This Paper was presented by T.Elia, the, then, Lecturer (Regional Institute of English, Bangalore) at the International ELT Conference in Bangalore in 1977 where Prof. Widdowson himself was present

English Language Teaching is attracting ever-increasing attention. It is now the “done thing” to criticize ELT methodology. Syllabus and methodological reforms have become a national hobby in many countries. The structural Approach has held sway over ELT in India for more than two decades now – probably too long a period to be tolerated by the theorists? Prof. Widdowson in the preface to his book ‘Teaching Language as Communication’ says, “The Communicative approach is, of course very much in vogue at present. As with all matters of fashion, the problem is that popular approbation tends to conceal the need for critical examination.” I hasten to add that popular approbation tends not only to conceal the need for critical examination of the new approach but also to conceal the need for any critical appraisal of the old one. The pedagogical / methodological chauvinism has been the same over decades. The antipathy now shown to the Structural Approach was shown in the past to Grammar Translation Method and Direct Method. I am not being reactionary in my stance; but in this paper, I shall try to assess the tenability of the Structural Approach.

I don’t propose to go into the historical and linguistic reasons which brought the Structural Approach into play, but to see how exactly it has failed (if at all it has) to do what it was supposed to do and to examine the charges levelled against it. The ‘trivium’ – structural, Oral and Situational, though conceived as three separate strands as a matter of fact got spliced, producing in effect, one approach. The Structural Approach supplied ‘what (the content), the other two supplied the ‘how (the way), to teach English. The Oral approach was introduced for skill development and from a belief in the primacy of the spoken mode over the written mode; and the structural Approach supply the contextual meaning. According to Structural Approach the content of the course is specific, well defined and clear. Although the classroom execution has not been very satisfactory, the implementational drawbacks should not be mistaken for the failure of the strategy in general.

In this approach the content of the language learning is broken down into teachable units, namely teaching items, rather than to present the nebulous mass of language in its total extent. The language items are taught orally through situations before the children are asked to read passages where the language items are illustrated in use. Let’s suppose the reading passage is on Mahatma Gandhi; here the story (the facts about Gandhiji’s life) is not so very important as the language items that are used in it, theoretically speaking. If the story is important it can be included in the mother tongue Reader. The story, therefore, serves as a carrier of the language items – a means to an end. The passage illustrates the usage of the language items through the written mode. So far as language items are emphasized and taught, it doesn’t matter whether the story is about Mahatma Gandhi or John K. Kennedy. But the only concern is that the story should be interesting and eventful for the children to read.

The Oral Approach as I have said earlier, aims at providing the skills at spoken mode. The argument is that, if language is spoken and heard before it was written and read, oral work should precede reading and writing. One may of course argue a case for reading straightaway but in the early stages some oral work is clearly necessary.

Situational Approach plays a vital role in the strategy. A situation makes the attendant ability to conceive meaning possible. The situations the teacher creates in the classroom should ideally be simulations of real life experiences; but not all real life experiences can be had in the classroom. Even if some of them can be had occasionally, the language items cannot wait for such occasions. The only real situation is the classroom; all other are artificially created or better contrived by the teacher for the students. The child is made to get at the meaning of the item through the situation. So first the child uses the situation to interpret the language and later, as he grows up, he uses the language to interpret a situation. In other words, the former is the usage the latter is the use. This point I shall turn to later.

Improvements in the fields of methodology and material are possible. The content to be taught is determined by the syllabuses and course writers determine the text used; but the quality of the teaching depends largely on the teacher. The teacher is such a vital force, that, in terms of quality, what the children get is not what is listed in the syllabus, or what is organised in the Readers, but what is there in the teacher – what he is capable of producing as a working example for the children to follow. Further, as the children move up to higher classes the quality of the successive teachers may vary; many teachers are not capable of using the language correctly themselves. How, then, can they identify and correct the mistakes of the students? This is not mere abuse. The situation arises because in High Schools the teachers generally teach another subject besides English, and quite a lot of them admit their own relatively low professional competence in English. They may be popular and effective as teachers of Mathematics or Sciences, but they never set out, many of them, to be English Teachers. There are specialists and pundits for mother tongue, but for English any teacher with methods of teaching English at the training course will do. This, of course, creates severe difficulty for any reformer. Even if another approach is adopted it is the same teacher who is going to handle it. For this reason we might say the Structural Approach has never been given a fair trial, and cannot b condemned on the evidence of what has happened so far.

The objection most commonly made to the Structural Approach is that it involves the excessive or meaningless use of drilling. But it is generally agreed language has always occurred chiefly in spoken form. Nelson Brooks says, “Speech is the soil in which writing is inevitably rooted. Speech is at once the cultural pattern most strictly adhered to by all the members of the group and the most difficult for the outsider to simulate in a convincing way.” Though speech is the most difficult cultural pattern for a second language learner, he cannot do away with it. A great deal of practise is called for, but only the ill informed or over enthusiastic teacher will make this meaningless or excessive. In spite of the practise, native like proficiency eludes even the most advanced level second language learner. The objection to fanatic practice of drilling surely does not rule out the need for repetition drills. Nelson Brooks has the following to say about pattern practice – “Pattern practice makes no pretence of being communication. It is to communication what playing scales to music; exercise in structural dexterity undertaken solely for the sake of practice, in order that performance may become habitual and automatic – as it must be when the mind concentrates on the message rather than on the phenomena that convey it.” But this leads us on to a currently levelled charge that drilling is limited to the pattern illustrating the ‘usage and the child is not given, an occasion to put the item to ‘use’, with purposeful communication.

Usage and Use – their relevance in the Structural Approach

Before we have a look at the ‘usage’ and ‘use’ distinction, we must consider in what relation they stand to grammar. Nelson Francis in his article ‘Revolution in Grammar’ talks about three different grammars – “The first thing we mean by grammar is the set of formed patterns in which words of a language are arranged in order to convey larger meanings…. In fact all speakers of a language above the age of five or six know how to use its complex forms of organisation with considerable skill – call it Grammar 1.

“The second meaning of grammar – call it Grammar 2 – is the branch of linguistic science which is concerned with the description, analysis and formulisation of formal language patterns. Just as gravity was in full operation before Newton’s apple fell, so grammar in the first sense was in full operation before anyone formulated the first rule that began the history of grammar as a study.”

“The third sense in which people use it is ‘linguistic etiquette’. We say that the expression ‘he ain’t here’ is bad grammar. What we mean is that such an expression is bad manners in certain circles. The trouble with it is like the trouble with Prince Hall in Shakespeare's play – it is bad, not in itself, but in the company it keeps.

“These then are the three meanings of grammar – Grammar 1 a form of behaviour; Grammar 2, a field of study, a science and Grammar 3, a branch of etiquette.”

If one accepts the existence of these three grammars, the first one is an abstract and tacit body of knowledge about the language behaviour, which can be called theoretical grammar; the second could be the foundation for the teaching of grammar based on which the global content is broken down into teachable, handy units known a teaching items; the third one is something based on social and cultural setting of the user. The concept of appropriacy perhaps comes under this grammar.

To the second language learner, Grammar 1 probably is too abstract, the third too irrelevant in his socio-cultural context, to be of any use, the learner is given a course based on the second grammar. The concepts of ‘usage’ and ‘use’ according to me appear to be the off shoots of grammar 2. Or if the notion of ‘competence’ is based on the first grammar; the one of ‘performance’ is based on the second or the third grammar. Prof. Widdowson says that ‘competence’ should result in ‘performance’ which is manifested in two ways – usage and use; ‘usage is the citation of sentences illustrating abstract linguistic rules, where the language user demonstrates his knowledge of these rules. ‘Use; on the other hand is an instance of meaningful communicative behaviour where he demonstrates his knowledge for effective communication. The language user’s performance involves manifestation of the language system as ‘usage’ and its realisation as ‘use’.

All this is true and natural in the case of a language user’s mother tongue. In the context of the mother tongue, what he is required to do almost always is the act of ‘use’ and not ‘usage’ unless he is uttering an odd sentence, just to illustrate a point of grammar, without a relevant context. Right from childhood one is exposed to the use of mother tongue as the child is initiated into the complex matrix of social interaction. But what happens in the child’s mother tongue class? Isn’t he given and asked to produce instances of ‘usage’? Is every sentence uttered by the teacher and the pupils an instance of ‘use’ – with a communicative purpose? Communicative purpose stops the moment the language is looked at as a subject of study. And if this is true with the mother tongue, is it not more so with a second language? In a second language learning situation a child cannot visualise the communicative purpose (or need) of ‘use’ just because the need does not exist for him. The real communication need is served by the mother tongue. Probably the child at this stage does not know that the (second) language he is learning can be used the same ways as he uses his mother tongue. Second language is just another subject like science or mathematics for him.

Let’s look at the following dialogue:

Teacher, “Where’s the duster?”
Pupils, “It’s under the table.”

What is happening here is not the ‘use’ but ‘usage’. The teacher puts the duster under the table as the children watch him do it. It is a methodological necessity. I doubt if the teacher can make this situation ‘use’ oriented by asking the pupils to close their eyes before he puts the duster under the table. Whatever device is adopted the teacher using the Structural Approach must himself say the sentences several times before the children can be asked to imitate him. The child is learning to use the language as a tool – each sentence is a tool, which can be used to perform a variety of communicative acts; a communicative act is just not possible if the tool is not forged first. In the process of forging, a lot of simulation, acting and a lot of ‘willing suspension of disbelief’, progressively come into play; both the teacher and the taught know it share it.

Let’s take two more sentences discussed by Prof. Widdowson:

This is a pen
This is sulphuric acid

If the first sentence is not an instance of appropriate use, the second isn’t either. The inappropriacy here is that the phrase ‘sulphuric acid’ could in the child’s view, refer either to the content or the container, since the presence or absence of indefinite article doesn’t matter to him. Unless ‘This is a ………..’ and ‘This is ………..’ are introduced with countable and mass nouns, the difference between the two sentences doesn’t exist for the child. For example, a flash card with the picture of a bird drawn on it was shown to a class of primary school children and the question ‘What is this?’ was put. The answer given was ‘post card’. Similarly, when the teacher says ‘This is sulphuric acid’, he is not teaching the structure but making use of it. Unless ‘This is a ……..’ and ‘This is ……..’ are taught earlier with pen, pencil; water, ink, ‘This is sulphuric acid’ will not be sufficiently clear to the children.

The point I would like to emphasize here is the need to establish the primacy of acquiring the tool for communication over the performance of the communicative act. There cannot be performance of this act without prior acquisition of the necessary tool in the second language. It is for this reason that the child is given drills which have more to do with manipulation than with purposive communication. This is true at least in the early stages of second language learning.

On Page 3 of his book Prof. Widdowson says, ‘This distinction between ‘usage’ and ‘use’ is related to de Saussure’s distinction between ‘langue’ and ‘parole’ and Chomsky’s similar distinction between ‘competence’ and ‘performance’. I would like to examine these three sets of terms. The terms Chomsky used and the ones de Saussure used are not synonymous; ‘langue’ according to de Saussure ‘is a collection of necessary conventions that have been adopted by a social body’. In other words it is a social or group manifestation whereas ‘parole’ is the individual manifestation, while according to Chomsky both competence and performance are individual manifestations – the former being a property of mind; the later its realization. ‘Usage’ and ‘use’ cannot stand parallel to ‘competence ‘ and performance’ since ‘usage and ‘use’ are two aspects of performance as the author puts its later on the same page. If ‘usage ‘and ‘use ’are aspects of ‘performance ‘and if ‘performance’ is the realization of ‘competence’ how can a second language

Learner hopes to attain the ability to perform except by acquiring a considerable competence? If it is by performance one acquires competence it is desirable that the child meets the ‘usage’ before ‘use’, - because if ‘use’ is a communicative and purposive instance of usage, usage is the repertory of such instances. if on the other hand ‘competence ‘ is a prerequisite for performance it is not enough to talk about just ‘use ‘and ‘usage’ probably one has to go a remove back and study grammar, or some other schematic representation of ‘competence’.

In conclusion, I would accept that research findings in linguistics must be taken into account of in course design, since language study and language teaching are allied. When it involves retaining large number of teachers, effecting changes in the methodology may not be prudent, particularly when we are not certain about the pedagogical efficacy of the new approach. Even if is agreed that the Structural Approach has not been successful, there isn’t at the moment, any able alternative to replace it. The following points can be considered to streamline the approach in general.

1. The Teacher: The attitude of the teacher towards English is important. Asked why thy teach English, the participants in a particular course here answered “Because it is one of the subjects on the curriculum.” And what is more, they were proud of their reasons for what they did. The second point is the improvement of teachers’ professional competence. There has never been any shortage of serious ideas and profound minds in matters of tactical designs of pedagogy; but willing and effective executors of the design in the classroom are not many. Specialist teachers of English are needed; ways of improving their performance, such as micro teaching are worth considering.

2. The Student: The immediate thing that comes to our mind here is motivation. The student doesn’t feel any need to learn English. It appears he is learning English because it is in the curriculum or because his parents want him to. The only need he perceived, if at all we can call it one, is the need to pass the examination. This can be exploited in:

3. Producing Teaching Materials.

   1. One of the objections to Structural Approach has been ‘the item once taught is taught forever.’ The course book therefore should have built in platforms of consolidation. After three or four lessons there should be a section where no new language items are introduced but old ones are studied further and compositions written, with reference to the reading passages. By providing such platforms – which may take four or five periods of class work – in the course book, the student is given a chance to use both the language and the content of the finished lesson. Some formal grammar could be taught at this stage, however.

   2.  Teaching materials are inadequate. The reader or the course book is not enough. Multiple copies of books with interesting reading passages should be made available in the class library. Children should not be forced but coaxed to read them and asked to write briefly about the book they have read first in the mother tongue and then in English. The problem here is one of selecting suitable reading passages.

   3. Each course book from class 8 upwards should have reading passages of both controlled and free writing. The teacher need not follow the same procedure in dealing with these two types of passages. However, when the class meets the platforms of consolidation, the teacher can observe the relative merits of these passages, in terms of students’ performance. The ‘uncontrolled’ passages should be by ‘creative’ writers preferably native writers. In this way the inadequacy of ‘use’ in the ‘controlled’ passages can be offset.

4. Subject Oriented Teaching of English: As Prof. Widdowson recommends, this could be useful on two accounts.

   1. From the viewpoint of the case of the subject matter: By this I mean the student concentrates on English language because the subject matter is familiar, and compare the use of English with that of the mother tongue with reference to the same areas. The student is motivated because the English has something to do with the other subjects.

   2. From the view point of ‘use’: the child obviously starts with the examples of ‘usage’ and not much of ‘use’ for the reason that the situations contrived by the teacher are devoid of reality. The child looks at those situations, without any personal involvement. If English is taught with reference to the other subjects he is exposed to the ‘use’ value of the language because it is no longer outside his personal experience.

But coordinating these non language subjects and English and designing course books building into them the relevant areas from other subjects will not be easy. Neither is it clear that the teacher will be competent to handle these areas from other subjects. If handling English language by itself is difficult, managing these areas in English might make his job harder. Another point worth considering is the repetition of this subject matter. The student is, in a way, forced to listen to the same areas in both the classes. Will these classes reinforce each other or be a drag on him?

It is common experience that the effective accuracy we show in the mother tongue cannot be duplicated in English. The unconscious ease with which we handle the mother tongue is absent in the case of English. We need not, therefore, be very ambitious in our objectives. Any method, for that matter, is a procedure for arriving at a destination – for realizing objectives. I think it is fit to quote Nelson Brooks again, to close my paper.

“Almost any method is justifiable if it is humane, is not too costly in time and effort, and remains faithful to the desired objectives.”