Is Strategic Competence 'Competence?': Reconsidering Strategic Competence as a Pedagogical Notion

Abstract

This paper examines whether it is appropriate to employ the term 'competence' for the notion of strategic competence by Bachman (1990) and Bachman and Palmer (1996). Section One reviews the emergence and revisions of the term 'strategic competence.' The term first referred only to communication strategies, yet as the notion of 'competence' was enlarged, 'strategic competence' began to denote explicitly the notion of ability for use. It is demonstrated that the terminology of Bachman (1990) and Bachman and Palmer (1996) is not necessarily consistent. It is contended that the notion of strategic competence is pedagogical rather than explanatory. Section Two follows the use of the term 'competence' in a wider context of theoretical and applied linguistics. After examining the different meanings of the term by Chomsky (1965, 1995, 2000a) and Hymes (1972), the author endorses the trichotomy of knowledge, performance and actual use by McNamara (1995, 1996) and Lyons (1996). It is indicated that the term 'competence' is a problematic one, which invites unnecessary confusion. In Section Three, communication is described as a multi-faceted, evolving and interactive process. If strategic competence were to deal with communication as such, the term 'competence' is misleading in that it now assumes the Chomskyean implication of I-language. The notion of strategic competence is probably beyond our current scope of explanatory theories, and as such it should remain as a pedagogical concept. After examining alternative terms for 'strategic competence,' the author suggests that a new term 'strategic capacity' may best describe the notion currently expressed by the term 'strategic competence.'