Communicative Language Teaching

Reading # 9
Rjchards, J. C. and Rodgers, T.S. Aooroaches and Methods in languaee teachin~C.U.P., p p 64-
86
5 Communicative Language Teaching
Background
The origins of Communicative Language Teachii:g (CLT) are to be found
in the changes in the British language teaching tradition dating from the
late 1960s. Until then, Situational Language Teaching (see Chapter 3)
represented the major British approach to teaching English as a foreign
language. In Situational Language Teaching, language was taught by
praaicing basic structures in meaniiigful situation-based activities. But
just as the linguistic theory underlying Audiolingualism was rejected in
the United States in the mid-1960s, British applied linguists began t o
cal1 into question the theoreticai assumptions underlying Situational
Language Teaching:
By the end of the sixties it was ilear thac the situational approach.. had r un
its course. There was no future in continuing to pursue the chirnern of pre-
dicting language on the basis of situariorial events. What was required was a
closer study of the language itself and a return to the traditional concept that.
utterances carried meaning in thernselves and expressed the meanings and in-
tentions of the speakers and writers who created thern. (Howatr 1984: 280)
This was partly a response to the sorts of criticisms the prominent
Arnerican linguist Noam Chomsky liad leveled at structural linguistic
theory in his now classic book Sytztactic Structures (1957). Chomsky
had demonstrated that the current standard structural theories of lan-
guage were incapable of accounting for the fundamental characteristic
of language - the creativity and uniqueness of individual sentences.
British applied linguists emphasized another fundamental dimension of
language that was inadequately addressed in current approaches to lan-
guage teaching at that time - the functional and communicative potential
of language. They saw the ned to focus i n language teaching on com-
municative proficiency rather than oii inere mastery of structures. Scliol-
ars who advocated this view of lariguage, such as Christopher Candlin
and Henry Widdowson, drew on tlie work of British functional linguists
(e.g., John Firth, M. A. K. Halliday), Ainerican work in sociolinguistics
(e.g. Dell Hymes, John Gumperz, ;iiicl William Labo:!), as well as work
in philosophy (e.g., John Austin aiid lolin Searle).
Another irnpetus for different appronclies to foreign language teaching
Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educativos, para la crtica y la investigacin respetando la reglamentacin en materia de derechos de autor.
Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.
Richards, J.C. y T.S. Rodgers (1987). Communicative Language Teaching.
En Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (pp. 64-86). Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
Communicative Language Teaching
carne frorn changing educational realities in Europe. With the increasing
interdependence of Eurobean countries carne the need for greater efforts
"
t o teach adults the majo; languages of the European Cornmon Market
and the Council of Europe, a regional organization for cultural and
educational cooperation. Education was one of the Council of Europe's
major areas of activity. It sponsored international conferences on lan-
guage teaching, published rnnographs and books about language teach-
ing, and was active in prornoting the formation of the International
~si oci at i on of Applied ~i n~ui s t i ci . The need to articulate and develop
alternative methods of language teaching was considered a high priority.
In 1971 a group of experts began t o investigate the possibility of
deveioping language courses on a unit-credit system, a system in which
learning tasks are broken down into "portions or units, each of which
corresponds to a component of a learner's needs and is systematically
related to al1 the other portions" (van Ek and Alexander 1980: 6). The
group used studies of the needs of European language learners, and in
particular a preliminary document prepared by a British linguist, D. A.
Wilkins (1972), which proposed a functional or cornmunicative defi-
nition of language that could serve as a basis for developing cornmu-
nicative syllabuses for language teaching. Wilkins's contribution was an
analysis of the cornrnunicative meanings that a language learner needs
to understand and express. Rather than describe the core of language
through traditional concepts of grammar and vocabulary, Wilkins at-
ternpted to dernonstrate the systerns of meanings that lay behind the
communicative uses of language. He described two types of rneanings:
notional caregories (concepts such as time, sequence, quanrity, location,
frequency) and categories of communicative function (rcquests, c!eniz!s,
offers, complaints). Wilkins later revised and expanded his 1972 doc-
urnent into a book called Notional Syllabuses (Wilkins 197h), which
had a significant irnpact on the developrnent of Communicative Lan-
guage Teaching. The Council of Europe incorporated his semanticicom-
rnunicative analysis into a set of specifications for a first-level
cornrnunicative language syllabus. These threshold level specifications
(van Ek and Alexander 1980) have had a strong influence o n tlie design
of cornmunicative language programs and textbooks i i i Eiirope.
The work of tlie Council of Europe; the writings of Wilkins, Wid-
dowson, Candlin, Christopher Brumfit, Keith Johnson, aiicl other Rritish
applied linguists on the theoretical basis for a cornrnunicative or func-
tional approach to language teaching; the rapid applicrition of these
ideas by textbook writers; and the equally rapid acceptance of these new
principies by British language teaching specialists, curriculurr~ Jevelop-
ment centers, and even governments gave prominetice riatiorially and
internationally to what carne to be referred to as the Coiiiinuriicative
Approach, or simply Communicative Language Teactiirig. (The terms
Approaches & methods in language teaching
notional-functional approach and functional approach are also soiiie-
times used.) Although the rnovement began as a largely Britt5li iiiiio-
vation, focusing on alternative conceptions of a syllabus, since t l i c iiiid-
1970s the scope of Communicative Language Teaching has expiiiitied.
