(Bourke J M.) This view of grammar was rejected by Chomsky and others. Chomsky viewed this perception of grammar as E‑language or externalized language. He conceived of true grammar as I‑language or internalized language. This view was based on the underlying belief that grammar must be psychologically real. Chomsky states that a grammar ".must capture and explain language knowledge in terms of the properties of the human mind." (Cook, 1988, p. 12).

             The move away from the structuralist perception of grammar can be described as a move from a prescriptive to a descriptive form of grammar. Descriptive grammar describes language as it is in reality and not as it should be ideally seen. .

             Another view that is often seen as being the polar opposite of the view that Chomsky proposed, is Systemic Functional Grammar. SFG views language primarily in terms of its context and function and in relation to society and social interaction. This view is in contradistinction to the more formalistic views of grammar which are relatively unrelated to social factors and see grammar as having a deeper intuitive structure which is common to all language groups. A prime example is the work of Noam Chomsky, whose methods were largely derived from those of his neo-Bloomfieldian teacher Zellig Harris, and were related to the maintenance of the ". non-functional approach of Bloomfield, and its concentration on the forms or expressions of language, with relative neglect of the relationships between form and function. " (Langbrain: Interview with Sydney Lamb. 1998).

             Between these two extremes are various other views and theories of grammar. One of these, for example, is neurocognitve linguistics which looks at language primarily in its relation to the brain. However, in general terms theories of grammar tend to fall into two main categories; these are the formal and functional views of grammar. Simple stated, formal grammar places emphasis on linguistic form and structure, while functional theories ".