University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Social Sciences - Papers Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences & Humanities 2010 From traditional grammar to functional grammar: bridging the divide Beverly Derewianka University of Wollongong, [email protected] Pauline Jones University of Wollongong, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/sspapers Part of the Education Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Derewianka, Beverly and Jones, Pauline, "From traditional grammar to functional grammar: bridging the divide" (2010). Faculty of Social Sciences - Papers. 1001. https://ro.uow.edu.au/sspapers/1001 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] From traditional grammar to functional grammar: bridging the divide Abstract This paper describes our experiences using systemic functional linguistics to teach English in Australian educational settings over the last three decades. We suggest there is a continuum of approaches to describing language and highlight what we consider to be the significant affordances of a systemic functional grammar for English language teachers. With its dual emphasis on meaning and form, we argue that the model provides powerful tools for identifying curriculum priorities, for designing pedagogy and for assessing learners’ accomplishments and needs. Most importantly, it offers a means of making language explicit to learners in the form of an accessible and flexible metalanguage (i.e. a language for talking about language). However, we also discuss some evolving and unresolved issues arising from our experiences in terms of curriculum, policy and professional support for teachers. Keywords divide, grammar, bridging, traditional, functional Disciplines Education | Social and Behavioral Sciences Publication Details Derewianka, B. & Jones, P. (2010). From traditional grammar to functional grammar: bridging the divide. NALDIC Quarterly, 8 (1), 6-17. This journal article is available at Research Online: https://ro.uow.edu.au/sspapers/1001 POLICY, PRACTICE AND how it should be taught. Implicitly or explicitly? Incidentally or systematically? Analytically or RESEARCH synthetically? Proactively or reactively? As part of teaching subject knowledge or on its own? And which model of grammar to use? In educational From traditional grammar to contexts, the debate around the choice of grammar functional grammar: bridging the is often framed in terms of ‘traditional’ vs divide ‘functional’. We will argue here that such a framing is misleading and simplistic. We could range most descriptions of language that are typically found in English-teaching contexts along Beverley Derewianka and Pauline a cline between ‘form’ and ‘function’ (as in Figure Jones 1). At the ‘form’ end of the continuum, we might find those traditional school grammars which University of Wollongong focus primarily on the ‘parts of speech’ and This paper describes our experiences using syntax. At the ‘function’ end of the continuum, we systemic functional linguistics to teach English in could place the notional-functional syllabus – Australian educational settings over the last three which, even though no longer in common use, has decades. We suggest there is a continuum of had a lasting impact on the field. And around the approaches to describing language and highlight middle, we might find a number of contemporary what we consider to be the significant affordances reference grammars – including Halliday’s of a systemic functional grammar for English systemic-functional grammar (SFG) – which language teachers. With its dual emphasis on endeavour to describe the relationship between meaning and form, we argue that the model grammatical forms and their functions. provides powerful tools for identifying curriculum priorities, for designing pedagogy and for All these language descriptions include reference assessing learners’ accomplishments and needs. to both form and function – it’s a matter of Most importantly, it offers a means of making orientation and emphasis. The orientation of language explicit to learners in the form of an accessible and flexible metalanguage (i.e. a traditional school grammar is towards the learning language for talking about language). However, of structures and rules. It draws on grammatical categories such as noun, verb, pronoun, adjective, we also discuss some evolving and unresolved adverb, conjunction and preposition – with the issues arising from our experiences in terms of occasional nod towards meaning (‘a noun is a curriculum, policy and professional support for person, place or thing’) and grammatical function teachers. (‘the subject of the verb’). At the other extreme, Which grammar? the notional-functional description – though not technically a theory of grammar – emphasizes the Debates around the teaching of grammar continue intent of the language user: what people need to to erupt in the field of English language teaching. do with language and what meanings they want to Should grammar be taught at all? While it has express. Although its orientation is been argued in the past that grammar instruction is communicative, it does attempt to demonstrate not necessary for language acquisition to take how the various functions and notions can be place (for example, Krashen 1982; Prabhu 1987), expressed through certain grammatical forms. The more recently general support has emerged for notion of frequency, for example, is linked to such some form-focused instruction (Andrews 2007; exponents as ‘adverb’, ‘present (habitual) tense’, Snyder 2008). In this paper we are not concerned or ‘adverbials’. with whether grammar should be taught but rather ‘form’ ‘relating form and function’ ‘function’ e.g. traditional grammar e.g. systemic-functional grammar e.g. notional-functional Figure 1 6 Towards the middle of the continuum, Halliday’s Furthermore, most reference grammars now systemic-functional grammar (Halliday and include a section that goes beyond the clause to Matthiessen 2004) provides a bridge between deal with issues at the level of the text, such as ‘form’ and ‘meaning’, mapping systematically how certain resources function to make a text and in detail the relationship between grammatical cohesive. classes and the functions they perform. While the While these grammars include reference to orientation is firmly functional, the emphasis is functions of various kinds, the overall placed equally on grammatical forms and on the grammatical description is typically organized meanings they make: how the grammar has according to grammatical classes. Halliday’s evolved in particular ways to construe various grammar, on the other hand, is organized around kinds of meanings. At the level of form, SFG uses the question of how language functions to standard terminology to describe the grammatical construe various kinds of meaning. classes (‘preposition’, ‘conjunction’, ‘noun’, ‘verb’ and so on). Unlike traditional grammar, Systemic Functional Grammar however, it does not stop there – it is double- layered, constantly shunting between form and It is evident that the choice of a model of function, between grammar and semantics. grammar is not simply a matter of ‘traditional’ or ‘functional’. It is more a matter of what we want Of the other modern reference grammars around the model to do for us and our students. If, for the mid-point of the continuum, some are more example, our students need simply to learn the structurally-oriented (e.g. Huddleston and Pullum structure of English sentences with a focus on 2005) and others more functionally-oriented (e.g. syntactic accuracy, drawing on familiar (though Biber, Conrad and Leech 2002 and Willis 1995). basic) terminology shared throughout the They all, however, go beyond the more syntactic profession, then a traditional grammar will orientation of traditional school grammar. To deal probably suffice. These days, however, there is with the problems associated with adverbs in considerable pressure on teachers of English as traditional grammar, for example, most now use well as subject teachers with large numbers of the term ‘adverbials’ in recognition of the fact that EAL students in their classses to go beyond ‘well- different grammatical forms (such as adverbs and formed sentences’ and to help their students prepositional phrases) can have a similar function. operate successfully in a range of discourse Similarly, certain modern grammars use terms contexts. This is where SFG has struck a chord such as adjunct, subjunct, disjunct and conjunct among many practitioners, in that it provides a (e.g. Crystal 2004) or circumstance, stance and more ‘comprehensive package’, informing all linking (Biber, Conrad and Leech 2002: 361) to areas of the language curriculum rather than being capture differences in adverbial meaning. In taught as a discrete ‘topic’. In the following relation to verbs, The Longman Student Grammar section, we will outline what we have found to be of Spoken and Written English (Biber, Conrad useful features of SFG for English teaching. and Leech 2002) discusses not only the form of the verb, but also the various kinds of meanings Texts in context that verbs express: activity, communication, mental processes, causation, relations, and While most other grammars tend to restrict existence. The CoBuild Students’ Grammar themselves to the level of the sentence (which is (Willis