This article reviews the success of communicative language teaching (CLT) in the context of language acquisition theory and research findings. It is argued that a fairly limited use of communicative principles has been evident in popular treatments of lesson structure, content, and syllabus design. In contrast, other content- and task-based models are potentially more communicative in shape. Research has also encouraged a growing emphasis on the teaching of strategies and form-focused exercises, which challenges communicative approaches to address both the experiential and intellectual levels of language learning. Despite the familiarity of communicative approaches, a growing eclecticism in language pedagogy has encouraged a continuing search for broader guiding principles.

An Influential Approach

Communicative language teaching (CLT) has been an influential approach for at least two decades now. The very term 'communicative' carries an obvious ring of truth: we 'learn to communicate by communicating' (Larsen-Freeman 1986: 131). Of course the fundamental intuition behind this approach is far from new. In the 4th Century B.C. Aristotle wrote: 'What we have to learn to do, we learn by doing' (Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. II). Most teachers now claim to use a communicative approach in some way or other (Karavas-Doukas 1996), and it is hardly surprising that no-one wishes to be called a non-communicative teacher.

Teaching Communicative Competence

The concept of communicative competence was originally developed thirty years ago by the sociolinguist Hymes (1972), as a response to perceived limitations in Chomsky's competence/performance model of language. It was then further developed in the early 1980s by Canale and Swain. According to Canale (1983: 5), communicative competence refers to 'the underlying systems of knowledge and skill required for communication'. The four components of communicative competence can be summarized as follows:

Grammatical competence

producing a structured comprehensible utterance (including grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and spelling).

Sociocultural competence

using socially-determined cultural codes in meaningful ways, often termed 'appropriacy' (e.g. formal or informal ways of greeting).

Discourse competence

shaping language and communicating purposefully in different genres (text types), using cohesion (structural linking) and coherence (meaningful relationships in language).

Strategic competence

enhancing the effectiveness of communication (e.g. deliberate speech), and compensating for breakdowns in communication (e.g. comprehension checks, paraphrase, conversation fillers).

This is a very useful sociolinguistic model telling us what natural communication involves, but not how it should be taught in a classroom setting. Three key pedagogical principles that developed around CLT were: the presentation of language forms in context, the importance of genuine communication, and the need for learner-centred teaching. These were widely acknowledged but nevertheless open to interpretation, resulting in what Howatt (1984) described as weak and strong versions of CLT. The former includes pre-communicative tasks (such as drills, cloze exercises, and controlled dialogue practice) along with communicative activities. Littlewood (1981), for example, described pre-communicative activities as a necessary stage between controlled and uncontrolled language use.

One example of such an approach to CLT is what is known as the PPP lesson (for presentation, practice, and production). Language forms are first presented under the guidance of the teacher, then practiced in a series of exercises, again under the teacher's supervision. The chosen forms are finally produced by the learners themselves in the context of communicative activities that can be more or less related to the learners' real lives and interests.

Regardless of how learner-centred and genuinely communicative the teacher makes it, the PPP structure clearly treats language as a product constructed from teachable parts; these parts being the linguistic forms and structures behind the pragmatic functional use of language. But, as Grenfell (1994: 58) has put it:

...language is not something that we access like a baggage of information, taking out the bits and pieces to suit our needs at a particular instant. It is rather the means by which we create sense: of our world, of and for ourselves.

In strong versions of CLT the teacher is required to take a 'less dominant role' and the learners are encouraged to be 'more responsible managers of their own learning' (Larsen-Freeman 1986: 131). Rather than a presentation and practice approach to language forms, the teacher begins with communicative classroom activities that allow learners to actively learn for themselves how the language works as a formal system.

Aspects of the Learning Process

Using conversational interaction as the main means of developing communicative competence has been called an indirect approach (Celce-Murcia, Dornyei and Thurrell 1997: 141). It relies heavily on the learners' own abilities to interactively negotiate meaning with each other. In the process, unfamiliar language forms and rules are made comprehensible to the learners, and presumably integrated into their developing language systems. The importance of comprehensible input which challenges learners to stretch their understanding, was expressed by Krashen and Terrell (1983: 32) as the 'input hypothesis'. More recently emphasis has also been placed on the importance of language production in this acquisition process (Kumaravadivelu 1994: 34).

There is some evidence that such a learner-centred process of language-making is influenced by certain innate or natural constraints. Research into morpheme acquisition in the 1970s suggested there was a natural, universal order of acquisition. The idea that language learners somehow create their own internal language system is a keystone of CLT, and has been called the 'creative construct hypothesis' (Sanders 1987: 211-7).

Such a theory of learning is needed for communicative practice to be based on more than a loose collection of techniques. But this does not mean it is possible to base teaching practice simply on research findings. It appears that second language acquisition (SLA) research is limited by the very unpredictability of language learning itself. For example, a recent guide to TESOL (Willis and Willis 2001: 179) states that

SLA research suggests overwhelmingly that language learning is a developmental process, which cannot be consciously controlled or predicted by teachers or learners.

The Role of Teaching

In light of such findings the very possibility of teaching a second language has been questioned. But surely there is a clear difference between controlling a process and nurturing it. As an example we might consider the analogy of caring for a plant. Given a large pot, good soil, sufficient light and water, it will grow according to innate developmental processes. This analogy reminds us that even natural processes need optimum conditions to unfold. We must ask ourselves what the optimum conditions for second language learning are.

As mentioned above, one answer to this question is the strong or indirect communicative approach which represents an attempt to be as learner-centred as possible. It views language acquisition as a natural yet unpredictable process of development, and so rejects more traditional teacher-centred styles of teaching based on linguistically structured syllabuses. But, according to Swan (1985b: 77-8):

It is quite false to represent older courses as concentrating throughout on form at the expense of meaning, or as failing to teach people to 'do things with language' . . . Structures have meanings, and traditional courses usually made a reasonable job of teaching them.

As a whole the communicative turn in language teaching represented by CLT has clearly highlighted the importance of the broader discourse and sociocultural features of language. The old pedagogic obsession with formal grammar has given way to an appreciation of grammar-in-use, and now language teachers almost instinctively ask themselves: How is the language used, when, why, and by who (or whom)?

Applying Communicative Principles

The various pedagogical principles of a communicative approach to language teaching can be expressed in more or less detail. For example, Finocchario & Brumfit's detailed discussion (1983: 91-3) can be summarised as follows:

1. Teaching is learner-centred and responsive to learners' needs and interests.
2. The target language is acquired through interactive communicative use that encourages the negotiation of meaning.
3. Genuinely meaningful language use is emphasized, along with unpredictability, risk-taking, and choice-making.
4. There is exposure to examples of authentic language from the target language community.
5. The formal properties of language are never treated in isolation from use; language forms are always addressed within a communicative context.
6. Learners are encouraged to discover the forms and structures of language for themselves.
7. There is a whole-language approach in which the four traditional language skills (speaking, listening, reading, and writing) are integrated.

These principles are all related in some way to the theories of language learning that were discussed above. To summarize these: language acquisition is an unpredictable developmental process requiring a communicatively interactive and cooperative negotiation of meaning on the part of learners; the subsequent integration of comprehensible input and output influences the learner's developing language system (or interlanguage).

Communicative approaches to teaching, based on the above principles, challenge our understanding of the goals of instruction. An emphasis on meaningful use over form:

...means that accuracy and acquisition of the formal features of the [second language] are less a measure of successful language learning than are fluency and an ability to get something across comprehensibly to a native speaker (Sanders 1987: 222).

In order to encourage meaningful language use, many popular communicative activities involve 'elements of puzzle-solving, role play, or simulation' (Hadfield 1990: vi). They encourage learners to do things with information such as: guessing, searching, matching, exchanging, collecting, sharing, combining, and arranging.

Although communicative games are intended to have 'a non-linguistic goal or aim' (Hadfield 1990: v) this is usually only from the learners' perspective. Most often they are designed around a key language structure (for example, comparatives, present perfect tense, question forms) or a family of vocabulary items. If we consider the communicative principle of genuinely meaningful language use (see point 3 above), then such activities are not always rich in unpredictability or risk-taking for the learner. Other criticisms levelled at nominally communicative activities have concerned lack of 'relevance and interest' (Swan 1985b: 84), and restrictions on the range of learner response (Savignon 1991: 272; Thompson 1996: 13).

A communicative approach is often seen to need a syllabus based on language functions from which the necessary forms and structures will be derived. This is in contrast to a syllabus presenting the formal elements of language in a structured way, regardless of functional use. But if we look at mainstream coursebooks such as Headway (Soars and Soars 2000), Language In Use (Doff and Jones 2000), or Matters (Bell and Gower 1997), we find each unit organised according to grammar and vocabulary, as well as functional language skills. It would be wrong to see coursebooks as a reflection of actual practice, but it would seem to indicate that a strictly communicative syllabus has not been widely embraced.

It is not only in the area of classroom activities and overall syllabus that the application of a communicative approach has been problematic; for teaching to be accountable it requires the monitoring and assessment of learning. In this area communicative approaches have encouraged us to see language development as an ongoing process rather than a static product (Prabhu 1990). A qualitative assessment of communicative competence would seem to provide a more realistic view of a learner's progress than a quantitative measurement of errors or mistakes. But unfortunately, as Savignon (1991: 266) has pointed out, 'qualitative evaluation of written and oral expression is time-consuming and not so straightforward'.

The various difficulties of applying a communicative approach, as discussed above, do not require us to question its pedagogical principles as such; rather it may simply be a case of putting new wine into old bottles. A functional syllabus is 'still a series of language patterns, albeit patterns linked to semantic and pragmatic values' (Willis and Willis 2001: 174), and communication activities in the classroom are often pale shadows of genuinely engaging interaction. As Grenfell (1994: 57) observes, 'the effect of features of so-called communicative-based books is often depersonalising and uninvolving'. A more successful realization of communicative principles is perhaps found in both content-based and task-based teaching programs.

Content- and Task-Based Learning

Content-based programs involve the teaching of subject matter content in the target language. This approach has been used with some degree of success in many parts of the world, most notably in Canada (Stern 1992: 192). According to Stern (1992: 187), it is closer to 'the communicative reality of the target language milieu' than classroom activities that are only 'designed to have certain characteristics of natural discourse'. It also has the potential to be more motivating for learners, given they have a degree of interest in the subject matter. Content-based teaching has obvious applications in the area of English for Specific Purposes, where learners are focusing on English relevant to a particular field of work or study.

Another alternative is provided by the task-based approach. As described Willis and Willis (2001), task-based learning (TBL) is actually a more resolutely communicative application of CLT principles. It advocates the use of a syllabus based on communicatively-oriented tasks rather than linguistic forms. Mainstream English language coursebooks are clearly not task-based, in that they provide the forms that learners are expected to use. In TBL, 'language forms are not prescribed in advance' and so learners are 'free to use any language they can' in completing the required task (Willis and Willis 2001: 174).

An emphasis on extended tasks that can engage the learner in meaningful activity is in some ways simply an extension of the content-based approach. In fact Stern (1992), in his thoughtful account of 'the communicative activities syllabus', clearly saw both content and task focus as aspects of a general approach based on 'substantive topics'. This helps us to remember that labels such as TBL are actually evolving and disputed terms. In his review of 'communicative tasks', Nunan (1991: 282) described what is basically a PPP lesson structure, in which 'learners are given a model of the target language behaviour, as well as specific practice in manipulating key language items'. In a later presentation of TBL by Willis (1994), the PPP structure is explicitly rejected as being a highly rigid model with very little opportunity for learner involvement.

The alternative framework that Willis describes leads learners through a 'four stage task cycle' consisting of: 1) introduction to topic and task, 2) task, 3) planning, and 4) report. This allows learners to explore ideas and communicate informally about the task in the first two stages; then only in the last two stages is there an 'emphasis on clarity, organisation, accuracy as appropriate for a public presentation' (Willis 1994: 18). The addition of a language 'input phase' and a 'language focus task' at the end of the cycle gives some credence to the view that this is an up-side down version of PPP.

Willis' task-based framework is an effective response to research that shows learners need 'opportunities for negotiated interaction in order to accelerate their comprehension and production' (Kumaravadivelu 1994: 34). In contrast, the more traditional PPP structure has been called into question by second language acquisition studies that show 'structural practice of the 'skill getting' variety (has) little influence on self expression, or 'skill using'' (Savignon 1991: 267).

The Need For Strategies

Negotiated interaction is the reflection in language use of a person's underlying strategic competence. In more concrete terms it refers to the various ways people have of 'checking, clarifying, and modifying problem utterances' (Foster 1998: 3). It shows us that genuine communication is occurring, and as noted above, it plays an important role in the process of language acquisition. However, as classroom research by Foster (1998: 19) has shown, learners may be inclined to 'adopt the strategy of 'pretend and hope', rather than the strategy of 'check and clarify''. Despite learners having a level of communicative competence in their first language, there is obviously a need to encourage the use of both communication and learning strategies in the target language (Dornyei 1995).

The teaching of strategies might seem to go against a communicative emphasis on indirect teaching through conversation. On the one hand there is evidence that a self-discovery approach to language increases learners' comprehension and retention (Kumaravadivelu 1994: 36). This is supported by evidence that 'what is consciously learned is not necessarily incorporated into spontaneous language production' (Willis and Willis 2001: 73). On the other hand there is strong evidence that feedback through form-focused exercises is in some way 'consciousness raising' and increases the chances for consolidation of learning (Savignon 1991; Fotos 1994: Celce-Murcia, Dornyei and Thurrell 1997). What this suggests is that for a communicative approach to be relevant today it needs to integrate both the experiential level and the more intellectual, reflective level of language learning. The task-based model proposed by Willis (1994) provides one such approach that still holds onto the core principles of communicative teaching.

Perhaps part of our challenge is to empower learners as learners. This need not mean lessons on everyday communication skills that as Swan (1985a: 11) warns, 'treat the learner as a sort of linguistically gifted idiot'. Instead, it can mean encouraging learners to recognise and internalise the options and strategies available to them, as equal partners in language.

Conclusion

Current theory and research has encouraged a trend towards an eclectic mixing of teaching methods. This has been called 'the postmethod condition' (Kumaravadivelu 1994). It implies a renewed focus on the teacher's role as an informed decision-maker in the classroom, after what seems like a long period of neglect in the professional literature. Although communicative principles are still significant signposts, there is currently a search for broader guiding principles to the complex choices teachers must make in their work.

The nature of such guiding principles is still far from clear. Prabhu (1990) has argued that a teacher's own evolving 'sense of plausibility' is the truest guide to decision making. On the other hand, others influenced by post-modernist critical theories, such as Seedhouse (1996), assert that the constraints of institutional discourse are unavoidable in any account of teaching practice. Between these two extremes lie various balanced models, such as Brown's (1994: 74) 'enlightened eclecticism' responding to the needs of 'multiple worldwide contexts', and Kumaravadivelu's (1994) 'principled pragmatism' based on a set of method-neutral teaching strategies.

Bibliography

Bell, J. and R. Gower. 1997. Elementary Matters: Teacher's Book. Essex: Addison Wesley Longman.

Brown, H.D. 1994. Teaching By Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.

Canale, M. 1983. "From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy." In Richards, J.C. and R.W. Schmidt (eds), Language and Communication. London: Longman.

Celce-Murcia, M., Z. Dornyei, and S. Thurrell. 1997. "Direct Approaches in L2 instruction: A turning point in communicative language teaching?" TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 1, Spring 1997, pp. 141-52.

Doff, A. and C. Jones. 2000. Language In Use Pre-Intermediate New Edition: Teacher's Book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dornyei, Z. 1995. "On the teachability of communication strategies." TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 1, Spring 1995, pp. 55-85.

Finocchiaro, M. and C. Brumfit. 1983. The Functional-Notional Approach. From Theory to Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Foster, P. 1998. "A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning." Applied Linguistics, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 1-23.

Fotos, S. 1994. "Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks." TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 28, No.2, Summer 1994, pp. 323-46.

Grenfell, M. 1994. "Communication: Sense and nonsense." In Swarbrick, A. (ed), Teaching Modern Languages. London: Routledge.

Hadfield, J. 1990. Intermediate Communication Games. Surrey: Thomas Nelson and Sons.

Hymes, D. 1972. "On communicative competence." In Pride, J.B. & J. Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.

Karavas-Doukas, E. 1996. "Using attitude scales to investigate teachers' attitudes to the communicative approach." ELT Journal, Vol. 50, No. 3, July 1996, pp. 187-98.

Krashen, S. and T.D. Terrell. 1983. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon

Kumaravadivelu, B. 1994. "The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching." TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1, Spring 1994, pp. 27-48.

Larsen-Freeman, D. 1986. Techniques and Principles In Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Littlewood, W. 1981. Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. 1991. "Communicative tasks and the language curriculum." TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 2, Summer 1991, pp. 279-95.

Prabhu, N.S. 1990. "There Is No Best Method - Why?" TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 2, Summer 1990, pp. 161-76.

Sanders, C.S. 1987. "Applied Linguistics." In Lyons, J., R. Coates, M. Deuchar and G. Gazdar (eds), New Horizons in Linguistics 2: An Introduction to Contemporary Linguistic Research. London: Penguin.

Savignon, S.J. 1991. "Communicative Language Teaching: State of the Art." TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 2, Summer 1991, pp. 261-77.

Scholefield, W. 1997. "An overview of the teaching and learning of English in Japan since 1945." Babel, Vol. 32, No. 1, April-June 1997, pp. 16-21, 37-8.

Seedhouse, P. 1996. "ELT classroom interaction: Possibilties and impossibilities." ELT Journal, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1996, pp. 16-24.

Shih, M. 1999. "More Than practicing language: Communicative reading and writing for Asian settings." TESOL Journal, Vol. 8, No. 4, Winter 1999, pp. 20-5.

Soars, L. and J. Soars. 2000. New Headway Elementary: Teacher's Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stern, H.H. 1992. Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swan, M. 1985a. "A critical look at the communicative approach (1)." ELT Journal, Vol. 39, No. 1, January 1985, pp. 3-13.

Swan, M. 1985b. "A critical look at the communicative approach (2)." ELT Journal, Vol. 39, No. 2, April 1985, pp. 17-28.

Thompson, G. 1996. "Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching." ELT Journal, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1996, pp. 9-15.

Willis, D. and J. Willis. 2001. "Task-based language learning." In Carter, R. and D. Nunan (eds), The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Willis, J. 1994. "Preaching what we practice - training what we teach: Task-based language learning as an alternative to PPP." The Teacher Trainer, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 1994, pp. 17-20.