What I am suggesting is that the concept of 'communication' and 'communicative' should not be applied to a methodology. Either it will prohibit the use of many tried and tested techniques, or it will have to have a definition so broad as to be meaningless. Despite, for example, Munby (1978), syllabuses cannot be communicative either. They can only supply you with lists of language or behavioural objectives. Abbs and Freebairn (1980a) say that their book is based on 'notional and functional categories of language', and that 'the approach, therefore, is communicative - what students need to express through language is the most important criterion for selecting, grading and organizing the language presented in the course' (iv). However, we must question the 'communicativeness' of the book if it is merely the language content that gives it this label.

In the teaching and learning and methodology of a foreign language, it is only activities within the syllabus and methodology that can be classed as communicative. Whatever the aim of any technique, only an assessment of what students are asked to do when it is being used can lead us to categorize it in terms of its communicative merits. The main purpose of this article is to suggest criteria by which to arrive at such assessments. We can perhaps do this best by coming to some conclusions about the nature of communication in real life.

Communication: what it involves
Communication2 is, of course, extremely complex, but there are certain generalizations that can be made which have particular relevance for the learning and teaching of languages.

When two people are involved in conversation, we can be fairly certain that the one who is speaking wants to do so. 'Want' is used here in a general sense, since speaking may be forced on the participants in some way, but they must still feel a desire to speak, otherwise they would keep quiet. The speaker also has a purpose; this may be to disagree or to charm, to flatter or to be rude; to give information or to express pleasure. In each of these cases he or she is interested in conveying that purpose to the listener. In order to do this, a speaker selects from his or her language store the language that he or she thinks will best help to achieve the purpose. In an effective piece of communication (where both participants want the communication to succeed), it is probable that the listener will want to listen to what the speaker says and will be particularly interested in the speaker's purpose-in other words, in what the speaker is trying to say. Although the listener may have a clear idea of the direction the conversation will take, he or she will nevertheless have to be ready to process a great variety of language in order to understand efficiently what is being said.

These comments do not just apply to two participants in a conversation, however. They also apply to people writing and receiving letters and to lecturers giving talks. They apply to novelists and radio announcers (and their readers and listeners).
We can represent these generalizations in the following way:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
SPEAKER/ - Wants to say/write something |
WRITER - Has a communicative purpose |
| - Selects from language store |
| |
LISTENER/ - Wants to listen to/read 'something' |
READER - Interested in communicative purpose |
| - Processes an assortment of language |
| |
----------------------------------------------------------------->--------