# Descriptive grammar of English



## dreamlike

Hi everyone,

suppose you heard the name of the university course *'Descriptive grammar of English'.* Would you have at least a vague idea of what it might be about? Have you ever heard of such a name in your life? 

I'm asking, because it's one of the courses offered at faculties and departments of English in Poland, and it appears to be unique to my country. Also, the name is not really reflective of what the course deals with.


----------



## Keith Bradford

There are three types of grammar, *prescriptive, proscriptive *and *descriptive*.

*prescriptive* is a set of rules on what you should say, what is good grammar.
*proscriptive *is a set of rules on what you shouldn't say, 'bad' or 'poor' English.
*descriptive* is a statement of what people actually do say, right or wrong.


----------



## dreamlike

I know all that, Mr Keith. The thing is, the course has nothing to do with different approaches towards grammar. 

For example, in the first semester the course deals with phonetics and phonology of English. A few of the subjects we've covered so far: _Transcription, articulatory phonetics, consonants, vowels, coarticulatation.

Descriptive grammar of English_ seems to be an exclusively Polish thing. That's why I started this thread, to find out what would you think the course deals with, if you heard the name. I think it's misleading and wrong.


----------



## entangledbank

If it's grammar of any kind it shouldn't deal (much) with phonetics of any kind, but phonology is arguably a part of grammar. Some phonology is necessary for grammatical description, at least: the allophones of the _-s_ and _-ed_ suffixes, for example, or softening of consonants in Polish. To me, descriptive grammar (in an academic sense) is as opposed to theoretical grammar - transformational/generative or rival theories. A descriptive grammar simply explains where auxiliaries go with respect to the subject and later verbs, without claiming that the reason they do this is because they need to move from a v-shell to Spec-InflP to check their theta-features . . . or whatever the current theory says.


----------



## dreamlike

So what would be your first thought on hearing the name 'descriptive grammar of English', EB? 



entangledbank said:


> A descriptive grammar simply explains where auxiliaries go with respect to the subject and later verbs[...]


This is one of the things we study... during the course called 'Practical grammar of English'.


----------



## entangledbank

In an academic context: as above. Universities don't teach prescriptive grammar; _that_ contrast wouldn't even occur to me as a serious possibility. The great modern grammars of English - Huddleston & Pullum and Quirk et al. - are descriptive in the sense of avoiding theoretical explanation, where possible.


----------



## dreamlike

As I've already said, it has little if anything to do with grammar as such and the two approaches towards grammar - prescriptive and descriptive. Additionally, there's a great deal of theory we have to study. (but there are some practice sessions, too, thankfully). For those reasons, 'descriptive grammar' is not exactly an apt name to me. The course is called the same way in Polish.


----------



## wandle

dreamlike said:


> suppose you heard the name of the university course *'Descriptive grammar of English'.*


Is this the actual course title, or is it a translation from Polish?


----------



## Myridon

dreamlike said:


> As I've already said, it has little if anything to do with grammar as such and the two approaches towards grammar - prescriptive and descriptive.


If the course has nothing to do with descriptive approaches to grammar, then I have no idea what the course is about from the title "Descriptive Grammar."  It may as well be called "Hello Kitty Grammar."


----------



## dreamlike

wandle said:


> Is this the actual course title, or is it a translation from Polish?


It is the actual and official English title of the course. Here's the description in English (it's a perfectly safe link), which you may find interesting and which only further confirms that it is a stange title for such a course... 



Myridon said:


> If the course has nothing to do with descriptive approaches to grammar, then I have no idea what the course is about from the title "Descriptive Grammar."  It may as well be called "Hello Kitty Grammar."


Yeah, this at least would be less misleading.


----------



## wandle

> Here's the description in English


The paragraph 'Relation to other courses' explains that 'Descriptive Grammar' is the former title of the two-year course dealing with phonetics and syntax, with a partial treatment of phonology, morphology and semantics.

This shows: (a) what the university's definition of 'Descriptive Grammar' is 
and (b) that that title is no longer considered the most suitable.

Perhaps this means that 'Descriptive Grammar' is in fact the translation of a Polish title and that the staff have come to see that it may not be a good choice in English.


----------



## dreamlike

wandle said:


> The paragraph 'Relation to other courses' explains that 'Descriptive Grammar' is the former title of the two-year course dealing with phonetics and syntax, with a partial treatment of phonology, morphology and semantics.
> 
> This shows: (a) what the university's definition of 'Descriptive Grammar' is
> and (b) that that title is no longer considered the most suitable.
> 
> Perhaps this means that 'Descriptive Grammar' is in fact the translation of a Polish title and that the staff have come to see that it may not be a good choice in English.



Thanks, Wandle, that's very observant of you. I didn't notice that one. Yes, they may have come to realise that 'descriptive grammar' is not exactly a good choice, but even the first year of the two-year course is still sometimes referred to as such at my university, not to mention other Polish universities, which keep using the title in question. Why it is so, I don't have not the faintest idea -- it's rather plain to see that it's not very aptly named.


----------



## Skatinginbc

I don't think it is a Polish peculiarity.  The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign offers a course called "Descriptive English Grammar".  The University of Ottawa, likewise, has "Descriptive Grammar of Modern English".  I assume there are other colleges offering similar courses.   
“Descriptive grammar" as a course title means an introductory, usually undergraduate-level course in linguistic rules.  "Grammar" here refers to the study of linguistic rules in fields including "morphology, syntax, and phonology, often complemented by phonetics, semantics, and pragmatics." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar).  At an advanced level, those subjects are normally taught as separate courses (e.g., "English Phonology").  So "grammar" is just a convenient word to lump them all together.  Obviously the name change from "Descriptive Grammar" to "Descriptive Grammar of English" is to specify the specialized language.  I assume that students of French at your university are required to take "Descriptive Grammar of French".  As described in the link you provided, “the recruitment procedures for many linguistics BA and MA seminars require good credits in (at least one) of these courses, formerly known jointly as "Descriptive Grammar".


----------



## LilianaB

Hi, Dreamlike. It has nothing to do with the prescriptivism v. descriptivism. I am pretty sure the course covers general knowledge about English parts of speech, sentence structure. It may include phonology, and perhaps even some historical grammar. It will be most likely a general linguistics course related to the English language only, as far as I know European philological departments. It may include transformational-generative grammar as well, or at least some elements of it. The content may slightly vary from school to school. I think it is a word for word translation from Polish, and the course could have been called English Grammar.


----------



## dreamlike

Thank you very much for your insight, Skatingbc. Could you please supply me with some links so that I could tell whether the 'Descriptive English grammar' courses offered by the universities you are speaking of are indeed the same as the one offered at my university and others in Poland? 

Hi, Liliana. I'm perfectly aware that it has nothing do with the prescriptivism vs descriptivism thing  We've already said that in this thread. I know the content of the course, and because of that I think that 'descriptive grammar of English' is a terrible name. It is indeed a word for word translation from Polish, but how does that change anything. Those people should know better, given how experienced and well-educated they presumably are.


----------



## lucas-sp

dreamlike said:


> It is indeed a word for word translation from Polish, but how does that change anything. Those people should know better, given how experienced and well-educated they presumably are.


Can you say what the non-literal translation from Polish would be? My sense is that "descriptive X" here is supposed to mean "general overview of X"/"survey of X." I know some higher-level language programs split up their introductory year into a phonetics unit and then an advanced grammar unit; both of them are probably more prescriptive in their methods (since they're supposed to teach you how to speak a foreign language "well"). So maybe a good title in English would be "Survey of Contemporary English IA: Phonetics and Phonology."

The classes that skatingbc mentions above actually seem quite clearly to be courses on descriptive grammar _as specifically opposed_ to pre/pro-scriptive grammar. It's a coincidence, not an English-language example of a course like that dreamlike cites.


----------



## Skatinginbc

dreamlike said:


> _*'Descriptive grammar of English'.*_...Have you ever heard of such a name in your life?


 I’ve heard of similar names, for instance:
1.      Descriptive Grammar of English:  https://college.myedu.com/KSU-Kent-...Descriptive-Grammar-Of-English/course/210769/, English 402 State University of New York College at Cortland, http://www.universitytools.com/U/LSU/Fa10/Course/ENGL/2710.
2.      Descriptive English Grammar: http://www.uni.edu/continuinged/swirrc/node/2318, http://www.locazu.com/ENGL-220-iowa-state-university/c331733, http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/De...r Descriptive English Grammar Summer 2012.pdf, http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/402/402.html.
3.      Descriptive Grammar of Modern English: http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~jroy042/lin2361/syllabus.pdf



lucas-sp said:


> The classes that skatingbc mentions above actually seem quite clearly to be courses on descriptive grammar _as specifically opposed_ to pre/pro-scriptive grammar.


 Lack of explicit, constant comparison between descriptive and prescriptive grammar does not take away the descriptive nature of the course that Dreamlike is taking.  Its content covers phonetic descriptions of English, basic phonology that helps to formulate descriptive rules, and descriptions of dialectal variances in English. 



lucas-sp said:


> I know some higher-level language programs split up their introductory year into a phonetics unit and then an advanced grammar unit; both of them are probably more *prescriptive* in their methods


 Please provide a link to the *degree programs* in TESL or Linguistics that are more *prescriptive* in their methods._ Descriptive Grammar of English_ offered by Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, like _Descriptive Grammar of Modern English_ offered by University of Ottawa, is obviously desgined for (1) those who plan to teach English, (2) those who plan to study linguistics, and (3) those who want to obtain conscious knowledge of how the language works.


