3.

The works of Shalem et al. (2018), Musselwhite and Wesolowski (2018), Koyunkaya and Taşdan
(2019), Canbazoglu Bilici et al. (2016), Magajna and Umek (2019), Yuan and Zhang’s (2016), Wen-Chi et
al. (2017), Cheung Ruby and Chen(2020), Higgs (2020), Pascual (2019), Astuti and Lammers (2017),
Nguyen and Gu (2020), Rojas and Villafuerte (2018), and Seltzer and de los Ríos (2018) have
been useful in the discussions. On CLT Strategies in Lesson’s Phases (4As) Activity Phase, Analysis
Phase, Abstraction Phase and Application PhaseCLT Strategies Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
strategies may be utilized by the teachers of oral communication in the context in the senior high
schools, specifically in any of the teachers’ lesson plan phases and definitely achieve its target
objectives for the lesson. In the present study, the activities given by the teachers in all 4 phases are
counter checked whether they are coherent with the CLT principles and features like what is
presented, looked into or investigated in the works cited, including Alamri (2018), Toro et al.
(2019), Rahman et al. (2018), Guzman-Alcon (2019), Kapurani (2016), Baena (2013), Maestre & Gindidis
(2016), and Manzano’s (2015).

Notes:

Bargo, D., & Go, M. B. . (2021). Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) Strategies in Daily Lesson Plans
of Oral Communication Teachers and their Alignment to Standards in Curriculum Guide. International
Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 4(6), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt.2021.4.6.11

Retrieved from https://al-kindipublisher.com/index.php/ijllt/article/view/1773/1519

4.

Communicative Approach (CA) to Language Teaching CA could be regarded as an offshoot of language

practitioners' discontentment with the audio-lingual and grammar-translation methods of foreign
language instruction. It is the reaction against the view of language simply as a set of structures. It
considers language as communication, a view in which meaning and the uses to which language is put
play a central part (Brumfit & Johnson, 1979). CA advocates firmly believe that the ability to use
language communicatively entails both knowledge of or competence in the language and the ability to
implement or to use this competence (Razmjoo & Riazi, 2006). Throughout the years, an overabundance
of viewpoints has been forwarded to shed more light on what CA really is. Now, it has been proved that
the communicative approach to second language teaching is anchored on various disciplines and inter-
disciplines of psycholinguistics, anthropological linguistics, and sociolinguistics that put premium on the
cognizance of social roles in language (Cunliffe, 2002). To Richards and Rodgers (2001), CA commences
from a theory of language as a communication. They emphasize that: ·In the communicative approach,
language is seen as a system for the expression of meaning; ·The key function of language is to allow
interaction and communication; ·The structure of language mirrors its functional and communicative
uses; and ·The categories of functional and communicative meaning are central in language and not only
its grammatical and structural features.

Notes:
Bernardo, A. S. (2011). The Empirical Dimension of Communicative Language Tests: The Case of Selected
Philippine Universities. Journal on English Language Teaching, 1(1),31-50.Retrievedfrom:

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1071090.pdf

5.

Deaf and Sign LanguageSign language is based on the visual-motion code with a codified system
of characters given by basic positions, hand movements with facial expressions, postures and
movements in addition to all hands to apply various changes,especially finger positions (Horňakova &
Hudakova, 2013). Sign languages are not derived from spoken languages; they have their own
independent vocabularies and their own grammatical structures. Although there exist contrived sign
systems that are based on spoken languages (such as Signed English, Signed Hebrew, etc.), such systems
are not natural languages (Sandler & Lillo-Martin, 2001). According to Hurlbut (2008), deaf children
who have deaf and signing parents (native signers) naturally acquire sign language very much in
the same way as hearing children acquire spoken languages. Deaf children exposed to sign language
from birth do not lag behind in language acquisition at all. There are pieces of evidence that deaf
children acquire sign language faster than hearing children acquire spoken language.On the other hand,
deaf children with hearing parents (non-native signers) begin their language acquisition afterthe age of
six (the critical period or the limited time span wherein children’s brains are only capable of fully
acquiring a language is over) and their sign language show permanent traces of delayed acquisition.
Ninety per cent of deaf children are born to hearing parents, and most parents choose not to learn sign
language but a sign system that consists of signs but follows the grammatical rules of their first language
(Julsrud, 2011).

Notes:

Langga, P. M. M. ., Sabandal, K. N. ., Datu-Ulama, R. T. ., Guimba, W. D. ., Sialana-Nalla, A. N. ., & Alico, J.

C. . (2021). Communication Approaches of Hearing-Impaired Students in an English Language Learning
Classroom: The Case of a Public Elementary School. International Journal of English Language Studies,
3(4), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijels.2021.3.4.8Retrieved
from:https://al-kindipublisher.com/index.php/ijels/article/view/1595/1313