Abstract
There might be considerable consensus on the models of “proficiency” among L2 education specialists but there is currently no empirically validated description. The more fundamental concept of “communicative competence” and an ongoing debate towards a more detailed analysis of communicative activities have overshadowed the concept of “proficiency.” The concept seems to be understood and be a useful reference point in the discourse of L2 professionals until it is questioned and further explored. Defining “proficiency” is a more complex topic than is generally assumed. In this article, the author attempts to explore the validity of the concept of ‘proficiency’ in L2 education and indicate some aspects useful for careful consideration when constructing the “EIL competence” framework.

Keywords: Proficiency; Communicative Competence; Proficiency Tests; Native Speaker; EIL

Introduction
In this article, I outline different angles for looking at the criticized concept of “proficiency” which might usefully be considered when debating the concept of English as an International Language competence. I begin with the impetuses which led me to write this paper; then I state the aims and discuss the evolution of the concept from the point of view of proficiency tests and scales. Speculations on the native speaker concept bring us back to the concept of EIL competence. I conclude with a summary of my arguments for undermining the concept of proficiency and proposing ideas for consideration in the development of the concept of “EIL competence”.

Justification
The first impetus which led me to write this paper is the myriad of intricacies around the concepts of “proficiency” and “competence”. The concept of “proficiency” occupies a curious position: theoretically it is full of ambiguity and may be treated not as a single concept but as a combination of concepts. On the one hand, it is widely used; on the other hand, it is argued to be invalid in L2 education. Based on this ambiguous situation, I suggest that weaknesses be clarified and taken into account when constructing the concept of “EIL competence”.

This thinking has brought me to consider “proficiency” within the situation in Kazakhstan. Mottos to achieve “proficiency” in Kazakh are common and L2 education is becoming one of the priorities in educational developments due to the contentious nature of language issues in the Kazakhstan context. Unfortunately, the term appears to be widely used but without attention being paid to its actual meaning. This has served as another impetus to consider the issues below. An overview of the public discourse has prompted me to conclude that there seems to be little understanding in regard to the general complexity of the concept. It is not a secret to state that there has not been a validated description of “proficiency” and/or “competence” yet.

A curious fact from the etymological perspective comes across at this point. This might also be the case in some other contexts. Due to the natures of Kazakh and Russian languages only one word is used interchangeably for “proficiency” and “competence,” which adds to confusion in understanding the concept. The word “proficiency” simply does not exist and is given the same translation as the word “competence” and might not raise awareness of a possibility of two different concepts. One may feel confusion regarding the entire concept of “proficiency”, proficiency-based teaching, and proficiency testing; for some the notions of communicative competence andlanguage proficiencyare used interchangeably. Given these and similar circumstances, a desire among professionals and scholars to develop a unitary “proficiency” theory in clear categories with unambiguous relations is understandable. Such a framework would make pedagogical knowledge and educational activities more manageable but at present identifying proficiency/competence categories is problematic (North, 2000).

Finally, the growing global interest toward the EIL concept has prompted a revision of the “communicative competence” concept. Educationalists are now formulating procedures and priorities for EIL which will challenge native speakers and L2/FL speakers of English to learn how to communicate in cross-cultural settings (Richards, 2002). The most problematic aspect of defining EIL remains the notion of “competence” (Nunn, 2005). In the light of this complexity, a meaningful concept of generic “EIL competence” cannot exist. Therefore, careful analysis of every problematic aspect of the dilemma is requested. Nunn (ibid.) warns that there might be potential for neglecting “linguistic competence” in the field of EIL.

My belief is that before establishing the boundaries and categories for the concept of EIL and developing a proper “EIL competence” framework, educationalists should return to the origins of the “proficiency” concept which has been theoretically debated and empirically investigated for at least half a century. “Proficiency” and “competence” are different, at the same time related and merge into one another and can reflect the issues of interest and concern in relation to “EIL competence”. Previous experiences cannot and should not simply go away and it would not be reasonable to disregard all valuable work to be applied in efficient research agenda to address the weaknesses and limitations that have already been identified.

This paper will pursue three aims: to increase awareness of the debatable issues on the concept of “proficiency”, to attempt to undermine the concept and indicate some specific areas for consideration of the concept of “EIL competence”. It is hoped that this work will address some issues of interest to our readers who may happen to be not only professionals but also students and parents. Some issues discussed might have been further elaborated and considered in more depth. For the present purpose, however, the paper will attempt to raise some of the key issues that must be taken care of when discussing the concept of “EIL competence”. Our concern in this paper is not to provide a final clear definition of “proficiency” but to underline specific angles for further investigation.

Problematic Sides of “Proficiency”
Over time theoretical linguists have made a number of attempts to construct frameworks of “proficiency/competence.” Given the complexity of the issue, a general background on the views on “proficiency/competence” to see how they have changed over time and influenced L2 education is provided to contribute to the reader’s understanding of the foundation for the debate.   

One of the initial theoretical frameworks for linguistic competence is derived from the structuralist school of linguists who maintained the view that learning a second language involved mastering its elements or components (Fries, 1966).Early models distinguished listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills and knowledge components, but did not clearly indicate whether skills manifested knowledge or whether they had different relations with knowledge components. L2 education at that time was based on the postulation that skills and knowledge components could be taught and tested separately.  

The structural linguistic theory, along with behaviourist psychology theory, influenced L2 education producing the audio-lingual teaching method that assumed that speech was primary and each language was to be viewed within its own context as a unique system.  In this view the speaker did not have to acquire knowledge ‘about the language’, although he/she could be capable of using it. According to Lado (1961), the approach which influenced L2 education development implied learning a new language was viewed as a sequence of activities leading to ‘habit formation.’ Audiolingualism focusing on the sequence of introducing the ‘four skills’ made this perspective popular in the 1960s. Nonetheless, Stern (1992) argues that the four skills; remain useful expressions of proficiency in modern L2 education. 

Chomsky (1965) started the evolutionary process by postulating a fundamental distinction in his theory of transformational generative grammar. Hymes (1971) put forward the concept of communicative competence to include not only grammatical competence but also sociolinguistic competence. (For instance, Campbell and Wales (1970) suggested that appropriacy of language is even more important than grammaticality). The two approaches have caused the major debate as to whether “communicative competence” included “grammatical competence” or not. Whilst early researchers paid more attention to the formal characteristics of language, Oller (1976, 1979) made an assumption that pragmatics was fundamental. He proposed one underlying factor – “global language proficiency” / “expectancy grammar,” thus presenting “proficiency” as a unitary construct.   

Communicative Language Teaching came to replace Audiolingualism and the Structural-Situational Approach. The 1980s saw a new stage when the discussion of “proficiency” reflected more communicative terms. The emergence of the constructs of “communicative competence” and “proficiency,” led to major shifts in conceptions of syllabuses and methodology, the effects of which continue to be seen today. Another set of concepts, psychological or behavioural, viewed “proficiency” as “competence” and determined it in intralingual and crosslingual terms. Savignon (1972) admitted the need for communicative functions. Cummins (1980; 2000) made a distinction between two components of “proficiency”: “basic interpersonal and communicative skills” (“BICS”) and “cognitive/academic language ability” (“CALP”).   

I would like to consider in more detail the concept proposed by Canale and Swain (1980). Whilst there has been a lot of discussion as to the nature of the concept, they are the first scholars to present an extended concept of language components to facilitate such issues important for L2 education as language testing and curriculum development.  Turning our thoughts to the introduction of this framework, we observe that it does not exemplify a perfect view of “proficiency,” as attempts to prove this framework empirically failed. However, it has opened a new era through the introduction of new components of “communicative competence” and extended language testing theory and facilitated test development by giving attention to communicative testing. This framework, later refined by Canale in 1983, distinguished four principal types of “competence”: “grammatical” (emphasis on language code), “sociolinguistic” (emphasis on appropriate use and understanding of language in different sociolinguistic contexts / appropriateness of both meanings and forms), “discourse” (emphasis on combination and interpretation of meanings and forms as well as the use of cohesion devices to relate forms and coherence rules to organize meanings), and “strategic” (emphasis on verbal and nonverbal strategies to compensate for breakdowns in communication).   

