Contexts of

Competence
Social and Cu Itu ral Considerations in
Communicative Language Teaching
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS
Series Editors
Thomas A. Sebeok and Albert Valdman
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana

CONTEXTS OF COMPETENCE
Social and Cultural Considerations in Communicative Language
Teaching
Margie Berns

THE DYNAMIC INTERLANGUAGE

Empirical Studies in Second Language Variation
Edited by Miriam R. Eisenstein

THE GRAMMAR OF DISCOURSE

Robert E. Longacre

ISSUES IN INTERNATIONAL BILINGUAL EDUCATION

The Role of the Vernacular
Edited by Beverly Hartford, Albert Valdman, and Charles R. Foster

LINGUISTICS AND LITERACY

Edited by William Frawley

LITERACY IN SCHOOL AND SOCIETY

Multidisciplinary Perspectives
Edited by Elisabetta Zuanelli Sonino

THE RELATION OF THEORETICAL AND

APPLIED LINGUISTICS
Edited by Olga Miseska Tomic and Roger W. Shuy
 Contexts of
Competence
Social and Cu Itu ral Considerations in
Communicative Language Teaching

Margie Berns
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

 Library of Congress Cataloglng-ln-PublIcatlon Data

B e r n s , Margie S.
Contexts of competence : social and cultural considerations 1n
communicative language teaching / Margie Berns.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and Index.

1. Language and l a n g u a g e s — S t u d y and teaching. 2. Communicative

competence. 3. S o c l o l I n g u l s t l c s . 4. Funct1ona11sm (Linguistics)
I. Title.
P53.B454 1990
418* . 0 0 7 — d c 2 0 90-43617
CIP

ISBN 978-1-4757-9840-1 ISBN 978-1-4757-9838-8 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4757-9838-8

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1990

Originally published by Plenum Press, New York in 1990
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1 st edition 1990

All rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming,
recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher
 Preface

The introduction of communicative competence as the goal of second and for-

eign language teaching has led to recognition of the role of context in language
learning and use. As communicative competence is defined by the social and
cultural contexts in which it is used, no single communicative competence can
serve as the goal and model for all learners. This recognition has had an impact
on program design and materials development. One significant change is that
the choice of a teaching method is no longer the primary concern. Instead, the
first step for the program designer is becoming familiar with the social and
cultural features of the context of the language being taught. This includes a
consideration of the uses speakers make of the language, their reasons for using
it, and their attitudes toward it.
Contexts of Competence: Social and Cultural Considerations in Commu-
nicative Language Teaching explores the relationship between context and com-
petence from a theoretical and practical perspective. Its audience is applied
linguists in general and language teaching practitioners in particular. The overall
aim of its five chapters is to provide a framework for consideration of various
contexts of language learning and use and to guide the implementation and
development of models of communicative language teaching that are responsive
to the context-specific needs of learners. The approach to the design and eval-
uation of language teaching materials it presents also demonstrates that func-
tional linguistics is well suited to second and foreign language teaching practice
because of its emphasis on language as a means of social interaction and its
recognition of the role of the social structure in determining language form and
function.
Chapters I and 2 set up a theoretical background for an understanding of
the nature of language use. Chapter I provides an historical and theoretical
perspective on the significance of functional approaches for a variety of socio-
linguistic and pedagogical issues, theoretical and applied, taken up in subsequent
chapters. The chapter begins with a review of the Prague School and the British
tradition, two functional approaches to linguistics which have contributed in-

v
vi Preface

sights of the role of context in the use of language. These approaches have
converged in the work of Michael Halliday, whose theory of language as social
semiotic is taken up in the latter part of the chapter. Key concepts associated
with each approach (for example, meaning, function, context of situation, func-
tional sentence perspective, and meaning potential), as well as the aims and
goals of linguists working within each approach, are discussed. The contribu-
tions of functional linguistics to language teaching are also considered. Chapter
2 explores three sociolinguistic notions that are closely linked with context-
communicative competence, intelligibility, and model. The theoretical perspec-
tives of Hymes and Halliday contribute to the framework for the discussion.
An understanding of the interdependence of these notions is presented as an
essential foundation for addressing a number of pedagogical concerns such as
the identification of the goals and aims of language teaching, choice of materials
and methodology, and the nature of evaluation and assessment. Drawing upon
the theoretical foundation outlined in Chapters 1 and 2, Chapter 3 examines
three distinct contexts of the use of English-India, West Germany, and Japan-
and draws a "sociolinguistic profile" of each. The profiles, which describe the
users of English in each setting, their attitudes toward it, the uses they make
of it, the functions it serves, and the nature of the linguistic adaptation and
innovation observable in their use of English, illustrate how the system of a
language is firmly situated in a cultural and social system. Concerns of English
language teaching in each of the contexts is also described. Chapter 4 reviews
the origins of communicative language teaching and terminology associated with
it (e.g., function, notion, and functional syllabus) and examines the theoretical
underpinnings of interpretations that claim to be based on communicative prin-
ciples. The focus is on selected interpretations made by methodologists and
applied linguists from three countries whose work has been most influential in
shaping the nature of communicative language teaching. The first to be described
and discussed, from the United States, is Sandra Savignon's interactional ap-
proach; the second, from Great Britain, is Widdowson's discourse approach;
and the third is that of Hans-Eberhard Piepho, from West Germany, whose
approach is communication based. Each interpretation provides a basis for a
definition of communicative language teaching that is useful as a starting point
for curriculum and materials design. In Chapter 5, the issues and concerns in-
troduced in earlier chapters are brought full circle. Principles of the Prague and
British approaches to linguistics are defined as criteria for the assessment of
communicative materials based on Savignon's, Piepho's, and Widdowson's ap-
proaches and designed for learners of English in Japan, West Germany, and
India. Similarities and differences among the materials are discussed with ref-
erence to the notions of communicative competence, intelligibility, and model.
The sociolinguistic profiles provide the context for understanding the source of
the differences.
Preface vii

The examples presented and discussed throughout are taken from English
language contexts and materials. However, this does not mean this is a book
about English language teaching alone. The goals and outcomes it describes as
wen as the theoretical framework it provides are not language specific, but are
applicable and relevant to the learning and use of an languages. The questions
of "why language is as it is" in a particular context, who the users of the
language are, what uses they make of it, and how they feel about this language
are important for the teachers of any second or foreign language.
Basing program design upon the answers to these questions is becoming
increasingly important. Worldwide there is greater interaction among members
of different cultures and speakers of different languages and language varieties.
This change creates the need for language teaching programs that develop
learners' ability to express, interpret, and negotiate meaning in one or more
languages. The more that is known about the relationship between context and
communicative competence in particular social and cultural settings, the better
prepared that teachers, materials writers, and program designers will be to re-
spond and adapt to the communicative needs of learners in a variety of contexts
and thus enable them to develop the communicative competence appropriate
for interaction in those contexts.

Acknowledgments

The support, encouragement, and assistance of a number of students, col-

leagues, and friends have been invaluable in the completion of this book.
A professional debt of gratitude is owed those who read and responded
to earlier versions of all or parts of the manuscript and who devoted time to
discussing various issues addressed in this book with me. Their insights have
contributed considerably to the spirit, substance, and form of the final product.
They include Eyamba Bokamba, H. Douglas Brown, Christopher Candlin, Wi\lis
Edmondson, Kazumi Hatasa, Yukiko Hatasa, Juliane House-Edmondson, Claire
Kramsch, Braj Kachru, Yamuna Kachru, Cecil Nelson, Ruth Petzold, N. S.
Prabhu, Hildebrando Ruiz, Sandra Savignon, Tony Silva, S. N. Sridhar, Peter
Strevens, J. L. M. Trim, Ladislav Zgusta, and the graduate students in my En-
glish as a Second Language seminar at Purdue University.
Thanks are also due to those who assisted me in countless technical tasks:
Taunja Jarrett and Diana Woolen for their patience at spending seemingly end-
less hours at an antiquated word processor throughout the months of vision
and revision; to Barbara Matthews for scrupulous attention to the numerous
and time-consuming details of manuscript preparation; and to Russell Merzdorf
for his talent and expertise in the production of a number of figures.
viii Preface

I also owe Eliot Werner, Andrea Martin, and Wendy Gravis of Plenum
Press thanks and appreciation for their gracious and creative guidance through-
out the process of transforming my manuscript into this book.

Margie Berns
West Lafayette, Indiana
 Contents

Chapter 1
Functional Approaches to Linguistics . . . . . .
The Prague School . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The Neo-Prague School . . . . . . . 4
The Prague School and Language Teaching 5
The British Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Firth's Philosophy of Language . . . . . . 6
Halliday's Systemic-Functional Linguistics 12
The British Tradition and Language Teaching 26

Chapter 2
Communicative Competence, Intelligibility, and Model 29
Communicative Competence . . 29
Hymes and Halliday . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Communicative Competences . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Intelligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Intelligibility and Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Interpretability and Contrastive Discourse Analysis . 37
A Cline of Intelligibility 42
Model . . . . . . . . . . 43
Suitability of a Model . . 44
Model and Attitudes . . 45
A Polymodel Approach . 47

Chapter 3
Sociolinguistic Profiles: India, West Germany, and Japan 49
India . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Attitudes toward English . . . . . . . 50
The Users and Uses . . . . . . . . . . 52
Linguistic Innovation and Adaptation 54
Communicative Competence and the Cline of Englishes 55

ix
x Contents

English Language Teaching 55

West Gennany . . . . . . . 57
Attitudes toward English 58
The Users and Uses . . . 60
Linguistic Innovation and Adaptation 62
English Language Teaching 64
Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Attitudes toward English 67
The Users and Uses . . . . 69
Linguistic Innovation and Adaptation 70
English Language Teaching 74
Significance of the Profiles 77

Chapter 4
Communicative Language Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Threshold Levels and Functional-Notional Syllabuses . 79
Ad Hoc Solutions and Functional Views of Language 81
Skills and Drills . . . . . . . . . . . 84
New Names for Old Concepts 86
Savignon's Interactional Approach . 88
Widdowson's Discourse-Based Approach 92
Piepho's Communication-Based Approach 96
Similarities and Differences . . . . . . . . . 101
What Is a Communicative Approach to Language Teaching? 103

Chapter 5
Functionally Based Communicative Approaches to Language
Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 105
The Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Contacts: Communicative Language Teaching for the West
Gennan Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
English Around the World: EFL for Japan . . . . . . . . . . 133
The Communicational Teaching Project: ESL in South India 145
Similarities and Differences .. 164
Communicative Competence 165
Intelligibility 167
Model . . . . 167
Conclusion 168

References 171

Index .................................... 181

Contexts of
Competence
 CHAPTER 1
Functional Approaches to
Li ngu istics

Functional approaches to linguistics have contributed considerably to an un-

derstanding of the relationship between contexts of language use and the com-
municative competence of speakers in those contexts. Insights into this
relationship are well-represented by two linguistic traditions: the Prague School
and the British tradition. As a representative of a functional approach, each
is concerned with language as a tool which performs many tasks and with
analysis in terms of the uses, or functions, that language serves. Each tradition
has been particularly influential in the work of Michael Halliday, whose sys-
temic-functional theory reflects a convergence of both approaches.' The Prague
and British traditions can be distinguished from one another by the extent to
which each explores the functional resources of a language and by the par-
ticular linguistic problems each focuses upon. The compatibility of their goals
and aims and the complementary results of the efforts of scholars working
within these traditions have led to a greater appreciation of the nature of lan-
guage, of "why it is as it is." This chapter is a look at the goals and outcomes
of the Prague School and the British tradition and their convergence into
Halliday's functional approach. As such it provides an historical and theoretical
perspective on the significance of functional approaches for a variety of the-
oretical and applied sociolinguistic and pedagogical issues taken up in subse-
quent chapters.

I Hallidayhas also been influenced by the Copenhagen School, particularly by the work of Hjelmslev.
The present discussion is limited to the Prague and the British traditions because of their influence
on Halliday's interpretation of function and variation, two features of language of particular
significance for an exploration of language use in various contexts.
2 CHAPTER 1

The Prague School

The approach to language study that has come to be known as the Prague
School was founded in the mid-1920s in Prague at the initiative of Vilem
Mathesius. It began with regular meetings of an informal organization of young
scholars, known as the Prague Linguistic Circle, interested in a range of the-
oretical problems. Its early members included Nikolai Trubetzkoy, Roman
Jakobson, Bohumil Trnka, and Bohuslav Havranek. Although participating
scholars were scattered by the outbreak of the Second World War, this event
did not interrupt their activities or their influence on a succeeding generation
of Czech and Slovak linguists, both in Czechoslovakia and abroad.
The Prague School, as it is now known, can be described as "structuralist"
and "functionalist" (Vachek 1966). Structuralist designates Prague School
scholars' concern with the relationships between segments of language, which
was conceived of as a hierarchically arranged whole. They insisted that no el-
ement of any language can be properly evaluated if viewed in isolation: its
correct assessment can be obtained only if its relationship to all other elements
coexisting in that same language system is established.
Functionalist applies to the Prague School in the sense that any item of
language (e.g., sentence, word, morpheme, or phoneme) exists solely because
it serves some purpose, or function. Function in the Prague School sense refers
to the respective roles played by the various structural components in the use
of the entire language. This functional perspective is identified with a particular
view of language as:
an instrument of communication and thought. In communication linguistic devices
fulfil a certain function, have a certain task. No language element can be fully un-
derstood and evaluated unless its relations to the other elements are analyzed and
unless its functions, especially its communicative function, are taken into consider-
ation. (Men~fkova 1972:44)

This view of language in terms of function has become the hallmark of

the Prague School and explains why its approach is often referred to as "func-
tionalism" (Chomsky 1977; Monaghan 1979) or "functional linguistics" (Samp-
son 1980). The functionalist perspective also distinguishes it from American
structuralism, or descriptivism. While descriptivists were solely concerned with
description of languages, the efforts of the Prague linguists, proceeding from
a universally recognized view of language as a tool of communication, moved
their analysis toward an explanation of the purpose of each feature of language.
The Prague School linguists would use their ideas about the functions of dif-
ferent structures to explain structural differences between languages, such as
the frequency of the passive construction in English as opposed to other lan-
guages. The descriptivists would not conceive of using such ideas in this way,
Functional Approaches to Linguistics 3

since functional explanations make unavoidable use of such concepts as "the

wish not to identify the actor explicitly" which are not observables and therefore
are illegitimate by the descriptivists' behavioristic standards (Sampson 1980).
Early Prague School theorists focused primarily on showing the respective
functions of the various structural components (internal functions) in the use
of the entire language. The chief interest of many was the elaboration of mor-
phology and phonology, and it is in the area of phonological theory that their
impact is most strongly felt. A general result of their efforts to develop pho-
nological theory was the establishment of the phoneme as one of the funda-
mental elements of linguistic theory as a whole and of scientific description
and analysis of language in particular.
The work generally acknowledged as the most significant product of early
Prague Schod scholarship is Trubetzkoy's Grundzuge der Phonologie (Princi-
ples of Phonology, 1939), which presents an analysis of the various functions
that phonological analysis can serve. Trubetzkoy distinguished three phonolog-
ical functions-the distinctive, delimitative, and the culminative-which ulti-
mately enable the hearer to work out the sequence of words uttered by a speaker.
The distinctive function keeps different words and sentences separate. In Ger-
man, for example, the phoneme /j/ serves to distinguish verjagen 'to expel'
from versagen 'to deny'. The delimitative function helps hearers locate word
boundaries and thus segment utterances into meaningful units. The phoneme
/j/ also serves this function in German by its appearance in morpheme-initial
position only (ver + jag + en). The culminative function involves the role of
stress. The English stress pattern of one main stress per word, for example,
functions to signal to the hearer the number of words the signal must be seg-
mented into. Grenzsignale, or boundary markers, is Trubetzkoy's term for these
demarcators of syllable and word boundaries.
Prague linguists also worked at the sentence level. Mathesius' (1928, 1961)
study of word order and its various functions led to what has come to be called
Functional Sentence Perspective (FSP). By emphasizing the function of each
sentence part over the form, FSP identifies the communicative and expressive
necessities of speech as the starting point for analysis. FSP identifies the func-
tional explanation of the way speakers tailor their statements to what the hearer
already knows and to the context of the discourse built up to that point. Ac-
cording to Mathesius, the need to express this continuity means that a sentence
commonly falls into two parts: the theme, which refers to something already
known to the hearer, and the rheme, which is the new information relating to
the theme. For example, in Mary gave John a raise, Mary is the theme and
gave John a raise the rheme. This implies Mary has been the subject of the
discourse and it is the act she performs, giving John a raise, that is new and
of interest.
4 CHAPTER 1

Although Prague School scholars are best known for their functional anal-
yses of sounds and sentence structure, their concerns were not limited to these
areas. They were also interested in functions of language which are external
to the systems of sounds and sentences. For their description of language ex-
ternal functions they drew on the Austrian psychologist Karl Buhler's (1934)
three-way analysis of utterances in terms of situational context: (1) the refer-
ential function (Darstellungsfunktion) is the purely communicative function,
used to inform of the factual, objective content of extralingual reality; (2) the
expressive function (Kundgabefunktion) characterizes individual speakers by
such markers as gender, social class, or age which distinguish members of the
same community from one another (Le., it refers to personal characteristics of
speed, rhythm, word, and phrase preferences); (3) the conative function
(Appelfunktion) is used to influence the hearer in some way and is often signalled
by sentence intonation. In American English this function can be signalled by
the duration of a vowel. For example, lengthening the vowel in "give" in the
utterance "I want you to put your hands in your pockets and give," used in an
appeal made on behalf of a charity, fulfills this function (Sampson 1980).
Attention to language external functions is consistent with the Prague
School's rejection of the view that language is a self-contained whole "hermet-
ically separated from the extra-lingual reality" (Vachek 1966:7). In their view
the main function of language is to react to and refer to this reality and to
serve the needs and wants of the mutual understanding of individual members
of a language community. Thus only by considering the internal and external
purposes language serves is it possible to understand "why language is as it
is."

The Neo-Prague School

Present-day representatives of Prague School Linguistics, for example,

Josef Vachek (1964, 1976, 1985), Paul Garvin (1963, 1972), Jan Firbas (1964),
Frantisek Danes (1964), and Jacek Fisiak (1986) have been referred to as mem-
bers of the "neo-Prague school." The fundamental elements of the neo-Prague
approach are the same as those which characterized the early Prague group--
focus on an explanation of why language is as it is and description of the
functions language serves. The new generation of Prague School scholars both
continues the work of the earlier generation and develops new areas of emphasis.
Firbas (1972) has continued work orr FSP. Investigation of issues related to
machine translation has been one of Garvin's (1972) concerns. Danes (1964)
and Svoboda (1967) have provided analyses of the levels and systems of lan-
guage that integrate FSP into the system of language as a whole and direct the
study of FSP beyond the structure of the sentence and clause toward the structure
Functional Approaches to Linguistics 5

of text, or discourse. Their work in particular influenced Halliday's early studies

of the language system.

The Prague School and Language Teaching

Members of the Prague School have been consistently interested in the

practical application of their theory to language teaching. Vilem Fried's (1972)
collection of papers on this topic offers an overview of applications, a large
number of which are concerned with methodology, for example, the classroom
presentation of morphological features of technical English (Dubsky 1972), prin-
ciples of stylizing a dialogue (Camutaliova 1972), or the determination of sen-
tence patterns to serve the practice of particular structural features (Barnet 1972).
The pedagogical framework of their techniques and procedures is based on Har-
old Palmer's (1920) oral-aural method and the audio-lingual method derived
from the association of American structuralism with behaviorism. However,
these two methods have not been used to dictate what is to be taught; to do
so would require ignoring an essential characteristic of the Prague School-the
need for an understanding of the relationship of form to meaning and function
(Camutaliova 1972).
As could be expected in an approach to methodology based on a functional
view of language, attention is given to the ways in which forms actually function
in the language being taught. Mathesius had proposed a contrastive method of
analysis which was exploited in language teaching through contrasts of functions
(e.g., word order) in the language being learned with the learners' native lan-
guage (Vachek 1972). Teaching materials also address the functional differen-
tiation within a language, for example, its literary styles, the style of the spoken
language, its technical and scientific styles. Teaching to meet learners' need
for specialization in the reading and writing of scientific and technical texts
and understanding the functional style of these areas has also been addressed
through a Prague approach (e.g., Benes 1972). The same is true for the teaching
of commercial English (Pytelka 1972).
Prague School linguists have claimed that the aim of language teaching
is to enable the learner "to communicate in the foreign language" (Mensikova
1972:45). Their pedagogical applications, however, are not consistent with this
claim. The contributions to Fried's volume focus on techniques and procedures
that teachers can use in presenting information to learners and the nature of
the information learners need to know about the language they are learning.
The implications of teaching for communication have not been realized in tech-
niques that engage learners in language use and that ultimately develop their
communicative ability, techniques generally associated with language teaching
approaches that have communication as their goal.
6 CHAPTER 1

The British Tradition

Referred to by various names-Firth ian linguistics (Davis 1973; Mitchell

1975; F. R. Palmer 1968), the London School (Langendoen 1968; Sampson
1980), and the British tradition (B. Kachru 1981 a)-the linguistic approach as-
sociated with John Rupert Firth (1890-1960) is an independent variant of con-
tinental structural approaches. 2 Firth, historian-turned-linguist, was the holder
of the first chair of linguistics in Great Britain (at the University of London)
and had profound influence on developments in linguistic theory in Britain in
the 1960s and 1970s. For a long time most linguists trained in Great Britain
were direct students of Firth and worked within his philosophy of language.
The influence of the British tradition, the origins of which can be traced
back to the work of Henry Sweet and Daniel Jones, has not been restricted
to Great Britain. In Canada, for example, it has informed the study of register
by Gregory and Carroll (1978) and Benson and Greaves (1973). In West Ger-
many, where it is known as "British contextualism," it has been applied in
Steiner's (1983) study of discourse and Geiger's (1979) description of a con-
text-based model for the training of teachers of English as a foreign language.
In the United States, where the British tradition has been overshadowed by
the dominance of Chomskyan transformational linguistics, Braj Kachru (1977
and after) has drawn upon Firth's philosophy of language to inform a frame-
work for descriptions of various sociocultural settings (e.g., India) of English
language use.

Firth's Philosophy of Language

Firth's approach to language, more appropriately called a philosophy of

language rather than a theory, is founded on the mutual dependency of language,
culture, and society. Firth insisted upon seeing language primarily as a means
used by people to function in society. His belief that language needs to be
studied as part of the social process, or as a social phenomenon, was the basis
for his insistence on what he termed the "sociological component" of linguistic
studies. His investigations of language at every level-from the phonological
to the contextual-bear evidence to the essential role of society in the under-

2Firth makes a careful distinction between structural (European approaches) and structuralist
(American approaches) linguistics. The fonner examines the internal relations and functions of a
language, while the latter assigns to the structure some kind of autonomy from the people who
actually employ it and sees in language an arrangement of atomistic units that have some sort of
independent existence. For Firth, structuralist perspectives "fonn only one part of one branch of
what might properly be called structural linguistics" (1955 [1968]:44).
Functional Approaches to Linguistics 7

standing of language. The sociological component was particularly important

in Firth's study of the notions of meaning and context.

Meaning

Firth defined meaning as function in context, a definition based on his

view that meaning is not simply a matter of word-based semantics and is not
to be regarded as a separate area of linguistics. 3 The central proposal of Firth's
linguistic theory was "to split up the meaning or function into a series of com-
ponent functions. Each function will be defined as the use of some language
form or element in relation to some context" (1935 [1957b]: 19). Meaning as
a statement of the function of linguistic items in their context was regarded as
the principle underlying all linguistic description.
Firth viewed meaning in much the same way as the Prague linguists. His
distinction between formal and situational meaning corresponds to the Prague
School's internal and external functions. Formal meaning refers to the relations
between one formal item and another, for example, lexical items in collocation
or syntactical relations between grammatical categories. Situational meaning re-
fers to those relations between language items and nonverbal constituents of
the situation. It includes phonological and phonetic features, lexical and gram-
matical features, even orthography. The latter is illustrated in a word with two
spellings, such as labor (the American spelling) and labour (the British spelling).
When the word labour is written or and not our, for example, it means "there's
an American somewhere in the situation, either as author, reader, editor or pub-
lisher" (Catford 1969:254).
Mitchell's description of Firth's view of meaning highlights an innovative
aspect of his philosophy, the notion of the discovery and statement of meaning:
"He did not regard words or sentences as self-evident units of language, nor
words as semantic units par excellence, lexical encapsulations of dictionary def-
initions ... meaning was not a GIVEN for Firth, it was waiting to be discovered
and stated" (1975: 154-155). "Discovery" and "statement" are key concepts in
the techniques Firth proposed for linguistic analysis.
As linguistic tasks, discovery and statement of meaning were to be made
by means of a "hierarchy of techniques," which would describe the meaning
of linguistic events in a range of specialized statements at the contextual, lexical,
grammatical, and phonological levels (Firth 1950 [1957b]:183). At the phono-

3This view of semantics contrasts sharply with Bloomfield's view. For Bloomfield, in Firth's words,
"semantics is the study of meaning; and also. the study of meaning is the study of grammar."
For Firth. "nothing could be worse than this. It is precisely this confusion of formal grammar
with contextual meaning that has been the downfall of all but the most intelligent students of
language"(1935 [1957b): \5).
8 CHAPTER 1

logical level, the statement of meaning is determined by the set of choices

among phonemes available in a specific context. For example, in English, part
of the meaning of the sound ItI is its role among the choices available in the
construction of a word-initial cluster of three consonants (such as that in strap).
In contrast, the sound fbi does not have this role as part of its meaning. At the
lexical level, a statement of meaning is made in terms of such groupings as
kinship terms, parts of the body, numerals, or proper names of people and places.
Part of the meaning of Chicago, for instance, is its identification as a place
name. At the grammatical level, the meaning is stated in terms of word and
sentence classes and of the interrelation of these categories. The grammatical
meaning of the word drank, for instance, includes its ability to be preceded by
you, they, Jane, Harry, or the dog and followed by milk, soda, or poison, but
not vice versa. At the contextual level, a statement of meaning is made in terms
of the relationship between language and the various aspects of the situation,
a relationship Firth referred to as the context of situation (which will be dis-
cussed below). The contextual meaning of an utterance includes the identity of
the speaker and hearer, their relationship to one another and the effect of the
utterance, that is, what happens after it is said.
Firth compared the levels of language to the colors of the rainbow and
liked to use the analogy of the prism when explaining his approach to analysis
of meaning at all levels. A summary of this analogy is provided by Berry:
The analysis of language into its levels is like an experiment with white light. One
sees a beam of light, holds up a prism. converts the white light into the colours of
the spectrum, holds up another prism, converts the spectrum back into white light,
and looks again at the beam of light with a new awareness of the colours that go
to make it up. One reads or hears a piece of language, analyses it into levels, then
rereads or rehears the language with a new awareness of its composition. (1975:48)

Berry also observes the usefulness of the spectrum analogy in preventing

interpretation of the levels of language as rigidly distinct from one another
because "they sometimes seem to shade into each other as do the colours of
the rainbow" (1975:48).

Context and Context of Situation

Analysis of meaning into a range of levels is a productive means of gaining

insight into language. Statements of meaning at the contextual level in particular
have provided an understanding of the nature of language use. An appreciation
of these insights, however, depends upon familiarity with Firth's use of the
terms context and context of situation.
For Firth, context was more than the physical environment of a situation.
Often it included the knowledge shared by participants in an interaction as well
Functional Approaches to Linguistics 9

as the relevant objects that were present. This use of context was a significant
step toward answering two related questions about language use and a native
speaker's understanding of that use: (1) how is it that, in spite of a lack of
perfect and consistent correlations between language and situation, the native
speaker, given the text alone (e.g., a tape-recorded conversation), is often able,
with a considerable degree of accuracy, to reconstruct the situation and (2)
given the situation, how does a native speaker produce language which is ap-
propriate? Concern with these issues underlies Firth's perception of what is
"properly the province of linguistics: the study of what people say, what they
hear, and in which contexts of situation and experience they do these things"
(1930: 150). Focus on these questions characterizes Firth's interest in the rela-
tionship between language and the various aspects of the situation in which it
is used, a relationship he described as context of situation.
Firth borrowed the notion of context of situation from the anthropologist
Bronislaw Malinowski (1923, 1935), who was his colleague for a time at the
University of London. Malinowski considered the primary function of language
to be its pragmatic function: language is a means of behaving. Thus, it is most
appropriately studied as part of activity, as doing. In a two-volume description
of fieldwork experiences in Polynesia engagingly titled Coral Gardens and Their
Magic, he states that "the meaning of a single utterance ... can be defined
as the change produced by this sound in the behaviour of people" (cited in
Dixon 1965:91).
Malinowski illustrated his pragmatic approach in his attempts to solve the
problems of equivalence he encountered translating Trobriand Island texts into
English. The translation task presented situations in which a view of language
as merely the direct reflection of subject matter proved simplistic and inade-
quate. In studying the Islanders, Malinowski had observed that language used
in connection with typical daily human activities derives its meaning from the
context of the ongoing human activity, for example, fishing, hunting, cultivating,
buying and selling, eating, greeting, or instructing a child. As the contexts
change, the meanings of single items vary, depending upon
the situation in which the words have been uttered. A phrase, a saying or a few
sentences concerning famine may be found in a narrative, or in a magical formula,
or in a proverbial saying. But they may also occur during a famine, forming an
integral part of some of those essential transactions wherein human beings co-operate
in order to help one another. The whole character of such words is different when
they are uttered in earnest. or as a joke, or in a narrative of the distant past (cited
in Dixon 1965:88).

To provide a framework for this phenomenon, he used the term context

of situation. It was to embrace not only spoken words but facial expression,
gesture, bodily activities, the whole group of people present during an exchange
10 CHAPTER 1

of utterances, and the part of the environment in which these people are engaged.
This conception of and commitment to context means that the situation in which
words are uttered cannot be passed over as irrelevant to the linguistic expres-
sion.4
Firth, who shared Malinowski's commitment to context, borrowed the term
context of situation, but interpreted it more abstractly to refer to general situation
types instead of the ongoing activity surrounding a particular utterance. Firth
offered no classification of these contexts of situation, since he believed char-
acterizations might differ: "Some might prefer to characterize situations by at-
tempting a description of speech and language functions with reference to their
effective observable results, and perhaps also with reference to a linguistically
centred social analysis" (Firth 1957a [1968]:177).
As a means of establishing the features of these general situation types,
or contexts of situation, Firth proposed a set of broad and general parameters
to frame the analysis of language events in the social context:

1. The relevant features of participants, persons, personalities

a. Verbal actions of participants
b. Nonverbal actions of participants
2. The relevance of objects and nonverbal and nonpersonal events
3. The effect of the verbal action

Additional features considered relevant were the economic, religious, and

social structures to which the participants belong; the type of discourse in which
they are engaged (e.g., monologue or narrative); personal characteristics such
as participants' age or sex; and the types of speech, such as flattery, cursing,
praise, or blame (Firth 1957b [F. R. Palmer 1968]:178). Mitchell's (1957) study
of the language of buying and selling in Cyrenaica illustrates the role of lan-
guage in this typical situation and demonstrates the usefulness of the parameters
Firth proposed for describing contexts of situation.
This specification of features is only an approximation of a context of
situation, but "it is parallel with the grammatical rules, and is based on the
repetitive routines of initiated persons in the society under description" (Firth
1950: 182). The social roles of the initiated persons are determined by the social
organization, and "the chief condition and means of that incorporation is learning
to say what the other fellow expects us to say under the given circumstances"
(Firth 1935 [1957b]:28). This is a result of the experience gained from childhood

4Another study which illustrates this view of context is Frake's (1964) description of "How to Ask
for a Drink in Subanun."
Functional Approaches to Linguistics 11

on in the process of acculturation-we learn how to behave in speaking in the

various roles we come to fulfill in our own life.

Language Variety and Restricted Languages

Firth rejected a monolithic view of language, believing that "unity is the

last concept that should be applied to language" (Firth 1935 [1957b] :29). Early
in the development of his philosophy of language he stressed that de Saussure's
view of the unity of language is a misconception. If the goal of linguistic analysis
is to understand language as a means of human behavior, recognition of the
variety of language available to speakers is essential:
The multiplicity of social roles we have to playas members of a race, nation, class,
family, school, club, as sons, brothers, lovers, fathers, workers, churchgoers, golfers,
newspaper readers, public speakers, involves also a certain degree of linguistic spe-
cialization. (Firth 1935:29)

Firth used the term restricted language to refer to the varieties of language
related to the particular social roles, professional interests, or job-related activ-
ities in which individuals participate. The language varieties of the legal, sci-
entific, or technical discourse, of women, men, children, or adolescents, are
representative of restricted languages. In contemporary linguistic studies t~is
notion is generally referred to as register.
Firth also acknowledged the role of language in broader pragmatic contexts.
As a result of his experiences abroad, particularly in India, he observed firsthand
the role of English as a tool for international communication and as a means
of representing a particular way of life. This recognition underscores the key
role of context in determining the varieties and functions of language. (A number
of contexts and the varieties and functions associated with them are illustrated
in Chapter 3.)
Firth's philosophy of language, the techniques he proposed for the analysis
of meaning, his interpretation of the notion of context of situation, his rejection
of the unity of language, and his insistence upon a sociological component in
language study were substantial contributions to the British tradition of linguis-
tics. Many of his ideas either have been developed further or have served as
the basis of new directions in linguistic inquiry. Among the scholars who have
followed Firth and have developed his philosophy of language, Michael Halliday
is acknowledged as the most outstanding in taking Firth's ideas and developing
them into more than a philosophy of language. Halliday's theory of language,
commonly known as "systemic-functional" or simply "systemic" linguistics,
serves as the framework for a number of linguists working throughout the world,
especially in Europe, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and the United States.
12 CHAPTER 1

Halliday's Systemic-Functional Linguistics

Systemic1unctionai linguistics has been described as a way of thinking

about language, and more specifically, as a way of asking questions about lan-
guage as an object, about the nature and functions of language, and about what
language is like and why (Halliday and Martin 1981). As its name implies,
systemic-functional linguistics is concerned with the systems and functions of
language. However, these notions are not studied independently of one another
or of other aspects of language. They are part of a theory of language within
the British tradition that views language in Firth's terms-as social behavior.
In attributing importance to the sociological aspects of language, systemic-func-
tionallinguistics is particularly interested in investigating the role of social struc-
ture in determining human behavior in a given culture. Thus, the role of culture
is related to the varieties of language the speakers use, the functions of language
which serve the speakers, and the semantic systems that enable them to com-
municate with one another.
While it has been claimed that Halliday's systemic-functional linguistics
has taken a form different from the work of Firth (Berry 1975; F.R. Palmer
1968), Firth's influence on Halliday is evident in the centrality of system to
the theory, in the sociological orientation to the description of language varieties
dependent on social situation, that is, social dialects and registers (Firth's re-
stricted languages), and to the varying roles, or functions, language can serve.
Due to his attention to the role of the social context in the expression and
interpretation of speaker's meaning, Halliday has in fact been regarded as the
developer of what Firth called "sociological linguistics" (Monaghan 1979). The
Prague School also influenced Halliday, especially in the integration of the Func-
tional Sentence Perspective into his theory of language and the formulation of
the systems and levels of language.

Development of the Theory

Hallidayan linguistics has gone through a series of phases, beginning with

focus on the grammatical level, as in "Categories of the Theory of Grammar"
(1961) and "Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English" (1967, 1968). Much
of Halliday's early work on transitivity and theme, modality and mood, and
his later work with Hasan (Halliday and Hasan] 976) on cohesion are concerned
with describing the textual function and elaborating on the lexicogrammatical
system of language. The influence of Mathesius's FSP with its concepts of
theme and rheme is considerable in these studies. Halliday was interested in
FSP "because it is an integral part of the system of language, and therefore
Functional Approaches to Linguistics 13

x ~

n
a-----t~ ..

y
Figure 1. Schematic of a system.

essential to the understanding of the processes of speaking, listening, reading

and writing" (Halliday 1970a [Kress 1976]:30).
Systemic grammar has been concerned primarily with the impact of the
various choices speakers make in deciding to utter a particular sentence out of
the infinitely numerous sentences that their language makes available. The goal
is to establish a network of systems of relationships which will account for all
the semantically relevant choices in a language as a whole. 5 In the 1970s,
Halliday's development of systemic theory moved from concern with gram-
matical categories to the exploration of language development from a functional
perspective. During this time emphasis on the semantic significance of systemic
choice increased, and system emerged as the central category of the theory (But-
ler 1982). Language is conceived of as a system of systems. For Halliday, a
system is defined as:
a set of options with a condition of entry; that is, it is a range of alternatives which
may be behavioural, semantic, grammatical etc., together with a specification of the
environment in which selection must be made among these alternatives. It has the
form 'If x, then either a or b or .. .' (1975:7)

An example of a system is represented in Figure 1. It reads as follows:

There are two systems, xly and min, the first having entry condition a; if a is
chosen (over not choosing anything at all), then the choice is between x and
y; the system min has entry condition xly; if x is chosen over y, then either m
or n has to be chosen, and so on (Halliday 1973).
Increasing emphasis on semantic significance is accompanied by increasing
attention to the functional basis of the model and the establishment of three

5The selection of papers edited by Gunther Kress [1976] provides a useful summary of Halliday's
systemic grammar and its development.
14 CHAPTER 1

basic functional components of language, which Halliday labels

"metafunctions." This phase of the theory can be characterized by a view of
language (I) as social behavior, that is, as part of the social system, (2) as a
system of options in meaning, labeled "meaning potential," and (3) as a network
of multiple systems with mutually dependent formal and semantic systems of
meaning potential and social structures.
Halliday's movement toward analysis of text and social context is repre-
sented in his 1978 collection of articles entitled Language as Social Semiotic.
This volume, a summary of Halliday's thinking on the nature of language up
to that point, is important as a presentation of his theory as a means of inter-
preting language and meaning within a sociocultural context. In its chapters,
Halliday offers a schematic representation of language as social semiotic, a
scheme which captures his view that language is explainable only as the real-
ization of meanings that are inherent in the social system, or culture, and not
"out there," separate from language. Halliday's subsequent publications are in-
creasingly concerned with semiotics, particularly with a semiotics that brings
together European functionalism, cultural analysis, social theory, and his theory
of language as social semiotic (see e.g., Halliday and Hasan 1985; Threadgold,
Grosz, Kress, and Halliday 1986).

Function

The central role of function, previously identified as characteristic of sys-

temic-functional linguistics, has been interpreted in various ways and related
to all levels of language. As has been shown, the Prague School contributed
to the development of functional understanding of language at the sentence
level through Mathesius's Functional Sentence Perspective (FSP). While the
Prague School scholars and, to greater extent, Firth also addressed the com-
municative functions of language, it is Halliday's theory which has compre-
hensively investigated and developed situational as well as formal functions at
a level between language and its social and cultural context.
One systemic-functional interpretation of function takes into account the
speakers of a given language and what they can do with it. This interpretation
operates at two levels of abstraction. The first level is that of particular uses
of language-for example, to approve or disapprove; to express beliefs, opin-
ions, or doubts; to include and exclude; to ask and answer questions; to express
personal feelings; to greet. However, looking at uses of language in this sense
is potentially misleading. If only this level is considered, the impression is given
that such uses are easily identified and can be neatly listed and classified, a
task that Firth had indicated would be a difficult one. Halliday puts this level
of function into perspective:
Functional Approaches to Linguistics 15

It is obvious that language is used in a multitude of different ways, for a multitude

of different purposes. It is not possible to enumerate them; nor is it necessary to
try: there would be no way of preferring one list over another. These various ways
of using language are sometimes referred to as "functions of language." But to say
language has many "functions," in this sense, is to say no more than that people
engage in a variety of social actions-that they do different things together.
(1978: 186-187)

The fact that language can serve a variety of purposes, Halliday maintains,
is precisely because the language system, at a higher level of functional ab-
straction, is organized into metafunctions. They are a set of highly generalized,
abstract functional components which comprise the semantic system. This sys-
tem is a set of choices which represent the possibilities of what a speaker "can
mean." The influence of the Prague School is evident in Halliday's formulation
of the systems or levels of language. Although Firth had worked on a system-
structure framework, Halliday turned to the Prague School for insight into this
aspect of language because he found Firth's model insufficient "in the sense
of explaining why language has the particular form and shape it has" (Halliday
1970a [Kress 1976]:26). Halliday borrowed Danes's (1964) and Svoboda's
(1968) notions of three "levels" or "systems" of language-semantic, grammat-
ical, and organization/functional-as a basis for his definition of metafunctions.
In identifying metafunctions, Halliday enriches the concept of function by in-
troducing a more generalized level to underlie the so-called functions of lan-
guage, which he sees as of relatively little importance to a linguistic description.
The metafunctions form an interrelated set of three components of the linguistic
system that are realized in every text a speaker creates: the interpersonal, the
ideational, and the textual.
The interpersonal function represents the speakers' potential to establish
and maintain social relationships and identifies and reinforces the speaker as
an individual. Through this function speakers "intrude" into the situation in
which they are participants. Whatever speakers do with language, they are also
exploiting its potential for expressing content in terms of their own experience
of the world and for giving structure to that experience. This potential is realized
in the ideational function. It represents the meaning potential of speakers as
observers of the situation. It serves for the expression of the speaker's experience
of the processes, persons, objects, abstractions, qualities, states, and relations
of the world around and inside them. The textual function determines the struc-
tural realizations of the ideational and interpersonal functions. This function,
in Halliday's words, "is what enables the speaker or writer to construct 'texts'
or connected passages of discourse that is situationally relevant; and enables
the listener or reader to distinguish a text from a random set of sentences"
(cited in Lyons 1970: 143). Any linguistic unit is the simultaneous realization
16 CHAPTER 1

of the three functions. "Whatever we are using language for, we need to make
some reference to the categories of our experience; we need to take on some
role in the interpersonal situation; and we need to embody these in the fonn
of text" (Halliday 1970a [Kress 1976]:29).
In the following text, created by a child and his father at play, each of
the systems and simultaneous realizations of each metafunction are illustrated:

NIGEL [small wooden train in hand, approaching track laid along a plank sloping from chair to
floor]: Here the railway line ... but it not for the train to go on that.
FATHER: Isn't it?
NIGEL: Yes tis.... I wonder the train will carry the lorry [puts the train on lorry (sic)].
FATHER: I wonder.
NIGEL: Oh yes it will. ... I don't want to send the train on this floor ... you want to send the
train on the railway line [runs it up plank onto chair] ... but it doesn't go very well on the
chair.... [makes train go round in circles] The train all round and round ... it going all
round and round ... [tries to reach other train] have that train ... have the blue train (' give
it to me') [Father does so] ... send the blue train down the railway line ... [plank falls off
chair] let me put the railway line on the chair ('you put the railway line on the chair! ') [Father
does so] ... [looking at blue train] Daddy put sellotape on it ('previously') ... there a very
fierce lion in the train . . . Daddy go and see if the lion still there. . . . Have your engine
('give me my engine').
FATHER: Which engine? The little black engine?
NIGEL: Yes ... Daddy go and find it for you ... Daddy go and find the black engine for you.
(Halliday 1978:115-116)

Each of the meaning systems and their realizations in this text are given
in Figure 2. For example, in the interpersonal system the negative polarity for
the demand want is realized in don't want. The person choice of speaker is
realized in I. In the ideational system the expression of processes in the choice
of location is realized in on; in the choice of participant structure of the process
it is give for two participants and have for one. The textual system is realized
in the cohesion choice of reference to situation through the demonstratives this,
that, the, and here.

Meaning and "Meaning Potentia/"

For Halliday, like Firth, "The tenn semantic is not to be understood in

the restricted sense of 'lexicosemantic' .... It refers to the totality of meaning
in language" (1975:8-9). This totality of meaning consists of sets of semantic
options, or systems, that correspond to the situation types available in a culture.
These options, which are realized in the ideational, interpersonal, and textual
functions (see Figure 2), are the meanings it is possible for the grammar of
 "T"I
co
:J
~
o·
:J
systems: realizations in text: ""
)-
-0
statement/question (failing tone) -0
monologue demand (rISing tone) (3
(state) ask monologue / positive (indicative)
statement/ - [ agree "",..,::r
monologue / negative (indicative +) not III
question dialogue - { answer - { contradict ask I wonder ( + '"
indicative) o
speech roles answer (ef. textual component) yes [/no) (+ r-
indicative) :J
()Q
(mood) I want to (I/you) want; c
I want to / positive
1 demand - { I want you to
(subject less
non-finite, e.g.
have that)
;.
,..,
'"
c:
I want to / negative (I/you) don't
.g
1l. want
Q; speaker I want you to let me [sic);
.S p e r s o n -[ (proper name);
addressee (I/you) want
(proper name)
positive speaker I; you [sic)
addressee you; (proper
polarity - { negative
name, e.g.
Daddy)

Figure 2. Realizations of metafunctions in text. Source: M. A. K. Halliday. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: the Social Interpretation of Language
and Meaning. Edward Arnold. pp. 118-120.

"
 (X)

systems: realizations in text:

possess be located / 2 participants put

relational-[ , be located / 1 participant be (in, on)
eXIst
be located : in in
--{ in be located : on on
process type [be located - [ on
move / 2 participants: person send
material: [ - straight move / 2 participants: object carry
spatial ~ move - [ in circle move / 1 participant 90
move: straight down
processes
person as agent move: in circle round and round
(transitivity)
possess / 2 participants [give)
object as agent possess / 1 participant have
two parti, exist / 2 participants find
cipants exist / 1 participant be (there's)
participant -1 benefactive ('for me') for you
structure movable: type of vehicle train, engine,
one parti, lorry
cipant movable: identifying property blue, black
iii immovable chair, floor,
c: railway line
o
rel~ant - [ movable - [ ( t y p e of vehiclel capable will
, I entif ' suitable (be) for
i objects Immovable (ty ('d ylOg property) efficient (go) well
e past (past tense)
of furnituret
present (present tense)
capable
modulation - [ suitable
efficient

time
• [present
past ()
::I:
>
m
"-i
Figure 2, (continued) ;IC
 .."
c:
::J
~
o·
::J
systems: realizations in text: '"
>
"0
person theme: child I/you (initial); "0
t h e m e - [ person theme - { child (subjectless i3
. parent non·finite)
::J"
person theme: parent (proper name "'"
<1)
object theme
initial) '"
object theme (object name o
f - [ t o situation - _~r demons.trative initial) r-
re erence exophoric : demonstrative this, that, the, ::J
(objects) Otl
(exophori~ possessive
here c:
to text exophoric : possessive your ('my')
(anaphoric)
:c.
anaphoric it, that, the
-;;;
adversat ive but; (fall·rise "'"
cohesion conjunction - [ adversative tone)
~
x (process) ellipsis: 'yes/no' yes [no!
~ (neutral) (modal element,
ell ipsis : modal
e.g. it is,
'yes/no'
it will)
ellipsis -[ lexical: repetition of (e.g. train.
(dialogue) modal items train)
lexical: collocations (~.g.chair.
lexical cohesion: (i) repetition of lexical items floor; train.
(ii) lexical collocations railway line
information structure: (organization
information structure: (i) distribution into text units text units in tone grolJps)
(ii) distribution into 'given' and information structure: (location of
'new' (information treated as
given-new tonic nucleus)
recoverab Ie/ no n· recoverable)
within each uni'

Figure 2. (continued)

'"
20 CHAPTER 1

the language to express. Halliday calls these semantic systems meaning poten-
tia/. 6
Meaning potential is one of a set of three potentials: the behavior potential,
which includes, but is not restricted to, what a speaker can do with language
as speaker/writer and hearer/reader, and the lexicogrammatical potential, what
the speaker can say. The meaning potential, the "can mean," is the level of
realization between the "can do" and the "can say." That is, the meaning po-
tential is determined by the behavior potential of a culture or a group. It, in
turn, determines the lexicogrammatical potential. Of the three potentials, mean-
ing potential is the most important for Halliday because of its relationship to
the culture. As he has stressed, "meaning potential is defined not in terms of
the mind but in terms of the culture" (1973:52). He also asserts that the value
system of a culture is encoded in the language behavior of the society's members
and that as children learn language, they simultaneously acquire the meaning
system of the culture. The development of a child's meaning potential, described
as "learning how to mean," is taken up later in this chapter.

Context, Situation, and Language Variety

Firth's influence is evident in the connections Halliday makes between

context, situation, and language varieties. For Halliday, "the contexts in which
meanings are exchanged are not devoid of social value; a context of speech is
itself a semiotic construct, having a form (deriving from the culture), that enables
the participants to predict features of the prevailing register-and hence to un-
derstand one another as they go along" (1978:2). And "context plays a part in
determining what we say; and what we say plays a part in determining the
context. As we learn how to mean, we learn to predict each from the other"
(1978:3). In this sense, context acts as an interface between the levels of culture
(situation) and form (grammar, lex is) and is concerned with relationships be-
tween these levels and the situation.
Halliday, in investigating the interaction of language and the social system,
developed the concept register (first used by Reid [1956]) to uncover the general
principles governing variation by situation. He was interested in discovering

6This concept reflects Halliday's rejection of any dichotomy between doing (perfonnance) and
knowing (competence): "There is no difference between knowing a language and knowing how
to use it" (1978:229). For him the two are inseparable. The potential is what is available to the
speaker, what is known; choices are made from what is known for use of the language, for
perfonning.
Functional Approaches to Linguistics 21

how it is possible for native speakers, drawing upon their knowledge of register,
to predict a great deal about the language that will occur in a given situation,
or a social context of use. These predictions through register are detennined
through three categories of features of the situation: what's going on, who's
taking part, and what part language is playing, that is, whether it is spoken or
written or in the fonn of a monologue, dialogue, letter, or newspaper report. 7
Halliday has organized these features into a framework and designated them
as field, tenor, and mode, respectively.
Register refers to the obvious fact that the language we use (be it in speak-
ing or writing) varies according to the type of situation in which speakers find
themselves and the relevance of the particular parameters identified with the
situation type. For example, concrete and immediate features of the environment
may be more relevant in a situation in which young children's remarks bear
direct pragmatic relation to the environment, as exemplified by the utterance
Some more! to demand "more of that which I've been eating." The context of
situation can also refer to abstract and remote features, as in a technical dis-
cussion among specialists, where "situation" could include the particular prob-
lem they are trying to solve and their own training and experiences. In this
case, the immediate surrounding of objects and events would likely not be re-
ferred to (unless the object of their problem solving were a concrete object in
front of them). Just as the immediate objects may not be relevant, the identity
of the individuals in the situation may not be essential to predicting features
of the discourse. For example, in "I love you" it is important that John is saying
this to Mary, not to Jane. However, in "Would you please fill this prescription?"
the role of "phannacist" is important, but not the pharmacist's name.
Halliday's development of Firth's notion of restricted language and context
of situation serves to clarify the explanatory power of context in describing
language. The context influences what we say and what we say influences the
context. This interpretation of context is central to Halliday's theory of language
development as well as his theory of language.

Learning How to Mean

Halliday's goals in investigating language development are consistent with

Malinowski's belief that "the study of meaning should start with observations
on infant speech and the growth of linguistic expression within the context of
culture" (1939:43). Halliday's observations of his son Nigel's language devel-

7Register is distinguished from dialect. The former is variation according to use and reflects the
diversity of social processes; it is determined by what the speaker is doing. Dialect is variation
according to user and reflects the social order in the sense of a hierarchy of social structure. It
is determined by who the speaker is, not by what a speaker does.
22 CHAPTER 1

opment from the age of nine to eighteen months provide substantial insight
into the origin of language in a young child and into the role of a language
in transmitting the norms of a culture and ultimately in mediating the child's
behavior patterns.
As Nigel learned how to use the language system to make meanings, he
simultaneously learned behavior that is relevant to the contexts of situation in
which he is a participant. One example rich in its representation of the norms
of the culture in which Nigel learned English is a set of instructions from his
mother: "Leave that stick outside; stop teasing the cat; and go and wash your
hands. It's time for tea" (1978:124). The cultural norms and values mediated
through these words concern, among others, the boundaries dividing space
(sticks don't belong inside), the continuity between the human and animal world
(cats should not be teased), and the regular occurrence of cultural events (tea
happens at a set time).
In studying child language development from a functional perspective,
Halliday attempted to determine the linguistic functions through which children
learn the language. Bernstein's (1964) work on the key linguistic contexts
through which children learn the culture was useful in framing Halliday's anal-
ysis because of its compatibility with his views on language as an essential
part of the process of cultural transmission from parent to child. While
Bernstein's goal was the identification of the contexts through which children
learn culture, Halliday's purpose was to discover the contexts of situation
through which children build up a picture of the reality that is around and
inside them.
Halliday found that at the beginning stages of language development mean-
ing is related primarily to limited functions, or uses, of language. As the child
broadens the uses made of language and takes on more social roles, the potential
to mean increases and meaning becomes a more powerful feature of the real-
ization of social acts. As language is developed and used, the child learns the
potential within the language, develops a meaning potential for each function,
and also learns roles in which this potential can be realized and even predicted.
This process Halliday calls "learning how to mean."
The process (see lower portion of Figure 3) has three phases. Phase I,
which begins at about nine months of age, is characterized by six social func-
tions: the regulatory, the interactional, the imaginative, and the heuristic, which
are derived from Bernstein, and the personal and the instrumental, which are
Halliday's additions.
The regulatory function is the use of language to exert control over the
behavior of others. It can also be called the "do as I tell you" function. The
interactional function is used to establish and maintain contact with those who
matter to the child. It is the "me and you" function. The imaginative function
serves to create an environment of the child's own. This is known as the "let's
Functional Approaches to Linguistics 23

adult linguistic system:

semantics:
functional
~\S:

Developmental: Phase I: Phase III:

origins adult system
developmental meufunctions:
functions:
instrumental
regulatory pragmatic
interactional (doing)
personal ---~ textual
heuristic mathetic ideational
imaginative (learning

social contexts Of(

' - - - - - - - . - 1 situation lV_
('uses of 1• ...-')

-----,child's linguistic . y s t e m - - - - _

Figure 3, Schematic representation of language as social semiotic, Source: M. A. K. Halliday,

1978, Language as Social Semiotic: the Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning, Edward
Arnold, p. 69.

pretend" function, The heuristic function is the use of language to explore the
real-world environment. This is the "tell me why" function. The personal func-
tion is used by the child to express his own individuality and self-awareness.
It is the "here I come" function. Finally, the instrumental function is the use
24 CHAPTER 1

of language to satisfy the child's own material needs, in terms of goods and
services. It is the "I want" function.
The child does not make use of all six functions at once. The first to be
used are the regulatory, instrumental, and interactional functions, which are syn-
onymous with use of language in the child's system. Thus the content of the
utterances is determined by the function, since the purposes are related to per-
sons, objects and actions which are immediate. The child will refer only to
things present and express a particular want or need to act upon those people
who are present. At the same time, this environment is the child's context of
situation. That is, if language is being used to regulate, the situation itself is
one of regulation. The child eventually discovers that this language system is
not adequate. Consequently, the personal, heuristic, and imaginative functions
are added for their potential to "mean" about objects, persons, or events not
immediate to the situation.
In Phase II, the child's language begins to take on more features of the
adult linguistic system, namely, the lexicogrammatical, which is incorporated
into the developing set of functions. The child's desire and need to learn about
the immediate environment, as well as to share experiences, are realized through
these functions which make it possible to talk about or demand objects not
present, or to express liking, or approval of those objects. During this phase,
the concept of function is modified, as the six functions (also uses) are replaced
by two transitional functions: the mathetic, which is the "learning" function
and subsumes the personal, heuristic, and imaginative uses of the previous phase,
and the pragmatic, which is the "doing" function and replaces the regulatory,
interactional, and instrumental functions. At the beginning of Phase II, the child
uses either one or the other of these functions. However, as the child approaches
the language system of the adult, the strict separation between them is aban-
doned, and eventually the two merge in every speech act, thus blending action
and reflection.
Entry into Phase III, the adult language system, represents yet another in-
terpretation in the concept of function. It is no longer synonymous with use,
but becomes a more abstract concept representing the most general functions
of the adult language system, the ideational and interpersonal. The adult system,
through its reduction of the functions of the first phase into these two abstract
functions, makes it possible for the speaker to talk about things not present.
The content is no longer dependent upon its immediacy within the environment.
The child's linguistic system, freed from situational constraints, makes it pos-
sible to talk about people and objects not present. In this phase, the textual
function emerges and provides the form for the realization of the other two
functions. This function brings with it the emergence of the language that the
child will use and continue to develop for the rest of his or her life. The child
has learned how to mean.
Functional Approaches to Linguistics 25

Models of Language and Language Development

Halliday's view of the language system as firmly situated within the entire
social system, or context of culture, and the systematic nature of the relationship
between the text, the linguistic system, and the situation is represented in Figure
3, The diagram serves as a concise summary of his models of language and
language development.
Halliday's description of the relationships represented in the figure begins
with text:
Social interaction typically takes a linguistic fonn, which we call text. A text is the
product of infinitely many simultaneous and successive choices in meaning, and is
realized as lexicogrammatical structure, or "wording." The environment of the text
is the context of situation, which is an instance of a social context, or situation type.
The situation type is a semiotic construct which is structured in tenns of field, tenor
and mode: the text-generating activity, the role relationships of the participants, and
the rhetorical modes they are adopting. These situational variables are related re-
spectively to the ideational, interpersonal and textual components of the semantic
system: meaning as content (the observer function of language), meaning as partic-
ipation (the intruder function) and meaning as texture (the relevance function). They
are related in the sense that each of the situational features typically calls forth a
network of options from the corresponding semantic component; in this way the
semiotic properties of a particular situation type, its structure in tenns of field, tenor
and mode, detennine the semantic configuration or register-the meaning potential
that is characteristic of the situation type in question, and is realized as what is
known as a "speech variant". This process is regulated by the code, the semiotic
grid or principles of the organization of social meaning that represent the particular
subcultural angle on the social system. The subcultural variation is in its turn a
product of the social structure, typically the social hierarchy acting through the dis-
tribution of family types having different familial role systems. A child, corning into
the picture, interprets text-in-situation in tenns of his generalized functional categories
of learning (mathetic) and doing (pragmatic); from here by a further process of
abstraction he constructs the functionally organized semantic system of the adult
language. He has now gained access to the social semiotic; this is the context in
which he himself will learn to mean, and in which all his subsequent meaning will
take place. (1978: 125)8

Halliday's systemic-functional linguistics has developed from a systemic

grammar to a comprehensive theory of language and language development

8Halliday describes the relationship represented between the components of the system outlined in
Figure 3 by the word pair detenniningJdetennined. He considers "detennined" of greater importance
because it denies the linguistic system as the sole detenninant of meaning and recognizes other
elements in the social system, among them context of situation, as codetenninants of meaning.
Emphasis on "detennined" and on the other components of the culture which are part of the social
system contrasts with other schools of linguistics or philosophies of language which avoid
considering the role of culture and the social system in shaping texts and, in the case of the latter,
of detennining the linguistic system itself.
26 CHAPTER 1

which can account for a broad range of linguistic phenomena, including, but
not limited to, language variation, meaning-making systems, language functions,
and the origin of a language in a child. The Prague School and the British
tradition have played significant roles in the development of Halliday's models.
The influence of the Prague School was particularly important in contributing
to Halliday's interpretation of the systems and levels of the semantic potential
of language. From the British tradition, the work of Malinowski and Firth have
been instrumental in shaping his interpretations of context and situation. The
significance of Halliday's work is, in part, his development of these various
notions and the comprehensive theory of language as social behavior of which
they are an integral part. His work is also significant in its demonstration of
the potential of a sociolinguistic perspective to language study and its necessity
for answering the question of why language is as it is. Firth insisted upon a
sociological component in linguistic studies and provided glimpses of its role
in understanding the nature of language. Halliday has not only insisted upon
it as a component, he has made it the very foundation of his theory and in so
doing has provided much more than glimpses of the possibilities it offers-he
has provided a panoramic view of the possibilities of culturally and socially
informed studies of the nature of language learning and use.

The British Tradition and Language Teaching

Linguists working within the British tradition have had extensive experi-
ence in assessing the implications of a functional view of language for language
teaching practice. This experience was in part directly related to the need for
British linguists to respond to the demands for language teaching resulting from
colonization. World War II also created demands for their expertise, a period
in which Firth personally was involved in producing materials for and teaching
in emergency intensive courses in a variety of languages.
Application of the British tradition continues in discussions and investiga-
tions of the role of English as an international language and as an institution-
alized nonnative variety in a range of contexts (e.g., Chishimba 1985; B. Kachru
1982b, 1983; Lowenberg 1985; Nelson 1983, 1985; and L. Smith 1981, 1983).
The implications of the reality of these varieties on English language teaching
also have been elaborated on in these studies and in more comprehensive dis-
cussions (e.g., Strevens 1978, 1980). Firthian linguistics has also been applied
to language teacher training (Geiger 1979, 1981), discourse analysis and English
language teaching (Sinclair 1980; Widdowson 1978, 1979), and the development
of materials for language for specific purpose courses (Allen and Widdowson
1974).
Functional Approaches to Linguistics 27

Halliday's particular approach to functional linguistics has been applied

to language teaching with a variety of emphases. In the 1960s, scale-and-cat-
egory grammar was offered as a linguistic basis for language teaching (Halliday,
McIntosh, and Strevens 1964). This model was also applied in the development
of a text for the study of stylistics (Benson and Greaves 1973). Ragan (1987)
has explored the implications of a view of theory as use for the relation between
text and context and language teaching. He suggests that the systemic-functional
model inform teachers' understanding of text and thus the instance of language
with which their learners come into contact and create.
The period in which Halliday was giving more weight to the concept of
system and to the interpretation of language in terms of alternatives with systems
networks roughly coincides with new orientations in the teaching of English.
As the goals of learners increasingly were interpreted with respect to their pur-
poses in the use of the language, a need evolved for a theoretical framework
which could serve as a comprehensive basis for a use-based approach to lan-
guage teaching. This framework, derived in part from Halliday's investigations
of the sociosemantic aspects of language and language use and the concept of
meaning potential, was applied to syllabus design (Munby 1978; Wilkins 1976)
and to changes in methodology and materials development (Candlin 1976, 1981;
Piepho 1974, 1979; Ventola 1983). A selection of these developments in lan-
guage pedagogy will be discussed extensively in Chapters 4 and 5.
Functional linguistics is especially suited for application to second and
foreign language teaching because of its emphasis on language as a means of
social interaction and on the role of social structure in determining language
fonn and function. Functional theories of language are also useful in the es-
tablishment of a framework for the analysis of concepts that are central to the
development of language teaching approaches, syllabuses, and materials, for
example, communicative competence, model, and intelligibility. This analysis,
a necessary prerequisite to understanding the contexts in which languages are
taught and learned, is undertaken in the next chapter.
 CHAPTER 2
Communicative Competence,
Intelligibility, and Model

First language development in a child does not take place in a social and cultural
vacuum. This is also true for second and foreign language development. One
crucial difference between first language development and second and foreign
language development, however, is the options available in the classroom set-
ting. These options are the pedagogical choices made concerning which model,
whose intelligibility, and which communicative competence should be the
learners' goal. The answers to these questions vary with the learners' purposes
and with the speech community of which they want to become members. Thus,
the questions are interrelated. The choice of a model depends on the identifi-
cation of the communicative competence learners are to develop and the degree
of mutual intelligibility with other speakers they are to achieve. An appreciation
of the interdependence of these three notions and its consequences for pedagogy
begins with a look at the issues and concerns, theoretical as well as applied,
each represents.

Communicative Competence

In the early 1970s the term communicative competence emerged as an im-

portant theoretical construct in explorations of the relationship of language to
society and culture. Scholars in Great Britain (Campbell and Wales 1970), West
Germany (Habermas 1970, 1971), and the United States (Hymes 1971) intro-
duced the term in a variety of interpretations. Although each interpretation has
contributed to the indispensable role the concept has come to play in a number
of disciplines, the American anthropologist Dell Hymes' use of the term, perhaps
because it was a direct challenge to the prevailing linguistic theory of the time,
has had the most significant impact on linguistics and language teaching in the
United States.

29
30 CHAPTER 2

Hymes's "communicative competence," a development and elaboration of

Chomsky's notion of competence, is a reaction to two aspects of the Chomskyan
view of language and linguistics. The first is restriction of the domain of lin-
guistic inquiry to grammatical competence, that is, knowledge of grammatical
rules. For Hymes, the linguist's task is not only the description of what a speaker
knows about grammar but also an accounting "for the fact that a normal child
acquires knowledge of sentences not only as grammatical but also as appropri-
ate" (1971 :5). This knowledge of appropriateness is knowledge of sociolinguistic
rules and is separate from knowledge of grammatical rules.
Hymes also was concerned with language use as a meaning-making ac-
tivity. No account of language can be considered descriptively adequate or com-
plete until performance features of the very kind Chomsky excluded-"memory
limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or
characteristic)" (1965:3)-were allowed for, because they can influence mean-
ing. And since meaning is clear only in real language situations, idealized sit-
uations with an ideal speaker listener cannot provide insight into the nature of
the sociolinguistic rules that comprise communicative competence. Only in an
investigation of performance and of social interaction of all kinds, a procedure
Hymes calls "ethnography of communication," can the nature of these rules be
discovered. Hymes expresses his concern with the integration of linguistic theory
with a more general theory of communication and culture: "social life shapes
communicative competence and does so from infancy onward. Depending on
gender, family, community and religion, children are raised in terms of one
configuration of the use and meaning of language rather than another" (1980:vi).
Hymes's investigation of communicative competence and the parameters
of appropriateness is in the spirit of Firth: "A piece of speech, a normal complete
act of speech, is a pattern of group behavior in which two or more persons
participate by means of common verbalizations of the common situational con-
text, and of the experiential contexts of the participants" (Firth 1930: 173). Ap-
propriateness is determined by each speech community or, in Firth's term, a
speech fellowship; it is defined by the shared social and cultural conventions
of a particular group of speakers. Thus, there must be recognition of and al-
lowance for different sets of culturally determined rules in describing and ex-
plaining language use.

Hymes and Halliday

Focus on language in use, the social dimension of language, and concern

with language as a form of communication did not become a part of linguistic
studies for the first time through Hymes. American linguistic research associated
with the tradition of Sapir and Whorf and their interest in the relationship be-
Communicative Competence, Intelligibility, and Model 31

tween language and thought represents attention to the pervasive influence of

language on human life. British linguistics has a long tradition of viewing lan-
guage as behavior and as related to its sociocultural context, a tradition Hymes
acknowledges. Hymes has also noted that the Prague School and Firth are "noble
exceptions" to the view of equating the speech community with the language
of the members of the speech community, a perspective associated with trans-
fonnational-generativism which rules out the heterogeneity of a speech com-
munity, diversity of role among speakers, and stylistic or social meaning.
Halliday has suggested that his approach to linguistic interaction is not
unlike that of Hymes, particularly with regard to the notion of socially con-
strained meaning potential. Yet Halliday questions the need for the introduction
of the tenn communicative competence, since it assumes (following Chomsky's
notion of competence) that it is necessary to isolate this system of rules from
its social context. Halliday does not believe this is how language should be
conceived. "If we are concerned with 'what the speaker-hearer knows,' as dis-
tinct from what he can do, and we call this his 'competence', then competence
is communicative competence; there is no other kind" (1978:92). Thus, for Halli-
day, it is unnecessary to speak of communicative competence; knowing how
to use language is the same as knowing what one can do with language.
In spite of their differences, Hymes and Halliday share a view of the
role of language in social life. Hymes's claim that "social life shapes a
person's ability to use language appropriately from infancy onward" (l980:vi)
is the assumption underlying Halliday's investigation of Nigel's language de-
velopment. Halliday and Hymes also agree on the fundamental issue of society
and behavior, which Hymes expresses as an "understanding of social life as
something not given in advance and a priori, but as having an ineradicable
aspect of being constituted by its participants in an ongoing evolving way"
(l980:xiv).

Communicative Competences

If, as Hymes claims, social life shapes a person's ability to use language
appropriately, that is, if the context detennines a person's communicative com-
petence, and if there is more than one social setting in which appropriateness
in using a language can be shaped, the concept of communicative competence
cannot be considered in monolithic tenns. English, for example, as a result of
contact with different cultural and social systems, has been adapted to the social
life of the English-speaking communities in which it has come to function.
This process of adaptation, or nativization, has been extended to notions of
appropriateness in fonn and function.
32 CHAPTER 2

Firth's interpretation of context of situation provides a theoretical orienta-

tion for describing the individual communicative competence of each speaker
that has evolved in nonnative settings. The cultural setting and personal history
of each participant in a speech situation determine what is appropriate within
that setting. Nonnative English-speaking participants in a speech situation in
India make choices of acceptable and appropriate forms and functions of English
that an English speaker in the United States would not or cannot make because
the options are not available or meaningful. For example, the expression "I
bow my forehead" is an acceptable and appropriate form of greeting in Indian
culture, but if used in American society, it would not have the same meaning
as it has for Indian English speakers (if it would carry any meaning at all).
Context of situation, then, becomes essential to an understanding of com-
municative competence in general, because it leads to an appreciation of com-
municative competence "in specific." That is, only through inclusion of context
of situation as a parameter for determining what communicative competence
means do the pluralistic nature of a language and the independent existence
and the dynamic creative processes of nonnative varieties come into focus.
Several studies of nonnative Englishes (e.g., Chishimba 1985; B. Kachru
1982b, 1983; Lowenberg 1985; Magura 1985) illustrate how different cultural
settings of English language use have determined distinct communicative com-
petences. Indian English, African English, and Indonesion English represent
unique communicative competences with characteristic features and functions
which are shared by members of the respective English speech communities
and which those members are able to put into effect to express different aspects
of their cultural identity. This pluralistic approach not only draws attention to
the actual features of a language shared by a group of people and recognized
as theirs through these common features, but also emphasizes that these same
culture-bound features function to distinguish the varieties and subvarieties as
distinct from one another.

Intelligibility

Intelligibility has been variously defined, with investigations of the concept

typically based on two general interpretations: narrow (e.g., Bansal 1969; L.
Smith and K. Rafiqzad 1979) and broad (e.g., Catford 1950; Nelson 1985; Ols-
son 1978; Voegelin and Harris 1951). This distinction rests upon whether "com-
prehending," which "involves a great deal more than intelligibility" (Smith and
Rafiqzad 1979 [L. Smith 1983]:58), is considered in addition to phonetic fea-
tures-the "noise" as Firth called it (1930:77).
Clarification of the confusion resulting from various interpretations of the
concept has been offered by L. Smith and C. Nelson (1985). They identify
Communicative Competence, Intelligibility, and Model 33

three levels of understanding that are often referred to in the literature under
the label of "intelligibility." Their tenns for distinguishing each level are in-
telligibility, comprehensibility, and interpretability.
Intelligibility is related to pronunciation and to stress and rhythm differ-
ences. American English controversy and laboratory versus British English con-
troversy and laboratory are examples of this level.
Comprehensibility is related to word and utterance meaning. An instance
of the word "troubleshooter" illustrates this level. In British and American En-
glish this tenn is generally used to refer to a person responsible for locating
and eliminating the source of trouble in any flow of work; in Nigeria, however,
it refers to a person who makes, rather than eliminates, trouble. Given these
two meanings, one may ask how a native speaker unfamiliar with the Nigerian
use of the tenn would understand a Nigerian newspaper headline that announces
"the government will not tolerate any trouble shooters" (Adeyanju 1987).
Interpretability is related to meaning in tenns of the question "What does
a speaker (writer) mean by saying X" rather than "What does X mean?" (Leech
1983). To be able to answer this question the hearer/reader needs to be familiar
with the social and cultural background of the creator of the text, for example,
the nonns and standards for behavior that detennine what may be said, how
it may be said, or whether something may be said at all. In other words, the
hearer/reader needs to be familiar with the speaker's communicative compe-
tence. The relevance of interpretability can be observed in native-speaker re-
actions to texts in English written by nonnative speakers as rambling, incoherent,
or replete with irrelevant material (Clyne 1981). Variations in discourse structure
across cultures which have their source in different systems of values and beliefs
are often the cause of such negative judgments.
As Smith and Nelson (1985) point out, crucial to the appreciation of non-
native varieties of English is the recognition that all three levels are important
and that while intelligibility is a real concern, misunderstandings at the level
of comprehensibility and interpretability are most serious in communication.
Candlin's (1982) description of levels of discourse understanding highlights the
significance of the level of interpretability in cross-cultural communication. In
his two-part framework, intelligibility refers to the possible immediate cause
of miscommunication, while interpretability is the deeper source, stemming from
potentially conflicting systems of value and belief. However, degree of imme-
diacy, Candlin stresses, should not be equated with the importance of one cause
over the other. While unintelligible pronunciation can inhibit communication,
there are means of repair available at this level, for example, repeating a word
or phrase, spelling a word, writing a word or phrase down on paper, or pointing
to the object referred to; uninterpretability, on the other hand, is less amenable
to this type of on-the-spot repair. Cultural and social attitudes are more difficult
to recognize as the source of miscommunication and more difficult to explain,
34 CHAPTER 2

since holders of social attitudes, values, and beliefs are not always able to rec-
ognize them as such, let alone articulate them.

Intelligibility and Context

The role of context in determining intelligibility is not a recent discovery.

In a 1950 study of intelligibility, Catford stated that context "has an extremely
important bearing on intelligibility" (1950: 12). He defined context as "the sit-
uation as a whole in which any linguistic form which is being considered is
set" (1950: 13). "As a whole" refers to linguistic as well as situational context;
the latter, which is of interest here, has four components similar to Firth's pa-
rameters of context of situation:

1. Speaker and hearer

2. Relative positions and actions at moment of utterance
3. Various objects in the surroundings and their relation to the speaker
and hearer
4. The hearer's linguistic background and experience as well as educa-
tional and cultural background

Catford's specification of the features of the hearer's linguistic background

and experience as well as educational and cultural background implies that an
utterance may be judged unintelligible if it fails to meet all or any of the hearer's
expectations regarding linguistic, educational, or cultural factors. In other words,
intelligibility is dependent upon more than the "correct" pronunciation of
sounds: it also involves the consideration of context of situation.
Nelson, like Catford, goes beyond the noise and formulates his interpre-
tation of intelligibility as "the degree to which we are saying what we want
to be saying, think we are saying, or ought to be saying; and . . . how we
interpret what is being said to us, or what we are reading" (1985:3-4). To be
intelligible, in Nelson's terms, is to be understood by an interlocutor at a given
time in a given situation. This broad view of intelligibility includes compre-
hensibility and interpretability. It also brings in the components of the context
of situation and the variability of intelligibility. The incorporation of variability
is important because it acknowledges that what may be intelligible to one in-
terlocutor may not be intelligible to another.
The role of the participants as a component for understanding the context
of situation becomes salient in cross-cultural encounters. In understanding a
text, the readers/hearers have tasks to perform; in creating the text, the speak-
ers/writers desiring intelligibility must use language forms which are appropri-
ate, that is, they must select the appropriate words, the morphological and
Communicative Competence, Intelligibility, and Model 35

syntactic devices, as well as appropriate sounds. The readerslhearers must iden-

tify the forms and associate them with appropriate elements in the situation.
They must make a response to the utterance in accordance with the conventions
of the speech community within which they are operating (Catford 1950: 10).1
Systematic research by an international group of scholars and researchers
provides insight into the cross-cultural parameters of interpretability. This re-
search, associated with the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project, is
focused on a comparison of interactions and the rules that govern the use of
language in particular speech acts (e.g., apologies, directives, and compliments).2
One of the project's goals is the establishment of the similarities and differences
between native- and nonnative-speakers' patterns of use when making an apol-
ogy or a request. Nessa Wolfson, a member of the project group, has pointed
out that study of patterns of interaction in a given speech community provides
evidence of cultural norms and values: "Beneath the surface structure of the
linguistic forms and social etiquette involved in their use lies a gold-mine of
information about the value systems of speakers" (1984:236).
A personal experience serves as illustration of the role of cultural values
and norms in affecting interpretability. While in graduate school, I attended
classes with students from a variety of cultural backgrounds. One student with
whom I had a friendly relationship was Zambian. One day he greeted me with
"Hello, Margie. How are you? Oh, I see you've put on weight," an utterance
which, although syntactically well formed and intelligibile, struck me as inap-
propriate, since I had not been ill or in any other circumstances which would
cause concern over weight loss and subsequent cause for remarking on weight
gain. Why had he said this to me? It was not difficult to determine what the
utterance "I see you've put on weight" meant in the sense of its reference, that
is, that my friend had made the observation that I had gained a few pounds.
However, it was less easy to determine what he meant by saying this. Did he
mean to warn, to insult, or simply to describe? As an American English speaker
I could have chosen anyone of these, although none seemed likely given the
situation (i.e., he is a friend, he has never insulted me before, and I had not
been ill). When I asked what he had meant, my friend explained that he intended
nothing more than to express his pleasure at my apparent good health and the
prosperity it signified.
In the context of a greeting in Zambia, where a healthy, robust appearance
is valued more highly than a lean, slender figure, my friend's observation would

IWhile Candlin's, Nelson's, and Catford's interpretations include L. Smith and C. Nelson's (1985)
levels of comprehensibility and interpretability in the term intelligibility, this is not the sole source
of their significance. They are important because they explore intelligibility as a sociolinguistic
notion, as grounded in the structure of language and as finding its meaning and applicability in
its use among participants in a speech event (Nelson 1985).
2See Wolfson (1984) for specific references.
36 CHAPTER 2

have been recognized as appropriate to the situation by other Zambians. How-

ever, when said to an American, unfamiliar with Zambian norms of the greeting
situation and with the cultural values reflected in these norms, miscommuni-
cation and a clash of conventional patterns resulted. Rather than being under-
stood as a polite comment, it was initially interpreted as a rude and thoughtless
one.
Appropriate choice of an item or feature for greeting is one example of
sociocultural differences reflected in language. Indirectness of speaking is also
realized differently from culture to culture. Chishimba (1985) offers examples
of conventions for the creation of discourse in the African context in the fol-
lowing excerpt from Mulaisho's novel Tongue of the Dumb, set in southeast
Zambia. In it, we see the realization of a very important norm of this con-
text-indirectness of speaking. In a normal speech encounter, the participants
begin with salutations, loaded in most cases with superfluous (by Western stan-
dards) words of respect, greeting, and exchange of opinion and impressions
about the weather. Progressively, depending upon the topic and the relation of
the participants, the discourse arrives at the focus of the conversation, with
calculated pauses.
"You come early," said Yuda when [the chief) entered the hut.
"Yes, my son," replied the Chief.
"Is it well at the house?" asked Yuda.
"It is well. What about here; are you well, my son?"
"I am well. A maimed man cannot el(pect to be as well as those who are lucky
enough to have health," replied Yuda. You come to ask after my health, eh? It is
as good as can be el(pected after being paraded round like rotten meat full of maggots
which no one will touch."
"But, my son, it was the white man's wish," said the Chief.
"I know a thing or two, all the same. Lubinda has told me how much you did to
protect me. You are a wonderful father of the village, aren't you! Naome!" he roared,
"give the Chief some of that kacasu I have left ... "
"I have come about the visit of the Bwana Mkubwa," said (the Chief). (Mulaisho
1971 :96-97)

As the anecdote and literary excerpt demonstrate, the acts speakers engage
in are not constant across cultural boundaries. As Widdowson warns:
Communicative functions are culture-specific in the same way a~ linguistic forms
are language-specific.... What we call a complaint or a promise will not necessarily
correspond directly with "categories of communicative function" in another culture.
Asking for a drink in Subanun is not at all the same thing as asking for a drink in
Britain. (1979:66)

Communication and the ability to participate successfully in discourse de-

pend upon more than making and recognizing appropriate and intelligible noises.
Knowledge of how to interpret the speaker's meaning is necessary if an indi-
vidual is to find a text intelligible. Similarly, speakers and writers have to be
Communicative Competence, Intelligibility, and Model 37

able to express meaning through the linguistic and nonlinguistic conventions

expected of them by their audience if they are to be both intelligible and in-
terpretable. Thus, learning a language also means learning the patterns of struc-
ture that are expected for successful communication in the speech community
of that language.

Interpretability and Contrastive Discourse Analysis

In including explicit reference to reading in an interpretation of intelligi-

bility, Nelson, who has drawn on Olsson's (1978) work on intelligibility and
written texts, provides a basis for considering written as well as spoken texts
and the role of reader as well as writer in discussions of a speaker's intelligi-
bility, comprehensibility, and interpretability. The importance of recognizing
reading as a communicative act, or an act of interpretation, where inteIligibility
is a determinant of the success of the communication, is supported by recent
work in contrastive discourse analysis (see, e.g., contributions to Kaplan 1983),
which investigates the role of culture in the creation and interpretation of dis-
course and proposes to establish the nature of the differences between cultures
and subcultures in the way texts are fashioned.
Constrastive discourse analysis and constrastive rhetoric are research areas
which have developed around the investigation of discourse patterns and struc-
tures. Their purpose, ideally, is to relate the linguistic realization of a text to
the cultural norms and meaning systems of the societies using the languages
studied.
Attempts have been made to uncover the structures that writers impose
upon the texts they are creating and the system of values and beliefs that are
at the source of these structures. Attention to cross-cultural analyses of this
type has increased in recent years, representing a broad range of languages.
Interest in the notion of different patterns of text structure was first generated
by Kaplan's (1966) study of paragraph organization of five major language
groupS.3 In this study he describes what he considers to be dominant patterns
of formal written discourse. While the models of paragraph structure he pro-
posed reflect a cultural bias in favor of paragraph construction in American
English, the models do serve as a significant attempt to deal with meaning at
a level beyond the sentence (see Figure 4).

3While Kaplan's interpretation of the various cultures he investigated ha~ been rightfully criticized
for cultural bia~, his fmdings have become a convenient point of departure for contrastive discourse
studies. Kaplan's study has also proven significant because it underscores the inadequacy of
sentence-level studies to account for all the distinguishing and meaningful features of a language.
However, it also has limitations in this respect since Kaplan's focus was restricted to the paragraph
level.
38 CHAPTER 2

DOMINANT PAITERNS OF FORMAL WRIITEN DISCOURSE

IN MAJOR LANGUAGE GROUPS

ENGLISH SEMmc ORIENTAL ROMANCE RUSSIAN

~
;'
~ ,

., ~
;'
)
~
" .- "
~,-
'" ,
,-
<'
~--.
Figure 4. Cross-cultural patterns for paragraph organization. Source: Robert B. Kaplan, 1966, "Cul-
tural Thought Patterns in Inter-Cultural Education." Language Learning, 16, p. 15. Reprinted by
permission.

In addition to discovery of the specific features of the structures that shape

texts, studies of texts in different languages and language varieties show that
these structures are not universal but differ from culture to culture. While rec-
ognizing significant differences, Yamuna Kachru (1987) has proposed that alI
texts do share some structural features, such as those directly related to human
thought patterns, for example, conventions governing what constitutes a begin-
ning, middle, and end. This proposal led to subsequent investigation of the
relationship between language and cognition based on the assumption that there
is no difference in the underlying cognitive processes among various cultural
groups. The assumption was supported by the study; the differences lie in the
conventionalization of the appropriate rhetorical forms in different languages
and cultures. The sociocultural norms of the community playa role in con-
structing and interpreting the texts.
The general principle underlying the analyses of these texts is that it is
inaccurate to label one linguistic system and its attendant thought patterns as
logical or illogical, since, as Halliday stresses, alI linguistic systems are equalIy
logical, although they may differ in their semantic organization:
There is no reason to expect all ideologies to be modelled on the semiotic structure
of Standard Average European; there are other modes of meaning in literature than
the poetry and the drama of Renaissance Europe, and it will not be surprising to
find differences in other genres also, including the various fields of intellectual ac-
tivity. (Halliday 1978:77)

In research on the interpretation of texts, the structures or organizational

patterns of text are known as schema (Rumelhart 1980), script (Beaugrande
1980), or frame (van Dijk 1972) and refer to an individual's attempts to impose
a framework on a text in the act of interpretation. As ScolIon and ScolIon
(1983) have found, if people approach communication with different frames
there is a serious potential for miscommunication. If reader and writer do not
Communicative Competence, Intelligibility, and Model 39

share the same schema or are not familiar with each other's schema, incomplete
or inaccurate interpretation of the text may result. Consequently, the reader
may describe the text and its creator as unintelligible, although the formal fea-
tures of the text are considered correct.
Y. Kachru (1983) uses a Hindi expository text to illustrate cultural norms
of the language users. In a three-paragraph description of a well-known Hindi
poet, the first paragraph is concerned with the person, his general talents as an
administrator, general, scholar, and poet. The second paragraph is about the
person as poet, the type of poems he wrote, and their features and content.
The third paragraph is about his greatness as both poet and person, his qualities
of scholarship and striving for perfection. In this paragraph, however, there is
a reference in the second and fourth sentences to the person in the same terms
as presented in the first paragraph, a reference which a Western reader would
consider a digression. All other sentences in the third paragraph are restricted
to a discussion of his greatness and link up directly with the second paragraph.4
It has been suggested that such digressions are more tolerable in Hindi
than in English texts because "the sociocultural norms of the Hindi-speaking
area [of India] impose a parallelism between artistic or professional greatness
and personal greatness in the heroes it admires" (Y. Kachru 1983:63). Thus, it
is equally important in this tradition of scholarship to point out the personal
involvement as well as the intellectual involvement of the scholar, characteristics
which are generally separated in the European tradition.

4The following is the excerpt upon which this discussion is based:

Rahim (to give him his full name, Abdul Rahim Khan Khana) was one of the leading
lights of Akbar's court. He excelled equally as a general, administrator, scholar and
poet. He was so generous that it is difficult to say which were greater in him, the
gifts of the head or of the heart. He was the son of Bairam Khan, who was Akbar's
guardian in his period of minority, and he himself rendered meritorious service to
the emperor in a variety of ways. On account of the eminent position that he held
at the court and also of his personal greatness, he exerted a very great influence on
the cultural life of his times. He continued to live in the reign of Jahangir, though
he lost much of his influence and importance after the death of Akbar, who was his
great friend and patron.
Rahim is known primarily for his dohas, or couplets. These number more than
seven hundred and have been compiled in a Satsai. Rahim's couplets are exquisite
things. They do not only embody dessicated wisdom like the couplets of Vrinda,
nor like the couplets of Bihari do they refer only to the erotic interests of life. They
are a veritable trea~ure-house of human experience of the richest and noblest type.
In them we find worldly wisdom ennobled by the innate goodness of the poet's
heart. They are also remarkable for their artistic rounding-off, and in this they seem
to anticipate the dohas of Bihari or Padmakar. Besides the couplets, Rahim wrote
several other poems. His Barvai Nayika Bhed reveals not only his sensitiveness but
also his dexterity in the handling of barvai, a metrical form preeminently suited to
the genius of Avadhi. His other books are ...
40 CHAPTER 2

Digressions are also tolerated in the academic discourse of texts in German.

Clyne's (1981) description of a North American reviewer's reactions to the
English translation of Norbert Dittmar's Soziolinquistik as "chaotic" and show-
ing "lack of focus and cohesiveness," "haphazardness of presentation," and "des-
ultory organization" illustrates how a discourse structure with digressions can
make a text difficult for a reader from a different context. In this case, Clyne
explains, the text is an example of sociosemantic and pragmatic systems that
privilege content over form in German academic discourse, which allows more
digressive structures, known as Exkurse (literally excursions). The digressions,
which cover various areas of the author's expertise and general knowledge,
serve to convey the image of being learned and saying something scientifically
significant. Repetition is often necessary to bring a reader back to the main or
general point under discussion.
Frank (1988) has looked at a similar situation in the field of marketing,
specificaIIy, the method of direct-mail solicitation. Her study focuses on the
effect of a direct-mail offer (sales letter to purchase a book) written by a speaker
of a nonnative variety of English (Indian English) and sent to a native speaker
(American). Frank contends that while native-speaker recipients of the offer
may be able to comprehend the letter, they may not be persuaded to take ad-
vantage of the offer. This would happen, for example, if the discourse does
not conform to expected shared norms of understanding, that is, if readers cannot
apply conceptual frameworks which facilitate interpretation and enable them to
draw appropriate pragmatic inferences with respect to the amount and type of
information included in the letter or the style and tone of the offer. To illustrate,
Frank cites the sentence "We come back upon the correspondence resting with
the inclusion of your biographical note in the forthcoming volume of our "Bi-

Rahim's claims to greatness are manifold. He was a scholar and poet of catholic
taste and wide interests. He counted among his friends talented men without any
distinction between Hindus and Muslims, and likewise his works present a fine fusion
of all that was best in Hindu and Muslim ways of thought. He was a scholar of
Sanskrit and Persian besides being familiar with all the Hindi dialects that were
culturally important, and we find in his poetry a blending of words and ideas taken
from ancient Persian and Sanskrit poets and his own contemporaries. In this way
the poet brings together within the framework of his poetic creation the old and the
new and combines characteristically Hindu and Muslim ideas. Universality is his
most important quality. Rahim's other title to greatness is that he believed in doing
things well. Whatever he handled, he enriched and refined, and, therefore, it is dif-
ficult to find halting or unsatisfactory lines in his works. He tried his hands at a
variety of metrical forms, ... and wrote in Brajbhasa and Avadhi, and in every case
he achieved astounding success. When everything is considered, the conclusion be-
comes irresistible that Rahim is one of the outstanding figures in the realm of Hindi
literature (Ram Awadh Dwivedi: A Critical Survey a/Hindi Literature, Delhi, Motilal
Banarsi Dass, pp. 85-86).
Communicative Competence, Intelligibility, and Model 41

ography International" and thank you much indeed for your esteemed cooper-
ation in sending to us the same" (J 988:28). For a non-Indic, western reader
this sentence violates Grice's (1975) Maxim of Quantity: it is more informative
than necessary, is not direct in presenting its point, has considerable stylistic
ornamentation, and does not emphasize the information content. As a conse-
quence, it may have an unintended effect. The reader may ask why the writer
was not more succinct in expressing thanks for response to the initial corre-
spondence.
Differences in text organization across cultures are not restricted to aca-
demic texts or commercial correspondence. Literary studies contain abundant
examples of potential problems in interpretation due to a reader's unfamiliarity
with cultural norms and the culture-bound discourse conventions of the author.
These studies, like those of nonliterary texts, show to what extent meaning is
extralinguistic. Studies of "contact literature," in particular, provide a resource
for understanding the nature of the competence necessary for meaningful text
interpretation. This literature is a body of creative writing in English which is
significant stylistically and sociolinguistically; its texts are the product of multi-
cultural and multilingual communities and therefore express a national identity
and linguistic distinctiveness. Often these texts include a mixing of Western
and non-Western resources at the lexical, syntactic, and discoursal levels. The
work of South Asian authors writing in English is an example of a contact
literature which describes contexts not traditionally associated with the English
literature of Great Britian or the United States.
The work of the Indian author Raja Rao (J 963) is an excellent example
of the creative range of a writer using a second language to exploit and enlarge
it for expressing the Indian experience. The following excerpt from Kanthapura
provides an illustration of the Indian context at several linguistic levels:
"Today," he says, "it will be the story of Siva and Parvati." And Parvati in penance
becomes the country and Siva becomes heaven knows what! "Siva is the three-eyed,"
he says, "and Swaraj too is three-eyed: Self-purification, Hindu-Muslem unity, Khad-
dar." And then he talks of Damayanthi and Sakunthala and Yasodha and everywhere
there is something about our country and something about Swaraj. Never had we
heard Harikathas like this. And he can sing too, can Jayaramachar. He can keep us
in tears for hours together. But the Harikatha he did, which I can never forget in
this life and in all lives to come, is about the birth of Gandhiji. "What a title for a
Harikatha'" cried out old Venkatalakshamma, the mother of the Postmaster. "It is
neither about Rama nor Krishna!" - "But," said her son, who too has been to the
city, "but, Mother, the Mahatma is a saint, a holy man." - "Holy man or lover of
a widow, what does it matter to me? When I go to the temple I want to hear about
Rama and Krishna and Mahadeva and not all this city nonsense," said she. And
being an obedient son, he was silent. But the old woman came along that evening.
She could never stay away from a Harikatha. And sitting beside us, how she wept! ...
(cited in Y. Kachru 1983)
42 CHAPTER 2

The interpretation of this text by a reader not familiar with the Indian
context requires knowledge of the lexical and contextual features of this text
(e.g., knowledge of Siva and Parvati as Hindu gods, or of the significance of
the references to Gandhi and the political climate of his time) which distinguish
it culturally and historically from the body of literary texts generally identified
as English literature.

A Cline of Intelligibility

Intelligibility, like communicative competence, cannot be seen as an ab-

solute concept. To determine a speaker's intelligibility it is necessary to consider
the purposes for which the language is used and to whom it is spoken. Americans
cannot evaluate my Zambian friend's choice of topic to realize a function as
incorrect or his speech as unintelligible unless they are able to consider the
possibility that the cultural background of the speaker may be different from
their own and may have some bearing on why he is saying what he is saying
and what he means by saying it. The various examples of cross-cultural dis-
course considered above illustrate texts which are potentially unintelligible, or
more precisely, open to misinterpretation when readers/speakers are not familiar
with the sociocultural norms of the nonnative English speaker. A Zambian, to
be intelligible in the American English context, would have to learn the ap-
propriate means of expressing greeting behavior in a way interpretable to an
American. In an international or nonnative English national context, it is nec-
essary for the American to be familiar with the range of meanings and the
various interpretations of meaning possible for an utterance. In doing so the
American is increasing what Catford (1950: 13) calls one's "threshold of intel-
ligibility." Braj Kachru expresses this change thus: "an Englishman may have
to 'de-Englishize' himself, and an American may have to 'de-Americanize' him-
self in order to understand these national varieties" (1983 :238).
The concept cline of intelligibility has been proposed to describe a bilingual
speaker's range of intelligibility (B. Kachru 1977). One end of the cline iden-
tifies mutual intelligibility among all speakers of the language. At the other
extreme of the cline are speakers of a pidginized variety of English (e.g., Babu
English for the context of India). This range of placement of speakers along a
cline underscores the variability of language use; however, it is important to
bear in mind that it is not possible to fix speakers at one point on the cline.
The point at which they are located in a particular instance is determined by
the interlocutors and other features of the context of situation. A speaker may
use a pidginized variety for communication with pidgin English speakers and
a standard, educated variety with Standard English speakers, uses which would
situate this speaker at two different points on a cline of intelligibility.
Communicative Competence, Intelligibility, and Model 43

Model

As the discussions of communicative competence and intelligibility indi-

cate, the consideration of what it means to be a speaker of a particular language
requires an appreciation of diversity across and within languages. The concept
of model, like communicative competence and intelligibility, is also context
dependent and thus must also be regarded in functional, or pragmatic, terms,
that is, with respect to language use.
In pedagogical terms, the concept model implies a linguistic ideal which
a learner and teacher keep in mind in the course of language instruction. The
model represents a norm or standard for language use at all levels-from the
phonological to the discoursal. Selection of a model is a key decision in language
teaching. Often the terms norm and standard are used along with model to
identify the "correct" and "acceptable" variety of the language chosen, which
is based on that used by a segment of the educated population. Choice of a
particular model depends upon the communicative competence learners are to
develop and the speech community to whom they will be intelligible. A leamer's
progress is measured against the model: How closely does pronunciation ap-
proximate the desired norm? How well do written texts follow the conventions
for text construction? How well is the learner able to interpret texts? Can the
learner create texts that are intelligible, comprehensible and interpretable to other
members of the speech community? Can the learner appropriately realize the
functions needed in the contexts of the language?
The logical starting point for selection of a model is a consideration of (I)
the uses the learners will make of the language and (2) the users who are members
of the group in which learners will become members. Questions to be posed
include: Which functions does the language serve? Who are the users? Will they
use it in interaction with native speakers, other nonnative speakers, or both?
Although practical, this approach is not always the means for selection of
a model. Attitudinal, social, and pedagogical factors also playa role in model
choice. Learners may have a positive attitude toward a native-speaker variety
because they perceive knowledge of it as bestowing prestige. They may prefer
one native-speaker model over another for the same reasons. Some West Ger-
mans, for example, often have a preference for British English because the
American variety is perceived as more informal or less "correct," or they find
American pronunciation "vulgar." However, social factors may outweigh the
attitudinal factors and lead other West Germans to prefer the American model
because they want to be identified with the American image of being modem
and up-to-date.
Attitudinal surveys done in nonnative contexts offer some insight into the
question of an acceptable and appropriate model. In two separate studies,
44 CHAPTER 2

Indians' attitudes toward their own variety of English were surveyed. When
asked which variety they spoke, speakers identified their English as British En-
glish, although their pronunciation, use, and usage, while identifiable as English,
did not strictly conform to British norms (B. Kachru 1983). When West Germans
were asked in a pilot study of attitudes if some Germans spoke a variety of
English other than a native variety, a number responded "yes." Yet, when asked
to identify their variety of English these same respondents identified it with a
native variety. They appeared to reject the validity of a nonnative model without
recognizing that the features they consider "deviant" from a native norm may
appear in their own use of English (Berns 1988a).

Suitability of a Model

Meaningful answers to the question of a suitable model require knowledge

of the members of the local speech community, who they are and what their
attitudes toward English are. It is also necessary to know the purposes for which
the language will be used. Will the learner be interacting with others in an
international setting, such as international commerce? Or will the work context
be limited to administrative tasks within the speaker's culture? Will learners
need to write, listen, and read as well as speak English? A native-speaker variety
may be the best choice in some of these circumstances, while a local register-
oriented variety may be more appropriate in other situations.
In specifying a pronunciation model of English for teaching purposes, two
choices are generally acknowledged: American English and British English.
Choice of either, which is often attitudinally based, usually implies the standard
form of each variety. In the case of British English, Received Pronunciation
(RP) has traditionally been the preferred model. Also known as BBC (British
Broadcasting Corporation) English, educated English, and the Queen's English,
RP is generally associated with British public (American private) schools. It
has been estimated that only 3-5% of the English population speaks RP, a small
percentage which represents those in the upper level of the social scale as mea-
sured by education, income, profession, or title. Its association with status and
prestige explains one of the reasons for the learning of RP. Other reasons include
its being widely understood as a result of its availability on radio and television
around the world as well as in Britain. RP is also the most thoroughly described
of accents (Gimson 1980; Jones 1956), a critical factor in the preparation of
pedagogical materials. 5

5RP has been challenged a~ the appropriate standard for British English speakers. Nearly 40 years
ago. Abercrombie (1951: 14-15) presented three arguments against setting it up as the norm for
British English speakers:
Communicative Competence, Intelligibility, and Model 4S

While American and British varieties of English are acceptable as suitable

models in their respective "home" contexts, are they appropriate as models in
nonnative contexts? Should school children in rural Africa, for example, learn
a variety of English based on a model used by American school children? Or
should their English be one which ensures intelligibility with the members of
their local speech community? In light of available formal and functional de-
scriptions of nonnative varieties of English, it is evident that British and Amer-
ican English do not stand alone as possible standards and that norms can be
identified for African, Asian, and Southeast Asian varieties of English
(Bamgbose 1982; Bokamba 1982; B. Kachru 1983). Demands for mutual in-
telligibility between and among speakers of these varieties have resulted in the
creation of acceptable levels of communicative competence and intelligibility,
leading to the standardization of local, regional, national, and international va-
rieties.

Model and Attitudes

The issue of attitudes is at the center of the question of which model. In

former British colonies, where the prestige of RP speakers influenced the desire
to learn and speak RP and the concomitant standard of English, a change in
attitudes has led to the rejection of British English. In Nigeria, for example,
the use of RP accent may produce negative reactions since many Nigerians
will consider a Nigerian who speaks like a native speaker of English as affected
and snobbish. Thus, the aim in the teaching of English is no longer to produce
speakers of RP, but of Standard Nigerian English (Bamgbose 1971, 1982). Sey
describes a similar attitude in Ghana, where an imitation of RP is "frowned
upon as distasteful and pedantic" (1973:1). Hughes and Trudgill (1987) also
point out that even in Great Britain RP speakers may be considered affected,
particularly if their accent is "advanced RP", which is associated with the youn-
ger generation of speakers of highest social class and educated at the most
prestigious public schools.
The choice of RP for English learners in West Germany has been ques-
tioned on the grounds that it is not appropriate as the accent for working- and
middle-class school children growing up in West Germany's industrial region
since it is the pronunciation associated with the British upper class, especially

I. Recognition of such a standard variety is "an anachronism in present-day democratic

society."
2. It provides an "accent bar" reminiscent of the color bar.
3. It is also debatable whether RP represents "educated English" since RP speakers are
outnumbered by educated individuals who do not speak RP.
46 CHAPTER 2

graduates of the elite public schools. Further, while RP may be the model in
school, the learners realize that pronunciation in English is a flexible phenom-
enon. This is a result of exposure to a wide variety of accents within West
Gennany through radio broadcasts of the BBC, Radio Luxembourg, the United
States Anned Forces Network, as well as English language television broad-
casting available through cable and satellite capabilities.
An additional argument against setting up RP as the model is the varying
qualifications of teachers. Where the teachers are not native speakers (as in
Europe), the teachers themselves do not have native-like pronunciation. And if
they do, it may not be RP, since a number of teachers take advantage of study-
abroad opportunities in Scotland, Wales, and all regions of England as well as
in the United States. It may also be the case that native speakers teaching in
the schools come from Australia, Canada, the United States, or New Zealand.
English departments at the university level in Europe may pennit students
to select either American English or British English as their model for speaking
and writing, so long as they are consistent and do not mix them. This policy
works only in theory, since students are exposed to more than one variety of
English both in and outside the classroom, contact which can contribute to an
English that is a distinct blend of British, American, and European elements.
The attitude of the learners toward the variety of language they are learning
is also an important point to consider. Various learner reactions are related to
Strevens's (1977) observation that the choice of which variety of a foreign
language it is proper to teach is no longer always self-evident and is much
influenced by the growth of national, ethnic, and regional feelings of identity.
As a result, not all learners will want to sound like a native speaker. Some
learners will in fact take pride in their regionally identifiable accent, as does
T.T.B. Koh, Singapore's representative to the United Nations:
When one is abroad, in a bus or train or aeroplane and when one overhears someone
speaking, one can immediately say this is someone from Malaysia or Singapore.
And I should hope that when I'm speaking abroad my countrymen will have no
problem recognising that I am a Singaporean. (quoted in Tongue 1974:iv)

Unfortunately, not all learners share Koh's level of confidence and con-
sciousness, as this excerpt from the journal of a Japanese student learning En-
glish illustrates. It describes the leamer's desire to confonn to the native speaker
nonns set before him and the conflict he experienced as a result of achieving
them:
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. But 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
Communicative Competence, Intelligibility, and Model 47

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. (quoted in Preston 1981: 113: cited in Savignon 1983: 113)

A Polymodel Approach

Recognition of the variation within and among Englishes requires an ap-

proach to models consistent with the existence of language varieties, an approach
which B. Kachru identifies as "polymodel" and "based upon pragmatism and
functional realism" (1982a:50).
While a polymodel approach seems most reasonable given the sociocultural
dimensions of functional and formal diversity in speech communities requiring
knowledge of English, it is not generally accepted by English teaching special-
ists. Clifford Prator in particular has spoken out against setting up local varieties
as models, a practice he has reacted to very strongly because of its threat to
mutual intelligibility among English speakers. He has advocated a monomodel
approach in response to the opposite view which he considers "heretical":
The heretical tenet I feel I must take exception to is the idea that it is best, in a
country where English is not spoken natively but is widely used as the medium of
instruction, to set up the local variety of English as the ultimate model to be imitated
by those learning the language. (Prator 1968:459)

Prator maintains that the only suitable model is a native-speaker model.

He argues that international mutual intelligibility can only be assured if all
learners of English pattern their English after that of a native speaker. More
recently, Randolph Quirk has expressed a view similar to Prator's in many
respects. Quirk argues for the desirability of a global standard for English, claim-
ing that "the relatively narrow range of purposes for which the non-native needs
to use English is arguably well catered for by a single monochrome standard
form that looks as good on paper as it sounds in speech" (1985:6). Studies of
a ,variety of nonnative contexts (see Chapter 3) reveal substantial diversity in
the functional range, use, and purposes Englishes serve globally. In many cases
these uses and purposes are for intranational and local communication only.
Both of these characteristics challenge Quirk's claim.
The question of the necessity for mutual intelligibility has been investigated
in a variety of studies indicating that it is an unrealistic and unnecessary goal.
L. Smith and K. Rafiqzad focused on differences between the intelligibility of
educated native and nonnative speakers. The results of their study of 1,386
people in II Asian countries suggest that native-speaker English, in terms of
phonology, does not appear to be more intelligible than nonnative phonology.
Therefore, they state, "there seems to be no reason to insist that the performance
target in the English classroom be a native speaker" (J979:57). In a later study,
48 CHAPTER 2

L. Smith and J. Bisazza (1982) looked for significant differences in English

language comprehensibility for native and nonnative users when they were ex-
posed to three syntactically identical but phonologically different varieties of
English. Over 200 subjects in seven countries were asked to listen to an Amer-
ican, an Indian, and a Japanese reading comparable texts. The researchers found
that the extent of a listener's active exposure to a variety of English was a
more reliable determinant of comprehensibility than nationality. Smith and
Bisazza concluded that "the assumption that non-native students of English will
be able to comprehend fluent non-native speakers if they understand native
speakers is clearly not correct. They need exposure to both native and non-native
varieties in order to improve understanding and communication" (1982:270).
The question of model, just as of intelligibility, cannot be restricted to
matters of pronunciation. The identification of a norm for appropriate structures
of written and spoken texts also must be sensitive to the existence of a variety
of established, institutionalized patterns of discourse. If the teaching model, for
example, is the local variety used in register-bound contexts, the norms and
conventions of text structure created by the users of that variety will be realized
in the construction of texts. The members of this group recognize these texts
and their features as appropriate and acceptable in that context of situation,
and the texts are considered intelJigible and interpretable because their features
are part of the communicative competence of the speech community.
If the selection of the model is not made on the basis of learners' needs
for the language, the communicative competence and level of intelligibility
achieved are likely to be inappropriate for these learners. A realistic determi-
nation of model must then include consideration of the actual forms and func-
tions of the speech community with which learners will interact and the attitudes
of members of that speech community toward the language and its speakers.
A polymodel approach provides a means of addressing the question of "which
model" from a perspective which does not regard the concept of model as ab-
solute and which provides a basis for consideration of the diversity of the social
and cultural context as fundamental to any informed and realistic choice of
model for learners.
Communicative competence, intelligibility, and model are essential con-
siderations in pedagogical decisions regarding the goals and objectives for lan-
guage learning and teaching. These decisions, however, depend upon
recognizing the interdependence of these concepts and their relationship to the
sociocultural context in which a particular second or foreign language is being
learned. In the following chapter, the relationship of these concepts to context
is illustrated through an exploration of the nature of language learning and use
in nonnative language settings.
 CHAPTER 3
Sociolinguistic Profiles: India,
West Germany, and Japan

The preceding chapters focused on the nature of functional approaches to lan-

guage study and three sociolinguistic concepts-communicative competence, in-
telligibility, and model-and how they can be used to gain insight into language
use and pedagogy in nonnative contexts. This chapter considers three particular
contexts in which English is learned and used as a second or foreign language-
India, West Germany, and Japan. These countries are particularly interesting
for a look at nonnative contexts of language learning and use since each can
be associated with a distinct nonnative variety: English in India is an institu-
tionalized variety of English; Japanese English represents a performance variety.
English in West Germany represents a variety of English which is best placed
on a continuum between a performance and institutionalized variety.
The descriptions which emerge from a consideration of these unique set-
tings and their Englishes are called sociolinguistic profiles, a term suggested
by Charles Ferguson (1966) which has proven useful in characterizing the social
and linguistic context of language-use situations. The sociolinguistic profiles
offered here represent an exploration of processes of the nativization of English
which are responsive to the diverse aspects of language and language use and
the social and cultural parameters that influence the forms and functions of
English in these settings.
In addition to nativization of formal features at the phonological, morpho-
logical, lexical, and discoursal levels, the processes of Indianization, West Ger-
manization, and Japanization of English also occur with respect to functions
of language. Accordingly, the sociolinguistic profiles will include an analysis
of language use in each context. The categories for the analysis follow B.
Kachru's (l981b) functional framework, which folIows Bernstein (1971) in la-
beling the categories. Each category refers to a distinct use of language: the
regulative function relates to the administrative and legal systems; the instru-
mental function is identified with the education system; the use of language

49
50 CHAPTER 3

across ethnic, religious, and social groups identifies the interpersonal function;
the imaginative/innovative function represents the creative use of language in
such areas as literature or advertising.
Fonnal and functional manifestations are not the only relevant issues to
consider in drawing up a sociolinguistic profile. Attitudes of speakers toward
a language have significant influence on the nativization of a language and
need to be recognized as an integral part of the sociocultural reality of English
in nonnative contexts. Attitudes also influence the tradition of English language
teaching in each context which, in turn, has an impact on the proficiency level
and kind of competence that learners in the classroom setting eventually achieve
and develop. Thus, the fonnal, functional, attitudinal, and pedagogical dimen-
sions are essential components of a sociolinguistic description that aims to iden-
tify the nature of the language variety associated with a particular context of
use and to serve as a frame of reference for an understanding of how and why
language "is as it is" in that context.

India

The role of English in India can be described in a variety of tenns. From

a pedagogical perspective it is viewed as a second language because it is acquired
after the first language, or mother tongue. Serving as a nonn for use and usage
among Indian speakers, it is an institutionalized language; officially it has the
constitutional status of "associate official language." The tenns "second" and
"institutionalized" alone, however, are not adequate for an understanding of the
pragmatics of English in the sociolcultural context of India. Needed is an ap-
proach that brings the implications of these tenns together and looks at the com-
plexity and diversity of the uses and purposes associated with each tenn.l

Attitudes toward English

In India, English is associated with elitist, professional, and administrative

power and authority. Its symbolic status can be traced to the period of colonial

lWhile the complex and diverse nature of English in India and its sociolinguistic parameters are
the focus of this section, this discus ion is not exhaustive. Extensive documentation of the
development of Indian English is available in a number of publications. One authority on Indian
English, Braj Kachru, ha~ documented the development of this unique variety and has contributed
to a description of its formal and functional manifestations. Much of the data presented in this
discussion is drawn from his 1983 publication, The Indianization of English: The English Language
in India (Delhi: Oxford), which also includes an extensive bibliography of relevant publications
and sources of linguistic data.
Sociolinguistic Profiles: India, West Germany, and Japan 51

rule when English was formally established as the official and academic lan-
guage of India, replacing Sanskrit, Persian, and the vernaculars. Replacement
of indigenous languages was achieved by the imposition of British and Western
educational systems and values and by the Indian bourgeoisie's need to get
along with the British. Acceptance of a Western-style education was an impor-
tant signifier of position in the new social structure. Ultimately, English became
associated with prestige and status and acquired a privileged position in most
walks of life. Individuals who were bilingual in English and another language
were regarded as members of a superior class.
By the time the British left India in 1947, English had become an indis-
pensable tool for higher education and intellectual discourse and had been ap-
propriated as a productive power in dealing with the colonizers and in gaining
access to Western knowledge and technology. Although it was no longer as
favored a medium of instruction in the schools as it had been under the Raj,
use of English continued for official as well as unofficial purposes after inde-
pendence. Due to lack of widespread acceptance of Hindi as the national lan-
guage, especially in the southern states, the use of English as an associate official
language persisted even beyond the deadline for its removal in January 1965.
In bilingual situations when social position is associated with knowing a
prestige language, it is common for individuals to attempt to conceal their lack
of competence in it. The multilingual context of India, where English language
use continues to be a status marker, is no exception. In a pilot study of English
language use in India, Ghosh and Datta (1983) found that Indians were not
always accurate when asked about their need for or their proficiency in English.
Although their work required considerably more written than spoken use, many
wanted more teaching in the spoken use of language. Several self-rated their
competence much higher than the interviewers rated it. The researchers attribute
this behavior as a response to the status associated with proficiency in English.
Admitting little need for or little competence in the language, they assert, would
result in being stigmatized as socially and culturally inferior.
A sense of inferiority can also be observed among parents with children
in primary and secondary school. Parents say it is the quality of education at
public schools, where English is the medium of instruction, that makes them
superior to the vernacular-medium schools. In a study of parents' attitudes to-
ward English- and non-English-medium schools, Jha (1979) found that most of
the educated people surveyed preferred to send their children to an English-
medium school. Nonliterates also considered English-medium schools superior
to the vernacular schools. Among the parents surveyed, the quality of the ed-
ucation their children received was not the criterion used as the basis for the
choice; rather, it was the belief that education in English is related to a higher
standard of living, better jobs, and prestige.
52 CHAPTER 3

The Use~ and Uses

The use of English in India is not restricted to a single social or economic
class. However, amount of use varies. It has been estimated that English is
used extensively by approximately 5% of the population, which comprises the
entire leadership of India's economic, industrial, professional, political, and so-
cial life. A large proportion of these users are concentrated in the largest cities,
where English is the common language. In some families, English may even
be the language used at home among family members. These users represent
the English-knowing elite who can afford to send their children to privately
supported English-medium schools. Although they may have fewer occasions
for use of English than the elite, travel guides, letter carriers, and shop-keepers
also use English to some extent. Civil servants and teachers of English use
English to a greater degree. While it may not be the home language, it is nec-
essary among these users for business, professional, and legal transactions.
In terms of its functional range, English serves well-established and sig-
nificant purposes for its users. Education, law, government administration, in-
terpersonal communication, and literature are areas in which English is utilized
for special functions within Indian society.

The Regulative Function

As the associate official language in India, English serves the regulative

function in the areas of the law and administration. Although there have been
efforts to introduce the use of regional languages in higher and lower courts,
English is still used extensively in the legal system, at least at the higher levels.
The Indian Bar Council claims this is necessary to insure "national integration"
and "all India" standards. For administrative purposes, different languages are
used at various levels. However, English is the dominant language at higher
levels and is used more than any other language in advertising and publications
by central and state governments.
It is through texts written in English that information about the various
parts of India and information distributed by the national government throughout
India is made accessible. Thus, as an intranational "link language," English
serves as the primary unifying force in a country of more than 1,652 mother
tongues and 15 languages recognized as major by the Constitution.

The Instrumental Function

English is the medium of instruction in the schools of 23 states and union

territories. At the tertiary level, it is the medium of instruction in 19 universities
Sociolinguistic Profiles: India, West Germany, and Japan 53

and holds a dominant position in 83 universities. 2 It is the main medium of

learning at the postgraduate level. Textbooks printed in English are standard
in the educational system at the tertiary level and are considered essential for
access to advanced technological and scientific information, which is primarily
available from English language sources outside India. Where English is not
the medium of instruction, the "library language" function of English is stressed
(Verma 1987:421).

The Interpersonal Function

The interpersonal function is related to the use of English as an international

and intranational link language. Knowledge of an internationally intelligible va-
riety of English enables Indians to participate in intellectual and political dis-
course with other nonnative as well as native English speakers. It is generally
the case that educated speakers using English have the same cultural background
but do not necessarily share linguistic backgrounds. Thus, knowledge of an
intranationally intelligible variety enables communication between regions and
states with nonmutually intelligible indigenous languages or dialects.

The Imaginative/Innovative Function

The imaginative/innovative function is characterized by the use of English

in creative contexts. Literature in English by Indian authors is one example of
their creativity in the use of the colonizers' language to represent Indian culture,
society, and typical contexts. The history of creative writing in English by non-
native users goes back 200 years, but it is in the last 40 or 50 years that this
literature has matured and come to be regarded as a national literature (Iyengar
1962; B. Kachru 1982c). Themes and plots are concerned with the ways of
life and people of India, and as a result Indian English literature has become
increasingly important as a means of expressing Indian culture. Significant fac-
tors in its acceptance are the growth of bilingualism in English, which has
brought about an increase in the size of its potential audience and the increase
through creative writing of the representation of English in registers other than
the legal and administrative. Sridhar refers to this change as the "de-bureau-
cratization of English," which is the result of "the increasing confidence with
which non-native writers came to handle the language in registers other than
the legal and administrative" (1982:291-292).

2The Commonwealth Universities Yearbook 1988 (London: Association of Commonwealth

Universities) reports 178 universities in India as of 1987.
54 CHAPTER 3

Linguistic Innovation and Adaptation

Nativization has been sufficiently extensive to establish Indian English

as a variety alongside American, British, Canadian, New Zealand, and Aus-
tralian English. Appropriation of English began in the 19th century as a gradual
but steady process of "Indianization" at all linguistic levels, that is, phonetic,
grammatical, lexical, and semantic. Speakers' production of "deviations" from
native forms identify their unique variety. One distinctive feature of Indian
English, as spoken in the Hindi region, is the insertion of a high vowel before
clusters such as sk, st, sp, resulting in [Ipsik]. Deviations in stress, rhythm,
and intonation are more striking features and contribute significantly to its
distinctiveness as a new English. Syllable-timing in Indian languages as op-
posed to the stress-timing of English results in a rhythm based on long and
short syllables instead of stressed and unstressed syllables. The differences
can be traced to characteristics of Indian languages, which are transferred to
English.
Examples of nativization at the grammatical level include omission of the
reflexive pronoun, use of transitive verbs in place of intransitive verbs and vice
versa, use of isn't it as an invariant tag in tag questions, and high frequency
of reduplication of nouns and verbs as well as other items from other word
classes. At the lexical level nativization can be observed in processes applied
to items transferred from Indian languages. Hybridization identifies the forma-
tion of a lexical item which comprises two or more elements, at least one of
which is from English (e.g., lahti-charge, Babu-English). Collocational differ-
ences also contribute to the Indianness of English. To break rest, America-re-
turned, and bangled-widow are illustrations of lexical innovations. The extension
of the semantic features of a lexical item illustrates nativization at the semantic
level. For example, boy is used to refer to a male who performs the domestic
services of "bearer" or a waiter.
Nativization processes can also be observed in the work of creative writers
who employ them as a means of expressing culture in literature. Not only are
culturally specific lexical items used to refer to indigenous concepts and objects,
but, in addition to these formal features, patterns related to the social context
of India are represented. Valentine (1985) illustrates, for example, how gen-
der-specific rules of speech among Hindi speakers, such as nonuse of proper
names and use of kinship indicators and deference markers meaningful in the
context of India, are carried over into texts by creative writers. This transference
of linguistic behavior from Hindi to Indian English contributes toward a text
that can convey underlying indicators of attitude, sex-role stereotyping, and eval-
uative perceptions of one gender by another.
Sociolinguistic Profiles: India, West Germany, and Japan 55

Communicative Competence and the Cline of Englishes

Indian English, like other Englishes, is not a homogeneous language. There

is no single standard or norm to which speakers confonn. Therefore, commu-
nicative competence in this variety has to be identified with respect to the in-
dividual user and the uses made of the language. Up to this point, the features
of Indian English that have been addressed are those of the "standard" or the
"educated" variety, yet, as discussed above, English is also used by bilinguals
who are minimally proficient. Their competence is restricted to items relevant
to their employment, for example, postman, "bearer," or travel guide. The labels
"Babu-English," butler English" or "kitchen English" have been used to distin-
guish their competence from that of professionals or Indian English writers.
Just as proficiency levels differ, so do speakers' needs. For example, not every
speaker will need English for the four functions described above. Nor will they
need it for speaking as wel1 as writing.
Because there are varieties within a variety, observable differences in pro-
ficiency levels, and diverse reasons for using English, it is necessary to speak
of competence in the plural, that is, in tenns of communicative competences.
The concept of a cline (B. Kachru 1965) makes the relationship of these com-
petences clearer and aids in appreciating the range of proficiency found among
Indian English speakers. With three measuring points-the zero point, the mid-
point, and the ambilingual point-it is possible to situate the users. Postmen,
travel guides, and "bearers" can be placed just above the zero point; they may
use English occasionally, but would not be considered proficient. A large num-
ber of Indian civil servants and teachers who learned English as their major
subject at university represent the midpoint; they are able to use it effectively
in such fields as the law, administration, and science. Speakers who can be
placed near the ambilingual point are highly proficient and are intelligible not
only to other Indians but also to educated native speakers outside India; they
are able to communicate with an international audience. Political leaders such
as Gandhi and Nehru or the literary figures of Narayan and Rao are examples
of speakers who would be situated at this point on the cline.

English Language Teaching

Variation in use among the 23 million or so speakers of English can also

be understood in tenns of educational parameters. Chief among these parameters
is the rationale for teaching English, the language teaching tradition, actual
teaching practices, and new approaches to language teaching.
56 CHAPTER 3

After independence, English was looked upon as "a mark of slavery" and
no longer favored as the medium of instruction in schools. It could be taught,
however, as a second or foreign language in schools which did not continue
its use as the medium. Today, since education and educational policy are con-
trolled by the states, there are marked regional differences in the educational
policies and in the role of English in each state. For example, in 23 states and
union territories it is the medium of instruction, while it is a second, third, or
optional language elsewhere.
However, there is an attempt at a national language policy for India, which
is known as the "three language policy." This policy was approved by Parlia-
ment, incorporated into the National Policy on Education in 1968, and was
endorsed by all the states and union territories (except two). English is given
more time, weight, and attention than any other language, including the first
language, which is probably related to its role in higher education (Chaturvedi
and Mohale 1976). The teaching of the mother tongue or regional language
begins in the first standard (age 6) and continues for 10 years. The second
language, the official language of the union (Hindi) or the associate official
language (English), is a compulsory subject for six years from the fifth standard
(age 10) to the tenth standard (age 15). In classes eight (age 13) to ten (age
15) all students are required to study three languages, the third being a modem
Indian or foreign language that is not a mother tongue, regional, official, or
associate language and not the language used as medium of instruction.
All universities, graduate colleges, and junior colleges have separate de-
partments for the teaching of English. At the tertiary level, language study in
either the mother tongue or English is known as "compulsory additional," which
means that students have to take an examination in one of these languages, but
do not have to pass it for graduation.
Among adult learners, good employment and social recognition provide
immediate motivation for becoming proficient in English. One result of the
increasing demand for proficiency is its use in on-the-job training programs.
While it is true that English is required for government employment (i.e., the
regulative function), it is necessary to know more than one needs for the duties
associated with the position itself in order to be successful in job interviews,
many of which are conducted in English. Spoken English is often required for
the interview, while written English may be all that is essential for the position
itself. This difference between the requirement and the actual use of English
on the job reveals an inconsistency similar to that found in Ghosh and Datta's
survey.
In many cases, placement in a position that will bring both money and
status (e.g., work with the Indian Administrative Service, bank officers' jobs,
or college teaching) are the ultimate motivation for obtaining a university ed-
ucation. The chances for obtaining one of these positions are enhanced by the
Sociolinguistic Profiles: India, West Germany, and Japan 57

kind of advanced training and extensive experience in English gained by at-

tending an English medium university. Knowledge of English is also essential
for those who want to explore employment possibilities outside their geograph-
ical region.
Traditional approaches and methodology in English language teaching
stress literary and formal content and rote learning. The texts used at both pri-
mary and secondary levels are often essays and poetry, written more than 60
years ago, and selected on the basis of their "high moral content" (Ghosh and
Datta 1983). This is the consequence of setting outmoded cultural aims and
literary appreciation with its attendant promotion of Western literature and
Christian culture as top priority and of ignoring the role of English as a South
Asian contact language.
There is a movement away from these aims and priorities. The nature of
language teaching is in a state of transition from traditional approaches toward
views that are more responsive to the needs of Indian society and learners of
English. Just as the English language has been adapted to suit the needs of its
Indian users, schools are finding means of adapting their approaches to the
social realities of English users and use in India. The British Council has been
instrumental in introducing new approaches to English language teaching. The
Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages, set up in Hyderabad in
1958, has taken a leading role in training teachers and defining the goals of
language teaching and thus has contributed to significant changes in the teaching
of English.

West Germany

The role of English in West Germany can be described as a performance

variety and as a foreign language. These terms distinguish it from the role of
English in India in significant ways. The term foreign language reflects the
pedagogical status of English as a language which is learned formally, outside
of the native context and with reference to a native-speaker model. This status
implies that the main learning objective is providing learners direct access to
native speakers and their cultures. The term performance variety refers to its
role for its users. This label implies that the users rely upon a native rather
than nativized model as the acceptable standard and norm to approximate. Al-
though performance status has been claimed for English by Gorlach and
Schroder (1985), who maintain that the English spoken by West Germans and
taught in the schools is solely determined by an external norm, the following
sociolinguistic profile suggests that the English used in and outside the class-
room can be described as German English and that performance standards need
to be adjusted accordingly. This position challenges the long-standing view that
58 CHAPTER 3

English is a foreign, not a second, language in this particular European social

and cultural context.
As with the description of English in India, attitudinal, functional, and
pedagogical perspectives will be reviewed to determine the sociolinguistic pro-
file. The issue of its status as a foreign or second language and as a performance
or institutionalized variety will also be addressed in the discussion of English
language teaching.

Attitudes toward English

Germans' attitudes toward English have changed over years of contact be-
tween Germans and English speakers. These attitudes have influenced the extent
to which English has an impact on the West German language or culture. Prior
to the 19th century, influence from English was limited to that of literary move-
ments and the British system of government. In other domains during that pe-
riod, French was the language of diplomacy and fashion and German was the
language of science and scholarship. In the 19th century a few English words
were introduced from Britain, an influence more strongly apparent in such north-
ern commercial centers as Hamburg than elsewhere. World War I marks the
beginning of the displacement of French and German in science and scholarship
by English, particularly British English. This change also marks the shift from
French to English as the first foreign language in the education system. The
outcome of World War II supported the transition that had been introduced
some 20 years earlier, but with a new accent. With an Allied victory, American
English was introduced into Europe in greater proximity and through large num-
bers of native speakers wearing the uniforms of military personnel. The Amer-
ican variety soon took the place of British English among the Germans and
began to spread among the general population.
Different reasons can be cited for continuing expansion in the use of Amer-
ican English. The network of cultural institutions known as the "Amerikahiiuser"
contributes by providing a meeting place and dissemination point for literature,
popular publications, and information about American social and political in-
stitutions. Not least significant is the role played by films, television, and radio.
The media is recognized as playing a particularly decisive role in the fifties
and sixties in the spread of new items and in aiding their establishment in the
speech of the general public within only a few days. This rate of spread is in
sharp contrast to the time of Goethe and Schiller, when it often took years
before a new word came into general use. Simple exposure to the media, how-
ever, is not sufficient to account for the postwar fascination of many West
Germans with things American, both material and linguistic.
Sociolinguistic Profiles: India, West Germany, and Japan 59

The attitude of the Gennans themselves after the war, in tandem with in-
creased contact with American English, played a substantial role in the spread
of English. Politically, West Gennany adopted a supranational point of view
and was consciously more open to the world at large. The outgrowth of this
outlook was an increase in the use of English words and expressions, a trend
distressing to purists in both West Gennany and Britain. In 1960 the London
Times, referring to West Gennany's postwar condition, proclaimed: "The lan-
guage also seems to have suffered defeat."
Interest in America, its culture and its language, was particularly marked
in the 1960s. Such words as hit parade, know-how, do-it-yourself, and babysitter
were adopted, not only for the actual concepts or objects they referred to but
also as symbols of American values, attitudes, and modernity. The desire to
identify with this modern society is captured in Goriach and SchrOder's (1985)
illustration of a Gennan school child's postwar distinction between "good" and
"bad" English. The "progressive, useful English" heard on the radio in the af-
ternoon after school was "good"; what one had to learn at school in the morning
was "bad."
Although attitudes toward American culture may be changing as a result
of increasingly negative estimations of American foreign and economic policies,
the use of the language does not appear to be losing its prestige value, which
penetrates even the highest levels of government. The Sunday Times, for ex-
ample, has reported that West Gennany's chancellor, Helmut Kohl, is known
to pepper his speeches with "Gennlish" by using der Housing-Boom instead
of der Auf~chwung in Wohnungsbau. The West Gennan weekly newsmagazine
Der Spiegel has attributed Mr. Kohl's choice of English to his desire to appear
as sophisticated and cosmopolitan as his predecessor, Helmut Schmidt, who is
fluent in English (Moynahan 1983).
In addition to its prestige function, English plays a substantial pragmatic
role in the fields of science and technology. Concerns about the extent of
its use have been expressed by the director of the Duden dictionary editorial
office, who regards the increasing publication of research results in English
or the presentation of them outside of Europe before doing so in West Ger-
many as "a tragedy" for the scientific register of Gennan (Suddeutsche
Zeitung, February 3, 1983). There is also fear that at the frontiers of knowl-
edge the exclusive use of English means there are no generally recognized
and unambiguous technical tenns available in Gennan. Denison (1981) reports
that a further consequence of conducting scientific debates in English is a
growing embarrassment among some scholars at their inability to use their
native language in their area of specialization when they are called upon to
do so.
60 CHAPTER 3

The Users and Uses

In tenns of functional allocation, English is more limited in West Gennany

than it is in India. Only three categories of function are represented in the
sociolinguistic context of English in this setting-the instrumental, interpersonal,
and imaginative/innovative.

The Instrumental Function

Usually related to the status of a language as a medium of instruction, the

instrumental function is interpreted more broadly for the West Gennan context
to include the role of English in the public school curriculum. Although the
educational system requires the teaching of foreign languages, Gennan remains
the medium of instruction in elementary and secondary schools (except in a
small number of private international schools). At the university level, however,
it is possible that English is the medium of instruction in English Department
seminars if the faculty feel comfortable using English. However, this is rarely
the case since these individuals use it primarily as a research tool.
The instrumental function can also be described by its place in the school
curriculum. English is the first foreign language in nearly all schools. Grade 5
is generally the starting point, although experimental programs for third graders
also have been available in the State of Hesse (Gompf 1986). Taught to all
children for six years, instruction after grade lOis dependent upon the learners'
future plans for education and employment, which are related to the instrumental
and interpersonal functions. After grade 10, some learners go on to a college
preparatory program, others to apprenticeships, while still others begin training
in technical institutes. Advanced instruction traditionally has been reserved for
those planning to go on to the university; however instruction is becoming more
common at technical institutes, where English is taught as a means of commu-
nication and learning. This orientation contrasts with that of the college prepa-
ratory school (Gymnasium) which teaches English as a cultural object, focusing
on the language and literature of Great Britain and the United States.
The prominence of English in the school curriculum also is reflected in
the number of English teachers graduated each year. Depending upon an indi-
vidual state's system of higher education, teachers are prepared at a
Piidagogische Hochschule (teaching college) or in the Seminar fiir Didaktik
(teacher preparation program) of university English departments. In the 1985-86
academic year, English teachers were among the 24,455 of the 1,367,369 stu-
dents enrolled at the tertiary level who majored in British/American Studies.
These numbers indicate the popularity of English over Romance languages, for
Sociolinguistic Profiles: India, West Germany, and Japan 61

example, which showed an enrollment of only 19,874 during the same period
(Statistisches Bundesamt. Wieshaden 1987).

The Interpersonal Function

The interpersonal function is realized in two senses. One is its use as a

symbol of prestige and modernity, as illustrated by the use of English by public
figures and by the media. The other is its use as a link language between speak-
ers of various national and regional languages in the pluralistic context of Eu-
rope.
International meetings are one particular setting for this function, where
peculiarly European uses of tenses and lexical items have been observed. For
example, when used in the European context, English eventual is used to mean
possihle and English actual is used to mean topical, showing transference from
European languages (e.g., German eventuell and aktuell). Especially interesting
about this phenomenon is the adaptation that has been observed among native
speakers who find themselves using such features as a communicative strategy
when talking with nonnative users (Ferguson 1982).
English also fulfills the interpersonal function on the job market. The
chances for good employment motivate many adults to learn English, especially
those at the technical level, in secretarial and clerical positions, and at some
levels of industry and management. In German corporations, in particular, En-
glish is used in many situations for a variety of reasons. S. Smith (1987) points
out that a large percentage of the business of a typical large firm (e.g., Siemens
GmbH or Schering AG) both at home and abroad involves dealing with for-
eigners. Much of this business is conducted in various languages, with English
the single most important. Individual employees frequently find English nec-
essary for advancement, and many positions simply cannot be filled by an em-
ployee who cannot communicate in it. To meet the corporations' needs for
qualified employees who are proficient, many firms offer in-house courses.
The classified ads page of a West German newspaper with national dis-
tribution, such as Die Zeit, illustrates the market value of knowledge of English
(Berns 1988b). Advertisers in both the "positions sought" and the "positions
offered" columns include proficiency in English as a qualification. Among those
seeking positions is a journalist with "perfect" knowledge of English, a me-
chanical engineer with several years experience of technical English, and a social
worker with "good" knowledge of English. Among the positions offered is a
sales position for an engineer with a "good" knowledge of English (in addition
to a willingness to travel throughout Europe) and a position in a pharmaceutical
firm for a products manager with a mastery of the English language.
Exactly what is meant by "mastery" or "good" and "perfect" knowledge
is not specified, but it is evident that high salaries and prestige positions are
62 CHAPTER 3

related to some knowledge of and ability to use English. There are also less
prestigious positions for which English can be essential, especially in the tourist
industry. Individuals in this area find it helpful in serving the 9 million people
who come to West Germany as tourists from all over the world each year.
The ability to use English is not restricted, then, to anyone level of society.
Proficiency varies with the actual competence associated with uses made of it
at each level and for each function. Users represent a cline of proficiency which
ranges from the speaker able to interact on the international level to the indi-
vidual whose knowledge is restricted to a set of lexical items which are mixed
with German. At a midpoint on the cline is the user whose use is limited to
one mode, for example, a physicist who can draft research reports but is unable
to speak conversationally on a nontechnical subject.

The Imaginative/Innovative Function

In the sociolinguistic profile of India, the imaginative/creative function was

linked to literature in English written by Indians with themes and plots con-
cerned with India, its culture, and its people. West Germany cannot claim its
own literature in English, but imagination and creativity is evident in nonliterary
spoken and written texts. Through such linguistic processes as borrowing, ab-
breviation, and hybridization, West Germans nativize English to suit their unique
sociolinguistic needs. A number of innovations resulting from these processes
are illustrated in the next section.

Linguistic Innovation and Adaptation

Gorlach and SchrOder have claimed that "there is no 'nativization' of En-

glish in Europe" and that "one can have no doubt that all countries in Europe
(outside of Britain and Ireland)" fall into the English as a foreign language
category, with "the teaching and usage norms being derived from outside the
respective countries" of Europe (1985:227). The nature of English language
use in West Germany and the adaptations German speakers have made at the
phonetic, lexical, semantic, and functional levels do not support this claim. Con-
tact with English and the prestige associated with it have had subsequent impact
on language use and usage, as has been the case in other regions where English
is used (e.g., South and Southeast Asia, Africa). Unique patterns of functional
allocation are one manifestation of this language contact situation. Extensive
lexical borrowing also has been a productive process.
There are an estimated 80,000 lexical items among borrowings in German.
The words listed in Table J, only a fraction of this number, illustrate the nature
and extent of borrowing into the nontechnical register. The list, included in the
Sociolinguistic Profiles: India, West Germany, and Japan 63

Table 1. English Words Familiar to German Learners

Action Disc jockey LP Roast beef

Baby Disco Made in Getmany Roller skates
Baby sitter Do-it-yourself Make-up Sandwich
Bar Drink Manager Scotland Yard
Basketball Fair Match Service
Beefsteak Fan Matchbox car Sheriff
Blue jeans Fann Milk shake Shop
Body building Festival Miss Shopping center
Boiler Fifty-fifty Mister Shorts
Boot~ Fit Mixer Show
Boss Foul Motel Single
Box Gag Music box Soft ice
Boy Gangster No Song
Bubble gum Gentleman Non-stop Spray
Butler Girl Off/on Star
Camping Golf O.K. Steak
Caravan Grapefruit Oldie Stewardess
Center Hairspray Party Story
Chewing gum Hit Pipeline Supetmarket
City Hobby Playboy Swimming pool
Clever Interview Player T-shirt
Clown Jeep Pony Team
Colt Jet Pop Teenager
Comic Job Popcorn Test
Computer Ketchup Pop song Toast
Corned beef Killer Pullover Toaster
Cornflakes Lady Quiz Western
Cotton Lift Ranch Whisky
Country music Lord Reporter Yes
Cowboy
Source: H. E. Piepho et al., 1987. Contacts 5: Rasic Course. Kamp. p. 5.

opening pages of an English language teaching text for West German public
schools, is intended to demonstrate to first-year learners just how much English
they already "know."
Linguistic motivation has been sought for the borrowing of English words.
It has been suggested that the borrowing of monosyIlabic words in particular
is a response to a modem need or desire for short words. Another explanation
offers that the English words are phonologicaIly less complex and therefore
easier to pronounce than an existing equivalent in German. Such a case would
be the choice of jet over Diisenjiiger, or pilot over Flugzeug{iihrer, or the sports
term foul over regelwidrig (Moser 1974; Priebsch and ColJinson 1966). These
suggestions are dubious, however, in light of the evidence supporting more pow-
erful factors in the borrowing process, for example, the need to name new
64 CHAPTER 3

inventions, products, and concepts, the pressure for more precise terminology
in such fields as medicine, chemistry, or computer science, or the desire to
display familiarity with a foreign language and thus enhance one's social status.
Such communicative strategies afford the individual and group an expanded
range of linguistic means to achieve a variety of social ends without necessarily
becoming completely bilingual.
In their use of English words, German speakers have nativized the bor-
rowings. In response to linguistic and cultural forces, they have "de-American-
ized" or "de-Anglicized" these lexical items through a variety of linguistic and
cultural processes.
Nativization in spelling or orthography of borrowed items is generally lim-
ited to capitalization of nouns or the insertion of a hyphen (e.g., Swimming-Pool,
Hit-Parade). Verbs are inflected as German roots are, with -en or -ieren as the
infinitival marker (e.g., parken, checken, managen, frustrieren) and ge- and -t
as the regular verb past participle marker (e.g., geparkt, gecheckt, gemanagt).
Abbreviation occurs when some part of a word or phrase is omitted, as
with Profi from professional (in referring to a professional athlete), Pulli from
pullover, Twen from twenty, and last, not least from last, but not least. Twen
is particularly interesting because it originally was created as the title of a mag-
azine for West Germans in their early twenties. As a result of the magazine's
popularity, it eventually came into use to fill a lexical gap.
One last group of nativized forms are those words which result from the
combination of an English word with a German word: show business becomes
Showgeschiift, test car becomes Testwagen, and playback recorder becomes
Playback-Tonband. This process is also used to expand the semantic range of
an item. Such is the case with Hollywood-Schaukel which is the name for a
couchlike swing with its own awning designed for patio or balcony, a feature
of many middle-class West German homes. 3

English Language Teaching

The choice of a norm to serve as the classroom model for pronunciation

and usage is one obvious influence on English language teaching in West Ger-
many. The variety that graduates of language teaching preparation programs
are expected to teach is officially based on external norms, namely, that of
British English. For pronunciation, this is generally understood as Received Pro-
nunciation (RP). These norms have been followed in spite of contrary views.
Atkinson (1975), one opponent of setting RP as the standard, points out that
adherence to British norms produces behavior that is unidomatic and inappro-

3See Berns (1988b) for further discussion of borrowing processes for English in German.
Sociolinguistic Profiles: India, West Germany, and Japan 65

priate. Heinz Wittman (1981), expressing a different view in an editorial in the

Frankfurter Allgemeine, regards the language that Atkinson labels unidiomatic
and inappropriate as the result of striving toward "careful and cultivated lan-
guage" among learners in both spoken and written self-expression.
However, British English pronunciation and "careful and cultivated lan-
guage" do not necessarily conform to the standards represented by the teachers,
many of whom can only approximate the standards themselves, or to the needs
of all learners. Consequently, what began as adherence to an external British
standard has been slowly developing into an internal German English standard,
an inevitable development given that English instruction takes place in the in-
stitutionalized domain of the sociolinguistic and linguistic reality of the German
language. Thus is it not surprising, as Hans-Eberhard Piepho, German language
teaching methodologist and teacher educator, makes clear, that nonnative-speak-
ing teachers, as a result of contact through media and their own representation
of the language and the culture. bring a West German reality of English into
the classroom and, with it, their own variety of English. In addition to recog-
nition of the social and cultural realities of English, Piepho also argues for a
change of attitude in the area of learner errors. He maintains that greater tol-
erance toward the deviations from the norm can emerge only if English is rec-
ognized as a second language and, consequently, as a variant of the standard
native variety. A renunciation of norms based on a so-called Standard English
is advocated, at least for those learners who will never achieve a usable, although
"correct" competence when native normative standards are applied (1979).
Attitudes toward language and recognition of nonnative norms not only
affect the choice of a model for learners, but they also influence approaches
to language teaching. During the 1970s, two political developments, the school
reform movement and revised curriculum guidelines, had a profound impact
on English language teaching in West Germany. As a consequence of general
school reform, a change in attitude emerged toward teaching in general and
language teaching in particular. One result of general reform was the creation
in some states of the integrated comphehensive school. This school type com-
bined the traditional, separately administered forms of the lower secondary
school under a joint administration. The forms brought together were the
Hauptschule (grades 1-9), which offers a diploma qualifying graduates for train-
ing in skilled trades, the Realschule (grades 1-10), which offers a diploma qual-
ifying graduates for training in business and commercial occupations, and the
Gymnasium (grades 5-13), which prepares students for higher education.
Although one of the objectives of the new school form was to minimize
the social differences the previous forms reinforced, pupils were tracked for
some subjects, including English. In Hesse, for example, the "A" track was for
the more proficient, with "B" and "C" for the less proficient learners. As a
result of tracking, English took over the role that Latin once held of screening
66 CHAPTER 3

out the "bright" students from the masses. Christoph Edelhoff (1981), director
of the teacher in-service training center for Hesse, highlights the irony of this
development in observing that it is taking place at a time of greater international
contact among people and a growing awareness of the practical value of being
able to speak another language, English in particular.
Efforts to change tracking for English and the consequent elitist tendencies
had the aim of "humanizing" the comprehensive school. Societies and groups
were formed expressly for this purpose. The Society for the Promotion of En-
glish Teaching in Comprehensive Schools targeted English instruction in par-
ticular and aimed to eventually rid English of its function as an elitist and
selective subject. As a means of achieving new, communication-oriented teach-
ing goals, a communicative approach to language teaching was advocated be-
cause it would prompt simultaneous learning of the subject and processes of
social interaction, goals which could be realized through materials intended for
a form of teaching which sees learning in heterogenous groups (i.e., a non-
tracking approach) as a process of communication (Edelhoff 1981).
The goals of the Society were not necessarily shared by the German pop-
ulation at large. In the same editorial in which he offered a case for striving
toward careful and cultivated language, Wittmann (1981) responded to the trend
toward communicative language teaching with alarm, suggesting that teaching
for communicative competence alone was a reaction to the harsh demands made
on the learner concerning grammar. Besides, he continued, serious study of
grammar is important training for thinking. His position equates English learning
with that of Latin or Classical Greek, neither of which serves as a tool of
communication or learning in modem West Germany.
Such criticisms had little if any negative effect on the new direction for
the teaching of English. The trend was bolstered by new curriculum guidelines,
drawn up, published, and distributed by the Ministry of Education in all states,
which reflected the trend toward communication as the goal of foreign language
instruction. The 1980 guidelines of the State of Hesse specify the origin of the
language teaching guidelines thus:
The curriculum guidelines are not derived primarily from individual languages and
their systems, but from what the learners can do with their knowledge of the language.
They should be able to understand living conditions, facts, wishes, and intentions
different from their own and be able to use the foreign language for their own ut-
terances. This global learning is known as communicative competence. (Der
Hessische Kultusminister 1980: 10; my translation)

The guidelines see foreign language learning as an expansion of the

learners' competence in social behavior. Therefore it must take place in forms
that correspond to its character as a social activity. As concerns instruction, its
purpose is to encourage cooperation among the learners purposefully and ef-
fectively, a goal which could be achieved by integrating different social forms
Sociolinguistic Profiles: India, West Germany, and Japan 67

into the classroom: individual work, partner work, small groups, and large group
activities. The realization of these concepts in the classroom contributes toward
the satisfaction of more global requirements that every school subject has to
meet: (I) encouraging the development of the leamer's personality, (2) enabling
the learner to take on political responsibility, and (3) contributing to the occu-
pational qualifications of the learners.

Japan

English serves a variety of functions which are unique to the Japanese

context, yet have much in common with the functions it serves in West Ger-
many. Perhaps the most significant difference between these two countries is
the degree to which English is spoken with foreigners. In Japan, it is used less
extensively among the general population with other speakers of English than
in West Germany. Some reasons for its restricted use as a second language
will be outlined in the following description of the nature of English language
use and teaching and the processes which contribute to nativization.

Attitudes toward English

Significant contact with English which brought long-term effects for Jap-
anese came with Commodore William Perry's arrival in Edo Bay (now Tokyo
Bay) in the mid 1850s. This event ended the national policy of isolation es-
tablished in 1640 to protect Japan and the Japanese against foreign influences
that were considered undesirable. A new attitude of curiosity about the West
developed as did widespread interest in English and in learning it well enough
to speak with foreign visitors. Perry's arrival and the era of increased trade
and contact with the West which followed also saw educational reforms and
literacy programs for Japanese. Although learning English became highly valued
as part of these reforms, Westernization of traditional Japanese thought was
not a goal. Neo-Confucian ideas continued to serve as the basis for ethics and
social organization.
During the period subsequent to Perry's arrival, familiarity with English
in Japan was facilitated by the arrival of British and American technical ad-
visors and the exchange of students and statesmen, along with a general fas-
cination with Western customs and ideas. Many schools began to use English
as the medium of instruction as well as to teach English, and it became fash-
ionable for students to intersperse their conversation with English word bor-
rowings. The new language was regarded very highly and was predicted to
become "the most useful language of the future" by Mori Aronori, an influ-
68 CHAPTER 3

ential educator and writer during the Meiji period (1868-1912) (Fukuzawa
1899:98). In part due to the recognition of English as a powerful tool of com-
munication and as the key to the technological wealth of Western civilization
and the process of modernization, serious attempts were made to designate
English the official language of Japan. In the Taisho period (1912-1926), an
era of relative social and intellectual freedom, English words were increasingly
borrowed, for example, rajio 'radio', takushii 'taxi', and sarariiman 'salary
man' (Stanlaw 1987).
English continued in the function of prestige language until the rise of
nationalism and militarism in the 1930s and 1940s. During this phase, the Jap-
anese government tried to purge the Japanese language of all foreign influences,
including English loans. After World War II, English regained its popularity,
and the presence of occupation troops increased the number of borrowings. At
this time the American variety also gained acceptance in Japanese society (Tan-
abe 1978).
Since the second world war, Japan's unprecedented industrialization has
brought about a higher standard of living and level of education. The popularity
of English has been attributed to Japan's economic prosperity; industrialization
has brought about need for English language skills in science, technology, and
business (Morrow 1987).
The need for English and positive attitudes toward the West have led to
the considerable assimilation of English loanwords into Japanese. Borrowing
is so pervasive and commonplace that a number of rubrics have been coined
to describe it-"Japlish," "Janglish," "Japalish," "Japangurishuu," or the more
neutral "Japanized English" (Morrow 1987; Stanlaw 1987).
One indicator of the status of borrowings and their acceptance is repre-
sented by the use of loans in the poems that members of the royal family have
entered in the Imperial Court poetry contest. For example, in 1965 Prince
Mikasa's entry included the word beruto-konbea 'conveyor belt'; in 1976 the
Emperor's entry contained damu 'dam' (Passin 1980). There is, however, no
official support for the use of such loans. As a matter of policy, the Ministry
of Education's Department of National Language, for example, has never pub-
lished anything that contains loanwords of Western origin (Sibata 1975). "La-
ments" by Westerners and Japanese about the avalanche of English borrowings
appear almost daily in the Japanese media (Stanlaw 1987).
Although restricted in its use as a second language, English does serve as
a means of expression that is unavailable in Japanese. Stan law (1982) reports
that the choice of English by Japanese debating societies for conducting debates
enables the kind of argumentation debating activities require, a type of argu-
mentation that is nearly impossible to conduct in Japanese, especially for
women.
Sociolinguistic Profiles: India, West Germany, and Japan 69

The Users and Uses

The Instrumental Function

Although it is not generally the medium of instruction in contemporary

Japanese schools, English was the medium of instruction for some, if not all,
subjects in the late 19th century. The School of Commerce, established in 1875,
was a private secondary school aimed to carry on education for the promotion
of commercial activities. In addition to intensive study, lessons related to foreign
trade and business were conducted in English for students in the last two years
of the course. When a college-level program was added in 1884, as much
coursework as possible was offered in English (Omura 1978). Today, it is more
important as the language of learning from such professional publications as
journals, textbooks, and instruction manuals on scientific, technical, and com-
mercial topics. Programs with dual broadcasting in Japanese and English trans-
mitted by several television stations in Tokyo are another potential source of
English as a medium of learning. In homes with newer TV sets viewers can
tune in to either language. It appears, however, that the choice to take advantage
of English language broadcasting among Japanese is motivated more by the
desire to improve their English ability rather than to exercise bilingualism
(Helgesen 1987).

The Interpersonal Function

As the language of personal communication, English is vital in the pro-

motion of international trade and commerce for Japan. This function is one of
the most important, and much of the effort at English language teaching is
directed toward competence in these areas.
As noted above, English for commercial purposes has a long tradition in
Japan. What began as courses in commercial correspondence developed into
general business English programs. Today they are viewed as courses in English
for International Business Communication (Ohtani 1978). The need for effective
communication in business is perceived as great enough that some large com-
panies in Japan have their own language programs. One example is Kobe Steel,
where a study of English language use indicated that almost every employee
deals with English at some time in the course of a career with the company
(Baird and Heyneman 1982). Those sent overseas need it for face-to-face com-
munication (e.g., business meetings or social functions). Those staying in Japan
need English to sell and service products, make the documents used in engi-
neering, and correspond with overseas customers.
Curriculum planners and instructors in the English language teaching pro-
gram of Mobil Oil as well as Kobe Steel have been active in meeting the
70 CHAPTER 3

demands of teaching English as a tool of international business. A survey of

the language needs and requirements of employees at Mobil Oil showed that
promotion to section and division manager depends on advanced levels of lan-
guage proficiency (Sekimori 1983). English is required for intracompany cor-
respondence and for communication with several departments which have native
English-speaking managers.

The Imaginative/Innovative Function

Like West Gennany, Japan cannot claim its own body of literature written
in English. However, linguistic creativity is evident in Japanese adaptation of
English through a variety of phonological, lexical, and semantic processes.

Linguistic Innovation and Adaptation

English loanwords are a concrete result of contact between English and

Japanese. The items in Table 2, compiled in connection with the development
of materials for Japanese junior high school learners (Brown and Berns 1983),
illustrate the range of words commonly used in Japanese and the topics with
which they are associated. 4
The variety of items represented is evidence of the pervasiveness of loan-
word use in virtually all domains and registers and by nearly all speakers. As
Morrow points out, extensive use of loanwords by a range of speakers indicates
something about Japanese attitude toward loans: "they are not considered sec-
ond-class words appropriate only to elevated speech" (1987:51).
While use of English loans varies among Japanese depending upon the
speaker's personality, speaking style, or context of use, they are common for
a range of reasons and often function as communicative strategies. The loan-
words allow Japanese speakers to express certain nuances which they could
not express otherwise. Differences of connotation, for example, can be of for-
mality, degree of technicality, or attitudinal neutrality. The two Japanese words
for computer provide illustration. Speakers tend to use the native Japanese
denshikeisanki in more fonnal, technical contexts, while the borrowed kompuuta
is preferred in most other contexts. Level of fonnality in referring to the leader
of a group is conveyed through choice of shidoosha (native Japanese) and riidaa
'leader'. Riidaa would most generally be preferred in casual conversation, unless
the referent happens to be the prime minister, which would most likely result
in the choice of shidoosha. Conversely, if the leader of a hiking club is being

4The list was compiled by Yukiko Abe Hatasa and Kazumi Hatasa.
Socioli ngu istic Profiles: India, West Germany, and Japan 71

Table 2. Common English Loanwords In Japanese

Sports Music Food Transportation

Soccer Harmonica Sauce Bus

Basketball Violin Barbecue Miniature car
Jogging Piano Cheese Monorail
Tennis Rhythm Butter Pilot
Ping-pong Program Margarine Speed
Bowling Recital Milk Jet
Volleyball Musical Lettuce Truck
Skate Folk song Cabbage Meter
Ski Brass band Tomato Seat
Racket Flute Hot dog Tire
Ball Trumpet Celery Headlight
Bat Concert Milk Engine
Pool Opera Banana Taxi
Glove Orchestra Grape Helicopter
Badminton Cello Grapefruit Brake
Hurdle Pineapple
Ballet Electronics and Fruit
Ballerina Appliances Salad
Pitcher Ice cream
Uniform Radio Chocolate
Medal Tape recorder Cake
Boxing Computer Yogurt
Boxer Stereo Jam
Whistle Cassette tape Hamburger
Net Video recorder Curry
Jump Video tape Rice
High jump Record Soup
Strike Switch Stew
Game Camera Peanut
Umpire Shutter Vanilla
Yacht Film Mushroom
Boat Motor Marshmallow
Champion Earphone Cookie
Tournament Fuse Cracker
Surfing Freezer Potato chip
Surfboard Record player Coffee
Hang glider Slide Coke
Coach Lens Juice
Captain Cord Beer
Kick Socket Whiskey
Roller skate Dial Wine
Camp Channel Sausage

(continued)
72 CHAPTER 3

Table 2. (continued)
Entertainment Household Miscellaneous

Recital Sofa Birthday

Rehearsal Oven Love letter
Series Toaster Energy
Narrator Kitchen Tour
Interview Living room Cement
Concert Carpet Xerox
Documentary Curtain Copy
Poster Lamp Sauna
News Label Service
Tissue paper Circus
Clothing Toilet paper Calendar
Town Capsule
T-shirt Towel Catalog
Skirt Sponge Supermarket
Jeans Bedroom Hiking
Blouse Apron Thrill
Belt Napkin Thriller
Vest Bed Honeymoon
Jacket Cushion Picnic
Coat Pipe Hitchhike
Socks Mattress Present
Pocket Mop Ma~sage
Jumper Bucket Gesture
Sweater Shampoo Elevator
Earring Dam
Sunglasses Colors Tunnel
Ribbon Dryer
Mask Brown Balance
Eye shadow Beige Hotel
Manicure Silver Boiler
Boots Red Shopping
Bag Orange Bonus
Hanger Blue Bench
Suitca~e Green
Fashion White
Dress Black
Wool Pink
Nylon Gold
Shirt

referred to in a formal conversation, shishooda might seem inappropriate, and

riidaa would probably be chosen (Morrow 1987).
The use of English borrowings also identifies the speakers as being modem,
Western, or sophisticated. Merchants take advantage of these associations and
Sociolinguistic Profiles: India, West Germany, and Japan 73

recognize the prestige attached to the language. Stores selling clothes use the
English loan kajuaru 'casual' in place of Japanese hundangi 'casual clothes'
to present a modern image. It is not uncommon for more than half of the titles
of hit records on the Japanese Top 100 list to be in English or to contain loan-
words. Some loans may also reflect changing Japanese attitudes and priorities.
A totally new social and psychological reality in Japan seeems to be highlighted
by the use of my. This reality is described as "the notion of giving priority to
one's family and to one's private realm-as against the collective entity in
which one is embedded" (Passin 1980:26). Using my in such cases as mai-hoomu
'my home,' Mai-kaa 'my car,' mai-pesu 'my pace,' or mai-puraibashi 'my
privacy' allows the speaker to avoid the somewhat selfish associations and of-
fensive effect of Japanese terms for "my" or "self' (watashino or jibun). Use
of loans also appears to permit Japanese to talk about romance, sex, and com-
panions and girl- or boyfriends with greater ease and frequency than Japanese
terms allow. It has been suggested that use of English for these subjects permits
a psychological distance between the subject and the speaker, who may other-
wise feel shy talking about personal and intimate relationships (K. Hatasa, per-
sonal communication, February 15, 1989).
In a study of their use, English loans were found to be used and apparently
needed in men's discussions of baseball, tennis, golf, horse racing, and the
Olympics. Older and younger female subjects, however, tend to use English
loans in discussing fashion and cosmetics, romantic intrigues, and marriage plans
(Stanlaw 1982).
Generally, loanwords are assimilated to such a degree that they are pho-
nologically indistinguishable from native Japanese words. Thus, leader becomes
riidaa. As Japanese does not allow consonant clusters, vowel epenthesis is a
process necessary to break up sequences such as that in school, which becomes
sukuuru, or glass, which becomes gurasu.
Phonological processes are not the only means of nativization. Semantic
restriction, semantic shift, and semantic extension are also common phenomena.
Limiting the meaning of mishin 'machine' to "sewing machine," kuuraa 'cooler'
to "air conditioner," and gurasu 'glass' to refer to the industrial material, but
not the drinking container, illustrates semantic restriction. Examples of semantic
shift, the phenomenon of transferring the nuance from a word's original mean-
ing, are .min 'sign,' which means "signature," and sutairu 'style,' used to refer
to "figure" or "shape," not "fashion." Borrowings sometimes are given new
and quite different meanings. This process of semantic extension is realized in
an item such as manshon 'mansion,' which is not used to refer to a large,
grand dwelling but to what would probably be called a condominium in Amer-
ican English (Miller 1967; Morrow 1987).
A further productive process for some borrowings is the coining of different
forms of a word to distinguish meanings. Morrow cites Miller's (1967:252)
74 CHAPTER 3

example of the word check, which has at least three senses: chekku for "bank
drafts"; chekki for "coat room clerk"; and chikki for "through check for baggage
on a train." A more recent innovation is the use of chekku as part of a compound
verb check-suru, literally "do check" (i.e., "to check").
Another indication of the extent of nativization is the effect of the common
processes of truncation and compounding. Truncation involves deleting the first
or, more commonly, the last part of a word. Examples are abundant in Japanese:
terehi 'television,' reji 'cash register,' masukomi 'mass communication,' or rosu
'Los Angeles.' Compounding involves fonnation of new lexical items by com-
bining two loanwords. Salary + man (sarariiman) means "businessman"; ice +
candy (aisukyandii) means "popsicle"; and paper + driver (peijraadoraibaa)
designates a person who has a driver's license but doesn't drive. Examples of
this process from sports stories are oni-koochi 'devil coach,' with oni a Japanese
noun for "devil" and koochi the nativized fonn of "coach" (Morrow 1987;
Stanlaw 1987).

English Language Teaching

The purposes for fonnal English instruction in modem Japan have changed
since Perry's arrival in the 19th centruy. At that time it was learned as a means
of acquiring knowledge about Western civilization, particularly its industrial
technology with relation to military affairs. Reading and translation were em-
phasized. Literature predominated as the vehicle for learning, with little if any
time devoted to the development of speaking proficiency. Although it is not
the only language taught, English is a popular school subject in Japan, especially
among secondary school pupils. About 70% of those who begin instruction in
the middle school continue instruction in high school. Ninety-nine percent of
all secondary schools teach English primarily as preparation for the college
entrance examinations of prestigious universities in which it is a required sub-
ject.5 Due to the influence of the exams on the future of young Japanese and
the use of English on the examination as a means of screening college applicants,
one observer has gone so far as to identify the role of English on the college
entrance examination as its only function in Japan (Matsuyama 1978).6

5English is used on these examinations because it is regarded as the most reliable indicator of
studenl~' aptitude, even more precise than mathematics or knowledge and use of Japanese itself
(Matsuyama 1978).
6Entrance to the university does not depend upon the result of the exam in English alone; a total
of 525 hours of English instruction is also required. However, the maximum possible at the end
of high school is 315 hours. which leaves the learner in need of another 210 hours. English language
academies and so-called cram schools provide programs to make up the difference. While these
Sociolinguistic Profiles: India, West Germany, and Japan 75

Learning English in school is ultimately linked to one's social position.

Learners know that when they enter the work force, a degree from a prestigious
college, which requires high scores on the English entrance exam for admission,
is a valuable commodity and can be decisive in getting a good position. As a
consequence, English is simultaneously the most popular subject (in terms of
numbers of students) and the most detested subject (Matsuyama J 978).
As a consequence of so much attention to the college entrance examination,
school-level instruction does not emphasize the function of English as a tool
for international communication. In junior high schools, the audio-lingual
method has prevailed because teachers find it to be effective and less cumber-
some than previous methods (Koike J 978). However, skills associated with read-
ing and listening are increasingly found in texts in junior and senior high
schools. At the university level. emphasis is again on literature and the gram-
mar-translation method, and as such is not oriented to the purposes for which
English is used in the commercial and technical communities. Thus, companies
such as Mobil Oil and Kobe Steel establish their own training programs in
order to develop oral communication and use of, rather than knowledge about,
English.
Many specialists view the college entrance examination and the current
orientation of schools toward its instruction as the major obstacle to changes
in English language teaching in Japan. If the examination is not changed in
content and focus or even done away with, language teaching will continue to
rely on what is required on the exams-grammar-translation and reading com-
prehension (Matsuyama 1978). Other criticisms have been made of the exam,
and suggestions have been offered for its improvement. The Council for the
Improvement of English has suggested greater emphasis on listening and speak-
ing skills and on in-service training for teachers to improve language instruction
in these areas. Since these proposals were made in the 1960s and 1970s, the
entrance examination has been modified and now includes a listening compre-
hension section.
Responding to both the communicative and symbolic functions produces
a schizophrenia for those educators who recognize that English language teach-
ing must meet the demands of international education, yet also feel responsible
for preparing learners for the college entrance examinations. The short-range
goal has to be met at the expense of the learners' future communicative needs.
As a result, few of the learners ever learn English well enough to converse in
it.

schools cater to the 15- to 18-year-old group, parents also send their elementary school-age children
to private schools which offer English beginning at age six. In 1978, approximately 10,000 children
were attending the 100 or so English language schools for this age group.
76 CHAPTER 3

The influence of the exam also seems to contradict the goals of the Sug-
gested Course of Study for languages, published by the Ministry of Education
(J 972), which states that pupils should be trained to acquire the four basic
skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening), always taking the cultural as-
pects into consideration, and should develop a desirable attitude toward the
habits and customs of English-speaking countries. The latter is to be fulfilled
by reading, since Japanese have few opportunities to hear and speak English
in daily life (Tanabe 1978).
English language teaching is slowly but steadily changing in Japan to keep
pace with the changing demands of the marketplace and of the world at large.
The main industries of Japan require a large number of employees with profi-
ciency in English, which the present system of language teaching does not sup-
ply. The establishment of English as an international language also requires
that Japanese use it as a means of worldwide communication, which increases
the urgency to acquire ski11s for oral communication (Tanabe 1978).
The communicative approach to language teaching, in particular, is cur-
rently attracting the interest of Japanese educators, and English language teach-
ing specialists from both Great Britain and the United States are frequent visitors
at professional meetings and conferences: specialists from Japan attend British
and North American university programs in English language teaching to learn
more about communicative language teaching firsthand. A communication-ori-
ented approach has become attractive because it is perceived as coinciding with
changes in the entrance examination and textbook contents and with the pre-
vailing political currents of internationalism (Koike 1978).
While college entrance exams exert an influence on the teaching and learn-
ing of English among Japanese, a variety of cultural characteristics have also
been identified as having an impact on second and foreign language learning.
The sensitivity of the Japanese to making mistakes, or the fear of "losing face,"
has been given as the explanation for the inability of the Japanese to learn to
speak English without hesitation. However, as a Japanese educator offers, there
may be an even more profound source of learners' difficulties than fear of
making mistakes:
One of the major obstacles we encounter in the way of learning English is the dif-
ference of ideas on language between the Japanese and Europeans. For the European
peoples language is the most important. and often the sole, means of communication,
and through the medium of language they try to convey their thoughts and feelings
as precisely as possible .... Yet for the Japanese, language is merely a means of
social and cultural communication. The more complicated and delicate the matter
is, the less we rely upon the language. Together with atmosphere, attitude and so
on, language is no more than one of the tools to give a suggestion with. (Ohtani
1978:119)
Sociolinguistic Profiles: India, West Germany, and Japan 77

A classic example of means other than language being involved in com-

munication is the concept of haraKei. It is best described as a kind of empathy
which literally means "to communicate through the belly." This comes into
play in the group decision-making process when the unspoken group leader
intuits the position of each group member, rather than by asking them what
their position is on the issue at hand (Barnlund 1975). This behavior complies
with a code that marks individuals as brash if they make definite decisions
regarding themselves or others. It is offensive for individuals, unless they are
the group leader, to urge the acceptance of their opinion as a course of action
(E. Smith and L. Luce 1979). Thus the group members reach a decision together
with the leader expressing the group's consensus, which is achieved not by
people expressing themselves openly but by the leader's divining the will of
the group.
Major differences between Japanese and American interaction styles also
influence cross-cultural communication. Where the Americans view the indi-
vidual as the center of action, the Japanese value group orientation and group
identity; where Americans value majority rule, the Japanese value the rights of
the minority and consensus; where Americans have a competitive spirit, the
Japanese see dependency upon others as desirable; Americans expect the leader
to encourage participation of each group member, while the Japanese group
leader divines the will of the group; and Americans encourage the expression
of one's opinions, while the Japanese find it offensive to make oneself stand
out from the group (Barnlund 1975). These differences in style can have con-
sequences in the language classroom if the teacher. aware of trends in language
teaching which emphasize interaction, encourages learners in situations requiring
disagreement and self-expression. These activities are not likely to produce
much verbal interaction. Instead of engaging in a lively debate, in which ev-
eryone participates, the group is quiet, except for the leader, who may confer
quietly with the group before announcing the group's views on the topic (Berns
1982).

Significance of the Profiles

Sociolinguistic profiles shed light on the range of uses a language serves

and how these uses evolve in a given context. These profiles of English in
India, West Germany, and Japan offer insight into the nature of communicative
competence by illustrating the differences between and among the various com-
municative competences in English in these countries. The differences in uses,
the types of nativization, and the models of English for teaching support the
notion of no single communicative competence in English. These descriptions
78 CHAPTER 3

also underscore the necessity of considering a teaching model with respect to

the sociocultural context of learning and use. Recognition of these differences
has profound implications for language teaching, as will be shown in Chapter
5.
The discussions of attitudes toward English in each context also show how
the preferences of the speech community play a considerable role in the evo-
lution and existence of a language and its varieties. These are forces which
cannot be ignored in an attempt to understand why English has taken the form
it has and serves the functions it does, not only in Japan, West Germany, or
India, but in other native and nonnative contexts as well. Such adaptations at
all levels make it no longer possible to think of English as the language of a
particular group within a set of national boundaries. English belongs to those
who use it, and English language teaching needs to be responsive to the formal
and functional adaptations of its users. The next chapter explores communicative
language teaching as an approach that meets this criterion of "responsiveness
to context."
 CHAPTER 4
Communicative Language
Teaching

The term communicative language teaching identifies new pedagogical orien-

tations that have grown out of the realization that knowledge of grammatical
forms and structures alone does not adequately prepare learners for effective
and appropriate use of the language they are learning. The inevitable outcome
of increased attention to language use has been a proliferation of approaches
to language teaching that claim to be communicative and of new terminology
to refer to notions and concepts not addressed in previous form-oriented ap-
proaches. Understanding the nature of communicative language teaching and
establishing a principled basis for its assessment depends upon familiarity with
terms associated with it. Thus, the examination of communicative language
teaching undertaken in this chapter begins with a review of the terms notion
and junction, and junctional-notional syllabus.

Threshold Levels and Functional-Notional Syllabuses

Function and notion are terms closely associated with David Wilkins, a
British applied linguist. His proposals for syllabuses that are organized by func-
tions of language rather than forms are the result of his participation in the
Modern Languages Project sponsored by the Council of Europe, which was
interested in designing an organized program for adult foreign language teaching
in Western Europe. One of the Council's first projects, which Wilkins undertook,
was an analysis of existing syllabus types, which were found to be wanting
for the particular needs of adult learners. In place of the existing syllabus types
(structural and situational), Wilkins proposed two new designs for organizing
the content for language teaching: notional and functional syllabuses. A notional
syllabus would have a semantic and behavioral prediction of learner needs as
its starting point. "Notional" was to be understood in this context as meaning

79
80 CHAPTER 4

based; that is, this type of syllabus was to specify what the learners were to
do with language, what meanings they would need to communicate through
language. According to Wilkins, a meaning-based syllabus "takes the commu-
nicative facts of language into account from the beginning without losing sight
of grammatical and situational factors. It is potentially superior to the gram-
matical syllabus because it will produce a communicative competence ... "
(Wilkins 1976:19). In his book Notional Syllabuses (1976), Wilkins identifies
three components of meaning: semantic-grammatical (time, quantity, space),
modal (degree of certainty, degree of commitment), and communicative func-
tions (judgment and valuation, suasion, argument, rational enquiry). While a
notional syllabus would consider all three components, a functional syllabus
would consider the communicative functions alone and would therefore be "the
weakest application" of his proposal (1976:68). According to Wilkins, it would
be used at the later stages of learning, preceded by a conventionally grammatical
syllabus for the earlier stages. The notional syllabus, the stronger alternative,
places more weight on semantic criteria in selecting forms to be included in
the syllabus than on criteria of difficulty or order of natural acquisition. It would
be most effective in, for example, English for Specific Purposes courses,
whereas the functional syllabus would be suitable for the design of general
courses "intended for beginners aiming to proceed towards a general and fairly
high proficiency in the language" (Wilkins 1976:58).
It is the communicative functions that Wilkins considers his most original
contribution to syllabus design, and it is the concepts communicative function
and functional syllabus which have become associated with his name. Yet he
does not claim to have created or discovered them; he acknowledges Halliday
as a partial source for his interpretation of communicative functions. The in-
fluence of the British linguistic tradition and its focus on meaning and uses of
language is evident in the orientation Wilkins has taken to the possible orga-
nization of syllabuses in terms of notions, or meaning categories.
Other contributors to the Council of Europe project, Jan van Ek and L.
G. Alexander (1980), used Wilkins's concept of a notional syllabus as a basis
for a description of the "threshold level," a specification of an elementary-level
competence in English for Europeans who from time to time have professional
or personal contacts in the European community. It specifies the situations for
which language is used, the language functions relevant to the situations, and
the notions a learner will need to express particular meanings. It also includes
the language forms and vocabulary items related to each area. The "T-Level,"
as the threshold level has come to be known, was intended to be seen as one
of a number of comparable and equivalent variants of English and to serve as
a language-learning objective permitting a certain range of variation in instruc-
tional goals and methodology. Van Ek and Alexander use Wilkins's terms func-
tion and notion, but interpret them somewhat differently. In place of the
Communicative language Teaching 81

communicative function they specify language function, although referring es-

sentially to the same kind of meaning, that is, what people do through language.
The threshold-level specification for English has served as the model for
descriptions of a number of European languages. However, these descriptions
are not identical. For example, the French, who were concerned about the mis-
application of their description to wrong contexts, preferred to design their ver-
sion as a resource rather than a syllabus. Thus, the Niveau-Seuil (Coste,
CourtilIon, Ferenczi, Martins-Baltar, and Papo 1981) determines and specifies
the needs of a variety of groups, not just those engaging in tourist travel and
business, as was the aim of van Ek and Alexander's Threshold Level. The lists
included in the Niveau-Seuil are comprehensive enough to reflect this. It is
further distinguished in its classification of actes de parole, derived from the
T-Levellanguage functions, but more detailed and variously classified. The clas-
sifications include speakers' intentions underlying an utterance, utterances which
are not a response to other utterances and responses to them, and functions
relating to the discourse itself. Through this elaboration the French version, in
effect, complements the English version (Shaw 1977).
The German Kontaktschwelle. Deutsch als Fremdsprache (Baldegger,
Muller, and Schneider 1981) is unique as a synthesis of the French and English
models and in its offering of repair strategies, for example, ways to steer, or
negotiate, conversations. The Spanish Un nivel umbral (Slagter 1980) is the
product of a deliberate experiment in which its authors attempted to see how
close they could keep to the English model. This approach, however, was not
appreciated by all Spaniards, some of whom regard it as a "cavalier treatment
of their language" (1. L. M. Trim, personal communication, March 17, 1983).1
In spite of their differences in focus and aim, these documents are indi-
vidually and collectively important for the development of the teaching of a
variety of languages, not only English. On their own, each description is a
valuable resource for teachers and curriculum designers for each language; to-
gether they are significant as an endorsement of multilingualism in Europe.

Ad Hoc Solutions and Functional Views of Language

Wilkins's development of an alternative syllabus form and the drafting of

threshold levels for a number of languages have had considerable impact on

I Descriptions are also available for Catalan, Atalase Maila (King-ek et al. 1988); Danish Et
taerskelniveau for dansk (Jessen 1983); Dutch, Drempelniveau. Nederlands als vreemde taal
(Wynants 1985); Italian, Livello soglia per /' insegnamento dell' italiano come lingua straniera (Galli
de Paratesi 1981); Norwegian, Et terskelniva for norsk (Svanes, Hagen, Manne, and Svindland
1987); and Portuguese, Nfvel limiar. Para 0 ensinolAprendizagem do Portugues como lingua
segundalLingua estrangeira (Casteleiro, Meira, and Pascoal 1988).
82 CHAPTER 4

language teaching around the world. Attention to language functions is included

in an increasing number of materials, and learners now learn how to express
various functions of language and the forms to realize them. A variety of ap-
proaches to language teaching that claim to be communicative have been de-
veloped. However, not all interpretations of communicative language teaching
represent full appreciation of the implications of teaching for meaning and of
the diverse competences associated with a language.
The term communicative approach has largely been understood to describe
any approach to language teaching that claims to be based on a view of language
as communication. While most interpretations have emphasized communicative
needs of learners, explicit presentation of language functions, and the linguistic
forms associated with functions, there is as yet no standard interpretation of
the key term function. For some a function is as general as "describing a person
or place" or "describing mechanical processes"; for others it is as specific as
"requesting help with baggage" or "answering questions about what people have
been doing," interpretations which essentially trivialize the concept and mini-
mize its usefulness in materials design. These varied uses of the terms reflect
and also contribute to confusion as to precise meanings on the part of textbook
writers, publishers, and educational administrators, not all of whom are aware
of these terms in their original and more restricted meanings. Although rigid
prescriptivism in the use of terminology is not necessarily desirable, uncertainty
and lack of uniformity can result in materials which have no basis in a view
of language as communication, as often has been the case with materials de-
signed for functional syllabuses. In one instance the selection of a particular
set of materials may mean beginning with grammar and delaying any introduc-
tion to the functions of language until later in the course. In another, commu-
nicative functions may be taught from the very beginning with no systematic
treatment of grammar or consideration of context. 2
Ann Raimes (1983) offers a useful analysis of language teaching materials
that were available when functional syllabuses were first becoming prominent
in English language teaching in the United States. The analysis is based on
the claim that available accounts of developments in ESL/EFL are often in-
complete because they have only concentrated on classroom methodology.
More essential to an understanding of the present state of affairs in language
teaching, Raimes argues, is a look at the "underlying intellectual assumptions
which generate methods" (1983:538). Using Kuhn's (1970) theory of scientific

2Bems (1984) includes a discussion with examples of English language teaching materials which
claim to be communicative but have little, if any, foundation in generally acknowledged principles
of communicative language teaching.
Communicative Language Teaching 83

revolutions as a starting point, Raimes asserts that a look at these assumptions

reveals a conflict between two paradigms, the old (audio-lingualism) and the
new (communicative language teaching). This conflict is revealed in the efforts
of language teachers, methodologists, and materials writers, who in attempting
to adopt the new paradigm, only succeed in devising ad hoc modifications of
the old paradigm.
Raimes identifies the most common modifications and organizes them into
three categories. The first is the "overlay solution," found in textbooks which
divide and sequence the content into grammatical structure and address the ques-
tion of language use by adding a list of functions to the table of contents. The
second type of modification is the "label change solution," which incorporates
only the terminology, not the concepts. The material in each chapter stays the
same, but chapter headings may read "Expressing need and offering help" in
addition to "How many: need and want." The third and final category is the
"add-a-component solution," which incorporates new theory into old practice
"so that it becomes so disguised as to be unrecognizable as new" (Raimes
1983:541-542). With this solution an exercise type that ostensibly presents
"communicative acts" is added to a chapter. For example, learners work in
pairs and ask and answer questions (given on cards) as if they were on the
telephone. As Raimes points out, such an exercise is actually little more than
the audio-lingual question-and-answer drill.
What these solutions reveal, Raimes continues, is a change in design and
procedure but no alteration of the underlying philosophical approach. Attempts
to make language teaching communicative are reflected in surface features of
teaching and not in the deep structure of the theoretical underpinnings. Change
in the underpinnings minimally requires looking at meaning as well as form
and function of language, considering the use of language in its heuristic func-
tion, and appreciating the creative power of language. In other words, the mod-
ifications need to be based on a functional view of language. Only from this
perspective is it possible to design innovative syllabuses that can effect change
in language teaching.
Raimes's analysis provides a starting point for a consideration of language
teaching approaches that have been described as functional or communicative.
The remainder of this chapter is devoted to an examination of approaches that
have been influential in introducing changes into programs. However, the ap-
proaches have not been equally successful in realizing the implications of a
communicative orientation. Some represent no more than the modifications in
form that Raimes describes, while others illustrate substantial revisions in the
theoretical underpinnings that serve as a basis for curriculum, syllabus, and
materials design.
64 CHAPTER 4

Skills and Drills

The first interpretations of communication-oriented approaches to be ex-

amined are those of Christina Bratt Pauls ton and Wilga Rivers, whose work
represents early responses from the United States to the need for communica-
tion-oriented language teaching. Each has attempted to integrate the concepts
of communicative competence and functions of language into her views of lan-
guage and language teaching. However, since their well-established views do
not represent any change in their underlying structuralist and audio-lingual ap-
proach, their attempts are best described in terms of the ad hoc solutions Raimes
has identified in language teaching materials.
Paulston (1974, 1976), drawing on Hymes (1971), emphasizes elaboration
of the social rules of language and defines communicative competence solely
in terms of the social rules of use. She asserts that communicative competence
need not be a goal in language teaching, particularly when learners are not
interested in interaction in the culture of the second language. In her words,
"it is valid to ask how much communicative competence one needs to teach
in foreign language teaching" (1974:352). Her definition of communicative com-
petence is basically confined to the social rules of language use "rather than
taking it to mean simply linguistic interaction in the target language" (1974:347).
This definition raises a number of theoretical and practical concerns. First, it
neglects the important interrelationship of language form to culture and society
on all linguistic levels, such as the influence of culture on lex is, syntactic struc-
ture, and realization of communicative functions, for example, apologizing, dis-
agreeing. Language use is more than simple application of correct social rules.
Further, Paulston's theoretical stance implies that a language has only one set
of social rules and that learners of a given language will always be interacting
orally and exclusively with native speakers of that language. This view fails
to take into account at least two additional aspects of language use: (1) the
sociolinguistic conventions of written language (e.g., rhetorical structure), of
which even those learners needing only reading skills must be aware, and (2)
the likelihood of nonnative to nonnative speaker interaction, which may bring
conflicting norms for appropriateness into play.
Paulston is more concerned about practical rather than theoretical impli-
cations of communication in the classroom. Along these lines she has designed
"communicative drills" which, she maintains, are a prerequisite to any interac-
tion activities or role-plays intended to provide useful practice in the manipu-
lation of linguistic forms. Their format is that of the choral response, substitution
drill, and referred questions of the audiolingual era.
TEACHER: Describe the weather in your country.
STUDENT: It's (beautiful/wonderful.)
Communicative Language Teaching 85

TEACHER: What is your responsibility?

STUDENT: My responsibility is (to learn Englishlleaming English.)

These "communicative" drills, which bear little resemblance to any real form
of communication, are distinguished from pattern drills only in that they require
learners "to answer truthfully" rather than with prescribed responses (1976:9).
This attempt at innovation is essentially Raimes's overlay solution, which iden-
tifies incorporation of new terminology (i.e., the term communicative), but not
new concepts.
An example of the label-change solution is Rivers's (1971, 1973) division
of language teaching into two stages-the skill-getting and the skill-using. These
stages organize classroom activities in a sequence which moves from controlled
structure practice to creative use of language, that stage at which learners even-
tually progress to the use of language for communication. Although the latter
stages are referred to as skill-using, the theory upon which the skill-using stage
is based is essentially audio-lingual. Leamer responses in the creative and com-
municative phases are to be of the same quality as teacher-directed exercises,
that is, error-free and complete. Control of language is a necessary prerequisite
to moving on to the skill-using level where learners interact in the second or
foreign language. Practice in autonomous interaction is to be incorporated into
the language program. As such, Rivers's model represents an add-a-component
solution. Although perfection at the pattern-drill level is no longer an end in
itself, it is still the aim in "autonomous expression" (1971 :77).
In further development of her model of teaching, Rivers (1976, 1983) does
attempt to provide theoretical support from Halliday's (1975) work on child
language development. She finds his identification of seven microfunctions and
three macrofunctions particularly applicable to second language teaching. The
implication she appears to draw from Halliday's proposal for these two sets of
functions is that language teaching should begin with the learning of the
microfunctions, which she calls microlanguage learning, and then proceed to
macrolanguage use. She argues that learners' acquisition of the simple
microfunctions is the means to performance on the macrolevel and stresses that
this acquisition "is essential if efforts at macro-language use are to be rich and
expressive" (1983: 108). In using the terms microlanguage learning and
macrolanguage use, Rivers appears to be relabelling her previous model of skill-
getting and skill-using, but not changing that part of the theoretical framework
that concerns the nature of language. 3

3While Halliday found that a child learning a first language progressed from microfunctions to the
development of a more complex system of macro- (or meta-) functions, Rivers application of this
developmental model of second language teaching is problematic. Classroom instruction is an
activity quite different from the process Halliday describes. Classroom language learners, who are
Rivers's concern, come to the fonnal learning situation well beyond the transitional pha~e which
86 CHAPTER 4

Thus, Rivers's models of language teaching and learning illustrate both

the add-a-component and the label-change solutions. Interaction is added and
stages of functional development label parts of the model, but the behaviorist
and structuralist theories that shaped audio-lingualism remain intact.

New Names for Old Concepts

A more comprehensive interpretation of the role of function in language

teaching syllabus and materials design is offered in Mary Finocchiaro and Chris-
topher Brumfit's (1983) account of the sources and characteristics of an ap-
proach to language teaching they label "functional-notional." This approach is
based upon the theory of syllabus design outlined in Wilkins (1976). Because
their discussion is extensive, their treatment provides an opportunity for close
consideration of the concept "communicative approach" as well as "function"
and their implications for language teaching.
Finocchiaro and Brumfit identify the functional-notional syllabus as an "in-
novative approach" (1983:xi) to language learning and teaching which has as
its primary focus the learners and the function or functions of language, that
is, the communicative purpose learners wish to express and to understand. They
describe sensitivity to individual learner needs, interpreted in terms of functions
of language, as the core of the functional-notional syllabus and as the major
characteristic of the functional-notional approach to language teaching.
Features of language identified as characteristic of learner-focused teaching
include the necessity in materials design of taking into account the meanings
and ideas that learners want to express, the uselessness of skilled organization
of course content if there are no effective classroom activities, and the learners'
choice of the use of the language, which in many cases may not be essential
to their objectively perceived needs. In addition to these general ideas, tech-
niques and procedures are offered which are designed to involve learners in
purposeful classroom communication, for example, problem-solving tasks re-
quiring small group work, and subsequent large group evaluation of the solutions
offered by the groups.
Although Finocchiaro and Brumfit's discussion of the approach to language
teaching they call functional-notional is comprehensive, there are several
weaknesses in their discussion that seriously compromise the adequacy of this
approach as an interpretation of communicative language teaching. One impor-

marks the first language leamer's shift from the developmental functions to the adult language
system of three metafunctions. Organizing second language instruction on the same pattern as first
language development will not necessarily lead to free and independent interaction.
Communicative language Teaching 87

tant omission is a lack of a review of theoretical and pedagogical issues that

clarify the relationship of their functional-notional approach to a communicative
approach. Such a review, when related to current applications of the terms func-
tion and notion would provide insight into the concepts themselves and into
their usefulness for language teaching practice. Similarly, they fail to consider
the implications of a functional-notional approach for materials development
and methodology. Thus, it is difficult to relate their conceptions of function,
notion, and communicative competence to considerations of cultural and social
parameters which determine meaning and the formal realizations of these mean-
ings, as has been outlined in the discussion of British linguistics and Halliday's
semiotic perspective in Chapter I.
In its discussion of practical applications for the classroom, Finocchiaro
and Brumfit's description of a functional-notional approach reveals an adherence
to the philosophy of audio-lingualism. It is more concerned with practicing
communication than with engaging learners in communication itself. A further
example of lack of change in theoretical underpinnings is the use of the terms
mastery and control to describe the outcomes of teaching. In a communicative
approach, learners' competence is not viewed in terms of mastery or control;
rather, development of competence in communication is recognized as variable
and dependent upon the learners' abilities, attitudes, and rate of learning, as
well as upon their needs for learning the language and the degree of competence
required for those purposes.
The lack of a change in the theoretical underpinnings for the language
teaching they describe is also evident in their view of errors. The claim that
"most teachers are understandably unwilling to encourage their students to make
errors without good reason" (1983:94) betrays a lack of consistency with the
communicative principles these authors appear to espouse. In communicative
language teaching the concern is not whether learners make errors or not, but
whether and how the errors they inevitably make interfere with their ability to
express, interpret, and negotiate meaning.
The limitations of their treatment of the relationship between form, func-
tion, and culture in particular contributes to the failure of their account of a
functional-notional approach to be anything more than an overlay of new terms
on old concepts. While Finocchiaro and Brumfit point out that the language
forms a speaker uses are influenced by the function of the message, the situation,
and the topic, they do not call attention to the role that the speaker's cultural
background plays in determining the appropriateness of linguistic structures and
lexical items selected to realize a function. Failure to do so ignores the effects
of sociocultural constraints on language form and function as a crucial consid-
eration in materials development and curriculum design. As shown by the ex-
ample of the Zambian's and American's experience in cross-cultural greeting
in English illustrated in Chapter 2, recognition that forms associated with a
88 CHAPTER 4

function in one culture may differ from those associated with it in another
culture is essential. As the anecdote illustrated, association of functions with
particular forms depends on more than speaker's purpose, situation, and the
topic; the formal realization of a form is closely linked to the cultural context
of the speaker.
As a consequence of these shortcomings, Finocchiaro and Brumfit's inter-
pretation, like those of Paulston and of Rivers, fails to demonstrate that the
functional-notional approach is anything new; it simply offers new names for
old concepts.
Although the interpretations of communicative language teaching discussed
up to this point have been inadequate primarily because of their basis in struc-
tural linguistic philosophy and audio-lingual methodology, interpretations of
communicative language teaching have been made that are based upon a func-
tional view of language and offer innovative approaches and methodologies.
Prominent examples of these interpretations are presented in the remainder of
this chapter.

Savignon's Interactional Approach

The concept "communicative competence" has gained prominence in ped-

agogical circles in North America primarily through the research of Sandra
Savignon (1972, 1983). Her work, representing an extension and reinterpretation
of Hymes's concept, has had considerable impact on language teaching, initially
on the teaching of French and other modem languages in the United States
and Canada, and more recently on the teaching of English as a second and
foreign language.
Her initial contact with the term can be traced to her interest in language
testing and lakobovits's (1968) views of the importance of teaching for com-
municative competence and the testing of school-made bilingual competence.
In a 1972 study of the effects of teaching for communicative competence on
the achievement of learners in a foreign language course, she first demonstrated
the viability of communicative competence as a pedagogical concept. A more
recent publication (Savignon 1983) documents her commitment to communi-
cative language teaching and the development of her views.
Savignon's approach is based on a view of language as "meaning making."
Language is a mode of human behavior, and to "know" this form of commu-
nication means knowing how to use it for creating meaning as well as knowing
about the forms of the language. The goal of any language teaching program,
in her view, is the development of learners' communicative competence, which
she defines as "the expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning in-
Communicative language Teaching 89

volving interaction between two or more persons or between one person and
a written or oral text" (1983:249).
As a preliminary step toward understanding communicative competence
for the classroom, Savignon explores the individual concepts of communication
and competence. The central characteristics of competence in communication
are associated with (1) the dynamic, interpersonal nature of communicative com-
petence and its dependence on the negotiation of meaning between two or more
persons who share to some degree the same symbolic system; (2) its application
to both spoken and wntten language as well as to many other symbolic systems;
(3) the role of context in determining a specific communicative competence,
the infinite variety of situations in which communication takes place, and the
dependence of success in a particular role on one's understanding of the context
and on prior experience of a similar kind; and (4) communicative competence
as a relative, not absolute, concept, one dependent on the cooperation of all
participants, a situation which makes it reasonable to speak of degrees of com-
municative competence (1983:8-9). These four characteristics evidence the vital
role Savignon acknowledges for sociolinguistic parameters. Her recognition of
the role of social and cultural experience in the act of communicating and the
variable nature of meaning and its dependence upon linguistic and nonlinguistic
factors is a reflection of Halliday's influence on her approach to language teach-
ing.

The Components of Communicative Competence

The theoretical framework upon which Savignon bases her model of com-
municative competence is that developed by Canale and Swain (1980) and re-
fined by Canale (1983), which suggests four components of communicative
competence:

1. Grammatical competence. Knowledge of the sentence structure of a

language.
2. Sociolinguistic competence. Ability to use language appropriate to a
given context, taking into account the roles of the participants, the
setting, and the purpose of the interaction.
3. Discourse competence. Ability to recognize different patterns of dis-
course, to connect sentences or utterances to an overall theme or topic;
the ability to infer the meaning of large units of spoken or written
texts.
4. Strategic competence. Ability to compensate for imperfect knowledge
of linguistic, sociolinguistic, and discourse rules or limiting factors in
their application such as fatigue, distraction, or inattention.
90 CHAPTER 4

Figure 5. Components of communicative competence. Source: Sandra 1. Savignon, 1983, Commu-

nicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice, Addison-Wesley, p. 46.

Savignon (I 983 :46) visualizes these components interacting in the manner

shown in Figure 5. As the figure illustrates, no hierarchical relationship exists
among these components. They are interdependent: communicative competence
is greater than anyone single component, Savignon explains, and a learner
does not proceed from one to another "as one strings pearls on a necklace"
(1983:45).

A Communicative Curriculum

Savignon's work, primarily focused on the classroom, includes a model

for a language teaching curriculum based upon her interpretation of communi-
cative competence. This curriculum differs considerably from the traditional
approach to language teaching curriculum design which divides language pro-
grams into reading, speaking, listening, and writing components. In place of
this four-skills approach she puts forward a framework which is consonant with
the four characteristics of competence in communication and the four compo-
nents of communicative competence outlined above.
The curriculum she proposes has five areas, with no sequence or hierarchy
prescribed. The first of the components is Language Arts, which focuses on
rules of usage and provides explanation of how language works, but is not
restricted in content to analysis alone. Systematic practice in the application of
rules is also recommended. Spelling tests, vocabulary expansion exercises, and
pronunciation exercises would be typical activities. This component could be
interpreted as focus on the textual function of language. It is here that grammar,
Communicative language Teaching 91

in the traditional sense of focus on fonnal relationships, finds its place in lan-
guage teaching. Savignon stresses that it is important to keep the fonnal aspects
of language in perspective. The Language Arts component is regarded as in-
terrelated with the others and is not to be considered any more or less important
than the other four components.
Language for a Purpose is the second component. This relates to authentic
use of language in the classroom as in bilingual immersion programs. This
could be achieved by establishing the L2 (second language) as the lingua franca
of the classroom. The purposes could range from comprehension of basic class-
room commands (e.g., "Open your books to page 10") to the learning of a new
game or craft activity through the L2. Here the focus can be interpreted as the
ideational function since attention is on concepts and relationships rather than
fonnal structures of language or strictly on the skills and strategies required
for the expression of meaning between or among individuals.
The third component is related to Personal L2 Use. It involves the affective
aspects of language acquisition, the expression of one's own attitudes, values,
and beliefs, ranging from acceptance of cross-cultural differences or a leamer's
rejection of native-like competence in the L2. This component highlights the
fact that "it is one thing to analyze and appreciate native language behavior,
quite another to adopt that hehaviorfor one's own" (1983:201). This component
can be interpreted as focus on the interpersonal function. Activities for learners
which incorporate this use of language in the curriculum include the keeping
of a personal journal or the construction of family trees with important infor-
mation about family members. A key feature of these activities is the learners'
use of the language to express their own view of the world and their own
culture.
The fourth and fifth components provide opportunities for the natural blend-
ing of the three functions represented in the other three components.
Theater Arts includes such activities as the "class play," but more impor-
tantly calls attention to other facets of the theater such as roles, simulations,
and rehearsal. This component provides opportunities to analyze the total set
of behaviors involved in communication and also provides opportunities to try
them out.
The final component, Beyond the Classroom, involves the exploration of
the L2 community, either by stepping outside the classroom, if learners are in
the L2 setting, or through the media and local representatives of the L2 cul-
ture(s).
Savignon's approach does not draw a specific relationship between com-
municative competence and its fonnal exponents. Her earlier work (1972) has
been criticized for providing no description or specification of the grammatical
and other skills required in, for example, infonnation getting (Canale and Swain
1980). Such criticism is unwarranted since it is neither possible nor necessary
92 CHAPTER 4

to definitively describe or specify these skills. A speaker's communicative com-

petence cannot be described in terms of discrete elements and skills; it is not
possible to determine how much competence is required to communicate in a
particular situation. Attempting to do so is like answering the question, "How
much light is sufficient to find your way out of the forest," which John Oller
has posed in the context of critiquing so-called integrative language tests. As
he explains, finding one's way out of the forest depends "hardly at all on any
particular discrete rays of light" (1978: 55). The same can be said about discrete
skiIIs and elements of communicative competence.
Savignon's later work specifically addresses the inappropriateness of a
monolithic view of communicative competence and stresses the need to take
learners' individual goals for learning a language and the contexts in which
the language will be used into account: "In the first place there may exist not
one but several L2 cultures, each with a different set of rules. More important,
the L2 may be widely used as a means of communication among nonnative
speakers outside a community to which it is native" (1983:26).
Savignon's curriculum proposal is a cogent summary of her interactional
approach to communicative language teaching. By extending the definition of
communicative competence beyond that offered by Hymes, she provides a
framework for curriculum design and a basis for principled realization of a
curriculum in materials and classroom practice. This proposal is a significant
contribution to primary and secondary language education and university un-
dergraduate foreign language programs which are designed to help learners de-
velop general language competence rather than specific areas of language use.
It is especially suited to integrated language programs since such programs do
not focus on particular aspects or modes of communication such as oral com-
munication skills or writing skills, which are often the concern of more narrowly
focused language programs such as advanced-level ESL courses at the college
level in the United States.

Widdowson's Discourse-Based Approach

Significant contributions to the development of communicative competence

as a pedagogical concept and extensive insight into the nature of discourse is
illustrated through the work of the British applied linguist Henry Widdowson
(1978, 1979). His views have gained global recognition in part due to the pop-
ular concerns he has addressed, most notably the development of programs and
materials for English for Specific Purposes, and the activities of the British
Council, through which British applied linguists make recent developments in
language teaching known outside of Great Britain.
Communicative Language Teaching 93

Widdowson's approach to communicative language teaching with respect

to specific-purpose programs can be characterized as "discoursal." He maintains
that the real problem in a communication-oriented approach is not to teach the
linguistic realization of specific illocutionary acts as suggested by the functional
syllabus but to teach the realization of the connected structure of these acts,
or discourse. For Widdowson, this is achieved by the development of the
learners' use of pragmatic skills in the second language, skills such as inter-
pretive strategies relating to knowledge of the use of discourse conventions or
nonverbal elements and to skills which they already have developed in their
first language.
The goal in Widdowson's approach is to have learners achieve competence
in the use of the rule system of the language. They begin with discourse analysis,
which involves them in discerning the meaning of text and organizing their
means of analysis. As a result, learners develop language skills through the use
of existing interpretive skills which they routinely bring to bear on text inter-
pretation in their first language. Focusing on the interpretation of meaning as
the starting point for language study provides learners with an incentive to com-
municate and the experience of communication, both of which, in Widdowson's
view, are basic for the development of linguistic competence.

Language Use and Usage

Widdowson's discoursal approach stems from two concerns. The first is
his argument for sociolinguistic analysis of language as opposed to a strictly
linguistic analysis of language. The latter, he maintains, is inadequate to deal
with the inexact nature of communication: "If meaning could be conveyed by
exact specification, if it were signalled entirely by linguistic signs, then there
would be no need of the kind of negotiation that lies at the very heart of com-
municative behavior, whereby what is meant is worked out by interactive en-
deavor" (1979:243). This feature of negotiation is central to all communication
but is of particular concern in second and foreign language teaching because
the variables that can confound communication (i.e., mutual understanding), are
compounded and intensified through cultural and social differences. It is not
that these differences do not already exist among speakers of the same language
with a common social and cultural background; opportunities for miscommu-
nication are greater, however, between those who do not share the conventions
and expectations shaped by culture and society.
The second concern to which Widdowson is responding is the distinction
between language usage and use. Language usage is the language system and
language use is the manifestation of that system. Linguistic behavior is the
production of utterances in a context for a purpose. Or, to put it another way,
sentences are used for the creation of discourse. The language learner's task is
94 CHAPTER 4

to develop the ability to create and interpret discourse. This ability refers to
the knowledge of how the language system is realized as use in social contexts,
or communicative competence. While he acknowledges that it is possible to
separate use from usage for research and study, he insists that both are necessary
for a complete description of language. He supports this claim by pointing out
"we are generally required to use our knowledge of the language system in
order to achieve some kind of communicative purpose. That is to say, we are
generally called upon to produce instances of language use" (1978:3).
With the discoursal approach, teaching for the development of learners'
communicative competence requires attention to linguistic skills (usage) and
communicative abilities (use). It cannot be supposed, however, that once the
skills "are acquired in reasonable measure the communicative abilities will fol-
low as a more or less automatic consequence .... The question is: how can
the skills be taught, not as a self-sufficient achievement but as an aspect of
communicative competence? How can skills be related to abilities, usage to
use?"(l978:67 -68).
To answer this question, Widdowson, in making reference to general-pur-
pose (as opposed to specific-purpose) language courses, proposes that learners
use the second/foreign language the same way they use their native language-
as a communicative ability. For example, in a general English course for chil-
dren, teachers should relate the second/foreign language to situations which are
part of the children's real world, including the classroom, where experiences
familiar to the learners are formalized and extended into new concepts. The
language class, then, can relate to the world outside the classroom through his-
tory or geography. The content of the classroom should, therefore, be drawn
from other school subjects, providing learners with opportunities for meaningful
communicative behavior about relevant topics for realistic purposes, for exam-
ple, to classify, predict, or describe.
Thus, discourse will be created in the classroom, and learners through use
will work out, or negotiate, meaning through these interactions. Through cre-
ating discourse, or through communicating in the second language, and nego-
tiating points of misunderstanding, they will develop their ability to cope with
the interactive structuring of discourse, that is, their communicative competence.
This approach is summed up in Widdowson's views on the purpose and spec-
ifications for learning: "It does not seem to me to follow that what is learnt
needs to be explicitly taught. It is perfectly possible to teach one thing in order
to facilitate the learning of something else" (1979:245).
This approach to language teaching bears some resemblance to two meth-
ods, the Direct Method and the Natural Method, that have evoked controversy
since their introduction in the 19th century. Widdowson's approach differs from
these significantly in that the focus of the teaching in his view is on the content
of texts and the learners' ability to interpret texts, not on language learning.
Communicative language Teaching 95

The language is not the object of study, as in the Natural and Direct Methods.
However, these approaches do share with Widdowson's approach the view that
learners learn best by doing, by using the language, and not simply by learning
about it.

Language for Specific Purposes

Widdowson's approach has been used in classroom application through

the development of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) materials and for sec-
ondary school language teaching curriculum design. The series English in Focus
(Allen and Widdowson 1974), written for various areas of ESP (e.g., physical
sciences, metallurgy), attempts to apply a theory of discourse to ESP reading
materials. The aim is to directly teach communicative acts and to teach students
the realizations of major illocutions such as assertion, generalization, and in-
ference as they appear in written texts.
Reviewers have found this application of Widdowson's theory to practice
to be unsuccessful. The major difficulty stems from the lack of exercises which
simulate the kind of communication that goes on in the real world (Huckin
1980; Ross 1981). The result is texts which do not challenge learners (unless
they are beginning students of the subject) because they are too simple and
exercises which are overcontrolled to the point of requiring little more than
mechanical responses or the production of odd-sounding discourse that may be
grammatically feasible, but strikes the native speaker as odd (Coulthard 1977;
Huckin 1980).
Although Widdowson's approach has generally been used in the teaching
of English to restricted groups, his insights into language use have implications
for general language programs primarily because of his view that language
should be taught through language use. In this respect, his views are similar
to Savignon's. If learners are given the opportunity to create discourse as well
as discover the features of cohesion and coherence that given texts display, the
notion of "teaching language as communication" (Widdowson 1978) is fully
realized and can be the basis of both general- and specific-purpose programs.
This means taking issue with Widdowson's claim that the teaching of "general"
language cannot be defined in terms of communicative requirements, a co un-
terview which finds support in the Firthian and Prague interest in language as
primarily a tool of communication in the most general sense: it is used by
individuals to interact with one another for a wide variety of purposes, among
which the purposes of the members of the discourse communities of science
and technology is only one set.
Widdowson has provided valuable insights into the nature of language and
communicative competence and, as Ruckin (1980) has expressed it, has played
a "pioneering" role in the movement from emphasis on grammatical correctness
96 CHAPTER 4

to emphasis on appropriate use. The shortcomings of his work, which lie prin-
cipally in the application of his approach and in his view that discourse is a
combination of logical statements, do not diminish its potential in the area of
curriculum design and materials development. Focus on use of language in the
classroom has resulted in greater attention to cognitive skills and the incorpo-
ration of problem-solving activities in a variety of teaching contexts. One of
these contexts, South India, in which Widdowson's approach has been applied
to curriculum and syllabus design, is described in Chapter 5.

Piepho's Communication-Based Approach

An approach to communicative language teaching rather different from

those of Savignon and of Widdowson is that developed by Hans-Eberhard
Piepho (1974, 1979), a West German methodologist who is known throughout
Europe as an innovator and leader in language pedagogy. He has had consid-
erable impact on curriculum design, materials development, and teacher training
and is largely responsible for new orientations in the teaching of German as a
first and second language as we11 as English as a foreign language. His com-
municative approach to English language teaching is distinguished by the two
major educational concerns it addresses. The first is minimalizing, if not possibly
doing away with, the discrepancy in West Germany between school and the
reality of socialization. The second is establishing English language teaching
and learning as a means of developing a careful and systematically sequenced
approach toward expression, interpretation, and negotiation within learners in
their experiences with the sociocultural reality of English.
When it was introduced in the 1970s, Piepho's approach to language teach-
ing was not generally accepted and proved controversial, in large part due to
his use of Jiirgen Habermas's (1970, 1971) social theory and interpretation of
communicative competence as a basis for his communicative approach.4 The
most important critique in this regard was that the concept of communicative
competence would conceive "a class internal didactic revolution," the effects
of which would be expressed in changed teaching strategies (Piepho 1979:9).
While this did eventually come about in the course of the development of com-
municative language teaching materials, such changes were not Piepho's original
aim. His objective was to democratize language teaching and to break down
elitist barriers to the development of communicative competence for all learners.

40ne especially outspoken critic, H. Gustschow (1976), ridiculed the notion of Kommunikative
Kompetenz by labeling it "Koko" and declaring it a "passing fad."
Communicative language Teaching 97

Piepho's interpretation of communicative competence is oriented toward

ability and is similar to Savignon's interpretation in this respect. For Piepho,
communicative competence is:
the ability to make oneself understood, without hesitation and inhibitions, by linguistic
means which the individual comprehends and has learned to assess in tenns of their
effects, and the ability to comprehend communicative intentions even when they are
expressed in a code which the speaker him or herself does not yet know well enough
to use and is only partially available in his or her own idiolect. (1974:9-10, my
translation)

This definition is significant for its inclusion of "hesitation and inhibitions,"

a reference which can be traced to Habermas. Piepho has drawn on the work
of this West German philosopher because he finds Habermas's concern with
the dynamics of interaction useful in meeting the changing needs of language
teaching. This concern contributed to Piepho's exploration of Habermas's con-
cept of communicative competence from a pedagogical perspective.

Habermas and Communicative Competence

In defining communicative competence, Habermas is concerned with the

notion in terms of the ideal; however, he rejects Chomsky's narrowly conceived
notion of competence, perceiving it as inadequate to account for culturally de-
termined interpretation and expression of meaning. In his view, the general
competence of the (ideal) speaker extends beyond the mastery of the abstract
system of linguistic rules to include the ability to produce a situation of potential
ordinary communication.
For Habermas, communicative competence is the mastery of the ideal
speech situation, which he describes in terms of two qualifications: (1) the po-
tential to produce an ideal speech situation and (2) knowledge and competence
in role behavior (which he calls "symbolic interaction") (1971). These qualifi-
cations are also part of Piepho's interpretation of communication for pedagogical
purposes ("to make oneself understood . . . by linguistic means which the in-
dividual has learned to assess in terms of their effects").
While Habermas's theory is founded on the nature of language and com-
munication, it is primarily a basis for a critique of society and is emancipatory
in aim. Communication, or communicative activity, is associated with commu-
nicative competence. When understood in terms of an ideal, communication is
realized when the actual motivations of the hearer are identical with the lin-
guistically apprehensible intentions of the speaker. Its prerequisite is an unhin-
dered agreement between the participants about the thematic and situational
parameters, the inherent meaning relationships, and the social conventions ap-
propriate to the context. During communication, as Wells (1986) interprets
Habermas in a discussion of problems associated with technical writing, all
98 CHAPTER 4

statements in the dialogue are assumed to be true, appropriate, sincere, and

comprehensible. This ability to enter into such a dialogue is communicative
competence. However, communication ends when a participant questions the
claim and implication of validity made by the other participant. This may happen
in communication involving nonidentical norms of appropriate interpersonal be-
havior. In such cases, the rules are not identical for each participant in the
speech act; and, as a result, participants will not conduct themselves reciprocally
toward one another's expectations.
At this point, discourse begins, which is the discussion (negotiation) be-
tween the participants oriented toward reestablishment of agreement on basic
principles, reaching a consensus, or resumption of communication. This dis-
tinction between pure communication and discourse is central to Habermas's
theory. His critique of the condition of communication in society is contingent
upon the communication/discourse dichotomy, since it is through discourse,
through negotiation, that change in society is effected and the ideal of com-
munication can be attained between and among all members and groups of a
society. This distinction proved to be important to Piepho for the design of
techniques and strategies for English language teaching which aims to develop
in learners the ability to work toward communication through discourse and to
expect the same from others. 5
Habermas's social critique focuses on communicative inequality and the
conflict between an ideal speech situation and communication distorted and
inhibited by actual patterns of socialization and interaction. Realization of an
ideal speech situation is dependent upon freedom from two types of hindrance:
(1) external, contingent influences, such as uneven distribution of power inherent
in a given social structure, and (2) tensions which result from the structure of
communication itself which might conceivably require repetitions, redundancies,
or use of formulaic expressions at particular points in the speech situation. The
desire to remove external and contingent influences gave impetus to the school
reform movement in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s in West Germany,
a movement with which Piepho's "Kommunikative Didaktik" (communicative
approach) was initially related.

5It is important to note here that the value on negotiation and equality in problem-solving acts in
Habennas's theory and Piepho's Kommunikative Didaktik is not generic to communication in all
cultures. While these values do exist in the West Gennan context and may also be features of
social behavior in other European countries, it may not be possible to generalize to other cultures.
As illustrated in an example provided by Hymes (1980), what may appear as restriction from one
point of view may be the existence of structure from another perspective, as in the Japanese
convention of constraint, or of giving way to the opinions of the leader and not expressing opposing
views openly. Such cultural contrasts can be observed within one culture, where there is a
continuum of nonns for negotiation.
Communicative language Teaching 99

The Development of a Kommunikative Didaktik

Development and recognition of Piepho's views were made possible partly

through the efforts of Piepho's fellow progressive educators who "have been
particularly concerned with the communicative approach since it promotes si-
multaneous learning of the subject and the processes of social interaction"
(Edelhoff 1983: 14). Their aim is the creation of a more democratic base in the
schools and the breakdown of elitist barriers to a quality education which would
recognize, among other things, the legitimacy of language variety and deviation
from the norm as well as the necessity of developing critical thinking in the
learners. This critical thought would be expressed through language, whether
it be in the first or second language classroom. The relationship between these
aims is realized when learners are encouraged to engage in discourse in
Habermas's sense, that is, challenge, criticize, and suggest improvements in the
status quo, be it of class texts, activities, or the society at large, with the language
being learned as the medium for the discourse.
Freedom from tensions resulting from the structure of communication is
more directly related to Piepho's Kommunikative Didaktik, which is concerned
with the structure of communication as much as it is with the formal realizations
of communicative acts.
The distribution of political and economic power, the distinction between
communication and discourse, and the potential of language to change society
is the basis for Piepho's definition of communicative competence and his ap-
proach to communicative language teaching. The ultimate aim of his approach
is to empower language users through language and thus enable them to par-
ticipate in the sharing of social and political responsibility. Communicative ac-
tivity takes on particular importance for Piepho as a means for learners to act
upon their surroundings. As he expresses it,
Every society displays a range of socially varied rituals realized by particular con-
ventional modes of communicating. Through these modes of communicating human
beings adjust to their surroundings, and mould them, making use of a set of well-
defined ways of expression. What this means in concrete terms for language learning
is the provision for learners of ways of making changes in his immediate environment,
among his fellow-learners and his teachers. (1981: 17)

When applied to the classroom setting, Kommunikative Didaktik implies

that early on the classroom learner is to make use of utterances such as "I
don't understand," "Repeat it please," "Could you speak a little slower?" and
"What's the meaning of X in English?" At a later point, other communicative
acts in other situational domains (e.g., obtaining goods or services) would be
added to prepare learners for contacts they are likely to make with other English
speakers outside of school. These communicative activities are one function of
a speaker's communicative competence.
100 CHAPTER 4

The next function of competence is the ability to use discourse, or "a co-
herent pattern of speech acts in context" (1981: 18; a phrase Piepho considers
preferable to discourse because of possible confusion with the nontechnical
sense of discourse as "talk, conversation"). Like communicative acts, these pat-
terns are also restricted by sociocultural realities and conventions, although they
may be less ritualized. Language learners' capacities to handle a pattern of
speech acts is related to their ability to select those particular linguistic real-
izations required to communicate their own particular point of view. Concretely,
this means learners are given opportunity to express their views (e.g., "I don't
like that story") and are provided with the means to justify their position. This
self-expression, considered vital to unrestricted communication, makes demands
on the linguistic resources available to the learners.
By relating Habermas's social analysis to culture and communication, two
basic concerns in language teaching, Piepho relates the facts of West German
culture to the organization and content of activities and teaching materials. How-
ever, Piepho deviates from Habermas in the priority given to communication.
Attainment of the ideal speech situation is not to be the learning and teaching
objective. Rather, it is development of learners' ability to cope with the real
situation, which is usually far from ideal. In emphasizing discourse, Piepho
does not intend to imply that communication is not ever possible, a condition
which would render any attempts at language teaching useless. Learners also
have to be prepared to deal with the manifestations of diversity which can
hinder communication. Miscommunication and faulty communication also have
to be regarded as situations in the real world with which learners are familiar
in their own language and culture.

Language Teaching and Social Change

The progressive education movement, Habermas's theory of communica-

tive competence, and alternative directions in language teaching are brought
together in a Kommunikative Didaktik to reveal the inauthenticity of the lan-
guage and of the situations presented in most language classrooms. In doing
so, Piepho is reacting to the situation in which "we are constantly demanding
that learners relocate themselves in some fantasy world when we ask them to
hear, see and imitate English dialogues" (1981:19). As a consequence, a variety
of stock figures and social and national stereotypes continue to be represented
in materials:
Women appear as "'Mummies," men a~ "Daddies" who drive cars, hand out pocket
money, make the family holiday plans and so on. In the school, teachers rule a~
friendly, gently reproving, una~sailed kings of the c1a~sroom, boys play football, fight
and bash each other about, girls tum out like sissies, or as older sisters with very
self-conscious ideas of "right" and "wrong." (1981: 19)
Communicative Language Teaching 101

To correct this situation, Piepho suggests changing the orientation of lan-

guage teaching textbooks in two ways. The first is to make room for a hard
look at the roles and relationships behind human behavior and to examine more
closely relationships between men and women, children and parents. As a result,
these stylized, idealized representations of society might be replaced with a
more honest attempt to involve learners in freer and more open communication
with those who have authority over them and with their speech partners. The
second means of changing the textbooks would be to seek out and present texts
as opinion and point of view, rather than fact, an approach known in German
as the Problematisierung of texts. Such presentation of texts would encourage
learners to assess and evaluate the texts critically, and ultimately lead to re-
finement of learners' communicative abilities and the achievement of the "over-
all scholastic goals of being able to get their ideas across, of evaluating ideas
carefully and of committing themselves to interpretation and communication"
(1981: 19).
Essentially, Piepho's Kommunikative Didaktik is based on the belief that
learners can become completely competent when they know what they have to
communicate and when they are sure of their roles and function. The objective
of language teaching is to help learners become confident of the diverse roles
and various functions associated with the language they are learning and the
contexts in which it is used.

Similarities and Differences

Although distinctive in a variety of ways, the approaches to communicative

language teaching of Savignon, of Widdowson, and of Piepho share in the high
value they assign language use in relation to its social context. In this aspect,
their interpretations draw upon the implications of Hymes's view of commu-
nicative competence as including social dimensions. 6 All three share in a view
of communication as the expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning.
However, they vary considerably in the specific characteristics of their approach,
which differ according to the perspective each takes on the purposes of teaching.
Savignon is primarily concerned with general-purpose foreign and second lan-
guage programs. Although Widdowson addresses the situation of general En-

6See David Taylor (1988) for an extensive discussion of the notion of communicative competence
and a critique of its use by a number of scholars, including Savignon and Widdowson. For
discussions of Taylor's article and additional views on the theoretical and practical value of
communicative competence, see Volume 10, Number 2, of Applied Linguistics, which contains
selected papers from the 1988 conference "Communicative Competence Revisited" held at
Coventry, England, and jointly sponsored by the British Association for Applied Linguistics and
the American Association for Applied Linguistics.
102 CHAPTER 4

glish, his efforts in the area of communicative language teaching have concen-
trated on teaching English for specific purposes. Piepho has addressed language
teaching at political and pedagogical levels, but is, like Savignon, primarily
interested in general language programs such as those typically found in primary
and secondary schools.
Savignon's and Piepho's approaches are more broadly based than
Widdowson's in their concern with face-to-face interaction as well as reader-
to-text interaction. This emphasis makes their models more appropriate for gen-
eral language programs. Although Widdowson's attention to the particular
concerns of reading in the area of science and technology, which can be iden-
tified with Savignon's curriculum component "Language for a Purpose," char-
acterizes his approach as less broadly based, this attention can be recognized
as appropriate given the narrowly focused concerns of text interpretation in
specific subject areas, concerns limited to the linguistic realizations of a dis-
course and the nonlinguistic features determining cohesion and coherence. It
must also be recognized that the appropriateness of Widdowson's interpretation
of the nature of discourse is somewhat limited and thus weakens to some degree
the potential usefulness of his approach, particularly to the interpretation of
verbal and nonverbal behavior in cross-cultural interaction. Chishimba (1985)
has pointed out that while a view of discourse as primarily a matter of cohesion
and coherence and the stringing together of logical statements might contribute
to understanding the meaning of a text, its interpretability also depends upon
knowledge of the role of silence, implication, or inference.
A strong feature of Widdowson's discoursal approach is his emphasis on
learning the language through using the language. His notion of "teaching lan-
guage as communication" is also at the center of Savignon's and Piepho's com-
municative teaching. They differ, however, in drawing attention to the
importance of engaging learners in use of the language in the classroom and
of making it possible for them to express their own views, that is, to express
themselves with appropriate cultural and social markers which may not be
shared with native-speaker or other nonnative-speaker groups. This allowance
for diversity contrasts with Widdowson's ESP materials, which are concerned
with the expression of one kind of international English that is associated with
the world community of scientists and technologists.
Much of the significance of Savignon's and Piepho's work is their devel-
opment of communicative language teaching beyond Language for Specific Pur-
poses, which has been equated with communicative language teaching in some
circles (Ross 1981). This conception of communicative teaching can be traced
perhaps to Widdowson's claim, with respect to English language teaching, that
so long as our concern is with the teaching of "general" English without any im-
mediate purpose, without knowing in any very definite way what kind of commu-
nicative requiremenl~ are to be made of it, then the need to teach language as
Communicative Language Teaching 103

communication is not particularly evident. Once we are confronted with the problem
of teaching English for a specific purpose then we are immediately up against the
problem of communication. (1979: 12)

The viability of these three distinct communicative approaches and their

potential for the classroom will be illustrated in Chapter 5 through an exami-
nation of three language teaching curricula and materials based on either
Savignon's, Widdowson's, or Piepho's model of communicative language teach-
ing. Through these illustrations, the communication-oriented language teaching
principles the approaches have in common and the uniqueness of their inter-
pretations will be outlined. From the examination of these illustrations, it will
become clear that communicative language teaching cannot be conceived of in
monolithic terms or be understood as an exclusively British, North American,
or continental European phenomenon. It will also be shown that the strength
and value of a communicative approach to language teaching lie in its respon-
siveness to the diversity of contexts in which languages are taught and used
around the world.

What Is a Communicative Approach to Language Teaching?

The communicative approach is different from previous approaches to lan-

guage teaching in a number of significant areas. Although it has frequently
been associated with functional syllabuses, it has evolved into a basis for cul-
turally and socially responsive language teaching that does not dictate or pre-
scribe a syllabus type or teaching methodology. This development is due to its
concern with communication as a meaning-based activity and with the role of
functions, or uses, of language in the expression, interpretation, and negotiation
of meaning. Communicative language teaching is founded on an understanding
of the nature of communication and the variability of norms for communication
from context to context. Since it draws on the functional approach to linguistics,
exemplified in the theory of Halliday, for its theoretical perspective on language,
language use, and language development, the concepts of function and use refer
not only to function in the sense of apologizing or describing but also, and
more importantly, to the ideational, interpersonal, and textual functions of lan-
guage, that is, the metafunctions of Halliday's theory. This abstract interpretation
of function becomes especially important in the choice of appropriate language
teaching models and materials.
At issue in appreciating the need for rejection of a monolithic view of
communicative language teaching is the identification of appropriate approaches
to language teaching for a variety of contexts. Communicative language teaching
has the potential to meet the needs of situations as diverse as those found in
India, West Germany, and Japan and to provide for the development of materials
104 CHAPTER 4

suitable for each context, either through guidelines for the modification of ex-
isting materials or the local production of materials. This potential can be re-
alized most effectively when communicative language teaching is understood
in terms of the following characteristics:

1. Language teaching is based on a view of language as communication,

that is, language is seen as a social tool which 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
of correctness.
4. More than one variety of a language is recognized as a viable model
for learning and teaching.
5. Culture is recognized as playing an instrumental role in shaping
speakers' communicative competence, both in their first and subsequent
languages.
6. No single methodology or fixed set of techniques is prescribed.1
7. Language use is recognized as serving the ideational, the interpersonal,
and the 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,
that is, that they use language for a variety of purposes in all phases
of learning.

As these characteristics indicate, qualification as a communicative approach

requires more than addition of the word "communicative" or "function" to the
language teacher's lexicon. It also requires an orientation toward language based
on a set of assumptions which are radically different from the formalistic views
of the structuralist period of influence or the dominant generative model. As
the language teaching curricula and materials described in the next chapter il-
lustrate, it is this broader interpretation which makes it possible for approaches
to language teaching to be fully responsive to a learner's needs as a social
being who interacts in a variety of roles and contexts in particular social and
cultural settings.

7While particular techniques and procedures (e.g., group and pair work) are generally associated
with communicative language teaching, these are not a feature of all communicative materials and
by no means are they organized into a prescribed sequence to be identified as a "method" (as
this has been understood with "audio-lingual method" or the "Natural Approach").
 CHAPTER 5
Functionally Based
Communicative Approaches
to Language Teaching

Functional linguistics serves as a perspective from which to gain insight into

the key sociolinguistic concepts of communicative competence, intelligibility,
and model, the nature of English language use in nonnative contexts, and the
underlying framework of communicative approaches to language teaching. It
further provides a theoretical basis for relating the practical concerns of materials
and methodology design to learner needs and the sociocultural context in which
the learning occurs. This link between theory and practice is achieved when
materials identified as communicative are examined with respect to their func-
tional basis.
One means of determining the functional basis of curricula, syllabuses,
materials, and methodologies is to evaluate them using criteria drawn from the
distinguishing characteristics of functional approaches to linguistics. In light of
the discussion of functional approaches in Chapter 1, the following set of criteria
can be identified:

I. The communicative function of language

2. The symbolic function of language
3. The individual language user as a social being
4. The analysis of language in context
5. Meaning
6. Actual texts
7. Context
8. Situation
9. Culture
10. Learning how to mean

105
106 CHAPTER 5

The Criteria

To be useful as a framework for the examination of the functional basis

of materials, the criteria need to be elaborated upon in pedagogical terms and
examples provided of the aspects of materials to which they apply.
Communicative Function of Language. Language is viewed as a means by
which members of social groups communicate thoughts, ideas, beliefs, wishes,
needs, and desires. It is regarded as the primary means for social interaction.
In language teaching materials, this criterion is evident in a primary focus on
learners doing things in the language they are learning rather than in reciting
contrived dialogues, manipulating grammar in mastery exercises, following re-
petitive drills, or analyzing decontextualized language. For example, learners
are asked to use language to interact with others (their teacher or peers in the
classroom or others outside of the classroom) for a variety of purposes through
written as well as spoken texts.
Symbolic Function of Language. This criterion refers to the function lan-
guage serves as a result of speakers' attitudes about language, which in tum
influence norms, standards, and models. This function has a bearing on the
model of language selected for learners to approximate, the varieties of language
to which they are exposed, and the particular communicative competence they
are to develop. For example, learners may be expected to conform to a model
which may be a nonnative instead of a native model. The symbolic function
also is reflected in educational policies that determine which students are eligible
for foreign/second language instruction and the standards set for learner achieve-
ment in learning. This criterion can be applied in looking for acknowledgment
of the instrumental, interpersonal, or regulative functions a language serves
learners.
Individual Language User as a Social Being. This criterion is reflected in
materials writers' concern for the learner as an individual with unique interests
and needs. This is acknowledged in the individualization of content and objec-
tives which permit learners to establish their own agenda for learning and use
of the language and their own preferences in the use of the language, for ex-
ample, in the choices of vocabulary, registers, and levels of formality/informal-
ity. While the focus is on the individual, it is recognized that each individual
is a member of at least one social group and that each individual ultimately
uses language to establish, maintain, and develop membership in a group. This
is reflected in opportunities for learners to take on a number of social roles
and points of view and to develop the corresponding communicative compe-
tence.
Analysis of Language in Context. This criterion is applied to the tasks and
activities that focus on the lexicogrammatical system. Are the forms of language
Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 107

related to the functional meanings they express? Are learners presented with
texts which exemplify formal and functional features of language at all levels,
phonological through discoursal? Do the explicit descriptions of formal and
functional relationships include an account of the role of context in determining
their relationship?
Meaning. Meaning is viewed as the result of choices available to users in
the meaning systems of a language. This criterion is evident in the materials'
focus on what learners want to say, or the meanings they want to make, as
well as on how they say what they are saying, that is, the form in which they
express these meanings. It is also evident in activities and tasks which offer
learners opportunity to make selections from the available choices in meaning
offered by the language being learned.
Actual Texts. Actual texts are those spoken and written by users of a lan-
guage for the purposes of communicating with other users of that language.
They are contrasted with texts created solely for the purpose of display or il-
lustration of grammatical features. In language pedagogy, actual texts are fre-
quently described as "authentic" and are contrasted with contrived dialogues
and reading passages designed to highlight particular structural and formal fea-
tures. Actual texts are represented by excerpts or reprints from a variety of
sources-magazines, newspapers, or school textbooks, and transcripts of con-
versations, meetings, or other face-to-face encounters-or, in cases where no
suitable actual text is available, by "genuine" texts, which, although not written
or spoken by users for communication with other users, are considered to be
acceptable representations of such texts. This criterion is evident in texts (either
authentic or genuine) which illustrate a variety of uses and represent a range
of text types.
Context. This criterion concerns the relationship between form and situa-
tion. It focuses on the relationship of the elements of a situation to the formal
and structural features of an utterance and the way these formal features of
language are dependent on and structured by the context. In language teaching
materials this criterion is applied to the manner in which texts are presented
and to the types of activities and tasks surrounding the texts. Is enough back-
ground provided about the speakers and hearers for the motivation of their
choice of forms and interpretations of these forms to be clear? Are participants
specified? Is enough text provided for learners to identify possible participants?
Is the setting (location) of an instance of language seen as being only potentially
significant to the meanings being expressed and interpreted by the participants?
Situation. Situation refers to the environment of the utterance (text), for
example, what is being talked about, the participants and their purpose in inter-
acting, and the particular characteristics of the participants which lead them to
choose the particular utterances and to formulate them in the way they do or
to interpret the utterances as they do. This criterion can be applied to the texts
108 CHAPTER 5

included in the materials and the range of situations they represent. It can also
be applied to tasks and activities for learners. Are learners provided with the
variety of situation types performed by a variety of speakers appropriate to
their purposes? Do the speakers represent various backgrounds, take on a variety
of roles, and use language at a variety of levels of formality? Are learners also
provided the opportunity to use language in a variety of roles, at different levels
of formality, and for various purposes?
Culture. As a criterion for evaluating functionally based communicative
approaches, culture is related to the appropriate use of language. It is regarded
as determining the situation types in which users of a language engage and the
forms appropriate to these situations. Attention to culture is evident in explicit
and implicit references to cultural features. For example, explicit attention to
culture includes examination of what it Ti'.eans for native speakers to make an
apology, the form the apology is to take, and how this compares and contrasts
with what it means for nonnative speakers to make an apology and the form
it would take. Culture is also acknowledged as a determinant of the success of
a teaching approach or methodology. Evidence of culture in this sense is re-
flected in the types of activities and tasks selected or rejected as suitable for
learners. For example, role-playing may not be considered appropriate in a par-
ticular setting due to the value placed on a traditional teacher-centered class-
room.
Learning How to Mean. When used to evaluate the functional bases of
communicative language teaching materials, this criterion is related to the un-
derlying view of the goal of language learning. When viewed as learning how
to mean, language learning is a process of developing a meaning potential and
its concomitant behavior potential. The meaning potential represents the reper-
toire of meanings that a given language, or variety of language, expresses. In
language teaching materials, the nature of learning and language-use tasks and
activities and the objectives with which they are associated are evidence of this
view of language development. Are the purposes for the completion of tasks
restricted to formal analysis and learning about the forms to realize meanings?
Or, are they aimed at the learners' mastery or control of structural features and
linguistic forms? Are the purposes related to doing things with language, to
interacting with other users of the language for the purpose of achieving some
aim, realizing some intent? Is the goal for learners to learn how to make mean-
ing, to express, interpret, and negotiate meaning in a variety of situations, that
is, to develop a communicative competence that is appropriate to their needs?
In the following sections, the criteria will serve as the framework to guide
an examination of the functional basis of three examples of communicative
language teaching. Each example will be examined with reference to each cri-
terion.
Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 109

The first example is Contacts (Piepho and Bredella 1976), an English lan-
guage teaching series designed for the West German context based on Piepho's
Kommunikative Didaktik. The second is Savignon and Berns's (1983) proposal
for a set of materials for Japanese learners of English based on Savignon's
interactional approach to communicative language teaching. The final example
is Prabhu's (1987) communicational language teaching project, set in the context
of South India and based on Widdowson's discourse-based approach.

