Language Teaching

http://journals.cambridge.org/LTA

Additional services for Language Teaching:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Contemporary Paradigms in Syllabus Design. Part I

Michael P. Breen

Language Teaching / Volume 20 / Issue 02 / April 1987, pp 81 - 92

DOI: 10.1017/S0261444800004365, Published online: 23 December 2008

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0261444800004365

How to cite this article:

Michael P. Breen (1987). Contemporary Paradigms in Syllabus Design. Part I. Language Teaching, 20, pp 81-92
doi:10.1017/S0261444800004365

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/LTA, IP address: 146.203.144.60 on 14 Sep 2014

State of the art article
Contemporary Paradigms in Syllabus Design. Part I
Michael P. Breen Department of Linguistics and Modern English Language
University of Lancaster

fully reviewed by Roberts (1982), Solmecke (1983),

1.1. Introduction Quinn (1985), and Brindley (1985).
The present paper is an effort to make sense of the
This paper offers an account of a major development alternatives in syllabus design which have emerged
within English language teaching during the present from a period of fairly intense dialectic, and in a
decade. Its subject is the emergence of particular and period when the public discussion of alternatives has
genuine alternatives in how we may plan for dramatically increased. Interesting discussions
language teaching and learning. Ten years ago in which reveal areas of conflict include Wilkins et al.
this journal, Tony Shaw introduced his survey of (1981), Crawford-Lange (1982), Raimes (1983), and
recent approaches to syllabus development by con- Brumfit (ed.) (1984). Diverse perspectives on syllabus
trasting the important status of syllabus design in change in particular are provided in collections of
language pedagogy with the apparent rarity of its papers edited by Johnson and Porter (1983), Saltarelli
public discussion in print (Shaw, 1977). Within five (1983), Richards (1983), Read (1984), and Toney
years, in a postscript to a republication of his survey, (1985).
he found himself in the middle of a ' turbulent and The present account is a descriptive interpretation
iconoclastic period' wherein ' the whole question of of the alternatives now available to us. My approach
curriculum and syllabus development is inevitably has at least two limitations. First, it focuses upon
in the centre of a storm' (Shaw, 1982, p. 91). The planning for language teaching and learning which
sea change to which he referred has prevailed until is an activity necessarily located within much
today, and one of its features has been a veritable broader curriculum decisions and the actual imple-
monsoon of publications which contribute to the mentation of these during teaching and learning.
excitement of a period of change or which offer Syllabus design is only a part of larger and, perhaps,
evaluative reflections upon it. more urgent issues. Second, in endeavouring to
I believe it is fair to say that we are presently discern the general characteristics of contemporary
experiencing a salient evolutionary phase in syllabus syllabuses, I do not offer a survey of particular
design in which the questioning of established and syllabuses. My priority is to identify types of syllabus
well-tried types of syllabus coincides with a wealth or prototypical syllabuses of which there are many
of innovative proposals from theory, research, and versions. The wish to provide a general picture may
classroom experience. The changes in how the distort the rich diversity in planning and develop-
language-teaching profession has thought and acted ment in which teachers and designers are currently
over the last dozen or so years affect broader issues engaged.
than syllabus design alone, but they have influenced I shall argue that there presently exist two major
and been reflected in syllabus development. This paradigms or frames of reference for the design of a
paper can not do justice to the complex nature of a language syllabus. These two paradigms are distinct
process within which syllabus innovation has been and the second represents a recent antithesis to more
only a part. A rich historical perspective on this established syllabus types. I shall provide a compara-
process is provided by Stern (1983) and Howatt tive interpretation of four types of syllabus (proto-
(1984), whilst many of the characteristics of change types) which represent most syllabuses currently
and their implications for syllabus design are help- being used and developed. Formal and Functional
syllabus types are compared as illustrations of a
conventional paradigm in syllabus design. Task-
Michael P. Breen is a lecturer in the Department of Based and Process syllabus types are compared with
Linguistics and Modern English Language at the the previous two and with each other, and are
University of Lancaster. He has been a teacher for 28 proposed as examplars of a paradigm which is
years in primary, secondary and tertiary institutions. antithetical to the more established alternatives. This
He has worked with teachers in over a dozen overseas
interpretation of the four types of syllabus may
countries. At Lancaster, he has directed the M.A. in
provide clues concerning the new directions which
syllabus development could follow in the coming
Linguistics for ELT, been Director of the Institute for
decade. A comparative evaluation may reveal the
English Language Education, and currently coordinates
roots of a new synthesis so that future design can
the many research students in the department.
resolve real and imagined contradictions which

81
6-2

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 14 Sep 2014 IP address: 146.203.144.60

State of the art: Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design
seem to separate the four main alternatives which language, it can serve to place boundaries around
we now have. the territory. The syllabus therefore confines the
The paper is in two parts. In this first part, I make potential vastness of a language and its use within
preliminary comments of the nature and function of manageable and - for the teacher - familiar cate-
a language syllabus and explain why we might gories and schemas. Second, a plan can provide
usefully regard the designing of a syllabus as the continuity for its users. A syllabus offers a sense of
expression of a particular paradigm. A description direction in the teacher's - and possibly the learners'
of Formal and Functional syllabus types follows, - work through the ways in which it orders the
and these are proposed as exemplars of one particular subject-matter that needs to be covered. A third
paradigm. requirement upon a syllabus is that it can represent
In Part II, I offer an account of the motivations a retrospective account of what has been achieved.
within the profession for a shift away from the And this account or record can be helpful to another
dominant paradigm in recent times and summarise teacher who may work with the same learners at
the main features of the new paradigm. This is some later stage.
followed by a description of Task-Based and Process Accountability to colleagues, to learners, and to
syllabus types as illustrative of this paradigm. I the wider institution and society points to a fourth
conclude Part II with a discussion concerning pos- raison d'etre of a syllabus. A reasonably detailed plan
sible future directions. of objectives will provide the basis on which learner
A word on sources and references: each of the progress may be evaluated. Having a plan for
main sections of the paper will be followed by teaching and learning work also enables the evalu-
reference to particular sources which have helped ation and later adaptation of the plan itself. That the
me to interpret contemporary syllabus design. syllabus be sufficiently precise so that it may be
Given limitations of space, I have used a selection assessed through implementation as being more or
principle which gives priority to publications avail- less appropriate to its purposes and its users is a fifth
able since 1980 and to those published before that requirement on design decisions. Finally, the de-
date which have significantly influenced the evolu- signer has to make choices and selections so that the
tion I describe. My hope is that the reader who plan will be sensitive to the environment for which
wishes to trace sources prior to 1980 will benefit the plan is intended. A syllabus will be ecologically
from the helpful reviews I have cited above and valid to the extent that it harmonises with three
from the retrospective bibliographies of the recent contexts within which it is located: (i) the wider
publications. language curriculum (wherein the syllabus conven-
tionally refers to the purposes and content of the
curriculum and is usually assumed to have only
1.2. Syllabus design as a decision- indirect influence upon methodology and the pro-
making process cedures for evaluation); (ii) the language classroom
Any syllabus is primarily a plan of what is to be and the participants within it who will turn the
achieved through teaching and learning. Such a syllabus into actual teaching and learning work; and
plan, most typically, maps out that body of know- (iii) the educational institution and the wider society
ledge and those capabilities which are regarded as which the syllabus is supposed to serve with refer-
worthwhile outcomes from the work of teachers ence to the purposes and ideologies which are
and learners in a particular situation for which the valued by the institution and society.
syllabus was designed. In most cases, the plan will To summarise, we can see that the syllabus
specify and select particular aspects of a target designer is confronted by a number of design
language and/or its use in social situations for a constraints and any syllabus will meet these require-
range of personal and social purposes. The plan ments with varying degrees of success. The plan
details the objectives or selected outcomes of teach- must provide an accessible framework of what is to
ing and learning work. The plan might also address be achieved through teaching and learning which
the route towards these objectives and thereby affords continuity and direction for its users. The
function as a guide during teaching and learning. If plan should also function as a retrospective record,
syllabus design can be regarded as a decision- a basis for the evaluation of learning, and should
making process, then a major decision will be one of itself be amenable to evaluation and adaptation.
emphasis: should the plan be limited to a delineation And the plan must be appropriate to the three
of objectives or might it also serve as a means towards contexts of curriculum, classroom group, and educa-
the objectives? Conventionally, there are six re- tional-social situation within which it is to be
quirements upon a syllabus which will influence located. Given these demands, syllabus designers
designer decisions. First, the plan should provide an have conventionally applied certain basic principles
accessible framework of the knowledge and skills on to the organisation of the knowledge and capabilities
which teachers and learners will work. Whilst they intend the syllabus to represent.
helpfully marking out the territory of the new
82

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 14 Sep 2014 IP address: 146.203.144.60

 State of the art: Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design
1.3. Creating a syllabus
Virtually all syllabuses are constructed on the basis
of four main organising principles. The designer
will (i) focus upon, (ii) select, (iii) subdivide, and (iv)
sequence the particular knowledge and capabilities
which are seen as appropriate outcomes of language
learning.
Particular aspects of target-language knowledge
and capability are focused upon or given priority in
every syllabus. One syllabus might focus upon the
linguistic system, the phonological, lexical, and
grammatical features of the language, whilst another
might give priority to the use of the language in a
range of situations. What the syllabus focuses upon
will most directly reflect the objectives which the
plan is intended to serve. Given a specific focus, a
syllabus will reveal the second organising principle
in what it selects for teaching and learning work;
such as particular structures, sets of functions, or a
range of communication events. Honouring the
constraint that the teaching-learning process will
occur in real time, this selected content is further
subdivided and sequenced.
Subdivision involves the breaking down of selected
content into manageable units. This analysis is most
often hierarchical, with superordinate units (e.g.
systems in grammar, themes or topics, or communi-
cative situations) containing or entailing smaller
units (e.g. rules, or functions, or specific vocabulary).
Sequencing, on the other hand, involves the marking
out of the content along a path of development.
This is achieved often in a step-by-step way through
more immediate or pre-requisite objectives towards
some overall achievement. Sequencing may be
cyclic, where the path from 'A' to 'B' is drawn as a
sequence of overlapping circles or as a gradually
widening spiral. Whilst a step-by-step sequence
presents content in an additive way, a cyclic presen-
tation assumes that content can be cumulative and
worked upon by teachers and learners through a
return to, and refinement of earlier steps along the
route.
These four principles for the organisation of any
syllabus virtually define what a syllabus is. Alter-
native syllabuses which are currently available are
distinctive precisely because they realise these prin-
ciples in different ways. Contemporary syllabus
design is characterised by variation in the particular
knowledge and capabilities which are given priority,
variation in the content which is selected for inclu-
sion, and variation in how content is divided into
manageable units for teaching and learning work.
And we are faced with alternatives in the develop-
mental routes which syllabuses represent through
grading or sequencing. The four organising prin-
ciples therefore provide windows onto the various
ways in which contemporary syllabus design seeks
to represent language knowledge and the capabilities
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 14 Sep 2014
of language use. If syllabus design is, however, a
decision-making process, on what bases are the
decisions made? How do syllabus designers react to
the constraints which must shape their plans? And
how do syllabus designers currently apply the
principles of organisation to their plans?
1.4. Syllabus design as the
expression of a paradigm
Syllabus designers do not apply the principles of
focus, selection, subdivision and sequencing in
neutral or objective ways. Every syllabus is a
particular representation of knowledge and capabili-
ties. And this representation will be shaped by the
designer's views concerning the nature of language,
how the language may be most appropriately
taught or presented to learners, and how the lang-
uage may be productively worked upon during
learning. The syllabus designer's representation of
the language will differ from that of the descriptive
linguist, for example, precisely because of the peda-
gogic requirements upon that representation.
Syllabus designers - whether teachers, planners
or course administrators - belong to a community
of professionals engaged in language education. In
his classic interpretation of scientific change,
Thomas Kuhn (1970) proposed the notion of a
' paradigm' as that frame of reference which a
community of specialists will share at a particular
moment in history. For Kuhn, a paradigm is not
merely a commonly accepted theory. It is a ' disci-
plinary matrix' wherein the ideas, the problems,
and the actual mode of undertaking work will
reveal shared and consistent assumptions, beliefs,
values and ways of interpreting experience (Kuhn,
1970, pp. 182-210). In other words, a paradigm is
both a particular unity of theory, research and
practice and the prevailing manner in which a
community of specialists construct theories, inter-
pret research, and actually proceed with their
work.
In its representation of language knowledge and
capabilities for pedagogic purposes, any syllabus can
be viewed as one particular expression of that
paradigm which we — as a community engaged in
language education - currently share during a
period in the history of our profession. (Prevailing
ideas in methodology, evaluation, and research on
learning and in language classrooms, for example,
and the ways in which we go about those things will
also be expressions of the paradigm we share). Any
syllabus is therefore the meeting point of a perspec-
tive upon language itself, upon using language, and
upon teaching and learning which is a contemporary
and commonly accepted interpretation of the har-
monious links between theory, research, and class-
room practice.
A revolution in science, for Kuhn, is a period of
83
IP address: 146.203.144.60
State of the art: Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design
time when one paradigm is replaced by another.
The intervening phase is, for the community of
specialists, a confusing period of 'paradigm shift'
wherein the new paradigm may either be assimilated
within the prevailing one — reflecting the human
inclinations to resist too much change or to protect
vested interests - or the new paradigm will gain
momentum and develop so that it replaces its
predecessor. The ' turbulent and iconoclastic period'
in syllabus design which Shaw identified with the
early part of this decade has been one in which the
symptoms of paradigm shift were palpable (see also
1.5 following). This paper therefore sets out to
explore types of syllabus as expressions of (i) the
prevailing paradigm and (ii) the recently emerging
paradigm. It does not propose that the more recent
paradigm within our profession has replaced the
established one, and I am cautious of suggesting that
it will.
We can regard our syllabuses as capturing a
paradigm which we, as a professional community,
share. We express our paradigm through a planned
representation of language knowledge and capa-
bility intended for pedagogic purposes. My inter-
pretation of contemporary syllabuses suggests that
alternative syllabus types now exist which, on the
one hand, represent language knowledge and capa-
bility as propositional plans and which, on the other
hand, represent knowledge and capabilities as pro-
cess plans. Propositional plans and process plans each
express a different paradigm. The remainder of this
paper will describe and compare these two alterna-
tives in planning for language teaching and learning.
In this first section, I have offered a framework
for the study of contemporary syllabus design. I
have suggested that any syllabus is a plan of what is
to be achieved through teaching and learning. Also,
that such a plan is created as a decision-making
process which has to account for certain require-
ments upon the function of a syllabus in particular
contexts. In order to cope with these requirements,
the designer applies four principles of organisation
when creating the plan. However, what the designer
actually creates will be a particular representation of
language knowledge and capabilities which reflects
currently held views on the nature of language,
teaching, and learning. And these views will derive
from a paradigm which the designer shares with a
community of specialists in language education, and
which permeates areas of common concern which
are wider than syllabus design alone. Finally, I
suggested that there presently exists an established
paradigm that expresses itself through syllabuses
which are propositional plans. I have also suggested
that a recently emergent paradigm in our profession
generates syllabuses as process plans.
84
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 14 Sep 2014
1.5. Sources and references
Kuhn's important analysis of scientific revolution
was related to language teaching 12 years ago by
Brown (1975) who anticipated current changes as
representing a process of revolution within our
profession which he believed to occur once every 25
years. Richards and Rogers (1982) were more scep-
tical in the midst of Shaw's 'turbulent' times,
crediting the language teaching community with a
resilient conservatism that Brown might have over-
looked. These writers share a focus upon teaching
methodology; a priority which, perhaps, distin-
guishes the North American part of our community
from the European (a phenomenon also recorded by
Stern, 1983, who argues against a preoccupation
with method). Brumfit (1981) reflected the Euro-
pean focus - at the time - upon objectives and
content for language teaching in applying Kuhn's
notion of a paradigm shift to changes in how
language knowledge was being perceived (from
seeing language as a fixed body of knowledge to
seeing it as embedded within social activity requiring
negotiation). Raimes (1983) is more thorough in her
use of Kuhn's ideas when evaluating current changes
in many aspects of professional concern; though her
analysis gives most space to methodology. Raimes is
far less sceptical than Richards and Rogers but
emphasises the alienation accompanying change:
The scene before us in our discipline is still one of competing
syllabuses, divergent methodologies, contradictory views of
our profession, various attempts to deal with change, and in-
novative theories of second language acquisition, with all of us
teachers trying to find our way in Terra Incognita. Kuhn
describes the symptoms of the ' pre-paradigmatic stage1 of a
revolution in a discipline as these: " the proliferation of com-
peting articulations, the willingness to try anything, the ex-
pression of explicit discontent, the recourse to philosophy and to
debate over fundamentals" (1970: 91). That's a paradigm shift
and that certainly sounds like us (p. 543).
Two earlier - and seminal - accounts of alternatives
in realm of curriculum development are Eisner and
Vallance (1974) and Stenhouse (1975). On the
important notion of plans which represent know-
ledge and capabilities, primarily with reference to
the content and workings of the mind but with
interesting implications for syllabus design, see the
various perspectives provided in Aitkenhead and
Slack (1985).
2.1. Propositional plans: formal and
functional syllabuses
I now turn to a descriptive interpretation of the
alternative syllabus types (prototypes) which are
currently provided by syllabus designers. The four
types are distinctive in how they represent language
knowledge and capabilities. They each express
IP address: 146.203.144.60
 State of the art: Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design
different views on the nature of language, on how
language should be presented through teaching, and
how it should be worked upon for learning. In their
representation of what they offer as the primary
content or subject-matter of language lessons, they
express a particular paradigm. In essence, each of the
four types of syllabus offer alternative answers to the
question: What does a learner of a new language
need to know, and what does a learner need to be
able to do with this knowledge ?
In the following two sections, I will describe
Formal and Functional syllabus types which express
the currently dominant and well-established para-
digm by providing propositional plans of language
knowledge and capability. (The distinction between
propositional and process plans will, I hope, become
clear through my description of the main syllabus
types which exemplify these two approaches in
planning for learning.) Adopting the notion of
propositional representation of knowledge from
cognitive science (see, for example, Rumelhart &
Norman, 1983), we can see that a propositional plan
will represent what is to be achieved through
teaching and learning as formal statements. Lan-
guage knowledge and capabilities regarded as the
appropriate outcomes will be organised and pre-
sented in the plan as things which are systematic;
perhaps based on logical formulae, structures, net-
works, rules, or schemas. Both Formal and Func-
tional syllabuses share this way of representing what
learners need to know and be able to do. But they
differ in what each of them focuses upon and selects
as appropriate content for language lessons, and in
how they subdivide and sequence this content. Also,
despite the fact that they derive from a common
established paradigm, they are each based upon a
different - and sometimes conflicting - rationale.
Each of these syllabus types will therefore be
described and compared with reference to five
questions:
(a) What knowledge does it focus upon and
prioritise ?
(b) What capabilities does it focus upon and
prioritise ?
(c) On what basis does it select and subdivide
what is to be learned?
(d) How does it sequence what is to be learned?
(e) What is its rationale?
2.2. The formal syllabus
(a) What knowledge does the Formal syllabus
focus upon?
The Formal syllabus - variously referred to as the
' structural' or ' grammatical' syllabus - is the most
robust and well-tried type of syllabus in language
teaching. Having its roots in the description and
analysis of the classical languages, and strongly
reliant for many years upon the descriptive accounts
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 14 Sep 2014
of language provided by academic linguists, it
focuses upon the systematic and rule-based nature of
language itself. Prioritising the workings of the sub-
systems of phonology, grammar, lexis or morph-
ology, and (more recently) discourse as text, the
Formal syllabus represents a primary concern with
a language learner's knowledge of the code of a new
language; with 'textual' knowledge. Adopting
Halliday's (1973, 1978) distinction between the
textual, ideational, and interpersonal functions of
language — and the underlying knowledge that each
of these entail on the part of a language user — we
can see that the Formal syllabus gives priority to
how the text of language is realised and organised
(in speech or writing) and, thereby, gives only a
supportive role to the meanings or ideas conveyed
through language (ideational knowledge) and to the
ways in which we behave socially with language
(interpersonal knowledge). This does not mean that
a Formal syllabus will ignore the latter two systems
of knowledge, but that it takes the systematic
features of the textual nature of any language as the
driving force or 'carrier' of the other two.
(b) What capabilities does the Formal syllabus
focus upon?
A learner works within a Formal syllabus in order
to learn how to be correct or accurate in his or her
production in the new language. This type of
syllabus characterises the capabilities we need in a
language in terms of our being linguistically (or
textually) correct in our use of the four skills.
Although the real test of our correctness resides in
how we ourselves produce spoken or written text,
it is assumed that listening and reading skills must
serve and contribute to our productive skills. On the
basis of this reasoning, the Formal syllabus identifies
language use with skill use and typically proposes
that the skills be worked upon in a sequence from
the receptive to the productive.
(c) On what basis does the Formal syllabus
select and subdivide ?
The Formal syllabus is organised in ways that, as
directly as is feasible, reflect the organisation or
' logic' inherent in the language itself. On the basis
of the linguist's analysis of the various sub-systems
and their rules, such a syllabus will most often
separately identify pronunciation, grammar,
vocabulary and morphology, and the structural
features of discourse. From this initial division, a
particular syllabus will select those aspects of each
sub-system which are taken to be appropriate to the
'level' of the learners for whom the syllabus is
intended. The major criterion for 'level' derives
from the extent to which a learner has mastered -
in terms of accurate production - these linguistic
85
IP address: 146.203.144.60
State of the art: Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design
sub-systems. Given that language is hierarchical in
nature, the syllabus designer further subdivides (e) The rationale for the Formal syllabus
what is to be learned from larger units (e.g. sentence There seem to be four main arguments in support
types - declarative, interrogative, etc. - the verb of a Formal syllabus for language teaching. A non-
system, discourse structure, etc.) into smaller units trivial argument is that it is well established and it is
which the superordinate units contain (e.g. mod- informed by a long tradition of linguistic analysis. It
ality, verb inflections, pronunciation of particular captures a view of language which many teachers
phonemes or contrasts, discourse markers, etc.). In find familiar, not least from their own experience of
this way, the criteria for selection and subdivision of language learning, and many decades of language
a Formal syllabus approximate very closely to the learners have been successful in acquiring a new
analysis of language undertaken by the linguist. Of language having been taught on the basis of this
course, many Formal syllabuses also reflect the more type of syllabus. Although we have to acknowledge
practical considerations of pedagogic grammar and that linguists continually disagree about the most
contrastive analysis, for instance. However, the appropriate analysis of language, that genuine alter-
focus upon a learner's knowledge and mastery of natives to the Formal syllabus have only recently
the linguistic system — upon textual knowledge — isevolved, and that we need to be wary of assuming
constant, for the pedagogic grammarian is con- that any syllabus might directly cause successful
cerned with the manageability of a new linguistic learning (not forgetting the many learners who
system for a learner, whilst contrastive analysis is have failed to learn a language regardless of how it
premised on the belief that knowledge of one was organised for them through a syllabus), the
system may be in conflict or harmony with know- Formal syllabus nevertheless represents a 'well
ledge of another. tried' formula for the language-teaching profession.
This does not mean that this type of syllabus is
(d) How does the Forma/ syllabus sequence beyond improvement, but that our experience with
it is likely to be the basis on which we evaluate new
what is to be learned?
directions in syllabus design.
In addition to prescribing an ordering of skill The second major justification for the Formal
practice and use - on the assumption that it is more syllabus is that it presents learners with a subject-
difficult for a learner to be correct when producing matter which is systematic and rule-governed.
a new language than it is when 'decoding' the When we learn something new, the fact that we can
speech or writing of someone else - a Formal syl- begin to see patternedness and regularities within it
labus anticipates that a learner will gradually accumu- will reduce the 'learning load' it demands of us. In
late and synthesise the various parts of components of mastering one rule, we can see that rule operating in
the new system. It predicts that a learner will need other instances. When we apply the rule ourselves,
to master a 'basic' grammar or vocabulary, for we can do so in a generative way - creating new
instance, and subsequently add to and refine what he sentences or deducing the meaning of new words,
or she knows concerning each of the main sub- for example, on the basis of a system we are beginning
systems until they can be used accurately in a unified to understand. In other words, because language
way. The criteria for sequencing - or grading - itself is rooted in a finite system of rules which
relate directly to the language itself. The most themselves underlie an infinite range of textual
commonly applied criterion is linguistic complexity, realisations, the Formal syllabus has the potential to
and most Formal syllabuses represent a develop- provide the learner with generative knowledge.
mental route from what is 'simple' in terms of The learner can get access to a great deal by coming
form, structure, or rule towards what is 'complex' to know a relatively limited amount.
in such things. Certain Formal syllabuses may Because the linguistic system is analysable in
incorporate dual criteria, thereby mapping out the terms of propositions (rules, categories, etc.), or
new language on the basis of frequency of occur- because it has already been analysed in this way by
rence of linguistic features in the day to day use of descriptive linguists, a new language as subject-
the language or, anticipating the likely needs of the matter to be presented to learners is thereby more
learners, on the basis of usefulness of certain aspects amenable to planning. This may seem something of
of the language in comparison to other aspects. A a truism, but any syllabus will be helpful to the
Formal syllabus will therefore be sequenced pri- extent that it imposes order upon the apparent chaos
marily from simplicity to complexity but in ways of what is to be taught and learned, and if the
which may also honour frequency of usage to less organisation and ordering of our subject matter
frequent usage, or from most useful structures, reflects as closely as possible the inherent logic and
vocabulary, etc. to the less useful. systematicity of the subject matter itself, then we are
at least presenting it to a learner ' like it is'. Therefore
a third justification for the Formal syllabus would
be something like: because the linguistic system is