Canale and Swain abstractly interpret “proficiency” as “communicative competence” and include “linguistic competence” within “communicative competence” to point out their indivisibility by putting forward an argument that grammar rules do not have meaning without rules of use. In their view, the grammatical component is as important as the sociolinguistic. Indeed, they view “grammatical competence” as knowledge of the rules of grammar and “sociolinguistic competence” as the knowledge of the rules of language use. A distinction is made between knowledge of use (“communicative competence”) and a demonstration of this knowledge (“performance”). “Performance” in their view is regarded as the realization of “competencies” and their interaction in the production and understanding of utterances. It can be assumed from the framework that “communicative competence” can be observed indirectly in actual “communicative performance.”   

Bachman and Palmer (1982) also argue that language is not a simple enough a phenomenon to be described by only one general factor. They empirically support “linguistic,” “pragmatic” and “sociolinguistic competences” as the components of so-called “communicative proficiency.” Bachman and Palmer suggest that a model should include both a general factor and one or more specific factors to provide a better description for the concept of ‘proficiency’. Taking empirical evidence as a foundation, Bachman (1990a and 1990b) describes “proficiency” in terms of competence in a redefined way, suggesting organizational competence that includes morphology, syntax, vocabulary, cohesion, and organization and “pragmatic competence,” that includes Bachman and Palmer’s “sociolinguistic competence” and abilities related to the functions that are performed through language use.   

The world has witnessed theories which sparked both proficiency-oriented teaching and teaching for “communicative competence.” The “proficiency” concept was said to guide teachers in regard to course objectives and course content and help determine outcomes. How to “prepare students for advanced and competent use of a foreign language both within and outside an academic setting” was one of the predominant themes in language teaching (Freed, 1989, p. 57). Now professional teachers have started to express concern about various aspects of proficiency standards, proficiency-based teaching, proficiency tests, and proficiency texts. For instance, sharp criticism focused on the US oral proficiency interview and the ACTFL proficiency guidelines and emphasized their being too teacher- and test-bound, lack of validity, inappropriate emphasis on grammatical accuracy, narrowly conceived views of communicative language use and failure to acknowledge adequately the underlying notion of “communicative competence.” These problems have been acknowledged due to a lack of a unitary theory.    

Whilst the natures of “proficiency” and “competence” are complex, theorists see “proficiency/competence” in various views and arrive at different frameworks undermining the concepts. The step toward solving the problem would be to define the terms stemming from a plethora of viewpoints and raising a myriad of questions. Is “proficiency” the same as mastery of a specific language? Knowledge? The four skills? Is it simply “competence” which can help students to develop functionally useful foreign language skills? Is “proficiency” the same as “competence”? What constitutes both? The terminology for describing these notions has not, of course, always been the same.  

It would be easier to propose a term “communicative language proficiency” toprovide a more comprehensive definition of language use, but the relationship between “competence” and “proficiency” is a complex subject related to the distinction between theoretical and operational models (North, 2000). On the one hand, “proficiency” may also be considered a part of “competence”; on the other, it may serve as an umbrella term.  Vollmer (1981) points out that the term “proficiency” tends to stress the competence or performance aspects. Although “proficiency” is commonly associated with knowledge, Ingram (1985) puts forward that “proficiency” is more than knowledge – rather the ability to apply it in specific communication contexts. Taylor (1988) suggests the term “communicative proficiency” and sees “proficiency” as “the ability to make use of competence” and “performance” as “what is done when proficiency is put to use.” Davies (1989) points out that it is shapeless and defines “proficiency” as a part of communicative competence, along with innate ability and performance. Kasper (1997, p.345) points out, “in applied linguistics, models of communicative competence serve as goal specifications” in L2 education. The most applicable general approach would be expressing “proficiency” as “communicative competence.” But in this case the goal is a comprehensive but unspecified command of L2 (Stern, 1992). A part of the problem is in the construct of communicative competence itself as theories have not yet provided a theoretical basis for a satisfactory description of the components of “proficiency” or their boundaries but it has been believed that a formalized theory of communicative competence should eliminate the concept of “proficiency.” In any case, a satisfactory validated clear theory would serve as a foundational background for efforts to construct EIL competence but at the time being a diverse foundation complicates the work of EIL theorists.

Proficiency Tests and Scales
Although there might be considerable consensus on the models of “proficiency’ among L2 education specialists, there is currently no empirically validated description. Stern (1983) maintains that a concept of “L2 proficiency” has had several interpretations but has not achieved a satisfactory outcome. In the same vein, Lantolf and Frawley (1988) point out a lack of even approaching a clear reasonable and unified theory.   

As it has been outlined, Canale and Swain have played an important role in developments in L2 education by stressing the relevance of “communicative competence” to both L2 teaching and testing as they developed their framework when they faced the issue of language test development. With regard to testing, we infer that communicative testing deals not only with knowledge and ways of using this knowledge, but the demonstration of this knowledge in performance. It is clear that a theory of “communicative competence” is required to approach the challenge of language proficiency testing. The theory of “communicative competence” is a theory of “knowledge” and “proficiency,” as outlined by Spolsky (1989). In his view, a test should make it possible to describe “proficiency” “as the ability to perform some defined tasks that use language.” But such a test would have limitations concerning “the ultimate possibility of a direct translation from functional to structural terms.” Spolsky noted that, “the problem of determining which of the many functions which language fulfils should be included in a test of language proficiency.”

Literature reviews show that most current texts focus on proficiency tests rather than on the concept of “proficiency’” in general. “Proficiency” as a term appears in the most famous renowned language examination – the Cambridge Certificate of Proficiency in English. Proficiency tests are an important field for L2 education: as we teach we think about measuring the progress of our students and monitoring their success but the description of “proficiency” has been dominated by a psychometric principle although it is questionable whether “proficiency” can be scaled.    

We arrive at the most important theoretical issue in proficiency testing. According to Bachman (1990a), if tests are to have value and importance in L2 education, they should be valid, reliable and practicable. Lantolf and Frawley (1988) argue that “proficiency” will be valid as a concept when it becomes independent of psychometrics, and saliently remark that the theory must be proven and consistent with empirical research. How valid are the scores in determining one’s proficiency? Learners demonstrate various performances on different tasks they are asked to perform. From my personal teaching experience, I have found that one may demonstrate a high performance outcome on one task whilst failing a task of a different nature. At this point a question arises whether one, according to various degrees of performance, has different proficiencies or a single proficiency which is used to varying degrees, subject to a number of factors such as familiarity with similar tasks, the topic, the complexity of the task, time limitations, etc. (North 2000). It is difficult to judge which view should be used – performance- related or competence-related.   

The lack of theoretical consensus on what it means to know a language and what language components should be tested and assessed have caused problems in the development of tests which partially cover what constitutes “proficiency” (Stern, 1983). Here we regard knowledge or skill; implicit or explicit knowledge of discrete items or of larger linguistics units; any selected functional skills, whether academic or communicative, receptive or productive. Current reality displays that academic skills may be tested but proficiency tests are not able to assess communicative or creative components. Due to dependence of tests on theoretical frameworks, there is some danger of making inappropriate estimates of students’ language abilities that may serve as potential threat to L2 education. The validity and reliability of tests based on an EIL competence framework must be addressed.   

Existing proficiency testing methods are a concern for L2 education and will become a concern for EIL education. The problem is obvious: testing is associated with exactitude and outcomes are only represented by figures, which is inappropriate for communicative testing. Tests have face validity but do not provide proper feedback for instruction and learning because of difficulties in the interpretation of scores. A score may be interpreted as a learner’s proficiency level relative to others, and it may predict future achievement but may not guarantee it. We surely have come across students who have reached high levels on tests but are still unable to use language in academic or even communicative situations.  

Frameworks for tests should be validated but as North (2000) argues, the attempt to validate any framework will be obstructed by problems of isolating and operationalising the desired construct in test items and dangers of the data reflecting characteristics of a particular learner population. What is measured through taking into consideration generally accepted views on the nature of ‘proficiency’ should be made clear. Instead of asking whether the test is valid, we should ponder the utility of such a test, which brings us back to the faults of proficiency tests. Some teachers demonstrate a negative view of tests and favourable attitudes toward various exams. However, this might not be true in all cases.  Shohamy (1992) outlines benefits of testing: achievement and proficiency assessment multi-dimensional diagnostic information; teaching and learning connections; norm-referenced and criterion-referenced information, etc. Bachman (1990a) justifies tests for their most prevalent use of language tests is for purposes of evaluation in educational programmes. Certification is crucial for various purposes such as placement in overseas universities, employment of better qualified staff, etc. But again we arrive at the question of how assessment for certification can be carried out as we still must assess “proficiency.”  What do we need to measure? The concern of certification must be carefully considered from a theoretical point of view and mutual understanding must be sought.   

Problems related to the development of proficiency tests are in turn, related to the development of proficiency scales. Various scales of proficiency may serve as rating scales, examination levels, or stages of attainment. They are outcome oriented in terms of what and to what degree learners can perform and thus are behaviour oriented. Since proficiency scales concentrate on behaviour, they tend toward a functional view of proficiency and, therefore, should be effective. Brindley (1998) argues that some proficiency tests and scales seem to have acquired popular validation due to their longevity. If we try to understand the essence of scales we realize that what happened is that test grades were assigned descriptors and levels. Attempts to find out how descriptors were developed may be a complicated issue. Some descriptors were developed for use in certain specific contexts but other scales ‘borrowed’ the descriptors for adaptation to different contexts. Each set of scales of proficiency is based on a different theoretical view on “proficiency.” North (2000) points out that ‘it is intended to give meaning to numbers at a very general level, primarily to help students orient their learning. A purely numerical scale like the TOEFL scale can mean a lot to insiders, but does not say much to someone unfamiliar with the test. Scales of proficiency provide us with levels of attainment in L2 education and people may interpret them, but in reality the descriptions provided may not be valid because what happens is that descriptions of levels represent an inevitable and possibly misleading oversimplification of the language learning process.   

We may extend the list of problems related to proficiency scales but would still have to admit that if “proficiency” were a unitary concept, proficiency scales would influence L2 education positively in terms of direction and organization of language learning. The considerations of the “EIL competence” framework should not exclude the possibility that properly established scales may have positive influences on professionals in terms of producing curricula and textbooks and applying methods and strategies appropriate for various language levels of learners.

Native Speaker Concept
The discussion of “proficiency” will not be complete without consideration of native speaker “proficiency” which is seen as the ultimate comparison point in L2 teaching, development of proficiency tests, and construction of proficiency scales. Although this notion is not the primary focus of this work, a review of angles will be provided for casting the validity of this criterion into doubt. Lee (2005) employs a wide range of arguments for evaluating appropriacy of the native speaker model in L2 education. In Kazakhstan students, parents and even some teachers believe and do not doubt the native speaker as an ideal standard and a reference point; thus questioning linguistic potential of local teachers. Theoretically, the notion of the native speaker could have clarified the views on “proficiency” but literature reviews indicate that this concept is dubious. Some may argue that it is a unitary concept; however, Lee (2005) encourages the quest for a better understanding which has been critically discussed in recent times.

To put the idea simply, I will ask a few questions. Is one proficient because one can be compared to a native speaker, or, because native speakers think of themselves as being proficient? A reference or comparison is usually made to the notion of the native speaker of English due to the increasing popularity of L2 English teaching and learning. According to our everyday experience, one of the aims of L2 learners is to be able to communicate with native speakers of their L2. Native speakers are the people with whom L2 learners can practice their language skills in a variety of settings and situations. Classroom practice demonstrates that with regard to language proficiency learners try to match themselves, teachers and others against mysterious native speakers.

Numerous scholars have made recent attempts to explore and define this popular notion in L2 education. A review of literature (e.g. Coulmas, 1981; Davies, 1991, 2003; Medgyes, 1992; Phillipson, 1996; Ramptom 1990; McArthur, 1992; Maum, 2002) outlines such criteria for a native speaker as early childhood language acquisition, its maintenance, intuitive knowledge of the language, abilities for fluent, spontaneous discourse, creative use of the language, abilities to communicate within different social settings, accent, etc.

Tests claim to use native speakers as the standard of measure, but some native speakers do not demonstrate linguistic and cognitive patterns attributed to the ideal level that L2 learners strive to attain. The ACTFL scale, for example, adopted the notion of the ‘educated native speaker’ from its origins in the government oral proficiency interview. The 1980s noted “a special place to the native speaker as the only true and reliable source of language data” (Ferguson 1983: vii). This is not always true and we can doubt the concept of the native speaker because native speakers vary from each other in their command of different aspects of language.

Nayar (1994, p.4) argues that native speakers are not “ipso facto knowledgeable, correct and infallible in their competence.” Judging from our own L1 experience, we can say that various factors such as age, education, social class, dialect, etc. can disqualify the native speaker as being the best point of reference. A specific study (Hamilton et. al., 1993) conducted research, which tested groups of people by means of the IELTS assessment battery, and discovered important differences between the performances of even well-educated native speakers. Hamilton found that variability was due to the level of education and work experience and concluded that native speakers should not be taken as a criterion. 

International schools recruit native teachers of EFL/ESL are recruited from all over the world. The concern stems from the discussion of the development of “English” and “Englishes” (Nunn, 2005). This issue in fact goes beyond L2 education boundaries as attempts to establish ideal English to some specific area in the world may even raise political issues, especially in the context of the changing international status of English. Students and local teachers might wonder whether a British teacher should be considered the ideal standard? What about an American, an Australian, a Canadian, or a New Zealander? What about such English-speaking countries as India which absorbed the language due to historic reasons. An ongoing debate in Kazakhstan establishes a specific dichotomy of British English and American English. But the following argument is worth considering: American English is different from British English; therefore, other “Englishes” should be considered different but not inferior (Singh, 1998).

The theoretical debate about native speakers may be unresolved, but in the daily practice of language teaching and testing resolution is necessary and agreement on a model and a goal required. The global expansion of English has been widely discussed (e.g. Crystal, 1997; Graddol, 1999). Graddol (p. 68) challenges language educationalists: ‘large numbers of people will learn English as a foreign language in the 21st century and they will need teachers, dictionaries and grammar books. But will they continue to look towards the native speaker for authoritative norms of usage?’

We can doubt the concept of the native speaker for many reasons but the simple way of expressing this would be to say that native speaker proficiency is not homogeneous and cannot be considered a perfect criterion and reference point in L2 education. The notion used as a reference point to the concept of proficiency is dubious and difficult to define and might have already become a label which needs revision and reevaluation. The implication here is that the time has come to negotiate clear formulations of the concept as it is also important for the future of “proficiency” as a concept. At the time being the native speaker concept remains ambiguous and the issue of theoretical description of “native speaker proficiency” is open to question.

Conclusions for EIL
The search for solving the dilemma of native-non-native speakers bring us to the EIL concept. What can we learn from the history of “proficiency” debates? What are the lessons for us in regard to EIL competence? The debate has shown that various viewpoints and separated efforts have undermined the concept of proficiency and, moreover, caused criticized approaches to L2 teaching and testing. EIL research should foresee issues which can represent dangers to the validity of the concept, the pragmatics of the development of tests and the application of language scales. Inappropriate decisions with regard to language testing, curricula and materials development will not simply undermine the concept but disadvantage learners. Taking into account the difficulties with the concept of proficiency, a warning is for the “world” of theoretical linguists, the “world” of tests developers and the “world” of teaching practitioners to unite their efforts.

