From Communicative Competence to Symbolic Competence
Author(s): Claire Kramsch
Source: The Modern Language Journal , Summer, 2006, Vol. 90, No. 2 (Summer, 2006),
pp. 249-252
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers
Associations
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3876875
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3876875?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations and Wiley are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal
This content downloaded from
72.205.80.236 on Sun, 19 May 2024 00:55:32 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Perspectives 249
about a culture's
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with wordsm
come theed.).J. O. Urmson & M. Sbisa (Eds.).
chief goaCambridg
els, from MA: Harvard
beginner University Press.
like otherBourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Ca
disciplin
bridge, MA: Blackwell.
would be engaging
Byrnes, H. (2001). Reconsidering graduate students'
knowledge about co
ucation as teachers: "It takes a department!" Mo
analysis of how
ern Language Journal, 85, 512-530.
th
a claim we
Chomsky, N. (1959). are Aspects of the hartheory of syn
rent definitions
Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technolog of
because without
Press. con
applied to that
Geertz, C. (1973). cont
The interpretation of cultures. NewYork:
Basic.
matter how commu
self-referential. Halliday, M. A. K. (1995). Discourse in society: Systemic
Students cannot communicate when they have functional perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lee, J. F., & Musumeci, D. (1988). On hierarchies of
nothing to communicate. Communication needs
reading skills and text types. Modern LanguageJour-
to be evaluated in terms of success or misfire, nei-
nal, 72, 173-187.
ther of which can be assessed without attending
Omaggio Hadley, A. (1986). Teaching language in context
to both the content to be communicated and the
(1st ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
communicative situation. Correctness necessarily
Savignon, S.J. (1972). Communicative competence: An ex-
involves strategic management of sociolinguisticperiment in foreign-language teaching. Philadelphia:
levels, rhetorical strategies, and content analyses.Center for Curriculum Development.
There is little point in teaching a student toSearle,
talk J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of
about a literary style or a cultural feature in anlanguage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stansfield, C. W., & Kenyon, D. M. (1992). The devel-
FL unless that student can reflect on what is at
opment and validation of a simulated oral pro-
stake historically, professionally, or cognitively in
ficiency interview. Modern Language Journal, 76,
establishing a literary period or in engaging in 129-141.
practices characteristic of another culture.
Swaffar, J., & Arens, K. (2005). Remapping the foreign lan-
guage curriculum: An approach through multiple lit-
eracies. New York: Modern Language Association.
REFERENCES
Webster's new world dictionary of the American language.
(1962). Cleveland, OH, and NewYork: World Pub-
lishing.
Allen, E. D., Bernhardt, E. B., Berry, M. T., & Demel, M.
Wright,
(1988). Comprehension and text genre: An D. (2000). Culture as information and culture
anal-
as affective process: A comparative study. Foreign
ysis of secondary school foreign language readers.
Modern Language Journal, 72, 163-172. Language Annals, 33, 330-341.
From Communicative Competence to Symbolic Competence
CLAIRE KRAMSCH, University of California, Berkeley
The notion of communicative competence, coined The communicative revolution, coming as it did
by Hymes in 1972, was introduced in foreign lan- after the social upheavals of the 1960s in Europe,
guage (FL) study in the late 1970s as a reac- was also a social revolution. Rather than obedi-
tion against a pedagogic tradition that favored ence to the grammatical law or to the drillmas-
the memorization of grammatical paradigms and ter, the ideal of communicative language teaching
the word-for-word translation of decontextualized (CLT) favored a democratic spirit of dialogue an
sentences. It was also a reaction against an audi-interaction. It was meant to facilitate access and
olingual instructional approach often referredinclusion
to of nonnative speakers into communi-
as "drill and kill." These pedagogies were perfectly
ties of native speakers and thus pursued social and
suited to the needs of a bureaucratic mentality economic goals. As Breen and Candlin (1980) put
for which knowledge was enclosed in texts or it, in "Language learning is learning how to commu-
prefabricated dialogues and was to be exercised nicate as a member of a particular socio-cultural
through philological exegeses or imitation and group" (p. 90). CLT was interested in what lan-
repetition, respectively. guage can do to perform conversational tasks
This content downloaded from
72.205.80.236 on Sun, 19 May 2024 00:55:32 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
250 The Modern Language Journal 90 (2006)
through symmetrical turns-at-talk,
put to the servicewhere speak-
of instrumental goals. But com
munication
ers' intentions are expressed in a global age
and clarified in requires
a ra- competenci
tional manner, and where other
the thanmeanings of words
mere efficiency.
are actively interpreted and negotiated
Language learners arebetween
now likely to encounte
interlocutors. What was to not
be just monolingual native
negotiated wasspeakers
not belongin
to identifiable
only words and their meanings, but national cultures, as in the 1970
the conven-
tions of their use in social contexts: but multilingual individuals who have grown u
in a variety of national, supranational, and eth
[Speakers] typically exploit a tension between nicthe cultures. These multilingual individuals ar
conventions that are established and the opportunity
likely to hold a variety of values and ideologie
to modify these conventions for their particular com-
Not all communicative situations are amenable to
municative purposes. Communicating is not merely a
straightforward talk in a brief, concise, and sincere
matter of following conventions but also of negotiat-
manner, and negotiation of meaning often floun-
ing through and about the conventions themselves.
(p. 90) ders not because of a lack of linguistic compre-
hension, but because of a lack of understanding
CLT had an ambitious educational agenda, based and trust of interlocutors' intentions. What often
on a functional understanding of language (what needs to be negotiated nowadays is not how to
language does rather than merely what it says), achieve the task, but the nature and the purpose
a dialogic view of the speech situation, and of the task itself.
an ethnographic conception of the sociocultural For instance, if an Iraqi and an American engi-
context. It encompassed the use of both spoken neer collaborate on the rebuilding of a bridge
and written language and the interaction between in Iraq, it is not enough for the American to
speakers and listeners, texts and their readers. It be able to discuss in Arabic how best to rebuild
also took into consideration the learners' affec-
that bridge. He needs to be able to discuss the
tive involvement. Breen and Candlin, drawing veryon conditions of possibility of an Iraqi-American
Halliday's functional social semiotics, summed it
collaboration on the reconstruction of bridges in
up as follows: "Communication in everyday Iraq.
lifeHe needs to know when to be communica-
tively competent and when it is more judicious
synthesises ideational, interpersonal, and textual
knowledge-and the affects which are part of tosuch
remain silent; how to rely on clues other than
knowledge" (p. 91). verbal ones to find out the intentions of his in-
terlocutor; how to use his knowledge of Arabic
In the last 25 years, the pedagogical landscape
and English, but also other languages as well,
has changed drastically. Not only has communica-
tive competence become reduced to its spoken for their mutual benefit. But he also needs to
modality, but it has often been taken as an know
excusesomething of the history of the Middle Eas
largely to do away with grammar and to remove and its relationship to Western powers, as well a
much of the instructional responsibility of fromthe multilingual, multicultural Muslim worl
the teacher who becomes a mere facilitator of in order to understand the silences, the hedge
the non sequiturs of his interlocutors. In shor
group and pair work in conversational activities.
In public life, the notion of communication ratherhas than communicative strategies, he migh
changed its meaning. It has become the need domain much more subtle semiotic practices tha
of communication professionals who define draw it on a multiplicity of perceptual clues to mak
in terms of problem-solving, participation, andandconvey meaning. These practices are espe-
collaboration around predetermined tasks, thenecessary in situations where power, statu
cially
outcome of which can be subjected to quality as-
and speaking rights are unequally distributed and
sessment and quality improvement. In the whereedu- pride, honor, and face are as importan
cational world, communication has beenas slowly
information. What is at stake is not only th
resignified to mean the ability to exchange in-
communicative competence of nonnative speak
formation speedily and effectively and to solve
ers, but how they are to position themselves in th
problems, complete assigned tasks, and produceworld, that is, find a place for themselves on th
measurable results. Foreign language education,
global market of symbolic exchanges.
under pressure to show evidence of efficiency In and
sum, the exacerbation of global social and
accountability, has thus diverged from the economic
original inequalities and of ethnic identity i
pursuit of social justice through communicative
sues, as well as the rise in importance of religio
competence, as envisaged by Hymes, Breen and and
ideology around the world have created hi
Candlin, and others in the 1970s, and is torical
being and cultural gaps that a communicativ
This content downloaded from
72.205.80.236 on Sun, 19 May 2024 00:55:32 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Perspectives 251
approach to
selves they langua
might want to become. Through lit-
itself. In order
erature, they can learn the full meaning making to u
understand what
potential of language. Literary scholars might re- th
what they imagine
joice at the prospect of seeing literature come
and how backtheyto the language class, but they tooposit
will have
And we have
to adapt to the times, for we certainlyto do not need un
ourselves. This
a return to textual exegesis or to the study ofund
au-
merely being expos
thor, period, and style in first-year German. What
hensible literature
input. can do is foster the three major com- In
become inordinatel
ponents of symbolic competence: the production
niques, newspeak,
of complexity, the tolerance of ambiguity, and an a
commodifiedappreciation of form as meaning. mean
the Internet has diversified the modalities of
meaning making. Today it is not sufficient Production
for of Complexity. Reflecting on the
learners to know how to communicate meanings;
task of the humanities today, the literary scholar
they have to understand the practice of meaning
Gumbrecht (2004) remarked that while social sys-
making itself.
tems strive to reduce the possibilities of meaning-
These developments have direct consequences production by reducing complexity, colleges and
for how we teach languages at the collegiate universities "should engage in an overproduction
level. It is no longer appropriate to give students of complexity, that is, in an overproduction of
a tourist-like competence to exchange informa- alternatives" (p. 29). What literature can bring
tion with native speakers of national languages to the development of symbolic competence is
within well-defined national cultures. They need precisely the sense that human communication is
a much more sophisticated competence in the more complex than just saying the right word to
manipulation of symbolic systems. Hence the re- the right person in the right manner. Most of the
newed attention to discourse in a range of modal- time there is not even a right or wrong way of com-
ities (spoken, written, visual, electronic), the municating; characters in novels get trapped by
focus on semiotic choice, and the ability to in- language into situations that offer neither good
terpret meanings from discourse features. Atten- nor bad solutions, just tragic dilemmas. Adoles-
tion to form, genre, style, register, and a focus cents and young adults at the college level can
on social semiotics are back, as well as an inter-
find through the symbolic use of language in a
est in how linguistic form shapes mental repre- foreign literature alternative scenarios of possibil-
sentation, that is, what word choices reveal about
ity for life in the real world, other ways of desiring
the minds of speakers. This inclusion is not a and belonging.
return to the formal competence of the 1950s.
Rather, the current discursive turn is an ecological
one: Language learners are not just communica- Tolerance ofAmbiguity. This concept, which was
tors and problem solvers, but whole persons with used in a psycholinguistic sense in CLT, is the in-
hearts, bodies, and minds, with memories, fan- dispensable component of symbolic competence.
tasies, loyalties, identities. Symbolic forms are not Works of literature can serve to discuss openly
just items of vocabulary or communication strate- the contradictions between myths and realities,
between words and deeds, not with a view to re-
gies, but embodied experiences, emotional reso-
nances, and moral imaginings. We could call the solving these contradictions but to showing how
competence that collegiate students need nowa- language can be used to support conflicting and
days a symbolic competence. Symbolic competence historically contingent truths.
does not do away with the ability to express, in-
terpret, and negotiate meanings in dialogue with Form as Meaning. Whereas communicative
others, but enriches it and embeds it into the competence was about the transmission and re-
ability to produce and exchange symbolic goods ception of authentic content, symbolic compe-
in the complex global context in which we live tence focuses on the meaning of form in all
today. its manifestations (e.g., linguistic, textual, visual,
Symbolic competence has to be nourished by a acoustic, poetic). My experience has shown me
literary imagination at all levels of the language how sensitive undergraduates are to the sounds,
curriculum. For it is through literature that learn- shapes, and rhythms of the FL and how they res-
ers can communicate not only with living others, onate emotionally to form. Our role is to help
but also with imagined others and with the other them put these emotions into words that can be
This content downloaded from
72.205.80.236 on Sun, 19 May 2024 00:55:32 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
252 The Modern Language Journal 90 (2006)
recalled later, in the multiple occasions of life
REFERENCES
when a college education comes to fruition and is
translated into action.
These three components of a symbolic com- Breen, M., & Candlin, C. (1980). The essentials of a
petence should lead teachers to view language communicative curriculum in language teaching.
and culture, that is, grammar and style, vocabu- Applied Linguistics, 1, 89-112.
Gumbrecht, H. U. (2004). The task of the humanities
lary and its cultural connotations, texts and their
today. In J. H. CasadoJensen (Ed.), The object of
points of view, as inseparable. In turn, language
study in the humanities (pp. 13-21). Copenhagen,
learners should slowly understand that commu- Denmark: Museum Tusculanum Press.
nicative competence does not derive from infor-
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence
mation alone, but from the symbolic power that In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguis-
comes with the interpretation of signs and their tics (pp. 269-283). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin
multiple relations to other signs. Books.
Reevaluating Communicative Competence as a Major Goal in Postsecond
Language Requirement Courses
RENATE A. SCHULZ, University of Arizona
Communicative approaches to language teach-
argued that "if humans are endowed with an in-
ing and learning were motivated by the need-
nate predisposition for language then perhaps
seen by sociolinguists and language teachers
they should be able to learn as many languages
alike-to move from discrete-point structural
as they need or want to, provided.... that the
analyses to language use in discourse. They
time, circumstances and motivation are available"
quickly gained popularity in the context of En- (p. 13). Unfortunately, in the case of FL learning,
glish as a second language (ESL) instruction that the vast majority of learners have neither sufficient
had the goal of developing ESL learners' survival time, sufficient appropriate contexts, sufficient in-
competence as rapidly as possible. Communica- put, sufficient opportunities to interact (negotiate
tive approaches generally emphasize the necessity meaning) with competent users of the target lan-
of large amounts of appropriate comprehensible guage, nor sufficient motivation (i.e., need) to
input (ideally of "authentic," context-bound lan- gain a meaningful and lasting level of language
guage samples); meaning is perceived as more competence predominantly through classroom
important than form-that is, comprehending instruction. The contexts of L2 and FL learning
and expressing personal meanings is valued more are thus vastly different-particularly if we con-
highly than grammatical accuracy; and corrective sider the type of input, the amount of input, and
feedback is believed by some theoreticians tothe be opportunities-indeed, the need-for output
largely irrelevant (Mitchell & Myles, 2004). Fur- and interaction experienced by either group of
thermore, communicative approaches encourage learners.
negotiation of meaning and aim to offer learningAlthough strictly communicative approaches
experiences that do not cause anxiety in the learn-have recently come under attack, and some re-
ers. Considerable instructional time is devoted to
searchers now believe that "grammatical compe-
so-called skill-using activities performed in smalltence is essential for communication but cannot
groups of learners, such as simulations, role play,be attained solely through exposure to mean-
or other task-based activities imitating real-life ingful input" (Hinkel & Fotos, 2002, p. 5), I
language use. Communicative approaches dodo notnot wish to discuss here the validity of the-
specify a content. oretical tenets underlying communicative ap-
Since the mid-1970s, the fields of second lan- proaches. Rather, I wish to focus on the goals of
guage (L2) learning (i.e., learning predominantly FL requirement sequences and explore whether
in naturalistic, target-language-use contexts)communicative
and approaches are most appropri-
foreign language (FL) learning (i.e., guided
ate, efficient, and effective in accomplishing these
learning predominantly through formal class-goals. In adopting goals and approaches of ESL in-
room instruction) have espoused similar instruc-
struction, we are not only ignoring the differences
tional goals and approaches and have emphasized
in contexts and learners of the two groups, we are
similarities in learning processes in both types
also ignoring the purpose and role of FL learning
of language learning. Mitchell and Myles (2004)
within general education requirements. Finding
This content downloaded from
72.205.80.236 on Sun, 19 May 2024 00:55:32 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
