# data[].attributes.body
(1982)
The dominant trend in contemporary pragmatics has been information-biased, focusing on how information is transmitted from speaker to hearer, while the social and cultural side of communication has not been given the attention it deserves for effective communication. To redress the balance, this paper will expose the problems caused by the bias in information-based principles of Horn and Levinson, first taking the interpretation of an X expressions as an example. Then the author will turn to the other limitation of information-based principles, the restricted scope of application of their Q-principle and the entailment definition of informativeness. In place of Horn scales, the notion of Contrast Sets (CS), words and expressions that are opposed to each other in a particular context, will be proposed, as a further development on Hirschberg scales/posets (partially ordered sets). The most serious failing in information-biased pragmatics, however, is the lack of specification of contextual factors needed in pragmatic inference. Therefore, the author has specified the ingredients of Context as a necessary step toward the socio-cognitive approach. Context is first divided into the Linguistic (LC) and the Situational (SC), the latter further divided into Objective (Time, Place, and Topic) (SC(O)), and Subjective (Participant(s)) (SC(S)) which is itself divided into Intention, Knowledge, Interest, Emotion, Identity, and etc.
Source: Available in: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/iprg.2017.14.issue-3/ip-2017-0017/ip-2017-0017.xml

# data[].attributes.body
1960
The origins of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) are to be found in the changes in the British language teaching tradition dating from the late 1960s. Until then, Situational Language represented the major British approach to teaching English as a foreign language. In Situational Language Teaching, language was taught by practicing basic structures in meaningful situation-based activities.

British applied linguists emphasized another fundamental dimension of language that was inadequately addressed in current approaches to language teaching at that time - the functional and communicative potential of language. They saw the need to focus in language teaching on communicative proficiency rather than on mere mastery of structures.

Another impetus for different approaches to foreign language teaching came from changing educational realities in Europe. With the increasing interdependence of European countries came the need for greater efforts to teach adults the major languages of the European Common Market and the Council of Europe, a regional organization for cultural and educational cooperation. Education was one of the Council of Europe's major areas of activity. It sponsored international conferences on language teaching, published monographs and books about language teaching. The need to articulate and develop alternative methods of language teaching was considered a high priority.

In 1971 a group of experts began to investigate the possibility of developing language courses on a unit-credit system, a system in which learning tasks are broken down into "portions or units, each of which corresponds to a component of a learner's needs and is systematically related to all the other portions" (van Ek and Alexander 1980: 6). The group used studies of the needs of European language learners, and in particular a preliminary document prepared by a British linguist, D. A. Wilkins (1972), which proposed a functional or communicative definition of language that could serve as a basis for developing communicative syllabuses for language teaching. Wilkins's contribution was an analysis of the communicative meanings that a language learner needs to understand and express. Rather than describe the core of language through traditional concepts of grammar and vocabulary, Wilkins attempted to demonstrate the systems of meanings that lay behind the communicative uses of language.

The work of the Council of Europe; the writings of Wilkins, Widdowson, Candlin, Christopher Brumfit, Keith Johnson, and other British applied linguists on the theoretical basis for a communicative or functional approach to language teaching; the rapid application of these ideas by textbook writers; and the equally rapid acceptance of these new principles by British language teaching specialists, curriculum development centers, and even governments gave prominence nationally and internationally to what came to be referred to as the Communicative Approach, or simply Communicative Language Teaching. (The terms notional-functional approach and functional approach are also sometimes used.) Although the movement began as a largely British innovation, focusing on alternative conceptions of a syllabus, since the mid-1970s the scope of Communicative Language Teaching has expanded. Both American and British proponents now see it as an approach (and not a method) that aims to (a) make communicative competence the goal of language teaching and (b) develop procedures for the teaching of the four language skills that acknowledge the interdependence of language and communication.
Source: Available in: http://www2.vobs.at/ludescher/Alternative%20methods/communicative_language_teaching.htm

# data[].attributes.headline
NATURAL APPROACH (1970)        The term natural approach (or natural method) was first used in the nineteenth century to describe teaching methods, such as the direct method, that attempted to mirror the processes of learning a first language. Translation and grammar explanations were rejected, learners were exposed to sequences of actions, and the spoken form was taught before the written form. The term was resurrected by Tracy Terrell in the 1970s to describe a similar kind of approach. Learners were initially exposed to meaningful language, not forced to speak until they felt ready to, and not corrected or given explicit grammar instruction. The method was characterized by a lot of teacher talk, made intelligible through the use of visual aids and actions. The method was endorsed by Stephen Krashen, whose input hypothesis gave it theoretical validity. It also shared many principles in common with Total Physical Response (TPR). These included the importance of comprehensible input, and of promoting positive affect in the learning process. The natural approach seems to have become absorbed into what are generally known as humanistic teaching practices and whole language learning.As for practical ways of implementing these principles, this will depend on the level of the class. At beginner level, lots of TPR activities are called for, where learners simply respond to instructions by performing physical actions, such as pointing at things, handing each other objects, standing, walking, sitting down, writing and drawing. At higher levels, the focus is still on providing comprehensible input, in the form of listening or reading tasks, where learners order pictures, fill in grids, follow maps, and so on.These can be combined with communicative speaking tasks, such as ‘describe-and-draw’ or ‘spot-the-difference’, where learners work in pairs to exchange information about pictures. The important thing is that there is no grammar ‘agenda’ as such: the learners perform the tasks to the best of their ability. New input – and hence the ‘push’ to improve – comes from watching the teacher or a more proficient speaker perform the same tasks. In this sense, the natural approach is not much different from task-based learning, but with perhaps more emphasis on comprehension than production. A typical natural approach lesson at elementary to intermediate level might go something like this:The teacher shows a set of pictures of, say, food and drink, repeating the word that goes with each with one; the students simply watch and listen.The pictures are displayed around the room, and the students are asked to point at the appropriate picture when the teacher names it.The students listen to a tape of a person (or the teacher) describing what they habitually eat at different meals; the students tick the items they hear on a worksheet.The students are then given a gapped transcript of the previous listening activity, and they fill in the gaps from memory, before listening again to check.The students, in pairs, take turns to read aloud the transcript to one another.The students, still in their pairs, tell each other what they typically eat, using the transcript as a model.They repeat the task with another partner, this time without referring to the model.

# data[].attributes.subject
NATURAL APPROACH (1970)        The term natural approach (or natural method) was first used in the nineteenth century to describe teaching methods, such as the direct method, that attempted to mirror the processes of learning a first language. Translation and grammar explanations were rejected, learners were exposed to sequences of actions, and the spoken form was taught before the written form. The term was resurrected by Tracy Terrell in the 1970s to describe a similar kind of approach. Learners were initially exposed to meaningful language, not forced to speak until they felt ready to, and not corrected or given explicit grammar instruction. The method was characterized by a lot of teacher talk, made intelligible through the use of visual aids and actions. The method was endorsed by Stephen Krashen, whose input hypothesis gave it theoretical validity. It also shared many principles in common with Total Physical Response (TPR). These included the importance of comprehensible input, and of promoting positive affect in the learning process. The natural approach seems to have become absorbed into what are generally known as humanistic teaching practices and whole language learning.As for practical ways of implementing these principles, this will depend on the level of the class. At beginner level, lots of TPR activities are called for, where learners simply respond to instructions by performing physical actions, such as pointing at things, handing each other objects, standing, walking, sitting down, writing and drawing. At higher levels, the focus is still on providing comprehensible input, in the form of listening or reading tasks, where learners order pictures, fill in grids, follow maps, and so on.These can be combined with communicative speaking tasks, such as ‘describe-and-draw’ or ‘spot-the-difference’, where learners work in pairs to exchange information about pictures. The important thing is that there is no grammar ‘agenda’ as such: the learners perform the tasks to the best of their ability. New input – and hence the ‘push’ to improve – comes from watching the teacher or a more proficient speaker perform the same tasks. In this sense, the natural approach is not much different from task-based learning, but with perhaps more emphasis on comprehension than production. A typical natural approach lesson at elementary to intermediate level might go something like this:The teacher shows a set of pictures of, say, food and drink, repeating the word that goes with each with one; the students simply watch and listen.The pictures are displayed around the room, and the students are asked to point at the appropriate picture when the teacher names it.The students listen to a tape of a person (or the teacher) describing what they habitually eat at different meals; the students tick the items they hear on a worksheet.The students are then given a gapped transcript of the previous listening activity, and they fill in the gaps from memory, before listening again to check.The students, in pairs, take turns to read aloud the transcript to one another.The students, still in their pairs, tell each other what they typically eat, using the transcript as a model.They repeat the task with another partner, this time without referring to the model.

# data[].attributes.body
Source: Available in: http://www.onestopenglish.com/methodology/teaching-tips/

# data[].attributes.body
Between the 1950s and the 1980s.
Where is it from?
TPR stands for Total Physical Response and was created by Dr. James J Asher. It is based upon the way that children learn their mother tongue. Parents have 'language-body conversations' with their children, the parent instructs and the child physically responds to this. The parent says, "Look at mummy" or "Give me the ball" and the child does so. These conversations continue for many months before the child actually starts to speak itself. Even though it can't speak during this time, the child is taking in all of the language; the sounds and the patterns. Eventually when it has decoded enough, the child reproduces the language quite spontaneously. TPR attempts to mirror this effect in the language classroom.

How can I use it in class?
In the classroom the teacher plays the role of parent. She starts by saying a word ('jump') or a phrase ('look at the board') and demonstrating an action. The teacher then says the command and the students all do the action. After repeating a few times it is possible to extend this by asking the students to repeat the word as they do the action. When they feel confident with the word or phrase you can then ask the students to direct each other or the whole class.

It is more effective if the students are standing in a circle around the teacher and you can even encourage them to walk around as they do the action.

When should I use it?
TPR can be used to teach and practise many things.

Vocabulary connected with actions (smile, chop, headache, wriggle)

Tenses past/present/future and continuous aspects (Every morning I clean my teeth, I make my bed, I eat breakfast)

Classroom language (Open your books)

Imperatives/Instructions (Stand up, close your eyes)

Storytelling

Source: Available in: https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/total-physical-response-tpr

# data[].attributes.body
1972
The silent way is a methodology of teaching language based on the idea that teachers should be as silent as possible during a class but learners should be encouraged to speak as much as possible. There are three basic principles:- The learner needs to discover or create
- Learning is made easier by the use of physical objects such as Cuisenaire rods
- Learning is made easier by problem-solving using the target languageExample
The teacher shows the learners a small red Cuisenaire rod and a bigger blue one and says ‘The blue one is bigger than the red one'. The learners repeat this. The teacher then substitutes the rods to produce other models, and finally encourages the learners to produce their own comparisons.In the classroom
Areas of target language where Cuisenaire rods can be useful include word boundaries, contracted forms, prepositions, word order and word stress. Learners can use the rods to first represent and then to manipulate language.

Source: Available in: https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/silent-way

# data[].attributes.body
Between the 1930s and the 1960s.

The Oral Approach or Situational Language Teaching is an approach developed by British applied linguists between the 1930s and the 1960s. While it is unknown for many teachers, it had a big influence on language courses till the 1980s. Textbooks such as  Streamline English (Hartley and Viney 1979) was designed following the SLT approach principles.

The Oral Approach or Situational Language Teaching is based on a structural view of language. Speech, structure and a focus on a set of basic vocabulary are seen as the basis of language teaching. This was a view similar to American structuralists, such as Fries.  However, what distinguishes The  Situational Language Teaching approach is its emphasis on the presentation of structures in situations.
Situational Language Teaching syllabus is designed upon a word list and structural activities. Grammar teaching involves situational presentation of new sentence patterns and drills to practice the patterns. the teacher moves from controlled to freer practice of structures and from oral use of sentence patterns to their automatic use in speech, reading, and writing.

Source:

Available in: https://www.myenglishpages.com/blog/situational-language-teaching-oral-approach/

# data[].attributes.body
Between the 1930s and the 1940s.
The direct method of teaching was developed as a response to the Grammar-Translation method. It sought to immerse the learner in the same way as when a first language is learnt. All teaching is done in the target language, grammar is taught inductively, there is a focus on speaking and listening, and only useful ‘everyday' language is taught. The weakness in the Direct Method is its assumption that a second language can be learnt in exactly the same way as a first, when in fact the conditions under which a second language is learnt are very different.

Example
The teacher explains new vocabulary using realia, visual aids or demonstrations.

In the classroom
Aspects of the Direct Method are still evident in many ELT classrooms, such as the emphasis on listening and speaking, the use of the target language for all class instructions, and the use of visuals and realia to illustrate meaning.
Source: Teaching English. Available in:
https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/direct-method