Building Background: Functional Grammar
This website focuses on a type of grammar called functional grammar. In many ways, functional grammar is different than traditional grammar, which is the view of grammar that people are generally more familiar with. This page will compare the similarities and differences between functional and traditional grammar, before expanding on functional grammar specifically, and the promise it has as a tool for teaching English language learners (ELLs).
Inspired by
Functional Grammar vs. Traditional Grammar
The grammar that people are probably most familiar with is traditional grammar. Traditional grammar focuses on the structure of sentences, and parts of speech such as verbs, adjectives, nouns, etc. While traditional grammar addresses the function parts of speech may have within a sentence to a limited degree, in terms such as ‘subject,’ generally, it does not delve into the function of language (Derewianka & Jones, 2010). Traditional grammar is very prescriptive. Within it, grammar is seen as a set of rules and when those rules are broken, it results in a grammatical error. As far as its application to the classroom, traditional grammar may often be taught in a decontextualized manner.
While traditional grammar is prescriptive, describing grammatical usage in terms of right and wrong, functional grammar is more descriptive. It describes the way language is used rather than prescribing how it should be used. It views grammar as a system of choices influenced by a specific context. Another difference between the two grammars is at the level at which each focuses. Traditional grammar is focused on the sentence level, whereas functional grammar starts at the discourse level and works its way down, taking into account the whole text, and what the purpose of the text is. Finally, traditional grammar focuses primarily on structures, or form, rather than function, whereas functional grammar intentionally focuses on the function of language within a text. For example, using a functional grammar perspective, a teacher might ask what function verbs have in narratives (TESOL International Association, 2022).
As a result of these, and other major differences between traditional and functional grammar, many view them as opposed to one another, taking an either/or stance. Scholars Derewianka and Jones (2010) argue that this view is too simplistic. They describe systemic functional grammar as a bridge between form and meaning because it systematically outlines the relationship between grammatical classes and what their function is. In systemic functional grammar, the
grammatical classes--verbs, prepositions, nouns, etc.--are the same as in traditional grammar, but instead of standing on their own, they can be grouped into ‘meaningful chunks’ such as noun groups, and the function of those groups can be analyzed. According to this view, systemic functional grammar builds on traditional grammar, and so it’s not a matter of abandoning traditional grammar, but expanding it.
Functional Grammar: An Overview
Functional grammar is situated within a theory of language called systemic functional linguistics (SFL). SFL was developed by a man named Michael Halliday. Halliday focused on the way, or the system, in which language works in order to make meaning. SFL views language as functional, in that people use language in order to achieve a goal or a purpose (Humphrey et al., 2012). According to SFL, language resources have evolved to help achieve various functions within particular contexts, and they can be organized into three major categories, or metafunctions:
- the ideational metafunction includes grammatical resources used to express and connect ideas
- the interpersonal metafunction includes grammatical resources used to interact with others
- and the textual metafunction includes the grammatical resources needed to create coherent and cohesive texts.
(Derewianka, 2011; Humphrey et al., 2012)
The language choices that we make are influenced by context. There are multiple layers of context that are taken into account when we make language choices.
The overarching context is the social purpose. This informs the genre, or text type, of the interaction.
Our language choices are further influenced by the specific context, or register, in which the language is used. Register is composed of...
- the field (the topic/subject of the text),
- the tenor (who is taking part and what their relationship is),
- and the mode (what the channel of communication is).
(Humphrey et al., 2012)
Image adapted from A New Grammar Companion for Teachers
Each component of register influences our language choices.
The field influences the language we use for expressing and connecting ideas within the ideational metafunction. For example, we use different language while telling a story about our day versus providing information about a scientific topic.
The tenor influences the language we use for interacting with others within the interpersonal metafunction. For example, language choices differ while communicating with superiors, such as a boss or professor, versus communicating with friends.
Finally, the mode influences the language we use for creating cohesive texts within the textual metafunction of langauge. For example, the language we use while speaking is more spontaneous and fluid versus the more compact language used for writing.
(Derewianka, 2011)
Within systemic functional grammar, features such as genre, register, and metafunction come together in a “coherent whole” (Derewianka & Jones, 2010), making it a very comprehensive, context based, meaning-oriented framework.
!
For more detailed information about each of the three metafunctions, view the instructional resources page linked here. This page includes information about specific grammatical resources encompassed within each metafunction as well as instructional examples of how they can be incorporated into instruction at the elementary level.
How Functional Grammar Can Support ELLs in the Classroom
According to the research, a shift towards the inclusion of functional grammar instruction could be of great benefit to the English language learners (ELLs) in today’s mainstream classrooms.
SFL as a Framework for Integrating Language and Content
Approaching language learning from an SFL perspective -- specifically using functional grammar-- is conducive to language and content integration in the classroom. Functional grammar connects forms within the language to their meaning in contexts of use, and offers new ways of teaching language in the classroom (Schleppegrell, 2020). In a three-year, design-based research study on the incorporation of functional grammar into English language arts instruction at the elementary level, researchers Moore, Schleppegrell, and Palincsar (2018) worked towards ingraining functional grammar into the curriculum to support curriculum goals. They used SFL as a tool rather than the goal of instruction and found in the process that SFL and content can mutually support one another. This is in contrast to more traditional methods of explicit language instruction that often tends towards teaching isolated skills, which do not support challenging curricular goals (Moore & Schleppegrell, 2014).
Growing populations of ELLs in schools and classrooms necessitate the combination of both language and content teaching in order to meet their needs. This need for integration is acknowledged in the recent WIDA ELD Standards Framework, 2020 Edition (2020), in which Integration of Content and Language is one of the four ‘Big Ideas’ that informs the framework. Within this framework, content-language integration is made explicit and specific with the goal of positioning “academic content as a context for language learning and language as a means for learning academic content” (WIDA 2020, p. 21).
Functional Grammar as a Scaffold for Content Learning
Researchers have found, specifically, that the use of functional grammar metalanguage, or language about language, can support ELLs in accessing grade-level content (Moore & Schleppegrell, 2014; Schleppegrell, 2013; Symons et al., 2017). For example, fusing functional grammar into instruction has been shown as an effective scaffold to help ELLs access challenging, grade-level texts, as opposed to accommodating ELLs by lowering learning expectations or providing simplified texts (Symons et al., 2017).
The metalanguage of functional grammar has also been shown to support students in classroom discussions by allowing students to better access curriculum goals, and delve deeper into conversations surrounding them. When students were supported with functional grammar as a tool to make meaning and metalanguage as a tool for talking about it, students, who
otherwise struggle with participation, enthusiastically engaged in discussions, furthering their productive use of language, and supporting their subject area learning (Moore & Shleppegrell, 2014).These examples indicate the power of functional linguistics metalanguage as a concrete support teachers can utilize for difficult to teach concepts.
Functional Grammar and Academic Language Development
In addition to supporting ELLs’ subject area learning, a focus on the functional grammar of SFL can help ELLs develop their academic language within those subjects. Using functional grammar and its metalanguage can provide the tools for helping ELLs engage in talking explicitly about language and its relationship to meaning in a way that aligns with current research in L2 development which show that social interaction, authentic contexts of engagement about meaning making, and an explicit focus on language development are essential for L2 learning (Schleppegrell, 2013).
SFL is also helpful to academic language development because it can help explicitly map out how language is used to achieve a purpose (Llinares & McCabe, 2023). Taking into account the subject matter and learning tasks called for in a lesson, SFL provides the tools for helping teachers understand what language to focus on (Schleppegrell, 2013). Functional grammar can help teachers predict what language features they will need to address, making their language teaching more proactive. In addition, when it comes to assessment, having the tools to identify important language features within a particular educational context helps teachers move beyond correcting errors such as spelling or punctuation, towards focusing on effectiveness of linguistic choices made to achieve a purpose, and also helps make criteria for success explicit to students (Derewianka & Jones, 2010).
Theory to Practice: Incorporating Functional Grammar in the Classroom
SFL is first and foremost a linguistic theory. As such, it cannot be applied to the classroom as is (Derewianka & Jones, 2010; Moore et al., 2018). That is why researchers have embarked upon translating the theory into pedagogical practices, creating SFL-informed pedagogies to capitalize on the strengths of the theory for classroom application. A predominant SFL-informed pedagogy is the teaching and learning cycle, which scaffolds writing instruction according to the purpose of a particular text type. Operating within larger pedagogical frameworks of instruction such as the teaching and learning cycle, functional grammar and its metalanguage are used to provide tools for learners to analyze language use (Troyan et al., 2022).
The Instructional Resources page of this website can help teachers become more familiar with different aspects of functional grammar, as well as how it can be incorporated into unit and lesson planning to help ELLs access both content and language learning simultaneously within the mainstream classroom.
References
Derewianka, B. (2011). A new grammar companion for teachers (2nd ed.). Primary English Teaching ______Association Australia.
Derewianka, B. & Jones, P. (2010). From traditional grammar to functional grammar: bridging the ______divide. NALDIC Quarterly, 8(1), 6-17.
Humphrey, Droga, L., & Feez, S. (2012). Grammar and meaning (New ed.). Primary English Teacher ______Association Australia.
Llinares, A., & McCabe, A. (2023). Systemic functional linguistics: the perfect match for content and ______language integrated learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism, 26(3), ______245–250. https://doi-org.ezproxy.hamline.edu/10.1080/13670050.2019.1635985
Moore, J., & Schleppegrell, M. (2014). Using a functional linguistics metalanguage to support ______academic language development in the english language arts. Linguistics & Education, 26, ______92-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.01.002
Moore, J., Schleppegrell, M., & Palincsar, A. S. (2018). Discovering disciplinary linguistic knowledge ______with English learners and their teachers: Applying systemic functional linguistics concepts ______through design‐based research. TESOL Quarterly, 52(4), 1022–1049. https://doi-______org.ezproxy.hamline.edu/10.1002/tesq.472
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2013). The role of metalanguage in supporting academic language development. ______Language Learning, 63, 153–170. https://doi-org.ezproxy.hamline.edu/10.1111 ______/j.1467-9922.2012.00742.x
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2020). The knowledge base for language teaching: What is the English to be ______taught as content? Language Teaching Research, 24(1), 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1177 ______/1362168818777519
Symons, C., Palincsar, A. S., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2017). Fourth-grade emergent bilinguals' uses of ______functional grammar analysis to talk about text. Learning & Instruction, 52, 102-111. ______https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.05.003
TESOL International Association. (2022). PreK-12 webinar: A functional approach to language ______development in WIDA 2020 [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eAVxtWfEGk
Troyan, F. J., Herazo, J. D., & Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2022). SFL pedagogies in language education: ______Special issue introduction. System, 104, N.PAG. https://doi-org.ezproxy.hamline.edu/10.1016 ______/j.system.2021.102694
WIDA. (2020). WIDA English language development standards framework, 2020 edition: ______Kindergarten–grade 12. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.