The audience of this lecture on brand-new English grammar are undergraduates or students in junior colleges majoring in English. Naturally it also fits any readers, English self-taught persons or English teachers who come upon a lot of wonders and are anxious to solve those puzzles. Because all of the audience already have basic knowledge of the English language, this lecture does not deal with accidence, the inflection of individual words.
The reason we call our grammar being brand-new is that it differs from the traditional English grammar in the following major four aspects.
A traditional grammar book usually has two parts: morphology and syntax, the former studying the structure and content of word forms and the latter dealing with the principles and processes by which sentences are constructed. Such an arrangement separates words from sentences. For example, the definition of a noun is “a word used to name a person, animal, place, thing, and abstract idea”, having no relation with grammatical function. In fact, as long as a word acts as a subject or object, not only a noun defined as above, but also an action or a behavior or a phrase, or a clause, or we may even say any word of any class can be nominal. Accordingly this lecture on grammar begins with sentence patterns, leading the audience to change the thread, from grammatical function to word class, instead of from word class to grammatical function. Arrangements are so made because we are confident that as majors in English, you are able to come to understand and accept the fact that the function determines the parts of speech, not vice versa. For instance the predicate is performed by a verb, however, a common noun can also be used to function as predicate, so it is converted into verb.
The traditional grammar lays emphasis on words, ignoring phrases and clauses and their grammatical features. Actually, in most cases, phrases or clauses rather than single words act as members of a sentence. In consequence, the discussion upon phrases and clauses takes a great part in our lecture, namely noun/nominal phrase, verb(al) phrase, adjective/adjectival phrase, adverb(ial) phrase, preposition(al) phrase, etc. and finite clause, non-finite clause, coordinate clause, subordinate clause, etc. Traditionally, the attributive clause is called a subordinate one, whereas brand-new grammarians headed by Randolph Quirk hold such a view to be an overt error, which is still believed and used by many people, including some authoritative high-rank professionals. Having a definition of noun phrase in mind, we are sure to agree that an attributive clause is a post-modifier of a noun, together forming a long noun phrase and acting a member of a sentence. An attributive clause itself cannot be a constituent of a sentence, accordingly it is not a subordinate clause to a main one. The same is with the appositive clause, which is not a subordinate clause either and also belongs to a noun phrase. Quirk and his co-authors expand the definition of clause and stipulate any language unit that has the basic sentence structure belongs to a clause. Consequently, infinitive, v-ing and v-ed are called clauses, namely infinitive clause, v-ing clause and v-d clause. Because having no concord between subject and its predicate, they are non-finite clauses. Our lecture spends a lot of efforts on the formations and functions of both finite and non-finite clauses.
The upgrade of the study of the English grammar lies in the improvement of the classification, making it more and more reasonable. Traditionally, all adverbials are looked upon as peripheral, ie, they are optional, which can be omitted without affecting the structure and the basic sense of a sentence. This lecture accepts the view of CGEL written by co-authors headed by Quirk that subject and object related adverbials are obligatory. For example: The meeting is in Room 202. The place adverbial in Room 202 is subject-oriented and is a basic member of the sentence structure, namely S + link/copular V + A. in Room 202 cannot be omitted, or the sentence is senseless. Another example: The doctor inserted the device under the patient's skin. The orientation adverbial under the patient's skin is object-related, which is also obligatory. Consequently, CGEL admits SVA and SVOA are among basic sentence structures, a great progress in the grammatical classification.
Classification is a very difficult job, because categories of anything often do not have neat boundaries. From one category to another one, there is always a gradience. Just as socioeconomic system, between market economies and planned economies, there exists mixed economies and within mixed economies the relative strength or weakness of private economic freedom and the government regulation in the national economy can vary greatly between countries. Economies ranging from the United States to Cuba have been termed mixed economies. The fuzziness between the categories is a common phenomenon, and as a result, fuzzy logic came into being. In the study of English grammar, trouble in classification also occurs very frequently, whether in the word class, fg. verb and noun, or its subclasses, fg. within the verb, modal verb and main verb, transitive verb and intransitive verb, copular verb and intransitive verb all have something between, forcing Quirk and his coauthors to use semi, mid, margin, quasi, pseudo,etc. to term them. The traditional grammar tends to be prescriptive and prescriptivists overlook the fuzziness and sometimes intend to avoid it, afraid of harm to the rules they have laid down. When they are not able to respond the doubt, they have to use this is an exception to cover their embarrassment. Furthermore, some of them even judge those expressions to be wrong not in accordance with their rules, even they are often spoken by a lot of native speakers. This lecture makes full use of the advantage of the descriptive grammar, admits the fuzziness between grammatical categories, adopts reasonable methods to test, shows the gradience or fuzziness before the audience and reveals the complexity of English language and the actual rules lying in it. Actually, the fuzziness does also exist between prescriptive and descriptive grammarians. Now neo-prescriptivists and zealous descriptivists appear on the horizon, who are intermediate grammarians between prescriptivists and descriptivists.
The study of English grammar is a complex job and the extent different professionals can reach determines the degrees of subclassifications. As undergraduates majoring in English, you should touch the certain refinement degrees of grammatical classifications. However it is unnecessary for you to approach the uttermost refinement as postgraduates and doctors. This lecture pays attention to the extent and leaves well enough alone. Nevertheless, almost all common language phenomena have been dealt with in our lecture in a way that is basic enough for the student yet comprehensive enough for the professional. Master them, and you can be strategically situated. You’ll be able to make clear a lot of language points common people can’t explain and group them in a reasonably manner.
We have many people to thank, but especially to acknowledge the contribution of the Quirks, who answered a lot of questions we emailed them. Hearty thanks should be extended to all the English native speakers who we met and talked in major English speaking countries, because they answered patiently so many odd questions put forward by us.
