Svetlana Kurteš, Cambridge in identifying the speaker-listener’s actual knowledge, not what he or she reports

about their knowledge (see Chomsky 1965: 8). By analysing the data of
performance, the linguist’s task is confined to determining the underlying
Introduction: Key Competences in system of rules mastered by the native speaker of a language and employed in
Foreign Language Learning actual performance (Chomsky 1965: 8).
This rather limiting definition of the scope of linguistic theory and its central
focus prompted the development of the theoretical framework known as the
The article revisits some key issues in the development of the concept of competences Ethnography of Speaking and subsequently of the theory of Communicative
in foreign language learning and teaching. More specifically, the concepts are Competence, initiated by Dell Hymes. Hymes’ approach builds on the analytical
examined in both historical and theoretical terms and their relevance to modern framework known as the functions of language, which Roman Jakobson
language learning, teaching and assessment is highlighted. A basic distinction is made
originally presented to the scholarly audience at the 1958 Conference on Style
between general and communicative language competences, following the guidelines
suggested in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).
held at Indiana University. This theoretical viewpoint emphasises not just the
General competences, not specific to any language, include declarative and socio- importance of the speaker’s linguistic competence, but also his or her mastery of
cultural knowledge, intercultural awareness and skills, while communicative language the contextual, pragmatic, socio-cultural and stylistic appropriateness of the
competences, empowering the individual to act using specific linguistic means, utterance. In his seminal article “On Communicative Competence” Hymes
encompass linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic competences. The article asserted:
elaborates on the concept of both general and communicative language competences, We have then to account for the fact that a normal child acquires knowledge of
giving a brief historical overview of the impact they had on language education sentences not only as grammatical but also as appropriate. He or she acquires
(including EFL) in both theory and practice, and also the current state of affairs competence as to when to speak, when not, and as to what to talk about with
within relevant EU legislation and beyond. whom, when, where, in what manner. In short, a child becomes able to
accomplish a repertoire of speech acts, to take part in speech events, and to
evaluate their accomplishment by others. (Hymes 1972: 277-8)
1. Competence as a Linguistic and Pedagogical Notion He goes on to introduce and elaborate on the notion of communicative
competence, highlighting the limitations of the competence-performance
Historical Perspectives: Chomsky and Hymes dichotomy in Generative Grammar. If competence is only meant to deal with the
criterion of grammaticality and disregard the criterion of appropriateness, as
When Chomsky in his Aspects of the Theory of Syntax introduced the Chomsky’s linguistic theory suggests, it is necessary to revisit the notion and
concepts of linguistic competence and linguistic performance, what he had in look more closely into its complexity. Hymes, therefore, pleads for a more
mind was the distinction between “the speaker-hearer’s knowledge of his integrated approach and suggests that linguistic theory should become much
language” and “the actual use of language in concrete situations” (Chomsky more unified with theories of communication and culture in order to address
1965: 4). What his theoretical framework, known as Generative Grammar, was these questions appropriately. More specifically, he distinguishes four key
subsequently going to focus on was knowledge of language structure necessary questions on the research agenda of this integrated linguistic theory:
for understanding and performance. He noted that
1. Whether (and to what degree) something is formally possible;
[l]inguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a
completely homogeneous speech-community, who knows its language perfectly 2. Whether (and to what degree) something is feasible in virtue of the means of
and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory implementation available;
limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or
characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual performance. 3. Whether (and to what degree) something is appropriate [...] in relation to a
(Chomsky 1965: 3) context in which it is used and evaluated;
According to this standpoint, therefore, linguistic theory is perceived as 4. Whether (and to what degree) something is in fact done, actually performed,
essentially mentalistic, “concerned with discovering a mental reality underlying and what its doing entails. (Hymes 1972: 281; emphasis original)
actual behaviour” (Chomsky 1965: 4). In other words, it is primarily interested

1
 3

Hymes’ redefined notion of competence is hierarchically the most general to indicate the level of students’ communicative competence acquired through
one and refers to the capabilities of a person. It depends on “both (tacit) the immersion language programmes they had attended. Students’ linguistic
knowledge and (ability for) use” (Hymes 1972: 282; emphasis original). competence, although undeniably playing a very important role, could only be
Subsequently, properly assessed as part of their overall communicative competence, which
[...] the goal of a broad theory of communicative competence can be said to be to Canale and Swain re-examined and developed into a four-part theoretical model
show the ways in which the systemically possible, the feasible, and the (Canale/Swain 1980; Canale 1983).
appropriate are linked to produce and interpret actually occurring cultural Communicative competence thus defined encompasses four major
behaviour. (Hymes 1972: 286) interdependent categories: grammatical competence (i.e., mastery of the
This theoretical framework and the research results it was about to yield had phonological, morphological, syntactic and lexico-semantic structure of a
a groundbreaking impact on theoretical language teaching approaches and their language), sociolinguistic competence (i.e., knowledge of the rules of language
practical applications. More specifically, it revolutionised language education by use), discourse competence (i.e., cohesiveness in form and coherence in
introducing the concept of language(s) for communication and giving rise to meaning in both spoken and written domains), and finally strategic competence
communicative language teaching. (verbal and non-verbal communication strategies employed in order to
compensate for gaps in knowledge or insufficient fluency). It is still necessary to
Pedagogical Perspectives: Canale/Swain and Spolsky maintain a basic distinction between communicative competence and
Two basic criteria encompassing the notion of competence as defined by communicative performance, the latter being “the actual demonstration of this
Hymes, grammaticality and appropriateness, were about to become widely knowledge in real second language situations and for authentic communicative
accepted by language teaching professionals. Their methodological approach purposes” (Canale/Swain 1980: 6, emphasis original), the successfulness of
would enthusiastically embrace the postulate that the acquisition of lexico- which will depend on various factors, such as volition, motivation, etc. In other
grammatical fluency in a foreign language is not sufficient enough if it does not words,
incorporate a thorough understanding of the underlying pragmatic and socio- [...] we have [...] adopted the term ‘communicative competence’ to refer to the
cultural rules that govern successful communicative events. A competent foreign relationship and interaction between grammatical competence, or knowledge of
language speaker will not, therefore, only display a high level of accuracy in his the use of grammar, and sociolinguistic competence, or knowledge of the rules of
language use. Communicative competence is to be distinguished from
or her choice of vocabulary and grammatical structures, but understanding of the communicative performance, which is the realization of these competences and
contextual appropriateness of his or her utterances. These two major criteria, their interaction in the actual production and comprehension of utterances [...]
subsuming a range of complex skills, would become known as communicative (Canale/Swain 1980:1).
competence in the theory and practice of language education.
Canale and Swain’s perspective is primarily pedagogical, which is why they
The state of affairs in language pedagogy, particularly in reference to the
put a strong emphasis on investigating the implications of their theoretical
notion of communicative competence, was reassessed and redefined in a number
model on the four main areas of foreign language teaching: syllabus design,
of publications, most notably in a highly influential position paper co-authored
teaching methodology, teacher training and materials development.
by two leading methodologists and language educators, Michael Canale and
With respect to syllabus design, Canale and Swain maintain that “a
Merrill Swain, published in Applied Linguistics in 1980:
functionally organised communicative approach for all stages of second
[...] in this paper we have chosen to examine currently accepted principles of language learning” (Canale/Swain 1980: 32) is the most effective one, “with a
‘communicative approaches’ to second language pedagogy by determining the highly useful and visible purpose of second language study, namely
extent to which they are grounded in theories of language, psycholinguistics,
sociolinguistics, and other language-related disciplines. The examination of the
communication” (Canale/Swain 1980: 33). Furthermore, a functionally
theoretical bases has led us to question some of the existing principles, and in turn organised communicative approach allows for a better understanding of norms
to develop a somewhat modified set of principles which is consistent with a more and values of the second language culture, an important aspect that was missing
comprehensive theoretical framework for the consideration of communicative in the traditional grammar-based approaches to syllabus design.
competence. (Canale/Swain 1980: 1) Teaching methodology, on the other hand, should mainly be concerned with
The authors looked closely into achievements of students of French as a employing classroom activities that reflect in a more direct way “those

2
foreign language, pointing out that traditional grammar-based tests were not able communication activities that the learner is most likely to engage in”
 5

(Canale/Swain 1980: 33). Authentic, real-life, purposeful classroom activities In an attempt to offer a possible solution to this problem, Spolsky makes a
(progressing in complexity) raise the learner’s awareness of the “aspects of case for the introduction of the functional approach to language testing, arguing
genuine communication such as its basis in social interaction, the relative that it “starts at a more holistic level” (Spolsky 1989: 141), putting forward a
creativity and unpredictability of utterances [...]” (Canale/Swain 1980: 33). possible model (e.g. drawing from speech act theory, ethnography of
When it comes to teacher training, however, it is evident that the traditional communication, or perhaps a pragmatic inventory of notions and functions
role of the teacher should be re-examined and re-defined if the communicative characteristic of a certain domain). Such a model is capable of providing “a
teaching methodology is to be implemented in foreign language classrooms. Is heuristic device for making a list of communication tasks that a language learner
the teacher now meant to become just a facilitator, an instigator of such might need to accomplish” (Spolsky 1989: 141). Devising it is a complex
communicative situations that will prompt the development of adequate endeavour that has to be informed by a thorough theoretical clarification of the
communicative skills of the learners? It is imperative, Canale and Swain relationship between function and structure, as well as a comprehensive account
maintain, that the teacher holds on to his or her original pedagogic role, of the components of language proficiency and the boundaries that delimit them
particularly when dealing with students who are still at lower levels of language (Spolsky 1989: 144).
proficiency, and gradually adopt the role of a facilitator of the learning process.
This role, however, should only be seen as complementary, never as alternative The following can be offered as a brief recapitulation of the topics discussed
to the original didactic role of the teacher. Consequently, teacher training should so far. From the theoretical point of view, competence is a technical term
put an emphasis on developing an adequate level of communicative competence introduced and used by some of the most influential linguistic theories of the
of language teachers in order to enable them to carry out their role successfully 20th century. In Chomsky’s Generative Grammar, linguistic competence denotes
(Canale/Swain 1980: 33). knowledge of language structure that the native speaker possesses and employs
Lastly, what does the model imply for the conceptual design of teaching in actual performance (the use of language in concrete situations). Hymes’
materials? Functionally organised textbooks, the authors maintain, need to be theory of Communicative Competence, on the other hand, maintains that the
based on a thorough empirical investigation on communicative syllabus design speaker’s linguistic competence cannot be divorced from his or her mastery of
(Canale/Swain 1980: 34). the contextual, pragmatic, socio-cultural and stylistic appropriateness of the
Closely related to the question of how the introduction of the communicative utterance.
competence model impacted foreign language teaching and learning is the Hymes’ theoretical framework had a groundbreaking impact on the theory
influence it had on language testing and test design. One of the most influential and practice of language learning, teaching and assessment. It revolutionised
figures in the field of language testing, particularly in the implementation of language education by introducing the concept of language(s) for
innovative approaches in the theory and practice of language testing and communication and giving rise to the communicative teaching approach.
assessment, is Bernard Spolsky. In his widely cited and highly influential article Communicative competence as a notion was enthusiastically embraced by the
“Communicative Competence, Language Proficiency, and Beyond” he notes: language teaching profession and redefined further by Canale and Swain. In
The relevance of a theory of communicative competence to language testing is practical terms, a functionally organised communicative approach proved itself
obvious [...]. Language tests involve measuring a subject’s knowledge of, and very effective in foreign language classrooms, putting an emphasis on authentic
proficiency in, the use of language. A theory of communicative competence is a communicative situations that the learners are likely to find themselves in.
theory of the nature of such knowledge and proficiency. One cannot develop Lastly, a functional approach to language testing and assessment puts forward a
sound language tests without a method of defining what it means to know a model capable of producing a comprehensive list of communication tasks that a
language, for until you have decided what you are measuring, you cannot claim to
language learner needs to accomplish. It relies on empirical investigations on the
have measured it [...] (Spolsky 1989: 140).
nature of language proficiency and its components.
The starting point for any language testing professional inevitably remains
the perennial question of what knowing a language actually means. A more
practical and pragmatic aspect of that issue would certainly be how to design an
effective testing model and integrate it into the wider postmodern education
paradigm of our day.

3
 7

2. Current Approaches to Competences in Language Education: One of the most concrete results of these efforts and activities is the creation
Common European Framework and Beyond of the Common European Framework for Languages: Learning, Teaching and
Assessment (2001), a comprehensive document providing “a common basis for
the elaboration of language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations,
Language(s) for Communication: Common European Framework... textbooks, etc. across Europe” (CEFR 2001: 1). It outlines in a detailed manner
After the meeting held on the 24th September 1982, The Committee of “what language learners have to learn to do in order to use a language for
Ministers of the Council of Europe put forward a document outlining communication and what knowledge and skills they have to develop so as to be
recommendations to the member states concerning modern languages policy. In able to act effectively” (CEFR 2001: 1, own emphasis). The framework,
the preamble to the document three basic principles were highlighted as a therefore, takes onboard key concepts of the theoretical and methodological
starting point based on which the recommendations were made and presented to frameworks that the communicative approach to foreign language learning and
the governments of the member states. Namely, the Committee acknowledged teaching has to offer, without openly pledging its allegiance to any of them
the fact specifically. Furthermore, it explicitly positions itself as a context-free
that the rich heritage of diverse languages and cultures in Europe is a valuable
document, non-prescriptive and flexible enough to stand side by side with
common resource to be protected and developed, and that a major educational various frameworks, approaches and provenances:
effort is needed to convert that diversity from a barrier to communication into a In accordance with the basic principles of pluralist democracy, the Framework
source of mutual enrichment and understanding; aims to be not only comprehensive, transparent and coherent, but also open,
dynamic and non-dogmatic. For that reason it cannot take up a position on one
[...] that it is only through a better knowledge of European modern languages that side or another of current theoretical disputes on the nature of language
it will be possible to facilitate communication and interaction among Europeans acquisition and its relation to language learning, nor should it embody any one
of different mother tongues in order to promote European mobility, mutual particular approach to language teaching to the exclusion of all others. (CEFR
understanding and co-operation, and overcome prejudice and discrimination; 2001: 18)
[and] that member states, when adopting or developing national policies in the The framework’s target readership are professionals and policy-makers in
field of modern language learning and teaching, may achieve greater convergence the area of language and intercultural education. Therefore, it is primarily usage-
at the European level, by means of appropriate arrangements for ongoing co- and, perhaps even more so, action-oriented, designed
operation and co-ordination of policies [...] (Recommendation R (82)18).
to overcome the barriers to communication among professionals working in the
Over the years the Council of Cultural Co-operation of the Council of Europe field of modern languages arising from the different educational systems in
carried out a number of initiatives promoting the principles outlined above. Europe. (CEFR 2001: 1).
More precisely, Council’s own activities, and in particular the Modern Structurally, it is presented as a taxonomic list of thematically inter-related
Languages Section of the Committee for Education, were “concerned to units, in an attempt “to handle the great complexity of human language by
encourage, support and co-ordinate the efforts of member governments and breaking language competence down into separate components” (CEFR 2001:
nongovernmental institutions to improve language learning” (CEF 2001: 2). 1). The framework asserts that “[c]ompetences are the sum of knowledge, skills
Their activities covered a range of areas with a view to ensuring and characteristics that allow a person to perform actions” (CEFR 2001: 9), and
that all sections of [the] populations have access to effective means of acquiring a makes a basic distinction between the general ones, “those not specific to
knowledge of the languages of other member states (or of other communities language, but which are called upon for actions of all kinds, including language
within their own country) as well as the skills in the use of those languages that
activities” (CEFR 2001: 9), and communicative language competences,
will enable them to satisfy their communicative needs (CEFR 2001: 3),
“empower[ing] the individual to act using specifically linguistic means” (CEFR
and, perhaps more importantly, to promoting 2001: 9).
research and development programmes leading to the introduction, at all The general competences comprise notions such as declarative knowledge
educational levels, of methods and materials best suited to enabling different (savoir), skills (savoir-faire) and existential competence (savoir-être), as well as
classes and types of student to acquire a communicative proficiency appropriate to the general ability to learn (savoir apprendre) (CEFR 2001: 11). They are to be
their specific needs. (CEFR 2001: 3) seen as a prerequisite for any language learning activity.

