Critical Communicative Competence: The Interplay of Cognitive Flexibility, Language Awareness, and Cultural Awareness

Abstract

Changing living and communicative contexts have resulted in individuals assuming multiple and variable identities and facing diverse discursive and linguistic practices. Therefore, in the last decades, critical communicative competence has been established as an essential framework for addressing contemporary challenges. In the chapter, critical communicative competence is analytically explored through fundamental characteristics of critical thinking and a key competence as a complex interplay of cognitive, emotional-evaluative, and actional dimensions, implied on each of three interrelated components of communicative competence: cognitive, linguistic, and contextual. In the cognitive domain, multicultural and multimedia contexts demand cognitive flexibility in schemas and strategies. Critical linguistic awareness is essential in the linguistic domain as it enables a speaker to recognise the constructive and interpretative nature of language. In the contextual domain, critical cultural awareness is a tool for understanding how speakers’ choices are influenced by their culture and context. Despite the analytical approach, dimensions and components are considered interrelated and interdependent, and only in interaction, leading to more responsible and sensitive communication.

1. Introduction

Various and changing living and communicative contexts, which today’s societies and individuals encounter due to population fluctuations, social changes, and technological development, have led to the instability of living, professional, and interest environments. As a result, individuals assume numerous and more variable identities than before and, when entering communicative situations in different environments, confront a broader range of discursive and linguistic practices. This process is reflected in re-questioning traditional concepts of languages and cultures, language varieties and discursive patterns, and the relationships between speakers. Consequently, the communicative demands imposed by new circumstances on individuals and society have also affected the understanding of communicative competence. Therefore, besides the relationship between language and reference, questioning how language reflects the real or imagined world, and the relationship between language and the individual, examining how individuals shape their perceptions of reality based on language, the focus has been placed primarily on the relationship between language and culture/society. Therefore, the essential question has become how text functions in context, with text understood as any linguistic realisation and context as the broadest sociocultural framework in which an individual operates linguistically, demanding a continuous search for knowledge, the development of new skills, and the formation of stances [1].

Due to these new circumstances, as in Ref. [2] asserts, the functional concept of communicative competence, which could be broadly defined as the ability to understand and use information from texts and to create appropriate and effective texts [3, 4], has faced numerous criticisms in Australia since the early 1990s. Sociologists have warned that such a model encourages competitive individualism; post-structuralists and feminist theorists have argued that the emphasis on the individual or personal perspective diminishes the understanding of how discourse shapes social relations; systemic functional linguists have cautioned that due to the emphasis on “experience,” personal growth, and literary narrative, students from the most vulnerable groups do not acquire sufficient explicit knowledge of how typical genres, which are expressions of intellectual and political power, work, and they do not acquire strategies for producing them; cultural and media studies have pointed out the systematic omission of visual texts, texts in new media, and texts in new work environments [2]. Therefore, critical communicative competence has been established as the theoretical framework that allows addressing the challenges of contemporary times.

2. From functional towards critical communicative competence

Critical communicative competence is not a homogenous concept. It is defined more narrowly or broadly, emphasising different dimensions and components in various disciplines and geographical areas with different historical and cultural backgrounds [5]. Therefore, in defining it, we will start from the fundamental concepts of critical thinking and competence.

2.1 Critical thinking in communication

As reference [6] noted, critical thinking is a broad and relatively abstract concept. The author [7] categorises its definitions into two groups, aligning with two perspectives on critical communication. The first group, primarily derived from philosophy and rhetoric, views critical thinking narrowly as the skill of analysing, evaluating, and constructing arguments. Therefore, critical thinking emphasises the ability to apply criteria, self-correction or critical reflection of one’s thought process, and sensitivity to context [6]. Similarly, the author [8] suggests that one of the most common narrowing concepts of critical communicative competence is its equation with the critical evaluation of information. For instance, in Singapore [2], where critical thinking was at the centre of educational reform as early as 1997, it is commonly associated with innovative and creative thinking and entrepreneurship but less with social and ethical issues.

The second group of definitions, stemming from a broader theory of knowledge and learning, views critical thinking as not just the skill of analysing, evaluating, and constructing arguments but also as a set of mental processes, problem-solving strategies, and creativity [6]. This group defines critical thinking as a permanent characteristic of an individual that incentivises him to approach activities with thoughtful scepticism aimed at deciding what to believe and how to act [9]. The authors of this group additionally emphasise intentionality and goal orientation, exploring assumptions, recognising hidden values, evaluating evidence, assessing the validity of conclusions, identifying and being aware of one’s own errors in thinking and listening [6, 10], as well as overcoming egocentrism, omniscience, omnipotence, and invulnerability [11].

Definitions of communicative competence based on this understanding of criticality are thus no longer considered simply as the ability to participate in existing linguistic practice [6, 8] but expand the concept of communicative competence, emphasising that an individual’s experience is historically shaped within specific power relations [8].

Therefore, the central consideration is focused on questions about the author‘s intent, the ideologies presented through the text, the societal role conveyed to the reader, and the values and viewpoints advocated or opposed [8]. Nevertheless, these approaches, while not denying the relations of social, cultural, and economic power that are expressed in texts, are focused on individual usage [2]. In Ref., the author [2] attributes the individual perspective to the fact that it arises from a psychological and psycholinguistic definition of communicative competence as an individual process rather than an activity embedded in a broader social context. Consequently, this perspective does not encompass those aspects of criticality that stress that communication is linked to social power and that critical communicative competence involves a critical attitude towards society and its beliefs.

Comparatively, the characteristics of uncritical and critical communication highlighted in the discussions can be illustrated in Table 1.

Characteristics of functional (non-critical) communication	Characteristics of critical communication
Motivation for personal goal/benefits	Motivation for critical communication
Emphasising the communicative function of language	Understanding the relationship between language and culture/society
Understanding communication as a cognitive process	Awareness of emotional-evaluative and actional dimensions of communication
Sensitivity for individual or personal context	Sensitivity for different sociocultural contexts
Egocentric perspective	Viewing from different perspectives and engaging in different roles
Schematic use of language and discursive patterns	Questioning, problem-solving and creativity in language use
Evaluating based on partial knowledge or schematic criteria	Analysing, evaluating, and constructing arguments based on systemic knowledge about communication, language, context, and relations between them
Participating in existing linguistic practice	Critical reflection on existing practices as a reflection of specific power relations, society, and its beliefs
Understanding, analysing, and using information or discursive patterns	Questioning and verifying information, exploring the author’s intentions, underlying assumptions, values
The fundamental guideline is to achieve a personal communicative goal	Taking responsibility for the consequences of one’s communicative activities, thus critically reflecting on one’s own and others’ communication
Effectiveness as a main criterion	Ethicality as a communicative corrective

Table 1.

Characteristics of non-critical and critical communication.

As it seems, separate and partial views of criticality can be transcendent by a holistic view of critical thinking, to which, according to references [4, 6], the following fundamental characteristics can be attributed:

1. Motivation for critical communication stems from an awareness that it leads to deeper understanding, prevents and resolves misunderstandings and conflicts, and enables creative transfer and problem-solving.

2. Sensitivity to the sociocultural context of all participants in a communicative event and the acceptance of others’ perspectives, even if they differ significantly from our own.

3. Understanding the complexity of language and communication, acknowledging that in addition to its cognitive dimension, communication possesses an emotional or affective (relational) dimension. The speaker and the listener do not enter emotionally, interest-wise, or value-neutral.

4. Evaluation based on well-defined criteria requires general, sociocultural, and linguistic knowledge.

5. Metacognition is the ability to reflect critically or self-reflect on one’s thought process.

6. In Ref. [4], Sternberg adds ethics and social responsibility, signifying an awareness that speech acts have consequences that speakers have to take responsibility for and that they strive to use language for the benefit of all.

