Download
1 / 24
240 likes | 414 Vues
PONENCIA Towards a reconceptualization of communicative competence Doctor Edmundo Mora Universidad de Nariño.
E N D
PONENCIATowards a reconceptualization of communicative competenceDoctor Edmundo MoraUniversidad de Nariño
Problema: ¿Qué concepto de Enfoque Comunicativo subyace en la enseñanza del Inglés en las licenciaturas en idiomas ofrecidas por el Departamento de Lingüística e Idiomas de la Universidad de Nariño, qué factores lo han generado y qué discursos de innovación o resistencia se pueden inferir de tal acto?
The teaching of English has given rise to the technical and pragmatic paradigms. The former is revealed by the memorization of vocabulary and structures taken at face value from textbooks.
Regarding pragmatism, the data reveals the application of the same laws, that is to say, the implementation of identical practices that constitute the beginnings per se of uniformity, that is to say the application of rigid rules to achieve in most cases artificial communication.
For this research, the works of such authors as Canale (1985), Ellis (1994, 2009), Halliday (1991), Harmer (1991), Krashen (1991), Larsen-Freeman (2000) and Richards and Rodgers (2001, 1988) have been consulted among others.Richards and Rodgers maintain that the Communicative Approach is conformed by a theory of language and a theory of learning.
Regarding competence, Hymes (1972) maintains that a person who acquires communicative competence assimilates knowledge and skills for using the language as well, thus taking into account aspects concerning what is possible and appropriate, according to the context, grade of intimacy and purpose of conversation.
To speak a foreign language, whichever language it is, requires a good comprehension of the code of the new language to be learned. For Gadamer (1984) understanding what someone says is to agree on what was expressed and not just being able to reproduce words and ideas.
Discursive exchange flows through words. In this form, they become an act of polysemy due to the diversity of senses expressed through them, that is, words of cardinal importance in everyday speech. Ouaknin (1999), as cited by Mèlich (2001), asserts that teachers have to teach their students that the word can never close, since to do so would bring an end to life itself. The power and complexity of the word, for Bajtin (1989), is due to semantics, i.e. words possess certain ratings, implications, intentions and senses that generally complement, contradict, question, ratify or offer praise to the listener, in order to complete what the speaker means to say.
Thus, conversataional exchanges give way to the negotiation of a shared sense, thus generating a picture that corresponds to a particular conversation in a particular context, which most often has unpredictable goals given the plurality of meanings generated. The word thus understood both forces and retrieves the polysemy mentioned above.
Bajtin (1989) says when a word you want to express is semi-foreign, language has no owner, it belongs to all of us. For Bajtin (1989), the dialogue has an implied semantic load, indicating creation, construction and reconstruction; i.e., in dialogue and through dialogue speakers not only say things, but rather through the flow of speech build an entity, which although abstract, carries assumptions of a deeper consistency and involves the raw material of the words par excellence.
The plasticity of the word, basically embodied in polysemy, which sprouts in the verbal exchanges—exchanges that help boost the variety of lexicons in different roles in society—creates a nexus between the words and their very existence, a claim derived from Serna (2004). This relationship produces a plurality of voices and discourses we must seek to understand, value, and respect in its otherness, which gains strength and sense in the interaction with the other scenario in which human beings becomes inter-human, the individual becomes plural, the abstract becomes understandable, the invisible becomes visible.
Bajtin (1989) holds that language is a live media, one that is found in the dwelling of human beings and allows us to interact in everyday life. It is never unique. Its uniqueness lies only insofar as it deals with as an abstract grammatical system governed by a set of rules that dictate the possible sequence of sentences in a generous and infinite scenario of possibilities.
Habermas (1999) states that one characteristic of speech is its argumentative nature, characterized by three features: process, procedure and relevant arguments.
Reaching a consensus is not an easy task, well-founded arguments lead to discrepancies. If this is not an easy exercise in your own language, its neutrality and effectiveness is compromised even more when it comes to a foreign language.
For Gadamer (1984), understanding a foreign language means not having to translate it into the speaker’s native tongue.Gadamer suggests there is an undeniable link between language and thought.
Zemelman (1998) suggests there are two kinds of language: one that helps communicate and the other to think. Deleuze and Guattari believe thinking starts with the generation of concepts.
It is concepts, entities that allow us to think, to shape our thoughts and speech, shape our ideas and form our thoughts through which we create ourselves and co-create each other through the power of the word.
Thinking is just that, a flow of ideas from one sphere to another, from one surface to another, thus creating an intricate network in which concepts are not isolated in time but overlap, complement and intersect on moving plans, bringing the world of concepts to surface.
Thought is a complex process. Put another way, it is a process that requires intense work [from language itself] in order to foster the development of a communicative competence that provides the elements necessary to invigorate the relationship between language and thought.
RecommendationsComunicationLinguistic competenceThe traditional bottom-up approach
A Top-down approach Sociolinguistic competence Context Classroom discourse Input
Story-based approach – PACE Classroom discourse Input IAE T Initiates, S answers, T evaluates IAF T initiates, S answers, T feedback (: Tell me more..? Are you saying that….?.
Feedback-additional possibilities Modo interpretativo Presentational mode Interpersonal mode Culture Connections
