Linguistic competence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Linguistic competence is the system of linguistic knowledge possessed by native speakers of a language, it is in contrast to the concept of Linguistic performance, the way the language system is used in communication. The concept was first introduced by Noam Chomsky [1] as part of the foundations for his Generative grammar, but it has since been adopted and developed by other linguists, particularly those working in the generativist tradition. In the generativist tradition competence is the only level of language that is studied, because this level gives insights into the Universal Grammar, that generativists see as underlying all human language systems. Functional theories of grammar tend to dismiss the sharp distinction between competence and performance, and particularly the primacy given to the study of competence. According to Chomsky, competence is the 'ideal' language system that makes it possible for speakers to produce and understand an infinite number [nb 1] of sentences in their language, and to distinguish grammatical sentences from ungrammatical sentences. This is unaffected by "grammatically irrelevant conditions" such as speech errors.[1] Competence versus performance Further information: Linguistic performance "Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech-communication, who know its (the speech community's) language perfectly and that it is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of this language in actual performance." ~Chomsky,1965[1] Chomsky differentiates competence, which is an idealized capacity, from performance being the production of actual utterances. According to him, competence is the ideal speaker-hearer's knowledge of his or her language and it is the 'mental reality' which is responsible for all those aspects of language use which can be characterized as 'linguistic'.[2] Chomsky argues that only under an idealized situation whereby the speaker-hearer is unaffected by grammatically irrelevant conditions such as memory limitations and distractions will performance be a direct reflection of competence. A sample of natural speech consisting of numerous false starts and other deviations will not provide such data. Therefore, he claims that a fundamental distinction has to be made between the competence and performance.[1] Chomsky dismissed criticisms of delimiting the study of performance in favor of the study of underlying competence, as unwarranted and completely misdirected. He claims that the descriptivist limitation-inprinciple to classification and organization of data, the "extracting patterns" from a corpus of observed speech and the describing "speech habits" etc. are the core factors that precludes the development of a theory of actual performance.[1] [edit] Competence and components of grammar Further information: Theoretical Linguistics One's competence is defined by the grammar,[nb 2][3] or set of language rules, that is represented mentally and manifested based on his or her own understanding of acceptable usage in a given linguistic idiom. Therefore, grammatical competence defines an innate knowledge of rules rather than knowledge of items or relations. According to Chomsky, it is regarded to be innate because one does not have to be trained to develop it and will still be able to apply it in an infinite number of unheard examples. [4]

The core components of the grammar are included in the speaker's linguistic competence and these components corresponds to five of the major subfields of linguistics: Phonetics: The physical production and perception of the inventory of sounds used in producing language. Phonology: The mental organization of physical sounds and the patterns formed by the way sounds are combined in a language, and the restrictions on permissible sound combinations. E.g.: slip vs *slib and *sbill Morphology: The identification, analysis and description of units of meaning in a language. One will know the inflectional and derivational morphology present in the language, such as the affixes of words. E.g.: re-cuddle can be derived but not *re-rich Syntax: The structure and formation of sentences. One can distinguish between grammatical sentences and ungrammatical sentences. E.g.: My hair needs washing is acceptable but not *My hair needs wash Semantics: Understanding the meaning of sentences. This is also how a user of the language is able to understand and interpret the non-literal meaning in a given utterance. They are three distinctions drawn here: (i) Meaningful and non-meaningful sentences E.g.: The accident was seen by thousands is meaningful but not *The accident was looked by thousands (ii) Same structure but different meanings E.g.: The cow was found by the stream but not *The cow was found by the farmer (iii) Different structures and still be able to relate the meanings E.g.: The police examined the bullet. The bullet was examined by the police. Schools of thought [edit] Chomsky and Generative Grammar Chomsky's perspective of language learning basically revolves around the idea that all humans have an internal capacity to acquire language. In other words, it implies that this ability to learn and analyze linguistic information is universal and innate, and Chomsky likened it to a language acquisition device, being a result of human evolution.[5] One of the key figures quoted by Chomsky as a spark for his ideas included Wilhelm von Humboldt who advocated the "creative" aspect of language and that a grammar must be existent to describe the process that makes a language possible to "make infinite use of finite means". [1] Another key figure is Ferdinand de Saussure and his idea of langue and parole but however, Chomsky rejects Saussure's notion of langue as "merely a systematic inventory of items" but rather chooses to conceptualize a model of underlying competence regarded as "a system of generative processess".[4] Another major influence is Ren Descartes whose concern with the creative powers of the mind leads him to regard human language as an instrument of thought.[4] A generative grammar is a finite set of rules that could hypothetically produce an infinitive number of utterances. It enables humans to generate all kinds of sentences and never to produce an ungrammatical sentence. [5] In Chomsky's own words:

"...by a generative grammar I mean simply a system of rules that in some explicit and well-defined way assigns structural descriptions to sentences."[1] Chomsky's notion of linguistic competence is purely syntactic. [edit] Other generativists Linguistic competence is treated as more comprehensive term for lexicalists, such as Jackendoff and Pustejovsky, within the generative school of thought. They assume a modular lexicon, a set of lexical entries containing semantic, syntactic and phonological information deemed necessary to parse a sentence. [6] [7] In the generative lexicalist view this information is intimately tied up with linguistic competence. Nevertheless, their models are still in line with the mainstream generative research in adhering to strong innateness, modularity and autonomy of syntax.[8] [edit] Ray S. Jackendoff Ray S. Jackendoff's model deviates from the traditional generative grammar in that it does not treat syntax as the main generative component from which meaning and phonology is developed unlike Chomsky. According to him, a generative grammar consists of five major components: the lexicon, the base component, the transformational component, the phonological component and the semantic component. [nb 3] [9] Againsting the syntax-centered view of generative grammar(syntactocentrism), he specifically treats phonology, syntax and semantics as three parallel generative processes, coordinated through interface processes. He further subdivides each of those three processes into various "tiers", themselves coordinated by interfaces. Yet, he clarifies that those interfaces are not sensitive to every aspect of the processes they coordinate. For instance, phonology is affected by some aspects of syntax, but not vice versa. [edit] James Pustejovsky In contrast to the static view of word meaning (where each word is characterized by a predetermined number of word senses) which imposes a tremendous bottleneck on the performance capability of any natural language processing system, Pustejovsky proposes that the lexicon becomes an active and central component in the linguistic description. The essence of his theory is that the lexicon functions generatively, first by providing a rich and expressive vocabulary for characterizing lexical information; then, by developing a framework for manipulating fine-grained distinctions in word descriptions; and finally, by formalizing a set of mechanisms for specialized composition of aspects of such descriptions of words, as they occur in context, extended and novel sense are generated.[10] [edit] Katz & Fodor Katz and Fodor suggests that a grammar should be thought of as a system of rules relating the externalized form of the sentences of a language to their meanings that are to be expressed in a universal semantic representation, just as sounds are expressed in a universal semantic representation. They hope that by making semantics an explicit part of generative grammar, more incisive studies of meaning would be possible. Since they assume that semantic representations are not formally similar to syntactic structure, they suggest a complete linguistic description must therefore include a new set of rules, a semantic component, to relate meanings to syntactic and/or phonological structure. Their theory can be reflected by their slogan "linguistic description minus grammar equals semantics". [9][11] Functionalist critiques of the generativist concept of Competence Functionalist linguists forward a usage-based perspective on linguistic competence. They argue that linguistic competence is derived from and informed by language use, performance, taking the directly

opposite view to the generative model.[12][13] As a result, in functionalist theories emphasis is placed on experimental methods to understand the linguistic competence of individuals. An argument used by functionalist linguists against the strict division between competence and performance and the primacy of competence, is that a language theory based on an autonomous level of competence encounters difficulties when trying to explain language change and grammaticalization, which can only be explained as changes in performance directly causing changes in the competence level.[14] Another common critique of the generativist concept of competence is that the underlying presupposition that the felicity of grammatical constructions is judged based only on its relation to competence is incorrect and does not fit the data from actual usage where the felicity of an utterance often depends largely on the communicative context.[15][16] Functionalist theorists have also argued that the competence/performance distinction basically serves to privilege data from certain linguistic genres and socio-linguistic registers that are judged by speakers to be more prestigious, while discounting evidence from low-prestige genres and registers as being simply misperformance.[17] Cognitive grammar, one of several functionalist theoretical frameworks, was developed by Ronald Langacker to understand language as a result of cognitive mechanisms and processes and not from the grammar of the language.[3] Within this school of thought, linguistic competence involves the ability to adequately construct and fully understand expressions by means of language itself and additional resources such as memory, intentionality, general knowledge etc. It also includes our knowledge to make abstractions, which allows us to conceive of words in isolation. [8] [edit] Competence in Psycholinguistics Psycholinguistics is primarily concerned with language as a psychological phonomenon. [18] It provides insights into how we assemble our own speech and writing and how we understand that of others; into how we store and use vocabulary; into how we manage to acquire language in the first place.[19] According to experimental linguist N.S. Sutherland, the task of psycholinguistics is not to confirm Chomsky's account of linguistic competence by undertaking experiments. It is by doing experiments, to find out what are the mechanisms that underlie linguistic competence.[20] Psycholinguistics generally do not see the distinction between performance and competence to accurately reflect the empirical data, but tend to prefer usage based theories.[21] There are 3 important elements of psycholinguistics that are used to describe the mechanisms underlying our language understanding and production. (i) The language signal This refers to all forms of language expression, such as writing and speech, which are generated and perceived by language users. The most striking characteristic of the language signal is its perceptual invariance, both in writing and in speech, as there is always a salient and stable form that stands out against its physical environment. In our perception of such forms, gaps are closed, and irregularities are overlooked.[18] (ii) Operations of our neuropsychological system The operations of our neuropsychological systems determine how language signals are perceived and generated. For both speech and writing, there are two very different sorts of biological system involved. Speech involves auditory pathways from sensory organs to the brain then the vocal tract whilst writing involves motor pathways from sensory organs to the brain followed by the hand-arm system. However,

they do have a similarity in that both involve short pathways to the central processing areas in the brain, regarded as the central language area.[18] (iii) Language System This is more abstract than the first two since it may be implemented even when we are not using palpable language signals at all, as in silent verbal reasoning, contemplation of our language and general language knowledge .[18] [edit] Communicative competence Main article: Communicative competence Another functionalist theory advances the notion of communicative competence, which focuses on sociallysituated performance, was developed by Dell Hymes in response to the abstract nature of linguistic competence. [22][23] Communicative competence is also sometimes referred to as pragmatic or sociolinguistic competence, especially when the emphasis is on how to interpret the speaker's intended meaning in a particular utterance, apart from the literal meaning.[24] The major criticism towards Chomsky's notion of linguistic competence by Hymes is the inadequate distinction of competence and performance. Furthermore, he commented that it is unreal and that no significant progress in linguistics is possible without studying forms along with the ways in which they are used. As such, linguistic competence should fall under the domain of communicative competence since it comprises four competence areas, namely, linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse and strategic.[25]

-----------------------------------

Article Details

Written By: David Bishop Edited By: Angela B. Last Modified Date: 15 March 2012 Copyright Protected: 2003-2012 Conjecture Corporation

What Is Linguistic Competence?

Linguistic competence is a term used by speech experts and anthropologists to describe how language is defined within a community of speakers. This term applies to mastering the combination of sounds, syntax and semantics known as the grammar of a language. People with such competence have learned to utilize the grammar of their spoken language to generate an unlimited amount of statements. This term is distinct from the concept of communicative competence, which determines what is socially appropriate speech. The idea of linguistic competence was first developed by linguist Noam Chomsky in the mid-1960s. Chomsky developed several theories aimed at describing how language was acquired and functioned within a culture. Linguistic competence is part of a larger theory of linguistic behavior known as universal grammar, which explains language as a natural ability with which children are born and which becomes refined as they develop. This theory lies in contrast with the idea that speech is strictly a learned behavior. Chomskys theory of generative grammar contained several key concepts about language, including linguistic competence, linguistic performance and communicative competence. Chomsky defined linguistic competence as an idealized understanding of the rules and construction of a given language. This includes the distinct sounds used in the language, the combination of these sounds, the creation of sentences and the interpretation of a sentence. Once a speaker masters this set of rules, he or she can use this grammar to produce new phrases that will be understood by all speakers of the same language. Linguistic performance and communicative competence are concepts related to linguistic competence but are applied to language as it is actually used rather than as an ideal construct. Linguistic performance is the practical application of speech with the grammatical flaws and mistakes that exist among real-world speakers. This allows speakers to understand each other despite grammatical flaws and differences in dialect. Communicative competence refers to the rules that govern the kinds of speech allowed within the cultural context. Chomskys theories sparked debate among linguists and have continued to influence debate around the acquisition and use of language. Some linguistic theorists see linguistic competence as a learned behavior rather than an innate function of the human brain. Other researchers ignore Chomskys separate definitions of competence and performance and study language as a practical function of human behavior. The concept of linguistic competence remains an important aspect of linguistic theory and education. It is a subject touched on by linguistics courses within the English curriculum and is dealt with in depth in linguistic and cultural anthropology. Linguistic researchers and theorists continue to study and refine this concept through fieldwork and clinical investigation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

HWIC- HEALTH WORKFORCE INFORMATION CENTRE

What is cultural and linguistic competence and why is it important? One of the most widely used definitions of cultural competence comes from a 1989 Georgetown University National Center for Cultural Competence (NCCC) monograph by Terry L. Cross et al., with the adaptation here from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Minority Health (HHS OMH) in their guide, What is Cultural Competency?: Cultural and linguistic competence is a set of congruent behaviors, attitudes, and policies that come together in a system, agency, or among professionals that enables effective work in cross-cultural situations. 'Culture' refers to integrated patterns of human behavior that include the language, thoughts, communications, actions, customs, beliefs, values, and institutions of racial, ethnic, religious, or social groups. 'Competence' implies having the capacity to function effectively as an individual and an organization within the context of the cultural beliefs, behaviors, and needs presented by consumers and their communities. As the U.S. population becomes more diverse, health care providers are serving more patients with backgrounds, beliefs, and language skills that are different from their own. According to a 2002 report from the HHS OMH, Teaching Cultural Competence in Health Care: A Review of Current Concepts, Policies and Practices, the provision of culturally and linguistically competent care can help address and improve: Health disparities Health care access, and Quality of care, particularly patient-centered care

The National Standards on Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS) offers federal guidance on providing culturally and linguistically competent care. What skills are needed by the workforce to provide culturally competent care? In an opening commentary for the 2005 curriculum development project, Transforming the Face of Health Professions through Cultural and Linguistic Competence Education: The Role of the HRSA Centers of Excellence, Dr. Joseph Betancourt of Harvard Medical School outlines these areas which the guide addresses: methods for eliciting patients understanding of illness, strategies for identifying and bridging different styles of communication, skills for assessing decision-making preferences and the role of family, techniques to determine the patients perception of biomedicine and use of complementary and alternative medicine, tools for recognizing sexual and gender issues, mechanisms for negotiation, the importance of being aware of issues of mistrust, prejudice, and the effect of race and ethnicity on clinical decision-making

In the same publication, Chapter 5: Curriculum Content for Cultural and Linguistic Competence, provides recommendations for concepts to include in a cultural and linguistic competency curriculum and includes an overview of several curricula models.

What are some ways that the workforce can help meet the linguistic needs of patients? To ensure access to care for patients with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) - those who speak English less than very well, the 2005 HHS OMH report A Patient-Centered Guide to Implementing Language Access Services in Healthcare Organizations offers these options: bilingual staff and clinicians dedicated staff interpreters telephone interpretation community volunteers

The American Medical Associations Office Guide to Communicating with Limited English Proficient Patients reviews the pros and cons of each staffing option. What types of training are available? The HHS OMH lists continuing education options through its Think Cultural Health web site. The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) offers a free online course, Unified Health Communications, that addresses health literacy, cultural competence and Limited English Proficiency. The NCCC has variety of distance learning opportunities and self-assessments, including the Cultural Competence Health Practitioner Assessment. The Cross Cultural Health Care Program offers training and assessment, including train-the-trainer events. The Public Health Foundations TRAIN.org lists a variety of additional training options on cultural competence.

Sources: HHS Office of Minority Health National Center for Cultural Competence National Standards on Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS), 2007 Office Guide to Communicating with Limited English Proficient Patients A Patient-Centered Guide to Implementing Language Access Services in Healthcare Organizations, 9/2005 Teaching Cultural Competence in Health Care: A Review of Current Concepts, Policies and Practices, 3/2002 Transforming the Face of Health Professions through Cultural and Linguistic Competence Education: The Role of the HRSA Centers of Excellence, 2005 What Is Cultural Competency?, 2005

Page last updated January 11, 2012 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

CSMN---CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF MIND IN NATURE Linguistic Competence This project addresses three interconnected sets of issues about the kinds of competence that underlie linguistic agency. The first centres around the question of whether linguistic agency exhibits a kind of knowing-how. The second addresses issues having to do with knowledge of word meaning. The third addresses questions about syntactic competence and its acquisition. Objectives Questions about the putative role of knowledge-how in linguistic competence arise at all three levels of syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Are syntactic well-formedness judgements based on a kind of knowledge-how? Can semantic competences be so grounded? Within pragmatics, there are a number of related questions: Appeals to relevance play an important role in many pragmatic theories (e.g. Grice and Sperber & Wilson) and for such theories it is important to clarify whether assessments of relevance involve a form of knowledge-how or are better construed as a form of knowing-that. Many philosophers of language (e.g. Soames, Bach, Cappelen & Lepore) posit a gap between semantic content and communicated content. Is that gap bridged by a kind of knowhow? Some theorists (e.g. Fodor, Cappelen & Lepore) have argued for a kind of no-theory theory about the transition from semantic content to communicated content. Can the distinction between knowing-how and knowing-that be of help in articulating such theories? These issues will be discussed in the context of the larger contemporary debate about the distinction between knowing-how and knowing that (which is addressed from a complementary perspective in subproject A above). The second set of issues engages more directly with a specific domain of competence: knowledge of word meaning. Recent work in semantics, pragmatics and philosophy of language raises a series of questions about the nature, acquisition and evolution of our competence with and knowledge of word meanings. Taking as our starting point Grices proposed division of labour between lexical semantics and pragmatics, we plan to investigate (a) how the semantics-pragmatics distinction applies at the level of the word, as opposed to the whole sentence, and (b) what are the implications for lexical semantics of the ongoing debate on semantic minimalism vs. contextualism. We also aim (c) to assess the advantages and disadvantages of analysing word meanings as full-fledged concepts, schematic concepts (pro-concepts), or procedures (rules or instructions for use); and (d) to consider the implications for the analysis of word meaning of the massive modularity thesis in cognitive science. A preliminary workshop on this topic was held at CSMN in September 2010. Another aspect of linguistic competence relates to the nature of linguistic structure, in particular syntax, and its acquisition. The object of inquiry is the linguistic competence of individual speakers - the I-language - and its nature, use, and acquisition. This competence is acquired through an interplay of the innate language faculty and the social norms of the learning environment. Professor Jan Terje Faarlund, building on his work in the first phase of CSMN, plans to focus his research on two specific issues: (a) the transfer of structural knowledge from one generation to the next and thus through time (diachronic syntax), and (b) the role of the sociocultural environment in the evolution of language, especially related to the question of linguistic and cultural complexity.

Published Jan 20, 2012 03:07 PM - Last modified Feb 1, 2012 08:50 AM

Linguistic competence vs. Translation competence: A pedagogic approach Popescu, Teodora (2011) Linguistic competence vs. Translation competence: A pedagogic approach. In: 1st International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (FLTAL11), 5-7 May 2011, Sarajevo.

Abstract The aim of this paper is to address the issue of linguistic competence versus translation competence seen from a pedagogical perspective. I will start by reviewing the well-known distinction between competence and performance and their interrelatedness. Other dimensions will be added to linguistic competence, which together contribute to the process of language learning (either foreign or second): sociolingistic competence, pragmatic competence and intercultural competence. In close connection with linguistic competence I will try to delineate the components of translation competence, by outlining similarities and differences between the two processes. Some elements of translation competence, apart from those that are also inherent to linguistic competence will be analysed and exemplified: monitoring competence, ICT competence and contentknowledge competence. From a pedagogic viewpoint, in order for the students to attain a certain degree of translation competence, their level of linguistic competence must be fairly well-developed (at least upper-intermediate, or B2 according to the Common European Framework of reference for languages); however, when learning how to translate, students have to be able to further enhance their linguistic competence. Therefore, I will also attempt at providing a basic teaching methodology involving the use of translation in EFL/ESL classes, so as to increase students both competences.

Item Type: Conference or Workshop Item (Paper) linguistic competence, sociolinguistic Uncontrolled competence, pragmatic competence, Keywords: intercultural competence, translation competence. P Language and Literature > P Philology. Linguistics

Subjects:

Depositing Mr. Durmus Ali Avci User: Date 08 Feb 2012 12:36 Deposited: Last 05 Mar 2012 08:24 Modified: URI: http://eprints.ibu.edu.ba/id/eprint/560