2011. Selected Papers from the 19th ISTAL Competence and performance in learning and teaching: [601171]

© 2011. Selected Papers from the 19th ISTAL Competence and performance in learning and teaching:
theories and practices

David Newby
University of Graz
[anonimizat]

Abstract: For the past forty years the nature of linguistic competence has been at the
centre of discussions among linguists, both theo retical and applied. This paper examines
the different ways in which both competen ce and performance have been defined by
linguists and considers how diffe ring interpretations of these concepts have influenced
foreign language learning and teaching. Special consideration is given to the role of two
Council of Europe publications, the Common European Framework of Reference and
the European Portfolio for Student: [anonimizat] : communicative competence, performance, communicative event, human
cognition, schematic constructs, discourse

1. Introduction
The publication of Chomsky’s Aspects of the theory of syntax in 1965 led to a
fundamental change concerning the goals of linguistic analysis. The shift of emphasis –
in theory at least – from language structures to the hum an beings who use language
caused the focus of analysis to fall on th e nature of speakers ’ linguistic competence
which steered the genera tion of utterances.
As far as language teaching is concerned, fr om the late 1970s onw ards, in the early
days of the communicative approach, ‘co mmunicative competence’ became the slogan
under which various methodological practic es which sought to link pedagogy with
language use in the real world were united. More recently, the Common European
Framework of Reference (CEFR) (Council of Europe 2001) extended the purely
language-based scope of co mpetences to include “ General competences, ” which are
“those not specific to language , but which are called upon fo r actions of all kinds,
including language activiti es” (CEFR: 9), thus embe dding language within human
cognition in general and linki ng it to human behaviour.
In both linguistics and language teaching, definitions of competence have shown a
continual development from that first proposed by Chomsky. Underlying current interpretations of the term three general hypotheses can be perceived. The first is the widespread acceptance that language is essentially a cognitive phenomenon and that the
use of the linguistic code of a language (performance) is steered by taci t rule-based
knowledge stored in the minds of speakers (competence). This view includes both a
Chomskyan modular (language-specific) view of competence and those theories that
can be grouped under the head ing of ‘Cognitive Linguistics
1;’ which see language and
cognition in general as an integrated whol e sharing similar systems of perception and
categorisation.

1 I shall use capitals to refer to this school of linguistics to distinguish it from ‘cognitive’ used as a generic
adjective relating to human cognition in general.

16 David Newby
The second is the recognition that the subjec t of linguistic description is not only the
mental processes that steer language but the speech community and culture in which a
particular variety of language is used.
The third is the view that language analysis must incl ude not only the systems and
rules which steer the generation of utteran ces, but the interactional processes by which
human discourse arises and is maintained; that is to say language use.

2. Language and competence: linguistic reality
In the 1960s and 70s Chomsky’s description of the terms competence and performance
triggered an intensive debate among linguists, later to be picked up by applied linguists.
Theoretical bones of contention lay within two separate but interconnected areas:
a) the nature of linguistic competence b) the relationship between competence a nd performance and their respective roles
in linguistic analysis and description.
Before considering the differe nt views, however, it should be stressed that Chomsky’s
important theoretical standpoint, that it is the goal of linguist ics to describe a speaker’s
“mental reality underlying actual behaviour ” (1965: 4), is one that is shared by all the
theories of competence referred to in the following. This general cognitive view of language can also be found in the Common European Framework of Reference .
As is well documented, the starting point of the competence-performance debate was
Chomsky’s famous statement: “We thus ma ke a fundamental di stinction between
competence (the speaker-hearer's knowledge of his language) and performance (the
actual use of language in conc rete situations)” (ibid.: 3) . He further states that
“Observed use of language (…) cannot constitute the actual subject matter of linguistics,
if this is to be a serious discipline” (ibid.: 4). It is clear, therefore, th at in his view, it is
competence that is to be at th e centre of linguistic attention.

Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous
speech-community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically
irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors
(random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual performance. (ibid.: 3)
Given Chomsky’s goal of describing systema tically the grammar of a language, this
statement is perhaps not unreasonable. However, terms such as “homogeneous speech-community”, “grammatically irrelevant conditions” were soon to produce a backlash among those whose descriptive goals lay in a different sphere.
In his famous paper ‘On Communicativ e Competence’, Del Hymes criticised
Chomsky’s view from several directions, the fi rst being sociological: “It is, if I may say
so, rather a Garden of Eden view. (…) The controlling image is of an abstract, isolated mechanism, not, except incidentally, a person in a social world” (1972: 272). The view
of language based solely on grammatical competence also came under attack from
Michael Halliday. Describing language as a “social fact” and a “social reality”, he
pointed out that “By th eir everyday acts of meaning people act out the social structure,
affirming their own statuses and roles a nd establishing and tran smitting the shared
systems of value and of know ledge” (Halliday, 1978: 2). What is at issue for both
Hymes and Halliday is not necessarily the na ture of a Chomskyan view of competence
but its limited scope.

We have to account for the fact that a normal ch ild acquires knowledge of sentences, not only as
grammatical, but also as ap propriate. He or she acquires competen ce as to when to speak, when not,
and as to what to talk about with whom, when, where, in what manner (Hymes 1972: 277-278).

