Terminology used in the 1960s and 70s to argue the case for communicative language teaching
Competence and performance - Chomsky s terms (1965) used to refer to: a) the native speaker s idealised knowledge of the abstract system of rules of the language, knowledge that can produce and understand an infinite number of sentences.
Performance - the actual use of that language in concrete situations.
Communicative Competence - Term used by Campbell and Wales (1970) and Hymes (1972) to refer to: the relationship and interaction between the native speaker s grammatical competence (or knowledge of the rules of the language) and Sociolinguistic Competence (or knowledge of the rules of language use). It is distinguished from communicative performance which is the realisation of theses competences in actual speech in real situations.
Usage and use - Terms used by Widdowson (1978) to refer to two aspects of communicative performance
a) the ability to produce correct sentences, or manifestations of the linguistic system = usage.
b) the ability to use the knowledge of the rules for effective communication = use.
Signification and value: Terms used by Widdowson to distinguish the two different kinds of meaning attached to USE and USAGE:
A) the meaning attached to a sentence as an instance of language usage, isolated from context = signification.
B) The meaning taken by a sentence when it is put to use for communicative purposes = value.
e.g. Question: Could you tell me the way to the bank?"
Answer: The rain destroyed all the crops".
The response has signification but no value!
Other contrasting concepts
Linguistic categories v Communicative Categories
usage/use
signification/value
correctness/appropriacy
sentence/utterance
proposition/illocutionary act
cohesion/coherence
linguistic skills/communicative abilities
speaking & hearing/saying
listening & talking
Widdowson defined the above set of contrasting concepts to distinguish between language as a formal system and language use as effective communication.
From the Notional/Functional approach to CLT (Communicative Language Teaching)
Teaching Language as Communication [1978]. Together with Notional Syllabuses [Oxford 1976] by D. A. Wilkins, Teaching Language as Communication was one of the most influential works in explaining the rationale for a change in the L2 language curriculum and L2 language teaching methods. Some previous direct method approaches had emphasized syntax at the expense of semantics. Widdowson argues for greater attention to be given to meaning and use. Preoccupation with patterns and forms can take meaning out of lesson content. However, there are dangers in casting patterns or forms aside, since different selections of structures such as verb tenses are used to indicate different meanings e.g. she lived (in the past) / she has lived (she may still be there now). See:
Meaning and the English Verb Geoffrey Leech [09/09/2004]. This title is as much concerned with meaning and communication as with the structure of language. One of the key areas of knowledge for anybody learning or teaching a language is ability to relate language function to syntax or form : e.g. "what are the main uses of the Present Perfect?".
Making it lingual and structural as well as communicative
Versions of The Communicative Approach ["Semantics at the expense of syntax"], which refuse to focus of the contribution of structure to meaning, are just as deficient as those versions of The Audio Lingual Approach ["syntax at the expense of semantics"] which used language for display instead of for communication. There are some arguments for using language for display, for example, it may strengthen the organs of articulation to pronounce English words and phrases without knowing what they mean. Works such as English Pronunciation Illustrated use pictures to explain the different meanings of minimal pairs, though appropriate use of a word often depends on linguistic context, situation, formality. One-to-one associations between picture and word are of limited help to teaching language in use.
Getting your tongue around the target language
The shortcoming of some English Language Coursebooks, which claim to put meaning at the centre of the syllabus, is that occasions (such as pattern drills!) which offer pronunciation practice and active use of the target language are missing. An Audio-Lingual approach (based on syntax) is likely still to prove superior to a coursebook (based on semantics) where the main utterances learners are requested to make amount to little more than A, B, C or D.
It is possible to focus on meaning, but at the same time require very passive behaviour from learners in terms of utterances. The effort teachers are required to make may be a lot less and classroom management may be smoother if learners are spared the challenge of speaking the target language. Teachers and learners may be blissfully unaware of how little English they are actually learning if the exam for which they are preparing takes the form of Multiple Choice , which also invites passive behaviour. It is possible to focus on meaning in a pedagogical way (A, B, C or D) without requiring learners to do any substantial speaking or writing.
Language teachers only have to gain a little experience to recognise that considerable energy goes into teaching at lower levels of proficiency. A lot of pattern practice and repetition is needed to model, practise and consolidate the entry points into an unfamiliar language system. To a large extent, these entry points will be basic structures. The structural syllabus cannot be absent if you are making any concession at all to learners level of proficiency. However, the presence of a structural syllabus does not exclude the need for a parallel functional syllabus and vocabulary selection which serves the learners communication needs (as opposed to purely selecting words which make it easier to teach basic syntax).
What about The Input Hypothesis ?
One justification for not giving learners opportunities to produce the target language was the input hypothesis i.e. learners need authentic materials and lots of comprehensible input. This justification has worn thin in the age of the Internet when learners can get lots of practice listening to authentic use of their target language (including audio and video) at their own home computers before they set foot in a classroom.
When learners pay for help from a native-speaker of the target language, they usually expect some modelling of the language and some practice opportunities to use it actively
المادة المعروضة اعلاه هي مدخل الى المحاضرة المرفوعة بواسطة استاذ(ة) المادة . وقد تبدو لك غير متكاملة . حيث يضع استاذ المادة في بعض الاحيان فقط الجزء الاول من المحاضرة من اجل الاطلاع على ما ستقوم بتحميله لاحقا . في نظام التعليم الالكتروني نوفر هذه الخدمة لكي نبقيك على اطلاع حول محتوى الملف الذي ستقوم بتحميله .
|