100
FUNCTIONAL VIEW OF COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING
Ergashev Muhammadjon Rahmonovich
PhD, Docent at Kokand state university
Ziyaboyeva Nazokatxon Abdurashid qizi
Student of Kokand state university, a student of Faculty of Philology,
Department of English Language and Literature
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15636846
ABSTARCT:
The following article discusses some functional view of communicative
language teaching theories. Moreover, it emphasizes algebraic linguistic system and
communicative competence theories.
KEYWORDS:
CLT, communicative purposes, discourse competence.
According to the functional view of second language learning, rather than concentrating
on the algebraic linguistic system, attention would be paid more to the ways where in second
language learners try to make meaning and attain their individual communicative purposes
(Mitchell & Myles, 2004). Therefore, a teacher who is well informed about this language view
would focus his language teaching on communicative proficiency rather than on mere mastery
of language rules. Inspired by the works of British functional linguist as Firth (1957) and
Halliday (1973) and of some American sociolinguists as Hymes (1972) and Labov (1972) some
linguists such as Candlin (1976) and Widdowson (1972) started to develop the view that
language teaching should focus on communicative proficiency. Wilkin (1972) also proposed a
functional of communicative definition of language that could serve as a basis for developing
communicative syllabuses for language teaching. The work of these scholars initiated the
emergence of the so-called Communicative Language Teaching (Richards and Rogers, 1998).
The emergence of the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) Approach can be
considered as a response against formal structural approaches such as audio lingualism which
focuses almost exclusively on rules (Whong: 2013). The main reason of the development of the
CLT Approach is the shift from the structure based to meaning-based view, which regards
language more than merely a structure of rules, but more as a source, which is dynamic for the
meaning generation (Nunan, 1989). The CLT emerges from the theory of language as
communication, and it is aimed at developing what Hymes (1972) refers to as “communicative
competence” (Richards and Rogers, 1998). Hymes “concept of communicative competence is
explained as the ability a speaker needs to possessin order to be communicatively proficient in
a social context. He believes that a language speaker who possesses communicative
competence acquires both capability and knowledge to use language in regard to whether
his/her language is structurally possible, feasible by means of available implementation, is
appropriate to situation; and is actually performed and, what it entails (Hymes, 1972: 284-286).
Littlewood (1981) explained that one of the noticeable characteristics of CLT is that it
intensively focuses on functional and structural aspects of language and combines these into a
more fully communicative model. According to Canale and Swain (1980), the communicative
value in the CLT comprises grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse
competence, and strategic competence. Grammatical competence refers to what Chomsky
(1965) coined linguistic competence, which is the formal system of language. According to
Stern (1983), linguistic competence is the language users” ability to use the rules structuring
the language without being aware of them. Sociolinguistic competence is the speakers‟
101
knowledge of the social environment in which communicative interactions takes place, which
Hedge (2000) calls pragmatic competence which covers the type of relationships between
speakers, the information the participants share, and the purposes of the communicative
interaction.
Discourse competence, which Bachman (1990) calls textual competence refers to the
understanding of individual communication components concerning their interrelatedness
between one and another and how meaning expressed in the text. Strategic competence relates
to the way speakers manage strategies, so that they can keep the communication channel
available. Along with those competences, Faerch, Haastrup, and Phillipson, quoted in Hedge
(2000), add fluency to one of the communicative competences a speaker needs to possess.
Fluency refers to language production and it is usually reserved for speaking. It is the ability to
relate components of language together with capability and without hindrance or excessive
hesitation (Ibid: 2000: 54). Further, Richards and Rogers (1986) formulate the characteristics
of CLT in the context of language theory. Language is the system to convey meaning in social
interaction and communication, and this is the primary function of language. The structure of
language is the reflection of its functional and communicative uses, and its primary unit are not
only its grammatical and structural categories, but also functional and communicative meaning
features as represented in discourse.
Communicative language teaching sets as its goal the teaching of
communicative
competence.
What does this term mean? Perhaps we can clarify this term by first comparing it
with the concept of
grammatical competence.
Grammatical Communicative competence refers
to the knowledge we have of a language that accounts for our ability to produce sentences in a
language. It refers to knowledge of the building blocks of sentences (e.g., parts of speech, tenses,
phrases, clauses, sentence patterns) and how sentences are formed. Grammatical competence
is the focus of many grammar practice books, which typically present a rule of grammar on one
page, and provide exercises to practice using the rule on the other page. The unit of analysis
and practice is typically the sentence. While grammatical competence is an important
dimension of language learning, it is clearly not all that is involved in learning a language since
one can master the rules of sentence formation in a language and still not be very successful at
being able to use the language for meaningful communication. It is the latter capacity which is
understood by the term communicative competence. Communicative competence includes the
following aspects of language knowledge:
Knowing how to use language for a range of different purposes and functions
Knowing how to vary our use of language according to the setting and the participants
(e.g., knowing when to use formal and informal speech or when to use language appropriately
for written as opposed to spoken communication)
Knowing how to produce and understand different types of texts (e.g., narratives, reports,
interviews, conversations)
Knowing how to maintain communication despite having limitations in one’s language
knowledge (e.g., through using different kinds of communication strategies)
References:
Используемая литература:
Foydalanilgan adabiyotlar:
102
1.
Komilova, M. (2024). LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL INEQUALITY: A PRAGMATIC
PERSPECTIVE.
University
Research
Base
,
809–813.
Retrieved
from
https://scholar.kokanduni.uz/index.php/rb/article/view/732
2.
Komilova, M. (2024). THE POWER OF CONCEPTS: EXPLORING THEMES AND THEIR
MANIFESTATIONS IN LITERARY TEXTS.
University Research Base
, 814-817.
3.
NO, P. (2025). The role of cognitive linguistics in language evolution.
4.
NO, P. The role of cognitive linguistics in language evolution.
5.
RAJAPOVA, M. ALLEGORIK VOSITALARNING LINGVOKOGNITIV VA LINGVOPRAGMATIK
XUSUSIYATLARI. Я ПРЕПОДАВАНИЕ, 197.
6.
Sobirova, N., & Rajapova, M. (2024). EASY TEACHING AND LEARNING STRATEGIES IN
PRIMARY SCHOOL. Models and methods in modern science, 3(4), 122-124.
7.
Rajapova, M., & Mamajonov, A. (2023). Linguistic and cultural characteristics of allegorical
devices used in a literary text. Society and innovations, (4), 2181-1415.
8.
Rajapova, M. (2021). Lingvoculturology and its peculiarities as new branches of
contemporary linguistics. Scienceweb academic papers collection.
9.
Rajapova, M. (2022). Allegorical means specific to oral speech. Scienceweb academic
papers collection.
10.
Haydarova, G. (2024). ALISHER NAVOIY AN’ANALARI VA XX ASR
11.
O‘ZBEK G ‘AZALIYOTI. Alisher Navo'i and 21 st century, 1(1).
12.
NAVOI, A., & BABUR, Z. M. (2022). RESEARCH AND EDUCATION.
13.
Аҳмадалиевна, Ҳ. Г. (2021). НАВОИЙ ВА СОБИР АБДУЛЛА. ALISHER NAVOIY XALQARO
JURNALI, 1(2).
14.
Ahmadaliyevna, H. G. (2021). Talmeh or alluziya. ACADEMICIA: An International
Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 11(9), 772-779.
15.
Ahmadaliyevna, H. G. (2022). Interpretation of the Image of the Heart in the Poems of
Habibi, Charkhi and Sabir Abdullah. European Multidisciplinary Journal of Modern Science, 6,
621-626.
16.
Аҳмадалиевна, Ҳ. Г. (2022). Собир Абдулла, Чархий Ва Ҳабибий Ғазалиётининг Вазн
Хусусиятларига Доир.
