Communicative Language Teaching

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) can be defined as an approach to teaching, emphasising the function of language learning through communication rather than learning in isolation (Lightbown & Spada, 2006). CLT, however, opposes traditional approaches to language teaching (LT), which include: grammar translation method; direct method; and audio-lingual method (Weideman, 2002). The general aim of CLT is that learners should have the ability to communicate in their target language. The learning that takes place needs to be associated with the social environment so that meaning-making situations occur. In other words, learners should be involved in peer or group work activities that encourage social interaction. Textbook activities should also reflect authentic real-life situations that learners will easily be able to associate with (Yalden, 1983). In saying so, CLT is primarily linked to the text-based approach, which is also evident in the Curriculum and Assessment Policy (CAPS, 2011).

Communicative competence, introduced by Hymes (1972), can be defined as having knowledge of grammar and other language related aspects (Canale & Swain, 1980; Chomsky, 1965) and using this knowledge to interact effectively with others (Savignon, 1976). Research suggests that

communicative competence aims to improve learner’s communication skills through interaction and collaborative settings (Widdowson, 1978; Wilkens, 1978; Stern, 1978; Halliday, 1970; Hymes, 1968). Morrow (1977) affirms that communication is based on sociocultural contexts where authentic language (not text-based) is evaluated in terms of behavioural outcomes. The cultural context, therefore involves the role of the participants in a specific context and their non- verbal cues (Savignon, 1976). This notion has been questioned further as to whether communication is the only outcome. In her study, ‘Code-Switching (CS) and Communicative Competence (CC) in the Language Classroom’, Moodley (2010) explores how communicative competence is used not only for communicative purposes but also to enhance cognitive skills. Advocates of CLT regard the need to integrate the language skills as these skills are naturally integrated in real life.

Canale and Swain (1980) illustrate four types of competence, namely: linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence and strategic competence. All four types of competences relate to aspects of language, however, for the purpose of this study I will discuss linguistic competence as it relates to components in the teaching and learning of language structures and conventions specifically. Linguistic competence refers to having knowledge about language (e.g. grammatical rules, vocabulary, spelling and pronunciation).

Cummins (1980, 1979) proposed a distinction between Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) and Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS). CALP is that dimension of proficiency in which the learner manipulates or reflects upon the surface features of language outside of the immediate interpersonal context. It is what learners often use in classroom exercises and tests that focus on form. BICS, on the other hand, is the communicative capacity that all children acquire in order to be able to function in daily interpersonal exchanges. Cummins (1981) later modified his notion of CALP and BICS in the form of context reduced and context embedded communication, where the former resembles CALP and the latter BICS, but with the added dimension of considering the context in which language is used (Bailey & Huang, 2011). A good share of classroom, school-oriented language is context reduced, while face-to-face communication with people is context embedded.

Two major approaches to teaching communication skills in a language have been identified (Richards & Nunan, 1990; Rubin, 1981), namely: indirect approach and direct approach. Indirect approach is related more towards engaging learners in conversational interaction. Direct approach involves implementing specific strategies in order to gain new linguistic knowledge. Whilst direct approach draws on traditional grammar teaching methods, indirect approach involves creating

authentic communicative situations in class that expects learners to identify strategies that govern

communicative language use (Inglis, Thomson & Macdonald, 2000).

Although CLT is known to be the more predominant methodology, Todd (2008) argues that the whole idea of methodologies are undergoing questioning. One of the arguments about CLT is that it creates a so-called ‘CLT attitude’ (Bax, 2003, p. 279). This attitude brings about the assumption that CLT is necessary in obtaining language competence. The second assumption is that CLT is considered a modern approach, thus if any teacher that does not implement CLT in their language teaching is considered ‘backward’. The problem that arises with these assumptions is in accordance with the views of the teachers. For example, teachers assume that CLT is a solution to language learning; that CLT is the only method that will work and that no other method will work; ignoring people’s own views of what they want; and ignoring all aspects of the local context as being irrelevant (p. 280).

Breen and Candlin (1980) highlight two roles teachers perform in class when implementing CLT. Teachers act as facilitators during the communication process and they also act as an independent participant during the teaching and learning process. Thus, these defining roles conjures the argument that CLT is considered a methodology as it illustrates the way we should teach, hence communicative language teaching (Roberts, 1982). However, it neglects to express how learning should take place. And by emphasising the way we should teach, it places more emphasis on the methodology than in the context that teaching should take place. Bax (2003 p. 281) notes two important misconceptions of CLT: firstly, teachers assume that their priority is to produce communication. And secondly, teachers tend to think that the solution to classroom problems can be found in the method.

Weideman (2002) argues, similar to that of the proponents of CLT that errors do not have to be immediately corrected. There is much debate on this matter on whether accuracy overrides fluency, and whether it has any major impact on the learners’ performance. In relation to this aspect, should teachers still adopt a behaviourist approach to teaching grammar? If so, will this not go against the requirements of the intended curriculum document?