On Communicative Competence and Alptekin's Intercultural Communicative Competence

Although I found chapter 8 in Brown's Principles of Language Learning and Teaching very interesting, I did not find it very applicable to my own career path. In fact as I read and processed the information, I felt as if this chapter and additional readings were working towards acknowledging English for Specific Purposes. Although, I have yet to read about ESP, I imagine that I will have more affinity for ESP than I currently hold for CC. Research on communicative competence seems rather intuitive to me. The four categories defined by Cannale and Swain (1980) seem logical. Furthermore, it seems obvious that different cultures as well as different L2 will have different ways of approaching grammatical competence, discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence and strategic competence. Researching language functions definitely has its place in Second Language Acquisition Theory as well as teaching English as a Second Language. However, I feel that it has a greater importance for educators who will be teaching foreign languages.

I plan on teaching English in the United States to young elementary age children. Most of these children will probably live most of their lives in the United States, some may even have been born in the United States. Due to the high probability that my students will be surrounded by "native" English speakers for much of their lives, I feel my duty is to teach a curriculum based on Communication for Academic Learning Purposes (CALPS). Even if I were to teach adult learners I would want to know individual students and their purposes for learning English. If a student wants only the ability to communicate in English, then perhaps I would spend more time teaching sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence and strategic competence. It is my personal opinion that students living in this country will gain the Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills needed to survive in this country.

What I want for my students is the CALPS. Perhaps this is because I come from the field of education even before the field of multiculturalism. Although I believe strongly in a global society, I believe that a global society can only be realized through an educated society. Call me old fashioned, but most of the students I have taught in my educational career thus far are lacking in the basic educational foundations needed to pursue higher education. Most liberals who believe in a global/multicultural society of equality, have a good academic foundation and higher education under their belts. I have found that discrimination comes from ignorance and lack of perspective. Some of this ignorance is even found among educators who exit L2 students with the assumption that the student can speak the L2 as well as any other "native" English speaker. I have heard from more than one immigrant that they believe their children do not need ELL services because they speak English perfectly. This to me is a sad assumption that speakers of English as an L2 have the same opportunity to achieve high standards in education as "native" speakers of English.

As I read Alptekin's article, I had an idea for a political cartoon. I envisioned stereotypes of different "native" English speakers. I saw the southern accented Paula Dean (from Food Network) along with the New York Jewish Woody Allen, next to an urban rap artist such as Fifty Cent, and Kim Noble from the BBC on NPR arguing who was the "native" English speaker. In a global society, it would not matter. Communication would be the means to an end, and the end (multiculturalism) would be met if we could overlook things such as sociolinguistic competence and discourse competence.

Don't get me wrong, as I read chapter 8, I was able to see instances where pragmatics, sociopragmatics, and discourse analysis are real. For instance, even though my Spanish is level one at best, I can always tell who my husband is speaking to on the phone. I can tell if he is talking to a woman, or a man. I can also tell whether he is on the phone with a friend, a family member, or an acquaintance. I suppose this is because I have become accustomed to different registers in Spanish, even though I seldom know the extent of what is being said. Does this mean, when I am finished with my ELL endorsement and become a student of Spanish I will learn Spanish faster? I doubt it. If I have an advantage over other Spanish students it will be because I have the ability to practice at home, and not because I can tell a difference in registers.

Again, when talking about discourse and sociopragmatics with my husband as well as Birgit, I felt a mysterious sense that sociopragmatics had a lot more to do with psychology than linguistics. I don't want to go into detail here, but it seems that whether or not a person can end a conversation or reply to a complement has more to do with self-confidence than culture. At least, I can find many instances within my own multicultural family where these instances don't match up to culture at all.

I would be wary of going to another country and into another culture and teaching English to the belittlement of the local language. Thankfully, I'm not going to carry that burden in the career path I am choosing. If I were to go that route, I think I would take Alptekin's article on Intercultural Communicative Competence and hang it over my desk or sleep with it under my pillow.

Conceptualizing WTC in a L2: A Situational Model of L2 Confidence and Affiliation

This article uses early research in L2 speakers' willingness to communicate and categorizes WTC into linguistic, communicative, and social/psychological factors on a neatly created pyramid. Macintyre et al. seems to say that the social/psychological factor of personality and/or ethnicity has the least amount of influence on a L2's WTC . At the same time these two factors are the support of the pyramid. This confuses me. I understand Macintyre et al. as saying that although personality and/or ethnicity can have extreme adverse consequences in WTC in L2's, it probably has little to do with positive motivation for WTC in L2. That makes sense to me. Perhaps this is the reason Macintre et al. uses this as the base of the pyramid. However, it seems that they are then using and unwillingness to communicate for the basis of the willingness to communicate. Awkward, but plausible.

The affective-cognitive context of social/psychological factors seems to have more weight on the WTC in L2. It also makes logical sense even without research. (I believe that is one of the keys to a good theory) The more competent one is in a L2, the more likely one will be WTC. Similarly, the more comfortable one feels in a social situation, the more WTC. Again, the attitudes towards multicultural groups would also play a significant role in one's WTC in the L2. If one percieves themself as an unwanted ethnic group, one probably will not be WTC. (This sounds familiar to the base of the pyramid) Personally, I see these three contexts as influential in a L1's WTC. I can be very WTC in some situations and then extremely UWTC in others. I see the relationship of my own UWTC and WTC to the control aspect discussed as a communicative factor (layer IV) When I feel as if I have competence/control, I'm more WTC. When I feel incompetent/unorganized I am less WTC. At the same time, sometimes the more "out of control" I am, the more I talk. I supose that is a psychological construct to cover up the fact I'm lost. (Are you lost yet?)

It is important to note, Macintyre et al. would not like to compare the WTC in L1 and L2. I agree that the two are not related 1:1, but in this context there could be cross over.

Finally, we arrive to the top of the pyramid. (I know I left out alot about state self-confidence, but I can't rewrite the entire article now, can I?) Layer II seems to be the most applicable to teachers of L2. Our job as L2 teachers is to create a WTC in order for students to find a balanced ability in L2. This requires a positive classroom climate, with positive relationships amongst members of the classroom. (Sounds like good old fashioned classroom pedagogy).

I question the reliability of the raised hand as a significant factor of WTC. At least in my classroom, students raise their hand to join the crowd, and not necessarily because they want to share an answer. I suppose a correct answer isn't a WTC, where as the hand raising requires a WTC even if you have to say, "Could you come back to me?" (There, I answered my own query.)

The tippy top of the pyramid claims that authentic communication is the goal, and motivation towards authentic communication has to do with all the factors below.

This article seems to put a damper on Krashen and TPRS. TPRS might do a great job of creating WTC within the classroom, but in an authentic situation, where the student may be judged for incorrectness, well, I'll hold my tongue.

Another thought that went through my head while reading this article has to do with our discussion on language vs. communication. Here we are discussing in depth WTC and so far I've been getting the feeling that most linguists would distinguish between communication and language. Dogs are very WTC. Right now, my cat is WTC. By siting directly in front of the computer screen, he has communicated to me, "Stop working, and pet me." Perhaps a WTC does have something to do with language competence, but it certainly does not define it. It seems logical that a WTC could help a language learner, however, it has not helped Bocho (my cat) to understand me when I say, "Please, not now, Bocho, I will pet you before bed". In other words, I think a WTC can help a language learner, but not it can not gaurantee the learner learn the language. Just as I'm not convinced that an UWTC will prevent a learner from learning a L2.

Primary Language Instruction and the Education of Language Minority Students an article by Jim Cummins

This was a refreshing article. In fact, it enabled me to go back to my own beliefs and feelings about why I became a teacher in the first place. It is helping me to reprioritize my classroom and instruction, to what I have always known as “best practices”.
To start at the beginning, you need to know a bit about my current academic year and state of mind. I have been struggling all year with the “toughest” group of students I have ever taught. I teach fourth grade (a tested grade) and my current class was “the class” that caused the entire district to lose “AYP”. Yes, that is right. In our district there are only four elementary schools. Two elementary schools have been keeping the district afloat with test scores that have enabled “adequate yearly progress” towards Missouri’s standards. Last year, our elementary third grade class “missed the boat”, by a long shot. At the beginning of the year the district was outraged with the third grade teachers in my school. The third grade teachers felt like children being admonished for trying their best and not succeeding. Of course no one mentioned the students’ part in failing the test.
Next, administration turned their heads to the fourth grade teachers for rectification of the situation. Trying to be positive and optimistic, I stood up for the challenge. In a class where 8 out of 22 students were reading on grade level, I was bound and determined to prepare them for the MAP test, by April. Instead, I have come up against the toughest year of my career. I have questioned my own ability as a teacher, and my own philosophy and perspective of reality has been challenged to the limits.
It wasn’t until I read this article that I realized the extent of the problem. I went into this year trying to teach the students the prescriptive knowledge needed to pass the state test. I have shown the students the binder of grade level expectations. In my class we call it the “fourth grade bible”. When I teach a grade level expectation, I let the students know, “This is in the fourth grade bible”. When I teach something above and beyond the grade level expectations, I let the students know, “This isn’t in the fourth grade bible, but it will get you a head start on fifth grade, middle school or high school.” This is the extent to which I have familiarized myself with the grade level expectations in Missouri.
Recently, I have been involved in vertical and technology based meetings with collaborative teachers. In these meetings I have realized that all the wonderful tools I have hidden away in my room; such as inquiry based, cooperative learning, technology rich unit projects and WebQuests, have been left untouched all year. They are unused and untouched because this class has so much catching up to do. We don’t have time for time consuming, motivating and enriching activities. Just listening to myself makes me want to cry, but it is true. This is how the year has gone for me.
Cummin’s article has helped me refocus and I am ready to share in my classroom’s resistance. The more I have tried to control and impart knowledge, the more they have resisted. Look out DESE, I’m through with the MAP test! My students are resisting this “education” because it has no relevance to their lives, it is not motivating, and it is subtractive to their cultural background. Who writes the MAP test anyway? I imagine the writers are the people in our society who feel that we should all assimilate to their prescriptive educational needs. They are the politicians who bank on platforms claiming “No Child Should Be Left Behind.” The underlying truth to this platform is, “no child, different from ourselves, should get in the way of our children getting ahead.” Okay, now I’m on a soap box.
The two major ideas or realizations I am taking from Cummins’ article are the use of community (parent) involvement in education, and the return to Kagan cooperative learning and inquiry based learning techniques. So what if these strategies take so much time that I don’t impart everything in the “fourth grade bible” to my students. So what if my students do poorly on the April test. At this point, I’m fine if the district wants to fire me. (well almost) My students deserve the type of empowerment that Cummins has given me. They also deserve to enjoy learning for the sake of learning and not because it is in the “fourth grade bible”. How could I, a firm atheist of the pontifications from the pulpit, have forgotten my roots and turned the curriculum into biblical truth? Thank you Cummins. I am now released from my own cultural limitations, (or at least some of them.)