Rethinking communicative competence

for typical speakers

An integrated approach to its nature and assessment

Meng-Ju Tsai

The concept of communicative competence has been studied widely for over 40
years in several fields, including linguistics, psychology, and speech communi-
cation. Different definitions of communicative competence and measurement
of communicative competence exist in these fields. A clear approach to com-
municative competence for typical speaking individuals and its measurement of
communicative competence is unclear. This paper aims to: (1) review four main
approaches to communicative competence and highlight strengths and weak-
nesses of each approach; (2) develop an integrated approach to communicative
competence for typical speakers; and (3) address measurement of communica-
tive competence. An integrated approach to communicative competence for
typical speakers provides a fundamental access to communicative competence
in different fields. For examples, scholars and speech, language pathologists have
clear knowledge assessing communicative competence of individuals with com-
munication disorders.

Keywords: Behavioral/social approach, cognitive approach, communicative

competence, language development approach, relational competence approach,
typical speakers

1. Introduction

Everyday conversation is heavily based on communicative competence in order for

individuals to develop social identities as members of their community (Wiemann
1977). The concept of communicative competence has been studied widely for
over 40 years in several fields, including linguistics, psychology, and speech com-
munication. During the decades from 1960 through 1990, various previous lit-
eratures (e.g., Chomsky 1965; Cupacha and Spitzbergb 1983; Hymes 1972; Simon

Pragmatics & Cognition 21:1 (2013), 158–177.  doi 10.1075/pc.21.1.07tsa

issn 0929–0907 / e-issn 1569–9943 © John Benjamins Publishing Company
 Rethinking communicative competence for typical speakers 159

1979; Wiemann 1977; Wiemann and Kelly 1981) focusing on communicative

competence suddenly emerged. These literatures further indicated that the defini-
tion of communicative competence is more complex than only combining indi-
vidual definitions from the terms of “communication” and “competence”. Scholars
in each field have their own definitions of communicative competence, and these
definitions vary among these fields. In addition, scholars frequently used differ-
ent terminologies to represent the phenomena of “communicative competence”.
These terminologies include, but are limited to, linguistic competence, relational
competence, and interpersonal competence. Unfortunately, they were used inter-
changeably in the literature, which confused scholars who wanted to investigate
communicative competence. Additionally, these literatures had very diverse infor-
mation on communicative competence in terms of the definitions of communica-
tive competence, measurement of communicative competence, and the developed
protocols/checklists in measuring communicative competence.
This article undertakes to: (1) review four main approaches to communicative
competence and highlight strengths and weaknesses of each approach; (2) develop
an integrated approach to communicative competence for typical speakers; and
(3) measure communicative competence. All of these details focus on communi-
cative competence mainly of typical English speaking individuals rather than in
individuals who acquire English as second language speakers.

2. Four main approaches to communicative competence

The concept of communicative competence can be studied from four approaches:

(1) cognitive approach (Chomsky 1965); (2) behavioral/social approach (Hymes
1974); (3) relational competence approach (Wiemann 1977); and (4) language de-
velopment approach (Bloom and Lahey 1978).

2.1 Cognitive approach

Communicative competence was studied from the cognitive approach and viewed
as linguistic competence (Romaine 1984). Linguistic competence has been per-
ceived from two concepts, linguistic theory and generative grammar, proposed by
Chomsky (1965). Linguistic theory mainly assumed that an ideal speaker-learner
processes perfect language in a homogeneous speech-community without being
affected by external factors, such as memory limitation, distractions, shifts of at-
tention and interest, and errors (Chomsky 1965). Generative grammar reduced
all grammars in all languages to a universal grammar, that is, all individuals using
different languages are born with one underlying universal grammar (Chomsky
160 Meng-Ju Tsai

1965). Chomsky further argued that the development of language grammar is in-
nate rather than learned. Therefore, it can be inferred that linguistic competence
is innate.
Although Chomsky never has had his theories of linguistic competence ap-
plied to communicative competence, in the last several decades, contemporary
linguists have viewed linguistic competence as communicative competence. From
Chomsky’s viewpoint, communicative competence was perceived as an innate,
biological function of mind, and acquired through a particular homogenous lan-
guage-using community (Romaine 1984). If the statement that linguistic compe-
tence implies communicative competence is true, it can be assumed that commu-
nicative competence is innate.
In spite of contributions from the cognitive approach to defining communica-
tive competence, several limitations have been recognized as well. These include
a lack of involvement of contextual factors such as communication partner(s),
limited concept of linguistic competence (i.e., universal grammar), and confu-
sions of the relationship between the linguistic competence and communicative
competence. These limitations are discussed. The cognitive approach focuses on
universal grammar in a homogenous community without considering the fact of
heterogeneous communities involving several factors affecting linguistic com-
petence, such as communication contexts, communication partner(s), and their
related influences on communication. Moreover, the cognitive approach hardly
perceives linguistic competence as universal grammar in a homogenous commu-
nity. In fact, there are heterogeneous communities speaking different languages.
These languages may have certain similarities in their grammars, but these cannot
be reduced to a universal grammar without any doubt. To be sure, the cognitive
approach perceives linguistic competence as communicative competence, i.e., that
language content and use play a certain role in communicative competence, the
cognitive approach perceives linguistic competence as communicative compe-
tence, language content and use play a certain role in communicative competence.
It seems that the cognitive approach defines communicative competence too
simply. It has been concluded that the cognitive approach is not sufficient to ex-
plain the term communicative competence (Wiemann and Kelly 1981). Although
the cognitive approach to explaining communicative competence has its contribu-
tions and limitations, this approach did initiate the beginning study of communi-
cative competence. The cognitive approach is the foundation of other approaches
to studying communicative competence.
By contrast to the cognitive view of linguistic competence (i.e., universal gram-
mar) as communicative competence, Hymes (1972), a sociolinguist, proposed
the behavioral/social approach to studying communicative competence. Hymes
argued that linguistic competence is a necessary component of communicative
 Rethinking communicative competence for typical speakers 161

competence, but it alone is not sufficient to explain competence, because the uni-
versal grammar becomes inadequate as long as a real situation is involved (Hymes
1971). Simply speaking, communicative competence cannot be superficially
viewed as linguistic competence (Hymes 1971).

