PONENCIA
Towards a reconceptualization of
communicative competence
Doctor Edmundo Mora
Universidad de Nariño
Problema: ¿Qué concepto
de
Enfoque Comunicativo subyace en la
enseñanza
del
Inglés
en
las
licenciaturas en idiomas ofrecidas por
el Departamento de Lingüística e
Idiomas de la Universidad de Nariño,
qué factores lo han generado y qué
discursos de innovación o resistencia
se pueden inferir de tal acto?
The teaching of English
has
given rise to the technical and
pragmatic paradigms. The former
is revealed by the memorization
of vocabulary and structures
taken at face value from
textbooks.
Regarding pragmatism, the data
reveals the application of the same
laws,
that
is
to
say,
the
implementation of identical practices
that constitute the beginnings per se
of uniformity, that is to say the
application of rigid rules to achieve in
most cases artificial communication.
For this research, the works of such
authors as Canale (1985), Ellis (1994,
2009), Halliday (1991), Harmer (1991),
Krashen (1991), Larsen-Freeman (2000)
and Richards and Rodgers (2001, 1988)
have been consulted among others.
Richards and Rodgers maintain that the
Communicative Approach is conformed by
a theory of language and a theory of
learning.
Regarding
competence,
Hymes
(1972) maintains that a person who
acquires
communicative
competence assimilates knowledge
and skills for using the language as
well, thus taking into account
aspects concerning what is possible
and appropriate, according to the
context, grade of intimacy and
purpose of conversation.
To speak a foreign language,
whichever language it is, requires a
good comprehension of the code of
the new language to be learned. For
Gadamer (1984) understanding
what someone says is to agree on
what was expressed and not just
being able to reproduce words and
ideas.
Discursive exchange flows through words. In
this form, they become an act of polysemy due
to the diversity of senses expressed through
them, that is, words of cardinal importance in
everyday speech. Ouaknin (1999), as cited by
Mèlich (2001), asserts that teachers have to
teach their students that the word can never
close, since to do so would bring an end to life
itself. The power and complexity of the word, for
Bajtin (1989), is due to semantics, i.e. words
possess certain ratings, implications, intentions
and senses that generally complement,
contradict, question, ratify or offer praise to the
listener, in order to complete what the speaker
means to say.

Thus, conversataional exchanges
give way to the negotiation of a
shared sense, thus generating a
picture that corresponds to a
particular conversation in a particular
context, which most often has
unpredictable
goals
given
the
plurality of meanings generated. The
word thus understood both forces
and
retrieves
the
polysemy
mentioned above.
Bajtin (1989) says when a word you want
to express is semi-foreign, language has no
owner, it belongs to all of us.
For Bajtin (1989), the dialogue has an
implied semantic load, indicating creation,
construction and reconstruction; i.e., in
dialogue and through dialogue speakers not
only say things, but rather through the flow
of speech build an entity, which although
abstract, carries assumptions of a deeper
consistency and involves the raw material
of the words par excellence.
The plasticity of the word, basically embodied in
polysemy, which sprouts in the verbal
exchanges—exchanges that help boost the
variety of lexicons in different roles in society—
creates a nexus between the words and their very
existence, a claim derived from Serna (2004). This
relationship produces a plurality of voices and
discourses we must seek to understand, value,
and respect in its otherness, which gains strength
and sense in the interaction with the other
scenario in which human beings becomes interhuman, the individual becomes plural, the
abstract becomes understandable, the invisible
becomes visible.
Bajtin (1989) holds that language is a
live media, one that is found in the
dwelling of human beings and allows
us to interact in everyday life. It is
never unique. Its uniqueness lies only
insofar as it deals with as an abstract
grammatical system governed by a set
of rules that dictate the possible
sequence of sentences in a generous
and infinite scenario of possibilities.
Habermas (1999) states that one
characteristic of speech is its
argumentative
nature,
characterized by three features:
process, procedure and relevant
arguments.
Reaching a consensus is not an
easy
task,
well-founded
arguments lead to discrepancies.
If this is not an easy exercise in
your own language, its neutrality
and effectiveness is compromised
even more when it comes to a
foreign language.
For Gadamer (1984), understanding
a foreign language means not
having to translate it into the
speaker’s
native
tongue.
Gadamer suggests there is an
undeniable link between language
and thought.
Zemelman (1998) suggests there
are two kinds of language: one
that helps communicate and the
other to think.
Deleuze and Guattari believe
thinking
starts
with
the
generation of concepts.
It is concepts, entities that
allow us to think, to shape our
thoughts and speech, shape
our ideas and form our
thoughts through which we
create ourselves and co-create
each other through the power
of the word.
Thinking is just that, a flow of
ideas from one sphere to another,
from one surface to another, thus
creating an intricate network in
which concepts are not isolated in
time but overlap, complement and
intersect
on
moving
plans,
bringing the world of concepts to
surface.
Thought is a complex process. Put
another way, it is a process that
requires intense work [from
language itself] in order to foster
the
development
of
a
communicative competence that
provides the elements necessary
to invigorate the relationship
between language and thought.
Recommendations
Comunication
Linguistic competence
The traditional bottom-up approach
A Top-down approach
Sociolinguistic competence
Context
Classroom discourse
Input
Story-based approach – PACE
Classroom discourse
Input
IAE T Initiates, S answers, T
evaluates
IAF
T initiates, S answers, T
feedback
(: Tell me more..? Are you saying
that….?.
Feedback-additional possibilities
Modo interpretativo
Presentational mode
Interpersonal mode
Culture
Connections
Thank You