Perspectives on the Communicative Approach to ELT: A brief exploration of Swan (1985)s and Widdowson (1985)s articles Jamel Abdenacer

ALIMI e-mail: jamel_alimi@yahoo.com .December, 2005 30

It is characteristic of the Communicative Approach to assess utterances not so much on the their propositional meaning as in terms of their pragmatic value. We should perhaps apply .this criterion to the Communicative Approach itself (Swan (1985: 87 Unreasoned approval of the "communicative approach" is no .better than unreasoned condemnation (Widdowson (1985: 160

Since its inception in the mid-to-late 1970s, the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has spawned a miscellany of reactions amongst ELT theorists and practitioners worldwide. The resulting literature on, and discussions about, the approach, design and procedures of the said proposal have proved of varying degrees of allegiance and departure, which reached their peak in the mid-1980s. Though admittedly quite remote in time, the issues then raised have, unfortunately, failed to reach a categorical conclusiveness at many a level to date, which fairly explains their ongoing relevance and immediacy not only in academic circles but also in recent CLT-converted EFL .contexts The present paper is, for the most part, a reflection of the heated debate alluded to earlier. It proposes (a) to explore two exemplar articles by Swan (1985) and Widdowson (1985) and (b) to respond to two criticisms which fail to be addressed, if .at all, by the latter writer To this end, the remainder of the essay will be divided into the following four sections. Section One provides a brief conceptual overview of CLT and of its different interpretations. Section Two attempts to explore A Critical Look at the Communicative Approach 1& 2 by Swan (1985) and, at a later stage, Against Dogma: A Reply to Michael Swan by Widdowson (1985). Section Three is to respond to two criticisms which concern the use of the mother tongue in the EFL classroom, and authenticity in EFL materials. Section Four will briefly consider CLT in light of some .more recent perceptions in the literature

1. CLT: A BRIEF ACCOUNT

The Communicative Language Teaching is a relatively recent approach roughly dating back to the mid-to-late 1970s. It presents a new shift in language approach, design and procedures, which are distinctly different from those proposed by hitherto dominant methods (see, for instance, Richards and Rodgers 2001 for discussion and illustrative scenarios of the various pre-CLT proposals). It draws on insights from such fields as philosophy, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, Conversational Analysis, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. It, thus, posits a set of premises and

practices, which are in terms of methodology geared towards the realization of communicative competence (Canale1983). More particularly, it values the concepts of "appropriateness", "message-focus", "psycholinguistic/ communicative processing", "risk-taking skills", and "free practice techniques", which all together make up five characteristics of "standard" CLT and, in general, Communicative Methodology (Johnson 1998: 68-74). It is worthy of notice that the pedigree version of the approach under consideration has undergone varying acceptance and interpretations over its somewhat short history. This has led to the emergence of yet novel approaches to the basic CLT premises at the theoretical and syllabus design levels. Their actual realization may be easily evidenced by mere reference to the ample literature on, inter alia, the Communicational/Procedural Approach, the Natural Approach, Task-Based Language Teaching, and the Cooperative Learning Approach. (see Richards and Rodgers 2001 for further details). Not less importantly, it should be emphasized that CLT, be it in its weak or strong version (Littlewood 1981; Howatt 1984), has attracted a variety of mordant criticisms, calling, as it were, for its very end (Bax 2003: 278-87). Less extremist, yet not so moderate positions, tend, in contrast, to stop short of decreeing it null and void; but, they do denounce its so-called dogmatism and, in this respect, its verisimilitude with its counterpart proposals in the language teaching field. The latter standpoint, typically expounded by Swan (1985), is to be further explored in conjunction with Widdowson (1985)'s defensive riposte in the Section to follow.

2. EXPLORATION OF THE SWAN AND WIDDOWSON ARTICLES

2.1 EXPLORATION OF SWAN (1985)'S ARTICLE

Insofar as the article A critical look at the Communicative Approach 1 & 2 (ACLATCA), is concerned, the foci of criticism are directed at the four core issues mentioned below: a- "Meaning" and "use", and their related concept of "appropriacy", b- "Skills" and "strategies", c- The validity of the Notional-Functional syllabus, and d- "Authenticity" in materials and methodology. By and large, the overriding stance in connection with the first two points above expresses what Swan (1985: 2) calls a "serious confusion in the communicative view of these matters"; that regarding the remainder his self-declared conviction that the said approach "generally presents an over-simplified and misleading account" of them both (ibid: 76). This twin perception, when explored in its totality, soon discloses a great deal of not less provocative and outspoken sub-positions across Parts One and Two of ACLATCA (See the Appendix Section below). It should be pointed out, however, that the types of criticism pointed at above are interspersed, at various intervals across the article, with comments which rather concede the achievements CLT has then attained. These mainly concern 2

The more sophisticated status of the field of syllabus and course design (Swan 1985:2), The provision of ESL/EFL students with a better and more complete picture than before of how language is used (ibid: 2), The continuous endeavour of language teachers in making classroom discourse correspond as closely as possible to real-life use of language (ibid:82), The exposure of students to non-contrived or scripted learning materials (ibid: 84), The redirection of theorists and practitioners attention to the importance of integrating simulation of real-life exchanges within the classroom in lieu of oldfashioned mechanical teacher-centred practices (ibid: 87), The real improvement in the speed and quality of language learning (ibid: 2).

These potential attributes and credits notwithstanding, the Communicative Approach, as Swan (1985:87) concludes with somehow coup de grace, is not really in any sense a revolution. This and other not so dissimilar remarks made elsewhere in ACLATCA are, as will be shortly pointed out, to prove in stark contrast to those in Widdowson (1985).
2.2 EXPLORATION OF WIDDOWSON (1985)'S RESPONSE

Against Dogma: A Reply to Michael Swan or, in short, ADARMS, offers a totally different picture of the Communicative Approach from that in ACLATCA. It particularly brings to the fore: The refutation of any propositions that CLT is of doctrinaire and dogmatic creed ( Widdowson 1985: 158-9), The reassertion of the legitimacy of approaching language teaching and learning on the grounds of such constructs as " usage", "use", "notions", and "functions" (ibid: 159), The emphasis on the prerequisite necessity for teaching ESL/EFL learners all the skills and strategies they may need to become communicatively fluent in reading, writing, listening and speaking (ibid: 159-60), and The long-felt awareness in CLT proponents of the need for a- researching (and certainly not pronouncing upon) the implications of the use of authentic data in the EFL classroom, and for b- teaching grammar and lexis as "an essential communicative resource" (ibid: 161). In other words, the Communicative Approach, as thus represented by Widdowson (ibid), offers a lot of significant merits. It marks a dramatic shift away from the premises and practices that so much common in the Grammar-Translation and the Audio-lingual Methods. In so doing, it strongly advocates a redirection in favour of fluency not losing sight of accuracy, though. In addition, it approaches the usual language skills, grammar and lexis as essential components of a communicativelymapped English lesson. Furthermore, it considers the usage/use, notion/function, and cohesion/coherence dichotomies and distinctions as being real enough to foster meaning, comprehension, and communication encounters. The above representationthough, to a large extent, well-argued for seems to suffer, at least, two major shortcomingsnamely, its conspicuously compact 3

argumentation, and its total declination to respond to many of the crucially challenging criticisms levelled in ACLATCA. The former is strikingly evident in the case of "authenticity and authentic materials"; the latter in the one concerning the role of the mother tongue in the acquisition of English in EFL classrooms. The next Section will attempt to address the two criticisms at issue.

