A University Course in English Grammar (review)

The authors from the Complutense University of Madrid have used this comprehensive systemic-functional grammar (following work by M. A. K. Halliday, among others) for many years as the required text for first degree and postgraduate students of English as a foreign language. Originally published by Prentice Hall in 1992, this reprint can be used with profit by learners, particularly those interested in literature, since grammatical usage is illustrated with many authentic literary texts, such as Karen Blixen’s Out of Africa (11). One of the volume’s noble aims is ‘to see a grammar as providing a means of understanding the relation of form to meaning and meaning to situation’ (xi). Moreover, it has the advantage of being better organized than many of its competitors. Containing sixty modules, each of which begins with a boxed summary of important grammatical points, the work allows the student to concentrate on the mastery of major topics without the need to flip back and forth among numerous pages. For example, active and passive constructions are fully exemplified in one convenient place (251–57).

This tome is definitely not for beginners. In fact, I would say that students should have a firm command of the language before embarking on the present work. It should be emphasized that British English is the target language, with British spellings and usage.

Let us consider the authors’ presentation of some material. First, we will take up the causative (118–21). The advanced student comes to appreciate the idea of a causative agent and an affected participant in ‘they are making the road wider’ = ‘they are widening the road’ (118). I must note, however, that one of the illustrative sentences is awkward (at least in my variety of American English): ‘Pat had her face lifted’ (ibid.). It is more natural for me to say: ‘Pat had a facelift’. Compare the awkwardness of ‘Pat had her tummy tucked’ for ‘Pat had a tummy tuck’. Second, ‘ergative pairs’ (‘I rang the bell twice’ and ‘The bell rang twice’) are well illustrated (119–21), as are the following rather sophisticated terms: extraposition (35–37, 261–62), parataxis and hypotaxis (274–75, 274–84, 290–313), epistemic and deontic modality (382–83, 385–88), and restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses (284–86, 460, 464–65, 469–70, 487–88). However, in a few cases, I find the descriptions to be prescriptive in orientation. In a discussion of intention, for example, will and shall are presented with the following commentary: ‘will is used for all persons, shall by some speakers for the first person singular and plural’ (390). Shall as a future marker in affirmative clauses should be explained sociolinguistically, in my view, much as whom should be, that is, these words are acrolectic markers and evidence that English is diglossic. Similarly, the authors explain that there is a difference in inference between ‘There were quarrels among them’ implying several people vs. ‘There were quarrels between them’, which implies several small groups or pairs (ibid.). This difference is not adhered to by many native speakers in their everyday casual speech. (See for details Alan S. Kaye, ‘Is English diglossic?’, English Today 7.4.7–14.) Nonetheless, on the whole I find the explanations and examples cogent.

The one drawback I find with this excellent grammar is the complete lack of any discussion of phonology or morphology. In fact, the authors affirm in a short section on word and morpheme classes that there would not be a mention of phonology or morphology ‘since the study of words and morphemes takes us out of syntax’ (13). But I should think morphosyntax is certainly relevant.