Criteria for Word Classes

We began by grouping words more or less on the basis of our instincts about
English. We somehow "feel" that brother and car belong to the same class, and
that brother and drives belong to different classes. However, in order to conduct
an informed study of grammar, we need a much more reliable and more
systematic method than this for distinguishing between word classes.

We use a combination of three criteria for determining the word class of a word:

1. The meaning of the word

2. The form or `shape' of the word
3. The position or `environment' of the word in a sentence

1. Meaning

Using this criterion, we generalize about the kind of meanings that words convey.
For example, we could group together the words brother and car, as well
as David, house, and London, on the basis that they all refer to people, places, or
things. In fact, this has traditionally been a popular approach to determining
members of the class of nouns. It has also been applied to verbs, by saying that
they denote some kind of "action", like cook, drive, eat, run, shout, walk.

This approach has certain merits, since it allows us to determine word classes by
replacing words in a sentence with words of "similar" meaning. For instance, in
the sentence My son cooks dinner every Sunday, we can replace the
verb cooks with other "action" words:

My son cooks dinner every Sunday

My son prepares dinner every Sunday
My son eats dinner every Sunday
My son misses dinner every Sunday
On the basis of this replacement test, we can conclude that all of these words
belong to the same class, that of "action" words, or verbs.
However, this approach also has some serious limitations. The definition of a
noun as a word denoting a person, place, or thing, is wholly inadequate, since it
excludes abstract nouns such as time, imagination, repetition, wisdom,
and chance. Similarly, to say that verbs are "action" words excludes a verb like be,
as in I want to be happy. What "action" does be refer to here? So although this
criterion has a certain validity when applied to some words, we need other, more
stringent criteria as well.

2. The form or `shape' of a word

Some words can be assigned to a word class on the basis of their form or `shape'.
For example, many nouns have a characteristic -tion ending:

action, condition, contemplation, demonstration, organization, repeti

tion
Similarly, many adjectives end in -able or -ible:

acceptable, credible, miserable, responsible, suitable, terrible

Many words also take what are called INFLECTIONS, that is, regular changes in
their form under certain conditions. For example, nouns can take a plural
inflection, usually by adding an -s at the end:

car -- cars
dinner -- dinners
book -- books
Verbs also take inflections:

walk -- walks -- walked -- walking

3. The position or `environment' of a word in a sentence

This criterion refers to where words typically occur in a sentence, and the kinds of
words which typically occur near to them. We can illustrate the use of this
criterion using a simple example. Compare the following:
 [1] I cook dinner every Sunday
[2] The cook is on holiday

In [1], cook is a verb, but in [2], it is a noun. We can see that it is a verb in [1]
because it takes the inflections which are typical of verbs:

I cook dinner every Sunday

I cooked dinner last Sunday
I am cooking dinner today
My son cooks dinner every Sunday
And we can see that cook is a noun in [2] because it takes the plural -s inflection

The cooks are on holiday

If we really need to, we can also apply a replacement test, based on our first
criterion, replacing cook in each sentence with "similar" words:

Click here to see how

words in sentences can
be replaced by similar
words

Notice that we can replace verbs with verbs, and nouns with nouns, but we
cannot replace verbs with nouns or nouns with verbs:

*I chef dinner every Sunday

*The eat is on holiday

It should be clear from this discussion that there is no one-to-one relation

between words and their classes. Cook can be a verb or a noun -- it all depends on
how the word is used. In fact, many words can belong to more than one word
class. Here are some more examples:

She looks very pale (verb)

She's very proud of her looks (noun)
 He drives a fast car (adjective)
He drives very fast on the motorway (adverb)

Turn on the light (noun)

I'm trying to light the fire (verb)
I usually have a light lunch (adjective)

You will see here that each italicised word can belong to more than one word
class. However, they only belong to one word class at a time, depending on how
they are used. So it is quite wrong to say, for example, "cook is a verb". Instead,
we have to say something like "cook is a verb in the sentence I cook dinner every
Sunday, but it is a noun in The cook is on holiday".

Of the three criteria for word classes that we have discussed here, the Internet
Grammar will emphasise the second and third - the form of words, and how they
are positioned or how they function in sentences.

Open and Closed Word Classes

Some word classes are OPEN, that is, new words can be added to the class as the
need arises. The class of nouns, for instance, is potentially infinite, since it is
continually being expanded as new scientific discoveries are made, new products
are developed, and new ideas are explored. In the late twentieth century, for
example, developments in computer technology have given rise to many new
nouns:

Internet, website, URL, CD-ROM, email, newsgroup, bitmap, modem, multimedia

New verbs have also been introduced:

download, upload, reboot, right-click, double-click

The adjective and adverb classes can also be expanded by the addition of new
words, though less prolifically.
On the other hand, we never invent new prepositions, determiners, or
conjunctions. These classes include words like of, the, and but. They are called
CLOSED word classes because they are made up of finite sets of words which are
never expanded (though their members may change their spelling, for example,
over long periods of time). The subclass of pronouns, within the open noun class,
is also closed.

Words in an open class are known as open-class items. Words in a closed class are
known as closed-class items.

In the pages which follow, we will look in detail at each of the seven major word
classes.

In English grammar, a word class is a set of words that display the same formal
properties, especially their inflections and distribution.

The term word class is similar to the more traditional term part of speech. It is
also variously called grammatical category, lexical category, and syntactic
category (although these terms are not wholly or universally synonymous).

The two major families of word classes are (1) lexical (or open or form) classes
(nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs) and (2) function (or closed or structure) classes
(determiners, particles, prepositions, and others).

EXAMPLES AND OBSERVATIONS

 "When linguists began to look closely at English grammatical structure in

the 1940s and 1950s, they encountered so many problems of identification
and definition that the term part of speech soon fell out of favour, word
class being introduced instead. Word classes are equivalent to parts of
speech, but defined according to strict linguistic criteria." (David
Crystal, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, 2nd ed.
Cambridge University Press, 2003)
 "There is no single correct way of analysing words into word classes. . . .

"Grammarians disagree about the boundaries between the word classes

(see gradience), and it is not always clear whether to lump subcategories
 together or to split them. For example, in some grammars . . . pronouns are
classed as nouns, whereas in other frameworks . . . they are treated as a
separate word class." (Bas Aarts, Sylvia Chalker, Edmund Weiner, The
Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press,
2014)

FORM CLASSES AND STRUCTURE CLASSES

"[The] distinction between lexical and grammatical meaning determines the first
division in our classification: form-class words and structure-class words. In
general, the form classes provide the primary lexical content; the structure classes
explain the grammatical or structural relationship.

We can think of the form-class words as the bricks of the language and the
structure words as the mortar that holds them together.

FORM CLASSES (also known as CONTENT WORDS or OPEN CLASSES)

Noun
Verb
Adjective
Adverb
STRUCTURE CLASSES (also known as FUNCTION WORDS or CLOSED CLASSES)

Determiner
Pronoun
Auxiliary
Conjunction (or Conjunct)
Qualifier
Interrogative
Preposition
Expletive
Particle

"Probably the most striking difference between the form classes and the structure
classes is characterized by their numbers. Of the half million or more words in our
language, the structure words—with some notable exceptions—can be counted
in the hundreds. The form classes, however, are large, open classes; new nouns
and verbs and adjectives and adverbs regularly enter the language as new
technology and new ideas require them." (Martha Kolln and Robert
Funk, Understanding English Grammar. Allyn and Bacon, 1998)

ONE WORD, MULTIPLE CLASSES

"Items may belong to more than one class. In most instances, we can only assign a
word to a word class when we encounter it in context. Looks is a verb in
'It looksgood,' but a noun in 'She has good looks'; that is a conjunction in 'I
know that they are abroad,' but a pronoun in 'I know that' and a determiner in 'I
know that man'; one is a generic pronoun in 'One must be careful not to offend
them,' but a numeral in 'Give me one good reason.'" (Sidney Greenbaum, Oxford
English Grammar.

Oxford University Press, 1996)

SUFFIXES AS SIGNALS

"We recognise the class of a word by its use in context. Some words have suffixes
(endings added to words to form new words) that help to signal the class they
belong to. These suffixes are not necessarily sufficient in themselves to identify
the class of a word. For example, -ly is a typical suffix for adverbs (slowly,
proudly), but we also find this suffix in adjectives: cowardly, homely, manly. And
we can sometimes convert words from one class to another even though they
have suffixes that are typical of their original class: an engineer, to engineer; a
negative response, a negative." (Sidney Greenbaum and Gerald Nelson, An
Introduction to English Grammar, 3rd ed. Pearson, 2009)

A MATTER OF DEGREE

"[N]ot all the members of a class will necessarily have all the identifying
properties.

Membership of a particular class is really a matter of degree. In this regard,

grammar is not so different from the real world. There are prototypical sports like
'football' and not so sporty sports like 'darts.' There are exemplary mammals like
'dogs' and freakish ones like the 'platypus.' Similarly, there are good examples of
verbs like watch and lousy examples like beware; exemplary nouns like chair that
 display all the features of a typical noun and some not so good ones like Kenny."
(Kersti Börjars and Kate Burridge, Introducing English Grammar, 2nd ed. Hodder,
2010)

Syntactic category
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A syntactic category is a type of syntactic unit that theories
of syntax assume.[1] Word classes, largely corresponding to traditional parts of
speech (e.g. noun, verb, preposition, etc.), are syntactic categories. In phrase
structure grammars, the phrasal categories (e.g. noun phrase, verb
phrase, prepositional phrase, etc.) are also syntactic categories. Dependency
grammars, however, do not acknowledge phrasal categories (at least not in the
traditional sense).
Word classes considered as syntactic categories may be called lexical categories,
as distinct from phrasal categories. The terminology here is by no means
consistent, however. Many grammars also draw a distinction between lexical
categories (which tend to consist of content words, or phrases headed by them)
and functional categories (which tend to consist of function words or abstract
functional elements, or phrases headed by them). The term lexical
category therefore has two distinct meanings. Moreover, syntactic categories
should not be confused with grammatical categories (also known as
grammatical features), which are properties such as tense, gender, etc.

Contents
[hide]

 1Defining criteria
 2Lexical categories vs. phrasal categories
 3Lexical categories only
 4Lexical categories vs. functional categories
 5See also
 6Notes
 7References

Defining criteria[edit]
At least three criteria are used in defining syntactic categories:
 1. The type of meaning it expresses
2. The type of affixes it takes
3. The structure in which it occurs
For instance, many nouns in English denote concrete entities, they are
pluralized with the suffix -s, and they occur as subjects and objects in clauses.
Many verbs denote actions or states, they are conjugated with agreement
suffixes (e.g. -s of the third person singular in English), and in English they tend
to show up in medial positions of the clauses in which they appear.
The third criterion is also known as distribution. The distribution of a given
syntactic unit determines the syntactic category to which it belongs. The
distributional behavior of syntactic units is identified by substitution.[2] Like
syntactic units can be substituted for each other.
Additionally, there are also informal criteria one can use in order to determine
syntactic categories. For example, one informal means of determining if an
item is lexical, as opposed to functional, is to see if it is left behind in
"telegraphic speech" (that is, the way a telegram would be written; e.g., Pants
fire. Bring water, need help.)[3]

Lexical categories vs. phrasal categories[edit]

The traditional parts of speech are lexical categories, in one meaning of that
term.[4] Traditional grammars tend to acknowledge approximately eight to
twelve lexical categories, e.g.
Lexical categories
adjective (A), adposition (preposition, postposition, circumposition)
(P), adverb (Adv),
coordinate conjunction (C), determiner (D), interjection (I), noun (N), particl
e (Par), pronoun (Pr), subordinate conjunction (Sub), verb (V), etc.
The lexical categories that a given grammar assumes will likely vary from
this list. Certainly numerous subcategories can be acknowledged. For
instance, one can view pronouns as a subtype of noun, and verbs can be
divided into finite verbs and non-finite verbs (e.g. gerund, infinitive,
participle, etc.). The central lexical categories give rise to corresponding
phrasal categories:[5]
Phrasal categories
Adjective phrase (AP), adverb phrase (AdvP), adposition phrase (PP), noun
phrase (NP), verb phrase (VP), etc.
In terms of phrase structure rules, phrasal categories can occur to the
left of the arrow while lexical categories cannot, e.g. NP → D N.
Traditionally, a phrasal category should consist of two or more words,
although conventions vary in this area. X-bar theory, for instance, often
sees individual words corresponding to phrasal categories. Phrasal
categories are illustrated with the following trees:

The lexical and phrasal categories are identified according to the

node labels, phrasal categories receiving the "P" designation.

Lexical categories only[edit]

Dependency grammars do not acknowledge phrasal categories in
the way that phrase structure grammars do. What this means is that
the distinction between lexical and phrasal categories disappears,
the result being that only lexical categories are acknowledged. The
tree representations are simpler because the number of nodes and
categories is reduced, e.g.

The distinction between lexical and phrasal categories is absent

here. The number of nodes is reduced by removing all nodes
marked with "P". Note, however, that phrases can still be
acknowledged insofar as any subtree that contains two or more
words will qualify as a phrase.

Lexical categories vs. functional categories[edit]

Many grammars draw a distinction between lexical
categories and functional categories.[6] This distinction is
 orthogonal to the distinction between lexical categories and
phrasal categories. In this context, the term lexical
category applies only to those parts of speech and their phrasal
counterparts that form open classes and have full semantic
content. The parts of speech that form closed classes and have
mainly just functional content are called functional categories:
Lexical categories
Adjective (A) and adjective phrase (AP), adverb (Adv) and adverb phrase
(AdvP), noun (N) and noun phrase (NP), verb and verb phrase (VP),
preposition and prepositional phrase (PP)
Functional categories
Coordinate conjunction (C), determiner (D), negation (Neg), particle (Par),
preposition (P) and prepositional phrase (PP), subordinate conjunction
(Sub), etc.
There is disagreement in certain areas, for instance
concerning the status of prepositions. The distinction
between lexical and functional categories plays a big role
in Chomskyan grammars (Transformational Grammar,
Government and Binding Theory, Minimalist Program),
where the role of the functional categories is large. Many
phrasal categories are assumed that do not correspond
directly to a specific part of speech, e.g. inflection
phrase (IP), tense phrase (TP), agreement phrase
(AgrP), focus phrase (FP), etc. (see also Phrase →
Functional categories). In order to acknowledge such
functional categories, one has to assume that the
constellation is a primitive of the theory and that it exists
separately from the words that appear. As a consequence,
many grammar frameworks do not acknowledge such
functional categories, e.g. Head Driven Phrase Structure
Grammar, Dependency Grammar, etc.
rts of speech are grammatical classes of words which are distinguished on the
basis of four criteria:
- semantic;
- morphological;
- syntactic;
that of valency (combinability)

!) Meaning. Each part of speech is characterized by the general meaning which is

an abstraction from the lexical meaning of the constituent word. Thus, the
general meaning of nouns is thingness (substance), the general meaning of verbs
is action, state, process; the general meaning of adjectives — quality, quantity.

The general meaning is understood as categorial meaning of the class of words.

Semantic properties of every part of speech find their expression in their

grammatical properties. If we take "to sleep, a night sleep, sleepy, asleep" they all
refer to the same phenomena of the objective reality but belong to different parts
of speech as they have different grammatical properties.

Meaning is supportive criterion in the English language which only helps to check
purely grammatical criteria - those of form and function.

Глокая куздра штэка будланула бокра и кудрячит бокрёнка. V. V. Vinogradov

Green ideas sleep furiously.

Such examples though being artificial help us to understand that - grammatical

meaning is an objective thing by itself though in real speech it never exists
without lexical meaning.

2) Form, (morphological properties) The formal criterion concerns the inflectional

and derivational features of words belonging to a given class. That is the
grammatical categories they possess, the paradigms they form and derivational
and functional morphemes they have.

With the English language this criterion is not always reliable as many words in
English are invariable, many words have no derivational affixes and besides the
same derivational affixes may be used to build different parts of
speech.(e.g. "~ly": quickly , daily , weakly(n.)).
Because of the limitation of meaning and form as criterion we should rely mainly
on words' syntactic functions (e.g. "round" can be adjective, noun, verb,
preposition).

3) Function. Syntactic properties of any class of words are: combinability

(distributional criterion), typical syntactic functions in a sentence. The three
criteria of defining grammatical classes of words in English may be placed in the
following order: syntactic, distribution, form, meaning (Russian: form, meaning,
syntactic distribution).

Parts of speech are heterogeneous classes and the boundaries between them are
not clearly cut especially in the area of meaning. Within a part of speech there are
subclasses which have all the properties of a given class and subclasses which
have only some of these properties and may even have features of another class.

So a part of speech may be described as a field which includes both central (most
typical) members and marginal (less typical) members. Marginal areas of different
parts of speech may overlap and there may be intermediary elements with
contradicting features (modal words, statives, pronouns and even verbs).

Words belonging to different parts of speech may be united by common feature

and they may constitute a class cutting across other classes (e.g. determiners or
quantifiers).

Possible Ways of the Grammatical Classification of the Vocabulary.

The parts of speech and their classification usually involves all the four criteria
mentioned and scholars single out from 8 to 13 parts of speech in modern English.
The founder of English scientific grammar Henry Sweet finds the following classes
of words: noun-words ( here he includes some pronouns and numerals),
adjective-words, verbs 4 particles (by this term he denotes words of different
classes which have no grammatical categories).

The opposite criterion - structural or distributional - was used by an American

scholar Charles Freeze. Each class of words is characterized by a set of positions in
a sentence which are defined by substitution test. As a result of distributional
analysis Freeze singles out 4 main classes of words roughly corresponding to
verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs and 15 classes of function-words.

Notional and Functional Parts of Speech.

Both the traditional and distributional classification divide parts of speech into
notional and functional. Notional parts of speech are open classes, new items can
be added to them, we extend them indefinitely. Functional parts of speech are
closed systems including a limited number of members. As a rule they cannot be
extended by creating new items.

Main notional parts of speech are nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs. Members of
these four classes are often connected derivationally. Functional parts of speech
are prepositions, conjunctions, articles, interjections & particles. Their distinctive
features are:

- very general & weak lexical meaning;

- obligatory combinability;

The function of linking and specifying words.

Pronouns constitute a class of words which takes an intermediary position
between notional and functional words: on the one hand they can substitute
nouns and adjectives; on the other hand they can be used as connectives and
specifiers. There may be also groups of closed-system items within an open class
(notional, functional and auxiliary verbs).

A word in English is very often not marked morphologically. It makes it easy for
words to pass from one class to another. Such words are treated as either lexico-
semantic phonemes or as words belonging to one class. The problem which is
closely connected with the selection of parts of speech is the problem of
conversion.

There are usually the cases of absolute, phonetic identity of words belonging to
different parts of speech. About 45% of nouns can be converted into verbs and
about 50% of verbs - into nouns. There are different viewpoints on conversion:
some scholars think that it is a syntactic word-building means. If they say so they
do admit that the word may function as parts of speech at the same time.

Russian linguist Galperin defines conversion as a non-affix way of forming words.

There is another theory by French linguist Morshaw who states that conversion is
a creation of new words with zero-affix. In linguistics this problem is called "stone-
wall-construction problem".

Another factor which makes difficult to select parts of speech, in English is

abundance of homonyms in English. They are words and forms identical in form,
sounding, spelling, but different in meaning. Usually the great number of
homonyms in English is explained by monosyllabic structure of words but it’s not
all the explanation.

The words are monosyllabic in English because there are few endings in it,
because English is predominantly analytical. We differentiate between full and
partial homonymity, we usually observe full homonymity within one pan of
speech and partial - within different parts of speech. If we have two homonyms
within one part of speech their paradigms should fully coincide.

Homonyms can be classified into lexical, lexico-grammatical and purely

grammatical. We should differentiate between homonymity and polysemantic
words.

Linguistic competence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linguistics

Theoretical

 Cognitive
 Constraint-based
  Generative
 Structuralist
 Quantitative

 Functional theories of grammar

 Phonology
 Morphology

Morphophonology
 Syntax
 Lexis
 Semantics
 Pragmatics
 Graphemics
 Orthography
 Semiotics

Descriptive

 Anthropological
 Comparative
 Historical
 Etymology
 Graphetics
 Phonetics
 Sociolinguistics
 Cherology

Applied and experimental

 Computational
 Contrastive

Evolutionary
 Forensic
 Internet

 Language acquisition
  Second-language acquisition
 Language assessment
 Language development
 Language education
 Linguistic anthropology
 Neurolinguistics
 Psycholinguistics

Related articles

 History of linguistics
 Linguistic prescription
 List of linguists
 Unsolved linguistics problems
 Origin of language
 Origin of speech

Linguistics portal

 v
 t
 e

Linguistic competence is the system of linguistic knowledge possessed by native

speakers of a language. It is distinguished from linguistic performance, which is
the way a language system is used in communication. Noam Chomsky introduced
this concept in his elaboration of generative grammar,[1] where it has been widely
adopted and competence is the only level of language that is studied.
According to Chomsky, competence is the ideal language system that enables
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] In Chomsky's view, competence can be studied independently of
language use, which falls under "performance", for example through
introspection and grammaticality judgments by native speakers.
Many other linguists – functionalists, cognitive
linguists, psycholinguists, sociolinguists and others have rejected this distinction,
critiquing it as a concept that considers empirical work irrelevant and left out
 many important aspects of language use.[2] Also, it has been argued that the
distinction is often used exclude real data that is, in the words of William
Labov "inconvenient to handle" within generativist theory.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

Contents
[hide]

 1Competence versus performance

o 1.1Other generativists
 1.1.1Ray S. Jackendoff
 1.1.2James Pustejovsky
 1.1.3Katz & Fodor
 2Critiques
o 2.1Critique in psycholinguistics
o 2.2Pragmatics and communicative competence
 3Related areas of study
o 3.1Child language
o 3.2Aphasia
o 3.3Multilingualism
o 3.4Understanding humour
 4See also
 5Notes
 6References
 7External links

Competence versus performance[edit]

Further information: Linguistic performance
Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a
completely homogeneous speech-community, who knows its (the speech
community's) language perfectly and 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][page needed] (page 3)
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'.[14][page needed] 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][page needed]
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-in-principle 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 preclude the
development of a theory of actual performance.[1][page needed]
Other generativists[edit]
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.[15][16] 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.[17]
Ray S. Jackendoff[edit]
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 2][18] Against the syntax-centered view of generative
grammar(syntactocentrism), he specifically
treats phonology, syntaxand 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.
James Pustejovsky[edit]
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.[19]
Katz & Fodor[edit]
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".[18][20]

Critiques[edit]
A broad front of linguists have critiqued the notion of linguistic competence,
often severely. Functionalists, who argue for a usage-based approach to
linguistics, argue that linguistic competence is derived from and informed by
language use, performance, taking the directly opposite view to the generative
model.[21][22] As a result, in functionalist theories emphasis is placed on
experimental methods to understand the linguistic competence of individuals.
Empirical linguist William Labov, considered as a foundation figure
in sociolinguistics, has severely critiqued the idea:
It is now evident to many linguists that the primary purpose of the
[performance/competence] distinction has been to help the linguist
exclude data which he finds inconvenient to handle. ... If performance
involves limitations of memory, attention, and articulation, then we must
consider the entire English grammar to be a matter of performance.[23]
Other 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.[24]
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.[25]
Dell Hymes, quoting Lyons as above, says that "probably now there is
widespread agreement" with the above statement.[26]
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.[27]
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.[28][29]
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."[30]
Cognitive Linguistics is a loose collection of systems that gives more
weightage to semantics, and considers all usage phenomenon including
metaphor and language change. Here, a number of pioneers such
as George Lakoff, Ronald Langacker, and Michael Tomasello have strongly
opposed the competence-performance distinction. The text by Vyvyan
Evans and Melanie Green write:
"In rejecting the distinction between competence and performance
cognitive linguists argue that knowledge of language is derived from
patterns of language use, and further, that knowledge of language is
knowledge of how language is used." p. 110[31]
Critique in psycholinguistics[edit]
Numerous experiments on infants in the last two decades have shown that
they are able to segment words (frequently co-occurring sound sequences)
from other sounds in a stream of meaningless syllables.[32] This together
with computational results that recurrent neural networks can learn
syntax-like patterns,[33] resulted in a wide questioning of nativist
assumptions underlying psycholinguistic work up to the nineties.[34]
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.[35] Psycholinguistics generally reject the distinction between
performance and competence.[36]
Psycholinguists have also decried the competence-performance distinction
on the ability to model dialogue:
Dialogue sits ill with the competence/performance distinction assumed by
most generative linguistics (Chomsky, 1965), because it is hard to
determine whether a particular utterance is "well-formed" or not (or even
whether that notion is relevant to dialogue). Dialogue is inherently
interactive and contextualized.[37]
Pragmatics and communicative competence[edit]
Main article: Communicative competence
The narrow definition of competence espoused by generativists
resulted in the field of pragmatics where concerns other than language
have become dominant. This has resulted in a more inclusive notion
called communicative competence, to include social aspects – as
proposed by Dell Hymes.[38][39] This situation has had some unfortunate
side effects:
Having grown up in opposition to linguistics, pragmatics has largely
dispensed with grammar; what theoretical input it has had has been drawn
from strands in philosophy and sociology rather than linguistics. [But this is
a] split between two aspects of what to me is a single enterprise: that of
trying to explain language. It seems to me that both parts of the project are
weakened when they are divorced one from the other.[40]
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.[41]

Related areas of study[edit]

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[edit]
Further information: Language acquisition
The Chomskyan view of language acquisition argues that humans
have an innate ability – universal grammar – to acquire
language.[42] 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.[43]
Aphasia[edit]
Further information: 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.[44] 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.[45]
Multilingualism[edit]
Main article: Multilingualism
The definition of a multilingual[nb 3] 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.[46]
Understanding humour[edit]
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 pyjamas; how he got into my pyjamas 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 pyjamas.[47]
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.[48]

See also

The term linguistic competence refers to the unconscious knowledge

of grammar that allows a speaker to use and understand a language. Also known
as grammatical competence or I-language. Contrast with linguistic performance.

As used by Noam Chomsky and other linguists, linguistic competence is not an

evaluative term. Rather, it refers to the innate linguistic knowledge that allows a
person to match sounds and meanings.

In Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965), Chomsky wrote, "We thus make a
fundamental distinction between competence (the speaker-hearer's knowledge of
his language) and performance (the actual use of language in concrete
situations)."

EXAMPLES AND OBSERVATIONS

"Linguistic competence constitutes knowledge of language, but that knowledge is
tacit, implicit. This means that people do not have conscious access to the
principles and rules that govern the combination of sounds, words, and
sentences; however, they do recognize when those rules and principles have been
violated. . . . For example, when a person judges that the sentence John said that
Jane helped himself is ungrammatical, it is because the person has tacit
knowledge of the grammatical principle that reflexive pronouns must refer to
an NP in the same clause." (Eva M. Fernandez and Helen Smith
Cairns, Fundamentals of Psycholinguistics.

Wiley-Blackwell, 2011)

LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE AND LINGUISTIC PERFORMANCE

"In [Noam] Chomsky's theory, our linguistic competence is our unconscious

knowledge of languages and is similar in some ways to [Ferdinand de] Saussure's
concept of langue, the organizing principles of a language. What we actually
produce as utterances is similar to Saussure's parole, and is called linguistic
performance.

The difference between linguistic competence and linguistic performance can be

illustrated by slips of the tongue, such as 'noble tons of soil' for 'noble sons of
toil.' Uttering such a slip doesn't mean that we don't know English but rather that
we've simply made a mistake because we were tired, distracted, or whatever.
Such 'errors' also aren't evidence that you are (assuming you are a native speaker)
a poor English speaker or that you don't know English as well as someone else
does. It means that linguistic performance is different from linguistic competence.
When we say that someone is a better speaker than someone else (Martin Luther
King, Jr., for example, was a terrific orator, much better than you might be), these
judgements tell us about performance, not competence. Native speakers of a
language, whether they are famous public speakers or not, don't know the
language any better than any other speaker in terms of linguistic competence."
(Kristin Denham and Anne Lobeck, Linguistics for Everyone. Wadsworth, 2010)

"Two language users may have the same 'program' for carrying out specific tasks
of production and recognition, but differ in their ability to apply it because of
exogenous differences (such as short-term memory capacity).
The two are accordingly equally language-competent but not necessarily equally
adept at making use of their competence.

"The linguistic competence of a human being should accordingly be identified

with that individual's internalized 'program' for production and recognition. While
many linguists would identify the study of this program with the study of
performance rather than competence, it should be clear that this identification is
mistaken since we have deliberately abstracted away from any consideration of
what happens when a language user actually attempts to put the program to use.
A major goal of the psychology of language is to construct a viable hypothesis as
to the structure of this program . . .." (Michael B. Kac, Grammars and
Grammaticality. John Benjamins, 1992)

oam Chomsky

Norbert Hornstein

In Edward Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, London, 1998

Fish swim, birds fly, people talk. The talents displayed by fish and birds rest on
specific biological structures whose intricate detail is attributable to genetic
endowment. Human linguistic capacity similarly rests on dedicated mental
structures many of whose specific details are an innate biological endowment of
the species. One of Chomsky’s central concerns has been to press this analogy and
uncover its implications for theories of mind, meaning and knowledge.

This work has proceeded along two broad fronts.

First, Chomsky has fundamentally restructured grammatical research. Due to his

work, the central object of study in linguistics is ‘the language faculty’, a postulated
mental organ which is dedicated to acquiring linguistic knowledge and is involved
in various aspects of language-use, including the production and understanding of
utterances. The aim of linguistic theory is to describe the initial state of this faculty
and how it changes with exposure to linguistic data. Chomsky (1981) characterizes
the initial state of the language faculty as a set of principles and parameters.
Language acquisition consists in setting these open parameter values on the basis
of linguistic data available to a child. The initial state of the system is a Universal
Grammar (UG): a super-recipe for concocting language-specific grammars.
Grammars constitute the knowledge of particular languages that result when
parametric values are fixed.

Linguistic theory, given these views, has a double mission. First, it aims to
‘adequately’ characterize the grammars (and hence the mental states) attained by
native speakers. Theories are ‘descriptively adequate’ if they attain this goal. In
addition, linguistic theory aims to explain how grammatical competence is
attained. Theories are ‘explanatorily adequate’ if they show how descriptively
adequate grammars can arise on the basis of exposure to ‘primary linguistic data’
(PLD): the data children are exposed to and use in attaining their native grammars.
Explanatory adequacy rests on an articulated theory of UG, and in particular a
detailed theory of the general principles and open parameters that characterize the
initial state of the language faculty (that is, the biologically endowed mental
structures).

Chomsky has also pursued a second set of concerns. He has vigorously criticized
many philosophical nostrums from the perspective of this revitalized approach to
linguistics. Three topics he has consistently returned to are:

· Knowledge of language and its general epistemological implications

· Indeterminacy and underdetermination in linguistic theory
· Person-specific ‘I-languages’ versus socially constituted ‘E-languages’ as the
proper objects of scientific study.

1 The aims and principles of linguistic theory

There is an intimate relation between how a problem is conceived and the kinds of
explanations one should offer. Chomsky proposes that we identify explanation in
linguistics with a solution to the problem of how children can attain mastery of their
native languages on the basis of a rather slender database. This is often referred to
as ‘the logical problem of language acquisition’.

A natural language assigns meanings to an unbounded number of sentences.

Humans typically come to master at least one such language in a surprisingly short
time, without conscious effort, explicit instruction or apparent difficulty. How is this
possible? There are significant constraints on any acceptable answer.

First, a human can acquire any language if placed in the appropriate speech
community. Grow up in Boston and one grows up speaking English the way
Bostonians do. However, the ‘primary linguistic data’ (PLD) available to the child
are unable to guide the task unaided. There are four kinds of problems with the
data that prevent it from shaping the outcome:,

(a) The set of sentences the child is exposed to is finite. However, the knowledge
attained extends over an unbounded domain of sentences.
(b) The child is exposed not to sentences but to utterances of sentences. These are
imperfect vehicles for the transmission of sentential information as they can be
defective in various ways. Slurred speech, half sentences, slips of the tongue and
mispronunciations are only a few of the ways that utterances can obscure sentence
structure.
(c) Acquisition takes place without explicit guidance by the speech community. This
is so for a variety of reasons. Children do not make many errors to begin with when
one considers the range of logically possible mistakes. Moreover, adults do not
engage in systematic corrections of errors that do occur and even when correction
is offered children seem neither to notice nor to care. At any rate, children seem
surprisingly immune to any form of adult linguistic intrusion (see Lightfoot 1982).
(d) Last of all, and most importantly, of the linguistic evidence theoretically
available to the child, it is likely that only simple sentences are absorbed. The gap
between input and intake is attributable to various cognitive limitations such as
short attention span and limited memory. This implies that the acquisition process
is primarily guided by the information available in well-formed simple sentences.
Negative data (the information available in unacceptable ill-formed sentences) and
complex data (the information yielded by complex constructions) are not among
the PLD that guide the process of grammar acquisition. The child constructing its
native grammar is limited to an informationally restricted subset of the relevant
data. In contrast to the evidence that the linguist exploits in theory construction,
the information the child uses in building its grammar is severely restricted. This
suggests that whenever the linguistic properties of complex clauses diverge from
simple ones, the acquisition of this knowledge cannot be driven by data. Induction
is insufficient as the relevant information is simply unavailable in the PLD.

The general picture that emerges from these considerations is that attaining
linguistic competence involves the acquisition of a grammar, and that humans
come equipped with a rich innate system that guides the process of grammar
construction. This system is supple enough to allow for the acquisition of any
natural language grammar, yet rigid enough to guide the process despite the
degeneracy and deficiency of the PLD. Linguistic theorizing takes the above facts as
boundary conditions and aims both at descriptive adequacy (that is, to characterize
the knowledge that speakers have of their native grammars) and explanatory
adequacy (that is, to adumbrate the fine structure of the innate capacity) (see
Language, innateness of).

Issues of descriptive and explanatory adequacy have loomed large in Chomsky’s

work since the beginning. Chomsky’s objection, for example, to ‘Markov models’ of
human linguistic competence was that they were incapable of dealing with long
distance dependencies exemplified by conditional constructions in English and
hence could not be descriptively adequate. His argument in favour of a
transformational approach to grammar rested on the claim that it allowed for the
statement of crucial generalizations evident in the judgments of native speakers
and so advanced the goal of descriptive adequacy (Chomsky 1957). Similarly, his
influential critique (1959) of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior consisted in showing that
the learning theory presented therein was explanatorily inadequate. It was either
too vague to be of scientific value or clearly incorrect given even moderately
precise notions of stimulus or reinforcement.

The shift from the early Syntactic Structures (1957) theory to the one in Aspects of
a Theory of Syntax (1965) was also motivated by concerns of explanatory adequacy.
In the earlier model the recursive application of transformations allows for the
generation of more and more complex sentences from the sentences produced by
the ‘phrase structure’ component of the grammar. In the Aspects theory, recursion
is incorporated into the phrase structure component itself, and removed from the
transformational part of the theory (see Syntax §3). The impetus for this was the
observation that greater explanatory adequacy could be attained by grammars that
had a level of ‘Deep Structure’ incorporating a recursive base component. In
particular, Fillmore (1963) observed that the various optional transformations in a
Syntactic Structures theory always applied in a particular order in any given
derivation. This order is unexplained in a Syntactic Structures theory; in Aspects it
is deduced. Thus, the move to an Aspects-style grammar is motivated on grounds
of greater explanatory adequacy: introducing Deep Structure and moving recursion
to the base allows for a more restricted theory of Universal Grammar. All things
being equal, restricting UG is always desirable as it advances a central goal of
grammatical theory; the more restricted the options innately available for grammar
construction, the easier it is to explain how language acquisition is possible, despite
the difficulties in the PLD noted above.

The same logic motivates various later additions to and shifts in grammatical
theory. For example, a major move in the 1970s was radically to simplify
transformational operations so as to make their acquisition easier. This involves
eliminating any mention of construction-specific properties from transformational
rules. For example, an Aspects rule for passive constructions looks like (1), the left-
hand side being the Structural Description (SD) and the right hand side being the
Structural Change (SC):

X-NP1-V-NP2-Y->(1)X – NP2 – be + en V – by + NP1 – Y x

This rule would explain, for instance the grammaticality of ‘the ball is kicked by
John’ given that of ‘John kicks the ball’. Observe that the SC involves the constants
‘ ’ and ‘by’. The SD mentions three general expressions, ‘NP1’, ‘V’ and ‘NP2’ and
treats these as part of the context for the application of the rule. In place of this,
Chomsky proposed eliminating the passive rule and replacing it with a more general
rule that moves NPs (Chomsky 1977, 1986). The passive rule in (1) involves two
applications of the ‘Move NP’ rule, one moving the subject ‘NP1’ to the ‘by’ phrase,
and another moving the object ‘NP2’ to the subject position. In effect, all the
elements that make the passive rule in (1) specific to transitive constructions are
deleted and a simpler rule (‘Move NP’) replaces it.

There is a potential empirical cost to simple rules, however. The simpler a

transformation the more it generates unacceptable outputs. Thus, while a
grammar with (1) would not derive ‘was jumped by John’ from ‘John jumped’, a
grammar eschewing (1) and opting for the simpler ‘Move NP’ rule is not similarly
restricted. To prevent overgeneration, therefore, the structure of UG must be
enriched with general grammatical conditions that function to reign in the
undesired overgeneration (Chomsky 1973, 1977, 1986). Chomsky has repeatedly
emphasized the tension inherent in developing theories with both wide empirical
coverage and reasonable levels of explanatory adequacy.

A high point of this research agenda is Chomsky’s Lectures on Government and

Binding (1981). Here the transformational component is reduced to the extremely
simple rule ‘Move a’ – that is, move anything anywhere. To ensure that this
transformational liberty does not result in generative chaos, various additions to
the grammar are incorporated, many conditions on grammatical operations and
outputs are proposed, and many earlier proposals (by both Chomsky and others)
are refined. Among these are trace theory, the binding theory, bounding theory,
case theory, theta theory and the Empty Category Principle. The picture of the
grammar that Chomsky’s Lectures presents is that of a highly modular series of
interacting subsystems which in concert restrict the operation of very general and
very simple grammatical rules. In contrast to earlier traditional approaches to
grammar, Lectures witnesses the virtual elimination of grammatical constructions
as theoretical constructs. Thus, in Government Binding (GB)-style theories there
are no rules of Passive, Raising, Relativization or Question Formation as there were
in earlier theories. Within GB, language variation is not a matter of different
grammars having different rules. Rather, the phenomena attested in different
languages are deduced by variously setting the parameters of Universal Grammar.
Given the interaction of the grammatical modules, a few parametric changes can
result in what appear on the surface to be very different linguistic configurations.
In contrast to earlier approaches to language, variation consists not in employing
different kinds of rules, but in having set the parameters of an otherwise fixed
system in somewhat different ways (see Chomsky 1983).

The GB research programme has proven to be quite successful in both its

descriptive range and its explanatory appeal. Despite this, Chomsky has urged a yet
more ambitious avenue of research. He has embarked on the development of a
rationalist approach to grammar that goes under the name of ‘Minimalism’
(Chomsky 1995). The theory is ‘rationalist’ both in that it is grounded on very simple
and perspicuous first principles, and in that it makes use only of notions required
by ‘virtual conceptual necessity’. Chomsky hopes to make do with concepts that no
approach to grammar can conceivably do without and remain true to the most
obvious features of linguistic competence. For example, every theory of grammar
treats sentences as pairings of sounds and meanings. Thus, any theory will require
that every sentence have a phonological and an interpretative structure. In GB
theories, these sorts of information are encoded in the PF (Phonetic Form) and LF
(Logical Form) phrase markers respectively. In addition, GB theories recognize two
other distinctive grammatical levels: S-structure and D-structure. A minimal theory,
Chomsky argues, should dispense with everything but LF and PF. It will be based on
natural ‘economy’ principles and indispensable primitives. Chomsky has suggested
reanalysing many of the restrictions that GB theories impose in terms of ‘least
effort’ notions such as ‘shortest move’ and ‘last resort movement’. For example, he
proposes that the unacceptability of sentences such as ‘John is expected will win’,
are ultimately due to the fact that the moved NP ‘John’ need not have moved from
the embedded subject position (between ‘expected’ and ‘will’) as it fulfils no
grammatical requirement by so moving. This work is still in its infancy, but it has
already prompted significant revisions of earlier conclusions. For example, with the
elimination of D-structure, the recursive engine of the grammar has once again
become the province of generalized transformations. Whatever its ultimate
success, however, Minimalism continues the pursuit of the broad goals of
descriptive and explanatory adequacy enunciated in Chomsky’s earliest work.

2 Knowledge of language

According to Chomsky, the three fundamental epistemological questions in the

domain of language are ‘What constitutes knowledge of language?’, ‘How is
knowledge of language acquired?’ and ‘How is this knowledge put to use?’. The
answer to the first question is given by a particular generative grammar. Harold’s
knowledge of English is identified with Harold’s being in a particular mental/brain
state. A descriptively adequate grammar characterizes this part of Harold’s
mental/brain make-up. An answer to the second question is provided by a
specification of UG and the principles that take the initial state of the language
faculty to the knowledgeable state on exposure to PLD. Harold knows English in
virtue of being genetically endowed with a language faculty and having been
normally brought up in an English-speaking community. Beyond this, further issues
of grounding are unnecessary. Issues of epistemological justification and grounding
in the data are replaced by questions concerning the fine structure of the initial
state of the language faculty and how its open parameters are set on the basis of
PLD. The third question is answered by outlining how linguistic knowledge interacts
with other cognitive capacities and abilities to issue in various linguistic acts such
as expressing one’s thoughts, parsing incoming speech and so on (see Chomsky
1986).

How much does the language case tell us about epistemological issues in other
domains? In other words, should knowledge of quantum mechanics be analysed in
a similar vein, that is, being in a particular mental state, grounded in specific innate
capacities and so on. Chomsky only makes sparse comments on this general issue,
but those he advances suggest that he believes that knowledge in these domains
should be approached in much the same way they are approached in the domain
of language. This suggests that humans have an innate science-forming capacity
that underlies our success in the few domains of inquiry in which there has indeed
been scientific success. As in the domain of language, this capacity is focused and
modular rather than being a general all-purpose tool and this, Chomsky speculates,
might well underlie the patchiness of our successes. Where we have the right
biological propensities, we develop rich insightful theories that far outpace the data
from which they are projected. Where this mind/brain structure is lacking,
mysteries abound that seem recalcitrant to systematic inquiry. Stressing our
cognitive limits is a staple of Chomsky’s general epistemological reflections. If
humans are part of the natural world we should expect there to be problems that
fall within our cognitive grasp and mysteries that lie outside it. The rich theoretical
insights allowed in the natural sciences are the result of a chance convergence
between properties of the natural world and properties of the human mind/brain
(see Chomsky 1975).

3 Indeterminacy and underdetermination

Knowledge of language, Chomsky has argued, presents a strong argument in favour
of traditional rationalist approaches to mind and against traditional empiricist
approaches (see Learning §1; Rationalism). In particular, ‘learning’ is treated as
more akin to growth and the course of acquisition is seen more as the unfolding of
innate propensities under the trigger of experiential input than as the result of the
shaping effects of the environment. This rationalist perspective is now quite
common and this is largely due to Chomsky’s efforts. Chomsky has consistently
warned against empiricist prejudices in philosophy, and in no instance more
strongly than in his critique of Quine’s methodological remarks on linguistics (for
example, see Quine 1960).

Chomsky takes Quine to be arguing that linguistic investigations are beset with
problems greater than those endemic to inquiry in general. Whereas empirical
investigation in general suffers from underdetermination of theory by evidence,
linguistic study is beset with the added problem of indeterminacy (see Radical
translation and radical interpretation §§2-3). Indeterminacy differs from standard
inductive underdetermination (see Underdetermination) in that where there is
indeterminacy ‘there is no real question of right choice’ among competing
proposals. Chomsky interprets Quine as arguing that ‘determining truth in the
study of language differs from the problem of determining truth in the study of
physics’ (Chomsky 1975: 182-3).

In reply, Chomsky (1969) argues that Quine’s thesis rests on classical empiricist
assumptions about how languages are acquired. Quine, he argues, supposes that
humans have ‘an innate quality space with a built-in distance measure’ tuned to
certain ’simple physical correlates’. In addition, certain kinds of induction in this
space are permitted. Beyond this, however, ‘language-learning is a matter of
association of sentences to one another and to certain stimuli through
conditioning’. Further, one cannot ‘make significant generalizations about
language or common-sense theories, and the child has no concept of language or
of “common-sense” prior to this training’ (Chomsky 1969: 54-5, 63).
Chomsky notes that Quine provides no evidence to support these assumptions. Nor
can there be any good evidence to support them if the nature of the learning
problem in the domain of language is characterized as Chomsky has argued it must
be. Chomsky concludes that ‘Quine’s thesis of the indeterminacy of translation
amounts to an implausible and quite unsubstantiated empirical claim about what
the mind brings to the problem of acquisition of language (or of knowledge in
general) as an innate property’ (Chomsky 1969: 66). Stripped of these tendentious
empirical assumptions, Quine fails to show that indeterminacy is anything other
than the familiar problem of underdetermination of theory by evidence as applied
to linguistics. Chomsky (1996) has since argued that the ultimate source of many
critiques of the mental sciences in general and linguistics in particular (including
Quine’s indeterminacy thesis) is a kind of methodological dualism that takes
humans to be separate from the natural world. This dualism is manifest in the a
priori constraints that philosophers place on explanations in the mental sciences,
which would be regarded as inappropriate if applied to the physical sciences.

In this vein Chomsky asks, for example, why access to consciousness is so often
taken to be crucial in substantiating the claim that humans have I-language or
follow rules. Suppose, he asks, we had a theory that perfectly described what
happens when sound waves hit the ear, stimulating the performance system to
access the cognitive system and construct a logical form that interacts with other
cognitive systems to yield comprehension, in so far as the language faculty enters
into this process. What more could be desired? The insistence that this entire
process be accessible to consciousness in order for the account to be credible, he
argues, is a demand beyond naturalism, a form of methodological dualism of
dubious standing that would be summarily rejected if raised elsewhere.

Or consider the oft-voiced suspicions concerning mentalist approaches in

psychology. Many philosophers are ready to accept these as perhaps temporarily
necessary but ultimately, the view seems to be, mentalist theories must reduce to
physical ones to be truly legitimate. Chomsky argues that this sentiment is another
manifestation of methodological dualism and should be rejected. First, it
presupposes that there is a tenable distinction between the mental and the
physical. However, Chomsky argues that since Newton undermined the Cartesian
theory of body by showing that more ‘occult’ forces were required in an adequate
physics, mind-body dualism has lost all grounding. Second, even if reduction were
possible, reduction comes in many varieties and there is little reason to believe that
the contours of the reducing physical theory would be left unaffected by the
process. Since Newton, Chomsky notes, ‘physical’ has been an honorific term that
signifies those areas in which we have some nontrivial degree of theoretical
understanding. The relevant scientific question is whether some theory or other
offers interesting descriptions and explanations. The further insistence that its
primitives be couched in physical vocabulary is either vacuous (because ‘physical’
has no general connotation) or illegitimate (another instance of methodological
dualism).

The general conclusion Chomsky draws is that whatever problems linguistic theory
encounters, it is no more methodologically problematic than theories in other
domains. He attributes the qualms of philosophers to lingering empiricist dogma or
an indefensible epistemological dualism.

4 I-language versus E-language

Given the aims of Chomskian linguistic theory, the proper objects of study are the
I-languages internalized by native speakers, rather than public E(xternal)-languages
used by populations. Chomsky denies that public E-languages are interesting
objects of scientific study. Indeed he denies that E-languages can be coherently
specified as they simply do not exist. The proper objects of inquiry are I-languages;
‘I’ standing for intensional, internal and individual. An I-language is individual in
that each speaker has one. This focus turns the common wisdom on its head. E-
languages like English, Swahili and so forth are (at best) radical idealizations for
Chomsky, or (at worst) incoherent pseudo-objects. At best, E-languages are the
intersection of the common properties of various I-languages. Thus, for example, it
is not that speakers communicate because they have a language in common; rather
wherever I-languages overlap communication is possible.

An I-language is internal in the sense of being part of a speaker’s individual mental

make-up. It is neither a Platonic object nor a social construct. Also, an I-language is
intensional, not extensional. Comprised as it is of an unbounded number of
sentences, a language cannot be ‘given’ except via a specification of the function
that generates them, that is a grammar for that language. Thus, it is languages in
intension, languages dressed in all of their grammatical robes, not simple
concatenations of words, that are the proper objects of scientific interest. One
consequence of this is that weak generative capacity (that is, the extensional
equivalence of languages generated by different grammars) is of dubious interest.
In short, the shift from E-language to I-language turns many long-standing
questions around, raising some to prominence that were considered secondary and
relegating many that previously were considered crucial to the status of pseudo-
questions.

Many philosophers have found Chomsky’s focus on I-language problematic. To

illustrate, we will consider an important philosophical critique and Chomsky’s reply.

Dummett (1986) argues against internalist approaches to language that they fail to
provide an account of notions like ‘language of a community’ or ‘community norms’
in the sense presupposed by virtually all work in the philosophy of language and
philosophical semantics. These notions, Dummett claims, are required to provide a
notion of a common public language which ‘exists independently of any particular
speakers’ and of which native speakers have a ‘partial, and partially erroneous,
grasp’ (see Language, social nature of §2).

The naturalistic study of language, Chomsky counters, has no place for a Platonistic
notion of language, a notion of language outside the mind/brain that is common to
various speakers and to which each speaker stands in some cognitive relation. The
reason is that this Platonistic reification rests on notions like ‘language’ and
‘community’ that are hopelessly under-specified. Asking if two people speak the
same language is, in Chomsky’s opinion, to ask a highly context-dependent
question – much like asking whether Boston is near New York. What counts as a
community depends on shifting expectations of individuals and groups. Human
society is not neatly divided into communities with languages and their norms.
Thus, what counts as a community is too under-specified to be useful for
theoretical purposes. Therefore, it is not a defect of linguistic theory that these
notions play no role within it.

From Chomsky’s perspective E-languages are epiphenomenal objects, if coherent

at all. I-language in its universal aspects is part of the human genotype and specifies
one aspect of the human mind/brain. Under the triggering effects of experience a
particular grammar arises in the mind/brain of an individual. From this perspective,
universal grammar and the steady-state grammars that arise from them are real
objects. They will be physically realized in the genetic code and the adult brain. E-
language, in contrast, has a murky ontological status. Chomsky (1980) argues that
the priority of I-language cannot be reasonably doubted once we observe that
languages involve an infinite pairing of sounds and meanings. Given that language
is infinite, it cannot be specified except in so far as some finite characterization – a
function in intension – is provided. It might be possible to give some
characterization to the notion ‘a language used by a population’ but only indirectly
via a grammatical specification of the language. But this concedes the priority of I-
language as the claim unpacks into something like: each person in the relevant
population has a grammar in their mind/brain that determines the E-language.
Thus, at best, an E-language is that object which the I-language specifies. However,
even this might be giving too much reality to E-languages, for there is nothing in
the notion I-language that requires that what they specify corresponds to
languages as commonly construed, that is, things like French, English and so on. It
is consistent with Chomsky’s viewpoint that I-language never specifies any object
that we might pre-theoretically call a language. Whether this is indeed the case,
the key point is to realize that the move from grammar to language is a step away
from real mechanisms to objects of a higher degree of abstraction. I-language is
epistemologically and ontologically hardier than E-language, much philosophical
opinion to the contrary.

Competence

John Phillips and Chrissie Tan (© the Literary Encyclopaedia)

Linguistic Competence defines the system of rules that governs an

individual’s tacit understanding of what is acceptable and what is
not in the language they speak. The concept, introduced by the
linguist Noam Chomsky in 1965, was intended to address certain
assumptions about language, especially in structuralist linguistics,
where the idea of an unconscious system had been extensively
elaborated and schematized. Competence can be regarded as a
revision of the idea of the language system. The empirical and
formal realization of competence would be performance, which
thus corresponds to diverse structuralist notions
of parole, utterance, event, process, etc. Chomsky argues that the
unconscious system of linguistic relations, which Ferdinand de
Saussure named langue, is often mistakenly associated
with knowledge or ability (or know-how). Chomsky is concerned
to establish a science that would study what he calls “the
language faculty”, in analogy with other mental faculties like logic,
which as a kind of intuitive reasoning power requires no
accumulation of facts or skills in order to develop. Grammatical
knowledge too seems to be present and fully functional in
speakers fluent in any language. So competence in Chomsky’s
sense implies neither an accumulated store of knowledge nor an
ability or skill. He rejects Saussure’s langue as “merely a
systematic inventory of items”, and instead returns to a rationalist
model of underlying competence regarded as “a system of
generative processes” (4). This has the advantage of explaining
plausibly events of linguistic innovation in unpredictable
situations, as well as pertinence of expression and understanding
in particular contexts. This faculty seems to be absent in animals
and (so far) in machines that can nonetheless be taught or
programmed to use signs in imitative or predetermined ways.

A key source for Chomsky’s conception is Rene Descartes, whose

concern with the creative powers of the mind leads him to regard
human language as an instrument of thought. Chomsky also cites
Wilhelm von Humboldt as a source for the conception of the
generative nature of competence. Humboldt argues that use of
language is based upon the demands that thinking imposes on
language, and that this is where the general laws governing
language originate. In order to understand the instrument or the
faculty itself, however, it would not be necessary or even
desirable to consider the creative abilities of great writers or the
cultural wealth of nations; the linguist would, rather, attempt to
abstract the generative rules, which remain unchanged from
individual to individual. Competence, in Chomsky’s sense, is to be
regarded as entirely independent of any considerations of
performance, which might concern other disciplines, like
pragmatics, psychology, medicine, or literary theory.

An individual’s competence is defined by the grammar, or set of

rules, that is represented mentally and manifested by their
understanding of acceptable usage in a given linguistic
idiom. Grammatical competence thus defines an innate
knowledge of rules rather than knowledge of items or relations. It
is said to be innate because one apparently does not have to be
trained to acquire it and it can be applied to an unlimited number
of previously unheard examples. The two phrases I speak
acceptable Chinese and I speak Chinese acceptably would be
regarded as acceptable by any native English speaker, but I speak
acceptably Chinese would probably not. Despite this, the more
complex form, I speak quite acceptably Cantonese and some other
Chinese dialects as well as Japanese, might be regarded as
alright. Examples like these are thought to provide evidence of a
deep structure of grammar, in other words, a linguistic
competence.

A project in generative grammar has two distinct aims. First, it is

a matter of analyzing the elements of a sentence or phrase into its
distinct parts, thus revealing the so called deep structure of the
sentence. Competence thus implies an unconscious knowledge of
the rules for converting deep structure into surface structure. The
procedures have been adopted by or incorporated into several
approaches to text and discourse analysis. The relationship
between surface structure and deep structure can be easily
demonstrated, for instance, by examples of structural ambiguity,
a key source of jokes, like Groucho Marx’s line from Animal
Crackers: One morning I shot an elephant in my pyjamas; how he
got into my pyjamas I’ll never know. The comic aspect of the
punch line lies in its revealing the fact that the surface structure of
the main sentence expresses two possible grammatical
sentences: in my pyjamas I shot an elephant; and I shot an
elephant who was wearing my pyjamas. The discrete unit in my
pyjamas each time plays a different grammatical role in the deep
structure of the sentence.

The second, more controversial, aim of generative grammar is to

establish and produce descriptive models of the rules that
compose the complete grammar. The rules must be finite yet
must be capable of generating an infinite number of innovative
sentences. This aspect of grammar is open to debate and
misunderstanding partly because of the intuitive nature of an
individual’s sense of what is and is not acceptable. Projects in
generative grammar abound with examples of sentences that lie
on the boundaries of what speakers might regard as acceptable,
revealing fine degrees of unacceptability as well as
acceptability. The point is not to establish what is right or wrong
in any absolute sense. Rather it is to establish first that a
speaker’s competence leads them to intuitive judgments
concerning the relative acceptability of sentences; and then it is a
matter of producing models of that competence. So the
controversial aspect of generative grammar lies in its assertion of
an innate cognitive faculty, from which issues the rules of
grammatical structure and generation, and which thus describes
the entire grammar of the language faculty, its syntax, which is
manifested by an individual’s competence in their
language. Despite the ideal implied by the notion of a complete
grammar, Chomsky insists that any science of the language faculty
must, like all science, be subject to interminable revision and
refinement.

Diverse approaches in literary criticism and critical theory address

both the productive potential and the problematic character of
the notion of competence. Michel Riffaterre’s response in 1966
to the exhaustive structuralist reading of Baudelaire’s “Les Chats,”
by Claude Levi-Strauss and Roman Jakobson, accuses them of
building a “supertext”, based on the collation and classification of
regularities, which no ordinary reader could have arrived at
independently of structuralist resources. In a gesture that
parallels Chomsky’s response to Saussure, Riffaterre constructs
instead the theoretical fiction of the “superreader”, a notion
designed to establish those moments in a literary text that
invariably draw the attention of the reader because of their
unpredictability in the face of normative grammatical
restrictions. Such moments invariably “hold up” the reading
process. The idea of the superreader is to be established
independently of any consideration of external conditions on
individual readers, the effects on understanding of continual
evolution of the language, and changes in poetic or aesthetic
conventions. In later work, Riffaterre builds a sophisticated
stylistic method that, again, parallels generative, or
transformational, grammar. He argues that a literary text can
by analyzed for the way it has been generated from what he calls
its matrix, a “kernel word” or “minimal sentence”. The matrix
allows the generation of forms more complex than itself, creating
two levels: the generator(corresponding to the minimal deep
structure of the work); and the transform (corresponding to the
increasingly complex surface structure).

Fascinating as the results of Riffaterre’s readings are, critics have

discovered numerous problems with them. The texts he chooses
for analysis, for instance, tend to be unpredictable in consistent
ways, like Lauréamont’s Les Chants de Maldoror. So while his
analyses of texts like this are revealing, critics have been skeptical
about his claims for a science of the literary in general, because
many texts commonly regarded as literary can be regarded as
grammatically normative yet effective in other ways.

Jonathan Culler, in his Structuralist Poetics, moves away from the

idea of the underlying competence of literary works, and
considers instead the literary competence of readers. Culler
argues that this literary competence, regarded as a kind of
grammar of literature, is acquired in education institutions. In his
later work, On Deconstruction, he develops the idea further,
drawing on diverse critical responses to institutions, and
questioning the foundations of a literary competence that
surreptitiously promotes the doctrines and values of specific
traditions.

Literary analysis has also been responsible for effective critical

engagements with the implications of Chomsky’s concept of
competence. Colin MacCabe’s essay on Joyce’s Finnegans Wake,
“Competence and Performance: the Body and Language
in Finnegans Wake,” takes issue with the biological grounds of
Chomsky’s theoretical formulations, arguing that Finnegans
Wake literally “dismembers” any normative conception of the
relation between the body and language. MacCabe argues that
more weight must be given to the institutional forms of education
and entertainment in the formation of tacit competence as a
source of political force. He insists that in order to build on
Chomsky’s studies of competence a concept of discourseis
required.

The concept of discourse would help bring Chomsky’s theoretical

formulations closer to those of Michel Foucault, to whom he is
often opposed. Foucault, for instance, in The Archeology of
Knowledge adapts the notion of archive to account for those rules
that govern what we know and what we can say, but which we
cannot, for that reason, ever describe. These rules function not as
part of an innate system, as Chomsky contends, but as a “system
of accumulation, historicity, and disappearance”
(Archaeology 130). The archive thus designates what Foucault
calls the “historical a priori”, historical conditions independent of
experience that nonetheless help to determine it. Several other
theorists have comparable formulations, where the always
apparently innate laws that conspire to form competences of
certain kinds turn out to have been overdetermined by
institutions or other systems of organization. In these cases there
are not only linguistic and literary competences but also
competences of love, of sexuality, of urban dwelling and so
on. Jacques Lacan’s concept of the Other, as “the locus of the
word”, functions just as Chomsky’s concept of the fluent speaker
does, with the essential difference that Lacan’s Other is the locus
also of the Symbolic and thus represents institutional
normalization. A further celebrated intervention would be Roland
Barthes’s formulation, in S/Z, of the codes that he argues govern
the realist text. Barthes exposes a tacit understanding that
disguises a highly sophisticated and multivalent matrix of
assumptions and expectations.

A J Greimas, in a discussion of the semiotics of amorous

performance, after observing that “every performance
presupposes competence”, tells a humorous anecdote that
gestures to what is at stake:
 I remember during one of Jakobson’s visits to Paris, the
question was strongly debated between Jakobson, Lévi-
Strauss and Lacan whether, if two young people had been
raised following the precepts of Jean-Jacques Rousseau,
“naturally”, without knowing the laws of love, could they or
could they not exercise amorous doing? … I recall that Lévi-
Strauss was categorical in saying, “No, they cannot make
love”, where Jakobson sided with nature (357).

This reported debate between Jakobson and Lévi-Strauss is

suggestive of what is at stake in the concept of competence. To
side with nature is to side with arguments that define the human
in terms of universal capacities. Such capacities, these arguments
claim, give rise to wide variations in performance (i.e., languages,
cultures, individuals, etc.). To oppose this view is to side with
arguments that claim for human experience an unconscious, a
priori, establishment of institutions, laws, histories etc. In the
absence of a model, so far, for an innate universal grammar, one
might suppose that a capacity exists that contingently gives the
speaker access to whatever syntax or other kind of competence
might be required by environmental needs. Then it would follow
as a matter of course that competence no less than performance
would always be institutional in some way.

Communicative competence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Communicative competence is a term in linguistics which refers to a language
user's grammatical knowledge of syntax, morphology, phonology and the like, as
well as social knowledge about how and when to use utterances appropriately.
Tite The term was coined by Dell Hymes in 1966,[1] reacting against the perceived
inadequacy of Noam Chomsky's (1965) distinction between linguistic
competence and performance.[2] To address Chomsky's abstract notion of
competence, Hymes undertook ethnographic exploration of communicative
competence that included "communicative form and function in integral relation
to each other".[3] The approach pioneered by Hymes is now known as
the ethnography of communication.
The notion of communicative competence is one of the theories that underlies
the communicative approach to foreign language teaching.[3]
The understanding of communicative competence has been influenced by the
field of pragmatics and the philosophy of language, including work on speech
acts.[4]

The term communicative competence refers to both the tacit knowledge of

a languageand the ability to use it effectively. Also called communication
competence.

The concept of communicative competence (a term coined by linguist Dell Hymes

in 1972) grew out of resistance to the concept of linguistic
competence introduced by Noam Chomsky (1965). Most scholars now consider
linguistic competence to be a part of communicative competence.

EXAMPLES AND OBSERVATIONS

 "Why have so many scholars, from so many fields, studied communicative

competence within so many relational, institutional, and cultural contexts?
Our hunch is that scholars, as well as the contemporary Western societies
in which most live and work, widely accept the following tacit beliefs: (a)
within any situation, not all things that can be said and done are equally
competent; (b) success in personal and professional relationships depends,
in no small part, on communicative competence; and (c) most people
display incompetence in at least a few situations, and a smaller number are
judged incompetent across many situations."
(Steven Wilson and Christina Sabee, 2003, quoted by Gert Rickheit et al. in
"The Concept of Communicative Competence." Handbook Of
Communication Competence, ed. by G. Rickheit and H. Strohner. Walter de
Gruyter, 2010)
 "By far the most important development in TESOL has been the emphasis
on a communicative approach in language teaching (Coste, 1976; Roulet,
1972; Widdowson, 1978). The one thing that everyone is certain about is
 the necessity to use language for communicative purposes in the
classroom. Consequently, the concern for teaching linguistic competence
has widened to include communicative competence, the socially
appropriate use of language, and the methods reflect this shift from form
to function."
(Christina Bratt Paulston, "Introduction: English Teaching as a Foreign or
Second Language." Linguistic and Communicative Competence. Multilingual
Matters, 1992)

Communicative Competence
In 1980, the applied linguists Canale and Swain published an influential article in
which they argued that the ability to communicate required four different sub-
competencies:
 grammatical (ability to create grammatically correct utterances),
 sociolinguistic (ability to produce sociolinguistically appropriate utterances),
 discourse (ability to produce coherent and cohesive utterances), and
 strategic (ability to solve communication problems as they arise).

A Jigsaw Task
A jigsaw task is a specific kind of information gap task, that is, a task that requires
learners to communicate with each other in order to fill in missing information
and to integrate it with other information. For example, in the video, the students
are not aware that their note cards contain a communicative problem (e.g. a
violation of prescriptive grammar, ambiguous reference, etc.) that indicates a
deficiency in one of the sub-competencies of "communicative competence."
Communicative Competence
Communicative language teaching involves developing language proficiency
through interactions embedded in meaningful contexts. This approach to teaching
provides authentic opportunities for learning that go beyond repetition and
memorization of grammatical patterns in isolation. A central concept of the
communicative approach to language teaching is communicative competence:
the learner’s ability to understand and use language appropriately to
communicate in authentic (rather than simulated) social and school
environments.
The table below illustrates how each communicative area contributes to
communicative competence.
Communicative Competence
If a language learner is asked what they think the goal of a language course is,
they would probably answer that it is to teach the grammar and vocabulary of
that language. However, if they are asked what their goal is as language learners,
they would most probably answer that it is to be able to communicate in that
language.

I am not saying that in actuality the goal of a language course is to teach solely
grammar and vocabulary — well, at least it shouldn’t be just that anymore. (I’ve
been in a course with such an outdated approach, and the results were, of course,
poor). Fortunately, the focus of second language teaching has moved from purely
teaching grammar and vocabulary, to providing the skills for effective
communication. In linguistics terminology, a language course should not only
have “linguistic competence” as its goal, but “communicative competence” in
general.
But what do these terms mean? Communicative competence is a term coined by
Dell Hymes in 1966 in reaction to Noam Chomsky’s (1965) notion of “linguistic
competence”. Communicative competence is the intuitive functional knowledge
and control of the principles of language usage. As Hymes observes:

“…a normal child acquires knowledge of sentences not only as grammatical, but
also as appropriate. He or she acquires competence as to when to speak, when
not, and as to what to talk about with whom, when, where, in what manner. In
short, a child becomes able to accomplish a repertoire of speech acts, to take part
in speech events, and to evaluate their accomplishment by others.”
(Hymes 1972, 277)

In other words, a language user needs to use the language not only correctly
(based on linguistic competence), but also appropriately (based on
communicative competence). Of course, this approach does not diminish the
importance of learning the grammatical rules of a language. In fact, it is one of the
four components of communicative competence: linguistic, sociolinguistic,
discourse, and strategic competence.

1. Linguistic competence is the knowledge of the language code, i.e. its grammar
and vocabulary, and also of the conventions of its written representation
(script and orthography). The grammar component includes the knowledge of
the sounds and their pronunciation (i.e. phonetics), the rules that govern
sound interactions and patterns (i.e. phonology), the formation of words by
means of e.g. inflection and derivation (i.e. morphology), the rules that govern
the combination of words and phrases to structure sentences (i.e. syntax), and
the way that meaning is conveyed through language (i.e. semantics).
2. Sociolinguistic competence is the knowledge of sociocultural rules of use, i.e.
knowing how to use and respond to language appropriately. The
appropriateness depends on the setting of the communication, the topic, and
the relationships among the people communicating. Moreover, being
appropriate depends on knowing what the taboos of the other culture are,
what politeness indices are used in each case, what the politically correct term
would be for something, how a specific attitude (authority, friendliness,
courtesy, irony etc.) is expressed etc.
3. Discourse competence is the knowledge of how to produce and comprehend
oral or written texts in the modes of speaking/writing and listening/reading
respectively. It’s knowing how to combine language structures into a cohesive
 and coherent oral or written text of different types. Thus, discourse
competence deals with organising words, phrases and sentences in order to
create conversations, speeches, poetry, email messages, newspaper articles
etc.
4. Strategic competence is the ability to recognise and repair communication
breakdowns before, during, or after they occur. For instance, the speaker may
not know a certain word, thus will plan to either paraphrase, or ask what that
word is in the target language. During the conversation, background noise or
other factors may hinder communication; thus the speaker must know how to
keep the communication channel open. If the communication was
unsuccessful due to external factors (such as interruptions), or due to the
message being misunderstood, the speaker must know how to restore
communication. These strategies may be requests for repetition, clarification,
slower speech, or the usage of gestures, taking turns in conversation etc.

These four components of communicative competence should be respected in

teaching a foreign language —and they usually are by modern teaching methods
employed in second language teaching. Usually most of the above are best
learned if the language learner immerses into the culture of a country that speaks
the target language. Wouldn’t it be great if the language teaching methodologies
helped language learners reach communicative competence to a great degree
even if the learner has never immersed into the target culture?

aching Goals and Methods

Goal: Communicative Competence

Language teaching in the United States is based on the idea that the goal of
language acquisition is communicative competence: the ability to use the
language correctly and appropriately to accomplish communication goals. The
desired outcome of the language learning process is the ability to communicate
competently, not the ability to use the language exactly as a native speaker does.

Communicative competence is made up of four competence areas: linguistic,

sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic.
  Linguistic competence is knowing how to use the grammar, syntax, and
vocabulary of a language. Linguistic competence asks: What words do I
use? How do I put them into phrases and sentences?
 Sociolinguistic competence is knowing how to use and respond to language
appropriately, given the setting, the topic, and the relationships among the
people communicating. Sociolinguistic competence asks: Which words and
phrases fit this setting and this topic? How can I express a specific attitude
(courtesy, authority, friendliness, respect) when I need to? How do I know
what attitude another person is expressing?
 Discourse competence is knowing how to interpret the larger context and
how to construct longer stretches of language so that the parts make up a
coherent whole. Discourse competence asks: How are words, phrases and
sentences put together to create conversations, speeches, email messages,
newspaper articles?
 Strategic competence is knowing how to recognize and repair
communication breakdowns, how to work around gaps in one’s knowledge
of the language, and how to learn more about the language and in the
context. Strategic competence asks: How do I know when I’ve
misunderstood or when someone has misunderstood me? What do I say
then? How can I express my ideas if I don’t know the name of something or
the right verb form to use?

In the early stages of language learning, instructors and students may want to
keep in mind the goal of communicative efficiency: That learners should be able
to make themselves understood, using their current proficiency to the fullest.
They should try to avoid confusion in the message (due to faulty pronunciation,
grammar, or vocabulary); to avoid offending communication partners (due to
socially inappropriate style); and to use strategies for recognizing and managing
communication breakdowns.

Linguistic performance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linguistics
 Theoretical

 Cognitive
 Constraint-based
 Generative
 Structuralist
 Quantitative

 Functional theories of grammar

 Phonology
 Morphology

Morphophonology
 Syntax
 Lexis
 Semantics
 Pragmatics
 Graphemics
 Orthography
 Semiotics

Descriptive

 Anthropological
 Comparative
 Historical
 Etymology
 Graphetics
 Phonetics
 Sociolinguistics
 Cherology

Applied and experimental

 Computational
 Contrastive

Evolutionary
  Forensic
 Internet

 Language acquisition
 Second-language acquisition
 Language assessment
 Language development
 Language education
 Linguistic anthropology
 Neurolinguistics
 Psycholinguistics

Related articles

 History of linguistics
 Linguistic prescription
 List of linguists
 Unsolved linguistics problems
 Origin of language
 Origin of speech

Linguistics portal

 v
 t
 e

The term linguistic performance was used by Noam Chomsky in 1960 to describe
"the actual use of language in concrete situations".[1] It is used to describe both
the production, sometimes called parole, as well as the comprehension of
language.[2]Performance is defined in opposition to "competence"; the latter
describes the mental knowledge that a speaker or listener has of language.[3]
Part of the motivation for the distinction between performance and competence
comes from speech errors: despite having a perfect understanding of the correct
forms, a speaker of a language may unintentionally produce incorrect forms. This
is because performance occurs in real situations, and so is subject to many non-
linguistic influences. For example, distractions or memory limitations can affect
lexical retrieval (Chomsky 1965:3), and give rise to errors in both production and
 perception[4] or distractions. Such non-linguistic factors are completely
independent of the actual knowledge of language,[5] and establish that speakers'
knowledge of language (their competence) is distinct from their actual use of
language (their performance).[6]

Contents
[hide]

 1Background
o 1.1Langue versus parole
o 1.2Competence versus performance
o 1.3I-Language versus E-Language
 2Performance-grammar correspondence hypothesis
o 2.1Head-initial structures
 2.1.1SVO word order
 2.1.2VSO word order
o 2.2Head-final structures
 3Utterance planning hypothesis
o 3.1Examples of early/late commitment and heavy-NP shift
o 3.2Predictions and findings
 4Alternative grammar models
 5Errors in linguistic performance
o 5.1Slips of the tongue
o 5.2Slips of the hand
o 5.3Other types of errors
 6Performance measures
o 6.1Mean length of utterance
o 6.2Clause density
o 6.3Indices of syntactic performance
 6.3.1Developmental sentence scoring
 6.3.2Index of productive syntax
 6.3.3Standardized tests
 7See also
 8References

Background[edit]
 Descriptor Proponent Explication

Language is a system of
signs. Langue describes the social
Ferdinand
consensus of how signs are
de
Langue/Parole applied. Parole describes the physical
Saussure
manifestation of langue. Emphasizes
(1916)[7]
revealing the structure of Langue
through the study of Parole.

