Grammatical competence and models of L2 learning

The Common European Framework presents a range of communicative languagecompetences to be present in language teaching, and one of them is 'grammaticalcompetence'. In this essay I will investigate and discuss how the CEF interpretsgrammatical competence in relation to two different models of language teaching aspresented by Vivian Cook before I go on to discuss which implications this might have forlanguage teaching and grammar competence in the classroom.

Grammatical competence

On an introductory note the Common European Framework announces an action-oriented approach which entails a "comprehensive, transparent and coherent frame of reference for language learning" (CEF, 1996, p. 9) and attempts to ensure an embrace of "language learning," which "comprises the actions performed by persons who asindividuals and as social agents develop a range of competences, both general and inparticular communicative language competences" (CEF, 1996, p. 9).The Framework divides communicative competence into three components; linguistic competence,sociolinguistic competence and pragmatic competence (CEF, 1996, p. 108). This essay will focus on 'grammatical competence' which is part of a linguistic competence accordingto the CEF.

Linguistic competence is an exhaustive and voluminous field, and beyond

grammatical competence

, the Framework distinguishes between lexical competence, semanticcompetence, phonological competence, orthographic competence and orthoepiccompetence (CEF, 1996, p. 109). In this context, grammatical competence is understoodas "knowledge of, and ability to use, the grammatical resources of a language" (CEF, 1996,p. 112). Simply put, it means to be in the possession of the knowledge which enables thelanguage learner/user to produce and express meaning by utilizing the embeddedprinciples of grammatical principles in the target language, as opposed to merely memorising and reproducing grammar (CEF, 1996, p. 113). The Framework acknowledges the fact that any language's grammar is highly complex and "defiesdefinitive or exhaustive treatment", but nonetheless draws up a grammatical organization

which involves the specification of

elements, categories, classes, structures, processes

and

relations

(CEF, 1996, p. 113).

Scott Thornbury

(1999)

writes that from "a learner's perspective, the ability both torecognise and to produce well-formed sentences is an essential part of learning a secondlanguage" (Thornbury, 1999, p. 3), but points out that there exists a lot of controversy anddebate on how this ability is best developed and achieved. Grammar competence is amassive field, and the syllabus outlines the grammatical content to be taught and isusually represented in the coursebooks which then in turn are the basis for the languageteachers' decisions in regards to what to focus on and what to teach in a grammar context.Thornbury outlines criteria for grading the grammar syllabus in terms of importance andinclude complexity, learnability and teachability where

complexity

is the most important."An item is complex if it has a number of elements, the more elements, the more complexit is" (Thornbury, 1999, p. 9).

Learnability

is traditionally measures by the level of complexity, while

teachability

on the other hand is the level of ease a grammatical item isto introduce which means that it is usually introduced early in a language course(Thornbury, 1999, p. 10).

Two different models of language learning

The Common European Framework comprehensively outlines approaches andcompetences which should be applied to language teaching and language learning beforethe Framework continues to present more methodological practices in order to answerquestions related to how the learner can carry out the given tasks, activities and processesin order to develop the competences necessary for communication, how teachers canfacilitate and how education authorities can best plan curricula for modern languages(CEF, 1996, p. 131) The Framework puts forward a range of general approaches tolanguage learning which tries to accommodate for the best possible practice for thelanguage learner to learn a foreign language (L2). The CEF is careful to add that the"approach to the methodology of learning and teaching has to be comprehensive,presenting all options in an explicit and transparent way and avoiding advocacy ordogmatism" (CEF, 1996, p. 142), but rather attempts to provide methods which are the

most effective in language learning and teaching in order to ensure the best possiblepractices and "the needs of the individual learners in their social context" (CEF, 1996, p.142). The main intent of the Framework is to present the learner and the teacher withoptions.I have decided to focus on two general models of L2 learning, namely the interactionapproach and the sociocultural SLA theory as discussed by Cook. This is in line with the

'grammatical competence' from the CEF's chapter 6.4

Some methodological options for modern language learning and teaching

which lists nine different, but related,approaches. I find myself interested in approaches leaning towards 'direct exposure','direct participation', 'authentic use', 'negotiating interaction' and 'L2 as the language of classroom management' (CEF, 1996, p. 143), which is to some extent true for thefollowing models of L2 learning.

TheInteractionApproach

Themainideaoftheinteractionapproachisstaunchlyaffirmshowtalkingtoothersisthekeytolanguageacquistion.Languageisacquiredthroughinteraction.JeromeBrunerarguesthata'structuredinteraction'iscriticalwhenlearningalanguage.Thecentralconceptoftheinteractionapproachisthe'negotiationofmeaning',wherethespeakershavepossibilitiestonegotiatethrougheither"repetitions,confirmations,reformulations,comprehensionchecks,clarificationrequestsetc"(Long,1996:418inCook,2008,p.225).FurthermoreexplainsBrunertheideaof'structuredinteraction'withtheconceptof'scaffolding',whichisthecombinationofnegotiationofmeaningalongwiththegoalsharedbytheinterlocutorstoextractmeaningfromtheutterancesmade.

Theinteractionapproachcontainsvariouswaystocreatethe'scaffolding'andtonegotiatemeaningwhichincludesrecasts,clarifications,repetitionsaswellasconversationalinteraction.Although,asCookpointsout,allofthesetypesoffeedbackdoesalso"occurinnon-classroomconversation,theyaremorefocusedonthelanguagemistakethanthemeaning,anddoubtlessoccurwithamuchhigherfrequencyinteachingthanwouldbeacceptableinordinaryconversation"(Cook,2008,p.226).However,theinteraction