The origins of
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) are to be found in the changes in the
British language teaching tradition dating from the late 1960s. Until then,
Situational Language represented the major British approach to teaching English
as a foreign language. In Situational Language Teaching, language was
taught by practicing basic structures in meaningful situation-based activities.
British applied
linguists emphasized another fundamental dimension of language that was
inadequately addressed in current approaches to language teaching at that time
- the functional and communicative potential of language. They saw the
need to focus in language teaching on communicative proficiency rather than on
mere mastery of structures.
Another impetus
for different approaches to foreign language teaching came from changing educational realities in Europe.
With the increasing interdependence of European countries came the need for
greater efforts to teach adults the major languages of the European Common
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 language
teaching, published monographs and books about language teaching. The need
to articulate and develop alternative methods of language teaching was
considered a high priority.
In 1971 a group of experts
began to investigate the possibility of developing 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 all 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
communicative definition of language that could serve as a basis for
developing communicative syllabuses for language teaching. Wilkins's contribution
was an analysis of the communicative 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 attempted to
demonstrate the systems of meanings that lay behind the communicative uses of
language.
The work of the
Council of Europe; the writings of Wilkins, Widdowson, Candlin, Christopher
Brumfit, Keith Johnson, and other British applied linguists on the theoretical
basis for a communicative or functional approach to language teaching; the
rapid application of these ideas by textbook writers; and the equally rapid
acceptance of these new principles by British language teaching specialists,
curriculum development centers, and even governments gave prominence
nationally and internationally to what came to be referred to as the Communicative
Approach, or simply Communicative Language Teaching. (The terms notional-functional
approach and functional
approach are also sometimes used.) Although the movement began as a largely
British innovation, focusing on alternative conceptions of a syllabus, since
the mid-1970s the scope of Communicative Language Teaching has expanded. Both
American and British proponents now see it as an approach (and not a method)
that aims to (a) make communicative competence the goal of language teaching
and (b) develop procedures for the teaching of the four language skills that
acknowledge the interdependence of language and communication.
Howatt
distinguishes between a "strong" and a "weak" version of
Communicative Language Teaching:
There is, in a sense, a
'strong' version of the communicative approach and a 'weak' version. The weak
version which has become more or less standard practice in 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 program of language teaching.... The
'strong' version of communicative teaching, on the other hand, advances the
claim that language is acquired through communication, so that it is not
merely a question of activating an existing but inert knowledge of the
language, but of stimulating the development of the language system itself. If
the former could be described as 'learning to use' English, the latter entails
'using English to learn it.' (1984: 279)
Finocchiaro and
Brumfit (1983) contrast the major distinctive features of the Audiolingual Method and the
Communicative Approach , according to their interpretation.
Approach
The communicative approach in language teaching
starts from a theory of language as communication. The goal of
language teaching is to develop what Hymes (1972) referred to as
"communicative competence." Hymes coined this term in order to
contrast a communicative view of language and Chomsky's theory of competence. Chomsky
held that linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal
speaker-listener in a completely homogeneous speech community, who knows its
language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant
conditions as memory limitation, distractions, shifts of attention and
interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of
the language in actual performance. (Chomsky 1965: 3)
For Chomsky, the
focus of linguistic theory was to characterize the abstract abilities speakers
possess that enable them to produce grammatically correct sentences in a
language. Hymes held that such a view of linguistic theory was sterile, that
linguistic theory needed to 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 to know in order to be
communicatively competent in a speech community. In Hymes's view, a person
who acquires communicative competence acquires both knowledge and ability 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
context in which it is used and evaluated;
4. whether (and to what
degree) something is in fact done, actually performed, and what its doing
entails.
This theory of what knowing a language entails
offers a much more comprehensive view than Chomsky's view of competence, which
deals primarily with abstract grammatical knowledge.
Another linguistic
theory 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 all
the functions of language, and therefore all 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, which complements Hymes's view of communicative competence 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 function:
using language to get things;
2. the regulatory function:
using language to control the behaviour of others;
3. the interactional function:
using language to create interaction with others;
4. the personal function:
using language to express personal feelings and meanings;
5. the heuristic function:
using language to learn and to discover;
6. the imaginative function:
using language to create a world of the imagination;
7. the representational
function: using language to communicate information.
Learning a second language was
similarly viewed by proponents of Communicative Language Teaching as acquiring
the linguistic means to perform different kinds of functions.
At the level of
language theory, Communicative Language Teaching has a rich, if somewhat
eclectic, theoretical base. Some of the characteristics 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 structural features, but
categories of functional and communicative meaning as exemplified in discourse.
In contrast to the amount that
has been written in Communicative Language Teaching literature about
communicative dimensions of language, little has been written about learning
theory. Neither Brumfit and Johnson (1979) nor Littlewood (1981), for example, offers
any discussion of learning theory. Elements of an underlying learning theory
can be discerned in some CLT practices, however. One such element might be
described as the communication principle: 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 (Johnson 1982). A third element is the meaningfulness
principle: Language that is meaningful to the learner supports the learning
process. Learning activities are consequently 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 conditions needed to promote second language learning,
rather than the processes of language acquisition.
More recent accounts of
Communicative Language Teaching, however, have attempted to describe theories
of language learning 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 individual variables in language acquisition. Other theorists
(e.g., Stephen Krashen, who is not directly associated with Communicative
Language Teaching) have developed theories cited as compatible with the
principles of CLT. Krashen sees acquisition as the basic process
involved in developing language proficiency and distinguishes this process
from learning. Acquisition refers to the unconscious development of the
target language system as a result of using the language for real communication.
Learning is the conscious representation of grammatical knowledge that has
resulted from instruction, and it cannot lead to acquisition. It is the
acquired system that we call upon to create utterances during spontaneous
language use. The learned system can serve only as a monitor of the output of
the acquired system. Krashen and other second language acquisition theorists
typically stress that language learning comes about through using language
communicatively, rather than through practicing language skills.
Johnson (1984) and
Littlewood (1984) consider an alternative learning theory that they also see as
compatible with CLT-a skill-learning model of learning. According to this
theory, the acquisition of communicative competence in a language is an example
of skill development. This involves both a cognitive and a behavioral aspect:
The cognitive aspect involves the
internalisation of plans for creating appropriate behaviour. For language use,
these plans derive mainly from the language system — they include grammatical
rules, procedures for selecting vocabulary, and social conventions governing
speech. The behavioural aspect involves the automation of these plans so that they
can be converted into fluent performance in real time. This occurs mainly
through practice in converting plans into performance. (Littlewood 1984: 74)
This theory thus encourages an
emphasis on practice as a way of developing communicative skills.
Design
Piepho (1981) discusses the
following levels of objectives in a communicative approach:
1. an integrative and content
level (language as a means of expression)
2. a linguistic
and instrumental level (language as a semiotic system and an 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 needs (remedial learning based on error analysis);
5. a general
educational level of extra-linguistic goals (language learning within the
school curriculum).
(Piepho 1981: 8)
These are proposed as general
objectives, applicable to any teaching 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, or speaking, each of which can be approached from a communicative
perspective. Curriculum or instructional objectives for a particular course
would reflect specific aspects of communicative competence according to the learner's
proficiency level and communicative needs.
Discussions of the nature of
the syllabus have been central in Communicative Language Teaching. We have seen
that one of the first syllabus models to be proposed was described as a
notional syllabus (Wilkins 1976), which specified the semantic-grammatical categories
(e.g., frequency, motion, location) and the categories of communicative
function that learners need to 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., describing something,
requesting information, expressing agreement and disagreement), the notions
made use of in communication (e.g., time, frequency, duration), as well as the
vocabulary and grammar needed. The result was published as Threshold Level
English (van Ek and Alexander 1980) and was an attempt to
specify what was needed in order to be able to achieve a reasonable degree of
communicative proficiency in a foreign language, including the language items
needed to realize this "threshold level."
The range of
exercise types and activities compatible with a communicative approach is
unlimited, provided that such exercises enable learners to attain the
communicative objectives of the curriculum, engage learners in communication,
and require the use of such communicative processes as information sharing,
negotiation of meaning, and interaction. Classroom activities are often designed to focus on
completing tasks that are mediated through language or involve negotiation of
information and information sharing.
