Phrases as the Basic Linguistic Unit. The case of Non-Finites.

Autor: Pedro Pablo Sánchez Villalón

Universidad de Castilla La Mancha

Abstract

I am frequently shocked when reading about "Nonfinite Clauses" in all kinds of grammar books and textbooks. I feel that there is something that does not work in the explanations given. I always learnt that a clause is identified as having a subject and a finite verb. That helped us feel the difference between simple and complex sentences. Additionally, there is a current trend to set the focus of language structure and information on clauses.

The aim of this article is to clearly establish the category of nonfinite phrases as a linguistic entity, not only as the head of the predicate in a great number of cases, but also as having additional functions (heads of nominal, adjectival and adverbial phrases, diverse functions as complements and modifiers, and even they can function as connectors and prepositions). Nonfinite phrases have peculiar features which clauses lack, the main one being that they can release the expression from unnecessary or undesired constraints, such as time reference, agentivity. We can also avoid the double reference to the same object/subject which would imply the usage of complex sentences.

The importance of this resourceful device and some readings on the topic led to a growing conception about the real basis of linguistic organization in English: the phrase as the basic language unit for the organization of discourse, phonologically, structurally and thematically. To end up, there is a practical consideration about the usefulness of phrases for the organization of learning, this is, phrases as a natural learning device.

Introduction

Language teachers are frequently challenged to cope with quite a lot of new techniques for the description of the diverse elements which form language. Meanwhile, linguists are continuously developing new theories to accomplish language study, trying to give scientific background for the teachers' activities.

All this exchange of techniques and theories result in a heavy amount of varied terminology, which, instead of clarifying the functions and the elements of language, have produced the opposite outcome. Luckily, teachers do not take linguists' terms verbatim. They usually take the new terminology from textbooks. These work as selectors. Textbook makers and applied linguists try to give scientific basis to the presentation of teaching techniques, but sometimes, mainly when teachers present the linguistic terms directly to students, they usually cause confusion or at least questions on the side of students, turning the language class into a class of linguistics, which is a different subject.

Of course, as Widdowson (1990) says, teaching language is not the same as teaching about language (linguistics), but they are not so different as not to do anything with one another. The subject of study is the same, language, but what is relevant for one is perhaps not significant for the other. The linguist cannot determine relevance in pedagogical terms. Nor is the job of teachers to determine theoretical principles, necessary to organise teaching from their personal experience, intuition or inspiration, and to communicate their individual successes (which others can benefit from). Widdowson says 'What principles do is to make private experience publickly accessible, open to discussion and capable of wider relevance.' (1990, page 1) That is the job of applied linguistics and textbook writers: to be the two-way communicative means between general principles and particular experiences. Both teachers and linguists have a direct implication in determining relevance in language teaching.

From these assumptions, and on some of the leading linguists' bases, I shall try to demonstrate how mistaken linguists are when dealing with NONFINITE FORMS, on their own scientific ground, and at the same time, what teachers should do to take advantage of the certainly positive achievements, to select them and adapt them to their practical goal of teaching a language.

The common mistake made by modern linguists is to consider non-finite phrases as subordinate clauses. This is an important matter since they can make us question the basis for linguistic organization: the clause... or the phrase?

Let us see some opinions on the subject.

There are two main leading opinions in scientific grammars: first the group of linguists who wrote a Comprehensive Grammar of English, Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik. Secondly, we shall refer to Halliday and the systemic group of linguists which influenced the pedagogical presentation of language realized by Synclair and A. Downing, among others. They established the basic structure of linguistic organization to be the clause. I shall try to demonstrate it is the phrase.

Transformational equivalence between nonfinite phrases and subordinate clauses

Quirk et alia, following a generative transformational view, say that non-finite phrases can be transformed into subordinate clauses, they function the same way, so they can be called subordinate clauses. They are semantically equivalent (See Appendix 1). Of course, they say, there are some structural 'deficiencies', which could be solved considering them as a result of omitting the subject and the finite form; these are recoverable from the context (situational or linguistic). This is one of the reasons why they finally follow the views of the pragmatic school of linguists. They say: "People work to live" is semantically the same as "People work so that they can live".

But in fact the Subject and the Finite Verb are not always recoverable.

Let us look at the sentence: "He's easy to please"

Who is the understood subject of 'to please'? and the tense, as the main feature of finiteness, is not understood either. When 'to please'? In the past, in the present or in the future time? There are no answers for these questions, obviously. And we cannot say that such a resourceful linguistic device is based on structural deficiencies. The deficiency is their theory.

A second point to analyse is subordination: whether they are subordinate clauses. For them subordination is marked by some signal: subordinating conjunctions (including 'that'), a wh- element, inversion, and as they say, 'negatively, the absence of a finite form'.

First this a real fallacy. It is a fallacy of the kind of Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which means "after this, therefore because of this".

Second, even the fallacy does not explain the analysis of sentences of the kind: "I love dancing". Dancing can be a noun admitting determination and modification as in "I love the dancing of the tango", or a verb admitting an object as in "I love dancing the tango".

And third, if the absence of a finite verb is an excuse to explain verbless clauses, everything could be a subordinate clause if it can be transformed into a subordinate clause:

"I love when I dance the tango", could be the transformation of the previous sentences, but also of the sentence: "I love the dance of the tango". Any kind of nominalisation, then, would be considered, if we apply their explanation, as subordination since it allows semantically equivalent transformation into clauses. Obviously, that is not correct. Nobody understands 'the dance of the tango' as a subordinate clause.

Anyway, in subsequent publications they continue attached to that fixed idea, falling in permanent contradictions. G. Leech, Deuchar and Hoogenraad (in English Grammar for Today, 1985, on page 84) say that the clause elements are syntactically defined by the finite verb and in all clause patterns the Subject and the Verb are obligatory, and on the following pages, (page 87) they go on to say that in nonfinite clauses the Subject is frequently omitted. They make up a rule which says "In non-finite clauses without a subject, the subject is understood to be identical to the subject of the main clause". This may be useful for some �dangling` or misrelated participials, which should be checked to avoid ambiguity or confusion. But this is not true in too many cases to be considered a rule: Absolute participials, or unattached participials as they call them, are possible and quite correct as they admit, but they do not know why. See for example the sentence "Using this technique, more accurate results have been obtained". The rule does not apply to the Adverbials functioning as Conjuncts or Disjuncts. Nor can it apply to some nonfinites functioning as Complements, such as in the previously referred sentence "He's easy to please".

These are the contradictions and deficiencies they frequently refer to when presenting nonfinite clauses. We should check, then, for the convenience of using textbooks that expressively follow their views as it is the case of Language Issues, an advanced course by Gillian Porter-Ladousse (1993). He continuously presents exercises with a heading for the students to practise linking ideas by using 'base forms, infinitives, and -ing clauses' [sic]. But on the other hand it is one of the textbooks which best emphasizes the practice of this resourceful device, and with a corrected structural explanation, teachers can take advantage of the textual importance given to them in the book.

Nonfinites in the pragmatic theory

Going back to the debate of the function of linguists, there could have been a solution, considering the reaction against transformationism undertaken by the pragmatic theories, but Halliday and the systemic linguists, such as J. Synclair (1990), editor of the Collins COBUILD project, grammar books and textbooks, need to revise their theories on the topic. They face the problem of nonfinites in a more extensive way, but without success, anyway. They can see the labelling function of phrases useful for their analytical purposes; however, they centre on the clause as the 'principal unit for syntactic organization'. They do not take advantage of their focus on the ideational, interpersonal and principally on the textual function which are mainly realized by phrases, and to a greater degree, particularly by nonfinite phrases, due to their flexibility and multifunctionability (see Appendices 2 and 3). Speaking about structure, they keep close to transformational theories, and at times it seems that their only objective is to add new terms to the Babelian science of language description.

When Halliday (1985) talks of 'hypotactic clause complexes' (traditionally called 'adverbial clauses'), he tries to include non-finite phrases as clauses deriving from expansion of the meaning of the main clause when this expansion is realized by means of a conjunction or what he calls a conjunctive preposition. However, he is not able to explain nonfinite phrases without a conjunctive element as clauses. He says they must be clauses because they are dependent. But I say, they are dependent at a different level, on other phrases. Halliday even admits his failure when he talks about verb groups or phrases which can be analysable as phrase complexes, those deriving from the expansion of the process of action, the so-called 'phase' or 'catenative' verbs, and even those deriving from the projection of mental processes into modality, which form part of some kind of semi-auxiliaries.

Synclair (1990), taking this theory into a practical presentation for teaching in his Collins COBUILD English Grammar sees nonfinite phrases as clauses in the expression of transitivity and complementation, but not of phase. In phase verbs the second verb is a nonfinite verb form. He also falls into contradiction when he says that transitivity, complementation and phase are the three kinds of statements when making a message; 'When you make a statement you use a clause', and he finishes literally, 'A verb group used in a statement is finite'. On the same page he continues talking about nonfinite clauses.

The Phrase as the basic unit for linguistic organization

If we go back to the origins, the basic concepts from the traditional grammar do still work, as we can see in the classification of the Parts of Speech. These still continue being basically the same: Noun, Verb, Adjective, Preposition, etc. although new theories try to change their terminology (participants, process, circumstances, etc.).

The same should apply to the syntactic labelling of one or more words into phrases, performing a function in a sentence. The Parts of Speech are, paradigmatically speaking, the primary phrases.

Let us analyse some basic concepts about phrases:

Phrases can function paradigmatically as word classes, the Parts of Speech: Noun, Verb, Adjectives,... and also syntagmatically as the syntactic elements: Subject, Verb, Object, Adverbial, Complement. This is the double structural feature of phrases.

Paradigmatically, word order plays an important part in providing not only the function but also the identity of words as phrases. Inflection also suggests morphological identity to words which jump into a different category. This inflectional resource on non-finite forms is studied by Huddleston (1993) trying to find the boundaries between 'gerunds, present participles and past participles' and verbs, nouns or adjectives. We are not going into the difference between gerunds and present participles, just to say that -ing forms can have noun-like properties (gerunds) and verb-like properties (present participles). Some -ing forms, forgetting their original verb if there was one, can fall into the proper category of nouns ("meeting", "building"), or adjectives ("boring", "good-looking") Something similar applies to -ed inflection for adjectivation ("unexpected", "tired", "bored", "talented", "diseased" - these last adjectives take -ed inflection to form adjectives from nouns not verbs).

"One-eyed man", "have a walk", "do the cleaning" are examples where syntax also helps to provide this change. The main justification for distinguishing between verbal and non-verbal forms resides on the syntagmatic relations they can express. -ing forms can have noun-like properties such as, as in "I love the dancing of the tango", or "He was accused of dangerous driving". Syntagmatic verb-like properties such as predicative object complementation or adverbial modification make us analyse -ing forms as in "He was accused of driving dangerously" as a verb. When there is not a dependent present, they say there is ambiguity for analytical purposes, such as in "I love dancing". But what seems negative for linguists can be positive for language users (and language teachers). The indeterminacy of dancing in the previous example allows us to use it flexibly, either as a noun for referential generalization to the activity, to the product, or as a verb for the particular performance of the activity with understood performers and circumstances. Language users will discern the difference clearly, since there is no ambiguity in meaning when it is used in a textual context. The lexical force is determined by semantics and the textual function, which we shall analyse later.

Syntagmatically, then, we can focus on the four main types of lexical phrases, Nominal Phrases and Verbal Phrases, with their Modifiers, Adjectival Phrases and Adverbial Phrases, and match them with the different functions they can perform to express transitivity (the verb to express the process, nouns for participants and adverbs and adjectives for circumstances). But sometimes processes or circumstances can be expressed by nouns, and the same occurs with verbal forms, they can be identifiers of participants or circumstances. The function can change. This is the flexibility the phrase as the basic structural unit provides in language organization. Nonfinite phrases usually function as heads of these Phrases. Certain types of phrases have certain typical functions in a sentence (see Appendix 3).

But the first primary function of non-finite phrases is to be the head of the predicator.We have the expression of Progressive Aspect with an -ing form as head, a past participle for the Perfective Aspect and for Passive Voice as head. Even we could consider the possibility to explain the final element of non-assertive predicators (for questions, negatives and formally imperatives) as an original infinitive. Except for tense, which is an inflectional device (Quirk, 1982) provided by the simple finite form, when it is the only element, or most frequently by auxiliaries (the first one if there are several auxiliary elements). However, it is becoming more widely admitted and referred that the Future Tense is expressed by will+ infinitive, or be (going) to + infinitive. Futurity (and in general, potentiality) is one of the lexical implications of the infinitive in any kind of function (not only as the head element of the Predicator). Quirk does not consider Future as a tense. He says that tense is an inflectional device of the verb (is expressed inflectionally by the verb: zero inflection, -s or -ed/irregular past forms), and since there is no inflection for future tense, it is expressed as a way of modality, which he defines as attitude (equivalent to the mental process expressed by the verb in Halliday's theory), attitude of two kinds: to the information and to the other participant(s) in communication (see Appendix 2).

Quirk finds it difficult to establish the boundary where the auxiliaries end: can, is able to, is bound to, seem to tend to, would like to. We can find even references to Progressive Auxiliaries of the kind of like + V-ing. Following his transformational views, the operational test is one of passivity to check if the verb following is an object (a different syntagmatical phrase) or part of the main verbal phrase. For him, passivity demonstrates that the head of the verbal phrase remains in the first verbal form, the second element being of a different entity, as in "He expected to see the play"

Another operational test is to check that "to see the play" also admits pronominalisation:"He expected it". Structurally, for transformational analytical purposes, it may work, but the fact that "to see the play" is the object is not a sufficient reason to label it a clause as he intends. It demonstrates that nonfinite phrases can have other functions different from the one of head of a verbal phrase.

Nonfinite phrases can have a nominal function and be the head of a Subject or an Object, an adjectival function and be the head of a Complement or the modifier of a Nominal head or of a Complement. They can be the head of an Adverbial Phrase with the different functions of the Adverbials. Most surprisingly they can even be the head of a conjunction or of a prepositional group. There is a permanent paradigmatic transfer of identity of some words from the original inflectional function into these functional categories of relational conjunctions and prepositions: "Summing up", "To start with", "provided" are being seen as connectors, "according to", "regarding", as prepositions and not as gerunds or infinitives any more (see Appendix 1).

Could they be considered as clauses? I do not think so. They can have 'almost' the same functions and be semantically equivalent, (well, semantically speaking, nonfinite forms have lexical and textual implications which clauses lack), but structurally, clauses need a finite verbal element and a grammatical subject (in the nominative case). We may agree with Halliday when he says that there can be three kinds of Subjects: the logical subject (inferred from the context), the grammatical Subject (the actor of a finite action) and the psychological subject (the agent of a passive, for example), but we cannot agree with the subsequent contradiction of considering a genitive pronoun as the grammatical subject of a non-finite clause. Structurally, they are quite different.

Huddleston (1984) applies different tests to check if they are structurally equivalent, and sees that -ing nonfinite phrases can follow the tensed verb in interrogative clauses like Nominal Phrases, while clauses cannot: "Is her atheism/her being an atheist really relevant?" is correct but "*Is that she is an atheist really relevant?" is incorrect. The same happens with the function as complement of a preposition.

We can use extraposition with clauses ("It is highly relevant that she is an atheist") but not with nominal phrases ("It is highly relevant her being an atheist").

As to Semantics, phrases are traditionally propositions, a recently recovered term which will help us point out the importance of phrases in the textual world. Only Brown and Yule (in Discourse Analysis, 1989) criticised softly Halliday's conception of clause as the information unit. Although Halliday refers to tone groups as the way to identify clauses, (the basic phonological units), when he presents them graphically it seems to be the phrases the units in which he transcribes oral conversation.

I would add that the basic elements in his division of Transitivity are the phrases, functioning as participants, processes or circumstances. The division of Mode is fulfilled by phrases expressing mood and residue, and as to Thematization it has two axes, the theme phrase and the rheme phrase.

So taking Halliday's own principles into consideration we can derive to see the important role that non-finite phrases play as the head of phrases or propositions, as the central elements of the message, their textual relevance, even though he does not see them that way. Taking Transitivity (see Appendix 3) as the ideational component of the message, we can use nonfinite phrases as the heads of the three basic elements: as participants, with a nominal function, as the process, with a verbal function and as circumstances, with an adverbial function. The predicate or process, as the head of the message, is realized by a verbal phrase of three main types: action processes, relational processes and mental processes:

- Action processes, when they are marked with Aspect, Voice, and Modality have as the head element of the finite verbal phrase a non-finite verb phrase, which provides the lexical component of the process.

- Relational Processes have delexical verbal phrases and the load of meaning resides on the Complement, and the Nominal and Adjectival phrases that can perform that function, non-finite phrases among others.

- Mental processes are most frequently realized by non-finite phrases expressing:

a) perception, as in "I found him killed", "I saw him running"

b) reaction: "I enjoy swimming"

c) cognition "I know how to cook it"

d) verbalization "I advised him to go".

Structurally, the first verbal group is more important, but lexically the second is the relevant one. This shows the great lexical load of non-finite phrases, as bearers of the ideational content. Even the one with greater verbal force, as Synclair suggests.

The same applies to Modality as interpersonal exchange: although Mood (with the Subject and Finite phrase as necessary elements) is the structural axis for referring to interpersonal components, it is the Residue (Predicate and Complement) the message we exchange.

So, what is the pragmatical meaning of using non-finite phrases? Semantically speaking, nonfinite phrases have the inflectional resourcefulness to express different textual concepts referring to the three types of Modal Residue:

- potentiality or punctuality (expressed by the infinitive).

- active imperfectiveness or progression or repetition (with the -ing form).

- perfectiveness for completed or passive action (the past participle).

From a textual point of view, as to the information focus, it is the New which comes in the last position, as the central element of information, usually Rheme, the common informational function and position of non-finite phrases. Non-finite phrases by means of thematization can also be the focus of discourse as theme when using Absolute participials and Connectives.

If we remember the reference which Quirk makes to the omission of Subject and finite verb as structural deficiencies when they are not recoverable from the context, we may see that he refers to the linguistic context only. He cannot see the influence of the extralinguistic context, nor the importance that inference plays in language as a cognitive mechanism which makes concepts acquire the status of meaning. We cannot make linguistic reference to all the conceptual and psychological components in every idea. Apart from the knowledge of the language, we share knowledge of the culture and of the world which enables us to explicitly refer to the relevant elements and suppose the secondary or irrelevant ones as understood. There are devices to realize this (the negotiation of meaning, as Widdowson calls it) into the language system: that is the job of grammar and lexis. A balanced management of the two makes the system work.

Textuality is the conjunction of grammar and lexis where their respective analytic and synthetic features, their realization into text, where linguistic and extralinguistic contexts, systemic and schematic types of knowledge, ideational and interpersonal components, transitivity and modality work together to communicate meaning, information.

The resulting effect of using non-finite phrases is one of syntactic compression and compactness of information, comprising the language elements, omitting the unnecessary linguistic reference when it is possible to infer them from the linguistic or extralinguistic context; but at the same time the effect is one of expansion, extending the lexical concepts into meanings by grammatical explicitness (complementation and determination of participants, processes and circumstances).

On the other hand, informational textuality is of primary importance if we want to establish a gradual organization of the process of learning and teaching a language as we shall see in the final part of this speech. The order and position of the (thematic/information) elements focussing on their textual function provide them with the prominence of phrases as central units of information, enabling memorization of the absolute proposition referred without the structural restriction imposed by mood and transitivity constraints derived from their linguistic realization. Those constraints can be left aside when recovering the lexical load of the propositions as absolute concepts. This provides flexibility to handle information and to focus on the desired elements to be easily retained and retrieved.

Focus on phrases in the teaching-learning process

A textual approach (which I am currently working on) to teaching English as a foreign language would centre on the development of the three components: ideational, interpersonal and experiential. For that purpose, diverse techniques could coincide with previous methods as they centre on one of these functions: so the cognitive development of the concepts expressed by the ideational function is well developed by using audio-lingual techniques made automatic and easily accessible by repetition and by stimulus response activities. At the elementary stage, the acquisition of vocabulary, the lexical words and other lexical combinations, such as non-finite phrases, are easily retainable by means of phonology and visual aids. Diagrams and tables are useful in the formation of linguistic rules about the combination of the lexical items. Inflections and other morphological devices are not difficult to identify. The endings -ing and -ed and the to-infinitive are soon attained by our students as verbal marks. Their combination with auxiliaries needs extra practice. but soon they perceive their implications of aspect and progressivity.

So, at the end of the elementary level, when the students have identified the basic elements of a sentence and the tense reference expressed by simple finite verbal forms, we can go on to present more complex verbal references such as aspect and progression. For this purpose textbooks are well provided with texts, situations, exercises and other activities, but to practise them within a textual technique, this is, a more integrating way where the three functions would take place, we could present them with a map of a country, enrolling them in an attractive activity: a journey round the coast. In the map we can see different cities, and several activities they can typically perform there. We can show them the schedule: In a 4-week tour, they are cruising round the coast. The mode is a phone conversation with a friend. They have to talk about the places they have visited and the things they have done (or they did there, contrasting in this way the situational restriction of the past and the experiential generalization of the present perfect), and also they can also talk about the plans for the following two weeks (using be + (going) to + infinitive, first for arrangements and will + infinitive to express expectations 'I think it will be marvellous, I'll enjoy it'). This is a good practice of the main function of nonfinite forms as heads of finite verbal phrases. The adjectival function of the -ing and -ed endings could also be practice this way, using adjectives to express emotions and feelings, typical reactions in a situation like this.

But this interpersonal function, would be better practised on the following course, at a preintermediate stage. I have chosen a topic (the Greenhouse effect) which is highly motivating, as everybody seems concerned about the matter. We could practise the four main skills: Reading a text to get involved in the topic by means of a presentation question. Then skimming and scanning with Reading comprehension questions to focus on the main idea of every paragraph, which would show the structure of the text. Then a Listening activity where students should listen for the speakers opinions on the subject and then a writing section for them to write their own ideas as a preparation for the final Speaking activity: an oral debate on the subject. What do these activities have to do with nonfinite phrases? Well, the main technique in every activity would focus on note-taking, the so much deterred communicative learning technique) and we usually take notes using nonfinite phrases to refer to the concepts as freely as we can to retain the ideas more easily and faster, without the constraints of subjects and finite forms, which are already present on our cognitive schema on the topic. When reading to get the main idea we use notes, when listening in class we can use notes too. To prepare for a discussion the first stage is to take down our ideas on notes. Then when debating we have our notes for reference, as the axis for the information or the message to convey.

Additionally, to give opinions and express emotions we commonly use structures where modality and a complementation is necessary, and this is frequently achieved by verbal complementation of the kind of like + -ing phrases and by nominal or adjectival complementation (nouns or adjectives + to-infinitive or prep + -ing phrase). To practice them a list of sample sentences could be at hand at the debate stage, after some fill-in the blanks exercise of this kind.

At the intermediate stage, greater emphasis will be given to phase, reporting commands and modality, mainly by means of the so-called specifying verbs and verbs of verbalization. Making a difference between factuality (usually expressed by -ing phrases with an idea of past reference or repetition) and potentiality (with infinitives referring to the future or probable future and to punctual, particular actions or processes) would be of great help for the students to get a correct use of the forms, better than learning them by heart by collocations.

Passivity expressed by -ed forms and some to infinitives should also be practised at this intermediate stage, where an introduction to the thematic organization of the text as an explanation for the use of the passive voice, and the reasons for the omission of the participant actor would be appropriate. But it is at the advanced level when a conscious application of textuality by students would be highly fruitful in their realization of well organized written essays (argumentative, explanatory and narrative descriptions). The use of appropriate connectors, some of them nonfinite phrases, would be practised at this level, together with adverbial participials in initial position, absolute participials and subordinate phrases. A good exercise would be Rephrasing groups of simple sentences and subordinate sentences with initial position nonfinite phrases, as a way of giving some chunk of information the status of topical focus.

The reading of literature, mainly short stories, and some writings for information, (newspaper articles and headlines) would be of great help in perceiving the features of nonfinite phrases as resourceful devices for the organization of information for the diverse textual objectives.

Bibliography:

- BROWN, G. Y YULE, G., (1983), Discourse Analisys, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

- SYNCLAIR, J. (ed.), (1990),Collins COBUILD English Grammar , London: Harper Collins.

- DOWNING, A. & LOCKE, PH. (1992), A Universtity Course in English Grammar, E.Cliffs: Prentice Hall

- LYONS,J. (ed.), (1968), New Horizons in Linguistics, Penguin, Harmondsworth.

- HALLIDAY, M.A.K. y HASAN, R., (1989), Language, context and text: aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

- HALLIDAY, M.A.K. (1985) Introduction To Functional Grammar, London, Edward Arnold

- HUDDLESTON, R. (1984), Introduction to the Grammar of English, Cambridge: C.U.P.

- LEECH, G. y SVARTVIK, J., (1975). A Communicative Grammar of English, Singapore, Longman

- LEECH, G., DEUCHAR, M., HOOGENRAAD, R. (1982), English Grammar for Today. London: Macmillan.

- GREENBAUM, S., QUIRK, R., (1990), A Student's Grammar of the English Language, London: Longman.

- PORTER-LADOUSSE, G., (1993), Language Issues, Harlow: Longman.

- QUIRK, R., GREENBAUM, S., LEECH, G. & CRYSTAL, D. (1985), A Comprehensive Grammar of Contemporary English Language, London: Longman

- WIDDOWSON, H. G. (1990), Aspects of Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford U.P.

Nota: Este artículo es la transcripción de la presentación oral del autor ante el Tribunal de Oposiciones para la Adquisición de la Condición de Catedrático de Escuelas Oficiales de Idiomas, en Madrid, 1997. APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 2