English Pronouncing Dictionary by Daniel Jones - Article Example

English Pronouncing Dictionary by Daniel Jones Introduction The presence of prescriptive approaches is familiar to linguistic academics, but in recent conventional linguistics scholars have commonly asserted that prescription is not a basic component of their discipline and that it is unrelated to linguistics. Moreover, these scholars claim that prescription has not been completely explored as a significant sociolinguistic trend. All general preparatory books in linguistics insist that linguistics is not a prescriptive one, but a descriptive discipline (Milroy & Milroy, 1999, 5): First, and most important, linguistics is descriptive, not prescriptive. A linguist is interested in what is said, not what he thinks ought to be said. He describes language in all its aspects, but does not prescribe rules of ‘correctness’ (Aitchinson, 1978, 13). Likewise, manuals assembled by linguistic scholars show the same lack of interest. In his work entitled English Pronouncing Dictionary, Daniel Jones stated this: “No attempt is made to decide how people ought to pronounce; all that dictionary aims at doing is to give a faithful record of the manner in which certain people do pronounce” (Haas, 1982, 2). Even though it is important to be firm on the superiority of description, it does not necessarily imply that prescriptive linguistics should never be studied. Nonetheless, the hesitance about prescription that is usually conveyed has, in fact, resulted in a common inclination to explore language as if prescription is extremely insignificant to language. Several expert language scholars seem to think that, while it is reputable to write prescribed grammars, it is not equally reputable to study prescriptivism (Lehmann, 1972, 22). The perspectives of linguists have unimportant or no influence on the general public, who keeps on looking to grammars and manuals, and dictionaries as specialists on ‘correct’ usage. For instance, if dictionary-makers or lexicographers exert effort to eliminate all hints of bias from their work and decline to classify specific usages as ‘slang’ and others as ‘colloquial’, there would be conceivable public protest. A case in point is Robert Burchfield’s rendition of the classic Modern English Usage by Fowler which received numerous complaints on the basis that his recognition of contemporary developments in usage promotes ‘wrong application’ of language (Aarts & McMahon, 2006, 763). Contemporary linguistic scholars, nonetheless, have consistently had justifications to claim that their discipline is basically descriptive in nature and not prescriptive. Throughout the last century, their arguments have been encouraged by a need to explore language in all its aspects as impartially as necessary (Matthews, 2001, 152). In light of this debate between prescriptivism and descriptivism this paper will attempt to analyse the structures and components of these two linguistic traditions. Primarily, the history of the English language will be discussed as well as the beginnings of prescriptive linguistics and the ensuing argument between the emerging concept of prescription and the traditional descriptive style. Then, in the following sections the form, pedagogy, strengths and weaknesses of the prescriptivism and descriptivism will be systematically discussed. And then the last part will be a summary of the discussions and analyses of the topic at hand. II. History Contemporary English language embodies extensive periods of development. English history witnessed much social and political change which deeply influenced the English people and have commonly had an identifiable influence on their language. In fact, English was introduced in the British Isles in at least three dialects. England was brought into contact with the Latin civilisation in 597, which was the Christianising of Britain, and initiated considerable additions to their vocabulary (Baugh, 1959, 2). The Saxon tribes, though, had already partly adopted Latin vocabulary. The incursions of the Scandinavians led to a substantial fusion of the two cultural groups and their languages. Subsequently, the Norman invasion established for two centuries the English language as the language predominantly of the working classes or the poor, whilst the aristocracy and those related to them made use of French at all times. And as soon as English yet again reclaimed dominance as the language of the entire English population it was a language radically altered in both structure and vocabulary from its earlier form in 1066 (Baugh, 1959, 2). Similarly the Hundred Year’s War which lasted from 1337 to 1453, the Renaissance in the 14th century, the emergence of the wealthy and influential middle class in the 16th century, the rise of England as a superpower in the 17th century, the growth of the British Empire, and the progress of science and literature, of commerce and industry, have largely played an important role in making the English language what it is presently. To put it simply, the English language manifests in its evolution the social, cultural and political experiences of the English people throughout time (Baugh & Cable, 1993, 138). Evidently, language continues to change, otherwise it will die. Classical Latin is declared as a dead language because it no longer had any native speakers. However, the language evolved into different languages such as French, Spanish, Italian, Corsican, etc. The evolution that is relentlessly occurring in an existing language is revealed in the vocabulary. The pattern is simple: ‘old words die out, new words are added, and existing words change their meaning’ (Baugh & Cable, 1993, 2). A great deal of the Old English vocabulary has been changed or lost, and the addition of new words to cope with new circumstances is one of the most recognisable trends of the English language. Modification of meaning can be demonstrated from Shakespeare’s works. In the time of Shakespeare ‘nice’ meant ‘foolish’; the term ‘rheumatism’ implied a ‘cold in the head.’ Less identifiable yet no less genuine is the variation of pronunciation (ibid, 2). A gradual but stable modification in the vowel sounds, has typified the English language throughout centuries: ‘Old English stān has become our stone; cū has become cow.’ Much of these change are quite consistent as to be classified under ‘sound laws’. However, regional accents changed in a different way (Baugh & Cable, 1993, 2). Changes similarly take place in the language’s grammatical structure. These could be the outcome of ongoing phonetic alteration, or they could develop from the need for equivalence generally felt where likeness of use or function is concerned. A person who states ‘I knowed’ is merely attempting to form the verb’s past tense just as s/he constructs the past tense of numerous English verbs (Baugh & Cable, 1993, 3). This practice is referred to as the process of equivalence, and it could influence the meaning, sound and the form of words. Because of these developments in the language, prescriptive grammar began to emerge in the second half of the 18th century (ibid). To impose and to forbid appear to have been direct objectives of grammarians. Numerous of the principles presently acknowledged and confirmed as desired in English manuals were originally declared in the second half of the 18th century. The dissimilarity between ‘lie’ and ‘lay’ was evidently created in the same period. The phrases ‘had rather’, ‘had better’ were denounced by Campbell, Johnson and Lowth. According to Lowth (Baugh & Cable, 1993, 273): It has been very rightly observed, that the Verb had, in the common phrase, I had rather, is not properly used, either as an Active or as an Auxiliary Verb; that, being in the Past time, it cannot in this case be properly expressive of time Present; and that it is by no means reducible to any Grammatical construction. In truth, it seems to have arisen from a mere mistake, in resolving the familiar and ambiguous abbreviation, I’d rather, into I had rather, instead of I would rather; which latter is the regular, analogous, and proper expression (ibid, 273). This approach remains to be found in a number of contemporary books. Webster justified the singular notion of you was, and the phrase was definitely widespread in literature. Yet Priestley and Lowth were opposed to it and succeeding usage has preferred were (Baugh & Cable, 1993, 273). One significant string of prescriptions that presently structure fraction of all our grammars, that is, directing the application of ‘shall’ and ‘will’, had its beginning in this era. Prior to 1622 there was no English grammar that identified any dissimilarity between these terms. Wallis, in his work entitled Grammatica Linguae Anglicanae, argued that ‘in declarative sentences simple futurity should be expressed by shall in the first person, by will in the second and third’ (Baugh & Cable, 1993, 337). Still, it was not until the latter part of the eighteenth century that the usage under debate and subordinate clauses was classified (ibid). William Ward in 1765, in his work entitled Grammar of the English Language, outlined the entire group of prescriptions which brings about, with individual differences, the principles written in contemporary books. His assertions were not accepted by other grammarians until in 1795 Lindley Murray in his work entitled English Grammar granted them greater popularity. At this point the grammarians appear to have been establishing supreme what was evidently a general but not worldwide inclination in the written language, manifest in the correspondents of the seventeenth and eighteenth century. It can be assumed from the language of plays the distinction made in the written language that was not identified in colloquial speech, and at present it is generally disregarded aside from speakers who obey the rules knowingly or accede to a practice which has been manipulated by rules (Baugh & Cable, 1993, 337-338). The beginnings of descriptivism, however, were being felt in the late eighteenth century. According to this doctrine, the most essential aspect of language is its usage. Erratic acceptance of this belief is to be stumbled upon in the earlier period, no doubt motivated by Horace’s saying that “use is the sole arbiter and norm of speech” (Baugh & Cable, 1993, 277). John Hughes, who cites the statement of Horace, thus asserts in his thesis Of Style that “general acceptation... is the only standard of speech” (Baugh & Cable, 1993, 277). Likewise, Johnson, in the Plan of his dictionary, stated (Baugh & Cable, 1993, 277): It is not in our power to have recourse to any established laws of speech; but we must remark how the writers of former ages have used the same word... I shall therefore, since the rules of stile, like those of law, arise from precedents often repeated, collect the testimonies on both sides, and endeavour to discover and promulgate the decrees of custom, who has so long possessed, whether by right of by usurpation, the sovereignty of words. Johnson aimed to ‘fix’ English through his dictionary but eventually realised that this objective is implausible or undesirable. Yet he consistently wandered away