A worrying point comes from the fact that a body of research on English as an International Language is growing, yet it has already indicated the widespread inconsistency in terms and differences in terminology, which recalls a never-finishing debate discussed above. Seidlhofer (2004) points out that in addition to the plural terms “Englishes” (Kachru, 1992) and the term “World Englishes” (Crystal, 1997), confusion is caused by “English as an International Language” (e.g. Modiano, 1999a, 1999b; Jenkins, 2000, 2002), English as a Lingua Franca (e.g. Gnutzmann, 2000), English as a global language (e.g. Crystal, 1997; Gnutzmann, 1999), English as a World Language (e.g. Mair, 2003) and English as a Medium for Intercultural Communication (e.g. Meierkord, 1996).

The panacea represented by the concept of English may also cause drawbacks. Each proposed concept bears advantages and disadvantages. A range of approaches such as “the traditional foreigner”; “the revisionist foreigner”; “the other native” as well as “English as a Lingua Franca,” “International English” / “English as an International Language” (e.g. Davies 1989; Kachru 1985; Medgyes, 1999; Mohanan 1998; Paikeday, 1985; Seidlhofer, 2000; Singh, 1998; Smith 1983) has suggested a way out from the sensitive and complicated situation with the native speaker concept, including issues beyond the scope of linguistics and language teaching. Although the movement has started recently, there has not been a consensus as to which approach offers the best solution. It has been argued that some proposed approaches suggest similar core ideas, whilst others stipulate contradictions (e.g. Kachru, 1985, Smith (1983), Davies (1989). Problems concern the order of language acquisition of considered languages (L1; L2; L1 and L2; FL, etc.), “Circles” of language use (Kachru, 1992), language status in the country, etc.  For instance, the English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) concept is a remedy which does not differentiate between L1 and L2 speakers (Seidlhofer, 2000 and 2004).

The confusing point in regard to “EIL competence” is whether we are contemplating “EIL proficiency” or “EIL competence.” Is the “competence” we are talking of viewed from the perspectives of L1 or L2? The understanding of “proficiency” becomes more complicated as not only L2 competence is variable but also “native competence.” The concept of “proficiency” could have provided a valuable basis; however, due to its ambiguity and lack of agreement among theorists, questions are raised with regard to “EIL competence.” How will interrelationships among the components be addressed? The issue is not only to identify components but also find how competencies interact and are acquired. Will “basic interpersonal and communicative skills” and “cognitive/academic language ability” be accounted for? Will the practical use and ability for use be considered? The idea is not only to identify a theoretical framework to illustrate what components “communicative competence” may include without establishing a model to show how competencies interact and become acquired. Is “linguistic competence” viewed within “communicative competence” to point out their indivisibility? What is the view for grammar rules without rules of use? Is the grammatical component as important as the sociolinguistic? As it has been noted, efforts of theorists and test developers should be united to arrive at a sound framework. But whilst aiming at a theory, one should not forget about assessment methodologies and testing issues.

The routes are numerous but my point of view is that the above discussed concepts and research they engendered may provide tremendously valuable assistance for articulating “EIL competence” problems and suggesting possible solutions. The development of the EIL concept requires strong research considering already learnt lessons to provide a better sound construct for “EIL competence.” This leaves abundant space for research and contemplations for further discussion. I hope that the article has been able to indicate the most appealing to further stimulate the Asian EFL discussion in order to outline the entire set of issues for further consideration.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to express her sincerest infinite appreciation to Dr Edith Esch at the University of Cambridge. The author gratefully acknowledges FCO Chevening and OSI scholarship networks and OSI/ CARTI /HESP. The author would also like to thank Dr Roger Nunn and the two anonymous reviewers from the Asian EFL Journal.

 References
Bachman, L. & Palmer, A. (1982). The construct validation of some components of communicative proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 449-465.

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

Bachman, L. (1990b). Constructing measures and measuring constructs. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp 39-49).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Campbell, R. & Wales, R. (1970). The study of language acquisition. In J. Lyons (Ed.), New horizons in linguistics (pp. 242-262). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. Richards and R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-28). London: Longman.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Coulmas, F. (1981). Spies and native speakers. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), A festschrift for native speaker (pp. 355-367). The Hague: Mouton.

Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cummins, J. (1980). The construct of language proficiency in bilingual education. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Current issues in bilingual education (pp. 81-103). Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.

