Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:53:05.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Functional Approaches in Language Pedagogy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2009

T. J. Quinn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a retrospective survey, it is helpful to use the wisdom of hindsight to impose neat categories and descriptive labels on the movement of professional ideas. The past is thus made to make much more sense than when it was the present. In terms of language pedagogy, the years surveyed in ARAL I (the late seventies) might be characterized as the era of the functional/notional syllabus. If one is seeking a similar global label to characterize the period since then, one might well speak of the return of methodology

Type
Functional Approaches
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 5 , March 1984 , pp. 59 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

Alatis, J. E., Stern, H. H., and Strevens, P. (eds.) 1983. Applied linguistics and the preparation of second language teachers: Toward a rationale.Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. [Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics.]Google Scholar
Astley, H. 1984. Get the message! London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C. (ed.) 1984. General English syllabus design. Oxford: Pergamon Press/The British Council. [ELT Documents No. 118.]Google Scholar
Brumfit, C. and Roberts, J. T.. 1983. An introduction to language and language teaching. London: Batsford Academic and Educational Ltd.Google Scholar
Candlin, C. N. 1984. Syllabus design as a critical process. In Brumfit, C. (ed.) General English syllabus design. Oxford: Pergamon Press/The British Council. [ELT Documents No. 118.]Google Scholar
Carrell, P. and Eisterhold, J.. 1983. Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL quarterly. 17.4.553–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffey, B. 1984. ESP--English for specific purposes. Language teaching.17.1.2–16.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. 1984. Review of Krashen 1981 and 1982. Applied linguistics.5.1.56–58.Google Scholar
Crawford-Lange, L. M. 1982. Curricular alternatives for second-language learning. In Higgs, T. V. (ed.) Curriculum, competence, and the foreign language teacher. Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company.Google Scholar
Field, T., Freeman, L., and Mooyani, A.. 1984. Introducing "The World of Language”: A linguistic basis for language study. Modern language journal. 68.3.222–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, A., Pringle, I., and Yalden, J. (eds.) 1983. Learning to write: First language/second language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Gregg, K. 1984. Krashen's monitor and Occam's razor. Applied linguistics.5.2.79–100.Google Scholar
Harding, A., Page, B., and Rowell, S.. 1980. Graded objectives in modern languages. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.Google Scholar
Hawkins, E. 1981. Modern languages in the curriculum. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, E. 1984b. Spoken and written language. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Higgs, T. V. (ed.) 1982. Curriculum, competence, and the foreign language teacher. Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company.Google Scholar
Jones, B. 1984. How language works. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. and Bolitho, R.. 1984. English for specific purposes. London:Macmillan.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning.Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition.Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. 1982. and Terrell, T.. 1983. The naticcat approach. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Littlewood, W. 1983. Contrastive pragmatics and the foreign language learner's personality. Applied linguistics. 4.3.200–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, B. 1983. Graded objectives in modern-language learning. Language teaching.16.4.292–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, J. 1983. Listening comprehension: Approach, design, procedure. TESOL quarterly. 17.2.219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivers, W. 1981. The revolution now: Revitalizing the university language departments. Canadian modern language review. 37.3.447–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, J. 1982. Recent developments in ELT-Part II. Language teaching.15.3.174–194.Google Scholar
Savignon, S. J. 1983. Communicative competence: Theory and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Stern, H. H. 1981. Language teaching and the universities in the 1980s. Canadian modern language review. 37.2.212–225.Google Scholar
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S.. 1982. Evaluating bilingual education: A Canadian case study. Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
Swales, J. 1984. Episodes in ESP. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied linguistics.4.2.91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valdman, A. 1982. Toward a modified structural syllabus. Studies in second language acquisition.5.1.34–51.Google Scholar
Zamel, V. 1982. Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL quarterly.16.2.195–209.Google Scholar
Zamel, V. 1983. The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL quarterly.17.2.165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar