Definition:
The Notional-Functional Approach is a language teaching methodology that organizes the syllabus around notions (semantic categories like time, space, quantity, existence) and functions (communicative purposes like requesting, apologizing, inviting, refusing) rather than grammatical structures. Developed in the 1970s by the Council of Europe, it was a major step toward Communicative Language Teaching.
In-Depth Explanation
Traditional grammar-based syllabus vs. Notional-Functional syllabus:
| Grammar-Based | Notional-Functional |
|---|---|
| Week 1: Present tense | Week 1: Introducing yourself |
| Week 2: Past tense | Week 2: Making requests |
| Week 3: Future tense | Week 3: Expressing opinions |
| Week 4: Conditionals | Week 4: Agreeing and disagreeing |
In the Notional-Functional approach, a lesson on “making requests” would teach all the grammatical forms needed for requesting — from polite (“Could you…?”) to casual (“Can you…?”) to formal (“I’d appreciate it if…”) — in a single lesson organized by the communicative purpose rather than by the grammatical form.
Notions vs. Functions:
| Category | Examples |
|---|---|
| General notions (semantic categories) | Time (past, present, future), quantity (much, few, some), space (here, there, above), existence (is, there is) |
| Specific notions (topic areas) | Personal identification, house and home, travel, food, shopping |
| Functions (communicative purposes) | Greeting, apologizing, requesting, refusing, complaining, suggesting, expressing preference |
Origins:
The approach emerged from the Council of Europe’s work on defining the Threshold Level — the minimum communicative competence a learner needs to function in a target language society. David Wilkins’ (1976) Notional Syllabuses was the seminal publication, and the approach directly influenced the development of the CEFR.
Strengths:
- Focuses on what learners actually need to do with language
- More motivating than abstract grammar sequencing
- Naturally leads to meaningful classroom activities
- Influenced the widely adopted CEFR “can-do” descriptors
Criticisms:
- Functions can be artificial and overlapping (apologizing vs. expressing regret — same or different?)
- Grammar still needs to be learned; organizing by function doesn’t eliminate the need for grammatical instruction
- Can lead to a “phrase-book” approach where learners memorize fixed expressions without understanding the underlying grammar
- Difficult to grade (sequence by difficulty) since communicative functions don’t have a clear simple-to-complex ordering
Related Terms
- Communicative Language Teaching
- Task-Based Language Teaching
- Communicative Competence
- Presentation-Practice-Production
See Also
Research
- Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional Syllabuses. Oxford University Press. — The foundational work defining the notional-functional framework.
- van Ek, J. A. (1975). The Threshold Level. Council of Europe. — Defined the minimum communicative functions for real-world language use, based on the notional-functional framework.