Introduction

Structural syllabus, also known as the grammatical syllabus is one of the most common type

of syllabus and still today we can see the contents pages of many course books set out according

to grammatical items.

The grammatical syllabus has been defined as one which consists of a list of grammatical

items selected and graded in terms of simplicity and complexity (Nunan, 1988). Rod Ellis (1993)

also defines it as consisting of a list of grammatical items, usually arranged in the order in which

they are to be taught. The structures are generally presented one by one, usually, but not always,

in contrasting pairs, for example, simple present versus simple past or singular nouns versus plural

nouns (Long &Crookes, 1993). In his seminal work Notional Syllabuses, Wilkins (1976) defined

this kind of approach to syllabus design as synthetic. Synthetic approach to syllabus designing is

essential to produce such a syllabus. Most grammatical syllabus seems to be that language consists

of a finite set of rules and these rules can be learned one by one in an additive fashion.

Theory of structural syllabus

A structural syllabus is one in which grammatical structures form the central organizing

feature. The theory underlying grammatical syllabus is that language rules are learned in a linear

fashion and learners should demonstrate complete mastery of one rule before moving on to the

next (Nunan, 2001). Thus, it is the learner’s task to put these isolated and supposedly mastered

items next to one another and re-synthesize the language that has been presented to them in a

broken fashion (Wilkins, 1976). Once the learners manage to do this, they could be said to have

mastered the target language. The structural syllabus derives its content largely from the structural

linguists. The focus is on the knowledge and skills which learners should gain as a result of
instruction, not on how they can attain them. The synthetic teaching strategy is essential to produce

such a syllabus.

1.1 The theories of language

The Structural Syllabus generally consists of two components:

1. A list of linguistic structures, that is, the grammar to be taught, and

2. A list of words, that is, the lexicon to be taught.

A grammatical syllabus is also a product-oriented syllabus as the focus of the syllabus is the

grammatical knowledge and competence which learners will develop as a result of instruction in

the classroom, rather than the learning processes and experiences of learners in the classroom.

(Nunan 1988). It focuses on the language itself as a system which includes phonology, grammar,

lexis, morphology and discourse. It is commonly associated to Grammar Translation Method and

Audiolingual Method (earlier), but also then developed to Task Based Language Teaching, and

Notional Functional Approach (Communicative Language Teaching). Very often the items on

each list are arranged in order showing which are to be taught in the first course, which in the

second, and so on. The criteria for sequencing are various. The teacher regards the items from the

point of view of levels or stages. For example, beginning, intermediate, advanced, or grades, 1,2,3,

etc

1.2 The theories of language learning/acquisition

A structural syllabus is one in which the content of language teaching is a collection of the

forms and structures, -usually grammatical, of the language being taught. Examples of structures

include: nouns, verbs, adjectives, statements, questions, complex sentences, subordinate clauses,
past tense, and soon, although formal syllabi may include other aspects of language form such as

pronunciation or morphology.

Language is a system which consists of a set of grammatical rules; learning language means

learning these rules and then applying them to practical language use. The syllabus input is selected

and graded according to grammatical notions of simplicity and complexity. These syllabuses

introduce one item at a time and require mastery of that item before moving on to the next. This

type of syllabus maintains that it is easier for students to learn a language if they are exposed to

one part of the grammatical system at a time. It focuses on the generative rule nature of the

language. For instance, infinite sentence structures can be formed from limited rules. the

grammatical syllabus, language is broken down into smaller units (e.g., grammatical items plus a

word list) and then taught piece by piece. This approach exposes learners to limited samples of

language in that each lesson in the syllabus centres on one particular grammatical feature.

However, meaning and communication are not ignored but they are not a priority.

Positive Characteristics of Structural Syllabi

First, structural or grammatical knowledge is among the most fundamental components of

communicative competence. It is also the most measurable when compared with sociolinguistic,

discourse, and strategic competence (Krahnke, 1987, pp. 21-22).

Second, the content of structural syllabi is easier to describe and define than other types of

syllabi. The concept of past simple, for instance, is less ambiguous than the notion of time or the

function of agreeing (Krahnke, 1987, p. 22).

 Third, in a language class, students tend to expect some explicit focus on grammar as

knowing that there is a system can give them a sense of security. In addition, “[l]earners,

particularly those in the early stages of learning process, benefit from a focus on form” (Nunan,

2006, p. 22) as evidence shows that this can prevent fossilization (Higgs &Clifford as cited in

Krahnke, 1987, p. 23).

A fourth positive characteristic of structural syllabuses is that they tend to focus on one

form at a time. This reduces the mental load of the learners and encourages accuracy by providing

an opportunity for feedback and self-correction (Krahnke, 1987, p. 23).

Lastly, structural syllabi are value- and culture-free which means they can be adopted in

any political, social or religious setting (Krahnke, 1987, p. 24).

Negative Characteristics of Structural Syllabi

Grammar is only one aspect of language, and a strictly structural syllabus does not address

communicative skills. This produces students who can perform well in tests but cannot use the

language for communicative purposes. As Kranhke says “the [structural] knowledge is learnable,

but the degree to which it is usable is questionable” (Krahnke, 1987, p. 25).

Another drawback of the structural syllabus is related to sequencing or grading (Krahnke,

1987; Nunan, 1988). In this type of syllabus, content is graded according to its level of grammatical

complexity (moving from simple to more complex). However, research shows that some items

whose rules are straightforward and easy to comprehend (such as the third person ‘s’) are harder
to process psycholinguistically, and therefore, acquired later than the grammatically more complex

structures. (Pienemann and Johnston reported in Nunan, 1988, 33). This suggests that the

sequencing of the content in structural syllabi does not reflect the sequence of acquisition.

Also, the structural syllabus assumes there to be homogeneity among the learners in terms

of their level of proficiency at the beginning of the course and their rate of progress throughout. In

this respect, it does not reflect the real situation in the classroom (Nunan, 1988, p 34).

A final drawback of the structural syllabus is that it focuses on the sentence and does not

provide opportunities for learners to work with language at discourse or suprasentential level. For

example, rather than a focus on adjacency pairs, when the focus is just on questions, learners may

not know how to respond; and that could lead to a communication breakdown. Also, such

engagement with language where each structure is dealt with individually and at a sentence level

(rather than in larger and various contexts over extended periods of time) contradicts both L1 and

L2 acquisition theories (Nunan, 1988, p 34)