Now we will be shifting our focus to the most influential theories of acquisition. Before we do, we have to define what exactly language acquisition entails. We'll answer the question "What exactly are our students acquiring?"
1. Please read the excerpt on Communicative Competence from the TESOL Bible, Brown's Principles of Language Learning and Teaching.
There are two discussion leaders for the first group this week. Next week we'll be doing something different with the blog. This will be your last week with your current group T.T
Jeff, Amy, *Jasper, *Liz (two discussion leaders, not a typo)
Kevan, Lawrence, *Dee Dee
John, Laura, *David
Finally, to help connect the course content to real-life teaching, please bring the textbooks you teach with to class each week. If you don't use a textbook, bring a book you have used in the past or could possibly use in the future (the resource center has a lot to choose from). You can bring more than one book each week and you can bring a different book each week.
Dell Hymes, the father of the term communicative competence, argued that it was what enabled us to communicate information/ideas, give meaning to messages from others as well as interact in a meaningful way in different contexts. As opposed to Chomsky’s view of competence as an intrapersonal construct, Hymes claimed it to be an interpersonal construct.
ReplyDeleteBy the 1970s, two components of communicative competence were identified. Linguistic competence was one’s knowledge about language forms; whereas communicative competence was defined as the knowledge which enabled us to communicate with others properly.
James Cummins distinguished between cognitive/academic language proficiency (CALP) and basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS). CALP was the use of language outside of interpersonal contexts, i.e. in academic settings. BICS, on the other hand, referred to the conversational fluency attained and used in every day dialogues with others. This notion was later modified by Cummins to take into account the context in which exchanges took place. Context-reduced was comparable to CALP and context-embedded to BICS.
Michael Canale & Merrill Swain identified four components of communicative competence in 1983. Grammatical competence was the knowledge of the linguistic system (phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics). The ability to put together utterances to make sentences to hold a conversation was defined as discourse competence. Sociolinguistic competence was the knowledge of social contexts in which exchanges took place; this competence enabled one to judge whether what was uttered was appropriate or not. Finally, strategic competence was what speakers used to repair communication breakdowns related to inadequate knowledge of any of the other three competences or due to factors such as distraction, fatigue as well as to increase the effectiveness of communication.
In 1990, Lyle Bachman coined the term language competence which was made up of organizational competence, encompassing constructs of grammatical and discourse competence (renamed as textual competence)by Canale and Swain, and pragmatic competence, broken down into illocutionary competence (performance of language functions) and sociolinguistic competence (social behavioral norms of a language).According to Bachman, strategic competence was a separate component of communicative language ability; assuming more of an “executive” role to make final decisions regarding choice of words, phrasing and other ways through which speakers conveyed intended meaning across to one another.
Good summary Dee Dee :)
DeleteMe: I paid attention to and especially found interesting the four parts of communicative competence.
I think we would find that L2 English learners will grasp grammatical competence with practice and tests. I also think that with speaking practice focusing on fluency L2 learners can do quite well with discourse competence. The fact that I am finding more and more of the teachers I train are good public speakers (debate, public speeches) at the start or with some practice shows that many can master discourse competence. I would also argue that after living in Korea for ten years I can see a marked improvement discourse competence among younger and school aged Koreans as well.
Sociolinguistic competence, as well as strategic competence would be the more difficult of the four to master for L2 English learners. My feeling is that sociolinguistic is the most difficult to be proficient in as the best way to master this area of competence would be to be immersed in an English speaking culture. You would not become competent doing this only in Korea. Most, if not all, of my Korean friends have lived overseas (a few months to years) and have traveled extensively too. But on the other hand I have met a few Koreans who were good in this areas as they interacted with native speakers on a daily basis every week. An example would be the office manager of the language center at my old job (Suncheon National University).
In regards to strategic competence I find that having long conversations with my Korean and other Asian friends (China, Vietnam) is possible. They ask many questions and some even engage in forms of scaffolding to keep the conversation going. One thing they do have in common is that they are very talkative in their native language as well. Lastly, it does tend to be me asking more questions when I chat with my friends.
Therefore, I feel that strategic competence is the most difficult.
Dee Dee and Lawrence: what do you think?
Kevan, I completely agree with you in that sociolinguistic and strategic competences ought to be more difficult to master for learners of English.
DeleteWhen we think about sociolinguistic competence, we are talking about sociocultural aspects of language and discourse. As you have pointed out this would be extremely difficult to master unless one has studied/worked/travelled overseas extensively, through which they would have a chance to be a part of an English-speaking culture. We could consider for instance tailgating before NFL games. Regardless of how much we tell our friends or how many games they watch on tv, they would not really be able to understand the social context unless/until they experience it in person. Surely, they can come close to it with hard work. But, do you think that it would be possible to really master this competence without immersing in the culture?
As far as the strategic competence, it works to compensate for breakdowns in communication due to a lack of knowledge in any of the other three competences. Teaching someone all the verbal as well as nonverbal strategies to apply depending on the context would be immensely difficult...
I'm afraid I have to agree with you both. As boring as agreeing can be, I would have to conclude that sociolinguistic and strategic competence would be the most difficult areas for EFL students to get a good grasp of.
DeleteI think that culture plays such a large role in what is socially acceptable or unacceptable to utter. For example it's socially acceptable to make comments about one's appearance in Korea. These kind of nuances of a language; what makes something inappropriate? Why? Who determines that? Aren't things that can be easily learned through study, or classroom practice. It would require immersion in an L2 speaking country for a student to really grasp the social nuances of the language. Even then, there are plenty of immigrant Canadians, who have been immersed in English for some years, who still make socially awkward statements.
However, the same can be said for native speakers! There are those who say "awkward" things. And it's difficult to pin-point exactly WHAT makes it awkward.
I think the strategic competence is also difficult for EFL learners. Korea is essentially a homogeneous society (although it has become more diverse over the last decade). Nevertheless, many Koreans can go through their entire life without having to speak anything except L1.
Personally, I feel like I have strategic competence, not because of being an English teacher necessarily, but because I come from a very mixed-culture, as we all have. Growing up, we have all had encounters with immigrants who don't have native-like English abilities. We have all had to compensate for incomplete knowledge or understanding. As a child, the local convenience store owners were Korean. From very early on I had experience interacting with someone who couldn't speak English perfectly.
I've been surprised at times when Koreans have tried to speak to me in their language, and simply spoke at their normal rate. They didn't seem to slow it down for me. They seem to lack strategic competence because in their homogeneous country, they haven't needed it.
This article talks about the development of communicative competence, which was first coined by Dell Hymes in the late 1960’s, which he referred to it as “that aspect of our competence that enables us to convey and interpret messages and to negotiate meanings interpersonally within specific contexts” (p. 246). However, this definition evolved over time by the research and work by many people.
ReplyDeleteIt was first developed from Chomsky’s notion of competence (1965), then later by Sauvignon in 1983. In the 1970s, more research was done to distinguish linguistic and communicative competence. James Cummins made a distinction between cognitive/academic language proficiency (CALP) and basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS). Then he modified them in the 1980s to context-reduced (ex. school-oriented language) and context embedded (ex. face-face communication) communication.
Around the same time, Michael Canale and Merril Swain also worked on defining communicative competence. They came up with four components of competences: grammatical, discourse, sociolinguistic, and strategic. Later, the strategic competence definition was amended by Swain in the mid-1980s, then by Yule and Tarone in the 1990s.
The most recent definition was modified by Lyle Bachman in the 1990s, where he broke them down into three categories: 1. Organizational competence (rules and systems that dictate what we can do with the forms of language, whether its grammar rules or discourse rules); 2. Sociolinguistic competence, which as two aspects: Functional aspects of language (deals with sending and receiving intended meanings) and Sociolinguistic aspects (deals with culturally related aspects, such as politeness and formality); and 3. Strategic competence (deals with wording, phrasing, and other productive and receptive means of negotiating meaning).
I'm not sure if the discussion leaders are supposed to ask questions to the group, but I guess, if I take a look at Brachman's components of language, I could think about how I teach. What components do we concentrate on when teaching? Can we say that we concentrate on specific categories more than others? I don't know what category I am really concentrating on. What do you guys think?
DeleteGreat question Jasper... Although I am not in your group, I hope you don't mind I share my opinion :). I am tempted to say that many teachers, I suppose including myself, tend to focus on textual competence, which includes constructs of grammatical and discourse competence) while teaching. Wouldn't you agree?
DeleteYou write so well! ^^ And good questions too!
DeleteWhat I would say is that now, in Korean schools i see a focus on organizational competence, such as the memorization of rules.
What we should be teaching, and what I want to teach more of, is the functional aspects of language, and the sociolinguistic aspects. Those are much more useful and helpful in real life situations.
I was explaining the word please, as we discussed in class the other day and all of them were very surprised that the word please could make ALMOST any sentence one level higher in politeness.
Hi guys! Sorry I'm so late to the party! I was using my iPad at home...and I can't get Blogger to post "as me" - it always says "Google Account" and then when I publish something... it just disappears!
DeleteANYWAY - I'm going to answer you first, Jasper.
I found this reading to be very interesting. The interest and shift to investigate the social constructivist perspective seems to be a step in the right direction. When thinking of the shift and how it is focusing more on communicative competence, it seemed to me to be a natural partner to the Interaction Hypothesis model of SLA we read about a few weeks ago. The idea that communicative competence allows people to negotiate meanings ties in with the Interaction Hypothesis, so for me, it is a very interesting concept.
Jasper, following on from your question, I think in my classroom I do incorporate elements of each of Bachman's components of language, however I think I tend to focus on the functional aspects of language. For me, being able to send and receive *intended meanings* is a major goal. Our hagwon prides itself on children's ability to express themselves in speaking, so I would say illocutionary competence is the over arching goal of the hagwon. In my own classroom, I do a lot of work on strategic competence as well. Being able to paraphrase, and use various tools to ensure meaning is created and understood, is, in my opinion, one of the most important skills when learning a foreign language. Therefore, I am constantly encouraging my students to try different ways to express themselves and use what they have to understand language they hear or read. I was drawn to Savignon's definition of strategic competence as "...the competence underlying our ability to make repairs, to cope with imperfect knowledge, and to sustain communication through "paraphrase, circumlocution, repetition, hesitation, avoidance, and guessing..." I feel this definition resonated with me more than Bachman's definition of strategic competence.
I am not sure if I am supposed to post separately to Jasper's post.
ReplyDeleteSo here is my summary! ^^
The article starts out with defining communicative competence, "the aspect of our competence that enables us to convey and interpret messages and to negotiate meanings interpersonally within specific contexts."
Then it goes on to detail the research on it, with focus on a distinction between context reduced and context embedded communication. The distinction that should be important for use to note is that most classroom communication is context reduced and most face to face interaction is context embedded.
Then the article goes into more detail about how to break the levels of competence down into four points: grammatical, discourse, sociolinguistic, and strategic.
But the most recent model of communicative competence is that of organizational (grammar) competence, sociolinguistic (cultural part of language) competence and strategic competence.
As I read this article it seemed like the definition and use competence is changing rapidly and really relies on the teacher or educator to figure out what is competence for the classroom and what is competence for the real world.
Liz, thanks for summarising!
DeleteI think you're right - the change is happening. I for one, am glad that there has been a shift away from a strict focus on organisational competence. As a teacher, I see so much more value in spending time helping children negotiate and navigate through language. I also think organisational competence will come with practice.
One thing that I would say...is that with the shift, I think there is pressure on teachers to really care about their job and their role as facilitator. I think in the past, many teachers relied on the grammar to drive their lessons, but these days, I think teachers need to 'pay attention' to their students and how they can help them move towards their objectives. I think teachers need to care a lot more - and come to class prepared and armed with ideas and plans - rather than just come with books and page numbers to get through.
I often get annoyed with teachers here who don't really care about what they are doing. It's sad to admit that there are teachers here who don't really 'KNOW' what they are doing, and in a sense, don't realise how important they are to their students' learning journey. Sorry to sound so preachy, but this is just something that bothers me...a lot!
As the 20th Century progressed, there was a shift in how Linguists and those engaged in the study of SLA approached language. Interest became focused on the context of speech and communication and where these different factors influenced the development of language. Dell Hymes coined the term "communicative competence" in response to Noam Chomsky's theories, which he felt were too narrow and didn't take into account contextual meaning in language. communicative competence, according to Hymes is that which enables speakers of language to "convey and interpret" interpersonal messages within particular contexts. In the view of Hymes, language does not exist in a vacuum and it is only in these exchanges and not in isolation that language constructs can be understood.
ReplyDeleteIn the 70s, study became further specified as James Cummins labeled two distinctions:cognitive/academic language proficiency (CALP) and basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS). The former is academic, and can be put in the Phonics book category (more formal study) and the latter is personal, in that language is picked up by exploring the world around them and actually communicating. He later changed the terminology to accurately reflect what it is fundamentally about: CONTEXT. The terms are "context-reduced" and "context embedded communication" respectively.
Michael Canale and Merrill Swain have contributed the most significant research to communicative competence, with their breaking down of communicative competence into four parts:
1.) Grammatical: the formal structures---syntax, grammar, et al.
2.) Discourse: a "compliment" to grammatical, it is being able to make sense of the messages that we are giving and receiving
3.) Sociolinguistic: Awareness of socio-cultural considerations. In other words, being able to read the context of given messages of language.
4.) Strategic: The ability to compensate for break downs in communication and unexpected deviations in language, or on the flip side, to enhance your messages with verbal and non-verbal forms.
A later researcher, Lyle Bachmann modified this model further, consolidating Grammatical and Discourse into one category (organizational competence) and Sociolinguistic is split into the functional aspects (illocutionary competence) sociolinguistic aspects. Strategic Competence is broken off into it's own category. In Bachmann's view, this Competence informs all the others and in serves an "executive" function.
I found this article to be interesting, in that it definitely pinpoints the different facets of what goes into communicating with another person, with all of the messages both spoken and unspoken that go along with it. I find it fascinating that there is so much to it.
Yeah, I definitely agree with you about how fascinating it is, how much goes on in everyday discourse. For me as a second language learner, I feel that my strong points in this communicative competence are the grammatical and discourse. But I use them hand in hand. Listening for certain grammatical markers help me to understand the finer details to what the conversation is about. This helps me to figure out if the individual is telling me to do something or if they are talking about the past... I pick up on these aspects of the sentences through the grammatical features of the discourse. So, I do believe that as a teacher teaching the grammatical features of the L2 is important but shouldn't be just the main focus, as you can see that there are so many other aspects affecting communicative competence.
DeleteI feel that Sociolinguistic and Strategic are very individual based functions and can't really be taught. I would categorize this a being 'Street Smart", in which this comes developmentally and some people have a hard time being able to see the world this way and read into certain cues of the discourse or how to fill in the missing gaps. So, to try and transfer this and implement into an ELT would be extremely hard. Although, it could make for a very fun class, where as the students could watch videos of certain situational discourse, then analysis it for discussion about what took place, how the situation was handle, what they would do different and how would they handle this in their culture.
Overall, Sociolinguistic and Strategic to me are concepts that as individuals we develop on our own through trail and error and as a language teacher aren't attainable goals that can be met. I mean from this that they are socially rather than academically acquired.
Very succinct summary! I found this article quite interesting as well. The fact is we as language teachers might focus too much on the first two aspects of grammatical and discoursal competences, but the other areas, the sociolinguistic and strategic are things our students might pick up from our classes. If not our classes, they could get them through their cultural studies, i.e. movies, music, pop culture, which most people have some interest in. The last category, the strategic seems like something every person does when they can't communicate via the L2.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the late response. I had technical difficulties.