Introduced in generative grammar

theory, competence describes the
unconscious and innate knowledge of
Noam
linguistic
Competence/Performance Chomsky
rules. Performance describes the
(1965)[8]
observable use of language.
Emphasizes the study of Competence
over Performance.

Similar to the
performance/competence distinction,
Noam I-Language is the internalized innate
I-Language/E-Language Chomsky knowledge of language; E-Language is
(1986)[9] the externalized observable output.
Emphasizes the study of I-Language
over E-Language.

Langue versus parole[edit]

Main article: Langue and parole
Published in 1916, Ferdinand de Saussure's Course in General
Linguistics describes language as "a system of signs that express ideas".[7] de
Saussure describes two components of
language: langue and parole. Langue consists of the structural relations that
define a language, which includes grammar, syntax and phonology. Parole is the
physical manifestation of signs; in particular the concrete manifestation
of langue as speech or writing. While langue can be viewed strictly as a system of
rules, it is not an absolute system such that parole must utterly conform
to langue.[10] Drawing an analogy to chess, de Saussure compares langue to the
rules of chess that define how the game should be played, and parole to the
individual choices of a player given the possible moves allowed within the system
of rules.[7]
Competence versus performance[edit]
Main article: Generative linguistics
Proposed in the 1950s by Noam Chomsky, generative grammar is an analysis
approach to language as a structural framework of the human mind.[11] Through
formal analysis of components such
as syntax, morphology, semantics and phonology, a generative grammar seeks to
model the implicit linguistic knowledge with which speakers
determine grammaticality.
In transformational generative grammar theory, Chomsky distinguishes between
two components of language production: competence and
performance.[5] Competence describes the mental knowledge of a language, the
speaker's intrinsic understanding of sound-meaning relations as established by
linguistic rules. Performance – that is the actual observed use of language –
involves more factors than phonetic-semantic understanding. Performance
requires extra-linguistic knowledge such as an awareness of the speaker,
audience and the context, which crucially determines how speech is constructed
and analyzed. It is also governed by principles of cognitive structures not
considered aspects of language, such as memory, distractions, attention,
and speech errors.
I-Language versus E-Language[edit]
In 1986, Chomsky proposed a distinction similar to the competence/performance
distinction, entertaining the notion of an I-Language (internal language) which is
the intrinsic linguistic knowledge within a native speaker and E-Language
(external language) which is the observable linguistic output of a speaker. It was I-
Language that Chomsky argued should be the focus of inquiry, and not E-
Language.[9]
E-language has been used to describe the application of artificial systems, such as
in calculus, set theory and with natural language viewed as sets, while
performance has been used purely to describes applications of natural
language.[12] Between I-Language and competence, I-Language refers to our
intrinsic faculty for language, competence is used by Chomsky as an informal,
general term, or as term with reference to a specific competency such as
"grammatical competence" or "pragmatic competence".[12]

Performance-grammar correspondence hypothesis[edit]

John A. Hawkins's Performance-Grammar Correspondence Hypothesis (PGCH)
states that the syntactic structures of grammars are conventionalized based on
whether and how much the structures are preferred in
performance.[13] Performance preference is related to structure complexity
and processing, or comprehension, efficiency. Specifically, a complex structure
refers to a structure containing more linguistic elements or words at the end of
the structure than at the beginning. It is this structural complexity that results in
decreased processing efficiency since more structure requires additional
processing.[13] This model seeks to explain word order across languages based on
avoidance of unnecessary complexity in favour of increased processing efficiency.
Speakers make an automatic calculation of the Immediate Constituent(IC)-to-
word order ratio and produce the structure with the highest ratio.[13] Structures
with a high IC-to-word order are structures that contain the fewest number of
words required for the listener to parse the structure into constituents which
results in more efficient processing.[13]
Head-initial structures[edit]
In head-initial structures, which includes example SVO and VSO word order, the
speaker's goal is to order the sentence constituents from least to most complex.
SVO word order[edit]
SVO word order can be exemplified with English; consider the example sentences
in (1). In (1a) three immediate constituents (ICs) are present in the verb phrase,
namely VP, PP1 and PP2, and there are four words (went, to, London, in) required
to parse the VP into its constituents. Therefore, the IC-to-word ratio is 3/4=75%.
In contrast, in (1b) the VP is still composed of three ICs but there are now six
words that are required to determine the constituent structure of the VP (went,
in, the, late, afternoon, to). Thus, the ratio for (1b) is 3/6 = 50%. Hawkins proposes
that speakers prefer to produce (1a) since it has a higher IC-to-word ratio and this
leads to faster and more efficient processing.[13]

1a. John [VP went [PP1 to London] [PP2 in the late afternoon]]
 1b. John [VP went [PP2 in the late afternoon]] [[PP1 to London]]

Hawkins supports the above analysis by providing performance data to

demonstrate the preference speakers have for ordering short phrases before long
phrases when producing head-initial structures. The table based on English data,
below, illustrates that the short prepositional phrase (PP1) is preferentially
ordered before the long PP (PP2) and that this preference increases as the size
differential between the two PPs increases. For example, 60% of the sentences
are ordered short (PP1) to long (PP2) when PP2 was longer than PP1 by 1 word. In
contrast, 99% of the sentences are ordered short to long when PP2 is longer than
PP1 by 7+ words.
English prepositional phrase orderings by relative weight[13]

n = 323 PP2 > PP1 by 1 word by 2-4 by 5-6 by 7+

[V PP1 PP2] 60% (58) 86% (108) 94% (31) 99% (68)

[V PP2 PP1] 40% (38) 14% (17) 6% (2) 1% (1)

PP2 = longer PP; PP1=shorter PP. Proportion of short-long to long-short as a

percentage; actual numbers of sequences in parentheses. An additional 71
sequences had PPs of equal length (total n=394)
VSO word order[edit]
Hawkins argues that the preference for short followed by long phrases applies to
all languages that have head-initial structuring. This includes languages
with VSO word order such as from Hungarian. By calculating the IC-to-word ratio
for the Hungarian sentences in the same way as was done for
the English sentences, 2a. emerges as having a higher ratio than 2b.[13]

2a. VP[Döngetik NP[facipöink NP[az utcakat] ]

batter wooden shoes-1PL the streets-ACC
Our wooden shoes batter the streets
2b. VP[Döngetik NP[az utcakat] NP[[ facipöink ] ]

The Hungarian performance data (below) show the same preference pattern as
the English data. This study looked at the ordering of two successive noun
phrases (NPs) and found that the shorter NP followed by the longer NP is
preferred in performance, and that this preference increases as the size
differential between NP1 and NP2 increases.
Hungarian noun phrase orderings by relative weight[13]

n = 85 mNP2 > mNP1 by 1 word by 2 by 3+

[V mNP1 mNP2] 85% (50) 96% (27) 100% (8)

[V mNP2 mNP1] 15% (9) 4% (1) 0% (0)

mNP = any NP constructed on its left periphery. NP2 = longer NP; NP1 = shorter
NP. Proportion of short-long to long-short given as a percentage; actual numbers
of sequences given in parentheses. An additional 21 sequences had NPs of equal
length (total n = 16).
Head-final structures[edit]
Hawkins' explanation of performance and word order extends to head-final
structures. For example, since Japanese is a SOV language the head (V) is at the
end of the sentence. This theory predicts that speakers will prefer to order the
phrases in head-final sentences from long phrases to short, as opposed to short to
long as seen in head-initial languages.[13] This reversal of ordering preference is
due to the fact that in head-final sentences it is the long followed by short phrasal
ordering that has the higher IC-to-word ratio.

3a. Tanaka ga vp[pp[Hanako kara]np[sono hon o] katta]

Tanaka NOM Hanako from that book ACC bought
Tanako bought that book from Hanako
3b. Tanaka ga vp[np[sono hon o] pp[Hanako kara] [katta]
The VP and its constituents in 4. are constructed from their heads on the right.
This means that the number of words used to calculate the ratio is counted from
the head of the first phrase (PP in 3a. and NP in 3b.) to the verb (as indicated in
bold above). The IC-to-word ratio for the VP in 3a. is 3/5=60% while the ratio for
the VP in 3b. is 3/4=75%. Therefore, 3b. should be preferred by Japanese speakers
since it has a higher IC-to-word ratio which leads to faster parsing of sentences by
the listener.[13]
The performance preference for long to short phrase ordering in SVO languages is
supported by performance data. The table below shows that production of long
to short phrases is preferred and that this preference increases as the size of the
differential between the two phrases increases. For example, ordering of the
longer 2ICm (where ICm is either a direct object NP with an accusative case
particle or a PP constructed from the right periphery) before the shorter 1ICm is
more frequent, and the frequency increases to 91% if the 2ICm is longer than the
1ICm by 9+ words.
Japanese NPo and PPm orderings by relative weight[13]

n = 153 2ICm > 1ICm by 1-2 words by 3-4 by 5-8 by 9+

[2ICm 1ICm V] 66% (59) 72% (21) 83% (20) 91% (10)

[1ICm 2ICm V] 34% (30) 28% (8) 17% (4) 9% (1)

Npo = direct object NP with accusative case particle. PPm = PP constructed on its
right periphery by a P(ostposition). ICm= either NPo or PPm. 2IC=longer IC; 1IC =
shorter IC. Proportion of long-to short to short-long orders given as a percentage;
actual numbers of sequences in parentheses. an additional 91 sequences had ICs
of equal length (total n=244)

Utterance planning hypothesis[edit]

Tom Wasow proposes that word order arises as a result of utterance planning
benefiting the speaker.[14] He introduces the concepts of early versus late
commitment, where commitment is the point in the utterance where it becomes
possible to predict subsequent structure.[14] Specifically, early commitment refers
to the commitment point present earlier in the utterance and late commitment
refers to the commitment point present later in the utterance.[14] He explains that
early commitment will favour the listener since early prediction of subsequent
structure enables faster processing. Comparatively, late commitment will favour
the speaker by postponing decision making, giving the speaker more time to plan
the utterance.[14] Wasow illustrates how utterance planning influences syntactic
word order by testing early versus late commitment in heavy-NP shifted (HNPS)
sentences. The idea is to examine the patterns of HNPS to determine if the
performance data show sentences that are structured to favour the speaker or
the listener.[14]
Examples of early/late commitment and heavy-NP shift[edit]
The following examples illustrate what is meant by early versus late commitment
and how heavy-NP shift applies to these sentences. Wasow looked at two types of
verbs:[14]
Vt (transitive verbs): require NP objects.

4a. Pat VP[brought NP[a box with a ribbon around it] PP[ [to the party] ]
4b. Pat VP[brought PP[to the party] NP[ [a box with a ribbon around it] ]

In 4a. no heavy-NP shift has been applied. The NP is available early but does not
provide any additional information about the sentence structure – the "to"
appearing late in the sentence is an example of late commitment. In contrast, in
4b., where heavy-NP shift has shifted the NP to the right, as soon as "to" is
uttered the listener knows that the VP must contain the NP and a PP. In other
words, when "to" is uttered it allows the listener to predict the remaining
structure of the sentence early on. Thus for transitive verbs HNPS results in early
commitment and favors the listener.
Vp (prepositional verbs): can take an NP object or an immediately following PP
with no NP object

5a. Pat VP[wrote NP[something about Chris] PP[ [on the blackboard]].
5b. Pat VP[wrote PP[on the blackboard] NP[ [something about Chris.]]

No HNPS has been applied to 5a. In 5b. the listener needs to hear the word
"something" in order to know that the utterance contains a PP and an NP since
the object NP is optional but "something" has been shifted to later in the
sentence. Thus for prepositional verbs HNPS results in late commitment and
favours the speaker.
Predictions and findings[edit]
Based on the above information Wasow predicted that if sentences are
constructed from the speaker's perspective then heavy-NP shift would rarely
apply to sentences containing a transitive verb but would apply frequently to
sentences containing a prepositional verb. The opposite prediction was made if
sentences are constructed from the listener's perspective.[14]

Speaker's Perspective Listener's Perspective

Vt Heavy-NP shift= rare Heavy-NP shift= relatively common

Vp Heavy-NP shift= relatively common Heavy-NP shift =very rare

To test his predictions Wasow analyzed performance data (from corpora data) for
the rates of occurrence of HNPS for Vt and Vp and found HNPS occurred twice as
frequently in Vp than in Vt, therefore supporting the predictions made from the
speaker's perspective.[14] In contrast, he did not find evidence in support of the
predictions made based on the listener's perspective. In other words, given the
data above, when HNPS is applied to sentences containing a transitive verb the
result favors the listener. Wasow found that HNPS applied to transitive verb
sentences is rare in performance data thus supporting the speaker's perspective.
Additionally, when HNPS is applied to prepositional verb structures the result
favors the speaker. In his study of the performance data, Wasow found evidence
of HNPS frequently applied to prepositional verb structures further supporting the
speaker's perspective.[14] Based on these findings Wasow concludes that HNPS is
correlated with the speaker's preference for late commitment thereby
demonstrating how speaker performance preference can influence word order.

Alternative grammar models[edit]

While the dominant views of grammar are largely oriented towards competence,
many, including Chomsky himself, have argued that a complete model of
grammar should be able to account for performance data. But while Chomsky
argues that competence should be studied first, thereby allowing further study of
performance,[6] some systems, such as constraint grammars are built with
performance as a starting point (comprehension, in the case of constraint
grammars[15] While traditional models of generative grammar have had a great
deal of success in describing the structure of languages, they have been less
successful in describing how language is interpreted in real situations. For
example, traditional grammar describes a sentence as having an "underlying
structure" which is different from the "surface structure" which speakers actually
produce. In a real conversation, however, a listener interprets the meaning of a
sentence in real time, as the surface structure goes by.[16] This kind of on-line
processing, which accounts for phenomena such as finishing another person's
sentence, and starting a sentence without knowing how it is going to finish, is not
directly accounted for in traditional generative models of grammar.[16] Several
alternative grammar models exist which may be better able to capture this
surface-based aspect of linguistic performance, including Constraint
Grammar, Lexical Functional Grammar, and Head-driven phrase structure
grammar.

Errors in linguistic performance[edit]

Errors in linguistic performance not only occur in children newly acquiring their
native language, second language learners, those with a disability or an acquired
brain injury but among competent speakers as well. Types of performance errors
that will be of focus here are those that involve errors in syntax, other types of
errors can occur in the phonological, semantic features of words, for further
information see speech errors. Phonological and semantic errors can be due to
the repetition of words, mispronunciations, limitations in verbal working memory,
and length of the utterance.[17] Slips of the tongue are most common in spoken
languages and occur when the speaker either: says something they did not mean
to; produces the incorrect order of sounds or words; or uses the incorrect
word.[18] Other instances of errors in linguistic performance are slips of the hand
in signed languages, slips of the ear which are errors in comprehension of
utterances and slips of the pen which occur while writing. Errors of linguistic
performance are perceived by both the speaker and the listener and can
therefore have many interpretations depending on the persons judgement and
the context in which the sentence was spoken.[19]
It is proposed that there is a close relation between the linguistic units of
grammar and the psychological units of speech which implies that there is a
relation between linguistic rules and the psychological processes that create
utterances.[20] Errors in performance can occur at any level of these psychological
processes. Lise Menn proposes that there are five levels of processing in speech
production, each with its own possible error that could occur.[18] According to the
proposed speech processing structure by Menn an error in the syntactic
properties of an utterance occurs at the positional level.

1. Message Level
2. Functional Level
3. Positional Level
4. Phonological Encoding
5. Speech Gesture
Another proposal for the levels of speech processing is made by Willem J. M.
Levelt to be structured as so:[21]

1. Conceptualization
2. Formulation
3. Articulation
4. Self-Monitoring
Levelt (1993) states that we as speakers are unaware of most of these levels of
performance such as articulation, which includes
the movement and placement of the articulators, the formulation of the
utterance which includes the words selected and their pronunciation and the
rules which must be followed for the utterance to be grammatical. The levels
speakers are consciously aware is the intent of the message which occurs at the
level of conceptualization and then again at self-monitoring which is when the
speaker would become aware of any errors that may have occurred and correct
themselves.[21]
Slips of the tongue[edit]
One type of slip of the tongue which cause an error in the syntax of the utterance
are called transformational errors. Transformational errors are a mental
operation proposed by Chomsky in his Transformational Hypothesis and it has
three parts which errors in performance can occur. These transformations are
applied at the level of the underlying structures and predict the ways in which an
error can occur.[20]
 Structural analysis
 Structural Change
 Conditions
Structural Analysis errors can occur due to the application of (a) the rule
misanalyzing the tense marker causing the rule to apply incorrectly, (b) the rule
not being applied when it should or (c) a rule being applied when it should not.
This example from Fromkin (1980) demonstrates a rule misanalyzing the tense
marker and for subject-auxiliary inversion to be incorrectly applied. The subject-
auxiliary inversion is misanalyzed as to which structure it applies, applying
without the verb be in the tense as it moves to the C position. This causes "do-
support" to occur and the verb to lack tense causing the syntactic error.

6a. Error: Why do you be an oaf sometimes?

6b. Target: Why are you an oaf sometimes?

Phrase tree structure of error "Why do you be an oaf sometimes"

Phrase tree structure of target "Why are you an oaf sometimes"

Transform Transform
ation in Error ation in Target
Error Target

[CP[C+q][TP[T'[T PRES][VP[DP y [CP[C'[C+q][TP[T'[T

Underlying ou][V'[Vbe][[DP an Underlying PRES][VP[DP you][V'[V be][
Structure oaf]][AdvP sometimes][DP w Structure DP[D an][[NPoaf]]
hy] [AdvPsometimes][DP why]

[CP[DP [CP[DP
Why][C'[C+q][TP[T'[T Why][C'[C+q][TP[T'[T
Wh- pres][VP[DP you][V'[V Wh- pres][VP[DP you][V'[V
Movement be][AP[AP[A'[A Movement be][AP[AP[A'[A
an][DP[oaf]]]][AdvP[Adv'[ an][DP[oaf]]]][AdvP[Adv'[
Adv sometimes][DP e] Adv sometimes][DP e]

Subject- [CP[DP Why][C'[C[T Pres][ [CP[DP

DP
Auxiliary [Cq e]][TP[T'[T e][VP[DP Movement Why][C'[C+q][TP[DP
Inversion you][V'[V be][AP[AP[A'[A you][T'[T PRES][VP[V'[V
 an][DP[oaf]]]][AdvP[Adv'[ be][AP[AP[A'[A
Adv sometimes][DP e] an][DP[oaf]]]][AdvP[Adv'[
Adv sometimes][DP e]

[CP[DP Why][C'[C[T[V do][ [CP[DP Why][C'[C[T[V

[T PRES]][ [Cq e]][TP[T'[T be][ [T PRES]]Cq][TP[DP
Subject-
Do- e][VP[DP you][V'[V you][T'[T[VP[V'[AP[AP[A'[
Auxiliary
Support be][AP[AP[A'[A A
Inversion
an][DP[oaf]]]][AdvP[Adv'[ an][DP[oaf]]]][AdvP[Adv'[
Adv sometimes][DP e] Adv sometimes][DP e]

Morphoph Why do you be an oaf Morphoph Why are you an oaf

onemic sometimes? onemic sometimes?

The following example from Fromkin (1980) demonstrates how a rule is being
applied when it should not. The subject-auxiliary inversion rule is omitted in the
error utterance, causing affix-hopping to occur and putting the tense onto the
verb "say" creating the syntactic error. In the target the subject-auxiliary rule and
then do-support applies creating the grammatically correct structure.

7a. Error: And what he said?

7b. Target: And what did he say?

Phrase tree structure for error "And what he said"

Phrase tree structure for target "And what did he say?"

Transformation in Transformation in
Error Target
Error Target

[CP[CONJ [CP[CONJ
And][CP[C'[C And][CP[C'[C
Underlying +q][TP[T'[T Underlying +q][TP[T'[T
Structure PAST][VP[DP Structure PAST][VP[DP
he][V'[V say][DP he][V'[V say][DP
what] what]

[CP[CONJ
And][CP[DP [CP[CONJ
what][C'[C And][CP[DP
DP & Wh-
Wh-Movement +q][TP[T'[T what][C'[C
Movement
PAST][VP[DP +q][TP[DP he][T'[T
he][V'[V say][DP PAST][VP[V'[V say]
e]

[CP[CONJ
[CP[CONJ Subject-Auxiliary And][CP[DP
Affix Hopping And][CP[DP Inversion + Do what][C'[C[T[V do][
what][C'[C Support [T PAST]][
+q][TP[T'[T
[Cq]][TP[DP
 e][VP[DP he][V'[V he][T'[T e][VP[DP
say+PAST][DP e] e][V'[V say][DPe]

And what he And what did he

Morphophonemic Morphophonemic
said? say?

This example from Fromkin (1980) shows how a rule is being applied when it
should not. The subject-auxiliary inversion and do-support has applied to
an idiomatic expression causing the insertion of "do" when it should not be
applied in the ungrammatical utterance.

8a. Error: How do we go!!

8b. Target: How we go!!

Phrase tree structure for error "how do we go?"

Phrase tree structure for target "how we go!"

Transformation in Transformation in
Error Target
Error Target

[CP[C'[C
[CP[C'[C +q][TP[T'[T
+q][TP[T'[T
Underlying PRES][VP[DP Underlying
PRES][VP[DP
Structure we][V'[V go][DP Structure
we][V'[V go][DP
how]
how]

[CP[DP
[CP[DP how][C'[C how][C'[C
+q][TP[T'[T +q][TP[T'[T
Wh-Movement Wh-Movement
PRES][VP[DP PRES][VP[DP
we][V'[V go][DP e] we][V'[V go][DP
e]

[CP[DP
[CP[DP how][C'[C how][C'[C
+q][TP[DP we][T'[T +q][TP[DP
DP Movement DP Movement
PRES][VP[DP we][T'[T
e][V'[V go][DP e] PRES][VP[DP
e][V'[V go][DP e]

[CP[DP [CP[DP
How][C'[C[T[V do][ how][C'[C
Subject-Auxiliary
[T PRES]][ +q][TP[DP
Inversion + Do-
[Cq]][TP[DP we][T'[T
Support
we][T'[T e][VP[DP PRES][VP[DP
e][V'[V go][DP e] e][V'[V go][DP e]
Morphophonemic How do we go! Morphophonemic How we go!

Structural Change Errors can occur in the carrying out of rules, even though the
analysis of the phrase marker is done correctly. This can occur when the analysis
requires multiple rules to occur.
The following example from Fromkin (1980) shows the relative clause rule copies
the determiner phrase "a boy" within the clause and this causes front attaching to
the Wh-marker. Deletion is then skipped, leaving the determiner phrase in the
clause in the error utterance causing it to be ungrammatical.

9a. Error: A boy who I know a boy has hair down to here.
9b. Target: A boy who I know has hair down to here.

Phrase tree structure for error "A boy who I know a boy who has hair down to
here"

Phrase tree structure for target "A boy who I know has hair down to here."

Transformation Transformation
Error Target
in Error in Target
 [TP[T'[Te][CP[C'[C [TP[T'[Te][CP[C'[C
+q][TP[T'[T +q][TP[T'[T
e][VP[VP[DP I][V'[V e][VP[VP[DP I][V'[V
Underlying know][DP a Underlying know][DP a
Structure boy]]][VP[DP Structure boy]]][VP[DP
who][V'[V who][V'[V
has][AdvP hair has][AdvP hair
down to here] down to here]

[TP[T'[Te][CP[DP
[TP[T'[Te][CP[DP
who][C'[C
who][C'[C
+q][TP[T'[T
+q][TP[T'[T
e][VP[VP[DP I][V'[V
e][VP[VP[DP I][V'[V
Wh-Movement know][DP a Wh-Movement
know][DP a
boy]]][VP[DP
boy]]][VP[DP
who][V'[V
e][V'[V has][AdvP
has][AdvP hair
hair down to here]
down to here]

[TP[DP a [TP[DP a
boy]][T'[Te][CP[DP boy]][T'[Te][CP[DP
who][C'[C who][C'[C
+q][TP[DP I][T'[T +q][TP[DP I][T'[T
DP-Movement e][VP[VP[DP DP-Movement e][VP[VP[DP
e][V'[V know][DP a e][V'[V know][DP
boy]]][VP[DP e]]][VP[DP e][V'[V
e][V'[V has][AdvP has][AdvP hair
hair down to here] down to here]
 A boy who I know a A boy who I know
Morphophonemic boy has hair down Morphophonemic has hair down to
to here here

Conditions errors restrict when the rule can and cannot be applied.
This last example from Fromkin (1980) shows that a rule was applied under a
certain condition in which it is restricted. The subject-auxiliary inversion rule
cannot apply to embedded clauses. In the case of this example it has causing for
the syntactic error.

10a. Error: I know where is a top for it.

10b. Target: I know where a top for it is.

Phrase tree structure for error "I know where is a top for it"

Phrase tree structure for target "I know where a top for it is"

Transformations Transformation
Error Target
in Error in Target
 [TP[T'[T e][VP[DP [TP[T'[T e][VP[DP
I][V'[V know][DP I][V'[V know][DP
where][CP[C'[C where][CP[C'[C
Underlying Underlying
e][TP[T'[T e][TP[T'[T
Structure Structure
PRES][VP[DP a PRES][VP[DP a
top][V'[PP for it][V top][V'[PP for
be] it][V be]

[TP[DP I][T'[T
[TP[DP I][T'[T e][VP[DP e][V'[V
e][VP[DP e][V'[V know][DP
know][DP where][CP[C'[C
DP Movement where][CP[C'[C DP Movement e][TP[DP a
e][TP[DP a top][T'[T top][T'[T
PRES][VP[DP e][V'[PP PRES][VP[DP
for it][V be] e][V'[PP for it][V
be]

TP[DP I][T'[T
[TP[DP I][T'[T
e][VP[DP e][V'[V
e][VP[DP e][V'[V
know][DP
know][DP
where][CP[C'[C
Subject-Auxiliary where][CP[C'[C[T[V
Affix Hopping e][TP[DP a
Inversion be][ [T PRES]][ [C
top][T'[T
e]][TP[DP a top][T'[T
e][VP[DP
e][VP[DP e][V'[PP for
e][V'[PP for it][V
it][V e]
be+PRES]

I know where is a top I know where a

Morphophonemic Morphophonemic
for it top for it is
A study of deaf Italians found that the second person singular of indicatives would
extend to corresponding forms in imperatives and negative imperatives.[22]

Error Target

"pensi" "pensa"

think-2nd PERS-SG-PRES-IND think-2nd PERS-SG-IMP

"(you) think" "do think"

Error Target

"non fa" "non fare"

not do-2nd PERS-SG-IMP do-inf

"not do" "do not do"

The following is an example taken from Dutch data in which there is verb
omission in the embedded clause of the utterance (which is not allowed in
Dutch), resulting in a performance error.[22]

Error Target

"dit is de jungen die de tomaat snijdt en dit "deze jongen snijgt de tomaat en
is de jongen die het brood" deze jongen het brood"
"this is the boy that cuts the tomato and "this boy cuts the tomato and this
this is the boy that the bread" boy the bread"

A study done with Zulu speaking children with a language delay displayed errors
in linguistic performance of lacking proper passive verb morphology.[22]

Error Target

"Ulumile ihnashi" "Ulunywe yihnashi"

"U-lum-ile i-hnashi U-luny-w-e y-i-hnashi

sm1-bite-PAST NC5-horse sm1-bite-PASS-PAST COP-NC5-horse

"He bit, the horse did." "He was bitten by the horse."

Error Target

"Ulumile ifish" "Ulunywe yifish"

sm1-bite-PAST NC5-fish sm1-bite-PASS-PAST COP-NC5-fish

"He bit, the fish did." "He was bitten by the fish."

Slips of the hand[edit]

The linguistic components of American Sign Language (ASL) can be broken down
into four parts; the hand configuration, place of articulation, movement and other
minor parameters. Hand configuration is determined by the shape of the hand,
fingers and thumbs and is specific to the sign that is being used. It allows the
signer to articulate what they are wanting to communicate by extending, flexing,
bending or spreading the digits; the position of the thumb to the fingers; or the
curvature of the hand. However, there are not an infinite amount of possible
hand configurations, there are 19 classes of hand configuration primes as listed by
the Dictionary of American Sign Language. Place of articulation is the particular
location that the sign is being performed known as the "signing place". The
"signing place" can be the whole face or a particular part of it, the eyes, nose,
cheek, ear, neck, trunk, any part of the arm, or the neutral area in front of the
signers head and body. Movement is the most complex as it can be difficult to
analyze. Movement is restricted to directional, rotations of the wrist, local
movements of the hand and interactions of the hands. These movements can
occur singularly, in sequence, or simultaneously. Minor parameters in ASL include
contacting region, orientation and hand arrangement. They are subclasses of
hand configuration.
Performance errors resulting in ungrammatical signs can result due to processes
that change the hand configuration, place, movement or other parameter of the
sign. These processes can be anticipation, preservation, or
metathesis. Anticipation is caused when some characteristic of the next sign is
incorporated into the sign that is presently being performed. Preservation is the
opposite of anticipation where some characteristic of the preceding sign is carried
over into the performance of the next sign. Metathesis occurs when two
characteristics of adjacent signs are combined into one in the performance of
both signs.[20] Each of these errors will result in an incorrect sign being performed.
This could result in either a different sign being performed instead of the
intended one, or nonexistent signs which forms are possible and those which
forms are not possible due to the structural rules.[20] These are the main types of
performance errors in sign language however on the rare occasion there is also
the possibility of errors in the order of the signs performed resulting in a different
meaning than what the signer intended.[20]
Other types of errors[edit]
Unacceptable Sentences are ones which, although are grammatical, are not
considered proper utterances. They are considered unacceptable due to the lack
of our cognitive systems to process them. Speakers and listeners can be aided in
the performance and processing of these sentences by eliminating time and
memory constraints, increasing motivation to process these utterances and using
pen and paper.[17] In English there are three types of sentences that are
grammatical but are considered unacceptable by speakers and listeners.[17]

1. Repeated self embedded clauses: The cheese that the rat ate that the cat
chased ate is on the table.
2. Multi Right Branching: This is the cat that caught the rat that ate the cheese
that is on the table.
3. Ambiguity or Garden Path Sentences: The horse raced past the barn fell
When a speaker makes an utterance they must translate their ideas into words,
then syntactically proper phrases with proper pronunciation.[23] The speaker must
have prior world knowledge and an understanding of the grammatical rules that
their language enforces. When learning a second language or with children
acquiring their first language, speakers usually have this knowledge before they
are able to produce them.[23] Their speech is usually slow and deliberate, using
phrases they have already mastered, and with practice their skills increase. Errors
of linguistic performance are judged by the listener giving many interpretations if
an utterance is well-formed or ungrammatical depending on the individual. As
well the context in which an utterance is used can determine if the error would be
considered or not.[24] When comparing "Who must telephone her?" and "Who
need telephone her?" the former would be considered the ungrammatical phrase.
However, when comparing it to "Who want telephone her?" it would be
considered the grammatical phrase.[24] The listener may also be the speaker.
When repeating sentences with errors if the error is not comprehended then it is
performed. As well if the speaker does notice the error in the sentence they are
supposed to repeat they are unaware of the difference between their well-
formed sentence and the ungrammatical sentence.[20] An unacceptable utterance
can also be performed due to a brain injury. Three types of brain injuries that
could cause errors in performance were studied by Fromkin are dysarthria,
apraxia and literal paraphasia. Dysarthria is a defect in
the neuromuscular connection that involves speech movement. The speech
organs involved can be paralyzed or weakened, making it difficult or impossible
for the speaker to produce a target utterance. Apraxia is when there is damage to
the ability to initiate speech sounds with no paralysis or weakening of the
articulators. Literal paraphasia causes disorganization of linguistic properties,
resulting in errors of word order of phonemes.[20] Having a brain injury and being
unable to perform proper linguistic utterances, some individuals are still able to
process complex sentences and formulate syntactically well formed sentences in
their mind.[17] Child productions when they are acquiring language are full of
errors of linguistic performance. Children must go from imitating adult speech to
create new phrases of their own. They will need to use their cognitive operations
of the knowledge of their language they are learning to determine the rules and
properties of that language.[23] The following are examples of errors in English
speaking children's productions.

 "I goed"
 "He runned"
In an elicited production experiment a child, Adam, was prompted to ask
questions to an Old Lady[17]

Experimenter Adam, ask the Old Lady what she'll do next.

Adam Old Lady, what will you do now?

Old Lady I'll fly to the moon.

Experimenter Adam, ask the Old Lady why she can't sit down.

Adam Old Lady, why you can't sit down?

Old Lady You haven't given me a chair.

Performance measures[edit]
Mean length of utterance[edit]
The most commonly used measure of syntax complexity is the mean length of
utterance, also known as MLU.[25] This measure is independent from how often
children talk and focuses on the complexity and development of their
grammatical systems, including morphological and syntactic development.[26] The
number representing a person's MLU corresponds to the complexity of the syntax
being used. In general, as the MLU increases, the syntactic complexity also
increases. Typically, the average MLU corresponds to a child's age due to their
increase in working memory, which allows for sentences to be of greater syntactic
complexity.[27] For example, the average MLU of a 7 year old child is 7 words.
However, children show more individual variability of syntactic performance with
more complex syntax.[26] Complex syntax have a higher number of phrases and
clause levels, therefore adding more words to the overall syntactic structure.
Seeing as there are more individual differences in MLU and syntactic
development as children get older, MLU is particularly used to measure
grammatical complexity among school-aged children.[26] Other types of
segmentation strategies for discourse are the T-unit and C-unit (communicative
unit). If these two measurements are used to account for discourse, the average
length of the sentence will be lower than if MLU is used alone. Both the T-units
and C-units count each clause as a new unit, hence a lower number of units.
Typical MLU per age group can be found in the following table, according to Roger
Brown's five stages of syntactic and morphological development:[28]

Stage MLU Approximate Age (in months)

1 1.0-2.0 12-26

2 2.0-2.5 27-30

3 2.5-3.0 31-34

4 3.0-3.75 35-40

5 3.75-4.5 41-46

6 4.5+ 47+

Here are the steps for calculating MLU:[27]

 1. Acquire a language sample of about 50-100 utterances
2. Count the number of morphemes said by the child, then divide by the
number of utterances
3. The investigator can assess what stage of syntactic development the child is
at, based on their MLU
Here's an example of how to calculate MLU:

Total
Example utterance Morpheme and MLU Analysis
MLU

go home now go (=1) home (=1) now (=1) 3

I live in Billingham I (=1) live (=1) in (=1) Billingham (=1) 4

Mommy kissed my Mommy (=1) kiss (=1) -ed (=1) my (=1)

5
Daddy daddy (=1)

I like your dogs I (=1) like (=1) your (=1) dog (=1) -s (=1) 5

In total there are 17 morphemes in this data set. In order to find the MLU, we
divide the total number of morphemes (17) by the total number of utterances (4).
In this particular data set, the mean length of utterance is 17/4 = 4.25.[29]
Clause density[edit]
Clause density refers to the degree to which utterances contain
dependent clauses. This density is calculated as a ratio of the total number of
clauses across sentences, divide by the number of sentences in a discourse
sample.[25] For example, if the clause density is 2.0, the ratio would indicate that
the sentence being analyzed has 2 clauses on average: one main clause and one
subordinate clause.
Here is an example of how clause density is measured, using T-units, adapted
from Silliman & Wilkinson 2007:[30]
 T- Number of Number of
Example sentences from a story
unit words clauses

When the night was dark I was

1 12 2
watching TV in my room

2 5 1 I heard a howling noise

3 3 1 I looked outside

Indices of syntactic performance[edit]

Indices track structures to show a more comprehensive picture of a person's
syntactic complexity. Some examples of indices are Development Sentence
Scoring, the Index of Productive Syntax and the Syntactic Complexity Measure.
Developmental sentence scoring[edit]
Developmental Sentence Scoring is another method to measure syntactic
performance as a clinical tool.[31] In this indice, each consecutive utterance, or
sentence, elicited from a child is scored.[32] This is a commonly applied
measurement of syntax for first and second language learners, with samples
gathered from both elicited and spontaneous oral discourse. Methods for eliciting
speech for these samples come in many forms, such having the participant
answering questions or re-telling a story. These elicited conversations are
commonly tape-recorded for playback during analysis to see how well the person
can incorporate syntax among other linguistic cues.[31] For every utterance
elicited, the utterance will receive one point if it is a correct form used in adult
speech. A score of 1 indicates the least complex syntactic form in the category,
whereas a higher score reflects higher level grammaticality.[31] Points are
specifically awarded to an utterance based on whether or not it contains any of
the eight categories outlined below.[31]
Syntactic categories measured by developmental sentence scoring with examples:

Indefinite pronouns
 11a. Score of 1: it, this, that
11b. Score of 6: both, many, several, most, least
Personal pronouns
12a. Score of 1: I, me, my, mine, you, your(s)
12b. Score of 6: Wh-pronouns (i.e. who, which, what, how) and wh-word +
infinitive (i.e. I know what to do)
Main verb
13a. Score of 1: Uninflected verb (i.e. I "see" you) and copula, is or 's (i.e. It 's
red)
13b. Score of 6: Must, shall + verb (i.e. He "must come" or We "shall see"), have
+ verb + '-en' (i.e. I have eaten)
Secondary verb
14a. Score of 1: Infinitival complements (i.e. I wan"na see" = I want to see)
14b. Score of 6: Gerund (i.e. Swinging is fun)
Negatives
15a. Score of 1: it, this or that + copula or auxiliary 'is' or 's + not (i.e. It's "not"
mine)
15b. Score of 5: Uncontracted negative with 'have' (i.e. I have "not" eaten it),
auxiliary'have'-negative contraction (i.e. I had"n't" eaten
it), pronoun auxiliary 'have' contraction (i.e. I've "not" eaten it)
Conjunctions
16a. Score of 1: and
16b. Score of 6: where, than, how
Interrogative reversals
17a. Score of 1: Reversal of copula (i.e. "Is it" red?)
17b. Score of 5: Reversal with three auxiliaries (i.e. "Could he" have been going?)
Wh-questions
18a. Score of 1: who or what (i.e. "What" do you mean?), what + noun (i.e.
"What book" are you reading?)
18b. Score of 5: whose or which (i.e. "Which" do you want?), which + noun (i.e.
"Which book" do you want?)

In particular, those categories that appear the earliest in speech receive a lower
score, whereas later-appearing categories receive a higher score. If an entire
sentence is correct according to adult-like forms, then the utterance would
receive an extra point.[31] The eight categories above are the most commonly used
structures in syntactic formation, thus structures such as possessives, articles,
plurals, prepositional phrases, adverbs and descriptive adjectives were omitted
and not scored.[31] Additionally, the scoring system is arbitrary when applied to
certain structures. For example, there is no indication as to why "if" would receive
four points rather than five. The scores of all the utterances are totalled in the
end of the analysis and then averaged to get a final score. This means that the
individual's final score reflects their entire syntactic complexity level, rather than
syntactic level in a specific category.[31] The main advantage of development
sentence scoring is that the final score represents the individual's general
syntactic development and allows for easier tracking of changes in language
development, making this tool effective for longitudinal studies.[31]
Index of productive syntax[edit]
Similar to Development Sentence Scoring, the Index of Productive Syntax
evaluates the grammatical complexity of spontaneous language samples. After
age 3, Index of Productive Syntax becomes more widely used than MLU to
measure syntactic complexity in children.[33] This is because at around age 3, MLU
does not distinguish between children of similar language competency as well as
Index of Productive Syntax does. For this reason, MLU is initially used in early
childhood development to track syntactic ability, then Index of Productive Syntax
is used to maintain validity. Individual utterances in a discourse sample are scored
based on the presence of 60 different syntactic forms, placed more generally
under four subscales: noun phrase, verb phrase, question/negation and sentence
structure forms.[34] After a sample is recorded, a corpus is then formed based on
100 utterance transcriptions with 60 different language structures being
measured in each utterance. Not included in the corpus are imitations, self-
repetitions and routines, which constitute language that does not represent
productive language usage.[35] In each of the four sub-scales previously
mentioned, the first two unique occurrences of a form are scored. After this,
occurrences of a sub-scale are not scored. However, if a child has mastered a
complex syntax structure earlier than expected, they will receive extra points.[35]
Standardized tests[edit]
The six main tasks in standardized testing for syntax:[25]

 What is the level of syntactic complexity?

 What specific syntactic structures are found? (a syntactic content analysis)
 Are specific structures representative of what is known about syntactic
development within the age range of standardization sample?
 What are the processing requirements of the test format? (a task analysis)
 Are processing requirements similar to or different from language processing
in more naturalistic contexts?
 Is syntactic ability in naturalistic language predicted by performance on the
test?
Some of the common standardized tests for measuring syntactic performance are
the TOLD-2 Intermediate (Test of Language Development), the TOAL-2 (Test of
Adolescent Language) and the CELF-R (Clinical Evaluation of Language
Fundamentals, Revised Screening Test).

Task
TOLD-2
being TOAL-2 CELF-R
Intermediate
tested

Syntactic
Paraphrase
Grammaticality
(hears 3
Judgement (hears 1
Listening sentences;
sentence: judges
marks 2 with
correct/incorrect)
similar
meaning)

Formulating Sentences (hears

1-2 words and sees a picture;
Sentence Combining Sentence makes up a sentence using
(hears 2-4 Imitation words), Imitating Sentences
sentences, says 1 (hears 1 (hears 1 sentence, repeats
Speaking
sentence that sentence, verbatim), Scrambled
combines input repeats Sentences (hears/sees/reads
sentences) verbatim) sentence components out of
order; says 2 different
recorded/correct versions)
 Syntactic
paraphrase
(read 5
Reading sentences;
marks 2 with
similar
meaning)

Sentence
combining
(reads 2-6
sentences;
Writing writes 1
sentence that
combines
input
sentences)

Definition:

The ability to produce and comprehend sentences in a language.

Since the publication of Noam Chomsky's Aspects of the Theory of Syntax in 1965,
most linguists have made a distinction between linguistic competence, a speaker's
tacit knowledge of the structure of a language, and linguistic performance, which
is what a speaker actually does with this knowledge.

See also:

 Chomskyan Linguistics

 Communicative Competence
 Deep Structure and Surface Structure
 Generative Grammar
 Lexical Competence
  Mental Grammar
 Pragmatic Competence
 Psycholinguistics
 Universal Grammar

EXAMPLES AND OBSERVATIONS:

 "Linguistic performance and its products are in fact complex phenomena.

The nature and characteristics of a particular instance of linguistic
performance and its product(s) are, in reality, determined by a combination
of factors:

(6) Some of the factors which influence linguistic performance are:

(a) the linguistic competence or unconscious linguistic knowledge of the
speaker-hearer,
(b) the nature and limitations of the speaker-hearer's speech production
and speech perception mechanisms,
(c) the nature and limitations of the speaker-hearer's memory,
concentration, attention and other mental capacities,
(d) the social environment and status of the speaker-hearer,
(e) the dialectal environment of the speaker-hearer,
(f) the idiolect and individual style of speaking of the speaker-hearer,
(g) the speaker-hearer's factual knowledge and view of the world in which
he lives,(h) the speaker-hearer's state of health, his emotional state and
other similar incidental circumstances.

Each of the factors mentioned in (6) is a variable in linguistic performance

and, as such, may influence the nature and characteristics of a particular
instance of linguistic performance and its product(s)."
(Rudolf P. Botha, The Conduct of Linguistic Inquiry: A Systematic
Introduction to the Methodology of Generative Grammar. Mouton, 1981)

 Chomsky on Linguistic Competence and Linguistic Performance

"In [Noam] Chomsky's theory, our linguistic competence is our unconscious
knowledge of languages and is similar in some ways to [Ferdinand de]
Saussure's concept of langue, the organizing principles of a language. What
we actually produce as utterances is similar to Saussure's parole, and is
called linguistic performance."
(Kristin Denham and Anne Lobeck, Linguistics for Everyone. Wadsworth,
2010)

"Chomsky divides linguistic theory into two parts: linguistic competence

and linguistic performance. The former concerns the tacit knowledge
of grammar, the latter the realization of this knowledge in actual
performance. Chomsky distinctly relegates linguistic performance to the
peripherals of linguistic inquiry. Linguistic performance as the actual use of
language in concrete situations is viewed as 'fairly degenerate in quality'
(Chomsky 1965, 31) because performance is full of errors.

" . . . Chomsky's linguistic competence corresponds to la langue, and

Chomsky's linguistic performance corresponds to la parole. Chomsky's
linguistic competence, however, because it is concerned primarily with the
underlying competence, is viewed as superior to de Saussure's la langue."
(Marysia Johnson, A Philosophy of Second Language Acquisition. Yale
University Press, 2004)

"Competence concerns our abstract knowledge of our language. It is about

the judgements we would make about language if we had sufficient time
and memory capacity. In practice, of course, our actual linguistic
performance--the sentences that we actually produce--is limited by these
factors. Furthermore, the sentences we actually produce often use the
more simple grammatical constructions. Our speech is full of false starts,
hesitations, speech errors, and corrections. The actual ways in which we
produce and understand sentences are also in the domain of performance.

