Table Of ContentA GRAMMAR
CONTEMPORARY
ENGLISH
A GRAMMAR OF
CONTEMPORARY
ENGLISH
RANDOLPH QUIRK
A GRAMMAR OF
SIDNEY GREENBAUM
COIMTEMPORARY
GEOFFREY LEECH
ENGLISH
JAN SVARTVIK
jp
SEMINAR PRESS NEWYORKAND LONDON
A DIVISION OF HARCOURT BRACEJOVANOVICH, INC.
LONGMAN GROUP LIMITED LONDON
Associatedcompanies,branchesandrepresentativesthroughouttheworld
PUBLISHED INTHE UNITED STATES OFAMERICA BY
SEMINAR PRESS Inc.Ill FifthAvenue, NewYork, N.Y.10003
©
LongmanGroupLtd1972
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,
storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,
electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recording,orotherwise,
withoutthepriorpermissionofthecopyrightowner.
Firstpublished1972
ISBN 58252444X
ForSeminarPressInc:ISBN 129012505
LibraryofCongressCatalogCardNumber72189941
WilliamPrCilntoewdeisn&GrSeoants.BriLtiamiintebdy,
London.BecclesandColchester
PREFACE
ThefirstattemptsatproducingagrammarofEnglishweremadewhen
therewerelessthantenmilhonspeakersofEngUshintheworld,almost
allofthemlivingwithin100milesorsoofLondon.GrammarsofEnglish
have gone onbeingwrittenduringtheintervening400 years reflecting
avariety(and growingcomplexity)ofneeds,whilespeakersofEnghsh
havemultiplied several hundredfold and dispersed themselves so that
the languagehasachievedauniquelywidespreadthroughouttheworld
and, withthat,auniqueimportance.
WemakenoapologyforaddingonemoretothesuccessionofEnghsh
grammars. In thefirstplace, thoughfairlybriefsynopses arecommon
enough,therehavebeenveryfewattemptsatsocomprehensiveacover-
ageasisofferedinthepresentwork. Fewerstillintermsofsynchronic
description.Andnoneatallsocomprehensiveorinsuchdepthhasbeen
producedwithinanEnghsh-speakingcountry.Moreover,ourGrammar
aims atthiscomprehensiveness anddepthintreatingEngUshirrespec-
tiveoffrontiers: ourfieldisnolessthanthegrammarofeducatedEng-
lish currentin the secondhalfofthetwentiethcenturyintheworld's
major English-speaking communities. Only where a feature belongs
specificallyto British usage orAmerican usage, to informalconversa-
tion orto the dignityofformalwriting, are 'labels' introducedin the
description to show that we are no longer discussing the 'common
core' ofeducatedEngUsh.
Forthiscommoncore,aswellasforthespecialvarietiessurrounding
it,wehaveaugmentedourownexperienceas speakersandteachers of
thelanguagewithresearchoncorporaofcontemporaryEngUshandon
data from eUcitation tests, in both cases making appropriate use of
facilities available in our generation for bringing spoken EngUsh fuUy
withinthegrammarian'sscope.Forreasons ofsimpUcityandeconomic
presentation,however,iUustrativeexamplesfromourbasicmaterialare
seldomgivenwithoutbeingadaptedandedited;andwhileinformaland
familiar styles ofspeech and writing receive due consideration in our
treatment,weputthemainemphasisondescribingtheEngUshofserious
exposition.
WhenworkonthisGrammarbegan,thefourcollaboratorswereaUon
the staff"ofthe English Department, University College London, and
jointly involved in the Survey of EngUsh Usage. This association
has happily survived a dispersal which has put considerable distances
between us (at the extremes, the 5000 miles between Wisconsin and
Europe). Common research goals would thus have kept us in close
touchevenwithoutaratherlargeunifiedundertakingtocomplete.And
:
vi Preface
thoughphysical separation hasmadecollaboration more arduous and
time-consuming,ithasalso-weconsole ourselvesin retrospect-con-
ferredpositivebenefits. Forexample, wehavebeenableto extend our
linguistic horizons by contact with linguists bred in several different
traditions; andourideashave beenrevisedand improvedbyexposure
to far more richly varied groups of students than would have been
possibleinanyonecentre.
Itwillbeobviousthatourgrammaticalframeworkhasdrawnheavily
bothonthelong-establishedtraditionandontheinsightsofseveralcon-
temporary schools oflinguistics. But while we have taken account of
modernUnguistictheorytotheextentthatwethinkjustifiableinagram-
marofthiskind,wehavenotfeltthatthiswastheoccasionfordetailed
discussion oftheoretical issues. Nor do we see need tojustify thefact
thatwesubscribetonospecificoneofthecurrentorrecentlyformulated
linguistictheories.EachofthosepropoundedfromthetimeofdeSaus-
sureandJespersenonwardshasitsundoubtedmerits,andseveral(not-
ablythetransformational-generativeapproaches)havecontributedvery
greatstimulustousastoothergrammarians.None,however,seemsyet
adequatetoaccountforallhnguisticphenomena,andrecenttrendssug-
gestthatourowncompromisepositionisafairreflectionofthewayin
whichthemajortheoriesarerespondingtoinfluencefromothers.
AsweUassuchgeneraldebttoourstudents,ourcontemporaries,our
teachersandourteachers'teachers,therearespecificdebtstonumerous
colleagues andfriendswhichwe are happy to acknowledge even ifwe
cannot hope to repay. Five hnguists generously undertook the heavy
burdenofreadingandcriticizingaprehminarydraftoftheentirebook
Dwight L. Bolinger, Bengt Jacobsson, Ruth M. Kempson, Edward
HirschlandandPaulPortland. Hismanyfriendswhohavebeenfortu-
nate enough to receivecomments on even a short research paper will
havesomeideaofhowmuchwehaveprofitedfromProfessorBolinger's
deeplearning,keenintellect,incrediblefacihtyforproducingthedevas-
tatingcounter-example,and-bynomeansleast-readinesstogiveself-
lesslyofhistime.The otherfourcritics had quahties ofthis samekind
and(forexample)manyofourmostteUingillustrationscomefromthe
invaluablefilesassembledbyDrJacobssonovermanyyears ofmeticu-
lousscholarship.
Colleagues working on the Survey ofEnglish Usage have ofcourse
beenrepeatedlyinvolvedingivingadviceandcriticism;wearegladto
take this opportunity ofexpressing our thanks to Valerie Adams and
Derek Davy, Judith Ferryman, Florent Aarts and Michael Black, as
also toCindy Kapsosand Pamela Miller. Forhelpwithspecificparts,
wearegratefultoRossAlmqvistandUllaThagg(Chapters3,4and12),
Jacquelyn Biel (especially Chapters 5 and 8), Peter Fries (Chapter 9),
