This, at least, was the ideal. In practice, as has often since been pointed out, communicativeactivities could lead to limited proficiency and a constraining and conformist model of languageuse. 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 uponcommunicating 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 thelearner’s needs, thus denying attention to the aesthetic, playful, and creative aspects of languageuse, and its rule in creating and maintaining relationships. Above all, the belief thatcommunication would be aided by situationally and culturally appropriate use of the language