There are two comments
we would like to make at the outset. First,
our model was developed from an L2 perspective but a great deal of it is
assumed to have validity for describing L1 as us as well. Second, we acknowledge the seminal work of the late Michael Canale,
done in collaboration with Merrill Swain (Canale & Swain, 1980; Canale,
1983). They did much to focus the attention of applied of linguistics on
developing pedagogically relevant and assessment relevant models of
communicative competence.
v Existing Models of Communicative
Competence
The first comprehensive model of communicative
competence, which was intended to serve both instructional and assessment
purpose. This model posted four components of communicative competence:
1. Grammatical
competence – the knowledge of language code (grammatical rules, vocabulary,
pronunciation, spelling etc.)
2. Sociolinguistic
competence – the mastery of sociocultural code of language use (appropriate
application of vocabulary, register, politeness and style in a given situation)
3. Discourse
competence – the ability to combine language structure into different types of
cohesive texts (e.g., political speech, poetry)
4. Strategic
competence – the knowledge of verbal and non-verbal communication strategies
which enhance the efficiency of communication and, where necessary, enable the
learner to overcome difficulties when communication breakdown occur.
The
other model of communicative language abilities has been proposed by Bachman
(1990) divides language knowledge into two categories, both broken down into
subcategories.
v Language Knowledge
1.
Organizational knowledge – the knowledge
of the “components involved in controlling the formal structure of language for
producing or recognizing grammatically correct sentences and for ordering these
to form texts” (MS,p.3/3)
a) Grammatical
knowledge – similar to Canal &
Swain’s grammatical competence.
b) Textual
knowledge – similar to but more elaborate that Canale and Swin’s discourse
competence.
2.
Pragmatic knowledge – the knowledge that
enable us to relate words and utterances to their meaning, to the intentions of
language users and relevant characteristics of the language use contexts
(MS.p.3/14)
a) Lexical
knowledge – the knowledge of the meanings of the words and the ability to use
figurative language.
b) Functional
knowledge – the knowledge of the relationships between utterances and
intentions, or communicative purposes of language users (MS.p.3/14)
c) Sociolinguistic
knowledge – similar to Canale & Swain’s sociolinguistic competence.
In
situational language use language knowledge interacts with metacognitive
strategies, which are three kinds: (a) assessment (b) goal-setting (c)
planning.
v 
Proposed Model of Communicative
Competence
Proposed Model of Communicative
Competence
Main components of each
of the five competencies in our model in order to make it applicable to
pedagogy. This discussion will be begin with Discourse competence, Linguistics
competence, Actional Competence, Sociocultural Competence,and
Strategic Competence.
Discourse
Competence:
It concerns the selection, sequencing, and arrangement of words,
structures and utterances to achieve a unified spoken or written text. Cohesion is the area of discourse
competence most closely associated with linguistic competence (see Halliday
& Hasan 1976, 1989). It deals with the bottom up elements that help
generate text, accounting for how pronouns, demonstratives, articles and other
makers signal textual co-reference in written of oral discourse. Coherence is concerned with
macrostructure in that its major focus is the expression of content and purpose
in terms of top-down organization of propositions. It concerned with what is
thematic. For listener or reader coherence relates to ease interpretation they
use their linguistics knowledge, sociocultural knowledge and situational clues
to relate a pieces of discourse to objects and events beyond the text itself. The
generic structure of various types of
spoken and written texts is an object of concern in discourse analysis
(Halliday & Hasan, 1989; Swales, 1990). Every language has its formal
schemata (Carrel 1984). Conversational
Structure, which is inherent to the turn-taking system in oral conversation
(Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson, 1974)
Linguistic Competence:
It is historically the
most thoroughly discussed component of our model, it comprises the basic
elements of communication: the sentence patterns and types, the constituent
structure, the morphological inflections and the lexical resources as well as
the phonological and orthographic systems needed to realize communication as
speech or writing (cf. Celce-Murcia & Larsen Freeman, 1983; Celce-Murcia,
Brinton & Goodwin, in press)
Actional Competence:
It is defined as
competence in conveying and understanding communicative intent that is matching
actional intent with linguistic form based on the knowledge of an inventory of
verbal schemata that carry illocutionary force (speech acts and speech acts
sets).
Sociocultural
Competence:
It refers to the
speaker’s knowledge of how to express messages appropriately within the overall
social and culture context of communication. Sociocultural rules and norms are
so ingrained in our own identity (and that of the learner) that is difficult to
change behavior based on a new set of assumptions. Cultural factors involve
three main components: sociocultural
background knowledge of the target language community, awareness of major
dialect or regional difference and cross-culture awareness. Widdowson
(1990)
Strategic Competence:
It is as knowledge of
communication strategies and how to use them. Three functions of strategy use
for three different perspective are: (a)
Psycholinguistic perspective (b)
Interactional perspective, and (c) Communication continuity/maintenance
perspective.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar