The Evolution of English Grammar
Professor Glauner
25 October 2000
The three main theoretical perspectives of grammar since the nineteenth century have
been traditional grammar, structural grammar, and transformational grammar. Many
great grammarians have created such theories. The works of Leonard Bloomfield, Zellig
Harris, and Noam Chomsky have influenced grammar. Grammar theories are constantly
changing but with rapid change it is hard for anyone to keep up especially those studying
the subject. The quick evolution of grammar since the nineteenth century does not allow
for a single person to be up to date with the ever increasing newly arriving theories. The
fact that such theories are changing so rapidly has a lasting affect on how grammar is
taught today. Not only do the grammarians of today dissect sentences structure; they also
relate sentences to everyday life. This being said as life changes so does the idea of
correct grammar.
The late eighteenth century marks an era of irreversible change in grammar and
linguistics. Though grammar originated when language was founded the late eighteenth
century laid the foundation for future flourish in grammatical studies. “The so-called
facts of traditional grammar books were first codified in the eighteenth century and have
been copied from one grammar book to another over a period of about two hundred
years” (Cattell 4). These traditional textbooks were divided into two classes; the
textbooks that dealt with, orthography, etymology, syntax, and prosody and then lessons
of composition, spelling, pronunciation, sentence analysis, technical grammar and
general information (5 Reed & Kellog). And so that began traditional grammar.
Being the top grammatical theory to go into the modern century one would think modern
ideas would be included. Though this would be expected little new research was
done. Traditional grammarians followed the previous outlines, which had been laid down
(Liles 9). By depending on the ancient text traditional grammarians were left to use two
forms of influence in producing the premises of their theory. These two influences were
the main determinations in dissecting sentences and word usage and were usually based
on mere logic and Latin grammar (Cattell 4). Traditional grammar was a very difficult
and strict theory. Many simplify traditional grammar theories to mere thought approach
to sentence structure as well as a method in which to discover a better sentence (Sherwin
116).
To better understand traditional grammar some examples of the approach is
needed. Traditional grammar consists of prescription. Traditional grammarians
prescribed grammar by giving specific names and definitions to parts of
speech. Traditional grammarians made sure that all words served a single purpose. The
most widely known labeling within a sentence is the identification of subject and
predicate. Reed and Kellog contain a few great and easy examples of the labeling of
these sentence components. In the sentences Squirrels climb and Inventors may be
encouraged, (This sentence contains a bit of fuzziness when determining the components
of the sentence. Lets change the sentence to make it fit within this example. The sentence
will be Inventors are encouraged) squirrels and inventors are the subject and climb and
are encouraged are the predicate. The identification of subject was possible not only by
their position with in the two clauses but most importantly by the definitions given to
these two components of a sentence. According to Reed and Kellog, “the subject of a
sentence names that of which something is thought and the predicate of a sentences tells
what is thought” (20). This example is also a great example of the problem with
traditional grammar. The definition for subject and predicate above may be perceived
true in the idea that squirrels are what are being thought about and climb tells what is
being thought of the original thought squirrel. Though this seems to fit in this case one
can see how this definition does not apply in every case and may add a bit of unnecessary
confusion. A great example of this would be the sentence we had to change earlier
(inventors may be encouraged to inventors are encouraged).
Another important factor within traditional grammar was the analyzing of
sentences. “The analysis of a sentence is the separation of it (the sentence) into its parts”
(Reed and Kellog 20). Sentence analysis summarizes exactly what traditional grammar
was, the prescription of the various components within a sentence. One of the most
important tools within sentence analysis was sentence parsing. Sentence parsing is the
process of identifying the various components within a sentence and then explaining what
made you decide to label that part of speech in the way in which you had. Though it
sounds a bit difficult, the following example by Reed and Kellog will show that it is quite
easy. In the sentence Poland was dismembered, Poland is a noun because- (then you
would give your reason) and was is a verb because it asserts action (36). To better explain
the various parts of speech within traditional grammar, I will give examples of the most
popular; these examples will be very similar to what most people learned in elementary
school. Noun in traditional grammar is defined as a person, place, thing, or idea. Two
examples of nouns would be the words child and democracy. Child is a person, therefore
child is a noun, and democracy is an idea so therefore democracy is a noun. The second
part of speech is a verb. Verbs traditionally speaking are words that show action or state
of being. This can be shown in the following examples by the towson website:
Harold drove all the way to Toronto. (drove shows action)
Harold slept all the way to Toronto. (slept shows action)
Harold seemed happy in Toronto. (seemed shows state of being)
Harold was happy in Toronto. (was shows state of being)
Another part of speech that is familiar is the adjective. Adjectives are defined as words
that describe nouns or pronouns. When they describe nouns or pronouns, adjectives
typically answer the following questions what kind, which one, and how many. For
example is the phrase tall man, tall is an adjective describing the noun man, tall answers
the question “which man” or “what kind of man.” Adverbs are traditionally described as
words that describe verbs, adjectives, or other verbs. They answer the question how,
when, where, and why. Herman easily lifted the barbell. (How did he lift the
barbell? Easily is an adverb.) (www.towson.edu)
Traditional grammar also laid the foundation of the use of diagrams in the labeling and
dissecting of sentences. Traditional grammar could quite honestly hold some of the most
difficult as well as some of the easiest charts in the world of grammar. The most simple
of these diagrams is as followed: When analyzing the sentence They made Victoria
queen it would be diagramed in the following manner. They | made
/ queen Victoria. “The line that separates made from queen slants toward the object
complement to show that queen belongs to the object.” To further explain, “made does
not fully express the act performed upon Victoria. They did not make Victoria, but
made-queen (crowned) Victoria. Queen helps made to express the act, and at the same
time denotes the office to which that act raised Victoria” (Reed and Kellog 71). This
may help to understand the strange order of the diagramed sentence. Reed and Kellog
also provide a great example of the most difficult diagrams within traditional grammar.
This is a diagram of the sentence “A Christian spirit should be shown to Jew or Greek,
male or female, friend or foe” (59). This diagram is an example not only of the difficulty,
which can be foreseen within traditional grammar but how composition and connected
terms was a vital component to this type of grammar.
During the second quarter of the twentieth century, there emerged a new school
of linguistics, known as structuralism. Leonard Bloomfield is said to be responsible for
beginning this movement in 1933 through the publication of “Language.” Bloomfield
defined this movement in the hopes of designating his field of study as scientific (10
Liles). Liles continues to explain the reason for the formation of structural grammar.
There were a number of reasons which
caused the structuralists to become disenchanted
with traditional grammar and to try to develop a
more satisfactory approach. One of the greatest
problems they found with the traditional
approach was that it was inadequate for
describing many languages. It was impossible
for example to analyze American Indian
languages according to the eight parts of
speech. The structures of these languages were
incompatible with traditional classifications. (11)
This new theory, structural grammar, is defined broadly as “any grammar in
which there is an attempt to describe the structure of the grammatical sentence…” (154
Cattell) Structural grammar is most often characterized as a procedure known as
substitution. In this process word class and also structures are expanded into larger
structures (154-155 Cattell).
Another linguist responsible for structural grammar is Zellig Harris. Harris
helped to bring structural grammar to the forefront in the 1940’s (1 Nevin). His
contributions to the field were fully recognized in “Methods in Structural Linguistics” in
1951 (14 Cattell). Harris was very interested in the relationship of similar words
together. For example Harris shows the relationship between words such as walk, and
walked as well as note and notice. “note and notice have some environments in common.
both occur in That’s worthy of _____; but only note occurs it A man of _____; and only
notice in The boss gave me a week’s _____. Similarly with walk and walked both occur
in I always ___slowly; but only walk in I’ll _____ with you; and only walked in I ____
yesterday. The same is true of such pairs as talk-talked, go-went” (163 Harris). Though
Harris was an influential figure in the structuralism movement for grammarians and
linguistics he was not understood very easily by the average person. But it is important
to know who he is and that his role was significant. As a structuralist, Harris also laid the
foundation for the linguist who forms transformationalism, especially Noam Chomsky,
who will be discussed later.
“Rather than learning isolated terms in the context of separate rules, structural
grammar made learning more fun through various activities such as labeling,
categorizing, structured overviews, and classifying. These new activities emphasized
how the terms relate to one another (1 Vitale). Structuralism observed the place within a
sentence which words were placed and what type of relationship it carried with the other
words in the sentence. Structural grammar truly focused on the function of words and
sentences. Not only do they concentrate on the function of words but also the
characteristics of words. The following example may help to explain. In using the
sentence Every one of the students is going to (his, her, his/her, their) seat one must take
part in the exercise by answering the question ”between what two characteristics of a
pronoun is this sentence asking you to choose when the choice is between his and
their?” And the answer would be the choice is “between singular and plural
characteristics” (Vitale 105). This example shows how descriptive structural grammar
is.
Structural grammarians are most famous for their descriptive approach to
grammar. Descriptive tendencies in grammar can be recognized as a convention
correlating some words in the language with types of situations (Olshewsky 624). A
few simple examples of this is the knowledge of where specific words belong in a
sentence, such as where does the noun, verb, and adjective within a sentence
belong. Using the descriptive tendencies it becomes a bit clear, and actually only takes
the ability to talk to be able to figure it out. Structural grammarians see parts of speech as
often identifiable through their position in sentences (www.towson.edu). The following
examples through towson website better explain this descriptive tendency. For example
in the following sentence, it is clear that the part of speech that will fit into slot #1 and
Slot #2 must be nouns, pronouns, or basically any nominal word.
_____________ touched ______________
#1
#2
To better explain this example fill in the blanks with two nouns Bobby touched the sofa
now that sounds grammatically correct. Now fill it in with two verbs, try Walk touched
talked this doesn’t make as much sense.
The next part of speech identifiable by its place within a sentence is a verb. Verbs
can also sometimes be recognized by their position in a sentence. In the following two
sentence frames, only a verb can be put into the empty slot.
NOUN ______________
(verb)
THERE _______________ NOUN.
(verb)
Bob laughed.
There stands Suzy.
The other part of speech identifiable by its position within a sentence is an
adjective. As far as adjectives are concerned there are several places as far as position in
a sentence. Adjectives can be placed before the noun, following the noun they describe,
or following a verb of being or a linking verb. Though this sounds quite complicated
there is a little word-order test which can be used.
The _____________ NOUN caught the bus.
(adjective)
The large bear caught the bus.
Even though nouns, verbs, and adjectives are easily identifiable by their placement within
a sentence some parts of speech are not as easy. Of all of the parts of speech adverbs are
the most difficult to identify based upon its position within a sentence. For example the
adverb slowly will fit into three places in the sentence He climbed the ladder.
He climbed the ladder slowly.
Slowly he climbed the ladder.
He slowly climbed the ladder.
(www.towson.edu)
The greatest gift that structural grammarians have given to the world of English
grammar is constituents. “Constituents are the pieces that make up sentences. A few of
the basic constituents would be subject, predicate, and direct object” (Glauner Chapter 4
pg. 1). The constituents are merely another way for the structural grammarians to
describe the forms that make-up sentence structure. Here are a few examples of how
structuralism diagramed sentences while being able to label the specific parts. These
examples can be found on page 19 of George Vitale’s teacher guide, “Thinking Your
Way Though Grammar.”
Another important part within the structural world of grammar is the relationship
and categorization of words. There are several exercise to show these relationships, one
of these is having a list of three or four words and finding the word that doesn’t fit
according to the various descriptions of parts of speech it may fit into. One example by
Vitale would be to have the fours words love, hope, delight, and pavement and determine
the word that does not fit. In this particle case the word pavement would get crossed out
because it is a concrete noun, while the other three words can be considered either an
abstract noun or a verb (21). Though this exercise may seem a bit silly it helps to show
the relationship between words not only within the context of labeling particular parts of
speech but also in realizing that the word can change when used in different
context. Which quite honestly was the main objective of structural grammar.
“Since the late 1950’s structural grammar has been challenged by
transformational grammar” (Liles 12). This new theory also consisted of very new
ideas. “Much of the early work in generative grammar was concerned with overcoming
the inadequacies of certain theories of phrase structure modeled in part on procedures of
constituents analysis in structural linguistics and in part on formal systems devised for the
study of formal languages” (Chomsky 144). The procedures and results of structural
grammar have been absorbed into transformational grammar where they appear in base
component (especially the branching rules) (Cattell 12). “Many transformationalists
believe that meaning is an integral part of linguistic description and that is it impossible
to analyze a sentence apart from it’s meaning” (Liles 13).
Though transformational grammar seems quite complex the entire theory is
roughly contained within two rules. “The fundamental idea is that surface structures are
formed through the interaction of at least two distinct types of rules: base rules, which
generate abstract phrase structure representations; and transformational rules, which
move elements and otherwise rearrange structures to give the surface structures”
(Chomsky 144).
One of the most influential grammarians involved with the transformational
movement is Noam Chomsky. “Chomsky suggested that instead of worrying about how
a description of language could be arrived at. We ought to accept any description that
seems to fit the facts, no matter how it was obtained” (Cattell 28). Chomsky’s ideas on
grammar were quite profound, creating a sub-theory with in transformational
grammar.
“Chomsky’s grammar was not only transformational but also
generative. That means it consists of a set of rules for generating the sentences of the
language” (Cattell 28).
An important part of Chomsky’s contribution to transformational grammar was
the construction of kernel sentences. “Kernel sentences are basic simple statements or
declarative sentences. They contain two essential parts; a noun phrase and a verb phrase,
in that order” (Allen, Newsom & Borgh 5). There are five kernel sentence
patterns. Glauner gives the formulas and examples for them:
Pattern I: Subject + Intransitive Verb
Example- John fell.