2.2 Dimensions of critical communicative competence

In addition to equating critical communication with critical evaluation of information and discourse, another narrowing in understanding critical communication, according to reference [8], is that it is mainly placed at the cognitive level. Namely, limiting critical communication solely to the cognitive domain fails to explain some essential characteristics, such as the motivation for critical communication, positive attitudes towards it, awareness of its emotional dimension, and readiness for the ethical realisation of discourses and sociocultural language uses that are deemed justified. Such an approach also excludes the inclination to reject expressions that convey social relations that are not accepted. Therefore, another significant aspect in the definition of critical communicative competence is which dimensions constitute it, how they are interrelated and how they interact in communication.

The most widely accepted definition of key competencies has been formulated by reference [12], who defines them as complex systems of knowledge, beliefs, and action tendencies that are built on well-organised knowledge, fundamental skills (strategies), generalised attitudes, and cognitive styles [12]. Thus, competence is defined as a complex composition of three dimensions: cognitive (knowledge, skills, cognitive styles, and experience), emotional-evaluative (attitudes and beliefs), and actional (i.e. readiness to act by one’s own beliefs).

A somewhat different perspective on competence can be discerned from the definitions that served as the basis for understanding communicative competence in language teaching. In Ref. [13], it is defined as the ability of speakers to communicate or use language knowledge in accordance with various psychological, social, and linguistic circumstances. In his definition, the cognitive dimension is primarily associated with skills and less with knowledge, while, on the other hand, he claimed that it is essential not to separate cognitive from non-cognitive (affective and volitional) factors [13, 14]. Compared to reference [13], in Ref. [15], competence is understood as a synthesis of knowledge and skills required for communication. Thus, they expanded the understanding of the cognitive dimension while neglecting the emotional dimension.

On the opposite, the documents of the European Commission follow Weinert’s holistic understanding of competence [16], as The European Reference Framework: Key Competences for Lifelong Learning defines key competencies as combinations of knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to a specific context that individuals need for personal fulfilment and development, active citizenship, social inclusion, and employment [17]. Critical thinking, creativity, initiative, problem-solving, risk assessment, decision-making, and constructive emotional management are essential in developing and implementing all key competencies [17].

Similarly, the difference between a one-dimensional and a multi-dimensional view of communicative competence is reflected in the analytical definition of its components. All the mentioned models emphasise two central components: linguistic (grammatical and textual) and contextual (pragmatic or sociolinguistic) competence, attributing them to the cognitive dimension since they emphasise the skills required for their performance and, to some extent, knowledge. Linguistic and contextual components are complemented with components related to cognitive processes. Canale and Swain, and Bachman talk about strategic competence, which Canale and Swain [15] understand as an organiser, and Bachman, following reference [18], understands it as a processor or a web of cognitive abilities that enable the use of linguistic and non-linguistic data to understand text formation. Some other models consider cognitive competence either as the ability to organise data [17, 19] or as factual knowledge of the world [20, 21, 22], and both relate them to skills required to perform established procedures in predictable contexts.

Because the three core components: cognitive, linguistic, and contextual, are primarily understood and analysed from a cognitive perspective, some authors try to incorporate non-cognitive dimensions into analytical models as additional components. References [19, 22], for instance, discuss the motivation for communication. At the same time, reference [17] includes a “positive attitude towards understanding in one’s mother tongue” and a “willingness to engage in critical and constructive dialogue, respect for aesthetic qualities, and a desire to achieve them, commitment or interest in communicating with others” as distinctive competencies.

Nevertheless, based on the essential characteristics of critical thinking, we must view these dimensions as interrelated and interacting throughout the communication process and include them in essential competencies rather than separating them. In doing so, we will rely on Weinert’s definition of competence and the areas of criticality defined by Barnett (as cited in [23]) as (1) propositions, ideas, and theories, especially in connection with systematic knowledge; (2) the individual’s inner world, where criticality is expressed through critical self-reflection; and (3) the external world, where critical thinking is expressed through critical action.

