Sunteți pe pagina 1din 24

Grammar

1. The systematic study and description of a language. 2. A set of rules and examples dealing with the syntax and wordstructures (morphology) of a language. Adjective: grammatical. Etymology: From the Greek, "craft of letters" Observations:
y

"It is not the business of grammar, as some critics seem preposterously to imagine, to give law to the fashions that regulate our speech. On the contrary, from its conformity to these, and from that alone, it derives its authority and value." (George Campbell, Philosophy of Rhetoric, 1776)

"Ancient attitudes to grammar still survive: many people are in awe of it, know little about it, tend to fear or dislike it, often find it baffling or boring if exposed to it at school, and yet a minority is fascinated by it: a field in which precise scholarship and nit-picking pedantry have co-existed for centuries." (Sidney Greenbaum, The Oxford English Grammar. Oxford Univ. Press, 1996)

"What I know about grammar is its infinite power. To shift the structure of a sentence alters the meaning of that sentence." (Joan Didion)

"[G]rammar is the study of all the contrasts of meaning that it is possible to make within sentences. The 'rules' of grammar tell us how. By one count, there are some 3,500 such rules in English." (David Crystal, The Fight for English. Oxford Univ. Press, 2006)

"A preschooler's tacit knowledge of grammar is more sophisticated than the thickest style manual. [Grammar should not] be confused with the guidelines for how one 'ought' to speak." (Steven Pinker, Words and Rules. Harper, 1999)

"The child does not learn his language from his grammar. After he has learned it in other ways, grammar steps in and furnishes him a scientific analysis of what he has been doing." (Thomas R. Lounsbury, "Compulsory Composition in Colleges." Harper's Monthly Magazine, Nov. 1911)

Syntax and Morphology "Grammar is concerned with how sentences and utterances are formed. In a typical English sentence, we can see the two most basic principles of grammar, the arrangement of items (syntax) and the structure of items (morphology): I gave my sister a sweater for her birthday. The meaning of this sentence is obviously created by words such as gave, sister, sweaterand birthday. But there are other words (I, my, a, for, her) which contribute to the meaning, and, additionally, aspects of individual words and the way they are arranged which enable us to interpret what the sentence means." (Ronald Carter and Michael McCarthy, Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006)

"There is a satisfactory boniness about grammar which the flesh of sheer vocabularyrequires before it can become vertebrate and walk the earth. But to study it for its own sake, without relating it to function, is utter madness." (Anthony Burgess)

"Henceforth, language studies were no longer directed merely toward correctinggrammar." (Ferdinand de Saussure)

Grammar and Conversation Analysis "[G]rammar and social interaction are bound up together and analysis should focus on the relationship between them, rather than separating grammar out as a system that exists independently of language-in-interaction. "For many linguists, such a position is counter-intuitive; but what is even more counter-intuitive in the

developing relationship between CA [conversation analysis] and grammatical study is that contributors are starting to work with a variety of definitions of 'grammar' in the first place. These range from the traditional linguistic view of grammar as the set of rules for stringing words together in sentences, to far less conventional and more sociologically inclined ideas." (Ian Hutchby and Robin Wooffitt, Conversation Analysis, 2nd ed. Polity, 2008)

"This book [The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language] is a description of the grammar of modern Standard English, providing a detailed account of the principles governing the construction of English words, phrases, clauses, and sentences. To be more specific, we give a synchronic, descriptive grammar of general purpose, present-day, international Standard English." (Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002)

"When strictness of grammar does not weaken expression, it should be attended to. . . . But where, by small grammatical negligences, the energy of an idea is condensed, or a word stands for a sentence, I hold grammatical rigor in contempt." (Thomas Jefferson)

"Grammar is not a time of waste." (Bart Simpson, The Simpsons)

"People--they don't write anymore; they blog. Instead of talking, they text: no punctuation, no grammar, 'lol' this and 'lmao' that. You know, it seems to me that it's just a bunch of stupid people pseudo-communicating with a bunch of other stupid people in a proto-language that resembles more what cavemen used to speak than the King's English." (David Duchovny as Hank Moody in "LOL." Californication, 2007) Pronunciation: GRAM-er

Common Errors in English Usage


What is an error in English? The concept of language errors is a fuzzy one. Ill leave to linguists the technical definitions. Here were concerned only

with deviations from the standard use of English as judged by sophisticated users such as professional writers, editors, teachers, and literate executives and personnel officers. The aim of this site is to help you avoid low grades, lost employment opportunities, lost business, and titters of amusement at the way you write or speak. But isnt one persons mistake anothers standard usage? Often enough, but if your standard usage causes other people to consider you stupid or ignorant, you may want to consider changing it. You have the right to express yourself in any manner you please, but if you wish to communicate effectively, you should use nonstandard English only when you intend to, rather than fall into it because you dont know any better. Why dont you cover all important points of grammar? Other sites do this; mine is dedicated to errors in usage. This is not a site dealing with grammar in general. Im learning English as a second language. Will this site help me improve my English? Very likely, though its really aimed at the most common errors of native speakers. The errors others make in English differ according to the characteristics of their first languages. Speakers of other languages tend to make some specific errors that are uncommon among native speakers, so you may also want to consult sites dealing specifically with English as a second language (see http://www.cln.org/subjects/esl_cur.html and http://esl.abo ut.com/education/adulted/esl/). There is also a Help Desk for ESL students at Washington State University at http://www.wsu.edu/~gordonl/ESL/. An outstanding book you may want to order is Ann Raimes Keys for Writers. Arent some of these points awfully picky? This is a relative matter. One persons gaffe is anothers peccadillo. Some common complaints about usage strike me as too persnickety, but Im just discussing mistakes in English that happen to bother me. Feel free to create your own page listing your own pet peeves, but I welcome suggestions for additions to these pages. First, read the Commonly Made

