1.4     Mock Exam Source Texts
1.4 模拟考试源文本

Source 1: Thornbury, S. (2017) The New A-Z of ELT: A Dictionary of Terms and Concepts. Macmillan Education: London. Cite this source as: (Thornbury, 2017) or Thornbury (2017)
资料来源 1： Thornbury, S. (2017) ELT 的新 AZ：术语和概念词典。麦克米伦教育：伦敦。引用此来源： （Thornbury，2017）或 Thornbury（2017）

Also known as communicative language teaching (CLT), the communicative approach is an umbrella term used to describe a major shift in language teaching that occurred in Europe in the 1970s. Essentially, the shift was away from teaching language systems in isolation (such as vocabulary and grammar) to teaching people how these are used in real communication. This came when scholars – principally in the field of sociolinguistics – broadened the scope of language study to include not just linguistic competence but also communicative competence. Put simply, there was a concern less for what language is (and the way it is represented in the mind) and more for what language does (and the way it operates in the world). Redefining the goals of language learning in these terms entailed a major rethink of syllabus design, materials, classroom practice and testing. Early attempts to define syllabus goals in communicative terms resulted in the functional-notional syllabus. This either supplemented, or replaced, the traditional grammar syllabus with items such as asking for information, ability and apologizing. The emphasis on real-life language use prompted the widespread use of authentic materials. Interactive communicative activities, such as information-gap tasks, because a standard part of teachers’ repertoires. Test designers, too, responded to the challenge, and traditional grammar tests gave way to tests of overall ability in the four skills, including tests of oral performance. The new emphasis on the communicative purposes of language use also meant recognizing that these purposes might be different for different learners. This encouraged the development both of needs analysis and of special courses designed to meet these needs, i.e. English for specific purposes.
交际法也称为交际语言教学 (CLT)，是一个总称术语，用于描述 20 世纪 70 年代欧洲发生的语言教学重大转变。从本质上讲，这种转变不再是孤立地教授语言系统（例如词汇和语法），而是教人们如何在实际交流中使用这些系统。当学者们——主要是社会语言学领域的学者——扩大了语言研究的范围，不仅包括语言能力，还包括交际能力时，就出现了这种情况。简而言之，人们不太关心语言是什么（以及它在头脑中的表达方式），而更多地关心语言的作用（以及它在世界上的运作方式）。从这些角度重新定义语言学习的目标需要对教学大纲设计、材料、课堂实践和测试进行重大重新思考。早期尝试用交际术语定义教学大纲目标，结果产生了功能概念教学大纲。这要么用询问信息、能力和道歉等项目补充或取代了传统的语法教学大纲。对现实生活语言使用的重视促使真实材料的广泛使用。互动交流活动，例如信息差距任务，是教师技能的标准组成部分。测试设计者也应对了这一挑战，传统的语法测试让位于四种技能的整体能力测试，包括口语表现测试。对语言使用的交际目的的新强调也意味着认识到这些目的对于不同的学习者可能是不同的。这鼓励了需求分析和旨在满足这些需求的特殊课程（即特定目的英语）的发展。

Quite soon, two distinct schools of thought emerged as to how the communicative theory should be realized in practice. There were those that argued that communication should come first, and that ‘you learn a language by using it.’ This strong form of CLT led to the development of task-based learning, with its emphasis on ‘deep-end’ communication. In contrast, proponents of a weak CLT argued that ‘you learn a language and then you use it.’ According to this ‘shallow-end view’, you need first to learn the language systems then put them to communicative use. That is, you start off doing controlled, language-focused activities, and then graduate to more meaning-focused activities, before doing purely communicative ones. It is the weak form of CLT that has prevailed, and this is now standard practice in parts of the (western) world. Resistance to CLT in many (especially non-western) countries is argued on the grounds that it might not be appropriate in cultures where theoretical knowledge is valued more highly than practical skills, and where accuracy, not fluency, is the goal of language education.
很快，关于如何在实践中实现交际理论，出现了两种不同的思想流派。有人认为沟通应该放在第一位，“你可以通过使用语言来学习语言”。这种强大的 CLT 形式导致了基于任务的学习的发展，其强调“深度”沟通。相比之下，弱 CLT 的支持者认为“你学习一门语言，然后你使用它。”根据这种“浅端观点”，你需要首先学习语言系统，然后将它们用于交际用途。也就是说，你开始进行受控的、以语言为中心的活动，然后逐渐进行更多以意义为中心的活动，最后再进行纯粹的交际活动。流行的是 CLT 的弱形式，现在这已成为（西方）世界部分地区的标准做法。许多（尤其是非西方）国家对交际语言法的抵制是因为，在理论知识比实践技能更受重视、语言教育的目标是准确性而不是流利性的文化中，交际法可能不合适。

Source 2: Griffiths, C. (2011) ‘The traditional/communicative dichotomy’, ELT Journal, 65(3), pp. 300-308. Cite this source as: (Griffiths, 2011) or Griffiths (2011)
资料来源 2： Griffiths, C. (2011)“传统/交际二分法”，ELT Journal，65(3)，第 300-308 页。引用此来源： （Griffiths，2011）或 Griffiths（2011）

So what is CLT?
那么什么是CLT？

As Harmer (2003, p.228) puts it ‘the problem with communicative language teaching (CLT) is that the term has always meant a multitude of different things to different people’. Richards and Rodgers (1986, p.71) describe CLT as ‘somewhat eclectic’, and they argue that this theoretical vagueness renders the term ‘communicative approach’ more appropriate than ‘communicative theory’ or ‘communicative method’. According to Hu (2002, p.95, cited in Beaumont and Chang 2011), CLT implies that ‘learners should be provided with ample opportunities to use the target language for communicative purposes and to learn the language through using it’.
正如 Harmer (2003, p.228) 所说，“交际语言教学 (CLT) 的问题在于，这个术语对于不同的人来说总是有多种不同的含义”。 Richards 和 Rodgers (1986, p.71) 将 CLT 描述为“有些折衷”，他们认为这种理论模糊性使得“交际方法”一词比“交际理论”或“交际方法”更合适。根据 Hu（2002 年，第 95 页，Beaumont 和 Chang 2011 年引用），CLT 意味着“应该为学习者提供充足的机会使用目标语言进行交际，并通过使用目标语言来学习语言”。

CONSTRAINTS
限制条件

Beaumont and Chang (2011) list a number of constraints which, they suggest, restrict the adoption of communicative approaches, especially in Confucian Heritage Cultures (CHCs) such as the one in which their study took place. In this list, they include class size, inappropriate materials, grammar-based exams, time restrictions, teacher training, and teacher confidence. The authors discuss at some length the possible effect of Confucian beliefs before suggesting that ‘it might just be that the Confucian heritage is no more a constraint on educational innovation than persistent traditions in other cultures’ (Beaumont and Chang, 2011, p.299). Instead, they conclude from a survey of 136 teachers that the main constraints were the national exams and large classes followed by teachers’ own oral proficiency, textbook quality, and resource availability.
Beaumont 和 Chang（2011）列出了许多限制因素，他们认为这些限制因素限制了交流方法的采用，特别是在儒家遗产文化（CHC）中，例如他们的研究所在的文化。在此列表中，它们包括班级规模、不适当的材料、基于语法的考试、时间限制、教师培训和教师信心。作者详细讨论了儒家信仰的可能影响，然后提出“儒家遗产可能不再是其他文化中持久的传统对教育创新的限制”（Beaumont and Chang，2011，p.299） 。相反，他们从对 136 名教师的调查中得出结论，主要限制因素是国家考试和大班授课，其次是教师自身的口语水平、教材质量和资源可用性。

Source 3: Hiep, P. (2007) ‘Communicative language teaching: unity within diversity’, ELT Journal, 61(3), pp. 193-201. Cite this source as: (Hiep, 2007) or Hiep (2007)
资料来源 3： Hiep, P. (2007)“交际语言教学：多样性中的统一”，ELT Journal，61(3)，第 193-201 页。引用此来源： （Hiep，2007）或 Hiep（2007）

CLT IN PRACTICE
交叉法实践

Nunan (1989, p.194) stresses the use of ‘activities [that] involve oral communication, carrying out meaningful tasks, and using language which is meaningful to the learner, and the use of ‘materials [that] promote communicative language use; they are task-based and authentic’.
Nunan (1989, p.194) 强调使用“涉及口头交流、执行有意义的任务、使用对学习者有意义的语言的活动，以及使用‘促进交际语言使用的材料’；它们是基于任务的、真实的”。

However, when the above practices are used in Vietnam or China, a range of issues emerge, given that the socio-cultural, political, and physical conditions of these countries markedly differ from those in the UK or the USA. For example, in Vietnam, English language students share the same mother tongue and thus do not have the immediate need to use English in the classroom. Nor do many of them have this need outside the classroom.
然而，当上述做法应用于越南或中国时，由于这些国家的社会文化、政治和自然条件与英国或美​​国明显不同，就会出现一系列问题。例如，在越南，英语学生拥有相同的母语，因此不需要在课堂上立即使用英语。他们中的许多人在课堂之外也没有这种需求。

The principle of doing tasks in the classroom which are applicable to the world outside the classroom is thus questioned. When Vietnamese students are asked to use English to conduct a ‘real life’ game in pairs, the question raised is whether they are really engaged in genuine communication. Furthermore, the use of ‘authentic’ material, meaning authentic to native speakers of English, can be problematic in the Vietnamese or Chinese classroom. As Kramsch and Sullivan (1996) point out, what is authentic in London might not be authentic in Hanoi. Also, the large class size in Vietnam (between forty and sixty) also challenges the use of pair work and group work.
因此，在课堂上完成适用于课堂外世界的任务的原则受到质疑。当越南学生被要求两人一组用英语进行“现实生活”游戏时，提出的问题是他们是否真正进行了真诚的交流。此外，在越南语或中文课堂上，使用“真实”材料（即对英语为母语的人来说是真实的）可能会出现问题。正如 Kramsch 和 Sullivan（1996）指出的那样，在伦敦正宗的东西在河内可能并不正宗。此外，越南的班级规模较大（四十到六十人之间）也对结对作业和小组作业的使用提出了挑战。

BELIEFS ABOUT CLT
关于 CLT 的信念

All three teachers in the study highlighted the potential usefulness of CLT, stressing that CLT primarily meant teaching students the language meaningful for their future life, and helping to improve the classroom atmosphere.
研究中的三位老师都强调了CLT的潜在用处，强调CLT主要意味着教给学生对他们未来生活有意义的语言，并有助于改善课堂气氛。

I have no doubt that CLT is the right method, not only for teaching English but the spirit of it can also benefit teaching other subjects. It aims to teach things practically useful to students in a relaxing manner. (Thao)
我毫不怀疑CLT是正确的方法，不仅对于英语教学而且它的精神也可以有益于其他学科的教学。它旨在以轻松的方式教授对学生实用有用的东西。 （涛）

Students can learn best if the learning atmosphere is fun, stimulating and stress-free. They should not feel that learning imposes on them. So I feel that CLT is a good teaching method as it aims to create such an uninhibited atmosphere in the classroom. (Lien)
如果学习氛围有趣、刺激且无压力，学生就能学得最好。他们不应该觉得学习强加于他们。所以我觉得CLT是一个很好的教学方法，它的目的就是在课堂上营造一种不羁的氛围。 （留置权）

IMPLEMENTATION OF CLT
CLT 的实施

However, when talking about the techniques to realize these principles, the teachers were more ambivalent. For example, Thao was conscious that the many CLT techniques that she had learnt in Australia contradicted her teaching context:
然而，当谈到实现这些原则的技巧时，老师们的态度却比较矛盾。例如，Thao 意识到她在澳大利亚学到的许多 CLT 技术与她的教学环境相矛盾：

I know that CLT can be promoted by the activities such as pairwork, group work, role-play or simulation. Yet, I find it difficult to use these activities in my class. A major challenge is the lack of a real environment for the students to use English . . . When asked to sit together to prepare for a role-play, a report, or to write a story, the students usually use Vietnamese to do the work . . . . Since the teacher is Vietnamese, the students are Vietnamese, there is no motivation, no reason for them to use English. It’s not like the context in Australia . . . where we are obliged to speak English because our teacher speaks English, the students from different countries all speak English . . . . It’s quite difficult to motivate students to speak English in our condition.
我知道 CLT 可以通过结对作业、小组作业、角色扮演或模拟等活动来促进。然而，我发现很难在课堂上使用这些活动。一个主要的挑战是缺乏让学生使用英语的真实环境。 。 。当被要求坐在一起准备角色扮演、报告或写故事时，学生通常使用越南语来完成工作。 。 。 。由于老师是越南人，学生也是越南人，他们没有动力、没有理由使用英语。这和澳大利亚的情况不一样。 。 。我们必须说英语，因为我们的老师说英语，来自不同国家的学生都说英语。 。 。 。在我们的条件下激励学生说英语是相当困难的。

Source 4: Hu, G. (2002) ‘Potential Cultural Resistance to Pedagogical Imports: The Case of Communicative Language Teaching in China’, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), pp. 93-105. Cite this source as: (Hu, 2002) or Hu (2002)
资料来源 4： Hu, G. (2002)“对教学法输入的潜在文化阻力：中国交际语言教学案例”，语言、文化和课程，15(2)，第 93-105 页。引用此来源： (Hu, 2002) 或 Hu (2002)

There has been an impressive top-down movement to reform English Language Teaching (ELT) in the PRC since the late 1980s. An important component of this reform has been an effort to import communicative language teaching (CLT) and implant it into the Chinese context. To promote CLT, tremendous efforts and resources have been expended on revamping curricula for various levels of education, updating English syllabuses to include principles and practices advocated by CLT, producing communication-oriented English textbooks, developing skill-oriented examinations, and upgrading teachers’ knowledge of new language-learning theories and pedagogies (Adamson & Morris, 1997; Hu, 2001).
自 20 世纪 80 年代末以来，中国出现了一场令人印象深刻的自上而下的英语语言教学 (ELT) 改革运动。这项改革的一个重要组成部分是努力引入交际语言教学（CLT）并将其植入中国语境。为了推广CLT，我们投入了大量的精力和资源来修改各级教育的课程、更新英语教学大纲以纳入CLT所倡导的原则和实践、编写以交际为导向的英语教材、开发以技能为导向的考试以及提升教师的知识。新的语言学习理论和教学法（Adamson & Morris，1997；Hu，2001）。

In spite of the efforts and resources expended, numerous Chinese teachers and learners of English do not seem to have gone through any fundamental changes in their conception of effective language instruction and in their daily practices. That is, CLT has not received widespread support and the traditional approach is still dominant in many classrooms (Hu, 2001). Although many teachers claim to be followers of CLT, this is often a matter of paying lip-service. In actuality, there has been resistance deep down to CLT since its very introduction. Both Chinese and Western ELT specialists (e.g. Anderson, 1993; Burnaby & Sun, 1989; Li, 1984; Rao, 1996; Wang, 2001) have been debating on the necessity, appropriateness and effectiveness of adopting CLT in the PRC. An outcome of this debate has been the identification of a host of constraints on the adoption of CLT in the Chinese context which includes, among other things, lack of necessary resources, big class size, limited instructional time, teachers’ lack of language proficiency and sociolinguistic competence, examination pressure, and cultural factors. As a result, there has been growing scepticism about introducing drastic changes in the classroom and uncritically adopting pedagogies that have been developed in totally different social, cultural and economic milieux (Chen, 1988; Coleman, 1996).
尽管付出了努力和资源，许多中国英语教师和学习者在有效语言教学的观念和日常实践中似乎并没有发生任何根本性的改变。也就是说，CLT 并没有得到广泛的支持，传统的方法在许多课堂上仍然占主导地位（Hu，2001）。尽管许多教师声称自己是 CLT 的追随者，但这往往只是停留在口头上。事实上，自 CLT 推出以来，就一直存在着内心深处的阻力。中国和西方的英语教学专家（如Anderson，1993；Burnaby & Sun，1989；Li，1984；Rao，1996；Wang，2001）一直在争论在中国采用CLT的必要性、适当性和有效性。这场辩论的结果是确定了在中国背景下采用交际教学法的一系列限制因素，其中包括缺乏必要的资源、班级规模大、教学时间有限、教师缺乏语言能力和社会语言能力、考试压力和文化因素。结果，人们越来越怀疑在课堂上引入巨大的变革，以及不加批判地采用在完全不同的社会、文化和经济环境中发展起来的教学法（Chen，1988；Coleman，1996）。

ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT EDUCATION
关于教育的假设

Chinese conceptions of education have been much influenced by Confucian thinking (Biggs, 1996b; Lee, 1996; Scollon, 1999). There are several features worth exploring. First, there is a deep reverence for education. Confucius attaches great importance to education and saw it as a means of turning an ordinary person into a superior one and a weak nation into a strong one (Guo, 2001; Zhu, 1992).
中国的教育观念深受儒家思想的影响（Biggs，1996b；Lee，1996；Scollon，1999）。有几个功能值得探索。首先，对教育怀有深深的敬畏之心。孔子非常重视教育，认为教育是使人成为君子、使弱国成为强国的手段(郭，2001；朱，1992)。

Largely because of this perceived role of education in cultivating people and strengthening a nation, education as a goal in itself has been internalised throughout Chinese society, even by those who themselves have not received any schooling (Cheng, 2000). Confucius also saw a utilitarian function of education; that is, education can bring along social recognition and material rewards (Lee, 1996; Llasera, 1987; Zhu, 1992). It is a firm belief in the Confucian tradition that through education, even a person of obscure origin can achieve upward social mobility (Lee, 1996).
很大程度上由于人们认识到教育在培养人才和强国方面的作用，教育作为一个目标本身已经内化到整个中国社会，甚至包括那些自己没有接受过任何教育的人（Cheng，2000）。孔子也看到了教育的功利功能。也就是说，教育可以带来社会认可和物质奖励（Lee，1996；Llasera，1987；Zhu，1992）。儒家传统坚信，通过教育，即使是出身名不见经传的人也能获得向上的社会流动（Lee，1996）。

Arguably, these perceived functions and benefits of education have provided generations of Chinese with powerful motivating forces to aspire to success in education. They also predispose Chinese teachers and students to regard education as a serious undertaking that is least likely to be associated with light¬heartedness but requires deep commitment and painstaking effort. Consequently, ‘the Chinese tend to associate games and communicative activities in class with entertainment exclusively and are skeptical of their use as learning tools’ (Rao, 1996, p.467).
可以说，这些教育的功能和好处为一代又一代的中国人提供了追求教育成功的强大动力。它们还使中国教师和学生将教育视为一项严肃的事业，最不可能与轻松愉快的事物联系在一起，而是需要深入的承诺和艰苦的努力。因此，“中国人倾向于将课堂上的游戏和交流活动与娱乐联系起来，并对它们作为学习工具的使用持怀疑态度”（Rao，1996，p.467）。

Additionally, education has been traditionally viewed more as a process of accumulating knowledge than as a practical process of constructing and using knowledge for immediate purposes. Yu (1984, p.35) aptly captures the traditionally understood relationship between the accumulation of knowledge and the use of that knowledge by comparing it to saving money in the bank and spending it later: ‘When you put your money in the bank it is not important to be sure what you are going to do with it; but when you do need the money for some emergency, it is there for you to use’. Such a view is largely against those CLT principles that advocate the practice of teaching to specific needs and play down the acquisition of authoritative knowledge.
此外，传统上，教育更多地被视为积累知识的过程，而不是为了直接目的而构建和使用知识的实际过程。 Yu（1984，p.35）通过将知识的积累与知识的使用之间的比较与在银行存钱然后再花掉进行比较，恰当地捕捉了传统上理解的知识积累与知识使用之间的关系：“当你把钱存入银行时，它是确定你要用它做什么并不重要；但当你确实需要钱应对紧急情况时，它就可以供你使用”。这种观点在很大程度上违背了 CLT 原则，即主张根据特定需求进行教学实践并淡化权威知识的获取。

Thus, learning is equated with reading books. This is attested to by maxims such as ‘it is always useful to open a book’ (kaijuan youyi) and ‘when the time comes for you to use your knowledge, you will hate yourself for having read too little’ (shu dao yongshi fang hen shao). Presumably, this explains the centrality of textbooks found in Chinese classrooms. The Chinese conception of textbooks as the source of knowledge is largely incompatible with the tenet of CLT that students are negotiators, discoverers, and contributors of knowledge and information.
因此，学习就等同于读书。 “开卷有益”、“到了运用知识的时候，你会恨自己读得太少”等格言就证明了这一点。很少）。据推测，这解释了教科书在中国课堂上的中心地位。中国人将教科书视为知识来源的观念在很大程度上与交际教学的宗旨“学生是知识和信息的谈判者、发现者和贡献者”不相容。

Source 5: Hu, G. (2005) 'CLT is best for China'-- an untenable absolutist claim’, ELT Journal, 59(1), pp. 65-68. Cite this source as: (Hu, 2005) or Hu (2005)
资料来源 5： Hu, G. (2005)“CLT 最适合中国”——一个站不住脚的绝对主义主张”，ELT Journal，59(1)，第 65-68 页。将此来源引用为： (Hu, 2005) 或 Hu (2005)

To reject a context approach to language teaching advocated by Bax (2003) in favor of CLT, Liao contends that ‘because the context approach is new, teachers need to be re-trained to develop contextual awareness and context analysis skills' (2004, p.272) and that it may take years to re-train the two million primary and secondary teachers of English in China. In addition, he suggests that such re-training is unnecessary in the case of 'the well-established CLT' (ibid.).
为了拒绝 Bax（2003）提倡的支持 CLT 的语言教学情境方法，Liao 认为“因为情境方法是新的，教师需要接受重新培训以培养情境意识和情境分析技能”（2004，p） .272），并且可能需要数年时间来重新培训中国的 200 万中小学英语教师。此外，他建议，在“完善的 CLT”的情况下，这种再培训是不必要的（同上）。

This argument suffers from at least two serious problems. One problem is that CLT is also new to the great majority of the Chinese teachers (Hu, 2002). The teachers also need to have re-training in order to implement CLT. The other problem concerns Liao's misunderstanding of CLT as a methodology that makes contextual awareness and analysis unnecessary. If what Liao says about CLT was true, the methodology should be rejected if only because it would de-skill teachers by making their requisite professional skills redundant. It has been widely recognized in the teacher education literature that contextual knowledge and the abilities to analyse contexts are integral to the knowledge base for effective teaching (Johnson, 1999; Shulman, 1987).
这个论点至少存在两个严重的问题。一个问题是，CLT 对于大多数汉语教师来说也是陌生的（Hu，2002）。教师还需要接受再培训才能实施CLT。另一个问题涉及廖对交际理论的误解，认为它是一种使语境意识和分析变得不必要的方法论。如果廖关于 CLT 的说法属实，那么这种方法就应该被拒绝，哪怕只是因为它会使教师所需的专业技能变得多余，从而降低教师的技能。教师教育文献中已广泛认识到，情境知识和分析情境的能力是有效教学的知识库中不可或缺的一部分（Johnson，1999；Shulman，1987）。

Source 6: Hunter, D. (2013) ‘Context as solution: a step too far?’, ELT Journal, 67(4), pp. 475-481. Cite this source as: (Hunter, 2013) or Hunter (2013)
资料来源 6： Hunter, D. (2013)“上下文作为解决方案：一步之遥？”，ELT Journal，67(4)，第 475-481 页。将此来源引用为： （Hunter，2013）或 Hunter（2013）

One problem with the Context approach to ELT is that contextual features such as class size or time of day do not contain or map to solutions in a one-to-one way. Attending to the features of a particular classroom is a necessary starting point for teachers, but context cannot be ‘read’ transparently to specify solutions. Take, for example, the issue of class size. Faced with a group of 40 or 50 students, some teachers might decide that certain classroom practices, such as group work, are out of the question. Students cannot be reliably monitored, and the natural tendency to slip into first language, if the conversation gets really interesting, is just too strong. I have heard (and probably made) arguments of this type on dozens of occasions but not every teacher will feel so defeated by such factors. West (1960), an early proponent of pair work in its ELT incarnation, acknowledged that although practice in pairs might be difficult in a large class, it was worth the effort where obstacles of discipline could be overcome. For some teachers, in fact, the large size of their class might make pair work more, rather than less, attractive as an option, since it offers the best possible opportunity for students to ‘have a go’ at speaking. Another point that can be made about the example of pair work is that while contextual factors are not transparent with regard to solutions, they often attach to under-examined assumptions about what is possible. Teachers required to teach a large, undisciplined group in a poorly resourced setting where there are high-stakes tests imminent can already feel that the only options available are teacher-led, form-focused, and exam-driven practices. Where the starting point of these conditions are lent the status of ‘drivers’, teachers are more likely to convert their fears into negative decisions for action.
ELT 的情境方法的一个问题是，班级规模或一天中的时间等情境特征不包含或以一对一的方式映射到解决方案。关注特定课堂的特点是教师的必要起点，但无法透明地“解读”上下文来指定解决方案。以班级规模问题为例。面对 40 或 50 名学生的小组，一些教师可能会认为某些课堂实践（例如小组作业）是不可能的。学生无法受到可靠的监控，而且如果对话变得非常有趣，他们自然会倾向于使用第一语言，这种倾向实在太强烈了。我曾多次听到（并且可能提出过）此类论点，但并不是每个老师都会因此类因素而感到如此失败。 West (1960) 是英语教学中结对练习的早期支持者，他承认虽然在大班中结对练习可能很困难，但在克服纪律障碍时值得付出努力。事实上，对于一些教师来说，班级规模大可能会使结对作业作为一种选择更具吸引力，而不是更有吸引力，因为它为学生提供了“尝试”演讲的最佳机会。关于结对工作的例子可以提出的另一点是，虽然背景因素在解决方案方面并不透明，但它们常常附加到对可能性的未经充分检验的假设。在资源匮乏、高风险考试迫在眉睫的情况下，教师需要在一个庞大的、无纪律的群体中进行教学，他们已经感觉到唯一可用的选择是教师主导、以形式为中心和以考试为导向的实践。 如果这些条件的起点被赋予了“驱动者”的地位，教师更有可能将他们的恐惧转化为采取行动的消极决定。

Source 7: Liao, X. (2004)
资料来源 7：Liao, X. (2004)

‘The need for Communicative Language Teaching in China’, ELT Journal, 58(3), pp. 270-273. Cite this source as: (Liao, 2004) or Liao (2004)
“中国交际语言教学的需求”，ELT Journal，58(3)，第 270-273 页。引用此来源： （Liao，2004）或 Liao（2004）

THE ADOPTION OF CLT IS THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT’S POSITION
采用CLT是中国政府的立场

The Chinese government feels that the use of CLT will be advantageous to China. By introducing CLT, teachers can keep up with developments in English teaching methods outside China. If not, teachers will return to the traditional way of teaching, where the process of language learning is reduced to the mere mastery of grammar and vocabulary. In addition, introducing CLT will assist learners to develop greater competence in the use of English for communication. They will no longer be `communicatively incompetent'.
中国政府认为使用CLT将对中国有利。通过引入CLT，教师可以跟上中国以外英语教学方法的发展。否则，教师就会回到传统的教学方式，将语言学习的过程简化为仅仅掌握语法和词汇。此外，引入CLT将帮助学习者提高使用英语进行交流的能力。他们将不再是“沟通无能”。

In many EFL countries in Asia, ministries of education have based teaching objectives on the general goal of developing communicative abilities. In Japan, the Ministry of Education proposed a curriculum innovation in 1987. The proposal was for a shift away from long established grammar-translation curriculum content and classroom practices, towards teaching for communication and communicative competence.
在亚洲许多英语国家，教育部将教学目标建立在培养交际能力的总体目标之上。在日本，教育部于1987年提出了课程创新。该提案旨在从长期建立的语法翻译课程内容和课堂实践转向交流和交际能力教学。

There is one argument that is against the adoption of C LT in China. This is that teachers in China should be assisted to develop a methodology appropriate to their specific teaching contexts, and should not adopt an imported methodology such as CLT.
有一种观点反对在中国采用 C LT。这就是应该帮助中国教师制定适合其具体教学环境的方法，而不应该采用诸如CLT之类的引进方法。

However, the notion that teachers should be free to develop their own ‘appropriate methodologies' is itself a culturally relative one. That is, it belongs to an educational system where teachers are allowed a fair degree of autonomy of choice. Such a system can be found in many countries in Western Europe and North America. However, China does not have such a system. In China the educational system is centrally controlled, with the government specifying both the content and methodology of teaching. In the case of English, the government has required teachers to adopt CLT. Thus, arguably, in the context of China, what is appropriate is for teachers to teach in accordance with government requirements. The question as to what is or is not ‘appropriate' can only be answered by reference to the specific context of teaching, and in the case of China this is a context that is regulated top-down by government. Thus, for China it can be argued that what is ‘appropriate' is that teachers should adopt CLT.
然而，教师应该自由地发展自己的“适当的方法”这一观念本身就是一种文化相关的观念。也就是说，它属于一种允许教师有相当程度的自主选择权的教育体系。这样的系统在西欧和北美的许多国家都可以找到。但中国没有这样的制度。在中国，教育系统是中央控制的，政府指定教学内容和方法。就英语而言，政府要求教师采用 CLT。因此，可以说，在中国的背景下，教师按照政府的要求来教学才是合适的。什么是“适当”、什么是不“适当”的问题只能根据具体的教学环境来回答，而就中国而言，这是一个由政府自上而下监管的环境。因此，对于中国来说，可以说“合适”的是教师应该采用CLT。

DIFFICULTIES TO OVERCOME
需要克服的困难

It is clear that difficulties caused by the situational constraints (e.g. large class size and grammar-based tests) will inhibit the adoption of CLT. However, if teachers are aware of situational constraints, any difficulties can be overcome.
显然，情境限制（例如大班级规模和基于语法的测试）造成的困难将抑制交际教学法的采用。然而，如果教师意识到情况的限制，任何困难都是可以克服的。

In a case study (Liao, 2003), a secondary school teacher, Ms Huang, used CLT successfully. The questionnaire and the post-class interview showed that she held favourable attitudes towards C LT, had a clear and correct understanding of C LT, and the professional ability to overcome situational constraints (e.g. large class size). In the observed class (with 50 students), Huang used the mandatory function-based textbook, and focused on such functions as asking for time, asking for help, and expressing thanks. Using a classroom coding sheet to analyse Huang's method, Liao determined that this class had communicative features (e.g. teaching functional language, pair/group work, and communicative activities).
在一个案例研究中（Liao，2003），中学教师黄女士成功地使用了 CLT。问卷调查和课后访谈表明，她对C LT持积极态度，对C LT有清晰、正确的认识，具有克服情境限制（如大班授课）的专业能力。在观摩班（50名学生）中，黄老师使用了强制功能型教材，重点讲解了要求时间、寻求帮助、表达感谢等功能。廖用课堂编码表分析黄的方法，确定该课程具有交际特征（例如教授功能性语言、结对/小组作业和交际活动）。

Source 8: Littlewood, W. (2012) ‘Communication-oriented language teaching: Where are we now? Where do we go from here?’, Language Teaching, 47(03), pp. 349-362. Cite this source as: (Littlewood, 2012) or Littlewood (2012)
资料来源 8： Littlewood, W. (2012)“以交流为导向的语言教学：我们现在在哪里？”我们下一步该何去何从？”，《语言教学》，47(03)，第 349-362 页。引用此来源： （Littlewood，2012）或 Littlewood（2012）

CLT IN THE CLASSROOM
课堂上的交际教学法

Changes in policy and rhetoric are of course easy to formulate, but the practical challenges which they entail are often more problematic. Some of the challenges which the change to a communication-oriented approach has presented to devalues in traditional classrooms are summarized by Wang (2007, p.10). She writes about China, but her comments are also mirrored in accounts from other countries. Within a short period, teachers have been expected to develop new practical skills for classroom teaching, change how they evaluate students, develop the ability to adapt textbooks, use modern technology and improve their own language proficiency. To implement these new practical demands, they have had to make major changes in attitude and approach: to change their conception of their own role from that of a transmitter of knowledge to that of a multi-role educator, and to change their conception of language learning from one based on knowledge acquisition to one based on the holistic development of competence.
政策和言辞的改变当然很容易制定，但它们带来的实际挑战往往更成问题。 Wang (2007, p.10) 总结了向以沟通为导向的方法的转变给传统课堂贬值带来的一些挑战。她撰写有关中国的文章，但她的评论也反映在其他国家的报道中。在短时间内，教师需要培养新的课堂教学实践技能，改变他们评估学生的方式，培养适应教科书的能力，使用现代技术并提高自己的语言水平。为了落实这些新的现实要求，他们必须在态度和方式上做出重大转变：将自身角色观念从知识的传播者转变为多功能的教育者，改变语言观念。从基于知识获取的学习转向基于能力全面发展的学习。

The reported problems relate especially to the domain of communicative activities (or ‘tasks’), in which students exchange messages with the teacher or with each other, and include:
报告的问题尤其与交际活动（或“任务”）领域相关，学生在其中与老师或彼此交换信息，包括：

Classroom management is demanding, especially with large classes, and teachers may fear losing control.
课堂管理要求很高，尤其是大班教学，教师可能会担心失去控制。

Unpredictable communication may make excessive demands on the language skills of teachers who themselves have had limited experience of communicating in English.
不可预测的交流可能会对英语交流经验有限的教师的语言技能提出过高的要求。

Pair or group work requires teachers to develop new organizational skills and adopt a less overtly dominant role in the classroom.
结对或小组作业要求教师培养新的组织技能，并在课堂上扮演不那么明显的主导角色。

In such work, without constant monitoring, students may communicate in the mother tongue or use only minimal English, rather than extending their English competence.
在这样的工作中，如果没有持续的监控，学生可能会用母语交流或只使用最少的英语，而不是扩展他们的英语能力。

The holistic learning that occurs in communicative activity contradicts common conceptions of school-based learning as involving item-by-item progression through a syllabus.
交际活动中发生的整体学习与校本学习的常见概念相矛盾，校本学习涉及通过教学大纲逐项进行。

These conceptions also support the traditional view of teachers as transmitters of knowledge rather than as facilitators who try to develop learner independence.
这些概念也支持传统观点，即教师是知识的传播者，而不是试图培养学习者独立性的促进者。

Teachers often face a contradiction between an official public policy which advocates CLT and a pencil-and-paper examination system which tests discrete items.
教师经常面临提倡 CLT 的官方公共政策与测试离散项目的纸笔考试系统之间的矛盾。

As a result, they often face resistance both from students and from parents, for whom examination results are understandably of paramount importance.
因此，他们经常面临来自学生和家长的阻力，对于他们来说，考试成绩至关重要，这是可以理解的。

Source 9: Ur, P. (2013) ‘Language-teaching method revisited’, ELT Journal, 67(4), pp. 468-474. Cite this source as: (Ur, 2013) or Ur (2013)
资料来源 9： Ur, P. (2013)“重新审视语言教学方法”，ELT Journal，67(4)，第 468-474 页。将此来源引用为： (Ur, 2013) 或 Ur (2013)

HIGH-STAKES EXAMINATIONS
高风险的考试

The backwash from high-stakes examinations and other assessment procedures substantially influences the content and teaching method in courses. If, for example, an exam is mainly based on reading comprehension and writing—as most are, since the testing of oral proficiency is relatively expensive and time consuming—then classroom teaching is likely to focus on reading and writing at the expense of oral skills. If the marking of the exam involves substantial subtraction of points for grammatical and spelling mistakes, then obviously the teacher is going to make sure that he or she devotes lesson time to teaching and practising correct grammar and spelling.
高风险考试和其他评估程序的反作用极大地影响了课程的内容和教学方法。例如，如果考试主要基于阅读理解和写作（大多数考试都是如此，因为口语能力测试相对昂贵且耗时），那么课堂教学可能会侧重于阅读和写作，而牺牲口语技能。如果考试评分涉及因语法和拼写错误而大量扣分，那么显然老师将确保他或她将课程时间用于教学和练习正确的语法和拼写。

THE INDIVIDUAL TEACHER
个体教师

The professional beliefs, abilities, and preferences of the individual teacher are a major factor influencing choices of teaching methodologies (Borg, 2003). In spite of the fact that I have put it last, this may often be the most important ‘local factor’ in the selection of procedures and strategies that go to make up a situated methodology. One teacher may be a strong believer in communicative activities, while another sees them as time wasting; one may be very much better than a colleague at designing grammar activities, but the colleague may have superior skills in using drama to activate students. Yet another may believe in and enjoy doing group work and dislike teacher-led interactions, or the reverse. Teaching is likely to be better if the teacher employs strategies and procedures that he or she believes are effective, and is confident that he or she can use successfully to promote student motivation and learning.
教师个体的专业信念、能力和偏好是影响教学方法选择的主要因素（Borg，2003）。尽管我把它放在最后，但在选择构成情境方法论的程序和策略时，这通常可能是最重要的“局部因素”。一位老师可能坚信交流活动，而另一位老师则认为交流活动是浪费时间；一个人在设计语法活动方面可能比同事好得多，但同事在利用戏剧来激发学生方面可能拥有更出色的技能。还有一些人可能相信并喜欢进行小组作业，而不喜欢老师主导的互动，反之亦然。如果教师采用他或她认为有效的策略和程序，并确信他或她可以成功地利用这些策略和程序来促进学生的积极性和学习，那么教学可能会更好。

Source 10: Yu, L. (2001) ‘Communicative Language Teaching in China: Progress and Resistance’, TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), pp. 194-198. Cite this source as: (Yu, 2001) or Yu (2001)
资料来源 10： Yu, L. (2001)“中国的交际语言教学：进步与阻力”，TESOL 季刊，35(1)，第 194-198 页。将此来源引用为： (Yu, 2001) 或 Yu (2001)

PROGRESS
进步

The call for the adoption of CLT was not accidental. It came as a response to discontent with the traditional grammar-translation method. In this teaching method, classroom teachers focused on grammar and structure, which produced unsatisfactory results. Students had little ability to speak and understand English (Ng & Tang, 1997).
呼吁采用 CLT 并非偶然。这是对传统语法翻译方法不满的回应。在这种教学方法中，课堂教师注重语法和结构，但效果并不理想。学生几乎没有能力说和理解英语（Ng & Tang，1997）。

However, it was not until the early 1990s that substantial progress was made in applying CLT to teaching practice in China. In 1992 the State Education Development Commission (SEDC) replaced the 1981 structure-based national unified syllabus with a new one that set communication as the teaching aim. The 1992 syllabus called for training in listening, speaking, reading, and writing to enable students to "gain basic knowledge of English and competence to use English for communication" (SEDC, 1992, p.1).
然而，直到20世纪90年代初，中国的交际教学法在教学实践中的应用才取得实质性进展。 1992年，国家教育发展委员会（SEDC）以传播学为教学目标的新教学大纲取代了1981年基于结构的全国统一教学大纲。 1992年的教学大纲要求进行听、说、读、写训练，使学生“获得英语的基本知识和使用英语进行交流的能力”（SEDC，1992，p.1）。

As Liao (2000) has pointed out, the SEDC, as the representative of the central government, is in a position to make educational policies and determine the goals, curriculum, course books, and even teaching methods throughout the country. Due to the highly centralized Chinese system of education, this top-down intervention proved to be very effective in urging teachers to teach communicatively in classrooms. By the mid-1990s, CLT had become "a general approach in teaching and learning," or "a principled communicative approach" (Gong, no date, p.116).
正如廖（2000）所指出的，SEDC作为中央政府的代表，有权制定教育政策，确定全国的目标、课程、教材乃至教学方法。由于中国的教育体系高度集中，这种自上而下的干预被证明对于促使教师在课堂上进行交流式教学非常有效。到 20 世纪 90 年代中期，CLT 已成为“教学和学习的通用方法”，或“有原则的交际方法”（Gong，无日期，第 116 页）。

RESISTANCE
反抗

At the very outset, however, the application of CLT was constrained by various factors. Consequently, although CLT was introduced in the late 1970s, "87% of teachers in China's middle schools used the traditional method in the late 1980's" (Zuo et al., 1990, p.40). Even now, a number of educators, researchers, and practitioners in the Chinese foreign language teaching community are skeptical as to whether CLT is really superior to the traditional analytical approach. Wang (1999) has reported on a 5-year (1993-1998) longitudinal case study undertaken at East China Teachers' University, which tests the "'communicative method' against the analytical" (p. 37). The experimental classes used the communicative-oriented course book developed by Li Xiaoju while the control classes used textbooks whose approach was considered traditional and analytical. According to Wang, the results of this study show that "both the experimental and the analytical classes have strengths and weaknesses" (1999, p.37). Thus the study concluded that both the communicative method and the analytical method should be practiced in foreign language classrooms.
然而，CLT的应用一开始就受到多种因素的制约。因此，尽管交际教学法是在 20 世纪 70 年代末引入的，但“87%的中国中学教师在 1980 年代末仍使用传统方法”（Zuo et al., 1990, p.40）。即使是现在，中国外语教学界的许多教育工作者、研究人员和实践者仍然对交际教学法是否真的优于传统的分析方法持怀疑态度。 Wang (1999) 报告了华东师范大学进行的一项为期 5 年（1993-1998）的纵向案例研究，该研究测试了“‘交际法’与分析法”（第 37 页）。实验班使用李小菊开发的交际教材，对照班则使用传统的、分析性的教材。根据王的说法，这项研究的结果表明“实验类和分析类都有优点和缺点”（1999，p.37）。由此，本研究得出结论：外语课堂上应同时运用交际法和分析法。

CONSTRAINING FACTORS
制约因素

Current circumstances in China impose many constraints on CLT. Economically speaking, the low incomes of English teachers drive them into taking a second or even a third teaching job. "Consequently, few university or secondary school teachers will spend time analyzing learners' needs or designing their own syllabi, nor will they collect suitable materials to create communicative tasks and activities" (Hui, 1997, p.38). In addition, classrooms with 60 students are too crowded for learner-centered teaching. Culturally, due to the pervasive influence of Confucian ideas, "teachers are viewed as knowledge holders. If teachers do not display their knowledge in lectures, or if they play games with students or ask students to role-play in class, then they are not doing their job!" (Hui, 1997, p.38).
中国目前的情况对CLT有很多限制。从经济上讲，英语教师的低收入迫使他们从事第二甚至第三份教学工作。 “因此，很少有大学或中学教师会花时间分析学习者的需求或设计自己的教学大纲，也不会收集合适的材料来创建交际任务和活动”（Hui，1997，p.38）。此外，拥有 60 名学生的教室对于以学习者为中心的教学来说过于拥挤。在文化上，由于儒家思想的普遍影响，“教师被视为知识的持有者。如果教师不在课堂上展示自己的知识，或者在课堂上与学生做游戏或要求学生进行角色扮演，那么他们就不是知识的持有者。”做他们的工作！” （Hui，1997，第38页）。 

However, the most important constraint comes from the lack of qualified English teachers. A qualified English teacher should, in the first place, be capable in all four skills. But out of 550,000 middle school teachers in China, only 89.4% of junior middle school teachers and 55.0% of senior middle school teachers are professionally qualified (Liu & Gong, 2000). Quite a number of teachers know only some basic English grammar and vocabulary. For them the grammar-translation method is the most acceptable because they can basically teach English in Chinese.
然而，最重要的制约因素来自于缺乏合格的英语教师。一名合格的英语教师首先应该具备这四项技能。但在中国55万名中学教师中，只有89.4%的初中教师和55.0%的高中教师具有专业资格（Liu＆Gong，2000）。相当多的老师只知道一些基本的英语语法和词汇。对于他们来说，语法翻译的方法是最容易接受的，因为他们基本上可以用中文教英语。