Pattern II: Subject + Transitive Verb + Direct Object
Example- Carol threw the ball.
Pattern III: Subject + Transitive Verb + Indirect Object + Direct Object
Example- Carol threw John the ball.
Pattern IV: Subject + Linking Verb + Subject Complement
Example- Eagles are large
Pattern V: Subject + Transitive
Complement
Example- Sheila made Karen angry.
Verb
+
Direct
Object
+
Object
With these five-kernel sentence patterns are diagrams, which breaks down all of the
specific parts within these patterns. These examples are also provided through Glauner.
Pattern I: John eats.
One of Chomsky’s beliefs was that kernel sentences are composed of words with proper
bracketing into phrases of various types such as noun phrases (143-144
Chomsky). Myers explains that, the phrase structure rules analyze the components of a
kernel sentence in the following manner:
1. Sentence NP + VP
2. NP
T+N
3. VP
Verb + NP
4. T
the
5. N
man, ball, etc.
6. Verb hit, took, etc. (310-311)
Here NP stands for noun phrase , VP stands for verb phrase, T for the N for noun and V
for verb. Each rule of the form X – Y is to be interpreted as “rewrite X as Y. And each
Y is either an analysis of corresponding X into smaller parts or the substitution of a
specific example for the symbol of a type (310 Myers).
Sentence
Rule
NP + VP
1
T + N + VP
2
T + N + Verb + NP
3
the + N + Verb + NP
4
the + man + Verb + NP
5
the + man + hit +NP
6
the + man + hit + T + N
2
the + man + hit + the + N
4
the + man + hit + the + ball
5
Myers explains his previous diagram. “In one way this may strike us as childishly
simple, since each rule involves a change in only one element. On the other hand we
may be disturbed by the new definitions implied, such as that in which a verb phrase
contains a noun phrase. The justification is that this sort of analysis makes possible an
orderly and regular manipulation of the elements, and avoids the confusion that
sometimes results from definitions based on meaning” (310-311).
Though Chomsky’s kernel sentences were very helpful in the world of grammar
they were not very realistic for everyday use. “In real life however we would have trouble
limiting ourselves to kernel sentences, for we can’t even ask a question without
producing a transformed sentence… Negative statements and requests are transforms,
too, in fact nearly all-English sentences are. Actually many sentences result from a
whole series of transformations” (Allen, Newsome, and Borgh 43). A few examples of
transform sentences are: Did Carl play tennis today?, The meeting hasn’t ended., and
Stir the fudge. Transform sentences can be arrived at through three procedures known as
addition, deletion, rearrangement, or various combinations of the three (Allen, Newsome,
& Bourgh 43). A few examples from Chapter 19 of Glauner’s web-based grammar book
will help to explore the three basic forms of transformations.
The simplest transform is that of deletion. In the English language instead of
saying things such as you close the window most people express such declaration as close
the window. This is an example of deletion because the sentence has been transformed
into a new pattern, which is not within the boundaries of kernel sentences. This is shown
even better in the explanation of movement. Imagine the sentence The door is white
which is a basic sentence pattern, now change that sentence into a question, particularly a
yes or no question such as Is the door white? This is an example of rearrangement or
what Glauner refers to as movement transforms because the verb is fronted. Just to be
clear in movement transforms the verb is not the only word which has to move in order to
be considered a movement transform basically any word which has been rearranged from
that of it’s original place within a basic sentence pattern. The last important transform is
addition. Addition transforms in the simplest of terms adds some type of component or
word to a basic sentence pattern. For example in the basic sentence The door turned
white an auxiliary verb could be added to form the sentence Did the door turn white?
Through the adding of a word an addition transform is shown (1-2).
There is also the distinction between single and double-based
transformations. The transformations that produce questions, negative statements, and
requests are single-base transformations and a sentence which is derived from the
terminal strings of two or more kernels are double-base transformations (Allen,
Newsome, & Borgh 43). “Further, transformational derivations provide a revealing
explanation of grammatical ambiguity” (83 Olshewsky).
After exploring these three perspectives of grammar on might ask how is
someone suppose to keep track of them all? The answer is it is quite difficult. The
constant changing and evolving within the ideas of correct grammar usage has caused
quite a problem within the educational system. With theories changing so rapidly it
became quite difficult for teachers to keep up to date. This rapid evolution of grammar
made it difficult to even use the new theories because how do you tell children to forget
everything they learned about grammar in the previous years. “…In the last twenty or
thirty years, a revolution has taken place in the academic approach to grammar. Not only
is the difference between grammatical black and white not regarded as absolute there are
even many eminent linguistics who would refuse to apply the terms “right” and “wrong”
to language at all” (Cattell 2). “…In grammar there are no unchallenged or
unchallengable explanations: the teacher does not and cannot hold the secret in his back
pocket” (Cattell xiv). “Thus grammar does not become a procrustean bed of do’s and
don’ts into which sentences must be rudely forced; but rather the grammar must be made
to fit the facts” (Cattell xv). The question then becomes; How does someone teach a
subject with no rights or wrongs or do’s or don’ts?
This is exactly the question the educational system is trying to answer. “Yet
this revolution has presented many teachers with a new problem: whether they liked the
old grammar or not, they do not understand the new approaches and find it rather
difficult…” (Cattell 3) “Clearly one of the goals of grammar study has always been to
improve oral and written expression to get children to speak and write better. Now much
can depend on such a term as “better,” and much does. To speak and write better in the
world of rhetoric-in that corner of the English class-is simply to be in tune with what is
deemed effective and polished and sweet speaking/writing in one’s own time-at least in
the time of one’s teachers” (Cattell xiv). This maybe where the answer lies to just teach
what sounds best and looks good on paper instead of trying to specify a particular theory.
Grammar and its ever-changing theory of correctness have had quite an impact on
not only the educational system but also the world as we know it. There is no sense of
community in terms of what is truly believed to be correct grammar. There have also
been great theories emerge from this fast paced grammarian society. Though it can not
be decided which theory is the best, traditional, structural, or transformational, one can be
certain that all three of these theories have added something to the world of grammar.
Works Cited
Allen, Harold B., Verna L. Newsome, and Enola Borgh. Teacher’s Guide for New
Dimensions in English 1. Wichita, Kansas: McCormick-Mathers Publishing
Company, Inc., 1968. *Full of great examples and exercises for learning and
teaching transformational grammar.
Cattell,
N.R.
The
New
English
Grammar:
A
Descriptive
Introduction. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1969. *By far the best
resource for this paper
and any further grammatical study.
Chomsky, Noam. Rules and Representation. New York: Columbia University Press,
1980. *Great for truly understanding Chomsky’s views on other linguistics
theories and his own beliefs of rules of grammar.
Glauner, Jeff. “Essentials of Grammar”. http://captain.park.edu/jglauner/EN325/325text
*This web-based text provides good explanation about the different grammatical
theories. Teaches grammar with all three of the theories in mind.
Harris, Zellig S. Structural Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951.
*Not a very good book for a beginner. Once grammar and linguistics basics
are created this will be an excellent book to read. Very difficult.
Jacobs, Roderick A. English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, Massachusetts:
Blaisdell Publishing Co., 1968. *As the title would suggest, this book provides
detailed insight into the premises of transformational grammar. Good for
detailed
study on this approach.
Kellog, Brainerd and Alonzo Reed. Higher Lessons in English: A Work on
English
Grammar and Composition. New York: Charles E. Merrill CO., 1909. *This
book is more textbook material, but full of great examples and practical exercises.
Liles, Bruces L. Linguistics & the English Language: A Transformational
Approach.
Pacific Palisades, California: Goodyear Publishing Company Inc.,
1972. *Good
source for more detailed study into transformational grammar. Contains good
examples.
Myers, L.M. The Roots of Modern English. Boston, Massachusetts: Little, Brown
and
Company, 1966. *Great resource in explaining the history of grammar and
the
paths it took over the years. Good information on transformational theories.
Nevin, Bruce. “Apropos of Zellig Harris.” John Benjamin Publishing Company. Online.
20 Oct. 2002. http://www.cpmc.columbia.edu/zellig/apropos/description.html
*This was only a little short description of Harris and the many grammar and
linguistic books he has published. It was informative but short, very little actual
detail and not at all a full representation of his work and influence.
Olshewsky, Thomas M. Problems in the Philosophy of Language. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969. *This source is excellent, provides a
great
historical description and talks about all the different grammatical theories.
Sherwin, J. Stephen. Four Problems in Teaching English: A Critique of Research.
Scanton, Pennsylvania: International Textbook Company, 1969. *This by far
was the best source for explaining the problems when teaching grammar.
http://www.towson.edu/ows/adjectives.htm *This particular website had no formal
author or title. It was full of excellent examples, many of which I used for this
paper. Definitely a great source for examples.
Vitale, Edmund Jr. Thinking Your Way Through English Grammar: Teacher’s Guide.
Clearwater, Florida: H & H Publishing Company, 1988. *Very complicated in
Some aspects but contain great exercises for learning structural grammar.