Multicompetence? the coexistence of more than one language in the human brain the opposite of the idea of separate language systems
Multicompetence the compound state of mind with two grammarsVS. Monocompetence (the state of the mind with only one grammar)
Cook 1992MAIN QUESTIONS:1. Is multicompetence a different state of mind from monocompetence?2. Is multicompetence simply adding an L1 competence, albeit defective?
Cook 1992IN OTHER WORDS … Are languages known by an individual separate entities in the brain or are they part of a supersystem?
Implications ofmulticompetence a multicompetence perspective allow for languages to be viewed as part of a larger system rather than as separate entities in a learner’s mind.
Implications ofmulticompetence the introduction of the multicompetence concept changed the way in which crosslinguistic influence was viewed: transfer became multidirectional
Supersystem? since the first language or languages are in the same mind, they must form a language supersystem at some level other than be completely isolated systems (Cook, 2003)
Supersystem? reaction to Selinker’s (1972) notion of Interlanguage that distinguishes a system of stages in-between the first and second language. (as per Rothman et. al, 2011)
Further claims: languages in the multilingual mind are connected in a larger supersystem whereby changes in one language will automatically have an impact on the other existing languages.
That is: a language that has been acquired is not viewed as a stable system in which knowledge, once stored, is invulnerable to change
Clyne 2003 multicompetence implies that languages are always subject to change and this change is influenced in great part, by sociolinguistic as well as psycholinguistic factors.
Language Attrition clear evidence that languages (native or non native) show signs of decline when they are not used.
Furthermore since languages are assumed as being in constant change, the idea of ‘end-state’ becomes irrelevant (Rothman et. al, 2011)
And … the notion of multicompetence might prove explanatory for researchers of all paradigms, as its core tenets are compatible with virtually any existing theory of acquisition ◦ can account for individual variation and unexpected development patterns (Rothman et. al. 2011)