Can anyone comment on the main ideas of these 2 concepts as they pertain to linguistic theory?
As well, does anyone feel that it is useful for EFL teachers to understand the concepts of competence and performance?
Thks.
SP
Competence and Performance in Linguistic Theory
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
Norm Ryder
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:10 pm
- Location: Canberra, Australia
"competence and Performance"
Sunpower
It doesn't look as if any of our linguists are going to come to the party, so I will give you the definition in the Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, which could be of some help. It says:
"[Competence is] the internalized knowledge of the rules of a language that native speakers have; contrasted with their actual performance.
The distinction between competence and performance is an important element in Generative Grammar theory. Native speakers' competence makes them aware of all possible ambiguities and enables them to generate an infinite number of 'correct' sentences. By contrast, performance, what a speaker actually says, may at times be ungrammatical or confused -- and is also subject to constraints, such as length, that do not affect idealized competence".
The Dictionary distinguishes this kind of Grammatical Competence from "communicative competence" which is a "speaker's ability to understand the implications of utterances and to appreciate what language is appropriate in different situations".
It seems to me that 'communicative competence' is rather related to Grammatical Performance.
Is it possible that as a second language learner becomes more familiar with the language there would be a development of the internal "Grammatical Competence" as well as in their performance. When the dictionary defines it as a quality of the native speaker, it seems rather restrictive. Perhaps someone more familiar with the theory of generative grammar can enlighten us here.
I expect that one value of the theory for teachers is that it formalises what we all know: that speakers' knowledge of the language can be increasingly greater than what they can apply at any particular point in time.
All the best
Norm
It doesn't look as if any of our linguists are going to come to the party, so I will give you the definition in the Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, which could be of some help. It says:
"[Competence is] the internalized knowledge of the rules of a language that native speakers have; contrasted with their actual performance.
The distinction between competence and performance is an important element in Generative Grammar theory. Native speakers' competence makes them aware of all possible ambiguities and enables them to generate an infinite number of 'correct' sentences. By contrast, performance, what a speaker actually says, may at times be ungrammatical or confused -- and is also subject to constraints, such as length, that do not affect idealized competence".
The Dictionary distinguishes this kind of Grammatical Competence from "communicative competence" which is a "speaker's ability to understand the implications of utterances and to appreciate what language is appropriate in different situations".
It seems to me that 'communicative competence' is rather related to Grammatical Performance.
Is it possible that as a second language learner becomes more familiar with the language there would be a development of the internal "Grammatical Competence" as well as in their performance. When the dictionary defines it as a quality of the native speaker, it seems rather restrictive. Perhaps someone more familiar with the theory of generative grammar can enlighten us here.
I expect that one value of the theory for teachers is that it formalises what we all know: that speakers' knowledge of the language can be increasingly greater than what they can apply at any particular point in time.
All the best
Norm
OK, Norm, I'll volounteer. I wasn't sure how much to explain, so forgive me for my longwinded posting:
This knowledge, and everything you know of yor given languages, is what linguists such as De Saussure would call 'competence'. If you woke up one morning and decided to stop talking (as some monks do when they take a 'vow of silence') you would still have the knowledge of your language(s), right? You would be refusing to speak, but still have the knowledge necessary to speak. Linguistic competence is simply what you know about using a certain language.
The behavior you demonstrate with this knowledge of a given language is the 'performance' aspect of language. Many factors change your performance every day : when you first get up and you're still tired, you won't perform as well as a person who might have consumed a few coffees that morning. Going to the local pub and having four pints of beer will definitely alter your performance. Being distracted by emotional situations changes your performance capabilities: think of scenes in a movie where a loved one dies, and the character suddenly cannot speak or express themselves because they're do devastated... although these scenes are usually a little over-dramatic, they help understand that performance is never at the same level as competence.
So basically, through life and emotion and chemical effects, you can rarely ever say for a fact at any given time that your performance matched your competence because there are way too many mind-altering and emotion-effecting circumstances that effect our performance.
