Critiques

      Although CLT has been extremely influential in the field of language teaching, it is not universally accepted and has been subject to significant critique.^[17]
In his critique of CLT, Michael Swan addresses both the theoretical and practical problems with CLT. In his critique, he mentions that CLT is not an altogether cohesive subject, but one in which theoretical understandings (by linguists) and practical understandings (by language teachers) differ greatly.
      Critique of the theory of CLT includes that it makes broad claims regarding the usefulness of CLT while citing little data, that it uses a large amount of confusing vocabulary, and that it assumes knowledge that is predominately language non-specific (ex. the ability to make educated guesses) is language specific.^[17] Swan suggests that these theoretical issues can lead to confusion in the application of CLT techniques.^[18]
      Where confusion in the application of CLT techniques is readily apparent is in classroom settings. Swan suggests that CLT techniques often suggest prioritizing the "function" of a language (what one can do with the language knowledge one has) over the "structure" of a language (the grammatical systems of the language).^[18] This priority can leave learners with serious gaps in their knowledge of the formal aspects of their target language. Swan also suggests that, in CLT techniques, whatever languages a student might already know are not valued or employed in instructional techniques.^[18]
      Further critique of CLT techniques in classroom teaching can be attributed to Elaine Ridge. One of her critiques of CLT is that it implies that there is a generally agreed upon consensus regarding the definition of "communicative competence," which CLT claims to facilitate, when in fact there is not. Because there is not such agreement, students may be seen to be in possession of "communicative competence" without being able to make full, or even adequate, use of the language. That an individual is proficient in a language does not necessarily entail that they can make full use of that language, which can limit an individual's potential with that language, especially if that language is an endangered language.   
      This critique is largely to do with the fact that CLT is often highly praised and is popular, when it may not necessarily be the best method of language teaching.^[19]
Ridge also notes that CLT has nonspecific requirements of its teachers, as there is no completely standard definition of what CLT is; this is especially true for the teaching of grammar (the formal rules governing the standardized version of the language in question). Some critics of CLT suggest that the method does not put enough emphasis on the teaching of grammar and instead allows students to produce utterances which are grammatically incorrect as long as the interlocutor can get some meaning from them.^[19]
        Stephen Bax's critique of CLT has to do with the context of its implementation. Bax asserts that many researchers associate the use of CLT techinques with modernity and, therefore, the lack of CLT techniques as a lack of modernism. In this way, these researchers consider teachers or school systems which don't use CLT techniques as outdated and suggest that their students learn the target language "in spite of" the absence of CLT techniques, as though CLT were the only way to learn a language and everyone who fails to implement its techniques is ignorant and will not be successful in teaching the target language.<sup>[3]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_language_teaching)</sup>