Cummins, J. (2000). Putting language proficiency in its place:
responding to critiques of the conversational / academic language distinction. In J. Cenoz & U. Jessner (Eds.), English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language (pp. 54-83). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Davies, A. (1989). Communicative competence as language use. Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 157-170.

Davies, A. (1991). The native speaker in applied linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Davies, A. (1996). Proficiency or the native speaker: what are we trying to achieve in ELT? In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 145-157). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Davies, A. (2003) The native speaker: Myth and reality. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

Ferguson, C. (1983). Language planning and language change. In H. Cobarrubias & J. Fishman (Eds.), Progress in language planning: International perspectives (pp. 29-40). Berlin: Mouton.

Freed, B. (1989). Perspectives on the future of proficiency-based teaching and testing. ADFL Bulletin, 20(2), 52-57.

Fries, C. (1966). Teaching and learning English as a second language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Graddol, D. (1999). The decline of the native speaker. In D. Graddol & U. Meinhof (Eds.), English in a changing world, AILA Review, 13, 57-69.

Hamilton, J., Lopes, M., McNamara, T. & Sheridan, E. (1993). Rating scales and native speaker performance on a communicatively-oriented EAP test. Melbourne Papers in Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 1-24.

Hymes, D. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic theory. In R. Huxley and E. Ingram (Eds.), Language acquisition: Models and methods (pp. 3-28). London, New York: Academic Press.

Ingram, D. (1985). Assessing proficiency: An overview of some aspects of testing. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language development (pp. 215-276).Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. 

Jenkins, J. (2002). A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus or English as an international language. Applied Linguistics, 23, 83-103. 

Gnuztmann, C. (1999). English as a global language: Perspectives for English language teaching and for teacher education in Germany. In C. Gnutzmann (Ed.), Teaching and learning English as a global language: Native and non-native perspectives (pp. 157-169). Tuebingen, Germany: Stauffenburg. 

Gnutzmann, C. (2000). Lingua franca. In M. Byram (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp. 356-359). London: Routledge. 

Kachru, B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the World: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11-30).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and the British Council.

Kachru, B. (Ed.). (1992). The other tongue (2nd ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Kasper, G. (1997). Beyond reference. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies (pp. 345-360). Harlow: Longman.

Lado, R. (1961). Language testing: The construction and use of foreign language tests; A teacher's book. London: Longman.

Lado, R. (1964). Language teaching: A scientific approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lantolf, J. & Frawley, W. (1988). Proficiency: understanding the construct. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10(2), 181-195.

Lee, J. (2005) The Native Speaker: An Achievable Model? Asian EFL Journal. Retrieved March 10, 2006 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/September_05_dn.php

Mair, C. (Ed.). (2003). The politics of English as a world language: New horizons in postcolonial cultural studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 

Maum, R. (2002). Nonnative-English-speaking teachers in the English teaching profession. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved May 15, 2004, from http//:www.cal.org/resources/digest/0209maum.html

McArthur, T. (Ed.). (1992). The Oxford companion to the English language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: Who's worth more? ELT Journal, 46(4), 340-349.

Medgyes, P. (1999). The Non-native teacher (revised 2nd edition). Ismaning, Germany: Hueber Verlang.

Meierkord, C. (1996). Englisch als Medium der interkulturellen Kommunikation. Untersuchungen zum non-native-/non-native speaker Diskurs. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Lang. 

Modiano, M. (1999a). International English in the global village. English Today, 15, 22-28. 

Modiano, M. (1999b). Standard English(es) and educational practices for the world’s lingua franca. English Today, 15, 3-13. 

Mohanan, K.P. (1998). On new/non-native Englishes: A quartet: second response. In R. Singh, (op cit) (pp. 50-53).

Nayar, P. B. (1994). Whose English is it? [Electronic version]. TESL-EJ, 1(1), Retrieved May 6, 2004, from http://www.writing.berkeley.edu/TESLEJ/ej01/f.1.html

North, B. (2000). Development of a common framework scale of language proficiency. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.