Introducing English Grammar

David J. Young

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781134897575
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Sprachen & Linguistik
• Subtopic: Sprachwissenschaft

Introducing English Grammar provides a basic grounding in English grammar, without going into too much detail or theory, and will lay the foundation for further grammatical studies. David Young presents English grammar in a coherent and lively way. He dispels the popular notion among students that grammar is simply a set of dreary rules and argues for the importance of grammar in describing the structure and function of language itself. Exercises are provided at the end of each chapter and the book includes integrated diagrams and a glossary of technical terms at the back of the book.

1Introduction

Why study grammar?

With many people grammar has a bad name. It is associated with a pedantic insistence on niceties of expression, with pronouncements that some expression is ‘incorrect’ or ‘correct’ (even though nobody seems to know what ‘correctness’ is), and with consulting authorities to find out what we ‘ought’ to say. This view arises from the conception of grammar as a means of regulating behaviour. We start with the assumption that people use language, and then we regard them as misusing it; so we tell them that they ought to be using it differently. It is like rules of etiquette, where we take as our starting point the social occasion to which the rules apply, say a dinner party, and then we state what amounts to good behaviour—or, sometimes, bad behaviour—on such occasions. To look upon grammar in this way is to trivialize it; to take for granted that the language exists, and merely give rules for adjusting the detail.

But this conception overlooks something, and it is something which will enable us to take a very different view of what grammar is. A language cannot be taken for granted; the rules of English do not assume that English already exists and then prescribe how we ought to use it. They actually define what counts as English.

The distinction can be understood by making a comparison with the rules of some game, say tennis. A rule which states the existence, dimensions and markings of the tennis court is not a rule which regulates the playing of an already existing game; it is a rule that, together with other rules, defines the game itself. If you play on a cricket pitch, you could not be said to be playing bad tennis, but simply not playing tennis. The rules do not control the game; they create it. Only the most trivial rules have a controlling effect; the most essential rules have a constituting effect.

In order to write a grammar for some language, then, we must study the realities of people’s language behaviour and give an account of it in terms of some agreed framework of description. This is a very different thing from attempting to influence people’s language behaviour and make them do it ‘better’. The grammar that we write will be an account of the structural and functional principles of the language itself. This is no trivial matter, since the language spoken by a community of speakers is one of the most essential factors in the life of that community. The community could not exist without this means of controlling almost every aspect of its life; and language is no less than that. A grammar, then, is an attempt to describe the system of communication which every normal member of the community ‘possesses’ and which is shared by the community at large. It has both a psychological existence within the individual and a social existence within the community.

The term grammar can also be used to refer to the system itself. When we talk of ‘a’ grammar of English, we refer to a book which describes the system. When we talk of ‘the’ grammar of English, we mean the rules which constitute the language that the individual speaker possesses. From one point of view, the individual speaker is a ‘walking grammar’ of the language.

We have now moved very far from the view of grammar as fussy and interfering pedantry and can see that it is a serious, absorbing and important study, albeit a complex one. If we accept this view, we commit ourselves to a much more difficult field of study than if we look upon grammar as a body of rules for avoiding solecisms.

At this stage we had better ask what kind of a thing a language is. Linguists have offered many different explanations of the phenomenon. A well-known view of language that has been current recently is that a language is an infinitely large set of sentences. The verbal structures that are the sentences of the language constitute the language itself. An alternative view is that a language is a system for choosing, realizing and signalling meanings. This formulation starts from the idea of an intention to communicate by using such meanings as the language allows; it then refers to the realization of the speaker’s intention by his selection of appropriate verbal structures; finally it refers to the fact that the verbal structures must be put into some physical medium—usually speech or writing—in order to be transmitted to an addressee.

It would not be appropriate to discuss these theoretical matters any further here, since it hardly makes any difference to the study of the basic concepts that this book is concerned with. Nevertheless, it is desirable that the reader should see the subject-matter of the book as a step towards the study of something of great importance in the life of human society.

Languages vary

We have spoken of the need to take an objective attitude towards people’s language behaviour. This means we should describe it and not judge it. A fact about languages which can be observed without too much difficulty is that they are variable. For one thing, different groups of people speak different dialects of a language. We are all familiar with the idea of different regional varieties. The differences are not necessarily just differences of accent, but may also include differences of grammar and vocabulary. But not all dialectal varieties are regional. There are also class dialects. A dialect is a variety of the language that is used by an identifiable group of speakers, whether these belong to a region or to a social stratum.

Dialects are different linguistic systems; not totally different but partly different from each other. Despite their differences, it is not possible to evaluate them one against another. One cannot compare them for merit. It is worth taking special note of this fact, since it is contrary to many popular notions of dialect. The fact is that different dialects acquire different degrees and kinds of prestige or notoriety according to the social role of the groups of speakers who use them. A group of speakers may be respected or despised by other groups of speakers, and quite often their way of speaking is then characterized as meritorious or inferior. But there is no linguistic justification for such a judgement. The different degrees of respect in which different dialects are held is determined by sociological factors, not linguistic ones.

In using the term ‘dialect’ here, we mean that the speech of every speaker belongs to one dialect or another; that is, every speaker belongs to some group of speakers who share a variety. We can thus speak of standard dialects as well as non-standard dialects. A standard dialect is a variety which has wide currency and commands the respect of large numbers of speakers, including many who do not speak it themselves.

Registers

Languages also vary in that the speakers adjust their way of using them when writing a business letter, speaking to a stranger on the telephone, writing an essay, chatting to a close friend, and so on. They are said to switch from one register of their language to another. Any speaker who is unable to adapt his language to the varying situations of language use would soon be regarded as behaving oddly. Of course, there are for all of us some kinds of situation that are unfamiliar. If we start to operate in new situations, we may have to learn the appropriate way of using language in the new circumstances; but although some people have a wider experience of social situations than others, everybody has some range of experience and some range of language variability to go with it.

Correctness

At this point it may be useful to reflect upon the popular conception of correctness in language since, if it is to deal adequately with linguistic reality, it needs refining. How can we judge the ‘correctness’ of some form of expression without taking into account the circumstances in which the expression is being used? For instance, is it ‘correct’ to say smack in the middle, or should I say right in the middle? The informal expression would of course be inappropriate to a situation requiring formality. But informal language is equally systematic, and to equate correctness with formality would be to ignore this. It is obviously necessary to allow that language varies according to circumstances, and what is appropriate in one case may be inappropriate in another. The kinds of factors that change from one situation to another are: first, that the social roles of those who are addressing each other are various; second, the kind of social activity that is going on may be different; and third, the medium of communication can change, for instance, from spoken to written medium.

So far we have found two kinds of language variation: there are varieties used by different groups of speakers—dialects; and there are varieties used for different social purposes— registers. (The reader should be wary of the latter term since it is also used in other senses and may be a source of misunderstanding; see the glossary.) In general, a single speaker commands one dialect but has a range of registers at his disposal.

Linguistic change

A language may also vary owing to changes that the system undergoes in the course of time. The language of the seventeenth century differs from the language of today. For instance in the seventeenth century it would have been normal to say I am glad Mr Soandso has made so much despatch, while today we would probably say something like I am glad Mr Soandso has got onso quickly. It would be ridiculous to debate whether seventeenth century usage was more ‘correct’ than that of the present day; it was just different. Linguistic chang...