The emphasis in
Communicative Language Teaching on the processes of communication, rather than
mastery of language.
Several roles are assumed for
teachers in Communicative Language Teaching, the importance of particular roles
being determined by the view of CLT adopted. Breen and Candlin describe teacher
roles in the following terms:
The teacher has two main
roles: the first role is to facilitate the communication process between all
participants in the classroom, and between these participants and the various
activities and texts. The second role is to act as an independent participant
within the learning-teaching group. The latter role is closely related to
the objectives of the first role and arises from it. These roles imply a set of
secondary roles for the teacher; first, as an organizer of resources and as a
resource himself, second as a guide within the classroom procedures and
activities.... A third role for the teacher is that of researcher and learner,
with much to contribute in terms of appropriate knowledge and abilities, actual
and observed experience of the nature of learning and organizational
capacities. (1980: 99)
Other roles assumed for
teachers are needs analyst, counselor, and group process manager.
NEEDS ANALYST
The CLT teacher assumes a
responsibility for determining and responding to learner language needs. This
may be done informally and personally through one-to-one sessions with
students, in which the teacher talks through such issues as the student's
perception of his or her learning style, learning assets, and learning goals.
It may be done formally through administering a needs assessment instrument,
such as those 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 to strongly disagree) to statements like the
following.
I want to study English
because...
1. I think it will
someday 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 knowledge of English to gain other people's respect.
4. it will allow
me to meet and converse with interesting people.
5. I need it for
my 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 counselor, 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 MANAGER
CLT procedures often require
teachers to acquire less teacher-centered classroom management skills. It is
the teacher's responsibility to organize the classroom as a setting for
communication and communicative activities. Guidelines for classroom practice
(e.g., Littlewood 1981; Finocchiaro 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 may feel less than comfortable about such
procedures without special training.
The focus on
fluency and comprehensibility in Communicative Language Teaching may cause
anxiety among teachers accustomed to seeing error suppression and correction as
the major instructional responsibility, and who see their primary function as
preparing learners to 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).
A wide variety of materials
have been used to support communicative approaches to language teaching. Unlike
some contemporary methodologies, such as Community Language Learning,
practitioners of Communicative 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.
TEXT-BASED MATERIALS
There are numerous
textbooks designed to direct and support Communicative Language Teaching.
Their tables of contents sometimes suggest 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
activities. Texts written to support the Malay-sian English Language
Syllabus (1975) likewise represent a departure from traditional textbook
modes. A typical lesson consists of a theme (e.g., relaying information), a
task analysis for thematic development (e.g., understanding the message, asking
questions to obtain clarification, asking for more information, taking notes,
ordering and presenting information), 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 message to your
manager."), a stimulus presentation (in the preceding case, the beginning
of an office conversation scripted and on tape), comprehension questions (e.g.,
"Why is the caller in the office?"), and paraphrase exercises.
TASK-BASED MATERIALS
A variety of games, role
plays, simulations, and task-based communication activities have been prepared
to support Communicative Language Teaching classes. These typically are in the
form of one-of-a-kind items: exercise handbooks, cue cards, activity cards,
pair-communication 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 interactional
formats.
REALIA
Many proponents of
Communicative Language Teaching have advocated the use of
"authentic," "from-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 he built, such as maps, pictures, symbols, graphs, and charts. Different
kinds of objects can be used to support communicative exercises, such as a
plastic model to assemble from directions.
Communicative Language
Teaching is best considered an approach rather than a method. Thus
although a reasonable degree of theoretical consistency can be discerned at
the levels 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. It could be that one version among 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 to other teaching methods. On the other hand, divergent
interpretations might lead to homogeneous subgroups.
Communicative
Language Teaching appeared 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 implementation 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 testing 'and
evaluation. Questions that have been raised include whether a communicative
approach can be applied at all levels in a language program, whether it is
equally suited to 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 communicative movement in language teaching continues to gain momentum
in the future.