communicative language teaching richards

8/10/2019 Communicative Language Teaching Richards

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communicative-language-teaching-richards 1/22

eading

Rjchards, J. C. and Rodgers, T S Aooroaches and Methods in languaee tea ch in~ C. U .P. ,

p

64

8

Communicative Language Teaching

ackground

Th e origins of Com mun icative Language Teachii:g (CL T) ar e to be fou nd

in the changes in the British language teaching trad ition d ating from the

late 1960s. Until then, Situational Language Teaching (see Chapter

3

represented th e major British a pproac h to teaching English as a foreign

language. In Situational Language Teaching, language was taught by

pra aic ing basic structure s in meaniiigful situation-ba sed activities. But

just as the linguistic theory underlying Audiolingualism was rejected in

the United States in the mid-1960s, British applied linguists began to

cal1 into question the theoreticai assumptions underlying Situational

Language Teaching:

By

the end of the sixties

it

was ilear

thac

the situational ap pro ach.. had

r u n

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 a n d expressed the m ean i n g s and in-

tentions of the speakers and writers w h o 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 tha t was inadequately addressed in current app roache s t o lan-

guage teaching at tha t time he functional and com mun icative pote ntial

of language. They sa w the neéd to focus

in

language teaching on com-

mun icative proficiency ra the r than oii inere mas tery of struc ture s. Scliol-

ars who advocated this view of lariguage, such as Christopher Candlin

and Hen ry Widd owso n, dre w on tlie work of British functiona l linguists

(e.g., Jo hn Firth, M. A. K. Halliday), Ainerican work in sociolinguistics

(e.g. Dell Hym es, Jo hn Gum perz, ;iiicl William Labo: ), as well as wo rk

in philosophy (e.g., John Austin aiid lolin Searle).

Another irnpetus for different appronclies to foreign languag e teaching

Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educativos, para la crítica y la investigación respetando la reglamentación 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.




carne frorn chang ing education al realities in Europe. W ith th e increasing

interdependence of Eurobean co untries carne the need for greater efforts

t o teach adults the majo; languages of the Europe an Cornmo n M ark et

and the Council of Europe, a regional organization for cultural and

educational cooperation. E ducation was on e of the Council of E urope's

major areas of activity. It sponsored international conferences on lan-

guage teaching, published rnónog raphs and b ooks a bo ut language teach-

ing, and was active in prornoting the formation of the International

~ s i o c i a t i o n f A pplied ~ i n ~ u i s t i c i .he need to articulate and develop

alternative m ethods of language teaching was con sidered a high priority.

In 1 9 71 a gro up 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 othe r portions" (van Ek and A lexander 19 80:

6).

T h e

group used studies of the needs of European language learners, and in

particular a preliminary document prepared by a British linguist,

D.

A

Wilkins ( 19 72) , which proposed a functional o r 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

o

rneanings:

notional caregories (concepts such a s time, sequence, quan rity, location,

frequ ency) and categories of com mu nicative functio n (rcqu ests, 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-

guag e Teaching. T he Council of E urop e incorp orated his semanticicom-

rnunicative analysis into a set

o

specifications for a first-level

cornrnunicative language syllabus. These threshold level specifications

(va n Ek and A lexander 19 80 ) have had a stron g 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-

dow son, Candlin, Chr istopher Brum fit, Keith Joh nso n, 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 tex tbook writers; and th e equally rapid acceptance of these new

principies

by British language teaching specialists, curric ulu rr~ eve lop -

ment centers, and even governments gave prominetice riatiorially and

internationally to what carne to be referred to as the Coiiiinuriicative

Approach, o r simply C omm unicative Language Teactiirig. (T he terms







Approaches me thod s in langua ge teaching

notional-functional approach and functional approach are also soiiie-

times used.) A lthough the rnovement began a s a largely Britt5li iiiiio-

vation, focusing on a lternative conceptions of a syllabus, since t l i c iiiid-

19 70 s the scope of Comm unicative Language Te aching h as expiii it ied.

Borh American and British proponents n ow see i t as an a ppr oac h (2nd

no t a rnethod) that airns to (a ) make com municative competciicc the

goal of language teaching a nd (b ) develop proced ures 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 statu s frorn any of the other ap proach es or inethods

discussed in this book. There is no single text or authority

on

it,

nor

any single model th at is universally accepted as authoritative. For so nie,

Cornrnunicative Language Teaching means litrle more than an iritegra-

tion of gram matical an d functional teaching. Littlewoo d (19 81 : states,

One of the most characteristic features of communicative Iaiigiiage

teaching is that i t pays systematic attention to functional as ~vcllas

struc tura l aspects of language. For others, it mea ns using procc dures

where learners work in pairs or groups employing available langiiage

resources in problem-solving tasks. A national primary English syllabiis

based o n a comm unicative approa ch (Syllabuses for Primary Scliools

19 81 ), for example, defines the focus of the syllabus as th e conim u-

nicative functions which the forms of the language serve

(p.

5 . T h e

introduction to the sam e docum ent comments tha t comm unicative pur-

poses rnay be of many different kinds. What is essential in al1 of thern

is that a t least two parties are involved in an interac tion o r 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 (1983 ) discusses six Cornm unicative

Language Teach ing design alternatives, ranging fro m a m ode l in wliich

comrnunicative exercises ar e grafted on to a n existing structu ral sy llabus,

to a learner-generated view of syllabus design (e.g., Holec 1980).

Ho wa tt distinguishes between a strong a n d a weak version of

Cornrnunicative Language Teaching:

There is,

in

a sense, a 'strong' version of the communicative app roach

iincl

a

'weak' version. The weak version which has become more or less staiiJ3rcl

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 w ider prograin

of language teaching.. Th e 'strong' version of communicative teaching, on

the other hand, advances the claim that language is acquired through c o m -

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.

f

the former could be described as 'learning

to

iisc

English, the latter entails 'using English to learn

¡t.

(1984:

279)







C o m m u n i c a t i v e L a n g u a g e

eaching

F i n o c c h i a r o

2nd

Brurnfit

(1983)

c o n t r a s t t h e

major

dis t inct ive

features

of

t h e A u d i o l ~ r ig u a l

Method

a n d the C o m r n u n i c a t i v e A p p r o a c h ,

ac

c o r d i n g

to

the i r in terpre ta t ion:

Audio-lingual

1. Attends to srructure and form

more th an meaning.

2

Demands memorization of

strua ure-b ased dialogs.

3

Language irerns are no t

necessarily contextualized.

4.

Language learning is leaming

struau res, sounds, o r words.

5

Ma stery , o r over-learning is

sought.

6.

Drilling is a central technique.

7.

Native-speaker-like

pronunciation is sought.

8. Grammatical explanation is

avoided.

9.

Com munica tive activities only

come after a long process of

rigid drills an d exercises.

10

The use of the student's native

languag e is forbidden.

11.

Translation is forbidden

at

early levels.

12

Reading and writing a re

deferred till speech is mastered.

13

Th e 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 lang uage are

recognized but not emphasized.

16. The sequence of units is

determined solely by principies

of

linguistic cornplexity.


Meaning is paramount .

Dialogs, i used, center around

communicat ive functions and are

no t normally m emorized.

Contextualization is a basic

premise.

Language learning is learning to

communicate.

Effective communication is sought.

Drilling may occur, but

peripherally.

Comprehensible pronun ciation is

sought.

Any device which helps the learners

is accepted varying acco rding to

their age, interest, etc.

Attempts to communicate may be

encouraged from the very

beginning.

Judicious use of native language is

accepted wh ere feasible.

Translat ion may he used ~vherr

students need o r benefit from

it.

Reading and writing can start from

the first day, if desired.

Th e targe t linguistic system will be

learned best through the process

of

struggling to communicate.

Communicative com petence is the

desired g oa l (¡.e. the ability to use

the linguistic system effectively

and appropriately) .

Linguistic variation is a cen tral

concept in materials and

methodology.

Sequencing is determined by any

consideration of content,

function, o r meaning which

maintains interest.







Approaches me thods in l anguage t each ing

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 m otivation

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)

Apa r t f rom be ing an in t erest ing exa inp le o f ho w pro pon en t s

of

C o m -

munica tive Language Teach ing s t ack the cards in t he i r f avor , such a se t

of

con t ras t s il lu s t ra t es some of t he maio r d i f fe rences be twee n c om mu -

n ica t ive approaches an d ear l ie r t r ad i ti ons i n l anguage t each ing. T h e wide

acceptance of t he co rnmunica tive approa ch a nd th e r e la t ive ly var ied w ay

in which i t is i n te rp re t ed a nd app l i cd can be a t t r i bu t ed t c t he f a r t t har

pract i t ioners f rom di f ferent educat ional t radi t ions can ident i fy wi th i t ,

an d consequent ly in terpret i t in d i fferei it ways. O n e

of

i ts N o r t h A mer -

ican proponents , Savignon 1983),for examp le, of fers as a pre cede nt to

CLT a commentary by Monta igne on h i s l earn ing of La t i n t h r o u g h

conversa t ion ra ther t han th rough t li e cus tomary m ethod

of

f o r ma l an a l -

ysis an d t r ans l a ti on . Wr i t es Monta igne , Wi thou t methods , w i thou t a

book, wi thou t g rammar o r ru l es , wi thou t a wh ip and wi thou t t ear s ,

had l earned a La t in as proper ris tlixr of

y

schoo lmas t er (Sav ignon

1983:

47).This ant i s t ructural v ie\v can be held to re presen t the langu age

learning version of a m ore gei ierril lenri iing perspect ive us ually referred

to as l earning by do ing o r t lie experi ence approa ch (H i lgard an d

Bower 1966).Th is not ion of d i rect rn tl ier than delayed pract ice

of

co m-

municat ive acts is cent ral to m ost C1.T in terpretat ions .

T h e focus on cornmunicative ar id coi i textual factors in langu age use

a l so has an an t eceden t i n t hc work

of

t he an th ropo log i s t Bron i s l aw

M alino ws ki a n d his col league, tl ie l ingtiist Jo hn Firth. Bri t ish a pplie d







Communicative

Lotigl ¿ige

Teaching

linguists usually credit Firth with focusing atte ntio ii ori discourse as

subject a nd con tex t .for language analysis. Firth also .;rrcssed th at la n-

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 languag e teaching, also Iias antecedents

outside the language teaching tradition per se. An im porra nt American

national curriculum commission in the 1930s, for exaiiiple, proposed

the ad option of an Experience Curriculum in English. Tlie report of the

com mission began with the. premise tha t experience is tlie best of al1

scho ols.. T he ideal curriculum consists of well-selecred experiences

(cited in Applebee 197 4: 1 19 ). Like thos e w ho have receritly urged the

organization of Cornrnunicative Language Teaching aroiind tasks and

procedures , the cornrnittee tried to suggest the means for selection and

weaving a ppro priate experiences into a co herent curriciilum stretching

acro ss the years of school English stud y (Applebee 19 74: 119 . Indi-

vidual learners w ere also seen a s possessing unique interests, styles, needs,

an d goals, which should be refle&ed in the design of m etho ds of instruc-

tion. Teachers were encouraged to develop learning materials on the

basis of the partic ular needs manifested by the class (Appleb ee 19 74 :

150 .

~ b m m o no al1 versions of C omrnu nicative Language T eaching, how -

ever, is a theory of language teaching that sta rts 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

learn er 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.

pproach

heory

of

language

The com municative approach in Ianguage teaching srarts irom a theory

of language as comrnunication. The goal of langtiage teaching is

to develop w hat Hymes (19 72) referred t o as corniii~inicative corn-

petence. Hymes coined this term in ord er to contra st coinrnunica-

tive view of language and Chomsky's theory of compctcricc. Chornsky

held that







A ppr oa c he s ~ne thods

n

languag e teaching

linguistic theor .

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 lim itatio~ i, istractions, 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 l inguistic theory was to characterize the

abstrac t abi l it ies speakers possess tha t enable them to pro duce gra m -

matically correct sentences in a language. H ymes held that su ch a view

of l inguistic theory was sterile, t ha t l inguistic theory needed t o b e seen

as par t of a more genera l theory incorporat ing communicat ion and

culture. Hymes's theory of communicative com petence wa s a definition

of w ha t a speaker needs to k now in order to be comrnunicat ively com -

petent in a speech commun ity. n Hymes's view, a person wh o acquires

communicat ive competence acquires both knowledge and abi i i ty 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 w hat degree) something is appropria te (adequate, happy,

successful)

in

relation to a cont.ext

in

which

i t

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: 28 1)

This theory of wh at knowing a language enra i ls offers a much mo re

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 s con cerne d. . with the descr ipt ion

of

speech acts or texts , s ince only throug h the s tudy of language in use are

al1 the fun ctions of language, a nd therefore al1 com pon ents

of

meaning,

brough t into focus" (Hall iday 197 0: 1 45) . In a number

of

influential

books and papers , Hall iday has e laborated a powerful theory of the

functions of language, wliich complements Hymes's view of commu-

nicative cornpetence for man y writers on CLT (e.g. , Brumfit an d Jo hns on

19 79 ; Savignon 1983) . H e descr ibed (19 75: 11-17 seven basic functi ons

tha t langua ge performs for children learning their f irst 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:







Comm unicat ive Language Teaching

5 the heuristic function: using language to learn and to discover;

6 the imaginative fun ctioa: using lariguage ro create a world of the

imagination;

7 the representational function: usilig language to com municate

information.

Learning a second language was sirnilarly viewed by prop oiien ts of C om -

municative Language T eaching as acquiring the linguistic me ans t o per-

form different kinds of functions.