2.2 Behavioral/social approach

Communicative competence was defined as “dependent upon both (tacit) knowl-

edge and (ability for) use (Hymes 1972: 282). “He incorporated the cognitive ap-
proach (i.e., knowledge of language grammar) in the behavioral/social approach
to explaining communicative competence. Communicative competence can be
viewed as an extension of linguistic competence (Hymes 1972).
The concept of ability for use (i.e., behavior) is a central concern in the behav-
ioral/social approach to communicative competence. The ability to use the knowl-
edge of language is the skill which was defined as “… the connections between
knowledge and behavior (Wiemann and Backlund 1980: 190).” These skills have
been described as “a repertoire of communication behaviors”. Simply speaking,
repertoires are “ways of speaking (Hymes 1974: 199).” These repertoires of com-
munication behaviors include skills in linguistic aspects of pragmatic; semantic;
morphological; para-linguistic (e.g., stress and intonation); nonlinguistic (e.g., fa-
cial expressions and gestures); and sociolinguistic skills (Savich 1983). In other
words, the behavioral/social approach to communicative competence mainly con-
cerns not only knowledge of language grammar, but also abilities to use commu-
nication repertories appropriately and effectively in varying contexts.
Within the behavioral/social approach, communicative competence has been
further perceived as “the short view being interested primarily in understanding
innate capacities as unfolded during the first years of life, and the long-range view
in understanding the continuing socialization and change of competence through
life (Hymes 1971: 17).” Two things have been assumed: (1) communicative com-
petence is nourished by not only knowledge of language, but also by social com-
munication experience, needs, and motivation (Hymes 1972), and (2) communi-
cative competence is innate in the first years of life, and consequently it is learned
through continuing socialization. This concept is similar to language acquisition.
Children are born with great potential abilities to learn communicative compe-
tence, but in order to be communicatively competent they must be exposed to
communication in a meaningful context. These experiences shape children to be
more communicatively competent.
Furthermore, from the perspective of the behaviorist, Skinner assumed that
competent communicators have learned certain behaviors reflective of various en-
vironmental stimuli, associated with prior positive experiences in communicative
162 Meng-Ju Tsai

interactions (Wiemann and Bradac 1989). Specifically, competent communication

behaviors have been reinforced by others and the communicator carries these re-
inforced positive behaviors with him or her to other communications. Conversely,
sometimes incompetent communicators may not be reinforced positively, and
therefore fail to learn competent communication behaviors. From these argu-
ments (Hymes 1971, 1972; Wiemann and Bradac 1989), it can be assumed that
communicative competence is innate initially, and learned and modified through
prior reinforced experiences and behaviors in later years.
The behavioral/social approach concerns not only the knowledge of universal
language grammar, but also the knowledge to use repertoires of communication in
a context. This approach does not perceive communicative competence as linguis-
tic competence. Rather, communicative competence is the extension of linguistic
competence. Individuals must have innate knowledge of language grammar and
certain positive repertoires of communication, which are learned and reinforced
from prior experiences, in order to achieve their competent communication.
These competent communication behaviors are innate initially in first years, and
learned and modified in later years.
Although the behavioral/social approach incorporated the cognitive approach,
it did not address more details of linguistic competence proposed in the cognitive
approach. In other words, universal grammar is still perceived as only a compo-
nent of linguistic competence in the behavioral/social approach. Moreover, the be-
havioral/social approach considers appropriateness of communication only from
the perspective of a speaker (i.e., actor) within the communication. Undoubtedly,
communication involves several factors (e.g., communication partner) rather than
a speaker alone. Factors of communication partner(s) have been ignored in the
behavioral/social approach.
In sum, the behavioral/social approach did not abandon the tenets of the
cognitive approach, but incorporated linguistic competence, which perceives
universal grammar as linguistic competence. Both the cognitive and behavioral/
social approaches conceive of communicative competence as a property of indi-
viduals. That is, individuals carry this property across communication situations.
However, the perspective of the behavioral/social approach emphasizes ability to
use language (i.e., performance) more than linguistic competence, which stresses
Chomsky’s universal grammar. Wiemann and Bradac (1989) pointed out that the
behavioral/social approach, which combines with the cognitive approach, is a cru-
cial component of the concept of communicative competence. Since the cogni-
tive approach and social/behavioral approaches did not consider other individuals
(e.g., communication partner(s)) within the communication process, Wiemann
(1977) proposed the relational competence approach in order to study communi-
cative competence more completely.
 Rethinking communicative competence for typical speakers 163

2.3 Relational competence approach

Communicative competence was studied from the relational competence ap-

proach and was defined as “a dyadic concept” (Wiemann 1977). The relational
competence approach stresses the relationship between an actor (i.e., a speaker)
and others (i.e., communication partners). It implies that if a competent speaker’s
intended meaning differs from that interpreted by the communication partner(s),
the communication partner(s) would not judge the speaker as competent. In other
words, if both the speaker and the communication partner(s) are competent, it
can be assumed that both of them share the intended meanings being transmitted
(Wiemann 1977).
Further, communicative competence was defined in greater detail:
Communicative competence can be defined as the ability of an interactant to
choose among available communicative behaviors in order that he may success-
fully accomplish his own interpersonal goals during an encounter while main-
taining the face and line of his fellow interactants within the constraints of the
situation. (Wiemann 1977: 198)

It is known that the relational competence approach emphasizes that the concept
“communicative competence” involves not only a speaker, but also more than one
communication partner (Wiemann and Backlund 1980). In addition, Wiemann
(1977) pointed out that the relational competence approach views communicative
competence as goal achievement oriented. The competent communicator achieves
his or her goal(s) and simultaneously maintains communication partners’ goal(s)
within communication. This process is two-way rather than one-way goal achieve-
ment between the speaker and communication partner(s). For instance, a com-
municator achieves his/her defined communication goal(s), but these definitions
of the goals may not exactly reach the definitions of the communication goal(s)
which the communication partner(s) have in mind. This would not constitute a
competent dyadic communication.
Moreover, the relational competence approach does incorporate the concept
of communication repertoires proposed from the behavioral/social approach
(Wiemann and Kelly 1981).
In summary, the relational competence approach emphasizes not only an ac-
tor or a speaker, but communication partner(s) in the context that communication
occurs. Wiemann (1977) incorporated not only the concept of communication
repertoires from Hymes (1972), but also the considerations of perspectives of com-
munication partner(s) into the notion of communicative competence. The speaker
and the communication partner(s) must select appropriate behaviors from their
repertoires of communication, and achieve not only his or her communication
164 Meng-Ju Tsai

goals but also communication partners’ goals within the communication in order
to be judged communicatively competent.
The relational competence approach substantially extended the behavioral/so-
cial approach toward a behavior-orientation, which in addition considers commu-
nication partner(s) and a speaker. However, it can be inferred that there must be
some relationship between linguistic competence and communicative competence
from the argument of the cognitive approach, but this relationship and the concept
of linguistic competence seem be neglected in the relational competence approach.
Among these three approaches, clearly, the behavioral/social approach was
extended to the relational competence approach. The relational competence ap-
proach studies communicative competence from not only a speaker or an actor, but
also communication partner(s) within the communication. The behavioral/social
approach focuses on the speaker or actor’s use of his or her repertoires of commu-
nication in appropriate communication contexts; while, the relational competence
approach focuses on both the speaker and the communication partner(s) in their
goal achievement within the communication. From these two approaches (i.e., be-
havioral/social approach and relational competence approach) to communicative
competence, it can be inferred that individuals with a large number of communi-
cation repertoires may easily show competent communication behaviors; never-
theless, but it does not imply that individuals with a relatively small communica-
tion repertoire cannot show competent communication behaviors (Wiemann and
Kelly 1981). Actually, these individuals may still be able to competently commu-
nicate, but the possibilities are lowered due to reduced communication repertoires
(Wiemann and Kelly 1981).
Given these, the cognitive approach only considers linguistic competence
focusing on universal grammar while neglecting social contexts and communi-
cation behaviors. Unlike the cognitive approach, the communication behaviors
have been highlighted in the behavioral/social and the relational competence ap-
proaches. However, the role of linguistic competence remains in these approaches.
Since these limited understandings remain, the language development approach
was proposed by Bloom and Lahey (1978).

2.4 Language development approach

The language development approach was proposed to fully compensate the main
insufficiencies of universal grammar which was argued by the cognitive approach,
and limitations from other approaches. The language development approach
integrated content, form, and use of language into communicative competence
(Bloom and Lahey 1978). The integration of the content, form, and use assumed
that language knowledge defines the communicative competence.
 Rethinking communicative competence for typical speakers 165

Language content was defined as “the content of language is its meaning or

semantics- the linguistic representation of what persons know about the world
of objects, events, and relations (Bloom and Lahey 1978: 14).” The content of lan-
guage is developed depending on the interaction between context and the cur-
rent knowledge that individuals have (Bloom and Lahey 1978), and the content
is cumulative and continuous throughout the course of development. Given the
concept of dyadic communication from the relational competence approach, two
skills, speaker skills and listener (i.e., communication partner) skills, have been
proposed in terms of content of language (Bryan 1986). A speaker constructs a
message and then simultaneously monitors a communication partner’s response
to the message. The role of the speaker has been defined as to “…formulate a rea-
sonable informative message and then adjust the message if the listener appears to
be confused (Bryan 1986: 235).” On the other hand, a listener (i.e., communication
partner) has to: 1) judge whether the message is adequate and ask more informa-
tion if the message is unclear; 2) inform the speaker when the message is not clear;
and 3) comprehend the message and make a correct response based on the mes-
sage (Bryan 1986). Thus, there exists a reciprocal relationship between the speaker
and the listener that goes beyond what the speaker alone knows of the language
content. Language form is “the shape or sound of messages in terms of the ele-
ments in the message and the ways that the elements are combined (Bloom and
Lahey 1978: 23).” The language content and language form can be perceived more
toward linguistic competence, which includes transformational language gram-
mars rather than only universal grammar.
The last component of the language development approach is use of language.
The use of language involves two parts: the goals or functions of language, and the
influence of linguistic and nonlinguistic context (Bloom and Lahey 1978). The
goals or functions of language concern why individuals communicate, and the in-
fluence of linguistic and nonlinguistic context on how individuals understand and
choose an appropriate behavior (i.e., form) among communication repertoires to
reach his or her communication goal(s) (Bloom and Lahey 1978). First, individu-
als select required behaviors according to the communication context and the
goals which the individuals want to achieve. These goals involve interaction, regu-
lation, and personal control. The notion of goal achievement is consistent with the
argument from Wiemann (1977). Second, the use of language determines “rules
for deciding which form of the message will serve the function of the message,
considering who the other participants are in the context and the rest of the situa-
tion” (Bloom and Lahey 1978: 20).
Moreover, the language development approach conceptualizes communicative
competence as a hierarchical process. Children learn these rules of a mental plan
by integrating content, form, and use into language that they hear and speak in
166 Meng-Ju Tsai