from his purpose. Nevertheless, the individual who more truly supported the principles was Joseph Priestley. In the study of language, he was self-governing and innovative, and in his work entitled Rudiments of English Grammar he frequently asserts the significance of usage. He states “our grammarians appear to me to have acted precipitately in this business” (Baugh & Cable, 1993, 341) of insisting a rule for the language. Further, he claims (ibid, 341): ...this will never be effected by the arbitrary rules of any man, or body of men whatever. It must be allowed, that the custom of speaking is the original and only just standard of any language. We see, in all grammars, that this is sufficient to establish a rule, even contrary to the strongest analogies of the language with itself. Must not this custom, therefore, be allowed to have some weight, in favour of those forms of speech, to which our best writers and speakers seem evidently prone...?” Priestley was independent in his firm devotion to usage. After the continuous canonising of other grammarians of the eighteenth century it is uplifting to read on all the pages of his grammar claims such as “This may be said to be ungrammatical; or, at least, a very harsh ellipsis; but custom authorizes it, and many more departures from strict grammar, particularly in conversation” (Baugh & Cable, 1993, 279). One should live in the present to discover an outlook so broad-minded. And the principle of descriptivism in the study of language is so vital to every logical discussion of issues in linguistics that it is crucial to acknowledge the person in whom it originally discovered genuine expression (ibid). However, there are several factors which provided strength to English grammar, such as the printing press, development in infrastructures, social awareness and mainstream education. Hardly any variations in grammatical rules and forms are to be discerned. There has been a number of school training of the English language. The colloquial phrase ‘he don’t’ signifies an effort to remove the ‘ending of the third person singular and reduce this verb in the negative to a uniform do in the present tense’ (Baugh & Cable, 1993, 339). Similarly, the common habit of discounting the form of objective case ‘whom’ in the interrogative demonstrates the same tendency. Though numerous people are surprised by the second error, it has an extended and praiseworthy development. Shakespeare usually commits this error, and traditionally the disregarding of case forms in the first person is as reasonable as in the second person; at times, a new grammatical rule surfaces (ibid, 339). III. Form Based on the standard principle, grammar is composed of several rules that are obliged on usage externally, for instance, by an authority on grammar appropriateness. These rules are primarily an assemblage of proscriptions against specific expressions that are persistent. The grammar of a language is in fact much more extensive than this. It is an intricate and conceptual arrangement intrinsic in the language and not obliged by explicit prescription. Every native speaker has inherent knowledge of the English grammar; it is this particular knowledge that allows speakers to make use of and understand their language. And most importantly, this knowledge allows speakers to decide what sentences are feasible in the language (Crystal, 2003, 160-164). Therefore, it is important to study the form of both prescriptive and descriptive linguistics in order to understand the claim that it is the inherent pattern in the language that allows speakers to use and comprehend the language. Prescriptive rules have generally been formulated originally for writing rather than speech. If these particular rules are required on speech, they could at times obscure its expressive capability and flexibility. This particular case occurs when the prescriptive statements are inappropriate or ambiguous, such as when the rigid feature of such statements goes too far (Palmer, 2003, 166-168). For instance, it is definite that individual linguistic preferences strongly establish how other people will react to the statement of a speaker. People expect the appropriate linguistic preferences, or those that obey the rules of social norms of the society. The task of prescription is to standardise usage, specifically in writing: hence, a prescriptive statement aims to authorise one out of more usages that are comparable in meaning, such as ‘different from’ in contrast to ‘different than’ or ‘different from’ (Sterkenburg, 2004, 49). The risk here is that involved usages could not consistently be comparable in meaning; thus, the prescriptive proscription, if effective, could eliminate a source from the language that is most likely helpful for discerning fine hues of meaning. Hence the complaint here is not to prescription as such, but to the limited and passive use of prescriptive standards to speech (ibid). Let us now mention a few examples. Metcalfe (1975 as cited in Milroy & Milroy, 1999, 62) dislikes expressions such as ‘slow down’, ‘face up to’, ‘stand for’, which he explains as emotional and irrational. Obviously, this form of construction is predominantly common in spoken usage. Metcalfe thinks that these are pointless and that these simple verb forms, ‘stand’, ‘face’ and others have alike meanings. Hence, he argues, ‘I’m not standing for it’ has a comparable meaning with ‘I’m not standing it’ (Milroy & Milroy, 1999, 62). The language of English is greatly given to these forms of verb and it is improbable that there would be numerous of them if they were not somehow useful