Competence and performance in learning and teaching: theories and practices 17

I said earlier that for Chomsky comp etence represents what he calls “ mental reality
underlying actual behaviour” (1965 : 4). It could be said th at for Hymes, communicative
competence represents social reality underlying actual behaviour. Various theories have
focused on this aspect of language; for example, those of Leech (1983) and Levinson (1983) have attempted to explain phenomena such as politeness, an important sociological aspect of communication.
The second criticism of Chomsky’s view of competence concerned the functional
dimension of language. For linguists and philosophers such as Halliday (passim), Austin
(1962) and Searle (1969), the very basis of language is of a functional nature. This is
reflected in the title of Austin’s famous book How to do things with words . Halliday
states this view quite bluntly: “ Can mean is a ‘realization of can do ’ (1978: 39). Of the
various functional theories pr oposed, it was Searle ’s concept of ‘illocutionary act’
(1969: 23-24) which was to have the most influence on language teaching: it later
became common for ‘communicative’ textbooks to define teaching objectives in terms
of ‘speech functions’. Indee d, in the early days of commu nicative teaching it was not
uncommon to hear the term ‘notional-f unctional approach’ being used synonymously
for communicative language teaching.
The third criticism of Chomsky was levelled at his view that the sentence is the
primary unit of linguistic analysis. Halliday put forward the counterclaim that “Language does not consist of sentences; it co nsists of text or discourse– the exchange
of meanings in interpersonal contexts of one kind or an other” (1978: 2). A discourse
perspective of competence focuses on the ongoing choices that speakers make while
speaking or writing transmit, adapt and clarif y a message, to make language use more
efficient, to show the relevance of one in formation chunk to another etc. Categories
such as information structure, dialogue st ructure, co-text, el lipsis, substitution,
reference, deixis and many more reflect the view that language syst ems operate not only
at utterance level but at discourse level too. Also, the maxims arising from Grice’s
(1975) “co-operative principle,” which attemp ts to explain in a systematic way how
speakers infer and interpret indirect speech acts, sarcasm, humour etc., are an important aspect of a discourse approach.
Various aspects of a discourse approach were to influence foreign language teaching:
for example, the term ‘utterance’ tended to replace ‘sentence’, recognising that in both formal and functional terms people do not alwa ys speak in grammatical sentences. Also,
the focus of attention expanded beyond single utte rances to include stretches of talk or
writing. In his ground-breaking book Teaching Language as Communication , which
provided an important link between lingu istics and language teaching, Widdowson
devoted a chapter to discourse categories such ‘coherence,’ ‘cohesion,’ propositional
development (1978: 22ff.), which subsequent ly came to occupy an important place in
the repertoire of language teachers.
It is worth mentioning that whilst the focus of communicative language teaching
tends to be on pragmatic and discourse meaning, rather than on semantic meaning, for linguists – including Hymes – these types of meaning are not mutually exclusive but
complementary. Both in language teaching an d in applied linguistics an unfortunate
dichotomy is often promulgated between grammatical meaning and pragmatic and
discourse meaning. This is seen in the quite unjustifiable division between ‘form-
focussed’ and ‘meaning-based’ teaching often found in applied linguis tic research (see,
for example, Spada 1997: 73). Hymes’ famo us statement “There are rules of use
without which the rules of grammar would be useless” (1972: 278) is often wrongly
interpreted by methodologists as a rejection of grammar. Hymes goes on to say “a

18 David Newby
normal child acquires knowledge of sentences , not only as grammatical, but also as
appropriate” (ibid). Similarly, whilst Sear le is best known for the category of
‘illocutionary act,” an intrinsic part of his speech act theory is what he terms
‘propositional acts,’ which he describes as “referring and pred icating” (1969: 23).
Halliday’s functionally oriented theories include ‘ideational’ meaning as a core
category. All of these categories point to the importance of gr ammar and lexis in
conveying meaning.
3. Competence beyond language: non-linguistic reality
For Chomsky, the premise that linguistic rea lity reflects a specific language module in a
speaker’s brain and the complementary hypoth esis of the existence of a universal
grammar requires linguists to draw a dividing line between linguistic reality and general
cognitive, non-linguistic aspect s of mental reality. This se paration has been the subject
of strong criticism from lingui sts who see language and cognition as an interdependent
whole and whose theories can be grouped t ogether under the general term of Cognitive
Linguistics (for example, Langacker 1987, 1991; Heine 1997; Tomasello 2003;
Jackendoff 1983, 2002). In their book on Cognitive Linguistics Croft an d Cruse (2004:
1) list three hypotheses whic h guide this approach:

• language is not an autonomous cognitive faculty
• grammar is conceptualization
• knowledge of language emerges from language use

It follows from the first hypothesis that if language is not separate from, but embedded
within, general aspects of human cognition, then linguists must go beyond linguistic
reality in order to explain how language is stored in th e brain and used in actual
contexts. A cognitive view of language will also have an important impact on theories of language acquisition since linguists will seek to explain not only how language input is
processed and categorised but how infants process and categorise their experience and
perceptions of the world in gene ral. What is innate in a ch ild at birth is not only what
Chomsky termed a “language acquisition device” but an experience acquisition device.
As far as foreign language learning is c oncerned, the growing interest in cognitive
hypotheses has, in recent years, caused theories of second language acquisition to move
away from a Chomskyan universal grammar view (for example, Krashen 1981; Cook
1991) towards a general cognitive view (f or example, Johnson 1996; Skehan 1998). The
following three premises of a Cognitive Approach are relevant to the present discussions:

• “The processes which steer foreig n language learning are considerab ly different from those which
underlie first language acquisition” (Newby 2003: 407).
• “The L2 learner has considerably greater cognitive abilities and schematic knowledge than the first
language learner” (Skehan 1998: 75).
• “Learning is an active and dynamic process in which individuals make use of a variety of information
and strategic modes of processing” (O’Malley and Chamot 1990: 217).

One category that has attracted considerab le attention in C ognitive Linguistics and
increasingly in foreign language learning and teaching is the ro le and nature of what is
usually referred to as schematic knowledge . Reflecting a constructivist view of
language, I shall refer to this as schematic constructs . These constructs, or mental
representation of knowledge, interact with systemic knowledge of a language to
facilitate the processing, interpretation and comprehension of language. Schematic

Competence and performance in learning and teaching: theories and practices 19

constructs have, on the one hand, a personal element to them: human beings interpret
one and the same event or one and the sa me utterance in differing ways. However,
schematic knowledge is also to a considerable extent conventional in that speakers of a
speech community will share a common mode of perceiving an event or utterance.
Schematic constructs take different form s, ranging from categories which need little
theoretical explanation such as factual knowledge or rememb rance of past experiences,
largely of a declarative nature, which may or may not be shared by interlocutors, to
abstract perceptional categor ies, such as mental gene ralisations about how human
experience is structured, s hortly to be described.
The exchange of messages between people re quires the constant application of both
systemic (language code) and schematic knowle dge structures. It should be added that
there is some disagreement concerning sche matic categorisation, terms and definitions
of schematic knowledge among linguists. Th e following show my own usage of
categories and terms:

• Schemata : a set of ideas, associations, expectations which an individual speaker or listener may have
in connection with a con cept, an object, person, place, action, event etc.
• Scenario : a speaker’s internal mental re presentation of a state of affair s, event etc. in the external
world.
• Frame : a commonly occurring, generalisable scenario wi th which a speaker and a hearer are familiar;
a ‘remembered framework’ (see Minsky 1975, cited in Brown and Yule 1983: 238); lexical,
grammatical and pragmatic meaning are to a certain extent predictable in a specific scenario.
• Script : a frame that extends beyond single utterances; a ‘remembered framework of coherent chains of
utterance forms, speech functions, topics etc., in which specific discourse patterns tend to occur and
are generalisable (see Schank and Abelson 1977 cited in Brown and Yule 1983: 241; Hoey 1991). Adjacency pairs (for example, ‘thank you’ – ‘you’re welcome’) can be defined as highly predictable,
prototypical scripts.

Conventionalised schemata play an impor tant role in communication and in the
encoding, decoding and interpretation of utte rances, yet their im portance in language
teaching is not generally recognised. Exceptio ns to this are the receptive skills of
reading and listening: methodologists often st ress the importance of activating learners’
schematic knowledge, for example in pre-reading tasks.
Various types of schematic knowledge compri se what might be termed a speaker’s
schematic competence , a competence which should be in corporated in any model which
aims at describing general competence. In di scussions of the CEFR , its references to
schemata and their role in language pro cessing and use, are seldom quoted, though, as
we shall see, schematic know ledge is given a degree of prominence. To cite one
example: “The availability of routinised schematic knowledg e frees the lear ner to deal
with content and, in the case of interac tion and spontaneous pr oduction activities, to
concentrate on more accurate use of le ss well established forms” (p.162).
As far as general competences are concer ned, text books on FL methodology tend to
focus on what might broadly be called pers onality factors. One aspect of Hymes’
theories which is seldom quoted by applied linguists is his extens ion of the notion of
competence not only in a sociological direc tion but also to incorporate aspects which
the CEFR describes as “selfhood factors” (p.105), as the following quotation shows:

This competence, moreover, is integral with attit udes, values, and motivations concerning language,
its features and users, and inte gral with competence for, and attitudes toward, the interrelation of
language with the other code of communicative conduct. (Hymes 1972: 278)

20 David Newby
It is interesting to note that in the cate gory “existential competence” of the CEFR the
first three sub-categories bear the headings “attitudes, values, a nd motivations” (CEFR:
105); in other words, exactly the sa me terms as those used by Hymes.

4. The nature of performance
Whilst the focus of attention of both li nguists and applied linguists has been on
competence, the nature and role of performance has also been the subject of debate. As
stated above, Chomsky dismissed performa nce as an imperfect manifestation of
competence and not worthy of being incorpor ated into a “serious discipline”. For
Hymes, performance is of interest since it is the “product of social interaction” (1972:
271). In order to describe performance, howev er, it is necessary to provide some kind of
theoretical framework in which it can be embedded.
In attempting to describe performance Hy mes recognises the following ambiguity in
the use of the term:

When one speaks of performance, then, does one mean the behavioral data of speech? or all that
underlies speech beyond the grammatical? or both? (…) The difficulty can be put in terms of the two contrasts that usage manifests:
1. (underlying) competence v. (actual) performance;
2. (underlying) grammatical competence v. (underlying) models/rules of performance (1972: 281).
It seems to me, however, that whilst Hymes rightly identifies different senses of the
term, his statements are somewhat ambiguous. Sense 2 points to ‘models of performance’ but surely this should be cont rasted not only with grammatical but with
communicative competence too.
In his definition, Halliday (1978: 38) makes the performance element more
explicit by speaking of a “behav ioural potential”. “When I say can do , I am specifically
referring to the behaviour pot ential as a semiotic which can be encoded in language, or
of course in other things too.” It is inte resting that he uses the phrase “can do”,
heralding a formulation which has now beco me widespread across Europe since the
publication of the CEFR.
However, whilst introducing a behavioural el ement, it could be argued that reference
to ‘potential’ means that this definition still lies in the area of communicative competence. A further statement by Hy mes does come closer to describing
performance: “It [performance] takes into account the interaction between competence
(knowledge, ability for use), the competence of others, and the cybernetic and emergent
properties of events th emselves” (1978: 283).
The key words here are “interaction” and “cybernetic”. These suggest that
performance is more than a “behavioural po tential”; it is the act ual using of language.
An analysis of the various definitions a nd descriptions of performance show the
following three usages:

a) the “behavioural potential” to perform (knowl edge-based grammatical competence, pragmatic
competence, discourse competence, etc.)
b) the act of performing
c) the product of performance (output)

In order to disambiguate th ese uses I shall use the foll owing terms: a) competence,
meaning both knowledge and behaviour pot ential; b) perfor mance c) output.

Competence and performance in learning and teaching: theories and practices 21

5. Speech events
I said earlier that both Hymes and Halliday see language not only as what Chomsky
terms mental reality but also as social reality. It follows from this that in order to describe this social reality, it is the task of linguists not only to analyse aspects of the
language code but to explain how langua ge functions and is acquired as a
communication system. Since this analys is is of both a psycholinguistic and
sociolinguistic nature, it must be embedded in theories of extra-linguistic variables
which steer this social reality; for example, a theory of context . As Widdowson says
(1998: 8), “Context … is no longer apart from language but a part of it”. Moreover, it
needs to incorporate the dynamic aspect of language perfor mance. To this end, Hymes
proposes the concept of a “ speech event ”, which he defines as “ … activities, or aspects
of activities, that are direc tly governed by rules or norms fo r the use of speech. An event
may consist of a single speech act, but will often comprise several” (1986: 56). It is
interesting to note that this use of ‘activities’ can be f ound in the same sense in the
Common European Framework of Reference .
The importance of speech events is twofold. First, it can provide a specification of
important contextual variables which ‘cons train’ the use of language. According to
Hymes (1972: 26) some of these variables are:

(1) a code or codes in terms of which the message is intelligible to
(2) participants , minimally an addressor and addressee (who may be the same person), in
(3) an event constituted by its transmission and characterized by
(4) a channel or channels ,
(5) a setting or context ,
(6) a definite form or shape to the message, and
(7) a topic and comment , i.e., that it says something about something – in other words, that the
concept of message implies the array of components previously given.

