General language competence

Now that the notion of competence has been clarified to some extent it is time to start considering what it actually means to know or be competent in a language. Firstly, we must consider which skills are the ones needed for effective language use. Secondly, are those skills distinguishable or do they function as a whole? Thirdly, since the concept of competence can mean different things to different people, as was seen above, can people have different ideas about which skills are more important for general language competence? This section of the paper will be dedicated to discussing different aspects of language competence and I will provide some definitions by different scholars and the Common European Framework of Reference.

Before the current trends and developments took place the field of linguistics had been affected by many different movements and theories. The structuralist linguistic theory, for example, had a strong influence and therefore for a long time knowing a language basically meant merely knowing the different elements and components of that language (Vollmer and Sang 1983, 33). Another influential theory was developed in the late 1950s by Noam Chomsky, who aimed at producing a particular type of grammar, which would portray an explicit system of rules that specify which combinations of basic elements would result in well-formed or grammatically correct sentences. This sort of grammar resembled mathematical rules, since it would form all the well-formed sentences and fail to form any ill-formed ones. The grammar would also have a finite

amount of rules but would be capable of producing an infinite amount of sentences. The word ‘would’ must be emphasized at this point, since such fully formed grammar does not yet exist, regardless of the attempts that have been made in order to form one. (Yule 1996, 101.) It must also be remembered that Chomsky’s grammar, as Kormos (2006, 91) points out, has to do with ‘the general principles that govern language’ instead of the psychological processes that are needed in language production. However, it must also be pointed out that much of Chomsky’s work underlies the theories and models that have emerged since the 1960s and as Pawley and Hodgetts Syder (1983, 193) point out, Chomsky’s generative grammar ‘is a part of what a person must know in order to be a competent user of any language’ and this is true for both learners and native speakers of any language. Hence, given the topic of this study, we must note the aspect of this grammar when discussing language competence.

Another famous model proposed by Carroll (1961, cited in de Jong 1991, 12-13) in the 1960s listed 10 aspects that should be considered when trying to specify what constitutes as language proficiency:

1) knowledge of structure;

2) knowledge of lexicon;

3) auditory discrimination of speech sounds;

4) oral production of speech sounds;

5) technical reading i.e. reading out loud;

6) technical writing i.e. transforming spoken discourse into written from;

7) rate and accuracy of listening comprehension;

8) rate and quality of speaking;

9) rate and accuracy of reading comprehension; and 10) rate and accuracy of written composition.

The model can be divided into three groups: 1) and 2) represent features of linguistic knowledge; 3) to 6) include aspects of ‘channel control with respect to each of the four modes of language use’; and 7) to 10), which combines the previous groups by integrating performance into these four modes of language use. Basically what Carroll intends to express, is that both linguistic knowledge and channel control can be distinguished in each of the integrated skills. His work in the field of psycholinguistics has provided significant contributions to the understanding of how human language functions. (de Jong 1991.) Another widely used model proposed by Canale & Swain in 1980 is based on an extensive analysis according to which language proficiency consists of grammatical, textual, sociolinguistic and (added by Canale in 1983) strategic competencies. Bachman later elaborated this model by adding the aspect of functionality. (Huhta 2010, 35.)

During the past few decades the understanding of what constitutes as knowledge or competence of foreign language has broadened immensely. After other models and the ones presented above, in the 1980s the direction was that language skills were considered an instrumental subject and in the 1990s a skills subject, whereas in the 2000s it is regarded in three ways: a skills, knowledge and cultural subject (Harjanne 2008, 112). De Jong and Verhoeven (1992, 3) follow these lines by stating that for many decades there has been an on-going debate on the number of factors that formulate language performance. This is partly due to the fact that language proficiency is not static, since the different factors are affected by different stages of development and individual differences, for example, and therefore it is difficult to determine the exact number of factors that contribute to it (de Jong 1991, 17). The end of the 20^th century has been marked by the existence of two major movements specifically that have to do with modeling language proficiency. The first movement has led to the definition of scales, which are used to evaluate the subject against an idealized model, in other words the native speaker. The second movement has aimed at combining the notion of communicative competence into the models of language proficiency. (de Jong

& Verhoeven 1992, 4-5.) Saleva (1997, 15) agrees with de Jong and Verhoeven by stating that numerous attempts at forming a comprehensive theory of language proficiency have been made but none has yet succeeded in doing so. She also concurs that agreement has surfaced in the form of communicative competence having become the dominant feature in all language proficiency theories in the past twenty-five years.

Especially two domains have proved to be difficult in defining language proficiency:

the knowledge of the language and the interaction of the different elements that are at play in interactive situations.

Generally speaking, four major skills are usually discussed in reference to language testing and teaching: listening, speaking, writing and reading. As opposed to the latter ones, the first two represent oral skills. Listening and reading, on the other hand, stand for receptive skills, whereas speaking and writing can be considered productive skills.

(de Jong 1991, 16.) However, according to Bachman & Palmer (1996, 75) it seems inadequate to restrict these channels only to those skills, since writing an e-mail, for example, often has more in common with oral communication than with reading a newspaper, even though both involve using the visual channel. The fact that language does not exist in a vacuum but is a more complex and context related phenomenon, also supports this view (ibid). Even though many theories support the fact that language is

not a set of independent skills but rather they form an overall proficiency, listening, speaking, writing and reading have traditionally been regarded as composing language ability. Therefore these skills will be focused in the present study as well. More specifically the main focus will be on speaking, as it is the most relevant for oral competence, but in the next section I am also going to discuss the other three skills briefly in order to provide a more comprehensive view of what constitutes as language competence (for more detailed description of the four skills see Carter and Nunan 2001).

In this paper I have chosen the Common European Framework of Reference [CEFR] as the main point of comparison for language competence, since it is the basis for all Finnish national curricula. In the next section I am going to present the different language proficiency levels presented by the CEFR and also discuss some of the general competencies.