CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGICS (ISSN: 2767-3278)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjp
11
VOLUME:
Vol.06 Issue04 2025
10.37547/pedagogics-crjp-06-05-03
Page: - 11-17
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Fundamental Principles of
Developing Students’ Linguistic
Competence Through the Use of Literary Names
Zayniddin Sanakulov
PhD in Philology, Associate Professor, Chirchik State Pedagogical University, Uzbekistan
Received:
13 March 2025
Accepted:
09 April 2025
Published:
11 May 2025
INTRODUCTION
It is well known that educational standards serve as a
normative foundation for ensuring the effectiveness of any
educational system. In particular, the State Educational
Standards (SES) define the minimum requirements for
learners’ knowledge, skills, and competencies in the
learning process. A review of European education –
recognized for its academic excellence – reveals the
significance of the Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages (CEFR), developed by the
Council of Europe in 2001 . CEFR is a universal standard
for learning, teaching, and assessing foreign languages. It
enables the assessment of language proficiency across
different countries using a common set of criteria.A
detailed study of this framework reveals several key
advantages in the context of foreign language acquisition:
-
a universal standard for comparison
: CEFR
enables a unified evaluation across all languages. For
example, a learner’s B1 level in German corresponds to the
same level in English or French, allowing for international
recognition and objective comparison of language
proficiency.
-
clear learning trajectories
: CEFR provides
explicit descriptions of what learners should achieve at
each stage. For instance:
•
A1 – understanding and using basic phrases;
•
B2 – comprehending complex texts and engaging
in fluent conversation;
•
C2 – fully understanding and producing academic
or scientific texts.
-
international recognition and certification
:
CEFR has become the basis for internationally recognized
certifications such as Telc, Goethe-Zertifikat, IELTS,
DELF, TOEFL, and Cambridge English, which are widely
accepted by universities and employers.
-
guidance for educators and institutions
: CEFR
supports not only learners but also educational institutions
ABSTRAC
This article aims to explore the fundamental principles of developing students’ linguistic competence based on literary onoma stic
units, with a focus on linguistic-pedagogical aspects. It analyzes the use of onomastic elements – such as personal names, place
names, historical events, and fictional characters – found in literary texts within the learning process. These units help students
not only enhance their vocabulary but also develop an understanding of cultural, social, and historical contexts. Further more, the
paper highlights the methodological foundations for effectively integrating literary onomastic elements into the formation of
communicative, cultural, and pragmatic components of linguistic competence. The study presents recommendations based on
interactive teaching methods, contextual analysis, and translation practices.
Keywords:
Literary names, onomastic units, linguistic competence, student, language teaching, intercultural communication, didactic
principles.
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGICS (ISSN: 2767-3278)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjp
12
in curriculum design, material development, and
assessment based on standardized benchmarks.
Thus, CEFR plays a pivotal role in foreign language
education due to its transparent, internationally recognized,
and objective system of evaluation. Today, CEFR serves
as a principal reference in teaching major languages like
English, German, French, Spanish, and Italian. A
comparative analysis between CEFR and Uzbekistan’s
foreign language standards reveals many commonalities.
For instance, the state resolution “On the Approval of the
State Educational Standard for Foreign Languages within
the System of Continuing Education” can be considered
an analogue to CEFR. Likewise, the “State Educational
Standard for General Secondary Education” recently
adopted, introduces subject-specific assessment levels
(A1, A2, B1, B2, etc.), mirroring CEFR’s structure. As
Baranov noted in his 1981 study, “One of the key
objectives of education is to cultivate students’ ability to
apply their knowledge in real-life situations and prepare
individuals to integrate into society. In this context, SES
should not only focus on learning outcomes but also meet
the demands of modern pedagogical processes” .
Main Part.
When analyzing educational standards, it is essential to
describe and comparatively examine the components of
competence and linguistic competence, which fall within
the scope of this study.
According to the CEFR, “competences are the sum of
declarative knowledge, procedural skills, and existential
competences that enable individuals to perform linguistic
actions.”
Declarative Knowledge
Procedural Skills
Existential Competences
Knowledge of facts, e.g.,
grammar rules, cultural
norms
Automatized ability to
apply such knowledge in
context
Personal traits, attitudes, and
motivation toward the target
language and culture
Declarative knowledge refers to explicit understanding that
learners can verbalize (e.g., rules of grammar or cultural
characteristics of a society). Procedural skills imply semi-
automated behavior based on internalized norms (e.g.,
appropriate social behavior or using grammar correctly
without conscious effort). Existential competences refer to
personality traits, values, and attitudes –such as motivation
to learn a language or confidence in communication.
