Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-g96k6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T23:17:20.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Defining to Designing: Communicative Specifications versus Communicative Methodology in Foreign Language Teaching

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Christopher J. Brumfit
Christopher J. Brumfit
Affiliation:
University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper attempts to explore some of the implications of viewing language learning as a process that deals with a product that is not static. Language, we can increasingly see, is not a set of definable and prearranged tokens but a process of linguistic and cultural negotiation of meaning. Students have to develop their innate ability to use language for their own purposes in interaction with the purposes of other language users. Communicative syllabuses have been discussed partly through a recognition of this need, but a discussion of syllabus organisation is not enough, for the methodological implications are much more important. If languages are not, in principle, discrete, language teaching will not be served well if it is based on the assumption that we can specify the learner's product exactly. All syllabuses tend to concentrate on the product, or content. This paper argues that it is time to move away from syllabus definition, which has been adequately discussed for the current state of classroom practice.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , Fall 1980 , pp. 1 - 9
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Alexander, L.G. et al. , 1975. English Grammatical Structure. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Allwright, R.L. 1977. “Language learning through communication practice,” English Language Teaching Documents (hereafter cited as ELT) 76, No. 3, 2–14; rpt. in Brumfit and Johnson, 1979. pp. 167–82.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C.J. 1977. “Teaching pupils how to acquire language,” ELT, 76, No. 3, 24–28; rpt. in Brumfit, 1979. pp. 122–29.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C.J.. 1978. “The English language, ideology, and international communication.” In English as an International Language. ELT, 102. pp. 15–24; rpt. in Brumfit, 1979, pp. 85–97.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C.J.. 1979. “Notional Syllabuses–A Reassessment.” System, 7, No. 2; rpt. in Brumfit, 1979, pp. 98–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brumfit, C.J.. 1979a. Problems and Principles in English Teaching. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C.J.. Forthcoming. “Communicative teaching at secondary school level.” In Communicative Language Teaching: Issues and Applications, Johnson, K. and Morrow, K., eds. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C.J., and Johnson, K.. 1979. The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. London: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Corder, S.P. 1978. “Learner language and teacher talk.” Audio-Visual Language Journal, 16, No. 1, 5–13.Google Scholar
Curran, C. 1976. Counselling-learning in Second Languages. Apple River, III.: Apple River Press.Google Scholar
van Ek, J.A. 1975. The Threshold Level. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Gattegno, C. 1976. The Common Sense of Teaching Foreign Languages. New York: Educational Solutions.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. 1975. Learning How to Mean. London: Edward Arnold.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K.. 1978. “Development of texture in child language.” In The Development of Conversation and Discourse, Myers, T., ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Jupp, T.C., and Hodlin, S.. 1975. Industrial English: Example of Theory and Practice in Functional Language-teaching. London: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
Mackey, W.F. 1965. Language Teaching Analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Maley, A., and Duff, A.. 1978. Dramatic Techniques in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Munby, J.L. 1978. Communicative Syllabus Design. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Newmark, L. 1966. “How not to interfere with language learning.” International Journal of American Linguistics, 32, 1:2, 77–83; rpt. in Brumfit and Johnson, 1979, pp. 160–66.Google Scholar
Schumann, J.H. 1978. The Pidginization Process. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Shaw, A.M. 1977. “Foreign language syllabus development; some recent approaches.” Language Teaching and Linguistics: Abstracts. 10, No. 4, 217–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevick, E. 1976. Memory, Meaning and Method. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H.G. 1978. Teaching Language as Communication. London: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D.A. 1972. “Grammatical, situational and notional syllabuses.” In Proceedings of the Third Congress of Applied Linguistics. Copenhagen, 1972. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag; rpt. in Brumfit and Johnson, pp. 82–90.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D.A.. 1976. Notional Syllabuses. London: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar