Grammar-1 as the object
of study is to be distinguished from grammar-2 as the outcome of the
study of grammar-1. Grammar-2,
in turn, may be a theoretical grammar or a teaching grammar—the latter
being intended for the use of a teacher and/or a student of that language. Teaching grammars may be classified in various ways—in particular,
they may be arranged in order of increasing pedagogic deviation from
the underlying theoretical grammar, whatever it may be, in certain
directions. The best teaching
grammar for a given purpose achieves an optimal deviation.
directions are : (1) grading and grouping of the points—at the gross
and fine levels; (2) bias for usage rather than system and for transduction
rules rather than specification rules; (3) bias for itemization rather
than stating constraints; (4) bias for specification by form rather
than by meaning.
characterizing a teaching grammar, one is taking it to be an information
retrieval system that has achieved a pedagogically optimal linearization
(principle 1) and a pedagogically optimal balance between readystored
information and computable information (principles 2-4).
that a potential source of confusion for the present discussion may
be forestalled with the help of an ancient Indian conceptual tool. Words like grammar or history suffer or benefit (as
the case may be) from a polysemy—they stand both for something worth
attending to (laksya in Sanskrit) and, metonymically, the account
one can formulate after so attending to it (laksana). (See Katyayana’s scholium 14 to Panini and Patanjali’s comment thereon
in his Vyakarana-mahabhasya 1:1:1.) It is immaterial whether a given word like grammar, history,
or vyakarana originally referred to the object or to the account. But it is material whether one means grammar-1,
the object of a grammarian’s attention, or grammar-2, the end-product
of the grammarian’s labour when one speaks, say, of the influence
of English grammar on Marathi grammar or pleads for “grammars for
the consumer.” (I have feeling that Halliday (1964) meant
grammar-2 while his transformational-generativist critics meant grammar-1
as a discoverable object.) It
is one thing to say that grammar-2 need not be emphasized while one
is teaching the language and quite another to conclude therefrom (without
justification) that one can learn a language without mastering its
grammar-1. Obviously a good proportion of language learning (and therefore
language teaching) has to do with grammar-1.
granting that grammar-1 and grammar-2 are both human artifacts,
one must point out that grammar-2 is the more “artificial” of the
sort of grammar-2 should be in the hands of the teacher and, possibly,
of the learner? Clearly they
cannot be quite the same for both.
Nor can either be the same as a grammar-2 drafted by a grammarian
for fellow grammarians. One has to recognize two kinds (at least) of
grammars-2—teaching grammars and theoretical grammars. A theoretical grammar-2 is presumably
one that reveals the more transparently to us what the grammar-1 of
a language is like. A teaching
grammar-2, on the other hand, may be intended for the learner,
for the learner, for the learner who is his own teacher, for the teacher
proper, or even for the designer of text material, curricula, tests,
and the like. Whatever the specific use or combination of
uses intended are, a teaching grammar is liable to be more or less
different from a theoretical grammar, the extent of the difference
depending on what piece of information is being presented.
(For some pieces or sequences of pieces the difference
may be null.) I shall assume
that the format of a teaching grammar can be conveniently thought
of as a point-by-point modification of a theoretical grammar-2 in
a definite direction. The thing to know is, first, what this direction
is and, secondly, where along the line one should stop deviating,
given the specific purpose of a teaching grammar. The present study is addressed to the first of these two questions.
be noticed that I have left wide open the possibility that there may
be different kinds of teaching grammars.
Some may, for example, be more pedagogically deviant than others—that
is, some may deviate to a further degree or in further ways from theoretical
grammars than others. A teaching
grammar has to select the optimal pedagogic deviation from the underlying
theoretical grammar. Thus a grammar for the student is liable to
be more pedagogic and deviate more from a theoretical grammar than
one for the teacher himself. Again,
a grammar that is geared to the beginning student’s contact texts
(say, stories or dialogues) or to exercises and tests has to be more
pedagogically deviant than a grammar used by an advanced student for
occasional reference in solving a problem of comprehension (What can
the author mean by this? Let me get the hang of it.) or
expression (How does one manage to say such and such things? How do I construct a sentence with a contrary-to-fact
condition?). So, different
degrees of pedagogic deviation may be desirable for different purposes.
are of course other ways than the degree of pedagogic deviation in
which teaching grammars may differ from each other.
They may be shorter or longer—the more exclusively a grammar
is confined to essentials, the shorter it is.
This suggests that grammar-1 itself is susceptible to a distinction
between its essential elements and peripheral elements.
If such is the case (and I think such is the case) a
theoretical grammar-2 should correspondingly indicate such a grading
for its formulations. The
complex nature of this distinction between essential and peripheral
features of grammar-1 is not yet exactly understood.
(For a recent discussion see Vachek, ed., 1966.)
One can do no more here than suggest to the reader that the
first member in each of the following pairs is more essential than
the second, other things being equal :
coded / partially coded
distinctions / distinctions along a continuum
delicate / move delicate (in Halliday’s terminology)
to intuitive assimilation / amenable rather to problem-solving
rules of the language game / ground rules for adjustment
contingency (an extreme example being those governing the abbreviated
syntax of telegraphic messages)
of the game / set strategies for successful play (like “third hand
high” in bridge)
/ idiom and usage (the traditional distinction)
presupposed by many other rules / rules presupposing many other rules
go on to other classifications. There
may be general-purpose grammars and grammars with a specialized bias,
such as bias in favour of oral-aural skills or of manual-visual skills;
or in favour of receptive skills or of receptive-reproductive skills
or of receptive-productive skills; or in favour of this or that diatype—colloquial,
literary, technical, and so forth.
state that the teaching programme aims at producing in the learner
may be one of parallel bilingualism or of compound bilingualism. Naturally, teaching grammars will consequently differ in the extent
to which they take note of the resemblances and differences between
the target language and the learner’s language.
but not least, teaching grammars may differ in the degree to which
they present things directly. In
the extreme case all of grammar-1 will be presented indirectly and
there will be no grammar-2 at the classroom level, but only a grammar-2
“underlying” the classroom material for the benefit of the teacher
and the designer of that material.
study in confined only to one aspect of the format of teaching grammars—namely,
the features that render a teaching grammar more and more pedagogically
deviant. I suggest that there
are four such features or types of deviation from theoretical grammars. The present study thus does not take up the
question to what extent it is desirable, for a given purpose, to deviate
pedagogically in a given feature or type of deviation.
and most obvious feature of pedagogic deviation is grading. The arrangement of the formulations in a theoretical
grammar will be governed entirely by considerations of the theory
that the grammar-2 subscribes to—the theory about the nature of grammars-1.
Now let us suppose that the theory requires an arrangement,
say, of the following sort :
(1) S; N; V
where S, N, V respectively
stand for Sentence Formation, Nominal System, and Verbal System. We have already suggested that a theoretical
grammar will also need to take note of the distinction between essential
and peripheral elements. For
simplicity’s sake let us postulate three degrees of descending essentiality
1; 2; 3
Combining (1) and (2),
we get (3) as an arrangement proper to a theoretical grammar :
S1 N1 V1
Whether the grammar is
written column-wise (S1 S2……) or row-wise (S1
N1…….) is only a matter of convenience and not germane
to its theoretical status. A matrix like (3) is adequate as a description
of a teaching grammar on the other hand cannot avoid being linearized. This linearization involves two processes
of adaptation: the teaching points must be grouped together and the
groups must be arranged in a sequence.
These twin processes of arrangement—namely, grouping
and grading—have to be considered at two levels: at the gross
level, say, arrangement into phases 1, 2, 3 and also at
the fine level, say, the division of each phase into units
1, 2, 3.
linearization in a full-scale teaching grammar that is the
least pedagogically deviant will take the following shape:
Phase 1 : S1 N1 V1
2 : S1 S2 N1 N2 V1
3 : S1 S2 S3 N1 N2
N3 V1 V2 V3
phasing follows the so-called concentric method, each phase
being relatively self-contained and successively richer in detail. If one is looking for a shorter version of the grammars as
opposed to the full-scale grammar, one need pick up just any one of
grading in a full-scale teaching grammar that is the most pedagogically
deviant will take the following shape :
Phase 1 : S1 N1 V1
2 : S2 N2 V2
3 : S3 N3 V3
her is sequential and not concentric.
Shorter versions will simply delete the last phase, the last
two phases, and so on. The
principle of linealization is carried to its utmost, while in the
concentric method it is mitigated by recapitulation.
are the principles of gross linearization in respect of grouping and
grading? Gross grouping is governed by the criterion
of viability: at the end of each phase the learner must be
in control of a slice of the whole language—a subset of the teaching
points that is viable, i.e. sufficient to give him a working base.
Naturally this means that the subset must include a little
of everything, and thus must be spread over S, N, and V; it must spread
across the levels of phonology, grammar-lexicon, and semantics; and
it must spread across the ranks from the maximal to the minimal size:
sentence, phrase, word, formative.
grading is governed, as can readily be seen from the displays (4)
and (5), by the criterion of essentiality.
The relatively more essential precedes the relatively more
peripheral. The traditional reliance on frequency counts
of vocabulary justifies itself only as a first approximation—a rough
estimate that needs to be corrected in various ways.
In respect of grammar, frequency counts of the use of grammatical
markers (e.g., of, ’s, the, -ing, -ly in English) are available
for a few languages have had frequency counts of the attestation of
syntactic rules. Grammatical
frequency counts are certainly an urgent pedagogic need.
aware of three such counts in existence—Fries 1940 for American English
undertaken from the point of view of teaching English as Own Language;
Keniston 1937 for Spanish; and Clark and Poston 1943 for French (closely
modelled on the foregoing)—both undertaken from the point of view
of Other Language teaching. Keniston (1937: p. 12) shows for his count
that a vocabulary of 1300-1400 words corresponds to syntax points
with a range and frequency of 20-33 and above.
Clark and Poston (1943) based their count on 10,000 running
words each from 60 prose texts published from 1881 to 1938.
Some sample entries are condensed below—
2.152 Construction f the type prevenir quelqu’un
que… (V + NP + queS) (range 19, frequency 26)
2. 645 Substantive as indirect object of separation
(54-168) after verbs like demander
(34-61), échapper (18-20), etc.
for pronouns (66-569) after verbs like demander (54-249), falloir (42-92); manquer (24-36), cacher (15-23), etc.
As one can expect, for 85 grammatical points
of obviously high frequency (and essentiality?) no figures are given (such as substantive as subject of a finite
verb or as direct object). The
count reveals that many rules traditionally deemed essential have
low frequency, while many rules traditionally deemed peripheral are
attested in the corpus with high frequency.
Somehow grammatical frequency-counting has never quite attracted
the attention it deserves.
The fine arrangement within a phase will be
based on the criteria of
relatability in grouping
and learnability in grading. Teaching points that
will be brought together within the same unit should preferably be
relatable in some way—association by contiguity, resemblance, or contrast,
for example. Thus, tense and aspect contrasts and adverbials
of time tend to cooccur and thus be contiguous, synonymous, or near-synonymous
construction resemble, polarities like animate/inanimate or few/little
contrast. Such are the cases
that lend themselves to grouping.
Sequence within a unit or distribution over earlier and later
units will depend on relative learnability and, consequently, relative
teachability. One can assess this by the joint
application of the following three sub-criteria:
Of two learning points within
the same phase or subphase of grammar, that one will take precedence
more interesting of the two,
more accessible of the two,
the more presupposed of the
two for purposes of exposition.
The least pedagogically deviant grammar will
arrange the three criteria, in case of conflict, in the following
order (a), (b), (c). (Theoretical
grammars will of course not be concerned with interest or accessibility
at all; only (c) out of the three will have relevance.)
Pedagogically deviant grammars, thus, will sometimes face a
problem: how to handle a point put first because of its greater interest
or accessibility even when a point presupposed by it has to be postponed. (Theoretical grammars or teaching grammars
that never violate criterion (6,c) will of course not face this problem.) How does a pedagogic grammar solve a problem
of this sort?
Let us take a couple of concrete cases from
French and English respectively.
In French teaching point
(7a) precedes teaching point (7b) psychologically (i.e. in accordance
with 6a, 6b) but point (7b) precedes point (7a) logically (i.e. in
accordance with 6c):
(a) il y a + NP (+ AdvP of Place) (cf. English
there is / are….)
of y avoir (yielding the specific form il y a).
Similarly, in English:
(a) John came here (the use of John without the)
(b) the John you saw yesterday; you mean the John? Where (8a) is more
and accessible than (8b) but where (8a) presupposes (8b)
which the is retained rather than deleted as in (8a).
The solution basically takes this form: point
(7a) or (8a) is presented tour
court as a fait accompli and not allowed to be “computed” from point (7b) or (8b) respectively,
as one would do in the theoretically appropriate format. Thus in (8a) the pedagogic grammar will present
the non-use of the rather than its deletion. The teacher will simply have to learn to be
more tolerant or the learners’ errors arising out of their failure
to anticipate points not yet covered!
STORAGE LOCATIONS (ADDRESSES)
Apparatus for Computing Information
1. Information Retrieval System
the basic point about the pedagogic transformation of a theoretical
grammar into a teaching grammar is, apart from the linearization of
information-storage “addresses” implied in grading, that there are
shifts in the relative balance between information stored in readiness
at these addresses and information left to be computed by the user.
In making this statement I am of course considering grammar-2
here as an information-retrieval system with two main functions: yielding
pieces of ready information and providing an apparatus for
computing information not directly stored.
(See Figure 1.) (The multiplication table, for example, gives
ready-made the product of 9 and 7 and the multiplication rules tell
us how to use this piece of information in getting the product of,
say, 19 and 17. A theoretical
grammar strikes a balance between ready storage (say, the verb may
have or lack past, perfect, and progressive in English) and computability
(say, leaving the reader to compute the 8 combinations from this formula).
This balance is optimal from the point of view of making the
grammar-2 as transparently revelatory of grammar-1 as possible. A teaching grammar has to find its own optimal balance for its own
pedagogical purpose (say, choosing to spell out the 8 combinations
in ready storage.) One information-retrieval
system may be different from another yielding basically the same overall
body of information in either of two ways.
One may offer some piece of information ready-made while the
other leaves it to be computed. (Thus
we can construct a multiplication table in which “2 times 11,” “2
times 12,” “3 times 11,” etc. may be left out along with “2 times
13.” etc. to be computed.) Secondly, while both may offer some piece of
information ready-made, one will store it at one location or address
in the storage, the other will store it not at the corresponding address
but at some other address. (Thus
we can construct a multiplication table in which “2 times 11,” etc.
are deleted but in which two new columns beginning with “11times….”
and “12 times…” are added.) The remaining three principles relate to just
such transformations, which either shift the theoretically optimal
balance between ready storage and computation or shift information
from one storage location (address) to another.
no secret that there is not general agreement among linguistic scientists
as to the form of grammar-1 and therefore as to the precise
format for a theoretical grammar-2. it is idle to pretend that this does not affect
teaching-grammars-2, since a teaching grammar is an adaptation of
some theoretical grammar or other which may be said to underlie
it. In the present study we have, however, chosen
to focus on the mode of adaptation rather than on the choice of the
underlying theoretical grammar, the latter not being a pedagogic question
in any case. The justification
for such a procedure is twofold.
First, the departures from the theoretical grammar are thus
saved from being ad hoc and shown to be amenable to theorizing.
Indeed the theory of adaptation presented here may in part
(as in the case of grading) turn out to be more or less a codification
of the existing practice of successful teachers.
The second justification stems from the fact that the choice
of the mode of adaptation seems relatively independent of the choice
of underlying theoretical grammar.
I say “relatively independent”; for obviously at least a broad
agreement as to what capability a theoretical grammar must have in
order to be considered respectable will be necessary if we are to
be able to formulate the transformations at all. I submit that, whatever the brand, a theoretical
grammar has to make the following distinctions (see Figure 2):
(i) between the system
and the use of the system—what is usually called
is the psychological middle term that makes the use of a system on
the part of the individual listener or speaker possible and is not
to be confused with the abstract object as such that is to be called
(ii) between meaning and form—the
linguistic sign and its use have an
aspect of form that makes signaling possible,
and an aspect of
meaning that renders the signaling worthwhile
by making signifying
between constraints and items—if grammar-2 is a storage
constraints affecting the construction
of usable texts out of certain
elementary items, the dictionary is a storage of the elementary
to which the constraints apply; the two
together (the grammar and the
dictionary) describe the language system,
of which grammar-1 is a
USE OF THE SYSTEM
as seen in tokens in context
2. Elementary facts about language
A given grammatical theory proposes its own principles
for the optimal balance between system and use, between form and meaning,
and between item and constraint in the placement of facts. The actually written grammars-2, however, are
apt to fall short of the ideal balance—invariably so in the initial
versions—in that the analyst has to work his way from use to system,
from form to meaning, and from itemizations to formulations of constraints.
since linguistic analysis is essentially the analysis of the system,
what is to be looked for and looked upon as a fact open to linguistic
analysis may itself be at stake in disputes under (9) (i)—placement
under system and under use. So far as language pedagogy is concerned, the
choice between system and use means a decision as to what is to be
taught explicitly and systematically and what is to be left to the
learners’ own devices, to ad hoc footnotes, to exposure
to and imitation of examples.
for example, that one were to decide that the distinction between
John is easy to please and John is eager to please is
not a part of the English grammatical system but rather a matter of
usage. In that case one would reject (10) (i) and opt for (10) (ii) (b),
or in the extreme case (10) (ii) (c).
(i) To postulate different
structures for the two sentences.
(ii) To postulate the same structure for the two
(a) but to formulate interpretation rules that
differ for adjectives of
the easy type and
ones of the eager type.
(b) but to relegate the matter to the glossing provided in the
dictionary entries for the two
items easy and eager.
and to neglect the distinction as just one of those curiosities
(one can’t possibly teach everything!).
Now this particular decision,
however, is less likely to originate in the theoretical grammar than
in its adaptation to a teaching grammar.
For example, one may decide that in a given phase this distinction
needs to be taken note of but cannot be accounted for systematically
for reasons of grading. Conceivably
one may decide that the distinction has no place at all in the system
underlying a pedagogic grammar. Both
such decisions exemplify the second principle of making a grammar
more pedagogically deviant.
the tendency to decide in favour of usage rather than system, the
more pedagogically deviant the teaching grammar is—more and more pieces
of information will be stored in it at the usage addresses rather
than be left to be computed from information stored at the system
addresses. Greater reliance will be placed on transduction
rules that tell us which forms are to be interpreted in what manner,
or which meanings are to be expressed in what manner, than on specification
rules that tell us which forms or meanings are available in the
first place for interpretation or expression as the case may be. (See Figure 2 once again.)
certainly not as if a teaching grammar were jettisoning a piece of
information incorporated in a theoretical grammar.
Rather it is repackaging it, changing its storage location. What was packaged as specification of two distinct
structures is now being offered as two possible transductions (in
this case from forms to their interpretations).
principle has already been hinted at in (10) (ii) (b)—namely that
the greater the tendency to decide in favour of item rather than constraint,
the more pedagogically deviant the teaching grammar will be.
whatever the theoretically optimal decisions may be, it is more pedagogic
to present him and them as ready-made forms than to
extract –m separately and propose constraints on its use.
The same ground is being covered, but what might be offered
in a theoretical grammar (for example, Trager & Smith 1951) as
constrained use of –m and hi- and the- is being
offered as two ready-made items in a teaching grammar.
(Of course even a theoretical grammar may find justifiable
grounds for yielding on this point; not all generalizations are significant!)
An early formulation of this insight to be found in Bloomfield (1945:p.8)
is worth quoting:
grammars…often resort to repetition instead of assembling forms which
present a common feature. This
habit is pedagogically useful. When
one does not carry it to the length of causing difficulty by sheet
bulk….Systematic description, on the other hand, tries to assemble
all forms that have any common feature and to unite them under a single
statement….The partial resemblances between forms which we describe
in morphology are often so whimsically irregular that a less rigorous
statement has practical advantages.
It may take more discourse to describe a few eccentric forms
than it would merely to cite them. The author of a rigorous description finds
difficulty in making it watertight; even Panini left some holes. The reader finds difficulty in interpreting,
applying, and combining the separate statements; this, too, would
be true of Panini’s grammar….A less rigorous statement may be useful
even for scientific purposes.
It should be recognized that to make a grammar
more and more pedagogic in this or in any other respect may not always
serve the teacher’s purpose. Thus,
French verbs, whether traditionally considered irregular or not, have
stem-alternants for the tonic position (typically 1st,
(a) with no distinction
between tonic and non-tonic positions:
cour – ‘run’
(b) with a distinction between
tonic and non-tonic stem and 3rd plural calling for the
(c) likewise but
3rd plural calling for the non-tonic form:
assied-/assey- ‘seat (reflexive)’
vau-/val/ ‘be worth’
In this particular case, then, the traditional
pedagogue overshot in the direction of itemization.
to arrive at the optimal degree to which a teaching grammar can be
pedagogically deviant given the specific goal and situation.
This applies with even greater force to the fourth and last
the greater the tendency to decide in favour of form rather than meaning
as the basis for the specification rules, the more pedagogically deviant
the teaching grammar will be. To
use a popular shorthand: the shallower, the more pedagogically deviant;
the deeper, the less pedagogically deviant.
Thus, if a generative-semantic type is to be one’s theoretical
grammar, it will have to be considerably transformed in the direction
of shallowness before a practical teaching grammar emerges.
Its semantic insights will not be sacrificed, but recast as
table of French non-tonic pronouns that precede a verb (other than
the imperative affirmative) is just such a device that relies on the
overt formal sequences without attention to the deeper sources.
Constraint: Items from
columns 2, 3, 4 cannot all three occur together.
(Note : The forms in the
second column may be datives like those in the fourth column or be
objects like those in the third column.
