English Traditional Grammars: An international perspective 1556193572, 9781556193576

Citation preview

ENGLISH TRADITIONAL GRAMMARS

AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN THE THEORY AND HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE General Editor E. F. KONRAD KOERNER (University of Ottawa)

Series III - STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE SCIENCES

Advisory Editorial Board Sylvain Auroux (Paris); Ranko Bugarski (Belgrade) H. H. Christmann (Tübingen); Rudolf Engler (Bern) Hans-Josef Niederehe (Trier); R. H. Robins (London) Rosane Rocher (Philadelphia); Vivian Salmon (Oxford) Aldo Scaglione (New York); Kees Versteegh (Nijmegen)

Volume 62

Gerhard Leitner (ed.) English Traditional Grammars

ENGLISH TRADITIONAL GRAMMARS AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

Edited by

GERHARD LEITNER Freie Universität Berlin

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA 1991

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data English traditional grammars : an international perspective / edited by Gerhard Leitner. p. cm. - (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series III, Studies in the history of the language sciences, ISSN 0304-0720; v. 62) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. English language - Grammar - Textbooks. I. Leitner, Gerhard. II. Series. PE1108.E54 1991 428.2 - dc20 91-24951 ISBN 90 272 4549 5 (Eur.)/1.55619-357-2 (US) (alk. paper) CIP © Copyright 1991 - John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher.

To Praxedis, Martin, and Philip

F o r e w o r d

There is a lot of research on dictionaries while grammars of English, as of other languages, have until the recent past received s u r p r i s i n g l y little scholarly attention. In an empirical s t u d y on s t u d e n t s ' u s e s of reference materials (see pp If) it was found that there are two kinds of s t u d e n t s , viz. those who prefer dictionaries (the majority) and those (few) who look at grammars. This fact alone calls for a lot more research into grammar writing or grammaticography. This collection of papers looks at that area and hopes to contribute to an understanding of the largest g r o u p of grammars, viz, traditional grammars. The book would not have been possible without the a s s i s t a n c e and encouragement of many colleagues and friends. Of t h e s e , R.H. Robins, R. Burchfield, and K. Wächtler must be mentioned because of their continuous help and good advice. Frau Winter has, as in the past, been exceptionally circumspect and diligent. Frau Kroeber has a s s i s t e d in the index and my family has borne with me over a v e r y long time indeed.

December 1990 Berlin

Gerhard Leitner

C o n t e n t s Foreword Leitner, Gerhard "Why c a n ' t someone w r i t e a nice simple grammar?" Part I: Native Grammars of English Michael, Ian More Than Enough English Grammars

11

Downey, Charlotte T r e n d s That S h a p e d t h e Development of 19th C e n t u r y American Grammar Writing

27

Wächtler, Kurt W.D. Whitney's Essentials of English For the Use of Schools (1877)

39

Grammar.

Walmsley, John E.A. S o n n e n s c h e i n a n d Grammatical Terminology

57

Downey, Charlotte F a c t o r s in t h e Growth of t h e English L a n g u a g e in 18th a n d 19th C e n t u r y I r e l a n d

81

Burchfield, Robert The Fowler B r o t h e r s a n d the T r a d i t i o n of U s a g e Handbooks

93

Algeo, John American English Grammars in t h e Twentieth C e n t u r y

113

Part II: Non-native Grammars of English Tops, Guy A.J» & Xavier Dekeyser English Grammar Writing: The Belgian C o n t r i b u t i o n

141

Essen, Arthur E. K r u i s i n g a

153

van

X

CONTENTS

D u ê k o v à , Libuse English Grammars in P o s t w a r Czechoslovakia

175

Strauß, Wolfgang German Grammars of English p r i o r to 1860

205

Leitner, Gerhard E.A. Maetzner

233

Macht, Konrad Karl and Max D e u t s c h b e i n ' s English Grammar Manuals

257

Kirsten, Hans Adolf L a m p r e c h t ' s (German) Grammar of English

277

Part III: Grammatical Analyses A a r t s , Flor Traditional Grammars of English: F a c t s and Explanations

293

Lyons, Christopher Reference and Articles

309

Niemeyer, Jochen T e n s e a n d Aspect in German Grammars of English in t h e P a s t Fifty Years

329

Walton, Alan Modality and t h e Modals in Traditional Grammars of English

349

Ramisch, Heinrich The Rôle of American English in Traditional Grammars of English

369

Summaries

381

Name index

387

"Włny

can't, s o m e o n e w r i t e s i m p l e grammar?"

a

N i c e

asked S. Chalker in ELT Journal (1984) and explored some of the reasons why. Burchfield, too, went into that issue and, referring to an empirical study of students' behaviour towards modern descriptive reference grammars (Adler et al. 1986), knew what a nice simple grammar would be like: one that returned to *the basics'—of traditional grammars—and he suggested a prescriptive approach. Despite Wächtler's valuable repudiation (1987) that showed that the facts had been mis-represented, that study had indeed found that students shy away from modern grammars. Confronted with an u n ­ familiar teaching and learning environment and insufficient teaching, they r e t u r n to what they believe they know: traditional references grammars (or even traditional school grammars). If one believes the complaints of the teaching profession at all educational levels, however, they cannot fare too well with them either. There just is too little emphasis on grammar teaching and the encouragement of self-learning strategies, whether one deals with modern or traditional grammars. Since many students will be future teachers, it is not hard to figure out what is going on at the expense of our children. Given these facts, it comes as no surprise that grammars that depart from the trodden path are rarely a success with users. Leech/Svartvik's Communicative grammar of English (1975), a widely used university grammar for some time, had to be recast into a more traditional pattern so as to be palatable to the school system (Leech et al. 1982). Sinclair's functional grammar, which was based on Hallidayan concepts, never was a great success. And it will be interesting to see how his recent grammar will fare, which owes so much to corpus analyses (1990). Werlich's text-based Text grammar (1976) was, like Sinclair's, for the few specialists. Graustein et al.s'

2

GERHARD LEITNER

English grammar (1977), which a t t e m p t e d to p u r s u e a c o h e r e n t formf u n c t i o n - b a s e d a p p r o a c h a n d to e x t e n d u p w a r d s i n t o t h e text, did not make it e i t h e r in t h e former German Democratic Republic, e v e n t h o u g h it was a p r e s c r i b e d c o u r s e book» And C.-J. Bailey's Minigrammar (1990) is not d e s i g n e d for t h e wider p u b l i c in t h e f i r s t place. I t is d o u b t f u l t h a t it will e v e r r e a c h a l a r g e n u m b e r of i t s i n t e n d e d ( s t u d e n t ) u s e r s . T h e r e is o n e exception to t h i s sad fate of i n n o v a t i v e g r a m m a r s , viz, t h e g r a m m a r s t h a t d e r i v e from t h e S u r v e y of English Usage ( Q u i r k / G r e e n b a u m / L e e c h / S v a r t v i k ) . They a r e on t h e way to becoming a c c e p t e d on a n i n c r e a s i n g scale. A a r t s (this volume) s h o w s why: t h e y c a n be p e r c e i v e d a s a compromise b e t w e e n modern and traditional grammars. And y e t , one might a s k a g a i n , 'why c a n ' t someone w r i t e a nice simple g r a m m a r ' ? The a n s w e r is simple: with t h e exception of a few people n o b o d y seems to want to. Most a u t h o r s , s u c h a s Leech, G r a u s t e i n , C.-J. Bailey o r Sinclair, j u s t feel t h e r e is no p o i n t in doing t h a t , if t h i s implies w r i t i n g a t r a d i t i o n a l t y p e of grammar. T o d a y ' s g r a m m a r s must i n c l u d e t h e i n s i g h t s g a i n e d b y modern scholarship in the broadening field of linguistics and its s u b d i s c i p l i n e s ( G r a u s t e i n / L e i t n e r 1989). C.-J. Bailey, one of t h e most o u t s p o k e n c r i t i q u e s of t r a d i t i o n a l school b o o k s makes t h i s p o i n t v e r y s t r o n g l y . "What f o r e i g n school b o o k s p r e s e n t a s English u s a g e — g r a m m a r , p r o n u n c i a t i o n , diction, a n d s t y l e , a s well a s (worst of all) format a n d p u n c t u a t i o n — i s q u i t e r e p r e h e n s i b l e . " h e s a y s and c o n t i n u e s : "and t h e view of English t a u g h t in t h e schools d e p a r t s so far from c u r r e n t n a t i v e - s p e a k e r t r u t h a s to make o n e w o n d e r why t h e i r a u t h o r s i n v e n t t h e i r "information"." (1990:iv). The fact t h a t "so many applied l i n g u i s t s know so little g r a m m a r , some c a n n o t r e a d p u n c t u a t i o n r u l e s , a n d s u c h a s u r p r i s i n g n u m b e r do not u n d e r s t a n d e v e n t r a d i t i o n a l grammatical terminology, let alone simple t e s t s for grammatical d i s a m b i g u a t i n g s t r u c t u r e s " (1990:12), he blames on t h e e m p h a s i s of g r a m m a r s on function. Even if his criticism is b i t i n g , he is no d o u b t r i g h t . But s u c h i n s i g h t s and t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g a p p r o a c h a r e difficult to s p r e a d — p a r t l y b e c a u s e of t h e u n a v o i d a b l e complexity, p a r t l y b e c a u s e of t h e u n c o n v e n t i o n a l n a t u r e of t h e i d e a s . So t h e r e is a dilemma, a n d t h a t is t h e s e c o n d r e a s o n w h y t h e w r i t i n g of 'a nice simple g r a m m a r ' is so h a r d . The f a c t s r e q u i r e a terminology a n d

A NICE SIMPLE GRAMMAR

3

theoretical approach that departs from r e c e i v e d "wisdom" (or misinformation). The s t r u g g l e for t h e r i g h t middle p a t h — a p a t h t h a t t a k e s note of c u r r e n t t h i n k i n g , t h e f a c t s of a world l a n g u a g e with i t s countless educated manifestations or ' E n g l i s h e s , , the n e e d s of grammar u s e r s , a n d t h e p r e r e q u i s i t e s t h a t t h e y h a v e to b r i n g with them—will not e n d . But it must be b o r n e in mind t h a t it is not a s t r u g g l e b e t w e e n i n t e r n a l l y homogeneous camps, with modernism being on o n e s i d e a n d traditionalism on t h e o t h e r . Although both camps s h a r e c e r t a i n f e a t u r e s t h a t make them a p p e a r sufficiently coherent (Stuurman 1989), t h e r e are enormous differences in a p p r o a c h , in s c o p e , in i n t e n t i o n , a n d in o t h e r w a y s . T h e s e i n t e r n a l complexities, too, e s c a p e c o n v e n t i o n a l wisdom. T h e r e is a sufficiently l a r g e b o d y of r e s e a r c h on modern English r e f e r e n c e g r a m m a r s (see, for i n s t a n c e , t h e collection in G r a u s t e i n / L e i t n e r 1986). T h e r e is also a r i c h l i t e r a t u r e on t r a d i t i o n a l g r a m m a r s of English u p to t h e e a r l y 19th c e n t u r y ( P u n k e 1941; Watanabe 1958; Michael 1970; L e i t n e r 1986). T h e r e is also a g r o w i n g b o d y of work on i n d i v i d u a l g r a m m a r i a n s , s u c h a s Kruisinga (Essen 1983), J e s p e r s e n ( J u u l / N i e l s e n 1989). But t h e r e is a g a p for t h e 19th c e n t u r y till t o d a y . And it is t h a t p e r i o d t h a t is of s u c h i m p o r t a n c e for t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of grammatical t h i n k i n g a n d i t s a c c e p t a n c e (or r e j e c t i o n ) a t all e d u c a t i o n a l levels t o d a y . Major d e v e l o p m e n t s took place on t h e scientific s i d e , t h e s t a t u s of English r e a c h e d i t s c u r r e n t level, a n d t h e e d u c a t i o n a l domain u n d e r w e n t massive c h a n g e s (Leitner 1989). On t h e scientific s i d e , t h e r e was t h e r i s e of t h e h i s t o r i c a l - c o m p a r a t i v e method, neo-grammarianism, the beginnings of structuralism, g e n e r a t i v i s m a n d t h e i n t e r e s t in t h e d a t a - o r i e n t e d l a n g u a g e . The English l a n g u a g e r e a c h e d i t s w i d e s t g e o g r a p h i c e x p a n s i o n . It became a n a t i v e , o r a s e c o n d a n d official l a n g u a g e in t h e colonies, r e p l a c e d t h e Celtic l a n g u a g e s in Wales, Scotland, a n d a b o v e all I r e l a n d . On t h e e d u c a t i o n a l s i d e , t h e r e c o n s e q u e n t l y e m e r g e d a massive demand for English t e a c h i n g a s a mother t o n g u e , a s e c o n d a n d f o r e i g n l a n g u a g e . These language-external circumstances crucially bear upon t h e w r i t i n g a n d p r o p a g a t i o n of t r a d i t i o n a l g r a m m a r s of English. They r e c e i v e d s u c h a n e m p h a s i s worldwide, i r r e s p e c t i v e of t h e l i n g u i s t i c , c u l t u r a l , o r o t h e r b a c k g r o u n d s , t h a t t h e i r terminology, c o n t e n t a n d

4

GERHARD LEITNER

s t r u c t u r e became p a r t a n d p a r c e l of a ' g o o d ' e d u c a t i o n (see Michael, t h i s vol.)» Grammar w r i t e r s faced t h e s e c h a l l e n g e s a n d g r a d u a l l y new solutions arose that transformed the traditional paradigm without r e p l a c i n g it a l t o g e t h e r . But t h e m i d - c e n t u r y s p l i t b e t w e e n t h e more t r a d i t i o n - b o u n d school g r a m m a r s a n d t h e scientific o n e s , a l t h o u g h d e p l o r a b l e , was u n a v o i d a b l e . The i n t e r e s t s of t h e two s i d e s w e r e too d i f f e r e n t to be satisfied in o n e a n d t h e same t y p e of h a n d b o o k . T h e o r e t i c a l , d e s c r i p t i v e , a p p l i e d , a n d e d u c a t i o n a l l i n g u i s t i c s went t h e i r own p a t h s . The division was slow, a s o n e k n o w s , b u t , w h e n it came, a compromise was difficult, p e r h a p s impossible, a s S t u u r m a n (1989) a r g u e s . This volume c o n t r i b u t e s to t h e r e s e a r c h g a p in t h i s a r e a . It brings together research from international experts on the h i s t o r i o g r a p h y of English grammar w r i t i n g who deal with a v a r i e t y of t o p i c s t h a t h a v e b e e n g r o u p e d a r o u n d t h r e e o v e r l a p p i n g s e c t i o n s : n a t i v e g r a m m a r s , n o n - n a t i v e g r a m m a r s , a n d grammatical a n a l y s e s . F i r s t l y , n a t i v e t r a d i t i o n a l g r a m m a r s . Ian Michael i n t r o d u c e s t h a t section with a n o v e r v i e w o v e r t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e o u t p u t a n d t h e p r o g r e s s in t h e w r i t i n g of g r a m m a r s in t h e 19th c e n t u r y . His e s t i m a t e of n e a r l y 1,000 d i f f e r e n t grammar t i t l e s , which e x c l u d e s E u r o p e a n c o u n t r i e s , is a c l e a r indication of t h e i m p o r t a n c e t h a t was p u t on grammar t e a c h i n g . J o h n Walmsley, R o b e r t Burchfield, a n d C h a r l o t t e Downey focus on d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s of g r a m m a t i c o g r a p h y in Great Britain. E.A. S o n n e n s c h e i n is a k e y f i g u r e in t h e c r u c i a l i s s u e of harmonizing grammatical terminology for modern l a n g u a g e t e a c h i n g a t l a r g e . Burchfield p l a c e s t h e motivations a n d a c h i e v e m e n t of t h e Fowler b r o t h e r s in t h e w r i t i n g of u s a g e manuals in t h e b r o a d e r h i s t o r i c a l a n d c o n t e m p o r a r y c o n t e x t . T h e i r work h a s b e e n of t h e g r e a t e s t i m p o r t a n c e in t h e s h a p i n g of a t t i t u d e s o n ' g o o d ' English worldwide, a l t h o u g h t h e y "did n o t " , a s Burchfield s a y s , "aim a t a n y r e a d e r s h i p b e y o n d t h e B r i t i s h I s l e s . " But t h a t r e a d e r s h i p did i n c l u d e I r e l a n d , a n d t h a t is t h e c o n c e r n of Downey's p a p e r . She s h o w s how closely r e l a t e d t h e t e a c h i n g t r a d i t i o n s in I r e l a n d a n d E n g l a n d w e r e , b u t also t h a t t e a c h i n g was n o t so s u c c e s s f u l a s to e r a d i c a t e t h e ' t r u e ' I r i s h idiom. The c o n t r i b u t i o n s b y C h a r l o t t e Downey, J o h n Algeo, a n d K u r t Wächtler h i g h l i g h t grammar w r i t i n g a n d t e a c h i n g in America. The two

A NICE SIMPLE GRAMMAR

5

former p a p e r s a r e c o m p l e m e n t a r y in d e a l i n g with t h e 19th a n d 20th c e n t u r i e s r e s p e c t i v e l y . The 19th c e n t u r y slowly b u t g r a d u a l l y moved to a s e n t e n c e - b a s e d format, a n i n d u c t i v e a p p r o a c h to grammar t e a c h i n g , b u t t h e y c o n t i n u e d t h e n o r m a t i v e a t t i t u d e s of t h e old t r a d i t i o n . The 20th c e n t u r y , a l t h o u g h it c a n n o t be d i v o r c e d from i t s p r e d e c e s s o r s , was o p e n to t h e influence of t h e h i s t o r i c a l schools of t h e c o n t i n e n t (Maetzner, J e s p e r s e n , K r u i s i n g a ) , a s well a s to t h o s e American d e v e l o p m e n t s in l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r i z i n g ( s t r u c t u r a l i s m ) a n d t h e s t u d y of u s a g e . H.L. Mencken, G.O. Curme, a n d C.C. P r i e s a r e t h e most o u t s t a n d i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . Kurt Wächtler d e a l s with a n o t h e r well-known k e y f i g u r e t h a t is often o v e r l o o k e d in grammar w r i t i n g : W.D. Whitney. The s e c o n d s e c t i o n f o c u s e s on g r a m m a r s of English w r i t t e n b y n o n - n a t i v e s a n d c o n t a i n s p a p e r s b y Guy T o p s / X a v i e r D e k e y s e r , A r t h u r v a n E s s e n , Wolfgang S t r a u ß , G e r h a r d L e i t n e r , Konrad Macht, Hans K i r s t e n , a n d L i b u s e D u s k o v à In a p r o v o c a t i v e p a p e r (1989), S t u u r m a n a r g u e s v e r y forcefully for a division b e t w e e n ' n a t i v e ' a n d * n o n - n a t i v e ' g r a m m a r s . And i n d e e d t h e role of t h e l a t t e r h a s b e e n of p a r a m o u n t i m p o r t a n c e . Although H e n r y S w e e t ' s New English grammar is f r e q u e n t l y c o n s i d e r e d t h e f i r s t of t h e g r e a t s c h o l a r l y g r a m m a r s , it must be s e e n with t h e g r a m m a r s o r similar w o r k s of n o n - n a t i v e s , like Maetzner, K r u i s i n g a , Poutsma, Visser, K r ü g e r , a n d J e s p e r s e n . T o p s / D e k e y s e r look a t t h e (20th c e n t u r y ) Belgium c o n t r i b u t i o n , which is r e p r e s e n t e d , a m o n g s t o t h e r s , b y de Vocht, G. S c h e u e r w e g h s , a n d X. D e k e y s e r himself. L i b u s e Duskovå p r o v i d e s a national profile of p o s t w a r Czechoslovakia w h e r e t h e influence of P r a g u i a n s t r u c t u r ­ alism, mainly t h r o u g h V. M a t h e s i u s , is p a r a m o u n t . Both p a p e r s nicely complement J a n A a r t s ' profile of t h e Dutch c o n t r i b u t i o n (1986). The p a p e r s b y Straufi, L e i t n e r , Macht, a n d K i r s t e n look a t t h e major ' g r a m m a r - p r o d u c i n g ' c o u n t r y o u t s i d e Great Britain a n d t h e USA, viz. Germany. S t r a u ß p r o v i d e s a n o v e r v i e w of g r a m m a r s p r o d u c e d in Germany p r i o r to 1860, i.e. t h e p e r i o d t h a t m a r k s t h e h e y d e y of Bishop Lowth, Lindley M u r r a y , a n d William C o b b e t t . S t r a u B ' s s u r v e y e n d s w h e n E.A. Maetzner p u b l i s h e d h i s c o m p a r a t i v e h i s t o r i c a l grammar, which is u n d o u b t e d l y t h e most c o m p r e h e n s i v e one until Kruisinga's and Jespersen's. Karl a n d his son, Max, Deutschbein's grammars dominated the German school, even u n i v e r s i t y m a r k e t , from t h e late 19th c e n t u r y till t h e e a r l y 1950s.

6

GERHARD LEITNER

T h e i r g r a m m a r s w e r e r e p l a c e d b y A. L a m p r e c h t ' s , which is still in u s e in Germany. The German g r a m m a r s i l l u s t r a t e , like t h o s e p r o d u c e d in t h e o t h e r n o n - E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g c o u n t r i e s , t h e n a t i v e influence from l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r i z i n g , from t h e n a t i v e grammaticographical t r a d i t i o n s , a n d a c o n c e r n with c o n t r a s t i v e i s s u e s . The t h i r d section deals with t h e l i n g u i s t i c b a c k g r o u n d in t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of selected grammatical a r e a s a n d t h e p r o g r e s s t h a t is v i s i b l e . The g r a m m a r s i n v e s t i g a t e d a r e t h o s e d i s c u s s e d in t h e two o t h e r s e c t i o n s , b u t also g r a m m a r s t h a t d e r i v e from t h e Survey of English Usage, such as the recent Comprehensive grammar of the English language by Quirk et al. (1985). J a n A a r t s c o m p a r e s t h e t r e a t m e n t of t h e n o u n p h r a s e in v a r i o u s c o n t e m p o r a r y g r a m m a r s , J o c h e n Niemeyer, a s e c o n d a r y school t e a c h e r himself, s u r v e y s t e n s e a n d a s p e c t , Alan Walton t h e t r e a t m e n t of modals a n d modality, a n d C h r i s t o p h e r L y o n s t h e a r t i c l e s . Heinrich Ramisch's p a p e r c o n c l u d e s t h i s section with a n a r e a t h a t h a s so far not b e e n t o u c h e d u p o n , viz. t h e a w a r e n e s s t h a t t h e r e a r e , a t least, two v a r i e t i e s of English, B r i t i s h and American. While t h e e a r l i e r g r a m m a r s w e r e c o g n i z a n t of American English d i f f e r e n c e s (cf. also Algeo a n d L e i t n e r , t h i s volume), t h e implications w e r e d o w n p l a y e d , b u t a r e i n c r e a s i n g l y r e c o g n i z e d t o d a y . T h e s e four c o n t r i b u t i o n s to t h e t r e a t m e n t of p a r t i c u l a r c o n c e r n s of g r a m m a r s a g r e e on t h e t r e m e n d o u s p r o g r e s s made in t h e t h e o r e t i c a l a p p r o a c h e s a n d t h e c o v e r a g e of r e l e v a n t d a t a . They also show how t h e n a t i v e , mainly B r i t i s h t r a d i t i o n in g r a m m a r w r i t i n g h a s , with i n c r e a s i n g p a c e , influenced modern g r a m m a r s worldwide so t h a t one must fear a decline of t h e n o n native tradition altogether. The three sections together provide an international p e r s p e c t i v e on t h e c o n t i n u i t y and development of traditional g r a m m a r s . But, a s Algeo r i g h t l y s a y s , " t h e term 'traditional g r a m m a r s ' ... is b y no means clear in i t s r e f e r e n c e . " ( t h i s volume, p . 113). While no a t t e m p t is made t h e r e f o r e , to define it f u r t h e r , t h e c o n c e r n of t r a d i t i o n a l g r a m m a r s with t h e ' whole l a n g u a g e ' , r a t h e r t h a n with ' r e l e v a n t ' p a r t s of it, with d a t a , r a t h e r t h a n t h e o r y , with e d u c a t i o n , r a t h e r t h a n t h e p s y c h o l o g y of mind a s well a s i t s i n t e r n a l flexibility t h a t allows it to d r a w on many sources—come out sufficiently s t r o n g l y .

A NICE SIMPLE GRAMMAR

7

This book e n r i c h e s o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g in a n a r e a t h a t is so i m p o r t a n t if t o d a y ' s p r o g r e s s is to be e v a l u a t e d from a b r o a d e r h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e . And e v a l u a t i o n is n e c e s s a r y for many r e a s o n s , if only to p r o v i d e a t h i r d a n s w e r to C h a l k e r ' s q u e s t i o n : what is 'a nice simple g r a m m a r ' in t h e f i r s t place? C e r t a i n l y , a n o s t a l g i c r e f e r e n c e b a c k — t o t r a d i t i o n a l grammar—is a s h a r d a n d f r u i t l e s s a s one to c u r r e n t t h e o r y - i n f o r m e d grammar. P r o g r e s s can only b e found by a careful c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e i n t e r n a l complexities a n d t h e p r o g r e s s made in e i t h e r field, a n d b y s t u d y i n g t h e specific n e e d s a n d p r a c t i c e s of i n t e n d e d u s e r s . I n t h a t r e s p e c t , t h i s volume h o p e s to stimulate r e s e a r c h into t h e w h y s of t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of g r a m m a r s , i r r e s p e c t i v e of p a r t i c u l a r p e r s u a s i o n s , a n d t h e c h a l l e n g e s t h a t a r i s e o u t of t h e c h a n g i n g role of English a n d of s t u d e n t s a n d u s e r s of g r a m m a r s alike.

REFERENCES A a r t s , J a n . 1986. "English Grammars a n d t h e Dutch C o n t r i b u t i o n : 1891 - 1985". The English Reference Grammar ed. by G e r h a r d L e i t n e r , 363-386. T ü b i n g e n : Niemeyer. Adler, A n d r e a s , Helmut Hirschmüller, G e r h a r d L e i t n e r , Katrin P r ü f e r , a n d Gabriele S c h n o r r . 1986. "Grammars of English Versus S t u d e n t s of E n g l i s h " . The English Reference Grammar ed. b y G e r h a r d L e i t n e r , 223-289. T ü b i n g e n : Niemeyer. Bailey, C h a r l e s - J a m e s . 1990. Minigrammar, Phonetic Manuals, Bislama Minigrammar, Berlin: T e c h n i s c h e Univ. Burchfield, Robert. 1986. "Burchfield on Grammar ( I n t e r v i e w with B a r r y Tomalin)". English Today 5. 17-18. C h a l k e r , Sylvia. 1984. "Why Can't Someone Write a Nice Simple Grammar?". English Language Teaching Journal 38(2). 79-85. E s s e n . A r t h u r v a n . 1983. E, Kruisinga, A Chapter in the History of Linguistics in the Netherlands, Leiden: Nijhoff. P u n k e , Otto. 1941. Die Frühzeit der englischen Grammatik, Bern: S c h r i f t e n d e r L i t e r a r i s c h e n Gesellschaft Bern. G r a u s t e i n , Gottfried et ah 1977. English Grammar. A University Handbook, Leipzig: E n z y k l o p ä d i e . Grau s t e i n , Gottfried, a n d G e r h a r d L e i t n e r , e d s . 1989. Reference Grammars and Modern Linguistic Theory, T ü b i n g e n : Niemeyer. J u u l , A r n e , a n d Hans Nielsen, e d s . 1989. Otto Jespersen: Facets of his Life and Work, Amsterdam: Benjamins.

8

GERHARD LEITNER

Leech, Geoffrey, and J a n S v a r i v i k . 1975. A Communicative Grammar of English, London: Longman. Leech, Geoffrey, M a r g a r e t Deuchar, a n d R o b e r t Hoogenraad. 1982. English Grammar for Today. A New Introduction. London: Macmillan. L e i t n e r , G e r h a r d . 1986. The English Reference Grammar, Tübingen: Niemeyer. —. , 1989. BBC English und Englisch lernen mit der BBC, München: Langenscheidt. . f o r t h c . "English a s a P l u r i c e n t r i c L a n g u a g e " . Pluricentric Languages e d . by Michael Clyne. Berlin: Mouton-de G r u y t e r . Michael, Ian. 1970. English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. P r e s s . Quirk, Randolph, S i d n e y Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, a n d Jan S v a r t v i k . 1972. À Grammar of Contemporary English, London: Longman. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, London: Longman. Sinclair, J o h n . 1972. A Course in Spoken English: Grammar. London: Oxford Univ. P r e s s . ah 1990. Collins-Cobuild Sinclair, J o h n , a n d Gwyneth Fox et London/Glasgow English Grammar, London/Glasgow: Collins. S t u u r m a n , F r i t s . 1989. " G e n e r a t i v e Grammar a n d D e s c r i p t i v e Grammar: Beyond j u x t a p o s i t i o n ? " . Reference Grammars and Modern Linguistic Theory e d . b y Gottfried G r a u s t e i n a n d G e r h a r d L e i t n e r , 229-254. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Sweet, Henry. 1881-1898. A New English Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wächtler, Kurt. 1987. " L e t t e r - t o - t h e - E d i t o r " . English Today 9. 5-6. Werlich, Egon. 1976. A Text Grammar of English. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. zur Ahhängigkeit der frühneuWatanabe, Shoichi. 1958. Studien englischen Grammatiken von den mittelalterlichen Lateingrammatiken. M ü n s t e r : M. Kramer.

Part,

N a t i v e

I

Grammars

o f

English

M O R E

THAN

E N O U G H

E N G L I S H

G R A M M A R S IAN MICHAEL

University

of London

Most grammars of English published in Britain during the nineteenth century are dull, but they are not altogether uninteresting, They are dull, especially during the second half of the century, because they impose on the language a stifling form of analysis. They are interesting, especially during the first half of the century, because many of the authors are aware of their situation and try to ease it by invoking ideas, from pedagogy and from linguistics, which are still debatable. There were a great many grammars, issued in very large numbers. They were repetitive; many were merely commercial ventures, scholastically naive. We must suppose, however, that they helped to determine the views about language of thousands of adults and tens of thousands of children. Many of these views were in fact contradicted by the everyday experience of the children to whom they were taught. But English grammar had become, and continued to develop as, a tight descriptive and analytical system, dogmatically taught. It was taught dogmatically because its subject matter was too difficult for the ordinary teacher to handle empirically, or even critically. In addition it was thought to have behind it centuries of authority. The pupils perforce surrendered to the authority and learnt by heart techniques designed to teach them linguistic skills which, unknown to them and to their teachers, they already possessed. Such a situation, if it were unfamiliar, would be regarded with astonishment. It will not astonish the linguist, but a closer look at it may interest him.

12

IAN MICHAEL

One of t h e most c u r i o u s f e a t u r e s of t h e g r a m m a r s is t h e i r a b u n d a n c e . I n e v e r y y e a r of t h e c e n t u r y t h e r e w e r e p r o d u c e d , on a v e r a g e , between e i g h t a n d nine n e w g r a m m a r s i n t e n d e d wholly or p a r t l y for school u s e . In only one y e a r , 1807, w e r e no new g r a m m a r s i s s u e d ; in 1882 t w e n t y - o n e new o n e s w e r e i s s u e d . The d i s t r i b u t i o n b y d e c a d e s is a s follows, t h e b r a c k e t e d f i g u r e s showing t h e lowest a n d h i g h e s t n u m b e r of new g r a m m a r s i s s u e d in a n y one y e a r of t h e decade: 1801-10 36 1811-20 63 1821-30 64 1831-40 77 1841-50 113

(OJ (3; (3; (5; (7;

5) 9) 9) 13) 15)

1851-60 1861-70 1871-80 1881-90 1891-1900

100 102 113 114 74

(4; (5; (7; (3; (4;

15) 14) 16) 21) 10)

Total 856 T h e s e f i g u r e s would be r a i s e d by a c o m p r e h e n s i v e s e a r c h . As a n estimate it would be safe to i n c r e a s e t h e f i g u r e s for 1801-1880 b y five p e r c e n t a n d t h o s e for 1881-1900 b y fifteen p e r c e n t . T h e s e f i g u r e s exclude s c h o l a r l y w o r k s which would not be u s e d in school, in a d u l t c l a s s e s or b y t h e i n d i v i d u a l s e l f - i m p r o v e r . T h e y exclude t e x t b o o k s of composition, e x c e p t when t h e y a r e substantially combined with g r a m m a r s . They exclude s p e l l i n g b o o k s , which sometimes c o n t a i n e d a s p r i n k l i n g of grammar, a n d companionable h a n d b o o k s . I n c l u d e d a r e t e x t b o o k s of p u n c t u a t i o n ; some manuals of c o r r e c t u s a g e ; e l e m e n t a r y h i s t o r i e s of t h e l a n g u a g e ; e l e m e n t a r y w o r k s on etymology. Another s o u r c e of imprecision is t h e fact t h a t u n t i l 1850 a q u a r t e r of t h e g r a m m a r s a r e u n d a t e d . Here f i r s t e d i t i o n s of u n d a t e d books h a v e n e c e s s a r i l y b e e n allocated to a p a r t i c u l a r y e a r — o n s u c h e v i d e n c e a s is available. Useful i n f e r e n c e s c a n be d r a w n only from t h e b r o a d e s t a s p e c t s of t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n . It is safe to r e l a t e t h e r i s i n g n u m b e r s to r i s i n g levels of l i t e r a c y , to a n e x p a n s i o n of t h e r e a d i n g p u b l i c in a n d o u t of school, a n d to t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of p u b l i c examinations. E v e n t h e e d u c a t i o n a l c h a n g e s of t h e 1860s a n d 1870s a r e not u n a m b i g u o u s l y r e p r e s e n t e d in t h e f i g u r e s , a n d it would b e difficult to d r a w a n y i m p o r t a n t conclusion from t h e fact, for i n s t a n c e , t h a t in 1814 only t h r e e new g r a m m a r s w e r e p u b l i s h e d , w h e r e a s in each of t h e p r e c e d i n g t h r e e y e a r s , a n d in t h e following

MORE THAN ENOUGH ENGLISH GRAMMARS

13

y e a r , nine new g r a m m a r s w e r e p u b l i s h e d . By t h e last d e c a d e of t h e c e n t u r y t h e m a r k e t seems to have been p a r t l y s a t u r a t e d . The chronological d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e t e x t s may be of i n t e r e s t to social a n d economic h i s t o r i a n s , b u t it is of less i n t e r e s t to t h e l i n g u i s t t h a n is t h e size of t h e o u t p u t of new g r a m m a r s , steadily maintained o v e r a c e n t u r y . To t h e s e 856 g r a m m a r s must be a d d e d two o t h e r r e l a t e d s o u r c e s of linginstically influential material: t h o s e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y g r a m m a r s which w e r e still being r e i s s u e d d u r i n g t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y a n d t h e f u r t h e r e d i t i o n s of t h o s e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y g r a m m a r s which achieved some p o p u l a r i t y . T h e r e had b e e n a s h a r p i n c r e a s e in the n u m b e r of new g r a m m a r s d u r i n g t h e 1770s and 1780s, b u t a l t h o u g h some copies would s u r v i v e in schools it was Lindley M u r r a y ' s grammar of 1795 and i t s abridgment, of 1797 which were r e g u l a r l y r e p r i n t e d d u r i n g t h e f i r s t d e c a d e s of t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y . E v e n t u a l l y M u r r a y ' s grammar r e c e i v e d t h e t r e a t m e n t which had b e e n g i v e n to Lily's Latin grammar: t h e name was r e t a i n e d , b u t t h e s u b s t a n c e was a l t e r e d . S u c h edited t e x t s of M u r r a y a r e h e r e t r e a t e d as new w o r k s . If a grammar p r o v e d p o p u l a r t h e n u m b e r of editions (often merely impressions) could be large. James H u t c h i n s o n ' s Juvenile Grammar had 59 e d i t i o n s between a b o u t 1847 and 1881; James Douglas's An Initiatory Grammar, a b o u t 1850, had i t s 109th edition in 1871, a n d his Principles of English Grammar, a b o u t 1851, had more t h a n a h u n d r e d e d i t i o n s in t w e n t y - f i v e y e a r s . The v a s t n u m b e r of g r a m m a r s c o n t r a s t s with t h e uniformity of t h e i r c o n t e n t s . Of all s u b j e c t s in t h e school c u r r i c u l u m English grammar was t h e most r i g i d a n d u n c h a n g i n g . It seems always to h a v e had a power of a t t r a c t i n g p u b l i c i n t e r e s t o u t of all p r o p o r t i o n to i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s a s a s u b j e c t of i n s t r u c t i o n . T e a c h e r s h a v e i n s i s t e d , for two c e n t u r i e s , on w r i t i n g g r a m m a r s which a d d e d little or n o t h i n g to what had g o n e before. Commercial c o n s i d e r a t i o n s do not explain the profusion of g r a m m a r s : it was t h e i m p o r t a n c e g i v e n to grammar in schools and in t h e p u b l i c mind which c r e a t e d t h e commercial m a r k e t . Even t o d a y it is grammar, not l i t e r a t u r e , which r e p r e s e n t s English a s a s u b j e c t — n o t in t h e opinion of t h e t e a c h e r s b u t in the assumptions of t h e p u b l i c . One can only s u p p o s e t h a t w h a t people are p e r c e i v i n g , o b s c u r e l y , is t h e i m p o r t a n c e of l a n g u a g e . Their obstinate e m p h a s i s on w h a t is called t r a d i t i o n a l grammar is t h e i r recognition that the s t u d y of language is important. This recognition,

14

IAN MICHAEL

e m e r g i n g d u r i n g t h e second half of t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y , is one of t h e s t r a n d s in t h e development of n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y g r a m m a r s . The uniformity of t h e g r a m m a r s is not, of c o u r s e , a b s o l u t e . T h e r e were i n n o v a t i o n s , b u t t h e i n n o v a t i v e g r a m m a r s a r e little known a n d , so far a s we can tell, l a r g e l y u n i n f l u e n t i a l . The uniformity is real. Those of i t s p r i n c i p a l c o m p o n e n t s which a p p e a r t h r o u g h o u t t h e c e n t u r y a r e : 1. p a r t s of s p e e c h ; n i n e , often t e n a i t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e c e n t u r y a n d u s u a l l y e i g h t t o w a r d s t h e end] defined and s u b c l a s s i f i e d ; 2. R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of n u m b e r , g e n d e r , c a s e , comparison, t e n s e , mood; 3. L e t t e r , word, s e n t e n c e ; 4. Analysis of t h e s e n t e n c e into s u b j e c t , v e r b , o b j e c t ; 5. Rules of s y n t a x , m e r g i n g with q u e s t i o n s of s t y l e and u s a g e ; especially a g r e e m e n t , g o v e r n m e n t , t r a n s i t i v i t y , modification, ellipsis. From 1850 additional c o m p o n e n t s r e c e i v e d a t t e n t i o n , not n e c e s s a r i l y for t h e f i r s t time b u t significantly i n c r e a s e d : p h r a s e ; s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e ; complement; etymology; h i s t o r y of t h e l a n g u a g e . Prom 1870 c l a u s e a n a l y s i s , u n d e r t h a t name, was e l a b o r a t e d a s a r e g u l a r t e a c h i n g p r o c e d u r e which gained, and held, s t r o n g s u p p o r t from t h e t e a c h e r s . T h e y could u n d e r s t a n d it; t h e y could make t h e i r p u p i l s u n d e r s t a n d it; t h e y could say d e c i s i v e l y when t h e i r p u p i l s ' o p e r a t i o n of it was u n s u c c e s s f u l . Clause a n a l y s i s had t h e a c q u i e s c e n c e of t h e philologists, if only b e c a u s e it was said to h a v e been d e r i v e d , by J.D. Morell a n d , l a t e r , C.P. Mason, from Carl F e r d i n a n d B e c k e r ' s Deutsche Grammatik of 1829. The p r o c e d u r e a p p e a l e d p a r t i c u l a r l y to t h e logicians—not to t h e r e a l logicians, b u t to t h o s e who found grammar so a m b i g u o u s , i n c o n s i s t e n t a n d untidy t h a t t h e y t u r n e d , a s t h e y had done for c e n t u r i e s , to logic, t h r o u g h which, t h e y t h o u g h t , l a n g u a g e could be made to b e h a v e p r o p e r l y . Such a p e r s o n , in 1874, was t h e a n o n y m o u s a u t h o r in t h e London Quarterly (42. 147-181) of an a r t i c l e a b o u t six r e c e n t l y r e i s s u e d English g r a m m a r s . He a d d s g e n e r a l comments a b o u t t h e condition of t h e s u b j e c t , which he s e e s , r a t h e r late in t h e d a y , a s b e i n g in t r a n s i t i o n : Lindley M u r r a y a n d Lennie a r e gone; " t h e science of philology" h a s b e e n b o r n "within t h e l a s t half c e n t u r y " a n d " t h e v e r y multitude of g r a m m a r s teeming from t h e p r e s s is a n e v i d e n c e of a complete r e v o l u t i o n in t h e p u b l i c mind." C.P. Mason's English Grammar is p r a i s e d b e c a u s e his s y s t e m of c l a u s e a n a l y s i s is b a s e d on logical, r a t h e r t h a n on grammatical, c r i t e r i a . The w r i t e r s t r e s s e s how h a r d it is to maintain t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e p a r t s of

MORE THAN ENOUGH ENGLISH GRAMMARS

15

s p e e c h a n d , more widely, believes t h a t " t h e B o u n d a r i e s between Etymology and S y n t a x a r e somewhat difficult to s e t t l e . " A logical basis is t h e r e f o r e n e c e s s a r y for all forms of a n a l y s i s : "Logic e x p o u n d s the laws of t h o u g h t , and grammar t h e laws of l a n g u a g e . " The uniformity of t h e s e g r a m m a r s is often a t t r i b u t e d to t h e dominance of t h e Latin t r a d i t i o n . The c u l t u r a l dominance of Latin was real, b u t is not in itself a sufficient explanation of t h e condition of the English g r a m m a r s . P a r t of t h e explanation lies in the fact, not always admitted, t h a t some Latinate grammar can be applied s u c c e s s f u l l y to English. ' S u c c e s s ' means merely t h a t by a p p l y i n g the grammar t h e pupil can a c h i e v e some u n d e r s t a n d i n g of s t r u c t u r e and p r o c e s s ; it does not n e c e s s a r i l y mean t h a t he a c h i e v e s as much u n d e r s t a n d i n g as might be a t t a i n e d t h r o u g h a l t e r n a t i v e s y s t e m s . The t r a d i t i o n a l Latinate m e t h o d s failed to s a t i s f y t h e n e e d s of s t u d e n t s of a mother t o n g u e b u t , a l t h o u g h not a few t e a c h e r s saw t h e failure, only a small n u m b e r saw it s h a r p l y e n o u g h to make them overcome the i n e r t i a of t h e Latinate system. ' I n e r t i a ' is valid: t h e t r a d i t i o n a l grammar had been u s e d for so long t h a t only a powerful and c l e a r l y d i r e c t e d e x t e r n a l force could c h a n g e it. But if t h e grammatical s y s t e m p o s s e s s e d i n e r t i a so did t h e teachers» Most t e a c h e r s , d u r i n g t h e whole c e n t u r y b u t especially d u r i n g i t s f i r s t sixty y e a r s , lacked t h e q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y of e d u c a t i o n which t h e i r work r e q u i r e d ; nor did t h e y h a v e t h e l e i s u r e or t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s n e c e s s a r y for f u r t h e r s t u d y . English grammar was a s u b j e c t which t h e y liked. I t s c o n t e n t was fixed; it g e n e r a l l y r e q u i r e d t h e p u p i l to l e a r n much b y h e a r t ; in i t s e a r l i e r s t a g e s it could be marked r i g h t or w r o n g without h e s i t a t i o n ; it was difficult for t h e pupil and e a s y for t h e t e a c h e r . T h e r e were powerful r e a s o n s why t e a c h e r s should wish to p r e s e r v e a s y s t e m which eased some of their work, especially when a n y t i n k e r i n g with it would expose them to t h e ambiguity, t h e r e l a t i v i t y a n d t h e s l i p p e r i n e s s of l a n g u a g e in real u s e . One a s p e c t , a n d one c a u s e , of t h e uniformity a m o n g s t t h e grammars is t h e p o p u l a r i t y of Lindley M u r r a y ' s work. It was a t f i r s t imitated by g e n u i n e a d m i r e r s a n d t h e n exploited. M u r r a y ' s English Exercises, 1797, were s u p p l e m e n t e d by i n t r o d u c t i o n s (Giles 1803; Needes 1812) a n d by a d d i t i o n s (Thompson 1831); t h e y were e n l a r g e d (Davis 1839) and simplified (Lord 1832). M u r r a y ' s Abridgment of his

16

IAN MICHAEL

grammar, 1797, r e c e i v e d a t t e n t i o n of t h i s kind for l o n g e r e v e n t h a n t h e grammar itself. It was i n t r o d u c e d (Hack 1812), s u p p l e m e n t e d (Jowsey 1836; English Parsing Made Easy, c. 1840), e n l a r g e d (Giles 1839), improved (Harvey 1841) a n d made o v e r (Pinnock 1830; Gartly 1831; Ellis 1837; Smith 1860; Davis 1860; Walker a. 1877). The influence of M u r r a y ' s grammar itself is p e r v a s i v e . Some w r i t e r s commend it w i t h o u t g r o s s l y imitating it; o t h e r s copy it without r e f e r r i n g to it; many b a s e t h e i r g r a m m a r s on it. Amongst t h e e a r l i e s t to do so a r e Yardley 1808; Bradley 1809; T h a c k w r a y a. 1813; Grammatical Errors 1815; Pack wood 1816; Nesbitt 1817; Wilkins 1818. By t h e 1840s M u r r a y ' s influence was w a n i n g , a l t h o u g h a b o a r d game Murray's d a t e s from t h a t time. By 1850 called A Journey to Lindley James Hutchinson, who follows M u r r a y closely, n e v e r t h e l e s s implies some s u r p r i s e t h a t M u r r a y "still" c o n t i n u e s to be r e g a r d e d a s "a leading a u t h o r i t y on Grammar" ( p r e f a c e ) . By 1864 Roscoe Mongan is s a y i n g o u t r i g h t t h a t M u r r a y is no l o n g e r a d e q u a t e ( p r e f a c e ) . One of t h e most a p p a r e n t signs of t h e grammarians' r e s t l e s s n e s s is t h e i r a t t e m p t to improve t h e system of p a r t s of s p e e c h . Reforming g r a m m a r i a n s of t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , like t h e i r e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y p r e d e c e s s o r s , t e n d e d to t r e a t t h e d e s i g n a t i o n of p a r t s of s p e e c h a s a m a t t e r of f u n d a m e n t a l i m p o r t a n c e . Only a few, before and a f t e r Horne Tooke, a g r e e d with him t h a t t h e n u m b e r of p a r t s of s p e e c h should be "as you p l e a s e . E i t h e r Two, or Twenty, or more." Those who followed Tooke in t h i s m a t t e r a c c e p t e d his view t h a t n o u n a n d v e r b were in all l a n g u a g e s t h e only n e c e s s a r y p a r t s . S u c h is J o h n Kigan, 1823, whose book i n c l u d e s "an a t t e m p t to d i s c o v e r t h e p r i n c i p l e s of a new s y s t e m of English grammar." He is c r i t i c a l of Tooke's t h e o r y of a b b r e v i a t i o n , b u t he a g r e e s a b o u t t h e n e c e s s a r y p a r t s of s p e e c h : "The c l a s s e s of o u r p r i m a r y w o r d s a r e f o u n d e d upon t h e n a t u r e of t h e things which t h e y r e s p e c t i v e l y r e p r e s e n t ... The c l a s s e s of o u r s e c o n d a r y w o r d s , a r e f o u n d e d on the u s e s which we make of them" (pp 81-82). The u n c e r t a i n t y in t h i s s t a t e m e n t a b o u t t h e meaning of things is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of most of t h e g r a m m a r i a n s : t h e y avoid, or do not r e c o g n i s e , t h e need to make it clear w h e t h e r things i n c l u d e s , or e x c l u d e s , i d e a s . Goodwin, on the other h a n d f a v o u r s , b u t does not u s e , a division into " w o r d s which are u s e d a s names for i d e a s ... a n d w o r d s not so u s e d " (1855:16). Henry R o g e r s , 1838, follows Tooke on t h e p a r t s of s p e e c h , but

MORE THAN ENOUGH ENGLISH GRAMMARS

17

without going into a n y detail; Thompson, 1858, who is in a g r e a t muddle, makes two p r i m a r y p a r t s , " e n t i t i e s " a n d "existences", t o g e t h e r with c o n j u n c t i o n s a n d " d i s j u n c t i o n s " , which may belong to e i t h e r of the p r i m a r y p a r t s (p. 12). I s b i s t e r 1865, also a c c e p t s n o u n and v e r b a s t h e only p r i m a r y p a r t s (p. 31) b u t he u s e s t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l e i g h t - p a r t s y s t e m for t e a c h i n g p u r p o s e s . The more f r e q u e n t r e d u c e d s y s t e m of p a r t s is a t h r e e - f o l d one: e i t h e r noun, v e r b and p a r t i c l e (St Quentin 1.812; Clarke 1853; Manual of the Analysis of Language 1856) or s u b s t a n i v e , a d j e c t i v e , v e r b (Booth 1835). Clarke r e c o r d s (not v e r y p e r c e p t i b l e ) obligations to more t h a n t h i r t y g r a m m a r i a n s b u t d e s c r i b e s himself a s t r e a d i n g " t h e f r e s h p a t h which Horne Tooke a n d Latham h a v e so well followed." The f r e s h p a t h seems to be t h a t of c o m p a r a t i v e philology, to which Clarke allots his f i r s t t h i r t y p a g e s . William Hill, 1833, who calls Tooke " p e r h a p s t h e a b l e s t Etymologist t h a t e v e r lived", differs from him o v e r t h e p a r t s of s p e e c h , which Hill d e s i g n a t e s n o u n , verb, d e s c r i p t i v e , c o n n e c t i v e and p r o n o u n (Lesson 1.8). Both in his Fifteen Lessons and in his l a t e r The Grammatical Textbook, Hill d i s c u s s e s " t h e Host of Grammar Books, with which society h a s been p e s t e r e d , d u r i n g t h e last s e v e n t y or e i g h t y y e a r s . " He q u o t e s more t h a n t w e n t y - f i v e g r a m m a r i a n s , occasionally with a p p r o v a l : Cobbett is t h e only o n e to w r i t e "intelligibly" a b o u t t h e p a r t i c i p l e (Lesson VIII); J o h n Dalton is commended for his c a t e g o r y of definitives (VI. 17). W.G. Wrightson 1882, also h a s a five-fold s y s t e m , on e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a . He b e g i n s his grammar, for l i n g u i s t i c a n d p e d a g o g i c a l r e a s o n s , with t h e s e n t e n c e , a n d t h e t r a d i t i o n a l p a r t s of s p e e c h a r e s u b s u m e d u n d e r t h e five "functional e l e m e n t s " which make u p t h e sentence: v e r b s , connectives, substantivals, adjectivals, adverbials (p. 41). The only e x p a n s i o n of t h e p a r t s of s p e e c h a b o v e t h e t r a d i t i o n a l maximum of ten is C h r i s t o p h e r E a r n s h a w ' s twelve. I n The Grammatical Remembrancer, 1817, he t r e a t s t h e r e l a t i v e a s a p a r t d i s t i n c t from b o t h a d j e c t i v e a n d p r o n o u n , and t h e auxiliary a s d i s t i n c t from t h e v e r b . During t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y t h e r e had b e e n many a t t e m p t s to simplify t h e names of t h e p a r t s of s p e e c h . The i n t e n t i o n was sometimes to u s e ' E n g l i s h ' r a t h e r t h e n ' L a t i n ' names, a n d t h i s q u a s i l i n g u i s t i c p u r p o s e was c o n t i n u e d , and e x t e n d e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e whole terminology of grammar, by William B a r n e s 1842 a n d 1854, for whom

18

IAN MICHAEL

t h e v e r b was a " d e e d - w o r d " a n d t h e c o n j u n c t i o n a " b i n d - w o r d " . The term adnoun, used since the seventeenth c e n t u r y as an alternative to adjective, was still f a v o u r e d by more t h a n t w e n t y g r a m m a r i a n s in t h e n i n e t e e n t h . It is u s e d most f r e q u e n t l y b e t w e e n 1810 a n d 1820; t h e r e a f t e r occasionally. The a n o n y m o u s A Commonsense Grammar, b y R.H., 1851, which u s e s adnoun t h r o u g h o u t , is so o l d - f a s h i o n e d t h a t it c a n d e n y t h e n e e d , in a n English grammar, for a n y s y n t a x — " i t s p r i n c i p l e s a r e so simple". The more t h o u g h t f u l William Manneville, in t h e same y e a r , also u s e s adnoun, t o g e t h e r with prenoun for t h e a r t i c l e . Names m a t t e r . In Mrs Gaskell's novel North and South, p u b l i s h e d a few y e a r s a f t e r Manneville's g r a m m a r , a t e a c h e r is c o r r e c t e d in f r o n t of h e r c l a s s for failing to call t h e indefinite a r t i c l e "an a d j e c t i v e a b s o l u t e " . Most i n n o v a t i o n s in terminology w e r e p r o p o s e d in o r d e r to simplify t e a c h i n g . A few w e r e p u t forward b e c a u s e it was t h o u g h t t h a t t h e new name was linguistically more c o r r e c t . Such w e r e William Hill's actuative, which h e u s e d for t h e nominative c a s e of p r o n o u n s a n d for t h e s u b j e c t of a s e n t e n c e , a n d his signs or conjugators a s a l t e r n a t i v e names for auxiliary v e r b s (1833, L e s s o n s V.7; XII.l). Gerald M u r r a y , 1847, is t y p i c a l of t h e lone r e f o r m e r . He s a v a g e s all o t h e r g r a m m a r i a n s , b u t offers h i s own reformed terminology with a s s u r a n c e . Like many before him he p r e f e r s time to tense, a n d he p r o p o s e s a s y s t e m of t h r e e t e n s e s , which he calls detached past, attached past and future. He is trying to a s s o c i a t e names with f u n c t i o n s : t h e v e r b is called assertive or interrogative; the adverb the sentence descriptive. J.B. Thompson, 1858, also t i n k e r s with terminology, b u t his most i n t e r e s t i n g s u g g e s t i o n is a n " i n d e f i n i t e " d e g r e e of comparison to accommodate a d j e c t i v e s in -ish ( I n t r o d u c t i o n ) . D u r i n g t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y t h e school g r a m m a r s reflect, fairly a n d s e r i o u s l y , t h e i n t e r e s t in l a n g u a g e which i n c r e a s i n g l y moved both t h e s c h o l a s t i c a n d t h e g e n e r a l r e a d e r . Grammars of Latin a n d of English had for long d i s c u s s e d Latin a n d Greek r o o t s , a n d t h e h i s t o r y of t h e English l a n g u a g e had come occasionally i n t o school t e x t b o o k s from Wallis. T h e r e was n o t h i n g novel in s c h o o l c h i l d r e n being i n t r o d u c e d to g e n e r a l i d e a s a b o u t l a n g u a g e . D u r i n g t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y i n t e r e s t shifted from s p e c u l a t i o n a b o u t t h e o r i g i n of l a n g u a g e to a more f a c t u a l a p p r o a c h to t h e d i v e r s i t y of l a n g u a g e s . The t r e a t m e n t of t h e h i s t o r y of t h e l a n g u a g e was

MORE THAN ENOUGH ENGLISH GRAMMARS

19

b r o a d e s t d u r i n g t h e middle d e c a d e s of t h e c e n t u r y . The topic seems l a t e r to h a v e solidified a n d to h a v e become i n d i g e s t i b l e for s c h o o l b o y s . At a n e l e m e n t a r y level it t e n d e d to be n a r r o w e d down to etymology, p o p u l a r i n t e r e s t in which h a d b e e n e n c o u r a g e d by T r e n c h ' s On the Study of Words, 1851. T h r o u g h o u t t h e c e n t u r y t h e r e a r e s i g n s t h a t most of w h a t had h i t h e r t o b e e n t h o u g h t of a s "grammar" was gradually being considered more widely as " l a n g u a g e " . J. Taylor, 1804, a n d James Macgowan, 1817, g i v e a developmental t r e a t m e n t to t h e p a r t s of s p e e c h : t h e y a r e to be t a u g h t in t h e o r d e r in which t h e y o c c u r "in n a t u r e " , t h a t is, in t h e development of c h i l d r e n . The i n t e r j e c t i o n is to be t a u g h t f i r s t (an u n u s u a l promotion), t h e n t h e n o u n s u b s t a n t i v e , a r t i c l e , p r o n o u n , a d j e c t i v e a n d v e r b . J a n e Marcet, in t h e p r e f a c e to h e r widely u s e d Mary's Grammar, 1835, comments on t h e " m e t a p h y s i c a l difficulties" of grammar, a n d s h e t r i e s to overcome some of t h e s e b y a h i s t o r i c a l a p p r o a c h in a l a t e r work which s h e calls Conversations on Language, for Children, 1844. I n 1838 William Cramp called his grammar, aimed a t t h e "self- e d u c a t e d r e a d e r " , The Philosophy of Language, a n d in 1841 B.H. Smart w r o t e in t h e p r e f a c e to his The Accidence and Principles of English Grammar, " I t i s h i g h time t h a t Grammar, e v e n in t e a c h i n g t h e y o u n g , should conform its doctrine to t h e p h i l o s o p h y , which .... h a s placed itself b y t h e s i d e of philology, to give a n d r e c e i v e a s s i s t a n c e . " Hugh D o h e r t y , also in 1841, while g r a n t i n g t h a t " t h e p r i n c i p l e s of l a n g u a g e a r e , a t b e s t , a v e r y d r y s t u d y " , complains t h a t " t h e c o n f u s e d m e t h o d s of m e t a p h y s i c a l g r a m m a r i a n s h a v e r e n d e r e d it eminently r e p u l s i v e to t h e y o u n g mind." ( I n t r o d u c t i o n ) . But t h e a t t e m p t to p u t school grammar i n t o a wider s e t t i n g c o n t i n u e d in w o r k s s u c h a s George C r a n e ' s The Principles of Language Exemplified, 1843, and in a miniature grammar boldly called The Little Linguist; or, a Complete Guide to English Philology, 1846. The fact t h a t l a n g u a g e is "mutable a n d p r o g r e s s i v e " led Daniel Macintosh 1852, e v e n t h o u g h h e h a d b e e n t e a c h i n g for n e a r l y fifty y e a r s , to a t t a c k t h e complacency of Lindley M u r r a y a n d his followers, whose " s p i r i t of self s u f f i c i e n c y " e x t i n g u i s h e d in t e a c h e r s " t h e d e s i r e of o b t a i n i n g f u r t h e r k n o w l e d g e , from t h e p e r s u a s i o n t h a t no more was n e e d e d " ( p r e f a c e ) . What Macintosh w a n t e d , E r n e s t Adams s u p p l i e d . The i n t e n t i o n of his The Elements of the English Language, 1858, "is to f u r n i s h ... t h e r e s u l t s of r e c e n t

20

IAN MICHAEL

philological inquiries into the structure and history of the English language ... in an intelligible manner to the young student" (preface). Even in An Easy English Grammar for Beginners, 1862, Meiklejohn refers to the change of attitude to grammar: "The old question was: 'What is this or that word?' ... The new question is, 'What is it this or that word does?" The emphasis now falls on the fact that "Language is a living existence, and not a manufactured product. The thorough s t u d y of it is more difficult than the s t u d y of vegetable anatomy" (preface). Similarly Edwin Abbott, in a lecture On the Teaching of English, 1872, s e e s a lesson in English grammar as being an "introduction to language and the laws of language". The living nature of language is what the historical approach was, however drily, t r y i n g to illustrate, often inspired by Tooke e v e n when he was s e e n to be mistaken. From the beginning of the c e n t u r y there is some discussion of the history of English (Bradley 1809; Grant 1813). In 1815 Sutcliffe provides an appendix on AngloSaxon derivatives, and in the second edition, 1821, he adds "Specimens of c h a n g e s induced on language": p a s s a g e s from Ulfilas, Anglo-Saxon t e x t s , Wyclif and Caxton. Comparative s t u d i e s are l e s s frequent, but t h e y begin early in the c e n t u r y with James Andrew, whose scholarly school text Institutes of Grammar, 1817, includes a table showing, for t w e n t y - e i g h t l a n g u a g e s , the number of letters (Hindostanee has 60), vowels, parts of s p e e c h , d e g r e e s of comparison, moods, t e n s e s , voices, in each (p. 61), Charles Bucke, 1829, in a grammar intended for a girls' school, provides not only a historical s u r v e y but also p a s s a g e s which illustrate it. Graham, 1836, t r e a t s the comparative approach as a relative novelty: "Etymology has enlarged its scope, and now attempts to bridge over the chasm that formerly held asunder the classic from the Teutonic elements of English", and one of his sections is on the "Affinities of languages", a tabulation of forms from Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Gothic, German and English (preface; p. 150). The Student's Handbook of Comparative Grammar, 1862, by Thomas Clarke, a west country headmaster, is "applied to the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Gothic, Anglo-Saxon and English languages", and in the same year R.G. Latham produced, at a more advanced level, his Elements of Comparative Philology. At the elementary level, naturally enough, comparative s t u d i e s were kept to lists of cognate forms; there was little or no discussion of laws and

MORE THAN ENOUGH ENGLISH GRAMMARS

21

p r o c e s s e s . Towards the end of the c e n t u r y it was possible to say that the historical approach had gone too far. Latham, one of its pioneers, sometimes allows his own voracious learning (physician, philologist, ethnologist) to mislead him about his pupils' i n t e r e s t s . In the second edition, 1847, of his An Elementary English Grammar he claims that it will bring the s t u d e n t "sufficiently far in Philology to find all that comes after e a s y beyond expectation." The student will have nearly as much logic as is needed for philology; he will have "the elements of philological classification" and will have exercised them in English, Dutch, German and the Scandinavian languages; he will "find no trouble in understanding the higher g r o u p s , called Indo-European, Semitic, &c." These studies will have prepared the school pupil for "an Historical view of Language in its broadest form". For all his influential brilliance Latham was obtuse and obstinate about the capabilities of his r e a d e r s , and in time he and o t h e r s were usefully reminded by Alfred West (like Latham, a fellow of University College, London) that as "of e v e r y hundred boys and girls now learning English Grammar probably not more than one will e v e r read a page of any author before the age of Elizabeth" it is u n n e c e s s a r y "to inflict upon the exhaustive s t u d y of historical English accidence" (1893:preface). Such a reaction against historical and comparative s t u d i e s at the school level is a characteristic of the end of the c e n t u r y . Frederick White, 1882, though he includes a chapter on the history of the language, s t a t e s that his aim is "to teach English as it i s , not as it was" (preface). The reaction was not hostile to philology as s u c h , but a judgment that it was too difficult and too remote for s t u d y in school. Francis Bond wrote in 1893, "Throughout I have restricted myself to the logical side of English grammar: the historical and philological treatment of t h e language is b e s t kept separate" (preface) and John Earle 1898, said of his A Simple Grammar of English now in Use, "This is a book not of Philology, but of Grammar ... I have used the term Philology in t h e now prevalent s e n s e of Comparative Philology, a science ... altogether beyond the scope of this manual" (preface). The dominant feature of the grammars during the second half of the c e n t u r y is the importance they attach to analytical methods: analysis both of ' s i m p l e ' s e n t e n c e s and of complex ones (clause

22

IAN MICHAEL

analysis). Sentence analysis and clause analysis were usually treated a s d i s t i n c t p r a c t i c e s , t h e l a t t e r often omitted from e l e m e n t a r y t e x t b o o k s . The r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e elements in s e n t e n c e a n a l y s i s w e r e s u b j e c t , p r e d i c a t e , d i r e c t o b j e c t , a n d t h o s e f e a t u r e s v a r i o u s l y known as adjuncts, a t t r i b u t e s , a t t r i b u t i v e s , extensions, enlargements or, at t h e e n d of t h e c e n t u r y , limitations. T h e s e elements w e r e only r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e . The p r e d i c a t e , for i n s t a n c e , sometimes i n c l u d e d e v e r y t h i n g t h a t was not t h e s u b j e c t ; sometimes it d e s i g n a t e d only t h e v e r b . The most u n s t a b l e element was t h e complement. If a v e r b was said to be "of incomplete p r e d i c a t i o n " it b y definition r e q u i r e d a complement. But v e r b s of incomplete p r e d i c a t i o n o v e r l a p p e d with i n t r a n s i t i v e v e r b s ; a n d i n t r a n s i t i v e v e r b s could also 'be' t r a n s i t i v e , with t h e r e s u l t t h a t w h a t "completed" t h e t r a n s i t i v e v e r b t e n d e d to merge with w h a t "completed" both t h e i n t r a n s i t i v e v e r b a n d t h e v e r b of incomplete p r e d i c a t i o n . Hence t h e r e was c o n t i n u a l j o s t l i n g b e t w e e n t h e complement a n d t h e o b j e c t , d i r e c t a n d i n d i r e c t . Clause a n a l y s i s a s s u m e d t h e e q u i v a l e n c e of c e r t a i n t y p e s of c l a u s e to t h e n o u n , a d j e c t i v e a n d a d v e r b . It became a s t a n d a r d a n d p e d a g o g i c a l l y useful a n a l y t i c a l tool, b u t zealots t e n d e d to p u s h it to u n r e a l i s t i c e x t r e m e s of e l a b o r a t i o n . Only t h e most i n d e p e n d e n t teachers v e n t u r e d to o b j e c t : "About t h i r t y y e a r s a g o , t h e r e a p p e a r e d from Germany a new kind of grammatical drill ... It b e g a n with t h e s o u n d a n d t r u e idea t h a t t h e u n i t of l a n g u a g e is not a word b u t a s e n t e n c e . " But t h e p e d a n t s got hold of it. " P a r s i n g p u t t h e English l a n g u a g e into a s t r a i t j a c k e t ; a n d t h e n Analysis came a n d a d d e d to it t h e t o r t u r e of t h e boot" (Meiklejohn 1895:7, 9). B e c k e r ' s t r e a t m e n t of s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s was f i r s t applied to English grammar b y T.K. Arnold, 1838, b u t i n a d e q u a t e l y . It was more s a t i s f a c t o r i l y applied b y J.D. Morell, 1852, a n d , with modifications which w e r e widely followed, by O.P. Mason, 1858. T h e r e a f t e r c l a u s e a n a l y s i s was e s t a b l i s h e d ; only a n occasional voice r e m i n d e d t e a c h e r s t h a t " L a n g u a g e is too complex for u s to be able to lay down a b s o l u t e r u l e s ... for Analysis; e a c h c a s e m u s t be t r e a t e d on i t s own m e r i t s " (Fleay 1884:53). These a n a l y t i c a l t e c h n i q u e s , h o w e v e r s t e r e o t y p e d , a r e p a r t of a g r a d u a l d e v e l o p m e n t in t e a c h e r s ' c o n c e p t i o n of how l a n g u a g e w o r k e d . The a n a l y t i c a l p r o c e d u r e s need to be j u d g e d in c o n j u n c t i o n with o t h e r , l e s s familiar, d e v e l o p m e n t s which a r e of i m p o r t a n c e

MORE THAN ENOUGH ENGLISH GRAMMARS

23

linguistically a n d p e d a g o g i c a l l y . A few t e a c h e r s w e r e b e g i n n i n g to see t h a t it is not t h r o u g h r u l e s t h a t you l e a r n to e x p r e s s y o u r s e l f in y o u r own l a n g u a g e : "Men l e a r n t h e i r own l a n g u a g e b y h a b i t a n d not b y r u l e " (Dymond 1836:251). The c u s t o m a r y view was: "Grammar is n o t a l i g h t s t u d y ... it must be so a c c u r a t e l y l e a r n e d , t h a t y o u r mind may, a t a n y moment, be r e a d y to a p p l y i t s r u l e s , o t h e r w i s e how c a n you w r i t e a n d s p e a k with p r o p r i e t y ? " (J.W.R. 1839:preface), a n d in a more extreme form, from a n influential t e x t b o o k , "A p e r s o n who does n o t u n d e r s t a n d Grammar c a n s c a r c e t h i n k c o r r e c t l y " (Allen & Cornwell 1841:preface). A c o r r e c t i v e was g i v e n b y Latham in t h e p r e f a c e to t h e s e c o n d edition, 1847, of his An Elementary English Grammar: "If merely wish to s p e a k a n d w r i t e with a v e r a g e c o r r e c t n e s s , t h e y c a n g e t what t h e y w a n t w i t h o u t a n y grammar a t all: viz., b y a t t e n d i n g to t h e l a n g u a g e of t h e b e s t s o r t of t h e i r acquaintance. " T h e r e a p p e a r among t h e s e t e x t s i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t t h e c o n t e x t within which w o r d s a r e u s e d is c o n s i d e r e d i m p o r t a n t for a n y s t u d y of t h e i r f u n c t i o n . T h e s e i n d i c a t i o n s o c c u r most f r e q u e n t l y in d i s c u s s i o n a b o u t t h e w a y s in which a word can ' b e ' sometimes one p a r t of s p e e c h , sometimes a n o t h e r , a n d t h e y a r e p r o v o k e d u s u a l l y b y t h e manifest futility of t h e definitions. J o h n Earle summed u p t h e relaxed view of a minority of w r i t e r s : "The c h a r a c t e r of s u c h a n d s u c h a P a r t of S p e e c h is r e l a t i v e to a g i v e n o r a s u p p o s e d c o n t e x t " (1898:83). More u n u s u a l is t h e v i r t u a l r e p u d i a t i o n of t h e idea of a s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e . In t h e s e n t e n c e 'I will s t a y a t home t o d a y if you will' t h e a u t h o r maintains t h a t " t h e l a t t e r c l a u s e is n e c e s s a r y to d e t e r m i n e t h e meaning of t h e f o r e g o i n g o n e , a n d c a n n o t t h e r e f o r e be s e p a r a t e d from it" (Scott 1820:200). The same implicit r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e force of v e r b a l c o n t e x t is shown b y B.H. Smart, a m a v e r i c k , prolific, b u t i n t e r e s t i n g w r i t e r . In t h e p r e f a c e to his An Introduction to Grammar on its True Basis, 1858, he e x p a n d s a position he had t a k e n in his grammar of 1841. The t r u e b a s i s of grammar is t h e view t h a t " p a r t s of s p e e c h a s f a s t a s t h e y a r e p u t t o g e t h e r , lose t h e e x t e n t of meaning t h e y had while s e p a r a t e , t h a t i s , while t h e y w e r e p r e m i s e s to a meaning, a n d f u s e t h e m s e l v e s , so to s p e a k , i n t o e a c h other's meaning, thus becoming one expression for the one special meaning intended to he conveyed," Most grammarians, however, t h o u g h t of t h e p r o c e s s e s of l a n g u a g e a s b e i n g mechanical r a t h e r

24

IAN MICHAEL

t h a n o r g a n i c . One must remember too t h a t t h e p r o c e s s of l e a r n i n g was widely t h o u g h t of in mechanical t e r m s . Many p u p i l s w e r e still being required to l e a r n b y h e a r t t h e definitions, r u l e s and i l l u s t r a t i v e examples in t h e i r g r a m m a r s , sometimes a m o u n t i n g to t e n t h o u s a n d w o r d s or more. The claim was r e g u l a r l y made t h a t a grammar was d e s i g n e d to make p u p i l s u n d e r s t a n d w h a t t h e y l e a r n t . But o n e does n o t u n d e r s t a n d t h e p r o c e s s e s of l a n g u a g e so easily. P e r h a p s t h e most t h a t could be a c h i e v e d in t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e time was t h e wise empiricism of Evan Daniel, 1890, who b a s e d his grammar on " r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e fact t h a t all t h e t r u t h s of which t h e grammar of a l a n g u a g e t a k e s c o g n i z a n c e a r e to be found in t h e l a n g u a g e itself", a n d he " e v e r y w h e r e i n v o k e d t h e c o - o p e r a t i o n of t h e s t u d e n t in t h e collection a n d i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h o s e t r u t h s " ( p r e f a c e ) .

REFERENCES The following n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y grammatical w o r k s ( h e r e in t h e i r b r i e f e s t titles) a r e mentioned in t h e text. If not s t a t e d t h e place of publication is London. Abbott, Edwin Abbott. 1872. "On T e a c h i n g t h e E n g l i s h L a n g u a g e , " Lectures on Education I. Adams, Ernest. 1858. The Elements of the English Language. Allen, Alexander, a n d James Cornwell. 1841. A New English Grammar. Andrew, James. 1817. Institutes of Grammar. Arnold, Thomas K e r c h e v e r . 1838. An English Grammar for Classical Schools. Barnes, William. 1842. The Elements of English Grammar. . 1854. A Philological Grammar. Bond, Francis. An Introduction to English Grammar and Analysis. Booth, David. 1835. An Analytical Dictionary: Introduction. B r a d l e y , C h a r l e s . 1809. Grammatical Questions. Banbury. Bucke, Charles. 1829. A Classical Grammar of the English Language. Clark, Thomas. 1862. The Student's Handbook of Comparative Grammar. Clarke, Hyde. 1853. A Grammar of the English Tongue. Cramp, William. 1838. The Philosophy of Language. Crane, George. 1843. The Principles of Language Exemplified in a Practical English Grammar. Daniel, Evan. 1890. The Grammar, History and Derivation of the English Language. (Revised e d n . of 1881 w o r k ) , Davis, John. 1830. Murray's English Exercises ... enlarged. Belfast. . 1864. Abridgment of Murray's English Grammar, improved.

MORE THAN ENOUGH ENGLISH GRAMMARS

25

Doherty, Hugh. 1841. An Introduction to English Grammar, on Universal Principles» Douglas, James. 1851. Principles of English Grammar. Second e d n . Edinburgh. . 1867. An Initiatory English Grammar. 86th e d n . E d i n b u r g h . Dymond, J o n a t h a n . 1836. Essays. T h i r d e d n . of 1829 w o r k . Earle, John. 1898. A Simple Grammar of English now in Use. . 1817. The Grammatical Remembrancer. Huddersfield. Ellis, John. 1837. An Abridgment of Murray's English Grammar. English Parsing Made Easy. C. 1848. Woodbridge. Fleay, F r e d e r i c k Gard. 1884. The Logical English Grammar. Gartly, G. 1831. Murray's Grammar and Exercises Abridged. Giles, James. 1803. English Parsing. Gravesend. Giles, John Allen. 1839. An Enlarged Edition of Murray's Abridged English Grammar. Goodwin, Thomas. 1855. The Student's Practical Grammar. Graham, William. 1836. Exercises on Etymology. Edinburgh. Grammatical Errors. 1815. Grant, John. 1813. A Grammar of the English Language, H., R. 1851. A Commonsense Grammar. . 1812. First Lessons in English Grammar. C h i c h e s t e r . Harvey, J. 1841. Abridgment of Murray's English Grammar Improved. Hill, William. 1833. Fifteen Lessons on the Analogy and Syntax of the English Language. Huddersfield. . 1839. The Grammatical Textbook. Second e d n . L e e d s . Hutchinson, James. 1859. The Practical English Grammar. Sixteenth e d n . of 1850 work. . 1853. The Juvenile Grammar. Sixth e d n . I s b i s t e r , Alexander Kennedy. 1865. Outlines of the English Language. Jowsey, Richard. 1836. A Supplement to Murray's Abridgment. Sheffield. Kigan, John. 1823. Remarks on the Practice of Grammarians. Belfast. Latham, Robert Gordon. 1843. An Elementary English Grammar. - . 1862. Elements of Comparative Philology. The Little Linguist or, a Complete Guide to English Philology. 1846. Lord, Walter John. 1832. A New Arrangement of English Grammar. Trowbridge. Macgowan, J o h n . 1817. A Practical English Grammar. E d i n b u r g h . Macintosh, Daniel. 1852. Elements of English Grammar. E d i n b u r g h . Manneville, William. 1851. English Grammar Simplified. Manual of the Analysis of Language. 1856. Marcet, J a n e . 1835. Mary's Grammar. . 1844. Conversations on Language. Mason, Charles P e t e r . 1858. English Grammar. Meiklejohn, J o h n Miller Dow. 1862-66. Easy English Grammar. Manchester. . 1895. Fifty New Lessons in English Grammar.

26

IAN MICHAEL

Mongan, Roscoe. 1864. The Practical English Grammar. Morell, J o h n Daniel. 1852. The Analysis of Sentences Explained and Systematised. M u r r a y , Gerald. 1847. The Reformed Grammar. Needes, Richard. 1812. Examples of Parsing. Nesbitt, A n t h o n y . 1817. An Introduction to English Parsing. Packwood, J o s i a h . 1816. Introductory English Exercises. Rugeley. P i n n o c k , William. A. 1831. Improved edition of Murray's Abridged English Grammar. R., J.W. 1839. An Epitome of English Grammar. R o g e r s , Henry. 1838. A General Introduction to a Course of Lectures on English Grammar. St Quentin, Dominique. 1812. The First Rudiments of General Grammar. S c o t t , A. 1820. Grammar of the English Language. Smart, Benjamin H u m p h r e y . 1841. The Accidence and Principles of English Grammar. . 1858. An Introduction to Grammar on its True Basis. Smith, W.B. 1860. Abridgment of Murray's English Grammar. Sutcliffe, J o s e p h . 1815. A Grammar of the English Language. Taylor, J. 1804. A System of English Grammar. Sheffield. T h a c k w r a y , Mrs. 1813. A Grammatical Catechism. Second e d n . Thompson, J. 1831. Notes of Syntax. Thompson, J.B. 1858. A Concise Grammar of the English Language. T r e n c h , Richard Cheneuix. 1851. On the Study of Words. Walker, William. 1877. Abridgment of Murray's English Grammar. New edn. West, Alfred S. 1893. The Elements of English Grammar Cambridge. Cited from 1907 e d n . White, F r e d e r i c k A v e r n e . 1882. English Grammar. Second e d n . a s An Unconventional English Grammar, 1883. Wilkins, James. 1818. Grammatical Questions. Stanford. Wrightson, W.G. 1882. Examination of the Functional Elements of an English Sentence. Yardley, R o b e r t . 1808. An Appendix to Lindley Murray's Grammar. Manchester.

T R E N D S

T H A T

D E V E L O P M E N T A M E R I C A N

OF

S H A P E D 1 9 T H

G R A M M A R

T H E C E N T U R Y

W R I T I N G

CHARLOTTE DOWNEY Brown

University

American grammar w r i t i n g in t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y followed t h e t r e n d s of two d i f f e r e n t c o u r s e s , one led b y Lindley M u r r a y a n d Goold Brown, a n d t h e o t h e r , a little l a t e r , b y Roswell Smith a n d Samuel Greene. In 1800 t h e f i r s t American edition of M u r r a y ' s English Grammar made i t s d e b u t . Copies of t h i s book "were to r i d e t h e h i g h t i d e of p o p u l a r i t y for half a c e n t u r y a n d were to become models for many s u c c e e d i n g t e x t s " (Noble 1938:82). Since M u r r a y ' s Grammar was a 'compilation' of t h e r u l e s a n d m e t h o d s found in Lowth a n d o t h e r e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y g r a m m a r i a n s , his w o r k was wholly t r a d i t i o n a l . " M u r r a y ' s p o p u l a r i t y in America was a t i t s h e i g h t a b o u t 1833" (McKnight 1928:499). But in t h e schools of New York, a n o t h e r t r a d i t i o n a l grammar had become p o p u l a r , The Institutes of English Grammar (1823) b y Goold Brown. Brown was not o n e of M u r r a y ' s imitators; h e was a t r a d i t i o n a l g r a m m a r i a n in his own r i g h t . In t h e middle of t h e c e n t u r y , Brown p u b l i s h e d his m a s t e r p i e c e , The Grammar of English Grammars (1851). But, "The i n f l u e n c e of Brown, g r e a t a s it was, was not d e s t i n e d to flourish u n c h a l l e n g e d " (Pooley 1957:29). Smith had i n t r o d u c e d t h e i n d u c t i v e method of i n s t r u c t i o n a n d t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of s e n t e n c e s in his English Grammar on the Productive System (1831) a n d Greene had a d o p t e d S m i t h ' s m e t h o d s a n d a d d e d a n a l y s i s of s e n t e n c e s in his Treatise on the Structure of the English Language (1848). "The s t o r y of grammar t e a c h i n g in t h e s e c o n d half of t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y i s , in t h e field of t h e o r y , t h e b a t t l e of the

28

CHARLOTTE DOWNEY

functionalists, successors to Greene, against the forces of authority, successors to Brown" (Pooley 1957:30). This study will explore first the trends followed by Murray, Brown, and the other traditionalists, those who perceived grammar as an 'art'. Murray led the way with "English grammar is the art of speaking and writing the English language with propriety" (1824:13). Pisk (1834:9), Pond (1834:7), and Parnum (1844:5) gave Murray's definition verbatim. So did Kirkham (1834:19) and Bullions (1846:1), although these two grammarians perceived it as a science as well. Brown supplied a close version to Murray's definition with: "English Grammar is the art of speaking and writing the English language correctly" (Institutes 1853:15). Both Wells (1846:23) and Covell (1866:10) gave the same definition as Brown, and both also defined grammar as a 'science', as Brown did later. But Brown cautioned that "grammar can never well deserve the name of science, till at least an ordinary share of reason and knowledge appears in the language of those who teach it" (Gram, of Eng. Gram. 1851:411). All through the eighteenth century grammarians divided grammar into four parts, and Murray brought this view into the nineteenth century with: "It is divided into four parts, viz. Orthography, Etymology, Syntax, and Prosody" (1824:13). And Murray's line of imitators is very long. We find the fourpart division in the books of Webster (1807:13), Brown (Institutes 1853:15), Smith (1864:41), Kirkham (1834:19), Bullions (1846:1), Pond (1835:7), Farnum (1844:5), Wells (1846:23), Weld (1846:13), Covell (1866:10), and Harvey (Practical Grammar 1878:7). Henry Smith verifies that "Harvey ... was the last to use the traditional fourpart organization" (1946:46). At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Murray repeated the eighteenth century definition of the sentence in the words: "A sentence is an assemblage of words forming a complete sense" (1824:125). And Fisk (1834:13), Kirkham (1834:119), Bullions (1846:86), Wells (1846:119), and Harvey (Practical Gram. 1878:136) repeated Murray's definition. Brown used it, but added the words "and always containing a nominative and a v e r b " (Institutes 1853:104). We see that Harvey was again the last to hold on to Murray's view. Murray also preserved, and brought into the nineteenth century, the traditional concept of the sentence as containing three principal parts. His view, copied from Lowth, was "The principal

19TH CENTURY AMERICAN GRAMMAR WRITING

29

p a r t s of a simple s e n t e n c e a r e t h e s u b j e c t , t h e a t t r i b u t e , a n d t h e o b j e c t " (1824:126). Since t h e s t u d y of grammar had not y e t become analytical, g r a m m a r i a n s w e r e l e s s p e r c e p t i v e of t h e p r i n c i p a l p a r t s of t h e s e n t e n c e . So we find t h r e e p r i n c i p a l p a r t s in t h e books of Brown (Institutes 1853:104), Kirkham (1834:175), C u t l e r (1841:61), a n d Wells (1846:119) in a c c e p t a n c e of M u r r a y ' s e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y view. Not only had t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y g r a m m a r i a n s not y e t r e a c h e d t h e a n a l y t i c a l t r e a t m e n t of t h e simple s e n t e n c e , b u t t h e y also viewed all combined s e n t e n c e s or c l a u s e s a s of e q u a l r a n k . Therefore, they excluded the 'complex' sentence, classifying s e n t e n c e s a s e i t h e r simple or compound. M u r r a y , a g a i n b r o u g h t in t h e view of t h e p r e c e d i n g c e n t u r y , s t a t i n g : " S e n t e n c e s a r e of two k i n d s , simple a n d c o m p o u n d " (1824:125). And a g a i n he was followed 1853:104), by t h e u s u a l s u p p o r t e r s : Fisk (1834:13), Brown (Institutes Smith (1864:128), Kirkham (1834:119), Bullions (1846:86), Cutler (1841:61), P a r n u m (1844:59), Wells (1846:119), a n d Weld (1846:23). When M u r r a y explained Rule XXI, h o w e v e r , he r e f e r r e d to t h e 'complex' s e n t e n c e (1824:130), e v e n t h o u g h he had not named t h i s c a t e g o r y when he originally classified s e n t e n c e s . Among t h e books influenced b y M u r r a y we find F i s k ' s (1834), S m i t h ' s (1864), Kirkham's (1834), Bullions' (1846), P o n d ' s (1835), C u t l e r ' s (1841), a n d F a r n u m s ' s (1844). M u r r a y p r o v i d e d his i m i t a t o r s with t h e m e t h o d s of i n s t r u c t i o n , a n d t h e s e , like h i s r u l e s of grammar, had been i n h e r i t e d from t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y . One of t h e s e m e t h o d s was t h e d e d u c t i v e s y s t e m of i n s t r u c t i o n , a s y s t e m by which s t u d e n t s w e r e g i v e n t h e r u l e s , i n s t e a d of h a v i n g to a r r i v e a t t h e r u l e s t h e m s e l v e s . To t h i s method was a d d e d memorization r e q u i r i n g t h a t t h e s t u d e n t s memorize all t h e r u l e s g i v e n to them. Brown, who was s t r o n g l y in favor of memorization, claimed: "The only s u c c e s s f u l method of t e a c h i n g grammar i s , to c a u s e t h e p r i n c i p a l definitions a n d r u l e s to be committed t h o r o u g h l y to memory, t h a t t h e y may e v e r a f t e r w a r d s be r e a d i l y a p p l i e d " (Institutes 1853:v). A n o t h e r method b r o u g h t into t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y b y M u r r a y a n d r e i n f o r c e d by Brown was ' p a r s i n g ' , t h e grammatical d e s c r i p t i o n of each word in t h e s e n t e n c e . Brown d e c l a r e d : "In t h e whole r a n g e of school e x e r c i s e s , t h e r e is n o n e of g r e a t e r i m p o r t a n c e t h a n t h a t of p a r s i n g " (Institutes 1853:vi). But t h i s method did not d i s a p p e a r with t h e t r a d i t i o n a l g r a m m a r s . Shoemaker p o i n t s o u t t h a t

30

CHARLOTTE DOWNEY

" P a r s i n g or grammatical r e s o l u t i o n was t h e method p a r excellence which was u s e d from t h e time of Lily u n t i l 1900" (1936:122). In a d d i t i o n to t h e d e d u c t i v e s y s t e m , memorization, a n d p a r s i n g , t h e t r a d i t i o n a l g r a m m a r i a n s made u s e of 'false s y n t a x ' , e x e r c i s e s in i n c o r r e c t grammar to b e c o r r e c t e d by t h e s t u d e n t s . M u r r a y , most likely, copied t h e method from Lowth, a n d t h e n b e q u e a t h e d it to his followers. In s u p p o r t of t h e s y s t e m , M u r r a y claimed t h a t s i n c e "a p r o p e r selection of f a u l t y composition is more i n s t r u c t i v e to t h e y o u n g grammarian, t h a n a n y r u l e s and examples of p r o p r i e t y t h a t c a n be g i v e n , t h e Compiler h a s b e e n i n d u c e d to p a y p e c u l i a r a t t e n t i o n to t h i s p a r t of t h e s u b j e c t " (1824:4). Not only w e r e t h e r u l e s of grammar a n d t h e m e t h o d s of p r e s e n t i n g them q u i t e uniform, b u t also t h e i r t o n e of p r e s e n t a t i o n . Many of t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y t r a d i t i o n a l g r a m m a r i a n s t r i e d to p r e a c h as well a s t e a c h . M u r r a y informed his r e a d e r s t h a t he wished "to promote, in some d e g r e e , t h e c a u s e of v i r t u e , a s well a s of l e a r n i n g " (1824:6). And Brown a s s u r e d his r e a d e r s in t h e P r e f a c e to his Institutes t h a t "In p r e p a r i n g t h i s t r e a t i s e for p u b l i c a t i o n , t h e a u t h o r h a s b e e n solicitous to avoid e v e r y t h i n g t h a t could b e offensive to t h e most delicate a n d s c r u p u l o u s r e a d e r " (1853:viii). Elson d e s c r i b e s t h e s p i r i t of t h e a g e , explaining t h a t : " P e r h a p s t h e most f u n d a m e n t a l a s s u m p t i o n in n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y school books is t h e moral c h a r a c t e r of t h e u n i v e r s e - a n a s s u m p t i o n a t t h e b a s e of American c u l t u r e in t h i s p e r i o d " (1975:54). But m i d c e n t u r y America was too p r o g r e s s i v e to let t h e w o r k s of M u r r a y , Brown a n d o t h e r t r a d i t i o n a l g r a m m a r i a n s c o n t r o l t h e field; "... a l r e a d y Smith, with his i n s i s t e n c e on t h e s e n t e n c e a s t h e f o u n d a t i o n of grammar a n d h i s scheme for t h e i n d u c t i v e t e a c h i n g of g r a m m a r was p o i n t i n g t h e way grammar i n s t r u c t i o n was to g o " (Pooley 1957:29). Although Smith (1831) came f o r t h with some s t a r t l i n g i n n o v a t i o n s , h e did not r e j e c t all t h e t r a d i t i o n a l v i e w s . For example, he divided grammar i n t o t h e four t r a d i t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s , classified s e n t e n c e s a s only simple and compound, a n d b o r r o w e d some p o i n t s from M u r r a y ' s book. Other i n n o v a t o r s , too, k e p t from t h e p a s t w h a t was useful to them, making t h e i r b o o k s t r a n s i t i o n a l . And some of t h e l a t e r t r a d i t i o n a l g r a m m a r i a n s a d d e d t h e new i d e a s to their texts.

19TH CENTURY AMERICAN GRAMMAR WRITING

31

With t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of new v i e w s a n d m e t h o d s , grammar became known a s a s c i e n c e , i n s t e a d of a s a n a r t , Weld defined it a s a " s c i e n c e which t e a c h e s t h e p r i n c i p l e s of t h e English l a n g u a g e " (1846:13). Webster (1807:12), Kerl (1878:34), Bingham (1870:9), a n d Reed (1886:16) also called it a s c i e n c e . Wells (1874:22) a n d Brown (Gram. of Eng» Gram* 1851:21) defined grammar a s a s c i e n c e in t h e i r l a t e r work. Grammarians g r a d u a l l y b r o k e away from t h e four t r a d i t i o n a l p a r t s of grammar, a n d focused on etymology a n d s y n t a x . In t h e Preface of his book, Swinton explained: "of t h e four mediaeval ' b r a n c h e s ' of grammar, two h a v e b e e n lopped off... O r t h o g r a p h y a n d P r o s o d y ... This exclusion l e a v e s for t r e a t m e n t t h e two p r o p e r d e p a r t m e n t s of g r a m m a r - Etymology a n d S y n t a x " (1876:iv, v ) . And some g r a m m a r i a n s , s u c h a s Fisk (1834), Weld (1846), and Bingham (1870) combined etymology a n d s y n t a x , b e c a u s e "Etymology a n d S y n t a x mutually explain a n d i l l u s t r a t e each o t h e r ; a n d s h o u l d t h e r e f o r e , always be s t u d i e d t o g e t h e r " (Fisk 1834:5). When t h e more i n n o v a t i v e g r a m m a r i a n s t r e a t e d etymology, which deals with t h e p a r t s of s p e e c h , t h e y pointed o u t t h a t not all t h e p a r t s of s p e e c h h a v e e q u a l r a n k in t h e s e n t e n c e . A c c o r d i n g to Swinton, "The n o u n a n d t h e v e r b a r e t h e two p r i n c i p a l P a r t s of S p e e c h . T h e y make t h e framework of t h e s e n t e n c e " (1876:4). And Whitney d e s c r i b e d t h e s u b o r d i n a t e o n e s , s a y i n g : "The two q u a l i f i e r s , a d j e c t i v e a n d a d v e r b , a l w a y s a t t a c h e d to some o t h e r word, which t h e y d e s c r i b e o r limit" (1877:19), a n d he d e s c r i b e d the c o n n e c t i v e s a s " p r e p o s i t i o n s a n d c o n j u n c t i o n s , which join one word o r s e n t e n c e to a n o t h e r " (1877:19). Other g r a m m a r i a n s who c o n s i d e r e d t h e nominative n o u n or p r o n o u n a n d t h e v e r b t h e p r i n c i p a l p a r t s of s p e e c h w e r e : Webster (1807:14), Fisk (1834:85), Kirkham (1834:42), Covell (1866:95), a n d G r e e n e (1874:12). Grammarians, who w e r e a w a r e t h a t t h e nominative n o u n or p r o n o u n a n d t h e v e r b a r e t h e p r i n c i p a l p a r t s of s p e e c h w e r e u s u a l l y a w a r e t h a t t h e s e two elements a r e t h e two p r i n c i p a l p a r t s of t h e s e n t e n c e . Traditional g r a m m a r i a n s visualized t h e s e n t e n c e with t h r e e p r i n c i p a l p a r t s , t h e nominative, t h e v e r b , a n d t h e o b j e c t . But t h e more p r o g r e s s i v e o n e s b e g a n to see t h e s e n t e n c e a s a b i n a r y s t r u c t u r e composed of two p r i n c i p a l p a r t s , t h e s u b j e c t a n d t h e p r e d i c a t e , with t h e o b j e c t c o n t a i n e d in t h e p r e d i c a t e . As H a r v e y

32

CHARLOTTE DOWNEY

explained, not only were they the principal parts, but that they were the essential parts, for "no sentence can be formed without them" (Practical Gram. 1878:138). Other grammarians, who held this binary concept of the sentence, were: Weld (1846:33), Covell (1866:95), Kerl (1878:231), Bingham (1870:28), Swinton (1876:136), Greene (1874:26), Whitney (1877:9). Harvey (Practical Gram. 1878:148), Reed (1886:17), and Metcalf (1894:16). The more accurate understanding of the major parts of the sentence led grammarians to a more accurate definition of the sentence. They did not, however, arrive at one single definition. Since some of them linked the sentence with thought, they referred to a single sentence or clause as a proposition. According to this view, Whitney defined the sentence as "the expression of a judgment" (1877:8), and explained that "We cannot in the nature of things, make a complete sentence without joining together a subject and a predicate" (1877:9). But this definition describes only the simple sentence. KerPs (1878:18), Swinton's (1876:134), and Greene's (1874:1) definitions include sentences composed of more than one proposition or clause. For example, Greene gave: "The Sentence is the unit of discourse, and contains a complete thought expressed by one principal proposition, or by a combination of propositions, one of which must be principal" (1874:11). As the study of language became more analytical, grammarians became more aware of subordination in sentences of more than one clause; and therefore, they recognized the complex sentence. Therefore, they began to name three kinds of sentences: simple, compound, and complex. This more precise classification is found in the text of Greene, who explained the complex sentence "is formed by uniting a principal and a subordinate clause" (1874:167). Other grammarians, who included the complex sentence are: Covell (1866:93), Kerl (1874:245), Bingham (1870:97), Swinton (1876:134), Reed (1886:133), and Metcalf (1894:180). When Smith came forth with his focus on the sentence, he introduced the construction of sentences, a method popularly called 'sentence building'. Lyman pays tribute to Smith with: "This pioneering in the field of sentence building renders him worthy of a place of high honor ... sentence building is one of the most promising innovations in any textbook up to 1831" (1922:136). From

19TH CENTURY AMERICAN GRAMMAR WRITING

33

t h a t time on, s t u d e n t s were e n c o u r a g e d to c o n s t r u c t t h e i r own s e n t e n c e s . Grammarians found t h i s was a more r e a l i s t i c a p p r o a c h , for when we communicate, we form o u r own s e n t e n c e s . The a u t h o r s , who followed t h i s new p r o c e d u r e , w e r e : Wells (1846), Weld (1846), Covell (1866), Kerl (1878), Swinton (1876), Greene (1874), Reed (1886), a n d Metcalf (1894). Weld a n d Greene a d d e d a f u r t h e r v a l u e to t h e method by h a v i n g s t u d e n t s c o n s t r u c t r e l a t e d s e n t e n c e s , a n d Wells summed u p t h e b e n e f i t s of t h e method, explaining: "Rules may be r e c i t e d v e r y f l u e n t l y w i t h o u t b e i n g u n d e r s t o o d ; b u t a n application of them in t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of s e n t e n c e s , r e q u i r e s a c a r e f u l a t t e n t i o n to p r i n c i p l e s , while it also a i d s t h e l e a r n e r in forming a n a c c u r a t e s t y l e " (1846:132). In a d d i t i o n to s e n t e n c e b u i l d i n g , Smith also i n t r o d u c e d t h e i n d u c t i v e method of grammar i n s t r u c t i o n . H e n r y Smith d e s c r i b e s t h e i n d u c t i v e p r o c e d u r e , s a y i n g t h a t t h e s t u d e n t ' s "knowledge was b u i l t u p g r a d u a l l y u n t i l h e saw t h e application of a r u l e a n d t h e r e a s o n for i t s u s e b e f o r e he was g i v e n t h e r u l e itself" (1946:193). H e n r y Smith f u r t h e r informs u s "Greene ... was o n e of t h e f i r s t to follow Smith's lead ... his t e x t p r o v e d p o p u l a r , a n d from t h a t time on almost e v e r y g r a m m a r i a n took u p t h e s u b j e c t from t h e i n d u c t i v e p o i n t of view" (1946:120). When Greene a d o p t e d s e n t e n c e b u i l d i n g a n d t h e i n d u c t i v e method from Smith, he a d d e d h i s own c o n t r i b u t i o n b y i n t r o d u c i n g t h e a n a l y s i s of s e n t e n c e s , which, a c c o r d i n g to Swinton is " r e s o l v i n g s e n t e n c e s i n t o t h e i r component p a r t s " (1876:134). Swinton d e c l a r e d : "The i n t r o d u c t i o n ... of t h e method of S e n t e n t i a l Analysis d e v i s e d b y t h e German philologist Becker a n d a d a p t e d to American school u s e in t h e m e r i t o r i o u s w o r k s of P r o f e s s o r Greene a n d o t h e r s , m a r k s t h e only c o n s i d e r a b l e i n n o v a t i o n ... on t h e M u r r a y s y s t e m " (1876:iii, i v ) . Today we realize a n a l y s i s is not t h e ' o n l y ' c o n s i d e r a b l e i n n o v a t i o n , for we would a d d Smith's i n d u c t i v e method a n d his s e n t e n c e b u i l d i n g a s o t h e r c o n s i d e r a b l e i n n o v a t i o n s . But, t h e s e do n o t make G r e e n e ' s a n a l y s i s l e s s i m p o r t a n t . Analysis a d d e d a f u r t h e r dimension to t r a d i t i o n a l p a r s i n g , a n d g r a m m a r i a n s , from Greene o n , w e r e q u i c k to s e e t h i s . Many of them g a v e e x e r c i s e s , which combined a n a l y s i s with p a r s i n g . Those who a d o p t e d t h e method of a n a l y s i s w e r e : Wells (1847), Weld (1846), Covell (1866), Kerl (1878), Whitney (1877), H a r v e y (1878), Reed (1886), a n d Metcalf (1894). But Greene was not satisfied

34

CHARLOTTE DOWNEY

with o n l y grammatical a n a l y s i s ; h e a d v o c a t e d 'complete' a n a l y s i s , explaining: "A s e n t e n c e is a n a l y z e d completely w h e n not only i t s grammatical b u t i t s logical a n d r h e t o r i c a l elements a r e pointed o u t " (1874:241). During t h e l a s t q u a r t e r of t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , a few g r a m m a r i a n s a d d e d diagramming s e n t e n c e s to G r e e n e ' s a n a l y s i s . Reed defined t h e d i a g r a m a s "a p i c t u r e of t h e offices a n d r e l a t i o n s of t h e d i f f e r e n t p a r t s of s p e e c h " (1886:22). The d i a g r a m g i v e s a clear r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e b i n a r y s t r u c t u r e of t h e s e n t e n c e . A v e r t i c a l line s e p a r a t e s t h e s u b j e c t from t h e p r e d i c a t e . Since Harvey (1878), Whitney (1877), a n d Reed (1886) a n a l y z e d t h e s e n t e n c e i n t o two p r i n c i p a l p a r t s , t h e y found t h e diagram a c o n v e n i e n t tool for i l l u s t r a t i n g t h e b i n a r y s t r u c t u r e . Although Harvey was t h e f i r s t to i n t r o d u c e t h e diagram in his Elementary Grammar and Composition (1869), t h e names of Reed a n d his c o - a u t h o r Kellogg a r e a t t a c h e d to t h e method. P e r h a p s it is b e c a u s e t h e i r d i a g r a m s so closely r e s e m b l e t h e d i a g r a m s u s e d in some of t o d a y ' s t e x t s . J o h n Algeo s u m s u p t h e value of t h e method, explaining t h a t t h e Reed a n d Kellogg t y p e of diagram h a s " c o n t i n u e d in u s e for o v e r a h u n d r e d y e a r s b e c a u s e ... It is simple, it is c l e a r , a n d it h i g h l i g h t s t h e a s p e c t of grammar t h a t is c e n t r a l to most d e s c r i p t i o n s — t h e elements of s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e , r a t h e r t h a n c a s e m e m b e r s h i p " (1986:316). The s u b t i t l e of G r e e n e ' s Analysis (1874), The Elements of Sentences in Their Forms, Combinations, and Relations, is a n a p p r o p r i a t e title for two of t h e main f o c u s e s in grammar w r i t i n g in t h e l a t t e r p a r t of t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y . During t h i s time t h e r e was a c o n s t a n t s t r e s s on t h e ' c o m b i n a t i o n s ' of elements a n d t h e ' r e l a t i o n s ' b e t w e e n e l e m e n t s . With t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of s e n t e n c e b u i l d i n g , t h e r e a r o s e a n a w a r e n e s s of t h e k i n d s of elements t h a t form a p p r o p r i a t e combinations. Whitney felt t h a t combinations w e r e what t h e s t u d y of s y n t a x was all a b o u t , for he claimed: " S y n t a x t r e a t s of t h e combinations of w o r d s for u s e in t h e e x p r e s s i o n of o u r t h o u g h t s " (1877:154). And S i l v e r s t e i n p e r c e i v e s " c o m b i n a t i o n ' a n d ' a d a p t a t i o n ' a r e t h e k e y t e r m s in W h i t n e y ' s d i s c u s s i o n of formal p r o c e s s e s " (1971:xvi). Greene made t h e t y p e of combination t h e g u i d e in d i s c o v e r i n g w h e t h e r a s e n t e n c e is complex or compound, explaining t h a t a s e n t e n c e is "Complex, when it c o n t a i n s a t l e a s t one p r i n c i p a l

19TH CENTURY AMERICAN GRAMMAR WRITING

35

p r o p o s i t i o n , a n d h a s o n e o r more p r o p o s i t i o n s combined with it s u b o r d i n a t e l y ... Compound, w h e n it c o n t a i n s a t l e a s t two p r i n c i p a l p r o p o s i t i o n s combined c o o r d i n a t e l y " (1874:15). Within t h e s i n g l e p r o p o s i t i o n , G r e e n e p o i n t e d o u t four combinations: "the p r e d i c a t i v e , t h e a d j e c t i v e or a t t r i b u t i v e , t h e o b j e c t i v e , a n d t h e a d v e r b i a l " (1874:16). A more p r e d o m i n a n t focus r u n n i n g t h r o u g h grammar w r i t i n g d u r i n g t h i s time is on ' r e l a t i o n ' . But it is t h e combination t h a t p r o d u c e s t h e r e l a t i o n . "Relation h a s no e x i s t e n c e a s a t h i n g b y itself; n e i t h e r h a s it a n y e x i s t e n c e in a n y one t h i n g alone, b u t b e t w e e n two t h i n g s " (Greene 1874:18). For many of t h e g r a m m a r i a n s , ' c a s e ' showed r e l a t i o n . Metcalf claimed "The word c a s e is commonly employed to i n d i c a t e t h r e e r e l a t i o n s t h a t a n o u n of p r o n o u n may hold to o t h e r w o r d s in a s e n t e n c e . T h e s e t h r e e r e l a t i o n s a r e s u b j e c t , o b j e c t , a n d p o s s e s s o r " (1894:106). Among t h e n u m e r o u s n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y g r a m m a r i a n s , who defined c a s e in t e r m s of r e l a t i o n s a r e : Fisk (1834:61), Brown (Institutes 1853:36), Smith (1864:47), Kirkham (1834:4), Cutler (1841:20), F a r n u m (1844:20), Wells (1846:59), Weld (1846:30), Covell (1866:38), Kerl (1878:22), Bingham (1870:25), Greene (1874:47), a n d H a r v e y (Practical Gram. 1878:36). N i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y g r a m m a r i a n s w e r e also u n a n i m o u s in defining t h e p r e p o s i t i o n a s a word s h o w i n g r e l a t i o n . Greene s t a t e d t h a t " P r e p o s i t i o n s a r e u s e d to d e n o t e t h e v a r i o u s r e l a t i o n s of time, place, c a u s e , m a n n e r , p o s s e s s i o n , e t c . " (1874:132). O t h e r s , who p e r c e i v e d t h e p r e p o s i t i o n a s a word s h o w i n g r e l a t i o n a r e : M u r r a y (1824:39), Fisk (1834:28), Brown (Institutes 1853:90), Smith (1864:35), Bullions (1846:69), C u t l e r (1841:55), F a r n u m (1844:52), Wells (1846:112), Weld (1846:182), Covell (1866:84, 85), Kerl (1878:8), Whitney (1877:18), H a r v e y (1878:28), Reed (1886:42), a n d Metcalf (1894:66). Grammar itself was also defined in t e r m s of r e l a t i o n , for Brown s t a t e d in h i s Grammar of English Grammars: "Grammar b e a r s to l a n g u a g e s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s a n d a c q u i r e s from e a c h a n a t u r e l e a d i n g to a d i f f e r e n t definition" (1851:21). P r a c t i c a l l y t h e whole s y s t e m of E n g l i s h grammar w r i t i n g d u r i n g t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , especially in t h e l a t e r y e a r s , is b a s e d on r e l a t i o n . Even t h e voice a n d mood of t h e v e r b w e r e d e t e r m i n e d on t h e b a s i s of relation. Bullions s t a t e d t h a t "Voice is a p a r t i c u l a r form of t h e v e r b which s h o w s t h e r e l a t i o n of t h e s u b j e c t ,

36

CHARLOTTE DOWNEY

or thing spoken of, to the action e x p r e s s e d by the verb" (1846:33). And Maetzner, the German grammarian, who influenced Whitney, explained that: "By the Moods, the indicative, the conjunctive, and the imperative, the speaker e x p r e s s e s his relation to the predicated notion of the activity" (1874:107). Kerl, on the other hand, saw the mood as expressed in relation to the subject, so he claimed: "Mood is the manner in which the act or state is e x p r e s s e d with reference to its subject" (1878:131). But both determined mood by relation. The t y p e s of v e r b s , too, were defined according to relation. Covell wrote: "Verbs, in relation to the subject, are of three classes: neuter, active, and passive" (1866:57), and "Verbs, in relation to the object, are of two c l a s s e s : transitive and intransitive" (1866:57). Parsing and analysis, exercises u s e d to test s t u d e n t s ' acquisition of grammar, required that relation be pointed out. Harvey explained that "Parsing c o n s i s t s , (1) in naming the part of speech; (2) in telling its properties; (3) in pointing out its relation to other words; (4) in giving the rule for its construction" (1878:39). In regard to analysis, Kerl claimed: "Almost the whole of what is usually called Analysis, is based simply on three common relations of syntax, generalized and extended. These are the predicate relation, the adjective relation, and the adverbial relation" (1878:230). Even the diagram s e r v e d to point out relation, for Reed explained that it is "a picture of the offices and relations of the different parts of a sentence" (1886:22). And as a final touch to the s e n t e n c e , punctuation g r o u p s the units of relation, for it is, according to Brown, "the art of dividing composition, by points, or s t o p s , for the purpose of showing more clearly the s e n s e and relation of the words" (Institutes 1853:218). Since English is an analytical language, proper arrangement and combination are essential in forming the desired relations. Therefore, Murray wrote: "a capital rule in the arrangement of s e n t e n c e s is, that the words or members most clearly related, should be placed in the s e n t e n c e s as near to each other as possible, so as to make their mutual relation clearly appear" (1824:262, 263). When the first American edition of Murray's English Grammar was published in 1800, Americans were already v e r s e d in the rules of Lowth, so they readily accepted them in Murray's book. In a few years Brown published his Institutes, which reinforced the

19TH CENTURY AMERICAN GRAMMAR WRITING

37

traditional rules a n d m e t h o d s . When Smith p u b l i s h e d h i s w o r k s introducing the i n d u c t i v e s y s t e m of i n s t r u c t i o n , a n d t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of s e n t e n c e s , t e a c h e r s welcomed t h e c h a n g e . Greene soon copied Smith's new a p p r o a c h a n d a d d e d t h e a n a l y s i s of s e n t e n c e s . From then on, American grammar w r i t i n g took on t h e new t r e n d s , which focused on the b i n a r y s t r u c t u r e of t h e s e n t e n c e a n d t h e role of combination and r e l a t i o n in t h e English s e n t e n c e .

KEPERENCES Algeo, John. 1986. "A Grammatical Dialectic". The English Reference Grammar ed. b y G e r h a r d L e i t n e r , 307-333. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Bingham, William. 1870. A Grammar of the English Language. Philadelphia: Butler. Brown, Goold. 1851. The Grammar of English Grammars. New York: Wood. . 1853. The Institutes of English Grammar. Rev. e d . New York: Wood; rpt. Delmar: S c h o l a r s ' Facsimiles & R e p r i n t s , 1982. Bullions, Peter. 1846. The Principles of English Grammar, New York: Pratt & Woodford; r p t . Delmar: S c h o l a r s ' Facsimiles & R e p r i n t s , 1983. Covell, L.T. 1866. A Digest of English Grammar, Synthetical and Analytical. New York: Appleton. Cutler, Andrew. 1841. English Grammar and Parser. Plainfield, Conn.: Bennet & French. Elson, Ruth M. 1975. "American Schools in t h e N i n e t e e n t h C e n t u r y " . The American Experience in Education e d . b y J o h n B a r n a r d and David B u r n e r , 47-58. New York: Watts. Farnum, Caleb. 1844. Practical Grammar. Boston: Mussey. Fisk, Allen. 1834. Murray!s English Grammar. Hallowell: Glazier, Masters & Smith. Greene, Samuel Stillman. 1848. A Treatise on the Structure of the English Language. Philadelphia: Cowperthwait. . 1874. An Analysis of the English Language; o r , The Elements of Sentences, in Their Forms, Combinations, and Relations. Philadelphia: Cowperthwait; r p t . Delmar: S c h o l a r s ' Facsimiles & R e p r i n t s , 1983. H a r v e y , Thomas. 1878. A Practical Grammar of the English Language. Rev. ed. New York: v a n A n t w e r p & B r a g g ; r p t . Delmar: S c h o l a r s ' Facsimiles & R e p r i n t s , 1987. --, 1880. Elementary Grammar and Composition. Rev. ed. Cincinnati & New York; v a n A n t w e r p & B r a g g . < l s t ed, 1869> Kerl, Simon. 1878. A Common School Grammar of the English Language. New York: I v i s o n , Blakeman & Taylor; r p t . Delmar: S c h o l a r s ' Facsimiles & R e p r i n t s , 1985.

38

CHARLOTTE DOWNEY

Kirkham, Samuel. 1834. English Grammar in Familiar Lectures. 63rd ed. Baltimore: P l a s k e t t & A r m s t r o n g ; r p t . Delmar: S c h o l a r s ' Facsimiles & R e p r i n t s , 1989. Lyman, Rollo laVerne. 1922. English Grammar in American Schools Before 1850. Chicago: p r i v a t e l y p r i n t e d . Maetzner, E d u a r d Adolf F e r d i n a n d . 1874. An English Grammar; Methodical, Analytical and Historical Vol. II. T r a n s l a t e d from t h e German b y Clair James Grece. Boston: R o b e r t s & B r o t h e r s . McKnight, George H. 1928. Modern English in the Making. New York: Appleton. Metcalf, Robert C., a n d Thomas Metcalf. 1894. English Grammar for Common Schools. New York: American Book Co. M u r r a y , Lindley. 1824. English Grammar. 9th e d . B r i d g e p o r t , Conn.: Baldwin < l s t American ed. 1800>; r p t . Delmar: S c h o l a r s ' Facsimiles & R e p r i n t s , 1981. Noble, S t u a r t G. 1938. A History of American Education. New York: F a r r a r & Rinehart. P o n d , Enoch. 1834. Murray's System of English Grammar. 18th ed. Worcester: Lazell. Pooley, R o b e r t C. 1957. Teaching English Grammar. New York: Appleton, C e n t u r y , Crofts. Reed, Alonzo, a n d B r a i n e r d Kellogg. 1886. Higher Lessons in English. Rev. ed. New York: Clark & Maynard; r p t . Delmar: S c h o l a r s ' Facsimiles & R e p r i n t s , 1987. Shoemaker, E r v i n C. 1936. Noah Webster: Pioneer of learning. New York: Columbia Univ. P r e s s . S i l v e r s t e i n , Michael. 1971. "Whitney on L a n g u a g e " . Whitney on Language ed. b y Michael S i l v e r s t e i n , x-xxiii. M a s s a c h u s e t t s : M.I.T. Press. Smith, Henry L e s t e r et al. 1946. One Hundred Fifty Years of Grammar Textbooks . Bulletin of t h e school of e d u c a t i o n . I n d i a n a Univ. Smith . 1864. Smith's English Grammar on the Productive System. 2nd ed. Richmond Va.: Bidgood; r p t . Delmar: S c h o l a r s ' Facsimiles & R e p r i n t s , 1983. Swinton, William. 1874. A Progressive Grammamr of the English Tongue. Rev. ed. New York: H a r p e r & B r o t h e r s . Webster, Noah. 1807. A Philosophical and Practical Grammar of the English Language. New Haven: Steele. Weld, Allen H. 1849. English Grammar. Rev. ed. Boston: S a n b o r n , C a r t e r , Bazin; r p t . Delmar: S c h o l a r s ' Facsimiles & R e p r i n t s , 1984. Wells, William H a r v e y . 1846. A Grammar of the English Language. 4th t h o u s a n d . A n d o v e r : Allen, Morrill & Wardwell; r p t . Delmar: S c h o l a r s ' Facsimiles & R e p r i n t s , 1984. . 1847. A Grammar of the English Language. 1847 ed. Whitney, William Dwight. 1877. Essentials of English Grammar. Boston: Ginn; r p t . Delmar: S c h o l a r s ' Facsimiles & R e p r i n t s , 1988.

W . D .

FOR

W H I T N E Y ' S

THe

USE

O F

ESSENTIALS

SCHOOLS

OF

( 1 8 7 7 )

1

KURT WACHTLER F r e i e Universität

Berlin

William Dwight Whitney (1827-1894) is not r e p u t e d to b e a school g r a m m a r i a n . In fact, his Essentials of English Grammar. For the Use of Schools (1877) is seldom mentioned in today's h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l a c c o u n t s of English g r a m m a r w r i t i n g . 2 Dictionaries of American b i b l i o g r a p h y a r e liable to f o r g e t t h a t he was n o t only p r o f e s s o r of S a n s k r i t a n d Comparative Philology b u t also i n s t r u c t o r of modern l a n g u a g e s a n d t h e a u t h o r of a Compendious German Grammar. W h i t n e y ' s i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e p u t a t i o n u s u a l l y r e s t s u p o n t h e a u t h o r s h i p of Language and the Study of Language (1867) a n d The Life and Growth of Language (1875). His p r o f e s s i o n a l fame a s a d i s t i n g u i s h e d philologist is d u e to his Oriental and Linguistic Studies (1873, 1874), h i s Sanskrit Grammar (1879, 1889) a n d his work a s e d i t o r - i n - c h i e f of t h e Century Dictionary (1889). I t h a s b e e n said t h a t Whitney was t h e f i r s t g r e a t American l i n g u i s t . I n d e e d , his work in t h e ' s c i e n c e of l a n g u a g e ' was o u t s t a n d i n g a n d h a s b e e n s h o w n to h a v e a n t i c i p a t e d s e v e r a l l a t e r d e v e l o p m e n t s in t h i s field. It is a s t o n i s h i n g t h a t t h i s man found t h e time to w r i t e a n e l e m e n t a r y grammar of h i s n a t i v e t o n g u e , b u t for him it was a n a t u r a l o u t g r o w t h of h i s long t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e a n d a n e x p r e s s i o n of a feeling of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y toward " t h e whole school a n d home t r a i n i n g of t h e y o u n g " (iii). This a t t i t u d e also motivated him to w r i t e for t h e ' g e n e r a l r e a d e r ' , a s he said in c o n n e c t i o n with t h e p l a n s for t h e Century Dictionary to which he d e v o t e d most of t h e l a s t d e c a d e of his life.

40

KURT WÀCHTLER

Whitney u n i t e d in himself not only t h e e s o t e r i c scholar a n d t h e p r a c t i c a l t e a c h e r b u t also t h e d e s c r i p t i v e philologist a n d t h e c o r r e c t i o n i s t school t e a c h e r . Owing to his s t u d i e s in Germany, he was a b r e a s t of t h e philology of his c o u n t r y . 3 But he was also c a u g h t in t h e web of t r a d i t i o n a l t h i n k i n g a n d c o n v e n t i o n a l w r i t i n g a b o u t t h e English l a n g u a g e . 4 Whitney was c a p a b l e of s a y i n g t h a t it was t h e d u t y of t h e g r a m m a r i a n to be "simply a r e c o r d e r a n d a r r a n g e r of t h e u s a g e s of l a n g u a g e " (v), b u t he also d e c l a r e d t h a t "the application of d i r e c t a u t h o r i t y is t h e most efficient c o r r e c t i v e " (iii f»), Whitney c a n be cited a s disclaiming t h e idea of " c o r r e c t u s e of E n g l i s h " (iii) a s well a s a normative d e f e n d e r of "good E n g l i s h " (3). This t w o - l a y e r e d a r g u m e n t a t i o n r u n s t h r o u g h t h e introductory material of Whitney's Essentials: hat t h e l e a d i n g a s p e c t of t h e s t u d y of English grammar is to t e a c h t h e c o r r e c t u s e of E n g l i s h , is, in my view, a n e r r o r ... (iii). I t is p a r t l y in o r d e r to h e l p in t h i s p r o c e s s of c o r r e c t i n g bad h a b i t s , t h a t t h e good a n d a p p r o v e d u s a g e s of a l a n g u a g e a r e collected a n d s e t f o r t h in a book which is called a 'grammar' (4). he t r u e position of t h e grammarian t h a t he is simply a r e c o r d e r a n d a r r a n g e r of t h e u s a g e s of l a n g u a g e , a n d in no m a n n e r or d e g r e e a l a w - g i v e r ; h a r d l y e v e n a n a r b i t e r or c r i t i c (v). By good English, we mean t h o s e w o r d s , a n d t h o s e meanings of them, a n d t h o s e w a y s of p u t t i n g them t o g e t h e r , which a r e u s e d b y t h e b e s t s p e a k e r s , t h e people of b e s t e d u c a t i o n ; e v e r y t h i n g which s u c h people do not u s e , or u s e in a n o t h e r way, is bad English (3). In o t h e r w o r d s , his grammar r e p o r t s t h e f a c t s of good English, a point of view t h a t e m b r a c e s b o t h a d e s c r i p t i v e a n d a normative p e r s p e c t i v e . On one h a n d , Whitney f i n d s t h a t "no one e v e r c h a n g e d from a bad s p e a k e r to a good one by a p p l y i n g t h e r u l e s of g r a m m a r " (iv), on t h e o t h e r , he is c o n v i n c e d of t h e u s e f u l n e s s of grammar for " t h o s e who h a v e b e e n u n f o r t u n a t e e n o u g h to l e a r n a t f i r s t a bad kind of E n g l i s h " (4). He b e l i e v e s t h a t "grammar does not a t all make r u l e s a n d laws for l a n g u a g e " (4), b u t he also tells u s t h a t " a t t e n t i o n to t h e r u l e s of good u s a g e a s laid down in g r a m m a r s "

WHITNEY'S ESSENTIALS OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR

41

(4) is helpful if "we w a n t to u s e o u r English not only c o r r e c t l y , b u t well, so a s to p l e a s e a n d influence o t h e r s " (5). One might c o n c l u d e t h a t Whitney's w a v e r i n g b e t w e e n t h e l i n g u i s t a n d t h e t e a c h e r c h a r a c t e r i z e s his Essentials. But t h a t is not so. The c o n v e n t i o n a l a p p r o a c h of t h e 'schoolmaster' a n d the t r a d i t i o n s of school grammar clearly p r e v a i l . T h u s Whitney's grammatical textbook is more c o n s e r v a t i v e t h a n might be e x p e c t e d from a n a d v o c a t e of t h e ' s c i e n c e of l a n g u a g e ' . He u n h e s i t a t i n g l y follows t h e t i m e - h o n o r e d p a r t s - o f - s p e e c h scheme of p r e s e n t a t i o n a n d e m p h a s i z e s t h e g r e a t v a l u e of h i s p a r s i n g e x e r c i s e s , which he a p p e n d s to t h e v a r i o u s c h a p t e r s . His w o r d - f o c u s e d a p p r o a c h a n d his Latinate terminology p r o v e t h a t his grammar is more on t h e s i d e of t h e c o n s t a n t s t h a n on t h e side of t h e v a r i a b l e s of t h e g e n r e . 5 A look a t t h e t a b l e of c o n t e n t s confirms t h i s i m p r e s s i o n : I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII.