86

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 14 Sep 2014 IP address: 146.203.144.60

 State of the art: Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design
analysable in certain ways, these analytical categories
or schemas can be incorporated in a plan for teaching 2.3. Sources and references
the system, and — further — it may be that the same Both Stern and Howatt (op. cit) provide compre-
analytical categories or schemas make it easier for hensive accounts of the influences upon, and de-
the learner to uncover how the new language velopment of Formal syllabus types, whilst Allen
works. and Widdowson (1975) give an excellent overview
Of course, there is a certain amount of wishful of the models of grammar which continue to
thinking contained within such an argument. Not underlie such plans. The majority of currently used
least the assumption that learners are able and willing syllabuses in English language teaching are either
to think and behave like academic linguists! But it explicitly Formal in their organisation or incor-
is precisely this belief- or a less extreme version of porate a Formal 'spine' within them. Perhaps the
it — which provides a fourth main rationale for the most prevalent Formal syllabuses can be found in
Formal syllabus. Such a syllabus calls upon the widely published teaching materials - despite
human capacity to be metalinguistic; to reflect strange protestations on the face of some of them
upon, talk about, and try to work out just how a that they are intended to represent something quite
language works. In other words, the Formal syllabus other. Formal syllabuses thrived as an expression of
directly addresses our wish to impose order upon the dominant paradigm of the immediate r ost-war
the seeming chaos of an everyday activity such as years. Perhaps the work of Fries (1947) and Lado
using language. This type of syllabus therefore relies (1964) best captured the contemporary beliefs in
on a particular view of human learning, and the scientific objectivity and thoroughness and its associ-
assumption is that a learner can exploit his or her ation with methodical training, whilst Hornby's
capacity for categorising experience, for seeking (1959) comprehensive and elegant version of a
regularities in that experience, and for looking pedagogic plan remains (perhaps indirectly) an
beneath the surface of things to discover how they influential British source.
work in order to learn the language more easily. Although structural linguistics was replaced in
In essence, being metalinguistic about the new the 1960s as the blueprint from which many Formal
language will help the learner to understand and syllabuses were drawn, that pedagogic plans should
control it in a more efficient way than if the learner be based on other representations than those pro-
was merely exposed to the language in some vided by descriptive linguists was not questioned
spontaneous way and left to his or her own devices. generally. The major issue was the nature of the
If there is a problem in this argument for the Formal description of the Formal system for pedagogic
syllabus, it is that the learner will impose his or her purposes, and the important contributions of Halli-
own interpretation upon the new language, day, Mclntosh and Strevens (1964), Mackey (1965),
however it was presented through a syllabus. This and Bright and McGregor (1970) most certainly
is, of course, a problem for any syllabus which enriched the pedagogic applications of linguistics to
represents a prior organisation of subject-matter for syllabus design. But the seeds of a less 'objective'
a learner. If the learner superimposes his or her order and more social perspective upon the linguistic
on the new language regardless of how we organise system were also sown by these writers. It was not
it, then there may seem little point in our designing until the '70s, however, that strongly explicit chal-
a syllabus in the first place. lenges were made to the pedagogic validity of
The Formal syllabus, however, continues to pro- Formal syllabuses from three subsequently influ-
vide a convincing propositional plan of language ential sources: Rivers (1972), Wilkins (1976), and
knowledge and how this knowledge may be used Widdowson (1978a). And such criticisms were
through the four skills, primarily because of its acknowledged not least because they coincided with
academic and experiential heritage. Its established a strong questioning on the part of many teachers of
familiarity, the systematicity and generalisability of those classroom methodologies which were seen to
what it represents, and its harmony with influential be premised upon a Formal syllabus.
traditions in linguistics and psychology all combine
to explain its longevity within language education.
That major changes have occurred within those 2.4. The functional syllabus
contributory disciplines which originally shaped it, Since the mid-'70s, the Functional syllabus has
and that a good proportion of classroom teachers probably been the alternative to Formal syllabus
have rejected the methodology which originally types which has received the most attention. There
coincided with its general use seem not to have is no doubt that much work has been put into its
completely deterred our profession's reliance upon
implementation and development. The Functional
it.
syllabus is a propositional plan of language know-
ledge and capabilities based upon a distinctive view
of the nature of content for language pedagogy.
The assumptions it represents lead to different
87

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 14 Sep 2014 IP address: 146.203.144.60

State of the art: Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design
applications of the organising principles of syllabus effort to expand our view of language knowledge to
design from those of the Formal syllabus. incorporate interpersonal and ideational knowledge
with linguistic or textual knowledge. And, more
importantly, to explore how all three mutually
(a) What knowledge does the Functional interrelate both when we use language in everyday
syllabus focus upon? life and - significantly for language teaching -
The priorities of the Functional syllabus, like those when we learn a language.
of the Formal syllabus, have been strongly influenced This brief sketch of developments in linguistics
by the theoretical and analytical concerns of linguis- serves to locate some of the theoretical roots of
tics. In the late '60s and early '70s, a new branch of communicative approaches to language teaching
linguistics emerged which represented a strong and one of its manifestations; the Functional syl-
interest in the study of language, not merely as a labus. Although it is clear that language teaching -
phenomenon somehow separable from its use in and especially syllabus design — draws upon the
everyday life, but as something which served a contributions of linguistics, the current period of
central role in social events and social structure. change within the profession's perspectives upon
Sociolinguistics - and its more recent offspring, subject matter has also been significantly influenced
Pragmatics - are concerned with the analysis of by the practicalities of classroom experience. It is
language in use and with the relationships between fair to claim that this period in language teaching
the language code or textual system and how people has also been characterised by a disillusionment with
behave with language in social groups in certain the seemingly 'mechanistic' methodology associ-
social situations. In critically evaluating the narrowly ated with grammar-translation and audio-lingual-
formal nature of Chomsky's view of what con- ism. The motivation within the profession to
stitutes our knowledge of language (linguistic com- improve methodology coincided with a wish to in-
petence), the sociolinguist Hymes (1971, 1972) pro- corporate the new perspectives on language
posed that our knowledge of language also embraced knowledge offered by linguistics. Therefore, the
a knowledge of how to use language in appropriate Functional syllabus was initially perceived as a
ways in order to achieve particular purposes and particular response to both concerns, whilst it
participate in particular everyday events and situa- actually represented a development in how language
tions. Hymes argued for the now influential concept teaching objectives and content might be selected
and organised without explicitly proposing any
of communicative competence which entailed both
significant changes in methodology. It was from
knowledge of the rules of the language as code and
other growth points within the broader com-
knowledge of the conventions governing the use of
municative movement, from a range of alternative
the code which are established and developed
methods (such as Total Physical Response, Silent
within social and cultural groups. More importantly,
Way, Suggestopedia, and Community Language
Hymes emphasised that communicative competence Learning in the United States), and from a diversity
represented how we related our linguistic compe- of real innovation by practising teachers that new
tence to our social use competence and that the two directions in methodology emerged (see section 3 in
systems of knowledge were interdependent. Part II).
During the same period of change in linguistic
theory and analysis, philosophers who were inter- Derived primarily from developments in linguis-
ested in problems of meaning and the use of language tics, therefore, the Functional syllabus captures a
were exploring the notion of Speech Acts and, in redefinition of language knowledge. It focuses upon
particular, the actual - and sometimes hidden - the learner's knowledge of Speech Acts or the
meanings which people attributed to what they or purposes a learner may achieve through language in
others said. They were less concerned with how we particular social activities or events. It therefore
use language to convey meanings, but more with gives priority to the different purposes which a
the 'force' or 'value' that we either intend in our language can serve and how these functions are
own utterances or which we give to the utterances coded (or textualised) through the language. In
of others (Levinson, 1982). For many linguists, essence, it is a propositional plan of categories of
therefore, the notion of competence in language language use; most commonly an analysis of inter-
was broadened to entail, not only knowledge of the personal or social functions, but occasionally pro-
code and knowledge of the conventions of social use viding an analysis of notions or concepts that a
of the code, but also knowledge of the particular language may also code. Objectives and content for
conventions of meaning or semantics which was language teaching are thereby represented through
shared with other users of the code. If we recall socio-semantic categories which are linked to their
Halliday's distinction between the textual, inter- linguistic or textual exponents.
personal, and ideational functions of language
(2.2 (a)) we can see, therefore, that a major develop-
ment in linguistics over the last 16 years has been an

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 14 Sep 2014 IP address: 146.203.144.60

 State of the art: Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design
most common linguistic exponents as a kind of
(b) What capabilities does the Functional
foundation - a basic repertoire of uses of language.
syllabus focus upon? The learner is further assumed to gradually refine
A learner works within a Functional syllabus in this repertoire, in a re-cycling and accumulative
order to learn how to achieve certain purposes with way, until alternative linguistic realisations of a
the language. Such a syllabus intends that the learner particular function can be added to his or her
will not only become accurate in using the language repertoire. If we take the function 'Greeting' as an
but that he or she will learn how to be socially example, the learner may begin with the most
appropriate in language performance. Although the common forms of greeting in the new language and
Functional syllabus gives priority to social purposes, those which may be expressed by a small set of
it also addresses the learner's capacity to be correct in linguistic exponents — such as hello, hi, how do you
the interpretation and production of those linguistic do, etc. — and later build up a more comprehensive
exponents — or features of code — which realise par- repertoire of types of greeting which would enable
ticular uses of language and which express specific the learner to achieve the function of Greeting in,
concepts. The Functional syllabus shares with the for instance, formal or informal settings, or in
Formal syllabus a skill-oriented view of learner situations which require more elaborate expressions
capabilities. Therefore, proficiency is identified with of greeting.
the accurate and appropriate use of the four skills, The Functional syllabus will therefore select a
and the process of developing a repertoire of particular range of functions, perhaps those seen to
functions is similarly identified with a sequential be particularly appropriate to the target language
development from receptive to productive skills. use which the learner is most likely to need on
completion of the syllabus, and it will divide these
functions into superordinate or main categories and,
(c) On what basis does the Functional syllabus within each subdivision, further categorise subord-
select and subdivide ? inate functions. At each level of categorisation, the
Unlike the Formal syllabus, the Functional syllabus Functional syllabus will list a range of appropriate
does not select and subdivide language on the basis linguistic realisation of each function. Sequencing
of the inherent system of language and the rules will be based upon a cyclic movement from main to
which reflect its systematicity. The Functional syl- subordinate functions and/or from most common
labus is categorical in the sense that it identifies main linguistic realisations to more refined realisations.
types of language purposes in sets and sub-sets — Certain Functional syllabuses for particular types of
with a range of superordinate functions containing learner — those designed for certain occupational or
their own subordinate functions - and it further academic needs — may also sequence on the basis of
specifies how these functions may be realised in 'most needed' functions to 'less needed' ones, or
various ways through the language code. In this from those functions which may occur most fre-
sense, the Functional syllabus follows similar prin- quently in specific target language situations to
ciples of selection and subdivision to those of a those which are likely to be rare in occurrence.
comprehensive phrase book.
(d) The rationale for the Functional syllabus
(d) How does the Functional syllabus sequence
I have already suggested a major motivation for the
what is to be learned? adoption of the Functional syllabus by the language
We have seen that the Formal syllabus adopts a teaching profession in my brief discussion of the
sequencing which requires the learner to accumulate coincidence of a felt need to improve upon old
- in an additive way - aspects of the various systems methodology (which was seen to be synonymous
of the language, and that the learner is required to with the structural or Formal syllabus) and the new
gradually synthesise what the syllabus has previously perspectives on language itself offered by linguistics.
analysed for the step-by-step presentation of the In this way, the Functional syllabus is a particular
language. The Functional syllabus, because it pre- expression of a sociolinguistic view of the purposes
sents language in terms of major and subordinate which language can achieve.
categories of uses of language, does not move from A further, related justification is the concern for
'basic' or finite knowledge which is generative, but meaningfulness as an important element in the
moves from general sets of functions to more specific language-learning experience. The Functional syl-
functions and from the most common linguistic labus represents the wish to enable learners to use
realisations of certain functions to more varied or language - virtually from the outset of their learning
'refined' realisations of these functions. In this way, - in order to achieve things in an interpersonal or
sequencing is from the general to the particular or, social way. In this sense, language as a means for
more precisely, cyclic in nature. The learner is getting things done is given priority over linguistic
assumed to acquire certain key functions and their knowledge in itself. This implies that fluency is
89

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 14 Sep 2014 IP address: 146.203.144.60

State of the art: Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design
valued as much as linguistic accuracy. Many people
who advocate a Functional approach to syllabus
design regard fluency as the 'carrier' or motivator
of accuracy, the former providing the learner with
a springboard for the development of the latter.
If we can regard the Formal syllabus as the
expression of a concern with the learner's linguistic
competence, the Functional syllabus represents a
concern with communicative performance. Its main
objective is to provide a learner with a repertoire of
various ways coding the things they wish to share
and achieve through the new language. Like the
Formal syllabus, however, it assumes that learners
can and will be metacommunicative during the
learning process. In requiring the learner to perceive
and develop the new language in terms of categories
of use, and to map onto these categories their various
linguistic realisations, the Functional syllabus de-
pends upon - and calls upon - the learner's cog-
nitive acceptance of these ways of imposing order
upon a new language. The learner is encouraged to
perceive language in terms of its diverse functions
and to exploit this particular metacommunicative
categorisation as points of departure or hooks on
which to attach the diversity of linguistic forms.
This type of syllabus therefore assumes that a
functional interpretation and ordering of a language
will be amenable to the ways in which learners may
also perceive how language works and how a new
language may be used during actual communication.
In sum, the Functional syllabus has been compre-
hensively developed over the last 16 years as an
alternative to the Formal syllabus in terms of a
category-based representation of the uses to which a
language may be put. It is a particular propositional
representation of language knowledge motivated
by sociolinguistic perspectives on language. Unlike
the Formal syllabus, it explicitly addresses the ped-
agogic priority of offering learners a semantic and
interpersonal framework within which language
code or text may be located. Representing the
assumed target needs of learners (sometimes for
specific learner populations) in terms of a semantic
and social repertoire of linguistic codings or expo-
nents, it addresses communicative performance. It
shares with the Formal syllabus a strong reliance
upon descriptive linguistics and a faith in the
accessibility of its particular organisation of language
knowledge to the cognitive inclinations of language
learners.
2.5. Sources and references
I have used the term ' Functional' to include Func-
tional-Notional syllabuses. Many Functional syl-
labuses exploit functions as the primary organising
category whilst using notions, or topics, or even
situations as the frame for subdivision of content
wherein the range of functions and their exponents
90
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 14 Sep 2014
may be located. Whilst Wilkins (1976) for example,
seems to propose notions as the superordinate cate-
gory entailing functions, the relationship between
them is insufficiently systematic to support this kind
of hierarchical ordering for syllabus design purposes.
So weak is the relationship, that topical or situational
subdivisions of most syllabuses seems preferred and
Van Ek (1975) - a central contributor to the devel-
opment of the Functional syllabus — abandons
notional subdivision in favour of a framework
of pre-selected topics or themes which 'carry' a
Functional syllabus.
Perhaps the most widely known - and widely
developed - exemplars of the Functional syllabus
derive from the modern languages for adults projects
of the Council of Europe which was initiated in
1971 (Council of Europe, 1971). A recent valuable
collection of extracts of proposals from the major
contributors to this work reveals the evolution of a
Functional approach (van Ek and Trim, 1984)
whilst Coste et al. (1976) possibly exemplify the
clearest syllabus. Wilkins (1974, 1976) helpfully
relates the Functional syllabus to earlier types, whilst
van Ek (1976) applies Functional proposals to syl-
labus design for young learners on the basis of work
originally focused upon adults. An interesting -
and largely independent - development in modem
language syllabuses for school learners in Britain has
been the Graded Objectives movement (Harding et
al., 1980). It too uses social functions of language as
the primary category around which a syllabus
would be organised.
In the mid-'70s, Functional syllabuses began to be
seen as a valid and workable alternative to Formal
syllabus types, and teaching materials - such as
Abbs et al. (1975) and Jones (1977) - which repre-
sented versions of a Functional syllabus attracted
interest and enthusiasm from a good number of the
profession. At the time, a related development in
the work of other members of the profession
facilitated a veritable explosion in syllabuses based
upon socio-semantic categories of representation.
Motivated by the wish to meet the target language
use needs of specific populations of learners -
university students studying special subjects or
people engaged in particular occupations - Special
Purpose (LSP) syllabuses were developed which, at
the time, grew from the same roots as Functional
syllabuses and adopted essentially the same model in
their application of the organising principles of
syllabus design. Similarly building upon a careful
specification of objectives (as exemplified by such
writers as Valette and Disich, 1972; and Bung,
1973), early LSP syllabus development relied dir-
ectly upon the sociolinguist's analysis of language
use in social events (Mumby, 1978) and/or the
discourse analyst's identification of the particular
linguistic coding which examplified academic or
technical uses of language (Trimble et al., 1978).
IP address: 146.203.144.60
 State of the art: Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design
From these starting points, socio-semantic categories
of various kinds were adopted as the spine and
primary organising elements of a wide range of
syllabuses (inter alia, Mackay and Mountford, 1978;
British Council, 1978). Early LSP therefore thrived
in the same soil and adopted the same principles for
syllabus design as did mainstream Functionalism.
Indeed, early interpretations in the broader tradi-
tion of communicative language teaching shared
the common preference for socio-semantic orien-
tations in syllabus development in seeming op-
position to Formal orientations (Brumfit and
Johnson, 1979). Problems in Functional syllabus
design have been identified by Widdowson (1971,
1978/)) and in the discussion of Wilkins et al. (1981),
whilst efforts to seek a compromise between Formal
and Functional syllabuses have been made by
Alexander (1976), Swan (1981), Murison-Bowie
(1983), and Brumfit (1984). The last writer and
Johnson (1982), and contributors to Johnson and
Porter (1983), have explored the future directions of
the Functional syllabus and a possible future
synthesis, whilst it is interesting that the recent work
within the Council of Europe project itself suggests
new directions away from the primacy of functions
(Council of Europe: 1984).
(An earlier version of this paper was based on an inaugural lecture
given to the International Colloquium on Syllabus Design in Foreign
Language Learning in Adult Education at Ludwigshafen am Rhein,
Federal Republic of Germany, December 1985 I wish to express my
gratitude to the organisers of the Colloquium for inviting me to
participate and to the German Federal Ministry of Education and
Science for making the Colloquium possible. For their helpful com-
ments on the earlier version I am particularly grateful to Tony Crocker
of English Language Services Department, The British Council;
Robert B. Kaplan of the American Language Institute, University of
Southern California; and Sarah Mann of the Centre for the Study of
Management Learning, University of Lancaster. The improvements
to the present paper are theirs, whilst the remaining flaws are
mine.)
References for Part I
ABBS, B., AYTON, A. & FREEBAIRN, I. (1975). Strategies. London:
Longman.
AITKBNHBAD, A. M. & SLACK, J. M. (cds.) (1985). Issues in
cognitive modeling. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
ALEXANDER, L. G. (1976). Where do we go from here? A
reconsideration of some basic assumptions affecting course
design. ELTJ, 30, 2.
ALLEN, J. P. B. & WIDDOWSON, H. (1975). Grammar in lan-
guage teaching. In J. P. B. Allen & S. P. Corder (eds.), The
Edinburgh Course in Applied Linguistics: Volume II Papers in
Applied Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.
BRIGHT, J. A. & MCGREGOR, G. P. (1970). Teaching English as a
Second Language. London: Longman.
BRINDLEY, G. (1985). Some current issues in second language
teaching. In H. Nicholas (ed.), Current issues in first and second
language development. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics,
Series 5.
BRITISH COUNCIL (1978). English for Specific Purposes. ELT
Docs, 101.
BROWN, H. D. (1975). The next 25 years: shaping the revolu-
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 14 Sep 2014
tion. In M. K. Burt & H. C. Dulay (cds.), On TESOL '75.
Washington D . C . : TESOL.
BRUMFIT, C.J. (1981). Language variation and the death of
language teaching. BAAL Newsletter, 13.
BRUMFIT, C . J . (ed.) (1984). General English syllabus design.
ELT Docs, 118.
BRUMFIT, C.J. (1984). Communicative methodology in language
teaching. London: Cambridge University Press.
BRUMFIT, C . J . & JOHNSON, K. (cds.) (1979). The communicative
approach to language teaching. London: Oxford University
Press.
BUNG, K. (1973). The specification of objectives in a language
learning system for adults. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
COSTE, D., COURTILLON, J., FERENCZI, F., MARTIN-BALTAR, M. &
PAPPO, E. (1976). Un niveau seuil. Strasbourg: Council of
Europe.
COUNCIL OF EUROPE (1971). Linguistic content, means of evaluation
and their interaction in the teaching and learning of modern languages
in adult education. Symposium at Riischlikon, May 1971.
Council of Europe Paper C C C / E E S (1971) 135. Strasbourg:
Council of Europe.
COUNCIL OF EUROPE (1984). Towards a more comprehensive
framework for the definition of language learning objectives, vols.
1 and 2. Strasbourg: Council for Cultural Cooperation.
CRAWFORD-LANGE, L. M. (1982). Curricula alternatives for
second language learning. In T. V. Higgs (cd.), Curriculum,
competence and theforeign language teacher. Shokic, 111.: National
Textbook Co., ASTFL.
EISNER, E. W . & VALLANCE, E. (1974). Conflicting conceptions of
the curriculum. Berkeley, Ca.; McCutchan.
FRIES, C. C. (1947). Teaching and learning English as a Foreign
Language, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
HALLIDAY, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of
language. London: Edward Arnold.
HALLIDAY, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic.
London: Edward Arnold.
HALLIDAY, M. A. K., MCINTOSH, A. & STREVENS, P. D. (1964).
The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longman.
HARDING, A., PAGE, B. & ROWELL, S. (1980). Graded objectives
in modern languages. London: Centre for the Information on
Language Teaching and Research.
HORNBY, A. S. (1959). The teaching of structural words and sentence
patterns. London: Oxford University Press.
HOWATT, A. (1984). A history of English language teaching.
Oxford University Press.
HYMES, D. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic
theory. In R. Huxley & E. Ingram (eds.), Language acquisition
models and methods. N e w York: Academic Press.
HYMES, C. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and
social life. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in
sociolinguistics: the ethnography of communication. N e w York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
JOHNSON, K. (1982). Communicative syllabus design and method-
ology. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
JOHNSON, K. & PORTER, D. (eds.) (1983). Perspectives in communi-
cative language teaching. London: Academic Press.
JONES, L. (1977). Functions of English. London: Cambridge
University Press.
KUHN, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
LADO, R. (1964). Language teaching: a scientific approach. N e w
York: McGraw-Hill.
LEVINSON, S. (1982). Speech act theory: the state of the art. In
V. Kinsella (ed.), Surveys 2 (Cambridge Language Teaching
Surveys). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MACKAY, R. & MOUNTFORD, A. (1978). English for Special
Purposes. London: Longman.
MACKEY, W . F. (1965). Language teaching analysis. London:
Longman.
MUNBY, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. London:
Cambridge University Press.
91
IP address: 146.203.144.60
State of the art: Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design
MURISON-BOWIE, S. (1983). Blending grammatical and SWAN, M. (1981). False beginners. In K.Johnson & K. Morrow
notional/functional syllabuses. EFL Bulletin, 9. (eds.), Communication in the classroom. London: Longman.
QUINN, T. J. (1985). Functional approaches in language TONEY, T. (ed.) (1985). Dunford House Seminar Report 1984:
pedagogy. In R. B. Kaplan et al. (eds.), ARAL, 5. New Curriculum and syllabus design in ELT. London: The British
York: Cambridge University Press. Council.
RAIMES, A. (1983). Tradition and revolution in ESL teaching. TRIMBLE, M. T., TRIMBLE, L. & DROBNIC, K. (eds.) (1978).
TESOL Quarterly, 17, 4. English for Special Purposes: science and technology. English
READ, J. (ed.) (1984). Trends in language syllabus design. Singa- Language Institute, Oregon State University.
pore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, Occasional VALETTE, R. M. & DISICH, R. S. (1972). Modem language per-
Papers 31. formance objectives and individualisation. N e w York: Harcourt,
RICHARDS, D . (ed.) (1983). Concepts and functions in current Brace Jovanovich.
syllabuses. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, VAN EK, J. A. (1975). The threshold level. Strasbourg: Council of
Occasional Papers 30. Europe.
RICHARDS, J. C. & ROGERS, T. (1982). Method: approach, VAN EK, J. A. (1976). The threshold level for modern language
design and procedure. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 2. learning in schools. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
RIVERS, W. M. (1972). Speaking in many tongues. Rowley, Mass.: VAN EK, J. A. & T R I M J . L. M. (eds.) (1984). Across the threshold.
Newbury House. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
ROBERTS, J. (1982). Recent developments in ELT, parts I and II. WILKINS, D. A. (1972). Grammatical, situational and notional
Language Teaching, 15, 2 & 15, 3. syllabuses. In A. Verdoodt (ed.) Proceedings of the Third
RUMELHART, D. E. & NORMAN, D. A. (1983). Representation in International Congress of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 2. Heidel-
memory: CHIP technical report 116. San Diego: Center for berg: J. Groos, 1974.
human Information Processing, University of California. WILKINS, D. A. (1976). Notional syllabuses. London: Oxford
SALTARELLI, M. (ed.) (1983). The foreign language syllabus: University Press.
grammar notions and functions. Champaign, Urbana, Illinois: WFLKINS, D. A., BRUMFIT, C. J. & PAULSTON, C. BRATT (1981).
The Language Learning Laboratory (Studies in Language Notional syllabuses revisited, a response, some comments,
Learning, 4, 1.) and a further reply. Applied Linguistics, II, 1. Oxford
SHAW, A. M. (1977). Foreign language syllabus development: University Press.
some recent approaches. Language Teaching and Linguistics WIDDOWSON, H. G. (1971). The teaching of rhetoric to students
Abstracts, 10, 4. of science and technology. In Science and technology in a second
SOLMECKE, G. (1983). Foreign language teaching: the state of language. London: Centre for Information on Language
the art. In S. W. Felix & H. Wode (eds.) Language development Teaching and Research.
at the crossroads. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. WIDDOWSON, H. G. (1978a). Teaching language as communication.
STENHOUSE, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
development. London: Heineman. WIDDOWSON, H. G. (19786). Notional-functional syllabuses,
STERN, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. part iv. In C. H. Blatchford & J. Schachter (eds.), On Tesol
Oxford: Oxford University Press. '78: EFL policies, programs, practice. Washington, D . C . :
TESOL.

92

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 14 Sep 2014 IP address: 146.203.144.60