Functional Notional Syllabus is a
syllabus in which the language content is arranged according to the meanings
that a learner needs to express through language and the functions the learner
will use the target language for. It is a product-oriented, content based
syllabus where “meaning” is permanent. It views language as a living, dynamic,
complex phenomenon and relies on the learner’s capacity for analyzing language
for himself. “Functions” may be described as a communicative purpose for which
we use language. However, “notions” are the conceptual meanings (objects,
entities, states of affairs, logical relationships and so on). A notional
syllabus is contrasted with a grammatical syllabus on structural syllabus or a
situational syllabus.
The famous linguists Finacchiaro and
Brunfit suggest that functional-notionalism has “tremendous merit” of placing
the students and their communicative purpose at the centre of the curriculum.
They list the following benefits of adopting a functional-notional orientation.
(a)
It
sets realistic learning tasks.
(b)
It
provides for the teaching of day to day or real-world language.
(c)
It
leads us to emphasize receptive activities before rushing learners into
premature performance.
(d)
It
recognizes that the speaker must have a real purpose of speaking and something
to talk about.
(e)
Communication
will be intrinsically/ naturally motivating because it expresses basic
communicative functions.
(f)
It
enables teachers to exploit sound psycho-linguistic, socio-linguistic,
linguistic and educational principles.
(g)
It
can develop naturally from existing teaching methodology
(h)
It
enables a spiral curriculum to be used that reintroduces grammatical, topical
and cultural materials.
(i)
It
allows the development of flexible, modular courses.
(j)
It
provides for the widespread promotion of foreign language courses.
Criticism
Syllabus planner find that
when turning from structurally-based syllabus design to the design of
syllabuses based on functional-notional criteria, the selection and grading of
items become much more complex. Decisions about which items to include in the
syllabus can no longer be made on linguistic grounds alone, and designers need
to include items which they imagine will help learners to carry out the
communicative purposes.
The selection and grading
of items for a functional-notional syllabus relies on such considerations as
the need of the learners, both in terms of classroom functions and in the “real
world”, usefulness, coverage, interest or relevance and complexity of form.
In developing
functional-notional syllabuses, designers also need to look beyond linguistic
notions of simplicity and difficulty when it comes to grading items. Observing
grammatical criteria, it is possible to say that simple subject+ verb+ object
(SVO) structures should be taught before more complex clausal structures
involving such things as relativization (relative clause).
However, the grading of
functional items becomes much more complex because, there are few apparent
objective means for deciding that one functional form, for instance,
“apologizing” is either simpler or more difficult than another item such as
“requesting.”
Many of the criticisms
which were made of grammatical syllabuses have also been made of
functional-notional syllabuses. Widdowson pointed out that inventories of
functions and notions do not necessarily reflect the way languages are learned more
than do inventories of grammatical points and lexical items. He also claims
that dividing language into discrete units of whatever type misrepresents the
nature of language as communication.
Another criticism of
functional-notional syllabuses is that it deals with the components of
discourse but may not deal with the discourse itself.
Total communication is not
I it, because communication is qualitative and infinite, a syllabus is
qualitative and infinite.
