The document discusses notional-functional syllabuses, which organize language learning around notions (general concepts) and functions (purposes of language use) rather than grammatical structures. It arose from dissatisfaction with traditional grammar-based syllabuses. Notional-functional syllabuses analyze language needs, are learner-centered, focus on authentic use, and emphasize fluency over accuracy. While innovative, they were criticized for difficulties grading functions and for finite inventories similar to grammar. The document concludes that effective language teaching incorporates both formal and functional elements.

1. Notional
Functional
Syllabuses

2. Introduction to Notional-
Functional Syllabuses
 It is a semantically-based syllabus. It is
not organized in terms of grammatical
structure, but instead in terms of:
Notions
 General.
 Specific.
Functions

3. The development, its Pioneers &
Major advocates.
 Traditionally, language learning syllabuses were structured
around the grammar of the target language.
 By the 1970’s language educators were increasingly
dissatisfied with such formalistic views.
 Motivation depended on immediate «payoff».
 In the seventies second language students were quite
capable of imitating and memorizing the language.
 In 1971 a group of linguists studied the needs of European
students.
 The mandate was generalized in 1978 to cover all levels
and types of language learning.
 Wilkins (1972) grouped language items for teaching
purposes in terms of grammatical categories and language
functions.

4. Premises, components
and characteristics of
the Notional-
Functional Syllabus

5. Premises
 Communication is meaningful behavior.
 Language is constructed around language
functions and notions.

6. Components
1. The situations.
2. Topics.
3. The language functions: Personal,
Interpersonal, Directive, Referential,
Imaginative.
4. The general notions
5. The specific (topic related) notions.
6. The language forms.
7. The degree of skills.

7. SITUATUION
(Notion)
FUNCTION ACTUAL
LANGUAGE
LANGUAGE
PATTERNS and
TENSES
Getting things connected
e.g. gas, phone, TV.
Rent-payment–contract
Buying furniture –
Second-hand, markets,
auctions, small ads.
Paying bills-when and how.
At the door: milkman,
dustman, salesman.
Repair-plumber, electrician.
Making appointments,
Electotal Register.
Understanding and asking for
information..
Understanding directions and
local information.
Expressing intentions.
Declining.
Giving information.
Making requests to.
I’m looking for a large
wardrobe.
What sort of price did you have
in mind?
Have you got anything
cheaper?
I’m moving to... Can I have the
gas/electricity connected,
please?
What’s your address?
It’s £70 deposit.
Hello, I’m the…
Could I see your identification,
please?
Where can I get a…?
Are you interested in…?
No, not today, thank you
I’m looking for…
Have you got…?
Could I have…?
Can I…?
Can you tell me…?
Would you like…?
Sorry, I…
Comparatives/Adjetives
Where can I…?
(+ infinitive without to)
LEXIS LITERACY SYSTEM AIDS and
MATERIALS
Names of households items,
including plugs, etc.
Equipment.
Names of local institutions
e.g. clinic, library.
Reading bills, final demands,
meter and filling in estimated
bills, checking meter readings.
Library-Section headings
Form-fillings
Reading contracts.
Types of shops best for certain
items.
Where to buy what.
Use of the telephone for buying,
inquiring.
Filling bills and receips.
Guarantees.
What is delivered-milk, etc.
How and when to pay bills.
Where to get local information-
library, rent officer,Legal centre.
Asking for identification from
strangers at the door.
Simplified maps of locality –
grading up to actual maps.
Simplified and graded gas bills
and meter readings.
«7 days a week» Pack Tapes –
of dialogues situtaions.

8. Characteristics
1. Functional view.
2. Semantic base.
3. Learner-centered view.
4. Analysis of learners needs.
5. Learner-centered goals.
6. Authentic language use.
7. Testing focused on ability.

9. Logic, syllabus type,
assumption and
philosophy behind
Notional-Functional
Syllabuses

10. Logic
A general competence in language
 The goal
Context-dependent

11. Syllabus Type
 Product-oriented syllabus.

12. Assumption
Motivations, characteristics,
abilities, limitations and
resources are the point of
departure.

13. Philosophy
The primary purpose
Identifying the elements of the target
language.

14. The effect of the
Notional-Functional
Syllabus Approach
on Language
Teaching Pedagogy

15. Incorporation of new textbooks
 By the mid-1970’s.
 Instead of having unit headings as
«Modals» or «The Simple Past» now such
textbooks included titles like «Give, Ask
for & Refuse Permission» and «Talking
about the weekend»

16. Priority is given to:
a) Sentences in combination.
b) «Meaning» over «form».
c) Participation in authentic language use.
d) Fluency over formal accuracy.
e) Speaking and listening skills in class.
f) Less controlled testing.

17. An evaluation of Notional-
Functional Syllabuses
The greatest strenghts:
 Opportunity to use real-world language.
 The syllabus is easily expandable.
 It promotes language variation.

18. An evaluation of Notional-
Functional Syllabuses
It was not impervious to critisism:
 The NFS seemed a very sensible idea at
the time.
 A single language function may be
expressed in many different ways.
 Difficulties when grading functions.
 The finite inventories of functions are not
different from inventories of grammar
items.
 The NFS approach is exclusively
concerned with the target language.

19. A few concluding remarks on
Notional-Functional Syllabuses
 Language learning materials should
incorporate both formal and functional
elements.
 Notional-Functional Syllabuses are most
readily applicable for courses and
programs for learners with special
purposes.

20. Other types
 Grammatical syllabus
 Lexical syllabus
 Situational syllabus
 Text-based syllabus
 Skill-based syllabus
 Task-based syllabus
 Learner-generated syllabus
 Mixed syllabus
 Online course syllabus