A Brief History of ELT: Part 2 - Communicative Language Teaching

In our previous post, we learned that current approaches to language teaching are deeply rooted their history. In this post, we define and explore the history of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), and discuss its strengths and weaknesses as it exists in today’s language classrooms.

CLT was born out of a void created by dissatisfaction for the Grammar-Translation and Audio-Lingual Method, and it is undeniable that it dominates the current sphere of English Language Teaching (ELT). Although the previous methods were proficient in providing their students with the ability to produce accurate models of English, they were unable to assist them in generating fluent, spontaneous, native-like speech (Hall, 2011, p. 93). The purpose of the Communicative Approach was to give these students the opportunity to focus on authentic language in use, and to provide them with the ability to produce ‘real’ language. Richards describes this shift as a movement away from “grammatical competence […] to the knowledge and skills needed to use grammar and other aspects of language appropriately for different communicative purposes” (Richards, 2006, p. 9).

The foundations of Communicative Language Teaching seem to have been influenced by a variety of factors, including Dell Hymes’ definition of communicative competence, Stephen Krashen’s Comprehensible Input Hypothesis, and Michael Long’s Interaction Hypothesis.

Communicative Competence

The term ‘communicative competence’ was initially coined by Dell Hymes in 1979 (Hymes, 1979). Criticising Chomsky for the narrow definition that he had given to linguistic competence in his book, Syntactic Structure, Hymes claimed that true mastery of a language required much more (1957, as cited in Hymes, 1979, p. 2). According to Hymes (1979), Chomsky had defined linguistic competence as the “tacit knowledge of language structure, that is, knowledge that is commonly not conscious or available for spontaneous report, but necessarily implicit in what the (ideal) listener can say” (Hymes, 1979, p. 7). Hymes on the other hand, stated that what language teachers should strive for is communicative competence; knowledge of the language structure as well as social knowledge regarding these structures, and the ability to use the language appropriately in a variety of contexts (Hymes, 1979). According to Canale and Swain, communicative competence describes four discrete skills; grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, strategic competence and discourse competence (Canale and Swain, 1980; Canale, 1983).

This can be illuminated by the example question, “Do you drink?” (Thornbury & Slade, 2006). A Chomskian understanding of this phrase would interpret it as a present simple question about a fact, whereas a Hymean understanding could also interpret it as an offer in some contexts. The concept of communicative competence foregrounds the importance of this type of knowledge in conjunction with Chomsky’s linguistic competence.

The Comprehensible Input Hypothesis

Much like Gouin’s Series Method from the turn of the century, Stephen Krashen’s Comprehensible Input Hypothesis was based upon what he observed to be similarities between L1 and L2 acquisition. He proposed that by creating an environment that was similar to that of children learning their first language, language lessons would be more successful. Presented as five hypotheses – the acquisition-learning hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis, the input hypothesis, and the affective filter hypothesis (Krashen, 1977, as cited in Krashen, 1981) – Krashen stated that languages could be acquired simply by exposing learners to “meaningful and motivating input that is just slightly beyond their current level of linguistic competence but sufficiently comprehensible for the learner to understand” (Spada, 2007, p. 274).

Krashen’s claims have since been widely criticised since they cannot be substantiated through empirical testing; however, the Comprehensible Input Hypothesis is often intuitively accepted by language teachers (Spada, 2007). It has undoubtedly had a strong influence on current practices in language teaching.

The Interaction Hypothesis

Two Male Friends Meeting In Busy Coffee Shop

Following in Krashen’s footsteps, Michael Long investigated interaction between native and non-native speakers, and between non-native speakers and other non-native speakers in the classroom. His goal was to determine the viability of interaction in the classroom as a form of comprehensible input. Based on his research and several other related studies, Long hypothesized that the process of negotiating meaning alone may be sufficient in acquiring a TL. Long also found that these effects were expedited by interaction which required all of its participants to receive information from each other (Long & Porter, 1985, p. 222).

Like Hymes’ definition of communicative competence, and Krashen’s Comprehensible Input Hypothesis, Long’s Interaction Hypothesis emphasized a focus on meaning over a focus on grammatical forms in the classroom. In combination with the 70s’ thirst for a new approach to language teaching, these ideas seem to have pushed the pendulum towards a preference for meaning-focused instruction. Although it is difficult to directly link these theories to the Communicative Approach, their sentiments are definitely evident in today’s communicative language classrooms (Spada, 2007).

Defining the Communicative Approach

According to Howatt, two versions of CLT exist; a strong form and a weak form (Howatt, 1984, p. 279). In its weak form, language structures are presented within the context of a specific “‘function’, ‘notion’ or ‘topic’” (Holliday, 1994, p. 170), which are thereafter practiced during a ‘communicative’ activity. Although the four skills are present, emphasis is placed on speaking, maximizing student talking time, and interaction. On the other hand, in the strong version of CLT, the word ‘communication’ is used to describe interaction between the learners and the target language. This is accomplished through input, and by prompting the students to accomplish tasks in the target language (Holliday, 1994, p. 171-172). To put this simply, in a weak approach to CLT, students are “learning to use English,” whereas in a strong approach to CLT they are “using English to learn it” (Howatt, 1984, p. 279).

While the strong version of CLT can still be found in some contexts (Task Based Language Teaching, Content Based Instruction), “it is the weak form that generally dominated, and perhaps still dominates, thinking within Western ELT” (Hall, 2011, p. 94). Without doubt, this is because the weak form of CLT is more practical and applicable to teaching materials than the strong form is. In the weak version of CLT, communicative materials can be built around a backbone of language focused aims, with language-focused activities surrounding “‘real’ and meaningful communication” (Howatt, 1984, p. 279).

Regardless of the version of CLT, Nunan has famously summarized CLT as being characterized by the following features:

An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language.
The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.
The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language, but also on the learning process itself.
An enhancement of the learner’s own personal experiences as important contributing elements to classroom learning.
An attempt to link classroom language learning with language activation outside the classroom. (Nunan, 1991 p. 279)

According to Lightbrown and Spada (1995), in a communicative environment:

There is a limited amount of error correction, and meaning is emphasized over form.
Input is simplified and made comprehensible by the use of contextual cues, props, and gestures, rather than through structural grading.
Learners usually have only limited time for learning. Sometimes, however, subject-matter courses taught through the second language can add time for language learning.
Contact with proficient or native speakers of the language is limited. As with traditional instruction, it is often only the teacher who is a proficient speaker. Learners have considerable exposure to the interlanguage of other learners. This naturally contains errors which would not be heard in an environment where the interlocutors are native speakers.
A variety of discourse types are introduced through stories, role playing, the use of ‘real-life’ materials such as newspapers and television broadcasts, and field trips.
There is little pressure to perform at high levels of accuracy, and there is often a greater emphasis on comprehension than on production, especially in the early stages of learning.
Modified input is a defining feature of this approach to instruction. The teacher in these classes makes every effort to speak to students at a level of language they can understand. In addition, other students speak a simplified language. (p.95, as cited in Senior 2006, p. 249)

Task-Based Language Teaching

Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) is a method which emerged as a natural extension of the strong version of CLT. Unlike in the weak version of CLT, a Task-Based syllabus is governed by a series of meaning-focused tasks – without any premeditated attention to specific language points. Rather than focusing on how to speak, the focus of TBLT is on what is to be said. Tasks become the vehicles of language development (Hall, 2011, p. 95-96).

Over the years, there has been some variation as to what exactly a definition of task should encompass (Breen, 1987; Ellis, 2003; Ellis, 2009; Littlewood, 2004; Williams and Burden, 1997). Skehan (1998), for example, proposed that a task is “an activity in which meaning is primary, there is a communication problem to solve, and the task is closely related to real-world activities” (Skehan, 1998, as cited in Belgar and Hunt, 2002, p. 100). Ellis (2001), on the other hand, provides a more comprehensive definition:

A task is a workplan that requires learners to process language pragmatically in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the correct or appropriate propositional content has been conveyed. To this end, it requires them to give primary attention to meaning and to make use of their own linguistic resources, although the design of the task may predispose them to choose particular forms. A task is intended to result in language use that bears a resemblance, direct or indirect, to the way language is used in the real world. Like other language activities, a task can engage productive or receptive, and oral or written skills, and also various cognitive processes (p. 16). According to Willis (1996), tasks are organized into three stages:

Pre-task: introduction to the topic.
Task cycle: learners carry out the task, plan their report back to the whole group and make their reports.
Language focus: learners analyse and practice the language that was used. (as cited in Hall, 2011, p. 96)

Belgar and Hunt (2002) write that pre-task activities are “essential for providing adequate support to the learners in their attempts to deal with a series of complex, challenging tasks” (p. 101). It is at this point that the teacher can introduce new vocabulary, grammar points, or knowledge that is pertinent to completing the task effectively. Pre-tasks can help students interpret tasks in a more fluent, complex, and accurate way (Beglar and Hunt, 2002).

The Benefits to Adopting a Communicative Approach

Benefits Definition Magnifier Showing Bonus Perks Or Rewards

According to the literature, adopting a Communicative Approach has several benefits. The most obvious feature of CLT and perhaps the most beneficial is the fact that “everything is done with a communicative intent” (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, p. 129). According to Morrow (as cited in Larsen-Freeman, 2000), this is realized because genuinely communicative activities contain an information gap, choice, and feedback.

For Morrow, information gap occurs when two language learners communicate information that the other does not have. During this process, the learners have the freedom to choose how they wish to articulate themselves, and are able to evaluate the success of their language use depending upon the feedback that they receive from each other. According to Morrow, language development cannot take place without these elements (Morrow, as cited in Larsen-Freeman, 2000, p. 129). Proponents of the Communicative Approach also assert that language which is meaningful to the learner promotes learning (Larsen-Freeman, 2000).

Rather than developing a research agenda, advocates of CLT generally “see their mission as to convince teachers of the correctness of the theory” (Richards & Renandya, 2002, p. 6). In part this is probably due to the nature of the approach. Unlike methods, the principles of CLT are open to interpretation, making it likely to manifest itself differently depending on the context. This is well evidenced by individual language teacher’s interpretations of CLT. When asked, teacher responses are typically different from their peers, and from the literature (Senior, 2006, p. 250). Since the Communicative Approach has not been standardized it would be nearly impossible to produce findings that can be generalized through scientific research. In this, empirical findings that directly support the approach are sparse. Nonetheless, early empirical findings from Allwright, Prabhu, and Swain and Lapkin do support CLT.

Allwright’s findings come from a remedial English course which was taught at the University of Essex in 1974. Despite popular opinion at the time, Allwright had made sweeping changes to the course by adopting a Communicative Approach. Rather than building the course around a structural syllabus, the course was governed by classroom activities that were relevant to the learners, and provided opportunities for spontaneous language production (Allwright, 1979). According to Allwright, the course was extremely successful, and subsequent reports of the account paved the way for future communicative course books (Allwright, 2005, p. 12).

A similar project was carried out in Bangalore, India. Led by Prabhu, the project is notably the first attempt to deliver a language course based solely on a Task-Based syllabus. According to Prabhu, students enjoyed the course thoroughly, while also advancing their language ability at a rate similar to or better than peers learning by more traditional means (Howatt, 1984, p. 346-349).

At the same time in Canada, Swain and Lapkin (1982) were busy synthesizing ten years of research on French immersion programs in Ontario schools. They found that delivering a school curriculum to English speaking students in French progressed students to advanced levels of the language. These findings however, were later partially disputed by Harley and Swain (1985). Although the learners were able to demonstrate proficiency in their receptive ability, their production skills were less than native-like.

The Limitations of Adopting a Communicative Approach

Despite the said benefits of adopting a communicative approach, CLT has not gone without criticism. Very early on the Communicative Approach was eloquently attacked by Michael Swan (1985) for being too prescriptive, and for focusing exclusively on meaning to the detriment of form. Since, the Communicative Approach has been questioned for a variety of reasons.

Criticism of Krashen’s Comprehensible Input Hypothesis

With regard to the Comprehensible Input Hypothesis, Skehan (1998) contends that Krashen oversimplifies the connection between comprehension, the development of the interlanguage and production. Skehan claims that when individuals hear language, a variety of strategies are used to interpret the information. Content words for example are given priority over less informative words in an utterance. He argues that language is not parsed word for word, as this would be too exhaustive during communication (especially in the L2). Instead, meaning is often found by combining language input, context and schematic knowledge. In this, “the comprehension process can be partly detached from the underlying syntactic system and from production” (Skehan, 1998, p. 15). In other words, it may be possible for a learner to understand utterances in the L2 without any attention to the language’s grammar. Learners have already developed their ability to derive meaning from contextual cues and schematic knowledge, as they do this in their L1 as well. It seems likely therefore that when learners are confronted with input in the L2, they are more likely to search for meaning through contextual and schematic knowledge than through their structural knowledge of the target language. This would explain why Swain and Lapkin’s (1982) French immersion students were capable of native-like French comprehension but unable to produce the language accurately.

Criticism of Long’s Interaction Hypothesis

Skehan also questioned CLT’s stance on the role of output and interaction in the classroom. While he agrees that output is paramount to language development, he is skeptical about whether language structures can be acquired through this alone. According to its advocates (Gass and Varonis, 1994 and Pica, 1994, as cited in Skehan, 1998), the negotiation of meaning between learners will create difficulties in producing language which will motivate them to modify their output to avoid conversation breakdown. This in turn is thought to illuminate limitations in the learners’ language ability, allowing them to improve upon gaps in their language ability precisely when they are having difficulty.

Skehan maintains however that extensive negotiation of meaning can be frustrating for learners and is unlikely to occur in natural communication. He asserts that the cognitive faculty required for negotiating meaning may overload students, making it unlikely that they will consolidate their accomplishments. Language development would require learners to communicate utterances in their L2, while simultaneously comprehending input, objectively monitoring what has been said, and committing it to memory (Skehan, 1998).

The Shift towards Form Focused Instruction

The limitations of exclusively focusing on meaning in CLT have been addressed by a shift in how CLT is taught. Although CLT is often criticised for giving all of its attention to developing learner fluency to the detriment of learner accuracy, this is not in line with the view of most applied linguists and TBLT. Contrary to popular criticism, the goal of the Communicative Approach is to include communication, not to exclude form (Spada, 2007 p. 275-276). These misconceptions are perhaps the result of CLT’s theoretical foundation, and early CLT programs which focused primarily on meaning (see above). Most applied linguists today, however, tend to agree that “the inclusion of form-focused instruction leads to improvement in students’ knowledge and their ability to use that knowledge” (Norris and Ortega, 2000 & Spada, 1997, as cited in Spada, 2007, p. 276).

In CLT, form-focused instruction is usually accomplished with a Focus on Form, rather than a Focus on Forms approach. While a Focus on Forms approach addresses form from a pre-determined sequence of grammar points, a Focus on Form approach contends that these points can emerge at any time during a lesson “as a consequence of the learners’ engagement in meaningful communication” (Hall, 2011, p. 70). Summarizing the argument for a Focus on Form, Harmer (2007) writes,

Students acquire language best when they have focused on it either because they need it, or have come across it in a meaning-focused communicative task, or because in some other way they have noticed language which is relevant to them at a particular time. (p. 54, as cited in Hall, 2011, p. 70)

Simply put, Focus on Form can be defined as “any pedagogical effort which is used to draw the learners’ attention to form either implicitly or explicitly . . . within meaning-based approaches to L2 instruction [and] in which a focus on language is provided in either spontaneous or predetermined ways” (Spada, 1997, p. 73, as cited in Spada, 2011, p. 226). In the classroom, Focus on Form can be accomplished in a variety of ways, including recasts (“repeating the learner’s incorrect utterance, but reformulating it into a correct form, phrase or sentence” (Hall, 2011, p. 250)), elicitation, corrective feedback, drilling, putting language to use in new contexts, high frequency exposure to a particular language feature, drawing a learners attention to a particular language feature by enhancing it in text, and even overt board work (Spada, 2011; Thornbury, 2011a, 2011b). According to Spada (2011), however, explicit attention to form is more effective than implicit attention to form, meaning that Focus on Form works best when teachers provide “overt instruction and corrective feedback, including the use of meta-language and clear signals to the learners that there was a right and a wrong way to say/write something” (Spada, 2011, p. 227).

Criticism towards the Notion of Authenticity in CLT

Although there has been some turbulence in defining authentic language (Gilmore, 2007), there seems to be agreement that authentic language is created by proficient speakers of a target language, with a social purpose which exists outside the classroom. Incorporating such materials in the classroom is thought to increase learner motivation, as they give learners the opportunity to interact with the target language as it exists in the real world (Guariento and Morley, 2011).

Although there is a general consensus in language teaching that authenticity in texts and tasks is imperative to language development, CLT has been accused of being inauthentic on both fronts. Widdowson (1998) contends that despite the appeal of authenticity in the classroom, it is actually impossible to accomplish. He suggests that any real world task that is emulated in the classroom lacks authenticity because it has been removed from its natural context and placed into a context of learning. Likewise, Widdowson maintains that texts which are removed from their natural social context and intended for learning are equally as artificial (Widdwson, 1998). What others would define as an authentic text, Widdowson refers to as a “textual trace” (p. 712). He upholds that textual traces are not authentic, because they cannot interact with their intended “contextual conditions to realise discourse” (p. 712). Widdowson states that the only way in which a text can “be made pragmatically real as discourse is if it is reconnected up with context of some kind” (p. 712), however, “one obviously cannot reinstate the original contexts from which it came” (ibid.). This is especially true in EFL, where any interaction with the target language is likely to occur within the classroom. Since the ‘textual trace’ of texts used for instruction originated in another country (perhaps on the other side of the world), there is a massive disconnect between their intended context and how they are being used in the classroom. Widdowson states that if the communicative approach really aims to deliver authentic learning experiences, it must find a way to localise exemplars of the target language so that the learners “can engage with it as discourse” (ibid). Since CLT has not found a way to do this, it can be argued that any interaction with the language in the language classroom is pretend, and may be too far removed from authentic exemplars of the language to be useful.

Although not the dominant position, it has also been suggested that authenticity may not be the best path to language development (Cook, 1997; Widdowson, 1998). Cook (1997) asserts that the authentic speech of native speaking adults is a poor model for learners to imitate, as they are unlikely to ever reach such levels of authenticity themselves. Especially for English learners, he suggests that since English is a language of international communication, native-like speech may actually hamper a learner’s ability to communicate (Cook, 1997).

Questioning the cultural appropriateness of CLT

Despite near global acceptance for the Communicative Approach, a disparity still exists between policy and practice (Burnaby & Sun, 1989; Littlewood, 2007; Nunan, 2003). All over the world, studies have demonstrated that teachers still opt for traditional approaches to language instruction, even when they are expected to instruct their classes using CLT (Chowdhry, 2010; Li, 1998; Littlewood, 2007; Nunan, 2003). This is as a result of three factors: the ideology of these teachers and their society (Burnaby & Sun, 1989; Li, 1998), large class sizes and low proficiency students (Li, 1998; Yu, 2001), and students who are preparing for exams (Li, 1998; Yu, 2001).

It seems however, that even when the Communicative Approach is accepted by an institution, the principles behind the approach are still not guaranteed. Looking at transcripts from communicative classrooms, Nunan (1989) concluded that interaction was anything but communicative. This observation was echoed by Thornbury (1996), based on his observations as a teacher trainer in Barcelona. Citing Legutke and Thomas (1991), he writes:

In spite of trendy jargon in textbooks and teachers’ manuals, very little is actually communicated in the L2 classroom. The way it is structured does not seem to stimulate the wish of learners to say something, nor does it tap what they might have to say […] Learners do not find room to speak as themselves, to use language in communicative encounters, to create text, to stimulate responses from fellow learners, or to find solutions to relevant problems. (Legutke & Thomas, 1991, p. 8-9, as cited in Thornbury, 1996, p. 279)

Final Thoughts

Based on the above points, it is evident that despite the obvious benefits of adopting a communicative approach, it isn’t the panacea for all ELT ills that some would have us believe. While CLT has enjoyed decades in the spotlight in language classrooms, it seems that its days at the forefront could be numbered. In our next post, we explore the murky waters of the post method condition, in hopes of shining some more light on what it means for CLT.

A Brief History of ELT: Part 2 – Communicative Language Teaching