E D I T E D B Y S A N D R A J . S AV I G N O N
Interpreting Communicative
Language Teaching
CONTEXTS AND
CONCERNS IN
TEACHER
EDUCATION
Yale University Press
New Haven &
London
Copyright
∫ 2002 by Yale University. All rights reserved. This book may not be
reproduced, in whole or in part, including illustrations, in any form (beyond that
copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except
by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the
publishers.
Publisher: Mary Jane Peluso
Editorial Assistant: Emily Saglimbeni
Manuscript Editor: Noreen O’Conner-Abel
Marketing Manager: Mary Coleman
Marketing Assistant: Michelle Schrag
Production Coordinator: Maureen Noonan
Set in Minion type by Keystone Typesetting. Printed in the United States of
America.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Interpreting communicative language teaching : contexts and concerns in teacher
education/edited by Sandra J. Savignon.
p. cm.—(Yale language series)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
isbn
0-300-09156-7 (pbk.: alk. paper)
1. Languages, Modern—Study and teaching. 2. Language teachers—Training of. 3.
Communicative competence in children. I. Savignon, Sandra J. II. Series.
lb
1578 .i56 2002
418
%.0071—dc21 2001056761
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the
Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on
Library Resources.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
vii
Contents
Prologue ix
1 Communicative Language Teaching: Linguistic Theory and
Classroom Practice
Sandra J. Savignon 1
Part I. Case Study: Japan
29
2 Teacher Education for Curricular Innovation
in Japan
Minoru Wada 31
3 Practical Understandings of Communicative Language
Teaching and Teacher Development
Kazuyoshi Sato 41
4 Zen and the Art of English Language Teaching
Kiyoko Kusano Hubbell
82
Part II. Other Contexts
89
5 The Washback E√ect on Classroom Teaching of Changes in
Public Examinations
Liying Cheng 91
6 National Standards and the Di√usion of Innovation:
Language Teaching in the United States
Ana Schwartz 112
viii
Contents
7 Innovative Teaching in Foreign Language Contexts:
The Case of Taiwan
Chaochang Wang 131
8 The Use of Technology in High-Enrollment Courses:
Implications for Teacher Education and Communicative Language
Teaching
Diane Musumeci 154
9 Learner Autonomy and the Education of Language Teachers:
How to Practice What Is Preached and Preach What Is Practiced
Eus Schalkwijk, Kees van Esch, Adri Elsen, and Wim Setz
165
Part III. Language Teacher Education for the Twenty-First Century
191
10 Genres of Power in Language Teacher Education:
Interpreting the ‘‘Experts’’
Celeste Kinginger 193
Epilogue
Sandra J. Savignon 208
References 213
List of Contributors 233
Index 235
ix
Prologue
s a n d r a j . s avignon
In the literature on communicative language teaching, or CLT, teacher
education has not received adequate attention. My purpose in conceiving
and editing this volume was to bring together a horizon-broadening variety
of initiatives, projects, and activities related to teacher education that can
make language teaching communicative in the broadest, most meaningful
sense. The collection showcases some of the best work being done internationally
to make CLT an attainable goal.
Ordering the chapters was a challenge. Themes appear and reappear,
voices heard in one text are echoed in another. These links and recurrences
contribute significantly to the cohesion and strength of the collection. As
editor I have taken a hands-o√ approach to shaping individual chapters,
striving, rather, to preserve the unique, contextualized perspective of each
contributing author. Together, the contributors o√er thought-provoking insights
into the construct of CLT, as it has come to be known worldwide, and
provide practical examples for meeting the challenges of educating language
teachers in the new millennium.
For the most part, the chapter authors look at CLT from the perspective of
practicing teachers. The impression throughout is one of hearing voices from
the classroom. In some chapters, we hear from teacher educators, research
x
Sandra J. Savignon
ers, and national policy makers, in addition to teachers. The result is a vivid
representation of language teaching as the collaborative and context-specific
human activity that it is.
I would like to thank Susan Welch, dean of the College of Liberal Arts, Jim
Lantolf, director of the Language Acquisition Center, and the graduate students
in the Linguistics and Applied Language Studies program at Penn State
for their contributions to our applied linguistics community that encourages
inquiry and innovation. Also, I would like to acknowledge the reviewers of
this text, Mary McGroarty of Northern Arizona University, Elizabeth Bernhardt
of Stanford University, Margie Berns of Purdue University, Bill Johnston
of Indiana University, and Fred Davidson of the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. Finally, I would like to thank Mary Jane Peluso for
including me in the new Yale University Press language collection, and Noreen
O’Connor and Philip King for their excellent suggestions and attention
to detail. Foremost, however, I thank the contributors from around the globe
without whom this collection would not have been possible.
1
1
Communicative Language Teaching:
Linguistic Theory and Classroom Practice
s a n d r a j . s avignon
Communicative language teaching (CLT) refers to both processes and
goals in classroom learning. The central theoretical concept in communicative
language teaching is ‘‘communicative competence,’’ a term introduced
into discussions of language use and second or foreign language learning in
the early 1970s (Habermas 1970; Hymes 1971; Jakobovits 1970; Savignon 1971).
Competence is defined in terms of the
expression, interpretation, and negotiation
of meaning and looks to both psycholinguistic and sociocultural perspectives
in second language acquisition (SLA) research to account for its
development (Savignon 1972, 1997). Identification of learners’ communicative
needs provides a basis for curriculum design (Van Ek 1975).
Understanding of CLT can be traced to concurrent developments in Europe
and North America. In Europe, the language needs of a rapidly increasing
group of immigrants and guest workers, and a rich British linguistic
tradition that included social as well as linguistic context in description
of language behavior, led the Council of Europe to develop a syllabus for
learners based on notional-functional concepts of language use. The syllabus
was derived from neo-Firthian systemic or functional linguistics, in which
language is viewed as ‘‘meaning potential,’’ and the ‘‘context of situation’’
(Firth 1937; Halliday 1978) is viewed as central to understanding language
systems and how they work. The syllabus described a threshold level of
2
Sandra J. Savignon
language ability for each of the major languages of Europe in view of what
learners should be able to
do with the language (Van Ek 1975). Language
functions based on an assessment of the communicative needs of learners
specified the end result, or
goal, of an instructional program. The term
communicative
attached itself to programs that used a notional-functional
syllabus based on needs assessment, and the language for specific purposes
(LSP) movement was launched.
Concurrent development in Europe focused on the
process of communicative
classroom language learning. In Germany, for example, against a backdrop
of Social Democratic concerns for individual empowerment, articulated
in the writings of the philosopher Jurgen Habermas (1970), language
teaching methodologists took the lead in developing classroom materials
that encouraged learner choice (Candlin 1978). Their systematic collection
of exercise types for communicatively oriented English language teaching
was used in teacher in-service courses and workshops to guide curriculum
change. Exercises were designed to exploit the variety of social meanings
contained within particular grammatical structures. A system of ‘‘chains’’
encouraged teachers and learners to define their own learning path through
principled selection of relevant exercises (Piepho 1974; Piepho and Bredella
1976). Similar exploratory projects were initiated in the 1970s by Candlin at
the University of Lancaster, England, and by Holec (1979) and his colleagues
at the University of Nancy, France. Supplementary teacher resources promoting
classroom CLT became increasingly popular in the 1970s (for example,
Maley and Du√ 1978), and there was renewed interest in building learners’
vocabulary.
Meanwhile, in the United States, Hymes (1971) had reacted to Chomsky’s
characterization of the linguistic competence of the ideal native speaker and,
retaining Chomsky’s distinction between competence and performance, proposed
the term ‘‘communicative competence’’ to represent the ability to use
language in a social context, to observe sociolinguistic norms of appropriateness.
Hymes’s concern with speech communities and the integration of language,
communication, and culture was not unlike that of Firth and Halliday
in the British linguistic tradition (see Halliday 1978). Hymes’s ‘‘communicative
competence’’ can be seen as the equivalent of Halliday’s ‘‘meaning potential.’’
Similarly, Hymes’s focus was not language learning but
language as
social behavior
. In subsequent interpretations of the significance of Hymes’s
views for learners, methodologists working in the United States tended to
focus on the cultural norms of native speakers and the di≈ulty, if not
impossibility, of duplicating them in a classroom of non-natives. In light of
this di≈ulty, the appropriateness of communicative competence as an instructional
goal was called into question (Paulston 1974).
Linguistic Theory and Classroom Practice
3
At the same time, in an empirical research project at the University of Illinois,
Savignon (1971) used the term ‘‘communicative competence’’ to characterize
the ability of classroom language learners to interact with other
speakers, to make meaning, as distinct from their ability to recite dialogues or
perform on discrete-point tests of grammatical knowledge. At a time when
pattern practice and error avoidance were the rule in language teaching, this
study of adult classroom acquisition of French looked at the e√ect of practice
in the use of coping strategies as part of an instructional program. By encouraging
learners to ask for information, to seek clarification, to use circumlocution
and whatever other linguistic and nonlinguistic resources they could
muster to negotiate meaning, to stick to the communicative task at hand,
teachers were invariably leading learners to take risks, to venture beyond
memorized patterns. The communication strategies identified in this study
became the basis for subsequent identification by Canale and Swain (1980) of
strategic competence
as one of the components in their well-known framework
for communicative competence, along with grammatical competence
and sociolinguistic competence. (The classroom model of communicative
competence proposed by Savignon [1983] includes the three components
identified by Canale and Swain plus a fourth component, discourse competence,
added by Canale [1983]. We shall look more closely at this framework
below.) In the Savignon research, test results at the end of the eighteen-week
instructional period provided convincing evidence that learners who had
practiced communication in lieu of pattern drills in a laboratory performed
with no less accuracy on discrete-point tests of grammatical structure. Nevertheless,
their communicative competence, as measured in terms of fluency,
comprehensibility, e√ort, and amount of communication in unrehearsed
communicative tasks, significantly surpassed that of learners who had had no
such practice. Learners’ reactions to the test formats lent further support to
the view that even beginners respond well to activities that let them focus on
meaning as opposed to formal features.
A collection of role-playing exercises, games, and other communicative
classroom activities was developed subsequently for inclusion in the adaptation
of the French CREDIF materials,
Voix et Visages de la France (CREDIF,
or the Centre de Recherche et d’Etude pour la Di√usion du Francais, is a
university-based institution that contributed to the dissemination of French
outside France). The accompanying guide (Savignon 1974) described their
purpose as that of involving learners in the experience of communication.
Teachers were encouraged to provide learners with the French equivalent of
expressions like ‘‘What’s the word for . . . ?’’ ‘‘Please repeat,’’ and ‘‘I don’t
understand,’’ expressions that would help them participate in the negotiation
of meaning. Not unlike the e√orts of Candlin and his colleagues working in
4
Sandra J. Savignon
a European English as a foreign language (EFL) context, the focus was on
classroom process and learner autonomy. The use of games, role playing,
and activities in pairs and other small groups has gained acceptance and is
now widely recommended for inclusion in language-teaching programs (see
Chapter 5).
Communicative language teaching derives from a multidisciplinary perspective
that includes, at the least, linguistics, psychology, philosophy, sociology,
and educational research. The focus has been the elaboration and implementation
of programs and methodologies that promote the development of
functional language ability through learners’ participation in communicative
events. Central to CLT is the understanding of language learning as both an
educational and a political issue. Language teaching is inextricably linked
with language policy. Viewed from a multicultural intranational as well as
international perspective, diverse sociopolitical contexts mandate not only a
diverse set of language-learning goals but a diverse set of teaching strategies.
Program design and implementation depend on negotiation between
policy makers, linguists, researchers, and teachers (see Chapter 6). Evaluation
of program success requires a similar collaborative e√ort. The selection of
methods and materials appropriate to both the goals and the context of
teaching begins with an analysis of learners’ needs and styles of learning,
socially defined.
Focus on the Learner
By definition, CLT puts the focus on the learner. Learners’ communicative
needs provide a framework for elaborating program goals with regard to
functional competence. Functional goals imply global, qualitative evaluation
of learner achievement as opposed to quantitative assessment of discrete
linguistic features. Controversy over appropriate language testing persists,
and many a curricular innovation has been undone by failure to make corresponding
changes in evaluation. Current e√orts at educational reform favor
essay writing, in-class presentations, and other more holistic assessments of
learner competence. Some programs have initiated portfolio assessment, the
collection and evaluation of learners’ poems, reports, stories, videotapes, and
similar projects in an e√ort to represent and encourage learner achievement.
Assessment initiatives of this kind do not go unopposed. They face demands
for accountability from school boards, parents, and governmental funding
agencies. Measurement of learning outcomes remains a central focus in
meeting educational challenges worldwide. (See Chapters 3, 5, and 7.)
Depending upon their own preparation and experience, teachers di√er in
Linguistic Theory and Classroom Practice
5
their reactions to CLT. Some feel understandable frustration at the seeming
ambiguity in discussions of communicative ability. Negotiation of meaning
may be a lofty goal, but this view of language behavior lacks precision and
does not provide a universal scale for assessment of individual learners.
Ability is viewed, rather, as variable and highly dependent on context and
purpose as well as on the roles and attitudes of all involved. Other teachers
welcome the opportunity to select or develop their own materials, providing
learners with a range of communicative tasks. They are comfortable relying
on more global, integrative judgments of learning progress.
An additional source of frustration for some teachers is research findings
on the acquisition of a second language that show the route, if not the rate, of
language acquisition to be largely una√ected by classroom instruction. (See,
for example, Ellis 1985, 1997.) First language (L1) cross-linguistic studies of
developmental universals initiated in the 1970s were soon followed by second
language (L2) studies. Acquisition, assessed on the basis of unrehearsed oral
communication, seemed to follow a similar morphosyntactical sequence regardless
of learners’ age or the learning context. Although the findings supported
teachers’ informal observations, namely that textbook presentation
and drill do not ensure learners’ use of the same structures in their own
spontaneous expression, the findings were nonetheless disconcerting. They
contradicted both the grammar-translation method and audiolingual precepts
that placed the burden of acquisition on the teacher’s explanation of
grammar and the learner’s controlled practice of syntactical and phonological
patterns with a goal of near native ‘‘accuracy.’’ The findings were further at
odds with textbooks that promise ‘‘mastery’’ of ‘‘basic’’ French, English,
Spanish, and so forth. Teachers’ rejection of research findings, renewed insistence
on tests of discrete grammatical structures, and even exclusive reliance
in the classroom on the learners’ native or first language, where possible, to
be sure students ‘‘get the grammar,’’ have in some cases been reactions to the
frustration of teaching for communication.
Moreover, with its emphasis on sentence-level grammatical features, the
dominant second language acquisition (SLA) research paradigm itself has
obscured pragmatic and sociolinguistic issues in language acquisition. (See,
for example, Firth and Wagner 1998.) Renewed interest in sociocultural theories
of second language acquisition o√er promise for expanding the research
paradigm and bringing much needed balance (Lantolf 2000). In her discussion
of the contexts of competence, Berns (1990) stresses that the definition
of appropriate communicative competence for learners requires an understanding
of the sociocultural contexts of language use (see Chapter 7).
In addition, the selection of a methodology suited to the attainment of
6
Sandra J. Savignon
communicative competence requires an understanding of sociocultural differences
in styles of learning. Curricular innovation is best advanced by the
development of local materials, which, in turn, rests on the involvement of
classroom teachers. (See Chapters 3 and 6 and Markee 1997.) Berns (1990,
104) provides a useful summary of eight principles of CLT:
1. Language teaching is based on a view of language as communication. That
is, language is seen as a social tool that speakers use to make meaning;
speakers communicate about something to someone for some purpose,
either orally or in writing.
2. Diversity is recognized and accepted as part of language development and
use in second language learners and users, as it is with first language users.
3. A learner’s competence is considered in relative, not in absolute, terms.
4. More than one variety of a language is recognized as a viable model for
learning and teaching.
5. Culture is recognized as instrumental in shaping speakers’ communicative
competence, in both their first and subsequent languages.
6. No single methodology or fixed set of techniques is prescribed.
7. Language use is recognized as serving ideational, interpersonal, and textual
functions and is related to the development of learners’ competence
in each.
8. It is essential that learners be engaged in doing things with language—hat
is, that they use language for a variety of purposes in all phases of learning.
It has increasingly been recognized that learners’ expectations and attitudes
play a role in advancing or impeding curricular change. Among the
available scales measuring learners’ attitudes, the BALLI (Beliefs About Language
Learning Inventory) scale developed by Horwitz (1988) is designed to
survey learners’ views on issues a√ecting language learning and teaching. The
scale includes five parts: (1) di≈ulty of language learning, (2) foreign language
aptitude, (3) the nature of language learning, (4) learning and communication
strategies, and (5) motivations and expectations. As Horwitz
(1988) suggests, classroom realities that contradict learners’ expectations
about learning may lead to disappointment and ultimately interfere with
learning. At the same time, classroom practices have the potential to change
learners’ beliefs (see Chapter 4 and Kern 1995).
What About Grammar?
Discussions of CLT not infrequently lead to questions of grammatical
or formal accuracy. The perceived displacement of attention toward mor
Linguistic
Theory and Classroom Practice
7
phosyntactical features in learners’ expression in favor of a focus on meaning
has led in some cases to the impression that grammar is not important, or
that proponents of CLT favor learners’ ability to express themselves, without
regard to form.
While involvement in communicative events is seen as central to language
development, this involvement necessarily requires attention to form. Communication
cannot take place in the absence of structure, or grammar, a set
of shared assumptions about how language works, along with a willingness of
participants to cooperate in the negotiation of meaning. In their carefully
researched and widely cited paper proposing components of communicative
competence, Canale and Swain (1980) did not suggest that grammar was
unimportant. They sought rather to situate grammatical competence within
a more broadly defined communicative competence. Similarly, the findings
of the Savignon (1971) study did not suggest that teachers forsake grammar
instruction. Rather, the replacement of structure drills in a language laboratory
with self-expression focused on meaning was found to be a more effective
way to develop communicative ability with no loss of morphosyntactical
accuracy. Learners’ performance on tests of discrete morphosyntactical
features was not a good predictor of their performance on a series of integrative
communicative tasks.
The nature of the contribution to language development of both formfocused
and meaning-focused classroom activity remains a question in ongoing
research. The optimal combination of these activities in any given instructional
setting depends no doubt on learners’ age, the nature and length
of instructional sequence, the opportunities for language contact outside the
classroom, teacher preparation, and other factors. For the development of
communicative competence, however, research findings overwhelming support
the integration of form-focused exercises and meaning-focused experience.
Grammar is important; and learners seem to focus best on grammar
when it relates to their communicative needs and experiences (Lightbown
and Spada 1993; Ellis 1997). Nor should explicit attention to form be perceived
as limited to sentence-level morphosyntactical features. Broader features
of discourse, sociolinguistic rules of appropriateness, and communication
strategies themselves may be included.
How Has CLT Been Interpreted?
The classroom model we shall present shows the hypothetical integration
of four components of communicative competence (Savignon 1972, 1983,
1987, 2000; Canale and Swain 1980; Canale 1983; Byram 1997). Adapted
8
Sandra J. Savignon
CONTEXTS
SOCIOCULTURAL
STRATEGIC
DISCOURSE
GRAMMATICAL
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
Figure 1.1. Components of communicative competence.
from the familiar ‘‘inverted pyramid’’ classroom model proposed in Savignon
(1983), the current model shows how, through practice and experience in an
increasingly wide range of communicative contexts and events, learners gradually
expand their communicative competence, which comprises grammatical
competence, discourse competence, sociocultural competence, and strategic
competence (Figure 1.1). Although the relative importance of the various
components depends on the overall level of communicative competence,
each is essential. Moreover, all the components are interrelated. They cannot
be developed or measured in isolation, and one cannot go from one component
to the other as when stringing beads on a necklace. Rather, when an
increase occurs in one area, that component interacts with other components
to produce a corresponding increase in overall communicative competence.
Linguistic Theory and Classroom Practice
9
Grammatical competence refers to sentence-level grammatical forms, the
ability to recognize the lexical, morphological, syntactical and phonological
features of a language and to make use of those features to interpret and form
words and sentences. Grammatical competence is not linked to any single
theory of grammar and does not include the ability to state rules of usage.
One demonstrates grammatical competence not by stating a rule but by
using a rule in the interpretation, expression, or negotiation of meaning.
Discourse competence is concerned not with isolated words or phrases but
with the interconnectedness of a series of utterances or written words or
phrases to form a text, a meaningful whole. The text might be a poem, an
e-mail message, a sportscast, a telephone conversation, or a novel. Identification
of isolated sounds or words contributes to interpretation of the overall
meaning of the text. This is known as bottom-up processing. In contrast, topdown
processing involves understanding of the theme or purpose of the text,
which in turn helps in the interpretation of isolated sounds or words. Both
kinds of processing are essential for communicative competence. (See Chapter
10 for additional perspective on discourse.)
Two other familiar concepts that arise in discussions of discourse competence
are text coherence and cohesion. Text coherence is the relation of all
sentences or utterances in a text to a single global proposition. The establishment
of a global meaning, or topic, for a whole poem, e-mail message,
sportscast, telephone conversation, or novel is an integral part of both expression
and interpretation and makes possible the interpretation of the
individual sentences that make up the text. Local connections or structural
links between individual sentences provide cohesion. Halliday and Hasan
(1976) are widely recognized for their identification of various cohesive devices
used in English, and their work has influenced materials for teaching
English as a second or foreign language (ESL/EFL). (For an illustration, see
Celce-Murcia and Larsen Freeman 1999.)
Sociocultural competence, a broader view of what Canale and Swain (1980)
identified as sociolinguistic competence, extends well beyond linguistic forms
and is an interdisciplinary field of inquiry having to do with the social rules of
language use. Sociocultural competence requires an understanding of the
social context in which language is used: the roles of the participants, the
information they share, and the function of the interaction. Although we
have yet to provide a satisfactory description of grammar, we are even further
from an adequate description of sociocultural rules of appropriateness. Yet we
use them to communicate successfully in many di√erent situational contexts.
Learners cannot be expected to anticipate the sociocultural dimension of
every situation. The likelihood of encountering the unexpected is easily seen
for a language like English, which serves not only as a first languge in many
10
Sandra J. Savignon
countries, and within di√erent cultural groups in those countries, but also as
a language of wider communication across national and cultural boundaries.
Subtler, perhaps, but no less real variations in style and use in di√erent
settings can be observed for all languages. Participants in multicultural communication
are sensitive not only to the cultural meanings attached to the
language itself but to social conventions concerning language use, such things
as taking turns, appropriateness of content, nonverbal language, and tone.
These conventions influence how messages are interpreted. In addition to
cultural knowledge, cultural sensitivity is essential. Just knowing something
about the culture of an English-speaking country will not su≈e. What must
be learned is a general empathy and openness toward other cultures. Sociocultural
competence includes a willingness to engage in the active negotiation
of meaning along with a willingness to suspend judgment and take into
consideration the possibility of cultural di√erences in conventions of use.
Together these features might be subsumed under the term ‘‘cultural flexibility,’’
or ‘‘cultural awareness.’’ The ‘‘ideal native speaker,’’ someone who knows
a language perfectly and uses it appropriately in all social interactions, exists
in theory only. None of us knows all there is to know of a language in its many
manifestations, both around the world and in our own backyards. Communicative
competence is always relative. The coping strategies that we use in
unfamiliar contexts, with constraints arising from imperfect knowledge of
rules, or such impediments to their application as fatigue or distraction, are
represented as strategic competence. With practice and experience, we gain
competence in grammar, discourse, and sociocultural adaptability. The relative
importance of strategic competence thus decreases; however, the effective
use of coping strategies is important for communicative competence
in all contexts and distinguishes highly e√ective communicators from those
who are less so.
Shaping a Communicative Curriculum
Today, many proposed innovations in curriculum planning o√er both
novice and veteran teachers an array of alternatives. Games, tasks, juggling,
and jazz have been proposed as aids to language learning. Rapidly increasing
opportunities for computer-mediated communication, both synchronous—via on-line chat rooms—nd asynchronous—hrough the full spectrum of
information and interactions available on the Internet as well as specialized
bulletin boards and e-mail—old promise for increased communicative opportunities
for learners worldwide.
In attempting to convey the meaning of CLT to both preservice and in
Linguistic
Theory and Classroom Practice
11
service teachers of English as a second or foreign language in a wide range of
contexts, I have found it helpful to think of a communicative curriculum as
potentially having five components (Savignon 1983, 1997). These components
can be regarded as thematic clusters of activities or experiences related to language
use. They provide a way to categorize teaching strategies that promote
communicative competence. Use of the word ‘‘component’’ to categorize
these activities seems particularly appropriate in that it avoids any suggestion
of sequence or level. Experience with communicative teaching methods has
shown that the five components can be profitably blended at all stages of
instruction. Organization of learning activities into the following components
serves not to sequence an instructional program, but rather to highlight
the range of options available in curriculum planning and to suggest
ways in which their very interrelatedness can benefit the learner.
Language Arts
Language for a Purpose
My Language Is Me: Personal Second Language Use
You Be . . . , I’ll Be . . . : Theater Arts
Beyond the Classroom
Language arts, or language analysis, is the first component on the list.
Language arts includes the skills at which language teachers often excel. In
fact, it may be all they have been taught to do. Language arts includes many of
the exercises used in school programs throughout the world to help learners
focus on formal accuracy in their mother tongue. Language arts in a second
or foreign language program focuses on forms of the language, including
syntax, morphology and phonology. Spelling tests, for example, are important
if writing is a goal. Familiar activities such as translation, dictation, and
rote memorization can be helpful in bringing attention to form. Vocabulary
can be expanded through definition, synonyms and antonyms, and study of
cognates and false cognates. Pronunciation exercises and patterned repetition
of verb paradigms and other structural features can be used to lead students
to focus on form, to illustrate regular syntactic features, or rules of grammar.
Learners of all ages can also enjoy numerous language arts games or activities
for the variety and group interaction they provide. So long as they are not
overused and are not promoted as the solution to all manner of language
learning problems, games and other activities that focus on language arts in a
wide range of formats are a welcome addition to a teacher’s repertoire.
Language for a purpose, or language experience, is the second component
on the list. In contrast with language analysis, language experience is the use
of language for real and immediate communicative goals. Not all learners are
12
Sandra J. Savignon
taking a new language for the same reasons. It is important for teachers to pay
attention, when selecting and sequencing materials, to the specific communicative
needs of the learners. Regardless of how distant or unspecific the
communicative needs of the learners, every program with a goal of communicative
competence should pay heed to opportunities for meaningful language
use, opportunities to focus on meaning as well as form.
In a classroom where the language of instruction is of necessity the second
language, learners have an immediate and natural need to use it. Where this
happens, language for a purpose is a built-in feature of the learning environment.
In those settings where the teacher shares with learners a language
other than the second language, special attention needs to be given to providing
learners with opportunities for experience in their new language. Exclusive
use of the second language in the classroom is an option. In so-called
content-based instruction, the focus is something other than the language.
The content, history, music, or literature, for example, is taught in the second
language. Immersion programs at the elementary, secondary, or even university
level, where the entire curriculum is taught in the second language, o√er
greatest possible exposure to language for a purpose. In addition, task-based
curricula are designed to provide learners with the most opportunity to use
language for a purpose.
Learners who are accustomed to being taught exclusively in their first
language may at first be uncomfortable if the teacher speaks to them in the
second, expecting them not only to understand but, perhaps, to respond.
When this happens, teachers need to take special care to help learners understand
that they are not expected to understand every word, any more than
they are expected to express themselves in the second language as if they had
been using it since childhood. Making an e√ort to get the gist and using
strategies to enhance comprehension are important to the development
of communicative competence. With encouragement and help from their
teacher in developing the strategic competence they need to interpret, express,
and negotiate meaning, learners often express satisfaction and even
surprise (see Chapter 4).
My language is me: personal second language use, the third component in
a communicative curriculum, relates to the learner’s emerging identity in the
new language. Attitude is without a doubt the single most important factor in
a learner’s success. Whether the learner’s motivations are integrative or instrumental,
the development of communicative competence fully engages
the learner. The most successful teaching programs are those which take into
account the a√ective as well as the cognitive aspects of language learning and
seek to involve learners psychologically as well as intellectually.
Linguistic Theory and Classroom Practice
13
In planning for CLT, teachers should remember that not everyone is comfortable
in the same role. Within classroom communities, as within society at
large, some people are leaders and some prefer to be followers. Both are
essential to the success of group activities. In group discussions, a few always
seem to do most of the talking. Those who often remain silent in larger
groups may participate more easily in pair work. Or they may prefer to
work on an individual project. The wider the variety of communicative, or
meaning-based, activities, the greater the chance for involving all learners.
‘‘My language is me’’ implies, above all, respect for learners as they use
their new language for self-expression. Although language arts activities provide
an appropriate context for focus on form, personal second language use
does not. Most teachers know this and intuitively focus on meaning rather
than form, as learners assume a new identity and express their personal
feelings or experiences. Repeated emphasis on structural features in textbooks
or on tests, however, may cause teachers to feel uncomfortable about
their exclusive focus on meaning on these occasions. An understanding of the
importance of opportunities for the interpretation, expression, and negotiation
of meaning and of the distinction between language arts and ‘‘my language
is me’’ can help to reassure teachers that what they are doing is in the
best interests of the learners for continued second language development.
Respect for learners as they use their new language for self-expression
requires more than simply paying less attention to formal ‘‘errors’’ (see Chapter
10) that do not interfere with meaning. It includes recognition that socalled
near-native performance, in fact, may not even be a goal for learners.
Language teaching has come a long way from audiolingual days when ‘‘native’’
pronunciation and use was held up as an ideal for learners. Reference to
the terms ‘‘native’’ or ‘‘near native’’ in the evaluation of communicative competence
is inappropriate in today’s postcolonial, multicultural world. We now
recognize that native speakers are never ‘‘ideal’’ and, in fact, vary widely in
range and style of communicative abilities. Moreover, the decision about
what is or is not one’s ‘‘native’’ language is arbitrary and is perhaps best left to
the individual concerned. Such is the view of Chenny Lai, a MATESL candidate
studying in the United States:
As to the definition of ‘‘native’’ or ‘‘first’’ language we discussed in today’s
class, I came up with the idea that we have no say about whether a person’s
native language is this one or that one. It is the speaker who has the right to
feel which language is his native one. The native language should be the one
in which the speaker feels most comfortable or natural when engaged in daily
communication or, more abstractly, the one in which the speaker does all his
thinking. There are two major languages spoken in Taiwan: Mandarin and
14
Sandra J. Savignon
Taiwanese. I don’t have the slightest problem using either of them since I use
both every day in equal proportion. But when I do my thinking, considering
things, or even kind of talking to myself, my ‘‘mental’’ language is Mandarin.
Because of this, I would say that my native language is Mandarin. We probably
can say that a person’s native language can actually ‘‘switch’’ from one to
another during stages of his life.
Since personality inevitably takes on a new dimension through expression
in another language, learners need to discover that dimension on their own
terms. Learners should not only be given the opportunity to say what they
want to say in the second language; they should be encouraged to develop a
personality in the second language with which they are comfortable. They
may feel more comfortable maintaining a degree of formality not found in
the interpersonal transactions of native speakers. The diary entry of a Japanese
learner of English o√ers important insight into the matter of identity:
I just don’t know what to do right now. I might have been wrong since I
began to learn English; I always tried to be better and wanted to be a good
speaker. It was wrong, absolutely wrong! When I got to California, I started
imitating Americans and picked up the words that I heard. So my English
became just like Americans’. I couldn’t help it. I must have been funny to
them, because I am a Japanese and have my own culture and background. I
think I almost lost the most important thing I should not have. I got California
English, including intonation, pronunciation, the way they act, which are
not mine. I have to have my own English, be myself when I speak English.
(Preston 1981, 113)
At the same time, learners may discover a new freedom of self-expression
in another language. When asked what it is like to write in English, a language
that is not her native tongue, the Korean writer Mia Yun (1998), author of
House of the Winds,
replied that it was ‘‘like putting on a new dress.’’ Writing
in English made her feel fresh, see herself in a new way, o√ered her freedom
to experiment. When expressing themselves in a new language, writers are
not the only ones to experience the feeling of ‘‘putting on a new dress.’’ The
component ‘‘my language is me’’ calls for recognition and respect for the
individual personality of the learner. (We shall return to the ‘‘native–onnative’’
distinction with respect to users of English later in this chapter.)
Theater arts is the fourth component of a communicative curriculum. In
the familiar words of Shakespeare, ‘‘all the world’s a stage’’ (
As You Like It, II,
7). And on this stage we play many roles, roles for which we improvise scripts
from the models we observe around us. Child, parent, foreigner, newcomer,
employer, employee, doctor, or teacher, all are roles that embrace certain
Linguistic Theory and Classroom Practice
15
expected ways of behaving and using language. Sociocultural rules of appropriateness
have to do with these expected ways. Familiar roles may be played
with little conscious attention to style. New and unfamiliar roles require
practice, and an awareness of the way the meanings we intend are being
interpreted by others. Sometimes there are no models. In the second half of
the twentieth century, women who suddenly found themselves in what had
been a ‘‘man’s world,’’ whether as firefighters, professors, or heads of state,
had to adapt existing male models to develop a role in which they could be
comfortable. The transition is far from complete. Although women comprise
more than 50 percent of the world population, their participation in many
professional and political arenas remains limited. Men, for their part, often
feel constrained in choosing roles more often assumed by women, for example,
homemaker, secretary, or nurse. If current social trends continue, however,
by the end of the twenty-first century both women and men may find
they have many more established models from which to choose.
If the world can be thought of as a stage, with actors and actresses who play
their parts to the best of their ability, theater may be seen as an opportunity to
experiment with roles, to try things out. Fantasy and play-acting are a natural
and important part of childhood. Make-believe and the ‘‘you be . . . , I’ll
be . . .’’ improvisations familiar to children the world over are important to
self-discovery and growth. They allow young learners to experiment, to try
things out, like hats and wigs, moods and postures, gestures and words. As
occasions for language use, role playing and the many related activities that
constitute theater arts are likewise a natural component of language learning.
They allow learners to experiment with the roles they play or may be called
upon to play in real life. Theater arts can provide learners with the tools they
need to act—hat is, to interpret, express and negotiate meaning in a new
language. Activities can include both scripted and unscripted role playing,
simulations, and even pantomime. Ensemble-building activities familiar in
theater training have been used very successfully in language programs to
create a climate of trust so necessary for the incorporation of theater arts
activities (see Savignon 1997). The role of the teacher in theater arts is that of
a coach: to provide support, strategies, and encouragement for learners as
they explore new ways of being.
Language use beyond the classroom is the fifth and final component of a
communicative curriculum. Regardless of the variety of communicative activities
in the classroom, their purpose remains preparing learners to use the
second language in the world beyond. This is the world on which learners
will depend for the maintenance and development of their communicative
competence once classes are over. The classroom is but a rehearsal. Language
16
Sandra J. Savignon
use beyond the classroom in a communicative curriculum begins with discovery
of learners’ interests and needs and opportunities not only to respond
to but, more important, to explore those interests and needs through second
language use beyond the classroom itself.
In a second language environment, opportunities to use the second language
outside the classroom abound. Systematic ‘‘field experiences’’ may
successfully become the core of the course, which then becomes a workshop
where learners can compare notes, seek clarification, and expand the range of
domains in which they learn to function in the second language. Classroom
visits to a courtroom trial, a public auction, or a church bazaar provide
introductions to aspects of the local culture that learners might not experience
on their own. Conversation partners, apprenticeships, and host families
can be arranged. Residents of nearby retirement communities can be recruited
as valuable resources for a range of research projects. Senior citizens
often welcome the opportunity to interact with international visitors or new
arrivals and can o√er a wealth of knowledge and experience. They might be
interviewed about noteworthy historical events, child rearing in earlier decades,
or their views on politics, health care, or grandparenting.
In other than a second language setting, the challenge for incorporating
language use beyond the classroom may be greater, but it is certainly not
insurmountable. Such incorporation remains essential for both learners and
teacher. Radio and television programs, videos, and feature-length films may
be available along with newspapers and magazines. Residents who use the
second language, or visitors from the surrounding community, may be able
to visit the classroom. The Internet now provides opportunities to interact
on a variety of topics with other language users around the world. These
opportunities for computer-mediated communication (CMC) will increase
dramatically in the years ahead. In addition to prearranged exchanges, learners
can make use of World Wide Web sites to obtain a range of information,
schedules, rates, locations, descriptions, and sources.
Putting It All Together
How do we put it all together? Is there an optimum combination of
language arts, personal language use, language for a purpose, theater arts,
and language use beyond the classroom? These questions must be answered
by individual language teachers for their learners in the context in which they
teach. Cultural expectations, goals, and styles of learning are but some of the
ways in which learners may di√er one from another. To the complexity of the
learner must be added the complexities of teachers and of the settings in
Linguistic Theory and Classroom Practice
17
which they teach. Established routines, or institutional beliefs about what is
important, weigh heavily in a teacher’s decisions about what and how to
teach and often make innovation di≈ult (see Chapters 3 and 7). Finally, the
need for variety must be taken into account. Learners who are bored with
recitation of rules or with sentence translation may just as easily lose interest
in games or role-play if either is allowed to become routine. Di≈ult as it is,
the teacher’s task is to understand the many factors involved and respond to
them creatively.
Teachers cannot do this alone, of course. They need the support of administrators,
the community, and learners themselves. Methodologists and
teacher-education programs have a responsibility as well. They should provide
classroom teachers with the perspective and experiences they need if
they are to respond to the realities of their world, a changing world in which
the old ways of language teaching may not be the best ways. The optimal
combination for a given context of the analytical and the experiential is a
focus of ongoing inquiry. A now well-established research tradition in second
and foreign language learning and teaching, however, has clearly shown the
importance of attention to language use, or experience, in addition to language
usage, or analysis. The overwhelming emphasis in most school programs
remains on the latter, though, often to the complete exclusion of
experience in language use (for examples, see Chapters 3, 4, and 7).
Sociolinguistic Issues
Numerous sociolinguistic issues await attention. Variation in the speech
community and its relationship to language change are central to sociolinguistic
inquiry. Sociolinguistic perspectives on variability and change highlight
the folly of describing the competence of a native speaker, let alone that
of a non-native speaker, in terms of ‘‘mastery’’ or ‘‘command’’ of a system. All
language systems show instability and variation. The language systems of
learners show even greater instability and variability in both the amount and
rate of change. Moreover, sociolinguistic concerns with identity and accommodation
help explain the construction by bilingual speakers of a ‘‘variation
space’’ which is di√erent from that of a native speaker. This may include
retention of any number of features of a previously acquired code or system of
phonology and syntax as well as features of discourse and pragmatics, including
communication strategies. The phenomenon may be individual or,
within a community of learners, general. Di√erences not only in the code
itself but in the semantic meanings attributed to di√erent encodings contribute
to identification with a speech community or culture, the way a speech
18
Sandra J. Savignon
community views itself and the world. This often includes code mixing and
code switching, the use by bilingual speakers of resources from more than one
speech community.
Sociolinguistic perspectives have been important in understanding the
implications of norm, appropriateness, and variability for CLT and continue
to suggest avenues of inquiry for further research and development of teaching
materials. Use of authentic language data has underscored the importance
of context—setting, roles, genre, and so on—in interpreting the meaning
of a text. A range of both oral and written texts in context provides
learners with a variety of language experiences, experiences they need to
construct their own ‘‘variation space,’’ to make determinations of appropriateness
in their own expression of meaning. ‘‘Competent’’ in this instance is
not necessarily synonymous with ‘‘near native.’’ Negotiation in CLT highlights
the need for interlinguistic—hat is, intercultural—wareness on the
part of all involved (Byram 1997). Better understanding of the strategies used
in the negotiation of meaning o√ers the potential for improving classroom
practice of the needed skills.
NATIVES AND FOREIGNERS
As a starting point, we might begin by asking ourselves whose language
we teach and for what purpose. What is our own relationship with the
language? Do we consider it to be foreign, second, native, or target?
Webster’s New International Dictionary,
second edition, was published in
1950, a time when language teaching in the United States was on the threshold
of a period of unprecedented scrutiny, experimentation, and growth. The
dictionary provides the following definitions of these terms we use so often
with respect to language. ‘‘Foreign’’ derives from Middle English
foraine,
forene,
Old French forain, and Latin foris, meaning ‘‘out-of-doors.’’ Modern
definitions include
situated outside one’s own country; born in, belonging to, derived from, or
characteristic of some place other than the one under consideration . . . alien
in character; not connected; not pertinent; not appropriate. Related to, or
dealing with, other countries; not organically connected or naturally related;
as a foreign body (biology, medicine), a substance occurring in any part of
the body or organism where it is not normally found.
Those who are identified as teaching a foreign language, perhaps in a
department of foreign languages, should ponder the meaning of the term.
What does the label ‘‘foreign’’ signal to colleagues, learners, and the community
at large? Today we are concerned with global ecology and the global
Linguistic Theory and Classroom Practice
19
economy. The ‘‘foreign’’ students who used to walk university campuses and
whose numbers have become increasingly important for balancing budgets
in higher education have been replaced by international students. To excite
national pride and assail their opponents, politicians are fond of evoking the
dreaded ‘‘F’’ word, in phrases such as ‘‘foreign influence,’’ ‘‘foreign money,’’
and ‘‘foreign oil.’’
Nonetheless, one might object, ‘‘foreign’’ is still a useful term to use in
distinguishing between teaching English in Osaka, Japan, and teaching English
in, say, Youngstown, Ohio. In Youngstown, English is taught to nonnative
speakers as a second language, whereas in Osaka it is a foreign language.
The contexts of learning are not the same, to be sure. Neither are the
learners—r the teachers. Do these facts change the nature of the language,
though? What about the teaching of Spanish in Chicago, in Barcelona, in
Buenos Aires, in Guatemala City, in Miami, or in Madrid? In what sense can
Spanish in each of these contexts be described as ‘‘foreign’’ or ‘‘second,’’ and
what are the implications for the learners of the label selected or for the
teacher?
On the one hand, having taught French in Urbana, Illinois, for many years,
I can easily identify with the problems of teachers of English in Osaka. More
so, perhaps, than can those who teach ESL in Urbana with easy access to
English-speaking communities outside the classroom. On the other hand,
however, teaching French in Urbana or English in Osaka is no excuse for
ignoring or avoiding opportunities for communication, either written or
oral. In this age of satellite television and the World Wide Web, a multitude of
language communities is for some as close as the computer keyboard. In the
decades ahead, the potential for language learning and language change that
is inherent in computer-mediated negotiation of meaning will be increasingly
recognized, both inside and outside language classrooms.
What may be a problem is the teacher’s communicative competence. Is she
a fluent speaker of the language she teaches? If not, does she consider herself
to be bilingual? If not, why not? Is it a lack of communicative competence, or
rather a lack of communicative confidence? Is she intimidated by ‘‘native’’
speakers?
The example of English as an international or global language is instructive.
Such wide adoption of one language in both international and intranational
contexts is unprecedented. English users today include (1) those who
live in countries where English is a primary language, the United States, the
United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; (2) those who live in
countries where English is an auxiliary, intranational language of communication—for example, Bangladesh, India, Nigeria, the Philippines, Tanzania;
20
Sandra J. Savignon
and (3) those who use primarily English in international contexts, in countries
like China, Indonesia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. By conservative
estimates the number of non-native speakers of English in the world today
outnumbers native speakers by more than two to one, and the ratio is increasing.
Models of appropriateness vary from context to context. The use of
the English language has become so widespread that some scholars speak not
only of varieties of English but of world Englishes, the title of a professional
journal devoted to discussion of issues in the use, description, and teaching
of these many varieties. Depending on the context, ‘‘native’’ speakers may or
may not be appropriate models (Kachru 1992).
For an interpretation of the term ‘‘native speaker,’’
Webster’s International
Dictionary,
second edition, is not very helpful. A ‘‘native’’ is defined as ‘‘one
that is born in a place or country referred to; a denizen by birth; an animal, a
fruit or vegetable produced in a certain region; as, a native of France.’’ The
dictionary cites, among expressions containing ‘‘native’’ as a modifier, ‘‘native
bear,’’ ‘‘native bread,’’ ‘‘native cabbage,’’ ‘‘native dog,’’ and ‘‘native sparrow.’’
There is no mention of native speaker.
To understand the meaning of ‘‘native speaker’’ in language teaching today,
we must look to American structural linguistics and its use of ‘‘native speaker
informants’’ to provide data for previously undescribed, unwritten languages,
as well as to Chomsky’s representation of the ‘‘ideal native speaker’’ in his
elaboration of transformational-generative grammar. In both cases the native
speaker, real or imagined, was the authority on language use. In audiolingual
language teaching, the native speaker became not only the model for but the
judge of acceptable use. See, for example, the
ACTFL Oral Proficiency Guidelines
level descriptor that tolerates errors in grammar that ‘‘do not disturb the
native speaker’’ (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
1986). That phrase has always conjured up for me images of people sitting
around with big signs that say, ‘‘native speaker. do not disturb.’’ Having lived
most of my adult life with a native speaker of French, I suppose I am no longer
intimidated, or even impressed. Nor, I should add, is he intimidated or
impressed by my American English. Native speakers of French, American
English, or whatever language are fine, but they do not own the language they
use; nor are they by definition competent to teach and evaluate learners. (A
more recent version of the ACTFL level descriptor refers to errors that do not
‘‘distract’’ the native speaker. For discussion, see Chapter 10.)
