See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263142024

Angela Downing and Philip Locke. English Grammar. A university course.

Article  in  Functions of Language · January 2007

DOI: 10.1075/fol.14.2.13has

CITATIONS READS
0 2,428

1 author:

Hilde Hasselgård
University of Oslo
47 PUBLICATIONS   145 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Academic writing by Norwegian learners of English View project

Contrastive studies of English and Norwegian View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hilde Hasselgård on 26 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Preprint of book review published in Functions of Language 14:2 (2007), 294–302.

Angela Downing and Philip Locke. English Grammar. A University Course. 2nd edition.
London and New York: Routledge 2006, xxii + 610. (ISBN 0-415-28787 (pbk), 0-415-
28786-3 (hbk))

Reviewed by Hilde Hasselgård (University of Oslo)

Description of the book

English Grammar. A University Course will be known to many readers under the name
of A University Course in English Grammar by the same authors (Downing and Locke
1997/2002). The second edition has been thoroughly revised by Angela Downing, who is
now marked as the main author of the book. Like the first edition, English Grammar has
at least a three-fold function as a course-book in English grammar, an introduction to
functional grammar and a reference grammar for advanced students of English. The main
target group is “undergraduate and graduate students of English as a foreign or second
language” (p. xvii), although postgraduates are also mentioned as potential users. The
aims of the book are stated on p. xvii:

1. to further students’ knowledge of English through exploration and analysis;

2. to help students acquire a global vision of English, rather than concentrate on
unrelated areas;
3. to see a grammar as providing a means of understanding the relation of form to
meaning, and meaning to function, in context;
4. to provide a basic terminology which, within this framework, will enable students
to make these relationships explicit.

The book is probably unique in combining an overview of English grammar for

advanced learners with a functionally based, research-oriented theoretical framework for
linguistic research. The organisation is that of a course book with twelve chapters,
divided into sixty modules “each one being conceived as a teaching and learning unit” (p.
xix). All chapters have a substantial section of exercises related to each module, and there
is a key to most of the exercises at the end of the book. The chapter headlines echo the
functional orientation of the book: 1 Basic concepts; 2 The skeleton of the message:
Introduction to clause structure; 3 The development of the message: Complementation of
the verb; 4 Conceptualising patterns of experience: Processes, participants,
circumstances; 5 Interaction between speaker and hearer: Linking speech acts and
grammar; 6 Organising the message: Thematic and information structures of the clause; 7
Expanding the message: Clause combinations; 8 Talking about events: The Verbal
Group; 9 Viewpoints on events: Tense, aspect and modality; 10 Talking about people and
things: The Nominal Group; 11 Describing persons, things and circumstances: Adjectival
and adverbial groups; 12 Spatial, temporal and other relationships: The Prepositional
Phrase. It may be noted that the chapter headlines are similar to those of the previous
edition, but the number of chapters has been reduced by one and the titles and distribution
of modules are slightly different.
A major source of influence for the descriptive framework is systemic-functional
linguistics (SFL) (e.g. Halliday 2004), although the use of specifically systemic-
functional terminology is somewhat reduced as compared to Downing and Locke (1992).
 Preprint of book review published in Functions of Language 14:2 (2007), 294–302.

The choice of terminology also reflects more traditional grammar, and the three major
reference grammars of English are acknowledged sources (Quirk et al 1985, Biber et al
1999 and Huddleston and Pullum 2002). Furthermore, a discourse analytical perspective
is often taken, with frequent reference to usage and interaction. For example the account
of pronouns ends with a section on “The discourse function of pronouns” (p. 415) where
the role of pronouns in setting up referential chains in a text is discussed and exemplified.
The book gives a descriptive account of English grammar and shows a strong
empirical orientation by means of numerous authentic examples of both spoken and
written English from various sources, including the British National Corpus. As a point
of curiosity, even ‘substandard’ features of colloquial speech are discussed (but not
evaluated), such as the ‘speech verbs’ be like and go (p. 302), and the ‘invariant question
tag’ innit (p. 189). Furthermore, English Grammar reflects recent research work by the
authors and others, such as Downing’s own work on modality and stance (e.g. Downing
2001).

Coverage
English Grammar casts its net wide, as evidenced not only by the aims quoted above, but
by the entire book. The emphasis is on functional grammar with sidelights to pragmatics
and discourse analysis, while there are also points of usage aimed at the foreign learner.
There are presentations of major word classes and group/phrase types, clause types, and
clause patterns. Furthermore, the semantics of the verb phrase is explored in three
chapters (4, 8 and 9). The interpersonal metafunction is reflected in a thorough and
insightful discussion of clause types and speech acts (chapter 5), while information
structure and thematic structure are presented in chapter 6. It is an interesting feature of
the book that it sets the functional tone from chapter 1, where speech acts are introduced
for the first time, and that most of the explanations of linguistic form are given in the
light of communicative functions.
The book presupposes some previous familiarity with English grammar, and is
thus probably not suitable for a first course in grammar, even at university level. There is
very little on morphology; the exceptions are adjective and adverb comparison (pp. 485
and 515) and a brief presentation of the plural formation of nouns (p. 405) where it is
simply noted that some nouns have irregular plural forms, marked by vowel change,
‘zero’, or plural inflections from other languages in the case of loan words. Verbal
inflections are not described. Similarly, derivational morphology is absent – a topic
which might have been useful in a functional and usage-based account of English, as it
may present learners with a tool for expanding their vocabulary. A further area that might
have been included, particularly in view of the use of corpora evidenced by the examples,
is collocation. However, it may well be argued that it is unfair to criticise such a rich
volume for what it does not contain; any presentation of English grammar implies a
selection of topics to present and a choice between breadth and depth of presentation. The
authors of English Grammar have gone for depth and besides have included far more
discourse analysis than is usually found in pedagogical grammars of English.

Contrastive points
According to the back cover of the book, English Grammar “provides the linguistic basis
for courses and projects on translation [and] contrastive linguistics” (among other things).
 Preprint of book review published in Functions of Language 14:2 (2007), 294–302.

Although a contrastive perspective on grammar is not one of the stated aims of the book,
it is most certainly helpful in furthering students’ knowledge of English, as cross-
linguistic comparison may at the same time predict learning difficulties and highlight
features of the language studied. However, a contrastive perspective is not easily
implemented in a pedagogical grammar of English that is not targeted at a specific L1
group of students, as different mother tongue backgrounds will entail different needs.
Most contrastive remarks in English Grammar are about English in relation to
Romance languages, and all examples given illustrate English vs. Spanish (e.g. p. 44).
This is natural considering the affiliation of the authors (Universidad Complutense,
Madrid).1 These contrastive observations are no doubt very useful for Spanish-speaking
students. A good example is given on p 339, “Translating motion, manner and path
combinations”, a well-known typological problem between Germanic and Romance
languages (e.g. Slobin 1996). For users of the book with other mother tongues, however,
the contrastive observations may be less necessary at this point (particularly speakers of
Germanic languages will not have particular difficulties with this), while Spanish
students could probably benefit from more.
Presumably, the perspective of teaching English grammar to Spanish-speaking
students has also affected the presentation of certain topics, such as the sections on
perfective and imperfective meanings and the progressive (p. 370). By contrast, for
speakers of Germanic languages (lacking both grammaticalised progressive aspect and
the perfective/imperfective distinction of tensed forms) the concept of imperfective might
need to be explained differently, and possibly in more detail. A different topic that
reflects the Romance L1 background is word order. While it is a good idea to link
inversion of subject and finite to thematisation, speakers of Germanic (V2) languages
might need a reminder that there is no inversion after “less common thematisation” (p.
230). However, no such warning is included, presumably since speakers of Romance
languages do not need this. Another example of an L1-based selection of topics is the
surprisingly extensive discussion of stranded prepositions, taken up in various places and
even given a separate module (Module 60).

Organisation
The ideal organisation of a pedagogical grammar is probably unattainable, simply
because concepts and topics are interdependent so that one needs an overview in order to
appreciate the details – the problem being that it is difficult to present an overview
without reference to details. The book opens with a clear demonstration of how language
is used for communication and communicative acts and goes on to explain three kinds of
meaning, corresponding to Halliday’s three metafunctions of language (Halliday 2004:
29). However, in these passages (pp. 4 ff.) there is an abundance of linguistic terms that
have not been explained (although there are references to later chapters) and relatively
complex statements about language which the students will probably be able to
appreciate only after they have been through most of the book. Having said that, the pace
slows down considerably after Chapter 1, and the rest of the book should be readable
even for undergraduate students.

1
Although not a contrastive feature, Spain also shows up in a number of examples such as It is six hundred
kilometers from Madrid to Barcelona (p. 44).
 Preprint of book review published in Functions of Language 14:2 (2007), 294–302.

The organisation of the material into course modules helps students and teachers
divide up the material in suitable chunks, which is useful in a text book. It is less
advantageous if the book is being used as a reference tool, since many topics are
discussed in various places for pedagogical purposes. For example, adjuncts are
discussed in chapter 2 as elements of clause structure, in chapter 4 as circumstantials in
processes, in chapter 7 (adverbial clauses) and in chapter 12 on the meanings and
functions of prepositional phrases.
Occasionally, the modules have an unexpected organisation of the material. For
example, the Range participant is discussed in a module called “Expressing attendant
circumstances” (p. 158).2 Later in the same chapter (module 21) the last section again
presents a topic which does not follow naturally from the module headline
(“Conceptualising experiences from a different angle: Nominalisation and grammatical
metaphor”); namely “High and low transitivity” (p. 165). If English Grammar is used for
reference, it may also seem a bit unnecessary to have material processes distributed over
three modules (14-16) while the other major process types have one module each.
Incidentally, I miss the explicit mention of having as an important type of relational
process both in the headline of module 18 – “Relational processes of being and
becoming” and in the preliminary survey of process types on p. 125.
Sometimes there is a mismatch between a section headline and some of the
material that appears in that section, as on p. 105, where a paragraph on recursive
embedding appears under the section headline “Say and tell”. Furthermore, the headline
“Extraposition of clauses” (p. 260) might have been adjusted to comprise the brief
discussion and examples of extraposition of phrases on the following page.

Terminology and classification

The dual orientation (English grammar and functional linguistics) shows up in the choice
of terminology, which is an eclectic mixture of traditional and systemic-functional
terminology. For example, while the clause is seen as a configuration of process,
participants and circumstances as in the SFL framework, the syntactic functions are
analysed according to traditional grammar, thus distinguishing between direct and
indirect objects and subject and object complements (cf. p. 7), all of which are termed
‘complement’ in SFL (cf. Halliday 2004: 122). This is sensible in a pedagogical
grammar, since these functions behave differently e.g. as to realisation and word order.
Terms for processes and participants reflect the process types found in SFL, with
an emphasis on material, mental and relational processes (p. 128). However, the names of
the participants are not consistently Hallidayian. For example the core participants in a
material process are Actor and Goal in Halliday (2004: 180), while English Grammar (p.
129) uses the terms Agent and Affected (from the Cardiff grammar analysis of ‘action
clauses; cf. e.g. Neale (2002: 149)), unless the ‘instigator’ is inanimate and unintentional,
in which case it is termed Force (p. 130). In other process types, Hallidayian terms for
participants are used except Senser, which has been replaced by Experiencer (p. 139) and
Verbiage, which has been replaced by the simpler and more neutral “Said” (p. 151).
While there is no need to stick to one set of terminology, it may create confusion in a
textbook when more terms are mentioned for the same thing, as is done in a few places in

2
As it turns out, the section on Range is what remains of a separate module in Downing and Locke (1997:
144) entitled “Two subsidiary participants: Range and Instrument”.
 Preprint of book review published in Functions of Language 14:2 (2007), 294–302.