Suggestions page, and if you still want to write me, please do so, after reading the instructions on that page. What gives you the right to say what an error in English is? I could take the easy way out and say Im a professor of English and do this sort of thing for a living. True, but my Ph.D. is in comparative literature, not composition or linguistics, and I teach courses in the history of ideas rather than language as such. But I admire good writing and try to encourage it in my students. I found a word you criticized in the dictionary! You will find certain words or phrases criticized here listed in dictionaries. Note carefully labels like dial. (dialectical), nonstandard, and obsolete before assuming that the dictionary is endorsing them. The primary job of a dictionary is to track how people actually use language. Dictionaries differ among themselves on how much guidance to usage they provide; but the goal of a usage guide like this is substantially different: to protect you against patterns which are regarded by substantial numbers of well-educated people as nonstandard. Why do you discuss mainly American usage? Because Im an American, my readers are mostly American, and American English is quickly becoming an international standard. I often take note of ways in which American English differs from standard British practice. However, the job is complicated by the fact that Canadians, Australians, and many others often follow patterns somewhere between the two. If the standard usage where you are differs from what is described here, tell me about it, and if I think its important to do so, Ill note that fact. Meanwhile, just assume that this site is primarily about American English. If you feel tempted to argue with me, click here first. If you write mainly about American English, why do you so often cite the Oxford English Dictionary? First of all, I do not write exclusively about American English. I address UK usage in many entries on this site. Second, the OED strives to cover both UK and US usage, and often

notes words or expressions as having either originated in or being used mainly in the US. It is by no means an exclusively British dictionary. Third, theOED is the recognized authority among linguists for etymology. Its not always the last word in explanations of word origins and history, but it is the first source to turn to. Thats the main purpose for which I use the OED. Fourth, because the OED tends to be more conservative than some popular American dictionaries, when it accepts a controversial usage, thats worth noting. If even the OED regards a usage as accepted in modern English, then one should hesitate to argue that such usage is an error. But because the OED is so conservative, and doesnt always note when a formerly obsolete word is revived or changes in usage, its not a perfect guide to contemporary usage. It is particularly weak in noting changes in spoken rather than written English. Does it oppress immigrants and subjugated minorities to insist on the use of standard English? Language standards can certainly be used for oppressive purposes, but most speakers and writers of all races and classes want to use language in a way that will impress others. The fact is that the world is full of teachers, employers, and other authorities who may penalize you for your nonstandard use of the English language. Feel free to denounce these people if you wish; but if you need their good opinion to get ahead, you'd be wise to learn standard English. Note that I often suggest differing usages as appropriate depending on the setting: spoken vs. written, informal vs. formal; slang is often highly appropriate. In fact, most of the errors discussed on this site are common in the writing of privileged middle-class Americans, and some are characteristic of people with advanced degrees and considerable intellectual attainments. However you come down on this issue, note that the great advantage of an open Web-based educational site like this is that it's voluntary: take what you want and leave the rest. Its interesting that I have received hundreds of messages from non-native speakers thanking me for these pages and none from such people complaining that my pages discriminate against them. But you made a mistake yourself! We all do, from time to time. If you think youve found an

error in my own writing, first read the Commonly Made Suggestions page, then follow the instructions on that page if you still think I need correcting. Ive changed many aspects of these pages in response to such mail; even if I disagree with you, I try to do so politely. If you write me, please dont call me Brian. My given name is Paul. Paul Brians Emeritus Professor of English Washington State University
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/

The Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar Some Questions and Answers About Grammar
Why is grammar important? Grammar is important because it is the language that makes it possible for us to talk about language. Grammar names the types of words and word groups that make up sentences not only in English but in any language. As human beings, we can put sentences together even as children--we can all do grammar. But to be able to talk about how sentences are built, about the types of words and word groups that make up sentences--that is knowing about grammar. People associate grammar with errors and correctness. But knowing about grammar also helps us understand what makes sentences and paragraphs clear and interesting and precise. Grammar can be part of literature discussions, when we and our students closely read the sentences in poetry and stories. And knowing about grammar means finding out that all languages and all dialects follow grammatical patterns. Is grammar included in the NCTE/IRA Standards for the English Language Arts? Four of the twelve standards call on the students' understanding of language and sentence structure:

Standard #3 refers to the range of strategies and abilities students should use to comprehend and appreciate texts, and among these is their understanding of sentence structure. Standard #4 explains that students should adjust their spoken and written language for different audiences and purposes, and these adjustments include changes in the conventions and style of language. Standard #6 states that students should "apply knowledge of language structure, language conventions (e.g. spelling and punctuation)" to create and critique both print and nonprint texts. (Italics added.) Standard #9 calls for students to "develop an understanding of and respect for diversity in language use, patterns, and dialects across cultures, ethnic groups, geographic regions, and social roles." (Italics added.) Understanding basic grammar can help students see the patterns of different languages and dialects. I hear that teaching grammar doesn't help students to make fewer errors. But students make so many mistakes in their writing. What should I do? Teaching grammar will not make writing errors go away. Students make errors in the process of learning, and as they learn about writing, they often make new errors, not necessarily fewer ones. But knowing basic grammatical terminology does provide students with a tool for thinking about and discussing sentences. And lots of discussion of language, along with lots of reading and lots of writing, are the three ingredients for helping students write in accordance with the conventions of standard English. I try to teach the standard parts of speech and the usual rules for correct writing even though I'm not convinced the students retain the information for very long. What's the best way to approach grammar under these circumstances? Two suggestions: The first is to be selective, to the extent that you can. Students benefit much more from learning a few grammar keys thoroughly than from trying to remember many terms and rules. Experiment with different approaches until you find the ones that work the best for you and your students. Some teachers focus on showing students how phrases add rich detail to sentences. Other teachers find that sentence diagrams help students see the organization of sentences. Some use grammar metaphors (the sentence, for example, as a bicycle, with the subject as the front wheel and the predicate as the back). Some emphasize the verb as the key part of speech, showing

