Explain the difference between competence and performance and discuss whether this is something that linguists should take a view on.

Theory A – Noam Chomsky.

The terms Competence and Performance were first coined by Noam Chomsky in the 1950’s (introduced in his first publication ‘Syntactic Structures’), who defined linguistics as a branch of cognitive psychology. Chomsky also maintained that language was an innate attribute of humans, “we are born with a number of highly specific grammatical rules built into our consciousness”, and that therefore all languages are based upon similar rules (known as ‘Universal Grammar’). It is thus discernable, Chomsky claimed, that the structure of all languages can be comprehended yet their performance is respective of the individual.

Chomsky’s distinction between Competence and Performance was primarily formulated to “idealise language data and define the scope of linguistic enquiry”. Chomsky classified Competence as “the knowledge native speakers retain of their respective language through a system of abstract formal relations” and Performance as their actual behaviour and employment of language (features such as hesitations, pauses, slights of memory, etc.). His theory stated that, though Performance is projected from Competence (thus making it referable), the two do not directly correlate. Chomsky supported this theory by illustrating that humans do not necessarily act upon knowledge intuitively due to circumstance and social constraints, this culminates in the paradigm that linguistic behaviour is socially conditioned by many external contributing factors aside from linguistic erudition. According to Chomsky, these factors are to considered incidental, having no relevance to linguistic description. Though Chomsky derived a great deal of these ideas from Saussure’s initial detailing of ‘Langue’ and ‘Parole’ (which, like Chomsky’s paradigms, are behavioural), he preferred to centre his basis of study on the individual’s Competence of language whereas Saussure regarded the role of language within the community of greater linguistic importance.

To summarise, Chomsky construed that Performance is variable, dependant on the respective circumstance in which it is utilised. Though performance is based to some degree within linguistic Competence, it can not be wholly relied upon as sole basis of language usage - “Abstract concepts of competence and actual acts of performance are quite different phenomena and you cannot directly infer one from the other”. In short, one’s language knowledge cannot be directly correlated to one’s linguistic behaviour.

Theory B – Ferdinand de Saussure.

The paradigms regarding Competence and Performance can be linked to another historical linguist that concentrated upon this topic, Ferdinand de Saussure. Saussure was a French linguist whose concepts were the basis of linguistic knowledge throughout the 20th Century. His ideas were expounded in the publication of his lectures at the University of Geneva (‘Cours de Linguistique Générale’), which represents a dichotomy of knowledge and behaviour under the same delineation of linguistic ideology to Chomsky.

He proposed that language be looked at as a ‘self-sufficient system’ and founded the study of Structural Linguistics, the fundamental consensus of which conceived that language consisted of two parts; ‘Langue’ (from ‘tongue’) and ‘Parole’ (from the French for ‘word’). ‘Langue’ refers to language as a cohesive entity within a community of native speakers rather than the individual knowledge of the language utilised by each native speaker (‘Parole’). “Whilst the former is homogenous, Saussure argued, the latter is heterogeneous”.

Though Saussure did recognize a correlation between languages, he did not wholly subscribe to the debate of whether language is innate, however, instead claiming that linguistic competence was determined by the transition of languages from generation to generation (“No society in fact knows or has ever known language other than as a product inherited from preceding generations, and one to be accepted as such”). Indeed, Saussure often dismissed the origins of language as irrelevant, considering the fundamental study of linguistics to primarily relate to “existing idioms” prevalent in the communal language.

Theory C – Wilhelm von Humboldt.

Wilhelm von Humboldt was a figurative German polymath whose work on linguistic variability was prominent in the 19th Century. Humboldt’s distinctions were in turn very similar to that of ‘Langue’ and ‘Parole’. He noted that language makes infinite use of a finite medium (i.e.: existing words therein), meaning that unlimited sentences can be constructed from any language. Humboldt observed that “language can be divided up into an infinity as the sole language in the one and the same nation yet at the same time these many variants are united into one language having a definite character”.

Humboldt’s views were aligned with that of the classic linguistic ideologically, agreeing with Saussure that the origins of language were inconclusive and that each respective language had its own ‘Innere Sprachform’ (internal structure). Humboldt’s ideas were also the precursor (albeit less successful) to Chomsky as he stated that “a people’s speech is their spirit, and their spirit is their speech” and were thus inseparable, highlighting what Chomsky would later identify as ‘Universal Grammar’.

Discussion

Despite the great deal of debate surrounding this topic, there is little evidence that serves to wholly valiadate or nullify either argument, the established opinion (Saussure, Humboldt, as well as Sapir and Trubetzkoy) maintaining that the origins of language are inconclusive, Competence is simply established necessity (the immersion of people in language from an early age) and Performance is the key to language study, as it highlights the structure of communication through the interpretation of the individual. Conversely, the relatively modern school of thought (Chomsky, Boas) dictates that language Competence is intrinsically etched into our consciousness (due to our ‘language gene’)  whilst individual Performance is irrelevant to such research as it is governed frequently by external social factors. The inability to highlight the beginnings of lanuage means that the term Competence itself is hard to define, either it is innate from birth (as believed by Chomsky) or it is acquired through immersion in language from an early age (Saussure’s view).

Theoretically, there is a valid link between Competence and Performance, what we say must logically be based upon what we know but the fact that what we know and think does not always translate to what we say suggests that the link must be more abstract than first considered. The external factors that govern our speech in certain situations and the various pauses and distractions (um, err, etc.) that pepper our conversation has lead Chomsky to negate Performance correlation to Competence (“corpus is by its very nature a collection of externalised utterances - it is performance data and is therefore a poor guide to modelling linguistic competence”).

However, this does not provide a clarification to the beginning of language development, and thus the origins of Competence. Chomsky maintains that our innate ability to utilise language in a lucid and rational manner stems from the ‘language gene’.  It is due to this ability to command language, reasoned Chomsky, that all languages are based upon a template of similar rules (which he defined as ‘Universal Grammar’); however, this has been hard to verify. Despite the syntactical and grammatical correlation between most European languages, these languages are usually amalgamations of each other, as they have been related (and therefore merged) over centuries. In fact, studies into language parallels have found that, while the principles underlying languages are often similar (e.g.: English, Swahili, Urdu and Yucatan share comparable syntax structures), they are rarely identical. Also, Chomsky’s critics have argued that, if language is biologically endowed, what is it that makes languages differ and what explanation is there for structural discrepancies amongst these languages. This has lead many to conclude that the paradigms of ‘Universal Grammar’ are more abstract than originally conceived.

Despite this, there is a great deal of evidence to prove Chomsky’s view on the presence of a ‘language gene’, therefore supporting his ideas (albeit to a certain extent) on the source of competence. The fact that language acquisition begins autonomously (without conscious effort) and children have a basic grasp of complicated grammatical and syntactical structures before they enter the education system reinforces Chomsky’s ideas.  Also, science has proven there are sections on the left hemisphere of the brain (classified as ‘Broca’s Area’) that are specifically devoted to language and injuries in this area can severely impair language utilisation. The opposition to this controversial opinion is widespread, the majority of Chomsky’s critics dismissing language acquisition as a necessity as they surrounded by it from birth and are forced to learn it if they wish to communicate with those around them (when they are hungry, thirsty, etc.).

Regardless of the many correlations between the ideologies of Chomsky and Saussure, there are several further fundamental distinctions relating to their categorisations of both Performance and Competence as linguistic entities. While Chomsky regards Competence as an applicable construct for language study, Saussure regarded it with ambivalence, choosing instead to concentrate upon the structure of language within the community rather than its relevance to the individual.

Also, Saussure classifies the nature of language knowledge (i.e.: our capacity to understand an infinite number of sentence structures within our respective language) as constituting “a generality of highest common factors” whereas Chomsky regards this as indicative of our innate capacity for language comprehension, supporting his consensus of Universal Grammar (“…competence in a language can be taken as a variant in respect to universal features of language”).