Borh American and British proponents now see it as an approach (2nd
not a rnethod) that airns to (a) make communicative competciicc the
goal of language teaching and (b) develop procedures for the te;iching
of the four language skills that acknowledge the interdependerice of
language and communication. Its comprehensiveness thus makes i t dif-
ferent in scope and status frorn any of the other approaches or inethods
discussed in this book. There is no single text or authority on it, nor
any single model that is universally accepted as authoritative. For sonie,
Cornrnunicative Language Teaching means litrle more than an iritegra-
tion of grammatical and functional teaching. Littlewood (1981: 1 ) states,
"One of the most characteristic features of communicative Iaiigiiage
teaching is that it pays systematic attention to functional as ~vcll as
structural aspects of language." For others, it means using proccdures
where learners work in pairs or groups employing available langiiage
resources in problem-solving tasks. A national primary English syllabiis
based on a communicative approach (Syllabuses for Primary Scliools
1981), for example, defines the focus of the syllabus as the "conimu-
nicative functions which the forms of the language serve" (p. 5) . The
introduction to the same document comments that "communicative pur-
poses rnay be of many different kinds. What is essential in al1 of thern
is that at least two parties are involved in an interaction or transaction
of some kind where one party has an intention and the other party
expands or reacts to the intention" (p. 5) . In her discussion ci c:)m
municative syllabus design, Yalden (1 983) discusses six Cornmunicative
Language Teaching design alternatives, ranging from a model in wliich
comrnunicative exercises are grafted onto an existing structural sy llabus,
to a learner-generated view of syllabus design (e.g., Holec 1980).
Howatt distinguishes between a "strong" and a "weak" version of
Cornrnunicative Language Teaching:
There is, in a sense, a 'strong' version of the communicative approach iincl a
'weak' version. The weak version which has become more or less staiiJ3rcl
practice i n the last ten years, stresses the importance of providing learners
with opportunities to use their English for communicative purposes and,
characteristically, attempts to integrate such activities into a wider prograin
of language teaching.. . .The 'strong' version of communicative teaching, on
the other hand, advances the claim that language is acquired through com-
munication, so that it is not merely a question of activating an existing I ~i i t
inert knowledge of the language, but of stimulating the developmenr ot tlie
language system itself. If the former could be described as 'learning to iisc'
English, the latter entails 'using English to learn t.' (1984: 279)
Communi cat i ve Language Teaching
Fi nocchi aro 2nd Brurnfit (1983) cont r ast t he major distinctive features
of t he Audi ol ~ri gual Method a nd the Comrnuni cat i ve Approach, ac-
cor di ng to their interpretation:
Audio-lingual
1. Attends to srructure and form
more than meaning.
2. Demands memorization of
struaure-based dialogs.
3. Language irerns are not
necessarily contextualized.
4. Language learning is leaming
struaures, sounds, or words.
5. Mastery, or "over-learning" is
sought.
6. Drilling is a central technique.
7. Native-speaker-like
pronunciation is sought.
8. Grammatical explanation is
avoided.
9. Communicative activities only
come after a long process of
rigid drills and exercises.
10. The use of the student's native
language is forbidden.
11. Translation is forbidden at
early levels.
12. Reading and writing are
deferred till speech is mastered.
13. The target linguistic system will
be Leamed through the overt
teaching of the patterns of the
system.
14. Linguistic competence is the
desired goal
15. Varieties of language are
recognized but not emphasized.
16. The sequence of units is
determined solely by principies
of linguistic cornplexity.
Meaning is paramount.
Dialogs, i f used, center around
communicative functions and are
not normally memorized.
Contextualization is a basic
premise.
Language learning is learning to
communicate.
Effective communication is sought.
Drilling may occur, but
peripherally.
Comprehensible pronunciation is
sought.
Any device which helps the learners
is accepted - varying according to
their age, interest, etc.
Attempts to communicate may be
encouraged from the very
beginning.
Judicious use of native language is
accepted where feasible.
Translation may he used ~vher r
students need or benefit from it.
Reading and writing can start from
the first day, if desired.
The target linguistic system will be
learned best through the process
of struggling t o communicate.
Communicative competence is the
desired goal (.e. the ability to use
the linguistic system effectively
and appropriately).
Linguistic variation is a central
concept in materials and
methodology.
Sequencing is determined by any
consideration of content,
function, or meaning which
maintains interest.
17. The teacher controls the
learners and prevents them
from doing anything that
conflicts with the theory.
18. "Language is habit" so errors
rnust be prevented at al1 costs.
19. Accuracy, in terms of formal
correctness, is a primary goal
20. Students are expected to
interact with the language
systern, embodied in machines
or controlled materials
21. The teacher is expected to
specify the language that
students are to use.
22. lntrinsic motivation will spring
from an interest in the structure
of the language.
Teachers help learners in any way
that motivates thein to work with
the language.
Language is created by the
individual often through trial and
error.
Fluency and acceptable language is
the primary goal: accuracy is
judged not in the abstract but in
context.
Students are expected to interact
with other people, either in the
flesh, through pair and group
work, or in their writings.
The teacher cannot know exactly
what language the students will
use.
lntrinsic motivation will spring from
an interest in what is being
communicated by the language.
(1983: 91-3)
Apart from being an interesting exainple of how proponents of Com-
municative Language Teaching stack the cards in their favor, such a set
of contrasts illustrates some of the maior differences between commu-
nicative approaches and earlier traditions in language teaching. The wide
acceptance of the cornmunicative approach and the relatively varied way
in which it is interpreted and applicd can be attributed t c t he fart thar
practitioners from different educational traditions can identify with it,
and consequently interpret it in differeiit ways. One of its Nort h Amer-
ican proponents, Savignon (1983), for example, offers as a precedent to
CLT a commentary by Montaigne on his learning of Latin through
conversation rather than through tlie customary method of formal anal-
ysis and translation. Writes Montaigne, "Without methods, without a
book, without grammar or rules, without a whip and without tears, 1
had learned a Latin as proper ris tlixr of my schoolmaster" (Savignon
1983: 47). This antistructural vie\v can be held t o represent the language
learning version of a more geiierril lenriiing perspective usually referred
t o as "learning by doing" or "tlie experience approach" (Hilgard and
Bower 1966). This notion of direct rntlier than delayed practice of com-
municative acts is central t o most C1.T interpretations.
The focus on cornmunicative arid coiitextual factors in language use
also has an antecedent in thc work of the anthropologist Bronislaw
Malinowski and his colleague, tlie lingtiist John Firth. British applied
Communicative Lotigl(ige Teaching
linguists usually credit Firth with focusing attentioii ori discourse as
subject and context .for language analysis. Firth also .;rrcssed that lan-
guage needed to be studied in the broader sociocult~ir:ii context of its
use, which included participants, their behavior and belicfs, the objects
of linguistic discussion, and word choice. Both Michacl Halliday and
Dell Hymes, linguists frequently cited by advocates ot <:oinmunicative
Language Teaching, acknowiedge primary debts to M;ilinowski and
Firth. - ~-..-.
Another frequently cited dimension of CLT, its learner-centered and
experience-based view of second language teaching, also Iias antecedents
outside the language teaching tradition per se. An imporrant American
national curriculum commission in the 1930s, for exaiiiple, proposed
the adoption of an Experience Curriculum in English. Tlie report of the
commission began with the. premise that "experience is tlie best of al1
schools.. . . The ideal curriculum consists of well-selecred experiences"
(cited in Applebee 1974: 119). Like those who have receritly urged the
organization of Cornrnunicative Language Teaching aroiind tasks and
procedures, the cornrnittee tried to suggest "the means for selection and
weaving appropriate experiences into a coherent curriciilum stretching
across the years of school English study" (Applebee 1974: 119). Indi-
vidual learners were also seen as possessing unique interests, styles, needs,
and goals, which should be refle&ed in the design of methods of instruc-
tion. Teachers were encouraged to develop learning materials "on the
basis of the particular needs manifested by the class" (Applebee 1974:
150).
~ b mmo n to al1 versions of Comrnunicative Language Teaching, how-
ever, is a theory of language teaching that starts from n communicative
model of language and language use, and that seeks to transiate this
into a design for an instructional system, for materials, for teacher and
learner roles and behaviors, and for classroom activities ;ind rechniques.
Let us now consider how this is manifested at the levels of approach,
design, and procedure.
Approach
Theory of language
The communicative approach in Ianguage teaching srarts irom a theory
of language as comrnunication. The goal of langtiage teaching is
to develop what Hymes (1972) referred to as "corniii~inicative corn-
petence." Hymes coined this term in order to contrast 3 coinrnunica-
tive view of language and Chomsky's theory of compctcricc. Chornsky
held that
Approaches & ~net hods in language teaching
linguistic theor!. i s concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener in a
completely Iioriiogeneous speech community, who knows its language per-
fectly and is iriiiitfected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as mem-
ory limitatio~i, Jistractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors
(random or charncteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in ac-
tual performance. (Chomsky 1965: 3)
For Chomsky, the focus of linguistic theory was to characterize the
abstract abilities speakers possess that enable them t o produce gram-
matically correct sentences in a language. Hymes held that such a view
of linguistic theory was sterile, t hat linguistic theory needed t o be seen
as part of a more general theory incorporating communication and
culture. Hymes's theory of communicative competence was a definition
of what a speaker needs t o know in order t o be comrnunicatively com-
petent in a speech community. In Hymes's view, a person who acquires
communicative competence acquires both knowledge and abiiity for
language use with respect to
1. whether (and to what degree) something is formally possible;
2. whether (and to what degree) something is feasible in virtue of the means
of implementation available;
3. whether (and to what degree) something is appropriate (adequate, happy,
successful) in relation to a cont.ext in which it is used and evaluated;
4. whether (and to what degree) something is in fact done, actually per-
formed, and what its doing entails.
(Hymes 1972: 281)
This theory of what knowing a language enrails offers a much more
cornprehensive view than Chomsky's view ot competence, which dea!s
primarily with abstract grammatical knowledge. Another linguistic the-
ory of communication favored in CLT is Halliday's functional account
of language use. "Linguistics . . . is concerned.. . with the description of
speech acts or texts, since only through the study of language in use are
al1 the functions of language, and therefore al1 components of meaning,
brought into focus" (Halliday 1970: 145). In a number of influential
books and papers, Halliday has elaborated a powerful theory of the
functions of language, wliich complements Hymes's view of commu-
nicative cornpetence for many writers on CLT (e.g., Brumfit and Johnson
1979; Savignon 1983). He described (1975: 11-17) seven basic functions
that language performs for children learning their first language:
1. the instrumental funcrion: using language to get things;
2. the regulatory function: using language to control the behavior of others;
3. the interactional function: using language to create interaction with
others;
4. the personiil function: using language to express personal feelings and
meanings:
5. the heuristic function: using language to learn and to discover;
6. the imaginative functioa: using lariguage ro create a world of the
imagination;
7. the representational function: usilig language to communicate
information.
Learning a second language was sirnilarly viewed by propoiients of Com-
municative Language Teaching as acquiring the linguistic means to per-
form different kinds of functions.
Another theorist frequently cited for his views on the communicative
nature of language is Henry Widdowson. In his book Teaching Language
as Communication (1978), Widdowson presented a view of the rela-
tionship between linguistic systerns and their communicative values in
text and discourse. He focused on the communicative acts underlying
the ability to use language for different purposes. A more recent but
related analysis of communicative competence is found in Canale and
Swain (1980), in which four dirnensions of cornrnunicative competence
are identified: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, dis-
course competence, and strategic cornpetence. Grammatical competence
refers to what Chomsky calls linguistic competence and what Hymes
intends by what is "formally possible." It is the domain of grammatical
and lexical capacity. Sociolinguistic coinpetence refers to an understand-
ing of the social context in which communication takes place, including
role relationships, rhe shared information of the participants, and the
communicative purpose for their interaction. Discourse cornpetence re-
fers to the interpretation of individual message elements in terms of their
interconnectedness and of how meaning is represented in relationship
to the entire discourse or text. Strategic cornpetence refers to the c o p i ~ g
strategies that communicators eniploy to initiate, terminate, maintain,
repair, and redirea communication.
At the level of language theorv, Communicative Language Teaching
has a rich, if somewhat eclectic, theoretical base. Some of the charac-
teristics of this communicative view of language follow.
1. Language is a system for the expression of meaning.
2. The primary function of language is for interaction and communication.
3. The structure of language reflects its functional and communicative uses.
4. The primary units of language are not merely its grammatical and struc-
tural features, but categories oi fuiii-rional and communicative meaning as
exemplified in discourse.
Theory of learning
In contrast to the amount that has been written in Communicative
Language Teaching literature abour communicative dimensions of lan-
Approaches & methods in language te'zching
guage, little has been written about learriing theory. Neither Brumfit and
Johnson (1979) nor Littlewood (19s 1 ). for example, offers any discus-
sion of learning theory. Elements ot ;iii underlying learning theory can
be discerned in some CLT practices, Iiowever. One such element might
be described as the communication pririciple: Activities that involve real
communication promote learning. A second element is the task principle:
Activities in which language is used for carrying out meaningful tasks
promote learning Uohnson 1982). A third element is the meaningfulness
principle: Language that is meaningful to the learner supports the learn-
ing process. Learning activities are corisequently selected according to
how well they engage the learner in meaningful and authentic language
use (rather than merely mechanical practice of language patterns). These
principles, we suggest, can be inferred from CLT practices (e.g., Little-
wood 1981; Johnson 1982). They address the condit~ons needed to
promote second language learning, ra ther than the processes of language
acquisition.
More recent accounts of Commuiiicarive Language Teaching, how-
ever, have attempted to describe theories of language learnrng processes
that are compatible with the communicative approach. Savignon (1983)
surveys second language acquisition research as a source for learning
theories and considers the role of linguistic, social, cognitive, and in-
dividual variables in language acquisition. Other theorists (e.g., Stephen
Krashen, who is not directly associated with Communicarive Language
Teaching) have developed theories citcd as compatible with the principles
of CLT (see Chapter 9). Krashen sees acquisition as the basic process
involved in developing language proficiericy and distinguishes tliis proc-
ess from learning. Acquisition refers ro the unconscio~s devz!pmz:?r f
the target language system as a result of using the language for real
communication. Learning is the conscious representation of grammaticai
knowledge that has resulted from instruction, and it cannot lead to
acquisition. i t is the acquired system rliat we cal1 upon to create utter-
ances during spontaneous language use. The learned system can serve
only as a monitor of the output o the acquired system. Krashen and
other second language acquisition theorists typically stress that language
learning comes about through using Ianguage communicatively, rather
than through practicing language skills.
Johnson (1984) and Littlewood (1984) consideran alternative learning
theory that they also see as compatible with CLT-a skill-learning model
of learning. According to this theoru, tlie acquisition of communicative
competence in a language is an exaiiiple of skill development. This
involves both a cognitive and a beiinvioral aspect:
The cognitive aspect involves the interii;ilis.irion of plans for creating appro-
priate behaviour. For Ianguage use, thcsc ~?l;lr~s derive mainly fronl the l an-
guagc system - they include grammatical rules, procedures for selecting
voc:ii>iilary, and social conventions governing speech. The behauioural aspect
involbes rhe automation of these ~ l a n s so that rhey can be converted inro
fluenr performance in real time. This occurs mainly through practice iii coi>-
verting plans into performance. (Littiewood 1984: 74)
This theory thus encourages an emphasis on practice as a way of de-
veloping communicative skills.
Design
Objectives
Piepho (1981) discusses the following levels of objectives in a commu-
nicative approach:
1 an integrative and contenr level (language as a means of expression)
2. a linguistic and instrumental level (language as a semiotic system and aii
object of learning);
3. an affective level of interpersonal relationships and conduct (language as a
means of expressing values and judgments about oneself and others);
4. a level of individual learning needc (remedial learning based on error
analysis);
5. a general educational level of extra-linguisric goals (language learning
within the school curriculum).
(Piepho 1981: 8)
These are proposed as general objecrives, applicable to any teachifi- O
situation. Particular objectives for CLT cannot be defined beyond this
level of specification, since such an approach assumes that language
teaching will reflect the particular needs of the target learners. These
needs may be in the domains of reading, writing, listening, o r speaking,
each of which can be approached from a communicative perspective.
Curriculum or instructional ohjectives for a particular course would
reflect specific aspects of communicative competence according t o thc
learner's proficiency level and communicative needs.
The syllabus
Discussions of the nature of the syllabus have been central in Coin-
municative Language Teaching. We have seen that one of the first syl-
labus models t o be proposed was described as a notional syllabus (Wilkiiis
1976), which specified the semantii-grammatical categories (e.g., fre-
queiicy, motion, location) and the categories of communicative function
thar learners need t o express. The Council of Europe expanded and
developed this into a syllabus that included descriptions of the objectives
of foreign language courses for European adults, the situations in which
they might typically need to use a foreign language (e.g., travel, business),
the topics they might need to talk about (e.g., personal identification,
education, shopping), the functions they needed language for (e.g., de-
scribing something, requesting information, expressing agreement and
disagreement), the notions made use of in communication (e.g., time,
frequenc~, duration), as well as the vocabulary and grammar needed.
The result was published as Threshold Leve1 English (van Ek and Alex-
ander 1980) and was an attempt to specify what was needed in order
t o be able to achieve a reasonable degree of communicative proficiency
in a foreign language, including the language items needed to realize
this "threshold level."
Discussion of syllabus theory and syllabus models in Communicative
Language Teaching has been extensive. Wilkins's original notional syl-
labus model was soon criticized by British applied linguists as merely
replacing one kind of list (e.g., a list of grammar items) with another (a
list of notions and functions). It specified products, rather than com-
municative processes. Widdowson (1979) argued that notional-func-
tional categories provide
only a very partial and imprecise description of certain semantic and prag-
matic mles which are used for reference when people interact. They tell us
nothing about the procedures people empioy in the application of these rules
when they are actually engaged in commuiiicative activity. If we are to adopt
a communicative approach to teaching which takes as its primary purpose
the development of the ability to do things with language, then it is discourse
which must be at the center of our attention. (Widdowson 1979: 254)
There are at present several proposals and models for what a syllabus
might look like in Comrnunicative Language Teaching. Yalden (1983)
describes the major current communicative syllabus types. We sum-
marize below a modified version of Yalden's classification of commu-
nicative syllabus types, with reference sources to each model:
TYP~
1. structures plus functions
2. functional spiral around ii
structural core
3. structural, functional,
instrumental
4. functional
5. notional
6. interaaional
7. task-based
8. learner generated
Reference
Wilkins (1976)
Brumfit (1980)
Allen (1980)
Jupp and Hodlin (1975)
Wilkins (1976)
Widdowson (1979)
Prabhu (1983)
Candlin (1976), Henner-Stanchina
and Riley (1978)
Cotntnunicative Language Teaching
There is extensive documentation ot attempts to create syllabus and
proto-syllabus designs ~of types 1-5 ;\ current interest is in syllabus
designs of types.6-8, although specificnrions of organizing principles for
interactional, task-based, and learner-generated syllabuses have been
-
only partiall; accomplishd. Descripttoiis of interactional strategies have
been given. for example, for interactions of teacher and student (Sinclair
and Coulthard 197J) and doctor and patient (Candlin, Bruton, and
Leather 1974). Although interesting, tliese descriptions have restricted
the field of inquiry to two-person interactions in which there exist rea-
sonably rigid and acknowledged superordinate to subordinate role
relationships.
Some designers of communicative syllabuses have also looked to task
specification and task organization as the appropriate criteria for syl-
labus design.
The only form of syllabus which is compatible with and can support commu-
nicational teaching seems to be a purely procedural one-which lists in more
or less detail, the types of tasks to be attempted in the classroom and sug-
gests an arder of complexity for tasks of t he same kind. (Prabhu 1983: 4)
An example of such a model that has been implemented nationally is
the Malaysian communicational syllabus (English Language Syllabus in
Malaysian Schools 1975) - a syllabus for the teaching of English at the
upper secondary leve1 in Malaysia. This was one of the first attempts to
organize Communicative Language Teaching around a specification of
communication tasks. In the organizational schema three broad com-
municative objectives are broken dowii into twenty-four more specific
objectives determined on the basis of needs analysis. These objectives
are organized into leart$ng areas, for each of which are specified a
number of outcome goals or products. A product is defined as a piece
of comprehensible information, written, spoken, or presented in a non-
linguistic form. "A letter is a product, and sois an instruction, a rnessage,
a report or a mara or graph produced through information gleaned
through languagr* (English Language Syllabus 1975: 5). The products,
then, result from successful completion of tasks. For example, the prod-
uct called "relaying a message to others" can be broken into a number
of tasks, such as (a) understanding the message, (b) asking questions to
clear any doubts (c) asking questions to gather more information, (d)
taking notes, (e) arranging the notes in a logical manner for presentation,
and ( f ) orally presenting the message. For each product a number of
proposed situations are suggested. These situations consist of a set of
specifications for learner interactions, the stimuli, comrnunicative con-
text, participants, desired outcomes, 2nd constraints. These situations
(and others constructed by individual teachers) constitute the means by
which learner interaction and comni~inicative skills are realized.
Approaches dr methods in language teaching
As discussion of syllabus models continues in the CLT literature, some
have argued that. the syllabus concept be abolished altogether in its
accepted forms, arguing that only learners can be fully aware of their
own needs, communicational resources, and desired learning pace and
path, and that each learner must create a personal, albeit implicit, syl-
labus as part of learning. Others lean more toward the iriodel proposed
by Brumfit (1980), which favors a grammatically based syllabus around
which notions, functions, and communicational activities are grouped.
Types of iearning and teaching activities
The range of exercise types and activities compatible with a commu-
nicative approach is unlimited, provided that such exercises enable learn-
ers t o attain the communicative objectives of the curriculum, engage
learners in communication, and require the use of such communicative
processes as information sharing, negotiation of rneaning, and interac-
tion. Classroom activities are often designed t o focus oii completing
tasks that are mediated through language or involve negotiation of in-
formation and information sharing.
These atternpts take rnany forms. Wright (1976) achieves it by showing out-
of-focus slides which the students atternpt to identify. Byrrie (1978) provides
incornplere plans and diagrams which students have to coriiplece by asking
for inforrnation. Allwright (1977) places a screen between sttidenrs and gets
one to place objecrs in a certain pattern: fhis pattern is then communicated
to students behind the screen. Geddes and Sturtridge (1979) develop "jig-
saw" listening in which students lisren to different taped niaterials and then
comrnunicate their content to others in t he class Most of these techniques
operate by providing information to some and withho!di!ig i r from orhers.
Uohnson 1982: 151)
Littlewood (1981) distinguishes between "functiorial coniiuunication ac-
tivities" and "social interaction activities" as rnajor activity types in
Communicative Language Teaching. Functional coniriiunication activ-
ities include such tasks as learners comparing sets of pictures and noting
similarities and differences; working out a likely seqtience of events in
a set of pictures; discovering missing features in a iiiap or picture; one
learner communicating behind a screen t o anot hrr learner and giving
instructions on how to draw a picture or shape, o r how t o complete a
map; following directions; and solving problems troiti shared clues.
Social interaction activities include conversation and discussion sessions,
dialogues and role plays, simulations, skits, iinproviscitions, and debates.
Learner roles
The emphasis in Communicative Language Teacliirig o i i the processes
of communication, rather than mastery of l a ngua ~e tornis, leads t o
Communicative Language Teacl ~i r ~g
different roles for learners from those found in more traditional sect)iiJ
language classrooms. Breen and Candlin describe the learner's role witliiii
CLT in the following terms:
The role of learner as negotiator-between the self, the learning process, anJ
the obiect of leatning-emerges from and interacts with the role of joint nep<>-
tiator within the group and within the classroom procedures and activities
which the group undertakes. The implication for the learner is that he shoiiltl
contribute as much as he gains, and thereby learn in an interdependent wn\.
(1980: 110)
There is thus an acknowledement. in some accounts of CLT. t hat learners
"
bring preconceptions of what teaChing and learning should be like. These
constitute a "set" for learnine. which when unrealized can lead t o learner
confusion and resentment kenner-St anchi na and Riley 1978). Ofrcii
there is no text, grammar rules are not presented, classroom arrangemeiit
is nonstandard, students are expected t o interact primarily with eiicii
other rather than with the teacher, and correction of errors may he
absent or infrequent. The cooperative (rather than individualistic) ap-
proach t o learning stressed in CLT may likewise be unfamiliar to iearri-
ers. CLT methodologists consequently recommend t hat learners learri
to see that failed communication is a joint responsibility and not the
fault of speaker or listener. Similarly, successful communication is ari
accomplishment jointly achieved and acknowledged.
Teacher roles
Several roles are assumed for teachers in Communicarive Languagc
Teaching, the importance of particular roles being determined by thc
view of CLT adopted. Breen and Candlin describe teacher roles in tlie
following terms:
The teacher has two main roles: the first role is to facilitate the communica-
tion process between al1 participants in the classroom, and between these
participants and the various activities and texts. The second tole is to act as
an indepeiideiit participant within rhe learning-teaching group. The latter rolc
is closely relared to the objectives of the first role and arises from it. These
roles iinply a set of secoiidary roles for the teacher; first, as an organizer ot
resources aiid as a resource himself, second as a guide within the classrooiii
procedures xid activities.. . . A third role for the teacher is that of researchcr
and learner, witli much to contribute in terms of appropriate knowledge aiici
abilities, nctiial and obse. ed experience of the nature oi learning and orgnrii-
zational ciipacities. (1980: 99)
Ot her roles rtssumed for teachers are needs analyst, counselor, and groiili
process iii;iriager.
Approaches & metbods in language teaching
NEEDS ANALYST
The CLT.teacher nisliiiies a responsibility for determining and respond-
ing to learner langiiage needs. This rnay be done informally and per-
sonally through one-ro-one sessions with students, in which the teacher
talks through such issiies as the student's perception of his or her learninp.
- -
style, learning assets, and learninggoals. It may be done formally through
administerine a needs assessrnent instrument, such as rhose exemplified
"
in Savignon (1983). Typically, such formal assessments contain items
that attempt to determine an individual's motivation for studying the
language. For example, students might respond on a 5-point scale (strongly
agree t o strongly disagree) to statements like the following.
1 want to study English because.. .
1. 1 think it will somedny be useful in getting a good job.
2. it will help me better understand English-speaking people and their way of
life.
3. one needs a good kriowledge of English to gain other people's respect.
4. it will allow me to meet and converse with interesting people.
5. 1 need it for rny job.
6. it will enable me to think and behave like English-speaking people
On the basis of such needs assessments, teachers are expected to plan
group and individual instruction that responds to the learners' needs.
COUNSELOR
Another role assumed by several CLT approaches is that of ccunse!~:,
similar to the way this role is defined in Community Language Learning.
In this role, the teacher-counselor is expected to exemplify an effective
communicator seeking to maximize the meshing of speaker intention
and hearer interpretation, through the use of paraphrase, confirmation,
and feedback.
GROUP PROCESS MANr\ER
CLT procedures often require teachers to acquire less teacher-centered
classroom managemeiit skills. Iris the teacher's responsibility to organize
the classroom as a serting for comrnunication and cornmunicative ac-
tivities. Guidelines for classroom practice (e.g., Littlewood 1981; Fin-
occhiaro and Brumfit 1983) suggest that during an activity the teacher
monitors, encourages, and suppresses the inclination to supply gaps in
lexis, grammar, and strategy but notes such gaps for later commentary
and communicative practice. At the conclusion of group activities, the
teacher leads in the debriefing of the activity, pointing out alternatives
and extensions and assisting groups in self-correction discussion. Critics
have pointed out, however, that non-native teachers inay feel less than
comfortable about such procedures without special training.
The focus on fluency and comprehensibility in Communicative Lan-
guage Teaching may cause anxiety among teachers accustomed t o seeing
error suppression and correction as the major instructional responsibil-
ity, and who see their primary function as preparing learners t o take
standardized or other kinds of tests. A continuing teacher concern has
been the possible deleterious effect in pair or group work of imperfect
modeling and student error. Although this issue is far from resolved, it
is interesting to note that recent research findings suggest that "data
contradicts the notion that other learners are not good conversational
partners because they can't provide accurate input when it is solicited"
(Porter 1983).
The role of instructional materials
A wide variety of materials have been used to support communicative
approaches to language teaching. Unlike some contemporary metho-
dologies, such as Community Language Learning, practitioners of Com-
municative Language Teaching view materials as a way of influencing
the quality of classroom interaction and language use. Materials thus
have the primary role of promoting communicative language use. We
will consider three kinds of materials currently used in CLT and label
these text-based, task-based, and realia.
TEX T-BASED MATER1AL.S
There are numerous tcxtbooks designed to direct and support Com-
municative Language Teaching. Their tables of contents sometimes sug-
gest a kind of grading and sequencing of language practice not unlike
those found in structurally organized texts. Some of these are in fact
written around a largely structural syllabus, with slight reformatting to
justify their claims to be based on a communicative approach. Others,
however, look very different from previous language teaching texts.
Morrow and Johnson's Communicate (1979), for example, has none of
the usual dialogues, drills, or sentence patterns and uses visual cues,
taped cues, pictures, and sentence fragments to initiate conversation.
Watcyn-Jones's Pair Work (1981) consists of two different texts for pair
work, each containing different information needed to enact role plays
and carry out other pair acrivities. Texts written to support the Malay-
sian English Language Syllabus (1975) likewise represent a departure
from traditional texthook rnodes. A typical lesson consists of a theme
Approaches & methods in languagc~ tcucliing
(e.g., relaying information), a task :iiinlysis for thematic development
(e.g., understanding the message, aski i i ~ questions to obtain ciarification,
asking for more information, takiiig notes, ordering and presentiiig in-
formation), a practice situation description (e.g., "A caller asks to see
your manager. He does not have an appointment. Gather the necessary
information from him and relay the inessage to your manager."), a
stimulus presentation (in the preceding case, the beginning of an office
conversation scripted and on tape), coniprehension questions (e.g., "Why
is the caller in the office?"), and paraphrase exercises.