As to your question about whether or not this concept is related to the classroom, I'd leave it to others to answer. I think I've said enough
This knowledge, and everything you know of yor given languages, is what linguists such as De Saussure would call 'competence'. If you woke up one morning and decided to stop talking (as some monks do when they take a 'vow of silence') you would still have the knowledge of your language(s), right? You would be refusing to speak, but still have the knowledge necessary to speak. Linguistic competence is simply what you know about using a certain language.
The behavior you demonstrate with this knowledge of a given language is the 'performance' aspect of language. Many factors change your performance every day : when you first get up and you're still tired, you won't perform as well as a person who might have consumed a few coffees that morning. Going to the local pub and having four pints of beer will definitely alter your performance. Being distracted by emotional situations changes your performance capabilities: think of scenes in a movie where a loved one dies, and the character suddenly cannot speak or express themselves because they're do devastated... although these scenes are usually a little over-dramatic, they help understand that performance is never at the same level as competence.
So basically, through life and emotion and chemical effects, you can rarely ever say for a fact at any given time that your performance matched your competence because there are way too many mind-altering and emotion-effecting circumstances that effect our performance.
As to your question about whether or not this concept is related to the classroom, I'd leave it to others to answer. I think I've said enough
-
Norm Ryder
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:10 pm
- Location: Canberra, Australia
Competence and Performance
wj
That's the way it seems to me, too. So why, do you think, the Oxford Dictionary wants to limit "Competence" to "the knowledge that native speakers have"? All that you've said would apply to second language speakers, wouldn't it, once they've started to internalise the structures of the language they're learning.
Perhaps one has to think of two levels of Competence: one of the native speakers that drink in the 'rules' with their mother's milk, so to speak; and the other of second language speakers, who may internalise the 'rules', even to the extent of them becoming 'second nature' - but they are not 'first nature', and are located in a different place in the psyche, perhaps even in a physically different part of the brain. They, therefore, don't have the same level of spontaneity and confidence???
But as you say, whether that has any practical application is probably up to individual teachers to judge!
Thanks for opening up the question for us.
Norm
That's the way it seems to me, too. So why, do you think, the Oxford Dictionary wants to limit "Competence" to "the knowledge that native speakers have"? All that you've said would apply to second language speakers, wouldn't it, once they've started to internalise the structures of the language they're learning.
Perhaps one has to think of two levels of Competence: one of the native speakers that drink in the 'rules' with their mother's milk, so to speak; and the other of second language speakers, who may internalise the 'rules', even to the extent of them becoming 'second nature' - but they are not 'first nature', and are located in a different place in the psyche, perhaps even in a physically different part of the brain. They, therefore, don't have the same level of spontaneity and confidence???
But as you say, whether that has any practical application is probably up to individual teachers to judge!
Thanks for opening up the question for us.
Norm
Mastering the inetrnalized rules of one's native language seems to be more akin to physical attainments than to intellectual ones. It is carried out at the same time as we learn to walk upright, to manage the world around us and so on and is done just as unconsciously. Even though we can subsequently reflect on what these rules may be we are not doing so at the time of acquisition. Who of us has a memory of learning to walk or adapting one's speech to the model provided by the community around us?
There appears to be a Language Acquisition Device (Chomsky) at work here, which is deactivated at around the time of puberty, by which time we have learnt all the rules underlying our native language. Thereafter it can never be reactivated, which is to say it is impossible to acquire native-speaker proficiency in a second language.
The exception to this is the bilingual speaker who learnt two languages in early childhood.
There appears to be a Language Acquisition Device (Chomsky) at work here, which is deactivated at around the time of puberty, by which time we have learnt all the rules underlying our native language. Thereafter it can never be reactivated, which is to say it is impossible to acquire native-speaker proficiency in a second language.
The exception to this is the bilingual speaker who learnt two languages in early childhood.
The importance of pragmatic development.
Communicative competence requires more than just the ability to form grammatically correct sentences. To successfully communicate (performance) in the target language, the second language learner must acquire the grammatical competence as well as the pragmatics (what is meant by what is said) of the target language. Studies have shown that performance in the TL does not solely rest on the second language learner successfully forming a grammatically correct utterance. They still tend to adhere to their socio-cultural aspects of their native language and causing unwelcome consequences when speaking in the TL community. Even though the second language learner knows the various semantic formulas in speach acts (such as refusals, regrets, etc) in the TL, the second language learner will still perform according to their L1.
Language acquisition device in L2A?
Without a doubt normal developing children achieve perfect mastery of their first language, yet they are not overtly taught the systematic rules and patterns of language and do not make mistakes. Amazingly, a child learning his first language acquires the rules of language that had not been instructed. According to Chomsky (1965), who primarily focused on first language acquisition, language is not based on experiences in the world, rather language is genetically innate, a device in our brain separate from other cognitive tasks. The language properties inherent in the human mind make up Universal Grammar (UG), a system of knowledge of what a human language can be and by innate domain-specific formulas for arriving at that grammar (Blev-Vroman, 1990).
UG is a system that would explain the ways all first languages are organized and function. UG does not consist of particular rules or of a particular grammar, but it consists of a set of general principles that apply to all grammars and that leave certain parameters open setting the limits within which human languages can vary. A particular grammar of a language amounts to the arrangement of the ways in which it selects from the different possibilities allowed in UG. It's overall system of rules, principles, and parameters (Chomsky, 1982). This would explain why children easily acquire their L1 in a universal way.
The next question is if UG exists in second language acquisition (mentioned earlier in the section). There is much debate on how much linguistic knowledge is present in second language acquisition. Two variables influence this debate: L1 transfer into L2 and the access to UG (how much of UG is available). Two broad views discuss the nature of second language acquisition: the Fundamental Differency Hypothesis and the Access to UG hypothesis.
The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis starts from the belief that, in language acquisition, children and adults are different. Children always reach a state of complete linguistic knowledge, whereas adult second language learners rarely obtain a state of complete linguistic knowledge of the L2. The major claim by the Fundamental Differency Hypothesis is that adults do not have access to Universal Grammar (UG).
The opposing view is the Access to UG Hypothesis. Does L1 transfer into L2 and is UG present in second language acquisition (and to what extent)? There are five possible positions within the Access to UG position: 1) full transfer/partial (no) access, 2) no transfer/full access, 3) full transfer/full access, 4) partial transfer/full access, and 5) partial transfer/partial access. Within four of the five positions, UG is active and available in some form of adult second language acquisition.
Norman (different from the other Norm)
UG is a system that would explain the ways all first languages are organized and function. UG does not consist of particular rules or of a particular grammar, but it consists of a set of general principles that apply to all grammars and that leave certain parameters open setting the limits within which human languages can vary. A particular grammar of a language amounts to the arrangement of the ways in which it selects from the different possibilities allowed in UG. It's overall system of rules, principles, and parameters (Chomsky, 1982). This would explain why children easily acquire their L1 in a universal way.
The next question is if UG exists in second language acquisition (mentioned earlier in the section). There is much debate on how much linguistic knowledge is present in second language acquisition. Two variables influence this debate: L1 transfer into L2 and the access to UG (how much of UG is available). Two broad views discuss the nature of second language acquisition: the Fundamental Differency Hypothesis and the Access to UG hypothesis.
The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis starts from the belief that, in language acquisition, children and adults are different. Children always reach a state of complete linguistic knowledge, whereas adult second language learners rarely obtain a state of complete linguistic knowledge of the L2. The major claim by the Fundamental Differency Hypothesis is that adults do not have access to Universal Grammar (UG).
The opposing view is the Access to UG Hypothesis. Does L1 transfer into L2 and is UG present in second language acquisition (and to what extent)? There are five possible positions within the Access to UG position: 1) full transfer/partial (no) access, 2) no transfer/full access, 3) full transfer/full access, 4) partial transfer/full access, and 5) partial transfer/partial access. Within four of the five positions, UG is active and available in some form of adult second language acquisition.
Norman (different from the other Norm)
-
Norm Ryder
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:10 pm
- Location: Canberra, Australia
wj
I thought I’d posted a reply to your interesting explanation three days ago, but apparently it got lost somewhere in the system. Anyway, thanks for opening up the theory for us.
I had a question, however: why does the Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar (and so, presumably the Generative Grammarians) confine Competence to native speakers? When second language learners have reached the stage of internalising the ‘rules’ of the new language, so that they can spontaneously create new utterances, couldn’t you call those internalised rules “Competence”? They may be of a different quality, and perhaps localised in a different place in the speaker’s psyche (even in the brain). But I would have thought that you could define the second language learner’s competence at least as a subclass of the ‘Competence’ available to native speakers who have imbibed a much more extensive - and profoundly based - set of rules with their mother’s milk, as it were.
I understand, however, that many linguists regard Chomsky’s distinction between competence and performance as mere speculation based solely on introspection, without any empirical basis; so I guess it would only be useful to a teacher for whom it provided some personal insight that enabled them to interpret some situation in their class with greater clarity.
So, Sunpower, where does all that leave you? Has wj’s explanation opened up some new pathways for your thoughts? Or maybe a new explanation for something you’ve observed in your class? Let’s know if it’s taking you somewhere.
Cheers.
Norm.
I thought I’d posted a reply to your interesting explanation three days ago, but apparently it got lost somewhere in the system. Anyway, thanks for opening up the theory for us.
I had a question, however: why does the Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar (and so, presumably the Generative Grammarians) confine Competence to native speakers? When second language learners have reached the stage of internalising the ‘rules’ of the new language, so that they can spontaneously create new utterances, couldn’t you call those internalised rules “Competence”? They may be of a different quality, and perhaps localised in a different place in the speaker’s psyche (even in the brain). But I would have thought that you could define the second language learner’s competence at least as a subclass of the ‘Competence’ available to native speakers who have imbibed a much more extensive - and profoundly based - set of rules with their mother’s milk, as it were.
I understand, however, that many linguists regard Chomsky’s distinction between competence and performance as mere speculation based solely on introspection, without any empirical basis; so I guess it would only be useful to a teacher for whom it provided some personal insight that enabled them to interpret some situation in their class with greater clarity.
So, Sunpower, where does all that leave you? Has wj’s explanation opened up some new pathways for your thoughts? Or maybe a new explanation for something you’ve observed in your class? Let’s know if it’s taking you somewhere.
Cheers.
Norm.
-
Norm Ryder
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:10 pm
- Location: Canberra, Australia
Aopologies
Sorry everyone. Sor some reason only the first couple of messages appeared on my screen when I first opened the board, so I rushed off a repeat. As soon as I'd posted it, I discovered Norman's replies addressing my questions. So please delete my latest!
Thanks, all.
Norm.
Thanks, all.
Norm.
Thks.
Linguistic Competence as I understand it from my reading, is a speaker's
unconscious knowledge of a languages system of rules such as, sounds, word meanings, sentence structures. So, this would mean everything we unconsciously know about syntax, phonology/phonetics, semantics, pragmatics, morphology and sentence structure. Of course we can't explain how we know these rules in much the same way that we can't explain the rules governing our physical actions when we jump up and down or dance or run. We just know how to do these things but cannot explain the rules behind these actions.
Linguistic performance is how we actually use this knowledge. It never relfects our actual competence. Like wjserson mentioned and gave examples of, there are many external and internal factors that affect our performance so that it doesn't accurately reflect our level of linguistic competence.
What I'm interested in finding out is how are these concepts relevant or valuable to us as EFL'er(s) or language teachers?
Obviously, it's important for language teachers to understand how language is processed.
Are their differences in the level of control adult learners of foreign languages/second languages have with their utterances in social situations versus children?
Is it important to be aware of the fact that second language learners have a higher degree of linguistc competence versus their linguistic performance?
Linguistic Competence as I understand it from my reading, is a speaker's
unconscious knowledge of a languages system of rules such as, sounds, word meanings, sentence structures. So, this would mean everything we unconsciously know about syntax, phonology/phonetics, semantics, pragmatics, morphology and sentence structure. Of course we can't explain how we know these rules in much the same way that we can't explain the rules governing our physical actions when we jump up and down or dance or run. We just know how to do these things but cannot explain the rules behind these actions.
Linguistic performance is how we actually use this knowledge. It never relfects our actual competence. Like wjserson mentioned and gave examples of, there are many external and internal factors that affect our performance so that it doesn't accurately reflect our level of linguistic competence.
What I'm interested in finding out is how are these concepts relevant or valuable to us as EFL'er(s) or language teachers?
Obviously, it's important for language teachers to understand how language is processed.
Are their differences in the level of control adult learners of foreign languages/second languages have with their utterances in social situations versus children?
Is it important to be aware of the fact that second language learners have a higher degree of linguistc competence versus their linguistic performance?
Hey Norm,
As you stated, I don't believe that 'competence' and 'performance' concepts are limited to speakers and there mother tongues at all .
Thanks to the fortitude of Chomsky's GG and UG theories, most followers of Chomsky never consider the '2nd language acquisition' side of things. Many articles and books, however, are available on 2nd language learning and apply theories which only discussed regarding mother tongue competence and performance. Suzanne Romaine has done extensive work on bilingualism and these concepts.
As to how it applies to the classroom, I can only supply one idea :
In teaching language (whether it be the student's 1rst or 2nd or 3rd) we teachers try our best to understand the student's 'competence' in that language as much as we can. We try to grade how their 'competences' change throughout the duration of the course. However, we are very limited in how we can approach this. The only aspect of their language that can truly be tested is thier performance. We give them tests, make them do presentations, or write small essays, and all we get in the end is the result of their 'performance'. We can never truly understand how 'competent' a student is, except through the way they 'perform' in class, or on paper.
All this to say that it really doesn't change the methodes teachers use to teach languages. It simply adds a limitation to our understanding of how knowledgeable the student really is.
WJ
As you stated, I don't believe that 'competence' and 'performance' concepts are limited to speakers and there mother tongues at all .
Thanks to the fortitude of Chomsky's GG and UG theories, most followers of Chomsky never consider the '2nd language acquisition' side of things. Many articles and books, however, are available on 2nd language learning and apply theories which only discussed regarding mother tongue competence and performance. Suzanne Romaine has done extensive work on bilingualism and these concepts.
As to how it applies to the classroom, I can only supply one idea :
In teaching language (whether it be the student's 1rst or 2nd or 3rd) we teachers try our best to understand the student's 'competence' in that language as much as we can. We try to grade how their 'competences' change throughout the duration of the course. However, we are very limited in how we can approach this. The only aspect of their language that can truly be tested is thier performance. We give them tests, make them do presentations, or write small essays, and all we get in the end is the result of their 'performance'. We can never truly understand how 'competent' a student is, except through the way they 'perform' in class, or on paper.
All this to say that it really doesn't change the methodes teachers use to teach languages. It simply adds a limitation to our understanding of how knowledgeable the student really is.
WJ
-
James Trotta
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2003 1:06 am
- Contact:
Judging from sunpowers questions about competence/performance and Halliday's functional grammar, I think we're probably taking the same MA course through USQ. Our assignment is due tomorrow. I mailed mine today. I'm not sure that this is the right place to turn for answers to exam questions, but I trust that sunpower doesn't have enough time to use my response.
Anyway, one of the conclusions I drew from my reading on competene/performance is that it can improve what we do in the classroom in terms of error correction.
For example all intermediate students know about subject verb agreement. However in group work I often hear mistakes. I used to put a few of these on the board every day and of course the learners knew exactly what should have been said.
I don't think drawing attention to these performance errors was any help to my learners. If anything, they knew how to formulate the grammar but there's a lot going on in a brain when processing a second language so their knowledge isn't always realized. Why correct what they already know?
Anyway, one of the conclusions I drew from my reading on competene/performance is that it can improve what we do in the classroom in terms of error correction.
For example all intermediate students know about subject verb agreement. However in group work I often hear mistakes. I used to put a few of these on the board every day and of course the learners knew exactly what should have been said.
I don't think drawing attention to these performance errors was any help to my learners. If anything, they knew how to formulate the grammar but there's a lot going on in a brain when processing a second language so their knowledge isn't always realized. Why correct what they already know?