e verbs estar and ser have different functional uses (one temporal, the other permanent), i.e. they inherently contain different coded messages. By and large, then, the form not only follows the function but precedes it. One ought not to learn a language as a mere communicative vehicle, but also as a structural system of communication, the mastery of which ensures that the message received is the message sent as closely as the medium permits. The next question, of course, will be: If this is the case, shouldn't linguistic competence precede communicative competence? I'll be back to answer the question, but let's lay further foundations for my argumentation.
This paper deals only with verbal communication, ignoring non-verbal languages (such as visual, gestural, body, and technological ones).
A language is "both linguistic and paralinguistic codes by which we express our ideas and feelings, by which we communicate our thoughts" (Adler 83). Spanish, for example is a language, because it uses a verbal code to transmit information; it is the acrolect of the Hispanic world. As a societal expression, it is conditioned by Hispanic society or, better said societies, inasmuch as the acrolect has spawned numerous dialects--regional, professional, societal.
Fundamental to language learning is the acquisition medium--the transport channel, the carrying wave: It can be oral, auditory, or graphic (coding and decoding, writing and reading, speaking and listening).
The teacher is faced not only with the media of communication, the didactic methodology appropriate to the target population, and the pedagogical experiential events' goals, but with the nature and level of the language. Should it be standard or vernacular. Is it pertinent to disregard what society considers nonstandard? Adler argued that "to eliminate or correct a deficiency or any aspect of a cultural linguistic pattern, is a form of cultural genocide and should be recogniz...