Communicative Approach

 Essay about Communicative Approach

A critical glance at the Communicative Strategy (1) Eileen Swan

This kind of (the first of two articles) examines a few of the more theoretical ideas fundamental the ‘Communicative Approach‘. For instance , the belief that we need to teach ‘use' as well as ‘meaning; and some attitudes regarding the educating of ‘skills' and ‘strategies'. A second article will cope with more pedagogical aspects of the approach, especially the idea of a ‘semantic syllabus' and the question of ‘authenticity' in materials and strategy. In both equally articles, it can be argued there is serious misunderstandings in the expansive view of these matters. Specifically, the Franche Approach does not take consideration of the expertise and abilities which vocabulary students deliver with them from their native language and their connection with the world. Advantages There is nothing so creative as a very good dogma. Over the last few years, intoxicated by the ‘Communicative Approach', language teaching seems to have made great progress. Syllabus design has become a good deal improved, and we have the ability to give each of our students a much better and more total picture than previously of how vocabulary is used. In methodology, the change has been dramatic. The boring and mechanical physical exercise types which are so common ten or perhaps fifteen yrs ago have nearly disappeared, to become replaced with a splendid selection of exciting and interesting practice actions. All this is very positive, in fact it is not difficult to think that this sort of progress in course design has led to a real improvement in the rate and top quality of language learning. And yet... A dogma remains to be a teorema, and in this kind of respect the ‘communicative revolution' is little different from its predecessors in the language teaching field. If a single reads throughout the standard literature and content articles on the franche teaching of English, one particular finds statements about dialect use and language learning dropping like leaves in slide; facts, on the other hand, tend to become remarkably thin on the ground. Along with its a large number of virtues, the Communicative Procedure unfortunately has most of the common vices of an intellectual innovation: it over-generalizes valid yet limited insights until they become virtually worthless; it makes exaggerated promises for the power and originality of it is doctrines; it misrepresents the currents of thought it includes replaced; it is characterized by critical intellectual dilemma; it is clogged with lingo. In this article I propose to seem critically for certain ideas which form part of the assumptive basis of the newest orthodoxy, in an attempt to reduce the misunderstandings which surrounds their employ, and which unfortunately forms a serious obstacle to sensible communication in the field. My spouse and i shall discuss in particular: (1) the idea of a ‘double standard of meaning' associated with such conditions as ‘rules of use' and ‘rules of communication', and the related concept of ‘appropriacy'; and (2) some confusions regarding ‘skills' and ‘strategies'. ELT Diary Volume39/1 January 1985

content articles


In a later document, I shall deal with: (3) the idea of a semantic (‘notional/ functional') syllabus, and (4) the ‘real life' argument in elements design and methodology. We shall still find it convenient to argue as if the Communicative Way were a coherent and monolithic body ofdoctrine. This is certainly, ofcourse, still not the case. Person applied language specialists and teacher trainers fluctuate widely within their acceptance and interpretation in the different tips which I shall discuss here. Some of the opinions quoted have grown to be outmoded, and would not necessarily be looked after today by way of a originators. Yet whatever their particular current position in academic circles, many of these ideas are familiar, widespread, and enormously influential among terminology teachers, and they merit critical scrutiny. Which means and use A basic franche doctrine is the fact earlier methods to language instructing did not deal properly with meaning. According to the standard...

Referrals: Alexander, L. 1977. Handout for seminar at the United kingdom Council, Rome. Brumfit, C. J. 1981. ‘Accuracy and fluency. ' Practical British Teaching one-half. Candlin, C. (ed. ). 1981. The Communicative Teaching of English. London: Longman. Johnson, K. 1981. Summary of Johnson and Morrow (eds. ). 81. Johnson, T. and E. Morrow (eds. ). 81. Communication in their classroom. London: Longman. Scott, 3rd there’s r. 1981. ‘Speaking' in Meeks and Morrow (eds. ). 1981. Widdowson, H. G. 1978. Instructing Language while Communination. Oxford: Oxford School Press.

Wilkins, D. 1976. Notional Syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilkins, M. 1983. ‘Some issues in communicative vocabulary teaching and their relevance for the teaching of languages in secondary schools' in Viewpoints in Communicative Language Instructing. London: Academics Press.

The author

Michael Swan was earlier Principal in the Swan School of British, Oxford, and has trained English in Britain and France. For the last few years this individual has worked full-time as a writer of ELT materials, and has posted several books, mostly with Cambridge College or university Press.





everyone should be open