Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

Proficiency And Communicative Competence In L2: Implications For Teachers And Learners

By J. A. Ade !ile And ". F. Ala!i Institute of Education University of Ibadan Ibadan, Nigeria

A!stract The concept of proficiency as far as language is concerned has remained a relative term in linguistic parlance. In absolute sense of it, proficiency represents an unknowable abstraction that reflects the universal competence of native speakers; a perception that has great consequences for the second language learners. This led to the emphasis placed on communicative competence and learner variability from the early !"#s. $earners vary in their linguistic competence. They are also prone to both interlingua and intralingua errors, with many having difficulty in e%pressing their communicative intentions. This paper is therefore one attempt aimed at providing insight into the learners& structural and grammatical problems as well as communication strategies they employ in awareness of the gaps in their linguistic repertoire. Introduction The definition of proficiency as far as language is concerned has consequences for second language learners. For second language learners, attaining native speaker proficiency is al ost a state of utopia. !ccording to "ialystok #$%%&' a proper definition of language proficiency should present an identifiable standard against (hich to describe language skills of users in different conte)ts. This requires a co bination of for al structure, that is, a clear set of standards and co unicative application, (hich include recognition of variation fro the rules. In actual sense, second language learners vary in the ulti ate level of proficiency (ith any failing to achieve target language co petence. The variability has been linked to the fact that learners are less fa iliar and confident (ith the structural ele ents and conventions of the target language. The variable perfor ance is often characteri*ed by both interlingual and intralingual errors that e erge as learners develop interlanguage develop ent. +oreover, as a result of the gaps in learners, linguistic repertoire, they often have difficulty in e)pressing their co unicative intentions. This, ost of the ti es, akes the adopt so e co unication strategies in an atte pt to pass across their eaning. This apparent structural and gra atical inadequacy in learners, repertoire presents great challenges not only to the learners but also to teachers and researchers. Proficiency And Communicative Competence In Lan ua e The definition of language proficiency is deeply entangled in theoretical attitude #"ialystic, $%%&'. There are the for alist approach and the functionalist approach. The for alist sees language as code. -anguage proficiency is vie(ed as .ulti ate unkno(able abstraction that reflects the universal co petence of native speakers/ the functionalist e)plains language as .the outco e of social interaction in a linguistic environ ent,/ thus0 proficiency is e)plained in relationship to co unication in specific conte)t. The t(o perspectives are equally i portant. !ccording to +yles #1223', the co bination of for al

International 'ournal of (frican ) (frican (merican *tudies +ol. I+, ,o. -, 'ul -##.

32

structure #a clear set of standards' and co unicative application, (hich includes recognition of variations fro the rules are essential to a proper definition of language proficiency. This (ill ake the definition present identifiable standards against (hich to describe language skills of users in different conte)ts. "ro(n #1222' opines that a ore co plete conceptuali*ation of language perfor ance should therefore ackno(ledge personal characteristics, topical or real (orld kno(ledge, and affective sche ata, a ong other factors related to social and cultural conte)t. 4elating to cultural conte)t, there is variability in the process of second language learning. -earners vary in the ulti ate level of proficiency they achieve (ith any failing to reach target language co petence. The variation is often the result of individual learner,s difference in otivation and aptitude, a ong others. In this (ise, learner varieties should be ackno(ledged #5lein, $%%&'. It is ore useful, then to think of proficiency as a process, in (hich learners alternate in their use of linguistic for according to the linguistic and situational conte)t #Ellis, $%%3'.This lends credence to the functionalist perspective (hich e phasi*es co unicative co petence and learner,s variability. The early perception of language proficiency vie(ed proficiency as little ore than gra ar and le)is. 6ith the advent of co unicative co petence, ho(ever, the e phasis (as no longer on gra atical aspects but also on ability to use language appropriately in different conte)ts and the ability to organi*e thoughts through language. 7o unicative co petence (as first proposed by 8y es #$%92' and it represents atte pt to develop students, sociolinguistic and discourse co petence in addition to gra atical co petence. It (as borne out of the feelings that there is uch ore to linguistic co petence than kno(ledge of phonology, orphology, synta) and se antics. 7ho sky #$%:;' ade a distinction bet(een co petence and perfor ance. <acquelyn #$%%2' vie(s co petence in the 7ho skyan anner as a syste #or syste s' of constitutive rules that provide the speaker (ith criteria to decide (hat is gra atical, acceptable and appropriate, and (hat is not. 8e argues further that 7ho sky,s distinctions bet(een co petence and perfor ance (as valid not only for gra ar but also for rules of language. The a=or constitutive co ponents of co petence therefore include #i' gra atical co petence #ii' discourse co petence, and, #iii' >ociolinguistic co petence. ?ra atical co petence involves co putational aspect of language, the rules or for ulations or constraints that allo( us to pair sound (ith eaning, the rules that for syntactic constructions or phonological or se antic patterns of varied sorts #<acquelyn, $%%2'. @iscourse co petence deals (ith the kno(ledge of the structure of te)t, both oral and (ritten. It is the ability to use #produce and recogni*e' coherent and cohesive te)t, oral or (ritten. >ociolinguistic co petence has to do (ith the ability to produce, recogni*e socially appropriate language in conte)t. #aria!ility In The $econd Lan ua e Learners% Performance >econd language learners vary in their levels of co petence (ith any failing to reach target language co petence. This inconsistency in learners, perfor ance in -1 is not ne( to teachers. !ccording to 6illia #$%&3', this kind of variable perfor ance is a nor al pheno enon in second language learners. The varied perfor ance has been linked to social as (ell as cognitive factors. >ociocognitive theory arries both social and cognitive factors together as they affect second language acquisition. !ccording to sociocongitive theorists, an e)ploration of social and cognitive factors provides so e ideas on (hy learners differ in the rate of second language learning, in proficiency type #for instance, conversational ability versus (riting' and in ulti ate proficiency #Ellis, $%%3'.

International 'ournal of (frican ) (frican (merican *tudies +ol. I+, ,o. -, 'ul -##.

33

Ane odel designed to account for the role of social factors in language acquisition is ?ardner,s #$%&;' socioBeducational odel. The odel interrelates four aspects of second language learning0 the social and cultural ilieu #(hich deter ines beliefs about language usage and culture', individual learner differences #this relates to otivation and language aptitude', the setting #for al and, or infor al learning conte)t' and learning outco es. +yles #1223' believes that the follo(ing social factors can affect learner,s level of co unicative co petence in second languageC #i' negative attitude to(ards the target language0 #ii' continued lack of progress in -10 #iii' (ide social and psychological distance bet(een the learners and target culture0 and #iv' lack of integrative and instru ental otivation for learning. 7ognitive theorists believe that co unicating, oral or (ritten is an active process of skill develop ent. They see acquisition as a product of co ple) interaction of the linguistic environ ent and the learner,s internal echanis . !ccording to +c-auglin #$%&&', (ith practice, there is continual restructuring as learners shift the internal representations in order to achieve increased degree of astery in second language. !nderson,s #$%&;' odel of language production is a odel that applies to both speaking and (riting in a second language. The odel is divided into three stagesC 7onstruction #in (hich the learner plans (hat he or she is going to (rite by brainstor ing, using indB ap or outline' transfor ation #in (hich languages are applied to transfor intended eaning into the for of the essage (hen a (riter is co posing or revising' and0 e)ecution #(hich corresponds to the physical process of producing the te)t. !nderson,s theory supports teaching approaches that considers the develop ent of the learner #>no(, 122$'. &rrors As $i ns "f Imperfection In Learners% 'epertoire And Their Implication For Learner >econd language learners have varying co ands of the target language. -earners are still in the process of acquiring linguistic input that can guarantee native speaker,s co petence. !s a result, varying degrees of error occur in learner,s production. 8o(ever, since language is acquired and not inherited, learners are not i une to errors. These errors, (hich represent the product of learning, also provide useful hints about the underlying process of learning. +any of the errors are .interlingual/ #errors due to transferring rules fro the other tongue' (hile others are Dintralingual, #errors (hich sho( that learner,s are processing the second language'. Earieties of error categories (ere proposed by 7order #$%9$'. 7order categori*ed errors as preBsyste atic, syste atic and postBsyste atic. FreBsyste atic errors are those ade by a learner (hile he or she is trying to ca e togrips (ith a ne( point. >yste atic errors are those errors (hich occur (hen the learner has for ed an inaccurate hypothesis about the target language (hile postBsyste atic errors occur as a result of te porary forgetting of a point previously understood. ?enerally, (hen a second language learner develops interlanguage, he or she co its errors. !s in first language, so e of the errors are lapses, or Dslips, of the tongue due to physical or psychological reasons. They are syste atic. >o e, on the other hand, occur regularly and sho( the isunderstanding of the second language syste . The first kind of error (as described by 7ho sky as Dperfor ance error, and the later as Dco petence error,. 5ern #1222' believes that (hether the second language learner akes Derror, D istake,

International 'ournal of (frican ) (frican (merican *tudies +ol. I+, ,o. -, 'ul -##.

34

or Dderail ent,, a(k(ard discourse occurs because he is less fa iliar (ith structural ele ents and conventions of a ne( language #Target language'. !ccording to +yles #1223' so e of the reasons for errors in learners, production areC #i' -earners ake direct translation fro -$ or they try out (hat they assu e is legiti ate structure of the target language although hindered by insufficient kno(ledge of correct usage. #ii' In the learning process, learners often e)perience native language interference fro develop ental stages of interlingua or fro non standard ele ents in spoken dialect. #iii' They often overgeneralise the rules for stylistic features (hen acquiring ne( discourse structure. #iv' Aften, learners are not sure of (hat they (ant to e)press and this engenders erroneous production. #v' -earners, especially (hen it co es to (riting in a second language ay lack fa iliarity (ith ne( rhetorical structures and the organi*ation of ideas. It can be presu ed that the follo(ing causes account for yriad of errors in second language learners, repertoire #!nasiudu, $%%:'. #i' AvergeneralisationsC 7ertain errors are co itted by learners because they have not astered the rules of the target language or they apply the rules eant for so e structures to all other structures. For e)a ple, in the case of past tense for ation, a child (ho had learnt that past tense is for ed by adding .ed/ ay overgeneralise the rule by producing such (ords as Dgoed,, Dspeaked, D(eared,, Dco ed, . #ii' Ignorance of rule restrictionC ! rule ay see to have restrictions in a fe( cases. For a learner to attain reasonable co petence in target language, he or she ust aster not only the rules but also their restrictions. For e)a ple, in for ing plural of nouns, a rule calls for the addition of Ds, to singular nouns. ! student (ho is ignorant of the restriction to this rule ay go ahead to produce such (ords as Dinfor ations,, Dfurnitures,, Dpeoples, or such an e)pression as C,6e killed t(o ouses/. #iii' Inco plete application of rulesC >o e rules are nor ally applied in sequence. Errors do occur (hen such rules are not applied co pletely. For e)a ple, a learner ay produce such a sentence as thisC .Everybody behaved as he likes/. The sentence contains t(o finite verbs and both need to be in the sa e tense. (iv) For ulation of false hypothesesC The tendency a ong -1 learners is to for ulate hypotheses about the target language at each stage of their learning career. The hypotheses are progressively tested as ore data e erged in their language e)periences. >o e of these hypotheses are proved false by further data. For e)a ple, learners ay hypothesi*e that adverbs are for ed (ith the derivational suffi) .ly/. >uch a learner can go ahead to produce e)pression as .yours brotherly./ (v) Transfer of -earningC Froble s ay e erge as a result of the teaching strategy e ployed by the teacher. For e)a ple, at the pri ary sentence building stage, a teacher ay e ploy substitution tables in teaching the basic sentence types. If, for instance, a child is e)posed to the use of first person singular and plural pronoun #.I/ and .(e/' second person singular and plural #.Gou/ and .you' and

International 'ournal of (frican ) (frican (merican *tudies +ol. I+, ,o. -, 'ul -##.

35

(vi)

third person plural #Dthey,', such a child, (hile trying to use third person singular pronouns Dhe, or Dshe, can for a sentence such as .8e have a book/. Error induced odelC Teachers serve as odels for students to learn fro . In so e instances, (hen such odels ake istakes (ittingly or un(ittingly, the learner i bibes the sa e istake.

Communicative $trate ies "f L2 Learners +ost of the ti es, second language learners encounter difficulty in e)pressing their co unicative intentions. This is attributable to the gaps in their linguistic repertoire. ! learner (ho is able to anticipate such difficulty ay avoid co unication or try to odify (hat he or she intends to say. Even (hen the learner is already engaged in co unication #oral or (ritten' and such difficulty is e)perienced, he or she ay resort to an alternative (ay of getting the eaning across. These (ays of coping (ith the co unication situation is called Dco unication strategy. !ccording to 6illia #$%&3' learners resort to the follo(ing co unication strategies (hen they beco e a(are of proble s (ith (hich their current kno(ledge has difficulty in copingC Avoidin Communication !voidance of co unicative opportunities is al(ays the (ay out (hen learners beco e a(are of gaps or (eakness in their repertoire. Accasions (hich (ill present difficulty are usually avoided. If it is oral, learners ay refuse to talk and if it is (riting situation, they ay avoid (riting on topics for (hich they kno( that they lack necessary vocabulary. Ad(ustin the )essa e In a situation (here an e)change is already taking place, it ay be too late to e ploy avoidance tactics. !s a result, learners ay decide to alter the eaning (hich they intend to co unicate. They ay o it so e ite s of infor ation, ake the ideas si pler, less precise or saying so ething slightly different. In a (riting situation, learners ay decide to go off content, that is, (riting so ething that is not relevant to the given topic. Paraphrasin -earners ay resort to the use of paraphrase, circu locution or description in order to e)press their intended eaning. For e)a ple, a learner (ho could not recall the (ord Dkettle, ay say Dthing that (e boil (ater in, . Appro*imatin 6here a learner has proble (ith recalling the right diction, he or she ay e ploy (ord or (ords (hich e)press the eaning as closely as possible to intended eaning. >uch substitutions are often less specific than the eaning intended or out rightly inappropriate. Creatin +e, -ords -earners so eti es create ne( (ords (hich they hope (ill e)press the intended eaning. The ne( (ords ay be literal translation fro the ele ents in a native language.

International 'ournal of (frican ) (frican (merican *tudies +ol. I+, ,o. -, 'ul -##.

36

For e)a ple, a learner ay use the e)pression Dnight eal, instead of Dsupper, and Dshoe aker, instead of Dcobbler,. !part fro learners, co unication strategies entioned earlier, learners ay e ploy nonBlinguistic resources such as i e, gesture, or i itation. They can also s(itch to their native language or seek help fro outside, invoking the coBoperation of the listener either directly or indirectly by eans of hesitation. Implications And Conclusion Evidently, any second language learners find it difficult to attain native speaker proficiency because they are still in the process of acquiring linguistic input in the target language, and they are less fa iliar and confident (ith the structural ele ents and conventions of a ne( language. These account for variability in their levels of co unicative co petence. The variable perfor ance, although considered nor al, has been linked to a nu ber of factors, including social and cognitive ones (ith attendant effect on learners, interlanguage develop ent. !lso, as learners develop interlanguage, they are susceptible to both interlingual and intralingual errors. The errors represent the product of learning and equally provide necessary insight into learners, cognitive process. +oreover, any learners have proble s in e)pressing their co unicative intentions. This is as a result of the gaps in their linguistic repertoire. If learners are able to anticipate difficulty in co unication or (hen they encounter one, they often resort to alternative (ays of getting their eaning across. These alternative (ays such as avoidance of co unication, ad=usting essages, paraphrasing, using appro)i ation, creating ne( (ords, s(itching over to the native language, using nonBlinguistic resources or helpBseeking easures are generally referred to as learners, co unication strategy. The kno(ledge of all the issues discussed so far and the insight provided should assist teachers. 4ather than dra(ing conclusion about the intellectual ability of learners on the basis of structural and gra atical proble s, they should accept and confront the challenges of assisting learners to attain greater proficiency because the greater the level of proficiency the better learners, speaking and (riting quality. '&F&'&+C&$ !nasiudu, ".N. #$%%:'. The technique of error analysis. Effective English usage for tertiary education.A.>. Ag(ueleka, G.!. "abatunde and 6ale Asisan(o #Eds.' -agosC ?reenline Fublishers. $H1 $3$. !nderson, <. #$%&;'. 7ognitive psychology and its i plications. Ne( GorkC 6.8. Free an. "ialystok, E. #$%%&' 7o ing of age in applied linguistics. $anguage $earning. 3&, 3%9 ;$&. "ro(n, 8.@. #1222'. Frinciples of -anguage learning and teaching #3th ed.'. 6hite Flains, N.G.C -ong an. 7ho sky, N. #$%:;'. (spects in the theory of synta%. +assachussettsC 7a bridge. Ellis, 4. #$%%3'. The *econd $anguage acquisition. A)fordC A)ford University Fress.

International 'ournal of (frican ) (frican (merican *tudies +ol. I+, ,o. -, 'ul -##.

37

?ardner, 4. #$%&;'. *ocial /sychology and *econd language learning0 The role of attitude and otivation. -ondonC Ed(ard !rnold. <acquelyn, >. #$%%2'. 7o unicative co petence revisited. The development of *econd language proficiency. ". 8arlay, !llen, F. 7u ing, <. and >(ain +. #Eds.'. 7a bridge University Fress. 5ern, 4. #1222' -iteracy and -anguage. 8ong 5ong. A)ford University Fress. 5lein, 6. #$%%&'. The 7ontribution of >econd -anguage !cquisition researcher. $anguage $earning, 3&, ;19 ;3%. +c-auglin #$%&;'. Theories of second language learning. "alti oreC Ed(ard !rnold. +yles, <. #1223' >econd language (riting and second language acquisition. 1n *econd $anguage 2riting. T. >ilva and F. +atsuda. Eds. N.<C -a(rence Erlbau !ssociates. $%$ 122. >no(, +.!. #122$'. 7ontent based and i ersion odel of second and foreign language teaching. Teaching English as a >econd or foreign -anguage. +. 7elceB+urcia ed. #Hrd ed.'. "ostonC 8einle and 8einle. H2HBH$&. 6illia , -. #$%&3' Foreign and >econd -anguage -earning. -anguage acquisition research and its i plications for the classroo . 11 H;.

Вам также может понравиться