Editing Communicative language teaching (section)

== Criticism ==
Although CLT has been extremely influential in the field of language teaching, it is not universally accepted and has been subject to significant critique.<ref name=":5" />

In his critique of CLT, [[Michael Swan (writer)|Michael Swan]] addresses both the theoretical and practical problems with CLT. He mentions that CLT is not an altogether cohesive subject but one in which theoretical understandings (by linguists) and practical understandings (by language teachers) differ greatly. Criticism of the theory of CLT includes that it makes broad claims regarding the usefulness of CLT while citing little data, it uses a large amount of confusing vocabulary, and it assumes knowledge that is predominately not language-specific (such as the ability to make educated guesses) to be language-specific.<ref name=":5">{{cite journal |doi=10.1093/elt/39.1.2 |title=A critical look at the Communicative Approach (1) |year=1985 |last1=Swan |first1=M. |journal=ELT Journal |volume=39 |pages=2–12 }}</ref> Swan suggests that those theoretical issues lead to confusion in the application of CLT techniques.<ref name=":3">{{cite journal |doi=10.1093/elt/39.2.76 |title=A critical look at the Communicative Approach (2) |year=1985 |last1=Swan |first1=M. |journal=ELT Journal |volume=39 |issue=2 |pages=76–87 }}</ref>

Where confusion in the application of CLT techniques is readily apparent is in classroom settings. Swan suggests that CLT techniques often suggest prioritizing the "function" of a language (what one can do with the language knowledge one has) over the "structure" of a language (the grammatical systems of the language).<ref name=":3" /> That priority can leave learners with serious gaps in their knowledge of the formal aspects of their target language. Swan also suggests that in CLT techniques, the languages that a student might already know are not valued or employed in instructional techniques.<ref name=":3" />

Further critique of CLT techniques in classroom teaching can be attributed to Elaine Ridge. One of her criticisms of CLT is that it falsely implies that there is a general consensus regarding the definition of "communicative competence," which CLT claims to facilitate. Because there is no such agreement, students may be seen to be in possession of "communicative competence" without being able to make full or even adequate use of the language. That individuals are proficient in a language does not necessarily entail that they can make full use of that language, which can limit an individual's potential with that language, especially if that language is an endangered language. That criticism largely has to do with the fact that CLT is often highly praised and is popular though it may not necessarily be the best method of language teaching.<ref name=":4">{{cite journal |doi=10.5842/21-0-533 |title=Communicative language teaching: Time for review? |year=2014 |last1=Ridge |first1=Elaine |journal=Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus |volume=21 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

Ridge also notes that CLT has nonspecific requirements of its teachers, as there is no completely standard definition of what CLT is, which is especially true for the teaching of grammar, the formal rules governing the standardized version of the language in question. Some critics of CLT suggest that the method does not put enough emphasis on the teaching of grammar and instead allows students to produce utterances, despite being grammatically incorrect, as long as the interlocutor can get some meaning from them.<ref name=":4" />

Stephen Bax's critique of CLT has to do with the context of its implementation. Bax asserts that many researchers associate the use of CLT techniques with modernity and so the lack of CLT techniques as a lack of modernism. That way, those researchers consider teachers or school systems that fail to use CLT techniques as outdated and suggest that their students learn the target language "in spite of" the absence of CLT techniques, as if CLT were the only way to learn a language, and everyone who fails to implement its techniques is ignorant and cannot teach the target language.<ref name=":7">{{cite journal |doi=10.1093/elt/57.3.278 |title=The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching |year=2003 |last1=Bax |first1=S. |journal=ELT Journal |volume=57 |issue=3 |pages=278–287 }}</ref>