102

Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

Item Learning and System Learning: Contextualizing

the Blend of a Structure-based and Notional-
Functional ESL Syllabus

Bonifacio T. Cunanan
Bulacan State University, City of Malolos, Philippines

Abstract

Of the several disciplines, many aspiring language teachers still

find linguistics as one of the most formidable. Such condition is
brought about by the scarcity of instructional materials and a
limited number of well-trained teachers who can handle one of its
allied fields, especially Systemic Functional Grammar. If this
problem remains unattended, producing ill-equipped language
teachers shall most likely become a vicious cycle. In this context,
this paper discusses the observed inadequacies of the structure-
based ESL syllabus, and it considers the use of a functional model
in keeping with the recent issues, trends, and development in SLA
research. To show the differences between item learning and
system learning, this study analyzes and explains how errors,
lapses, and artificially correct lexico-syntactic formal structures
manifest in the preferred uses of tertiary ESL students. These
observed difficulties—the verbal structures in particular— appear
to be systemic in nature and cannot be fully attributed only to
poor modeling or interference of the first language. In applying
some principles regarding the meaning and use of selected
English structures, this paper will apply some principles of
Systemic Functional Grammar.

Key words: item learning, system learning, and Notional

Functional Grammar

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 103
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

Introduction

A language is not just a collection of words. It is not only a

system of structures, but it is also a system of systems. To teach a
language, one has to remember that language learning is far more
than just memorizing vocabulary words and grammar rules. In
teaching English as a second language (ESL), the teacher should
have sufficient working knowledge of the language to be learned,
the learners‘ language, learning difficulties, structural ambiguities,
and interpretation ambivalence.
One language model that can be used in ESL teaching is
Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). It is a framework for
describing and modeling language as a resource for making
meaning and a system of choices (Matthiessen, 1995). Hence, this
language model transcends the formal structures of language. It
treats language beyond its formal structures and takes the context
of culture and the context of situation in language use (Halliday,
1994; Martin & Rose, 2003) which are crucial in ESL. Michael
Halliday‘s Systemic Functional Grammar pioneered SFL in the
1960‘s and was updated in 1985, 1994, and 2004 (the latter co-
written by Matthiessen), and was further developed by Eggins
(1994), Thompson (1996), and Martin, et al. (1997). Because this
language view is very much identified with MAK Halliday, it is
also called Hallidayan linguistics (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004;
Martin, 1992). One of the many countries that have adopted this
model as part of language pedagogy is Australia (Education,
1995).

Item Learning and System Learning

Any grammar, traditional or contemporary, is very

complicated. Traditional grammar teaching like what Fries (in
Lado, 1957, p. 51) described some decades back would mean
―giving traditional definitions to elements of speech, definitions
that do not account for the facts of language.‖ This observation is
still perceived to be true by many teachers because they view
language primarily as a set of formal structures, with much
emphasis on language input and less on language intake. This

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 104
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

traditional practice is contrary to active learning in which learners

enthusiastically involve in the process (Wilson, 1981; Ramsden,
1992). To Ellis (1997) language development can be explained only
in part by external factors like input. His language view implies
that there is a need to consider internal factors like the learner‘s
intake, interlanguage, and errors. Language teaching requires
knowledge of, but not limited to, structural analysis of the target
language. He also noted that second language acquisition (SLA)
should attend to how learners develop the target language. For
this reason, Ellis differentiates ‗item learning‘ and ‗system
learning‘. To him, while item learning is a process that deals with
learning separate and discrete items, system learning deals with
the learning of the abstract rules that underlie the use of linguistic
items.

Structural Syllabus and Notional-Functional Syllabus

A syllabus is a specific and detailed document that usually

contains the scope of coverage and the skills to be learned and
reinforced. The most common type of syllabus in the Philippine
setting is the structural syllabus (Gonzalez & Romero, 1991). This
syllabus is largely based on traditional grammar (TG) which
stresses that language is a system of structures. The structural
syllabus is rooted on traditional or Latin grammar which to
Herndon (1976) is flawed because it is based on assumptions and
precepts that whatever is true in one language is also true in other
languages. The main problem in using the traditional grammar
lies in the premise that one model fits the grammars of all
languages.
A notional-functional syllabus (NFS), on the contrary,
views language in terms of the communicative functions that
allow the realization of the meaning potentials of language. NFS
deals with what should be learned in terms of how things are
done with words: stating, promising, declaring, asserting,
questioning, asking, requesting, and commenting. Weber (1989)
traces in part the roots of the notional-functional syllabus to
Austin‘s Speech Act Theory and MAK Halliday‘s Systemic-

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 105
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

Functional Grammar (SFG), specifically the three metafunctions:

textual, interpersonal, and ideational.
Finocchiaro and Brumfit (1983) and Brown (2000) have
categorized NFS under the communicative approach by assigning
grammatical structures secondary to language notions. It also
stresses a means of organizing a language syllabus, with emphasis
on breaking down the global concept of language into units of
analysis in terms of communicative situations in which they are
used. It largely developed from the works of Van Ek & Alexander
(1975), Wilkins (1976), and Widdowson (1978). Notional
categories, Baker (1994) adds, can be taught along with notions of
time, quantity, space, motion, sequence, location, and
communicative functions like persuasion, inquiry, relaying
emotions, and establishing relationships. To Bachman (1997), NFS
can be contextualized according to the four different language
functions: ideational, manipulative, heuristic, and imaginative.

Comparison of Traditional Grammar and Systemic Functional

Grammar

While TG is limited to the sentential and subsentential

dimensions of language, SFG concerns with its sentential and
suprasentential features. TG deals with syntax, but SFG does not
give much distinction between lexis and grammar because SFG is
meaning-focused. On the one hand, to show the meaning
potentials and semiotic nature of language, Halliday distinguishes
field, tenor, and mode (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 2008).
Field is the social activity in which the language is being used and
what is being talked about. Tenor refers to the roles and
relationships of interlocutors or language users. Mode is the
channel of communication (written or spoken, face to face or
remote). On the other hand, TG takes into account grammatical
roles, as SFG with the semantic roles. Also, Halliday introduces
the language metafunctions: ideational, interpersonal, and textual.
The ideational metafunction refers to the expression of content
like promising, narrating, requesting, regretting, among others.
The interpersonal metafunction is the expression of commitment
that manifests the language user‘s sense of certainty and

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 106
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

accountability. The textual metafunction serves as the link

between the utterance and the extra-linguistic situation, that
organizes a text into a thread of unified whole. These sensitive
aspects of grammar are not usually given consideration in using
traditional approaches.

Statement of Purpose

As an abstract system of systems, a language is realized

through strings of words in invisible relations that are subject to
different layers of interpretation. These abstract relations are not
made available through structural analysis only. ESL learners may
find these relations indistinct and confusing. To demonstrate these
troublesome aspects of ESL learning, this study was conducted to
answer the following questions:
a) How may the ability of the student-respondents (SRs) in
disambiguating grammatical structures be described in terms of
verb category, verb structure, noun modification, intensifier,
sentence coherence, transitivity, voice of verb, sentence focus,
tense-aspect relationship, and transitivity?
b) How may the scores of the SRs be compared in relation to
their curricular groups?
c) What syllabus may be designed to assist students in
disambiguating ambiguous selected grammatical structures?

Method

Subjects

One hundred tertiary students participated in this study.

These student-respondents (SRs) were taking Bachelor in
Secondary Education, major in English, in a state university.
Twenty-five students were randomly selected from each of the
four curriculum levels. The subjects were grouped according to
their curriculum levels: freshmen (G1), sophomores (G2), juniors
(G3), and seniors (G4). The sample population was primarily
composed of female students (Nf =76) and a minority of male
students (Nm= 24), with 18.5 years as the mean age. The mean age

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 107
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

of G1 was higher than the mean age of G2 because there were some
older, regular students enrolled in the college of education for
their second course. Table 1 shows the distribution of the 100 SRs.

Table 1
Distribution of the Student Respondents (SRs) by Group, Sex, and Age

Group Male Female Group Mean Age

G1 7 18 17.9
G2 10 15 17.3
G3 2 23 18.7
G4 5 20 20.2
Total 24 76 Overall Mean Age: 18.5

Data Collection

This study used a three-part locally constructed instrument.

Part I (completion-type, five items) consists of verb category
(items 1, 2, & 3), intensifier (item 4), and sentence coherence (item
5). Part II (multiple-choice type of test, nine items) includes
transitivity (items 6 & 8), verb category (items 7 & 14), verb
structure (items 9 & 13), voice of verb (item 10), noun modification
(item 11), and sentence focus (item 12). Part III (modified multiple-
choice type of test, six items) covers voice (item 15), tense-aspect
(items 16, 17, & 18), verb category (item 19) and transitivity (item
20). The items were chosen based on the most frequent lapses in
the quizzes and occasional essays of the SRs. The items included
in the instrument were taken from examples found in the works of
Halliday (1997), Trask (1993), Lyons (2001), Kroeger (2004), Nida
and Taber (1969), and Elson and Pickett (1964).
The questionnaire was used to measure the SRs‘
consistency in using the learned grammar items and to contrast
their scores with how much they have acquired with the systems
of the given items. The 100 SRs supplied the missing structures
and passed judgment on the acceptability of usage. The SRs were
divided into lower (G1 & G2) and upper (G3 & G4) groups for

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 108
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

comparison scores. Percentages were used to show the scores of

the four groups of the SRs, giving the participants equal
representation.

Results

Verb Category

Table 1 shows how the SRs answered items 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, & 19.
Choosing between the –s and the –ing inflections appears to be
very ambiguous to the SRs. For example, to complete The baby
_______ because he/she has got a bad cold (item 1), the SRs chose
between coughs and is coughing. The lower groups favored the -s
form as the upper group did with the -ing form. While the SRs
could hardly differentiate one from the other, native speakers of
English would prefer is coughing to coughs. The ambivalence
cannot be accounted only for the form of the verb but for its
category. In SFG, Halliday (1997) categorizes processes like cough
as behavioral in which the subject is not an actor but an experiencer
of a process. The difficulty of SRs can be attributed to their
inability to identify the category of the processes because they
were more particular with its form.
In multicultural and multilingual contexts of ESL, it is very
important to acknowledge the role of the learners‘ first language
(L1). Carl and Garrett (1991), and Fairclough (1992a; 1992b)
recognize that critical language awareness is very important in
language teaching. In relation to this, ESL teachers should
consider the role of the students‘ L1 for it is a potential source of
problems. Since the SRs‘ L1, Tagalog/Filipino, does not provide
them the opportunity to differentiate the –s and the –ing forms, the
SRs were ambivalent about it and they find it confusing especially
those who belong to the upper groups.
As regards the use of verb be (item 2), the SRs chose
between we and us. For the sentence Our cousins are more fortunate
than _______, majority of the respondents chose the second option
us even if this usage is contrary to what they read in traditional
grammar books, in which the use of it is us runs counter to the
traditional usage. According to TG, sentences like It is me should

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 109
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

be discouraged because the verbs be should be followed by

pronouns in the nominative case. This grammar prescription,
however, is opposed to Halliday‘s (1994) idea that ―the clause It is
I is simply a ‗bad grammar‘‖ (p.126) because native speakers do
not use it. This prescription is one of the grammar rules that do
not account for facts of language, as cited in the work of Lado
(1957). SFG does not categorize be as a linking verb but as a
relational process. The SRs‘ choice was the same as that of the
native speakers‘. Their choice can be accounted for some other
factors, not with their familiarity with TG.

Table 2
Percentage Distribution in Disambiguating Verb Category

Items: 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, & 19 Preferred SR Group

Answer G1 G2 G3 G4

1. The baby _____ because he/she is coughing 56 64 48 44

has got a bad cold. What is the
missing word/phrase? (coughs, is
coughing)

2. Our cousins are more fortunate us 84 92 92 96

than _______ because their parents
are very successful in doing
business. What is the missing word?
(we, us)

3. The incident _______ before occurred 36 72 76 92

anyone knew what was happening.
What is the missing word?(occurred,
was occurred)

7. The gift pleases her. Which Does she 40 60 36 60

question can probe the given like the
statement? gift?
Does she like the gift?
Does the gift please her?
Is she pleased by the gift?

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 110
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

Cont. Table 2
…the 12 12 08 12
14. The books were quickly books sold
disposed of because. . . What is the quickly.
missing phrase?
…the books sold quickly.
…they sold the books quickly
…the books were sold quickly.

19. My uncle is doing business. No 12 04 08 16

Is business the direct object of is doing?
(Yes, Uncertain, No)
Is my uncle a doer /actor? No 16 00 04 04
(Yes, Uncertain, No)
Is the sentence the same as my uncle is Yes 96 76 68 56
a businessman? (Yes, Uncertain, No)

For conditions involving ergativity, the SRs were asked to

choose between two verb structures: one in the active and another
in the passive form. The verb/process occur was used. In
sentences using this verb/process type, the subject is not an actor
but an existent. In item 3, the SRs favored occurred more than was
occurred relative to their group levels. G1 preferred to use was
occurred indicating that they were unlocking structural
ambiguities on the basis of the item learned, not on the system
that governs its use. They must have thought that the verb should
be in the passive voice.
In probing The gift pleases her (item 7), the SRs preferred
Does she like the gift more than the other two: Does the gift please her
and Is she pleased by the gift. G3 appeared to be the most ambivalent
with their answers. To Halliday (1994), sentences like The gift
pleases her and She likes the gift could be representations of the same
state of affairs. Based on their answers, G1 and G3 could not seem
to see such condition.
Clauses like The books sold quickly (item14) do not in fact
show actions. The phrase indicates that the books are good. In the
books were quickly disposed of, the SRs could have mistaken that it is
in the passive form (given the assumption that the subject is acted
upon by a covert actor). The sentence, if read closely, would
require the phrase the books sold quickly to mean the books were good.

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 111
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

Asked why the books were quickly disposed of, the SRs answered the
books were sold quickly¸ an expression that is action-oriented and
not form-driven. The SRs must have been thinking of the action
performed, not of the semantic role of the subject. The data
suggest that the SRs were structure-driven in disambiguating the
meaning of the sentence.
To the question What does your uncle do for a living? (item
19), a possible answer could be My uncle is doing business, which
means My uncle is a businessman. Here, the subject is not an actor;
instead, it is identified by giving one of its attributes. Majority of
the SRs thought that business is the direct object of is doing. They
were uncertain if the argument my uncle is the actor. Also, most of
them failed to interpret that the sentence is the same as My uncle is
a businessman. These data support the earlier observation that the
SRs disambiguate sentence structures primarily on the structure
level.

Verb Structure

Table 3 presents the SRs‘ scores in disambiguating verb

structure. For the sentence My friend and I used to write each other
(item 9), majority of the SRs indicated write as the main verb. The
rest of the SRs, specifically G1 and G2, thought that the main verb
is used and to write as an infinitive complement, which is
superficial because used to is a modal expression indicating that
the sentence is in habitual past perfective aspect.
The SRs were asked to complete We’re late, let’s go to the gym
… (item 13) by choosing between has started and has been started.
Majority of them, except G1, chose the program has started. The
responses indicate that G1 found this item problematic and
confusing. They assumed that the verb/process should be in the
passive voice probably because the subject the program is
inanimate and incapable of acting/doing and it is acted upon by
an implied actor/doer.

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 112
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

Table 3
Percentage Distribution in Disambiguating Verb Structure

Items: 9 & 13 Preferred SR Group

Answer G1 G2 G3 G4
9. My friend and I used to write
each other. Which is the main verb? write 72 48 52 72
(write, used)

13. We‘re late. Let‘s go to the gym. I has started 44 56 56 80

think the program. . .
The missing phrase is. . .
(has started, has been started)

Noun Modification

Table 4 shows the SRs scores in disambiguating noun

modification. Using the idiomatic expression Paul wrote an angry
letter (item 11), the SRs were asked which argument is described
by the adjective angry. Many in G1 chose Paul, while the rest chose
letter for their answer. Those who chose letter must be generalizing
that an adjective precedes the noun it describes. In this sentence,
such condition is not possible because letter is inanimate and
incapable of feeling. The SRs failed to understand that the
sentence does not have to be literally taken. Again, those who
picked letter heavily relied on the syntactic structure, not on the
meaning of the sentence. This item shows that the SRs need to
attend to metalanguage in ESL. To Schleppegrell (2004), the
metalanguage of SFL provides the means for contextualizing the
role of language in the educational process that is vital in
language pedagogy. Metalanguage helps the students explicitly
understand meaning as used in the registers.
Halliday (1999) underscores that language is developed in
three forms in schooling: in learning language (first language or
second language development), in learning through language
(content matter), and in learning about language (metalanguage).
He adds that while the first two of these may develop to some
degree without conscious attention to language itself, learning
about language, and becoming conscious of the power of different

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 113
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

ways of using language, requires conscious attention by teachers,

and requires that teachers develop their own knowledge about
language.

Table 4
Percentage Distribution in Disambiguating Noun Modification

Item 11 Preferred SR Group

Answer G1 G2 G3 G4
11. Paul wrote an angry letter.
Which is described by angry? Paul 46 16 20 28
(Paul, letter, and either Paul or
letter)

Intensifier

Table 5 shows the scores of the SRs in disambiguating

intensifiers. The intensifiers so and too have opposite connotations:
the former is positive and the latter is negative. Most ESL learners
are confused as regards the uses of so and too especially if their
first language does not give them the opportunity to differentiate
one from the other. The SRs were asked to contrast so and too in
the sentence The professor is ________ good that he can easily explain
the lesson even if it seems _______ difficult (item 4). Those in G2
showed homogeneity with their answers, and they did not find
this item problematic. However, there were still few of them,
especially G1 and G2, who had relative difficulty with this item.

Table 5
Percentage Distribution in Disambiguating Intensifier

Item 4 Preferred SR Group

Answer G1 G2 G3 G4

4. The professor is ________ good so… too 52 92 76 56

that he can easily explain the lesson
even if it seems _______ difficult.
The missing intensifiers are. . .
(so… too, too…so, so…so,
and too…too)

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 114
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

Sentence Coherence

Table 6 presents the SRs scores in using sentence coherence.

The SRs were asked to complete the short dialog:
Man: Will you marry me?
Woman: Yes, I _______.
The responses varied, but majority of the SRs chose will
showing that this short dialog appears to be less confusing.
Nevertheless, there were few who chose do and am. Also, this
item was found less ambiguous by the SRs.

Table 6
Percentage Distribution in Disambiguating Sentence Coherence

Item 5 Preferred SR Group

Answer G1 G2 G3 G4

5. Man: Will you marry me? will 68 80 76 84

Woman: Yes, I _______.
What is the missing word?
(will, do, and am)

Transitivity

Table 7 presents how the SRs analyzed sentences involving

transitivity. Trask (1993) defines transitivity as a condition
denoting a verb or a clause containing such a verb that
subcategorizes for a direct object that is either a goal or a patient. To
Lyons (2001), transitivity suggests that the effects of the action
expressed by the verb pass over from the actor/agent to
patient/goal. Direct object, to Trask, is an obligatory argument that
undergoes the action of the verb. To analyze transitivity, the SRs
were asked to contrast The dean had the documents signed and The
documents had been signed by the dean (item 6). They were asked
which of the two means The dean signed the documents. Most of the
SRs answered this item correctly. What appears to be anomalous,
however, is that Group1 scored better than G4.
Also, they were asked which of the two sentences makes
sense: I sent a letter to Baguio and I sent Baguio a letter (item 8).

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 115
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

These structures appear parallel to I sent a letter to John and I sent

John a letter. Most of the SRs chose the first item because in the
second Baguio is a locative, not goal/patient.

Table 7
Percentage Distribution in Disambiguating Transitivity

Items 6 & 8 Preferred SR Group

Answer G1 G2 G3 G4
6. Which of the two sentences The
means The dean signed the documents 88 80 82 68
documents? had been
The dean had the documents signed by
signed. the dean.
The documents had been signed by
the dean.

8. Which of the two sentences makes I sent a 96 96 92 100

sense? letter to
I sent a letter to Baguio. Baguio.
I sent Baguio a letter.

Voice of Verb

Table 8 presents the scores of the SRs in analyzing voice of

verb. Kroeger (2004) defines voice as a property of verb denoting
change in semantic roles. Voice in structural grammar is either
active or passive. To test how the SRs determined voice, they
compared Mary was born in Manila and The glass is broken. Based on
the data, the SRs could not clearly decide which of the two is in
the passive voice. G1, G2, and G3 chose the first sentence. No one
in G4 chose the second sentence; they favored both the first and
second sentences. All the four groups, most especially G4 showed
interpretation ambivalence.
To Lyons (2001), the first sentence is agentless and an
example of an absolute passive because it has no active
transformation. In addition, the second sentence is considered
neither passive nor active—it is in the middle voice. To Halliday
(1994), ―the middle voice has no feature of agency‖ (p.168). That

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 116
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

means broken is not part of the verb phrase, but it is an attribute of

the subject.
The SRs analyzed the voice of My spirit is dampened (item 15).
Most of those in lower groups agreed that the sentence is in the
passive voice. However, the SRs in upper groups thought that the
sentence is not, and the rest could not decide at all. Sentences like
this one are neither in the active or passive voice. My spirit is
dampened is in the middle voice.

Table 8
Percentage Distribution in Disambiguating Voice of Verb

Items 10 & 15 Preferred SR Group

Answer G1 G2 G3 G4
10. Mary was born in Manila.
The glass is broken. The first 36 28 28 20
Which of the two is in the passive sentence
voice?
The first sentence
The second sentence
The first and second sentences
Neither of the two sentences

15. My spirit is dampened. No 16 36 52 68

Is this sentence in the passive voice?
(Yes, Undecided, No)

Sentence Focus

Table 9 presents the scores of the SRs in determining

sentence focus. Nida and Taber (1969) define focus as ―the center
of attention in a discourse or portion of a discourse‖ (p. 201). To
test how the SRs identify the sentence focus, they were given John
ran away (item 12). Based on the given sentence, the SRs were
asked what would they answer if somebody would ask them Who
ran away? Most of them answered John did. Very few of them chose
either He did or He ran away.

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 117
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

Table 9
Percentage Distribution in Disambiguating Sentence Focus

Item 12 Preferred SR Group

Answer G1 G2 G3 G4
12. John ran away.
Who ran away? John did. 92 92 92 96
John did.
He did.
He ran away.

Tense-aspect

Table 10 reflects the ability of the SRs in analyzing the

tense-aspects of verbs. Trask (1993) defines tense as ―a
grammatical category which correlates most directly with
distinctions with time‖ (p. 276). Aspect is not always easy to
distinguish from tense. Aspect shows contrast in meaning of the
following: ―action at a point in time, over a period of time,
complete or incomplete, one time or repeated, begun or finished,
etc.‖ (Elson & Pickett, 1964, p. 23).
Whether English has a distinctive future tense has been a
controversy. Trask (1993) stresses that English has two tenses
only: past and non-past. This observation was reported much
earlier by Lyons (2001). The latter explains that the persistence in
using future tense was brought about by the 18th century scholars
who used the grammatical principles of Greek and Latin as the
bases of the English prescriptive grammar. Such parallel
prescriptions were based on the faulty premise that whatever was
true in Latin can also be true in English. Lyons furthers that will
and shall do not, in most cases, indicate futurity but modality.
The SRs were asked if will in Will you please hand me that
book (item 16) indicates the tense of the verb. A greater majority,
except G4, agreed that will indicates tense. G4 did not consider will
as tense marker and the rest were undecided. Further, when asked
if the action or event happens at the time of speaking, majority of
the SRs agreed that it does. Even those who earlier considered will
as a carrier of tense believed that the sentence happens at the time

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 118
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

of speaking. This item shows that the SRs were uncertain with
their choices.
In another sentence, I have to go now (item 17), most of the
SRs thought that to go constitutes an infinitive. Also, most of them,
especially G1 thought that have indicates ownership. On the
contrary, G4 perceived that have does not mean ownership. Asked
which of the two (go and have) is the main verb, more SRs in G1
chose go and those who preferred have were fewer. The SRs in G4
were also ambivalent. A little more than half of them thought that
the main verb is have, while less than half of them thought
otherwise.
In The visitors are about to leave (item 18), whether are is a
helping verb or not, the SRs, especially G1, showed conflicting
choices. Those who thought that are is a helping verb were fewer
than those who did not. A similar dilemma was shown by G4.
Those who thought that leave is the main verb were equal to those
who did not. Also, most of the respondents believed that to leave
constitutes an infinitive. Again, the data show that the SRs were
ambivalent in their choices.

Table 10
Percentage Distribution in Disambiguating Tense-aspect

Items 16, 17, &18 Preferred SR Group

Answer G1 G2 G3 G4
16. Will you please hand me that
book. No 28 24 28 60
Does the word ‘will’ show the tense of
the verb? (Yes, Uncertain, No)
In the sentence, does the event or
action happen at the time of
speaking? Yes 72 64 64 80
(Yes, Uncertain, No)
17. I have to go now. Does the
sentence have an infinitive?
(Yes, Uncertain, No) No 20 24 12 00
Does the sentence show ownership?
(Yes, Uncertain, No) No 32 52 52 72
Is go the main verb?
(Yes, Uncertain, No) Yes 68 60 64 68
Is have the main verb?

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 119
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

Cont. Table 10
No 48 52 56 44
(Yes, Uncertain, No)
18 . The visitors are about to leave.
Is are a linking verb?
(Yes, Uncertain, No) No 52 28 20 28
Is leave the main verb?
(Yes, Uncertain, No) Yes 68 68 72 48
Does to leave constitute an infinitive?
(Yes, Uncertain, No) No 16 24 16 08

Transitivity

Table 11 shows how the SRs analyzed transitivity in a

sentence. When asked to analyze I’ll cross the bridge when I get there
(item 20), the SRs showed that the bridge receives the verb will
cross. Regarding this item, G4 showed that they could hardly
decide because those who thought otherwise did not differ much
in number. When asked whether the bridge is affected by the
action will cross, the majority in G1 agreed, but G4 did not. Further,
when asked if the sentence could be changed into passive form
The bridge will be crossed by me, most of the SRs agreed. Finally, the
lower groups interpreted the sentence similar to I will walk across
the bridge except G4. Again, the upper group interpreted the
sentence according to its syntactic structures only.

Table 11
Percentage Distribution in Disambiguating Transitivity

Item 20 Preferred SR Group

Answer G1 G2 G3 G4
20. I‘ll cross the bridge when I get
there. Does the bridge receive will
cross?(Yes, Uncertain, No) No 20 28 32 40
Is the bridge affected by will cross?
(Yes, Uncertain, No) No 24 28 44 60

Can the sentence be changed into

passive form like the bridge will be
crossed by me? (Yes, Uncertain, No) No 04 20 12 12

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 120
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

Cont. Table 11

Does the sentence suggest I will walk Yes 84 48 72 32

across the bridge?
(Yes, Uncertain, No)

Discussion

The data show the average of correct scores of the SRs. This
suggests how wanting their level of performance was because
their overall average scores were below the 50% level. Comparing
the scores of SRs, Fig. 1 shows slight differences in the scores of
the four groups. Specifically, the figure indicates that the senior
(G4) respondents registered the most improved performance. Fig.
1 also suggests that a relative improvement was gained during the
third year in the curriculum. It is during this time that the SRs
engage more in task-based activities as implied by the checklist of
subjects/courses taken shown in Table 12. The figure may also
suggest that system learning is reinforced by doing authentic
language activities. This observation conforms to the observation
of Widdowson (1978) that when one learns a language he or she
learns at the same time how language works.
The summary of scores in Fig. 1 suggests that the SRs‘
abilities to disambiguate grammatical structures do not differ
much according to their curriculum level, but a relative gain is
observed when the students get more exposure to some more
task-based activities. Also, given that G3 and G4 students start to
have their field studies, class observation, and participation, they
are given the opportunities to use and practice the language in
authentic teaching-learning situations. Table 12 presents the major
subjects taken by the SRs.

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 121
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

Figure 1
Comparison of the Average Scores of the Student Respondents in
Disambiguating the Ten Different Grammar Structures

Summary of Scores in Disambiguating Ten

Grammar Points

51.00
50.00 49.88
Average Scores

49.00
48.00
47.31
47.00 46.75
46.50
46.00
45.00
44.00
G1 G2 G3 G4
Groups of Student-Respondents

Table 12
Checklist of English Subjects for Bachelor in Secondary Education
(English Major)

Curriculum No. Course Title

Year of Units
3 Communication Arts I
3 Structure of English
I 3 Communication Arts II
3 Introduction to Linguistics
3 Speech & Stage Arts
(15 units)

3 Campus Journalism
3 Teaching of Speaking
II 3 English for Special Purposes
3 Remedial Instruction
3 Introduction to Literature and Philippine
3 Literature
3 Language Curriculum for Secondary School
(21 units) Creative Writing

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 122
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

Cont. Table 12
3 Developmental Reading
3 Afro-Asian Literature
3 Mythology & Folklore
III 3 Literary Criticism
3 English & American Literature
3 Introduction to Stylistics
3 Translation & Editing Texts
3 Teaching of Literature
(24 units)

IV 3 Preparation and Evaluation of Instructional

Materials
3 Language and Literature Assessment
3 Language Research
(9 units)

While the summary of scores does not represent the overall

English proficiency of the respondents, these data can be used in
comparing the abilities of the SRs as regards their ambivalence in
disambiguating grammatical structures. The overall scores show
that the lower and the upper groups did not differ at all. Overall,
the mean scores of SRs were below 50.00%. The mean scores with
relatively greater difference lie between the mean scores of G3 and
G4.
The data indicate that while the SRs rely mostly on the
formal features of the language items on the one hand, they
downplay the semiotics components on the other hand. The works
of Matthiessen (1995), Martin (1992), Halliday & Matthiessen
(1999), and Caffarel et al. (2004) are good sources in exploring the
semiotic dimensions of TESL particularly along SFL. The works of
these forerunners of SFL primarily consider language as a
resource for making meaning rather than mere set of rules. In
particular, Halliday (1978) sees language as a social semiotic.
According to Eggins (1994), SFL makes four theoretical claims
about language: (a) that language use is functional, (b) its function
is to make meanings, (c) meanings are influenced by social and
cultural context, and (d) the process of using language is a
semiotic process in which people make meanings by making
linguistic choices. Also, Halliday and Matthiessen have

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 123
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

contributed to the development of the two general descriptions of

the grammar of English in systemic-functional terms: Halliday
(1994) presents the grammar from the structural angle, while
Matthiessen (1995) presents it in the form of systems and system
networks.
The semiotic dimensions of SFL, notably stratification,
instantiation, and metafunction are explained in Caffarel et al.
(2004). Stratification refers to the context of culture and of
situation which is a way of expressing how the function of
language determines its formal structures. Instantiation has to do
with the transition from the semantic potential (both contextual
and linguistic) available to speakers, to the actualization of that
potential, i.e., transition from system to text. Metafunction refers
to the three complementary modes of meaning: ideational
metafunction (or expression of content), interpersonal
metafunction (expression of commitment and social relations),
and textual metafunction (expression of link between the utter and
the extra-linguistic situation together with the organization of the
flow of information). These concepts provide for understanding
field (the nature of what is happening), tenor (nature, statuses,
and roles of participants in the discourse or text), and mode
(organization, role, and channel of language), respectively.
Since SFL accounts for the social dimensions of language,
its functions and formal structures are determined by context,
both of culture and of situation. To explain these dimensions,
Martin (1992) states that ―texts are social processes and need to be
analyzed as manifestations of the culture they in large measure
construct‖ (p. 493). In TESL, written texts and discourses should
be viewed as constituents of culture.
Based on the gathered data in the present study, the scores
of G1 and G2 in disambiguating the 10 grammatical structures did
not show much difference at all. Among other factors, over
dependence on structures does not favorably help in solving
semantic ambiguities. Instead, it leads to interpretation
ambivalence. In light of this observation, it may be argued that
language development should be considered in terms of how the
learner discovers the meaning potential of language by
participating in communication (Ellis, 1985). It is most likely for

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 124
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

this reason that those SRs who engaged more in task-based

activities scored better in unlocking and disambiguating
grammatical structures. To this condition, Hatch (1978)
commented:
In second language learning the basic assumption has
been… that one first learns how to manipulate structures,
that one gradually builds up a repertoire of structures and
then, somehow, learns how to put up the structures to use
in discourse. We would like to consider the possibility that
just the reverse happens. One learns how to do
conversation, one learns to interact verbally, and out of this
interaction syntactic structures are developed. (p. 404)

Based on this perspective, language function should be

given equal importance with, if not priority over, formal
structures. Several studies have been supporting the efficacy of the
functional approach for the past few decades (Christie, 1989; Cope
& Kalantzis, 1993; Martin & Christie, 1997).
Research studies on the functional approaches to language
teaching shows that there is a need to adopt a constructivist
framework. These studies recognize that the abstract, formal,
explicit, and quite logical formalization of language alone fails to
account for the much deeper functional aspects of language which
are better understood through social interaction (Brown, 2000).
Hence, there is a need to blend structural and functional
approaches to help learners achieve ‗grammar consciousness
raising‘ (Ellis, 1997).
In this context, language learners are given not only the
chance to practice the target language but also to understand how
that language relates to the ‗beliefs, behavior, and values‘ of its
culture (Omaggio, 2001; Brooks, 1975). These extralinguistic
aspects of the target language can be attained through
communicative means given that linguistic forms are acquired
better when doing a communicative task than when doing drills.
This position is consistent with that of Berns (1984) who advocates
task-based approach. While traditional approach to language
teaching ―sees language as a body of content to be mastered‖,
task-based language teaching is ―an approach to pedagogy based

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 125
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

on an analysis of things that people do with language rather than

an inventory of grammatical and lexical items‖ (Nunan, 2009,
p.10).

