Communicative Language Teaching: The Origins

Communicative Language breeding The OriginsThis chapter is devoted to the CLT approach, its origins and major(ip) features. Also the chapter sheds the light on grammar, how it is handled in diction didactics, the way it is defined and lastly, and by chance most importantly, its role in CLT.3.1 Communicative Language dogmaCLT is an approach to the didactics of second and immaterial voice confabulations that emphasizes interaction as both the means and the ultimate goal of breeding a expression. It is similarly referred to as communicatory approach to the educational activity of foreign oral communications or simply the communicatory approach.3.1.1 The OriginsEducators such as Richards and Rodgers, Savignon, and Sano give in that the origins of communicatory oral communication pedagogy argon umteen, in so far as one teaching methodology tends to influence the next.Sano (1984171) says that the communicatory approach could be said to be the product of educators and linguists who had grown dissatisfy with the audio-lingual and grammar-translation method of foreign voice communication instruction. Richards and Rodgers (198693), on the other hand, claim that the origins of CLT be to be frame in the changes of situational linguistic process teaching approaches, which influenced the British run-in teaching tradition till the new-made 1960s.29Meanwhile, Savignon (1991262) asserts that the emergence of CLT sewer be traced to concurrent developments on both sides of the Atlantic, i.e., in Europe and the United States.Educators and linguists e.g., Candlin (1981 121) and Widdowson (1978 61) saw the indispensableness to focus in phrase teaching on communicative proficiency earlier than on mere mastery of structures. They felt up that students were non teaching enough true(a)istic, whole language in those methods, i.e., situational language teaching, audio-lingual or grammar-translation method. Students did non know how to communicate usi ng appropriate complaisant languages, gestures, or expressions in brief, they were at loss to communicate in the cultures of the language studied.In respect of this point, Widdowson remarks the followingThe problem is that students, and oddly students in developingcountries, who have received several years of formal slopeteaching, frequently roost deficient in the ability to actually mappingthe language, and to understand its lend oneself, in normal communication,whether in verbalise or written mode (197215).Similarly, Howatt says that the original motivation for adopting a communicative approach in the betimes s reckon downties was remedial, an attempt to overcome the inadequacies of existing, morphologic syllab accustoms, materials, and methods (1984287).To put simply, 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 rase gover nments gave prominence nationally and internationally to what came to be referred to as communicative approach. There was a positive reply from linguists, methodologists, and schoolroom instructors offering the best hope for the elaboration and diffusion of language teaching methods and materials that live, encourage and have got learners in the development of their communicative competency (Savignon, 1991 264).Although the movement began as largely British innovations focusing onalternative archetypeions of a syllabus since the mid 1970s, the scope ofcommunicative language teaching has expanded. Interest in and the development of communicative style teaching mushroomed in those yearsauthentic language use and classroom exchanges where students engaged in real communication with one another became quite popular. Also, numerous textbooks for teachers and teacher trainers refine on the nature of communicative approaches and offer techniques for varying ages and purposes (Brown , 1994 217).It is this socio-linguistic perspective, which is the unifying principle and the driving force fag end a communicative approach to language teaching (Sano, 1984 174) Although this socio-linguistic approach is basically a language possibleness rather than a culture system, taking into peak Richards and Rodgers definition of approach, CLT encompasses a theory of language and a theory of language learning, and see it as an approach than a method.Briefly, they define an approach as a differentiate of theories ab egress the nature of language and of language learning. It is axiomatic, as it craps a number of assumptions as a starting point. A method, on the other hand, is the level at which theory is put into practice and at which choices atomic number 18 profit about the particular skills to be taught, the heart to be taught, and the order in which the content will be presented. Besides, these writers claim, at the level of language theory, CLT has a rich, if wha teverwhat eclectic theoretical low (1986102).3.1.2 Language possible actionThe rise of interest in the individual and in relationships among individuals, which characterized the sixties, marked the emergence of socio-linguistics, that classify of science where sociology and linguistics meet. A new light was shed on language, not simply as a system of structurally related elements, which form a rule, hardly as a vehicle for the expression of meaning and social interaction. In other words, the structural imagine was supplemented with a running(a), a semantic and interactional view. It was this idea of language as communication that started off the whole communicative movement (Savignon, 1991 266).And it was Hymes (1972) that made history by challenging Chomskys view on linguistic competence, and replacing it by the notion of communicative competence (cited in Savignon, 1991 269).In the words of Canale and Swain (19807) communicative competence refers to the interaction amongst well-formed competence, or friendship of the rules of grammar, and socio-linguistic competence, or knowledge of the rules of language use. In other words, rules of use and rules of usage be balanceary and not mutually exclusive.According to them the primary goal of a communicative approach essential be to facilitate the integration of these both types of knowledge for the learner (1980 25).Savignon notes that communicative competence characterizes the ability of language learners to interact with other speakers to make meaning, and it is relative, not absolute, and depends on the cooperation of all the participants involved (19839). Broadly speaking, communicative competence is an saying convey and interpret messages and to negotiate meanings inter soulally within specific contexts.According to the socio-linguistic theory, the act of communication is seen not as basically an exchange of linguistic messages, alone rather as a social phenomenon in which the use of language pl ays a part. In the field of the ethnography of communication, which Stern (1983220) defines as the study of the individuals communicative activity in its social setting. language is a sub-ordinate, yet integrated part of social and situational systems, which are actually behavior patterns.Halliday argues the existence of a semantic network which is the linguistic realization of patterns of behavior. He postulates that the much we are suitable to relate the options in grammatical system to meaning potential in social contexts and behavioral settings, the more insight we shall gain into the nature of the language system (197844). In his functional account of language use, Halliday has criticized Chomskys linguistic, theory of competence. He says Linguistics is concerned with the description of speech acts or texts, since whole with the study of language in use are all the functions of language, and therefore all components of meaning, brought into focus (1970145). This view comp lements Hymes opinion of communicative competence, and we whoremonger only(prenominal) understand language if we view it as an instrument or as a communicative tool. To which Widdowson (197950) adds that once we accept the need to teach language as communication, we potful obviously no longer think of language in terms only of sentences. This statement provides the confession for the emphasis on discourse in CLT.3.1.3 Learning TheoryIn contrast to the center that has been written in CLT literature about communicative dimensions of language, little has been written about learning theory. However, two of the planetary learning theories, which emphasize common features among learners, are cognitive theory and skills theory.3.1.3.1 Cognitive TheoryAccording to cognitive theory, learning involves the ability to understand, to anticipate, and to relate new information to pre-existing mental structures. This focus on meaning(prenominal) learning is educed from an attempt to make se nse of the world.The heavy reliance of CLT practitioners on the mental schema theory is exemplified by Brumfits statement that new learning must be closely assimilated with what is already known, and if language is world learnt for use, then new learning must be directly associated with use (1979189).Hence, at the level of learning theory this view supports Hallidays claim about the semantic network as a bridge between linguistic form and behaviour pattern, a link between words and the world. As Stern (1983261) posits The learner must become a participant in a real-life context of language use as a condition of effective learning.Macdonough (198127) describes the cognitive process as hypothesis testing, and adds, signifi stooltly, that rules can only be found if the risk of error is run (ibid 29). This view is reflected in the great tolerance of CLT towards errors. Errors are not to be avoided at all cost they are not to be seen as evidence of non-learning, exclusively being an ex ternal manifestation of the continual revision of the inter-language system. They are essential elements in the learning process.3.1.3.2 Skills TheoryThis theory emphasizes the grandness of cognitive learning and practice. However, advocates of this theory reject mechanical practice altogether as being totally irrelevant to genuine learning. Skills theory links mental and behavioural aspects of performance by a hierarchically organized set of plans, in which low level of automation is necessary to bleak attention for high level of planning. In this regard, Littlewood states the followingThe cognitive aspect involves the internalization of plans forCreating appropriate behaviour. For language use, these plansderive in the main from the language system they include grammaticalrules, procedures for selecting vocabulary, and social conventionsgoverning speech. The behavioural aspect involves the automationof these plans so that they can be converted into fluent performancein real tim e. This occurs mainly through practice in convertingplans into performance(198474).Skill practice is considered as a legitimate learning principle (Richards and Rodgers 1986), provided that it offers natural options of language use which reproduce the kinds of choice that occur in spontaneous communication (Stern 1983260).3.1.4 Major FeaturesCLT is, relatively, a newly adapted approach in the area of foreign/second language teaching. CLT is a hybrid approach to language teaching, essentially progressive rather thantraditional. (Wright 2000 7).CLT can be seen to derive from a multidisciplinary perspective that includes, at to the lowest form, linguistics, psychology, philosophy, sociology and educational research (Savignon 1991271). It is generally pass judgment that, proponents of CLT see it as an approach, not a method (See Richards and Rodgers 1986 Savignon 1991 Brown 1994).For Brown, for instance, Communicative language teaching is a unified but broadly- based theoretical flu mmox about the nature of language and language learning and teaching(1994 244-245). He further maintains that though it is difficult to synthesize all of the various definitions that have been offered, the following four interconnected feature of speechs could be taken as a definition of CLT1. Classroom goals are focused on all of the components of communicativecompetence and not limit to grammatical or linguistic competence.2. Language teaching techniques are designed to engage learners in thepragmatic, authentic, functional use of language for significant purposes.Language forms are not the central focus but rather aspects of language that enable the learner to accomplish those purposes.3. Fluency and trueness are seen as complementary principles rudimentarycommunicative techniques. At times fluency may have to take on moreimportance than accuracy in order to keep learners meaningfully engaged in language use.4. In the communicative classroom, students ultimately have to use thelanguage, productively and receptively, in unrehearsed contexts (Brown, 1994 245).The communicative approach is a hazy purpose, which can have a variety of meanings along the continuum between a strong version and a weak one. Johnson (1979 155) argues that the weak version attempts to integratecommunicative activities into an existing computer programme, where as the strong version claims that language is acquired through communication.According to Howatt (1984 279) the weak version, which became more or less the standard practice in the late 70s and early 80s of the last century,stresses the importance of providing learners with opportunitiesto use their English for communicative purposes and, qualityally, attempts to integrate such activities into a widerprogram of language teaching. As for the strong version of communicative teachingit advances the claim that language is acquired throughcommunication, so that it is not merely a question of activating anexisting but inert kn owledge of the language, but of stimulating thedevelopment of the language system itself. If the former could bedescribed as learning to use English, the latter entails usingEnglish to learn it (ibid).Howatt adds that creating information gap activities, games, role-plays, dramas, simulations etc., are or so of the exercise types in the weak versions of CLT.Although we have different versions and various ways in which CLT is interpreted and applied, educators in the area, Richards and Rodgers (1986, 2001) Littlewood (1981) Finocchiaro and Brumfit (1983) Brumfit (1984) Candlin (1981) Widdowson (1978, 1979) Johnson and Morrow (1981) Larsen-Freeman (1986) Celce- Murcia (1991b) and Johnson (1982), put umteen of the major characteristics of CLT as they are presented in the following subsections.3.1.4.1 Emphasis on Language FunctionIt is felt that students need knowledge of the linguistic form, meaning andfunctions. However, CLT gives primary importance to the use or function of the la nguage and secondary importance to its structure or form (Larsen-Freeman 1986 88 Johnson 198263).This does not mean that knowledge of grammar is not essential for effective communication, rather systematic treatment of both functions and forms is vital. Stressing on this, Littlewood says one of the most characteristic features of communicative language teaching is that it expects systematic attention to functional as well as structural aspects of language (1981 1).CLT suggests that grammatical structure might better be subsumedunder various functional categorieswe pay considerably less attention to the overt presentation and discussion of grammatical rules than we traditionally did (Brown, 1994 245). Emphasis is also given to meaning (messages they are creating or task they are completing) rather than form (correctness of language and language structure). For Finocchiaro and Brumfit meaning is paramount (198391) since it helps the learners to manage the message they engage with the interlocutors.3.1.4.2 Fluency and AccuracyFluency and accuracy are seen as complementary principles underlyingcommunicative techniques (Brown, 1994245). However, at times fluency may have to take on more importance than accuracy because fluency andacceptable language is the primary goal (Finocchiaro and Brumfit 198393) and accuracy is judged not in the abstract but in contexts.Fluency is emphasized over accuracy in order to keep learners meaningfully engaged in language use. It is important, however, that fluency should never be encourage at the depreciate of clear, unambiguous, direct communication. And much more spontaneity is present in communicative classrooms (Brown, 1994 246)3.1.4.3 Teaching TechniquesLanguage teaching techniques are designed to engage learners in thepragmatic, authentic, functional use of language for meaningful purposes.Classrooms should provide opportunities for rehearsal of real-life situationsand provide opportunity for real communication. Emphasis on creative roleplays, simulations, dramas, games, projects, etc., is the major activities which can help the learner provide spontaneity and improvisation, not just repetition and drills. Another characteristic of the classroom process is the use of authentic materials because it is felt desirable to give students the opportunity to develop the strategies for taking into custody language as it is actually used by native speakers. In the classroom, everything is done with a communicative intent. Information gap, choice and feedback are notion to be truly communicative activities (Johnson and Morrow, 1981 25).3.1.4.4 Grammar TeachingGrammar can nonoperational be taught, but less systematically, in traditional ways along side more groundbreaking approaches. Savignon (20025) says for thedevelopment of communicative ability communication depends on grammar, research findings overwhelmingly support the integration of form-focused exercises with meaning-focused experience.Grammar is imp ortant and learners search to focus best on grammar when it relates to their communicative involve and experiences.Disregard of grammar will virtually guarantee dislocation in communication (Thompson, 1996 10).These writers also say that there are some misconceptions about CLT thatmakes difficult for many teachers to see clearly what is happening and toidentify the useful innovations that CLT has brought. One of the persistentmisconceptions is that CLT means not teaching grammar although theexclusion of explicit attention to grammar was never necessary part of CLT (ibid).In CLT involvement in communicative event is seen as central to language development, and this involvement inescapably requires attention to form (structure). In fact, it is sure as shooting understandable that there was a reaction against the heavy emphasis on structure at the expense of natural communication. Nonetheless, it would seem foolish to make mistakeson the side of using communicative approach merel y and totally disregard grammar teaching. Regarding this, Celce-Murcia commentsIn spite of the intuitive appeal and the anecdotal evidenceSupporting plan for exclusively communicative language teaching, there is equally appealing and anecdotal evidence that grammarless approach. can stretch out to the development of a broken, ungrammatical, pidgenized form of the cigaret language beyond which students rarely progress (1991a462).Savignon also remarks that, communicative language teaching does notnecessarily mean the rejection of familiar materials grammar(20027). Rivers in her famous statement strengthened Savignons remark in that Saying that we do not need to teach grammar is like saying that we can have a chicken walking around without bones (cited in Arnold, 1994 122). Nowadays, it seems that educators accept that an appropriate amount of class time should be devoted to grammar, but this does not mean a simple give back to a traditional treatment of rules. Rather the focus ha s now moved away from the teacher concealment to the learners discovering grammar (Thompson, 1996 11).3.1.4.5 Skills and ActivitiesCommunicative approach is not limited to oral skills. Reading and writing skills need to be unquestionable to promote pupils confidence in all four skills areas. Students work on all four skills from the beginning, i.e., a given activity might involve study, speaking, listening, and perhaps also writing (Celce-Murcia, 1991b 78).Of course, oral communication is seen to take place through negotiation between speaker(s) and listener(s) (most likely among students), so too is the interaction between the ref and writer, but with no immediate feedback from the reader. Hence, in the classroom, emphasis is given to oral and listening skills, as pass on time with language is important. It paves way for more fluid command of the language. Learners do not hear the teacher all the time, but having personal contact themselves, practicing sounds themselves, worki ng on the permutation of sentence patterns and getting incident to make mistakes and learn from doing so. The idea of emphasizing the oral skills pisss uncertainty among teachers. They misconceived CLT as if it were devoted to teaching only speaking. But, CLT is not exclusively concerned with face to face oral communication (Savignon, 20027).The principles of CLT apply equally to reading and writing activities that engage readers and writers in the interpretation, expression, and negotiation of meaning. In other words, it is important to recognize that it is not only the speaker (or writer) who is communicating. Instead, communication through language happens in both the written and spoken medium, and involves at least two people. Thompson (199613) further states that, though there is a complaint that CLT ignores written language, a glance at recent mainstream textbooks shows that reading and writing materials have been given attention too.3.1.4.6 Pair pasture and Group WorkStude nts regularly work in conventions or pairs to transfer (and if necessary tonegotiate) meaning in situations where one person has information that others lack (Celce-Murcia, 1991b 82). More emphasis should be given to industrious modes of learning such as pair or group work in problem-solving tasks in order to maximize the time dispense to each student for learning to negotiate meaning. Many people assume group/pair work is applicable in all contexts. However, classroom group and/or pair work should not be considered an essential feature used all the time, and may well be inappropriate in some contexts (ibid).Thompson (199612) and Savignon (2002 6) claim that group and/or pair work are flexible and useful techniques than that suggests, and they are active modes of learning which can help the learners to negotiate meaning and engage in problem-solving activities.The use of pair/group work is a physical signal of some degree of control and choice passing to the learners but that ne eds to be complemented by real choice (learners need to be given some degree of control over their learning). Therefore, the use of pair/group work needs to be complemented by real choice for the following reasons (1) they can provide the learners with a relatively safe opportunity to try out ideas before launching them in public (2)they can lead to more developed ideas, and therefore great confidence and more effective communication (3) they can also provide knowledge and skills which may complement those of their partners which in turn lead to greater success in undertaking tasks (Thompson, 199613).3.1.4.7 Errors and CorrectionErrors are seen as a natural outcome of the development of the communication skills and are therefore tolerated. Learners trying their best to use the language creatively and spontaneously are bound to make errors.Constant correction is unnecessary and even counter-productive. Correction noted by the teacher should be discreet. Let the students talk and exp ress themselves and the form of the language becomes secondary. If errors of form are tolerated and are seen as a natural outcome of the development of communication skills, students can have limited linguistic knowledge and still be successful communicators (Larsen-Freeman, 1986 121).3.1.4.8 EvaluationSano (1984 176) states that evaluation is carried out in terms of fluency and accuracy. Students who have the most control of the structures and vocabulary are not necessarily the best communicators. A teacher may use formal evaluation i.e., he/she is likely to use a communicative test, which is an integrative and has a real communicative function (e.g., Madsen, 1983 Hughes, 1989). Larsen-Freeman (1986 132) points out that the teacher can also informally evaluate his students performance in his role as an advisor or co-communicator. Savigonon, (1991 275 2002 4) reports that the communicative approach follows global, qualitative evaluation of learner achievement as opposed to quantita tive assessment of separate linguistic features.3.1.4.9 Native Language UseThe students native language has no role to play (Larsen Freeman, 1986 135). The target language is used both during communicative activities and for the purpose of classroom management. The students learn from these classroom management exchanges, and attend that the target language is a vehicle for communication. Whatever the case may be, the teacher should be able to use the target language fluently and appropriately (Celce-Murcia, 1991b 8). However, for others (e.g., Finocchiaro and Brumfit, 1983 98) judicious use of native language is accepted where feasible. Teachers may provide directions of homework, class work and test directions by using the native language.3.1.4.10 Teachers RoleThe teacher is the facilitator of students learning, manager of classroomactivities, advisor during activities and a co-communicator engaged in thecommunicative activity along with the students (Littlewood, 1981 9 Breen an d Candlin, 1980 90). But he does not always himself interact with students rather he acts as an independent participant. some other roles assumed for the teacher are needs analyst, counselor, researcher and learner. Students, on the other hand, are more amenable managers of their own learning. They are expected to interact with other people, all in the flesh, through pair and group work, or in the writings. They are communicators and actively engaged in negotiating meaning in trying to make themselves understood. They learn to communicate by communicating (Larsen-Freeman, 1986 142). Above all, since the teachers role is less dominant the teaching/learning process is student-centered rather than teacher-centered. In other words, it is the learner who plays a great role in a large proportion of the process of learning.3.2 Grammar and GrammarsYule (1996 87) states that each adult speaker of a language clearly has some type of mental grammar, that is, a form of internal linguistic kn owledge which operates in the production and perception of appropriately structured expressions in that language. This grammar is subconscious and is not the result of any teaching. A second, and quite different, concept of grammar involves what might be considered linguistic etiquette, that is, the identification of the proper or best structures to be used in a language. A third view of grammar involves the study and analysis of the structures found in a language, unremarkably with the aim of establishing a description of the grammar of English, for example, as distinct from the grammar of other languages.Linguists define grammar as a set of components phonetics (the production and perception of sounds), phonology (how sounds are combined), morphology (the study of forms, or how elements are combined to create words), syntax (how words are strung together into sentences), and semantics or meaning. Because all languages are characterized by these components, by definition, languag e does not exist without grammar (VanPatten, 1990288).However, grammar has not always been defined in these terms. Originally, the term grammar, grammatica, referred to the art of writing, as compared to rhetoric, rettorica, the art of speaking. As used today by many teachers and learners, grammar is loosely understood to be a set of rules that govern language, primarily its morphology and syntax. But morphology and syntax are only two components of grammar (Chamot Kupper, 1989 15).Actually the word grammar has been defined rather differently by various grammarians and dictionary writers. According to vitreous silica (2003207), grammar is systematic description of a language. Also, Widdowson describes that grammar is the name given to the knowledge of how words are adapted and consistent to form sentences (1988 147 cited in Shih-Chuan Chang, 2011 14). Still other definitions of the term specify the scope of grammar.In fact, grammar is multi-dimensional (Kennedy, 1987 165) and has multi-meanings. It is generally thought to be a set of rules for choosing words and putting words together to make sense. Every language has grammar. It has been held that if a language is a building, the words are bricks and the grammar is the architects plan. One may have a cardinal bricks, but do not make a building without a plan. Similarly, if a person knows a million English words, but he doesnt know how to put them together, then he cannot speak English (Karavas, 1996 189). In other words, grammar is a framework to describe languages.3.2.1 Grammar in Language TeachingThe role of grammar is perhaps one of the most controversial looses in language teaching. In the early parts of the twentieth century, grammar teaching formed an essential part of language instruction, so much that other aspects of language learning were either ignored or downplayed. The argument was that if one knew the grammatical rules of the language, he would be able to use it for communication. This conc ept was strongly challenged in the early 1970s (Ellis, 2006 90).Knowledge of the grammatical system of the language, it was argued, was but one of the many components which underlay the notion of communicative competence. To be considered a competent user of a language, one needs to know not only the rules of grammar, but also how the rules are used in real communication. During this period, grammar teaching became less prominent, and in some cases, was abandoned (Hudson, 1998 12).In recent years, grammar teaching has regained its rightful place in the language curriculum. People now agree that grammar is too important to be ignored, and that without a good knowledge of grammar, learners language development will be severely constrained.There is now a general consensus that the issue is not whether or not we should teach grammar. The issue now centers on questions such as, which grammar items do learners need most? How do we go about teaching grammar items in the most effective way? And are they best taught inductively or deductively? (Tomlinson, 1994 22).In fa