and if their connotations were exactly the same as the simple verb forms (ibid). Hence, the preference between ‘stand’ and ‘stand for’ is helpful as it allows speakers to express an understated dissimilarity of meaning. In this case and in several others, the prescriptive proscription is plainly badly chosen, and the examples mentioned can be regarded as a failure of the standard principle (Milroy & Milroy, 1999, 63). On the other hand, as numerous people still understand descriptive linguistics as unfavourable to the standard ideology of prescriptive linguistics, there has evidently been some malfunction of communication between the general public and linguistic academics. One explanation for this is that popular linguistics has focused more on the conceptual and prescribed characteristics of language rather than on language in its particular context. Bloomfield regarded prescription as inappropriate to the study of language as a science. Still, several linguistic scholars have been intently interested in prescriptivism. Haas, for instance, has emphasised that prescriptivism ‘is an integral part of the life of language.’ By declining to be concerned with prescriptivism, he furthers: ‘linguists only ensure that every enterprise of linguistic planning will be dominated by ignorant enthusiasts and incompetent pedants’ (Haas, 1982, 3). It is essential for two primary reasons that the non-standard English grammar should be examined. Mainly, several non-standard usages are negatively labelled much more blatantly and consciously than the cases of colloquial grammar, and they are generally believed to be plainly ‘ungrammatical.’ For example, multiple negations are considered nonstandard but are quite common in Chaucer and Cockney (Baugh & Cable, 1993, 138).Thus, the nonstandard usage ‘I ain’t never done nothin’ like that’ would be ‘I have done nothing..’ in Standard English. This fundamentally has social implications, as the negatively labelled forms are more frequently made use by individuals in lower social classes. Negative labelling of non-standard forms emerges from a mistaken belief as to the character of grammaticality: these attitudes are actually dealing with the concept of ‘acceptability.’ Usages that are non-standard are basically not socially ‘appropriate’ in formal settings. They are stereotyped indicators of informal style of social class. Also, the continuation of non-standard usages, which are supposedly ungrammatical in nature, is generally believed to emerge from lack of knowledge, stupidity or even cognitive ineptitude of the speakers (Milroy & Milroy, 1999, 12-13). There is an evident difficulty in associating widely expressed beliefs to the perspectives that normal individuals have their own usage. Primarily, so-called inappropriate usage and inferior arrays of language definitely continue in spite of being negatively perceived. Seemingly, they could not endure if the important speakers sense firmly enough that they should gain skills and make use of higher prestige usage. As the implications of such judgments can be crucial, it is significant to confirm that non-standard forms are grammatical and forms of English that are governed by rules. A great deal of the grammar of non-standard English is in fact comparable to that of the standard. All forms have a general SVO word-structure; hence, ‘Mary likes cake’ is grammatical, and ‘Mary cake likes’ is ungrammatical in all forms of spoken usages. Every English dialect is prepositional: ‘the school in’ is ungrammatical in all forms (Dirven, 2004, 31). Likewise, several of the rules of the application of ‘ellipses’ are universal to all dialects: for example, as far as we know there is no British dialect that regularly allows removal of the object in a prepositional expression (Milroy & Milroy, 1999, 13). In a number of ways, the morphology and grammar on non-standard forms vary from standard principle. Several of these dissimilarities are quite outward: they incorporate other forms for grammatical connectors such as prepositions and conjunctions, without essentially affecting connotation and grammar, such as the statement ‘he neither finished the group project nor completed the assignment’ can be also stated by changing the conjunction neither and nor with and, ‘he did not finish the group project and the assignment’; they as well as incorporate specific word-forms that are preferred to convey inflexional differences and verb tenses, such as cats from cat, and rode from ride. It is these outward dissimilarities of word-form that are specifically observed and negatively labelled. It is commonly superficial dissimilarities of this type that language evaluation practices determine, rather than more significant problems in the study of language (Palmer, 2003, 62-3). There are, though, some more profound and more systematic dissimilarities between descriptivism and prescriptivism that are of a grammatical nature, including differing rules of word-order and tense dissimilarities in the verbal structure. These second dissimilarities are remarkable enough to indicate that basic semantic systems are dissimilar; yet, essential as these are, they draw significantly less public attention than do the outward dissimilarities (Scrivener, 2005, 225). III. Pedagogy In almost every case, school grammar is prescriptive grammar. It is interested mainly with appropriateness, correctness, and with the definite labels for the words that compose sentences. Hence, students learn grammatical concepts and definite rules that are presumed to be related with correctness. Teaching of grammar is supported on