Graham Hall. 2011. Exploring English Language Teaching.

Routledge: London& New York. Pp.93-38

Communicative Language Teaching: Strong or Weak

Lead-in: - have you ever taught speaking?
- When you taught, did you mainly stick to a textbook or you mainly organized
activites in class to encourage learners to talk freely?

I. Origins:
- Emerged in Europe and the USA in the 1970s when people started going oversea for work
or study
- In the late 20thcentury: became a dominant pattern within ELT and applied linguistics in
Western
- Up to now: Has spread out and promoted around the world in a variety of cultural and
educational contexts and with various degrees of success (further reading in Chapter 12)

- Besides, the origin of CLT is also rooted from a changing view of language
+ shifting from language structures
+ Towards language functions and communication
II. The term CLT??
- Means different things to different people
- When CLT principles are applied in different social and educational contexts: Everyday
classroom practices can appear to be different
- =>Thus, CLT can be seen as an umbrella term that describes a change in thinking about the
goals and processes of classroom language learning
 BUT Key of all elements of CLT: the MOVE from LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE to
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
+ Linguistic competence: teaching language as individual structures
+ Communicative competence: teaching people how to use language effectively when
communicating

 Leading to the goal: To teach ‘real-life’ language

+ Teaching learners to form grammatically correct sentences is not enough
+ Learners also need to be able to use language appropriately in a variety of settings and
situations, and with a variety of speakers (Hymes, 1972)

 CLT emphasizes meaning and ‘genuine’ communication in the classroom

III. How to teach language =>The syllabus + activities
- Have evolved from their original NOTIONAL-FUNCTIONAL focus (further reading in
Chapter 11) to concentrate on what is done in the classroom (i.e. learning processes)

 Typical communicative activities:

+ Information-gap exercises (e.g. asking directions when only one learner can see the
possible route)
+ Role-plays (e.g. a job interview)
+ Problem-solving tasks (e.g. where learners might be asked to prioritize inventions or
events in terms of their overall significance and justify their choices)
 Central of these activities: the idea of communicative purpose – learners need to
communicate based around content and meaning, RATHER THAN specific linguistic
forms

IV. Forms of CLT: ‘strong’ and ‘weak’

1. Strong form
- Suggests that: “Language is learned by using it” (further reading in Chapter 6)
+ i.e. deploying their existing linguistic resources, at whatever level, to solve their
immediate communication problems, learners would develop linguistically (Allwright&
Hanks, 2009: 46)
- V. Cook (2008): characterizes this as laissez-faire attitude(thai do tu do) – that learners
should be allowed to learn without interference from the teachers, and learn in ways that
teacher cannot control

2. Weak form:
- Suggests that: “Learners learn the language, then use it” (further reading in Chapter 6)
 Return to more carefully organized syllabuses and using more controlled, ‘pre-
communicative’ language-focused activities before learners move on the ‘real’ and
meaning communication

 The weak form of CLT generally dominated and perhaps STILL dominates
- It is a very practical approach (Allwright& Hanks, 2009)
- It is more readily marketable within teaching materials than strong CLT (Allwright&
Hanks, 2009)
- Strong CLT cannot be adhered to via a single textbook  suggesting that ELT materials
that are termed ‘communicative’ must be adhering to the weaker form (Savignon, 2004)
- Has the potential of eclecticism (mixing a planned and explicit focus on language and
practice with communicative activities)  paved the way for current Postmethod
eclecticism (further reading pp. 99, 100)

V. The criticism of CLT

1. The “Laissez-faire” approach (V. Cook, 2008)
 - This can lead to the idea that all and any activity in the classroom is justifiable(chính đáng)
if it allows learners to communicate (i.e. talk)
- Are learners learning as much from an activity as they would from something else?
 FLUENCY might be OVER-EMPHASIZED at THE EXPENSE of
ACCURACY???
2. The communicative activities
- Many of them are not any more ‘genuine’ than other methods’ activities
+ Asking s/o to give directions while working in a classroom pair-work activity DOES
NOT serve any authentic communicative purpose
 As soon as communicative activities and language are removed from their original
contextoutside the classroom into a learning context, they may become inherently
ARTIFICIAL (Widdowson, 1998) (further reading in Chapter 10)

3. The over-emphasis on the exchange of messages

- May lead to the trivialization of language teaching and learning, with all that may entail
for English language teachers’ professional status (Pennycook, 1990; V. Cook, 2008)

4. Cultural and contextual appropriateness

- CLT is not appropriate for all cultures and contexts(Bax, 2003)
Further reading in Chapter 12

Despite the criticism,

- CLT seems to offer teachers significant alternatives for their everyday teaching practices
- Its conception of language as COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE strikes a chord with
many teachers and applied linguists (even if the process for achieving this is potentially
problematic at times)
- The broadly inclusive nature of the weak form of ELT brings teachers closer towards
current debates around Postmethod