CC BY
7UDC 159.9:37.0
DOI: 10.23951/2782-2575-2023-3-52-67
THE STRUCTURE OF LANGUAGE COMPETENCE
FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE METASYSTEM APPROACH
1 2 Anatoly V. Karpov , Dmitry N. Chernov
1 Yaroslavl State University named after P. G. Demidov, Yaroslavl, Russian Federation, karpov@uniyar.ac.ru
2 Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation, chernov_dima@mail.ru
Abstract. The article analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of the existing approaches to defining the concept of linguistic competence. A proposed classification organizes the variety of competencies associated with language use. The author's conception of the organization of linguistic competence at the structural level as a psychological and pedagogical phenomenon is presented from the theoretical and methodological positions of the Metasystematic approach as the most modern version of the systematic approach to date. Five levels of the system of linguistic competence were identified: Metasystem, System-wide, Subsystem, Component, and Elementary. It is stated that the content of the highest metasystem level of linguistic competence is a holistic linguistic ability consisting of communicative, lexical-semantic, grammatical, and regulatory subsystems. The regulatory system is most important to the functioning of linguistic competence, which is an activity invariant of the self-regulatory processes of goal formation, prediction, decision-making, planning, programming, control, and self-control. The embedding of the level of the metasystem in the underlying levels of the system determines the specifics of its content, which is represented by different ways of dealing with language knowledge: Language Reflection, Language Intuition, Language Knowledge, and Language Skills. In order to verify the model of the structural level of language competence, an empirical study was conducted with a sample of 94 second-grade students of a general education school. The methods used were tests of language and speech development, which are widely used in psychological and pedagogical practice, and the method developed by the author to study the peculiarities of a student's language awareness when working with quasi-linguistic constructions. The methods of interview, structured observation, and expert assessment were used. The study confirms the validity of the authors' theoretical ideas. The obtained theoretical and empirical results can be used to clarify the goals, purposes, and methods of language teaching and psychological and pedagogical support of this process at all levels of language teaching.
Keywords: linguistic competence, language knowledge, language intuition, language reflection, systematic approach, metasystematic approach, language learning
For citation: Karpov A.V., Chernov D.N. The Structure of Language Competence from the Point of View of the Metasystem Approach. Education & Pedagogy Journal. 2023;3(7):52-67. doi: 10.23951/2782-2575-2023-3-52-67
Improving the effectiveness of language teaching for students at the present stage of social development is an urgent task of pedagogy and educational psychology. The mastery of language knowledge, the formation of language skills, and the implementation of all the richness of language into communication and activity lead to the full development of the individual. With the introduction of the competency-based approach in education, language learning issues began to be viewed through the prism of the concept of linguistic competence [1-3]. The work of the American linguist N. Chomsky strongly favored this. Considering the uniformity of the internal structure of grammar and the diversity of its manifestation in sounding language, N. Chomsky, in the 1950s, proposed to call the speaker/listener's comprehensive knowledge of language described by the generative model linguistic competence and the actual application of this knowledge in real life situations linguistic activity (performance) [linguistic performance]. Linguistic performance will always differ from linguistic competence because language production is subject to situational or long-term factors irrelevant to the perception and reproduction of language and speech. Therefore, linguistic competence should be studied primarily by linguistics and linguistic performance by other sciences, including psychology [4].
N. Chomsky's position was criticized mainly for the author's attempts to formally describe the mental reality underlying actual language behavior through linguistics [5]. It was also necessary to overcome the problem postulated in N. Chomsky's concept of isolation of the speaker/listener's ideational ideas about the language system and its real-life use. The experience of studying a person's ability to master both the native language and a foreign language served as the basis for introducing the concept of communicative competence into science, which is understood as tacit knowledge of language, the ability to use language to communicate in a particular culture in order to perform social tasks effectively [6]. There are a number of theories according to which linguistic/communicative competence is a complex of sub-competencies - grammatical, discursive, pragmatic, and sociolinguistic [7-9]. At present, the number of competencies related in one way or another to the use of language in different spheres of life is multiplying, both in Russian and international science. According to our rough estimates, the "linguistic" competencies list has already reached fifty items.
Classification of a large number of currently proposed competencies poses a problem, as their content is either fragmentary or, conversely, too general, leading to "overlapping" and indeterminacy of concepts. From our point of view, a large number of "linguistic" competencies and options for their systematization can be grouped according to the following criterion: It is necessary to determine the specifics of language use and in what sphere of human activity they differ. It should be noted that the assignment of some competencies to one or another group is rather arbitrary since many of them lie at the intersection of several ontological modes of language use. We present only the most general results of this work. First, we distinguish a group of cognitive-linguistic competencies that characterize knowledge about language,
the rules for its use, and the specifics of its use in cognitive activities. Secondly, it is possible to distinguish a relatively large group of communicative competencies that reveal the features of language use in interpersonal communication, considering the degree of knowledge of the language of communication and the involvement of communicators in various social and cultural contexts of interaction. Third, and finally, a group of regulatory competencies is singled out in which language is either a means of regulating cognitive activities or - itself becomes the object of subjective regulation of its use.
In our view, such "multiplication of entities" leads to empiricism and fragmentation of knowledge. The pragmatic focus of the research leads to partiality in the study of the manifestations of linguistic competence and inductivity in generalizing the results. There is a contradiction between the weak methodological support of the researchers' attempts to reveal the conceptual essence of the phenomenon of linguistic competence as an integral systemic formation and the eclecticism of the theoretical generalizations. We must note that today, in science, the analytical approach dominates regarding linguistic competence's structure, functions, and emergence.
In international science, "competence" and "competency" are not separated. In Russian research, there are various ways of terminological delimitation and hierarchical subordination of these concepts concerning the problem of acquiring language skills and their application in life and coinciding with the development of the competence-based approach in education at the end of the twentieth century. (I.A. Zimnyaya, E.A. Bystrova, S.I. Lvova, V.I. Kapinos, A. V. Khutorskoy) In pedagogy and educational psychology, the idea that linguistic competency is broader than language competence, which is a concept that implies the possession of all aspects of the native language; it includes many manifestations of the cognitive, communicative, self-regulatory, value-semantic, emotional-sensory spheres of personality [1, 10, 11].
There is also an acute question about the hierarchical relationship between communicative and linguistic competencies. Thus, the hierarchical subordination of linguistic competence to communicative competence is justified by the importance of forming a personality capable of communicating comprehensively in various areas of life [10, 11]. The reverse version of the hierarchy of competencies is due to the need to develop a personality capable of using the full richness of language in communication. It turns out that the existing variants of hierarchical subordination of competencies depend on the theoretical and applied tasks that society sets for researchers [3]. Authors in Russia often use the terms "competence" and "competency" synonymously [3, 10].
From our point of view, the most important distinguishing feature of the content of these concepts is the idea that the competence-based approach essentially aims at promoting not individual partial aspects "...of the individual's activity, but the design of all activities in general" [12, p. 510]. Accordingly, competence is a systemic new formation of the subject of action, enabling him to effectively solve the tasks set for him in one or another area of
life. The complexity of competencies "... is since they organically contain in their content at the same time the specific characteristics of the activity itself' [12, p. 569]. On the other hand, competency is a competence objectified in the activity, which manifests itself in various forms of its implementation in terms of the degree of awareness. In the field of professional activity, a similar variant of the distinction between the concepts of "competence" and "competency" has proved to be quite in demand in Russia [13]. However, in the context of the problem of the formation of the child's personality in the course of education, the differentiation of the terms continues to cause difficulties. A conceptually complete, systematic understanding of language competence would make it possible not only to streamline the totality of currently available conceptions of language phenomena that constitute the content of pedagogical and psychological, and educational practice of language teaching but also to clarify the goals, purposes, and methods of language teaching, as well as the psychological and pedagogical support of this process.
Undoubtedly, the basis for overcoming difficulties in the study of language competence is a systematic approach. This approach has been implemented in psychology in the works of B.G. Ananiev [14], V.A. Barabanshchikov [15], B.F. Lomov [16], V. D. Shadrikov [17], and others have found its regular expression in many branches of psychological knowledge. However, the theory and practice of introducing the theoretical and methodological foundations of a systematic approach to the study of competencies and skills related to the use of language in a subject's life is still at an early stage. In the few works of pedagogy and educational psychology that deal specifically with the systematic consideration of linguistic competence and its variants, a formal approach to the use of the achievements of the systematic approach predominates. The analytical generalization of the psychological and pedagogical phenomenology of language learning by applying classical ideas about the structural and dynamic structure of the psyche to this subject-object domain dominates.
The most modern version of the systematic approach to the analysis of psychological phenomena is the metasystematic approach, which has undergone a conceptually detailed and heuristic implementation in a number of our works (see, e.g., [12, 18]). According to the main methodological provisions of the approach, the psyche and its components can be represented as an integral system of an epistemological type with a built-in metasystem level, the organizational patterns of which multiply in all lower levels of the system and determine the features of its functioning and genesis as well as new integrative properties of the system. The productivity of the application of the metasystematic approach to various psychological phenomena has been repeatedly demonstrated in social and industrial psychology in psychological studies of activity and personality (see, e.g., [12, 18-20]). At the same time, the theoretical and methodological provisions of the metasystemic approach have not yet been sufficiently implemented in psychological and educational theory and practice. In this paper, we present the author's view of the structural organization of linguistic competence as a psychological and pedagogical
phenomenon and provide some empirical evidence for the scientific consistency of this idea.
