UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS

AKOKA, LAGOS STATE

NAME:

ABIOYE TOYYIB ANUOLUWA

MATRIC NO:

239013069

COURSE CODE:

ENG 807

COURSE TITLE:

LINGUISTICS THEORIES IN RELATION TO THE STUDY OF ENGLISH

SESSION:

2024/2025

FACULTY:

ARTS

DEPARTMENT:

ENGLISH

QUESTION:

HOW DOES SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR VIEW LANGUAGE

DIFFERENTLY FROM TRANSFORMATIONAL GENERATIVE GRAMMAR?

The study of language has been shaped by various grammatical frameworks, each

attempting to capture the complexity and essence of human linguistic competence and

performance. Among the most influential frameworks are Transformational Generative

Grammar (TGG), pioneered by Noam Chomsky, and Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG),

developed by M.A.K. Halliday. While both theories aim to describe the structure of language,

they diverge significantly in their theoretical foundations, purposes, and practical

applications. TGG focuses on the syntactic structures and the innate linguistic capacity of

human beings, proposing a universal grammar underlying all languages. In contrast, SFG

sees language as a resource for meaning-making, emphasizing the functional roles of

language in social contexts.

This essay explores the fundamental differences between these two linguistic models

by discussing their theoretical orientations, views on grammar and structure, treatment of

context and meaning, and practical applications. Drawing on recent scholarly work, the

discussion aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how SFG and TGG

conceptualize language from vastly different perspectives.

1. Theoretical Orientation

One of the most prominent differences between SFG and TGG lies in their

philosophical and theoretical orientations. TGG, as a product of the generative grammar

tradition, is rooted in formalism and rationalism. Chomsky’s work in the 1950s and 60s was

driven by the desire to understand the mental grammar that allows humans to produce and

comprehend an infinite number of sentences. Chomsky (1965) introduced the distinction

between competence (an ideal speaker's knowledge of their language) and performance

(actual language use), emphasizing the former as the object of linguistic study. TGG aims to

discover the universal principles and parameters that govern all human languages.
 On the other hand, Systemic Functional Grammar is grounded in functionalism and

social semiotics. Halliday (1978) rejected the idea that language should be studied

independently of its social functions. Instead, he proposed that language is a resource for

making meaning, shaped by and shaping the social context in which it is used. According to

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014), language is not merely a formal system of rules but a

network of choices that speakers make to achieve communicative goals.

As Fontaine (2021) notes, “TGG seeks to uncover the formal structures of language

that are mentally represented, while SFG is concerned with how language is used to enact

social roles, construct reality, and organize experience.”

2. View of Grammar and Structure

Another major difference between the two theories is their treatment of grammar and

syntactic structure.

In TGG, grammar is understood as a system of rules and transformations that generate

all and only the grammatical sentences of a language. Chomsky (1957) introduced the idea of

phrase structure rules, followed by transformational rules that derive surface structures from

underlying deep structures. For example, the passive sentence “The ball was kicked by the

boy” is derived from the deep structure “The boy kicked the ball” through a series of

syntactic transformations. This approach emphasizes the hierarchical, recursive nature of

syntax and posits that all languages share a universal grammar with parameters that vary

across languages (Radford, 2019).

Systemic Functional Grammar, by contrast, organizes grammar around functional

components. Halliday identifies three metafunctions of language:

1. Ideational metafunction: language as a means of representing experience,

2. Interpersonal metafunction: language as a means of enacting social roles and

relationships,
 3. Textual metafunction: language as a means of organizing discourse.

These metafunctions are simultaneously realized in a single clause, which serves as

the basic unit of grammatical analysis in SFG (Eggins, 2021). Rather than focusing on

syntactic hierarchy, SFG examines how linguistic choices relate to meaning and function in

context.

According to Thompson (2022), “While TGG breaks down a sentence into constituent

parts using syntactic trees, SFG breaks it down based on the communicative purpose of each

component, asking what function each part plays in constructing meaning.”

3. Role of Context and Meaning

Perhaps the most striking divergence between TGG and SFG is their treatment of

context and meaning.

TGG tends to abstract language from its context. Chomsky (1980) explicitly states

that linguistics should be concerned with the internal mental grammar of the speaker, rather

than with performance or usage, which can be influenced by extralinguistic factors. Thus,

TGG is primarily concerned with the formal properties of sentences—their syntactic

structure, grammaticality, and generative capacity.

SFG, on the other hand, is context-sensitive and strongly meaning-oriented. Language

is analyzed in terms of register variables—field (what is happening), tenor (who is involved),

and mode (the role language plays in the situation). These contextual factors influence the

grammatical choices speakers make. As Martin & Rose (2021) argue, “In SFG, meaning is

not an add-on to syntax; it is the core of linguistic structure.” SFG also places strong

emphasis on genre theory, viewing different text types as patterned responses to recurring

social situations (Derewianka & Jones, 2022).

The distinction here is critical: TGG treats meaning as secondary, often relegated to

the semantic interface of the syntax-semantics interface, while SFG treats meaning as
primary, with grammar serving as a tool for meaning-making. As Humphrey et al. (2020)

note, “SFG integrates context into every level of analysis, enabling the study of how texts

function to achieve specific social purposes.”

4. Language Acquisition and Universality

TGG has had a major influence on language acquisition research, especially through

Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar (UG). The idea is that children are born with an

innate set of grammatical principles that allow them to acquire any human language, given

minimal exposure. This perspective emphasizes the cognitive universality of grammar and

underpins much research in first and second language acquisition (Cook & Newson, 2021).

SFG does not propose a theory of Universal Grammar in the Chomskyan sense.

Instead, it focuses on how language development occurs in social contexts, influenced by

interaction, discourse, and culture. Language learning is seen as a process of learning to mean

in particular social settings. In this regard, SFG aligns more with sociocultural theories of

language development, such as those proposed by Vygotsky.

As Derewianka (2022) states, “SFG provides a framework for understanding how

learners develop control over increasingly complex genres and registers as they participate in

school and society.”

5. Pedagogical Implications and Applications

The differing perspectives of TGG and SFG have practical implications for language

teaching and curriculum design.

TGG, being abstract and formal, has found its most substantial application in

theoretical linguistics, syntax modeling, and computational linguistics. While it informs

language acquisition theory, it is less directly applicable in classrooms or in the analysis of

real-world texts.
 In contrast, SFG has been widely adopted in education, especially in countries like

Australia, the UK, and South Africa. Its ability to link grammar with discourse, context, and

genre makes it a powerful tool for developing students’ literacy and academic writing skills.

Programs such as the Genre-Based Approach and Teaching and Learning Cycle are based on

SFG principles (Rose & Martin, 2012).

Fontaine (2021) emphasizes that “SFG’s strength lies in its ability to bridge the gap

between linguistic theory and classroom practice, enabling students to understand not just

how language works, but why certain choices are more effective in particular contexts.”

6. Discourse and Text Analysis

Discourse analysis is another area where SFG has a clear advantage. Its attention to

function and context makes it well-suited for analyzing written and spoken texts, whether in

political speeches, classroom talk, media, or literature. It has been used extensively in Critical

Discourse Analysis (CDA) to reveal power dynamics, ideologies, and social positioning in

language (Fairclough, 2013).

TGG, being syntax-focused, is less equipped for analyzing extended texts or

discourse. It primarily operates at the sentence level, analyzing sentence structure and

transformations. While formal semanticists have extended some of its principles to discourse

representation theory, these extensions are not inherently part of the original TGG

framework.

As Bloor & Bloor (2021) explain, “Systemic Functional Grammar provides a

comprehensive toolkit for analyzing how texts work to achieve meaning in real contexts,

something TGG, with its syntactic focus, cannot offer.”

7. Integration of Multimodality and Semiotics

In recent years, SFG has evolved into a broader framework that incorporates

multimodal discourse analysis, allowing researchers to study how meaning is made not only
through language but also through images, gestures, layout, and sound. Multimodal systemic

functional linguistics extends the theory’s applicability to areas like media, film, and

education (O’Halloran, 2019).

TGG, with its focus on abstract syntax, lacks the theoretical tools to integrate

multimodal meaning-making. Its emphasis on grammatical rules makes it less adaptable to

the analysis of visual and social semiotic systems.

Conclusion

Systemic Functional Grammar and Transformational Generative Grammar represent

two fundamentally different approaches to the study of language. TGG is a formal, cognitive

model that seeks to explain the internal grammar that enables language production, with a

focus on syntax and universality. SFG, by contrast, is a functional, socially grounded model

that treats language as a meaning-making system, emphasizing context, choice, and use.

While TGG has advanced our understanding of the innate structures of language and

fueled significant theoretical and computational advancements, SFG has provided practical

tools for education, discourse analysis, and applied linguistics. Both frameworks continue to

influence modern linguistic thought, but their divergent assumptions and methodologies

make them suitable for different research purposes and educational contexts.

In summary, SFG and TGG offer complementary insights into the nature of language:

one focusing on the social functions of language in use, and the other on the formal structures

underlying linguistic competence.

Bloor, T., & Bloor, M. (2021). The Functional Analysis of English (4th ed.). Routledge.

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. Mouton.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and Representations. Columbia University Press.

Cook, V., & Newson, M. (2021). Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An Introduction (4th ed.).
Wiley-Blackwell.

Derewianka, B. (2022). A New Grammar Companion for Teachers. PETAA.

Derewianka, B., & Jones, P. (2022). Teaching Language in Context (3rd ed.). Oxford
University Press.

Eggins, S. (2021). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language.

Fontaine, L. (2021). Analyzing English Grammar: A Systemic Functional Introduction.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of

Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2014). Halliday's Introduction to Functional

Humphrey, S., Droga, L., & Feez, S. (2020). Grammar and Meaning. PETAA.

Martin, J.R., & Rose, D. (2021). Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause (2nd
ed.). Bloomsbury.

O’Halloran, K. (2019). Multimodal Analysis and Digital Technology. Routledge.

Radford, A. (2019). Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction. Cambridge University Press.

Rose, D., & Martin, J.R. (2012). Learning to Write, Reading to Learn: Genre, Knowledge and
Pedagogy in the Sydney School. Equinox.

Thompson, G. (2022). Introducing Functional Grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.