TASK-BASED MATERIALS
A variety of games, role plays, simiilations, and task-based communi-
cation activities have been prepared t o support Comrnunicative Lan-
guage Teaching classes. These typically are in the form of one-of-a-kind
items: exercise handbooks, cue cards, aitivity cards, pair-comrnunication
practice materials, and student-interaction practice booklets. In pair-
communication materials, there are typically two sets of material for a
pair of students, each set containing different kinds of information.
Sometimes the information is complementary, and partners must fit their
respective parts of the "jigsaw" into a composite whole. Others assume
different role relationships for the partners (e.g., an interviewer and an
interviewee). Still others provide drills and practice material in inter-
actional formats.
Many proponents of Communicative Language Teaching have advo-
cated the use of "authentic," "frorii-life" materials in the classroom.
These might include language-based realia, such as signs, magazines,
advertisements, and newspapers, or graphic and visual sources around
which communicative activities can be built, such as maps, pictures,
symbols, graphs, and charts. Different kinds of objects can be used to
support communicative exercises, siich as a plastic model to assemble
from directions.
Procedure
Because communicative principles caii be applied t o the teaching of any
skill, at any level, and because of thc wide variety of classroom activities
and exercise types discussed in thc Iircrature on Communicative Lan-
guage Teaching, description of typic;iI ~Iassroom procedures used in a
lesson based on CLT principles is nor tc.;isible. Savignon (1983) discusses
Such procedures clearly have much in common with those observed in
classes taught according to Structural-Situational and Audiolingual prin-
ciples. Traditional procedures are not rejected but are reinterpreted and
extended. A similar conservatism is found in many "orthodox" CLT
texts, such as Alexander's Mainline Beginners (1978). Although each
unit has an ostensibly functional focus, new teaching points are intro-
duced with dialogues, followed by controlled practice of the main gram-
rnatical patterns. The teaching points are then contextualized through
situational practice. This serves as an introduction to a freer practice
activity, such as a role play or improvisation. Similar techniques are used
in another popular textbook, Starting Strategies (Abbs and Freebairn
1977). Teaching points are introduced in dialogue form, grammatical
items are isolated for controlled practice, and then freer activities are
provided. Pair and group work is suggested t o encourage students to
use and practice functions and forms. The rnethodological procedures
underlying these texts reflects a sequence of activities represented in
Littlewood (1981, p. 86) as follows:
, Structurai activities
Pre-communicative activities
\ Ouasi-comrnunicativs activities
,"
Functional communication activities
Cornrnunicative activities
Social interacton activities
Savignon (1972, 1983), however, rejects the notion that learners must
first gain control over individual skills (pronunciation, grammar, vo-
cabulary) before applying them in communicative tasks; she advocates
providing cornrniiiiicative practice from the start of instruction. How to
implement CLI' principles at the leve1 of classroom procedures thus
remains central to discussions of the communicative approach. How can
the range of communicative activities and procedures be defined, and
how can the teacher determine a mix and timing of activities that best
rneets the needs of a particular iearner or group of learners? These
fundamental qilesrions cannot be answered by proposing further tax-
onornies and classitications, but require systematic investigation of the
use of different kiiids of activities and procedures in L2 classrooms (see
Chapter 11).
Conclusion
Communicative Language Teasliiiig is best considered an approach rather
than a method. Thus althougli n reasonable degree of theoretical con-
sistency can be discerned at tlie lcvels of language and learning theory,
at the levels of design and procedure there is much greater room for
individual interpretation and variation than most methods permit. I t
could be that one version arnong the various proposals for syllabus
models, exercise types, and classroom activities may gain wider approval
in the future, giving Communicative Language Teaching a status similar
t o other teaching methods. On the other hand, divergent interpretations
might lead to h6mogeneous subgroups.
Communicative Language Teaching a~pear ed at a time when British
language teaching was ready for a paradigm shift. Situational Language
Teaching was no longer felt to reflect a methodology appropriate for
the seventies and beyond. CLT appealed to those who sought a more
humanistic approach to teaching, one in which the interactive processes
of communication received priority. The rapid adoption and implemen-
tation of the communicative approach also resulted from the fact that
it quickly assumed the status of orthodoxy in British language teaching
circles, receiving the sanction and support of leading British applied
linguists, language specialists, publishers, as well as institutions, such as
the British Council (Richards 1985).
Now that the initial wave of enthusiasm has passed, however, some
of the claims of CLT are being looked at more critically (Swan 1985).
The adoption of a communicative approach raises important issues for
teacher training, materials development, and testingland evaluation.
Questions that have been raised include whether a communicative ap-
proach can be applied at al1 levels in a language program, whether it is
equally suited t o ESL and EFL situations, whether it requires existing
grammar-based syllabuses to be abandoned or merely revised, how such
an approach can be evaluated, how suitable it is for non-native teachers,
and how it can be adopted in situations where students must continue
to take grammar-based tests. These kinds of questions will doubtless
require attention if the communicntive movement in language teachjng
continues to gain momentum ir1 the future.
Bibliography
Abbs, B. A., and 1. Freebairn. 1977 Stdrting Strategies. London: Longman.
Alexander, L. G. 1978. Mainlinc Ifqyitrners. London: Longman.
Allen, J. P. B. 1980. A three-level iiirriculiim model for second language edu-
Approaches & met hods in language teaching
cation. Mimeo: Modern Language Center, Ontario lnstitute for Studies in
Education
Allwright, R: L. 1977. Language learning through communicatioii practice. ELT
Documents 76(3). London: British Council.
Applebee, A. N. 1974. Tradition and Reform in the Teaching of E~zglislt. A
History. Urbana, 111.: National Council of Teachers of English
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clareiidon l'ress.
Breen, M., and C. N. Candlin. 1980. The essentials of a communicative cur-
riculum in language teaching. Applied Linguistics l (2): 89-1 12.
Brumfit, C. 1980. From defining to designing: communicative specifications
versus communicative methodology in foreign language teachiiig. In K.
Muller (ed.), The Foreign Language Syllabus and Cot~tmrtnicative Ap-
proaches to Teaching Proceedings o/ a European-Americari Scrninar. Spe-
cial issue of Studies in Second Language Acquisitiorr, 3(1) 1-9.
