3. Multicompetence?
the compound state of mind with two grammars
VS.
Monocompetence (the state of the mind with only one
grammar)
4. Cook 1992
MAIN QUESTIONS:
1. Is multicompetence a different state of mind from
monocompetence?
2. Is multicompetence simply adding an L1
competence, albeit defective?
5. Cook 1992
IN OTHER WORDS …
Are languages known by an individual separate entities
in the brain or are they part of a supersystem?
6. Implications of
multicompetence
a multicompetence perspective allows for
languages to be viewed as part of a
larger system rather than as separate
entities in a learner’s mind.
7. Implications of
multicompetence
the introduction of the multicompetence
concept changed the way in which
crosslinguistic influence was viewed:
transfer became multidirectional
8. Supersystem?
since the first language or languages are in the
same mind, they must form a language
supersystem at some level other than be
completely isolated systems (Cook, 2003
9. Supersystem?
reaction to Selinker’s (1972) notion of
Interlanguage that distinguishes a system of
stages in-between the first and second
language. (as per Rothman et. al, 2011)
10. Further claims:
languages in the multilingual mind are
connected in a larger supersystem whereby
changes in one language will automatically
have an impact on the other existing languages
11. That is:
a language that has been acquired is not
viewed as a stable system in which
knowledge, once stored, is invulnerable to
change
12. Clyne 2003
multicompetence implies that languages are
always subject to change and this change is
influenced in great part, by sociolinguistic as
well as psycholinguistic factors.
13. Language Attrition
clear evidence that languages (native or non
native) show signs of decline when they are not
used.
14. Furthermore
since languages are assumed as being in
constant change, the idea of ‘end-state’
becomes irrelevant (Rothman et. al, 2011)
15. And …
the notion of multicompetence might prove
explanatory for researchers of all
paradigms, as its core tenets are compatible
with virtually any existing theory of acquisition
can account for individual variation and
unexpected development patterns (Rothman
et. al. 2011)