Traditional grammar vs functional grammar
by Beverly Derewianka
Brock Haussamen (2003) famously called grammar “the skunk at the garden party of the language arts” (p.x). And this is often how people think of grammar, remembering the traditional version that they encountered in school. Students were taught rules of proper usage, often based on societal norms that separated the well-educated from the hoi polloi (don’t end a sentence with a preposition; don’t split an infinitive). They were taught grammatical structures and how to parse a sentence, naming its components:
However, because research in the 1960s indicated that learning grammar in this way made no or little difference to students’ literacy achievements (and in fact, consumed time that might have been better spent on other literacy activities), grammar disappeared from most curricula.
These days, a functional grammar takes a very different approach to how we think about grammar. Here are a few differences between the two models.
The model of language
| TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR | FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR |
|---|---|
| Grammar as a set of rules. It is concerned with the form and structure of language. | Language as resource for making meaning. It is based on the functions that language serves in our lives. It is concerned with how language has evolved in our culture to enable us to do things. |
| Grammar use is correct or incorrect. | Grammar is a system of choices (though accuracy is also encouraged). |
| Context is irrelevant. Grammar rules and structures are seen as generic in all situations. | The choices we make vary according to the context (eg purpose, audience, topic, mode of communication) |
| An explicit knowledge of grammar allows us to parse sentences and name the parts of speech. | An explicit knowledge of grammar provides us with tools for exploring texts – to investigate and critique how grammar is involved in the construction of meaning. |
| It is a grammar of the written language. | Looks at how written texts differ from spoken texts (and from visual texts). |
| The focus is often on individual words – the ‘parts of speech’ – simply as a naming exercise. | The focus is generally on ‘chunks of meaning’ (sentences, clauses, groups and phrases) and their function rather than discrete words. |
We could also look at how grammar was typically taught in the past and how a functional approach involves different practices.
The pedagogy
| TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR | FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR |
|---|---|
| Sees language learning as the acquisition of correct forms. | Sees learning language as an on-going process which involves engaging in ever-broadening contexts and extending one's meaning-making potential. |
| Grammar is taught out of context as an end in itself. | Grammar is learnt in the context of authentic, purposeful curriculum tasks to enhance learning. |
| Grammar is taught at the level of the word and the sentence. | Grammatical patterns are observed in the context of whole texts. |
| Grammatical exercises usually use ‘idealised’ sentences constructed to teach a particular rule. | Authentic texts are carefully chosen to exemplify relevant grammatical points. |
While we might not agree with a traditional approach, that doesn’t mean that we ignore grammatical forms altogether. Functional grammar begins by identifying the function of the various elements of a sentence by using probe questions and functional terms. However, when it is useful to do so, it will also consider the grammatical forms that can express that function. Knowing, for example, that a Participant in a clause can take the form of a noun group (as well as other forms such as a pronoun) can help us focus on the qualities of the noun group as we support students in crafting a vivid description:
The noun group in the sentence above provides the reader with a description of a branch in terms of its weight, its type and its similarity to a battering ram. This would serve as a useful model for students as they craft their own noun groups. So it’s not a matter of function or form, but the relationship between them and the different roles that they play in creating effective sentences.
Traditional grammar is making a reappearance in many syllabus documents and teaching materials, possibly because it is seen to inject a bit of rigour into perceived ‘progressive’ literacy practices. Unfortunately, it often takes the form of underlining the ‘parts of speech’ and identifying subject and predicate, without any attention to how this knowledge contributes to students’ literacy outcomes.
It's our job to create an awareness of how a functional approach provides a useful, contemporary alternative that actually can make a difference in students’ literacy and learning.
References
Haussamen, B. (2003). Grammar alive! A guide for teachers. National Council of Teachers of English.
Further reading
Derewianka, B. (2022) A New Grammar Companion for Teachers (3rd Edition). Newtown: PETAA.
Derewianka, B. & Jones, P. (2026). Teaching Language in Context (3rd Edition). Melbourne: Oxford University Press
Humphrey, S. & Feez, S. (2025). Grammar and Meaning (3rd Edition). Newtown: PETAA.
About the author
Dr Beverly Derewianka is an Emeritus Professor (Language and Literacy Education) and Professiorial Fellow at the University of Wollongong, NSW.