Communicative Language Teaching

Introduction
Everybody has learned mother tongue since childhood. The process occurs naturally and
properly in communicating in the society. Communication is a part of human’s daily activities.
Through communication, people share ideas and thought with others. In that way, active
interaction among people can take place. In line with the more sophisticated world, people are
demanded to be able to communicate not only in mother tongue but also in foreign language,
especially English. Obviously English is difficult due to limited knowledge in foreign language.
On the other hand as an international language, English is used to communicate
information in science and technology. Moreover, English is also very important in education
and business world.
What is communication?
Communication may be regarded as a combination of acts, a series of elements with
purpose and intent. Communication is not merely an event, something that happens; it is
functional, purposively, and designed to bring about some effect, some change, however subtle
or unobservable on the environment of hearers and speakers. (Brown 2000:250)
Communication is defined as “the exchange and negotiation of information between at
least two individuals… (it) involves the continuous evaluation and negotiation of meaning on the
part of the participants” as well as “a reduction of uncertainty” (Canale,1983, p.4).
According to Canale (1983), communication has the following characteristics: it
a) is a form of social interaction
b) involves a high degree of unpredictability and creativity
c) takes place in discourse and sociocultural contexts
d) is carried out under limiting psychological and other constraints
e) always has a purpose
f) involves authentic language
g) is judged as successful or not on the basis of actual outcomes
It is these characteristics that gave way to the birth of the term “Communicative Competence
(CC)”, which later formed the basis and rationale for the Communicative Approach in language
teaching profession.
What is communicative competence?
Communicative competence is fundamental for a successful life in our society as it is of
great importance for all areas of life.
The term communicative competence was put forward by Dell Hymes (1971) to contrast
with Chomsky’s characterization of linguistic competence. In Chomsky’s view, competence
means the mastery of the linguistic or abstract systems of rules by which a person is able to
understand and produce grammatically correct sentences of his language.
Hymes (1972) broadens the notion of competence. He argues that a person who acquires
communicative competence acquires both the linguistic knowledge and the ability of using the
language with respect to four factors. They are grammatical (what is formally possible),
psycholinguistic (what is feasible in terms of human information processing), sociocultural (what
is the social meaning or value of a given utterance), and probabilistic (what actually occurs)
systems of competence. Hymes’ concept of competence offers a much more comprehensive
picture than Chomsky’s restricted notion of competence, which deals primarily with abstract
grammatical knowledge.
Hymes’ use of the term started a revolution in language teaching and linguistic theory:
many other scholars and linguists proposed their model and definition of the notion.
Communicative competence is the aim of Communicative Approach, as Canale and
Swain (1980) defined it:
… The communicative approach … is … an integrative one in which emphasis is on
preparing second language learners to exploit — initially through aspects of
sociolinguistic competence and strategic competence acquired through experience in
communicative use of the first or dominant language — those grammatical features of the
second language that are selected on the basis of, among other criteria, their grammatical
and cognitive complexity, transparency with respect to communicative function,
probability of use by native speakers, generalizability to different communicative
functions and contexts, and relevance to the learners’ communicative needs in the second
language. (p.29)
The focus on meaning and purpose through the learners’ exposure to authentic language
was first introduced in the late 1970s under the influence of the sociolinguistic theory of
communicative competence by Dell Hymes. In an effort to interrelate what he believed to be
essential to true communicative learning, Hymes (1972) coined the term “communicative
competence.” Through this term, Hymes was able to emphasize the importance of a language
user not only being able to apply and use grammatical rules but also to form correct utterances
and know how to use them appropriately.
The recognition of context as an essential component of the communicative spectrum
would then require a more all-inclusive definition of communicative competence. While many
definitions of communicative competence continue to emerge, Hymes’ initial acknowledgement
of the role of context in communication serves as a frame of reference in present-day
communicative teaching (Savignon 1997). According to Hymes (1974), Chomsky’s emphasis on
grammatical competence was not to be neglected but instead accompanied by the
acknowledgement of meaning in communication determined by a particular speech community
and the content of the interaction. In addition to producing grammatically correct utterances, one
must also know “when to speak, when not,...what to talk about with whom, when, where, in what
manner” (Hymes 1972).
Canale and Swain (1980) defined communicative competence by categorizing its
components into four main aspects of competence: grammatical, sociolinguistic, and strategic.
Grammatical competence addresses the linguistic knowledge and ability to effectively use the
grammatical structures in communication. This competence is largely based on Chomsky’s
understanding of linguistic competence. It includes knowledge of syntactic, phonological,
semantic, and morphological patterns or rules of the language. Sociolinguistic competence refers
to the extent to which utterances are produced and understood appropriately in different
sociolinguistic contexts depending on contextual factors. However, as sociolinguistics is a
considerably broad discipline, many researchers have consolidated its definition to solely refer to
the recognition and use of appropriate varieties of the language. Strategic competence is the
ability to recognize and repair breakdowns in communication and how to circumnavigate the
gaps in one’s knowledge of the language.
Later, Canale and Swain (1983) introduced an additional competence type to the
spectrum: discourse competence. Discourse competence takes into account the sociocultural
context of the communicative act. Due to the undeniable role of socio-cultural knowledge in
sociolinguistic competence, there is a clear overlap between discourse and sociolinguistic
competence. Hornberger (1989) notes that both types of competence address appropriate use of
the language, therefore exhausting the concept by redundancy.
The most current framework and that which this study concerns itself with is that of
Bachman (1990). Through a restructuring of the former framework models, Bachman
categorized communicative competence into three main subdivisions of competences:
organizational competence, strategic competence, and pragmatic competence. Organizational
competence is also divided into two principal categories: grammatical competence and
contextual competence. While grammatical competence had already been introduced in previous
competence schemas, the addition of contextual competence highlighted the importance of the
structural aspect of the language. This type of competence concerns itself with the rules of
cohesion of grammatical forms and word meaning. Strategic competence can be classified into
three main categories: assessment, planning and execution. These components can be practiced
to compensate for the two other types of competences. Specifically, it is executed when the
speaker uses strategic tools such as circumlocution to effectively communicate a particular
utterance. The last of the competences, pragmatic competence, is perhaps the most salient and
relevant to this study. This competence entails knowledge of both pragmatic and sociolinguistic
conventions to perform acceptable language functions as well as perform these functions
appropriately (Bachman 1990).
What is communicative language teaching?
The origins of CLT are to be found in the reaction to the inadequacy of the syllabus
design and the linguistic and pedagogical theory of language teaching in Britain in the late
1960s.
An important stimulus for changing the way we teach language came during the 1970s
when linguists and language educators began a reappraisal of language itself. According to
Nunan (1998), “During the 1970s, a much richer conceptualization of language began to emerge.
Language was seen as a system for the expression of meaning, and linguists began to analyze
language as a system for the expression of meanings, rather than as a system of abstract syntactic
rules.” (Nunan 1998, p.9)
“Students were often found to be unable to transfer skills acquired through
Audiolingualism to real communication outside the classroom, and many found the experience
of studying through udiolingual procedures to be boring and unsatisfying” (Richards & Rodgers,
2001, p. 65).
From the beginning of the modern era of foreign language teaching, there have been
many methods attempting to respond to the need to teach languages for purposes of
communication. In English Language Teaching (ELT), there has long been a debate about the
appropriateness of many of the methods used by language teachers and scholars and pervasive
changes to teaching practice over the last forty years have resulted from an approach generally
known as Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Its emergence was a great challenge to the
two dominant approaches at the time, namely British Situational Language Teaching and the
American Audio-lingual Method. In line with Chomsky’s criticisms of structural theories of
language (Chomsky, 1957), applied linguists and practitioners began to question both approaches
as merely focusing on the mastery of structures, with mechanical practices such as drilling being
considered as insufficient in terms of enhancing the real-life communicative proficiency of
language learner (McDonough and Shaw, 1993). This led applied linguists to focus attention on
the functional and communicative potential of a language and raised the issue of how to
articulate learners’ linguistic knowledge and actual communicative performance effectively with
a new approach.
For many years the goal of second/foreign language teaching has been the mastery of
grammar rules. Grammar rules were taught explicitly and learners were expected to develop
structural accuracy on the language. According to Brown (1983:70), in a traditional grammar
oriented classroom “the focus is on the language itself, rather than on the information which is
carried by the language. The teacher’s goal is to see to it that students learn the vocabulary and
grammatical rules of the target language”.
However, teachers and subject specialists have faced problems in this traditional teaching
method. Brumfit and Johnson (1970:192) state “… the problem of the students who may be
structurally competent but who cannot communicate appropriately”. Hence, there should have
been changes in language teaching methods from concentrating on developing only grammatical
competence to presenting the language in such a way that learners also master communicative
competence.
Harmer (1987) describes: “In recent years the emphasis has shifted away from the
teaching of grammar. Teachers have concentrated on other issues, such as how people learn
languages and what they want to say. Many teachers and writers discussed these questions and
generally created a new way of looking at teaching called the communicative approach”.
(Harmer 1987:4)
Communicative Language Teaching makes use of real-life situations that necessitate
communication. The teacher sets up a situation that students are likely to encounter in real life.
The real-life simulations change from day to day. Students’ motivation to learn comes from their
desire to communicate in meaningful ways about meaningful topics. Wilkins, a British linguist
proposed a communicative definition of language serves as a basis for developing
communicative syllabuses for language teaching. Instead of describing the core of language
through traditional concepts of grammar and vocabulary, Wilkins demonstrated the systems of
meanings that lay behind the communicative uses of language. The functional view of language
is the primary one behind the communicative method. The goal of language teaching is to
develop communicative competence, which involves being able to use the language
appropriately.
As discussed above, communicative competence, the desired goal of language learning,
includes minimally four areas of knowledge and skills: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic
competence, discourse competence and strategic competence. To facilitate the attainment of
these types of knowledge and skills for the learner, the integration of all four language skills,
listening, reading, speaking and writing, is necessary. Unlike traditional language teaching
methods, communicative teaching does not treat the four skills separately in the classroom. The
significance of integrating the four skills is reflected in the following statement:
In the communicative approach, all four skills are explicitly recognized as contributors to
communication in highly meaningful ways Communication takes place not just between
listeners and speakers but also readers and writers The communicative approach calls on
learners to develop all these skills (Oxford et al., 1989, p 34)
By integrating listening, reading, speaking and writing, learners can constantly combine them in
use as people use them in real life situations This in turn helps them develop and enrich their
skills of communication.
Communicative approach is not limited to oral skills. Reading and writing skills need to
be developed to promote pupils’ confidence in all four skills areas. Students work on all four
skills from the beginning, i.e., a given activity might involve reading, speaking, listening, and
perhaps also writing (Celce-Murcia 1991). Of course, oral communication is seen to take place
through negotiation between speaker and listener (most likely among students), so too is
interaction between the reader and writer, but no immediate feedback from the reader. Hence, in
the classroom, emphasis is given to oral and listening skills, as contact time with language is
important. It paves way for more fluid command of the language. Learners do not hear the
teacher all the time, but having personal contact themselves, practicing sounds themselves,
permutating sentence patterns and getting chance to make mistakes and learn from doing so. The
idea of emphasizing the oral skills creates uncertainty among teachers. They misconceived CLT
as if it were devoted to teaching only speaking. But, “CLT is not exclusively concerned with face
to face oral communication” (Savignon 2002:7). The principles of CLT apply equally to reading
and writing activities that engage readers and writers in the interpretation, expression, and
negotiation of meaning. In other words, it is important to recognize that it is not only the speaker
(or writer) who is communicating. Instead, communication through language happens in both the
written and spoken medium, and involves at least two people. Thompson (1996) further states
that, though there is a complaint that CLT ignores written language, a glance at recent
mainstream textbooks shows that reading and writing materials have been given attention too.
References:
 Brown, Douglas. (2000) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Longman. San
Francisco State University.
 Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In
J.C. Richards & R.Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication. (pp. 2-27). London:
Longman.
 Canale, Michael and Merrill Swain. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1: 1–47.
 Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). “Grammar Pedagogy in Second and Foreign Language Teaching.”
TESOL Quarterly 25/3:459-478.
 Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
 Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
 Hymes, D. H. (1971). On Communicative Competence. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
 McDonough, J. and Shaw, C. (1993) ‘Materials and Methods’ In ELT: A Teacher’s Guide.
Oxford: Blackwell.
 McDonough, J., & Shaw, C. (2003). Materials and methods in ELT (2nd ed.). Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing.
 Nunan, D. (1998). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle
 Oxford, R.L., Lavine, R.Z., & Crookall, D. (1989) Language Learning Strategies, the
Communicative Approach, and their classroom implications. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 29-
39.
 Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers, Theodore S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language
teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
 Savignon, S. (2002). “Communicative Curriculum Design for the 21st Century.” English
Teaching Forum 40/1: 2-7.
 Thompson, G. (1996). “Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching.” ELT
Journal 50/1: 9-15.
 Wong, Suk-fun. (1998) Teachers' perceptions of Communicative Language Teaching in Hong
Kong Secondary Language Classrooms: An Investigation into the Implementation of the
Syllabus for English (Forms I-V), September. University of Hong Kong.
