Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 15:44:14 -0500 From: Kerim Friedman Subject: Re: competence Sender: owner-linganth@cc.rochester.edu To: linganth@cc.rochester.edu MIME-version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk
Maybe this is too reductive, but I always make a simple distinction between "cognitive capacity" and "cognitive skills." We all have the same capacity, but we have to learn the skills. In these terms we no longer get side-tracked by the negative connotations implicit in the term "competence."

Chomsky usefully demonstrates the universal cognitive capacity for language, while linguistic anthropology has, in turn, demonstrated the important political and social consequences for failing to acquire the necessary skills to be judged "competent" by society.

The real danger comes from those who claim that a lack of cognitive skills implies a lesser cognitive capacity. This is why Labov's work is so woderful - in "The logic of non-standard English" he demonstrates that this is not so. Speakers of BE who belong to street gangs are just as able of logical reasoning as those who speak standard english. Unfortunately, the recent (public) debates on ebonics seem to reflect a profound ignorance of Labov's argument.

Note: If anyone has any references to work which furthered, or attacked Labov's claims (in this particular paper) in any *significant* way, please forward it to me personally.

kerim

________________________________________________________ P. KERIM FRIEDMAN
Anthropology, Temple University


________________________________________________________ LIST OF LISTS OF LINKS
A topic-based list of web pages containing lots o'links. ________________________________________________________