Cover not available
Article published In:
Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 17:1/2 (1990) ► pp.167–181

Competence vs. performance; theoretical vs. applied

The development and interplay of two dichotomies in modern linguistics

| University of Washington
The past 30 years have seen marked shifts in the generative grammarians’ view of the nature of linguistic competence. The rule-oriented period of early Transformational Grammar, which was ushered in by the publication of Chomsky’s Syntactic Structures in 1957, gave way a decade later to the principle-oriented period of Generative Semantics. By the mid-1970s, the rule-oriented Lexicalist framework had replaced Generative Semantics. Since around 1981, the principle-oriented Principles & Parameters approach is the one to which a majority of generative syntacticians hold allegiance. Each shift in the generativists’ view of the nature of competence has been accompanied by a revised view of how concepts derived from generative syntax might be applied to second language teaching. Since 1957, three different strategies for applying the theory have been propounded: the ‘mechanical’, the ‘terminological’, and the ‘implicational’, each of which has been instantiated during each period in the development of generative syntax. The paper closes with some speculative remarks about the feasibility of applying generativist theory to second language teaching.
Published online: 1 January 1990
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.17.1-2.13new
References (44)
References
Banathy, Bela, Edith Trager & Carl Waddle. 1966. “The Use of Contrastive Data in Foreign Language Course Development”. Trends in Language Teaching ed. by Albert Valdman, 35–56. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Belasco, Simon. 1985. “Toward the Identification of a Core Grammar in L2 Acquisition”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 71.91–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1914. Introduction to the Study of Language. New York: Henry Holt & Co. (New ed., with an introduction by Joseph F. Kess, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1983.)Google Scholar
Brown, H. Douglas. 1972. “The Next 25 Years: Shaping the revolution”. TESOL Quarterly 61.80–85.Google Scholar
Brown, T. Grant. 1971. “Pedagogical Implications of a Case Grammar of French”. IRAL 91.229–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1964. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Ibid.Google Scholar
. 1970a. “Remarks on Nominalization”. Readings in English Transformational Grammar ed. by Roderick Jacobs & Peter Rosenbaum, 184–221. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn & Co.Google Scholar
. 1970b. “Noam Chomsky’s View of Language”. Readings in Applied Transformational Grammar ed. by Mark Lester, 96–113. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. [Interview with Stuart Hampshire, edited with an introduction by Alasdair McIntyre.]Google Scholar
. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Diller, Karl. 1971. Generative Grammar, Structural Linguistics, and Language Teaching. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Di Pietro, Robert. 1968. “Contrastive Anlaysis and the Notions of Deep and Surface Grammar”. Report of the Nineteenth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies ed. by James Alatis, 65–82. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Dirven, René. 1974. “The Relevance of Generative Semantics for Language Teaching”. Linguistic Insights in Applied Linguistics ed. by S. Pit Corder & Eddy Roulet, 27–44. Brussels: AIMAV.Google Scholar
Flynn, Suzanne & Wayne O’Neil, eds. 1988. Linguistic Theory in Second Language Acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gefen, Raphael. 1966. “Theoretical Prerequisites for Second-Language Teaching”. IRAL 41.227–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1967. “‘Sentence Patterns’ in the Light of Language Theories and Classroom Needs”. IRAL 51.185–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gouin, François. 1892. The Art of Teaching and Studying Languages. London: Philip.Google Scholar
Harris, James. 1973. “Linguistics and Language Teaching: Applications versus Implications”. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1973 ed. by Kurt R. Jankowsky, 11–18. Washington: Georgetown Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig S. 1941. Review of N. Trubetzkoy, Grundzüge der Phonologie (Prague, 1939). Language 171.345–349.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1952. Review of Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague V: Recherches structurales (Copenhagen, 1949). IJAL 181.86–89.Google Scholar
Hunt, Kellogg W. 1970. “How Little Sentences Grow into Big Ones”. Readings in Applied Transformational Grammar ed. by Mark Lester, 170–186. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Rudolfo. 1966. “The Role of Deep Structure in Language Teaching”. Language Learning 161.153–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobovits, Leon. 1970. “Implications of Recent Psycholinguistic Developments for the Teaching of a Second Language”. Readings in Applied Transformational Grammar ed. by Mark Lester, 253–275. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold & Paul Postal. 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lado, Robert. 1968. “Contrastive Linguistics in a Mentalistic Theory of Language Learning”. Report of the Nineteenth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies ed. by James Alatis, 123–135. Washington: Georgetown Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1969. “Transformational Grammar and Language Teaching”. Language Learning 191.117–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1975. “Linguistic Theory and the Real World”. Language Learning 251.309–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lamendella, John. 1969. “On the Irrelevance of Transformational Grammar to Second Language Pedagogy”. Language Learning 191.255–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenneberg, Eric H. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmark, Leonard & David Reibel. 1970. “Necessity and Sufficiency in Language Learning”. Readings in Applied Transformational Grammar ed. by Mark Lester, 228–252. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 1983. Grammatical Theory: Its limits and its possibilities. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1986. Linguistic Theory in America. Second Edition. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1987. “Current Convergences in Grammatical Theory: Some implications for second language acquisition research”. Second Language Research 31.1–19.Google Scholar
. In press. “Rules and Principles in the Development of Generative Syntax”. The Chomskyan Turn: Generative linguistics, mathematics, philosophy, and psychology ed. by Asa Kasher. Oxford: Blackwell.
Nilsen, Don. 1971. “The Use of Case Grammar in Teaching English as a Foreign Language”. TESOL Quarterly 51.293–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohmann, Richard. 1964. “Generative Grammars and the Concept of Literary Style”. Word 201.423–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Harold E. 1917. The Scientific Teaching and Study of Languages. Yonkers, N.Y.: World.Google Scholar
Rutherford, William. 1968. Modern English. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
. 1987. Second Language Grammar: Learning and Teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rutherford, William & Michael Sharwood Smith, eds. 1988. Grammar and Second Language Teaching. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Saporta, Sol, Arthur Blumenthal & Donald Reiff. 1963. “Grammatical Models and Language Learning”. Report of the Fourteenth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies ed. by Robert Di Pietro, 133–142. Washington: Georgetown Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Lausanne & Paris: Payot. (3rd corrected ed., 1931.)Google Scholar
Spolsky, Bernard. 1970. “Linguistics and Language Pedagogy – Applications or Implications?”. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1969 ed. by James Alatis, 143–155. Washington: Georgetown Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Barbe, Katharina
2001. The dilemma with dichotomies. Language & Communication 21:1 ► pp. 89 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.