Savignon (n.d.) describes the essence of CLT as “the engagement of learners in communication to allow them to develop their communicative competence.” Savignon also mentions that the features of CLT are “task-based”, “process-oriented”, “interactive”, “inductive” and “discovery-oriented”. Crystal (1992) mentions “total physical response”, which lays down the “actions that learners have to make, as they are given simple commands” as its underlying technique. In my experience, techniques of TPR are integrated even into language classrooms where CLT is the prevailing method.

Richards (2006) explains what the term “communicative” usually means to language teachers. He poses the question whether CLT means “teaching conversation, an absence of grammar in a course, or an emphasis on open-ended discussion activities”. Richards (2006) compares “communicative competence” with “grammatical competence”. He argues, “one can master the rules of sentence formation in a language and still not be very successful at being able to use the language for meaningful communication”.

Richards (2006) mentions the “distinction between three different kinds of practice – mechanical, meaningful, and communicative”, which were proposed by advocates of CLT. According to Richards “mechanical practice refers to a controlled practice activity” and “communicative practice refers to activities where practice in using language within a real communicative context is the focus”. Richards defines “meaningful practice” as “an activity where language control is still provided but where students are required to make meaningful choices when carrying out practice”. Richards underlines the “attention on the part of the teacher in terms of preparing students for a fluency task, or follow-up activities that provide feedback on language use.” An issue Richards mentions about “fluency work” is “whether it develops fluency at the expense of accuracy”.

Crystal (1992) explains the emergence of communicative teaching with methods stressing the “teaching of grammatical forms” and paying “little or no attention to the way language is used in everyday situations”. “Situational syllabuses” have appeared to “recreate … situations”, and “teach the various linguistic activities involved, such as requesting, thanking, complaining, and instructing”. Crystal notes that “there has also been a critical reaction, as linguists and teachers encounter problems”. Crystal assigns “particular importance” to the “need to provide learners with principles that will enable them to make a ‘bridge’ between functional aspects of language and the correct use of formal structures”.

Heng (2014) refers to Richards and Rodgers (2001), who regard CLT “as an approach, rather than a method, that aims to make communicative competence the goal of language teaching and develop procedures for the teaching of the four language skills that acknowledge the interdependence of language and communication”. According to Savignon (n. d.), CLT “places a primary focus on language use, fluency development, learner-centeredness, and the ability to communicate in a variety of settings”. According to Brown (2007a), CLT “goes beyond the teaching of ‘rules, patterns, definitions, and other knowledge about language’ to the teaching of genuine, spontaneous, and meaningful communication”. Heng (2014) refers to Lightbown and Spada (2013), who believe that “successful language learning involves not only knowledge of the structures and forms of a language, but also the functions and purposes that a language serves in different communicative settings”. Heng (2014) refers to Richards (2005), who summarises “aspects of language knowledge” which “can be observed in communicative competence”. The first one is “knowing how to use language for a range of different purposes and functions”. The second one is “knowing how to vary our use of language according to the setting and the participants”. The third one is “knowing how to produce and understand different types of texts”. The fourth one is “knowing how to maintain communication despite having limitations in one’s language knowledge”.

Heng (2014) refers to Richards and Rogers (2001), who note that “CLT can be subject to a variety of interpretations”. They also note that “some may consider CLT as an integration of grammatical and functional teaching while others view it as a teaching procedure that involves learners in problem-solving tasks through pair or group work”. Key features of CLT listed by Finocchiaro and Brumfit (1983, as cited in Richards and Rogers, 2001) include the “focus on meaning, communicative functions, significance of contexts, opportunities to communicate (through struggling), fluency, and effective communication”. They mention further characteristic features, such as “the feasibility of using mother tongue is necessary, the minimal amount of drilling allowed, the use of pair or group work to promote learning, and roles of teachers as facilitators in the teaching and learning process”. Nunan (1991) comes up with “five essential features which characterize the communicative approach”: “an emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language”, “the introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation”, “the provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language, but also on the learning process itself”, “an enhancement of the learner’s own personal experiences as important contributing elements to classroom learning” and “an attempt to link classroom language learning with language activation outside the classroom”. Heng (2014) mentions Savignon (2002), who states that “CLT is not exactly synonymous with the exclusive oral communication and therefore reading and writing activities should not be neglected”. She also states that “CLT is not about the all-pervasive presence of small or pair work because some tasks are context dependent in nature and therefore inappropriateness may arise when conducting such activities”. Finally, she mentions that “CLT is not a one-size-fits-all approach even if it is globally recognized” and that it “does not downplay the significance of knowledge of syntactic rules of language, discourse grammar, and sociocultural awareness”.

Heng (2014) mentions Littlewood (1981), who highlights “four purposes of communicative activities which positively contribute to the process of language learning”. According to him, “the first purpose is to provide learners with what he called ‘whole-task practice’”, the “second is to improve learners’ motivation, which means helping learners understand how they can achieve their objectives […] through participating in different classroom activities”. The other two purposes include “promoting learners’ natural learning through using the target language for communications both inside or outside the classroom” and creating a “context which supports learning”.

Debreczeni (2015) argues for Italian language instruction in the Italian as a foreign language classroom. According to him, the language of instruction has been a recurring topic of literature on the methodology of teaching foreign languages. Referring to Mezzadri (2003), Bárdos (2005) and Holló et al. (1996), he sets out two opposing views about whether to use the mother tongue in the Italian as a foreign language classroom. Debreczeni notes that according to Nyitrai (2002), Italian language instruction develops listening comprehension and it serves as a warm-up for real communication with native speakers. Referring to Nyitrai (2002), Spagnesi (2011) and Balboni (2012), he mentions that even if the teacher includes further models (audiovisual materials) and language learners make contact with native speakers through ICT more easily, the teacher remains the model that should be imitated.

According to Kumaravadivelu (1994), the postmethod condition “signifies a search for an alternative to method rather than an alternative method”. Kumaravadivelu (1994) classifies language-teaching methods into three subcategories: “language-centered […] (e.g., audiolingualism)”, “learner-centered […] (e.g., communicative methods)” and “learning-centered […] (e.g., “the natural approach”)”. Kumaravadivelu (1994) refers to Nunan (1991), Pennycook (1989) and Richards (1989) when arguing that methods “are not derived from classroom experience and experimentation but are artificially transplanted into the classroom and, as such, far removed from classroom reality”. Kumaravadivelu (1994) argues “the postmethod condition signifies teacher autonomy.” According to Kumaravadivelu (1994), promoting teacher autonomy means enabling and empowering teachers to theorise from their practice and practise what they have theorised.