Contacts: Communicative Language Teaching for the

West German Context

Contacts is an English language series prepared for West German primary

and secondary schools.! It represents a curriculum for grade 5, the first year
of instruction in most West German schools, through grade IO and is a com-
prehensive example of materials designed with the sociocultural context of both
the learners and the language being learned in mind. As described in Chapter
4, social concerns are at the center of Piepho's approach. As a functionally
based communicative language teaching program, Contacts illustrates how the
impulses of social change and socioculturally determined needs of learners, the
essence of Piepho's Kommunikative Didaktik, have been realized in language
teaching materials. The application of the criteria to these materials highlights
this focus on social concerns.

Communicative Function of Language. In Contacts, an understanding of

English in its communicative function is evident in many forms. Emphasis is
on involving learners in using and working with the new language. Attention
to analysis of the uses of English as well as experiences in using it is highlighted
in activities which address a range of language uses, for example, buying in a
department store, returning an item, writing a letter of complaint, participating
in a formal meeting, giving and asking for directions, following instructions,
or writing a letter of inquiry. These activities are specifically designed to involve
learners in using English for a variety of communicative purposes. Typically
the tasks presented call on skills in expression as well as interpretation, which
learners are to apply to complete the tasks. "Making an Itinerary" (Figure 6),

1Publication of the first edition of Contacts began in 1976. The team of authors for individual first
edition volumes, which are the source of illustrations in this chapter, include Margie Berns, Vera
Breuer, Werner Genzlinger. Lore Gerster. Louanna Heuhsen, Rainer Iwen, Delia Krause, Jutta
Kruger, Dieter Mulch, Colin Oakley, Harald Ponader. Heike Rautenhaus, and Franz Wenisch. The
entire series is in revision for a second edition. under the general editorship of Hans-Eberhard
Piepho. Lothar Bredella, and Franz Wenisch.
110 CHAPTER 5

m Contacts Tips for Tourists

Part One: Making Contacts with America by Bus

Enjoy unlimited travel

in the U.S. and Canada
year 'roundl
The new Greyhound AMERIPASS lets you travel about anywhere in
the U.S. and Canada. You decide when, where and how often.
You also set your own schedule. Your own itinerary - because there
are four great AMERIPASS plans!

Adult Fare (u.s. dollars):

15 Days $165 00
21 Days $199 00
One Month $225 00
Two Months $325 00

Part Two: Making an Itinerary

In small groups solve the following itinerary problems.

Problem description:

1. You and your friends have bought 15-day Ameripasses.

2. You have decided to start and end your trip in New York City.

3. After reading several travel guides, you have decided to visit

the following cities:
New York City
Toronto, Ontario
St. louis, Missouri
Boston, Massachusetts
Nashville, Tennessee
Chicago, Illinois
Washington, D.C.
Cincinnati, Ohio
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

4. You have agreed to spend at least one day (24 hours) in each city and
to spend 00 more than 3 nights altogether sleeping on the bus. Pay close
attention to the time'it takes to travel from one city to another
(on the map).
5. You assume that you can get a bus to the next city at any time between
6:00 a.m. and midnight.
Now make an itinerary. Solution:

Day One: Arrival in New York Sightseeing in New York

Day Two: Departure for ... at ... Arrival in ... at ...
Day Three: Departure for .. .

Figure 6. Contacts Tips for Tourists. Source: H. E. Piepho and L. Bredella, 1980, Contacts 8:
Topics 2, Enriched Course, Kamp. pp. 4-5.
Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 111

Approximat Greyhound travel time

between principal cities

Figure 6. (continued)
112 CHAPTER 5

for example, engages learners in a set of problem-solving tasks that require

reading and interpretation of map information and sharing of knowledge and
ideas for the successful completion of the activity.

Symbolic Function of Language. The instrumental and interpersonal func-

tions are taken into account through choice of content for texts and the nature
of activities and tasks learners are to complete.
The interpersonal function is illustrated in situations in which West Ger-
mans interact with both native and nonnative speakers and in which English
functions as a lingua franca. English as a language of intra-European commu-
nication is acknowledged in dialogues between West Germans and other Eu-
ropeans in likely places for these contacts. For example, a children's summer
camp is the setting for the fifth-grade textbook. Since it is an international
camp, the children, who come from all over Europe, use English to communicate
with one another. Through this setting, learners are introduced to English as a
language they can use with their peers outside as well as inside the classroom.
As Piepho (1974) has emphasized, English is the medium for making other
people's reality, values, wishes, plans, and history (past, present, and future)
accessible to the learner. Therefore, texts are not restricted in content to topics
about American or British culture; while familiarity with these (and other native
English-speaking cultures) is one objective of this curriculum, English as a me-
dium for finding out about others and oneself is also important. Figure 7 offers
an example of an activity designed to involve learners in using English for
self-understanding.
Attention to self suggests a further category of the symbolic function, one
which can be considered a subcategory of the interpersonal function. This sub-
category could be called the "personal function" because it is concerned with
individual users' development of unique identities, a process directly related to
the ideational component of the semantic system. In the materials for grades
7 and 8, learners are given opportunities to broaden their own field of experience
through activities designed to encourage creative skills and talents and to ar-
ticulate their own experience in other than oral expression. Poetry (Figure 8),
diaries, and short pieces of fiction are means of achieving this.
Although it is difficult to predict the role the instrumental function of En-
glish will play in the careers and employment of the learners or to know how
many will need and use English in higher education, ample opportunities for
the development of study skills and subject matter texts are provided. Study
skills (Figure 9) include note taking, summarizing, outlining, skimming and
scanning, categorization and classification, determination of fact and opinion,
and defending a point of view. Text types include recipes, assembly instructions,
"brain teasers," charts, graphs and tables, time lines of historical events, ency-
clopedia excerpts, and newspaper and magazine articles.
Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 113

rite 0 Your Autobiography

OW it's your lum 10 wrtle our aUloblogrJphy Include faCI aboul eJch
of Ih following Item~;
your nam and birlhdal
your family
wh rl' you Ii\ll' (hav lived,
I'our ~hools
~our hobbi 5 and lnler I
your lulure

Llnguage I r: 1
millen .. 1

lh

Figure 7. Write On! Your Autobiography. Source: H. E. Piepho and L. Bredella, 1980, Contacts
8: Topics 2, Enriched Course, Kamp, p. 119.
114 CHAPTER 5

Relating with Poetry

In the last approach you wrote your autobiography as a way of relating to

yourself. In this approach you have the chance to write a poem expressing
your feelings or ideas. This is another way of relating to yourself or your
friends. You don't have to be a great poet to write a poem that says some-
thing interesting or important.
Poems have many different forms. In this exercise we want to introduce
you to a form called the cinquain, which is about 600 years old. The
classical cinquain has five lines and 22 syllables arranged like this:

line 1 2 syllables
line2 4 syllables
line 3 6 syllables
line4 S'syllables
lineS 2 syllables

Here are two examples of a cinquain. Count the syllables in each line.

My friend- CONTACTS-
Fun, laughter, tears. lively learning.
Please be there when I call. look across the ocean I
Waiting, hoping, dreaming with me. Time to make friends with each other.
Partner, People.

Relating with Poetry: Have a 1f)'

Each line of a cinquain has a different function.

line 1 names the subject of the poem;

line 2 describes it;
line 3 describes an action of the subject;
line 4 expresses your feelings about the subject;
and line S names the subject again with a different word, or words.

Follow this guide and write your own cinquain. It doesn't matter at all if
your poem isn't exactly like the guide - after all, it is your poem.
Figure 8. Relating with Poetry. Source: H. E. Piepho and L. Bredel\a, 1980, Contacts 8: Topics
2, Enriched Course, Kamp, p. 123.
Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 115

e Where They Settled

fl) Living in Colonial America

The growth 01 The PIlgrims 01 1620 were only the begmning of the Europe.n seillemenl
the colonIes 01 the astern coast of orth America . In the lollowmg ye.us. thousands
of indIvIduals and families made the dang rous Journey to the Engh~h
colonies '" the ew World. Some of them started new l,ve in the colonl
whIch were called ew England. some In Ih mIddle colon I s. and wme
,n the southern colonies. All the e colonies belonged to England, but e ch
regIon had Its own way of life.
The oUlhern The southern colonl s had them Illes : Bahimor In aryland. orloll In
colonl VirgIn; • • Charle Ion In oUlh CMohna. and S.. vannah In GeorgIa The e
colOnies' way 01 hie wa larming. The warm southern chmate
mad II possIble to grow tobacco. rice. COllon. and mdlgo. a pl .. nl grown
to make blue dye. MOSI IMmers '" the southern colon;e had small farms
and no sl .. v ,but there were also rich plant IS WIth larg planla1l0n and
dOl ens 01 black slaves.

Figure 9. Study Skills Text. Source: H. E. Piepho and L. Bredella, 1980, Contacts 8: Topics 2,
Enriched Course, Kamp, pp. 78-79.
116 CHAPTER 5

The middle The middle colonies were known as the "bread colonies". Most of the
colonies colonists there had small but successful farms without slaves. The farmers
lived in stone and brick houses far apart from one another. In the growing
cities of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and New York, many people worked
as shopkeepers and craftsmen. Many non-English colonists came to the
middle colonies: German, Scotch, Irish, Swedish, and French colon,ists.
The middle colonists were most tolerant of different religious and ethnic
groups.
New England like the other colonists, most New Englanders were farmers. However, their
farms were small and the soil was poor and rocky. Many colonists lived in
seaports catching fish, making rum, building ships, or trading slaves for
southern plantations. Boston, Massachusetts, was the center of trade,
whereas Newport, Rhode Island, was the center of the slave trade.

(D Taking Notes about Living in Colonial America

Copy the following headings onto another sheet of paper and

organize the information in 2.1. and 2.2.

in '" '"
'"
'"
"'
.~ .J:J >
en 0 5? '"
Vi

New England New YOrk

e~IOn
Mauactlu&etls
Rhode 1,land
CO","'OCUCI,H

Penn!J.ylyanla

New Jer!!lo9Y
Middle BlllUmOIe
~lewBre

colonies Maryland
Virg inia
Nor1olk

-~'------ Nculh Carohna

Southern
- - South Caro lina
colonies
Charles10n

Savannah
Georgia

Figure 9. (continued)
Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 117

Since Contacts was designed with the aims of the school refonn movement
in mind, diminishing the effect of the prestige function of English is a feature
of the contents and approach to these materials. This feature is represented in
three ways: (\) through the content of the texts, which are not solely literary,
(2) in the nature of activities, which are not translation exercises and compre-
hension questions, but which represent efforts to create social awareness among
the learners and to develop their ability to engage in discourse, and (3) in the
presentation of both British and American variants of expression as acceptable
models.
Responsiveness to the variation in models to which learners are likely to
be exposed is also evident in Contacts. Teachers' unique competences and mod-
els of pronunciation, usage, and use are recognized as influencing the English
that learners eventually use in speaking and writing. While nonns and standards
may be derived from native models, and, more likely, British models, the Con-
tacts authors acknowledge that teachers themselves can only approximate these
norms and that their English reflects German linguistic and sociocultural influ-
ences in general and the individual teacher's own experience with English in
particular.

Individual Language User as a Social Being. The individual learner as

a member or potential member of particular social groups is accounted for in
the variety of roles the learners are called upon to play, the range of groups
in which they have membership or with which they come into contact. In the
eighth-grade text, for example. the social context of texts and activities includes
the members of the school community at large, the English class, a school
club, the family, the neighborhood, a circle of friends, a hobby club, a school
activity committee, and a sports team. The language appropriate for participation
in these groups is presented in articles, brief reports, and dialogues. "A School
Meeting" (Figure 10), for example, provides the context for the introduction
of one situation type, a fonnal meeting, and corresponding language items.
Learners are subsequently provided with an opportunity to use these particular
lexical and structural items in a setting similar to that presented in the textbook.

Analysis of Language in Context. Analysis of language fonn and function

is explicit and implicit. Explicit analysis highlights the nature of the fonnal
realizations of English. The textbooks for grades 7 and 8 focus on fonn in the
recurring section, "Using Language" (Figure II).
It is appropriate at this point to address the issue of systematic presentation
of lexical and grammatical items, in which Contacts departs from a traditional
view. As explained in the teacher's manual:
118 CHAPTER 5

Examples Chairman: I call this meeting to order. The secretary will now read the
minutes of our last meeting.
Secretary: The chairman called the meeting to order on Monday,
September 10, 1977 at 4.00 p. m ....

Chairman: At our last meeting we decided to have a school fair. When?

john: I think .. .
Michael: Well .. .
Karen: November .. .
Gwen: What about .. .
Chairman: Everybody can't talk at the same time.
john, you raised your hand first. Michael is next.

Michael: The fair should be in june. It's warm then.

Chairman: Karen.
Karen: I think November would be better.
Chairman: Gwen.
Gwen: I agree. People can buy Christmas presents then.

Chairman: Any more discussion? john.

John: I move that we have the fair in June.
Chairman: Mary.
Mary: I second the motion.
Chairman: Let's vote on the motion. Raise your hand if you're for a fair
in june. Now raise your hand if you're against a fair in June.

~ Getting things done: a school meeting (II)

Language I call the meeting to order. I second the motion.

material We should have our ... in ... let's vote on the motion.
I think ... would be better. Raise your hand if you are for ...
I move that ... Raise your hand if you are against ...

Practice Form groups of 5 pupils. Practise using the rules for a meeting.
Take turns being the chairman.
Decide when to have
a school fair,
a class trip, or
a handball tournament.

Figure 10. A School Meeting. Source: H. E. Piepho and L. Bredella, 1979, Contacts 7: Topics I.
Enriched Course, Kamp, pp. 54-55.
Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 119

T~king minutes
At i meeting the secretary takes notes
Then he "'flies a report about th meeting.
This report IS called the minutes of the meeting
Complete these minutes.

Minutes of 5<hool Meeting - October 22, 1977

The pupils decld d to form SI committees for the school fair.
1. The . • Commillc will organize the work of .11 commillces and
class s dunng the i.ur.
2. The .. • Commltt e will tell the newspapers about the ralr It viII also
make advertiSing posters for the school and the shops In town .
3 The ••• Commillee ,,,II collect and count all money at the fair.
4: The ••. Commlltee Will sell drinks and food at the fair
5 The .. Committee VIII plan and make decorations for the fair.
6 The .• Committee Will empt wastebas els and sweep the Iloors
dunng and after the fair.

C0l11m11l

.~
•
The Refreshments
Committee

Figure 10. (continued)

120 CHAPTER 5

e Classroom Contacts
janie, Martha, and Carol are sitting in study period, but they're not doing
their homework because they've got so much to chat about.
The only problem is they have to whisper, and janie and Carol can't hear
each other. Martha has to report what each of them says.
What does Martha say?

janie: I've finished my homework. I'm bored.

Martha: Hey, Carol. janie says ...
Carol: I'm bored, too. And I'm hungry.
Martha: Carol says ...
janie: I'll give her my candy bar.
Martha:
Carol: Great. I have to buy something to wear on my date.
Martha:
janie: I'm going to wear my new sweater.
Martha:
Carol: She looks really nice in that sweater.
Martha:
janie: Thanks. We can all go shopping after school. My mom will take us.
Martha:
Carol: O.K. I'll call you when I get home.

Figure 11. Classroom Contacts/Using Language. Source: H. E. Piepho and L. Bredella, 1980, Con-
tacts 8: Topics 2, Enriched Course, Kamp, pp. 46-47.
Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 121

<D Using language to Retell What Someone Said

Do you remember what Georgia saidl

A GeorgIa' "I ~m in ninth grade."

8 Georgia said to the interviewer that she wu in ninth grade.

A GeorgIa. "I do my homework in the study period."

18 Georgia told the interviewer that she did her homework in the study period.

A GeorgIa: "In the evening we h~ve dinner with our parents."

18 Georgia remarked that in the evening they had dinner with their parents.

reporting clause reported clause

When you retell something, the reportong clause is usually in the

PAST TE SE. In this case, present tense verbs in direct speech (A) are
changed into past tense in the reported speech (8).

CD More about Tenses in Reported Speem

reportins cBUIe: past tense or past perfect tense

direct speech reported speech

present tense past tense
• Ido my homework. " · .. (that) she did her homework.

Note: If the reporting clause IS in the past tense (or in the past perlect
tense) the following changes are also necessary:

direct speed! reported speech

present perfect ----+ past perlect

"We have never learnt German." · .. (that) they had never learnt
German.
past tense past perfect
• Yesterday 1 helped my friend.· · .. (that) he had helped his fflend .

Figure 11. (continued)

122 CHAPTER 5

Learning of rules is not to take place ad hoc and chapter by chapter, but rather in
a long-term process of recognition, practice, and application, When information, rules,
and explanations of the language are to be formalized, it is the concern of the teacher
and not any prescriptive teaching plan. Therefore, all grammar explanations are given
very carefully in the textbook. Under no circumstances should the user of Contacts
assume that the grammar as it is presented in the textbook is completely or formally
presented as a pedagogical grammar. . .. The system of the grammar is inherent
and implicit, and only seldom, if ever, explicit. (Piepho and Gerster 1979:5, my
translation)

Implicit analysis of language is required in nearly every task and activity

in these materials to the extent that correct interpretation of any text depends
on an understanding at all levels, from the phonological to the discoursaL

Meaning. Contacts offers two illustrations of meaning as choice. One is

the activity type "Chatter Chain" (Figure 12) which represents choice as de-
termining meaning and the effect of these choices on the responses of the next
speaker. The interactive nature of language is conveyed by the form of this
activity: the first learner makes a choice from the two options given; a second
learner makes an appropriate choice from "2"; the first, or yet a third, learner
chooses a response from "3." Variations and combinations are allowed if they
are meaningful and contribute to the creation of a coherent text.
The second type of activity which is specifically concerned with meaning
as choice is the "Everyday Encounter" (Figure 13). The choice in the meaning
potential ("can mean") is from three options: (I) placing blame, (2) opting out
of dealing with the situation, or (3) suggesting an alternative plan. The utterances
presented in the activity represent preselections in "can say." Learners are to
make meaning choices, discuss their effects, and provide possible alternative
meanings and realizations of meanings.

Actual Texts. Contacts uses a variety of actual texts, both authentic and
genuine, which includes texts presented to and created by learners. Examples
of texts presented to learners include newspaper stories, magazine features (e.g.,
quizzes and questionnaires), interviews, encyclopedia and biographical entries,
letters and notes, advertisements, catalog descriptions, poetry, songs, short sto-
ries, and diary entries.
Actual texts, either written or spoken, are contextualized and intended for
a communicative purpose; in other words, they are not for the pedagogical pur-
pose of determining whether or not learners can manipulate particular formal
features, for example, formation of the present perfect tense. Texts of this kind
contrast with driIIs or responses to display questions (e.g., "What is this?" in-
tended to elicit "a pencil" or "a book" from learners while the teacher holds
a book or pencil up before them). Texts created by learners include letters,
autobiographical statements, reports, summaries, messages, or poems.
Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 123

e Chatter Chain: What Do You Like to Readl

1 2
What do you like to read? I like to read.
Do you like to read magazines? No, they're boring.
novels? all alike.
comics? a waste of time.
love stories? too expensive.
mysteries? I prefer.
science fiction?
... are more exciting.

I like to read. Yes, especially hobby magazines.

sports
3 fashion

I do, too. I What's your favorite? teen

music
What have you read?
news
I don't. They're I bOring. i buy one almost every week.

I don't have time for that.

Want to look at my newest one?
I have too much reading for school.
Could I I see it I sometime?
borrow one I don't like to read at all. I'd rather play football.
watch TV.
Reading is I a great way to make contacts. ride my bike.
better than ...
listen to records.
You can't play football I all the time.
all night.
Why? I What's your favorite?
I do, too. What have you read?
That's too bad. Reading is fun.

II
I think they're ...

last I week read.

month

My favorite is .

Figure 12. Chatter Chain: What Do You Like to Read? Source: H. E. Piepho and L. Bredella,
1980, Contacts 8: Topics 2, Enriched Course, Kamp, p. 136.

Context. Context is taken into account with features of the context of

situation often explicitly referred to in tasks and activities. In "Everyday En-
counter" (Figure 13), participants' roles and relationships are under analysis.
Learners are encouraged to speculate on the effects of the utterances chosen.
Attention is drawn to the social and cultural background of the participants,
for example, their nationality, how well they know each other, or their age.
When learners are to create texts in role-plays and situations, for example,
background information is given. In a simulation, learners are presented with
124 CHAPTER 5

f.D Everyday Encounter

1. You Ny:
You' re challing with an a) Are American$ always 'Tlendlyl
American family in a b) We're like other people. Some-
restaurant The father times we're 'riendly, some-
says, " .didn't know limes we're not.
Germans could be friendly·. c) You don't say anything and
leave the restaurant.

2. You Ny:
You're challing with an '0
a) I'm sorry, I dldn' . wan!
American on the bus, and make you angry.
he asks, "How do you like b) You asked lor my opinIon,
Americal" You answer, didn't you?
"Everything's too big here.· c) You don't say anything and
He looks angry. move to another seat.

Figure 13. Everyday Encounter. Source: H. E. Piepho and L. Bredella, 1980, Contacts 8: Topics
2, Enriched Course, Kamp, p. 13.

a complex problem, as in the "Parking Garage Controversy" (Figure 14). Back-

ground infonnation, roles and relationships, and relevant objects are outlined
in the tasks and activities. The texts learners produce in the "town meeting"
section of the simulation are the result of their interpretation of these features
of the context and of appropriate behavior and meanings.
In addition to considering the context of simulated and role-played inter-
actions which may be removed from the learners' present, the classroom also
provides an immediate context relevant to the learners as school pupils. As
they are already familiar with the particular features of the classroom context,
these do not require explicit description; the participants in the roles of learner
and teacher, for example, and relevant objects as they interact are a given, and
therefore they are not in need of analysis.

Situation. "Situation" in these materials is best understood by considering

van Ek and Alexander's interpretation of this concept. Rather than refer to "at
the post office," situation specifies "the complex of extra-linguistic conditions
which detennines the nature of a language act" (1980: 17). These conditions
are the psychological and social roles the learner will be able to play (e.g.,
neutrality, private person). In the role-plays and simulations of Contacts, for
example, roles are situated in the settings in which the learner will be able to
 Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 125

ED The Parking CMage Conlroveny

In this approach you'll encounter a new language learning activity: the
simulation. In a simulation you and your classmates take the roles of people
who are trying to solve a difficult problem. First you gather information
about the problem. Then you try to find a solution.

Problem:
A controversial plan to build a parking garage on the site of a
park in the center of town.

~ infonMtion from a local newspaper:

Angry cItIzena meet with mayor

Y....-, IIIIInIoon 25 membera 01 the . . Elm StrMt Park." In hla ...'-"It

",...,. . . EIIII ..... Part" CMIfIIIIgI • Ma,or Young aaId that he under"ltood
.... .. Ma,or Young'. ofIIce to ghe 111m . . gfOUp'. wIah to ..". . . park. but
• .,.utIon. The apoUIperaon for . . he conttnued, "The parIdng garage on
group, Mrs a.rtJera a.nn.a. told , . Elm Street Ia abeoIuteIy neceaary for
portara, "1Na .. only . . beginning 01 . . ~. The next IIIMtIng of tile
our IIgId. w.',. ....... cIty'. pe.n to EInI Street Part campalgn will be held
build • .,.... on EIIII ........ owe on Friday ..uno at 7:30 In the baM-
It to 0InIIwee and our dIIIdNn to .... ..... 01 . . c.IhoIIc Chun:II.

~ The Roles
Divide the class into four groups. Each group lakes one of the follOWing
roles:
A: The shopkeepers in Monroe. They are in favor of the plan to build the
parking g<lrage on Elm Street.
B: Citizens who have to drive into the CIty to work and to shop. They
are also in favor of the plan.
e: "Save the Elm Street Park" campaign. Th,s citizens' group is against
the plan.
D: Teachers and students al Monroe HIgh School nex110 Ihe Elm Street
Park. They are also agalnstlhe pl'ln.

Figure 14. Parking Garage Controversy. Source: H. E. Piepho and L. Bredella. 1980. Contacts 8:
Topics 2. Enriched Course. Kamp. pp. 102.105.
126 CHAPTER 5

e The Tasks (I)

Task 1 Organization:
look at this list. Which of these reasons can your group use to support its
opinion?

more money for the town a place for adults to relax

more shoppers fewer cars parked on the street
more traffic on Elm Street new stores in town - more jobs
more pollution on Elm Street safer streets
more noise on Elm Street a place for teachers to park
more accidents too loud for the school
no park too expensive
a place for children to play

Put your reasons in rank order, with the most important reason first,
the next most important second, etc.

Task 2 Advertising:
Write slogans for advertisements in the newspaper and design posters to
hang in store windows.
Exercise 5.2.5. may help you.

eyare
steal
au,.j",'3
PL AY rx~ou klO
KE£P
cLMSrREEr
GREEN!

Figure 14. (continued)

Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 127

ED The Tub (II)

A leiter 10 the editor :>1 a newspaper IS a good way to speak out on ..
problem that interests you. It IS .. kmd of business letter.

Eumple
7 'II~ ./;"R ~ 1!f",.t
/II-w., /llJ 'If /6/
~ ).6, IfrtJ

Opening
.Idll'menl
Opmion

Reason
"Ppeal

Openins statements The parking garage on Elm Street IS a problem

everybodv should think about.
Everyone m Monroe is talking about the parking
garage
The parking garage on Elm Street has been the top'c
01 angry d,scu 51 on here In Monroe for months now

Figure 14. (continued)

128 CHAPTER 5

Opinions In I~~r I opinion, the parking garage would be a mistake.

I I think we (don't) need a parking garage here in Monroe.

We

Reasons A parking garage would bring more ... into Monroe.

would be too ...

would cause I more ...

too much .. .
too many .. .
would help ...
If we (don't) huild a parking garage, people won't want
to ... in Monroe .
. . . are more important than.
The Elm Street Park ...

Appeal Let's come to the Town Meeting and vote I for I the parking garage.
against

Let's work for a better Monroe. Vote II for I the parking garage.
I against I

Task Write a letter to the editor from your group. Either the group
or the spokesperson may sign it.

El) Getting Ready for the Town Meeting

Prepare a short statement on your group's opinion for your spo.kesperson

to read at the Town Meeting. Be sure you have found out about the
arguments of the other groups from their letters to the editor.
The language material in 3.3. and 3.4. will help you.

ED The Town Meeting

At the Town Meeting the mayor of Monroe (your teacher) calls on each of
the groups to read their statements. After all statements have been read,
everyone may give his opinion. Remember to follow the rules of
parliamentary procedure (Exercise 2.2.2.).
At the end of the meeting, vote: Do you, the citizens of Monroe, want a
parking garage on Elm Street?

Figure 14. (continued)

Communicative Approaches to language Teaching 129

use the language, for example, in terms of a country such as West Germany,
Great Britain, or the United States, or a more specific location such as a beach
or cafe, and are related to topics familiar to the learner. Representative topics
in the table of contents for the eighth-grade volume range from major cities in
the United States and the geography of surrounding regions to the hobbies and
pastimes of reading, biking, and cooking, and sports events and activities.
The sociocultural reality of language use in West Germany and in Europe
in general plays a role in the situation types represented. Because learners' use
of English may be specific to interaction with other continental Europeans as
well as American, British or other native speakers, the social contexts for making
meaning are diverse. Simulations and role-plays in addition to immediate class-
room situations provide opportunities for developing a competence in English.
Culture as a determinant of situation types is closely linked to consideration
of context. While Americans and West Germans may share many situation types,
the selections they make in meaning options in a particular situation may differ.
In an "Everyday Encounter" (Figures 13 and 15), for example, learners may
not find any of the options presented viable unless they are familiar with the
meaning these options realize in this particular setting. It is possible, for ex-
ample, that a particular option presents a problem of interpretation, as in Figure
15, in which the option of inviting the complaining neighbor to the party may
not match West German notions of privacy and appropriate behavior toward
relative strangers.

Culture. Culture is not restricted in interpretation to descriptions of Amer-

ican or British monuments or social institutions. While outstanding representa-
tives of each are the topic of texts, the information included is not an end in
itself (e.g., description of an important architectural achievement). Rather, these
texts also provide data for subsequent exercises aimed at developing study skills,
as shown in Figure 16, in which learners are to draw comparisons between the
features of two architecturally and historically significant places of worship in
England.

Learning How to Mean. The tasks and activities are designed to develop
learners' potential to mean. A range of the opportunities in which learners can
express meaning in a variety of situations for various purposes have been il-
lustrated under the first nine criteria. Learners are involved in the interpretation
and negotiation of meaning when interacting with spoken and written texts.
Negotiation of meaning is seen as relevant when communication breaks down
and the learners no longer understand a particular text, that is, it is no longer
intelligible, comprehensible, or interpretable. The interpretation, expression, and
negotiation of meaning come together in such activities as simulations in which
learners make use of their meaning potential. Integration of interpretation, ex-
130 CHAPTER 5

(D Everyday bcounter

1. Your American neishbon haw a/ Are you de~a Tum lII,t ridio downl
their radio on so loud tNt you can't b) Your ridio is bolllering me. Would
heir your own radio. You Sly to them: you p/eiSe tum It down1
c) You .:Ion't Sly anything to them, but
think to yourself ·Typlcal Americans'·.

2. You are having a pany and ilre pliIYing al WhOiI are )IOu complaining OIbout1
loud music. Your American You pliIY loud music, 100.
neighbors corne ilnd ilSk you to tum it b) Sorry, we'/1 turn it down.
down. You Sly; c) Wouldn't you like to join our pvtyl

Figure 15. Everyday Encounter. Source: H. E. Piepho and L. Bredella, 1980, Contacts 8: Topics
2, Enriched Course, Kamp, p. 145.
Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 131

Places of worship: Stonehenge

Stonehenge in Wiltshire is one of the oldest and most mysterious ruins

in Great Britain. An old legend says that Merlin, the magician of King
Arthur's court, transported the stones magically from Ireland to Stone-
henge in the eighth century A. D. The legend still lives today, although
archaeologists have concluded that these circles of huge stones were
built between 1800 B. C. and 1400 B. C. In that period the stones
were carried to their present site, eight miles north of Salisbury, from all
over Wales and England. No one has been able to explain the function
of the circles. The most popular theory has been proved wrong. It says
that Stonehenge was a place of worship for Druids, who wE're sun
worshippers. Archaeologists think that Stonehenge was a place of sky
worship for men who lived many hundreds of years before the Druids.
The arrangement of stones seems to point to the risings and settings of
the sun and moon.

Figure 16. Places of Worship. Source: H. E. Piepho and L. Bredella, 1980, Contacts 7: Topics J,
Enriched Course, Kamp, pp. 132-133.
132 CHAPTER 5

Plues of worship: Salisbury Cathedral

Salisbury Cathedral, built 1220-1258

Stonehenge and Salisbury Cathedral were both built as plilces of worship.

At Stonehenge, early men probably worshIpped the sky. In the cathedral,
Christiilns still worship their god.
T;uic Compare the structures of Salisbury Cathedral and Stonehenge. The
diagrams ilnd the language material below will help you.
lmguage
rmleri.ll

Figure 16. (continued)

Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 133

pression, and negotiation of meaning are designed to provide the learners with
an opportunity to apply and develop their competence in each of these aspects
of language use.

English Around the World: EFL for Japan

English Around the World is a proposal for a beginning-level English as

a foreign language (EFL) series for Japanese junior high school pupils. It is
an application of Savignon's (1983) interactional approach to the design of a
full-scale EFL curriculum. These materials aim to develop a communicative
competence consistent with the reality of English in Japan, where learners have
limited contact with native speakers and few opportunities to use English. The
materials take the ideational function into account by giving learners opportu-
nities to use it as a means for exploring English language settings outside of
Japan. At the same time the materials introduce the interpersonal function by
giving attention to situations in which English is used for communication be-
tween and among nonnative as wel1 as native speakers. Savignon's (1983) five
component curriculum (Language Arts, Personal L2 Use, Language for a Pur-
pose, Theater Arts, and Beyond the Classroom) is the framework for the focus
of the materials.

Communicative Function of Language. Language as a tool for social

interaction is the view of language upon which these materials are based. Not
only is this stated as one of the goals in the introduction to the lessons ("to
engage learners in the purposeful use of English"), but it is also evident in
tasks and activities for the learners. Tasks and activities include several types
of "doing": getting information from spoken and written texts; selecting and
classifying relevant information; performing such particular uses as asking for
repetition or clarification, or giving and following directions. Some of these
uses are presented to learners in dialogues (Figure 17) which iJlustrate a range
of situations for use of language, for example, greeting, requesting information,
or describing.
Learners also "do" things with language in the establishment of contacts
with others outside their immediate context. In "My letter to Rob" (Figure 18),
learners also become familiar with letter-writing conventions in English as prep-
aration for writing letters on their own in later lessons.
Activities of the nature of "Finish the Picture" (Figure 19) engage learners
in problem-solving tasks. In this particular activity, interpreting a set of clues
is essential to successful completion of a picture.
Other activities which require problem-solving skills are describing one's
home; finding out more about the relationship between different types of homes,
134 CHAPTER 5

A new pllll", 10 lin'

~ t hrrine: If. an old hou.sc.. It'$ bi,. llik"c it.1.ol..

JObl'l; Is 11 old or nul'

Kt'nji: It's new, Our apMtmCJ'II is on the firth Ooor

(
. "1'
.. .
, ,.
1
. I

, ,\,
I,

11"· ... I .
,

'\.~
.'.-1'.
' . '.'
~'.'~-"- -

.. (Uih m1tJc,...1 • doc In • hou:$e I bird in • DC.U

Figure 17. A New Place to Live. Source: S. Savignon and M. Berns, 1983, English Around the
World, Unpublished manuscript.

their occupants, and their cultural setting; or finding out about the cultural set-
tings of a city in the United States. Each of the activities illustrating this criterion
are more representative of the Language for a Purpose component than of the
other four curriculum components.

Symbolic Function of Language. Due to the influence of the United States

in Japan, American English is a viable model in English language instruction.
This series provides American English as the model for pronunciation, intona-
tion, spelling, syntax, and lexical items. The goal for pronunciation is intelli-
gibility, not native-like pronunciation. This orientation is explicit in the
"teachers' notes": "Without insisting on native-like pronunciation, help learners
to distinguish in both listening and speaking between the sounds sh and ch"
(Savignon and Berns 1983:13). This teachers' note refers specifically to the Lan-
guage Arts activity of Figure 20.
As outlined in Chapter 4, English serves the instrumental and interpersonal
functions in Japan. While the interpersonal function is the focus of a number
of the illustrations selected from English Around the World, the instrumental
Communicative Approaches to language Teaching 135

My leiter to Rob

Dear Rob.

My namei. _ __ _ __ _ . I

live in _ _ _ __ ,. II is ne~IIO

You...

Rub Ih d hert •

Figure 18. My Letter to Rob. Source: S. Savignon and M. Berns, 1983, English Around the World,
Unpublished manuscript.

function is also taken into account. This is done through short texts containing
factual information such as one might find in a tourist information brochure
(Figure 21). Such texts are not included solely for the information they contain
about the United States; they also provide information the learners need to com-
plete subsequent tasks and activities.
The interpersonal function of English is illustrated in "A Letter from a
Pen Friend" (Figure 22). Since learners of this age are not likely to have much
opportunity to interact with Americans, letters provide a context in which En-
glish can be used to illustrate this function.

Individual Language User as a Social Being. One of the goals stated for
this unit is to aid learners in using English to situate themselves with respect
to their family, neighborhood, city, country, and the world. The tasks and ac-
tivities designed to help learners in meeting this goal are part of the Personal
L2 Use component. Within this unit, the learner is considered as a member of
136 CHAPTER 5

Finish the picture.

1. The church is on the corner of Church Street

and School Street. It's across from the school.

2. The toy store is on School Street. It's across

from Green Park.

3. The hospital is on Church Street next to

the river.

4. Tim's house is across from the school. It's on the

comer of Second Avenue and School Street.

5. Kcnji's apartment is next to the toy store. It's

next to the river.

Figure 19. Finish the Picture. Source: S. Savignon and M. Berns, 1983, English Around the World,
Unpublished manuscript.

the school community, an English class, a family, and a neighborhood. "A Letter
from a Pen Friend" (Figure 22) shows how the learners' membership in an
English-speaking peer group and the world community is addressed. This text
also presents the form a letter in English takes when used to establish and
develop membership in this group.
Learners as individuals are also considered in terms of the development
of their competence in English. They learn not only about Americans their own
age but also how to use English to express themselves on familiar topics. "My
Neighborhood" (Figure 23) represents an American neighborhood and ways of
describing its features. The dialogue and drawing are a basis for learners' draw-
ings and descriptions of their neighborhoods and situating themselves there.
A further example of development of the learner as an individual is rep-
resented in the feature "My Page" (Figure 24). Here learners are to note words,
phrases, and images that have become important to them as they have learned
to use English throughout each unit.
Attention to the ideational function of language is also considered in the
Personal L2 Use component. Development and application of learners' cognitive
skills is one of the curricular aims of this series. Puzzles and problem-solving
activities popular with junior high age learners are useful in addressing this
aim. Simple crossword puzzles, finding the word that does not belong in a set
Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 137

S.,10 EJlglisb ...

He

Catherine wl!bin, .. bir

ulinl a s;and.W1~ \ in me knthen

wlt£b.m,lV.

Figure 20. Say It in English. Source: S. Savignon and M. Berns, 1983, English Around the World,
Unpublished manuscript.

of words, categorization, and matching activities are represented in these ma-

terials.
Inclusion of these skills is in response to the recognition that language is
used not only in interpersonal communication, as Savignon and Berns point
out in their introduction to the materials, but it is also necessary for the con-
ceptualization of thoughts and ideas that individuals communicate to one another
(the ideational function). The skills of classifying, categorizing, and summariz-
ing are considered among those which underlie the traditional four skills of
reading, writing, speaking, and listening. They also serve as a reference point
for transfer to the learning situation of the new language. "My Page" (Figure
24) for example, requires that learners apply their skill of categorization to
make entries on these pages.

Analysis of Language in Context. Analysis of formal features of language

(e.g., morphology or syntax) is presented in these materials as an aid in inter-
preting and creating texts. Lexis and grammar are considered the means through
which the learners realize the ideational and interpersonal functions of language.
138 CHAPTER 5

CLO EUP
I
The", ate 50 SUItes in the UnilU States of America.
Olicago is in the state of UlinoiJ.
II is a very big cily.

Do You Know?

What is the name of another big city in the U.S.A.?

What is the name of. big city near you?

WIle", in the world iJ

London?
Tokyo?
Paris7
Mexico City?

Figure 21. Close Up. Source: S. Savignon and M. Berns, 1983, English Around the World, Un-
published manuscript.

These materials provide "Grammar Notes" (Figures 25 and 26), a feature in-
tended for learner reference, not for memorization or drilling. As stated in the
teachers' guide, "They provide learners with an opportunity to observe and make
inferences about the patterns of English" (Savignon and Berns 1983:12).

Meaning. The Language Arts component is also realized in the attention

given to meaning as choice. While attention is implicit rather than explicit,
learners' exposure to the meaning system of English inevitably creates an aware-
ness of the formal features realizing it and their distinctiveness from Japanese
forms used for similar meanings. Texts (Figures 21 and 22) and "Grammar
Notes" (Figures 25 and 26) focus on the formal choices. In the case of semantic
choices, for example, the Japanese learner comes into contact with the English
system of address which is comparable to, although less complex than, the Jap-
anese system of honorifics. In "At Home" (Figure 27), learners are introduced
to two common forms of address, one appropriate for an adult speaking to a
child and the other which is appropriate for the child speaking to the adult in
Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 139

A Ldtt-r from a Pen rri~nd

Rob h"os 1lI _ _ _ __

His apanme.nt is next to _ _ _ .

It"onthe _ _ __ _.

Rob hkes _ _ _ apartment I lot.

Figure 22. A Letter from a Pen Friend. Source: S. Savignon and M. Berns, 1983, English Around
the World, Unpublished manuscript.

this context. Presentation of these forms in similar texts and a variety of settings
represent the meaning they can convey in "showing respect and deference."

Actual Texts. The criterion of actual texts has two interpretations in these
materials: (I) presentation of language in authentic linguistic, semantic, and
pragmatic contexts and (2) provision of an assortment of texts and situations
for interpreting and using informal and formal language in both spoken and
written form.
Here, as in Contacts, authentic and genuine texts created by and for speak-
ers of the language are included. Figure 21, "Close Up," is an approximation
of travel brochure information. Actual contexts of language use are represented
in "Finish the Picture" (Figure 19) and "My Neighborhood" (Figure 23), which
directly refer to the contexts of map reading and puzzle solving, tasks which
require conceptualization of special relationships.
Actual text is also considered in terms of the texts learners create. Learners
are not required to respond artificially to questions in complete sentences but
140
CHAPTER 5

IY NEIGHBORHOOD

Cathtrint: My buthday party U !od.\)'.

•
Please come .

CO lhrrinl': On nun! Stteet. ACJ'OS$

from the puk .

EAcuse me. Where"s the C"hutCh?

II"I on me comer of Founh Slt'ttt

and Part AvcnlJe.

Thank )'0<1.

MankO: We have a neW' house

John: Whnl:= 1.$ II'?

Mtlrilco: eAI 10 the nvrr On

Pit" Avenue.

Figure 23. My Neighborhood. Source: S. Savignon and M. Berns, 1983, English Around the World,
Unpublished manuscript.

My Page.

ImponaO! new words

T P
H L
I A
N C
G E
S S

Imuonant New Phrases An Important Pictyre

Figure 24. My Page. Source: S. Savignon and M. Berns, 1983, English Around the World, Un-
published manuscript.
 Communicative Approaches 10 Language Teaching 141

Whf'rt is Ptd.ro' WbGlt's Tim Doinl?

Grammar Notes

&dm is in his bedroom.

I:k is in h.is. bedroom.

~ is in bu bedroom.
She is in h« bedroom.

Milm is brushing hg hair.

~ is brushing his hair.

watching TV?

I I
Mrs. Garcia? she
brushing his hair?
ha Where's

I
Tim? What's he doing?

Is Mr. Can;on at home? Tim

Maria in the kitchen? Kenji

Figure 25. Where is Pedro? What's Tim Doing? Source: S. Savignon and M. Berns, 1983, Eng/ish
Around the World, Unpublished manuscript.

are pennitted to respond with short answers ("yes," "no," "nine"), as native
speakers frequently do. Similarly, the English names for objects and actions
are negotiated in the context of "What's this called in English?" or "What's
this in English" rather than "What's this?", a question that implies that the
learner does not know the identity of the object rather than its English name.
Expanding the question to include "in English" more accurately describes the
purpose of the activity, which is not the identity, but the names for objects.

Situation. Attention to situation is illustrated in the exchange presented in

"At Home" (Figure 27), a brief interaction which represents a complex of fea-
tures that define its context of situation. The participants live in the United
States; one is a child and one an adult. The child's name, Pedro, suggests that
English may not be his first or native language and that the culture of the
United States may be his "second" culture. The name of the adult (Mrs. Carson)
suggests that English is her first language and the culture of the United States
is her first culture. These two individuals are speaking about one person not
present who is a friend or classmate of the child. The adult (Mrs. Carson) and
the child referred to (Tim) are members of the same family living in a mid-
142 CHAPTER 5

TOY STORE

GROCERY STORE

FURNITURE STOR I: GnlmmuNOCes

Wha' II he dt>uIa7
WhaU be doin,?

8uywli$h-
Hel.s boyioJ fi>h
He~buyW5.11.

Where·, ...... ?
Whal's ..... buyin,'

Figure 26. What's John Buying? Source: S. Savignon and M. Berns, 1983, English Around the
World, Unpublished manuscript.

dIe-class neighborhood, as indicated by the size of their home, the car in front
of the garage, and the sharing of household chores referred to in the exchange.
The situation is one of asking about a person's whereabouts ("Is Tim at horneT).
The content of the response to the child's inquiry ("He's in the kitchen") is
not expected, which is indicated by the echoing of the response with rising
intonation ("In the kitchen?"). This question can be interpreted as the child's
attempt to negotiate meaning through a request for clarification or repetition
of the response and the circumstances it describes. His need to negotiate mean-
ing at this point is understood when the possiblity is explored that Pedro holds
a cultural view that differs from Mrs. Carson's about the places in a home
where younger and/or male family members are likely to be found and the
activities they are likely to engage in there. When attitudes among the speech
participants differ, such negotiation is appropriate and often necessary if com-
munication is to continue.

Context. Since text is presented as the means through which learners are
to express, interpret, and negotiate meaning, these materials keep the relationship
Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 143

Tim
Kitchen

Mr. Carson
Living Room Dining Room

Pedro: Hello Mr>. CarSOn Is lim ., home?

tt. Carson: lim. whcn::'s Catherine?
Irs. Carson: Yes, he is. He's inIhe Kirchen.
Tim: In her bedr0om-
Pedro: In !be lri«hen1
She', f«ding her fish.
Irs. Ca....,..: Yes, he', WIShing dishes.

Figure 27. At Home. Source: S. Savignon and M. Berns, 1983, English Around the World, Un-
published manuscript.

of the situation to the text in view . Variability in meaning with respect to sit-
uation is accommodated in these materials by focus on appropriate behavior
choices and ways of realizing meaning through language, rather than focus on
the settings themselves. In "At Home" (Figure 27), for example, the fact that
this exchange takes place in a private home is not as essential (if it is essential
at all) to the meanings made by the participants as are the particular meanings
expressed and interpreted and the options in meaning available to the partici-
pants. It is more important to attend to Pedro's need for clarification at learning
that his friend is in the kitchen, that is, in a location he does not anticipate
finding his friend, than that his friend is actually in the kitchen.

Culture. Culture is used in two senses: (I) to refer to learners' unique,

personal culture as determined by their own experiences (the ideational function)
and (2) to refer to values, beliefs, institutions, and customs associated with
groups (e.g., Americans or Japanese). "Questions to Ask My Classmates" (Fig-
ure 28), "My Neighborhood" (Figure 23), and "My Page" (Figure 24) illustrate
culture in the first sense.
144 CHAPTER 5

Questions to ask my classmates.

Classmate #1 Classmate #2 Classmate #3

Figure 28. Questions to Ask My Classmates. Source: S. Savignon and M. Berns. 1983. English
Around the World, Unpublished manuscript.

"At Home" (Figure 27) illustrates the reference to a traditional view of

appropriate behavior for men held by some cultures. It is this second example
which highlights the relationship of culture and text. The utterance "My father
is in the kitchen" means something very different to Japanese children if their
experience and tradition do not include men performing household duties in
the kitchen. It may mean "my father is not a 'real' man" or "my mother is
not a good homemaker," whereas for a growing number of American children
it could mean "my parents share the work in the kitchen" or "my mother does
not like or have time to cook."
Similarly, the phrase "my own room" may present difficulties in interpre-
tation for learners who live in a culture where the notion of a bedroom as a
room specificaJly for sleeping or the association of a room with one person
differs from American notions. This difference may make the concept "one's
own room" difficult to interpret. The learners' interaction with these realizations
of cultural differences necessarily involves negotiation of meaning if they are
Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 145

to understand the text and find it interpretable. These materials seek to use
awareness of these differences to engage learners in the negotiation of meaning.

Learning How to Mean. The criterion of meaning potential is directly

related to an appreciation of the interrelationship of factors discussed under the
other nine criteria. The development of this potential, therefore, is the underlying
purpose of the tasks and texts presented. This is explicitly referred to in goals
set by the authors: (l) to build upon existing communication skills and develop
learners' ability to exploit these in using and learning English, (2) to exploit
the potential of learning through communicating about content as well as about
language, and (3) to develop the learners' ability to express, interpret, and ne-
gotiate meaning with one or more individuals or a spoken or written text, that
is, develop their communicative competence.
Attention to tasks which encourage learners to conceptualize, generalize,
and summarize, that is, to apply their cognitive skills, also contributes toward
the development of learners' meaning potential. The new names for objects,
places, and actions learners encounter, for example, may introduce new concepts
or new interpretations of concepts (privacy, showing respect). Understanding
the use of the new names is a means for understanding Americans and their
culture and for discovering the meaning of English when it is used to talk
about these topics. Thus, facts about Americans can be learned through learners'
negotiation with the meaning and interpretation of these new names. Meaning
potential is developed through the interpersonal function of language through
use of language in interaction with classmates, teachers, or other English speak-
ers through spoken or written texts.

The Communicational Teaching Project: ESL in South India

The Communicational Teaching Project is the name of a research program

undertaken from 1979 to 1984 in South Indian schools under the direction of
N. S. Prabhu, former English officer of the British Council in Madras. It in-
volved a new type of syllabus and methodology for the teaching of English in
government schools in Madras and Bangalore.2 The innovations introduced were

2Significant innovations associated with the Communicational Teaching Project are not limited to
syllabus and methodology. As Prabhu has pointed out, it is also unique as a form of inquiry in
that "it constitutes essentially a classroom exploration of pedagogic principles and procedures (and
its lesson-reports, consequently. represent a public presentation of that exploration rather than
teaching 'materials' for large-scale use)" and in its relationship "to current theories of second
language acquisition (and to language acquisition generally, in a Chomskyan sense) as much as
(perhaps even more than) to specifically 'communicative' perspectives on the nature of language"
(N. S. Prabhu, personal communication, March 4, 1986).
146 CHAPTER 5

an outgrowth of general dissatisfaction among language teachers with the then-

current approach to language pedagogy which included a structurally and lex-
ically graded syllabus and a primarily oral/structural approach to the presentation
and practice of language items. Discontent with this approach and its failure
to develop learners' grammatical competence (the primary objective of English
teaching) coincided with awareness of so-called communicative syllabus design
and teaching methodology which eventually led to the design of the syllabus
and methodology that has come to be known as "procedural." This term refers
to the basis of the classroom procedure, which is teacher-class negotiation in
a sequence of exchanges related to tasks completed through collaborative efforts
between teacher and class or independent work by individual students.
The term "procedural" is apt because it reflects the project's concern for
developing teaching procedures that are realistic and replicable in the Indian
classroom. Meeting these criteria means responding to the norms, expectations,
and opportunities associated with English language teaching in this context.
Various reports on the project (see RIE 1980a, 1980b, 1980c, and 1980d) make
reference to a number of these features. Available teaching aids. for example,
are generally limited to chalk, blackboard, paper, and pencil. Class size ranges
from 30 to 45 for primary school and 40 to 60 in secondary classes. Learners
expect classroom material to be of a serious and substantive nature. Teachers
are expected to act as teachers and learners as pupils, in the traditional sense,
as they do in the rest of the school's work. For the Indian context, this implies
that all activities are teacher centered. Finally, learning is regarded as directly
linked to the requirement of the written examinations in English given at the
end of each school year and at the point of leaving school.
In contrast to the syllabus (organized as a list) that preceded it, the pro-
cedural syllabus is considered a specification of what might be done, as a source
for teaching, not a course in itself (Prabhu 1987). The possible activities, how-
ever, are sequenced in a manner essential to their usefulness and potential for
success. The sequence has three parts: pre-task, task, and feedback. The pre-task
is a whole class activity which is oral and teacher directed. Its purpose is to
make the nature of the task known, to bring relevant language into consideration,
and to provide the teacher an opportunity to gauge the difficulty of the task
that is to follow and make any necessary adjustments. The task is an activity
which requires learners to arrive at a solution from given information through
some processes of thought while also allowing teachers to control and regulate
that process. The sequence concludes with feedback, which is the teacher's re-
sponse to the content of the learners' solutions or answers. Due to its reliance
on this three-stage task sequence, the methodology accompanying the syllabus
has been referred to as "task-based teaching." Figure 29 provides samples of
pre-tasks and tasks from a Madras school.
Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 147

Pre-task: Teacher draws a square on the blackboard and asks the class:
What have I drawn? How many corners has it got? How many at the
top/be,ttom? Which is the left-hand corner at the tc'p? What name shall we give
it? Which is the right-hand corner at the bottom? What name shall we give it?
Where sha 11 we ne'w WI- i te D?
Individual pupils are asked to perform (on the blackboard) the
followi ng:
(i) Draw a square.
(ii) Name the corners at the top: C on the left and D on the
right.
(iii) Name the corners at the bottom: A on the right and B on
the left.
(i v) Join B, D.
(v) Continue B, A; name the end of the 1 ine E.
(vi) Join D, E.
(VI i ) Continue A, B; name the end of the line F,
(v iii) Join C, F.

!asl~ 1: All pupils cClrry out, on sheets of pco.per, the following

draWIng tas~,s. <The e.eqLlence of instructie,ns is indicated bi numbere).
Instructions given orally.

1- 0) Dr aw a sqLlco.re.
(i iI Name the corners at the top: A on the left and C on th2 right.
( iii) Name the corners at the bottom: B on the left and D on the right,
(i v) Join AD
iv) Cc,ntinuE AC. Name the end of the line E.
(vi) Join DE.
(v i i) Cc'nt 1 nue BD. Name the end e,f the line F.
(viii> Join CF.

2. (i ) Draw;; squa.,-e.
(i iI Name corners at the top. A on the left and B on the right.
( iii) Name the corne.,-s at the bottom. C on the left and D on thE right.
( i v) Contin~e DB. Name the end of the line E.
(v) Continue AB. Name the End of the line F.
(vi) JOln EF.
(vi iI Join AE.

3. ( i ) Draw a square.
( i i ) Name the corners at the top. E on the left and A on the rIght.
(Ii iI Name the corners at the bottom. F on the left and D on the
right.
( iv) Continue EA. Name the end of the line B.
(vi ContInuE FD. Name the end of the line C.
(vi) Continue DA. Name the end of the line G.
(vi i ) Join EG.
(v iii) Jc, i nBC.
( i,d Join BG.
Figure 29. Examples of Tasks and Pre-tasks. Source: Regional Institute of English. 1980. Bangalore.
148 CHAPTER 5

The principal feature of the theoretical framework supporting the project

is Widdowson's (1979) distinction between use and usage. Although the teach-
ing objective is the development of learners' grammatical competence, features
of the language system are not the content of teaching or the basis for orga-
nization of the content. Use is the means by which usage knowledge is ex-
panded. Meaning-focused activity occupies learners with understanding or
conveying meaning and coping with language forms demanded by those pro-
cesses. As a consequence of attention to meaning, it is expected that learners
will be able to make use of, or "deploy," their linguistic resources, an ability
which learners in project schools typically did not have. Prabhu describes the
orientation of these syllabus and methodological orientations as "teaching lan-
guage through communication," which he contrasts with "teaching language
for communication," the formulation generally associated with British propo-
nents of communicative language teaching, which addresses itself primarily to
the development of situational appropriacy in language use outside the classroom
(Prabhu 1980:23).
The classroom communication achieved through tasks and negotiation be-
tween teacher and pupils is described as "a matter of understanding, arriving
at, or conveying meaning" (Prabhu 1987: I). Because of its attention to meaning
rather than social appropriacy the project was designated as communicational,
not communicative, in orientation. Although Prabhu has explicitly distanced his
model from communicative language teaching by using the label "communica-
tional" rather than "communicative," the Communicational Teaching Project is
an example of communicative language teaching. The variation in methodology,
scope and range of the language situations it represents underscore that com-
municative language teaching is not a neatly packaged method, that is, it is
not possible to identify a well-defined set of techniques and procedures as the
"communicative method." In addition, because the procedural syllabus and its
communicative methodology are responsive to the realities of English language
learning and use for the South Indian setting, they are significant in discussions
of communicative methodology precisely because they illustrate that all of the
procedures commonly associated with the communicative approach (e.g., group
and pair work, role-plays) are not essential for language teaching to be com-
municative.

Communicative Function of Language. Explicit focus on grammatical

competence and exclusion of concern with social appropriateness is an essential
characteristic of the Communicational Teaching Project. However, this does
not imply that the communicative function of language is not represented in
learner tasks and activities. Rather than address issues of sociolinguistic appro-
priateness or represent the diversity of social roles and relationships that are
part of the sociolinguistic profile of India, the materials focus on the interaction
Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 149

Teacher: Good .orning, children.

Students: 600d .orning, sir.

(Prell.inary pre-task)

Teacher: Sit down. Look at that. iThe tea~her writes '0600 hours = b
a.I.' on the bladboard. That .e.ns .....
Students: SIX a ••.
Te.cher: Now, what does this I.an' Zero six three zero h.u's. (The
bacher writes 'OO'3(i l , )
StUdents: SIX thirty p••.
Teacher: Six thirty ... ?lp.usei
Students: p•••
Teacher: Si, thirty ... ?lpau;ei
Students: a.'.
Teac.er: a.I •••• yes. (pause) ZerD eight aro zero hours. iThe teacher
writes '0900'.1
Students: Eight a.'.
Teache" Eighl •••. (p.use) Noo, ne,I quesllon. D0"' t 9',e tt-.
answer. Just put up your h~r;ds. Zero nin!? one five ••• (the
teac'.- .rites '0915'.1 Wr,.; st'all •• asP Uh ... (indicates
stude"t 11
Student 1: Nine--nine--nine fifteen a.l.
Teacher: NinE fifhen a.l. Yes, good ... One r,ne fOUT five. iThe
teacher writes '1145' ,) Eieyen four five hours.
Students: !indistinct)
Teacher: Say it aoain.
Student : Eleven forty-f.ve.

Figure 30. Language of Student and Teacher Roles. Source: N. S. Prabhu, 1987, Second Language
Pedagogy, Oxford University Press, p. 123.

that the materials generate between teacher and learner. Because the roles for
the learning of English are explicitly determined by the methodology, the com-
munication that takes place is between one individual in the role of "teacher"
and a group of individuals, each with the role of "pupil." Consequently, the
language used in the classroom is that associated with these roles as they are
realized in an Indian schooL As there are social relationships already familiar
to teacher and pupils, explicit attention to analysis or practice of the language
relevant to them is not required. Figure 30 provides an excerpt from the tran-
script of a lesson which illustrates the language of the teacher and pupil roles.
This brief exchange illustrates teacher-centered instruction. The teacher de-
termines the topic and the questions to be asked and also knows all the answers
to the questions. Pupils listen, respond to questions, and repeat responses when
asked to do so. This representation of the teacher-learner relationship, although
it is not one that is usually associated with communicative language teaching,
is typical in the Indian context and is one with which teachers and pupils are
comfortable and familiar.

Symbolic Function of Language. In India, as outlined in Chapter 3, En-

glish is considered to be the language of opportunity and a means of opening
150 CHAPTER 5

the door to higher education, better jobs, and upward social mobility. As such
it serves an instrumental function. However, for the learners, the potential use-
fulness of English in their future is somewhat removed from the reality of their
present concerns as school children. In a discussion of the project, one teacher
reports that "most of the time our students really don't know what they are
going to do with English" (Bhasker 1980:iii). Another teacher observed with
respect to this reality, "There is little attraction for them in a vague future
unless they have specific ambitions, and you will not have a class full of such
pupils, especially in a government school" (Bose 1980:86). Recognition of this
reality led to the development of the types of tasks that shaped the syllabus.
Through the tasks, learners develop the skills needed to write a letter or complete
a job application in the event they would need to perform these tasks sometime
in the future.
Another aspect of the symbolic function is related to the model of English
that learners are to approximate. Prabhu points out that English is taught in
India-as it is in other parts of the world-by nonnative speakers, which may
seem to be a disadvantage since the competence of these teachers is in general
limited or deficient when compared to native speaker competence. However,
he does not see this perceived disadvantage as a problem at all, and he chal-
lenges the appropriateness of the concept of deficiency in speaking of Indian
teachers' competence. The status of English as a world language requires rec-
ognition that standards of adequacy pertaining to it are those that arise from
its role as such, not from its role in native-speaking contexts. Consequently,
native-speaker standards cannot constitute the measure of adequacy for learners
in India (1987:99-100).

Individual Language User as a Social Being. Learners as individuals are

associated with two distinct groups. One is the immediate community of the
classroom; the other is the community of English users of which learners may
become a member if they find themselves in or aspire to positions in higher-level
administration, higher education, one of the professions such as law or medicine,
or participation in large-scale industry and commerce. The relationship of the
learners to these two groups is a function of English as a second, rather than
foreign, language in India. Although English may be used outside of the class-
room by only a very small percentage of the learners, it does have an institu-
tionalized role in Indian culture and society which supports its learning and
use in the classroom. One feature of this role, which Prabhu identifies as a
small advantage to the project, is the existence of a number of English words
which are borrowings into Indian languages and the school "dialect." Black-
board, chalk, notebook, first, last, map, drawing, and timetable are pertinent
examples.
Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 151

Learners' membership in the classroom community is established and main-

tained through the familiar role of "pupil." The important difference is the use
of English rather than the local vernacular to realize this role. Using English,
however, does not mean learning how native speakers (e.g., American or British
English speakers) behave as pupils, since the leamer, as an Indian and as a
speaker of Indian English. must rely on Indian ways of behaving in this role.
Since the school is viewed as the context for the development of cognitive,
rather than social skills, the role of pupil is oriented toward interactions which
focus on the exchange of ideational, not interpersonal, meanings. As one teacher
expressed it, attention to interpersonal meaning would be regarded by learners
as having "superficial relevance to their present or future life" and as not rel-
evant to the development or expansion of the general repertory of skills and
knowledge required by the school setting (Bose 1980:84).
As a result, individual solutions to problems and tasks is stressed. Teachers'
evaluations are based on individual performance on tasks, not on group inter-
action. It is through interaction with texts and involvement in problem solving
that learners develop an awareness of the nature of the ideational and textual
functions of language. Cognitive skills emphasize reasoning activities that di-
rectly focus on categorization, numerical relationships, and space and time re-
lationships. Figures 31 and 32 are tasks relating to the notions of time and
quantity.

Analysis of Language in Context. Identification of grammatical compe-

tence as the focus of the Communicational Teaching Project is based on the
project developer's concern with learners' inability to be correct at all in their
use of English (Prabhu 1980: 17). It seems that whatever they had previously
learned about English simply was not brought to bear in their use of English.
Relevant evidence given by Prabhu of this lack of transferability of knowledge
into use is learners' inability to write a letter or an application in correct English
when attention is on the application or the letter and not on the structure of
language. But Prabhu's decision to concentrate on grammatical competence is
not to imply that language structure is to be the content and focus of the lan-
guage teaching. He interprets the role of grammar quite differently and delib-
erately chooses to avoid planned progression and preselection in terms of
language structure as well as form-focused activity (or planned language prac-
tice) in the classroom.
Instead, through preoccupation with thinking or understanding prompted
by the problem-solving activities, learners are involved in an incidental struggle
with language use; the learners try to cope on their own with the language
required for the task, an endeavor considered essential to the process of grammar
construction. The teacher provides recurrent models for the formal realization
of functions that are relevant to the completion of the tasks.
152 CHAPTER 5

Pre.task : Teacher writes up the following four problems - one at a time - on

the blackboard, and invites individual pupils to state (sometimes to
write on the blackboard) their answers. The class agrees or disagrees
with each answer.

1. Sekar's school has holidays from 27th September to 5th October.

How long is the holiday?

2. The railway strike went on for ten days. It started on 26th August.
When did it end?

3. I reached Bangalore on 8th September, and stayed there for some

days. Then I left Bangalore and reached Mysore on 12 September.
How long did I stay in Bangalore?
4. Sudha went to Coimbatore and stayed there for five days. The
next day, she went to Calicut, and stayed in Calicut for 2 days.
She returned from Calicut on 2nd April.
When did she go to Coimbatore?

Several pupils volunteer to state answers, and do so successfully, on

the first three problems. The last problem proves too difficult for
all but two pupils.
Task: A sheet of paper containing six problems is given to a\l pupils.

I. Kamala's school has holidays from 28th

October to 2nd November.
How long is the holiday?

2. The bus strike stated on 29th March.

Figure 31. Numerical Tasks. Source: Regional Institute of English, 1980, Bangalore.

An excerpt from a lesson transcript (Figure 33) illustrates incidental focus

on form. It is contrasted with deliberate focus on form illustrated in Figure 34.
Each type of focus is concerned with form in terms of spelling and capitalization.
Prabhu summarizes the project's approach to structure and the avoidance
of language under five points:
(1) No lesson is to be consciously geared to introducing, practising or revising par-
ticular items of structure or vocabulary.
(2) At no stage are the learners to be asked to do things (e.g., say, repeat, make
sentences) to language items as such; that is to say, no response from the learner
is to be judged merely by its correctness in form.
(3) No activity should be used merely or primarily as a guise for exemplifying or
"feeding" language items; that is to say, saying and doing-by the teacher or the
learner-should be treated as serious objectives, never as an excuse for mere "speak-
ing."
Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 153

It went on for five days.

When did the strike end?

3. My ~er had Examinations for six days.

They ended on 3rd January.

When did the examinations begin?

4. reached Delhi on 10th September.

stayed there for seven days. The next day, I left Delhi.

When did I leave Delhi?

5. Sekar reached Bombay on 28th June, and stayed

there for some days. Then he left Bombay and
reached Poona on 4th July.

How long did Sekar stay in Bombay?

6. My uncle went to Tiruchi and stayed there for

three days. The next day, he went to Thanjavoor
and stayed there for four days. He left Thanjavoor
on 7th June.

When did he go to Tiruchi?

They take about 15 minutes aswering them, and are seen to be

generally struggling.

Homework: A copy writing task-the fourth since teaching began - is given to

pupils to be done over the work-end.
Figure 31. (continued)

(4) Occasional and explicit attention to language iL~elf (e.g., Do you know what X
means?) is legitimate, provided that (i) it is incidental to-and seen by learners as
necessary for-performing the tasks on hand and (ii) it is done frankly and openly
... not as a hidden "moral" of some pretended activity or communication. Similarly,
errors in learners' expression are to be treated by the teacher in the way a child's
errors are treated by an adult, for example, rephrased more acceptably or corrected
explicitly (not, however, elaborately, through a drill) or simply accepted provisionally
as being adequate for the occasion-all as a form of temporary digression from (or
clearing the way to) more important business, viz. the activity, task on hand.
(5) It is also, of course, legitimate to base certain tasks themselves on language (e.g.,
picking the odd man out from sets of words or sentences) or to set (in activities
that justify it, e.g., role-play) correctness of language itself as one of the targets to
be achieved-provided that such correctness is not treated/perceived as the sole (or
primary) criterion of success, thus undermining the importance of substantive cor-
rectness and thereby reducing the genuineness of the task itself. (RIE 1980b:15)
154 CHAPTER 5

Pre·task : Questions of the following kind asked, answered (by individual pupils),
sometimes written up on the blackboard - one at a time.

I. Raju was born in 1965.

How old is he now?

2. Girija is 20 years old now.

When was she born?
3. Sankar was born in 1960.
How old was he in 1970?
4. Suresh was 10 years old in 1976.
When was he born?
How old is he now?

Two questions of each of these four types arc dealt with. Forms of
answer established (from occasional writing-up on the blackboard, both
by the teacher and by pupils) are: "15 years" and "in 1960".

Pupils are occasionally puzzled - especiaJly on types 3 and 4 - but

can work out and state answers after th~ first example of each kind.

Task: All pupils write down their answers to the following questions, each
stated twice.

1. Ravi was born in 1974.

How old is he now?

2. Ramesh is 8 years old

When was he born?

3. Revathi was born in 1962.

How old was she in 1974?

4. Rekha was 12 years old in 1972.

When was she born?

5. Radha was 5 years old in 1963.

How old is she now?

Figure 32. Numerical and Classification Ta~ks. Source: Regional Institute of English, 1980, Ban-
galore.
Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 155

Pre.task: Sets of four words are prescribed (most of them on the blackboard)
to the class, from which they pick out the one that doesn't belong.

Examples are:

(I) teacher (2) curry (3) big

pupil coffee small
blackboard tea sick
headmistress milk large

(4) beans (5) tall (6) kerosene

egg short candle
cabbage fat dark
tomato rich oil

Task: Fifteen sets of words are given, on paper. to each pupil. The class
takes about IS minutes to complete the exercise, and is seen to be
finding it less easy than the pre-task work.

hand 2 story 3 uncle

bag pencil grandmother
head paper sister
foot pen doctor

4 chair 5 apple 6 green

table orange red

teacher rose sm'\lJ

desk mango white

7 speak 8 late 9 teacher

read run brother
write stand tailor
absent walk doctor

10 bus II cow 12 hot

train horse food
bullock car cold
bicycle pig warm

13 long 14 slowly 15 look

short fast love
black quickly listen
small clever smell
Figure 32. (continued)
156 CHAPTER 5

Pre-TAsk

Teacher Now, the first period on Wednesday for this class, VI-B, the first
period on Wednesday is English. Who will come and write that?
(Some students raise their hands. The teacher calls on one.)
Yes, come. (The student writes 'english' in the first period for
Monday. )

St~nt Teacher - Teacher! (making a bid to correct)

TeAchre Is that right?

Student No--wrong ••• Teacher - Teacher!

Teacher The first period on Wednesday is English. <The student re-writes

'english' in the right slot.). Is this correct?

Student Correct.

Teacher This is correct •••• You have to make a capital, big E. (The
student corrects the mistake.)

Teacher The second period on Tuesday is for Kannada. Who will write that?
The second period on Tuesday is for Kannada. Yes? (A student
wri tes the correct answer on the be'ard.) Good.

Teacher The last period on Thursday is for Games •••• The last period on
Thursday is for Games. Who will do that? Who will write that?
(A student comes up.) The last period on Thursday is for Games.
Yes? (Peer consultation is followed by the student writing
'G-o-m-e-s' in the last period for Thursday morning.)

Teacher Yes?

Students Wrong - Wrong!

Teacher What is wrong?

Student G-a-

Teacher G-a. The spelling is wrong. OK. Change the spelling. G-a-m-e-s.
(The student corrects the spelling, but the entry is still in the
wrong slot.) Is this correct? Listen to my question. The lCl.st
period on Thursday is for Games.

Student Teacher - teacher!

Teacher Yes, Shyambai. Yes. come along. (Shyambai writes 'Games' in the
right slot.) Is that correct?

Students Yes. Correct.

Figure 33. Focus on Fonn I. Source: N. S. Prabhu, 1987, Second Language Pedagogy, Oxford
University Press, pp. 132-133.
Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 157

Teacher The Science lesssc'n, the Science lesson on Friday is just before
History. The Science lesson on Friday is just before History.
Who will do that? Yes? (A student comes up and wl-ites
's-c-i-n-s ' .)

Teacher Is that all right? Yes?

Student Wrong.

Teacher What is wrong?

Student Spelling.

Teacher Tt-,e spelling is wrong. Of::. Whc' can give me the right spelling?
Who can give him the right spelling? Stand up and say the right
spell i ng.

Student S-c - i -n ...

Teacher 5-c-i .•.•

Student S-c-i-n- •••

Teacher Nc,. -e-n-c-e, S-c-i-e-n-c-e. Yes, Science. (The student corrects

the spelling, but beglns the word with small '5'.1

Student Big '5'.

Teacher yes .... Yes. Ge,od. The ned question--listen--The first period
after lunch on Tuesday is Geography. The first period after lunch
on Tuesday is Geography. (peer talk; No hands go up_I
Figure 33. (continued)

Meaning. Meaning as choice is realized in the texts that learners draw

upon as the source of information for problem-solving tasks and in the text
learners produce to express their solutions. However, it is through interaction
with the task and with the teacher that learners are given the opportunity to
explore the potentialities of the language for formal and semantic choices. Since
neither linguistic nor semantic preselection is the basis for the organization of
the syllabus, there is a greater possibility of "learning to mean, of purposeful
exploitation of the language" (RIE 1980b:38). Through making choices on one's
own (choices which may be incorrect as well as correct) learners have additional
opportunities to understand the nature of language on their own terms, at their
own rates, and in their own sequences. Attention to the solution to the problem,
rather than to the form of the solution, emphasizes the relationship of form to
meaning-incorrect choices in meaning can result in wrong solutions to the
problems.
Emphasis on problem-solving tasks is emphasis on ideational meaning. For
the learners, this implies engaging in "reasoning-gap activities," which are de-
158 CHAPTER 5

Pre-task: Teacher calls out a word, asks all pupils to write it down,
then invites individual pupils (fre,m among volunteers> to write it on
the blackboard. The rest of the class agrees/disagrees and suggests
corrections. The words thus dealt with are a selection from those that
have occurred--in the context of various tasks, in earlier teaching.
They are:
left, first, morning, evening, jOin, office, pencil, last, bread,
coffee, Sister, give, draw, year, glass, old, take, day, name,
school, class, beginning, square, continue.
Pupils make various mistakes (e.g. 'jain', 'bred', 'ce,ffice', 'neim',
'cals', 'squier', 'continew' > and are corrected either by e,ther pupils
or by the teacher.

Task: A dictation test of the following we,rds:

name, class, school, left, square, morning, ce,ffee, first, pencil,
glass, year, sister, give, old, join, ce,ntinLle, beginning, fal-mer,
re,ad, grandmother.

Pre-TasK: Work on spelling ce'ntinued.

Teacher calls out she'l-t phrases fe,r pupils to write in their
note-books and for partic:ular pupils to then write e,n the blackboal-d.
Examples of the phrases called out are: to the left, in the class,
fre,m the school, under the table, at the beginning, te, my sister, with
a pencil, make coffee, leave he'me.
Pupils make occasie,nal mistakes (in writing we'rds on the
blackboard> which other pupils (or the teacher> point e,ut. The teacher
insists, repeatedly, on adequate space being left between we,rds.
Then, the teacher calls out some short sentences, and insists on
capi tal isation at the beginning and appropriate punctuatie,n (pHiod or
questie.n mark) at the end. Examples e,f sentences are:
Whe, is Rani?
Make some coffee.
Ge, te, my sister.
What is this7

TaSk: A dictation test of the following phrases:

e. school, the man, to the right, in the sche,ol, on the
cha i r, at last, break the g lass, come 1ate. ne:~t year.
hie' apples. What is this? Where is the table? Go te, the
sthe,e.}. Eat se'me rice. Give me the paper.

Pup i I s mark their own work and then hand it to the teacher.

Figure 34. Focus on Form II. Source: Regional Institute of English, 1980, Bangalore.

scribed as involving the learner in "deriving some new information from given
information through processes of inference, deduction, practical reasoning, or
a perception of relationships or patterns" (Prabhu 1987:46). Deciding upon the
best course of action for a given purpose and within given restraints is one
means of engaging learners in the expression of ideational meaning. Asking
learners to solve problems with information from a timetable (Figure 35) illus-
trates focus on such meaning.
Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 159

SOUTHERN RAILWAY

List of Fares: Ramnagar I Alandur I Mandia

Rupees

Alandur to Hosalpur 8

Alandur to Bapnahalli 7

Hosalpur to Alandur g

Hosalpur to Ramnagar 10

Hllsalpur to Devanahalli 5

Ramnagar to Hosalpur 10

Devanahalli HOjialpur 5

Devanahalli to Bapnahalli 7

Bapnaballi to Devanahani 7

Bapnahalli to Alandur 7

Bapnaballi to Mandia 5

Mandia to Bapnahalli 5

Figure 35. Southern Railway. Source: Regional Institute of English, 1980, Bangalore. Bangalore
Group Lesson Report, pp. 16-17.

Actual Texts. The texts which serve as the source of information about
the language are of two types: (1) the discourse (spoken and written) that learn-
ers and teachers create in the process of solving the tasks and commenting
upon the solutions offered and (2) the texts learners work from in solving the
tasks.
In the first type, the emphasis is on the nature of the interaction with the
task. For Prabhu, it is important to recognize that such interaction shares certain
features with real-life communication, such as (1) attention on saying or doing
something rather than on mere "speaking" (i.e., making sentences), (2) saying
and doing with a perceived purpose (Le., other than the acquisition/practice of
language), and (3) making an effort in the selection, reapplication, or extension
of strategies (Le., thinking) while performing the task. Communication in the
classroom is ensured if tasks are based on the preconditions that the learners'
minds are engaged and there is a resultant need for them to communicate. Pre-
occupation with understanding, thinking out, doing or saying something while
160 CHAPTER 5

SOUTHERN RAILWAY

Timetable: Ramanagar I Alandur I Mandia

A1andur-Bapnahalli Passenger

Arr Dee
Alandur
11-00 Dep Arr 16 - 00

1 13 - 00 Arr
Dep
Bapnahalli
Dep
Arr
14 - 30
1
Rama Express

Arr Dep
Alandur
10-00 Dep Arr II - 30

j 10 - 40
II - 00
Arr
Dep
Hosalpur
Dep
Arr
10 - 30
10 - 20

11 - 45 Arr Dep 9 - 30
Ramnagar
Arr

Central Expr~ss

Arr Dep
HosaJpur

I
II - 30 Dep Arr 15 - 50

II - 50 Arr Dep IS - 20

)
Devanahalli
12 - 00 Dep Arr IS - 15

13 - 00 Arr Dep 14 - 00
Bapnahalli
13 - 20 Dcp Arr 13 - 55

15 - 00 Arr Dep 12 - 20
Mandia
Dep Arr

Figure 35. (continued)

learners cope in the process, as well as they can with the language involved,
is a prerequisite to communication.
"Natural" language is to be modeled in the teacher's use of language; the
teacher is to control language as an adult does in conversing with a child-"by
glossing/rephrasing/explaining or ascertaining the understanding of such expres-
sions and modifying his assumptions (about what is within or beyond his
audience's competence) continually in the light of ongoing (interactional) evi-
dence" (RIE 1980b: 16).
Communicative Approaches to language Teaching 161

Pre-task: ol-al stimulus and response; answers written on the blackboard:

How do you get from Mandia to Alandur by train?

What time do you leave Mandia?

Where do you change trains?

At what time do you get down there?
How long do you wait thare?
What time does the train leave for Alandur?

How long does it take to travel from Mandia to Alandur?

Task: Hc.w do you get from Ramnagar to Mandia by train?

What time do you leave Ramnagal-?
Where do you change trains?
What time do yc.u reach that place?

How long do you wait there?

Which train takes you from that place to Mandia?

What time does it leave?

What time does it reach Mandia?

How long will it take to get from Ramnagar to Mandia1

Figure 35. (continued)

The authenticity of the discourse in the interaction between learners and

teacher is ensured by the spontaneous use of language that is involved in the
solution of problems and tasks. There are no set formulas, responses, or forms
that can be imposed on the teacher and the learners that could replace or ap-
proximate the meaning-making process necessary to solve the problem.
In addition to discourse created by teacher and learner in the process of
solving the tasks, actual texts are presented to learners in the range of written
and spoken texts that contain the information they are to act upon in applying
their cognitive skills. The excerpts from lesson transcripts presented in previous
sections illustrate one form of learner and teacher created discourse. Illustrations
of prepared texts are timetables (Figure 35), reading passages (Figure 36), and
maps (Figure 37).
162 CHAPTER 5

Rajan is ten yeilrs old. He is ncow in the fifth standard at his school. He
has a younger sister called Revathi. She is two years younger than Rajan
and is studying in the third standard. Revathi is a clever girl. She gets
good marks in her class. Rajan is not so good in his class. He spends most
of his time playing with other boys.

Figure 36. Reading Passage. Source: Regional Institute of English, 1980, Bangalore.

inch
Seale
km

Autorickshaw Charge: Rs. 0.75 per kilometre

110
l1li

!"
I
J
I Hotel
Krilhna
£

Figure 37. Map of Tenali. Source: Regional Institute of English, 1980, Bangalore. Bangalore Group
Lesson Reports, p. 60.
Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 163

Context. The context of the texts created by and presented to the learners
can be considered in terms of the classroom and of the context beyond the
classroom. In each, the relationship between the text and situation is a given,
familiar to teachers and learners alike. English is not being learned for use with
speakers of British or American English, but with other Indians. This reality
precludes the need to analyze the Indian classroom context or attend to appro-
priate nonverbal actions or relevant objects, that is, socialize the learners into
appropriate classroom behavior, verbal or nonverbal.
The context within which the classroom is situated is related to the envi-
ronment of the text and its formal features. The use of the names of local
towns (Madras, Katpandi) and of familiar objects (bullock cart, puris, sarees)
establish the context as Indian. The behavior of learners and teachers in the
classroom and the texts which correspond to this behavior also reflect the In-
dianness of the setting. Examples of such behavior are the teacher-centered
instruction and the expectation that learning has to do with "serious, substantive
content," not "having fun" (Prabhu 1987:4).

Situation. Perhaps the most striking feature of the materials and setting
of the Communicational Teaching Project is the lack of reference to uses of
language, participants, roles, objects, or situations that are abstract or removed
from the "here and now" of the learners. The context for learning and use of
English is not deferred for future uses; it is immediate and one within which
the learners are immersed. It is woven into the reality of the school and their
participation in the activities of the school as an Indian institution.
The general situation types represented in the procedural syllabus are ger-
mane to the Indian school setting, for example, asking for and providing specific
information, making inferences, or giving and following directions. The rele-
vance of these situations is to be seen in terms of the learners' present needs
as school pupils and of their potential need for English outside the school setting
in the future.

Culture. The sociocultural reality of English language use in India plays

a role in determining the general situation type that defines English instruction
in the government schools which participated in the project. As already men-
tioned, the dominant teacher-pupil relationship in this setting is also determined
by the culture. The power of this norm is demonstrated by the project's failed
attempts to introduce role-plays and group activities to learners in its early
phases. These activities were unsuccessful because they did not meet learners'
preconceived notions of learning and teaching, which did not include playing
games, acting out nonclassroom roles, or managing without a teacher (Prabhu
1987:4).
164 CHAPTER 5

Indian culture is also represented in the contexts of the problems them-

selves. Indian names for places and persons as well as local objects (e.g., bullock
cart), are used in the texts. Their use underscores that English is being learned
with reference to the Indian reality inside and outside the classroom, not to
British or American contexts.

Learning How to Mean. Learning and teaching in the Communicational

Teaching Project is achieved through making ideational meaning. Communica-
tion in the classroom is embedded in and emerges from meaning-focused activity
which occupies learners with understanding, conveying, or extending this mean-
ing as they cope with the language forms demanded by the meaning-making
process. 3 The difference between focus on meaning and focus on form is il-
lustrated in one teacher's reflections of learners' tendency to focus on the dis-
crete lexical items of a teacher's question rather than on the meaning of the
question as signalled by question words. In a series of questions based on in-
formation given in a train schedule, learners would not distinguish between
"When does the train reach Katpandi?" "When does the train leave Katpandi?"
and "How long does the train stay at Katpandi?" Instead, they would treat each
question as being the same except for lexical changes, which were not recog-
nized as cues for semantic changes (Bose 1980:85).
Learning to mean for the learners is described as learning to solve problems
and as creating texts that realize the conceptual solution; these texts are to
gradually approximate the language of an adult speaker of the language. By
creating and interpreting discourse, learners are to develop and expand their
knowledge of the structure of English. The progression is from the expression
of meaning to a refinement of the understanding and use of the structures which
realize this meaning. 4 .

Similarities and Differences

Application of a functionally-based framework to determine the functional

bases of these materials reveals a number of significant similarities and differ-

3In comments made during observations of the project's early development, Keith Johnson (1982)
recognized the influence of Halliday's concept "learning how to mean" on the nature of the
communicational approach. Of particular importance, he notes, is Halliday's observation that
language is learned by a child in relation to use, which has been applied literally in project materials
through use of English by learners to expand their repertoire and acquire language not previously
known.
4A number of scholars have described, discussed and critiqued aspects of the Communicational
Teaching Project. See, for example, Beretta (1987), Brumfit (1984), Greenwood (1985), and
Johnson (1982).
Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching 165

ences between and among them. Their shared and unique features can be sum-
marized by examining the communicative competence, learner model of lan-
guage, and expectations for intelligibility each identifies as appropriate for the
learners in each particular setting. The similarities and differences also reflect
the capacity of a functionally-based interpretation of communicative language
teaching to respond to a variety of social and cultural contexts of language
learning and use.

Communicative Competence

With respect to the selection of communicative competence as a goal, Con-

tacts and English Around the World have more in common with each other
than either does with the Communicational Teaching Project. Having specified
communicative competence as the teaching objective, Piepho as well as
Savignon and Berns make use of leamer-learner interaction; offer a wide variety
of task and activity types; have a multi component curriculum; and place value
on the development of social as well as cognitive skills. However, their materials
are distinguished by the particular communicative competence each aims to
develop. The Japanese learners' communicative competence differs significantly
from that of the West German learners, for example, with respect to the range
and type of situations in which the learners are expected to be able to com-
municate. Contacts is designed to engage learners in critique and questioning
of the status quo, in keeping with the goals of the school reform movement of
the 1970s. These activities require competence in critical-thinking skills and
the means of expressing this process and its outcome in English. In contrast,
the Communicational Teaching Project emphasizes ideational meaning, the cog-
nitive aspects of language development, and language as a discourse-creating
tool rather than a means of interpersonal communication. This focus explains
the lack of leamer-learner interaction, the limited range of task and activity
types, the one-dimensional nature of the curriculum, and the premium placed
on cognitive skills.
The context for developing competence in Japan requires an ability to
interpret, express, and negotiate meaning with respect to a rather short-term
goal, the college entrance exam, which does not reflect the broader uses that
English serves for a growing number of Japanese. The communicative com-
petence required of the school-age learners is not related to immediate com-
municative uses, but almost exclusively to grammatical competence and
comprehension skills. Yet, there is growing awareness that the international-
ization of Japan requires the ability to use English-to speak and write and
to interpret the meaning of a variety of texts for a variety of purposes and
the ability to interpret being Japanese in a world context. Thus, communicative
166 CHAPTER 5

competence in English also increasingly means being able to talk about one's
self, native country, ideas, and history-goals similar to those outlined in Con-
tacts. English Around the World is designed to be responsive to both types
of competence.
The rationale for the identification of unique competences for each of
these contexts rests in the social and cultural realities of English language
use in West Germany and Japan. Traditionally, in each of these settings En-
glish has been described as a foreign language. Yet, as shown in Chapter 3,
this "foreignness" differs depending upon the uses and users. West German
school-age learners are frequently interacting with and through the language
by means of the media, contacts with tourists, or school exchange programs
and excursions abroad. Japanese school children, on the other hand, are less
likely to have contact with native or nonnative speakers other than their
teacher. While some words and phrases have become part of the vocabulary
of many Japanese, the influence of English is not as extensive in Japan as
it is in West Germany.
For these reasons, the adequacy of the term "foreign" to describe the status
of English in the West German pedagogical setting is called into question. En-
glish in Europe in general and in West Germany in particular is increasingly
regarded as a tool for inter- and intracontinental communication and less as an
academic subject. Given the scope and breadth of its use in these performance
contexts and the purposes for learning it, the term "English as an international
and intranational language" (read "intracontinental" for Europe) seems more
appropriate. This notion also reflects the changes in what is being taught and
how it is being taught.
While English is not the language of wider communication in either West
Germany or Japan, its role in a variety of functions does have implications for
language teaching. The notion of English as a language of interpersonal com-
munication has been integrated into Piepho's approach to communicative lan-
guage teaching.
Prabhu claims that the Communicational Teaching Project is not concerned
with communicative competence defined as social appropriateness (1987: 1).
However, when "learning how to mean" is seen as compatible with Hymes's
view and with interpretations of communicative approaches such as those of
Savignon and of Piepho, the purpose of English learning in the Communicational
Teaching Project is, in fact, the development of communicative competence.
The Indian school-age learners are developing the ability to express, interpret,
and negotiate meaning in the classroom setting in which they use English, a
particular competence unique and specific to their needs and the sociocultural
features of their situation.
Communicative Approaches to language Teaching 167

Intelligibility

The question of inte11igibility, which is related to the notions of model

and communicative competence, has also been answered differently by each
approach. In the Communicational Teaching Project, Prabhu has selected an
Indian English model of language use for the learners, the features of which
are represented in the spoken and written texts presented to the learners. Since
these texts are produced locally, rather than taken from materials produced in
the United States or Great Britain, the cultural and social contexts represented
are South Indian. Thus it can be expected that the English competence the
learners develop will enable them to be intelligible (and comprehensible and
interpretable) with other South Indians. That is, the choice of a local model
implies that the learners will be intelligible locally, although not necessarily
internationally.
Intelligibility has been considered somewhat differently for Japanese learn-
ers. The classroom model of English for these learners is American or British
because the purpose for learning English is its use as an international lingua
franca. Yet, as discussed in Chapter 3, learners' English will display local fea-
tures of pronunciation or lexical items.
The choice of a native-speaker model suggests that the learners are to be
intelligible to those who find American and British English intelligible. Yet,
as shown in Chapter 2, being intelligible involves more than decoding the noises
made by speakers or the marks they put on paper. It also involves compre-
hending and interpreting spoken and written texts. Recognition of the complexity
of intelligibility is important with respect to West German learners who are
going to use English not only with native speakers but also with other Euro-
peans. Thus, while the noises and marks they make may be American, the
meanings will be West German or, more broadly, European.

Model

Given the influence of the teacher's individual use and perception of the
English language in addition to the diversity of models, West German learners
are exposed to in the media, Piepho has emphasized the prudence of realistic
aims for classroom models of English. Savignon and Berns simlarly emphasize
realistic goals, although they understand that the range of native-speaker models
for Japanese learners is likely to be less broad than those for West German
learners. As a consequence, the Japanese teacher's own experience with English
is likely to be less diverse than that of the West German teachers. The materials
168 CHAPTER 5

for the West German and Japanese learners are also similar in their attention
to ideational and interpersonal meanings.
Focus on English for rational rather than emotional uses of language in
the Prabhu curriculum implies that the model of English presented to the Indian
learners will differ from the model presented in the West German and Japanese
materials. Differences on this point are most pronounced when comparing Con-
tacts and the tasks of the Communicational Teaching Project. At an early stage,
Contacts presents learners with the means for expressing displeasure, dislike,
or preference, for example, whereas Prabhu's communicational tasks ask learn-
ers neither to express their own opinions and feelings nor to interpret or evaluate
the views of others. Contacts, reflecting the philosophy of Habermas, also
stresses questioning the status quo of social relationships in the classroom as
well as in the society at large. In contrast, Prabhu is concerned not with ana-
lyzing or changing social relationships but in using language in an established
set of roles, that of teacher-pupil.

Conclusion

The discussion of the three examples of communicative language teaching

materials undertaken in this final chapter brings together the various aspects of
language use, learning, and teaching discussed in previous chapters and dem-
onstrates their interconnections as well as their relevance for program and ma-
terials assessment and design. As such, these aspects are shown to be integral
parts of a comprehensive sociolinguistic approach to the establishment of lan-
guage teaching programs that are communicative in theory as well as practice.
The functional linguistics of the Prague School and the British tradition
outlined in Chapter I served as the point of departure for the discussions of
concepts, contexts, and pedagogy taken up in the subsequent chapters. The ex-
ploration of communicative competence, intelligibility, and model in Chapter
2 showed how a functional perspective on these terms illuminates their rela-
tionship to one another and their centrality in informing pedagogy. The socio-
linguistic profiles of India, West Germany, and Japan described in Chapter 3
presented the formal, functional, and attitudinal features of English for each
context and illustrated particular communicative competences, available models
of English for the classroom, and the parameters of intelligibility associated
with them. In Chapter 4 functional linguistics provided the framework for as-
sessing the theoretical bases of a variety of interpretations of communicative
language teaching. The implications of more than one communicative compe-
tence for a language, of nonnative standards for intelligibility, of differences
in the forms and functions of one language across contexts, and of the com-
parative soundness of the theoretical underpinnings of various approaches to
Communicative Approaches to language Teaching 169

communicative language teaching became salient in Chapter 5 when the 10

criteria were applied to language teaching materials. The salience was evident
in the considerable variation across the tasks and activities included in the ma-
terials and their representation of objectives for learners.
This lack of uniformity, rather than revealing a weakness in the materials
or the approaches upon which they are based, offers insight into one of the
most significant features of communicative language teaching: its potential to
be sensitive and responsive to the relationship between communicative compe-
tence and the social and cultural context in which a language is learned and
used.
It is this context-specific response which is the strength of these materials.
They demonstrate that identification of the broad goal of communicative com-
petence does not imply adopting a particular syllabus or methodology. In fact,
they show that teaching for communicative competence cannot mean rigid ad-
herence to one way of teaching or the use of one kind of syllabus, one set of
materials, or a fixed selection of learner activities if the goal of communicative
competence is to be achieved effectively across a variety of contexts.
Like meaning, a teaching approach has to be negotiated anew for each
context. As no two contexts for the development of communicative competence
are alike, no two responses to the social and cultural realities of those contexts
can be identical. A functional basis to communicative language teaching pro-
vides a framework that is sufficiently flexible to adapt to diverse contexts of
language learning and use. This flexibility and adaptability in approach is es-
sential if the communicative needs of learners of any language, second or for-
eign, and in any setting, native or nonnative, are to be met.
 References

Abercrombie, D. (1951). R.P. and local accent. In D. Abercrombie (1965), Studies in phonetics
and linguistics (pp. 10-15). London: Oxford University Press. (Reprinted from The Listener,
6)
Adeyanju, T. (1987). Rule-bending creativity in Nigerian English. Unpublished manuscript.
Allen, J. P. B., & Widdowson, H. G. (Eds.). (1974). English in focus. London: Oxford University
Press.
Atkinson, R. (1975). RP and English as a world language. International Review of Applied Lin-
guistics, 13, 69-72.
Baird, D., & Heyneman, J. (1982). A look at a company in-house English program. JALT Newsletter,
16, 10, 12-13.
Baldegger, M., MUller, M., & Schneider, G. (1981). Kontaktschwelle. Deutsch als Fremdsprache
[The threshold level in German]. Munich, West Germany: Langenscheidt.
Bamgbose, A. (1971). The English language in Nigeria. In J. Spencer (Ed.), The English language
in West Africa (pp. 35-48). London: Longman.
Bamgbose, A. (1982). Standard Nigerian English: Issues of identification. In B. Kachru (Ed.), The
other tongue: English across cultures (pp. 99-111). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Bansal, R. (1969). The intelligibility of lndian English. Hyderabad: Central Institute of English and
Foreign Languages.
Barnet, V. (1972). Learning the spoken language. In V. Fried (Ed.), The Prague school of linguistics
and language teaching (pp. 29-42). London: Oxford University Press.
Barnlund, D. (1975). Public and private self in Japan and in the United States. Tokyo: SimuI
Press.
de Beaugrande, R. (1980). Text, discourse, and process. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Benes, E. (1972). The syntax of scientific German in foreign language teaching. In V. Fried
(Ed.), The Prague school of linguistics and teaching (pp. 142-159). London: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Benson, J., & Greaves, W. (1973). The language people really use. Agincourt, Canada: Book Society
of Canada.
Beretta, A. (1987). The Bangalore Project: Description and evaluation. In S. Savignon & M. Berns
(Eds.), Initiatives in communicatil·e language teaching II. (pp. 83- 106). Reading, MA: Addi-
son-Wesley.
Berns, M. (1982, May). Culture and communication: English for Japanese. Paper presented at the
International Meeting of TESOL, Honolulu, HI.
Berns, M. (1984). Functional approaches to language and language teaching: Another look. In S.
Savignon & M. Berns (Eds.), Initiatives in communicative language teaching II. (pp. 3-22).
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

171
172 References

Berns, M. (I 988a, June). English in West Germany: Contact and conflict of attitudes. Paper presented
at the International Conflict-Symposium Contact + Confli(c)t 88, Brussels, Belgium.
Berns, M. (1988b). The cultural and linguistic context of English in West Germany. World Englishes,
7,37-49.
Bernstein, B. (1964). Elaborated and restricted codes: Their social origins and some consequences.
American Anthropologist, 66, 55-69.
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, code and control I: Theoretical studies toward a sociology of language.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Berry, M. (1975). Introduction to systemic linguistics: I. Structures and systems. New York: SI.
Martin's Press.
Bhasker, W. (1980). Foreword. In RIE (l980a), pp. i-iii.
Bokamba, E. G. (1982). The Africanization of English. In B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue:
English across cultures (pp. 77-98). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Bose, M. (1980). A teacher's experience. In RIE (l980a), pp. 81-90.
Brown, H. D., & Berns, M. (1983). Junior action English. Tokyo: World Times of Japan.
Brumfit, C. (1984). The Bangalore procedural syllabus. ELT Journal, 38, 233-241.
Buhler, K. (1934). Sprachtheorie. Jena, East Germany: Fisher.
Butler, C. (1982). Recent developments in systemic linguistics. In V. Kinsella (Ed.), Sur.·eys I (pp.
38-57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, R., & Wales, R. (1970). The study of language acquisition. In J. Lyons (Ed.), New
horizons in linguistics (pp. 242-260). London: Penguin.
Camutaliova, I. (1972). Some principles of stylizing a dialogue for foreign language teaching. In
V. Fried (Ed.), The Prague school of linguistics and language teaching (pp. 160-181). London:
Oxford University Press.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J.
Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-27). London: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language
teaching and testing. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Candlin, C. (1976). Treating language functions in language teaching. In C. Edelhoff (Ed.),
Kommunikative lwmpetenz durch Englischunterricht (pp. 36-49). Fuldatal, West Germany:
Hessisches Institut fLir Lehrerfortbildung.
Candlin, C. (Ed. and Trans.). (1981). Communicative teaching of English: Principles and an exercise
typology. London: Langenscheidt-Longman.
Candlin, C. (1982). English as an international language: Intelligibility over interpretability. In C.
Brumfit (Ed.), English as an international language (pp. 95-98). London: Pergamon Press.
Casteleiro, J., Meira, A., & Pascoal, J. (1988). Nivel Iimiar. Para 0 ensinolAprendizagem do
Portugues como lingua s£'gundalLingua estrangeira [The threshold level in Portuguese]. Stras-
bourg: Council of Europe.
Catford, J. (1950). Intelligibility. English Language Teaching, 1,7-15.
Catford, J. (1969). J. R. Firth and British linguistics. In A. Hill (Ed.), Linguistics (pp. 247-257).
Voice of America Forum Series. Wa~hington, DC: United States Information Agency.
Census Report of India (1961). Delhi: Manager of Publications, Government of India.
Chaturvedi, M., & Mohale, B. (1976). Position of languages in school curriculum in India. New
Delhi: NCERT.
Chishimba, M. (1985). African varieties of English: Text in context (Doctoral dissertation, University
of Illinois, Urbana, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 168A.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1977). Language and responsibility. New York: Pantheon Books.
Clyne, M. (1981). Cultural and discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 5, 61-66.
References 173

Coste, D., Courtillon, 1., Ferenczi, F.. Martins-Baltar, M., & Papo, E. (1981). Un niveau·seuil [The
threshold level in French]. Paris: Hatier.
Coulthard, M. (1977). An introduction to discourse analysis. London: Longman.
Danes, F. (1964). A three level approach to syntax. Travaux Linguistique de Prague, J, 225-240.
Davis, P. (1973). Modern theories of lan!(/la!(e. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Denison, N. (1981). English in Europe, with particular reference to the German-speaking area. In
W. Pockl (Ed.), Europiiische Mehrsprachigkeit (pp. 2-18). Tiibingen, West Germany: Max
Niemeyer.
Deutsch Wird Aprilfrisch. (1983, February 3). Suddeutsche Zeitung.
Dixon, R. (1965). What IS lan!(uagc? A new approach to linguistic description. London: Longman.
Dubsky, J. (1972). The Prague conception of functional style. In V. Fried (Ed.), The Prague school
of lin!(uistics and language teaching (pp. 112-127). London: Oxford University Press.
Edelhoff, C. (1981). Theme-oriented English teaching: Text varieties, media, skills and project-work.
In C. Candlin (Ed. and Trans.), Communicative teaching of English: Principles and an exercise
typology (pp. 49-62). London: Oxford University Press.
Edelhoff, C. (1983). The comprehensive school in the Federal Republic of Germany. In C. Edelhoff
(Ed.), The communicative teaching of En!(lish (pp. 10-15). Report on 1981/1982 Danish/German
Teachers' Conferences, Skarrildhus, Jutland. Grebenstein, West Germany: Sprogsam English
Committee/Gesellschaft zur Forderung des Englischunterrichts an Gesamtschulen e.v. (GFE).
Ferguson, C. (1966). National sociolinguistic profile formula~. In W. Bright (Ed.), Sociolinguistics:
Proceedings of the UCLA Sociolinguistics Conference, 1964 (pp. 309-315). The Hague: Mou-
ton.
Ferguson, C. (1982). Foreword. In B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (pp.
vii-xi). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Finocchiaro, M., & Brumfit, C. (1983). The functional-notional approach: From theory to practice.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Firbas, 1. (1964). Comparative word order studies. Brno Studies in En!(lish, 4, 111-128.
Firba~, J. (1972). On the interplay of prosodic and non-prosodic means of functional sentence per-
spective. In V. Fried (Ed.), The Prague school of linguistics and language teaching (pp. 77-94).
London: Oxford University Press.
Firth, 1. R. (1930). Speech. London: Ernest Benn.
Firth, 1. R. (1935). The technique of semantics. In J. R. Firth (1957b), pp. 7-33. (Reprinted from
Transactions of the Philological Society, 36-72)
Firth, 1. R. (1937). Tongues of men. London: Watts & Co. (Reissued 1964)
Firth, 1. R. (1950). Personality and language in society. In J. R. Firth (I 957b), pp. 177-189. (Reprinted
from The Sociological Review, 42, 37-52)
Firth, J. R. (1955). Structural linguistics. In F. R. Palmer (Ed.) (1968), pp. 35-52. (Reprinted from
Transactions of the Philological Society, 83-103)
Firth, J. R. (\957a). Synopsis of linguistic theory 1930-1955. In F. R. Palmer (Ed.) (1968), pp.
168-205. (Reprinted from Studies in Linguistic Analysis [Special volume of the Philological
Society, Oxford], 1-31)
Firth, 1. R. (1957b). Papers in linguistics 1934- J951. London: Oxford University Press.
Fisiak, 1. (1986). The word formation of English loanwords in Polish. In W. Viereck and W. Bald
(Eds.), English in contact with other languages. Studies in honour of Broder Carstensen on
the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 253-263). Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.
Frake, C. O. (1964). How to ask for a drink in Subanun. American Anthropologist, 66 (6), 127-132.
Frank, J. (1988). Miscommunication across cultures: The case of marketing in Indian English. World
Englishes, 7, 25-36.
Fried, V. (Ed.). (1972). The Prague school of linguistics and language teaching. London: Oxford
University Press.
174 References

Fukuzawa, Y. (1899). The autobiography of Yukichi Fukuzawa. New York: Schocken Books. (Re-
printed 1972)
Galli de Paratesi, N. (1981). Livello soglia per l'insegnamento dell'italiano come lingua straniera
[The threshold level in Italian]. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Garvin, P. (1963). Linguistics in Eastern Europe: Czechoslovakia. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Current
trends in linguistics I (pp. 499-522). The Hague: Mouton.
Garvin, P. (1972). On machine translation: Selected papers. The Hague: Mouton.
Geiger, A. (1979). Britischer kontextualismus und fremdsprachenunterricht: [British contextualism
and foreign language teaching]. Berlin: Cornelsen-Velhagen and Klasing.
Geiger, A. (198 I). The application of "British contextualism" to foreign language teacher training.
English Language Teaching Journal, 35, 209-215.
Ghosh, I., & Datta, S. (1983). Teaching English as a second language for social purposes. Phase
I: A preliminary survey in Jhargram. 1hargram Raj College, West Bengal.
Gimson, A. (1980). An introduction to the pronunciation of English (3rd ed.). London: Edward
Arnold.
Gompf, G. (1986). The early start of English-Recent trends and new directions in the Federal
Republic of Germany. International Review of Education, 32, 3-22.
Gorlach, M., & SchrOder, K. (1985). Good usage in an EFL context. In S. Greenbaum (Ed.), The
English language today (pp. 227-232). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Greenwood, 1. (1985). Bangalore revisited: A reluctant complaint. ELT Journal, 39, 268-273.
Gregory, M., & Carroll, S. (1978). Language and situation: Language varieties and their social
contexts. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & 1. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics
3: Speech acts (pp. 41-48). New York: Academic Press.
Gutschow, H. (1976, September 16). Kommunikative kompetenz [Communicative competence]. Re-
marks delivered at the 7. Arbeitstagung der Fachdidaktiker fUr Neue Sprachen, Giessen, West
Germany.
Habermas, 1. (1970). Toward a theory of communicative competence. Inquiry, 13,360-375.
Haberma~, 1. (1971). Vorbereitende bemerkungen zu einer theorie der kommunikative kompetenz
[Preliminary remarks on a theory of communicative competence]. In N. Lishman (Ed.), Theorie
der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie [Theory of society or social technology] (pp. 101-141).
Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Halliday, M. (1961). Categories of the theory of grammar. Word, 17, 241-292.
Halliday, M. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Parts I and 2. Journal of Linguistics,
3,37-81, 199-244.
Halliday, M. (1968). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Part 3. Journal of Linguistics, 4,
179-215.
Halliday, M. (1970a, October). The place of "functional sentence perspective" in the system of
linguistic description. Paper presented at the International Symposium on FSP, Marianske,
Lazne. (Reprinted in G. Kress [Ed.], 1976, pp. 26-35)
Halliday, M. (1970b). Language structure and language function. In 1. Lyons (Ed.), New horizons
in linguistics (pp. 140-165). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Halliday, M. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. (1975). Learning how to mean. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and mean-
ing. Baltimore, MD: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social
semiotic perspective. Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Halliday, M., & Martin, 1. (Eds). (1981). Readings in systemic linguistics. London: Batsford.
References 175

Halliday, M., McIntosh, A., & Strevens, P. (1964). The linguistic sciences and language teaching.
London: Longman.
Helgesen, M. (1987). Playing in English: Games and the L2 classroom in Japan. In S. Savignon
& M. Berns (Eds.), Initiatives in communicative language teaching II. (pp. 205-226). Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hessische Kultusminister. (1980). Rahmenrichtlinien. Sekundarstufe I: Neue sprachen [Curriculum
Guidelines. Secondary Level \. Modem Languages]. Frankfurt: Diesterweg.
Huckin, T. (1980). Review of H. G. Widdowson, Teaching language as communication. Language
Learning, 30, 209-227.
Hughes, A., & Trudgill, P. (1987). English accents and dialects: An introduction to social and
regional varieties of British English (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Hymes, D. (1971). Competence and perfonnance in linguistic theory. In R. Huxley & E. Ingram
(Eds.), Language acquisition: Models and methods (pp. 3-28). London: Academic Press.
Hymes, D. (1972). Editorial introduction. Language in Society, " 1-14.
Hymes, D. (Ed.). (1980). Language in education: Ethnolin/?uistic essays. Washington, DC: Center
for Applied Linguistics.
Iyengar. K. (1962). Indian writing in English. London: Asia Publishing House.
Jakobovits, L. (1968). The physiology and psychology of second language learning. In E. Birkmaier
(Ed.), Britannica review of forei/?n lan/?ua/?e education (Vol. 1, pp. 181-227). Chicago: En-
cyclopaedia Britannica.
Jessen, J. (1983). Et taerskelniveaufor dansk [The threshold level in Danish]. Strasbourg: Council
of Europe.
Jha, J. (1979). Attitudes of parents towards English medium and non-English medium schools.
lournal of Educational Research and Extension, 16, 115-119.
Johnson, K. (1982). Communicative syllabus desi/?n and methodology. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Jones, D. (1956). The pronunciation of English (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kachru, B. (1965). The Indian ness in Indian English. Word, 21, 391-410.
Kachru, B. (1977). The new Englishes and old models. English Teaching Forum, 15,29-35.
Kachru, B. (1981a). Socially realistic linguistics: The Firthian tradition. International lournal of
the Sociolo/?y of Language, 31, 65-89.
Kachru, B. (198Ib). The pragmatics of non-native varieties of English. In L. Smith (Ed.), English
for cross-cultural communication (pp. 15-39). New York: St. Martin's Press.
Kachru, B. (1982a). Models for non-native Englishes. In B. Kachru (Ed.), The other ton/?ue: English
across cultures (pp. 31-57). Urbana, IL: University of l1Iinois Press.
Kachru, B. (Ed.). (I 982b). The other tongue: English across cultures. Urbana, IL: University of
l1Iinois Press.
Kachru, B. (1982c). Meaning in deviation: Toward understanding non-native English texts. In B.
Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (pp. 325-250). Urbana, IL: University
of l1Iinois Press.
Kachru, B. (1983). The Indiani:ation of English: The English language in India. Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Kachru, Y. (1983). Linguistics and written discourse in English and Hindi. In R. Kaplan (Ed.).
Annual review of applied linguistics. 1982 (pp. 50-77). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Kachru, Y. (1987). Cross-cultural texts, discourse strategies and text interpretation. In L. Smith
(Ed.). Discourse across cultures: Strategies in world Englishes (pp. 87- 100). New York: Pren-
tice Hall.
Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learnin/?, 16,
1-20.
Kaplan, R. (Ed.). (1983). Annual review of applied linguistics, 1982. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
King-ek, A., Artetxe, S., Astigarraga, M., Beloki, E.. Gaminde. \., Goenaga, X.. Ibero, I.. Ithurssary,
176 References

I., Jiminez, E., Labiano, R., Piedra, G., & Urrutia, E. (1988). Atalase Maila [The threshold
level in Catalan]. Stra~bourg: Council of Europe.
Koike, I. (1978). English language teaching policies in Japan: Pa~t, present, and future. In I. Koike
et al. (Eds.), The teaching of English in Japan (pp. 3-14). Tokyo: Eichosha Publishing.
Koike, I., Mat.~uyama, M., Igarashi, Y., & Suzuki, K. (Eds.). (1978). The teaching of English in
Japan. Tokyo: Eichosha Publishing.
Kress, G. (Ed.). (1976). Halliday: System and function in language. London: Oxford University
Press.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Langendoen, D. (1968). The London school of linguistics (Research Monograph No. 46). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Lowenberg, P. (1985). English in the Malay archipelago: Nativization and its functions in a so-
ciolinguistic area (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1984). Dissertation Ab·
stracts International, 45, 3340A.
Lyons, J. (1970). New horizons in linlluistics. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Magura, B. (1985). Style and meaning in African English: A sociolinguistic analysis of South
African and Zimbabwean English (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1984).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 3340A.
Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive language. In C. Ogden & I. Richards
(Eds.), The meaning of meaninll (pp. 296-336). London: Trubner and Co.
Malinowski, B. (1935). Coral lIardens and their magic I. II. London: Allen and Unwin.
Malinowski, B. (1939). The present state of studies in culture contact: Some comments on an
American approach. Africa, 12, 27-47.
Mathesius, V. (1928). On linguistic characterology with illustrations from modem English. In J.
Vachek (Comp.) (1964), A Prallue school reader in linguistics (pp. 59-67). Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University.
Mathesius, V. (1961). A functional analysis of present day English on a general linguistic basis.
Prague: Ceskoslovenska Akademie Ved.
Matsuyama, M. (1978). Entrance exams: College entrance examinations and English education in
Japan. In I. Koike et al. (Eds.), The teaching of English in Japan (pp. 35-46). Tokyo: Eichosha
Publishing.
Men~fkova, A. (1972). Sentence patterns in the theory and practice of teaching the grammar of
French a~ a foreign language. In V. Fried (Ed.), The Prague school of linguistics and language
teaching (pp. 43-61). London: Oxford University Press.
Miller, R. (1967). The Japanese lanlluage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ministry of Education, Japan. (1972). Suggested course of study (2nd ed.). Tokyo, Japan: Ministry
of Education.
Mitchell, T. (1957). The language of buying and selling in Cyrenaica: A situational statement.
Hesperis (now Hesperis-Tamuda, University of Rabat). (Reprinted in Mitchell, 1975,31-71)
Mitchell, T. (1975). Principles of Firthian linguistics. London: Longman.
Monaghan, J. (1979). The neo-Firthian tradition and its contribution to general linguistics.
Ttibingen, West Germany: Max Niemeyer.
Morrow, P. (1987). The users and uses of English in Japan. World Englishes, 6 (I), 49-62.
Moser, H. (1974). Von den 80er Jahren der 19. Jahrhundert zur Gegenwart. Deutsche Wortgeschichte
(3rd ed.) (pp. 529-646). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Moynahan, B. (1983, March 27). Sprechen sie Germish? Sunday Times, p. 7.
Mulaisho, D. (1971). Tongue of the dumb. London: Heinemann.
Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
References 177

Nelson, C. (1983, May). Syntactic creativity and intelligibility. Paper presented at the Annual South
Asian Languages Association Roundtable, Urbana, IL.
Nelson, C. (1985). Intelligibility: The case of non-native varieties of English (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Illinois, Urbana, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 172A.
Ohtani. T. (1978). Adult education: A brief history of teaching and study of business English in
Japan. In I. Koike et al. (Eds.). The teaching of English in Japan (pp. I 87-203). Tokyo:
Eichosha Publishing.
Oller, J. (1978). Pragmatics and language testing. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Approaches to language
testing. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Olsson, M. (1978). Intelligibility: An evaluation of some features of English produced by Swedish
14-year-olds. Gothenburg Studies in English 40. Goteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Omura, K. (1978). Prewar (before 1945): From the Phaeton Incident up to the Pacific War. In I.
Koike et al. (Eds.), The teaching of English in Japan (pp. 91-103). Tokyo: Eichosha Publishing.
Palmer. F. R. (Ed.). (1968). Selected papers of J.R. Firth, 1952-1959. Bloomington, IN, and London:
Indiana University Press.
Palmer, H. (1920). The principles of language study. London: Oxford University Press. (Reprinted
1964)
Passin, H. (1980). Japanese and the Japanese. Tokyo: Kinseido.
Paulston, C. (1974). Linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 8, 347-362.
Paulston. C. (1976). Teaching English as a second language: Techniques and procedures. Cam-
bridge, MA: Winthrop.
Piepho. H. E. (1974). Kommunikatil'e kompetenz als ubergeordnetes lernziel des Englischunterrichts
[Communicative competence as a general learning goal in English instruction]. Domburg-
Frickhofen, West Germany: Frankonius.
Piepho, H. E. (1979). Kommunikative didaktik des Englischunterrichts [Communicative English
language teaching]. Limburg, West Germany: Frankonius.
Piepho. H. E. (1981). Establishing objectives in the teaching of English: Principles and an exercise
typology. In C. Candlin (Ed. and Trans.). Communicative teaching of English: Principles and
an exercise typology (pp. 8-23). London: Langenscheidt-Longman.
Piepho, H. E., & Bredella, L. (Eds.). (1976). Contacts. Integriertes Englischlehrwerk fur klassen
5-10 [Contacts. Integrated English series for grades 5-10]. Bochum, West Germany: Kamp.
Piepho, H. E., & Gerster, L. (I 979}. Kommentar Contacts 6 [Instructor's manual Contacts 6].
Bochum, West Germany: Kamp.
Prabhu, N. S. (I 980}. Theoretical background to the Bangalore project. In RIE (I 980a}, (pp. 17-26).
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Prator, C. E. (1968). The British heresy in ESL. In J. Fishman, C. Ferguson, & J. Das Gupta
(Eds.), Language problems of developing nations (pp. 459-476). New York: John Wiley and
Sons.
Preston, D. (1981). Ethnography of TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 105-116.
Priebsch, R., & Collinson, W. (1966). The German language (6th ed.). London: Faber and Faber.
Pytelka, J. (1972). The Prague school and studies in the language of commerce. In V. Fried (Ed.),
The Prague school of linguistics and language teaching (pp. 211-223). London: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Quirk, R. (1985). The English language in a global context. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson
(Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 1-6).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ragan, P. (1987, April). Text, context and language teaching: A systemic-functional perspective.
Paper presented at the International Meeting of TESOL, Miami, FL.
Raimes, A. (1983). Tradition and revolution in ESL teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 17,535-552.
Rao, R. (1963). Kanthapura. New York: New Directions.
178 References

Reid, T. B. W. (1956). Linguistics, structuralism and philology. Archivum Linguisticum, 8, 28-37.

RIE (1980a). Bulletin. No. 4(i). New approaches to teaching English: Report on "Bangalore Project,"
1979-1980 [Report of seminar]. Regional Institute of English, South India, Bangalore.
RIE (l980b). Newsletter (Special Series). Vol. I. No.4. Teaching English a~ communication. Pr0-
posals for syllabus design, methodology, and evaluation. Regional Institute of English, South
India, Bangalore.
RIE (l980c). Newsletter (Special Series). Vol. 2. No. I. Teaching English through communication,
Madras Group, Lesson Reports (I). Regional Institute of English, South India, Bangalore.
RIE (l980d). Newsletter (Special Series). Vol. 2. No.2. Teaching English through communication,
Bangalore Group, Lesson Reports (I). Regional Institute of English, South India, Bangalore.
Rivers, W. (1971). Talking off the tops of their heads. TESOL Quarterly, 5, 71-81.
Rivers, W. (1973). From linguistic competence to communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly,
7,25-34.
Rivers, W. (1976). The natural and the normal in language learning. In H.D. Brown (Ed.), Papers
in second language acquisition [Special issue]. Language Learning, 4, 1-8.
Rivers, W. (1983). Speaking in many tongues: Essays inforeign-language teaching (3rd ed.). Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ross, D. (1981). From theory to practice: Some critical comments on the communicative approach
to language teaching. Language Learning, 31, 223-242.
Rumelhart, D. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. Spiro, B. Bruce, & W.
Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33-35). Hillsdale, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates.
Sampson, G. (1980). Schools of linguistics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Savignon, S. (1972). Communicative competence: An experiment inforeign language teaching. Phil-
adelphia, PA: Center for Curriculum Development.
Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Savignon, S., & Berns, M. (1983). English around the world: Integrated EFL junior high series
for Japan. Unpublished manuscript.
Savignon, S., & Berns, M. (Eds.). (1984). Initiatives in communicative language teaching. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Savignon, S., & Berns, M. (Eds.). (1987). Initiatives in communicative language teaching II. Read-
ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1983). Face in interethnic communication. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt
(Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 156-190). London: Longman.
Sekimori, G. (1983). Business ELT. JALT Newsletter, 7, 1-2,4.
Sey, D. (1973). Ghanian English: An exploratory survey. London: Macmillan.
Shaw, D. (1977). Foreign-language syllabus development: Some recent approaches. Language teach-
ing and linguistics: Abstracts (pp. 217-233).
Sibata, T. (1975). On some problems in Japanese sociolinguistics: Reflections and prospects. In C.
Peng (Ed.), Language in Japanese society (pp. 159-174). Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Sinclair, J. (1980). Some implications of discourse analysis for ESP methodology. Applied Linguis-
tics, I, 253-261.
Slagter, P. (1980). Un nivel umbral [The threshold level in Spanish]. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Smith, E., & Luce, L. (Eds.). (1979). Towards internationalism. Rowley, MA: Newbury.
Smith, L. (Ed.). (1981). English for cross-cultural communication. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Smith, L. (Ed.). (1983). Readings in English as an international language. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Smith, L. (Ed.). (1987). Discourse across cultures: Strategies in world Englishes. New York: Pren-
tice Hall.
References 179

Smith, L., & Bisazza, J. (1982). The comprehensibility of three varieties of English for college
students in seven countries. Language Learning, 32, 259-270.
Smith, L., & Nelson, C. (1985). International intelligibility of English: Directions and resources.
World Englishes, 4, 333-342.
Smith, L., & Rafiqzad, K. (1979). English for cross-cultural communication: The question of in-
telligibility. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 371-380. (Reprinted in L. Smith [Ed.]. 1983, pp. 49-58)
Smith, S. (1987). Second language teaching in the business world: Communicative English course
content in West Germany. In S. Savignon & M. Berns (Eds.), Initiatives in communicative
language teaching fl. (pp. 107-124). Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley.
Sridhar, K. (1989). English in Indian bilingualism. Delhi: Manohar.
Sridhar, S. N. (1982). Non-native English literatures: Context and relevance. In B. Kachru (Ed.),
The other tongue: English across cultures (pp. 291-306). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois
Press.
Stanlaw, J. (1982). English in Japanese communicative strategies. In B. Kachru (Ed.), The other
tongue: English across cultures (pp. 168-197). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Stanlaw, J. (1987). Japanese and English: Borrowing and contact. World Englishes, 6, 93-109.
Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden. (1987). Statistisches jahrbuch fur die Bundesrepublik Deutsch-
land. Stuttgart!Mainz, West Germany: Kohlhammer.
Steiner, E. (1983). Die entwicklunf( des Britischen kontextualismus. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.
Strevens, P. (1977). New orientations in the teaching of English. London: Oxford University Press.
Strevens, P. (1978, August). Functional Englishes (ESP): A British view. Paper presented at Con-
ference on Functional Englishes. University of Illinois, Urbana.
Strevens, P. (1980). Teaching English as an international language: From practice 10 principle.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Svanes, B.. Hagen, J., Manne, G., & Svindland, A. (1987). Et terskelnivafor norsk [The threshold
level in Norwegian]. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Svoboda, A. (1968). The hierarchy of communicative units and fields as illustrated by English
attributive constructions. Brno Studies in Enf(lish, 7, 49- \0 I.
Tanabe, Y. (1978). English as an international language: Qualifications, adaptation and perspective.
In I. Koike et al. (Eds.). The leaching of English in Japan (pp. 47-57). Tokyo: Eichosha
Publishing.
Taylor, D. (1988). The meaning and use of the term "competence" in linguistics and applied lin-
guistics. Applied Linguistics, 9, 148-168.
Threadgold, T., Grosz, E., Kress, G., & Halliday, M. (Eds.). (1986). Semiotics. idealogy, language
(Sydney Studies in society and culture, No.3). Sydney, Australia: Sydney Association for
Studies in Society and Culture.
Tongue, R. K. (1974). The English of Singapore and Malaysia. Singapore: Ea~tern Universities
Press.
Trubetzkoy, N. (1939). Grundzage der Phonologie. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 7.
Vachek, J. (Comp.) (1964). A Prague school reader in linguistics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Uni-
versity Press.
Vachek, J. (1966). The linguistic school of Prague. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Vachek, J. (1972). The linguistic theory of the Prague school. In V. Fried (Ed.), The Prague school
of linguistics and language teaching (pp. 11-25). London: Oxford University Press.
Vachek, J. (1976). Selected writings in English and general linguistics. The Hague: Mouton.
Vackek, J. (1985). The 1929 Praguian "theses", internal speech and internal language. In U. Pieper
and G. Stickel (Eds.), Studia Linguistica Diachronia el Synchronica. Werner Winter. Sex-
agenario Anno MCMLXXXlll. (pp. 851-847). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Valentine, T. (1985). Cross-sex conversation in Indian English fiction. World Englishes, 4, 319-332.
Van Dijk, T. (1972). Some aspects of text grammars. The Hague: Mouton.
180 References

Van Ek, J., & Alexander, L. (1980). Threshold level English. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Ventola, E. (1983, March). Orientation to social semiotics in language teaching. Paper presented
at the International Meeting of TESOL, Toronto, Canada.
Verma, S. K. (1987). Teaching English a~ a second language in India: Focus on objectives. In R.
Steele & T. Threadgold (Eds.). Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday Vol.
I (pp. 417-423). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Voegelin, c., & Harris, Z. (1951). Determining intelligibility among dialects. Proceedings of the
American Philological Society, 95, 322-329.
Wells, S. (1986). Jiirgen Haberma~, communicative competence, and the teaching of technical dis-
course. In C. Nelson (Ed.), Theory in the classroom (pp. 245-270). Urbana, IL: University of
Illinois Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wittman, H. (1981, April 19). Wa~ der Sprachunterricht braucht - Kommunikationsfahigkeit und
mehr nicht? Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, p. 27.
Wolfson, N. (1984). Pretty is as pretty does: A speech act view of sex roles. Applied Linguistics,
5,236-244.
Wynants, A. (1985). Drempelnil'eau. Nederlands als vreemde taal [The threshold level in Dutch].
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
 Index

Abercrombie, D., 44 Butler, c., I3

Adeyanju, T., 33
Alexander, L. G., 80, 81, 124 Campbell, R., 28
Allen, J. P. 8., 26 Camutaliova, I., 5
communicative, 82, 86, 104 Canale, M., 89, 91
functional, I, 105 Candlin, C., 27, 33
functional-notional, 86-88 Carroll, S., 6
Atkinson, R., 64 Casteleiro, J., 81
Audio-lingual method, 5, 88, 104 Catford, J. c., 7, 32, 34, 35, 42
Audio-lingualism, 83, 87 Chaturvedi, M., 56
Chishimba, M., 26, 32, 36, 102
Baird, D., 69 Chomsky, N., 30, 97
Beldegger, M .. 81 Cline
Bamgbose, A., 45 of Englishes, 55
Bansal, R., 32 of intelligibility, 42
Barnet, V., 5 of proficiency, 62
Barnlund, D., 77 Clyne, M., 333, 40
de Beaugrande, R., 38 Code, 25
Behavior potential, 20 Collinson, W., 63
Benes, E., 5 Communicative curriculum
Benson, J., 6 27 Savignon's components. 90-92, 133
Beretta, A., 164 Communicative language teaching, 5, 66, 76,
Berns, M., 44, 61, 64, 70, 77, 82, 109, 134 83, 103-104, 148
Bernstein, B., 22, 49 characteristics of. 104
Berry, M., 8, 12 method. 148
Bhasker. W .. 150 Competence, 20, 30, 31, 97
Bisazza, J., 48 communicative, I, 29, 30-32, 48, 55, 77,
Bloomfield, L., 7 80,88,92,94,97. 165-166
Bokamba, E., 45 central characteristics, 89
Bose, M., 150, 151, 164 of teachers, 117, 150
Bredella, L.. 109 discourse, 89
British tradition, I, 6-11, 26, 80 grammatical, 30, 89, 146. 148, 151, 165
and language teaching, 26-27 linguistic, 93
Brown. H. D.. 70 sociolinguistic, 89
Brumfit, c., 86, 87, 164 strategic, 89
BUhler, K., 4 Comprehensibility, 33

181
182 INDEX

Contact literature, 41 Finocchiaro, Mo, 86, 87

Context, 7, 8, 20-21, 34 Firbas, Jo, 4
of culture, 21, 25 Firth, Jo Ro, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 16, 26, 30, 31, 32
in language teaching, 107, 123-124, 142- Firthian linguistics, 6, 95
143, 163 Fisiak, Jo, 4
Context of situation, 8-11, 21, 22, 24, 25, 32 Frank, Jo, 40
Contrastive discourse analysis, 37 Fried, Yo, 5
Contrastive rhetoric: see Contra.~tive dis- Function, 2, 3, 7, 14, 82, 103
course analysis communicative, 14, 80, 82
Coste, Do, 81 in language teaching, 106, 109, 133, 148
Coulthard, Mo, 95 external, 4, 7
Council of Europe, 79 formal, 14
Modem Languages Project, 79 heuristic, 22, 23, 24
Courtillon, Jo, 81 ideational, 15, 18,24,25,91
Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realiation Project, in language teaching, 133, 136, 151, 158
35 imaginative, 22, 24, 50, 53, 62, 70
Culture, 12, 20 interactional, 22, 24
context of, 21, 25 internal, 3, 4, 7
in language teaching, 84, 108, 129, 141- interpersonal, 15, 17, 24, 25, 53, 61-62, 69-
142, 143-145, 163-164 70,91
role of, 12, 25, 37, 87, 129 in language teaching, 122, 133, 135, 151
instrumental, 22, 23-24, 49, 52-53, 60-61,
69
Dane~, F., 4, 15
in language teaching, 112, 134
Datta, So, 51, 57
language, 81, 82
Davis, Po, 6
mathetic, 24, 25
Denison, No, 59
personal, 22, 23, 24
Dialect, 21
in language teaching, 112
Discourse, 93, 94, 95, 98, 100, 102
pragmatic, 9, 24, 25
analysis, 93
presitge, 59, 68
of learners and teachers, 161
in language teaching, 117
Dixon, Ro, 9
regUlative, 49, 52
Dubsky, Jo, 5
regulatory, 22, 24
symbolic
Edelhoff, Co, 66, 99 in language teaching, 106, 1l2, 134,
English 149,150
as a foreign language, 56, 57 textual, 15, 19, 24, 25, 90
in India, 50-57, 145-164 Functional linguistics, 2
Indian, 54, 55 basis for language teaching, 105
as an international language, 53, 76 Functional Sentence Perspective (FSP), 3, 12
a.~ an intranational language, 52, 53
in Japan, 67-77, 133-145
Galli de Paratesi, No, 81
language teaching, 55-57. 64-67. 74-77
Garvin, Po, 4
as a second language, 50, 56, 65
Geiger, Ao, 6, 26
for specific purposes, 80, 92, 95-96, 102
Ghosh, I., 51, 57
in West Germany, 57-67, 109-133
Gimson, A., 44
Gompf, Go, 60
Ferenczi, Fo, 81 Gorlach, Mo, 57, 59, 62
Ferguson, Co, 49, 61 Grammar, 90, 122, 138, 151
Field, 21, 25 systemic, 13
INDEX 183

Greaves, W., 6, 27 Language

Greenwood, J., 164 attitudes, 43-44, 45-47, 50-51, 58-59, 65,
Gregory, M., 6 67-68
Grenzsignale, 3 in context, \06, 117, 137-138, lSI
Grice, H. P., 41 development, 25-26
Grosz, E., 14 levels of, 8, IS
Gutschow, H., 96 models of, 25-26
as social semiotic, 14, 23
usage and use, 93-94, 148
Habennas, J., 28, 96, 97, 98 uses of, 22; see also Function
Hagen, J., 81 variety, 11, 20-21
Halliday, M. A. K., 1,5, II, 12. \3, 14, 20, Leech, G., 33
25, 27, 31, 38, 80, 85, 87. 89 Lexical borrowing, 54, 68, 70-73
Harris, Z., 32 Lexicogrammatical potential, 20
Hasan, R., 12, 14 London School, 6
Havranek, B., 2 London Times, 59
Helgsen, M., 69 Lowenberg, P., 26, 32
Hessische Kultusiminister, 66 Luce, L., 77
Heyneman, J., 69
Hierarchy of techniques, 7
Magura, B., 32
Huckin, T., 95
Malinowski, B., 9-10, 21-26
Hughes, A., 45
Manne, G., 81
Hymes, D., 28, 29-31, 84, 88, 92, 98. 101 Martin, J., 12
Martins-Baltar, M., 81
Intelligibility, 29, 32-37, 48, 167 Mathesius, Y., 2, 3, 5
cline of, 43-48 Matsuyama, M., 74, 75
mutual, 42, 45, 47 McIntosh, A., 27
Interpretability, 33, 35, 37-42 Meaning, 7-8, 16-20
Iyengar, K., 53 contextual, 7
discovery of, 7
fonnal, 7
Jakobovits, L., 88 in language teaching, 109, 122, 138, 157,
Jakobson, R., 2 164
Jessen, J., 81 potential, 14, 16-20, 22, 25, 31
Jha, J., 51 in language teaching, \08, 122, 129, 145
Johnson, K., 164 situational, 7
Jones, D., 6, 44 statement of, 7, 8
Meira, A., 81
Kachru, B., 6, 26, 32, 42, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, Mensikova, A., 2, 5
53,55 Metafunctions, 14, 15, 85; see also Function,
Kachru, Y., 38, 39, 41 interpersonal, ideational, textual
Kaplan, R., 37 Methodology
language teaching, 5, 57, 75, 82, 146, 149,
King-ek. A., 81
169
Koh, T. T. B., 46
Miller, R., 73
Koike, I., 75, 76
Mitchell, T. F., 6, 7, \0
Kress, G., 13, 14, 15, 16
Mode, 21, 25
Kuhn, T., 82
Model, 29, 43-49, 167-168
and attitudes, 45-47
Langendoen, D., 6 native-speaker, 47
184 INDEX

Model (cont.) Register, II, 20-21, 25

of pronunciation, 44, 48 Reid, T. B. W., 20
suitability of, 44-45 Restricted languages: see Language, variety;
Mohale, B., 56 register
Monaghan, J., 2, 12 Rheme,3
Morrow, P., 68, 72, 73, 74 RIE (Regional Institute of English). 146, 153,
Moser, H., 63 157,160
Moynahan, B., 59 Rivers, W., 84, 85-86
Mulaisho, D., 36 Role-playing: see Simulation and role-playing
MUlier, M., 81 Ross, D., 95, 102
Munby, J., 27 Rumelhart, D., 38

Nativization, 31, 49, 54, 62-64, 70-74 Sampson, G., 2, 4

Nelson, C., 26, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37 Savignon, S., 47, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 95, 97,
Neo-Prague School, 4 101-103, 109, 133, 134
Network, 13 Schneider, G., 81
Nonnative Englishes, 32 SchrOder, K., 57, 59, 62
Nonn, 43 Scollon, R., 38
Notion, 79 Scollon, S., 38
Sekimori, G., 70
Ohtani, T., 69 Semantic system, 15, 16, 25
Olsson, M., 32, 37 Semantics, 7
Omura, K., 69 Sey, D., 45
Shaw, D., 81
Simulation and role-playing, 108, 124, 129,
Palmer, F. R., 6, 10, 12
148
Palmer, H., 5
Sinclari, J., 26
Papo, E., 81
Situation, 20-21
Pascoal, J., 81
type, 25
Passin, H., 68, 73
in language teaching, 107, 124, 141, 163
Paulston, c., 84, 85
Slagter, P., 81
Penonnance, 20, 30
Smith, E., 77
Piepho, H., 27, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 109, 112
Smith, L., 26, 32, 33, 35,47, 48
Polymodel approach, 47
Smith, S., 61
Prabhu, N. S., 109, 146, 148, 150, 151, 158,
Social structure, 25
163, 166
Sociolinguistic profile, 49, 77
Prague Linguistic Circle, 2
Sociological linguistics, 12
Prague School, 1-6,7, 12, 14, 15,26,31,95
Speech community, 30, 31
Prator, C., 47
Sridhar, S. N., 53
Preston, D., 47
Standard language, 43, 65
Priebsch, R., 63
Stanlaw, J., 68, 73, 74
Pytelka, 1., 5
Steiner, E., 6
Strevens, P., 26, 27, 46
Quirk, R., 47 Structural linguistics, 6
Structuralism, 2
Rafiqzad, K., 32, 47 Siiddeutsche Zeitung, 59
Ragan, P., 27 Syllabus, 169
Riames, A., 82, 83 communicative, 146
Rao, R., 41 functional, 79, 80, 103
Received Pronunciation (RP), 44, 45-46, 64 functional-notional, 79, 86
INDEX 185

Syllabus (cont.) Theme, 3

grammatical, 80 Threadgold, T., 14
meaning-ba~ed, 79-80 Tongue, R. K., 46
notional, 79, 80 Trnka, B., 2
procedural, 146 Trubetzkoy, N., 2, 3
situational, 79 Trudgill, P., 45
structural, 79, 146
System(s), 13, 17, 18, 19
Vachek, J., 2, 4, 5
lexicogrammatical, 106
Valentine, T., 54
network of, 13
Van Dijk, T., 38
Systemic-functional linguistics, I, II, 12-26
Van Ek, J., 80, 81, 124
Svanes, B., 81
Variety
Svindland, A., 81
Svoboda, A., 4, 15 institutionalized, 49
Swain, M., 89, 91 performance, 49, 57
Ventola, E., 27
Sweet, H., 6
Verma, S. K., 53
Voegelin, C., 32
Tanabe, V., 68, 76
Ta~k-ba~ed teaching, 146
Taylor, D., 101 Wells, S., 97
Teacher-centered instruction, 149 Widdowson, H., 26, 36, 92, 93, 94, 95, 102,
Tenor, 21, 25 148
Text(s),25 Wilkins, D., 27, 79, 80, 81, 86
actual, 107, 122, 139, 159, 160 Wittmann, H., 65, 66
authentic, 107, 122, 139 Wolfson, N., 35
genuine, 107, 122, 139 Wynanl~, A., 81