On Communicative Competence Dell
Hymes (Compétence et performance selon Dell Hymes
Mise à jour du 21 avril 2014 ) -
(0) Hymes i. (1972) caractérise competence
et performance chez
Chomsky ii. (0) i. caracteriza competencia e performance em ii.
hymes_communicative_competence.pdf
— Dell Hymes, On Communicative Competence, in J. B. Pride & J.
Holmes, Eds., Sociolinguistics,
Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972 (pp. 269-293), cité d'après le reprint
dans A. Duranti, Ed., Linguistic
Anthropology. A Reader, Oxford: Blackwell,
2001, pp. 53-73.
(p.54)
For the perspective associated with transformational generative
grammar [Chomsky],
the world of linguistic theory has two parts: linguistic competence
and linguistic performance.
Linguistic competence is understood as concerned with the tacit
knowledge of language structure, that is, knowledge that is commonly
not conscious or available for spontaneous report, but necessarily
implicite in what the (ideal) speaker-listener can say. The primary
task of theory is to provide for an explicit account of such
knowledge, especially in relation to the innate structure on which it
must depend. […] (p.55) Such a theory of competence posits ideal
objects in abstraction from sociocultural features that might enter
into their description. Acquisition of competence is also seen as
essentially independent of sociocultural features, requiring only
suitable speech in the environment of the child to develop.
1. La maîtrise de la grammaire n'est qu'une compétence
parmi d'autres, un système de règles de comportement parmi
d'autres, au service de la communication. (1
)- O domínio da gramática é uma habilidade, dentre outras, de
um sistema de regras de conduta a serviço da comunicação.(63) There are several sectors of communicative competence, of which the grammatical is one. Put otherwise, there is behavior, and, underlying it, there are several systems of rules reflected in the judgements and abilities of those whose messages the behavior manifests. […] In the linguistic theory under discussion [Chomsky], judgements are said to be of two kinds: of grammaticality, with respect to competence, and of acceptability, with respect to performance. […] If an adequate theory of language users and language use is to be developed, it seems that judgements must be recognized to be in fact not of two kinds but of four. And if linguistic theory is to be integrated with theory of communication and culture, this fourfold distinction must be stated in a sufficiently generalized way. I would suggest, then, that for language and for other forms of communication (culture), four questions arise:
1)
Whether (and to what degree) something is formally possible;
2) Whether (and to what degree) something is feasible in virtue of the means of implementation available;
3) Whether (and to what degree) something is appropriate (adequate, happy, successful) in relation to a context in which it is used and evaluated;
4) Whether (and to what degree) something is in fact done, actually performed, and what its doing entails.
2) Whether (and to what degree) something is feasible in virtue of the means of implementation available;
3) Whether (and to what degree) something is appropriate (adequate, happy, successful) in relation to a context in which it is used and evaluated;
4) Whether (and to what degree) something is in fact done, actually performed, and what its doing entails.
(2) Cette compétence ne se réduit
pas aux règles grammaticales, que Hymes désigne par
systemic possibility ci-dessous, ni même à
la maîtrise, appelée tacit knowledge,
du système grammatical, elle est personnalisée et en situation.
Hymes rejoint Goffman. (2)
Esta habilidade não pode ser reduzida a regras gramaticais, na
possibilidade sistêmica que Hymes designa abaixo, ou mesmo controle,
chamado conhecimento tácito, o sistema gramatical, ele é
personalizado e situacional. Hymes juntou Goffman.
- Within a comprehensive view of competence, considerations of the sort identified by Goffman [Erving Goffman, Interaction Ritual, Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1967, pp. 218-226] must be reckoned with — capacities in interaction such as courage, gameness [l'esprit de jeu], gallantry, composure, presence of mind, dignity, stage confidence, capacities which are discussed in some detail by him and, explicitly in at least one case, as kinds of competency (p. 224).
(64)
The "performance models" studied in psycholinguistics are
to be taken as models of aspects of ability for use, relative to
means of implementation in the brain, although they could now be seen
as a distinct, contributory factor in general competence.
4. Différence cruciale entre l'anthropologie et la
psychologie cognitive. Les psycholinguistes étudient «l'esprit»,
nous étudions des «personnes» et des «traditions». 4
Crucial Diferença entre a antropologia e a psicologia cognitiva.
Psicolingüistas estudam "espírito", Nos investigamos
"pessoas" e "tradições".
(p.65)
The performance of a person is not identical with a behavioral
record, or with the imperfect or partial realization of individual
competence. It takes into account the interaction between
competence (knowledge, ability for use), the competence of others,
and the cybernetic and emergent properties of events themselves. A
performance, as an event, may have properties (patterns and
dynamics) not reducible to terms of individual or standardized
competence. Sometimes, indeed, these properties are the point (a
concert, play, party).(64) The concept of "performance" will take on great importance, insofar as the study of communicative competence is seen as an aspect of what from another angle may be called the ethnography of symbolic forms — the study of the variety of genres, narration, dance, drama, song, instrumental music, visual art, that interrelate with speech in the communicative life of a society, and in terms of which the relative importance and meaning of speech and language must be assessed. The recent shift in folklore studies and much of anthropology to the study of these genres in terms of performances with underlying rules can be seen as a reconstruction on an ethnographic basis of the vision expressed in Cassirer's philosophy of symbolic forms. The concept of "performance" will be important also in the light of sociological work such as that of Goffman (cited above), as its concern with general interactional competence helps make precise the particular role of linguistic competence.
( former AAA president Dell H. Hymes, who died Friday, Nov 13, 2009, at the age of 82 )*
2 / La performance comme façon personnelle de parler - Dell Hymes, Foundations in Sociolinguistics. An Ethnographic Approach, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974; repr. London: Tavistock, 1977, pp. 92–97. – (92) Chomsky's work is a decisive step, not only in extending the scope of linguistic theory, but also in redefining the nature of its object. For "language" Chomsky substitutes "competence" defined as a fluent native speaker's knowledge (largely tacit) of grammaticality — of whether or not putative sentences are part of his language, and according to what structural relationships. The goal of linguistic description is thus changed; from an object independent of men, to a human capacity. Both changes (deep structure, human capacity) are felt to be so great as to lead transformational grammarians to reject "structural linguistics" as a name for their work, and to use it solely to describe other schools as predecessors. From a social standpoint, transformational grammar might equally well be seen as the culmination of the leading theme of structural linguistics. To center analysis in a deep structure, one grounded in human nature, is to fulfill an impulse of structural linguistics to treat language as a sphere of wholly autonomous form. Such a theory perfects and gives the ultimate justification to a study of language at once of human significance and abstracted from actual human beings. Chomsky's redefinition of linguistic goals appears, then, a halfway house. The term "competence" promises more than it in fact /93/ contains. It is restricted to knowledge, and, within knowledge, to knowledge of grammar. Thus, it leaves other aspects of speakers' tacit knowledge and ability in confusion, thrown together under a largely unexamined concept of "performance" (cf. Chomsky and Halle 1968: 373). In effect, "performance" confuses two separate aims. The first is to stress that competence is something underlying behavior ("mere performance," "actual performance"). The second is to allow for aspects of linguistic ability which are not grammatical: psychological constraints on memory, choice of alternative rules, stylistic choices and devices in word order, etc. The intended negative connotation of the first sense of "performance" tends to attach to the second sense; factors of performance — and the theory must place all social factors here — are generally seen as things that limit the realization of grammatical possibilities, rather than as constitutive or enabling. In fact, of course, choice among the alternatives that can be generated from a single base structure depends as much upon a tacit knowledge as does grammar, and can be studied as much in terms of underlying rules as can grammar. Such things equally underlie actual behaviour as facets of knowledge, and would be aspects of competence in the normal sense of the term. On its own terms, linguistic theory must extend the notion of competence to include more than the grammatical… An ethnography of speaking approach shares Chomsky's concern for creativity and freedom, but recognizes that a child, or /94/ person, master only of grammar, is not yet free. Chomsky's attempt to discuss the "creative" aspect of language use (Chomsky 1966) suffers from the same difficulty as his treatment of competence. The main thrust is independence of situation. Chomsky specifies freedom from stimulus control, infinity of possible sentences, yet appropriateness of novel sentences to novel situations; but the first two properties, and the grammatical mechanisms he considers, can never account for appropriateness. A novel sentence might be wildly inappropriate. Appropriateness involves a positive relation to situations, not a negative one, and, indeed, a knowledge of a kind of competence regarding situations and relations of sentences to them. As with competence, so with creativity: I share Chomsky's goals for linguistics, and admire him for setting them, but they cannot be reached on his terms or by linguistics alone. Rules of appropriateness beyond grammar govern speech, and are acquired as part of conceptions of self, and of meanings associated both with particular forms of speech and with the act of speaking itself.
