1. Introduction

The grammatical syllabus， which derives from Latin teaching， has been the most predominant framework in syllabus design during most of the twentieth century. By contrast， the task-based syllabus， as a modern one， has not been applied in classrooms until the 1990s. The comparison of these two distinct syllabuses are the interest of topic.

2. Strengths and weaknesses of the grammatical syllabus and task-based syllabus

With a systematic grammatical knowledge， leaners could generate their original utterances. Cullen （2008） states that without any grammar， learners are forced to rely exclusively on lexis and the other prosodic and non-verbal features， to communicate his or her intended meaning. Indeed， grammatical structures cover the sequence and the formation of words， which could construct a complete meaning. Once a linguistic item is taught， learners would add it to their pre-existing knowledge until the whole sentence has been built up.

Pre-determined sequences in grammatical coursebooks may contradict Learners natural order of acquisition. Linear progress is characteristic of the grammatical syllabus， which assumes that learners would acquire a pre-specified list of grammatical items in an additive way. However， Skehan （1996： 18） proves that “acquisition is an internal and natural process， irrespective of the teaching sequences”. It implies that teaching may have very little effect on when learners acquire a particular grammar structure. For example， the progressive marker “ing” is considered as the first morpheme they would acquire （Chomsky， 1965）. However， most coursebooks in the grammatical syllabus tend to list the article as the first grammatical item to teach. Therefore， the sequencing of language items could be viewed as pointless， as the pre-determined exposure in the coursebook may not be converted into a mental input.

The task-based syllabus features the use of authentic language. According to Ellis （2009： 227）， “authenticity is crucial in task-based teaching， and tasks would produce the same interactions as naturally occurring language”. In other words， learners are exposed to a rich but comprehensible input of authentic language in the class. This input and output of authentic language would be applicable for them out of classrooms. Therefore， the language authenticity provided by the task-based syllabus could meet learners post-course language needs in the future.

Integrating and sequencing tasks may be challenging for designers. The issue of specification arises when deriving tasks from the needs analysis （Van Avermaet and Gysen， 2006）. The “needs” may relate to learners characteristics， concerns， and potential constraints. However， there may not exists an appropriate task， which could target each of learners. Because everyone is complex and unique （Hall， 2001）， who bring their own internal variables to language learning. Furthermore， grading and sequencing a task is rather complex. Because the principle of the task-based syllabus is that linguistic knowledge is accumulated in a cyclical manner （Edwards and Willis， 2005）. It means learners should review their pre-existing knowledge for a further extension from time to time. Thus， sequencing a set of tasks based on the difficulty of the actions is far less enough.

3. Conclusion

Overall， the main goal of this essay is to analyse and compare the grammatical syllabus and the task-based syllabus. Learners are able to produce their own sentences flexibly in the grammatical syllabus. However， the teaching sequence of linguistic items cannot guarantee learners acquisitions. As for the task-based syllabus， it enables learners to produce natural language. Nevertheless， there are many intervening factors should be considered in designing an appropriate sequence of tasks.

References：

[1]Chomsky， N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax[M]. Massachusetts： MIT Press，1965.

[2]Cullen， R. Teaching grammar as a liberating force[J]. ELT Journal，2008，62（3）：221-230.

[3]Ellis， R. Task-based language teaching： sorting out the misunderstandings[J]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics， 2009，19（3）：221-246.

[4]Van Avarmaet， P. and Gysen， S.‘From needs to tasks： language learning needs in a task-based approachin Van den Branden， K. （ed）Task-Based Language Education： from theory to practice [M]. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press，2006：17-46.

[5]Hall， G. Exploring English language teaching language in action[J]. London： Routledge，2011.

[6]Van Avarmaet， P. and Gysen， S. From needs to tasks： language learning needs in a task-based approach in Van den Branden， K. （ed）Task-Based Language Education： from theory to practice [M]. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press，2006：17-46.

【作者簡(jiǎn)介】董悅（1995.07-），女，河北邯鄲人，英國(guó)伯明翰大學(xué)在讀研究生，研究方向：英語(yǔ)教學(xué)。