CLT and KLT: A Contrastive Review

Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar, CIEFL, Hyderabad

Abstract
Modern English Language Teaching is severely constrained by the spatiotemporalmaterial, and
socioculturalspiritual settings of the teacher-learner-administration-material networks. As a result, students are
constrained by: 1. less time to learn: 2.unproductive and non-optimal settings that decelerate quicker learning: 3.
incompatible materials to fulfill their demands; 4. inappropriate and inefficient teaching methods; 5. psychologically
unreal and atomic methods, 6. experientially not comprehensive and 7. finally, a disjointed learning situation. For
effective and optimum learning to take place, all such factors have to be interconnected and interrelated in an
interdependent network of materials-teaching-learning in the existing spatiotemporalmaterial, and
socioculturalspiritual context.

In the modern times, there is a proliferation of theories, designs, and procedures in the field of second language
teaching owing to the application of different formal, functional, and cognitive linguistic theories. The theories of
Chomsky and Halliday have immensely contributed to such a great development in second language learning and
teaching. However, in the non-native English speaking countries all over the world, especially, in Asia and Africa,
either they are not properly implemented or they have not produced promising results. That it is so can be seen from
the overall standards of the students in real life situations.

In such a context, the learning-teaching situation has broken down into a haphazard trial and error method
producing unpredictable and uneven results: a few manage to learn well by their contingent plans while many the
others pass in the process by sheer effort and the remaining fail to succeed. Therefore, there is a need to re-examine
the whole problem of teaching-learning from a holistic perspective of the entire gamut of the teacher-learner-
administration-material experience.

In this paper, an attempt has been made to extend the Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory to the teaching of languages and
develop a new model called the Ka:rmik Language Teaching Approach (KLTA) to tackle the problem of providing an
optimal teacher-learner-administration-material network for facilitating an enjoyable, quicker, and efficient learning
of English and in fact any other second or foreign language.

The KLTA advocates the networking of the formal, functional, and dispositional components of language and
applies the principle of integrated ka:rmik process (which offers a critical path analysis in administration) in
teaching a second language by exploiting the existing abilities of the learner and integrating them into the learning
process through dispositional, functional contextualization of the curriculum into a culture-friendly syllabus and
teaching methods. It is claimed that it minimizes the learning load, time and also, by systematic application and
practice of the language, enhances the creative and retentive capacity of the learners.

I. INTRODUCTION
In the 21 century, the whole world has become a village. Each country is aspiring to
reach new heights of economic and socioculturalspiritual progress in its own
independent paths of progress but at the same time it is indispensably interconnected-
interrelated-interdependent (I-I-I) with other countries. In the process, the traditional
Western Lingual imperialism is giving way to Global Lingual Egalitarianism. In this
context, it is time to reexamine the traditional western theories of language teaching and
learning and promote alternate theories from the other traditions if it suits better.
In this connection, Ka:rmik Language Teaching Approach (KLTA) is presented as an
alternative to the popular communicative language teaching approach to overcome
some of the problems faced in using this approach. KLTA is an integrated approach that
takes an integrated view of form-function-cognition-disposition in a network and lays
more emphasis on teaching language in a cause-means-effect model through the
construction of dispositional (experiential) reality rather than communicative reality alone.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

A brief contrastive review of CLT with KLTA is offered below.
A. “The focus of CLT is primarily and necessarily social, concerned as it was with the goal
of successful communication (Cook 2010; 36).” On the other hand, the focus of KLTA is
essentially dispositional communication, concerned as it is with the goal of successful
experientiality (with the goal of dispositional competence rather than communicative
competence for experience of activity where dispositional competence is the competence
to use language to construct one’s dispositional reality in a context) in which
socioculturalspiritual communication is a part of the whole among others: dispositional,
cognitive, contextual actional, and lingual actional. Here, the whole is greater than ()
the sum of the parts and even beyond () the whole of it. It is so because social
communication, which is undoubtedly an important part of language activity, is not the
end in itself but only one of the major efficient causes of language activity, the main cause
being disposition (at the individual level and karma at the higher level).
Part
L Language (L) = Sum of the Parts
 Sum of the Parts
 Whole of It
Whole
Fig. 1. Part-Whole Network of Language
B. Human beings use social interaction as a means to fulfill their desires – desired
through the medium of socioculturalspirituality of the society in which they live, making
it one of the efficient causes – but it is manipulated according to one’s inclinations,
aspirations, etc. Hence, society is not only an efficient cause but it is also used as a means
to an end, the end being the dispositional coordination of coordination of activity for
the fulfillment one’s desires. If social communication were the end in itself, all lingual
social communication should be monolithic; there should not be any social variation
within a group, and in addition, no possibility for future deviation and change since the
social structure is already instituted. However, in real life, such a possibility is negated:
new forms of language and communication come into existence within a society as and
when dispositional creativity springs up in the users, and fashions, innovations and
systemic effects spread in a society. These changes are I-I-Ily networked with
socioculturalspiritual divisions and separation as societies function as dissipative
structures.
(1) Experiential Communication > Dispositional Communication > Actional
Communication
C. Next, KLTA is concerned with the development of the procedures for teaching the
four skills that acknowledge the interrelation-interconnection-interdependence of
disposition-language-coordination of activity-experience. It involves the dispositional
internalization of the four skills of language (the linguistic system) as language habits
(va:sana:s) to coordinate the living habits. If language acquisition is only a matter of
acquiring the knowledge of the form of language and its communicative functions and
its use in a context, then everybody should get it easily and use it effortlessly, but in real
life:
1. Why is it that all learners do not acquire it in an equal measure when taught in the same
manner?
2. Why is it that they fail to use it in the same efficient/inefficient way in a given context?
3. Why are there creativity, variable style and variety in the use of language?
It is so because language acquisition is more than the acquisition of form, function, and
use; it is a matter of dispositional acquisition and internalization of the linguistic system
for its dispositional application for its dispositional experience in its variety, range, and depth.
Disposition is the missing link in other theories which is included as a key in KLTA to
answer the two questions on unequal acquisition of language and its inefficient/efficient
application. It is like acquiring wealth as a resource: the manner of acquiring wealth (the
theory) is one thing; the act of acquiring wealth (procedure) is another thing; and using it
appropriately (application) is a different thing. Therefore, the learner has to acquire not
only:
1. The knowledge of the system (formal competence);
2. The skill of using it in a context by internal habituation or va:sana:s (functional
competence); and
3. The linguistic traits to choose the appropriate and the required content, function, and
form of the language for the emotional experience of action (dispositional competence).
4. The coordination of actional (formal + functional + choice) competence with
dispositional emotional competence to bring about the ultimate experience of lingual
action (experiential competence).
The acquisition of the knowledge of the system demands:
 1. Information of the system and its working;
2. Memory of the information for its ready use; and
3. Analyticity to symbolically represent the activity in terms of language.
The skill of using the system demands automatic networking of:
1. the dispositional reaction in a context,
2. its automatic semiosis in the desired manner of language, and
3. the coordination of action by lingual action.
The traits which are already inherent in the speaker have to be geared for making
choices and networking:
1. Dipositional Impulsions,
2. Desires,
3. Lingual Effort and
4. Its manifestation as Lingual Action: speech or writing.
Finally, the lingual action, and its result have to be comprehended to produce the
resultant experience. This is automatically produced by the emotional reaction to the
results of action interpreted by their coordination.
D. Another important point is that the goal of doing things with the language
appropriately, fluently, and effectively cannot be delinked with the form of language –
both are inseparably interconnected-interrelated-interdependent and therefore mere
communicative activities cannot by themselves without the formal system bring about
appropriateness, fluency, and effectiveness: if communication takes place without
language, then it is nonverbal but not lingual. Even though this problem is sorted out
by the thoughtful advocates of CLT by giving importance to the accurate, appropriate,
and contextually suitable use of language in functional – to – formal need based method of
teaching and learning a language, “communicative activities could lead to limited
proficiency and a constraining and conformist model of language use (Cook 2010: 38)”.
In KLTA, the emphasis is on dispositional knowledge (and dispositionally creative
exercises) which is a complex of phenomenal knowledge controlled by traits, and va:sana:s
and as such there is ample scope for creativity. In fact, it is assumed that those who
follow KLTA will also increase their creativity by gaining access to creativity through
the creative process of learning language: language is learnt as a creative exercise in action,
as a solution to a problem of constructing dispositional reality by creative exploration, and
problem solving strategies in addition to type–token reproduction of lingual action which will
become internalized to stimulate creative activity in other areas; what is learnt is
dispositionalized and what is dispositionalized is creatively habitualized. Therefore, it is not
only functional but also creatively functional because the traits (endowed with
dispositional creativity) can impact on the knowledge and bring about new functions,
forms, and meanings to the existing body of lingual knowledge. For example, when
students are taught vocabulary, they are taught vocabulary through word-formation
processes and their creativity is augmented through graded exercises (giving the
unmarked forms first and the marked forms later); sentences are taught through words–
to-clauses-to-sentences by a contextual exploration of variables (CEV), productive
extension of variables (PEV), and creative exploration of variables (CEV) – creativity is
encouraged by providing exercises with multiple options, especially, at advanced levels of
narrating processes, events, etc. through multiple option sets of vocabulary, syntax and
meaning. A little bit of mathematics is used to explain the combinatorial techniques in the
U.S.A. and U.S.L.A. via U.S.L.
E. In addition, KLTA is more immediate in motivating the ordinary learner than CLT: self
– actualization (getting a better mark) is immediate to the heart than self-communication
(expressing oneself better) which is distant.
F. What is more, mechanical reproduction of language, fossilization, mere utilitarian use deny
the learners “the resources needed to develop a creative command of the language
which would enable them to express their own individual and social meanings (emphasis
mine). Ironically, the communicative approach could often stifle rather than promote
the richest kinds of communication (ibid.). What is more, CLT is associated with
cultural imperialism and denies individual expressivity.
In KLTA, these problems are avoided by deriving culture from a higher level of
disposition (and culture as dispositionally patterned behavior). Therefore, there is scope
for delinking the foreign cultural content and re-linking the native cultural content
since knowledge is dispositionalized. For example, individual and social meanings can
be expressed by gaining access to the form of language and assigning it individual and
own cultural meanings and functions.
Disposition

+ Culture - Culture
G. Another problem with the CLT approach is that it is not graded and the learning
process may be confusing and counterproductive; whereas in KLTA, it is learner
centered, and capacity based – different strokes-for-different folks; different horses-for-
different races approach. The material is systematically graded with an eye on creative
development of the language in the learner. In the next section, a review of theory and
practice is attempted.
III. CLT AND KLTA: A REVIEW OF THEORY AND PRACTICE
A brief review of the basic principles and concepts of the Ka:rmik Language Teaching
Approach are given below.
A. THEORY
a. LANGUAGE THEORY
1. language is a system for the expression of meaning in CLT whereas in KLTA it is for the
construction of experience; that is to say that meaning is a means for constructing
experience.
2. in CLT, the primary function of language is for interaction and communication (illocutionary
force) whereas in KLTA, it is for the coordination of experience (with a perlocutionary force);
3. the structure of language reflects its functional and communicative uses in CLT but in KLTA
they are reflected through its dispositionally derived structure; and
4. in CLT, the primary units of language are not merely its grammatical and structural features,
but categories of functional and communicative meaning as exemplified in discourse; on the
other hand, in KLTA, the primary units of language are experiential cognemes realized through
formal, functional, and discourse features. (see Richards and Rodgers 1986: 69 - 71 for a
discussion of these CLT views on language theory)
b. THEORY OF LEARNING
Richards and Rodgers (ibid. 70 -73) have identified three elements of an underlying
learning theory in CLT practices: 1. communication principle: activities that involve real
communication promote learning; 2. task principle: activities in which language is used
for carrying out meaningful tasks promote learning (Johnson 1982); and 3.
meaningfulness principle: language that is meaningful to the learner supports the learning
process. As Richards and Rodgers pointed out, “they address the conditions needed to
promote second language learning, rather than the processes of language acquisition.”
Savignon (1983) considers the role of linguistic, social, cognitive, and individual
variables in language acquisition. Krashen (1982) feels that language learning comes
about through using language communicatively, rather than through practicing language
skills (Richards and Rodgers 1986: 72).
Johnson (1984) and Littlewood (1984) propose a skill-learning model of learning. This
model involves both a cognitive and behavioural aspect: the cognitive aspect involves the
internalization of plans (derived from the language system) for creating appropriate
behavior and the behavioral aspect involves the automation of these plans so that they
can be converted into fluent performance in real time through practice (Richards and
Rodgers 1986:72-73).
In KLTA, learning a language involves a three dimensional networking of the:
1. acquisition of the knowledge of the linguistic system (formal knowledge acquisition) to
construct actional reality;
2. acquisition of the skill of using the knowledge of the system to construct his
dispositional reality in a context (functional skill acquisition); and
3. dispositionalization ( i.e., symbolically embodying the dispositional choice of action
controlled by traits) of the knowledge of the linguistic system in its use (desire –
lingual action – action) for the construction of experiential reality by ka:rmik
networking: language is acquired as a means to bring the effect (goal) of experience
impelled by the cause of disposition.
To explain it further, the acquisition of the knowledge of the system is somewhat
similar to the cognitive aspect of learning. In knowledge acquisition, the learner learns the
formal, functional, and semantic system of the language and gains grammatical
competence; in skill acquisition, the learner acquires through systematic practice the use of
language to construct his dispositional reality in a context by acquiring communicative
competence. In dispositionalization, the learner acquires experiential competence by which he
is in a position to coordinate the coordination of action by lingual action to embody his
disposition in his lingual action for the experience of the results of his action. All these
three components of Knowledge Acquisition, Skill Acquisition, and Dispositionalization are
interconnected-interrelated-interdependent as a homogeneous phenomenon in
Disposition (Svabha:vam) which is a complex of Traits – Knowledge – Va:sana:s. In the
learning of a language, the formal system is acquired along with the functional system
in a ka:rmik networking process.
Learning is the outcome of an integrated network of the Teacher – Learner – Materials –
Administration – Society Grid. In an ideal setting all these components are properly
coordinated to bring about the emergence of learning but in real life situations they can
only be coordinated fairly well. The teacher has to adjust to the fluctuations and
maintain a balance to bring about optimum results. If these components are well
coordinated they will generate high levels of motivation; if not, the system will be
adversely affected.
As can be seen, in CLT and KLTA, practice is a common feature in the learning process.
However, in CLT, practice is communicative practice whereas in KLTA, it is
experiential practice which includes communication. That means, in KLTA, learning is
personalized and subjective whereas in CLT, it is not. In that sense, there is scope for style
variation and creativity in KLTA which is missing in CLT as explained earlier. In a
similar way, different types of motivation can be offered to suit the individual tastes.
Furthermore, memorization is an important factor in KLTA (which is not in CLT) since
the acquisition of the knowledge of language is complex – it is a verbal system with
numerous words, sentence patterns, and meanings – and so memory is associated with
learning. However, rote memory is not encouraged; on the other hand, experiential
memory – remembering language through experience - or even bilingual memory of
cognates is encouraged in the initial stages until the second language memory is firmly
established: like using a car to travel to a destination and then leaving it. In rote memory,
only the words are remembered without their meaning. A word and its meaning memory
is better than rote memory and in this memory, the direction is from the word to its
meaning. According to KLTA language is first created out of dispositional reality for
constructing experiential reality and then by the principle of reversal of order language is
used to construct experiential reality: remembering language in that experiential
perspective helps to retain the linguistic system in long term memory better.
In our daily life, we already have the first language to construct our experiential reality
but we need an alternate language to do so (in second language acquisition) and
therefore to facilitate easier, quicker and efficient learning we make use of both the first
language and experiential reality (as in the primitive stages of language development) to
construct second language reality. The only difference is that in second language
acquisition, there is already an established lingual reality as the background which is
not there in the first language creation. Consequently, the signified (or va:chyam in
Sanskrit) is remembered as the word in KLTA by using experiential memory because the
va:sana:s which impel man to a specific type of action without an antecedent or a
precedent cause are stored in ka:rmik memory. To explain it further, in rote memory a
word is memorized without its meaning; in a word-meaning memory, both the word
and its meaning are remembered; but in an experiential memory, the experience of the
object/state of being/action is remembered as the word/sentence.
Here, the direction is from the experience of an object/state of being/ action to the word:
(2) Action Language. For example, the word milk is remembered as the word milk
in rote memory; milk as a white drinking liquid from an animal in word-meaning memory;
and the object (the white liquid drunk) as milk; the action of drinking (milk) as drinking; or the
state of relaxation as joy in experiential memory – it has a connection with the direct
method and task-based instruction in teaching which was not mentioned in those methods
but in KLTA it is used as one of the techniques in memorization. Experiential
memorization is possible for only those objects/actions/states of being experienced or
easily available for experience. However, it can be used to establish syntactic memory
and even lexical memory by association techniques. For example, the memory of present
continuous tense of write can be easily taught by enacting writing by the students and
moon walking by simulated walking on the floor. Experiential memory is a good aid to
establish long term memory and therefore by generating language through salient
experiences will help in establishing strong language habits. Since lingual memory is
easier and stronger than actional memory, and since we are now culturally trained to be
more lingually memorizing, action reinforces language and it is likely to be remembered
quickly and longer.
B. Design
1. Objectives
Richards and Rodgers (1983) summarize Yalden’s classification (1983) of
communicative language teaching into 8 types out of which:
a. Wilkins (1976): structures + functions;
b. Brumfit (1980): functional spiral around a structural core;
c. Allen (1980): structural, functional, and instrumental, and
d. Jupp and Hodlin (1975): functional
deal with structural, functional, and instrumental types of syllabus. Wilkins (1976) deals
with the first type of notional syllabus whereas Widdowson (1979) criticizes such a
syllabus and proposes an interactional type of syllabus while Prabhu (1983) worked on
task-based syllabus. In addition, Candlin (1976), and Henner-Stanchina and Riley (1978)
proposed a learner generated syllabus.
The objectives in KLTA are both general and particular, and beyond them where the
general includes the particular and the particular embodies the general and both of
them are transcended by the goal beyond them. By taking no level of learning for
granted, the particular needs of the individual learners are taken care of; and again by
being broad and comprehensive, the general needs are taken care of. When the
particular needs interfere with the general objectives, they are appendixed to the
general objectives. All of them are networked to cater for the ultimate goal of
constructing the experiential reality which is beyond.
2. The Syllabus
A very crucial factor in design is the implementation of the Networks – within-
Networks Principle and the Atomic-Holistic Functionality Principle. The entire syllabus
has to be designed as a whole and at the same time it has to be designed with each of its
parts functioning as a whole at its own level: there should be Atomic-Holistic
Functionality. All the same, each part should have its own internal network which
should be a part of a major network at a higher level. Each function contributes to the
larger function in the network. For example, phonology evolves into lexis, and lexis into
syntax, and all of them into semantics and discourse. Furthermore, lexical items and
grammatical items, and semantic items should be networked together at a higher level
to produce a network of sentence structure and then discourse structure. At the same
time, each one at its own level should have its own network. Web networking is also
recommended if it is not complex. For example, words that function as nouns are
selected from an ESP text and these words are turned into noun phrases containing
articles. Here, articles are a separate section and independent at their own level but they
form a part of the network of noun phrases at a higher level. At the level of the noun
phrase, it is independent at its own level but it will be a part of a clause/sentence section
… and so on. This is one network – a formal network. It has to be interconnected-
interrelated with another network, say, the functional network which deals with speech
acts and implicature in a context, and the contextual network that contains the formal and
functional networks has its own network of the immediate, wider, and global contexts, and
finally it ends up in a discourse network with its own internal structural networks of
speech acts, turns, and exchanges in conversation and sentence, paragraph, and essay,
and so on in composition. This systemic network should again be interconnected-
interrelated with the dispositional network with its own internal network of desires,
lingual action, coordination of action, result, and experience to produce the Networks-
within-Networks grid. In addition, each sub-unit can be further broken down into
smaller networks, for example, desires into a network of lingual, and non-lingual;
lingual desires into general and specific; and specific into EST, EAP, etc.
A typical lesson in the KLTA consists of three major parts in a top-down process: 1.
Experiential Reality; 2. Dispositional Reality; and 3. Actional Reality each consisting of the
other in an a:nushangik process (the cause inherited into the effect like clay in the pot)
but presented in a bottom-up process for convenience. This is in accordance with the
fundamental principle that language is used as a resource for the construction of
actional reality at the lower level, dispositional reality at the middle level, and
experiential reality at the higher level.
(3) Experiential Reality Dispositional Reality Actional Reality.
Each lesson is interconnected and interrelated with the following lesson and becomes a
part of the next lesson in its functional structure; in a similar way, each lesson can be
devolved into the preceding lesson by removing the new content of the following lesson.
This process continues until the last lesson. For example, if the first lesson is about
articles (syntax), it will be a very short lesson introducing the articles a/an and the and
they will be related to the articles in the native language (say, the articles in Arabic). The
second lesson/section will be about the Noun Phrase which contains nouns (+ articles).
If the lesson deals with the basic noun phrase, it deals with count and non-count nouns
and specific and generic reference as parts of it at its own level but still contains articles. If
the text is an ESP text, say, English for Science and Technology: English for Civil
Engineering/Architectural Engineering to ESL learners, the lexical items chosen will be
from, say, a house with a gloss in the native language. Here lexis, syntax, and semantics go
together. When these noun phrases are presented in a conversation/composition drill,
discourse practice leading to experience takes place. By introducing choice of lexical
items in the conversation, dispositional creativity will not be neglected. In a similar way
by introducing games, competitions, etc. the interest will be sustained and boredom
minimized. What is more, at the level of lexis, another network-within-networks will be
formed which is related to different types of houses, buildings, and so on. On a parallel
process, the students will be motivated to prepare their own extensive ESP word lists in
their own leisure time and submit them for marking. This will build up a good
vocabulary basis for them in due course of time. The concerned lecturers (Non-English
teachers, say, Lecturer of Building Construction, Soil Mechanics, etc) will refer to some
of the important words in their native language and give the English equivalents during
their lecture in a casual way. As the syllabus is developed, all the four levels are made
interconnected-interrelated-interdependent in an economical, elegant, and effective way to
save time, bring in order, and generate systematic and effective learning.
Part III: Actional Reality
It consists of three sections: 1. Form; 2. Function; and 3. Semantics.
In each section, the concerned words, and sentences along with their functions are
introduced. The aim of this part is to enable the learner acquire formal knowledge
(grammatical competence). This is concerned with the what-aspect of language, that is, the
form and content of language.
Phonology Speech Acts
1 2 3
Form Lexis Function Semantics L. Action

Syntax Implicature
Fig. 1: Actional Reality Network
Part II: Dispositional Reality
It consists of three sections: 1. Context; 2. Discourse: a. Spoken; b. Written; and 3. Traits. In
each section, the formal knowledge acquired will be further augmented by its
application in a specified context through specific speech acts in a discourse structure. The
aim of this part is to enable the learner acquire functional skills in language use (functional
or communicative competence). This is concerned with the how-aspect of language, that is,
the processing or application of language in a context.
Speech Act

Immediate Spoken Turn

1 2 3
Context Wider Discourse Exchange
Sentence Traits
Global Pragmatic
Constraints Written Paragraph

Essay
Fig. 1: Dispositional Reality Network
1. CONTEXT
a. Preparation of the Materials
The context can be divided into immediate, wider, and global levels. These levels are
relative but can be broadly defined. The immediate context is the context in which the
syllabus is going to be taught. It is the classroom situation in a particular educational
institution. It can be a single group or multiple groups. For example, a textbook of
secondary school English in state secondary schools. This is constrained by the
influence of all the four aspects of teacher-student-(educational) materials-administration
network obtained in that particular educational institution. There is a difference
between this context and the immediate context in the text which is related to its internal
structure within the lesson in the text.
The wider context is the context in which the syllabus is framed and implemented. It is the
ministry/directorate of education which oversees the teaching-learning-materials
production-administration in a region. For example, it is the ministry of state secondary
school education in a state. The regional levels can be hierarchically considered in a top-
down process from the apex body to its lower level administrative networks. For
example, the branches in district educational centers. Sometimes, the apex body may be
within the own educational institution if it is autonomous, or it can be outside if it is
not. For example, universities in a particular country offering post-graduate courses.
There is a difference between this context and the wider context in the text which is
related to its internal structure across the lessons in the text.
The global context is the context in which the syllabus is compared and contrasted with
other syllabuses of the same subject at the same level but in different organizations. It can be
within a particular region/state/country or internationally. For example, the syllabus of
secondary schools run by a state school and the syllabus of secondary schools run by
the central government in India and the syllabus of secondary schools run by another
country such as the U.K., or Nigeria or Libya. There is a difference between this context
and the global context of the text which is related to its external structure across the other
subjects in the course. For example, in an ESP course of English for EST, its relation to
the concerned subjects in engineering and technology within a branch.
b. Content of the Materials
In the content, the same networking of networks-within-networks and atomic-
(w)holistic functionality will be applied. The content of the materials should be context
sensitive. The immediate context of the content is the subject matter that they are going
to read for passing in the examinations; the wider context of the content is the use to
which the materials can be put in their relevant area of study. For example, in an ESP
textbook on civil engineering, the wider context is the context of the application of the
linguistic knowledge obtained from the materials in understanding and expressing the
ideas in their relevant field of education. The global context of the content is the
inherent ability of the materials to prepare the students to creatively apply this
knowledge to any other area of study above their given level of learning. It means a
further creative application/transfer of these acquired skills to new areas of knowledge.
2. DISCOURSE
Discourse is constrained at both the spoken and written levels by pragmatic constraints
and style. The entire network of the teaching-learning-information-administration is
carried out by that discourse which is affirmative in action, and optimal in its results. A
positive ka:rmik field (a field of learning experience that is enjoyable, productive, and
useful) is created by appropriate discourse strategies and discourse structures. To do so
in the context of learning the required pragmatic constraints in the use of literary,
colloquial, vulgar and offensive language; the rules governing social relations, situation
and status, and setting in the field of discourse have to be carefully implemented.
Network 1 for Pragmatic Constraints in a Conversational Exchange

L S Older
o Age Peer
Type of i
t c Younger
C/Exchange
K EK e i
Pragmatic
a Male
Constraints r Sex
l Eunuch
a
Female
r R
y e Social Superior
l Status Peer
A distinction between vulgar and
offensive language is that the latter a Inferior
does not contain taboo words t
C i Shared +
(lexicon) but contains images and
themes that are offensive to the o o Knowledge _
listener depending on differences in l n Formal
age, sex and social status according to s Informal
l
the cultural norms. Situation & Status Intimate
o
q Geographical
[K knowledge; EK Exchange u Setting
Social
Knowledge] i
- Solemn (Setting)
a + Intimate (Situation)
l Vulgar
Peer, Sex, Age, Social
Relation (Social Status)
(Adapted from Bhuvaneswar 1999) Offensive * - Solemn (Setting)
(Literary or - Formal (Situational)
Colloquial) Peer
(Social Relation, Age, Sex, Social Status)
In the case of learning, the students should gain communicative competence to further
use it to gain experiential (ka:rmik) competence. In the development of conversational
skills, the learners should master the knowledge of pragmatic constraints; in the case of
writing skills, the learner should master the various skills of composition according to
their level of learning. These skills have to be integrated into the concerned syllabus. In
the case of ESP syllabus, the writing skills are geared towards acquiring the specific
skills of the register.
The pragmatic constraints apply for both literary and colloquial speech as well as
vulgar and offensive language; cover various relations such as age, sex, social status,
shared knowledge, and situation and status and setting. (For a details, see Bhuvaneswar
1999). A network for such pragmatic constraints is given above in Network 1.
3. TRAITS
Traits are needed for generating the appropriate dispositional impulsions for creating
the appropriate desires to produce the appropriate lingual action to coordinate the
contextual action for its subsequent experience. All the skills acquired at the two levels
mentioned above should be I-I-Ily networked with the concerned traits to produce the
desired lingual action for performing action. For example, the lingual desire is to pass in
the ESP / General English examination (or to learn a particular grammatical point as
sub-desire). This is to fulfill a non-lingual desire to become an engineer/officer by getting
a degree. In order to pass in the examination, a student has to acquire the English
language skills; in order to acquire these skills, he has to read the syllabus. To explain it
further, the student is performing lingual action to fulfill a lingual desire which is done
so to further fulfil a non-lingual desire. To produce these traits, the syllabus maker has
to do a needs analysis and based on that the required tasks have to be built into the
syllabus. This involves a multidimensional networking of the needs of the learner, their
fulfillment by the appropriate and necessary teaching materials, relevant teaching
methods, and a learner-friendly administrative ambience.
General
Lingual EST Coordination of Action
Desires Specific Result Experience
Traits Non-lingual EAP ….

Lingual Action
Network 3 for Traits-Desire-Lingual Action
C. A Typical Lesson in a KLTA Syllabus consists of Three (dealing with learning) +
Two (dealing with practice and evaluation) parts. Part I consists of five sections dealing
with a. desire specification, leading to b. knowledge acquisition, leading to c. knowledge
application and skill acquisition, leading to d. coordination of action (for the construction of
dispositional reality), and e. dispositional reality construction leading to f. experience of action.
Desire Knowledge Acquisition Skill Acquisition Coordination of Action
Experience.
Within Part I, knowledge acquisition consists of three sections dealing with a. form, b.
function, and c. meaning; again, knowledge application and skill acquisition consists of two
sections dealing with a. context specification and b. discourse construction. In Part II,
different exercises are given for practice and establishing the concerned lingual habits
for coordination of action. In this part, there will be guidelines and hints for practice.
Part III is devoted for testing and evaluation without any guidelines or hints. The whole
lesson is interconnected-interrelated-interdependent on each network-within-network
in an atomic-wholistic functional framework.
In a Ka:rmik Language Teaching Syllabus, there is a prototypicalization of the desires
from a needs analysis but their fulfillment is individually categorized according to the
knowledge and skill of the learner. Thus, there is no fossilization of skills but only a
creative expansion of them from a lower level to a higher level by variation in
vocabulary, syntax, and structure.
Unlike CLT syllabus which is “ a grammatically based syllabus around which notions,
functions, and communicational activities are grouped (Brumfit 1980)”, KLT syllabus is
an experience based syllabus around which the forms, functions, and processes are
grouped to construct one’s dispositional reality for realizing the desired creative
experience.
D. Types of Learning and Teaching Activities
Similar to the learning and teaching activities in CLT, the activities in KLTA are also
means to achieve the goals specified in the desires. The means are open ended but
limited to desire fulfillment – i.e., you chooses any optimum/familiar means related to
the specific goal and generalize the means according to your dispositional convenience.
It accepts functional communication activities, and social interaction activities within
dispositional realization activity.
Dispositional Realization Form Function Meaning Process Product
Dispositional Realization Social Interaction Functional Communication
Formal Structuration
E. Learner Roles
In CLT learner roles are jointly negotiated roles – not individualistic. In KLT, they are
first teacher – directed, next individual, and finally collaborative. There is a gradation in the
achievement of the goal: first, individuals enact their roles through teacher guidance;
next, individually; then, through collaboration; and finally without any guidance or
collaboration.
F. Teacher Roles
In CLT, a teacher is: i. a facilitator of communication process;
ii. An independent participant who is a. an organizer of resources; b. a guide for
classroom procedures and activities; c. a researcher and learner; and d. a needs analyst,
a counselor, and a group process manager.
In KLT, the teacher is: i. a centre of all activity in the beginning who becomes the
circumference at the end by bringing in the learner to the centre for learning and binding
him to be within limits. There is a shifting of roles.
ii. He is the captain of the team and works with the team gently as a friend in need but
leads them firmly to score the points in learning. As a team captain, he organizes,
counsels, and helps.
iii. He knows the strengths and weaknesses of his team (students primarily, and the
administration and the society secondarily) through personal interaction and leads the
team to win the game. He is also a psychologist in negotiating the game tactics.
G. The Role of Instructional Materials
The instructional materials in CLT are viewed as “a way of influencing the quality of
classroom interaction and language use”; they are text-based, task-based, and realia in
their nature.
In KLT, the instructional materials are a node in the teacher-learner-materials-
administration network to bring about learning. They are closely bound by the goals set
in the aims and objectives of the course. What is to be learnt is provided in the
instructional materials through the how of KLT to realize the why of it. As has already
been pointed out, they function to facilitate knowledge and skill acquisition and help
the learner to construct his dispositional academic reality. In KLT, the emphasis is on an
enactment of the dispositional use of language in a context.
H. Procedure
The techniques, classroom management procedures, activities and exercise types which
are used in CLT are not exclusive to CLT only. In KLT, a number of group activities,
language games, and role plays are also used in a similar way. However, the emphasis
is on an integrated networking of these activities to achieve the main goal through time
management within the classroom and outside. More provision is made to learn
through outside the classroom activities at home/ in the hostel/public places. Local cultural
games, get-togethers are exploited to teach the language items for fun and pastime. For
example, kids like to play a simple game like Bab Hadeed (a Libyan game) in their leisure
time and it is used to teach vocabulary, grammar, and semantics. In a similar way,
Guess the Name of the Word game is used to augment vocabulary learning. Tish is another
game that is played in different forms in many countries.
The style of discourse is also a very important factor in the design of discourse
strategies and structures. It is connected with the trait maxim in Ka:rmatics (Ka:rmik
Pragmatics). It can be captured in the Network 2 given below.
Network 2 for Style in Conversation: The Trait Maxim
Action
Type
Reaction

Cooperation
Class Neutrality
Non-Cooperation
Challenge
Polite
Manner
Impolite

Standard

Colloquial Register

Taboo

The Trait Maxim Style Poetic

Prosaic

Figurative Genre

Literary

Impact on knowledge More

Quantity Required
Less
True
Content Quality
Action False
Form
(Bhuvaneswar 1999) Relevance
The style in written discourse is governed by its own rules of composition. Below is
given a simple network for composition at the paragraph level.

Title Beginning (Deductive Para (DP)

Topic Sentence
End (Inductive Para (IP))
Composition
(Lesson) Beginning (DP)

Supporting Sentences Middle

End
Paragraph(s)
(Bhuvaneswar 1999)
Network 4 for Composition
IV. Conclusion
According to Richards and Rodgers (1982: 83), CLT is an approach rather than a method
and many issues relating to teacher training, materials development, and testing and
evaluation have to be clarified. On the other hand, KLT is a new approach which can be
a method but it has to be intensively tested to see how far it fares better than other
methods.
In the Appendix, a list of the important general principles related to teaching,
organization of the teaching materials, and time management are given below.