There remains the term ‘‘target language,’’ used frequently by methodologists
and language-acquisition researchers alike. ‘‘Target language’’ is laden
with both behavioristic and militaristic associations. A target is not unlike the
Linguistic Theory and Classroom Practice
21
‘‘terminal behavior’’ or end result identified in behaviorist learning theory.
‘‘Target language’’ evokes the Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP)
that provided an experimental setting for the audiolingual methods and
materials developed in the 1960s. Evoking as it does a monolithic, fixed goal
for all, reference to language as a target misrepresents both process and
progress in language learning.
THE CLASSROOM AS SOCIAL CONTEXT
Along with other sociolinguistic issues in language acquisition, the
classroom itself as a social context has been neglected. Classroom language
learning was the focus of research studies in the 1960s and early 1970s. Language
classrooms were not a major concern, however, in the SLA research
that gathered momentum in the years to follow. The full range of variables
present in educational settings—for example, teacher preparation and experience,
class size, learner needs and attitudes—was an obvious deterrent.
Other di≈culties included the lack of well-defined classroom processes and
lack of agreement on what constituted successful learning. Confusion between
form-focused drill and meaning-focused communication persisted in
many of the textbook exercises and language test prototypes that influenced
curricula. Not surprisingly, researchers eager to establish SLA as a worthy
field of inquiry turned their attention to narrower, more quantitative studies
of the acquisition of selected morphosyntactic features.
Increasingly, however, researchers’ attention is now being directed to the
social dynamics and discourse of the classroom. What does teacher-learner
interaction look like? What happens during pair or group work? How much
is the second language being used and for what purposes? If language use is
essential for the development of communicative competence, then the nature
and amount of second language use in the classroom setting needs to be
examined closely. Is the aim truly communication, that is, is the focus on the
negotiation of meaning, rather than on practice of grammatical forms? What
are the opportunities for interaction in the second language? Who participates?
Who initiates discourse in the second language? What are the purposes
of this discourse (Savignon 1997)?
Questions related to patterns of communication and opportunities for
learners to negotiate meaning become all the more compelling as technological
advances increase dramatically and alter the nature of such opportunities.
E-mail, chat rooms, on-line teaching materials, and video-conferencing are,
in e√ect, redefining the concept of ‘‘classroom’’ and, with it, the roles of
teachers and learners. (For an example, see Chapter 8.)
22
Sandra J. Savignon
What CLT Is Not
Disappointment with both grammar-translation and audiolingual
methods for their inability to prepare learners for the interpretation, expression,
and negotiation of meaning, along with enthusiasm for an array of
activities increasingly labeled communicative (see Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, and 10)
has resulted in no little uncertainty over what constitutes the essential features
of CLT. Thus, a summary description would be incomplete without
mention of what CLT is not.
The concern of CLT is not exclusively with face-to-face oral communication.
The principles apply equally to reading and writing activities that involve
readers and writers in the interpretation, expression, and negotiation
of meaning. (For an illustration of the interactive, interpretive nature of
the reading process, see Fish 1980.) Communicative language teaching does
not require work in small groups or pairs; group tasks have been found
helpful in many contexts as a way of increasing the opportunity and motivation
for communication. Classroom work in groups or pairs should not,
however, be considered an essential feature and may well be inappropriate in
some contexts.
Communicative language teaching need not entail complete rejection of
familiar materials. Materials designed to promote communicative competence
can be used as aids to memorization, repetition, and translation, or for
grammar exercises. Similarly, a teacher who has only a grammar-translation
manual can certainly teach for communicative competence. What matters is
the teacher’s understanding of what language learning is and how it happens.
The basic principle is that learners should engage with texts and meaning
through the process of use and discovery.
Finally, CLT does not exclude a focus on metalinguistic awareness or
knowledge of rules of syntax, discourse, and social appropriateness. Focus on
form can be a familiar and welcome component in a learning environment
that provides rich opportunity for focus on meaning; but focus on form
cannot replace practice in communication.
The essence of CLT is the engagement of learners in communication to
allow them to develop their communicative competence. Terms sometimes
used to refer to features of CLT are ‘‘task-based’’ (see Chapter 5), ‘‘contentbased,’’
‘‘process-oriented,’’ ‘‘interactive,’’ ‘‘inductive,’’ and ‘‘discoveryoriented.’’
CLT cannot be found in any one textbook or set of curricular
materials. Strict adherence to a given text is not likely to be true to the
processes and goals of CLT. In keeping with the notion of context of situation,
CLT is properly seen as an approach, grounded in a theory of intercultural
Linguistic Theory and Classroom Practice
23
communicative competence, that can be used to develop materials and methods
appropriate to a given context of learning. No less than the means and
norms of communication they are designed to reflect, communicative language
teaching methods will continue to be explored and adapted.
Teacher Education and CLT
Considerable resources, both human and monetary, are being used
around the world to respond to the need for language teaching that is appropriate
for the communicative needs of learners. The key to success in
this endeavor is the education of classroom teachers. The remaining chapters
directly address issues of CLT and teacher education. The contributors
present accounts of teacher response to communicative English language
teaching (CELT) in situations outside native-English-speaking countries
(Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the Netherlands), a report on an innovative
technology-intensive program for elementary Spanish language instruction
at a major U.S. research university, and a report on the promotion of learner
autonomy in a multilingual European setting. The collection also includes a
first-person narrative account of English language teaching by a Japanese
teacher with many years’ experience, an account of the first U.S. attempt to
promote national standards for language learning, and a philosophical final
chapter that o√ers a modern critical perspective on applied linguistics and
teacher education.
The research reports included provide a global perspective on language
teaching for communicative competence in the twenty-first century. I have
made a deliberate e√ort to blur the distinction between the contexts for
foreign language teaching and for second language teaching, a distinction
that, while useful in delineating features of access to the second language and
of teacher preparation, obscures the common goals of multilingualism: the
empowerment of learners and world understanding. In accordance with
these goals, contexts for learning a range of di√erent languages are included.
Too often, accounts of second language acquisition (SLA) and CLT leave
readers with the impression that English is the only language worth studying
and that English language teachers, methodologists, and researchers are the
only ‘‘experts’’ worth reading.
Moreover, I have sought to highlight the diverse nature of contributions to
understanding CLT and educating language teachers. In writing about CLT,
British scholars, on the one hand, have focused on the concepts and contributions
of writers who are monolingual, predominantly male, and British.
Their names appear in the publications of British university presses that
24
Sandra J. Savignon
include a broad range of materials intended for use by classroom teachers.
These same names are also well known to employees of the governmentfunded
British Council that conducts a variety of English language teaching
programs worldwide. For U.S. foreign language teachers, methodologists,
and researchers, on the other hand, the ‘‘proficiency-oriented’’ language
teaching promoted by the American Council for Teaching of Foreign Languages
often remains the default descriptor. For U.S. scholars concerned with
the teaching of Spanish, French, German, and other modern languages to
speakers of English, CLT has tended until recently to be seen as a predominantly
European and, perhaps, ESL concern. Although they share a concern
for language learning, foreign language and ESL teachers in U.S. schools
often function as two quite distinct professional groups.
The collection represents at least three di√erent streams of scholarship.
