Communicative language

teaching: Making it work

David Nunan

While a great deal has been written on the theory and practice of commu-
nicative language teaching, there have been comparatively few studies of
actual communicative language practices. A classroom-based study of
communicative language practice revealed thepersistence of non-commu-
nicative patterns of interaction. A follow-up study demonstrated that it is
possible for teachers to foster more communicative language use. These
studies demonstrate the importance of validating theory against what
actually happens in the classroom.

Introduction If one were to be guided solely by publications in the field, one would be led
to the conclusion that a revolution had swept through language classrooms
all round the world, and that very little remained of what might be called
traditional classroom activities. However, whether or not such publi-
cations reflect changes actually occurring at the classroom level is a matter
for empirical investigation rather than theoretical speculation.
In promoting the cause of classroom-centred research, Long suggests
that:

While still in its youth, if not infancy, classroom-centred research has

already accumulated a substantial body of knowledge about what actu-
ally goes on in ESL classrooms, as opposed to what is believed to go on,
and as distinct from what writers on TESL methods tell us ought to go
on. (Long 1983:422)

The paper investigates communicative language teaching as it is mani-

fested in the classroom. The purpose of the studies reported on in the body
of the paper was to determine the extent to which genuine communication
is evident in communicative language classes, and whether strategies can
be developed to encourage such communication.

Communicative and Recent works tend to typify non-communicative language practices in

non-communicative terms of grammatical focus, error correction, the extensive use of drill and
practices in the controlled practice, and interactions which are pseudo-communicative,
language classroom rather than genuinely communicative. Some theorists assert that such
practices do not facilitate genuine communicative language skills, and
question their value in the language classroom (see, for example, Krashen
and Terrell 1983).
Howatt suggests that it is possible to take a strong and a weak line on
communicative language teaching. He states that:

136 ELT Jounal Volume 41/2 April 1987 Oxford University Press 1987

articles welcome
 The weak version, which has become more or less standard practice in
the last ten years, stresses the importance of providing learners with
opportunities to use their English for communicative purposes and,
characteristically, attempts to integrate such activities into a wider
programme of language teaching. (Howatt 1984:279)
Littlewood (198l), a proponent of the weak approach, attempts to recon-
cile non-communicative and communicative activities by suggesting that
such things as drill and controlled practice have a valid place in the
language class as pre-communicative activities which provide learners with
the necessary prerequisite skills for more communicative language work.
It is suggested that genuine communication is characterized by the
uneven distribution of information, the negotiation of meaning (through,
for example, clarification requests and confirmation checks), topic nomina-
tion and negotiation by more than one speaker, and the right of interlocu-
tors to decide whether to contribute to an interaction or not. In other words,
in genuine communication, decisions about who says what to whom and
when are up for grabs.

The study In order to investigate the degree to which features of genuine communi-
cation were present in language classes, five communicative language
lessons were recorded, transcribed, and analysed. The results of this analy-
sis are presented in this section.
All of the teachers taking part in the study were knowledgeable about
and committed to communicative language teaching. All were highly
qualified, with graduate diplomas in TESOL. Two of the teachers had
MAs in applied linguistics. Five of the teachers were highly experienced,
having taught for between seven and eighteen years, while the remaining
teacher had taught for two years.
All classes taking part in the study contained mixed nationalities and
language backgrounds, with students from Europe, Southeast Asia and the
Middle East. Three of the classes had predominantly Asian students.
Language ability ranged from beginner through to intermediate.
The lessons themselves all exemplified communicative language activi-
ties. These included an elaborate jigsaw listening task, a map-reading
exercise, a discussion class based on recordings of casual conversations,
simulated interviews in which students had to provide personal details, and
a comprehension class based on radio advertisements and magazine
pictures.
On the surface, the lessons appeared to conform to the sorts of commu-
nicative principles advocated in the literature. However, when the patterns
of interaction were examined more closely, they resembled traditional
patterns of classroom interaction rather than genuine interaction. Thus,
the most commonly occurring pattern of interaction was identical with the
basic exchange structure found in mother-tongue classes (Sinclair and
Coulthard 1975) and adult EFL classes (Dinsmore 1985). The structure
consists of the following turns:
Teacher initiation
Learner response
Teacher follow-up.
The pattern is exemplified in the following exchange.
T: The question will be on different . . . ? What? Different .. .?

Communicative language teaching 137

articles welcome
 S: Talks.
T: Tasks? What?
S: Subject.
T: Different sub . . . ?
S: Subjects. Subjects.
T: Subjects, subjects, thank you, right, yes.

In all of the lessons, drills featured prominently. One teacher, having just
explained the fact that in English we say a three-bedroom house rather
than a house with three bedrooms, launched, almost as a reflex action,
into the following drill:
T: A three-bedroom house, a three-bedroom house, a three-bedroom
house. So, whats he looking for?
S: For three-bedroom house.
T: Whats he looking for?
S: (Inaudible)
T: Whats he looking for?
S: House.
T: Whats he looking for?
S: Three-bedroom house.
T: Thank you. Whats he looking for?
S: Three-bedroom house.
T: All right.
This, and the following drill from another group, demonstrate the fact that
many of the drills incorporate the initiation/response/follow-up pattern.
T: Wherere the table lamps?
Ss: Table lamps. Table lamps.
T: Table lamps.
S: (Points)
T: OK, good. Wheres the handbasin?
S: Handbasin.
S: (Comes to the table and points)
T: Very good. OK.
In a lesson on Providing Personal Details, the teacher interviews the
students. At first sight, the interactions seem genuine, but, as the teacher
already knows the answers to her questions, the interactions are little more
than contextualized drills.

T: Chay Kew, come here. Ill talk to you, OK?

S: (Comes to the centre of the circle)
T: Oh, hello.
S: Hello.
T: Whats your name?
S: My name? Chay Kew.
T: Whats your surname?
S: Liang.
T: Liang?
S: Yeah.
T: Are you married?
S: Yeah, marry.
T: Have you got any children?
S: Fi(ve) children.

138 David Nunan

articles welcome
 T: Five children. How old are your children?
S: How are . . . one are nineteen . . .
T: Nineteen?
S: Yeah, er, nineteen, eight, nineteen, eight.
T: Yeah.
S: Three, thirteen . . .
T: Thirteen.
S: Four, ah, eleven.
T: Eleven, yeah. And where do you live?
Here the pseudo-communicative nature of the exchange is evident.
Although the student says she has five children, the teacher reveals that she
is not really paying attention, by changing the topic after the ages of four of
the children have been given. The rather artificial nature of the interviews
is also evident in the following exchange.
T: Do you like coming to English classes? You like your English class?
S: Yeah.
T: Do you think you learn a lot of English?
S: Little bit.
T: A little bit of English. Well, I think you speak very well. You can
have a seat. Sit down.
In all lessons, it is generally the teacher who decides who should say
what, when. The only student-generated topic nominations are on points
of grammar or classroom procedure, which would seem to indicate that,
while the ostensible focus of the lessons is on meaning, the covert focus, at
least from the learners perspective, is on form. This is evident in the
following extracts.
s: Quiss?
T: Pardon?
s: It will be quiss? It will be quiss? Quiss?
ss: Quiz, quiz.
T: Ahmm, sorry? Try again.
s: I ask you . . .
T: Yes.
s: . . . you give us another quiss?
T: Oh, quiz, oh. No, no, not today, its not going to be a quiz today,
sorry.
s: Why three bed, er, three bedroom? Why we dont say three
bedrooms?
T: Ahhm, oh. I dont know, urn.
s: Is not right.
T: We dont say it, we dont say it. Theres no explanation, but we often
do that in English. Three-bedroom house.
s: Dont ask for it.
s: Yes.
T: Well, do ask why, ask why and 99 per cent of the time I know the
answer. One per cent of the time, nobody knows the answer. If I
dont know it, nobody knows. (Laughter) Ah, no, I dont know the
answer.
T: And here is the bottom.
s: Bottom.

Communicative language teaching 139

articles welcome
 T: Bottom of the table, yeah.
S: (Points under the table) An call here?
T: Oh, underneath.
S: Underneath.
T: Yeah.

The fact that some students are aware of where the real power lies, in terms
of deciding who should say what, is evident in the following exchange.

T: Yeah, I think . . . (to a student who had been indicating disagree-

ment) You agree?
S: I have to.
(Laughter)
T: You dont have to because Im. . . everybody sees the world from a
different perspective. OK, I think youve thought about Janet a
little bit-she is unusual in her, er, her family.

Here the teacher has ostensibly been trying to get the students to give
opinions. However, one student, at least, is aware that it is really the
teachers opinion which is required. Even though the teacher denies this,
she validates the learners comment by asserting the truth of her own
position on the point of discussion.
All but one of the lessons contain teacher explanations of various sorts.
These range from grammatical explanations through to attempts to raise
learners meta-awareness of the nature of language and language learning.
In most instances, the language of explanation is more complex than the
language points being taught, as can be seen from the following extracts.

T: If you walk down Rundle Mall, OK? If you walk down Rundle Mall
to David Jones, OK? Walk down Rundle Mall to David Jones, yeah
walk, walking down to David Jones, walking down to David Jones,
yeah? OK? What is opposite David Jones?
S: Opposite?
T: Opposite. Opp . . .os . . . ite.
S: Oppis?
T: Opposite
S: James
S: (Inaudible)
S: James Place
T: James Place? Opposite David Jones? David Jones, opposite David
J ones.
S: Er, John Martin?
T: John Martins? No, not opposite.

T: You told me about swallowing the words. Can you tell me - which
words did she swallow?
S: Well, er, as you said them, a word for me that, er (Inaudible).
T: She said that very fast. OK, can you tell me the pronunciation of this
word in normal speech? (Writes on the board). Its not to, its . . . ?
S: To, to, to.
T: Its t, t. T start, t start. See? You can hear t, you cant hear to.
You can hear t. T start.

T: Whatre these? Whatre we listening to?

S: (Misunderstands intention of question) Handbasin.

David Nunan

articles welcome
 T: Yes, but, these are, these are advertisements. You have them on TV
and you have them on the radio. You have them on TV and you
have them on the radio.
S: The radio.
T: OK? You can watch TV, and you can watch the advertisements,
and you can practise your English. And it doesnt matter if you
dont understand every word.

In the final two examples, the teacher is attempting to introduce a language

point and a learning strategy respectively. In both instances, he switches
from question drills to explanation without signalling the rhetorical shift to
his students. In both instances this results in misunderstanding and con-
fusion on the part of the learners.

Discussion In each of the lessons analysed, the teachers claimed to be teaching

communicatively, and to a certain extent they were, with all lessons
ostensibly focusing on functional aspects of language use. However, in
terms of the patterns of classroom interaction, there was little genuine
communication between teacher and student (or, for that matter, between
student and student). There was also a great deal of traditional language
work.
If one accepts a weak interpretation of communicative language teach-
ing, then one must accept the value of grammatical explanation, error
correction, and drill. However, learners also need the opportunity to
engage in genuine communicative interaction. If the evidence just cited is
to be believed, such interactions would seem to be comparatively rare.
We have to ask ourselves, of course, how representative the data really
are. In an article of this length, it is impossible to provide full transcripts of
the lessons, and the authors analyses have to be taken on trust. However,
there is a growing body of classroom-based research which supports the
conclusion reached here, that there are comparatively few opportunities for
genuine communicative language use in second-language classrooms.
Thus Long and Sato report: ESL teachers continue to emphasise form over
meaning, accuracy over communication (1983:283). The reader is also
referred to Brock 1986; Dinsmore 1985; Long and Crookes 1986; and Pica
and Long 1986. A disconfirming study is yet to be documented.
Given the fact that all but one of the teachers in the study reported here
were highly skilled and experienced, and were knowledgeable about and
committed to the concept of a communicative approach to language teach-
ing, it is reasonable to assume that the results are not unrepresentative of a
much wider range of language classrooms.
How do we account for this state of affairs? Is it that the very nature of the
classroom, with its unequal power distribution and the conservative atti-
tudes of teachers and learners, precludes the development of methodologies
which are truly communicative? Long and Sato have suggested that:

The classroom speech of SL teachers is affected by at least two kinds of

constraints: those imposed by the classroom as the setting for the conver-
sation, including the patterns of speech associated with the role of
teacher, and those arising from the limited linguistic proficiency of the
interlocutor. (Long and Sato 1983:270)

Another classroom constraint is the attitude of the learners themselves.

There is evidence that learners have some rather definite views on what are

Communicative language teaching 141

articles welcome
 legitimate classroom activities (Willing 1985), and that there are frequent
mismatches between learner and teacher expectations (Nunan 1986).
These may exert a powerful conservative influence on what is possible in
the language classroom.
Probably the most powerful constraint of all is that imposed by the
classroom itself. Seliger states that if the use of language in the classroom is
compared with language used outside, important differences become evi-
dent. He goes on to say:
These differences are the necessary result of the organisation of contexts
for the formal teaching of language that takes place inside the classroom.
Outside the classroom, however, in naturalistic environments, language
is a means to an end . . . The language classroom is, by definition, a
contrived context for the use of language as a tool of communication. The
bulk of time in a language class is devoted to practising language for its
own sake because the participants in this activity realise that that is the
expressed purpose of their gathering together in a room with a black-
board and a language expert, the teacher. (Seliger 1983:25&51)
However, it is not necessary to be totally pessimistic about the chances of
making the classroom more communicative. What is important is to
recognize that powerful constraints exist, as do conditioned classroom
reflexes on the part of teachers and learners. These will not necessarily
change because of the published pronouncements of applied linguists. The
essential first step in promoting change is to acknowledge and document
present realities through classroom-based research.
Classroom researchers are, in fact, working on strategies for fostering
more communicative language use. Long and Crookes, for instance, are
working on intervention points. These are defined as: classroom processes
which teachers, materials designers, or learners can manipulate in ways
which theory or research in SLA suggest are beneficial for language learn-
ing (1986:2). Their studies suggest that increasing the use of referential
questions (those to which the teacher does not know the answer) over
display questions is likely to stimulate a greater quantity of genuine
classroom communication. From the data provided by Long and Crookes,
it would seem that the most likely explanation for the success of referential
questions is that they stimulate learners to engage their schematic know-
ledge representations (Nunan 1985).

Stimulating In order to test this notion, a small follow-up experiment was conducted. A
schematic teacher working in the same programme as the five already studied was
knowledge asked to teach a short lesson, using a sequence of pictures about an
accident. The teacher was experienced and qualified. The class was a group
of near zero-proficiency beginners.
The initial activity chosen by the teacher was a picture-sequencing task
in which learners working in small groups were required to place the
pictures in order. This was followed by a teacher-fronted discussion. Here,
the patterns of interaction were similar to those already documented. All of
the questions asked were display questions (questions to which the
teacher already knew the answer), and the typical pattern of interaction
was teacher initiation/learner response/teacher follow-up. Responses were
monosyllables or short phrases. The following extract is typical.

T: Whats the name of this? Whats the name? Not in Chinese.

142 David Nunan

articles welcome
 Ss: Van. Van.
T: Van. Whats in the back of the van?
S: Milk. Milk.
T: Milk.
Ss: Milk. Milk.
T: A milk van.
S: Milk van.
T: Whats this man? Driver.
S: Driver.
T: The driver.
S: The driver.
T: The milkman.
S: Millman.
T: Milkman.
S: Milkman.
T: Where are they?
Ss: Where are they?
T: Where are they? Inside, outside?
S: Department.
T: Department . ..?
S: Department store.
Following this, the teacher and researcher engaged in a short discussion on
ways of relating the content of the picture sequence to the learners own
lives, and of encouraging learners to bring their background knowledge to
discussion. In doing this, the teacher was asked to focus on the use of
referential questions.
The effect was immediately apparent, and the following features, which
are characteristic of genuine communication, appeared in the data: con-
tent-based topic nominations by learners; student/student interactions; an
increase in the length and complexity of student turns; the negotiation of
meaning by students and teacher, with a concomitant increase in the
number of clarification requests and comprehension checks. There is even
an instance of a student disagreeing with the teacher. These features all
appear in the following extracts.
T: Have you ever been in an accident?
S: No.
T: No. Little?
S: No.
T: No? You must be a good driver.
S: No good driver.
T: Two cars like this, and you hurt your wrist? Mmm, very bad. Oh,
here.
S: Hospital?
S: Yes.
S: Oh, Im sorry.
T: How long were you in hospital?
S: One month.
T: Dead? when did he die?
S: Urn, sixty-eight.
T: Sixty-eight.
S: Sixty-eight year old.

Communicative language teaching 143

articles welcome
 T: Sixty-eight years old. Oh, thats very sad.
s: In Australia.
T: It was in Australia? Gosh, Im sorry.
S: Australia, its me. My, my . . .
T: Oh, you were in Australia and your father was in Greece.
S: China, my mother is a teacher, my father is a teacher. Oh, she go
finish, by bicycle, er, go to . . .
S: House?
S: No house, go to. . .
S: School?
S: My mother . . .
T: Mmm
s: ... go to her mother.
T: Oh, your grandmother.
Ss: Grandmother.
S: My grandmother. Oh, yes, by bicycle, by bicycle, oh, is, em, acci-
dent. (Gestures)
T: In water?
S: In water, yeah.
T: In a river!
S: River, yeah, river. Oh, yes, urn, dead.
Ss: Dead! Dead! Oh! (General consternation)
This follow-up experiment demonstrates that, when learners interests
are engaged, and when they are able to bring their own background
schemata to classroom interactions, these can begin to be truly commu-
nicative, even with very basic learners. In the instance cited here, the
interactions were stimulated principally by the use of referential questions
by the teacher on a topic which learners were interested in, and for which
they had been prepared by some non-communicative language work.

Conclusion This study demonstrates the importance of conducting classroom-based

research to determine the extent to which theory is realized through
classroom practice. There is growing evidence that, in communicative
classes, interactions may, in fact, not be very communicative after all.
Despite this, strategies are being developed to increase the opportunities for
genuine communication. It is teachers themselves who need to become the
prime agents of change through an increased sensitivity to what is really
happening in their classes. As Stenhouse suggests:
. . . the uniqueness of each classroom setting implies that any proposal -
even at school level - needs to be tested and verified and adapted by each
teacher in his own classroom. The ideal is that the curricular specifica-
tion should feed a teachers personal research and development pro-
gramme through which he is progressively increasing his understanding
of his own work and hence bettering his teaching. . . It is not enough that
teachers work should be studied: they need to study it themselves.
(Stenhouse 1975:143)
Received June 1986

144 David Nunan

articles welcome
 R. Day (ed.): Talking to Lean: Conversation in Second
Brock, C. 1986. The effects of referential questions on Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury
ESL classroom discourse. TESOL Quarterly 20/1. House.
Dinsmore, D. 1985. Waiting for Godot in the EFL Seliger, H. 1983. Learner interaction in the class-
classroom. ELT Journal 39/4:225-34. room and its effect on language acquisition in
Howatt, A. 1984. A History of English Language Teaching. Seliger and Long (eds.) 1983.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seliger, H. and M. Long. (eds.) 1983. Classroom
Krashen, S. and T. Terrell. 1983. The Natural Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition.
Approach. Oxford: Pergamon. Rowley: Newbury House.
Littlewood, W. 1981. Communicative Language Teaching: Sinclair, J. and M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analy-
An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University sis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Press. Stenhouse, L. 1975. An Introduction to Curriculum
Long, M. 1983. Process and product in ESL program Research and Development. London: Heinemann.
evaluation. TESOL Quarterly 17:409-25. Widdowson, H. 1979. Teaching Language as Communi-
Long, M. and G. Crookes. 1986. Intervention Points cation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
in Second Language Classroom Processes. RELC Willing, K. 1985. Learning Styles in Adult Migrant Edu-
Regional Seminar, Singapore, 21-25 April 1986. cation. Sydney: Adult Migrant Education Service.
Long, M. and C. Sato. 1983. Classroom foreigner talk
discourse: forms and functions of teachers ques-
tions in Seliger and Long (eds.) 1983.
Nunan, D. 1985. Content familiarity and the percep- The author
tion of textual relationships in second language David Nunan is Director of the National Curriculum
reading. RELC Journal 16/1. Resource Centre for the Australian Adult Migrant
Nunan, D. 1986. Communicative Language Teach- Education Program. He has had extensive experience
ing: The Learners View. Paper presented at the in ESL/EFL teaching and teacher training in
RELC Regional Seminar, Singapore, 21-25 April Australia, Europe, and Southeast Asia. He holds a
1986. PhD in applied linguistics, and his research interests
Pica, T. and M. Long. 1986. The linguistic and con- include teacher-based curriculum development and
versational performance of experienced teachers in classroom-centred research.

Communicative language teaching 145

articles welcome