Page 12 - Kukanja Gabrijelčič, Mojca, and Maruška Seničar Željeznov, eds. 2018. Teaching Gifted and Talented Children in A New Educational Era. Koper: University of Primorska Press.
P. 12
Knechtelsdorfer
standing of what constitutes a language and what language teaching should
focus on. Instead of teaching only a variety of English, students should learn
to language (Jørgensen, 2008), so learn how to make use of the linguistic
resources of the virtual language as well as their personal linguistic poten-
tial. Every language has conformist and non-conformist potential and it de-
pends on the linguacultural situation and the communicative context which
of these potentials are realized. This new way of understanding communica-
tion has its roots in Jørgensen’s (2008) account on languaging.
Communicative Capability and Potential Development
Looking at English language teaching from an ELF perspective, it becomes
obvious that traditional definitions of communicative competence, which
are the basis for the CEFR, do not account for the international use of En-
glish. Neither do the competence models by Hymes (1972), Canale and Swain
(1980) and Bachman and Palmer (1982) take into consideration the individual
potential of a language learner. A focus on the development of communica-
tive capability, so ‘a knowledge of how meaning potential encoded in English
can be realized as a communicative resource’ (Widdowson, 2003, p. 177), shifts
the objective of teaching from the subject English to the language learner.
Similarly to the basic model of the promotion of giftedness (Grabner, 2016),
communicative capability starts with the potential of the individual, their
(multi)linguistic identity, their communicative needs and their goals. While
traditional definitions of communicative competence are subdivided into
complex categories of what constitutes competence, Widdowson distils the
essence of communicative capability, into one concise definition.
The preferred definition of giftedness in the pedagogic context says that
one cannot measure potential (Weigand, 2016), just as one cannot measure
communicative competence. This is why both fields suggest a focus on indi-
vidual potential in order to achieve excellence and communicative success. It
depends on factors of personality and the environment to develop potential.
The dynamic understanding of potential (Roth, 1952), which is described in
models of Renzulli (1986), Mönks (1992) and the Munich model (Heller, 2011),
highlights the importance of potential development with a focus on personal
and environmental factors. Hence, only when taking into consideration the
individual, multilingual and multicultural potential of language learners as
well as their personal communicative needs and goals can communicative
capability and individual potential be developed. Potential of an individual
as well as that of a language cannot be fully developed if not all factors, re-
alized and not realized, conformist and non-conformist, are taken into con-
10
standing of what constitutes a language and what language teaching should
focus on. Instead of teaching only a variety of English, students should learn
to language (Jørgensen, 2008), so learn how to make use of the linguistic
resources of the virtual language as well as their personal linguistic poten-
tial. Every language has conformist and non-conformist potential and it de-
pends on the linguacultural situation and the communicative context which
of these potentials are realized. This new way of understanding communica-
tion has its roots in Jørgensen’s (2008) account on languaging.
Communicative Capability and Potential Development
Looking at English language teaching from an ELF perspective, it becomes
obvious that traditional definitions of communicative competence, which
are the basis for the CEFR, do not account for the international use of En-
glish. Neither do the competence models by Hymes (1972), Canale and Swain
(1980) and Bachman and Palmer (1982) take into consideration the individual
potential of a language learner. A focus on the development of communica-
tive capability, so ‘a knowledge of how meaning potential encoded in English
can be realized as a communicative resource’ (Widdowson, 2003, p. 177), shifts
the objective of teaching from the subject English to the language learner.
Similarly to the basic model of the promotion of giftedness (Grabner, 2016),
communicative capability starts with the potential of the individual, their
(multi)linguistic identity, their communicative needs and their goals. While
traditional definitions of communicative competence are subdivided into
complex categories of what constitutes competence, Widdowson distils the
essence of communicative capability, into one concise definition.
The preferred definition of giftedness in the pedagogic context says that
one cannot measure potential (Weigand, 2016), just as one cannot measure
communicative competence. This is why both fields suggest a focus on indi-
vidual potential in order to achieve excellence and communicative success. It
depends on factors of personality and the environment to develop potential.
The dynamic understanding of potential (Roth, 1952), which is described in
models of Renzulli (1986), Mönks (1992) and the Munich model (Heller, 2011),
highlights the importance of potential development with a focus on personal
and environmental factors. Hence, only when taking into consideration the
individual, multilingual and multicultural potential of language learners as
well as their personal communicative needs and goals can communicative
capability and individual potential be developed. Potential of an individual
as well as that of a language cannot be fully developed if not all factors, re-
alized and not realized, conformist and non-conformist, are taken into con-
10