4
 9

Knowledge as one of the key and perhaps most complex general lies at the heart of pragmatic competences, the mastery of which assures a much
competences comes as a result of the person’s day-to-day experience of the more successful communicative exchange in a range of intercultural settings.
world (empirical knowledge), as well as his or her formal learning activities The document outlines levels of language proficiency both “vertically”, i.e.
(academic knowledge). Both play a very important role in the process of specifies the actual levels in an ascending order (A1-C2), and “horizontally”,
language learning and teaching. More specifically, empirical knowledge, that is, across different domains describing parameters of communicative
encompassing both universal concepts commonly known and shared by activity. The levels are divided into three broad categories (A – Basic User; B –
humankind, as well as those culture-specific values and norms, characteristic of Independent User; C – Proficient User), each of which is further subcategorised.
individual communities, groups, societies, etc., is an essential element in Basic User thus includes Breakthrough (A1) and Waystage (A2) levels;
intercultural communicative events and instrument in managing language Independent User comprises Threshold (B1) and Vantage (B2) levels; while,
activities in a foreign language. When it comes to academic knowledge, finally, Proficient User subsumes the two highest levels: Effective Operational
however, its importance becomes immediately obvious when using a language Proficiency (C1) and Mastery (C2). The framework goes on to specify each
for professional and subject-specific purposes (see CEFR 2001: 11-12). level by offering a comprehensive list of function-oriented “can-do” descriptors,
Skills, (“know-how”), “depend more on the ability to carry out procedures meant to cover reception, production and interaction (CEFR 2001: 22f).
than on declarative knowledge, but this skill may be facilitated by the No matter how precisely defined each level is expected to be, however, there
acquisition of ‘forgettable’ knowledge and be accompanied by forms of is still a certain amount of arbitrariness about it, caused by factors such as how
existential competence” (CEFR 2001: 11), while existential competence is to be individual education systems are set up and for what purpose the proposed
understood “as the sum of the individual characteristics, personality traits and scales are meant to be used (see CEFR 2001: 17). Moreover, the CEFR levels
attitudes” (CEFR 2001: 11). Lastly, the ability to learn activates a range of almost exclusively observe the vertical progress in language proficiency, while
skills, competences and knowledge and can be “conceived as knowing how, or the horizontal aspect of it largely remains out of focus. Language learning is a
being disposed, to discover “otherness” – whether the other is another language, process that does not involve the learners making their way up the scale only;
another culture, other people or new areas of knowledge” (CEFR 2001: 12). progress is also lateral, achieved “by broadening their performance capabilities
Even though it does not explicitly endorse any theoretical model, the rather than increasing their proficiency in terms of the same category” (CEFR
framework largely draws from the legacy of major communicative-functional 2001: 17).
approaches (see Hymes 1972; Canale/Swain 1980; Canale 1983) when defining
communicative language competence as a notion comprising three main ... And Beyond
components: linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic, each of which involves a The Common European Framework has ushered in a new era in language
range of skills, knowledge and abilities. Communicative language competence is education policy within the member states of the Council of Europe. It has given
instrumental in the performance of all language activities, such as reception, them an opportunity to reform and standardise their national foreign language
production, interaction and mediation. curricula and make transparent and explicit what learning outcomes are to be
Linguistic competences encompass elements of lexical, phonological, striven for as a result of this newly implemented Europe-wide language policy.
syntactic knowledge and skills of other relevant dimensions of language as a The Council of Europe, for its part, continues to lead and inspire initiatives
system, excluding its sociolinguistic and pragmatic dimensions. that are meant to take the Framework from its language-neutral generality to
Sociolinguistic competences, on the other hand, define “the sociocultural language-specific reference level descriptions, defining finely and precisely the
conditions of language use” (CEFR 2001: 13), and as such are crucial in lexico-grammatical and functional repertoire the learner needs to possess in
communicative events in intercultural settings. Promoting the development of order to be able to perform at a certain level of language proficiency.
the learners’ ability to decode these culture specific conditions and master the One such initiative, known as the Reference Level Description (RLD) for
rules of their usage remains as high as ever on the list of language teaching National and Regional Languages, uses the framework as its anchor point in an
priorities. attempt to define the CEFR levels for specific languages (Council of Europe’s
Pragmatic competences refer to “the functional use of linguistic resources Guide 2005: 3f). A number of countries have already joined the initiative,
[...], drawing on scenarios or scripts of interactional exchanges” (CEFR 2001: working on RLDs for languages such as Czech, German, English, French,
13). It involves both written and spoken domains, cohesion and coherence, Georgian, Greek, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese.

5
contextual appropriateness of the utterance, etc. The culture-specific component
 11

