A socio-pragmatic comparative study of

2.5. Communicative Competence 
Hymes (1974) introduced the concept of communicative competence. He argued that 
communication is not governed by fixed linguistic rules. It is, however, a two-step 
process in which the speaker first evaluates the social context of the speech and then 
select among the communicative options available for encoding his intent. In other 
words, linguistic competence is not the only element responsible for communication. 
Rather, an interaction is perceivable between linguistic knowledge and society.
Communicative competence postulates linguistic diversity or a repertoire of linguistic 
codes for the same concept. On the basis of the situation, the competent speaker can 
choose an appropriate code. In doing so, the speaker uses the so-called knowledge of the 
components of speech (i.e. SPEAKING). According to Hymes, any speech situation 
possesses eight defining features: (1) S refers to the setting (i.e. the time, place, physical 
circumstances, and psychological setting or scene); (2) P refers to participants (i.e. 
speaker, addressor, hearer, and addressee); (3) E refers to the ends (i.e. purpose, 
outcomes, and goals); (4) A refers to act sequences (i.e. message content and message 
form); (5) K refers to keys (i.e. manner/spirit in which something is said); (6) I refers to 
instrumentalities (i.e. channels and forms); (7) N refers to norms (i.e. norms of 
interaction and interpretation); and (8) G refers to genres (i.e. categories of 
communication). 
Dittmar (1976) points out that linguistic codes are not the only component of 
communicative competence. He argues that communicative competence also includes a 
whole repertoire of psychological, social, and pragmatic strategies.

---

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE 
17
The elaboration of communicative competence and the identification of its components 
gave sociopragmatics the new role of determining "what a speaker needs to know to be 
able to communicate effectively in culturally significant settings" (Rivers, 1981: 84). 
The possession of this kind of knowledge and the ability to use it in organizing 
communication had been noted as related to the degree of socialization of the speaker.