COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING

AN OVERVIEW OF ELT

MODULE 1

INTRODUCTION

In this Module you’ll be reading about the most popular approaches

used today to teach English. We’ll discuss about communicative
language teaching (CLT) and how it has influenced other modern
approaches to English teaching. We’ll also examine Task-based
learning (TBL), Content-based instruction, and Cognitive Approach.
As you may not be familiar with them, this module will give the
insights to what approaches are relevant in language teaching today.

CONTENTS
 WHERE DOES COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING COME
FROM?
 DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF CLT
 THE WEAKNESSES OF CLT
 WHAT IS COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING?
 MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS

1
 COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING

MODULE I – WEEK I -LESSON 1

WHERE DOES COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING

COME FROM?
It has many different origins since one teaching methodology tends to influence the next.
Many teachers felt that students were not learning real-life communication with the early
methods (grammar-translation, audio- lingual method,
etc.). Students didn’t learn how to communicate using
appropriate social language that is to communicate in
the language being studied.

Stemming from the socio-cognitive perspective of the

socio-linguistic theory, with an emphasis on meaning
and communication, and a goal to develop learners’
“communicative competence”, Communicative
Language Teaching (CLT) approach evolves as a prominent language teaching method
and gradually replaced the previous grammar-translation method and audio-lingual
method (Warschauer & Kern, 2000). Since the concept of “communicative competence”
was first introduced by Hymes in the mid-1960s, many researchers have helped develop
theories and practices of Communicative Language Teaching approach (Brown, 1987;
Canale, 1983; Hymes, 1971; Littlewood, 1981; Nattinger, 1984; Nunan, 1987 &1989;
Richards & Rodgers, 1986; Widdowson, 1990). Hymes coined this term in contrast to
Chomsky’s “Linguistic Competence”.

As Stern (1992) explained, “Competence represents proficiency at its most abstract and
psychologically deepest level”. Chomsky indicated that underlying the concrete language
performance, there is an abstract rule system or knowledge
and this underlying knowledge of the grammar of the
language by the native speaker is his “linguistic
competence”. In contrast, Hymes argue that in addition to
linguistic competence, the native speaker has another rule
system. In Hymes’ view, language was considered as a
social and cognitive phenomenon; syntax and language
forms were understood not as autonomous, a contextual
structures, but rather as meaning resources used in
particular conventional ways and develop through social interaction and assimilation of
others’ speech (Warschauer & Kern, 2000). Therefore, speakers of a language have to
have more than grammatical competence in order to be able to communicate effectively in

2
 COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING

a language; they also need to know how language is used by members of a speech
community to accomplish their purposes (Hymes, 1968). Based on this theory, Canale and
Swain (1980) later extend the “Communicative competence” into four dimensions. In
Canale and Swain, “‘Communicative competence” was understood as the underlying
systems of knowledge and skill required for communication. Knowledge refers here to
what one knows (consciously or unconsciously) about the language and about other
aspects of communicative language use; skill refers to how well one can perform this
knowledge in actual communication.

From this perspective, what language teachers need to

teach is no longer just linguistic competence but also socio-
linguistic competence (“which utterances are produced and
understood appropriately in different socio-linguistic
contexts”), discourse competence (“mastery of how to
combine grammatical forms and meanings to achieve a
unified spoken or written text in different genres”), and strategic competence (“mastery of
verbal and non-verbal communication strategies that may be called into action for
compensating or enhancing communication”) (Canale, 1983).

DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF CLT

Richards and Rodgers (2001) have reviewed a number of people’s works on CLT and
described several distinguishing features of it. As “communicative competence” is the
desired goal, in CLT, meaning is paramount (Finocchiaro & Brumfit, 1983, cited by
Richards and Rodgers, 2001). In socio-cognitive perspectives, language is viewed as a
vehicle of conveying meaning, and knowledge is transmitted through communication
involving two parts, for example, speakers and
listeners, and writers and readers, but is constructed
through negotiation. As a consequence,
“communication is not only a matter of following
conventions but also of negotiating through and
about the conventions themselves. It is a convention-
creating as well as convention-following activity.
Therefore, there are three elements involved in the
underlying learning theory: communication principle,
task-based principle, and meaningfulness principle
(Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p.161).

Based on this perception, when applied to language learning, “functional activities” and
“social interaction activities” (Littlewood, 1981) are consequently selected according to
how well they engage the learner in meaning and authentic language use; learning is
3
 COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING

interpersonal to learn to communicate; attempt to communicate may be encouraged from

the very beginning; dialogues, if used, center around communicative functions and not
normally memorized; and contextualization is basic premise; drilling may occur, but
peripherally; any device that helps to communicate and understand is acceptable
(Finocchiaro & Brumfit, 1983, cited by Richards & Rodgers. To some extent, that is to say,
students do not simply learn the linguistic structures and grammar rules. Rather, they
should be actively making meaning through activities such as collaborative problem
solving, writing for a purpose, discussion of topics of genuine interest, and reading,
viewing and responding to authentic materials (Murphy,
2000).

Since knowledge and learning are viewed as socially

constructed through negotiation according to socio-
cognitive perspectives, another dimension of CLT is
learner-centered and experience-based. Interactive
communicative language is how language is currently
used, communicative processes became as important
as linguistic product, and teaching became more
learner-centered. In another word, in CLT context,
learners are actively participating in the construction of
knowledge, rather than passively receiving information
from the teacher and/or the textbook. In contrast,
language teachers are no longer viewed as the authority of the knowledge, playing a
dominant role. Rather, they share different roles such as communication facilitator,
independent participant, needs analyst, counselor, and group process manager (Richards
& Rodgers, 2001) to create more fascinating experiences for the learners.

Besides the above features, Richards and Rodgers (2001) describe other significant
characteristics of this approach including its efforts to make tasks and language relevant to
a target group of learners through an analysis of genuine,
realistic situations, its emphasis on the use of authentic, from-
life materials, and its attempt to create a secure,
nonthreatening atmosphere. All these attempts also follow the
major principles of communicative view of language and
language learning: helping learners learn a language through
authentic and meaningful communication, which involves a process of creative
construction, to achieve fluency. In this vein, in terms of classroom activity, it includes
group work, task-work, information-gap activities, and projects.

4
 COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING

THE WEAKNESSES OF CLT

Yet, inevitably, despite these outstanding characteristics, CLT also have weaknesses. CLT
needs supportive vocabulary for functional language use but it gives little guidance about
how to handle vocabulary. However, simple exposure to language and practice with
functional communication will not ensure the proficiency in language learning, so current
best practice includes a selection of vocabulary, often according to frequency lists, and an
instruction methodology that encourages meaningful
engagement with words. CLT approach puts an
excessive emphasis on the single concept
“communication” so that “in order to account for all
varieties and aspects of language teaching we
either stretch the concept of communication so
much that it loses any distinctive meaning, or we
accept its limitations and then find ourselves in the
predicament of the “method” solution”. Some people
criticized that as CLT focus on learner-centered
approach, while in some accounts of CLT, learners
bring preconception of what teaching and learning should be like, which when unrealized
can lead to learner confusion and resentment (Henner-Stanchina & Riley, 1978, cited by
Richards & Rodgers, 2001).

In addition, some people contended that CLT has not given an adequate account of EFL
teaching despite its initial growth in foreign language teaching in Europe. One of the most
difficult problems is making classroom learning communicative is the absence of native
speakers. Apparently, CLT are more successful in English as a Second Language (ESL)
context because students usually have a very supportive learning environment outside
school. They have more chances to be exposed to the authentic contact with native
speakers and the target language, which reinforces what they learn in class. Besides, they
have the motivation to work on oral English because they need it in their lives. In contrast,
in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context, due to some physical limitations, such as
the purpose of learning English, learning environments, teachers’ English proficiency, and
the availability of authentic English materials, CLT meets much more difficulties during its
application.

WHAT IS COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING?

Perhaps the majority of language teachers today, when asked to identify the methodology
they employ in their classrooms, mention “communicative” as the methodology of choice.
However, when pressed to give a detailed account of what they mean by “communicative,”

5
 COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING

explanations vary widely. Does communicative language teaching, or CLT, mean teaching
conversation, an absence of grammar in a course, or an emphasis on open-ended
discussion activities as the main features of a course? What do you understand by
communicative language teaching?

Communicative language teaching can be understood as a set of principles about the

goals of language teaching, how learners learn a language, the kinds of classroom
activities that best facilitate learning, and the roles of teachers and learners in the
classroom.

Richards and Rodgers (1986) describe Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) as an

approach rather than a method, since it is defined in rather broad terms and represents a
philosophy of teaching that is based on communicative language use. CLT has developed
from British linguists and well as American educators such as Savignon (1983). They
emphasize notional-functions concepts and communicative competence, rather than
grammatical structures, as central to language teaching. CLT has incorporated a wide
range of principles for developing communicative competence.

MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS

 Meaning is of primary importance in CLT, and contextualization is a basic principle.

 Attempts by learners to communicate with the language are encouraged from the
beginning of instruction. The new language system will be learned best by struggling
to communicate one’s own meaning and by
negotiation of meaning through interaction
with others.
 Sequencing of materials is determined by
the content, function, and/or meaning that
will maintain students? Interest.
 Careful use of the native language is
acceptable where feasible, and translation
may be used when students find it
beneficial or necessary.
 Activities and strategies for learning are
varied according to learner preferences and needs.
 Communicative competence, with an emphasis on fluency and acceptable language
use, is the goal of instruction. “Accuracy is judged not in the abstract, but in context.

6
 COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING

Richards and Rodgers state that although CLT does not claim a particular theory of
language learning as its basis, there are several theoretical premises that can be deduced
from a consideration of the approach:

a. The communication principle: Activities that involve communication promote

language learning.

b. The task principle: Activities that involve the completion of real-world tasks
promote learning.

c. The meaningfulness principle: Learners must be engaged in meaningful and

authentic language use for learning to take place.

Communicative language teaching, like any instruction

oriented toward proficiency goals, is not bound to a
particular methodology or curricular design, but represents
a flexible approach to teaching that is responsive to
learner needs and preferences. In many ways, CLT
represents a repertoire of teaching ideas rather than a
fixed set of methodological procedures, and as such is not
easily defined or evaluated. The congruence of any
particular version of CLT with proficiency goals will depend on the choice made by the
program designers and instructors.

7
 COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING

CONCLUSION

CLT can be defined in many different ways, but its core is the
concept of how language is used. CLT centers in the belief that
when students use the language for a meaningful purpose and
are involved in meaning-focused communication tasks, then
language learning will take place. Although, CLT has been
confronted by language teachers, it has a great potential that
has gained the apparent popularity in language teaching and learning domain. It isn’t a fix
framework. As learners and the learning context are dynamic.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Omaggio, Alice, ( 1993). Teaching Language in Context. Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Publisher
Littlewood, William, (1995). Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge Press, UK
Richards, Jack and Nunan, David, (1990) Second Language Teacher Education.
Cambridge University Press, UK
Savignon,S. J. & Berns M.s. (Eds.) (1983). Communicative Language Teaching. EDRS