英语教学法选读55：任务型教学法之交际法教学综述（David Nunan）
导读：本篇是英语教学法泰斗David Nunan 2004年的著作《任务型语言教学（Task-Based Language Teaching）》第一章“何为任务型语言教学”第四节《交际法教学》。为促进原文阅读，这里仅提供英文。
本文首发于“武太白金星人”微信公众账号，把本文分享到您朋友圈后关注（文末有关注通道）并回复“306”（大小写没关系，引号不要，请确保没有多余空格）即可获取上文图书的英文原版全本PDF。该书仅供个人学习研究使用，请勿用作商业用途，并请于下载24小时后自觉删除。祝朋友们学习进步！
Communicative language teaching
Although it is not always immediately apparent, everything we do in the classroom is underpinned by beliefs about the nature of language, the nature of the learning process and the nature of the teaching act. These days it is generally accepted that language is more than a set of grammatical rules, with attendant sets of vocabulary, to be memorized. It is a dynamic resource for creating meaning. Learning is no longer seen simply as a process of habit formation. Learners and the cognitive processes they engage in as they learn are seen as fundamentally important to the learning process. Additionally, in recent years, learning as a social process is increasingly emphasized, and sociocultural theories are beginning to be drawn on in addition to (or even in preference to) cognitive theories (see, for example, Lantolf 2000).
Another distinction that has existed in general philosophy and epistemology for many years is that between ‘knowing that’ and ‘knowing how’(see, for example, Ryle 1949), that is, between knowing and being able to regurgitate sets of grammatical rules, and being able to deploy thisgrammatical knowledge to communicate effectively. In the days of audiolingualism ‘knowing that’ was eschewed in favour of ‘knowing how’.However, now, the pursuit of both forms of knowledge are considered valid goals of language pedagogy. (This issue is taken up in greater depth in Chapter 5.)
These views underpin communicative language teaching. A great deal has been said and written about CLT in the last 30 years, and it is sometimes assumed that the approach is a unitary one, whereas in reality it consists of a family of approaches. And, as is the case with most families, not all members live harmoniously together all of the time. There are squabbles and disagreements, if not outright wars, from time to time. However, no one is willing to assert that they do not belong to the family.
The basic insight that language can be thought of as a tool for communication rather than as sets of phonological, grammatical and lexical items to be memorized led to the notion of developing different learning programs to reflect the different communicative needs of disparate groups of learners. No longer was it necessary to teach an item simply because it is ‘there’ in the language. A potential tourist to England should not have to take the same course as an air traffic controller in Singapore or a Columbian engineer preparing for graduate study in the United States. This insight led to the emergence of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) as an important subcomponent of language teaching, with its own approaches to curriculum development, materials design, pedagogy, testing and research.
The CLT view of language as action, was nicely captured by Savignon (1993), one of the key architects of CLT, in a state-of-the-art survey article in which she wrote:
In Europe,during the 1970s, the language needs of a rapidly increasing group of immigrants and guest workers, and a rich British linguistic tradition that included social as well as linguistic context in description of language behavior, led to the Council of Europe development of a syllabus for learners based on functional–notional concepts of language use and . . . a threshold level of language ability was described for each of the languages of Europe in terms of what learners should be able to do with the language (van Ek 1975). Functions were based on assessment of learner needs and specified the end result, the product, of an instructional program. The term communicative was used to describe programs that used a functional–notional syllabus based on needs assessment, and the language for specific purposes (LSP) movement was launched.
(Savignon 1993: 37)
While the ESP/LSP movement initially focused on the end product of instructional programs, CLT also forced a re-evaluation of learning processes. This created a dilemma for syllabus designers whose job it was to produce ordered lists of items graded according to difficulty, frequency or pedagogical convenience. With the emergence of CLT, these may no longer have been principally structural or lexical lists, but lists of functions and notions. However, lists they remained. Processes belonged to the domain of methodology. They were someone else’s business. They could not be reduced to lists of items. For a time, it seemed, the syllabus designer was out of business.
One of the clearest articulations of this dilemma came from Breen. He suggested that the solution to the syllabus designer’s dilemma and the resolution to the dichotomy between language product and learning process were to see them as one and the same. Rather than separating the destination and the route of language learning, they should be seen as indistinguishable. Pedagogy should:
. . . prioritize the route itself; a focusing upon the means towards the learning of a new language. Here the designer would give priority to the changing process of learning and the potential of the classroom– to the psychological and social resources applied to a new language bylearners in the classroom context. . . . a greater concern with capacity for communication, with the activity of learning a language viewed as important as the language itself, and with a focus upon means rather than predetermined objectives, all indicate priority of process over content. (Breen1984: 52–3)
Breen is suggesting that when we place communication at the centre of the curriculum the goal of that curriculum (individuals who are capable of communicating in thetarget language) and the means (classroom procedures that develop this capability) begin to merge: learners learn to communicate by communicating. The ends and the means become one and the same.
Under this scenario, what happens to the product-oriented approach which emphasizes the listing of structures and the specifying of end -- of course objectives? Can a place be found for them in CLT? This issue is particularly crucial when considering the place of grammar. For some time after the rise of CLT, the status of grammar in the curriculum seemed rather uncertain. Some linguists maintained that an explicit focus on form was unnecessary, that the ability to use a second language (‘knowing how’) would develop automatically if learners focused on meaning in the process of completing tasks. (See, for example, Krashen 1981, 1982). In recent years, this view has come under challenge (Swain1985, 1996; Doughty and Williams 1998), and there is now widespread acceptance that a focus on form has a place in the classroom. It is also accepted that grammar is an essential resource in making meaning (Halliday 1994; Hammond and Derewianka 2001). At present, debate centres on the extent to which a grammar syllabus should be embedded in the curriculum, some arguing that a focus on form should be an incidental activity in the communicative classroom (Long and Robinson 1998). These issues are taken up and elaborated on in Chapter 5.
Littlewood (1981) draws a distinction between a strong and a weak interpretation of CLT. The strong interpretation eschews a focus on form, while a weak interpretation acknowledges the need for such a focus. In making his case for a weak interpretation, Littlewood argues that the following skills need to be taken into consideration.
The learner must attain as high adegree as possible of linguistic competence. That is, he must develop skill inmanipulating the linguistic system, to the point where he can use itspontaneously and flexibly in order to express his intended message.
The learner must distinguishbetween the forms he has mastered as part of his linguistic competence, and thecommunicative functions which they perform. In other words, items mastered aspart of a linguistic system must also be understood as part of a communicativesystem.
The learner must develop skills andstrategies for using language to communicate meaning as effectively as possiblein concrete situations. He must learn to use feedback to judge his success,and, if necessary, remedy failure by using different language.
The learner must become aware ofthe social meaning of language forms. For many learners, this may not entailthe ability to vary their own speech to suit different social circumstances,but rather the ability to use generally acceptable forms and avoid potentiallyoffensive ones.
(Littlewood 1981: 6)
Reflect
What do you see as the role of grammar in the communicative language curriculum? Do you think that an explicit focus on grammar should be part of the learning experience? If so, do you think that the selection and grading of linguistic elements (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation features, function,notions, etc.) should be carried out separately from the selection and sequencing of learning tasks?
------------------------
My own position is that the curriculum needs to take account of both means and ends, and must, in consequence, incorporate both content and process. In the final analysis, it does not matter whether those responsible for specifying learning tasks are called ‘syllabus designers’ or ‘methodologists’. What matters is that both processes and outcomes are taken care of and that there is compatibility between them. Whatever the position taken, there is no doubt that the development of CLT has had a profound effect on both methodology and syllabus design, and has greatly enhanced the status of the concept of ‘task’ within the curriculum.
This last comment raises the question of the relationship between communicative language teaching and task-based language teaching. Are the terms synonymous? If so, why have two terms for the same notion? If not, wherein lies the difference? The answer is that CLT is a broad, philosophical approach to the language curriculum that draws on theory and research in linguistics, anthropology, psychology and sociology. (For a review of the theoretical and empirical roots of CLT, see Savignon 1993). Task-based language teaching represents a realization of this philosophy at the levels of syllabus design and methodology. Other realizations that could fairly claim to reside within the CLT family include content-based instruction (Brinton 2003), text-based syllabuses (Feez 1998), problem-based learning, and immersion education (Johnston and Swain 1997). It is also possible to find essentially grammar-based curricula that fit comfortably within the overarching philosophy of CLT. This is particularly true of curricula based on genre theory and systemic-functional linguistics (Burns2001; Hammond and Derewianka 2001).
------------------------
长按此处二维码即可识别并轻松关注“武太白金星人”微信订阅号。