• Functional Communicative Approach

The representatives of functional grammar are M.A.K. Halliday, S.C. Dik, Martinet, Prague School linguists, N.A. Slyusareva, A.V. Bondarko, T. Givon, J. Bybee, Wallace Chafe. Functional grammar is defined in Linguistic Encyclopaedic Dictionary (ed. by V.N. Yartseva) as that type of grammar which studies functions of linguistic units and peculiarities of their functioning. Functional grammar studies in unity linguistic entities belonging to different strata of language system if they perform the same semantic function. Thus the analysis goes from functions (meanings) to linguistic means and then is supplemented by the opposite direction. Functional grammar analyses language in its social environment. Thus the basic conception underlying functional theory is the belief in the functions of the language which can explain the peculiarities of the linguistic form employed in different contexts. Thus functionalism is seen as opposition to forms of structuralism which studies the system of a language in abstraction of its functions [Matthews 1997:139].

Functionalism is characterized by a number of typical features which make it completely different from transformational grammar. Firstly, functionalism can be defined as typologically oriented linguistics. Secondly, it operates on huge corpora of data. Thirdly, it uses statistical methods. And, finally, functionalism is interdisciplinary. Functionalists work on the borderline of psychology, sociology, statistics, history and other disciplines²⁹.

There are several versions of functional grammar which are connected with different linguistic schools but all the types of functional grammar display some influence from the Prague School of linguistics. Though different in terminology all the types can fall under Dik’s description of a functional view of a natural language: “a language is regarded in the first place as an instrument by means of which people can enter into communicative relations with one other [sic]. From this point of view language is primarily a pragmatic phenomenon – a symbolic instrument used for communicative purposes”.

Michael Halliday, the author of systemic functional grammar which is pursued widely in the U.K., Canada, Australia, China and Japan, defines a functional grammar as “essentially a “natural” grammar, in the sense that everything in it can be explained, ultimately, by reference to how language is used”. Halliday’s functional grammar is not a formal grammar, indeed, as he opposes the term “functional” to the term “formal”.

Halliday’s grammar begins from the premise that language has certain functions for its users as a social group, so that it is primarily sociolinguistic in nature. Halliday singles out three functions of language: the ideational ‘content’ function, the interpersonal function and the textual function. According to M.A.K. Halliday, ideational meaning is meaning in the sense of ‘content’. It is the representation of experience. Interpersonal meaning is meaning as a form of action: the speaker or writer doing something to the listener or reader by means of language. Textual meaning is relevance to the context: both the preceding (and following) text, and the context of situation. The textual function of the clause is that of constructing a message. By text Halliday means ‘everything that is said or written’. Thus the focus in Halliday’s grammar is on language in use.

S.C. Dik concentrates on speakers’ competence, seeing his grammar as ‘a theory of the grammatical component of communicative competence’. The notion of communicative competence derives from Dell Hymes. It consists of grammatical competence, the speaker’s ability to form and interpret sentences, and pragmatic competence, the ability to use expressions to achieve a desired communicative effect. Dik’s grammar represents an interesting attempt at taking full account of the factors which guide speakers’ use of language, their performance, within a framework of a formal grammatical system which was originally developed with competence alone in mind.

To sum up, “all functionalists agree that language is a system of forms for conveying meaning in communication and therefore that in order to understand it, it is necessary to investigate the interaction of structure, meaning and communicative function” [Handbook of Linguistics 2004: 336].