English grammar is happening all around you, language change is going on in front of your very eyes. In order to emphasize this point, we have decided to use real-life examples taken, for example, from a magazine called The Big Issue. This is an initiative set up in aimed at giving homeless or vulnerably housed people a chance to make a living and gradually move towards more permanent housing. We believe that this is a cause that deserves as much public exposure as it can get, even though we realize that our grammar book is not likely to reach the masses one can dream, though.
Still, we have to admit that our reasons for using The Big Issue for language examples are not philanthropic, but linguistic. Invented sentences like the ones so often used in textbooks are just sterile fragments of that wonderfully rich language they are supposed to be identifying. By contrast, the language in The Big Issue is close to the language that is actually spoken by the majority of people.
It is less inuenced by rules about proper English. We hope that by using these examples we can make readers realize that. English grammar is not about learning what you are allowed to say and what you are not allowed to say though if you are a learner of English as a foreign language this is, of course, important too. Instead, it is about a way of looking at the English around you and at language in general. Once you have acquired this way of looking at language, then you can use the tools to study other languages.
Before we continue, we should just mention a bit about the annotation of the data. This label is followed by a number which indicates the issue in which the example can be found, and the page number. Some of the examples are marked adapted. This doesnt mean that we have changed the whole example around, it just means that we have omitted some adverbials which made the example less clear, or removed a sub-clause that made things more complex than necessary.
We have not cheated by creating a type of example that wasnt really there. Sometimes adapted examples are not marked explicitly, but it should be clear from the context that they are adapted; for instance, when we have turned original sentences into questions. Finally, in some cases we have used our own invented examples, but again we have either marked these or it should be clear from the context. What do we do with all this marvellously rich data?
Well, we try to nd patterns in it. The discovery of such patterns leads to the formulation of analyses.
- Goddess and the Warrior: The Naked Goddess and Mistress of the Animals in Early Greek Religion?
- Product description.
- The Gift of Death (2nd Edition) & Literature in Secret (Religion and Postmodernism).
Of course, many analyses have already been provided for English and by and large we do not come up with anything revolutionary or frightfully controversial, as far as analyses go. In some cases, proposed analyses of one particular phenomenon disagree. Sometimes we feel that the arguments are actually stronger one way than the other. In these cases we will tell you what we think. At other times we feel that there are advantages and disadvantages with both ways of looking at something.
You may nd this annoying why write a textbook if you dont know the answer? Well, probably the truth is that in many of these cases, there is no right answer, just different ways of looking at things. We hope readers will get used to this idea, and maybe be able to decide for themselves.
One thing that we keep coming back to throughout this book is the structure of language. Sentences and phrases are not just at strings, they have structure. We then need some reasonably formal way of representing this structure. The standard way of doing this is with tree diagrams, or phrase markers. Now, some people who nd English grammar quite exciting nd trees bothersome and off-putting. We feel it would be a shame to put such people off the topic by littering the text with tree structures.
Instead, we have kept the trees in the running text to a minimum, and at the end of each chapter we have a section that provides the tree structures relevant for that chapter. We hope that those of you who are already familiar with phrase markers will nd this arrangement acceptable too. A terminological issue is that language can be either spoken or written, and hence every sentence could have been either written or spoken.
However, in order to simplify, we have referred to the producer as the.
- The Wolf of Wall Street!
- Product details.
- Related books and articles.
- SPSS: Stats Practically Short and Simple?
This is just a matter of simplicity; for speaker you can always read speaker or writer and for hearer hearer or reader. Also, we have followed reasonably common practice and used the pronoun he to refer to the speaker and she for the hearer. Occasionally we have also used singular they as a gender-neutral pronoun. Shakespeare used it this way, so we feel we are in good company.
In fact, we include a discussion of exactly this point on p. Finally, we both have people we would like to thank, both individually and jointly. Kersti would like to thank the Department of Linguistics at the University of Manchester, which has provided an ideal gradual introduction to how to teach English grammar. When it comes to teaching in general and teaching English grammar in particular, two people have been especially inuential: Katharine Perera and John Payne.
Introducing English Grammar (PDF)
Many thanks to them and to all students of LI Kersti would also like to thank Dolor MacCarron who has helped with this book in many ways, rst by being a student of LI, then later by providing comments on English grammar in general, and last but not least by being prepared to look after the Masters brood to aid the writing of this book. Kate is grateful to her colleagues, in particular Barry Blake, whose Movie Goers Guide to Grammar showed it is possible to write a syntax book that makes good bedtime reading.
