Interactive Lecture 2: Discourse, Competency, Proficiency and the Implications for Methodology Dr. Douglas Fleming Faculty of Education

Second language acquisition models are based on the assumption that the mind has already formed a more or less solid basis for language competency and proficiency in the first language and that the essential task in learning a second is transference. SL learners develop an interlanguage between the first and the second languages that has a systematic grammar influenced by both.

the learner will transfer aspects of the first language into this interlanguage as transfer occurs, the learner will often make errors that can be: lexical (e.g. choosing the wrong word because it is similar to one in the first language), morphological (e.g. placing correct tense markers in incorrect places) or syntactical (e.g. using incorrect word order)

Learning the second language is not just a matter of learning vocab and grammar. The learner must master communicative competence, which is the ability to purposely use the L2 in social contexts. The best known model of communicative competence was developed by Hymes (1971), who owed much to Chomsky's view of language. In general, competency models are based on criterion or skill-based conceptions of education: 'What you know' is not as important as 'how you use what you know'.

Hymes’ work was adapted by Canale and Swain (1980) into a highly influential four-part language competency model: linguistic: the more purely language elements of structures and grammar socio-cultural: the social and cultural content and assumptions underlying language use strategic: what strategies a user of the language utilizes to overcome difficulties or enhance communication discoursal: what forms of discourse and conventional use frames the communication

Functional linguists have criticized the way in which these competency models have: arbitrarily divided language into contradictory and redundant subsets and been used to privilege concepts of standardized and idealized discreet languages. They have also noted that discourse is often described in terms of it being little more than complex forms of grammatical competence.

Chomsky’s concept of competency (1965): the innate system of knowledge possessed by native speakers. Different from his concept of performance: one’s spoken and comprehension abilities. Chomsky’s notions help explain the ease at which first languages are usually learnt and provides an explanation for the very possibility of second language learning.

However, these notions assume that there are abstract, ideal and distinct languages. Idealistic conceptions of language imply that there really are things like: full fluency and native speakers. And make abilities with multiple languages problematic.

Hymes (1966) coined the term communicative competence as a way of concretizing Chomsky’s terms for the purpose of language teaching. The basis of the communicative approach. One should teach how to use the target language appropriately in social situations. Allen and Widdowson defined the communicative approach in SLE as teaching “the rules of use as well as rules of grammar” (1979, p.141).

Communicative competence is useful in that it can be used to define minimum standards for language use for various professions and occupations and is thus easily adaptable to testing and assessment. It is in that sense, skill-based. However, skill-based criteria in this context have been criticized as being artificial, product-orientated, and emptying the notion of language of cultural content.

Proficiency usually refers to work-related expertise that is measured and tested against skill-based standards. Some theorists (e.g. Rosenbaum, 2010) make the case that competency models break tasks into discrete skills for mastery and loose sight of the overall objectives of a particular activity. Proficiency models, on the other hand, do the opposite. However, there is little agreement in the academic literature as to the difference between proficiency and competency in SLE.

In common usage, discourse is: an extended and highly organized method of communication using language (e.g. one “discourses” on a topic at length in a lecture); an implied expertise on the part of the speaker. This sense of discourse as an organized and planned aspect of language is the one inherent within the Canale and Swain competency framework.

Foucault’s notion of discourse is different: Discourse is the way in which conventional thinking interacts with conventional uses of language. Power is an important element. Dominant uses of language serve to produce and reproduce dominant power relations. Discourses frame what is possible to discuss through the reinforcement of habitual actions and beliefs.

Functional linguistics uses the term discourse to emphasize the concrete and meaningful use of language within complex social contexts. Implies that the correct language usage is a fluid social construct that is: subject to conventions and power relations transgressive (no firm boundaries) and that standardized languages (and the converse: dialects and pidgins) are concepts based on power relations and dominant discourses.

What are the differences between competency, proficiency and discourse? Are the differences clear-cut between linguistic, socio-cultural, discoursal and strategic competencies? How important are sociocultural factors? How can you add sociocultural information to your lesson planning? Can you avoid stereotyping? What roles do power relations play in ESL instruction?