Li Na, Liang Shuwen, Shao Mingli, Zhang Zhaoxia
ELT Materials Evaluation and Development
Cheng Xiaotang
An Analysis of Functional -Notional Syllabuses
1.
Theoretical Assumptions
Language is a means of social interaction. Language system and the forms that make
it up are determined by the uses or functions they serve. Thus, to learn a language is first
to learn how to use it to perform various functions in social interaction (Hu, 2001). The
emphasis is on the functions of language or the communicative purpose, i.e., what the
learners want to do or what they want to accomplish through the language (Finocchiaro &
Brumfit, 1983). Therefore, the starting point for the functional-notional syllabus is the
communicative purpose and conceptual meaning of language i.e. notions and functions,
as opposed to grammatical items and situational elements which remain but are relegated
to a subsidiary role. In such a syllabus, language content is arranged according to the
functions the learner will use (such as requesting, suggesting, promising, describing…)
and the meanings (notions) a learner needs to express (such as time, quantity, location…).
Where functional categories become a principal feature of language syllabus content, the
needs of the learners have to be analyzed by the various types of communication in which
the learner has to confront (White, 1988:). Under a functional-notional syllabus, the
teaching activity in the classroom should be learner-centered, and all course components
are viewed as a systematic whole (Hu, 2001).
1
2.
Main Components
The main components in a functional-notional syllabus are the functions that
language performs and the notions that language expresses. Functions and notions
included in any particular functional-notional syllabus are expected to be selected and
graded according to the following criteria (White, 1988):
(a) Need: immediate and long-term
This criterion is set around the need analysis of the learner. The functions or the
notions which can mostly meet the learner’s needs appear first.
(b) Utility
The criterion of utility refers to the usefulness of the language functions or notions in
the expected situation. The more useful the language items are, the earlier they appear.
(c) Coverage/Generalizability
This criterion refers to the number of things which can be expressed by any given
language function or notion. If there are two more possible functions or notions of similar
frequency, the one which covers the greatest number of uses is preferable.
(d) Interest/Relevance
According to this criterion, the language functions and notions which can arouse or be
more relevant to the learners’ interest should be learned earlier.
(e) Complex of form
This criterion requires that the language functions and notions which have more
complex form emerge later than those with simpler form.
(f) Frequency
2
This is a criterion which stipulates that the language functions or notions used most
frequently will be learned earlier than the others.
3.
Merits
Functional-notional syllabuses are of a number of merits which are mainly the major
characteristics of this type of syllabuses suggested by Finocchiaro and Brumfit (1983).
These merits can briefly be viewed from four perspectives.
From a sociolinguistic perspective, the functional-notional syllabuses emphasize the
communicative purpose of the speech act. As a result,
(a) this kind of syllabuses often tries to set fairly realistic language for learners to
learn;
(b) this approach intends to offer everyday, real-world language use in a variety of
socio-cultural situations, thus, learners will be introduced not only to grammatical
knowledge of the language, but also to the cultural knowledge necessary for them
to fully understand the target language and its culture;
(c) it recognizes that the speaker must have a real purpose for speaking, and
something to talk about.
From a psycholinguistic perspective, the functional-notional syllabuses have placed
the needs of learners at the very core of the teaching program. Consequently,
(d) a functional-notional syllabus is often arranged according to different levels and
needs of the target learners;
(e) it is intrinsically motivating because it provides actual communicative functions
to serve the learners’ needs;
3
(f) it understands that before asking learners to produce language, sufficient input
must be provided initially;
(g) thanks to its unit or modular organization of the curriculum materials, the courses
can be designed in a flexible and modular way which will enable learners to learn
with different rhythm or pace of learning.
From a linguistic perspective,
(h) the functional-notional syllabuses will help learners at each level acquire a
reasonable, basic knowledge of the phonological, grammatical, and the lexical
subsystems of the language, as well as the ability to use these in actual
communication.
From an educational perspective, the functional-notional syllabuses have several
other merits:
(i) the approach has enabled teachers to exploit sound psycholinguistic,
sociolinguistic, linguistic and educational principles;
(j) it can develop naturally from existing teaching methodology;
(k) it enables a spiral curriculum to be used which reintroduces grammatical, topical
and cultural material;
(l) it provides for the widespread promotion of foreign language courses.
4.
Drawbacks
The above merits are drawn from the ideal level of functional-notional syllabuses.
However, the practical application of this kind of syllabuses shows a number of problems,
which has aroused criticisms against functional-notional syllabuses among researchers in
4
this field (e.g. Dubin & Olshtain, 1986; Richards, 2001; Widdowson, 1979; etc.). The
major drawbacks can also be seen from different perspectives.
From the perspective of course design, i.e. the application of a functional-notional
syllabus, the designers always encounter difficulties during the selection of the content.
This is because:
(a) the idea of “functions” and “notions” of language is not as clearly definable as it
is thought to be;
(b) although there are criteria listed above for the selection and grading of the
components of a functional-notional syllabus, it is hard to decide such as which
functions or notions is of more coverage or frequency then others;
(c) a need analysis is an important and necessary step before the design of the
contents as whatever included in any particular functional-notional syllabus are
highly related to the need of the learners; however, it is always difficult to carry
out a profound need analysis in a real life situation.
From the perspective of the nature of language, the basic assumption of functionalnotional syllabuses can sometimes be misleading, for
(d) the idea that language is determined by the uses or functions it performs is an over
simplistic view;
(e) communication does not just refers to language functions and notions; and the
process of communication somehow remains unstated in this kind of syllabuses;
(f) the functional-notional syllabuses, in fact, also assume that language can be
broken down into discrete components (various functions and notions) that can be
5
taught separately; this assumption makes them not much different from
grammatical syllabuses in misleading the real nature of language.
From the perspective of language teaching and learning, functional-notional
syllabuses bring along dissatisfactions and problems unanswered to language teachers
and learners, such as,
(g) grammatical structures elicited by the functions and notions taught appear in an
unsystematically order which may make teachers and learners, especially those
familiar with grammatical approach, uncomfortable;
(h) important grammatical structures may not be touched by the functions and notions
included in the syllabuses, which may lead to low grammatical competence of the
learners;
(i) language functions and notions do not have particular linear sequence, which may
make it ineffective for teaching and learning as the latter is a process inherently
sequential in nature;
(j) functional-notional syllabuses are product-oriented which state clearly the
expected outcomes of language learning, however, it fails to address the process
of how to realize the outcomes.
References
Dubin, F. & Olshtain, E. 1986. Course Design: Developing Programs and Materials for
Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Finocchiaro, M. & Brumfit, C. J. 1983. The Functional-notional Approach: from Theory
to Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6
Hu, Z. 2001. Linguistics: A Course Book. Beijing: Perking University Press.
Richards, J. C. 2002. Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
White, R. V. 1988. The ELT Curriculum: Design, Innovation and Management. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell Inc.
Widdowson, H. G. 1979. Explorations in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
7