L a n g u a g e a n d Grammar ( p p . 1-5) The S e n t e n c e ; t h e P a r t s of S p e e c h ( p p . 6-23) Inflection (pp. 24-37) Derivation a n d Composition ( p p . 38-45) Nouns (pp. 46-65) P r o n o u n s (pp. 66-82) Adjectives (pp. 83-98) Verbs ( p p . 99-135) A d v e r b s (pp. 136-142) P r e p o s i t i o n s (pp. 143-146) C o n j u n c t i o n s ( p p . 147-151) I n t e r j e c t i o n s (pp. 152-153) S y n t a x : The Simple S e n t e n c e ( p p . 154-187) Compound and Complex S e n t e n c e s (pp. 188-210) Infinitive a n d Participle C o n s t r u c t i o n s (pp. 211-227) I n t e r r o g a t i v e and I m p e r a t i v e S e n t e n c e s (pp. 228-236) A b b r e v i a t e d a n d Incomplete E x p r e s s i o n s (pp. 237-252)

As t h e table of c o n t e n t s shows, t h e c o r e of Whitney's Essentials is t h e t r e a t m e n t of t h e p a r t s of s p e e c h followed b y t h e old method of i n c l u d i n g t h e s t u d y of t h e s e n t e n c e u n d e r t h e h e a d i n g of ' s y n t a x ' . In t h i s r e s p e c t , too, his grammar is more like t h e e a r l y g r a m m a r s t h a n like t h e r e c e n t o n e s . 6 But it was not q u i t e so o l d fashioned a s t h i s j u d g m e n t might make it seem. Since he w r o t e not a r e f e r e n c e book for t h e l e a r n e d b u t a p r a c t i c a l t e x t b o o k , he w a s a b l e to omit much of t h e grammatical deadwood of t h e p a s t . 7 Besides, h e occasionally is a w a r e of t h e d u b i o u s n e s s of some t r a d i t i o n a l p r o n o u n c e m e n t s a n d , a b o v e all, he shows more didactic skill in t h e

42

KURT WÀCHTLER

o r g a n i z a t i o n of his book t h a n most of h i s p r e d e c e s s o r s . Whitney's grammar textbook is cyclic, r a t h e r t h a n l i n e a r . The f i r s t cycle is c o n c e r n e d with a g e n e r a l view of t h e s e n t e n c e a n d t h e p a r t s of speech, including the processes of inflection, derivation, and composition ( C h a p t e r s II - IV). The s e c o n d cycle p r e s e n t s t h e p a r t s of s p e e c h in g r e a t detail ( C h a p t e r s V - XII). The t h i r d cycle moves b e y o n d t h e p a r t s of s p e e c h i n t o t h e i r s y n t a c t i c a l combinations ( C h a p t e r s XIII - XVII). In t h i s way, a topic dealt with e a r l i e r is t a k e n u p l a t e r for more e x t e n d e d t r e a t m e n t . Admittedly, t h e s y s t e m makes for f r e q u e n t r e p e t i t i o n s , b u t t h i s is not a d r a w b a c k for l e a r n i n g . Besides, each point of grammar is n u m b e r e d (1 - 508), a device t h a t allows b o t h t h e a u t h o r a n d t h e u s e r to r e f e r to p r e c e d i n g a n d following information. Seen a s a textbook, Whitney's o r g a n i z a t i o n of his Essentials is well t h o u g h t o u t . While t h e P r e f a c e a n d C h a p t e r I form a k i n d of g e n e r a l i n t r o d u c t i o n to t h e l e a r n i n g of l a n g u a g e , C h a p t e r s II t h r o u g h IV p r o v i d e a b a s i s for t h e s t u d y of each p a r t of s p e e c h . C h a p t e r II a c q u a i n t s t h e l e a r n e r with t h e d i f f e r e n t word c l a s s e s , t h e main c o n s t i t u e n t s of t h e sentence ( s u b j e c t a n d p r e d i c a t e ) , a n d t h r e e t y p e s of s e n t e n c e s ( a s s e r t i v e , i n t e r r o g a t i v e , i m p e r a t i v e ) . C h a p t e r s III a n d IV deal with t h e c h a n g e s in t h e forms of English w o r d s . S t e p b y s t e p he i n t r o d u c e s t h e p r o c e s s e s of inflection a n d declension, d e r i v a t i o n a n d composition. At t h e e n d of C h a p t e r IV, he summarizes w h a t h a s b e e n done so far a n d s a y s : "Now we need to t a k e u p each p a r t of s p e e c h b y itself, a n d examine it more fully with r e g a r d to some of t h e s e m a t t e r s " (44). This he does in C h a p t e r s V t h r o u g h XII. C h a p t e r V b e g i n s with t h e following definition: "A NOUN i s , a s we h a v e s e e n , t h e name of a n y t h i n g " (46). For Whitney, t h e y a r e all names w h e t h e r p r o p e r n o u n s or common n o u n s , c o n c r e t e or a b s t r a c t . He s u b d i v i d e s into collectives (pair, dozen, team, family, nation), g e n d e r n o u n s (uncle/aunt, bull/cow, hero/heroine), neuter nouns (house, color, child, fish, horse), a n d d i m i n u t i v e s (gosling, lambkin, brooklet). After d e s c r i b i n g t h r e e t y p e s of n o u n formation (simple, d e r i v a t i v e , c o m p o u n d ) , Whitney t u r n s to t h e inflection of n o u n s , i.e. n u m b e r a n d c a s e . As to t h e l a t t e r , he s a y s t h a t English h a s only two c a s e forms, b u t t h e n he finds five c a s e s in English: nominative, g e n i t i v e , d a t i v e , a c c u s a t i v e , a n d v o c a t i v e . While t h i s is a t y p i c a l example of Whitney's t r a d i t i o n - b o u n d grammatical t h i n k i n g , he c a n

WHITNEY'S ESSENTIALS OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR

43

also be p r o g r e s s i v e in o t h e r r e s p e c t s . When t r e a t i n g g e n d e r in nouns, he specially n o t e s t h a t " t h e r e is no need to s a y a n y t h i n g about gender in c o n n e c t i o n with n o u n s , u n l e s s it be a n o u n t h a t a c t u a l l y implies a d i s t i n c t i o n of sex" (50). This view of g e n d e r in nouns is superior to former grammatical t r e a t m e n t s , which had often imposed u p o n English a n u n s u i t a b l e s y s t e m of d i s t i n c t i o n s . 8 T h u s , Whitney's c h a p t e r on n o u n s s h o w s both a b a c k w a r d a n d a f o r w a r d orientation in grammatical d e s c r i p t i o n . This c a n n o t be said of t h e next c h a p t e r s . C h a p t e r s VI ( P r o n o u n s ) a n d VII (Adjectives) follow t r a d i t i o n in more t h a n one way. A p r o n o u n is defined a s "a kind of s u b s t i t u t e for a n o u n " (66). The t e r m is t a k e n literally a s a word s t a n d i n g for a n o u n o r o r d i n a r y name. Whitney's explanation may be motivated by t h e r u d i m e n t a r y c h a r a c t e r of his book, b u t it is also a c o n s e q u e n c e of his w o r d - b a s e d a p p r o a c h . English p r o n o u n s a r e not simply r e p l a c e m e n t s of n o u n s . S y n t a c t i c a l l y , most p r o n o u n s function like n o u n p h r a s e s r a t h e r t h a n n o u n s . Another simplification is his claim that " p r o n o u n s h a v e also t h e same inflection a s n o u n s ..." (67). This is only p a r t l y true, considering t h e five classes (personal, d e m o n s t r a t i v e , i n t e r r o g a t i v e , r e l a t i v e , indefinite) with all their p e c u l i a r i t i e s . He o b v i o u s l y t h i n k s of n u m b e r a n d c a s e b e c a u s e he c i t e s all of t h e o l d e r forms (thou/ye, Thy/thine, thee) in a p a r a d i g m of t h e p e r s o n a l p r o n o u n s (68). The a t t e n t i o n he p a y s to examples like O thou to whom all creatures bow, How mighty is thy name! or To thee, who hast thy dwelling here on earth g i v e s t h i s c h a p t e r a q u a i n t old look. This i m p r e s s i o n is h e i g h t e n e d by his t r e a t m e n t of p o s s e s s i v e , d e m o n s t r a t i v e a n d indefinite p r o n o u n s a s ' p r o n o m i n a l a d j e c t i v e s ' (80 ff.). The term was a l r e a d y u s e d in L o w t h ' s Grammar (1762). J u s t like P r i e s t l e y in his Rudiments (1761), Whitney r a n k s t h e articles with a d j e c t i v e s (95). 9 Since he also i n c l u d e s t h e ' n u m e r a l s ' in h i s c h a p t e r on a d j e c t i v e s (93 ff.), t h e c l a s s becomes a k i n d of o m n i u m - g a t h e r u m . In comparison with t h e t r e a t m e n t of o t h e r p a r t s of s p e e c h t h e c h a p t e r s on p r o n o u n s a n d a d j e c t i v e s a r e more t r a d i t i o n bound and less coherent. C h a p t e r VIII c o n c e r n s t h e v e r b , which is t r e a t e d r a t h e r fully. A good deal of t h e material p r e s e n t e d c o n s i s t s of t a b l e s of c o n j u g a t i o n a n d n u m e r o u s examples s h o w i n g t h e morphology of t h e v e r b , i n c l u d i n g many forms t h a t w e r e c e r t a i n l y in r e s t r i c t e d u s e a t

44

KURT WÂCHTLER

the time when Whitney wrote his Essentials (lovest, lovedst, loveth; giveth, gavest; drest, builded, hast, art, wast, wert, canst, oughtest, etc.). The listing of these archaic forms, a terminology that was in part outmoded at his time, several etymological excursions, and repeated references to similarities in the grammar of cognate languages reveal Whitney's historical-philological orientation. He still uses 'preterit tense', 'mode', 'old conjugation' (= irregular), 'new conjugation' (= regular), 'passive participle' (= past participle), 'participial infinitive' (= gerund), 'perfect tense' (= present perfect), 'pluperfect tense' (= past perfect), etc. Of course, Whitney must not be judged by today's insights into the dubiousness of some of these terms because they are potentially misleading. But before he wrote his Essentials, some grammarians had already used 'past', 'present perfect', 'past perfect' in referring to the past tenses, and 'mood' instead of 'mode' was by far the most common term (Brown 1863:336 n.). It must be acknowledged that Whitney also uses terms that have lasted, among them 'auxiliary', 'present participle' and certainly 'verb-phrase'. The latter is one of the terms he seems to have introduced in order to make the sharp distinction "of the v e r b phrases or compound forms from the real verb-forms, a matter of no small importance, if the study of the construction of sentences is to be made a reality" (v). Whitney sees I do (did) give, I have (had) given, I may (might, can, could, shall, should, will, would, must) give as well as the 'progressive forms' and the 'passive forms' in the light of this purely formative criterion. There are also some remarkable observations and statements that show Whitney's descriptive stance in contrast to the prescriptive dicta of some of his contemporaries. Among other things, he finds that the distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs is "by no means an absolute one" (100) and that the much belabored subjunctive "is out of mind in our language" (104). While Goold Brown has half a dozen closely printed pages on the construction the bridge is being built, criticizing the form as "one of the most absurd and monstrous innovations ever thought of" (Brown 1862:379), Whitney simply states that the construction is a "corresponding passive" to the "active progressive expression" (127) and then comments as follows: "These progressive passive forms are still regarded by some as bad English, and carefully avoided; but

WHITNEY'S ESSENTIALS OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR

45

t h e y a r e also freely u s e d e v e n b y w r i t e r s of t h e f i r s t c l a s s , especially in England (less g e n e r a l l y in America)" (128), Another i n t e r e s t i n g f e a t u r e of Whitney's d e s c r i p t i o n of t h i s p a r t of s p e e c h is his d i d a c t i c p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e i r r e g u l a r v e r b s . He does not satisfy himself with a mere a l p h a b e t i c a l list, t h o u g h he also h a s s u c h a list» He t r i e s to a c c o u n t for t h e i r r e g u l a r v e r b s in a kind of c l a s s o r d e r (113 ff.), i.e. a c c o r d i n g to l i k e n e s s of p r o n u n c i a t i o n or f o r m a t i o n . 1 0 T h u s he h a s a c l a s s of v e r b s following t h e p a t t e r n of sing/sang/sung and begin/hegan/begun (ring? s p r i n g , swim, s i n k , drink, s h r i n k , etc.), a second t h a t follows t h e p a t t e r n of speak/spoke/spoken (break, bear, swear, wear, tear, steal, weave, etc.). He does not h e s i t a t e to p u t ride, write, drive i n t o one c l a s s a n d blow, grow, know, throw, fly into a n o t h e r . The s y s t e m he d e v e l o p s is not p e r f e c t , b u t compared to a mere a l p h a b e t i c a l list t h e mnemonic v a l u e of t h i s a p p r o a c h for t h e l e a r n e r c a n n o t be denied* Seen from a d i d a c t i c point of view, it is also helpful t h a t his c h a p t e r on v e r b s i n c l u d e s a section on v e r b formation a n d some p e r t i n e n t r u l e s of s p e l l i n g a n d p r o n u n c i a t i o n (109 ff.), All in all, Whitney's c h a p t e r on t h e v e r b shows two s i d e s of the grammarian. On t h e one s i d e c o n v e n t i o n a l practice and philological r e a s o n i n g p u t f e t t e r s on his d e s c r i p t i o n , on t h e o t h e r his e x p e r i e n c e a s a t e a c h e r a n d h i s v e r s a t i l i t y a s a l i n g u i s t made him t h i n k of p r a c t i c a l i t y a n d some new w a y s of t r e a t i n g c e r t a i n p o i n t s of t h e v e r b . The r e m a i n i n g four c h a p t e r s ( A d v e r b s , P r e p o s i t i o n s , C o n j u n c ­ tions, Interjections) a r e relatively short and uninteresting because Whitney is mainly c o n c e r n e d with t h e forms of each of t h e s e p a r t s of s p e e c h . He is a w a r e of t h e v a g u e n e s s a n d u n d e f i n a b l e n e s s of t h e a d v e r b c l a s s when he s a y s t h a t a d v e r b s " s h a d e off i n t o p r e p o s i t i o n s a n d c o n j u n c t i o n s " (136) a n d t h a t t h e y a r e "of t h e most v a r i o u s meaning of u s e " (137). I t is symptomatic of Whitney's r e s e r v e d n e s s in r e g a r d to t h e classification of a d v e r b s t h a t he does n o t p r o v i d e a n y p a r s i n g e x e r c i s e s , only t h e following comment a n d a d v i c e : The classification of a d v e r b s is n o t w i t h o u t difficulty, s i n c e t h e c l a s s e s a r e not divided b y fixed l i n e s , a n d t h e same word may b e p u t in o n e o r a n o t h e r c l a s s a c c o r d i n g to s l i g h t c h a n g e s of m e a n i n g . It i s , p e r h a p s , of more u s e to let t h e p u p i l tell in w h a t way, o r for what p u r p o s e ,

46

KURT WÀCHTLER

t h e a d v e r b qualifies t h e word to which it is a d d e d , without a t t e m p t i n g p r e c i s e l y to define its c l a s s (142). The p r e p o s i t i o n is defined a s a c o n n e c t i n g w o r d ' t h a t " g o v e r n s its o b j e c t in t h e o b j e c t i v e c a s e " (143). T h e r e is n o t h i n g on p r e p o s i t i o n a l m e a n i n g s or t h e v a r i o u s f u n c t i o n s in t h i s c h a p t e r . As to c o n j u n c t i o n s , he d i s t i n g u i s h e s b e t w e e n c o o r d i n a t i n g c o n j u n c t i o n s (copulative, a l t e r n a t i v e , c o r r e l a t i v e , a d v e r s a t i v e ) a n d s u b o r d i n a t i n g c o n j u n c t i o n s (of place a n d time, of c a u s e a n d condition, of e n d a n d p u r p o s e , of comparison, a n d of that a s a ' s u b s t a n t i v e c o n j u n c t i o n ' ) (150 f.). C h a p t e r XII ( I n t e r j e c t i o n s ) c o n t a i n s only a list of "some of t h e o r d i n a r y English i n t e r j e c t i o n s " (152). Whitney's d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e s e four p a r t s of s p e e c h is limited to a b a r e minimum. But t h e cyclic a r r a n g e m e n t of his grammar and t h e i n t e r s p e r s e d n u m b e r e d c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e s make it p o s s i b l e to g e t more information on t h e s e f o u r p a r t s of s p e e c h in t h e c h a p t e r s on s y n t a x . With C h a p t e r XIII (The Simple S e n t e n c e ) , Whitney b e g i n s his d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e s y n t a x of English. He explains w h a t h a s b e e n done so far a n d w h a t he i n t e n d s to do: Not a few of t h e l e a d i n g p r i n c i p l e s a n d r u l e s of s y n t a x h a v e b e e n a l r e a d y s t a t e d a n d i l l u s t r a t e d ; we h a v e h e r e to t a k e them u p in a more c o n n e c t e d a n d s y s t e m a t i c way, r e p e a t i n g many t h i n g s t h a t h a v e b e e n said before, a n d a d d i n g o t h e r s t h a t a r e new (154). This i n t r o d u c t o r y s t a t e m e n t s o u n d s p r o m i s i n g . But if one looks into Whitney's s y n t a x , one does not find many t h i n g s t h a t a r e t a k e n u p 'in a more c o n n e c t e d a n d s y s t e m a t i c way'. His a n a l y s e s a r e b u r d e n e d with a fixation on t h e p a r t s - o f - s p e e c h scheme and e n c u m b e r e d with a p e r v a s i v e Latinism. In fact, he s t r i c t l y follows t h e o r d e r of his e a r l i e r d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e p a r t s of s p e e c h , which seems to h a v e b e e n t h e common p r a c t i c e a t his time. 1 1 As to t h e L a t i n a t e influence, a few examples will suffice. He calls t h e i n d i r e c t o b j e c t t h e ' D a t i v e - O b j e c t i v e ' b e c a u s e "it a n s w e r s to t h e ' d a t i v e ' case of o t h e r l a n g u a g e s " (164). No w o n d e r t h a t he f i n d s a ' D a t i v e Objective' in he was near falling; she sits next me; he forgave the offender, e t c . A n o t h e r i n s t a n c e is t h e ' a d v e r b i a l o b j e c t i v e c a s e of nouns', e.g. they walked a mile; a sermon two hours long; they watched all night long. Although a d m i t t i n g t h a t t h e r e is " n o t h i n g in

WHITNEY'S ESSENTIALS OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR

47

o u r l a n g u a g e to show t h a t t h e case t h u s u s e d is really t h e o b j e c t i v e " , Whitney j u s t i f i e s his a n a l y s i s "from t h e u s a g e in o l d e r English a n d in o t h e r l a n g u a g e s " (174). The same h i s t o r i c a l r e a s o n i n g p r o m p t s him to remind t h e r e a d e r t h a t English u s e s from for t h e a b l a t i v e c a s e , in for t h e locative c a s e , a n d with for t h e i n s t r u m e n t a l c a s e (177). I n a d d i t i o n to s u c h old views Whitney also l i s t s old r u l e s . Rule V, for example, s a y s : "A p r e d i c a t e ( p r o n o u n ) a g r e e s r e g u l a r l y with t h e s u b j e c t which it qualifies" (160). C o n s e q u e n t l y , he feels obliged to c e n s u r e " c a r e l e s s a n d i n a c c u r a t e s p e a k e r s often use such expressions as it is them, it was us, if it were her, it is me (160). He c r i t i c i z e s t h a t t h e l a t t e r " h a s become so common t h a t it is e v e n r e g a r d e d a s good English b y r e s p e c t a b l e a u t h o r i t i e s " (160). This is one of t h e v e r y few i n s t a n c e s w h e r e Whitney d e v i a t e s from his g e n e r a l l y d e s c r i p t i v e s t a n c e . Whitney's w o r d - c e n t e r e d a p p r o a c h to s y n t a x also l e a d s to some p u z z l i n g s t a t e m e n t s a n d e x p l a n a t i o n s . When dealing with t h e a t t r i b u t i v e a d j e c t i v e , his opinion is t h a t a n a t t r i b u t i v e a d j e c t i v e "may qualify a n o u n in a n y s i t u a t i o n w h a t e v e r " (167). He does not s a y t h a t some a d j e c t i v e s c a n n o t be u s e d a t t r i b u t i v e l y or a t l e a s t vary as to w h e t h e r they can be a t t r i b u t i v e . Sometimes his explanation is a r i d d l e , e.g. w h e n he l i k e n s t h e n o u n in i t s ' p o s s e s s i v e c a s e - f o r m ' to t h e a t t r i b u t i v e a d j e c t i v e . T h u s the king's crown = the royal crown, man's imperfections = human imperfections (172). The s y n t a c t i c a l s t a t u s of t h e g e n i t i v e might be b e t t e r identified a s a d e t e r m i n a t i v e , not a s a n a d j e c t i v e . Whitney c a n n o t come to a b e t t e r s y n t a c t i c a l a n a l y s i s b e c a u s e he c l i n g s to w o r d s and word c l a s s e s i n s t e a d of w o r k i n g with u n i t s like c l a u s e s a n d p h r a s e s . A t y p i c a l example of t h i s deficiency is his a n a l y s i s of t h e construction a result far beyond his hope. He finds that far is an a d v e r b t h a t qualifies a p r e p o s i t i o n (170). Whitney's t r e a t m e n t of t h e s y n t a x of t h e simple s e n t e n c e confirms t h e i m p r e s s i o n of a n English grammar in t h e a g e - o l d t r a d i t i o n . Although he sometimes i m p r o v e s on his p r e d e c e s s o r s , e.g. when h e s p e a k s of t h e "factitive u s e of v e r b s " or "factitive p r e d i c a t e s " (162 ff.), h e is mainly c o n c e r n e d with formal definitions a n d r u l e s t h a t a r e to s e r v e t h e t e a c h e r a n d t h e p u p i l with t h e p a r s i n g of t h e copious e x e r c i s e s a p p e n d e d to t h i s c h a p t e r . The " E x e r c i s e s for P r a c t i c e in t h e C o n s t r u c t i o n s I n v o l v e d in t h e Simple

48

KURT WĂCHTLER

S e n t e n c e " (181-187) c o n s i s t of a b o u t 0170 s e n t e n c e s for p a r s i n g , most of them t a k e n from classical l i t e r a r y s o u r c e s . The following s u b d i v i s i o n of h i s p a r s i n g e x e r c i s e s i l l u s t r a t e s Whitney's o v e r a l l view a b o u t t h e s y n t a x of t h e simple s e n t e n c e : § §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§

348 I m p e r s o n a l , Collective, a n d Compound S u b j e c t s 350-357 P r e d i c a t e Noun a n d Adjective; Adverbial P r e d i c a t e 358-371 Objects of t h e Verb: Objective P r e d i c a t e 372-379 A t t r i b u t i v e a n d Appositive Adjective a n d Noun 380-383 A d v e r b s 384-398 P o s s e s s i v e Case a n d P o s s e s s i v e s 390-397 A d v e r b i a l Objective a n d Nominative Absolute 398-404 P r e p o s i t i o n a l P h r a s e s

C h a p t e r XIV (Compound a n d Complex S e n t e n c e s ) is a n i n ­ t r o d u c t i o n to t h e multiple s e n t e n c e a n d i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n b y means of c o o r d i n a t i o n a n d s u b o r d i n a t i o n . Whitney now i n t r o d u c e s u n i t s like ' c l a u s e ' a n d ' p h r a s e ' T h e definitions of compound a n d complex s e n t e n c e s a s well a s of c o o r d i n a t i o n , s u b o r d i n a t i n g , d e p e n d e n t a n d i n d e p e n d e n t s t r u c t u r e s a r e sufficiently formulated, if o n e t a k e s t h e e l e m e n t a r y c h a r a c t e r of h i s grammar into c o n s i d e r a t i o n . However, his t r e a t m e n t of t h e multiple s e n t e n c e s u f f e r s from t h e same deficiency t h a t is a l r e a d y e v i d e n t in his d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e simple s e n t e n c e . He p u t s examples like the country whence he came, the reason why he is here, the time when Rome was founded in t h e g r o u p of ' a d j e c t i v e clauses' instead of accounting for them as adverbials. He r e s t r i c t s the 'adverb-clauses' mainly to those qualifying v e r b s . He r e g a r d s 'substantive-clauses' introduced by that as equivalent to nouns (197 ff.). Such views lead to a restricted (if not distorted) presentation of the syntactic (not to speak of the semantic) functions of subordinate clauses. Whitney makes up for some omissions and distortions in a separate chapter on "Infinitive and Participle Constructions" (211-226). Chapter XV begins with the understatement that "infinitives and participles have some peculiar constructions, to which it is necessary to give a little special attention" (211). He distinguishes between the 'root-infinitive' and the infinitive in ing (or participial infinitive)'. It is notable that Whitney does not speak of the 'infinitive Mood', as so many of his predecessors did. 12 After a few remarks about the cases in which the preposition to (the SIGN of the infinitive) (212) is omitted, he t u r n s to what the 'two

WHITNEY'S ESSENTIALS OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR

49

infinitives' have in common, namely 'subject of a verb', * p r e d i c a t e - n o u n ' , a n d ' o b j e c t of a v e r b ' (213 ff.). He t a k e s notice of t h e Wery common' u s e of t h e infinitive in ing a f t e r p r e p o s i t i o n s (the horse is worn with having been ridden so hard) and the 'peculiar construction' of the t y p e they insisted on his following them, to which he a s c r i b e s t h e "value of a s u b j e c t i v e g e n i t i v e " (215). The s y n t a c t i c a l u s e of t h e ' r o o t - i n f i n i t i v e ' is i l l u s t r a t e d by diverse examples such as he fell, never to rise again; I have reason to suspect; they are ready to find fault; I have work to do (216). Whitney does not a c c o u n t for t h e d i s p a r i t y of t h e s e c o n s t r u c t i o n s a n d t h e i r m e a n i n g s . He mentions e x p r e s s i o n s like I ordered the boy to be off and he believed his friend to have been wronged, but he fails to notice t h e f r e q u e n t for + infinitive c o n s t r u c t i o n . 1 3 His p r e o c c u p a t i o n with t h e "original a n d p r o p e r v a l u e of t h e p r e p o s i t i o n to" (216) p r e v e n t s him from s a y i n g s o m e t h i n g a b o u t t h e semantic r o l e s p l a y e d b y v e r b s a n d v e r b a l complexes with i n f i n i t i v e s . The same deficiency is also e v i d e n t in his t r e a t m e n t of t h e ' p a r t i c i p l e - p h r a s e s ' (222 ff.). The q u e s t i o n of which c o n s t r u c t i o n to u s e when t h e choice is b e t w e e n t h e o b j e c t i v e a n d t h e g e n i t i v e c a s e of t h e s u b j e c t of a n i n g - c l a u s e is d e c i d e d in favor of t h e g e n i t i v e , which "would d o u b t l e s s be b e t t e r " (223). As in t h e c a s e of t h e ' r o o t - i n f i n i t i v e ' , t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e p a r t i c i p l e is r e s t r i c t e d to a few formal s t r u c t u r e s w i t h o u t p r o p e r semantic differentiation. When he mentions the examples I saw him get down from his horse / his getting down / him getting down ..., he d e c l a r e s t h a t t h e t h r e e c o n s t r u c t i o n s a r e " n e a r l y e q u i v a l e n t " a n d to a c e r t a i n e x t e n t " i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e " or "equally p r o p e r " (223). He also does not explain why " u s a g e allows only o n e or t h e o t h e r " of two c o n s t r u c t i o n s like we used to live here and they resented having been insulted (224). The r e a s o n s for t h e choice b e t w e e n infinitive a n d participle c o n s t r u c t i o n s remain u n c l e a r b e c a u s e d i f f e r e n c e s of a s p e c t o r mood which influence t h e choice a r e b e y o n d his r e a c h . The last c h a p t e r s of Whitney's grammatical textbook c o v e r some l e f t o v e r s . C h a p t e r XVI c o n c e r n s " I n t e r r o g a t i v e a n d I m p e r a t i v e S e n t e n c e s " (228-234), C h a p t e r XVII " A b b r e v i a t e d a n d Incomplete E x p r e s s i o n s " (237-250). Both c h a p t e r s a r e not v e r y s y s t e m a t i c b e c a u s e of s e v e r a l d i g r e s s i o n s a n d a c o n s i d e r a b l e o v e r l a p of s u b j e c t m a t t e r . T h u s , while s p e a k i n g of t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i n v e r t e d o r d e r of

50

KURT WÀCHTLER

t h e i n t e r r o g a t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n , Whitney l a u n c h e s into a d i g r e s s i o n on t h e ' i n v e r t e d conditional s e n t e n c e ' . 1 4 As to t h e o v e r l a p of s u b j e c t m a t t e r , s e n t e n c e s of t h e t y p e hadst thou been here, he had not died might h a v e b e e n b e t t e r placed among t h e a b b r e v i a t e d e x p r e s s i o n s ( C h a p t e r XVII), and examples like you do not believe it, do you? r e a l l y belong to C h a p t e r XVI ( q u e s t i o n s ) . Whitney's d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e i m p e r a t i v e s e n t e n c e b e g i n s with a contradiction. He s t a t e s that the imperative " h a s for its c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a special form ... of t h e v e r b " (231), b u t t h e n he d e c l a r e s t h a t " t h e i m p e r a t i v e is ... always t h e same with t h e simple infinitive, or t h e root of t h e v e r b " (232). Among o t h e r t h i n g s , he claims t h a t if t h e s u b j e c t is e x p r e s s e d , it is p u t after t h e v e r b (Examples: Repine thou not at thy lot; Be we bold and make despatch). The r u l e is definitely uncommon. He f o r g e t s to mention t h e more common c o n s t r u c t i o n with t h e s t r e s s e d s u b j e c t you in You be quiet! or You mind your own business! He n o t e s t h e i m p e r a t i v e with let (Let the drums be beaten), b u t t h e u s e of get (Get washed) e s c a p e s his notice. The final c h a p t e r is a medley of elliptical e x p r e s s i o n s , i r r e g u l a r s e n t e n c e s , a n d n o n s e n t e n c e s . W h i t n e y ' s c r i t e r i a for ellipsis a r e not c l e a r . He c i t e s examples in which v e r b a t i m r e c o v e r a b i l i t y of t h e ellipsis does not a p p l y or is a t least d o u b t f u l . Examples a r e : He looks as (he would look) if he were tired; he gained fame as (in the character of) an actor; much as I love you, I love honor more = I, loving you as much as I love you, love honor more. It is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of W h i t n e y ' s t r e a t m e n t of a b b r e v i a t e d a n d incomplete e x p r e s s i o n s t h a t he always t r i e s to p r o v i d e for t h e a c t u a l w o r d ( s ) whose meaning (s) may b e u n d e r s t o o d o r implied. His e f f o r t s to r e c o v e r some t e x t u a l ellipses a r e o b v i o u s l y motivated b y his i n t e n t i o n to h e l p t h e l e a r n e r s with t h e p a r s i n g e x e r c i s e s . The e x e r c i s e s to C h a p t e r XVII comprise a b o u t fifty s e n t e n c e s . To each s e n t e n c e " t h o s e w o r d s should be a d d e d which a r e n e c e s s a r y in o r d e r to e n a b l e u s to p a r s e it" (250). Whitney also t r i e s to cope with t h e s t r u c t u r e s a n d m e a n i n g s of " a b b r e v i a t i o n s for i m p r e s s i v e n e s s " (245 ff.). Here we find examples like t h e following: O t h a t h e were here with us! (= I would that he were here...); fie on y o u ! (= I cry shame upon you); alas for Troy! (= I g r i e v e for Troy); by Jovel (= J s w e a r by Jupiter); how

WHITNEY'S ESSENTIALS OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR

51

c2ear the air is! (= observe how clear the air is); what in thunder are you here for? As can be seen, Whitney's examples are disparate cases of emotive exclamatives. He does not think of a classification of the irregular sentences or the varying discourse functions. There are also some regrettable omissions. When he describes the "exclamatory clauses in the dependent form" (246), essentials such as That it should come to this! or To think that you might have been killed! are not exemplified. He also fails to mention exclamatory noun phrases of the type The hat she wears! or You and your childish hobbies! The chapter on abbreviated and incomplete expressions includes a few remarks about what Whitney calls "interjectional phrases" (247). Since he takes 'interject' literally as "to throw into a sentence" (247), the term covers a wide range from complete independent clauses to nonsentences of all kinds. Without adequate illustration and differentiation of the syntactical properties and the discourse functions of the various "interjectional phrases" his term and analysis remain too vague to be useful. Whitney ends his chapter in a peculiar way. He uses the subject of abbreviation as a starting point for a digression on the "changes of grammatical character" (247 ff.), stating that abbreviation has been a major force in shaping the history of forms and constructions in English. What he means is exemplified by he kept quiet (intransitive*) and he kept himself quiet (transitive), also by showing how by the side changed into the preposition beside and by cause finally turned into a conjunction. He also sees changes in the grammatical character of words, e.g. "than is only then with a changed office" (249) and "they love each other is really (by origin) they love each (of them the) other." Here Whitney shows how much his grammatical reasoning is influenced by historical philology. He is convinced of the usefulness of historical explanations and underlines the necessity of diachronic insights with the following words: ... e need especially a knowledge of the history of our language. The present usages of any tongue we cannot fully understand without knowing something of its past usages, out of which these have grown; and often a great deal of study, and a comparison of other languages, is required for settling difficult points (250).

52

KURT WÀCHTLER

Whitney's bent for historical grammar is understandable. He was imbued with the spirit of 19th c e n t u r y historical philology. It did not occur to him that diachronic explanations might be out of place in a school grammar, and he could not foresee that one hundred y e a r s later historical arguments for explaining ' d i f f i c u l t points' would be completely obsolete in grammatical textbooks, e v e n in reference grammars for the learned. Conclusion: Whitney is said to have struck hard in c o n t r o v e r s y and criticism. "His word was piercing, e v e n to the sundering of joint and marrow. But he was fair . . . " 1 5 Seen from the standpoint of a modern grammarian, Whitney's Essentials could be stamped to pieces. But in fairness to him he must be praised as well as criticized. One should acknowledge the pedagogical aims of his grammar and the skill with which he accomplished a practical task. His generally descriptive stance is praiseworthy, if we compare him with some of his p r e d e c e s s o r s and contemporaries. The terminological and Latinate conservatism that permeates his grammar and the hopes he places in his parsing exercises (including an appendix of sixteen p a g e s of literary "Extracts for Further Practice in Parsing") may be excused, taking the c o n s t a n t s in the teaching tradition of the genre into full and kind consideration. What can be held against him is a fragmentary view of grammar, especially of syntax. His w o r d centered approach p r e v e n t s him from s e e i n g the mutual dependence of the parts of speech. The n e c e s s i t y of explaining one part in terms of another is not sufficiently recognized. The result is a word-based, not a s e n t e n c e - b a s e d grammar. There is generally too much emphasis on forms and too little on functions. Whitney's grammar for the use of schools remains a personal document of his capabilities and diligence as a scholar and a teacher. It can still s e r v e as one of the historiographical reference points for evaluating the great c h a n g e s in grammatical textbooks and descriptions of English since Whitney's time.

WHITNEY'S ESSENTIALS OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR

53

NOTES 1

References to Whitney's Essentials in this paper are to the edition of 1900. I owe this copy to Charlotte Downey, Brown University.

2

This is certainly due to the fact that Whitney's Essentials is only a grammatical textbook, not a reference grammar for the learned. Besides, grammar textbooks of the 19th century are generally regarded to be hopelessly outmoded. Cf. H.L. Smith, K. Dugdale, B.F. Steele, R.S. McElhinney: One Hundred and Fifty Years of Grammar Textbooks, 1946.

3

It is well-known that Whitney studied with Weber, Bopp, and Lepsius in Berlin, and two semesters with Roth in Tübingen (18501852). It is almost unknown that Whitney used "the great thesaurus of Maetzner" (Preface vi), while writing his Essentials. Maetzner's grammar appeared in Berlin (11860-1865). Cf. Leitner, this volume.

4

Cf. Wăchtler, in: Herget, W./K. Ortseifen, eds., The Transit of Civilization from Europe to America, Essays in Honor of Hans Galinsky (1986:87-98) .

5

Cf. Downey, in: Leitner, (1986:334-350).

6

Cf. Algeo (1986:307-333).

ed.,

The

English

Reference

Grammar

7

Cf. Wăchtler (1986:351-362). - Occasional quotations from Brown's The Grammar of English Grammars (1851) are taken from my own copy of the sixth edition, New York, 1862. The book has 1.102 pages.

8

An unsuitable distinction of gender is to be found in G. Brown's Grammar (1851). He claims that those "terms which are equally applicable to both sexes, (if they are not expressly applied to females), and those plurals which are known to include both sexes, should be called masculine in parsing; for ... the masculine gender is considered the most worthy, and is generally employed when both sexes are included under one common term. Thus parents is always masculine ..." (Brown 1862:255). - Further historical documentation of biased thinking about gender in English can be found in D. Baron, Grammar and Gender, 1986.

9

English grammarians of the 18th and 19th centuries wavered between putting the articles into the class of adjectives and giving them the status of a distinctive part of speech. G. Brown found that "if we have forty grammars which reject the articles as

54

KURT WÀCHTLER

a p a r t of s p e e c h , we h a v e more t h a n twice r e c o g n i z e them a s s u c h ..." (Brown 1862:227 n . ) .

as

many

which

10

It is i n t e r e s t i n g to n o t e t h a t t h e Comprehensive Grammar (1985) h a s a similar c l a s s o r d e r of t h e i r r e g u l a r v e r b s , t h o u g h it is much more detailed t h a n Whitney's a n d e x c l u s i v e l y b a s e d on p r o n u n c i a t i o n (Quirk et al. 1985:104-114).

11

G. Brown j u s t i f i e s t h e same o r d e r within P a r t III (Syntax) with t h e following w o r d s : "I h a v e ... p r e f e r r e d t h e o r d e r of t h e p a r t s of s p e e c h ; each of which will form a c h a p t e r in t h e S y n t a x of t h i s w o r k , a s each forms a c h a p t e r in t h e Etymology" (Brown 1862:460).

12

G. Brown (1862:615 ff.) g i v e s a l e n g t h y a c c o u n t of t h e views of former g r a m m a r i a n s in r e g a r d to t h e 'Infinitive Mood'. Brown himself u s e s t h e term a n d d e n i e s t h e c h a r a c t e r of t h e infinitive a s a V e r b a l n o u n ' (Brown 1862:621).

13

The c o n s t r u c t i o n is f r e q u e n t a s complement, a d v e r b i a l , a n d a t t r i b u t e in English. It is s t r a n g e t h a t Whitney does not mention t h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n . A c c o r d i n g to t h e Comprehensive Grammar (1985), it is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of or u s e d only in AmE (Quirk et ah 1985:1062).

14

As in o t h e r c a s e s , W h i t n e y ' s d i g r e s s i o n seems to be motivated b y h i s h i s t o r i c a l r e a s o n i n g . He r e m i n d s h i s r e a d e r s of t h e fact t h a t the inverted conditional s e n t e n c e " h a s g r o w n o u t of the i n t e r r o g a t i v e o n e " (230).

15

T.D. Seymour, in: Sebeok, T.A., ed., Portraits o n e (1966:420).

of Linguists,

Volume

REFERENCES Algeo, J o h n . 1986. "A Grammatical Dialectic". The English Reference Grammar ed. b y G e r h a r d L e i t n e r , 307-333. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Baron, Dennis. 1986. Grammar and Gender. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press. Brown, Goold. 1851. The Grammar of English Grammars. New York: Wood. Downey, C h a r l o t t e . 1986. "The C o n s t a n t s a n d Variables which Guided t h e Development of American Grammar Writing in t h e 18th a n d 19th C e n t u r i e s " . The English Reference Grammar e d . b y G e r h a r d L e i t n e r , 334-350. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 1 Maetzner, Eduard. 1860-1865. Englische Grammatik. Berlin: Weidmannsche B u c h h a n d l u n g .

WHITNEY'S ESSENTIALS OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR

55

Quirk, Randolph, S i d n e y Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, a n d Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Seymour, Thomas D. 1966. "William Dwight Whitney", Portraits of L i n g u i s t s , Volume one ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok. I n d i a n a Univ. Press. Smith, Henry L., Kathleen Dugdale, Benlah P. Steele, a n d R o b e r t S. McElhinney. 1946. One Hundred and Fifty Years of Grammar Textbooks. Bulletin of t h e School of E d u c a t i o n , Division of R e s e a r c h a n d Field S e r v i c e s , I n d i a n a Univ. Wächtler, Kurt. 1986. "Goold Brown - t h e American Grammarian of Grammarians in t h e N i n e t e e n t h C e n t u r y " . The English Reference Grammar e d . b y G e r h a r d L e i t n e r , 351-362. Tübingen: Niemeyer. . 1986. "An Old T r a d i t i o n in a New World: The c o n t i n u i t y and t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of t h e ideal of l i n g u i s t i c c o r r e c t n e s s in America". The Transit of Civilization from Europe to America. Essays in Honor of Hans Galinsky ed. b y Wilfried Herget, a n d Karl Ortseifen, 87-98. Tübingen: N a r r . Whitney, William D. 1877. Essentials of English Grammar. Boston: Gin & Company.

E.A.

S O N N E S N C H E I N

G R A M M A T I C A L

AND

T E R M I N O L O G Y

JOHN WALMSLEY

Universität

Bielefeld

Confusion in grammatical terminology has been perceived as a major obstacle to learning languages for over four hundred years. Different attempts to limit the confusion have been made at different times in different countries. In sixteenth century England, King Henry VIII, disturbed at 'the great encumbrance and confusion of the yonge and tender wyttes, by reason of the diversitie of grammer rules and teachinges,' 1 solved the problem at a stroke by ordaining that the use of only a single grammar, William Lily's, would be permitted in English schools. Seventy years after Henry's decree, the situation in Germany was causing equal concern. There, it was lamented 'that in many places a different grammar ... has been introduced in all schools yea, in the meantime in all classes, too, - with the result that the boys have been confused to no small degree, and not known where they were in the grammar ..»' (Brendel et ai. 1613:9). The most noteworthy response to this situation was provided by Wolfgang Ratke (Ratichius), but whereas Henry's solution was imposed from above by royal decree, Ratke had no power to impose a solution of any kind. Further, Ratke addressed the problem not only of unifying the terminology for the grammar of a single language, Latin, but of harmonising the terminologies of different languages. The approach he adopted was to take the categories of universal grammar as the basis for a unified description of the individual languages. Since each grammar was to be taught through the medium of the language being described, a universal grammar written in each of the languages concerned had to be prepared, together with a 'particular'

58

JOHN WALMSLEY

or ' s p e c i a l ' grammar for each l a n g u a g e . Between 1619 and 1621 Ratke a n d his team p r o d u c e d g r a m m a r s of t h i s t y p e for Latin, Greek, German, Italian a n d F r e n c h , e v e n t h o u g h t h e l a t t e r t h r e e did not form p a r t of t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l school c u r r i c u l u m at t h e time. Some of R a t k e ' s work in t h e s e a r e a s a p p e a r s to h a v e b e e n q u i c k l y f o r g o t t e n , if n o t eclipsed by Comenius' p u b l i c a t i o n s on l a n g u a g e - t e a c h i n g . Lily's grammar, on t h e o t h e r h a n d , e n j o y e d a p r o l o n g e d e x i s t e n c e in E n g l a n d , in v a r i o u s g u i s e s , u n t i l well into t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y ( S t r a y 1989:15). In t h e l a t t e r half of t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y t h e problem of conflicting grammatical n o m e n c l a t u r e u s e d in t h e t e a c h i n g of different languages again became an issue. Edward Adolph S o n n e n s c h e i n initiated o v e r four d e c a d e s of a c t i v i t y in t h i s a r e a with a n e x p r e s s i o n of p r o f o u n d d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e s t a t u s q u o , which he made in a p a p e r r e a d before t h e T e a c h e r s ' Association in Birmingham in November, 1885, The c a u s e which he p r o p o s e d a t t h a t meeting was to promote 'simplicity a n d uniformity of terminology in t h e t e a c h i n g of t h e "school" l a n g u a g e s ' (Journal of Education 1886:169). 'Why,' he a s k e d , 'should not t h e e x p e r i e n c e gained in o n e l a n g u a g e be made more r e a l help in t h e l e a r n i n g of o t h e r s ? Why s h o u l d v e r b a l forms which were employed in a similar fashion be called b y a s many d i f f e r e n t names a s t h e r e a r e l a n g u a g e s in which t h e y a r e s t u d i e d - p a s t indefinite, a o r i s t , passé défini, perfect, imperfect? The u s a g e of t h e s e forms was not, of c o u r s e , identical b u t it was sufficiently alike to j u s t i f y t h e same name, - or, a t a n y r a t e , to p u t c o n t r a d i c t o r y names out of c o u r t ' (p. 169). The b a s i s for t h e simplification a n d unification of grammatical terminology could be p r o v i d e d , S o n n e n s c h e i n believed, b y English, which o u g h t to be made t h e f o u n d a t i o n for t e a c h i n g o t h e r l a n g u a g e s . Many of t h e difficult q u e s t i o n s of Latin s y n t a x might be examined in t h e field of English, if only we w e r e careful to t r e a t o u r English critically, he claimed (p. 169). Simplicity a n d uniformity w e r e t h e twin themes, t h e n , which p e r m e a t e d S o n n e n s c h e i n ' s t h i n k i n g on grammatical n o m e n c l a t u r e . I t is i m p o r t a n t to b e a r t h e s e f a c t s in mind when a p p r o a c h i n g S o n n e n s c h e i n ' s work since t h e y , t o g e t h e r with t h e c o n t e x t which g a v e r i s e to t h e s e impulses, go some way t o w a r d s explaining both t h e d i r e c t i o n S o n n e n s c h e i n ' s l a t e r work took a n d t h e difficulties he e n c o u n t e r e d .

SONNENSCHEIN AND GRAMMATICAL TERMINOLOGY

59

It is also i m p o r t a n t not to lose s i g h t of t h e fact t h a t S o n n e n s c h e i n ' s work developed in t h e c o n t e x t of a more b r o a d l y b a s e d movement with similar aims, which e x t e n d e d from E u r o p e to t h e United S t a t e s . The s u c c e s s of t h i s movement must be a s s e s s e d a t d i f f e r e n t levels a n d in d i f f e r e n t w a y s , for d i f f e r e n t c o u n t r i e s a n d for d i f f e r e n t l a n g u a g e s . Before c o n s i d e r i n g how P r a n c e , A u s t r i a , Germany a n d t h e United S t a t e s tackled t h e terminological problem, h o w e v e r , it is w o r t h t r a c i n g in a little more detail t h e more i m p o r t a n t s t e p s t a k e n b y S o n n e n s c h e i n to a c h i e v e his goal. At t h e time when he g a v e his a d d r e s s in Birmingham, S o n n e n s c h e i n was P r o f e s s o r of Latin a n d Greek a t Mason College (later to become t h e n u c l e u s of Birmingham U n i v e r s i t y ) . His p a p e r was to h a v e immediate p r a c t i c a l c o n s e q u e n c e s . In l e s s t h a n t h r e e y e a r s S o n n e n s c h e i n had s u c c e e d e d in l a u n c h i n g a s e r i e s of t e x t books for t h e main f o r e i g n l a n g u a g e s t a u g h t in English a n d Welsh schools, all constructed according to the same principles. S o n n e n s c h e i n b u t t r e s s e d his initiative with t h e following q u o t a t i o n from Matthew Arnold: a l m o s t e v e r y grammatical s y s t e m h a s i t s ' r a t i o n a l e ' , c a p a b l e of b e i n g c o m p r e h e n d e d by t h e mind, if the mind is k e p t s t e a d i l y to it, a n d of s e r v i n g a s a clue to t h e f a c t s ; b u t ... e v e r y one of t h e g r a m m a r s following a d i f f e r e n t s y s t e m , t h e s t u d e n t m a s t e r s t h e rationale of none of them; a n d in c o n s e q u e n c e , a f t e r all his l a b o u r , he often e n d s b y p o s s e s s i n g of t h e s c i e n c e of grammar n o t h i n g b u t a h e a p of t e r m s jumbled t o g e t h e r in i n e x t r i c a b l e confusion' (Anwyl 1898:1). The s e r i e s of l a n g u a g e - t e a c h i n g t e x t b o o k s of which S o n n e n s c h e i n became General Editor was g i v e n t h e title Parallel Grammar Series (PGS), a n d t h e p r i n c i p l e s which g a v e t h i s s e r i e s i t s d i s t i n c t i v e format w e r e uniformity of classification a n d terminology, uniformity of scope, a n d uniformity of size a n d t y p e . The two l a t t e r w e r e d i r e c t e d more t o w a r d s t h e i n t e n d e d r e a d e r s h i p of t h e s e r i e s a n d to t h e l a y o u t and t y p o g r a p h y t h a n to t h e grammar, a n d t h u s impinge only marginally on t h e q u e s t i o n of terminology p r o p e r . S o n n e n s c h e i n ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of uniformity of classification a n d terminology, on t h e o t h e r h a n d , d e s e r v e s to be explored in more detail. The claim made in t h e PGS was t h a t ' t h e same' (1898:passim). grammatical p h e n o m e n o n was classified and named alike w h e r e v e r found. Slightly d i f f e r e n t p h e n o m e n a w e r e to be d e s c r i b e d b y ' s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t b u t not i n c o n s i s t e n t ' (1898:passim)

60

JOHN WALMSLEY

t e r m s . Emphasis was laid on t h e u s e (as far a s possible) of t r a d i t i o n a l t e r m s (1898:passim). S y n t a x was to be b a s e d on a n a l y s i s , a n d t h e p r i n c i p l e ' p e r exempla' a s o p p o s e d to ' p e r praecepta' to be followed. In o t h e r w o r d s t h e a p p r o a c h , a s in R a t k e ' s method of t e a c h i n g , was to be i n d u c t i v e . Finally ( t h o u g h a s far a s c o n t e n t is c o n c e r n e d t h i s spills o v e r into t h e t h i r d p r i n c i p l e - uniformity of p r e s e n t a t i o n ) it was claimed t h a t since t h e a r r a n g e m e n t of t h e g r a m m a r s was identical, ' m a s t e r y of one i n v o l v e s m a s t e r y of t h e p r i n c i p l e s a n d methods of t h e o t h e r ' (1898:passim). The i n d i v i d u a l g r a m m a r s of t h e PGS w e r e p r e p a r e d and b o u n d s e p a r a t e l y in two p a r t s , a c c i d e n c e and s y n t a x , a n d accompanied b y g r a d e d r e a d e r s . A l t o g e t h e r , t h e s e r i e s comprised more t h a n t w e n t y - f i v e different t i t l e s p u b l i s h e d b e t w e e n 1883 a n d 1903 in e i g h t d i f f e r e n t l a n g u a g e s , i n c l u d i n g S p a n i s h , Welsh a n d 'Dano-Norwegian.' It is not w i t h o u t i n t e r e s t t h a t R.H. Quick identified i m p o r t a n t elements of t h e Ratichian c o n c e p t in S o n n e n s c h e i n ' s u n d e r t a k i n g , t h o u g h it is s c a r c e l y conceivable t h a t S o n n e n s c h e i n himself was a w a r e of R a t k e ' s scheme. 'In t h e m a t t e r of g r a m m a r , ' w r o t e Quick, ' R a t k e ' s a d v i c e , so long d i s r e g a r d e d , h a s r e c e n t l y b e e n followed in t h e "Parallel Grammar S e r i e s " , p u b l i s h e d b y M e s s r s . S o n n e n s c h e i n ' (Quick 1904:114). From t h e point of view of terminological reform, t h e r e c e p t i o n of t h e g r a m m a r s in t h e Parallel Grammar S e r i e s is of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t . They w e r e r e v i e w e d from F r e n c h - s p e a k i n g Belgium to t h e United S t a t e s , a n d e n j o y e d a p a r t i c u l a r f a v o u r a b l e r e c e p t i o n in Germany. The S e r i e s was mentioned p o s i t i v e l y a t t h e Berlin School c o n f e r e n c e in 1890, a n d t h e p r i n c i p l e , a t l e a s t , of a harmonious terminology i n c o r p o r a t e d in t h e Prussian Guidelines of 1892 (Lehrpläne und Lehrauf'gaben für die höheren Schulen 1892:25, 39). Mangold believed t h a t now t h a t t h e problem had b e e n solved in E n g l a n d , 'we in Germany h a v e only to t a k e t h e 'Parallel Grammar S e r i e s ' as a model a n d to l e a r n from S o n n e n s c h e i n how to c o n s t r u c t a similar s e r i e s for o u r own c o u n t r y ' (Mangold 1892:14, p a r a p h r a s e d in Anwyl 1898:VI). I t is i n s t r u c t i v e to o b s e r v e how, o n c e t h e idea had t a k e n r o o t , t h e d i f f e r e n t c o u n t r i e s s e t a b o u t t h e problem, a n d t h e p r o g r e s s t h e y made, in a d e b a t e which was to c o n t i n u e for o v e r t w e n t y y e a r s .

SONNENSCHEIN AND GRAMMATICAL TERMINOLOGY

61

In E n g l a n d , t h e Parallel Grammar S e r i e s officially ceased publication in 1899. N e v e r t h e l e s s , S o n n e n s c h e i n c o n t i n u e d to work t o w a r d s his twin aims of simplicity a n d unification of grammatical n o m e n c l a t u r e t h r o u g h o t h e r c h a n n e l s . In 1908 a new initiative was developed within the Classical Association, a body which S o n n e n s c h e i n had helped to found in o r d e r to f u r t h e r t h e p u r s u i t of classical s t u d i e s , with J o h n P e r c i v a l P o s t g a t e in 1903. The p r o p o s a l s p u t to t h e Classical Association led to t h e formation of a committee, a n d in December 1908 a s u g g e s t i o n was made to o t h e r i n t e r e s t e d bodies t h a t t h e y s h o u l d c o - o p e r a t e with t h e Classical Association in a p p o i n t i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s to a J o i n t Committee with t h e p u r p o s e of p r o d u c i n g a unified terminology for t h e main l a n g u a g e s t a u g h t in English a n d Welsh schools. This Committee, c o n s i s t i n g of members elected by e i g h t a s s o c i a t i o n s , was c o n s t i t u t e d e a r l y in 1909, Two f u r t h e r members, Henry Bradley a n d Edith H a s t i n g s , were c o - o p t e d a n d two h o n o r a r y c o r r e s p o n d e n t s a p p o i n t e d : Prof. F e r d i n a n d B r u n o t of t h e S o r b o n n e , a n d Dr. Karl R e i n h a r d t in Berlin. By December 1909 t h e J o i n t Committee had p r o d u c e d a n Interim Report, which was s e n t to the i n d i v i d u a l a s s o c i a t i o n s for comment. Their c r i t i c i s m s were c o n s i d e r e d a t f u r t h e r m e e t i n g s in 1910 a n d 1911 a n d finally, in 1911, t h e f r u i t of t h i s l a b o u r was p u b l i s h e d u n d e r t h e title On the Terminology of Grammar. Being the Report of the Joint Committee on Grammatical Terminology. A l t o g e t h e r , t h e Report of t h e J o i n t Committee recommended s i x t y - f o u r t e r m s in t h r e e l a n g u a g e s (English, German a n d F r e n c h ) t o g e t h e r with some o t h e r t e r m s specific to i n d i v i d u a l l a n g u a g e s (and h e n c e w i t h o u t e q u i v a l e n t s in t h e o t h e r l a n g u a g e s ) . During t h e p e r i o d c o n c e r n e d (c. 1890-1910), s c h o l a r s in o t h e r c o u n t r i e s had not b e e n idle, e i t h e r . An e v e n t of some i m p o r t a n c e on t h e mainland of E u r o p e seems to h a v e b e e n t h e C o n g r e s s on F o r e i g n - L a n g u a g e T e a c h i n g held in P a r i s in J u l y 1900. Although t h e q u e s t i o n of grammatical terminology did not r e c e i v e p a r t i c u l a r l y e x t e n s i v e t r e a t m e n t a t t h i s c o n g r e s s , many of t h o s e c o n c e r n e d looked back on it a s a n i m p o r t a n t milestone, t h o u g h (it was also claimed) individual initiatives towards harmonising the grammatical terminology for d i f f e r e n t l a n g u a g e s had b e e n developed a t t h e Lycée Janson a t Sailly from a s e a r l y a s 1897. The most s i g n i f i c a n t s t e p in F r a n c e was t a k e n in 1906 with a p a p e r which S u d r e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e

62

JOHN WALMSLEY

Musès pédagogique in P a r i s on March 1st. According to Glauser, S u d r e seems to h a v e identified much of what was w r o n g with grammatical terminology with s u c h s t r i k i n g a c c u r a c y t h a t t h e topic was made t h e s u b j e c t of a meeting of t h e grammar teachers {professeurs de grammaire) of t h e P a r i s lycées held a f o r t n i g h t l a t e r . From t h i s meeting stemmed t h e p r o p o s a l to form a commission with t h e p u r p o s e of simplifying grammatical n o m e n c l a t u r e . Bearing in mind t h e s t r u c t u r e of t h e F r e n c h e d u c a t i o n s y s t e m , it was t h o u g h t t h a t a n y p r o p o s a l s p u t f o r w a r d by t h e commission would s t a n d a b e t t e r c h a n c e of s u c c e s s if t h e y p o s s e s s e d some kind of official c h a r a c t e r , and t h a t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e minister should t h e r e f o r e be a s k e d to a p p o i n t t h e commission. The minister complied, and a n initial r e p o r t was p r e s e n t e d in F e b r u a r y 1907. Like t h e Interim Report l a t e r p r e s e n t e d b y t h e Joint Committee in E n g l a n d , t h e s e p r o p o s a l s w e r e s u b j e c t e d to detailed criticism, and t h e F r e n c h commission was r e c o n s t i t u t e d in J a n u a r y 1908 to r e v i s e t h e p r o p o s a l s . The r e v i s e d r e p o r t was p r e s e n t e d u n d e r t h e names of B r u n o t a n d Maquet, and p a s s e d u p w a r d s within t h e m i n i s t r y for s c r u t i n y by a committee of t h e Conseil supérieur. The J o i n t Committee in England o b t a i n e d a c o p y of t h e s e p r o p o s a l s in e a r l y 1910, a n d t h e i r comments were s e n t to F r a n c e in J u n e . The F r e n c h committee's r e v i s i o n of t h e a l r e a d y r e v i s e d p r o p o s a l s finally a p p e a r e d in t h e form of a ministerial d e c r e e d a t e d 25th. J u l y 1910. (The list of t e r m s may be c o n s u l t e d in Glauser 1911:449f). Before t h e d e c r e e was p u b l i s h e d , a f u r t h e r c o n g r e s s of Modern L a n g u a g e T e a c h e r s had t a k e n place in P a r i s , in April 1910, a t which i n t e r n a t i o n a l l i n k s w e r e f u r t h e r s t r e n g t h e n e d . P r o f e s s o r Hammer of Vienna p o i n t e d out t h a t i n t e r n a t i o n a l a g r e e m e n t on t h e topic was i m p o r t a n t , a n d B r u n o t p u t f o r w a r d t h e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t Dörr should p r o p o s e t h e s e t t i n g u p of an i n t e r n a t i o n a l committee a t t h e next c o n g r e s s of German t e a c h e r s of modern l a n g u a g e s in Zü r i c h . While F r a n c e a n d England a p p e a r e d to be making good p r o g r e s s , A u s t r i a was also showing an i n t e r e s t in t h e reform of grammatical n o m e n c l a t u r e . Comparatively s p e a k i n g , A u s t r i a s t a r t e d late a n d finished e a r l y . In 1910, t h e Society of Modern L a n g u a g e T e a c h e r s , meeting in Vienna, s e t u p a commission to work o u t a simplified, unified terminology for t h e five main l a n g u a g e s t a u g h t in A u s t r i a n schools. The c o r p u s of terminology was completed by

SONNENSCHEIN AND GRAMMATICAL TERMINOLOGY

63

J a n u a r y 1912 a n d p u b l i s h e d in t h e same y e a r . The r e s u l t s w o r k e d o u t b y t h e A u s t r i a n commission s e r v e d a s i n p u t to t h e German d i s c u s s i o n s d u r i n g t h e y e a r s 1913 a n d 1914. Germany, t h e last of t h e major E u r o p e a n c o u n t r i e s c o n c e r n e d , t o y e d with t h e idea of reform for o v e r t w e n t y y e a r s w i t h o u t , it seems, e v e r g e t t i n g a s far a s t h e A u s t r i a n p r o p o s a l s . Despite t h e r e f e r e n c e s to uniformity of terminology (or ' h a r m o n y ' , a s Ratke had t e r m e d it) which a p p e a r e d in t h e P r u s s i a n g u i d e l i n e s of t h e 1890s, t h e r e were no immediately p e r c e p t i b l e c o n s e q u e n c e s . F r a n z Dörr (comade r e p e a t e d e f f o r t s to e d i t o r with Viëtor of Die Neueren Sprachen) p u s h t h i n g s f o r w a r d . He p a r t i c i p a t e d in a g r o u p which was a c t i v e in F r a n k f u r t , g a v e a p a p e r a t t h e Zürich c o n g r e s s in 1910, a n d also p r o p o s e d t h e s e t t i n g - u p of a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l committee to work t o w a r d s some k i n d of a g r e e m e n t . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e work remained fragmentary and uncoordinated. I t s main f r u i t s appeared as i n d i v i d u a l p a p e r s p u b l i s h e d or r e a d b y s u c h men a s Dörr himself, Baumann and Bojunga. At t h e German C o n g r e s s of Modern L a n g u a g e T e a c h e r s in Bremen in J u n e 1914 t h e complaint was made t h a t ' f o u r y e a r s a f t e r t h e f i r s t p r o p o s a l , s c a r c e l y a n y p r o g r e s s h a s b e e n made ... t h e commission elected in F r a n k f u r t s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d to h a v e i t s p r o p o s a l s r e a d y to be p u t to t h e v o t e a t t h e next m e e t i n g ' (Ahnert 1915:391). By t h e n , h o w e v e r , t h e Great War had p u t paid to a n y t h o u g h t s of i n t e r n a t i o n a l cooperation. A late f r u i t , p e r h a p s , of t h e German movement for reform was Sommer's Vergleichende Syntax der Schulsprachen, which first a p p e a r e d in 1921. This book (not, it may be noted, t h e work of a committee) w e n t some way t o w a r d s p r o v i d i n g a framework for t h e kind of comparison of t h e five most commonly t a u g h t l a n g u a g e s in Germany (German, English, French, Greek and Latin) which S o n n e n s c h e i n had looked for, t h o u g h t h e a p p r o a c h was n o t i c e a b l y different. At t h e same time a s t h e c o u n t r i e s of E u r o p e w e r e holding c o n g r e s s e s a n d p r o d u c i n g r e p o r t s , in t h e United S t a t e s t h r e e d i f f e r e n t committees w e r e s e t u p b y v a r i o u s bodies to a d d r e s s t h e problem. The f i r s t was a p p o i n t e d b y t h e American Modern L a n g u a g e Association (MLA) in 1906. I t s brief was to improve a n d harmonise t h e terminology of t h e modern l a n g u a g e s . (In p r a c t i c a l p a r l a n c e t h e term 'modern l a n g u a g e s ' would exclude b o t h t h e classical l a n g u a g e s -

64

JOHN WALMSLEY

Latin, Greek a n d Hebrew - and t h e v e r n a c u l a r ) . This committee did not i s s u e a r e p o r t . In 1911 two f u r t h e r committees w e r e a p p o i n t e d . One w a s s e t u p b y t h e D e p a r t m e n t of S u p e r i n t e n d e n c e of t h e National Education Association; t h e o t h e r was a j o i n t committee c o n s i s t i n g of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of s e v e r a l b o d i e s , not unlike t h e English model. The f i r s t of t h e s e was to confine i t s a t t e n t i o n to t h e terminology of English grammar, a n d was h e n c e complementary to t h e committee a p p o i n t e d b y t h e MLA. The s e c o n d was j o i n t l y s p o n s o r e d b y t h e National E d u c a t i o n Association a n d t h e MLAt in c o - o p e r a t i o n with t h e American Philological Association. This committee's brief, like t h a t of i t s English c o u n t e r p a r t , i n c l u d e d c o v e r a g e of t h e v e r n a c u l a r , (English), t h e o t h e r modern l a n g u a g e s and t h e classical l a n g u a g e s . I t s r e p o r t was i s s u e d u n d e r t h e c h a i r m a n s h i p of W.G. Hale in 1913. This, then, was the international context in which S o n n e n s c h e i n ' s terminological reform was c a r r i e d o u t . Before looking a t S o n n e n s c h e i n ' s terminology in more detail, h o w e v e r , it is w o r t h r e v i e w i n g t h e a c h i e v e m e n t s of t h e v a r i o u s national movements a s a whole, not l e a s t b e c a u s e closer i n s p e c t i o n r e v e a l s fundamental d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n them in aim, a p p r o a c h a n d implementation. The movements c a n be d i s t i n g u i s h e d in t e r m s of d i f f e r e n t p a r a m e t e r s ; - a n d f i r s t of all, a c c o r d i n g to how wide t h e i r brief was. P r a n c e a n d t h e United S t a t e s s e t u p committees whose sole t a s k it was to simplify t h e terminology of v e r n a c u l a r grammar. A n o t h e r of t h e United S t a t e s committees was c o n c e r n e d only with (other) modern l a n g u a g e s , while t h e E n g l i s h a n d t h e United S t a t e s J o i n t Committees aimed to simplify a n d unify all t h r e e : t h e grammar of t h e v e r n a c u l a r , t h e o t h e r m o d e r n l a n g u a g e s t a u g h t in s c h o o l s , a n d t h e classical languages. One might s u s p e c t with h i n d s i g h t t h a t t h e c h a n c e s of s u c c e s s in t h i s v e n t u r e i n c r e a s e d in i n v e r s e p r o p o r t i o n to t h e range of phenomena to be c o v e r e d . The F r e n c h , a t a n y r a t e , while accepting simplification a s a legitimate aim, soon r e n o u n c e d t h e s e c o n d strand of t h e reforms - unification - a s b e i n g p r o b l e m a t i c , if not indeed d a n g e r o u s (Glauser 1911:457). F u r t h e r d i f f e r e n c e s e m e r g e in t e r m s of approach. How far were t h e v a r i o u s committees willing a n d able to incorporate the latest t h i n k i n g in d e s c r i p t i v e philology? B r u n o t (of the Sorbonne) was without doubt one of the most original thinkers concerned in

SONNENSCHEIN AND GRAMMATICAL TERMINOLOGY

65

t h e e n t e r p r i s e b u t , o n c e t h e work had b e e n e n t r u s t e d to a ministerial committee, g u i d e l i n e s w e r e p u t on t h e table which u n d o u b t e d l y h a m p e r e d t h e work. One of t h e ministerial d e c r e e s , for i n s t a n c e , enjoined t h e F r e n c h commission ' n o t to employ new t e r m s e x c e p t w h e r e n e c e s s a r y ' a n d 'to choose t e r m s a l r e a d y a d o p t e d in t h e s t u d y of t h e l a n g u a g e s t a u g h t in s c h o o l s ' (Glauser 1911:460). The Joint Committee in E n g l a n d was, b y comparison, free, b u t t h e n v o l u n t a r i l y a d o p t e d one of t h e p r i n c i p l e s which had b e e n followed in t h e Parallel Grammar S e r i e s : ' t h e e x i s t i n g s t o c k of names, if u s e d economically, is sufficient' (Anwyl 1898:passim). This self-imposed limitation led in England to t h e criticism t h a t t h e c a t e g o r i e s p o s t u l a t e d for t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of English w e r e insufficiently o p e n to t h e kind of i n n o v a t o r y t h i n k i n g of s u c h men a s J e s p e r s e n . In F r a n c e , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , B r u n o t complained t h a t t h e work of h i s commission had ' b e e n s u b s e q u e n t l y m u t i l a t e d ' ( A h n e r t 1912:358). a n d Glauser c o n c l u d e d t h a t ' t h e n o m e n c l a t u r e of t h e ministerial d e c r e e of 25th. J u l y 1910 b e a r s no r e s e m b l a n c e to t h a t p u t forward b y C. Maquet in his f i r s t r e p o r t , a n d e v e n l e s s to t h a t e x p o u n d e d a n d j u s t i f i e d b y F. B r u n o t a n d Maquet in t h e i r s e c o n d r e p o r t . . . ' (Glauser 1911:458). Finally, t h e r e w e r e d i f f e r e n c e s in implementation. The F r e n c h had t h e a d v a n t a g e of a h i g h l y c e n t r a l i s e d e d u c a t i o n s y s t e m which made it p o s s i b l e to impose uniformity of terminology on t e a c h e r s by d e c r e e . The only hope which t h e English p r o p o s a l s had of b e i n g a c c e p t e d , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , lay in p e r s u a d i n g those most immediately involved with t h e problem to make u s e of a n d p r o p a g a t e t h e terminology t h e m s e l v e s . Hence S o n n e n s c h e i n ' s a t t e m p t to s e c u r e t h e c o - o p e r a t i o n of t h e major a s s o c i a t i o n s : The Classical Association, The Modern L a n g u a g e Association, The English Association, The H e a d m a s t e r s ' Association, The H e a d m i s t r e s s e s ' Association, The A s s i s t a n t M a s t e r s ' Association, The A s s i s t a n t M i s t r e s s e s ' Association a n d The Association of P r e p a r a t o r y Schools. Although t h e English way f o r w a r d was d o u b t l e s s a more democratic e n t e r p r i s e , t h e r e is a note of r e g r e t in S o n n e n s c h e i n ' s comment to t h e Classical Association t h a t ' T h e r e is no b o d y in t h i s c o u n t r y in a position to formulate a scheme for Grammatical Terminology a n d to impose it u p o n all t e a c h e r s . The Board of E d u c a t i o n , I am told, would not contemplate t h e l a b o r i o u s a n d delicate t a s k of framing a grammatical terminology

66

JOHN WALMSLEY

for use in all schools' (Proceedings of the Classical Association) 1911:21). The proposals of the Joint Committee thus had to survive in a free market, as it were. But in this they had more in common with the German, Austrian and United States proposals than they did with the French. What did the proposals made by the Joint Committee, under Sonnenschein's chairmanship, look like? The list of terms which they recommended for English, together with their French and German equivalents, is given in the Appendix. Three major beliefs guided the selection of terms. The first was that - despite the fact that the Committee was answerable only to itself - (it had no constraints imposed upon it comparable to those imposed upon the French commission, for instance) - it eschewed terminological innovation on the grounds that the stock of conventional terms was sufficient to provide a common vocabulary, or nearly so. Secondly, the Committee took into account comparative evidence. It was unavoidable that, if the terminology were to be used to describe other languages as well as English, the structure of these languages, too, had to be reflected in the terminology. Finally, the Committee believed that diachronic evidence as well as synchronic evidence needed to be taken into account. This readiness to make use of both comparative and historical evidence led to comments such as the following: 'In French the latter part of this recommendation can be justified not only by obvious convenience but also historically...' {Report, Recommendation XXXVII:27). French nouns and pronouns were thus to be described as being in the accusative on the grounds of evidence from Vulgar Latin, Byzantine Greek and vernacular modern Greek (Report, Recommendation XXXVII:27). Interestingly, the structure of the Report of the Joint Committee did not reflect traditional practice. The conventional grammar book up to the nineteenth century distinguished etymology (i.e. morphology, frequently called 'Accidence') from syntax, and treated the two in that order, beginning with the parts of speech (form classes). The Report of the Joint Committee, on the other hand, adopted an analytical approach, beginning with the sentence, dividing it into subject and predicate, only arriving at the parts of speech in Recommendations XIIIff.