From the point of view of the metasystematic approach, linguistic competence, like any other psychological phenomenon, is not a true ontological system but belongs to the class of epistemological systems; it is a more complex formation, an integral hierarchically organized system complex of psychological features. Application of our proposed criterion discriminator of level structure of systems [12, 18] to the problem of structural organization of linguistic competence requires identification of five qualitatively irreducible levels in its structure: metasystem, system-wide system, subsystem, component, and elementary. Let us consider these levels, beginning with the most important, the metasystem level, and ending with the elementary level, in descending order of their rank in the hierarchy.
The analysis of the currently existing conceptions of linguistic competence and its variants, which we carried out earlier, made it possible to identify three superordinate metasystems, "society," "activity," and "personality," into which the child, as the subject of language development, not only integrates but which, in their turn, are naturally built into the system of his linguistic competence, multiplying in all its lower levels and determining the qualitative security of the whole system [21]. Nevertheless, based on our views on the structure of general abilities [13] and integration of the ideas of N. Chomsky [4], D. Himes [6], M.K. Kabardov [23, 24], T.N. Ushakova [25] and others on the abilities associated with the use of language in life, we have assumed that the mental representation of metasystems in the structure of linguistic competence is a single linguistic ability consisting of a number of subsystems. Thus, linguistic ability as a subject's readiness to use language skills in communication, activity, and regulation of one's activity at the level of personal existence is the content of the metasystem level of linguistic competence.
To verify this assumption, an empirical study was conducted with a sample of 94 second-grade students of secondary schools in Moscow and the Moscow region.
In accordance with the theoretical assumptions about the content of the metasystem level of linguistic competence, a number of subsystems were identified.
The communicative subsystem is characterized by the peculiarities of the child's interaction with the social environment. It is expressed in the intensity of communicative needs, the degree of adequate understanding of the situation and objects of communication, in the qualitative and quantitative features of the child's achievement of informational, factual, and communicative goals. A necessary condition for including these aspects of communication into a separate subsystem of language ability is the comprehensive use of language tools. The following were used to assess the communicative subsystem: a block of language pragmatic subtests of the Heidelberg Child Language Development Test [26, 27]; the results of a structured interview with the student before the test; observational data on the child's behavior during the psychodiagnostic examination; expert assessments by teachers.
The readiness to convert linguistic knowledge into objective activities is embodied in the structure of linguistic ability in the form of relatively independent lexical-semantic and grammatical subsystems. Note that already in the 1960s, the founders of such a direction in linguistics as "generative" semantics, criticizing N. Chomsky for his one-sided "syntactic" approach to defining the nature of linguistic competence, showed that the semantics of a language could be described by certain differential semantic features similar to the rules of transformational grammar. Through them, it is possible to represent the tree of semantic components of any word, which means that the semantic component should become an integral part of a full-fledged theory of linguistic competence [28-30]. Indicators of the formation of the lexical-semantic subsystem were the results of the subtests of the Heidelberg Test, which were designed to assess the child's knowledge of the meanings of words and sentences. Indicators for the grammatical subsystem were the results of performance on the "Morphology" and "Grammar" subtests of the Heidelberg Test. Other indicators were expert assessments of the student's language level obtained from teachers. The lexical-semantic and grammatical subsystems of language ability express the cognitive abilities to perform the operations of analysis, synthesis, comparison, generalization, and classification of linguistic phenomena in order to understand the systemic aspects of language structure and express them in spoken language.
Grammar and semantics, represented in language mainly in lexical units, are basic components, basic subsystems of language ability as representatives of the cognitive direction of the study of language use in spoken language, vocabulary, and syntax enter into a complex interaction in the production of an utterance. None of the subsystems can be recognized as dominant in this process, and the temporary predominance of one subsystem over another in the production of an utterance depends on various non-linguistic factors, including communicative factors [31-33].
Finally, the regulatory subsystem includes an activity invariant of the integrative processes of goal formation, prediction, decision-making, planning and programming, control over the execution of an action, and self-control, which is functionally necessary for the execution of speech. Indicators of these processes were identified during the analysis of the activity of retelling the text while performing the specific Heidelberg subtest.
This list of subsystems can be added depending on the specific goals of the researchers. Although the ontological systems "society," "activity," and "personality" were recognized at the time of the development of the metasystematic approach as general, necessary, and sufficient for the emergence of systems with a built-in metasystem level, the metasystems, this does not mean, however, that they exhaust the list of ontological systems that can be integrated into the highest management level of the system. Depending on the goal orientation of the system, the metasystem "set" can either shrink or expand.
A correlation analysis between all indicators was performed. We used the structural, psychological method we developed to assess the degree of
structural organization of the subsystems and the relationships between them. Relative indices of structural organization were calculated, varying from 0.00 to 1.00. An index value of 0.00 signifies the absolute dissolution of the links between the components of the system and indicates its decay; in turn, an index value approaching 1.00 represents a rigid relationship between the structural elements of the system. The Express method has been used to analyze X2-structure diagrams for their homogeneity/heterogeneity (further details, [12, 18]). An empirical study confirmed the validity of the proposed structure of linguistic abilities (Table 1). 1): Indicators within each subsystem are closely related (indices for structural organization range from 0.64 to 0.90); communication between subsystems is generally lower (indices range from 0.35 to 0.86). The moderate values of the indices for the connections of the regulatory subsystem with other subsystems of language ability indicate the relative independence of the activity invariant of the self-regulatory processes that characterize each activity of subsystems characterized by specific, communicative, or linguistic content.
Table 1
Indices of the structural organization of the subsystems of linguistic abilities
Subsystems Comm. SbS. Gr. SbS. L.-S. SbS. Reg. SbS.
Comm. SbS. 0.81 0.82 0.74 0.35
Gr. SbS. 0.80 0.86 0.58
L.-S. SbS. 0.90 0.46
Reg. SbS. 0.64
Note. Here and below Comm. SbS. - communicative subsystem, Gr. SbS. -grammatical subsystem, L.-S. SbS. - lexical-semantic subsystem, Reg. SbS. -regulatory subsystem.
Holistic linguistic abilities ensure optimal speed and efficiency in the acquisition of linguistic knowledge and its appropriate use in the context of communication, factual activity, and the personal existence of the subject. We assume that the communicative, lexical-semantic, grammatical, and regulatory subsystems of linguistic abilities can enter into structural-hierarchical subordination relations with each other, depending on the specific task the subject has to perform in order to actualize linguistic knowledge, with the central position in the hierarchy always occupied by the subsystem relevant to a particular problem situation.
Although the next level in the structure of linguistic competence is the system-wide level, to understand its nature, it is necessary to consider the content of the formations that are ranked lower in the hierarchy with respect to the system-wide level.
The content of the subsystem level of linguistic competence consists of specific linguistic knowledge as mental representations of the linguistic means of expressing the systems of "society," "activity," and "personality" in the subject's mind, which are realized in speech activity in two forms - in the forms of linguistic reflection and the language sense. The views of
R.O. Yakobson [34] on linguistic reflection and the ideas we expressed earlier on reflection as a system-wide level of organization of the psyche [12, 18, 22] give reason to understand linguistic reflection as a conscious form of acquisition and actualization of linguistic knowledge by the subject in speech, characterized by a maximal, in its essence logical-analytical, successive development of the integrative processes of self-regulation of the activity. The works of M.M. Gohlerner, G.V. Eiger [35], and E.D. Bozhovich [2, 3] devoted to the phenomenon of language sense, and our ideas about the second phenomenon, together with the conscious, "virtual" unconscious mode of knowledge representation in the psyche [12], allow us to define language sense as a superconscious form of actualization of linguistic knowledge in the subject's language, characterized by an emotional-intuitive simultaneous perception of the "correctness" of linguistic phenomena.
In order to test this assumption, it was necessary to develop a set of methodological tools that would make it possible to simultaneously strengthen students' reflexive and intuitive attitudes toward linguistic phenomena. It was assumed that this would be possible when solving linguistic problems with which the student is confronted for the first time. The works of twentieth-century linguists show that such tasks can be created on the material of language constructions subjected to artificial transformations. Thus, the outstanding linguist L. Shcherba in the 1930s often asked students to think about the meaning of grammatically correct sentences consisting of meaningless words, e.g., "rnoKan Ky3dpa mmem 6ydnanyna 6oKpa u Kypdmum 6oKpenm (Glokaya kuzdra shteko budlanula bokra i kurdyachit bokryonka) - Free translation: Gload kudzoda of the shteko budlated the bokra and is noe kudrating the Bockling" [36]. In this way, the students could see the significant potential of the Russian language in the economic rendering of reality. A successful attempt to use nonsense words to diagnose language acquisition features in young children is the Wug-test proposed by J. Berko. In order to investigate the ability of children to generalize the learned rules of English morphology, they were presented with pseudowords (e.g., wug) and asked to perform certain morphological transformations with these words [37].
We have created non-standard linguistic tasks consisting of quasi-words. In them, the word stems are combinations of meaningless syllables, but the morphological rules for their use are similar to those of the native language. When performing the game-based technique for understanding the rules of word formation, the student had to recognize, in particular, the principles of forming case endings of quasi-words as similar to the rules of the Russian language and decline these "artificial" words. Indicators of language awareness were speed and accuracy in solving the linguistic tasks; the degree of linguistic reflection was evaluated based on the qualitative and quantitative features of the child's explanations of his decisions after completing the tasks. The procedure is sufficiently reliable and valid to assess a student's reflective and implicit linguistic knowledge [38, 39].
The results of students' solutions to these linguistic tasks show that the performance indicators of the main task series correlate closely with the
indicators of reflective attitude explaining the solution process (the index of structural organization for the subsystem level is 0.60). In addition, the subsystem level of linguistic competence shows close correlations, especially with the indicators of linguistic and regulatory subsystems (the indices of structural organization range from 0.50 to 0.65) (Table 2).
Table 2
Indices for the structural organization of linguistic competence
Subsystems and levels Comm. SbS. Gr. SbS. L.-S. SbS. Reg. SbS. Subsist. Lv. Comp. Lv.
Subs. Lv. 0.35 0.65 0.53 0.50 0.60 0.35
Comp. Lv. 0.40 0.51 0.46 0.21 0.35 0.73
Note. Hereinafter, Subs. Lv. - subsystem level of linguistic competence (solution of quasi-language tasks), Comp. Lv. - component level of linguistic competence (solving tasks in Russian).
This result confirms our assumption that, depending on the specifics of the problem situation, the subsystems required to solve particular problems are implemented most strongly at the lower levels of linguistic competence. Thus, linguistic reflection provides not only an adequate sense of language but also a rapid, parsimonious explication of the metasystemic level of linguistic competence in the subject's mind, even under the conditions of linguistic "uncertainty" of the stimulus material, which is characterized by the ambiguity of the connection between the signifier and the signified. These results allow us to claim that linguistic reflection is a conscious and linguistic sense is a superconscious form of expression of linguistic ability in an activity.
Below the subsystem level is the component level, the content of which is language skills. Language skills are the methods of applying the linguistic knowledge mastered by the subject in spoken language, which require the meaningful involvement of individual integrative processes that correlate with the main functional blocks of the activity, namely goal setting, prediction, planning, programming, decision making, control, and self-control. To investigate these, students were given tasks on morphological transformations of words in the Russian language: Declension of nouns with different occurrences in the Russian language [38]. Thus, the linguistic tasks on the material of the quasi-language and the native language differed in content but not in form: In both situations, the students had to decline the words according to the given cases based on their linguistic experience and knowledge; only in the first case the decisions were based to a considerable extent on linguistic intuition.
An analysis of the indicators of structural organization of the speed and accuracy of task completion in Russian shows that there are close relationships between them (the index of structural organization for the component level is 0.73). At the same time, the connections between the subsystem and component level indicators are moderately strong (the index is 0.35), which means that the realization of the ability to produce morphological
transformations with similar meanings is different in Russian and in quasi-linguistic materials. Interestingly, the subsystems of linguistic ability (in particular, the regulatory subsystem) are more closely related to the indicators of accurate handling of quasi-linguistic constructions (Table 2).
The relatively low indices of structural organization of connections between the indicators of the performance of linguistic tasks in the native language and the indicators of formation of the subsystem of self-regulatory action processes are explained by the fact that the students solved the tasks in dynamic alternation between intuitive-reflexive and automated forms of updating of language knowledge formed by an accumulation of language experience. This fact confirms the assumption about the selective, situationally meaningful inclusion of integrative processes of self-regulation of activity when working with language structures that are relatively familiar to students.
Finally, the content of the elementary level of linguistic competence is a language skill, which we understand as purposeful action with linguistic material brought to automatism, characterized by the flexibility of application to new linguistic situations, the maximum degree of mastery, and the minimum representation of self-regulatory processes of activity in mind due to their extremely reduced character.
In order to investigate the features of the structure of linguistic competence in students with trained and untrained language skills from the total sample, subgroups were identified based on the criterion of speed and accuracy in mastering a task in Russian: a) slow/inaccurate (language skills are not trained) and b) fast/accurate (language skills are trained). Statistically significant differences between these subgroups (fast/accurate results are better than slow/inaccurate) were found in a number of indicators of the functioning of grammatical, lexical-semantic, and communicative subsystems of language ability, the subsystem of self-regulating processes of activity, effectiveness of solving language tasks presented on the material of Russian language and quasi-language (according to the results of the application of Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.05-0.001). The value x = 0.02 (p > 0.05) between the structures of the indicators of linguistic competence of students with formed and unformed language skills (in this case, the language skill of declension of Russian nouns by case) shows the heterogeneity of the structures. The qualitative characteristics of the heterogeneity of the structures of the two subgroups of students were as follows. In the subgroup of students with underdeveloped language skills, the average level of linguistic ability predominates. In the subgroup of students with developed language skills, the subsystem of integrative processes of self-regulation of activity aimed at updating the necessary language skills in intuitive (sense of language) or reflexive (language reflection) form predominates, with the connection to the process of solving only relevant specific tasks of the subsystems of linguistic ability (Table 3). This result confirms our assumption that the structure of the linguistic competence system is dynamic at the structural level and depends on the degree of its formation.
Table 3
Average weights of the indicators for the structural organization of linguistic
competence
Subsystems and levels Middleweights
Subgroup of students with underdeveloped language skills Subgroup of students with formed language skills
Comm. SbS. 22.57 10.00
Gr. SbS. 19.83 13.86
L.-S. SbS. 29.40 9.00
Reg. SbS. 21.73 25.45
Subs. Lv. 11.50 16.83
Comp. Lv. 5.67 14.67
Let us return to the consideration of the system-wide level of linguistic competence. It is clear that the actualization of language knowledge and language skills essentially express a different degree of conscious regulation of language use in speech activity. They represent a hierarchically organized continuum of conscious regulation of language use. One of the poles of this continuum is language skills. The other pole is represented by linguistic reflection as a conscious form of regulating the use of linguistic knowledge and linguistic intuition as a qualitatively specific meta-conscious form of representing this knowledge. The poles of the continuum express the elementary and subsystemic levels of linguistic competence, respectively. Language skills correspond to the component level of the system complex. In turn, the integral functional co-organization of the skills and abilities of language use and the forms of explication of language knowledge leads to a system-wide level of linguistic competency. The structure of linguistic competency is shown in Figure 1.
Fig. 1. Structural-level model of linguistic competency
Thus, linguistic competency is an appropriate explication of linguistic ability in terms of linguistic competence in the course of solving problems that require language knowledge. Linguistic competence as a component of linguistic competency is, in turn, a hierarchically ordered set of methods of dealing with language knowledge, which differ in the degree of conscious regulation, as well as language skills, which are formed in the course of solving practical problems by the subject. This determination allows not only to solve the problem of terminological demarcation of the concepts of linguistic competency and linguistic competence but also methodologically justified to combine many phenomena related to the use of language in life in an integral, logically consistent system.
References
1. Mil'rud R.P. Kompetentnost' v yazykovom obrazovanii [Competence in language education]. Vestnik Tambovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya Gumanitarnye nauki - Bulletin of Tambov State University. Humanities Series. 2003;2(30): 100-106. (In Russian).
2. Bozhovich E.D. Razvitie yazykovoy kompetentsii shkol'nikov: problemy i podkhody [Development of the linguistic competence of schoolchildren: problems and approaches]. Voprosy psykhologii - Questions of psychology. 1997;(1):33-44. (In Russian).
3. Bozhovich E.D. Razvitie yazykovoy kompetentsii kak psikhologicheskoi sistemy (na materiale russkogo yazyka kak rodnogo). Dis. dokt. psikhol. nauk [Development of linguistic competence as a psychological system (on the material of Russian as a native language). Dis. doc. psychol. sciences]. Moscow, 2016:450 p. (In Russian).
3. Khomskii N. Aspekty teorii sintaksisa [Aspects of the theory of syntax]. Moscow, Publishing House of State University, 1972:252 p. (In Russian).
5. Neumaier O. The problem of criteria for linguistic competence. In: Neumaier O. (Ed. by) Mind, language and society. Vienna, WVGO, 1984:85-102.
6. Hymes D. On communicative competence. In: Pride J.B., Holmes J. (Eds.) Sociolinguistics: Selected readings. Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1972:269-293.
7. Canale M., Swain M. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics. 1980;1(1): 1-47.
8. Bachman L.F., Palmer A.S. The Construct validation of some components of communicative proficiency. TESOL Quarterly. 1982;16(4):449-465.
9. Savignon S.J. Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1983:340 p.
10. Zimnyaya I.A. Kompetentsiya i kompetentnost' v kontekste kompetentnostnogo podkhoda v obrazovanii [Competence and competence in the context of the competence-based approach in education]. Inostrannye yazyki v shkole - Foreign languages at school. 2012(6):2-11. (In Russian).
11. Smirnova E.A. Formirovaniye kommunikativnoy kompetentnosti studentov v usloviyakh nepreryvnogo obrazovaniya. Dis. dokt. ped. nauk [Formation of students' communicative competence in continuous education. Dis. Dr. teacher. sciences]. Moscow, 2007:341 p. (In Russian).
12. Karpov A.V. Metasistemnaya organizatsiya individual'nykh kachestv lichnosti [Metasystem organization of individual personality traits]. Yaroslavl', Publishing House of YarSU, 2018:744 p. (In Russian).
13. Professionalizm sovremennogo pedagoga: metodika otsenki urovnya kvalifikatsii pedagogicheskikh rabotnikov [Professionalism of a modern teacher: a methodology for assessing the level of qualification of pedagogical workers]. Moscow, Logos Publ., 2011:168 p. (In Russian).
14. Ananiev B.G. Chelovek kak predmet poznaniya [Man as a subject of knowledge]. St. Petersburg, Piter Publ., 2001:288 p. (In Russian).
15. Barabanshchikov V.A. Sistemnost'. Vospriyatiye. Obscheniye [Consistency. Perception. Communication]. Moscow, Institute of Psychology RAS Publ., 2004:480 p. (In Russian).
16. Lomov B.F. Metodologicheskiye i teoreticheskiye problem psykhologii [Methodological and theoretical problems of psychology]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1999:350 p.
17. Shadrikov V.D. Psikhologiya deyatel'nosti cheloveka [Psychology of human activity]. Moscow, Institute of Psychology RAS Publ., 2013:419 p. (In Russian).
18. Karpov A.V. Psykhologiya refleksivnykh mekhanizmov deyatel'nosti [Psychology of reflexive mechanisms of activity]. Moscow, Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences Publ., 2004:450 p. (In Russian).
19. Razina T.V. Structurno-funktsional'naya organizatsiya i genesis motivatsii nauchnoy deyatel'nosti. Dis. dokt. psikhol. nauk [Structural and functional organization and the genesis of the motivation of scientific activity: author. dis. doc. psychol. Sciences]. Yaroslavl, 2016:49 p. (In Russian).
20. Levchenko V.V. Social'naya psikhologiya sostyazatel'nosti: metasistemnyy podkhod. Avtoref. dis. dokt. psikhol. nauk [Social psychology of competitiveness: Metasystematic approach. Author. dis. doc. psychol. Sciences. Perm, 2017:40 p. (In Russian).
21. Karpov A.V., Chernov D.N. Strukturnaya organizatsiya yazykovoy kompetentnosti [Structural organization of linguistic competence]. Yaroslavskii pedagogicheskii vestnik - Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin. 2022;(6):132-139. (In Russian).
22. Karpov A.V., Shadrikov V.D. Integral'naya kontseptsiya sistemogeneza deyatel'nosti [Integral concept of activity system genesis[.Moscow, Izd. dom RAO, 2017:352 p. (in Russian).
23. Kabardov M. K., Artsishevskaya E. V. Tipy yazykovykh i kognitivnykh sposobnostyey i kompetentsii [Types of language and cognitive abilities and competence]. Voprosy psykhologii - Questions of Psychology. 1996;(1):34-49. (In Russian).
24. Kabardov M. K. Yazykovye sposobnosti: Psikhologiya, psikhofiziologiya, pedagogika [Language abilities: Psychology, psychophysiology, pedagogy]. Moscow, Smysl Publ., 2013. 399 p. (in Russian).
25. Ushakova T. N. Dvoistvennost' prirody recheyazykovoi sposobnosti [The duality of the nature of speech-language ability]. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal - Psychological Journal. 2004;25(2):5-12. (In Russian).
26. Ushakova T. N. Psikholingvistika: Uchebnik dlya vuzov [Psycholinguistics: Textbook for universities]. Moscow, PER SE Publ., 2006:416 p. (in Russian).
27. Mikhailova N.B. Adaptirovannuy variant Geydel'bergskogo testa rechevogo razvitiya detyey [Adapted version of the Heidelberg test of speech development of children]. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal - Psychological Journal. 1990;11(6):105-112. (In Russian).
28. Fodor J.A., Katz J.J. The Structure of Language, Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964:612 p.
29. Jackendoff R.S. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press Classics, 1972:400 p.
30. Pustejovsky J. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, The MIT Press, 1995:312 p.
31. Konopka A.E., Bock K. Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation? Structural generalizations from idiom production. Cognitive Psychology. 2009;58(1):68-101.
32. Mahowald K. Fedorenko E., Piantadosi S.T., Gibson E. Info/information theory: Speakers choose shorter words in predictive contexts. Cognition. 2013;126(2):313-318.
33. Rezaii N., Mahowald K., Ryskin R., Dickerson B., Gibson E. A syntax-lexicon trade-off in language production. Proc Natl. Acad. Sci. US A. 2022;119(25):e2120203119.
34. Yacobson R.O. Yazyk i bessoznatel'noye [Language and the unconscious]. Moscow, Gnosis Publ., 1996:248 p.
35. Gokhlerner M.M., Eiger G.V. Psikhologicheskii mekhanizm chuvstva yazyka [Psychological mechanism of language feeling]. Voprosy psikhologi. - Questions of psychology. 1983;(4): 137-142. (In Russian).
