Abstract
An immediate problem with the term “grammar” arises out of the variety of its popular and scholarly interpretations. To carry out a grammatical analysis of a patient, or to talk of a grammatical disability, can mean different things to people of different backgrounds. Most of these variations, however, can be explained with reference to four main themes which characterize the history of ideas in the study of grammar.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
See, for example, Nesfield (1898). For a historical review, see Robins (1967).
Examples of the prescriptive approach (i.e. the attempt to establish rules for the socially or stylistically correct use of language) may be found in Palmer (1971: Ch. 2), Crystal (1971: Ch. 2).
There are however signs of progress in the mother-tongue field, reflecting the progress which has for several years characterized work in foreign-language teaching. The emphasis of the Bullock Report (H.M.S.O. 1975) is in this direction, and grammars which pay proper attention to speech have been written (e.g. Mittins 1962 ). But their influence on most pedagogical practice is still marginal.
For example, Quirk et al. (1972), Jespersen (1909–1949).
Chomsky (1964). See the discussion on p.17 above. In this approach, the notion is seen as a predictive account of a speaker’s competence.
See Chomsky (1957, 1965, 1975). Examples of general notions deriving from this approach include the distinction between deep and surface structure, or the notion of grammatical transformation. For other theoretical models, see Lepschy (1970), Dinneen (1967), and for a general discussion, Matthews (1981).
For stratificational grammar, see Lamb (1966), systemic grammar (Halliday 1967), generative grammar (references above).
For the competence/performance distinction, see above, p. 18. The study of performance grammars, in a psycholinguistic context, goes beyond this, attempting to define the various psychological, neurological and physiological states which enter into the production and perception of speech.
In English, inflections are limited to word-endings, such as -s, -ing, -er, -ed. Examples of word-formation include compounds (e.g. blackbird) and the use of prefixes and suffixes (e.g. de-valu-ation). For an introduction to morphology, see Matthews (1974).
There is no simple correspondence between elements of.clause structure and their semantic function, e.g. Subjects usually “do” the action, but not always — they may “experience” or “receive” it, as in John saw a book, The window broke,or John was kicked. See further, p. 161.
See Quirk, et. al. (1972), and Crystal, Fletcher and Garman (1976) for its clinical applications; cf. Roberts (1956), Strang (1968), Halliday, McIntosh and Strevens (1964). For the alternatives referred to below, see Huddleston (1976), Matthews (1981). For clinical applications using other models, see Lee (1974), Morehead and Ingram (1973), Dever (1972).
See the review by McCarthy (1954). For a critique, see Crystal, Fletcher and Garman (1976: 9–11), Minifie, Darley and Sherman (1963), Rees (1971).
See further, Crystal, Fletcher and Garman (1976: 7–9), and the papers in the special volume on word-classes (Lingua, 1967 ).
One of the earliest was Brown (1973), More recent textbooks include Dale (1976), Cruttenden (1979), de Villiers and de Villiers (1978), Fletcher and Garman (1979: Part I I ).
See further, Slobin (1973), Levelt (1975). We must guard against too ready a correlation between cognitive and linguistic stages, however. See, e.g. Corrigan (1978).
On imitation, see Bloom, Hood, and Lightbown (1974), R. Clark (1977), Folger and Chapman (1978). On recent studies of the comprehension and production of specific structures, see Slobin and Welsh (1971), Clark, Hutcheson and Van Buren (1974), Shatz (1978), Sachs and Truswell (1978), Emerson (1979, 1980), Benedict ( 1979 ). For an early statement of the problem, see Fraser, Bellugi and Brown (1963).
For problems in the acquisition of element order, see de Villiers and de Villiers (1973), Kail and Segui (1978), Bridges (1980).
On individual differences, see Ramer (1976), Furrow, Nelson, and Benedict (1979), Bridges (1980). On specific grammatical structures: verb phrase (Fletcher 1979), passive (Baldie 1976, Horgan 1978 a), conjunctions (Lust 1977, Ardery 1980, Lust and Mervis 1980), adjective order (Richards 1979); on later grammatical development, Karmiloff-Smith (1979).
