E D I T E D B Y S A N D R A J . S A V I G N O N
Interpreting Communicative
Language Teaching
C O N T E X T S A N D
C O N C E R N S I N
T E A C H E R
E D U C AT I O N
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.
lb1578 .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 av i g n o n
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 inter-
nationally 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 in-
sights 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 stu-
dents 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 Bern-
hardt of Stanford University, Margie Berns of Purdue University, Bill John-
ston 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 Nor-
een 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 av i g n o n
Communicative language teaching (CLT) refers to both processes and
goals in classroom learning. The central theoretical concept in communica-
tive 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 negotia-
tion of meaning and looks to both psycholinguistic and sociocultural per-
spectives in second language acquisition (SLA) research to account for its
development (Savignon 1972, 1997). Identification of learners’ communica-
tive needs provides a basis for curriculum design (Van Ek 1975).
Understanding of CLT can be traced to concurrent developments in Eu-
rope and North America. In Europe, the language needs of a rapidly increas-
ing 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 communica-
tive classroom language learning. In Germany, for example, against a back-
drop of Social Democratic concerns for individual empowerment, articu-
lated in the writings of the philosopher Jürgen 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 promot-
ing 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, pro-
posed the term ‘‘communicative competence’’ to represent the ability to use
language in a social context, to observe sociolinguistic norms of appropriate-
ness. Hymes’s concern with speech communities and the integration of lan-
guage, communication, and culture was not unlike that of Firth and Halliday
in the British linguistic tradition (see Halliday 1978). Hymes’s ‘‘communica-
tive competence’’ can be seen as the equivalent of Halliday’s ‘‘meaning poten-
tial.’’ 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≈culty, if not
impossibility, of duplicating them in a classroom of non-natives. In light of
this di≈culty, the appropriateness of communicative competence as an in-
structional 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 Illi-
nois, Savignon (1971) used the term ‘‘communicative competence’’ to char-
acterize 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 encour-
aging learners to ask for information, to seek clarification, to use circumlocu-
tion 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 frame-
work 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 compe-
tence, 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. Nev-
ertheless, 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 adapta-
tion 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 Français, 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 per-
spective that includes, at the least, linguistics, psychology, philosophy, sociol-
ogy, and educational research. The focus has been the elaboration and imple-
mentation 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 strate-
gies. 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’ communica-
tive 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 corre-
sponding 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 fund-
ing 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 re-
gardless of learners’ age or the learning context. Although the findings sup-
ported 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 pre-
cepts that placed the burden of acquisition on the teacher’s explanation of
grammar and the learner’s controlled practice of syntactical and phonologi-
cal 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 insis-
tence 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 theo-
ries of second language acquisition o√er promise for expanding the research
paradigm and bringing much needed balance (Lantolf 2000). In her discus-
sion of the contexts of competence, Berns (1990) stresses that the defini-
tion of appropriate communicative competence for learners requires an un-
derstanding 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 dif-
ferences 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
本文档为【Interpreting Communicative Language Teachi】,请使用软件OFFICE或WPS软件打开。作品中的文字与图均可以修改和编辑,
图片更改请在作品中右键图片并更换,文字修改请直接点击文字进行修改,也可以新增和删除文档中的内容。
该文档来自用户分享,如有侵权行为请发邮件ishare@vip.sina.com联系网站客服,我们会及时删除。
[版权声明] 本站所有资料为用户分享产生,若发现您的权利被侵害,请联系客服邮件isharekefu@iask.cn,我们尽快处理。
本作品所展示的图片、画像、字体、音乐的版权可能需版权方额外授权,请谨慎使用。
网站提供的党政主题相关内容(国旗、国徽、党徽..)目的在于配合国家政策宣传,仅限个人学习分享使用,禁止用于任何广告和商用目的。