Language as `social' communication: thoughts on language teaching & learning
By Alden C. Mayfield
There are two general locations upon the landscape of second language teaching and learning where individuals learn a second, foreign, or additional language. The first is in a socio-cultural context where individuals (Koreans) study and live in a foreign country (USA) in order to attain a high level of English language fluency. Another situation is within the context of an educational institution where individuals seek to learn a foreign language (English) within a monolingual-cultural context (Korea).
With this in mind language researchers and teachers influenced by recent research in second language acquisition theory and classroom practice have been forced to revise their theories and goals of language teaching and learning. This situation allows for greater insight into how students learn language which in turn sheds important light on the proper approaches and/or methods in teaching and learning language as communication in order for language learners to attain an effective level of communicative competence.
Over the years, there have been several influential theories on the nature of language learning and teaching from the Grammar-Translation and Audio-lingual perspectives to the current theories bracketed under the general rubric of the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), which includes Cooperative Language Learning, Content-Based Instruction, and Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT). Recently, in conjunction with CLT and TBLT, some American scholars are seeking to integrate “Evidence-Based, Student-Centered Instructional Practices,” which focuses on relevant student language interaction activities in order to develop communicatively competent adult second-language learners.
As a result of this research, the two most influential language learning and teaching perspectives (Structural and Communicative) continue to debate their relative strengths and weaknesses. While the Grammar-Translation approach continues to be used in language classrooms, it is beyond doubt that “Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) marks the beginning of a major paradigm shift within language teaching in the 20th century (Richards & Rodgers, (2001), p151).”
As for the Grammar-Translation approach, it conceives of language teaching and learning from a structural perspective. In other words, its language goals are focused on teaching and learning the grammatical rules (structure) and vocabulary in order for students to learn how to read and eventually how to speak the language. Consequently, its instructional practices concentrate on memorizing and drilling grammatical rules and concepts in order for students to first read the foreign language and second to speak the same language. While it is true that CLT informs most language classes around the world, the Grammar-Translation method is still widely used in many parts of the world.
In contrast, the current most influential and widely used theory of teaching and learning a language is the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) Approach. CLT understands “language as communication.” Its main instructional aim is to develop language learners who have attained a satisfactory level of “communicative competence.” In other words, CLT understands language as a social-system of communication where individuals use language to communicate with each other.
As such CLT understands language learning and teaching as meaningful, relevant, and real-life communication and thus develops student-centered, task-based, communication activities that allow students to concentrate on meaningful language learning in order to negotiate and exchange information, opinions, feelings, ideas, and so on. In fact, this is the way people communicate with each other on a daily basis, which is simply using and negotiating meaning though various language situations in a social-system of communication.
While the traditional Grammar-Translation method is correct in highlighting the important role that grammar and vocabulary play in language teaching and learning, it focuses exclusively on language structure (usage) to the detriment of language communication (use). According to recent advances in second language theory and practice, and many historical examples of nations advocating the Grammar-Translation method in learning to speak English, it is valid to conclude that a simple knowledge of a language’s grammatical rules and vocabulary doesn’t necessarily produce effective and competent English language communicators.
A relevant historical example of a particular country that used (and still uses) the Grammar-Translation method is Korea. Most Koreans, after 10 or so years of formal English grammar/vocabulary learning, have an adequate understanding of grammatical rules, but these Koreans have great difficulties in communicating effectively in English. It is obvious that the Grammar-Translation method was ineffective in producing competent communicators, but effective in developing a general knowledge of English grammatical rules among Koreans. This isn’t surprising as English is a foreign language within a monolingual context such as Korea.
While there is still much discussion on the most effective way(s) to teach and learn another language, most language teachers and researchers agree that CLT is the most effective paradigm to embrace since language is indeed a social-system of communication, in which, language learners more effectively learn the second/foreign language as they focus on meaningful and relevant language communication where students are required to negotiate meaning and exchange information within various communication activities that are sensitive to appropriate social situations.
With this overly simplified theoretical summary of two general language teaching and learning approaches, it is obvious to advocate CLT’s views on the nature and purpose of language teaching and learning. In applying CLT’s perspective on language, I understand that language is a social-system of communication which is used in practical daily activities where individuals exchange information, ideas, opinions, feelings, and preferences within a particular social (cultural) context. Application of CLT assists me in articulating and implementing relevant and meaningful communication activities in order to meet the language needs of students.
Such communication activities create a realistic learning environment that allows students within pairs or groups to focus on meaningful communication as the students gradually acquire the target language in a purposeful manner with the stated goal that any native-speaker of English can communicate with the language learner.
To be sure it is rather naive, if not practically impossible, to think that “native-like” fluency can be achieved or acquired in the communicative classroom setting within a monolingual-cultural context like Korea. Instead, the more realistic and attainable goal for language facilitators and learners alike is to strive for an adequate and effective level of communication skills in the target language. That is, English language learners should at least be able to communicate effectively with another English language speaker.
In attempting to fulfill this more realistic and attainable communicative goal, the language facilitator and learner should always seek through the four language skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing) to teach and learn language with a clear purpose in a meaningful communicative learning environment. While all this should be conducted with some skill and tact, it is imperative to weave as seamless as possible the threads of socio-cultural sensitivity through the fabric of the four language skills as the language facilitator and learner seek to better understand language as a social-system of communication.
While more could be said about language theory and practice, the more realistic and practical conceptualization of CLT on language teaching and learning tends more than the Grammar-Translation view to focus on the participation and interaction of the language learner in the language learning process with relevant communication activities. Such student-centered interaction in the language learning process not only improves a student’s motivation, but it also promotes more effective language learning. As a result of this student-centered participation in the language learning process, students gradually understand that language is a social-system of communication. Since it’s a language learning process, it is obvious that students (not teachers) should be at the center of the language learning process and thus the rationale for relevant communication activities that are aimed at developing effective English language communicators.
While all this may strike the experienced language teacher and expert language researcher as a gross oversimplification of the finer nuances of language theory and practice, it is hoped that it has succeeded as a general introduction to the concept of language as a social-system of communication and CLT’s significant contribution in promoting more effective language teaching and learning.
The writer is English teacher and resident of Seoul.