英语论文网

is, surely expression of preference for the broad version of competence, they state that it is inadequate for persons to possess knowledge about rules of sentence formation, they must also know how to utilise rules for the purpose of producing appropriate utterances. The Hymesian position is endorsed, also, by Hudson ( 1980, pp. 219 - 220 ) who regards communicative competence as much more broadly based than “the ‘linguistic competence’ of Chomskyan linguistics”. Communicative competence includes knowledge of linguistic forms, and ability to use the forms appropriately. If all of the aforementioned references to competence are appropriate indicators of the broad version, then it would appear that this version could be of dual significance to communicativists. Not only is there indication, within this version, that action is meaningful, it seems, also, to be a version which is entirely compatible with the communicative aim of assisting students to produce target language as central feature of their social interaction. Hence, the broad version could be employed to help learners. And according tho Stern ( 1990, pp. 94 - 95 ), interest in communicative language teaching has grown and spread since the late nineteen seventies. “Communication or communicative competence has come to be viewed as the main objective of language teaching; at the same time, communication has increasingly been seen as the instrument, the method, or way of teaching.” Quite apart from Stern’s position, Canale and Swain ( 1980, pp. 35 - 36 ) imply, very strongly, that communicative competence could be used as a significant basis to helping students produce target language as a central feature of their social interaction. They state that one of the many aspects of communicative competence which must be investigated, more rigorously, before a communicative approach can be implemented fully in the areas of second language teaching and testing is: development of administratively feasible classroom activities that can be used to encourage meaningful action in target language use. Some of these activities have been developed by Tarone and Yule ( 1989, pp. 68 - 128 ). They analyse and discuss means, as well as, instruments classroom teachers can utilise to determine students’ abilities within areas of grammatical, sociolinguistic, and strategic competence. It is these very areas which are analysed as some of the significant components in a Bilingual Proficiency Project, a highly ambitious effort to provide what Schacter ( 1990, p. 39 ) views as empirical justification for a model of linguistic proficiency. This five year research project was conducted in the nineteen eighties at the Modern Language Centre, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Canada. The main purpose of this project was to examine a group of educationally relevant issues concerned with the second language development of school age children. Three of the issues were the effect of classroom treatment on second language learning, the relation of social-environmental factors to bilingual proficiency, and the relation between age and language proficiency ( Allen, Cummins, Harley, and Swain, 1990: p. 1 ). While Schacter does express reservations about adequacy and clarity of the concept, communicative competence, as well as, its exemplification in the project, she does not recommend its rejection. She - in fact - endorses Chomsky’s grammatical or linguistic competence, although she notes three