diverse situations and at the same time, the mental plan is influenced and modified
developmentally by the same behaviors of speaking and hearing (Bloom and Lahey
1978). It can be assumed that this is a reciprocal effect between the development
of communicative competence and positive behaviors, which is consistent with
the perspective of the behavioral/social approach and Skinner’s argument. That
is, more learned positive behaviors cause more competent communication; while,
more competent communication should have more learned positive behaviors.
In sum, the language development approach has assumed that communicative
competence is learned through speaking and hearing and communicative compe-
tence. That is a hierarchical process leading toward communicative competence.
Three components, content, form, and use of language, define the parameters of
communicative competence. In addition, the content and from of language are
perceived more toward linguistic competence, and the use of language is perceived
more toward communicative competence. The language development approach
considers both communicative competence and linguistic competence which are
interdependent. Competent individuals use the plan, which is the knowledge of
language and knowledge of how to use language to select the appropriate content,
form, and use of language to achieve their goal.
Among these approaches, the language development approach has addressed
content, form, and use of language, and did not separate communicative com-
petence and linguistic competence. The language development approach has in-
tegrated small proportions of the three approaches: cognitive, behavioral/social
and relational competence approaches. For example, the language development
approach considers the concept of linguistic competence proposed from the cog-
nitive approach, the repertoires of communication from the behavioral/social ap-
proach, and the goal achievement within the communication proposed from the
relational competence approach. After understanding these four approaches, in
order to completely operationally define communicative competence, there is a
need to document related issues of communicative competence.

3. Issues of communicative competence

Several issues of the concept of communicative competence were noted in the

literature, which should be addressed before establishing an integrated approach
to communicative competence. These include characteristics of communicative
competence, issues of goal-achieved orientation, and issues regarding the mea-
surement of communicative competence.
 Rethinking communicative competence for typical speakers 167

3.1 Characteristics of communicative competence

The four characteristics of communicative competence have been summarized

(Savignon 1983): (1) dynamic rather than static; (2) context-specific; (3) appro-
priately situations-choosing and other participants-choosing; (4) relative and
not absolute depending on the cooperation of all involved participants. Duchan,
Maxwell, and Kovarsky (1999) further suggested communicative competence can
be quantified. They stated that communicative competence “can be located and
measured in a speaking individual in much the same way one would measure
liquid in a container. People are described as ‘having’ varying amounts of compe-
tence (Duchan, Maxwell, and Kovarsky 1999: 18–19).” That is, speaking individu-
als’ communicative competence should range from minimal to considerable, or
from low level (i.e., less competence) to high level (i.e., more competent) (Duchan,
Maxwell, and Kovarsky 1999). This quantitative communicative competence is
conceptualized as a continuum concept (i.e., from low communicative compe-
tence to high communicative competence). Given these, communicative compe-
tence is a continuum concept, which is dynamic, relative (i.e., comparing) and
context specific. Communicative competence can be inferred through measuring
its performance from observable communication behaviors.

3.2 Issues of goal-achieved orientation

Goal achievement is central to communicative competence (Bloch and Beeke

2008; Clark 1996; Olsson 2004). That is, a competent communicator must achieve
his/her communication goal(s) and also remain responsive to the communica-
tion partner(s)’ communication goal(s) within the communication. However, all
participants within the communication have diverse goals they want to achieve
(Schieffelin and Ochs 1986). The speaker (i.e., communicator) and the commu-
nication partner have to negotiate what they will communicate about (Bloch and
Wilkinson 2004; Dunst and Lowe 1986; Gan, Davison, and Hamp-Lyons 2008;
Kretschmer and Kretschmer 1989). In other words, both of them understand the
shared knowledge, monitor what has been said, and establish their mutual commu-
nication goal(s) by negotiating each other (Clark 1996; Fogel 1993; Gan, Davison,
and Hamp-Lyons 2008; Leahy 2004; Olsson 2004; Schieffelin and Ochs 1986).
When communication breakdowns occur, different communication repair strate-
gies are used in order to reach the purposes of the communication (Kretschmer
and Kretschmer 1989). Milosky (1990) also argued that a familiar speaker will
presume shared knowledge and experience which his/her communication partner
has in order to achieve both communication goals. In this way, the communica-
tion goals from both have more opportunities to be achieved.
168 Meng-Ju Tsai

3.3 Issues on the measurement of communicative competence

It has been a while since researchers utilized three methods to measure commu-
nicative competence: (1) actor’s self-report (i.e., speaker’s self-report); (2) com-
munication partner’s judgment of the actor (i.e., speaker); and (3) third-party
observation (observation from individuals not involved in the communication
(Spitzberg and Cupach 1989). Since each measurement method has its limitations,
none of these alone is superior to the others. These limitations will be discussed
in the section of methods of measuring communicative competence. It has been
concluded that using partner’s evaluation and third-party observation in assessing
communicative competence are the most preferable means to assess communica-
tive competence.
Understanding these approaches (e.g., cognitive approach) and related issues
of communicative competence (e.g., issues of goal-achieved orientation), these ar-
guments facilitate us to operationally access to communicative competence.