English Grammar. One example of this concerns the Affected participant (p. 129) where
it is stated that “other terms in use for this participant are Patient and Goal”. Another
example of ‘double’ terminology comes from a passage on postmodifying elements (p.
447): “These two roles or functions are encoded as restrictive (or defining) and non-
restrictive (or non-defining) units, respectively. In 1, the restrictive type, the clause where
the Prime Minister lives is integrated (embedded) …”. It is easy to see why alternative
terms are mentioned in an eclectic framework, considering that students may encounter
other terms in the course of their reading. However, from a pedagogical point of view, it
may be difficult for undergraduate students to distinguish between alternative labels for
one phenomenon and different labels for distinct phenomena.
In the discussion of existentials it seems that the same construction has been
placed under two different headlines, namely as ‘derived existential’ and ‘extended
existential’ (pp 258-259); the examples in question being There was another plane
hijacked yesterday and There were several civilians killed in a terrorist attack yesterday,
respectively. Since the examples fit into both categories, the categorisation will probably
be confusing; the categories are not mutually exclusive, but this is not explicitly stated.
Generally, I am very happy with the functionally based classificatory framework
used in English Grammar, but occasionally I find that functionally and semantically
based criteria seem to establish more classes than necessary, as e.g. in the discussion of
the present perfect (pp. 364-365), where the headlines “the experiential perfect” and “the
continuous perfect”3 might lead the student to think there are two kinds of present perfect
rather than two major meanings of the same construction. In connection with the same
topic, it is furthermore hard to see why “implied meanings of the present perfect” (p. 365)
should not include “current relevance”, which is discussed in a separate section before
“Functions and discourse interpretations of the present perfect” (p. 364). A clearer
structure is found in the discussion of the simple present and past tenses (pp 355 ff.)
where meanings are organised under the headlines “Basic meanings” and “Secondary
meanings”.
An area where functionally based categories are ideal is modality (Module 44, pp
379 ff). The main meanings and functions of modality are introduced first, followed by a
survey of the realisation of such meanings, including lexical verbs, adverbs, adjectives,
nouns and parenthetical clauses. The details of modal meaning (e.g. “Extrinsic modality:
modal certainty, probability and possibility”, p. 381) are then explored with the modal
auxiliaries as starting points, but with examples of other means of expressing the same
meanings. Furthermore, the term ‘relativiser’ (p. 449) is useful as a cover-term for the
pronouns, adverbs and determiner that introduce a relative clause.
In view of the wealth of terminology found in English Grammar it might have
been useful to provide a glossary of terms in addition to the index at the back of the book,
which will often send readers back to the passage they came from when they encountered
an unfamiliar term. Such a glossary might also be a better place in which to supply the
alternative terms mentioned above.

Pedagogical matters

3
It may be noted that there is potential for confusion of the terms’ continuous’ and ‘experiential’ with their
use in traditional grammar and SFL, respectively. The former does not arise within English Grammar as
‘progressive’ is used for the aspectual form, but ‘experiential’ is used also for the metafunction (e.g. p. 7).
 Preprint of book review published in Functions of Language 14:2 (2007), 294–302.

The selection of topics reflects the dual character of the book as a functional and a
pedagogical grammar. There is more on form classes than in introductions to systemic-
functional grammar (e.g. Thompson 2004), but less than in traditional EFL grammars.
For instance the form-function relationship between sentence form and pragmatic
function is given a fuller than usual treatment (pp 207-208), and is undoubtedly useful to
foreign students of English. Similarly, the discussion of ‘pragmatic conjunction’ (p. 294)
is useful, but not often noted in pedagogical grammars (i.e. the relation between clauses
in a sentence such as If you’re looking for Amy, she’s left). Furthermore, the discussion of
– and the wealth of – authentic examples will be useful both as models of usage and as a
training ground for linguistic analysis.
Advice on usage is useful in an EFL setting. English Grammar frequently gives
such advice. This is particularly apparent in sections dealing with pragmatics and
interaction. Although the purely descriptive angle taken in most of the book is
praiseworthy in most respects, one sometimes misses stylistic advice on more formal
matters, such as the choice between who and whom as objects (p. 449). Learners might
also need to be made aware of the prescriptivism surrounding e.g. the placement of only
(p. 517) or stranded prepositions (p. 59).
The text examples have already been mentioned as a strong point of the book. The
examples frequently extend beyond the sentence and are thus well suited for illustrating
pragmatic and discourse-functional points. Some of the longer examples are also carried
over to the exercise section, thus encouraging students to take on their own text analysis.
The book has a clear and attractive lay-out, which is particularly important in a
textbook intended for the undergraduate level. Likewise, the summaries at the beginning
of each module will be useful to students both for getting an impression of what the
module is about and for revision before the exam.

Concluding remarks
Does English Grammar live up to its aims stated at the beginning of this review? As
regards the first aim, the only way to make sure is of course to try the book with students.
However, I believe the book will provide students with a useful tool for attaining this
goal. The second aim is more elusive; whether a student would be able to acquire a
“global view of English grammar” or be left unable to see the wood for the trees will
depend on the student’s prior knowledge of English grammar. Since the book aims at
such a wide readership it is unlikely that the presentation will be suitable for all. The third
aim is perhaps the most advanced of the four, but also one that English Grammar should
be able to help the students reach. That is, “the relation of form to meaning, and meaning
to function, in context” is an underlying theme throughout the book and is always visible
both in the discussion and the exemplification of topics. As to the fourth aim, providing a
basic terminology, I feel that English Grammar to some extent overstates the purpose and
provides students with perhaps too much terminology. (This is, however, a criticism that
may be directed at many textbooks of grammar, including Hasselgård et al 1998!).
In spite of the critical remarks noted above, English Grammar is an insightful
textbook of grammar and functional linguistics. Among its foremost qualities are a sound
basis in empirical research, the consistently communicative and functional view of
language, and the long teaching experience which underlie the presentation and make the
book a valuable resource for students, teachers and researchers in the area.
 Preprint of book review published in Functions of Language 14:2 (2007), 294–302.

References
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, Edward Finegan. 1999.
Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
Downing, Angela and Philip Locke. 1992. A University Course in English Grammar.
Prentice Hall. Reprinted 2002, London and New York: Routledge.
Downing, Angela. 2001. “Surely you knew!” Surely as a marker of evidentiality and
stance. Functions of Language 8:2, 253-286.
Hasselgård, Hilde, Stig Johansson and Per Lysvåg. 1998. English Grammar: Theory and
Use. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Halliday, M.A.K. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd edition, revised by
Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. London: Arnold.
Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the
English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Neale, Amy C. 2002. More Delicate TRANSITIVITY: Extending the PROCESS TYPE
system networks for English to include full semantic classifications. PhD thesis,
Cardiff University. Available at
http://www.itri.brighton.ac.uk/~Amy.Neale/thesis_online/final_thesis.pdf
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, Jan Svartvik. 1985. A
Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Slobin, Dan. 1996. Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M.
Shibatani and S. A. Thompson (eds.). Grammatical Constructions: Their Form
and Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 195-219.
Thompson, Geoff. 2004. Introducing Functional Grammar. 2nd edition. London: Arnold.

Hilde Hasselgård
Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages
University of Oslo
PO box 1003
N-0315 Oslo
Norway

hilde.hasselgard@ilos.uio.no

View publication stats