Communicative Language teaching originated in teaching English as a foreign language. According to Savignan (99), CLT originated in both sides of Atlantics for example Europe and USA. Being dissatisfied with the prevailing approaches to teaching and learning language researchers and linguists try to find out a new approach that will meet the demands of the language learners. The main purpose of language is to communicate and from this perspective, the CLT emerged in language teaching. The traditional methods focus on the form or structure of the language while the communicative approach gives importance to communication known as the core aim of language learning (Richards,2006). He also further says that human beings learn language only for communication. In CLT the learners use the target language in real-life situations and according to the functions being taught (Richards, 2006). In the opinion of Larsen (2003), CLT class is conducted for communication with the target language according to the situation such as buying an air ticket, going to the supermarket, and collecting information. CLT class does not give emphasis on linguistics issues like forms and structures of the language rather the importance is given to social communication through learning and teaching. According to Hewing (2000), In the communicative language class, the focus is on the meaning. Furthermore, the meaning and the context of the situation are given priority at the time of teaching and learning in the CLT class for proper communication (Baepler,2003). CLT method emerged replacing the traditional methods for instance Grammar- translation and audio-lingual method which are based on behaviorism and structuralism (Brown,200) and here learning a language considered as a habit formation that is quite mechanical (Richards,2006). According to Finocchiaro and Brumfit (983), the CLT method is completely opposite to the traditional methods that focus on forms and grammatical structures. CLT gives emphasis on communication and it is the transfer from traditional methods to CLT. In the grammar-translation method, the words are taught in an isolated way while contextualization is given priority in CLT classrooms (Brown,200). To teach language CLT has influenced the model of theory which has been appreciated by many educators, researchers, and linguists (Barney and Sun,989 and Ellis,996). According to Littlewood (98), CLT focuses not only on functional but also structural aspects of language and combines all of these for communication. In communicative language teaching the focus is given to proficiency in communication not the structures of language (Candlin,98 and Widdowsin,978). Communicative language teaching is not traditional rather it is a progressive and hybrid method to teach language (wright, 2000).In communicative language teaching fluency and accuracy are the most vital parts (Brown, 994). The more innovative approach can play a vital role in teaching grammar besides traditional ways by giving less focus on methods. CLT is the combination of form-focused exercises with meaning-focused experience (Savignon,2002). Communicative methods give importance to the four skills such as listening, speaking, reading, and writing and it does not focus on the single skills (Celce-Murcia, 99). According to Savignon (2002), CLT does not emphasize only oral communication directly. In the communicative classroom, the teachers play the role of facilitators to the learners, manage all the activities in the classroom, advise the learners and they also engage with learners in communicative activities (Littlewood 98; Breen and Candlin 980).
Communicative competence refers to the ability of a speaker to use language appropriately according to the context of the situation. The term first was used by Hymes in 972 and it was suggested by Noam Chomsky in 965. Communicative competence means the capability of the learners to exchange communicative inform
ation successfully. Language learners are able to use language not only in the classroom but also outside the world. He also says that competent language users know very well how and where to use language (Hymes, 972). The idea of Hymes was upgraded by Canale and Swain in 980. The blending of grammatical knowledge and sociolinguistic competence builds up the interaction and relationship (Canale and Swain, 980). According to the theory of Canale and Swain (980), there are three sections of communicative competence such as sociolinguistic, grammatical, and strategic competence. Sociolinguistics means understanding and producing the language based on the context of social situations. The structures, forms, and words are learned in the grammatical competence. Strategic competence indicates the ability to use language for proper communication. In communicative competence, the four beliefs are coined by Macaro (997) for example the importance of listening and speaking ignoring reading and writing, less value in current information than gathering new information for communication, the students engagement in active learning, and the focus on meaningful situation instead of full sentences. Communicative competence has some challenges. Though communicative competence is very familiar in the world, a lot of language teachers have faced challenges in achieving and goal (Sano et al.984). To gain competence there are many arguments against this language program which has been designed to teach foreign languages (Huda,999; Alptekin,2002). Being teacher-centered, the students will not be able to improve their communicative skills as they get less time for practicing (Cuban,993; Ellis,2003; Rico, 2008; Yilmaz, 2009). In second language acquisition, the comprehensible input, output, interaction, and negotiation of meaning play a vital and influential role. Input hypothesis(Krashen,980,983, 985) and the interaction of modification of input hypothesis (Long, 980,983a,985) sway the second language acquisition. Second language acquisition and comprehension are co-related along with different inputs, for example, motherese (e.g., Snow and Ferguson,977), the talk of the foreigners (e.g., Long,980), the talk of the teachers (Chaudron,988), and premodified input (e.g., Parker and Chaudron, 987; Ross, Long and Yano, 99), the research on the negotiated interaction (e.g., Long, 980,983a; Pica et al.,987). According to Krashen (985), the input hypothesis is related to acquisition and human beings can acquire the language properly with the help of this input which is beyond the current level of the learners (i l). The learners can understand the meaning and comprehension though they do not acquire (i l) the structure and form of the language ( Krashen, 983). According to Krashen (985), people can acquire language only one way such as understanding a message or receiving comprehensible input. The two kinds of modifications are evident between native speakers and non-native speakers for instance modified input and modified interaction. Modified input is used by non-native speakers in the case of linguistic forms to make them better understand while the interaction of modification refers to the discourse between native speakers and non-native speakers. The modified interaction is more important than modified input in the field of comprehensible input (Long, 98,983b). The negotiated meaning helps the learners understand the meaning of the discourse by repeating the interaction between native and non-native speakers. So the comprehensible input results from negotiated meaning (Pica,987). On the other hand, in the opinion of Swain (985) and White (987), for second language acquisition comprehensible input is not necessary. Aston (986) and Faerch and Kasper (986) have raised questions about comprehensible input. Aston has also mentioned that the negotiated meaning may not be fruitful in the discourse of native speakers and non-native speakers.