I agree functional linguistics covers a range of perspectives. Some are
defined in reaction to formalist agendas, trying to beat them at their
game. Perhaps Dik's group would fall into this category. Others try to
establish different agendas, as for example the west-coast functionalist
group, with their interest in grammar in relation to discourse (Thompson,
Chafe, Dubois etc.). I myself work within a Hallidayan inspired framework
(systemic functional lingusitics - sfl) which has a more independent
lineage - from Saussure through Firth and Hjelmslev, with heavy influence
from the Prague School and Whorf. I think all the functionalists reject
the notion of an autonomous syntax, arbtrarily related to meaning and
context, on the model of phonology to syntax arbitrariness. Whether this
means that they all see grammar as making meaning is another story! Was
this what you were asking?
Jim Martin