Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language” - Volume 30, Issue 2, 2006

A grammatical description is an essential component of any program of language documentation and preservation. With over half the languages in the world currently in danger of extinction within a century, the need for descriptive grammars is more critical than ever. Potential grammar writers often find themselves paralyzed by the massive prospect of describing a language. Additionally, grammar writing is a long term task, and more immediate concerns often preclude the expenditure of time and energy necessary to accomplish an adequate grammatical description. The papers in the present volume provide suggestions and encouragement from experienced grammar writers and users regarding concrete methods for approaching the complex task of writing a descriptive grammar of a language.

The grammar of a language is not only un système ou tout se tient; it also lies within a nexus involving time, space, and social relationships. On the dimension of time, descriptive and historical linguistics are not totally separate: native speakers’ knowledge of their language may include recognition of archaic forms and foreign borrowings. As for space, native speakers’ knowledge also includes awareness of geographical dialect variation. On the social dimension, the relevance of sociolinguistic variation is now widely recognized. Linguists who undertake to write grammars should consider all these factors, particularly as regards the interrelatedness between the grammar, the lexicon, and text collections.

A language is a living soul to a community, a source of dignity and prestige for all people. Once it dies, the whole community dies. A written grammar can support a community by encouraging the use of a community language. Sometimes, however, grammars are ways that outsiders "mine" a local community for the outsiders' benefit, leaving the community of speakers with nothing. This paper discusses the need for linguistic grammars from the perspective of the community in which the language is used. Arguments for including local concerns in grammar writing are presented. One approach to writing a grammar that will serve the needs of linguists and the community is partnership. University professors, field linguists, retired field workers and others can work with local linguists to write grammars that will truly meet the needs of all.

For forty years, linguistic fieldwork on the minority languages of Soviet and post-Soviet States has been conducted by members of the Philological Faculty of Moscow State University. The present paper describes the “Moscow approach” to team-based fieldwork, including the history, problems, advantages and disadvantages of this unique venture. The conclusion is that the advantages of collective fieldwork outweigh the disadvantages, but that there are several requirements that must be in place in order for the method to be effective. These include a clear organizational scheme, several available language consultants, and supportive attitudes on the parts of all participants. In recent years, a combination of researcher specialization and cross-training in multiple sub-disciplines has become an increasingly important component of the collective field trips.

The audience for a grammatical description is an important consideration for anyone involved in descriptive linguistics. Potential grammar users include linguists, the interested public, and members of the communities in which the language is spoken. An awareness of the target audiences is necessary in shaping the grammar to meet varying needs. It might, for example, affect the choice of topics to be discussed, the organization and style of the presentation, the depth of detail to include, the use of technical terminology, and the nature of exemplification. It is not yet clear whether one grammar can serve all potential audiences and purposes. Whether it can or not, however, there is a good chance that any grammar will eventually be pressed into service for more than one. This paper offers some suggestions based on the author's experience with Mohawk communities situated in Quebec, Ontario, and New York State.

Making dictionaries is a vital aid to completing a full grammatical analysis of a language, particularly if the dictionary requires the specification of the part of speech for each entry. English (or “universal”) parts of speech may not be relevant in all languages, as can be shown by structural comparisons of “adjectives” in San Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec vs. Chickasaw and of “adpositions” in San Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec (and Mixtec) vs. Chickasaw. Each language will present its own structurally determined inventory of parts of speech, relevant for its own grammatical facts. Thus, discovering the actual parts of speech of a language is a critical part both of dictionary making and of grammar writing. These aspects of linguistic analysis are crucially interconnected.

Thousands of languages are currently in danger of extinction without having been adequately documented by linguists. This fact represents a tragedy for communities in which endangered languages are spoken, for linguistics as a discipline and for all of humanity. One major role of the field of linguistics is to describe languages accurately and thoroughly for the benefit of all concerned. This paper presents the results of an informal survey of major users of grammatical descriptions and gives lists of dos and don’ts for those contemplating a descriptive study of one of the many endangered languages of the world. Concrete suggestions are provided that will help grammar writers produce user-friendly, thorough and useful grammatical descriptions.

A descriptive grammar is a document that is intended to communicate important and complex patterns of knowledge within a speech community. Previous conceptions of linguistic grammars have emphasized a metaphor in which the internal grammar of a language is perceived as a “machine” that transforms thoughts into language structure. Written grammars were conceived as schematic representations of such machines. The present paper argues for a different metaphor. Because a grammar is primarily an act of communication, a good grammar possesses qualities known to hold of other communicative acts. The paper invokes recent work in linguistic pragmatics to help potential grammar writers conceptualize and present their work as an efficient and engaging act of communication.

Writing a grammar is an exhilarating and exhausting experience. All grammars must meet high expectations. This paper reports on a study of qualities sought in grammars based on a survey of reviews of grammars. The study reveals that linguists expect a grammar to be comprehensive, clear, and accessible to all. It should also contain careful argumentation and a wealth of data that is appropriate, authentic, and meticulously checked. Writers of grammars must ask themselves a variety of questions before they begin, including what the goal of the grammar is, who the audience for the grammar is, how much time there is to write the grammar, and what the language reveals about its grammar. The paper then discusses and evaluates specific examples of good grammars of various types.

Grammars take time; they require data development; they must be planned; and their writing may span many years. Linguists should “grow” a grammar through the course of their involvement with the language. This paper gives practical advice about this process, such as the creation and management of a data corpus, the acquisition of useful intellectual tools, the choice of an effective authoring environment, the formation of habits and disciplines that contribute to successful grammar writing.

Good language descriptions liberally illustrate their claims with examples. The author must select and order examples, and provide accompanying information. The example may include a reference number, the example in multiple forms (phonetic, phonemic, morphemic or morphophonemic, written), brackets and categories, glosses, translation, punctuation, functional annotations, grammatical judgements, subscripts, empty categories, ellipses marking, information about the author and language variety, attention-directing mechanisms, and so forth. Formatting these diverse sorts of information is a non-trivial task; suggestions are given for “best practice.” The delivery of documents on screens (rather than on paper) makes possible some dynamic enhancements such as inspecting an example’s textual context, toggling on/off various types of information, controlling highlighting and conflation.