students how the sentence is built around it and how vivid verbs create vivid sentences. The second suggestion is that whatever approach you take to grammar, show students how to apply it not only to their writing but also to their reading and to their other language arts activities. For example, knowing basic grammar can help students when they come across a difficult story or poem. If they know how to find the main verb and the subject, they have a better chance of figuring out a difficult sentence. When they like the way a writer writes, they can identify the sentence structures that the writer uses, and they can experiment with them themselves. Make good use of the other languages and the various dialects of English in your classroom. Compare the informal private language students speak around friends and family with public Standard English. Learn a little about the noun and verb patterns in Spanish and African American English Vernacular, for example, so that you can make comparisons when discussing Standard English. Students feel prouder of their home language when they hear even briefly in school about its grammatical patterns. Grammar workbook exercises get pretty dull, but they do cover the basics. Are they worthwhile? How should I use them? Traditional drill and practice will be the most meaningful to students when they are anchored in the context of writing assignments or the study of literary models. Students find grammar most interesting when they apply it to authentic texts. Try using texts of different kinds, such as newspapers and the students' own writing, as sources for grammar examples and exercises. This approach helps make grammar relevant and alive. It also avoids the artificiality of studying sentences in isolation, a problem with grammar books; in real texts, students can see how sentences connect and contrast to each other through their grammar. What kinds of grammar exercises help students write not just correct sentences but better, more expressive ones? Inexperienced writers find it difficult to make changes in the sentences that they have written. Expanding sentences, rearranging the parts of a sentence, combining sentences--these skills do not come easily. So any exercises that help students acquire sentence flexibility have value. Two methods have yielded good results. One is sentence combining: students start with simple exercises in inserting phrases and combining sentences and progress towards exercises in embedding one clause in another. Another approach is for students to imitate model sentences; when students read a model passage and then write their version of it, imitating its grammatical features, they integrate reading skill, writing practice, and grammatical understanding.

Another type of grammar exercise is for students to practice using certain subordinate constructions that enrich sentences. Participles, -ing and -ed verb forms, can be used by themselves or as phrases, adding detail with a sense of action, drawing the reader into the sentence (as with the two participial phrases that close this sentence). An appositive, a noun or noun phrase that renames another noun, adds information quickly (as this sentence illustrates). An absolute phrase is a noun phrase plus a following modifier that is related to the sentence as a whole, its purpose to focus the reader on a detail as a zoom lens does (and as the preceding absolute phrase does). Prepared by Brock Haussamen from the works and discussions of the members of ATEG
http://grammar.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=grammar&cdn=education&tm=46&f=10&tt=1 2&bt=0&bts=0&st=10&zu=http%3A//www.ateg.org/grammar/qna.php

UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR The system of categories, operations, and principles shared by all human languages and considered to be innate.

Etymology: The concept of universal grammar has been traced to the observation of Roger Bacon, a 13th-century Franciscan friar and philosopher, that all languages are built upon a common grammar. The expressionwas popularized in the 1950s and 1960s by Noam Chomsky and other linguists. Observations:
y

"In cracking the code of language, . . . children's minds must be constrained to pick out just the right kinds of generalizations from the speech around them. . . . It is this line of reasoning that led Noam Chomsky to propose that language acquisition in children is the key to understanding the nature of language, and that children must be equipped with an innate Universal Grammar: a set of plans for the grammatical machinery that powers all human languages. This idea sounds more controversial than it is (or at least more controversial than it should be) because the logic of induction mandates that children makesome assumptions about how language works in order for them to succeed at learning a language at all. The only real controversy is what these assumptions consist of: a blueprint for a specific kind of rule system, a set of abstract principles, or a mechanism for finding simple patterns (which might also be used in learning things other than language)." (Steven Pinker, The Stuff of Thought. Viking, 2007)

"Generative grammarians believe that the human species evolved a genetically universal grammar common to all peoples and that the variability in modern languages is basically on the surface only." (Michael Tomasello, Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard Univ. Press, 2003)

"I and many fellow linguists would estimate that we only have a detailed scientific description of something like 10% to 15% of the world's languages, and for 85% we have no real documentation at all. Thus it seems premature to begin constructing grand theories of universal grammar. If we want to understand universals, we must first know the particulars." (K. David Harrison, linguist at Swarthmore College, in "Seven Questions for K. David Harrison." The Economist, Nov. 23, 2010) http://grammar.about.com/od/tz/g/unigramterm.htm

Dr. Gertrude Buck taught grammar, composition, rhetoric, and literary theory at Vassar College from 1897 until her death in 1922. Though teaching was Buck's primary mission, her vigorous writings remain influential. According to the Vassar Encyclopedia, Buck's "work in rhetorical studies laid the foundation for the recent rise of New Rhetoricians, scholars who believe that writing is a social action, andcommunication is a community experience." Many scholars now regard Buck's writings as the beginnings of feminist rhetorical studies in the U.S. Buck rejected "mechanical" methods of teaching "make-believe grammar"--meaningless drills and exercises that divorce languagefrom life. Instead she encouraged the teaching of a "real grammar" based on English speech and informed by the scientific study of language. Only then, she believed, would grammar instruction deserve a place in the curriculum. "Make-Believe Grammar" was originally presented before the Michigan Schoolmasters' Club in Ann Arbor (April 2, 1908) and later published in The School Review (University of Chicago, January 1909).

(An article) Make-Believe Grammar by Gertrude Buck Richard Grant White's statement that "nearly all of our so-called English grammar is mere make-believe grammar"1 has recently been quoted with approval by Professor [Albert H.] Tolman, of the University of Chicago, in his interesting account of "The Revival of English Grammar."2 By "make-believe grammar"

both writers mean, as Professor Tolman states, the application of rules modeled upon those of the highly inflected Latin language to the facts of the English tongue, which is almost wholly uninflected. As conspicuous examples of such unwarranted borrowings from Latin grammar are cited the objective case of nouns and theagreement of finite verbs with their subjects. In both these instances we have in English no modification of form to correspond with the Latin nomenclature; yet the nomenclature persists, with the necessary result that insensibly the pupil comes to regard the English tongue as falling short at many points of the accepted standard. Any well regulated language will, it is assumed, modify the form of a noun when it serves as direct object of a verb and that of a finite verb to agree with its subject in person and number. Since English does neither of these things, so much the worse for English. And from such entirely reasonable inferences the pupil cannot but derive an essentially false conception of his mother-tongue, a conception undefined, unacknowledged, but no less real and permanent, that the English language is a kind of inferior or degenerate Latin. This species of "make-believe grammar," however, is pretty generally recognized and need not detain us long. Professor [Florus Alonzo] Barbour in his admirable "History of English Grammar Teaching"3 has indicated its source in the Latinistic conceptions of English held by our earliest grammarians and has traced at least the beginnings of its decline under the influence of the wider linguistic knowledge of their successors. Professor Tolman cites [Otto] Jespersen's Progress in Language, with Especial Reference to English [1894], as competent authority for regarding the relatively uninflected English tongue as a stage, not in the deterioration or decay, but in the progressive evolution of language-structure. We are all theoretically at one upon this matter, it would seem, and though some details of reform demanded by the protestants may not be at once yielded by the practical teacher of grammar, the direction of our advance lies clear before us. English grammar must be presented as the formulated laws of English speech. This essentially scientific attitude toward the facts of the English language is already exemplified to a marked degree in our modern treatment of questions of usage. ProfessorsBrander Matthews and G. R. Carpenter, of Columbia University, Professor Scott, of the University of Michigan, and Professor [Thomas R.] Lounsbury, of Yale, have taught us that the old fashioned dogmatism of grammarians as to how people "ought" to speak is too commonly based on ignorance of the idiomatic peculiarities of our own language, of the past history of certain forms, or of present customs of speech outside a very limited circle. The more a man knows about any language the more clearly he sees it as a living, growing, changing thing; and the less willing is he to impose upon it an arbitrary legislation drawn from the usages of other tongues, from past usages of its own, or even from present usages not widely representative. Both theoretically then, and in at least one notable point of practice, "make-believe grammar" of the type so far discussed in this paper has fallen into disrepute. There seems little room for doubt that it will eventually, and at no remote period, be superseded in every detail by a grammar which bases itself unequivocally upon the facts of the English tongue as English. But the term "make-believe grammar" need not be confined to this fictitious structure of laws, terms, and definitions built up by analogy from another language and without firm foundation in the facts of English speech. There is another species, no less figmentary than this, and in my judgment far more fundamentally misleading to the pupil; that grammar, I mean, which is derived not only from speech that is not English, but from speech that is not, in any genuine sense, speech at all. Our early grammarians, we allege, turned away their eyes from the facts of English speech and gave us rules drawn by analogy from the usages of the Latin tongue. But have not grammarians of all languages and all times, too frequently turned away their eyes from the facts of speech itself, from the language process as we understand it today, and given us laws from the dead and detached product of that process? If this be true, we have a fictitious construction in English grammar considerably more important as it is both deeper-lying and farther-reaching than the mere Latinizing of English.

Is it, however, true? Almost infallibly one is assured upon the first page of every textbook on English grammar that "language is a means of communication." And from this indubitable, though somewhat shadowy declaration, we should naturally expect to proceed by observing certain cases in which an idea is conveyed from one mind to another and analyzing the process as reflected in the language used. The office of various elements involved in this communication would then presumably be noted, and the elements defined on this basis. That is, one would analyze a sentence as the unit of language, to discover the parts of speech. But instead of this the accredited procedure up to a very recent date, both for textbook and for teacher, has been first to define the parts of speech in turn and then proceed to join certain of them together in such fashion as to make what was called a sentence. A noun, that is a word, representing a person or thing was prefixed to a verb, that is, a word standing for an action or a state of being, and behold a sentence! Thirty years ago pupils were not infrequently required to manufacture sentences after this method, of which a reductio ad absurdumappears in the following "direction" taken from Reed and Kellogg's Higher Lessons in English.4 "Unite the words in columns 2 and 3 below [auxiliaries appear in column 2, past participles in column 3] and append the verbs thus formed to the nouns and pronouns in column 1 so as to make good sentences." And the implication that this is the typical sentence-structure, that language is a mechanical aggregation of separate elements, appears continually in the definitions and rules current during this period. In his Essentials of English Grammar5, Whitney assures us that the parts of speech must be "joined" together, "in order to make a whole, in order to be speech." "For a sentence," he declares further, "there must be not only words of more than one kind, but words of certain kinds, fitted together in certain ways." (The italics are, of course, mine.) Nor can we "make a complete sentence withoutjoining together a subject and a predicate." There could be no more unequivocal statement of the conception of language as a mechanical aggregation of separate words. And I might quote interminably from Whitney's contemporaries, even, I regret to say, from some modern textbooks also, equally direct implications of this conception. It is doubtless true that to the grammarian of an older generation there was no apparent inconsistency between this e pluribus unum conception of sentence-structure and the statement that language communicates the speaker's thought, since to the crude psychology which he had inherited from a still earlier time thought itself was "a thing of shreds and patches." One was, indeed, supposed to think first "house" and then "burning" and then put these two thoughts together before he could think--or say--"the house is burning." Granting this as a true account of the structure of thought, language might with entire consistency be described as a similar adding of word to word. But we all know now, that whatever else this splicing of "percept" to "concept" may be, it is not in the genuine sense of the term "thought," any more than a leaf, a stem and a root tied together are a plant. The leaf, the stem and the root are found in the plant as the ideas of house and burning are found in the thought that the house is on fire; but as the plant is a living growth, which has put out root, stem, and leaf, so the thought is an organic structure out of which its constituent ideas have developed. From a confused sense of something wrong perhaps as one suddenly wakes out of sleep, grows the single thought of the whole situation, namely, the house's being on fire, in which neither the house as such nor the act of burning as such have any separate existence. The thought is, in truth, one before it is many. The growing plant or animal is its fair analogy, not the mosaic or the stone wall. This organic conception of thought the present generation of English grammar teachers have gained from psychology and from real logic. And further, all that we know of the structure of language from modern philologists and students of literature goes to show that it, too, is a living, growing thing, not in any sentimental or remotely analogical sense, but as sober, scientific fact. The sentence which is spliced together out of the "parts of speech" is, in truth, no sentence at all. It is not language any more than a

company drill is fighting, or a scarecrow a man. Thought which is living, growing, organic in structure, cannot be conveyed or represented by a lifeless, static, artificial construction. Nor are we studying language by studying such a construction. The sentences which grammar presents to us have in very truth ceased to be language, once they have been cut off from all reference to the various acts of thoughtcommunication which gave rise to them, so that they seem to exist in and for themselves, mere mechanical congeries of words, brought together only to fulfil certain arbitrary requirements of the sentence form as such. That an artificial conception of the sentence similar to this, and directly at variance with our best knowledge of its nature and structure at the present time, has conditioned much teaching of English grammar in the past, seems to be indubitable. And that this false conception has actually been conveyed to pupils through their study of English grammar I also believe. A priori we should, indeed, expect it to be so. The mind of the child is extraordinarily sensitive to the images latent in our phrases. Professor Scott's paper on the "Figurative Element in Grammatical Terminology"6 discloses some quite unforeseen conclusions drawn by the young pupil from the uses in grammar of such supposably abstract and wholly technical terms as "case," "agree," "govern," "decline." And it is hardly conceivable that he should be insensitive to the suggestions of mechanical aggregation offered by such words as "joined with," "fitted together," "added to," "put with," "put together with," or "put along with," which in the older textbook are continually applied to the relations of words with one another in the sentence. The expectation, moreover, that images of sentence-structure, as mechanical rather than organic, must inevitably be carried by language of this sort, has been abundantly confirmed by such data upon the subject as I have been able to gather for myself. From time to time during the past few years I have taken occasion to inquire into the ideas of language-structure and function actually carried away by children from their study of English grammar. Students in both high school and college have written for me at various times answers to the following questions: "What image (or picture) stood for the sentence in your mind after you had first studied grammar in school? What did you then think a sentence was for?" Though many pupils were of course conscious of no definite image, and many saw the sentence always in terms of the formal diagram they had been taught to use, the remaining answers all but invariably indicated both an artificial conception of sentence structure and a complete dissociation of the sentence from any purpose other than that of serving as a grammatical exercise. The picture suggested might be a string of beads, a line of wooden blocks, a train of cars, a card-house, a square of crazy patchwork; but it was almost invariably a whole made up of separate things put together in a certain way. And these things were put together, not in order to express an idea to someone else, but simply to--why, to make a sentence! "It was built up by somebody," says one student, "just as a block house might have been--for no purpose but to pull it down again." "I never thought a sentence was for anything but to study," sadly remarks another; while a third volunteers the admission that, though "a sentence in grammar" seemed to her as a child, like a square of patchwork, she does not think of "a real sentence" in this way--"one that comes in my reading, I mean." This pointed distinction between "a real sentence" and "a sentence in grammar," has been repeatedly implied in the statements of different pupils, and seems to me worthy of serious consideration. Such inquiries as this are no doubt relatively unimpressive to anyone who receives them at second hand; but I believe that any teacher who, without prejudice, undertakes a similar line of investigation for himself, will come upon some astonishing and not insignificant revelations as to the vestigia left in the child's mind from his study of English grammar. Most convincing of all, to me, upon this point, however, are the unconscious betrayals to the teacher of literature or composition of a pupil's unrecognized sense of language as dissociated from the living thought process, an artificial structure of mere words for no end save that of meeting a requirement or "showing off" one's skill. Sometimes in such cases the source of

this idea of language seems to lie back of any larger study of writing or literature in some obscure but persistent image, finally traced to the pages of the grammar textbook or to the lips of the grammar teacher, an image of the sentence as a "made-up" thing, consisting of words put together to form a certain pattern or to exemplify a given rule. Such a deep-lying, inwoven conception, as many of us know, goes not out by prayer or fasting. Only the expulsive power of a new and truer image will avail; and upon the task of making an entrance for such an image into the preoccupied mind, presenting it again and again, etching it deeper and deeper over the lines of the old picture--upon this task, sometimes seemingly hopeless, many teachers of composition and literature are today expending their best efforts. No real writing, no real reading can be done by the student until works become to him direct and genuine expressions of thought. But surely all this labor to restore a vital significance which need never have been lost, is an indefensible waste in education. It is only fair to say, however, that year by year such cases as this become fewer, in my own experience at least. And they would reach the vanishing-point within a college generation or so, if only our growing sense of the fatuity of teaching a pupil in English grammar ideas of language which must be with infinite difficulty unlearned when he studies composition and literature could be reinforced by an unerring choice of means for imparting to him the truer and more permanent conception of language as organic: This last is, indeed, the crux of the practical situation. Since the reign of W. D. Whitney and of Reed and Kellogg in the field of English grammar we have unquestionably advanced several steps in the direction of teaching the actual structure of language; but the tale is not yet fully told. Many of our recent textbooks strive, with varying success, to keep the "real sentence" and the sentence of grammar from invidious separation in the pupil's mind. They forbear to require the manufacture of imitation sentences, according to a formula furnished by them. Instead of "building" sentences to order after this fashion, they rather study such sentences as grow naturally out of the student's own thought or such as easily communicate to him the thought of another person, and hence become vicariously his own. These sentences are not mere puzzles, combinations of words in a certain pattern. They exist to convey thought, and do convey it to the pupil, since it is thought of a type which either is already or readily may become his. And at least the vanguard of our grammar teachers at the present time see that whether the pupil himself actually makes the sentence or whether it is suggested to him, he does not study its structure until it is to him a living sentence, a real expression of thought. The modern textbook and the modern teacher, moreover, insist upon studying the parts of speech as derived from the sentence, not the sentence as made up from the parts of speech. They attempt, at least, to define each part of speech by the actual service it renders in conveying the thought of the sentence as a whole, rather than as merely representing some particular class of things in the world. This is a little fire, but it kindles a great matter. Verbs do, no doubt, in the realm of words, roughly correspond to actions or "states of being" in the world of things, nouns to persons or things, adjectives to the qualities of persons or things, prepositions to relations between persons and things, and so on. But to define a verb, a noun, an adjective, and a preposition in this way is certainly to give color to the mechanical conception of sentence-structure. Join a person or thing to an action, a quality to the person or thing, a relation to another thing, and the two to the action, and you have a thought. In the same fashion unite a noun with a verb, an adjective with the noun, a preposition with another noun, and the two with the verb, and behold the language-structure corresponding to the thought. Such is the implication of these definitions. If, however, the subject as a whole has been first distinguished from the predicate as a whole, on the basis of the different function each performs in conveying the thought of the whole sentence, if then each part of speech is similarly discriminated from every other on the basis of its office in developing further any element of the thought, the adjective, for instance, being defined by virtue of its function as particularizing in various ways the meaning of a noun or pronoun, an adverb as discriminating the precise manner or conditions of the action indicated by the verb--if, in short, a vivid sense of the activity of the

whole sentence and of all its parts in the communication of thought underlies every definition and rule, we have at least an honest effort to deal with real language and to represent it as it is. Attempts of this sort are certain to be faulty in detail until we have become more completely interpenetrated than any of us can be as yet with the functional conception of the sentence. But they serve at least to point the way of our advance in the rational and scientific teaching of English grammar. We know that the study of English grammar has long since ceased to justify itself as a practical art. It has been pretty thoroughly demonstrated in experience that by parsing words and memorizing rules children do not learn to speak and write correctly. There remains, then, to the subject, only such justification as it may fairly claim on grounds of being a science, the theoretic formulation of the laws of the English language within the limits of the sentence-form. But this justification is surely imperiled by the charge of unscientific method and conclusion brought against it by students ofcomparative philology, in their contention that English grammar treats and represents the English language not as English but as a hybrid or deteriorated Latin. And still more conclusively we must admit does English grammar forfeit its justification to a place in the curriculum of studies as the science or theory of the English sentence, if it continues to treat its subject-matter in a fashion essentially unscientific, averting the eyes from the facts of genuine speech and writing, to analyze instead a fictitious construction of its own; if it studies and presents to pupils, in lieu of the living language, an artificial substitute manufactured by the grammarian and without real existence or usefulness in the world; if it holds and conveys to students false conceptions of the English language not only as English but also as language itself. This is "make-believe grammar" in its deadliest aspect. Until we have done with it entirely we cannot begin to enter into the possibilities which real grammar offers to education in these present days. A word only in conclusion as to these possibilities. If we pass in review the great tendencies and achievements in education for the past half-century, we may note one principle as common to them all-the principle, namely, of displacing a formula by an activity, second-hand by first-hand knowledge. The laboratory method in natural science thus substitutes the pupil's own drawing of inferences and formulation of laws for his acceptance of them ready-made as the products of other people's observations and induction. He sees, traces out, controls, and analyzes the processes giving rise to the formulae which once he merely memorized from the pages of a book. And wherever the experimental method has obtained, even in subjects once regarded as insusceptible of scientific treatment, such as psychology and history, the observation of activities has supplanted the mere learning of the results of these activities. In manual training we have a further instance of the transmutation of dead fact into living action. Those facts and principles of measurement, calculation, physical properties, which were once given directly to the student as rules or formulae to be learned, are now encountered by him as he follows step by step some active process in which they are involved. He thus grasps them more readily and retains them more easily, since they represent to him the living conditions or results of an activity which he has himself witnessed or carried on. Of similar significance is that interesting type of primary education which uses the primitive industrial processes, such as pottery making, weaving, iron and metal work, not only to train the eye, the hand, and the mind of the pupil, but to afford him some insight into the complex social organization of which he is a part. By following out these processes from their crude beginnings to their complicated development in the present industrial order, the child is believed to gain not only a vital and thorough knowledge of the facts and principles incident to them throughout their evolution, but also some comprehension of those infinitely tangled and multitudinous activities which constitute the world's life, but which to those of us not thus initiated are usually little more than a "big blooming buzzing Confusion."

With the relative values of these various educational movements we are not now concerned. Our interest is wholly in the coincidence of their animating ideas, a coincidence which can hardly be regarded as purely accidental. Beneath innumerable differences of superficial aspect, these three noteworthy tendencies in modern education are rooted in the same elementary principle, namely that the products or results of an active process can be rightly understood and strongly seized upon by the human mind only in connection with that process. Within the field of language-study, moreover, this principle has to some extent already obtained. The historical and the comparative study of languages and literature is in fact built upon it. Our teaching of English composition has for several years paid tribute to it. In English grammar, last of all, we are beginning to recognize it. In this subject, therefore, we have yet to receive the returns which its completer acceptance and more consistent carrying out have elsewhere yielded. These returns are so far conceded that I need only enumerate them. The laboratory method, manual training, the study of social and industrial activities, the organic or functional study of languages, of literature, of English composition, restore to dead forms, detached facts, meaningless laws, the color, the life, the significance which they have lost through separation from the activities which gave them birth. Such restoration will assuredly take place in grammar--has indeed already taken place wherever the organic conception of language has entered into it. When we have at length dismissed entirely from our teaching that artificial product of the grammarian's ingenuity which I cannot forbear characterizing as "near-language," and set our pupils in earnest to studying the language process by direct analysis of the sentence-activity, we shall find this subject richer in its opportunities than any of us has conceived. In the first place the language process is not, like weaving or pottery making, obsolete in our modern households. It is at hand whenever and wherever one wants it. It is carried on by every child without self-consciousness as an essential activity in his daily life. It may be studied without elaborate apparatus of any kind. Since it involves abstract relations, without that actual manipulation of material substance characteristic of the industrial processes, it should doubtless not be the earliest activity studied by the child; but we must not on the other hand forget that when every language relation is consistently referred to the concrete reality behind the words, intelligent dealing with it becomes comparatively easy even for pupils in the lower grades. But beyond its extraordinary availability, the language process has a second and quite incommensurable advantage over any other process as a subject for study, in its unrivaled importance to the social order. If it is held advisable that the young student should understand certain industrial processes, that he may thereby gain some insight into this complicated modern world of ours, he should assuredly to this same end apply himself to that great process of communication by language between man and man, through which alone the individual can put his knowledge and thought at the service of his fellows, through which alone society can profit by the achievements of its members. It is with this act, rightly understood, that grammar has to deal, not with mere words printed on the page. And in so far as it studies this act at first hand, observing and analyzing it as communication, as the living transference of thought from mind to mind, creating thus and shaping to its ends the sentence form--in so far may it be accounted real grammar.

Ten Types of Grammar


Different Ways of Analyzing the Structures and Functions of Language

So you think you know grammar? All well and good, but which type of grammar do you know? Linguists are quick to remind us that there are different varieties of grammar--that is, different ways of describing and analyzing the structures and functions of language. One basic distinction worth making is that between descriptive grammar and prescriptive grammar (also called usage). Both are concerned with rules--but in different ways. Specialists in descriptive grammar examine the rules or patterns that underlie our use of words, phrases, clauses, and sentences. In contrast, prescriptive grammarians (such as most editors and teachers) try to enforce rules about what they believe to be the correct uses of language. But that's just the beginning. Consider these ten varieties of grammar--and take your pick. 1. Comparative Grammar The analysis and comparison of the grammatical structures of related languages. Contemporary work in comparative grammar is concerned with "a faculty of language that provides an explanatory basis for how a human being can acquire a first language . . .. In this way, the theory of grammar is a theory of human language and hence establishes the relationship among all languages." (R. Freidin,Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar. MIT Press, 1991) 2. Generative Grammar The rules determining the structure and interpretation of sentences that speakers accept as belonging to the language. "Simply put, a generative grammar is a theory of competence: a model of the psychological system of unconscious knowledge that underlies a speaker's ability to produce and interpret utterances in a language." (F. Parker and K. Riley, Linguistics for Non-Linguists. Allyn and Bacon, 1994)

3. Mental Grammar The generative grammar stored in the brain that allows a speaker to produce language that other speakers can understand. "All humans are born with the capacity for constructing a Mental Grammar, given linguistic experience; this capacity for language is called the Language Faculty (Chomsky, 1965). A grammar formulated by a linguist is an idealized description of this Mental Grammar." (P. W. Culicover and A. Nowak, Dynamical Grammar: Foundations of Syntax II. Oxford Univ. Press, 2003)

4. Pedagogical Grammar Grammatical analysis and instruction designed for second-language students. "Pedaogical grammar is a slippery concept. The term is commonly used to denote (1) pedagogical process--the explicit treatment of elements of the target language systems as (part of) language teaching methodology; (2) pedagogical content--reference sources of one kind or another that present information about the target language system; and (3) combinations of process and content." (D. Little, "Words and Their Properties: Arguments for a Lexical Approach to Pedagaogical Grammar." Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar, ed. by T. Odlin. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994)

5. Performance Grammar A description of the syntax of English as it is actually used by speakers in dialogues. "[P]erformance grammar . . . centers attention on language production; it is my belief that the problem of production must be dealt with before problems of reception and comprehension can

properly be investigated." (John Carroll, "Promoting Language Skills." Perspectives on School Learning: Selected Writings of John B. Carroll, ed. by L. W. Anderson. Erlbaum, 1985)

6. Reference Grammar A description of the grammar of a language, with explanations of the principles governing the construction of words, phrases, clauses, and sentences. Examples of contemporary reference grammars in English include A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, by Randolph Quirk et al. (1985), the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English(1999), and The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002).

7. Theoretical Grammar The study of the essential components of any human language. "Theoretical grammar or syntax is concerned with making completely explicit the formalisms of grammar, and in providing scientific arguments or explanations in favour of one account of grammar rather than another, in terms of a general theory of human language." (A. Renouf and A. Kehoe,The Changing Face of Corpus Linguistics. Rodopi, 2003)

8. Traditional Grammar The collection of prescriptive rules and concepts about the structure of the language. "We say that traditional grammar is prescriptive because it focuses on the distinction between what some people do with language and what they ought to do with it, according to a pre-established standard. . . . The chief goal of traditional grammar, therefore, is perpetuating a historical model of what supposedly constitutes proper language." (J. D. Williams, The Teacher's Grammar Book. Routledge, 2005)

9. Transformational Grammar A theory of grammar that accounts for the constructions of a language by linguistic transformations and phrase structures. "In transformational grammar, the term 'rule' is used not for a precept set down by an external authority but for a principle that is unconsciously yet regularly followed in the production and interpretation of sentences. A rule is a direction for forming a sentence or a part of a sentence, which has been internalized by the native speaker." (D. Bornstein, An Introduction to Transformational Grammar. Univ. Press of America, 1984)

10. Universal Grammar The system of categories, operations, and principles shared by all human languages and considered to be innate. "Taken together, the linguistic principles of Universal Grammar constitute a theory of the organization of the initial state of the mind/brain of the language learner--that is, a theory of the human faculty for language." (S. Crain and R. Thornton, Investigations in Universal Grammar. MIT Press, 2000) If ten varieties of grammar aren't enough for you, rest assured that new grammars are emerging all the time. There's word grammar, for instance. And relational grammar. And that brings to mind arc pair grammar. Not to mention cognitive grammar, lexical functional grammar, head-driven phrase structure grammar . . . and many more.

http://grammar.about.com/od/basicsentencegrammar/a/tengrammartypes.htm

cognitive grammar
A usage-based approach to grammar that emphasizes symbolicand semantic definitions of theoretical concepts that have traditionally been analyzed as purely syntactic. See also: cognitive linguistics. Etymology: Introduced by Ronald W. Langacker in his two-volume study Foundations of Cognitive Grammar(Stanford University Press, 1987/1991)

Examples and Observations:


y

"Portraying grammar as a purely formal system is not just wrong but wrong-headed. I will argue, instead, that grammar is meaningful. This is so in two respects. For one thing, the elements of grammar--like vocabulary items--have meanings in their own right. Additionally, grammar allows us to construct and symbolize the more elaborate meanings of complex expressions (like phrases, clauses, and sentences). It is thus an essential aspect of the conceptual apparatus through which we apprehend and engage the world." (Ronald W. Langacker, Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford Univ. Press, 2008)

"A Cognitive Grammar is based on the following assumptions . . .: 1. The grammar of a language is part of human cognition and interacts with other cognitive faculties, especially with perception, attention, and memory. . . . 2. The grammar of a language reflects and presents generalizations about phenomena in the world as its speakers experience them. . . . 3. Forms of grammar are, like lexical items, meaningful and never 'empty' or meaningless, as often assumed in purely structural models of grammar. 4. The grammar of a language represents the whole of a native speaker's knowledge of both the lexical categories and the grammatical structures of her language. 5. The grammar of a language is usage-based in that it provides speakers with a variety of structural options to present their view of a given scene." (G. Radden and R. Dirven, Cognitive English Grammar. John Benjamins, 2007)

http://grammar.about.com/od/c/g/cognitivegrammarterm.htm
Contributions to linguistics Chomskyan linguistics, beginning with his Syntactic Structures, a distillation of his Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (1955, 75), challenges structural linguistics and introduces transformational grammar. This approach takes utterances (sequences of words) to have a

syntax characterized by a formal grammar; in particular, a context-free grammar extended with transformational rules. Perhaps his most influential and time-tested contribution to the field, is the claim that modeling knowledge of language using a formal grammar accounts for the "productivity" of language. In other words, a formal grammar of a language can explain the ability of a hearer-speaker to produce and interpret an infinite number of utterances, including novel ones, with a limited set of grammatical rules and a finite set of terms. He has always acknowledged his debt to P ini for his modern notion of an explicit generative grammar although it is also related to Rationalist ideas of a priori knowledge. It is a popular misconception that Chomsky proved that language is entirely innate and discovered a "universal grammar" (UG). In fact, Chomsky simply observed that while a human baby and a kitten are both capable of inductive reasoning, if they are exposed to the exact same linguistic data, the human child will always acquire the ability to understand and produce language, while the kitten will never acquire either ability. Chomsky labeled whatever the relevant capacity the human has which the cat lacks the "language acquisition device" (LAD) and suggested that one of the tasks for linguistics should be to figure out what the LAD is and what constraints it puts on the range of possible human languages. The universal features that would result from these constraints are often termed "universal grammar" or UG.[35] The Principles and Parameters approach (P&P)developed in his Pisa 1979 Lectures, later published as Lectures on Government and Binding (LGB)make strong claims regarding universal grammar: that the grammatical principles underlying languages are innate and fixed, and the differences among the world's languages can be characterized in terms of parameter settings in the brain (such as the pro-drop parameter, which indicates whether an explicit subject is always required, as in English, or can be optionally dropped, as in Spanish), which are often likened to switches. (Hence the term principles and parameters, often given to this approach.) In this view, a child learning a language need only acquire the necessary lexical items (words, grammatical morphemes, and idioms), and determine the appropriate parameter settings, which can be done based on a few key examples. Proponents of this view argue that the pace at which children learn languages is inexplicably rapid, unless children have an innate ability to learn languages. The similar steps followed by children all across the world when learning languages, and the fact that children make certain characteristic errors as they learn their first language, whereas other seemingly logical kinds of errors never occur (and, according to Chomsky, should be attested if a purely general, rather than language-specific, learning mechanism were being employed), are also pointed to as motivation for innateness.

More recently, in his Minimalist Program (1995), while retaining the core concept of "principles and parameters," Chomsky attempts a major overhaul of the linguistic machinery involved in the LGB model, stripping from it all but the barest necessary elements, while advocating a general approach to the architecture of the human language faculty that emphasizes principles of economy and optimal design, reverting to a derivational approach to generation, in contrast with the largely representational approach of classic P&P. Chomsky's ideas have had a strong influence on researchers investigating the acquisition of language in children, though researchers who work in this area such as Elizabeth Bates[36] and Michael Tomasello[37] today do not support Chomsky's theories, instead advocating emergentist or connectionist theories reducing language to an instance of general processing mechanisms in the brain. His best-known work in phonology is The Sound Pattern of English (1968), written with Morris Halle (and often known as simply SPE). This work has had a great significance for the development in the field. While phonological theory has since moved beyond "SPE phonology" in many important respects, the SPE system is considered the precursor of some of the most influential phonological theories today, including autosegmental phonology, lexical phonology and optimality theory. Chomsky no longer publishes on phonology. [edit] Generative grammar The Chomskyan approach towards syntax, often termed generative grammar, studies grammar as a body of knowledge possessed by language users. Since the 1960s, Chomsky has maintained that much of this knowledge is innate, implying that children need only learn certain parochial features of their native languages.[38] The innate body of linguistic knowledge is often termed Universal Grammar. From Chomsky's perspective, the strongest evidence for the existence of Universal Grammar is simply the fact that children successfully acquire their native languages in so little time. Furthermore, he argues that there is an enormous gap between the linguistic stimuli to which children are exposed and the rich linguistic knowledge they attain (the "poverty of the stimulus" argument). The knowledge of Universal Grammar would serve to bridge that gap. Chomsky's theories are popular, particularly in the United States, but they have never been free from controversy. Criticism has come from a number of different directions. Chomskyan linguists rely heavily on the intuitions of native speakers regarding which sentences of their languages are well-formed. This practice has been criticized both on general methodological grounds, and because it has (some argue) led to an overemphasis on the study of English. As of now, hundreds of different languages have received at least some attention in the generative grammar literature,[39][40][41][42][43] but some critics nonetheless perceive this overemphasis, and a tendency to base claims about Universal Grammar on an overly small sample of

languages. Some psychologists and psycholinguists,[who?] though sympathetic to Chomsky's overall program, have argued that Chomskyan linguists pay insufficient attention to experimental data from language processing, with the consequence that their theories are not psychologically plausible. Other critics (see language learning) have questioned whether it is necessary to posit Universal Grammar to explain child language acquisition, arguing that domain-general learning mechanisms are sufficient. Today there are many different branches of generative grammar; one can view grammatical frameworks such as head-driven phrase structure grammar, lexical functional grammar and combinatory categorial grammar as broadly Chomskyan and generative in orientation, but with significant differences in execution. Cultural anthropologist and linguist Daniel Everett of Illinois State University has proposed that the language of the Pirah people of the northwestern rainforest of Brazil resists Chomsky's theories of generative grammar. Everett asserts that the Pirah language does not have any evidence of recursion, one of the properties that makes generative grammar possible. If true, this would also seem to contradict Chomsky's hypothesis that recursion is the defining feature of the human mind.[44] However, Everett's claims have themselves been criticized. David Pesetsky of MIT, Andrew Nevins of Harvard, and Cilene Rodrigues of the Universidade Estadual de Campinas in Brazil have argued in a joint paper that all of Everett's major claims contain serious deficiencies.[45] Chomsky himself has commented that "The reports are interesting, but do not bear on the work of mine (along with many others). No one has proposed that languages must have subordinate clauses, number words, etc. Many structures of our language (and presumably that of the Piraha) are rarely if ever used in ordinary speech because of extrinsic constraints."[46] The dispute continues.[47] [edit] Chomsky hierarchy Main article: Chomsky hierarchy Chomsky is famous for investigating various kinds of formal languages and whether or not they might be capable of capturing key properties of human language. His Chomsky hierarchy partitions formal grammars into classes, or groups, with increasing expressive power, i.e., each successive class can generate a broader set of formal languages than the one before. Interestingly, Chomsky argues that modeling some aspects of human language requires a more complex formal grammar (as measured by the Chomsky hierarchy) than modeling others. For example, while a regular language is powerful enough to model English morphology, it is not powerful enough to model English syntax. In addition to being relevant in linguistics, the Chomsky hierarchy has also become important in computer science (especially in compiler construction and automata theory).[48]

U . Indapurkar. ( 1 9 6 8 ) . A lirrguistic s tudy o f e r ror s i r r Erzglislr o f r~riddle sclrool pupils o f Clrartdrapur District. Cited i n M. B. Buch ( E d ) . Second survey of Education, 1972- 1978, New Delhi: NCERT , p . 294

http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~pollard/cvg/covert.pdf

http://philippine-esl-journal.com/Volume-2-em.php

S-ar putea să vă placă și