¡Descarga The Origins and Characteristics of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) y más Apuntes en PDF de Idioma Inglés solo en Docsity!
Reading # 9 Rjchards, J. C. and Rodgers, T.S. Aooroaches and Methods in languaee teachin~C.U.P.,p p 64- 86
5 Communicative Language Teaching
Background
The origins of Communicative Language Teachii:g (CLT) are to be found
in the changes in the British language teaching tradition dating from the late 1960s. Until then, Situational Language Teaching (see Chapter 3) represented the major British approach to teaching English as a foreign language. In Situational Language Teaching, language was taught by praaicing basic structures in meaniiigful situation-based activities. But just as the linguistic theory underlying Audiolingualism was rejected in the United States in the mid-1960s, British applied linguists began t o cal1 into question the theoreticai assumptions underlying Situational Language Teaching:
By the end of the sixties it was ilear thac the situational approach.. 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 and expressed the meanings and in- tentions of the speakers and writers who 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 that was inadequately addressed in current approaches to lan- guage teaching at that time - the functional and communicative potential of language. They saw the neéd to focus in language teaching on com- municative proficiency rather than oii inere mastery of structures. Scliol- ars who advocated this view of lariguage, such as Christopher Candlin and Henry Widdowson, drew on tlie work of British functional linguists
(e.g., John Firth, M. A. K. Halliday), Ainerican work in sociolinguistics
(e.g. Dell Hymes, John Gumperz, ;iiicl William Labo:!), as well as work in philosophy (e.g., John Austin aiid lolin Searle). Another irnpetus for different appronclies to foreign language teaching
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.
Communicative Language Teaching
carne frorn changing educational realities in Europe. With the increasing interdependence of Eurobean countries carne the need for greater" efforts to teach adults the majo; languages of the European Cornmon Market and the Council of Europe, a regional organization for cultural and educational cooperation. Education was one of the Council of Europe's major areas of activity. It sponsored international conferences on lan- guage teaching, published rnónographs and books about language teach- ing, and was active in prornoting the formation of the International ~siociationof Applied ~ i n ~ u i s t i c i .The need to articulate and develop alternative methods of language teaching was considered a high priority. In 1971 a group of experts began to investigate the possibility of 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 other portions" (van Ek and Alexander 1980: 6). The
group used studies of the needs of European language learners, and in
particular a preliminary document prepared by a British linguist, D. A.
Wilkins (1972), which proposed a functional or 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 of rneanings: notional caregories (concepts such as time, sequence, quanrity, location, frequency) and categories of communicative function (rcquests, 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- guage Teaching. The Council of Europe incorporated his semanticicom- rnunicative analysis into a set of specifications for a first-level cornrnunicative language syllabus. These threshold level specifications (van Ek and Alexander 1980) have had a strong 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- dowson, Candlin, Christopher Brumfit, Keith Johnson, 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 textbook writers; and the equally rapid acceptance of these new principies by British language teaching specialists, curriculurr~Jevelop- ment centers, and even governments gave prominetice riatiorially and internationally to what carne to be referred to as the Coiiiinuriicative Approach, or simply Communicative Language Teactiirig. (The terms
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.
C o m m u n i c a t i v e L a n g u a g e Teaching
Finocchiaro 2nd Brurnfit (1983) c o n t r a s t t h e major distinctive features
of t h e Audiol~rigual Method a n d the Comrnunicative Approach, ac-
c o r d i n g to their interpretation:
Audio-lingual
- Attends to srructure and form more than meaning. 2. Demands memorization of struaure-based dialogs. 3. Language irerns are not necessarily contextualized.
- Language learning is leaming struaures, sounds, o r words. 5. Mastery, or "over-learning" is sought.
- Drilling is a central technique.
- Native-speaker-like pronunciation is sought.
- Grammatical explanation is avoided.
- Communicative activities only come after a long process of rigid drills and exercises. 10. The use of the student's native language is forbidden.
- Translation is forbidden at early levels. 12. Reading and writing are deferred till speech is mastered. 13. The target linguistic system will be Leamed through the overt teaching of the patterns of the system.
- Linguistic competence is the desired goal 15. Varieties of language are recognized but not emphasized.
- The sequence of units is determined solely by principies of linguistic cornplexity.
Communicative Language Teaching Meaning is paramount.
Dialogs, i f used, center around communicative functions and are not normally memorized. Contextualization is a basic premise. Language learning is learning to communicate. Effective communication is sought.
Drilling may occur, but peripherally. Comprehensible pronunciation is sought. Any device which helps the learners is accepted - varying according to their age, interest, etc. Attempts to communicate may be encouraged from the very beginning. Judicious use of native language is accepted where feasible. Translation may he used ~ v h e r r students need o r benefit from it. Reading and writing can start from the first day, if desired. The target linguistic system will be learned best through the process of struggling t o communicate.
Communicative competence is the desired goal (¡.e. the ability to use the linguistic system effectively and appropriately). Linguistic variation is a central concept in materials and methodology. Sequencing is determined by any consideration of content, function, o r meaning which maintains interest.
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.
Approaches & methods in language teaching
- The teacher controls the learners and prevents them from doing anything that conflicts with the theory.
- "Language is habit" so errors rnust be prevented at al1 costs.
- Accuracy, in terms of formal correctness, is a primary goal
- Students are expected to interact with the language systern, embodied in machines or controlled materials
- The teacher is expected to specify the language that students are to use.
- lntrinsic motivation 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)
Apart from being an interesting exainple of h o w proponents of Com- municative Language Teaching stack the cards in their favor, such a set of contrasts illustrates some of the maior differences between commu- nicative approaches and earlier traditions in language teaching. T h e wide acceptance of the cornmunicative approach and the relatively varied way in which it is interpreted and applicd can be attributed t c the fart thar practitioners from different educational traditions can identify with it, and consequently interpret it in differeiit ways. O n e of its North Amer- ican proponents, Savignon (1983), for example, offers as a precedent to
CLT a commentary by Montaigne on his learning of Latin through
conversation rather than through tlie customary method of formal anal-
ysis and translation. Writes Montaigne, "Without methods, without a
book, without grammar o r rules, without a whip and without tears, 1
had learned a Latin as proper ris tlixr of my schoolmaster" (Savignon
1983: 47). This antistructural vie\v can be held t o represent the language
learning version of a more geiierril lenriiing perspective usually referred t o as "learning by doing" o r "tlie experience approach" (Hilgard and Bower 1966). This notion of direct rntlier than delayed practice of com- municative acts is central to most C1.T interpretations. T h e focus on cornmunicative arid coiitextual factors in language use also has an antecedent in thc work of the anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski and his colleague, tlie lingtiist John Firth. British applied
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.
Approaches & ~ n e t h o d s in language teaching
linguistic theor!. i 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 limitatio~i,Jistractions, 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 linguistic theory was to characterize the abstract abilities speakers possess that enable them to produce gram- matically correct sentences in a language. Hymes held that such a view
of linguistic theory was sterile, that linguistic theory needed t o be seen
as part of a more general theory incorporating communication and culture. Hymes's theory of communicative competence was a definition
of what a speaker needs to know in order t o be comrnunicatively com-
petent in a speech community. In Hymes's view, a person who acquires communicative competence acquires both knowledge and abiiity for language use with respect to
1. whether (and to what degree) something is formally possible;
- whether (and to what degree) something is feasible in virtue of the means of implementation available; 3. whether (and to what degree) something is appropriate (adequate, happy, successful) in relation to a cont.ext in which it is used and evaluated;
- whether (and to what degree) something is in fact done, actually per- formed, and what its doing entails. (Hymes 1972: 281)
This theory of what knowing a language enrails offers a much more 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. .. is concerned... with the description of
speech acts o r texts, since only through the study of language in use are
al1 the functions of language, and therefore al1 components of meaning, brought into focus" (Halliday 1970: 145). In a number of influential books and papers, Halliday has elaborated a powerful theory of the functions of language, wliich complements Hymes's view of commu-
nicative cornpetence for many writers on CLT (e.g., Brumfit and Johnson
1979; Savignon 1983). H e described (1975: 11-17) seven basic functions
that language performs for children learning their first language:
- the instrumental funcrion: using language to get things;
- the regulatory function: using language to control the behavior of others; 3. the interactional function: using language to create interaction with others;
- the personiil function: using language to express personal feelings and meanings:
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.
Communicative Language Teaching
- the heuristic function: using language to learn and to discover; 6. the imaginative functioa: using lariguage ro create a world of the imagination;
- the representational function: usilig language to communicate information.
Learning a second language was sirnilarly viewed by propoiients of Com- municative Language Teaching as acquiring the linguistic means to per- form different kinds of functions. Another theorist frequently cited for his views on the communicative nature of language is Henry Widdowson. In his book Teaching Language
as Communication (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 competence
are identified: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, dis- course competence, and strategic cornpetence. Grammatical competence refers to what Chomsky calls linguistic competence and what Hymes intends by what is "formally possible." It is the domain of grammatical and lexical capacity. Sociolinguistic coinpetence refers to an understand- ing of the social context in which communication takes place, including role relationships, rhe shared information of the participants, and the communicative purpose for their interaction. Discourse cornpetence re- fers to the interpretation of individual message elements in terms of their interconnectedness and of how meaning is represented in relationship to the entire discourse or text. Strategic cornpetence refers to the c o p i ~ g strategies that communicators eniploy to initiate, terminate, maintain, repair, and redirea communication. At the level of language theorv, Communicative Language Teaching
has a rich, if somewhat eclectic, theoretical base. Some of the charac-
teristics of this communicative view of language follow.
- Language is a system for the expression of meaning.
- The primary function of language is for interaction and communication. 3. The structure of language reflects its functional and communicative uses.
- The primary units of language are n o t merely its grammatical and struc- tural features, but categories oi fuiii-rional and communicative meaning as exemplified in discourse.
Theory of learning
In contrast to the amount that has been written in Communicative Language Teaching literature abour communicative dimensions of lan-
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.
Communicative Language Teaching
guagc system - they include grammatical rules, procedures for selecting voc:ii>iilary,and social conventions governing speech. The behauioural aspect involbes rhe automation of these ~ l a n sso that rhey can be converted inro fluenr performance in real time. This occurs mainly through practice iii coi>- verting plans into performance. (Littiewood 1984: 74)
This theory thus encourages an emphasis on practice as a way of de-
veloping communicative skills.
Design
Objectives
Piepho (1981) discusses the following levels of objectives in a commu-
nicative approach: 1 an integrative and contenr level (language as a means of expression)
- a linguistic and instrumental level (language as a semiotic system and aii object of learning); 3. an affective level of interpersonal relationships and conduct (language as a means of expressing values and judgments about oneself and others);
- a level of individual learning needc (remedial learning based on error analysis); 5. a general educational level of extra-linguisric goals (language learning within the school curriculum). (Piepho 1981: 8)
These are proposed a s general objecrives, applicable to any teachifi- O
situation. Particular objectives for CLT cannot be defined beyond this
level of specification, since such an approach assumes that language
teaching will reflect the particular needs of the target learners. These
needs may be in the domains of reading, writing, listening, o r speaking, each of which can be approached from a communicative perspective. Curriculum o r instructional ohjectives for a particular course would
reflect specific aspects of communicative competence according to thc
learner's proficiency level and communicative needs.
The syllabus
Discussions of the nature of the syllabus have been central in Coin- municative Language Teaching. We have seen that one of the first syl- labus models to be proposed was described as a notional syllabus (Wilkiiis 1976), which specified the semantii-grammatical categories (e.g., fre- queiicy, motion, location) and the categories of communicative function
thar learners need t o express. The Council of Europe expanded and
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.
Approaches & methods in language teaching
developed this into a syllabus that included descriptions of the objectives of foreign language courses for European adults, the situations in which they might typically need to use a foreign language (e.g., travel, business), the topics they might need to talk about (e.g., personal identification, education, shopping), the functions they needed language for (e.g., de- scribing something, requesting information, expressing agreement and disagreement), the notions made use of in communication (e.g., time, frequenc~,duration), as well as the vocabulary and grammar needed. The result was published as Threshold Leve1 English (van Ek and Alex- ander 1980) and was an attempt to specify what was needed in order t o be able to achieve a reasonable degree of communicative 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 Teaching has been extensive. Wilkins's original notional syl- labus model was soon criticized by British applied linguists as merely replacing one kind of list (e.g., a list of grammar items) with another (a list of notions and functions). It specified products, rather than com- municative processes. Widdowson (1979) argued that notional-func- tional categories provide only a very partial and imprecise description of certain 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. If 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 at the center of our attention. (Widdowson 1979: 254) There are at present several proposals and models for what a syllabus might look like in Comrnunicative Language Teaching. Yalden (1983) 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 sources to each model:
T Y P ~
- structures plus functions
- functional spiral around ii structural core 3. structural, functional, instrumental
- functional
- notional 6. interaaional
- task-based
- learner generated
Reference Wilkins (1976) Brumfit (1980)
Allen (1980)
Jupp and Hodlin (1975) Wilkins (1976) Widdowson (1979) Prabhu (1983) Candlin (1976), Henner-Stanchina and Riley (1978)
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.
Approaches dr methods in language teaching
As discussion of syllabus models continues in the C L T literature, some have argued that. the syllabus concept be abolished altogether in its
accepted forms, arguing that only learners can be fully aware of their
own needs, communicational resources, and desired learning pace and path, and that each learner must create a personal, albeit implicit, syl- labus as part of learning. Others lean more toward the iriodel proposed by Brumfit (1980), which favors a grammatically based syllabus around which notions, functions, and communicational activities are grouped.
Types of iearning and teaching activities The range o f exercise types and activities compatible with a commu- nicative approach is unlimited, provided that such exercises enable learn- ers to attain the communicative objectives of the curriculum, engage learners in communication, and require the use of such communicative processes as information sharing, negotiation of rneaning, and interac- tion. Classroom activities are often designed to focus oii completing
tasks that are mediated through language o r involve negotiation of in-
formation and information sharing. These atternpts take rnany forms. Wright (1976) achieves it by showing out- of-focus slides which the students atternpt to identify. Byrrie (1978) provides incornplere plans and diagrams which students have to coriiplece by asking for inforrnation. Allwright (1977) places a screen between sttidenrs and gets one to place objecrs in a certain pattern: fhis pattern is then communicated to students behind the screen. Geddes and Sturtridge (1979) develop "jig- saw" listening in which students lisren to different taped niaterials and then comrnunicate their content to others in the class Most of these techniques operate by providing information to some and withho!di!ig i r from orhers. Uohnson 1982: 151) Littlewood (1981) distinguishes between "functiorial coniiuunication ac- tivities" and "social interaction activities" as rnajor activity types in Communicative Language Teaching. Functional coniriiunication activ- ities include such tasks as learners comparing sets of pictures and noting similarities and differences; working out a likely seqtience of events in a set of pictures; discovering missing features in a iiiap o r picture; one learner communicating behind a screen t o anothrr learner and giving instructions on how to draw a picture o r shape, o r h o w to complete a map; following directions; and solving problems troiti shared clues. Social interaction activities include conversation and discussion sessions, dialogues and role plays, simulations, skits, iinproviscitions, and debates.
Learner roles The emphasis in Communicative Language Teacliirig o i i the processes
of communication, rather than mastery of l a n g u a ~ etornis, leads to
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.
Communicative Language T e a c l ~ i r ~ g
different roles for learners from those found in more traditional sect)iiJ language classrooms. Breen and Candlin describe the learner's role witliiii
CLT in the following terms:
The role of learner as negotiator-between the self, the learning process, anJ the obiect of leatning-emerges from and interacts with the role of joint nep<>- 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)
There is thus an acknowledement. in" some accounts of CLT. that learners bring preconceptions of what teaChing and learning should be like. These constitute a "set" for learnine. which when unrealized can lead t o learner
confusion and resentment kenner-Stanchina and Riley 1978). Ofrcii
there is n o text, grammar rules are not presented, classroom arrangemeiit is nonstandard, students are expected t o interact primarily with eiicii other rather than with the teacher, and correction of errors may he absent o r infrequent. The cooperative (rather than individualistic) a p -
proach to learning stressed in CLT may likewise be unfamiliar to iearri-
ers. CLT methodologists consequently recommend that learners learri
to see that failed communication is a joint responsibility and n o t the
fault of speaker o r listener. Similarly, successful communication is ari
accomplishment jointly achieved and acknowledged.
Teacher roles
Several roles are assumed for teachers in Communicarive Languagc Teaching, the importance of particular roles being determined by thc
view of CLT adopted. Breen a n d Candlin describe teacher roles in tlie
following 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 o t resources aiid as a resource himself, second as a guide within the classrooiii procedures xid activities.. .. A third role for the teacher is that of researchcr and learner, witli much to contribute in terms of appropriate knowledge aiici abilities, nctiial and obse. ed experience of the nature oi learning and orgnrii- zational ciipacities. (1980: 99)
Other roles rtssumed for teachers are needs analyst, counselor, and groiili process iii;iriager.
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.
Communicative Language Teaching
and extensions and assisting groups in self-correction discussion. Critics have pointed out, however, that non-native teachers inay feel less than comfortable about such procedures without special training. The focus on fluency and comprehensibility in Communicative Lan- guage Teaching may cause anxiety among teachers accustomed to seeing error suppression and correction as the major instructional responsibil- ity, and who see their primary function as preparing learners to take standardized or other kinds of tests. A continuing teacher concern has been the possible deleterious effect in pair or group work of imperfect modeling and student error. Although this issue is far from resolved, it is interesting to note that recent research findings suggest that "data contradicts the notion that other learners are not good conversational partners because they can't provide accurate input when it is solicited" (Porter 1983).
The role of instructional materials
A wide variety of materials have been used to support communicative
approaches to language teaching. Unlike some contemporary metho- dologies, such as Community Language Learning, practitioners of Com- municative Language Teaching view materials as a way of influencing the quality of classroom interaction and language use. Materials thus have the primary role of promoting communicative language use. We
will consider three kinds of materials currently used in CLT and label
these text-based, task-based, and realia.
TEX T-BASED MATER1AL.S
There are numerous tcxtbooks designed to direct and support Com- municative Language Teaching. Their tables of contents sometimes sug- gest a kind of grading and sequencing of language practice not unlike those found in structurally organized texts. Some of these are in fact written around a largely structural syllabus, with slight reformatting to justify their claims to be based on a communicative approach. Others, however, look very different from previous language teaching texts. Morrow and Johnson's Communicate (1979), for example, has none of the usual dialogues, drills, or sentence patterns and uses visual cues, taped cues, pictures, and sentence fragments to initiate conversation. Watcyn-Jones's Pair Work (1981) consists of two different texts for pair work, each containing different information needed to enact role plays and carry out other pair acrivities. Texts written to support the Malay- sian English Language Syllabus (1975) likewise represent a departure from traditional texthook rnodes. A typical lesson consists of a theme
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.
Approaches & methods in languagc~tcucliing
(e.g., relaying information), a task :iiinlysis for thematic development (e.g., understanding the message, a s k i i i ~questions to obtain ciarification, asking for more information, takiiig notes, ordering and presentiiig in-
formation), a practice situation description (e.g., "A caller asks to see
your manager. He does not have an appointment. Gather the necessary information from him and relay the inessage to your manager."), a stimulus presentation (in the preceding case, the beginning of an office conversation scripted and on tape), coniprehension questions (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 Comrnunicative Lan- guage Teaching classes. These typically are in the form of one-of-a-kind items: exercise handbooks, cue cards, aitivity cards, pair-comrnunication practice materials, and student-interaction practice booklets. In pair- communication materials, there are typically two sets of material for a pair of students, each set containing different kinds of information. Sometimes the information is complementary, and partners must fit their respective parts of the "jigsaw" into a composite whole. Others assume different role relationships for the partners (e.g., an interviewer and an interviewee). Still others provide drills and practice material in inter- actional formats.
Many proponents of Communicative Language Teaching have advo- cated the use of "authentic," "frorii-life" materials in the classroom. These might include language-based realia, such as signs, magazines, advertisements, and newspapers, or graphic and visual sources around which communicative activities can be built, such as maps, pictures, symbols, graphs, and charts. Different kinds of objects can be used to support communicative exercises, siich as a plastic model to assemble from directions.
Procedure
Because communicative principles caii be applied t o the teaching of any skill, at any level, and because of thc wide variety of classroom activities and exercise types discussed in thc Iircrature on Communicative Lan- guage Teaching, description of typic;iI ~Iassroomprocedures used in a lesson based on CLT principles is nor tc.;isible. Savignon (1983) discusses
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.
Communicative 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, at the levels of design and procedure there is much greater room 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 approval in the future, giving Communicative Language Teaching a status similar t o other teaching methods. On the other hand, divergent interpretations might lead to h6mogeneous subgroups. Communicative Language Teaching a ~ p e a r e dat a time when British language teaching was ready for a paradigm shift. Situational Language Teaching was no longer felt to reflect a methodology appropriate for the seventies and beyond. CLT appealed to those who sought a more humanistic approach to teaching, one in which the interactive processes of communication received priority. The rapid adoption and implemen- tation of the communicative approach also resulted from the fact that it quickly assumed the status of orthodoxy in British language teaching circles, receiving the sanction and support of leading British applied linguists, language specialists, publishers, as well as institutions, such as
the British Council (Richards 1985).
Now that the initial wave of enthusiasm has passed, however, some
of the claims of CLT are being looked at more critically (Swan 1985).
The adoption of a communicative approach raises important issues for teacher training, materials development, and testingland evaluation. Questions that have been raised include whether a communicative ap- proach can be applied at al1 levels in a language program, whether it is
equally suited t o ESL and EFL situations, whether it requires existing
grammar-based syllabuses to be abandoned or merely revised, how such an approach can be evaluated, how suitable it is for non-native teachers, and how it can be adopted in situations where students must continue to take grammar-based tests. These kinds of questions will doubtless require attention if the communicntive movement in language teachjng continues to gain momentum ir1 the future.
Bibliography
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-
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.
Approaches & methods in language teaching
cation. Mimeo: Modern Language Center, Ontario lnstitute for Studies in Education Allwright, R: L. 1977. Language learning through communicatioii practice. E L T Documents 76(3). London: British Council. Applebee, A. N. 1974. Tradition and Reform in the Teaching of E~zglislt.A History. Urbana, 111.: National Council of Teachers of English Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clareiidon l'ress. Breen, M., and C. N. Candlin. 1980. The essentials of a communicative cur- 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 Second Language Acquisitiorr, 3(1) 1-9. Brumfit, C. J., and K. Johnson (eds.). 1979. The Communicatiuc Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Byrne, D. 1978. Materials for Language Teaching. Inrcractio~rI'ackages Lon- don: Modern English Publications. Canale, M., and M. Swain. 1980. 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 Roundtul~k~1976. Wash- ington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Candlin, C N., C. J. Bruton, and J. H. Leather. 1974. Doctor-pntient com- munication skills. ~Mimeo,University of Lancaster. Chornsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouroii Chomskv, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Bostori MIT Press. Englisli Language Syflabus in Mulaysian Schools, Tingknt;r!r 4- 1975 Kirala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka. Finocchiaro, M., and C. Brumfit. 1983. The Functiortal-Notioir~~lApproach. From Theory to Practice. New York: Oxford University I'ress Firth, J. R. 1957. Papers in Linguistics: 1934-1951 London: Outord University Press. Geddes, M., and G. Sturtridge. 1979. 1,istening Links Londori Heinemann.
Gumperz, J. J., and D. Hymes (eds.). 1972. Directio~isin Soiiolii~gitistics.The
Ethnography o/ Communication. New York: Holt, Rinel,art nrid Winston. Halliday, M. A. K. 1970. Language srructure and language furiirioi~ InJ Lyons (ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics, pp. 140-65. Harmontis\vc~rrli I'enguin. Halliday, M. A. K. 1973. Exp1oratio)ts in the Fuizctio12s of I.inr,yr~LrgcLoiidon: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. 1975. Learning How to Mean Explorntioi~s in the Devel- opment of Language. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Languageas Social Semiotic. Londoii F.cl\r.nrd Arnold. Henner-Stanchina, C., and P. Riley. 1978. Aspecrs ot autoiioni~~its1e;irning. In ELT Docunzents 103: Individtialization ilz 1.anguage 1.cri~itiri.q.pp. 75-97. London: British Council.
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.