Brumfit, C. J., and K. Johnson (eds.). 1979. The Communicatiuc Approach to
Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Byrne, D. 1978. Materials for Language Teaching. Inrcractio~r I'ackages Lon-
don: Modern English Publications.
Canale, M., and M. Swain. 1980. Theoretical bases of coriimiinicative ap-
proaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied 1.1nguistics l(1):
1 4 7 .
Candlin, C. N. 1976. Communicative language teaching and the deht to prag-
matics. In C. Rameh (ed.), Georgetown Uniwersity Roundtul~k~ 1976. Wash-
ington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Candlin, C N., C. J. Bruton, and J. H. Leather. 1974. Doctor-pntient com-
munication skills. ~Mimeo, University of Lancaster.
Chornsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouroii
Chomskv, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Bostori MIT Press.
Englisli Language Syflabus in Mulaysian Schools, Tingknt;r!r 4- 1975 Kirala
Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka.
Finocchiaro, M., and C. Brumfit. 1983. The Functiortal-Notioir~~l Approach.
From Theory to Practice. New York: Oxford University I'ress
Firth, J. R. 1957. Papers in Linguistics: 1934-1951 London: Outord University
Press.
Geddes, M., and G. Sturtridge. 1979. 1,istening Links Londori Heinemann.
Gumperz, J. J., and D. Hymes (eds.). 1972. Directio~is in Soiiolii~gitistics. The
Ethnography o/ Communication. New York: Holt, Rinel,art nrid Winston.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1970. Language srructure and language furiirioi~ InJ Lyons
(ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics, pp. 140-65. Harmontis\vc~rrli I'enguin.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1973. Exp1oratio)ts in the Fuizctio12s of I.inr,yr~Lrgc Loiidon:
Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1975. Learning How to Mean Explorntioi~s in the Devel-
opment of Language. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Languageas Social Semiotic. Londoii F.cl\r.nrd Arnold.
Henner-Stanchina, C., and P. Riley. 1978. Aspecrs ot autoiioni~~its 1e;irning. In
ELT Docunzents 103: Individtialization ilz 1.anguage 1.cri~itiri.q. pp. 75-97.
London: British Council.
Hilgard, E. R., and G. H. Bower. 1966. Theories of Learning. New York: Ap-
pleton-Century-Croks.
Holec, H. 1980. Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Strasbourg: Cotiii-
cil of Eutope.
Howatt, A. P. R. 1984. A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: 0,-
ford University Press.
Hymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes
(eds.), Sociolinguistics, pp. 269-93. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Johnson, 1982. Communicatiue Syllabus Design and Methodology. Oxforcl
Pergamon.
Johnson, 1984. Skill psychology and communicative methodology. Paper pre-
sented at the RELC seminar, Singapore.
Jupp, T. C., and S. Hodlin. 1975. Industrial English: An Example of Theon
and Practice in Functional Language Teaching. London: Heinemann.
Littlewood, W. 1981. Communicatiue Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Littlewood, W. 1984. Foreign and Second Language Learning: Language Ac-
quisition Research and Its Implications for the Classroom. Cambridge
Cambridge University Press.
Morrow, K., and K. Johnson. 1979. Communicate. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Munby, J. 1978. Communicatiue Syllabus Design. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Piepho, H.-E. 198 1. Establishing objectives in tbe teaching of English. In C.
Candlin (ed.), The Communicatiue Teaching of English: Principies and a11
Exercise Typology. London: Longman.
Porter, P. A. 1983. Variations in the conversations of adult learners of English
as a fuiiction of the proficiency level of the participants. Ph.D. dissertation,
Stanford University.
Prabhu, N. 1983. Procedural syllabuses. Paper presented at the RELC Seminar,
Singapore
Richards, J. C. 1985. The secret life of methods. In Richards, The ~ o h t e x t o/
Language Teaching, pp. 32-45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Savignon, S. 1972. Teaching for communicative competence: a research reporr
Audiouisrral Language Journal lO(3): 153-62.
Savignon, S. 1983. Communicatiue Competence: Theory and Classroom Prac-
tice. Reading, iMass.: Addison-Wesley.
Searle, J. R 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cani-
bridge Gmbridge University Press.
Sinclair, J McH , and R. M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Dis-
course. Oxiord: Oxford University Press.
Swan, M. 1985 A critica1 look at the communicative approach. English La~i -
guage Teaching Journal, pt. 1, 39(1): 2-12.
Syllabuses /or Primary Schools. 1981. Hong Kong: Curriculum Developmeiir
Committee Hong Kong.
Van Ek, J. A. 1975. The Threshold Leve1 in a European UnitlCredit System /o1
Moderrz Ldrtguage Teaching by Adults. Systems Development in Adulr
Languagc Learning. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Approacl ~es t+ rnethods in language teaching
Van Ek, 1.. niid L. G. Alexander. 1980. Thieshold Leve1 English. Oxford:
Perg;iiiioti ,
Watcyn-[oncs, P. 1981. Pair Work. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Widdowst)~~, H. G. 1972. The teaching of English as comrnunication. English
Langrrri~yc Teaching 27(1): 15-18.
Widdowsori, H. G. 1978. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Ox-
ford tiniversity Press.
Widdowsori, H G. 1979. The cornmunicative approach and its applications. In
H. G. Widdowson, Explorations in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford
Universiry Press.
Wilkins, D. A. 1972. The linguistic and situational content of the common core
in a unirlcredit system. Ms. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Wilkins, [> A. 1976. Notiomi Syllabuses Oxford: Oxfoid University Press.
Wilkins, D A. 1979. Notional syllabuses and the concept of a minirnum ade-
quate grarnmar. In C. J. Brumfit and K Johnson (eds.), The Communicntive
Approuch to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wright, A. 1976. Visual Material for the Language Teacher. 1.ondon: Longman.
Yalden, J 1983. ?'he Communicative Syllabus Evolution, Design and lmple-
mentiltio~i Oxford: Pergamon.

Communicative Language Teaching

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Communicative Language Teaching

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Communicative Language Teaching

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reading # 9

You might also like