Maket 2011-2:Layout 1.qxd


An Iranian View on Linguistic Competence 

in Using a Foreign Language:

A Survey Among High School Graduates Who Have not

Attended Private Language Institutes

Karo Karapetyan, Heidar Nargesy
Yerevan State University

An Old Definition for a New Study 

Chomsky’s (1965) distinction between competence and performance was the origin
of communicative competence ideas. Chomsky defines competence as the shared knowl-
edge of the ideal speaker-listener set in a completely homogeneous speech community.
Such underlying knowledge enables a user of a language to produce and understand an
infinite set of sentences out of a finite set of rules. Hymes (1972) says that the transfor-
mational theory “carries to its perfection the desire to deal in practice only with what is
internal to language, yet to find in that internality that in theory is of the widest or deep-
est human significance.” He concludes that a linguistic theory must be able to deal with
a heterogeneous speech community, differential competence and the role of sociocultu-
ral features. He believes that we should be concerned with performance, which he defines
as the actual use of language in a concrete situation, not an idealized speaker-listener sit-
uation in a completely homogeneous speech community. Hymes deems it necessary to
distinguish two kinds of competence: linguistic competence that deals with producing
and understanding grammatically correct sentences, and communicative competence that
deals with producing and understanding sentences that are appropriate and acceptable to
a particular situation. Thus, Hymes coins a term “communicative competence” and
defines it as “a knowledge of the rules for understanding and producing both the referen-
tial and social meaning of language.”

Since Hymes revised the idea of communicative competence, a lot of complementa-
ry ideas have come up in this regard ; many to define, some to make derivations and a
few to criticize. 

Spitzberg defined communication competence as “the ability to interact well with
others”. He explains, “the term ‘well’ refers to accuracy, clarity, comprehensibility,
coherence, expertise, effectiveness and appropriateness” (Spitzberg 1988:68). A much
more complete definition is provided by Friedrich (1994), when he suggests that com-
munication competence is best understood as “a situational ability to set realistic and
appropriate goals and to maximize their achievement by using the knowledge of self,
others, context, and communication theory to generate adaptive communication per-
formances.”

Communicative competence is measured by determining if, and to what degree, the
goals of interaction are achieved. The function of communication is to maximize the
achievement of “shared meaning”. Parks emphasizes three interdependent themes: con-
trol, responsibility, and foresight; and argues that to be competent, we must “not only

Armenian Folia AnglistikaMethodology

59



‘know’ and ‘know how’, we must also ‘do’ and ‘know that we did’” (Parks 1985: 174).
He defines communicative competence as “the degree to which individuals perceive they
have satisfied their goals in a given social situation without jeopardizing their ability or
opportunity to pursue their other subjectively more important goals” (p. 175). This com-
bination of cognitive and behavioral perspectives is consistent with Wiemann and
Backlund’s (1980) argument that communication competence is:

The ability of an interactant to choose among available communicative behaviors in
order that he (sic) may successfully accomplish his (sic) own interpersonal goals during
an encounter while maintaining the face and line of his (sic) fellow interactants within
the constraints of the situation (p. 188).

The component model of competence is a useful framework for understanding commu-
nication competence  designed by Spitzberg & Cupach (1984) and is known as that because
it is comprised of three specific dimensions: motivation (an individual’s approach or avoid-
ance orientation in various social situations), knowledge (plans of action; knowledge of
how to act; procedural knowledge), and skill (behaviors actually performed). 

Lane (2001) defines six criteria for assessing communication competence of Canary
and Cody (2000). They include adaptability, conversational involvement, conversational
management, empathy, effectiveness, and appropriateness. They are explained in more
detail below: 

Reviewing Types of Communicative Competence 

Researchers and scholars interested in communicative competence discussions, have
known some categories and subcategories. They have tried to introduce some names
which are interrelated and all are dependant on the context in which they occur. 

When someone can recognize literary techniques such as humour, irony, contrasts and
vocabulary with nuances in various texts and can also express herself or himself precisely
and with a varied vocabulary, when he/she employs suitable verbal, non-verbal and paralin-
guistic features of speech in both prepared and improvised oral expressions and also has the
ability to differentiate and exemplify word-formation processes in a text, when learners
identify vocabulary, words and their word-forms and form words from given common syn-
tactic roots/stems (word formation) and they are able to use lexical aids (dictionaries, glos-
saries, thesauruses) in written and electronic forms, and when one can consolidate process-
es of lexical enrichment of the L2 language and can also find characteristics of word for-
mation,  irregular processes and lexical innovation and can deduce the meaning of words
from their context, we can say that they have linguistic competence.

The ones with a grammatical competence can distinguish the meaning-based relation-
ships between grammatical units in a clause and a compound or complex sentence and
those who are said to have semantic competence are the ones who are able to explain the
meaning of the given words/word phrases from the texts and they can select appropriate
and effective vocabulary corresponding to the meaning (when producing texts).

Orthographic competence  is another subcategory of communicative competence
and a subdivision of linguistic competence, with the ability to observe spelling, technical
accuracy of syntax in phrases, clauses, sentences, texts and note deviations from stan-

Armenian Folia Anglistika Methodology

60



dards, to use  spelling and punctuation aids (in written and electronic form) when pro-
ducing texts and to identify orthographic (punctuation) mistakes in their own and other
texts, correct them and give reasons and arguments for their corrections. 

Another form of competence could be phonological competence in which one can
practise and master pronunciation of formal language (words, sentences and texts), try to
speak as formally as possible in conversation and during the intercourse with their teach-
ers, detect their own and other pronunciation mistakes (correct and reduce mistakes). 

Sociolinguistic competence is another discussion in which one who is said to have
sociolinguistic competence can identify the most significant characteristics with regard
to customs, norms, attitudes and values of the society whose language is being studied;
respect for cultural patterns different to the students’ own. There is also another aspect of
competence named pragmatic competence which is divided into three other discursive,
functional and interactive competences.

As we intend to study the dimensions of linguistic competence, we don’t explain the
others in detail.

A 1977 Evaluation Experience 

To evaluate the communicative competence some efforts have been made. Wiemann
(1977) created the Communicative Competence Scale (CCS) to measure communicative
competence, an ability “to choose among available communicative behaviors” to accom-
plish one’s own “interpersonal goals during an encounter while maintaining the face and
line” of “fellow interactants within the constraints of the situation” (p. 198). Originally,
57 Likert-type items were created to assess five dimensions of interpersonal competence
(General Competence, Empathy Affiliation/Support, Behavioral Flexibility, and Social
Relaxation) and a dependent measure- (interaction Management).  He tested some 239
college students to rate videotaped confederates enacting one of four role-play interac-
tion management conditions (high, medium, low, rude). The 36 items that discriminated
the best between conditions were used in the final instrument. Factor analysis resulted in
two main factors - general and relaxation - indicating that the subjects did not differenti-
ate among the dimensions as the model originally predicted. But it can be a reliable type
of test according to the evaluating measurements that were available.  

Communicative Competence in Foreign Language Teaching in Iran

For many years, teaching English has been the main foreign language teaching pro-
cedure in Iran. The current government has followed the same teaching styles and human
force education without any prominent changes. It doesn’t seem reasonable to continue
with the same system for those many years. There are so many authorized books in the
market which are being taught by the non-government private language institutes. These
are the books which have passed through different filters and have been designed by
experienced language experts and researchers. Tested in some countries, with tapes, CDs,
teacher’s books, activity books and etc. these books can be reliable authorized sources
that decrease a lot of problems of the authors and experts and save a lot of energy and
money. 

Armenian Folia AnglistikaMethodology

61



We can’t see suitable well designed textbooks and up to dated teaching styles and
approaches as well. Every year groups of English teachers in different provinces gather
together and send their teaching reports, criticism on the textbooks and their suggestions
to the high office of textbook publication, but no one minds it. 

