Language teaching methods and approaches

Basic definitions
'Technique', 'method' and 'approach' are terms which recur so often in the field of language
teaching that they need to be defined in order to draw a distinction between them.
Technique
This is what actually goes on in the classroom as an implementation of a method,
which in turn is an application of an approach. A technique refers to all the activities used by
the teacher and performed by the pupils in the classroom. For example, audio-visual aids such
as language labs, tape recorders, television set, slides, video recorders are techniques which
are used to achieve an immediate objective. Some techniques are used with a variety of
methods such as imitation and repetition. Others, however, are specific to a given method.
Method
This is the application of the principles underlying a particular approach. A method
consists of the use of a certain number of techniques in a systematic way in order to achieve
the aim of language teaching. It includes decisions made about the objectives, the syllabus,
the types of activities and tasks, the roles of teachers, the roles of students and instructional
materials. All these components must be in harmony with the basic principles of the selected
approach. A method is procedural in the sense that it shows accurately how a language should
be taught as it deals with the practical side of foreign language instruction. A method is more
general than a technique and more specific than an approach.
Approach
This term is relatively new compared to the term 'method'. An approach refers to the
principles or assumptions underlying the process of language teaching and learning. It is also
a set of correlative assumptions dealing with the nature of the language teaching and learning.
It describes the nature of the subject matter to be taught. It is also considered a theory of
applied linguistics, which seeks to explain the phenomenon of language learning in terms
which assit the learner to achieve his goal.
Technique, method and approach are interdependent. They are arranged in the form of
a hierarchy in which 'approach' is placed at the top followed by 'method' and then 'technique'.

Teaching methods and approaches

In language teaching, there are constant changes and developments of teaching
methods and approaches. This can be attributed to the different focuses on different types of
language skills either written or oral, to the realisation that a given method or approach carries
certain limitations which render it unable to meet the needs of the learners for real
communication or to the development of the need for communication especially after the
Second World War. Each new method or approach is built on the limitations of the preceding
one. The following are the most common language teaching methods and approaches and
their shortcomings.
Grammar-translation method

A method of language teaching which was developed in Europe and dominant in the
eighteenth till nineteenth century, the grammar-translation method was based on the method
of studying Latin and Greek adopted by Europeans in the Middle Ages. The language
teaching method emphasized the teaching of formal grammatical rules and translating foreign
language written texts into one’s mother tongue with detailed grammatical analysis. It is the
earliest and the most traditional method of foreign language teaching, employed mainly when
studying and reading academic literature. It was initially called the Grammar method and
could also be called the Translation method, Classical method and Traditional method.
The Grammar—translation method was first adopted by Europeans in the Middle Ages
when Latin and Greek were learned and taught. In fact, Latin and Greek dominated the school
curriculum at the time and this situation continued till the end of the eighteenth century. The
actual purpose of language learning was to train the ‘faculties’ of the brain, and produce
scholars. The learning of a foreign language was considered an intellectual discipline. People
were of the opinion that Latin and Greek were the repositories of ancient civilization. A major
part of the curriculum and time in schools were devoted solely to achieving the goals of
Latin/Greek teaching/learning. It was considered a matter of prestige to know the two
languages.
Because the so-called ‘superior’ languages like Latin and Greek were taught through the
Grammar-translation method only, it became very natural that, when students began to learn a
modern foreign language and when the teaching/ learning of a modern foreign language first
became popular, the same language teaching method was imitated, since the basic goal was
not communication but translation of the foreign language into the native language—or vice
versa. Furthermore, there was no other foreign language teaching method generally known at
the time. Textbooks were prepared to teach ‘modern languages’ on similar lines to those of
Latin and Greek. In such books, grammar rules are introduced at the beginning, followed by
written exercises and a bilingual vocabulary list. At the end of the vocabulary list,
construction of sentences and later paradigm texts are taught with grammatical analysis,
followed by translation. Each grammatical point is explained in detail and illustrations are
given in plenty. The students are expected to memorize the rules of grammar (Rivers, 1972:
16).
The procedures of the Grammar-translation method typically involve:
 A summary of the main content of the text using the mother tongue so that learners
can get a general idea of what they are going to learn. This is the first step of
explaining, understanding, analyzing and translating the foreign language text.
 Explaining the language points and literal meaning of the difficult words and each
sentence with grammatical analysis and translation into the mother tongue. Language
teaching proceeds with rules of formal grammar, isolated vocabulary items (usually
the new and difficult words and expressions), application of grammatical rules to the
explanation, and analysis of the paradigm text and translation.
 Reading and translating the whole text into the mother tongue, and a final summary of
the text also in the mother tongue.
 Questions and answers, reading and writing practice and exercises. These mainly
focus on the application of grammatical rules, the translation of the new and difficult
words and expressions and typical sentence patterns into the mother tongue and, at the
advanced level, vice versa.
  In the whole process of using the method to teach a foreign language, the mother
tongue has always been used as a medium of instruction, emphasizing the reading and
writing aspects of the foreign language being taught without paying much attention to
the speaking and listening (Richards and Rodgers, 1986:3–4).