"In his more recent work, Chomsky (1986) distinguished between

externalised language (E-language) and internalised language (I-language).
For Chomsky, E-language linguistics is about collecting samples of language
and understanding their properties; in particular it is about describing the
regularities of a language in the form of a grammar. I-language linguistics is
about what speakers know about their language. For Chomsky, the primary
aim of modern linguistics should be to specify I-language: it is to produce a
grammar that describes our knowledge of the language, not the sentences
we actually produce."
 (Trevor A. Harley, The Psychology of Language: From Data to Theory, 2nd
ed. Psychology Press, 2001)

English as a second or foreign language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"ESL" redirects here. For other uses, see ESL (disambiguation).
English as a second or foreign language is the use of English by speakers with
different native languages. Instruction for English-language learners may be
known as English as a second language (ESL), English as a foreign
language (EFL), English as an additional language (EAL), or English for speakers of
other languages (ESOL). English as a foreign language (EFL) is used for non-native
English speakers learning English in a country where English is not commonly
spoken.
The term ESL has been seen by some to indicate that English would be of
secondary importance. For example, where English is used as a Lingua Franca in a
multilingual country. The term ESL can be a misnomer for some students who
have learned several languages before learning English. The terms English
Language Learners (ELL), and more recently English Learners (EL), have been used
instead, and the students’ home language and cultures are considered
important.[1]
The way English learners are instructed depends on their level of English
proficiency and the program contents provided in their school or district. In some
programs, instructions are taught in both, English and their home language. In
other programs, instructions are given in English, but contextualized in a manner
that is comprehensible to the students (Wright, 2010). Adapting comprehension,
insight oriented repetitions and recasts are some of the methods used in training.
However, without proper cultural immersion (social learning grounds) the
associated language habits and reference points (internal mechanisms) of the
host country isn't completely transferred through these programs (Wright, 2010).
To further complicate the syntax of the language is based on Latin grammar hence
it suffers inconsistencies.[2] The major engine that influences the language are
the United States and the United Kingdom and they both have assimilated the
language differently so they differ in expressions and usage. This is found in a
great extent primarily in pronunciation and vocabulary. Variants of English
language also exist in both of these countries (e.g. African American Vernacular
English).
English as a language has great reach and influence; it is taught all over the world.
In countries English as a second language training has evolved into two broad
directions: instruction for people who intend to live in countries where English
dominates and instruction for those who do not. These divisions have grown
firmer as the instructors of these two "industries" have used
different terminology, followed distinct training qualifications, formed
separate professional associations, and so on. Crucially, these two arms have very
different funding structures, public in the former and private in the latter, and to
some extent this influences the way schools are established and classes are held.
Although English is the principal language in both the US and the United Kingdom,
it differs between the two countries from their parent anglo-saxon roots. For
example, some words and phrases that are inoffensive in the US are offensive in
the UK and vice versa. Even if this language share Caucasian homogeneity there
exists stark differences in the literary world. Some examples that showcases this
differences are: "We have really everything in common with America nowadays,
except, of course, language" (Oscar Wilde, in The Canterville Ghost).
Similarly, Bertrand Russell said: "It is a misfortune for Anglo-American friendship
that the two countries are supposed to have a common language."[3] Another
similar variation attributed to George Bernard Shaw, is that England and America"
are two countries [or nations] divided [or separated] by a common language [or
tongue]."[4]

Terminology and types[edit]

The many acronyms and abbreviations used in the field of English teaching and
learning may be confusing and the following technical definitions may have their
currency contested upon various grounds. The precise usage, including the
different use of the terms ESL and ESOL in different countries, is described below.
These terms are most commonly used in relation to teaching and learning English
as a second language, but they may also be used in relation
to demographic information.[citation needed]
English language teaching (ELT) is a widely used teacher-centered term, as in the
English language teaching divisions of large publishing houses, ELT training,
etc. Teaching English as a second language (TESL), teaching English to speakers of
other languages (TESOL), and teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) are
also used.[citation needed]
Other terms used in this field include English as an international
language (EIL), English as a lingua franca (ELF), English for special purposes
and English for specific purposes(ESP), and English for academic purposes (EAP).
Those who are learning English are often referred to as English language
learners (ELL).
English outside English-speaking countries[edit]
EFL, English as a foreign language, indicates the teaching of English in a non–
English-speaking region. Study can occur either in the student's home country, as
part of the normal school curriculum or otherwise, or, for the more privileged
minority, in an anglophone country that they visit as a sort of educational tourist,
particularly immediately before or after graduating from university. TEFL is
the teaching of English as a foreign language; note that this sort of instruction can
take place in any country, English-speaking or not. Typically, EFL is learned either
to pass exams as a necessary part of one's education, or for career progression
while one works for an organization or business with an international focus. EFL
may be part of the state school curriculum in countries where English has no
special status (what linguistic theorist Braj Kachru calls the "expanding circle
countries"); it may also be supplemented by lessons paid for privately. Teachers
of EFL generally assume that students are literate in their mother tongue.
The Chinese EFL Journal[5] and Iranian EFL Journal[6] are examples of international
journals dedicated to specifics of English language learning within countries
where English is used as a foreign language.
English within English-speaking countries[edit]
The other broad grouping is the use of English within the English-speaking world.
In what Braj Kachru calls "the inner circle", i.e., countries such as the United
Kingdom and the United States, this use of English is generally
by refugees, immigrants, and their children. It also includes the use of English in
"outer circle" countries, often former British coloniesand the Philippines, where
English is an official language even if it is not spoken as a mother tongue by a
majority of the population.
In the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand this use of English is
called ESL (English as a second language). This term has been criticized on the
grounds that many learners already speak more than one language. A counter-
argument says that the word "a" in the phrase "a second language" means there
is no presumption that English is the second acquired language (see also Second
language). TESL is the teaching of English as a second language. There are also
other terms that it may be referred to in the US including: ELL (English Language
Learner) and CLD (Culturally and Linguistically Diverse).
In the UK and Ireland, the term ESL has been replaced by ESOL (English for
speakers of other languages). In these countries TESOL (teaching English to
speakers of other languages) is normally used to refer to teaching English only to
this group. In the UK and Ireland, the term EAL (English as an additional language)
is used, rather than ESOL, when talking about primary and secondary schools, in
order to clarify that English is not the students' first language, but their second or
third. The term ESOL is used to describe English language learners who are above
statutory school age.
Other acronyms were created to describe the person rather than the language to
be learned. The term Limited English proficiency (LEP) was first used in 1975 by
the Lau Remedies following a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. ELL (English
Language Learner), used by United States governments and school systems, was
created by James Crawford of the Institute for Language and Education Policy in
an effort to label learners positively, rather than ascribing a deficiency to them.
Recently, some educators have shortened this to EL – English Learner.
Typically, a student learns this sort of English to function in the new host country,
e.g., within the school system (if a child), to find and hold down a job (if an adult),
or to perform the necessities of daily life (cooking, taking a cab/public
transportation, or eating in a restaurant, etc.). The teaching of it does not
presuppose literacy in the mother tongue. It is usually paid for by the host
government to help newcomers settle into their adopted country, sometimes as
part of an explicit citizenship program. It is technically possible for ESL to be
taught not in the host country, but in, for example, a refugee camp, as part of a
pre-departure program sponsored by the government soon to receive new
potential citizens. In practice, however, this is extremely rare. Particularly in
Canada and Australia, the term ESD (English as a second dialect) is used alongside
ESL, usually in reference to programs for Aboriginal peoples in
Canadian or Australians. The term refers to the use of standard English by
speakers of a creole or non-standard variety. It is often grouped with ESL
as ESL/ESD.
Umbrella terms[edit]
All these ways of denoting the teaching of English can be bundled together into
an umbrella term. Unfortunately, not all of the English teachers in the world
would agree on just only a simply single term(s). The term TESOL (teaching English
to speakers of other languages) is used in American English to include both TEFL
and TESL. This is also the case in Canada as well as in Australia and New
Zealand. British English uses ELT (English language teaching), because TESOL has a
different, more specific meaning; see above.
Systems of simplified English[edit]
Several models of "simplified English" have been suggested or developed for
international communication, among them:

 Basic English, developed by Charles Kay Ogden (and later also I. A. Richards) in
the 1930s; a recent revival has been initiated by Bill Templer[7]
 Threshold Level English, developed by van Ek and Alexander[8]
 Globish, developed by Jean-Paul Nerrière
 Basic Global English, developed by Joachim Grzega[9]
 Nuclear English, proposed by Randolph Quirk and Gabriele Stein but never
fully developed[10]

Difficulties for learners[edit]

Young Jayaji Rao Sindhia, Maharaja of Gwalior, studying English, 1846

Language teaching practice often assumes that most of the difficulties that
learners face in the study of English are a consequence of the degree to which
their native language differs from English (a contrastive analysis approach). A
native speaker of Chinese, for example, may face many more difficulties than a
native speaker of German, because German is more closely related to English
than Chinese. This may be true for anyone of any mother tongue (also called first
language, normally abbreviated L1) setting out to learn any other language (called
a target language, second language or L2). See also second language
acquisition (SLA) for mixed evidence from linguistic research.
Language learners often produce errors of syntax, vocabulary,
and pronunciation thought to result from the influence of their L1, such as
mapping its grammatical patterns inappropriately onto the L2, pronouncing
certain sounds incorrectly or with difficulty, and confusing items of vocabulary
known as false friends. This is known as L1 transfer or "language interference".
However, these transfer effects are typically stronger for beginners' language
production, and SLA research has highlighted many errors which cannot be
attributed to the L1, as they are attested in learners of many language
backgrounds (for example, failure to apply 3rd person present singular -s to verbs,
as in 'he make' not 'he makes').
Some students may have problems due to the incoherence in rules like were, a
noun is a noun and a verb is a verb because grammarians say they are. For e.g. In
"I am suffering terribly" suffering is the verb, but in "My suffering is terrible", it is
a noun. But both sentences expresses the same idea using the same words. Other
students might have problems due to the prescribing and proscribing nature of
rules in the language formulated by amateur grammarians rather than ascribing
to the functional and descriptive nature of languages. For example Robert
Lowth introduced the rule to never end a sentence with a preposition, inspired
from Latin grammar through his book "A Short Introduction to English
Grammar".[11] Cultural differences in communication styles and preferences are
also significant. For example, a study among Chinese ESL students revealed that
preference of not using tense marking on verb present in the morphology of their
mother tongue made it difficult for them to express time related sentences in
English.[12] Another study looked at Chinese ESL students and British teachers and
found that the Chinese learners did not see classroom 'discussion and interaction'
type of communication for learning as important but placed a heavy emphasis on
teacher-directed lectures.[13]
Pronunciation[edit]
Main articles: Non-native pronunciations of English and Accent reduction
English contains a number of sounds and sound distinctions not present in some
other languages. Speakers of languages without these sounds may have problems
both with hearing and with pronouncing them. For example:
 The interdentals, /θ/ and /ð/ (both written as th) are relatively rare in other
languages.
 Phonemic contrast of /i/ with /ɪ/ (beat vs bit vowels),
of /u/ with /ʊ/ (fool vs full vowels), and of /ɛ/ with /æ/ (bet vs bat vowels) is
rare outside northwestern Europe, so unusual mergers or exotic
pronunciations such as [bet] for bit may arise. Note that [bɪt] is a
pronunciation often used in England and Wales for bet, and also in some
dialects of American English.[14] See Northern cities vowel shift, and Pin-pen
merger.
 Native speakers of Japanese, Korean, and most Chinese dialects have difficulty
distinguishing /r/ and /l/, also present for speakers of some Caribbean Spanish
dialects (only at the end of syllables), what is known as lallation.
 Native speakers of Brazilian Portuguese, Spanish or Galician, and Ukrainian
may pronounce [h]-like sounds where a /r/, /s/, or /ɡ/, respectively, would be
expected, as those sounds often or almost always follow this process in their
native languages, what is known as debuccalization.
 Native speakers of Arabic, Tagalog, Japanese, Korean, and important dialects
of all current Iberian Romance languages (including about all of Spanish) have
difficulty distinguishing [b] and [v], what is known as betacism.
 Native speakers of almost all of Brazilian Portuguese, of some African
Portuguese registers, of Portuguese-derived creole languages, some dialects of
Swiss German, and several pontual processes in several Slavic languages, such
as Bulgarian and Ukrainian, and many dialects of other languages, have
instances of /l/ or /ɫ/ always becoming [w] at the end of a syllable in a given
context, so that milk may be variously pronounced as [mɪu̯ k], [mɪʊ̯ k], or
[mɪo̯ k]. This is present in some English registers—known as l-vocalization—but
may be shunned as substandard or bring confusion in others.
 Native speakers of many widely spoken languages (including Dutch and all the
Romance ones) distinguish voiceless stop pairs /p/, /t/, /k/ from their voiced
counterparts /b/, /d/, /ɡ/ merely by their sound (and in Iberian Romance
languages, the latter trio does not even need to be stopped, so its native
speakers unconsciously pronounce them as [β], [ð], and [ɣ ~ ɰ] –
voiced fricatives or approximants in the very same mouth positions – instead
much or most of the time, that native English speakers may erroneously
interpret as the /v/ or /w/, /ð/ and /h/, /w/, or /r/ of their language). In
English, German, Danish, and some other languages, though, the main
distinguishing feature in the case of initial or stressed stopped voiceless
 consonants from their voiced counterparts is that they are aspirated [pʰ tʰ
kʰ] (unless if immediately preceded or followed by /s/), while the voiced ones
are not. As a result, much of the non-English /p/, /t/ and /k/ will sound to
native English ears as /b/, /d/ and /ɡ/ instead (i.e. parking may sound more
like barking).
 Ukrainian, Turkish and Azeri speakers may have trouble distinguishing
between /v/ and /w/ as both pronunciations are used interchangeably for the
letter v in those languages.
Languages may also differ in syllable structure; English allows for a cluster of up to
three consonants before the vowel and five after it
(e.g. strengths, straw, desks, glimpsed, sixths). Japanese and Brazilian Portuguese,
for example, broadly alternate consonant and vowel sounds so learners from
Japan and Brazil often force vowels between the consonants
(e.g. desks becomes [desukusu] or [dɛskis], and milk
shake becomes [miɽukuɕeːku] or [miwki ɕejki], respectively). Similarly, in most
Iberian dialects, a word can begin with [s], and [s] can be followed by a
consonant, but a word can never begin with [s] immediately followed by a
consonant, so learners whose mother tongue is in this language family often have
a vowel in front of the word (e.g. school becomes [eskul], [iskuɫ ~
iskuw], [ɯskuɫ] or [əskuɫ] for native speakers of Spanish, Brazilian and European
Portuguese, and Catalan, respectively).
Grammar[edit]

 Tense, aspect, and mood – English has a relatively large number of tense–
aspect–mood forms with some quite subtle differences, such as the difference
between the simple past "I ate" and the present perfect "I have eaten".
Progressive and perfect progressive forms add complexity. (See English verbs.)
 Functions of auxiliaries – Learners of English tend to find it difficult to
manipulate the various ways in which English uses auxiliary verbs. These
include negation (e.g. He hasn't been drinking.), inversion with the subject to
form a question (e.g. Has he been drinking?), short answers (e.g. Yes, he has.)
and tag questions (has he?). A further complication is that the dummy
auxiliary verb do/does/did is added to fulfil these functions in the simple
present and simple past, but not to replace the verb to be (He drinks too
much./Does he?but He is an addict/Is he?).
 Modal verbs – English has several modal auxiliary verbs, which each has a
number of uses. These verbs convey a special sense or mood such as
obligation, necessity, ability, probability, permission, possibility, prohibition,
intention etc. These include "must", "can", "have to", "need to", "will", "shall",
"ought to", "will have to", "may", and "might".
For example, the opposite of "You must be here at 8" (obligation) is usually
"You don't have to be here at 8" (lack of obligation, choice). "Must" in "You
must not drink the water" (prohibition) has a different meaning from
"must" in "You must have eaten the chocolate" (deduction). This
complexity takes considerable work for most English language learners to
master.
All these modal verbs or "modals" take the first form of the verb after
them. These modals (most of them) do not have past or future inflection,
i.e. they do not have past or future tense (exceptions being have
to and need to).

 Idiomatic usage – English is reputed to have a relatively high degree

of idiomatic usage.[15] For example, the use of different main verb forms
in such apparently parallel constructions as "try to learn", "help learn",
and "avoid learning" pose difficulty for learners. Another example is the
idiomatic distinction between "make" and "do": "make a mistake", not
"do a mistake"; and "do a favor", not "make a favor".
 Articles – English has two forms of article: the (the definite article)
and a and an (the indefinite article). In addition, at times English nouns
can or indeed must be used without an article; this is called the zero
article. Some of the differences between definite, indefinite and zero
article are fairly easy to learn, but others are not, particularly since a
learner's native language may lack articles, have only one form, or use
them differently from English. Although the information conveyed by
articles is rarely essential for communication, English uses them
frequently (several times in the average sentence) so that they require
some effort from the learner.
Vocabulary[edit]

 Phrasal verbs – Phrasal verbs (also known as multiple-word verbs) in

English can cause difficulties for many learners because of their
syntactic pattern and because they often have several meanings. There
are also a number of phrasal verb differences between American and
British English.
 Prepositions – As with many other languages, the correct use
of prepositions in the English language is difficult to learn, and it can
turn out to be quite a frustrating learning experience for ESL/EFL
learners. For example, the prepositions "on" (rely on, fall on), "of"
(think of, because of, in the vicinity of), and "at" (turn at, meet at, start
at) are used in so many different ways and contexts, it is very difficult to
remember the exact meaning for each one. Furthermore, the same
words are often used as adverbs (come in, press on, listen in, step in) as
part of a compound verb (make up, give up, get up, give in, turn in, put
on), or in more than one way with different functions and meanings
(look up, look on, give in) (He looked up her skirt/He looked up the
spelling/Things are looking up/When you're in town, look me up!; He
gave in his homework/First he refused but then he gave in; He got up at
6 o'clock/He got up the hill/He got up a nativity play). Also, for some
languages, such as Spanish, there is/are one/some prepositions that
can mean multiple English prepositions (i.e. en in Spanish can mean on,
in, or at). When translating back to the ESL learners' respective L1, a
particular preposition's translation may be correct in one instance, but
when using the preposition in another sense, the meaning is sometimes
quite different. "One of my friends" translates to
(transliterated) wahed min isdiqa'i in Arabic. Min is the Arabic word for
"from", so it means one "from" my friends. "I am on page 5" translates
to ich bin auf Seite 5 in German just fine, but in Arabic it
is Ana fee safha raqm 5 (I am "in" page 5).
 Word formation – Word formation in English requires a lot of rote
learning. For example, an adjective can be negated by using
the prefixes un- (e.g. unable), in- (e.g. inappropriate), dis- (e.g. dishonest
), non- (non-standard) or a- (e.g. amoral), as well as several rarer
prefixes.
 Size of lexicon – The history of English has resulted in a very large
vocabulary, including one stream from Old English and one from
the Norman infusion of Latin-derived terms. (Schmitt & Marsden claim
that English has one of the largest vocabularies of any known language.)
One estimate of the lexicon puts English at around 250,000 unique
words. This requires more work for a learner to master the language.
 Collocations – Collocation in English refers to the tendency for words to
occur together with others. For example, nouns and verbs that go
 together (ride a bike/drive a car). Native speakers tend to use
chunks[clarification needed] of collocations and ESL learners make mistakes
with collocations.
 Slang and colloquialisms – In most native English speaking countries,
large numbers of slang and colloquial terms are used in everyday
speech. Many learners may find that classroom based English is
significantly different from how English is usually spoken in practice.
This can often be difficult and confusing for learners with little
experience of using English in Anglophone countries. Also, slang terms
differ greatly between different regions and can change quickly in
response to popular culture. Some phrases can become unintentionally
rude if misused.
 Silent letters - Within English, almost every letter has the 'opportunity'
to be silent in a word, except F, J, Q, R, V, and Y.[16] The most common
is e, usually at the end of the word and is used to elongate the previous
vowel(s). The common usage of silent letters can throw off how ESL
learners interpret the language (especially those who are fluent in a
Germanic language), since a common step to learning words in most
languages is to pronounce them phonetically. Words such
as Queue, Colonel, Knight and Wednesday tend to throw off the learner,
since they contain large amounts of silent letters.
First-language literacy[edit]
Learners who have had less than eight years of formal education in their
first language are sometimes called adult ESL literacy learners. Usually
these learners have had their first-language education
interrupted.[17] Many of these learners require a different level of support,
teaching approaches and strategies, and a different curriculum from
mainstream adult ESL learners. For example, these learners may lack study
skills and transferable language skills,[17][18] and these learners may avoid
reading or writing.[19] Often these learners do not start classroom tasks
immediately, do not ask for help, and often assume the novice role when
working with peers.[20] Generally these learners may lack self-
confidence.[21] For some, prior schooling is equated with status, cultured,
civilized, high class, and they may experience shame among peers in their
new ESL classes.[22][23]
Second-language literacy[edit]
Learners who have not had extensive exposure to reading and writing in a
second language, despite having acceptable spoken proficiency, may have
difficulties with the reading and writing in their L2. Joann Crandall
(1993)[24] has pointed out that most teacher training programs for TESOL
instructors do not include sufficient, in most cases "no", training for the
instruction in literacy. This is a gap that many scholars feel needs to be
addressed.
Social and Academic Language Acquisition[edit]
Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) are language skills needed
in social situations. These language skills usually develop within six months
to two years. Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) refers to the
language associated with formal content material and academic learning.
These skills usually take from five to seven years to develop.[citation needed]
The importance of reading in ESL instruction[edit]
According to some English professionals, reading for pleasure is an
important component in the teaching of both native and foreign
languages:[25]
"Studies that sought to improve writing by providing reading experiences in
place of grammar study or additional writing practice found that these
experiences were as beneficial as, or more beneficial than, grammar study
or extra writing practice."[26]
Differences between spoken and written English[edit]
For further discussion of English spelling patterns and rules, see Phonics.
As with most languages, written language tends to use a more
formal register than spoken language.

 Spelling and pronunciation: probably the biggest difficulty for non-

native speakers, since the relation between English spelling and
pronunciation does not follow the alphabetic principle consistently.
Because of the many changes in pronunciation which have occurred
since a written standard developed, the retention of many historical
idiosyncrasies in spelling, and the large influx of foreign words (mainly
from Norman French, Classical Latin and Greek) with different and
overlapping spelling patterns,[27] English spelling and pronunciation are
difficult even for native speakers to master. This difficulty is shown in
 such activities as spelling bees. The generalizations that exist are quite
complex and there are many exceptions, leading to a considerable
amount of rote learning. The spelling and pronunciation system causes
problems in both directions: a learner may know a word by sound but
be unable to write it correctly (or indeed find it in a dictionary) or they
may see a word written but not know how to pronounce it or mislearn
the pronunciation. However, despite the variety of spelling patterns in
English, there are dozens of rules that are 75% or more reliable.[28]
There is also debate about "meaning-focused" learning and "correction-
focused" learning. Supporters for the former think that using speech as the
way to explain meaning is more important. However, supporters of the
latter do not agree with that and instead think that grammar and correct
habit is more important.
Technology[edit]
Language has a very significant role in our lives. It symbolizes the cultures
in our societies where individuals interact and use it to communicate
between each other. The development of transportation has
influenced global relations to be more practical where people need to
interact and share common interests. However, communication is the key
power to facilitate interactions among individuals which would provide
them with stronger relationships. In places like the United States
where immigration plays a role in social, economic and cultural aspects,
there is an increase in the number of new immigrants yearly. "The number
of non-native English speaking children in U.S. public schools continues to
rise dramatically.[29]
Although many non-English speakers tend to practice English classes in
their countries before they migrate to any anglophone country to make it
easier for them to interact with the people, many of them still struggle
when they experience the reality of communicating with a real
anglophone. Therefore, society forces them to improve their
communication skills as soon as possible. Immigrants cannot afford to
waste time learning to speak English especially for those who come with
certain financial issues. The most common choice people make to build up
their communication skills is to take some ESL classes. There are many
steps that need to be followed in order to be successful in this aspect.
However, the use of new technology makes the learning process more
convenient, reliable and productive.
Computers have made an entry into education in the past decades and
have brought significant benefits to teachers and students
alike.[30] Computers help learners by making them more responsible for
their own learning. Studies have shown that one of the best ways of
improving one's learning ability is to use a computer where all the
information one might need can be found. In today's developed world, a
computer is one of a number of systems which help learners to improve
their language. Computer Assisted Language Learning(CALL) is a system
which aids learners to improve and practice language skills. It provides a
stress-free environment for learners and makes them more responsible.[31]
Computers can provide help to the ESL learners in many different ways
such as teaching students to learn a new language. The computer can be
used to test students about the language they already learn. It can assist
them in practicing certain tasks. The computer permits students to
communicate easily with other students in different places.[30] Nowadays
the increasing use of mobile technology, such as smartphones and tablet
computers, has led to a growing usage applications created to facilitate
language learning, such as The Phrasal Verbs Machine from
Cambridge.[32] In terms of online materials, there are many forms of online
materials such as blogs, wikis, webquest. For instance, blogs can allow
English learners to voice their opinions, sharpen their writing skills and
build their confidence. However, some who are introverted may not feel
comfortable sharing their ideas on the blog. Class wikis can be used to
promote collaborative learning through sharing and co-constructing
knowledge.[33] Its vitally important to remember that on-line materials are
still just materials and thus need to be subject to the same scrutiny of
evaluation as any other language material or source.
The learning ability of language learners can be more reliable with the
influence of a dictionary. Learners tend to carry or are required to have a
dictionary which allows them to learn independently and become more
responsible for their own work. In these modern days, education has
upgraded its methods of teaching and learning with dictionaries where
digital materials are being applied as tools.[29] Electronic dictionaries are
increasingly a more common choice for ESL students. Most of them contain
native-language equivalents and explanations, as well as definitions and
example sentences in English. They can speak the English word to the
learner, and they are easy to carry around. However, they are expensive
and easy to lose, so students are often instructed to put their names on
them.[34]
Varieties of English[edit]

 The English language in England (and other parts of the United

Kingdom) exhibits significant differences by region and class, noticeable
both in accent (pronunciation) and in dialect (vocabulary and grammar).
 The numerous communities of English native speakers in countries all
over the world also have some noticeable differences. See Irish
English, Australian English, Canadian English, Newfoundland English,
etc.
 English has no organization that controls a prestige dialect of the
language – unlike the French Academie de la langue
française, Spain's Real Academia Española, or Esperanto's Akademio.
Teaching English therefore involves not only helping the student to use the
form of English most suitable for their purposes, but also exposure to
regional forms and cultural styles so that the student will be able to discern
meaning even when the words, grammar, or pronunciation are different
from the form of English they are being taught to speak. Some
professionals in the field have recommended incorporating information
about non-standard forms of English in ESL programs. For example, in
advocating for classroom-based instruction in African-American
English (also known as Ebonics), linguist Richard McDorman has argued,
"Simply put, the ESL syllabus must break free of the longstanding
intellectual imperiousness of the standard to embrace instruction that
encompasses the many "Englishes" that learners will encounter and
thereby achieve the culturally responsive pedagogy so often advocated by
leaders in the field."[35]