Conclusion and Recommendations

This study supports the earlier observations that learners

exposed to traditional and structural syllabus get acquainted with
English through item learning, and those who are exposed to
functional syllabus through task-based activities learn the
language through system learning. This study puts forward that
exposure to the traditional and structural syllabus alone does not
contribute much to the acquisition of the system of English.
Furthermore, some empirical data provide a context for blending
traditional structural syllabus and notional functional syllabus.
In light of the findings, it is suggested that notional-
functional aspect be incorporated in the language syllabus
through the use of functional categories suggested by Finocchiaro
& Brumfit (1983, p.65-66) in Table 13. Specifically, these functional
categories can be taught by creating classroom opportunities so
that the students will have the chance to use them for
accomplishing communicative tasks.

Table 13
Scope of a Notional-functional Syllabus

Category Description Examples

Clarifying or arranging one‘s ideas;
Personal Clarifying or Expressing one‘s thoughts or feelings: love,
arranging joy, pleasure, happiness, surprise, likes,
one‘s ideas satisfaction, dislikes, disappointment,
distress, pain, anger, anguish, fear, anxiety,
sorrow, frustration, annoyance at missed
opportunities, moral, intellectual and social
concerns;
Expressing everyday feelings: hunger, thirst,
fatigue, sleepiness, cold, or warmth

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 126
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

Cont. Table 13

Interpersonal Establishing Greetings and leave takings;

and Introducing people to others;
maintaining Identifying oneself to others;
social and Expressing joy at another‘s success;
working Expressing concern for other people‘s welfare;
relationships Extending and accepting invitations;
Refusing invitations politely or making
alternative arrangements;
Indicating agreement or disagreement;
Changing an embarrassing subject;
Offering food or drinks and accepting or
declining politely;
Sharing wishes, hopes, desires, problems,
making promises;
Committing oneself to some action;
Expressing and acknowledging gratitude;

Directive Attempting to Making suggestions in which the speaker is

influence the included;
actions of Making requests; making suggestions;
others Refusing to accept a suggestion or a request
but offering an alternative;
Persuading someone to change his point of
view;
Requesting and granting permission;
Asking for help and responding to a plea for
help;
Forbidding someone to do something; issuing
a command;
Giving and responding to instructions;
Warning someone;
Discouraging someone from pursuing a course
of action;
Establishing guidelines and deadlines for the
completion of actions;
Asking for directions or instructions

Referential Talking or Identifying items or people in the classroom,

reporting about the school the home, the community;
things, actions, Asking for a description of someone or
events, or
something;
people, and
Defining something or a language item or
about language
asking for a definition;

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 127
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

Cont. Table 13
Paraphrasing, summarizing, or translating
(L1 to L2 or vice versa);
Explaining or asking for explanations of how
something works;
Comparing or contrasting things;
Discussing possibilities, probabilities, or
capabilities of doing something;
Requesting or reporting facts about events or
actions;
Evaluating the results of an action or event;

Imaginative Discussions Discussing a poem, a story, a piece of music, a

involving play, a painting, a film, a TV program, etc;
elements of Expanding ideas suggested by other or by a
creativity and piece of literature or reading material;
artistic Creating rhymes, poetry, stories or plays;
expression Recombining familiar dialogs or passages
creatively;
Suggesting original beginnings or endings to
dialogs or stories;
Solving problems or mysteries

In the adapted notional-functional syllabus, the five

functional categories are presented from the least to the most
challenging tasks in which the teacher has to be COOL or ‗creator
of opportunities for learning‘. In adapting the syllabus, the notions
and functions of the target language are prioritized with learning
the formal structures for carrying out these tasks both in spoken
discourses or written texts as the corollary.
As a result, grammar teaching shall become implicit and
incidental, that is, inputting of the desired formal structures shall
be made only as the needs arise. With this approach, the context of
culture and the context of situation shall be considered along the
authentic needs of the learners. Hence, the learning process
becomes realistic, relevant, and meaningful.

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 128
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

References

Austin, J. (1965). How to do things with words. In Urmson, J.O. (Ed.),

New York: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. (1997). Fundamental considerations in language teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, C. (1994). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism.
Avon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Berns, M.S. (1984). Review of Finnocchiaro and Brumfit. 1983. TESOL
Quarterly, 18, 325-329.
Brooks, N. (1975). The analysis of language and familiar cultures: In
Lafayette, R. C. (Ed.), The Cultural Revolution. Reports of the
Central States Conference on Foreign Language Education.
Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company, pp. 19-31.
Brown, H.D. (2000). Principles of language learning and language
teaching, 4th ed. London: Longman.
Caffarel A., Martin, J. & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). Language
typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Carl, J., & Garrett, P. (1991) Language awareness in the classroom.
London: Longman.
Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2008). The grammar book: An
ESL/EFL teacher’s course (2nd ed.). Singapore: Thomsom
Learning Asia.
Christie, F. (1989). Language education. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Crabtree, M. & Powers, J. (compilers). (1991). Language files: Materials
for an introduction to language (5th ed.). Columbus: Ohio State
University Press.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (1993). The powers of literacy: A genre
approach to teaching writing. London: The Falmer Press.
Education, Q. (1995). English 1-10 syllabus: A guide to analysing texts.
Brisbane: Queensland Government Printing Office.
Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics.
London: Continuum.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 129
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.
Elson, B. & Pickett, V. (1964). An introduction to morphology and syntax.
Sta Ana, California: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Fairclough, N. (1992a). Critical language awareness. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (1992b). The appropriacy of ―appropriateness‖. In N.
Fairclough (Ed.), Critical language awareness (pp. 35-56).
London: Routledge.
Finocchiaro, M. & Brumfit, C. (1983). The functional-notional approach.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Gonzalez, A. & Romero MC. (1991). Managing language and literature
programs in the Philippine setting. Quezon City: Phoenix.
Halliday, M.A.K. (l978). Language as social semiotic. London: Edward
Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd
ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1999). The notion of ―context‖ in language
education. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Text and context in functional
linguistics (pp.1-24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Halliday M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (1999). Construing
Experience through Meaning: A Language-based Approach to
Cognition. London: Cassell.
Halliday M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional
grammar (3rd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Hatch, E. (Ed.). (1978). Second language acquisition: Rowley, MA.:
Newbury House.
Herndon, J. H. (1976). A survey of modern grammars. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Kroeger, P. (2004). Analyzing syntax: a lexical-functional approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lado, R.. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: The University
of Michigan Press.
Lyons, J. (2001). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Martin, J. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 130
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

Martin, J., & Christie, F. (Eds.). (1997). Genre and institutions. London:
Casell.
Martin, J. R. et al. (1997). Working with functional grammar. London:
Arnold.
Martin, J. & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: meaning beyond the
clause, London: Continuum.
Matthiessen, C. (1995). Lexico-grammatical cartography: English systems.
International Language Science Publishers.
Nida, E. & Taber, C. A. (1969). The theory and practice of translation.
Leiden: The Netherlands.
Nunan, D. (2009). Introduction to task-based teaching. Singapore:
Cengage Learning Asia Pte Ltd.
Omaggio, A. (2001). Teaching language in context: Proficiency-oriented
instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London:
Routledge.
Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling. A functional
linguistic perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Thompson, G. (1996). Introducing Functional Grammar. London:
Arnold.
Trask, R.L. (1993). A dictionary of grammatical terms in linguistics.
London: Routledge.
Weber, J.J. (Ed.). (1989). The stylistics reader. London: Arnold.
Widdowson. H.G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. London:
Oxford University Press.
Wilkins, D.A. (1976). Notional syllabuses. London: Oxford University
Press.
Wilson, J. (1981). Student learning in higher education. London: Croom
Helm.

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 131
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

Appendix
Questionnaire

Name of Student: ______________________________Sex:

____________Age:_______

A. Complete the sentences by supplying the missing parts. Circle a letter for
an answer.

1. The baby ____________ because he/she has got a bad cold.

a. coughs b. is coughing
2. Our cousins are more fortunate than ____________ because their parents are
very successful in doing business.
a. we b. us
3. The incident _______________ before anyone knew what was happening.
a. occurred b. was occurred
4. The professor is _______________ good that he can easily explain the lesson
even if it seems ______________ difficult.
a. so . . . too b. so. . . so c. too. . . so d. too. . .too
5. Complete the short dialog. Man: Will you marry me?
Woman: Yes, I _______________.
a. do b. will c. am

B. Read and answer the following items by giving your best choice. Circle a
letter for an answer.

6. Which of the two sentences means The dean signed the documents?
a. The dean had the documents signed.
b. The documents had been signed by the dean.
7. Which question probes the sentence The gift pleases her?
a. Does the gift please her?
b. Does she like the gift?
c. Is she pleased by the gift?
8. Which of the two sentences makes sense?
a. I sent a letter to Baguio.
b. I sent Baguio a letter.
9. My friend and I used to write each other. In the sentence, the verb is. . .
a. used b. write
10. Compare the two sentences.
Mary was born in Manila.
The glass is broken.
Which of the sentences is in the passive voice?
a. the first sentence c. both the first and second sentences
b. the second sentence d. neither of the two sentences
11. The sentence reads: Paul wrote an angry letter. The adjective angry
describes. . .

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 132
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

a. Paul. b. letter. c. Paul and letter.

12. If you know that John ran away, and somebody asks you, ―Who ran away‖?
Your answer will be. . .
a. He did. b. John did c. He ran away
13. We‘re late. Let‘s go to the gym. I think the program. . .
a. has started. b. has been started.
14. That the books were quickly disposed of was true because. . .
a. the books sold quickly. c. the books were sold quickly.
b. they sold the books quickly.

C. Read the following sentences and give your opinion whether you agree or
not to the subsequent items. Mark a column with a check () for an answer.

Yes Uncertain No
15. My spirit is dampened.
The verb is in the passive voice.
16. Will you please hand me that book.
The word will shows the tense of the verb.
In the sentence, the event or action happens at the time
of speaking.
17. I have to go now.
The sentence contains an infinitive.
The sentence shows ownership.
The main verb is go.
The main verb is have.
18. The visitors are about to leave.
Are is a linking verb.
The main verb is leave.
To leave constitutes an infinitive.
19. My uncle is doing business.
Business is the direct object of is doing.
My uncle is a doer or actor in the sentence.
The sentence means My uncle is a businessman.
20. I‘ll cross the bridge when I get there.
In the sentence, the bridge receives the verb will
cross.
The bridge is affected by the verb will cross.
The sentence can be changed into passive form
like The
bridge will be crossed by me.
The sentence means I will walk across the bridge.

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298

 133
Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010

About the Author

Bonifacio T. Cunanan teaches linguistics and literature subjects in

the College of Education and Graduate School at the Bulacan State
University, Malolos City, Philippines. He earned his Ph.D. in
Linguistics from the Philippine Normal University, Manila in
2002. His research interests include second language acquisition
and text linguistics.

© 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298