See Smith (1933), Ervin-Tripp (1970), Savié (1975), Crosby (1976), Snow (1977), Tyack and Ingram (1977), Horgan (1978 b), Cairns and Hsu (1978).
In these lists, —Subject and —Object refer to the clause roles of the interrogative item, e.g. who is kicking? (who-Subject), who is he kicking? (who-Object). Intrans=Intransitive verb in the interrogative
Savie (1975) reinforces the point, showing the existence of an “incubation period” of 6 months or more between the mother’s use of these forms and the child’s subsequent use of them (cf. also Furrow, Nelson, and Benedict, 1979).
See Fletcher and Garman (1979: 128–129); but cf. Erreich, Valian and Winzemer (1980).
Examples from Emerson (1979: 299). See also Kuhn and Phelps (1976), Corrigan (1975).
See Donaldson (1978), Fletcher and Garman (1979: Part III).
See Karmiloff-Smith (1979). On articles, see Maratsos (1976), Warden (1976); on the passive, Baldie (1976), Horgan (1978 a); on connectives Coker (1978), French and Brown (1977).
See Dore, Franklin, Miller and Ramer (1976), Bloom (1973).
See Quirk, et al ( 1972: Ch. 14). On the relevance of late intonation, see Cruttenden (1974), Chomsky (1970), and p. 73 above.
Crystal, Fletcher, and Garman (1976), Crystal (1979 a), Crystal and Fletcher (1978).
Auxiliary verbs are illustrated in he is/was/has been going, he may/might/cango. The copula is a form of the verb be when it is the only verb in a clause, e.g. he is happy/a boy. See Quirk et at (1972: 820), where the notion is also applied to verbs with a similar linking function.
Cf. the discussion in Dalton and Hardcastle (1977: 69 ff.).
For syntactic blends, see Bolinger (1961). For order-of-mention, see Hatch (1971), Clark and Clark (1977: 129, 506 ff.), Coker (1978).
Cf. the notion of micro-profile, introduced in Crystal (1979 a).
See Antinucci and Miller (1976), Macrae (1976), Fletcher (1979), Smith (1980).
Quirk et al. (1972:11–12). An alternative way of making the distinction is to refer to grammar as constituting the study of “closed systems” of contrasts in language (i.e. finite sets of mutually defining and mutually exclusive entities, e.g. singular vs. plural, the pronoun system, the tense system), whereas the lexicon deals with “open sets” of items (i.e. sets which are in principle extendable, and which lack the rule-governed interdependence characteristic of the above, e.g. items to do with movement, food, vehicles, etc.).
Lyons (1977: 637). See also, Fillmore (1971), Clark and Garnica (1974), Lyons (1975), Webb and Abramson (1976) and Wales (1979).
Compare: He’s badly dressed (pointing to a man) and A man came up. He was badly dressed. The first sentence is a deictic use of he,because its interpretation is wholly dependent on the non-linguistic situation. The second sentence is a non-deictic use of he,as it refers back to the phrase a man from the previous sentence. Its function is therefore one of linguistic cross-reference (an anaphoric function, as it is usually called). Because of the very different linguistic functions involved, it would not necessarily follow that a patient’s ability to use pronouns deictically would mean he could use them anaphorically: indeed, the reverse is usually the case.
A similar point applies to maternal input language: between 18 months and 21, around 70% of speech has immediate reference (Cross 1977: 169), a considerable proportion of which is deictic (especially using that, there and the),with gestural support (e.g. pointing). But by 2; 6, maternal reliance on gesture and deixis is much decreased, and more explicit language is predominant (see Bridges, 1979). On the general issue in language acquisition, see Macrae (1976), Clark (1978), Clark and Sengul (1978), Charney (1979), and the review in Wales (1979).
Cf. Limber (1976), Crystal, Fletcher and Garman (1976: Ch. 6 ).
See Twaddell (1960), Palmer (1974).
For more on error analysis, in second language learning, see Svartvik (1973).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1981 Springer-Verlag Wien
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Crystal, D. (1981). Grammar. In: Clinical Linguistics. Disorders of Human Communication, vol 3. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-4001-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-4001-7_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Vienna
Print ISBN: 978-3-7091-4003-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-7091-4001-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive