Stephen van Vlack

Sookmyung Women`s University

Graduate School of TESOL

Second Language Learning Theories

Spring 2007

Week 8 - Answers

Johnson, Chapter 5: Communicative Competence Versus Interactional Competence

1. Where does the notion of communicative competence come from?

More than anything the idea of communicative competence arose out a major sense of dissatisfaction with Chomsky`s (1965) idea of competence which was seen as, and certainly is, exceedingly one-sided in its view of language. For Chomsky and UG-inspired linguists and applied linguists both then and still now competence refers only to the perfect and finite set of knowledge about linguistic forms which all native speakers have. Here there is a major distinction made between the perfect or idealized knowledge (competence) and the actual forms used (performance). And this distinction was made more exasperating for language acquisition researchers since Chomsky and his followers refused to commit any effort to analyzing performance dismissing it as `uninteresting.` For Chomsky`s point of view performance does not affect competence. Competence is not learned through or affected by performance (except in a very basic way which involves triggering parameter settings) and is, therefore, not worthy of study if your interest is on competence.

Chomsky first introduced the competence-performance distinction in 1965 and by the 1970s his model (the UG model) of language had become the standard model in linguistics. People working in different, but related fields, such as anthropology, were strongly affected by Chomsky`s ideas but many of Chomsky`s ideas conflicted strongly with their own observations of societal uses of language. Thus, it is interesting to note that the first attacks on Chomskyan competence came not from other linguists (for modern linguistics has always focused on forms in separation) but from people working more in the area of applied linguistics and anthropology in particular. These people were looking nat the relationship between form and function in variant systems.

2. What is Hymes` model of communicative competence like?

Hymes (1971, 1972) was the first researcher to openly attack this seemingly artificial separation of competence and performance. He did this in a simple way by expanding the notion of competence to include different kinds of competence and primarily by adding competences that related to what Chomsky calls performance. In his model he creates a new set of knowledge that speakers must have which relates to use of language in sociolinguistic contexts which is used to complement what he terms grammatical competence. Interestingly, he also adds some non-knowledge-based or non-cognitive factors which related to the language user`s internally determined abilities. Hymes` model then has two main parts, the knowledge or competences and the ability to use such knowledge. The notion of the `ability` came from the observation that not all speakers he dealt with were equal in their use of their competences. To understand this we need first to understand that competences (both grammatical and sociolinguistic) are supposedly absolute. In theory, they are the same for all speakers, yet somehow speakers use these absolute competences differently and with different effect, even in the L1. To account for this, Hymes came up with the idea of non-cognitive abilities as regulating the use of finite and absolute competences. In this way he was able to easily and simply but, very abstractly, account for differences among native speakers, but in doing so opened up another can of worms and sticky worms at that.

If ability is able to regulate language use then what about language learning? Hymes, being an anthropologist and not a language acquisition person, never really thought of the implications of this question or indeed the question itself. Others, however, did. And from what we now know it of course is an affront to Chomsky's model to stay that ability regulates or has any kind of effect on learning, at least learning regarding what we will call Chomskyan competence. As we certainly recall, in Chomsky's model all people are supposed to learn language the same way, regardless of ability. It is for this reason that we see the whole aspect of ability being wiped in the next major community competence model.

3. How does Canale and Swain`s model different from that of Hymes?

Canale and Swain`s (1980) model is an interesting adaption of Hymes` model of communicative competence. At this point it is important to remember that Hymes` model was intended to describe native speakers (and of various languages and cultures) use of language while Canale and Swain adapted their own model in an effort to potentially describe subsequent language learners. Therefore, we can see a different purpose from the very outset simply because they were both seeking to describe different populations and quite possibly different processes (we must always bear in mind the question of just how similar or different FirLA and SLA really are). Overall, we can see that the Canale and Swain model is much more cognitively based in that rather then two types of competences they posit the existence of four distinct sets of knowledge which speakers need to control to use language effectively.

What is really different about Canale ans Swain`s model is that some new research which is coming out at the time has been incorporated into the model. And of course there is the obliteration of it extra-cognitive aspects of competence, such as ability. They stick with the same basic idea of grammatical competence and sociolinguistic competence but add two more competences. The first of these is strategic competence and obviously this has to do with strategies for language use and can be particularly observed in strategies which allow people to avoid problems. In language testing, the MATE included, the idea strategic competence does play a role in how test takers are rated. I myself have observed varying levels of what can best be termed strategic competence as I listened to speech samples provided by different types of speakers. (On the MATE this is called socio-pragmatic competence and is listed in the criterion of accuracy.) Thus, there does seem to be some reality to this new competence. Additionally they added a competence called discourse competence. This was created based on studies from rather large groups of people who in the early 1980s started investigating how discourse was actually composed and created a new field of study called discourse analysis (Johnstone, 2002). Discourse competence would then revolve around the knowledge required to connect elements in a text, pronouns and their referents, for example. It has to do with what is often termed coherence and cohesion. Like strategic competence, it is an indisputable reality in language use, and all languages, whether formal or informal, although it must be observed that cohesive techniques used in formal language will vary substantially from those used in less formal language.

