Upload
noryzad
View
248
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/10/2019 Communicative Language Teaching Richards
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communicative-language-teaching-richards 1/22
eading
Rjchards, J. C. and Rodgers, T S Aooroaches and Methods in languaee tea ch in~ C. U .P. ,
p
64
8
Communicative Language Teaching
ackground
Th e origins of Com mun icative Language Teachii:g (CL T) ar e to be fou nd
in the changes in the British language teaching trad ition d ating from the
late 1960s. Until then, Situational Language Teaching (see Chapter
3
represented th e major British a pproac h to teaching English as a foreign
language. In Situational Language Teaching, language was taught by
pra aic ing basic structure s in meaniiigful situation-ba sed activities. But
just as the linguistic theory underlying Audiolingualism was rejected in
the United States in the mid-1960s, British applied linguists began to
cal1 into question the theoreticai assumptions underlying Situational
Language Teaching:
By
the end of the sixties
it
was ilear
thac
the situational ap pro ach.. had
r u n
its course. There was no future in continuing to pursue the chirnern of pre-
dicting language on the basis of situariorial events. What was required was a
closer study of the language itself and a return to the traditional concept that.
utterances carried meaning in thernselves a n d expressed the m ean i n g s and in-
tentions of the speakers and writers w h o created thern. (Howatr 1984:
280)
This was partly a response to the sorts of criticisms the prominent
Arnerican linguist Noam Chomsky liad leveled at structural linguistic
theory in his now classic book Sytztactic Structures (1957) . Chomsky
had demonstrated that the current standard structural theories of lan-
guage were incapable of accounting for the fundamental characteristic
of language
the creativity and uniqueness of individual sentences.
British applied linguists emphasized another fundamental dimension of
language tha t was inadequately addressed in current app roache s t o lan-
guage teaching at tha t time he functional and com mun icative pote ntial
of language. They sa w the neéd to focus
in
language teaching on com-
mun icative proficiency ra the r than oii inere mas tery of struc ture s. Scliol-
ars who advocated this view of lariguage, such as Christopher Candlin
and Hen ry Widd owso n, dre w on tlie work of British functiona l linguists
(e.g., Jo hn Firth, M. A. K. Halliday), Ainerican work in sociolinguistics
(e.g. Dell Hym es, Jo hn Gum perz, ;iiicl William Labo: ), as well as wo rk
in philosophy (e.g., John Austin aiid lolin Searle).
Another irnpetus for different appronclies to foreign languag e teaching
Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educativos, para la crítica y la investigación respetando la reglamentación en materia de derechos de autor.
Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.
Richards, J.C. y T.S. Rodgers (1987). Communicative Language Teaching.
En Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (pp. 64-86). Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
8/10/2019 Communicative Language Teaching Richards
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communicative-language-teaching-richards 2/22
Communicative Language Teaching
carne frorn chang ing education al realities in Europe. W ith th e increasing
interdependence of Eurobean co untries carne the need for greater efforts
t o teach adults the majo; languages of the Europe an Cornmo n M ark et
and the Council of Europe, a regional organization for cultural and
educational cooperation. E ducation was on e of the Council of E urope's
major areas of activity. It sponsored international conferences on lan-
guage teaching, published rnónog raphs and b ooks a bo ut language teach-
ing, and was active in prornoting the formation of the International
~ s i o c i a t i o n f A pplied ~ i n ~ u i s t i c i .he need to articulate and develop
alternative m ethods of language teaching was con sidered a high priority.
In 1 9 71 a gro up of experts began t o investigate the possibility of
deveioping language courses on a unit-credit system, a system in which
learning tasks are broken down into "portions or units, each of which
corresponds to a component of a
learner's needs and is systematically
related to al1 the othe r portions" (van Ek and A lexander 19 80:
6).
T h e
group used studies of the needs of European language learners, and in
particular a preliminary document prepared by a British linguist,
D.
A
Wilkins ( 19 72) , which proposed a functional o r cornmunicative defi-
nition of language that could serve as a basis for developing cornmu-
nicative syllabuses for language teaching. Wilkins's contribution was an
analysis of the cornrnunicative 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 at-
ternpted to dernonstrate the systerns of meanings that lay behind the
communicative uses of language. He described two types
o
rneanings:
notional caregories (concepts such a s time, sequence, quan rity, location,
frequ ency) and categories of com mu nicative functio n (rcqu ests, c eniz s,
offers, complaints). Wilkins later revised and expanded his 1972 doc-
urnent into a book called Notional Syllabuses (Wilkins 197h , which
had a significant irnpact on the developrnent of Communicative Lan-
guag e Teaching. T he Council of E urop e incorp orated his semanticicom-
rnunicative analysis into a set
o
specifications for a first-level
cornrnunicative language syllabus. These threshold level specifications
(va n Ek and A lexander 19 80 ) have had a stron g influence
o n
tlie design
of cornmunicative language programs and textbooks
i i i
Eiirope.
The work of tlie Council of Europe; the writings of Wilkins, Wid-
dow son, Candlin, Chr istopher Brum fit, Keith Joh nso n, aiicl other Rritish
applied linguists on the theoretical basis for a cornrnunicative or func-
tional approach to language teaching; the rapid applicrition of these
ideas by tex tbook writers; and th e equally rapid acceptance of these new
principies
by British language teaching specialists, curric ulu rr~ eve lop -
ment centers, and even governments gave prominetice riatiorially and
internationally to what carne to be referred to as the Coiiiinuriicative
Approach, o r simply C omm unicative Language Teactiirig. (T he terms
Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educativos, para la crítica y la investigación respetando la reglamentación en materia de derechos de autor.
Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.
Richards, J.C. y T.S. Rodgers (1987). Communicative Language Teaching.
En Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (pp. 64-86). Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
8/10/2019 Communicative Language Teaching Richards
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communicative-language-teaching-richards 3/22
Approaches me thod s in langua ge teaching
notional-functional approach and functional approach are also soiiie-
times used.) A lthough the rnovement began a s a largely Britt5li iiiiio-
vation, focusing on a lternative conceptions of a syllabus, since t l i c iiiid-
19 70 s the scope of Comm unicative Language Te aching h as expiii it ied.
Borh American and British proponents n ow see i t as an a ppr oac h (2nd
no t a rnethod) that airns to (a ) make com municative competciicc the
goal of language teaching a nd (b ) develop proced ures for the te;iching
of the four language skills that acknowledge the interdependerice of
language and communication. Its comprehensiveness thus makes i t dif-
ferent in scope and statu s frorn any of the other ap proach es or inethods
discussed in this book. There is no single text or authority
on
it,
nor
any single model th at is universally accepted as authoritative. For so nie,
Cornrnunicative Language Teaching means litrle more than an iritegra-
tion of gram matical an d functional teaching. Littlewoo d (19 81 : states,
One of the most characteristic features of communicative Iaiigiiage
teaching is that i t pays systematic attention to functional as ~vcllas
struc tura l aspects of language. For others, it mea ns using procc dures
where learners work in pairs or groups employing available langiiage
resources in problem-solving tasks. A national primary English syllabiis
based o n a comm unicative approa ch (Syllabuses for Primary Scliools
19 81 ), for example, defines the focus of the syllabus as th e conim u-
nicative functions which the forms of the language serve
(p.
5 . T h e
introduction to the sam e docum ent comments tha t comm unicative pur-
poses rnay be of many different kinds. What is essential in al1 of thern
is that a t least two parties are involved in an interac tion o r transaction
of some kind where one party has an intention and the other party
expands or reacts to the intention (p. 5 . In her discussion ci c:)m
municative syllabus design, Yalden (1983 ) discusses six Cornm unicative
Language Teach ing design alternatives, ranging fro m a m ode l in wliich
comrnunicative exercises ar e grafted on to a n existing structu ral sy llabus,
to a learner-generated view of syllabus design (e.g., Holec 1980).
Ho wa tt distinguishes between a strong a n d a weak version of
Cornrnunicative Language Teaching:
There is,
in
a sense, a 'strong' version of the communicative app roach
iincl
a
'weak' version. The weak version which has become more or less staiiJ3rcl
practice
in
the last ten years, stresses the importance of providing learners
with opportunities to use their English for communicative purposes and,
characteristically, attempts to integrate such activities into a w ider prograin
of language teaching.. Th e 'strong' version of communicative teaching, on
the other hand, advances the claim that language is acquired through c o m -
munication, so that it is not merely a question of activating an existing
I ~ i i t
inert knowledge of the language, but of stimulating the developmenr ot tlie
language
system itself.
f
the former could be described as 'learning
to
iisc
English, the latter entails 'using English to learn
¡t.
(1984:
279)
Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educativos, para la crítica y la investigación respetando la reglamentación en materia de derechos de autor.
Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.
Richards, J.C. y T.S. Rodgers (1987). Communicative Language Teaching.
En Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (pp. 64-86). Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
8/10/2019 Communicative Language Teaching Richards
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communicative-language-teaching-richards 4/22
C o m m u n i c a t i v e L a n g u a g e
eaching
F i n o c c h i a r o
2nd
Brurnfit
(1983)
c o n t r a s t t h e
major
dis t inct ive
features
of
t h e A u d i o l ~ r ig u a l
Method
a n d the C o m r n u n i c a t i v e A p p r o a c h ,
ac
c o r d i n g
to
the i r in terpre ta t ion:
Audio-lingual
1. Attends to srructure and form
more th an meaning.
2
Demands memorization of
strua ure-b ased dialogs.
3
Language irerns are no t
necessarily contextualized.
4.
Language learning is leaming
struau res, sounds, o r words.
5
Ma stery , o r over-learning is
sought.
6.
Drilling is a central technique.
7.
Native-speaker-like
pronunciation is sought.
8. Grammatical explanation is
avoided.
9.
Com munica tive activities only
come after a long process of
rigid drills an d exercises.
10
The use of the student's native
languag e is forbidden.
11.
Translation is forbidden
at
early levels.
12
Reading and writing a re
deferred till speech is mastered.
13
Th e target linguistic system will
be Leamed through the overt
teaching
of
the patterns
of
the
system.
14.
Linguistic competence is the
desired goal
15
Varieties of lang uage are
recognized but not emphasized.
16. The sequence of units is
determined solely by principies
of
linguistic cornplexity.
Communicative Language Teaching
Meaning is paramount .
Dialogs, i used, center around
communicat ive functions and are
no t normally m emorized.
Contextualization is a basic
premise.
Language learning is learning to
communicate.
Effective communication is sought.
Drilling may occur, but
peripherally.
Comprehensible pronun ciation is
sought.
Any device which helps the learners
is accepted varying acco rding to
their age, interest, etc.
Attempts to communicate may be
encouraged from the very
beginning.
Judicious use of native language is
accepted wh ere feasible.
Translat ion may he used ~vherr
students need o r benefit from
it.
Reading and writing can start from
the first day, if desired.
Th e targe t linguistic system will be
learned best through the process
of
struggling to communicate.
Communicative com petence is the
desired g oa l (¡.e. the ability to use
the linguistic system effectively
and appropriately) .
Linguistic variation is a cen tral
concept in materials and
methodology.
Sequencing is determined by any
consideration of content,
function, o r meaning which
maintains interest.
Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educativos, para la crítica y la investigación respetando la reglamentación en materia de derechos de autor.
Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.
Richards, J.C. y T.S. Rodgers (1987). Communicative Language Teaching.
En Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (pp. 64-86). Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
8/10/2019 Communicative Language Teaching Richards
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communicative-language-teaching-richards 5/22
Approaches me thods in l anguage t each ing
17. The teacher controls the
learners and prevents them
from doing anything that
conflicts with the theory.
18 Language is habit so errors
rnust be prevented at al1 costs.
19. Accuracy, in terms of formal
correctness, is a primary goal
20. Students are expected to
interact with the language
systern, embodied in machines
or controlled materials
21. The teacher is expected to
specify the language that
students are to use.
22. lntrinsic m otivation
will
spring
from an interest in the structure
of the language.
Teachers help learners in any way
that motivates thein to work with
the language.
Language is created by the
individual often through trial and
error.
Fluency and acceptable language is
the primary goal: accuracy is
judged not in the abstract but in
context.
Students are expected to interact
with other people, either in the
flesh, through pair and group
work, or in their writings.
The teacher cannot know exactly
what language the students will
use.
lntrinsic motivation will spring from
an interest in what is being
communicated by the language.
1983:
91-3)
Apa r t f rom be ing an in t erest ing exa inp le o f ho w pro pon en t s
of
C o m -
munica tive Language Teach ing s t ack the cards in t he i r f avor , such a se t
of
con t ras t s il lu s t ra t es some of t he maio r d i f fe rences be twee n c om mu -
n ica t ive approaches an d ear l ie r t r ad i ti ons i n l anguage t each ing. T h e wide
acceptance of t he co rnmunica tive approa ch a nd th e r e la t ive ly var ied w ay
in which i t is i n te rp re t ed a nd app l i cd can be a t t r i bu t ed t c t he f a r t t har
pract i t ioners f rom di f ferent educat ional t radi t ions can ident i fy wi th i t ,
an d consequent ly in terpret i t in d i fferei it ways. O n e
of
i ts N o r t h A mer -
ican proponents , Savignon 1983),for examp le, of fers as a pre cede nt to
CLT a commentary by Monta igne on h i s l earn ing of La t i n t h r o u g h
conversa t ion ra ther t han th rough t li e cus tomary m ethod
of
f o r ma l an a l -
ysis an d t r ans l a ti on . Wr i t es Monta igne , Wi thou t methods , w i thou t a
book, wi thou t g rammar o r ru l es , wi thou t a wh ip and wi thou t t ear s ,
had l earned a La t in as proper ris tlixr of
y
schoo lmas t er (Sav ignon
1983:
47).This ant i s t ructural v ie\v can be held to re presen t the langu age
learning version of a m ore gei ierril lenri iing perspect ive us ually referred
to as l earning by do ing o r t lie experi ence approa ch (H i lgard an d
Bower 1966).Th is not ion of d i rect rn tl ier than delayed pract ice
of
co m-
municat ive acts is cent ral to m ost C1.T in terpretat ions .
T h e focus on cornmunicative ar id coi i textual factors in langu age use
a l so has an an t eceden t i n t hc work
of
t he an th ropo log i s t Bron i s l aw
M alino ws ki a n d his col league, tl ie l ingtiist Jo hn Firth. Bri t ish a pplie d
Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educativos, para la crítica y la investigación respetando la reglamentación en materia de derechos de autor.
Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.
Richards, J.C. y T.S. Rodgers (1987). Communicative Language Teaching.
En Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (pp. 64-86). Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
8/10/2019 Communicative Language Teaching Richards
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communicative-language-teaching-richards 6/22
Communicative
Lotigl ¿ige
Teaching
linguists usually credit Firth with focusing atte ntio ii ori discourse as
subject a nd con tex t .for language analysis. Firth also .;rrcssed th at la n-
guage needed to be studied in the broader sociocult~ir:ii context of its
use, which included participants, their behavior and
belicfs, the objects
of linguistic discussion, and word choice. Both Michacl Halliday and
Dell Hymes, linguists frequently cited by advocates ot <:oinmunicative
Language Teaching, acknowiedge primary debts to M;ilinowski and
Firth.
~ .. .
Another frequently cited dimension of CLT, its learner-centered and
experience-based view of second languag e teaching, also Iias antecedents
outside the language teaching tradition per se. An im porra nt American
national curriculum commission in the 1930s, for exaiiiple, proposed
the ad option of an Experience Curriculum in English. Tlie report of the
com mission began with the. premise tha t experience is tlie best of al1
scho ols.. T he ideal curriculum consists of well-selecred experiences
(cited in Applebee 197 4: 1 19 ). Like thos e w ho have receritly urged the
organization of Cornrnunicative Language Teaching aroiind tasks and
procedures , the cornrnittee tried to suggest the means for selection and
weaving a ppro priate experiences into a co herent curriciilum stretching
acro ss the years of school English stud y (Applebee 19 74: 119 . Indi-
vidual learners w ere also seen a s possessing unique interests, styles, needs,
an d goals, which should be refle&ed in the design of m etho ds of instruc-
tion. Teachers were encouraged to develop learning materials on the
basis of the partic ular needs manifested by the class (Appleb ee 19 74 :
150 .
~ b m m o no al1 versions of C omrnu nicative Language T eaching, how -
ever, is a theory of language teaching that sta rts from n communicative
model of language and language use, and that seeks to transiate this
into a design for an instructional system, for materials, for teacher and
learn er roles and behaviors, and for classroom activities ;ind rechniques.
Let us now consider how this is manifested at the levels
of
approach,
design, and procedure.
pproach
heory
of
language
The com municative approach in Ianguage teaching srarts irom a theory
of language as comrnunication. The goal of langtiage teaching is
to develop w hat Hymes (19 72) referred t o as corniii~inicative corn-
petence. Hymes coined this term in ord er to contra st coinrnunica-
tive view of language and Chomsky's theory of compctcricc. Chornsky
held that
Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educativos, para la crítica y la investigación respetando la reglamentación en materia de derechos de autor.
Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.
Richards, J.C. y T.S. Rodgers (1987). Communicative Language Teaching.
En Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (pp. 64-86). Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
8/10/2019 Communicative Language Teaching Richards
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communicative-language-teaching-richards 7/22
A ppr oa c he s ~ne thods
n
languag e teaching
linguistic theor .
s
concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener in a
completely Iioriiogeneous speech community, who knows its language per-
fectly and
is iriiiitfected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as mem-
ory lim itatio~ i, istractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors
(random or charncteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in ac-
tual performance. (Chomsky
1965: 3
For Chomsky, the focus of l inguistic theory was to characterize the
abstrac t abi l it ies speakers possess tha t enable them to pro duce gra m -
matically correct sentences in a language. H ymes held that su ch a view
of l inguistic theory was sterile, t ha t l inguistic theory needed t o b e seen
as par t of a more genera l theory incorporat ing communicat ion and
culture. Hymes's theory of communicative com petence wa s a definition
of w ha t a speaker needs to k now in order to be comrnunicat ively com -
petent in a speech commun ity. n Hymes's view, a person wh o acquires
communicat ive competence acquires both knowledge and abi i i ty for
language use with respect to
1.
whether (and to what degree) something is formally possible;
2. whether (and to what degree) something is feasible
in
virtue of the means
of implementation available;
3
whether (and to w hat degree) something is appropria te (adequate, happy,
successful)
in
relation to a cont.ext
in
which
i t
is used and evaluated;
4.
whether (and to what degree) something is in fact done, actually per-
formed, and what its doing entails.
(Hymes 1972: 28 1)
This theory of wh at knowing a language enra i ls offers a much mo re
cornprehensive view than Chomsky's view ot competence, which dea s
primarily with abstract grammatical knowledge. Another linguistic the-
ory
of
communication favored in CLT is Halliday's functional account
of
language use. "Linguistics s con cerne d. . with the descr ipt ion
of
speech acts or texts , s ince only throug h the s tudy of language in use are
al1 the fun ctions of language, a nd therefore al1 com pon ents
of
meaning,
brough t into focus" (Hall iday 197 0: 1 45) . In a number
of
influential
books and papers , Hall iday has e laborated a powerful theory of the
functions of language, wliich complements Hymes's view of commu-
nicative cornpetence for man y writers on CLT (e.g. , Brumfit an d Jo hns on
19 79 ; Savignon 1983) . H e descr ibed (19 75: 11-17 seven basic functi ons
tha t langua ge performs for children learning their f irst language:
1 the instrumental funcrion: using language to get things;
2. the regulatory function: using language to control the behavior of others;
3.
the interactional function: using language to create interaction with
others;
4. the personiil function: using language to express personal feelings and
meanings:
Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educativos, para la crítica y la investigación respetando la reglamentación en materia de derechos de autor.
Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.
Richards, J.C. y T.S. Rodgers (1987). Communicative Language Teaching.
En Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (pp. 64-86). Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
8/10/2019 Communicative Language Teaching Richards
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communicative-language-teaching-richards 8/22
Comm unicat ive Language Teaching
5 the heuristic function: using language to learn and to discover;
6 the imaginative fun ctioa: using lariguage ro create a world of the
imagination;
7 the representational function: usilig language to com municate
information.
Learning a second language was sirnilarly viewed by prop oiien ts of C om -
municative Language T eaching as acquiring the linguistic me ans t o per-
form different kinds of functions.
Another theorist frequently cited for his views on the communicative
natu re of language is Hen ry Widdow son. In his book Teaching Langua ge
as
Communicat ion (1978), Widdowson presented a view of the rela-
tionship between linguistic systerns and their communicative values in
text and discourse. He focused on the communicative acts underlying
the ability to use language for different purposes.
A
more recent but
related analysis
of
communicative competence is found in Canale and
Swain (1980),
in which four dirnensions of cornrnunicative compe tence
are identified: gramm atical com petence, sociolinguistic com petenc e, dis-
course competence, a nd strategic cornpetence. G ram m atica l competence
refers to w hat
Chomsky calls l inguistic competence and what Hymes
intends by w ha t is formally possible. It is the do m ain of gra mm atica l
an d lexical capacity. Sociolinguistic coinpetence refers to an und ersta nd-
ing of the social con text in which com mu nication tak es place, including
role relationships, rhe shared information of the participants, and the
communicative purpose for their interaction. Discourse cornpetence re-
fers to the in terp retatio n of individual message elements in term s of the ir
interconnectedness and of how meaning is represented in relationship
to the ent ire discourse o r text . St rategic cornpetence refers to the c o p i ~ g
strategies tha t com municators eniploy to init iate, termina te, m aintain,
repair, and r ed irea communicat ion.
At the level of language theorv, Com municative Langua ge Teachin g
has a rich,
i
somewhat eclectic, theoretical base. Some of the charac-
teristics of this communicative view of language follow.
1
Language is a system for the expression of meaning.
2 The primary function of language is
for
interaction and comm unication.
3 The structure of language reflects
its
functional and comm unicative uses.
4 Th e primary units of language a r e n o t merely its grammatical and struc-
tural features, but categories oi fuiii-rional and comm unicative meaning as
exemplified in discourse.
heoryof le rning
In contrast to the amount that has been writ ten in Communicative
Language Teaching l i terature abour com municative dimensions of lan-
Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educativos, para la crítica y la investigación respetando la reglamentación en materia de derechos de autor.
Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.
Richards, J.C. y T.S. Rodgers (1987). Communicative Language Teaching.
En Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (pp. 64-86). Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
8/10/2019 Communicative Language Teaching Richards
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communicative-language-teaching-richards 9/22
Approaches methods n l ngu ge te zching
guage, l i tt le has been w rit ten a bo ut learri ing theory. N either B rumfit a nd
Johnson (1979) nor Littlewood
19s
. for example, offers any discus-
sion of learning theory. Elements
ot
iii underlying learning theory can
be discerned in some CLT practices, Iiowever. One such element might
be described as the comm unication pririciple: Activities th at involve real
comm unication prom ote learning. A second eleme nt is the task principle:
Activities in which language is used for carrying ou t mea ning ful task s
prom ote learning Uohnson 19 82 ). A third element is the mean ingfulness
principle: Language that is meaningful to the learner supp orts the le arn-
ing process. Learning activities are corisequently selected according to
how well they engage the learner in meaningful and authe ntic langua ge
use (rather than merely mec hanical practice of language pattern s). These
principles, w e suggest, ca n be inferred from CL T practices (e.g., Little-
wood 1981; Johnson 198 2). They address the con di t~ on sneeded to
pro m ote second language learning, ra ther than th e processes of lan gua ge
acquisition.
More recent accounts of Commuiiicarive Language Teaching, how-
ever, have attem pted t o describe theories of language learnrng processes
that are compat ible wi th the communicat ive approach. Savignon (19 83 )
surveys second language acquisition research as a source for learning
theories and considers the role of linguistic, social, cognitive, and in-
dividual variables in language acquisition. O the r theorists (e.g., Stephen
Krashen, wh o is no t directly associated with Comm unicarive Langu age
Teac hing) have developed theories citcd as com patible with the principles
of C LT (see Chapter 9). Krashen sees acquisition as the basic process
involved in developing language proficiericy and distinguishes tliis proc-
ess from learning. Acquisition refers
ro
t he u n c o n s c i o ~ s
evz üpmz:?r ü f
the targe t language system a s a result of using the language f or real
comm unication. Learning is the conscious representation of gram ma ticai
knowledge that has resulted from instruction, and i t cannot lead to
acquisition. i t is the ac quired system rliat we cal1 upon to c reate utter-
ances during spontaneous language use. The learned system can serve
only as a mo nitor of the outp ut o í the acquired system. Krashen an d
othe r second language acquisition theorists typically stress that langua ge
learning comes abou t through using Ianguage com municatively, rathe r
than through practicing language skills.
Johnson (1984) and Li t t lewood 1984)considera n alternative learning
theory that they also see as com patible with CLT-a skill-learning mo del
of learning. According to this theoru, tlie acquisition of co mm unicative
competence in a language is an exaiiiple of skill development. This
involves bo th a cognitive a nd a beiinvioral aspect:
The cognitive aspect involves the interii;ilis.irion of plans for creating appro-
priate behaviour. For Ianguage use, thcsc
~?l;lr~s
erive mainly f ron l the
l a n -
Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educativos, para la crítica y la investigación respetando la reglamentación en materia de derechos de autor.
Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.
Richards, J.C. y T.S. Rodgers (1987). Communicative Language Teaching.
En Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (pp. 64-86). Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
8/10/2019 Communicative Language Teaching Richards
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communicative-language-teaching-richards 10/22
Communica t ive Language Teach ing
guagc system hey include gramm atical rules, procedures for selecting
voc:ii>iilary,and social conventions governing speech. The beh uiour l aspect
involbes rhe automation of these ~ l a n so that rhey can be converted inro
fluenr performance in real time. This occurs mainly through practice coi>-
verting plans into performance. (Littiewood 1984: 74)
Th i s t heory thus encourages an emphas i s on p rac t i ce as a way of de-
veloping communicat ive ski l ls.
esign
bjectives
Piepho (1981) discusses the fol lowing levels of object ives in a commu-
nicat ive approach:
an integrative and contenr level (language as a m eans of expression)
2. a linguistic and instrumental level (language as a semiotic system an d aii
object of learning);
3 an affective level of interpersonal relationships and cond uct (language as
means of ex pressing values and judgments abo ut oneself and o ther s);
4.
a level of individual learning needc (remedial learning based o n erro r
analysis);
5 a general educational level of extra-linguisric goals (language learning
within the school curriculum).
(Piepho 1981: 8 )
Th ese ar e proposed a s general objecr ives , appl icab le to
an y
teachifi-
s i tuat ion. Par t icular objectives for
CLT
canno t be def ined beyond th i s
level of speci f icat ion, s ince such an approach assumes that language
teaching will ref lect the par t icular needs of the target learners . These
needs may be in the dom ains of reading, wri ting , l is tening, o r speaking ,
each of which can be approached f rom a communica t ive per spec t ive .
Cur r i cu lum o r i ns t ruc t iona l oh jec tives fo r a p ar t i cu la r c ourse w ou ld
reflect specific aspects of communica t ive com petence accord ing to t hc
learner s proficiency level and com mu nicat ive needs.
The syllabus
Discussions of the na tur e
of
the syl labus have been cent ral in Coin-
municat ive Language Teaching. We have seen that one of the f i rs t sy l -
labus m odels to be propo sed w as described as a notional syl labus (Wilki iis
1976 ,
which specified the semanti i-grammatical categories (e.g., fre-
quei icy , mot ion, loc at ion) and the categories of comm unicat ive func t ion
thar l earner s need to express . The Counci l of Eu r o p e ex p an d ed an d
Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educativos, para la crítica y la investigación respetando la reglamentación en materia de derechos de autor.
Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.
Richards, J.C. y T.S. Rodgers (1987). Communicative Language Teaching.
En Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (pp. 64-86). Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
8/10/2019 Communicative Language Teaching Richards
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communicative-language-teaching-richards 11/22
Approaches methods in language teaching
developed this into a syllabus that included de scriptions of t he objectives
of foreign language courses for European adults, the situations in which
they m ight typically need to use a foreign langu age (e.g., trave l, business ),
the topics they might need to talk about (e.g., personal identification,
educa tion, shopping), the functions they needed language for (e.g. , de-
scribing something, requesting information, expressing agreement an d
disagree men t), the notions m ade use of in com mu nica tion (e.g., time,
fr eq ue nc ~, urat ion), as well as the vocabulary and gra mm ar needed.
T he result was published as Th reshold Leve1 English ( van Ek a n d Alex-
ander 1980) and was an at tempt to specify wh at was needed in ord er
t o be able to achieve a reasonable degree of com mun icative proficiency
in a foreign language, including the language items needed to realize
this threshold level.
Discussion of syllabus theory and syllabus models in Communicative
Language Teac hing has been extensive. Wilkins's original n otion al syl-
labus model was soon criticized by British applied linguists as merely
replacing one kind of list (e.g., a list of gra mm ar item s) with an oth er (a
list of notions and functions). It specified products, rather than com-
municative processes. W iddowson (197 9) argued that notional-func-
tional categories provide
only a very partial and imprecise description of certa in semantic and prag-
matic mles which are used for reference when people interact. They tell us
nothing about the procedures people empioy in the application of these rules
when they are actually engaged
in
commuiiicative activity.
f
we are to adopt
a communicative approach to teaching which takes as its primary purpose
the development of the
ability
to do things with language, then it is discourse
which must be a t the center of our atten tion. (W iddow son 1979: 254)
The re are at present several proposals a nd models for w ha t a syllabus
might look like in C omrnunicative Language Teaching. Yalden (19 83 )
describes the major current communicative syllabus types. We sum-
marize below a modified version of Yalden's classification of commu-
nicative syllabus types, with reference source s to each model:
T Y P ~
1 structures plus functions
2
functional spiral around
structural core
3
structura l, functional,
instrumental
4
functional
5. notional
6 interaaional
7. task-based
8. learner generated
Reference
Wilkins (1976)
Brumfit (19 80)
Allen (1980)
Jupp and Hodlin (1975)
Wilkins (1976)
Widdowson (1979)
Prabhu (1983)
Candlin (1976) , Henner-Stanchina
and Riley (1978)
Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educativos, para la crítica y la investigación respetando la reglamentación en materia de derechos de autor.
Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.
Richards, J.C. y T.S. Rodgers (1987). Communicative Language Teaching.
En Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (pp. 64-86). Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
8/10/2019 Communicative Language Teaching Richards
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communicative-language-teaching-richards 12/22
otntnunicative Language Teac hing
There is extensive documentation ot attempts to create syllabus and
proto-syllabus designs
~o f ypes
1 5
;\ current interest is in syllabus
designs of types.6-8, alth oug h specificnrions of organ izing princip les for
interactional, task-based, and
learner-generated syllabuses have been
only partiall; accomplishéd. Desc ripttoiis of interactional strategies have
been given. for exam ple, for interactio ns of teacher an d stude nt (Sinclair
and Coulthard 19 7J ) and doctor and patient (Candlin, Bruton, and
Leather 1974). Although interesting, tliese descriptions have restricted
the field of inquiry to two-person interactions in which there exist rea-
sonably rigid and acknowledged superordinate to subordinate role
relationships.
So me designers of comm unicat ive syllabuses have also looked to task
specification and task organization as the appropriate criteria for syl-
labu s design.
The only form of syllabus which is compatible with and can support commu-
nicational teaching seems to be a purely procedural one-which lists in more
or less detail, the types of tasks to be attempted
in
the classroom and sug-
gests an arder of complexity for tasks of
t h e
same kind. (Prabhu 1983: 4 )
An example of such a model that has been implemented nationally is
the Malaysian communicational syllabus (English Language Syllabus in
Malaysian Schools 19 75 ) a syllabus for the teaching of English a t the
upp er secondary leve1 in Malaysia. T his w as one of th e first attemp ts to
organize Com municative Language Teaching aro und a specification of
communication tasks. In the organizational schema three broad com-
municative objectives a re broken dowii into twenty-four m ore specific
objectives determined on the basis of needs analysis. These objectives
are organized in to leart$ng areas, fo r each of which are specified a
num ber of outcom e goals o r products. product is defined as a piece
of comprehensible informa tion, written, spoken, or presented in a no n-
linguistic form. A letter is a produ ct, a nd s o is an instruc tion, a rnessage,
a report or a mara or graph produced through information gleaned
through languagr* (English Language Syllabus 1975: 5) . Th e products ,
then, result from successful completion of tasks. For example, the prod-
uct called relaying a message to others can be broken into a num ber
of tasks, such as ( a) understanding the message, (b) asking questions to
clear any doubts (c) asking questions to gather more information, (d)
taking notes, (e) arrangin g the notes in a logical manner for presentation,
and f ) orally presenting the message. For each product a number of
proposed situations are suggested. These situations consist of a set of
specifications for learner interactions, the stimuli, comrnunicative con-
text, participants, desired outcomes, 2nd constraints. These situations
(and others constructed by individual teachers) constitute the m eans by
which learner interaction and com ni~inic ative kills are realized.
Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educativos, para la crítica y la investigación respetando la reglamentación en materia de derechos de autor.
Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.
Richards, J.C. y T.S. Rodgers (1987). Communicative Language Teaching.
En Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (pp. 64-86). Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
8/10/2019 Communicative Language Teaching Richards
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communicative-language-teaching-richards 13/22
8/10/2019 Communicative Language Teaching Richards
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communicative-language-teaching-richards 14/22
C o m m u n i ca ti v e L a n g u a g e T e a c l ~ i r ~ g
di f ferent roles for learners f rom those f oun d in more t radi t ional s ect ) i i J
langua ge classrooms. Breen an d C andlin describe the learner's role witliiii
CLT in the fol lowing terms:
Th e role of learner as negotiator-between the self, the learning process, an J
the obiect of leatning-emerges from and interacts with the role of joint ne p< >-
tiator within the group and within the classroom procedures and activities
which the group undertakes. The implication for the learner is that he shoiiltl
contribute as much as he gains, and thereby learn in an interdependent wn\.
(1980:
110
Th ere is t hus an acknowledem ent . in so me accoun t s of CLT. tha t learner s
br ing preconcept ions of w ha t teaChing a nd learning should be l ike. Th ese
const i tu te a set for learnine. whic h wh en unrealized can lead to learner
confus ion and resen tmen t kenner -S tanch ina and Ri l ey 1978). Ofrci i
t here i s no t ex t , g ramm ar ru l es a re no t p resen ted, c l ass room ar rangemei i t
i s nonstandard , s tudents are expected to in teract pr imar i ly wi th ei ici i
o the r r a ther t han wi th t he t eacher, a nd co r rec tion of er ro r s may he
absen t o r i n frequen t. T he coopera t ive ( r a ther t han ind iv idua li s ti c )
a p -
proa ch to learning st ressed in CLT ma y l ikewise be unfam i l iar to iearri-
ers. CLT methodologis t s consequent ly recommend that learners learr i
to
see that fai led communicat ion
is
a jo in t responsibi l i ty and not the
faul t of speak er o r l i s tener. Simi lar ly , successful com mu nica t ion i s ari
accomp l ishment jo in tly achieved an d acknowledged.
eacher rol s
Several ro les are assumed for teachers in Communicar ive Languagc
Teaching, the importance of par t icular ro les being determined by thc
view of
CLT
adop ted. Breen an d Can dl in descr ibe teacher ro les in t lie
fol lowing terms:
The teacher has two main roles: the first role is to facilitate the communica-
tion process between al1 participants in the classroom, and between these
participants and the various activities and texts. The second tole is to act as
an indepeiideiit participant within rhe learning-teaching group. The latter rolc
is closely relared to the objectives of the first role and arises from it. These
roles iinply a set of secoiidary roles for the teacher; first, as an organizer t
resources aiid as resource himself, second as a guide within the classrooiii
procedures x id activities.. third role for the teacher is tha t of researchcr
and learner,
witli
much to contribute in terms of ap propria te knowledge
iici
abilities, nctiial and obse. ed experience of the natur e o i learning and orgnrii-
zational ciipacities. (1980: 99)
O th er ro les r tssumed for teachers a re needs analyst , couns elor , an d groi i li
process iii;iriager.
Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educativos, para la crítica y la investigación respetando la reglamentación en materia de derechos de autor.
Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.
Richards, J.C. y T.S. Rodgers (1987). Communicative Language Teaching.
En Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (pp. 64-86). Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
8/10/2019 Communicative Language Teaching Richards
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communicative-language-teaching-richards 15/22
Approaches met ods in language teaching
NEEDS ANALYST
T he CL T.teach er nisliiiies a responsibility for determ ining an d res pon d-
ing to learner langiiage needs. This rnay be done informally and per-
sonally through one-ro-one sessions with students, in which the teacher
talks thro ugh such issiies as the student's perc eption of his or her learninp.
style, learning assets, and learninggoals. It may be don e forma lly throu gh
adm inisterine a needs assessrnent instrument, su ch as rhose exemplified
in Savignon (1 98 3). Typically, such formal assessments conta in items
that attempt to determine an individual 's motivation for studying the
language. For examp le, students might respond on a 5 -point scale (strongly
agree t o strongly disagree) to statements like the following.
wan t to study English because..
.
1
think
it
will somedny be useful in getting a good job.
2
it will help me better understand English-speaking people and their way of
life.
3
one needs good kriowledge of English to gain other people's respect.
4.
it will allow me to meet and converse with interesting people.
5 1
need it for rny job.
6
it will enable me to think and behave like English-speaking people
O n the basis of such needs assessments, teachers a re expected to plan
grou p a nd individual instruction tha t responds t o the learners ' needs.
OUNSELOR
Another role assumed by several CLT approaches is that of ccunse ~:,
similar to the way this role is defined in Co mm unity Language Learning.
In
this role, the teacher-counselor is expected to exemplify an effective
communicator seeking to maximize the meshing of speaker intention
an d hearer interpretation, through the use of parap hrase, con firmation,
an d feedback.
G R O U P
PRO CE SS M A N r \ ú E R
CL T procedures often require teachers to acquire less teacher-centered
classroom managem eiit skills. Iris the teacher's responsibility t o organize
the classroom as a serting for comrnunication and cornmunicative ac-
tivities. Guidelines for classroom practice (e.g., Littlewood 19 81 ; Fin-
occhiaro and Brumfit 1983) suggest that during a n activity t he teacher
monitors, encourages, and suppresses the inclination to supply gaps in
lexis, gramm ar, an d strategy but notes such gaps for later comm entary
and communicative practice. At the conclusion of group activities, the
teacher leads in the debriefing of the activity, pointing out alternatives
Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educativos, para la crítica y la investigación respetando la reglamentación en materia de derechos de autor.
Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.
Richards, J.C. y T.S. Rodgers (1987). Communicative Language Teaching.
En Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (pp. 64-86). Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
8/10/2019 Communicative Language Teaching Richards
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communicative-language-teaching-richards 16/22
8/10/2019 Communicative Language Teaching Richards
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communicative-language-teaching-richards 17/22
Approaches methods n l ngu gc~
cucliing
(e.g., relaying information), a task :iiinlysis for them atic de velo pm ent
(e.g., understan ding the message, a s k i i i ~ uestions to obta in c iarification,
asking for more information, takiiig notes, ordering and presentiiig
in-
formation), a practice situation description (e.g., A caller asks to see
your manager. H e does not have an appointment . Gathe r th e necessary
information from him and relay the inessage to your manager. ), a
stimulus presentation (in the preceding case, the beginning of an office
conversation scripted and o n tape), coniprehension qu estions (e.g., Why
is the caller in the office? ), and paraphrase exercises.
TASK-BASED MATERIALS
A
variety of games, role plays, simiilations, and task-based communi-
cation activities have been prepared
to
support Comrnunicat ive Lan-
guage Teach ing classes. These typically are in the form of one-of- a-kind
items: exercise han dbo oks, cue cards, aitivity cards, pair-com rnunication
practice materials, and student-interaction practice booklets. In pair-
communication materials, there are typically two sets of material for a
pair of students, each set containing different kinds of information.
Sometimes the information is complementary, and p artne rs mu st it their
respective parts o the j igsaw into a composite whole. Oth ers assume
different role relationships for the partners (e.g., an interviewer and an
interviewee). Still others provide drills and practice material in inter-
actional formats.
Many proponents of Communicat ive Language Teaching have advo-
cated the use of authentic, frorii-life ma terials in the classroom .
These might include language-based realia, such as signs, magazines,
advertisements, and newspapers, or graphic and visual sources around
which communicative activities can be built, such as maps, pictures,
symbols, graphs, and charts. Different kinds of objects can be used to
sup po rt comm unicative exercises, si ich as a plastic model to assemble
from directions.
rocedure
Because com mu nicative principles caii be applied to th e teaching of an y
skill, at any level, and because of thc w ide variety of c lassroom activities
and exercise types discussed in thc Iircrature on Communicative Lan-
guage Teaching, description of typic;iI ~I as sr o o m rocedu res used in a
lesson based o n C L T principles is nor tc.;isible. Savig non (1 98 3 ) discusses
Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educativos, para la crítica y la investigación respetando la reglamentación en materia de derechos de autor.
Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.
Richards, J.C. y T.S. Rodgers (1987). Communicative Language Teaching.
En Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (pp. 64-86). Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
8/10/2019 Communicative Language Teaching Richards
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communicative-language-teaching-richards 18/22
Approaches method s in language teaching
Such procedures clearly have much in common with those observed in
classes taught according to Structural-Situational a nd A udiolingual prin-
ciples. Traditional procedures a re not rejected b ut ar e reinterpreted an d
extended. A similar conservatism is found in many ortho dox CL T
texts, such as Alexander's Mainline Beginners (1 978 ). Althoug h each
unit has an ostensibly functional focus, new teaching points are intro-
duced with dialogues, followed by controlled practice of the main g ra m -
rnatical patterns. The teaching points are then contextualized through
situational practice. This serves as an introduction to a freer practice
activity, such as a role play or improv isation. Sim ilar techn ique s are used
in another popular textbook, Starting Strategies (Abbs and Freebairn
1977 ). Teaching points are introduced in dialogue form, gram ma tical
items are isolated for controlled practice, and then freer activities are
provided. Pair and group work is suggested to encourage students to
use and practice functions and forms. The rnethodological procedures
underlying these texts reflects a sequence of activities represented in
Littlewood (1981, p. 86) as follows:
tructurai activities
Pre-communicative activities
\ uasi-comrnunicativs activities
,
Functional communication activities
Cornrnunicative activities
Social interacton activities
Savignon (19 72 , 198 3), however, rejects the notion th at learners mu st
first gain control over individual skills (pronunciation, grammar, vo-
cabulary) before applying them in communicative tasks; she advocates
providing cornrniiiiicative practice from the star t of instruction. H o w to
implement
CLI'
principles at the leve1 of classroom procedures thus
remains central to discussions of the communicative approa ch. H o w can
the range of communicative activities and procedures be defined, and
how can the teacher determine a mix and timing of activities that best
rneets the needs o a particular iearner or g roup of learners? These
fundamental qilesrions cannot be answered by proposing further tax-
onornies and classitications, but require systematic investigation of the
use of different kiiids of activities and procedures in
L2
classrooms (see
Chapter 11).
Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educativos, para la crítica y la investigación respetando la reglamentación en materia de derechos de autor.
Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.
Richards, J.C. y T.S. Rodgers (1987). Communicative Language Teaching.
En Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (pp. 64-86). Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
8/10/2019 Communicative Language Teaching Richards
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communicative-language-teaching-richards 19/22
Com municative Language Teaching
Conclusion
Communicative Language Teasliiiig is best considered an approach rather
than a method. Thus althougli
n
reasonable degree of theoretical con-
sistency can be discerned at tlie lcvels of language and learning theory,
a t the levels of design and procedu re there is much greater roo m for
individual interpretation and variation than most methods permit. I t
could be that one version arnong the various proposals for syllabus
models, exercise types, and classroom activities may gain wider app rova l
in the future, giving Com municative Language Teaching a status similar
to o ther teaching methods. On the other hand, divergent interpretations
might lead to h6mog eneous subgroups.
Communicat ive Language Teaching a ~ p e a re d t a t ime when Brit ish
language teaching was ready for a paradigm shift. Situational Language
Teaching was no longer felt to reflect a methodology appropriate for
the seventies and beyond. CLT appealed to those who sought a more
hum anistic app roa ch to teaching, on e in which the interactive processes
of communication received priority. The rapid adoption and implemen-
tation of th e communicative app roach also resulted from the fact tha t
it quickly assumed the statu s of or tho do xy in British language teaching
circles, receiving the sanction and support of leading British applied
linguists, language specialists, publishers, as well as institutions, such as
th e British Coun cil Richards 1985).
Now that the initial wave of enthusiasm has passed, however, some
of the claims of C LT are being looked a t more critically Swan 1985).
T he ad option of a communicative app roach raises imp ortan t issues for
teacher training, materials development, and testingland evaluation.
Questions that have been raised include whether a communicative ap-
proa ch can be applied a t al1 levels in a language prog ram , whe ther it is
equally suited t o ESL and EFL situations, whether it requires existing
gramma r-based syllabuses to be aban don ed o r merely revised, how such
an app roa ch can be evaluated, h ow suitable it is for non-native teachers,
and how it can be adopted in situations where students must continue
to
take grammar-based tests. These kinds of questions will doubtless
require attention i the communicntive movement in language teachjng
continues to gain momentum
ir1
the future.
ibliography
Abbs,
B.
A., and
1
Freebairn.
1977
Stdrting Strategies
London: Longman.
Alexander, L.
G. 1978
Mainlinc Ifqyitrners London: Longman.
Allen, J.
P.
B. 1980 A three-level iiirriculiim model for second language edu-
Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educativos, para la crítica y la investigación respetando la reglamentación en materia de derechos de autor.
Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.
Richards, J.C. y T.S. Rodgers (1987). Communicative Language Teaching.
En Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (pp. 64-86). Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
8/10/2019 Communicative Language Teaching Richards
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communicative-language-teaching-richards 20/22
A p p r o a c h e s m e t h o d s i n l a n g u a g e t e ac h i ng
cation. Mimeo: Modern Language Center, Ontario lnstitute for Studies in
Education
Allwright, R: L. 1977. Language learning through com municatioii practice. E L T
Documents 76 (3) . London: British Council.
Applebee, A.
N.
197 4. Tradition a n d Reform in the Teaching o E~zglislt.A
History. Urbana, 111.: National Council of Teachers of English
Austin, J. L. 1962. H ow to D o Things with W ords. Oxfor d: C lareiid on l'ress.
Breen, M., and C.
N.
Candlin. 198 0. Th e essentials of a comm unicative cu r-
riculum in language teaching. Applied Linguistics l( 2 ) : 89-1 12 .
Brumfit,
C.
1980. From defining to designing: communicative specifications
versus communicative methodology in foreign language teachiiig. In
K.
Muller (ed.), The Foreign Language Syllabus and Cot~tmrtnicativeAp-
proaches to Teaching Proceedings o/ a European-Americari Scrninar. Spe-
cial issue of Studies in Secon d Lan gua ge Acquisitiorr, 3 ( 1 ) 1-9.
Brumfit, C. J., and K Johnson (eds.). 1979. The Communicatiuc A pproach to
Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Byrne, D. 1 978. Materials for Lan guage Teaching. Inrcractio ~r 'ackages Lon-
don: Modern English Publications.
Canale, M., and M. Swain. 198 0. Theoretical bases of coriimiinicative ap-
proaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied 1.1nguistics l(1):
1 4 7 .
Candlin, C. N. 1976. Communicative language teaching and the deht to prag-
matics. In C. Rameh (ed.), Georgetown Uniwersity R o u n d tu l~ k ~976. Wash-
ington, D.C.: Geo rgeto wn University Press.
Candlin, C N., C. J. Bruton, and J. H. Leather. 197 4. Doctor-pntient com-
munication skills. ~Mimeo,University of Lancaster.
Chornsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouroii
Chomskv, N. 1965. Aspects of th e Th eory o f Syntax. Bostori
MIT
Press.
Englisli Language Syflabus in Mulaysian Schools, Tingknt;r r 4
975
Kirala
Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka.
Finocchiaro, M., and C. Brumfit. 1 983 . The Functiortal-N otioir~~l pproach .
From Theory to Practice. New York: Oxford University I'ress
Firth, J.
R.
1957. Papers in Linguistics: 1934-1951 London: Ou tor d University
Press.
Geddes, M., an d G. Sturtridge. 19 79 . 1,istening Links Londori Heinem ann.
Gumperz, J. J., and D. Hymes (eds.).
1972.
Directio~isn Soiiolii~gitistics.The
Ethnography o/ Communication. New York: Holt, Rinel,art nrid Winston.
Halliday, M. A. K 197 0. Language srructure and language furiirioi~ In J Lyons
(ed.), New Ho riz on s in Linguistics, pp. 140 -65. Har mo ntis\v c~rr li I'enguin.
Halliday, M. A. K. 19 73 . Exp1o ratio )ts in the Fuizctio12s of I.inr,yr~Lrgc oiidon:
Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K 1975. Learning Ho w to Mean Explorntioi~s
n
the Devel-
opment of Language. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday,
M. A. K.
19 78 . Langu agea s Social Semiotic. Londoii
F.cl\r.nrd
Arnold.
Henner-Stanchina, C., and P. Riley. 1978 Aspecrs
t
au to i ion i~~i t se;irning.
In
E L T Docunzents 1 03: Individtialization ilz 1.anguage 1.cri~itiri.q. p. 75-97.
London: British Council.
Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educativos, para la crítica y la investigación respetando la reglamentación en materia de derechos de autor.
Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.
Richards, J.C. y T.S. Rodgers (1987). Communicative Language Teaching.
En Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (pp. 64-86). Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
8/10/2019 Communicative Language Teaching Richards
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communicative-language-teaching-richards 21/22
C o m m u n i c a ti v e L a n g u a g e T e a c h i n g
Hilgard, E. R., and G. H. Bower. 1966. Theories of Learning. New York: Ap
pleton-Century-Croks.
Holec, H. 198 0. Auton omy a nd Foreign Language Learning. Strasbourg : Cotiii-
cil of Eutope.
Ho wa tt, A. P. R. 198 4. A History of English Language Teaching. Ox ford : 0 -
ford University Press.
Hymes,
D.
1972. On commu nicative competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes
eds.), Sociolinguistics, pp. 269-93. Har mo ndsw orth: Penguin.
Johnson, 1982. Communicatiue Syllabus Design and Methodology. Oxforcl
Pergamon.
Johnson, 1984. Skill psychology and communicative methodology. Paper pre-
sented at the RELC seminar, Singapore.
Jupp, T. C., and S. Hodlin. 1975 . Industrial English: An Ex ample of T h e o n
and Practice in Functional Language Teaching. London: Heinemann.
Littlewood, W. 19 81. Comm unicatiue Language Teaching. Cambridge: C am -
bridge University Press.
Littlewood, W. 1984. Foreign and Second Language Learning: Language Ac-
quisition Research and Its Implications for the Classroom. Cambridge
Cambridge University Press.
Morrow, K. and K. Johnson. 1979. Communicate. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Munby,
J.
1978. C omm unicatiue Syllabus Design. Cam bridge: Cam bridge Uni-
versity Press.
Piepho,
H.-E.
198 1 Establishing objectives in tbe teaching of English. In C.
Candlin ed.), The Communicatiue Teaching of English:
Principies
a n d a11
Exercise Typology. London: Longman.
Porter,
P. A.
1983. V ariations
n
the conversations of adu lt learners of English
as a fuiiction of th e proficiency level of the particip ants. P h.D. d isserta tion,
Stanford University.
Prabhu,
N.
1983. Procedural syllabuses. Paper presented a t the RELC S eminar,
Singapore
Richards, J . C. 1985. The secret l ife of methods. In Richards, The ~ o h t e x t /
Language Teaching, pp. 32-45. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press.
Savignon, S. 1972. Teaching for commu nicative competence: a research rep orr
Audiouisrral Language Jour nal lO 3): 153-62.
Savignon, S. 1983. Communicatiue Competence: Theory an d Classroom Prac-
tice. Reading, iMass.: Addison-Wesley.
Searle, J. R 196 9. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosoph y of Language. Can i-
bridge G m br id ge University Press.
Sinclair,
J
McH and R. M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Dis-
course. Oxiord: Oxford University Press.
Swan, M. 1985 A critica1 look at the communicative appro ach. English L a ~ i -
guage Teaching Journal, pt. 1 39 1): 2-12.
Syllabuses /or Primary Schools. 1981. Hong Kong: Curriculum Developmeiir
Committee Hong Kong.
Van
Ek,
J.
A.
1975. The Th reshold Leve1 in a Eu ropean UnitlCred it System
o1
Moderrz Ldrtguage Teaching by Adults. Systems Development in Adulr
Languagc Learning. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educativos, para la crítica y la investigación respetando la reglamentación en materia de derechos de autor.
Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.
Richards, J.C. y T.S. Rodgers (1987). Communicative Language Teaching.
En Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (pp. 64-86). Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
8/10/2019 Communicative Language Teaching Richards
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communicative-language-teaching-richards 22/22
Ap pro ac l~e s rne thods in language teach ing
Van Ek, 1 nii L. G. Alexander. 1980. Thieshold Leve1 English. Ox ford :
Perg;iiiioti
Watcyn-[oncs, P. 1981. Pair Work. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
W id d o w s t ) ~ ~ ,
.
G. 1972. The teaching of English as comrnunication. English
Langrrri~yc eaching 27 (1) : 15-18.
Widdowsori,
H. G
1978. Teaching Language as Com munication. O xford : O x-
ford tiniversity Press.
Widdowsori,
H G.
1979. Th e cornmunicative approach a nd its applications. In
H G.
Widdowson, Explorations in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford
Universiry Press.
Wilkins,
D.
A
1972. The linguistic and situational conten t of th e com mon core
in a unirlcredit system. Ms. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Wilkins, [ A 1976. Notiomi Syllabuses Oxford: Oxfoid University Press.
Wilkins, D A 1979. Notional syllabuses and the concept of a minirnum ade-
qua te grarnmar. In C.
J.
Brumfit and K Johnson (eds.), The Com municntive
Approuch to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wright,
A.
1976. Visual Ma terial for the L anguage Teacher. 1.ondon: Longm an.
Yalden, J 1983 ? he C ommunicative Syllabus Evolution, Design an d lm ple-
me ntiltio~i Oxford: Pergamon.
Este material es proporcionado al alumno con fines educativos, para la crítica y la investigación respetando la reglamentación en materia de derechos de autor.
Este ejemplar no tiene costo alguno. El uso indebido de este ejemplar es responsabilidad del alumno.