Further, datives of the second and fourth columns refer to
animates and that of the fifth column refers to inanimates.
The table disregards these meaning distinctions and displays
only the formal surface. A
theoretical grammar would perhaps have “normalized” the order and
offered reordering rules or output constraints for computing the surface
order given here. A pedagogical grammar, on the other hand, will
need to specify, in addition to the surface order formula above, rules
for computing the case relations therefrom.)
so far pointed out that there are four ways in which a teaching grammar
can deviate (but need not always do so) from a theoretical
grammar and be more pedagogic in accordance with our definition:
(i) grouping and grading:
(a) gross grouping and grading by
viability and essentiality respectively.
(b) fine grouping and grading by
relatability and teachability respectively:
(ii) (a) bias
in favour of usage rather than system.
in favour of transduction rule rather than specification rule;
(iii) bias in favour of item rather than constraint;
(iv) bias in favour of specification by form rather
than by meaning
rather than deeper level for selecting the point of entry, the so-called
initial symbol of analysis).
have said earlier, the best teaching grammar for a given purpose is
the one which strikes the optimal balance between system and usage,
specification and transduction, constraint and item, and specification
by meaning (with expression supplement).
remains to be done is to establish an evaluation procedure for optimizing
the degree of pedagogic deviation for a given pedagogic destination
and for the particular phase and unit of the grammar-2.
We are not saying: the more pedagogically deviant the
better. But we are making the claim that the
pedagogic optimum will be on a level with or lower than, but never
higher than, the theoretically demanded optimum.
Of course the available theoretical grammar may fall short
of its own standards for lack of sufficient date, analytic acumen,
and so forth. (“Higher” means polarizing more towards system,
specification, constraint, meaning; “lower” means polarizing in the
opposite directions—i.e. those specified under (13) (ii) (a), (13)
(ii) (b) (13) (iii), and (13) (iv) above.
Principle (13) (i) is not at issue here.)
claim is correct, we can predict that teachers will tend to choose
that theoretical grammar as a point of departure which calls for the
fewest adaptations to teaching purposes.
Naturally it is felt to be more economical to use theoretical
and teaching grammars that differ as little as possible from each
other. For a similar reason,
teaching grammars for teachers and teaching grammars for students
tend to be modeled after each other.
In either case, we are predicting a tendency and not endorsing
it. Theoretical grammarians please note!
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1945. On
describing infection. Monatshefte
Clark, Richard E.; Poston,
Lawrence, Jr. 1943. French
syntax list: A statistical study of
grammatical usage in contemporary French
prose on the basis of range and frequency.
New York: Henry Holt for the Committee on Modern Languages,
American Council on Education.
Fries, Charles Carpenter. 1940. American
English grammar: Grammatical structure of
American English with special reference to social differences or class
dialects. National Council
of Teachers of English, monograph 10.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Hale, Austin. 1974. Grammars
for the lay reader. Read at
the Seminar on Linguistics,
University, Katmandu, Nepal, Nov. 1974.
(Since published: Seminar papers in linguistics, Katmandu:
Institute of Nepal & Asian Studies, Tribhuvan University, 1976. pp. 53-82; discussion pp.83-84.)
Halliday, M. A. K. 1964. Syntax and the consumer. Georgetown University Monograph
on languages and linguistics 17.
Keniston, Hayward. 1937. Spanish
syntax list: A Statistical study of usage in
Spanish prose on the basis of range and frequency. New York: Henry Holt for the Committee on Modern Languages, American
Council on Education.
Targer, George L.; Smith,
Henry Lee, Jr. 1951. An outline
of English structure. Studies
occasional paper 3. Norman,
Okla.: Battenberg Press. Reprinted
under various imprints.
Vachek, Josef (ed.). 1966. Les
Problémes du center et de la périphérie du systéme de la
langue. Travaux linguistiques de Prague 2. Praha: Academia, Editions de I’Académie Tchécoslovaque
gratefully acknowledge that Austin Hale’s “Grammars for the lay reader”
(1974) provided me with the initial stimulus for thinking through
this entire problem. The first
version of the present paper was presented at the Seminar on Materials
Production, Central Institute of English and Foreign languages, Hyderabad,
India, 9-13 February 1975. The
present version is substantially the same as the one presented at
the Fourth World Congress of the Association Internationale de la
Linguistique Appliquée at Strassburg in August 1975.
it has benefited from comments by Carol Kiparsky.
This was published in Essays in honor of Charles F.Hockett
Ed. Frenceriet B. Agard et al. Leiden : Brull, 1083.