Social challenges and benefits[edit]

Class placement[edit]
ESL students often suffer from the effects of tracking and ability grouping.
Students are often placed into low ability groups based on scores
on standardized tests in English and Math.[36] There is also low mobility
among these students from low to high performing groups, which can
prevent them from achieving the same academic progress as native
speakers.[36] Similar tests are also used to place ESL students in college level
courses. Students have voiced frustration that only non-native students
have to prove their language skills, when being a native speaker in no way
guarantees college level academic literacy.[37] Studies have shown that
these tests can cause different passing rates among linguistic groups
regardless of high school preparation.[38]
Dropout rates[edit]
Dropout rates for ESL students in multiple countries are much higher than
dropout rates for native speakers. The National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) in the United States reported that the percentage of
dropouts in the non-native born Hispanic youth population between the
ages of 16 and 24 years old is 43.4%.[39] A study in Canada found that the
high school dropout rate for all ESL students was 74%.[40] High dropout
rates are thought to be due to difficulties ESL students have in keeping up
in mainstream classes, the increasing number of ESL students who enter
middle or high school with interrupted prior formal education, and
accountability systems.[39]
The accountability system in the US is due to the No Child Left Behind Act.
Schools that risk losing funding, closing, or having their principals fired if
test scores are not high enough begin to view students that do not perform
well on standardized tests as liabilities.[41] Because dropouts actually
increase a school's performance, critics claim that administrators let poor
performing students slip through the cracks. A study of Texas schools
operating under No Child Left Behind found that 80% of ESL students did
not graduate from high school in five years.[41]
Access to higher education[edit]
ESL students face several barriers to higher education.
Most colleges and universities require four years of English in high school.
In addition, most colleges and universities only accept one year of ESL
English.[37] It is difficult for ESL students that arrive in the United States
relatively late to finish this requirement because they must spend a longer
time in ESL English classes in high school, or they might not arrive early
enough to complete four years of English in high school. This results in
many ESL students not having the correct credits to apply for college, or
enrolling in summer school to finish the required courses.[37]
ESL students can also face additional financial barriers to higher education
because of their language skills. Those that don't place high enough on
college placement exams often have to enroll in ESL courses at their
universities. These courses can cost up to $1,000 extra, and can be offered
without credit towards graduation.[37] This adds additional financial stress
on ESL students that often come from families of lower socioeconomic
status. The latest statistics show that the median household income for
school-age ESL students is $36,691 while that of non-ESL students is
$60,280.[not in citation given][42] College tuition has risen sharply in the last
decade, while family income has fallen. In addition, while many ESL
students receive a Pell Grant, the maximum grant for the year 2011–2012
covered only about a third of the cost of college.[43]
Interaction with native speakers[edit]
ESL students often have difficulty interacting with native speakers in
school. Some ESL students avoid interactions with native speakers because
of their frustration or embarrassment at their poor
English. Immigrant students often also lack knowledge of popular culture,
which limits their conversations with native speakers to academic
topics.[44] In classroom group activities with native speakers, ESL students
often do not participate, again because of embarrassment about their
English, but also because of cultural differences: their native cultures may
value silence and individual work at school in preference to social
interaction and talking in class.[36]
These interactions have been found to extend to teacher–student
interactions as well. In most mainstream classrooms, teacher-led
discussion is the most common form of lesson. In this setting, some ESL
students will fail to participate, and often have difficulty understanding
teachers because they talk too fast, do not use visual aids, or use
native colloquialisms. ESL students also have trouble getting involved
with extracurricular activities with native speakers for similar reasons.
Students fail to join extra-curricular activities because of the language
barrier, cultural emphasis of academics over other activities, or failure to
understand traditional pastimes in their new country.[44]
Social benefits[edit]
Supporters of ESL programs claim they play an important role in the
formation of peer networks and adjustment to school and society in their
new homes. Having class among other students learning English as a
second language relieves the pressure of making mistakes when speaking
in class or to peers. ESL programs also allow students to be among others
who appreciate their native language and culture, the expression of which
is often not supported or encouraged in mainstream settings. ESL programs
also allow students to meet and form friendships with other non-native
speakers from different cultures, promoting
racial tolerance and multiculturalism.[44]

Peer Tutoring for ESL students[edit]

Peer tutoring refers to an instructional method that pairs up low-achieving
English readers, with ESL students that know minimal English and who are
also approximately the same age and same grade level. The goal of this
dynamic is to help both the tutor, in this case the English speaker, and the
tutee, the ESL student. Monolingual tutors are given the class material in
order to provide tutoring to their assigned ESL tutee. Once the tutor has
had the chance to help the student, classmates get to switch roles in order
to give both peers an opportunity to learn from each other. In a study,
which conducted a similar research, their results indicated that low-
achieving readers that were chosen as tutors, made a lot of progress by
using this procedure. In addition, ESL students were also able to improve
their grades due to the fact that they increased their approach in reading
acquisition skills.[45]
Importance[edit]
Since there is not enough funding to afford tutors, and teachers find it hard
to educate all students who have different learning abilities, it is highly
important to implement peer-tutoring programs in schools. Students
placed in ESL program learn together along with other non-English
speakers, however by using peer tutoring in classroom it will avoid the
separation between regular English classes and ESL classes. These
programs will promote community between students that will be helping
each other grow academically.[46] To further support this statement, a
study researched the effectiveness of peer tutoring and explicit teaching in
classrooms. It was found that students with learning disabilities and low
performing students who are exposed to the explicit teaching and peer
tutoring treatment in the classroom, have better academic performance
than those students who don’t receive this type of assistance. It was
proven that peer tutoring is the most effective and no cost form of
teaching[46]
Benefits[edit]
It has been proven that peer-mediated tutoring is an effective tool to
help ESL students succeed academically. Peer tutoring has been utilized
across many different academic courses and the outcomes for those
students that have different learning abilities are outstanding. Classmates
who were actively involved with other peers in tutoring had better
academic standing than those students who were not part of the tutoring
program.[47] Based on their results, researchers found that all English
student learners were able to maintain a high percentage of English
academic words on weekly tests taught during tutoring session. It was also
found that the literature on the efficacy of peer tutoring service combined
with regular classroom teaching, is the best methodology practice that is
effective, that benefits students, teachers, and parents involved.[48]
Research on peer English immersion tutoring[edit]
Similarly, a longitudinal study was conducted to examine the effects of
paired bilingual program and an English-only reading program with Spanish
speaking English learners in order to increase students’ English reading
outcomes.[49] Students whose primary language was Spanish and were part
of ESL program were participants of this study. Three different approaches
were the focus in which immersing students in English from the very
beginning and teaching them reading only in that language; teaching
students in Spanish first, followed by English; and teaching students to read
in Spanish and English simultaneously. This occurs through a strategic
approach such as structured English immersion or sheltered instruction.
Findings showed that the paired bilingual reading approach appeared to
work as well as, or better than, the English-only reading approach in terms
of reading growth and results. Researchers found differences in results, but
they also varied based on several outcomes depending on the student’s
learning abilities and academic performance.[49]
ESL teacher's training[edit]
 Teachers in an ESL class are specifically trained in particular techniques and
tools to help students learn English. In fact, research says that the quality
of their teaching methods is what matters the most when it comes to
educating English learners. It was also mentioned how it is highly important
for teachers to have the drive to help these students succeed and "feel
personal responsibility."[50] It is important to highlight the idea that the
school system needs to focus on school-wide interventions in order to
make an impact and be able to help all English learners. There is a high
need for comprehensive professional development for teachers in the ESL
program.
Effects of peer tutoring on the achievement gap[edit]
Although peer tutoring has been proven to be an effective way of learning
that engages and promotes academic achievement in students, does it
have an effect on the achievement gap? It is an obvious fact that there is a
large academic performance disparity between White, Black, and Latino
students, and it continues to be an issue that has to be targeted.[51]In an
article it was mentioned that no one has been able to identify the true
factors that cause this discrepancy. However it was mentioned that by
developing effective peer tutoring programs in schools could be a factor
that can potentially decrease the achievement gap in the United States.[51]
eaching English as a second language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Further information: English as a second or foreign language
"TESL" redirects here. For Taiwan eSports League, see Taiwan eSports League. For
the video game, see The Elder Scrolls: Legends.

[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve

it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and
when to remove these template messages)

This article needs additional citations

for verification. (May 2015)
 This article includes a list of references, but its sources
remain unclear because it has insufficient inline
citations. (May 2015)

It has been suggested that Teaching English as a foreign

language be merged into this article. (Discuss) Proposed
since February 2016.

Teaching English as a second language (TESL) refers to

teaching English to students whose first language is not English, usually offered in
a region where English is the dominant language and natural English language
immersion situations are apt to be plentiful.
In contrast, teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) refers to
teaching English to students whose first language is not English, usually in a region
where English is not the dominant language and natural English language
immersion situations are apt to be few. TEFL teaching is considered to be more
accessible to teachers with less experience. These teaching jobs are also more
prone to exploitation with few companies helping to fight against systemic
abuses.
The teaching profession has historically used different names for these two
teaching situations; however, the more generic term teaching English to speakers
of other languages(TESOL) is increasingly used to describe the profession. Both
native speakers and non-native speakers successfully train to be English language
teachers. In order to teach English as a Second Language to English Language
Learners, or ELL's, one must pass a written and oral test in English to demonstrate
proficiency.
The use of these various terms has led to confusion about the training options for
both prospective students and for employers. Because there is no global standard
for the training of English language teacher, it is important to look beyond the
actual acronym/title to the components of the training program. Short term
certificate programs that do not have an academic affiliation resulting in credits
or degrees (such as CELTA or other non-credit programs) can be a good launching
pad for beginning positions internationally, but they will generally not provide
sufficient training for a career (unless a person already has substantial experience
and a degree in a closely related field). People interested in pursuing a career as
an English language teacher should invest in credit-bearing programs that result
in a university recognized certificate or degree program (MA/TESOL, MA/Applied
Linguistics) particularly if one wants to work in higher education. Because of the
confusing certification situation, employers now generally look for a certificate
that reflects at least 100 hours of instruction in order to determine if the
candidate has sufficient preparation to begin teaching English. Institutions with
higher standards will require applicants to possess a master's degree for
employment.
People wishing to teach in the K-12 public school system in the United States will
need a state-teacher certification at a minimum and an ELL Endorsement (or
other state qualification) to be qualified to teach ELL.
When choosing a graduate program, it is important to determine if the program is
designed to prepare students to teach in K-12 settings OR in adult education
settings. Most programs are designed for one or the other, but not both.
In California, teachers may become certified as California Teachers of English
Learners (CTEL).

English as a Second Language (ESL or TESL) is a traditional term for the use or
study of the English language by non-native speakers in an English-speaking
environment. That environment may be a country in which English is the mother
tongue (e.g., Australia, the U.S.) or one in which English has an established role
(e.g., India, Nigeria). Also known as English for speakers of other languages.

English as a Second Language also refers to specialized approaches to language

teaching designed for those whose primary language is not English.

English as a Second Language corresponds roughly to the Outer Circle described

by linguist Braj Kachru in "Standards, Codification and Sociolinguistic Realism: The
English Language in the Outer Circle" (1985).

See the observations below.

 Communicative Competence
 Contrastive Rhetoric
 English as an Additional Language
 English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
 English as a Native Language (ENL)
  Focusing
 Global English
 Inner Circle, Outer Circle, Expanding Circle
 Interlanguage
 Lexical Competence
 Native Speakerism
 New Englishes

OBSERVATIONS

 "Basically, we can divide up countries according to whether they

have English as a native language, English as a second language, or English
as a foreign language. The first category is self-explanatory. The difference
between English as a foreign language and English as a second language is
that in the latter instance only, English has actual assigned communicative
status within the country. All told, there is a total of 75 territories where
English has a special place in society. [Braj] Kachru has divided the English-
speaking countries of the world into three broad types, which he
symbolizes by placing them in three concentric rings:
 The inner circle: these countries are the traditional bases of English,
where it is the primary language, that is Great Britain and Ireland, the
United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
 The outer or extended circle: these countries represent the earlier
spread of English in non-native contexts, where the language is part
of the country's leading institutions, where it plays a second-
language role in a multilingual society. e.g. Singapore, India, Malawi,
and 50 other territories.
 The expanding circle: this includes countries that represent the
importance of English as an international language though they have
no history of colonization and English has no special administrative
status in these countries, e.g. China, Japan, Poland and a growing
number of other states. This is English as a foreign language.It is clear
that the expanding circle is the one that is most sensitive to the
global status of English. It is here that English is used primarily as an
international language, especially in the business, scientific, legal,
political and academic communities."
 "The terms (T)EFL, (T)ESL and TESOL ['Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages'] emerged after the Second World War, and in Britain no
distinction was seriously made between ESL and EFL, both being subsumed
under ELT('English Language Teaching'), until well into the 1960s. As
regards ESL in particular, the term has been applied to two types of
teaching that overlap but are essentially distinct: ESL in the home country
of the learner (mainly a UK concept and concern) and ESL for immigrants to
ENL countries (mainly a US concept and concern)."

 "The term 'English as Second Language' (ESL) has traditionally referred to

students who come to school speaking languages other than English at
home. The term in many cases is incorrect, because some who come to
school have English as their third, fourth, fifth, and so on, language. Some
individuals and groups have opted for the term 'Teaching English to
Speakers of Other Languages" (TESOL) to represent better the underlying
language realities. In some jurisdictions, the term 'English as an Additional
Language' (EAL) is used. The term 'English Language Learner' (ELL) has
gained acceptance, primarily in the United States. The difficulty with the
term 'ELL' is that in most classrooms, everyone, regardless of their linguistic
backgrounds, is learning English."
Teaching English as a Second Language (ESL)

Teaching English as a Second Language is a high-demand subject of instruction

that continues to experience growth in schools across the country. As children
from foreign countries continue to immigrate to the United States and enroll in
schools here, the number of students whose native language is not English
continues to grow. Thus, many schools have English Language Learners (ELL)
programs, also known as English as a Second Language (ESL) External link and
English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL).
As the primary spoken language in a country with a rich history of immigration
and cultural diversity, English and its mastery are an important part of educational
development. ESL is offered for people of all ages, though it is not part of the
standard public school curriculum as it is not essential to all students.

ESL is a supplementary, comprehensive English language program for students

trying to learn the language to better function in American society. Though ESL is
supplementary, ESL teachers may still be employed by the public school system.
Many schools, especially in urban areas, have programs in which students set
aside part of their normal school day to study the English language in a small
group with the close supervision of an ESL teacher. Other ESL teachers may be
employed by private institutes to offer English tutoring to speakers of other
languages.

ESL Teacher Salary

ESL teachers can expect to make have a similar salary to most other teachers in
their location, subject and with a similar amount of experience. Generally
speaking, the longer you work as a teacher the more your salary will grow. Learn
about specific ESL teacher salary offerings, updated regularly via the career and
jobs community at Glassdoor.com External link . Also important to consider is the
fact that teachers receive an annual salary based on nine months of in-classroom
work during the school year. Not to say that teachers are not still hard at work
during holidays and the summer break, but they can certainly pursue other
income earning opportunities during those periods as well.

Bilingual Education

Like ESL, Bilingual Education is not a mandated part of the curriculum, yet many
schools offer it to accommodate the influx of culturally diverse children. Most
often found in urban areas, Bilingual Education seeks to help students whose
native language is not English keep up with subjects such as Math and Science,
which can easily be lost in translation without assistance. Bilingual Education
exists in many forms, including Transitional Bilingual Education, Two-Way or Dual
Language Immersion, and Late-Exit or Developmental Bilingual Education. In
these forms, a student will be assisted with non-language subjects so that they
can maintain the achievement level of native speakers while learning to speak
English. Bilingual classes will often be taught by bilingual teachers, or will have a
translator to assist.

Teaching English Abroad

For many new and inexperienced teachers, teaching English abroad is a great way
to gain teaching experience, travel and be immersed in a new culture. The
requirements to teach ESL abroad External link vary by country, but typically
 require at least a Bachelor’s degree and an ESL teaching qualification, such as
a TEFL certificate External link .
A TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language) certificate prepares educators for
teaching English in countries where English is not the native language and few
English immersion opportunities exist for students. The University of Toronto
offers an online TEFL certification course External link , that is self-paced and can
be earned from the comfort of home. To learn more about teaching English
abroad and getting TEFL certified, visit teflonline.teachaway.com External link
ransformational grammar
WRITTEN BY:
 The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica
See Article History
Alternative Title: transformational-generative grammar
Transformational grammar, also called Transformational-generative Grammar, a
system of language analysis that recognizes the relationship among the various
elements of a sentence and among the possible sentences of a language and uses
processes or rules (some of which are called transformations) to express these
relationships. For example, transformational grammar relates the active sentence
“John read the book” with its corresponding passive, “The book was read by
John.” The statement “George saw Mary” is related to the corresponding
questions, “Whom [or who] did George see?” and “Who saw Mary?” Although
sets such as these active and passive sentences appear to be very different on the
surface (i.e., in such things as word order), a transformational grammar tries to
show that in the “underlying structure” (i.e., in their deeper relations to one
another), the sentences are very similar. Transformational grammar assigns a
“deep structure” and a “surface structure” to show the relationship of such
sentences. Thus, “I know a man who flies planes” can be considered the surface
form of a deep structure approximately like “I know a man. The man flies
airplanes.” The notion of deep structure can be especially helpful in
explaining ambiguous utterances; e.g., “Flying airplanes can be dangerous” may
have a deep structure, or meaning, like “Airplanes can be dangerous when they
fly” or “To fly airplanes can be dangerous.”
Transformational grammar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Transformational grammar (TG) or transformational-generative grammar (TGG)
is, in the study of linguistics, part of the theory of generative grammar, especially
of naturally evolved languages, that considers grammar to be a system of rules
that generate exactly those combinations of words which form grammatical
sentences in a given language. TG involves the use of defined operations
called transformations to produce new sentences from existing ones.

Contents
[hide]

 1Deep structure and surface structure

 2Formal definition
 3Development of basic concepts
 4Innate linguistic knowledge
 5Grammatical theories
 6"I-language" and "E-language"
 7Grammaticality
 8Minimalism
 9Mathematical representation
 10Transformations
 11See also
 12References
 13Bibliography
 14External links

Deep structure and surface structure[edit]

Linguistics

Theoretical

 Cognitive
 Constraint-based
 Generative
 Structuralist
 Quantitative
 Functional theories of grammar
 Phonology
 Morphology

Morphophonology
 Syntax
 Lexis
 Semantics
 Pragmatics
 Graphemics
 Orthography
 Semiotics

Descriptive
 Anthropological
 Comparative
 Historical
 Etymology
 Graphetics
 Phonetics
 Sociolinguistics
 Cherology

Applied and experimental

 Computational
 Contrastive

Evolutionary
 Forensic
 Internet

 Language acquisition
 Second-language acquisition
 Language assessment
 Language development
 Language education
  Linguistic anthropology
 Neurolinguistics
 Psycholinguistics

Related articles
History of linguistics
 Linguistic prescription
 List of linguists
 Unsolved linguistics problems
 Origin of language
 Origin of speech

Linguistics portal
 v
 t
 e

Noam Chomsky’s 1965 book Aspects of the Theory of Syntax developed the idea
that each sentence in a language has two levels of representation — a deep
structure and a surface structure.[1][2] The deep structure represents the
core semantic relations of a sentence, and is mapped onto the surface structure
(which follows the phonological form of the sentence very closely)
via transformations. Chomsky believed there are considerable similarities
between languages' deep structures and that these reveal properties, common to
all languages, that surface structures conceal. However, this may not have been
the central motivation for introducing deep structure; transformations had been
proposed prior to the development of deep structure as a means of increasing the
mathematical and descriptive power of context-free grammars. Similarly, deep
structure was devised largely for technical reasons relating to early semantic
theory. Chomsky emphasizes the importance of modern formal mathematical
devices in the development of grammatical theory:
But the fundamental reason for [the] inadequacy of traditional grammars is a
more technical one. Although it was well understood that linguistic processes are
in some sense "creative," the technical devices for expressing a system of
recursive processes were simply not available until much more recently. In fact, a
real understanding of how a language can (in Humboldt's words) "make infinite
use of finite means" has developed only within the last thirty years, in the course
of studies in the foundations of mathematics.
— Aspects of the Theory of Syntax

Formal definition[edit]
Chomsky's advisor, Zellig Harris, took transformations to be relations between
sentences such as "I finally met this talkshow host you always detested" and
simpler (kernel) sentences "I finally met this talkshow host" and "You always
detested this talkshow host".[need quotation to verify] Chomsky developed a formal
theory of grammar where transformations manipulated not just the surface
strings, but the parse tree associated with them, making transformational
grammar a system of tree automata.[3] A transformational-generative (or simply
transformational) grammar thus involved two types of productive rules: phrase
structure rules, such as "S → NP VP" (meaning that a sentence may consist of a
noun phrase followed by a verb phrase) etc., which could be used to generate
grammatical sentences with associated parse trees (phrase markers, or P
markers); and transformational rules, such as rules for converting statements
to questions or active to passive voice, which acted on the phrase markers to
produce further grammatically correct sentences. (For more details see
the Transformations section below.)
In this context, transformational rules are not strictly necessary for the purpose of
generating the set of grammatical sentences in a language, since this can be done
using phrase structure rules alone; but the use of transformations provides
economy in some cases (allowing the total number of rules to be reduced), and
also provides a way of representing the grammatical relations that exist between
sentences, which would not otherwise be reflected in a system consisting of
phrase structure rules alone.[4]
This notion of transformation proved adequate for subsequent versions including
the "extended", "revised extended" and Government-Binding (GB) versions of
generative grammar, but may no longer be sufficient for the current minimalist
grammar, in that merge may require a formal definition that goes beyond the tree
manipulation characteristic of Move α.

Development of basic concepts[edit]

Though transformations continue to be important in Chomsky's current theories,
he has now abandoned the original notion of Deep Structure and Surface
Structure. Initially, two additional levels of representation were introduced (LF —
Logical Form, and PF — Phonetic Form), and then in the 1990s Chomsky sketched
out a new program of research known as Minimalism, in which Deep Structure
and Surface Structure no longer featured and PF and LF remained as the only
levels of representation.[5]
To complicate the understanding of the development of Noam Chomsky's
theories, the precise meanings of Deep Structure and Surface Structure have
changed over time — by the 1970s, the two were normally referred to simply as
D-Structure and S-Structure by Chomskyan linguists. In particular, the idea that
the meaning of a sentence was determined by its Deep Structure (taken to its
logical conclusions by the generative semanticists during the same period) was
dropped for good by Chomskyan linguists when LF took over this role (previously,
Chomsky and Ray Jackendoff had begun to argue that meaning was determined
by both Deep and Surface Structure).[6][7]

Innate linguistic knowledge[edit]

Terms such as "transformation" can give the impression that theories of
transformational generative grammar are intended as a model for the processes
through which the human mind constructs and understands sentences. Chomsky
is clear that this is not in fact the case: a generative grammar models only the
knowledge that underlies the human ability to speak and understand. One of the
most important of Chomsky's ideas is that most of this knowledge is innate, with
the result that a baby can have a large body of prior knowledge about the
structure of language in general, and need only actually learn the idiosyncratic
features of the language(s) it is exposed to. Chomsky was not the first person to
suggest that all languages had certain fundamental things in common (he quotes
philosophers writing several centuries ago who had the same basic idea), but he
helped to make the innateness theory respectable after a period dominated by
more behaviorist attitudes towards language. Perhaps more significantly, he
made concrete and technically sophisticated proposals about the structure of
language, and made important proposals regarding how the success of
grammatical theories should be evaluated.[citation needed]

Grammatical theories[edit]
In the 1960s, Chomsky introduced two central ideas relevant to the construction
and evaluation of grammatical theories. The first was the distinction
between competence and performance. Chomsky noted the obvious fact that
people, when speaking in the real world, often make linguistic errors (e.g.,
starting a sentence and then abandoning it midway through). He argued that
these errors in linguistic performance were irrelevant to the study of linguistic
competence (the knowledge that allows people to construct and understand
grammatical sentences). Consequently, the linguist can study an idealised version
of language, greatly simplifying linguistic analysis (see the "Grammaticality"
section below). The second idea related directly to the evaluation of theories of
grammar. Chomsky distinguished between grammars that achieve descriptive
adequacy and those that go further and achieved explanatory adequacy. A
descriptively adequate grammar for a particular language defines the (infinite) set
of grammatical sentences in that language; that is, it describes the language in its
entirety. A grammar that achieves explanatory adequacy has the additional
property that it gives an insight into the underlying linguistic structures in the
human mind; that is, it does not merely describe the grammar of a language, but
makes predictions about how linguistic knowledge is mentally represented. For
Chomsky, the nature of such mental representations is largely innate, so if a
grammatical theory has explanatory adequacy it must be able to explain the
various grammatical nuances of the languages of the world as relatively minor
variations in the universal pattern of human language. Chomsky argued that, even
though linguists were still a long way from constructing descriptively adequate
grammars, progress in terms of descriptive adequacy will only come if linguists
hold explanatory adequacy as their goal. In other words, real insight into the
structure of individual languages can only be gained through comparative study of
a wide range of languages, on the assumption that they are all cut from the same
cloth.[citation needed]

"I-language" and "E-language"[edit]

In 1986, Chomsky proposed a distinction between I-language and E-language,
similar but not identical to the competence/performance distinction.[8] "I-
language" refers to internal language and is contrasted with external language (or
E-language). I-language is taken to be the object of study in linguistic theory; it is
the mentally represented linguistic knowledge that a native speaker of a language
has, and is therefore a mental object — from this perspective, most of
theoretical linguistics is a branch of psychology. E-language encompasses all other
notions of what a language is, for example that it is a body of knowledge or
behavioural habits shared by a community. Thus, E-language is not itself a
coherent concept,[9]and Chomsky argues that such notions of language are not
useful in the study of innate linguistic knowledge, i.e., competence, even though
they may seem sensible and intuitive, and useful in other areas of study.
Competence, he argues, can only be studied if languages are treated as mental
objects.

Grammaticality[edit]
Further information: Grammaticality
Chomsky argued that the notions "grammatical" and "ungrammatical" could be
defined in a meaningful and useful way. In contrast, an extreme behaviorist
linguist would argue that language can only be studied through recordings or
transcriptions of actual speech, the role of the linguist being to look for patterns
in such observed speech, but not to hypothesize about why such patterns might
occur, nor to label particular utterances as either "grammatical" or
"ungrammatical". Although few linguists in the 1950s actually took such an
extreme position, Chomsky was at an opposite extreme, defining grammaticality
in an unusually mentalistic way (for the time).[10] He argued that the intuition of
a native speaker is enough to define the grammaticalness of a sentence; that is, if
a particular string of English words elicits a double take, or feeling of wrongness in
a native English speaker, and when various extraneous factors affecting intuitions
are controlled for, it can be said that the string of words is ungrammatical. This,
according to Chomsky, is entirely distinct from the question of whether a
sentence is meaningful, or can be understood. It is possible for a sentence to be
both grammatical and meaningless, as in Chomsky's famous example "colorless
green ideas sleep furiously".[11] But such sentences manifest a linguistic problem
distinct from that posed by meaningful but ungrammatical (non)-sentences such
as "man the bit sandwich the," the meaning of which is fairly clear, but no native
speaker would accept as well formed.
The use of such intuitive judgments permitted generative syntacticians to base
their research on a methodology in which studying language through a corpus of
observed speech became downplayed, since the grammatical properties of
constructed sentences were considered to be appropriate data to build a
grammatical model on.

Minimalism[edit]
Main article: Minimalist program
From the mid-1990s onwards, much research in transformational grammar has
been inspired by Chomsky's Minimalist Program.[12] The "Minimalist Program"
aims at the further development of ideas involving economy of
derivation and economy of representation, which had started to become
significant in the early 1990s, but were still rather peripheral aspects of
Transformational-generative grammar theory.

 Economy of derivation is a principle stating that movements (i.e.,

transformations) only occur in order to match interpretable
features with uninterpretable features. An example of an interpretable feature
is the plural inflection on regular English nouns, e.g., dogs. The word dogs can
only be used to refer to several dogs, not a single dog, and so this inflection
contributes to meaning, making it interpretable. English verbs are inflected
according to the number of their subject (e.g., "Dogs bite" vs "A dog bites"),
but in most sentences this inflection just duplicates the information about
number that the subject noun already has, and it is therefore uninterpretable.
 Economy of representation is the principle that grammatical structures must
exist for a purpose, i.e., the structure of a sentence should be no larger or
more complex than required to satisfy constraints on grammaticality.
Both notions, as described here, are somewhat vague, and indeed the precise
formulation of these principles is controversial.[13][14] An additional aspect of
minimalist thought is the idea that the derivation of syntactic structures should
be uniform; that is, rules should not be stipulated as applying at arbitrary points in
a derivation, but instead apply throughout derivations. Minimalist approaches to
phrase structure have resulted in "Bare Phrase Structure," an attempt to
eliminate X-bar theory. In 1998, Chomsky suggested that derivations proceed in
phases. The distinction of Deep Structure vs. Surface Structure is not present in
Minimalist theories of syntax, and the most recent phase-based theories also
eliminate LF and PF as unitary levels of representation.

Mathematical representation[edit]
Returning to the more general mathematical notion of a grammar, an important
feature of all transformational grammars is that they are more powerful
than context-free grammars.[15] This idea was formalized by Chomsky in
the Chomsky hierarchy. Chomsky argued that it is impossible to describe the
structure of natural languages using context-free grammars.[16] His general
position regarding the non-context-freeness of natural language has held up since
then, although his specific examples regarding the inadequacy of CFGs in terms of
their weak generative capacity were later disproven.[17][18]
Transformations[edit]
The usual usage of the term 'transformation' in linguistics refers to a rule that
takes an input typically called the Deep Structure (in the Standard Theory) or D-
structure (in the extended standard theory or government and binding theory)
and changes it in some restricted way to result in a Surface Structure (or S-
structure). In TGG, Deep structures were generated by a set of phrase structure
rules.
For example, a typical transformation in TG is the operation of subject-auxiliary
inversion (SAI). This rule takes as its input a declarative sentence with an auxiliary:
"John has eaten all the heirloom tomatoes." and transforms it into "Has John
eaten all the heirloom tomatoes?" In their original formulation (Chomsky 1957),
these rules were stated as rules that held over strings of either terminals or
constituent symbols or both.

X NP AUX Y X AUX NP Y
(where NP = Noun Phrase and AUX = Auxiliary)
In the 1970s, by the time of the Extended Standard Theory, following the work
of Joseph Emonds on structure preservation, transformations came to be
viewed as holding over trees. By the end of government and binding theory in
the late 1980s, transformations are no longer structure changing operations at
all; instead they add information to already existing trees by copying
constituents.
The earliest conceptions of transformations were that they were construction-
specific devices. For example, there was a transformation that turned active
sentences into passive ones. A different transformation raised embedded
subjects into main clause subject position in sentences such as "John seems to
have gone"; and yet a third reordered arguments in the dative alternation.
With the shift from rules to principles and constraints that was found in the
1970s, these construction-specific transformations morphed into general rules
(all the examples just mentioned being instances of NP movement), which
eventually changed into the single general rule of move alpha or Move.
Transformations actually come in two types: (i) the post-Deep structure kind
mentioned above, which are string or structure changing, and (ii) Generalized
Transformations (GTs). Generalized transformations were originally proposed
in the earliest forms of generative grammar (e.g., Chomsky 1957). They take
 small structures, either atomic or generated by other rules, and combine
them. For example, the generalized transformation of embedding would take
the kernel "Dave said X" and the kernel "Dan likes smoking" and combine
them into "Dave said Dan likes smoking." GTs are thus structure building
rather than structure changing. In the Extended Standard Theory
and government and binding theory, GTs were abandoned in favor
of recursive phrase structure rules. However, they are still present in tree-
adjoining grammar as the Substitution and Adjunction operations, and they
have recently re-emerged in mainstream generative grammar in Minimalism,
as the operations Merge and Move.
In generative phonology, another form of transformation is the phonological
rule, which describes a mapping between an underlying
representation (the phoneme) and the surface form that is articulated
during natural speech.[19]

Transformational grammar is a theory of grammar that accounts for the

constructions of a language by linguistic transformations and phrase structures.
Also known as transformational-generative grammar or T-G or TGG.

Following the publication of Noam Chomsky's book Syntactic Structures in 1957,

transformational grammar dominated the field of linguistics for the next few
decades. "The era of Transformational-Generative Grammar, as it is called,
signifies a sharp break with the linguistic tradition of the first half of the
[twentieth] century both in Europe and America because, having as its principal
objective the formulation of a finite set of basic and transformational rules that
explain how the native speaker of a language can generate and comprehend all its
possible grammatical sentences, it focuses mostly on syntax and not
on phonology or morphology, as structuralism does" (Encyclopedia of
Linguistics, 2005).

OBSERVATIONS

 "The new linguistics, which began in 1957 with the publication of Noam
Chomsky's Syntactic Structures, deserves the label 'revolutionary.' After
1957, the study of grammar would no longer be limited to what is said and
how it is interpreted. In fact, the word grammar itself took on a new
meaning. The new linguistics defined grammar as our innate, subconscious
ability to generate language, an internal system of rules that constitutes
 our human language capacity. The goal of the new linguistics was to
describe this internal grammar.

"Unlike the structuralists, whose goal was to examine the sentences we

actually speak and to describe their systemic nature,
the transformationalists wanted to unlock the secrets of language: to build
a model of our internal rules, a model that would produce all of the
grammatical—and no ungrammatical—sentences." (M. Kolln and R.
Funk, Understanding English Grammar. Allyn and Bacon, 1998)

 "[F]rom the word go, it has often been clear that Transformational
Grammar was the best available theory of language structure, while lacking
any clear grasp of what distinctive claims the theory made about human
language." (Geoffrey Sampson, Empirical Linguistics. Continuum, 2001)

SURFACE STRUCTURES AND DEEP STRUCTURES

"When it comes to syntax, [Noam] Chomsky is famous for proposing that beneath
every sentence in the mind of a speaker is an invisible, inaudible deep structure,
the interface to the mental lexicon.

The deep structure is converted by transformational rules into a surface

structurethat corresponds more closely to what is pronounced and heard. The
rationale is that certain constructions, if they were listed in the mind as surface
structures, would have to be multiplied out in thousands of redundant variations
that would have to have been learned one by one, whereas if the constructions
were listed as deep structures, they would be simple, few in number, and
economically learned." (Steven Pinker, Words and Rules. Basic Books, 1999)

TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR AND THE TEACHING OF WRITING

"Though it is certainly true, as many writers have pointed out, that sentence-
combining exercises existed before the advent of transformational grammar, it
should be evident that the transformational concept of embedding gave sentence
combining a theoretical foundation upon which to build. By the time Chomsky
and his followers moved away from this concept, sentence combining had enough
momentum to sustain itself." (Ronald F. Lunsford, "Modern Grammar and Basic
Writers." Research in Basic Writing: A Bibliographic Sourcebook, ed. by Michael G.
Moran and Martin J. Jacobi. Greenwood Press, 1990)
THE TRANSFORMATION OF TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR

"Chomsky initially justified replacing phrase-structure grammar by arguing that it

was awkward, complex, and incapable of providing adequate accounts of
language.

Transformational grammar offered a simple and elegant way to understand

language, and it offered new insights into the underlying psychological
mechanisms.

"As the grammar matured, however, it lost its simplicity and much of its elegance.
In addition, transformational grammar has been plagued by Chomsky's
ambivalence and ambiguity regarding meaning. . . . Chomsky continued to tinker
with transformational grammar, changing the theories and making it more
abstract and in many respects more complex, until all but those with specialized
training in linguistics were befuddled. . . .

"[T]he tinkering failed to solve most of the problems because Chomsky refused to
abandon the idea of deep structure, which is at the heart of T-G grammar but
which also underlies nearly all of its problems. Such complaints have fueled the
paradigm shift to cognitive grammar." (James D.

Williams, The Teacher's Grammar Book. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999)

"In the years since transformational grammar was formulated, it has gone
through a number of changes. In the most recent version, Chomsky (1995) has
eliminated many of the transformational rules in previous versions of the
grammar and replaced them with broader rules, such as a rule that moves one
constituent from one location to another. It was just this kind of rule on which the
trace studies were based. Although newer versions of the theory differ in several
respects from the original, at a deeper level they share the idea that syntactic
structure is at the heart of our linguistic knowledge. However, this view has been
controversial within linguistics." (David W. Carroll, Psychology of Language, 5th
ed. Thomson Wadsworth, 2008)

TRANSFORMATIONAL-GENERATIVE GRAMMAR, short form TG. In

theoretical LINGUISTICS, a type of generative grammar first advocated by
Noam CHOMSKY in Syntactic Structures (1957). Since then, there have been many
changes in the descriptive apparatus of TG. Common to all versions is the view
that some rules are transformational: that is, they change one structure into
another according to such prescribed conventions as moving, inserting, deleting,
and replacing items. From an early stage of its history, TG has stipulated two
levels of syntactic structure: deep structure (an abstract underlying structure that
incorporates all the syntactic information required for the interpretation of a
given sentence) and surface structure (a structure that incorporates all the
syntactic features of a sentence required to convert the sentence into a spoken or
written version). Transformations link deep with surface structure. A typical
transformation is the rule for forming questions, which requires that the normal
subject—verb order is inverted so that the surface structure of Can I see you
later? differs in order of elements from that of I can see you later. The theory
postulates that the two sentences have the same order in deep structure, but the
question transformation changes the order to that in surface structure. Sentences
that are syntactically ambiguous have the same surface structures but different
deep structures: for example, the sentence Visiting relatives can be a nuisance is
ambiguous in that the subject Visiting relatives may correspond to To visit
relatives or to Relatives that visit. The ambiguity is dissolved if the modal
verb can is omitted, since the clausal subject requires a singular verb (Visiting
relatives is a nuisance), whereas the phrasal subject requires the plural (Visiting
relatives are a nuisance)

Noam Chomsky

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001

1928–, educator and linguist, b. Philadelphia. Chomsky, who has taught at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology since 1955, developed a theory of
transformational (sometimes called generative or transformational-generative)
grammar that revolutionized the scientific study of language. He first set out his
abstract analysis of language in his doctoral dissertation (1955) and Syntactic
Structures (1957). Instead of starting with minimal sounds, as the structural
linguists had done, Chomsky began with the rudimentary or primitive sentence;
from this base he developed his argument that innumerable syntactic
combinations can be generated by means of a complex series of rules.

According to transformational grammar, every intelligible sentence conforms not

only to grammatical rules peculiar to its particular language, but also to “deep
structures,” a universal grammar underlying all languages and corresponding to an
innate capacity of the human brain. Chomsky and other linguists who built on his
work formulated transformational rules, which transform a sentence with a given
grammatical structure (e.g., “John saw Mary”) into a sentence with a different
grammatical structure but the same essential meaning (“Mary was seen by John”).
Transformational linguistics has been influential in psycholinguistics, particularly in
the study of language acquisition by children. In the 1990s Chomsky formulated a
“Minimalist Program” in an attempt to simplify the symbolic representations of the
language facility.

Chomsky is a prolific author whose principal linguistic works after Syntactic

Structures include Current Issues in Linguistic Theory (1964), The Sound Pattern of
English (with Morris Halle, 1968), Language and Mind (1972), Studies on Semantics
in Generative Grammar (1972), and Knowledge of Language (1986). In addition, he
has wide-ranging political interests. He was an early and outspoken critic of U.S.
involvement in the Vietnam War and has written extensively on many political
issues from a generally left-wing point of view. Among his political writings
are American Power and the New Mandarins (1969), Peace in the Middle
East? (1974), Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and
Binding (1982) [this is actually a book on linguistics, not politics –
www.chomsky.info], Manufacturing Consent (with E. S. Herman, 1988), Profit over
People (1998), and Rogue States(2000). Chomsky’s controversial bestseller 9-
11 (2002) is an analysis of the World Trade Center attack that, while denouncing
the atrocity of the event, traces its origins to the actions and power of the United
States, which he calls “a leading terrorist state.”
See biography by R. F. Barsky (1997); interviews with D. Barsamian (1992, 1994,
1996, and 2001); studies by F. D’Agostino (1985), C. P. Otero (1988 and 1998), R.
Salkie (1990), M. Achbar, ed. (1994), M. Rai (1995), V. J. Cook (1996), P. Wilkin
(1997), J. McGilvray (1999), N. V. Smith (1999), A. Edgley (2000), and H. Lasnik
(2000);Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (film by P.
Wintonick and M. Achbar, 1992) and Power and Terror: Noam Chomsky in Our
Times (documentary film dir. by J. Junkerman, 2002).

The deep structure is a direct representation of the basics

emantic relations underlying a sentence. It is the underlying meaningof the
sentence.Let’s take an example to understand the difference
betweendeep and surface structures.
i ) I a t e a b a n a n a . ii)A banana was eaten by me.
I n t hi s ex a m pl e
i)
is active voice and
ii)
i s pa s s i v e v o i c e. Structures of the sentences are different but the
meanings are same.In the above example there are two surface
structures but one deepstructure or underlying meaning. It means that a
sentence can havetwo or many surface structure but one deep structure.Now
take another example;“The lady beat a man with an umbrella.”W ha t w e r ea d
i s t he s ur f a ce s tr u c t ur e o f t hi s s en t e n ce ,
butw h e n w e p o n d e r o n i t s m e a n i n g w e f e e l a m b i g u i t y i n g e
t t i n g i t s meaning. Whether it means that the lady is having an umbrella
andshe is beating the man with it or that the lady is beating the man whois
having an umbrella. This ambiguity leads to two different
meaningso f o n e s e n t e n c e . I t m e a n s t h a t a s e n t e n c e c a n h
a v e o n s u r f a c e structure but more deep structures.
Tree Diagram:
I t i s d e f i n e d a s a w a y o f r e p r e s e n t i n g a s e n t e n c e w i t h i t s str
ucture. This structure is drawn in the shape of tree having branches. This type of
tree-diagram representation contains all the grammaticalinformation found in the
other analyses, but also shows more explicitlythe fact that there are different
levels in the analysis.e.g., The monkey ate a
banana.N P V P Tree
diagram of this sentence would be like this,

Phrase Structure Rule:

Phase structure rules are used to describe a given language’ssyntax. This is
accomplished by attempting to break language
downi n t o i t s c o n s t i t u e n t p a r t s n a m e l y P h r a s a l C a t e g o r i e s a
n d L e x i c a l Categories. The former include the noun phrase (NP), verb phrase
(VP)and prepositional phrase (PP). And the latter include noun (N), verb
(V),adjective (Adj), adverb (Adv) and many others. These rules present the
information of the tree-diagram in analternative
format.e.g.,S V P
+ N P NPN
N P N +
a r t N P N +
a r t + a d j VPV
V P a u x
+ V V P
V + P
P PP Preposition + NP
2: Transformation:
Literally transformation means “ to change the form of something.” Here we
write a sentence then we change its form bymoving, adding, deleting some
words but the actual meanings remainsthe same.e.g.,
i)
I met my friend yesterday.
ii)
Yesterday I met my friend.In the first sentence the adverbs is in the lastplace and
in the second sentence the adverb is in the first place butthe meanings of both of
the sentences are same just it has beentransformed into another structure.Let’s
take another example.
iii)
He is ridiculing his friend. To make this sentence interrogative we transform
the positionor shape of the sentence by moving the auxiliary verb.
iv)
Is he ridiculing his friend? This shows that by transformation we can produce
manysentences by keeping in view one sentence

ompetence versus Performance

How do we know that students have learned a

language? We can assess students using formative and
summative assessments but how do we know that
students will actually be able to use their language in
real-life, authentic situations? In short, how do we know
that our students are competent in the target
language? One way to judge this competency is through
students’ performance. However, how do we know that
this performance is an accurate measure of what students actually know? In this
section we will examine these questions further by looking at competence versus
performance.

What is the difference between competence and performance?

Chomsky separates competence and performance; he describes 'competence' as

an idealized capacity that is located as a psychological or mental property or
function and ‘performance’ as the production of actual utterances. In short,
competence involves “knowing” the language and performance involves “doing”
something with the language. The difficulty with this construct is that it is very
difficult to assess competence without assessing performance.

Why is it important to make a distinction between competence and

performance?

Noting the distinction

between competence and
performance is useful
primarily because it allows
those studying a language
to differentiate between a
speech error and not
knowing something about
the language. To
understand this
distinction, it is helpful to
think about a time when
you've made some sort of
error in your speech. For
example, let's say you are
a native speaker of English
and utter the following:

We swimmed in the ocean

this weekend.

Is this error due to

competence or
performance? It is most
likely that as a native speaker you are aware how to conjugate irregular verbs in
the past but your performance has let you down this time. Linguists use the
distinction between competence and performance to illustrate the intuitive
difference between accidentally saying swimmed and the fact that a child or non-
proficient speaker of English may not know that the past tense of swim is swam
and say swimmed consistently.
back to top

How do competence and performance apply to the language classroom?

As we have learned, competence and performance involve “knowing” and

“doing”. In the recent past, many language instruction programs have focused
more on the “knowing” (competence) part of learning a language wherein words
and sentences are presented and practiced in a way to best help learners
internalize the forms. The assumption here is that once the learners have
‘learned’ the information they will be able to use it through reading, writing,
listening and speaking. The disadvantage of this approach is that the learners are
unable to use the language in a natural way. Having been trained to learn the
language through “knowing”, learners have difficulty reversing this training and
actually “doing” something with the language. In brief, it is difficult to assess
whether the learners’ insufficient proficiency is due to limitations of competency
or a lack of performance.

In order to focus learners more on the “doing” part of learning, which allows a
more accurate measure of learners’ language proficiency, a more communicative
approach to teaching can be used. This type of approach concentrates on getting
learners to do things with the language. If we think of B-SLIM we can see that this
relates to the Getting It and Using It stages of the model. By encouraging
students to eventually “learn through the language” as opposed to strictly
learning the language there is a more balanced focus on both competence and
performance.

back to top

ompetence versus Performance

How do we know that students have learned a

language? We can assess students using formative and
summative assessments but how do we know that
students will actually be able to use their language in
real-life, authentic situations? In short, how do we know
that our students are competent in the target
language? One way to judge this competency is through
students’ performance. However, how do we know that
this performance is an accurate measure of what students actually know? In this
section we will examine these questions further by looking at competence versus
performance.

What is the difference between competence and performance?

Chomsky separates competence and performance; he describes 'competence' as

an idealized capacity that is located as a psychological or mental property or
function and ‘performance’ as the production of actual utterances. In short,
competence involves “knowing” the language and performance involves “doing”
something with the language. The difficulty with this construct is that it is very
difficult to assess competence without assessing performance.

Why is it important to make a distinction between competence and

performance?
Noting the distinction
between competence and
performance is useful
primarily because it allows
those studying a language
to differentiate between a
speech error and not
knowing something about
the language. To
understand this
distinction, it is helpful to
think about a time when
you've made some sort of
error in your speech. For
example, let's say you are
a native speaker of English
and utter the following:

We swimmed in the ocean

this weekend.

Is this error due to

competence or
performance? It is most
likely that as a native speaker you are aware how to conjugate irregular verbs in
the past but your performance has let you down this time. Linguists use the
distinction between competence and performance to illustrate the intuitive
difference between accidentally saying swimmed and the fact that a child or non-
proficient speaker of English may not know that the past tense of swim is swam
and say swimmed consistently.

back to top

How do competence and performance apply to the language classroom?

As we have learned, competence and performance involve “knowing” and

“doing”. In the recent past, many language instruction programs have focused
more on the “knowing” (competence) part of learning a language wherein words
and sentences are presented and practiced in a way to best help learners
internalize the forms. The assumption here is that once the learners have
‘learned’ the information they will be able to use it through reading, writing,
listening and speaking. The disadvantage of this approach is that the learners are
unable to use the language in a natural way. Having been trained to learn the
language through “knowing”, learners have difficulty reversing this training and
actually “doing” something with the language. In brief, it is difficult to assess
whether the learners’ insufficient proficiency is due to limitations of competency
or a lack of performance.

In order to focus learners more on the “doing” part of learning, which allows a
more accurate measure of learners’ language proficiency, a more communicative
approach to teaching can be used. This type of approach concentrates on getting
learners to do things with the language. If we think of B-SLIM we can see that this
relates to the Getting It and Using It stages of the model. By encouraging
students to eventually “learn through the language” as opposed to strictly
learning the language there is a more balanced focus on both competence and
performance.

back to top