Wilkins (1976), however, does not specifically discuss the presentation and teaching methodology (explicit or implicit presentation,

deductive or inductive learning) of these components (Yalden 1987: 44). For him, the selection and sequencing of the content of a syllabus is of great importance. Yet, to be able to prepare the syllabus, the needs, motivations, characteristics, abilities, limitations and resources should be specified as the first step. Munbys model (1978; in Yalden 1987: 43) of needs analysis can be applied to determine what learners want and need in terms of, for instance, the complexity of texts the learners will need to read. Based on this principle, we can say that the notional syllabus is relatively needs-oriented and learner-centered compared to formal syllabi that do not take the learner into account in the sense that the notional syllabi do. Nevertheless, we should be precautious while proclaiming the learner-centeredness of the notional syllabus. Bartu (1990) states that functional/notional syllabi fall into the content category of syllabus types and that this category represents the most external social control (p. 49). In a notional syllabus, although the objectives are set based on the learners needs, and the content is sequenced accordingly, the role of the learner is passive from then on. The teacher, too, is not expected to give decisions and s/he does not need to make judgements or specifications unless asked for it (ibid.: 49). The decision-making body, which is hierarchically higher that the teacher, expects the teacher to pass along the target language. Notwithstanding, the notional syllabus admits the reality that it is impossible to teach the whole of language. Thus, it aims to give the learners the potential ability and motivation to continue their studies and the ability to generalize from the communicative expressions, grammatical rules and notions learned in one sociocultural situation to other appropriate ones (Finocchiaro & Brumfit, 1983: 35). In this sense, we can still say that it is more humanistic than the formal syllabus in terms of its views on the learner. We can also say that the selection and sequencing in the notional syllabus is more flexible than in the formal syllabus as designing a syllabus follows this order: determining the needs of the learner, specification of the content of probable utterances, designation of the set of notional categories and indicate the forms of the language that will be most valuable to the learner. Ideally, a spiral or cyclical approach is applied in the notional syllabus. The studied themes, linguistic forms, and language functions are studied again but in more depth in the forthcoming parts. The previous knowledge is recalled, reviewed and integrated to the new learning. As a result, the same or similar functions are presented to the learner in different sociocultural situations (Finocchiaro 1983:11). Wilkins (1979b) argues that the most important advantage of the notional syllabus is the concept of minimum adequate grammar (a knowledge of the grammatical system of a language sufficient to meet fundamental and urgent communicative needs) that will help in the construction of short-term courses (p. 97).