|
The
Structural Syllabus
School of Lifelong Education and Development May 2008 |
|
Introduction Many linguists (Brumfit 1981, Wilkins 1981a, Prabhu
1987, Richards 2001)are agreed that a syllabus is a specification of what is to
be taught during a course of instruction. Prabhu (1987) recognises the dual
interpretation of “what is to be taught”. This, he says, may refer either to an “operational construct,” (Prabhu 1987:87) that is to say, what is to
be done in the classroom or to an “Illuminative
construct” Prabhu, (1987:90), which is concerned with the product of
learning. In what follows I propose to describe one particular
type of syllabus that was popular throughout much of the 20th
century. I shall also present some of the objections and criticisms raised by
its opponents and offer some points in its defence. This structural syllabus is
also referred to by some authors as a grammatical syllabus. (Wilkins 1976:7,
Richards 2001:153). Hereinafter, the two terms will be used interchangeably. The structural syllabus Wilkins (1981a:83) describes the
grammatical syllabus as an ordered
sequence of structures and Richards
and Rogers (1987:148) call it an arrangement
of linguistic units It is a specification of the content
of a course of study and what is to be taught or learnt thereby – an
illuminative construct. Richards
(2001) points out that over the years, types of syllabus have been strongly influenced
by methods popular at the time. This type of syllabus is based upon a
structural theory of language., which was popular from the early part of the 20th
Century and had as its basis the notion, that grammar and vocabulary were the
basic units of language. According to Richards and Rogers (1987), the aim of
language learning was seen to be the acquisition of structurally related
elements of the language system. These, it was believed, could be taught step
by step and, by using what Wilkins calls a synthetic
strategy, (Wilkins, 1976:2), these building blocks of the language would
gradually be incorporated into a whole structure. Selection Howatt and
Widdowson (2004) remind us that in the 1950’s and 60’s, one guiding principle
of English language teaching was “...the
careful selection and grading of grammar patterns and vocabulary.” (Howatt
and Widdowson 2004:300). Mackey (1965) points out that selection of language
items is determined according to one or more of various criteria including the
following: most frequent Vocabulary,
for example may be selected according to the number of times each word appears
in a variety of texts. So that only the most frequently occurring words are taught.
Palmer (1964:69) recommends that where a particular word has more than one
meaning, then the usual or more frequently occurring one(s) should be selected. most useful It soon
becomes clear that frequency alone is not an adequate criterion for selection of
vocabulary without also considering the range. Richards (2001) suggests that,
in order to be useful to the learners, the language samples from which the
words are taken must be relevant to their needs. Mackey (1965:78), suggests
that books and periodicals on which the counting was done should be the same sort
as those, which the learners will be reading. Richards (2001) also includes
among useful words, those that are employed when defining others. For example, container helps to describe bucket, jar and carton. most
teachable. Even those
words most frequently occurring in the relevant language samples may not
necessarily correspond with what is most useful or most needed; particularly in
the early part of a course. Mackey’s third category of most teachable includes those
words that are “readily available”
(Richards 2001:8) that is words such as the names of things, which can be
pointed to. He remarks that there are those who would consider short words to
be more learnable than long ones. Other items may be deemed easier to teach because
they more closely resemble words in the learner’s native language. Richards
also lists words like seat, which
cover or include the meanings of other words such as stool, bench and chair. Mackey (1965)
suggests that grammar can be selected according to the same criteria of
frequency, usefulness and teachability but Richards (2001) disagrees. He is of
the opinion that unlike vocabulary selection, grammar is not selected by
examining frequency of occurrence of grammatical forms and structures.
According to Richards since a grammatical syllabus specifies both the
grammatical structures and the order in which they should be taught, selection
of grammar is closely linked with grading Grading According to
Palmer (1964), “Gradation means passing
from the known to the unknown by easy stages, each of which serves as a
preparation for the next. (Palmer 1964:67). By this he meant not
necessarily from the easiest to the most difficult but, he explains, “…from the more important, useful or
fundamental to the less important, useful or fundamental” (Palmer 1964:70).
Similarly, Mackey (1965:83) insists that there are those forms which are
indispensable and those that may be introduced much later. Richards (2001:13)
appears to be in agreement when he says that, “some structures will be needed early on and cannot be postponed
despite their difficulty”. He uses the criterion of “communicative need” to justify early introduction of the simple
past tense because, he says, “...it is
difficult to avoid making reference to past events for very long in a course” (Richards
2001:13) Palmer says “certain moods and tenses are more useful than others” (Palmer
1964:68) and we should concentrate on these first. Some material such as prepositions
should be presented according to their degree of importance and lists of rules
and exceptions should be learnt in strict order of necessity. For example, he
says that many irregular forms are often among the more useful in a language
and, contrary to the general principle of gradation, should be presented at an
early stage. Palmer presumes that, most
languages have “…certain fundamental laws
of grammar and syntax upon which the whole structure of the language depends”
and urges us to “first learn these
essentials and leave the details to a later stage” (Palmer 1964:69). Richards (2001:11) insists that
selection and therefore also grading is based on the criteria of simplicity and
learnability. The grammatical syllabus, he says, consists of a logical
progression of graded structures to provide “an accessible and gradual
introduction to the grammar of English” Simplicity and centrality, as one of
the principles used as a criterion for selection and grading in a grammatical
syllabus, would allow structures such as: The train arrived. (Subject Verb) She is a journalist. (Subject Verb Complement) The children are in the bedroom. (Subject Verb Adverb) We ate the fruit. (Subject Verb Object) I put the book in the bag. (Subject Verb Object Adverb) which are deemed not only simpler, but
also more central to the basic structure of the language. The following,being “more
complex and peripheral”.would be disallowed. Having
neither money nor time, we decided buying a ticket to the opera was out of the
question. For her to speak to us like that was something we had never anticipated. (Richards 2001:11) Richards’ second criterion is
learnability. The assumption, that some grammatical structures are more easily
learned than others, and can claim support from the work of Dulay and Burt,
whose findings from their studies of children suggested “a common order of acquisition for certain structures in L2 acquisition”
(Dulay and Burt 1973:256). This was further supported by the discovery, that
two groups of children from vastly different language backgrounds, acquired a
total of eleven grammatical items in roughly the same sequence (Dulay and Burt 1974)
Furthermore, the study by Bailey,
Madden and Krashen (1974) suggested that adults learning English as a second
language, process language in a similar way to children. However, the study
indicated “two invariant orderings” (Bailey,
Madden and Krashen 1974:242) one of which is specific to children learning
English as a first language and another shared by both adult and child second language
learners. Pienemann (1984:186) has suggested that the
“teachability” of structures in the second language is constrained by the same
processing restrictions that determine the developmental sequences of natural
L2 acquisition and each stage is a prerequisite for the next. He maintains that
teaching promotes acquisition if what is presented is learnable at that point
in time. Not only does instruction have “an
accelerating effect on acquisition for learners who are ready for it”, (Pienemann
1989:61) but also, if instruction is contrary to the natural sequence then “it impedes rather than promotes language
acquisition” (Pienemann 1984:209) Objections to the structural syllabus The structural syllabus is not without its critics. (Wilkins
1976) and (Richards 2001) for example are both of the opinion that mastery of
grammatical structures is only one part of language learning. In particular, the
focus of this type of syllabus is on form and little attention is paid to
meaning. Wilkins (1972:147) remarks that what
he calls the “grammatical function” of a sentence may not be the same as
its “utterance function” He observes (Wilkins
1976:9), that a
single grammatical form may be semantically very complex. Any grammatical structure may serve
multiple functions and any function may be expressed by several different
grammatical forms. Paulson
(1981) does not see this as a problem. On the contrary, she points out that,
unlike notions proposed by Wilkins (1976), language forms are generative and cannot be divorced from functions.