Kate is also grateful to Susan Hendtlass for helping transcribe The Titans vs. The Hawks , to Pia Herbert, Andy Pawley, Julie Reid for their wonderful examples, to Allison Pritchard for bravely reading some early drafts and to those La Trobe students who were such willing guinea pigs. Both of us are grateful to our editors at Arnold. To our shame we must admit that we have gone through three of them this is no reection on what we do to our editors, but on how long we have been intending to write this book : Naomi Meredith, Christina Wipf-Perry and Lesley Riddle.
Their patience has been impressive. Finally, there are Ross, Andrew, Robin, Ellen, Nils and Philip, some of whom have also showed patience with us and most of whom have provided us with examples of living English. Grammar happens to be the older form it rst entered English in the s from French although ultimately from Greek grammata, letters. It came to mean learning, but then acquired additional senses to do with magic and the inexplicable this shift makes sense when you bear in mind that the majority of people at this time were illiterate.
In Scottish English a form appeared whereby [r] had changed to [l]. Glamour retained this earlier mysterious and magical sense, later shifting to its current meaning, enchantment, allure. Nowadays the study of grammar still holds a lot of mystery and perplexity for students what were hoping here is that it will also develop something of the newer sense of enchantment and allure that it holds for both of us see Crystal on the etymological fallacy. You might, for instance, want to write a grammar of that language, say English, which can then be used by people to learn English.
This is an extremely difcult task for many reasons. First, of course, you have to write it in such a way that the task of learning English is made easy for the language learner; in other words, it must be pedagogically sound. A problem more relevant to linguists is which constructions you will include as correct structures of English, and which you will exclude, or mark as ungrammatical.
Consider the following sentences: a Oscar is een lieve maar niet zo slimme poes. Killed his self getting out of the bath. AUS d Its eerie that uncanny rusted Milo tin. AUS e That its eerie tin rusted Milo uncanny. Adapted f Theres always been songs about sex and death. N Adapted h They smoke, the men do, and have special dentists to put silver llings in their teeth. AUS We are quite sure that all of you will agree that a and e should not be included in a grammar of English. If you are writing a grammar of English intended for language learners you might also want to exclude b and c , perhaps some of the others too, even though many people who are native speakers of English would use and accept such sentences.
How would you describe these sentences? Would you call them ungrammatical or dialectal? Do you think that some of them belong more to speech than writing? The sentences f and g , for example, exemplify a notorious problem in English. Many grammars would describe f as wrong or bad English and g as correct or good English. Which of the two sentences do you think you would you use? Which would you consider acceptable English? People, even linguists, are not always good at knowing what they would and would not use: if you ask people about things like this, you will quickly nd that what they say they do and what they actually do can be quite different.
The thing to always bear in mind is that all speakers of English are dialect speakers they all speak at least one dialect of English. Standard English happens to be the most important dialect in terms of the way society operates. It might surprise you to hear this called a dialect, because people tend to talk about the standard language, but this is a misleading label. Standard English is one of many different dialects of English it just happens to be the dialect that currently has the greatest clout. How it got to this elevated position, however, is a series of geographical and historical coincidences.
Standard English was originally a local prestigious dialect of the LondonCentral Midland region and it just ended up at the right place at the right time. When varieties come to dominate in this way, it is never on account of linguistic reasons. London English piggybacked on a series of geographical, cultural, economic and political episodes. They include, for example, the emergence of London as a political and commercial centre and its proximity to Oxford and Cambridge; Chaucers literary genius; and William Caxtons rst printing presses in Westminster.
These had the effect of putting London English in such a position that standardization was inevitable. If a city other than London had had the same non-linguistic advantages lets say, Manchester , the socially prestigious dialect of that region would have been subject to the same spread. This is typically how standard languages arise. It has nothing to do with a variety being perfect, but it has everything to do with economic, political and social context.
Standard English is a good dialect to know. For one thing, its a variety without a home all over the globe people are using it and theres very little variation. If you read newspapers around the English-speaking world or use email, bulletin boards on list-servers or electronic conversation programs, you will have observed that there is already a fairly uniform world standard, at least in writing. In many ways Standard English now represents a kind of global lingua franca; it has been codified; in other words, recorded in grammars, dictionaries and style books.
For example, if we think of the English used in Manchester or Melbourne the two varieties that make up the bulk of the examples in this textbook , their distinctive character is to be found largely in phonology i. Speakers of non-standard varieties in these places, however, show not only differences of accent and vocabulary, but also signicant grammatical differences. A distinctively Manchester or Melbourne English is much more apparent in these varieties, especially in colloquial or informal usage. You will be seeing some spectacular examples of non-standard grammatical diversity later in this book.
The fact that the standard variety has been codied must not be taken to mean that it is intrinsically better than other dialects. All dialects are equally good for the purposes they serve. They all have their own particular rules; they just do things differently. In this book we will not concern ourselves with questions of correctness. Statements like The sentence in f is ungrammatical in English is an example of a prescriptive statement; in other words, it is stating what people should be saying.
If you are doing grammar in order to teach people English, then you will have to make statements like these. Our task, however, is not to tell people what they should say, but to study what they do in fact say. Our aim is to make descriptive statements and to make you good at studying the English that exists around you. We will discover that native speakers of English will not use sentences like a and e above, unless they are speaking Dutch, in which case they might use a , or have a serious speech impediment, in which case they might possibly use constructions similar to e.
With respect to the other sentences above, however, we will nd that some native speakers of English do in fact use them even if they think they dont , and hence we must take them seriously. In fact with the exception of the two we adapted ourselves, all of these were naturally occurring sentences, appearing in various editions of The Big Issue during and Just as an aside here you dont have to be a native speaker of a language in order to study it.
You can make descriptive statements about English by studying native speakers of English. Frequently, constructions which are considered ungrammatical by prescriptionists are in fact examples of change in progress.
- Introducing English Grammar by Kersti Borjars, Kate Burridge | Waterstones;
- Your browser does not support HTML5 or CSS3.
- Passar bra ihop;
- Introducing English Grammar Borjars Burridge | English Language | Linguistics.
- You may also be interested in....
In spite of the feelings of some people, you can never stop a living language from. For example, a sentence like Theres always been songs about sex and death is now frequent in speech and writing of many educated speakers. Yet it still hovers on the border between standard and non-standard and certainly none of the linguistic inspectors would recommend its usage! However, give it time and we suspect it will become accepted. One of the problems is that linguistic labels like Standard and non-Standard English suggest that were always dealing with clear-cut distinctions.
In fact, behind these labels lies a reality of tremendous ux and variance. Some of the sentence examples earlier gave you a taste of this. Now look at those below to see how far this variation extends. Once again these are actual examples we didnt invent them! Dont put your hands into your breeches to scratch your cods [from an Early Modern English Etiquette Manual, roughly years ago] c If you not in business, like me, not lawyer, not those big shot, speak so good English for what? Let people laugh at you only. The diversity, as you can see, exists in many forms there is exotic vocabulary and some structures that look very unEnglish at times.
The variation we see here falls along two dimensions. The rst, illustrated by examples a and b as opposed to the rest, involves variation across time. Time inuences language. Shifts in grammar, words and pronunciation occur even within ones own lifetime.
And if the time span is long enough, the changes can be truly spectacular, as these examples show. The second dimension is variation across space. There are two types of space involved geographical and social. At any given point in time, English will differ both between countries and within the same country. In this respect, English is probably more diverse than ever before. As it trots around the globe as it has been doing since its initial expansion years ago towards Wales and Scotland , it comes into contact with many.
This triggers a burgeoning of diversity in the form of hybrids, dialects, nativized varieties, pidgins and creoles. Some of these are illustrated in examples c and d. Any socially signicant group of people will differ in their linguistic behaviour. For example, social parameters to do with age, sex, sexual preference, socio-economic class, education and occupational status of speakers will typically correlate with the way sounds, vocabulary and grammar vary people wear different linguistic features like badges of identity.
Example f is a piece of colloquial teenspeak not conned to Australia. Age is an important social division in all cultures, and not surprisingly it is something people demonstrate through their use of language. As example g also illustrates, we alter our language to suit the occasions in which we nd ourselves. Our language varies constantly in response to different situational factors, including things like the relationship between speakers and their audience and even others who might be within earshot , the setting, the subject matter, or whether a spoken or written medium is used.
In a sense English is a bit of a ction. There is no one English, no one monolithic entity with a xed, unchanging set of linguistic features. Rather, the label the English language is a convenient shorthand for what is a remarkable assortment of different varieties. What they have in common is a shared history. All have links of some sort with the group of continental Germanic dialects that ended up in the British Isles sometime in the fth century ad.
And most are, to a greater or lesser extent, mutually comprehensible. Obviously, in order to make this introductory look at the structure of English work, given that it will inevitably attract a diverse reading audience, we need to settle on one kind of English. We will therefore be using Standard English. However, in order to emphasize that this choice is not at all intended to be a judgement on which English is best and to emphasize the fact that as linguists our role is to study English as it is used, we include many examples from The Big Issue which can be said to live in the borderlands of what is acceptable in Standard English.
In Chapter 11, we will also examine some very different grammatical features from colloquial varieties of the New and Other Englishes around the world. Lets further explore the two different approaches we mentioned earlier prescription versus description. Basically the prescriptive approach is one that tells you how you ought to speak. Prescriptive grammar books comprise a hodgepodge of dos and donts about sentence structure, word meaning and word usage.
Much like etiquette books, which outline for us the rules of polite behaviour, rules like the following outline the best sort of linguistic behaviour. This is language doing the right thing language that wipes its feet before it enters a room and that leaves the room before it breaks wind! Do not use lay as an intransitive verb. Do not use an apostrophe for possessive its. Do not use who as the object of a verb or preposition. Do not use data as a singular noun. Do not end a sentence with a preposition like to. Case study to lay or to lie? Lets examine one of these prescriptive rules closely the notorious laylie rule.
Some of you might remember the lines of Bob Dylans famous song Lay, lady, lay. Lay across my big brass bed. Or take the following Big Issue example: If you lay down with dogs, you get up with eas. AUS The Oxford English Dictionary describes this use of lay as only dialectal or an illiterate subsitute for lie.
The argument goes that it indicates an ignorance of a feature in English known as transitivity. Transitive verbs, as youll soon learn, are those that must have something following them. The verb lay is transitive; hence hens lay eggs. Lie is intransitive; you cant lie something. So according to the linguistic inspectors who write such grammar books to lay down with dogs instead of to lie down with dogs is a mark of illiteracy. Many linguists for example, Dwight Bolinger have pointed out the problems of the laylie rule for modern-day speakers.
For a start, these two verbs lay and lie share forms the past of lie is lay. The verb lie also means to b; so we need to add down to avoid confusion. For example, you cant say, I think Ill lie for a bit you have to say I think Ill lie down for a bit. The problem then is, if you put this in the past you get I lay down for a bit.
In normal fast speech the [d] of down transfers to the end of lay and you get laid the past tense of lay is it any wonder that speakers confuse the verbs and arrive at to lay down! It is time to switch off the life support system for the laylie distinction as Dwight Bolinger has argued, the price of maintaining it is just too high.
The problem is of course that language so often becomes the arena where social issues are played out. The use of a particular word or construction can be a social advantage or disadvantage. Linguistic bigotry is rife and language prejudices are often simply accepted, never challenged. In short, because of the way society operates, sentences like If you lay down with dogs, you get up with eas can put people at a disadvantage.
For this reason English teachers must give students access to these rules. This is why at the beginning of this chapter we mentioned that if you are writing a grammar in order to teach people English, then you will have to make prescriptive statements like The sentence in g is ungrammatical in English. But do guard against putting the prescriptive cart before the usage horse! Certainly a book like this one will always emphasize the need for linguists to retain an objectively descriptive stance and to avoid anything that smacks of moral and aesthetic judgement.
Imagine a linguist who. It would be much like a zoologist who condemns a dromedary for having one hump, not two! Linguistic science has to found its theories on observed behaviour. To construct a theory about Modern English grammar that refuses to acknowledge a construction like If you lay down with dogs would be about as sensible as a sociologist constructing a theory of human society based only on proper behaviour and ignoring those aspects of our society that others consider improper or deviant.
Some linguists are ultimately interested in the way peoples minds work, how our brains deal with language in a sense, being a native speaker of something as complex as a human language is your most amazing intellectual achievement. For this purpose we need to study objectively the language that people do use, and the changes that actually take place. Other linguists are interested in the factors which motivate people to use one construction rather than another.
Hence their attempts to replace absolute labels of prescriptive grammar like right and wrong, mistake and error with labels like appropriate and suitable. Take one of the other rules given earlier. In English we encounter sentences like Whom did you see? Both alternatives are used but in quite different contexts. Imagine saying Whom did you see? Youd be laughed at, or at least accused of putting on airs! But there are contexts, say a formal piece of prose, where you might well imagine writing something like that.
Language is clearly not an absolute matter of putting a tick or a star beside a sentence. Its much more interesting than that. Apart from believing the study of language should fall into general knowledge, why might linguists want to make descriptive statements about English? For those linguists who specialise in grammar, or syntax, there are in fact a number of different reasons.
Typology For instance, we might be interested in comparing English with other languages, and in order to do so, we need a detailed description of English. Those linguists who are interested in comparing the worlds languages, to nd out how languages group together either genetically or according to what types of constructions they allow or disallow, are referred to as typologists. When we classify languages typologically, we look for similarities between the languages, and group them accordingly.
If we consider English in a typological perspective, we can say, for instance, that it belongs to the group of languages which require a subject. Compare the four English sentences below with the two Italian ones. Hence the English sentences c and d are ungrammatical, whereas a and b are perfectly okay:. I eat 1st person singular Piove. The sentences above show that in English, a grammatical sentence requires that there is a subject like I and it.
We will return to the issue of what a subject is later. Even in b , where the subject it cannot really be said to carry any meaning, it is still obligatory, since d is ungrammatical. This contrasts with Italian, where a subject is not obligatory, as the grammatical sentences e and f show.
Weve just said that a grammatical sentence of English requires a subject. What about examples like the following? Heres my old tartan-colour thermos from Fosseys. Still got tea in it from last year.
Introducing English Grammar, Second Edition
Might have a slug. AUS This is written English, obviously, but it is deliberately imitating a casual spoken style; hence the lack of subjects. English can leave things out under special circumstances. Diary writing, for example, is distinguished by missing subject pronouns Felt sick. Spent day in bed. Cookery-speak may also leave out otherwise obligatory elements when they can be understood from context: Dice elephant; cook over kerosene re.
Serves 3, people. However, we dont think of these as Standard English. These are known as different registers of the standard; in other words, varieties associated with particular contexts or purposes see also Chapter This seems a good point to stop and consider possible denitions of an English sentence. Steven Warrington, king of the on-line ostrich-dealers, talks to Richard Ewart.
Stockport is not a place usually associated with Australian exotica. But that didnt stop one of the sons of this unremarkable Cheshire town forging a remarkable reputation. From the other side of the Atlantic. There are some factual errors here, like the fact that the ostrich is not actually Australian, thats the emu they are thinking of, and Stockport being an unremarkable town whatever next! However, what we are more interested in here are the rst and the last sentences.
Or are they sentences? Well, they are clearly a tad unconventional, and your English teacher would probably have corrected them, but they are used. We have nothing. It is only through detailed studies of the grammars of many languages that we can make statements about differences and similarities between languages. Interesting questions arise as to why certain languages share properties while others do not. Sometimes shared typological features are the result of genetic inheritance, but not necessarily. Similarities can also arise because languages have undergone the same sort of changes, either independently motivated or perhaps brought about through contact.
In order to pursue these questions, we need to know a little bit about the family history of English: English is a Germanic language, related to other Germanic languages, like Dutch or Swedish, and if you study the grammars of these languages, you will nd that they have a number of features in common even though English is in many ways an odd Germanic language. Tree 1 shows you how the Germanic languages are related. Note, Gothic is now extinct; all that remains are records of a partial Bible translation from the fourth century. There were other East Germanic languages for which we have no records.
Language change may mean that genetically related languages end up being quite different. English and German are genetically related but they belong to different word order typologies, English being S ubject V erb O bject and German Verb-Second i. Old English, on the other hand, was typologically more like German in its word order. Conversely, English and Chinese are both SVO languages; yet they do not belong to the same genetic group. Universal grammar For a number of linguists, the ultimate goal of the study of the grammars of individual languages is not to compare languages, but to nd out how the human brain deals with language.
Of particular inspiration to these 9. There are a number of reasons why childrens language acquisition is such a fascinating phenomenon.
Introducing English grammar - Geoffrey N. Leech - Google книги
Children learn language surprisingly quickly and accurately considering the input they get. For instance, most of the language that a child hears does not actually consist of full grammatical sentences; people are always interrupting themselves or changing their minds halfway through a sentence. As youll see in Chapter 10, when we examine a piece of spontaneous conversation, we nd that speech contains utterances that simply do not correspond to what we would consider a well-formed sentence of English. Young children dont usually have the benet of a written language.
They get language almost entirely in the shape of long strings of sounds where there are no signicant pauses between words. Children also get language input mainly in a positive form, and rarely in a negative form. What we mean by this is that they hear lots of language which they can assume to be correct, but they rarely get told what is incorrect. Parents do sometimes try to correct their children, but often they are not conscious enough of their own language to do it to any greater extent.
Furthermore, children very early on become interestingly creative with language. It is quite clear that they cannot be learning language by straight imitation, since they understand and produce strings of words which they have never heard. Facts like these have led some linguists and psychologists to assume that the human mind must be somehow pre-disposed towards learning a language; others link the development of language more closely to the general cognitive development of children.
According to those who favour a predisposition explanation, there is a part of the brain which contains knowledge at birth of what is and what is not a possible language. We are, then, said to be born with an innate grammar, or a language acQuisition device lad and a task for linguistics is to nd out more about this innate grammar. If you have ever heard of the linguist Noam Chomsky and if people have heard of one linguist, he is usually the one , this is the line of research that he proposes to follow. A child will learn the language or languages spoken around him or her, even if this is not the language of the biological parents.
Also, there is no evidence that children learn some languages faster than others. Children growing up in a monolingual Cantonese community will learn Cantonese at the same age that children growing up in a mono-lingual English environment learn English. A monolingual community is one that uses only one language and children growing up in such a community will usually become native speakers of only one language. In a worldwide perspective such communities are in fact rare. Most children in the world grow up learning at least two languages.
Remember that the innate grammar, which is assumed to be universal, is a mental phenomenon, an abstract structure in the brain. Even if we dont believe in an innate grammar, but assume that our linguistic ability is part. One goal of linguistic research is to nd out more about universal grammar, regardless of whether one assumes this is an abstract language-specic component of the brain or the result of general properties of human cognition.
However, there is no obvious direct way of studying universal grammar since it is an abstract entity. There is as yet no brain scanner that can be used to study this innate grammar. What linguists who pursue this line of research do is study in great depth the grammars of individual languages. By comparing in-depth studies of many different languages, we can nd out more about properties shared by languages and maybe also about properties that no language has.
A detailed study of English grammar can reveal things about universal grammar. So, under this approach, we can say that the ultimate purpose of our study of English grammar is to understand universal grammar and how children acquire language. But there is a long way to go from one to the other! It should be pointed out here that a linguist need not be either a typologist or a person who believes in innate grammar. He or she can be both, or indeed neither. There are a number of proposed explanations for language acquisition. It is also important to remember that innate grammar is just one proposed hypothesis; it may turn out to be entirely the wrong way of thinking about things, but for the time being, a large number of linguists use it as their working hypothesis.
Speech therapy The two motivations for doing English grammar which we have mentioned so far have important repercussions in other elds. This can be due to developmental problems or to illness which damages a language faculty that had previously been fully developed. An important task for speech therapists is to develop techniques which can help these people improve their communicative abilities.
In order to study and describe language which is not normal it is important to know what the structure of normal language is, and to master the terminology used to describe it. In this book, we aim to teach you this and provide the tools you need. Foreign language learning The teaching profession, above all foreign language learning, is another obvious practical application of the study of English grammar.
Du kanske gillar. Spara som favorit. Skickas inom vardagar. Laddas ned direkt. Introducing English Grammar introduces readers to the methodology and terminology needed to analyse English sentences. The approach taken is in line with current research in grammar, a particular advantage for students who may go on to study syntax in more depth. There has been a scarcity of books to which these students could be referred for preliminary reading, since most of the elementary books go well beyond the basic concepts and, in dealing with areas of grammar that are more complex and advanced, become committed to points of view and methods of inquiry that are at least to some extent controversial.
This book is an attempt to satisfy the needs of such readers, by presenting the groundwork of English grammar without going too far in either the subject-matter covered or the development of a theoretical apparatus for the description of languages. I am aware, however, that the ideal cut-off point is hard to find—in fact it seems fairly certain that it is in a different place for different readers.
I hope I have arrived at a satisfactory compromise. If the reader finds that I all too often decline to take some matter further, saying that it would be beyond the scope of the present work, I hope he will remember that the work is partly intended to stimulate interests that can only be satisfied by more advanced studies. A further shortcoming of many elementary works is that they do not contain any discussion of the spirit in which the study of grammar should be undertaken.
Popular fallacies about correctness tend to be fostered either explicitly or, more often, by default, so that a student who comes to higher studies often has to unlearn prescriptivist attitudes at the same time as coping with difficult theory. This book begins with a discussion of the reasons for undertaking language study in a spirit of scientific detachment. There are exercises provided at the end of the chapters, and a key to the exercises is given at the end of the book. At appropriate points in the text the reader is directed to relevant exercises, though many readers may find it preferable to postpone looking at them until the end of the chapter.