INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND TECHNOLOGY Vol 19 (2019) ISSN: 2277-3061 https://rajpub.com/index.

php/ijct

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24297/ijct.v19i0.8505

Linguistic Competence, Communicative Competence, and Interactional Competence

1
Nishad Abdulrahman, 2 Emad A. S. Abu-Ayyash

1
Al Wasl University, Dubai, UAE

2
The British University in Dubai, Dubai, UAE

[email protected] , [email protected]

Abstract

Linguistic competence, communicative competence, and interactional competence have had a profound impact
on second language teaching, learning, and testing. Although a significant number of studies have been
conducted on these three competencies, they have not been conflated for discussion in a single study. Adding
this piece to the jigsaw, the current paper explores all the three competences in more depth. This paper had a
twin purpose of 1) providing a historical account of the linguistic, communicative and interactional competences,
and 2) reviewing of the literature on them in order to identify gaps, if any, with the intention to propose new
research ideas pertinent to the three types of competence. In order to achieve the study aims, intensive literature
survey was conducted. Based on the review of the related studies on linguistic, communicative and interactional
competencies, this article provides recommendations for effective classroom practice and future research.

Keyword(s): Linguistic Competence, Communicative Competence, Interactional Competence, Competence-

Related Literature, Gaps in Competence-Related Literature, Classroom Practice

1.0 Introduction

Three types of competencies, namely linguistic competence, communicative competence, and interactional
competence, have had significant influence on second language teaching, learning and testing research and
practice (Thornbury 2006; Young 2011). The theory of linguistic competence was proposed by Noam Chomsky,
one of the most prominent linguists of the 20 th century, and his theory revolutionized the arena of theoretical
linguistics (Barman 2014). In its simplest form, linguistic competence is defined as the native speakers’ ability
to formulate “well-formed sentences” (Thornbury 2006, p. 37). However, Chomsky’s theory of linguistic
competence was, quite naturally, called into question on a number of counts that will be discussed later. Dell
Hymes introduced the theory of communicative competence (Young 2008). In line with Hymes’s ideas, Saville-
Troike (2003) states that communicative competence involves not only the knowledge of a language, but also
what message to communicate to whom, and how to communicate it appropriately in any particular context,
and that it also involves the socio-cultural knowledge that enables speakers to use and understand different
speech forms.

On the heels of communicative competence came the notion of interactional competence which was first
introduced by Claire Kramsch (Walsh 2012). Interactional competence takes the position that “abilities, actions,
and activities” are not owned by a single individual participating in the process of communication, but are
cooperatively constructed by everyone involved in the talk (Young 2013, p.17). A range of articles has already
discussed the three types of competencies mentioned above (e.g. Bagaric & Djigunovic 2007; Barman 2014;
Fauziati 2015; Kamiya 2006; Saleh 2003; Sun 2014; Taha & Reishaan 2008; Yano 2003). However, they only dealt
with either one or two of them. Taking these efforts one step forward, the present paper addresses the three
types of competences with the aim of providing 1) a historical account of linguistic, communicative and
interactional competences and 2) a critical review of the literature in order to identify gaps, if any, in the research
on these three competencies. The current study espoused a literature survey method to review the studies done

7537
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND TECHNOLOGY Vol 19 (2019) ISSN: 2277-3061 https://rajpub.com/index.php/ijct

on linguistic, communicative and interactional competences. This paper will first discuss the three types of
competences and related studies followed by a discussion on future research possibilities.

2.0. Linguistic, Communicative and Interactional Competences in Theory and Practice

2.1. Linguistic competence

Noam Chomsky introduced his much-debated theory of generative grammar in 1957 (Taha & Reishaan 2008),
and defined it as a set of rules that can be repeated to generate an indefinitely the vast number of sentences
with a clear structural description to each sentence (Tienson 1983). Figure 1 shows a tree diagram that represents
Chomsky’s structural description of sentences.

Figure 1.

(Chomsky 1965, p. 65)

A few years later, Chomsky presented the notion of linguistic competence (Tienson 1983). Chomsky argued that
“an ideal speaker-listener” has complete mastery of the language spoken in his or her speech community, and
according to him, “every speaker of a language has mastered and internalized a generative grammar” that shows
their knowledge of that particular language. (Chomsky 1965, pp. 3-8).

Chomsky makes a clear distinction between the notions of competence and performance. Competence refers
to the native speakers’ (ideal speaker-listeners’) knowledge of the linguistic system (grammar) of their language
(Canale & Swain 1980), while performance is seen as the actual language use (Chomsky 2006). However, he
asserts that a number of different factors need to be taken into account in order to study the real language
performance. One of these factors is the native speakers’ competence (Chomsky 1965, p. 4). Therefore, Chomsky
argues that the purpose of the linguistic theory is to explain the mental processes underlying the language use,
and by this, he means that the study of linguistics should be concerned with competence, not performance
(Barman 2014).

As can be understood, Chomsky focuses solely on linguistic competence (Jordan 2004) that allows native
speakers of a language to create well-formed sentence structures. However, linguistic competence cannot be
seen as the only goal of language learning since the process of communication goes beyond the mere
knowledge of creating well-structured sentences (Thornbury 2006).

2.1.1. Linguistic Competence: Related Studies

The studies were done by Piyanto (2013), and Heidari and Alavi (2015) found moderate correlation between
grammatical competence and the students’ oral communication competence, while Wahyuni et al. (2015)
observed a strong connection between linguistic (grammatical) competence and the participants’ speaking
ability. The study by Araki (2015) revealed that grammar does not hinder speaking performance. Myhill et al.’s
(2012) large scale mixed-methods study, Karimkhani’s (2011) quantitative study, Jones et al.’s (2013) mixed-

7538
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND TECHNOLOGY Vol 19 (2019) ISSN: 2277-3061 https://rajpub.com/index.php/ijct

method study, and Rajabi and Dezhkam’s (2014) experimental study offer strong evidence of the potential
advantages of teaching grammar in the context of writing. However, Huang’s (2011) theoretical model research
implied that there was no strong relationship between the grammatical knowledge and usage of this in writing.

Mokhtari and Thompson’s quantitative (2006) and Akbari’s (2014) qualitative studies found that the students’
levels of syntactic awareness are significantly linked to their reading comprehension performance. Gascoigne’s
(2005) study also revealed that focus on form, grammar rules, spelling, and punctuation is directly linked to the
successful completion of gap-fill activities which are context-independent. However, López (2008), in her
correlative study, came to the conclusion that grammatical competence alone is not enough to predict students’
reading comprehension skills. Reader-related factors, the text, and the purpose of reading are key to successful
reading comprehension. Murthy et al. (2017) found that the connection between the knowledge of syntax and
reading comprehension may reflect the significance of memory and language, rather than a special connection
between the two. Liao’s (2007) quantitative study recognized lexico-grammatical knowledge as an important
predictor of L2 listening skill, whereas Oh (2016), in his quantitative research, suggests that a parsing ability may
best predict listening as well as reading comprehension. Effendi et al.’s (2017) mixed-method study in Indonesia
found that students are more comfortable with the deductive approach although they demand variety. However,
Andrews et al.’s (2006) review claims that the teaching of syntax has no effects on students’ writing quality.
Similarly, Yoon et al.’s (2004) qualitative case study revealed that students do not appreciate passive learning of
grammar.

Pazaver and Wang’s (2009) qualitative and Saaristo’s (2015) quantitative findings revealed that all participants
in their studies think that grammar is very important in language learning, while Tuan’s (2017) quantitative study
showed that linguistically competent students tend to speak or write confidently about a topic. Qualitative case
studies were done by Farrell and Lim (2005), and Phipps and Borg (2009) found that the teachers’ principles of
teaching grammar are not always aligned with their practices. Their instructional decisions are not only
influenced by their beliefs but also by certain factors such as time.

2.2. Communicative competence

2.2.1. Hymes’s Model

Dell Hymes was one of the first linguists who criticized Chomsky’s theory of competence (Kamiya 2006) arguing
that Chomsky’s perception of competence was insufficient to explain an individual’s “language behavior as a
whole” (Ohno 2006, p. 26). According to Hymes, someone’s competence not only reflects their knowledge of
language forms and structures but also refers to the way they use language in real social situations (Young
2008). While maintaining Chomsky’s notion of linguistic competence (Kamiya 2006), Hymes (1972) suggested
four different ways of language use in social contexts, and they are:

1. What is formally possible with language

By formally possible, Hymes refers to the kind of social acts that will evoke a reply to someone’s language
use and cultural behavior. For example, someone might say “Oh you don’t say it like that” as a response to a
particular language use, and “Oh we don’t do that sort of thing around here” as a reaction to a specific
cultural behavior. Formally impossible language use is considered ungrammatical, and a cultural behavior
that is not formally possible is regarded as “uncultural” (Young 2008, p.95).

2. What is feasible

Hymes links what is feasible to psycholinguistic aspects of a speaker’s ability, such as memory limitation and
comprehension, to process the utterances that are formally possible either in the production or
comprehension of language (Van Compernolle 2014). For example, in a pharmacy patient consultation
context, due to memory limitation, it might not be feasible for a patient to repeat precisely the instructions

7539
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND TECHNOLOGY Vol 19 (2019) ISSN: 2277-3061 https://rajpub.com/index.php/ijct

the pharmacist has given to him or her. Likewise, the pharmacist may not find it feasible to diagnose the
patient due to his lack of medical expertise to do so (Young 2008).

3. What is appropriate

Appropriateness can be seen as a relationship between a specific linguistic performance and its context
perceived by participants in communicative practice. Therefore, certain language use may or may not be
appropriate for someone in a particular context. For example, many will not find it inappropriate when they
hear a three-year-old scream “I Hate You Mommy!” at his mother when the mother refused to allow him to
eat his candy (Young 2008, p. 96).

4. What is actually done

According to Hymes, there are probabilistic rules of language use that decide “which subset of formally
possible, feasible and appropriate utterances” will be used by participants in a particular speech context (Van
Compernolle 2014, p.34). For example, when participants consider certain linguistic actions to be “impossible,
unfeasible, or inappropriate”, those actions may actually be performed. Therefore, the notion of competence
may comprise aspects participants might regard as prohibited (Young 2008, p. 96).

It is important to note that Hymes’s primary focus was not language learning, but “language as social behavior”
(Savignon 2002, p. 2). However, later on, the broader notion of communicative competence necessitated a
reconsideration of existing goals of language teaching, which ultimately led to the development of the
communicative approach to language teaching (Thornbury 2006).

2.2.2. Canale and Swain’s Model

Michael Canale and Merril Swain built their version of communicative competence on Hymes’s work, and their
framework is useful to understand what knowledge and skills a person needs to acquire in order to communicate
(Young 2011). Canale and Swain’s (1980) framework includes three components: Grammatical Competence,
sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence. Grammatical competence consists of “knowledge of
lexical items, rules of morphology, syntax, sentence grammar semantics, and phonology” (p. 29). Sociolinguistic
competence is divided into two sets of rules: socio-cultural rules of use and discourse rules. Sociocultural rules
identify the ways in which utterances are produced and perceived appropriately in different socio-cultural
situations, whereas rules of discourse refer to “cohesion (grammatical link) and coherence, (appropriate
combination of communicative functions)” of a combination of utterances (p. 30). The third one is strategic
competence which contains both verbal and non-verbal strategies, such as paraphrase, repetition, and guessing,
employed by speakers in order to manage breakdowns in communication, and also “to enhance the
effectiveness of communication” (Bagaric & Djigunovic 2007, p. 98). With its simplicity and accessibility, Canale
and Swain’s framework has been popular in the field of English language teaching ever since it was introduced
(Furkó 2016).

2.2.3. Bachman and Palmer’s Model

Bachman suggested a new model of communicative competence called ‘Communicative language ability’(CLA)
in the late 1980s which was later slightly modified by Bachman and Palmer in the mid-1990s (Bagaric &
Djigunovic 2007). CLA is made up of two important components: (1) language knowledge and (2) strategic
competence. Language knowledge consists of two major parts: organizational knowledge and pragmatic
knowledge. Organizational knowledge controls formal language structures in order to make or understand
utterances or sentences that are grammatically acceptable (grammatical knowledge) and to organize these
utterances or sentences into oral and written texts (textural knowledge). Bachman and Palmer’s notion of
grammatical knowledge matches well with Canale and Swain’s grammatical competence (Kamiya 2006), whereas
textual knowledge covers knowledge of cohesion and rhetorical organization. While knowledge of cohesion is
involved in connecting sentences or utterances, knowledge of rhetorical organization helps with organizational

7540
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND TECHNOLOGY Vol 19 (2019) ISSN: 2277-3061 https://rajpub.com/index.php/ijct

development in written texts or talks (Bachman & Palmar 1996). Bachman and Palmer (1996) divide pragmatic
knowledge into two parts: Functional knowledge (illocutionary competence) and sociolinguistic knowledge.
Functional knowledge helps an individual to understand the discourse by connecting “utterances or sentences
and texts to their meanings” and also to language users’ intentions (p. 69). Functional knowledge comprises
four types of language functions:

1. Ideational functions

These functions help language users to express or understand meanings based on their real-world
experience. Some examples of ideational functions include descriptions, classifications, explanations, and
expressions of sorrow and anger.

2. Manipulative functions

These allow language users to use their language to affect the world around them. There are three types of
manipulative functions: instrumental functions, regulatory function, and interpersonal functions. Instrumental
functions are used to have other people do things for the speaker, for example, requests and suggestions.
Regulatory functions are performed to control the actions of others, for example, rules and regulations.
Interpersonal relationships are for establishing, maintaining and changing interpersonal relationships, such
as greetings, compliments, and apologies.

3. Heuristic functions

These enable users of the language to widen their knowledge of the world around them. Examples include
language used for teaching and learning, solving problems and retaining information.

4. Imaginative functions

These functions allow language users “to create an imaginary world, or extent the world around them for
humorous or esthetic purposes” (p. 70). Jokes and the use of figurative language and poetry are some of the
examples of imaginative functions.

Sociolinguistic knowledge, on the other hand, enables language users to create or comprehend language
suitable to a specific context. This requires the knowledge of conventions that determines the proper use of
“dialects, registers, idiomatic expressions, cultural references and figure of speech” (p. 70). Bachman and Palmer
sees strategic competence as a set of metacognitive strategies and argues that apart from the language
knowledge discussed above, language use also consists of “the user’s topical knowledge and affective schemata”
(p. 70). Three kinds of metacognitive strategies are identified by Bachman and Palmer (1996):

1. Goal setting

Goal setting involves recognizing a set of possible test tasks, selecting one or more of them, and deciding
whether to complete them or not.

2. Assessment

Assessment is a method by which a language user relates his topical and language knowledge to “the
language use setting and tasks” or to the testing environment and tasks (p. 71). The assessment also considers
test-takers’ affective reactions in the use of assessment strategies.

3. Planning

7541
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND TECHNOLOGY Vol 19 (2019) ISSN: 2277-3061 https://rajpub.com/index.php/ijct

Planning includes taking decisions as to how to utilize both language and topical knowledge along with
affective schemata to effectively complete the test task.

In summary, Bachman and Palmer’s model of communicative competence is multi-disciplinary and quite
complex in nature. Moreover, it defines communicative competence in the contexts of language assessment
rather than instruction (Furkó 2016).

2.2.4. Common European Framework for References’ (CEFR) Model

CEFR model of communicative competence is divided into three fundamental competences: (1) linguistic
competence, (2) sociolinguistic competence, and (3) pragmatic competence (North 2014). Each one of these
competencies is interpreted as knowledge of its content and the ability to use it. For example, Linguistic
competence involves language users’ knowledge of and their ability to use different resources of language to
develop well-structured messages, whereas sociolinguistic competence refers to knowledge and skills required
for appropriate use of language in social situations (Bagaric & Djigunovic 2007). Pragmatic competence is
subdivided into functional competence (e.g. production of language functions, speech acts) and discourse
competence (cohesion and coherence).

Unlike the models discussed above, the CEFR model does not include strategic competence as a component of
communicative competence. Instead, strategic competence focuses not only on compensating for breakdowns
in communication but also a wide variety of non-compensatory communication strategies. The other two
differences are that the CEFR model separates sociolinguistics and pragmatics competences, and regards
discourse competence as a part of pragmatic competence (Furkó 2016).

2.2.5. Communicative Competence: Related Studies

Al Alami’s (2014) experimental study suggests using literature as an effective way to improve the communicative
competence of EFL students, whereas Buitrago Campo’s (2016) mixed-method action research study
recommends improving students’ communicative competence in English through the task-based learning
approach. Similarly, Agbatogun’s (2013) Quasi-experimental study found that ESL learners’ communicative
competence can be improved by incorporating clickers into the classroom, and Pillar’s (2011) empirical study
proposes video as an effective tool for teaching both receptive and productive skills and recommends an
integrative test to assess students’ communicative competence.

Ampatuan and Jose’s (2016) qualitative study suggests using role-play as a communicative tool to assist
students in developing their communicative competence, and Bang’s (2003) mixed-method study found that
drama activities can be used to create an interactive environment, in which students could experience how to
use the target language naturally. Likewise, Catoto and San Jose’s (2016) qualitative phenomenal study found
class reporting to be a beneficial strategy to enhance students’ communicative competence, self-confidence,
and soft skills. The findings of the quantitative research done by Sadeghi et al. (2017) highlight the importance
of self- assessment and task-based assessment in language learning to foster learner involvement.

Xue’s (2013) qualitative study investigated Chinese international students’ attitudes to group work., and the
results revealed that their involvement in group work had a positive impact on their communicative abilities.
Safranj (2009) carried out a longitudinal study spanning over three years to investigate self-perceived
communicative competence (SPCC) of Engineering students who were doing General English and English for
specific purposes. The results revealed that the students were aware of their improved communicative
competence.

Gómez Palacio’s (2010) mixed-method study suggests independent reading, storytelling, roleplaying,
information gap activities and peer tutoring as effective strategies to improve ESL students’ communicative

7542
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND TECHNOLOGY Vol 19 (2019) ISSN: 2277-3061 https://rajpub.com/index.php/ijct

competence, while Chesebro et al.’s (1992) large scale quantitative study found that academically at-risk
students are more nervous about communicating with others, and the result of Nguyen and Le’s (2012)
qualitative study revealed that language tests do not always measure learners’ communicative competence in
the target language.

Alshwiah’s (2015) compares two scoring scales, ‘holistic’ and ‘correct sentence’ and finds ‘the ‘correct sentence’
scale is more appropriate when it comes to measuring students’ grammatical competence, but it needs to be
amended to score sociolinguistic competence. While reviewing the teaching and assessment of oral language
in western Australian secondary schools, Oliver et al. (2005) found that teachers did not have the skill to assess
oral communication competence of their students, and therefore children did not feel that their future language
needs were being met. The case study done by Furko and Monos (2013) found out that General Business English
books in Hungary lacks sufficient examples of pragmatic markers. Therefore, they suggest teachers should be
the sources of pragmatic markers for their students. Huang’s (2010) study investigated different communicative
strategies employed by university students in Taiwan. While message reduction and alternation were the most
frequently used strategies, the least frequent one was the message abandonment strategy.

2.3. Interactional Competence

As discussed above, communicative competence provides a rich understanding of what an individual requires
to know and do so as to establish an accurate, appropriate, and effective communication in a second language.
However, as opposed to the absolute focus of communicative competence theories on how one particular
individual’s knowledge and skills enable him or her to establish communication, some researchers, for example
Kramsch (1986), put forward “a constructivist and practice-oriented” view of interaction and competence, known
as interactional competence (Young 2013). Interactional competence has been enunciated by different linguists
under different terms. For example, Jacoby and Ochs in 1995 (cited in Young 2013) introduced the term “co-
construction”, while Hall named it ‘interactive practices’ (Hall 1999). Tracy and Robles (2013) and Young (2011)
used the term ‘discursive practice’ as an alternative to interactive practice. These co-constructed interactive or
discursive practices are repeated episodes of interaction in social context, which are culturally and socially
significant to “a community of speakers”. Therefore, participants in a particular practice naturally have
expectations about “what linguistic and nonverbal resources” (e.g. body language) their partners in
communication used in the process of constructing the practice, and such expectations will help participants to
understand different forms of talk in a practice with their conventional meanings. Misinterpretations will occur
if “forms of talk do not meet” participants’ expectations (Young 2011, p. 427). When co-constructing interactive
or discursive practices, participants not only add linguistic and pragmatic elements to the practice, but they also
bring the following resources to it:

1. A knowledge of rhetorical scripts

This includes a sequence of speech acts used for specific communication purposes.

2. A knowledge of register

Participants in the talk may use specific lexis and structures of syntax appropriate for the context.

3. A knowledge of turn-taking

This involves how participants choose the next speaker, and take decisions to end one turn and begin the
other.

4. A knowledge of the topical organization

Since participants may prefer certain topics over others, and certain decisions may need to be made as to
who has the right to introduce and change a particular topic, and how long a topic continues to be discussed.

7543
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND TECHNOLOGY Vol 19 (2019) ISSN: 2277-3061 https://rajpub.com/index.php/ijct

5. A knowledge of the appropriate participation framework

This includes ways in which participants in practice assume roles and accept the roles of others.

6. A knowledge of different ways of signaling boundaries

This means how participants know when a practice begins and ends, and when they move from one practice
to another.

7. Knowledge of repair

This refers to how speakers react to interactional issues in a particular practice (Young 2011 & 2013).

The other two additions to this list of interactional resources are alignment and multimodality. Alignment refers
to “the set of conversational devices” that participants in a conversation use to establish a position in line with
their conversation partners’ message (Atkinson et al. 2007, cited in Tecedor 2016, p. 25). The major alignment
moves speakers may produce are:

1. Acknowledgment

This indicates that interactants have received the message and are ready to continue.

