Grammar and Grammars 1 Grammar and Grammars

Grammar and Grammars 1

Grammar and Grammars

Eduard C. Hanganu

B.A., M.A., Linguistics

Lecturer in English, UE

Draft 6

Revised – December 8, 2014

© 2014


Abstract

The definition of the concept of grammar has been a matter of dispute in language research for a

long time, and has involved different aspects and meanings, depending on the different language

theories which have informed various formulations. This paper examines these various grammar

definitions and their theoretical foundations, and investigates the five principal grammar theories

or perspectives, in the English language, that is, their main claims and their deficiencies. Among

the five theories investigated in this paper are the traditional grammar, the structural perspective,

the generative-transformational grammar, the cognitive perspective, and the functional grammar.

Key words: grammar, definition, traditional grammar, structural grammar, generative grammar,

cognitive grammar, functional grammar.


Grammar and Grammars

There is no doubt that language has had an enormous significance for the human life and

civilization. This fact becomes obvious when for different reasons individuals are unable to hear,

speak, or write. How this complex communication and interaction system is acquired by humans

remains an unanswered question due to the amazing organization that characterizes language and

the remarkable abilities of speakers to produce an unlimited number of syntactic structures which

would express an infinite mixture of meanings. Such things have determined certain linguists and

philosophers to describe the acquisition of language as magical (Fromkin, 2003, pp. 56-60). Each

known language appears to contain a set of patterns or rules that governs its operation, and which

has been termed its grammar. The purpose of this paper is to examine the range of meanings that

the term grammar is assigned when used to explain the organization of the English language, and

to describe some of the most common theoretical perspectives on the English grammar.

Defining Grammar: A Difficult and Complex Task

Grammar awareness begins with the basic intuition that “any language variety, no matter

how rudimentary, has, apart from some variable components, a certain intrinsic systematicity. In

this sense, then, “the function of any one word or construction within the given variety cannot be

derived solely from the function of the corresponding word or construction in the target

language.” The logical implication is that “the process of language acquisition can be construed

as a series of transitions from one variety to the next,” and, again, “these transitions again reveal

an inherent systematicity” (Klein, 1986, cited in Schulze, 1998, p.216).

In the article entitled “Grammar for Social Awareness in Time of Class Warfare” Sledd

(1996) makes the following remark about the sense of the term grammar: “What is grammar?

The question implies the existence of some one thing properly so called, but so many different


things have been called grammar that the term is highly ambiguous” (p. 60). Though is assertion

seems rather exaggerated, the truth is that the word is used in a wide range of senses, depending

on its theoretical or practical connotation and its contextual use.

All definitions of grammar as descriptions of language structure or of the contents of the

academic discipline are subjective because they are based on certain theoretical assumptions or

presuppositions. States Greenbaum (1996):

Every grammatical description presupposes an underlying theory, though many

descriptions do not make their theoretical basis explicit and some are eclectic in drawing

on more than one theory. In one technical sense, a grammar is a theory of language

description. Grammatical theories make assumptions about the nature of natural

languages (the languages that human beings acquire naturally, as opposed to artificial

languages, such as computer languages), present goals for describing them, and develop

methods of argumentation, formulation, and explanation. (p. 25)

The most “neutral,” or “unbiased” sources for word definitions are assumed to be general

dictionaries, as their purpose is to provide word explanations for the largest audiences. This time

also, searching for the definition of the term grammar in such a common dictionary would seem

to be a good option. Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (1999) defines the term as

“the study of the way the sentences of a language are constructed; morphology and syntax,” while

Simpson and Weiner (1992) introduce a much more comprehensive definition of the word in The

Oxford English Dictionary (OED):

That department of the study of a language which deals with its flexional forms or other

means of indicating the relations of words in the sentence, and with the rules of

employing these in accordance with established usage; usually including also the


department which deals with the phonetic system of the language and the principles of its

representation in writing. (Simpson & Weiner, 1992)

When the concept is defined in an academic dictionary like Trask’s (1997) “A Student’s

Dictionary of Language and Linguistics,” the definition becomes more precise, but still remains

“neutral,” or “unbiased:”

Grammar. 1. Narrowly, that part of the structure of a language which includes sentence

structure (syntax) and word structure (morphology). A linguist who specializes in the

study of grammar in this sense is a grammarian. 2. Broadly, the entire structure of a

language, including not only its syntax and morphology but also its phonology and

semantics, and possibly also its pragmatics. 3. A particular description of a language, or a

book containing it. (p. 98)

The definition of the term changes a lot when the grammar textbooks are more detailed

and advanced, and when various “theories of language description” are allowed to influence its

meaning. Huddleston (1995), for instance, states:

The term “grammar” is used in a number of different senses – the grammar of a language

may be understood to be a full description of the form and meaning of the sentences of the

language or else it may cover only certain, variously delimited, parts of such description.

Here we shall use it in one of these narrower senses, embracing syntax and morphology.

(p. 1)

Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik (2004) arrive at a rather similar definition of the

term in their reference book, A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language:

The word ‘grammar has various meanings, and since grammar is the subject matter of this

book we should explore the most common meanings of the word. We shall be using


‘grammar’ to include both SYNTAX and that aspect of MORPHOLOGY (the internal

structure of words) that deals with INFLECTIONS (or ACCIDENCE). (p. 12)

Greenbaum and Nelson (2002) narrow the practical meaning of the grammar concept to

one major element of language structure, word combination: “I will be using the word grammar

in this book to refer to the set of rules that allow us to combine words in our language into larger

units. Another term for grammar in this sense is SYNTAX” (p.1). The reason for their limitation

of the meaning of the term appears to be the fact that to a large degree the emphasis is placed on

word combinations into phrases and sentences, and much less on word structure or formation.

Kolln and Funk (2006), mention three definitions of the term in Understanding English

Grammar. Their theoretical point of view seems to be a combination of the traditional sentence

and word structure approaches with structural and transformational – generative perspectives:

There are, in fact, many different meanings, or different nuances of meaning, in

connection with grammar. The three we will discuss here are fairly broad definitions that

will provide a framework for thinking about the various language issues that you will be

studying in these chapters.

Grammar 1: The system of rules in our heads. As you learned in the

Introduction, on page 1, you bring to the study of grammar a lifetime of

“knowing” how to produce sentences. This subconscious, internalized system of

rules is your “language competence.”

Grammar 2: The formal description of the rules. This definition describes

the subject matter of this book and others like it, which identify in an objective

way the form and structure, the syntax, of sentences.


Grammar 3: The social implications of usage, also known as “linguistic

etiquette.” This definition could be called the do’s [sic] and don’t’s [sic] of

grammar. This is the definition that people have in mind when they use terms like

“poor grammar” or “good grammar.” (pp. 5-6).

Williams (2005) begins his didactics on grammar in The Teacher’s Grammar Book, with

the comment that quite often what people understand as grammar is proper speech:

Grammar is a term used to mean many different things. When teachers and administrators

grow frustrated over errors in student writing, they often call for a return to “the basics,”

which they define as grammar. And English teachers know very well that the response

will be when they tell anyone what they do for a living: “Oh, I better watch what I say!”

In this situation, grammar is being defined as how one speaks. (p. 1)

and then lists Hartwell’s multiple definitions of the term, which range from “formal patterns,” to

“linguistic etiquette,” and to language which aids in “teaching writing:”

Many years ago, Hartwell (1985, pp. 352-353) organized some of these different

meanings in an attempt to clarify our understanding of grammar by offering five different

definitions, summarized here:

1. A set of formal patterns in which the words of a language are arranged to

convey a larger meaning.

2. The branch of linguistics concerned with the description, analysis, and

formulation of formal language patterns.

3. Linguistic etiquette.

4. School grammar, or the names of the parts of speech.

5. Grammatical terms used in the interest of teaching writing. (p. 1)


Searching for a more reflective and insightful definition of grammar, Celce-Murcia and

Larsen-Freeman (1999), imagine language on three operational levels and attempt to include in

their definition the transactional and interactional roles of the spoken and written word:

It is important, therefore, to define grammar in a way that suits both purposes—that is, a

way that accounts for both the structure of the target language and its communicative use.

In order to do so, we will need to take into consideration how grammar operates at three

levels: the subsentential or morphological level, the sentential or syntactic level, and the

suprasentential or discourse level. (p. 2)

Such an approach to the definition of grammar requires the merging of the metalanguage

of the traditional grammar with that of modern linguistics:

Another major departure from some traditional analyses of English grammar, and one we

feel is in keeping with attempting to view grammar with a communicative end in mind, is

the recognition that grammar is not merely a collection of forms but rather involves the

three dimensions of what linguists refer to as (morpho) syntax, semantics, and pragmatics.

(p. 4)

Greenbaum (1996) summarizes all the preceding tentative definitions of grammar into the

comprehensive statement, which also includes fundamental grammar subfields:

In the concrete sense of the word grammar, a grammar is a book of one or more volumes.

We of course also use grammar for the contents of the book. When we compare grammars

for their coverage and accuracy, we are referring to the contents of the book: a grammar is

a book on grammar, just as history is a book on history.

Grammars vary in their coverage. They are sometimes restricted to syntax, the

ways in which words combine into structures of phrases, clauses, and sentences. But


grammars may also include descriptions of one or more other aspects of language:

morphology (the internal structure of words), word-formation (how new words are formed

from more basic elements), phonetics (the possible sounds and sounds patterns),

phonology (the distinctive sounds and sound patterns), orthography (the conventional

spellings), vocabulary, semantics (the meaning of words and sentences), and pragmatics

(the interpretation of utterances in their contexts). (p. 23)

Coverage of the grammar subfields listed above depends on the notional matrices which

have distinguished certain English grammars in the past and present. Each grammar has focused

on those aspects of the language models relevant to specific theoretical approaches, and each has

considered metalanguage and content within those distinctive theoretical matrices.

The English Language Grammars

In a short description of some of the theories that one encounters in the English grammar

education and research at the present time Greenbaum (1996) states:

Among the many current general theories of language are Transformational-Generative

Grammar, Tagmemic Grammar, Systemic Grammar, and Word Grammar. Some

designations refer to a set of theories that share objectives but differ in many important

aspects. For example, generative grammars include Government and Binding Theory,

Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, and Lexical-Functional Grammar. (p. 25)

The above list of “theories of language” or grammars of the English language is a limited

and random account, not based on their order of importance, value, or other relevant criteria, but

mentioned as a suggestive idea of the richness of the field. This section will describe the past and

present grammars of the English language in their order of importance and spread in the English

language education and theoretical fields.


Traditional Grammar

Traditional grammar takes the first place in the hierarchical realm of grammars because as

Williams observes, “in nearly every instance, school grammar is traditional grammar” (2005, p

50). Public education in the United States is one of the most developed in the world, therefore

given the considerable number of education institutions in the United States, traditional grammar

instruction far exceeds instruction in all other grammar schools. This grammar, notes Williams,

“is concerned primarily with correctness and with the categorical names for the words that make

up sentences. Thus, students study grammatical terms and certain “rules” that are supposed to be

associated with correctness” (2005, p. 50).

In his classic book The Oxford English Grammar Greenbaum (1996) describes traditional

grammar and some of its essential characteristics in the following words:

Traditional grammar adopts the approaches and descriptive categories used, particularly

in school grammars, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Traditional grammars

describe solely, or chiefly, the written language and are indebted to Latin grammars for

some of their analyses of English. (p. 26)

Besides school grammars, adds Greenbaum, “scholarly reference grammars of the first

half of the twentieth century, such as the major work by Otto Jespersen (cf.n.1) have also been

considered traditional grammars (p. 26).

Traditional grammars are also considered “prescriptive,” and not “descriptive.” Williams

clarifies the distinction in this manner: “We say that traditional grammar is prescriptive because it

focuses on the distinction between what some people do with language and what they ought to do

with it, according to a pre-established standard.” (p. 50).


Fromkin (2003) explains the difference between the two approaches from the theoretical

position of the generative-transformational grammar as the difference between the attempt of the

linguists “to describe the grammar of the language that exists in the minds of its speakers” (p. 14)

and the work of “grammarians” who want to produce “a grammar that attempts to legislate what

your grammar should be,” and which “prescribes,” language rules instead of describing the mode

in which language works. (p.28),

Haussamen (2000) challenges the “prescriptive” approach of the traditional grammar in

his book Revising the Rules, and mentions among the prescriptive features of this grammar the

verb tenses in English (pp. 33-36), subject-verb agreement (pp. 67-71), the pronoun agreement

(pp. 80-83), restrictiveness and non-restrictiveness in relative clauses, (pp. 96-100), etc.

