Editor for this issue: Terence Langendoen <terry
linguistlist.org>
B�rjars, Kersti, and Kate Burridge (2001) Introducing English Grammar. Arnold, paperback, ISBN 0-340-69173-5, xiii+311pp., $24.95. Reviewed by Viatcheslav Iatsko, Department of English, Katanov State University of Khakasia. It should be noted at once that the title of the textbook under review doesn't fully correspond to its scope. An experienced linguistic reader coming across the title "Introducing English Grammar" expects the book to deal with morphology and syntax, while this textbook concentrates mostly on the syntax. The structure of the textbook comprises 10 chapters with only one of them (chapter 3, pp. 45-73) devoted to the study of English words and morphological and syntactic characteristics of major parts of speech (noun, pronoun, verb, adjective, adverb, preposition, and determiner). Some classes (parenthesis, participle, gerund) and sub-classes (abstract nouns, defining, negative pronouns, semantic types of verbs) are not distinguished at all. Apart from that, 6 pages in chapter 2 deal with the classification of morphemes. The rest of the book concentrates on the types of phrases, structure of sentences, types of clauses, and some characteristics of discourse. Perhaps this arrangement of the book reflects the fact that English doesn't belong to morphologically rich languages and most of contemporary English grammars make emphasis on the syntax unlike, for example, Russian grammars, in which grammar as a linguistic discipline is proportionally divided into morphemics (the study of morphemes), morphology (the study of morphological categories and parts of speech) and syntax. Those interested in a more detailed description of English morphemics and morphology can use some other book, for example L. Brinton's (2000)'The Structure of Modern English'. Another specific feature of contemporary English grammars as well as of this textbook is emphasis on constituent structure of phrases and sentences. It is common knowledge that constituent analysis methodology is based on the specific features of English, on its configurational character, and can hardly be applied to less configurational or non-configurational languages. The authors should have pointed out this fact and should have referred to some other alternative conceptions, such as, for example, lexical functional syntax (Bresnan, 2000). In the Preface the authors claim that the textbook can be used by different kinds of readers: teachers of English, learners of English, researchers engaged in language analysis and literary studies. This claim is supported by the plain language, simple examples and thorough analyses of some linguistic phenomena. An example of such analysis is constituency tests (substitution, sentence fragment, movement, and coordination) that are arranged according to their power and can be successfully applied by the students to identify syntactic constituents of the sentence (chapter 2, pp.23-38). Another example is description of X-bar theory and structure of noun phrases and verb phrases (chapter 3, pp.75-80) A third example is description of types of sentences distinguished according to their function in discourse (declaratives, imperatives, interrogatives, and exclamatives) in chapter 5. These sections of the book can be successfully used in teaching English as a foreign language at an advanced level. One of the drawbacks of the textbook is lack of references to linguistic literature. While discussing semantic roles performed by the subject (chapter 4, pp.85-86) the authors should have given references to the works on case grammar (W. Cook, 1998); not having done that the authors had missed a good opportunity to introduce case grammar as a branch of linguistics. The statement, that traditional grammars consider 'there' to be an adverbial (chapter 4, p.91), seems not substantiated, as the authors don't give any references. In Russian traditional grammars English construction 'there + be' is considered a predicate (Kaushanskaya, 1973). The whole chapter 4 "Functions within the clause" (pp. 83-116) is the weakest in the textbook containing unsubstantiated and sometimes misleading statements. Treatment of the subject seems superficial, especially the statement 'verbs agree only with subjects' (p.88). English presents many examples (not mentioned in the textbook) of agreement between the verb and some other part of the sentence. Consider, for example, '30 miles is a long distance', in which 'be' agrees with 'distance', not with 'miles'. According to the authors conception 'distance' must be a subject though it is sure to be a predicative. Considering the predicative complement in the sentence 'Zelda is a pug' the authors write: 'It is really quite simple... the noun phrase has the same referent as the subject; it is co-referential with the subject' (p.98). Not so simple and completely wrong! The words 'Zelda' and 'pug' are in no sense co-referent as they express notions of different sizes: the size of 'pug' is bigger than the size of 'Zelda'. The sentence expresses a taxonomic relation between two words, whereas the relation between co-referent terms is that of identity. The authors seem to have no notion of the theory of reference and types of logical relations between the subject and the predicate (Arutiunova, 1974). On pp. 148-149 (chapter 5) the authors state:"...there is no future tense in English...there are two tenses in English: present and past. ...but nothing that we can describe as future tense" thus repeating the well known point of view formulated by O. Jespersen and other representatives of American Descriptive Linguistics. It should be noted that a more substantiated approach was suggested by M. Blokh who distinguishes future in English on the basis of the apposition between an 'after-action' and a 'non-after-action' (Blokh, 1983, p.144). The latter point of view is more useful for practical purposes since teaching English as a foreign language a lecturer takes much effort to explain the meaning of 'shall', 'will' and 'would' combined with progressive, perfect and past forms of the verb. Each chapter is followed by 'Points to remember' section summarizing its content, and 'Exercises' section which could be more helpful for learners if the authors had given keys to the exercises. The exercises themselves are very brief. It would have been good if the authors and editors had followed the practice of leading publishing houses (such as Benjamins, for instance) and supplied the textbook with extensive exercises on a CD. Of course, a textbook aimed at such audience should have been supplied by a glossary of linguistic terms. References Arutiunova N.D. Predlozhenie i ego smysl (1974). Moscow: Nauka Bresnan J. Lexical functional syntax (2000) (the book is available on- line on J.Bresnan's web page). Blokh M.Y. A Course in theoretical English grammar (1983). Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola. Brinton L. The structure of modern English (2000). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Cook W.A. Case grammar applied (1998). Arlington: The Summer Institute of Linguistics. Kaushanskaya V.L. (ed.) (1973). A grammar of the English language. Moscow: Prosveshenie. V.Iatsko is a professor in the Department of English and Head of the Computational Linguistics Laboratory at the Katanov State University of Khakasia located in Abakan, Russia. His research interests include text summarization, text grammar, TEFL, contrastive analysis of English and Russian syntax.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue