Some definitions of language competence

When going through previous studies or papers dealing with language competence, it becomes apparent that a variety of terms are being used to refer to the same phenomenon. Often the terms proficiency, fluency or foreign language ability are used and sometimes even the term performance is mentioned in the context (see e.g. Iwashita

et al. 2008; Chomsky 1965; Segalowitz 2010, Vollmer and Sang 1983). One of the problems is that the different terms are not used consistently in the literature and some of them are used as synonyms, making it difficult to obtain a coherent picture of the field. Moreover, it is not always clear what the different definitions entail and definitions can vary quite tremendously from researcher to researcher (Iwashita et al.

2008, 25). For example the term proficiency has known various definitions over the years, some of them having to do with the level of competence or knowledge of the rules, to mention a few (Vollmer and Sang 1983, 30). In this section I will look into some of the different definitions that have been suggested in the past and make explicit which definition is going to be used in the present study.

The Collins Cobuild Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2006, 279) and the New Oxford American Dictionary (2009) define the term competence in much the same way: as the ability to do something well, successfully or effectively. This description seems to indicate that the term proficiency in itself entails quite a high level of language ability.

A Dictionary of Synonyms and Antonyms (1998, 44) provides such words as proficiency and capability as synonyms for competence. However, the term proficiency as such did not appear in the above-mentioned dictionaries and capability can be said to have a slightly different tone to it: as in having the physical demands of completing a given task. The Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics (1985, 52) defines competence largely by using Chomsky’s generative grammar, which will later be explained in more detail, as a point of departure stating that competence is ‘a person’s ability to create and understand sentences, including sentences they have never heard before. It also includes a person’s knowledge of what are and what are not sentences of a particular language’

(Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics 1985, 52). The dictionary also distinguishes between competence and performance and points out that often competence is used to refer to ‘the ideal speaker/hearer, that is an idealized but not a real person who would have a complete knowledge of the whole language’. It also makes an interesting distinction between language proficiency and language achievement. Language proficiency refers to a person’s proficiency of using that language for a specific purpose. In other words, it is ‘the degree of skill with which a person can use a language, such as how well a person can read, write, speak, or understand language’. Language achievement, on the other hand, refers to a learners’

proficiency that has been acquired as ‘the result of what has been taught or learned after a period of instruction’. (ibid, 154, 159.) When measuring language proficiency we are

not, however, concerned with a particular curriculum but rather want to measure different degrees of knowing a language in general, i.e. to what extent and adequacy the learner can use the language in different settings (Vollmer and Sang 1983, 31).

Hammerly (1991, 41), also makes a distinction between second language (SL) competence and SL proficiency by stating that these two aspects have a difference in emphasis, meaning that competence ‘focuses on the application of linguistic competence to communicative situations’ and proficiency ‘stresses survival in communicative situations, with lesser focus on the language as such’.

Fluency is another aspect that is often discussed in relation to competence and the New Oxford American Dictionary (2009) describes it as ‘the quality or condition of being fluent, in particular the ability to express oneself easily and accurately (especially in a foreign language)’. However, as was seen above, providing definitions is not always that simple and Segalowitz (2010, 2), who studied second language fluency in more detail, states that a generally accepted model or framework for a systematic description of fluency does not exist. He also points out that according to Kaponen and Riggenbach’s (2000, cited in Segalowitz 2010, 3) study, in many languages the word fluency itself means ‘language in motion’ – a description underlying much of the scientific research of fluency and is often used in similar meaning among laymen.

Besides this generally accepted meaning, the term is often used when referring to some more specific action, such as the ability to speak with little or no accent in the L2 or to speak with few grammatical errors. For some it might mean the ability to give speeches or read poetry in the L2. From this it can be deduced that the term lacks a solid and coherent definition and for research purposes different aspects must be very clearly distinguished from each other. (Segalowitz 2010, 4.) Since fluency is often associated with speech it is going to be discussed further in the following sections, which deal with oral skills more specifically. However, it must be noted that sometimes the term is also discussed in relation to writing, which is a substantive point since some people are more fluent writers than others. However, there are quite a few different factors that are at play in the processes of writing and speech, so in this study I am going to discuss fluency in relation to speech and omit the aspect of writing. Moreover, the conceptions of competence and performance must be distinguished from each other and as Chomsky (1965, 4) states, performance does not reflect competence directly, thus making it difficult for us to measure oral competence in general. However, the difference between performance and competence will be discussed in more detail later on in the study.

Taking all these considerations into account I am going to be using the term competence as an umbrella term but also I am going to use the term proficiency as its synonym, since their meanings are closely related. I chose to use these two terms as I feel that they are the most descriptive and cover the majority of the aspects I am going to bring forward in this study. Moreover, I am going to use the Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics definitions provided for both competence and language proficiency, as the main points of reference for these two terms. I chose the Longman definitions as I feel that they are more open to various interpretations and hence better serve the aim of the present study, which, after all, was not to verify previous definitions but to find out how upper secondary school teachers and students define the terms without presupposition. As mentioned, the Collins and Oxford definitions seemed to entail quite a high level of language ability to begin with, therefore imposing too much presupposition.