Linguistic competence

Last updated
Part of a series on
Linguistics
General linguistics
Applied linguistics
Theoretical frameworks
Topics
Symbol portal class.svg Portal

In linguistics, linguistic competence is the system of unconscious knowledge that one knows when they know a language. It is distinguished from linguistic performance, which includes all other factors that allow one to use one's language in practice.

Contents

In approaches to linguistics which adopt this distinction, competence would normally be considered responsible for the fact that "I like ice cream" is a possible sentence of English, the particular proposition that it denotes, and the particular sequence of phones that it consists of. Performance, on the other hand, would be responsible for the real-time processing required to produce or comprehend it, for the particular role it plays in a discourse, and for the particular sound wave one might produce while uttering it.

The distinction is widely adopted in formal linguistics, where competence and performance are typically studied independently. However, it is not used in other approaches including functional linguistics and cognitive linguistics, and it has been criticized in particular for turning performance into a wastebasket for hard-to-handle phenomena.

Competence versus performance

Competence is the collection of subconscious rules that one knows when one knows a language; performance is the system which puts these rules to use. [1] [2] This distinction is related to the broader notion of Marr's levels used in other cognitive sciences, with competence corresponding to Marr's computational level. [3]

For example, many linguistic theories, particularly in generative grammar, would competence-based explanations for why English speakers would judge the sentence in (1) as odd. In these explanations, the sentence would be ungrammatical because the rules of English only generate sentences where demonstratives agree with the grammatical number of their associated noun. [4]

(1) *That cats is eating the mouse.

By contrast, generative theories generally provide performance-based explanations for the oddness of center embedding sentences like one in (2). According to such explanations, the grammar of English could in principle generate such sentences, but doing so in practice is so taxing on working memory that the sentence ends up being unparsable. [4] [5]

(2) *The cat that the dog that the man fed chased meowed.

In general, performance-based explanations deliver a simpler theory of grammar at the cost of additional assumptions about memory and parsing. As a result, the choice between a competence-based explanation and a performance-based explanation for a given phenomenon is not always obvious and can require investigating whether the additional assumptions are supported by independent evidence. [5] [6] For example, while many generative models of syntax explain island effects by positing constraints within the grammar, it has also been argued that some or all of these constraints are in fact the result of limitations on performance. [7] [8]

Critiques

A broad front of linguists have critiqued the notion of linguistic competence, often severely. Proponents of usage-based approaches to linguistics argue that what generativists would call competence is in fact derived from performance. [9] [10] [11]

Sociolinguists have argued that the competence-performance distinction basically serves to privilege data from certain linguistic genres and socio-linguistic registers as used by the prestige group, while discounting evidence from low-prestige genres and registers as being simply mis-performance. [12]

Noted linguist John Lyons, who works on semantics, has said:

Chomsky's use of the term performance to cover everything that does not fall within the scope of a deliberately idealized and theoretically restricted concept of linguistic competence, was perhaps unfortunate. [13]

Dell Hymes, quoting Lyons as above, says that "probably now there is widespread agreement" with the above statement. [14]

Many linguists including M.A.K. Halliday and Labov have argued that the competence-performance distinction makes it difficult to explain language change and grammaticalization, which can be viewed as changes in performance rather than competence. [15]

Another critique of the concept of linguistic competence is that it does not fit the data from actual usage where the felicity of an utterance often depends largely on the communicative context. [16] [17]

Neurolinguist Harold Goodglass has argued that performance and competence are intertwined in the mind, since, "like storage and retrieval, they are inextricably linked in brain damage." [18]

Distributed representations, simple recurrent networks, and grammatical structure. Machine Learning, 7, 195–224.</ref> resulted in a wide questioning of nativist assumptions underlying psycholinguistic work up to the nineties. [19]

Some researchers working on discourse reject the competence-performance distinction due to the difficulty of determining whether an utterance is well-formed or not and the fact that dialogue is inherently interactive. [20]

Pragmatics and communicative competence

Dell Hymes proposed a broadening of linguistic competence into what he called communicative competence. This notion included social aspects of language which generative linguists would have regarded as performance. [21] [22]

Linguistic competence is commonly used and discussed in many language acquisition studies. Some of the more common ones are in the language acquisition of children, aphasics and multilinguals.

Child language

The Chomskyan view of language acquisition argues that humans have an innate ability – universal grammar – to acquire language. [23] However, a list of universal aspects underlying all languages has been hard to identify.

Another view, held by scientists specializing in Language acquisition, such as Tomasello, argues that young children's early language is concrete and item-based which implies that their speech is based on the lexical items known to them from the environment and the language of their caretakers. In addition, children do not produce creative utterances about past experiences and future expectations because they have not had enough exposure to their target language to do so. Thus, this indicates that the exposure to language plays more of a role in a child's linguistic competence than just their innate abilities. [24]

Aphasia

Aphasia refers to a family of clinically diverse disorders that affect the ability to communicate by oral or written language, or both, following brain damage. [25] In aphasia, the inherent neurological damage is frequently assumed to be a loss of implicit linguistic competence that has damaged or wiped out neural centers or pathways that are necessary for maintenance of the language rules and representations needed to communicate. The measurement of implicit language competence, although apparently necessary and satisfying for theoretic linguistics, is complexly interwoven with performance factors. Transience, stimulability, and variability in aphasia language use provide evidence for an access deficit model that supports performance loss. [26]

Multilingualism

The definition of a multilingual [nb 1] is one that has not always been very clear-cut. In defining a multilingual, the pronunciation, morphology and syntax used by the speaker in the language are key criteria used in the assessment. Sometimes the mastery of the vocabulary is also taken into consideration but it is not the most important criteria as one can acquire the lexicon in the language without knowing the proper use of it.

When discussing the linguistic competence of a multilingual, both communicative competence and grammatical competence are often taken into consideration as it is imperative for a speaker to have the knowledge to use language correctly and accurately. To test for grammatical competence in a speaker, grammaticality judgments of utterances are often used. Communicative competence on the other hand, is assessed through the use of appropriate utterances in different setting. [27]

Understanding humour

Language is often implicated in humor. For example, the structural ambiguity of sentences is a key source for jokes. Take Groucho Marx's line from Animal Crackers: "One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas; how he got into my pajamas I'll never know." The joke is funny because the main sentence could theoretically mean either that (1) the speaker, while wearing pajamas, shot an elephant or (2) the speaker shot an elephant that was inside his pajamas. [28]

Propositions by linguists such as Victor Raskin and Salvatore Attardo have been made stating that there are certain linguistic mechanisms (part of our linguistic competence) underlying our ability to understand humor and determine if something was meant to be a joke. Raskin puts forth a formal semantic theory of humor, which is now widely known as the semantic script theory of humor (SSTH). The semantic theory of humour is designed to model the native speaker's intuition with regard to humor or, in other words, his humor competence. The theory models and thus defines the concept of funniness and is formulated for an ideal speaker-hearer community i.e. for people whose senses of humor are exactly identical. Raskin's semantic theory of humor consists of two components – the set of all scripts available to speakers and a set of combinatorial rules. The term "script" used by Raskin in his semantic theory is used to refer to the lexical meaning of a word. The function of the combinatorial rules is then to combine all possible meaning of the scripts. Hence, Raskin posits that these are the two components which allows us to interpret humor. [29]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ The term multilingual is also commonly used to refer to a bilingual.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charles F. Hockett</span> American linguist (1916–2000)

Charles Francis Hockett was an American linguist who developed many influential ideas in American structuralist linguistics. He represents the post-Bloomfieldian phase of structuralism often referred to as "distributionalism" or "taxonomic structuralism". His academic career spanned over half a century at Cornell and Rice universities. Hockett was also a firm believer of linguistics as a branch of anthropology, making contributions that were significant to the field of anthropology as well.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Functional linguistics</span> Approach to linguistics

Functional linguistics is an approach to the study of language characterized by taking systematically into account the speaker's and the hearer's side, and the communicative needs of the speaker and of the given language community. Linguistic functionalism spawned in the 1920s to 1930s from Ferdinand de Saussure's systematic structuralist approach to language (1916).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Language</span> Structured system of communication

Language is a structured system of communication that consists of grammar and vocabulary. It is the primary means by which humans convey meaning, both in spoken and written forms, and may also be conveyed through sign languages. Human language is characterized by its cultural and historical diversity, with significant variations observed between cultures and across time. Human languages possess the properties of productivity and displacement, which enable the creation of an infinite number of sentences, and the ability to refer to objects, events, and ideas that are not immediately present in the discourse. The use of human language relies on social convention and is acquired through learning.

The following outline is provided as an overview and topical guide to linguistics:

In linguistics, syntax is the study of how words and morphemes combine to form larger units such as phrases and sentences. Central concerns of syntax include word order, grammatical relations, hierarchical sentence structure (constituency), agreement, the nature of crosslinguistic variation, and the relationship between form and meaning (semantics). There are numerous approaches to syntax that differ in their central assumptions and goals.

Dell Hathaway Hymes was a linguist, sociolinguist, anthropologist, and folklorist who established disciplinary foundations for the comparative, ethnographic study of language use. His research focused upon the languages of the Pacific Northwest. He was one of the first to call the fourth subfield of anthropology "linguistic anthropology" instead of "anthropological linguistics". The terminological shift draws attention to the field's grounding in anthropology rather than in what, by that time, had already become an autonomous discipline (linguistics). In 1972 Hymes founded the journal Language in Society and served as its editor for 22 years.

In linguistics, transformational grammar (TG) or transformational-generative grammar (TGG) is part of the theory of generative grammar, especially of natural languages. It considers grammar to be a system of rules that generate exactly those combinations of words that form grammatical sentences in a given language and involves the use of defined operations to produce new sentences from existing ones.

The concept of communicative competence, as developed in linguistics, originated in response to perceived inadequacy of the notion of linguistic competence. That is, communicative competence encompasses a language user's grammatical knowledge of syntax, morphology, phonology and the like, but reconceives this knowledge as a functional, social understanding of how and when to use utterances appropriately.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Generative grammar</span> Research tradition in linguistics

Generative grammar is a research tradition in linguistics that aims to explain the cognitive basis of language by formulating and testing explicit models of humans' subconscious grammatical knowledge. Generative linguists tend to share certain working assumptions such as the competence-performance distinction and the notion that some domain-specific aspects of grammar are partly innate. These assumptions are rejected in non-generative approaches such as usage-based models of language. Generative linguistics includes work in core areas such as syntax, semantics, phonology, psycholinguistics, and language acquisition, with additional extensions to topics including biolinguistics and music cognition.

Second-language acquisition (SLA), sometimes called second-language learning—otherwise referred to as L2acquisition, is the process by which people learn a second language. Second-language acquisition is also the scientific discipline devoted to studying that process. The field of second-language acquisition is regarded by some but not everybody as a sub-discipline of applied linguistics but also receives research attention from a variety of other disciplines, such as psychology and education.

Code-mixing is the mixing of two or more languages or language varieties in speech.

The term linguistic performance was used by Noam Chomsky in 1960 to describe "the actual use of language in concrete situations". It is used to describe both the production, sometimes called parole, as well as the comprehension of language. Performance is defined in opposition to "competence"; the latter describes the mental knowledge that a speaker or listener has of language.

In linguistics, grammaticality is determined by the conformity to language usage as derived by the grammar of a particular speech variety. The notion of grammaticality rose alongside the theory of generative grammar, the goal of which is to formulate rules that define well-formed, grammatical sentences. These rules of grammaticality also provide explanations of ill-formed, ungrammatical sentences.

In linguistics, well-formedness is the quality of a clause, word, or other linguistic element that conforms to the grammar of the language of which it is a part. Well-formed words or phrases are grammatical, meaning they obey all relevant rules of grammar. In contrast, a form that violates some grammar rule is ill-formed and does not constitute part of the language.

Functional grammar (FG) and functional discourse grammar (FDG) are grammar models and theories motivated by functional theories of grammar. These theories explain how linguistic utterances are shaped, based on the goals and knowledge of natural language users. In doing so, it contrasts with Chomskyan transformational grammar. Functional discourse grammar has been developed as a successor to functional grammar, attempting to be more psychologically and pragmatically adequate than functional grammar.

<i>Aspects of the Theory of Syntax</i> 1965 book by Noam Chomsky

Aspects of the Theory of Syntax is a book on linguistics written by American linguist Noam Chomsky, first published in 1965. In Aspects, Chomsky presented a deeper, more extensive reformulation of transformational generative grammar (TGG), a new kind of syntactic theory that he had introduced in the 1950s with the publication of his first book, Syntactic Structures. Aspects is widely considered to be the foundational document and a proper book-length articulation of Chomskyan theoretical framework of linguistics. It presented Chomsky's epistemological assumptions with a view to establishing linguistic theory-making as a formal discipline comparable to physical sciences, i.e. a domain of inquiry well-defined in its nature and scope. From a philosophical perspective, it directed mainstream linguistic research away from behaviorism, constructivism, empiricism and structuralism and towards mentalism, nativism, rationalism and generativism, respectively, taking as its main object of study the abstract, inner workings of the human mind related to language acquisition and production.

<i>Lectures on Government and Binding</i> 1981 book by Noam Chomsky

Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures (LGB) is a book by the linguist Noam Chomsky, published in 1981. It is based on the lectures Chomsky gave at the GLOW conference and workshop held at the Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa, Italy, in 1979. In this book, Chomsky presented his government and binding theory of syntax. It had great influence on the syntactic research in early 1980s, especially among the linguists working within the transformational grammar framework.

In linguistics, transformational syntax is a derivational approach to syntax that developed from the extended standard theory of generative grammar originally proposed by Noam Chomsky in his books Syntactic Structures and Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. It emerged from a need to improve on approaches to grammar in structural linguistics.

An acceptability judgment task, also called acceptability rating task, is a common method in empirical linguistics to gather information about the internal grammar of speakers of a language.

In linguistics, the autonomy of syntax is the assumption that syntax is arbitrary and self-contained with respect to meaning, semantics, pragmatics, discourse function, and other factors external to language. The autonomy of syntax is advocated by linguistic formalists, and in particular by generative linguistics, whose approaches have hence been called autonomist linguistics.

References

  1. ↑ Wasow, Thomas (2003). "Generative Grammar" (PDF). In Aronoff, Mark; Ress-Miller, Janie (eds.). The Handbook of Linguistics. Blackwell. pp. 297–298. doi:10.1002/9780470756409.ch12}.
  2. ↑ Pritchett, Bradley (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. University of Chicago Press. p. 2. ISBN   0-226-68442-3.
  3. ↑ Marr, David (1982). Vision. MIT Press. p. 28. ISBN   978-0262514620.
  4. 1 2 Adger, David (2003). Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford University Press. pp. 4–7, 17. ISBN   978-0199243709.
  5. 1 2 Dillon, Brian; Momma, Shota (2021), Psychological background to linguistic theories (PDF) (Course notes)
  6. ↑ Sprouse, Jon; Wagers, Matt; Phillips, Colin (2013). "Deriving competing predictions from grammatical approaches and reductionist approaches to island effects". In Sprouse, Jon; Hornstein, Norbert (eds.). Experimental syntax and island effects. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139035309.002.
  7. ↑ Phillips, Colin (2013). "On the nature of island constraints I: Language processing and reductionist accounts" (PDF). In Sprouse, Jon; Hornstein, Norbert (eds.). Experimental syntax and island effects. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139035309.005.
  8. ↑ Hofmeister, Philip; Staum Casasanto, Laura; Sag, Ivan (2013). "Islands in the grammar? Standards of evidence". In Sprouse, Jon; Hornstein, Norbert (eds.). Experimental syntax and island effects. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139035309.004.
  9. ↑ Newmeyer, Frederick. 2001. "The Prague School and North American functionalist approaches to syntax" Journal of Linguistics 37, pp. 101-126. "Since most American functionalists adhere to this trend, I will refer to it and its practitioners with the initials 'USF'. Some of the more prominent USFs are Joan Bybee, William Croft, Talmy Givon, John Haiman, Paul Hopper, Marianne Mithun and Sandra Thompson. In its most extreme form (Hopper 1987, 1988), USF rejects the Saussurean dichotomies such as langue vs. parôle... All adherents of this tendency feel that the Chomskyan advocacy of a sharp distinction between competence and performance is at best unproductive and obscurantist; at worst theoretically unmotivated. "
  10. ↑ Bybee, Joan. "Usage-based phonology." p. 213 in Darnel, Mike (ed). 1999. Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics: General papers. John Benjamins Publishing Company
  11. ↑ Vyvyan, Evans; Green, Melanie (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh University Press. pp. 108–111. ISBN   0-7486-1832-5.
  12. ↑ Noonan, Michael. "Non-Structuralist Syntax" p. 21. in Darnel, Mike (ed). 1999. Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics: General papers. John Benjamins Publishing Company
  13. ↑ Lyons, John : Semantics: v.2, Cambridge University Press, 1977, p.568
  14. ↑ in Martin Pütz (ed), Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution (1992), p.41
  15. ↑ see e.g. Haspelmath, Martin. "Why is grammaticalization irreversible?" Linguistics 37–6 (1999), 1043–1068
  16. ↑ see e.g. Coseriu, Eugenio. 1985. "Linguistic Competence: What Is It Really? The Modern Language Review, Vol. 80, No. 4 (Oct., 1985), pp. xxv–xxxv
  17. ↑ Lakoff, George. 1973. Fuzzy grammar and the performance/competence terminology game. Chicago Linguistic Society 9.271–91.
  18. ↑ Charles Fillmore etal, Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior, 2014, p. 188
  19. ↑ Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). Language acquisition and use: Learning and applying probabilistic constraints. Science, 275(5306), 1599–1603.
  20. ↑ Alan Garnham, Simon Garrod, and Anthony Sanford, Handbook of psycholinguistics, Elsevier, 2006, p.9
  21. ↑ Hymes, Dell. (2000 [1965]) On communicative competence. In Alessandro Duranti (ed) Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader (pp. 53–73). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  22. ↑ Hymes, Dell. 1971. Competence and performance in linguistic theory. Language acquisition: Models and methods (1971), pp. 3–28.
  23. ↑ Child Language Acquisition – Chomsky, Crystal, Aitchison and Piaget, 10 December 2007 Retrieved on November 17, 2010
  24. ↑ Tomasello, Michael. (2000). Do Young Children have Adult Syntactic Competence? (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-07-25Cognition 74. (pp 209–253). Elseiver Science B.V. Retrieved on November 17, 2010
  25. ↑ Goodglass, Harold. (1993). Understanding Aphasia. Academic Press, inc. ISBN   0-12-290040-5
  26. ↑ LaPointe, Leonard L. (2008).Linguistic Competence in Aphasia LaPointe Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 17: 87–92.
  27. ↑ Myers-Scotton, Carol. (2006). Multiple Voices : an introduction to bilingualism . Australia: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN   978-0-631-21936-1
  28. ↑ Phillips, John. and Tan, Chrissie (The Literary Encyclopedia ), Competence {{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Retrieved on November 17, 2010
  29. ↑ Raskins, Victor. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. D. Reidel Publishing Company. ISBN   90-277-1821-0
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.