Some chapters are based on survey results, one is a somewhat reflective,
personal account, two are conceptually more philosophical and historical
than empirical. The di√erence in research paradigms, or ways of knowing,
serves to strengthen the collection. Each chapter provides an example of
sound research design or an original interpretation and approach to problems
of coordination between language teachers and teacher educators over
language policy and curricular and methodological change and innovation.
Together, the chapters serve as models for inspiration, adoption, and adaptation
in other contexts where CLT is a goal.
It is important to see what happens when teachers try to make changes in
their teaching in accordance with various types of advice, whether directives
from Ministries of Education, advice from so-called experts in teacher
education and research, or other sources. The information provided on language
policy, methods, and materials specific to CLT in multiple contexts
highlights the international interest in promoting CLT and provides important
insights for researchers, program administrators, and prospective or
practicing teachers.
Chapters 2, 3, and 4 look at English language education in Japan from the
perspective of the Japanese Ministry of Education, a teacher educator, and a
classroom teacher, respectively. In Chapter 2, Minoru Wada, a former member
of Mombusho (the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture)
takes justifiable pride in the recent redirection of English language education
by the Japanese government, including the introduction of a communicative
syllabus, the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) Program, and overseas
in-service training for teachers. Although Mombusho had previously encouraged
attempts to make classrooms more ‘‘communicative’’ through the
addition of ‘‘communicative activities,’’ it was apparent that teachers felt
Linguistic Theory and Classroom Practice
25
constrained by a structural syllabus that rigidly controlled the introduction
and sequence of grammatical features. The perception that learners could not
talk about their past experiences until their second year of study, when past
tenses had been introduced, severely constricted communication. With the
introduction of a new national syllabus, structural controls were relaxed and
teachers were allowed more freedom in determining the sequence for introducing
syntactical features. The theoretical rationale underlying the curriculum
change in Japan includes both the well-known Canale and Swain (1980)
model of communicative competence and the hypothetical classroom model
of communicative competence, or ‘‘inverted pyramid,’’ proposed by Savignon
(1983). In the conclusion to Chapter 2, Wada o√ers sobering evidence of the
failure of previous attempts to introduce ELT reform in Japan. Nonetheless,
he remains optimistic about the current e√orts. The stakes are indeed higher,
and the major di√erence between this and previous e√orts may well be the
involvement of Japanese educators themselves.
Chapter 3 is illustrative of current research on teacher development that
focuses on teachers’ beliefs in relation to their practices, rather than on teaching
skills mandated by educators or policy makers. Kazuyoshi Sato follows
the educational research model for classroom language teaching adapted by
Kleinsasser (1993) in considering language teachers’ beliefs and practices in
the Japanese context. His yearlong study focuses on the department of English
in a private senior high school. Multiple sources, including interviews,
observations, surveys, and documents, yield valuable insight into how EFL
teachers learn to teach in this particular school environment.
A third compelling voice in the case study of Japan is that of a classroom
teacher, Kiyoko Kusano Hubbell, a fluent speaker of English with twenty years
of classroom experience. In Chapter 4, in a welcome departure from mainstream
academic prose, Kusano Hubbell o√ers a poignant narrative of her
own struggles and triumphs as a teacher of English, from the perspective of
her native Japanese language and culture. The insights she provides into learners’
and teachers’ attitudes and experiences and the context in which they are
shaped richly complement the findings presented in Chapters 2 and 3.
Chapter 5, by Liying Cheng, uses both qualitative and quantitative methods
to examine the influence of a new, more communicative English language
test on the classroom teaching of English. The context for this particular
study is Hong Kong, where ELT is moving toward a task-based model. In
keeping with curricular redesign, alternative public examinations have been
developed to measure learners’ ability to make use of what they have learned,
to solve problems and complete tasks. At the time curricular changes were
introduced, ELT was characterized as ‘‘test-centered, teacher-centered, and
26
Sandra J. Savignon
textbook-centered’’ (Morris et al. 1996). The ambitious multiyear awardwinning
study (TOEFL Award for the Outstanding Doctoral Dissertation
Research in Second/Foreign Language Testing for 1998) that is the basis for
this report reveals data on the extent to which the change in public examinations
has influenced change in classroom teaching.
National standards are the focus of Chapter 6 by Ana Schwartz. Schwartz
reports on e√orts to establish and di√use National Standards for Foreign
Language Learning for U.S. schools. The standards were adopted in 1995 after
extensive lobbying e√orts by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages and the National Committee on Languages to include foreign
languages in the national Goals 2000 Educate America Act that endorsed
curricular standards in the subject areas of math, English, history, and science.
Goals 2000 marked an important turning point in the educational
history of the United States, where issues of curriculum and assessment have
remained the concern of individual states and local school districts. The new
U.S. federal curricular standards remain voluntary, however. A decentralized
system of education, along with distorted representation of the concept of
communicative competence for purposes of language evaluation, represents
an obstacle to true and meaningful implementation of communicative goals.
Chapter 7 o√ers the perspective of prominent language teacher educators
involved in a national initiative to promote CLT in schools. Adopting a
sociocultural perspective on language use and language learning as prerequisite
to pedagogical innovation, Chaochang Wang considers attitude, function,
pedagogy (Berns 1990), and learner beliefs with respect to the use and
teaching of English in the Taiwanese context. This report of teacher educators’
views is part of a larger study of CLT in Taiwan. Data for the study were
both quantitative and qualitative and included teachers’, learners’, and parents’
responses to questionnaires, in addition to the analysis of data from
interviews with teacher educators reported here (Wang 2000).
Cutting-edge advances in computer-mediated instruction are the focus of
Chapter 8, by Diane Musumeci. Taking advantage of the technological resources
available at a major research university, Musumeci designed and
implemented an introductory multisection Spanish language program that
has attracted considerable administrative attention for its cost-saving potential.
This report looks at the new program from the perspective of a second
language researcher and teacher educator. It discusses teachers’ persistent
concern with grammar teaching, for which there is seemingly never enough
class time, and considers the potential of technology as a tool for in-service
teacher education.
Chapter 9, by Eus Schalkwijk, Kees van Esch, Adri Elsen, and Wim Setz, a
Linguistic Theory and Classroom Practice
27
team of teacher educators at the University of Nijmegen, in the Netherlands,
looks at important and challenging implications of CLT not only for what is
learned in a foreign language but for how it is learned. Autonomous learning
influences teaching methodology and dramatically changes the roles of the
language teacher and the language learner. To cope with these changes, future
teachers have to be prepared both practically and academically. The historical
overview of culture orientations in the first part of the chapter provides an
important perspective on the influence of social views and values on the
education of language teachers in generations past. (For a provocative and
relevant discussion of their education as far back as the Middle Ages, when
Latin was the lingua franca of the Western world, see Musumeci 1997a.) The
multilingual nature of the European context in which these teacher educators
work underscores the importance of innovation in language teaching in the
e√ort to meet rapidly increasing demands for communicative competence in
two or more languages.
In conclusion, Chapter 10, by Celeste Kinginger, provides a useful discussion
of both theoretical and practical issues in language teacher education
from the perspective of postmodern critical theory. Adapting the categories
of primary discourse, or ways of understanding, proposed by Kramsch
(1995a, 1995b), Kinginger cites the notion of ‘‘error’’ in language learning and
teaching to illustrate how teachers can develop interpretive skills to evaluate
competing forms of discourse and cull from them in making decisions about
their own teaching practice. The development of interpretive and reflective
skills o√ers a practical alternative for educating language teachers, who currently
seem compelled to choose a single methodological stance from a bewildering
smorgasbord of options: audiolingual, grammar-translation, CLT,
content-based, or total physical response, for example. This overview of the
competing forms of discourse in language teacher education provides a useful
perspective on the previous chapters in the collection, each responding to
a particular context for language teaching.
No comments:
Post a Comment