A comparative analysis of three leading english grammars - Essay Example

A Comparative Analysis of Three Leading English Grammars: The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Huddlestone, et al 2002), Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (Quirk, et al 1985) and the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (Biber, et al 1999). I. Introduction Most languages in Europe have some form of codification to the extent that such a record carries authority among native users on its conventions. The study of the rules governing the usage of the English language is called English grammar. Gowers' Modern English Usage was once popularly ascribed to but not many, even leading linguists, have a copy of this text. It can be considered that English is not typical as far as European languages go. It is the world's language, used by around 300 million second language speakers. It dominates the world's communications and is taught in almost every school worldwide. It is also the only language whose second-language speakers or non-native users far outnumber the native speakers. It is also the only language which can make millionaires out of its experts by writing books. The study of these rules may either be prescriptive or descriptive. Prescriptive grammars set rules for language. In descriptive grammar, the manner by which the language is written or spoken is described. Describing Standard English The English language is in some aspects quite simple. However, it can also be complex if not exasperating in its other characteristics. For example, English does not make use of grammatical gender. Its plurals and tenses are mostly regular. However, a unique feature of the language is that it employs the use of progressive tense (using -ing). This use of the progressive tense is unique although it is muted in its everyday use. This feature is a source of difficulty to some second-language speakers. The characteristic of being simple to use perhaps attributes to the widespread popularity and growing usage of English in the world community, permeating multiple aspects of hundreds of countries' cultures, economies, entertainment, etc. As the global lingua franca, it has taken on various variations or differences, which are often regional in character. These regional differences has likewise made the use of language and the grammar itself, a constantly changing and dynamic entity by its own right. The differences among the various grammars of English is somewhat well-defined. The characteristics of Standard English are relatively clear. Standard English is spoken by around 10% of the population in the United Kingdom (Trudgill ). It is usually derived through formal school contexts. Standard English can also be combined with various accents including regional ones. The differences between Standard and Non-standard are minimal. These differences often involve a small proportion of the words in a passage, affecting only around twenty percent of specific areas of grammar. Non-standard English has many regional variations. An example is the difference between dialects which suppress subject-verb agreement favoring the -s form. An example of this is He like it in Wales in contrast to He likes it in Wales. There are also few gray areas in the definition of Standard, and the uncertainties that arise are specific and often affect the spoken form. Differentiating Descriptive and Prescriptive English There are now several English grammars and they are often classified as either descriptive or prescriptive, although others may have elements of both. The two types of grammars vary in the principles of how they are written. The descriptive and prescriptive approaches to Standard English grammar is the subject of much debate. New trends are also arising which has affected the way English is taught and used. Among these trends is the increasing codification of Standard English among non-native speakers. Ironically, the language is not codified for native speakers. However, this codification of English among native speakers may in the future become part of government agenda, and such instance would not be difficult to undertake once it happens. The rules for English usage which are derived from the language that people actually use are synthesized in descriptive grammar. Prescriptive grammars lay down the rules for the use of the English language. In prescriptive grammar, some forms are considered as correct while others, although these may be used by native speakers, are considered as incorrect. Those who advocate prescriptive grammar sometimes feel that the decline in the standard of English language usage is linked with modern linguistics which gives emphasis on actual rather than perceived use of language. Descriptive grammars look into the way people actually speak English and then try to formulate rules that would account for the observed usage. Descriptive grammar accepts alternative forms and regional varieties, aside from being flexible in usage in speech which traditional grammars would often consider as erroneous. Both grammars have much to offer. Although prescriptive grammars may cling to what is perceived as traditional usage, it is also impossible to claim that alternative forms are in error. An example would be the use of the past subjunctive after if (If I were you) being preferred by precriptivists. However, the alternative use of was cannot be claimed as erroneous. On the other hand, there are some descriptivists who feel it their responsibility to facilitate the demise of usage forms that they consider as old-fashioned. Though they may seem to favor change contrary to the conservatism of prescriptivists, they may also be guilty of taking on stolid positions. II. Discussion This paper will be comparing and contrasting three important grammars, namely The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Huddlestone, et al 2002), Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (Quirk, et al 1985) and the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (Biber, et al 1999). Descriptions of the Three Grammars The Comprehensive Grammar is a widely used and well established book which is likewise acknowledged by the authors of The Cambridge Grammar' authors for its pioneering role. The Longman Grammar is recognized as a substantial complement to the Comprehensive Grammar and the combination of the two has appealed to many linguists for the past several years. This paper will look into the similarities and differences between the three grammars. The authors of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Huddlestone, et al 2002) state that their book is a "description of modern Standard English" and provides a "detailed account of the principles governing the construction of English words, phrases, clauses and sentences". The importance of this volume cannot be denied being the product of distinguished scholars. The collaboration and contribution of these scholars have greatly benefited this work and those who go through its invaluable chapters. The book which is rather voluminous can be divided into twenty main chapters which would provide ample descriptions of the publication's content and essence. By focusing on these twenty main chapters, I will be able to provide an overview as well as the general direction which characterizes this book. Comparison of the Three Grammars The aim of the Cambridge Grammar was explained by the authors in Chapter 1 - Preliminaries. This chapter also explains the grammatical principles of the various types or varieties of English in the contemporary world. These so-called varieties may be classified as general-purpose, standard and international varieties and the book provides a detailed and comprehensive explanation of the grammatical principles in relation to these. This portion of the chapter is followed by some issues such as the following: objectives and scope of prescriptive and descriptive grammars, the differences between writing and speech, and the relationship of description and theory. Basic concepts were also discussed in Chapter 1 including syntax which includes the different syntactic and lexical categories and constituent structure, as well as, the semantic and pragmatic implications of grammar. A Syntactic Overview follows in Chapter 2. This chapter gives a description of the main elements and the fundamental construction in English grammar. The authors explained the differences between a sentence and a clause. This chapter sets the style and methods for succeeding chapters which is to describe a specified level of analysis or a particular grammatical or linguistic phenomenon. Thus, the succeeding chapters dealt with specific topics or linguistic phenomena as follows: Chapter 3 - The Verb; Chapter 4 - The Clause: Complements; Chapter 5 - Nouns and noun phrases; Chapter 6 - Adjectives and adverbs; Chapter 7 - Prepositions and preposition phrases; Chapter 8 - The clause: adjuncts; Chapter 9 - Negation; Chapter 10 - Clause type and illocutionary force; Chapter 11 - Content clauses and reported speech; Chapter 12 - Relative constructions and unbounded dependencies; Chapter 13 - Comparative constructions; Chapter 14 - Non-finite and verbless clauses; Chapter 15 - Coordination and supplementation; Chapter 16 - Information packaging; Chapter 17 - Deixis and anaphora; Chapter 18 - Inflection morphology and related matters; Chapter 19 - Lexical word-formation; Chapter 20 deals with punctuations. This chapter also recommends other readings as well as a lexical and conceptual index. The Longman Grammar (Biber et al 1999) is an important complement to the Comprehensive Grammar (Quirk et al 1985) which is considered as the most definitive and indispensable reference for research in the area of syntactic phenomena of language. The book provides a comprehensive corpus. Similar to Quirk et al., the reference provides a description of all syntactic phenomena occurring in the English language. However, the Longman Grammar has several features that go beyond the accomplishments of Quirk et al. First, the Longman Grammar gives strong emphasis on linguistic function in interpreting the quantitative results of analysis. This is mainly due to Biber et al. (1999) using corpus analysis as their basis. Register is also an important factor which functions as a central organizing element in linguistic choices. Spoken English is considered to be in equal footing with written English in the Longman Grammar. Longman Grammar also gives more emphasis and detail on the relationship between discourse factors and the syntactic choices of language users, and also the relationship between those syntactic choices and lexical choices of language users. According to Hirst (1999), the structure of the Longman Grammar reference is as follows: A. Introductory 1. A corpus-based approach to English grammar Introduction to the basic concepts of the work, including the use of the corpus. K Basic grammar 2. Word and phrase grammar The characteristics of words; the basic word classes; function words; the characteristics of phrases; types of phrase; embedding and coordination of phrases. 3. Clause grammar The major elements of clauses and their patterns; peripheral elements; ellipsis; negation; subject-verb concord; dependent and independent clauses. C. Key word classes and their phrases 4. Nouns, pronouns, and the simple noun phrase Types of nouns; determiners; number; case; gender; derived nouns; pronouns. 5. Verbs Single-word and multiword verbs; semantic domains; valency; auxiliaries; copulas. 6. Variation in the verb phrase Tense; aspect; voice; modality. 7. Adjectives and adverbials Types of adjectives; comparatives and superlatives; formation of adjectives; syntactic roles of adverbs; semantic categories of adverbs. D. More complex structures 8. Complex noun phrases Premodification; nominal sequences; restrictive and nonrestrictive postmodifiers; postmodification by relative clauses, prepositional phrases, and appositives. 9. The form and function of complement clauses that, wh-, -ing, and infinitive clauses. 10. Adverbials Circumstance, stance, and linking adverbials. E. Grammar in a wider perspective 11. Word order and related syntactic choices Marked word orders, such as inversions; passive constructions; existential there; clefts. 12. The grammatical marking of stance Kinds of stance; attribution of stance. 13. Lexical expressions in speech and writing Collocations ("lexical bundles"); idioms; free verb-particle combinations; binomial phrases. 14. The grammar of conversation Differences between conversation and writing; dysfluencies; grammatical characteristics of sentences constructed in real time. End matter Appendix: Contraction End notes Bibliography Lexical and conceptual indexes The overall flow and approach of the Cambridge Grammar follows the footsteps of the Comprehensive Grammar. However, the Cambridge Grammar does not have a separate discussion on intonation which can be found in Appendix II of the Comprehensive Grammar. However, the Cambridge Grammar takes up prosody in various sections of the book. The Cambridge Grammar also gives a more detailed or comprehensive discussion about morphological issues. Conceptually, the Comprehensive Grammar is distinctly different from the Cambridge Grammar, although they share similarities in their structure and overall presentation of issues. This difference in concept is acknowledged by Huddleston et al who wrote "the present work often pursues a very different theoretical approach and analysis from that of Quirk et al." The Longman Grammar would focus on a particular syntactic phenomenon of the language and give its general description. It then proceeds to subcategorize and provides the corresponding explanation to each subcategory. The Longman Grammar also provides a cross-register corpus analysis which gives a highlight of its distribution within each register and the distribution of the respective subcategories. A corpus analysis is also presented of all possible syntactic realities once subcategories are proven to be semantic. The authors of the Cambridge Grammar were able to improve on previous linguistic works by exploring new avenues in the description of English grammar and in the introduction of fresh concepts which have vast potentials. The authors and their collaborators also succeeded in providing a systematic approach to previous linguistic research. The book is of great relevance and use for those who are interested in both the syntactic and morphological aspects of English grammar since it extensively discusses morphology and the formation of words. Examples of the promising concepts introduced in the Cambridge Grammar include the idea of "presentational status" which is used to explain the differences in the semantic and pragmatic aspects of different syntactic functions of a particular semantic role. Another example of new terminologies and concepts is the distinction between "canonical" and "non-canonical" structures. There are occasions when some of the analyses may seem unsettling or discomforting. These seemingly awkward analyses are sometimes brought about by inadequate definitions. This was evident when the authors attempted to distinguish between a sentence and a clause. The same unsettling situations arose in the introduction of catenatives, the use of certain terms such as "accusative" and "genitive". These awkward situations may have been avoided if the authors were able to provide alternative approaches or define distinct boundaries between different categories to avoid their overlapping into one another. Generative concepts are apparent in their influence on the Cambridge Grammar. The book follows strictly the binary-branching syntactic constituent structure in the analysis of clauses. However, there are some occasions when the authors would break from the generative models. In comparison, the Comprehensive Grammar lends more to the multiple branching syntactic construction which appeals more to the non-generativist linguist. The clause elements of the Cambridge Grammar lends to confusion compared to the treatment offered by the Comprehensive Grammar. The latter provides a clear presentation of the five phrase types and five clause elements as functioned by phrases at the level of clauses. For the Longman Grammar, collocation is given large emphasis using the concept of lexical bundles or what Biber et al. (1999) describe as "sequences of word forms that commonly go together in natural discourse". The reference includes long tables containing these lexical bundles which give long descriptions of four- to six- words commonly used in conversation and academic prose. These lexical bundles are further classified according to their structure. Biber et al. (1999) also adopted prototype concepts of using word classes. These classes have words which are core or peripheral members. Words such as nouns can be "more nouny" or "less nouny" depending on whether they are peripheral or core members of these word classes. Likewise, the closer to the core translates the higher degree of characteristic attributed to the word for that particular word class. The authors also introduced new terms such as "semi-determiners" which are "determiner-like words which are often described as adjectives ... [but] have no descriptive meaning" (Biber et al. 1999). Although the Longman Grammar emphasizes frequency data, very few numerals appear in the reference. Most of the results and their corresponding analysis are qualitatively presented in the text. If there are ever any numeric data or values in the text, these are seldom and are mostly approximations. To illustrate, the following comparison between the past perfect and the simple past tense gives an idea of how data are presented in the Longman Grammar (Biber et al. 1999): - The past perfect aspect has accompanying time adverbials a greater percentage of the time than does the simple past tense. - Past perfect verb phrases often occur in dependent clauses. - Taken together, these two factors (time adverbials and dependent clauses) account for c. 70% of all occurrences of past perfect verb phrases. The Cambridge Grammar does not allow for multiple analyses which are a feature of the Comprehensive Grammar. The latter gives distinction between 'phrasal', 'prepositional' and 'phrasal-prepositional verbs'. This provides for a multiple level of multi-word verbs with varying strengths of relationships between the verb and the preposition. For the Comprehensive Grammar, two types of complementary analyses are mentioned which allow for a dual analysis of S-V-A or S-V-O. Unfortunately, multiple analysis is not accommodated in the Cambridge Grammar which can be considered as a weakness on its part. This may be due to the absence of descriptive gradients which would clearly distinguish the different categories. The Cambridge Grammar tends to maintain itself with a particular form of analysis. Although it can strengthen the theoretical basis of discussions, may well serve as strength, this adherence to particular elements is also considered by some as opposed to the authors' objective of presenting and describing the various grammatical principles of present-day English. The Cambridge Grammar draws on four different kinds of data: (1) their own intuitions as native speakers; (2) other native speakers' intuitions; (3) computer corpora; (4) other (pre-corpus and corpus-based) dictionaries and grammars. The Cambridge Grammar also exhibits some weakness in methodology which is related to its data and the evidence which the authors utilized. Huddleston et al utilized a limited number of corpora namely the Brown Corpus, LOB Corpus and the Australian ACE. The Wall Street Journal's status as a corpus may be placed in doubt and other text sources were not specified by the authors. The Wall Street journal may be considered as an archive from which verifiable examples may be derived, but with the inability to extract general trends from such examples. The Longman Grammar uses a corpus of 40 million words. This corpus is based on both British and American English found in 37,000 texts. The four main registers utilized by the corpus are: transcribed conversations (6.4 million words), Book Reviews, and fiction (5.0 million words), news (10.7 million words), and academic prose (5.3 million words). It also uses two supplementary registers, namely: 5.7 million words of non-conversational speech and 6.9 million words of general prose. Methodology for the Longman Grammar as far as corpus is concerned had been surreptitiously noted. Both British and American sources recorded all their conversations for a week. Other parties to these conversations were asked afterwards whether their conversations can be used in the corpus. The book gives a detailed description of differences between the spoken and written registers. A chapter was also allocated for specific features of conversation such as how the choice of syntactic constructions is influenced by the limitations of real-time interactive influence production. Most of the corpus analyses were manually implemented by the authors. There were a minority of automated analyses for more mechanical aspects of the corpus analysis. For tasks involving semantic judgment and other low-level activities, manual analysis were also conducted. The limit in the number of words as a result of the smaller corpus utilized by the Cambridge Grammar may place into question its relevance in the 21st century. The flaw in methodology is the unsystematic use of corpus data with the authors failing to show how these data were sourced and utilized. The readers will also find it difficult to determine which of the sentences which were used as examples were authentic and which were invented. This failure to discuss the relation between the corpus, example sentences and descriptions and their consequent veracity and accountability of data is also shared by the Comprehensive Grammar. The Longman Grammar has an adequate supply of examples from the corpus to illustrate its descriptions. This is the advantage of using a 40-million word corpus and likewise using its predecessor, the Comprehensive Grammar (Quirk et al. 1985) as a source pool for its vast corpus source. The extensive examples provided which are sometimes as large as or even larger than the descriptions themselves are most beneficial to the readers. It is also good to note that this wealth of examples for illustration of descriptions is further enhanced by the seemingly deliberate act of including the choicest ones available, which further entice the readers. Although the same weakness is shared by the Comprehensive Grammar and the Cambridge Grammar, it must be noted that the former was published seventeen years before the latter, and as such, oversights committed in the Comprehensive Grammar may well be expected to be addressed by the authors of the Cambridge Grammar. The seventeen year interval between the two publications would likewise have given the Cambridge Grammar advantage in accessing larger corpora compared to what was then available in 1985 to Quirk et al. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (Biber et al 1999) was able to use a corpus of 40 million words of both written and spoken English. In comparison, the Cambridge Grammar's claim as being the grammar for the 21st century appears weak with merely having a corpus of three million words. Biber et al. (1999) was able to utilize the descriptive methodology of the Comprehensive Grammar and in turn serves to complement the latter's word-corpus. It would also be helpful to readers if the Cambridge Grammar were to use more tables and diagrams. Its typographic superiority over its predecessors may not suffice the perception among some that it is less friendly to the reader. The Cambridge Grammar's inability to provide adequate visual assistance to its reader appears as a weakness that its predecessors have not been accused of. The Longman Grammar may be considered as substantially reader-friendly compared to the Cambridge Grammar. It provides sometimes long tables devoted to relevant words or the frequency of a particular behavior. The results are evaluated qualitatively giving emphasis to the functionality of syntactic choice. The analyses of constructions are based on the tasks or the work that they perform. They are also Analyzed According to their relation to cognitive constraints or limitations on the production of language and social indexing. The Cambridge Grammar claims to be the reference for the 21st century. However, its adherence to a singular method of analysis resulting in restrictiveness in the exploration of other grammatical principles may reduce this claim. In contrast, the Longman Grammar is careful in emphasizing its empiricism. This is in contrast with the potential prescriptivist perception that may be held by its readers. Biber et al. (1999) were careful to make their readers understand that the reference states hard descriptive facts or empirical data and in no way prescribes any form of "correct English". The development of the Longman Grammar is far more pragmatic compared to the Comprehensive Grammar. This is exemplified by the less voluminous index of the former. The comprehensive yet bulky index of the Comprehensive Grammar was a source of frustration for readers. The subheadings were sparingly indicated; a single subentry would have a list of more than 50 locators without differentiation, with locators being paragraph numbers instead of page numbers. III. Conclusions To round out the main points of this paper, the following observations are hereby presented: Succeeding grammars on English should give primacy to systematic and detailed analysis of data Multiple analyses should be accommodated to ably explore all existing grammatical principles The Comprehensive Grammar and the complementation offered by Longman Grammar may be more appealing to some than to others. However recent the Cambridge Grammar may be, its predecessors are seemingly more comprehensive as well as attractive both content-wise and presentation-wise. It should be understood that the Longman Grammar is not intended and never will be a replacement for the Comprehensive Grammar. Emphasis must be placed in the complementary relationship between the two references. Even Biber et al. (1999) describe their book as such, a complement to the reference of Quirk et al. (1985). The distinction between the two is that the descriptions of English grammar are twice as extensive in the Comprehensive Grammar as in the Longman Grammar. However, although the Comprehensive Grammar is around 1.5 times larger than its complementary reference, the former has fewer examples and does not have a corpus analysis like the Longman Grammar has. The Longman Grammar is more concise and also less voluminous compared to the Comprehensive Grammar. However, this does not mean that this reference also offers less in quality and benefits to the reader. However, many researchers and students would feel more comfortable if both references were consulted. It must be remembered that the Cambridge Grammar, Comprehensive Grammar and the Longman Grammar are carefully described by their respective authors as descriptive grammars. However, both are also used by scholars and researchers as guides for uncertainties in usage. All three function to provide valuable insights on the flexibilities relating to the exigencies of the different language users whether they may be native or non-native speakers, in regional or other variances. References: Baker, C.L. 1995. English Syntax (second edition). The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad and Edward Finegan (1999): Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education. Greenbaum, Sidney. 1996. The Oxford English Grammar. Oxford University Press. Greenbaum, Sidney and Randolph Quirk. 1990. A Student's Grammar of the English Language. Longman. Hirst, Graeme. 1999. Book review: Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. University of Toronto. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. The University of Chicago Press. McCawley, James. 1998. The Syntactic Phenomena of English (second edition). The University of Chicago Press. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik (1985): A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Stubbs, Michael (1993): "British traditions in text analysis: from Firth to Sinclair", Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, ed. Mona Baker, Gill Francis and Elena Tognini-Bonelli. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1-33. Wardhaugh, Ronald. 1995. Understanding English Grammar: A linguistic approach. Blackwell, Oxford. Read More