issues of special relevance to the project. They are: what are the major constitutive components of communicative competence, whether - and to what extent - the components can be delineated clearly.
In responding to her concerns, not only do project researchers, ( Allen, Cummins, Harley, and Swain, 1990: p.53) accept Chomsky’s linguistic competence, but they also claim to be demonstrating a broadening of competence. An exchange between the two parties about competence is quite revealing.
Schacter says that beyond the level of isolated sentences, confusion, disagreement and fragmentation are reflected in “the overall state of knowledge” about communicative competence. On the other hand, the researchers emphasise that grammar, discourse, and sociolinguistic constructs do not “represent everything that is involved in communicative competence.” They, however, express their research aims: isolate aspects of communicative competence they consider to be educationally relevant, test the hypo
thesis that these aspects would emerge “as distinct components and would be differentially manifested under different task conditions and in different learning settings.”
It would not be unreasonable to state that efforts to identify some of the foregoing aspects take place by examining communication strategies ( CS ) among foreign and second language users. Standing prominently among the investigators are: Yule and Tarone ( 1997 ), Poulisse ( 1997 ), Rampton ( 1997 ), Wilkes-Gibbs ( 1997 ), Kasper and Kellerman ( 1997 ), Wagner and Firth ( 1997 ). There is, doubtless, no single account of what constitutes communication strategies ( CS ). These strategies can, however, be classified under two broad categories, those derived from psycholinguistic and interactional views of communication.
The psycholinguistic or “intra-individual” perspective is neatly summarised by Kasper and Kellerman (1997, p. 2) who state that its proponents locate CS in models of speech production or cognitive organisation and processing. Proponents of the interactive approach, on the other hand, locate CS within the social and contextually contingent aspects of language production which covers features of use characterised as “problematic.” ( Wagner and Firth, 1997: pp. 325 - 327 ).
Crucial to understanding these problematic aspects is knowing about markers which indicate that speakers experience difficulty in expressing talk. Such speakers “flag” problems in discourse encoding, thus signaling the imminence of a CS. Flagging provides speaker/hearers with information about how utterances are to be interpreted and acted upon and can be exemplified by such phenomena as pausing, change of voice quality, or intonation contour, and rhythms.
Wagner and Firth note that what is essential to the interactional approach is investigating how communication is attained as a situated, contingent accomplishment. Interactionists regard CS as things displayed publicly and made visible to an analyst via participants’ actions. Emphasis is on the social, rather than, individual or cognitive processes underlying talk. Interactionists define instances of talk as CS, if and only if participants, themselves, make an encoded related problem public in the talk and, thus, engage, individually or collaboratively, in efforts to resolve the problem. CS are available to analysts, only in so far as they are produced and reacted upon by parties to talk. Further, the encoding problem may be either purely
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。