لخّصلي

The introduction of the construct communicative competence in discussions of
second/foreign language proficiency dates from the early 1970s. Although the
term itself may have been new, the underlying concept it represented was in
fact rather straightforward: if the purpose of language study is language use,
then the development of language proficiency should be guided and evalu￾ated by the lfearner’s ability to communicate. In naturalistic (non-classroom)
settings, human language communication of course takes both oral and writ￾ten forms and develops in one or more languages wherever social interaction
occurs.
Given the 1960s academic theories in linguistics and learning psychology upon
which the prevailing recommendations for classroom language teaching methods
and materials were based, however, the introduction of communicative compe￾tence as a guide for the teaching and evaluation of learners proved nothing short
of revolutionary. Early advocates were met with skepticism, if not outright hostility.
This brief summary considers the underlying support, both theoretical and empir￾ical, for communicative competence as a goal of 21st-century second/foreign lan￾guage pedagogy and evaluation along with the implications of the construct for
shaping classroom practice in the many different contexts in which English is
taught.
Making the Case
An appreciation for the revolutionary impact of early proposals for an approach to
language teaching that would reflect an underlying construct of communicative
competence is best gained against a backdrop of the established methodology of the
mid-20th century. In the 1940s, linguists at the University of Michigan were engaged
in developing materials for teaching English to international students studying in
the United States. Dissatisfied with prevailing grammar-translation materials for
The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching.
Edited by John I. Liontas (Project Editor: Margo DelliCarpini; Volume Editor: Hossein Nassasji).
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0047
eelt0047.indd 1 4
their purpose, they looked instead to the dominant language and learning theories
of the time: structural linguistics and behaviorist psychology. Language was seen as
a set of grammatical structures––phonemes, morphemes, and syntax—that could be
learned through extensive drilling of grammatical patterns and pronunciation. At
about the same time, the US entry into World War II had resulted in the military
need for speakers and interpreters of a wide range of native languages, some of
them unwritten. The result was the Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP), an
oral-based program involving intensive study and drill.
Commercialization of the “army method” and materials for wider use in US
schools took place during the Cold War period that followed World War II. Impetus
came in 1957 with the successful launching by the Soviet Union of Sputnik 1, the
first artificial satellite. Alarmed US officials embarked on a race to compete with
Soviet technological advances. The National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of
1959 provided funding to improve education at all levels in the fields of science,
math, and foreign languages. Intensive summer institutes for foreign language
teachers were designed to develop what was for many a non-existent ability to
actually understand and speak the language they were teaching while at the same
time training them in what would become known as the audio-lingual method,
the “New Key” in language teaching. Seminars at the core of each institute taught
teachers the basics of structural linguistics and behaviorist learning theory. The
grammar-translation method with which teachers were familiar was characterized
as a rusty old key, ill-suited to unlocking the door to language proficiency.
With continued government support for materials development and teacher
training, the audio-lingual method was claimed to have promoted language teach￾ing to a science. Teaching of “the four skills” (listening, speaking, reading, and
writing, in that order) through memorization of sample “dialogs” and drilling of
grammatical patterns to avoid “errors” and attain “mastery” became the new
pedagogical model that would influence teacher practice not only in the United
States but in classrooms worldwide. With the introduction of the tape recorder to
provide native-speaker models of pronunciation and grammar, language “labora￾tories” sprung up in schools across the land to enhance the use of audio-lingual
materials. Development of the TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) to
assess English proficiency for international applicants seeking admission to US
schools dates from this period.
An initial challenge to the underlying theories of audio-lingualism came with
assertions by a young US structural linguist and cognitive scientist, Noam
Chomsky (1959) that human language development, or linguistic competence, was
much more creative than that represented by Skinnerian behaviorism. Hymes
(1972), a sociolinguist concerned with language use in social interactions, subse￾quently used the term communicative competence to provide a much broader view
of language use. Speakers need know not only grammatical structures but also
norms of usage and appropriacy in a given social context. In his emphasis on func￾tion and social context in language use, Hymes was influenced by the Prague
School of functional linguistics. His scholarship offered a perspective on language
largely ignored within the United States where the enthusiasm for what can rightly

their purpose, they looked instead to the dominant language and learning theories
of the time: structural linguistics and behaviorist psychology. Language was seen as
a set of grammatical structures––phonemes, morphemes, and syntax—that could be
learned through extensive drilling of grammatical patterns and pronunciation. At
about the same time, the US entry into World War II had resulted in the military
need for speakers and interpreters of a wide range of native languages, some of
them unwritten. The result was the Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP), an
oral-based program involving intensive study and drill.
Commercialization of the “army method” and materials for wider use in US
schools took place during the Cold War period that followed World War II. Impetus
came in 1957 with the successful launching by the Soviet Union of Sputnik 1, the
first artificial satellite. Alarmed US officials embarked on a race to compete with
Soviet technological advances. The National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of
1959 provided funding to improve education at all levels in the fields of science,
math, and foreign languages. Intensive summer institutes for foreign language
teachers were designed to develop what was for many a non-existent ability to
actually understand and speak the language they were teaching while at the same
time training them in what would become known as the audio-lingual method,
the “New Key” in language teaching. Seminars at the core of each institute taught
teachers the basics of structural linguistics and behaviorist learning theory. The
grammar-translation method with which teachers were familiar was characterized
as a rusty old key, ill-suited to unlocking the door to language proficiency.
With continued government support for materials development and teacher
training, the audio-lingual method was claimed to have promoted language teach￾ing to a science. Teaching of “the four skills” (listening, speaking, reading, and
writing, in that order) through memorization of sample “dialogs” and drilling of
grammatical patterns to avoid “errors” and attain “mastery” became the new
pedagogical model that would influence teacher practice not only in the United
States but in classrooms worldwide. With the introduction of the tape recorder to
provide native-speaker models of pronunciation and grammar, language “labora￾tories” sprung up in schools across the land to enhance the use of audio-lingual
materials. Development of the TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) to
assess English proficiency for international applicants seeking admission to US
schools dates from this period.
An initial challenge to the underlying theories of audio-lingualism came with
assertions by a young US structural linguist and cognitive scientist, Noam
Chomsky (1959) that human language development, or linguistic competence, was
much more creative than that represented by Skinnerian behaviorism. Hymes
(1972), a sociolinguist concerned with language use in social interactions, subse￾quently used the term communicative competence to provide a much broader view
of language use. Speakers need know not only grammatical structures but also
norms of usage and appropriacy in a given social context. In his emphasis on func￾tion and social context in language use, Hymes was influenced by the Prague
School of functional linguistics. His scholarship offered a perspective on language
largely ignored within the United States where the enthusiasm for what can rightly
eelt0047.indd 2 4
seen as a Chomskian revolution resulted in the establishment of independent
departments of linguistics at major universities.
At about this same time, a young teacher in the language teaching profession
itself, adept at drilling dialogs and patterns in both NDEA summer institutes and
college courses of the 1960s, was discouraged by the repeated failure of learners to
use structures and vocabulary they had rehearsed when offered opportunities for
spontaneous interaction. In her subsequent comparative study of three groups of
beginner college French learners at the University of Illinois, she found that time
devoted to practice in spontaneous communication, with all the grammatical and
pronunciation errors that such communication inevitably implies, was essential to
developing what she termed communicative competence. At the end of the 18-week
course of study, learners in the experimental group who had engaged in unscripted
classroom communication in place of laboratory drills to “reinforce patterns” far
excelled learners in the control group in their ability to use French in a variety of
unscripted communicative tasks. Equally important, they demonstrated a gram￾matical accuracy (linguistic competence) equal to those who had spent time
repeating patterns in a language lab (Savignon, 1972).
The findings were the first to challenge audio-lingual theory by providing
empirical evidence that, for beginner adult learners, classroom practice in sponta￾neous communication could contribute to the development of communicative
competence with no loss of grammatical accuracy. A collection of role plays, games,
and other communicative classroom activities were developed subsequently for
inclusion in the adaptation of the French CREDIF (Centre de Recherche et d’Étude
pour la Diffusion du Français) materials, Voix et visages de la France. The accompa￾nying guide (Savignon, 1974) described their purpose as that of involving learners
in the experience of communication, along with providing them with the strate￾gies to do so. Teachers were encouraged to provide learners with the French
equivalent of expressions like “What’s the word for …?,” “Please repeat,” “I don’t
understand,” expressions that would help them to participate in the negotiation of
meaning. These and other coping strategies became the basis for subsequent iden￾tification by Canale and Swain (1980) of strategic competence in their proposal of a
three-component framework for communicative competence, along with gram￾matical competence and sociolinguistic competence. Savignon (1983) subsequently
used this framework to elaborate an approach to classroom practice consistent
with the underlying construct of communicative competence.
Meanwhile, in Europe during the 1970s, the language needs of a rapidly increas￾ing group of immigrants and guest workers, and a rich linguistic tradition that, as
noted above, included social as well as linguistic context in the description of lan￾guage behavior, led to the Council of Europe development of a syllabus for learn￾ers, based on functional-notional concepts of language use. Derived from functional
linguistics that views language as meaning potential and maintains the centrality
of context of situation in understanding language systems and how they work, a
threshold level of language ability was described for each of the languages of
Europe in terms of what learners should be able to do with the language (Van Ek,
1975). Functions were based on assessment of learner needs and specified the end
eelt0047.indd 3 4/24/2018 5:05:26 PM 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0047, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0047 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Com
result, the goal of an instructional program. Without reference to methodology, the
term “communicative” was used to describe programs that used a functional-notional
syllabus based on needs assessment, and the language for specific/purposes (LSP)
movement was launched.
Concurrent development in Europe focused not only on the goals but also on
the process of communicative classroom language learning. In Germany, for exam￾ple, against a backdrop of social democratic concerns for individual empower￾ment articulated in the writings of sociologist and philosopher Jürgen Habermas
(1970), language teaching methodologists took the lead in the development of
classroom materials that encouraged learner choice and increasing autonomy
(Candlin, 1978). Their systematic collection of exercise types for communicatively
oriented English teaching were used in teacher in-service courses and workshops
to guide curriculum change.
Pedagogical Implications
In time, the inadequacy of the four-skills model of language use would come to
be recognized and the shortcomings of audio-lingual methodology widely
acknowledged. Along with a general acceptance of the complexity and interrelat￾edness of skills in both written and oral communication and of the need for learn￾ers to have the experience of communication, to participate in the interpretation,
expression, and negotiation of meaning, newer, more comprehensive theories of
language and language behavior came to replace those that had looked to
American structuralism and behaviorist psychology for support. Aided by the
development of audio and visual recording technology, the 1970s marked the
beginning of an explosion of research in both first and second language develop￾ment based on observable data as opposed to extrapolation from general theories
of language and learning.
The expanded, interactive view of language behavior these studies provide pre￾sents a number of challenges for classroom language teachers. Among them, how
should form and function be integrated in an instructional sequence? What is an
appropriate norm for learners? How is language proficiency to be measured?
Acceptance of communicative criteria entails a commitment to address these
admittedly complex issues. Equally important, it requires a new focus on teacher
education to ensure that teachers themselves have the communicative competence
to provide learners with the kinds of spontaneous interaction they need.
The nature of the contribution to language development of both form-focused
and meaning-focused classroom activity remains a question in ongoing research.
The optimum combination of these activities in any given instructional setting
depends no doubt on learner age, the nature and length of instructional sequence,
the opportunities for language contact outside the classroom, teacher preparation,
and other factors. However, for the development of communicative competence,
findings overwhelmingly support the integration of form-focused exercises with
meaning-focused experience. Grammar is important; and learne
best on grammar when it relates to their communicative needs and experiences.
Nor should explicit attention to form be perceived as limited to sentence-level
morphosyntactic features. Broader features of discourse, sociolinguistic rules of
appropriacy, and communication strategies themselves should be included.
Berns (1990), a sociolinguist, who has focused on norms in the teaching of
English as an international language, stresses that the definition of a communica￾tive competence appropriate for learners requires an understanding of the socio￾cultural contexts of language use. In addition, the selection of a methodology
appropriate to the attainment of communicative competence requires an under￾standing 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.
The highly contextualized nature of communicative language teaching (CLT) is
underscored again and again. It would be inappropriate to speak of CLT as a
teaching method in any sense of that term as it was used in the 20th century. Rather,
CLT is an approach that understands language to be inseparable from individual
identity and social behavior. Not only does language define a community but a
community, in turn, defines the forms and uses of language. The norms and goals
appropriate for learners in a given setting, and the means of attaining these goals,
are the concern of those directly involved. Related both to the understanding of
language as culture in motion and to the multilingual reality in which most of the
world population finds itself is the futility of any definition of a “native speaker,”
a term that came to prominence in descriptive structural linguistics and was
adopted by teaching methodologists to define an ideal for learners.
Whatever the subject matter, assessment is often the driving force behind cur￾ricular innovations. Demands for accountability along with a positivistic stance
that one cannot teach that which cannot be described and measured by a common
yardstick increasingly continue to influence program content and goals.
Irrespective of their own needs or interests, learners prepare for the tests they will
be required to pass. In the case of English language proficiency, high-stakes tests
often determine future access to education and opportunity. The ongoing develop￾ment and revision of language assessment policies to reflect current understand￾ing of communicative competence are therefore essential to the promotion of
communicative classroom practice.
Disappointment with both grammar-translation and audio-lingual methods due to
their inability to prepare learners for actual communication, along with enthusiasm
for an array of alternative methods increasingly labeled “communicative,” has led
inevitably to no small amount of uncertainty as to what are and are not essential fea￾tures of CLT. Thus, a summary description of communicative competence would be
incomplete without a brief mention of what CLT is not. CLT is not concerned exclu￾sively with face-to-face oral communication. Communicative principles apply equally
to reading and writing activities that involve readers and writers in the interpretation,
expression, and negotiation of meaning; the goals of learning depend on learner needs
in a given context. CLT does not require small group or pair work. Group tasks have
been found helpful in many contexts as a way of providing increased opportunity and
eelt0047.indd 5 4/24/2018 5:05:26 PM 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0047, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0047 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons
motivation for communication, but classroom group or pair work should not be con￾sidered an essential feature and may well be inappropriate in some contexts. Finally,
teaching for communication does not exclude a focus on metalinguistic awareness or
knowledge of the rules of syntax, discourse, and social appropriateness.
Terms sometimes used to refer to features of communicative teaching include
“task-based,” “interactive,” and “process-oriented,” “inductive-oriented” or “dis￾covery-oriented.” Immersion programs, study abroad, and content-based instruc￾tion of the kind sometimes found in professional courses for adults offer fuller and
often privileged examples of opportunities to develop communicative compe￾tence. For mainstream public education, however, a major hurdle in the wide￾spread adoption of a more communicative approach has proven to be the attitudes,
training, and practices of classroom teachers. Considerable resources are currently
being devoted worldwide to respond to the need for language teaching to meet the
communicative needs of learners in an increasingly global society. Whether in
Europe, Asia, or the United States, there are reports of reform efforts confronting
issues of coordination among language teachers and teacher educators over lan￾guage policy and curricular and methodological innovation (Savignon, 2002).
The challenges facing classroom innovation no doubt reflect to some extent the
relatively new status of modern languages in formal school curricula. Prior to the
20th century, the study of Greek, Latin, and other classical languages was valued
above all for the development of analytical skills. Modern languages were learned
informally for communication through exchange and travel. With the gradual
acceptance of modern languages as worthy of inclusion, teachers eager for respect￾ability and esteem took care to teach them on the grammar-translation model
prized by their colleagues in the classics. A similar pattern persists today. The find￾ings of studies of US teacher practice echo those of classroom observations world￾wide. Teachers remain adamant about explicit attention to form through practice
drills, completion of textbook activities, and grammar practice worksheets. Long￾held professional values and beliefs and specific instructional rituals often reflect
how teachers themselves have been taught.
For language teaching to represent true change not only in theory but also in
classroom practice, a reform of goals, materials, and assessment is insufficient.
Attention needs to focus on increased opportunities for both preservice and in￾service teachers to experience and practice ways of integrating communicative
experiences into their lessons for beginning and advanced learners alike. Teacher
collaboration with institutional support is essential to promote and sustain col￾laboration, innovation, and change.
SEE ALSO: Audio-Lingual Method; Communicative Language Teaching (CLT);
Communicative Language Testing; Native-Speakerism
eelt0047.indd 6 4/24/2018 5:05:26 PM 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0047, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0047 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [12/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rul