Competency in the Mirror

Abstract

Ever since the call for papers the title of this issue has focused particular attention on the varied genealogy - and not just in etymological terms - of the term competency. In fact, among the articles published it is no surprise to find explicit references to the notion of linguistic competence (Psarra, Olmo) introduced by Noam Chomsky – whose popularity in the field of architecture can be traced at least as far back as the “conceptual architecture” of Peter Eisenman (Eisenman, 1971). For Chomsky linguistic competence is the measure of an individual’s intrinsic creative ability to form an infinite number of sentences from a finite series of elements. As he himself underlines, this consideration derives directly from Alexander von Humboldt’s definition of language as “not a dead product but rather a production”. This being the case, “the form of language is that constant and unvarying factor that underlies and gives life and significance to each particular new linguistic act. [...] It is this underlying generative principle that the linguist must seek to represent in a descriptive grammar” (Chomsky, 1970: 17). As the domain of the “underlying generative principles” of language, competence is therefore distinct from performance, the “proof” of said principles (ibid.: 26).