2. Assessments

This refers to movements in which participants in a conversation assess the content of the previous turn
and express their opinions or feelings.

3. Collaborative contributions

This involves speakers rephrasing the content of the previous turn to show that they are on the same page
with their conversation partners or to refocus the conversation.

4. Collaborative completions

This involves the listener adopting the interlocutors’ point of view and predict his or her next move (Dings
2004; Ohta 2001, cited in Tecedor 2016, p.26).

Multimodality, on the other hand, is the coordinated use of nonverbal resources, such as gestures and gazes, as
well as “verbal and para-verbal channels, such as syntax and prosody” (Stivers and Sidness 2005, cited in Park
2017).

Interactional competence builds on the theories of linguistic and communicative competences. However, what
clearly differentiates interactive competence from the other two competences is Kramsch’s (1986) view of inter-
subjectivity. According to Kramsch, interactional competence “presupposes a shared internal context or sphere
inter-subjectivity” (p. 367), which means that a participant in a talk is able to guess what is on his/her partner’s
mind. Establishing inter-subjectivity is essential for successful communication, and three conditions to establish
inter-subjectivity are: (a) “the receiver should come to attend to the situation as intended by the sender, (b) the
sender should know that the receiver is so doing, (b) the receiver should know that the sender knows that this
is the case” (Young 2011, pp. 430-431). A basic difference between interactional competence and communicative
competence is that while communicative competence focuses on an individual speaker’s knowledge and skills
to communicate in a social context, interactional competence is jointly constructed by all speakers involved in
the communication process (Young 2013).

7544
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND TECHNOLOGY Vol 19 (2019) ISSN: 2277-3061 https://rajpub.com/index.php/ijct

Almost all the studies done on interactional competence has focused entirely on spoken interaction. Written
language does not play a significant role in contributing to interactional competence as spoken language does
(Young 2011). However, interactional competence is regarded as an indispensable competence as this enables
students to effectively participate in social interactions and perform well in their future work-life (Xiao 2016).

2.3.1. Interactional Competence: Related Studies

Barraja-Rohan’s (2011) action research showed that the use of conversational analysis to teach interactional
competence (IC) was effective for the participants of the study. May (2011) indicates a possibility of using
nonlinguistic features of communication, e.g. body language, in IC assessment, and offer a basis for the
development of a more accurate and thorough rating scale, while Sert and Walsh (2013) found that establishing
acceptance through mutual gaze and turn allocation practices has interactional and pedagogical value. Waring’s
(2013) conversational analytic study shows how to use unofficial lesson segments in order to socialize learners
into the routine practices of everyday talk to optimize learning outcomes within the limited space of the
classroom. Another conversational analytic study by Can Daskin (2015) reveals that shaping learner contributions
is an important indicator of classroom IC.

Butler and Zeng (2015) found that there were variations in patterns of interaction and characteristics as well as
self-assessment behaviors in the fourth-and sixth-grade students’ paired communication. Another study by
Walsh (2003) provides a descriptive system that teachers can use to extend an understanding of the interactional
processes taking place in their own classes. Theobald (2012) suggests that when viewed from an interactional
perspective, video-simulated accounts are an effective method to provide the point of view of the children and
further the competent child paradigm. Pinnow and Chval’s (2015) ethnographic study discovered that the
positioning practices constituting the classroom interactional architecture are inseparably tangled with second
language learner’s access to classroom interactions, while Xiao’s (2016) exploratory study informs that a large
part of second language IC, especially relating to turn-taking, repair, and alignment, is not automatically
transferred from first language IC.

Sert’s (2009) study clearly shows that the use of TV series can be an invaluable resource for language teachers
to develop their students’ IC, whereas Kecskes et al.’s (2017) research indicates that non-native speakers’ success
in interacting with native speakers depends not only on their repertoire of socio-culturally appropriate practices
and techniques but also on their knowledge of how interactions work. Park’s (2017) action research found that
Multimodal behaviors such as gestures, gaze, postures, and facial expressions had critical impacts on learning,
while Yagi’s (2007) explorative study has shown that ESL students could learn through their frequent involvement
in the same situated practice, even without any clear feedback from the researcher or the teacher.

All the studies reviewed above are qualitative in nature. However, the only quantitative study in this review
(Tecedor’s 2016) found that English native speakers who were in the initial phases of learning Spanish could
express different degrees of alignment in conversations with a partner of a similar level of language proficiency.

3. Recommendations for classroom practice and future research

Based on the review of the studies done on linguistic, communicative and interactional competences, it can be
understood that a number of studies (e.g. Mokhtari and Thompson 2006; Liao 2007; Myhill et al. 2012; Wahyuni
et al. 2015) have found a strong correlation between linguistic (grammatical) competence and four important
language skills: reading, writing, listening and speaking skills. However, the empirical studies done on the impact
of students’ grammatical competence on their listening performance are very few. Therefore, more empirical
studies need to be done in order to have a better understanding of how students’ grammatical competence
influences their listening skills. Furthermore, the effect of students’ grammatical awareness on their performance
in language proficiency tests, such as IELTS and TOEFL needs to be investigated. Such studies may have
implications for the classroom. For example, the findings of these studies may inform the teachers not only of
specific grammatical knowledge their students require in order to successfully tackle both receptive (reading

7545
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND TECHNOLOGY Vol 19 (2019) ISSN: 2277-3061 https://rajpub.com/index.php/ijct

and listening) and productive (writing and speaking) skills assessed in a particular proficiency test, but also of
different methods or approaches teachers need to teach grammar for this specific test.

