Communicative Approach

[woodcutter]

The Aussie intellectual elite may perhaps think CT is the bestest thing, it is hard to say. The Stalinist line comes with a lot of "let's discuss!" sugar, of course!

What they didn't do is take a lot of time in that module to examine methods, and seemed to think it should be more about expanding the teachers range. That's a good sign.

[woodcutter]

(of course "the communicative approach" is not a method in the dreams of most EFL windbags, but we know better)

[fluffyhamster]

Andy, I don't think teachers are just interested in (teaching) syntax - probably we're all interested (and need to be so! We aren't generative grammarians!) in a wider conception of 'grammar' than that.

For convenience's sake, let's just say we are all interested in the English language (and perhaps other languages, especially if we are native speakers living abroad and teaching EFL), and language generally. That should provide sufficient scope to include everything that we're possibly "discussing" or going to discuss on this thread.

From '(the English) language' we begin conceiving of uses for it, hence the evolution of notional-functional approaches (such as the CA). Obviously all this thinking will have given serious consideration to more than just, say (in Sayers' words), 'how to order a meal in a foreign language' (I think we can assume she is trying to imply something there about current approaches), but functions such as "Persuading" etc, which could well even lead into a consideration of rhetoric (perhaps even as practised by the ancient Greeks etc) by if not the students then maybe at least the (interested) teacher.

Put simply, I don't believe that functional ESL/EFL syllabuses are doing a bad job of teaching form, and they certainly aren't leaving function out of the picture, so the 'Grammar' and 'Dialectal' ('...how to use language; how to define his terms and make accurate statements; how to construct an argument and how to detect fallacies in argument. Dialectic, that is to say, embraced Logic and Disputation.') stages of the/her/your proposed "Trivium" would seem to be in place already.

The remaining point is whether the third stage, Rhetoric ('Thirdly, he learned to express himself in language-- how to say what he had to say elegantly and persuasively.'), is in need of "beefing up" in ESL. As I've said, I think this will be dealt with generally and generally quite well in any worthwhile (thorough) syllabus, although there might be a call for extra attention for specific purposes (you yourself mention business presentations, Andy), and again, there may be some food for thought in using the axioms or principles of Greek rhetoric (but it would probably help if these were reformulated for the busy teacher than simply leaving the teacher to consult the (translated) originals; that is, those teachers who were interested could proceed from general introductions/recommendations in easily assimilable form to more in-depth reading).

So, it seems odd to me to almost advocate divorcing form from function or facts from context in the (probably misguided) belief that doing so will somehow improve (language) education (probably you yourself are not advocating that, Andy, and are simply interested in just the Rhetoric, but that then leads me to ask, why post the link to Sayers' essay in the first place?!). In fact, such an "approach" kind of exists in the Grammar-Translation methods still extensively used in e.g. Asia, and its results are plain to see (at least as far as unmotivated - demotivated! - school-age learners are concerned...and many asian adult learners, doubtless leery because of their school experiences, often expressly ask for less, not more, of the same if they ever recommence their study of English (they usually summarize their feelings simply/simplistically as an injunction against being taught more "grammar")). I think our task as teachers is to get the facts and functions both in order and draw the best (strongest, clearest, most useful) links we can between the two (whenever possible), and rhetoric will be in there somewhere, no worries.

I thought it would be useful in conclusion to quote perhaps the central passage from Sayers' essay (from which all the above quotes/definitions are drawn):

Let us now look at the mediaeval scheme of education--the syllabus of the Schools. It does not matter, for the moment, whether it was devised for small children or for older students, or how long people were supposed to take over it. What matters is the light it throws upon what the men of the Middle Ages supposed to be the object and the right order of the educative process.

The syllabus was divided into two parts: the Trivium and Quadrivium. The second part--the Quadrivium--consisted of "subjects," and need not for the moment concern us. The interesting thing for us is the composition of the Trivium, which preceded the Quadrivium and was the preliminary discipline for it. It consisted of three parts: Grammar, Dialectic, and Rhetoric, in that order.

Now the first thing we notice is that two at any rate of these "subjects" are not what we should call "subjects" at all: they are only methods of dealing with subjects. Grammar, indeed, is a "subject" in the sense that it does mean definitely learning a language--at that period it meant learning Latin. But language itself is simply the medium in which thought is expressed. The whole of the Trivium was, in fact, intended to teach the pupil the proper use of the tools of learning, before he began to apply them to "subjects" at all. First, he learned a language; not just how to order a meal in a foreign language, but the structure of a language, and hence of language itself--what it was, how it was put together, and how it worked. Secondly, he learned how to use language; how to define his terms and make accurate statements; how to construct an argument and how to detect fallacies in argument. Dialectic, that is to say, embraced Logic and Disputation. Thirdly, he learned to express himself in language--how to say what he had to say elegantly and persuasively.

As if considerations of (ancient!) syllabus design weren't enough, you've proceeded to hit us with yet more fancy terms, this time pertaining to classroom management ('I have also found rhetoric to be well worth studying for the way I as a teacher come across in the classroom. The persuasive appeals of ethos, logos, pathos and neo-ethos are fundemental to classroom management'). It might help if instead of directing us to yet another link (I wonder how many will follow it), you "translated" the "Greek" into terms that might coincide with e.g. those current in educational psychology.

I dabble in philosophy from time to time, but my exposure to the Greeks through EFL texts (and linguistic ones generally) is quite limited (due obviously to them not being mentioned in such texts much if at all)...the Philosophy of Linguistics is interesting but only up to a point (at which, "commonsense" or "the need for immediate practicality" take over)...

Woodcutter, please don't add to the proliferation of abbreviations (I presume by CT you mean CLT - and by CLT I don't mean a BLT ); and what the hell does '(they) seemed to think it should be more about expanding the teachers range' mean?! A common collocate of 'range' in ELT discussion is surely '...of techniques' (i.e. methods)...but since you've said 'they didn't...take a lot of time...to examine methods', we can only assume that your tutors are trying to cram your stubborn head(s) with (gasp!)...honest-to-goodness KNOWLEDGE!

[fluffyhamster]

(of course "the communicative approach" is not a method in the dreams of most EFL windbags, but we know better)

I know what you mean/appreciate where you're coming from, Woody, so there's no need to cover yourself here, BUT at the risk of someone (you?) saying 'We've been through all this before', I really do think that understanding/grasping that a consideration of NATURAL, EFFECTIVE (etc etc etc) COMMUNICATION/"LANGUAGE"=>an approach, not a method (just yet) is vitally important.