Linguistic notions: Rules and exceptions

Morphology of words
Content
Syntax: Parts of the sentence
Simple and complex sentences
The study of literary works is the ultimate goal
Objectives
Extra-linguistic goal: mental gymnastics
The grammar book
Materials
The dictionary
Explanations in the mother tongue by the teacher, who has a
central role
Meta-language used for grammatical notions
Practice exercises to apply the notions in a deductive way
Procedures
Memorization of long vocabulary lists
Reading comprehension and vocabulary exercises of a text
Translation of literary texts
Compositions
Exams to evaluate the capacity to understand written texts
Assessment
and to translate sentences

Criticisms of the Grammar-translation method by language teaching theorists focus on its

emphasis of the mental, intellectual, disciplinary and memorisation orientation while ignoring
the speaking and listening communication aspect of the foreign language being learned/
taught. In addition, this method was not based on any explicit psycholinguistic or
sociolinguistic theory. Therefore, it did not concern itself with how learners learn the
language or how they actually use it. Its main concern was purely linguistic. In the
Grammar-translation method, little stress is laid on accurate pronunciation and intonation.
Communication skills are neglected; there is a great deal of stress on knowing grammatical
rules and exceptions, but little training in using the language actively to express one’s own
meaning even in writing. The language learned is mostly of a literary type, and the vocabulary
is detailed and sometimes esoteric. The average student has to work hard at what he considers
laborious and monotonous core vocabulary learning, translation and endless written exercises,
without much feeling of progress in the mastery of the language and with very little
opportunity to express themselves through it.
In spite of vehement criticisms of the method, the very fact that it continued over a
long period of time as a preferable way and is still being partly used by some foreign language
teachers suggests that not only no alternative better than the Grammar-translation method was
available to teachers, but it also has some valuable points we should learn from even today. It
can increase reading comprehension and make the comparison of the differences between the
foreign language being learned/ taught and the mother tongue. It has a less strict requirement
of the qualifications and competencies of the teacher to enable them to teach the foreign
language. Large-size foreign language classes can be taught with the method.
In the early nineteenth century, notions about the view of language, language learning
and language teaching were moving towards reform. The Grammar-translation method, after a
long period of domination, was challenged by the forces of reform at the end of the century,
as a more rational and more practical approach. Foundations were laid for new approaches
towards language teaching/learning methods. However, traces of the Grammar-translation
method can still be found even today in some language teaching classes.
The Reform Movement