Some linguists claim that, by pursuing excessively abstract theories of linguistic Competence, Chomsky has made it impossible to explain how linguistic knowledge is put to use. These researchers argue that the study of linguistic Competence cannot be altogether divorced from Performance: Competence models —they argue— must be compatible with plausible accounts of language processing in production, comprehension, etc. As well as this, Chomsky suggests that the study of Competence should abstract away from variation. Many researchers, particularly within the Sociolinguistic tradition, are vigorously opposed to this view: they argue that the knowledge of the patterns of variation accepted within a speech community is an essential component of a speaker’s linguistic Competence.

Indeed, there is much confusion amongst prominent linguistic literature about whether or not such a distinction between Competence and Performance is necessary, desirable, or even meaningful. Saussure noted that “there is no discernable origins of language, it can only be traced back though the generations”. The subject is based around the origins of coherent thought and how it is translated in the social domain, which would broach linguistic, psycholinguistic and sociolinguistc fields of research which could lead one to assume that this is a central issue and one that linguists should take a view on. Indeed, the very importance of this topic is highlighted in the great debate that it has stimulated as well as the prominent figures that have contemplated it (Chomsky, Saussure, Sapir, and Whorf – men who shaped the scope of modern linguistic study). However, dismissal of this issue from many leading linguists (Saussure and Bickerton being the two most renowned examples) illustrates that study can continue without consideration of this and, coupled with the lack of conclusive evidence, makes these ideas little more than fantastical suppositions.

Conclusion

In summary, there are many arguments regarding the distinction between Competence and Performance and its relation to the study of modern linguistics. The broad definition of Competence would be the individual’s idea on the structure of their respective language whilst Performance is regarded as their presentation of the aforemented within society. Although it is this inability to discern focused distinctions between these two entities, perpetuated through the conflicting arguments and lack of conclusive evidence (a reliance on ‘theories’ being the basis of both Chomsky and Saussure’s reasoning),  that provides the main stumbling blocks for linguists in addressing this issue seriously and formulating decisive opinions.

The two primary views held on the classification of Competence were formulated by Chomsky and Saussure. Whilst the former regards human Competence of language to be an innate attribute from birth, the latter considers language Competence to be ascertained through language immersion from birth. The two hold similarly conflicting views on Performance, Chomsky regarding it as irrelevant due to its many anomalies (influenced by many factors aside from language knowledge) while Saussure considers individual language interpretation to be the basis of linguistic examination.

In short, though the definition of both Performance and Competence is vague and dependant upon opinion, the fundamental difference between the two is that, while the former is focused upon the usage of language in society the latter is concerned with the structure and understanding of language in relation to the individual.  

WORD COUNT        2,754.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• H.G. Widdowson ‘Linguistics’: Oxford University Press (New York, 1996).

• N. Smith & D. Wilson ‘Modern Linguistics: The Results of Chomsky’s Revolution’: The Harvester Press (USA, 1979).

• V. Kinsella ‘Language Teaching & Linguistics’: Cambridge University Press (London, 1978).

• J.K. Chambers ‘Sociolinguistic Theory’: Blackwell Publishing (UK, 1995).

• A. Radford, M. Atkinson, D. Britain, H. Clahsen, & A. Spencer ‘Linguistics: An Introduction’: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, 1999).

• N. Chomsky ‘Aspects of the Theory of Syntax’: St. Martin's Press (New York, 1965).

• F. Saussure, ‘Course in General Linguistics’ (translated by W. Baskin): McGraw-Hill (New York, 1966).

• M. Crocker ‘Computational Psycholinguistics’: Kluwer Academic (London, 1996).

• http://www.ling.udel.edu/colin/courses/ling890/class1.pdf.

• http://www.hcrc.ed.ac.uk/Site/CROCM920.html.

• http://pirate.shu.edu/~weislang/Linguistics.html.

• G. Finch ‘How to Study Linguistics: A Guide to Understanding Language’: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. (UK, 1997).

• R.L. Trask & B. Mayblin ‘Introducing Linguistics’: Icon Books Ltd. (UK, 2000).

• http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk.

---