Another important initiative, emanating from the framework and the results 2006: 72), requiring a serious reconsideration of its traditional ‘foreign
of its implementation, is the European Indicator of Language Competence, language’ status in the curricula worldwide.
proposed by the EU member states’ officials at the European Council meeting Challenges posed to the EFL teaching profession today are equally unique
held in Barcelona in March 2002. The main purpose of the initiative is to and complex. They essentially all cluster around one single question – which
measure foreign language skills in each member state. The results, once fully model of teaching English is the most effective one and, subsequently, which
obtained and analysed, will inform future endeavours to improve plurilingual criteria should it be chosen. At the very first attempt to offer a possible answer
competences of the citizens of Europe. The first round of the project focuses on to this, one might stumble over the question of which model of English is the
reading and listening comprehension skills, as well as writing skills of secondary “right” one and how it should be chosen. A possible answer, however open-
school students in the participating countries, and currently includes languages ended, could be found in the fact that “[t]here is no single way of teaching
most commonly taught as foreign languages in the Union (English, French, English, no single way of learning it, no single motive for doing so, no single
German, Italian and Spanish). syllabus or textbook, [...] and, indeed, no single variety of English which
provides the target of learning” (Graddol 2006: 82).
To conclude, the Common European Framework, a document commissioned Language education is instrumental in creating a competent communicator
by the Council of Europe, outlines “what language learners have to learn to do able to function effectively in intercultural settings. Being an integral part of the
in order to use a language for communication” (CEFR 2001: 1) and gives a wider postmodern education paradigm, it is imperative that it stays as alert as
detailed taxonomic list of function-oriented descriptors, specifying the levels of ever in order to understand current trends and predict future requirements. The
language proficiency (A1-C2). The framework makes a basic distinction concept of “language(s) for communication” revolutionised the language
between general competences, not specific to any language, and communicative teaching profession of the 20th century. It is time to take it further and welcome
language competences, empowering the individual to act using specific in the new “language(s) for intercultural communication” era.
linguistic means.
A number of initiatives, led and inspired by the Council of Europe and its
mission, are currently underway. Their results are expected to inform future 4. Conclusion
directions of research and development in language education policy in the
Wider Europe. The purpose of the article was twofold: to give an introductory overview of
the notion of competence both diachronically and synchronically and to discuss
the current state of affairs within the EU policies and activities. This was
3. Implications for EFL Teaching and Ways Forward achieved by elaborating on the notion of competence from the linguistic and
pedagogical viewpoints, revisiting the relevant chapters of some of the most
Since the advent of communicative approaches, the EFL teaching profession influential theoretical frameworks of the 20th century. Finally, the Common
has readily embraced its ethos and welcomed the impact it had on all key areas European Framework and other initiatives inspired by the Council of Europe
of its activity, including curricular innovations, EFL classroom methodology, and its mission to improve pluringual competences of the citizens of Europe
teacher training and materials design. The shift from grammar-based EFL were briefly presented and discussed.
pedagogy to the communicative-functional one coincided with the spread of the
English language, leading to its global geographical dispersion. This, in turn, Bibliography
gave rise to a growing number of regional and national varieties of the language, Canale, Michael and Merrill Swain (1980): Theoretical basis of communicative approaches to
with unique and complex sociolinguistic profiles (see Leung 2005: 133f. and second language teaching and testing. In: Applied Linguistics 1(1), 1-47.
further literature recommended therein). Latest estimates suggest that there are Canale, Michael (1983): From communicative competence to communicative language
approximately 350 million native speakers of English, up to 500 million pedagogy. In: Jack C. Richards and Richard W. Schmidt (eds.): Language and
communication. London: Longman, 2-17.
speakers of English as a second/additional language and potentially up to 1000
Chomsky, Noam (1965): Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
million people around the world who use it for a variety of purposes and for
Council of Cultural Co-operation (2001): Common European framework for languages:
whom it is neither their native/first or second/additional language (Leung 2005:
learning, teaching and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

6
133). Moreover, “English seems to have joined the list of basic skills” (Graddol
 13

Graddol, David (2006): English next: why global English may mean the end of English as a
Foreign Language. [London]: British Council.
Hymes, Dell (1972): On communicative competence. In: J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.):
Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 269-293.
Leung, Constant (2005): Convivial communication: recontextualizing communicative
competence. In: Applied Linguistics 15(2), 119-144.
Spolsky, Bernard (1989): Communicative competence, language proficiency, and beyond. In:
Applied Linguistics 10(2), 138-156.

Internet
Council of Europe: Reference Level Description for National and Regional Languages.
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/dnr_EN.asp (29.04.2010).
Council of Europe (2005): Guide for the production of RLD: Version 2; November 2005.
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/DNR_Guide_EN.pdf (29.04.2010).
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (1982): Recommendation No. R (82) 18.
https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&
InstranetImage=601630&SecMode=1&DocId=676400&Usage=2 (29.04.2010).
European Union: The European Indicator of Language Competence.
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/education_training_youth/lifelong_learning/c11
083_en.htm (29.04.2010)