A Comparison Between the Communicative Language Teaching and Audiolingual Method

【Abstract】：The communicative language teaching gained popularity in Europe in the 1970’s， Compared with that， the audiolingual method seems to be an “old” one. In the author’s perspective， each of them has its own advantages and features， and contributions to the teaching. This paper is to make an introduction to the communicative language teaching approach and the audiolingual method by a comparison of the two methods.

【Key words】： the communicative language teaching the audiolingual method "comparison

I A Brief Introduction of the Two Methods

1.1 "A brief introduction of audio-lingual approach

The audio-lingual method emphasizes the teaching of listening and speaking before reading and writing. It uses dialogues as the main form of language presentation and drills as the main training techniques. Mother tongue is discouraged in the classroom. It is based on behaviorist theory. Despite being discredited as an effective teaching methodology， audio-lingualism continues to be used today.

1.2 "A brief introduction of the communicative language teaching

Communicative language teaching is “an approach to the teaching of second and foreign languages that emphasizes interaction as both the means and the ultimate goal of learning a language”. It also places great emphasis on helping students use the target language in a variety of contexts and places great emphasis on learning language functions.

II The Comparison of the Two Methods

The audio-lingual method and the communicative language teaching approach are both significant language teaching approaches and both of them have made great contributions in the language teaching field. In the following part， this paper is to introduce the major distinctions between the two methods.

2.1 Background

2.1.1 The background of the audio-lingual method

The Audio-lingual method is the product of the historical circumstances. The entry of the United States into World War II had a significant effect on language teaching in America. In 1942， the government established the Army Specialized Training Program and commissioned the American universities to develop foreign language programs for military personnel and fifty-five universities were involved in the program. Because of the influence of the military， early versions of the audiolingualism came to be known as the “army method.”

2.1.2 The background of the communicative language teaching

Historically， the communicative language teaching （CLT） has been seen as a response to the audio-lingual method （ALM）. Like the ALT， the CLT is the product of the historical circumstances. With the increasing interdependence of European countries， there was a great need to teach the adults the major languages of the European Common Market and the Council of Europe. Some linguists promoted the development of the communicative language teaching.

Hence， CLT and ALM are both the product of the historical circumstances.

2.2 Approach

2.2.1 Audiolingual method

The theory of language underlying Audiolingualism was derived from structural linguistics with Bloomfield and Fries as its representatives. Structural linguistics regards language as a system of structurally related elements for the expression of meaning. These elements are phonemes， morphemes， words， structures， and sentence types. The grammatical system consists of a list of grammatical elements and rules for their linear combination into words， phrases， phrases and sentences.

2.2.2 Communicative Language Teaching

Unlike the audiolingual method， little has been written about learning theory of the communicative language teaching. And some theorists who are not directly associated with Communicative Language Teaching have developed some theories related to the principles of the CLT. "According to Krashen， acquisition of language is a subconscious process of which the individual is not aware. Learning， on the other hand， is a conscious process， much like what one experiences in school and according to Krashen， is less effective than acquisition.

2.3 A comparison of them from a learning and acquisition perspective

Audiolingualism treats language learning as habit formation. Learning begins with listening and speaking， and production proceeds from repetition to substitution until responses are automatic. Communicative language teaching encourages learners to use whatever knowledge they have of the target language.

Compared with the ALM， CLT deem tha language skills are taught integratedly rather than separately and imitation and repetition do not account for creative language use. Classroom language use is dependent on the roles of the participants， the situation and the goal of the interaction. In the beginning stages， formal accuracy is not required nor expected and fluency is emphasized over accuracy. And the ultimate goal is the development of the implicit second language system.

III Conclusion

Despite being discredited as an effective teaching methodology in 1970s， ALT continues to be used today. Today CLT continues in its classic form as seen in the huge range of course books. On the author’s part， any language teaching approach has its own advantages and disadvantages. The “old” approach is not completely out of date， and a “new” approach is not definitely up to date and appropriate. There are some distinctions between the audiolingual method and the communicative language teaching.

Bibliography：

[1]Littlewood， Willian， Communictive Language Teaching. Cambridge， London，1981.

[2]Ellis， Rod. Second Language Acquisition. Oxford：Oxford University Press，1997.

[3]Brown， H. Douglas. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Prentice Hall， 1994.

[4]顧偉勤. Input， Interaction and the Second Langue Learner. Shanghai： Shanghai foreign language education press， 2008.