i

Communicative Competence in a
Second Language

Communicative competence is an essential language skill, the ability to

adjust language use according to specific contexts and to employ knowledge
and strategies for successful communication.
This unique text offers a multidisciplinary, critical, state-​of-​the-​art research
overview for this skill in second language learners. Expert contributors from
around the world lay out the history of the field, then explore a variety of
theoretical perspectives, methodologies, and empirical findings, and authori-
tatively set the agenda for future work.
With a variety of helpful features like discussion questions, recommended
further reading, and suggestions for practice, this book will be an invaluable
resource to students and researchers of applied linguistics, education, psych-
ology, and beyond.

Matthew Kanwit is Associate Professor in the Department of Linguistics

at the University of Pittsburgh, USA. His research on communicative
competence and functional approaches to L2 acquisition has appeared in
Applied Linguistics, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Language Learning,
The Modern Language Journal, and the Routledge Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition and Sociolinguistics.

Megan Solon is Lecturer in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese

at Indiana University, USA. She researches the acquisition of phonetics/
phonology, including sociolinguistically variable features. She is co-​editor
of the Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics book series and co-​author
of The Acquisition of Spanish as a Second Language: Foundations and New
Developments.
ii

Second Language Acquisition Research Series

Susan M. Gass and Alison Mackey, Series Editors
Kimberly L. Geeslin, Associate Editor

The Second Language Acquisition Research Series presents and explores issues
bearing directly on theory construction and/​or research methods in the study
of second language acquisition. Its titles (both authored and edited volumes)
provide thorough and timely overviews of high-​interest topics, and include
key discussions of existing research findings and their implications. A spe-
cial emphasis of the series is reflected in the volumes dealing with specific
data collection methods or instruments. Each of these volumes addresses the
kinds of research questions for which the method/​instrument is best suited,
offers extended description of its use, and outlines the problems associated
with its use. The volumes in this series will be invaluable to students and
scholars alike, and perfect for use in courses on research methodology and in
individual research.

Questionnaires in Second Language Research

Construction, Administration, and Processing, Third Edition
Zoltán Dörnyei and Jean-​Marc Dewaele

Longitudinal Studies of Second Language Learning

Quantitative Methods and Outcomes
Edited by Steven J. Ross and Megan C. Masters

Researching Creativity in Second Language Acquisition

Ashleigh Pipes

Communicative Competence in a Second Language

Theory, Method, and Applications
Edited by Matthew Kanwit and Megan Solon

For more information about this series, please visit: www.routle​dge.com/​

Sec​ond-Language-​Acquisition-​Research-​Series/​book-​series/​LEASLARS​
iii

Communicative
Competence in a
Second Language
Theory, Method, and Applications

Edited by Matthew Kanwit and

Megan Solon
iv

Designed cover image: © Getty Images

First published 2023
by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2023 selection and editorial matter, Matthew Kanwit and Megan Solon;
individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Matthew Kanwit and Megan Solon to be identified as the authors
of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been
asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,
and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
ISBN: 978-​0-​367-​75024-​4 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-​0-​367-​75023-​7 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-​1-​003-​16077-​9 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/​9781003160779
Typeset in Bembo
by Newgen Publishing UK
v

To Gloria and Peter Kanwit, Catherine Kanwit Rossignol

and Noel Rossignol, and Brandon Kujawski for encour-
aging me both to pursue my interests (even when they
brought me far from home) and to treat others well.
—​Matthew Kanwit

To my teachers and mentors, past and present. I am forever

grateful for all that you have taught me and for the role
models that you have been and continue to be.
—​Megan Solon
vi
vi

Contents

List of contributors ix
Acknowledgments xii

1 Introduction: Historical overview, key constructs, and

recent developments in the study of communicative
competence 1
M ATTH E W K A NWI T AND ME GAN SO LO N

PART I
Theoretical overviews of communicative competence 19

2 Generative considerations of communicative competence 21

ALAN JU F F S

3 Sociolinguistic approaches to communicative competence 40

K I M B E RLY L. GE E SLI N AND STACE Y HANSO N

4 Sociocultural considerations of communicative

competence 60
M ATTH E W E . PO E HNE R

PART II
Methodological tools for researching communicative
competence 77

5 Investigating communicative competence in

ethnographic research 79
RE B E C CA L URI E STARR
vi

viii Contents
6 Real-​time psycholinguistic measures of communicative
competence 98
JI LL J E GE RSK I AND SARA FE RNÁND E Z CUE NCA

7 Corpus-​linguistic and computational methods for

analyzing communicative competence: Contributions
from usage-​based approaches 115
STE FAN TH . G RI E S

PART III
Applications: How do learners show communicative
competence? 133

8 Interlanguage pragmatics as communicative competence 135

M I N H TH I T HUY NGUY E N

9 Applying a communicative competence framework to

the study and teaching of second language writing 152
C H ARLE N E PO LI O AND D. PHI LI P MO NTGO MERY

10 Computer-​assisted language learning and communicative

competence 171
GLE N N S TO CK WE LL AND Y URI K A I TO

11 Assessing communicative competence 187

LU K E H ARD ING, SUSY MACQUE E N, AND JO HN P IL L

12 Looking forward: Future directions in the study of

communicative competence 208
M E GAN SO L O N AND MATTHE W K ANWI T

Index 219
ix

Contributors

Sara Fernández Cuenca is an Assistant Professor of Spanish at Wake Forest

University, USA, where she teaches undergraduate courses in Spanish
language and linguistics. Her research focuses mainly on instructed heri-
tage and second language acquisition with a special interest in language
processing.
Kimberly L. Geeslin is Professor of Hispanic Linguistics at Indiana
University, USA. She investigates the geographic, social, and situation-
ally variable properties of second languages. Her recent publications
include Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition (Routledge, 2014),
The Acquisition of Spanish as a Second Language (Routledge, 2021), and
The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Sociolinguistics
(Routledge, 2022).
Stefan Th. Gries is a Professor in the Department of Linguistics at the
University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), USA, and Chair of
English Linguistics at the Justus-​Liebig-​Universität Giessen, Germany. He
is a quantitative corpus linguist with interests in statistical methods in
linguistics, cognitive/​usage-​based linguistics, psycholinguistics, and com-
putational linguistics.
Stacey Hanson is a Doctoral Candidate in Hispanic Linguistics at Indiana
University Bloomington, USA. Her research focuses on second language
acquisition, as well as phonetics and phonology, with a particular interest
in the second language perception and production of geographically
indexed phones.
Luke Harding is a Professor in Linguistics and English Language at
Lancaster University, UK. His research interests are in applied linguis-
tics and language assessment, particularly assessing listening and speaking,
World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca, language assessment lit-
eracy, and professional ethics.
Yurika Ito is a Research Associate in the School of International Liberal
Studies, Waseda University, Japan. Her research interests include
x

x List of contributors
computer-​assisted language learning (CALL), CALL teacher education,
and the role of online communities in teacher professional development.
Jill Jegerski is an Associate Professor of Spanish and SLATE (Second
Language Acquisition and Teacher Education) in the Department of
Spanish and Portuguese at the University of Illinois at Urbana-​Champaign,
USA. Her primary research interests include second language and bilin-
gual sentence processing, psycholinguistic research methods, and Spanish
as a heritage language.
Alan Juffs is Professor in the Department of Linguistics, University of
Pittsburgh, USA. He was the Director of the English Language Institute
at the University of Pittsburgh from 1998 to 2020. He has published
books on the lexicon, sentence processing, and language development in
Intensive English Programs.
Matthew Kanwit is Associate Professor in the Department of Linguistics
at the University of Pittsburgh, USA. His research on communicative
competence and functional approaches to L2 acquisition has appeared in
Applied Linguistics, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Language Learning,
The Modern Language Journal, and the Routledge Handbook of Second
Language Acquisition and Sociolinguistics.
Susy Macqueen is Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics at the Australian
National University. Her research interests lie at the intersection of second
language learning, language assessment, and language use in health and
educational contexts. She has a background in second language teaching
and language test development.
D. Philip Montgomery is a Doctoral Student in Second Language Studies
at Michigan State University, USA. He is an educational linguist interested
in multilingual writers and teachers. Philip has published on adaptive
transfer of genre knowledge in multilingual contexts and is the Graduate
Assistant Director of the Writing Center at MSU.
Minh Thi Thuy Nguyen teaches TESOL at the University of Otago, New
Zealand. Her research interests include pragmatics in language teaching
and learning, interactional competence, second language acquisition,
heritage language maintenance, and child language learning.
John Pill is a Lecturer in the Department of Linguistics and English Language
at Lancaster University, UK. He teaches in the MA in Language Testing
program. His research interests include specific-​purpose language testing,
particularly in healthcare and academic contexts, speaking assessment, and
language assessment literacy.
Matthew E. Poehner is Professor of World Languages Education and
Applied Linguistics at The Pennsylvania State University, USA. His
research engages Vygotskian Sociocultural Theory to organize educa-
tional environments and activities to promote learner language abilities.
xi

List of contributors xi
A major line of this work involves the diagnosis of abilities through
Dynamic Assessment.
Charlene Polio is Professor in the Department of Linguistics, Languages,
and Cultures at Michigan State University, USA. She researches second
language (L2) writing and the interface between L2 writing, second lan-
guage acquisition, and corpus-​based methods. She is co-​editor of TESOL
Quarterly and The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and
Writing (Routledge, 2022).
Megan Solon is Lecturer in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese
at Indiana University, USA. She researches the acquisition of phonetics/​
phonology, including sociolinguistically variable features. She is
co-​editor of the Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics book series
(John Benjamins) and co-​author of The Acquisition of Spanish as a Second
Language: Foundations and New Developments (Routledge, 2021).
Rebecca Lurie Starr is an Associate Professor in the Department of English,
Linguistics and Theatre Studies at the National University of Singapore.
Her research focuses on children’s sociolinguistic development and lan-
guage variation and change in multilingual and dialectally diverse settings.
Glenn Stockwell is Professor in Applied Linguistics at Waseda University,
Japan. His research interests include language teacher and learner motiv-
ation, mobile learning, and the development of learner autonomy. He
is the author of four books and numerous articles and book chapters in
the field.
xi

Acknowledgments

This project has been a labor of love, and we must first express gratitude
for the chapter authors, who accepted our invitation six months into the
pandemic and whose drafting of abstracts, writing of chapters, and imple-
mentation of revisions ended up all taking place during what became an
ongoing pandemic. The authors could have had no way of knowing what
the conditions would be, and yet all of them completed each stage of the
process and maintained good spirits.Thus, our hats are off to Sara Fernández
Cuenca, Kim Geeslin, Stefan Gries, Stacey Hanson, Luke Harding, Yurika
Ito, Jill Jegerski, Alan Juffs, Susy Macqueen, Phil Montgomery, Minh Thi
Thuy Nguyen, John Pill, Matt Poehner, Charlene Polio, Rebecca Lurie Starr,
and Glenn Stockwell. We are so very grateful for their talents, expertise, and
collegiality.
We are thankful to the series editors, Susan Gass and Alison Mackey, for
thoughtfully guiding the project. We can’t thank Kimberly Geeslin enough
for her initial encouragement in submitting our proposal and for providing
such a wonderful editorial example on prior collaborative projects. Her
mentorship, guidance, and friendship are simply unparalleled. We are also
thankful to individuals at Routledge and Newgen whose helpful collabor-
ation has made the volume possible, including Victoria Chow, Harry Dixon,
Bex Hume, Amy Laurens, Helena Parkinson, Rebecca Willford, and Ze’ev
Sudry, whose early feedback on our proposal helped ensure the ultimate
success of the project.
We are grateful to the individuals who reviewed our proposal, whose
suggestions helped shape the chapters we decided to include and the con-
tent that could not be overlooked. These individuals were Luke Plonsky,
Katherine Rehner, Ming-​chung Yu, and four anonymous reviewers.
The chapter reviewers provided enormously useful suggestions for our
authors and did so with a collegial tone that helped maximize the even-
tual quality of the volume. These reviewers included: Kristin Davin, Bryan
Donaldson, Alice Foucart, María Pía Gómez Laich,Tania Ionin, Daniel Isbell,
Anna Jessen, Kristopher Kyle, Xiaoshi Li, Rosa Manchón, Robert McKenzie,
Teresa Pratt, Ute Römer, Maria Rydell, Shannon Sauro, Rachel Shively,
Jorge Valdés Kroff, Feng Xiao, Fang Xu, and Nicole Ziegler.
xi
newgenprepdf

Acknowledgments xiii
We offer gratitude to Lourdes Ortega, Luke Plonsky, and Vera Regan
for taking the time to consult our chapters and provide such kind, detailed
endorsements for the volume. It is incredibly meaningful to us to have such
generous sentiments offered by scholars whose work inspires us so greatly.
We are thankful for institutional support from colleagues whose work in
our departments helped make the completion of this project possible. Alan
Juffs, Shelome Gooden, and Scott Kiesling at the University of Pittsburgh
have thoughtfully held and delegated service positions to protect pre-​tenure
and early post-​tenure years to the extent possible, making projects such
as this achievable. Karen Park has been a wonderful support for years as
Co-​ director of Graduate Admissions, similarly making the research-​
teaching-​service balance possible. Likewise, at the University at Albany, Lotfi
Sayahi and Cynthia Fox provided invaluable early career mentorship as well
as support and continued collegiality during professional transitions. Hae In
(Lauren) Park enriched the scholarly environment through her establishing
of the Trends in SLA research group and has been a treasured collabor-
ator ever since. At Indiana University, Manuel Díaz-​Campos and Allen Davis
have provided support and flexibility for research endeavors, and Kimberly
Geeslin, Laura Gurzynski-​Weiss, and Erik Willis have encouraged a wel-
coming and engaging environment for sharing work and exchanging ideas.
We are also grateful to Kathleen Bardovi-​Harlig for outstanding discussions
shaping our knowledge of second language acquisition. The faculty and
graduate and undergraduate students in Pitt Linguistics and in Indiana
Spanish and Portuguese have helped foster a wonderful working environ-
ment that has served as inspiration for projects like this and as motivation to
persevere on the more challenging days.
Prior colleagues, mentors, and friends at SUNY Albany, Indiana University,
the University of Georgia, Miami University, UVA in Valencia, and the
University of Richmond helped to build the foundation of interest in lan-
guage, Spanish, linguistics, and language acquisition, and their fingerprints
are all over this volume. Matt thanks Margaret L. Quesada for sparking an
early passion for SLA.
Finally, Matt is grateful to Megan for her unsurprisingly ideal collabor-
ation as co-​editor.This has been a wonderful excuse for ample opportunities
to communicate and share time together, and I’m so very grateful for the
laughter, incredible support, stellar ideas, and close editorial eye. You are an
all-​around treasure.
Megan thanks Matt for extending the invitation for this collaboration in
the first place and for sharing his knowledge, experience, wit, and patience.
I have learned so much from you during this process and am grateful to be
able to (continue to) collaborate with someone I admire so deeply both pro-
fessionally and personally.
xvi
1

1 Introduction
Historical overview, key constructs, and
recent developments in the study of
communicative competence
Matthew Kanwit and Megan Solon

The construct of communicative competence has informed the field

of second language acquisition (SLA) for approximately 50 years (e.g.,
Bachman & Palmer, 1996, 2010; Canale, 1983; Canale & Swain, 1980; Celce-​
Murcia, 2008; Celce-​Murcia et al., 1995; Elder et al., 2017; Firth & Wagner,
1997, 2007; Galaczi & Taylor, 2018; Geeslin et al., 2018; Hall et al., 2006;
Harding, 2014; Hymes, 1972, 1992; Kanwit, 2022; Kramsch, 2006; Leung &
Lewkowicz, 2013; Morrow, 2012; Paulston, 1974; Regan, 2010; Savignon,
1972, 2017; Spolsky, 1989; Sun, 2014;Valdman, 2002). As outlined by Canale
and Swain (1980), it accounts for not only second language (L2) grammat-
ical competence (i.e., knowledge of the rules of phonology, morphology,
and syntax in the L2) but also sociolinguistic competence (i.e., knowledge of
when to use one form over another based on contextual or linguistic factors)
and strategic competence (i.e., strategies for successful communication, espe-
cially in the face of potential gaps in knowledge of the L2). As the field
has moved from a nearly exclusive emphasis on grammatical competence
toward a more holistic interest in the range of competences noted above
(Geeslin with Long, 2014; VanPatten & Williams, 2015), researchers from
across different theoretical approaches now analyze communicative com-
petence rather than only, for example, socioculturalists (Lantolf et al., 2020;
van Compernolle, 2019; van Compernolle & Williams, 2012; see Poehner,
Chapter 4, this volume) or variationists (Bayley & Tarone, 2012; Geeslin,
2022; Howard et al., 2013; Tarone, 2007; see Geeslin & Hanson, Chapter 3,
this volume).
Despite the increasing interest in the construct throughout the field,
to our knowledge, no volume has attempted to connect state-​ of-​the-​
art approaches to communicative competence across different theoretical
approaches, methods, and applications. Consequently, the current volume
amasses research perspectives from around the world and from diverse
traditions in order to provide a current overview of how communicative
competence is theorized, analyzed, and applied. Each chapter serves as a
review of seminal and recent research within the given domain, offers prac-
tical suggestions of how to perform research under the relevant theme, and
points to future directions ripe for further inquiry.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003160779-1
2

2 Matthew Kanwit and Megan Solon

In the present chapter, we review the history of communicative compe-
tence, consider current issues relevant to the analysis of the construct, and
discuss the organization of and connection among the following chapters in
the volume. Throughout the volume, each chapter is written with enough
detail, history, and recency to be relevant for current researchers and graduate
students while not assuming prior knowledge and while using accessible lan-
guage. It can thus be approached as a point of departure by individuals across
research disciplines or by beginning scholars interested in an initial overview.
Consequently, key terminology is defined at first use and unnecessary jargon
has been avoided.

Historical overview
Communicative competence began to play a recurring role in discussions
of SLA theory and practice in the 1960s as researchers and practitioners
reacted to prevailing tendencies at the time that generally prioritized gram-
matical accuracy, the ability to correctly conjugate and decline target-​
language forms, and error-​free repetition without much, if any, focus on the
ability to use language for communicative and expressive purposes (Canale,
1983; Canale & Swain, 1980; Corder, 1967; Hymes, 1967, 1972; Oller &
Obrecht, 1968; Paulston, 1974; Savignon, 1972; Selinker, 1972; Tarone, 1983;
Valdman & Moody, 1979; Van Ek, 1976). The substantial attention in L2
pedagogy and research afforded to grammatical accuracy and error avoidance
can be traced back to the evolving nature of the en vogue SLA theories of
the times.

Behaviorism, Universal Grammar, and cognitive-​functional approaches

Early SLA theory borrowed substantially from sources outside of linguis-
tics that aimed to account for how human behaviors were learned and
adapted.The psychologist B. F. Skinner’s behaviorism endeavored to explain
how humans’ responses to stimuli were either (1) more deeply entrenched
by reward and repetition or (2) were modified based on punishment or
unfavorable responses. Language learning, like other behavioral learning, was
conceptualized as being entirely based on the learner’s environment, which
was a purely external explanation that did not posit any sort of language-​
specific capacity at the learner’s disposal (see VanPatten & Williams, 2015).
The reinforcement of good habits, when applied to language pedagogy,
entailed requiring that students repeat grammatical utterances and being
certain to correct any ungrammatical language forms elicited in order to
avoid the formation of bad habits or language fossilization. Such practices
were paramount in the audiolingual method, or Army method, which
highlighted non-​contextualized repetition of words and phrases. Moreover,
the structures that were thought to be most difficult to acquire were those
that differed most from the native language. Thus, contrastive analysis (e.g.,
Lado, 1957) focused on identifying differences between the first language
3

Introduction 3
(L1) and L2, which formed the target of instruction (VanPatten & Williams,
2015). This early emphasis on differentiation was led by two assumptions
that would later be challenged: (1) that a structure similarly rendered across
the L1 and L2 would be easy to acquire and (2) that structural difference
was difficult in and of itself, regardless of whether there was a difference in
the frequency or complexity of the realization of the structure in the L1
compared to the L2.
Despite early attempts to prioritize grammatical utterances and avoid
errors, it also increasingly occurred to instructors and theorists that learners
were producing language they had never heard modeled in the classroom
and that the purely external, environmental component of language learning
offered by behaviorism seemed to be missing an internal component. Such
realizations led to several different attempts to explain the incongruity
between what had been presented to learners and what they were subse-
quently able to produce and comprehend.
At one end of linguistic theory, Noam Chomsky and colleagues took the
example that language learners were capable of producing utterances unlike
those present in the input and of understanding when a given linguistic
context was ambiguous (i.e., offered multiple construals of interpretation) as
potential evidence for the mental accessibility of Universal Grammar (UG)
for all speakers (Chomsky, 1957, 1968, 1986; White, 2018, 2020; see also
Juffs, Chapter 2, this volume). For this line of generativists, the poverty-​of-​
the-​stimulus (i.e., the limited amount of input that would fail to account
for the fuller abilities demonstrated by a language learner) was a discrepancy
that could be explained by the target-​language input’s activation of the rele-
vant principles and parameters allowed by UG (for more on the poverty-​
of-​the-​stimulus see Cook, 1991). One of the principal areas of interest of
generative research at the time was the question of what constituted a gram-
matical utterance—​this entailed a principal focus on syntax that was largely
uninfluenced by semantics (i.e., the autonomy of syntax). Accordingly, pos-
sible meaning differences between similar structures were of less interest than
the grammaticality of such sentences, and theoretical accounts for language
structure provided elegant description that attempted to account for as many
structures as possible with as few rules as needed to be posited (Tallerman,
2020). Consequently, exceptions to rules or instances where syntax yielded
notable effects on semantics were considered outside of the principal scope
of investigation. Because a speaker’s competence, or knowledge of grammat-
ical linguistic structure, was of primary importance in serving as evidence of
UG, this form of knowledge received more attention than performance, or
the use of language, which was depicted as susceptible to errors or lapses in
the moment of production and thus less indicative of the speaker’s ability to
rely on UG (White, 2018, 2020). This line of investigation thus prioritized
grammaticality judgment tasks, in which participants indicated whether or
not they deemed a sentence grammatical, and written language and ideal
sentence creation tended to be privileged over spoken language or the use
of language in context (Tallerman, 2020).1
4

4 Matthew Kanwit and Megan Solon

On the other hand, another body of researchers appealed to cogni-
tive and functional approaches to account for language acquisition and
learners’ ability to produce structures that had not been present in the input.
Although cognitive-​functionalists, too, acknowledged a biological capacity
for language learning, they viewed language learning as more comparable to
other human cognitive capacities, such as the ability to understand symbols,
recognize patterns, and extrapolate from prior experience (Brown, 2018;
Bybee, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2017; Goldberg, 1998, 2013, 2019;Tomasello,
1998, 2003, 2009). To the cognitive-​functionalists generally known today
as usage-​based linguists, grammatical structure was consequently seen as
being built from recurrent use rather than existing a priori (for more on
usage-​based approaches, see Gries, Chapter 7, this volume). In response to
generative priorities, cognitive-​functional research typically valued semantic
distinctions that could accompany the use of different forms. Accordingly,
language as a device for communication was privileged, and the meaning
and function of utterances in actual (typically oral) use became the focus
of study, rather than the acceptability of idealized written sentences. It was
also acknowledged that spontaneous spoken speech (SSS) contained notably
different characteristics from written language, including the use of inton-
ation units rather than the traditional notion of the sentence, the use of certain
structures that would pervade in on