Researchers may also need to investigate the possibility of using linguistic, communicative and interactional
competences eclectically in the classroom. Each one of these competencies has its own merits. For example,
linguistic competence enables students to produce accurate spoken and written language (Hedge 2000), as well
as helping them improve their receptive skills (Akbari’s 2014; Liao 2007). Communicative competence, on the
other hand, provides the knowledge and skills an individual speaker requires to communicate effectively (Young
2013), whereas interactional competence facilitates shared understanding and effective communication (Xiao
2016). Features of these three competencies can be skillfully combined by teachers for better classroom
instruction. For instance, in an intermediate English grammar lesson teaching ‘past simple tense’, a teacher can
present the grammatical item deductively, in which the grammar rules are explained by the teacher (Thornbury
2006), and then to promote communication and interaction, he or she can employ an information gap activity
in which students in pairs communicate with each other to find missing information (Hedge 2000) (see appendix
1). The teacher can also make use of unofficial lesson moments to socialize students into routine practices of
everyday interaction (Waring 2013). A good example of such an activity is provided by Waring (2013), in which
the teacher turns an informal inquiry (What’s up?) into an official learning task of great interactional value (See
appendix 2). It is worthwhile to investigate the effects of such an eclectic approach on students’ communication
skills, as well.

4. Conclusion

Although Noam Chomsky revolutionized the linguistic world with his theory of linguistic competence, Hymes
criticized Chomsky’s theory arguing grammatical knowledge was not sufficient for effective communication and
introduced communicative competence. However, researchers such as Claire Kramsch proposed a constructivist
and practice-oriented view of interaction and competence called interactional competence which specified that
abilities, actions, and activities are not possessed by an individual, but co-constructed by all involved in the
communication process. Based on the review of the related studies, the current descriptive study suggests that
more research needs to be done to investigate the effects of students’ grammatical knowledge on their listening
skills and proficiency test performance. It also suggests that there is a need for research to understand the effect
of an eclectic use of linguistic, communicative and interactional competences in the classroom on students’
communication skills.

References

1. Agbatogun, A. O. (2014). Developing learners' second language communicative competence through active
learning: clickers or communicative approach? Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(2), 251-269.
2. Al Alami, S. E. (2014). Promoting Communicative Competence within EFL Contexts: A UAE Case
Study. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 5(6),1245-1255.
3. Alshwiah, A. (2015). Assessing and Scoring Foreign Language Learners’ Communicative Competence.
Proceedings of SOCIOINT15-2nd International Conference on Education, Social Sciences and Humanities, 126-
135.
4. Akbari, Z. (2014). The role of grammar in second language reading comprehension: Iranian ESP
context. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 122-126.
5. Ampatuan, R. A. & San Jose, A. E. (2016). Role Play As An Approach In Developing Students Communicative
Competence. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 4(1),18-24.
6. Andrews, R. Torgerson, C. Beverton, S. Freeman, A. Locke, T. Low, G. & Zhu, D. (2006). The effect of grammar
teaching on writing development. British Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 39-55.
7. Araki, K. (2015). Does Teaching Grammar Really Hinder Students’ Speaking Abilities? US-China Education
Review, 5(6), 400-408.

7546
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND TECHNOLOGY Vol 19 (2019) ISSN: 2277-3061 https://rajpub.com/index.php/ijct

8. Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language
tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Bagaric, V. & Djigunovic, J. M. (2007). Defining communicative competence. Metodika, 8(1), 94-103.
10. Bang, Y. J. (2003). Developing communicative competence through drama-oriented activities in an EFL
classroom. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 8, 19-34.
11. Barman, B. (2014). The Linguistic Philosophy of Noam Chomsky. Philosophy and Progress, 51(1-2), 103-122.
12. Barraja-Rohan, A. M. (2011). Using conversation analysis in the second language classroom to teach
interactional competence. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 479-507.
13. Batang, B. L. (2014). Communicative Competence and Language Learning Styles of Prospective Teachers of
English. Researchers World, 5(4), 182-187.
14. Buitrago Campo, A. C. (2016). Improving 10th Graders' English Communicative Competence Through the
Implementation of the Task-Based Learning Approach. Profile Issues in Teachers Professional
Development, 18(2), 95-110.
15. Butler, Y. G. & Zeng, W. (2015). Young learners’ interactional development in task-based paired-assessment
in their first and foreign languages: a case of English learners in China. Education 3-13, 43(3), 292-321.
16. Can Daskın, N. (2015). Shaping learner contributions in an EFL classroom: Implications for L2 classroom
interactional competence. Classroom Discourse, 6(1), 33-56.
17. Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching
and testing. Applied linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
18. Catoto, J.S. & San Jose, A. E. (2016). Reporting as a Strategy in Facilitating the Communicative Competence
of English learners. Social Science Review, pp. 22-33.
19. Chesebro, J. W., McCroskey, J. C., Atwater, D. F., Bahrenfuss, R. M., Cawelti, G., Gaudino, J. L., & Hodges, H.
(1992). Communication apprehension and self‐perceived communication competence of at‐risk
students. Communication Education, 41(4), 345-360.
20. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
21. Chomsky, N. (2006). Language and mind. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Effendi, M.S., Rokhyati, U., Rachman, U.A., Rakhmawati, A.D. & Pertiwi, D. (2017). A Study on Grammar
Teaching at an English Education Department in an EFL Context. International Journal on Studies in English
Language and Literature (IJSELL), 5 (1), 42-46.
23. Farrell, T. S. & Lim, P. C. P. (2005). Conceptions of Grammar Teaching: A Case Study of Teachers' Beliefs and
Classroom Practices. TESL-EJ, 9(2), 1-13.
24. Fauziati, E. (2015). A State of the Art of Communicative Competence Theory. Ahmad Dahlan Journal of
English Studies, 2(2), 78-86.
25. Furko, B. P. & Monos, K. (2013). The teachability of communicative competence and the acquisition of
pragmatic markers–a case study of some widely-used Business English coursebooks. Argumentum, 9, 132-
148.
26. Furko, P. (2016). ‘A focus on pragmatic competence: The use of pragmatic markers in a corpus of business
English textbooks’, in N, Dobrical et al. (Eds), Corpora in Applied Linguistics: Current Approaches. Cambridge:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 33-52.
27. Gascoigne, C. (2005). Toward an understanding of the relationship between L2 reading comprehension and
grammatical competence. The Reading Matrix, 5(2), 1-14.
28. Gómez Palacio, C. (2010). Strategies to help ESL students improve their communicative competence and
class participation: a study in a middle school. How, 17(1), 73-89.

7547
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND TECHNOLOGY Vol 19 (2019) ISSN: 2277-3061 https://rajpub.com/index.php/ijct

29. Hall, J. K. (1999). ‘A prosaic of interaction: The development of interactional competence in another
language’, in E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning. New York: Cambridge
University Press,137-151.
30. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31. Heidari, F. & Alavi, S. A. (2015). Knowledge of Grammar, Oral Communication Strategies, and oral Fluency:
A Study of Iranian EFL Learners. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 7(1), 83-104.
32. Huang, C. P. (2010). Exploring factors affecting the use of oral communication strategies. Long Hua
Technology University Journal,30, 85-104.
33. Huang, Y. H. (2011) Does EFL Students' Grammatical Ability Account for Writing Ability? A Case Study. Chia
Nan Annual Bulletin, 37, 500-515.
34. Hymes, D.H. (1972). ‘On Communicative Competence’, in J.B. Pride and J. Holms (eds) Sociolinguistics.
Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 269-293.
35. Jones, S. Myhill, D. & Bailey, T. (2013). Grammar for writing? An investigation of the effects of contextualized
grammar teaching on students’ writing. Reading and Writing, 26(8), 1241-1263.
36. Jordan, G. (2004). Theory construction in second language acquisition. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
37. Kamiya, M. (2006). The role of communicative competence in L2 learning. Sophia Junior College Faculty
Bulletin, 26, 63-87.
38. Karimkhani, F. (2016). The relationship between EFL learners’ writing performance with their grammar
knowledge, writing strategy use and self-esteem. Advances in Asian Social Sciences (AASS), 7(2), 1189-1196.
39. Kecskes, I., Sanders, R. E., & Pomerantz, A. (2017). The basic interactional competence of language
learners. Journal of Pragmatics,1-19.
40. Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The modern language
journal, 70(4), 366-372.
41. Liao, Y. F. (2007). Investigating the construct validity of the grammar and vocabulary section and the listening
section of the ECCE: Lexico-grammatical ability as a predictor of L2 listening ability. Spain fellow, 1001, 37,
37-116.
42. López, A. L. (2008). To what extent does grammar knowledge account for competence in FL reading
comprehension in university students. RESLA, 21,181-200.
43. May, L. (2011). Interactional competence in a paired speaking test: Features salient to raters. Language
Assessment Quarterly, 8(2),127-145.
44. Mokhtari, K. & Thompson, H. B. (2006). How problems of reading fluency and comprehension are related to
difficulties in syntactic awareness skills among fifth graders. Literacy Research and Instruction, 46(1), 73-94.
45. Murthy, K. V. N. K. Krishna, G. L. & Dasaradhi, K. (2017). Syntactic Awareness and Reading Ability. AGU
International Journal of Research in Social Sciences & Humanities, 5, 533-539.
46. Myhill, D. A., Jones, S. M., Lines, H. & Watson, A. (2012). Re-thinking grammar: the impact of embedded
grammar teaching on students' writing and students' metalinguistic understanding. Research Papers in
Education, 27 (2),139-166.
47. Nguyen, C., & Le, D. (2012). Communicative Language Testing: Do School Tests Measure Students’
Communicative Competence? RELC Journal, 42(1), 856-864
48. North, B. (2014). The CEFR in Practice, English Profile Studies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. Oh, E. (2016). Comparative studies on the roles of linguistic knowledge and sentence processing speed in
L2 listening and reading comprehension in an EFL tertiary setting. Reading Psychology,37(2), 257-285.

7548
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND TECHNOLOGY Vol 19 (2019) ISSN: 2277-3061 https://rajpub.com/index.php/ijct

50. Ohno, A. (2006). Communicative competence and communicative language teaching. Paper. Internal
publication of the Bunkyo Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan, 25-31.
51. Oliver, R. Haig, Y. & Rochecouste, J. (2005). Communicative competence in oral language
assessment. Language and education, 19(3), 212-222.
52. Park, J. (2017). Multimodality as an Interactional Resource for Classroom Interactional Competence
(CIC). Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 121-138.
53. Pazaver, A., & Wang, H. (2009). Asian students’ perceptions of grammar teaching in the ESL classroom. The
International Journal of Language Society and Culture, 27, 27-35.
54. Phipps, S. & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and
practices. The system, 37(3), 380-390.
55. Pillar, G. W. (2011). A framework for testing communicative competence. The Round Table: Partium Journal
of English Studies, 2(1), 24-37.
56. Pinnow, R. J., & Chval, K. B. (2015). “How much You wanna bet?”: Examining the role of positioning in the
development of L2 learner interactional competencies in the content classroom. Linguistics and Education,
30, 1-11.
57. Priyanto, A. (2013). The Correlation Between English Grammar Competence and Speaking Fluency of
Eleventh Grade Students in SMAN 1 Sidoarjo. RETAIN, 1(1), 1-6.
58. Rajabi, P. & Dezhkam, E. (2014). The effect of explicit grammar instruction on improving the writing accuracy
of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of ELT and Applied Linguistics (JELTAL), 2(1), 61-76.
59. Saaristo, P. (2015). Grammar is the heart of language: Grammar and its role in language learning among
Finnish University students. Voices of pedagogical development-expanding, enhancing and exploring higher
education language learning, 279-318.
60. Sadeghi, K., Azad Mousavi, M., & Javidi, S. (2017). Relationship Between EFL Learners’ Self-Perceived
Communication Competence and Their Task-Based and Task-Free Self-Assessment of Speaking. Research
in Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 31-50.
61. Safranj, J. (2009). Students' communicative competence. Zbornik Instituta za pedagoska istrazivanja, 41(1),
180-194.
62. Saleh, S. E. (2013). Understanding communicative competence. University Bulletin, 3(5).
63. Savignon, S. J. (2002). ‘Communicative language teaching: Linguistic theory and classroom practice’, in S. J.
Savignon (Ed.). Interpreting communicative language teaching. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
1-27.
64. Saville-Troike, M. (2003). The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Oxford: Black well
Publishing Ltd.
65. Sert, O. (2009). Developing Interactional Competence by Using TV Series in “English as an Additional
Language” Classrooms. Enletawa Journal. 2, 23-50.
66. Sert, O. & Walsh, S. (2013). The interactional management of claims of insufficient knowledge in English
language classrooms. Language and Education, 27(6), 542-565.
67. Sun, D. (2014). From Communicative Competence to Interactional Competence: A New Outlook to the
Teaching of Spoken English. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 5(5).
68. Taha, W.A. & Reishaan, A. K. (2008). The Relationship between Competence and Performance: Towards a
Comprehensive TG Grammar. Adab al-Kufa journal, 1(2), 35-59.
69. Tecedor, M. (2016). Beginning Learners' Development of Interactional Competence: Alignment
Activity. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 23-41.

7549
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND TECHNOLOGY Vol 19 (2019) ISSN: 2277-3061 https://rajpub.com/index.php/ijct

70. Theobald, M. (2012). Video-stimulated accounts: Young children accounting for interactional matters in front
of peers. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 10(1), 32-50.
71. Thornbury, S. (2006). An A-Z of ELT. Oxford: Macmillan Education.
72. Tienson, J. (1983). Linguistic Competence. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences, XI, 99-194.
73. Tracy, K. & Robles, J.S. (2013). Everyday talk: Building and reflecting identities.2nd ed. New York: Guilford
Press.
74. Tuan, V. V. (2017). Communicative Competence of the Fourth Year Students: Basis for Proposed English
Language Program. English Language Teaching, 10(7), 104-122.
75. Van Compernolle, R. A. (2014). Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
76. Wahyuni, D. Ihsan, D. & Hayati, R. (2015). Linguistic Competence and Speaking Performance of English
Education Study Program Students of Sriwijaya University. Journal of English Literacy Education, 1(2), 83-92.
77. Walsh, S. (2003). Developing interactional awareness in the second language classroom through teacher
self-evaluation. Language awareness, 12(2), 124-142.
78. Walsh, S. (2012). Conceptualizing Classroom Interactional Competence. Novitas-Royal (Research on youth
and language), 6(1), 1-14.
79. Waring, H. Z. (2013). ‘How was your weekend?’: developing the interactional competence in managing
routine inquiries. Language Awareness, 22(1), 1-16.
80. Xiao, L. (2016). Investigating Transferability of Interactional Competence: a case study of EFL students at a
Chinese university. Proceedings of classic, 389-409.
81. Xue, M. (2013). Effects of group work on English communicative competence of Chinese international
graduates in United States institutions of higher education. The qualitative report, 18(7), 1-19.
82. Yagi, K. (2007). The development of interactional competence in a situated practice by Japanese learners of
English as a second language. Hawaii Pacific University TESL Working Papers Series, 5(1), 19-38.
83. Yano, Y. (2003). Communicative competence and English as an international language. Intercultural
Communication Studies, 12(3), 75-83.
84. Yoon, S. Hoshi, K. & Zhao, H. (2004). The Evolution of Asian ESL Students’ Perceptions of Grammar: Case
Studies of 9 Learners. Carleton Papers in Applied Language Studies, 117-152.
85. Young, R. F. (2008). Language and interaction. London and New York: Routledge.
86. Young, R. F. (2011). ‘Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing’, in E. Hinkel (Ed.),
Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. London & New York: Routledge, 426-443.
87. Young, R. F. (2013) Learning to talk the talk and walk the walk: interactional competence in academic spoken
English. Ibérica, 25, 15–38.
Appendices

Appendix 1

Taken from
http://www.cal.org/caela/tools/program_development/elltoolkit/Part241Interaction&Communication.pdf

7550
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND TECHNOLOGY Vol 19 (2019) ISSN: 2277-3061 https://rajpub.com/index.php/ijct

Appendix 2

Taken from Waring, H. Z. (2013). ‘How was your weekend?’: developing the interactional competence in
managing routine inquiries.

7551
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND TECHNOLOGY Vol 19 (2019) ISSN: 2277-3061 https://rajpub.com/index.php/ijct

7552