MA TESOL & Applied Linguistics

FORMATIVE ASSIGNMENT

Communicative Approach & the Cultural Schism

A critical evaluation of Greg Ellis’ article

How culturally appropriate is the
communicative approach?

1 | Formative Assignment: Communicative Approach & the Cultural Schism Pulkit Vasudha
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................3

2. THE COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH ................................................4

3. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ..........................................................6

4. CRITICAL EVALUATION ..................................................................8

5. CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 11

6. REFERENCES................................................................................ 11

2 | Formative Assignment: Communicative Approach & the Cultural Schism Pulkit Vasudha
1. Introduction

In his 1996 article, ‘How culturally appropriate is the communicative approach?’ Greg Ellis

examines the use of Canale and Swain’s (1980) model of communicative language teaching

(CLT) in Vietnam. He argues that the communicative approach, being an essentially Western

pedagogical construct, creates a cultural schism and is therefore inappropriate for traditional

educational systems such as those in the Far East. Ellis proposes the use of ‘interculture’

(Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson 1983) and ‘cultural mediation’ (Bochner 1982) to resolve the

conflict arising from the use of communicative teaching methods in Asia.

Having taught both English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL)

in various contexts, I am aware of a schism between cultural expectations and communicative

teaching methodologies employed in traditional classrooms. However, in my experience, the

resistance to and rejection of the communicative approach can be attributed to an abridged

understanding of second language acquisition (SLA) and CLT. To explore this idea further, I have

chosen to evaluate Ellis’ article in this essay.

The paper will begin with a brief examination of the communicative approach, its development

and underlying maxims. In the following sections, Ellis’ arguments are summarized and then

analyzed in the context of my teaching experience. I argue that CLT is indispensable in Asia

where the ability to communicate meaning is rapidly being recognized as the ultimate purpose

of language learning. I propose that CLT can be made applicable and acceptable universally with

in-service teacher training in CLT and explicit learner training.

3 | Formative Assignment: Communicative Approach & the Cultural Schism Pulkit Vasudha
2. The communicative approach

The rise of the communicative approach is credited to Chomsky who postulated that language

was not merely “a habit of structure” (1966, 153) and rejected the then popular structuralist

and behaviourist models of language because they could not account for “the creativity and

uniqueness of individual sentences” (Richards and Rodgers 2001, 64). An early impetus also

came from linguist John Firth who situated language firmly in the socio-cultural context in

which it occurs (Richards and Rodgers 2001, 69).

From this understanding of the inextricability of language and its communicative purpose, the

notion of ‘communicative competence’ (Hymes 1972) and a functional model of language

(Halliday 1975, 11-17) were derived. In 1980, Canale and Swain defined communicative

competence as a sum total of grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic competence

(see figure 1), and presented a model of CLT.

Figure 1: adapted from (Dörnyei and Thurrell 1991)

Grammatical Sociolinguistic Discourse Strategic

Competence Competence Competence Competence

knowledge of Knowledge of The ability to

Knowledge of ways to
language code i.e. appropriate use of communicate meaning
combine language
grammar, vocabulary, language i.e. style, using verbal and non-
structures to create
pronunciation, register, degree of verbal communiation
unified texts
spealling etc. politeness etc. strategies

Educators recognized the potential of using communicative competence, as opposed to

linguistic competence esteemed by earlier approaches, as the basis of their syllabi, teaching

methods and materials and as a result, CLT was “rapidly adopted ... as the new orthodoxy in

language teaching” (Widdowson 1984, 244).

4 | Formative Assignment: Communicative Approach & the Cultural Schism Pulkit Vasudha
Since it first became fashionable in the 1970s, CLT has evolved to incorporate agreeable

components of earlier teaching methodologies and the latest research in SLA, and has therefore

become increasingly eclectic and difficult to define. Nowadays, the communicative approach

refers to “a set of generally agreed upon principles that can be applied in different ways,

depending on the teaching context” (J. C. Richards 2005, 22). Amongst its most identifiable

characteristics are: an emphasis on meaning, learner autonomy, collaborative learning, higher

order thinking skills, curricular integration, a recognition of learner diversity, a move away from

traditional assessments, and a view of teachers as lifelong learners of their profession (Jacobs

and Farrell 2003).

In traditional educational contexts, on the other hand, the teacher assumes the role of the

omniscient: the sole proprietor and purveyor of knowledge. In my experience of teaching,

students in traditional classrooms are limited to their role as note-takers and rote learners of

rules. There is an emphasis on grammar rules and vocabulary memorization rather than on

skills development and the target language may be taught through the medium of the native

tongue.

In the next section, I will summarize Ellis’ arguments concerning the unsuitability of the

communicative approach in Asia where the traditional model of language teaching remain

prevalent.

5 | Formative Assignment: Communicative Approach & the Cultural Schism Pulkit Vasudha
3. Summary of Arguments

Ellis (1996) questions the overzealous adoption of the communicative approach in classrooms

in the Far East where he says it clashes violently with traditional teaching methods firmly

entrenched in the socio-cultural context and history. His central argument is that CLT can be

made “culturally attuned and culturally acceptable” (G. Ellis 1996, 213) only if Western

expatriate teachers ‘mediate’ to make it more palatable to their audience.

Ellis found a cultural schism between the principles of Canale and Swain’s CLT model and

learners’ beliefs and expectations. The main areas of contention that emerged were the

emphases in CLT on process rather than content, and on meaning rather than form – both of

which breach the cultural reverence of content- and form-focused instruction.

Ellis asserts that different countries and cultures inherit distinct ‘meaning systems’ and are

therefore, more accepting of certain pedagogical practices than others. Where there is a

transfer of teaching methodologies and approaches from one cultural context to another, it is

essential to bridge the gap between new learning experiences and indigenous belief systems.

According to Jarvis (1986, as cited in Ellis 1996, 214), the absence of such cultural mediation can

lead to “passive learning or non-learning on the part of the student.” Ellis also draws attention

to the role of the teacher as facilitator which is at odds with the Asian notion of teachers as the

supreme authority and fountain of knowledge in the classroom.

In a comparison of ESL and EFL teaching, Ellis declares the former occurs in English-speaking

environments and is therefore more amenable to the communicative approach, while the latter

ensues only in non-English speaking countries. In EFL contexts, the need to communicate in the

target language is lower and English is taught and learned primarily as part of school curriculum

6 | Formative Assignment: Communicative Approach & the Cultural Schism Pulkit Vasudha
with the end goal of passing examinations. In fact, CLT, with its insistence on functional use of

language for communication, might be detrimental to the academic future of students focused

on passing examinations (G. Ellis 1996, 215).

These conflicts are compounded by Western teachers’ cultural biases about the supremacy of

CLT among pedagogical approaches and their “lack of meta-communicative and meta-cultural

awareness” (1996217) that prevents them from using CLT in a culturally acceptable manner.

To navigate this fractured landscape of Western pedagogy versus Eastern cultural expectations,

Ellis proposes that teachers must find points of congruence between contradictory cultural

norms to avoid misunderstandings and misaligned expectations. This involves engaging in an

intercultural education that helps the expatriate teacher display awareness, appreciation, and

acceptance of the host culture. Only then, within this matrix of an agreeable ‘interculture’

which combines compatible elements of host and guest cultures (Skutnabb-Kangas and

Phillipson 1983), will teachers be able to interact effectively and use CLT with students.

In the next section, I will examine Ellis’ discussions in the light of my own pedagogical

experience and argue that the cultural clash of traditional pedagogy and CLT is a diminishing

one, and the difficulties that persist can be overcome by training teachers in effective

implementation of CLT and developing learner awareness of language acquisition strategies.

7 | Formative Assignment: Communicative Approach & the Cultural Schism Pulkit Vasudha
4. Critical Evaluation

The linguistic landscape has transformed radically in the two decades since Ellis conducted his

study in 1994 and I believe his arguments, when considered through the lens of temporal

change, present the following fallacies.

An overwhelming majority of non-native speakers, in erstwhile EFL contexts, now use English as

a second language for academic, professional, and social purposes (Seidlhofer 2004). With the

blurring boundaries between ESL and EFL contexts, the benefit of using CLT in language

teaching has become apparent and even desired in traditional strongholds of grammar-

translation and audiolingualism. Increasing numbers of English-speaking expatriates have made

English an invaluable second language in almost all Asian countries.

Another development since Ellis penned his arguments is that today’s language teacher is not

always a Western expatriate: he or she may be a regional expatriate or a local. In many Asian

countries, locals and regional expatriates far outnumber Westerners teaching English in public

and private schools, universities, and language institutes.

From my observations, both Westerners and non-Westerners are as likely to fail in

implementing the CLT method and encounter student passivity or rejection in unsupportive

environments. Therefore, both Western and non-Western teachers, working within the

constraints of grammar-based textbooks and standardized assessments, retreat to the comfort

of familiar traditional methods. Ellis’ arguments are insufficient to address: (1) the resistance to

CLT amongst Western teachers, and (2) the rejection of local teachers’ use of CLT by their

learners despite a shared culture between the two parties. I will attempt to propose a rationale

for the above anomalies.

8 | Formative Assignment: Communicative Approach & the Cultural Schism Pulkit Vasudha
Teachers’ beliefs about language learning and acquisition act as “axiomatic constructs or

reference points and provide a theoretical foundation” for classroom practice (J. C. Richards

1985, 17). I find that long and firmly-held beliefs, stemming from teachers’ personal experience

of learning foreign languages in traditional classrooms in both Asian and BANA (British,

Australian, North American) nations, are difficult to realign in a typical pre-service teacher

training course lasting four to six weeks. Typically, such courses equip teachers with a toolkit of

techniques but fail to offer “sufficient grounding in theory” (Stanley 2013). As Pajares (1992, as

cited in Deckert 2004) acknowledges, an awareness of the communicative approach does not

facilitate communicative teaching.

I believe regular and continued in-service training that facilitates “introspection and

experimentation” (Deckert 2004, 16) can help reorient teachers’ beliefs, develop and enhance

their understanding of CLT, and equip them to “respond in principled ways” (Stanley 2013, 197)

in traditional pedagogical contexts.

Over the years, I have discovered that teachers have a difficult, but not insurmountable, task of

developing learners’ awareness about their own language acquisition process through explicit

and sustained learner training. Teacher’s beliefs about the validity of their methods cascade

down to their audience, and the use of engaging and authentic communicative activities further

convince learners of the efficacy of CLT in improving their communicative competence.

Ouyang (2003, 125) notes a growing appreciation of communicative methods among students

despite the conflict between CLT and traditional discrete-point testing (Ellis 1996, Ouyang 2003,

Gahin & Myhill 2001, Zhang 2004). While CLT continues to be criticized for its lack of effective

and efficient assessment tools (Fulcher 2003) (Davies 2003), as cited in (Coombe, et al. 2012,

9 | Formative Assignment: Communicative Approach & the Cultural Schism Pulkit Vasudha
143), in my experience, an increasing number of educational administrators successfully

implement competency-based evaluation in their schools.

Another counterargument to Ellis’ conclusions is that CLT, in its commitment to eclecticism and

as an amalgam of various teaching methodologies, can no longer be considered a preserve of

the Western educator. The communicative approach “draws upon a number of different

educational paradigms and traditions” and is malleable to the demands of context, age, goals

and level of the learners (J. Richards 2006, 22). It rests on the teacher to demonstrate to the

learner that the communicative approach is not a dismissal, but an evolution, of familiar

teaching practices into a more learning-appropriate methodology.

From my experience working in public schools in Vietnam and Saudi Arabia, I have observed

that by reconstructing teachers’ and learners’ theories of language acquisition, careful planning

and administrative support to overcome issues such as large class sizes, immovable furniture,

and space constraints, it is possible to vary teacher roles, initiate learners in group work and

information gap tasks, and adapt grammar-based textbooks for meaningful, communicative

activities.

In light of the above, Ellis’ conclusion that CLT without cultural mediation is unsuitable for Asian

cultures is, I believe, a reductionist approach to the difficulties faced by educators and learners

in the process of using the communicative approach. These difficulties can, in fact, be overcome

by means of teacher and learner training – both of which are crucial factors in the successful

implementation of CLT.

10 | Formative Assignment: Communicative Approach & the Cultural Schism Pulkit Vasudha
5. Conclusion

In conclusion, I propose that Ellis’ argument of the inappropriacy of the communicative

approach for Asian contexts is subject to questioning, as demonstrated above. Resistance to

CLT is endemic to both Western and non-Western educators that have a shallow understanding

of the communicative approach and are not trained to adapt their teaching strategies in a

principled manner. I have also argued that learners, when presented with evidence of their

growing communicative competence, can be convinced of the merits of using CLT methods.

I believe that instead of cultural mediation, a multi-pronged approach of teacher and learner

training must be adopted to offset the potential failure of the communicative approach in Asia.

2058 words

6. References

Atkinson, D. Teaching monolingual classes. London: Longman, 1993.

Bochner, S. “The Social Psychology of Cross-cultural Relations.” In Cultures in Contact: Studies in
Cross-cultural Interaction, by S. Bochner, 5-44. Oxford: Pergamon, 1982.

11 | Formative Assignment: Communicative Approach & the Cultural Schism Pulkit Vasudha
Canale, M., and M. Swain. “Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language
teaching and testing.” Applied Linguistics 1/1, 1980: 1-47.
Chomsky, Noam. “Linguistic Theory. Reprinted in.” In Chomsky: Selected Readings, by J.P.B.
Allen and P. Van Buren (eds), 153. London: Oxford University Press, 1966, .
—. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton, 1957.
Cole, S. “The use of L1 in communicative English classrooms.” The Language Teacher, 22.12,
1998.
Coombe, Christine, Barry O'Sullivan, Stephen Stoynoff, and eds. The Cambridge guide to second
language assessment. Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Davies, Alan. “Three heresies of language testing research.” Language Testing 20, no. 4, 2003:
355-368.
Deckert, Glenn. “The Communicative Approach: Addressing Frequent Failure.” English Teaching
Forum Journal, Vol.42, No.1, 2004: 121-143.
Dörnyei, Zoltán, and Sarah Thurrell. “Strategic competence and how to teach it.” ELT Journal
Volume 45/1, January 1991: 16-17.
Ellis, Greg. “How culturally appropriate is the communicative approach?” ELT Journal 50/3, July
1996: 213-218.
Ellis, Greg. “The Appropriateness of the Communicative Approach in Vietnam: An Interview
Study in Intercultural Communication.” (Unpublished MA thesis) 1994.
Fulcher, Glenn. Testing second language speaking. Pearson Education, 2003.
Gahin, G., and D. Myhill. “) The Communicative Approach in Egypt: Exploring the Secrets of the
Pyramids.” TEFL Journal, Volume 1, No.2, 2001: 72-81.
Halliday, M. A. K. Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development ofLanguage. London:
Edward Arnold, 1975.
Hymes, D. “On communicative competence.” In Sociolinguistics, by J.B. Pride and J. Holmes,
269-293. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972.
Jacobs, George M., and Thomas S. C. Farrell. “Understanding and Implementtng the Clt
(Communicative Language Teaching) Paradigm.” RELC Journal 34, April 2003: 5-30.

12 | Formative Assignment: Communicative Approach & the Cultural Schism Pulkit Vasudha
Miller, Lindsay. “Student Teachers’ Perceptions about Communicative Language Teaching
Methods.” RELC Journal, Vol. 31, No.1, 2000: 1-22.
Nunan, D. “Communicative language teaching: Making it work.” ELT Journal 41/2, April 1987:
136-45.
Ouyang, Huhua. “Resistance to the communicative method of language instruction within a
progressive Chinese university.” In Local Meanings, Global Schooling: Anthropology and World
Culture Theory, by K.M. Anderson-Levitt, 121-140. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003, .
Richards, J. C. The context of language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Richards, J. C., and Rodgers T. Method: Approach, Design and Procedure. Beijing: Foreign
Language Teaching and Research Press, 2006.
Richards, J.C. Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 2006.
Richards, JC, and TS Rodgers. Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. “10. Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca.” Annual
review of applied linguistics 24, 2004: 209-239.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T., and R. Phillipson. “Intercommunicative and Intercultural Competence.”
ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 353778, 1983.
Stanley, Phiona. A Critical Ethnography of ‘Westerners’ Teaching English in China: Shanghaied in
Shanghai. Routledge, 2013.
Widdowson, G. H. Explorations in Applied Linguistics . London: Oxford University Press , 1984.
Zhang, L. “CLT in China: Frustration, Misconceptions, and Clarifications.” Hwa Kang Journal of
TEFL Vol X, No.9, 2004.

13 | Formative Assignment: Communicative Approach & the Cultural Schism Pulkit Vasudha