Competence vs. performance; theoretical vs. applied: The development and interplay of two dichotomies in modern linguistics

Frederick J. Newmeyer
University of Washington
Summary

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.

Quick links
Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

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 7.91–98. 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 6.80–85.Google Scholar
Brown, T. Grant
1971 “Pedagogical Implications of a Case Grammar of French”. IRAL 9.229–244. 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 4.227–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1967 “ ‘Sentence Patterns’ in the Light of Language Theories and Classroom Needs”. IRAL 5.185–192. 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 17.345–349.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F.
1952 Review of Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague V: Recherches structurales (Copenhagen 1949) IJAL 18.86–89.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 16.153–160. 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 19.117–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1975 “Linguistic Theory and the Real World”. Language Learning 25.309–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lamendella, John
1969 “On the Irrelevance of Transformational Grammar to Second Language Pedagogy”. Language Learning 19.255–270. 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 3.1–19.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 5.293–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohmann, Richard
1964 “Generative Grammars and the Concept of Literary Style”. Word 20.423–439. 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