Communicative Approach to Language Teaching and Learning
Should communicative learning be considered an approach or a method? Richards and Rogers (1986) claim that it is an approach rather than a method since methods are regarded as fixed teaching systems with prescribed techniques while approaches as teaching philosophies that can be applied in various ways in the classroom.
Communicative learning reflects a certain model or a theory (Celce-Murcia, 2001, Richards and Rogers, 2001). It is based on the thesis that the primary function of language use is communication. The primary goal is for learners to develop competence and skills that can be applied to real-life situations that necessitate communication (Hymes, 1971). It was originally developed in England in the 1960s when British applied linguists began shifted from the boring mastery of grammatical structures to building communicative proficiency. Wilikins (1972) claimed that the modern syllabi for language teaching should seriously consider the functional and communicative aspect of language. Firth (1950) suggested that language instruction must adopt a broader sociocultural perspective on participants, their behavior and beliefs, and the objects of linguistic discussion. Famous theorists as Canale & Swain (1980), Widdowson (1989), and Halliday (1970) stressed the importance of communicative approach to language teaching with an eye on the particular ability to use languages for varying purposes. Hymes (1972) reinvented the notions of "competence" and "performance" introduced by Chomsky in the 1960s; he argued that the main purpose of language teaching was to develop the so-called "communicative competence".
Within the communicative competence frame, language is regarded as a tool absolutely useful for communication purposes. Competence isn’t only related to the development of four language skills, namely reading, listening, writing, and speaking but also on their correlation. The communicative approach, which was born as an alternative to the prevalent audio-lingual method, suggests that not only strictly morpho-syntactic but also social and cultural knowledge are necessary prerequisites for understanding and using linguistic forms. The core idea at its base is that grammatical structures are learnt and acquired through meaning and active use and not vice versa. A teacher must select learning activities that engage learners in meaningful and authentic language use (Richards and Rogers 1986). Such activities are learner centered as opposed to the earlier teacher-centered approaches (Al-Mutawa and Kailani, 1989).
Hymes (1972) and other theorists (Richards and Rogers 1986; Hedge 2000) proposed the following competencies as the basis of communicative language learning:
- Linguistic or grammatical competence. The term “linguistic” or “grammatical” competence refers the capacity of effectively using grammatical rules that guide sentence formation. Canale and Swain (1980) argue however that these rules are useless since language users are unaware of the formal structure of language and they deployed it subconsciously.
- Sociolinguistic or pragmatic competence. The development of the four main skills that are considered essential to language learning, namely reading, listening, writing, speaking, must be viewed in the context of the real world in which they will be applied. Sociolinguistic competence refers to understanding the different cultural and linguistic contexts in which language skills are used. As an example, the spontaneous development of language skills by children takes place through socialization in their surroundings, through interaction with the external world, and by becoming integrated into family and social norms, conditions, and culture.
- Discourse competence. The term refers to the connection that a language learner establishes between discourse in different circumstances in order to create a meaningful whole by balanced use of grammar and coherent and cohesive communication. Discourse analysis has become a popular approach to analyzing spoken, signed, or written language forms. It focuses on conversational interaction. Development of discourse competence leads to a synthesis of meaningful sentences. Discourse further provides learners with the opportunity to understand varying language structures through their experience within different socio-cultural and physical contexts.
- Strategic competence. Strategic competence refers to the effective use of language in the context of active, communicative interaction. Specifically, it refers to the ability of a learner to compose new sentences based on the repertoire of words and phrases already built through earlier learning activities. Strategic competence enables the learner to link language and other knowledge to the external characteristics of the situational and cultural context (Douglas 2000). It serves as a process of decision making or planning (Farrell 1998) through observing, analyzing, evaluating, reflecting, interacting etc.
- Fluency. The term has been recently introduced into the list of communicative competences of a successful language speaker by Hedge (2000). Ellis and Sinclair (1989) argue that language users must speak spontaneously and meaningfully without excessive repetition and without pauses. Hedge (2000) goes even further with her definition of fluency stating that it implies coherent interaction, correct pronunciation, and proper intonation. Hedge insists on fluency mainly because traditionally communicative language teaching and learning approaches emphasize comprehensibility rather than accuracy. Fluency provides the language user with a sense of self-confidence and control, although it does not necessarily imply accuracy (Canale and Swain 1980); in this context however errors committed by the learner are tolerated.
According to Krashen (1985) and Kagan (1995) communicative learning is affected by certain variables such as:
- Input. According to Krashen's Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theory (1985), which can be applied to foreign language learning, comprehensible, developmentally appropriate, redundant, and accurate input (Kagan 1995) is a key to successful mastery of any language. In the context of language learning students are called to form comprehensible sentences; the more they hear and understand the faster and better they learn a language (Long and Porter 1985). Exposure to language use can be achieved in a communicative learning environment which typically is set in small groups that allow a greater degree of comprehensible input. Moreover, communicative learning enables language learners to focus on the essential meaning rather than the linguistic form of the language (McDonell 1992). Yet, comprehensible input is not sufficient; comprehensible input cannot in itself guarantee the transition to the next step in language acquisition, namely effective use, unless it is in the Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky 1978). According to Vygotsky, the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is the area between the actual development level in which a learner can solve problems in a more independent manner and the potential level of development in which the learner can solve problems under the guidance of a teacher or in collaboration with more experienced peers. This comment refers mostly to children’s learning pathways. Children’s developmental processes take place during commonly shared activities the outcomes of which tend to be internalized and become part of their cognitive development. In the context of communicative learning groups consisting of individuals of varying levels of language skills may have positive results; more advanced students can support the development of their less fluent peers. Through imitation and teacher's guidance students class participants can accomplish more in terms of knowledge enhancement.
- Οutput. Comprehensible input is important for successful communication; and so is output. In traditional instruction the teacher’s authority plays a central role. Student output is restricted, if not inexistent (Chaudron 1998; Mickan 1995 and 1998; Tusi 1995). On the other hand, collaborative learning offers students the opportunity to actively participate in communication in a manner that increases their linguistic production. According to Swain (1985) ‘language acquisition and learning is fostered by output that is functional, communicative, and directly related with the identity of the student’. In the past, teachers of a traditional model of language teaching urged their students to learn morphosyntactic patterns and rules and memorize extensive lists of vocabulary. This process did not add value to learning a language; it only contributed to learning about a language. Similarly, repetitions of sentences were used in language classrooms even though they weren’t representative of actual speech in real life conditions; they merely served as practice drills that involved content out of context. Collaborative learning provides an approach for using functional, communicative, real, and actual language output as opposed to grammar-oriented and teacher-dominated instructional practicess in which students had very few opportunities to actually use the target language.(Chaudron 1998; Mickan 1995)
- Context. According to Kagan (1995) ‘another important factor which fosters language acquisition/learning is a supportive, friendly, motivating, communicative, developmentally appropriate, and feedback-rich context’. She adds to that by pointing to the fact that students of traditional language instruction were in the past labeled as "right" or "wrong" upon answering questions in front of the whole class. Such an experience can be rather threatening and discouraging for learners. The communicative aspect of language teaching engages learners in real life circumstances or simulated ones based on authentic content.
Please click here to go back to the Learning methodologies specific to language instruction page.
Click here to go back to the homepage
References
Kagan, Spencer. (1995), We Can Talk: Cooperative Learning in the Elementary ESL Classrooms. Elementary Education Newsletter 17(2), 3-4.Krahnke, K. (1987). Approaches to syllabus design for foreign language teaching. Washington, D.C., Center for Applied Linguistics/Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Hymes, D.H. (1971), On communicative competence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Extracts available in Brumfit, C.J. & Johnson, K. (Eds.) (1979), The communicative approach to language teaching, pp. 5-26. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-437078-X
Farrell, T. (1998), Reflective Teaching: The Principles and Practices. English Teaching Forum, 10-17.Foster, P. (2009). Task-based language learning research: expecting too much or too little? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 247 - 263
Douglas, D., (2000), Assessing Languages for Specific Purposes. Cambridge Language Assessment Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980), Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47
Corder, S. P. (1983), "A role for the mother tongue" in S. M. Gass & L. Selinker (Ed), Language Transfer in Language Learning (pp. 18-31). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins North America
Tusi, A., (1995), Introducing classroom interaction. London: Penguin
Vygotsky, L., (1978), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Widdowson, H. G., (1989), "Knowledge of language and ability for use", Applied Linguistics 10: pp. 128-37
