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-learneradministration-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 interconnectedinterrelated-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 ones 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 Language (L) = Sum of the Parts L 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 ones 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 ones 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 typetoken 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 wordsto-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-fordifferent 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 Yaldens classification 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

(1983)

of

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 withinNetworks 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 interconnectedinterrelated 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 interconnectedinterrelated with the dispositional network with its own internal network of desires, lingual action, coordination of action, result, and experience to produce the Networkswithin-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 1 Form Lexis Syntax 2 Function 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 1 Context Wider Global 2 Discourse Pragmatic Constraints Spoken Turn 3 Exchange Sentence Written Paragraph Traits Speech Acts 3 Semantics L. Action

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 topdown 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 i t e r a r y
S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s Age Older Peer Younger Male Eunuch Female Superior Peer Inferior + _ Formal Informal Intimate Geographical Social - Solemn (Setting) + Intimate (Situation) Peer, Sex, Age, Social Relation (Social Status) - Solemn (Setting) - Formal (Situational) Peer (Social Relation, Age, Sex, Social Status)

EK

Type of C/Exchange Pragmatic Constraints

Sex

Social Status

A distinction between vulgar and offensive language is that the latter does not contain taboo words (lexicon) but contains images and themes that are offensive to the listener depending on differences in age, sex and social status according to the cultural norms.

[K knowledge; EK Exchange Knowledge]

C o l l o q u i a l

Shared Knowledge

Situation & Status Setting

Vulgar
Offensive * (Literary or Colloquial)

(Adapted from Bhuvaneswar 1999)

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 Desires Traits Specific Non-lingual EST EAP <. Coordination of Action Result Experience

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.

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 ones 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 choose 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;

Desire

Knowledge Acquisition

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-materialsadministration 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 Non-Cooperation Challenge Polite Manner Impolite Standard Colloquial Taboo The Trait Maxim Style Poetic Prosaic Figurative Literary Impact on knowledge Quantity More Required Less True False Form (Bhuvaneswar 1999) Relevance Genre Register Neutrality

Content Action

Quality

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 Topic Sentence Composition (Lesson) Supporting Sentences Beginning (Deductive Para (DP) End (Inductive Para (IP)) Beginning (DP) 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 I, 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 ContextLingual Activity- Desire Fulfilment); v. Discourse 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.: AddisonWesley 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