Compare and contrast Ferdinand de Saussure's "langue" vs "parole" and Noam Chomsky's "competence" vs "performance."

Step 1: Discuss the linguistic terms by Ferdinand de Saussure and Noam Chomsky's langue vs parole and competence vs performance respectively. In what ways are the two different or similar in their view? Ferdinand de Saussure's langue vs parole* Langue* refers to the abstract, systematic rules and conventions of a language system shared by a community. It is the underlying system, like the grammar and vocabulary of a language. Example: The rules of English grammar that allow us to form sentences, the vocabulary of English, and the pronunciation system. Knowing that "cat" is a noun and refers to a feline animal is part of langue*. Parole* is the actual act of speaking or writing, the concrete manifestation of language use by an individual. It is the specific utterance or text produced. Example: Saying "The cat sat on the mat" right now. If you mispronounce "mat" or hesitate before saying it, that's parole*. It's the physical utterance. Noam Chomsky's competence vs performance* Competence* is an idealized native speaker's unconscious knowledge of their language, including its grammar and rules. It is the mental capacity for language, assumed to be perfect. Example: A native English speaker's innate understanding of how to form grammatically correct sentences, even if they've never formally studied grammar rules. They know* that "I goed to the store" is wrong. Performance* is the actual use of language in concrete situations, which can be affected by non-linguistic factors like memory, distractions, or errors. It is the observable output. Example: A native English speaker saying "Uh, I, um, went to the store yesterday." The "uh" and "um" are hesitations, and "went" is the correct past tense, but the performance includes non-ideal elements. Similarities and Differences Similarities: Both pairs distinguish between the abstract system of language (langue, competence) and its concrete use (parole, performance). Langue and competence both represent the underlying knowledge or system of language. Similarly, parole and performance* both refer to the observable output of language. Differences: Saussure's langue is a social product, a collective norm shared by a community, while Chomsky's competence is an individual, innate mental capacity. Chomsky's performance explicitly accounts for errors and external factors affecting language use, which Saussure's parole* does not emphasize as much, focusing more on the individual act of speaking within the system. Step 2: Is there any difference between Foreign Language Learning and Second Language Learning? If yes, what is it? Yes, there is a difference between Foreign Language Learning and Second Language Learning. Foreign Language Learning* typically occurs in an environment where the target language is not the primary language spoken in the community or country. The learner has limited exposure to the language outside the classroom. Example: Learning French in a classroom in an English-speaking country like the United States. Second Language Learning* occurs in an environment where the target language is widely spoken and used for daily communication in the community or country. The learner has extensive exposure to the language in natural settings. Example: An immigrant learning English while living in the United States, where English is the dominant language. The key difference lies in the context of learning and the exposure to the target language outside the classroom. Step 3: Differentiate between the synchronic and diachronic study of language. The synchronic study of language* examines a language at a particular point in time, without considering its historical development. It focuses on how a language functions in its current state, analyzing its grammar, phonology, and semantics as they exist now. Example: Analyzing the current use of the subjunctive mood in modern Spanish. The diachronic study of language*, also known as historical linguistics, investigates the evolution of a language over time. It traces changes in sounds, grammar, and vocabulary across different historical periods to understand how languages develop and transform. Example: Tracing how the pronunciation of the letter 'g' in English has changed from Old English to Modern English. The differentiation is that synchronic study is a snapshot of a language at one moment, while diachronic study examines its changes over history. Step 4: What do you understand by interlanguage? While at it, define fossilization. Interlanguage* is the linguistic system developed by a second language learner who is in the process of acquiring the target language. It is a dynamic and evolving system that contains elements from both the learner's native language and the target language, as well as unique features not found in either. Example: A Spanish speaker learning English might say "I no understand" instead of "I don't understand." This "I no understand" is part of their interlanguage*. It's a system with its own logic, not just incorrect English. Fossilization* refers to the phenomenon where certain linguistic forms or errors in a learner's interlanguage become permanently fixed and resistant to further change or correction, despite continued exposure to the target language and instruction. Example: The Spanish speaker continues to say "I no understand" for years, even after extensive English study, and never fully adopts "I don't understand." The error has "fossilized." 3 done, 2 left today. You're making progress.