In her opinion, it makes sense to “organize
a syllabus along linguistic forms which can generate infinite meanings and many
functions, rather than to organize the content along a finite list of
functions.” (Paulson 1981:91) Wilkins (1981b:99)
has cast doubt on the grading and sequencing of material in a
grammatical syllabus, on
the grounds that we have no way of
determining the comparative complexity and therefore difficulty of grammatical
structures. However, this preceded the publication of Pienemann’s work (Pienemann
1984). outlining his Teachability Hypothesis, which maintains that learnability/teachability
is after all, a valid criterion for the
selection of structures. One other criticism and perhaps the
most difficult to defend is, that the structural syllabus “does not address communicative
skills” (Richards2001:153). Howatt and Widdowson (2004:300) point out that,
the structural syllabus makes use of well-formed Standard English sentences but
that natural speech “does not always conform to standardized
notions of well-formedness” . Besides this, by concentrating on form rather
than meaning, the structural syllabus is open to the criticism that it
sacrifices fluency for the sake of accuracy. However, Richards (2001:154) comes to
the rescue when he explains that one reason for the continued popularity of the
grammatical syllabus is that ”communicative
competence includes the ability to use grammar” Conclusion Though some may view the structural
syllabus as somewhat dated and no longer relevant in the brave new world of
syllabus design, it can nevertheless, claim support even from its critics. Wilkins (1976) tells us, that grammar
is viewed by many as the predominant unit in language learning and that an ordered
list of grammatical structures lies at the core of the majority of syllabuses. Cook (2001) is
of the opinion that “Grammar is considered by many linguists to be
the central area of the language around which other areas such as pronunciation
and vocabulary revolve” Cook (2001:19) Richards (2001:152) points out that “grammar remains a core component of many
language courses”. He remarks that, in some parts of the
world, both students and teachers expect their syllabus to contain a “grammar strand” and would “react negatively to its absence.” Richards
(2001:153) and, although they are typically only seen as part of a
multisyllabus design, “grammatical
syllabuses continue to be widely used in language teaching”. Richards
(2001:154) Paulson (1981:94) expresses the view,
that since students vary in their individual learning preferences, some may be
predisposed to derive benefit from a structured syllabus (This may or may not
be to do, as she suggests, with cerebral hemispheric dominance). Whatever the
reason, despite the objectors and critics, it is an inescapable fact, that since
early in the 20th century, whole generations of students have received
instruction based upon a grammatical (structural) syllabus. Whether because of,
or in spite of this, vast numbers of students have successfully become
competent speakers of foreign languages. References Bailey, N. Madden,
C. & Krashen, S.D, (1974) Is there a “natural sequence” in adult second
language learning? Language Learning
24(2), 235-243 Brumfit, C.J. (1981) Notional Syllabuses
Revisited: A Response. Applied
Linguistics, 2(1), 90-92 Cook, V. (2001) Second
Language Learning and Language teaching 3rd Edition, NY, OUP Dulay , H.C. & Burt, M.K. (1973) Should we teach children
syntax? Language Learning 23(2),
245-258 Dulay, H.C.& Burt, M.K.(1974) Natural sequences in child
second language acquisition, Language
Learning 24 (1) 37-53 Howatt, A.P.R. & Widdowson, H.G.
(2004) A History of English Language
Teaching, second edition, Paulston, C.B. (1981) Notional
Syllabuses Revisited: Some Comments Applied
Linguistics, 2/1, 96–100 Pienemann, M (1984) Psychological
Constraints on the Teachability of Languages*, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2) 186 – 214 Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language
teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses, Applied Linguistics 1, 52-79 Richards, J. C. (2001)
Curriculum Development in Language Teaching Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T.S. (1987) Method: Approach, Design,
and Procedure in
Long, M.H. & Richards, J. C. Methodology
in TESOL: a book of readings, Mackey, W F. 1965 Language teaching
analysis. White, R. V. (1988) The ELT Curriculum Design Innovation and
Management, Wilkins, D.A. (1972) Linguistics
in language teaching, Wilkins, D.A (1976), Notional Syllabuses Wilkins, D.A, (1981a). Notional
Syllabuses Revisited: Applied
Linguistics, 2 (1), 83-89 Wilkins, D.A, (1981b). Notional
Syllabuses Revisited: A Further Reply. Applied Linguistics, 2 (1), 96–100 |