Grammatical Knowledge (PDF)

Grammatical Knowledge for Lado (1961) Lado (1961), influenced by structuralist theory, proposed a ‘skill-and-elements’ model of language proficiency that viewed language ability as three or one less independent, yet related, dimensions of language knowledge, interpreted rather narrowly as phonology...

Grammatical Knowledge for Lado (1961) Lado (1961), influenced by structuralist theory, proposed a ‘skill-and-elements’ model of language proficiency that viewed language ability as three or one less independent, yet related, dimensions of language knowledge, interpreted rather narrowly as phonology, structure and the lexicon- all aspects of linguistic form. For Lado, the underlying assumption was the proficient second or foreign language learners would be able to demonstrate their knowledge of the elements (i.e. Phonology, structure, and lexicon) in the context of the language skills (i.e. listening, reading, speaking and writing) Grammatical knowledge for Lado consisted solely of morphosyntactic form. Assessment is predictably Discrete- point approach. Grammatical knowledge for Lado consisted solely of morphosyntactic form. Assessment is predictably Discrete- point approach. Grammatical Knowledge for Caroll (1968) Building on Lado’s (1961) notion of language proficiency , Carrol (1968) defined language in terms of phonology and orthography, grammar, and the lexicon. For Carroll, however, grammatical competence incorporated both the morphosyntax and semantic components of grammar, whereas lexical competence included morphemes, words and idioms on the one hand, and the semantic and grammatical components of the lexicon on the other. In other words, she recognized the overlap between form and meaning in instance of language use. Carroll (1968) expanded Lado’s (1961) model of language knowledge by arguing that tests should be designed to predict the use of language elements and skills in future social situations or future tasks that the learners might encounter in life Assessment is discrete-point, complemented by integrative tasks that would assess learner’s capacity to use several components of language at the same time. Caroll further characterized grammatical knowledge as being intrinsically associated with use, thereby redefining language proficiency as the degree to which the learner can demonstrate control of phonology or orthography, grammar (morphology, syntax) and the lexicon, while using one of the language skills in some real-life task. Grammatical Knowledge for Oller (1979) Influenced by Carroll’s (1961, 1968) ideas on grammar and language use, Oller (1979) rejected the elements-and-skills approach to proficiency, proposing instead a view of second or foreign language proficiency in terms of an individual’s ‘pragmatic expectancy grammar’. He defined pragmatic expectancy grammar as a psychologically real system that ‘causes the learner to process sequences of elements in a language that conform to the normal contextual constraints of that language, and... requires the learner to relate sequences of linguistic elements via pragmatic mappings to the extralinguistic context’ In other words, pragmatic expectancy grammar attributes the shape of linguistic forms to contextual meanings, which reflect the prototypical norms, preferences and expectations of language in communicating real-life messages. This provides a basis for the test-taker to predict information for the gap, invoking the notion of ‘expectancy’. The type of information the test-taker might be expected to supply could relate to linguistic form, semantic meaning and/or pragmatic use, or could, in some way, tap into the test-taker’s rhetorical, sociocultural or topical knowledge. For example, a test-taker might examine the linguistic environment of the gap and determine from the sequential organization of language (i.e., expectancy grammar) that a verb best completes the gap. He or she might also decide that the verb needs to carry past meaning and embody a specific lexical form. Finally, in realizing that the contextual focus of the sentence is on the action and not on the agent, the test-taker uses a passive voice construction (pragmatic use). Pragmatic expectancy grammar forces the test-taker to integrate his or her knowledge of grammar, meaning and pragmatic use to complete the task. ‘Grammar’ in this view embraces not only grammatical form (involving phonology, morphosyntax and the lexicon) on the sentential level, but also grammatical form on the suprasentential or discourse level through cohesion and coherence. It also involves grammatical form on a pragmatic level through extralinguistic reference that might be invoked by the suppliance of a contextually appropriate word. Oller’s (1979) notion of pragmatic expectancy grammar can thus be credited as the first serious attempt in language testing to define grammar as an integration of linguistic form and pragmatic use as this relates to context. Competence and Performance Chomsky first proposed the distinction between competence and performance. Competence refers to our knowledge of a language(s). Linguistic Competence is the ability to recognize or know the elements that constitute a language in terms of its sounds (phonetics) combination (phonology), words (morphology), word order (syntax), meaning (semantic), and its use (pragmatics). Competence and Performance Chomsky first proposed the distinction between competence and performance. Performance is the actual use of language in concrete situation. Linguistic Performance is the ability to comprehend and produce the language in a specific and concrete situation. Competence and Performance Chomsky first proposed the distinction between competence and performance. Chomsky’s distinction between competence and performance has undergone some criticism, such as for the emphasis on grammar in his definition of competence. Subsequently, Dell Hymes and others have introduced the concept of “communicative competence,” which refers to an individual’s knowledge of how to use language appropriately in different social and communicative contexts. Communicative Competence Lado (1961) and Carroll (1968) tended to center on the language skills and components. skills being the LSRW; components vocabulary, grammar, phonology, or graphology. Bachman (1990) stated that these models do not indicate how the skills and components are integrated. Hymes (1972) suggested that such models tend to ignore the sociocultural and sociolinguistic context of language. “...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) COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE by Canale and Swain Four Components of Competence: Linguistic Competence Sociolinguistic Competence Discourse Competence Strategic Competence Linguistic Competence 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 explicit knowledge of the phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics. Sociolinguistic Competence The knowledge of sociocultural rules of use, i.e. knowing how to use and respond to language appropriately. Language appropriateness depends on the setting of communication, the topic, and the relationships among the people communicating. Appropriate also depends on knowing what the taboos of the culture are, what politeness indices are used, what the politically correct terms are, how a specific attitude (authority, friendliness, courtesy, irony etc.) is expressed and the like. Discourse Competence The knowledge of how to produce and comprehend oral or written texts in the modes of speaking-writing and listening-reading respectively. Ability to combine language structures into a cohesive and coherent oral or written text of different types. It deals with organizing words, phrases, and sentences in order to create conversations, speeches, poetry, email messages, newspaper articles and the like. Strategic Competence The ability to recognize and repair communication breakdowns before, during, or after they occur. During the conversation, background noise or other factors may hinder communication; thus the speaker must know how to keep the communication channel open. Strategies may be requests for repetition, clarification, slower speech, or the usage of gestures, taking turns in conversation and the like. COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE by Bachman ORGANIZATIONAL COMPETENCE Grammatical Competence: This comprises knowledge of vocabulary, syntax, morphology and phonology/graphology. Textual Competence: This involves ‘the knowledge of the conventions for joining utterances together to form a text, which is essentially a unit of language — spoken or written — consisting of two or more utterances or sentences’ PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE Illocutionary Competence: Following Halliday (1973), Bachman (1990) lists four language functions as part of illocutionary competence: ideational (the way we convey meanings and experiences), manipulative (using language in an instrumental way to achieve ends), heuristic (the use of language to discover new things about our world and solving problems), imaginative function (using language beyond the ‘here and now’ (e.g. for humor or fantasy). Sociolinguistic Competence: This is the sensitivity to the context where language is used, ensuring that language is appropriate to the person or situation. This is the ability to interpret cultural references and figures of speech. Sometimes, to understand a particular conversation, one needs inner cultural understanding of a specific language. STRATEGIC COMPETENCE Strategic Competence: Individuals’ ability to constantly plan, execute and assess their communication strategies and delivery. GRAMMAR by Rea-Dickin (1991) Rea-Dickins (1991) further stated that the goal of communicative grammar tests is to provide an ‘opportunity for the test-taker to create his or her own message and to produce grammatical responses as appropriate to a given context’. This underscores the notion that pragmatic appropriateness or acceptability can add a crucial dimension to communication, and must not be ignored. We must remember, however, that communication can occur on a literal level and, at the same time, on a number of pragmatic levels. Grammatical Ability Although our basic underlying model of grammar will remain the same in all testing situations (i.e., grammatical form and meaning), what it means to ‘know’ grammar for different contexts will most likely change. In other words, the type, range and scope of grammatical features required to communicate accurately and meaningfully will vary from one situation to another. The type of grammatical knowledge needed to write a formal academic essay would be very different from that needed to make a train reservation. Given the many possible ways of interpreting what it means to ‘know’ grammar, it is important that we define what we mean by ‘grammatical knowledge’ for any given testing situation. A clear definition of what we believe it means to ‘know’ grammar for a particular testing context will then allow us to construct tests that measure grammatical ability. The many possible ways of interpreting what it means to ‘know grammar’ or to have ‘grammatical ability’ highlight the importance in language assessment of defining key terms. Grammatical Knowledge Grammatical Knowledge refers to a set of informational structures that are built up through experience and stored in long-term memory. Language Knowledge is then a mental representation of informational structures related to language. Grammar is defined of grammatical form and meaning, which are available to be accessed in language use. Grammatical Ability ‘Knowledge’ refers to a set of informational structures available for use in long-term memory. Ability, however, encompasses more than just a domain of information in memory; it also involves the capacity to use these informational structures in some way. Language ability, sometimes called communicative competence or language proficiency, refers to an individual’s capacity to utilize mental representations of language knowledge built up through practice or experience in order to convey meaning. Given this definition, language ability, by its very nature, involves more than just language knowledge. Bachman and Palmer (1996) characterize language ability as a combination of language knowledge and strategic competence, defined as a set of metacognitive strategies (e.g., planning, evaluating) and, cognitive strategies (e.g., associating, clarifying), for the purpose of ‘creating and interpreting discourse in both testing and non-testing situations”. Every instance of grammar use is a manifestation of grammatical performance, taking into account that the underlying ability may be masked by interactions with other attributes of the test-taker or the test task. Although a grammar test elicits instances of grammatical performance, the primary goal of testing is to make inferences about test-takers’ underlying grammatical ability, or how they are able to use their grammatical knowledge to convey meaning. This, of course, must be done on the basis of test performance.