Timeline for What books about English grammar are the standard for linguists and what for non-linguists?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 28, 2023 at 15:35 | comment | added | Tim | @alphabet What approach does CGEL adopt, if not generative? | |
| Jul 28, 2023 at 14:44 | comment | added | John Lawler | Geoff Pullum, an old colleague. Never met Geoffrey Leech. Pullum was the last quoted, in @alphabet's comment. | |
| Jul 28, 2023 at 6:34 | comment | added | Tim | @JohnLawler By "Geoff", did you mean "Geoffrey Leech" or "Geoffrey K. Pullum"? | |
| Jul 28, 2023 at 1:57 | comment | added | John Lawler | @alphabet I'm no fonder of Chomsky's theories than Geoff is. But theories are to be used, and if they work, you don't need yet more. Generative grammar works, as McCawley's work shows; but it's free of most of Chomsky's later improvements and obiter dicta. | |
| Jul 27, 2023 at 23:45 | comment | added | alphabet | @JohnLawler It's worth noting that Pullum says Chomsky "has turned the discipline of syntactic theory into a personality cult." I'm willing to believe that CGEL was written purely to annoy those who consider generative approaches more modern. | |
| Jul 27, 2023 at 23:31 | comment | added | John Lawler | No, I have no idea what, if any, name either book gives to its theory. Indeed, many such grammars claim not to have any theory (this is largely to avoid mentioning Chomsky), which means they can't pay attention to grammatical rules except occasionally. | |
| Jul 27, 2023 at 23:16 | comment | added | Tim | @JohnLawler don't be afraid. you can name them, and delete your comment after I tell you I have seen it. | |
| Jul 27, 2023 at 18:03 | comment | added | John Lawler | @Tim: I wouldn't want to name names because they're the ones who decide, not me. | |
| Jul 27, 2023 at 16:09 | comment | added | Tim | @JohnLawler What linguistic schools do Quirk's and CGEL belong to, if not generative? | |
| Jul 25, 2023 at 22:58 | comment | added | John Lawler | It's a college textbook on semantics, logic, and pragmatics, to go with his textbook on syntax. It's entitled Everything that Linguists have Always Wanted to Know about Logic . . . But Were Ashamed to Ask. | |
| Jul 25, 2023 at 22:51 | comment | added | Tim | @JohnLawler What is the name of the book, when you wrote "he's got one about semantics, too, with a longer title"? | |
| Jul 25, 2023 at 2:47 | comment | added | alphabet | @Tim It's an older grammar; I get the sense that most prefer the more recent Huddleston & Pullum, but occasionally people will cite Quirk et al. | |
| Jul 25, 2023 at 2:42 | comment | added | John Lawler | I'm a generative syntactician, and neither Quirk nor CGEL is transformational, so I prefer McCawley, which is. | |
| Jul 25, 2023 at 1:31 | comment | added | Tim | @JohnLawler thanks. Do you like Quirk's book, and how much? | |
| Jul 23, 2023 at 17:13 | comment | added | John Lawler | McCawley 1998 is intended to be read through, though the last 10 chapters or so deal with individual issues. The first few are intended to be an English syntax textbook at the college level (I can't imagine getting through them all in a yearlong class); that's why the title is The Syntactic Phenomena of English (he's got one about semantics, too, with a longer title), and it's intended to show what those phenomena are and how they relate to one another. | |
| Jul 23, 2023 at 16:14 | history | edited | alphabet | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 71 characters in body
|
| Jul 23, 2023 at 16:09 | history | answered | alphabet | CC BY-SA 4.0 |