Haussamen (2000) also notes that absolute descriptivism is not possible, and provides the

Roberts case as an example. Roberts had written two books in the generative tradition, and had a

difficult time explaining the students why they had to learn “form classes, sentence patterns, and

transformations” (p. 30):

We have said that all of us who speak English know English grammar, and you may ask,

if that is so, why you are required to study it. What we are after now, of course, is not the

knowledge that permits us to distinguish grammatical sentences from ungrammatical

ones, but rather a conscious understanding of the system and the way it operates. (cited in

Haussamen, 2000, p. 30)

The above situation, which shows that even the descriptivists prescribe, that is, that none

is immune to the “disease” of prescriptivism seems to indicate that the distinction has been much

exaggerated between the two notions:


Marenbon (1995) suggests that descriptivism and prescriptivism are mutually supportive:

by describing how a certain language is spoken or written, the grammarian prescribes

usage for those who wish to speak or write their language (p. 20). (cited in Wray, Trott &

Bloomer, 1998, p. 125)

Referring to the metalanguage of traditional grammars, or the approach these grammars

take in the definition of grammar terms, Greenbaum specifies that such grammars use “notional”

descriptions or formulations:

Traditional grammars typically make use of notional criteria; for example, defining a

noun as the name of a person, place, or thing rather than by formal criteria such as that

nouns typically take plural inflections or that they typically may be introduced by the.

Grammars that make frequent use of notional definitions are notional grammars. (p. 26)

This classification of the word classes appears at first sight as an oversimplification and

reduction of their grammatical roles, but the purpose of such an approach is to make the notions

accessible to a large group of students, from the first grade to college. Huddleston (1995) makes

the following comment about the notional approach:

Notional definitions are characteristic of much traditional grammar – and of the grammar

taught in schools in many places even now. Their appeal is clear. The avoid the apparent

circularity of the structural approach where a noun, say, is explained by reference to

heads, noun phrases, subjects, objects, dependents, singular and plural inflections, and so

on, all these other terms being just as much in need of explanation as ‘noun’ itself. The

notional definition by contrast does not mention any technical terms of syntax beside the

one being defined: it is expressed instead in terms of apparently everyday and intuitively

obvious concepts like ‘person,’ ‘place,’ ‘command,’ ‘request.’ (p. 56).


The notional definition approach to word classes has been criticized again and again, and

termed incorrect and inadequate. Fries (cited in Mulroy, 2003, p. 70), commented that some parts

of speech could have multiple functions in the sentence, while Huddleston (1995) mentioned that

“the trouble is that the notional definitions simply don’t give the right results,” and supported his

point of view with an example concerning the noun definition: “Take first the one we have given

for noun – the name of a person, place, or thing. If we interpret ‘thing’ to mean ‘physical object,’

then clearly the definition does not provide a necessary condition for nounhood” (p 56). Another

criticism comes from Haussamen (2000) who blames the poor performance of the students in the

public schools on the “inaccurate” and “antiquated” definitions of the traditional grammar:

This book tries to bridge that gap [between grammar and linguistics]by taking the

traditional definitions and principles of grammar one at a time, looking at their history and

at the current linguistic thinking about them, and exploring the possibility that as ideas

about language they might be in need of revision. Among the obstacles to strong literacy

education in our culture, inaccurate definitions and antiquated concepts about the basics

of language would certainly be one. (p. 31)

The claim that traditional grammar definitions of terms are “inaccurate” and “antiquated”

seems to be founded on a simplistic understanding of those definitions. Indeed, “Fries was right

that traditional grammarians have not been entirely consistent in their definitions of the parts of

speech” (Mulroy, 2003, p. 70), and Huddleston showed that “notional definitions simply don’t

give the right results” (1995, p. 56), but structural definitions need even more clarification than

notional definitions, according to Huddleston himself (p. 56), and such definitions are far from

perfect, too. More than that, the terms in the traditional grammar seem more adequate for basic

and intermediate grammars than the structural ones:


The parts of speech are traditionally taught to young students, and the ways in which they

have been taught reproduce the way in which classificatory schemes are usually

internalized. One starts with the prototypes: the clearest, most familiar examples of a

category (Mulroy, 2003, p. 70).

In order to make the prototype notion clear in the mind of the reader Mulroy refers to the

means through which children come to recognize different species of birds as they begin “with a

familiar and unproblematic example of the category,” not “with an abstract definition.” The same

principle applies to the learning of word classes:

So, too, in teaching the classes of words, it is natural to begin with prototypical examples.

Names of persons, places, and things provide a good collection of nouns. As one

continues to study grammar, more refined criteria come into play, often subconsciously.

Nouns are words that act like prototypical nouns. The decisive criteria of the parts of

speech have to do with the rules governing their forms and the kinds of words with which

they are combined. (2003, p. 70)

In spite of the continuous criticism leveled at the traditional grammar and all the different

problems related to term definition and “prescription,” this grammar seems to hold its position as

the main approach to teaching the subject in public schools and college. In the last decades, more

and more emphasis has been placed on approaches to teaching this grammar, rather than on work

to discard and replace it. New theoretical perspectives and concrete approaches call for grammar

teaching “in the context of writing,” and not context-free, and research shows that most students

will benefit from this kind of grammar instruction (Weaver, 1996, p. 23).


Structural Grammar

The criticism against traditional grammar encouraged scholars to do more research on the

English language. The research produced a new perspective on the organization of languages, the

“structural description,” or “structuralism.” Bloomfield, the leading figure of the new school, and

the one who defined the movement, wrote his seminal book, Language, in 1933, which “set out a

complex classification” of language structures: “sound endings, word combinations, and types of

phrases and sentences” (Haussamen, 2000, p.28). Bloomfield’s structural model of language was

a considerable departure from the traditional grammar that was based on the notion that the Latin

grammar was “universally applicable to all languages” (Williams, 2005, p. 97).

Fries followed Bloomfield in 1952 with The Structure of English, in which he stated that

“there is no necessary conflict between scientific linguistics and traditional grammar,” as both of

them are “complementary endeavors, one theoretical and the other practical.” The problem, as he

saw it, was that “the stylistic recommendations found in many traditional books are arbitrary and

often contradicted by actual usage” (Mulroy, 2000, p. 5).

Bloomfield and Fries were also following the perspective of the French linguist Saussure,

who had distinguished between “langue” (linguistic knowledge), and “parole,” (utterances, or the

spoken language), and who had claimed that “the study of such [language] structure was largely

independent of the study of the meaning of words,” due to the fact that “the actual knowledge of

language had more to do with the knowledge of arrangements and contrasting patterns of sounds

than with meaning attached to words” (Haussamen, 2000, p. 28). The same approach to language

and meaning was adopted later in the generative-transformational grammar. Haussamen states in

relation to this structure-meaning position:


This demotion of meaning makes the structural approach to grammar seem at first very

odd to teachers and students of traditional grammar….They are accustomed to meaning

even in the definitions of parts of speech (a noun names a person, place, or

thing)….Structuralism tries to purge linguistics of meaning, but that is not a purification

that teachers and students need or want (pp. 28-29).

Because the traditional parts of speech did not seem to reflect the natural structure of the

English language, Fries suggested a “better” classification “based on the places that words could

occupy in sample sentences,” and which “resulted in four classes of words that resembled nouns,

verbs, adjectives, and adverbs, respectively, and nineteen groups of ‘function words.’” Further,

those function words “included a number of one or two-word categories—e.g. yes and no, there,

do and did (when used as auxiliary verbs), lets, and please. The trouble with Fries classification,

states Mulroy (2003) is that “the scheme was based on a very limited amount of data,” and that

“it was obviously too complicated for practical pedagogical purposes” (2003, pp. 71-72). Fries

must have understood the complexities inherent in his nomenclature, because:

Had Fries continued to expand his database, the complexity of his taxonomy would have

grown apace…In fact, he does not seem to have returned to his taxonomy. It was an

interesting experiment that called attention to the distinguishing syntactic characteristics

of a number of words and phrases and thereby contributed to the advance of linguistics.

(Mulroy, 2003, p. 72)

The contribution structuralism made to the development of a modern perspective on the

English language structure is in the emphasis it placed on “the systematic nature of English,” as

in the case of the “description of form classes, or parts of speech. State Kolln and Kolln:


For the structuralists, this systematic description of the language includes an analysis of

the sound system (phonology), then the systematic combination of sounds into

meaningful units and words (morphology), and, finally, the systematic combination of

words into meaningful phrase structures and sentence patterns (syntax). (Kolln & Funk,

2006, pp. 6-7)

The structuralists called their new grammar Immediate Constituent Analysis (ICA), which

indicated their approach to the study of grammar:

Dividing a sentence up into immediate constituents. This is much the same as constructing

a syntactic tree structure, but the term IC analysis’ is commonly applied only in cases in

which we do not bother to identify the type or each constituent with a node label. (Trask,

1997, p. 109)

Due to the fact that most “grammar is about sentences—the form of the words and their

functions in sentences,” and that “analyzing individual sentences is a major part of grammatical

study,” ICA “can provide a great deal of information about language.” (Williams, 2005, p. 107).

Based on these notions, Reed and Kellogg “developed a way to diagram sentences in an effort to

make grammatical analysis more revealing and meaningful.” There is, though, an issue with the

use of such diagrams, states Williams:

As the examples that follow suggest, the Reed-Kellogg approach to diagramming

sentences gets very complicated very quickly. These diagrams have no labels for

constituents, so it is not easy to note at a glance what the constituents are. Understanding

the structure of any sentences demands understanding the structure of the diagramming

procedure, which is arbitrary and often counterintuitive. (2005, p. 107)


The better approach to sentence constituent breakdown is based on the phrase-structure

rules, or descriptions of the common word order in sentences. The idea of “rules” in this case is

different from the one traditional grammar, explains Williams (2005):

In traditional grammar, rules are essentially inviolable, and we are asked to force

language to conform to the rules. In phrase-structure grammar, the situation is different.

The term “rule” is used very loosely to describe the observed grammatical patterns that

exist in a given language. (Williams, 2005, p. 101)

From this perspective, the rules “do not produce sentences,” that is, there is no generative

component attached to them. Their fundamental function is to describe sentences, and this makes

it necessary for them to change whenever the sentence structure changes. The practical use of the

phrase-structure rules is reflected in tree diagrams “in which all the components are labeled and

in which all the grammatical relations are easily recognizable” (Williams, 2005, p. 108).

Generative-Transformational Grammar

In 1957 Noam Chomsky published Syntactic Structures, the book that contained the ideas

of a new theoretical perspective on language, the generative-transformational doctrine. The result

was that “this new linguistic theory, along with changes in the language arts curriculum, finally

led to the diminishing influence of structuralism” (Kolln &Funk, 2006, p. 7).

Some of the fundamental thoughts in generative-transformational grammar are related to

the “deep” and “surface” structures of phrases and sentences, and the transformations such forms

undergo, that is, “the idea that meaning, generated in the deep structure, can be transformed into a

variety of surface structures, the sentences we actually speak” (Kolln & Funk, 2006, p. 8). Such

concepts produced a revolution in the linguistic thinking, and new research was stimulated about

language and its structure.


The criticisms Chomsky expressed for phrase-structure grammar were (1) that “it focused

on languages rather than language,” or “attested utterances,” the “sentences and expressions that

native speakers actually used”) and not on the infinite number of grammatical structures obtained

in the process of language production, which lead to a limited “description of a given language,”

and (2), that it did not explain “how people produce language” (Williams, 2005, p. 164).

There was an obvious need for linguistics and grammar education to replace the outdated

and troubled phrase-structure grammar with a speculative perspective that “reveal[ed] something

about language production,” and that “allow[ed] us to understand something about how the mind

operates.” This approach was called transformational-generative grammar (or T-G), and was said

to have “a cognitive orientation because it focused on the transformation of mentalese into actual

language,” as the researcher’s goal was to develop a theory of language that provided a theory of

mind” (Williams, 2005, p. 164).

The basic elements of the transformational-generative grammar were “kernel sentences,”

which were said to reflect linguistic “logical form,” and which “were where words and meaning

first appeared in the complex cognitive process that resulted in an utterance.” In these structures

meaning was not relevant, a concept which “he illustrated in the sentence, ‘Colorless green ideas

sleep furiously’ (1957, p. 15). It means nothing but is nevertheless grammatical” (Williams, 2005,

p. 166). The claim that meaning did not count in sentences was not regarded well, therefore,

Chomsky (1965) responded to the criticism in Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, in which

he abandoned the notion of kernel sentences and identified the underlying constituents of

sentences as deep structure. Deep structure was versatile: It contained the meaning of an

utterance and provided the basis for transformational rules that turned deep structure into

surface structure, which represented what we actually hear or read. Transformational


rules, therefore, connected deep structure and surface structure, meaning and syntax.

(Williams, 2005, p. 166)

Williams agrees that “deep structure was a convenient means of countering an alternative

and nagging argument,” but considers Chomsky’s rationalization weak because, “if meaning is in

the surface structure, there is no need for a mediating structure between mind and utterances.” In

this sense, “transformation rules become irrelevant” (2005, p. 167).

The transformational rules proposed by Chomsky, “are governed by certain conventions,”

among which are “the ordering convention and the cycle convention.” The conventions establish

the order in which the transformations must be applied “in the clause at the lowest level,” and at

higher levels. Williams makes the following comments concerning such language prescriptions:

Failure to abide by these conventions when analyzing structure with T-G grammar may

result in ungrammatical sentences. What we see in T-G grammar, therefore, is a

formalistic model of language production that employs a set of rigid rules that must

operate in an equally rigid sequence to produce grammatical sentences. (2005, p.169)

The continuous criticism of his perspective on language brought Chomsky “to revise T-G

grammar, reducing the role of deep structure in determining meaning,” and to develop “emphasis

on universal grammar” and on the idea that “language is an innate faculty of mind.” This updated

approach to the theory of language is known as the minimalist program (Williams, 2005, p. 183).

Such revisions, though, have not brought the solution to the problems that plagued the generative

grammar. Instead, affirms Williams,

Each revision made his conceptualization of grammar, ironically, more abstract and more

removed from language itself. As Taylor (2002) noted, Chomsky postulated “entities and

processes…which have no overt manifestation in actual linguistic expressions.”(p.7)


Thus, writing and language arts teachers are not likely to find much in revisions that is

useful in the classroom. (Williams, 2005, p. 183)

The above paragraph deserves our complete attention, as it describes a condition which

has direct consequences about the teaching of English grammar in public school and college: the

fact that Chomsky’s transformational-generative grammar has become so abstract and alienated

from classroom instruction that it is no more useful to teachers and students, irrespective of the

radical changes that have occurred in the language rules of this grammar, that is, the elimination

of the two fundamental theoretical principles, the “transformation rules and deep structure,” and

that “now meaning is deemed to reside in the individual words that make up the lexicon,” or that

“the meaning of sentences arises from their particular combinations or words”(Williams, 2005,

p.188).

Moving to the other extreme of the language spectrum, Chomsky appears now to dismiss

all grammar features which composed the instructional basis of the discipline. Williams remarks:

In keeping with the emphasis on universal grammar, Chomsky (1995) proposed that all

languages are the same, except for how they form words: ‘Variation in language is

essentially morphological in character, including the critical question of which parts of a

computation are overtly realized” (p. 7) This notion is in many respects similar to the

traditional views on language that existed prior to the development of phrase-structure

grammar, a point discussed in chapter 1. (2005, p. 189)

His announcement caused puzzlement among linguists: “What about grammar? How can

language variation be limited to morphology when, as in the case of Japanese and English, they

have very different grammars?” The answer seems to indicate that Chomsky had “eliminated the

concept of grammar, per se” (Williams, 2005, p. 189). Quotes Williams:


The notion of construction, in the traditional sense, effectively disappears: it is perhaps

useful for descriptive taxonomy but has not theoretical status. Thus, there are no such

constructions as Verb Phrase, or interrogative and relative clause, or passive and raising

constructions. Rather, there are just general principles that interact to form these

descriptive artifacts (pp. 25-26). (See Williams, 2005, p. 189)

William’s conclusion is that Chomsky’s theoretical grammar, while claiming to solve the

lack of “either descriptive or explanatory adequacy” of the phrase-structure grammar, misses the

mark and collapses into circular reasoning, as “we have no way of ascertaining whether a theory

of universal grammar correctly describes the initial state of the language faculty,” due to the lack

of empirical evidence for a language faculty as described in MP (Minimal Program).The extreme

emphasis on explanation to the detriment of description is another major flaw of MP, as

MP aims narrowly to describe the cognitive operations related to language production and

summarily dismisses the ‘descriptive taxonomy’ of language. This taxonomy is not

inconsequential, especially for teachers and others who must work with the structure of

language. (Williams, 2005, 0. 191)

The fundamental dilemma with Chomsky’s theory of language structure is its “deductive,

rather than inductive, enterprise” (Van Vanlin & LaPolla, 2002, p. 7). In other words,

The description of cognitive operations necessarily is metaphorical; it does not convey a

realistic account of actual mental activities, and given the total lack of empirical data from

cognitive and neuroscience to support the description, one could easily conclude that it

never can. Taylor (2002) noted in this context that “the theory has been driven by its own

internal logic, not by any considerations derived from independently established facts

about human cognition (p.8). (Williams, 2005, pp. 191-192).


Cognitive Grammar

Trask (1997) defines cognitive grammar as “any approach to the study of grammar which

tries to be consistent with what we know about human mental processes,” and describes this field

as an integral part of the cognitive science, “a particular approach to the study of language which

tries to interpret linguistic structures and categories in terms of our perception and experience of

the world (p. 45).

The origins of cognitive grammar can be traced back to the troubles which confronted the

transformational-generative (T-G) grammar in its original format, and the repeated revisions that

reflected Chomsky’s efforts to answer the criticism of his theoretical linguistic framework. What

seemed to disturb linguists most was the formalistic characteristic of the T-G grammar—the fact

that “it [employed] a set of rigid rules that must operate in an equally rigid sequence to produce

grammatical sentences. States Williams:

The issue of formalism is important because it led several scholars to question whether T-

G grammar or the minimalist program truly help us understand the nature of language.

Recall that Chomsky revolutionized linguistics in 1957 by arguing that language study

should reflect a theory of mind. As a result, all modern grammars are concerned with and

influenced by studies of cognition to one degree or another. (p. 197)

Because Chomsky approached language structure from an inductive rather than deductive

perspective, the product was that “rather than exploring what the mind can tell us about language,

his work was focused on what language can tell us about the mind.” While his research “had laid

the groundwork for the connection between grammar and cognition, many would argue that he

did not build on this foundation,” and had not benefited from the progress in brain science, as one


can see from the fact that the “minimalist program describes a system of cognitive operations that

appear to have little connection to how the brain actually works” (Williams, 2005, pp. 197-198).

There was also an issue related to meaning in Chomsky’s theoretical perspective, and that

issue had not found a good solution even in the minimalist revision (MP):

We also saw in chapter five that the question of meaning cannot be addressed adequately

in a formalist grammar. Meaning, when considered at all, is understood to reside in

mentalese, the lexicon, or the sentence. Neither T-G grammar nor the MP take into

account that we use language to communicate with other people in a meaningful context.

(Williams, 2005, p. 198).

The unclear matters in the transformational-generative grammar and the minimal program

were questions that had “troubled some linguists for years, motivating them to seek an alternative

to Chomskian formalism,” and the research produced a new theoretical perspective on grammar:

A significant step forward occurred in the 1980s when Ronald Langacker, a linguist, and

David Rumelhart, a cognitive scientist, came into contact at the University of California,

San Diego. What emerged in two important books by Langacker (1987, 1990) was

cognitive grammar. (Williams, 2005, p. 1998)

The change in perspective from the transformational-generative grammar to the cognitive

grammar is radical. Something which must be revealed from the start is that “cognitive grammar

does not consist of a new set of grammar rules, and it does not “involve new sentence diagrams,

new classifications, or new grammatical analyses,” because “cognitive grammar involves a new

way of looking at language and its relation to mind” (Williams, 2005, p. 198).

The first significant difference between the two grammars is that while T-G and MP seem

to “emphasize formal rules and treat language as a self-contained system that is largely unrelated


to other cognitive operations and mental capacities,” an understanding “based on the idea that the

brain is modular, divided into discrete processing units that function independently of one

another,” the new perspective embraces a “limited view on modularity,” and makes the claim that

“language is intricately connected to other cognitive functions and is an important part of the

social, cultural, biological, and psychological dimensions of human existence” (Williams, 2005,

pp. 198-199).

Referring to the most recent scientific discoveries about the activities that occur inside the

brain, Lamb (1998) has “noted that all cognitive activity, including language, consists of complex

patterns of neural firing and inhibition, like switches turning on and off,” indicating that all recent

“attempts to describe these patterns in terms of rules and transformations” contradict factual data,

and “seem farfetched.” (Williams, 2005, p.199). The current research on the brain causes scholars

to reevaluate the traditional perspective on language processing:

Language processing is recognized as involving a complex interaction among different

areas of the brain—the temporal brain associated with receptive speech, the parietal lobe

with writing, the frontal lobes with motor speech, and so forth. Consequently, language is

deemed to be embedded in a variety of interconnected cognitive operations and is

necessarily influenced by them. (Williams, 2005, p. 199)

Distinct from the T-G and MP notion that “language is computational and compositional,”

controlled through “a cognitive mechanism [that] performs various language operations, such as

inducing grammar rules and combining small linguistic units [submodules] into larger ones,” the

modules, that different cerebral processes occur in the submodules, and that mental “computation

is related to the idea that language—specifically grammar—is largely independent of language

use” (Williams, 2005, p. 199), in the cognitive perspective,


Grammar reduces to the structuring and symbolization of conceptual content and thus has

no autonomous existence at all (Langacker, 2000, p.1). The semiological function of

language reduces to units, conceptual, phonological, and symbolic (conceptual units in

relationship to phonological units. GC further claims that lexicon and grammar form a

continuum of symbolic structures, lexical structures being more specific and grammatical

structures more schematic in conceptual detail. (Inglis, 2003, pp. 223-346)

The essential nature of the transformational-generative grammar (T-G) and the minimalist

program (MP) is theoretical. This notion was evident from the start, as “one of the most important

arguments Chomsky made in Syntactic Structures (1957), the monograph which introduced

generative grammar to the field, was that linguistics should be considered a deductive, rather than

an inductive, enterprise,” a syntactocentric discipline (Van Valin & LaPolla, 2002, p. 7). Besides

the deductive, nonempirical nature of the T-G and MT theories,

In the syntactocentric view of language, laid out explicitly in Chomsky (1965) syntax is

the central aspect of language. The phonological and semantic aspects of language are

derivative of and secondary to syntactic structure. From Chomsky’s point of view,

language is an abstract object whose structure is to be studied independently of

psycholinguistic, communicative, sociocultural, and other considerations. (ibid, pp. 8-9).

From this conceptual perspective “Chomsky has explicitly denied that communication is a

necessary or even important function of language (e.g. 1975: 56-7; 1980:229-30),” and the human

language was therefore characterized as “a set of structural descriptions of sentences, where a full

structural description determines (in particular) the sound and meaning of a linguistic expression”

(Chomsky 1977:81, in Van Valin & LaPolla, 2002, p. 9).


Because discourse is not relevant, both T-G and MP “deal with example sentences rather

than utterances,” and “neither addresses the fact that such sentences lack a context that includes

someone with an intention to communicate a message to someone with the ability to understand

(or misunderstand) the message” (Williams, 2005, p. 199). This seems to be a main issue which

educators have to confront in the teaching of the transformational-generative principles:

In Syntactic Structures, he [Chomsky] noted that transformational grammar “was

completely formal and non-semantic” (1957, p. 93) None of his work with grammar has

considered language’s rhetorical dimension. As teachers, we need to be able to draw on

theory and research to inform our work with students. We need tools that allow us to

understand more clearly how students use language, the nature of their errors, and how to

help them become more proficient readers and writers. (Williams, 2005, p. 200)

In opposition, “cognitive grammar, much like rhetoric, views language as a social action,”

with meaning which “emerges out of language in a social context and is usage based” and which

uses metaphorical and symbolic means to engender human transaction and interaction (Williams,

2005, p. 200). Such view discards the notion of the compositional nature of words and sentences,

and makes the context an essential part of language meaning, which depends to a large degree on

signification, or what a concept signifies in the process of communication, and which “requires a

speaker/writer with an intention to designate one thing in terms of another,” and makes separation

of language meaning from the audience impossible (Williams, 2005, p. 200). The irreducible link

between propositional meaning and language communication (phrase, sentence, or discourse) is

expressed by Taylor (2002) in the following words:


Complex expressions nearly always have a meaning that is more than, or even at variance

with, the meaning that can be computed by combining the meaning s of the components

parts (p.13) (See Williams, 2005, p. 201)

Because meaning cannot be extracted from phrases or sentences through sentence parsing,

cognitive grammarians “argue not only that meaning does not reside in individual words but also

that the meaning of individual words is conceptual rather than specific.” This conceptual meaning

is based on extensive meaning associations in lexical networks, and on prototypical models which

makes it possible for individuals to generalize from single objects to classes and generate patterns

that provide extrapolation options to object categories which could be far distanced from the main

or original concept of thing. In this form, concept patterning “allows for a better understanding of

the relation among cognition, grammar, and semantics” (Williams, 2005, p. 201).

Of main importance in language interaction is also the notion that “ideas and meaning are

grounded in experience, which varies from person to person.” While it is apparent that the human

language abilities and development are to a large degree reliant on the innate tendencies, parental

factors also seem to have an important role in language socialization. Here the formalist language

approaches diverge, “because they assume that all sentences begin with the lexicon, that language

exists in the mind as words.” The cognitive approach, on the other hand, states that “words do not

exist anywhere in the brain,” but that “instead we find cell assemblies representing words through

cortical dynamics (Pulvermuller, 2003)” (ibid., p. 203).

Meaning construction is another characteristic which differs between T-G and MP and the

cognitive grammar. States Williams, in his discussion of the two grammar models:


In formalist accounts, the meaning is inherent in the statement as a matter of fact. That is,

the statement maps a certain real-word condition onto a linguistic form that is determined

by the lexicon and grammar. (2005, p. 204)

The G-T and MP process of meaning mapping mentioned above is not sanctioned in Lee’s

(2001) and Williams’s (1993, 2003a) studies. These studies rather affirm that the process “instead

involves a complex array of contextual or situational factors” which create various statements and

which use different frames “that consist of background knowledge and context.” Such frames aim

to maintain coherence in communication, and can explain misunderstandings in the cross-cultural

communication, as these frames of reference “are culture specific” and “include emotional states”

(Williams, 2005, p. 204).

