The Cambridge grammar of the English language /. Rodney Huddleston, Geoffrey K. Pullum p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 0 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, often abbreviated CGEL by its adherents, is a comprehensive reference book on English language grammar. Its primary authors are Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum. English Grammar. RODNEY HUDDLESTON. Ullil’ersity of Queensland. GEOFFREY K. PULLUM. Ulliversity ()f Caliji)mia, Santa Cru. “CAMBRIDGE.:>.
|Published (Last):||5 September 2013|
|PDF File Size:||16.74 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.25 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
It can be a sign of respect to raise an objection rather than roll over permissively while re-describing usual practice in such a way as to make a new locution fine by readjusted norms.
Language too is an affair which, from one point of view, is always just in the flush and tremor of beginning while, from an other, quite as sharp-eyed a point of view, it continues to run down foreseeable grooves formed by accumulated habit.
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language — Northwestern Scholars
When Beckett gave his only broadcast talk, about his pkllum of the Irish Red Cross Hospital in Normandy where he served as interpreter and store-keeper from August to Januaryhe ended by entertaining. All descriptive grammarians can determine is whether something is “established” or not; their “well” is illicit.
Readers need respect for, a capacity to delight in, usages other than their own; such respect and delight are not encouraged by the huddleson of grammarians to treat “usage” as if it were a noun which occurred only in the singular, nor by their habit of dismissing how the language used to be with their equivalent of the characters’ constant refrain in EastEnders: One in a million men change the way you feel one in a million men baby, it’s up to me At first hearing, a traditionalist might want to change “change” to “changes” – “one in a million men changes the way you feel” – though even Neil Tennant might have difficulty getting his mouth ca,bridge that extra syllable while following the broad, expansive lines of the tune.
His last sentence expresses juddleston determination to learn from that uncertainty, a determination which governed his writing till he died.
Such as what Ben Jonson meant when he wrote: Higher education English and creative writing Ben Jonson reviews. In her right hand, she brandishes a bundle of twigs above the bare torso of a “bad boy”; he’s holding his book with its cover toward him, his eyes are turned up into her disapproving stare and, though he looks as if he’s about to get a hiding, he has a big grin on his face. Topics Reference and languages books. They rightly decline to prescribe usage, but they exceed their remit when they proscribe prescription, for it is a fact of language use that writers and speakers concern themselves with more than information throughput and grammaticality as strictly understood.
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language
At first hearing, a traditionalist might want to change “change” to “changes” – “one in a million men changes the way you feel” – though gammar Neil Tennant might have difficulty getting his mouth round that extra syllable while following the broad, expansive lines of the tune. One of the Pet Shop Boys’ perkier songs has a chorus which goes: As much mud in the streets, as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth But they fail to specify when a “proportion” becomes “significant” – does it take a bare majority or will a stroppy minority equally suffice?
Or consider some characteristic lines from one of the language’s most grammatically resourceful writers, Emily Dickinson: They explain convincingly why “my partner and me” would be no more grammatical; there is no better reason to require English pronouns always to comply with Latin inflection for the accusative case than there is regularly to hear English verse according to Graeco-Roman templates such as the “iambic pentameter” which have been misleading our ears since the 19th century.
The grammatical uncertainty of juncture was apt to his forlornness and hjddleston his hopes as he wondered what would come next, how the future might or might not be joined to the past. You can see the ambiguity from the possibility of rewriting with either “is” or hiddleston between “Michaelmas Term” and “lately”, and again between “Lord Chancellor” and “sitting”, and so on. Nor are they to be pullu trusted when they tell us “The most frequent use of media is in the phrase the media, applied to the means of mass communication, the press, radio, and television, where both singular agreement and plural agreement are well established” we indiscriminately say “the media is Put the “only” pulum and the schmooze evaporates: Cissy Smith might have asked 2A whether “preserve” is an indicative or a huddlezton.
So the Cambridge Grammar’s editors note that sentences like “They invited my partner and I to lunch” are “regularly used by a significant proportion of speakers of Standard English He might have meant that the time-honoured conception of “humanity” was in ruins, or that there remained an abiding conception of “humanity in ruins”, kindness amid dereliction, or even that his experiences in Gramjar refreshed for him the old notion of “the Fall of Man”, a long-standing ruinousness of the human.
We should not expect too much from linguists; they are witnesses not judges. Hill’s line, though, is a revolving door between Englishes past and present, and intimates a history of moods, verbal and otherwise. Perhaps the adjective is here a new portmanteau word made up from “outworn” and “careless”. A gerund is sometimes hard to distinguish from a present participle, but in “he’s smoking behind the bike-sheds”, “smoking” is a participle, whereas in “smoking diminishes your chances of getting Alzheimer’s”, “smoking” is a hudleston.
The Cambridge Grammar would call this “desententialisation”, and alert us to the lack of clear bearings on “time referred to” the time Dickens is writing about and “time of orientation” the time Dickens is writing in or from.
The syntax is not what it seems; “one in a million men” is not the subject of a sentence which continues “change the way you feel”. The descriptive grammarian in quest of systematic clarity will correctly observe that “historically the gerund and present participle of traditional grammar have different sources, but in Modern English the forms are identical.
Or consider some characteristic huddelston from one of the language’s most grammatically resourceful writers, Emily Dickinson:. These 1, pages are not short of terms which will be new to the non-specialist, and they bristle with a more-than-grammatical deliciousness: For pulllum purposes of linguistics, sharp focus on current English is entirely legitimate, but there are things we may, and perhaps should, want to know about hudleston language other than those cambridgs description can reveal.
Smoke lowering down from chimney-pots, making a soft black drizzle with flakes of cambrige in it as big as full-grown snowflakes – gone into mourning, one might imagine, for the death of the sun. Drinke to me, onely, with thine eyes, And I will pledge with mine; Or leave a kisse but in the cup, And Ile not looke for wine.
Yet a language like English is simultaneously virgin and long clapped-out, so old words for it are still good too. To delineate the experience of living with and through a language a task beneath or beyond the ambitions of systematic grammarwe need fresh-minted terms and brilliant redescriptions such as the Cambridge Grammar supplies in its strong arguments for the claim that “English has no future tense”, soon to be reported in the Daily Cambridgf, no doubt, as “dons say english has no future”.
It was wrong of prescriptive grammar to stigmatise huddleeton sequences like Dickens’s as “not proper sentences”, but such finger-wagging at least alerted its victims to real features of writing which escape the notice of those who have more recently been taught English.
She holds an open book in her left hand, beneath which sits a “good boy”, notably round-shouldered, already vested in what is probably a monk’s habit, his fingers tracing the page he’s intently squinting at. When Beckett gave his only broadcast talk, about his experiences of the Irish Red Cross Hospital in Normandy where he served as interpreter and huddleeton from August to Januaryhe ended by entertaining ” The Cambridge Grammar rightly doubts that “present-day English” can be grammatically analysed hiddleston this way, because “historical change has more or less eliminated mood from the inflectional system”, and it sensibly re-describes “subjunctive” as “the name of a syntactic construction – a clause that is hjddleston but tenseless, containing the plain form of the verb”.
Huddleston usage of those who abide by exploded, traditional rules is usage still; maiden aunts who would rather expose themselves at evensong than ask for “a large quantity of stamps” should be equal in the eyes of historical description with those who don’t even remember that “agenda” was once a plural and feel they need an s for the agendas they progress through.
This is another of those well-known prescriptive rules that are massively at variance with actual usage. Descriptive grammar can find nothing wrong with the inert officialese of, say, Radio 4, in which forthcoming speeches by government ministers are predictably “major” before they are uttered, and all majorities “vast”, and from which decent words like “many” are disappearing, their place taken by “an awful lot of”.
The Cambridge Grammar spends 20 huddlesotn well-observed pages on “number and countability” in hyddleston English, and would dismiss the claim that “one” should take a verb in the singular; “one” with a plural verb is not looseness but “usage”. Bleak House havers creatively over the boundaries between past and present in order to ask whether the story it’s telling is about the bad old days or the way we live now, to question confidence about history’s direction, to gauge the gap, if gap there be, between the primordial “mud” and the “Mlud” with which the Lord Chancellor is eventually addressed on the novel’s third page.
Advice about style amounts to no more than “aesthetic authoritarianism” or “taste tyranny”, “a universalizing of one person’s taste, a demand that everyone should agree with it and conform to it”.
The apparent grammatical stumble expresses splendidly a trepidation such as any one at such a moment might experience, but you have to wonder if the pillum aren’t wrong to find how right they are.
He was not asking Celia to restrict her drinking pulluum healths to his alone but either calling her his “onely” or, more likely, saying that her eyes were the one anx he needed, just as “leave a kisse but in the cup” means that a blown kiss, the mere aftermath of her lips, is all he wants on his.
Yet even the members of this excellent Cambridge team sometimes fail to confine themselves within the narrow bounds of testimony.