3. REPLY TO MICHAEL SWAN: A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE

3.1 THE ISSUE OF THE MOTHER TONGUE IN EFL CLASROOMS

In the section sub-headed "The mother tongue in foreign language learning", Swan (1985:85-6) strongly argues for the case of L1 in tutored, EFL contexts. He qualifies it as an "important" and "central element in the process of learning a foreign language". He justifies this view on the basis of (a) "common experience", (b) insights derived from both Interlanguage theory and Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH), and (c) good learners' "equivalence assumption", which, as he puts it, " makes it possible for us to learn a new language without at the same time returning to infancy and learning to categorize the world all over again" (ibid: 86). This proposition appears, in my view, seriously flawed on at least four counts: Firstly, it is highly speculative, intuitive, and unsupported by any ESL/EFL research findings available at the time of writing ACLATCA. (The total absence in Swan's article of any single reference in connection SLA studies is quite impressive in this regard). Secondly, it is immediately reminiscent of the Grammar-Translation Method and of CAH, which have been discredited for their position towards the role they each assign to L1 in EFL learning ( see, for example, G.Cook (1998)'s entries on both issues). Thirdly, it tends not to take account of conclusions already reached by empirical studies on "learner strategies" and on "good language learners". The "equivalence assumption" hypothesis pointed at earlier might very well correspond to the fourth "Formal strategy" identified by Stern (1975, cited in V.J. Cook 1998: 141). Yet, it would need the writer in question more than mere statements to sustain that claim for centrality. Fourthly, it is liable to generate a type of classroom interaction that is heavily plagued with non-target discourse hence, reducing the preciously due amount of input and output in the L2. These considerations aside, it should be borne in mind that the position taken up by Swan (ibid) is no exception in this regard (see Finocchiaro and Brumfit 1983: 91-3, cited in Richards and Rodgers 2001: 156-7; Sheelagh 2003; Schweers 2003 for variously different causes and intended effects). From a personal experience, the use of the L1 in English classes is a daily common practice, irrespective of the teaching methodologies my colleagues and I adhere to. As revealed by a rather informal survey I personally conducted for this purpose, we tend to resort to this option mainly for class control, checking students' understanding, lexico-grammatical explanations and task setting. Interestingly, it came to us as a great shock to read Swan's 1985 claim that 4

if we did not keep making correspondences between foreign language items and mother tongue items, we would never learn foreign languages at all (85).

Our rejection was unanimous. This view is strikingly inconsistent with a previous "suggestion that classroom language should be as lifelike as possible (ibid: 82).

3.2 AUTHENTICITY IN EFL MATERIALS

In contrast to the highly controversial view discussed just above, the argument put forth for using scripted and authentic materials seems, in my opinion, reasonably justifiable (ibid: 84-5). In my experience, exploiting both authentic and artificial texts, be they written or audio-taped, is very beneficial when it comes to dealing with language awareness, L2 cultural specificities, register variations, pronunciation varieties and discourse featuresto name but a few. This said, it should be acknowledged that much of the concern here is motivated by a bias to form rather than meaning. This confession might sound heretical in other teaching contexts, but it is hardly surprising in mine, given the multiple exigencies pressing for the prominence of grammar and lexis.

4. CLT: A POST-1985 PERSPECTIVE

Glancing through the positions argued for in both ACLATCA and ADARMS, it should appear evident by now thatwith the exception of a few minor concessions here and therethe whole thrust is intended to undermine the extreme basics of standard CLT (Swan 1985), and to forcefully divert the target reader back to the pioneering, pre-1980s conceptualization of the approach here concerned (Widdowson 1985).

An air of dogmatism, it is felt, looms large over either aim. As yet, many aspects are undeniably positive at other levels. These ostensibly concern, in the latter writer's case, the acknowledgement of efforts in progress to fill out the lacunas in the newly introduced proposal (ibid: 161). In the former writer's one, the major positive features include The explicit call for getting rid of the either/or attitude towards function and form in CLT-oriented syllabuses and materials. As convincingly argued, the polarization is, simply, false; meanings, as should be properly conceived of, depend on as much function as form (ibid: 78), The awareness of the adult learner's personality, existence, and mother tongue. The "tabula rasa" view, allegedly associated with the British version of CLT, has the notorious effect of throwing him or her unnecessarily back to "infancy" (ibid: 86), The plea upon ELT professionals, including pre- as well as in-service practitioners, for dispelling the "new toy" effect caused by the then sweeping impact of the approach under consideration (ibid: 7), 5

The need to realize that the Communicative Approach, whatever its merits, is, simply, not a cure-all, revolutionary approach (ibid: 87), and The overall impression of confusion due to the failure of CLT proponents in providing clear-cut definitions of the approach under study.

Should the points above be propelled forward to the turn of the century, they would lose only little of their initial vigour and intensity. Whether critical or captious in nature and intent, the look at CLT has gained momentum over the last two decades not without new emphases and foci in the process. The conclusion, as McDonough and Shaw (2003) point out, is two-fold: a- a recognition of the possibilities that a communicative approach actually offers "in providing richer teaching and learning environments" (ibid: 28), and, at the same time, b- an awareness of the number of persistent questions that remain still not fully unanswered and, thus, open to further debate. For instance, "Is the approach a useful one for all proficiency levels, particularly for beginners? Do beginners require an initial one-to-one correspondence between a function and a form? Is [it] equally appropriate in all teaching contexts, regardless of objectives, location, ages of learners, length of course, mother tongue of teachers and so on?... Does it always matter if the "real world" is not being practised in classroom?" (ibid: 28-9).

5. CONCLUSION
The present paper has attempted to explore two exemplar articles each offering a distinct representation of the newly introduced Communicative Approach. As revealed during the review of ACLATCA and ADARMS, stress at the time seems to be quasi-totally put on the validation and counter-validation of the use/usage dichotomy, the issue of skills and strategies training, the efficacy of the notionalfunctional syllabuses, and the concept of authenticity in instructional materials. The latter concept, coupled with that of the role of the mother tongue in EFL settings, has been responded to, based largely on my own teaching context. It is hoped that the above discussion, though limited to two twenty-year-old or so illustrative articles, will be of considerable value for researchers interested in the debates and polemics that took place at that point of CLT history. It is also hoped that, by shedding light on the various issues here debated on, ELT teachers and trainers alike will realize that the dissenting voices, which called for the need to question the Communicative Approach's "new toy effect" (Swan 1985: 7), have been of a tremendously healthy impact throughout the past two decades. Of most significance, perhaps, is the realization that CLT is by no means the final answer no doubt the next "revolution" in Language teaching is already under way somewhere. But whatever innovation emerge, they will do so against the background of the changes 6

brought about by CLT, and will need to accommodate or explicitly reject those changes. Certain of them are too important to lose: the concern with the world beyond the classroom, the concern with the learner as an individual, the view of language as structured to carry out the functions we want it to perform. (Thompson 1996:14-5)

6. REFERENCES
Bax, S. (2003), "The end of CLT: a context approach to language teaching", ELT Journal 53, 3: 278-87. Canale, M. (1983), "From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy", in J.C. Richards and R.W. Schmidt (eds), Language and Communication, London: Longman, 2-27. Cook, G. (1998), "Contrastive analysis", in K. Johnson and H. Johnson (eds), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 85-7. Cook, G. (1998), "Grammar Translation", in K. Johnson and H. Johnson (eds), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 153-4. Cook, V.J. (1998), "Good language learner studies", in K. Johnson and H. Johnson (eds), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 195-7. Finocchiaro, M. and C. Brumfit (1983), The Functional-Notional Approach: From Theory to Practice, New York: Oxford University Press. Howatt, A.P.R. (1984), A History of English Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Johnson, K. (1998), "Communicative methodology", in K. Johnson and H. Johnson (eds), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 68-74. Johnson, K. and H. Johnson (eds), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Littlewood, W. (1981), Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McDonough, M. and C. Shaw (2003), Materials and Methods in ELT: A Teacher's Guide, 2nd Edn., USA: Blackwell. Richards, J.C. and R.W. Schmidt (eds) (1983), Language and Communication, London: Longman. Richards, J.C. and T.C. Rodgers (2001), Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching, 2nd Edn., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 7

Schweers, C.W., Jr. (2003), "Using L1 in the L2 classroom", English Teaching Forum, October Issue, 34-7; 21. Sheelagh, D. (2003), "The language of the learner", English Teaching professional, 26: 5-7. Stern, H.H. (1975), "What can we learn from the good language learner?" , Canadian Modern Language Review, 31, 304-18. Swan, M. (1985) 'A critical look at the Communicative Approach', ELT Journal, 39, 1 and 39, 2. Thompson, G. (1996) 'Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching', ELT Journal, 50, 1: 9-14. Widdowson, H.G. (1985) 'Against dogma: A reply to Michael Swan', ELT Journal,39, 3.

7. APPENDIX A selection of Swan (1985)'s standpoints about CLT-related issues

"A Parts

Critical Look at the Communicative Approach 1& 2"

Swan (1985)'s Viewpoints "to suggest that this information [about the rules of "use"] should form part of a foreign-language teaching syllabus is to misunderstand quite radically the distinction between thought and language" (Swan1985: 5). "The argument about "usage" and "use", whatever value it may have for philosophers, has little relevance to foreign language teaching" (ibid: 5).

Areas of Criticism

One

Rules of use and usage

Appropriacy

"We must understand, however, that "appropriacy" is one aspect among many an important corner of linguistic description, but not by any means a feature of the language as a whole" (ibid: 6). "the discussion of appropriacy often obscures a perfectly valid point about the need for increased attention to the teaching of lexis" (ibid: 7).

Skills and strategies

"This "tabula rasa" attitude the belief that students do not possess, or cannot transfer from their mother tongue, normal communication skills is one of two complementary fallacies that characterize the Communicative Approach.
8

The other is the "whole-system fallacy" (ibid: 10).

Two The semantic syllabus

"Unfortunately, grammar has not become any easier to learn since the communicative revolution" (ibid: 78). "It is no use making meaning tidy if grammar then becomes so untidy that it cannot be learnt properly" (ibid:78). "semantic syllabuses tend to list only items that are specifically related to the functions or notions included in the syllabus. More "general purpose" items slip through the net" (ibid: 79). "It is, therefore, essential to consider both semantic and formal accounts of the language when deciding what to teach. Failure to do so will result in serious omissions on one side or the other" (ibid: 80). "Students not only have to learn how information is conveyed or elicited, or how requests are made: they also have to learn the words and expressions which are used to refer to the things in the world they want to talk about, ask about or request" (ibid: 81). "there are two kinds of language: "stereotyped" and "creative". Semantic syllabuses are needed to help us teach the first; only structural/ lexical syllabuses will enable us to teach the second" (ibid: 82). "Perhaps no classroom exercises can completely achieve the spontaneity and naturalness of real exchanges, but there are certainly more realistic and interesting ways of organizing information-gap work than by working with "imposed" information of this kind" (ibid: 84).

Authenticity and authentic materials

"There is nothing wrong in itself with creating special texts for specific purposes, and illustrating language use is a purpose like any other" (ibid: 84). "In fact, it is obviously desirable to use both scripted and authentic material at different points in a language course for different reasons" (ibid: 84).

The role of the mother tongue in EFL learning

"Communicative methodology stresses the English-only approach to presentation and practice that is such a prominent feature of the British EFL tradition" (ibid: 85). "If, then, the mother tongue is central element in the process of learning a foreign language, why is it so conspicuously absent from the theory and methodology of the communicative approach? Why is so little attention paid, in this and other aspects, to what learners already know?" (ibid: 86).

10