Another theorist frequently cited for his views on the communicative

natu re of language is Hen ry Widdow son. In his book Teaching Langua ge

as

Communicat ion (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 compe tence

are identified: gramm atical com petence, sociolinguistic com petenc e, dis-

course competence, a nd strategic cornpetence. G ram m atica l competence

refers to w hat

Chomsky calls l inguistic competence and what Hymes

intends by w ha t is formally possible. It is the do m ain of gra mm atica l

an d lexical capacity. Sociolinguistic coinpetence refers to an und ersta nd-

ing of the social con text in which com mu nication tak es place, including

role relationships, rhe shared information of the participants, and the

communicative purpose for their interaction. Discourse cornpetence re-

fers to the in terp retatio n of individual message elements in term s of the ir

interconnectedness and of how meaning is represented in relationship

to the ent ire discourse o r text . St rategic cornpetence refers to the c o p i ~ g

strategies tha t com municators eniploy to init iate, termina te, m aintain,

repair, and r ed irea communicat ion.

At the level of language theorv, Com municative Langua ge Teachin g

has a rich,

i

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 comm unication.

3 The structure of language reflects

its

functional and comm unicative uses.

4 Th e primary units of language a r e n o t merely its grammatical and struc-

tural features, but categories oi fuiii-rional and comm unicative meaning as

exemplified in discourse.

heoryof le rning

In contrast to the amount that has been writ ten in Communicative

Language Teaching l i terature abour com municative dimensions of lan-







Approaches methods n l ngu ge te zching

guage, l i tt le has been w rit ten a bo ut learri ing theory. N either B rumfit a nd

Johnson (1979) nor Littlewood

19s

. 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 comm unication pririciple: Activities th at involve real

comm unication prom ote learning. A second eleme nt is the task principle:

Activities in which language is used for carrying ou t mea ning ful task s

prom ote learning Uohnson 19 82 ). A third element is the mean ingfulness

principle: Language that is meaningful to the learner supp orts the le arn-

ing process. Learning activities are corisequently selected according to

how well they engage the learner in meaningful and authe ntic langua ge

use (rather than merely mec hanical practice of language pattern s). These

principles, w e suggest, ca n be inferred from CL T practices (e.g., Little-

wood 1981; Johnson 198 2). They address the con di t~ on sneeded to

pro m ote second language learning, ra ther than th e processes of lan gua ge

acquisition.

More recent accounts of Commuiiicarive Language Teaching, how-

ever, have attem pted t o describe theories of language learnrng processes

that are compat ible wi th the communicat ive approach. Savignon (19 83 )

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. O the r theorists (e.g., Stephen

Krashen, wh o is no t directly associated with Comm unicarive Langu age

Teac hing) have developed theories citcd as com patible with the principles

of C LT (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

t he u n c o n s c i o ~ s

evz üpmz:?r ü f

the targe t language system a s a result of using the language f or real

comm unication. Learning is the conscious representation of gram ma ticai

knowledge that has resulted from instruction, and i t cannot lead to

acquisition. i t is the ac quired system rliat we cal1 upon to c reate utter-

ances during spontaneous language use. The learned system can serve

only as a mo nitor of the outp ut o í the acquired system. Krashen an d

othe r second language acquisition theorists typically stress that langua ge

learning comes abou t through using Ianguage com municatively, rathe r

than through practicing language skills.

Johnson (1984) and Li t t lewood 1984)considera n alternative learning

theory that they also see as com patible with CLT-a skill-learning mo del

of learning. According to this theoru, tlie acquisition of co mm unicative

competence in a language is an exaiiiple of skill development. This

involves bo th a cognitive a nd 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

erive mainly f ron l the

l a n -







Communica t ive Language Teach ing

guagc system hey include gramm atical rules, procedures for selecting

voc:ii>iilary,and social conventions governing speech. The beh uiour l aspect

involbes rhe automation of these ~ l a n so that rhey can be converted inro

fluenr performance in real time. This occurs mainly through practice coi>-

verting plans into performance. (Littiewood 1984: 74)

Th i s t heory thus encourages an emphas i s on p rac t i ce as a way of de-

veloping communicat ive ski l ls.

esign

bjectives

Piepho (1981) discusses the fol lowing levels of object ives in a commu-

nicat ive approach:

an integrative and contenr level (language as a m eans of expression)

2. a linguistic and instrumental level (language as a semiotic system an d aii

object of learning);

3 an affective level of interpersonal relationships and cond uct (language as

means of ex pressing values and judgments abo ut oneself and o ther s);

4.

a level of individual learning needc (remedial learning based o n erro r

analysis);

5 a general educational level of extra-linguisric goals (language learning

within the school curriculum).

