Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T12:01:09.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

National/Funcitonal Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

Jenny Barnett
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is not one notional/functional approach any more than there is one structural approach. There is simply a set of beliefs about language and language learning, some or all of which might be expected to underlie syllabi, courses, and classroom materials labeling themselves functional or notional. In this chapter, therefore, we shall be looking at the core of belief, its implications, and its potential for developemnt.

Type
Language Teaching/Learning: New Pedagogical Approaches and Texts
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 1 , March 1980 , pp. 43 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, L. G. 1976. Where do we go from here? A reconsideration of some basic assumptions affecting course design. English language teaching journal. 30.2.Google Scholar
Alexander, L. G. 1976. Some methodelogical implications of Waystage and Threshold level. In van Ek, Threshold level for modern language learning in schools.Google Scholar
Alexander, L. G. 1979. A functional/notional approach to course design. Audio–visual journal. 17.2.Google Scholar
Allen, J. P. B. and Widdowson, H. G.. 1974. Teaching the communicative use of English. International review of applied linguistice. 12.1.1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allwright, R. 1977. Language learning through communication practice. ELT documents. 76.3.2–14.Google Scholar
[Reprinted In Brumfit, C. J. and Johnson, K. (eds.) The communicative approach to language teaching. 1979].Google Scholar
Andrews, , John, , 1975. Say what you mean in English. London: Thomas Nelson & Sons.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L., 1962. How to do things with words. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, J. 1977. A functional syllabus for post–intermediate ESL in Papua New Guinea. Australian review of applied linguistics. 1.1.10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britton, J., 1970. Language and learning. Allen Lane: The Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C. J. 1978. Review of Wilkins' Notional syllabuses. English language teaching. 33.1.79–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brumfit, J. 1979. Notional syllabuses—a reassessment. System. 7.111–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bung, K. 1973. The specification of objectives in a language learing system for adults. Council of Europe Paper CCC/EES. (73) 34. Strasbourg.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. and Wales, R.. 1970. The Study of language acquisition. In Lyons, J., (ed.) New horizons in linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Child Migrant Education Centre. 1978. Waterloo Street (T.V. series). The Australian Broadcasting Commission.Google Scholar
Clark, J. L. 1979. The syllabus: What should the learner learn? Audio-visual journal. 17.2.Google Scholar
Coste, D. J., Courtillon, J., Ferenczi, F., Martins-Baltor, M., and Papo, E.. 1976. Un Niveau–Seuil. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Coulthard, M., 1977. An introduction to discourse analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Council of Europe, 1973. Systems development in adult language learing. Strasbourg.Google Scholar
Council of Europe, 1977. Waystage. Strasbourg.Google Scholar
Council of Europe, 1979. Colloquy on “The teaching of the language of the host country to adult migrants”. Strasbourg.Google Scholar
Dakin, J., Tiffen, B., and Widdowson, H. G.. 1968. Language in education. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dobson, , Julia, M. 1979. The notional syllabus: Theory and practice. English teaching forum. 17.2.Google Scholar
Doughty, P., Pearce, J. J., and Thornton, G. M.. 1971. Language in use. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Edelhoff, C. F. et al. , 1978. Obungstypololgie zum lernzeil kommunikative kompetenz. Munich: Langenscheidt–Longman.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., 1971. Verbs of judging; An exercise in semantic description. In Fillmore, and Langendoen, , (eds.) Studies in linguistic semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1975. Learing how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Languages as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Harlow, L. 1978. An alternative to structurally oriented textbooks. Foregin language annals. 11.559–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D., 1968. The ethnograpy of speaking. In Fishman, J., (ed.) Readings in the sociology of language. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hymes, D., 1972. On communicative competece. In Pride, J. B. and Holmes, J. (eds.) Sociolingustics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Ingram, , David, E. 1977. Language proficiency at matriculatrion. Paper and at 1977 Congress of the Applied Lingustistics Association of Australia. University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Ingram, , David, E. 1978. An applied linguistic study of advanced language learing. University of Essex Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
Ingram, , David, E. 1980. Reading and writting in the on-arrival programme of the adult migrant education program. Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affaris. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. 1977. The adoption of functional syllabuses for general language teaching courses. Canadian modern language review. 33.7.667–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. 1979. Communicative approaches and communicative processess. In Brumfit, C. J. and Johnson, K. (eds.) The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. and Morrow, K., (eds.) 1978. Functional materials and the classroom teacher. Reading: Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Kaleidoscope: English for juniors, stage 1. 1976. London: University of York/Macmillan.Google Scholar
Leech, G. and Svartvik, J.. 1975. A communicative grammar of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Morrow, K. E. 1977. Teaching the functions of language. English language teaching. 32.1.Google Scholar
Morrow, K. E. and Johnson, K. 1977. Meeting some social language needs of overseas students. Canadian modern language review. 33.5. 694–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munby, , John, . 1978. Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
[Munby, , John, , 1977. Designing a processing model for specifiying communicative competence in a foreign language: A sutdy of the relatioship between communicative needs and the English required for specific purposes. Colchester: University of Essex Ph.D. diss.]Google Scholar
Peck, A. J. 1971. Talking to some purspose (choosing the language–teaching points of the Nuffield/Schools Concil German couse). In Perren, G. E. and Trim, J. L. M. (eds.) Applications of linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Piepho, H. E. et al. , 1978. Contacts. Bochum: Verlag Ferdinand Kemp.Google Scholar
Richterich, R. 1972. A model for the definition of adult language needs. Council of Europe Paper CCC/EES (72) 49. Strasbourg. MimeoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R., 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. and Coulthard, R. M.. 1975. Towards an analysis fo discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stratton, , Florence, . 1977. Putting the communicative (notional) syllabus in its place. TESOL Quarterly. 11.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tough, J. 1977. The development of meaning. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Trim, J. L. M., 1977. Report on some possible lines of development of an overall structure for a European unit/credit scheme for foreign language learning by adults. CCC paper. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Valdman, A. 1978. Communicative use of language and syllabus design. Foregin lanugage annals. 11.567–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van, Ek J. 1975. The threshold level. CCC paper. Strasboug: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. 1972. The teaching of English as communication. English language teaching. 27.1.15–19Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. 1978. Teaching language as communication. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilkens, D. A.. 1973. Grammatical, situtational and notional syllabuses. In Verdoodt, A. (ed.) 1974. Proceedings of the 3rd international congress of applied linguistics. Heidelberg: Julius Gross Verlag.Google Scholar
Wilkens, D. A.. 1976. Notional syllabuses. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar