Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Knowledge, Competence and Communication

    Uploaded by

    oanadumitrescu89
    28 views27 pages
    KNOWLEDGE, COMPETENCE AND COMMUNICATION William H. Walcott Centre for Language Instruction to New Canadians Abstract In this paper, the Chomskyan view, linguistic competence, as well as, communicative competence, a broad version of language competence, are examined carefully. On the basis of the assessment, it is proposed that proponents of communicative language teaching ( C.L.T. ) should not employ this broad version as an important basis to helping learners acquire and produce foreign and second languages. What is proposed, instead, is that they adopt and use Frierian pedagogy as the foundational core to educating learners, several of whom are taught in urban centres of economically prosperous societies within Western Europe and North America. Introduction Several years ago, when I was a senior high school student in British Guiana, the sole British colonial possession on the Latin American mainland, I read numerous works about slavery. This is a phenomenon which the brilliant historian, Fisher ( 1949, pp. 1028 - 1031 ) described as marking a special note of European infamy, a terrible commentary on Christian civilisation. What was so terrible? Fisher says the longest period of slave raiding known to history was initiated by the actions of Spain, Portugal, France, Holland, and Britain after the Christian faith had - for more than a thousand years - been the established religion of Western Europe. These actions, clearly motivated by European demand for sugar, tobacco, and cotton, were fed by the labour of African slaves “...herded in barracks, working in gangs, and regimented, as they had been recruited, by soulless and mercenary violence.” ( Fisher, 1949, p. 1030 ). The historian contends that the inability of the Protestant religion to ameliorate the horrific nature of the traffic in slaves is all the more serious, because the British were the most successful and, thus, the most guilty of European traders. The guilt could not be divorced from the eighteenth century, a period in which Fisher notes no colonies were so valuable as the British West Indian islands. He adds that since they were cultivated by African slave labour, the entire West Indian interest was arrayed against any proposal to abate or destroy the traffic upon which its profits depended. From readings in my high school days, I was well aware that the interest was strongly represented by the white plantocracy whose members adopted the views: at the beginning of the eighteenth century the British West Indian possessions were jewels in the English crown. Sugar was established as King and he was a wealthy monarch.

    Original Title

    KNOWLEDGE, COMPETENCE AND COMMUNICATION.doc

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    KNOWLEDGE, COMPETENCE AND COMMUNICATION William H. Walcott Centre for Language Instruction to New Canadians Abstract In this paper, the Chomskyan view, linguistic competence, as well as, communicative competence, a broad version of language competence, are examined carefully. On the basis of the assessment, it is proposed that proponents of communicative language teaching ( C.L.T. ) should not employ this broad version as an important basis to helping learners acquire and produce foreign and second languages. What is proposed, instead, is that they adopt and use Frierian pedagogy as the foundational core to educating learners, several of whom are taught in urban centres of economically prosperous societies within Western Europe and North America. Introduction Several years ago, when I was a senior high school student in British Guiana, the sole British colonial possession on the Latin American mainland, I read numerous works about slavery. This is a phenomenon which the brilliant historian, Fisher ( 1949, pp. 1028 - 1031 ) described as marking a special note of European infamy, a terrible commentary on Christian civilisation. What was so terrible? Fisher says the longest period of slave raiding known to history was initiated by the actions of Spain, Portugal, France, Holland, and Britain after the Christian faith had - for more than a thousand years - been the established religion of Western Europe. These actions, clearly motivated by European demand for sugar, tobacco, and cotton, were fed by the labour of African slaves “...herded in barracks, working in gangs, and regimented, as they had been recruited, by soulless and mercenary violence.” ( Fisher, 1949, p. 1030 ). The historian contends that the inability of the Protestant religion to ameliorate the horrific nature of the traffic in slaves is all the more serious, because the British were the most successful and, thus, the most guilty of European traders. The guilt could not be divorced from the eighteenth century, a period in which Fisher notes no colonies were so valuable as the British West Indian islands. He adds that since they were cultivated by African slave labour, the entire West Indian interest was arrayed against any proposal to abate or destroy the traffic upon which its profits depended. From readings in my high school days, I was well aware that the interest was strongly represented by the white plantocracy whose members adopted the views: at the beginning of the eighteenth century the British West Indian possessions were jewels in the English crown. Sugar was established as King and he was a wealthy monarch.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    28 views27 pages

    Knowledge, Competence and Communication

    Uploaded by

    oanadumitrescu89
    KNOWLEDGE, COMPETENCE AND COMMUNICATION William H. Walcott Centre for Language Instruction to New Canadians Abstract In this paper, the Chomskyan view, linguistic competence, as well as, communicative competence, a broad version of language competence, are examined carefully. On the basis of the assessment, it is proposed that proponents of communicative language teaching ( C.L.T. ) should not employ this broad version as an important basis to helping learners acquire and produce foreign and second languages. What is proposed, instead, is that they adopt and use Frierian pedagogy as the foundational core to educating learners, several of whom are taught in urban centres of economically prosperous societies within Western Europe and North America. Introduction Several years ago, when I was a senior high school student in British Guiana, the sole British colonial possession on the Latin American mainland, I read numerous works about slavery. This is a phenomenon which the brilliant historian, Fisher ( 1949, pp. 1028 - 1031 ) described as marking a special note of European infamy, a terrible commentary on Christian civilisation. What was so terrible? Fisher says the longest period of slave raiding known to history was initiated by the actions of Spain, Portugal, France, Holland, and Britain after the Christian faith had - for more than a thousand years - been the established religion of Western Europe. These actions, clearly motivated by European demand for sugar, tobacco, and cotton, were fed by the labour of African slaves “...herded in barracks, working in gangs, and regimented, as they had been recruited, by soulless and mercenary violence.” ( Fisher, 1949, p. 1030 ). The historian contends that the inability of the Protestant religion to ameliorate the horrific nature of the traffic in slaves is all the more serious, because the British were the most successful and, thus, the most guilty of European traders. The guilt could not be divorced from the eighteenth century, a period in which Fisher notes no colonies were so valuable as the British West Indian islands. He adds that since they were cultivated by African slave labour, the entire West Indian interest was arrayed against any proposal to abate or destroy the traffic upon which its profits depended. From readings in my high school days, I was well aware that the interest was strongly represented by the white plantocracy whose members adopted the views: at the beginning of the eighteenth century the British West Indian possessions were jewels in the English crown. Sugar was established as King and he was a wealthy monarch.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 27

    http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue3_3/2-walcott.html 06.02.2009 Radical Pedagogy 200!" #$$%: !&2'-63'& KNOWLEDGE, COMPETENCE AND COMMUNICATION (illiam ).

    (alcott *entre +or ,anguage #nstruction to %ew *anadians -.stract #n this paper/ the *homs0yan 1iew/ linguistic competence/ as well as/ communicati1e competence/ a .road 1ersion o+ language competence/ are e2amined care+ully. 3n the .asis o+ the assessment/ it is proposed that proponents o+ communicati1e language teaching *.,.4. " should not employ this .road 1ersion as an important .asis to helping learners ac5uire and produce +oreign and second languages. (hat is proposed/ instead/ is that they adopt and use 6rierian pedagogy as the +oundational core to educating learners/ se1eral o+ whom are taught in ur.an centres o+ economically prosperous societies within (estern 7urope and %orth -merica. #ntroduction $e1eral years ago/ when # was a senior high school student in 8ritish 9uiana/ the sole 8ritish colonial possession on the ,atin -merican mainland/ # read numerous wor0s a.out sla1ery. 4his is a phenomenon which the .rilliant historian/ 6isher !9'9/ pp. !02: - !03! " descri.ed as mar0ing a special note o+ 7uropean in+amy/ a terri.le commentary on *hristian ci1ilisation. (hat was so terri.le; 6isher says the longest period o+ sla1e raiding 0nown to history was initiated .y the actions o+ $pain/ Portugal/ 6rance/ )olland/ and 8ritain a+ter the *hristian +aith had - +or more than a thousand years - .een the esta.lished religion o+ (estern 7urope. 4hese actions/ clearly moti1ated .y 7uropean demand +or sugar/ to.acco/ and cotton/ were +ed .y the la.our o+ -+rican sla1es <...herded in .arrac0s/ wor0ing in gangs/ and regimented/ as they had .een recruited/ .y soulless and mercenary 1iolence.= 6isher/ !9'9/ p. !030 ". 4he historian contends that the ina.ility o+ the Protestant religion to ameliorate the horri+ic nature o+ the tra++ic in sla1es is all the more serious/ .ecause the 8ritish were the most success+ul and/ thus/ the most guilty o+ 7uropean traders. 4he guilt could not .e di1orced +rom the eighteenth century/ a period in which 6isher notes no colonies were so 1alua.le as the 8ritish (est #ndian islands. )e adds that since they were culti1ated .y -+rican sla1e la.our/ the entire (est #ndian interest was arrayed against any proposal to a.ate or destroy the tra++ic upon which its pro+its depended. 6rom readings in my high school days/ # was well aware that the interest was strongly represented .y the white plantocracy whose mem.ers adopted the 1iews: at the .eginning o+ the eighteenth century the 8ritish (est #ndian possessions were >ewels in the 7nglish crown. $ugar was esta.lished as ?ing and he was a wealthy monarch.

    8ritain a.olished the sla1e trade in !:06 and sla1ery itsel+ in !:&' .ut li0e its 7uropean competitors/ continued its illegal ownership and dominance in -+rican/ -sian/ and *ari..ean colonies. @uch o+ the dominance was de+ined .y the imposition o+ 7uropean languages on these +oreign lands/ most o+ which/ are no longer colonies. 4he languages were usually taught .y 7uropeans who .oasted openly a.out the cultural superiority o+ their societies. 4oday/ the +ormer illegal occupiers pre+er to/ and use/ routes o+ economic/ rather than physical power to maintain domination within the e2-colonies. - power+ul correlate o+ such use is e2istence o+ a pro+ita.le enterprise commonly 0nown as +oreign and second language teaching which ta0es place in the e2-colonies/ as well as/ large cities o+ pre1ious colonising powers. 8ritainAs ,i1erpool and 8ristol/ whose prosperity 6isher says was .ased largely on the sla1e trade/ come to mind/ immediately. $o do capitals in other countries which traded in/ and used sla1es. 6oreign and second language teaching is also pro+ita.le in large ur.an areas o+ *anada/ a +ormer dominion possession o+ 9reat 8ritain/ and the B.$.-./ the worldAs most massi1e economic giant whose corporate pre1alence and cultural hegemony in ,atin -merica are indisputa.le. @y principal goal/ in this paper/ is to e2amine one o+ the current and most popular approaches to language teaching/ the communicati1e approach/ whose proponents pursue the +ollowing important ma>or o.>ecti1e: assisting learners to produce language as a central +eature o+ their social interaction +or the purpose o+ per+orming tas0s which are important or essential to their e1eryday e2istence. - principal +oundation to +ul+illing this o.>ecti1e is de1elopment o+ communicati1e competence/ which is presented as more representati1e o+ the learnerAs language capa.ilities than %oam *homs0yAs linguistic competence. # argue that i+ proponents o+ *.,.4. are to +ul+il their o.>ecti1e legitimately or 1alidly/ they should not do so .y employing communicati1e competence as their .asis. # propose/ instead/ that they use the 6rierian approach/ conscientiCacao/ +or the purpose o+ helping learners ac5uire +oreign and second languages. #n order +or me to per+orm my tas0s appropriately/ # must e2amine two 1iews o+ competence/ %oam *homs0yAs linguistic competence/ as well as/ applied linguistic 1iews o+ communicati1e competence. 3nce my e2amination is complete/ # shall ma0e my case +or conscientiCacao. ,inguistic -nd *ommunicati1e *ompetence # shall show that .ecause o+ the signi+icant incompati.ility .etween *homs0yAs and communicati1e 1iews o+ language/ the communicati1ists should not employ communicati1e competence as a legitimate .asis to helping students produce target language/ e++ecti1ely. ,et me immediately state some o+ the prominent and enduring applied linguistic 1iews o+ communicati1e competence. #t is to ideas o+ $a1ignon !9:&/ p. !30 " and *anale and $wain !9:0/ pp. 2D - 3! " that # turn/ in order to per+orm my initial tas0. $a1ignon 1iews communicati1e competence as : ...the a.ility to +unction in a truly communicati1e setting - that is a dynamic e2change in which linguistic competence must adapt itsel+ to the total in+ormation input/ .oth

    linguistic and paralinguistic o+ one or more interlocutors. *ommunicati1e competence includes grammatical competence sentence le1el grammar "/ socio-linguistic competence an understanding o+ the social conte2t in which language is used "/ discourse competence an understanding o+ how utterances are strung together to +orm a meaning+ul whole "/ and strategic competence a language userAs employment o+ strategies to ma0e the .est use o+ what s/he 0nows a.out how a language wor0s/ in order to interpret/ e2press/ and negotiate meaning in a gi1en conte2t ". *anale and $wain say communicati1e competence is composed minimally o+ grammatical competence/ sociolinguistic competence/ and communication strategies or strategic competence. 4he +irst includes 0nowledge o+ the le2ical items and rules o+ morphology/ synta2/ sentence grammar/ semantics/ and phonology. 4he second consists o+ two sets o+ rules/ socio - cultural rules o+ use and rules o+ discourse/ 0nowledge o+ .oth o+ which/ is crucial to interpreting utterances +or social meaning particularly when <there is a low le1el o+ transparency .etween the literal meaning o+ an utterance and the spea0erAs intention.= $trategic competence consists o+ 1er.al and non-1er.al strategies o+ communication that may .e employed to compensate +or communication .rea0down attri.uta.le to <per+ormance 1aria.les or to insu++icient competence.= *ommunication strategies are o+ two 0inds: those that are rele1ant/ mainly to grammatical competence and those that relate more to socio - linguistic competence. -n e2ample o+ the +irst 0ind is to paraphrase grammatical +orms that a person has not mastered or cannot recall/ momentarily/ while e2amples o+ the second would .e the 1arious role playing strategies such as how a stranger should .e addressed .y someone who is uncertain a.out the strangerAs social status. 3ther applied linguists/ nota.ly/ 8achman !990 " and 8lum-?ul0a and ,e1enston !9:3/ p. !20 "/ ha1e o++ered aditional e2tensions to communicati1e competence. 8lum?ul0a 1iew semantic competence as consisting o+: -wareness o+ hyponmy/ antonymy/ con1erseness/ and other possi.le systematic lin0s .etween le2ical items/ .y means o+ which/ the su.stitution o+ one le2ical item +or another can .e e2plained in particular conte2ts. -.ility to a1oid using speci+ic le2ical items .y means o+ circumlocution and paraphrase. -.ility to recognise degrees o+ paraphrasic e5ui1alence. 8achman has posited two core aspects o+ linguistic competence/ organiCational competence which su.sumes grammatical and discourse competence/ as well as/ pragmatic competence which encompasses illocutionary and sociolinguistic competence. #n descri.ing what she regards as a conceptual e2pansion/ ?asper !99D/ p. 3'& " notes that strategic competence operates at the le1els o+ pragmatic and organisational competence .ut in a .roader sense than that proposed .y *anale and $wain. (hile the a.ility to sol1e recepti1e and producti1e pro.lems due to lac0 o+ 0nowledge or accessi.ility remains an aspect o+ strategic competence/ it is now more generally thought o+ as the a.ility to use linguistic 0nowledge e++iciently. $he adds that the e2tension is

    compati.le with the 1iew that language use/ a 1ersion o+ goal oriented .eha1iour/ is always strategic. #t is the -merican anthropologist/ Eell )ymes/ in the early se1enties/ who +irst put +orth the idea o+ communicati1e competence. $chacter !990/ pp. 39 - '0 " notes that the <model= o+ communicati1e competence proposed initially .y him ga1e tremendous impetus to linguists +rustrated .y a principal +ocus on grammatical competence. 4wo o+ those linguists/ 4arone and Fule !9:9/ p. !D " identi+y a ma>or shi+t in perspecti1e within the second language teaching pro+ession. #n relati1ely simple terms/ there has .een a change o+ emphasis +rom presenting language as a set o+ +orms grammatical/ phonological/ le2ical " which ha1e to .e learned and practised/ to presenting language as a +unctional system which is used to +ul+il a range o+ communicati1e purposes. 4his shi+t in emphasis has largely ta0en place as a result o+ +airly con1incing arguments/ mainly +rom ethnographers and others who study language in its conte2t o+ use/ that the a.ility to use a language should .e descri.ed as communicati1e competence. 4he principal ethnographer is/ o+ course/ )ymes !9D!a/ !9D2/ !9DD/ !9:: " whom 7llis and Ro.erts !9:D/ pp. !: - !9 " claim was interested in: what degree o+ competence spea0er/hearers needed in order to gi1e themsel1es mem.ership o+ particular speech communities. )e e2amined what +actors - particularly socio G cultural ones G in addition to <grammatical competence= are re5uired +or spea0er/hearers to participate in meaning+ul interaction. 7llis and Ro.erts add that not only did )ymes <set the socio - cultural .all rolling=/ .ut he also demonstrated how language 1ariation correlated with social and cultural norms o+ speech e1ents or certain de+ined pu.lic interactions. -nd in one o+ his earliest statements a.out the .road 1ersion o+ competence )ymes !9D!./ pp. & - !0 " says the purpose o+ the linguist is to account +or the +act that a <normal child= ac5uires much more than grammatical 0nowledge o+ sentences. 4he linguistAs pro.lem is to e2plain how the child comes rapidly to .e a.le to produce and understand in principle " any and all o+ grammatical sentences o+ a language. #+ we consider a child actually capa.le o+ producing all possi.le sentences/ he would pro.a.ly .e institutionalised particularly i+ not only the sentences .ut also speech or silence were random or unpredicta.le. (e then ha1e to account +or the +act that a normal child ac5uires 0nowledge o+ sentences not only as grammatical .ut also as appropriate. 4his is not accounted +or in a trans+ormational grammar which di1ides linguistic theory into two parts: linguistic competence and linguistic per+ormance. )ymes adds that children ac5uire repertoires o+ speech acts and are capa.le o+ participating in the per+ormance o+ speech acts/ as well as/ e1aluating the speech acts o+ others.

    )ymes is tal0ing a.out competence which is integral to attitudes and 1alues concerning language and other codes o+ communication. )ere is re+erence to <social +actors= which he e2empli+ies as positi1e producti1e aspects o+ linguistic engagement in social li+e: there are rules o+ use without which rules o+ grammar would .e useless. *riper and (iddowson !9D:/ pp. !&' - !&D "/ two principal protagonists o+ communicati1e language teaching/ adopt a similar stance. 4hey note *homs0yAs distinction .etween competence the ideal language userAs 0nowledge o+ grammatical rules " and per+ormance actual realisation o+ the 0nowledge in utterances " and add that he has made the latter a prime o.>ect o+ linguistic study. $uch choice - they claim - has allowed him to de+ine linguistics .y restricting the 0ind o+ in+ormation a.out language which has to .e accounted +or within his theoretical +ramewor0. 4hey characterise the choice as a necessary in1estigati1e step in con+ronting limited pro.lems and achie1ing their partial or complete solutions prior to increasing the comple2ity o+ data studied. 4his approach is/ howe1er/ too limited +or the language teacher who is concerned/ simultaneously/ with competence in descri.ing or contrasting language systems and ways o+ using the systems. #n a particular re+erence to language learning/ they say it means learning rules o+ use/ as well as/ rules o+ +ormal linguistic systems. Bntil learners 0now how to use grammatical resources +or sending meaning+ul messages in real li+e situations/ they cannot .e said to 0now a language. #t is essential that they 0now what 1arieties o+ language are used in speci+ic situations/ how to 1ary styles according to their addresses/ when they should spea0 or .e silent/ what types o+ gestures are needed +or di++erent +orms o+ speech. 4hey insist that the 1ery essence o+ language is it ser1es as a means o+ communication. ,anguage use in1ol1es social interaction. 4hus/ 0nowing a language means 0nowing how it +ul+ils communicati1e +unction. -nd in what is/ surely e2pression o+ pre+erence +or the .road 1ersion o+ competence/ they state that it is inade5uate +or persons to possess 0nowledge a.out rules o+ sentence +ormation/ they must also 0now how to utilise rules +or the purpose o+ producing appropriate utterances. 4he )ymesian position is endorsed/ also/ .y )udson !9:0/ pp. 2!9 - 220 " who regards communicati1e competence as much more .roadly .ased than <the Hlinguistic competenceA o+ *homs0yan linguistics=. *ommunicati1e competence includes 0nowledge o+ linguistic +orms/ and a.ility to use the +orms appropriately. #+ all o+ the a+orementioned re+erences to competence are appropriate indicators o+ the .road 1ersion/ then it would appear that this 1ersion could .e o+ dual signi+icance to communicati1ists. %ot only is there indication/ within this 1ersion/ that action is meaning+ul/ it seems/ also/ to .e a 1ersion which is entirely compati.le with the communicati1e aim o+ assisting students to produce target language as central +eature o+ their social interaction. )ence/ the .road 1ersion could .e employed to help learners. -nd according tho $tern !990/ pp. 9' - 9& "/ interest in communicati1e language teaching

    has grown and spread since the late nineteen se1enties. <*ommunication or communicati1e competence has come to .e 1iewed as the main o.>ecti1e o+ language teachingI at the same time/ communication has increasingly .een seen as the instrument/ the method/ or way o+ teaching.= Juite apart +rom $ternAs position/ *anale and $wain !9:0/ pp. 3& - 36 " imply/ 1ery strongly/ that communicati1e competence could .e used as a signi+icant .asis to helping students produce target language as a central +eature o+ their social interaction. 4hey state that one o+ the many aspects o+ communicati1e competence which must .e in1estigated/ more rigorously/ .e+ore a communicati1e approach can .e implemented +ully in the areas o+ second language teaching and testing is: de1elopment o+ administrati1ely +easi.le classroom acti1ities that can .e used to encourage meaning+ul action in target language use. $ome o+ these acti1ities ha1e .een de1eloped .y 4arone and Fule !9:9/ pp. 6: - !2: ". 4hey analyse and discuss means/ as well as/ instruments classroom teachers can utilise to determine studentsA a.ilities within areas o+ grammatical/ sociolinguistic/ and strategic competence. #t is these 1ery areas which are analysed as some o+ the signi+icant components in a 8ilingual Pro+iciency Pro>ect/ a highly am.itious e++ort to pro1ide what $chacter !990/ p. 39 " 1iews as empirical >usti+ication +or a model o+ linguistic pro+iciency. 4his +i1e year research pro>ect was conducted in the nineteen eighties at the @odern ,anguage *entre/ 3ntario #nstitute +or $tudies in 7ducation/ *anada. 4he main purpose o+ this pro>ect was to e2amine a group o+ educationally rele1ant issues concerned with the second language de1elopment o+ school age children. 4hree o+ the issues were the e++ect o+ classroom treatment on second language learning/ the relation o+ social-en1ironmental +actors to .ilingual pro+iciency/ and the relation .etween age and language pro+iciency -llen/ *ummins/ )arley/ and $wain/ !990: p. ! ". (hile $chacter does e2press reser1ations a.out ade5uacy and clarity o+ the concept/ communicati1e competence/ as well as/ its e2empli+ication in the pro>ect/ she does not recommend its re>ection. $he - in +act - endorses *homs0yAs grammatical or linguistic competence/ although she notes three issues o+ special rele1ance to the pro>ect. 4hey are: what are the ma>or constituti1e components o+ communicati1e competence/ whether - and to what e2tent - the components can .e delineated clearly. #n responding to her concerns/ not only do pro>ect researchers/ -llen/ *ummins/ )arley/ and $wain/ !990: p.&3" accept *homs0yAs linguistic competence/ .ut they also claim to .e demonstrating a .roadening o+ competence. -n e2change .etween the two parties a.out competence is 5uite re1ealing. $chacter says that .eyond the le1el o+ isolated sentences/ con+usion/ disagreement and +ragmentation are re+lected in <the o1erall state o+ 0nowledge= a.out communicati1e competence. 3n the other hand/ the researchers emphasise that grammar/ discourse/ and sociolinguistic constructs do not <represent e1erything that is in1ol1ed in communicati1e

    competence.= 4hey/ howe1er/ e2press their research aims: isolate aspects o+ communicati1e competence they consider to .e educationally rele1ant/ test the hypothesis that these aspects would emerge <as distinct components and would .e di++erentially mani+ested under di++erent tas0 conditions and in di++erent learning settings.= #t would not .e unreasona.le to state that e++orts to identi+y some o+ the +oregoing aspects ta0e place .y e2amining communication strategies *$ " among +oreign and second language users. $tanding prominently among the in1estigators are: Fule and 4arone !99D "/ Poulisse !99D "/ Rampton !99D "/ (il0es-9i..s !99D "/ ?asper and ?ellerman !99D "/ (agner and 6irth !99D ". 4here is/ dou.tless/ no single account o+ what constitutes communication strategies *$ ". 4hese strategies can/ howe1er/ .e classi+ied under two .road categories/ those deri1ed +rom psycholinguistic and interactional 1iews o+ communication. 4he psycholinguistic or <intra-indi1idual= perspecti1e is neatly summarised .y ?asper and ?ellerman !99D/ p. 2" who state that its proponents locate *$ in models o+ speech production or cogniti1e organisation and processing. Proponents o+ the interacti1e approach/ on the other hand/ locate *$ within the social and conte2tually contingent aspects o+ language production which co1ers +eatures o+ use characterised as <pro.lematic.= (agner and 6irth/ !99D: pp. 32& - 32D ". *rucial to understanding these pro.lematic aspects is 0nowing a.out mar0ers which indicate that spea0ers e2perience di++iculty in e2pressing tal0. $uch spea0ers <+lag= pro.lems in discourse encoding/ thus signaling the imminence o+ a *$. 6lagging pro1ides spea0er/hearers with in+ormation a.out how utterances are to .e interpreted and acted upon and can .e e2empli+ied .y such phenomena as pausing/ change o+ 1oice 5uality/ or intonation contour/ and rhythms. (agner and 6irth note that what is essential to the interactional approach is in1estigating how communication is attained as a situated/ contingent accomplishment. #nteractionists regard *$ as things displayed pu.licly and made 1isi.le to an analyst 1ia participantsA actions. 7mphasis is on the social/ rather than/ indi1idual or cogniti1e processes underlying tal0. #nteractionists de+ine instances o+ tal0 as *$/ i+ and only i+ participants/ themsel1es/ ma0e an encoded related pro.lem pu.lic in the tal0 and/ thus/ engage/ indi1idually or colla.orati1ely/ in e++orts to resol1e the pro.lem. *$ are a1aila.le to analysts/ only in so +ar as they are produced and reacted upon .y parties to tal0. 6urther/ the encoding pro.lem may .e either purely linguistic or a com.ination o+ the linguistic and conceptual. 4he ,i.ertarian/ -nti-72periential 8asis # am now in a position to initiate my argument against use o+ communicati1e competence within the +ield o+ communicati1e language teaching. ,et me/ there+ore/ turn to *homs0yAs ideas. *homs0y wants persons to li.erate themsel1es +rom the tyranny o+ +orces e2ternal to them. 4here is a clear li.ertarian .asis to his interest. 4hat .asis inheres in his interpretation o+ 8ertrand RussellAs 1iews on education/ Renee Eescatres/ on

    creati1ity/ Kean Kac5ues RousseauAs/ as well as/ (ilhelm 1on )um.oldtAs on +reedom +rom repressi1e authority. )e see0s to concretise his interest .y +inding out what contri.ution the study o+ language can ma0e to understanding human nature. *homs0y/ !9D2/ p. 6 ". )e deals with this issue .y utilising his 1iews o+ linguistic theory and language learning to e2plain what he terms the property o+ normal language use. # want to address mysel+/ initially/ to the li.ertarian .asis. -ccording to *homs0y !9::/ pp. 3 - !&& "/ the li.ertarian ideas o+ RousseauAs were .ased strictly on *artesian conceptions o+ .ody and mind. %ot only did Rousseau accept that humans/ who possess minds/ are crucially distinct +rom machines and animals/ he argued/ also/ that the properties o+ mind surpass mechanical determinacy. Rousseau concluded - so claims *homs0y G that any in+ringement on human +reedom is illegitimate/ and must .e con+ronted and o1ercome. *homs0y adds that the *artesian conceptions were de1eloped in the li.ertarian social theory o+ 1on )um.oldt that persons ha1e essential human rights to carry out <producti1e and creati1e wor0= under their own control/ in solidarity with others. 6urther/ these rights were rooted in <human essence.= 4he *artesian conception su.>ect to the greatest e2position .y *homs0y is <the creati1e aspect o+ language use.= )e notes/ with great appro1al/ EescartesA o.ser1ations: the normal use o+ language is apparently +ree +rom control .y e2ternal stimuli or internal states/ is un.ounded and constantly inno1ati1e. #n normal use/ persons do not repeat what they ha1e heard/ they produce new linguistic +orms and do so in+initely. 4he *homs0yan position is/ dou.tless/ against the e2periential. 4his is shown in his presentation o+ RussellAs 5uestion/ <)ow comes it that human .eings/ whose contacts with the world are .rie+ and personal and limited are a.le to 0now as much as they do 0now;= -nd in a +rontal assault on the e2periential/ *homs0y !9D2./ pp. 9-2D "/ re>ects the notion that words he understands deri1e their meaning +rom his e2perience. 4his stance is consistent with one o+ his principal goals/ elucidating Hthe humanistic conceptionA o+ manAs intrinsic nature and creati1e potential.= #n pursuing the goal/ he is strongly committed to highlighting the signi+icance o+ RussellAs 1iews on li.eral education. 4he tas0 o+ a li.eral education/ 8ertrand Russell once wrote/ is to gi1e a sense o+ 1alue to things other than domination/ to help create wise citiCens o+ a +ree community/ and through the com.ination o+ citiCenship with li.erty in indi1idual creati1eness to ena.le men to gi1e to human li+e that splendour which some +ew ha1e shown that it can achie1e. *homs0yAs em.racing o+ indi1idual creati1eness/ as well as/ citiCenship with li.erty is an important +eature o+ his 1iews on systems o+ 0nowledge and .elie+s which he says result +rom interplay o+ innate mechanisms/ genetically determined maturational processes/ and interaction with the social and physical en1ironment. 4he analystAs >o. is to account +or the systems as constructed .y the mind in the course o+ interaction. 6urther/ the particular

    system o+ human 0nowledge which has lent itsel+ most readily to the per+ormance o+ such a tas0 is the system o+ human language. *homs0y !9D'/ pp. !36 - !3D " presents the conditions +or tas0 per+ormance/ 1ery +orce+ully/ when he says the analyst interested in studying languages is +aced with a 1ery de+inite empirical pro.lem. )e has to loo0 at a mature adult spea0er who has ac5uired an amaCing range o+ intricate and highly articulated a.ilities which ena.le her to use language in <highly creati1e= and no1el ways. @uch o+ what she says and understands .ears no close resem.lance to anything in e2perience. *homs0y regards the a.ilities as 0nowledge o+ language/ which he characterises as instincti1e or innate 0nowledge. Persons possess instincti1e 0nowledge/ .ecause they approach the learning e2perience with 1ery e2plicit and detailed schematisims which tell them what languages they are e2posed to. -s children/ they do not .egin with 0nowledge that they are hearing particular languages such as 7nglish/ Eutch/ or 6rench. 4hey start with 0nowledge that they are hearing a human language o+ a 1ery narrow and e2plicit type which permits a 1ery small range o+ 1ariation. 4he *homs0yan position on e2perience is e2pressed clearly when he claims what are re1ealed +rom serious study o+ a wide range o+ languages: remar0a.le limitations to the 0inds o+ systems which emerge +rom the di++erent types o+ e2periences to which people are e2posed. 4he analyst who in1estigates these limitations must con+ront a well-delineated scienti+ic pro.lem/ accounting +or the gap .etween the small 5uantity o+ data presented to persons when they are children and the highly articulated/ highly systematic/ pro+oundly organised 0nowledge deri1ed +rom the data. (hat is *homs0yAs e2planation o+ the gap; Persons/ themsel1es/ contri.ute o1erwhelmingly to the general schematic structure and/ perhaps/ to the speci+ic content o+ 0nowledge they deri1e/ ultimately/ +rom the data/ otherwise characterised .y him as <1ery scattered and limited e2perience.= ,inguistic *ompetence -nd 9enerati1e 9rammar )is primary concern in o++ering e2planation o+ language learning is to account +or linguistic or grammatical competence and generati1e grammar. ,et me/ thus/ pro1ide interpretations o+ his 1ersions o+ theory/ linguistic competence/ and generati1e grammar. )e states that linguistic theory is concerned with an ideal spea0er/listener in a completely homogeneous speech community who 0nows language per+ectly and is not a++ected .y +actors such as memory limitations or distractions. )e speci+ies his positions a.out the ideal spea0er/listener in a statement that grammatical or linguistic competence is a cogniti1e state which <encompasses those aspects o+ +orm and meaning and their relations/ including underlying structures that enter into that relation which are properly assigned to the speci+ic su.-system o+ the human mind that relates representations o+ +orm and meaning.= *homs0y/ !9:0: pp. 2' - &9 ". #n a statement a.out generati1e grammar/ he says it is e2pressi1e o+ principles which determine the intrinsic correlation o+ sound and meaning in language. #t is also a theory o+ linguistic competence/ a spea0erAs unconscious latent 0nowledge *homs0y/ !966: pp. '6 - 'D ". )e adds that serious in1estigation o+ generati1e grammars 5uic0ly re1eals

    that rules which determine sentence +orms and their interpretations are .oth intricate and a.stract: the structures they manipulate <are related to physical +act only in a remote way .y a long chain o+ interpreti1e rules.= -nd it is .ecause o+ the a.stractness o+ linguistic representations that the analytic procedures o+ modern linguistics - with their reliance on segmentation and classi+ication/ as well as/ principles o+ association and generalisation in empiricist psychology - must .e re>ected. 4his is/ o+ course/ clear re>ection .y *homs0y o+ phrase structure grammar and principles o+ operant conditioning in .eha1iourist psychology popularised in audio-lingual approaches to target language learning. -nd it was partially/ .ut signi+icantly in reaction to audio-lingualism that communicati1e language teaching *.,.4. " arose. 4he *homs0yan opposition to .eha1iourism should not/ howe1er/ .e seen as compati.le with negati1e reaction in communicati1e language teaching circles to audio-lingualism. *.,.4./ audio-lingualism/ as well as .eha1iourism/ are all e2perientially .ased. *homs0yAs 1iews o+ generati1e grammar/ linguistic competence and language teaching are decidedly not. #n +act/ his general remar0s a.out contemporary language teaching are not complimentary. (hile dealing with reasons +or distinctions .etween the di++iculty in teaching target language to adults and the ease o+ childhood language learning/ *homs0y !9::/ pp. !D9 - !:2 " made these remar0s. Bse your common sense and use your e2perience and donAt listen too much to the scientists/ unless you +ind that what they say is really o+ practical 1alue and o+ assistance in understanding the pro.lems you +ace/ as sometimes it truly is. *homs0y/ !9::/ p. !:2 ". )e is/ howe1er/ more e2plicit when he says persons in1ol1ed in a practical acti1ity such as language teaching should not ta0e what are happening in the sciences seriously/ .ecause the capacity to carry out practical acti1ities without much conscious awareness o+ what is .eing done is usually +ar more ad1anced than scienti+ic 0nowledge. #deas in the modern sciences o+ linguistics and psychology/ which are o+ little practical use to understanding the distinctions/ <are totally craCy and they may cause trou.le.= )e adds that modern linguistics has 1ery little to contri.ute which is o+ practical 1alue. ,anguage/ he says/ is not learnt. #t grows in the mind. #t is/ thus/ wrong to thin0 that language is taught and misleading to thin0 o+ it as .eing learnt. *homs0y/ !9:2/ pp. !D& - !D6 ". #/ there+ore do not thin0 it would .e presumptious o+ me to conclude/ at this point/ that communicati1ists ha1e no legitimate grounds +or utilising their .road 1ersion o+ competence which includes *homs0yAs linguistic competence as a .asis to +ul+illing their aim. 4hat aim is getting students to produce language as a central +eature o+ their social interaction/ in order to per+orm tas0s which are essential or important to them. 4he communicati1ists are no where near to e2pressing a concern +or analysing the issues/ how the anti-e2periential *homs0yan 1iew o+ linguistic competence emerges +rom his

    interpretation o+ RussellAs/ 1on )um.oldtAs/ RousseauAs and EescartesA ideas/ how such a 1iew can .e reconciled to the communicati1e position which is not anti-e2periential. ,est my conclusion .e regarded as inappropriate/ # must point out/ +or purposes o+ e2empli+ication/ that *homs0y !966a/ p. '6 " says a theory o+ generati1e grammar ser1es only as one component o+ a theory which can .e made to accommodate the <characteristic creati1e aspect o+ language use.= )e/ himsel+/ points out that whate1er little attention Eescartes de1oted to language is su.>ect to 1arious interpretations and it should not .e assumed that the 1arious contri.utors to *artesian linguistics necessarily regarded themsel1es as constituting a single tradition. # am also +ully aware that the +ollowing argument can .e made against me: though the communicati1e 1ersion o+ competence includes linguistic competence/ that .road 1ersion o+ competence is not *homs0yan. #+ this is the case/ communicati1ists need to show/ 1ery clearly/ what type o+ grammar e2empli+ies their sense o+ competence. 4hey should say/ as well/ how their 1iew o+ grammar di++ers to the *homs0yan 1iew o+ generati1e grammar and/ as a result/ can e2empli+y linguistic competence which they ma0e part o+ their .road 1ersion o+ competence. #+ communicati1ists are to meet the re5uests # propose/ they should o++er 1ery care+ul analyses o+ the .ases to *homs0yAs 1iew o+ linguistic competence. 4o the e2tent that they ha1e not/ they cannot/ legitimately employ communicati1e competence as a .asis to +ul+illing their aim. *onsider another argument against use o+ the .asis - a cogent argument associated with *homs0yAs 1iew o+ communication. #n so +ar as communicati1ists emphasise the purpose+ul nature o+ language as central and necessary to their aim o+ +ostering target language use/ they would ha1e to .e concerned with the matter o+ con1eying in+ormation to/ and inducing .elie+s a.out language in students. 4his is not a concern/ though/ which they can e2press/ legitimately/ .y means o+ including linguistic competence in their .road 1ersion o+ competence. *homs0yAs 1iew o+ communication/ which is lin0ed/ ine2trica.ly to/ and deri1ed logically +rom/ his pronouncements a.out 0nowledge/ creati1ity and +reedom +rom repressi1e authority/ contrasts sharply with 1iews a.out the purpose+ul nature o+ language. #n what he sees as the importance o+ a1oiding a certain 1ulgarisation with respect to the use o+ language/ he claims that i+ the term/ HcommunicationA/ means transmitting in+ormation or inducing .elie+/ there is no reason to thin0 that language - essentially - ser1es instrumental ends/ or that the essential purpose o+ language is communication. *homs0y !9DD/ pp. :D - :: ". )e adds that someone who o++ers a 1iew o+ the purpose+ul nature o+ language ought to e2plain what she means in e2pressing that 1iew and why she .elie1es such a +unction and no other +unction to .e o+ uni5ue signi+icance. #t is +re5uently alleged that the +unction o+ language is communication/ that its <essential purpose= is to ena.le people to communicate with one another. it is +urther alleged that only .y attending to the essential purpose can we ma0e sense o+ the nature o+ language. #t is not easy to e1aluate this contention. (hat does it mean to say that language has an

    <essential purpose=; $uppose that in the 5uiet o+ my study # thin0 a.out a pro.lem/ using language/ and e1en write down what # thin0. $uppose that someone spea0s honestly/ merely out o+ a sense o+ integrity/ +ully aware that his audience will re+use to comprehend or e1en consider what he is saying. *onsider in+ormal con1ersation conducted +or the sole purpose o+ maintaining casual +riendly relations/ with no particular concern as to its content. -re these e2amples o+ <communication=; #+ so/ what do we mean .y <communication= in the a.sence o+ an audience/ or with an audience assumed to .e completely unresponsi1e or with no intention to con1ey in+ormation or modi+y .elie+ or attitude; *homs0y/ !9:0: pp. 229 - 230" )is response is that we must depri1e the idea/ communication/ o+ all importance or we must re>ect the 1iew that the purpose o+ language is communication. )e adds that no su.stanti1e proposals emanate +rom any +ormulation o+ the 1iew that the purpose o+ language is communication or that it is pointless to study it apart +rom its communicati1e +unction. *homs0yAs 1iews a.out communication might well .e in errorI communicati1ists ha1e challenged and re>ected them. *hallenge and re>ection do not/ howe1er/ stem +rom e2amining how linguistic competence emanates +rom his interpretation o+ Eescartes/ Russell/ Rousseau/ and 1on )um.oldt. 8ut communicati1ists do include linguistic competence in their .road 1ersion o+ competence. -nd while they state that they ha1e e2amined linguistic competence/ +ound its scope to .e too narrow and resorted to de1ising a .road 1ersion within which it is included/ inclusion is not logically admissi.le. *ommunicati1ists ha1e not e2amined the .asis to *homs0yan linguistic competence. -lternati1ely e2pressed/ my argument is that the communicati1e emphasis within *.,.4. on the purpose+ul nature o+ language does not emerge +rom a parallel or identical 1iew a.out the purpose o+ language held .y *homs0y. 4here+ore/ communicati1ists should not use communicati1e competence as a central .asis to +ul+illing their aim o+ helping students. # wish to strengthen this in+erence .y pointing to glaring contradictions within 8achmanAs e2tended linguistic competence. 4his e2pansion incorporates illocutionary and sociolinguistic competence in pragmatic competence/ one su.di1ision o+ linguistic competence. #t is a +ocus on illocutionary competence which ena.les an o.ser1er to identi+y the inconsistency. 8achman does accept the *homs0yan notion o+ linguistic competence. 4his is not/ howe1er/ acceptance which is synchronous with what should properly .e called the illocutionary aspect o+ semantic competence conceptualised .y Kohn $earle whose ideas a.out language use are diametrically opposed to those o+ *homs0yAs. @y point here is that an analyst cannot logically +use or incorporate elements o+ the $earlean and *homs0yan 1iews o+ competence. $earle !9D'/ pp. 2: - 29 " says semantic competence is the a.ility to per+orm and understand speech acts or illocutionary acts. 4hese acts are some o+ the many acts associated with a spea0erAs utterance in speech situations/ spea0ers/ hearers/ and utterances. $earle/ !9D!/ p. 39 ". 6urther/ in these situations/ the acts are concerned with

    per+ormances such as ma0ing statements/ as0ing 5uestions/ or issuing commands and ha1e their e2pression in 1er. +orms li0e state/ assert/ command/ or order. )e points out that i+ semantic competence is 1iewed +rom the standpoint o+ oneAs a.ility to use sentences in per+orming speech acts/ the acts will .e seen as rule go1erned and intentional. 4he spea0er who utters a sentence and means it literally utters it in accordance with certain semantic rules and with the intention o+ in1o0ing those rules to render his utterance the per+ormance o+ a certain speech act. $earle/ !9D': p. 29 " 4o 0now semantic competence is to identi+y connections among semantic intentions/ rules/ and conditions speci+ied .y rules. $earleAs 1iew o+ semantic competence is grounded in his 5uarrel with *homs0yAs notion o+ linguistic competence. )e argues that *homs0yAs theory o+ language is that sentences are a.stract o.>ects produced independently o+ their role in communication. )is position is that any attempt to account +or the meaning o+ sentences independently o+ their role in communication is inade5uate. $earle !9:2/ pp. !D! - !D2 " says *homs0y regards man as essentially a syntactical animal. )e ne1er as0s what the syntactical +orms are used +or/ and conceptualises syntactical theory in purely <syntactical primiti1es.= 4here is no allowance +or what the syntactical +orms mean or how persons are supposed to use them. )e adds that the most interesting 5uestions a.out synta2 are in5uiries a.out how +orm and +unction interact. 6or him/ the study o+ synta2 will always .e incomplete <unless we get a study o+ linguistic use.= )e states/ pointedly/ that *homs0y has denied what he regards as o.1iously true/ that the purpose o+ language is communication. @y arguments against use o+ communicati1e competence as a central .asis to communicati1e language teaching are complete. # must concentrate now on the rele1ance o+ 6rierian proposals to this approach. # propose/ instead/ that the ideas o+ Paulo 6riere .e used as the main thrust o+ communicati1e language teaching. 3nce # ha1e e2plored the 6rierian rele1ance/ # shall .ring closure to my wor0 .y outlining what communicati1e language teaching should loo0 li0e. 6rierian ,i.eration Pedagogy Paulo 6riere was a 8raCilian educator who dedicated himsel+ to a.olishing cultural in1asion/ manipulation/ rule .y di1ision/ con5uest/ and domination among oppressed people. 4he core o+ his commitment is e2pressed as a strong pre+erence +or using conscientiCacao to a.olish illiteracy. ,et me say/ +rom the outset/ what conscientiCacao. <4he term conscientiCacao re+ers to learning to percei1e social/ political/ and economic contradictions/ and to ta0e action against the oppressi1e elements o+ reality.= 6riere !9D0/ p. !9 ". *onscientiCacao means identi+ying the learning o+ content with the process o+ learning. #t will not emerge as a deri1ati1e o+ great economic change. #t has to emanate +rom critical educational e++orts that ha1e a +oundation in +a1oura.le historical circumstances. #t is the de1elopment o+ an awa0ening o+ critical awareness 6riere !99:/p. !9/ p. '9 ".

    4he interacti1e route to conscientiCacao is a dialogical one which is tra1ersed horiContally .y re+lecti1e co-su.>ects who are/ simultaneously/ teachers and learners. #n the words o+ 9oulet !99:/ p. 1i "/ the uni+ying theme in 6rierian practice is critical consciousness/ the engine o+ cultural emancipation. (hy was the 6rierian concern a concern with eradicating illiteracy; # shall address mysel+ to this 5uery/ a+ter which attention will .e gi1en to operations o+ the engine. Paulo 6riere was an unapologetic anti-imperialist who o.ser1ed/ 5uite correctly/ that a .asic condition o+ colonial domination is linguistic imposition .y colonisers on the colonised. #t is/ thus/ not accidental that colonisers designate their own languages as languages and languages o+ the colonised as dialects. 4his is categorisation a0in to in+eriorisation and impo1erishment/ on the one hand/ and richness and superiority/ on the other. 6riere/ !9D:: p. !26 ". )e/ there+ore/ insists that language is a ma>or preoccupation o+ societies which see0 their own recreation .y li.erating themsel1es +rom colonialism. #n the struggle +or recreation/ <the recon5uest .y the people o+ their own word .ecomes a +undamental +actor.= 4his is/ dou.tless/ the struggle +or literacy education which 6riere !9D:/ p. D2 " characterises as one dimension o+ cultural action +or li.eration which is lin0ed/ ine2trica.ly/ to other aspects such as the social/ economic/ and cultural politics o+ dominated societies. 4he connections are echoed power+ully in re+erences to .oth Kohn Eewey/ the -merican educator/ and Kulius %yerere/ the 4anCanian leader and li.erator/ who are credited with ad1ocating a 1ersion o+ education de1oid o+ nai1e signi+icance. %yerere and Eewey are posited as emphasising education/ not as education +or li+e/ .ut as critical education/ critical understanding o+ li+e actually li1ed 6riere/ !9D:: p. !23 ". 4his 1ehicle o+ cultural emancipation is dri1en .y a pro+ound sense o+ radicalism the li.erating educator must use to enter into dialogue with the oppressed whose struggle he is committed to ad1ancing 6riere/ !9D0: pp. 23 - 2'". #n this partnership/ the 1ery causes o+ oppression are o.>ects o+ >oint re+lection 6riere/ !9D0: p. 33 ". )ere is ad1ocacy o+ 1ersions o+ communication through which the oppressed locate themsel1es in the e2istence o+ educators who position themsel1es/ reciprocally/ in the li1es o+ the oppressed 6riere/ !9D0: p. !62 ". -nd in the act o+ placement/ which is humanistic/ there is e1ery e++ort to apprehend historical reality. 6riere/ !9D0: p. &2 ". #t is clearly the case that he sees no distinctions .etween learners and teachers. )e ma0es this position 5uite e1ident in the statement: #+ the dichotomy .etween teaching and learning results in the re+usal o+ the one who teaches to learn +rom the one .eing taught/ it grows out o+ an ideology o+ domination. 4hose who are called upon to teach must +irst learn how to continue learning when they .egin to teach. 6riere/ !9D:/ p. 9 ".

    4he in1ol1ement o+ learners - he adds - in de+ining educational content is o+ indisputa.le importance. 4hey ha1e rights/ as acti1e participants/ to de+ine what they need to 0now. 6riere/ !9D:: p. !06 ". 3ne o+ the most cogent conceptualisations o+ this stance emerges +rom the pronouncement that education must .e initiated with e++orts to sol1e the teacherstudent contradiction/ a reconciliation o+ di++erence/ so that mem.ers o+ .oth groups are/ simultaneously/ teachers and students. 6riere/ !9D0: p. &9 ". #n the collecti1e/ persons .ecome teachers-students with students-teachers. 6riere/ !9D0: p. 6D ". 9oulet !99:/ p. 2ii " o++ers an appropriate assessment o+ the conceptualisation .y noting that 6riere 1iews the success+ul educator - not as a persuader/ an insidious propagandist/ .ut as a communicator who applies his a.ility to dialogue with educatees in modes o+ reciprocity. (hat does dialogue signi+y; #t signi+ies collecti1e action aimed at remo1ing illiteracy along a plane o+ e5uality. Eialogue is not a relation .etween <#= and <it=. Eialogue is/ necessarily/ communion .etween <#= and <thou=/ two su.>ects/ +or whene1er <thou= is altered to <it=/ <dialogue is su.1erted and education is changed to de+ormation.= 6riere/ !99:: p. &2 ". 4he sense o+ communion implies re+lection/ as well as/ 0nowing/ which is 1ery speci+ic to 6riere !99:/ pp. !00 -!0! ". ?nowing necessitates the curious presence o+ su.>ects who interpret the world through the constancy o+ in1ention and rein1ention. #t claims +rom each person a critical re+lection on the 1ery act o+ 0nowing. #t must .e a re+lection which recognises the 0nowing process/ and in this recognition .ecomes aware o+ the <raison dAetre= .ehind the 0nowing and the conditioning to which that process is su.>ect. 6riere/ !99:: p. !00 " Promoting dialogue is strongly suggesti1e o+ relegating - i+ not condemning - what is anti-dialogical. # must now direct my attention to e2plicit 6rierian condemnation o+ the anti-dialogical/ as a way o+ strengthening the rele1ance o+ li.eration in educational practice. 6riere !9D0/ pp. !33 - !6D " identi+ies +our +eatures o+ the anti-dialogical/ all o+ which/ are indicati1e o+ imperialist domination. 4hey are con5uest/ di1ide and rule/ manipulation/ and cultural in1asion. # shall +ocus on con5uest/ manipulation/ as well as/ cultural in1asion. #n acts o+ con5uest/ the con5uerer imposes his o.>ecti1es on the 1an5uished and con1erts them to his possessions. )e imposes his own patterns and structures on the con5uered who internalise the +orms and .ecome am.iguous persons. @anipulation entails ways in which the dominators secure con+ormity o+ the oppressed to their o.>ecti1es o+ in+eriorisation. *ultural in1asion in1ol1es a narrow interpretation o+ reality/ a stagnant sense o+ the world/ and the imposing o+ 1alues +rom the in1ader who has a +ear o+ a.andoning those 1alues. 3ne o+ its principal signi+iers is that decisi1e positions +rom which actions a++ecting the li1es o+ the in1aded are ta0en should .e those occupied .y the in1aders. #n1aders are actors who chooseI the in1aded are +ollowers who ha1e the illusion o+ acting 1ia the e2perience o+ the in1aders. *ultural in1asion is particularly insidious. 6riere regards it as 1iolence/ penetration o+ cultural conte2ts o+ the in1aded whose prospects +or de1elopment are demeaned and creati1ity impeded.

    (hy should 6riereAs wor0 .e +oundational to remedying the communicati1e approach to target language teaching; 4here are historical/ pedagogical/ and sociological reasons +or the modi+ication. #n the +irst place/ systematic e++orts to teach 7uropean languages such as 6rench/ 7nglish/ $panish/ Eutch/ 9erman/ and #talian in colonial possessions ha1e .een directly associated with con5uest/ di1ide and rule/ manipulation/ as well as/ cultural in1asion. 7uropean teachers o+ these languages in con5uered territories were the pur1eyors o+ cultural superiority. -+ter se1eral o+ the territories - mostly in -+rica and -sia - attained political independence and the 7uropean teachers returned to their own societies/ one o+ the 1ery signi+icant changes which occurred in these locations was the emergence o+ the communicati1e approach to second and +oreign language teaching. %ot only did this de1elopment ta0e 1ery strong roots in 9reat 8ritain/ .ut its growth also emerged +rom direct in+luences o+ K.R. 6irth/ a 8ritish linguist/ who/ in the words o+ nota.le +ollowers/ )alliday/ @c#ntosh/ and $tre1ens !96'/ p. !&!" 1iewed linguistics as the study o+ <how we use language to li1e.= -nd according to *at+ord !969/ pp. 2'D - 2&D "/ another linguist greatly in+luenced .y 6irth/ the 8ritish ha1e distinct pre+erences +or practical matters/ applications/ rather than theoretical considerations. #n 0eeping with this choice/ 6irth emphasised <the sociological component= in linguistic studies/ the e2amination o+ language as part o+ a social process/ <a +orm o+ human li1ing/ rather than merely a set o+ ar.itrary signs and signals.= 4he emphasis is e1ident - so states *at+ord - in the 6irthian 1iew a.out conte2ts o+ situations or +ields o+ relations/ among persons playing roles in societies and what they utter. Eespite 6irthian residues in the 8ritish approach to communicati1e language teaching/ what is nota.ly a.sent +rom it is any e++ort to grapple with the enormous 5uestion o+ domination or oppression. #n the 8ritish/ as well as other approaches/ there is no identi+ia.le .asis in conscientiCacao premised on e++orts to a.olish colonial domination and its e2isting residues.. 4here are no programmatic statements which e2empli+y commitments to struggle against social/ economic/ and cultural oppression. %or/ +or that matter/ is there re+lection on causes o+ oppression or accounts a.out how teachers can learn in acts o+ critical sel+-re+lection. 4he argument a.o1e is applica.le/ e1en to strong claims a.out learner centred in+usions to communicati1e language teaching. 4he appropriate re+erence points here are ideas o+ 4udor !996/ pp. 2D! - 2:2 ". )e says the .asic assumption .ehind learner centeredness is that language ac5uisition will .e more meaning+ul/ i+ students/ rather than than the teacher/ ma0e decisions a.out the conceptual/ methodological/ and linguistic content o+ the ac5uisition. (hat is .eing promoted is a Hpartnership modelA geared to attaining trans+erence o+ responsi.ility. -t the classroom le1el/ it is consultation .etween teachers and learners de+ined .y negotiation which leads to curriculum design. *ontri.utions +rom learners are integrated/ at e1ery stage o+ ac5uisition. $tudents .ecome acti1e participants in colla.orati1e

    processes aimed at accomplishing outcomes such as sylla.us negotiation/ and learner independence. 4udor ac0nowledges that target language teaching is a multi-+aceted social and cultural acti1ity which o.liges practitioners to .e cognisant/ not merely o+ o+ learnersA psychological pro+iles/ .ut also/ their socio-cultural settings. 3ne o+ the rele1ant +actors which must .e considered is learnersA cultural attitudes to language study and the roles o+ teachers and learners. *olla.orati1e acti1ities will not .e success+ul/ i+ teachers are regarded authority +igures. Eespite the ac0nowledgement/ 4udor is e2plicit in declaring that it is the teacherAs ultimate responsi.ility +or ensuring that e++ecti1e learning occurs. 4he 6rierian a.sence is particularly noteworthy/ in post-independence periods. 4hese ha1e .een characterised .y signi+icant +lows o+ immigrants whose +irst languages are non-7uropean/ to 7uropean locations. @any o+ the immigrants are/ indeed/ the masses who ha1e .een e2ploited/ as a conse5uence o+ colonial oppression. 6urther/ in a contemporary setting where the stranglehold o+ glo.alisation and monopoly capitalism which nurtures it .odes ill +or many inha.itants o+ e2-colonial possessions/ there is no 1ersion o+ communicati1e language teaching whose proponents address themsel1es to the destructi1e impact o+ a matter such as cultural in1asion. Perhaps/ one o+ the most harm+ul conse5uences can .e seen in the acti1ities o+ Rupert @urdoch/ the -ustralian who .ecame an -merican citiCen +or the purpose o+ e2panding his media empire. #n early !993/ @urdoch/ owner o+ $0y tele1ision in 7urope/ 6o2 %etwor0 in the B.$.-./ and se1eral newspapers worldwide - including the 4imes/ $un/ and %ews o+ the (orld in 9reat 8ritain - issued what he considered to .e a +ar reaching announcement a.out international satellite telecasting. #t is @urdochAs intention to create a glo.al 1illage where all citiCens o+ the world could .e entertained or watch news programming without inhi.ition. 6acilitators o+ this modern 1ersion o+ instantaneous in+ormation trans+er are metallic dishes. @urdochAs technological arrangement is a multi-million dollar .usiness o+ pri1ately owned satellite telecasting. Programming 1ia the medium would .e consistent with the ownerAs political philosophies: @urdoch/ a staunch supporter o+ @argaret 4hatcherAs +ree mar0et capitalism/ has long since made it clear to editors o+ his 8ritish newspapers that they should not .e politically independent. 4heir editorial inclinations ought to re+lect 1iews o+ the *onser1ati1e Party in 8ritain. 4he -ustralian/-merican is not a pu.lic ser1ant to the world. )e is a media .aron moti1ated .y prospects o+ super normal pro+its. # thin0 that i+ the world is to .e a true glo.al 1illage/ then satellite telecasting should originate/ not >ust +rom rich de1eloped countries. Programming a.out de1eloping societies +rom these locations should also .e telecast in the de1eloped world. 4his type o+ e2change is/ howe1er/ un+easi.le/ .ecause o+ prohi.iti1e costs o+ the de1eloping world. 4he .urden o+ cultural in1asion can also .e re1ealed .y loo0ing at the statuses o+ what ha1e come to .e 0nown as 1ernaculars in e2-colonial possessions. Lernaculars/ many o+ which do not ha1e o++icial language designation/ are used .y the oppressed. -ccording to

    Phillipson !992/ p. '0 "/ use o+ the term/ 1ernacular/ is not accidental. )e notes that the term is a loaded term. #t re+ers to what is home.red/ homemade/ homegrown/ rather than what emanates +rom +ormal e2change. #n popular and technical usage/ it connotes localised/ su.-standard/ non-standard language which is 1ery di++erent to literary/ cultured or +oreign languages. 6or Phillipson/ 1ernaculars are/ there+ore/ stigmatised in relation to languages ele1ated as the norms. *at+ord is/ thus/ correct when he states that the de1elopment o+ any discipline is in+luenced .y the cultural and political setting in which it occurs. $uch is/ dou.tless/ true o+ linguistics. #t is to the setting that # turn/ +or the purpose o+ e2plaining the a.sence o+ commitment to remo1ing oppression. 4his is a locus de+ined .y what Phillipson !992/ pp. 'D - 6! " regards as linguistic imperialism strongly condemned .y -nsre !9D9/ pp. !2 - !3 " who de+ines it as a state in which the e2perience o+ users o+ a language are oppressed .y another language to the e2tent that they internalise the 1iew: only the dominant language should .e employed +or dealing with ad1anced 1ersions o+ li+e such as education/ philosophy/ literature/ and the administration o+ >ustice. ,inguistic imperialism alters/ in su.tle +ashion/ the e2pectations/ and attitudes o+ persons who are impeded +rom appreciating and actualising the +ull potential o+ indigenous languages. 3ther analysts/ nota.ly *al1et !9:D "/ ha1e conceptualised linguistic imperialism as linguistic racism. 4his is a position o+ which # am +ully supporti1e/ +or # accept the 1iews e2pressed .y (est !999/ pp. D0 - D! " and @ara.le !99D/ pp. !:& - !:6 " on racism. 6or @ara.le/ racism re+ers to an une5ual relationship .etween social groups strengthened .y patterns o+ power/ ownership/ and pri1ilege which reside within social/ economic/ and political organisations o+ society. #n addressing himsel+ to the in+eriorisation o+ mem.ers o+ one group/ (est is insistent that the -+ro--merican engagement with the modern world has .een shaped/ primarily/ .y the doctrine o+ white superiority which is integral to institutional practices and is actualised in e1eryday +ol0ways. 6or Phillipson/ linguistic imperialism is power+ully present in its 7nglish +orm. ...the dominance o+ 7nglish imperialism is asserted and maintained .y the esta.lishment and continuous reconstitution o+ structural and cultural ine5ualities .etween 7nglish and other languages Phillipson/ !992/ p. 'D". 4he term/ structural/ accounts +or material possessions/ such as organisations and monetary pro1isions. 4he cultural represents ideological +eatures such as attitudes and teaching principles. 7nglish imperialism is also indicati1e o+ linguicism which entails the presence o+ ideologies/ structures/ and methodologies applied +or the purpose o+ 1alidating the perpetuation o+ une5ual di1ision o+ power and resources among groups de+ined on the .asis o+ language. #n addition/ disparity guarantees the pro1ision o+ greater resources to 7nglish than other languages and is ad1antageous to groups that are pro+icient in this language. PhillipsonAs 1iews o+ linguistic imperialism are su.sumed .y ideas o+ 9altung !9:0/ pp. !2D - !2: "

    a.out cultural imperialism/ a relationship in which some societies dominate others. Eomination is +orged principally .y de1ices such as penetration/ +ragmentation/ marginalisation/ and e2ploitation. 4he last in1ol1es asymmetric interaction .etween groups e2changing commodities on terms o+ disparity. 4he e2change is +acilitated .y e2istence o+ a dominant *entre/ typically made up o+ (estern capitalist societies/ and dominated Peripheries/ usually underde1eloped countries. *onnections .etween power at the *entre and the Peripheries are e2empli+ied .y shared interests in language. # thin0 the most cogent e1idence +or claims o+ PhillipsonAs/ (estAs/ @ara.leAs/ 9altungAs/ -nsreAs/ and *al1etAs can .e located .y loo0ing at the status o+ 1ernaculars. (hile e2tensi1e research and promotion/ which re5uire huge +inancial resources/ are associated with (estern languages/ this is not the case in regard to 1ernaculars. )ere is an appropriate e2ample. 4he wor0 conducted .y the #nternational 9roup +or the Lernacularisation and $tandardisation o+ ,iteracy which resulted in pu.lication o+ a document/ <Lernacular ,iteracy: - Re-71aluation/ *larendon Press/32+ord !99D "/ is a rather insigni+icant production when compared to the massi1e output o+ (estern linguistic material. 4he >uncture o+ promotion is/ thus/ an appropriate point at which # can solidi+y my argument +or a 6rierian presence in *ommunicati1e language teaching. @y +ocus is on one o+ the richest societies/ *anada. *anada/ once a dominion possession o+ 9reat 8ritain/ though dominated .y two 7uropean groups/ +rancophones and anglophones/ has .een accepting large num.ers o+ immigrants +rom underde1eloped societies/ +ormer colonial territories. $e1eral o+ these new *anadians are in a new society/ principally .ecause *anada cannot progress economically without the presence o+ steady immigrant streams. 4he *anadian 6ederal 9o1ernment/ through its *itiCenship and #mmigration *ommission/ *.#.* "/ ma0es a1aila.le/ to all immigrants/ on a nationwide .asis/ a communicati1ely .ased programme o+ second language ac5uisition 0nown as ,anguage #nstruction +or %ew *anadians ,.#.%.*. " ,et me deal with ,.#.%.*./ as a way o+ ma0ing my 6rierian case. $e1eral o+ the intended .ene+iciaries/ mem.ers o+ the oppressed masses/ are residents o+ a capitalist society whose go1ernment is an aggressi1e promoter o+ glo.alisation/ one o+ the most power+ul indicies o+ socio-economic ine5uity and cultural imperialism. 4he new immigrants/ once 1ictimised .y .y oppression in their own societies/ must now +ace a di++erent 1ersion o+ domination. 3ne 1ery rele1ant issue +or promoters o+ ,.#.%.*. programmes across *anada is whether there are e++orts in the programmes to grapple with oppression. 4he response to this 5uery is emphatically negati1e. 3n the +ace o+ it/ a national administration which promotes glo.alisation .ut simultaneously integrates opposition to domination in its language programmes would .e adopting a contradictory posture. 4here is/ howe1er/ a stronger reason +or the +oregoing response. #t can .e +ound in the ine2trica.le connection .etween ,.#.%.*. programmes and multiculturalism. 4he latter has .een criticised .y Price !9D: "/ 8anner>i !99D "/ (alcott !99D "/ and %g !993 " +or reproducing white superiority in *anada. (hat is the connection .etween ,.#.%.*.

    and multiculturalism; @y response shall .e +ollowed .y my critical remar0s a.out multiculturalism. - *anadian $tanding *ommittee o+ !9:D claims that the goal o+ multiculturalism is the integration - not assimilation - o+ racial and ethnic groups. 4his is a position o++ered e2plicitly .y the originator o+ this policy/ none other than Pierre 7lliot 4rudeau/ late *anadian Prime @inister. #n 3cto.er/ !9D!/ he stated pu.licly that there cannot .e one cultural policy +or *anadians o+ 6rench and 8ritish heritage and another +or mem.ers o+ other groups. )e added that despite the e2istence o+ two o++icial languages/ 7nglish and 6rench/ <...there is no o++icial culture/ nor does any ethnic group ta0e precedence o1er any other...- policy o+ multiculturalism within a .ilingual +ramewor0 commends itsel+ to the go1ernment as the most suita.le means o+ assuring the cultural +reedom o+ *anadians.= 3+ 1ital importance to me are @r. 4rudeauAs statements a.out the .ilingual +ramewor0/ two o++icial languages/ 7nglish and 6rench. #t is this +ramewor0 which must .e considered in the +oreground o+ what is contained in the *anadian @ulticultural -ct o+ !9::. -ccording to the -ct/ the *anadian *onstitution recognises the signi+icance o+ maintaining and e2panding the multicultural heritage o+ *anadians. 4he *anadian 9o1ernment also recognises the racial/ national/ ethnic/ and religious di1ersity o+ citiCens as a .asic +eature o+ the society. #t is committed to a multuiculturalism policy aimed at the preser1ation and enhancement o+ cultural heritage which is consistent with accomplishing the e5uality o+ all citiCens within economic/ social/ cultural/ and political spheres o+ li+e. # cannot see how e5uality can .e accomplished in a climate o+ o++icial .ilingualism associated with languages whose historic dominance has .een a ma>or +eature o+ cultural and linguistic imperialism. #t is not irrele1ant +or me to note that within the national *anadian media - .oth print and audio-1isual - *anadian culture is typically presented as white anglophone and +ranchophone culture. Eiscourse a.out other cultures is a poor distant relati1e to the 7urocentric +ocus. 4his peripheral presence is not di1orced +rom a continual .attle .etween strident +ranchophone separatists within the pro1ince o+ Jue.ec and their white anglophone counterparts within the rest o+ the country o1er one *anada made o+ ten pro1inces or one *anada made up o+ nine pro1inces whose closest and newest neigh.our is the so1ereign state/ Jue.ec. 4he .attle o1er di++erence reached one o+ its highest points in !99& when a separatist go1ernment in Jue.ec/ which had secured a pro1incial re+erendum on a so1ereign state/ narrowly lost. 4he Jue.ec Premier at the time/ an elo5uent an uncompromising separatist/ Kac5ues PariCeau/ declared/ disparagingly/ a+ter the loss/ that it was the <7thnic 1ote= which caused de+eat. @onsieur PariCeau was pointing to *anadians other than -nglophones who were not +ranchophones. 8y a strange process o+ e2clusion/ these other *anadians/ the ethnics/ had to .e di++erentiated +rom +ranchophones. @any o+ these ethnics who arri1e in *anada as non-nati1e immigrant users o+ 7nglish or 6rench and

    wish to learn an o++icial language under auspices o+ the ,.#.%.*. programme in Jue.ec are o.liged to learn 6rench. #t is to ,.#.%.*. programmes across *anada that # direct my attention/ so that # might .e a.le to continue ma0ing a 6rierian case. ,.#.%.*. was instituted .y a *anadian 6ederal -gency/ 4he *anada 7mployment and #mmigration *ommission/ in !962/ +or the purpose o+ +acilitating the settlement and immigration o+ newcomers to *anada. ,earners are assigned to 1arious le1els o+ language instruction/ on the .asis o+ their per+ormance on assessment procedures/ the *anadian ,anguage 8enchmar0s -ssessment tool/ geared to account +or their communicati1e competence. 4his competence is promoted in learner centered classrooms where students are assisted to participate more +ully in *anadian society/ to integrate success+ully into a new country. 3ne 1ital .asis to the assistance is a set o+ curriculum guidelines made up o+ themes/ topics/ and learning outcomes re+lecti1e o+ multiculturalism and de1ised in accordance with principles o+ communicati1e language teaching. (hat is crucial to ,.#.%.*. programmes is integration. 4his is/ o+ course/ integration within the .ilingual +ramewor0 o+ multiculturalism/ a +ramewor0 that is not de1oid o+ linguistic imperialism. 6urther/ learners/ se1eral o+ whom were oppressed and 1ictimised .y such practices as con5uest and cultural in1asion and are the o.>ects o+ manipulation in glo.alisation/ ha1e no say in de1ising either the guidelines or assessment tools. *onclusion # .elie1e # ha1e made a 1ery strong case +or a 6rierian in+usion to communicati1e language teaching. # shall .ring closure to my wor0 .y o++ering an analysis o+ what 6rierian +oundations to communicati1e language teaching should loo0 li0e. (hat is central to the e2amination is setting up an alternati1e multicultural +ramewor0 to that which e2ists in *anada. #t is within this structure that 7uropean/ 1ernacular/ as well as/ non-7uropean national languages will .e ac5uired as second and +oreign languages. @y re+erence point +or setting the +ramewor0 is the discourse +rom @ara.le !996/ pp. !!9 - !2' " on 1ersions o+ multiculturalism/ three o+ which # shall outline. 4hey are corporate multiculturalism/ li.eral multiculturalism/ and radical democratic multiculturalism. #t is the last which # +ind rele1ant to the goal o+ implementing a di++erent approach to communicati1e language teaching. # am +ully aware that @ara.leAs discourse on multiculturalism is applied to the B.$.-. # am also cognisant that the glo.al setting is not the B.$.-. ,i0e the world setting/ the B.$.- is ethnically and racially di1erse. @ara.leAs discourse is also conceptually appealing. )e states that promoters o+ corporate multiculturalism emphasise cultural and social di1ersity .y endea1ouring to heighten the sensiti1ity o+ .usiness e2ecuti1es to matters such as racial/ gender/ age/ linguistic/ se2ual di++erences. @ara.le notes that the principal moti1ating +orces +or this type o+ multiculturalism are minority mar0ets and la.our +orce demography. #n the B.$.-./ there is great pressure on the corporate milieu to hire persons +rom the di1erse pools o+ the non-white population. #t is also within these di1erse pools that corporate -merica stands to ma0e huge pro+its +rom massi1e consumer spending. #n

    the +oreground o+ glo.alisation/ la.our +orce demography and consumer power are 1ery e1ident. @ara.leAs pro.lem with corporate multiculturalism is that its ad1ancement is de1oid o+ signi+icant discussion a.out e2ploitation/ racism/ se2ism/ or homopho.ia. #ts e1asi1e posture can .e located in cele.rating di1ersity o+ all 0inds without criticising anyone. ,i.eral multiculturalism/ a .roadly democratic outloo0/ is distinctly anti-racist. #t is premised on the 1iew that educational esta.lishments ha1e ma>or o.ligations to deconstruct the ideology o+ human ine5uality. #t is/ howe1er/ inade5uate in dealing with ine5ualities o+ power/ pri1ilege/ and resources. #t attempts to articulate the percei1ed interests o+ minority groups to increase their in+luence within the e2isting mainstream. #n short/ li.eral multiculturalism is <li.eralism= within the +ramewor0 o+ cultural di1ersity and pluralism. @ara.le/ !996: p. !20 ". 4he 5uotation a.o1e is power+ul e1idence o+ the type o+ multiculturalism which +eatures in ,.#.%.*. programmes and/ is/ o+ course/ a cogent reminder that o++icial *anadian .ilingualism/ is one e2isting mainstream. #n contemporary glo.alisation/ it is the destructi1e .readth o+ the e2isting mainstream in the +orms o+ multinational manipulation/ (orld 8an0 de.t impositions/ en1ironmental destruction/ and cultural hegemony which would emasculate li.eral multiculturalism. Bnli0e li.eral multiculturalism/ radical democratic multiculturalism is trans+ormationist cultural criti5ue. Eiscussions o+ culture are always connected to the issue o+ power/ as well as/ methods .y which ideology is employed to control and dominate the oppressed. Proponents o+ radical democratic multiculturalism stress similarities .etween the cultural e2periences o+ oppressed persons around the world/ stri1e to rede+ine and reorganise systems o+ culture and political power. #t is my 1iew that this is the type o+ emphasis e1ident in 6riereAs call +or the oppressed to reclaim their language. (hat should 6rie+rian reclamation loo0 li0e +rom the standpoint o+ a communicati1e approach to target language teaching em.edded in radical democratic multiculturalism; #t should consist o+: an approach to language pedagogy in which discourse that e2poses the +eatures o+ oppression is central to the sustenance o+ conscientiCacao. $uch discourse must .e a +actor o+ culture and a cultural +act in communicati1e pedagogical practice.M 4he practice must .e e1ident in the teaching o+ 7uropean and non-7uropean +oreign languages/ as well as/ 1ernaculars within e2-colonial possessions. (ithin the ad1anced industralised world where +ormer residents o+ colonial possessions meet nati1e .orn citiCens and ac5uire 7uropean +oreign and second languages/ the sustenance o+ conscientiCacao must also pre1ail. *onscientiCacao must not .e a.sent +rom the teaching o+ 1ernaculars in societies once dominated .y imperialism. 4he intersecting o+ 1ernacularisation with conscientiCacao o++ers e2cellent prospects +or li.eration. #t is at the +oregoing >uncture that historical/ cultural/ educational/ sporting/ and scienti+ic achie1ements o+ 1ernacular users can .e re1ealed/ 1ery power+ully. 4he matters o+ scienti+ic accomplishments are o+ particular interest/ here. 4hese de1elopments/ which se1eral o.ser1ers in the rich de1eloped world

    associate with alternati1e medicine/ are integral to the e1eryday li1es o+ 1ernacular users. 4heir massi1e economic signi+icance is so paramount to the +orces o+ domination that prominent .io and agro-chemical multinationals ha1e .een see0ing to e2ploit the curati1e 1alues o+ plant li+e indigenous to -+rica/ -sia/ and $outh -merica. 4he case +or 1ernacularisation can .e made .y loo0ing at a discussion +rom *arrington !99D/ pp. :2 - 92 " on strategies +or the esta.lishment o+ 1ernacularisation o+ literacy. 3ne o+ *arringtonAs main points o+ departure is his acceptance o+ this de+inition o+ a literate person o++ered .y 9udschins0y !96:/ p. !'6 ": <4hat person is literate who/ in a language he spea0s/ can read with understanding anything he would ha1e understood i+ it had .een spo0en to himI and can write so that it can .e read/ anything that he can say.= *arrington proceeds to list three strategies all o+ which are closely correlated with the achie1ements noted a.o1e. 4he +irst strategy consists o+ identi+ying and acting in settings within the li1es o+ 1ernacular users where they recognise that their e1eryday e2istence can .ene+it +rom literacy in their language. 4he second strategy is to locate and act in conte2ts where the common good +or the citiCenry is su++iciently uncontro1ersial that the medium +or transmission o+ in+ormation is not regarded as threatening .y the literate social esta.lishment. 4he +inal strategy is to +ind and e2plore routes along which 1ernaculars ha1e +iltered into linguistic areas which are primary areas o+ o++icial languages. #n his introduction to 6riereAs <7ducation +or *ritical *onsciousness=/ Eenis 9oulet says no contemporary writer more persistently e2plores the multi-+aceted nature o+ critical consciousness than Paulo 6riere/ a multi-cultural educator with the entire world as his classroom. #+ the international compass o+ communicati1e language pedagogy is to ha1e a world +ocus/ its proponents cannot tri1ialise radical democratic multiculturalism. #n so doing/ they must em.race language use +or the a.olition o+ domination and can neither ignore nor e2clude the 8raCilian intellectual. Re+erences -llen/ K.P.8./ *ummins/ K. )arley/ 8. and $wain/ @. <#ntroduction/= in 8. )arley/ K.P.8. -llen/ K. *ummins and @. $wain. eds./ 4he Ee1elopment o+ $econd ,anguage Pro+iciency. *am.ridge: *am.ridge Bni1ersity Press !990a": !-3. -llen/ K.P.8./ *ummins/ K. )arley/ 8. and $wain/ @. <Response .y E8P Pro>ect @em.ers to the Eiscussion Papers o+ ,yle 8achman and Kac5uelyn $chacter/ in 8. )arley/ K.P.8. -llen/ K. *ummins and @.$wain. 7ds./ 4he Ee1elopment o+ $econd ,anguage Pro+iciency. *am.ridge: *am.ridge Bni1ersity Press !990. ": &0-&'. -nsre/ 9. <6our Rationalisations +or @aintaining 7uropean ,anguages in 7ducation in -+rica.= -+rican ,anguages. Lol./ &. %o./ 2. pp. !0-!D. 8achman/ ,. 6undamental *onsiderations in ,anguage 4esting. 32+ord: 32+ord Bni1ersity Press !990 ".

    8anner>i/ ). <9eography ,essons: 3n 8eing an #nsider/3utsider to the *anadian %ation/ in ,.9. Roman and ,.7yre. eds./ Eangerous 4erritories: $truggles +or Ei++erence and 75uality in 7ducation. %ew For0: Routledge !99D ". 8lum-?ul0a. $. and ,e1enston. 7. <Bni1ersals o+ ,e2ical $impli+ication.= in *. 6aerch and 9. ?asper. eds./ $trategies in #nterlanguage *ommunication. ,ondon: ,ongman !9:3 ": pp. !!9-!39. *al1et/ ,. ,a 9uerre des languages et les politi5ues ,inguisti5ues. Paris: Payot !9:D ". *anale/ @. and $wain/ @. <4heoretical 8ases o+ *ommunicati1e -pproaches to $econd ,anguage 4eaching and 4esting.= -pplied ,inguistics. Lol ! !9:0 ": !-'D. *at+ord/ K.*. <K.R. 6irth and 8ritish ,inguistics.= in -. -. )ill. ed./ ,inguistics. (ashington: Loice o+ -merica 6orum ,ectures !969 ": 2'D-2&D. *arrington/ ,. E. <$ocial *onte2ts *onduci1e to the Lernacularisation o+ ,iteracy.= in -. 4a.ouret-?eller/ R. ,e Page. P. 9ardner-*hloros/ and 9. Larro. eds./ Lernacular ,iteracy: - Re-71aluation. 32+ord: 32+ord Bni1ersity/*larendon Press !99D ": pp. :2-92. *homs0y/ %. -. *artesian ,inguistics. ,ondon: 32+ord Bni1ersity Press !966a ". *homs0y/ %. -. <,inguistic 4heory/= in ,anguage 4eaching:8 roader *onte2ts. %orth east *on+erence on the 4eaching o+ 6oreign ,anguages. (isconsin: 9eorge 8anta *ompany !966. ": 6pp. *homs0y/ %.-. ,anguage and @ind. %ew For0: )arcourt 8race/ Ko1ano1ich !9D2a ". *homs0y/ %. -. Pro.lems o+ ?nowledge -nd 6reedom: 4he Russell ,ectures. ,ondon: 6ontana !9D2. ". *homs0y/ %. -. <)uman %ature: Kustice Lersus Power: %oam *homs0y and @ichel 6oucault.= in 6. 7lders. ed./ Re+le2i1e (ater. $ou1enir Press: ,ondon !9D' ": pp. !3'!9D. *homs0y/ %. -. ,anguage and Responsi.ility. %ew For0: Pantheon 8oo0s !9DD ". *homs0y/ %. -. Rules and Representations. %ew For0: *olum.ia Bni1ersity Press !9:0 ". *homs0y/ %. -. <4he #deas o+ %oam *homs0y: Eialogue (ith %oam *homs0y.= in 8. @agee. @en o+ #deas.32+ord: 32+ord Bni1ersity Press: !9:2 ": pp. !D3-!93.

    *homs0y/ %. -. ,anguage and Pro.lems o+ ?nowledge. *am.ridge: @.#.4. Press !9:: ".*riper/ *. and (iddowson/ ).9. <$ociolinguistics and ,anguage teaching.= in K.P.8. -llen and $. Pit-*order. eds./ 4he 7din.urgh *ourse in -pplied ,inguistics. ,ondon: 32+ord Bni1ersity Press !9D: ": pp. !&&-2!D. 7llis/ R. and Ro.erts/ *. <4wo -pproaches +or #n1estigating $econd ,anguage -c5uisition in *onte2t.= in R. 7llis. ed./ $econd ,anguage -c5uisition in *onte2t. ,ondon: Prentice )all !9:D ": pp. 3-29. 6isher/ ).-.,. - )istory o+ 7urope. ,ondon: 7dward -rnold !9'9 ". 6riere/ P. Pedagogy o+ the 3ppressed. %ew For0: *ontinuum !9D0 ". 6riere/ P. Pedagogy #n Process. $ea.ury Press: %ew For0 !9D: ". 6riere/ P. 7ducation +or *ritical *onsciousness. %ew For0: *ontinuum !99: ". 9altung/ K. 4he 4rue (orlds: - 4ransnational Perspecti1e. %ew For0: 4he 6ree Press !9:0 ". 9oulet/ E. <#ntroduction.= in P. 6riere. 7ducation +or *ritical *onsciousness. %ew For0: *ontinuum !9:: ": pp. 1ii-2i1. 9udschins0y/ $. *. <4he Relationship o+ ,anguage and ,inguistics to Reading.= ?i1ung 8oro0o/ Papua %ew 9uinea" !. pp. !'6-!&2. )alliday/ @./ @c#ntosh/ -./ and $tre1ens/ P./ 4he ,inguistic $ciences and ,anguage 4eaching. ,ondon: ,ongmans !96' ". )udson/ R. -. $ociolinguistics. *am.ridge: cam.ridge Bni1ersity Press !9:0 ". )ymes/ E. <$ociolinguistics and the 7thnography o+ $pea0ing. in 7. -rdener. ed./ $ocial -nthropology and ,inguistics. -ssociation o+ $ocial -nthropologists. @onograph !0. 4a1istoc0 !9D!a ": pp. 'D-93. )ymes/ E. <*ompetence and Per+ormance in ,inguistic 4heory.= in R. )u2ley and 7. #ngram. eds./ ,anguage -c5uisition: @odels and @ethods. ,ondon: -cademic Press !9D!. ": pp. 3-2:. )ymes/ E. <3n *ommunicati1e *ompetence.= in K.8. Pride and K. )olmes. eds./ $ociolinguistics. )armondsworth: Penguin 8oo0s !9D2 ": pp. 269 - 2:&. )ymes/ E. 6oundations o+ $ociolinguistics: -n 7thnographic -pproach. ,ondon: 4a1istoc0 !9DD ".

    )ymes/ E. <*ommunicati1e *ompetence.= in B. -mmon/ %. Eittmar/ and ?.K. @atthier. eds./ $ociolinguistics. 8erlin de 9ruyter !9:: ": pp. 2!9-229. ?asper/ ?. and ?ellerman/ 7. <#ntroduction: -pproaches to *ommunication $trategies.= in 9. ?asper and 7. ?ellerman. eds./ *ommunication $trategies. ,ondon: ,ongmans !99D ": pp. !-!3. @ara.le/ @. 8eyond 8lac0 and (hite. ,ondon: Lerso !996 ". @ara.le/ @. 8lac0 ,i.eration in *onser1ati1e -merica. 8oston: $outh 7nd Press !99D ". %g/ R. <Racism/ $e2ism/ and nation 8uilding in *anada. in @. ,. -ndersen and P. )ill*ollins. %ew For0: Routledge. Phillipson/ R. ,inguistic #mperialism. 32+ord: 32+ord Bni1ersity Press !992 " Poulisse/ %. <*ompensatory $trategies and the Principles o+ *larity and 7conomy.= in 9. ?asper and 7. ?ellerman. eds./ *ommunication $trategies. %ew For0 !99D ": pp. '96'. Price/ K. nati1e $tudies: -merican and *anadian #ndians. 4oronto: @c9raw )ill Ryerson !9D: ". Rampton/ 8. <- $ociolinguistic Perspecti1e on ,2 *ommunication $trategies.= in 9. ?asper and 7. ?ellerman. eds./ *ommunication $trategies. %ew For0: ,ongmans !99D ": pp. 2D9-303. $a1ignon/ $. <71aluation o+ *ommunicati1e *ompetence: 4he -*46, Pro1isional Pro+iciency 9uidelines.= 4e @odern ,anguage Kournal. Lol./ &9. !9:& ": pp. !29-!3'. $chacter/ K. <*ommunicati1e *ompetence Re1isited.= in 8. )arley/ K.P.8. -llen/ K. *ummins/ and @. $wain. eds./ 4he Ee1elopment o+ $econd ,anguage Pro+iciency. *am.ridge: *am.ridge Bni1ersity Press !990 ": pp. 39-'0. $earle/ K. R. 4he Philosophy o+ ,anguage. 32+ord: 32+ord Bni1ersity Press !9D! ". $earle/ K. R. <*homs0yAs Re1olution in ,inguistics.= in 9. )arman. ed./ 3n %oam *homs0y: *ritical 7ssays. %ew For0: Eou.leday !9D' ": pp. 2-33. $earle/ K. R. <4he Philosophy o+ ,anguage: Eialogue (ith Kohn $earle.= in 8. @agee. @en o+ #deas. 32+ord: 32+ord Bni1ersity Press !9:2 ": pp. !&3-!D2.

    $tern/ ). ). <-nalysis and 72perience a Laria.les in $econd ,anguage Pedagogy.= in 8. )arley/ K.P.8. -llen/ K. *ummins/ and @. $wain. eds./ 4he Ee1elopment o+ $econd ,anguage Pro+iciency. *am.ridge: *am.ridge Bni1ersity Press !990 ": pp. 93-!09. 4udor/ #. <4eacher Roles in 4he ,earner *entered *lassroom.= in Power/ Pedagogy/ and Practice. 32+ord: 32+ord Bni1ersity Press !996 ": pp. 2D!- 2:2. (agner/ K. and 6irth. -. <*ommunication $trategies at (or0.= in 9. ?asper and 7. ?ellerman. eds./ *ommunication $trategies. ,ondon: ,ongmans !99D ": pp. 30'-322. (alcott/ R. 8lac0 ,i0e (ho; (riting 8lac0 *anada. 4oronto: #nsomniac Press !99D ". (est/ *. 4he *ornel (est Reader. %ew For0: 8asic *i1itas 8oo0s !999 ". (iddowson/ ).9. <Eirections in the 4eaching o+ Eiscourse.= in *.K. 8rum+it and ?. Kohnson. eds./ 4he *ommunicati1e -pproach to ,anguage 4eaching.32+ord: 32+ord Bni1ersity Press !9D9a ": pp. '9-60. (iddowson/ ).9. 72plorations in -pplied ,inguistics. 32+ord: 32+ord Bni1ersity Press !9D9. ". (il0es-9i..s/ E. <$tudying ,anguage Bse as *olla.oration.= in 9. ?asper and 7. ?ellerman. eds./ *ommunication $trategies. ,ondon: ,ongmans !99D ": 23:-2D'. N Radical Pedagogy

    You might also like