Definition:

A communicative task design in which participants do not share the same view on a question or topic, creating a gap that is closed by exchanging and negotiating opinions rather than facts.

In-Depth Explanation

Prabhu (1987) distinguished three kinds of communicative gap tasks in his Communicational Language Teaching project:

• Information gap: Participants hold different factual information.
• Opinion gap: Participants hold different views, values, or preferences.
• Reasoning gap: Participants must derive new information by applying logic to shared data.

Opinion gap tasks target evaluative language — the vocabulary of agreement, disagreement, opinion expression, hedging, and persuasion — and the pragmatic skills of handling disagreement politely in the target language and register.

Example opinion gap tasks:

• Two learners each have been assigned “pro” and “con” positions on a debatable issue and must discuss it.
• Learners rank a list of inventions from most to least important and must explain and defend their rankings.
• Learners read two opposing reviews of a film and must argue for one.

Opinion gap tasks are valued because:

1. Language demand is high: Expressing nuanced opinions requires modal verbs, conditional structures, hedges (“I’m not sure, but…”), concession phrases (“That’s a good point, however…”), and complex subordination.
2. Interactional dynamism: Unlike information gaps, where both sides need simply to transmit data, opinion gaps require managing face (agreeing to disagree, softening challenges) and adapting in response to the other person’s argument.

History

Prabhu (1987) introduced the three-gap typology in describing the Bangalore Project, one of the first large-scale task-based language teaching experiments. The opinion gap was positioned as the most challenging of the three because it required not just information processing but evaluative and affective language.

Willis (1996) and Nunan (1989) incorporated opinion-based tasks into their TBLT frameworks, noting that they elicit higher syntactic complexity than information gap tasks with similar topics.

Common Misconceptions

“Opinion gap tasks require genuinely held opinions.” Opinions can be assigned — learners can argue for a position they do not personally hold. This is pedagogically useful but may reduce authentic investment in the interaction.

“Opinion gap = debate.” Formal debate is one instantiation, but opinion gap tasks include any structured exchange where views differ. Informal ranking discussions and value clarification activities are equally valid.

Criticisms

• If learners converge quickly to avoid disagreement (a face-saving strategy common across many cultures), the opinion gap collapses and communication becomes shallow.
• The assumed universality of debating as a communicative norm is culturally embedded; learners from cultures that value indirect agreement may find opinion gap tasks uncomfortable in ways that reduce participation.
• Opinion gap tasks may elicit formulaic “expressing opinion” language rather than genuinely negotiated argument.

Social Media Sentiment

Opinion expression in a second language is widely discussed in learner communities as a sign of advanced proficiency. Being able to “disagree politely in Japanese” or “argue a point without sounding rude” are commonly cited goals. The specific task category “opinion gap” is not widely used by learners, but the underlying pragmatic challenge is frequently discussed.

Related Terms

• Information Gap — the factual exchange equivalent
• Reasoning Gap — the inferential task equivalent
• Task Repetition — opinion tasks can be usefully repeated with different positions or audiences
• Pragmatic Competence — opinion expression and negotiation are core pragmatic skills

Research

• Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford University Press.
• Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Longman.
• Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge University Press.