Language-Centered Methods

Language-Centered Methods

97and sequencing of content, and presentation with the aims and activities of

classroom teaching. As early as in 1936, Palmer, West, and their associates

selected and graded a vocabulary list, which was later revised by West and

published in 1953 with the title, A General Service List of English Words. The

list consisted of a core vocabulary of about 2,000 words selected on the basis

of such criteria as frequency, usefulness, and productivity and graded for

complexity...

Likewise, Palmer and Hornby attempted to classifymajor gram-

matical structures into sentence patterns and also sought to introduce them

in situational dialogues. Hornby’s book, A Guide to Patterns and Usage of Eng-

lish, published in 1954 became a standard reference book of basic English

sentence patterns for textbook writers and classroom teachers.

As the British applied linguists were engaged in developing the struc-

tural–situational method, their American counterparts were called upon by

their government already drawn intoWorldWar II to devise effective, short-

term, intensive courses to teach conversational skills in German, French,

Italian, Chinese, Japanese, and other languages to army personnel who

could work as interpreters, code-room assistants, and translators. In re-

sponse, American applied linguists established what was called Army Spe-

cialized Training Program (ASTP), which moved away from the prevailing

reading/writing-oriented instruction to one that emphasized listening and

speaking. After the war and by the mid-1950s, the program evolved into a

full-fledged audiolingual method of teaching, and quickly became the pre-

dominant American approach to teaching English as second language.

A series of foundational texts published in the 1960s by American schol-

ars provided the much needed pedagogic resources for language-centered

methods. In an influential book titled Language and Language Learning: The-

ory and Practice, Brooks (1960) offered a comprehensive treatment of the

audiolingual method. This was followed by Fries and Fries (1961), whose

Foundations of English Teaching presented a corpus of structural and lexical

items selected and graded into three proficiency levels—beginning, inter-

mediate, and advanced. The corpus also included suggestions for designing

contextual dialogues in which the structural and lexical items could be in-

corporated. Yet another seminal book, Language Teaching: A Scientific Ap-

proach, by Lado (1964) provided further impetus for the spread of the

audiolingual method. Appearing in the same year was a widely acclaimed

critical commentary on the audiolingual method titled The Psychologist and

the Foreign Language Teacher, by Rivers (1964).

Although the British structural–situational method focused on the situa-

tional context and the functional content of language more than the Amer-

ican audiolingual method did, similarities between them are quite striking.

Part of the reason is that linguists on both sides of the Atlantic were influ-

enced by the tenets of structural linguistics and behavioral psychology. In

view of that common ground, I combine the two traditions under one

widely used label, audiolingual method, and discuss its theoretical principles

and classroom procedures.

5.1. THEORETICAL PRINCIPLES

As mentioned, the fundamental principles of language-centered pedagogy

are drawn from structural linguistics and behavioral psychology. These two

schools of thought from sister disciplines have informed the theory of lan-

guage, language learning, language teaching, and curricular specifications

of language-centered pedagogy.

5.1.1. Theory of Language

Language-centered pedagogists believed in the theory of language proposed

and propagated by American structural linguists during the 1950s. Structural

linguists treated language as a system of systems consisting of several hierar-

chically linked building blocks: phonemes, morphemes, phrases, clauses,

and sentences, each with its own internal structure. These subsystems of lan-

guage were thought to be linearly connected in a structured, systematic, and

rule-governed way; that is, certain phonemes systematically cluster together

to form a morpheme, certain morphemes systematically cluster together to

form a phrase, and so forth. Secondly, structural linguists viewed language as

aural–oral, thus emphasizing listening and speaking. Speech was considered

primary, forming the very basis of language. Structure was viewed as being at

the heart of speech. Thirdly, every language was looked upon as unique,

each having a finite number of structural patterns. Each structure can be an-

alyzed, described, systematized, and graded, and by implication, can be

learned and taught by taking a similar discrete path.

Structural linguists rejected the views of traditional grammarians, who

depended on philosophical and mentalistic approaches to the study of lan-

guage. Instead, structuralists claimed to derive their view of language

through a positivist and empiricist approach. A scientific approach to the

study of language, it was thought, would help identify the structural pat-

terns of language in a more rigorous way. Such an emphasis on scientific

methods of linguistic analysis dovetailed well with the views of behavioral

psychologists whose antimentalist views of human learning informed the

audiolingual theory of language learning.

5.1.2. Theory of Language Learning

Language-centered pedagogists derived their theory of language learning

from behaviorism, a school of American psychology which was popular dur-

ing the 1950s and ’60s. Like structural linguists, behavioral psychologists

too were skeptical about mentalism and rejected any explanation of human

behavior in terms of emotive feelings or mental processes. They sought a

scientifically based approach for analyzing and understanding human be-

havior. For them, human behavior can be reduced to a series of stimuli that

trigger a series of corresponding responses. Consequently, they looked at

all learning as a simple mechanism of stimulus, response, and reinforce-

ment. Experience is the basis of all learning, and all learning outcomes can

be observed and measured in the changes that occur in behavior.

Given their belief that all learning is governed by stimulus–response–re-

inforcement mechanisms, behaviorists did not make any distinction be-

tween general learning and language learning. Their theory of language

learning can be summed up in a series of assumptions they made:

 First and foremost, learning to speak a language is the same as learning

to ride a bicycle or drive a car. Language learning, then, is no different

from the learning of other school subjects like math or science. It is no

more than a systematic accumulation of consciously collected discrete

pieces of knowledge gained through repeated exposure, practice, and ap-

plication. This is a central belief that logically leads to all other assumptions

of varying importance.

 Second, language learning is just a process of mechanical habit forma-

tion through repetition. Forming a habit, in the context of language learn-

ing, is described as developing the ability to perform a particular linguistic

feature such as a sound, a word, or a grammatical item automatically, that

is, without paying conscious attention to it. Such a habit can be formed only

through repeated practice aided by positive reinforcement. Bloomfield

(1942), a prominent structural linguist, in his Outline Guide for the Practical

Study of Foreign Language, articulated the structuralist’s view of language

learning very succinctly: “The command of a language is a matter of prac-

tice. . . . practice everything until it becomes second nature” (p. 16). He

also emphasized that “Language learning is overlearning: Anything else is

of no use” (p. 12).

 Third, habit formation takes place by means of analogy rather than

analysis. Analysis involves problem solving, whereas analogy involves the

perception of similarities and differences. In the context of language learn-

ing, this means an inductive approach, in which learners themselves iden-

tify the underlying structure of a pattern, is preferable to a deductive ap-

proach. Pattern practice, therefore, is an important tool of language

learning.

 Fourth, language learning is a linear, incremental, additive process.

That is, it entails mastering of one discrete item at a time, moving to the

next only after the previous one has been fully mastered. It also involves

gradually adding one building block after another, thus accumulating, in

due course, all the linguistic elements that are combined to form the total-

ity of a language. Because speech is primary, discrete items of language can

be learned effectively if they are presented in spoken form before they are

seen in the written form.

 Finally, discrete items of language should be introduced in carefully

constructed dialogues embedded in a carefully selected linguistic and cul-

tural context. Language should not be separated from culture, and words

should be incorporated in amatrix of references to the culture of the target

language community.

These fundamental assumptions about language learning deeply influ-

enced the theory of language teaching adopted by language-centered

pedagogists.

5.1.3. Theory of Language Teaching

Audiolingual theory of language teaching is, in fact, a mirror image of its

theory of language learning. Because learning a language is considered to

involve forming habits in order to assimilate and use a hierarchical system

of systems, language teaching is nothing more than a planned presentation

of those (sub)systems combined with provision of opportunities for repeti-

tion. The purpose of teaching, therefore, is twofold: In the initial stage, the

teacher, using a textbook, serves as a model providing samples of linguistic

input, and then in the later stage, acts as a skillful manipulator of questions,

commands, and other cues in order to elicit correct responses from the

learner. Linguistic input is, of course, presented in the form of dialogues

because they involve

a natural and exclusive use of the audio-lingual skills. All the elements of the

sound-system appear repeatedly, including the suprasegmental phonemes,

which are often the most difficult for the learner. All that is learned is mean-

ingful, and what is learned in one part of a dialogue often makes meaning

clear in another. (Brooks, 1964, p. 145)

The emphasis on dialogues also takes care of the primacy of speech as well

as the strict sequencing of four language skills in terms of listening, speak-

ing, reading, and writing.

Given the preference of analogy over analysis, pattern practice was con-

sidered to be the most important aspect of teaching, because it “capitalizes

on themind’s capacity to perceive identity of structure where there is differ-

ence in content and its quickness to learn by analogy” (Brooks, 1964, p.

146). Besides, teaching the basic patterns helps the learner’s performance

become habitual and automatic. The teacher’s major task is to drill the ba-

sic patterns. Learners “require drill, drill, and more drill, and only enough

vocabulary to make such drills possible” (Hockett, 1959). During the proc-

ess of drilling, the learners should be carefully guided through a series of

carefully designed exercises, thereby eliminating the possibility for making

errors. As the learners are helped to perform the drills, they are supposed

to inductively learn the grammatical structure being practiced.

Language-centered pedagogists thus drew heavily from structural lin-

guistics and behavioral psychology in order to conceptualize their princi-

ples of language teaching. And, in tune with the spirit that prevailed in

these two disciplines at that time, they dubbed their approach to language

teaching “scientific,” as reflected in the title of Lado’s 1964 book, men-

tioned earlier.

5.1.4. Content Specifications

Language-centered methods adhere to the synthetic approach to syllabus

design in which the content of learning and teaching is defined in terms of

discrete items of grammatical and lexical forms of the language that are

presented to the learners (see chap. 3, this volume, for details). In other

words, linguistic forms constitute the organizing principle for syllabus con-

struction. Drawing from the available inventory of linguistic forms com-

piled by grammarians through standard linguistic analyses, the syllabus de-

signer selects and sequences the phonological, lexical, and grammatical

elements of the language that can be included in graded textbooks used for

classroom teaching. The teacher presents the elements of language forms

(in terms of nouns, verbs, adjectives, articles, relative clauses, subordinate

clauses, etc.) one by one to the learners, who are then supposed to put

themtogether to figure out the totality of the language system. The primary

task of the learner is to synthesize the discrete items of language in order to

develop adequate knowledge/ability in the language.

Selection and gradation, that is, what items to select and in what sequence

to present them are but two challenges facing the syllabus designer. Lan-

guage-centered pedagogists implicitly followed the frequency, range, and

availability criteria for selection identified by Mackey (1965). Recall from

chapter 3 that frequency refers to the items that the learners are likely to en-

counter most, whereas range refers to the spread of an item across texts or

contexts. Frequency relates to where the item is used, by whom, and for

what purposes. Availability is determined by the degree to which an item is

necessary and appropriate. Similarly, for gradation purposes, language-

centered pedagogists followed the criteria of complexity, regularity, and

productivity (cf. chap. 3, this volume). Recall that the first principle deals

with a movement from the easy to the difficult, the second from the regular

to the irregular, and the third from the more useful to the less useful.

Although the principles of selection and gradation have been found to

be useful for organizing language input presented to the learner in a class-

room context, critics have been skeptical about the rationale governing the

principles. It is difficult to establish usable criteria for selection and grada-

tion that are pedagogically and psychologically sound. As Corder (1973)

rightly observed, “we simply do not know to what extent linguistic catego-

ries have psychological reality, and therefore to what extent what might be

a logical linguistic sequencing of items in a syllabus is psychologically logi-

cal, and therefore the optimum ordering from a learning point of view” (p.

308). The paradox, however, is that “in spite of doubts about the feasibility

of a sequential arrangement, the grammar of a language cannot be taught

all at once. Some sort of selection and sequencing is needed, and therefore

a grammatical syllabus must be provided” (Stern, 1992, pp. 139–140). In or-

der to address this imperative, language-centered pedagogists posited what

they considered to be a reasonable and workable set of criteria.

This section on the theoretical principles briefly dealt with the concep-

tual underpinnings of language, language learning, language teaching,

and curricular specifications of language-centered methods. As we will see,

these theoretical beliefs are very much reflected in the classroom proce-

dures that practicing teachers are advised to follow.

5.2. CLASSROOM PROCEDURES

The aims and activities of any language teaching method can be analyzed

and understood, in part, by studying the input and interactional modifica-

tions that the teachers are advised to carry out for promoting desired learn-

ing outcomes in the classroom (see chap. 3, this volume, for details). In the

following sections, we consider the nature and relevance of input and

interactionalmodifications with reference to language-centeredmethods.

5.2.1. Input Modifications

Of the three types of input modifications discussed in chapter 3, language-

centered methods adhere almost exclusively to form-based input modifica-

tions. The other two types (i.e., meaning-based and form- and meaning-

based input) rarely figure in language-centered methods because, as we saw

in the earlier sections of this chapter, linguistic form has been the driving

force behind their learning and teaching operations, and the idea of nego-

tiated meaning in a communicative context was not of any considerable im-

portance. Language-centered pedagogists believe that form-based input

modifications are not only necessary and but also sufficient for the develop-

ment of linguistic as well as pragmatic knowledge/ability in the L2. For

them, manipulating input entails selecting grammatical items, grading

them in a principled fashion, and making them salient for the learner

through a predominantly teacher-fronted instruction that explicitly draws

the learner’s attention to grammar. Such form-focused instruction is cou-

pled with clear explanation and conscious error correction.

The grammatical items of the target language are introduced to the

learners mostly through structural patterns. In a popular handbook of the

times, Paulston and Bruder (1975) provided a comprehensive, 145-page

long index of structural patterns arranged in alphabetical order. The first

two entries, for instance, are about adjectives and adverbs. The grammatical

forms listed are as follows (p. 51):

ADJECTIVES

Adjective comparison

1. (as Adj. as; the same X as)

2. (adj. -er than; more/less -ly than; more/less Noun than)

3. (adj. -est; most/least -ly; most/least Noun)

Demonstrative

Indefinite

much/many

other/another

some/any

Phrases

Possessive

ADVERBS

already/yet

Comparison

Frequency

here/there

Manner

by + Noun/Verb/-ing

-ly

with + Noun

too/enough

Place and time of expressions

For purposes of teaching and testing linguistic forms such as the two just

shown, Paulston and Bruder suggested three types of drills: mechanical,

meaningful, and communicative. As the following examples indicate, me-

chanical drills are automatic manipulative patterns aimed at habit forma-

tion. The learner response is fully controlled and there is only one correct

way of responding. Meaningful drills have the same objective of mechani-

cal habit formation, but the responsesmay be correctly expressed inmore

than one way. Communicative drills are supposed to help learners trans-

fer structural patterns to appropriate communicative situations; but, in

reality, it is still “a drill rather than free communication because we are

still within the realm of the cue-response pattern” (Paulston & Bruder,

1975, p. 15).

Paulston and Bruder also give examples of what kind of linguistic input

that will be provided by the teacher in a classroom context. For instance,

to teach the first of the three patterns of adjective comparison already

listed, the authors provide the following substitution drills (adapted from

pp. 55–56):

Pattern: Adjective Comparison 1 (Adj. as; the same X as)

(a) Mechanical drill: Teaching Point: Practice Pattern

Model: Teacher (T): Our winter is as long as theirs.

(summer/warm)

Students (S): Our summer is as warm as theirs.

T: city/polluted S: Our city is as polluted as theirs.

lake/cold Our lake is as cold as theirs.

work/difficult Our work is as difficult as theirs.

apartment/big Our apartment is as big as theirs.

(b) Meaningful drill: Teaching Point: Use of Pattern

Model: T: VW’s in my country --------------------.

S: VW’s in my country are (not as cheap as here)

(not the same price as here)

T: The winter in A --------------------.

Women’s style in A --------------------.

The seasons in A --------------------.

Houses in A are --------------------.

(c) Communicative drill: Teaching Point: Communicative Use

T: Compare with your country. Pollution.

S: (The pollution here is as bad as in my country.)

T: traffic

drivers

prices

cars

TV

newspapersAs these examples clearly show, the linguistic input exposed to the learners

in the classroom are all carefully controlled. As we see in the following sec-

tion, the use of such a carefully engineered and exclusively grammar-

oriented language input cannot but limit the nature and scope of interac-

tion in the classroom.

5.2.2. Interactional Activities

The interactional activities of teachers and learners in a typical audio-

lingual classroom are characterized in terms of three Ps—presentation, prac-

tice, and production. At the presentation stage, the already selected and

graded linguistic items are introduced through a carefully constructed dia-

logue that contains several examples of the new items. The dialogue may

also provide, if set in a specific sociocultural context, new insights into the

culture of the target language community. Learners hear the tape record-

ing of the model dialogue (or hear a reading of it by their teacher), repeat

each line, and sometimes act out the dialogue. They are also encouraged to

memorize the dialogue. At this stage, the learners are supposed to begin to

grasp, mostly through analogy, how a particular structure works. Where

necessary, the teacher acts as the language informant, providing additional

information or explanation about relevant grammatical rules.

At the second stage, the learners practice the new linguistic items

through mechanical, meaningful, or communicative drills. The pattern

practice consists of isolated, decontextualized sentences, with the same

grammatical structure but different lexical items. They are also given substi-

tution tables (see boxed examples to come), which help them see the pat-

tern governing the grammatical structure involved. As Chastain (1971) cor-

rectly observed, during this whole process of drilling the dialogue and the

structures,

the students are carefully led in minimal steps through a series of exercises in

which the possibility of error is almost eliminated, and the opportunity for

practice is expanded to the fullest. The students are not supposed to analyze

and search for answers, but to respond immediately to the stimulus of the

teacher. . . . (pp. 34–35)

The learners are then sent to language lab (if available) for further drills in

sentence patterns as well as in stress, rhythm, and intonation. This is usually

followed by exercises in reading and writing, which also involve the use of

the grammar and vocabulary already familiarized. Thus, the language skills

are presented and practiced in isolation and in rigid sequence: listening,

speaking, reading, and writing.

At the production stage, the learners are given the opportunity to role-

play dialogues similar to the ones introduced in class or in the language lab.

They are supposed to modify the language they have memorized in order

to vary their production. They are also encouraged to talk about a selected

topic in a carefully controlled context. Once this is all done, they are be-

lieved to have developed adequate linguistic and pragmatic knowledge/

ability to use the newly learned language for communicative purposes out-

side the classroom. The assumption here is that they will be able to success-

fully transfer their linguistic knowledge of discrete items of grammar into

communicative use in appropriate contexts, a questionable assumption

that we revisit shortly.

A recent rendering of audiolingual teaching taken from Johnson (2001,

pp. 173–174) illustrates some of the features of input and interactional

modifications already described. Johnson provides an example of part of a

lesson dealing with two sentence patterns: HAVE + just + -ed, and HAVE + not

+ -ed + yet. The use of capitals for HAVE indicates that the reference is to the

verb as a whole, including all its constituent forms such as has, have, and

others, and -ed refers to the past participle of verbs.

Objectives: to teach the present perfect tense, with just and yet. Some

examples:

I have just picked up the pen. I haven’t picked up the pen yet.

She has just opened the door. She hasn’t opened the door yet.

They have just read the book. They haven’t read the book yet.

Step 1 Demonstrating the sentence pattern HAVE + just + -ed

Actions are done in front of the class, sometimes by the teacher and

sometimes by a pupil. For example, the teacher picks up a pen and

says I have just picked up the pen. Then a pupil opens the door and the

teacher says She has just opened the door.

Step 2 Practicing HAVE + just +- ed

(a) Drill Pupils form sentences from a table:

I

We (to close) the window

(to switch on) the light

They (to have) Just

(to play) football

He/she (to walk) home

YouTo conclude this section, the classroom procedures explained and illus-

trated bring out the limitations of input as well as interactional modifica-

tions associated with language-centered methods. With regard to input, the

emphasis has been on form-based modifications to the neglect of meaning-

based activities. Likewise, the interactional modifications have been con-

fined to interaction as a textual activity, which focuses on syntactic aspects

of language. What has not been seriously taken into account is interaction

(b) Drill The teacher says sentences like the ones on the left below.

Chosen pupils make HAVE + just + -ed sentences (as in the example

on the right):

She’s closing the window. She’s just closed the window.

She’s going to switch on the light.

They will play football.

Step 3 Demonstrating and practicing HAVE + not + -ed + yet

(a) Demonstration Show a diary for the day:

7.30 get up 10.00 phone Bill

8.00 wash 12.00 visit Jane (for lunch)

9.00 eat breakfast 2.00 take dog for walk

Teacher says:

It’s 8.30. I’m late. I haven’t washed yet.

It’s 9.30. Mary’s late. She hasn’t eaten breakfast yet.

(b) Drill Pupils form sentences from the table:

I

We (to eat)

(to phone)

John

The dog for a walk

They (to have) not

(to visit) Dinner

yet

He/she

(to take) Mary

You

This is only part of a lesson. Think of what is needed to finish it . . .as interpersonal activity, which focuses on establishing and maintaining so-

cial relationships, and interaction as ideational activity, which focuses on

expression, interpretation, and negotiation of one’s own experience.

5.3. A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT

Audiolingual method represents a milestone in the annals of language

teaching for one good reason: Unlike earlier methods (such as Grammar-

Translation method), it was based on well-articulated and well-coordinated

theories of language, language learning, and language teaching, prompt-

ing its proponents to call it a “scientific” method. Although the method can

hardly be called scientific in the normal sense of the term, there is no doubt

that its proponents adhered to a highly rational view of learning and advo-

cated a highly systematic way of teaching, both derived from the linguistic

and psychological knowledge-base available at that time.

The systematic nature of language-centered methods proved to be im-

mensely helpful to the classroomteacher. The entire pedagogic agenda was

considered to be teacher friendly, as it provided a neat rules-of-thumb

framework for teachers with which to work. It could be used at all profi-

ciency levels. It was blessed with a narrowly defined objective of mastery of

grammatical structures, aided by coherently designed syllabuses with prese-

lected and presequenced items, and clearly delineated evaluation meas-

ures that focus on assessing the learning of discrete items of language.

The presentation–practice–production sequence put the teacher firmly in

charge of classroom proceedings, as it “is relatively easy to organize, and

comes bundled with a range of techniques which, besides having the poten-

tial to organize large groups of students efficiently, also demonstrate the

power relations within the classroom, since the teacher is the centre of what

is happening at all times” (Skehan, 1998, p. 94). In addition, it was easy to

train a large number of teachers in the principles and procedures of lan-

guage-centered methods of teaching in a fairly short period of time.

Being systematic is, of course, different from being successful. How can

the merits and demerits of language-centered methods be estimated? In

the preface to the second edition of his authoritative book on audiolingual

method, Brooks (1964) declared: “the comfortable grammar-translation

days are over. The new challenge is to teach language as communication,

face-to-face communication between speakers and writer-to-reader commu-

nication in books” (p. vii). As this statement clearly indicates, the central

goal of language-centered methods, in spite of their unmistakable empha-

sis on themastery of grammatical structures, is indeed “to teach language as

communication.” It is, therefore, only proper to assess whether language-

centered pedagogists achieved the goal they set for themselves.

What does it mean “to teach language as communication” and to what

extent are the language-centered methods conceptually and procedurally

equipped to deal with it? Interestingly, although the phrase “teaching lan-

guage as communication” was coined by language-centered pedagogists, it

was later appropriated by learner-centered pedagogists and was used as a

slogan for communicative language teaching (see chap. 6, this volume, for

details). In a pioneering book on communicative language teaching titled,

appropriately, Teaching Language as Communication, Widdowson (1978)

made a useful distinction between language usage and language use:

The first of these is the citation of words and sentences as manifestations of

the language system, and the second is the way the system is realized for nor-

mal communicative purposes. Knowing a language is often taken to mean

having a knowledge of correct usage but this knowledge is of little utility on its

own: it has to be complemented by a knowledge of appropriate use. A knowl-

edge of use must of necessity include a knowledge of usage but the reverse is

not the case: it is possible for someone to have learned a large number of sen-

tence patterns and a large number of words which can fit into them without

knowing how they are actually put to communicative use. (pp. 18–19)

Widdowson goes on to argue that the teaching of usage does not guarantee

a knowledge of use, implying that any teaching of language as communica-

tion entails the teaching of language use, not just language usage. In a later

work, he states the problem of language-centered methods succinctly: “the

structural means of teaching would appear to be inconsistent with the com-

municative ends of learning” (Widdowson, 1990, p. 159).

Experiential as well as empirical evidence on the effectiveness of lan-

guage-centered methods revealed that the learners, at the end of their lan-

guage learning, were better at language usage than at language use. To put

it differently, they were able to develop linguistic knowledge/ability but not

pragmatic knowledge/ability. There are several factors that contributed to

this less-than-desirable outcome. First, language-centered pedagogists

failed to recognize that superficial linguistic behavior in terms of structures

and vocabulary, even if it becomes habitual, does not in any way entail the

internalization of the underlying language system required for effective

communication. Second, they seldom acknowledged that communicative

situations are far more complex and that, as V. Cook (1991) pointed out, “if

communication is the goal of language teaching, its content needs to be

based on an analysis of communication itself, which is not covered properly

by structures and vocabulary” (p. 137). Finally, they assumed, wrongly, that

the learners will be able to successfully transfer their knowledge of isolated

items of grammar and vocabulary and automatically apply it to real-life

communicative situations outside the classroom. The transfer did not occur

primarily because, as Rivers (1972) argued, skill getting is fundamentally

different from skill using.

The theoretical bases of language-centered pedagogy signify at once its

strengths as well as its weaknesses. Although the solid, theoretical founda-

tion governing its orientation to language, language learning, and lan-

guage teaching gave language-centered pedagogy a principled, systematic,

and coherent base, it also contributed to its demise. Its theory turned out to

be flawed, and a flawed theory can hardly result in a flawless outcome. Se-

vere criticism about its theory came from the two disciplines that the peda-

gogy was totally dependent upon: psychology and linguistics.

The advent of cognitive psychology and Chomskyan linguistics shed new

insights that shook the very foundation of the psychological and linguistic

principles upon which the language-centered pedagogy was based. Taking

a mentalistic approach, cognitive psychologists focused on the role of the

human mind and its capacity to form insights, and rejected the stimulus–re-

sponse mechanism and habit-formation advocated by behaviorists. They

emphasized the active mental processes governing learning rather than the

passive techniques of repetition and reinforcement. Similarly, Chomskyan

linguistics with its emphasis on transformational generative rules effectively

questioned the hierarchical system of structural linguistics.

From an acquisitional point of view, Chomsky persuasively argued that

the behavioristic approach is woefully inadequate to account for first-

language development. As discussed in chapter 1, this volume, he hypothe-

sized that a child is born with an innate ability, and using that ability, the

child acquires the first language by formulating rules, testing them out, and

confirming or reformulating them rather than by merely responding to the

linguistic stimuli available in the environment. Language acquisition is

largely a developmental process of insight formation grounded in the cog-

nitive capacity of the human mind. Language behavior, then, is a rule-

governed creative activity and not a habit-induced mechanical one. Ex-

tending the Chomskyan notion of language acquisition, sociolinguists such

as Hymes pointed out that communicative capability does not merely in-

clude grammatical knowledge but also, more importantly, knowledge of

sociocultural norms governing day-to-day communication. A detailed dis-

cussion of these developments and their implications for language teaching

will be given in chapter 6. Suffice it to say here that the new developments

cast doubts virtually on every aspect of language-centered pedagogy.

While the theoretical base of language-centered pedagogy was com-

pletely undermined by the new developments in psychology and linguistics,

its classroom application did not fare any better. Both teachers and learners

were losing interest in itmainly because of its failure to achieve its stated ob-

jectives. As Ellis (1990) pointed out in a review of research, “many learners

found pattern practice boring . . . Even learners who were ‘motivated’ to

persevere found that memorizing patterns did not lead to fluent and effec-

tive communication in real-life situations” (p. 30). The theoretical as well as

classroomdrawbacks of language-centered pedagogy resulted in a sharp de-

cline in its popularity.

The loss of popularity of language-centered pedagogy does not, how-

ever, mean that it has no redeeming features. Highlighting the positive as-

pects of the pedagogy, several reputed scholars have, for instance, sug-

gested that

 “Language learning does involve learning individual items” (Spolsky,

1989, p. 61) just the way behaviorists advocated.

 An explicit focus on the formal properties of the language might help

the learner systematically examine, understand, and organize the lin-

guistic system of the language (Bialystok, 1988).

 Explicit teaching of forms or structures of the target language is bene-

ficial to learners at a particular point in their acquisition of the target

language (Stern, 1983).

 A manipulative, repetition-reinforcement instructional procedure may

be adequate at the early stages of second and foreign language learn-

ing (Rivers, 1972).

 “There must be some aspects of language learning which have to do

with habit formation” (Widdowson, 1990, p. 11).

Considering these and other positive features, Widdowson (1990) cau-

tioned wisely that “total rejection of behaviouristic theory is no more rea-

sonable than total acceptance” (p. 11).

Cautioning against the developing tendency to throw out the baby with

the bathwater, several scholars suggested that suitable modifications should

be introduced in the classroom procedures of language-centered pedagogy

in order to reduce its excessive system dependence and to make it more dis-

course oriented. Such a change of course was well articulated by none other

than Lado, one of the leading proponents of language-centered pedagogy.

When asked by a leading German professional journal, more than 20 years

after the publication of his seminal book on what he called the “scientific

approach” to language teaching, to look back and say which basic ideas of

the audiolingual approach he would no longer stress, Lado responded:

First, I do not consider necessary the verbatim memorization of dialogues. In

fact, it may be more effective to allow changes in what I would call a “creative

memory” mode, that is, having the students remember the context and the

ideas but encouraging them to communicative needs. Second, I no longer

use pattern practice out of context. Third, I no longer limit the students to

the vocabulary introduced in the text. I encourage them to introduce or ask

for additional words and expressions relevant to the context. Fourth, I no

longer limit myself to helping them master the language, leaving it up to

them to use the language according to their needs. Finally, I give more atten-

tion to features of discourse. (Translated by and cited in Freudenstein, 1986,

pp. 5–6)

5.4. CONCLUSION

In this chapter, I discussed the historical, psychological, and linguistic fac-

tors that shaped the language-centered pedagogy. I also explored its theo-

retical principles and classroomprocedures with particular reference to the

audiolingual method. Being a theory-driven, systematically organized, and

teacher-friendly pedagogy, language-centered pedagogy began its life well

but failed to deliver on its central promise of developing effective commu-

nicative ability in the learner.

The widespread dissatisfaction with the language-centered pedagogy

coupled with the new developments in the fields of psychology and linguis-

tics ultimately motivated the search for a better method. The result is the

advent of what is called communicative language teaching, which is nor-

mally treated as a prototypical example of a learner-centered pedagogy. To

what extent the new pedagogy addressed the drawbacks of the one it sought

to replace and to what degree it achieved its stated objectives are the focus

of chapter 6.