The Reform Movement, which is usually connected with the development of modern
language teaching principles during the last two decades of the nineteenth century, has to be
seen as a reaction against the traditional grammar-translation method. Innovations were
worked out especially with respect to the teaching of pronunciation and grammar as well as
to methods and visual and aural materials.
First hints, which can be regarded as preliminary remarks for the Reform Movement,
can be found in the 1860s and 1870s. In prefaces to textbooks, for example, some authors
supported the idea of modernizing foreign language teaching by a more natural and pupil-
centered approach. The most important impetus, however, was given by the German teacher
and scholar Wilhelm VIËTOR, who published a famous and partially sarcastic pamphlet in
1882 entitled ‘Language teaching must start afresh!’. ‘Viëtor’s appeal was heard all over
Europe and also in America, especially after he started a review…that popularized the new
approach’ (Titone, 1968:38). He denounced the defenders of the old grammar-translation
method, which was connected with the teaching of Latin and had traditionally been
transferred to the teaching of modern languages. The best-known innovation called for by
Viëtor’s essay was that of a monolingual principle in foreign language teaching which led to
the so-called direct method. Thus the foreign language as the normal means of classroom
communication should provide the basis of instruction, and oral skills should enable the
pupils to use the foreign language as a means of understanding and producing sentences in
everyday situations.
Psychological principles of language acquisition were derived from the common-sense
psychology of those days, which was combined with the idea that the process of learning
languages depended on the forming of associations. On the one hand, pupils were supposed
to acquire a foreign language similarly to the process of learning one’s mother tongue; on
the other hand, the monolingual method was thought to help pupils to associate words and
structures with their meanings in a direct way. Moreover, one could see the first signs that
learner-oriented teaching had to deal with the fact that there were different types of learners,
i.e. the visual, the aural, and the audio-visual type. A great number of the founders of the
Reform Movement were linguists, who in the beginning gave priority to phonetics. The
international phonetic association (IPA) was founded in 1886 by a group of Frenchmen under
the leadership of Paul Passy, who was soon joined by Jesperson, Viëtor, and Sweet. The
international phonetic alphabet provided the basis not only for research work but also for the
training of pronunciation in foreign language classes. Special courses were designed for the
first weeks of language learning. The pupils should train their ears, their organs of speech, and
undertake phonetic transcriptions. As teachers had to be well trained in phonetics, too, they
were expected to have travelled to the foreign countries, and native speakers were asked to
assist in foreign language classes.
Great phoneticians have assisted in the improvement of FLT. The name of Henry
Sweet (1845–1912) deserves to be mentioned in this connection. Besides a priority for
phonetics Sweet repeatedly stresses the fact that every language has its own structure, and
can therefore not be forced into the straitjacket of Latin grammar. The most significant
change that was caused by the Reform Movement, however, was a new attitude towards the
teaching of grammar. The reformers were convinced that there was a natural order in learning
languages, namely listening, speaking, reading, writing and finally grammar. The old
deductive way of learning grammar was now replaced by an inductive or analytic one. The
basis for seeking, finding, describing and training rules was no longer single or disconnected
sentences but texts that meant something. Gradually textbooks took a different pattern…The
reading passages consisted mainly of simple modern prose designed to introduce the pupil to
an understanding of the life and customs of the foreign people. Thus, texts were fundamental
in a double sense: pupils should get a general education by the contents, and they should
comprehend grammar rules by analyzing forms and functions. Written and oral dialogues and
even conversational exercises became important for applying and transferring the findings.
Since then foreign language teaching has always also been direct language experience and
the transfer of semantic concepts into forms of language. The realistic approach to language
learning led to a special use of visual and aural media. Wall pictures showing everyday
scenes (e.g. in connection with the four seasons) were not only described in the foreign
language classes but also exploited for the training of vocabulary, for the illustrating of
grammar, and for inventing and constructing dialogues. From about 1905 onwards the
production of special aural materials made it possible to use records for pronunciation
exercises in foreign language classes. The particular advantage was the presentation of
intonation patterns and literary scenes, which native speakers had recorded in studios.
It was obviously Viëtor’s pamphlet in 1882 which attracted the greatest attention at the
beginning of the Reform Movement, and it was Jespersen who, in his booklet ‘How to Teach
a Foreign Language’ (1904), summarized the practical implications of the movement for
classroom teachers. Even though the ideas of the reformers were put forward by several
conferences and numerous publications, mostly in new journals and periodicals, the aims and
methods were not always accepted peacefully. Various reasons and experiences gave rise to
controversy. Consequently it became evident in the first decade of the twentieth century that
compromises had to be found. Finally a combination or a mixture of the direct approach and
the traditional attitudes towards reading, learning grammar and translating developed.
Nevertheless it was the reformers who were most often referred to in the years to come. Their
principles of the monolingual approach, the training of dialogues and conversation, and of
pupil-centered activities were usually (and still are) mentioned when so-called new ways of
foreign language teaching were (or are being) designed.
 The Direct method

The direct method of language teaching developed in Europe (mainly in France and
Germany) in the late nineteenth century as a result of the reform movement against the
grammar-translation method, and was dominant from the nineteenth century until World
War Two. The direct method imitated the way that children learn their first language,
emphasizing the avoidance of translation and the direct use of the foreign language as the
medium of instruction in all situations. Everyday vocabulary and structure of the language
were used as the primary need. The method insisted on the introduction of phonetics and the
spoken variety of the language. Concrete meanings of linguistic items are introduced through
lessons involving objects, and abstract meanings are introduced through the association of
ideas. Natural method, oral method, phonetic method and psychological method were some of
the substitute names of the direct method.
The teaching method adopted has the following axioms (Richards and Rodgers,
1986:9–10):
 Never translate: demonstrate
 Never explain: act
 Never make a speech: ask questions
 Never imitate mistakes: correct them
 Never speak with single words: use sentences
 Never speak too much: make students speak much
 Never use the book: use your lesson plan
 Never go too fast: keep the pace of the students
 Never speak slowly: speak normally
 Never speak too quickly: speak naturally
 Never speak too loudly: speak naturally
 Never be impatient: take it easy

The name of the direct method came from one of the official documentary papers
issued by the Ministry of Education of the French government in 1901. However, before the
name was put forward, by the end of the nineteenth century educationists had shared a
common belief that pupils learn a language by listening to it and also by speaking it.
According to those beliefs, a child could learn the foreign language in the same way as they
acquired their first language. Scholars (mostly French and German scholars at the first stage)
believed that the learning of a foreign language was similar to that of first language
acquisition. Direct association of foreign words by connecting them with the concepts of the
outside world was emphasized in the method. The writings of SWEET, Viétor and Passy,
among several other reformists, explained how linguistic principles could be put into practice
at the time of teaching a foreign language in a classroom situation. It was said that the impetus
to the direct method can be partly attributed to practical unconventional teaching reformers
who responded to the need for better language learning in a new world of industry and
international trade and travel, such as Berlitz and GOUIN(Stern, 1984:457). As a result,
various ‘oral’ and ‘natural’ methods developed in this sense. All these methods advocated the
learning of a foreign language by the direct association of foreign words and phrases by
avoiding the native language. In the following years, the influence of the direct method on
theory and practice was deep-rooted and widespread. The method was first introduced in
FRANCE and Germany by its supporters and later was recognized officially by the
Governments of Germany, France and Belgium (1900–02). An international congress of
modern language teachers was held in 1898 in Vienna and decided that the direct method
should be used in all elementary teaching of foreign languages. Henness, Sauveur and Berlitz
introduced the direct method in the United States where it was well received. In Great Britain,
a compromise policy, i.e. to adopt the direct method’s emphasis on the spoken language and
some other techniques, was recommended in the inter-war years. The procedures and main
principles of the direct method typically involve:
 The use of the foreign language as a medium of instruction. Translation is totally
avoided.
 Learning of a foreign language is similar to that of first language acquisition. Imitation
and an artificial language environment are needed in the classroom.
 Language teaching is focused on the sentence level with vocabulary of daily routine,
oral communication and grammar learnt by induction.
 Oral skills are built up in a carefully graded progression. They are organized around
question-and-answer exchanges between teachers and students in small but intensive
classes.
 New language points are to be introduced orally. Concrete vocabulary is taught
through demonstration of objects and pictures; abstract vocabulary is taught through
association of ideas and concepts.
 Both listening comprehension and speaking ability are encouraged. And correct
pronunciation and inductively acquired grammatical knowledge are insisted upon.

Spoken everyday language

Content
Gradual sequence
Capacity to ask questions and to answer
Objectives
Listening and speaking skills
Materials Posters, real objects, realia and texts
Direct techniques with no use of L1
Procedures Questions and answers
Small groups and native speakers
Assessment Conversation and interview exams

There are several criticisms of the direct method:

1. It is argued that, because of the absence of translation, the method makes it very hard
to convey the semantics or to teach grammar.
2. It is argued that the direct method can be practiced only in a classroom where the
number of students is limited, because certain activities involved in the method are
unlikely to be applicable to larger groups of learners.
3. The main drawback would be that for most of the time it is difficult to find a native
speaker to teach the foreign language.

Other criticisms involved were as follows:

 1. It was hard to believe that the learning conditions of the native language could be
recreated in the foreign language classroom.
2. The method was only suitable for teaching younger pupils rather than adults.
3. The method was too much dependent on the qualification of the teacher.

Whatever the criticisms, the direct method remained the biggest force for reform and
progress and the dominant widespread method in the history of foreign language teaching
during the nineteenth and the early twentieth century, after the grammar-translation method.
Its emphasis on the use of the foreign language as the medium of instruction, and on oral and
listening skills, and the use of simple words and associations to explain difficult concepts
challenged the more traditional grammar-translation method to undergo some changes. It also
had great impact on the later audiolingual and audio-visual language teaching methods. It is
still possible to find some of its traces in today’s foreign language teaching methods.
The Situational Approach
This approach emerged and dominated the language teaching field in Britain during the
1940's, 1950's and 1960's. It includes aspects of the Direct Method and of the emerging field
of language pedagogy.
The characteristics of the Situational Approach are summarized as follows:
 The spoken language is primary.
 All language material is practiced orally before being presented in written form (reading and
writing are taught only after an oral base in lexical and grammatical forms has been
established.
 Only the target language should be used in the classroom.
 Efforts are made to ensure that the most general and useful lexical items are presented.
 Grammatical structures are graded from simple to complex.
 New items (lexical and grammatical) are introduced and practiced situationally (e.g. at the
post-office, at the bank, at the dinner table…)
Another important feature of this method is the presentation of sentences in association
with actions, mime, realia and visual aids (like the Direct Method). So the structres of the
language are presented and practiced by the use of physical demonstration of notions and
objects. Utterances are illustrated by simulation of actions, pictures and other real objects.
In this method, the teacher occupies a central role, for he takes on the responsibility for
varying drills and tasks and choosing the appropriate situations to practice structures.
Moreover, he acts as a model to be imitated by the pupils who are required to listen and
repeat. Active verbal interaction between the teacher and the pupils is of vital importance in
this method. In fact language learning is seen to be the direct result of this interaction.

Shortcomings
a) The situations that are created are pedagogic, bearing little resemblance to natural language
use.
b) Learners are not shown how the use of a sructure in a particular situation can be
generalized to another situation.
c) The situations are not graded, but selected at random to serve the purpose of the structures
on which they are based.
d) It is not possible to enumerate all the situations that the learners are likely to meet in
reality.

The Audiolingual method

A method of language teaching developed in the United States and dominant in the 1960s,
based on structural linguistics and behaviorist psychology, audiolingual language teaching
emphasized the learning of spoken language (it was initially called the aural-oral method) and
the presentation of language in the order ‘hearing-speaking-reading-writing’. The A-L method
was associated with the introduction of the language laboratory.
The origins of the A-L method are usually traced to the introduction of the Army
Specialized Training Program’ from 1943 in the United States, in response to the need in the
armed forces to communicate with the Allies and other foreign peoples. The American school
system had provided very little foreign language teaching and had concentrated on
introducing learners to written texts rather than spoken language. The ASTP called upon well-
known linguists, such as Leonard Bloomfield (1942), who developed intensive courses in
some fifteen languages taught to selected and highly motivated personnel in groups of ten
over 9-month periods with fifteen hours of instruction a week. The methods used included,
initially, twelve hours of oral work with native speakers and three hours of grammar work
with professional linguists, with use of audio-visual aids. The success of ‘the American Army
Method’, as it came to be known, cannot be attributed only to the methods involved, which
were in any case eclectic, but rather to the conditions of learning and the nature of the
learners, whose Motivation was high and who concentrated almost exclusively on language
learning during the intensive period.
Interest in changing language teaching in the general education system began to develop in
the early 1950s (Rivers, 1964:3) but was given a major boost by the general response to the
launching of the satellite Sputnik by the Soviet Union. This created a fear that the US
education system was inadequate with respect to science and language teaching, and led to the
National Defense Education Act which included the Language Development Program. The
Army Method served as a model with respect to the emphasis on the spoken language, the use
of mechanical aids, the analysis of language in structuralist terms, and the reference to
behaviorist psychology for a theory of language learning. Language teaching theorists, such
as Brooks (1960 and 1964), promoted what became known as the A-L method, arguing that
language is behavior, that learning a language is learning how to behave rather than learning
how to explain its grammar, that behavior is best learned through the formation of appropriate
habits which can be ‘overlearned’ to the point of becoming automatic by frequent imitation of
the teacher or a recorded voice and memorization of dialogues or key sentences. This was
called the ‘mim-mem’ method. The language laboratory, being developed in the early 1960s,
offered a useful means of providing ‘mimmem’ exercises. Dialogues and key sentences were
chosen to represent significant syntactic structures of the language, and to anticipate the
structures which contrastive analysis of the foreign language and the learner’s own had shown
to be difficult because different.
The following are the assumptions on which this method is based:
 Langauge is speech not writing
 Language is a set of habits. This principle means that language is acquired by imitation
and practice. Habits are established by stimulus, response and reinforcement.
 Teach the language, not about the language. This means that we must teach the pupils a
set of habits, not a set of rules to enable them to talk in the language not to talk about the
language.
 A language is what its native speakers say, not what someone thinks they ought to say, we
should deal with language as it is and not prescribe what other people say.
The procedures of the A-L method typically involve (Brooks, 1964; Rivers, 1964):
 the presentation of a short text, usually a dialogue, with a parallel text in the learners’
language; this text is modeled by the teacher and repeated by the learners until
memorized;
 learners are presented with drill exercises or ‘pattern practice’, consisting of a number
of sentences with the same grammatical structure but different lexical items, and they
are required to repeat and modify these sentences, receiving immediately the correct
version against which to compare their suggestion. These drills are often provided in
the language laboratory;
 learners are provided with a substitution table where they can see the parallels in the
sentences they have drilled and the underlying grammatical structure involved. This
may also provide grammatical terminology;
 learners are invited to role-play dialogues similar to the original one, but they are
required to modify the language they have memorized according to the circumstances
of the role-play;
 exercises in reading and writing are introduced using the same grammatical
constructions and lexis as they have been using in the spoken mode.

Criticisms of the A-L method by language teaching theorists focused on its

psychological foundations. Rivers published a review in 1964 which, whilst not
rejecting the A-L method, argued against too much reliance on the behaviorism of
B.F. Skinner.

A much stronger criticism of behaviorism as represented by Skinner came from Noam

Chomsky at a large meeting of language teachers in 1965, in which he dismissed the theories
of language learning on which the A-L method was founded (Chomsky, 1966). Chomsky
argued that behaviorist theory, with its explanation of language acquisition in terms of habit
formation through stimulus from children’s linguistic environment and reinforcement of
correct response, could not possibly account for the ability to generate an infinite number of
utterances from a finite grammatical competence. Behaviorism could not account for the
‘creativity’ of human language.
Other criticisms of a more pragmatic nature were put forward: learners became bored
with drills and pattern practice; the move from repetition and closely guided re-use of learned
structures to spontaneous re-use of those same structures was not clearly specified; contrastive
analysis did not anticipate and eradicate all the errors learners made; Materials and the
method itself appeared to provide only for the first few years of learning, and not for
intermediate and advanced learners.
 The decline of the A-L method and of A-L textbooks can be traced to the attacks on its
psychological base in the mid-1960s, and the development of communicative language
teaching from the 1970s. The lasting influence of the A-L method can be traced, like that of
other methods, in the rules-of-thumb handed down in the teaching profession, such as the
order of presentation of new language, but no systematic use of the method is to be found any
longer.
Communicative language teaching
The origins of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) are to be found in the changes in
the British language teaching tradition dating from the late 1960s. Until then, Situational
Language Teaching represented the major British approach to teaching English as a foreign
language. But just as the linguistic theory underlying Audiolingualism was rejected in the
United States in the mid-1960s, British applied linguists began to call into question the
theoretical assumption underlying Situational Language Teaching .Their dissatisfaction led to
the discovery of another fundamental dimension of language that was inadequately addressed
in current approaches to language teaching at that time - the functional and communicative
potential of language.
In the 1970s, the Council of Europe considered the need to articulate and develop
alternative methods of language teaching a high priority. D.A. Wilkins (1972) proposed a
functional or communicative definition of language that served as a basis for developing
communicative syllabuses for language teaching. Wilkinss contribution was an analysis of
the communicative meanings that a language learner needs to understand and express. Rather
than describe the core of language through traditional concepts of grammar and vocabulary,
Wilkins attempted to demonstrate the systems of meanings that lay behind the communicative
uses of language.
Through the initiative of the Council of Europe and the writings of Wilkins and other
notable British applied linguists on the theoretical basis for a communicative or functional
approach to language teaching, there was a rapid acceptance of what came to be referred to as
the Communicative Approach, or Communicative Language Teaching (The terms notional-
functional approach and functional approach are also sometimes used.) by textbook writers,
teaching specialists, curriculum development centers, and even the government.
Theory of Language
1. Communicative
The goal of language teaching is to develop what Hymes (1972) referred to as communicative
competence. Hymes coined this term in order to contrast a communicative view of language
and Chomsky’s theory of competence. Chomsky (1965) held that linguistic theory is
concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener in a completely homogeneous speech
community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically
irrelevant conditions as memory limitation, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and
errors in applying his knowledge. Hymes’ theory of communicative competence was a
definition of what a speaker needs to know in order to be communicatively competent in a
speech community. In addition, Hymes held that linguistic theory needed to be seen as part of
a more general theory incorporating communication and culture.
2. Functional
 According to Halliday (1970), linguistics is concerned with the description of speech acts or
texts, since only through the study of language in use are all the functions of language, and
therefore all components of meaning, brought into focus. Learning a language is acquiring the
linguistic means to perform different kinds of functions. Thus, CLT makes use of a Notional-
Functional syllabus which specified the semantic-grammatical categories (e.g., frequency,
motion, location) and the categories of communicative functions that learners need to express.
3. Sociocultural
Firth stressed that language needed to be studied in the broader sociocultural context of its
use, which included participants, their behavior and beliefs, the objects of linguistic
discussion and word choice.
4. Interactional
Language is a vehicle for establishing interpersonal relations and for performing social
transactions between individuals. Language learning takes place mostly through student-to-
student, student-to- teacher, and teacher-to-student interaction especially during the
implementation of CLT-based activities.
CLT thus can be seen to derive from a multidisciplinary perspective that includes, at least,
linguistics, psychology, philosophy, sociology and educational research. The focus has been
the elaboration and implementation of programs and methodologies that promote the
development of functional language ability through learner participation in communicative
events.
Theory of Learning
In contrast to the amount that has been written in Communicative Language Teaching
literature about communicative dimensions of language, little has been written about learning
theory. However, certain elements of an underlying learning theory can be discerned in some
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.
3. Meaningfulness Principle - Language that is meaningful to the learner supports the learning
process. Learning activities are consequently selected according to how well they engage the
learner in meaningful and authentic language use (rather than merely mechanical practice of
language patterns).
Principles and characteristics
The basic principles underlying the communicative approach are as follows:
a) Language aquisition is seen as a creative process, not as habit formation. The idea of
language learning by a stimulus response process is rejected. Thus language is a system for
the expression of meaning. Its primary function is for interaction and communication.
b) Communicative competence implies knowledge of the grammatical system of the language
as well as performance. Such competence includes both the usage and use of the language.
Therefore, the approach does not deny the importance of mastering grammatical forms, so
long as they are taught as a means of carrying out meaningful communication. The structure
of language reflects its functional and communicative uses.Thus, grammar is taught as a
language tool rather than a language aim.In other words, the primary units of language are not
merely its grammatical and structural features, but categories of functional and
communicative meaning as exemplified in discourse.
c) Unlike the audio-lingual method, the communicative approach gives priority to the
semantic content of language learning. That is, pupils learn the grammatical form through
meaning, and not the other way round.
d) One aspect of communication is the interaction between speakers. This approach provides
communicative functions (uses) and notions (semantic themes and language items). These
functions reflect more closely real life use of the language as they are usually connected with
real life situations and with pupils' needs and interests.
e) The approach sets realistic learning tasks and activities that create situations in which
questions must be asked, information recorded, knowledge exchanged, emotions and attitudes
expressed, in which the student plays the roles of both participant and observer.
f) Such procedures and techniques will help pupils, who become the centre of the learning
process, to develop their communicative competence as they provide them with the potential
ability and motivation to discover the answers for themselves in groups, pairs and
individually.
g) Since the primary aim of the approach is to prepare learners for meaningful
communication, errors are tolerated.
h) The teacher is no more the centre of the classroom activities. Instead, the focus is shifted to
the pupils and their interests, abilities and everyday life concerns. In other words,
communicative methodology is learner- centered.
Shortcomings
In spite of the merits which characterize the Communicative Approach, it has been subjected
to many criticisms such as the following:
The approach relies extensively on the Functional-Notional syllabus which places heavy
demands on the pupils. This is especially true at the first stages because of their lack of
speaking rules and cultural insights.
The various categories of language functions are overlapping and not systematically graded
like the structures of the language. This creates some confusion and makes it difficult to teach
the functions properly.
A major principle underlying the communicative approach is its emphasis on pupils' needs
and interests. This implies that every teacher should modify the syllabus to correspond to the
needs of his pupils. This is not possible to implement as it requires the teacher to write a
separate syllabus for each pupil in the class. Such a goal is very ambitious and impossible to
realise.
A major requirement for the successful application of the approach is the availability of a
classroom that can allow for group work activities or for pupil-pupil interaction and for
teaching aids and materials. Such a classroom is desirable but unfortunately not available in
most schools.