CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
C. Communicative Competence
a. Intralingual Transfer (Developmental Errors)
This language error source can cause language errors referring to general characteristics or complexity of target language rules. It can refer to overgeneralization, ignorance of rule restriction, incomplete application of rules, and false hypotheses concept.
b. Interlingual Transfer (Interference Errors)
This language error source can cause language errors caused by the deviation of L1 different systems. It refers to language transfer of L1 elements to the L2.
Based on the explanation above, it can be concluded that language errors can be caused by either intralingual source or interlingual source. Intralingual source refers to the deviation caused by the characteristics of L2 itself while intrerlingual source is caused by the L1 interference of the learners. In this research, the researcher just focuses on the interlingual transfer because interlingual factors relates to L1 interference.
4. Analysis of Language Error
Analysis of language error or usually called error analysis (EA) can be defined as a way or a procedure that is used by researchers to collect data relating to the deviation of a language. It is intended to identify, to explain, to classify, and to evaluate the language error conducted by language learners.
Moreover, it consists of several procedures that should be done by the researcher. Corder suggests several steps of errors analysis, namely: (1) collecting corpus, (2) identifying the language errors, (3) classifying the language errors, (4) explaining the language errors, and (5) evaluating the language errors.
learning a foreign language. This potential has contributed to students achieving high levels of performance. It refers to the ability to know what to say and how to say something based on the situation, players, roles, and goals. It is the intuitive functional understanding and command of language usage rules. It should be distinguished from communicative performance, which is the actual creation and interpretation of utterances via the application of these competencies and their interactions.
Furthermore, Canales and Swain (1980) present a communication competence theory comprised of three fundamental competencies:
grammatical, sociolinguistic, and strategic competences. Grammatical competence includes knowledge of lexical elements as well as morphological, syntactic, and phonological rules. Moreover, sociolinguistic competences are composed of two sets of rules: sociocultural rules of use, which specify how utterances are produced and understood in relation to the actual components of communicative events as defined by Hymes, and discourse rules, which combine utterances and communicative functions. Strategic competence consists of nonverbal or vocal communication techniques that people may employ to compensate for communication failures caused by performance factors or insufficient competence.
Furthermore, communication competence can be defined as the ability to communicate in a situation and context through the use of language forms (sentences, phrases, and words) that are appropriate to the situation and context and have a plausible meaning. Furthermore, Munby (1979) defines communicative competence as the ability to communicate while paying attention to the variety of sociolinguistics factors such as the speaker, the listener, the topic under discussion, the purpose, the setting, the context, the medium, and the communication situation. To summarize, communicative competence is concerned with the relationship and interaction of grammatical competence, or knowledge of grammar rules, and sociolinguistic competence,
2. Models of Communicative Competence
a. Hymes Communicative Competence Model
Hymes (1972) defines that the ability to employ grammatical competence in a range of communicative circumstances is defined as communicative competence, not just as a stable grammatical competence. It consists of four overlapping rings that grow into a matrix system as a youngster (or a language student) grows more familiar with the various language systems. These overlapping circles represent four criteria for determining if something is formally possible (due to grammaticality), practical (due to implementation), appropriate (due to context), and performable (due to ability to execute what it involves).
The matrix formed by these four criteria evolves in tandem with the introduction of new sentence forms and their specific applications into the language system. Since a result, communicative competence resembles a performance theory in this sense, as it considers the prevalence of rules of usage relevant to speech acts and how they are implicitly realized by speakers. For example, in everyday speech, a structurally ungrammatical phrase may be a social success, which is a typical occurrence in any human language.
b. Munby's Communicative Competence Model
Munby (1978) identifies three fundamental components that provide the basis for communication competence. The socio-cultural orientation is the first component. He believes that knowing about the target language, in the sense of knowing whether and to what extent something is systematically conceivable in that language, may not be enough for effective communication. As a result, mastery of the rules of usage and language patterns appropriate to the relevant social situations is critical to a learner's proficiency.
Munby proposes the socio-semantic basis of language knowledge as the second element. This factor primarily concerns the learner's ability to transform behavioral alternatives into language possibilities. This
component corresponds closely to Halliday's potential for meaning. The process of language formation, according to Halliday (1973), is one in which a social system defines sets of behavioral options (what speakers may do), which are realized as sets of semantic choices (what speakers may mean), which are realized as sets of grammatical possibilities (what speakers can say).
The ability to use linguistic forms to conduct communicative acts, as well as the ability to understand the communicative functions of sentences and their links to other phrases, is Munby's third element. This occurs at the discourse level and requires, among other things, understanding of the theoretical principles of usage.
c. Halliday's Communicative Competence Model
Halliday (1970) criticizes the distinction between competence and performance as being of little use in a social setting, which is another important reaction to Chomsky's conception of competence. He points out that a dichotomy like this has the potential to be either needless or deceptive. If it's merely another word for the distinction between what we've been able to describe in language and what we haven't, it's unnecessary, and it's deceptive in any other sense.
He claims that the socio-semantic network is a representation of a set of options or alternatives in meaning available to the speaker-listener in his socio-semantic approach to language and language use. As Halliday stated, this meaning potential differs entirely from Chomsky's concept of competence because knowing a language entails not only understanding the formal properties of the language as a system, but also understanding how to use the system to communicate appropriately in specific social contexts. As a result, Halliday's model of communicative competence assumes that language is a meaning potential (a set of options or choices in meaning available to the speaker-hearer) and, as a result, it is