36. Shcherba L.V. O troyakom aspekte yazykovykh yavleniy i ob eksperimente v yazykoznanii [On the triple aspect of linguistic phenomena and on the experiment in linguistics]. In: Yazykovaya sistema i rechevayadyeyatel'nost' [Language system and speech activity]. Moscow, Komkniga Publ., 2007:24-39. (In Russian).
37. Berko J. The child's learning of English morphology. Word. 1958;14:150-177.
38. Chernov D.N. Vliyanie stilya detsko-roditel'skikh otnosheniy na obuchenie mladshikh shkol'nikov [Influence of the style of parent-child relations on the education of younger schoolchildren]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya - Cultural-Historical Psychology. 2009;(1):74-84.
39. Chernov D.N. Sravnitel'nyy analiz rezul'tativnosti individual'noy i grupovoy form yazykovogo obucheniya v zone blizhayshego razvitiya v srednem shkol'nom vozraste [Comparative analysis of the effectiveness of individual and group forms of language learning in the zone of proximal development in middle school age]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya - Cultural-Historical Psychology. 2022;18(4):70-79.
Information about the author:
Anatoly V. Karpov, Corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Education, doctor of psychology, professor, Yaroslavl State University named after P. G. Demidov (ul. Sovetskaya, 14, Yaroslavl, Russian Federation, 150003). E-mail: karpov@uniyar.ac.ru
Dmitry N. Chernov, Ph.D. in psychology, assistant professor, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (ul. Ostrovityanova, 1, Moscow, Russian Federation, 117997).
E-mail: chernov_dima@mail.ru
СТРУКТУРА ЯЗЫКОВОЙ КОМПЕТЕНТНОСТИ С ТОЧКИ ЗРЕНИЯ МЕТАСИСТЕМНОГО ПОДХОДА
Анатолий Викторович Карпов1, Дмитрий Николаевич Чернов2
1 Ярославский государственный университет им. П.Г. Демидова, Ярославль, Россия, karpov@uniyar.ac.ru
2 Российский национальный исследовательский медицинский университет им. Н.И. Пирогова, Москва, Россия, chernov_dima@mail.ru
Аннотация. В статье проанализированы достоинства и недостатки существующих подходов к определению понятия языковой компетентности. Предложена классификация, упорядочивающая многообразие связанных с использованием языка компетенций. Излагается авторское представление о структурно-уровневой организации языковой компетентности как психолого-педагогического феномена с теоретико-методологических позиций метасистемного подхода как наиболее современной на сегодняшний день версии системного подхода. Выявлены пять уровней системы языковой компетентности: метасистемный, общесистемный, субсистемный, компонентный и элементный. Определено, что содержанием высшего, метасистемного уровня языковой компетентности является целостная языковая способность, состоящая из коммуникативной, лексико-семантической, грамматической и регулятивной подсистем. Наиболее важной для функционирования языковой компетентности является регулятивная система, представляющая собой деятельностный инвариант саморегуляционных процессов целеобразования, прогнозирования, принятия решения, планирования, программирования, контроля и самоконтроля. Встраивание метасистемного уровня в нижележащие уровни системы определяет специфику их содержания, которое представлено различными способами оперирования языковыми знаниями: языковой рефлексией, языковой интуицией, языковыми умениями и навыками. С целью верификации структурно-уровневой модели языковой компетентности проведено эмпирическое исследование на выборке из 94 учащихся второго класса общеобразовательной школы. В качестве методик выступили широко используемые в психолого-педагогической практике тесты речевого развития, а также авторская методика изучения особенностей осознания учеником устройства языка при работе с квазиязыковыми конструкциями. Использованы методы беседы, структурированного наблюдения и экспертного оценивания. Исследование подтвердило справедливость теоретических представлений авторов. Полученные теоретические и эмпирические результаты могут быть использованы для уточнения цели, задач и методов обучения языку и психолого-педагогического сопровождения этого процесса на всех этапах языкового образования.
Ключевые слова: языковая компетентность, языковая способность, язык, языковая интуиция, языковая рефлексия, системный подход, метасистемный подход, языковое обучение
Для цитирования: Karpov A.V., Chernov D.N. The Structure of Language Competence from the Point of View of the Metasystem Approach // Education & Pedagogy Journal. 2023. Вып. 3 (7). Р. 52-67. doi: 10.23951/27822575-2023-3-52-67
Информация об авторе:
Карпов Анатолий Викторович, член-корреспондент РАО, доктор психологических наук, профессор, Ярославский государственный университет им. П.Г. Демидова (ул. Советская, 14, Ярославль, Россия, 150003). E-mail: karpov@uniyar.ac.ru
Чернов Дмитрий Николаевич, кандидат психологических наук, доцент, Российский национальный исследовательский медицинский университет им. Н.И. Пирогова (ул. Островитянова, 1, Москва, Россия, 117997). E-mail: chernov_dima@mail.ru
Submitted April 5, 2023
