I'm rereading the conversation about functional grammar from the listserv and realizing that your own thoughtful and interesting reply from November 3rd got shortchanged. I meant to reply and got caught up in other things.
     I think we need to build various sociocultural concerns into our understanding of grammar.  One way, for sure, is to challenge the notion that Standard English is the only correct way to write.  If we are developing writers of any sophistication, we want them to be free to use all resources available, including the various dialects available to them.  Where would August Wilson be if standard English were the only vehicle for his plays?  How can we assign Catcher in the Rye or Huckelberry Finn year after year and then not teach an ear for speech and a respect for its wisdom? My experience has been that students know full well the need to learn standard English, but have not yet been told in any convincing way that other dialects are rich and interesting and useful as well, not just in their need to talk with each other, but in their desire to write a community literature and a community discourse. I don't think we are isolated by this either.  Langston Hughes was ridiculed by many of his black contemporaries who felt he was reinforcing stereotypes through the dialects in his stories and poems, but now we have a body of work as good as any in the canon of  American literature.  Standard English can open up opportunity and break down the barriers of isolation, but it ought not to trap us or demean any of us along the way.
    It seems to me, at a certain point, that the correctness of what we write is about the least interesting thing we can say about it.  Correct writing is about as useful as correct relationships.  My grammar students are surprised to learn that we are going to spend time looking at grammar that isn't "wrong."  Grammar isn't error and error isn't grammar. If we want an understanding of grammar to be useful, we need to look closely at very effective writing.
 
     Craig