RE-CONCEPTUALIZING COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING FOR DEVELOPING INTERACTIONAL COMPETENCE AND AUTHENTIC LANGUAGE USE

Authors

  • Rana Ahmad Shaheed Assistant Professor, Department of English, University of Gujrat. Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.68156/s6qn6023

Keywords:

Authentic Language Use, Classroom Interaction, Communicative Language Teaching, Interactional Competence, Language Assessment, Pragmatic Competence, Task-Based Language Teaching

Abstract

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has shifted language education from an emphasis on grammatical knowledge toward meaningful communication. However, many classroom implementations continue to rely on controlled dialogues, rehearsed role-plays, and predictable communicative tasks that may not adequately prepare learners for the complexity and unpredictability of authentic interaction. This conceptual study re-conceptualizes CLT by placing interactional competence and authentic language use at the center of language pedagogy. Drawing on a critical synthesis of research on communicative competence, interactional competence, conversation analysis, pragmatic competence, authentic language, task-based language teaching, classroom interaction, and interaction-focused assessment, the study examines the limitations of conventional CLT and identifies key practices required for effective interaction. The analysis emphasizes turn-taking, responsiveness, negotiation of meaning, clarification, repair, disagreement, pragmatic appropriacy, and contextual adaptation as essential dimensions of communicative ability. The study proposes an integrated framework in which authentic language input is followed by interactional noticing, pragmatic awareness, guided practice, task-based interaction, reflection, and interaction-focused assessment. The framework positions interactional competence as a dynamic ability developed through collaborative and context-sensitive language use rather than through linguistic production alone. The study argues that contemporary CLT should move beyond teaching learners what to say toward developing their ability to understand when, how, why, and in response to what they should communicate. The proposed framework has implications for English language teaching, curriculum design, textbook development, teacher education, and language assessment.

 

 

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press.

Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford University Press.

Balaman, U. (2025). Interactional competence and second language learning: Conversation-analytic perspectives and pedagogical applications. Classroom Discourse, 16(1), 1–18.

Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2–27). Longman.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/1.1.1

Eguchi, M., et al. (2025). Artificial intelligence and interaction-oriented language learning: Emerging pedagogical perspectives. Computer Assisted Language Learning.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.

Hall, J. K. (1993). The role of oral practices in the accomplishment of our everyday lives: The sociocultural dimension of interaction with implications for the learning of another language. Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.145

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Penguin.

Kunitz, S., et al. (2024). Teaching interactional practices through authentic spoken language: Implications for second language pedagogy and assessment. Classroom Discourse.

Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley Blackwell.

Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge University Press.

Róg, T. (2025). Task-based language teaching and pragmatic development in second language learners. System, 130, 103632.

Savignon, S. J. (2002). Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education. Yale University Press.

Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Blackwell.

Su, Y., & Chen, X. (2026). Artificial intelligence-supported conversational practice and interactional competence in language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning.

Supunya, S., & Tangkiengsirisin, S. (2025). Interactional competence in second language communication: A multidimensional perspective. LEARN Journal, 18(1), 1–20.

Syquia, J., & Leeming, P. (2024). Assessing interactional competence in group discussion: Developing and validating an interaction-focused rating scale. Language Testing in Asia, 14, 1–18.

Uyar, A., & Balaman, U. (2024). Embodied resources and interactional competence in L2 paired speaking assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly.

Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Routledge.

Yalew, E., et al. (2024). The effectiveness of pragmatics instruction in second and foreign language learning: A meta-analysis. System, 124, 103365.

Young, R. F. (2011). Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 426–443). Routledge.

Published

2026-03-31

How to Cite

Rana Ahmad Shaheed. (2026). RE-CONCEPTUALIZING COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING FOR DEVELOPING INTERACTIONAL COMPETENCE AND AUTHENTIC LANGUAGE USE. International Premier Journal of Languages & Literature, 4(3 (s2), 852-882. https://doi.org/10.68156/s6qn6023