全屏显示专题章节

The origins of the 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.In Situational Language Teaching，language was taught by practicing basic structures in meaningful situation-based activities.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 assumptions underlying Situational Language Teaching.By the end of thesixties，it was clear that the Situational approach had run its course.There was no future in continuing to pursue the chimera of predicting language on the basis of situational events.What was required was a closer study of the language itself and a return to the traditional concept that utterances carried meaning in themselves and expressed the meanings and intentions of the speakers and writers who created them（Howatt，1984：280）.This was partly a response to the sorts of criticisms the prominent American linguist Noam Chomsky had leveled at structural linguistic theory in his now classic book Syntactic Structures（1957）.Chomsky had demonstrated that the current standard structural theories of language 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 that was inadequately addressed in current approaches to language teaching at that time—the functional and communicative potential of language.They saw the need to focus in language teaching on communicative proficiency rather than on mere mastery of structures.Scholars who advocated this view of language，such as Christopher Candlin and Henry Widdowson，drew on the work of British functional linguists（e.g.，John Firth，M.A.K.Halliday），American work in sociolinguistics（e.g.，Dell Hymes，John Gumperz，and William Labov），as well as work in philosophy（e.g.，John Austin and John Searle）.

Another impetus for different approaches to foreign language teaching came from changing educational realities in Europe.With the increasing interdependence of European countries came the need for greater efforts to teach adults the major languages of the European Common Market and the Council of Europe，a regional organization for cultural and educational cooperation.Education was one of the Council of Europe's major areas of activity.It sponsored international conferences on language teaching，published monographs and books about language teaching，and was active in promoting the formation of the International Association of Applied Linguistics.The need to articulate and develop alternative methods of language teaching was considered a high priority.

In 1971 a group of experts began to investigate the possibility of developing 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 all the other portions.The group used studies of the needs of European language learners，and in particular a preliminary document prepared by a British linguist，D.A.Wilkins（1972），which proposed a functional or communicative definition of language that could serve as a basis for developing communicative syllabuses for language teaching.Wilkins'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.Wilkins later revised and expanded his 1972 document into a book called Notional Syllabuses（Wilkins，1976）that had a significant impact on the development of Communicative Language Teaching.The Council of Europe incorporated his semantic/communicative analysis into a set of specifications for a first-level communicative language syllabus.These threshold level specifications have had a strong influence on the design of communicative language programs and textbooks in Europe.The work of the Council of Europe；the writings of Wilkins，Widdowson and other British applied linguists on the theoretical basis for a communicative or functional approach to language teaching；the rapid application of these ideas by textbook writers；and the equally rapid acceptance of these new principles by British language teaching specialists，curriculum development centers，and even governments gave prominence nationally and internationally to what came to be referred to as the Communicative Approach，or simply CLT.Although the movement began as a largely British innovation，focusing on alternative conceptions of a syllabus，since the mid-1970s the scope of CLT has expanded，both American and British proponents now see it as an approach（and not a method）that aims to（a）make communicative competence the goal of language teaching and（b）develop procedures for the teaching of the four language skills that acknowledge the interdependence of language and communication.Its comprehensiveness thus makes it different in scope and status from any of the other approaches or methods.There is no single text or authority on it，nor any single model that is universally accepted as authoritative.For some，Communicative Language Teaching means little more than an integration of grammatical and functional teaching.Littlewood（1981：1）states：“One of the most characteristic features of communicative language teaching is that it pays systematic attention to functional as well as structural aspects of language.”

A“strong”and a“weak”version of communicative language teaching are distinguished by Howatt.The weak version which has become more or less standard 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 wider program of language teaching....The“strong”version of communicative teaching，on the other hand，advances the claim that language is acquired through communication，so that it is not merely a question of activating an existing but inert knowledge of the language，but of stimulating the development of the language system itself.If the former could be described as‘learning to use’English，the latter entails‘using English to learn it.’（Howatt，1984：279）

（2）Principal Features

Meaning is paramount.Dialogues，if used，center around communicative functions and are not normally memorized.Contextualization is a basic premise.Language learning is learning to communicate.

（a）The purpose of language isn't limited to improve language ability.The important thing is to improve communicative ability of the language user；

（b）Students must learn to use a language in unrehearsed contexts（i.e.dialogue，group discussions，solving problems or performing tasks rather than repeating words without communicative meaning）；

（c）Teachers organize teaching according to language function rather than language forms；

（d）It advocates using authentic materials from real life as textbooks.

Piepho（1981）discusses the following levels of objectives in a communicative approach：

（a）an integrative and content level（language as a means of expression）；

（b）a linguistic and instrumental level（language as a semiotic system and an object of learning）；

（c）an affective level of interpersonal relationships and conduct（language as a means of expressing values and judgments about oneself and others）；

（d）a level of individual learning needs（remedial learning based on error analysis）；

（e）a general educational level of extra-linguistic goals（language learning within the school curriculum）（Piepho，1981：8）.

These are proposed as general objectives，applicable to any teaching situation.Particular objectives for CLT cannot be defined beyond this level of specification，since such an approach assumes that language teaching will reflect the particular needs of the target learners.These needs may be in the domains of reading，writing，listening，or speaking，each of which can be approached from a communicative perspective.

Curriculum or instructional objectives for a particular course would reflect specific aspects of communicative competence according to the learner's proficiency level and communicative needs.

Effective communication is sought.Drilling may occur，but peripherally.Comprehensible pronunciation is sought.Any device that helps the learners is accepted varying according to their age，interest，etc.Attempts to communicate may be encouraged from the very beginning.Judicious use of native language is accepted where feasible.Translation may be used where students need or benefit from it.Reading and writing can start from the first day.if desired.The target linguistic system will be learned best through the process of struggling to communicate.Communicative competence is the desired goal（i.e.the ability to use the linguistic system effectively and appropriately）.Linguistic variation is a central concept in materials and methodology.Sequencing is determined by any consideration of content，function，or meaning that maintains interest.

（5）Theoretical assumptions

The communicative approach in language teaching starts from a theory of language as communication.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 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（random or characteristic）in applying his knowledge of the language in actual performance（Chomky，1965）.For Chomsky，the focus of linguistic theory was to characterize the abstract abilities speakers possess that enable them to produce grammatically correct sentences in a language.Hymes held that such a view of linguistic theory was sterile，that linguistic theory needed to be seen as part of a more general theory incorporating communication and culture.Hymes's 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 Hymes's view，a person who acquires communicative competence acquires both knowledge and ability for language use with respect to

（a）whether（and to what degree）something is formally possible；

（b）whether（and to what degree）something is feasible in virtue of the means of implementation available；

（c）whether（and to what degree）something is appropriate（adequate，happy，successful）in relation to a context in which it is used and evaluated；

（d）whether（and to what degree）something is in fact done，actually performed，and what its doing entails（Hymes，1972：281）；

This theory of what knowing a language entails offers a much more comprehensive view than Chomsky's view of competence，which deals primarily with abstract grammatical knowledge.Another linguistic theory of communication favored in CLT is Halliday's functional account of language use.“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”（Halliday，1970：145）.

Learning a second language was similarly viewed by proponents of Communicative Language Teaching as acquiring the linguistic means to perform different kinds of functions.Another theorist frequently cited for his views on the communicative nature of language is Henry Widdowson.In his book Teaching Language as Communication（Widdowson，1978）.Widdowson presented a view of the relationship between linguistic systems 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 dimensions of communicative competence are identified；grammatical competence，sociolinguistic competence，discourse competence，and strategic competence.Grammatical competence refers to what Chomsky calls linguistic competence and what Hymes intends by what is“formally possible.”It is the domain of grammatical and lexical capacity.Sociolinguistic competence refers to an understanding of the social context in which communication takes place，including role relationships，the shared information of the participants，and the communicative purpose for their interaction.Discourse competence refers to the interpretation of individual message elements in terms of their interconnectedness and of how meaning is represented in relationship to the entire discourse or text.Strategic competence refers to the coping strategies that communicators employ to initiate，terminate，maintain，repair，and redirect communication.

At the level of language theory，CLT has a rich，if somewhat eclectic，theoretical base.Some of the characteristics of this communicative view of language follow.

（a）Language is a system for the expression of meaning；

（b）The primary function of language is for interaction and communication；

（c）The structure of language reflects its functional and communicative uses；

（d）The primary units of language are not merely its grammatical and structural features，but categories of functional and communicative meaning as exemplified in discourse.

CLT is best considered an approach rather than a method.Thus although a reasonable degree of theoretical consistency can be discerned at the levels of language and learning theory，at the levels of design and procedure there is much greater room for individual interpretation and variation than most methods permit.It could be that one version among the various proposals for syllabus models，exercise types，and classroom activities may gain wider approval in the future，giving Communicative Language Teaching a status similar to other teaching methods.On the other hand，divergent interpretations might lead to homogeneous subgroups.

CLT appeared at a time when British 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 humanistic approach to teaching，one in which the interactive processes of communication received priority.The rapid adoption and implementation of the communicative approach also resulted from the fact that it quickly assumed the status of orthodoxy in British language teaching circles，receiving the sanction and support of leading British applied linguists，language specialists，publishers，as well as institutions，such as the British Council（Richards，1985）.

Now that the initial wave of enthusiasm has passed，however，some of the claims of CLT are being looked at more critically（Swain，1985）.The adoption of a communicative approach raises important issues for teacher training，and testing and evaluation.Questions that have been raised include whether a communicative approach can be applied at all levels in a language program；whether it is equally suited to ESL and EFL situations，whether it requires existing grammar-based syllabuses to be abandoned or merely revised，how such an approach can be evaluated；how suitable it is for non-native teachers，and how it can be adopted in situations where students must continue to take grammar-based tests.