changes (deep structure, human capacity) are felt to be so greatas to lead transformational grammarians to reject "structurallinguistics" as a name for their work, and to use it solely todescribe other schools as predecessors. From a social standpoint,transformational grammar might equally well be seen as theculmination of the leading theme of structural linguistics. To centeranalysis in a deep structure, one grounded in human nature, is tofulfill an impulse of structural linguistics to treat language as asphere of wholly autonomous form. Such a theory perfects and givesthe ultimate justification to a study of language at once of humansignificance and abstracted from actual human beings. Chomsky'sredefinition of linguistic goals appears, then, a halfway house. Theterm "competence" promises more than it in fact /93/contains. It is restricted to knowledge, and, within knowledge, toknowledge of grammar. Thus, it leaves other aspects of speakers'tacit knowledge and ability in confusion, thrown together under alargely unexamined concept of "performance" (cf. Chomskyand Halle 1968: 373). In effect, "performance" confuses twoseparate aims. The first is to stress that competence is somethingunderlying behavior ("mere performance," "actualperformance"). The second is to allow for aspects of linguisticability which are not grammatical: psychological constraints onmemory, choice of alternative rules, stylistic choices and devices inword order, etc. The intended negative connotation of the first senseof "performance" tends to attach to the second sense;factors of performance and the theory must place all socialfactors here are generally seen as things that limit therealization of grammatical possibilities, rather than as constitutiveor enabling. In fact, of course, choice among the alternatives thatcan be generated from a single base structure depends as much upon atacit knowledge as does grammar, and can be studied as much in termsof underlying rules as can grammar. Such things equally underlieactual behaviour as facets of knowledge, and would be aspects ofcompetence in the normal sense of the term. On its own terms,linguistic theory must extend the notion of competence to includemore than the grammatical... An ethnography of speaking approachshares Chomsky's concern for creativity and freedom, but recognizesthat a child, or /94/ person, master only of grammar, is not yetfree. Chomsky's attempt to discuss the "creative" aspect oflanguage use (Chomsky 1966) suffers from the same difficulty as histreatment of competence. The main thrust is independence ofsituation. Chomsky specifies freedom from stimulus control, infinityof possible sentences, yet appropriateness of novel sentences tonovel situations; but the first two properties, and the grammaticalmechanisms he considers, can never account for appropriateness. Anovel sentence might be wildly inappropriate. Appropriatenessinvolves a positive relation to situations, not a negative one, and,indeed, a knowledge of a kind of competence regarding situations andrelations of sentences to them. As with competence, so withcreativity: I share Chomsky's goals for linguistics, and admire himfor setting them, but they cannot be reached on his terms or bylinguistics alone. Rules of appropriateness beyond grammar governspeech, and are acquired as part of conceptions of self, and ofmeanings associated both with particular forms of speech and with theact of speaking itself. 3 / Naissance du Variationnisme (6) Larupture epistemologique operee entre semantique et pragmatiqueau debut des annees 1970 entraine la separation entrel'Ethnolinguistique (une