LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE VS.

COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE

The linguistic competence deals with producing and understanding grammatically correct
sentences. The linguistic competence focuses on usage so people can select which form of
sentences are contextually appropriate. Linguistic competence is knowing how to use the
grammar, syntax, and vocabulary of a language.

Chomsky (1965) emphasized the difference between linguistic competence, the speaker-hearers
knowledge of his language and performance, the actual use of language in concrete situations,
he points out that “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 gram-matically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions,
shifts of attention and interests, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge
of the language in actual performance. “

For Fodor and Garrett (1966), Chomsky’s insistence upon the competence/performance
distinction in linguistics amounts to a major methodological clarification. They claim that, if the
object of the linguist’s study is the behavior of speakers, the data the linguist will have at his
disposal will be impoverished in two ways. First of all, the speaker’s utterances are small, finite
and fortuitous from the linguistic point of view and therefore a theory of the corpus would be
arbitrarily related to a theory of the language. Furthermore, the relevant structural relations in
the language would not be exemplified in the corpus and thus generalizations that are true of
the corpus would not be true of the language. Secondly, there are features of the language such
as grammaticality and ambiguity that speakers know about their utterances that would fail to
emerge as features of a corpus the linguist is supposed to be studying.

The communicative competence deals with producing and understanding sentences that are
appropriate and acceptable to a particular situation. 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. 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 one’s knowledge of the language, and how to learn more about the
language and in the context. Strategic competence asks: How do I know when I’ve
misunderstood or when someone has misunderstood me? What do I say then? How can I
express my ideas if I don’t know the name of something or the right verb form to use?"
Dell Hymes (1972) was the first to-point out that the Chomskyan notion of competence dealing
with the ideal speaker-listener in a homogeneous speech community provides no place for
competency for language use, i.e. the theory fails to account for the whole socio-cultural
dimension. As a linguist and anthropologist, Hymes was concerned on the one hand with
linguistic theory, and on the other hand with the socio-cultural aspect of language. Indeed, says
Hymes, what one is inevitably concerned with is “performance” - the actual use of language in
a concrete situation; its use moreover by speaker-listeners who are far from “ideal” and whose
language behavior cannot be characterized as that of any “homogeneous speech community".

Hymes points out that Chomsky’s narrow concept of competence represents a “Garden of Eden”
view which disregards questions of use by relegating them to the area of performance. This
limitation of Chomsky’s linguistic competence led Hymes to coin the term “communicative
competence”, as described by Hymes (1971), communicative competence is a wide term
including not only linguistic Know-ledge but also knowledge of a set of sociolinguistic codes and
rules for using them. Communicative competence, he claims is “the most general term for the
speaking and hearing capabilities of a person - competence is understood to be dependent on
two things: (tacit) knowledge and (ability for) use". (p. 16). The actual theory of communicative
competence that he suggests involves knowledge (and abilities) of four types

l. Whether (and to what degree) something is formally possible.

2. Whether (and to what degree) something is feasible in virtue of the means of implementation

available.

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. Hymes (l972p.12)

Lyle Bachman said that the organizational competence is divided into grammatical competence
and textual competence. Bachman’s grammatical competence is consonant with Canale and
Swain’s grammatical competence. The textual competence, pertains to the knowledge of
conventions for cohesion and coherence and rhetorical organization. It also includes
conventions for language use in conversations, involving starting, maintaining, and closing
conversations. Bachman’s textual competence have both the part of Canale and Swain’s
discourse competence and the part of their strategic competence. For him the components of
language competence are: organizational competence and pragmatic competence.

Bachman’s pragmatic competence, mainly focuses on the relationship between what one says
in his or her communicative acts and what functions he or she intends to perform through his
or her utterances.

Teachers should provide linguistic and communicative contexts because whereas the linguistic
context focuses on usage so students can select which form of sentence is contextually
appropriate, the communicative context focuses on use so students can recognize the type of
communicate function the sentence fulfill.
REFERENCES

Bachman, Lyle (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Retrieved from

http://books.google.com.ph/books/about/Fundamental_Considerations_in_Language_T.html?
id=5_KJCfkWgqcC&redir_esc=y

Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press

Hymes, Dell H. (1966). “Two Types of Linguistic Relativity.” In Bright, W. Sociolinguistics. The
Hague: Movton pp. 114-158

Hymes, Dell H. (1972). “On Communicative Competence.” In Pride, JB; Holmes, J,

Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings. Harmon ds worth: Penguin pp. 269-293