Contextual frames seem to have a crucial role in student writing. Lack of alignment in this

situation, that is, the fact that “teachers and students do not share common frames associated with

writing assignments,” cause confusion in students, who “face significant obstacles when writing.”

When teachers’ expectations for assignments differ from students’ perceptions, the confusion that

follows among the students causes damage to the instructional process. Communication fails, and

must be restored through the alignment of the frames of reference (Williams, 2005, pp. 205-206).

The cognitive perspective on grammatical errors begins with the notion that what is stored

in an individual’s mind is “an intention that activates the neural network.” As logical propositions

are generated, leading to the creation of a “mental model through conceptual bleeding,” this event

causes the activation of “that part of the network where sentence patterns are stored,” causing the

proper sentence pattern to be selected and to be then “filled with words that match the model and

the person’s intentions.” (Williams, 2005, pp. 212-213). Because “our experiences of the world

are processed in patterns,” sometimes there is a pattern overlap in our minds, chance interference


and this condition triggers “an association between one set of neural patterns and another set that

contains subsets of the various features related to the target.” The consequence of this pattern mix

is random speech or writing errors, as some language patterns dominate at the unexpected, wrong

time (Williams, 2005, pp. 213-214).

Langacker (1987, 1990), quoted in Williams (2005), had stated that phrase-structure rules

should be understood as “general statements” (p. 112), and not as structure rules. He also warned

“against efforts to separate syntax and semantics,” as “in cognitive grammar ‘symbolic structure

is not distinct from semantic or phonological structure (p.105)’,” and the “rules” should be taken

as descriptions of grammatical relations (p. 218).

Because “issues of meaning become self-evident,” in cognitive grammar, and “there is no

effort to develop an intervening stage between cognition and utterance,” this position on grammar

and meaning provides teachers with the tools to help students improve their writing, and “become

effective, self-motivated readers and in giving them frequent opportunities to write.” Moreover,

The feedback from peers and teachers that are part of theory-based language art classes

strengthens the connecting pathways that build the neural network associated with

language in general and writing in particular (Williams, 2005, pp. 218-219).

Concerning the teaching of grammar in English composition classes, or as an independent

subject, Williams thinks that cognitive grammar explains why “grammar instruction does not lead

to improved writing.” The reason seems to be the fact that written discourse and the identification

of parts of speech in the brain occur at different, separate locations, and that grammar information

and writing skills are saved in different locations in the brain which are not associated (Williams,

2005, p. 219).


The ultimate consequence of such conclusions is an approach to writing instruction which

is based on student immersion in writing:

If cognitive grammar offers an accurate model of language, then the focus of our language

arts classes must be on immersing students in language in all its richness and engaging

them in examinations and discussions of content and form. Mastery of grammar and usage

will follow. (Williams, 2005, p. 219)

Functional Grammar

The foundations of the functional grammar can be traced to Rupert Firth, a British linguist

who wrote his ideas on language in Papers in Linguistics (1957), The Tongue of Men and Speech

(1964), and Selected papers of J.R. Firth 1952-59 (1968). Among the language notions promoted

by Firth were the concept that word phonetics and semantics could not be separated from context

and that the analysis of language patterns must be considered functions of multiple categories and

principles. Firth was also the linguist who coined the term “context of situation,” and emphasized

the importance of context in the search for text meaning (Halliday, 1961, pp. 241-292).

One of Firth’s students at the University of London, M.A.K Halliday, who was associated

with the “London School of Linguistics” established by Firth, borrowed his ideas and constructed

a new grammar called systemic functional (SFG), based also on the ideas of the Prague School,

another important European linguistic group. Halliday presented the fundamental concepts which

defined SFG in his article entitled Categories of the Theory of Grammar, which was published in

1961. The purpose of the article was to establish different semantic categories, and those patterns

which connect them in information networks, and discover the relationship between meaning and

text structure. The two main characteristics of the SFG, “systemic,” and “functional” derive from


the notion that this grammar describes a network or system of options, and from the aim to define

the functions which words can perform through different network selections (pp. 241-292).

The book published in 1975, and entitled Learning How to Mean, describes the essential

concepts of his theoretical perspective. Halliday lists seven principles that define child language

activities, and which result from the motivation that language has certain practical functions for

them. These functions, which have physical, emotional, and social roles in the well-being of the

children, are called “instrumental,” “regulatory,” “interactional,” and “personal.” Children state

their needs through the instrumental functions, attempt to impress their perspectives on the other

people using the regulatory functions, contact and interact with other people through the channel

of interactional functions, and express feelings and opinions through the personal functions. The

last three functions described by Halliday are the heuristic, imaginative and representational, and

their functions are related to the gaining of knowledge about the child’s habitat, the generation of

an imaginary context for stories, and the sharing of facts and information with those around him.

In contradistinction with Chomsky’s perspective in which language meaning has a minor

or secondary role, to its structure, Halliday considers the role of meaning as essential in language

and derived from the context (1985, pp. 55-67). Language meanings, or language metafunctions,

are, in the SFG perspective, separated into three categories: ideational, interpersonal, and textual.

The first meaning groups are related to the creation of our personal worlds through language, the

second to the manner in which we establish relationships and interact with one another, while the

last meanings approach humans use in “collating” of linguistic elements into large text.

Concerning the placement of SFG among the grammar theories, Fawcett makes the claim

that there are a lot of characteristics which T-G and SFG share:


As many systemicists have shown, a SFG is just as much a generative grammar as any

Chomskyan is—even thought the procedures by which it operates are very different from

the “rewrite rules” (such as “S->NP+VP”, etc.) of a Chomskian “phrase structure”

grammar (e.g. see Halliday 1969/72/81 & 1993, Matthiesen & Bateman 1991, Fawcett

1973/81 & 1980, Fawcett, Tucker & Lin 1993) (2000, p. 1).

Textbooks describing functional grammar, “such as Halliday’s Introduction to Functional

Grammar (1985, 1994, Halliday & Mathiessen 2004),” the introductions to Halliday’s linguistics,

“such as Bloor & Bloor (1995 & 2004), or Thompson (1996 & 2004),” have been published with

a specific goal in mind, that is, “to demonstrate to the reader how SFG can be used to analyze the

structure or texts—primarily that of the clause—in functional terms” (Fawcett, 2000, p. 1).There

is, though, a problem with the emphasis on sentence analysis:

In doing this, however, such books inevitably play down the importance of other parts of

a Systemic Functional Grammar (or Lexicogrammar)—most notably the system networks

that actually give their name to the short form of the name of this theory of language, i.e.

“Systemics” (Fawcett, 2000, p. 1).

The difference in opinion results from the emphasis scholars place on different features of

functional grammar. While some researchers consider that linguistic relevance resides in structure

and formalism, others focus on semantics and pragmatics inherent in discourse. Scholars speak in

general about two differences in SFG descriptions. Matthiessen and Halliday state:

There are two general descriptions of the grammar of English in systemic-functional

terms: Halliday (1994) presents the grammar from the structural angle, while Matthiessen

(1995) presents it in the form of systems and networks. Butt, Fahey, Spinks & Yallop

(1995), Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (1997) and Thomson (1996) present the grammar


in textbook form. Examples of accounts of specific portions of the grammar are: (on

transitivity) Davidse (1992, 1996), Fawcett (1987); (on theme) Collins (1997), Fries

(1995), and the various papers in Ghadessy (1996); (on the clause complex) Matthiessen

& Thompson (1988), Nesbitt & Plum (1988); (on intonation and grammar) Elmenoufy

(1988), Halliday (1967); (on tense) Matthiessen (1996). A number of different topics are

dealt with in Berry, Butler, Fawcett & Huang (1966). (1997, p. 53)

From a theoretical perspective, STF, or Lexicogrammar, sees the task of grammar as “the

system of wordings of a language,” that produces “meanings in wordings.” Because “the systems

of meanings is semantics,” these meanings are actualized or realized through grammar. This basic

grammar-semantics structure comprises two levels, as “semantics and grammar are stratified with

semantics as the higher stratum and grammar at the lower one.” Other language functions partake

in the development: “wordings are realized by sounding (or writing); that is, grammar (the system

of wording) is realized by phonology (the system of sound) (or by graphology, the system or

writing).” The three fundamental language areas, semantics, grammar, and phonology, network in

the linguistic system. Semantics and Lexicogrammar “are seen as the content strata of language,”

while phonology (or graphology), “is the expression stratum.” (Matthiessen & Halliday, 1997, p.

39).

Discourse meaning is produced through “textual, experiential, and logical metafunctions,”

while context has the role of embedding or integrating the language metafunctions:

Context is a higher-level semiotic system in which language is ‘embedded.’ More

specifically, language is embedded in a context of culture or social system and any

instantiation of language as text is embedded in its own context of situation. Context is an

ecological matrix for both the general system of language and for particular texts. It is


realized through language; and being realized through language means that it both creates

and is created by language (Matthiessen & Halliday, 1997, pp.. 40-41).

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper has been to reach a tentative definition of grammar as academic

discipline, and to perform an investigation of the different theoretical approaches which delineate

the effort of scholars to understand the structure and functions of the human language. This work,

which is far from exhaustive, has collected evidence that there is no consensus yet on a universal

definition of grammar, and that though diverse theoretical perspectives have been proposed as an

explanation of language structure, none of such proposals ca claim that it has reached a complete

answer to the scientific inquiry which relates to a definition and a full explanation of the structure

of the human language.

While traditional grammar seems adequate to teaching in public schools, there are issues,

connected to the definition of word classes, parts of sentence, and methods of instruction, which

don’t have good solutions yet. Structural grammar, though it introduces constituent structure and

diagramming, seems to fail its task because it describes language in a restricted way, and does not

explain language production. Generative grammar is faulted with its deductive approach and lack

of empirical evidence for its theoretical claims, separation of meaning from form, and its abstract

perspective on language. Cognitive grammar seems to come near an understanding of language in

the light of the most recent brain research, but it is in its incipient stage, and does not seem to suit

a public education context. Finally, while functional grammar seems the semantics, grammar, and

the phonetics of language as an irreducible complex, and minds the essential relationship between

context and meaning, remains a theoretical approach to language structure, with no apparent role

during the present time in school instruction.


The condition of the present research on language structure, or grammar, seems to find an

appropriate expression in Halliday’s (1997) words:

We are still rather far from understanding even the basic properties of a semiotic system.

What is important at this stage is to locate theories of grammar in the current intellectual

context, so that as they continue to be elaborated and improved they move closer to, and

not further away from, the transdisciplinary concerns of thoughtful people as a whole.

(1997, p. 46)


References

Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s

course 2nd ed.). New York: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Fawcett, R. (2000). A theory of syntax for systemic functional linguistics. Current Issues in

Linguistic Theory, 206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Firth, J. R. (1968). Selected papers of J.R. Firth 1952-59. London/Harlow: Longmans.

Firth, J. R. (1964). The Tongue of Men and Speech. (With Editor's Preface by Peter Stevens)

Oxford University Press. (Reprinted in 1986 by Greenwood Press, Westport,

Connecticut.)

Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in linguistics 1934-1951. London: Oxford University Press.

Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2003). An introduction to language (7th. ed.). Boston:

Heinle.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1961). Categories of the theory of grammar. Word, 17(3), 241-292.

Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context and text: A social semiotic perspective.

Deakin University Press (Language and Learning Series). Reprinted by Oxford University

Press, London, 1989.

Greenbaum, S. (1996). The Oxford English grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.

Haussamen, B. (2000). Revising the rules: Traditional grammar and modern linguistics (2nd

ed.). Revised printing. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Huddleston, R. (1995). Introduction to the grammar of English. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Inglis, D. (2003). Conceptual structure of numerical classifiers in Thai. In Eugene Casad and

Gary Palmer (eds.). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.


Klein, W. (1986). Second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kolln, M., & Funk, R. (2006). Understanding English grammar (17th ed). New York: Pearson

Education.

Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites.

Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Matthiessen, C. & Halliday, M.A.K. (1997). Systemic functional grammar: A first step into the

theory. J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (eds.) Clause combining in grammar and discourse.

Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Mulroy, D. (2003). The war against grammar. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cool Publishers, Inc.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (2004). A comprehensive grammar of the

English language (19th impression). Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.

Random House Webster’s unabridged dictionary. (1999). [CD-ROM]. New York: Random

House, Inc.

Schulze, M. (1998). Checking grammar – Teaching grammar. Computer Assisted Language

Learning, 11(2), 215-227.

Simpson, J. A. & Weiner, S. C. (Eds.). (1992). The Oxford English dictionary (2nd ed.). [CD-

ROM]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sledd, J. (1996). Grammar awareness in time of class warfare. The English Journal, 85(7), 59-63.

Trask, R. L. (1997). A student’s dictionary of language and linguistics. New York: Arnold.

Van Valin, R. Jr. & LaPolla, R.J. (2002). Syntax; Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

Weaver, C. (1996). Teaching grammar in the context of writing. The English Journal 85(7), 15-

24.


Williams, J. D. (2005). The teacher’s grammar book (2nd ed.). Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Inc. Publishers.

Wray, A., Trott, K., & Bloomer, A. (1998). Projects in linguistics. New York: Arnold.

Grammar and Grammars 1 Grammar and Grammars

Documents

Transcript of Grammar and Grammars 1 Grammar and Grammars