SONNENSCHEIN AND GRAMMATICAL TERMINOLOGY

67

Among t h e form c l a s s e s , a r t i c l e and n u m e r a l w e r e still t r e a t e d a s s u b - c l a s s e s of o t h e r p a r t s of s p e e c h (Report» Recommendation XIII: 18). Nouns could be divided into collective a n d a b s t r a c t n o u n s on s y n t a c t i c g r o u n d s (differences in v e r b - c o n c o r d ) , b u t ' t h e J o i n t Committee d e p r e c a t e s t h e p r a c t i c e of classifying all Nouns u n d e r t h e h e a d s a b s t r a c t noun*, ' C o n c r e t e n o u n ' , ' P r o p e r n o u n ' , 'Common n o u n ' {Report, Recommendation XIV:18). In t h e a r e a of t h e functional a n d s e c o n d a r y grammatical c a t e g o r i e s , t h e b o u n d a r i e s became l e s s c l e a r . Functionally, a n o b j e c t was defined a s ' t h e Noun or Noun E q u i v a l e n t g o v e r n e d b y a Verb,* a n d it is w o r t h n o t i n g t h a t c l a u s e s c o n t a i n i n g two o b j e c t s w e r e r e c o g n i z e d in s u c h s e n t e n c e s a s : He a s k e d me many questions; Er l e h r t e mich die Deutsche Sprache (Report, Recommendation IV:11). However, g e n i t i v e o b j e c t s w e r e d i s t i n g u i s h e d from a c c u s a t i v e o b j e c t s , a n d t h e s e a g a i n from d a t i v e a n d a b l a t i v e o b j e c t s ( Report, Recommendation IV:11). So long a s t h i s was done on t h e b a s i s of form, t h e problem was not a c u t e . Difficulties a r o s e , h o w e v e r , w h e n , for i n s t a n c e , c a s e had to be a s s i g n e d to n o u n s on a functional b a s i s . For t h i s p u r p o s e , t h e Latin t e r m s w e r e recommended a n d English examples p r o v i d e d for t h e nominative, v o c a t i v e , a c c u s a t i v e , d a t i v e and genitive (Report, Recommendation XXXV:25). At t h i s point, c o m p a r a t i v e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s w e r e i n v o k e d to defend t h e p r a c t i c e : 'The term Case is n e c e s s a r y e v e n for English Grammar b y itself, in view of t h e s u r v i v i n g inflexions, especially in P r o n o u n s , a n d also b e c a u s e it is d e s i r a b l e for t h e l e a r n e r to r e c o g n i z e t h e l i k e n e s s of E n g l i s h , so f a r a s it e x t e n d s , to more h i g h l y inflected languages' (Report, Recommendation XXXV:25), The c o m p a r a t i v e p r i n c i p l e was also e x t e n d e d to German, with t h e a d d i t i o n a l recommendation t h a t t h e t r a d i t i o n a l Latin d e s i g n a t i o n s for t h e c a s e s seemed p r e f e r a b l e to s u c h new t e r m s a s 'Werfall', 'WenfalP, 'Wesfall' e t c (Report, Recommendation XXXVI:26-27). In view of t h e fact t h a t c a s e became o n e of t h e main b o n e s of c o n t e n t i o n , it is c u r i o u s to find t h a t t h e Committee a p p l i e d d i f f e r e n t p r i n c i p l e s to c a s e from t h o s e which it applied to g e n d e r . The

68

JOHN WALMSLEY

t r e a t m e n t a d v o c a t e d for c a s e meant, in e s s e n c e , t h a t n o u n p h r a s e s would be said to be in a g i v e n c a s e on t h e b a s i s of t h e i r function, i r r e s p e c t i v e of t h e fact t h a t no m a r k e r s of c a s e might be visible on t h e s u r f a c e . Applying a similar p r i n c i p l e to g e n d e r , one would be p r e p a r e d to find t h r e e g e n d e r s (masculine, feminine, n e u t e r ) b e i n g p r o p o s e d , if n e c e s s a r y on t h e b a s i s of c o m p a r a t i v e p r i n c i p l e s similar to t h e one q u o t e d a b o v e a n d i r r e s p e c t i v e of t h e o v e r t e v i d e n c e for g e n d e r . However, t h e Committee did not a r g u e like t h i s . Gender was c o r r e c t l y t r e a t e d less a s a d e n o t a t i v e or r e f e r e n t i a l c a t e g o r y t h a n a s a c a t e g o r y of c o n c o r d : ' a s t h e r e a r e no inflexions of g e n d e r in a d j e c t i v e s in Modern English, t h e r e is no a g r e e m e n t of t h e a d j e c t i v e with i t s n o u n in g e n d e r ' (Report, Recommendation XXXIV:24). A final point w o r t h y of note in t h i s a r e a c o n c e r n s t h e t r e a t m e n t of transitivity. Pupils have obvious difficulties in classifying v e r b s s u c h a s eat a s ' t r a n s i t i v e ' or ' i n t r a n s i t i v e / Although eat implies a n o b j e c t , t h e o b j e c t is not always p r e s e n t in t h e s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e : we can s a y , They were eating a s well a s They were eating something. Does t h a t make eat a n i n t r a n s i t i v e v e r b ? The Committee solved t h e problem b y p r o p o s i n g t h a t one s p e a k of a v e r b used t r a n s i t i v e l y or i n t r a n s i t i v e l y r a t h e r t h a n of a v e r b being t r a n s i t i v e or i n t r a n s i t i v e (Report, Recommendation XX:20). The t e r m s recommended b y t h e Committee a r e all familiar to p r e s e n t - d a y g r a m m a r i a n s a n d would be c o n s i d e r e d u n e x c e p t i o n a b l e . One can g a i n a more p r e c i s e idea of t h e t r u e n a t u r e of t h e terminology, however, b y viewing it from a n o t h e r a n g l e , - b y a s k i n g not only which t e r m s t h e recommendations c o n t a i n e d b u t also which t e r m s were e x c l u d e d . To t a k e t h e f o r m - c l a s s e s f i r s t , t h e Committee was c l e a r l y t r y i n g to d i s c a r d t h e u s e of ' s u b s t a n t i v e ' in f a v o u r of t h e word ' n o u n . ' In English t r a d i t i o n a l grammar, a t l e a s t u n t i l well i n t o t h e eighteenth century, the noun was subdivided into

substantive and

adjective. Substantive, adjective and pronoun were all t r e a t e d under the word-class 'noun.' The Committee's solution, on t h e o t h e r h a n d , was more in line with t h a t f a v o u r e d b y P r i e s t l e y , for i n s t a n c e , a c c o r d i n g to which n o u n , a d j e c t i v e a n d p r o n o u n ( t h o u g h not, be it n o t e d , a r t i c l e a n d numeral) w e r e t r e a t e d a s i n d e p e n d e n t p a r t s of s p e e c h .

SONNENSCHEIN AND GRAMMATICAL TERMINOLOGY

69

In t h e v e r b , ' a c t i v e ' was to be r e p l a c e d b y ' t r a n s i t i v e ' ( r e s e r v i n g ' a c t i v e ' to d e n o t e a c a t e g o r y of voice), a n d ' n e u t e r ' was to be d i s c a r d e d a l t o g e t h e r . ' N e u t e r ' was a c u r i o u s t e r m , t r a d i t i o n a l l y being u s e d to i n c l u d e i n t r a n s i t i v e v e r b s , b u t also ' t h o s e t h a t does (sic) not signify action b u t d e n o t e s t h e being or state of a p e r s o n (The English Accidence 1733:73), s u c h as grieve, stand, sit, be green

etc. Further, the terms 'copulative' and 'factitive' were to be abandoned as 'unnecessary' (Report, Recommendation 11:2). 'Copulative' verbs in traditional grammar were verbs which cannot form predicates by themselves. For this reason they were also known under the name 'verbs of incomplete predication.' What traditional grammarians understood by factitive verbs was verbs which take two objects, such as: They made him king, I think him a liar. In these sentences the second object (king and liar respectively) would be known as a factitive object. Among the adjectives, an attempt was made to discard the word 'attribute' (for adjectives and nouns used non-predicatively) in favour of 'epithet.' The reason given for this was that the French scheme of terminology recommended the use of attribut to denote adjectives or nouns used predicatively! Epithéte, on, the other hand, was recommended where the English would normally use 'attribute' (Report, Recommendation 111:10). Interestingly, 'attribute' seems to have survived better in England than 'epithet.' In the area of secondary grammatical categories, the Committee stumbled over the same problem as it had in its positive recommendations: the treatment of case. The worst error one could make in this area, as Sudre had perceived, was to confuse function with form - assigning a 'dative' case to so-called indirect objects in English, for instance. Proposing, therefore, that the term 'objective case' (together with 'possessive' and 'nominative of address') be abandoned seemed on the face of things to signal progress, by removing a functional label from a formally marked case. The Committee proposed, however, to replace these words by the terms 'accusative', 'genitive', and 'vocative.' Skeat was against this solution

70

JOHN WALMSLEY

on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t English simply did not p o s s e s s a c c u s a t i v e , g e n i t i v e and v o c a t i v e c a s e s . He w r o t e : 'I a l t o g e t h e r d i s a p p r o v e of "Genitive c a s e " for English. " P o s s e s s i v e " is bad e n o u g h ; b u t I s u p p o s e one must h a v e some name, a n d " P o s s e s s i v e " b e t t e r i n d i c a t e s the f a c t s ' ( S k e a t 1914:19*). Finally, at t h e s e n t e n c e level, it was p r o p o s e d to r e p l a c e 'compound' s e n t e n c e b y ' d o u b l e ' or 'multiple' s e n t e n c e b e c a u s e of p o s s i b l e confusion with 'complex.' The t e r m s ' p r o t a s i s ' and ' a p o d o s i s ' for t h e 'if' a n d 'main' c l a u s e s in conditional s e n t e n c e s w e r e also to be a b a n d o n e d . The a b o v e p o i n t s mainly c o n c e r n t h e p r i m a r y a n d s e c o n d a r y grammatical c a t e g o r i e s , a n d t h e functional c a t e g o r i e s . U n d e r l y i n g t h e p r o p o s e d c h a n g e s , h o w e v e r , a n a p p r o a c h to grammar becomes visible which itself c o n t r i b u t e d to t h e difficulties which t h e scheme was to e n c o u n t e r - b o t h in t e r m s of i t s r e c e p t i o n a n d in t e r m s of i t s implementation. In a d d i t i o n to t h e p o i n t s mentioned a b o v e , t h e Report of t h e Joint Committee r e c o g n i z e d t h e e x i s t e n c e of p h r a s e s , t h o u g h t h e term ' e q u i v a l e n t ' is f r e q u e n t l y p r e f e r r e d . Doing t h e work of a n o u n , one could h a v e a Noun or 'Noun E q u i v a l e n t . ' P h r a s e s w e r e labelled, however, - (and t h i s is w h a t t h e a p p r o a c h had in common with t h e t r e a t m e n t of case) - a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r f u n c t i o n r a t h e r t h a n t h e i r form or c o n s t i t u e n t s t r u c t u r e . An ' a d j e c t i v e p h r a s e ' , t h e r e f o r e , did not n e c e s s a r i l y c o n t a i n a n a d j e c t i v e , nor a n o u n p h r a s e a n o u n . I n s t e a d , it had to be doing t h e work of one of t h e s e form c l a s s e s . I t s c o n s t i t u e n t s t r u c t u r e was i r r e l e v a n t . This a p p r o a c h had n e g a t i v e c o n s e q u e n c e s for t h e t r e a t m e n t of grammar itself, b u t p a r t i c u l a r l y so for i t s t e a c h i n g . The a b o v e , t h e n , c o n s t i t u t e d t h e main f e a t u r e s of t h e p r o p o s a l s p u t forward b y t h e J o i n t Committee in E n g l a n d . It is not e a s y to j u d g e a t t h i s d i s t a n c e of time how far t h e Committee s u c c e e d e d in i n i t i a t i n g c h a n g e , a n d how far it was merely g i v i n g a h e l p i n g h a n d to c h a n g e s which w e r e a l r e a d y u n d e r way. However, some indication is p r o v i d e d both b y t h e d e g r e e to which t h e Committee itself felt obliged to p r o v i d e j u s t i f i c a t i o n for i t s p r o p o s a l s , a n d also b y t h e d e g r e e of opposition r a i s e d with r e s p e c t to i n d i v i d u a l p o i n t s in t h e terminology.

SONNENSCHEIN AND GRAMMATICAL TERMINOLOGY

71

Criticism came from a n u m b e r of q u a r t e r s . From t h e point of view of t h e aims, w h e t h e r for t h e o r e t i c a l o r for p r a c t i c a l r e a s o n s t h e A u s t r i a n s a n d t h e F r e n c h soon a b a n d o n e d t h e a t t e m p t to p r o v i d e a c o m p r e h e n s i v e n o m e n c l a t u r e for all t h e main foreign languages t a u g h t in schools. Opinion was divided a s to w h e t h e r s u c h a n aim was in p r i n c i p l e w o r t h pursuing even though the practical difficulties might p r o v e i n s u r m o u n t a b l e , or w h e t h e r t h e aim itself was misguided. While Glauser d e s c r i b e d t h e a c h i e v e m e n t of t h e English Committee a s 'a g r e a t s t e p f o r w a r d ' (Glauser 1911:495). S k e a t in England a n d B r u n o t in F r a n c e believed t h a t t h e aim itself was not a d e s i r a b l e one. S k e a t , in t h e l e t t e r to Nesfield q u o t e d a b o v e , w r o t e : *The a t t e m p t to b r i n g English into t h e scheme of " t h e five l a n g u a g e s " is most o b j e c t i o n a b l e . It is r i v e t i n g u p o n t h e poor s c h o l a r s t h e old ... notion t h a t English grammar depends u p o n Latin g r a m m a r , a n d must be e x p r e s s e d in t e r m s of it' ( S k e a t 1914:17*). B r u n o t , for his p a r t , said a t t h e fifteenth meeting of t h e German modern l i n g u i s t s in F r a n k f u r t in 1912, t h a t ' e v e r y l a n g u a g e h a s i t s own p a r t i c u l a r forms, which do not c o r r e s p o n d exactly to t h o s e of o t h e r l a n g u a g e s ' ( A h n e r t 1912:358). Even t h o s e who t h o u g h t t h e aim of uniformity l a u d a b l e , h o w e v e r , found much to c r i t i c i s e in t h e execution. F i r s t to e x p r e s s t h e i r c r i t i c i s m s w e r e i n d i v i d u a l members of t h e Joint Committee itself. More t h a n half p u t t h e i r names to r e s e r v a t i o n s a p p e n d e d to t h e Report in w r i t i n g . The most c o n t e n t i o u s p o i n t s w e r e , a s might h a v e b e e n p r e d i c t e d , t h e t r e a t m e n t of c a s e , p r e p o s i t i o n a l ('case') p h r a s e s , and tense. Criticism of t h e implementation of t h e terminology from o u t s i d e t h e Committee came from The E n g l i s h Association, Nesfield, S k e a t , Mawer, Arnold, a n d t h e I.A.A.M.S.S. in E n g l a n d , a n d from Glauser a n d Baumann in Germany. The criticism from t h e English s i d e c o n c e r n e d (again) t h e t r e a t m e n t of c a s e a n d , in p a r t i c u l a r , t h e s u p p o s e d r e a d i n e s s of t h e Committee 'to d e s c r i b e o n e l a n g u a g e in t e r m s of t h e c a t e g o r i e s of a n o t h e r . On t h i s t h e two major camps t h e a s s o c i a t i o n s c o n c e r n e d with English a n d Latin - a g r e e d . But e a c h claimed t h a t t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of ' t h e i r ' l a n g u a g e had b e e n v i t i a t e d b y h a v i n g b e e n viewed t h r o u g h t h e o t h e r ' s s p e c t a c l e s , a s it w e r e . The English Association had t h i s to s a y : ! it is o n e t h i n g to make u s e in t e a c h i n g grammar of t h e n u m e r o u s p o i n t s of a c t u a l r e s e m b l a n c e

72

JOHN WALMSLEY

b e t w e e n English and t h e four f o r e i g n l a n g u a g e s dealt with in t h e R e p o r t of t h e Joint Committee: it is q u i t e a n o t h e r to i n v e n t r e s e m b l a n c e s which h a v e in fact no e x i s t e n c e ' ( The Problem of Grammar 1923:6). Arnold, on t h e o t h e r h a n d , a r g u i n g from t h e viewpoint of Latin, s p o k e of t h e Committee laying down t h e p r i n c i p l e ' t h a t we a r e to t a k e P r e n c h and English a n d German, and to build u p t h e Latin a n d Greek grammar u p o n t h a t foundation' (Proceedings of the Classical Association 1911:29). This, he said, was 'to lay down a false foundation* (Proceedings of the Classical Association 1911:29). Abroad, Baumann claimed t h a t t h e English terminology was less clear a n d complete t h a n t h e F r e n c h , and t h a t it lacked a convenient summary at the close. His complaint that the recommendations exhibited no definite order seems less well motivated. The English Committee's r e v e r s a l of t r a d i t i o n a l p r o c e d u r e , to w o r k analytically from t h e s e n t e n c e d o w n w a r d s , h a s a l r e a d y b e e n r e m a r k e d on. The F r e n c h s y s t e m had followed t h e t r a d i t i o n a l p a t h of e n u m e r a t i n g t h e p a r t s of s p e e c h with t h e i r s u b - c l a s s e s in t h e f i r s t p a r t (like t h e t r a d i t i o n a l 'Etymologia'), and dealing with s y n t a c t i c t e r m s in t h e s e c o n d . Also, Baumann claimed, t h e English terminology had not b e e n completed for English, F r e n c h a n d German. In a s e n s e , t h i s was t r u e . The last complete t r i a d of t e r m s is Past Perfect, Präterit-Perfekt/Plusquamperfekt a n d Passe ParfaiU It seems t h a t when t h e Committee's a t t e n t i o n t u r n e d to t e n s e , t h e c o m p a r a t i v e s y s t e m b r o k e down. The Committee p r e s e n t e d t h i s fact diplomatically with t h e w o r d s , 'In t h i s scheme a c c o u n t is t a k e n not only of t h e r e l a t i o n s of t h e t e n s e in t h e five l a n g u a g e s to one a n o t h e r , b u t also of t h e needs of e a c h language taught separately' (Report, Recommendation XL:28). B a u m a n n ' s most f u n d a m e n t a l criticism of t h e J o i n t Committee's terminology was t h a t it failed to maintain t h e p r i n c i p l e d d i s t i n c t i o n demanded b y S u d r e b e t w e e n form, function a n d meaning. With t h i s , Baumann p u t his f i n g e r on one of t h e major flaws in t h e Committee's terminology, a n d a point o v e r which some members of t h e Committee also e x p r e s s e d r e s e r v a t i o n s , namely Recommendations XXI and XXXVII. T h e s e p a r a g r a p h s c o n c e r n what in modern cs grammar would be r e p r e s e n t e d a s PP. The t e r m s u s e d b y t h e Committee, h o w e v e r , w e r e ' A d v e r b E q u i v a l e n t ' and 'Case P h r a s e . ' It is, I t h i n k , fair to s a y t h a t t h e form-function confusion t u r n e d o u t to be t h e most p e r s i s t e n t

SONNENSCHEIN AND GRAMMATICAL TERMINOLOGY

73

legacy of t h e Joint Committee's Report to English grammatical thinking. I n view of t h e c r i t i c i s m s levelled a t t h e J o i n t Committee's recommendations, one would be j u s t i f i e d in s u p p o s i n g t h a t t h e terminological r e v o l u t i o n came to a n e n d with i t s i n i t i a t o r . T r e b l e a n d Vallins, in 1936, w r o t e of t h e Report on Grammatical Terminology that it 'seems to s u r v i v e only in s u c h p r e f a c e s as t h i s ' ( T r e b l e a n d Vallins, 1936:Preface). There is some evidence to suggest, n e v e r t h e l e s s , t h a t t h e J o i n t Committee's influence went f u r t h e r . For one t h i n g , t h e Report itself c o n t i n u e d in p r i n t u n t i l t h e 1960s. Secondly, t h e terminology was a c t i v e l y p r o p a g a t e d b y Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s in a New Latin Grammar and New French Grammar in 1912, and in S o n n e n s c h e i n ' s own New English Grammar of 1916. It is also w o r t h a s k i n g exactly w h a t lies b e h i n d t h e w o r d s s u r v i v e ... in s u c h p r e f a c e s a s t h i s . ' Remarks one f i n d s e l s e w h e r e i n d i c a t e t h a t for a c o n s i d e r a b l e p e r i o d a f t e r i t s publication t h e Report did in fact s u c c e e d in u n i f y i n g a n d s t a n d a r d i s i n g grammatical terminology. Many English g r a m m a r s from 1911 u n t i l well into t h e 20s c o n t a i n a s t a t e m e n t to t h e effect t h a t 'in g e n e r a l t h e recommendations of t h e Joint Committee on Grammatical Terminology h a v e b e e n a d o p t e d ' (Walmsley, 1922:vi). Nesfield's Outline of English Grammar, c o n t a i n i n g a similar r e m a r k , was itself r e p r i n t e d i n t o t h e 60s. Finally, a n y o n e familiar with t h e Committee's terminology will r e c o g n i z e that Sonnenschein's scheme lives on, even where no explicit a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t is made. English c h i l d r e n a r e n o w a d a y s t a u g h t a b o u t c a s e a s follows: 'Nouns in most l a n g u a g e s c h a n g e t h e i r form a c c o r d i n g to t h e work t h e y a r e doing in a s e n t e n c e , a n d t h e s e c h a n g e s a r e known a s c h a n g e s of Case ... I n English t h e r e a r e four or five C a s e s ' (O'Malley and Thompson, 19672:227-228). The aims of S o n n e n s c h e i n a n d h i s colleagues on t h e J o i n t Committee seem in r e t r o s p e c t to h a v e b e e n u n d e r s t a n d a b l e , r a t h e r t h a n l a u d a b l e . The h i s t o r y of t h i s p h a s e of grammatical terminology confirms t h a t , from a p r a c t i c a l point of view, t h e u n d e r t a k i n g c o n t a i n e d t h e s e e d s of i t s own d e s t r u c t i o n immanent within it. It is p e r h a p s a n i r o n y of fate t h a t t h e e n e r g y i n v e s t e d b y S o n n e n s c h e i n a n d his colleagues on behalf of t h e t e a c h i n g of grammar in England effectively d i s p a t c h e d it into a w i l d e r n e s s from which it h a s n o t e i g h t y y e a r s l a t e r - y e t r e t u r n e d . Terms a n d c o n c e p t s from t h e

74

JOHN WALMSLEY

recommendations l i n g e r in t h e v o c a b u l a r y of t h o s e who may no l o n g e r be a w a r e of it. The g r e a t e s t flaw in S o n n e n s c h e i n ' s u n d e r t a k i n g lay in t h e grammatical execution. This may be c h a r a c t e r i s e d a s a k i n d of misapplied functionalism. The Committee's l a u d a b l e opposition to a (functional) term s u c h a s ' o b j e c t i v e c a s e ' c a s e is o u t w e i g h e d b y t h e n e g a t i v e c o n s e q u e n c e s of a s s i g n i n g (formal) Latin c a s e - n a m e s to English on a functional b a s i s . Nothing b u t confusion could r e s u l t from s u c h a p r o c e d u r e . A similar u s e of functional t e r m s to d e s i g n a t e c o n s t i t u e n t s r u n s like a common theme t h r o u g h many of t h e Committee's recommendations. T h u s , 'Adjective Equivalents', ' A d v e r b E q u i v a l e n t s ' , 'Noun E q u i v a l e n t s ' a n d p h r a s e s w e r e identified not on t h e b a s i s of t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n t s t r u c t u r e or form, b u t a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r function. It is e a s y to p r e d i c t t h a t a l t h o u g h p r e p o s i t i o n a l g r o u p s (PPs) o c c u r in t h e English l a n g u a g e , t h e t e r m will not appear in the Committee's recommendations, since p r e p o s i t i o n s do not t a k e on s e n t e n t i a l f u n c t i o n s in t h e way t h a t n o u n s , a d j e c t i v e s or a d v e r b s do. P r e p o s i t i o n a l p h r a s e s a r e t h e r e f o r e always d e s i g n a t e d ' a d j e c t i v a l ' or ' a d v e r b i a l ' a c c o r d i n g to function. Some useful l e s s o n s can be l e a r n e d from t h i s e p i s o d e in l i n g u i s t i c h i s t o r y , t h o u g h one c a n not b e too c r i t i c a l of t h e J o i n t Committee's Report w i t h o u t b e i n g u n j u s t . The Committee r e p e a t e d l y s t r e s s e d t h a t t h e i r t e r m s were no more t h a n recommendations, a n d s h o u l d be t r e a t e d a c c o r d i n g l y . P h r a s e s s u c h a s ' w h e r e a p p l i c a b l e ' also i n d i c a t e commendable r e t i c e n c e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of s u c h a n u n d e r t a k i n g c a n n o t be avoided. The c e n t r a l problem which e x e r c i s e d Henry VIII in E n g l a n d , Ratke, a n d t h e committees alike - namely, t h e t e n s i o n b e t w e e n t h e d e m a n d s made on terminology b y t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of d i f f e r e n t l a n g u a g e s on t h e one h a n d , and t h e u r g e t o w a r d s u n i t y on t h e o t h e r , - will remain a c u t e for so long as foreign l a n g u a g e s c o n t i n u e to be t a u g h t in t h e way in which t h e y h a v e b e e n t a u g h t so far. The d e s i r e for a common terminology is not n e c e s s a r i l y objectionable per se. The p a t h of compromise, h o w e v e r , b y which t h e n u m b e r of c a t e g o r i e s u s e d for d e s c r i p t i o n was made to r e s u l t from t h e m e r g i n g of d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s y s t e m s , does n o t seem to b e t h e r i g h t one. Nor should formal c a t e g o r i e s s u c h a s c a s e or t e n s e be defined in functional or d e n o t a t i o n a l t e r m s .

SONNENSCHEIN AND GRAMMATICAL TERMINOLOGY

75

What S o n n e n s c h e i n a n d his Committee really n e e d e d was a more a b s t r a c t s y s t e m of c a t e g o r i e s within which t h e a c t u a l l y o c c u r r i n g formal c a t e g o r i e s of i n d i v i d u a l l a n g u a g e s could be located. T h e s e c a t e g o r i e s a r e t r a d i t i o n a l l y t h e p r o v i n c e of g e n e r a l u n i v e r s a l grammar or l i n g u i s t i c t y p o l o g y . F u r t h e r , h o w e v e r s e d u c t i v e it might be to p r e s s for a single a c c e p t e d s y s t e m , t h e e v i d e n c e seems to confirm, a s Mawer f e a r e d , that the greater the degree of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s a t i o n of s u c h a terminology, t h e l e s s flexible will be i t a r e s p o n s e to c h a n g e s in t h e l a n g u a g e itself.

Appendix Summary list of t e r m s recommended for E n g l i s h , German and F r e n c h in 1911 b y t h e Joint Committee:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Subject Predicate Predicative (Adjective etc.) Epithet

5. 6. 7.

Object Sentence Simple s e n t e n c e

Epithet/ Beifügung Objekt Satz Einfacher Satz

8.

Complex sentence Double s e n t e n c e

Zusammeng e s e t z t e r Satz Doppelsatz

Multiple Coordinate Subordinate Clause Noun Clause

Vielfach Beigeordnet Nebensatz

Adjective Clause

Adjektivsatz

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Subjekt Prädikat Prädikativ

Sujet Prèdicat Prèdicatif Epithéte

Substantivsatz

Objet Proposition Proposition simple Proposition complexe Proposition double Multiple Coordonné Proposition subordonné Proposition substantive Proposition adjective

76

JOHN WALMSLEY

15.

Adverb Clause

Adverbialsatz

16.

Main Clause

Hauptsatz

17.

Main Predicate

Hauptprädikat

18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

Main Verb Phrase Statement Question Desire Exclamation Dependent Clauses of Time Clauses of Place Clauses of Cause Clauses of Purpose Clauses of Result Clauses of Condition Clauses of Concession Clauses of Degree Absolute Noun Pronoun Adjective Verb Adverb Preposition Conjunction Interjection

Hauptverb Ausdruck Aussage Frage Begehrung Ausruf Abhängig Temporalsätze

26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

Lokalsätze Kausalsätze Absichtssätze Folgesätze Bedingungssätze 4Konzessivsätze Komparativsatze Absolut Nomen Pronomen Adjektiv Verb Adverb Präposition Konjunktion Interjektion

Proposition adverbiale Proposition Principale Prèdicat Principal Verb Principal Locution Dèclaration Question Prière Exclamation Dèpendant Propositions de temps Propositions de lieu Propositions de cause Propositions de but Propositions de consèquence Propositions de condition Propositions de concession Propositions de comparaison Absolu Nom Pronom Adjectif Verbe Adverbe Prèosition Conjonction Interjection

SONNENSCHEIN AND GRAMMATICAL TERMINOLOGY

42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

Article Numeral Possessive Demonstrative Reflexive Emphasizing

48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61.

Transitively Intransitively Interrogative Coordinating Subordinating Case Nominative Vocative Accusative Genitive Dative Present Future Past

62. 63. 64.

Present Perfect Future Perfect Past Perfect

Artikel Numeral/Zahlwort Possessiv Demonstrativ Reflexiv Emphatisch/ Betonend Transitiv Intransitiv Interrogativ Beiordnend Unterordnend Kasus Nominativ Vocativ Akkusativ Genitiv Dativ Pråsens Futur Prăterit Perfekt Futur-Perfekt Praterit-Perfekt/ Plusquamperfekt

77

Article Nombre Possessif Dèmonstratif Rèflèchi Emphatique Transitivement Intransitivement Interrogatif Coordonnant Subordonnant Cas

Nominatif Vocatif Accusatif Gènitif Datif Prèsent Futur Passè Continu ou Imparfait Parfait Futur Parfait Passè Parfait

NOTES 1

The 1574 version of the proclamation, cited in Stanbridge Whittington, 1932 :xxxiii.

and

REFERENCES Ahnert, E. 1912. Bericht. Verhandlungen des XV. Allgemeinen Deutschen Neuphilologentags zu Frankfurt a.M. vom 27.-30. Mai 1912. Die Neueren Sprachen 20. 337-361. . 1915. Bericht. Verhandlungen des XVI. Allgemeinen Deutschen Neuphilologentags in Bremen vom 2.-4. Juni 1914 (Schlufî). Die Neueren Sprachen 22. 376-393.

78

JOHN WALMSLEY

1733. The English Accidence. London: R o b e r t s . Anwyl, Edward. 1899. A Welsh Grammar for Schools. Part I Accidence, London: Swan S o n n e n s c h e i n . Arnold, Edward V. 1910. Considerations on the Report of the Joint Committee on Grammatical Terminology, Bangor. Baumann, F r i e d r i c h . 1912. " Ü b e r die V e r e i n f a c h u n g u n d V e r e i n h e i t l i c h u n g d e r g r a m m a t i s c h e n Terminologie". Die Neueren Sprachen 20. 135-143. zur Bojunga, Klaudius. 1914. "Einheitliche d e u t s c h e F a c h w ö r t e r S p r a c h l e h r e " . Zeitschrift für den deutschen Unterricht 28. 417424. B r e n d e l , Zacharias et ah 1613. Bericht von der Didactica oder Lehrkunst Wolfgangi Ratichii J e n a : Rauchmaul. B r u n o t , F e r d i n a n d . 1912. " L ' a u t o r i t é en matière de l a n g a g e " . Die Neueren Sprachen 20. 257-271. B r u n o t , F e r d i n a n d , a n d Charles Maquet. 1909. ( R a p p o r t / B e r i c h t ) , Journal des instituteurs et institutrices. P a r i s : Colin. Diehl, Rudolf. 1901. Bericht. Neuphilologischer Provinzialverband H e s s e n - N a s s a u . Die Neueren Sprachen 9. 230-232. Glauser, C h a r l e s . 1911. "La nouvelle n o m e n c l a t u r e grammaticale". Die Neueren Sprachen 19. 449-462. Harsy, W. 1911. XI. H a u p t v e r s a m m l u n g des neuphilologischen P r o v i n z i a l v e r b a n d e s H e s s e n - N a s s a u , 27» Mai 1910. Die Neueren Sprachen 19. 97-101. Interim Report of the Joint Committee on Grammatical Terminology, (no place). 1909. J e s p e r s e n , Otto. 1904-1949. A Modern English Grammar. 7 Vols. Heidelberg, C o p e n h a g e n & London. . 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin. . 1925-1926. "Die g r a m m a t i s c h e n R a n g s t u f e n " . Englische Studien 60. 300-309. J o i n t Committee on Grammatical Nomenclature. 1913. Report. Chicago: Chicago Univ, P r e s s . Journal of Education. 1886. Lehrpläne und Lehraufgaben für die höheren Schulen nebst Erlâuterungen und Ausführungsbestimmungen. 1892. Berlin: Hertz. Loev, E. von. 1901. Bericht. I n t e r n a t i o n a l e r K o n g r e s s für f r e m d s p r a c h l i c h e n U n t e r r i c h t zu P a r i s . 24.-28. Juli 1900. Die Neueren Sprachen 9. 215-29; 289-98; 337-358. Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. P r e s s . Mangold, Wilhelm. 1892. Gelöste und ungelöste Fragen der Methodik. Berlin: S p r i n g e r . Maquet, C h a r l e s . 1907. Rapport presenté au conseil supérieure de Vinstruction publique au nom de la Commission c h a r g è e d'étudier la simplification des nomenclatures grammaticales. P a r i s : Belin.

SONNENSCHEIN AND GRAMMATICAL TERMINOLOGY

79

Masterman, Kay Channley. 1962. "On Grammatical Terminology, a n d a s p e c t in p a r t i c u l a r " . Greece and Rome, Second S e r i e s , IX. 72-86. Mawer, Allen. 1923. "The Problem of Grammar in the Light of Modern L i n g u i s t i c T h o u g h t " . The Problem of Grammar. 7-15. Memorandum Submitted by the Standing Committee on Grammatical Reform. 1919. The Teaching of English in England, Appendix IV. 376-78. Meyer, Kuno. 1889. A German Grammar for Schools. Part I Accidence. London: Swan S o n n e n s c h e i n . Nesfield, J o h n Collinson. 1900. Outline of English Grammar. London: Macmillan. , 1914. Remarks on t h e Final Report, (bound into t h e 1914 and l a t e r e d i t i o n s of his Outline of English Grammar, 4*-17*). O'Malley, Raymond, a n d Denys Thompson. 1955. English One. London: Heinemann. On the Terminology of Grammar. 1911. Being the Report of the Joint Committee on Grammatical Terminology. London: J o h n M u r r a y ( r e v . ed.) (= "Report"). Palmer, P r a n k . 1971. Grammar. H a r m o n d s w o r t h : P e n g u i n . P e r c i v a l , W. Keith. 1976. "On t h e Historical S o u r c e of Immediate C o n s t i t u e n t Analysis". Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 7 ed. b y James D. McCawley, 229-242, New York: Academic P r e s s . P r i e s t l e y , J o s e p h . 1761. The Rudiments of the English Grammar. London: Griffiths, The Problem of Grammar. English Association Pamphlet No. 56. 1923. Proceedings of the Classical Association. 1911. Quick, R o b e r t H e r b e r t . 1904. Essays on Educational Reformers. London, r e v . ed. Skeat, Walter Wiliam. 1912. L e t t e r to Nesfield, 22nd. S e p t e m b e r 1912. P r i n t e d in Nesfield 1914. 17*-19*. Sommer, F e r d i n a n d . 1921. Vergleichende Syntax der Schulsprachen. Leipzig & Berlin. S o n n e n s c h e i n , Edward Adolph. 1889. A Latin Grammar for Schools, Part II - Syntax. London: Swan S o n n e n s c h e i n . . 1913. "Grammatical Reform". Die Neueren Sprachen 21. 289-95. . 1916. A New English Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon P r e s s . . 1927. The Soul of Grammar. Cambridge Univ. P r e s s . S t a n b r i d g e , J o h n , a n d R o b e r t Whittinton. 1932. Vulgaria ed. b y Beatrice White. London: Early English Text Society. S t r a y , C h r i s t o p h e r A. 1989. " P a r a d i g m s of Social O r d e r : The politics of Latin grammar in 1 9 t h . - c e n t u r y E n g l a n d " . Henry Sweet Society Newsletter 13. 13-24. The Teaching of English in England. 1921. The F i s h e r / N e w b o l t Report. London: HMSO. T r e b l e , Henry A r t h u r , a n d George Henry Vallins. 1936. An A.B.C. of English Usage. Oxford: C l a r e n d o n P r e s s . Walmsley, A r t h u r Mainprize. 1922. Junior Course of English Grammar. London: Clive (2nd. e d . ) .

80

JOHN WALMSLEY

Walmsley, J o h n . 1989. "The S o n n e n s c h e i n v. J e s p e r s e n C o n t r o v e r s y " . Meaning and Beyond, Ernst Leisi zum 70. Geburtsiag ed. b y Udo F r i e s and Martin H e u s s e r , 253-281. Tübingen: Narr. . To a p p e a r . "E.A. Sonnensoheirr s A New English Grammar", Festschrift for David Reibel ed. by R. T r a c y .

F A C T O R S E N G L I S H 1 9 T H

IN

T H E

G R O W T H

L A N G U A G E C E N T U R Y

IN

O F

T H E

1 8 T H

AND

I R E L A N D

CHARLOTTE DOWNEY

Brown

University

England, like Rome many years earlier, set out to conquer the world, and enforce her language on all the countries she conquered. But the growths of the two enforced languages were very different. When the countries of the Roman Empire used the Latin language, it changed drastically through the years, until it finally became a different language in each country: Spanish in Spain, French in Prance, Portuguese in Portugal, etc. The English language enforced on the countries under British dominion, however, fared very differently, for the English language used in these countries never lost its identity. Although there are minor differences in different English speaking countries, the natives of one can communicate with the natives of another. This study will trace the factors in the growth of the English language in Ireland, a country where its own national Irish language was gradually replaced by English. "Modern English came to Ireland in the seventeenth century, and has now spread over almost the entire country" (Hogan 1927:6). We will follow its growth in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Many of the factors in the Irish culture and everyday life nurtured the seeds of the rapidly growing English tongue. English grammar books were available for both school and private use. Some of these had come from England and some were written by native language scholars, such as Gough, Kigan, and Sheridan. An examination of some of these English grammars will show the rules and definitions stressed in Irish

82

CHARLOTTE DOWNEY

r e i n f o r c e them. The c o u r s e of English grammar t e a c h i n g in t h e b e g i n n i n g p a r a l l e l s t h a t of America in many w a y s . Both c o u n t r i e s u s e d t h e g r a m m a r s of Dilworth, Lowth, a n d M u r r a y along with o n e s w r i t t e n by t h e i r n a t i v e a u t h o r s . America, h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e of h e r freedom from British dominion a n d h e r s u r g e toward nationalism a f t e r t h e American Revolution, p r o d u c e d many more g r a m m a r s b y n a t i v e a u t h o r s . But t h e same r u l e s and m e t h o d s of i n s t r u c t i o n w e r e p a s s e d along in both c o u n t r i e s d u r i n g t h e e i g h t e e n t h a n d e a r l y nineteenth centuries. Most g r a m m a r s u s e d in I r e l a n d t h r o u g h the e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y and into t h e n i n e t e e n t h defined ' g r a m m a r ' in much t h e same way a s t h e n a t i v e g r a m m a r i a n Gough, who defined it a s " t h e Art of S p e a k i n g a n d Writing t r u l y and p r o p e r l y " (1754:1). I t was t h e custom of t h e time to label grammar a s a n a r t , a s we see in t h e books of B r i g h t l a n d (1711:1), Greenwood (Royal English Gram, 1737:2), Slack (1750:1), P r i e s t l e y (1761:1), Lowth (1762:1), B u c h a n a n (1762:1), Dilworth (1795:101), a n d M u r r a y (1795:1). Lindley M u r r a y , an American, originally compiled his English Grammar for a School in I r e l a n d . Some t e a c h e r s a t York, E n g l a n d , had " e s t a b l i s h e d a m i s s i o n a r y school in s o u t h e r n I r e l a n d , a n d from t h e r e came t h e w r i t t e n p e t i t i o n t h a t g a v e M u r r a y t h e immediate occasion for his u n d e r t a k i n g his Grammar" (Read 1939:527). This school is identified a s "a Quaker b o a r d i n g school ... a t S u i r I s l a n d , Clonmel, I r e l a n d , founded in 1788" (Read 1939:527). The finished p r o d u c t of his English Grammar was p u b l i s h e d in York, E n g l a n d , in 1795. I n I r e l a n d M u r r a y ' s English Grammar c a r r i e d t h e c o n c e p t of grammar a s an a r t i n t o t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y u n t i l s u c h t e x t s a s Kigan's Remarks on the Practice of Grammarians (1823) a n d t h e English Grammar (1865) p u b l i s h e d b y t h e Commissioners of National Education d e c l a r e d grammar to be a ' s c i e n c e ' . The Commissioners' text s t a t e d : "Grammar is t h a t science which t e a c h e s t h e p r o p e r u s e of l e t t e r s , s y l l a b l e s , w o r d s , a n d s e n t e n c e s ; or, which t r e a t s t h e p r i n c i p l e s a n d r u l e s of s p o k e n a n d w r i t t e n l a n g u a g e " (1865:5). For t h e r e m a i n d e r of t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , t h e definitions of grammar became more c o m p r e h e n s i v e , for example, t h e definition in Nesfield's English Grammar Past and Present, d e s c r i b e d it as "an exposition, p a r t l y p r a c t i c a l and p a r t l y t h e o r e t i c a l , of v a r i o u s forms a n d methods employed in a n y g i v e n l a n g u a g e for t h e e x p r e s s i o n of

ENGLISH IN 18TH AND 19TH CENTURY IRELAND

83

t h o u g h t " (1903:214). Nesfield's g r a m m a r s w e r e u s e d in I r e l a n d from t h e l a s t y e a r s of t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y well into t h e t w e n t i e t h . Grammarians, who had labelled grammar a s an a r t , u s u a l l y divided it into four p a r t s : o r t h o g r a p h y , etymology, s y n t a x , a n d p r o s o d y , a s we see in t h e b o o k s of Greenwood (Royal Eng. Gram, 1737:2), Slack (1750:2), P r i e s t l e y (1761:1), B u c h a n a n (1762:2), M u r r a y (Eng» Gram. 1795:1; Abridgment 1818:9). Gough, h o w e v e r , divided it into five p a r t s , a d d i n g a n a l o g y (1754:1). Early in t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y Kigan r e c o g n i z e d only two p a r t s , s t a t i n g t h a t "The s c i e n c e of Grammar ...may be divided into two h e a d s , 1st. Etymology, which t r e a t s of d i f f e r e n t s o r t s of w o r d s , t h e i r v a r i o u s modifications, a n d t h e i r d e r i v a t i o n ... 2 d. S y n t a x , which shows the r i g h t disposition of w o r d s in a s e n t e n c e , so a s to c o n v e y t h e p r e c i s e signification which t h e s p e a k e r i n t e n d s " (1823:8). Although most e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y g r a m m a r i a n s divided grammar i n t o four p a r t s , t h e y c o n c e n t r a t e d most on etymology a n d s y n t a x . U n d e r etymology, a u t h o r s divided t h e w o r d s of a s e n t e n c e into e i g h t p a r t s of s p e e c h , a s we find in t h e books of Greenwood (Essay 1711:39; Royal Eng. Gram. 1737:27), P r i e s t l e y (1761:2), B u c h a n a n (1762:71), a n d Dilworth (1795:115). Although B r i g h t l a n d (1711:69), Entick (1762:vi), a n d Gough (1754:40) wrote t h e i r g r a m m a r s in t h e same c e n t u r y , t h e y classified w o r d s into only four c a t e g o r i e s . Entick explained t h a t t h e four s o r t s can be d i s t i n g u i s h e d "(1) b y names, which e x p r e s s t h e t h i n g s o r s u b s t a n c e s ; (2) b y q u a l i t i e s , which e x p r e s s m a n n e r s , p r o p e r t i e s or affections of t h i n g s ; (3) b y affirmations, e x p r e s s i n g t h e a c t i o n s , p a s s i o n s or b e i n g of t h i n g s ; a n d (4) b y p a r t i c l e s , which show t h e m a n n e r o r q u a l i t y of a c t i o n s , p a s s i o n s , or b e i n g " (1762:vi). B r i g h t l a n d g a v e t h e same four c l a s s e s , e x c e p t for calling p a r t i c l e s ' M a n n e r s of Words' (1711:69). Gough called his four: "Name, Adjective, Verb, P a r t i c l e " (1754:40). In M u r r a y ' s English Grammar we find nine p a r t s of s p e e c h (1795:19), a n d in t h e books of Ash (1763:27), Devis (1801:2), a n d F e n n (1814:1) we find t h e a r t i c l e a d d e d to t h e nine in M u r r a y ' s . E a r l y in t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y Kigan i n t r o d u c e d a new view of t h e p a r t s of s p e e c h , naming only two. One, he w r o t e : "we may denominate Nouns, a s t h i s word is so g e n e r a l l y u s e d in Grammar, a n d ... a Noun is t h e name of a n y t h i n g t h a t e x i s t s , or of which we may have a n y notion" (1823:12), a n d t h e o t h e r , "we may denominate

84

CHARLOTTE DOWNEY

V e r b s , t h e g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r of which may b e , t h a t t h e y a r e w o r d s b y which we r e p r e s e n t o u r n o t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g o b j e c t s or t h i n g s " (1823:12). At t h e e n d of t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y Nesfield a d d e d w h a t he called t h e "Double P a r t s of S p e e c h " , t h e p a r t i c i p l e , t h e g e r u n d , t h e infinitive, t h e r e l a t i v e p r o n o u n , ad t h e r e l a t i v e a d v e r b (1898, 1903) to t h e g e n e r a l l y r e c o g n i z e d p a r t s of s p e e c h . R e g a r d l e s s of a g r a m m a r i a n ' s opinion of t h e n u m b e r of t h e p a r t s of s p e e c h , t h e c l a s s into which a word falls is d e t e r m i n e d b y i t s role in t h e s e n t e n c e . I n his Outline of English Grammar Nesfield explained: "To find o u t t h e ' P a r t s of S p e e c h ' to which a word b e l o n g s ... a s k yourself, 'What kind of work d o e s t h e word do in t h e s e n t e n c e ... ? What p a r t does it play in h e l p i n g to make a s e n t e n c e ? " ' (1900, 1925:1). When w r i t i n g their grammars, all a u t h o r s moved from etymology to s y n t a x , t h e s t u d y of t h e s e n t e n c e . It is i n t e r e s t i n g to follow t h e w a y s t h e s e n t e n c e was p e r c e i v e d t h r o u g h t h e e i g h t e e n t h a n d n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r i e s . M u r r a y copied t h e Lowth definition v e r b a t i m : "A s e n t e n c e is a n a s s e m b l a n c e of w o r d s , e x p r e s s e d in p r o p e r form, a n d r a n g e d in p r o p e r o r d e r , a n d c o n c u r r i n g to make a complete s e n s e " (Lowth 1762:95; M u r r a y , Eng. Gram. 1795:86). Kigan s u b s t i t u t e d for Lowth's a n d M u r r a y ' s " w o r d s e x p r e s s e d in p r o p e r form, and r a n g e d in p r o p e r o r d e r , a n d c o n c u r r i n g to make a complete s e n s e " with " w o r d s , so a r r a n g e d a s to c o n v e y o r amount to a d i s t i n c t p r o p o s i t i o n " (1823:94); t h e English Grammar of t h e National Commission s u b s t i t u t e d : " w o r d s joied t o g e t h e r so a s to form a complete affirmation o r p r o p o s i t i o n " (1865:86); a n d Nesfield's English Grammar s u b s t i t u t e d "a combination of w o r d s t h a t make a complete s e n t e n c e " (1903:1). All five g r a m m a r s pointed o u t t h a t t h e s e n s e o r t h o u g h t is d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e p r o p e r a r r a n g e m e n t of t h e w o r d s , a n d t h i s in t u r n shows t h a t each grammarian was a w a r e t h a t English, a s a n analytical l a n g u a g e , d e p e n d s on word a r r a n g e m e n t to e x p r e s s meaning. B r i g h t l a n d a n d Entick s t r e s s e d t h a t t h e r e must be a t l e a s t t h r e e w o r d s to make a s e n t e n c e . In B r i g h t l a n d ' s book we find "A S e n t e n c e c o m p r e h e n d s a t l e a s t t h r e e w o r d s , in which some Sentiment or T h o u g h t of t h e Mind i s e x p r e s s ' d " (1711:141), a n d in E n t i c k ' s we find "A s e n t e n c e is a c o m p r e h e n s i o n of t h r e e or more w o r d s w h e r e b y some s e n t i m e n t o r t h o u g h t of t h e mind is e x p r e s s e d " (1762:xii). Since

ENGLISH IN 18TH AND 19TH CENTURY IRELAND

85

B r i g h t l a n d a n d Entick believed t h e r e must be a t l e a s t t h r e e w o r d s to form a s e n t e n c e , t h e y m u s t h a v e , like Lowth, p e r c e i v e d t h e s e n t e n c e as having three principal parts. I n k e e p i n g with t h e more modern view, Slack s t a t e d t h a t "A S e n t e n c e c o m p r e h e n d s a t l e a s t a Name a n d a Verb; b y which some S e n t i m e n t or T h o u g h t of t h e Mind is e x p r e s s e d " (1750:116), a n d Buchanan (1762:165) was in a g r e e m e n t with S l a c k ' s view. A g r a m m a r i a n ' s c o n c e p t of t h e s e n t e n c e becomes c l e a r e r w h e n he v i s u a l i z e s it a c c o r d i n g to i t s e s s e n t i a l or p r i n c i p a l p a r t s . N i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y a u t h o r s g r a d u a l l y realized t h a t a s e n t e n c e h a s only two p r i n c i p a l p a r t s , namely t h e s u b j e c t a n d t h e p r e d i c a t e , t h e o b j e c t being included in t h e p r e d i c a t e . We find t h i s more m o d e r n c o n c e p t in t h e English Grammar p u b l i s h e d b y t h e Commissioners of National Education of I r e l a n d : " E v e r y s e n t e n c e o r complete p r o p o s i t i o n c o n t a i n s a s u b j e c t , or t h i n g s p o k e n of, a n d a n affirmation, o r w h a t is said of t h e s u b j e c t " (1865:86, 87). At t h e t u r n of t h e c e n t u r y into t h e t w e n t i e t h , we find in t h e p o p u l a r Nesfield's English Grammar t h a t "no s e n t e n c e c a n be made w i t h o u t a S u b j e c t a n d a P r e d i c a t e " (1903:12). And w h e n Nesfield divided a s e n t e n c e into i t s elements, he p o i n t e d out: " t h e S u b j e c t a n d t h e P r e d i c a t e a r e e s s e n t i a l to t h e s e n t e n c e " (Eng. Gram* 1903:103). Not only did e i g h t e e n t h century authors describe the s e n t e n c e with t h r e e p r i n c i p a l p a r t s , b u t t h e y also lumped all s e n t e n c e s c o n s i s t i n g of more t h a t o n e c l a u s e u n d e r t h e g e n e r a l label of ' c o m p o u n d ' . This classification a p p e a r s in t h e books of B r i g h t l a n d (1711:144), Slack (1750:116), Gough (1754:102), Lowth (1762:96), M u r r a y (Eng, Gram. 1795:86; Abridgment 1818:49). E v e n t h e Commissioners (1865:86) held t h i s view. At t h e v e r y e n d of t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , Nesfield came f o r t h with t h e more a c c u r a t e classification of s e n t e n c e s , which i n c l u d e d t h e 'complex' s e n t e n c e . He d e s c r i b e d the 'complex' s e n t e n c e a s o n e t h a t " c o n s i s t s of a P r i n c i p a l c l a u s e with o n e o r more S u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s " (Eng. Gram* 1898, 1903:110). For t h e most p a r t , t h e methods of t h e e i g h t e e n t h and n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r i e s w e r e t h e t r a d i t i o n a l o n e s of q u e s t i o n and a n s w e r , false s y n t a x , a n d p a r s i n g . P r i e s t l e y s u p p l i e d r e a s o n s for u s i n g t h e c a t e c h e t i c a l s y s t e m : "The method of Question a n d Answer hath b e e n made choice of a s b e i n g j u d g e d to be ... both the most intelligible to t h e s c h o l a r , a n d t h e e a s i e s t for t h e m a s t e r " (1761:iv).

86

CHARLOTTE DOWNEY

Among t h o s e who found t h i s method useful w e r e : Greenwood (Essay 1711), Slack (1750), B u c h a n a n (1762), Dilworth (1795), a n d Devis (1800). False s y n t a x , e x e r c i s e s in i n c o r r e c t grammar to be c o r r e c t e d by s t u d e n t s , was p o p u l a r through both t h e e i g h t e e n t h and nineteenth centuries. This method was introduced into the i n s t r u c t i o n of English grammar b y Ann F i s h e r Slack (1750). In Alston's Note in t h e f r o n t of t h e edition of h e r book u s e d in t h i s s t u d y , we r e a d t h a t h e r grammar " i n c o r p o r a t e d one i n n o v a t i o n which was to be followed b y n u m e r o u s l a t e r g r a m m a r s , - a section e n t i t l e d 'Examples of Bad English u n d e r all t h e Rules of S y n t a x " ' (Reference: Alston, 1, 109; Slack 1750, Alston's Note). P a r t of t h e long line of imitators of S l a c k ' s 'Bad E n g l i s h ' w e r e : Lowth (1762), B u c h a n a n (1762), a n d Devis (1801). The Commissioners of National Education (1865) r e n e w e d t h e method in t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , a n d Nesfield c a r r i e d it i n t o t h e t w e n t i e t h in b o t h h i s English Grammar (1898, 1903) a n d his Outline of English Grammar (1900, 1925). Even more p o p u l a r t h a n false s y n t a x was ' p a r s i n g ' , which g i v e s a complete d e s c r i p t i o n of each w o r d ' s role in a p a r t i c u l a r s e n t e n c e . This method was p o p u l a r right through both the e i g h t e e n t h a n d n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r i e s ; e v e n t h e most i n n o v a t i v e g r a m m a r i a n s made u s e of it. I t a p p e a r s in t h e books of Greenwood (Essay 1711; Royal Eng. Gram. 1737), Lowth (1762), Ash (1763), M u r r a y (1795), Devis (1801), a n d t h e Commissioners (1865). Nesfield, who b r o u g h t p a r s i n g i n t o t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y , explained: "To p a r s e a word is to examine it in two d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s : - (1) What p a r t of s p e e c h it is, (2) what p a r t it p l a y s in t h e b u i l d i n g of a s e n t e n c e " (Outline 1900. 1925:85). Since Nesfield was a t r a n s i t i o n a l g r a m m a r i a n , while he c o n t i n u e d to u s e t h e t r a d i t i o n a l m e t h o d s of false s y n t a x a n d p a r s i n g , he, a t t h e same time, a d o p t e d t h e new m e t h o d s of s e n t e n c e b u i l d i n g a n d a n a l y s i s of s e n t e n c e s . S e n t e n c e b u i l d i n g was i n t r o d u c e d in America in t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y b y Roswell Smith (1831). I n s t e a d of h a v i n g s t u d e n t s work with s e n t e n c e s a l r e a d y c o n s t r u c t e d for them, he had them build t h e i r own s e n t e n c e s . Although Devis did n o t u s e t h e method, he defined it t h u s : " C o n s t r u c t i o n in Grammar, is t h e p u t t i n g of w o r d s t o g e t h e r in s u c h a m a n n e r a s to c o n v e y a complete s e n s e " (1801:119). This method took hold in t h e schools of I r e l a n d a

ENGLISH IN 18TH AND 19TH CENTURY IRELAND

87

c e n t u r y after t h e p u b l i c a t i o n of Devis' book when Nesfield s u p p l i e d s t u d e n t s with s u c h e x e r c i s e s a s : " C o n s t r u c t S h o r t S e n t e n c e s showing how t h e same Word c a n be u s e d in d i f f e r e n t P a r t s of S p e e c h " (Outline 1925:124). Nesfield also i n c l u d e d a n a l y s i s of s e n t e n c e s in his b o o k s . This method had b e e n i n t r o d u c e d in America in t h e m i d n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y by Samuel Greene 1848). Nesfield made good use of t h e s y s t e m , s u p p l y i n g s t u d e n t s with t h e definition: " t h e a n a l y s i s of a s e n t e n c e c o n s i s t s in decomposing it ( t h a t is) in a n a l y z i n g or b r e a k i n g it u p " (Eng. Gram, 1903:103). In t h e same text, he d e s c r i b e d i t s significance, s a y i n g : "The chief u s e of Analysis is t h a t it is a n aid to S y n t a x b y s h o w i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s in which w o r d s s t a n d to one a n o t h e r in a s e n t e n c e " (Eng. Gram. 1903:103). I t seemed a t times t h a t t h e r u l e s found in t h e grammar t e x t s w e r e not applied in t h e s p e e c h of t h e I r i s h people. For example, t h e y d e v i a t e d from t h e schoolbook r u l e for ' s h a l l ' a n d 'will'. We find the established schoolbook r u l e in Greenwood's Royal English Grammar a s "Shall in t h e f i r s t P e r s o n s ... simply e x p r e s s e s t h e f u t u r e Action or E v e n t : But in t h e second a n d t h i r d P e r s o n s ... it p r o m i s e s , commands, o r t h r e a t e n s " (1711:70), a n d "Will in t h e first p e r s o n s ... p r o m i s e s o r t h r e a t e n s : b u t in t h e s e c o n d a n d t h i r d P e r s o n s ... it b a r e l y f o r e t e l l s " (1711:70). Almost e v e r y g r a m m a r i a n followed t h i s r u l e , e x c e p t Slack, who r e j e c t e d t h e d i s t i n c t i o n s , making ' s h a l l ' a n d 'will' i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e (1750:87). At t h e e n d of t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y Molloy o b s e r v e d t h a t "an I r i s h m a n , a s a n I r i s h m a n , n e v e r u s e s shall a t all; with him will is t h e auxiliary for t h e f u t u r e t e n s e in all p e r s o n s , a n d in all c i r c u m s t a n c e s " (1897:32). J o y c e , a n I r i s h m a n himself, explained: "... most of o u r shall a n d will Hibernianisms r e p r e s e n t t h e classical u s a g e of two or t h r e e c e n t u r i e s a g o " (1910:75), a n d h e f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t "what many of u s in I r e l a n d would s a y now 'I will win t h e r a c e if I c a n ; if not I will g e t some d i s c r e d i t ' " (1910:75). Two o t h e r auxiliaries t h a t t h e I r i s h people find difficult a r e ' h a v e ' and ' h a d ' , t h e s i g n s of t h e p e r f e c t a n d p l u p e r f e c t t e n s e s . "The I r i s h people in g e n e r a l do not u s e - or know how to u s e t h e s e in t h e i r English s p e e c h " (Joyce 1910:85). J o y c e informs u s t h a t " i n s t e a d of t h e p e r f e c t ... t h e y will s a y , I am a f t e r f i n i s h i n g my work ... a n d i n s t e a d of t h e p l u p e r f e c t ... t h e y will s a y 'I was after

88

CHARLOTTE DOWNEY

f i n i s h i n g my w o r k ' " (1910:85). And Joyce f u r t h e r explains: "See is often u s e d for saw" (1910:81). McCrum informs u s " T h e r e is t h e u s e of four k i n d s of p r e s e n t t e n s e . 'I go to school, I am going to school, I be going to school, and I do be going to school'" (1986:169). In t h e English s p o k e n in I r e l a n d , not only a r e t h e r e v e r b d i f f e r e n c e s , b u t also p e r m u t a t i o n s , d e l e t i o n s , s u b s t i t u t i o n s , a n d a d d i t i o n s of w o r d s , which seem to stem from t h e original I r i s h l a n g u a g e . "The m a r r i a g e of Gaelic a n d English c o n s t r u c t i o n s , a s in s e n t e n c e s like 'He is in bed with t h e l e g ' , or 'I do be living in Dublin' ... is t h e chief c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of I r i s h s p e e c h " (McCrum 1986:168). Bliss is of t h e same opinion, explaining t h a t "in grammar, s y n t a x and idiom t h e p e c u l i a r i t i e s of s o u t h e r n Hiberno-English d e p e n d exclusively on t h e I r i s h l a n g u a g e " (1984:150). Even t o d a y , t h e I r i s h people will n e v e r a n s w e r a q u e s t i o n by ' y e s ' or 'no'; t h e y a n s w e r in a complete s e n t e n c e , s u c h a s 'I do' o r 'I am' i n s t e a d of ' y e s ' . "... t h e famous I r i s h r e l u c t a n c e to say ' y e s ' o r ' n o ' (is) p a r t l y to do with not wishing to s o u n d r u d e or a b r u p t , and p a r t l y b e c a u s e in Gaelic ( I r i s h ) t h e r e a r e no specific t e r m s for ' y e s ' or ' n o ' " (McCrum 1986:169). Besides grammatical d i f f e r e n c e s , t h e r e a r e also d i f f e r e n c e s in p r o n u n c i a t i o n in t h e l a n g u a g e of I r i s h s p e a k e r s of English« T h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c p r o n u n c i a t i o n is often called t h e ' b r o g u e ' . "The word b r o g u e itself is a p e r f e c t r e p r o d u c t i o n of t h e s o u n d of t h e I r i s h word for ' s h o e ' (brog) ... t h e I r i s h m a n was said to s p e a k with a ' s h o e on his t o n g u e ' " (McCrum 1986:174). On examining some of t h e I r i s h s p e e c h , one may w o n d e r w h e t h e r t h e t e a c h i n g of English grammar in I r i s h schools had a n y r e s u l t s . A c l o s e r look a t I r i s h English will show it is grammatically s o u n d . Although some I r i s h English e x p r e s s i o n s may s o u n d u n u s u a l to n o n - I r i s h people, t h e y a r e not ungrammatical. This is b e c a u s e t h e I r i s h people h a v e a c l e a r c o n c e p t of t h e basic s t r u c t u r e of t h e English s e n t e n c e , a n d c a n t h e r e f o r e a d a p t it to t h e I r i s h idiom a n d s t y l e . After s t u d y i n g t h e definition " S e n t e n c e s often admit of a c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i e t y of a r r a n g e m e n t " (Commissioners 1865:159), we u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e I r i s h i n g e n u i t y with t h e English l a n g u a g e h a s p r o d u c e d some of t h e p o s s i b l e v a r i e t i e s of a r r a n g e m e n t . The I r i s h

ENGLISH IN 18TH AND 19TH CENTURY IRELAND

89

people " h a v e t a k e n English a n d made it p e c u l i a r l y t h e i r own" ( E d w a r d s 1984:491). One of t h e s t r o n g e s t i n f l u e n c e s in f u r t h e r i n g t h e g r o w t h of t h e English l a n g u a g e in I r e l a n d was t h e Commission of National Education. "It was t h r o u g h t h e national s y s t e m t h a t t h e I r i s h nation was g i v e n t h e b l e s s i n g of l i t e r a c y " (Akenson 1970:378), a l i t e r a c y t h a t e q u i p p e d t h e people to communicate with t h e whole E n g l i s h s p e a k i n g world, a n d a l i t e r a c y t h a t p r o d u c e d some of t h e w o r l d ' s g r e a t e s t l i t e r a t u r e in E n g l i s h . McCrurn claims t h a t James J o y c e ' s "work is a monument to t h e English l a n g u a g e in I r e l a n d a n d , more t h a n a n y o t h e r w r i t e r , his work u n i v e r s a l i z e d t h e I r i s h e x p e r i e n c e " (1986:187). And White p o i n t s o u t t h a t " S y n g e i n v e n t e d a s p e e c h b a s e d on dialect, (and t h a t ) O'Casey r e c o r d s inimitably t h e Dublin idiom" (1968:100), a n d t h a t Shaw "wrote t h e b e s t English of a n y w r i t e r s i n c e Swift for t h o s e who p r e f e r s p a r e , unaffected p r o s e " (1968:101). The I r i s h l i t e r a r y a c h i e v e m e n t r e a c h e d i t s peak in William Butler Yeats, who "left a b o d y of v e r s e which in v a r i e t y a n d power makes him b e y o n d q u e s t i o n t h e g r e a t e s t 20th c e n t u r y poet of t h e English l a n g u a g e " (Daiches 1974:1908). The w o r d s of T.S. Eliot a r e a n a p t d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e mutual r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e p o e t r y of t h e I r i s h people a n d t h e i r s p e e c h : "The p o e t r y of a people t a k e s i t s life from t h e p e o p l e ' s s p e e c h a n d in t u r n g i v e s life to it; a n d r e p r e s e n t s i t s h i g h e s t point of c o n s c i o u s n e s s , its g r e a t e s t power a n d i t s most delicate s e n s i b i l i t y " (1955:15).

REFERENCES Akenson, Donald H. 1970. The Irish Education Experiment. The National System of Education in the Nineteenth Century. London: Routledge & Paul. Ash, J o h n . 1763. Grammatical Institutes; or, An Easy Introduction to Dr, Lowth's English Grammar. 4th ed. London: Dilly; r p t . L e e d s , E n g l a n d : Şcolar Pr., 1967. Bliss, A. 1984. "English in t h e S o u t h of I r e l a n d " . Language in the British Isles ed. b y P e t e r T r u d g i l l , C h a p t e r 8. Cambridge: Univ. Press. B r i g h t l a n d , J o h n . 1711. A Grammar of the English Tongue. London: P r i n t e d for J o h n B r i g h t l a n d a n d sold ... ... b o o k s e l l e r s of Great Britain a n d I r e l a n d ; r p t . Menston, E n g l a n d : Scolar Pr., 1967.

90

CHARLOTTE DOWNEY

B u c h a n a n , James. 1762. The British Grammar. London: Millar; r p t . Menston, England: Scolar Pr., 1968. Commissioners of National E d u c a t i o n of I r e l a n d . 1865. An English Grammar for the Use of Schools, Dublin: Thomas. Daiches, David. 1974. " I n t r o d u c t i o n to William Butler Yeats". Norton Anthology of English Literature ed. b y M.H. Abrams, 1904-1908. Vol. 2, 3rd ed. New York: Norton. Devis, Ellin. 1801. The Accidence; or, First Rudiments of English Grammar. 10th ed. London: P r i n t e d for C. Law. Dilworth, Thomas. 1795. A Guide to the English Tongue. 18th ed. Dublin: J o h n Gough. E d w a r d s , J o h n . 1984. " I r i s h a n d English in I r e l a n d " . Language in the British Isles ed. b y P e t e r T r u d g i l l , C h a p t e r 28. Cambridge: Univ. Press. Eliot, Thomas S t e a r n s . 1955. The Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism. London: F a b e r . Entick, J o h n . 1762. A Grammatical Introduction to the English Tongue, Dublin: P o t t s . F e n n , Eleanor. 1799, The Child's Grammar, Dublin: Napper for B.D. Dugdale. Gough, James. 1754. A Practical Grammar of the English Tongue, Rev. ed. Dublin: J a c k s o n ; r p t . Menston, E n g l a n d : Scolar p r ., 1967.

Greenwood, James. 1711. An Essay Towards a Practical English Grammar, London: Tookey; r p t . Menston, E n g l a n d : Scolar Pr., 1968. . 1737. The Royal English Grammar, London: N o u r s e . Hogan, J e r e m i a h J. 1927. The English Language in Ireland, Dublin: Educational Company of I r e l a n d . J o y c e , P.W. 1910. English as we Speak it in Ireland, Dublin: Gill. Kigan, J o h n . 1823. Remarks on the Practice of Grammarians, with an Attempt to Discover the Principles of a New System of English Grammar. Belfast: Finlay.

N' —>

(D) NP (NP)

N' N' N

(Determiner rule) ( A t t r i b u t e r u l e : optional) (Complement rule)

Radford (1988:198) g i v e s t h e p h r a s e a Cambridge physics student:

following

tree

for

the

noun

302

FLOR AARTS

In t h i s t r e e t h e label NP is g i v e n to n o u n p h r a s e s whose s t r u c t u r e is not w o r k e d o u t . What is r e l e v a n t is t h a t t h e whole NP a Cambridge physics student is a n N", t h a t student is a n N and that t h e two 'small' nominal c o n s t i t u e n t s Cambridge physics student and physics student a r e both N'. As t h e t r e e s h o w s , t h e difference b e t w e e n t h e complement physics a n d t h e a t t r i b u t e Cambridge is t h a t t h e former is a s i s t e r of N a n d a d a u g h t e r of N', w h e r e a s t h e l a t t e r is both a s i s t e r a n d a d a u g h t e r of N'. The p h r a s e - s t r u c t u r e r u l e s will always g e n e r a t e a t t r i b u t e s to t h e left of complements. This e x p l a i n s t h e (un)grammaticality of (1) a n d (2). The p o s s i b i l i t y of s t a c k e d a t t r i b u t e s is t a k e n c a r e of b y t h e r e c u r s i v e r u l e (ii), which a c c o u n t s for (3).

3.2

Postmodification

J u s t a s it is n e c e s s a r y to d i s t i n g u i s h two t y p e s of optional p r e m o d i f i e r s (viz. a t t r i b u t e s a n d complements), it is n e c e s s a r y to d i s t i n g u i s h two t y p e s of optional p o s t m o d i f i e r s : a d j u n c t s and complements. Postmodifying complements, like t h e i r premodifying c o u n t e r p a r t s , a r e closer to t h e n o u n p h r a s e head a n d p r e c e d e postmodifying a d j u n c t s . T h u s we c a n h a v e (5) (where of physics is complement a n d with long hair is a d j u n c t ) , b u t not (6): (5) a s t u d e n t of p h y s i c s with long h a i r (6) *a s t u d e n t with long h a i r of p h y s i c s

FACTS AND EXPLANATIONS

303

A d j u n c t s a n d complements also differ in t h a t a d j u n c t s can be s t a c k e d , b u t complements c a n n o t . T h u s , we c a n have (7), b u t not (8): (7) t h e s t u d e n t with long hair with s h o r t a r m s (8) * t h e s t u d e n t of p h y s i c s of c h e m i s t r y The p h r a s e - s t r u c t u r e r u l e s t h a t g e n e r a t e n o u n p h r a s e s with optional determiners and optional postnominal prepositional complements a n d a d j u n c t s a r e t h e following: (i) (ii) (iii)

N" --> N' --> N' —>

(D) N' N

N' PP PP

(Determiner rule) (Adjunct r u l e : optional) (Complement rule)

Radford (1988:179) g i v e s t h e following phrase a student of physics with long hair:

tree

for

the

noun

This t r e e s h o w s t h a t t h e whole NP a student of physics with long hair is a n N", t h a t student is a n N a n d t h a t t h e two 'small' nominal constituents student of physics and student of physics with long hair a r e both N'. The d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e complement of physics and t h e a d j u n c t with long hair is t h a t t h e former is a s i s t e r of N a n d a d a u g h t e r of N', w h e r e a s t h e l a t t e r is both a s i s t e r and a d a u g h t e r of N'. The p h r a s e - s t r u c t u r e r u l e s will a l w a y s g e n e r a t e postnominal complements to t h e left of t h e a d j u n c t s . This explains t h e (un)grammaticality of (5) a n d (6). Rule (ii), moreover, is

304

FLOR AARTS

r e c u r s i v e a n d a c c o u n t s for t h e fact t h a t a d j u n c t s can be s t a c k e d , a s in (7). Postmodifying complements and adjuncts, realized by p r e p o s i t i o n a l p h r a s e s in (5) and (7), c a n also be realized by c l a u s e s . Appositive c l a u s e s a r e complements, r e s t r i c t i v e r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s a r e a d j u n c t s . The following p h r a s e - s t r u c t u r e r u l e s (not in Radford) a r e needed: (iv) (v)

N' —> N' —>

N' N

S (S)

(Adjunct r u l e : optional) (Complement rule)

What is problematic is t h a t complement c l a u s e s do not n e c e s s a r i l y o c c u r closer to t h e head t h a n a d j u n c t c l a u s e s . In English we find both (9) and (10): (9) t h e claim which Rockefeller made t h a t he was a millionaire (10) t h e claim t h a t he was a millionaire which Rockefeller made In o r d e r to explain t h i s Radford (1988:219) p o s i t s a e x t r a p o s i t i o n r u l e ' , which he formulates a s follows: Any postnominal Clause ... c a n be e x t r a p o s e d of t h e minimal P h r a s e or Clause c o n t a i n i n g it.

to t h e

'clausal

end

What t h i s r u l e does not a c c o u n t for is t h a t , if t h e a d j u n c t c l a u s e is e x t r a p o s e d , it c a n n o t h a v e a z e r o r e l a t i v e p r o n o u n . Cf.: (11) t h e claim ø Rockefeller made t h a t h e was a millionaire (12) *the claim t h a t he was a millionaire 0 Rockefeller made T h e r e a r e a n u m b e r of additional problems with noun p h r a s e s involving postmodifying a p p o s i t i o n s and a p p o s i t i v e c l a u s e s . Note f i r s t of all t h a t n o u n p h r a s e s c o n t a i n i n g a n a p p o s i t i v e c l a u s e h a v e a n o b l i g a t o r y d e t e r m i n e r . Cf.: (13) t h e claim t h a t t h e economy was p i c k i n g u p (14) *claim t h a t t h e economy was p i c k i n g u p Moreover, t h e a b o v e r u l e s c a n n o t explain t h e o r d e r of r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s and a p p o s i t i o n s . If t h e r e l a t i v e c l a u s e is r e s t r i c t i v e , a n a p p o s i t i o n must follow it, a s in

FACTS AND EXPLANATIONS

305

(15) the woman you met at the party, my neighbour However, if the relative apposition precedes it, as in

clause

is

non-restrictive,

the

(16) Fred, my eldest brother, who is at Cambridge 3.3

The use of anaphoric 'one'

Zandvoort (1945:212) incorrectly states that one may be used as a substitute for a preceding class-noun. His examples are: (17) I lose a neighbour and you gain one (18) "Can you play the piano?" - "A little". There was one in the room. In both sentences one is obviously a pro-form for an indefinite NP (a neighbour and a piano, respectively), not for a single noun. Zandvoort (1945:214) calls anaphoric one after the definite article or an adjective a 'prop—word*, but fails to observe that in this function it cannot replace a whole NP. Huddleston (1984:276) correctly points out that one in (19) You'd better get a tin of nearly empty

paint because

this one

is

refers back not to the whole NP a tin of paint, but to what he calls "less than a whole NP". Unfortunately, Huddleston has nothing more to say on anaphoric one. Quirk et al. (1985:869-870) distinguish two types of anaphoric one. The first type (plural some) is used as a substitute for an indefinite NP and cannot co-occur with determiners and modifiers. The second type (plural ones) is always accompanied by a determiner or modifier. Quirk et ah claim that it can replace a noun phrase head with or without one or more modifiers. This kind of constituent is called 'a nominal expression' and is regarded as intermediate between the word and the phrase (Quirk et ah 1985:965-966). Though both Huddleston and Quirk et ai. observe that there is a nominal category that is larger than the word but smaller than the phrase, they do not use it to explain certain pronominalization phenomena.

306

FLOR AARTS

Among t h e examples g i v e n b y Radford to i l l u s t r a t e t h e u s e of t h e p r o - f o r m one a r e t h e following (Radford, 1988: 175, 186, 189, 198 a n d 204): (20) *The of England defeated t h e one of Spain (21) This w o r k s h a r d e r t h a n t h a t one (22) Which ? The one with long hair in t h e c o r n e r ? (23) Which ? *The one of p h y s i c s a t Cambridge? (24) Which ? *The p h y s i c s one? These examples look s u p e r f i c i a l l y alike a n d it is not immediately clear why (21) a n d (22) a r e grammatical, w h e r e a s (20), (23) a n d (24) a r e not, s i n c e in all c a s e s t h e p r o - f o r m one seems to r e p l a c e a s i n g l e n o u n . All examples, h o w e v e r , a r e p r e d i c t e d to be grammatical b y Z a n d v o o r t , b u t also by Quirk et aL, who claim t h a t a n a p h o r i c one can r e p l a c e a n o u n p h r a s e head with or w i t h o u t one or two modifiers. Again, a s in t h e c a s e of p r e - a n d postmodification, t h e s e examples c a n n o t be explained b y a grammar t h a t does not d i s t i n g u i s h three categories of nominal constituent: N", N' and N. T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar can a c c o u n t for t h e (un)grammaticality of t h e examples a b o v e b y t r e a t i n g one a s a p r o - f o r m t h a t can r e p l a c e N', b u t not N.

4.

Summary In t h i s p a p e r we h a v e been c o n c e r n e d with two q u e s t i o n s : 1. Are modern t r a d i t i o n a l g r a m m a r s of English more a d e q u a t e t h a n t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s ?

observationally

2. Can modern t r a d i t i o n a l g r a m m a r s of English be said to h a v e g r e a t e r e x p l a n a t o r y power t h a n t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s ? In o r d e r to be able to a n s w e r t h e f i r s t q u e s t i o n we h a v e compared t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e s t r u c t u r e of t h e n o u n p h r a s e in Z a n d v o o r t (1945) with t h o s e in H u d d l e s t o n (1984) a n d Quirk et aL (1985). This comparison c l e a r l y s h o w s u p t h e i n a d e q u a c i e s of Z a n d v o o r t ' s d e s c r i p t i o n . Z a n d v o o r t confines himself to a fairly s u p e r f i c i a l t r e a t m e n t of some of t h e s y n t a c t i c c a t e g o r i e s t h a t p l a y a p a r t in n o u n p h r a s e s t r u c t u r e , b u t completely i g n o r e s what Nida

FACTS AND EXPLANATIONS

307

calls " t h e l a r g e r p a t t e r n s " . He does not s t a t e all t h e f a c t s and some of t h e f a c t s t h a t he d o e s s t a t e a r e s t a t e d i n c o r r e c t l y . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , H u d d l e s t o n , a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y Quirk e t al., p r e s e n t d e s c r i p t i o n s of t h e s t r u c t u r e of t h e noun p h r a s e t h a t not only s t a t e t h e f a c t s c o r r e c t l y , b u t also c o v e r v i r t u a l l y all t h e f a c t s t h a t a r e r e l e v a n t from an o b s e r v a t i o n a l point of view. T h e r e is no d o u b t t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l g r a m m a r s of English h a v e made t r e m e n d o u s p r o g r e s s in this respect. The q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r modern t r a d i t i o n a l g r a m m a r s of English a r e also more a d e q u a t e t h a n t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s w h e n we compare them in t e r m s of t h e i r e x p l a n a t o r y power can be a n s w e r e d in t h e affirmative. It is not difficult to find many examples in t h e g r a m m a r s of H u d d l e s t o n a n d Quirk et al, of grammatical p h e n o m e n a t h a t a r e both s t a t e d c o r r e c t l y a n d explained. We should b e a r in mind, h o w e v e r , t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l g r a m m a r s like Quirk et al. aim to c o v e r a s many f a c t s a s p o s s i b l e . Their c o m p r e h e n s i v e n e s s i n e v i t a b l y e x c l u d e s a t h e o r e t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n . It makes it impossible for them to make u s e of t h e c o n c e p t s , r u l e s and formalisms of a p a r t i c u l a r l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y , s u c h a s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar. The most t h e y can hope to a c h i e v e is t h a t , in a d d i t i o n to d e s c r i b i n g all t h e r e l e v a n t f a c t s c o r r e c t l y , t h e y can explain some of t h e s e f a c t s , when t h e i r eclectic grammatical framework p e r m i t s t h i s . In many c a s e s it does not, a s section 3 i l l u s t r a t e s .

REFERENCES Chomsky, Noam. 1964. " C u r r e n t I s s u e s in L i n g u i s t i c T h e o r y " . The Structure of Language ed» b y J e r r y A. Podor a n d J e r r o l d J. Katz, 50-118. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. . 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: P r a e g e r . Greenbaum, S i d n e y . 1988. Good English and the Grammarian. London & New York: Longman. H e r b s t , Thomas. 1988. "A Valency Model for Nouns in E n g l i s h " . Journal of Linguistics 24. 265-301. H u d d l e s t o n , Rodney. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. P r e s s . Nida, E u g e n e Albert. 1966. A Synopsis of English Syntax. 2nd r e v . e d . The Hague: Mouton.

308

FLOR AARTS

Quirk, Randolph, S i d n e y Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, a n d Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, London: Longman. Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational Grammar: A first course, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. P r e s s . Z a n d v o o r t , Reinard W. 1945. A Handbook of English Grammar, G r o n i n g e n : Wolters-Noordhoff.

R E F E R E N C E

A N D

A R T I C L E S

CHRISTOPHER G. LYONS University

of

Salford

1. The label " a r t i c l e " is t r a d i t i o n a l l y r e s e r v e d for t h e two items the a n d a, which a r e u s u a l l y t h o u g h t of a s e x p r e s s i n g , r e s p e c t i v e l y , d e f i n i t e n e s s a n d i n d e f i n i t e n e s s . Discussion of t h e m e a n i n g s a n d u s e s of t h e a r t i c l e s u s u a l l y comes down, t h e r e f o r e , to a n a t t e m p t to define " d e f i n i t e n e s s " . But t h i s is a far from t r i v i a l t a s k . Moreover, t h e complementary d i s t r i b u t i o n b e t w e e n the a n d a is only p a r t i a l : a only o c c u r s with c o u n t n o u n s in t h e s i n g u l a r , w h e r e a s the can accompany n o u n s of almost a n y c l a s s , in e i t h e r s i n g u l a r or p l u r a l . A f u r t h e r notable complication is t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e s t a t u s of some a n d i t s r e l a t i o n to t h e " z e r o " a r t i c l e with mass a n d p l u r a l n o u n s . Given t h i s complexity, it is not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t most g r a m m a r i a n s before t h e p e r i o d we a r e c o n c e r n e d with found t h e a r t i c l e s problematic a n d had little to s a y a b o u t them. A c h a n g e o c c u r s a b o u t t h e middle of t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y , a n d from t h e n on t h e a r t i c l e s a r e dealt with a t g r e a t e r l e n g t h a n d with i n c r e a s e d confidence. But b e f o r e examining t r a d i t i o n a l d i s c u s s i o n s it will b e useful to e s t a b l i s h a p e r s p e c t i v e b y c o n s i d e r i n g t h e p r e s e n t t h e o r e t i c a l position. This too is not s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d , b e c a u s e of t h e lack of a g e n e r a l c o n s e n s u s . The t e r m " a r t i c l e " itself is r a r e l y u s e d . R a t h e r , the a n d a come u n d e r t h e h e a d i n g of " d e t e r m i n e r s " - which for some l i n g u i s t s d e n o t e s a grammatical c a t e g o r y , b u t for o t h e r s is merely a w o r k i n g label covering any non-adjectival pre-nominal modifier. One c o n s e q u e n c e of t h e s u b s u m i n g of t h e a r t i c l e s u n d e r a wider c a t e g o r y is t h a t it c a n n o t be t a k e n for g r a n t e d t h a t the a n d a r e p r e s e n t o p p o s i t e v a l u e s of some b i n a r y semantic c o n t r a s t . On t h e q u e s t i o n of w h a t is c o n v e y e d by the - informally, " d e f i n i t e n e s s " - two d i s t i n c t t r a d i t i o n s a r e in competition, one

310

CHRISTOPHER LYONS

d e r i v e d from e a r l i e r l i n g u i s t i c work, a n d t h e o t h e r from t h e work of formal logicians. The f i r s t of t h e s e a p p r o a c h e s a p p e a l s particularly to p r a g m a t i c i a n s , a n d may b e termed t h e familiarity theory. I t is owed p r i n c i p a l l y to C h r i s t o p h e r s e n (1939), t h o u g h it h a s a much l o n g e r h i s t o r y . The l e a d i n g idea is t h a t t h e u s e of the d i r e c t s t h e h e a r e r to t h e r e f e r e n t of an NP b y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h i s r e f e r e n t is familiar to h e a r e r as well a s s p e a k e r . It may be t h a t t h e r e f e r e n t h a s a l r e a d y been mentioned in t h e p r e c e d i n g d i s c o u r s e , t h a t it is p r e s e n t in t h e immediate or l a r g e r s i t u a t i o n (as with the table in a p a r t i c u l a r room, the town hail in a p a r t i c u l a r c i t y ) , or t h a t it is a s s o c i a t e d with s o m e t h i n g familiar or a l r e a d y mentioned (as in I've bought a book; the author was signing copies - the author d e r i v e s i t s "familiarity" from t h e fact t h a t it is a g e n e r a l l y known fact a b o u t b o o k s t h a t they have authors). The s e c o n d a p p r o a c h is f a v o u r e d b y many formal s e m a n t i c i s t s a n d stems from t h e o b s e r v a t i o n of Russell (1905) t h a t p a r t of t h e meaning of a "definite d e s c r i p t i o n " like the king of France is t h a t t h e r e is only one king of F r a n c e . This c a n be t e r m e d t h e uniqueness theory; it claims t h a t the i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e f e r e n t is u n i q u e (at least in a p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e x t ) . This idea c a n be e x t e n d e d to p l u r a l a n d mass NPs b y r e p l a c i n g u n i q u e n e s s by w h a t Hawkins (1978) calls sugar, t h e r e f e r e n c e is to inclusiveness. In Pass me the books/the all t h e books or all t h e s u g a r in a g i v e n c o n t e x t . Where t h e NP is singular and count, inclusiveness is indistinguishable from u n i q u e n e s s , b e c a u s e t h e t o t a l i t y of o b j e c t s c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the book is j u s t o n e . T h e s e two t h e o r i e s make q u i t e d i s t i n c t claims, b u t t h e r e h a v e been a t t e m p t s to b r i n g them t o g e t h e r . The most n o t a b l e is t h a t of Hawkins, who in effect r e c a s t s C h r i s t o p h e r s e n ' s familiarity idea in t e r m s of i n c l u s i v e n e s s . For Hawkins, what is familiar to t h e h e a r e r is not t h e r e f e r e n t of t h e definite NP, b u t t h e c o n t e x t . And the i n d i c a t e s t h a t within t h e c o n t e x t t h e r e f e r e n c e is i n c l u s i v e . Christophersen t a k e s a to be n e u t r a l with r e s p e c t to familiarity. So a a n d the a r e not d i r e c t o p p o s i t e s , a l t h o u g h t h e most t y p i c a l u s e of a is to i n t r o d u c e a new, unfamiliar r e f e r e n t i n t o d i s c o u r s e . But r e c e n t work, following Milsark (1974), goes f u r t h e r , claiming t h a t all i n d e f i n i t e d e t e r m i n e r s e x p r e s s " c a r d i n a l i t y " , t h a t i s ,

REFERENCE AND ARTICLES

311

q u a n t i t y or n u m b e r . So a i n d i c a t e s s i n g u l a r i t y , and is t h u s close in meaning to t h e numeral one. This position r e p r e s e n t s , in fact, a r e t u r n to a n older view, since t h e idea t h a t a is a weak form of one h a s a long t r a d i t i o n , which was i n t e r r u p t e d b y t h e r i s e of t h e view t h a t a c o n t r a s t s with the and e x p r e s s e s p r i n c i p a l l y " i n d e f i n i t e n e s s " . C o n s i d e r a b l e d e b a t e h a s b e e n g e n e r a t e d in t h e l i t e r a t u r e b y t h e fact t h a t i n d e f i n i t e s can h a v e "specific" a n d " n o n - s p e c i f i c " i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s in a p p r o p r i a t e c o n t e x t s . An example would be I am looking for a friend, w h e r e on one i n t e r p r e t a t i o n (the specific one) t h e s p e a k e r h a s a p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l in mind c o r r e s p o n d i n g to t h e p h r a s e a friend, b u t not on t h e o t h e r . Non-specific u s e of i n d e f i n i t e s seems to be r e l a t e d to g e n e r i c r e f e r e n c e . In fact b o t h definites a n d i n d e f i n i t e s can r e f e r g e n e r i c a l l y (The/A dog has four legs, dogs have four legs), t h o u g h definite p l u r a l a n d mass g e n e r i c s (He admires the Americans, I love the snow) a r e v e r y r e s t r i c t e d in o c c u r r e n c e in English. 2. The familiarity t h e o r y c a n be t r a c e d back to t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y Apollonius Dyscolus, who d i s t i n g u i s h e s t h e Greek definite a r t i c l e from i t s a b s e n c e in t e r m s of w h e t h e r or not t h e r e f e r e n t h a s a l r e a d y been mentioned or is o t h e r w i s e known (Uhlig 1910; Householder 1981). The f i r s t a p p e a r a n c e of t h i s t h e o r y in E n g l a n d is with J o h n Wilkins (1668), who s a y s the "is a p p l y e d only to s u c h a P e r s o n o r T h i n g , a s t h e h e a r e r k n o w s , or h a t h r e a s o n to know, b e c a u s e of i t s eminence or some p r e c e d e n t mention of it". The idea is t a k e n u p b y H a r r i s (1751) who i n t e g r a t e s it into a full p i c t u r e of a r t i c l e meaning. H a r r i s ' s a c c o u n t of the a n d a c o m p r i s e s t h r e e elements. The f i r s t (a c o n s t a n t element in t h e l i n g u i s t i c t h i n k i n g of t h e p e r i o d ) is t h a t n o u n s d e n o t e b r o a d c l a s s e s , a n d a n a r t i c l e s e r v e s to r e d u c e t h e d e n o t a t i o n of a n o u n a n d e n a b l e it to r e f e r to individuals (an i n d i v i d u a l dog, for i n s t a n c e , or a p l u r a l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l d o g s may be r e f e r r e d to b y a dog or the dogs). This a p p l i e s to both a r t i c l e s , while t h e s e c o n d element d i s t i n g u i s h e s b e t w e e n them; Harris s a y s " t h e a r t i c l e A l e a v e s t h e i n d i v i d u a l itself unascertained, whereas the a r t i c l e THE ascertains the individual also, a n d is for t h a t r e a s o n t h e more a c c u r a t e definitive of t h e two". In o t h e r w o r d s , the identifies t h e r e f e r e n t , a n s w e r s t h e q u e s t i o n which? after saying what

312

CHRISTOPHER LYONS

H a r r i s ' s t h i r d element is familiarity: "A r e s p e c t s o u r primary p e r c e p t i o n , a n d d e n o t e s i n d i v i d u a l s a s unknown; THE r e s p e c t s o u r secondary p e r c e p t i o n a n d d e n o t e s i n d i v i d u a l s a s known"] a n d the "tacitly i n s i n u a t e s a kind of previous a c q u a i n t a n c e , by r e f e r r i n g t h e p r e s e n t p e r c e p t i o n to a like p e r c e p t i o n a l r e a d y p a s t " . Two f u r t h e r e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y c o n t r i b u t i o n s fill o u t t h i s p i c t u r e . Ward (1758) makes t h e point t h a t both the and a c a n be u s e d to r e f e r g e n e r i c a l l y a s well a s to i n d i v i d u a l s . And t h e c o n c e p t of familiarity is still incomplete, in t h a t s i t u a t i o n a l u s e s a r e not i n c l u d e d ; in t h e s e the is t h o u g h t to i n d i c a t e "eminence". It is Monboddo (1774) who s e e s t h e possibility of i n c o r p o r a t i n g them into t h e g e n e r a l a c c o u n t : "...we say the city, the river, t h a t is t h e city or r i v e r well known to t h e h e a r e r . . . t h e c i t y we live in, or t h e r i v e r n e a r u s , however c o n s i d e r a b l e t h a t city or r i v e r may b e " . For a more detailed d i s c u s s i o n of e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y t h i n k i n g on t h e meaning of t h e a r t i c l e s , see Joly (1987). The s e c o n d half of t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y is i m p o r t a n t for two r e a s o n s . F i r s t , t h e s e d e c a d e s , immediately p r e c e d i n g t h e period we a r e c o n c e r n e d with in t h e p r e s e n t volume, saw t h e e l a b o r a t i o n of major i n s i g h t s which w e r e built on a f t e r 1800 a n d which h a v e l a r g e l y stood t h e t e s t of time u p to t h e p r e s e n t . Second, t h e f i r s t grammar we must c o n s i d e r a s b e l o n g i n g to o u r p e r i o d , t h a t of M u r r a y , is e s s e n t i a l l y d e r i v a t i v e a n d d r a w s most of i t s t r e a t m e n t of t h e a r t i c l e s from w r i t e r s of t h e p r e c e d i n g h a l f - c e n t u r y - t h o u g h , c u r i o u s l y , it fails to pick u p t h e most i n s i g h t f u l p r o p o s a l s of t h i s period. 3. M u r r a y ' s grammar was f i r s t p u b l i s h e d in 1795, b u t it was in w i d e s p r e a d u s e a s a school h a n d b o o k for much of t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y . In fact his a c c o u n t c o n s i s t s mainly of i l l u s t r a t i v e examples, with little discussion. But he does give a brief general c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n , s a y i n g t h a t a r t i c l e s a r e prefixed to s u b s t a n t i v e s "to point them o u t , a n d to shew how far t h e i r significance e x t e n d s " , and t h a t both a r t i c l e s " d e t e r m i n e or limit t h e t h i n g s p o k e n of". This may c o r r e s p o n d to H a r r i s ' s f i r s t element, r e d u c i n g t h e d e n o t a t i o n of n o u n s from c l a s s e s to i n d i v i d u a l s , b u t " d e t e r m i n i n g " may also mean n a r r o w i n g down t h e field of p o t e n t i a l r e f e r e n c e for t h e benefit of t h e h e a r e r , a s a n aid to identification of t h e r e f e r e n t . Murray g o e s

REFERENCE AND ARTICLES

313

on to explain t h a t t h e indefinite a r t i c l e "is u s e d in a v a g u e s e n s e to point o u t one single t h i n g of t h e k i n d , in o t h e r respects i n d e t e r m i n a t e ; a s , give me a book; t h a t i s , a n y book", while t h e definite a r t i c l e is so called " b e c a u s e it a s c e r t a i n s what p a r t i c u l a r t h i n g is meant; a s , give me the book; meaning some book r e f e r r e d to". Similarly, "A d e t e r m i n e s to be one single t h i n g of t h e k i n d , l e a v i n g it still u n c e r t a i n which; the d e t e r m i n e s which it is, o r , of many, which t h e y a r e " . So t h e function of the is identification. But identifying i s , for Murray, one form of " d e t e r m i n i n g " , a n d , i n t e r e s t i n g l y , a is s e e n a s h a v i n g a similar " d e t e r m i n i n g " role, in e x p r e s s i n g t h e c a r d i n a l i t y of t h e r e f e r e n t . M u r r a y ' s t r e a t m e n t of g e n e r i c i t y is extremely brief and s k e t c h y , t h o u g h he is clearly a w a r e of it. He s a y s t h a t a n o u n without a n y a r t i c l e "is t a k e n in its w i d e s t s e n s e " g i v i n g a s exemplification man with the s e n s e of "all m a n k i n d " . Given t h e fact t h a t M u r r a y ' s grammar, a s he himself d e c l a r e s , is e s s e n t i a l l y a compilation of t h e ideas of his p r e d e c e s s o r s , it is s t r i k i n g t h a t he i g n o r e s t h e major i n s i g h t to be developed in t h e enormously productive half-century from about 1750, namely familiarity. In fact t h i s i n s i g h t seems to h a v e been almost lost, not r e a p p e a r i n g in full u n t i l well into t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y ( t h o u g h it is also to be found in t h e b e s t of t h e n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y g r a m m a r s , t h a t of M a e t z n e r ) . M u r r a y dominated t h e f i r s t two t h i r d s of t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , a n d with t h e next g r e a t o u t p o u r i n g of work on l a n g u a g e , in t h e l a t e r d e c a d e s of t h e c e n t u r y , d e f i n i t e n e s s is s e e n p r i n c i p a l l y in t e r m s of identification or " d e t e r m i n a t i o n " in some s e n s e similar to t h a t of M u r r a y . 4. The g r a m m a r s which a p p e a r e d in t h e late n i n e t e e n t h and e a r l y twentieth centuries are much greater in scale than their p r e d e c e s s o r s . Maetzner (1880, 1885) g i v e s a v e r y detailed t r e a t m e n t of t h e a r t i c l e s , still following t h e t r a d i t i o n a l p r a c t i c e of limiting t h i s term to the a n d a. He p r e s e n t s r e d u c t i o n of d e n o t a t i o n a s t h e basic function of t h e a r t i c l e s : t h e y b o t h s e r v e to pick o u t one or s e v e r a l i n d i v i d u a l s from t h e t o t a l i t y of e n t i t i e s h a v i n g t h e same name. The d i s t i n g u i s h e s t h e r e f e r e n t as b e i n g o b v i o u s , or known a n d p r e s e n t to t h e a t t e n t i o n , while a p r e s e n t s an o b j e c t which may be a n y one of t h e t o t a l i t y of o b j e c t s h a v i n g t h e same name. Here we clearly h a v e a

314

CHRISTOPHER LYONS

v e r s i o n of t h e familiarity h y p o t h e s i s . M a e t z n e r ' s a c c o u n t is in fact t h e d i r e c t d e s c e n d a n t of t h e e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y i n s i g h t s of H a r r i s , Ward a n d Monboddo. It c o n s i s t s e s s e n t i a l l y of t h e f i r s t and t h i r d elements of H a r r i s ' s a c c o u n t , omitting t h e s e c o n d , identification. This omission is a n a d v a n c e , s i n c e of t h e two elements identification a n d familiarity, one is r e d u n d a n t : e i t h e r t h e s i g n a l s t h a t t h e r e f e r e n t can be identified by t h e h e a r e r , a n d t h e h e a r e r u s e s t h e e x i s t i n g knowledge summed u p as "familiarity" to make t h i s identification; o r the i n d i c a t e s t h e familiarity of t h e r e f e r e n t , b u t t h e p o i n t of i n d i c a t i n g t h i s is to a s s i s t t h e h e a r e r in i d e n t i f y i n g what one is r e f e r r i n g to. Maetzner s e e s t h e familiarity r e q u i r e m e n t a s b e i n g fulfilled in t h r e e possible w a y s . F i r s t , t h e combination of the a n d n o u n may d e s i g n a t e a n e n t i t y which is p r e s e n t in t h e s i t u a t i o n of d i s c o u r s e (the drawing-room) or more g e n e r a l l y familiar (the moon, the wind). Second, it may r e f e r back to something p r e v i o u s l y mentioned (A lofty island... the island)', an a b s t r a c t n o u n u s e d in t h i s way may r e f e r to an a c t i v i t y a l r e a d y e x p r e s s e d not b y a p r e c e d i n g nominal e x p r e s s i o n b u t b y a c l a u s e (And the earth did quake,,, the earthquake). Third, t h e familiarity may d e r i v e from some a t t r i b u t i v e e x p r e s s i o n or r e l a t i v e c l a u s e which r e s t r i c t s t h e r e f e r e n c e to a specific e n t i t y . In a d d i t i o n , t h e a r t i c l e - n o u n combination may e x p r e s s no r e d u c t i o n of d e n o t a t i o n b u t r e f e r to t h e whole class d e s i g n a t e d b y t h e noun; t h i s is t h e g e n e r i c u s e . Where the is u s e d to r e f e r g e n e r i c a l l y , it is mainly t h e s i n g u l a r form of t h e noun which o c c u r s , while p l u r a l g e n e r i c s u s u a l l y do n o t involve t h e a r t i c l e . P r o p e r names g e n e r a l l y do not t a k e t h e a r t i c l e , e x c e p t when t h e y a r e f u r t h e r modified (the envious Casca), or w h e n t h e y a r e u s e d a s common n o u n s ( t h a t is, a s d e n o t i n g c l a s s e s ) a s in the Henries, Maetzner t h u s a n t i c i p a t e s much of t h e t r e a t m e n t g i v e n to the much l a t e r by C h r i s t o p h e r s e n . His a c c o u n t is a h e a d of, and more i n s i g h t f u l t h a n , a n y o t h e r of t h e p e r i o d . Maetzner is l e s s i m p r e s s i v e , b e c a u s e v a g u e , on t h e indefinite a r t i c l e , which he s a y s is u s e d to pick out an individual d i f f e r e n t i a t e d only numerically from t h e o t h e r members of i t s c l a s s , a n d not at f i r s t t h o u g h t of a s o t h e r w i s e d i s t i n c t . P r e s u m a b l y what t h i s means is t h a t t h e r e f e r e n t is not familiar in t h e w a y s t h a t t h e r e f e r e n t of a n o u n p h r a s e with the may be. But Maetzner d o e s not

REFERENCE AND ARTICLES

315

explicitly mention t h e f r e q u e n t u s e of a with f i r s t mentions. He o b s e r v e s t h a t a is close in meaning to t h e indefinite p r o n o u n some, t h o u g h he does not i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s point in a n y d e p t h . 5. Not long a f t e r M a e t z n e r ' s grammar comes t h a t of Sweet (1892, 1898). Sweet c h a r a c t e r i z e s both a r t i c l e s a s " m a r k - w o r d s " , b e c a u s e t h e y "single o u t an i n d i v i d u a l " . T h e y h a v e exactly opposite m e a n i n g s , since a " p u t s a mark on a n o u n , b u t w i t h o u t i d e n t i f y i n g or d e f i n i n g it". So for Sweet, d e f i n i t e n e s s is a b o u t identification and e m b r a c e s elements which clearly derive from the familiarity hypothesis (unsurprisingly, since he a c k n o w l e d g e s a debt to Maetzner). This is clear in t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e definite a r t i c l e h a s one function which is p u r e l y grammatical - "to show t h a t t h e idea e x p r e s s e d b y t h e n o u n h a s a l r e a d y been s t a t e d , a n d to r e f e r back to t h a t s t a t e m e n t " . A n o u n e x p r e s s i n g a new idea, on t h e o t h e r h a n d , is accompanied b y t h e indefinite a r t i c l e . Of t h e o t h e r u s e s of the, t h e p r i n c i p a l one, t h a t of t h e " i d e n t i f y i n g a r t i c l e " , also c o n t a i n s a n element of familiarity: in the river, t h e a r t i c l e identifies t h e r i v e r when s p e a k e r s u t t e r t h e p h r a s e to mean " t h e most i m p o r t a n t r i v e r n e a r to u s " . Similar examples a r e the door, the window, u s e d to mean t h e door or window of t h e room t h e s p e a k e r is in or is t h i n k i n g of. But note t h a t for Sweet it is a m a t t e r of familiarity (a term he does not a c t u a l l y use) to t h e s p e a k e r ; he does not mention t h e h e a r e r . Sweet o b s e r v e s t h a t a n o t h e r modifier (adjective, relative c l a u s e , e t c ) , if r e s t r i c t i v e , s h a r e s with t h e a r t i c l e t h e role of i d e n t i f y i n g . And if in s u c h c a s e s t h e a d d i t i o n a l modifier is sufficient on i t s own to identify t h e r e f e r e n t (as with same, nearest), t h e n the is s u p e r f l u o u s a n d is p r e s e n t b y a n a l o g y with c a s e s w h e r e it is meaningful. Sweet also n o t e s t h e g e n e r i c u s e , with both s i n g u l a r (the lion) a n d p l u r a l (the Russians) n o u n s ; with t h e former, the h a s little d i s t i n c t i v e meaning, b u t is more emphatic t h a n a, making u s t h i n k of i n d i v i d u a l members of t h e c l a s s ; with t h e l a t t e r , t h e idea of c o l l e c t i v e n e s s is e m p h a s i z e d . Sweet c o n s i d e r s t h e indefinite a r t i c l e to be a q u i t e d i s t i n c t e n t i t y from one, t h o u g h it p r e s e r v e s some numerical u s e s from e a r l i e r times (as in a foot deep). The indefinite a r t i c l e p r o p e r h a s two f u n c t i o n s . In i t s " i n t r o d u c t o r y " u s e it " s i n g l e s o u t t h e idea

316

CHRISTOPHER LYONS

e x p r e s s e d by i t s n o u n , a n d makes us e x p e c t f u r t h e r information a b o u t it". Despite i t s name t h e defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h i s function seems to be not f i r s t - m e n t i o n so much as specificity, a n d it can be made more emphatic by t h e addition of certain. The second u s e is t h e " a b s o l u t e " o n e , which e m b r a c e s t h e n o n - s p e c i f i c a n d g e n e r i c u s e s ; a b s o l u t e a "does not single o u t , a n d h a s t h e p u r e l y indefinite s e n s e of ' a n y ' . . . it simply p i c k s o u t a n i n d i v i d u a l a t random to s e r v e a s t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of a c l a s s " . Sweet n o t e s t h a t t h e p l u r a l of a is a b s e n c e of an a r t i c l e , t h o u g h some " h a s something of t h e defining force of t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y a r t i c l e " . S w e e t ' s a c c o u n t is rambling a n d l a c k s c l a r i t y - f a u l t s which a r e s t r i k i n g l y a p p a r e n t when t h e r e a d e r t u r n s to his grammar immediately a f t e r M a e t z n e r ' s . As n o t e d , i d e a s s p r i n g i n g from t h e familiarity h y p o t h e s i s a r e a p p a r e n t , b u t t h e y seem to c r e e p in a c c i d e n t a l l y . One misses a c o h e r e n t p i c t u r e of w h a t d e f i n i t e n e s s is, a n d insofar a s t h e r e is a n y g e n e r a l notion informing t h e a c c o u n t , it is a poorly t h o u g h t o u t v e r s i o n of identification. 6. The e a r l y y e a r s of t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y see t h e a p p e a r a n c e of two major g r a m m a r s in t h e N e t h e r l a n d s : t h o s e of Kruisinga (1911) a n d Poutsma (1914). K r u i s i n g a ( h e r e examined in t h e r e v i s e d 5th edition of 1932) d i s t i n g u i s h e s t h r e e p r i n c i p a l u s e s of t h e definite a r t i c l e : d e m o n s t r a t i v e , defining a n d c l a s s i f y i n g - t h e two l a s t being t h e most c e n t r a l . The d e m o n s t r a t i v e a r t i c l e is used deictically (at the moment, on the Thursday), and a n a p h o r i c a l l y (...a candidate, ...the candidate). The u s e of the with p r o p e r n o u n s qualified b y a d j e c t i v e s (the young Crabbe) is a n affective u s e of t h e deictic d e m o n s t r a t i v e a r t i c l e . In i t s defining u s e (which h a s developed from t h e deictic u s e ) , the s e r v e s "to i d e n t i f y or i n d i v i d u a l i z e t h e n o u n " . Whenever a n o u n is "made definite" b y a n a d j u n c t (the curate of a village church) or c l a u s e (the Mr Brant about whom...), it must t a k e t h e . The same a p p l i e s to a n o u n made definite by t h e s i t u a t i o n (...a b a n k . . . t h e counter...). K r u i s i n g a does not s a y w h a t he means b y "definite", b u t p r e s u m a b l y he means identified. But t h e n , does t h e a r t i c l e identify t h e n o u n (as he s a y s ) or is t h e a r t i c l e p r e s e n t b e c a u s e something else is i d e n t i f y i n g t h e n o u n (as he also s a y s ) ?

REFERENCE AND ARTICLES

317

It is not a t all c l e a r what t h e classifying a r t i c l e is; t h e only clue g i v e n is t h a t it d i f f e r s from t h e o t h e r two u s e s in a p p e a r i n g only with c l a s s n o u n s ( t h a t is, common c o u n t n o u n s ) . I t may be t h a t the is classifying w h e n t h e e m p h a s i s is on t h e d e s c r i p t i v e c o n t e n t of t h e n o u n p h r a s e . This u s e is exemplified b y c l a s s n o u n s p r e c e d i n g a p r o p e r name {the labourer Tryst, the splendid epic Beowulf). It also i n c l u d e s t h e g e n e r i c u s e ; in t h e s i n g u l a r , t h i s may involve one r e p r e s e n t i n g a c l a s s (a history of the English borough), or s t a n d i n g a s a " s y n o n y m for t h e whole g r o u p " {the cuckoo) - though this d i s t i n c t i o n is not explained. In t h e p l u r a l a complete g r o u p is d e n o t e d {A shy man...the women despise him...). Also included in t h e c l a s s i f y i n g u s e of the is t h e " u n i q u e a r t i c l e " , o c c u r r i n g before c l a s s n o u n s which d e n o t e e n t i t i e s s i n g l e in t h e i r k i n d {the s u n , the Devil; e v e n the river, " r e f e r r i n g to one r i v e r familiar to t h e s p e a k e r " ) . The indefinite a r t i c l e can h a v e a p u r e l y numerical s e n s e , especially in n e g a t i v e a n d similar c o n t e x t s {never a word, a shilling only). But i t s two p r i n c i p a l u s e s ( s h a r e d b y one) a r e t h e classifying and the individualizing. The c l a s s i f y i n g a r t i c l e is t h e a r t i c l e a s u s e d with s i n g u l a r c l a s s n o u n s . I n d e e d a b s t r a c t a n d p r o p e r n o u n s c a n be c o n v e r t e d into c l a s s n o u n s b y b e i n g u s e d with a. The indefinite a r t i c l e is i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g when it is u s e d to " r e f e r to an i n d i v i d u a l specimen of a c l a s s " ; in t h i s u s e it a p p r o a c h e s t h e meaning of a certain {Once upon a time there lived...a poor shoemaker...). K r u i s i n g a ' s a c c o u n t h a s much in common with S w e e t ' s , a n d was no d o u b t influenced b y t h e l a t t e r . I t r e s e m b l e s Sweet also in i t s lack of e x p l i c i t n e s s a n d c l a r i t y . The r e a d e r is left to a t t e m p t to work o u t , with little g u i d a n c e beyond examples, t h e difference b e t w e e n t h e defining a n d c l a s s i f y i n g u s e s of the a n d t h e classifying and i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g u s e s of a. K r u i s i n g a does n o t r e g a r d t h e a r t i c l e s a s semantically o p p o s i t e to e a c h o t h e r ; t h e e s s e n t i a l meaning of e a c h is t h e c o n s e q u e n c e of i t s b e i n g a r e d u c e d d e m o n s t r a t i v e or n u m e r a l . Most s t r i k i n g of all, t h e familiarity h y p o t h e s i s makes no a p p e a r a n c e . 7. P o u t s m a ' s massive grammar is in t h e same t r a d i t i o n as Kruisinga, a n d f r e q u e n t l y r e f e r s to Sweet a n d Maetzner - t h o u g h , a g a i n , failing to benefit from t h e p e r c e p t i v e n e s s of t h e l a t t e r . For

318

CHRISTOPHER LYONS

Poutsma, d e f i n i t e n e s s is a b o u t r e d u c t i o n of d e n o t a t i o n p l u s something r e s e m b l i n g identification, t h o u g h with o t h e r elements p l a y i n g a p a r t . The f i r s t element, r e d u c t i o n of d e n o t a t i o n - if t h i s is t h e c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of "to i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e t h i n g of which we h a v e formed a c o n c e p t i o n , is m a r k e d off o r defined, i.e. t h o u g h t of within c e r t a i n p h y s i c a l o r i m a g i n a r y o u t l i n e s or limits" - is common to both a r t i c l e s . For each a r t i c l e , t h i s p r i m a r y element of meaning is s u p p l e m e n t e d b y a s e c o n d a r y o n e , t a k e n from s e v e r a l a l t e r n a t i v e possibilities. The may i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e f e r e n t is "individualized or s p e c i a l i z e d " , c o n n e c t e d in o u r t h o u g h t s with a p a r t i c u l a r e n t i t y . I t a k e t h i s to mean t h a t t h e r e f e r e n t is identified, t h o u g h t h i s is not o b v i o u s ; it looks more like a definition of a specific i n d e f i n i t e . The " i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g or s p e c i a l i z i n g " may be p e r f o r m e d by suitable a d j u n c t s ( a d j e c t i v e s , p r e p o s i t i o n a l p h r a s e s , o r r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s ) , o r it may be i n d i c a t e d b y t h e c o n t e x t , o r not e x p r e s s e d a t all b e c a u s e " r e a d i l y u n d e r s t o o d or u n i m p o r t a n t " . I n c l u d e d in t h i s function is t h e o c c u r r e n c e of the with n o u n s d e n o t i n g u n i q u e e n t i t i e s (sun, world), e v e n t h o u g h s u c h n o u n s do not admit of i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g a s o t h e r s do. The s e c o n d p o s s i b l e function of the is to i n d i c a t e t h a t " t h e c o n c e p t i o n we h a v e formed is g e n e r a l i z e d " ; t h i s is t h e g e n e r i c u s e . The only h i n t of t h e familiarity t h e o r y to be found in Poutsma comes, c u r i o u s l y e n o u g h , in h i s a c c o u n t of t h e i n d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e . The basic function of a is in fact twofold: to i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e f e r e n t h a s not y e t b e e n mentioned, and t h a t it is not "specialized" ( t h a t i s , p r e s u m a b l y , not i d e n t i f i e d ) . So a is h e r e c l e a r l y o p p o s e d to the in one a s p e c t of i t s meaning, t h o u g h p r e v i o u s mention is not g i v e n a s a c r i t e r i o n for t h e u s e of the. In a d d i t i o n , a may h a v e t h e force of one, some, o r a certain, a n d may be g e n e r i c , a n d i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e g e n e r i c definite a r t i c l e (A/The lion is a beast of prey)» 8. The American Curme (1931, 1935) i s , as he s a y s , c o n c e r n e d with g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s r a t h e r t h a n detail, a n d he omits t h e mass of exemplification offered b y his p r e d e c e s s o r s . His t r e a t m e n t of t h e a r t i c l e s is t h e r e f o r e r e l a t i v e l y brief. Curme c l a s s e s the a n d a a s "limiting a d j e c t i v e s " - a d j e c t i v e s which limit " t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e idea e x p r e s s e d b y t h e n o u n to

REFERENCE AND ARTICLES

319

one or more i n d i v i d u a l s of t h e c l a s s , or to one or more p a r t s of a whole", by c o n t r a s t with " d e s c r i p t i v e a d j e c t i v e s " . This is t h e familiar c o n c e p t of r e d u c t i o n of d e n o t a t i o n . The definite a r t i c l e is p r i n c i p a l l y a b o u t identification: it " p o i n t s to a definite p e r s o n or t h i n g " . It may be a n a p h o r i c , p o i n t i n g back to a n e n t i t y a l r e a d y mentioned, or d e t e r m i n a t i v e , p o i n t i n g to something d e s c r i b e d b y a following r e l a t i v e , g e n i t i v e or o t h e r d e s c r i p t i v e e x p r e s s i o n . Curme a d d s t h a t "a p e r s o n or t h i n g which is single in kind n e e d s no d e s c r i p t i o n : the king; the q u e e n " . This u n i q u e n e s s may be r e l a t i v e to a p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e x t , a s in the bridge " w h e r e t h e r e is only one in t h e n e i g h b o u r h o o d " . The a r t i c l e may be s t r e s s e d to c o n v e y ( r a t h e r t h a n p r e s u p p o s e ) t h a t something is u n i q u e : the pianist of the day. In r e c o g n i z i n g t h e i m p o r t a n c e of l i n g u i s t i c and e x t r a - l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e x t , Curme is i n c l u d i n g elements which a r e c e n t r a l to t h e familiarity t h e o r y ; b u t it is clear t h a t for him t h e s e elements a r e qualifications to an e s s e n t i a l l y d e m o n s t r a t i v e , i d e n t i f y i n g function. P r o p e r names o c c u r w i t h o u t t h e a r t i c l e , r e f l e c t i n g a more a n c i e n t s y s t e m in which all t h i n g s w e r e conceived of a s h a v i n g an " i n n e r i n d i v i d u a l i t y " not r e q u i r i n g i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n b y an a r t i c l e . The f r e q u e n t o c c u r r e n c e of mass and a b s t r a c t n o u n s w i t h o u t the (Honesty is the b e s t policy) is d u e to "vivid p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n " ! But c o n c r e t e manifestations of s u c h p r o p e r t i e s or s u b s t a n c e s a r e felt a s members of a c l a s s , a n d t h u s t a k e t h e a r t i c l e : the honesty of these hoys. Absence of the may also be in c o n t r a s t with i t s p r e s e n c e , a n d t h u s d e n o t e "an indefinite p o r t i o n , amount, or e x t e n t " ; t h i s i s , of c o u r s e , t h e "zero indefinite a r t i c l e " of p l u r a l a n d mass n o u n p h r a s e s . The g e n e r i c u s e of the o c c u r s w h e n one i n d i v i d u a l r e p r e s e n t s t h e c l a s s : The rat is larger than the mouse. The indefinite a r t i c l e is also p o s s i b l e h e r e , a n d t h e p l u r a l o c c u r s w h e r e " t h e p l u r a l idea is p r o m i n e n t " : the English] t h e p l u r a l w i t h o u t a r t i c l e c a n also be g e n e r i c . Curme is v e r y brief on t h e indefinite a r t i c l e , which h a s a s i t s basic function to s i n g l e o u t one t h i n g from among a n u m b e r . It may point to an i n d i v i d u a l "without fixing i t s i d e n t i t y " : We met an old man. I t also h a s a "more indefinite s e n s e " , e q u a l to any a n d d e s i g n a t i n g no i n d i v i d u a l in p a r t i c u l a r : There isn't a man...in whom I have more confidence.

320

CHRISTOPHER LYONS

9. J e s p e r s e n ' s g r e a t grammar b e g a n to a p p e a r in 1909, b u t t h e volume dealing with t h e a r t i c l e s was only p u b l i s h e d in 1949, six y e a r s after J e s p e r s e n ' s d e a t h . The r e l e v a n t c h a p t e r s were l a r g e l y w r i t t e n by Haislund on t h e b a s i s of a plan d i c t a t e d by J e s p e r s e n before his d e a t h . It is t h e f i r s t g e n e r a l grammar of t h e c e n t u r y to base i t s a c c o u n t of t h e a r t i c l e s s q u a r e l y on the familiarity h y p o t h e s i s , a n d t h i s is d u e to t h e a p p e a r a n c e of C h r i s t o p h e r s e n ' s t h e s i s s h o r t l y before, In fact J e s p e r s e n a c k n o w l e d g e s a major d e b t to C h r i s t o p h e r s e n . We shall s e e , h o w e v e r , t h a t J e s p e r s e n (or p e r h a p s Haislund) misses t h e point of t h e familiarity t h e o r y in one i m p o r t a n t respect. The c o r e of J e s p e r s e n ' s a c c o u n t is a t h e o r y of " s t a g e s of familiarity", w h e r e "familiarity" is "knowledge of w h a t item of t h e c l a s s d e n o t e d b y t h e word is meant in t h e c a s e c o n c e r n e d " . S t a g e I c o n c e r n s complete unfamiliarity, a n d c o r r e s p o n d s to i n d e f i n i t e n e s s . A " u n i t - w o r d " (count noun) t a k e s t h e indefinite a r t i c l e , while a " m a s s word" or a " u n i t - w o r d p l u r a l " t a k e s t h e z e r o a r t i c l e . S t a g e II i n v o l v e s " n e a r l y complete familiarity", w h e r e t h e r e f e r e n t is to be found e i t h e r in t h e l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e x t or t h e n o n - l i n g u i s t i c s i t u a t i o n . At t h i s s t a g e a n y n o u n t a k e s the. S t a g e III is w h e r e t h e familiarity is "so complete t h a t no a r t i c l e ( d e t e r m i n a t i v e ) is n e e d e d " ; t h i s is t h e c a s e with p r o p e r names, v o c a t i v e s , a n d c e r t a i n o t h e r uses.. Jespersen uses the terms "definite" and "indefinite" t h r o u g h o u t , t h o u g h he d o e s not like them b e c a u s e he r e g a r d s a a s r e f e r r i n g , j u s t as much a s the, to a definite e n t i t y , t h o u g h it is not known which e n t i t y is i n t e n d e d . His u s e of " d e f i n i t e " here c o r r e s p o n d s to t h e l a t e r "specific". Where he fails to g r a s p t h e e s s e n c e of t h e familiarity c o n c e p t is in t a k i n g a r t i c l e p l u s n o u n to d e n o t e an e n t i t y which is familiar or unfamiliar to the speaker or writer. C h r i s t o p h e r s e n makes it c l e a r t h a t t h e r e l e v a n t familiarity is to t h e h e a r e r (or r e a d e r ) . I n d e e d , w h e r e t h e s p e a k e r alone h a s a specific r e f e r e n t in mind, t h e indefinite a r t i c l e is called for. J e s p e r s e n b e g i n s t h e development of his a c c o u n t with t h e indefinite a n d z e r o a r t i c l e s , r e p r e s e n t i n g S t a g e I. The s h a d e s of meaning e x p r e s s e d b y a fall into t h r e e g r o u p s . F i r s t , t h e r e f e r e n c e is to "one definite, t h o u g h u n k n o w n , member of a c l a s s " (I met a man in the street yesterday). This is p u z z l i n g , since in t h e example

REFERENCE AND ARTICLES

321

g i v e n t h e r e f e r e n t of a man must be b y now familiar to t h e s p e a k e r . It may be t h a t by " u n k n o w n " J e s p e r s e n r e a l l y means " u n k n o w n to t h e h e a r e r " . This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is s u p p o r t e d by t h e fact t h a t he s u b s u m e s u n d e r t h i s u s e t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y u s e of a, the being possible s u b s e q u e n t l y when t h e f i r s t mention h a s made the r e f e r e n t familiar. But he seems to disown t h i s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y u s e , s a y i n g t h a t t h e e s s e n t i a l t h i n g a b o u t it is " t h e d e g r e e of c o n c r e t e n e s s a n d i n d i v i d u a l i t y of t h e meaning of t h e word in q u e s t i o n " . What one is to u n d e r s t a n d b y t h i s is q u i t e m y s t e r i o u s . The second u s e is what would now be called n o n - s p e c i f i c , involving v a g u e r e f e r e n c e to a member of a c l a s s . J e s p e r s e n r i g h t l y i n c l u d e s p r e d i c a t i v e s h e r e , and makes t h e point t h a t a p r e d i c a t i v e n o u n is often e q u i v a l e n t to a n a d j e c t i v e (He is a fool - He is foolish). The t h i r d u s e is t h e g e n e r i c o n e , which J e s p e r s e n t e r m s "all r e p r e s e n t a t i v e " , a n d which is not c l e a r l y to be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from t h e second u s e . Similar d i s t i n c t i o n s a p p l y to t h e u s e s of t h e z e r o a r t i c l e with mass and p l u r a l n o u n s . The z e r o a r t i c l e may d e n o t e an indefinite q u a n t i t y or n u m b e r ; t h i s is t h e " p a r t i - g e n e r i c s e n s e " . The o t h e r possible s e n s e is t h e " t o t o - g e n e r i c " one - w h a t would now be t e r m e d simply " g e n e r i c " . The t o t o - g e n e r i c s e n s e d e n o t e s , not t h e c l a s s a s a whole ( t h a t is, a s a n i n d i v i d u a l ) , b u t r a t h e r all i t s members, t h e plural having "rather a general than a generic sense". The p r e s e n c e of t h e definite a r t i c l e s i g n a l s t h e second s t a g e of familiarity, w h e r e t h e r e f e r e n t is p r e s e n t , before t h e u t t e r a n c e , "in t h e c o n s c i o u s n e s s of t h e s p e a k e r or w r i t e r " . T h e r e a r e a n u m b e r of p o s s i b l e s o u r c e s for t h i s p r e - e x i s t i n g knowledge. F i r s t , t h e r e may be a n "explicit c o n t e x t u a l b a s i s " , w h e r e t h e r e f e r e n t h a s b e e n i n t r o d u c e d ("to t h e l i s t e n e r o r r e a d e r " J e s p e r s e n now s a y s ) in t h e p r e v i o u s d i s c o u r s e . T h e r e is also t h e "implicit c o n t e x t u a l b a s i s " , w h e r e the is u s e d in r e f e r r i n g to something c o n n e c t e d with a n e n t i t y a l r e a d y mentioned; t h u s o n e may mention a u n i v e r s i t y , t h e n go on to s p e a k of the professors, the library, etc. The i d e n t i t y of t h e r e f e r e n t may also be clear from t h e n o n l i n g u i s t i c context; t h i s is t h e " s i t u a t i o n a l b a s i s " . It may be a m a t t e r of t h e immediate s i t u a t i o n (in a p a r t i c u l a r room, the door, the table), or t h e wider s i t u a t i o n (in a p a r t i c u l a r town, the gasworks, or in a p a r t i c u l a r c o u n t r y , the king). J e s p e r s e n makes t h e point t h a t implicit

322

CHRISTOPHER LYONS

c o n t e x t u a l b a s i s and s i t u a t i o n a l b a s i s a r e closely r e l a t e d , the difference b e i n g t h a t with t h e l a t t e r t h e r e is no o v e r t mention of t h e e n t i t y p r o v i d i n g t h e c o n t e x t u a l b a s i s . J e s p e r s e n also h a s a " c o n s t a n t situational b a s i s " , a p p l y i n g to n o u n s which may always t a k e t h e definite a r t i c l e , b e c a u s e " t h e c o n c e p t i o n s t h e y r e p r e s e n t a r e ... once for all e x i s t i n g in t h e minds" of s p e a k e r s . T h e s e n o u n s a r e what some g r a m m a r i a n s term " u n i q u e s " , d e n o t i n g one-member J e s p e r s e n dismisses t h i s c l a s s e s (the air, the devil, the sun), c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n b e c a u s e "all s i n g u l a r s with t h e definite a r t i c l e a r e u n i q u e s in so far a s o n l y one member of t h e c l a s s in q u e s t i o n is c o n s i d e r e d in t h e c o n t e x t " , a n d t h e r e is no s u c h t h i n g in human t h o u g h t as a n e s s e n t i a l l y s i n g l e t o n c l a s s . T u r n i n g to t h e g e n e r i c u s e of the with n o u n s in t h e s i n g u l a r , J e s p e r s e n c o n s i d e r s t h a t a n image of one member of t h e c l a s s d e n o t e d b y t h e n o u n is p r e s e n t in t h e s p e a k e r ' s mind a n d is t h o u g h t of a s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e c l a s s . And t h e fact t h a t t h e c l a s s is familiar to t h e s p e a k e r makes t h e definite article a p p r o p r i a t e . Or a l t e r n a t i v e l y , t h e s i n g u l a r n o u n , d e n o t i n g one member of t h e c l a s s , "offers a sufficient delimitation of t h e c o n c e p t or image to allow t h e definite a r t i c l e " . Certain e x p r e s s i o n s r e q u i r e to be p r e c e d e d by the, n o t a b l y s u p e r l a t i v e s a n d o r d i n a l s , a n d J e s p e r s e n ' s a c c o u n t of t h e s e is not fully c o n v i n c i n g . His view is t h a t to p r e s e n t s o m e t h i n g a s b e i n g of t h e h i g h e s t d e g r e e of a p a r t i c u l a r q u a l i t y , o r a s h a v i n g a specific place in t h e s e r i e s of n u m b e r s , o n e must h a v e a c e r t a i n knowledge of it. This k n o w l e d g e suffices to make t h e definite a r t i c l e n e c e s s a r y . What is not made clear h e r e is how much k n o w l e d g e , a n d of what k i n d , c a u s e s a nominal e x p r e s s i o n to belong to S t a g e II; it is p o s s i b l e for t h e r e f e r e n t of a noun p h r a s e i n c l u d i n g a s u p e r l a t i v e o r o r d i n a l to be q u i t e unfamiliar to s p e a k e r or h e a r e r (as in I will invite the first/cleverest person who speaks to me, w h e r e it is not c e r t a i n t h a t a n y o n e will s p e a k to me). S t a g e III, w h e r e complete familiarity r e n d e r s a n a r t i c l e r e d u n d a n t , is most c l e a r l y r e p r e s e n t e d b y p r o p e r names. For J e s p e r s e n , a p r o p e r name " s t r i c t l y h a s a meaning only in c o n n e c t i o n with t h e p e r s o n or t h i n g it d e n o t e s " , a n d t h e r e f o r e n e c e s s a r i l y i n v o l v e s t h e s p e a k e r b e i n g familiar with t h e r e f e r e n t . The o c c u r s w h e n a n a d j e c t i v e p r e c e d e s a name (the good Macduff) - b e c a u s e t h e

REFERENCE AND ARTICLES

323

a d j e c t i v e r e d u c e s t h e level of familiarity to t h a t of S t a g e II, t h o u g h we a r e not told how t h i s is so. The c e n t r a l i t y of p r o p e r names to S t a g e III is s u c h t h a t o t h e r i n s t a n t i a t i o n s of complete familiarity a r e a c c o u n t e d for in r e l a t i o n to them. With v o c a t i v e s , for example, t h e word u s e d is often a p r o p e r name or h a s t h e function of a p r o p e r name. Terms of family r e l a t i o n s h i p s (mother, papa) a r e often u s e d in t h e t h i r d p e r s o n w i t h o u t a n a r t i c l e , a n d t h i s too r e p r e s e n t s t h e t r e a t m e n t of normally common n o u n s a s p r o p e r names. 10. The last a c c o u n t to be d i s c u s s e d h e r e is t h a t p r e s e n t e d in Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and S v a r t v i k (1985), t h e fullest grammar to a p p e a r in t h e second half of t h e p r e s e n t c e n t u r y . Quirk et ah a g r e e with J e s p e r s e n in h a v i n g t h r e e a r t i c l e s , the, a a n d zero; t h e y a r e the "central determiners", which may be preceded by "predeterminers (all, half) and followed by "postdeterminers" (including n u m e r a l s a n d many, few). D e t e r m i n e r s in g e n e r a l h a v e t h e function of i n d i c a t i n g t h e kind of r e f e r e n c e a n o u n p h r a s e h a s ; this can be t h o u g h t of a s c o r r e s p o n d i n g to t h e t r a d i t i o n a l a r t i c l e f u n c t i o n of r e d u c t i o n of d e n o t a t i o n . The a n d a differ from o t h e r d e t e r m i n e r s in h a v i n g no function i n d e p e n d e n t of t h e i r noun. They c a n n o t o c c u r a s p r o n o u n s , a n d t h e y h a v e no lexical meaning of t h e i r own b u t merely give definite or indefinite s t a t u s to t h e noun. Quirk et al. d i s t i n g u i s h "specific" a n d " g e n e r i c " r e f e r e n c e , a n d b r e a k with t r a d i t i o n in making t h e s e t h e i r p r i m a r y h e a d i n g s , t r e a t i n g b o t h definite a n d indefinite specific r e f e r e n c e before definite and indefinite g e n e r i c r e f e r e n c e . This is b e c a u s e , while t h e d e f i n i t e - i n d e f i n i t e d i s t i n c t i o n , a n d n u m b e r , a r e i m p o r t a n t in specific n o u n p h r a s e s , t h e y a r e e s s e n t i a l l y n e u t r a l i z e d in g e n e r i c s , w h e r e r e f e r e n c e is to t h e c l a s s . Quirk et ai.'s d i s c u s s i o n of t h e u s e of the in specific r e f e r e n c e is s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d b y C h r i s t o p h e r s e n a n d Hawkins, t h o u g h t h e y do not a c t u a l l y u s e t h e term "familiarity". In fact t h e e s s e n c e of t h e i r a c c o u n t is t h e t r a d i t i o n a l notion of identification, or more a c c u r a t e l y in t h i s v e r s i o n , identifiability. But t h e identifiability of t h e r e f e r e n t is b a s e d on s h a r e d k n o w l e d g e , so t h a t a definite n o u n p h r a s e is one " r e f e r r i n g to something which c a n be identified u n i q u e l y in t h e c o n t e x t u a l or g e n e r a l k n o w l e d g e s h a r e d b y t h e speaker and hearer".

324

CHRISTOPHER LYONS

The h e a r e r may " r e c o v e r " t h e i d e n t i t y of t h e r e f e r e n t from t h e immediate or l a r g e r s i t u a t i o n . T h e r e is no definite b o u n d a r y b e t w e e n t h e s e two, a n d i n d e e d , t h e " l a r g e r s i t u a t i o n " m e r g e s i m p e r c e p t i b l y into g e n e r a l knowledge or t h e whole u n i v e r s e of e x p e r i e n c e ; t h i s is t h e c a s e with e x p r e s s i o n s which h a v e " u n i q u e denotation" and thus resemble proper nouns (the sun, the Renaissance). The r e f e r e n t may also be identified on t h e b a s i s of information p r o v i d e d by t h e l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e x t . "Anaphoric" r e f e r e n c e d e p e n d s on t h e p r e c e d i n g d i s c o u r s e , a n d is " d i r e c t " when t h e head n o u n h a s a l r e a d y o c c u r r e d in an e a r l i e r p h r a s e ; t h i s e a r l i e r mention is likely to t a k e t h e form of an indefinite n o u n p h r a s e , which t h e n s a n c t i o n s t h e u s e of the with s u b s e q u e n t mentions. " I n d i r e c t " a n a p h o r i c r e f e r e n c e is when t h e h e a r e r can infer a connection b e t w e e n t h e definite noun p h r a s e and some e a r l i e r e x p r e s s i o n , which may o r may not be a n o u n p h r a s e . T h u s , mention of a farm l i c e n s e s the farmery the barn, the pigs; They got married... l i c e n s e s the bride, the organist. This kind of identification can be t h o u g h t of a s i n v o l v i n g a combination of a n a p h o r a with g e n e r a l k n o w l e d g e . Another u s e of the i n v o l v i n g t h e l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e x t is in ' c a t a p h o r i c ' r e f e r e n c e , w h e r e t h e i d e n t i f y i n g information follows t h e head n o u n . This o c c u r s w h e n a postmodifying e x p r e s s i o n r e s t r i c t s t h e d e n o t a t i o n of t h e noun sufficiently to d e t e r m i n e i t s r e f e r e n t u n i q u e l y ; t h u s : the President of Mexico, the wines that France produces. The "logical" u s e of the o c c u r s w h e r e t h e noun p h r a s e c o n t a i n s some e x p r e s s i o n s u c h a s t h e o r d i n a l s first, next, last, s u p e r l a t i v e s , o r same, only, whose meaning is "inalienably a s s o c i a t e d with u n i q u e n e s s " . In s u c h p h r a s e s only t h e definite a r t i c l e is appropriate. The i n d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e is u s e d (with s i n g u l a r c o u n t n o u n s ) w h e r e t h e c o n d i t i o n s for o c c u r r e n c e of the a r e a b s e n t ; it is in t h i s s e n s e t h e u n m a r k e d a r t i c l e . But a f u r t h e r i m p o r t a n t u s e of a is one in which it is i n a p p r o p r i a t e to s p e a k of r e f e r e n c e . An indefinite n o u n p h r a s e o c c u r r i n g a s complement of a c o p u l a r e x p r e s s i o n is f r e q u e n t l y d e s c r i p t i v e r a t h e r t h a n r e f e r r i n g (Paganini was a great violinist). In some c a s e s , i n d e e d , t h e r e may b e no referent c o r r e s p o n d i n g to t h e d e s c r i p t i o n (Leonard wants to marry a princess who speaks five languages).

REFERENCE AND ARTICLES

325

The c o r e of Quirk et al.'s d i s c u s s i o n of t h e z e r o a r t i c l e is a n a t t e m p t to d i s t i n g u i s h it from unstressed some, both these d e t e r m i n e r s r e p l a c i n g a with p l u r a l c o u n t n o u n s a n d mass n o u n s . The difference is b e t w e e n the " c a t e g o r i a l " meaning of z e r o , which simply i n d i c a t e s t h e c a t e g o r y of t h e e n t i t i e s r e f e r r e d to ( t h a t t h e y a r e melons, women e t c ) , a n d t h e " q u a n t i t a t i v e " meaning of some, which i n d i c a t e s "a specifiable ( t h o u g h indefinite) quantity or amount". All t h r e e a r t i c l e s can o c c u r g e n e r i c a l l y , t h o u g h t h e y a r e not i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e . The g e n e r i c u s e of a p i c k s o u t " a n y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e member of t h e c l a s s " . The z e r o a r t i c l e on t h e o t h e r h a n d , with p l u r a l count nouns and mass nouns, denotes the class as an u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d whole. The g e n e r i c u s e of z e r o is in fact a v a r i a n t the of t h e g e n e r a l " c a t e g o r i a l " meaning of t h i s a r t i c l e . Generic i n d i c a t e s " t h e c l a s s a s r e p r e s e n t e d by i t s typical specimen", a n d t e n d s to be r a t h e r formal in t o n e . Generic the is in g e n e r a l limited to o c c u r r i n g with s i n g u l a r c o u n t n o u n s , b u t it does o c c u r in p l u r a l n o u n p h r a s e s with n a t i o n a l i t y n o u n s (the Chinese, the Germans). a n d with a d j e c t i v e h e a d s with human r e f e r e n c e (the unemployed, the rich). I t could be a r g u e d t h a t t h e s e a r e n o t t r u l y g e n e r i c , b u t simply p l u r a l p h r a s e s d e s i g n a t i n g a g r o u p r a t h e r t h a n t y p i f y i n g a c l a s s . The a u t h o r s s u g g e s t t h a t one s h o u l d thus distinguish g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s from t r u l y g e n e r i c s t a t e m e n t s , t h o u g h t h e y do not p u r s u e t h i s point. P r o p e r names a r e like definite d e s c r i p t i o n s in h a v i n g u n i q u e d e n o t a t i o n , b u t differ in b e i n g "grammatically f r o z e n " not c o n s t r u c t e d b y t h e normal r u l e s of p h r a s e formation, a n d t h e r e f o r e t a k i n g no a r t i c l e . But t h e b o u n d a r y b e t w e e n p r o p e r names a n d definite n o u n p h r a s e s is a fluid o n e , a n d Quirk et ah g i v e detailed d i s c u s s i o n of e x p r e s s i o n s falling b e t w e e n t h e two, in t h a t t h e y a r e semantically name-like, b u t h a v e t h e s t r u c t u r e of a definite n o u n phrase; examples are the Paris Conservatoire, the Kremlin, the Times, the Bahamas. 11. It is a p p r o p r i a t e to e n d t h i s s u r v e y b y a s k i n g to what e x t e n t the last two c e n t u r i e s h a v e b e e n m a r k e d b y p r o g r e s s in a c c o u n t s of the English a r t i c l e s y s t e m .

326

CHRISTOPHER LYONS

The w o r k s s u r v e y e d show clear p r o g r e s s in analytical s o p h i s t i c a t i o n a n d detail of c o v e r a g e . But t h e basic i n s i g h t , t h a t t h e definite a r t i c l e e x p r e s s e s familiarity, was a l r e a d y available a t t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e period u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n . T h e r e was i n d e e d a long period c o v e r i n g most of t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y w h e n it seems to h a v e b e e n lost, and e v e n a f t e r i t s p a r t i a l r e v i v a l b y Maetzner it did not e s t a b l i s h itself a g a i n a s t h e l e a d i n g idea u n t i l well into t h e p r e s e n t c e n t u r y . V e r s i o n s of t h e familiarity t h e o r y dominate t h e d e s c r i p t i o n s of J e s p e r s e n a n d Quirk et ai., a n d b o t h t h e s e modern w o r k s i n v e s t i g a t e a r t i c l e u s e with a t h o r o u g h n e s s a n d detail t h a t would h a r d l y h a v e b e e n p o s s i b l e a r o u n d 1800. But it is a s t r i k i n g fact t h a t e v e n t h e s e two w o r k s a r e not much more a d v a n c e d t h a n t h o s e e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y w r i t e r s d i s c u s s e d in t e r m s of i n t e g r a t i n g t h e complex p a t t e r n s of a r t i c l e u s e into a unified t h e o r y . Versions of t h e familiarity t h e s i s a c c o u n t for t h e c e n t r a l u s e s , b u t the s u b s t a n t i a l p e r i p h e r y of u s e s which do not fit in a n o b v i o u s way into t h i s main p i c t u r e h a s not b e e n significantly r e d u c e d o v e r t h e p e r i o d s u r v e y e d . U n i q u e n e s s / i n c l u s i v e n e s s , moreover, does not o c c u r e x c e p t i n c i d e n t a l l y in a n y a c c o u n t . The a r e a of grammar examined h e r e is still t h e o b j e c t of i n t e n s e r e s e a r c h a c t i v i t y in t h e o r e t i c a l l i n g u i s t i c s , both from t h e point of view of meaning a n d t h a t of s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e . It may be hoped t h a t t h e next g e n e r a t i o n of " t r a d i t i o n a l " g r a m m a r s will h a v e new i n s i g h t s to i n c o r p o r a t e , a n d p e r h a p s be able to offer a more fully i n t e g r a t e d d e s c r i p t i o n .

REFERENCES C h r i s t o p h e r s e n , Paul. 1939. The Articles. A Study of Their Theory and Use in English* C o p e n h a g e n : M u n k s g a a r d , a n d London: Humphrey Milford, Oxford Univ. P r e s s . Curme, George 0. 1931. A Grammar of the English Language. Vol. III, Syntax. Boston e t c : Heath. . 1935. A Grammar of the English Language. Vol. II, Parts of Speech and Accidence. Boston e t c : Heath. H a r r i s , James. 1751. Hermes, or, a Philosophical Inquiry Concerning Language and Universal Grammar. London: J. N o u r s e . R e p r o d u c e d b y The Scolar P r e s s , Menston, 1968. Hawkins, J o h n A. 1978. Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm.

REFERENCE AND ARTICLES

327

Householder, F r e d W. 1981. The Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus. T r a n s l a t i o n with Commentary. Amsterdam S t u d i e s in t h e T h e o r y a n d History of L i n g u i s t i c Science III. S t u d i e s in t h e History of L i n g u i s t i c s . Vol. 23. Amsterdam: Benjamins. J e s p e r s e n , Otto. 1949. A Modern English prammar on Historical Principles, Part VII, Syntax, Completed b y Niels Haislund. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Joly, Andre, 1987. "The S t u d y of t h e Article in England from Wallis to Horne Tooke, 1653-1789". Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the History of the Language Sciences e d . b y Hans Aarsleff, Louis G. Kelly a n d Hans-Josef N i e d e r e h e . P a p e r s in t h e History of Linguistics. 283-297. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Kruisinga, E t s k o . 1932. A Handbook of Present-day English, Part II, English Accidence and Syntax 2, 5 t h edition. Groningen: Noord hoff. Maetzner, E d u a r d . 1880. Englische Grammatik, Part I, Die Lehre vom Worte, 3rd e d . Berlin: Weidmannsche B u c h h a n d l u n g . . 1885. Englische Grammatik. Part III, Die Lehre von der Wortund Satzfügung, 3rd e d . Berlin: Weidmannsche B u c h h a n d l u n g . 1974. "Existential Sentences in E n g l i s h " . PhD Milsark, Gary. D i s s e r t a t i o n . MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Monboddo, James B u r n e t , Lord. 1774. Of the Origin and Progress of Language, Vol. II. E d i n b u r g h : J. Balfour. R e p r o d u c e d b y t h e Scolar P r e s s , Menston, 1967. M u r r a y , Lindley. 1795. English Grammar, York: Wilson, S p e n c e & Mawman. R e p r o d u c e d b y The Scolar P r e s s , 1968. Poutsma, Hendrik. 1914. A Grammar of Late Modern English for the Use of Continental, Especially Dutch, Students, Part II, The Parts of Speech, Section I, A, Nouns, Adjectives and Articles. Groningen: Noord hoff. Quirk, Randolph, S i d n e y Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, a n d J a n Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, London & New York: Longman. Russell, B e r t r a n d . 1905. "On Denoting". Mind 14. 479-493. Sweet, H e n r y . 1892. A New English Grammar, Logical and Historical. Part I, Introduction, Phonology, and Accidence. Oxford: Oxford Univ. P r e s s . . 1898. A New English Grammar, Logical and Historical. Part II, Syntax. Oxford: Oxford Univ. P r e s s . Uhlig, G u s t a v . 1910. Grammatici Graeci. Part II, Vol. II Apollonii Dyscoli, De constructione libri quattuor. Edition a n d commentary, Leipzig: T e u b n e r . Ward, J o h n . 1758. Four Essays Upon the English Language. London: J. Ward. R e p r o d u c e d b y The Scolar P r e s s , Menston, 1967. Wilkins, J o h n . 1668. An Essay Towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language. London: J o h n Nicholson.

TENSE

A N D

ASPECT

G R A M M A R S

O F

P A S T

IN

G E R M A N

E N G L I S H

F I F T Y

IN

T H E

Y E A R S

JOCHEN NIEMEYER Hermann-Ehlers-Oberschule

1.

Introduction

1.1

Scope of t h e c o r p u s

Berlin

S k e t c h i n g in t h e scope of a s h o r t p a p e r t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of a grammatical problem in German school a n d s c h o l a r l y g r a m m a r s o v e r t h e l a s t fifty y e a r s will b e t h o u g h t to be too p r e t e n t i o u s a n e n d e a v o u r . If we b e a r in mind, h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e f i r s t p o s t - w a r g r a m m a r s a r e rooted in t h e t r a d i t i o n of t h e 1930s a n d t h a t s e v e r a l s c h o l a r l y g r a m m a r s s t a r t e d a s school g r a m m a r s , a d i f f e r e n t line of demarcation did not seem feasible. T h o u g h o u r c o r p u s c o n s t i t u t e s only a sample of t h e v a s t grammar m a r k e t in t h i s c o u n t r y , t h e selection can be r e g a r d e d a s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . We h a v e , h o w e v e r , confined o u r s e l v e s to g r a m m a r s w r i t t e n for l o n g - t e r m c o u r s e s , i.e. English a s t h e f i r s t f o r e i g n l a n g u a g e ( g r a d e s 5-13), which meant excluding - with t h e exception of L a m p r e c h t - g r a m m a r s of t h e German Democratic Republic, w h e r e English a s t h e f i r s t f o r e i g n l a n g u a g e was r e p l a c e d b y Russian a f t e r 1945. This decision may b e r e g r e t t e d , b u t it seemed b e t t e r to c o n c e n t r a t e on g r a m m a r s one h a s a c t u a l l y w o r k e d with, f i r s t a s a p u p i l and t h e n as a t e a c h e r , t h a n to p a s s j u d g m e n t on books b e l o n g i n g to a d i f f e r e n t school s y s t e m . We h a v e also excluded G r a u s t e i n et al. (1977), a s t h i s is q u i t e a d i f f e r e n t kind of grammar. As t h i s is not a bibliographical s t u d y , o u r d i s c u s s i o n is sometimes b a s e d on l a t e r e d i t i o n s . Because t h e p u b l i s h e r s of school

330

JOCHEN NIEMEYER

t e x t b o o k s a n d g r a m m a r s e n d e a v o u r to avoid t h e s u s p i c i o n of b e i n g o u t d a t e d , ' n e w ' i m p r e s s i o n s and e d i t i o n s often a p p e a r in r a p i d s u c c e s s i o n with only minor c h a n g e s or none a t all. This a n d t h e fact t h a t school g r a m m a r s h a v e only r e c e n t l y a r o u s e d academic i n t e r e s t a r e r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e h a p h a z a r d selection of t h e s e books in p u b l i c l i b r a r i e s . Different d a t e s sometimes g i v e n for ' f i r s t ' e d i t i o n s in r e f e r e n c e w o r k s will more often t h a n not be d u e to c e r t a i n p u b l i s h e r s ' custom of r e d a t i n g t h e i r books.

1.2

Bilingual and monolingual g r a m m a r s

With t h e exception of L e o n h a r d i et ai. (1962) a n d Guntram (1977), o u r grammars a r e bilingual, though their titles are occasionally in English. Quoting from t h e s e g r a m m a r s , we h a v e s i l e n t l y t r a n s l a t e d t h e German e x p l a n a t i o n s . B e i l h a r d t / S u t t o n ( 6 1966) a n d U n g e r e r et ah (1984) w e r e p u b l i s h e d both in bilingual a n d monolingual v e r s i o n s .

1.3

School and s c h o l a r l y g r a m m a r s

With t h e exception of D e u t s c h b e i n / K l i t s c h e r ( 15 1957), Raith ( 2 1959) a n d L a m p r e c h t (1970; 1986), all o u r g r a m m a r s a r e school g r a m m a r s . T h o u g h L a m p r e c h t (1956) was conceived a s a school g r a m m a r , it was h a r d l y u s e d in schools, b u t r a t h e r in u n i v e r s i t y courses. School g r a m m a r s i n t e n d e d for u s e b o t h a t lower a n d u p p e r s e c o n d a r y levels normally u s e smaller p r i n t a n d footnotes for material r e s e r v e d for a d v a n c e d l e a r n e r s . An i n t e r e s t i n g , t h o u g h not followed u p , e x p e r i m e n t was u n d e r t a k e n b y L e o n h a r d i et ah (1962), s p l i t t i n g u p information in two volumes with identical section numbers. As r e g a r d s scope of information, o u r g r a m m a r s show g r e a t v a r i a t i o n , with Hoffmann's Mindestgrammatik (1973), d e s p i t e i t s title, s u r p a s s i n g many o t h e r g r a m m a r s . Among t h e school g r a m m a r s p r o p e r , U n g e r e r et ai. (1984) is t h e only grammar t h a t r e a l l y meets t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of u p p e r s e c o n d a r y level a n d may be c l a s s e d a s a r e f e r e n c e grammar» While s c h o l a r l y g r a m m a r s a r e eo ipso r e f e r e n c e g r a m m a r s , school g r a m m a r s often a c q u i r e t h a t s t a t u s for t h o s e

TENSE AND ASPECT IN GERMAN GRAMMARS

t e a c h e r s who u s e them exclusively (1989:106) criticism is only too t r u e .

1.4

nearly

exclusively;

Zydatiß'

Periodization

Despite some different periods: 1.4.1

or

331

overlapping,

we

may

safely

distinguish

four

Late 1930s-1950: Poch (1938), 2 1939 We Learn English, Grammar, 1947 Alpers et ah 1950 K i r c h h o f f / S c h n ö c k e l b o r g (1950), 3 1955 ( u n c h a n g e d )

Here a n d below, b r a c k e t s i n d i c a t e e d i t i o n s not q u o t e d from. P r e - a n d post-1945 g r a m m a r s a r e closely i n t e r r e l a t e d ; t h u s both We Learn English. Grammar (1947), p u b l i s h e d w i t h o u t a u t h o r ' s name in t h e t h e n Soviet Zone of Occupation, a n d i t s ' W e s t e r n ' c o u n t e r p a r t A l p e r s et al. (1950) a r e ultimately b a s e d on L i c h t e n b e r g ' s p r e - a n d post-war grammars. According to Visser I1I/1 (1969:XIX ' B i b l i o g r a p h y ' ) , P o c h ' s grammar r a n into i t s 8th edition in Munich a s late a s 1952. 1.4.2

1950s a n d 1960s: Raith (1952), 2 1959, ( 7 1979, p r a c t i c a l l y u n c h a n g e d ) Schad (1954), 61962 L a m p r e c h t 1956 B e i l h a r d t / S u t t o n (1959), 6 1966 ( u n c h a n g e d ) L e o n h a r d i et al. 1962 R ö h r / B a r t e l s (1963), 6 1968 (based on S c h a d ' s grammar)

Beilhardt/Sutton sellers ever since. 1.4.3

1970s: L a m p r e c h t 1970

and

Röhr/Bartels

have

continued

as

best­

JOCHEN NIEMEYER

332

Hoffmann 1973 Guntram 1977 While G u n t r a m ' s grammar is t h e f i r s t to be influenced b y Quirk et ah (1972), t h e v a l u a b l e c o n t r i b u t i o n of o t h e r native g r a m m a r i a n s is e v i d e n c e d by L a m p r e c h t ' s n u m e r o u s footnotes. 1.4.4

1980s: Fleischhack et ah 1981 U n g e r e r et al 1984 L a m p r e c h t 1986

C o n t r a r y to L a m p r e c h t a n d U n g e r e r et ai., Fleischhack et ai. a r e mainly c o n c e r n e d with colloquial s p e e c h a t lower s e c o n d a r y level.

2.

Tense and aspect

2.1

Preliminary remarks

S u r v e y i n g t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of German g r a m m a r s of English o v e r t h e last 50 y e a r s o n e is c e r t a i n to find what one e x p e c t s to find - a c h a n g e of e m p h a s i s from w r i t t e n to s p o k e n E n g l i s h , s i g n a l l e d a l r e a d y by L a m p r e c h t ' s (1956:5) criticism of t h e u n j u s t i f i e d n e g l e c t of t h e s p o k e n l a n g u a g e . I n o r d e r not to g e t lost in a p l e t h o r a of d e t a i l s we h a v e d e c i d e d to g i v e f i r s t a s h o r t c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of t h e t r e a t m e n t of t h e v e r b in t h e o l d e r g r a m m a r s a n d t h e n to g i v e s e v e r a l l o n g i t u d i n a l s u r v e y s which, we hope, will b r i n g o u t both t h e o v e r a l l d e v e l o p m e n t of grammatical d e s c r i p t i o n in t h i s c o u n t r y a n d t h e r e s p e c t i v e m e r i t s a n d s h o r t c o m i n g s of t h e i n d i v i d u a l g r a m m a r s . The t o p i c s we h a v e c h o s e n - r e p o r t e d s p e e c h w i t h o u t b a c k shift; conditional c l a u s e s ; c o - o c c u r r e n c e of a d v e r b i a l s with t h e p a s t t e n s e a n d / o r t h e p r e s e n t p e r f e c t ; a s p e c t - may be r e g a r d e d a s c o n t r o v e r s i a l o n e s a n d will also allow u s to a s c e r t a i n in how far t h e a u t h o r s h a v e made u s e of t h e r e s u l t s of grammatical d i s c u s s i o n in t h i s c o u n t r y a s well a s a b r o a d . The f i r s t t h r e e topics w e r e a l r e a d y d e a l t with b y Mindt (1971), b u t only with r e f e r e n c e to lower s e c o n d a r y level t e x t b o o k s

TENSE AND ASPECT IN GERMAN GRAMMARS

333

a n d 'grammar a i d s ' of t h e 1960s; we h a v e , t h e r e f o r e , left o u t t h e e l e m e n t a r y r u l e s a n d c o n c e n t r a t e d i n s t e a d on t h e more difficult issues. The e x p r e s s i o n of future time will i n t e r e s t u s only u n t i l t h e 1950s, a s t h e e n s u i n g t r e a t m e n t of t h i s topic h a s a l r e a d y b e e n dealt with b y C a r s t e n s e n (1972) a n d Mindt (1987). N e w s p a p e r p o p u l a r i s a t i o n s of Mindt's f i n d i n g s , i n s i n u a t i n g t h a t t e a c h e r s t e a c h a n u n - E n g l i s h school English (cf. e.g. t h e headline "Vermitteln unsere Lehrer ein lebensfremdes ' S c h u l e n g l i s c h ' ? " Freie U n i v e r s i t ä t Berlin. FU~Info 10/87:6) a r e , of c o u r s e , a g r o s s e x a g g e r a t i o n a n d d i s t o r t i o n of Mindt's careful a n d well-balanced s t u d y . Not to be found so far in o u r g r a m m a r s a r e n e g a t e d f u t u r e forms of t h e t y p e 'He'll not come tomorrow' (Palmer 1974:108; cf. also Swan 1980:§ 157); r a r e l y a t t e s t e d p r e v i o u s l y , t h e y h a v e now b e e n g i v e n grammar s t a t u s in Quirk et al. (1985:3.23) a n d Alexander (1988:9.35). 2.2

The v e r b in t h e o l d e r g r a m m a r s

What f i r s t c a t c h e s t h e r e a d e r ' s e y e s is t h e c o n j u g a t i o n t a b l e s of 10 t e n s e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e complete s u b j u n c t i v e mood of have, be, work, give; had, were, worked, gave (Poch 2 1939:§ 4; s l i g h t l y r e d u c e d in A l p e r s et al. 1950:248; r e s t r i c t e d to be a n d were in We Learn English. Grammar 1947:§ 210). K i r c h h o f f / S c h n ö c k e l b o r g ( 3 1955:§ 31) confine t h e m s e l v e s to a l e s s b u l k y h o r i z o n t a l a r r a n g e m e n t of t h e s u b j u n c t i v e ; i n s t e a d t h e y g i v e a complete table of p e r i p h r a s t i c to do, i n c l u d i n g I do call, you do call, etc. (§ 33). These t a b l e s seem, i n d e e d , r a t h e r o u t d a t e d , b u t it may be asked if p u p i l s a t t h a t time w e r e a s inclined a s o u r p u p i l s to mistake he had for t h e p r e s e n t t e n s e ( u n d e r t h e influence of German er hat). A n o t h e r t y p i c a l t r a i t is t h e r u l e t h a t 'you will' becomes 'shall y o u ? ' (Poch 2 1939:§§ 8; 19.2; We Learn English. Grammar 1947:§§ 158; 202); however, Poch (§ 19.2 Note) mentions t h a t will is often u s e d for 2nd p e r s o n q u e s t i o n s in colloquial s p e e c h . Alpers et al. (1950:§ 251 Note) mention a l r e a d y t h e occurrence of 'I (we) will' and add that 'shall y o u ? ' has become r a r e .

334

JOCHEN NIEMEYER

Before we frown a t t h e old r u l e s in German g r a m m a r s we s h o u l d remember t h a t t h e c o n t r o v e r s y among n a t i v e g r a m m a r i a n s o v e r 'shall you?1 v s . 'will you?' r a n well into t h e fifties; cf. Visser I H / 1 (1969:§ 1508). The s t a g e s in t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of shall/will in temporal a n d volitional q u e s t i o n s c a n b e s t be exemplified b y t h e two c o n t r a s t i v e pairs: (la) Shall you come? ( l b ) Will you be coming tomorrow?

Will you come? (Poch 2 1939:§ 49) Will you come tomorrow? ( L a m p r e c h t 1956:§ 291).

As is to b e e x p e c t e d , t h e o l d e r n u m b e r of o u t d a t e d u s a g e s ; cf. e.g.:

grammars

contain

(2) When do you t h i n k t h a t you shall arrive? (Poch 20) (3) Next F r i d a y we come to see you a g a i n . (We Learn Grammar 1947:§ 198; Alpers et al. 1950:§ 294c).

quite

2

a

1939:§ English

On t h e o t h e r h a n d , Poch ( 2 1939:§ 48), K i r c h h o f f / S c h n ö c k e l b o r g 1955:§§ 80; 82 Note) a n d D e u t s c h b e i n / K l i t s c h e r ( 15 1957:§ 97) mention a l r e a d y t h a t a f t e r t h e c o n j u n c t i o n s when, as soon as, before, and after t h e p o n d e r o u s p a s t p e r f e c t is often r e p l a c e d by t h e p a s t t e n s e . This useful r e m a r k is missing in most l a t e r g r a m m a r s ; t h e o b s e s s i o n of many t e a c h e r s with t h e p a s t p e r f e c t may find i t s e x p l a n a t i o n in t h i s omission. 3

2.3

Reported speech without

backshift

Although b a c k s h i f t is t h e r u l e when t h e r e p o r t i n g v e r b is in a t e n s e of t h e p a s t t e n s e g r o u p , t h i s r u l e may be waived in c e r t a i n c a s e s ; for e x c e p t i o n s to t h i s exception cf. Leech (1971. §§ 148a. 149). With r e s p e c t to t h e t r e a t m e n t of b a c k s h i f t we can d i s t i n g u i s h three stages: Backshift c o m p u l s o r y , w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n s : Poch ( 2 1939:§ 53)

TENSE AND ASPECT IN GERMAN GRAMMARS

335

Deutschbein/Klitscher (151957:§ 118.3) Beilhardt/Sutton ( 6 1966:§§ 38) Backshift may be waived in c a s e s of ' t i m e l e s s validity': We Learn English. Grammar (1947:205) Alpers et al. (1950:§ 300) Kirchhoff/Schnöckelborg (31955:§ 86) Raith (21959:§ 434 Note 9) Leonhardi et ah (1962:§ 192) Hoffmann (1973:6.8.4) Backshift may be waived in ' o b j e c t i v e subordinate clauses': (Schad 6 1962:§ 295): (4a) Did you know that his father is ill? (4b) She told me that my friend is at home (ibid.) Lamprecht (1956:§ 256) e v e n g i v e s an unchanged future tense: (4c)

The Prime Minister said that there meeting of the Cabinet next week.

will

be

another

Röhr/Bartels (61968:§ 241) Fleischhack et al (1981:§ 227.b) Ungerer et al. (1984:§ 323.1) Lamprecht (1970:§ 555; 1986:§ 645) Guntram (1977:565 Note 1) belongs to this group as far as his explanation goes: "No back-shift is applied when the reported statement i s valid e v e n for the p r e s e n t time or when it r e p r e s e n t s something unchanging"; his two time-honoured examples, however, illustrate only the second part of his rule and put him in our second group: (4d) Our teacher taught Thames.

u s at school that London l i e s on the

JOCHEN NIEMEYER

336

(4e) Copernicus sun.

found

out

that the earth rotates

round the

It is evident that teachers' marking practice will depend the group their grammar belongs to. 2.4

on

Conditional clauses

The g r e a t e s t crux of English grammar for non-native teachers seems to be the use of will/would after if in conditional clauses. Lange (1986:204) rightly complains that most school teachers do not go beyond the simplified rule "The use of would after if is strictly forbidden" and s p e a k s of "cliches that generations of German learners of English must have been brought up with". Small wonder that e v e n teachers are puzzled when coming across will or wouJd after if for the first time. This bewilderment is evidenced by the 'Question Box' of English Language Teaching XI (1957:141f.), XVI (1962:163) and two l e n g t h y d i s c u s s i o n s in Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts 1957/1958 and 1973 (summed up by Niemeyer 1974). Contrary to the older grammars in our corpus, grammars of the 1970s and 1980s can no longer be blamed for teachers' ignorance. In spite of J e s p e r s e n (MEG IV, 19.3.1, 2, 4; 19.8.1, 3), Lamprecht (1956), Raith ( 2 1959) and Leonhardi et al (1962) are the first to g i v e instances of will/would after it* (5a) If you will be so kind, I shall be v e r y glad. (5b) If s h e will do that, s h e has only herself to blame. (Lamprecht 1956:§ 268) (5c) If you would do that, it would be a great help. (Lamprecht 1956:§ 269) (5d) He said that the portrait would do v e r y well if I would (wollte) only add a tail to it. (5e) If you would only hold your tongue. (Raith 2 1959:§ 433 Notes 2 and 3) (5f) If he would take me into his confidence I might be useful to him. (Leonhardi et al. 1962:11 § 190)

Note)

Based on various s o u r c e s , Lamprecht adds the occurrence of will/would

1970 (§§ 583 Note; 588 in if clauses after

TENSE AND ASPECT IN GERMAN GRAMMARS

337

impersonal it or that. The o t h e r g r a m m a r s follow suit, b u t - with t h e exception of Hoffmann (1973:6.7.1; 6.7.2) a n d U n g e r e r et ah (1984:§ 217 Note 1) - confine t h e m s e l v e s to will/would a f t e r you. As grammars usually arrange the conditional clauses a c c o r d i n g to fixed t y p e s , t h e following t a b l e of mixed t y p e s in Hoffmann (1973:6.7) d e s e r v e s notice: (6a) I wouldn't like to be in y o u r s h o e s ( t y p e 2) if my f a t h e r comes r o u n d ( t y p e 1). (6b) If we had a l a r g e r h o u s e ( t y p e 2), we could have invited more people ( t y p e 3). (6c) If t h e y weren't s u c h a p e r f e c t team ( t y p e 2), t h e y would have lost t h e match ( t y p e 3). (6d) He might still be alive ( t y p e 2) if he had gone to t h e d o c t o r s o o n e r ( t y p e 3). Mixed t y p e s a r e also to be found in L a m p r e c h t (1970:§ 590; 1986:§ 680) a n d U n g e r e r et al. (1984:§ 216), b u t it is to be f e a r e d t h a t t h e y may be m a r k e d w r o n g b y many t e a c h e r s . 2.5 Co-occurrence perfect

of

adverbials

with

the

past

tense/present

C r y s t a l (1966:1) d r e w a t t e n t i o n to t h e n e c e s s i t y of a s y s t e m a t i c d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e " c o - o c c u r r e n c e s b e t w e e n temporal a d v e r b i a l s a n d t e n s e - f o r m s " . I t i s , h o w e v e r , Dietrich (1955; 1969) a n d Koziol (1958) t h a t we h a v e to t u r n to when we wish to u n d e r s t a n d t h e c h a n g i n g r u l e s in German g r a m m a r s ; t h e c o n s p i c u o u s silence in q u i t e a n u m b e r of them may be d u e to u n c e r t a i n t y . Lately a n d recently a r e d e a l t with in all g r a m m a r s e x c e p t We Learn English. Grammar (1947) and Guntram (1977). The t e n s e a s s i g n e d to l a t e l y i s t h e p r e s e n t p e r f e c t , e i t h e r exclusively o r 'mostly', a s in Raith ( 2 1959:§ 216 Note 2), Hoffmann (1973:6.3.1) a n d L a m p r e c h t (1986:§ 737 Note). In a d d i t i o n , L a m p r e c h t q u o t e s from Quirk e t ah (1972:8.60) t h e occasional c o - o c c u r r e n c e with t h e p r e s e n t tense: (7a) He u s e d to v i s i t Chicago e v e r y two o r t h r e e m o n t h s , but l a t e l y he goes t h e r e a b o u t o n c e a week.

338

JOCHEN NIEMEYER

This co-occurrence seems to be missing in Quirk et aL 1985; contrary to Quirk et al. 1972, it is not restricted to the simple p r e s e n t tense (§ 8.60), cf. e.g.: (7b) But lately, the British are making their presence felt in some v e r y visible ways ... ("The British are coming". Letter from New York by Peter Hillmore. The Guardian Weekly, Nov. 6, 1977, p. 9). For recently, the picture looks a bit different (section numbers deliberately omitted): p r e s e n t perfect: most grammars; mostly p r e s e n t perfect: Raith ( 2 1959), Hoffmann (1973); p r e s e n t p e r f e c t / p a s t tense: Schad ( 6 1962), Röhr/Bartels ( 6 1968), Ungerer et al. (1984) Lamprecht shows a curious development: occasionally p r e s e n t perfect (1956:§ 297 Note 1) p r e s e n t p e r f e c t / p a s t tense (1970:§ 644 Note) occasionally past t e n s e (1986:§ 737 Note). The following two time s u b j u n c t s - just now and before - are only rarely mentioned in German grammars, which is the more regrettable, as their c o - o c c u r r e n c e s are by no means self-evident. Thus Kirchhoff/Schnöckelborg (31955:§ 81) do not differentiate between just and just now and postulate for both the p r e s e n t perfect. While McCoard (1978:135) s t a t e s "it seems possible to say I've just now received word that they've arrived safely". Quirk et ah 4 (1985:8.98), DCE (1978; 1987) and OALD ( 1989) exemplify only the past tense, which is also postulated by Raith ( 2 1959, 7 1979: 'mostly past tense'), Schad ( 6 1962), Lamprecht (1956; 1970; 1986), and Ungerer et al. (1984). Learners and teachers wishing to inform themselves on the c o - o c c u r r e n c e of before, find the following (conflicting) evidence: p r e s e n t p e r f e c t / p a s t tense: Koziol (1958:506)

p r e s e n t perfect: ALD (1948)

TENSE AND ASPECT IN GERMAN GRAMMARS

Fiedler (1967:§ 124) Dietrich (1969:409) Hoffmann (1973: 'mostly p r e s e n t perfect') OALD ( 3 1974) McCoard (1978:135)

339

Raith ( 2 1959, 7 1979) Beilhardt/Sutton ( 6 1966) Lamprecht (1970, 1986) DCE (1978, 1987) OALD ( 4 1989)

In spite of the e n t r y in the widely used ALD (1948), the possible co-occurrence of before with the p r e s e n t perfect used to meet with disbelief among teachers, cf. e.g. Hornby's answer to a query in Praxis dea neusprachlichen Unterrichts 13 (1966:95). The possibility of a short time ago co-occurring - b e s i d e s the past t e n s e - with the p r e s e n t perfect is mentioned by Koziol (1958:506), Schad (61962:§ 189.2), and Röhr/Bartels (61968:§ 162.4), but may be dismissed as too marginal a use. Two more time s u b j u n c t s - formerly and long ago - were claimed by several grammarians in the 1950s and 1960s to admit both the p r e s e n t perfect and the past tense; cf. Niemeyer (1986:196ff.). While the c o - o c c u r r e n c e of formerly with the p r e s e n t perfect may - pace McCoard (1978:225) - indeed be regarded as outdated, long ago + p r e s e n t p e r f e c t / p a s t t e n s e has been reinstated by Quirk et al. (1985:§ 4.23 Note a) and Lamprecht (1986:§ 738). In the past (+ p r e s e n t p e r f e c t / p a s t tense) - often discussed since Poutsma (1926:262) in journals and monographs - has finally found its place in recent grammars: Quirk et ai. (1985:§§ 4.13 Note b; 14.27; cf. also § 16.69 Note d) and Lamprecht (1986:§ 738); cf. also DCE (1978, 1987) and OALD ( 4 1989). The possible c o - o c c u r r e n c e with the p r e s e n t perfect of previously = 'before the p r e s e n t moment' (Jacobson 1964:320) has attracted l e s s attention - cf., however, Korsakov (1969; 2 1978:139, 146), McCoard (1978:225), and Niemeyer (1986:196ff.) - and has so far not found its place in school or reference grammars. In view of two dozen instances in British and American n o n fictional texts that have come our way since 1985 - b e s i d e s a few scattered earlier ones - this u s e can hardly be regarded as exceptional and seems to be quite normal, cf. e.g.: (8) Have you stayed at this Hilton previously?

340

JOCHEN NIEMEYER

U n g e r e r et ah (1984:§ 195.1) seem to be t h e f i r s t grammar a u t h o r s to mention until recently* With t h e i r claim t h a t t h i s a d v e r b i a l c o - o c c u r s o n l y with t h e p a s t t e n s e , we would, h o w e v e r , b e g to differ; for i n s t a n c e s with b o t h p a s t t e n s e a n d p r e s e n t p e r f e c t cf. Dietrich (1955:208; 1969:409) a n d Niemeyer (1978:425; 1986:198). The u s e of t h e p r e s e n t p e r f e c t in ' t h i s / t h a t / i t is the first/second, etc./time I've been here' (Swan 1980:§ 473; cf. already Close 1975:248) is - b e s i d e s T h o m s o n / M a r t i n e t ( 2 1983:§ 181 F) - e v e n dealt with in C a v a n a g h ' s 4 8 - p a g e Englische Kurz-Grammatik (1978:8) a n d o u g h t to b e i n c l u d e d in all g r a m m a r s for f o r e i g n e r s , a s it baffles n o n - n a t i v e s . F i e d l e r (1967;§ 130) had not found mention of t h i s u s e in a n y grammar, a n d t h i s is d e p l o r a b l y still t r u e of most g r a m m a r s w r i t t e n since t h e n . 2.6

Aspect

2.6.1

Terminology

Due to aktionsarten 'kinds of a c t i o n ' (cf. Comrie 1976:6 footnote 4) a n d t h e influence of D e u t s c h b e i n ' s c a t e g o r i e s , t h e terminology in t h e e a r l i e r g r a m m a r s is somewhat c o n f u s i n g . Poch ( 2 1939:§ 69) a n d A l p e r s et ai. (1950:§ 314) still u s e aktionsarten and aspect interchangeably, but while the aktionsarten, with t h e e x c e p t i o n of t h e p r o g r e s s i v e forms (§ 70f.), a r e only summarily d e a l t with b y Poch (§§ 72-74), t h e y a r e blown u p to nearly full Deutschbeinian size as inchoative, progressive, intensive, frequentative, causative, and resultative forms in Alpers et al, (§§ 315-328). We Learn English. Grammar (1947:§ 207) a n d Kirchhoff/ S c h n ö c k e l b o r g ( 3 1955:§ 76) d i s p e n s e with ' a s p e c t ' a n d j u s t s p e a k of ' p r o g r e s s i v e f o r m s ' ( r e n d e r e d b y 'Dauerform' in t h e f o r m e r ) , the usual term in most o t h e r g r a m m a r s of o u r c o r p u s ; ' c o n t i n u o u s form' is u s e d b y L e o n h a r d i et al. (1962:§ 184 et passim) a n d B e i l h a r d t / S u t t o n ( 6 1966:§ 22). Schad ( 6 1962:§ 194ff.) d i s t i n g u i s h e s b e t w e e n actions (similar to A l p e r s et al., cf. a b o v e ) a n d aspects, s u b d i v i d e d into temporal ( r e t r o s p e c t i v e , i n t r o s p e c t i v e , p r o s p e c t i v e ) a n d modal (= emphatic) a s p e c t s . To complicate t h i n g s a little more, he i n t r o d u c e s t h e term

TENSE AND ASPECT IN GERMAN GRAMMARS

expanded form, identical (§ 200) or not identical the progressive form, cf.

(§§ 196-198)

341

with

(9a) He is thinking the matter over - introspective aspect (§ 196) (9b) Where are you going next Sunday? - prospective aspect (§ 197-198) (9c) Where are you going? ("Wohin willst du denn nun?") emphatic a s p e c t (§ 198) (9d) Don't talk to me, I'm writing a letter - p r o g r e s s i v e action (§ 200). Schad (§ 194 footnote) e x p r e s s l y acknowledges the lecture "Ausdrucksformen und Sinn der Modi, Aktionsarten und Aspekte" (in Bohlen 1959:41-58) delivered by Deutschbein's pupil Klitscher at a major conference in October 1958. In the e n s u i n g discussion the majority of the leading school anglicists of that time had voiced their fascination, but also their scepticism as to the possibility of teaching Deutschbein's categories to u n d e r g r a d u a t e s , leave alone pupils (in Bohlen 1959:58, 76-78), which should have put an end to what Raith (1951: p. II; cf. also p. 18f.) had called a Procrustean bed. It is, therefore, not astonishing that in Röhr/Bartels ( 6 1968), though their grammar is based on Schad's, aktionsart o c c u r s only in the index, where it refers the reader to the p r o g r e s s i v e form. Lamprecht (1956:§ 231ff.) and Raith (21959:§ 210ff.) are the first German grammar authors to apply the term aspect unequivocally to the two conjugation systems designated r e s p e c t i v e l y simple/progressive or 'Verlaufsform' (Lamprecht) and perfective/imperfective or 'umschriebene Form' (Raith). Raith's terms are derived from the terminology of Slavonic languages; his u s e of perfective has, therefore, nothing to do with the u s e of the same term in the Quirk grammars. The term ' a s p e c t ' used by Lamprecht (1956:§ 242) for a third category, the intensive, or emphatic, aspect, is g r u d g i n g l y replaced by 'form' in the next edition (1970:§ 529 and footnote 2). With the exception of Ungerer et ai. (1984:§ 181ff.), the term 'aspect' has so far not been adopted by our school grammars. As a

342

JOCHEN NIEMEYER

result, aspectual mistakes in pupils' written work are, for want of a suitable term, categorized either vaguely 'gr(ammatical)' or misleadingly 't(ense)', 2.6.2

Growing awareness of the p r o g r e s s i v e a s p e c t

While the conjugation tables contain all forms of the p r o g r e s s i v e aspect, at least in the active voice, the discussion of its functions and the number of illustrative examples in most of the earlier grammars can hardly be called adequate. It is true that the following s e n t e n c e s in Poch ( 2 1939) look quite 'modern': (10a) The nurse told us not to come at e l e v e n o'clock because the doctor would be examining our friend at that time. (§ 71) (10b) Has he been talking already? (10c) I am really speaking the truth! (10d) I am forgetting ... (§ 72.1). The favourable impression is, however, a little impaired by the fact that the last three instances are d i s c u s s e d in connection with emphatic do under the heading 'Emphasis and Reinforcement'. On the other hand, Poch's grammar i s , in this r e s p e c t , v a s t l y superior to the otherwise quite satisfactory grammar of Leonhardi et al. (1962), where the p r e s e n t perfect is exemplified by simple forms only and where the warning to b e g i n n e r s not to u s e the simple p r e s e n t after since is worded (11) Since when have you learnt (not: do you learn) English? (§ 186 Note 4). With Lamprecht (1956) we reach already the s t a g e of p r e s e n t day English. The following examples from his grammar have been c h o s e n to indicate the patterns missing in the preceding (and several later) grammars: (12)

This building has been y e a r s . (§ 237)

standing

here for more than 800

TENSE AND ASPECT IN GERMAN GRAMMARS

343

(13a) Now you're being unfair (§ 240); cf. also Raith (21959:§ 231 Note 2) (13b) Meanwhile he was floating round Europe ... and was being an artist (§ 240) (14a) I'm hearing it better now. (14b) I am seeing it more clearly now (§ 243a); cf. also Röhr/Bartels (61968:§ 172) Both examples are already to be found in Hatcher (1951, repr. in Schopf 1974:200). It may deserve notice that this use of the progressive was already drawn attention to by Aronstein (1924:58): (14c) he was not seeing the object as in itself it really is (Manchester Guardian, n.d.). (15) How I'm hating the sight of it all (§ 243b); cf. also Raith (21959:§ 236 Note 2) and Röhr/Bartels (61968:§ 172) (16) How do you feel / are you feeling today? (§ 280); cf. also Schad (61962:§ 200) (17) That's what I've been wanting to do for a long time (§ 300) (18) I'm thinking you're right (1970:§ 526; omitted in Lamprecht 1986) More recent grammars have expanded the number of verbs occasionally admitting the progressive aspect, cf. e.g. (19) Petrol is costing 184.2 Note 1).

more and more (Ungerer et ah 1984:§

An interesting example of the time that may pass before a certain construction finds its place in grammars is provided by (20a) We're eating more meat since the war (Lamprecht 1986:§ 746 Note 3). Lamprecht gives as his source Palmer (1974:69). Similar instances of this use of the present tense in spite of since were,

JOCHEN NIEMEYER

344

however, already d i s c u s s e d neusprachlichen Unterrichts taking notice: (20b)

3.

Jack is doing (consecutive).

by Genner and Rockett in Praxis dea 9 (1962:116), without grammar authors

much

better

since

he changed

his

job

Conclusion

Though not all grammars are as good as they might be, we can confidently call the p r o g r e s s grammars have made in this country over the past fifty years encouraging. While the earlier grammars were clearly indebted to the great Dutch and Danish grammarians, the growing awareness of the complexities of tense and aspect since the 1950s has been largely due to the efforts of British grammarians. Judging from the literature mentioned in Lamprecht (1956, 1970, 1986) and Guntram (1977:VI), the g r e a t e s t influence was exerted by W.St. Allen, R.A. Close, A.S. Hornby, G. N. Leech, J. Millington-Ward, F.R. Palmer, and R. Quirk. This list is, of course, incomplete, but c o v e r s at least those authors whose books are most likely to be found on the s h e l v e s of teachers or school libraries. Among the non-native scholars not mentioned e x p r e s s l y in this paper it will have been E. Leisi, D. Nehls, and A. Schopf who have contributed to a better understanding of the complicated workings of tense and aspect. As teachers cannot be expected to devote their little spare time to the s t u d y of the e v e r - g r o w i n g number of papers and monographs, it will be for grammar authors to bridge the gap between scholarly research and school practice. Abbreviations DCE = Dictionary of Contemporary English. London: Longman. 1 1978; 1987. OALD = A.S. Hornby, Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 3 1974. Fourth Edition (Chief Editor: A.P. Cowie). 1989.

2

TENSE AND ASPECT IN GERMAN GRAMMARS

345

REFERENCES Alexander, Louis G. 1988. Longman English Grammar. London: Longman. A l p e r s , M., A. Kampermann, a n d H. Voges. 1950. Englische Grammatik. Bielefeld & Hannover: Velhagen & Klasing. A r o n s t e i n , Philipp. 1924. Englische Stilistik. Leipzig & Berlin: Teubner. Beilhardt, Karl, a n d F.W. S u t t o n . 6 1966. Essentials of English Grammar/Grundzüge der englischen Grammatik. S t u t t g a r t : Klett. ( 1 1959). Bohlen, Adolf, ed. 1959. Grundsatzfragen der neusprachlichen Grammatik. ( = Die Neueren Sprachen. Beiheft 5). F r a n k f u r t / M . : Diesterweg. C a r s t e n s e n , B r o d e r . 1972. "Die D a r s t e l l u n g d e s e n g l i s c h e n F u t u r s in d e n L e h r w e r k e n Learning English, The Good Companion, English For Today u n d a n d e r e n " . Die Behandlung grammatischer Probleme in Lehrwerken für den Englischunterricht ed. b y Wolf-Dietrich Bald, Broder C a r s t e n s e n and Marlis Hellinger, 20-57. F r a n k f u r t / M . : Diesterweg. Kurzgrammatik. Frankfurt: Cavanagh, Jonathan. 1978. Englische Diesterweg; Wien: Österreichischer Bundesverlag; Aarau: Sauerlander. Close, Reginald A r t h u r . 1975. A Reference Grammar for Students of English. London: Longman. Comrie, B e r n a r d . 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. P r e s s . C r y s t a l , David. 1966. "Specification a n d English t e n s e s " . Journal of Linguistics 2. 1-34. D e u t s c h b e i n , Max. 15 1957. Grammatik der englischen Sprache auf wiasenschaftlicher Grundlage. B e a r b e i t e t von Hermann Klitscher. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. und Perfektum Dietrich, G e r h a r d . 1955. Erweiterte Form, Präteritum im Englischen. München: Hueber. . 1969. "Ein S c h m e r z e n s k i n d d e r e n g l i s c h e n Grammatik. Der G e b r a u c h d e s P r ä t e r i t s u n d d e s P e r f e k t s im E n g l i s c h e n " . Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts 16. 402-412. Fiedler, F r i t z . 1967. Englischer Sprachgebrauch und englische Schulgrammatik. Berlin: L a n g e n s c h e i d t . F l e i s c h h a c k , Erich, Hellmut S c h w a r z , a n d F r a n z Vettel. 1981. English G. Grammar. Berlin: C o r n e l s e n - V e l h a g e n & Klasing. G r a u s t e i n , Gottfried, et al. 3 1984. English Grammar. A UniversityHandbook. Leipzig: VEB E n z y k l o p ä d i e . ( 1 1977). Guntram, Georg. 1977. English Grammar for Today. Dortmund/ Hannover: L e n s i n g / S c h r o e d e l . Hatcher, Anna Granville. 1951. "The Use of t h e P r o g r e s s i v e Form in E n g l i s h " . Language 27. 254-280.

346

JOCHEN NIEMEYER

Hoffmann, Hans G. 1973. Englische Mindest grammatik. München: Hueber. J a c o b s o n , S v e n . 1964. Adverbial Positions in E n g l i s h . Dissertation, Uppsala. Stockholm: S t u d e n t b o k . J e s p e r s e n , Otto. 1965. A Modern English Grammar. Repr. London: Allen & Unwin. 01909-1949). Kirchhoff, J., a n d G. S c h n ö c k e l b o r g , 3 1955. Plain E n g l i s h . Grammar. P a d e r b o r n : S c h ö n i n g h . ( 1 1950). Klitscher, H e r r m a n n . 1959. " A u s d r u c k s f o r m e n u n d Sinn d e r Modi, Aktionsarten und Aspekte". Grundsatzfragen der neusprachlichen Grammatik ed. b y Adolf Bohlen, 41-58. F r a n k f u r t / M . : Diesterweg. Korsakov, A n d r e i K o n s t a n t i n o v i c h . 2 1978. The Use of Tenses in English. Kiev: Vishcha shkola. ( 1 1969). Koziol, H e r b e r t . 1958. "Zum G e b r a u c h d e s P r e s e n t P e r f e c t u n d d e s P a s t T e n s e " . Die Neueren Sprachen 57. 497-506. Lamprecht, Adolf. 1956. Grammatik der englischen Sprache. Berlin: Volk und Wissen. 1970. Grammatik der englischen Sprache. Berlin: Volk und Wissen; Berlin & Bielefeld: Cornelsen. . 1986. Grammatik der englischen Sprache. Neufassung. Berlin: Volk u n d Wissen; Berlin: C o r n e l s e n - V e l h a g e n & Klasing. L a n g e , Dietrich. 1986. " I s it t h e School's Fault if S t u d e n t s Don't Use Grammars?" The English Reference Grammar ed. by Gerhard L e i t n e r , 204-208. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Leech, Geoffrey N. 1971. Meaning and the English Verb. London: Longman. L e o n h a r d i , Arnold, Hans Wiebe, a n d R.W.V. Elliott. 1962. English Grammar. Dortmund: L e n s i n g . Lichtenberg, Karl. 1938. Kurzgefaßte englische Sprachlehre. Bielefeld & Leipzig: Velhagen & Klasing. McCoard, Ronald W. 1978. The English Perfect: Tense choice and pragmatic inferences. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Mindt, Dieter. 1971. Strukturelle Grammatik, generative Transformationsgrammatik und englische Schulgrammatik. (Schule u n d F o r s c h u n g 18). F r a n k f u r t / M . : Diesterweg. 1987, Sprache Grammatik Unterrichtsgrammatik. F u t u r i s c h e r Zeitbezug im E n g l i s c h e n I. F r a n k f u r t / M . : Diesterweg. Niemeyer, J o c h e n . 1974. "Zum G e b r a u c h v o n will/would im if-Satz"» Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts 21. 370-379. . 1978. "Zum T e m p u s g e b r a u c h bei 'in t h e p a s t ' u n d ä h n l i c h e n Zeitbestimmungen". Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts 25. 423-426. . 1986. " T e a c h e r s , Grammar T e a c h i n g , a n d Grammar Books Some D e s i d e r a t a " . The English Reference Grammar ed. b y G e r h a r d L e i t n e r , 190-203. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Palmer, F r a n k R. 1974. The English Verb. London: Longman. Poch, A r t u r . 2 1939, Neue englische Sprachlehre. Leipzig & Berlin: T e u b n e r . ( 1 1938).

TENSE AND ASPECT IN GERMAN GRAMMARS

347

Poutsma, Hendrik. 1926. A Grammar of Late Modern English. P a r t II, Section II. G r o n i n g e n : Noordhoff. Quirk, Randolph, S i d n e y Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, a n d Jan S v a r t v i k . 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman. . 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Raith, Josef. 1951. Untersuchungen zum englischen Aspekt München: Hueber. . 2 1959. Englische Grammatik. München: Hueber. ( 1 1952). Röhr, Heinz, a n d B e r n h a r d B a r t e l s . 6 1968. The English Companion's Modern Grammar. Nach d e r Neuen Grammatik der modernen englischen Sprache von Gustav Schad. P r a n k f u r t / M . : Diesterweg. 01963). S c h a d , G u s t a v . 6 1962. Neue Grammatik der modemen Englischen Sprache. P r a n k f u r t / M . : Diesterweg. 01954). Schopf, Alfred, ed. 1974. Der englische Aspekt. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche B u c h g e s e l l s c h a f t . Swan, Michael. 1980. Practical English Usage. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Thomson, A u d r e y J e a n , a n d A n d r e V. Martinet. 2 1983. A Practical English Grammar. School Edition. Bielefeld: Cornelsen & Oxford Univ. P r e s s . U n g e r e r , F r i e d r i c h , G e r h a r d E.H. Meier, Klaus Schäfer, a n d S h i r l e y B. Lechler. 1984. A Grammar of Present-Day English /Grammatik des heu tigen Englisch. S t u t t g a r t : Klett. Visser, F r e d e r i k Theodoor. 1969. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. P a r t I I I / l . Leiden: Brill. Z y d a t i s s , Wolfgang. 1989. "Review of Adolf L a m p r e c h t , Grammatik der englischen Sprache. Neufassung (1986)". Anglia 107. 106-110.

M O D A L I T Y

A N D

T R A D I T I O N A L

T H E

M O D A L S

G R A M M A R S

IN O F

E N G L I S H

ALAN WALTON Freie

Universität

Berlin

Even a c u r s o r y glance a t a few t r a d i t i o n a l g r a m m a r s will confirm t h a t , in t h e p a s t , g r a m m a r i a n s s p e n t much time r e f l e c t i n g on two major topics r e l a t i n g to E n g l i s h modal v e r b s : f i r s t , t h e m e a n i n g s a t t a c h i n g to each v e r b ; a n d s e c o n d , t h e role of t h e modals in t h e e x p r e s s i o n of s p e a k e r s ' a t t i t u d e s a n d judgments» The situation h a s c h a n g e d little today; a n d it is f u r t h e r complicated b y t h e v a g u e n e s s of t h e term "modality", which h a s b e e n u s e d to c o v e r modal m e a n i n g s a n d s p e a k e r s ' a t t i t u d e s both s e p a r a t e l y a n d j o i n t l y , a n d occasionally i n c l u d e s within i t s s c o p e e v e n t h e grammatical c a t e g o r y of "mood". This c h a p t e r will be s t r u c t u r e d a r o u n d t h e s e two modal t o p i c s , f o c u s i n g on t h e s e m a n t i c s a n d p r a g m a t i c s of modal v e r b s r a t h e r t h a n on morphology and s y n t a x . No s u r v e y of g r a m m a r i a n s or g r a m m a r s will be a t t e m p t e d . I n s t e a d , a brief examination will be made of t r e a t m e n t s of t h e modals b y Sweet (1892, 1898), K r u i s i n g a (1911) a n d Curme (1935), g r a m m a r i a n s of d i f f e r e n t nationalities whose work s p a n s some half c e n t u r y of l i n g u i s t i c d e s c r i p t i o n in t h i s a r e a of grammar. A more r e c e n t view of modality, s p e a k e r s ' a t t i t u d e s a n d t h e modals will t h e n be p r o v i d e d b y Quirk a n d his c o - a u t h o r s (1985). I t will become e v i d e n t t h a t , on t h e s u b j e c t of modal v e r b s , t r a d i t i o n a l g r a m m a r s p r o v i d e a wealth of d e s c r i p t i o n a n d exemplification. However, some s y n t h e s i s of t h i s material is needed which will explain t h e d e r i v a t i o n of modal meanings a n d t h e role t h e modals play in t h e e x p r e s s i o n of s p e a k e r s ' a t t i t u d e s . Given t h i s explanation, a c l e a r e r notion of what is meant b y modality will e m e r g e . And t h e main t a s k

350

ALAN WALTON

for f u t u r e w r i t e r s of g r a m m a r s will b e , I s u g g e s t , to find a format, linguistically a n d p e d a g o g i c a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e to r e f e r e n c e g r a m m a r s , a n d explanation, which will i n c o r p o r a t e some s u c h synthesis p r o v i d i n g a d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e s y s t e m of modal v e r b s , their m e a n i n g s , a n d t h e i r f u n c t i o n a s a vehicle for s p e a k e r s ' a t t i t u d e s . T h e r e a r e two t o p i c s which I will, a s far a s p o s s i b l e , omit from c o n s i d e r a t i o n , s i n c e t h e y a r e n o t c e n t r a l to t h e modal p r o b l e m s a l r e a d y identified. The f i r s t c o n c e r n s m e m b e r s h i p of t h e s e t of modal v e r b s : t h e b o u n d a r y b e t w e e n w h a t Quirk e t ah (1985:135ff.) define a s t h e c e n t r a l modals (can/could, may/might, shall/should, will/would a n d must) a n d t h e marginal modals (dare, need, ought to a n d used to) would not find u n i v e r s a l a g r e e m e n t . For t h e most p a r t , d i s p u t e s a s to t h e fixing of s u c h a b o u n d a r y t u r n u p o n s y n t a c t i c a n d morphological c r i t e r i a . Since t h e p r o b l e m s of modal m e a n i n g s a n d t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of s p e a k e r s ' a t t i t u d e s a r e semantic a n d p r a g m a t i c in n a t u r e , t h e s e c r i t e r i a a r e not of major r e l e v a n c e h e r e . F u r t h e r m o r e , s i n c e t h e s e two p r o b l e m s form t h e focal point of t h i s c h a p t e r , it will not be n e c e s s a r y to d i s c u s s e v e r y modal v e r b b u t only t h o s e members of t h e modal s e t which would, b y a n y c o n s e n s u s , b e a c k n o w l e d g e d a s b e l o n g i n g to t h e c e n t r a l c a t e g o r y . Second, I will n o t d i s c u s s t h e grammatical c a t e g o r y of mood, indicative, within which inflected forms of v e r b s a r e d i s t i n g u i s h e d a s imperative o r subjunctive. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e term mood h a s also b e e n u s e d with r e f e r e n c e to mutually exclusive semantic c a t e g o r i e s such as declarative, interrogative and imperative, that is to say, to the functions of a particular grammatical category. It may be necessary, when describing the work of particular grammarians, to record an author's use of the term mood however defined. But apart from such mentions, I will not make use of the grammatical category of mood in this discussion of modal verbs and modality. It will be useful to begin with Sweet's (1892, 1898) A New English Grammar, because this grammar illustrates some of the difficulties of definition and terminology which have already been noted, whilst hinting at the existence of the problems involved in describing modal meaning and the expression of speakers' attitudes. Sweet aimed, in a grammar which would be "scientific and historical and not purely descriptive" to confine himself to "the main grammatical phenomena and main lines of development" (1892:x).

MODALITY AND THE MODALS

351

P e r h a p s t h i s is t h e r e a s o n he c o n c e n t r a t e d on t h e t e n s e a n d mood f u n c t i o n s of t h e chief auxiliaries (be, have, do, will, shall and may) whilst classifying t h e o t h e r modal v e r b s r a t h e r dismissively a s "anomalous". It is t h e chief auxiliaries, S w e e t ' s " f o r m - v e r b s " , which r e c e i v e most of his a t t e n t i o n , s i n c e , in t h e i r function a s modifiers of t h e English v e r b , t h e y a r e u s e d in t h e e x p r e s s i o n of what he calls t h e " p e r i p h r a s t i c moods". In c o n t r a s t , t h e anomalous v e r b s a r e dealt with l a r g e l y from a historical p e r s p e c t i v e . I shall exemplify S w e e t ' s t r e a t m e n t of both t h e auxiliaries a n d t h e anomalous v e r b s . F i r s t , what a r e t h e " p e r i p h r a s t i c moods"? For Sweet, t h e moods of a v e r b a r e "grammatical forms e x p r e s s i n g different r e l a t i o n s between s u b j e c t a n d p r e d i c a t e " (1892:105). And in t h e link b e t w e e n auxiliary and mood, should and would form t h e "conditional mood" when u s e d with a n infinitive in a conditional c l a u s e , a n d mayp l u s infinitive is " p e r m i s s i v e mood" w h e r e it e x p r e s s e s wish a n d p u r p o s e . In t h e s e c o n d volume of his grammar, " S y n t a x " , Sweet examines t h e u s e s of t h e s e modals in t h e conditional a n d p e r m i s s i v e moods. U n d e r conditional mood, he i n c l u d e s all combinations of would a n d should p l u s infinitive which do not h a v e t h e t e n s e - f u n c t i o n of d e n o t i n g f u t u r e time. For example, (la) If I w e r e you, I would not do i t . ( l b ) If we had s t a r t e d in p r o p e r time, we s h o u l d h a v e t h e r e b y t h i s time (1898:111).

been

In dealing with t h e p e r m i s s i v e mood, Sweet o b s e r v e s : "The v e r b may in i t s full meaning implies p o s s i b i l i t y a s t h e r e s u l t of t h e a b s e n c e of e x t e r n a l h i n d r a n c e , especially t h r o u g h t h e i n t e r f e r e n c e of o t h e r s , w h e n c e i t s f r e q u e n t meaning of " h a v e p e r m i s s i o n , " "be allowed to" ..." (1898:115). It is i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t a t t h i s j u n c t u r e , Sweet d e p a r t s from c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of mood to c o n t r a s t p e r m i s s i v e may with t h e anomalous v e r b can, which "implies p o s s i b i l i t y a s t h e r e s u l t of something in t h e s u b j e c t of t h e s t a t e m e n t , s u c h a s s t r e n g t h , c a p a c i t y , or k n o w l e d g e " (1898:116). For example: (2) May I climb t h a t t r e e ? Yes: you may if you c a n (1898:116).

352

ALAN WALTON

Sweet clearly feels t h a t some comparison of can a n d may is n e c e s s a r y d e s p i t e his classification of one a s a n auxiliary a n d t h e o t h e r a s an anomalous v e r b . But in fact his j u s t i f i c a t i o n for t h i s classification is to be found in t h e comparison itself: his explanation of t h e u s e of may is g i v e n in t e r m s of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n s u b j e c t and p r e d i c a t e ( t h a t is, in t e r m s of his definition of mood), whilst t h e anomalous v e r b can merely e x p r e s s e s i n h e r e n t q u a l i t i e s of t h e s u b j e c t of t h e s t a t e m e n t r a t h e r t h a n i n d i c a t i n g a p a r t i c u l a r s u b j e c t - p r e d i c a t e relation. The auxiliaries also h a v e t e n s e - f u n c t i o n s , and here the o r i g i n a l full m e a n i n g s of t h e s e v e r b s a r e often s u p p r e s s e d . The combination may p l u s infinitive is sometimes u s e d a s a kind of future: (3) This place is not safe: t h e roof may come down a n y d a y . It is safe e n o u g h for t h e p r e s e n t : t h e roof may not come down y e t (1898:116). With r e g a r d to t h e s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of t h e example, which will d o u b t l e s s s t r i k e t h e m o d e r n r e a d e r a s b e i n g e i t h e r c u r i o u s or c o n t r a d i c t o r y , Sweet o b s e r v e s t h a t h e r e t h e o r i g i n a l meaning of mayis almost lost, a n d t h a t two i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s a r e p o s s i b l e : "will p r o b a b l y not come down"; a n d "is not allowed to come down" (1898:116). Will a n d shall can also e x p r e s s f u t u r i t y . For example, (4) You will go " h a r d l y s u g g e s t s t h e idea of volition a t all, a n d so is excellently a d a p t e d to e x p r e s s p u r e f u t u r i t y " (1898:93). I n many c a s e s , h o w e v e r , t h e u s e of will a n d shall e x p r e s s e s t h e idea of f u t u r i t y combined with t h a t of wish or of n e c e s s i t y , d i l u t i n g t h e a u x i l i a r i e s ' t e n s e f u n c t i o n s . And while t h e emphatic (5) I will do it e x p r e s s e s o b s t i n a c y , t h e emphatic (6) I shall do it

MODALITY AND THE MODALS

353

e x p r e s s e s d e t e r m i n a t i o n , as if t h e s p e a k e r meant to imply t h a t his will was so s t r o n g a s to become a p u r e l y o b j e c t i v e force (1898:94). The two may be combined: (7) I shall and will do it. And finally (8) What shall I do! e x p r e s s e s h o p e l e s s n e s s or p e r p l e x i t y (1898:94). I t would seem, however, t h a t for Sweet a v e r b is a t r u e auxiliary only when i t s original meaning is e i t h e r s u p p r e s s e d or a t least, a s he p u t s it, "softened down". But ultimately t h e r e is no clear division of t h e auxiliary a n d o t h e r f u n c t i o n s . The influence of shall's original meaning of 'obligation* is felt in (9) Why should you s u s p e c t him? softened down in (10) Is t h e r e a n y o n e with him? No; who s h o u l d t h e r e be? a n d no l o n g e r p r e s e n t in (11) As I w e n t down t h e s t r e e t , who s h o u l d I meet b u t friend himself!

our

in which should meet becomes simply a p e r i p h r a s t i c p r e t e r i t e or p u r e auxiliary (1898:114). S w e e t ' s c l a s s of anomalous v e r b s c a n be d e a l t with fairly q u i c k l y , since he d e v o t e s little s p a c e in his grammar to t h e s e v e r b s , c o n t e n t to p r o v i d e h i s t o r i c a l n o t e s a n d occasional h i n t s a s to t h e i r modern m e a n i n g s . I shall g i v e a sample of his n o t e s on t h e s e v e r b s . In t h e c a s e of must he i n c l u d e s t h e facts t h a t in Middle English t h e p r e t e r i t e was u s e d in t h e same s e n s e as t h e p r e s e n t , t h a t t h i s u s a g e became fixed in Early Modern English, and t h a t t h e p r e t e r i t e subjunctive, practically indistinguishable from the preterite i n d i c a t i v e , was u s e d to e x p r e s s mild command, so t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l meaning of t h e second p e r s o n s i n g u l a r of you would be able or you might was u n d e r s t o o d a s "you will h a v e t o " or "you m u s t " . With can,

354

ALAN WALTON

Sweet n o t e s t h a t t h e meaning of t h e Old English form know g r a d u a l l y developed i n t o 'be a b l e ' ; while may a n d might's Old English meaning developed in Modern English into t h a t of ' h a v e permission*. In S w e e t ' s work we find a c k n o w l e d g m e n t of t h e modals' role a s modifiers, t h r o u g h t h e i r m e a n i n g s , of main v e r b s , and s e c o n d of t h e i r role a s vehicles for t h e e x p r e s s i o n of s p e a k e r s ' beliefs and w a n t s . The function of p a s t t e n s e forms as toned down or " s o f t e n e d " v e r s i o n s of modal p r e s e n t forms is s u g g e s t e d , a s is t h e possibility t h a t t h e meaning of a modal c a n be e x t e n d e d b y t h e u s e of t h e v e r b in d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t s . What b e d e v i l s S w e e t ' s exposition is his c a t e g o r i s a t i o n of t h e s e t of modals a s auxiliary a n d anomalous v e r b s , a division n e e d e d to s u p p o r t his s e p a r a t i o n of t e n s e - f u n c t i o n s , in which t h e m e a n i n g s of t h e modals a r e s u p p r e s s e d , a n d moodf u n c t i o n s , in which t h e modals may r e t a i n (some of) t h e i r o r i g i n a l m e a n i n g s . The a u x i l i a r y / a n o m a l o u s d i s t i n c t i o n is not s u s t a i n a b l e , auxiliaries becoming anomalous a s t h e o r i g i n a l meaning of t h e modal r e a p p e a r s ; a n d in s u c h c a s e s t h e need for t h e s e anomalous v e r b s to be d e a l t with t o g e t h e r with t h e auxiliaries, in a unified s y s t e m , is apparent. In A Handbook of Present-Day English (1911), Kruisinga p r o p o s e s j u s t s u c h a n a r r a n g e m e n t , t h o u g h he s u g g e s t s t h a t "no classification of t h e auxiliaries can be i n v e n t e d t h a t does j u s t i c e to all t h e i r p e c u l i a r i t i e s " (1911:291). Within his g r o u p i n g of t h e auxiliaries is the sub-category of the modals, ought/used, can/may/must and shall/will. Apart from ought and used, t h e s e share t h e p e c u l i a r i t y t h a t t h e y a r e u s e d with a plain stem (the infinitive w i t h o u t to), K r u i s i n g a o b s e r v e s t h a t "This is not an a c c i d e n t , for t h e plain stem is p r a c t i c a l l y t h e p r e d i c a t i v e v e r b ..., t h e auxiliary s e r v i n g to modify o r specify t h e meaning of t h e stem" (1911:504). F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e fact t h a t t h e modal auxiliaries h a v e no n o n - f i n i t e forms, no - s form for t h e t h i r d p e r s o n s i n g u l a r a n d no c o ­ o c c u r r e n c e is claimed b y K r u i s i n g a to b e c l e a r l y t h e r e s u l t of t h e i r m e a n i n g s . Here, in o t h e r w o r d s , is a s e t of v e r b s specially a d a p t e d to function a s modifiers of main v e r b s , t h i s modification b e i n g a c h i e v e d t h r o u g h t h e meaning of t h e modifying v e r b . What a r e t h e m e a n i n g s of t h e modals? K r u i s i n g a l i s t s them, dealing with each v e r b in t u r n , a n d a selection from his list will i l l u s t r a t e his method of a n a l y s i s . He b e g i n s with ought, which, a s a

MODALITY AND THE MODALS

355

p r e s e n t t e n s e , " d e n o t e s a moral obligation, also w h a t is b e f i t t i n g , p r o p e r , c o r r e c t , a d v i s a b l e , or n a t u r a l l y e x p e c t e d " (1911:438). For example, (12)

We o u g h t to call (1911:438).

on

them;

let

us

go

this

afternoon

But ought can h a v e a function parallel to t h e p r e t e r i t e of o t h e r v e r b s w h e n , for example, it e x p r e s s e s a f u t u r e o c c u r r e n c e or s t a t e t h a t is looked u p o n a s c e r t a i n or p r o b a b l e : (13) T h e r e o u g h t to be some h i g h b i d d i n g at M e s s r s . S o t h e b y ' s on Dec. 18th, w h e n a v a l u a b l e s e r i e s of a u t o g r a p h l e t t e r s a n d l i t e r a r y Mss. will be d i s p o s e d of (1911:439). I t is w o r t h n o t i n g t h a t K r u i s i n g a c o n s i d e r s ought as a m b i g u o u s : one of i t s meanings c o n c e r n s w h a t is morally d e s i r a b l e , and t h e o t h e r r e l a t e s to belief o r j u d g m e n t . This is an i m p o r t a n t point, of r e l e v a n c e to t h e e x p r e s s i o n of s p e a k e r s ' a t t i t u d e s by t h e modals, to which I will r e t u r n below. I i g n o r e K r u i s i n g a ' s n o t e s on used, whose modification of t h e p r e d i c a t i v e v e r b is temporal or a s p e c t u a l r a t h e r t h a n modal, a n d go on to can. The l a t t e r " e x p r e s s e s all k i n d s of ability or c a p a b i l i t y , power or f i t n e s s . The most i m p o r t a n t point a b o u t it is t h a t it is chiefly u s e d a s a n e u t r a l p r e s e n t " (1911:442): (14a) Can we h a v e d i n n e r on t h e t r a i n ? (14b) The king c a n d e c l a r e war a n d make p e a c e (1911:442). This " n e u t r a l p r e s e n t " is f r e q u e n t l y u s e d to r e f e r to some v a g u e time in t h e f u t u r e , when t h e s p e a k e r w a n t s to avoid time b e i n g e x p r e s s e d d i s t i n c t l y b y t h e v e r b . The same m e a n i n g s of can can be e x p r e s s e d a s a n " a c t u a l p r e s e n t " : (15)

I am going to (1911:442).

the post. Anything

I can

do for

you?

However, K r u i s i n g a c o n c e d e s t h a t to d i s t i n g u i s h between n e u t r a l a n d a c t u a l p r e s e n t is often impossible a n d t h a t " p e r h a p s t h e d i s t i n c t i o n should not be made a t all h e r e , for s p e a k e r s a r e q u i t e u n a w a r e of a n y d i f f e r e n c e " in examples s u c h a s

356

ALAN WALTON

(16) Can I have some more bread, please? (1911:443). Since, in any case, Kruisinga's examples in (14) are open to a "timeless", "present" or "future" interpretation, it becomes apparent that what is needed for each example is some specification of context of utterance. Uses are being attributed to can which derive from the circumstances in which a sentence containing the modal could conceivably be uttered. And in the following example, characteristics attributed to the sentence subject are presented as a meaning of the verb: (17) Personality can be irresistible (1911:443). In (17), neutral can is said to denote a quality which a person possesses, and to express the effect of a natural law. Compare also the effect of context and sentential environment in (18a) We can expect opposition from vested interests (1911:444) (18b) It can't be helped. - I can't always be right (1911:445), where can is said to express possibility due to circumstances (a), especially in sentences that are negative in meaning (b); and in (19) "Well, Betsy, who is it?" "Please, Miss, it's Mr. Austen, he wants to speak to Miss Beatrice by herself for a minute; so I've shown him into the library." "How extraordinary; what can he want?" (1911:445), in which a special case of meaning is found in interrogative sentences with strong stress on can to express astonishment or impatience. In the last example, Kruisinga neatly specifies a context of utterance in the form of the preceding discourse, but attributes the weight of the interpreted meaning of the discourse solely to the modal. The preterite could is also used to express possibility, but is only in a restricted sense to be regarded as a preterite of can, not only in form but also in syntactic function. Kruisinga prefers to regard the preterites of the auxiliaries as elements of a formally simple verbal system, and therefore deals separately with each form,

MODALITY AND THE MODALS

357

b u t for t h e most p a r t he a s c r i b e s t h e same meanings to can and could, However, he does c o n t r a s t may with can. R a t h e r than e x p r e s s i n g p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t is t h e r e s u l t of q u a l i t i e s i n h e r e n t in t h e s u b j e c t a s can d o e s , "may e x p r e s s e s p o s s i b i l i t y p r o v i d e d by some p e r s o n o t h e r t h a n t h e s u b j e c t of t h e v e r b (i.e. permission) o r b y c i r c u m s t a n c e s o u t s i d e t h e s u b j e c t " (1911:457). But when no s u b j e c t is t h o u g h t of a n d t h e main v e r b is in t h e p a s s i v e , it is of no c o n s e q u e n c e w h e t h e r can or may is u s e d : (20) The I n d e p e n d e n t c a n be had of a n y n e w s a g e n t c o u n t r y o r may be o b t a i n e d d i r e c t from t h e (1911:457). K r u i s i n g a l i s t s p o s s i b i l i t y a s may's

t h i r d meaning:

(21)

you

You may force (1911:449),

fruit

but

cannot

force

while two o t h e r m e a n i n g s c o n c e r n f i r s t , w h a t is p e r m i t t e d a c c o r d a n c e with, law, r e a s o n , r u l e o r morality, a s in (22)

You may go o u t (1911:448);

when

you

have

finished

in t h e offices

flavour

by, or in

your

work

a n d s e c o n d , s p e a k e r ' s u n c e r t a i n t y with r e g a r d to a n action, s t a t e o r o c c u r r e n c e , a s in (23) He may g e t t h e r e in time if he walks f a s t (1911:449). I n t e r e s t i n g l y , Kruisinga does not s u g g e s t a meaning for might d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of may. He c h o o s e s to r e g a r d might a s a modal p r e t e r i t e of t h e l a t t e r , a n d n o t e s t h a t "Might d i f f e r s from may in t h a t it e x p r e s s e s more of u n c e r t a i n t y , or t h e s p e a k e r ' s diffidence, in making t h e s t a t e m e n t " (1911:450): (24) At t h i s h o u r he s h o u l d h a v e b e e n w o r k i n g a t h i s book; a n d t h e fact t h a t his i d l e n e s s did not t r o u b l e him might well h a v e g i v e n him u n e a s i n e s s (1911:450). We come next to t h e m e a n i n g s a s c r i b e d b y K r u i s i n g a to must "Must e x p r e s s e s a n e c e s s i t y imposed b y c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d should, i n c l u d i n g t h e will of a p e r s o n . If it is t h e will of a n o t h e r p e r s o n

358

ALAN WALTON

t h a n t h e s u b j e c t of t h e s e n t e n c e , must e x p r e s s e s a n u r g e n t command or a n i n s i s t e n t r e q u e s t (25a); if it is t h e will of t h e s u b j e c t of t h e s e n t e n c e , must e x p r e s s e s a firm d e t e r m i n a t i o n (25b)" (1911:458f.): (25a) I must go home now; f a t h e r told me to be quick. (25b) I must a n d will h a v e my own way. Must c a n also e x p r e s s a n e c e s s i t y imposed g e n e r a l (26a) or r e l a t i v e to some e n d (26b):

by

circumstances

(26a) All men m u s t die. (26b) The j u d g e s c r i t i c i s e Parliament, a n d t h e y in t h e i r must a c c e p t criticism u p o n t h e i r o r d e r (1911:459). In t h e e x p r e s s i o n of j u d g m e n t o r belief, i n f e r r e d or p r e s u m e d c e r t a i n t y of a fact:

must

can

in

turn

express

the

(27) He must be a n old man, now (1911:459). And in an e x t e n d e d s e n s e , must both a s a p r e s e n t (28a) a n d a s a p a s t (28b) t e n s e c a n d e n o t e some foolish or a n n o y i n g action or some untoward event: (28a) So you m u s t always be meddling, must you? (28b) His r i d i c u l o u s p r i d e must n e v e r t h e l e s s i n q u i r e w h e t h e r Caroline had b e e n b e g g i n g t h i s for him (1911:460). Despite t h e fact t h a t he a s c r i b e s m e a n i n g s to modal almost parallel to t h o s e of must, K r u i s i n g a makes no comparison of t h e effects of t h e u s e of t h e s e v e r b s . Should claims, u s e d to e x p r e s s a n obligation or d u t y , g e n e r a l l y of a or moral n a t u r e : (29)

You should (1911:468).

not

speak

so

loud;

it

And w h e r e j u d g m e n t o r belief is involved, should a n o c c u r r e n c e o r s t a t e is h i g h l y p r o b a b l e :

is

bad

should direct is, he social

manners

will i n d i c a t e

that

(30) P r o v i d i n g t h a t t h e Megantic meets with favourable w e a t h e r s h e s h o u l d make Belle Isle to-morrow n i g h t a n d Liverpool b y noon on S a t u r d a y (1911:469).

MODALITY AND THE MODALS

359

Kruisinga s p e c u l a t e s t h a t t h e l a t t e r is a special development of t h e should which e x p r e s s e s moral obligation, a n d t h i s is further i l l u s t r a t e d in (31) Sir Percy Cox, t h e new High Commissioner Mesopotamia, should r e a c h B a g h d a d t h i s week, if movements a r e not impeded (1911:470).

for his

However, should's basic meanings of 'moral obligation' ' h i g h l y p r o b a b l e ' a r e c a p a b l e of e x t e n s i o n . The v e r b c a n , example, c o n v e y d e t e r m i n a t i o n or a promise:

and for

(32) You should do it if we could make you (1911:470). And in r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s or exclamations, should is often u s e d r e j e c t a s u g g e s t i o n or to e x p r e s s s u r p r i s e or d i s a p p r o v a l : (33)

Why should (1911:468).

you

stay

in London

in t h i s

hot

to

weather

The v a l u e of K r u i s i n g a ' s work is in t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e modals a s a unified s e t of v e r b s a n d in his e f f o r t s to specify t h e m e a n i n g s of t h e members of t h e s e t . He h a s also p r o v i d e d detailed examples of t h e w a y s in which t h e m e a n i n g s of each modal c a n modify a main v e r b . However, many of t h e m e a n i n g s he a s c r i b e s to a n i n d i v i d u a l modal a r e in fact d e r i v e d e i t h e r from t h e v e r b ' s s e n t e n t i a l e n v i r o n m e n t or from some wider c o n t e x t s u c h a s a n imagined d i s c o u r s e s c e n a r i o or c o n t e x t of u t t e r a n c e . The kind of d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s employed b y K r u i s i n g a i n e v i t a b l y c h a r a c t e r i s e s t h e modals a s polysemous, a conclusion which might be avoided b y some notion of c o n t e x t . Finally, it is r e g r e t t a b l e t h a t K r u i s i n g a did not c o n t i n u e t h e fruitful comparison of modal v e r b s which he b e g a n with may a n d can. S u c h a comparison would h a v e b e e n of i n t e r e s t in, for example, t h e c a s e of may a n d might a n d was i n v i t e d b y his d a t a on must a n d should. He might h a v e b e e n led to t h e scale of s t r o n g ' a n d 'weak' modals found in t h e work I c o n s i d e r next. I n A Grammar of the English Language (1935), G.O. Curme r e c o g n i s e s t h r e e moods, i n d i c a t i v e , s u b j u n c t i v e a n d i m p e r a t i v e . T h e s e moods a r e " t h e c h a n g e s in t h e form of t h e v e r b to show t h e v a r i o u s ways in which t h e action or s t a t e is t h o u g h t of b y t h e s p e a k e r " (1935:223). U n d e r t h e h e a d i n g " s u b j u n c t i v e " he d i s c u s s e s two forms:

360

ALAN WALTON

t h e old simple s u b j u n c t i v e with i t s inflected v e r b forms, a n d a n e w e r form c o n s i s t i n g of a modal auxiliary a n d a d e p e n d e n t infinitive of t h e v e r b to be used» The f u n c t i o n of a s u b j u n c t i v e form is "to r e p r e s e n t s o m e t h i n g , not as an a c t u a l r e a l i t y , b u t a s formed in t h e mind of t h e s p e a k e r a s a d e s i r e , wish, volition, plan, c o n c e p t i o n , t h o u g h t ..." (1935:224). And w h e r e a s the present subjunctive a s s o c i a t e s h o p e f u l n e s s a n d likelihood with t h e s p e a k e r ' s t h o u g h t , t h e p a s t and p a s t p e r f e c t s u b j u n c t i v e i n d i c a t e d o u b t , unlikelihood, u n r e a l i t y , modesty a n d p o l i t e n e s s . Curme n o t e s t h a t t h e old simple form does not o c c u r a s often a s t h e newer form with a modal auxiliary, t h i s n e w e r form " b y v i r t u e of i t s finer s h a d e s of meaning h a v i n g gained t h e a s c e n d a n c y in both l i t e r a r y a n d colloquial l a n g u a g e " (1935:227). For t h e most p a r t t h e n , C u r m e ' s d i s c u s s i o n of t h e " s u b j u n c t i v e " c o n c e r n s t h e modals. The v a r i o u s m e a n i n g s e x p r e s s e d b y t h e s u b j u n c t i v e a r e classified u n d e r two h e a d s , t h e o p t a t i v e a n d t h e p o t e n t i a l , a n d t h e m e a n i n g s a t t a c h e d to e a c h c a t e g o r y a r e i l l u s t r a t e d b y Curme with u s e s of t h e modals. I will follow t h e same line of t h o u g h t h e r e , c o n c e n t r a t i n g , a s does Curme, on t h e modals' role in t h e e x p r e s s i o n of s p e a k e r s ' t h o u g h t s a n d a t t i t u d e s r a t h e r t h a n on a detailed d e s c r i p t i o n of each v e r b . Consider f i r s t some examples of modal e x p r e s s i o n s within C u r m e ' s o p t a t i v e c a t e g o r y , r e p r e s e n t i n g something a s " d e s i r e d , d e m a n d e d , or r e q u i r e d (by a p e r s o n or c i r c u m s t a n c e s ) " (1935:224). For a s t r o n g e x p r e s s i o n of will we u s e must: (34) We must

go (1935:224).

To i n d i c a t e t h e will of t h e s p e a k e r , will is u s e d in t h e f i r s t p e r s o n a n d in q u e s t i o n s , b u t in d e c l a r a t i v e s t a t e m e n t s shall is employed in t h e s e c o n d a n d t h i r d p e r s o n s . Compare t h e following: (35a) I will do all I c a n . (35b) You shall h a v e some c a k e . (35c) You shall s m a r t for it (1935:225). Note t h a t (35b) is i n t e r p r e t e d a s a promise a n d (35c) a s a Moral c o n s t r a i n t is e x p r e s s e d in (36)

We o u g h t (1935:225).

to

(or

should)

do

something

to

threat.

help

him

MODALITY AND THE MODALS

361

And in p e r m i s s i o n s , may is t h e u s u a l auxiliary, t h o u g h s p e e c h can is widely u s e d in n e g a t i v e form:

in colloquial

(37a) You may play u n t i l noon. (37b) Children, you c a n n o t (or must not) play in t h e (1935:225). Finally, t h e p a s t s u b j u n c t i v e desire:

street

is much u s e d in modest e x p r e s s i o n s of

(38a) I would r a t h e r s t a y t h a n go. (38b) You might call at t h e b a k e r ' s (1935:225).

and

get

some

bread

In c o n t r a s t , t h e p o t e n t i a l s u b j u n c t i v e " m a r k s something a s a mere conception of t h e mind, b u t a t t h e same time r e p r e s e n t s it a s something t h a t may p r o b a b l y or p o s s i b l y be or become a r e a l i t y or on t h e o t h e r h a n d as something t h a t is c o n t r a r y to fact" (1935:224). In C u r m e ' s examples we find a r a n g e of modals which r u n parallel to t h o s e of t h e o p t a t i v e s u b j u n c t i v e : (39a) I t may r a i n t o d a y . (39b) We can ( s t r o n g e r t h a n may) e x p e c t opposition vested interests. (39c) I should t h i n k it u n f a i r . (39d) You m u s t (or should) be a w a r e of t h i s (1935:226).

from

Curme n o t e s t h a t can in (39b) is s t r o n g e r t h a n may in (39a), (39c) is a modest s t a t e m e n t , a n d (39d) is a n i n f e r r e d or p r e s u m e d c e r t a i n t y . R a t h e r elliptically, he s u g g e s t s a parallel weak (possibility) to s t r o n g ( c e r t a i n t y ) d i s t i n c t i o n d r a w n b y t h e p a s t forms would, might and should a n d t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p r e s e n t forms will, may a n d shall. T h e s e forms all r e p r e s e n t p r e s e n t or f u t u r e time, b u t t h e two g r o u p s differ m a r k e d l y in t h e m a n n e r in which t h e y r e p r e s e n t t h e s p e a k e r ' s t h o u g h t : t h e p a s t t e n s e i n d i c a t e s a g r e a t e r improbability or e v e n u n r e a l i t y , a n d h a s t h e r e f o r e a ' w e a k e n i n g ' effect on t h e p r o p o s i t i o n e x p r e s s e d . Curme exemplifies t h i s b y c o n t r a s t i n g t h e following sentences: (40a) I am h o p i n g t h a t he may come t h i s e v e n i n g . (40b) I t h i n k h e might come t h i s e v e n i n g b u t e x p e c t i n g him (1935:228).

I

am

not

362

ALAN WALTON

In his d i s c u s s i o n of t h e modals, Curme makes much of t h e function of t h e p r e s e n t a n d p a s t forms of t h e v e r b s in t h e e x p r e s s i o n of what I h a v e g e n e r a l l y termed s p e a k e r ' s a t t i t u d e , t h a t is t h e s p e a k e r ' s beliefs a n d d e s i r e s . Curme is c o n c e r n e d , more so t h a n p r e v i o u s g r a m m a r i a n s , with t h e modals a s v e r b s which "do not s t a t e f a c t s , b u t merely p r e s e n t c o n c e p t i o n s , r e p r e s e n t i n g something a s possible, n e c e s s a r y , d e s i r a b l e , b e f i t t i n g " (1935:256), a n d with t h e fact t h a t t h e i r p r e s e n t forms e x p r e s s g r e a t e r p r o b a b i l i t y t h a n t h e i r p a s t forms. He is less i n t e r e s t e d in, for example, t h e i r ability, or inability, to mark temporal phenomena, or in a bald s t a t e m e n t of t h e meaning of a modal, t h a n in t h e effect of t h e s e v e r b s a s v e h i c l e s for t h e s p e a k e r ' s t h o u g h t s . As I h a v e a l r e a d y i n d i c a t e d , t h e notion t h a t t h e ability to e x p r e s s a scale of s t r o n g to weak c o n c e p t s in t h e modals exists only implicitly in Curme's work. However, t h i s notion, t o g e t h e r with t h e i m p o r t a n c e of t h e modals in e x p r e s s i n g t h e a t t i t u d e of t h e s p e a k e r , u n d e r l i e s his d e s c r i p t i o n a n d a n a l y s i s of t h e modal s e t . At t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h i s c h a p t e r , I s u g g e s t e d t h a t two c e n t r a l themes h a v e r e c u r r e d in t r e a t m e n t s of t h e modals: f i r s t , t h e meanings of t h e modals h a v e been e x t e n s i v e l y listed; and s e c o n d , t h e role of t h e s e v e r b s in t h e e x p r e s s i o n of s p e a k e r s ' j u d g m e n t s and beliefs has b e e n e x p l o r e d . T h e s e t o p i c s , a s well a s t h e additional problem of terminology a n d c a t e g o r i s a t i o n i n t r o d u c e d by t h e term mood, a r e exemplified in S w e e t ' s grammar; a n d w h e r e a s K r u i s i n g a aimed a t explaining t h e u s e of t h e modals a s modifiers, via t h e i r m e a n i n g s , of main v e r b s , Curme e m p h a s i s e d t h e role of t h e v e r b s a s v e h i c l e s for t h e e x p r e s s i o n of t h e s p e a k e r ' s t h o u g h t . Both topics c o n t i n u e to i n t e r e s t g r a m m a r i a n s a n d , as I noted e a r l i e r , a r e often dealt with u n d e r t h e h e a d i n g of modality. The d i s c u s s i o n of t h e meanings of t h e modals by Quirk et al. (1985:219) b e g i n s a s follows: "Like o t h e r t e r m s u s e d in a n a l y s i n g meaning in t h e complex v e r b p h r a s e ..... MODALITY h a s been u s e d in v a r i o u s s e n s e s . At i t s most g e n e r a l , modality may be defined a s t h e m a n n e r in which t h e meaning of a c l a u s e is qualified so a s to reflect t h e s p e a k e r ' s j u d g m e n t of t h e likelihood of t h e p r o p o s i t i o n it e x p r e s s e s b e i n g t r u e . t h i s semantic definition makes only a n imperfect match with t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y - n a m e d formal c a t e g o r y , t h a t of modal auxiliary

MODALITY AND THE MODALS

363

v e r b s . None t h e l e s s , it will s e r v e to i n d i c a t e in g e n e r a l t e r m s t h e function which t h e s e v e r b s perform in t h e l a n g u a g e . " What is t h i s function? Quirk et ah note t h a t two t y p e s of meaning can be d i s t i n g u i s h e d in t h e modals: t h e f i r s t , w h e r e i n t r i n s i c human c o n t r o l o v e r e v e n t s is involved, is e x p r e s s e d in notions s u c h a s permission, obligation a n d volition; t h e s e c o n d , involving j u d g m e n t of what is or is not likely to h a p p e n , is e x p r e s s e d in t h e c o n c e p t s of possibility, n e c e s s i t y a n d p r e d i c t i o n . T h e s e two k i n d s of meaning a r e t e r m e d i n t r i n s i c and e x t r i n s i c modality r e s p e c t i v e l y . To u s e different terminology, i n t r i n s i c modality c o r r e s p o n d s to what is often called d e o n t i c modality, while t h e r o o t / e p i s t e m i c d i s t i n c t i o n is, for Quirk a n d his c o - a u t h o r s , a s u b ­ c a t e g o r y of e x t r i n s i c modality. T h e y go on to claim t h a t each modal h a s i n t r i n s i c a n d e x t r i n s i c " u s e s " : for example, may h a s t h e "meaning" of p e r m i s s i o n ( i n t r i n s i c ) a n d t h e meaning of possibility ( e x t r i n s i c ) . But t h e y also claim t h a t t h e r e a r e a r e a s of o v e r l a p a n d n e u t r a l i t y b e t w e e n t h e i n t r i n s i c a n d e x t r i n s i c " s e n s e s " of a modal: for example, in a s e n t e n c e s u c h a s I'll see you tomorrow t h e n " , will can be said to combine t h e meanings of volition and p r e d i c t i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e modals a r e often associated with particular " p r a g m a t i c u s e s " in s u c h a c t s a s r e q u e s t i n g a n d offering. Even without examining t h e details of Quirk et al.'s t r e a t m e n t of t h e modals, it is a p p a r e n t t h a t c o n s i d e r a b l e terminological i n d e t e r m i n a c y faces t h e u s e r of t h i s r e f e r e n c e grammar with r e g a r d to t h e words "meaning", " u s e " a n d " s e n s e " . Ambiguity in t h e modals is a s s u m e d , b u t in a r e s t r i c t e d form, limited by t h e c o n s t r a i n i n g f a c t o r s of i n t r i n s i c a n d e x t r i n s i c modality. T h e r e is no clear s t a t e m e n t of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n s p e a k e r s ' a t t i t u d e s a n d t h e modals: a t the o u t s e t , modal v e r b s a r e claimed to be one means by which t h e s p e a k e r ' s j u d g m e n t is realised; b u t compare, for example, the t e r m s e x t r i n s i c p o s s i b i l i t y and e x t r i n s i c p r e d i c t i o n , which e x p r e s s two v e r y d i f f e r e n t notions. Furthermore, t h e modals' realisation of a scale of s t r o n g to weak c o n t r a s t s , r a n g i n g from t h e n e c e s s i t y e x p r e s s e d b y must to t h e p o s s i b i l i t y e x p r e s s e d by may is only r e f e r r e d to w h e n must a n d should a r e d i s t i n g u i s h e d , a l t h o u g h use is made of j u s t s u c h a scale b y two of t h e a u t h o r s , Leech a n d Svartvik, in their Communicative Grammar of English (1975).

364

ALAN WALTON

With t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of y e t a n o t h e r view of what c o n s t i t u t e s modality, it is clear t h a t a f u r t h e r complication h a s b e e n a d d e d to an a l r e a d y r i c h collection of o b s e r v a t i o n s a n d exemplificatory d a t a . A s y n t h e s i s of t h e views e x p r e s s e d on t h e topic of modality, modal meanings a n d s p e a k e r s ' a t t i t u d e s is n e e d e d . Recall t h a t , for Kruisinga, t h e m e a n i n g s a t t r i b u t a b l e to modal can i n c l u d e d ability, c a p a c i t y , power a n d p o s s i b i l i t y d u e to c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a s well a s , in c e r t a i n c o n t e x t s , t h e e x p r e s s i o n of a s t o n i s h m e n t , impatience a n d e v e n p e r s o n a l q u a l i t i e s . Modal must, on t h e o t h e r h a n d , c a n e x p r e s s n e c e s s i t y , t h e will of a p e r s o n , t h e c e r t a i n t y of a fact, a n u r g e n t command, a n i n s i s t e n t r e q u e s t , firm d e t e r m i n a t i o n a n d a foolish or a n n o y i n g action. Now w h e t h e r one t e r m s t h e s e t h e m e a n i n g s of c a n a n d must or t h e v e r b s ' u s e s , it is s u r e l y clear t h a t t h e s e meaning a s s o c i a t i o n s a r e for t h e most p a r t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of t h e s e n t e n c e s in which t h e s e v e r b s occasionally t u r n u p , or of some imagined c o n t e x t s of u t t e r a n c e s of t h e s e s e n t e n c e s . We find a similar s i t u a t i o n in t h e c a s e of s p e a k e r s ' a t t i t u d e s . With Curme's e m p h a s i s on t h e modals a s a means of e x p r e s s i o n of t h e s p e a k e r ' s t h o u g h t s , we a r e faced with a motley collection of n o t i o n s , a t t i t u d e s a n d s p e e c h a c t s . The t h o u g h t s of a s p e a k e r r e a l i s a b l e via modals i n c l u d e , for Curme, d e s i r e s , w i s h e s a n d p l a n s ; a s p e a k e r ' s a t t i t u d e can be to r e g a r d something a s n e c e s s a r y or c e r t a i n , p r o b a b l e , p o s s i b l e , i m p r o b a b l e or u n r e a l ; a n d modals c a n be u s e d to i s s u e p e r m i s s i o n , d e m a n d s , r e q u e s t s , p r o m i s e s a n d t h r e a t s . The e x p r e s s i o n of h o p e f u l n e s s , d o u b t , u n r e a l i t y , modesty a n d p o l i t e n e s s is p o s s i b l e u s i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e modals. But h e r e too it is h i g h l y unlikely t h a t t h e modals a r e in t h e m s e l v e s t h e sole s o u r c e of t h i s a s s e m b l a g e of c o n c e p t s a n d a c t s , most of which a r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s made in p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e x t s of s e n t e n c e s c o n t a i n i n g modals. T h e y may well be t h e s o u r c e of s t r o n g e r a n d w e a k e r v e r s i o n s of some of t h e notions e x p r e s s i b l e u s i n g modals, a s Curme seemed to r e a l i s e , b u t t h a t is a d i f f e r e n t m a t t e r , a n d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s involved in t h a t s e t of f a c t o r s which i n c l u d e s t h e m e a n i n g s of t h e modals, d e p e n d e n t i n f i n i t i v e s , t h e s p e a k e r ' s t h o u g h t s a n d ' s t r o n g ' o r ' w e a k ' c o n c e p t s is not spelled o u t c l e a r l y in his a n a l y s i s . So how a r e t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s to be specified? I believe a solution along t h e following lines might b e p o s s i b l e . What we h a v e so far t e r m e d t h e "meaning" of a modal v e r b may be divided i n t o , first,

MODALITY AND THE MODALS

365

t h a t meaning which t h e v e r b c o n t r i b u t e s to a n y s e n t e n c e of which it forms p a r t , a n d which I will call i t s l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e n t ; a n d s e c o n d , t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n g i v e n to t h e modal when t h e s e n t e n c e is u t t e r e d in a p a r t i c u l a r context» I will a s s u m e t h a t t h e r e a r e two basic s p e a k e r s ' a t t i t u d e s , a n a t t i t u d e of belief a n d an a t t i t u d e of d e s i r e , r o u g h l y similar to Quirk et al.'s e x t r i n s i c (judgment) a n d i n t r i n s i c (control) d i s t i n c t i o n . T h e s e b r o a d c a t e g o r i e s a r e a d e q u a t e for my p u r p o s e s h e r e , t h o u g h it must be r e c o g n i s e d t h a t t h e y hide more s u b t l e d i s t i n c t i o n s : belief might r a n g e , for example, from c o n v i c t i o n to d o u b t , a n d d e s i r e might i n c l u d e firmly i n t e n d i n g t h a t some a c t o c c u r or merely v a g u e l y h o p i n g t h a t it might. I s u g g e s t t h a t modal v e r b s do not in t h e m s e l v e s c o n v e y or e v e n i n d i c a t e t h e s e s p e a k e r s ' a t t i t u d e s : t h e l a t t e r a r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s in c o n t e x t of u t t e r a n c e s . But t h e l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e n t of a modal v e r b c a n i n d i c a t e t h e s t r e n g t h of t h e s p e a k e r ' s a t t i t u d e to t h e p r o p o s i t i o n c o n v e y e d b y t h e u t t e r a n c e : t h a t is to s a y , modals c a n be u s e d to i n d i c a t e s t r e n g t h of belief or d e g r e e of d e s i r e . Two examples will h e l p to clarify with t h a t of Kruisinga ( r e p e a t e d h e r e )

this suggestion,

beginning

(14a) Can we h a v e d i n n e r on t h e t r a i n ? (1911:442). But before examining t h e example, we need to t r y to identify t h a t grammatical s e n s e of can (its l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e n t ) which u n d e r l i e s all t h e modal's u s e s in c o n t e x t . We might s y n t h e s i s e t h e i n s i g h t s of Sweet a n d K r u i s i n g a , t h a t can is r e l a t e d to some l a t e n t s t r e n g t h , c a p a c i t y , k n o w l e d g e , f i t n e s s or p o w e r known to exist, a n d s u g g e s t a l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e n t of ' p o t e n t i a l ' for t h e v e r b . Any o t h e r " m e a n i n g s " a t t a c h e d to c a n , s u c h a s p e r m i s s i o n , p o s s i b i l i t y , ability or c a p a b i l i t y , a r i s e from t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of t h i s l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e n t u s i n g c o n t e x t u a l f a c t o r s ; a n d we c a n now explain some of t h o s e " m e a n i n g s " by s p e c i f y i n g some p o s s i b l e c o n t e x t s of u t t e r a n c e for t h e v e r b . Imagine (14a) w e r e u t t e r e d in t h e following c o n t e x t s : (41a) p a s s e n g e r s to d i n i n g - c a r a t t e n d a n t (41b) j u n i o r c l e r k s a b o u t to be s e n t on a b u s i n e s s senior executive.

trip

to

I s u g g e s t t h a t t h e l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e n t of t h e modal could, in c o n t e x t (41a) b e developed to a p o s s i b i l i t y r e a d i n g ; a n d t h a t in (41b) to

366

ALAN WALTON

a p e r m i s s i o n r e a d i n g . In each c a s e , t h e a t t i t u d e e x p r e s s e d is one of d e s i r e : t h e p r o p o s i t i o n e x p r e s s e d by t h e u t t e r a n c e in t h e s e c o n t e x t s is one which is d e s i r a b l e to t h e s p e a k e r . And modulated b y can's ' w e a k ' l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e n t , t h i s a t t i t u d e of d e s i r a b l e - t o - t h e - s p e a k e r would be i n t e r p r e t e d a s a r e q u e s t (for information). Notice t h a t c o n t e x t u a l f a c t o r s would also be n e e d e d to i n t e r p r e t t h e temporal r e f e r e n c e involved in t h e u t t e r a n c e in t h e s e d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t s : t h e r e is no grammatical specification of temporal r e f e r e n c e , a n d so grammatical l a b e l s for t h e modal s u c h a s ' a c t u a l ' o r ' n e u t r a l ' a r e inappropriate. Consider a n o t h e r example. Curme g a v e modal must in (39d) You must (or should) be a w a r e of t h i s (1935:226) t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of "an i n f e r r e d o r p r e s u m e d c e r t a i n t y " . Now it is not uncommon to link must with t h e c o n c e p t of ' n e c e s s i t y ' in some form, so I will a s s u m e for my p u r p o s e s h e r e t h a t this c o n c e p t e x p r e s s e s must's l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e n t . We could specify t h e following c o n t e x t s for t h e u t t e r a n c e of (39d): (42a) t h e h e a r e r h a s a c t e d p o s s e s s i o n of p a r t i c u l a r (42b) t h e s p e a k e r w a n t s t h e p a r t i c u l a r knowledge of

in a way which i n d i c a t e s t h e k n o w l e d g e of something; h e a r e r to be in p o s s e s s i o n of something.

In (42a) we find Curme's "belief" c o n t e x t , in which t h e ' n e c e s s i t y ' e x p r e s s e d b y t h e modal is i n t e r p r e t e d a s a form of c e r t a i n t y , a n e c e s s a r y conclusion g i v e n specific e v i d e n c e . In (42b), h o w e v e r , t h e s p e a k e r ' s a t t i t u d e is one of d e s i r e t h a t t h e h e a r e r should be a w a r e of s o m e t h i n g , a n d h e r e must's l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e n t of ' n e c e s s i t y ' is e n r i c h e d in t h e c o n t e x t to e x p r e s s a n obligation which t h e s p e a k e r is imposing on t h e h e a r e r . A l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e n t of ' n e c e s s i t y ' h a s , of c o u r s e , a s t r e n g t h e n i n g effect in both t h e belief a n d t h e d e s i r e context. Finally, I will c o n s i d e r v e r y briefly C u r m e ' s u s e of should a s a n a l t e r n a t i v e to must in (39d). Curme noted t h a t p a s t t e n s e modal forms i n d i c a t e g r e a t e r improbability or e v e n u n r e a l i t y t h a n p r e s e n t t e n s e forms, a n d h a v e , t h e r e f o r e , a w e a k e n i n g effect on t h e p r o p o s i t i o n e x p r e s s e d . This seems to be t h e c a s e not only with t h e d i r e c t opposition of will/would a n d may/might, b u t also h e r e when

MODALITY AND THE MODALS

367

must a n d should a r e c o m p a r e d . R a t h e r t h a n e x p r e s s i n g a n e c e s s i t y , should seems, in a belief c o n t e x t parallel to t h a t of (42a) to p r o d u c e t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n " e x p e c t e d to be t h e c a s e " or "a likely or p r o b a b l e conclusion, g i v e n t h e e v i d e n c e " ; a n d in a d e s i r e c o n t e x t s u c h a s (42b), t h e s p e a k e r will be t a k e n to be a d v i s i n g t h e h e a r e r or making a recommendation: "I e x p e c t of you t h a t you be a w a r e of t h i s " . P e r h a p s a l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e n t of ' e x p e c t a t i o n ' would c a p t u r e t h e s e n s e of should. And a n e x p r e s s i o n of belief or d e s i r e is likely, g i v e n t h i s s e n s e of ' e x p e c t a t i o n ' to r e c e i v e a w e a k e r g u a r a n t e e of f a c t u a l i t y or d e s i r a b i l i t y t h a n one modulated b y must's s e n s e of ' n e c e s s i t y ' , b u t a s t r o n g e r g u a r a n t e e t h a n would be p r o d u c e d by, s a y , a modal s u c h a s may, which is t r a d i t i o n a l l y linked with t h e c o n c e p t of ' p o s s i b i l i t y ' : (43) You may be a w a r e of t h i s ( b u t I d o n ' t know). The scale of s t r o n g to weak meaning in t h e modal s e t can now be a c c o u n t e d for, with must a t t h e ' s t r o n g ' e n d , may a t t h e 'weak e n d ' , a modal s u c h a s should on t h e cline b e t w e e n t h e two, a n d t h e o t h e r modals to be allocated p o s i t i o n s a c c o r d i n g to t h e modulating effects t h e y p r o d u c e on s p e a k e r s ' a t t i t u d e s . I h a v e g i v e n only a n o u t l i n e of how I believe t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n modal m e a n i n g s a n d s p e a k e r s ' a t t i t u d e s might be specified, and, b y definition a n o u t l i n e is incomplete a n d simplified. I do not wish to claim t h a t r e f e r e n c e g r a m m a r s s h o u l d follow t h e line of my a n a l y s i s , n o r e v e n t h a t a n y s u c h p r o p o s a l will d i r e c t l y affect t h e m a n n e r in which r e f e r e n c e g r a m m a r s a r e w r i t t e n . But I do believe t h a t , a s g r a m m a r i a n s r e c o g n i s e d long a g o , t h e r e is a need to t r y to specify t h e m e a n i n g s of modal v e r b s in o r d e r to d e s c r i b e t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n to t h e m e a n i n g s of t h e s e n t e n c e s in which t h e y a p p e a r . This specification of modal m e a n i n g s must s e p a r a t e t h e grammatical c o n t e n t of a modal from t h a t c o n t e n t which d e r i v e s from f e a t u r e s of c o n t e x t . Without s u c h a s e p a r a t i o n , t h e m e a n i n g s t h a t a r e a s c r i b e d to modal v e r b s multiply a r b i t r a r i l y a s more a n d more c o n t e x t is a d d e d , a n d a n y r e f e r e n c e grammar aimed a t r e c o r d i n g t h e s e m e a n i n g s will come to r e s e m b l e a lexicon a n d still fail to c o v e r them all. F u r t h e r m o r e , while it h a s long b e e n r e c o g n i s e d t h a t a c o n n e c t i o n e x i s t s b e t w e e n s p e a k e r s ' a t t i t u d e s a n d t h e modals, t h e two m u s t not b e c o n s i d e r e d identical, a s t h i s only l e a d s to t h e same e n d l e s s a d d i t i o n of m e a n i n g s a n d u s e s to each modal - in t h e form

368

ALAN WALTON

of n o t i o n s , a t t i t u d e s a n d s p e e c h a c t s - d e s c r i b e d a b o v e . It also o b s c u r e s t h e modulating effect, in t e r m s of s t r e n g t h a n d w e a k n e s s , t h a t t h e r a n g e of modal v e r b s e x e r c i s e s on s p e a k e r s ' a t t i t u d e s a s interpreted. I n my view, t h e major problem facing w r i t e r s on t h e modals in f u t u r e r e f e r e n c e g r a m m a r s will be to d e v i s e a format which, f i r s t , a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t s t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n of t h e meaning of each modal to a s e n t e n c e ; s e c o n d , explicates t h e means by which each v e r b modulates t h e s p e a k e r ' s a t t i t u d e which is i n t e r p r e t e d from t h e u t t e r a n c e of t h a t s e n t e n c e in context; a n d t h i r d , r e c o r d s t h e e n r i c h i n g effect of c o n t e x t u a l f a c t o r s in t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of modal " m e a n i n g s " . T h e s e a r e not t h r e e s e p a r a t e q u e s t i o n s ; r a t h e r , t h e y c o n s t i t u t e t h e v a r i o u s a s p e c t s of t h e b r o a d topic of "modality": t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of u t t e r a n c e s c o n t a i n i n g modal v e r b s .

REFERENCES Curme, George O. 1935. A Grammar of the English Language. Volume I: Parts of Speech. Essex, Connecticut: Verbatim ( r e p u b l i c a t i o n ) . Kruisinga, Etsko. 1911. A Handbook of Present-Day English. Part II, English Accidence and Syntax 1. Groningen: Noord hoff. Leech, Geoffrey, a n d J a n S v a r t v i k . 1975. A Communicative Grammar of English. Longman: London. Quirk, Randolph, S i d n e y Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, a n d Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman: London. Sweet, Henry. 1892. A New English Grammar. Part I: Introduction, Phonology, Accidence. Oxford: C l a r e n d o n P r e s s . . 1898. A New English Grammar. Part II: Syntax. Oxford: Clarendon P r e s s .

T U E IN

RÔLE

O F

A M E R I C A N

T R A D I T I O N A L

E N G L I S H

G R A M M A R S

OE

E N G L I S H HEINRICH RAMISCH

Universitât

Bamberg

When Quirk et al, first published their Grammar of Contemporary English in 1972, they devoted a substantial part of their first chapter (pp. 13-32) to "Varieties of English and classes of varieties", thereby emphasizing the fact "that the English language is, in a sense, not a single language, but many languages, each of which belongs to a particular geographical area or to a particular kind of situation" (Leech/Svartvik 1975:21). As Quirk et ai. evidently cannot deal with all varieties of the English language, they are concerned with "the grammar of educated English current in the second half of the twentieth century in the world's major Englishspeaking communities" (Quirk et al, 1972:V). Here, it is important to point out that their grammar is not exclusively on British English but seeks to describe what the authors call the "common core" of educated English, as used by native speakers in the British Isles, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. There can be no doubt, however, that in many places Quirk et ah (1972) go beyond the concept of "common core" by discussing grammatical forms that are chiefly associated with specific varieties of English. In particular, they frequently point to differences in linguistic usage between the two main national varieties of English, i.e. British English (BrE) and American English (AmE). Both varieties enjoy the same status, and comments on AmE form an integral part of the grammar. The aim of the present article is to study the rôle that AmE has played in traditional grammars of English published over the

370

HEINRICH RAMISCH

last 100 y e a r s . For t h i s p u r p o s e I h a v e selected nine g r a m m a r s , which a r e d i s c u s s e d h e r e in t h e i r chronological o r d e r 1 . In e a c h c a s e my b a s i c a p p r o a c h will be twofold. F i r s t l y , I will be c o n c e r n e d with the grammarians' general attitude in dealing with differences b e t w e e n BrE a n d AmE, a n d which v a r i e t y t h e y r e g a r d a s t h e norm t h a t t h e y mainly i n t e n d to d e s c r i b e (information on t h e s e p o i n t s is often i n c l u d e d in t h e p r e f a c e s ) . Secondly, I w a n t to examine in what way a n d to what e x t e n t t h e g r a m m a r s a c t u a l l y i n c l u d e comments on AmE. The f i r s t grammar to be a n a l y s e d is Henry S w e e t ' s A New English Grammar. Logical and Historical, of which Part I ( I n t r o d u c t i o n , Phonology, a n d Accidence) was p u b l i s h e d in 1891. P a r t II (Syntax) a p p e a r e d in 1898. In a s h o r t c h a p t e r e n t i t l e d " P r e s e n t E n g l i s h " (Sweet 1891-1898, P a r t 1:223-225), Sweet is c o n c e r n e d with l i n g u i s t i c v a r i a t i o n . He s t a t e s t h a t in England t h e local dialects h a v e b e g u n to die o u t in t h e second half of t h e 19th c e n t u r y , while colonization h a s b r o u g h t a b o u t t h e e m e r g e n c e of new d i a l e c t s , for i n s t a n c e in I r e l a n d , Australia, New Zealand, a n d North America: T h r o u g h t h e colonization of British North America in t h e 16th a n d 17th c e n t u r i e s , t h e American English of t h e United S t a t e s and Canada is a n o t h e r independent modification of S t a n d a r d English . E d u c a t e d American English is now almost e n t i r e l y i n d e p e n d e n t of British influence, a n d differs from it c o n s i d e r a b l y , t h o u g h a s y e t not e n o u g h to make t h e two d i a l e c t s - American English a n d British English - mutually unintelligible. (Sweet 18911898, P a r t I:224) Although Sweet r e c o g n i z e s AmE a s a v a r i e t y in i t s own r i g h t , he holds t h e view t h a t most of t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n BrE a n d AmE a r e r e s t r i c t e d to t h e s p o k e n l a n g u a g e a n d t h a t t h e l a n g u a g e in i t s w r i t t e n form remains largely uniform, "Literary English still maintains i t s u n i t y e v e r y w h e r e , a few 'Americanisms' e x c e p t e d " (Sweet 1891-1898, P a r t I:224). And t h e n he q u i c k l y g o e s on to define t h e scope of his grammar by s a y i n g t h a t it " d e a l s mainly with e d u c a t e d British English, t h e s t a n d a r d for which is t h e e d u c a t e d s p e e c h of London a n d t h e South of England g e n e r a l l y " (Sweet 18911898, P a r t I:225). A closer look a t S w e e t ' s grammar r e v e a l s t h a t comments on AmE o c c u r v e r y r a r e l y i n d e e d . I could d e t e c t only five i n s t a n c e s

THE RÔLE OF AMERICAN ENGLISH

371

w h e r e he d i s c u s s e s f e a t u r e s of AmE. In t h e c h a p t e r on phonology, he p o i n t s o u t t h a t is d r o p p e d in New England in w o r d s s u c h a s n e w o r duty (Sweet 1891-1898, P a r t I:278) a n d t h a t in c o n t r a s t to England initial h a s always b e e n p r e s e r v e d in AmE (Sweet 18911898, P a r t I:280). Sweet does not comment on o t h e r well-known phonological f e a t u r e s of AmE s u c h a s postvocalic , for instance» Somewhat s u r p r i s i n g l y , he mentions t h e p r o n u n c i a t i o n of postvocalic in S c o t t i s h English, I r i s h English a n d many d i a l e c t s in England (cf. Sweet 1891-1898, P a r t I:238), b u t does not r e f e r to AmE in t h i s context. T h e r e a r e two n o t e s on o r t h o g r a p h i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s : gaily (BrE) is s p e l t gayly in AmE a n d w o r d s e n d i n g in -our in BrE h a v e -or in AmE, e.g. honor, color, e t c . (cf. Sweet 1891-1898, P a r t I:430, 487). Finally, t h e r e is one note on grammar to t h e effect t h a t BrE p r e f e r s t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n he has not got to work i n s t e a d of he does not have to work, which is t y p i c a l of AmE (Sweet 1891-1898, P a r t 11:91-92). Poutsma defines t h e s u b j e c t - m a t t e r of his Grammar of Late Modern English a s follows: Although t h e work p r o f e s s e s to be c o n c e r n e d with t h e English of t h e l a s t two h u n d r e d y e a r s , it is especially t h e l i t e r a t u r e of t h i s a n d t h e p r e v i o u s g e n e r a t i o n t h a t h a s b e e n s u b j e c t e d to closer i n v e s t i g a t i o n . (Poutsma 1904ff., P a r t I:III) A p a r t from t h i s , t h e r e is no explicit s t a t e m e n t in t h e grammar a b o u t t h e specific v a r i e t y t h a t he i n t e n d s to d e s c r i b e 2 . We only g e t i n d i r e c t h i n t s . In one of t h e l a t e r p r e f a c e s Poutsma s t a t e s : Not a few of t h e q u o t a t i o n s (in t h e grammar) h a v e b e e n t a k e n from n e w s p a p e r s , chiefly t h e weekly e d i t i o n s of t h e Times, The Westminster Gazette a n d t h e Manchester G u a r d i a n , which seem to me to c o n t a i n many specimen of what may be r e g a r d e d a s S t a n d a r d English of t h e p r e s e n t d a y . (Poutsma 1904ff., P a r t II, section II:IV) Another indication t h a t Poutsma is p r i m a r i l y c o n c e r n e d with S t a n d a r d BrE is g i v e n b y t h e b i b l i o g r a p h y in t h e same volume. A l t h o u g h t h e list of a u t h o r s from whom q u o t a t i o n s a r e t a k e n also i n c l u d e s Americans (e.g. Emerson, Longfellow, Poe), b y far t h e l a r g e s t majority a r e British w r i t e r s .

372

HEINRICH RAMISCH

Despite i t s l e n g t h - P o u t s m a ' s grammar r u n s to more t h a n 3,000 p a g e s - a n d t h e n u m e r o u s q u o t a t i o n s it c o n t a i n s , AmE does not f i g u r e in it to a n y s i g n i f i c a n t e x t e n t : a l t o g e t h e r , 23 comments r e l a t e to AmE3. T h e s e r e f e r to lexical d i f f e r e n c e s , e.g. t h e u s e of older i n s t e a d of elder or checkers in t h e s e n s e of ' d r a u g h t s * (cf. Poutsma 1904ff., P a r t II, section I, A:194, 454) as well a s grammatical f e a t u r e s , e.g. d o - p e r i p h r a s i s with t h e v e r b to have (Poutsma 1904ff., P a r t I:88) or t h e u s e of gotten a s t h e p a s t p a r t i c i p l e of get (Poutsma 1904ff., P a r t II, section II:586). One comment is on p r o n u n c i a t i o n , namely t h a t Americans a r e more likely to d i s t i n c t l y a s p i r a t e in u n s t r e s s e d s y l l a b l e s a s in a hotel or a h i s t o r i a n , t h u s p r e f e r r i n g t h e indefinite a r t i c l e a to an in t h i s c o n t e x t (Poutsma 1904ff., P a r t II, section I, A:515). Like Sweet, he mentions t h e spelling d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n gaily (BrE) v s gayly in AmE (Poutsma 1904ff., P a r t II, section II:623). In a d d i t i o n , it is i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t Poutsma d r a w s a t t e n t i o n to a n u m b e r of f e a t u r e s as b e i n g r e g a r d e d a s t y p i c a l l y American, a l t h o u g h on closer i n s p e c t i o n t h e y may o c c u r in v a r i o u s v a r i e t i e s of BrE a s well. One of t h e f e a t u r e s in q u e s t i o n is t h e u s e of t h e v e r b to expect in t h e s e n s e of 'to s u p p o s e , to s u s p e c t , to s u r m i s e ' , which is also common in many n o n s t a n d a r d v a r i e t i e s of BrE (Poutsma 1904ff., P a r t II, section I, B:747). In a n o t h e r place he is c r i t i c a l of J e s p e r s e n , who had r e g a r d e d I cannot help but + infinitive a s a n Americanism, in s p i t e of t h e fact t h a t the c o n s t r u c t i o n o c c u r s in t h e w o r k s of many B r i t i s h w r i t e r s , also (Poutsma 1904ff., P a r t II, section II:433). Similarly, t h e p h r a s e aside from in t h e s e n s e of ' a p a r t from' is g i v e n b y t h e OED to be u s u a l only in AmE, b u t , Poutsma a d d s , it is also "common e n o u g h in c e r t a i n n e w s p a p e r s p u b l i s h e d in E n g l a n d " (Poutsma 1904ff., P a r t II, section II:745). In c o n t r a s t to o t h e r g r a m m a r i a n s s u c h a s Sweet, J e s p e r s e n or Poutsma, K r u i s i n g a is t h e f i r s t to exclude h i s t o r i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s from his grammar. As e a r l y a s 1914 he w r o t e in t h e p r e f a c e to t h e s e c o n d edition of his Handbook of Present-Day English: When h i s t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s h a v e b e e n r i g o r o u s l y excluded, it is, t h e r e f o r e , not from want of s y m p a t h y with t h e s e s t u d i e s , b u t from a belief t h a t t h e c a u s e of h i s t o r i c a l a s well a s p r a c t i c a l s t u d y is b e s t s e r v e d b y s u p p l y i n g a f o u n d a t i o n of r e a l knowledge of t h e b e s t known p e r i o d ,

THE RÔLE OF AMERICAN ENGLISH

373

i.e. of t h e living l a n g u a g e of t h e p r e s e n t d a y . (Kruisinga 1925, P a r t I:V-VI) I n t h e same p r e f a c e he explains what kind of living l a n g u a g e he w a n t s to d e s c r i b e in his grammar: The book deals s t r i c t l y with s t a n d a r d English a s it is s p o k e n in t h e S o u t h of E n g l a n d , a n d b y e d u c a t e d p e r s o n s all o v e r t h e B r i t i s h world. T h e r e a r e no d o u b t v a r i a t i o n s from t h i s s t a n d a r d t h a t must be c o n s i d e r e d good English; it is i n t e n d e d to d i s c u s s t h e s e in a volume t h a t will deal with t h e local a n d social v a r i e t i e s of p r e s e n t - d a y English. (Kruisinga 1925, P a r t I:V) Evidently, Kruisinga is v e r y much a w a r e of linguistic v a r i a t i o n , b u t in a c c o r d a n c e with t h e p r e f a c e , his grammar is solely c o n c e r n e d with BrE. T h e r e is only one s h o r t comment on AmE in a footnote s a y i n g t h a t , "in some d i a l e c t s , especially in American English, vowels a r e often more or less n a s a l " (Kruisinga 1925, P a r t I:27). This r e s u l t c a n be s e e n a s r a t h e r s u r p r i s i n g in view of t h e fact t h a t K r u i s i n g a p u t s a lot of e m p h a s i s on phonology. P a r t I of his grammar exclusively deals with English s o u n d s ; h e r e , he could easily h a v e mentioned some of t h e more p r o m i n e n t phonological f e a t u r e s of AmE. Of t h e g r a m m a r s t r e a t e d in t h i s a r t i c l e , A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles b y J e s p e r s e n (1909-1949) is t h e f i r s t in which AmE h a s a more s u b s t a n t i a l rôle to play. Yet J e s p e r s e n does not d i s c u s s d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n BrE a n d AmE or v a r i e t i e s of E n g l i s h in g e n e r a l in a n y of t h e p r e f a c e s . Only in t h e p r e f a c e to P a r t I, which deals with s o u n d s a n d s p e l l i n g s , does he tell t h e r e a d e r : I h a v e confined myself to t h e t r e a t m e n t of S t a n d a r d English s o u n d s , j u s t as in t h e following volumes I shall s a y v e r y little a b o u t dialect forms a n d dialect s y n t a x . The s t a n d a r d l a n g u a g e is t h e most i m p o r t a n t form of t h e English l a n g u a g e . ( J e s p e r s e n 1909-1949, P a r t I:VI) In one of t h e l a t e r p r e f a c e s J e s p e r s e n p o i n t s o u t t h a t his a p p r o a c h is d e s c r i p t i v e a n d informs b o t h British a n d American r e a d e r s t h a t it is not his aim "to tell them w h a t is c o r r e c t o r p u r e

374

HEINRICH RAMISCH

English" ( J e s p e r s e n 1909-1949, P a r t III:VI), t h u s r e v e a l i n g t h a t he had conceived his grammar for both s p e e c h communities. J e s p e r s e n ' s Modern English Grammar is a v e r y c o m p r e h e n s i v e grammar, c o n s i s t i n g of 3,600 p a g e s in 7 volumes. The total n u m b e r of comments on AmE a m o u n t s to 224, of which 50 a r e on phonology (including s t r e s s ) , 9 on s p e l l i n g , 83 on morphology a n d s y n t a x , 64 on lexical items, a n d 18 on word-formation 4 . Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , most of t h e phonological comments (i.e. 36 comments) a r e to be found in P a r t I ( S o u n d s a n d S p e l l i n g s ) , w h e r e J e s p e r s e n c i t e s more g e n e r a l f e a t u r e s of AmE, for example initial in w o r d s s u c h a s what, which or < j > - d r o p p i n g a s in due, new, e t c . (cf. J e s p e r s e n 1909-1949, P a r t I:374-375, 384). Other comments r e l a t e to the p r o n u n c i a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l w o r d s e.g. tomato or v a s e ( J e s p e r s e n 1909-1949, P a r t I:304); t h e o c c u r r e n c e of s e c o n d a r y s t r e s s in AmE in w o r d s s u c h a s military, solitary, e t c . is also mentioned ( J e s p e r s e n 1909-1949, P a r t I:167). I n P a r t s II, III, IV a n d V of t h e grammar (all on s y n t a x ) , comments on AmE a r e r a t h e r s c a r c e . P a r t IV, h o w e v e r , c o n t a i n s a detailed d i s c u s s i o n of t h e u s e of shall/will in AmE for e x p r e s s i n g f u t u r e time (cf. J e s p e r s e n 1909-1949, P a r t lV:260ff.). I n t h e r e m a i n i n g two volumes, AmE a g a i n a s s u m e s a more p r o m i n e n t position. T h e r e a r e a l t o g e t h e r 80 r e f e r e n c e s to AmE in P a r t VI a n d 47 in P a r t VII. P a r t VI, which deals with morphology, i n c l u d e s a fair n u m b e r of lexical p o i n t s a s well a s comments on v e r b morphology a n d w o r d formation. P a r t VII 5 ( a n o t h e r volume on s y n t a x ) p r e s e n t s more f e a t u r e s of AmE, r e l a t i n g in p a r t i c u l a r to v o c a b u l a r y a n d s y n t a x ; for i n s t a n c e nights for in the night, to stay home in place of to stay at home, out the window for out of the window or a quarter-hour for a quarter of an hour, to mention j u s t a few of t h e b e t t e r - k n o w n items (cf. J e s p e r s e n 1909-1949, P a r t VII:293, 297, 333, 334). I n comparison to t h e major g r a m m a r s of Poutsma, K r u i s i n g a a n d J e s p e r s e n , t r a d i t i o n a l English g r a m m a r s p u b l i s h e d in t h e 1950s a n d 1960s w e r e far more concise a n d d e s i g n e d to be u s e d r a t h e r a s t e a c h i n g a i d s t h a n simply a s w o r k s of r e f e r e n c e . The Grammatik der Englischen Sprache b y D e u t s c h b e i n , for i n s t a n c e , is a grammar i n t e n d e d for l a n g u a g e t e a c h e r s a n d u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s in Germany (Deutschbein 1959:7). Although t h e r e is no d i r e c t h i n t in t h e p r e f a c e , i t s o r i e n t a t i o n is v e r y much t o w a r d s BrE. Received P r o n u n c i a t i o n

THE ROLE OF AMERICAN ENGLISH

375

(RP) 6 is p r e s e n t e d a s a model of p r o n u n c i a t i o n t h a t is to be imitated by German l e a r n e r s (cf. D e u t s c h b e i n 1959:259-260). S p o k e n English r e c e i v e s special e m p h a s i s , t h e norm h e r e b e i n g t h e u s a g e of e d u c a t e d s p e a k e r s , especially in s o u t h e r n England (cf. D e u t s c h b e i n 1959:17). AmE is mentioned r a r e l y (24 comments of which 6 a r e phonological, 5 morphological, 11 s y n t a c t i c a n d 2 lexical), mostly in s h o r t n o t e s a n d in v e r y small p r i n t . Some of t h e comments a r e r a t h e r g e n e r a l a n d not really helpful to l e a r n e r s of English, a s in t h e following i n s t a n c e : "Nasale A u s s p r a c h e d e r Vokale i s t eine Eigentümlichkeit d e s Am(erikanischen Englisch) in New E n g l a n d ( t w a n g ) " (Deutschbein 1959:259). T h e r e is a special p a r a g r a p h on s p e l l i n g in AmE (Deutschbein 1959:282), w h e r e it is pointed o u t t h a t some AmE s p e l l i n g s a r e also p e r m i t t e d in BrE, w h e r e a s o t h e r s a r e d e b a t e d or simply not a c c e p t e d . S c h i b s b y e ' s A Modern English Grammar (1965), originally p u b l i s h e d in Danish, is a n o t h e r s i n g l e - v o l u m e grammar. It s e e k s "to p r o v i d e t h e s t u d e n t of English with a manual of English grammar which e m p h a s i z e s t h o s e p o i n t s w h e r e d i f f e r e n t s h a d e s of meaning a r e a t t a c h e d to p h r a s e s a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t seem i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e " ( S c h i b s b y e 1965: p r e f a c e ) . T h e r e is no d i s c u s s i o n of d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n BrE and AmE in t h e p r e f a c e , a n d many of t h e examples q u o t e d in t h e book r e v e a l a B r i t i s h b a c k g r o u n d . S c h i b s b y e seems to be more c o n c e r n e d with d i f f e r e n t levels of u s a g e . Comments to t h e effect t h a t a c e r t a i n s t r u c t u r e is e i t h e r "formal", "colloquial", " l i t e r a r y " , " m o d e r n " or " v u l g a r " o c c u r q u i t e r e g u l a r l y . AmE p l a y s only a minor rôle in t h e g r a m m a r , r e c e i v i n g mention in a total of 25 n o t e s , of which 10 c o n c e r n morphology (mainly verb morphology), 10 s y n t a x , 3 vocabulary and 2 spelling. The Grammatik der Englischen Sprache by Koziol/ H ü t t e n b r e n n e r (1968) s t a r t s off with a brief d e s c r i p t i o n of g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e English l a n g u a g e t o g e t h e r with i t s h i s t o r y . AmE is d i s c u s s e d in a v e r y s h o r t section, w h e r e it is merely s t a t e d t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s exist b e t w e e n BrE a n d AmE with r e s p e c t to p r o n u n c i a t i o n a n d v o c a b u l a r y (cf. K o z i o l / H ü t t e n b r e n n e r 1968:10). In a s e c t i o n on p r o n u n c i a t i o n K o z i o l / H ü t t e n b r e n n e r (1968:16) explain what t h e y r e g a r d a s ' s t a n d a r d E n g l i s h ' , namely t h e form of E n g l i s h

376

HEINRICH RAMISCH

s p o k e n by e d u c a t e d people in s o u t h e r n E n g l a n d b u t also b y e d u c a t e d people in o t h e r r e g i o n s , especially in p u b l i c l e c t u r e s , on t h e s t a g e a n d in b r o a d c a s t i n g 7 . I n a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h e fact t h a t t h e r e a r e more r e g i o n a l forms of t h e l a n g u a g e , t h e y specifically r e f e r to AmE and point o u t t h a t t h e English s p o k e n b y e d u c a t e d Americans c a n d e v i a t e c o n s i d e r a b l y from BrE. R e f e r e n c e s to AmE in t h e grammar itself a r e r a r e - 5 on phonology, 13 on s y n t a x , 1 on v o c a b u l a r y a n d 2 on s p e l l i n g . Additionally, t h e r e a r e 17 morphological comments, t h o u g h t h e s e all r e l a t e to i n d i v i d u a l p a s t t e n s e or p a s t p a r t i c i p l e forms (cf. 1968:145-150). Further indications of Koziol/Hüttenbrenner K o z i o l / H ü t t e n b r e n n e r ' s basic c o n c e r n with BrE a r e t h a t n e a r l y all t h e a u t h o r s q u o t e d a r e B r i t i s h , a n d t h a t t h e y occasionally i n c l u d e remarks that a particular grammatical s t r u c t u r e is 'rejected', ' d i s a p p r o v e d of' or ' r e g a r d e d as w r o n g ' by English people (cf. e.g. K o z i o l / H ü t t e n b r e n n e r 1968:46, 52, 82, 174). Z a n d v o o r t ' s Handbook of English Grammar, f i r s t p u b l i s h e d in 1945, was originally w r i t t e n for Dutch s t u d e n t s of English a t u n i v e r s i t y level. T h e r e h a v e s i n c e b e e n n u m e r o u s e d i t i o n s of t h e grammar; it h a s b e e n p u b l i s h e d in E n g l a n d , t h e USA a n d J a p a n , a n d h a s become widely known i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y . In t h e p r e f a c e to t h e English edition, Z a n d v o o r t (1975:V) calls it "a d e s c r i p t i v e grammar of c o n t e m p o r a r y E n g l i s h " , b u t does not r e f e r to e i t h e r BrE or AmE. The t r e a t m e n t of AmE in t h e grammar is l e s s t h a n e x t e n s i v e , a m o u n t i n g to 18 n o t e s on s y n t a x , 11 on morphology, a n d 4 on o r t h o g r a p h y . An i n t e r e s t i n g point, h o w e v e r , is t h a t t h e a p p e n d i x i n c l u d e s a section w h e r e all t h e f e a t u r e s of AmE mentioned in t h e grammar a r e listed (Zandvoort 1975:343-344). L a m p r e c h t ' s Grammatik der Englischen Sprache, of which t h e 8th edition a p p e a r e d in 1986, is a p o p u l a r English grammar in Germany, especially with s c h o o l t e a c h e r s a n d u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s . I t s s u b j e c t is t a k e n to be S t a n d a r d English defined a s "die a n e r k a n n t e geschriebene und gesprochene Gebildetensprache der großen (britisch-, amerikanisch-, australisch-) englischen Sprachgemeins c h a f t e n " ( L a m p r e c h t 1986:9). In t h e p r e f a c e , l i n g u i s t i c v a r i a t i o n is dealt with only in t e r m s of s t y l i s t i c d i f f e r e n c e s within S t a n d a r d English. T h u s L a m p r e c h t (1986:9) d i s t i n g u i s h e s b e t w e e n t h r e e levels

THE ROLE OF AMERICAN ENGLISH

377

of u s a g e : " s p o k e n / c o l l o q u i a l E n g l i s h " , "normal w r i t t e n E n g l i s h " , and " l i t e r a r y E n g l i s h " . Regional d i f f e r e n c e s a r e not d i s c u s s e d . The grammar is e v i d e n t l y d i r e c t e d more t o w a r d s BrE. The majority of t h e l i t e r a r y works u s e d a s s o u r c e s for examples a r e by British a u t h o r s (cf. L a m p r e c h t 1986:18). But a closer look a t t h e grammar r e v e a l s t h a t in comparison to t h e o t h e r g r a m m a r s d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , f e a t u r e s of AmE a r e mentioned q u i t e f r e q u e n t l y . The 101 comments to be found, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y a p p e a r a s footnotes or n o t e s a t t h e end of a p a r a g r a p h (3 c o n c e r n phonology, 15 morphology, 60 s y n t a x , 16 v o c a b u l a r y , a n d 7 s p e l l i n g ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , it is i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t in comparison with p r e v i o u s e d i t i o n s of t h e grammar, r e f e r e n c e s to AmE h a v e been i n c r e a s e d . Many of t h e r e c e n t l y i n c o r p o r a t e d comments h a v e b e e n t a k e n from t h e Dictionary of Contemporary English ( P r o c t e r et al, 1978), which was not available for t h e e a r l i e r e d i t i o n s (cf. e.g. L a m p r e c h t 1986:116, 133, 289, 351, 380). I n conclusion, t h e r e can h a r d l y b e a d o u b t t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l English g r a m m a r s d u r i n g t h e l a s t 100 y e a r s h a v e been v e r y much o r i e n t e d t o w a r d s BrE» Grammarians like Sweet, Kruisinga, D e u t s c h b e i n and Koziol/Hüttenbrenner clearly state that they r e g a r d educated s o u t h e r n British E n g l i s h a s t h e norm to be s t u d i e d in t h e i r w o r k s . With o t h e r s s u c h as Poutsma or S c h i b s b y e , t h o u g h it is not explicitly stated, the grammars themselves furnish enough evidence that they a r e basically c o n c e r n e d with BrE, by q u o t i n g from British s o u r c e s (e.g. n e w s p a p e r s , l i t e r a r y works) o r by g i v i n g f r e q u e n t examples t h a t i n c l u d e British p l a c e - n a m e s or British i n s t i t u t i o n s . Accordingly, comments on AmE a r e s c a r c e , especially in t h e e a r l i e r g r a m m a r s by Sweet (1891-1898), Poutsma (1904ff.) and K r u i s i n g a (1925). At t h e same time, n o t e s b y g r a m m a r i a n s s u c h a s Sweet (18911898, P a r t I:224-225), or (Kruisinga 1925, P a r t I:V) show t h a t t h e y were fully a w a r e of r e g i o n a l v a r i a t i o n (cf. also Leitner 1986a), b u t t h e y o b v i o u s l y felt no obligation to s t u d y a n y o t h e r v a r i e t y t h a n S t a n d a r d BrE. The f i r s t n o t a b l e exception a n d t h e f i r s t grammarian to p a y more a t t e n t i o n to AmE u s a g e is J e s p e r s e n (1909-1949), in p a r t i c u l a r in t h e l a s t two volumes. On t h e whole, it seems, h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e inclusion of f e a t u r e s of AmE i n t o grammar books only i n c r e a s e d g r a d u a l l y a f t e r t h e Second World War. Among t h e g r a m m a r s d i s c u s s e d in t h i s a r t i c l e , t h e g r o w i n g i m p o r t a n c e of AmE is well

378

HEINRICH RAMISCH

i l l u s t r a t e d in t h e grammar by L a m p r e c h t (1986), who o v e r t h e y e a r s has i n c o r p o r a t e d more a n d more comments on AmE u s a g e 8 . The fact t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l g r a m m a r s focussed so s t r o n g l y on S t a n d a r d BrE c a n be explained in historical t e r m s . E v i d e n t l y , grammar books also h a v e to be s e e n in t h e c o n t e x t of t h e period in which t h e y w e r e w r i t t e n . During t h e 19th a n d e a r l y 20th c e n t u r i e s Britain was still a world power a n d t h e dominant nation among t h e E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g c o u n t r i e s . Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , S t a n d a r d English was t h e n l a r g e l y identified with S t a n d a r d BrE. But t h e s i t u a t i o n h a s c h a n g e d , of c o u r s e , especially s i n c e 1945. The United S t a t e s h a s become the most influential E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g nation in many fields i n c l u d i n g politics, economy, science and t e c h n o l o g y , a n d o t h e r c u l t u r a l m a t t e r s . Simultaneously, AmE h a s g a i n e d in influence and p r e s t i g e , and t h e g r o w i n g r e c o g n i t i o n of AmE in grammar books also a p p e a r s to reflect t h i s p r o c e s s . Today, t h e u s u a l a p p r o a c h is to deal with S t a n d a r d English as a s u p r a n a t i o n a l l a n g u a g e , while comments on i n d i v i d u a l v a r i e t i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y on BrE and AmE a r e a d d e d when n e c e s s a r y . This is, for i n s t a n c e , t h e p r o c e d u r e a d o p t e d in Quirk et al. (1972) a n d which h a s b e e n f u r t h e r p u r s u e d in A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (Quirk et ah 1985). One of its a u t h o r s , S i d n e y Greenbaum, notes: In a c c o r d a n c e with o u r focus on t h e u s e of t h e l a n g u a g e , it (A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language) g i v e s i n c r e a s e d a t t e n t i o n to v a r i a t i o n within s t a n d a r d English. We have multiplied o u r r e f e r e n c e s to d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e British and American s t a n d a r d s a n d between s p o k e n a n d w r i t t e n English. (Greenbaum 1986:13-14) As for t h e f u t u r e , one can a s s u m e t h a t - in c o n t r a s t to many of t h e t r a d i t i o n a l g r a m m a r s - g r a m m a r i a n s will not be c o n c e r n e d with j u s t one v a r i e t y of English, b u t will c o n t i n u e to be i n t e r e s t e d in linguistic v a r i a t i o n , in p a r t i c u l a r , in d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n British a n d American English u s a g e .

NOTES 1

The selection of g r a m m a r s , of c o u r s e , is limited a n d r e m a i n s s u b j e c t i v e - a t l e a s t to a c e r t a i n e x t e n t . However, I t h i n k t h a t all

THE ROLE OF AMERICAN ENGLISH

379

t h e g r a m m a r s d i s c u s s e d in t h i s article form major c o n t r i b u t i o n s to t r a d i t i o n a l English grammar writing and can be s e e n as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of its g e n e r a l development. 2

A g e n e r a l d r a w b a c k of P o u t s m a ' s grammar is t h a t it does not c o n t a i n a p r o p e r i n t r o d u c t i o n . Beside t h e fact t h a t he is not explicit a b o u t t h e v a r i e t y he is d e s c r i b i n g he does not define basic grammatical notions s u c h a s s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e or s e n t e n c e c o n s t i t u e n t s (cf. also A a r t s 1986:370-371).

3

In a r e v i s e d edition of P a r t I of his grammar, Poutsma mentions 4 o t h e r f e a t u r e s of AmE (cf. Poutsma 1928-29, P a r t I:29, 56, 326, 337).

4

It is i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t J e s p e r s e n s t a y e d in t h e United S t a t e s for nine months before t h e second volume of his grammar a p p e a r e d in 1913 (cf. J e s p e r s e n 1909-1949, P a r t II:V). J e s p e r s e n ' s p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t in AmE is confirmed b y Mencken (1977:87): "Dr. Otto J e s p e r s e n of C o p e n h a g e n is g r e a t l y i n t e r e s t e d in Americanisms, and at one time contemplated doing a book a b o u t them".

5

In t h e p r e f a c e to P a r t VII, t h e e d i t o r , Niels Haislund, specifically a c k n o w l e d g e s t h e help of Mr. Walt A r n e s o n , who r e a d t h e whole m a n u s c r i p t a n d "offered s u g g e s t i o n s p a r t i c u l a r l y as r e g a r d s U.S. u s a g e " ( J e s p e r s e n 1909-1949, P a r t VII:VI).

6

RP is defined as "die S p r a c h e d e r Public Schools, des London u n d d e s Gentleman" (Deutschbein 1959:259).

7

"Als ' S t a n d a r d E n g l i s h ' b e z e i c h n e t man d a s von den g e b i l d e t e n Kreisen Südenglands gesprochene Englisch, das auch von Gebildeten a n d e r e r Gebiete, b e s o n d e r s bei V o r t r ä g e n , auf d e r B ü h n e u n d im R u n d f u n k , zu h ö r e n i s t " (Koziol/Hüttenbrenner 1968:16).

8

Cf. also t h e following comment by L a m p r e c h t in t h e p r e f a c e to t h e s e c o n d edition of his grammar: "Die N e u b e a r b e i t u n g dieser Grammatik macht sich z u r Aufgabe a u c h die s y n t a k t i s c h e n A b w e i c h u n g e n d e s a m e r i k a n i s c h e n Englisch (AE) vom b r i t i s c h e n Englisch (BE) in höherem Maße zu b e r ü c k s i c h t i g e n " (Lamprecht 1972:5).

B.B.C.

REFERENCES A a r t s , Flor. 1986. "English Grammars a n d t h e Dutch 1891-1985". The English Reference Grammar ed. L e i t n e r , 363-386. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Contribution: by Gerhard

380

HEINRICH RAMISCH

Deutschbein, Max. 1959. Grammatik der Englischen Sprache. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer (18th ed., r e v i s e d by Hermann Klitscher). Greenbaum, S i d n e y . 1986. "The Grammar of C o n t e m p o r a r y English and t h e C o m p r e h e n s i v e Grammar of t h e English L a n g u a g e " . The English Reference Grammar ed. b y G e r h a r d Leitner, 6-14. Tübingen: Niemeyer. J e s p e r s e n , Otto. 1909-1949. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles (7 vols.). London: George Allen & Unwin, C o p e n h a g e n : Einar M u n k s g a a r d . Koziol, H e r b e r t , a n d Felix H ü t t e n b r e n n e r . 1968. Grammatik der Englischen Sprache, Heidelberg: Winter (2nd e d . ) . Kruisinga, E t s k o . 1925. A Handbook of Present-Day English. Utrecht: Kemink (4th e d . ) . L a m p r e c h t , Adolf. 1972. Grammatik der Englischen Sprache. Berlin: C o r n e l s e n (2nd e d . ) . der Englischen Sprache. Berlin: C o r n e l s e n . 1986. Grammatik Velhagen & Klasing (8th e d . ) . Leech, Geoffrey, a n d J a n S v a r t v i k . 1975. A Communicative Grammar of English. London: Longman. Leitner, Gerhard, ed. 1986. The English Reference Grammar. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 1986a. "English Traditional Grammars in t h e Nineteenth Century". Linguistics Across Historical and Geographical Boundaries (vol. 2) ed. b y Dieter K a s t o v s k y , a n d A l e k s a n d e r Szwedek, 1333-1355. Berlin: de G r u y t e r . Mencken, H e n r y L. 1977. The American Language (one-volume a b r i d g e d edition by Raven I. McDavid). New York: Alfred A. Knopf (4th ed., 21st p r i n t i n g ) . Poutsma, Hendrik. 1904ff. A Grammar of Late Modern English, Part I (1 vol.) a n d P a r t II (3 vols.). Groningen: Noord hoff. . 1928-1929. A Grammar of Late Modern English, P a r t I (2 vols.). Groningen: Noordhoff (2nd ed.). P r o c t e r , Paul et al., e d s . 1978. Dictionary of Contemporary English. London: Longman (completely r e v i s e d in 1987). Quirk, Randolph, S i d n e y Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, a n d Jan S v a r t v i k . 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman. . 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. S c h i b s b y e , Knud. 1965. A Modern English Grammar. London: Oxford Univ. P r e s s . Sweet, Henry. 1891-1898. A New English Grammar, Logical and Historical (2 vols.). Oxford: Clarendon P r e s s . Z a n d v o o r t , Reinard Willem. 1975. A Handbook of English Grammar. London: Longman (7th e d . ) .

Summary of Articles Aarts, Flor, "Traditional grammars of English: facts and explanations" In this paper an attempt is made to show that modern traditional grammars of English are more adequate than their prodecessors both from a descriptive and from an explanatory point of view. In order to be able to demonstrate this the descriptions of the structure of the noun phrase in Zandvoort's Handbook of English Grammar (1945), Huddleston's Introduction to the Grammar of English (1984) and Quirk et al.'s A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985) are compared. Algeo, John, "American English grammars in the 20th century" Traditional grammars in twentieth-century America have responded to developments in linguistics by absorbing some of its principles while maintaining a recognizable continuity with earlier practice. A number of figures stand out for their influence or accomplishments: H.L. Mencken for his provocation of scholars into studying American English; George O. Curme for the most detailed of American scholarly grammars; C.C. Pried for both his corpus-based studies and his emphasis on grammatical signals. Most American pedagogical grammars have had a utilitarian emphasis and have been preoccupied with questions of correct usage. With A comprehensive grammar of the English language by Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik, the English reference grammar has transcended national boundaries. Burchfield, Robert, "The Fowler brothers and the tradition of usage Handbooks" The Fowler brothers wrote The Kings's English (1906) and H.W. Fowler wrote Modern English Usage (1926) for a British middle-class readership. They explicitly denied having any knowledge of American English. They were also convinced that Latin grammar has some kind of causal hold on English grammar. This belief brought them into conflict with professional scholars like Jespersen and Kruisinga, who attacked the Fowlers' non-scientific approach to grammar and phonetics. Meanwhile, for general readers, both TKE and MEU continue to provide pleasure and enlightenment. Earlier and later usage guides mostly approach the subject in a Fowlerian manner, but with sharply contrasting choices of headwords.

382

SUMMARY OF ARTICLES

Downey, C h a r l o t t e , " F a c t o r s in t h e g r o w t h of t h e English l a n g u a g e in 18th and 19th c e n t u r y I r e l a n d " Some f a c t o r s in t h e g r o w t h of I r i s h English in t h e 18th and 19th c e n t u r i e s w e r e t h e availability of English grammar t e x t s b y both British a n d n a t i v e a u t h o r s , t h e influence of t h e I r i s h l a n g u a g e , t h e influence of t h e Commission of National Education, a n d t h e i n g e n u i t y of t h e I r i s h people for c r e a t i n g a n I r i s h English language» The t e x t s of t h e 18th a n d e a r l y 19th c e n t u r i e s p r e s e n t e d t r a d i t i o n a l r u l e s of grammar t h r o u g h t h e methods of t h e time, b u t from t h e mid-19th c e n t u r y on, t h e t e x t s s u p p l i e d t h e I r i s h people with t h e modern c o n c e p t s of grammar t h r o u g h t h e methods of c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d a n a l y s i s of s e n t e n c e s . And t h e I r i s h people, with t h e s e a i d s and t h r o u g h t h e influence of t h e i r own I r i s h l a n g u a g e , m a s t e r e d t h e English l a n g u a g e a n d "made it p e c u l i a r l y t h e i r own" ( E d w a r d s , " I r i s h a n d English in I r e l a n d , " 1984:491). Downey, C h a r l o t t e , " T r e n d s t h a t s h a p e d c e n t u r y American grammar w r i t i n g "

the

development

of

19th

American grammar w r i t i n g in t h e 19th c e n t u r y followed t h e c o u r s e of e i t h e r t h e t r a d i t i o n a l i s t s led b y Lindley M u r r a y a n d Goold Brown, or t h e i n n o v a t o r s led b y Roswell Smith a n d Samuel Greene. The t r a d i t i o n a l i s t s visualized t h e s e n t e n c e with t h r e e p r i n c i p a l e l e m e n t s , while t h e i n n o v a t o r s v i s u a l i z e d it a s a b i n a r y s t r u c t u r e c o n t a i n i n g two p r i n c i p a l elements. The followers of t h e old school p r e s e n t e d t h e i r views t h r o u g h false s y n t a x , t h e d e d u c t i v e method, and p a r s i n g , while t h e n e w e r b r e e d of g r a m m a r i a n s u s e d t h e i n d u c t i v e a p p r o a c h combined with the methods of construction, analysis, and diagramming, m e t h o d s t h a t focused on t h e combinations of elements a n d t h e r e l a t i o n s of elements in t h e s e n t e n c e . Duskovà; Libuse, "English g r a m m a r s in p o s t w a r Czechoslovakia" Like English studies, grammars of English came late in Czechoslovakia. V. M a t h e s i u s , t h e f i r s t p r o f e s s o r of English (1919), made a n u n s u c c e s s f u l a t t e m p t a t w r i t i n g a grammar. His grammar, effectively w r i t t e n b y K. Hais, a p p e a r e d p o s t - h u m o u s l y in 1961. T h u s , it is t h e p o s t w a r period t h a t h a s s e e n both t h e r i s e of t h e role of English, as well a s t h e i n t e r e s t in grammar w r i t i n g . The p a p e r s u r v e y s t h o s e b y M a t h e s i u s , Duskovà; a n d Hais, all of which show P r a g u e a n i n f l u e n c e s a n d a c o n c e r n with t h e foreign (Czech) l e a r n e r s ' needs.

SUMMARY OF ARTICLES

383

E s s e n , A r t h u r v a n , "E. K r u i s i n g a " This p a p e r deals with t h e life a n d works of the well-known Dutch l i n g u i s t Etsko K r u i s i n g a (1875 - 1944). Besides g i v i n g a brief a c c o u n t of his life it p r o v i d e s a t h o r o u g h d i s c u s s i o n of two of K r u i s i n g a ' s major w o r k s in English grammar: A Handbook of Present-Day English a n d An English Grammar. The e v a l u a t i o n of both books is t r a c e d t h r o u g h t h e i r s u c c e s s i v e e d i t o r s a n d K r u i s i n g a ' s position in m a t t e r of English s y n t a x is viewed a t e v e r y s t e p he took v i s - à - v i s t h a t of his p r e d e c e s s o r s a n d c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . K i r s t e n , Hans» "Adolf L a m p r e c h t ' s (German) grammar of E n g l i s h " On t h e b a s i s of a g e n e r a l a s s e s s m e n t of t h e f i r s t edition (1956), L a m p r e c h t ' s grammar is c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a reference grammar primarily w r i t t e n for German t e a c h e r s a n d s t u d e n t s , a n d it is also t r i e d to give r e a s o n s for t h e wide c i r c u l a t i o n it g a i n e d in t h e two German s t a t e s . S u b s e q u e n t l y , t h e main c h a n g e s in t h e two following e d i t i o n s (1970 a n d 1986) a r e outlined a n d t h e position of L a m p r e c h t ' s grammar with r e g a r d to grammar w r i t i n g at t h e p r e s e n t time is indicated. L e i t n e r , G e r h a r d , "E.A. M a e t z n e r " The split b e t w e e n school a n d s c h o l a r l y g r a m m a r s o c c u r r e d in t h e e a r l y 19th c e n t u r y u n d e r t h e influence of h i s t o r i c a l - c o m p a r a t i v e philology. E.A. M a e t z n e r ' s Englische Grammatik (1860-1865) is of p a r a m o u n t i m p o r t a n c e in t h i s r e s p e c t s i n c e t h i s 3-volume grammar p r e d a t e s Sweet, Kruisinga, Poutsma, Curme a n d J e s p e r s e n by d e c a d e s . I t s s u c c e s s was, h o w e v e r , c u r t a i l e d b y late 19th c e n t u r y d e v e l o p m e n t s in a n g l i s t i c s , ELT a n d t h e role of English worldwide. This p a p e r p u t s M a e t z n e r ' s grammar into t h a t b r o a d e r c o n t e x t , s u r v e y s i t s main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , o u t l i n e s t h e p r o g r e s s it meant in grammar w r i t i n g in light of t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l echo t h a t it r e c e i v e d . Lyons, C h r i s t o p h e r , "Articles in English g r a m m a r s " This p a p e r s u r v e y s t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e definite a r t i c l e the a n d t h e indefinite a from t h e 17th to 20th c e n t u r i e s . It a r g u e s t h a t , if t h e two major a p p r o a c h e s to t h e s t u d y of a r t i c l e s , viz. the familiarity a n d u n i q u e n e s s t h e o r i e s r e s p e c t i v e l y , it is t h e former one t h a t is more i n s i g h t f u l . T h a t a p p r o a c h g o e s back to Dyscolus, made i t s a p p e a r a n c e into English g r a m m a r s in Wilkins (1668) and H a r r i s (1751), b u t was lost s i g h t of u n t i l M a e t z n e r ' s grammar (1880, 1885).

384

SUMMARY OF ARTICLES

Once more it fell into oblivion u n t i l t h e idea was r e v i v e d b y J e s p e r s e n (1949), u n d e r t h e influence of C h r i s t o p h e r s o n , a n d t h e S u r v e y of English Usage g r a m m a r s . And y e t , d e s p i t e p r o g r e s s , t h e r e is still much t h e same r e s i d u e of difficult c a s e s as in t h e 18th century. Macht, Konrad, manuals"

"Karl

and

Max

Deutschbein's

English

grammar

Karl D e u t s c h b e i n ' s English manuals, which were widely u s e d in German schools a b o u t t h e y e a r 1900, followed t h e t r a d i t i o n a l p a t t e r n of Latin grammar. The a u t h o r ' s main c o n c e r n was to p r e s e n t the r u l e s a n d examples in a way t h a t facilitated memorization. His son Max D. p r e f e r r e d a more s c h o l a r l y a p p r o a c h to grammar. He d e v i s e d a new, p s y c h o l o g y - b a s e d framework for d e s c r i b i n g s y n t a x . His a t t e m p t at t r a n s p o s i n g his l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y i n t o a t e a c h i n g manual, h o w e v e r , fell somewhat s h o r t of t h e mark. And y e t , his grammar book closely r e l a t e d to his f a t h e r ' s manuals, was u s e d e x t e n s i v e l y in German schools a n d u n i v e r s i t i e s u p to t h e middle of t h e 20th century. Michael, Ian, "More t h a n e n o u g h English g r a m m a r s " Because most school g r a m m a r s of English r e s e m b l e each o t h e r closely t h e n u m b e r of new g r a m m a r s — a n a v e r a g e of n e a r l y ten in e v e r y year throughout the nineteenth century — is surprising. Explanations s u g g e s t e d i n c l u d e t h e force of t r a d i t i o n , t h e i g n o r a n c e of t e a c h e r s , t h e e a s e with which r o t e - l e a r n i n g can be o r g a n i s e d , commercial i n f l u e n c e s in a n e x p a n d i n g m a r k e t . The uniformity of t h e g r a m m a r s is modified b y i n d i v i d u a l i n n o v a t i o n s , b y a g r o w i n g i n t e r e s t in philology, in analytical p r o c e d u r e s a n d in t h e i m p o r t a n c e of context. Niemeyer, J o c h e n , "Tense a n d a s p e c t in German g r a m m a r s of English in t h e p a s t fifty y e a r s " Despite some o v e r l a p p i n g , u p to four p e r i o d s or s t a g e s c a n be d i s t i n g u i s h e d in t h e h i s t o r y of German school a n d scholarly g r a m m a r s o v e r t h e p a s t fifty y e a r s . The o b v i o u s p r o g r e s s in t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t e n s e a n d a s p e c t is, h o w e v e r , not s t r a i t - l i n e d , b u t r a t h e r a s e r i e s of d i f f e r e n t r e s p o n s e s to c h a n g i n g didactic p r i o r i t i e s a n d l i n g u i s t i c t r e n d s , i n v o l v i n g t h e d a n g e r of dead e n d s . In o r d e r to a s c e r t a i n how far t h e r e s u l t s of s c h o l a r l y r e s e a r c h h a v e b e e n a d o p t e d by grammar w r i t e r s we h a v e g i v e n p r i o r i t y to i s s u e s t h a t a r e r e g a r d e d a s c o n t r o v e r s i a l among t e a c h e r s of English.

385

SUMMARY OF ARTICLES

Ramisch, Heinrich, "The g r a m m a r s of E n g l i s h "

rôle

of

American

English

in

traditional

The p a p e r d i s c u s s e s t h e position of American English in t r a d i t i o n a l g r a m m a r s of English p u b l i s h e d o v e r t h e last 100 y e a r s . It is c o n c e r n e d with the attitude of g r a m m a r i a n s in dealing with d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n British a n d American English u s a g e a n d examines in what way and to what e x t e n t t r a d i t i o n a l g r a m m a r s a c t u a l l y i n c l u d e comments on American English. It becomes o b v i o u s t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l g r a m m a r s h a v e b e e n v e r y much o r i e n t e d t o w a r d s British English, p a y i n g only little a t t e n t i o n to American English u s a g e . But a s American English has g e n e r a l l y gained in influence a n d p r e s t i g e , especially s i n c e 1945, it seems t h a t t h e r e also is a g r o w i n g r e c o g n i t i o n of American English in grammar b o o k s . S t r a u ß , Wolfang H., "German g r a m m a r s of English p r i o r to 1860" This p a p e r s u r v e y s t h e g r a m m a t i c o g r a p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n in Germany from t h e 17th to t h e mid-19th c e n t u r y . In t h e e a r l y p e r i o d , t h e few g r a m m a r s w r i t t e n in Germany l a r g e l y followed t h e p a t t e r n s s e t o u t b y Donatus a n d P r i s c i a n . T h e y , t h u s , differed from English g r a m m a r s which, like Bullokar a n d o t h e r s , made modest a t t e m p t s a t c r e a t i n g a V e r n a c u l a r ' t r a d i t i o n . T o w a r d s t h e end of t h e p e r i o d , however, t h e n u m b e r of g r a m m a r s w r i t t e n in German i n c r e a s e d s h a r p l y , r e f l e c t i n g t h e g r e a t i n t e r e s t in English a s a foreign l a n g u a g e , a n d t h e y took note of specific d e m a n d s of t h e German l e a r n e r . Many g r a m m a r s i n c l u d e d more detailled d e s c r i p t i o n s of p r o n u n c i a t i o n , i n t o n a t i o n , s y n t a x a n d , a b o v e all, t h e v e r b a l s y s t e m , which was a p p a r e n t l y c o n s i d e r e d difficult for t h e l e a r n e r . Bilingual word g l o s s a r i e s , a German terminology, a n d r e a d i n g p a s s a g e s or dialogues w e r e also i n c l u d e d . Major g r a m m a r i a n s were Reichel, who a d a p t e d Lowth's grammar, E b e r s , a n d Pott.

Tops, Guy A.J., Xavier Belgian c o n t r i b u t i o n "

Dekeyser,

"English

grammar

writing:

the

Grammar w r i t i n g in bilingual Belgium s t a r t s much l a t e r t h a n in n e i g h b o u r i n g N e t h e r l a n d s and is b a r e l y comparable in t e r m s of achievement. But the four major grammarians, de Vocht, S c h e u e r w e g h s , D e k e y s e r , a n d v a n Roey, h a v e marked definite p r o g r e s s in t h e w r i t i n g of g r a m m a r s .

386

SUMMARY OF ARTICLES

Wächtler, Kurt, "W.D. Whitney's e s s e n t i a l s of English grammar. For t h e use of schools (1877)" W.D. Whitney's Essentials a r e more c o n s e r v a t i v e and c o r r e c t i o n i s t t h a n might be e x p e c t e d from an a d v o c a t e of t h e ' s c i e n c e of l a n g u a g e ' . His t r e a t m e n t of t h e p a r t s of s p e e c h ( C h a p t e r s I-XII) followed by t h e s t u d y of t h e s e n t e n c e u n d e r t h e h e a d i n g of ' s y n t a x ' ( C h a p t e r s XIII-XVII) is shown in detail and critically e v a l u a t e d . Whitney's pedagogical skill and his g e n e r a l l y d e s c r i p t i v e s t a n c e a r e p r a i s e w o r t h y . But his w o r d - c e n t e r e d a p p r o a c h , t h e terminological and Latinate c o n s e r v a t i s m a n d t h e hopes he places in his p a r s i n g e x e r c i s e s make the Essentials only r e l e v a n t as one of the h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l r e f e r e n c e p o i n t s for e v a l u a t i n g t h e g r e a t c h a n g e s in grammatical t e x t b o o k s and d e s c r i p t i o n s of English since his time. Walmsley, John, "E.A. S o n n e n s c h e i n and grammatical terminology" In England, t h e d e c a d e s 1880-1930 w i t n e s s e d a powerful movement to simplify and unify t h e terminology of grammar. To a significant d e g r e e , t h i s movement owed i t s impetus to one man E.A. S o n n e n s c h e i n . S o n n e n s c h e i n seems to h a v e c a p t u r e d t h e s p i r i t of his times, since his aims were e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y a d o p t e d by colleagues in o t h e r E u r o p e a n c o u n t r i e s and in t h e United S t a t e s . This p a p e r d e s c r i b e s S o n n e n s c h e i n ' s aims and motivation, t h e c h a n g e s he t r i e d to implement a n d t h e i n s t r u m e n t s he c h o s e , and places them in t h e i r E u r o p e a n context. It t h e n goes on to c o n s i d e r how far he was s u c c e s s f u l in a c h i e v i n g those aims. Walton, Alan, "Modality English"

and

the

modals

in t r a d i t i o n a l

grammars

of

The meanings of t h e English modal auxiliaries a n d t h e i r role in c o n v e y i n g s p e a k e r s ' a t t i t u d e s a r e topics c o v e r e d e x t e n s i v e l y in t r a d i t i o n a l g r a m m a r s , f r e q u e n t l y u n d e r t h e h e a d i n g "modality". A brief s u r v e y of t h e s e topics in t h e g r a m m a r s of Sweet, K r u i s i n g a , Curme and Quirk et al. shows t h a t many model " m e a n i n g s " a n d speakers' attitudes a r e in fact i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s in context of s e n t e n c e s in which modals a r e u s e d . It is a r g u e d h e r e t h a t modal v e r b s a r e n e i t h e r a m b i g u o u s nor t h e s o u r c e of s p e a k e r s ' a t t i t u d e s . I n s t e a d , the univocal meaning of a modal f u n c t i o n s as an i n d i c a t o r of t h e s t r e n g t h of an a t t i t u d e d e r i v e d b y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . S u c h a s e p a r a t i o n of modal meanings, s p e a k e r s ' a t t i t u d e s and f e a t u r e s of context could p r o v i d e a rational b a s i s for d i s c u s s i o n of t h e s e phenomena in r e f e r e n c e g r a m m a r s .

INDEX OF NAMES A a r t s , Flor 149, 150, 151, 379 A a r t s , J a n 5, 6 Abbott, Edwin 20 Adams, E r n e s t 19 Adler, A n d r e a s 1 A h n e r t , E. 63, 65, 71 Akenson, Donald 89 Albaugh, Ralph 130 Albrecht, A u g u s t 212, 226, 230 Alexander, Louis 207, 208, 214, 216, 333 Alford, Henry 93, 94, 109, 110 Algeo, J o h n 34, 53, 113, 114, 115, 128, 133 Allen, Alexander 23 Allen, Robert 131 A l p e r s , M. 331, 333, 334, 335, 340 Andrew, James 20 Anon. 69 Anwyl, Edward 59, 60, 65 Arnold, Edward 71, 72 Arnold, S a r a h 116 Arnold, Theodor 209, 210, 211, 212, 223, 224, 230 Arnold, Thomas 22 A r o n s t e i n , Philipp 343 Ash, J o h n 83, 86 Azzalino, Walther 268 Bailey, C h a r l e s - J a m e s 1, 2 Bailey, Dudley 127, 128 Bain, Alexander 237, 247 Baker, J o s e p h i n e 115 B a r n e s , William 17 Baron, Dennis 53, 127 B a r z u n , J a c q u e s 125, 126 Baumann, F r i e d r i c h 63, 71, 72 Beadnell, H e n r y 100 B e i l h a r d t , Karl 330, 331, 335, 339, 340 Berg, G. v a n d e n 212, 225, 226, 230 B e r n h a r d i , Wilhelm 237 Bigelow, Allen 100, 110 Bingham, William 31, 32, 35 Bliss, A. 88

Bloch, B e r n h a r d 123 Bloomfield, Leonard 122, 123, 125, 166, 250 Bohlen, Adolf 341 Bojunga, Klaudius 63 Bolinger, Dwight 132 Bond, F r a n c i s 21 Booth, David 17, 24 Bopp, F r a n z 236 Bradley, Charles 16, 20, 24 B r e n d e l , Zacharias 57 B r i g h t l a n d , J o h n 82, 83, 84, 85 Brown, Dona 127, 128 Brown, Goold 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 44, 53, 54, 114, 343 B r u n o t , F e r d i n a n d 61, 62, 64, 65,

71

B r y a n t , M a r g a r e t 127, 129 B u b e n i k o v à , Libuse 202 B u c h a n a n , James 82, 83, 85, 86 Bucke, Charles 20, 24 Bullions, P e t e r 28, 29, 35 Burchfield, Robert 1, 2, 4, 7, 93 B u r g e s s , Anthony 105 Caha, J a n 202 Campbell, Russell 130 C a r s t e n s e n , B r o d e r 333 C a v a n a g h , J o n a t h a n 340 Chalker, Sylvia 1, 6 Chomsky, Noam 294 C h r i s t o p h e r s e n , Paul 310, 314, 320, 323 Clark, Thomas 24 Clarke, Hyde 17, 20, 24 Close, Reginald 331, 340, 344 Cobbett, William 114 Commissioners of National Education of I r e l a n d 82, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89 Comrie, B e r n a r d 340 Conlin, David 127 Cooper, A. 253 Cornwell, James 23 Covell, L. 28, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36 Cramp, William 19, 24 C r a n e , George 19, 24 C r o s s , E t h a n 115, 116, 129 C r y s t a l , David 337

388

INDEX OF NAMES

Curme, George 119, 120, 121, 124, 128, 233, 237, 318, 319, 349, 359, 360, 361, 362, 364, 366 Cutler, Andrew 29, 35 Daiches, David 89 Danchev, Andrei 148 Daniel, Evan 24 Darby, R e v e r e n d A. 248 Davis, J o h n 15, 16, 24 D e k e y s e r , Xavier 141, 146, 148, 149, 151 D e u t s c h b e i n , Karl 257, 258,259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 266, 275 D e u t s c h b e i n , Max 248, 257, 258, 259, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 330, 334, 335, 340, 341, 374, 375, 377, 379 Devis, Ellin 83, 86, 87 Dietrich, G e r h a r d 217, 337, 339, 340 Diez, F r i e d r i c h 236, 237 Dilworth, Thomas 82, 83, 86 Dirven, Rene 148, 151 D o h e r t y , Hugh 19, 25 Douglas, James 13, 25 Downey, C h a r l o t t e 53, 114, 247 Draat, P. 103, 106 Dugdale, Kathleen 53 Duskovà Libuse 175, 202 Dymond, J o n a t h a n 23, 25 Earle, J o h n 21, 23, 25 E a r n s h a w , C h r i s t o p h e r 17, 25 E b e r s , J o h a n n e s 212, 216, 217, 219, 225, 230 E d w a r d s , J o h n 89 Eliot, Thomas 89 Ellis, J o h n 16 Elson, Ruth 30 English Parsing Made Easy 16 Entick, J o h n 83, 84, 85 E s s e n , A r t h u r v a n 3, 5, v a n 153, 154, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161, 163, 166, 167, 168 E v a n s , B e r g e n 143 E v a n s , Cornelia 143

E v a n s , Lawton 115 F a h r e n k r ü g e r , J.A. 209, 212, 224, 230 P a r l e y , F r a n k E d g a r 115, 116 F a r n u m , Caleb 28, 29, 35 F e n n , Eleanor 83 Fiedler, E d u a r d 237, 247 Fiedler, F r i t z 339, 340 F i n e g a n , Edward 127 Fisk, Allen 28, 29, 31, 35 Fleay, F r e d e r i c k 22 F l e i s c h h a c k , Erich 332, 335 Flom, George 102 Fowler B r o t h e r s 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 108 Fowler, F r a n c i s 93, 96, 98, 110 Fowler, Henry 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 110 F r a n k , Marcella 130 F r i e s , C h a r l e s 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 F r i e s , P e t e r 124, 125, 132 F u n k e , Otto 3, 205, 206 Gabelentz, Georg v.d. 164 Gartly, G. 16 Giles, James 15 Giles, J o h n 16 Glauser, C h a r l e s 62, 64, 65, 71 Gleason, H e n r y 130, 145, 146 Goodwin, Thomas 16 Gorrell, R o b e r t 131 Gough, James 8 1 , 82, 83, 85 Gowen, James 130 Graham, William 20 Grammatical Errors 16 G r a n t , J o h n 20 G r a u s t e i n , Gottfried 1, 2, 3, 329 Gray, E r n e s t 130 Greenbaum, S i d n e y 2, 107, 125, 132, 133, 147, 300, 323, 378 Greene, Samuel 27, 28, 3 1 , 32, 33, 34, 35, 37 Greenwood, James 82, 83, 86, 87 Grimm, Jacob 236, 237 Grimm, Wilhelm 236, 237 Guntram, Georg 330, 332, 335, 337, 344

INDEX OF NAMES

H., R. 18 Hack, Maria 16 Hais, Karel 175, 176, 188, 202 Hall, J. 248, 253 Hall, J o h n L. 127 Harman, S u s a n 118 H a r r i s , James 311, 312, 314 Harvey, J. 16 Harvey, Thomas 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 Hatcher, Anna 343 Hawkins, J o h n 310, 323 H e r b s t , Thomas 298 Heuer, Helmut 275, 276 Hewson, J o h n 132 Hill, Archibald 123 Hill, William 17, 18 Hodges, J o h n 131 Hoffmann, Hans 330, 332, 335, 337, 338, 339 Hogan, Jeremiah 81 Hohmann, Heinz 284 Hook, J u l i u s 128 Hough, George 132 House, Homer 118 Householder, F r e d 311 Howatt, A.P.R. 207, 235 H u d d l e s t o n , Rodney 294, 298, 299, 300, 305, 306, 307 Humboldt, Wilhelm von 249, 252 Hutchinson, James 13, 16 H ü t t e n b r e n n e r , Felix 375, 376, 377, 379 I s b i s t e r , Alexander 17 J a c o b s o n , S v e n 339 J e s p e r s e n , Otto 65, 103, 106, 107, 156, 158, 166, 233, 237, 248, 250, 251, 252, 320, 321, 322, 323, 326, 336, 372, 373, 374, 377, 379 J o i n t Committee on Grammatical Nomenclature 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73. 74, 75 Joly, A n d r e 312 Joos, Martin 123, 131 Journal of Education 58 J o w s e y , Richard 16 J o y c e , P. 87, 88

389

J u n g , Vàclav 202 J u u l , Arne 148 J u u l , Nils 3 Kaplan, Jeffrey 114 Kellogg, B r a i n e r d 34, 115, 116, 118, 131 K e n n e d y , A r t h u r 131 Kerl, Simon 31, 32, 33, 35, 36 Kigan, J o h n 16, 8 1 , 82, 83, 84 Kirchhoff, J. 331, 333, 334, 335, 338, 340 Kirkham, Samuel 28, 29, 31, 35 K i t t r e d g e , George 115, 116 Klègr, Ales 202 Klitscher, Herrmann 330, 334, 335, 341 Koch, F r i e d r i c h 237, 247 Korsakov, Andrei 339 Koziol, H e r b e r t 337, 338, 339, 375, 376, 377, 379 K r a p p , George 116 Kràmsky, Jiri 202 K r u i s i n g a , Etsko 104, 106, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 233, 236, 237, 248, 249, 250, 316, 317, 349, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 362, 364, 365, 372, 373, 374, 377 Laird, Charlton 131 L a m p r e c h t , Adolf 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 329, 330, 331, 332, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 341, 342, 343, 344, 376, 377, 378, 379 L a n g e , Dietrich 336 L a n g s t e d t , F. 211, 212 LaPalombara, Lyda 130 Latham, Robert 17, 20, 2 1 , 23, 237, 240, 247, 253 Lechler, S h i r l e y Leech, Geoffrey 1, 2, 132, 133, 323, 334, 344, 363, 369 Lehrpläne und Lehraufgaben für die höheren Schulen nebst Erläuterungen und

390

INDEX OF NAMES

Ausführungsbestimmungen 60 Leichty, V e r d u n 130 L e i t n e r , G e r h a r d 2, 3, 5, 6, 233, 234, 277, 278, 279, 280, 377 L e o n a r d , S t e r l i n g 127 L e o n h a r d i , Arnold 330, 331, 335, 336, 340, 342 L i c h t e n b e r g , Karl 331 Lindfors J u d i t h 130 Lockwood, S a r a 115 Long, Dorothy 130 Long, Ralph 129, 130 Lord, Walter 15 Lostàk, Ludvik 202 Loucky, Robert 202 Lowth, Robert 82, 84, 85, 86 Lyman, Rollo 32 L y o n s , C h r i s t o p h e r 245, 250 Macgowan, J o h n 19 Macintosh, Daniel 19 Maetzner, Adolf E d u a r d 36, 53, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 253, 254, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 326 Malone, Kemp 102 Mangold, Wilhelm 60 Manneviile, William 18 Manual of the Analysis of Language 17 Maquet, Charles 62, 65 Marcet, J a n e 19 M a r c k w a r d t , Albert 124, 127 Martinet, A n d r è 340 Mason, Charles 14, 22 Mathesius, Vilèm 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 188, 195, 202 Mathews, E.G. 128 Mawer, Allen 7 1 , 75 Maxwell, W. 247 McCoard, Robert 132 McCoard, Ronald 338, 339 McCrimmon, James 131 McCrum, Robert 88, 89 McElhinney, R o b e r t 53 McKnight, George 27

Meiklejohn, J o h n 20, 22 Meillet, Antoine 162 Mencken. Henry 117, 118, 119, 120, 127, 379 Merriam-Webster 128 Metcalf, R o b e r t 32, 33, 35 Metcalf, Thomas 32, 33, 35 Michael, Ian 3, 4, 168 Miklosich, F r a n z von 236 Milsark, Gary 310 Mindt, Dieter 289, 332, 333 Molloy, Gerald 87 Monboddo, James 312, 314 Mongan, Roscoe 16 Morell, J o h n 14, 22 M u r r a y , Gerald 18 M u r r a y , Hilda 101 M u r r a y , Lindley 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 35, 36, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 312, 313 Needes, Richard 15 Nesbitt, A n t h o n y 16 Nesfield, J o h n 71, 73, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87 Nida, E u g e n e 124, 293, 306 Nielsen, Hans 3 Niemeyer, J o c h e n 329, 336, 339, 340 Noble, S t u a r t 27 O''Malley, Raymond 73 On the Terminology of Grammar 61 Onions, C h r i s t o p h e r 157, 173 Osicka, Antonin 202 Packwood, Josiah 16 Palmer, F r a n k 333, 343, 344 P a r t e e , B a r b a r a 114 Paul, Hermann 165, 249 P e n c e , Raymond 118 P e r r i n , P o r t e r 131 P e s c h k e , K a t h r i n 209 Pinnock, William 16 Poch, A r t u r 331, 333, 334, 340, 342 Poldauf, I v a n 202 Pond, Enoch 28, 29 Pooley, R o b e r t 27, 28, 30, 127 P o s t g a t e , J o h n 61

INDEX OF NAMES

Pott, O. 212, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 225, 226, 230 Poutsma, Hendrik 157, 233, 237, 248, 316, 317, 318, 339, 371, 372, 374, 377, 379 P r i e s t l e y , J o s e p h 68, 82, 83, 85 Problem of Grammar, The 72 Proceedings of the Classical Association 66, 72 P r o c t e r , Paul 377 Quick, Robert 60 Quirk, Randolph 2, 6, 54, 106, 132, 133, 147, 198, 200, 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 305, 306, 307, 323, 325, 326, 332, 333, 337, 338, 339, 341, 344, 349, 350, 362, 363, 365, 369, 378 R., J.W. 23 Radford, Andrew 300, 301, 303, 304, 306 Raith, Josef 330, 331, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 341, 343 Rask, Rasmus 236 Read, Allen 82 Reed, Alonzo 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 36, 115, 116, 118, 131 Reichel, Chr. 212, 213, 216, 230 Ries, J o h n 159, 160, 164, 169, 170, 171 R o b e r t s , Paul 128, 130 Robins, R o b e r t H. 246, 250 Roey, J a c q u e s v a n 141, 147, 148, 149, 151 R o g e r s , Henry 16 Rogier, B. 212, 224 Rogovin, Syrell 130 Röhr, Heinz 331, 335, 338, 339, 341, 343 Russell, B e r t r a n d 310 S a p i r , Edward 162, 163 S a t t l e r , E d u a r d 248 S c h a c h t e r , Paul 114 S c h a d , G u s t a v 331, 335, 338, 339, 340, 341, 343 S c h e u r w e g h s , G u s t a v e 141, 144, 145, 146, 147, 150 S c h i b s b y e , Knud 375, 377 S c h l e i c h e r , A u g u s t 249

391

S c h n ö c k e l b o r g , G. 331, 333, 334, 335, 338, 340 Schopf, Alfred 343, 344 S c h r ö e r , Alois 160, 161, 254 Scott, A. 23 Seidel, F r i e d e r 210, 224 Seymour, Thomas 54 S h o e m a k e r , E r v i n 29 Sidgwick, F r a n k 101 S i l v e r s t e i n , Michael 34 Sinclair, J o h n 1, 2 Sisk, Benjamin 116 Skalickovà; Alena 202 S k e a t , Walter 69, 70, 71 Slack, Ann 82, 83, 85, 86, 87 Sledd, James 123, 124 Smart, Benjamin 19, 23 Smith, H e n r y Lee 123, 124 Smith, Henry L e s t e r 28, 33, 53, 114 Smith, Roswell 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 37 Smith, W. 16 Sommer, F e r d i n a n d 63 S o n n e n s c h e i n , Edward A. 57, 58, 59, 60, 6 1 , 63, 64, 65, 66, 73, 74, 75, 248, 253 S p a c e k , F r a n k 202 St Quentin, Dominique 17 S t a g e b e r g , Norman 124 S t a n b r i d g e , J o h n 77 Steele, Beulah 53 Stockwell, R o b e r t 114 S t r a n g , B a r b a r a 105 S t r a u ß , Wolfgang 205, 207, 237, 252 S t r a y , C h r i s t o p h e r 58 S t r e u b e r , Albert 205 S t u u r m a n , F r i t s 3, 4, 5 Sullivan, Maurice 130 Sutcliffe, J o s e p h 20 S u t t o n , F.W. 330, 331, 335, 339, 340 S v a r t v i k , J a n 1, 2, 132, 133, 323, 363, 369 Swan, Michael 144, 333, 340 Sweet, Henry 99, 157, 158, 159, 162, 166, 169, 173, 233, 236,

392

INDEX OF NAMES

237, 243, 248, 249, 250, 252, 253, 315, 316, 317, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 362, 365, 370, 371, 372, 377 Swinton, William 31, 32, 33 Taylor, J. 19 T h a c k w r a y , Mrs. 16 The Little Linguist 19 Thompson, Denys 73 Thompson, J. 15 Thompson, J.B. 17, 18 Thomson, A u d r e y 340 Tops, Guy 141 T r a g e r , George 123, 124 T r e b l e , H e n r y 73 T r e n c h , Richard 19 T u r n e r , J o h n 210 Twaddell, William 132 Uhlig, Gustav 311 U l h e r r , Hans 148 Ungerer, Friedrich 330, 332, 335, 337, 338, 340, 341, 343 Vallins, George 73 Vana, J a n 202 V e n d r y e s , J o s e p h 162 Vettel, F r a n z Viëtor, Wilhelm 252, 254 Visser, F r e d e r i k 331, 334 Vocht, Henry de 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 Voges, H. Walcott, Fred 127 Walker, William 16 Walmsley, A r t h u r 73 Walmsley, J o h n 57, 223, 230 Ward, J o h n 312, 314

W a r r i n e r , J o h n 131 Watanabe, Shoichi 3 Watts, B e r t h a 128 Wächtler, K u r t 1, 4, 5, 7, 53, 115 Webster, Noah 28, 31 Weekley, E r n e s t 102 Weld, Allen 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35 Wells, William 28, 29, 31, 33, 35 Wendt, G. 248 Werlich, Egon 1 West, Alfred 21 White, F r e d e r i c k 21 White, Richard 93, 94, 99, 110 White, T e r e n c e 89 Whitehall, Harold 123 Whitney, William 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 4 1 , 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 5 1 , 52, 53, 54, 115, 116, 243, 247, 249, 250, 252, 253 Whittinton, R o b e r t 77 Whorf, Benjamin 144 Wilkins, James 16 Wilkins, J o h n 311 Winkelmann, Adam 212, 226 Woolley, Edwin 115 Wrightson, W. 17 Wüllenweber, F r a n z 207 Yardley, R o b e r t 16 Z a n d v o o r t , Reinard 149, 163, 174, 294, 296, 297, 299, 300, 305, 306, 376 Z y d a t i s s , Wolfgang 331