All of this had an impact on attitudes towards the structural syllabus, a syllabus which reflected the clause/sentence-based grammatical preoccupation of structural linguistics and initially grew out of research in France that was designed to identify what grammar and vocabulary would be required as a minimum in order to communicate in French and the order in which they might be taught. This research led to Le Français Fondamental which provided specifications for a basic vocabulary and grammar for the French language as outlined by Gougenheim, Michea, Rivenc and Sauvageot (1956). This development was intended, in part at least, to address a situation which Trim (2005, p. 13) has described as follows: “[Language] teachers [had become] quite out of touch with the up-to-date realities
of the languages and cultures they were teaching and concentrated their attention on puristic formal correctness and the heritage of national literature”.
In the early stages of attempts to make curricula more responsive to day-to-day communicative realities, attempts were sometimes made to situationalize the grammatical syllabus, as in, for example, New Concept English (Alexander, 1967a, b, c & d) which, while it involved a systematic and graded presentation of the grammatical 'common core', nevertheless ensured that "the items to be taught would be carefully selected in terms of their potential immediate and practical application" (Alexander, 1976, p. 94). Later, however, many different syllabus design proposals were forwarded, including the notional functional syllabus (proposed by Wilkins (1976) and endorsed by the Council of Europe) in which syllabus components were, it was argued, meaning-based, being largely notional (also referred to as ‘ideational’, ‘cognitive’ or ‘propositional’), functional or modal. The first of these categories (notional meanings) includes meanings that can be expressed "through grammatical systems in different languages” (e.g. time, duration, frequency, frequency and quantity) (p. 21). The second (modal meanings) involves situations in which “the truth of the predication is subject to some kind of contingency or modification” (e.g. probability, possibility, affirmation, negation, and obligation) (p. 83). The third (functional meanings) are “what the speaker intends to achieve”, that is, speech acts, such as suggestion, agreement and disagreement and greeting (p. 43).
Other proposals regarding syllabus types include the core and spiral syllabus (Brumfit, 1980), the proportional syllabus (Yalden, 1983), the relational syllabus (Crombie, 1985a & b), the lexical syllabus (Sinclair & Renouf, 1988; Willis, 1990), and the task-based syllabus (Prabhu, 1987; Breen, 1987a & b). In addition, a number of proposals have been made in relation to reading and writing syllabuses.
In proposing a core and spiral syllabus, in which the grammatical system provides the core to which other types of specification (notions, functions, situations) relate, with initial units being primarily functional and later ones being primarily notional, Brumfit (1980, p. 5) observes that such a design "has the advantage that functions and notions are not treated as if they can be taught discretely". Like the core and
spiral syllabus, the proportional syllabus recommended by Yalden (1983) is based on a compromise position resulting in a hybrid-type of syllabus. In the proportional syllabus, an initial ‘structural phase’ is followed by a number of ‘communicative phases’ (focusing on functional, discoursal and rhetorical components) and a final ‘specialized phase’. In proposing a relational syllabus, which starts from universal cognitive processes such as comparison/contrast and logical sequence, and in which relationships within propositions (e.g. Agent-Action) and between propositions (e.g. Reason-Result; Chronological Sequence) are related to their various encodings, Crombie (1985b, p. 1) argues that such an organization allows for adequate account to be taken of coherent discourse. In arguing in favour of a lexical syllabus, underpinning which is the assumption, based on corpus studies, that "grammar is an outcome of . . . lexical structure" (Hoey, 2005, p. 1), Willis (1990, p. xii) argues that one of its advantages is that it “offers the learner experience of a tiny but balanced corpus of natural language from which it is possible to make generalisations about the language as a whole” (xii). The first exponent of the task- based syllabus was Prabhu (1987)12 who argued for a syllabus organized in terms
of tasks graded in terms of conceptual difficulty, with no attempt to decide in advance on the linguistic content of lessons. In terms of the nature of these tasks, Breen (1987b, p. 162) notes that "the designer will select and cluster those tasks for the syllabus which are most common in the target situation, or most generalisable to the target situation . . . or most relevant in terms of learner need and interest, or through some combination of these selection criteria" although task sequencing needs to be responsive to "emerging learner problems and difficulties" and so cannot be wholly pre-planned.
Several of these syllabus design proposals have been the subject of negative criticism. Thus, for example, the notional functional approach to syllabus design, while offering some interesting possibilities, has been criticized on the grounds that (a) functions, being context-dependent, cannot be systematized or related in any coherent way to encodings (except in the case of fossilized or stereotypical realizations as in, for example, greetings) and therefore cannot provide any genuine basis for syllabus specification, and (b) notions, as they relate to meanings that can
be grammatically encoded (e.g. habitual aspect as expressed in the use of the present simple tense in English), are simply different ways of organizing grammatical categories (e.g. listing the present simple tense in English under the headings of habit/routine, definite future plans, etc. rather than under a grammatical heading) (Crombie, 1988). In fact, even some of the major proponents of the notional functional syllabus, such as Van Ek (1975), effectively abandon notional specification, relying largely on a combination of functions and topics.
The lexical syllabus design proposal has also been the subject of some adverse criticism. Widdowson (2003, p. 75) has, for example, noted that corpus descriptions are "limited to one aspect of language use” and do not include discourse considerations.
So far as the task-based syllabus design proposal is concerned, it has been criticized on a number of grounds. Crombie (1988, p. 287) has argued that it confuses means and ends and Her (2007, pp. 49-50) has observed that it is the linguistic rather than the conceptual difficulty of tasks that is important so far as language teaching and learning are concerned. Furthermore, the specification of tasks has varied considerably in the literature (see, for example, Candlin, 1987; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Nunan, 1989; Robinson, Ting & Urwin, 1996). This has led Her (2007, p. 51) to conclude that, in view of the “bewildering array of factors that apparently affect task difficulty, it would not be surprising if language teachers felt confused rather than enlightened". However, although there would appear to be considerable problems associated with attempting to implement a task-based approach, many teachers would be likely to agree with Loschky and Bley-Vroman (1993, pp. 154- 156) that tasks should accompany (rather than constitute) a language syllabus - a position that is sometimes referred to as a 'task- supported' (as opposed to 'task- based') approach. Within the context of structural syllabuses, there is gradual exposure to different structures (often referred to as a 'focus on form'). Within the context of task-based approaches to syllabus design, it has been argued (Long, 1988) that a better approach is one in which students' attention is drawn to different constructions as they arise in texts or tasks rather than in any pre-determined order (often referred to as a 'focus on forms'). There is, however, no direct evidence in
favour of the latter and, in fact, Sheen (2003, pp. 225) has observed that Long's focus on form approach is becoming “a myth in the making”.
Given the bewildering array of syllabus design possibilities, it is interesting to note that Fester (2014 forthcoming, p. 124) has recently observed that, so far as general English language textbooks are concerned, the preferred approach to syllabus design is a hybrid one:
The main trend appears to be to design hybrid situationalized, task- supported syllabuses in which a roughly equivalent weighting is given to lexis and grammar, with some consideration also being given to functional specification (often very general functions and/or formulaically encoded functions), skills and sub-skills and, in some cases, conversational management and/or learning strategies and some aspects of cohesion.
In general, as in the case of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001), learning objectives in communicatively oriented syllabuses are expressed in a range of 'can do' statements which are then associated, at different curriculum levels, with particular language features. Hence the development of what are referred to as 'Reference Level Descriptions' (RLDs), such as English Profile for English, Profile Deutsch for German, Un référentiel pour le français for French associated with the 'common reference levels'13 of the
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). These RLDs are intended to attempt to relate learning objectives to language specifics (Beacco, 2004, ¶ 4).
There have also been a number of research-related proposals relating specifically to reading and writing syllabuses.
Prior to the late 1960s and early 1970s (and still in some contexts today), reading classes generally involved reading aloud with a focus on pronunciation. In the late 1960s, however, partly as a result of the development by Goodman (1967) of a
13 There are six broad common reference levels as follows: A1 and A2 (Basic User), B1 and B2
reading process model, the encoding/decoding model of reading, based on the belief that all that readers needed to do was decode messages that had previously been encoded in text (Su, 2008, p. 77) was subject to challenge. By the late 1970s, Coady (1979) had developed a reading model for the learning of additional languages that focused on the ways in which readers used a range of strategies, including inferencing, to make sense of texts, drawing upon their background knowledge. In this context, reading syllabuses that highlighted the importance of "predicting, guessing the meaning of words from context and scanning and skimming . . . [and recognising and responding to] the semantic clues provided by cohesive devices" (Su, 2008, p. 80) began to be developed.
So far as writing is concerned, three different (but overlapping) phases have been recognized: a product phase, a process phase and a post-process phase (see discussion in Matsuda, 2003). The first of these (product-oriented) was/is characterized by a focus on the products of writing tasks, the emphasis being primarily on mechanistic aspects of writing, such as spelling, punctuation, vocabulary, and structure. In the second (process-oriented), writing tended/tends to be seen “a process of discovery, a process of exploring . . . of creating, testing, and refining hypotheses” (Odell, 1980, p. 140) and was/is characterized by a focus on the processes involved in creating written products, such as drafting, revising and editing. In some cases, this involved/ involves a type of ‘free writing’ (Elbow, 1973, p. 14) intended to remove the “psychological or existential difficulty” associated with “wondering, worrying, crossing out, having second, third, and fourth thoughts”. The third phase (post-process) involved/ involves an emphasis on genres and text-types and focused/focuses on the overall rhetorical structure and/or internal discourse structuring of texts and the ways in which these interact with the specifics of language selection. All of these have implications for the construction of writing syllabuses. Thus, for example, Lin (2010) provides an outline of a writing syllabus that is genre-centred.
2.2.2.2 Methodology
So far as methodology is concerned, although his focus was on first language acquisition, the work of Noam Chomsky had an impact on second language teaching, particularly in so far as it led to a loss of confidence in the centrality of
those habit formation practices that underpinned audio-lingualism14 and had a
major impact on the development of ‘cognitive code learning theory’. This theory was responsible for the fact that language teachers increasingly encouraged learners to derive rules for themselves on the basis of examples and apply these rules to the creation of new sentences relating to what they wanted/ needed to communicate rather than providing them with explicit rules and repetitive practice of them (Stern, 1983, p. 465).
Chomsky's work continued to be fundamentally structural in orientation, his primary interest being in what he referred to as 'competence', the ideal speaker/hearer's knowledge of his/her language system, rather than 'performance', the actual use of the language system in concrete situations (Chomsky, 1957). This distinction soon came to be seen by many linguists and sociologists as an artificial one. Hence the emergence of the concept of 'communicative competence', a concept initially developed in the 1970s (see, for example, 'Habermas (1970), Hymes (1971), and Jakobovits (1970). Hymes (1971) included within his definition of communicative competence each of the following: formal possibility (relating to structural accuracy), implementational feasibility (relating to whether an accurate structure (e.g. one that involves a considerable amount of embedding, is actually usable), contextual appropriacy (whether an utterance is appropriate in particular circumstances), and the performative role of utterances (the speech act, e.g. warning, that they perform in a particular context). In the 1980s, the notion of ‘communicative competence’ was extended to include a range of ‘communicative competencies’, including (in response, in particular, to research on language testing) the concept of strategic competencies (the ability to use verbal and non- verbal strategies to compensate for breakdowns in communication) (see, for example, Canale, 1983; Canale & Swain, 1980; Oller, 1983). The issue of competencies continued to occupy researchers in the 1990s, with, for example, Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrell (1995) arguing that five main types of competence - discourse competence, linguistic competence, transactional competence, sociocultural competence and strategic competence - needed to be accommodated in relation to language syllabus design and teaching methodologies.
14 These often involved repetition of core structural elements of model sentences while varying some
The Council of Europe (2001, pp. 108-130), on the other hand, has argued that communicative competence is made up of three main components - linguistic skills and knowledge (including phonology, orthography, vocabulary, morphology and syntax), sociolinguistic skills and knowledge (including rules of politeness, the norms governing relationships and the codification of social rituals) and pragmatic skills and knowledge (including discourse competence, functional competence and design competence).
The notion of communicative competence or communicative competencies, however articulated, effectively includes everything that a learner needs to know and be able to do in a target language. For this reason, as Widdowson (1998, p. 331) observes, it can lead to a situation in which language educators lose sight of the realities of instructed language learning which, inevitably, calls for the prioritization of some aspects of language behaviour:
Learners of a foreign language should be made aware of . . . cultural conditions on real communication. . . . But the explicit teaching of communicative abilities which measure up to those of the communities whose language they are learning is quite a different matter.
I believe that an attempt to do so is to set an impossible and pointless goal whose only outcome is likely to be frustration. . . . It is the business of pedagogy to decide on what can be feasibly and effectively taught . . . so as to activate a learning investment for future use. Talk of real world communication is all too often a distraction.
The notion of communicative competence/ communicative competencies began to be linked, in the 1970s to the concept of 'communicative language teaching' (CLT) which Littlewood (1981, pp. 6, 77 & 78) defined in terms of three general (related) principles and four broad skill domains. The three general principles were the meaningfulness principle (the learning process is supported to the extent that language is used meaningfully), the communication principle (activities that engage genuine communication promote learning); and the task principle (using language to carry out meaningful tasks is important to language learning). The four broad
skill domains were manipulation of the language system; ability to relate form and communicative function; understanding of the social meanings of linguistic forms; and strategic control in the use of language to communicate effectively in specific situations. One of the most widely known definitions of CLT is that of Nunan (1991, pp. 279-295) which includes each of the following:
emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language;
introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation15;
provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language but also on the learning process itself;
enhancement of the learner’s own personal experiences as important contributing elements to classroom learning; and
attempt to link classroom language learning with language activities outside the classroom.
In the early stages of its development, CLT was often associated with a neglect of language structure in spite of the fact that no definition of communicative competence excludes structural considerations. This is, however, no longer the case although the emphasis is on teaching structural rules implicitly (often through designing input in such a way as to encourage learners to make structural inferences) rather than explicitly. The earlier approach to CLT is often now referred to as the 'strong version', the later one as the 'weak version' (Howatt, 1984, pp. 296- 297).
Some types of activity, such as many of those associated with audio-lingualism, are clearly inappropriate within the context of CLT; many other types of activity, such as activities involving an information gap, are wholly consistent with it, the general principle being that the more variety there is in relation to activity types, the more likely it is that the differing needs and interests of learners will be accommodated.
15Widdowson (1983, p. 30) notes that the concept of authenticity should not be confused with that
of genuineness in that materials may be regarded as authentic so long as they are appropriate and accessible.
A useful guide to activity types has been provided by Littlewood (2004, p. 322) who has classified those activities that focus wholly on the structure of language as non-communicative, those that give some attention to meaning but do not involve the exchange of new messages as pre-communicative, and those that involve the practice of pre-taught language in a context where new information is exchanged as communicative. The last of these may involve structured communication, in which situations are used to elicit pre-taught language (including structured role plays) or authentic communication, involving situations in which meanings are unpredictable (including creative role-plays and complex problem solving). There are, in fact, good arguments for including all of these activity types at some stage in the language learning process. After all, corpus-based research has revealed the frequent occurrence of set phrases, leading Lewis (1993, p. 95) to argue that an important part of language learning is the ability to understand and produce ‘institutionalized utterances’ as unanalysed wholes and to use them as raw data underpinning the perception of language patterns. This is wholly consistent with some developments in cognitive psychology which have pointed to the co-existence of a generative (rule-based) system and a memory-based one, leading to a type of 'dual processing'. This should not, however, be seen as an argument in favour of the prioritization of rote learning.
Some researchers have argued that CLT is a peculiarly Western phenomenon and that is not necessarily appropriate for certain contexts and types of teacher and learner (see, for example, Canagarajah, 1999). Some have catalogued the types of difficulty facing those who seek to implement CLT in some parts of the world (see, for example, Yu, 2001), including the lack of adequate professional development (see, for example, Lamie, 2000), the nature of the textbooks that teachers are expected to use (see, for example, Wang, 2007), the examination systems that prevail (see, for example, Umeda, 2014) and the limited target language proficiency of some teachers (Wang, 2010). Nevertheless CLT is currently recommended by a wide range of Ministries and Departments of Education throughout the world and many teachers appear to be supportive of it. Nevertheless, Thompson (1996) has observed that misconceptions about CLT are not only widespread among language teachers but are also to be found among some language teacher trainers. He has observed, for example, that misconceptions shared by some of his colleagues are