This type of specification was an important f actor in the sudden e xpansion of categories
and objectives in curricul a and FL textbooks which followed a communicative
approach. It was a categorisation incorporat ed in the two important Council of Europe
publications: the Threshold Level (van Ek 1975 and van Ek and Trim 1991) and the
Common European Framework of Reference .
The second important implication of the sp eech or communicative event – I shall use
the latter term so as to in clude both spoken a nd written language – is that it sees
language not only in terms of communicative competence but as a process and system
of use. In order to descri be language it is therefor e necessary not only to list
competences and to specify contextual variables but to model the communication
process. Such a model can be found in figure 1.

Figure 1 : Model of a communicative event

Communicative
Competence  Context: setting, channel genre, topic, key, etc. Communicative
Competence 
Addressor +
activity 
 Perceptions
Purpose 
 Notions
Functions
Form  Message/
Outcome Addressee +
activity
 Schematic 
constructs     Performance: Processes and Strategies      Schematic 
knowledge

This simple model attempts to stress the following aspects of communication:

• language consists of speech events arising from the desire or need to carry out an activity: i.e. to
encode perceptions into spoken or written language for a specific purpose (addressor); or to decode perceptions (addressee);

22 David Newby
• language is a reflection of a human being’s mental reality , which consists, among other things, of
communicative (including cultural) competence and schematic constructs;
• all language use takes place in a context ;
• language is a process in which perceptions of the world are encoded into language (see left-to-right
arrows in figure 1);
• language is used for a purpose and has an outcome
• the act of performance requires the sp eaker and listener to apply various processing and
communication strategies;
• language is both a knowledge-based and a skill-based phenomenon.

Two important advantages of making a communication model anal ysis are that, first, it
makes explicit and transparent individual thou gh interrelated components of an act of
communication , and, second, it has th e potential to provide a framework for describing
not only competence but performance too. For language teaching, this means that
language learning can be seen as skill devel opment rather than merely the accumulation
of knowledge; thus, whether we are se tting objectives or assessing language
proficiency, this can be done in term s of the dynamic use of language – i.e.
performance. This is what the CEFR refers to as an “action-oriented” approach (p.9).

6. From linguistics to pedagogy
Although most of the theories referred to so far were not developed with foreign
language teaching in mind, they have had, since the 1970s, a considerable effect on pedagogy. In the 1970s the Council of Europe document, the Threshold Level
(1975/1991), provided a taxonomy of signifi cant elements of the communication
process, both linguistic and non-linguistic, such as language-functions, general and
specific notions, verbal excha nge patterns, language skills, sociological competence and
competence strategies. Wilkins (1976) and Munby (1978) attempted to compile
categories of linguistic competence base d on a semantic and pragmatic, notional-
functional axis, though interest in notional aspects of gr ammatical competence soon
faded (see Newby 2000). In 1980 Canale and Swain provided a description of
competence based on four categories:

1. grammatical competence : knowledge of lexical items and of rules of morphology, syntax, sentence-
grammar semantics and phonology;
2. sociolinguistic competence: the ability to communicate appropriately in a variety of contexts; this
includes both verbal and non-verbal communication;
3. discourse competence: the ability to use language which goes beyond the level of the sentence; this
includes aspects such as cohesion and coherence;
4. strategic competence: appropriate use of communication strategies to overcome or repair
breakdowns in communication, due perhap s to lack of linguistic competence.

Later, Bachmann (1990: 87) provided a tree -diagram of “linguistic competence” with
two nodes: “organisational competence”, su bdivided into grammatical and textual
competence, and “pragmatic competence”, subdivided into “illocutionary” and “sociological” competence. These categorisations largely focus on diffe rent kinds of competence; one exception
being those of “compensational strategies” ( Threshold Level ) and “strategic
competence” (Canale and Swain), which refe r to the aspect of performance.
The focus on communication competence had various important effects: school
syllabuses often included the type of categorisation advocated by the Threshold Level ;
teaching objectives tended to be formulated as ‘notions’ and ‘functions’, rather than as grammatical forms, thus broadening the aims of language teaching beyond formally
specified grammar and lexis. This in turn ca used a shift of focus in learning aims from

Competence and performance in learning and teaching: theories and practices 23

knowledge to use; from the beginnings of the communicative approach to teaching there
was considerable interest in performan ce aspects of language. Widdowson (1978: 3)
made the important distinction between “u sage” and “use”, st ating that “we are
generally called upon to produce instances of language use: we do not simply manifest
the abstract system of the language, we at the same time realize it as meaningful
communicative behaviour”. To explain this he refers to relevant linguistic theories:
“This distinction between usage and use is related to de Sa ussure’s distinction between
langue and parole and Chomsky’s similar distinction between competence and
performance” (ibid.: 3). He further states:

Usage, then, is one aspect of perf ormance, that aspect of performa nce which makes evident the extent
to which the language user demonstrates his knowledge of linguistic rules. Use is another aspect of performance: that which makes evident the extent to which the language user demonstrates his ability
to use his knowledge of linguistic rules for effective communication. (3)

It was this question of “demonstrating his [s ic] ability to use his knowledge of linguistic
rules for effective communication” that was later addressed by the CEFR, which was to provide not only a comprehensiv e categorisation and descript ion of competences, but a
specification of language performance.
7. The Common European Framework of Reference
The publication of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages in
2001 was a major milestone in foreign language learning and teaching. Its main aim is
to

… describe[s] in a comprehensive way what language l earners have to learn to do in order to use a
language for communication and what knowledge and skills they have to develop so as to be able to act effectively. The description also covers th e cultural context in which language is set. The
Framework also defines levels of proficiency which allow learners’ progress to be measured at each
stage of learning and on a life-long basis. (1)

Building on the work of the Threshold Level and adopting its “taxonomic nature” it
addresses all aspects identified in the co mmunication model of figure 1. In order to
illustrate this and to show the coherence that exists between the descriptive categories, I shall return to the concept of a communicative event.
7.1. Communicative events
Although not defined explicitly, the term “comm unicative event” occurs eleven times in
the CEFR. A common collocation is “particip ate in”, stressing the dynamic, action-
oriented aspect of language which underlies the whole of the document. Various aspects
of communicative events identified in figur e 1 are referred to, examples being:

• the nature and role of external contexts;
• the nature and role of “mental contexts” (p.50) (schematic knowledge, intercultural perceptions (p.12),
internal representations)
• the nature of communicative competence;
• the activity or language acts carried out by lang uage users– what I earlier termed the “act of
performing” and, by implication, the outcome of performance;
• processes and strategies employed by users of a language in the act of performing

In the following I shall comment on some of these categories and briefly explain how
they are dealt with in the CEFR.

24 David Newby
7.2. External Contexts
I have already referred to the importance of context in linguisti c description, both in
linguistics and language teaching. In this connection I quoted Widdowson (1998: 8):
‘Context … is no longer apart from language but a part of it’. Like the Threshold Level ,
the CEFR provides examples of variables of “external context”: domains, instructions,
persons, operations, texts are some examples . It also adds what might be termed a
contextual processing category: “condi tions and constraints,” which includes
psychological aspects such as “time pressure,” sociological, such as “relative status of
participants,” and physical, “poor lighting” (when reading) (147). This third example
illustrates how the CEFR often wanders quite far into non-linguistic territory. Depending on one’s theoretical standpoint, such an example could be regarded as a
rather trivial irrelevance or – my standpoint, and I assume that of the authors of the
CEFR – that there is no clear dividing line between perceptions re lated to language and
perceptions of external real ity in general. And this l eads to the next category.

7.2.1. Mental contexts
One topic that is dealt with extensively in the CEFR is that of what was earlier referred
to as ‘the mental reality’ of the user of a language. On page 50 we can read a statement
which can be interpreted as a basic tenet of a Cognitive Approach to language description:

The external context is filtered and interpreted th rough the user’s: perceptual apparatus; attention
mechanisms; long-term experience, affecting memory, associatio ns and connotations; practical
classification of objects, events, etc.; linguistic cat egorisation. These factor s influence the user’s
observation of the context.

A further statement: “the communicative event is further determined by consideration of
relevance (to the user)” points to the re levance theories outlined by, amongst others,
Sperber and Wilson (1986). In an interesting s ection entitled “the mental context of the
interlocutor(s)” (51), the “inf ormation gap” between interloc utors is explai ned not only
in terms of different knowledge but of di fferent “internal repr esentations”. Thus,
communication is described not only on a linguistic level but on a schematic one.
Various other important terms from cogni tive psychology and Cognitive Linguistics are
given extensive coverage by th e CEFR. Among these, some of which I referred to in an
earlier section, we can find reference to:

• Schemata “relevant schemata are used to build up a representation of the meaning being expressed
and a hypothesis as to the communicative intention behind it”;
• Framing “selecting mental set, activatin g schemata, setting up expectations”;
• Hypothesis testing: “match ing cues to schemata”;
• Inferring (Grice is one of the few theorists to be mentioned explicitly in the CEFR) (72).

Also categories from a cognitive view of discourse can be found. In the section on
“Interaction Strategies” (84) reference is ma de to what I earlier termed “scripts,”
described in the CEFR as “interaction sc hemata”, “verbal exchange patterns” and
“praxeograms – a diagram representing the structure of a communi cative interaction.”
As stated earlier, this cognitive aspect is one of the least- known elements of the
CEFR. One reason for this is, no doubt, that th ese categories are hardly represented in
the ‘illustrative scales’ which contain explicit de scriptors. It seems, regrettably, to be the
case that for many teachers and teacher tr ainers a knowledge of the CEFR does not
extend beyond the competence desc riptors and their levels.

Competence and performance in learning and teaching: theories and practices 25

7.2.2. Communicative competence
The CEFR defines competences as “the su m of knowledge, skills and characteristics
that allow a person to perform actions” (9). By including skills, this definition goes
beyond mere knowledge and reflects the “beh aviour potential” of Halliday, which was
discussed earlier. “Communicative langua ge competences” are described in the
following sub-categories:

Table 2: Communicative language competence in the CEFR

Communicative language competence ( CEFR 2.1.2, p.13)
Linguistic competences:
(subdivided into) ‘lexical, phonological, syntactic knowledge and skills and other
dimensions of language as system’ (13).
Lexical competence ( CEFR
5.2.1.1) ‘knowledge of, and ability to use, the vocabulary of a language,
consists of lexical elements and grammatical elements’ (110)
Grammatical competence ( CEFR
5.2.1.2) ‘knowledge of, and ability to use, the grammatical
resources of a language’ (112)
Phonological competence ( CEFR
5.2.1.4) ‘a knowledge of, and skill in the perception and production of: the
sound-units ( phonemes ) of the language and their realisation in
particular contexts ( allophones ), etc. (116)
Orthographic competence ( CEFR
5.2.1.5) ‘a knowledge of and skill in the perception and production of the
symbols of which written te xts are composed’ (117)
Sociolinguistic competences ‘refer to the sociocu ltural conditions of language use’ (…) ‘rules of
politeness, norms governing behaviour between generations, sexes,
classes and social groups, lingu istic codification of certain
fundamental rituals in the functioning of a community’ (13)
Pragmatic competences:
(subdivided into)
Functional competences, (p.123) ‘relating to the communicative function of utterances’ (production
of language functions, speech acts)
Discourse competences ‘the mastery of discourse, cohesion and coherence,
the identification of text types and forms’ (13) ‘relating to the
organising and structuring of texts’ (…) ‘drawing on scenarios or scripts of interactional exchanges’ (123).

A further category, “semantic competence” wh ich “deals with the learner’s awareness
and control of the organisati on of meaning” (115) relates to both lexis and grammar.
These categories are reminiscent of those of Canale and Swain (1980); however, the
more general term “linguistic competences” replaces their “grammatical competences”,
the latter reflecting Chomsky’s use of the term to refer to what is rule governed and
systematic. This frees up the label “grammatical” to refer to meaning and relations expressed through grammatical morphemes and syntax.
7.3. Competences and education
“The Council promotes policies which stre ngthen linguistic diversity and language
rights, deepen mutual understanding, consol idate democratic citi zenship and sustain
social cohesion” (Internet 1) [14.11.09]).
In keeping with the aims of the Council of Europe expressed above, the scope of
competences described in the CEFR extends beyond the merely cogni tive, linguistic and
functional to include general competences wh ich are based on the pot ential of a school
language learning environment to provide a framework in which personal, social and culture competences can be enhanced. It thus has an ideological, educational dimension
that is not addressed by linguists who s eek to define competences from a purely
mentalist or sociological perspective. This dimension is summed up in a question posed

26 David Newby
by the CEFR (44): “How can language learni ng best contribute to their personal and
cultural development as responsible citizen s in a pluralist demo cratic society?”
Two areas of competences fall into this educational category. The first is the
category “ability to learn” or “savoir apprendre”, which is defined as “is the ability to
observe and participate in new experiences and to incorporate new knowledge into
existing knowledge, modifying the latter wh ere necessary” (106). The second is that
part of “existential competence” which deals with personal aspects such as “values, e.g.
ethical and moral” (105).
It should be stressed that this category is not separate from those previously
described above but an extension of specifi c competences in an educational direction.
The following chart shows some of the comp etences that fall into this educational
category.

Table 3 : General language competence in the CEFR (examples)

Sociocultural knowledge ( CEFR ,
5.1.1.2) ‘knowledge of the society and culture of the community or
communities in which a language is spoken’ (102)
Intercultural awareness ( CEFR
5.1.1.3) ‘knowledge, awareness and understanding of the relation
(similarities and distinctive diff erences) between the “world of
origin” and the “world of the target community” produce an
intercultural awareness. (103)
Intercultural skills and know-how
(CEFR 5.1.2.2) ‘- the ability to bring the culture of origin and the foreign culture
into relation with each other; – cultural sensitivity and the ability to identify and use a variety of
strategies for contact with those from other cultures’ (104)
‘Existential’ competence ( CEFR
5.1.3) ‘The development of an ‘intercultural personality’ involving both
attitudes and awareness is seen by many as an important educational goal in its own right.’ (106)
Ability to learn
(CEFR 5.1.4) ‘the ability to observe and participate in new experiences and to
incorporate new knowledge into existing knowledge, modifying
the latter where necessary. Language learning abilities are
developed in the course of the ex perience of learning. They enable
the learner to deal more effec tively and independently with new
language learning challenges, to see what options exist and to
make better use of opportunities.’ (106)

7.4. Processes and strategies
Language descriptions based on “a communi cative event” view of language must
include not only underlying competences and th e output of language ac tivities but also
the act of performing these activities. The CE FR distinguishes two ca tegories that refer
to the encoding (and decodi ng) of language: strategies and processes, defined as
follows:

Language processes refer to the chain of events, neurological and physiological, involved in the
production and reception of speech and writing. A strategy is any organised, purposeful and
regulated line of action chosen by an individual to carry out a task which he or she sets for himself
or herself or with which he or she is confronted (10).

It could be stated that processes are an inherent part of human cognition and behaviour
whereas strategies are – often conscious – a ttempts by users and learners of language to
optimise processing. The former can be activated by pedagogy; the latter can be
developed through pedagogy.
Although more attention is given by the CEFR , and by applied linguists in general, to
strategies, it is, in my view, the process aspect which is of more interest since it is at the
very core of both language use and of langua ge learning. The recent sudden growth in

Competence and performance in learning and teaching: theories and practices 27

publications on Cognitive learning theory and pedagogical applications are indicative of
this increasing interest in th is area. Examples are: Robi nson (2001); DeKeyser (2007);
De Kop and De Rycker (2008); Robinson and Ellis (2008); Holme (2009). The CEFR
gives several examples of “communicative language processes” (90); for example:

To speak, the learner must be able to:
• plan and organise a message (cognitive skills);
• formulate a linguistic utterance (linguistic skills);
• articulate the utterance (phonetic skills).

The second and third categorie s are reminiscent of Searle’s “propositional” and “phonic
act” respectively (1969: 23-24). In the CEFR, the description of processing stages is of
a macro-functional nature. However, certain Cognitive Linguists (for example, Doughty
2001) pursue the important question of the “micro-processes” th at contribute to
language processing. As with the references to schematic knowledge, this category tends to be ignored by readers of the CEFR since it is not directly reflected in desc riptors. Yet, it is of great
importance for the design of teaching materials.
7.5. Language activities
Of the categories discussed in this section it is the “ability to put these competences into
action” (131), which is no doubt the most acce ssible for language teacher and also that
for which is best known. Moreover, it is the one which is most readily transmittable into
competence descriptors. Teachers all over Europe and beyond are now familiar with categories such as those found in the “globa l scale” (24) or the “self-assessment grid”
(26). It would in fact be more accurate to refer to such descriptors as “performance
descriptors” since it is th e “output/outcome” category of the communication model of
figure 1 that is being describe d and assessed. The CEFR refe rs to this as “observable
behaviour and performance” (14).

8. From communicative events to descriptors
Having identified the components of communi cative events, the CEFR is then in a
position to identify and describe through metala nguage “what learners must have learnt
or acquired in order to participate with full effectiveness in communicative events”
(131). The illustrative scales of descriptors contained in the CEFR refer to “three
metacategories in the descriptive scheme” (25):

• the necessary competences/communi cative language competences
• the ability to put these competences into action/ communicative activities (what I have termed
performance)
• the ability to employ the strategies necessa ry to bring the competences into action.

In order to put these three categories into relation with each othe r we could say that
performance = competence + processes & strategies.
Whilst the enormous contribution that the formulation of explicit and transparent
descriptors has made to language learni ng, teaching and assessm ent is beyond doubt,
one negative result of this is that for many teachers and teacher educators, too, their
knowledge of the CEFR goes hardly beyond the language-activity descriptors and
corresponding levels. As a result the underlying communicative and cognitive rationale of the CEFR tends to get lost.

28 David Newby
9. Teachers’ competences: the European Portfolio for Student Teachers of
Languages
If it is one of the principal goals of langua ge teaching to develop the communicative and
general competences of learners, it follows that teachers should possess pedagogical and
didactic competences which support the deve lopment of learners’ competences. It was
this belief that led to the development of the European Portfolio for Student Teachers of
Languages (EPOSTL) (Newby et al. 2007).

9.1. The aims and structure of EPOSTL
EPOSTL is a document intended for students un dergoing their initial teacher education
which encourages them to reflect on the di dactic knowledge and skills necessary to
teach languages, helps them to assess their own didactic competences and enables them
to monitor their progress and to record their experiences of teaching during the course of their teacher educ ation. The EPOSTL was developed for the European Centre for
Modern Languages of the Council of Europe by a team of teacher educators from five
different countries (Armenia, Austria, Norway, Poland, UK). The EPOSTL builds on
existing documents already de veloped by the Language Policy Division of the Council
of Europe – Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR ) and the European
Language Portfolio (ELP) as well as the European Commission-financed project
European Profile for Language Teacher Educat ion – A Frame of Reference (European
Profile) .
At the heart of the EPOSTL are the 196 de scriptors of competences related to
language teaching which comprise the self-a ssessment section. These descriptors may
be regarded as a set of core competence s which language teache rs should strive to
attain.
The overall aims and much of the rationale of the EPOSTL is closely linked to the
CEFR. This can be illustrated by examining a statement taken from the introduction to
the CEFR (1):

The Common European Framework [ … ] describes in a comprehensive way what language learners have to learn to do in order to use a language for communication and what knowledge and skills they
have to develop so as to be able to act effectively.

This statement can be adapted to show what the EPOSTL aims to do, as follows: the
EPOSTL describes in a comprehensive way wh at language teachers have to learn to do
in order to teach a language for communication and what knowledge and skills they have to help learners to develop so as to be able to act effectively.

9.2. EPOSTL descriptors
Whilst the descriptors of EPOSTL are of a taxonomic nature, the form of organisation
does not correspond to that of the CEFR. Whereas the CE FR categorisation derives
from an analysis of language and general competence, the chapter headings in the
EPOSTL derive from seven educational domains in which teachers require competences: Context (of learning and teaching), Methodology, Resources, Lesson
Planning, Conducting a Lesson, Independent Learning, Assessment of Learning.
In order to understand the system underlying the EPOSTL descriptors, it is useful to
distinguish between those which relate to a teacher’s general competences and those which relate specifically to the deve lopment of competences, both general and
communicative, specified in the CEFR. The fi rst category – the minority of descriptors –
can be analysed and exemplified using headings found in CEFR as follows:

Competence and performance in learning and teaching: theories and practices 29

9.3. Teachers’ general competences
Knowledge ( savoir)
• I can understand the principles formulated in relevant European documents (e.g. Common European
Framework of Reference, European Language Portfolio ). (Context, Curriculum, p.15)

Skills ( savoir-faire )
• I can identify and investigate specific pedagogical/d idactic issues related to my learners or my
teaching in the form of action research. (C ontext, The Role of the Teacher, p.18)

Existential competence: ( savoir être)
• I can appreciate and make use of the value added to the classroom environment by learners with
diverse cultural backgrounds. (Context, The Role of the Teacher, p.17)

9.4. Didactic competences linked to the CEFR descriptors
Most didactic descriptors in the EPOSTL c oncern the development of the competences,
both communicative and general, described in the CEFR. A few illustrative examples
will be shown.
The illustrative scales of the CEFR refer to three “metacategories”: Communicative
activities, Strategies and Communicative langua ge competences (25ff.). I shall use these
categories to exemplify the relationship between language-related descriptors taken
from the CEFR and corresponding did actic descriptors in the EPOSTL

9.4.1. Communicative activities
CEFR : Overall spoken interaction (74)
• B2: Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction, and
sustained relationships with native speakers quite possible without imposing strain on either party.
Can highlight the personal signi ficance of events and experien ces, account for and sustain views
clearly by providing relevant explanations and arguments.
EPOSTL: Methodology. Spoken interaction (21)
• I can evaluate and select a range of meaningful speaking and interactional activities to develop
fluency (discussion, role play, problem solving, etc.).

9.4.2. Strategies
CEFR: Reading for or ientation (.70)
• B1. Can scan longer texts in order to locate desired information, and gather information from different
parts of a text, or from different texts in order to fulfil a specific task.
EPOSTL: Methodology, D. Reading (26)
• I can set different activities in order to practise a nd develop different readin g strategies according to
the purpose of reading (skimming, scanning etc.).
CEFR: Co-operating (86)
• B1: Can exploit a basic repertoire of language and strategies to help keep a conversation or discussion
going.
EPOSTL: Methodology: A. Speaki ng/spoken interaction (21)
• I can evaluate and select various activities to help learners to identify and use typical features of
spoken language (informal language, fillers etc.).
CEFR: Identifying clues and inferring (72)
• B1. Can identify unfamiliar words from the context on topics related to his/her field and interests. Can
extrapolate the meaning of occasional unknown words from the context and deduce sentence meaning
provided the topic discussed is familiar.
EPOSTL: Methodology: C. Reading (25)
• I can help learners to develop different strategies to cope with difficult or unknown vocabulary in a
text.

30 David Newby
9.4.3. General competences
Intercultural awareness (CEFR 5.1.1.3): knowledge, awareness and understanding of
the relation (similarities and distinctive diffe rences) between the ‘w orld of origin’ and
the ‘world of the target community’ pr oduce an intercultural awareness. (103)
EPOSTL: (Methodology, G. Culture p. 29)
• I can evaluate and select a variety of texts, source material and activities which help learners to reflect
on the concept of ‘otherness’ and und erstand different value systems.
Ability to learn (CEFR 5.1.4)
EPOSTL : (Independent Learning, A. Learner autonomy p.45)
• I can evaluate and select a variety of activities which help learners to identify and reflect on individual
learning processes and learning styles.

9.4.4. Communicative language competences
Grammatical competence (CEFR 5.2.1.2) CEFR : Grammatical accuracy (114)
• B2. Shows a relatively high degree of grammatical control. Does not make mistakes which lead to
misunderstanding.
EPOSTL: Methodology, E. Grammar
• I can evaluate and select grammatical exercises a nd activities, which support learning and encourage
oral and written communication.
Sociolinguistic Appropriateness (CEFR p.122)
• B2. Can express him or herself confidently, clearly and politely in a formal or informal register,
appropriate to the situation and person(s) concerned.
EPOSTL: Methodology, F. Vocabulary
• I can evaluate and select activities which enhance learners’ awareness of register differences.
Discourse competence (CEFR 5.2.3.1) – Coherence and cohesion (125)
Can use a variety of linking words efficiently to mark clearly the relationships between
ideas. EPOSTL: Methodology, B. Writing/written interaction
• I can use a variety of techniques to help learners to develop awareness of the structure, coherence and
cohesion of a text and produce texts accordingly.

10. Conclusion
As has been seen, the road to defining and describing competence and performance has
been long and circuitous and paved with a va riety of theories from both theoretical and
applied linguistics. Within language teaching, th ey are concepts which lie at the core of
activities ranging from curriculum design to language assessment. As far as its
description of communicative competences is concerned, it seems to me that the CEFR
scarcely breaks new ground. Indeed, my ow n school textbook (Hei ndler et al. 1985),
developed in the late 1970s, included ma ny of its ‘innovative’ elements: a notional-
functional syllabus, exercises to practise regist er, extensive use of what the CEFR refers
to as praxeograms, self-assessment descri ptors at the end of each unit etc. etc.
However, in other respects the CEFR cer tainly can be regarded as innovative. I
would identify four features of the CE FR which have moved language learning and
teaching forward considerably. These are:

a) The indivisibility of, and complementarity between, general and communicative competences ,
applied, on the one hand, to the various cultu re-related categories – intercultural awareness;
intercultural skills and know-how; ‘existential’ competence etc.; on the other to cognitive categories
of schematic knowledge listed above under “non-linguistic reality”.
b) The “action-oriented” view of langua ge provides a strong focus on the process of encoding and
decoding ; i.e. how competence becomes performance.
c) Its ‘can-do’ descriptors of “communicative activities,” describe not only competence but also
performance .

Competence and performance in learning and teaching: theories and practices 31

d) Despite its claim to be “non-dogmatic: not irrevo cably and exclusively attached to any one of a
number of competing linguistic or educational theories or practices” (8), clearly, both a
communicative approach to learning and teaching and a cognitive, constructivist view of language and
of learning are strongly represente d. With the recent rise of intere st in Cognitive theory among applied
linguists and methodologists, the mentalistic, sociological and cognitive framework of the CEFR
could serve as an important theoretical basis for teachers and methodologist s wishing to teach and
design materials according to comm unicative and cognitive principles.

References
Austin, J.R. (1962). How to do Things with Words . Oxford: Clar endon Press.
Bachman, L.F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980). “Theoretical base s of communicative approaches to second language
teaching and testing”, Applied Linguistics 1: 1-47.
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax . Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
Cook, V.J. (1991). Second Language Learning and Language Teachin g. London: Edward Arnold.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Referen ce for Languages: Learning, teaching,
assessment . Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Modern Languages Division/Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Croft, W. and Cruse, D.A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Kop, S. and De Rycker, T. (2008). Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar . Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter.
DeKeyser, R.M. (ed.) (2007). Practice in a Second Language. Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and
Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, Catherine (2001). “Cognitive underpinning of focus on form”. In: P. Robinson, (ed.) Cognition and
Second Language Instruction . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grice, H.P. (1975). “Logic and Conversation.” In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds). Syntax and Semantics 3:
Speech Acts . New York: Academic Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as a Social Semi otic. The Social Interpretation of Language and
Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Heindler, D., Huber, R. Kuebel, G., Newby, D., Schuch, A., Sornig, K., Wohofsky, H., (1985). Ticket to
Britain . Vienna: Österreichischer Bundesverlag.
Heine, B. (1997). Cognitive Foundations of Grammar . New York: Oxford University Press.
Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of Lexis in Text . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holme, R. (2009). Cognitive Linguistics and Language Teaching . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hymes, D. (ed.) (1964). “Toward ethnographies of communicative events” in P.P. Giglioli (ed.) Language
and Social Context . Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Hymes, D. (1972a). “On Communicative Competen ce”. In J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds), Sociolinguistics ,
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Hymes, D. (1972/1986). “Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life”. In J. J. Gumperz and
Hymes, D. Directions in Sociolinguistics. The Ethnography of Communication. 2nd edition. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and Cognition . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, K. (1996). Language Teaching and Skill Learning . Oxford: Blackwell.
Krashen, S.D. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning . Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Gramm ar, Volume 1: Theoretical Prerequsites. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R.W. (1991). Grammar and Conceptualization. Walter De Gruyter.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics . London: Longman.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Minsky, M. (1975). “A framework for representing knowledge”. In P.H. Winston (ed.), The Psychology of
Computer Vision. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Munby, J. (1978). Communicative Syllabus Design . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Newby, D. (2000). “Notions and Functions”. In M. Byram (ed.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Language
Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge.
Newby, D. (2003). A Cognitive+Communicative Theory of Pedagogical Grammar. Habilitationsschrift. Karl-
Franzens Universität Graz.

32 David Newby
Newby, D. (2008). “Pedagogical Grammar: A Cognitive+ Communicative Approach”. In: W. Delanoy and L,
Volkmann (eds), Future Perspectives fo r English Language Teaching . Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag
Winter, 29-44.
Newby, D. Allan, R., Fenner, A-B, Jones, B., Komorowska, H., Soghikyan, K. (2007). European
Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages . Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Online: http://epostl2.ecml.at/Resources /tabid/505/language/de-DE/Default.aspx
O’Malley, J.M. and Chamot, A. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. (ed.) (2001). Cognition and Second Language Instruction . Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Robinson, P. and Ellis, N.C. (eds) (2008). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language
Acquisition . New York: Routledge.
Schank, R.C., & R. Abelson (1977) Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spada, N. (1997). “Form-focussed Instruction and S econd Language Acquisition: A Review of Classroom
and Laboratory Research – State of the art article”. In Language Teaching , Volume 30 no. 2: Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D. and D.Wilson (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition . Oxford: Blackwell.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
van Ek, J.A. (1975). The Threshold Level in a European unit/credit system for modern language learning by
adults. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Press.
van Ek, J.A. and Trim, J.L.M. (1991). Threshold Level 1990 , Strasbourg: Council of Europe Press.
Widdowson, H.G. (1978). Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, H.G. (1998). “The conditions of contextual meaning”. In K. Malmkjaer and J. Williams (1998).
Context in Language Learning and Language Understanding . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional Syllabuses . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Internet 1: <http://www.coe.int/ t/dg4/linguistic/Division_EN.asp >