These are just some factors resulting in the lack of satisfactory communicative com-
petence of Iranian high school learners of English. This research has tried to show this
by testing, gathering data and analyzing it to prove the inefficiency of language teaching
system in Iran. A system which, as it was stated, has been on the curriculum for about
thirty years. The research aims at showing the low level of linguistic and sociolinguistic
competence of these learners in learning English as a foreign language.

Research Method

In this research, the means to gather data is a questionnaire based on which some dif-
ferent types of competences of the students were controlled. With the cooperation of edu-
cation organization offices in different province centers, more than 320 questionnaires
were distributed and completed. Among them 305 were returned and finally 296 were
approved as answered properly. 

The data was fed to computer and analyzed by SPSS software (Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences) version 16. The results of each question were illustrated in separat-
ed tables and diagrams and then interpreted. At the end the reliability of the questionnaire
was tested and it was proved reliable.

Data and Analysis 

In this section the research findings in relation to the particular research questions or
hypotheses are presented. It is actually the core of the research which includes discus-
sions, analysis, tables and diagrams. The data are illustrated in detail in the tables. The
process of the data has been done in two levels: 
a) the description of the data 
b) the analysis and explanation of them

Based on the previous chapters this research studies the rate of communicative com-
petence among the senior high school students. At the description level, the research sam-
ple has been described and a picture of this condition is presented. In this section statis-
tics aren’t used to confirm or reject a specific hypothesis, because in this step the rela-
tionship between variables is not considered and only the main variables of research are
described. In the next section inferential statistics have been used to study the relations
among variables, findings and the results related with determining the rate of commu-
nicative competence among the senior high school students in using the English language
in bi- and multi- variable analysis.

Statistical Sample:  296 senior high school students in Iran.

Hypotheses

Five aspects of linguistic competence were tested and the following hypotheses were
studied during this experience:

Armenian Folia Anglistika Methodology

62



Hypothesis 1: Iranian senior high school students lack satisfactory lexical 
competence.

Hypothesis 2: Iranian senior high school students lack satisfactory grammatical 
competence.  

Hypothesis 3: Iranian senior high school students lack satisfactory semantic 
competence. 

Hypothesis 4: Iranian senior high school students lack satisfactory orthographic 
competence.

Hypothesis 5: Iranian senior high school students lack satisfactory phonological
competence.

Interpretation of the Results 

Regarding lexical competence the results received from 296 Iranian senior high school
students who completed the questionnaire, the highest percentage (79.1%) of them are
believed to have low oral knowledge of vocabulary to express their opinions. The total
result is not satisfactory and diagram 1 shows this well. The highest percentage (74.7%) of
them are believed to have low written knowledge of vocabulary to express their opinions
and information about different school conditions properly. The results of the test on the
students’ grammatical competence ability show that the highest percentage (81.4%) of
them to have low ability to express different grammatical functions using language and its
description. The total result is not satisfactory and diagram 10 shows this well. The high-
est percentage (64.9%) of them to have low knowledge to distinguish the base, prefix and
suffix. The total result is not satisfactory and diagram 11 shows this well. The highest per-
centage (64.2%) of them are believed to have low ability to distinguish different sentence
components. The total result is not satisfactory and diagram 12 shows this well.

The results related to the semantic capability of the students indicate that the highest per-
centage (80.4%) of them are not capable enough to express their own ideas regarding the
language, characters and people living in the past and nowadays. The total result is not sat-
isfactory and diagram 16 shows this well. The highest percentage (81.1%) of them say that
they use very little of techniques like repetition, simile and contrast in using language.

In orthographic competence, the results show that the highest percentage (77.7%) of
them believe to have low knowledge of using morpho-syntactic examples. The total
result is not satisfactory and diagram 27 shows this well. The highest percentage (73%)
of them lack a proper knowledge of punctuation rules. The total result is not satisfactory
and diagram 28 shows this well. The highest percentage (79.4%) of them  are thought to
be unable to present written texts on paper, respecting rules of grammar, spelling and
punctuation. The total result is not satisfactory and diagram 29 shows this well. And the
highest percentage (83.8%) of them  believe to have low capability to observe spelling,
technical accuracy of syntax in phrases, clauses, sentences, texts and note deviations
from standards. The total result is not satisfactory and diagram 30 shows this well.

And ending in phonological competence, we can see that the highest percentage
(84.5%) of them  believe not to have the ability to distinguish written and phonological
forms of words and divide  them to different segments and short and long vowels. The

Armenian Folia AnglistikaMethodology

63



total result is not satisfactory and diagram 31 shows this well. The highest percentage
(84.5%) of them  believe to have low ability to set the stress pattern, intonation, pauses
and speech speed based on the communicative intention. The total result is not satisfac-
tory and diagram 32 shows this well. The highest percentage (85.1%) of them believe to
have low capability to distinguish standard from nonstandard phonological forms. The
total result is not satisfactory and diagram 33 shows this well. 

Conclusion and Recommendations 

Based on the results driven from the questionnaires, Iranian system of teaching
English as a foreign language hasn’t been able to develop different aspects of commu-
nicative competence among the senior high school students. During more than three
decades no significant changes have been seen in curriculum design, textbook publica-
tions and neither can we see any prominent changes in teaching styles of the teachers
whereas we can observe lots of changes in different fields of foreign language teaching
and learning in the world. 

The story gets weirder when we can see that our university professors and language
teaching pioneers are so active in holding international seminars related to the English
teaching and learning and English literature. 

While we can see a lot of progress in different English speaking countries regarding
developing communicative skills and techniques to improve communicative competence
and performance of the language learners, we have no such movements in the basic
skeleton of our academic system of foreign language learning and teaching. 

Thanks to our nongovernmental and nonacademic institutions, which are in a race to
overtake each other in teaching English, we can still see some of our learners attempt to
make progress in language learning.

After all, what can be advised to make the situation better is to find the exact reasons
of these deficiencies and to try to get help from different scholars and experts in writing
textbooks, training human forces, designing curriculum and in a word to revolutionize
the language teaching system in Iran. 

References:

1. Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Cody, M.J. & McLaughlin, M.L. (1985) The Situation as a Construct in Interpersonal

Communication Research. / Ed. by M.L. McLaughlin & G.R. Miller. Handbook of
interpersonal communication (pp. 263-312). Beverly Hills: Sage. 

3. Friedrich, G.W. (Spring, 1994). [Lecture notes]. University of Oklahoma, Norman.
4. Hymes, D. (1972) On Communicative Competence. // Sociolinguistics: Selected

readings. / Ed. by J.B. Pride & J. Holmes. Baltimore: Penguin.
5. McCroskey, J.C. (1982). Communication Competence and Performance: A Research

and Pedagogical Perspective. // Communication Education, 31 (pp. 1-7). 
6. Parks, M.R. (1985) Interpersonal Communication and the Quest for Personal

Armenian Folia Anglistika Methodology

64



Competence. / Ed. by M.L. Knapp & G.R. Miller. Handbook of Interpersonal
Communication (pp. 171-201). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.  

7. Rothwell, W.J. (1996) ASTD Models for Human Performance Improvement.
Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. 

8. Rothwell, W.J.; Sanders, E.S. & Soper, J.G. (1999) ASTD Models for Workplace
Learning and Performances. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and
Development.

9. Rubin, R.B. (1983) Conclusions. // Improving Speaking and Listening Skills. / Ed. by
R.B. Rubin, (pp. 95-99). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

10. Rubin, R.B. (1985) The Validity of the Communication Competency Assessment
Instrument. // Communication Monographs, 52 (pp. 173-185).  

11. Spitzberg, B.H; Cupach, W.R. (1984) Interpersonal Communication Competence.
Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

12. Spitzberg, B.H. (1988) Communication Competence: Measures of Perceived
Effectiveness. / Ed. by C.H. Tardy. Handbook for the Study of Human
Communication (pp. 67-105). Norwood, NJ: Albex.

13. Wiemann, J.M. & Backlund, P. (1980) Current Theory and Research in
Communication Competence. // Review of Education Research, 50 (pp. 185-199). 

14. Wiemann, J.M. & Bradac, J. (1989). Metatheoretical Issues in the Study of
Communicative Competence: Structural and Functional Approaches. / Ed. by B.
Dervin & J. Voigt, Progress in Communication Sciences, Vol. IX (pp. 261-284).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 

úï³ñ É»½íÇ ÏÇñ³éÙ³Ý É»½í³Ï³Ý Çñ³½»ÏáõÃÛ³Ý Çñ³ÝÛ³Ý ï»ë³Ï»ï
(áõëáõÙݳëÇñáõÃÛáõÝ Ñ³Ýñ³ÏñÃ³Ï³Ý ¹åñáóÇ áñáß ßñç³Ý³í³ñïÝ»ñÇ

ßñç³ÝáõÙ, áñáÝù ã»Ý Ñ³×³Ë»É áñ¨¿ Ù³ëݳíáñ É»½í³Ï³Ý ѳëï³ïáõÃÛáõÝ)

² í» ÉÇ ù³Ý » ñ»ù ï³ë Ý³Ù Û³Ï Ý» ñÇ ÁÝ Ã³ó ùáõÙ Ýß³ ݳ ϳ ÉÇ ÷á ÷á Ëáõà ÛáõÝ Ý»ñ
ï» ÕÇ  ã» Ý áõ Ý» ó»É ³Ý· É» ñ» ÝÁ áñ å»ë û ï³ñ É» ½áõ ¹³ ë³ í³Ý ¹» Éáõ Ç ñ³Ý Û³Ý Ñ³ Ù³ -
ϳñ ·Ç áõ ëáõ٠ݳ Ï³Ý Íñ³· ñ» ñÇ, ¹³ ë³·ñ ù» ñÇ, ÇÝã å»ë ݳ¨ ¹³ ë³ í³Ý¹ Ù³Ý » Õ³ -
Ý³Ï Ý» ñÇ Ù»ç, ÙÇÝã ¹»é ³Ù μáÕç ³ß Ë³ñ ÑáõÙ û ï³ñ É»½ íÇ ¹³ ë³ í³Ý¹ Ù³Ý ï³ñ μ»ñ
μݳ ·³ í³é Ý» ñáõ٠ϳ ñ» ÉÇ ¿ ï»ë Ý»É μ³ ½áõÙ μ³ ñ» ÷á ËáõÙ Ý»ñ: êáõÛÝ Ñ» ï³ ½á ïáõà -
Û³Ý Ù»ç ÷áñÓ ¿ ³ñ í»É áõ ëáõ٠ݳ ëÇ ñ»É É»½ í³ Ï³Ý Ç ñ³ ½» ÏáõÃ Û³Ý ï³ñ μ»ñ ÏáÕ Ù» ñÁ
Ñ³Ý ñ³Ïñ ó Ï³Ý ¹åñá óÇ á ñáß ßñç³ Ý³ í³ñï Ý» ñÇ Ùáï, á ñ³Ýù ³Ý· É» ñ»Ý ã»Ý  ëá íá -
ñ»É áñ¨¿ Ù³ë ݳ íáñ ѳë ï³ ïáõà Ûáõ ÝáõÙ: àõ ëáõ٠ݳ ëÇ ñáõÃ Û³Ý Ýå³ ï³ÏÝ ¿ñ å³ñ -
½»É, û áñ ù³ Ýáí ¿ ³ ϳ ¹» Ùdz Ï³Ý Ïñó Ï³Ý Ñ³ Ù³ ϳñ ·Á Áݹáõ Ý³Ï ³ ß³ Ï»ñï Ý» -
ñÇÝ ³Ý· É» ñ»Ý ëá í» ñ»ó Ý»É:

Armenian Folia AnglistikaMethodology

65