicative competence:
1. Grammatical competence
2. Sociolinguistic competence
3. Discourse competence
4. Strategic competence
1. Organization knowledge – the knowledge of the “component involved in controlling the formal structure of language for producing or recognizing grammatically correct sentence and for ordering these to form texts” (p, 3/13).
a. Grammatical knowledge
b. Textual knowledge
2. Pragmatic knowledge
a. Lexical knowledge
b. Functional knowledge
c. Sociolinguistic knowledge
PROPOSED MODEL OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
We represent our model of communicative competence as pyramid enclosing a circle and surrounded by another circle. The circle within the pyramid is discourse competence, and the tree points of the triangle are sociocultural competence, linguistic competence, and actional competence.
Discourse competence concerns the selection, sequencing, and arrangement of words, structures, sentences and utterances to achieve a unified spoken or written text. There are many areas sub-areas that contribute to discourse competence: cohesion, deixis, coherence, generic structure, and the conversational structure inherent to the turn-taking system in conversation.
Linguistic competence is historically the most thoroughly discussed component of our model and, for this reason our discussion of it will be very brief. It comprises the basic element of communication: the sentence patterns and types.
Actional competence is defined as competence in conveying and understanding communicative intent, that is, matching actional intent with linguistic form based on the knowledge of an inventory of verbal schemata that carry illocutionary force (speech acts and speech act sets).
There are two of suggested components of Actional Competence:
· Knowledge of language functions: interpersonal exchange, information, opinions, feelings, suasion, problems, and future scenarios.
· Knowledge of speech act sets
Sociocultural competence refers to the speaker’s knowledge of how to express message appropriately within the overall social and cultural context of communication, in accordance with the pragmatic factors related to variation in language use. Suggested its are: social contextual factors, stylistic appropriateness factors, cultural factors, non-verbal communicative factors.
The concept of strategic competence is as knowledge of communication strategies and how to use them. Work on communication strategies has typically highlighted three functions of strategy use from three different perspectives:
· Psycholinguistic perspective:
its communicative strategies are verbal plans used by speakers to overcome problems in the planning and execution stages of reaching a communicative goal.
· Interactional perspective:
Its communicative strategies involve appeals for help as well as other cooperative problem solving behaviors which occur after some problems has surfaced during the course of communication, that is, various types of negotiation of meaning and repair mechanisms.
· Communication continuity/maintenance perspective:
it communicative strategies are means of keeping the communication channel open in the face of communication difficulties, and playing for time to think and to make (alternative) speech plans.
And based on the three functions above, the description of strategic competence consists of five main parts:
· avoidance or reduction strategies,
· achievement or compensatory strategies,
· stalling or time-gaining strategies,
· self-monitoring strategies
· and interactional strategic.