ETAP 652B Jawan Nesheiwat & Tynisha Anderson Reconceptualizing Multicompetence as a Theory of Language Knowledge Joan Kelly Hall, An Cheng, and Matthew T. Carlson ETAP 652B Jawan Nesheiwat & Tynisha Anderson

What is Multicompetence? According to Vivian Cook (1991), it is: “the compound state of mind with two grammars [whose] competence is a language ‘supersystem’ that differs in distinct ways from the language knowledge of monolinguals” (Hall, Cheng, & Carlson, 2006).

Cook’s Evidence 1 Bilinguals: Performed better on tasks that required more “analyzed linguistic knowledge” (Bialystok 1991, 2001). Scored higher on tests of divergent thinking (Cummins 1979; Diaz 1985). Were considered more “metalinguistically aware” and flexible in their language learning strategies (Galambos and Goldin-Meadow 1990; Nayak et al. 1989). Proved to be more sensitive/responsive than their listener, when compared to monolinguals (Nicoladis and Genesee 1996).

Cook’s Evidence 2 Bilinguals: In addition to containing linguistic structures from L1 & L2, their interlanguage (IL) also contained linguistic structures that were in neither of their L1 nor L2 (Beretta 1989; Corder 1978; Ellis 1985; Selinker and Douglas 1987; Tarone 1983). More research stated that no matter how advanced L2 users are in their L2, their L2 knowledge is different from that of a native speaker (Coppetiers 1987).

Cook’s Evidence 3 A study by Flege (1987) showed that L2 phonology factors affected language users’ L1 phonological systems. From his own study, Cook shows that L2 users’ grammaticality judgments of their L1 differed from monolinguals. Bilingual L2 systems can influence L1 systems at all stages of bilingualism. Possibly influenced language systems include: Phonology (Leather and James 1996). Morphosyntax (Pavlenko and Jarvis 2002). Lexicon (Laufer 2003) Semantics (Pavlenko 2003) Pragmatics (Cenoz 2003) Conceptual representations (Kecskes and Papp 2000).

Assumptions Authors’ intent: presenting a usage based view of Multicompetence. Three assumptions A view of L1 and L2 language knowledge as distinct systems. The presumption of a qualitative distinction between multicompetence and monocompetence. The assumption of homogeneity of language knowledge across speakers and contexts. (Hall, Cheng. Carlson, 2006)

Redressing Assumption 1 Assumption 1: A view of L1 and L2 language knowledge as distinct systems. According to Hall et al., the knowledge of multilingual users is “flexible, comprised of dynamic constellations of resources...which are emergent from interaction between internal architectures and cognitive processes...and social experiences” (2006). Mental processes Social Experiences Internal construct + Flexible/ever changing group of related things ----------------------------------------------------------- Language Knowledge

Redressing Assumption 2 Assumption 2: The presumption of a qualitative distinction between multicompetence and monocompetence. According to Hall et al., “all language knowledge is socially contingent and dynamic no matter how many language codes one has access to. The differences across users based not on number of languages, but on amount and diversity of experiences and use” (2006). Cook - Mono vs. Multi-competence (#of languages) Hall et al. - Variation of language use + social experience EVEN WITHIN A SINGLE LANGUAGE CODE.

Redressing Assumption 3 Assumption 3: The assumption of homogeneity of language knowledge across speakers and contexts. According to Hall et al. “language knowledge is always provisional and sensitive to renegotiation and renewal” (2006) therefore there “can [n]ever be, a homogeneous monolingual native speaker” (2006). Language knowledge is always developing and has no end point, therefore, it cannot be homogeneous across speakers/contexts.

Suggestions for Research Concerned with Multicompetence Old terms: interlanguage, transfer, shift, interference & native speaker New terms: communities of practice, communicative activities, communicative repertoires, reorganization, redirection, expansion, transformation, communicative expertise, and multi-contextual communicative expert.

Suggestions for Research Concerned with Multicompetence Previous research: Native speakers Bilinguals , trilinguals, multilinguals Future research: Ethnographies (of communication and discourse) Manner of acquisition Degree of affective involvement Context of use New research goals: It is not enough to experiment; use more ethnographic methods. Focus on how people use LK in communicative activities and how these activities construct LK.

Conclusion Authors conclude: Cook’s research has contributed to more positive view of linguistics. Research on Multicompetence has NOT furthered understandings of LK. Redressed assumptions. Advocate for usage-based approach. New concepts/new terms. New criteria for selecting participants.

Questions: How would you define multicompetence? Do you think the new terminology accurately encompasses the provisional property of language? How does this article influence the way in which we teach?