Homo loquens

October 15, 2009

Homo loquens

Here below is the ACTFL definition of the “superior” speaker, whom we professors, in our job-search descriptions, used to describe smugly as “near-native.” The speaking creature we have here, however, is a fictive homo loquens, a super-rational man of Superior-speak.

Para. 1: He is abstract; he is concrete. He is narrative and he is coherent, “all with ease.” He is all things, but not metaphorical, not allusive, not playful. He is, above all, formally and informally, a great communicator.

Para. 2: He argues, and supports his arguments, on all issues of importance. He hypothesizes (knows irrealia). Unhesitatingly he moves forward in his discourse. In certain unexplored, perhaps unknowable ways, he reveals his own private home language. But this is insignificant.

Para. 3: He is a commander of discourse strategies: he knows how to take turns, to separate main ideas and supporting info. He uses intonational signals — and, one might suppose, extralinguistic signs, such as body language, eye contact, averted or riveted gazes, and so on and so on. He is practically error-free.

One has only a muted hint that he did not grow up with English.

However, he is not human. People do not talk like this; certain academics, yes, they do, and many automata. Language is serpentine, helical, playful, evasive, illusive, metaphoric and synecdochic — even when it is communicative, which it isn’t much of the time. Only academics classify their arguments into main and supporting theses. People do not. And, notably, orators do not. (Check out Antony's speech in Julius Caesar.)

This speaker, one presumes, has lived for years in the environment of the target language.

SUPERIOR


1. Speakers at the Superior level are able to communicate in the language with accuracy and fluency in order to participate fully and effectively in conversations on a variety of topics in formal and informal settings from both concrete and abstract perspectives. They discuss their interests and special fields of competence, explain complex matters in detail, and provide lengthy and coherent narrations, all with ease, fluency, and accuracy.

2. They explain their opinions on a number of topics of importance to them, such as social and political issues, and provide structured argument to support their opinions. They are able to construct and develop hypotheses to explore alternative possibilities. When appropriate, they use extended discourse without unnaturally lengthy hesitation to make their point, even
when engaged in abstract elaborations. Such discourse, while coherent, may still be influenced by the Superior speakers own language patterns, rather than those of the target language.

3. Superior speakers command a variety of interactive and discourse strategies, such as turn-taking and separating main ideas from supporting information through the use of syntactic and lexical devices, as well as intonational features such as pitch, stress and tone. They demonstrate virtually no pattern of error in the use of basic structures. However, they may make sporadic errors, particularly in low-frequency structures and in some complex high-frequency structures more common to formal speech and writing. Such errors, if they do occur, do not distract the native interlocutor or interfere with communication.


Now look at advanced high.

Para. 1. This speaker seems equally good at first as SuperiorSpeaker, but note that he breaks down. He can’t “sustain” it. Patterns of error grow like tumors.

Para. 2. He is uncomfortable in the abstract zone (whatever that is).

Para. 3. He is clever at hiding his disability and compensating for his lack of abstraction. He is often very good, but sometimes not.

Para. 4. Confronted with the ‘complex tasks’ of SuperiorSpeak, he collapses and resorts to “simplification, description or narration” in place of argument or hypothesis.

He has studied the language for years and might have been a major in college. He lived in the target language, but never reached the dizzy peaks of AbstractMan.


ADVANCED HIGH


1. Speakers at the Advanced-High level perform all Advanced-level tasks with linguistic ease, confidence and competence. They are able to consistently explain in detail and narrate fully and accurately in all time frames. In addition, Advanced-High speakers handle the tasks pertaining to the Superior level but cannot sustain performance at that level across a variety of topics. They can provide a structured argument to support their opinions, and they may construct hypotheses, but patterns of error appear.

2. They can discuss some topics abstractly, especially those relating to their particular interests and special fields of expertise, but in general, they are more comfortable discussing a variety of topics concretely.

3. High speakers may demonstrate a well-developed ability to compensate for an imperfect grasp of some forms or for limitations in vocabulary by the confident use of communicative strategies, such as paraphrasing, circumlocution, and illustration. They use precise vocabulary and intonation to express meaning and often show great fluency and ease of speech.

4, However, when called on to perform the complex tasks associated with the Superior level over a variety of topics, their language will at times break down or prove inadequate, or
they may avoid the task altogether, for example, by resorting to simplification through the use of description or narration in place of argument or hypothesis.

Next time: Psychoanalysis of the ACTFL standards-writers. All mysteries revealed.

gmc