{ }On Communicative Competence DellHymes (Competence et performance selon Dell HymesMise a jour du 21 avril 2014 ) - (0) Hymes i. (1972) caracterise competenceet performance chezChomsky ii. (0) i. caracteriza competencia e performance em ii.hymes_communicative_competence.pdf Dell Hymes, On Communicative Competence, in J. B. Pride & J.Holmes, Eds., Sociolinguistics,Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972 (pp. 269-293), cite d'apres le reprintdans A. Duranti, Ed., LinguisticAnthropology. A Reader, Oxford: Blackwell,2001, pp. 53-73. (p.54)For the perspective associated with transformational generativegrammar [Chomsky],the world of linguistic theory has two parts: linguistic competenceand linguistic performance.Linguistic competence is understood as concerned with the tacitknowledge of language structure, that is, knowledge that is commonlynot conscious or available for spontaneous report, but necessarilyimplicite in what the (ideal) speaker-listener can say. The primarytask of theory is to provide for an explicit account of suchknowledge, especially in relation to the innate structure on which itmust depend. [...] (p.55) Such a theory of competence posits idealobjects in abstraction from sociocultural features that might enterinto their description. Acquisition of competence is also seen asessentially independent of sociocultural features, requiring onlysuitable speech in the environment of the child to develop.1. La maitrise de la grammaire n'est qu'une competence parmi d'autres, un systeme de regles de comportement parmi d'autres, au service de la communication. (1 )- O dominio da gramatica e uma habilidade, dentre outras, de um sistema de regras de conduta a servico da comunicacao.(63) There are several sectors of communicative competence, of which the grammatical is one. Put otherwise, there is behavior, and, underlying it, there are several systems of rules reflected in the judgements and abilities of those whose messages the behavior manifests. [...] In the linguistic theory under discussion [Chomsky], judgements are said to be of two kinds: of grammaticality, with respect to competence, and of acceptability, with respect to performance. [...] If an adequate theory of language users and language use is to be developed, it seems that judgements must be recognized to be in fact not of two kinds but of four. And if linguistic theory is to be integrated with theory of communication and culture, this fourfold distinction must be stated in a sufficiently generalized way. I would suggest, then, that for language and for other forms of communication (culture), four questions arise: 1)Whether (and to what degree) something is formally possible; 2)Whether (and to what degree) something is feasible in virtue of themeans of implementation available; 3) Whether (and to whatdegree) something is appropriate (adequate, happy, successful) inrelation to a context in which it is used and evaluated; 4)Whether (and to what degree) something is in fact done, actuallyperformed, and what its doing entails. (2) Cette competence ne se reduitpas aux regles grammaticales, que Hymes designe parsystemic possibility ci-dessous, ni meme ala maitrise, appelee tacit knowledge,du systeme grammatical, elle est personnalisee et en situation.Hymes rejoint Goffman. (2) Esta habilidade nao pode ser reduzida a regras gramaticais, napossibilidade sistemica que Hymes designa abaixo, ou mesmo controle,chamado conhecimento tacito, o sistema gramatical, ele epersonalizado e situacional. Hymes juntou Goffman.Within a comprehensive view of competence, considerations of the sort identified by Goffman [Erving Goffman, Interaction