Foreign sources also introduce the term auxiliary
competences , especially as part of procedural skills. For
example, the ability to quickly and automatically recognize
words in spoken speech is a partial competence necessary
for listening comprehension. These auxiliary competences
are also used in relation to traditional language skills:
listening,
reading,
speaking,
writing,
audiovisual
comprehension, and mediation (interpreting or conveying
meaning rather than literal translation).
These competences are further classified as follows:
•
By process
: productive, receptive, interactive, and
mediation;
•
By modality
: spoken or written;
•
By perception
: auditory or visual.
This classification provides a detailed framework for
describing both traditional and complex language
activities. For example:
•
Giving a public presentation = spoken, monologic,
productive activity;
•
Conversing with others = oral interaction;
•
Reading a text = visual, receptive activity;
•
Interpreting meaning = oral mediation.
This system of categorization is a key component of CEFR,
used not only to define levels of competence but also to
implement widely accepted instructional approaches.
The next important concept is that of linguistic
competence, which has been defined in various ways by
scholars. Based on a comprehensive analysis of existing
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGICS (ISSN: 2767-3278)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjp
13
definitions, the following authorial interpretation is
proposed:
Linguistic competence
is an individual’s deep knowledge
of the language system, including the ability to correctly
use phonological, morphological, syntactic, and lexical
rules, as well as the skill to apply this knowledge
effectively in speech activities and in new communicative
contexts. This competence represents an integrated form of
declarative knowledge, procedural skills, and existential
competences, enabling individuals to engage in accurate
and meaningful communication.
This definition can be regarded as more comprehensive for
several reasons:
•
It covers all components of the language system
:
For example, Tikhomirova (1995) defines linguistic
competence as limited to the knowledge of phonological,
morphological, syntactic, and lexical rules. The definition
presented here not only includes mastery but also
emphasizes the ability to use them practically.
•
It incorporates both speech activity and
communicative function
: Scholars like Bim (1995) and
Minyar-Beloruchev (1984) focus on linguistic competence
as the mastery of linguistic tools. This definition expands
on that by connecting language knowledge with real-world
speech performance.
•
It bridges the gap between language knowledge
and usage
: While Minyar-Beloruchev (1984) highlights
understanding the rules of language use, this definition
integrates both the theoretical knowledge and its practical
application.
•
It emphasizes the application of knowledge in
novel situations
: Nabieva stresses the importance of
independent application of linguistic knowledge in
unfamiliar linguistic contexts. This aspect is also clearly
reflected in the definition provided here.
•
It encompasses different levels of language
proficiency
: Shadmankulova (2023) connects linguistic
competence with acquiring and using knowledge across
phonetic, lexical, grammatical, and syntactic levels. This
broader perspective is embedded in our definition as well.
•
It harmonizes the internal components of
competence
:
Namely,
declarative
knowledge
(understanding rules and structures), procedural skills
(automatic application of these rules), and existential
competence (motivation and personal characteristics
related to language learning).
Hence, this definition integrates all core features found in
leading theories on linguistic competence. It emphasizes
not only the internalization of linguistic structures but also
the ability to use them effectively in various
communicative situations and to develop linguistic
thinking in tandem with personal and cognitive
competences.
The teaching of literature – and especially the integration
of literary texts and materials – plays a crucial role in the
purposeful development of linguistic competence. For this
reason, language instructors must rely on well-grounded
didactic and methodological principles.
Contemporary research in foreign language methodology
suggests that no single teaching method should be
considered universally dominant. For instance, traditional
methods like audiolingualism or communicative didactics,
once widespread, have seen a decline. Funk attributes this
shift to the lack of conclusive evidence proving that one
specific method can universally achieve all learning goals.
Additionally, scientific validation of the effectiveness of a
single
approach
across
diverse
learners
remains
challenging. Thus, the current trend in language teaching
emphasizes didactic-methodological principles rather than
rigid methods.
These principles provide general guidance for making
pedagogical decisions during instruction and are often
grounded in empirical research. They are based on several
assumptions:
•
Learning occurs under the influence of multiple
internal and external factors;
•
Learners create connections between real-life
experiences and foreign language concepts;
•
Learners generate hypotheses about language
structure, mimic native speakers, and employ various
strategies;
•
While general learning processes are relatively
similar across learners, certain aspects are highly
individual.
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGICS (ISSN: 2767-3278)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjp
14
In recent years, language-teaching institutions have
increasingly emphasized the importance of adhering to
certain principles. For example, the Goethe Institute’s
Scientific Council issued 24 theses on language teaching in
1998, and the Central Office for Schools Abroad (ZfA)
published pedagogical recommendations in 2009 within
the framework of the “German as a Foreign Language”
curriculum (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Modern teaching principles and linguocultural approaches
According to the language-oriented approach to action, a
core principle in modern foreign language teaching,
language learners and users must be able to fulfill
communicative tasks actively in real-life contexts. This
principle holds a central position in many general didactic
frameworks. It enables educators to assess how learners are
likely to “act linguistically” in real-world situations.
From a foreign language instruction perspective, this
approach involves:
•
Training learners to use language in authentic
communicative situations;
•
Emphasizing
the
availability
of
linguistic
resources, i.e., students must acquire sufficient lexical and
grammatical competence.
Under this approach, students are expected to complete
practical communicative tasks, such as:
•
Searching for information of personal interest on
the internet;
•
Asking for directions or navigating urban
environments;
•
Discussing academic, professional, or personal
issues with colleagues;
•
Analyzing texts for key information;
Mode
rn
tea
ching
princ
ipl
es
and li
ng
uoc
ult
ura
l
approa
che
s
A language-oriented approach to action
Competency-based approach
Student-centered approach
Increasing student engagement
Interactive approach
Principle of independent learning
Intercultural approach
Plurilingual approach
Task-based approach
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGICS (ISSN: 2767-3278)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjp
15
•
Expressing disagreement or filing complaints;
•
Assisting beginners in learning German, and so on.
The action-oriented approach focuses on using language in
authentic
contexts and
aims
to
foster
learners'
communicative competences. It not only supports the
theoretical acquisition of grammar and vocabulary but also
ensures their application in a wide range of communication
scenarios, ultimately improving the effectiveness of
foreign language instruction.
An analysis of domain-specific literature reveals that the
development of linguistic competence in foreign languages
requires a competence-based approach. Within the CEFR
framework, the action-oriented approach is closely tied to
the formation and development of various competences.
Every educational process is, in essence, directed toward
fostering specific competences in learners, encompassing
the full range described earlier.
Competence-based learning implies the need to assess to
what extent learners have acquired specific competences
within a given timeframe. However, not all competences
can be measured equally. In foreign language education,
for example, it is difficult to assess existential (personal)
competences directly. As a result, assessments usually
focus on procedural partial competences such as listening,
speaking, and writing.
Developing competence also requires a clear focus on
learning outcomes—what students must achieve and how
they can reach those outcomes—as well as on the didactic
and methodological strategies that best support these goals.
Thus, competence development involves not only setting
educational objectives but also making appropriate choices
regarding instructional content and teaching methods. In
recent years, the competence-based approach to teaching
and assessment has become a fundamental principle of
methodological and didactic practice. Even though it is not
yet defined as an independent concept within the CEFR, its
widespread implementation across the globe – especially
in countries like Australia, Canada, and the United States
– demonstrates its practical importance.
A deeper analysis of the competence-based approach
reveals several key elements:
•
Clear formulation of expected outcomes (“what
students must know” and “what they must be able to do”);
•
Use of diverse assessment tools (self-assessments,
tests, practical tasks, and research projects);
•
Transparency in the learning process, so that
learners understand the purpose of acquiring certain
knowledge and how it applies in real-life situations.
Competence-based education has now become an integral
part of instructional practice. In modern textbooks and
manuals, learning goals are often stated in the form of
competences at the beginning of each lesson or unit. As is
well known, many university syllabi and course modules
in bachelor’s and master’s programs are currently being
designed around competences.
In
conclusion,
competence-based
education
is
a
methodological approach that equips learners not only with
theoretical knowledge but also with the ability to apply that
knowledge in real-life contexts. This approach is widely
accepted not only across Europe but globally. One of its
most important features is its emphasis on transparent
evaluation and ensuring that students understand the
relevance and application of what they learn.
While the two main principles discussed above (CEFR and
competence orientation) are universal in teaching both
languages and other subjects, researchers have also
identified additional didactic-methodological principles
essential for developing linguistic competence in students.
Modern language education incorporates a variety of
teaching principles designed to support the comprehensive
development of learners’ linguistic competences. These
principles are responsive to learners' individual needs,
learning styles, and communicative abilities, and they aim
to enhance students’ ability to interact confidently in a
foreign language.
For example:
•
The
learner-centered
approach
emphasizes
individual interests, needs, and learning strategies.
Instructional materials and methods must be diverse to
accommodate different learners. Giving students choices
in tasks and approaches can increase motivation and foster
personal learning strategies, thus contributing to the
development of linguistic competence.
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGICS (ISSN: 2767-3278)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjp
16
•
The learner activation principle suggests that
learners acquire deeper knowledge of language when they
engage with it actively. Asking questions, making
inferences, analyzing, and participating in discussions
allows learners to discover and internalize grammatical
structures
themselves.
This
fosters
metalinguistic
competence, i.e., the ability to reflect on and understand
how language works.
•
The interactive approach promotes language
learning through communication. Oral and written
exchanges
with
others
help
students
develop
communicative competence. Effective strategies include:
o
Role-playing real-life scenarios;
o
Cooperative learning formats (e.g., pair or group
work);
o
Dialogues
and
negotiations
that
build
communication skills.
•
The principle of independent learning encourages
students to take responsibility for their own language
development. This includes:
o
Self-assessment of language proficiency;
o
Formation of personal learning strategies;
o
Ongoing self-directed learning to improve
language skills over time.
•
The intercultural approach has gained importance
in globalized education. Every language is embedded in a
cultural context. Through this approach, students explore
the relationship between language and culture, identify
similarities and differences between their own and the
target culture, and develop intercultural communicative
competence.
•
The plurilingual approach enhances efficiency by
drawing on learners’ previous language learning
experiences. It helps them identify linguistic similarities
and differences across languages, and it encourages
strategic use of prior knowledge to learn new languages.
CONCLUSION
Summarizing the scientific evidence presented above, it
can be noted that didactic-methodological principles
enhance the effectiveness of the language learning process.
Linguistic competencies are more effectively developed
through various methodological approaches. Developing
the language learning process with interactive, task-based,
and intercultural methods provides the opportunity to
apply the language effectively in real-life contexts.
Competency-based teaching is the main approach in
modern language education, allowing students to learn the
language independently, interactively, and in a culturally
appropriate manner.
Teaching based on these principles not only deepens
students' language knowledge but also contributes to the
development of their communicative skills.
REFERENCES
Baranov, S. (2008). Modern intensive methods and
technologies for teaching foreign languages. Filomatis.
Europarat.
(2011).
Der
Gemeinsame
Europäische
Referenzrahmen für Sprachen (p. 21). Europarat.
Funk, H. (n.d.). Methodische Konzepte für den DaF-
Unterricht. In Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache. Ein
internationales Handbuch (Art. 104, pp. 940–952).
Berlin/Wien: De Gruyter.
Grotjahn, R., Kleppin, K., Mohr, I., & Ende, K. (2014).
DLL 6: Curriculare Vorgaben und Unterrichtsplanung.
Klett Sprachen.
https://europass.europa.eu/de/what-common-european-
framework-languages-cefr?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Nabiyeva, D. A. (n.d.). Lingvistik kompetensiya va uning
shakllanish jarayonlari. Ilmiy Xabarnoma. Retrieved from
https://www.ilmiyxabarnoma.uz/article/626197940387/ab
stract
Shadmankulova,
D.
X.
(2023).
Lingvistik
kompetensiyalarni rivojlantirishda maktablar tajribasining
o’rni. Ta’lim va innovatsion tadqiqotlar, (3), 225–230.
The "State Educational Standard of General Secondary
Education" is an annex to the Order No. 406 of the Minister
of Public Education of the Republic of Uzbekistan, dated
December 17, 2021. You can view the document at this
link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PESxLJtLz4Nfid_KukzQ
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGICS (ISSN: 2767-3278)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjp
17
h-FR5Fy7twPp/preview
The 124th Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of the
Republic of Uzbekistan, dated 2013, "On the Approval of
the State Educational Standard for Foreign Languages in
the Continuous Education System."
Бим, И. Л. (1995). Немецкий язык. Базовый курс.
Концепция, программа. Новая школа.
Миньяр-Белоручев, Р. К. (1984). Вопросы теории
контроля
в
обучении
иностранным
языкам.
Иностранные языки в школе, (6), 64–67.
Тихомирова, Е. В. (1995). Контроль владения
диалогической
формой
устного
официального
общения (франц. яз., неяз. вуз.) (Candidate of
Pedagogical Sciences dissertation). \[B. i.].