the belief that students who write or speak terms such as ‘He don’t do nothin’ will change their language to generate the expression ‘He doesn’t do anything’ if they will just learn a little more about grammar correctness. As a result, similar to their counterparts in ancient Greece, grammar schools give a great deal of interest and attention to grammar, normally beginning grammar instruction in the third grade. Despite the students’ grade level, the instruction makes use of the same practice, with students making use of handouts or workbooks to answer exercise that instructs them to classify nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, and so on, much similarly with that of students in ancient Rome and Athens (Williams, 1999, 5-6). People usually claim that traditional grammar is prescriptive in nature since it puts emphasis on the difference between how a number of people use language and how should they use it, in accordance to a preconceived standard. For instance, students who write or speak ‘He don’t do nothin’ are instructed that they should use ‘He doesn’t do anything’ (Williams, 1999, 5). The primary objective of traditional grammar, thus, is sustaining a historical framework of what apparently composes correct language. Those who instruct traditional grammar have clearly adopted this objective without acknowledging that several of the premises that make up school grammar are incorrect. For instance, both research and experience demonstrate that studying grammatical concepts and answering grammar exercise have minor influence on the manner students make use of language (Sturtevant, 2007, 58-59). Even though a good number of teachers in public schools persist to impose language, linguists discarded prescriptive linguistics long ago, substituting it with the notion of ‘appropriateness conditions’ (Donnelly, 1994, 143). This concept indicates that the use of language is context-specific and that there is no supreme criterion of correctness that is relevant to all circumstances. Standard usage is appropriate under general circumstances; on the other hand, nonstandard is not. Nonstandard usage is judged correct in informal conversations or short messages among family and friends. It is normally judged incorrect in school work, formal settings such as that in the workplace, and in any other public setting (ibid). An essential objective of contemporary linguistics is to understand the rules and practices that direct correctness and public language. The mostly unidirectional character of correctness implies that attaining this objective entails direct attention to usage, or to that distinguishes prescriptive from descriptive linguistics. A core premise is that formal language learning should start with the attributes of public discussion rather than private. Moreover, there is no refuting that individuals evaluate one another based on language. In contexts that require formal language, such as in the school, the workplace, and so on, standard rules are more correct than nonstandard for the reason that they are more up to standard to a wider range of individuals (Davis & Taylor, 2002, 74-78). Nevertheless, if grammar is better understood, not merely would it be instructed and learned better, than but as well as the powerful potential of its structure would be recognised, hence improving outlooks toward grammar. Grammar provides speakers of a language significant flexibility in how they can convey notional, or propositional, connotation and how they can express themselves (Palmer, 2003, 61-2). IV. Strengths and Weakness of Prescriptive and Descriptive Linguistics The question then is why should we teach prescriptive grammar? The only way to teach and learn a language, apparently, is to become aware of the appropriate expressions and to understand the different connections among the usages that make up the language we use. In this case, prescriptive grammar comes in. It presents knowledge on form and function that facilitates us to learn language. Moreover, possibly prescriptive grammar is interesting and challenging intellectually. It can improve systematic and critical-thinking capabilities, just as in the case of descriptive grammars. Furthermore, grammar knowledge has been judged a quality of well-education individuals throughout the entire history of the Western world (Aarts & McMahon, 2006, 760-763). However, prescriptive linguistics is flawed on a number of assumptions. Primarily, prescription requires a high level of knowledge to prevent error, and a small number of individuals have the required level of knowledge. Specifically, when teachers create prescriptive assertions regarding language, they should be sure that their own writing and speech does not go against the prescription. This is rarely the case. Even an informal scrutiny of how individuals make use of a language demonstrates that movement away from the prescribed standard are widespread (Milroy & Milroy, 1999, 57-8). However, this does not support the argument of some linguistic scholars that prescriptivism is futile. There are teachers correcting students who say ‘Sarah and me went to the movies.’ The prescribed standard is ‘Sarah and I went to the movies.’ But if these particular teachers call a friend on a phone and are asked ‘who is it?’ they will answer ‘It’s me’, although this response deviates from the same rule. The prescribed rule is ‘It’s I’ (Williams, 1999, 6). Another example is the prescribed statement, ‘this is a boy who loves his mother’, which can also be stated ‘this is a boy as loves his mother’ or ‘this is a boy what loves his mother.’ The latter two statements seem ungrammatical but in fact it follows the prescribed rule of substituting relativisers with other connectors (Milroy & Milroy, 1999, 70). On the other hand, descriptive linguistics or non-standard grammatical forms are not basically weakened alternatives of standards and that they can be demonstrated to be distinctively grammatical. Traditionally, standard principles have been applied on languages; if a linguistic academic is to carry out his work satisfactorily, or to provide a clear account of a language, to describe how children gain knowledge of a language, or to describe how languages evolve throughout time, s/he would be quite thoughtless to allow his own biases and preconceived concepts of correctness to become involved in his/her work (Levine, 1992, 170). But the expert linguistic scholar’s assertion on impartiality and scientific investigation seems to have been commonly misunderstood. This could emerge in part from academic overlook, until in recent times, of the language’s social functions. Even though it is clear that language scholars should have to set definite boundaries on their area of study, we are not likely to initiate remarkable development in understanding the character of language if we completely take for granted its social features and functions. Some of these are trends such as concepts of language status, language standardisation, mainstream approaches to usage and nature of literacy (Nelson, 2001, 4-6). Conversely, beginning from the 1950s there has apparently been a reduction in grammar instruction in schools. Several educationalists seem to have understood criticisms on prescriptive grammar as criticisms on grammar instruction in general. Numerous advocates of prescriptivism claim that because of the rise of descriptivism there are students who possess little knowledge of basic grammar. Some prescriptivism advocates have even argued that there has been a cry off in general literacy as an outcome of the popularity of descriptivism. Ultimately, descriptivism in language study has been held accountable for the debasement of grammar teaching and learning (Sturtevant, 2007, 59). But conscientious and well-thought out teaching of descriptive grammar can also generate the same positive outcomes as in prescriptive grammar. V. Conclusions When the prominent William Shakespeare created his plays, they were regarded the most rudimentary form of leisure, something that appealed to the attention of the uneducated masses. At present his expressions are viewed as dogmas of the English language. An individual who is determined to understand the present form of the English language, that individual should abandon the grammar schools, and meet people in the streets, in clubs and coffee shops. In other words, that individual should go in a place where English is actually spoken. The bulky handbooks of English teachers nowadays will fall to pieces, and the colloquial expression of the uneducated will become the standard ideology. Gradually, the colloquial will become the mainstay of English textbooks, and the succession will persist. Ideally, prescriptive and descriptive linguistics would follow an agreeable relationship: linguistics scholars would define the conventions of a language, and pedagogies would make use of these definitions to produce textbooks to instruct language students. In reality, though, advocates of the two paradigms generally divided themselves into argumentative sides. References Aarts, B. & McMahon, A. (2006). The Handbook of English Linguistics. Wiley-Blackwell. Aitchison, J. (1992). Linguistics (Teach Yourself). Sevenoaks, Kent: Hodder Headline a& Stoughton. Aitchison, J. (1978). Linguistics. Sevenoaks, Kent: Hodder & Stoughton. Baugh, A.C. (1959). A History of the English Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Baugh, A. C. & Cable, T. (1993). A History of the English Language. Prentice Hall. Crystal, D. (2003). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge University Press. Davis, H. G. & Taylor, T.J. (2002). Rethinking Linguistics. London: Routledge/Curzon. Dirven, R. (2004). Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Donnelly, C. (1994). Linguistics for Writers. State University of New York Press. Haas, W. (1982). Standard Languages . Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. . Lehmann, W. P. (1972). Descriptive Linguistics: An Introduction. New York: Random House. Levine, R. (1992). Formal Grammar: Theory and Implementation. New York: Oxford University Press. Matthews, P. (2001). A Short History of Structural Linguistics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. McQuade, D. A. (1986). The Territory of Language: Linguistics, Stylistics, and the Teaching of Composition. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (1999). Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English. London: Routledge. Nelson, G. (2001). English: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge. Palmer, R. (2003). The Good Grammar Guide. New York: Routledge. Parrott, M. (2000). Grammar for English Language Teachers. UK: Cambridge University Press. Quick, R. et al. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman. Robins, R. (1989). General Linguistics: An Introductory Survey. London: Longmans. Scrivener, J. (2005). Learning Teaching. Macmillan. Sterkenburg, P. V. (2004). Linguistics Today: Facing a Greater Challenge. Springer Netherlands. Sturtevant, E. (2007). An Introduction to Linguistic Science. Mcmaster Press. Williams, J. D. (1999). The Teacher's Grammar Book. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Read More