Therefore, we will place communicative competence in three dimensions: cognitive, emotional-evaluative, and action-oriented:

• The cognitive dimension refers to all elements that answer the question of what we can do, what we know, and how we reflect and improve our actions based on knowledge, experience, and beliefs. It encompasses cognitive, pragmatic, and language skills and strategies that enable the application of these skills while considering broader cognitive, language, and communication patterns and specific situations. It also includes metaknowledge or knowledge about the world in general and specific topics, language, its rules, genres and systems, sociocultural relations, linguistic diversity, and communication principles. On the other hand, it involves metacognition on one’s own or others’ language activities, the influence of emotions, biases, preferences, and values, and the appropriateness of evaluation criteria, enabling self-correction or improvement, knowledge transfer to new contexts, independent acquisition of new knowledge, and problem-solving.

• The emotional or evaluative dimension concerns the general emotional orientation and emotional and value-based attitudes towards the subject (“world”), the way it is presented, the circumstances, as well as language in general and its diversity, by which it becomes an expression of individual or collective identity and a carrier of social power. A positive attitude does not mean uncritical acceptance of familiar practices and stances but rather a critical attitude towards established patterns, stereotypes, and prejudices and a willingness to embrace diversity. This attitude is closely linked to an individual’s knowledge of language and communication, experience, and the ability for knowledge- and experience-based reflection. Its goal is not only to recognise or raise awareness of one’s or others’ attitudes, as can be inferred from selected linguistic means, but also to reflect on the legitimacy of such attitudes from an ethical perspective [24].

• From the perspective of the actional dimension, within the concept of critical communication, actions are initiated not only by motivational elements that predominantly prevail in a functional communication model but also stem from individuals’ needs, desires, and wishes. Equally important is the moral aspect, which implies a willingness to act responsibly and justly by ethical, social, cultural, and personal norms. A critical speaker strives to promote linguistic practices that they consider ethical and constructive and to change those that express unacceptable relationships [24, 25].

Critical communicative competence can thus be defined as a level of communicative competence that enhances functional and cultural communicative competence with critical thinking. Participants in communication are sensitive to the individual and the sociocultural context; they consider the emotional and evaluative dimensions and are aware of the need for evaluation based on credible criteria, transcending emotional biases, prejudices, and established perspectives. They also self-reflect on their communication (metacognition) and consider their ethical and social responsibility for their communicative actions.

3. Complexity of critical communicative competence

Critical communication is a multi-dimensional activity embedded in the relationship between the real world, language, and society/culture. The cognitive, emotional-evaluative, and actional dimensions are interrelated and realised through three core competencies: cognitive, linguistic, and contextual, as illustrated in Figure 1, where the circular diagram depicts the interconnections of core competencies, and arrows represent the realisation of dimensions in each of them.

Figure 1.

Interconnections of dimensions and core competencies of critical communicative competence.

3.1 Cognitive component

Within the cognitive domain, according to reference [19], the processes of conceptual and logical organisation, as well as the storage of knowledge and experiences, are vital in connecting these knowledge and experiences into new networks, especially when dealing with problem-solving or new communicative circumstances. In this context, cognitive linguistics [26] and the theory of the psychology of communication [27] emphasise that language is not an autonomous phenomenon involving unique, specialised cognitive processes; instead, it is determined by the same cognitive processes found in other non-linguistic domains: memory, conceptualisation, logical reasoning, and perception [26]. This implies that cognitive abilities can be discussed on two levels: general cognitive processes and communicative competencies, through which these processes are enacted in specific ways for understanding and producing texts.

3.1.1 Cognitive processes in communication

General cognitive abilities related to communication, as defined by Ule Nastran [27], fall under the broader concept of perception. Perception encompasses information’s reception and selection, categorisation and organisation, and primary interpretation. When selecting information to focus on, we are primarily guided by distinguishing essential pieces of information from unimportant ones, ignoring specific messages, and adapting them to our existing cognitive apparatus, typification, and stereotyping. Therefore, the most crucial cognitive process is categorisation based on the principle of similarity or proximity into categories (concepts, representations). These categories are placed within cognitive schemas, determining our prior expectations [27].

While categories could be defined as individual concepts or representations, cognitive schemas are the organisation of knowledge about a particular person, object, situation, event, or the relationship between categories [27]. Schemas determine the characteristics attributed to individual concepts and what we consider accurate, as well as allow us to draw conclusions, explore assumptions and hidden values, assess the validity of conclusions, and extend our understanding and interpretation beyond directly given information. General categories and schemas may contain numerous subcategories based on sample cases, enabling flexible interpretation and, consequently, modifying initial categories (compare [27, 28, 29]).

From a communicative perspective, Brown [30] identified not only expectations related to schematic knowledge about specific topics but also those stemming from schematic knowledge about textual genres and their typical context (expected speaker, audience, time, place). Individuals form this knowledge based on their language usage experience and, during communication, invoke the entire discursive event, such as a lecture, and its typical microelements, like an introduction with the announcement of the topic and the presentation of the lecture’s structure (see also [28]).

Similarly, Hart [26] defines fundamental cognitive processes and links them with discursive strategies for their realisation. The comprehensive understanding that stems from a schema or scenario with which a speaker has associated a particular scene or event is associated with the structural configuration of the text. Comparing experiences enables framing, enabling the speaker/listener to assume which actors and processes will be given greater importance, how metaphorical meanings and symbols should be understood, and how connotations are assigned to words or texts. The ability to direct attention is the basis for identification; that is, the speaker chooses which aspects (features) of a given situation/scene to include in the presentation and how to place them in relation to each other. Finally, the positioning depends on our chosen perspective or our placement in space, time, and a particular role [26]. Thus, it defines the sociocultural context from which we will operate.

3.1.2 Cognitive flexibility as a distinctive characteristic of critical cognitive competence

Rost [29] points out that schemas are not only used for interpreting texts but also for generating or retrieving them. In this process, we summarise and refresh the content by preserving the schematic framework while often modifying specific details, omitting them, or adding new ones to align our understanding with our culturally determined knowledge. From a critical perspective, it is essential to be aware that different cognitive strategies can, in specific contexts, be linked to the emotional-evaluative dimension. For instance, new information may be suppressed if it is unpleasant, threatening, or conflict with our environment, and thus undermines our belief in our inner strength and integration. At the same time, overly generalised, stereotypical categories can develop, into which all units of a particular general category are classified, regardless of their individuality or other sample cases. Such overly generalised categories are stereotypes [27], which include positive or negative attitudes towards the category [27].

Therefore, from the perspective of critical communication, in today’s multicultural society, cognitive flexibility is crucial in all cognitive processes. This is particularly important in categorisation, where static and unchanging schemas can lead to generalisations and evaluations based solely on one’s own cultural background and values. Instead, schemas should be open to variations and transitions, allowing for flexibility and consideration of different perspectives and sociocultural contexts. Compared to functional communication, critical communication has changed the fundamental orientation of participants towards the text and each other. In functional reading, the reader’s orientation is harmonised with the text, primarily seeking understanding. In critical reading, the readers are oriented towards the text; their primary purpose is to interpret and evaluate it [31]. Recognising excessive generalisation, stereotypes, and prejudices and avoiding their use requires him to change perspectives, reflect on implications and place the data in a meaningful context to analyse attitudes and positions from two aspects: textual and communicative [31].

Regarding communicative strategies, flexibility becomes a fundamental requirement, mainly due to digital communication, which is significantly influenced by multimedia and interactivity. This interaction affects the structure of communicative events, participants’ roles, and the interweaving of intentions, discourses, genres, and perspectives [32].

3.2 Linguistic competence

Traditionally, definitions of communicative competence have focused on linguistic processes. These include the formation of the literal meaning of sentences, which links processes of perception and attention direction, decoding words (i.e. recognising words in sound or writing), associating words with reference, constructing the propositional meaning of sentences based on the rules of a given language, and shaping the literal meaning of a text. The latter involves placing sentences within a textual framework and complementing them with data from the co-text using cohesion and coherence, logical reasoning based on given data, and new information [22, 23, 29, 33].

3.2.1 Constructional nature of linguistic activity

Despite discussing linguistic skills, they cannot be observed separated from the cognitive or contextual component. For example, besides cognitive effects in word recognition, Rost [29] and Kranjc [33] emphasise that understanding words does not stop at recognising a word and connecting it to a concept but must also be linked to a specific reference. Due to the polysemous nature of most words, we must decide which of a word’s multiple meanings is realised in a particular sentence based on the context or world knowledge. This can communicate the creator’s experience, evaluation, and identity, which the reader may recognise, accept, or not [34].

Similarly, constructing propositional meaning is not limited to understanding words and their grammatical connections. It extends beyond that. As Lurija [35] pointed out, polysemy can be present in most sentences, even though we usually understand them without difficulty based on our linguistic knowledge. Complications arise in complex grammatical constructions requiring substantial transformations, such as nominalisation, prepositional phrases used to express relations between abstract concepts. On the other hand, a sentence’s propositional meaning is only part of what the author had in mind. Therefore, readers logically infer the unspoken. In addition, pragmatics has shifted attention from literal towards communicated meaning, as texts are always received within a specific speech situation, which is inferred based on textual and sociolinguistic schemas [34].

According to Hart [26] notes, it is essential to recognise that linguistic encoding is always a construction because the same situation, event, entity, or relationship can be represented in different ways by choosing linguistic elements. Namely, linguistic activity involves continuously choosing linguistic elements [36], which do not always occur at a conscious level, especially in a first language. Therefore, it is reflected and thoughtful choices that can improve an individual’s communicative ability. Thus, conscious choices can enhance an individual’s communicative competence. Effective language selection depends on the awareness of linguistic choice possibilities, knowledge of the language system, the ability to use various strategies, and considerations of contextual factors, especially the audience [37].

Critical linguistic awareness contributes significantly to developing critical communicative competence as it incentivises multi-dimensional activity at the linguistic level and considers the interplay of linguistic processes with cognitive and contextual aspects [37].

3.2.2 Critical linguistic awareness as a tool for realising critical linguistic competence

The concept of linguistic awareness has been formed in the past few decades, initially referring to the relationship between language use and linguistic knowledge. Donmall, as cited in Ref. [38], defined it as an individual’s sensitivity to language and awareness of its nature and role in human life, while in Ref. [39], it is defined as individuals’ ability to reflect on, and match, intuitively spoken and written utterances with their knowledge of the language. This tacit knowledge, as stated in Ref. [39], can be made explicit through outward expression ranging from spontaneous self-correction to explicit reflection on the production of utterances. A broader perspective on linguistic awareness was presented by Lier [40], defining it as the understanding of human linguistic activity and the role of language in thinking, learning, and social life, as well as an awareness of the power and control language affords and the complex relationship between language and culture. While his definition emphasised the cognitive dimension of language, it also incorporated the social and cultural dimensions by highlighting the role of language in social life.

However, even such an understanding of linguistic awareness does not facilitate a critical perspective on language in its sociocultural function. As Ochs [41] suggests, for an individual’s competent participation in a social group, it is essential to understand how people construct social situations with language and other symbolic tools. In every community, members convey social information using typical communicative and language forms. Therefore, grammar and vocabulary enable participants to recognise the social situation in which communication occurs.

Svalberg [42] thus concludes that the contemporary notion of linguistic awareness, as it has evolved in the last two decades, is not merely intellectual and passive. The development of linguistic awareness fosters engagement with the language, which can be intellectual, focusing on patterns, emotional, emphasising attitudes, or socio-political, where the emphasis is on effective communication and interaction as social action [42]. Similarly, other researchers have identified components of linguistic awareness. In Ref. [43], authors, for example, describe five domains of linguistic awareness: affective or emotional, social, the domain of power, cognitive, and performance. According to their definitions, the affective or emotional domain pertains to the relationship between the communicator’s feelings and cognitive processes. They associate the social domain mainly with the influences of a contemporary, globalising society where issues often stem from ethnic diversity. The domain of power considers language as a tool for manipulation, thus including an awareness of hidden meanings, unspoken assumptions, and rhetorical “traps” characteristic of holders of social power. The cognitive domain encompasses the relationship between language and thinking or cognitive processes, assuming metalinguistic awareness, reflection, analysis, and the students’ metacognition about their communication and thinking. The performance domain is mainly related to language use and communicative strategies.

When comparing the descriptions of their components with those in a general definition of key competence, we can observe that the domains of power and performance have singled out and emphasised particular aspects of cognitive and emotive-evaluative dimensions. This means that critical linguistic awareness can be defined as realising through three dimensions [24]:

• The cognitive (intellectual) component of linguistic awareness primarily refers to how we use language, our linguistic skills, metalinguistic knowledge, and our ability to reflect on our own or others’ language use.

• The emotional or evaluative aspect relates firstly to one’s general emotional and evaluative attitude towards language as a means of communication in a specific speech situation, towards language as a vehicle of societal power, and towards individual linguistic elements, which can be either negative or positive [44]. This attitude is closely linked to knowledge about language and communication and the ability to reflect on them. However, critical communication goes beyond merely recognising the attitude based on the text; it also raises questions about whether such an attitude is justified and ethical.

• The actional dimension means that the individual strives to embody those aspects and characteristics of the linguistic activity or elements to which they hold a positive attitude and attempts to prevent those to which they hold a negative attitude.

As claimed by Clark and Ivanić [45] and as it is evident from the analytical representation of linguistic competence, it is impossible to think critically about linguistic elements without relating them to how they are used in a particular context or independently of social relationships.

3.3 Contextual component

Changes in the concept of communicative competence are closely related to the understanding of context and contextual determinants. Despite, as stated by Kramsch [46], that context was always at the core of communicative language learning, it was reduced in the 1970s and 1980s to one-to-one verbal interactions and perceived as static and objective. Conversely, the 1990s brought back the importance of context on a much larger cultural scale. At the same time, psycholinguistics and cognitive linguistics define context as a mental structure because we continuously categorise the world around us and ourselves in ways that are socially and culturally determined [47]. As a result, the discussion of communicative competence now leans more towards a socially oriented perspective, upgrading the previously dominant cognitive and individual views of language use and learning [48].

3.3.1 Relationship between language and culture

At the core of understanding contextual competence is the relationship between language and culture, which can be observed from three perspectives suggested by K. Risanger and cited in Ref. [23]: sociocultural, linguistic, and individual or psychological.

• Discussing the embeddedness of linguistic activity into a broader sociocultural context, Lemke [49] emphasised that individuals in their social environment acquire organisational patterns of language use, reflecting established social power and solidarity relationships. In each speech act, a speaker indicates the role they have assumed and their place within the social system through the choice of linguistic varieties. Sociolinguistic competence is realised through the speaker’s choices of genres, discursive practices, and communicative patterns. It also involves an understanding of how the social context is expressed, an evaluation of the appropriateness of these choices, and a willingness to either maintain or alter conventions. However, critical competence requires more than mere knowledge and unreflective positive or negative attitudes. It necessitates reflecting on the value systems and social relationships inherent in communicative patterns, and assessing whether the social power dynamics expressed through language are ethically justifiable.

• From a linguistic perspective, the chosen linguistic elements can reflect values, attitudes, beliefs, stereotypes, and even prejudices we express as bearers of a particular identity. Additionally, an acknowledgement of interactivity and inseparability of cognitive, linguistic, and cultural competence in critical communication has changed the understanding of the relationship between neutral and metaphorical expression.

As argued by Gibbs [50] and Leeuwen [51], it has traditionally been believed, dating back to Plato, that the world and its relations are most accurately expressed through non-figurative expressions as better reflecting the real world. In contrast, the figurative or poetic perspective was considered distorted and often undesirable in science, education, and philosophy. In line with this duality, semantics in linguistics deals with the relationships between symbols (signifiers) and elements of the natural world (signified), but the relationship between meaning and context was relegated to rhetoric and pragmatics [50]. However, Gibbs [50] challenges traditional views by suggesting that metaphor, metonymy, and irony are not merely departures from neutral understanding; instead, people conceptualise their experiences in the external world through images and figurative expressions. Therefore, when explaining them, the relationship between signifier and signified must include intention, circumstances, and cultural schemas that offer us keys for interpretation and understanding.