We should be very glad to hear from students or teachers using the book who find mistakes or omissions, or who have comments or suggestions of any kind. Please communicate with us by email: 1735007082@qq.com; or WeChat：sdf15366781019
Song Defu, Zhang Meilan
Sep 2017
《全新英语语法讲座》的受众是本科或专科英语专业的在读学生，当然它也适合所有在英语学习和教学过程中遭遇困惑急于解决的任何读者、英语自学者和英语老师。因为所有受众都有了基本的英语知识，本讲座不是语法入门教程，不讲解单词因语法要求而发生的各种形式的变化。
本讲座的语法之所以是全新的，因为它与传统语法差别很大，主要表现在四大方面：
传统语法通常分成词法和句法两大部分，词法研究单词的结构和意义，句法归纳句子形成的原则和步骤，这样的布局势必将单词的语法性质和句子分割开来，譬如定义名词不是根据名词的句法功能，而将其定义为“表示人，事物，地点或抽象概念的名称”。实际上任何单词，短语或分句，无论是人，事物，地点，抽象概念的名称，还是行为动作，只要能够在句子里充当主语和宾语，都是名词性的。因此本语法讲座从句型起始，引导大家改变思路，从功能归类词性，而不是先词性后功能。我们坚信，作为英语专业的学生一定能够接受这个事实，语法功能决定词性而不是词性决定语法功能。譬如谓语由动词担当，但是一个公认的名词也照样可以转换成谓语动词。
传统语法着重研究单词的词性和功能，忽略短语和分句的构成和其语法性质，其实绝大多数情况下，不是单个单词充当句子成分，而是短语或分句，因此本讲座对各种语法性质的短语和分句花费了很大精力：名词短语，动词短语，形容词短语，副词短语，介词短语；限定分句，非限定分句，并列分句，从属分句等等。传统语法把句子充当名词修饰语叫作定语从句，以夸克为首的全新语法学家们认为这是一个明显的错误，因为它们是名词短语的一个部分，不是主句的一个成分，因此不能叫从句，纠正了如今众多人们还在使用的错误命名，其中不乏很多高级权威专业人士。同位语分句也是如此，它们不是从句，也是名词短语的一个成分。夸克和他的作者团队将分句概念扩大，凡是能够进行结构分析的都称作分句，因此不定式、v-ing、和v-ed，都归类到非限定性分句，因为它们不需要与主语保持一致。本讲座同样对限定分句和非限定分句及其语法功能花费了大量笔墨。
语法研究的进步和升级就是使分类进一步合理化。传统语法把状语一律看成是句子的外围成分，删除状语不影响句子结构，因为它们不是句子的必须成分。本讲座接受夸克团队的著作CGEL的观点，认为主语和宾语倾向的状语是句子的必须成分。譬如：The meeting is in Room 202. 地点状语in Room 202是主语倾向，省略了，就失去了意义，因此它是句子的必须成分。再一个例子：The doctor inserted the device under the patient's skin. 表示方向的under the patient's skin是与宾语the device关联的状语，不是可有可无的成分，而是必须成分，这样本讲座把主语+系动词+主语状语以及主语+动词+宾语+宾语状语也作为基本句型对待，这是句型分类的一大进步。
分类是一件非常困难的事情，因为任何类别之间都不是清晰分明的，总是逐步变化过渡的，就如同经济体制一般，自由资本经济和计划经济之间出现了混合经济，而混合经济中的国有经济和私有经济的比例各混合经济体间悬殊很大，从美国到古巴都被叫作混合经济。类别之间的模糊性是一种普遍现象。正因为如此，模糊逻辑应运而生。英语语法的分类同样遭遇这样的麻烦，无论是词汇大类别，譬如动词和名词，还是词类的子类别，如动词内的情态动词和主要动词，及物动词和不及物动词，系动词和不及物动词之间都存在着游离于两可之间的动词，迫使夸克和他的作者团队使用了诸如semi, mid, margin, quasi, pseudo等前缀对其进行定义命名。传统语法学是规定性的，他们对这种模糊性视而不见，甚至有意回避，担心违反了他们总结的规则，遭遇无法应答的尴尬局面就作例外处理，或索性对那些不符合他们规定的用法予以否定，即使很多native speakers经常使用也不予顾及；本讲座引入模糊逻辑，应用现代描述性语法的优势，承认语法类别之间的模糊性，采用合理的测试方法，将其变化的梯度展示给大家，揭示了语言的复杂性和其规律的可循性。其实规定语法学派和描述语法学派之间也是模糊的，如今出现的新规定语法学派（neo-prescriptivists）和热心描述语法学派（zealous descriptivists）就是一些中间派别。
英语语法研究具有较强的专业性，不同程度的专业工作者决定了分类细化的程度。作为英语专业的本科生应该接触一定程度的细化分类，但没有必要细化到硕士博士研究的那般程度。本讲座处理了日常使用的绝大部分的语言现象，照顾了学生所需的基础，兼顾了专业人士的综合需求，分类程度拿捏合适。掌握了这些，就可以居高临下，就能诠释许多人解释不清的很多语言怪象，并使它们各归其所。
我们需要感谢的人很多，尤其要感谢夸克夫妇，他们回答了我们电子邮寄过去的所有问题；衷心感谢我们在主要说英语国家碰到的很多以英语为本族语的人们，他们非常耐心地回答了我们提出的很多犀利古怪的语言问题。
使用本讲座的学生或老师如果发现书中的错误或遗漏请直接给我们来信，我们一定做到闻过则喜；我们也欢迎大家的评论和建议。我们的email地址：1735007082@qq.com；phone: 15366781019。
宋德富 张美兰
2017年9月
