ABSTRACT
The real world dynamics that challenge a stable or context-free definition of communicative competence have given rise to a number of alternative views. For example, Alptekin (2002) argues that Canale and Swain’s native speaker grammatical competence is an inappropriate aim in contexts where students are more likely to use English with other non-native speakers. Alptekin suggests that a more appropriate aim is the kind of linguistic competence developed by successful learners of English. Smith (2002) proposes that exploring patterns of communication in social networks can help define communicative competence for groups of individuals. Moreover, Leung suggests that we should go back to the ethnographic bases of Hymes’ (1972) original formulation of communicative competence, arguing that language educators should ‘re-engage with the socially dynamic uses of English and continually re-work the contextual meaning of the concept’ (Leung 2005: 138).