4. An integrated approach to communicative competence

Clearly, due to limitations of each approach, a single approach is not sufficient to

investigate communicative competence. It is necessary to integrate all of the ap-
proaches along with issues of communicative competence in the operational defi-
nition of communicative competence. Furthermore, it is known that communica-
tive competence and linguistic competence are interdependent. More specifically,
linguistic competence is a component of communicative competence. A speaker
must have a certain level of linguistic competence in order to be judged as com-
municatively competent.
Communicative competence is a dyadic concept. Communicative compe-
tence is defined as abilities from a speaker to reach his/her and communication
partner(s)’ communication goal(s) by using appropriate communication be-
haviors selected from his/her communication repertoires within the communi-
cation. In other words, a communicatively competent speaker reaches not only
his/her own communication goal(s), but also accommodate the communication
partner(s)’ goal(s) by appropriately using content, form, and use of language. The
speaker and communication partner(s) have to be considered and judged together
in terms of goal achievement.
Communicative competence is an innate, biological capability in the first
years of life, and is learned and modified from community- and culture-specific
experiences in the later years of life. In other words, communicative competence
is a given basic capability initially and is developed and modified through later
 Rethinking communicative competence for typical speakers 169

reinforced socialized behaviors which consist of prior speaking and hearing ex-
periences.
Moreover, the concept of communicative competence which exists along a
continuum is dynamic, and context-specific. In other words, communicative com-
petence is not “all or none”, and communicative competence is judged in degree
according to varying contexts. All individuals have different degrees of commu-
nicative competence (e.g., high communicative competence or low communica-
tive competence). For example, individual A is more communicatively competent
than individual B in context X; while, the individual A is more communicative
competent in context Y than in the context Z. Communicative competence can be
judged from speaker, communication partner(s) and third-party observers using
observing communication.
Both communicative competence and linguistic competence are measured by
performance in outward communication behaviors. Individuals’ communicative
competence can be inferred from observed communication behaviors (i.e., con-
tent, form, and use of language). Language content is developed depending on
the current knowledge that individuals have and the current communication con-
text. Competent communication involves skills from a speaker and communica-
tion partners in appropriately formulating and responding to messages. Language
form is the mode of language used in communication, such as spoken words, ges-
tures, and so on; while, language use is to express goals or functions of commu-
nication, and is influenced by linguistic and physical contexts. However, it should
be kept in mind that language content, form, and use cannot be separated, rather
they interact interdependently. Simply speaking, a competent communicator must
appropriately use content, form, and use of language in a communication context
in order to reach his/her communication goal, and also have others’ goals realized.
In short, communicative competence is inextricably related to linguistic com-
petence, but linguistic competence alone does not sufficiently define communica-
tive competence. Communicative competence encompasses linguistic competence
and includes the knowledge of language, developmentally appropriately language
comprehension, and knowledge of how to use language in appropriate contexts to
achieve communicative goals (i.e., communication functions) as judged by both
the speaker and others (e.g., communication partners or third-party observers). In
other words, a competent communicator is the individual who has diverse com-
munication repertoires, who effectively and appropriately uses these communica-
tion strategies (i.e., content, form, and use of language) in a context to achieve his/
her and communication partners’ communication goal(s) from their and others’
perspectives. After the comprehensive approach to communicative competence
has been described, now, measurement of communicative competence and its re-
lated issues are discussed.
170 Meng-Ju Tsai

5. Measurement of communicative competence

The measurement of communicative competence is discussed, which includes

methods of measuring communicative competence, factors influencing measur-
ing communicative competence, and behaviors to measure communicative com-
petence.

5.1 Methods of measuring communicative competence

As mentioned above, three methods to measure communicative competence have

been argued, including: (1) actor’s self-report (i.e., speaker’s self-report); (2) com-
munication partner’s judgment of the actor (i.e., speaker); and (3) third-party ob-
servation (Spitzberg and Cupach 1989). The three measures utilize interview and
observational methods. These three measurement methods are highlighted below.
Actor’s self-report. This method is most frequently used by researchers in
assessing communicative competence (Spitzberg and Cupach 1989). Several ad-
vantages were noted by using this method. Since communication and the follow-
ing measurement are complicated across contexts and communication partners,
these processes are not easily interpreted by others. An actor/speaker is the only
individual who has knowledge of his/her communication intent/goal, and knows
more about whether his/her communication achieves his/her intent or goal than
others do. It can be assumed that the actor’s self-report from the speaker is a re-
quired portion in the measurement of communicative competence, or at least, the
self-report can validate the measurement from others.
Partner’s evaluation of actor. A partner’s evaluation is to have communica-
tion partner(s) involved in the communication with an actor/speaker assess if the
actor’s/speaker’s communication goals are achieved (Spitzberg and Cupach 1989).
Spitzberg and Cupach further recommended that a partner’s evaluation should
be used with the actor’s self-report, and the partner should be familiar with the
actor in order to make accurate judgment. It can be inferred that using actor’s
self-report and partner’s evaluation at times may have biases on their own com-
munication behaviors during the communication.
Third-party observation. Third-party observation can be used to minimize
bias by using outside observers’ report in addition to the actor’s self-report and
partner’s observation. Most commonly, untrained third-party observers are judg-
es of individuals’ communicative competence (Wiemann and Backlund 1980).
These observers are strangers who do not have any opportunities to interact with
an actor/speaker.
Each measurement method has its limitations, and none of these alone is
superior to the others. Spitzberg and Cupach (1989) pointed out that partner’s
 Rethinking communicative competence for typical speakers 171

