Catch-up

The findings that inform the natural English syllabus, and its accompanying study materials, do not really represent new knowledge; it's just that course book writers have finally caught up. The Lexical Approach theorists have long been aware of the limitations of following a written- model- based syllabus and advocated the primacy of lexis over grammar structures as far back as the early 1990s.*


*Principally, Michael Lewis . For further details see : The Lexical Approach: The State of ELT and A Way Forward , LTP, 1993.

Tuning into a new wavelength

The type of vocabulary identified featured a broad spectrum of language (which had hitherto been remarkably underexploited by mainstream course books ) and comprised collocations, long or short phrases, lexical phrases, idioms, vague language and spoken linkers.

Breaking through barriers

The objective of this research was to expose the kind of language required to push through the intermediate barrier, to the levels beyond. The findings confirmed the need for more critical evaluation of grammar input; suggesting a focus shift, away from peripheral areas of grammar (tense shift in reported speech, for example)* to a more systematic study of vocabulary as used in spoken discourse.

* This was found to be largely redundant, since native speakers and high level learners report speech in a number of acceptable ways that do not involve tense shift.

Redressing the Balance

The natural English syllabus has emerged in recent years as a counterweight to these longstanding course book traditions. Its aims are to shift the balance away from the priorities of a written model of the language, with its overemphasis on structures, towards lexis and the needs of the L2 speaker. The syllabus initially focused on intermediate and upper-intermediate learners. The framework was established by analysing the performance of a cross-section of intermediate learners over a range of communicative tasks - the results were then compared with a sample of low advanced and advanced students.

A Skewed Set of Priorities

So, by adhering to the canons derived from a written standard of English course book designers have, until quite recently, tended to perpetuate a skewed set of language study priorities - resulting in a disproportionate emphasis being placed on comparatively marginal grammar items, to the detriment of those elements that yield much higher returns in terms of the learners' communicative needs.

Talking Tenses

Research findings, as Scott Thornbury has pointed out,* endorse this view, for they highlight the fact that syllabuses based on written models do not match the frequency and distribution of grammar as it is used to talk. For example, in conversation the present tense outnumbers past tenses by around four to one; simple forms outnumber the continuous forms by twenty to one and the past perfect features highly infrequently.

* in: Syllabus design: What's wrong with grammar?

A False Yardstick

The notion that improved communciative skills are to be achieved through gradual exposure to increasingly complex grammar structures, item by item, as the structure of a traditional course book requires, creates a distorted perception of language learning; and the consequent measure, that this perception gives rise to, for assessing linguistic competence and progress made i.e. the extent of the student's mastery over these structures, is a false yardstick.