2.vobs.at/ludescher/Grammar/functional.htm) .htm) Functional-Notional Approach ( Source: http://www 2.vobs.at/ludescher/Grammar/functional
History In 1972, the British Br itish linguist linguist D.A. Wilkins published a document that proposed a radical shift away from using the traditional concepts of o f grammar and vocabulary to describe language to an analysis of th e communicativ e meanings that learners would need in order to express themselves and to understand eff ectively. This initial document was followed by his 1976 work Notional Syllabuses, which showed how language could be categorised on the basis of notions such as quantity, location and time, and functions such as making requests, making offers and apologising. Wilkins¶ work was used by the Co uncil of Europe in drawing up a communicative language syllabus, which specified t he communicative functions a learner would need in order to communicate effectively at a given level of competence. At the end of the 1970s, the first course-books to be based o n functional syllabuses began to appear. Typically, they would be organised on o n the basis of individual functions and the exponents needed to express these functions. For example, many course-books cou rse-books would begin with the function of µintroducing oneself¶, perhaps followed by the function of µmaking requests¶, with typical exponents being µCan I «.?¶, "Could you «.?¶, "Is it alright if I «.?¶ and so on. These T hese would often be practised in the form of communicative exercises involving pair work, group work and role ro le plays. It is interesting to compare this approach with a grammatical syllabus. In a typical grammatical syllabus, structures using the word µwould¶ tend to appear in later stages of the syllabus, as they are held to be relatively re latively complex (eg "If I knew the answer, I would tell you"), whereas in a functional syllabus µwould¶ often appears at a very early stage due to its communicative significance in exponents such as µWould you like «.?¶, which is extremely common and of great communicative value even to beginners. The need to apply a grammatical name or category to the structure is not considered important within t he framework of a purely functional syllabus. Finocchiaro, M. & Brumfit, C. The Functional-Notional Approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press . (1983).
This method of language teaching is categorized along with others under the rubric of a communicative approach. The method stresses a means of organizing a language syllabus. The emphasis is on breaking down the global concept of language into units of analysis in terms of communicative situations in which they are used. Explanation of specific terms: Notions are meaning elements that may be e xpressed through nouns, pronouns, verbs, prepositions, conjunctions, adjectives or adverbs. A notion is a concept, or idea: it may be qu ite specific, specific, in which case it is virtually the same as vocabulary (dog, house, for example); or it may be very general ± t ime, size, emotion, movement ± in which case it often overlaps with the concept of ³topics´. ³top ics´. A notion may be ³time ³t ime past´; this may include past tenses, phrases like a month ago, in 1990, last week, and utterances using temporal clauses beginning with when«.., before«., after«. and so on;
A function is some kind of communicative act: it is the u se of language to achieve a purpose, usually involving interaction at least between t wo people. Examples would be suggest ing, promising, apologizing, greeting, inviting. ³Inviting´ may include phrases like ³W ould you like to«.? I suggest«., How about«? Please« Task: Have a look at the items listed in the box below. Can you sort them into separate lists of notions and functions? Notions and functions location offer request obligation promise spatial relations advise the future food threat crime instruction apology the body remind probability expressions of opinion A situation may affect variations of language such as the use of dialects, the formality or informality of the language and the mode of expression. Situation includes the following elements: A. The persons taking part in the speech act B. The place where the conversation occurs C. The time the speech act is taking place D. The topic or activity that is being discussed Exponents are the language utterances or statements that stem from the function, the situation and the topic. Code is the shared language of a community of speakers. Code-switching is a change or switch in code during the speech act, which many theorists believe is purposeful behaviour to convey bonding, language prestige or other elements of interpersonal relations between the speakers. Functional Cat egories of Language Mary Finocchiaro:The Functional-notional Approach: From Theory to Practic e (1983, p. 65-66) has placed the functional categories under five headings as noted below: personal, interpersonal, directive, referential, and imaginative. Personal Clarifying or arranging one¶s ideas; expressing one¶s thoughts or feelings: love, joy, pleasure, happiness, surprise, likes, satisfaction, dislikes, disappo intment, distress, pain, anger, anguish, fear, anxiety, sorrow, frustration, annoyance at missed opportunities, moral, intellectual and social concerns; and the everyday feelings of hunger, thirst, fatigue, sleepiness, cold, or warmth y
y
Interpersonal
Enabling us to establish and maintain desirable social and working relationships: greetings and leave takings introducing people to others
identifying oneself to others expressing joy at another¶s success expressing concern for other people¶s welfare extending and accepting invitations refusing invitations politely or making alternative arrangements making appointments for meetings breaking appointments politely and arranging another mutually convenient time apologizing excusing oneself and accepting excuses for not meeting commitments indicating agreement or disagreement interrupting another speaker politely changing an embarrassing subject receiving visitors and paying visits to others offering food or drinks and accepting or declining politely sharing wishes, hopes, desires, problems making promises and committing oneself to so me action complimenting someone making excuses expressing and acknowledging gratitude ·
Directive Attempting to influence the actions of others; accepting or refusing direction: making suggestions in which the speaker is included making requests; making suggestions refusing to accept a suggestion or a request but offering an alternative persuading someone to change his point of view requesting and granting permission asking for help and responding to a plea for help forbidding someone to do something; issuing a command giving and responding to instructions warning someone discouraging someone from pursuing a co urse of action establishing guidelines and deadlines for the co mpletion of actions asking for directions or instructions
·
Ref erential
talking or reporting about things, actions, events, or people in the environment in the past or in the future; talking about language (what is termed the metalinguistic function: = talking or reporting about things, actions, events, or people in the environment in the past o r in the future identifying items or people in the classroom, the school the home, the community asking for a description of someone or something defining something or a language item or asking for a definition paraphrasing, summarizing, or translating (L1 to L2 or vice versa) explaining or asking for explanations of how something works comparing or contrasting things discussing possibilities, probabilities, or capabilities of doing something
requesting or reporting facts about events or actions evaluating the results of an action or event ·
Imaginativ e
Discussions involving elements of creativity and artistic expression discussing a poem, a story, a p iece of music, a play, a painting, a film, a TV program, etc. expanding ideas suggested by ot her or by a piece of literature or reading material creating rhymes, poetry, stories or plays recombining familiar dialogs or passages creatively suggesting original beginnings or endings to dialogs or stories solving problems or mysteries
Task :
In the table shown below each column represents a different basis for selection of language: situation, function, vocabulary, etc. In each row one of them is filled in; can you fill in some suggestions for the others?
Situations
Coordinating different language categories Notions and Grammar Topics Functions
Vocabulary
Getting to know someone Road accidents Making requests Future tense farmer, secretary, etc
FUNCTIONAL GR AMMAR
People who study and use a language are mainly interested in how they can do things with language --- how they can make meanings, get attention to their problems and interests, influence their friends and colleagues and create a rich social life for themselves. They are o nly interested in the grammatical structure of the language as a means to getting things done. A grammar which puts together the patterns of the language and the things you can do with them is called a functional grammar.´ [COBUILD, 1990] Objectiv e
The main objective of a functional grammar is to explain language in terms of what people do with it, how they use the language to live. It tries to do that by adopting more of a semantic and pragmatic orientation inside the grammar. It does not see semantics and pragmatics as extra levels of organization but sees them as integral to the organization of the gr ammar.
·
·
Criticism Order Criticisms of functional approaches include the d ifficulty in deciding the order in which different functions should be presented. Is it more important to be able to complain or to apologise, for example? Another problem lies in the wide range of grammatical structures needed to manipulate basic functions at different levels of formality (for example, µCan I «..?¶ as opposed to µWould you mind if I «..?"). In addition, although it is possible to identify hundreds o f functions and micro-functions, there are probably no more than ten fundamental communicative functions that are expressed by a range of widely used exponents. no structures syllabus There is also the apparently rando m nature of the language used, which may frustrate learners used to the more analytical and "building-block" approach that a grammatical syllabus can offer. Another apparent weakness is the question of what to do at higher levels. Is it simply a case of learning more complex exponents for basic functions or is one required to seek out ever more obscure functions (complaining sarcastically, for example)? Advantages
On the positive side, however, there is little doubt that functional approaches have contributed a great deal to the overall store of language teaching methodology. Most new course-books contain some kind of functional syllabus alongside a focus on grammar and vocabulary, thus providing learners with communicatively useful expressions in tandem with a structured s yllabus with a clear sense of progression. In addition, the focus on communication inherent in the practice of functional exponents has contributed greatly to communicative language teaching in general. Finally, the idea that even beginners can be presented with exponents of high communicative value from the very start represents a radical shift from the k ind of approach that began with the present simple of the verb µto be¶ in all its forms and focused almost entirely on structure with little regard for actual communication in the t arget language. Solutions to th e tasks: Functions are: offer, request, promise, advise, threat, instruction, apology, remind, expression of opinion. The rest are notions.
Topics
Situations Getting to know someone
Tastes, hobbies
Reporting an accident
Road accidents
Shopping
Planning a holiday
Coordinating different language categories Notions and Functions Grammar Inquiring, informing, Interrogative forms greeting Verb (e.g. enjoy + - ing
Vocabulary Swimming, sports, etc.
Past tense
Road, car, drive, etc.
Clothes
Time past Narrating Describing Making requests
Modals Would, could, might
Travel,
Future time
Future tense
Clothes, Adjectives of colour, size, etc. Train, plane, etc.
accommodation Asking about or describing a profession
Professions Activities Equipment
Predicting suggesting Requesting information Describing activity
Hotel, camping Yes/no questions Present tense
farmer, secretary, etc
A notional/functional syllabus (from http://www3.t elus.net/linguisticsissu es/syllabi [from the summary of david nuna¶s book ³Syllabus D esign´]
The chief emphasis of this syllabus is upon the communicative purpose and conceptual meaning of language i.e. notions and functions. In other words, the content of the language teaching is a number of the functions that are performed on using the language, or of the notions that language is utilized to express. Functions can be exemplified by instances such as inviting, requesting, agreeing, apologizing; and notions embrace age, color, size, comparison, time, etc. Besides, grammatical items and situational elements are considered at subsidiary level of importance. As ppposed to the hypothesis of structural and situational syllabuses which lies in the fact that it is most often in search of µhow¶ or µwhen¶ and µwhere¶ of language (Brumfit and Johnson, 1979:84), the functional/notional syllabus seeks for µwhat is a learner communicates through language¶. An important point regarding notional-functional syllabus is that the needs of the students have to be explored and analyzed by different types of interaction and communication a learner may be involved in. Accordingly, needs analysis is central to the design of notional-functional syllabuses. Needs analysis should be taken into account so as to establish the necessary objectives. Apart from needs analysis that has an implicit focus on the learner, this type of syllabus proposes a new list consisting of notions and functions that become the main focus in a syllabus. White (1988:77) argues that "language functions do not usually occur in isolation" and there are also difficulties of selecting and grad ing function and form.
T he
notional / functional approach
TEACHING INDEX | NEXT
The
Notional Functional Approach - based on speech act theory which categorizes the social purpose of utterances within given settings The term "notional syllabus" embraces any strategy of language teaching that derives the content of learning from an initial analysis of the learner's need to express three different kinds of meaning: The three different types of meaning t he learner needs to express are: 1.
Functional (i.e. the social purpose of the utterance) 2. Modal (the degree of likelihood) 3. Conceptual - the meaning relations expressed by forms within the sentence (categories of communicative function)
Sample question: Is
it at all possible to grade a language course purely on notional / functional criteria. How far do any two of the language courses you know which are based on structural grading meet notional / functional demands? Below are the stuctures that you graded before. What functions can you ascribe to them and in what order would you teach them in a functionally oriented course. 1. To be + noun - Introductions; asking personal information 2. Possessives - possession; your name/his name 3. Prepositions of place - stating position/destination 4. Present Continuous Describing actions; stating destinations / future reference 5. Pronoun objects - ordering/offering/naming 6. Can - possibility/request/ability knowledge. 7. Present Simple + ing - Getting/giving information; jobs; habits; likes/dislikes 8. Do you Qs Asking for information: job/hobbies/likes 9. Present Simple (neg) - dislikes 10. Q-word + do you - habits/routines/timetables 11. Adj/adv describe manner 12. Comparison of adverbs - comparison 13. Have/have got possession/description 14. Present Perf - interest in past events / state experiences.
D. A. Wilkins' "Notional Syllabuses" Ways of structuring courses reflect different underlying approaches to language learning. In "Notional Syllabuses" [Oxford 1976], Wilkins questioned the synthet ic approach, which had been a feature of many language syllabuses in the 1960s and early 1970s.
Synthetic language teaching - some shortcomings 1.
The typical aim is to teach a new linguistic structure. Methods include explanation of rules, paradigms, contextualization in dialogues, series of analogous sentences designed to promote inductive learning. The content of synthetic syllabuses is a limitation and ordering of linguistic forms. 2. Failure to prioritize vocabulary relevant to learners' communicative needs, started the questioning of the synthetic approach. The kind of criteria used i n vocabulary selection needed were questionable. Lexical & grammatical criteria for selecting and grading language can complement one another or they can conflict - A highly desirable lexical item may cause grammatical difficulties (How do you do?) 3. Is language learning complete when the content of a grammatical syllabus has been mastered i.e. after you've covered the subjunctives? Clear ly not. Forms are taught because they are there rather than because they are of value to the learner - Failure to relate form to meaning. There isn't a one-to-one relationship between form and meaning.
Some questions concerning diff erent designs of language syllabus: Why does language developed through a "grammatical syllabus" fail to measure up to communicative needs? Why are grammatical syllabuses and so-called sitiational syllabuses often unmotivating? e.g. Unit 1 The Definite Article. Why should this be all the more true in the English-speaking environment? Behavioural not behaviourist: proficiency assessed in degrees o f capacity to perform terminal behaviour e.g. Can read an xyz text at this speed with Y% comprehension.
What was wrong with the "situational syllabuses", which also existed during the 1960s? In what way is a Notional / Functional syllabus superior to these? The intentions and purposes of the speaker/listener could play havoc with a "situational syllabus " i.e. a syllabus where language is always presented within a situational context.
"Functions" such as requesting, complaining, apologizing apply across a whole range of situations, as does modality i.e. degrees of probability. <=""
h2="">
Could we merely extend the NOTION of situation to include complaints, requests, modality uses of language which are the product of internal processes? Internal processes include the context of the utterance, the state of mind of the speaker, his life's experience - the realm of the unpredictable. The concept of situation is inoperable if we extend the notion to include internal processes. Language users are real people - not just robots in situations.
Questions concerning "notional" syllabuses 1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
7.
8. 9.
10. 11.
What
is the advantage of a "notional" syllabus? A notional syllabus takes desired communicative capacity (i.e. what it is the learner wants to communicate) as its starting point. Language teaching is then organised in terms of content rather than form. It is claimed that a "notional syllabus" will produce communicative competence in the learners and motivation will be sustained. Can both semantic and structural realizations be indicated in the index of learning units? Will semantic needs correspond with what is grammatically easy? Is there one simple form to meet each one simple need? What is the linguistic character of language teaching material derived from a notional syllabus? Why are global courses (e.g. general English) NOT the most effective field of application of the notional approach? 1. Needs are difficult to define. 2. The opportunity to actually use language is often deferred. Why is special course design a more effective field of application for the notional approach? On a limited duration course (X hours), maximum communicative value i.e. the notional approach is desirable. Would grammatical forms be distributed in the same way as on a special course? Explain the concept of varieties of language (registers). Do the categories of communicative function demand a specific lexicon in general or are they determined by other factors? Which other factors? Situational context; linguistic context: topic, physical setting. Situational analysis predicts lexical need. The individual is the master of what he chooses to say, but has no comparative control of what he hears. Why should courses based on the notional syllabus, in particular, pay more attention to receptive competence and the use of authentic materials? Use of dialogues - in synthetic courses: contextualization & sentence-based, but in notional syllabus (See Building Strategies) for role play.
The
limits of functional/notional syllabuses - or 'My guinea pig died with its legs crossed' This article, written by Robert O'Neill, is published in English for Specific Purposes Modern English Publications Limited 1977 ISBN 0 906149 00 2
Robert's criticisms of functional/notional syllabuses, in this article, would equally apply to communicative language teaching syllabuses. The gist of the article is that language use can be so personal that no notional/functional or communicativ e syllabus designer could predict that a child would want to tell a teacher that 'her guinea pig died with its legs crossed'. Julian Dakin recounts that this was uttered by an e ightyear old girl in a tape-recorded interview. However, structural syllabus design fosters the generative use of language and allows speakers to form sentences that have never been uttered previously. The article draws quite extensively from Julian Dak in's "Langua ge Labor at ory and Langua ge Learning " Longman 1973, yet states Robert O'Neill's experience and beliefs about structural and communicative language teaching very clearly in some of the best of his own writing. I urge teachers and scholars to seek out the whole of Julian Dakin's book and the whole of Robert's article in the MEP 1977 publication edited by Susan Holden. For purposes of the current CLT debate, the following quote (1½ out of 17 paragraphs) is included on this page: ________________________________________________________ There is in my mind, and in my teaching and writing, a constant and often uneasy tension between the desire to teach what I hope will be directly useful to the learner and the desire also to help the learner acquire the generative framework without which no co mmunication is possible. And to do this at all there are at times, frankly, when I feel compelled to abandon the claim that what I am doing is going to be of any use I can foresee at the time. Often I have to address myself to other needs than the learner's "communicative" ones. And even, sometimes, when I know there are language operations the learner will have to carry out just outside the classroom, I defer teaching for these needs in order to meet still greater needs, For example, in the beginning stages there is the need to help the learner feel he or she can actually learn. This is perhaps the greatest need of all. And huge numbers of those who begin learning a language never get beyond the rudiments because they are defeated at this level. They are not helped by teachers who think only of 'communication'. By teachers who do not try to predict some of the major phonological and structural problems the learner will have in trying to communicate. By teachers who do nothing to help the learner, in some kind of flexible but orderly fashion, to come gradually to grips with these difficulties and slowly to master at least some of them. At the very beginning, a foreign language seems to the learner like a brutal and wild barrage of strange sounds, words, noises, letters and stringings-together of structures. If you simply march your troops into the loudest bits of gunfire, the 'communicative situations' you can be pretty sure they will have to deal with, you are more likely to give them a bad case of shell shock than help them to survive. Some teachers, aware of this danger, create in their classrooms an atmosphere from which the sound of real action is forever banished. Everything is ord ered according to some rigid and internal notion of simplicity and learnability, and usually the result is that nothing worth learning ever gets learned. Other teachers, more wisely I think, remain concerned w ith
both communication and the problems of learning the system behind it. They organise their teaching so that the needs of both the system and the co mmunicative functions it is used for are kept in some kind of equilibrium. For instance, they begin with what t hey feel, often intuitively, to be fairly accessible entry-points into the system. The learner can reach them without excessive effort and damage to his or her confidence. These entry-points may be structures like "My na me is...", "This is...(an introduction)", "I live in...", "He lives in...". But these are chosen not o nly brcause they are accessible but also because they are likely to be very useful. And from the very beginning they can be manipulated by the learner with some degree of creativity. Perhaps at this point they go on to the Present Progressive, much like Dakin's story. ________________________________________________________
Successful course books based on Notional / Functional design: D. A. Wilkins' metalanguage from his seminal work "Not ional Syllabuses [ Oxford 1976 ] got carried over into more than a couple of successful coursebooks. Language teaching theory was moving in a similar direction in the USA and in other parts of Europe, though many authors continued to acknowledge John Searle's "Speech Acts" rather than D.A. Wilkins' "Notions" and "Functions" for drawing attention to semantic criteria. Taxonomies with t itles such as "Los Actos de Hablar" found their way into school and university collections in Spain. 1.
Abbs Brian & Ingrid Freebairn "Building Strategies" Longman 1979 - see TB for description of the N/F Approach. 2. Jones, Leo "Functions of English " Cambridge 1979 3. Jones, Leo "Notions of English " Cambridge 1982
Less successful course books of the late 1970s and early 1980s by other writers, who were good at espousing the theory, included: 1.
"Communicate" Cambridge 1979
2.
"Approaches" Cambridge 1979.
Successful course books based on more eclectic designs: The most successful coursebooks of the late 1970s and the 1980s were more eclectic than the clearly synthetic designs of the two previous decades. Concession was made to language use, semantics or meaning without necessarily adopting D.A. Wilkins's metalanguage (i.e. terminology such as "functions" or "notions"). However, these multi-syllabus / multi-skill coursebooks clearly retained a structural thread and some continued to lean heavily on drilling: 1.
Robert O' Neill's "Kernel One" and "Kernel Two" [ Longman 1978 and 1982 ] 2. Peter Viney's & Hartley's "Streamline Departures" and "Streamline Connections" [ Oxford 1978 and 1979 ] "Streamline Destinations" [ Oxford 1982 ]
3. Brian Abbs & Ingrid Freebairn's "Developing Strategies", "Studying Strategies" and "Opening Strategies Longman 1980, 1981 & 1982 4. Michael Swann & Catherine Walter's "The Cambridge English Courses 1 & 2 [ Cambridge 1984 & 1985 ] 5. John & Liz Soars' "Headway Intermediate" & "Headway Upper Intermediate" [ Oxford 1984 and 1986 ] 6. Robert O'Neill's (and Patricia Mugglestone's) "Fourth Dimension" & "Third Dimension" [Longman 1986 & 1989 ]
It is worth noting the influence on coursebook design [especially at pre-intermediate and intermediate levels] exerted by The Council o f Europe's earliest "Waystag e" and "Threshold" specifications, which took notions & functions into account as well as syntax. N.B. links are to the 1990 revisions. For a chronological account of the important developments in English language teaching methodology from 1400 to the present day, try A History of ELT (second edition) - 1400 to the present, by A.P.R.Howatt with H.G.Widdowson (OUP). TEACHING INDEX | NE
