Scribd
Upload
183 views

Communicative Language Teaching Approach: The Definition of CLT

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) originated in the 1960s as a response to previous grammar-based approaches. CLT focuses on developing learners' communicative competence through meaningful use and exchange of information. Key principles include making communication the goal, viewing learning as a social process, and focusing on authentic language use through tasks and interaction. However, critics argue that CLT does not provide sufficient guidance on vocabulary learning and may be difficult to apply in foreign language contexts without native speakers. While an effective approach, CLT requires adaptation to different learning environments.

Uploaded by

Khalil Mesrar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
183 views

Communicative Language Teaching Approach: The Definition of CLT

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) originated in the 1960s as a response to previous grammar-based approaches. CLT focuses on developing learners' communicative competence through meaningful use and exchange of information. Key principles include making communication the goal, viewing learning as a social process, and focusing on authentic language use through tasks and interaction. However, critics argue that CLT does not provide sufficient guidance on vocabulary learning and may be difficult to apply in foreign language contexts without native speakers. While an effective approach, CLT requires adaptation to different learning environments.

Uploaded by

Khalil Mesrar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Communicative Language Teaching approach

The Definition Of CLT

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) originated from the changes in the British
Situational Language Teaching approach dating from the late 1960s (Richards & Rodgers, 2001).
Stemming from the socio-cognitive perspective of the socio-linguistic theory, with an emphasis
on meaning and communication, and a goal to develop learners’ “communicative competence”,
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach evolves as a prominent language teaching
method and gradually replaced the previous grammar-translation method and audio-lingual
method (Warschauer & Kern, 2000). Since the concept of “communicative competence” was
first introduced by Hymes in the mid-1960s, many researchers have helped develop theories and
practices of Communicative Language Teaching approach (Brown, 1987; Canale, 1983; Hymes,
1971; Littlewood, 1981; Nattinger, 1984; Nunan, 1987 &1989; Richards & Rodgers, 1986;
Widdowson, 1990). Hymes coined this term in contrast to Chomsky’s “Linguistic Competence”.
As Stern (1992) explicated, “Competence represents proficiency at its most abstract and
psychologically deepest level” (p.73). Chomsky indicated that underlying the concrete language
performance, there is an abstract rule system or knowledge and this underlying knowledge of the
grammar of the language by the native speaker is his “linguistic competence”. In contrast,
Hymes argue that in addition to linguistic competence, the native speaker has another rule
system. In Hymes’ view, language was considered as a social and cognitive phenomenon; syntax
and language forms were understood not as autonomous, acontextual structures, but rather as
meaning resources used in particular conventional ways and develop through social interaction
and assimilation of others’ speech (Warschauer & Kern, 2000). Therefore, speakers of a
language have to have more than grammatical competence in order to be able to communicate
effectively in a language; they also need to know how language is used by members of a speech
community to accomplish their purposes (Hymes, 1968). Based on this theory, Canale and Swain
(1980) later extend the “Communicative competence” into four dimensions. In Canale and
Swain, “‘Communicative competence’ was understood as the underlying systems of knowledge
and skill required for communication. Knowledge refers here to what one knows (consciously or
unconsciously) about the language and about other aspects of communicative language use; skill
refers to how well one can perform this knowledge in actual communication (Canale, 1983,
p.5)”. From this perspective, what language teachers need to teach is no longer just linguistic
competence but also socio-linguistic competence (“which utterances are produced and
understood appropriately in different socio-linguistic contexts”), discourse competence
(“mastery of how to combine grammatical forms and meanings to achieve a unified spoken or
written text in different genres”), and strategic competence (“mastery of verbal and non-verbal
communication strategies that may be called into action for compensating or enhancing
communication”) (Canale, 1983, pp.7-11).

Distinguishing Features Of CLT


Richards and Rodgers (2001) have reviewed a number of people’s works on CLT and
described several distinguishing features of it. As “communicative competence” is the desired
goal, in CLT, meaning is paramount (Finocchiaro & Brumfit, 1983, cited by Richards and
Rodgers, 2001). In socio-cognitive perspectives, language is viewed as a vehicle of conveying
meaning, and knowledge is transmitted through communication involving two parts, for
example, speakers and listeners, and writers and readers, but is constructed through negotiation.
As a consequence, “communication is not only a matter of following conventions but also of
negotiating through and about the conventions themselves. It is a convention-creating as well as
convention-following activity (Breen & Candlin, 2001, p.10)”. Therefore, there are three
elements involved in the underlying learning theory: communication principle, task-based
principle, and meaningfulness principle (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p.161). Based on this
perception, when applied to language learning, “functional activities” and “social interaction
activities” (Littlewood, 1981) are consequently selected according to how well they engage the
learner in meaning and authentic language use; learning is interpersonal to learn to communicate;
attempt to communicate may be encouraged from the very beginning; dialogues, if used, centre
around communicative functions and not normally memorized; and contextualization is basic
premise; drilling may occur, but peripherally; any device that helps to communicate and
understand is acceptable (Finocchiaro & Brumfit, 1983, cited by Richards & Rodgers, 2001,
p.156). To some extent, that is to say, students do not simply learn the linguistic structures and
grammar rules. Rather, they should be actively making meaning through activities such as
collaborative problem solving, writing for a purpose, discussion of topics of genuine interest, and
reading, viewing and responding to authentic materials (Murphy, 2000).
Since knowledge and learning are viewed as socially constructed through negotiation
according to socio-cognitive perspectives (Breen & Candlin, 2001), another dimension of CLT is
learner-centred and experience-based. “With interactive communicative language use as the call
of the day, communicative processes became as important as linguistic product, and instruction
became more learner-centered and less structurally driven” (Kern & Warschauer, 2000, p.5). In
another word, in CLT context, learners are seen as active participants in the construction of
knowledge, rather than passive recipients of information provided by the teacher or the textbook.
In contrast, language teachers are no longer viewed as the authority of the knowledge, playing a
dominant role. Rather, they share different roles such as communication facilitater, independent
participant, needs analyst, counselor, and group process manager (Richards & Rodgers, 2001,
p.167) to create more fascinating experiences for the learners.
Besides the above features, Richards and Rodgers (2001) describe other significant
characteristics of this approach including its efforts to make tasks and language relevant to a
target group of learners through an analysis of genuine, realistic situations, its emphasis on the
use of authentic, from-life materials, and its attempt to create a secure, nonthreatening
atmosphere. All these attempts also follow the major principles of communicative view of
language and language learning: helping learners learn a language through authentic and
meaningful communication, which involves a process of creative construction, to achieve
fluency. In this vein, in terms of classroom activity, it includes group work, task-work,
information-gap activities, and projects.
The Weaknesses Of CLT
Yet, inevitably, despite these outstanding characteristics, CLT also have weaknesses.
Schmitt (2000) argued that CLT needs supportive vocabulary for functional language use but it
gives little guidance about how to handle vocabulary. However, it has been now realized that
mere exposure to language and practice with functional communication will not ensure the
proficiency in language learning, so current best practice includes “both a principled selection of
vocabulary, often according to frequency lists, and an instruction methodology that encourages
meaningful engagement with words over a number of recyclings” (p.14). Stern (1992) also
pointed out that CLT approach puts an excessive emphasis on the single concept
“communication” so that “in order to account for all varieties and aspects of language teaching
we either stretch the concept of communication so much that it loses any distinctive meaning, or
we accept its limitations and then find ourselves in the predicament of the “method” solution” (p.
14). Some people criticized that as CLT focus on learner-centered approach, while in some
accounts of CLT, learners bring preconception of what teaching and learning should be like,
which when unrealized can lead to learner confusion and resentment (Henner-Stanchina & Riley,
1978, cited by Richards & Rodgers, 2001).
In addition, some people contended that CLT has not given an adequate account of EFL
teaching despite its initial growth in foreign language teaching in Europe (Li, 2001). Stern (1992)
argued that one of the most difficult problems is making classroom learning communicative is
the absence of native speakers. Apparently, CLT are more successful in English as a Second
Language (ESL) context because students usually have a very supportive learning environment
outside school. They have more chances to be exposed to the authentic contact with native
speakers and the target language, which reinforces what they learn in class. Besides, they have
the motivation to work on oral English because they need it in their lives. In contrast, in English
as a Foreign Language (EFL) context, due to some physical limitations, such as the purpose of
learning English, learning environments, teachers’ English proficiency, and the availability of
authentic English materials, CLT meets much more difficulties during its application.
confronted by language teachers but it has a great potential that gain the apparent
popularity in language teaching and learning domain. It also needs to realize that there In
summary, CLT cannot be seen as a panacea for the problems that have been isn’t a fix
framework of CLT. As learners and the learning context are dynamic, when CLT is applied to a
certain context, the adaptation and innovation of it is necessary.

You might also like