What is the actual value of linguistic competence and being grammatically correct as opposed to communicative competence? So long as people understand what you are saying, linguistic competence is irrelevant.
By that logic, Shakespeare could have written: ‘a bunch of people do stuff, the end’—and we’d all ‘get it,’ I suppose. Linguistic competence isn’t just about being understood; it’s the difference between wearing your words elegantly and showing up half-dressed. Form and content matter
Not at all, Shakespeare would express the inexpressible through metaphor and poetry. And we would be able to grasp these metaphors and poems, notwithstanding whatever score they get on "linguistic competence." This is a serious problem with the Chomskyan view of language, it is limited to the literal, whereas language is wrapped up in the metaphorical, making its view of language incomplete.
The "dress" metaphor you use is revealing, as everyone has their own standard for what constitutes being dressed elegantly and being just half-dressed or dressed inappropriately. There is no "one" way to dress elegantly. But each dress expresses a certain fixed meaning. So long as we can convey what we want to convey with our dress to others, the dress has done its job.
I have some writing on this point if you care to read
Did you have any specific thoughts to my comments? I’d like to get your feedback and see whether you agree or disagree, in which case I can try to address any outstanding concerns. If you have no thoughts, that’s acceptable as well.
What is the actual value of linguistic competence and being grammatically correct as opposed to communicative competence? So long as people understand what you are saying, linguistic competence is irrelevant.
By that logic, Shakespeare could have written: ‘a bunch of people do stuff, the end’—and we’d all ‘get it,’ I suppose. Linguistic competence isn’t just about being understood; it’s the difference between wearing your words elegantly and showing up half-dressed. Form and content matter
Not at all, Shakespeare would express the inexpressible through metaphor and poetry. And we would be able to grasp these metaphors and poems, notwithstanding whatever score they get on "linguistic competence." This is a serious problem with the Chomskyan view of language, it is limited to the literal, whereas language is wrapped up in the metaphorical, making its view of language incomplete.
The "dress" metaphor you use is revealing, as everyone has their own standard for what constitutes being dressed elegantly and being just half-dressed or dressed inappropriately. There is no "one" way to dress elegantly. But each dress expresses a certain fixed meaning. So long as we can convey what we want to convey with our dress to others, the dress has done its job.
I have some writing on this point if you care to read
https://neonomos.substack.com/p/words-things-and-thoughts
Ἐὰν χρῄζῃς μεταφράσεως τούτου τοῦ γλωσσικῶς ἱκανοῦ λόγου, ἐξέπεσεν ἡ ἐμὴ διαλεκτικὴ ἱκανότης.
I speak English, if you’re seeking a response.
Indeed
Did you have any specific thoughts to my comments? I’d like to get your feedback and see whether you agree or disagree, in which case I can try to address any outstanding concerns. If you have no thoughts, that’s acceptable as well.