See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317905230

An Integrated Approach to Syllabus Design (ESP & SFL Perspectives)

Working Paper · May 2017

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13578.06088

CITATIONS READS
0 1,320

1 author:

Anthony Ng
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
5 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Action Orientation (Request for Action) in Healthcare Communication View project

Genre Analysis / Hybridity and Registerial Cartography / Hybridity View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anthony Ng on 26 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Syllabus Planning
&
Materials Design

An Integrated Approach to Syllabus Design

Anthony NG
2017

Page 1 of 14
1. Introduction

While syllabus design is a notion with which the history of curriculum development starts in
Teaching English as a second language (TESL) or English Language Teaching (ELT) in
general, the “method concept in teaching becomes powerful if it is derived from a systematic
set of teaching practices based on a particular theory of language and language learning”
(Richards, 2001, p. 2). That said, discussions on syllabus design have been heated and
vibrant over the past two decades, and have also opened up areas for different theories
providing insights into “what” (e.g. content of teaching and language needs) and “how” (e.g.
pedagogies and learning needs). However, there are concerns with traditional ELT courses
that learners are not explicitly encouraged to develop a critical awareness of workplace
practices or the context in which the target language operates, whether they are task-based,
text-based or content-based (Nunan, 2004; Flowerdew, 2005; Hyland, 2003, 2007; Christie
& Derewianka, 2008; Lockwood, 2012; Chan, 2017). This means that learners are not able
to relate language (e.g. lexicogrammar and linguistic forms) to meanings for different genres
in various contexts involving specific purposes of communication.

Meanwhile, many opportunities for research-informed (Chan, 2009 & 2017) or research-
based (Lockwood, 2012) collaboration for improving teaching materials and methodologies
have also been forfeited due to a lack of synergy between the two mostly adopted and
adapted frameworks in ELT: English for Specific Purposes (ESP) (Bhatia, 1991; Swales,
1990) and Systemic Functional Linguistic (SFL) (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014; Martin,
2010; Martin & Rose, 2005; Macken-Horarik, 2001). I therefore argue for an integrated
ESP-SFL approach to syllabus design with which to help teachers design a syllabus that can
better fulfill the needs of learners while drawing upon the best from both sides despite
“different views of genre and different pedagogies” (Hyland, 2007, p. 153).

This paper discusses how these two frameworks individually and could conjointly contribute
to the development of syllabus, with the aim of stimulating further discussions and studies,
hopefully leading to collaboration between the two sides for the benefits of learners. This is
necessary given that (a) there are increasing needs in tertiary English for Academic (EAP)
courses for incorporating “vocationally-oriented” elements (Flowerdew, 2005) from the ESP

Page 2 of 14
 framework (covering English for Professional Purposes (EPP) and English for Occupational
Purposes (EOP) principles), and (b) duplicate efforts are increasingly and independently put
into ESP and SFL based research studies while advancing in different rather than
complementary directions.

2. Discussion

2.1 Criticality of Syllabus Design

Not only is syllabus “a document which presents information on what topics or content
are to be covered in a course of study”, as suggested by (Ur, 2012, p. 185), but also “a list
that specifies all the things that are to be taught in a course”. This point is also agreed by
Breen (2001, ch. 9) who elaborates at a more macro level that a syllabus “is a plan of
what is to be achieved through teaching and learning” and “provides a clear framework of
knowledge and capabilities selected to be appropriate to overall aims”. Added to this,
Nunan (1988, p. 3, cited in Lockwood, 2012, p. 19), states that “it is important that, in the
planning, implementation and evaluation of a given curriculum, all elements be integrated,
so that decisions made at one level are not in conflict with those made at another”.

With the above backdrop in mind, a good syllabus needs to be “comprehensive, ordered,
explicit in objectives” (Ur, 2012, p. 186) as it directly affects the subsequent stages:
development of materials (what) and teaching methodologies (how), playing a role that is
both critical and preventive in that modification of materials and pedagogies could be
avoided (triggered) if the syllabus was (not) properly designed. Despite different
perspectives on the development of syllabus, at the core of the matter, as advised by Ur
(2012), is that to cater for different and changing needs of learners and stakeholders (e.g.
course providers and course financiers), different aspects are often combined in modern
syllabuses, following mixed or multi-strands with different learning objectives (Nation &
Macalister, 2009). Nevertheless, there are no one-for-all models of syllabus development
which can cater for all learner needs and all contexts. Hence, the seriousness of this issue
can be reflected in the selection of approach to syllabus design.

Page 3 of 14
2.2 Contributions from ESP Framework

Central to the ESP framework, as stated by Swales (1990) and Bhatia (1993), is the
“development of genre” while genre-based approaches to ELT and TESL have often been
adopted across the curriculum. Vergaro’s (2005) empirical study provides good evidence
of successful implementation of the ESP approach as it adopts “a perspective that shows
how macro-level and micro-level textual choices (i.e. rhetorical strategies and moves) and
lexicogrammatical features interact in contributing to the achievement of the
communicative purpose of a genre” (p. 112). Her findings offer a useful conceptual
framework for analysing written and spoken discourses, building upon Pilegaard’s (1997)
holistic macro and micro-textual approach to politeness in terms of sequential realisation
and discourse-dynamic perspective, and studies on analysis of discourse patterns (Swales,
1990; Bhatia, 1993; Mauranen, 1993a & 1993b).

Furthermore, based on the notion of rhetorical moves in ESP as a critical identifying

feature of genres, with communicative purpose being another, Vergaro’s (2005) study of
For Your Information (FYI) letters demonstrates the cultural preferences that Italian and
English writers adopt when engaged in FYI letter writing, and more importantly,
demonstrate an analytical framework with which to understand the rhetorical structure
and strategies of request letter writing at both the macro-textual level (e.g. discourse
pattern and pragmatic use of politeness) and micro-textual level (e.g. mood, modality,
reference system and metadiscourse) from the sequential realisation and discourse-
dynamic perspectives (Pilegaard, 1997).

Other important ESP-based studies and practices concerning typical features such as
“rhetorical strategies and moves”, “interactive functions”, “interpersonal markers”,
“pragmatic markers” and “grammar features” include a genre study by Forey and
Lockwood (2007), who outline the series of mandatory and optional moves in call centre
interaction according to the needs of both the learners and the workplace; a
pedagogically-oriented research study by Chan (2017), who looks into the use of
transcripts of authentic workplace talk in order to refine research-informed teaching ideas
in business English; and a genre study by Koester (2006, 2010, cited in Chan, 2017, p. 74)

Page 4 of 14
 who explores how interpersonal markers (e.g. vague language, hedges and modal verbs)
help interlocutors pursue relational goals in both transactional and non-transactional
workplace genres.

2.3 Contributions from SFL Framework

The central idea of the SFL framework, according to Halliday & Matthiessen (2014, cited
in Christie, 2006, p. 6), is that language is a “social process”, “social semiotic” in nature
and is “only comprehensible in terms of its uses and functions”. This means that texts
and contexts are socially constructed by individuals within the cultural contexts in which
they participate. On this, Halliday (1999, p. 4, cited in Gebhard et al, 2013, p. 109)
articulates a rather powerful elaboration that any instance of language must be understood
both in the broader context of culture (i.e. the socially constructed semiotic potential of
the system as a whole) and in the immediate context of situation (i.e. the immediate
context in which the system’s potential is realized through the choice of particular
phonological, lexico-grammatical, and discourse semantic features specific to that
context).

Moreover, the SFL approach to syllabus offers a detailed account of schematic structure
known as “register” (Christie, 2006, p. 33). It consists of three social context variables
(field, tenor and mode), referring to “who” (roles and relationships between participants),
“what” (social action/event/idea being constructed) and “how” (channel of
communication) respectively (Macken-Horarik, 2001; Martin & Rose, 2008; Martin, 2010;
Forey & Polias, forthcoming). This view is shared by Martin & Rose (2008, p. 9) who
argue that the social contexts of interaction is very important and is stratified into two
levels (context of situation and context of culture), in the absence of which a text or
utterance could not be understood.

In spite of concerns among supporters of other ELT models, the SFL approach is still
highly praised, particularly for explicit teaching methodologies such as genre-based
pedagogy due to its emphasis on “the relationship between linguistic form and the
meanings being realized by those forms in context” (Christie & Derewianka, 2008).
Perhaps, it is worthwhile to consider the contributions from a comprehensive and

Page 5 of 14
 systematic study by Christie & Derewianka (pp. 4-5), which follows the development of
learners from childhood through to adolescence in a range of curriculum areas across a
variety of genres while employing the SFL framework. Their positive learning outcomes
can be attributed to the above-mentioned features of SFL, in particular “systematic means
of describing texts and understanding how writing is shaped by individuals making
language choices to achieve purposes in social contexts” as echoed by Hyland (2007,
p.163).

2.4 Comparison between ESP and SFL Frameworks

Macken-Horarik (2001, pp. 40-41) claims that making the context-text connection is not
only important “for the teachers to orient the learners but also for the learners to situate
their learning”. In this regard, Martin (1992, cited in Hyland, 2007, p. 153) argues that
the SFL approach provides a systematic link between language and context, which
highlights the purposeful and sequential nature of genre, whereas the ESP approach sees
genres more specifically as related to groups within the wider context of the activities
surrounding the use of texts (Swales, 1990). Reiterating this, Hyland (2007, p. 154) adds
that genres in ESP are seen as the purposive actions regularly used by community
members to fulfill a particular purpose or communication needs. Nevertheless, this
remains arguable.

In order to address the above concerns, it is worthwhile to point out that the ESP approach
still takes into consideration the notion of social influence, though not embracing a
detailed schematic structure. Swales (1990, cited in Christie, 2006, p. 6) explains that the
notion of context is still embedded in ESP-based teaching methodologies which are
developed around three key concepts: “discourse community”, “genre” and “language-
learning task or purpose”, whereas “genre is characterized by patterns of structure, style,
content and intended audience”. Bhatia (1993) further claims that genre and the social
process (i.e. transaction in a certain socio-cultural context) are inter-related; therefore,
“genres should be taught with a strong sense of the social relevance and purpose of
communication”. As a result, it seems that the concept of context-text connection
(Macken-Horarik, 2001) or link between language and context (Martin, 1992) is
concurred by both sides.

Page 6 of 14
On the other hand, there are controversial claims from the ESP perspective (Chan, 2017;
Flowerdew, 2005, p. 142; Willis & Willis, 2007, p. 197) that the most frequently found
grammatical features and lexical items are the important elements to be included in
syllabus and teaching materials. This line of thinking is not surprising given the above-
mentioned ESP-based studies and projects, which effectively investigate and praise how
linguistic choices at different textual levels and at a “particular stage of transaction or
communication” interact in contributing to the achievement of the communicative
purpose(s) characterized by patterns of “structure, style, content and intended audience”
of a genre as a “communicative event” (Swales, 1990).

Indeed, such ESP studies exhibit useful perspectives, findings and results, but
conceptually this is very consistent with the SFL framework in which not only is genre
described as a “social process” or “socio-semantic system” (Halliday & Matthiessen,
2014) but the recurrent local patterns (or schematic structures), which are generally
referred to as “moves” in ESP, are also regarded as easily recognizable and fundamental
building blocks of genres and discourses (Christie, 2006). That said, it should be
highlighted that certain key similarities can be identified across the two camps: social
relevance (social context / discourse community), staged nature (building blocks /
rhetorical moves) and communication goal (function / purpose).

In light of the above, the most critical issue is the influence of “sociocultural context” on
(a) the genre in which the discourse (written or spoken) operates and rhetorical moves are
organized, and (b) the lexicogrammar selected to fulfill the purpose of the relevant genre
(or social process). These concerns are in fact well shared and acknowledged by both the
ESP school (Lockwood, 2012, p. 22) and SFL school, also known as Sydney school
(Macken-Horarik, 2001, p. 42). It follows that there is a strong need for an integrated
approach to syllabus design by drawing upon the “positives” of the two camps in terms of
their conceptual commonality instead of duplicating efforts or unnecessarily reinventing
the wheel in different directions, which would probably be more meaningful and
beneficial to teachers and learners.

Page 7 of 14
2.5 An integrated approach to syllabus design

Unfortunately, the need for an integrated approach to syllabus design has seldom been
recognized by advocates of both ESP and SFL frameworks. Following Larsen-Freeman’s
(2001, cited in Nunan, 2004, pp. 22-23) suggestion that learners need to understand the
interrelationships between “form”, “meaning” and “use”, Nunan (2004) takes it further by
adopting the concept of three “macrofunctions” (known as metafunctions in SFL literature)
from the SFL framework into his own task-based language teaching framework. It is a
good example of sharing applied linguistic research findings in order to inform and
improve English language pedagogy not only within the same (ESP) linguistic framework
as much endorsed by Chan (2009 & 2017), but also across different conceptual
underpinnings and academic territories (ESP and SFL).

Innovative as it is in the traditional boundaries of a task-based syllabus design, Nunan’s

(2004) framework duplicates efforts by only taking on board certain “functional” features
from the SFL framework and using them in an integrated way in everyday interactions.
He fails to provide a clear rationale and systemic framework for explicitly utilizing the
dynamic relations between form, function and meaning within different contexts. In fact,
the SFL framework is much more dynamic and powerful in offering three semantic levels:
“social functions of language” (also known as “metafunctions”), “social context
variables” (known as Mode, Tenor and Field) and “lexicogrammar” (see Table 1).

Page 8 of 14
 Table 1
Comparison between Nunan’s (2004) Task-based Framework and SFL Framework
(from contextual perspective)
Social Context
Nunan’s Social Functions Variables
adaptation of Language Metafunctions (Register Lexicogrammar
(Macrofunctions) Variables)
Aesthetic Weaving these Mode
(1) macrofunction enactments and (What channels
(for enjoyment) construals Textual of
communication PERIODICITY
together as
meaningful are used?)
discourse
Interpersonal / Enacting Tenor
(2) Social speakers’ (What
macrofunction relationships relationships are
(to socialize with (including writers being enacted
MOOD
others) and recipients in Interpersonal through
written language? What
communications). attitudes are
being expressed?)
Transactional /
(3) Service Construing their Field
macrofunction experience of Ideational (What is going
on, and so what TRANSITIVITY
(to exchange social activity
goods & services) the text is
about?)
(Adapted from Nunan, 2004; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014; and Martin & Rose, 2005 & 2008)

The importance of “context” is further stressed by Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000, cited
in Flowerdew, 2005, p. 142), who argue that “pragmatic communication competence” is
more important than simply having lexico-grammatical competence, knowledge of the
syntax and lexical semantics in the target language since appropriateness for the given
sociocultural context is “a highly influential variable for designing ELT courses” (Ellis,
2003, p. 238). Essentially, this context-language concept involving “social functions of
language” and “social context variables” is unique to the SFL framework and has been
adopted in many ELT and TESL courses over the years for both ESP (Forey, 2004; Forey
& Lam, 2012; Forey & Lockwood, 2007; Lockwood, 2012) and EAP (Derewianka, 2012;
Firkins, Forey & Sengupta, 2007; Frances & Derewianka, 2008; Flowerdew, 2005;
Hyland, 2003).

Page 9 of 14
While, for many years, both SFL and ESP frameworks have been proven successful, SFL
is considered more powerful than ESP because the former has an “all-embracing theory of
language and social experience” which the latter lacks in addition to the absence of
“detailed descriptions of text structures” and “detailed accounts of genres” although they
both assume “a strong sense of social purpose and context in addressing text types”
(Christie, 2006). Yet, a good understanding of both sides would greatly facilitate explicit
L2 teaching and learning, especially in genre-based pedagogies, and empower learners to
develop the ability to recognize and deploy linguistic and semantic resources in various
genres and contexts.

For the benefits of learners, despite Nunan’s (2004) failed attempt, it is still very much
recommended that an integrated approach be deployed for syllabus design. Accordingly,
an integrated model (see Figure 1) is proposed for embracing the best of both SFL and
ESP perspectives, building upon their individual (e.g. metafunctions, social context
variables, micro lexico-grammatical features) and shared (e.g. context-language notion
and macro generic / rhetorical moves) strengths and facilitating research collaboration.

Figure 1
An Integrated ESP/SFL Model of Syllabus Design

Socio-context

Genre

Communicative
SFL Purpose
ESP
Research
Collaboration

Page 10 of 14
3. Conclusions

This paper has taken up an integrated perspective on syllabus design, looking into the
importance of syllabus design and the implications of two powerful frameworks in
applied linguistic for ELT (i.e. ESP and SFL). In particular, it has explored how the two
are related in terms of different and common conceptual characteristics which help
contribute to developing an integrated approach to syllabus design, and orientate syllabus
designers and learners within different socio-cultural contexts of communication.
Nonetheless, it needs to be stressed that no privilege is given to the SFL framework over
the ESP framework, but ultimately it is very important to promote the “complementarity”
and “interface” between these two.

A model of integrated approach to syllabus design has also been proposed drawing upon
the best from both camps for stimulating further discussions. While they are powerful
and useful frameworks in their own ways, there is no reason that they can not conjointly
provide a truly comprehensive and preventive syllabus. From a pedagogical perspective,
while none of the principles of curriculum development is unique to language teaching
(Nation & Macalister, 2009, p. 38), it is also true that ESP and SFL are neither mutually
exclusive nor exclusively viable to syllabus design.

The reasons for a lack of synergy between the two frameworks are two-fold. On the one
hand, there is a missing link between research and pedagogy which can benefit learners
“by research-informed and tested methods, materials and resources” (Chan, 2017, p. 87).
On the other hand, advocates of either camp may find it difficult to go beyond their
traditional academic boundaries. To address such concerns and doubts, pedagogical
applications should be informed (best reciprocally), not simply supported, by
“pedagogically-oriented research to facilitate pragmatic research-informed teaching
ideas” (Chan, 2009; 2017) that would benefit both teachers and learners.

Given that the “function of research is not to provide definitive answers but to identify
options that can be experimented with pedagogically” (Ellis, 2003, p. 238), research
findings should therefore be shared amongst scholars and practitioners despite academic

Page 11 of 14
 backgrounds and beliefs. However, the biggest challenge goes beyond their willingness
to share or to adapt, but their abilities to master the essential and comparative features of
the two frameworks before they could share with learners. In this respect, appropriate
research and teacher training are urgently required.

References

Bhatia, V. (1991) A genre-based approach to ESP materials. World Englishes, 10/2, 153-166.

Bhatia, V. (1993) Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London and New
York: Longman

Breen, M.P. (2001). Syllabus design. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to
teaching English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chan, C.S.C. (2009). Forging a link between research and pedagogy: A holistic framework for
evaluating business English materials. English for Specific Purposes, 28/2, 125-136.

Chan, C.S.C. (2017). Investigating a research-informed teaching area: The use of transcripts of
authentic workplace talk in the teaching of spoken business English. English for Specific
Purposes, 46, 72-89.

Christie, F. (2006). Genres and Institutions: Functional Perspectives on Education Discourse. In

Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Springer. 29-40.

Christie, F. & Derewianka, B. (2008). “A Functional Approach to Writing Development.” School

Discourse: learning to write across the years of schooling. London & New York: Continuum.

Derewianka, B. M. (2012). Knowledge about language in the Australian curriculum: English.

Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35/2, 127-146.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Firkins, A., Forey, G. & Sengupta, S. (2007). Teaching writing to low proficiency EFL students.
ELT Journal, 61/4, 341-352.

Flowerdew, L. (2005). Integrating traditional and critical approaches to syllabus design: the
“what”, the “how” and the “why”, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 135-147.

Forey, G. (2004). Workplace texts: Do they mean the same for teachers and business people?
English for Specific Purposes, 23, 447-469.

Page 12 of 14
Forey, G. & Lam, M. (2013). Applying systemic functional linguistics: Understanding the
choices of quality in the workplace, Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 9/1,
61-81.

Forey, G. & Lockwood, J. (2007). I’d love to put someone in jail for this: An initial investigation
of English needs in the business processing outsourcing (BPO) industry. English for Specific
Purposes. 26/3, 308-326.

Forey, G. & Polias, J. (forthcoming). Multi-semiotic esources providing maximal input in

teaching science through English. In Llinares, A & T. Morton (Eds). Applied Linguistics
Perspectives on CLIL. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Gebhard, M., Chen, I-An, Graham, H. & Gunawan, W. (2013). Teaching to mean, writing to
mean: SFL, L2 literacy, and teacher education. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 107-124.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1999). The notion of “context” in language education. In M. Ghadessy (Ed),
Text and context in functional linguistics. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1-24.

Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional

Grammar. London and New York: Routledge.

Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 12/1, 17-29.

Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 16, 148-164.

Lockwood, J. (2012). Developing an English for specific purpose curriculum for Asian call
centres: How theory can inform practice. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 14-24.

Macken-Horarik, M. 2001. “Something to shoot for”: A systemic functional approach to teaching

gener in secondary school science. In Johns, (Ed) Genre in the Classroom: Multiple Perspectives.
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 17-42.

Martin, J. R. (2010). Language, register and genre. In C. Coffin, T. Lillis and K. O’Halloran
(Eds), Applied Linguistic Methods a Reader. Milton Keynes: The OU & Routledge, 12-32.

Martin, J. & Rose, D. (2005). Designing literacy pedagogy: Scaffolding democracy in the
classroom. In R. Hasan, C.M.I.M. Matthiessen & J. Webster (Eds), Continuing Discourse on
Language. London: Equinox, 251-280.

Martin, J. & Rose, D. (2008). Genre Relations. London: Equinox.

Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2015). Register in the round: registerial cartography. Functional

Linguistics, 2/1, 1-48.

Page 13 of 14
 Mauranen, A. (1993a) Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. Frankfurt: Peter Lang

Mauranen, A. (1993b). Contrastive ESP Rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English Economics Texts.

English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3-22.

Nation, I.S.P. & Macalister, J. (2009). ESL & Applied Linguistics Professional Series: Language
Curriculum Design (1). Florence, U.S.: Routledge.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pilegaard, M. (1997). Politeness in written business discourse: A text-linguistic perspective on

requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 223-244.

Richards, J.C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Swales, J. M. (1990) Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ur, P. (2012). A course in English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vergaro, C. (2005). “Dear Sirs, I hope you will find this information useful”: discourse strategies
in Italian and English “For Your Information” (FYI) Letters. Discourse Studies, 7, 109-135.

Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2,974 words
Page 14 of 14

View publication stats