Appendix I
KLTA: General Principles
A. Teaching
1. Conscious Use and Practice of Language
2. Simple-Complex-Challenging but not Difficult Method of Processing the Lesson
3. a. Chunking by Selection and Interrelation; b. Linking by Gradation and Interconnection; c. Integration
of the Form [Phonetics/Phonology-Lexis-Syntax-Semantics-Discourse Structure] by Interdependence
4. Networking of LSRW by Interconnection-Interrelation-Interdependence
5. Application by Simulated Dispositional Contextualization
6. Dispositionalization by Application and Practice to Establish Lingual Va:sana:s by Functional Memory
through Attention and Repetition
7. Gradual Evolution in all Areas
i. Causal; ii. Dynamic; iii. Holistic; iv. Synoptic; v. Ka:rmik Evolution
[(Disposition – Desire to Teach the Lesson) - (L-S-R-W/PhPhon-L-Sy-Se ) – Discourse in Context-
Lingual Activity- Desire Fulfilment); v. Discoure Goal Oriented : Spoken (Conversation and Writing)
8. Class Management
a. Blackboard Management and Graphics
i. Division of the Blackboard into Sections of [Phonetics/Phonology-Lexis-Syntax-Semantics-Discourse
Structure] as a whole if the board is big or part-wise if it is small;
 ii. Using Flowcharts, Diagrams, and Figures, and Equations for Summaries and Important points;
iii. Correct, Neat, Clean and Legible Handwriting is Crucial – Punctuation Marks to be Correctly Shown
Always;
b. Conversation Control
i. Focussed Conversation using the key words, sentence patterns, and intonation;
ii. Superimposing Conversation on the Writing on the Blackboard for Key Items
iii. Networking Conversation with Repetition-Writing (on the Blackboard+ Notebook + Textbook)
iv. Phasal Coordination: 1. By the Teacher; 2. Teacher and Students (Repetition); 3. Students and
Teacher; 4. Students and Students (Dual and All) ; and 5. Students (Individually) according to Time;
c. Memory Control
1. Contextual Exposure of the Learning Item; 2. Regulated Practice; 3. Periodic Recall; 4. Fixation as
Alternate Va:sana
d. Flexible Temperament
i. Friendly Atmosphere
a. Student Welfare Friendly; b. Student Trait Friendly (Motivation); c. Student Knowledge Friendly
(System Acquisition; d. Student Practice Friendly (mastery of the Skill)
ii. Adaptable Techniques by Discerning the Difficulties in Learning (Different Strokes for Different
Folks)
iii. Going the Extra Mile Attitude in the Teaching
iv. Gentle but Firm Personality Harmoniztion with the Students
e. Interest Sustenance by Variety and Involvement and Competition;
f. Classroom
i. Clean and Well Ventilated Rooms
ii. Visual Aids (Posters, Pictures, Strips) on the Walls;
g. Learner-centered and Open-ended in Techniques but Goal Oriented in the Process
h. Star Networking and Anushangik Processing

B. Organization of the Teaching Materials

1. Lesson Organization
i. Networking All the Levels in the Lesson according to KLTA
ii. Practice according to KLTA:
1. Citation of Words – Tautological Repetition – Code [Mixing –Switching - Swapping]
2. Exposure by Citation – Contextual Citation – Individual Contextual Application – Conscious
Repetition of Application – Recall – Retention -Evaluation
3. Graded Reading Materials for Comprehension
4. Listening - Reading – Writing – Speaking – Recall
iii. Meticulous, Rigorous and Graded Presentation of the Materials in the Self-Learning Model: Nothing
is Taken for Granted; Review of Background Knowledge as a Prerequisite
iii. Evaluation and Application by KLTA

C. Networking the Time Structure

1. [Classroom – Outside the Classroom – Home] Time
2. [Student – Teacher – Friends – Authorities- Public] Time
 References
Allen, J. P. B. (1980). A Three Level Curriculum Model for Second Language Education, Mimeo. Ontario:
Modern Language Center, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Bhuvaneswar, Chilukuri (2003). “Meaning” the Proverb: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Approach. Hyderabad: The
Proverbial Linguistic Group
Bhuvaneswar, Chilukuri (2007). “Learning and Teaching English through Proverbs: A Ka:rmik
Linguistic Approach”. In Down the Proverb Lane A Festschrift for Mieder at 62, Volume II. Hyderabad and
Vermont: The Proverbial Linguistic Group. (in press)
Brumfit, C. (1980). “From Defining to Designing: Communicative Specifications Versus Communicative
Methodology in Foreign language Teaching”. In K. Muller (ed.), The Foreign Language Syllabus and
Communicative Approaches to Teaching: Proceedings of a European-American Seminar. Special Issue of
Studies in second Language Acquistion, 3(1): 1-9
Cook, Guy (2010). Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Johnson, K. (1982). Communicative Syllabus Design and Methodology. Oxford: Pergamon
------- (1984). Skill Psychology and Communicative Methodology. Paper Presented at the RELC
Seminar, Singapore
Jupp, T. C. and Hodlin, S. (1975). Industrial English: An Example of Theory and Practice in Functional
Language Teaching. London: Hienemann
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practices in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon
Littleood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers Theodore S. (1988). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. Reading, Mass.: Addison-
Wesley
Widdowson, H. G. (1979). “The Communicative Approach and Its Applications”. In H. G. Widdowson,
Explorations in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Prabhu, N. S. (1983). “Procedural Syllabuses”. Paper Presented at the RELC Seminar. Singapore: RELC.
Candlin, C. N. (1976). “Communicative Language Teaching and Its Debt to Pragmatics”. In C. Rameh
(ed.), Georgetown University Round Table 1976. Washington, D.C. : Georgetown University Press
Henner-Stanchina, C and Riley, P. (1978). “Aspects of Autonomous Learning”. In ELT Documents 103:
Individualization in Language Learning. London: British Council. 75 -97
Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional Syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Yalden, J. (1983). The Communicative Syllabus: Evolution, Design and Implementation. Oxford: Pergamon