Communicative Language Teaching

The “communicative approach to the teaching of foreign languages” — also known as Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) or the “communicative approach” — emphasizes learning a language through genuine communication. Learning a new language is easier and more enjoyable when it is truly meaningful.

Communicative teaching is based on the work of sociolinguists who theorized that an effective knowledge of a language is more than merely knowing vocabulary and rules of grammar and pronunciation. Learners need to be able to use the language appropriately in any business or social context.

Over the last three decades, theorists have discussed (and continue to discuss) the exact definition of communicative competence. They do agree, however, that meaningful communication supports language learning and that classroom activities must focus on the learner’s authentic needs to communicate information and ideas.

Grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary are, of course, necessary parts of effective communication. With the communicative method two primary approaches may be taken. Some teachers prefer to teach a rule, then follow it with practice. Most, though, feel grammar will be naturally discovered through meaningful communicative interaction.

The communicative approach is a flexible method rather than a rigorously defined set of teaching practices. It can best be defined with a list of general principles. In Communicative Language Teaching (1991), expert David Nunan lists these five basic characteristics:
1. An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language.
2. The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.
3. The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language but also on the learning process itself.

4. An enhancement of the learner’s own personal experiences as important contributing elements to classroom learning.

5. An attempt to link classroom language learning with language activities outside the classroom.

As these features show, the communicative approach is concerned with the unique individual needs of each learner. By making the language relevant to the world rather than the classroom, learners can acquire the desired skills rapidly and agreeably.

Advantage  Of the communicative Method

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 the communicative method  

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.