So, to be clear, present participle are made with a form of be + -ing? And it indicates an action continuing in the present, past and the future -- or is that progressive? Not quite sure.

Comma is missing after example.

Need a comma after “now”.

Incorrect usage of the preposition “of” in sentence. Omit “of” to allow the sentence to flow.

This sentence errs. Instead, “After all, one of the (reasons) that languages are different is (that they) follow different sets of rules.

This sentence errs: It is missing a preposition and omitting certain words will serve the sentence well. “A different way [of] putting this point would be [that all] the modal verbs have an inherent tense, as indicated in the table below.

Modality refers to linguistic devices that indicate the degree to which an observation is possible, certain, or likely. And, in English, they are expressed by modal auxiliaries, such as might, should, will and can. In essence, modality refers and indicates to the mood of the sentence. It’s all about saying you “know” something and saying you “believe” something. Question: Is it possible to use lexical verbs to convey modality?

Indeed, this is true. It seems that, we use the world “will” to indicate the future tense as opposed to –ed, respectively. There is no such thing as future tense that is why we use auxiliary verbs also known as (“Modal Verbs”). English teachers have disciplined their students to remember that in English grammar, there are three verb tenses: past, present and future. But this is not true; there's only two. Interestingly, English future tenses seem to have arisen from Latin, which does have future tense. Though, some may argue that the word “will” is future tense (i.e., I will go to the store. She will eat the food.) I beg to differ. It is a present-tense verb. One example to disprove this is theory is (We’re having salad for dinner) - here, this sentence describes a future event (suppose it is said in the morning) - and yet: “will” (which is an auxiliary verb) did not appear in the sentence.

In reality, and what many have been taught and told—proper nouns start with a capital letter. Some languages capitalize all nouns. How are proper nouns distinguished from other nouns? And how does a linguist decide whether a noun is common or proper?

Criticism/ Feedback on Chapter: Again, and with the previous chapter, the author(s) do a compelling job of conveying the information in a succinct manner. There are a few mistakes in this chapter: For example, if I’m not mistaken, “head word” is a compound word.

This sentence is missing commas: If you find it more helpful to show these hidden levels, then (comma) by all means (comma) put them in your own diagrams[,] (omit this comma) but do so consistently.

Spelling error: “Although there’s nothing wrong with this representation, we can simplfy.” (Here, the word “simply” is spelled wrong).

Redundancy: “The noun phrase also resembles the verb phrase in that it can contain contain complements.” The word “contain” is repeated twice in this sentence.

Sentence in need of comma: “Of course (comma) that change in meaning is no proof that there is actually a silent determiner present in the bare NP.” I would omit the word “actually”. That’s been a consistent pattern throughout—though, I understand and like the formality in tone I do like brevity.

Overall, good chapter. It was easy to understand and the examples were necessary to understand the information. My only concern was the few mistakes I found (listed above), and comma splice issues.

Can nominals be the subject, object, or predicate of a sentence? I’m assuming this is then followed by a linking verb that explains what the subject is. Also, are nominals other parts of speech (i.e., prepositions, articles, adjectives, etc.) ?

So, linking verbs link two parts of a sentence (e.g., Shaquille became a doctor). Basically, like an equal sign: the subject to the noun or adjective, right? And intransitive verbs have no object meaning their action is not transformed from to subject to something else (e.g., She rises from the chair), Question: Are linking verbs a type of intransitive verb? Not entirely sure what the difference is.

And: What are the other subtypes of verbs? Why can’t grammarians agree on this?

In terms of chapter improvements, again, I think the succinctness of the information was most certainly appreciated. I mean, the chapter got to the point on many of the vocabulary terms and what each one meant. My only concern with this chapter is faulty sentence fragments and comma splice issues. For example, “But clearly that phrase isn’t renaming the dog. Tuesday morning actually tells us when the action occurred.” The word “clearly” is not necessary, here. Again, brevity and succinctness. Another example, “Instransitive Linking”- if I'm not mistaken, “Intransitive” is the correct spelling of that word. Last example, “Some verb are distinguished by what doesn’t appear after them. These verbs are not followed by either a noun phrase or adjective phrase” - this sentence is badly written for several reasons. Firstly, wouldn't it be “some verbs” (the word verb is missing an s)? This sentence is also missing an article (an) “or (an) adjective phrase”. Theses mistakes are some of many – but, I don’t think the mistakes turn off readers—the sentences still flows regardless.

I think this is very important to note because action verbs are further sub-categorized into two categories—depending on simple present tense, simple future tense, and even simple past tense, verbs are categorized into two categories. So, again, grammar is not this fixed concept. Grammar does not follow the one fits all concept. The same thing with parts of speech—depending on the context of a sentence. For instance, the word “all” has several functions—it can be used as an adjective, adverb, determiner, noun, or even a pronoun. Depending on the sentence, a word can mean many things. And this goes to the idea that English grammar is all about interpretation and further illustrates why prescriptivism in grammar is not so good of a concept.

Cleft Sentence: We use cleft sentences, especially in speaking, to connect what is already understood to what is new to the listener. In a cleft sentence, a single message is divided (cleft) into two clauses. This allows us to focus on the new information.

MLA:Cleft Sentences - English Grammar Today - Cambridge Dictionary, 2020, dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/cleft-sentences-it-was-in-june-we-got-married.

Predicate: The predicate of a sentence is the part that modifies the subject in some way. Because the subject is the person, place, or thing that a sentence is about, the predicate must contain a verb explaining what the subject does and can also include a modifier.

MLA: Person. “What Is a Predicate?” English Grammar Rules & Usage, 2020, grammar.yourdictionary.com/sentences/what/what-is-a-predicate.html.

Criticisms of Chapter: I thought this chapter was good. The information was succinct, and I love the brevity. With that, there were a few subject-verb-agreement issues (ironically), and some of the sentences needed to be concise. One example of that: “A constituent is any word or group of words that functions together as an entity.” Here, the word is function, not functions. For instance, the phrase “your own writing” was repeated a few times in one paragraph. Firstly, “your writing” would work best; in lieu, of “your own writing.” I enjoyed how the writing was clear and informal. I believe “headword” is one word (it surely is a compound word, right?). The writer tends to use the word “actually” a great many times and at some point, it was too much for me and it was placed in peculiar locations. I think omitting that word would make the writing more concise. Another example: “[...] account for many aspects of grammar in a simpler and more consistent fashion than if we treated them differently.” This sentence reads funny. Of course, half of it is cut off but— “more simply and consistently” would work better, here, and take the word "fashion" out the sentence. I can go on, but I'll stop here about grammar. One last thing: someone (in their commentary) said that the diagrams and visual representations were great and all; however, I agree with that person, that the diagrams were a bit confusing and arduous to understand. I understood the concepts without the diagrams, ironically. Especially in the last diagram, I was confused. I did not know what was going on in the diagram and that complicated the learning process for me even more.

This is one interesting way to put it. I find traditional grammar lessons (especially those spent diagramming sentences and memorizing all the parts of speech) hinder students’ ability to become better writers. I can attest to that. One becomes a better writer by practice. You don’t become a better writer overnight—writing takes practice and diagramming sentences is not the way to learn how to write because your mind will be conditioned to think a certain way (Did I write the sentence correctly? Did I forgot to include this or that?) and it frustrates you a great deal. Sure, they need to learn grammar, but the old-fashioned way is outdated. Grammar should not come before writing; and grammar should be learned while students are writing. And, might I add: they do capture important information about a sentence but—I am not a visual learner and it can be daunting to look at.

Morphology is the study of form or forms. In linguistics morphology refers to the mental system involved in word formation or to the branch of linguistics that deals with words, their internal structure, and how they are formed.

MLA CITATION: Aronoff , Mark, and Kristen Fudeman. What Is Morphology? www.ucd.ie/artspgs/introling/Aronoffmorphology.pdf.

I thought this chapter was succinctly written and easy to understand for the most part. I commend the author(s) for using examples for each parts of speech to make statements clearer, which gives readers more in-depth information. I believe in brevity (succinctness). There were some parts of the chapter (i.e., words/phrases) that were redundant or trite which interrupted sentences from flowing smoothly. For example, in the preposition section, the words, “in the sentence”, was repeated twice in one sentence, alone—and, taking out those words both times most certainly helps that sentence to be clearer. Also, the author(s) love the word “in order to” which is redundant—the word “to” should stand alone. There were some comma splice errors throughout, and I would suggest that each chapter get the same care and length. I felt that the very first parts of speech were given a manifold of examples, and others were not given that luxury. But other than that, the chapter was well-done.

I had this one English teacher who insistently and almost barbarically argued against using demonstrative pronouns in writing (i.e., this, that, these, and those) and I have been told by other English professors that they are accepted in writing because they help people get their point across while minimizing repetition of the same noun repeatedly. The teacher would always write on my papers: “Who’s the 'this'—in this sentence?” “What is 'it' and who’s 'it' referring to?”. Question: How should we go about demonstratives? Should we use them sparingly or use proper nouns to describe people?

Do interjections have a grammatical relation to the other words in the sentence? Since they are the first word in the sentence followed by a comma--I'm assuming the meaning of the sentence will be unchanged. When expressing strong emotions, are interjections necessary? When and where should we insert them?

I agree with this. The problem with traditional parts of speech is that they are ambiguous—that is, they do not with certainty point to any definite part of speech but leave room for people to decide by other criteria. One reason I think linguistics group words into different categories is simply because—well, suppose someone wants to know the part of speech for the word “blue”. Most people might say that it is an adjective (rightfully so) by traditional standards; but when you dilute the word “thing:” (when referring to a noun), the word “blue” could be a thing, so should we render everything a noun? In that same vein, it’s impossible to say whether the color “blue” is an adjective, noun, or verb depending on how it is used. Context certainly matters, here, and part of speech is painted with one brush stroke and, a word can be different parts of speech. Why do people still parrot old prescriptive grammar (even though, the traditional method fails to account for how English is actually used)?

In the U.S., there is no mandated official language. Indeed, the U.S. is a melting pot of languages and cultures and English is diversified. When it comes to dialect, (i.e., African American Vernacular English or Jamaican patois), these are forms of English—but, of course, these dialects follow differing constructions and rules than of standardized English. Dialect is different variations of the same language that have evolved over time—especially in geographical locales. And there is a variety of a language (such as AAVE), that are considered mutually intelligible—one can be able to understand the speaker of the other form without learning it from scratch. Question: Is a dialect a lesser form of language?

Descriptivism (in the eye of linguistics) aims to recognize the ways we use language in the world—given the locales that influence it. Prescriptivism (in the eye of linguistics) aims to recognize rules and norms for language use. Language changes and so must we. And, yet: the promise of the future is so wide—and I think grammarians should analyze and outline language; not to order right from wrong. If I’m not mistaken, one of the first articles we read in this class defined this as arbitrary (there’s no divinity that deciphers right from wrong in the use of language). The article prodded at this idea that people in academia care about standards and customs and that educated people should preserve standardized English to ensure clarity in the English language. Frequently, people are quick-witted (for whatever reason) to rescue the English language when someone says “alright” when they meant “all right” or, “loose” when they meant “lose”--why is that? Finally, nothing is disingenuous about rules or standards—on the other hand, if we are not clear on rules or if there’s not one definitive rule—it makes no sense to profess them. To put clearly, we have been taught the 'i before e except after c' rule; yet, this rule is inconsistent in the English language and should not be considered a rule. Take, for example, the following words: “weird,” “albeit,” and “glacier”. Many linguists believe in rules but applying a varying degree of rules could be a disconcerting and the 'i before e except after c' rule is capricious and we should not fall back on it.

Regrettably, schools are too focused on enforcing and testing a monolithic standard of English. Though, sadly, as an English major, I find that disheartening. In consequence, it is easier to tell students to avoid the passive voice than to get them to understand that although the passive voice can negatively affect their writing; it’s often used and unavoidable. Interestingly, many students are not aware of the difference between the passive voice and the active voice. You’d be surprised; but, many of us speak in the passive voice and we don’t even know it (whether it’s through text or verbally). This makes me wonder...does standardized English exist and who determines what correct grammar is? With social media (i.e., Twitter), people’s attention span decreased from 12 seconds (in 2000) to 8 seconds (in 2020), according to a study by Microsoft and I think, imposing character limits begs the question: should we abandon the eighteenth-century prescriptions and aim for language that is succinct (enough)?

I find this interesting and surely, there is virulent debate about English teachers (or, teachers in general), who simply grade students’ work based on grammar. Generic annotations serve no purpose. Thus, insofar—many teachers tend to make students feel bad about their work because their grammar is “bad”, or their writing does not meet their standard. Thus, forgetting that everyone writes differently and with different audiences in mind. And, might I add: students hate writing because of grammar, and writing a coherent argument that makes sense could be daunting to some. The root of the problem is that teachers themselves have little training in how to teach students how to write. Consequently, teachers put more emphasis on grammar instead of originality of thought and analysis. We all can remember—that English teacher in high school—who marked all over an essay with red ink and no explanation. Trite and generic annotations like “demonstrative pronoun”, “comma splice”, “hyphenate” or “add an ’s” and all you remember doing was fixing those mistakes and didn’t bother to even look up what a demonstrative pronoun is. I think a return to the basics of sentence construction and the mechanics of simple sentences allow students to learn these concepts for life. The basics of grammar are toughed in Elementary School; however, not reiterated in high school or even college because teachers presume students know what correct grammar is. This blunt approach by many is the sole reason why writing can be a challenge and why there’s a divide between standardized English and descriptivism in grammar.

What's interesting and worth noting about this section is how we are told that words like "ain't" and phrases like "could of" are not grammatically correct--yet, we still use them in our everyday life--when speaking (verbally or written)--the prescriptivism approach, of course. These examples have sparked debates on the death of the English language and whether texting is killing the English language. I think, and it could be argued that the genesis of descriptivism in grammar is part because of texting--which is now (some will contend mainstream language). With that blunt approach, it reveals that texting is language in a hurry and thus, it is merely possible to communicate through text using abbreviated words or phrases. Although the language of Shakespeare and modern classic authors (i.e., Morrison, Orwell, and Baldwin) are impoverished, descriptivism in grammar is the way of life for many--the new name for communicating the English language. Question: do you think texting has led to the death of the English language (by that, I mean prescriptivism in grammar)? Or, has 'wyd' or 'alright instead of 'all right' become the norm? Is it troubling; if so, how?

I think that's a salient point. Prescriptivists follow consistent rules; while, descriptivists allow variation, adaption, when necessary. Because both are not mutually exclusive--I do think prescriptivism makes it easier to communicate. Albeit a linguistic might argue that sets of patterns for how words to form phrases of clauses (whether spoken or in writing) is surely important because to put simply, we do not live in a Shakespearan era--and as the world evolves, society should demand evolution in the English language. How people use language has certainly changed. We are now using slang phrases--freely and abbreviation of words--constantly. Some may argue (whether this trend is good or bad; while others, might argue that "change is inevitable" and that certain words and/or phrases are "no longer in use." I think prescriptivism in grammar is important and should be required widely. However, most importantly, there is enough room for 'You and me' (descriptivism) and 'you' and I" (prescriptivism), without people being rebuked for misusing 'I' and 'me'. Finally, as languages become, according to the test, "[...] a form of cultural capital" and that "stigmatized forms are...used by social groups" begs the question that the article posed ("who's right?") and is grammar declining? Are grammar rules arbitrary and should we be confined to follow them? Or, are we destroying the English language with such thinking?