observation is most appropriate in assessing behaviors that are context-specific

and relationship-specific; while, third-party observation may be appropriate in
assessing more microscopic communication behaviors, and gathering multiple
examples of behaviors more economically (Wiemann and Backlund 1980). One
drawback of using third-party observers is the lack of any relationship-specific
knowledge in judging communicative competence, because only individuals in
the communication know whether their goals are appropriately obtained in the
context of the interaction (Spitzberg and Cupach 1984; Wiemann and Backlund
1980). Spitzberg and Cupach have concluded that the most appropriate method of
assessing communicative competence really depends on the scholars’ conceptu-
alization of communicative competence, scholars’ purposes of the study, and the
view of the trade-offs and benefits.
Given these, it seems reasonable to use the combinations of actor’s self-report,
partner’s evaluation, and third-party observation in measuring communicative
competence. The actor’ self-report and partner’s evaluation can specifically be
used to make sure whether a mutual goal has been obtained during the commu-
nication; while, the third-party observation can serve as assessing whether the
speaker and communication partner appropriately use language content, form,
and use within the communication.

5.2 Factors influencing measuring communicative competence

In order to use observations to measure communicative competence, four factors

have been noted as influencing the observation procedures/methods. These consist
of: (1) observation contexts and culture; (2) standards; (3) observation conflicts.
In order to use observations to measure communicative competence, four factors
have been noted as influencing the observation procedures/methods. These consist
of: (1) observation contexts and culture; (2) standards; (3) observation conflicts.
Observation contexts and culture. The culture and expectations of observers,
either from communication partners or from third-party observers, come into
play. Initially, the observers may use his or her own criteria based on his or her
experiences with an individual, similar to the speaker to be observed. That is, the
expectations come from the individual sharing the same culture with the speaker
(Roloff and Kellermann 1984). However, if the observers have the chance to get
acquainted with the speaker, both of them may come to form personal expecta-
tions of each other’s behaviors. The observer may develop his/her expectations
based on their familiarity with the speaker (Roloff and Kellermann 1984). It can be
assumed that familiarity with the speaker may affect the expectations to measure
communicative competence, but the relationship between familiarity and judg-
ment of communicative competence is unclear.
172 Meng-Ju Tsai

However, there are two things for certain. First, familiarity with the speaker af-
fects the content of communication. If the communication partner is familiar with
the speaker, the speaker may share more information with the communication
partner, compared to the unfamiliar communication partner. Second, if the ob-
server does not share the culture with the speaker and the communication partner,
the observer may not be able to fully understand the measure of communicative
competence only by observing communication behaviors (Roloff and Kellermann
1984). As long as they share the culture, they may be able to measure communica-
tive competence more accurately. Roloff and Kellermann additionally stated that
access to the interaction with the speaker really helped the observer measure com-
municative competence more precisely.
Standards. A standard of measurement was defined by the relationship be-
tween a communication behavior and some criteria (Roloff and Kellermann
1984). The measure of communicative competence should be based on criteria
instead of norms (Simon and Holway 1985). The criteria are perceived as the de-
gree in a 5-point or 7-point Likert scales. However, quantity alone should not be
the sole criteria in judging a speaker to be competent or incompetent (Wiemann
and Bradac 1989). That is, these scales should not be perceived as criteria to
judge competent and incompetent communication behaviors. More specifically,
it should not be assumed that ratings over certain scales (i.e., points) are consid-
ered as competent communication, and ratings under certain scales (i.e., points)
are considered as incompetent communication. This concept is contradictory to
Simon and Holway’s (1985) argument that scholars have to define their own crite-
ria for the competent and incompetent communication behaviors based upon the
purpose of the study, because communication behaviors that are reflected as com-
municative competence are definitively culturally and community specific.
However, Savignon (1983) further argued that communicative competence
is a dynamic and relative concept, that means that there are no absolute criteria
or prototypes to judge individuals as competent or not. That is, it is not necessary
to set up the criteria for competent communication behaviors and incompetent
communication behaviors. Since communicative competence is considered as a
continuum and dynamic concept, it is assumed that setting certain criteria cannot
really be applied to all individuals even in the same community or culture. The
dynamic comparing concept in measuring communicative competence is most
preferred. For example, under the same culture or community, individual A is
more communicatively competent than individual B in a specific communication
context, or individual C is more communicatively competent in communication
context D than in context E.
Conflicts. The first conflicts are between third-party observers. Different
thirty-party observers observing the same communication behaviors may reach
 Rethinking communicative competence for typical speakers 173

different outcomes, because the observers may focus on different communica-

tion behaviors during the observed communication, or the observers may come
into judgment with different expectations and criteria of performance (Roloff and
Kellermann 1984). It has been suggested that third-party observers have to ac-
cess information about the communication relationship in order to have error-free
judgments (Cooley and Roach 1984).
The second conflicts are between third-party observations and communica-
tion partners’ evaluations. Third-party observers and communication partners
have different expectations and criteria of performance in measuring communica-
tive competence. Communication partners, especially familiar with the speaker,
have formed the expectations and criteria for the speaker, but third-party observ-
ers may not have these in mind. In addition, the observers may have different
expectations due to limited cultural or community information about the speaker
and their cultural backgrounds are probably different from the speaker’s (Roloff
and Kellermann 1984).
Given these factors, measurement of communicative competence from obser-
vation is not an easy task. It involves a cognitive process based upon observation
contexts, personal expectations and criteria, and behavioral variables. However,
it has been recommended that scholars have to define their own criteria on a
Likert scale which should be validated (Wilson and Sabee 2003), and the criteria
should not be an “either or” condition, instead it should involve different degrees
(Spitzberg and Cupach 1989). In other words, the criteria on the Likert scales
should have a continuum of degree of communicative competence.

6. Behaviors to measure communicative competence

Simon and Holway (1985) stated that measures of communicative competence

are based on receptive and expressive communication behaviors. Receptive abili-
ties mainly focus on whether individuals are able to integrate information within
and among behaviors and then engage in communication based on the integrated
information. These abilities include the auditory evaluation, memory, and integra-
tion of all communication information, which are needed for listeners to analyze,
comprehend, and formulate responses (i.e., language content). On the other hand,
expressive abilities are investigated to assess whether the individuals are able to ap-
propriately use form and content of language coupled with appropriate use for the
context, from their communication repertoires in order to achieve communica-
tion goals (e.g., meeting wants and needs) (Simon 1979; Wiemann and Backlund
1980). In other words, whether the individuals have the ability to use language
knowledge for various communication intent/goal has to be determined.
174 Meng-Ju Tsai

In summary, communication competence is difficult to measure, in part, be-

cause it involves subtle differences and expectations in several areas (Smith and
Cascella 2007) and several variables (e.g., an actor, communication partners, and
third-party observers). In this paper, it is proposed that measures of communica-
tive competence should be criteria referenced, and these criteria should be vali-
dated in accordance with the scholars’ purpose (Allen and Brown 1976; Simon and
Holway 1985). In addition, measurement of communicative competence should
include not only appropriately understanding social communication cues (e.g.,
receptive abilities), but also appropriate production of the communication behav-
iors (e.g., expressive abilities) in terms of content, form, and use of language across
varying communication contexts to reach communication goals (i.e., expressing
needs and wants; developing social closeness; exchanging information; and fulfill-
ing social etiquette routines).

7. Conclusions and implications

In summary, understanding communicative competence of typical speakers ap-

pears to be involving integral components. By integrating four main approaches to
communicative competence may be addressed to fully understand the whole pic-
ture of speakers’ communicative competence and its measurement. This tutorial
has described the strengths and weaknesses of the four main approaches to com-
municative competence, an integrated approach to communicative competence
for typical speakers, and its related measuring issues. Communicative competence
is inextricably related to linguistic competence, but linguistic competence alone
does not sufficiently define communicative competence. Communicative com-
petence encompasses linguistic competence and includes the knowledge of lan-
guage, developmentally appropriately language comprehension, and knowledge
of how to use language in appropriate contexts to achieve communicative goals
(i.e., communication functions) as judged by both the speaker and others (e.g.,
communication partners or third-party observers). In other words, a competent
communicator is the individual who has diverse communication repertoires, who
effectively and appropriately uses these communication strategies (i.e., content,
form, and use of language) in a context to achieve their communication goal(s)
from their and others’ perspectives. Communicative competence is a dynamic and
relative concept, and has been conceptualized as a comparing concept across dif-
ferent actors/speakers, communication partners, and contexts. Likert scales can
be used in each measurement of communicative competence, and the individuals
who are around the speaker should validate these scales.
 Rethinking communicative competence for typical speakers 175

Although this article described an integrated approach to communicative

competence, McCroskey (1984: 263) has argued that:
I do not believe we can generate a single definition of communicative competence
that will satisfy everyone in this field, and more then we have been able to gener-
ate one definition of communication itself that will satisfy all. Probably, the best
we can do is to make our definition clear, and recognize that competence to one
may include aspects of excellence to some others and irrelevancies to still others.

As argued above, readers of this article are challenged to use one single approach
to communicative competence in different fields. It is clear that an approach to
communicative competence developed in this article can be served as a base on
which scholars in different fields modify and adjust for their purposes. For ex-
ample, currently, approaches to communicative competence for individuals with
communication disorders and evaluation of their communicative competence
might be underdeveloped. By integrating these approaches into an approach
to communicative competence for typical speakers in this article, scholars and
speech –language pathologists may have clear understandings of accessing com-
municative competence of individuals with communication disorders and have
better thoughts of assessing their communicative competence. Readers of this
article are challenged to develop formal or informal protocols in assessing com-
municative competence for typically speaking individuals and for individuals with
communication disorders.

References

Allen, R.R. and Kenneth, Brown, L. 1976. Developing communication competence in children: A
report of the speech communication association’s national project on speech communication
competencies. Skokie, IL: National Textbook Co.
Bloch, S. and Beeke, S. 2008. “Co-constructed talk in the conversations of people with dysarthria
and aphasia.” Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 22: 974–990.
Bloch, S. and Wilkinson, R. 2004. “The understandability of AAC: A conversation analysis study
of acquired dysarthria”. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 20: 272–282.
Bloom, L. and Lahey, M. 1978. Language development and language disorders. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bryan, T. 1986. “A review of studies on learning disabled children’s communicative competence”.
In R.L. Schiefelbusch (ed.), Language competence: Assessment and intervention. San Diego,
CA: College-Hill Press, 227–259.
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: THE M.I.T. Press.
Clark, H.H. 1996. Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cooley, R.E. and Roach, D.A. 1984. “A conceptual framework”. In R.N. Bostrom (ed.), Competence
in communication: a multidisciplinary approach. Beverly Hills CA: Sage Publications, 11–32.
176 Meng-Ju Tsai

Bostrom Cupacha, R.N., William, R., and Brian H.S. 1983. “Trait versus state: A comparison
of dispositional and situational measures of interpersonal communication competence”.
Western Journal of Speech Communication 47: 364–379.
Duchan, J.F., Maxwell, M.M., and Kovarsky, D. (eds.). 1999. “Evaluating competence in the
course of everyday interaction”. In Constructing (In) Competence: Disabling Evaluations in
Clinical and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3–26.
Dunst, C. J. and Lowe, L.W.1986. “From reflex to symbol: Describing, explaining, and fostering
communicative competence”. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 2: 11–18.
Fogel, A. 1993. “Two principles of communication, coregulation and framing”. In New perspec-
tives in early communicative development. London: Routledge, 9–22.
Hymes, D.H. 1971. “Competence and performance in linguistic theory”. In Language acquisi-
tion: Models and methods. New York: Academic Press, 3–28.
Hymes, D.H. 1972. “On communicative competence”. In J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.),
Sociolinguistics: Selected reading. Baltimore, MD: Penguin, 269–293.
Hymes, D.H. 1974. Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Kretschmer, R.R. and Kretschmer, L.W.1989. “Communication competence: Impact of the
pragmatics revolution on education of hearing impaired individuals”. Topics in Language
Disorders 9:1–16.
Leahy, M.M. 2004. “Therapy talk: Analyzing therapeutic discourse”. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools 35:70–81.
McCroskey, J. C. 1984. “Communication competence: The elusive construct”. In R.N. Bostrom
(ed.), Competence in communication: A multidisciplinary approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications, 259–268.
Milosky, L.M. 1990. “The role of world knowledge in language comprehension and language
intervention”. Topics in Language Disorders 10:1–13.
Olsson, C.. 2004. “Dyadic interaction with a child with multiple disabilities: A system theory
perspective on communication”. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 20: 228–
242.
Roloff, M.E. and Kellermann, K. 1984. “Judgments of interpersonal competence: How you know,
what you know, and who you know”. In R.N. Bostrom (ed.), Competence in communication:
A multidisciplinary approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 175–218.
Romaine, S. 1984. “Improving communicative competence: The role of metapragmatic aware-
ness”.The language of children and adolescents the acquisition of communicative competence.
New York: Basil Blackwell.
Savich, P.A. 1983. “Improving communicative competence: The role of metapragmatic aware-
ness. Topic in Language Disorders 4: 38–48.
Savignon, S.J. 1983. Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Texts and con-
texts in second language learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Schieffelin, B.B. and Ochs, E. 1986. “Language socialization”. Annual Review of Anthropology
15:163–191.
Simon, C.S. 1979. Communicative competence: A functional pragmatic approach to language
therapy. Tucson, AZ: Communication Skill Builders.
Simon, C.S. and Holway, C.L. 1985. “Presentation of communication evaluation information”.
In C.S. Simon (ed.), Communication skills and classroom success, assessment of language-
learning disabled students. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
 Rethinking communicative competence for typical speakers 177

Smith, S.E. and Cascella, P.W. 2007. “Ratings of communication competence by siblings of per-
sons with Down Syndrome. “Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities 42:182–
189.
Spitzberg, B.H. and Cupach, W.R. 1984. Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Spitzberg, B.H. and Cupach, W.R. 1989. Handbook of interpersonal competence research. New
York: Springer.
Wiemann, J.M. 1977. “Explication and test of a model of communicative competence.” Human
Communication Research 3:195–213.
Wiemann, J.M. and Backlund, P. 1980. “Current Theory and Research in Communicative
Competence”. Review of Educational Research 50:185–199.
Wiemann, J.M. and Bradac, J.J. 1989. “Metatheoretical issues in the study of communicative
competence: Structural and functional approaches”. 261–284 In B. Dervin and M.J. Voigt
(eds.), Progress in communication sciences, vol. 9. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX.
Wiemann, J.M. and Kelly, C.W. 1981. “Pragmatics of interpersonal competence”. In G. Bateson,
C. Wilder-Mott, and J.H. Weakland (eds.), Rigor & imagination: Essays from the legacy of
Gregory Bateson. New York: Praeger.
Wilson, S.R. and Sabee, C.M. 2003. “Explicating communicative competence as a theoretical
term”. 3–50 In J.O. Greene and B.R. Burleson (eds.), Handbook of communication and social
interaction skills. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zhengdong, G., Davison, C., and Hamp-Lyons, L.. 2008. “Topic negotiation in peer group oral
assessment situations: A conversation analytic approach”. Applied Linguistics 35: 1–20.

Author’s address
Meng-Ju Tsai
School of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology
Rehabilitation Research Center, Chung Shan Medical University,
Speech and Language Therapy Room, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital,
Taichung City, Taiwan
110, Sec. 1, Chien-Kuo North Road,
Taichung, Taiwan
mjtsai@csmu.edu.tw

About the author

Meng-Ju Tsai is an Assistant Professor in the School of Speech Language Pathology & Audiology
at Chung Shan Medical University in Taichung, Taiwan. He is currently serving as the Secretary
(2010–2014) of the Asia Pacific Society for the Study of Speech, Language and Hearing and
the President (2013–2016) of Taiwan Society of Augmentative and Alternative Communication
His major research interests are conversations analysis and AAC. He is also a member of the
International Society of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC) and a member
of ASHA Special Interest Division 12.