Looking at their model we can see where the different elements or competences came from and, as was mentioned above, we acknowledge that all of them are important. What is problematic, for one, is the division of these competences. Yet, without actually questioning the specific reasons for dividing their competences the way they did, we can immediately notice that there is also no interaction between the groups of knowledge they posit. The model is distinctly unclear in how the system is to actually function since all groups are seen as being separate and parallel forces. If they are different competences or modules follow the basic idea of modularity (Fodor, 1983) and are `informationally encapsulated and necessarily serial` (ibid) then in what order are they used? In such a modular model we simply cannot see how these different types of knowledge interact with and affect each other, or if they do at all. It is for this reason that the division of the different competences becomes an extremely important matter. There is no way to understand how and if these different competences interface and in some views of the brain (LeDoux, 2002) interface is everything. This is a major problem in the model. Each seems to stand completely on its own and at the same level. Modular systems, as we have seen and which this seems to be true, are configured hierarchically and serially . In this way we can see how information from one module is serially affecting the functioning of the next module in the hierarchy. There is a specific sequence or order in which information is used. Yet, this is simply not the case in the Canale and Swain model.

4. What is different about Bachmach`s model of communicative language ability?

Bachman`s (1990) model is very similar to that of Canale and Swain, with the addition of one very important element - strategic competence. The addition of what they call strategic competence does of course force them to rename many of their other competences, but in essence their model in relation to the competences themselves is really quite similar to that of Canale and Swain, but with clearer interaction between the competences. First of all they split the four competences into two major groups, thus implying that things within those two groups will interact more closely. So we have organizational competence composed of grammatical competence and textual competence (a renaming of discourse competence) and we have pragmatic competence which is composed of sociolinguistic competence and functional competence. Sociolinguistic competence is virtually the same as we saw in previous models. It covers to a large extent things like register shift. And functional competence deals with how people produce speech acts and the form function mappings which are required to go about completing specific functions in language.

The idea behind strategic competence is that it is the mechanism which enables the other competences to interact with one another based on environmental concerns or context. While this seems like a most welcome development since the idea of context has been missing from the other models of communicative competence, Bachman`s model seems to be overly constrained as to how context is used by or dealt with in strategic competence. This is implied in the name. Strategic competence is still a competence which means it is composed of a finite set of rules. Thus, in this view context is seen as something universal which can be broken down to a set of specific rules. This is a view which most researchers in context strongly disagree with.

5. What is interactional competence and how is it different f rom the other models we have looked at so far?

Interactional competence is an idea developed in direct conflict with the notion of communicative competence and it is a testament to the strength of previous ideas in scientific development that it still bears the word competence in its name. It should be clear that interactional competent does not seem to be based on a finite set of rules which learners are born with and simply need to be activated by minimal meaningful interaction. In this model, again, any kind of rules (and remember there may not be such a thing) which are eventually created in the mind of a speaker are done so as a result of interacting in context. Once more, the purpose of context is not to awaken these specific rules. As a result of this we get speakers who have quite different systems in their head depending on and resulting from the type of interactions they have been exposed to.

The basic idea is that context is local and not universal. Language learning occurs in context and it is the context which not only supplies the forms we use but allows us to process and make meaning of the forms we encounter. In this way we can see usage-based models creeping out of the idea of interactional competence. In short, it is our experience which determines what we have regarding language. Every interaction is different and each one teaches us something different about language forms and language use and all these other different "competences" we are said to have. They all come about as a result of context-based interaction. Once more, there's nothing necessarily universal about the interactions which we seek out, find ourselves in, and engage in. Even the speakers themselves will react differently to the same situation, possibly as a way of testing different theories or ideas (rules even) which they have as a way of revising remodeling the linguistic systems in their head.

This is then truly a usage based model and also one which fits very nicely into cognitive constructivist models as we will see next week.

References

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

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

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

Fodor, J. (1983). Modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.

Hymes, D. (1971). On communicative competence. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.

Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language ands social life. In J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (Eds.). Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp 35-71.

Johnstone, B. (2002). Discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

LeDoux, J. (2002). Synaptic self: how our brains become who we are. New York: Viking.