• While understanding the established relations between language and society certainly shapes expectations and influences prevailing choices, it cannot explain why an individual chooses, modifies, or even discards them despite being aware of the conventions. This question can only be answered by considering the specific circumstances in which the speaker and listener enter with their ideas about the world, their roles, their perceptions of each other, and their relationships [52]. As emphasised by Ule Nastran [27], the selection and understanding of patterns can only be interpreted through an individual’s pragmatic competence, that is, the interpretation of sociolinguistic and stylistic frameworks based on their knowledge of social conventions and systemic possibilities, as well as considering personal experiences, especially one’s viewpoints, motivation, values, beliefs.

The critical speaker will not adopt established patterns uncritically but will be aware that they express their identity through all their language activities. Therefore, they will analyse the relationship between the language they have chosen or will choose and the specific circumstances and try to empathise with the perspective of others.

3.3.2 Critical cultural awareness as a tool for realising critical contextual competence

Speakers’ identities that will predominate in a specific situation and language varieties within they will select or interpret communicative patterns, words, or sentences, depending on several contextual factors. In their choices, the critical speaker relies on knowledge of the linguistic elements and the systemic relationships among them, conventional ways of expressing intentions in each context, and their interpretation of the current communicative situation. They are aware that linguistic choices express their identity and are based on their own, secondary, or collective experiences, values, and beliefs [52]. Consequently, they develop a positive attitude towards both formal and informal language variants and socially responsible language use, and have a negative attitude towards offensive, marginalising, and stereotypical representations. Following their attitudes, they are willing to use language to communicate ethically and responsibly and prepare to bear the consequences of their actions. Therefore, the tool for realising critical contextual competence is a developed (linguistic) cultural awareness, which can be—similar to linguistic awareness—discussed within three dimensions [52]:

1. The cognitive dimension of cultural awareness refers to how we use language for identification and the knowledge, thoughts, ideas, judgements, and evaluations of a specific (micro)culture, its linguistic expressions, the identity aspect of language, and sociolinguistic principles.

2. The emotional-evaluative dimension is related primarily to language as a bearer of social power. It involves a positive disposition towards one’s own and others’ social group and language, including intra-cultural language variants (registers) as an expression of social micro-groups.

3. From the perspective of the activity dimension, they seek to promote intercultural tolerant, argumentative, and emphatic communication while challenging egocentric, non-tolerant, exclusive, and hateful speech.

Critical communicative competence requires rhetorical sensitivity, the ability to adapt communication style to intentions or to others’ communicative patterns [27, 53]. “Rhetorically sensitive individuals are more flexible in communication and attempt to balance their interests with those of others. They assume whether a particular form of communication is appropriate, when they can say something and when they cannot, while not concealing their fundamental ideas and genuine emotions” [27].

4. Conclusion

Recognising (social) criticality as an essential trait of communicative competence is, first and foremost, a response to the processes of globalisation and a reflection of the demand for developing “intercultural and inter-ethnical understanding and respect for communication diversity…” [54]. Simultaneously, the understanding of interculturality, on both inter- and intra-linguistic levels, has contributed to acknowledging the diversity of an individual’s language identities and the identity dimension of every language activity. This approach has brought attention to the relationship between language and culture, a perspective that Porter and Samovar summarised as “What we are talking about, how we are saying it, how we are seeing it, our inclination or disinclination, how we are thinking and what we are thinking about, are influenced by our culture” [55]. Consequently, Larre [56] suggests that language serves as a bridge between the sociocultural context and an individual’s mental activity. It is a cognitive tool individuals employ to make sense of the world, which is why language, culture, and thinking cannot be viewed from a singular perspective.

A critical speaker no longer perceives language merely as a means of communication but recognises it as a system of synonymic or antonymic, same- or different-functional elements that enable the speaker to refer to and comment on the content or context, as well as a mean for express, maintain or change social relations. Therefore, they regarded communication not only as a cognitive but also as an emotional process, where every speech act has consequences and demands responsibility.