performance linguistic-into-communicative 1, article 1.pdf · 2013. 8. 13. · since the...

10

Ling

uist

ic-in

to-C

omm

unica

tive

Perfo

rman

ceThe integration of linguistic competence intoThe integration of linguistic competence intoThe integration of linguistic competence intoThe integration of linguistic competence into

communicative competencecommunicative competencecommunicative competencecommunicative competencecommunicative competence

Abstract

language and communication this study presents three pitfallsin language teaching that should be avoided and some obviouspractical applications that help in the development of competentcommunicators. The paper explores various aspects ofcommunication aiming at orientating students towards the useof language as an important element in a range of communicativeresources for an effective interaction with the world. Theresearch based mainly on surveys, case-studies and experimentsoffers some insights to help explore the properties of a balancedrelationship between mind, language and feelings for an effectivemulti-dimensional communication. It also provides someresultant clues for the integration of linguistic competence intocommunicative competence and some practical examplesthrough which the principles of Communicative LanguageTeaching approach and Accelerated Language Learningapproach can be realized. With the intention of advancing theglobal education agenda, my personal considerations about thecoordination of various interactive linguistic and communicativeelements at the level of performance stand in need of beingexamined not only by foreign language teachers but alsolinguists.

Article Number One in LCPJ

Beginning with Owens’s (1988) distinction between speech,

The integration of linguistic competence into

Sander Kola, 2008: Integration of Linguistic Competence into Communicative CompetenceTo be downloaded from the website www.lcpj.pro

© LCPJ PublishingVolume 1, 2008

11

Introduction

‘Science never stands still’ 1

Since the ‘communicative’ approach to the teaching of languageis very much in vogue at present, I shall attempt to bring to thefore certain recurring issues related to the communicativeapproach, psycho-linguistic coordination and effectivecommunication. My relatively long and serious commitment toinvestigate the complexity of language and linguistic process,the problems related to language learning strategies, the wholecomplex business of communication in real life, the practicaladvantages of adopting communication as a teaching aim aswell as the possible pedagogic procedures and strategies thatwill lead the learners towards the ability to handle discourserepresents a new outlook on the integration of linguisticcompetence into communicative competence.

Prologue

Speech, language and communication

I find it appropriate to begin with the distinction, made by RobertE. Owens (1988: 3-8), of these three terms often interpreted ashaving similar meanings or as being identical, in order to helpsee the tree and the forest or vice-versa before guessing aboutthe roots.

Speech

Speech is a method or a verbal means of communicatingor conveying meaning. The result of specific motorbehaviours, speech is a process that requires very precise

Linguistic-into-Comm

unicative Performance



12

Ling

uist

ic-in

to-C

omm

unica

tive

Perfo

rman

ceneuromuscular coordination. Speech sounds (phonemes)are combined in various ways to form the language unitsthat will be used for verbal communication. In addition,speech involves other components such as voice quality,intonation and rate, which enhance the meaning of thespeech message.

Language

Without attached meaning, speech sounds are only gruntsand groans or meaningless strings of sounds. Therelationship between all linguistic forms – individualsounds, meaningful units, and the combination of theseunits – is specified by the rules of language.

Language is a complex and dynamic system ofconventional symbols that is used in various modes forthought and communication. Language, as rule governedbehaviour, is described by at least five parameters –phonologic, morphologic, syntactic, semantic andpragmatic. Although all the languages noted so far canbe transmitted via speech, speech is not an essentialfeature of language. American Sign Languagetransmitted via a manual or signing mode is a separatelanguage. Mathematics is another language, but a moreprecise one than those previously mentioned.

Communication

Both speech and language are parts of the larger processof communication. In fact, ‘communication is theprimary function of the language’ (Muma, 1978, p.118).Communication is the process of exchanginginformation and ideas between participants. The processis an active one that involves encoding, transmitting anddecoding the intended message. It requires a sender anda receiver and each communication partner must be alertto the informational needs of the other to ensure that



13

meanings are preserved. For example, a speaker mustidentify a specific female for the listener prior to usingthe pronoun she. The probability of message distortionis very high, given the number of ways a message canbe formed and the past experiences and perceptions ofeach participant. The degree to which a speaker issuccessful in communicating, measured byappropriateness and effectiveness of the message, iscalled communicative competence (Dore, 1986; Humes,1972). The competent communicator has ‘the capacitynot only to conceive, formulate, modulate, and issuemessages but also to perceive the degree to whichintended meanings are appropriately coded in a matrixof referential codes and conveyed’ (Muma, 1978, p.119).This referential code matrix includes more than just thecoded language signal.

As noted previously, we convey information in manyways. Speech and language are only a portion ofcommunication. Other aspects of communication thatmay enhance or change the linguistic code can beclassified as paralinguistic, non-linguistic andmetalinguistic.

Paralinguistic codes are superimposed on speech tosignal attitude or emotion. They include intonation, stressor emphasis, speed or rate of delivery, and pause orhesitation. Paralinguistic mechanisms are calledsuprasegmental devices because they can change theform and meaning of a sentence by acting acrosselements or segments of a sentence. For example, a risingpitch can change a declarative sentence to aninterrogative or a question form without altering thearrangement of words, as in the sentence ‘It is a party?’.Similarly, ‘I did my homework’ and ‘I did my homework’



Sander Kola, 2008: Integration of Linguistic Competence into Communicative Competence

messages are conveyed effectively and that intended

To be downloaded from the website www.lcpj.pro


14

Ling

uist

ic-in

to-C

omm

unica

tive

Perfo

rman

ceconvey different emotions across words that signal thesame information.

Non-linguistic cues include gestures, body posture,facial expression, eye contact, head and body movement,and physical distance or proxemics. The effectivenessof these devices varies with users and between users.Some non-linguistic messages, such as a wink, agrimace, a pout or folded arms, can convey the entiremessage with no need to rely on speech or language.

Metalinguistic cues also signal the status of thetransmission or the success of communication.Metalinguistic skills are the abilities to talk aboutlanguage, analyze it, think about it, see it as an entityseparate from its content and judge it. For example,learning to read and write depends on metalinguisticawareness of the component units of language – sounds,words, phrases, sentences. In metalinguistics, languageis abstract. For example, form a sentence using has been.This task takes certain metalinguistic skills because it isout of context. Metalinguistic skills are used to judgethe correctness or apporiateness of the language weproduce and receive.

If you tried not to communicate with all thecommunicative devices available, your accompanyingbehaviour alone would communicate your negativechoice.



15

I. Avoiding pitfalls in language teaching

Personally, I think that after having acknowledged the aboveclear distinctions the language teachers should recognize thefollowing three pitfalls in language teaching, which may becomea hindrance in bringing up competent communicators for theclassroom and the real world:

1. Teaching or learning the language rather than the communication in that language.

It is not uncommon that teachers and learners are satisfied withtheir attempts to have the language mastered by developing thefour ‘language skills’ (listening, speaking, reading and writing)without being aware of the invaluable importance of thecommunicative abilities development. Although it may seembeneficial at first to deal with phonetics, grammar rules andstructures required in the texts, you will want to see languagein another perspective, i.e. as a communicative means, todevelop not only needs-based but also affectionate teaching andlearning. Both the teacher and learner’s will to speak andcommunicate in a foreign language consistently and creativelycontributes to the resolution of the most frequent teaching-and-learning problems related to the attitude of the teacher andlearner towards each other as well as the attitude of the learnertowards foreign language study. It is worth pointing out that‘problems associated with attitudes seem to underlie otheracademic problems such as inability to organize time effectively,difficulty in memorizing, fear of speaking in class, anddifficulties in motivating oneself for long-term commitment tolanguage learning. Your attitude, not your aptitude, can makeall the difference in your chances for success’ (Brown-Azarowicz, Stannard and Goldin, 1987: V, 12). It is the teacher’s





16

Ling

uist

ic-in

to-C

omm

unica

tive

Perfo

rman

cecontinuous informal chat, within the limits of teacher talkingtime, as soon as s/he sets foot in the classroom that inspires themaintenance of a positive attitude to the target language andthe interlocutors, making students regress the ideas sprung fromthe native language in order to convey them in the language theteacher offers for communication. Only any unexpected naturaljoke or urgent request can be welcomed in the native languagejust for a change or the awareness of being more than one-language communicators.

a. Usage and use as aspects of performance

Having established a positive attitude in the classroom, theteacher and learner should always try to appropriately convergeclassroom language with communication at the level ofperformance. In order to achieve such a convergence it isnecessary to have a clear idea about the distinction between theterms “use” and “usage”, which are commonly used in Englishlanguage texts.

‘When language teachers select structures andvocabulary for their courses they select those items ofusage which they judge to be most effective for teachingthe underlying rules of the language system. Usage, then,is one aspect of performance, that aspect which makesevident the extent to which the language userdemonstrates his knowledge of linguistic rules. Use isanother aspect of performance: that which makes evidentthe extent to which the language user demonstrates hisability to use his knowledge of linguistic rules foreffective communication. In normal circumstances,linguistic performance involves the simultaneousmanifestation of the language system as usage and itsrealization as use’ (Widdowson, 1990: 3-5).



17

b. Usage and use in classroom presentation

Language is often presented in classroom concentrating onusage, which may sometimes involve an inappropriate use ofwords. For example:

a. Teacher: Book. Pupil: There is a book on the table.b. Teacher: What is on the table? Pupil: There is a book on the table.

Usage has the dominant emphasis on both cases according toWiddowson (1990), who confirms that although the pupil’sresponse is a reply to a question in the second dialogue (b), notjust a reaction to a prompt as in the first dialogue (a), the formof the reply is inappropriate. He provides another more normalappearance:

A: What is on the table?B: A book.

But, - as Widdowson asserts -, the fact that a book is on thetable, visible to everybody, makes it extremely unnatural to askif it is there. Thus, the provision of a situation may lead awayfrom usage in one respect but lead back to usage in another.Only if the pupils know that the teacher cannot see the bookand is genuinely looking for it does his question as to hiswhereabouts take on the character of natural use.

I suggest that teachers should come to terms with Widdowson’sview in order to make classroom situations sound naturalthrough the use of language with improvised behaviour.Referring to my experience as a teacher I recall the followingspontaneous informal chat with a student during a supervisedlesson hour four years ago:

T: Well, how old is he?P: Twenty.

use by saying ‘Yes, but for short’.





years old’, I also approved the student’s answer as appropriateAccepting the suggested usage answer form addition from the supervisor, ‘(twenty)

18

Ling

uist

ic-in

to-C

omm

unica

tive

Perfo

rman

ceThe teacher should make students aware of the differencebetween usage and use in order to orientate them towards realcommunication. Such orientation was remarkably necessary inSeptember 2003, when I noticed that some students were sounnatural that they kept asking one another questions about theirclassmates’ known data such as ‘What is your name? How oldare you?’ and so on.

The usage and use awareness also contributes to a betterunderstanding of the messages of communication as in thefollowing dialogue, which I happened to read in a nationalmagazine seven years ago:

A: Do you think I can catch the train to the neighbouring city?B: That depends on how fast you walk, although it left five minutes ago.

Grammatically this dialogue is correct, but functionally it setsyou thinking about the meaning of it. You would fail to see thecommunicative function in this particular situation, if you werenot reminded of the fact that trains in that country are consideredto be among the slowest in Europe. Only after you realize this,the dialogue takes on a humorous value.

c. The application of the integrated approach

I agree with Widdowson’s view that the teaching of languageas communication calls for an approach that brings linguisticskills and communicative abilities into close association witheach other. Even though a particular exercise may focus on aparticular skill or ability, its effectiveness will often require thelearner to make reference to other aspects of his/hercommunicative competence.

The teacher should try to approach the integration of approacheseven when it is clear that a particular exercise aims usagepractice, by asking the students sometimes to guess the possiblesituations the sentences might be used in, so that they will stand



19

above the form of expression whenever a similar ‘false/real’situation occurs in everyday life. It is a common view amonglanguage teachers to associate the language they are teachingwith situations outside the classroom or ‘the real world’. But,since the school is also part of the child’s real world, I thinkthat it is the duty of the teacher to take advantage of even thedifferent classroom problem-solving situations for the use ofthe language s/he teaches in that class.

In order to make students aware of the importance of use andusage relationship consideration I held a distorted oral discourseabout a classroom situation in my native language four yearsago. The students, who looked amazed at first, understood theskills acquisition importance as soon as they were assigned aletter correction exercise. For the same purpose, in March 2002,I began checking my students’ homework-acquired knowledgeby the following direct communication, analogous to thedialogue of the first homework exercise: Teacher: Let’s begin with the student F. Hani (Hani was the

surname of another student). Student and the class (extremely taken aback): No, teacher.

F. Doçi (F’s real surname). Teacher: Oh, yes. The daughter of B. Doçi. Student (still in her mother tongue): No, professor.

The daughter of G. Teacher: Right, of G who works in the Ministry of Culture. Student (in English now): Actually, he works in an Institute. Teacher (in the end): Thank you and say hello to your father,

Mr. G. Doçi.

Aiming to balance use and usage, to approximate to a normaldifferent exposure of language and a normal involvement incommunicative activity, I presented some photographs andpictures from the linguistic book entitled ‘Mind’s eye’ to myclass in 2002, providing the right conditions for authenticresponse in the lesson hour, which was under supervision. Thestudents, wanting to satisfy their curiosity, immediately





20

Ling

uist

ic-in

to-C

omm

unica

tive

Perfo

rman

ceinteracted by rightly adding a caption to the first photo, earnestlydiscussing about the outward expression of a teenager in thesecond photo and by describing in a lively way the expressionof different eyes known as among the best world pictures. Thisdemonstration, intended to promote creative language use, alsoserved as a springboard to the textbook exercise entitled ‘Signs’.Neglect of the above purposes might have kept students onlywithin the borders of usage through the whole hour of teaching.

The integration of approaches has much to do with the way wepresent or check linguistic areas. How is it possible that thefourth grade students and even adults, who know grammar rules,sometimes miss out the “s” of verbs in the third person singularin Present Simple tense during their oral and written tasks?Commenting on this point, the teacher trainer from the USA,Mrs. Ackles, emailed to me on July 10, 2008 the following:‘The question of the ‘s’ on third person singular verbs is alwaysa difficult one. Many, many learners have difficulty rememberingto include the ‘s’ and many dialects of English do not use the‘s’. It many ways, it has become a social status marker forspeakers of “standard” English.’ In order to achieve and maintainthe “standard” English, I think that the introduction ofgrammatical and other linguistic points should be associatedwith reminders for appropriate structures or categories, assignposts for accuracy and fluency in the ‘communicationhighway’. For instance, the third person subject must make thestudents aware of the third person “s” of the coming verb inPresent Simple tense. Such reminders, I think, should be lightlyconsidered only in passing in written tests or during languageperformance.

Every teacher can change the lesson hour into a communicativeone if s/he is creative in presenting or checking usage exercises.I was welcomed for having presented myself on May 2003 toan unknown class in London Language Center like this:

T: I live in the capital, but I come from the city whose newstadium radiated enthusiasm to the whole nation withthe last football match victory of our national team



21

scoring 3 – 1 (Albania versus Russia). For me our goalswere beautiful.(To a student): How were our goals for you?

S (1): Great;T: For you?S (2): Brilliant;S (3): Fantastic …

This way my introduction pleasantly mingled with the lessontopic, the synonyms.

Under the radar of the integrated approach, in November 2006,I checked the students’ pair work in such a way that they gotinvolved in communication as a united front. Each student wasasked to tell what s/he had done that day after the last commondaily activity mentioned by the previous speaker, steppingbackwards and forwards in time since their individual actionshad happened at different moments, until the last studentsanswered as follows:

S (E): After lunch I came to school.T to S (L): What did you do when you came to school?S (L): I entered the classroom to enjoy talking

together in English.

To develop skills and keep students alert in communicating aboutthe rapidly changing world I frequently ask them about strikingforeign news heard on the BBC and other authentic Englishmedia as well as domestic news, activating translation too. Thisis greatly encouraged by the periodical watching of the newson the BBC / CNN as a class in order to brief or comment onthem. When time permits even the telling of a short summaryof the lesson they have prepared in another non-English subjectmakes them more enthusiastic and confident for the cominghour of that subject and serves many other purposes.





22

Ling

uist

ic-in

to-C

omm

unica

tive

Perfo

rman

ce2. Running after approaches without prior consideration of communication

‘Good people do believe in alchemy at various pointsin our history.’2

a. Reading approaches

In my opinion, reading is the most important language skill thatmay either impede or help advance all the other skills. The olddisagreement over how to teach reading – Whole Languageversus Phonetics –, which is called ‘the reading wars’ byNicholas Lemann (1997), re-emerged in the US for the seventhtime in world history since ancient Greeks began to give readinginstruction. According to the author the dispute was likely tobecome a full-fledged political issue in many states. In Californiathe legislature passed seven separate reading bills with a totalauthorization of nearly a billion dollars; among other things,they directed funds from the Federal Goals 2000 Programtowards supporting phonetics instruction.

Such a high level debate and the huge investment in readinginstruction gives the impression that the Reading War wasdestined to end soon. But, has it ended yet? One may try readingfor comprehension and appreciation – Whole Languageapproach – and notice that precision may leave to be desired.You may place emphasis on reading precision – Phonicsapproach – and find out that you may miss full understanding.Even when you try to care about precision, comprehension andappreciation – Eclectic/Balanced approach -, you may not befully satisfied with your reading efficiency. Consequently, therecurring question about the best approach to reading probablyconcerns an efficient all-purpose reading.



23

As arguments over reading methods intensify, the ability to readwell still remains critical. Actually, guiding students to improvereading strategies and performance can be more difficult thanrecognizing the need. ‘Only when all teachers learn to diagnosestudent reading skills and respond with focused, deliberateinstruction will literacy be available to all children’ (Wren,2003). Referring to my experience, in January 2008, whileteaching English in the “Purple Cow Training” center, I noticedthat two adult learners, one from Turkey and the other fromAlbania, both construction engineers, could hardly read well inEnglish as a second language. The rest of the adult group ofbusinesspeople surprisingly witnessed their immediate progressin reading efficiency after my instructions within the frameworkof communicative awareness.

On May 25, 2002 I happened to hear about dyslexia in its contextwhile listening on the BBC to an interview with a child inCalifornia who, despite her lively, grammatically correct andfluent communication, said: ‘I like watching TV and playingon computer, but I don’t like reading. I don’t understand it’.Considering this case and others the haunting question stillremains: ‘Which approach is best?’ The pendulum swingsthrough time. But, I intend to write in detail about reading atanother time hoping to be considered for my attempts to matchprint, language, thought and the world. Maybe time has comefor a revolution in print.

b. A different approach to vocabulary acquisition

According to the BBC, vocabulary is more important thangrammar in learning a language. This approach wasillustrated by the following words of a fluently-speakingbusinesswoman:

‘I don’t have time to remember patterns word + word +word, so I just say the words I know about a situation.You may know grammar patterns, but if you don’t know





24

Ling

uist

ic-in

to-C

omm

unica

tive

Perfo

rman

cethe word, as in the sentence Where is the … (beach)?,you will fail. Therefore, speak what comes to your mind.’(BBC, November 14, 2001).

I think that the consideration of the above-mentioned approachcontributes to the fluency and flexibility of communicators to agreat extent, but the BBC’s recommendation to learn vocabularyin chunks while reading or listening may impede reading orlistening comprehension, if the purpose of the activity is notvocabulary acquisition. The clearest written evidence for theeffectiveness of such recommendations must be what a languagelearner who, after having participated in a listening strategy-training, marked: ‘Even though I’ve learned strategies, mylistening problems are still there. As long as the sentence getslonger, my chance of understanding it decreases’ (Chen, 2005:[-16-]).

3. Identifying communication with intelligence

‘Humankind has given itself the scientific name homo sapiens– man the wise – because our mental capacities are so importantto our everyday lives and our sense of self’ (AI theorists, 2003).On March 7, 2000 the VOA said: ‘Human mind isprogrammable’. They didn’t say how, but they warned aboutthe danger of activating different parts of the brain as in acomputer. The solution, I think, is the knowledge of the yetunknown properties of the relationship between mind, languageand feelings. As Steinberg (2001: 342) has stated, ‘we are stillat a relatively primitive stage of scientific knowledge about brainand its function’.

I adopt the view that intelligence is concerned mainly withrational action. A system is rational if it does the right thing.Ideally, an intelligent agent takes the best possible action in asituation, unless s/he is deceived by her/his trust on others orother unknown factors. Despite the fact that generally people



25

are eager to speak or make the others speak, the intelligent agent,I think, knows whether to speak or not, whether to say pleasantor unpleasant words, whether to use force or reason before force,whether to smile or not, whether to give signs of high intelligenceor not.

The above ways of behaviour or the combination of them areonly parts of my multi-dimensional concept of communication- judging as a teacher and a citizen.

II. Working towards better communication

‘Everybody communicates in one way or another, but fewmanage to deliver their messages as well as they can’ (Heller,1998: 6), ‘… and any voice that doesn’t speak as plainly asdigits entering a computer will cause problems’ (Hoagland inLevin, 1989: 5). During the ‘matura’ examination and oral paperof 2004, no sooner had one of my best senior students, D. Zhegu,begun to speak in front of the commission in the final oral testthan she stumbled, wiped her tears and asked to go out.Immediately, I said: ‘They know that you are a good student,but all you have to do is to look at us and try to satisfy us withthe knowledge you own about the drawn topics.’ Andsurprisingly enough, she did perfectly well. Another case, I think,would portray the caprice or anxiety of performance incommunication. At the School Graduation 2004 Farewell Party,on June 30, the well-known artist/humorist of my country M.Kondi confidentially confirmed that although she had learnedeverything by heart, she had found her mind completely blankin front of the big audience of her latest show. Seeing the publicwaiting for her she had run towards them and asked one spectatorwhy he had been looking at her that way. Then, trying to recoverherself she had added: ‘Ah, I know you! You sell sausages, butexpensive ones.’ That moment she was reminded of what shehad to say to the audience.





26

Ling

uist

ic-in

to-C

omm

unica

tive

Perfo

rman

ceTo orientate students towards a meaningful interaction with theworld, classroom language and behaviour should be maderepresentative of real life. Teachers can be more successfulshould they not allow themselves to be restricted to the languageof the textbooks and formal behaviour only, whereas studentscan be better prepared for entry into the outside world shouldthey be aware of the qualitative real life speech acts andbehaviour time and again. I had never thought I could get thefollowing answer from my class of excellent results: ‘Yuk,having lessons with that teacher next time?! She never smiles.’But, that teacher’s smile had given way to laughter just to keepthe promise. Teachers should always remember that ‘school isa society in itself. You should use the foreign language in schoolon every possible occasion. Use a wide range of greetings,thanks, chatting etc., to relax and create an English atmosphere’(Cross, 1992: 236). Seeing self-image/visualization from theaudience’s perspective as an important element incommunication, since 2004 I have practiced the exchanging ofseats with the students who had to retell the texts or lead thediscussion of a topic in the lesson hour in order to give themthe opportunity to feel the effects of direct communication withthe audience, which has been very much welcomed. I believe itis our duty as teachers to help bridge societies.

I think that even assessment contributes to a bettercommunication. Students should be seen as the assessors, theself-assessors and the assessed. On communicative level theycan be seen as such on different perspectives through differenttasks and activities, but in the lesson hour I see these three roles,first of all, in the function of a better linguistic acquisition. Justfollow my view along my classroom experiences to find out avaried approach to assessment.

Since 2007 students, as assessors, have been given the chanceto evaluate the authors of the text by looking at the overallstructure, the cohesion of topics with subtopics and pictures ofthe whole unit/module, very rarely finding any unsuitable



27

element, but very often appreciating everything and fixing theconspicuous issues with the concluding question: ‘What willyou remember from this unit/module?’

Students have seen themselves as self-assessors from the timewhen I introduced self-assessment in test corrections, in 2004,as a new way for efficient acquisition and sincere collaborationfor joint progress. Having had all the possible changed answerssigned during the test time, students are presupposed not tochange any other answer during the process of correction, butto cross off every wrong answer. Wrong answers don’t countagainst them, but sanctions for cheating, in the form of a ‘reward’of minus double the point given for the correct answer, areeffective. Immediately after the tests I read the key and approveor disapprove other alternatives suggested by the students. Whenthey do not have wrong answers to cross off, it seems to me asthough I were in the British Parliament hearing ‘Yeah, yeah,yeah, …’ for the selection of the right alternatives.

While, as the assessed, students are seen as objects of evaluation.I consider the assessment of students as a motivation for higherresults. Although I check almost every student’s daily preparation,I have always expected the highest level of performance fromeach student to put the evaluative marks on register.

Sometimes even integrated evaluation counts. In May 2008, Idelegated the role of the teacher to a good student, H. Hallulli,to question a classmate about the lesson, but I had to convincethe class that the other two students deserved maximumevaluation not because they were nice girls, but because theyvoluntarily got involved in the lesson. In April 2006, I asked astudent, A. Bademi, on two successive days. Despite her fewgrammatical mistakes on the second day she awarded herselfthe highest mark, which was rejected by one of her classmates.But another student convinced us all saying: ‘She deserves thehighest mark because she provided interesting original ideasyesterday.’





28

Ling

uist

ic-in

to-C

omm

unica

tive

Perfo

rman

ceBeing effective

‘Effective communication hinges on people understanding yourmeaning, and replying in terms that move the exchange forward.

to get things done, pass on and obtain information, reachdecisions, achieve joint understanding and develop relationship’(Heller 1998: 6-7). Nevertheless, there are people who not being

blindness of their wants, needs, envy and attitudes based onprejudice present barriers to communication without beingaware of the environment, the representation of the interlocutor,the chances offered for improvement and the possible long-termconsequences. ‘No war is justified by Darwinism. The problemis that there are stone-aged minds in the modern world’ (BBC,April 9, 1998). You should recognize the barriers tocommunication, but they cannot always be eliminated from thestart if you entirely trust the other party to give you your ownright even when you are a competent communicator.

A strong barrier to communication is gossip. Although I seegossip as a possible contributor to the linguistic skills andcommunicative abilities development when people feel the needto break the silence and talk in the presence of others, we mustbe aware that ‘its very name connotes idleness, time-wasting,frivolity and worse. Gossip is the unacknowledged poor relativeof civilized conversation; only the smallest and the mostshameless fraction will own up to enjoying it’ (Prose in Levin1989: 17). You may say a strange word for a situation and haveregrets about the ignorance of the shortsighted people who maylack behind by echoing that word to others with theiraccompanying subjective interpretation. And, it will bemiraculously amazing to see such people on a higher standardembracing you at a later time, only due to the natural, sincereand intelligent communication.

able to stand above their level of mediocrity and their obsessive

Communication is always a two way process. You communicate



29

type of communication (written/spoken word, gesture, visualimage, multimedia) we must try to:

• Be clear in our mind about what we want to communicate;• Deliver the message succinctly;• Ensure that the message has been clearly and correctly

understood.

If we choose the written word type, we should see whether thewords we select for communication really serve a goodpromising beginning, a smooth middle or a very strong goodending of the subject which should never be deviated from thebeginning to the end. If we choose the spoken word type, weshould remember that the quality of our voice is important forthe power of speaking. ‘A good voice is an open voice. Aperson’s voice is an extension of his/her personality’ (BBC, May27, 2004). The BBC launched the interesting idea that we shouldprepare our voice physically by warming it up before speaking,and one of the recommended exercises was to ‘think cool likein water in order to relax mentally, seeing yourself by the sea,and say pa-pa-pa, brr-rr-rr.’ As another effective way for voicepreparation, I would suggest rehearsing your speech with yourinner voice just before or while you speak without forgettingthe overall self-image among others.

‘Good communication means saying what you mean – and fullycomprehending any feedback’ (Heller 1998: 6-7). But,sometimes it might be necessary to say what you don’t reallymean and accept the feedback temporarily for different short/long-term purposes.



Considering the above I adopt the view that after choosing a



30

Ling

uist

ic-in

to-C

omm

unica

tive

Perfo

rman

ceIII. Mind Maps as the roots of linguistic

and communicative performance

Generally, Mind Maps or Spidergrams or Diagrams are offeredin language learning texts as one of the best methods of recordinginformation. With regard to linguistic and communicativeperformance, I think that we need to expand the concept of theirpotential function. The common knowledge about them is brieflydescribed in the following:

‘Mind/Semantic Maps are a way of making visual notes.To make a Mind Map, one should write down a key wordor phrase, or draw an image in the middle of a page.This is the subject or theme of the Mind Map. Whilemaking notes, ‘branches’ from the central point arecreated. Each branch can have sub-branches (one idealeading to another), and different branches may link toeach-other. Colour and images might be used to illustratepoints and to make Mind Maps easier to recall’ (Heller1998: 23).

The term ‘Mind Map’, I assume, suggests more than such alimited description. Since Mind Mapping is considered anefficient linguistic information access to the mind of theinformation receiver, should we use Mind Mapping as anefficient linguistic information outlet of the mind of the newinformation producer?

Noticing the direct and indirect influence of Mind Maps on thelinguistic and communicative performance, I shall concentrateon this topic to complete my whole view pertinent tocommunicative teaching and learning of language, lookingcloser at the advantages and disadvantages of Mind Mappingin the process of acquisition and production of knowledge.



31

It is widely recommended to organize the information in memoryin some form while reading, listening and writing in order toaid recall through Semantic Mappings. And I am going to presentan illustration to get a better idea of how information might beorganized:

COMMUNICATION

Today we are going to discuss communication. Now we aregoing to concentrate on the means of communication, and weare going to consider them in four general categories: speech,writing, printing and electronic communication. I will take eachof them in turn and discuss them briefly.

The oldest of these forms of communication is undoubtedlyspeech. It is believed that speech originated perhaps one millionyears ago, possibly by imitation of natural sounds.

The next big step forward in communication was the inventionof writing. It had two major advantages over speech. Firstly,the speaker himself did not have to be present in order tocommunicate. And secondly, the knowledge of one generationcould be accumulated and passed on to the next.

Now, the first kind of writing was picture writing, where scribedrew a picture of what he wanted to present. These can be seenin the ancient Egyptian HIEROGLYPHICS, or some modernChinese IDEOGRAPHS. The use of symbols to represent soundswas a great breakthrough. It led to the use of SYLLABARIES –that is systems where each symbol stood for a syllable; vowelswere not indicated. Later came the invention of the alphabet:that is to say the representation of each sound by a differentsymbol. The invention of printing originated in China, whereblocks of wood were carved into the shape of letters covered inink, and pressed on paper. The Arabs brought the secret ofprinting to Europe around the tenth century. But it was not until





32

Ling

uist

ic-in

to-C

omm

unica

tive

Perfo

rman

cethe sixteenth century that European printers started to use themuch more useful metal type. So, the number of books vastlymultiplied with tremendous consequences for the developmentof science and indeed all aspects of human culture.

The most recent development has been the use of electronicmeans of communication. These can be subdivided into thosethat require a wire or cable connection (such as the telephone)for transferring messages and those that do not. The pioneer inthis area was Samuel B. MORSE who devised a method ofsending messages by using short and long signals (dots anddashes). This system is still known today as the Morse Code.The invention of wireless-radio communication by MARCONIin 1896 meant that messages could be sent over long distanceswithout the necessity of using wires or cables, and the firsttransatlantic wireless message was made in December 1901.Work started on the development of television in the nineteen-twenties, and the BBC made their first regular transmission in1929’ (Wallace, 1991: 207-208).

Computers have been under continuous development. ‘If weare looking for the first modern computer, the credit should goto the Manchester University, whose prototype, Baby, becameoperational in June 1948. In 1958/59, the “chip” was bornand entered into commercial production in 1961. In 1971 RayTomlinson of ARPANET sent the World’s first e-mail. The “state-of-the-art” in browser technology began in 1994. Consideringinformation and recourse sharing as one of their primary goals,the ARPANET developers in the USA created the Internet andthe Web’ (Griffiths, 2005).

The latest electronic means of communication is the MobilePhone. ‘The basic theories for cellular mobile telephony wereshaped by the 1940s – but getting there would take a further 40years. Dr. Martin Cooper, a former general manager atMotorola, is considered the inventor of the first modern portablehandset. In 1973 Cooper made the first call on a portable call



33

phone to his rival, Joel Engel, head of research at BellLaboratories, who had introduced the idea of cellularconnections in 1947. The first oral mobile message began with“Hi Joe! Guess where I’m calling from?”’ (Connected-earthwebsite, 2005).

Spidergram / Model notes of the illustrative text (adapted from‘Study Skills in English’):

I adapted the spidergram from ‘Study Skills in English’ only togive an example of the most common and usual Mind Mapform widespread throughout the world. In order to help preventany teacher or learner from being held caught in such



Means of Communication

3. PRINTING

16THC. METAL TYPE

BROUGHT TO EUROPE BY ARABS

ORIGIN CHINA 1. SPEECH

ORIGINATED? 1M.YRS.AGO

4. ELECTRONIC 2. WRITING

MORSE CODEWIRE/CABLE (TEL) SPEAKER DOESN’T HAVE TO

BE PRESENT

KNOWLEDGEPASSED ON

1.HIEROGLYPHICS/IDEOGRAPHS

NO WIRE/CABLE

2. SYLLABARIES

3. ALPHABETSTV 1920 S

MOBILE PHONE

MODERN COMPUTERRADIO: MARCONI

1896



34

Ling

uist

ic-in

to-C

omm

unica

tive

Perfo

rman

cespidergrams, I offer the community of teachers and learners a brandnew form of Mind Mapping, which bears a brand new name: TheTreegram. Just compare and contrast the new form with all theother previous ones to see how much difference it makes:

The Treegram is composed by Sander Kola.

In spite of the previous examples, since some linguists considergrammar structure harmful, I think that not only Mind Mappings

Modern MobileComputer Phone

Radio: Marconi 1896 TV 1920 s

No wire / cable

Morse Code Wire / Cable (Tel)

Origin China Brought to Europe by Arabs

16th c. metal type

1. Hieroglyphics/Ideographs Knowledge passed on

2. Syllaberies3. Alphabets

Speaker doesn’t have to be present

Originated? 1 million years ago

Electronic

Printing

W r i t i n g

S p e e c h

Means of Communication



35

but also the sentence and intonational patterns may becomeharmful structures if you do not know how to deal with them.Such structures, I suppose, ought to be considered only in alight touch style during communication.

Concerning intonation, Alan Cruttenden (1994: 183-184) hasstated: ‘The study of intonation is at a point from which there islikely to be significant and consistent progress in the next decadeor two.’ He identified six areas in which work is likely to beconcentrated. Two of them seem to relate to my topic in hand.The first, ‘the realization rules involved in mapping the tonesfrom intonation lexicon onto varying stretches of segments’,may change tone mapping into another structure, which I thinkshould be considered. While the second, “pragmatics involvedin the choice of tone and the interaction between the abstractmeanings of tones and other levels of meaning (lexical,grammatical, gestural) to produce local meanings”, appears tohave an affinity with my overall subject developed. Withoutbeing afraid of reducing the seriousness of my work, but tocreate a better idea of what prosodic pragmatism and multi-dimensional communication imply, I will provide a dialogue oftwo non-human beings, despite my personal reserve concerningthe way the dialogue begins on the human level. Just follow anEnglish writer’s imagination, spoken out by the BBC in 1997,to understand the above-stated purpose:

Writer: I see two engines talking:

Engine 1: Can I , Can I , Can I , .... ?Engine 2: Yes you can , Yes you can , Yes you can , ... .

Then they were lost in a tunnel:[ t∫ ∂ k , t∫ ∂ k , t∫ ∂ k , .... ].





36

Ling

uist

ic-in

to-C

omm

unica

tive

Perfo

rman

ce

Summary and conclusion

I have spent some time trying to compare and contrast languagewith communication, giving a top priority to the latter inclassroom and everyday life. My concern has been to contributeto a better understanding of language complexity at times whenlanguage is considered a purpose in itself rather than as a meansof communication. And, as it could be implied by this study,perfection comes when the linguistic and communicativecompetence merge together into an idiolect, i.e. an individual’slinguistic choice and idiosyncrasy.

According to David Cross some teachers regard structurepractice and other forms of grammar teaching as harmful, seeingteacher’s role just as a provider of language-rich environmentwhere the learners are expected to pick up the language just asthey did their mother tongue. ‘These teachers might occasionallydraw attention to grammatical features of the language in areading passage, but that is all’ (Cross, 1992: 27). He added:‘There is no firm research evidence to show that their way isany better or worse’. On the contrary, I would suggest as clearevidence the word “harmful” itself, the case of Chomsky’s shiftfrom Hocus Pocus Grammar to “God’s Truth Grammar” andwhy not the modern approaches of teaching languages ascommunicative act.

Some language theorists are quite pessimistic in dealing withthe problems of language performance. But Steinberg gives hopewith his Natural Grammar / “God’s Truth Grammar” and CentralThought which might be considered “a challenge for all languagetheorists – a true model of human language performance’’(Steinberg, 2001: 393-394). Concerning language performance,I think that of paramount importance is to adopt a positivestandby mode for effective communication of self-interconnected ideas and prepare yourself for linguistic



37

production throughout the selectively receptive process ofcommunication in order to produce a memorable positive message,as a contributor to the representative personality upgrade, beingaware of the visible and invisible audience’s thoughts, feelings andoutward appearance in terms of time and space.

Since there are no right answers in pedagogy, I apply thefollowing recipe: “It’s probably best to avoid total allegiance toany one theory, new or old. Be flexible, neither constrained norwholy emancipated by any one view of learning or teaching”(Cross: 241).

To conclude, I would like to point out that I have also tried toestablish a conversation between teaching and research onlearning. Teachers and researchers should bear in mind the USCongressman Jim McDermott’s (2005) statement: ‘I can thinkof few issues that are more important to our nation and ourfuture than unlocking the secrets of how humans learn’. I find itin place to end with the ‘Cognition and Instruction’ journalcitation (Hammer & Schifter 2001): ‘We value teachers’contributions to education research, but we believe it is a mistaketo frame the inquiry of teaching as research or to suggest thatall teachers should participate in research. Teacher inquiry hasmuch in common with research on learning and it can provideinsights to steer researchers to new understandings and questionsto explore.’

Acknowledgements

Language Officer at the Office of English Language Programsin the US Department of State, for his very helpful commentsto my manuscript, the US teacher trainer, Mrs. Nancy M. Ackles,Ph.D.Linguistics, and the Head of Robert Schwartz CulturalAssociation, Dr. Jörg Kuglin, Ph.D.Linguistics, for theirsuggestions about the finishing touches of this paper. Greatthanks to the British Council Project Manager, Mr. Paul Wilson,





Latest immense gratitude goes to Mr. Bradley Horn, English

38

Ling

uist

ic-in

to-C

omm

unica

tive

Perfo

rman

cewho contributed as a consultant for some pertinent terms. I amdeeply grateful to the ex-head of admin of the Ministry of

highlight effective communication-oriented issues based mainlyon quantitative research. I am very grateful to my Honourableex-professors Gëzim Hada and Hamlet Bezhani, who with theirobjectivity encouraged me to be engaged in research when Iwas a senior student. Also, many thanks to my colleagues andthe generations of my students of Asim Vokshi ForeignLanguages High School in Tirana, Albania, who put up withmy obscure experiments since the year 2000 and shared the joyof the power of effective communication at important moments.

Last but not least, my gratitude goes to my two splendid cousins,Kristian Kola, 15 years old, and Arben Kola, 17 years old, whobecame part of my experiments. The latter, who used to speakonly in English with me from the time he began to speak hismother tongue until he entered the primary school and who isnow able to read and speak not only in English but also in Italianand German very fluently, gave me the opportunity tocomprehend the advantages of learning a foreign language fromchildhood based on previous oral communication.

Endnotes

1,2. Paul A. Samuelson and William D. Nordhaus. 1994: Macroeconomics.14th ed.

References

Brown-Azarowicz, M., Stannard, Ch. and Goldin M. 1987: Yes! You canlearn a foreign language. Illinois: Passport books, V, 12.

Cross, D. 1992: A practical handbook of language teaching. UK: PrenticeHall, 27, 236, 241.

Cruttenden, A. 1994: Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,183 – 184.



Education, Mr. Sokol Turani, for supporting my initiative to

39

Chen, Y. 2005: Barriers to acquiring listening strategies for EFL learnersand their pedagogical implications. TESL – Electronic Journal, 8 (4), A – 2.

Connected-earth website, 2005: How communication shapes the world:The origins of mobile. Online at URL http://www.connected-earth.com/content/history/-call-phone.html

Dore, J. 1986: The development of conversational competence. In R.Schiefelbusch (Ed.), Language competence: Assessment and intervention.San Diego: College-Hill Press.

Griffiths, R.T. 2005: History of the internet. Online document at URL http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/history/ihv/frame-theorie.html

Hammer, D. and Schifter, D. 2001: Practices of inquiry in teaching andresearch. Cognition and Instruction, Vol.19, No.4, pp. 474.

Heller, R. 1998: Communicate clearly. London: Dorling Kindersley, 6 – 7,23.

Hoagland, E. S.a: Stuttering time. In Levin, G., author, 1989: Short essays,5th ed. San Diego / Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 5.

Hymes, D. 1972: Introduction. In C. Cazden, V. John, & D. Hymes (Eds.),Functions of language in the classrooms. New York: Teachers College,Columbia University.

Lemann, N. 1997: The reading wars. The Atlantic Monthly, vol. 280,November 1997. Online magazine article document at URL http://www.questia.com/SM.qst

McDermott, J. 2005: Spotlight on research. Collage of Education article atURL http://depts.washington.edu/coe/news/res-spotlight/life.html

Muma, J. 1978: Language handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,118, 119.

Owens, R. E. 1988: Language development: An introduction. 2nd ed. NewYork: Macmillan Publishing Company, 3 – 8, 391.





40

Prose, F. S.a: Gossip. In Levin, G., author, 1989: Short essays, 5th ed. SanDiego / Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 17.

Russell, S. and Norvig, P. 2003: Artificial intelligence: A modern approach.Online document at URL http://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/

Steinberg, D. D., Nagata, H. and Aline D. P. 2001: Psycholinguistics:Language, mind and world. 2nd ed. London: Longman, 342, 393 – 394.

The BBC. 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2004. and the VOA. 2000.

Wallace, M. J. 1991: Study skills in English. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 207 – 208.

Wren, S. 2003: What Does a Balanced Literacy Approach Mean? Onlinearticle at URL http://www.sedl.org/reading/topics.html

Widdowson, H. G. 1990: Teaching language as communication. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 3 – 5.

The total number of words is 7988

Sander Kola graduated from the Faculty ofPhilology, University of Tirana, Albania, in 1991.He is an English teacher at Asim Vokshi ForeignLanguages High School in Tirana. His researchinterests include reading, speaking, languagelearning and language teaching performance.

Ling

uist

ic-in

to-C

omm

unica

tive

Perfo

rman

ce

Photo Credit:Arben Bici



Copyright © LCPJ Publishing 2008 by Sander Kola

performance linguistic-into-communicative 1, article 1.pdf · 2013. 8. 13. · since the...

Documents