3 / Naissance du Variationnisme – (6) La rupture épistémologique opérée entre sémantique et pragmatique au début des années 1970 entraîne la séparation entre l'Ethnolinguistique (une sémantique) et l'Anthropologie linguistique (une pragmatique) qui se recentre sur les problématiques de la performance et de l'indexicalité. – Naissance de Variationnisme - (6)A ruptura epistemológica feita entre semântica e pragmática na década de 1970 resultou na separação entre etnolinguísticas (semântica) e antropologia lingüística (pragmática), que muda o foco sobre as questões de desempenho e da indexicalidade.(Silverstein_theory_1972.pdf — Michael Silverstein, "Linguistic Theory: Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics,", Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 1 (1972), pp. 349-382. )
(Silverstein,
362) What is the relationship of competence to performance? It seems
to me that this is a fundamental question needing answer before
competence has empirical content. Do the facts explained by a
characterization of competence bear any regular relation to
performance? This is the approach taken by Weinreich, Labov and
Herzog in their remarkable study (1968) of the synchronic bases of
linguistic change, and again /363/ by Labov in his papers on
methodology (Labov, W. 1971. Methodology)
and on sociolinguistics (Labov, W. 1970. The study of language in its
social context. Stud.
Gen. 23:30-87). Here
are explored the consequences of accepting, as linguists from Paul
[Paul Grice] to Chomsky have, such a distinction:
“Linguistic
theory is concerned primarily with an
ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech community,
who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such
grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations,
distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or
characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in
actual performance… Observed use of
language or hypothesized dispositions to respond, habits, and so on,
may provide evidence as to the nature of this mental reality, but
surely cannot constitute the actual subject matters of linguistics”
(Chomsky, 1965. Aspects of the Theory of
Syntax, pp. 3-4).
As
was mentioned above, the data for linguistics are constituted by
speakers's
intuitions about sentences,
and so it devolves upon the use of these to establish the structure
of linguistic competence. Methodologically, Labov has called this
position "the Saussurian paradox: that the social aspect of
language can be studied by the theorist asking himself questions,
while the individual aspect can only be studied by a social survey"
(Methodology,
p. 437). The social aspect is the supposed shared norm, Saussure's
langue, Chomsky's competence.
(7) Il n'y
a aucune raison de croire, cependant, que nos intuitions
linguistiques et la grammaire que nous construisons à partir de ces
intuitions reflètent fidèlement la structure de la langue.
D'ailleurs, les données dont nous disposons, même si elles
reflètent directement et fidèlement la compétence d'un locuteur
indigène (the native speaker),
n'en montrent pas moins une variation d'un locuteur à un autre.
Comment décider alors entre ce qui est structural et ce qui ne l'est
pas? La rupture épistémologique qui nous conduit à complexifier la
compétence en la définissant à travers la performance, c'est la
naissance du Variationnisme en linguistique. (7) (6)
Não há nenhuma razão para acreditar, porém, que as nossas
intuições linguísticas e gramaticais, que construímos a partir
dessas intuições, refletem com precisão a estrutura da língua.
Além disso, os dados que temos, mesmo que refletem diretamente e
fielmente competência de um falante nativo (o nativo falante) não
mostra menor variação de um falante para outro. Como, então,
decidir entre o que é estrutural e que não é? Ruptura
epistemológica que nos leva a complicar a competência definir
através de desempenho, este é o nascimento da lingüística
Variacionista.
(364)
To return then to the conditions disputed by Weinreich et al, the
first principle which they find abundant evidence against is that any
speech community can be homogeneous. This is not in the trivial sense
of memory limitations etc, but rather in the discovery that there are
very strong statistical regularities in a number of significant
points of variation within every speech community studied, and that
these regularities are correlated very directly with such factors as
age, socioeconomic class, and so forth. Moreover, native
speakers control and have intuitions about functional varieties of
language; we
might ask if it is correct to ignore these in dealing with paraphrase
relationships. This kind of "orderly heterogeneity" for
them is a prime datum to be accounted for by a theory of competence,
inasmuch as it is replicable, for the same linguistic feature, in
comparable communities.
(368) This
brings up the more general question of variation in language, which
Chomsky rules out of the theory of competence, but which Weinreich et
al claim is essential to any language. As was mentioned above,
variability is
patterned, it is
observed in every linguistic community, and it is correlative for
certain features. It would be conceivable to say, therefore, that
this variability /369/ is the result of complex rules of
performance which distort an otherwise homogeneous competence within
a community.
(8) Cette
compétence étendue, qui «est le résultat de règles complexes de
performance», sera l'objet d'une partie de l'anthropologie
linguistique développée plus tard par Silverstein sous le nom de
métapragmatique. (8)
Este amplo estudo "é o resultado de formas
e regras complexas de desempenho" desenvolvida mais tarde por Silverstein, como parte da antropologia
lingüística, na Metapragmática.
Fonte
[
http://ehess.tessitures.org/vivavoce/enonciation/langue-et-parole/communicative-competence.html
]
* . http://blog.aaanet.org/2009/11/19/aaa-mourns-passing-of-dell-hymes-past-president/
tradução para o Port. Denilson Silva
