Native grammarians and their linguistic slovenliness - PDF document

1 Native grammarians and their linguistic slovenliness Ashok Kumar Jha After such knowledge, what forgiveness? T.S. Eliot, ‘Gerontion’ Very recently, while teaching a course in applied linguistics, I had to use English Grammar for Today , written by Leech e t al . and published by Macmillan. As is claimed in the Foreword, the authors’ ‘distinction and expertise eminently qualify them for the task’, and the publisher is ‘long established in the field’. Not only this. The English Association has been ‘fortunate’ in bringing the authors and the publisher together and is ‘grateful to the authors for the care they have given to the preparation of this book ’ and it is hoped that the book ‘will serve as a valuable tool for students … and also for teachers … who believ e that a return to a vigilant attitude towards the language they use and love is long overdue’ (italics mine). On the back of the title page we are told that the book was first published in 1982, reprinted in 1983 ‘ with corrections ’ and in 1984 ‘ with revi sions ’ etc (italics mine). And, while enumerating the reasons ‘why it is best to keep these “rules” in formal writing, unless there is good reason to the contrary’, this is the pearl of wisdom the authors give us at the end of the book: It is best then to keep to the ‘rules’ unless there are bad consequences of obeying them which overweigh the good consequences. In such a case, the principle of grammatical discretion … comes to the rescue once more (p182) (italics mine). However, what the book contains re minds one of Milton’s ‘Blind mouths’ – a metaphor used in ‘Lycidas’ to refer to bishops ( episkopos ‘overseer’) who have become blind and pastors ( past, pascere ‘feed, graze’) who have become mouths (see the Concise Oxford 2 Dictionary, 1999 : 138 and 1043). T he authors are contributing magnanimously to the decay of the English language. Here are some data collected from the book, with my comments in square brackets, to prove the point: (i) … then the rules of a descriptive grammar must allow for this type of s entence in its rules. (p5) [ I wonder why ‘the rules of’ should be there in the clause. The phrase is completely redundant. ] (iii) (a) Characteristics of the language user which can effect language include the following … (p7) l (b) It should by now b e clear that personal characteristics of the language user can combine to affect the variety of language used. (p8) [ For native linguists to vacillate between ‘effect’ and ‘affect’ is quite surprising. I do not think the two words are interchangeable. ] (iv) We find that, for example, the rules of word order in these languages are different from English. (p11) [ The sentence is incorrect. The phrase ‘different from English’ must be replaced by different from those in English to make it correct. The autho rs themselves follow the rule in (xxi), (xxii) and (xxix) below. ] (v) (a) At this stage we shall not attempt to explain exactly what is the matter with (1) – (6) … (p13) l (b) … there is scope for legitimate disagreement about what is the best analysis o f a sentence. (p26) 3 [ I know for certain that native writers use sentences like the above, and what well - educated native users speak and write must be English. However, I wonder why the rules should be unnecessarily broken to blend structures. ] (vi) Thi s is one of the main reasons for learning about grammar … (p13) [ One fails to see the relevance of ‘about grammar’. Why should it not be simply grammar ? The authors are talking about gaining ‘conscious control over the skill of using language’. ] (vii) … the matching of one construction with another, similar one. (p14) [ Because of the use of a comma after it, ‘another’ can be interpreted both as a pronoun and as a determiner, and if it is a pronoun, a becomes obligatory before ‘similar’. ] (viii) … a protot ype chair has four legs, is made with wood, has a back, and is used for sitting on. (p25) [ My grammar tells me that it should be made of wood. To quote from A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language : With verbs of ‘making’ with indicates an ingredie nt; of and out of signify the material or constituency of the whole thing; and from indicates a substance from which something is derived: l This cake is made with lots of eggs. [ ‘Eggs are an important ingredient.’ ] l He made the frame ( out) of wood. [ ‘Wo od was the only material.’ ] l Beer is made from hops. (Quirk et al. , 1985: 710 - 11) And this is precisely what every dictionary and every other grammar has to say. For example, here are relevant extracts from two dictionaries: (a)Compare: The table is ma de of wood x Bread is made from corn. We use from when the result no longer looks like the original material, and of when something shorter and simpler has been done. (Paul Procter et al .(eds): Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 1978: 658) 4 (b) But ter is made out of/from milk (=Milk is used to produce something else – butter). The earrings are made of gold ( = are gold). (Paul Procter et al . (eds): Cambridge International Dictionary of English, 1996: 855) Is it because it is a ‘prototype’ chair that the authors have used ‘with’? ] (ix) Notice that  re in T hey’re playing (11) belongs with playing rather than with They. To see this, we expand  re to are , which clearly belongs to the verb phrase are playing . (p29) [ The vacillation between ‘belongs with’ and ‘belongs to’ is again inexplicable. ] (x) We may even want to simplify things even further.(p30) [ One wonders if ‘even is required at both places. ] (xi) (a)It is generally possible for an NP… (p44) l (b)Second, a NP may occur as a VOCATIVE ( Vo c )…(p83) l (c) … the words who, which and that in these sentences have a NP - like function (p98) l (d)For example, an - ING clause can be further classified as a NCl, as an ACl, as a RCl, as a CCl, or as a PCl.(p101) l (e)… it is possible to regard a genitive phrase as a NP…(p105) l (f)‘An O can be an NP or an NCl’…(p113) l (g)In (1) ask is a V, not a N…(p114) l (h)… P contains a Mv …(p115) l (i)…is it an O in the main clause, or a S in the non - finite clause?(p121) l (j)A Cli is not usually a MCl in a sentence. But it could occur as a SCl…(p210) l (k)…but the kind represented by the data on p.74 consists of cj than followed by a S …(p211) [ As is evident from the data given above, this clear case of confusion worse confounded begins on page 44 and ends on page 211. If it can be ‘an NP’ I do not see any reason why 5 it cannot be an NCl, an RCl, an N,an S, an Mv etc. Why should the reader be compelled to read ‘NCl’ as a noun clause, ‘RCl’ as a relative clause etc, and not as /æn en kl z/, /æn kl z/ etc? Why should his/her mind be taxed for no reason whatsoever? Things are, no doubt, arbitrary in language, but what about metalanguage? Should it not be explicit and e conomical? And even if s/he does so, how does s/he reconcile ‘an NP’ in (a) and ‘a NP’ in (b),(c) and (e), and ‘a NCl’ in (d) and ‘an NCl’ in (f). Matters come to a head in (j), where the reader finally gets trapped. Should s/he accept ‘a’ before ‘Cli’ whe n s/he knows for certain that things are decided by the first sound, and not by the first letter, and that s/he will have to read it as an infinitive clause? ] (xii) Count nouns … refer to things that can be counted… Mass nouns, on the other hand, refer to substances, qualities, etc., that we do not think of as coming in countable ‘lumps’…(p45) [ I wonder if the distinction between a count noun and a mass noun has anything to do with counting. If one accepts the learned authors’ explanation, then how does s/he distinguish between pay and salary, fruit and vegetable , food and meal etc? It becomes very difficult for any English teacher to convince his/he r learner why s/he can count vegetable , but not fruit . And what about salary and pay with no significant difference in meaning? ] (xiii) …two conjunctions occur together, one preceding one construction, and another preceding the other:(p53) [ Since only tw o conjunctions are involved, the use of ‘another’ is incorrect. This is what A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language has to say about the difference between one - another and one - the other : 6 One (or the one ) … the other is used with reference to two: l I saw two suspicious - looking men. ( The ) one went this way, the other that. One of his eyes is better than the other. One … another or one … the other is used with reference to more than two: l We overtook one car after {another, {the other. l I’ve been busy with one thing or another. (Quirk et al. ,1985: 386 - 87) ] (xiv) This rule has one exception: the so - called POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS my, your, their , whose, etc. , occur as modifiers…(p63) [ Even in A Grammar of Contemporary English (Quirk et al ,1978: 806) and A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (Quirk et al ,1985:164) the term possessive pronoun has been used for the third form of a pronoun. I think traditional grammar, which treats the third form as a possessive a djective and the fourth form as a possessive pronoun, has a better explanation to offer. Why confuse the learner, telling him/her that both the forms are possessive pronouns, and then that the third form is used attributively and the fourth predicatively? Also traditional grammar comes in handy while teaching sentences such as l Mine is red/ My car is red. l His/ His life is a story of successes and failures. l I dislike him/his going there . l I caught him stealing her purse etc. ] (xv) Sinc e, as observed in 4.3.1, a GP can function as the head of an NP, the same applies to a possessive pronoun … (p63) 7 [ I wonder if one can make head or tail of the sentence. Also the use of ‘same’ as a pro - form is a clear case of bad English. This is what eve ry book on writing good English says. ] (xvi) In fact, this is always a good TEST FOR FINITENESS of a VP. (p81) [ What about the before ‘FINITENESS’? I doubt if it can be dropped. ] (xvii) Yet a further possibility is the use of a prepositional phrase … (p 99) [ One fails to understand why it should not be A yet further possibility . Here are some expressions from different dictionaries to prove that the sequence used by the authors is not correct: (a) …a recent and yet more improbable theory …(Sally, Wehmeier et al . (eds): Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 2000: 1505). (b) …a yet worse/yet more terrible experience …(E.M. Kirkpatrick (ed): Chambers Universal Learners’ Dictionary, 1981: 883). (c) …a yet more radical option…(John Sinclair et al . (eds): Collins Cobuild , 1995: 1947 ). (d) …a yet worse mistake … (Adam Gadsby et al . (eds): Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English , 1998: 1664) ] (xviii) …a rule which inverts the subject and finite operator. (p120) [ I think there should be the even before ‘finite operator’ o r it should be removed even from before ‘subject’. ] (xix) (a) The obvious distinction for English is between the auditory and visual medium, that is, between speech and writing. (p133) (b) … speech is generally used in face - to - face situations so that both the auditory and v isual media are available. (p136) [ It is beyond one’s understanding why it should be ‘medium’ in (a) and ‘media’ in (b). It is a plural noun which is required at both places. ] 8 (xx) The invention of the tape recorder, the te lephone and the radio have helped to overcome the limitations of the spoken language … (p134) [ The use of ‘have’ for ‘invention’ is appalling. Do the authors need to be reminded that it is the head word, and not the post modifier , which determines the ver b and that the post modifier in the above noun phrase is the whole preposition al phrase ‘of the tape recorder , the telephone and the radio’ and not simply ‘of the tape recorder’. ] (xxi) Letters will also have features reflecting a lesser degree of formalit y than is typical for writing. (p140) [ I doubt if ‘typical for writing’ is correct. The correct preposition ( of ) has been used by the authors themselves in ‘…although both (1) and (2) have the same speaker and addressee and cover the same topic … (1) neve rtheless exhibits more often characteristics typical of speech, and (2) more of those typical of writing’ (p143). ] (xxii) Vocabulary as well as grammar thus reflect the greater formality of (2). (p149) [ If my memory does not fail me, in the case of as w ell as the verb is determined by the noun/pronoun coming before it, and hence reflects must be substituted for ‘reflect’ in the above sentence. I do not think the authors want to write a new grammar militating against the facts of the English language. ] ( xxiii) Because neither the role of the speaker not that of addressee is prominent in news broadcasts … (p150) [ What about the before ‘addressee’? Again, I think Because the role of neither the speaker nor the addressee is prominent in news broadcasts … wo uld have been a better way of saying it. ] (xxiv)…and possibilities of further complication by further subordination of one discourse in another … (p164) 9 [ I am unable to understand why it should not be to in place of ‘in’. ] (xxv) … a set of grammatical c hoices which are intimately connected with narrative point of view: (p164) [ Why not the before ‘narrative point of view’? ] (xxvi) … and the book is consulted for guidance not only on matters of usage, but on matters of grammar as well. (p174) [ I wonder if the use of ‘as well’ with ‘not only’ is not a vexing problem, at least for a foreign learner. The Cambridge International Dictionary of English (1996: 996) and the Collins Cobuild English Dictionary (1987: 1005) record it, and Quirk et al . use not only , in the Introduction to A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985), with but on p11, with as well on p13 and with but also on p14. Surprisingly, while explaining the use of not only…but on p941, they mention the use of also and even , but not as well . To quote them: The meaning of not only…but is essentially additive … But with not only…but the emphasis is greater, suggesting that the content of the first clause is surprising, and that that of the second clause, often reinforced by an adverb suc h as also or even , is still more surprising. Collins Cobuild English Grammar (John Sinclair et al ., 1992: 382) goes one step further and uses not just with but also : ‘Professor Kieber suggests that law enforcement activities should be directed not just at drug importers and main suppliers, but also at local dealers.’ More confusing than all this is that, in sharp contrast to most grammars and dictionaries, the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (4th edition, 9th impression) shows but as optional on page 841, and not also : ‘He not only writes his own plays, he also acts in them.’ And on top of it all, the Collins Cobuild English Dictionary (1987: 1005) enters a sentence in which not only is not followed by anything: ‘That would not only be regrettable, it would be quite disastrous.’ A foreign teacher, let alone a learner, 10 gets confused, especially when s/he finds the most widely used dictionary, ie the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2000), completely silent on the use of as well with not only . I thin k even native grammarians and lexicographers are bound by certain rules, and they cannot bend or break them at will. ] (xxvii) Putting an idea in a main clause is like shining a spotlight on it; and putting it in a subordinate clause, by the same simile, i s like a placing it in the shadow: (p186) [ The use of ‘a’ before ‘placing’ does not make any sense and if at all it has to be retained it must be followed by of . ] And finally here are some printing errors to prove how sh odd ily the work has been done: (x xviii) The relationship between the three components in represented in Figure 1. (p4) (xxix)…you would expect to find more variation in the speech of the workers that in that of the professionals. (p8) (xxx)…at which every one has second helpings … (p28) ( xxxi) Phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs constitute an important but rather problematic area of English grammer. (p65) (xxxii)…for as we shall see, written and spoken language have different functions … (134) (xxxiii)…we have have indicated the class of each word. (p203) [ Needless to say, it should be is in place of ‘in’ in (xxiii), than in place of the first ‘that’ in (xxix), everyone in place of ‘every one’ in (xxx) and grammar in place of ‘grammer’ in (xxxi). In (xxxii) a comma is required before ‘as ’ and one ‘have’ has to be removed from the sentence in (xxxiii). 11 It is a revelation to me that ‘grammer’ is a global phenomenon. To date I have had the notion that the Indians had a monopoly on it. What a relief! After all ours is an age of globalization and liberalization. ] English Grammar for Today is not an isolated instance of native grammarians’ linguistic slovenliness. To prove the point, here are some data from t hree other grammars. One of them, An Intermediate English Practice Book , has been writt en by Pit Corder , the second , Collins Cobuild English Grammar , edited by a team with John Sinclair as Editor - in - Chief and Hallida y as one of the two consultants, and the third, a very popular classroom grammar authored by Thomson and Martinet. On page 25 o f An Intermediate English Practice Book Pit Corder gives ‘a list of common verbs’ and says that they ‘often have two objects in an active sentence’. On the next page, talking about their ‘two possible passive forms’, he remarks that the passive form with t he indirect object as subject is ‘much more common in English’. Finally, in the exercise that follows (pp26 - 27) he gives 30 sentences and asks the learner to change them into the passive using as subject the indirect object, which is given in italics in ea ch sentence. Surprisingly enough, 12 of the sentences have monotransitive verbs (eg ‘They answered me most rudely in the shop’) or complex transitive verbs (eg ‘Has anyone ever called you a fool before?’). Moreover, the exercise contains even sentences wit h a to - infinitive or a that - clause as the second object (eg ‘No one has ever taught the pupils to do that exercise’ and ‘They must tell him that he is not to come here again’). And to crown it all, here is ‘They asked her her name at the reception desk’, a sentence in which the second object has a coreferential possessive adjective as a premodifier, ruling out the possibility of it being passivised in two ways. One wonders why the exercise abounds in such sentences. There is no dearth of ditransitive verbs in English. 12 Making tall claims John Sinclair says, in the Introduction to Collins Cobuild English Grammar , that the book ‘attempts to make accurate statements about English’ (italics mine); that it ‘will also engage the attention of a different sort of stu dent – those who make a study of English because they are simply interested in language and languages; and that it is so ‘designed’ as ‘to be really useful to student and teacher’ (italics mine). I fail to understand why it should not be ‘students of a di fferent sort’ for ‘those’ and ‘useful to students and teachers’ in spite of the fact that English allows parallel structures such as husband and wife and ‘acceptable to both old and young’. Anyway, here are some shocking revelations, with my comments in sq uare brackets, that the book contains: 1 (a) Count nouns ‘refer to people or things which can be counted’. (p6) (b) Some nouns refer to general things such as qualities … These nouns have only one form, are not used with numbers and are not usuall y used with the determiners ‘the’, ‘a’, or ‘an’ . (italics mine) (p8) [ As stated above in (xii), it is not counting which determines whether a noun is countable or uncountable. Perhaps it was this realization which made Hornby redefine countable and uncountable nouns. This is how he had defined them in the fourth impression of the 1954 edition of his seminal book entitled A Guide to Patterns and Usage in English : For this purpose it is sufficient to place nouns in two main classes, nouns that denote w hat can be counted (things such as books , pens , apples ) and nouns that denote what cannot be counted (e.g. bread , traffic , nonsense , knowledge ). These two classes may be called countables and uncountables . (1971: 148) However, in the second edition of the book he did away with the notion of counting altogether. To quote him: Nouns such as book , pen , apple and toy are countable nouns. They can be used with the articles, with numerals, and in the plural. 13 Nouns such as bread , knowledge , traffic , music , milk a nd homework are uncountable nouns. Such nouns are not normally used in the plural (and therefore not with numerals). (1975: 118) I think what he has to say in his Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English is by far the best explanation of the two types of nouns: [C] means that the noun has both a singular and a plural form. It can be used in the singular with a , an , another ( a bottle , an apple , another boy ), in the plural with many ( many bottles ) and in the singular or plural with numbers ( on e apple , six apples ). Nouns that can be used in these ways are countable … [U] means that the noun does not have a plural form. It can be used in the singular with words like some, enough, much, more ( some information, enough money, much noise ). It cannot be used with a, an, another , or with many , or with numbers. Nouns that are used in this way are uncountable. (1974: xxiv) Again, why have recourse to meaning when count and mass nouns can be so well defined in terms of form? One reason why traditional gram mar is denounced as unfit for being called a science is that it relies heavily on meaning, and statements based on meaning, as S.R.Levin says, ‘are not vulnerable’ (1971: 47). Things become absurd when on page 8 one comes to know that the cannot be used wi th uncountable nouns. Not only this, on page 53 one is again told that ‘ Uncountable nouns are usually used without a determiner’. It is beyond one’s understanding why the, some, much, little, enough, lots of, a lot of etc cannot be frequently used with mas s nouns. ] 2 On page 140 the reader is asked to ‘Note that some intransitive verbs can be used in the passive when they are followed by a preposition’, and on page 408 a list of such verbs is given. This list of about a hundred verbs includes ‘intransitive phrasal verbs’ such as ‘accede to’, ‘account for’ etc. [ One is surprised to know that intransitive verbs can be passivized. There is no gain - saying the fact that linguistics is in a state of flux and every linguist has his own terms and explanations to offer. It is also true that, unlike in France, there is no official arbiter 14 of usage in England. But then all this does not mean that the very basics of English grammar can be made topsy - turvy. After all grammar is not something one can shatter to bits an d then remould to his/her heart’s desire. ] A lso , here are two sentences – one each from A Grammar of Contemporary English and A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language : A) Since, therefore, neither who nor whom is wholly satisfactory, that is frequentl y used despite a personal antecedent. (1972: 870) [ The sentence proves beyond doubt how native grammarians’ carelessness can wreak havoc on the English language. ] B) There are many sentences where despite coordination with and and despite subject ellipsis, a comma is nevertheless preferred. (1985: 1617) [ I think the use of the conjunction ‘nevertheless’ in the above sentence is completely redundant. This is what Quirk et al . have to say about conjuncts as correlatives in their ‘Comprehensive’ grammar: … som e conjuncts can correlate with the subordinator of a preceding clause to reinforce the logical relationship between the parts of a sentence. In sharp contrast to the objectionable redundancy…formal correlation contributes both to stylistic elegance (throu gh rhetorical balance…) and to textual clarity (especially where the two parts to be connected are long and complex). (1985: 644) The examples of correlatives given on the next page are: although } {yet (even) though } {still while } {however whilst esp BrE䀀 } {nevertheless granted (that) } {nonetheless 15 even if } {notwithstanding anyway}esp infor&#x-500;mal anyhow} On this very page in Note [b] we are told that ‘Certain other expressions with concessive force may correlate with a conces sive conjunct; for example, t rue , clearly , or certainly …’ Does the above rule apply even to despite ? It is not a subordinator. What is more, even in Note [b] it is not mentioned at all. Perhaps it is for ‘stylistic elegance’ that the authors have used ‘ne vertheless’ with ‘despite’ in the sentence in question. The question of ‘textual clarity’ does not arise as the two parts of the sentence are not ‘long and complex’. What is all the more confusing, especially for a non - native teacher of English, is that th e Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary rules out the possibility of using however with although , though and even though . To quote from it: Note that you cannot use however in a sentence that begins with although , though or even though . Although everyone pl ayed well, however, we still lost the game . (2000: 34) How does one reconcile the two contradictory statements? Incidentally, a similar confusion arises about the use of one as a generic/general/ indefinite pronoun, about the in the titles of publications and about the way latter is used. a) In A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (Quirk et al ., 1985: 388) we are told in no uncertain terms that it is followed by one’s/oneself in British English and by his/himself in American English and that ‘c oncern over sexual bias … has caused AmE in effect to move towards adoption of the BrE pattern’. However, as early as 1975 16 this is what Hornby states equally unequivocally in his Guide to Patterns and Usage in English : The indefinite pronoun one is followe d by one’s and oneself in British u sage and by his/her, himself/herself in American usage. (p130) It is therefore no wonder that in the wake of the two contrary statements teachers/learners of English find themselves caught in a precarious situation. They fail to understand who is to blame – Hornby, that linguistic colossus, or the new crop of grammarians who can be faulted on scores more than one. And now Pam Peters (2004: 393) says that there are four possibilities (ie one’s/his/her/their ) with one , but then, as neither his nor her is ‘usable now, because of their perceived sexism’, one is left with one’s or their . b) Grammatical cruxes of usage are discussed with reference to modern grammars such as the Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language , the Introduction to Functional Grammar (1985; 1994) and especially the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (1999). The latter is explicitly corpus - based … (Pam Peters, 2004: viii) On page 536 of The Cambridge Guide to English Usage the writer says, ‘ The titles of many publications include the … In such cases, The needs a capital, as an intrinsic part of the title, even when cited in mid - sentence …Likewise it’s accepted that when referring to titles prefaced by A or An … the indefinite article may be r eplaced by the . It would not be capitalized as part of the title …’ I doubt if what she says applies to the titles given above. At no place do Quirk et al . replace ‘ A ’ by the if the full title of the book is given. It is only when the title is shortened as , for example, Comprehensive Grammar that it is preceded by the . Also A is dropped if the abbreviated form of the title of a book such as GCE/UGE/CGE is used. This is precisely what we find even in the famous journal of the 17 English language. The title is g iven as ELT Journal or as the Journal . And what does Peters have to say about the tenth edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary ? On the cover it is ‘ Concise Oxford Dictionary ’, on the title page it is ‘ The Concise Oxford Dictionary ’ and in the Preface it is ‘the Concise Oxford Dictionary ’. Finally, why use the before the names of the last two books? Neither of them contains the indefinite article a or an . c) As for the use of latter , Peters does not follow her own rule. Talking about former and latter she writes on page 216, ‘These words allow writers to refer systematically to a previously mentioned pair of persons or items, so as to distinguish between them …’ But when it comes to using latter , we find her using it for the third item. In the sentence quot ed above, for example, she uses it for the third book – of course, cleverly joining the dates of publication of the first two books in brackets. ] And to cap it all, here are some data from A Practical English Grammar: i) s is pronounced /s/ after p, k or f so und. Otherwise it is pronounced /z/. p 25 [ What about t and Ó¨ ? The writers seem to have had no training in phonetics and phonology.] ii) But where man and woman is prefixed both parts are made plural … p 27 [ The use of ‘is’ is quite baffling. The simple r ules of concord say that two nouns joined by and are followed by a plural verb unless it is a case of two nouns referring to one concept, as in slow and steady , bread and butter etc. ] iii) Where’s your’s? p 76 [ I wonder if I have to say anything about the use of an apostrophe in ‘ your’s ’. Isn’t is shameful? ] iv) … if before the request we put a phrase such as I wonder/ was wondering or 18 Do you think , the verb in the request changes from interrogative to affirmative … p108 [ It would have been declarative or assertive in place of ‘ affirmative ’. The writers must understand that they are talking about the order of subject and verb and not about a clause being affirmative or negative. ] v) The present perfect continuous tense does not exist in the passive . p 173 [ The writers are ignorant of the changes that have taken place in the English language. I wonder what they have to say about sentences like John may have been being harassed by the police . ] vi) There is no future tense in modern English. p 187 [ The wri ters’ cavalier attitude to English grammar is inexplicable. The fact of the matter is that English has no future tense; it is not a question of there being no future tense in modern English (italics mine). It was the rules of Latin and, of course, logic wh ich were imposed on the English language in traditional grammar. ] In ‘Politics and the English Language’, written way back in 1946, Orwell finds English ‘in a bad way’, and for obvious reasons the causes of its decline, according to him, are political and economic. Nevertheless, he is sure that the tide of its abuse, decay and collapse can be stemmed ‘by conscious action’ if one is ready to change his/her own habits, for language after all is ‘an instrument which we shape for our own purpose’ (1967: 143). Also he prescribes certain ‘rules’ for people desirous not to write bad English, and they are so well known that I do not think I have to repeat them. Some similar ‘maxims of good writing’ we find on page 184 of English Grammar for Today : 1. Make your languag e easy to follow. 2. Be clear. 3. Be economical. 19 4. Be effective. The data given above, however, reveals an altogether different story. The ‘maxims’ are undermined by their defenders themselves. Orwell believes that there can be no sincerity in thought unless there is sincerity in language. To quote him again: ‘The great enemy of clear language is insincerity’ (1967: 154). And it is this insincerity which informs almost every page of English Grammar for Today and Collins Cobuild English Grammar . Perhaps all that one can do in the situation that obtains is make a request with Milton to the Angles to ‘Look homeward’. It will go a long way to stopping the acceleration of the collapse of the English language. References Corder, Pit, 1985. An Intermediate Englsih Practi ce Book . Calcutta: Orient Longman Limited. Cowie. A.P. et al . (eds), 1989. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gadsby, Adam et al . (eds), 1998. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English . New Delhi: Longman Group Ltd. Hor nby, A.S., 1971. A Guide to Patterns and Usage in English . London: The English Language Book Society and Oxford University Press. Hornby, A.S. et al ., 1974. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English . Oxford: The English Language Book Society and Oxford University Press. Hornby, A.S., 1975. Guide to Patterns and Usage in English . Oxford: The ELBS and Oxford University Press. 20 Kirkpatrick, E.M.(ed), 1981. Chambers Universal Learners’ Dictionary . Delhi: Chambers/Macmillan India. Leech, G., M. Deu char and R. Hoogenraad, 1986. English Grammar for Today . London: Macmillan Education Limited. Levin, S.R., 1960. ‘Comparing Traditional and Structural Grammar’ in H.B. Allen (ed) 1971. Orwell, George, 1967. Inside the Whale and Other Essays . Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd. Pearsall, Judy (ed), 1999. Concise Oxford Dictionary . New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Peters, Pam, 2004. The Cambridge Guide to English Usage . Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press. Procter, Paul et al . (eds), 1978. Longman Diction ary of Contemporary English . London: Longman Group Limited. Procter, Paul et al . (eds), 1996. Cambridge International Dictionary of English . London: Cambridge University Press. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik, 1978. A Grammar of Contemp orary English . London: Longman Group Limited. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik, 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language . Essex: Addison Wesley Longman Limited. Sinclair, John et al . (eds), 1987. Collins Cobuild English Lang uage Dictionary . London: Collins Publishers. Sinclair, John et al . (eds), 1992. Collins Cobuild English Grammar . New Delhi: Harper Collins Publishers. 21 Sinclair, John et al . (eds), 1995. Collins Cobuild English Dictionary . London: Harper Collins Publisher s. Thomson, A. J. and A V. Martinet, 1989. A Practical English Grammar . New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Wehmeier, Sally et al . (eds), 2000. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary . Oxford: Oxford University Press.