Oxford Modern English Grammar ハードカバー – 2011/5/22
Kindle 端末は必要ありません。無料 Kindle アプリのいずれかをダウンロードすると、スマートフォン、タブレットPCで Kindle 本をお読みいただけます。
Oxford Modern English Grammar is Oxford's brand new and definitive guide to English grammar. This book has been written by a leading expert in the field, covers both British and American English, and makes use of authentic spoken and written examples. Arranged in four clear parts for ease of use, its comprehensive coverage ranges from the very basic to the most complex aspects of grammar, all of which are explained clearly yet authoritatively. This descriptive source of reference is invaluable for those with an interest in the English language, undergraduate and postgraduate students, and for anyone who would like a clear guide to English grammar and how it is used.
Bas Aarts is Professor of English Linguistics and Director of the Survey of English Usage at University College London. His previous books include Small Clauses in English (1992); The Verb in Contemporary English, co-edited with Charles F. Meyer (1995); English Syntax and Argumentation (1997; 2001; 2008); Investigating Natural Language, co-authored with Gerald Nelson and Sean Wallis (2002); Fuzzy Grammar (2004) co-edited with David Denison, Evelien Keizer, and Gergana Popova (2004); The Handbook of English Linguistics, co-edited with April McMahon (2006); and Syntactic Gradience (2007). With David Denison and the late Richard Hogg he is a founding editor of the journal English Language and Linguistics.
出てくる順に説明され、段階的にModern English Grammarを理解することができます。
In 220.127.116.11.1 we learn that Direct Objects and their verbs "cannot generally be separated from each other":
– Prosecutors stopped *immediately* the video
– I deleted *without reason* it manually
– A court in India postponed *legally* the release of a film entitled Hari Puttar
– Tony likes *very much* films with lots of gratuitous violence
This is textbook confirmation bias, a simple failure to look hard enough for disproving evidence:
– Let's entertain *for a moment* the idea that verbs and their direct objects are not separable.
– And try to find, *if we can, either by searching for them or just making them up,* examples in which this separation happens.
– As it turns out, we can generate, *without much effort at all really,* an unlimited supply of counterexamples.
In the same section we're told that in some cases "the Direct Object can be omitted, but is implicit":
– I'm reading.
"...the addressee will understand that I must be reading *something*."
This confuses grammar and semantics. Yes, some sort of reading material is understood. That doesn't mean a direct object is. It's also understood that I'm reading "with my eyes," but there's no implicit prepositional phrase.
Food is implied in both "I'm eating" and "I'm dining," but it doesn't follow that there are "implicit direct objects"—in the second sentence a direct object isn't possible! "I'm devouring" implies food too, but this sentence is ungrammatical if we try to leave the object "implicit."
The correct analysis is that EAT, like READ, offers two contracts, transitive and intransitive, whereas DEVOUR is only transitive and DINE is only intransitive.
In section 18.104.22.168.4 we're told that "certain types of Direct Object, for example ... reflexive pronouns, cannot become the Subjects of passive clauses":
– He scarcely knew himself > *Himself was scarcely known by him
Absurd. The correct passive, obviously, is "He was scarcely known by himself," but the book doesn't say so, weirdly implying that no passive formula is possible here.
Of course the pronouns must change form to fit their new roles. The author performs part of this operation, changing "he" to "by him," but disingenuously fails to finish it: change "him(self)" to "he" and move the "-self" suffix to the later-occurring pronoun.
Underlying this is a failure to model the reflexive pronouns appropriately. They are part of the morphology of ordinary pronouns, not an inflexible category of their own.
Similarly, 22.214.171.124.3 informs us that PPCs (prepositional phrase complements) cannot become the subjects of passive clauses:
– You can refer to your notes whenever you need to > *To your notes can be referred by you whenever you need to
The passive of "You can refer to your notes," of course, is "Your notes can be referred to." Again the book doesn't mention the correct formula, weirdly implying that there isn't one. The particular claim here, that the *entire prepositional phrase* can't be moved to the subject, is true, but the implication that PPC constructions are difficult to make passive is not.
Also, the situation is muddied here by another factor that makes passivification awkward. The "whenever you need to" qualifier requires "you" to be the subject of the sentence. This is grammatically interesting, but has nothing to do with the PPC construction; switch from PPC to Direct Object, and you get the same trouble:
– You can consult your notes whenever you need to > *Your notes can be consulted whenever you need to
This brings up another problem with the book: almost all the example sentences are lifted from existing corpora. The idea is to ensure authenticity by analyzing real-world usage rather than deliberate constructions, but as a result even simple concepts are often illustrated by overly long examples with extraneous features that obfuscate the feature being discussed. Sometimes, as in this "refer to your notes" example, the author himself seems misled by the extra detail.