2.2.5 The Seventies and Eighties

Towards the end of the sixties and early in the seventies, the general abstract, structural view of language was replaced instead by a semantic and social emphasis in language (Stern, 1992). The growth of psycho-linguistics, socio-linguistics and an interest in semantics had important implications for the teaching of languages in that they highlighted the importance of real-world language use. During the early seventies, work by the American sociologist Hymes resulted in the concept of communicative competence. Hymes (1968) argued that a sentence must not only be grammatically correct or competent, but that it must also be appropriate in relation to the context in which it is used. He openly criticized Chomsky's emphasis on linguistic competence by arguing that it "posits ideal objects in abstraction from socio-cultural features that might enter into their description" (p.7). Hymes' theory attempted to define what an individual needs to know in order to be communicatively competent in a speech community.

The humanistic emphasis in pedagogy that occurred in the United States during the 1970's encouraged more individualization of instruction and more group work. The introduction and growth of French-Immersion programs in Canada during the seventies and eighties focused pedagogical attention on the importance of meaning and communication in second-language learning. Alternate methods such as the Silent Way, Suggestopaedia, and Community Language Learning received receptive responses in the seventies and focused attention away from the pattern and drill approach and towards communication. The emphasis in the French-Immersion classroom on non-language content and on real communication as well as the perceived success of the approach no doubt raised awareness of the importance in language learning of meaningful communicative interaction, purposive behavior, authentic language and negotiation of social meaning.

An "explosion of research on second language" in the seventies recognized the importance of the individual's construction of language thus raising questions about the role played in language learning by the learner's motivations, perceptions and initiative (Stern, 1992). Research in language learning, particularly that which contrasted first and second-language learning, led to a search for new methods. The work of the American applied linguist Krashen (1978) and his distinction between acquisition versus learning provided a theoretical foundation from which to understand the important role of communication in second-language learning. According to Krashen, second-language acquisition is analogous to the way in which a child would acquire his/her first language. The concept implies that languages can be learned effectively without formal study of structure and form.

From these changes grew a new approach to language teaching in the seventies termed the Communicative Approach or Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Finnocchario and Brumfit, (1983) have compared the Audio-Lingual Method and Communicative Language Teaching by contrasting their characteristics as follows:

Richards and Rodgers (1986) described other significant characteristics of this new approach including its emphasis on the use of authentic, "from life" materials and language-based realia such as magazines, newspapers and graphic and visual sources around which communicative activities might be constructed. In terms of the type of communicative activities in which students might engage, the authors include role plays, simulations as well as a variety of games. A tolerance for errors means that learners are not being constantly corrected. Instead, errors are seen as a normal phenomenon in the communicative process (Littlewood, 1981). Interaction is an important feature of the communicative classroom. Through grouping, pairing, and cooperative relationships, students have the opportunity to express their own individuality (Ibid.).

In relation to the respective roles of teacher and student, Richards and Rodgers (1986) argue that Communicative Language Teaching "often requires teachers to acquire less teacher-centred classroom management skills" (p.78). Teachers are responsible for responding to and for monitoring and encouraging the language learner's needs. Their role is to organize the classroom as a setting for communication. Their role is not error suppression and correction but that of a teacher-counselor who exemplifies an effective communicator (Richards Rodgers, 1986). Littlewood (1981) describes the role of the teacher in CLT as that of a "facilitator of learning", a consultant, advisor, coordinator of activities, classroom manager, co-communicator, "human among humans" who "steps out of his didactic role" (p. 94).

Communicative Language Teaching with its emphasis on meaning and communication and its learner-centred approach has served as the dominant approach to language teaching since the demise of the Audio-Lingual Method. Many language teaching methodologists subscribe more or less consciously to one or other aspects of communicative teaching (Stern, 1992). The approach incorporates many of the characteristics of the other methods which preceded it while at the same time managing to avoid the "narrowness and dogmatism of the method concept" (Ibid.). As a result, it has the potential of making a more lasting contribution to language teaching than the Direct Method, Grammar-Translation or the Audio-Lingual Method.

Yet, despite the apparent popularity of CLT and, despite its being an improvement over preceding innovations, it cannot be seen as a panacea for the problems that have been faced by language teachers. Stern (1992) explains:

As for the communicative approach, the reliance on a single overriding concept, 'communication', is a disadvantage which prevents communicative language teaching from being entirely satisfactory as a theoretical framework. In order to account for all varieties and aspects of language teaching we either stretch the concept of communication so much that it loses any distinctive meaning, or we accept its limitations and then find ourselves in the predicament of the 'method' solution: an excessive emphasis on a single concept (p. 14).

Stern thus dismisses CLT as a suitable theoretical framework for the teaching of a second language. Yet no other approach, method or framework has evolved to replace it. Must we assume that CLT represents the final stage in the process of evolution of language teaching? If past trends are an indication of present and future possibilities, then we must assume that practices will continue to evolve as they have always done. Past evolutions have reflected the social, economic, political, or educational circumstances as well as the language theories and psychological perspectives on language learning of the period. How might the conditions of the 21^st century impact on the approach to language teaching? What factors or conditions are most likely to influence approaches? What theories of psychology and of learning are most significant for learning in the 21^st century and are thus significant in terms of the evolution of second language learning? What social, economic or educational practices might influence the evolution? The following sections of this chapter aim to consider these questions and to predict the future evolution of approaches to the teaching and learning FSFL.