This, at least, was the ideal. In p

This, at least, was the ideal. In practice, as has often since been pointed out, communicative activities could lead to limited proficiency and a constraining and conformist model of language use. Thus, at its worst, emphasis on functions rather than forms could degenerate into learning phrase-book-like lists of things to say in particular situations. Concentration upon communicating meaning from the outset could lead to inaccurate—if temporarily successful— language use which, uncorrected, could then fossilize, preventing the learner from further development for more complex use. The focus upon ends was, in practice, interpreted in autilitarian way, seeing work and the transaction of mundane information as the limit of the learner’s needs, thus denying attention to the aesthetic, playful, and creative aspects of language use, and its rule in creating and maintaining relationships. Above all, the belief that communication would be aided by situationally and culturally appropriate use of the language was often rather thoughtlessly interpreted to mean that the foreign learner of English should conform to the norms and conventions of an English—speaking conmunity. The sum of all of these limitations was the denial to learners of the resources needed to develop a creativecommand of the language which would enable them to express their own individual and socialmeanings. Ironically, the communicative approach could often stifle rather than promote therichest kinds of communication.