This document discusses communicative competence and grammar instruction in language learning. It makes three main points: 1) Learners acquire some implicit grammatical knowledge even without instruction, through communicative experience using the language. However, most speakers have limited explicit understanding of grammar rules. 2) Traditional language pedagogy uses a deductive approach, teaching rules before communication. More recent approaches strive for inductive instruction that mirrors natural acquisition, with rule explanation after comprehension. 3) Grammar instruction often focuses on prescriptive "rules" rather than a scientific understanding of how language works. It also tends to prioritize correctness over meaning and ignores how rules are applied in real usage contexts.

1. Communicative Competence
Whenever someone learns a language—as a mother tongue or a foreign
language—s/he inevitably learns some grammar, even without being aware of it.
Language is governed by rules of various kinds that must somehow be mastered to
some degree for any communication to occur: even understanding everyday
speech or reading a simple text cannot be achieved without an implicit
understanding of some of these rules.
The fact is that most native speakers of a language never reach a very high
mastery of its grammar: even "educated" people know just enough to function,
orally and in writing, at a level appropriate to their socio-professional standing.
Much of this knowledge is acquired inductively through communicative experience,
early on in life; only a small part of it comes from explicit instruction in an academic
setting, and most speakers are not able to explain the rules that they apply
correctly. Frequently, they need to resort to a reference book (dozens are in print
for French) in order to clarify certain points.
There is a lingering confusion about the exact nature of "grammar," which can
mean
1) a set of laws that account for the way language operates in general—in which
case it is virtually synonymous with "linguistics"
2) a set of laws governing the morphology of a specific language—how linguistic
units are formed—and its syntax—how linguistic units are arranged in linear
sequences in speech.
3) a set of rules and recipes on how to produce "correct" forms.
Grammar in language instruction
In naturalistic acquisition, grammatical mastery is initially limited to recognition
and comprehension, before proceeding to production and, possibly, to the ability to
analyze and explicate grammatical forms.
Educational theories have not always respected this inductive progression:
"traditional" language pedagogy, in fact, follows a deductive process that begins
with formulating rules that students must learn, then "apply" in exercices, before
moving on to progresssively more divergent expression. Since the late 1970s,
"functional" and "communicative" approaches have strived to change this status,
sometimes by proscribing explicit grammar instruction altogether, in other cases by
respecting the natural acquisition process in which rule-stating comes after
recognition and comprehension.
Unfortunately, the problem of grammar in language instruction has not, for the
most part, been satisfactorily addressed. Language instruction methods
overwhelmingly rely on "traditional grammar" (type 3), even when they seek to cast
grammar in a supporting role, or present it inductively. However, such grammar
does not always reflect a coherent, scientific vision of how language operates: its
rules, which admit many exceptions, are really ad hoc prescriptions that do not
explain linguistic mechanisms, and tend to focus on correctness rather than
meaning. Even language teachers who devote a great deal of time and effort to

2. grammar instruction do not always understand exactly how language works: they
teach and use the rules they have learned but would be hard pressed to explain
why these rules exist.
Moreover, Language instruction methods tend to focus on grammar and ignore
usage, i.e., how grammar rules are really applied in specific contexts. Because
rules of usage are based on what natives actually do, rather than on theoretical
prescription, they sometimes contradict grammatical rules, and sometimes qualify
or restrict them.
Adopting a "scientific" grammar thus appears as an indispensable first step
towards more productive learning: its rules must suffer no exceptions, and it must
begin by carefully defining notions beyond commonly held (mis)conceptions.
Anyone with a modicum of formal education has some idea of what a "sentence," a
"text," a "verb" are; yes these terms remain imprecise, and are often used
inappropriately.
In fact, the very notion of "grammatical knowledge" is at issue, since it can refer
to several types of competencies.
1. Receptive competency :
- recognition, comprehension and understanding of langage forms from authentic
documents
2. Evaluative competency :
- Normative judgement : ability to distinguish between correct and incorrect forms
- Register judgement : ability to distinguish between formal, standard and colloquial
forms
- Authenticity judgement : ability to distinguish between grammatical forms (which
are possible, even though they may not be correct) and agrammatical forms (which
are never produced by a native speaker)
3. Productive competence :
- Mechanical (convergent) production, of a single, specific form or structure: in an
exercice or in response to a direct prompt from a teacher, for example.
- Directed (semi-convergent) production of a range of forms or structures: in an
exercice or in response to a direct prompt from a teacher, for example, but also in
writing a text with explicit constraints.
- Autonomous (divergent) production, in an activity where generic formal
constraints may exist, but are less determinant than the (free writing, composition,
essay, description, narration)
4. Metalinguistic competence :
- Ability to identify forms by name (knowledge of technical vocabulary);
- Ability to state a grammatical rule or principle in a coherent, economical manner;
- Ability to develop explanations (analysis of sentence components, linguistic
commentary)
These competencies mostly pertain to morphology and syntax, at the sentence
level. They must be set apart from discursive and textual competence (sentence
arrangement, "text grammar"), from rhetorical (or stylistic) competence, or lexical
competence (vocabulary knowledge), which must be evaluated separately. They

3. must also be set apart from oral competencies, which involve a different
hierarchical structure, and allow for a wider usage of colloquial forms.