Special Sub-Topic: Language - Viewed by a Linguist Click Here To Play: Language - Viewed by a Linguist

What is the role of a grammar in linguistics?

It accounts for all the correct sentences in a language and only correct sentences. In linguistics, grammar describes the language. In principle, it can be organized as a rule-system that can create (or 'generate') all the correct potential sentences in a language - and only correct sentences. Constructing such a grammar is an extremely complex undertaking and nothing even approaching a complete grammar of any natural language has been produced.

Which of these provides the *most accurate* description of the adverb as a part of speech?

Adverbs modify verbs, adjectives, other adverbs and clauses. The inclusion of clauses may strike some as strange. Consider these sentences, however: (1) "Unfortunately, I don't know the answer" and (2) "Hopefully, they will arrive on time". In these two sentences the adverb relates to the sentence as a whole, not the verb. Also consider sentences like "Admittedly, they didn't say much about it". Here "admittedly" refers back to a previous clause or sentence. Consider also: "He reportedly collapsed". It is helpful to work out how one would paraphrase the adverb, as this provides the best guide to its actual function. Adverbs can also link a clause or sentence to a preceding sentence, for example "nonetheless" and "however": indeed, one can make out quite a good case for regarding such adverbs as close in function to conjunctions. In addition, some words that have traditionally been classed as adverbs can also function as interjections, such as "Really!" But note also: "Oh, really?" where "really" means "Are you [really] sure?" or "Are you joking?" or "Do you expect me to believe that?" In these latter examples "really" has a pronominal function as it "replaces" a clause.

All words in English (and in other languages) can be assigned to one or other of the traditional eight parts of speech.

f. What part of speech do the articles belong to? Some may be tempted to call them adjectives, but in fact there have been suggestions that they (together with the other determiners) should constitute a ninth part of speech. The articles are closer in function to the cardinal numbers and to words like "several", "some", "many" and so forth. These words in effect "point" and the term suggested for this new part of speech is "determiner".

In which of these phrases is the order of adjectives grammatical?

An ugly, tall, yellow, brick chimney .... Far from being a purely stylistic matter the order of adjectives in English is governed by rules. For example, would any native speaker of English seriously claim that "a brick, tall, yellow, ugly chimney" is correct? The rules for the order of adjectives in English (and many other languages, too) are complex and no complete description exists. Adjectives indicating subjective assessments are placed first, and adjectives giving the material are placed as close to the noun as possible. For more detail see: http://esl.about.com/library/grammar/blgr_adjective_order.htm Those who still see all this as a matter of style may wish to consider this example: "The room is littered with plastic nasty cups". In speech, the listener may hear this initially as "plastic *nasticups" - as if a new compound noun had been invented. It may take a second or so to realize that the misunderstanding arises from the breach of a grammatical rule.

Which of these provides the most accurate defintion of "subject of a clause"?

The subject is the element that establishes the person and number of the verb. "Subject of a clause" is a structural concept and cannot be defined in semantic terms. As for the notion that the subject is the agent, consider clauses like: "Henry collapsed and died", "they have lost their way", "the table has moved", "the vase has vanished" and "many people have fallen into that trap before". There's no question of any active doer in any of these clauses. In all these clauses the subject is semantically the object, because something has happened to it.

" 'Do you think they're telling the truth?' 'Yes, I think so'. " What of these best describes the role of "so" in this context? (Hint. Try paraphrasing the word "so").

A word functioning as a pronoun. If this comes as a shock, think how a native speaker of English would normally paraphrase "so" in this context: as "I think like that [or in that way]" or rather, as "I think they are telling the truth" [or "I think that"]? In fact, a case can be made for classifying "so" as a pro-clause, that is, a word whose antecedent is a whole clause, not a noun or noun-phrase.

All pronouns have an antecedent in the text (in writing) or discourse (in speech).

f. Usually the antecedents of 1st and 2nd person pronouns are not stated. It's simply assumed that the speaker(s) or writer(s) are the antecedents of 1st person pronouns and that the addressee is the antecedent of 2nd person pronouns. However, not even all third person pronouns have antecedents. Consider the indefinite prounouns "one", "you" (as in "You never know") and "they", as in "It's time they sent John Doe to a mental hospital". In this case "they" doesn't even have an antecedent in the context at all: rather, it's comparable to an agentless passive (equivalent to "was sent ...") or at best it refers to unspecified medical authorities or "the powers that be".

Since the 1950s linguistics has shown a renewed interest in "linguistic universals", that is, in characteristics shared by all living natural languages. Which of these is NOT a universal?

Subject - verb - object is the fundamental order in statements. Some of the universals are very obvious, for example, that one can ask questions as well as make statements in all languages. The word order subject - verb - object (SVO) is the most basic word order in English and the Romance languages, but in many languages other word orders, such as SOV or even VOS are basic.

One sometimes finds the statement: "Nouns are 'naming' words". Does any other part of speech also "name"?

y. Some verbs also "name", for example: "to name", "to call (someone something)", "to baptize (someone plus name)". Also consider verbs like "to nominate" and "to denounce someone as [something]". The most accurate definition of the noun would be something along these lines: "The noun is that part of speech that functions as the subject, direct and indirect object of verbs and that can be qualified by an adjective". The second part of the definition is necessary in order to exclude pronouns. Of course, these definitions are technical in the sense that they presuppose a knowledge of grammatical terminology and are unsuitable for teaching purposes.

In 1921, a government commissioned report appeared in Britain on "The Teaching of English in England ..." It includes this passage: "The great difficulty of teachers in Elementary Schools in many districts is that they have to fight against the powerful influence of evil habits of speech contracted in home and street. The teachers' struggle is thus not with ignorance but with a perverted power". What is the most bizarre aspect of this claim?

It appears to credit language with quasi supernatural powers. Source: "The Teaching of English in England ..." ("Newbolt Report 1921"), p. 59. Talk of "evil habits" and especially of "perverted power" is very strong stuff. If the text is to be believed, there is an amazing struggle "not with ignorance but with a perverted power" - in other words, with something demonic that has an autonomous existence. It makes the teachers sound like crusaders against the forces of evil!