(Piepho 1981: 8 )

Th ese ar e proposed a s general objecr ives , appl icab le to

an y

teachifi-

s i tuat ion. Par t icular objectives for

CLT

canno t be def ined beyond th i s

level of speci f icat ion, s ince such an approach assumes that language

teaching will ref lect the par t icular needs of the target learners . These

needs may be in the dom ains of reading, wri ting , l is tening, o r speaking ,

each of which can be approached f rom a communica t ive per spec t ive .

Cur r i cu lum o r i ns t ruc t iona l oh jec tives fo r a p ar t i cu la r c ourse w ou ld

reflect specific aspects of communica t ive com petence accord ing to t hc

learner s proficiency level and com mu nicat ive needs.

The syllabus

Discussions of the na tur e

of

the syl labus have been cent ral in Coin-

municat ive Language Teaching. We have seen that one of the f i rs t sy l -

labus m odels to be propo sed w as described as a notional syl labus (Wilki iis

1976 ,

which specified the semanti i-grammatical categories (e.g., fre-

quei icy , mot ion, loc at ion) and the categories of comm unicat ive func t ion

thar l earner s need to express . The Counci l of Eu r o p e ex p an d ed an d







Approaches methods in language teaching

developed this into a syllabus that included de scriptions of t he objectives

of foreign language courses for European adults, the situations in which

they m ight typically need to use a foreign langu age (e.g., trave l, business ),

the topics they might need to talk about (e.g., personal identification,

educa tion, shopping), the functions they needed language for (e.g. , de-

scribing something, requesting information, expressing agreement an d

disagree men t), the notions m ade use of in com mu nica tion (e.g., time,

fr eq ue nc ~, urat ion), as well as the vocabulary and gra mm ar needed.

T he result was published as Th reshold Leve1 English ( van Ek a n d Alex-

ander 1980) and was an at tempt to specify wh at was needed in ord er

t o be able to achieve a reasonable degree of com mun icative 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 Teac hing has been extensive. Wilkins's original n otion al syl-

labus model was soon criticized by British applied linguists as merely

replacing one kind of list (e.g., a list of gra mm ar item s) with an oth er (a

list of notions and functions). It specified products, rather than com-

municative processes. W iddowson (197 9) argued that notional-func-

tional categories provide

only a very partial and imprecise description of certa in 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.

f

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 a t the center of our atten tion. (W iddow son 1979: 254)

The re are at present several proposals a nd models for w ha t a syllabus

might look like in C omrnunicative Language Teaching. Yalden (19 83 )

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 source s to each model:

T Y P ~

1 structures plus functions

2

functional spiral around

structural core

3

structura l, functional,

instrumental

4

functional

5. notional

6 interaaional

7. task-based

8. learner generated

Reference

Wilkins (1976)

Brumfit (19 80)

Allen (1980)

Jupp and Hodlin (1975)

Wilkins (1976)

Widdowson (1979)

Prabhu (1983)

Candlin (1976) , Henner-Stanchina

and Riley (1978)







otntnunicative Language Teac hing

There is extensive documentation ot attempts to create syllabus and

proto-syllabus designs

~o f ypes

1 5

;\ current interest is in syllabus

designs of types.6-8, alth oug h specificnrions of organ izing princip les for

interactional, task-based, and

learner-generated syllabuses have been

only partiall; accomplishéd. Desc ripttoiis of interactional strategies have

been given. for exam ple, for interactio ns of teacher an d stude nt (Sinclair

and Coulthard 19 7J ) 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.

So me designers of comm unicat ive syllabuses have also looked to task

specification and task organization as the appropriate criteria for syl-

labu s 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 h e

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 19 75 ) a syllabus for the teaching of English a t the

upp er secondary leve1 in Malaysia. T his w as one of th e first attemp ts to

organize Com municative Language Teaching aro und a specification of

communication tasks. In the organizational schema three broad com-

municative objectives a re broken dowii into twenty-four m ore specific

objectives determined on the basis of needs analysis. These objectives

are organized in to leart$ng areas, fo r each of which are specified a

num ber of outcom e goals o r products. product is defined as a piece

of comprehensible informa tion, written, spoken, or presented in a no n-

linguistic form. A letter is a produ ct, a nd s o is an instruc tion, a rnessage,

a report or a mara or graph produced through information gleaned

through languagr* (English Language Syllabus 1975: 5) . Th e products ,

then, result from successful completion of tasks. For example, the prod-

uct called relaying a message to others can be broken into a num ber

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) arrangin g 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 m eans by

which learner interaction and com ni~inic ative kills are realized.







C o m m u n i ca ti v e L a n g u a g e T e a c l ~ i r ~ g

di f ferent roles for learners f rom those f oun d in more t radi t ional s ect ) i i J

langua ge classrooms. Breen an d C andlin describe the learner's role witliiii

CLT in the fol lowing terms:

Th e role of learner as negotiator-between the self, the learning process, an J

the obiect of leatning-emerges from and interacts with the role of joint ne p< >-

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

Th ere is t hus an acknowledem ent . in so me accoun t s of CLT. tha t learner s

br ing preconcept ions of w ha t teaChing a nd learning should be l ike. Th ese

const i tu te a set for learnine. whic h wh en unrealized can lead to learner

confus ion and resen tmen t kenner -S tanch ina and Ri l ey 1978). Ofrci i

t here i s no t ex t , g ramm ar ru l es a re no t p resen ted, c l ass room ar rangemei i t

i s nonstandard , s tudents are expected to in teract pr imar i ly wi th ei ici i

o the r r a ther t han wi th t he t eacher, a nd co r rec tion of er ro r s may he

absen t o r i n frequen t. T he coopera t ive ( r a ther t han ind iv idua li s ti c )

a p -

proa ch to learning st ressed in CLT ma y l ikewise be unfam i l iar to iearri-

ers. CLT methodologis t s consequent ly recommend that learners learr i

to

see that fai led communicat ion

is

a jo in t responsibi l i ty and not the

faul t of speak er o r l i s tener. Simi lar ly , successful com mu nica t ion i s ari

accomp l ishment jo in tly achieved an d acknowledged.

eacher rol s

Several ro les are assumed for teachers in Communicar ive Languagc

Teaching, the importance of par t icular ro les being determined by thc

view of

CLT

adop ted. Breen an d Can dl in descr ibe teacher ro les in t lie

fol lowing 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 t

resources aiid as resource himself, second as a guide within the classrooiii

procedures x id activities.. third role for the teacher is tha t of researchcr

and learner,

witli

much to contribute in terms of ap propria te knowledge

iici

abilities, nctiial and obse. ed experience of the natur e o i learning and orgnrii-

zational ciipacities. (1980: 99)

O th er ro les r tssumed for teachers a re needs analyst , couns elor , an d groi i li

process iii;iriager.







Approaches met ods in language teaching

NEEDS ANALYST

T he CL T.teach er nisliiiies a responsibility for determ ining an d res pon d-

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 thro ugh such issiies as the student's perc eption of his or her learninp.

style, learning assets, and learninggoals. It may be don e forma lly throu gh

adm inisterine a needs assessrnent instrument, su ch as rhose exemplified

in Savignon (1 98 3). Typically, such formal assessments conta in items

that attempt to determine an individual 's motivation for studying the

language. For examp le, students might respond on a 5 -point scale (strongly

agree t o strongly disagree) to statements like the following.

wan t to study English because..

.

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 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

O n the basis of such needs assessments, teachers a re expected to plan

grou p a nd individual instruction tha t responds t o the learners ' needs.

OUNSELOR

Another role assumed by several CLT approaches is that of ccunse ~:,

similar to the way this role is defined in Co mm unity Language Learning.

In

this role, the teacher-counselor is expected to exemplify an effective

communicator seeking to maximize the meshing of speaker intention

an d hearer interpretation, through the use of parap hrase, con firmation,

an d feedback.

G R O U P

PRO CE SS M A N r \ ú E R

CL T procedures often require teachers to acquire less teacher-centered

classroom managem eiit skills. Iris the teacher's responsibility t o organize

the classroom as a serting for comrnunication and cornmunicative ac-

tivities. Guidelines for classroom practice (e.g., Littlewood 19 81 ; Fin-

occhiaro and Brumfit 1983) suggest that during a n activity t he teacher

monitors, encourages, and suppresses the inclination to supply gaps in

lexis, gramm ar, an d strategy but notes such gaps for later comm entary

and communicative practice. At the conclusion of group activities, the

teacher leads in the debriefing of the activity, pointing out alternatives







Approaches methods n l ngu gc~

cucliing

(e.g., relaying information), a task :iiinlysis for them atic de velo pm ent

(e.g., understan ding the message, a s k i i i ~ uestions to obta in c iarification,

asking for more information, takiiig notes, ordering and presentiiig

in-

formation), a practice situation description (e.g., A caller asks to see

your manager. H e does not have an appointment . Gathe r th e 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 o n tape), coniprehension qu estions (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

to

support Comrnunicat ive Lan-

guage Teach ing classes. These typically are in the form of one-of- a-kind

items: exercise han dbo oks, cue cards, aitivity cards, pair-com rnunication

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 p artne rs mu st it their

respective parts o the j igsaw into a composite whole. Oth ers 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 Communicat ive Language Teaching have advo-

cated the use of authentic, frorii-life ma terials 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

sup po rt comm unicative exercises, si ich as a plastic model to assemble

from directions.

rocedure

Because com mu nicative principles caii be applied to th e teaching of an y

skill, at any level, and because of thc w ide variety of c lassroom activities

and exercise types discussed in thc Iircrature on Communicative Lan-

guage Teaching, description of typic;iI ~I as sr o o m rocedu res used in a

lesson based o n C L T principles is nor tc.;isible. Savig non (1 98 3 ) discusses







Approaches method s in language teaching

Such procedures clearly have much in common with those observed in

classes taught according to Structural-Situational a nd A udiolingual prin-

ciples. Traditional procedures a re not rejected b ut ar e reinterpreted an d

extended. A similar conservatism is found in many ortho dox CL T

texts, such as Alexander's Mainline Beginners (1 978 ). Althoug h each

unit has an ostensibly functional focus, new teaching points are intro-

duced with dialogues, followed by controlled practice of the main g ra m -

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 improv isation. Sim ilar techn ique s are used

in another popular textbook, Starting Strategies (Abbs and Freebairn

1977 ). Teaching points are introduced in dialogue form, gram ma tical

items are isolated for controlled practice, and then freer activities are

provided. Pair and group work is suggested to 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:

tructurai activities

Pre-communicative activities

\ uasi-comrnunicativs activities

,

Functional communication activities

Cornrnunicative activities

Social interacton activities

Savignon (19 72 , 198 3), however, rejects the notion th at learners mu st

first gain control over individual skills (pronunciation, grammar, vo-

cabulary) before applying them in communicative tasks; she advocates

providing cornrniiiiicative practice from the star t of instruction. H o w to

implement

CLI'

principles at the leve1 of classroom procedures thus

remains central to discussions of the communicative approa ch. H o w 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 o a particular iearner or g roup 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).







Com municative Language Teaching

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,

a t the levels of design and procedu re there is much greater roo m 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 app rova l

in the future, giving Com municative Language Teaching a status similar

to o ther teaching methods. On the other hand, divergent interpretations

might lead to h6mog eneous subgroups.

Communicat ive Language Teaching a ~ p e a re d t a t ime when Brit ish

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

hum anistic app roa ch to teaching, on e in which the interactive processes

of communication received priority. The rapid adoption and implemen-

tation of th e communicative app roach also resulted from the fact tha t

it quickly assumed the statu s of or tho do xy in British language teaching

circles, receiving the sanction and support of leading British applied

linguists, language specialists, publishers, as well as institutions, such as

th e British Coun cil Richards 1985).

Now that the initial wave of enthusiasm has passed, however, some

of the claims of C LT are being looked a t more critically Swan 1985).

T he ad option of a communicative app roach raises imp ortan t issues for

teacher training, materials development, and testingland evaluation.

Questions that have been raised include whether a communicative ap-

proa ch can be applied a t al1 levels in a language prog ram , whe ther it is

equally suited t o ESL and EFL situations, whether it requires existing

gramma r-based syllabuses to be aban don ed o r merely revised, how such

an app roa ch can be evaluated, h ow 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 i the communicntive movement in language teachjng

continues to gain momentum

ir1

the future.

ibliography

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-







A p p r o a c h e s m e t h o d s i n l a n g u a g e t e ac h i ng

cation. Mimeo: Modern Language Center, Ontario lnstitute for Studies in

Education

Allwright, R: L. 1977. Language learning through com municatioii practice. E L T

Documents 76 (3) . London: British Council.

Applebee, A.

N.

197 4. Tradition a n d Reform in the Teaching o E~zglislt.A

History. Urbana, 111.: National Council of Teachers of English

Austin, J. L. 1962. H ow to D o Things with W ords. Oxfor d: C lareiid on l'ress.

Breen, M., and C.

N.

Candlin. 198 0. Th e essentials of a comm unicative cu r-

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~tmrtnicativeAp-

proaches to Teaching Proceedings o/ a European-Americari Scrninar. Spe-

cial issue of Studies in Secon d Lan gua ge Acquisitiorr, 3 ( 1 ) 1-9.

Brumfit, C. J., and K Johnson (eds.). 1979. The Communicatiuc A pproach to

Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Byrne, D. 1 978. Materials for Lan guage Teaching. Inrcractio ~r 'ackages Lon-

don: Modern English Publications.

Canale, M., and M. Swain. 198 0. 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 R o u n d tu l~ k ~976. Wash-

ington, D.C.: Geo rgeto wn University Press.

Candlin, C N., C. J. Bruton, and J. H. Leather. 197 4. Doctor-pntient com-

munication skills. ~Mimeo,University of Lancaster.

Chornsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouroii

Chomskv, N. 1965. Aspects of th e Th eory o f Syntax. Bostori

MIT

Press.

Englisli Language Syflabus in Mulaysian Schools, Tingknt;r r 4

975

Kirala

Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka.

Finocchiaro, M., and C. Brumfit. 1 983 . The Functiortal-N otioir~~l pproach .

From Theory to Practice. New York: Oxford University I'ress

Firth, J.

R.

1957. Papers in Linguistics: 1934-1951 London: Ou tor d University

Press.

Geddes, M., an d G. Sturtridge. 19 79 . 1,istening Links Londori Heinem ann.

Gumperz, J. J., and D. Hymes (eds.).

1972.

Directio~isn Soiiolii~gitistics.The

Ethnography o/ Communication. New York: Holt, Rinel,art nrid Winston.

Halliday, M. A. K 197 0. Language srructure and language furiirioi~ In J Lyons

(ed.), New Ho riz on s in Linguistics, pp. 140 -65. Har mo ntis\v c~rr li I'enguin.

Halliday, M. A. K. 19 73 . Exp1o ratio )ts in the Fuizctio12s of I.inr,yr~Lrgc oiidon:

Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K 1975. Learning Ho w to Mean Explorntioi~s

n

the Devel-

opment of Language. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday,

M. A. K.

19 78 . Langu agea s Social Semiotic. Londoii

F.cl\r.nrd

Arnold.

Henner-Stanchina, C., and P. Riley. 1978 Aspecrs

t

au to i ion i~~i t se;irning.

In

E L T Docunzents 1 03: Individtialization ilz 1.anguage 1.cri~itiri.q. p. 75-97.

London: British Council.







C o m m u n i c a ti v e L a n g u a g e T e a c h i n g

Hilgard, E. R., and G. H. Bower. 1966. Theories of Learning. New York: Ap

pleton-Century-Croks.

Holec, H. 198 0. Auton omy a nd Foreign Language Learning. Strasbourg : Cotiii-

cil of Eutope.

Ho wa tt, A. P. R. 198 4. A History of English Language Teaching. Ox ford : 0 -

ford University Press.

Hymes,

D.

1972. On commu nicative competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes

eds.), Sociolinguistics, pp. 269-93. Har mo ndsw orth: 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 Ex ample of T h e o n

and Practice in Functional Language Teaching. London: Heinemann.

Littlewood, W. 19 81. Comm unicatiue Language Teaching. Cambridge: C am -

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. C omm unicatiue Syllabus Design. Cam bridge: Cam bridge 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

a n d a11

Exercise Typology. London: Longman.

Porter,

P. A.

1983. V ariations

n

the conversations of adu lt learners of English

as a fuiiction of th e proficiency level of the particip ants. P h.D. d isserta tion,

Stanford University.

Prabhu,

N.

1983. Procedural syllabuses. Paper presented a t the RELC S eminar,

Singapore

Richards, J . C. 1985. The secret l ife of methods. In Richards, The ~ o h t e x t /

Language Teaching, pp. 32-45. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press.

Savignon, S. 1972. Teaching for commu nicative competence: a research rep orr

Audiouisrral Language Jour nal lO 3): 153-62.

Savignon, S. 1983. Communicatiue Competence: Theory an d Classroom Prac-

tice. Reading, iMass.: Addison-Wesley.

Searle, J. R 196 9. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosoph y of Language. Can i-

bridge G m br id ge 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 appro ach. English L a ~ 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 Th reshold Leve1 in a Eu ropean UnitlCred it System

o1

Moderrz Ldrtguage Teaching by Adults. Systems Development in Adulr

Languagc Learning. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.







Ap pro ac l~e s rne thods in language teach ing

Van Ek, 1 nii L. G. Alexander. 1980. Thieshold Leve1 English. Ox ford :

Perg;iiiioti

Watcyn-[oncs, P. 1981. Pair Work. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

W id d o w s t ) ~ ~ ,

.

G. 1972. The teaching of English as comrnunication. English

Langrrri~yc eaching 27 (1) : 15-18.

Widdowsori,

H. G

1978. Teaching Language as Com munication. O xford : O x-

ford tiniversity Press.

Widdowsori,

H G.

1979. Th e cornmunicative approach a nd its applications. In

H G.

Widdowson, Explorations in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford

Universiry Press.

Wilkins,

D.

A

1972. The linguistic and situational conten t of th e com mon 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-

qua te grarnmar. In C.

J.

Brumfit and K Johnson (eds.), The Com municntive

Approuch to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wright,

A.

1976. Visual Ma terial for the L anguage Teacher. 1.ondon: Longm an.

Yalden, J 1983 ? he C ommunicative Syllabus Evolution, Design an d lm ple-

me ntiltio~i Oxford: Pergamon.

