论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】‘The basic idea behind the turn in the 1980s and 1990s towards Communicative Approaches was that communication was the central aim of human language and， therefore， must be the focus of the language class. Critically assess this idea and consider how a communicative emphasis can be seen to have had positive influences within the language classroom.’
【Key words】CLT； Facilitator； Negotiator； Fluency； Accuracy
I. A Brief Introduction to the Principles and Rules of CLT
CLT was advocated by many scholars in the field of linguistics during the late 1970s and early 1980s and it was based on several elements of linguistics， including socio-linguistics， psycholinguistics， and applied linguistics. There are many versions of CLT， but all of them share several common pedagogical principles and practices： language teaching should put emphasis on real life use not just on the grammatical or linguistic knowledge and pure sentence structure. One of the most important linguists in CLT is Hymes who advocated communicative competence which contrasted with Chomsky’s theory of competence — the abstract ability which enables speakers to produce grammatically correct sentences.
II. The Positive Aspects of CL
To certain degree， CLT is a positive and popular approach around the world though more traditional approaches such as Presentation， Practice and Production are still acceptable today for many real teachers. At present， in various countries especially in China， educational and political institutions are starting to pay more and more attention to the importance of teaching English as a foreign or second language for the purpose of effective communication （Brown 2001， p. 44）. Let us first generally list elements of the positive points of CLT and then discuss them in detail.
i. Meaning vs. Structure and Form：
As is well known， many traditional language-teaching approaches used various more or less repetitive drills to teach languages and meaning was generally neglected in favour of the processes of practice and ‘over learning’ （Swan 1985， p. 77）. Within CLT， meaning is given far more importance than grammar， structure and form， which are the language elements emphasized by traditional structural or grammar translation language teaching methods. Although grammar rules can make speakers produce well-structured sentences， this does not mean that all sentences made according to pure structural rules make sense to others， for example， ‘I can see you later’. This sentence is structurally correct but native speakers do not use it when they want to express ‘see you later’. Again， sometimes learners who have been taught solely by older language courses cannot decode sentences properly. What we aim for when we are talking with others is to make them understand the meaning we wish to deliver. If we fail in this， the ‘talk’ produced will loose communicative value and the speech we produced will become nonsense. A good example which helps demonstrate this point is the sentence ‘The policeman is crossing the road’ which may have several meanings. Swan has used this as an example in his article as well： Four burglars are busy with one house. One of them， who is on watch， says ‘The policeman is crossing the road’ to others then disappears. However， only the one who has learnt English language from a communicatively oriented language class considers it as a warning and runs away. Unfortunately， the other two burglars who are from a structural syllabus are caught by the policeman because they cannot decode the meaning properly in that situation . In real life， in some situations we cannot comprehend the speech used in its full context by only paying attention to the grammar or structure that we have learnt from traditional teaching methods. This is particularly a problem with sarcastic or ironic speech. Here is part of one dialogue between C， the writer herself， who is a non-native speaker and trained within the Grammar-Translation teaching tradition and M who is an English native speaker and artist：
C： There is a popular saying in China ‘ If you want to die early you should marry a writer or artist’， because writers and artists are moody and good at torturing others.
M： That sounds great to me！
If we understand the sentence said by M only from the aspects of rules of grammar and structure， we may think that M is abnormal and likes to build his pleasure on the basis of others’ pain. Learners needs to be aware that there is not an exactly one-to-one fit between the form of a sentence and the meaning that a speaker wants to express in a specific context .
ii. Facilitator vs. Controller and Negotiator vs. Receiver
One of the most conspicuous characteristics of the CLT is that it is learner centered， which strongly contrasts with the traditional teacher centered language teaching classroom， that one find especially in countries such as China. In the case of the writer’s Chinese cultural background it can be seen that ideas such as Confucianism have traditionally tended to place the figure of the teacher at the centre of education . The traditional method places the teacher in the role of classroom controller， who decides what should be taught in class regardless of learners’ needs and abilities. Learners are simply expected to absorb what they are being taught. Some teachers who are using teacher centered methods may argue that second language beginners are unable to negotiate with the target language and， therefore， are not capable of making informed decisions about their learning. However， even beginners may want to be given a level of choice about what they want to learn. Also， if students have a sense of ‘ownership’ concerning what they are learning they will be intrinsically motivated in class （Brown 2001， p. 47）. In the CLT class， the teacher becomes a facilitator and a participant as well. At first， the popularity of CLT was restricted to Western classrooms. Nowadays， it is applied by a growing numbers of Chinese teachers. A Chinese proverb notes， ‘Give a man a fish you feed him for a day： teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime.’ in the same way language teachers need to have the ability to teach learners how to use language actively and creatively. Teachers should not present quantities of language content out of context that learns are just intended to memorize. Therefore， the approaches of CLT can also be used in Chinese classrooms to bring a fresh attitude to the traditional Chinese classroom-teaching domain. Traditionally， the Chinese students， when in the classroom， are fairly quiet and passive. The approach to learning in classroom is generally restricted to grammar drilling and dialogue repeating or reciting. Also， the classroom environment is generally serious because usually the teacher is a strict controller and the only source of information， in other words an authority figure. This kind of atmosphere makes many students feel anxiety and their ‘affective filter’ will then be raised to a higher level， a situation that is not good for language acquisition. To some extent， CLT can create an easy and relaxed learning environment which can lower students’ affective filter and the teacher can give the students any kind of help they need to motivate them.
iii. Fluency and ‘Acceptable’ vs. Accuracy and ‘Native-like’
Language teaching is being regarded as based on the premise that language is for communication. That is， language is seen as a social tool for speakers to communicate with each other， to make meaning in certain social contexts and to exchange information and meaning with someone else， either orally or in writing. CLT approaches support this belief， and take fluency and acceptable language as the main goals of language teaching. However， traditional language teaching methods， such as structural teaching or Grammar -Translation teaching methods， require speakers to use fine tuned language during speech or error free sentences during writing. No one disputes the fact that finely structured sentences should be used in writing or very formal speech. However， in relation to spoken languages， native speakers do not always use well-structured sentences. In addition， there is often little time to think about the structures and details of grammar during real life conversation. What is more， there is no need to pursue structure and grammar at the cost of fluency， which can spoil the natural flow of communication.
In relation to pronunciation， audio-lingual language teaching requires a ‘native-speaker-like’ pronunciation while CLT simply aims for comprehensible or understandable pronunciation . Here， we can take English as an example. Nowadays， English has become a ‘global language’ and is spoken for all kinds of purposes. We all know that certain linguists think there is a Critical Period and that after this period it is very difficult for second or foreign language learners to acquire native like pronunciation. This may or may not the case， but such concerns involve placing emphasis upon features of language use that are not central to practical communication. World English use today include countries in which English might be a primary language， an additional language an international language and an international language. Each area， province or country has a different accent and even different forms of English （e.g.， Indian English， Chinese English） but this does not really affect our communication in English. As long as we can speak fluently and can express our opinions clearly， comprehensible pronunciation is acceptable.
III. Conclusion
The approaches of Communicative Language Teaching – and the Notional-Functional Syllabus were put forward because of changes in the British language teaching tradition and the perceived drawbacks of traditional language teaching methods . CLT has since been developed and expanded by many linguistics specialists into different versions. Most modern teaching materials， such as textbooks， have been adapted to reflect the practices advocated by communicative approach to some extent.
References：
[1]Brown，Principles of Language Learning and Teaching（4th edition）（New York： Longman，2000）.
[2]Brown，Teaching by Principles： An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy（2nd edition）（New York： Longman，2001）.
[3]Bell，An Introduction to Applied Linguistics： Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching（London： Batsford，1981）.
【Key words】CLT； Facilitator； Negotiator； Fluency； Accuracy
I. A Brief Introduction to the Principles and Rules of CLT
CLT was advocated by many scholars in the field of linguistics during the late 1970s and early 1980s and it was based on several elements of linguistics， including socio-linguistics， psycholinguistics， and applied linguistics. There are many versions of CLT， but all of them share several common pedagogical principles and practices： language teaching should put emphasis on real life use not just on the grammatical or linguistic knowledge and pure sentence structure. One of the most important linguists in CLT is Hymes who advocated communicative competence which contrasted with Chomsky’s theory of competence — the abstract ability which enables speakers to produce grammatically correct sentences.
II. The Positive Aspects of CL
To certain degree， CLT is a positive and popular approach around the world though more traditional approaches such as Presentation， Practice and Production are still acceptable today for many real teachers. At present， in various countries especially in China， educational and political institutions are starting to pay more and more attention to the importance of teaching English as a foreign or second language for the purpose of effective communication （Brown 2001， p. 44）. Let us first generally list elements of the positive points of CLT and then discuss them in detail.
i. Meaning vs. Structure and Form：
As is well known， many traditional language-teaching approaches used various more or less repetitive drills to teach languages and meaning was generally neglected in favour of the processes of practice and ‘over learning’ （Swan 1985， p. 77）. Within CLT， meaning is given far more importance than grammar， structure and form， which are the language elements emphasized by traditional structural or grammar translation language teaching methods. Although grammar rules can make speakers produce well-structured sentences， this does not mean that all sentences made according to pure structural rules make sense to others， for example， ‘I can see you later’. This sentence is structurally correct but native speakers do not use it when they want to express ‘see you later’. Again， sometimes learners who have been taught solely by older language courses cannot decode sentences properly. What we aim for when we are talking with others is to make them understand the meaning we wish to deliver. If we fail in this， the ‘talk’ produced will loose communicative value and the speech we produced will become nonsense. A good example which helps demonstrate this point is the sentence ‘The policeman is crossing the road’ which may have several meanings. Swan has used this as an example in his article as well： Four burglars are busy with one house. One of them， who is on watch， says ‘The policeman is crossing the road’ to others then disappears. However， only the one who has learnt English language from a communicatively oriented language class considers it as a warning and runs away. Unfortunately， the other two burglars who are from a structural syllabus are caught by the policeman because they cannot decode the meaning properly in that situation . In real life， in some situations we cannot comprehend the speech used in its full context by only paying attention to the grammar or structure that we have learnt from traditional teaching methods. This is particularly a problem with sarcastic or ironic speech. Here is part of one dialogue between C， the writer herself， who is a non-native speaker and trained within the Grammar-Translation teaching tradition and M who is an English native speaker and artist：
C： There is a popular saying in China ‘ If you want to die early you should marry a writer or artist’， because writers and artists are moody and good at torturing others.
M： That sounds great to me！
If we understand the sentence said by M only from the aspects of rules of grammar and structure， we may think that M is abnormal and likes to build his pleasure on the basis of others’ pain. Learners needs to be aware that there is not an exactly one-to-one fit between the form of a sentence and the meaning that a speaker wants to express in a specific context .
ii. Facilitator vs. Controller and Negotiator vs. Receiver
One of the most conspicuous characteristics of the CLT is that it is learner centered， which strongly contrasts with the traditional teacher centered language teaching classroom， that one find especially in countries such as China. In the case of the writer’s Chinese cultural background it can be seen that ideas such as Confucianism have traditionally tended to place the figure of the teacher at the centre of education . The traditional method places the teacher in the role of classroom controller， who decides what should be taught in class regardless of learners’ needs and abilities. Learners are simply expected to absorb what they are being taught. Some teachers who are using teacher centered methods may argue that second language beginners are unable to negotiate with the target language and， therefore， are not capable of making informed decisions about their learning. However， even beginners may want to be given a level of choice about what they want to learn. Also， if students have a sense of ‘ownership’ concerning what they are learning they will be intrinsically motivated in class （Brown 2001， p. 47）. In the CLT class， the teacher becomes a facilitator and a participant as well. At first， the popularity of CLT was restricted to Western classrooms. Nowadays， it is applied by a growing numbers of Chinese teachers. A Chinese proverb notes， ‘Give a man a fish you feed him for a day： teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime.’ in the same way language teachers need to have the ability to teach learners how to use language actively and creatively. Teachers should not present quantities of language content out of context that learns are just intended to memorize. Therefore， the approaches of CLT can also be used in Chinese classrooms to bring a fresh attitude to the traditional Chinese classroom-teaching domain. Traditionally， the Chinese students， when in the classroom， are fairly quiet and passive. The approach to learning in classroom is generally restricted to grammar drilling and dialogue repeating or reciting. Also， the classroom environment is generally serious because usually the teacher is a strict controller and the only source of information， in other words an authority figure. This kind of atmosphere makes many students feel anxiety and their ‘affective filter’ will then be raised to a higher level， a situation that is not good for language acquisition. To some extent， CLT can create an easy and relaxed learning environment which can lower students’ affective filter and the teacher can give the students any kind of help they need to motivate them.
iii. Fluency and ‘Acceptable’ vs. Accuracy and ‘Native-like’
Language teaching is being regarded as based on the premise that language is for communication. That is， language is seen as a social tool for speakers to communicate with each other， to make meaning in certain social contexts and to exchange information and meaning with someone else， either orally or in writing. CLT approaches support this belief， and take fluency and acceptable language as the main goals of language teaching. However， traditional language teaching methods， such as structural teaching or Grammar -Translation teaching methods， require speakers to use fine tuned language during speech or error free sentences during writing. No one disputes the fact that finely structured sentences should be used in writing or very formal speech. However， in relation to spoken languages， native speakers do not always use well-structured sentences. In addition， there is often little time to think about the structures and details of grammar during real life conversation. What is more， there is no need to pursue structure and grammar at the cost of fluency， which can spoil the natural flow of communication.
In relation to pronunciation， audio-lingual language teaching requires a ‘native-speaker-like’ pronunciation while CLT simply aims for comprehensible or understandable pronunciation . Here， we can take English as an example. Nowadays， English has become a ‘global language’ and is spoken for all kinds of purposes. We all know that certain linguists think there is a Critical Period and that after this period it is very difficult for second or foreign language learners to acquire native like pronunciation. This may or may not the case， but such concerns involve placing emphasis upon features of language use that are not central to practical communication. World English use today include countries in which English might be a primary language， an additional language an international language and an international language. Each area， province or country has a different accent and even different forms of English （e.g.， Indian English， Chinese English） but this does not really affect our communication in English. As long as we can speak fluently and can express our opinions clearly， comprehensible pronunciation is acceptable.
III. Conclusion
The approaches of Communicative Language Teaching – and the Notional-Functional Syllabus were put forward because of changes in the British language teaching tradition and the perceived drawbacks of traditional language teaching methods . CLT has since been developed and expanded by many linguistics specialists into different versions. Most modern teaching materials， such as textbooks， have been adapted to reflect the practices advocated by communicative approach to some extent.
References：
[1]Brown，Principles of Language Learning and Teaching（4th edition）（New York： Longman，2000）.
[2]Brown，Teaching by Principles： An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy（2nd edition）（New York： Longman，2001）.
[3]Bell，An Introduction to Applied Linguistics： Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching（London： Batsford，1981）.