----------



## lucas-sp

I'm talking about _language-learning_ programs, where the students would do one unit centered around working on pronunciation and then one unit centered around grammar. Those programs are normally _prescriptive_ (I don't think there's anything revolutionary about my saying that - language teachers teach rules).

The courses that you link to explicitly cover areas such as dialect and non-standard speech. They also seem to include readings about A) how we should theorize such non-standard uses of language and B) how people who want to teach language might deal with such non-standard uses in the classroom. Those readings are absent from the course description dreamlike links to. Within that course description there are really only two elements that scream "descriptive grammar" (contents 6 and 11).

I trust dreamlike's skepticism about the appropriateness of the course title, although I would like to hear more, both about what the course title means in Polish and also about why it seems inappropriate. My assumption - based on my understanding that there are several sub-courses linked together under the heading "Descriptive Grammar of English" (the website says "part 1," so I assume there's a part 2 or 3 floating around) - is that it is a general title used for the various parts of the complete English survey. That doesn't seem too far-fetched to me.


----------



## Skatinginbc

lucas-sp said:


> I'm talking about _language-learning_ programs...


ESL programs are irrelevant here.  "Descriptive Grammar" is a course in language theory, not an ESL course (e.g., http://courses.elo.iastate.edu/LING/220/XW/2013/spring/overview).  


lucas-sp said:


> The courses that you link to explicitly cover areas such as dialect and non-standard speech....Those readings are absent from the course description dreamlike links to.


A course taught in one university is unlikely identical to the one taught in another even if they share the same title and objectives.   


lucas-sp said:


> Within that course description there are really only two elements that scream "descriptive grammar" (contents 6 and 11).


When I took "Descriptive English Grammar" in college, its content didn't scream "descriptive".  Not until later, after I had taken more linguistic courses, did I realize its descriptive nature.


----------



## LilianaB

dreamlike said:


> Thank you very much for your insight, Skatingbc. Could you please supply me with some links so that I could tell whether the 'Descriptive English grammar' courses offered by the universities you are speaking of are indeed the same as the one offered at my university and others in Poland?
> 
> Hi, Liliana. I'm perfectly aware that it has nothing do with the prescriptivism vs descriptivism thing  We've already said that in this thread. I know the content of the course, and because of that I think that 'descriptive grammar of English' is a terrible name. It is indeed a word for word translation from Polish, but how does that change anything. Those people should know better, given how experienced and well-educated they presumably are.



It is a very old name for that course used in many communist at that time countries. You can see the Polish Equivalent at the Polish philological department site, and it is exactly the same kind of course except in relation to the English language. It comes form the 1960's when some philological departments opened after the war (English Departments at least).  It is a calque from Polish.  

And yes -- it is a course in language theory -- highly specialized linguistics, not a course for the English language learners. (mostly for future teachers and linguists).


----------



## Loob

lucas-sp said:


> Can you say what the non-literal translation from Polish would be?


I'm curious about that too.

What does the Polish course title convey, and how does that differ from "Descriptive Grammar of English"?


----------



## dreamlike

In a now deleted post, you've asked, Loob, what's the point of my question. The point is that on hearing the name 'descriptive grammar of English', some people (as shown by several contributions to this thread) are likely to think of a descriptive approach towards grammar or language itself, which is something that the course does not deal with. 

In the light of this, I don't think it's a good name for this course.

I can't think of a non-literal translation from Polish. I'd probably abandon the 'grammar' part altogether, since there are some subjects we've covered, or are yet to cover, that can heardly be regarded as having anything to do with grammar. Instead, I would call the first of the two year course 'Phonetics and phonology of English' (and it sometimes referred to as such), and the second year course in some different way, in accordance with the content of the course.

I find Liliana's point interesting:


LilianaB said:


> It is a very old name for that course used in many communist countries at that time.


----------



## Skatinginbc

dreamlike said:


> I'd probably abandon the 'grammar' part altogether, since there are some subjects we've covered, or are yet to cover, that can heardly be regarded as having anything to do with grammar. Instead, I would call the first of the two year course 'Phonetics and phonology of English' (and it sometimes referred to as such)


The part 2 of the course you are taking, I believe, deals with English syntax and morphology.  Will that fit better with your definition of "grammar"?


dreamlike said:


> the name 'descriptive grammar of English',  some people (as shown by several contributions to this thread) are  likely to think of a _*descriptive approach*_ towards grammar or language  itself, which is something that the course does not deal with.


Can you give us some examples of the course content that are not descriptive?  Phonetic transcriptions are tools for _*describing *_speech sounds.  Generative phonology is _*descriptive *_when used to analyze and formulate the underlying rules about a  language actually used by its speakers.


----------



## LilianaB

This course might be called grammar (or some type of grammar) in many other sources. _Descriptive grammar_ deals just with describing certain linguistic phenomena, such as phonology, morphology and syntax. It is only one of the types of grammar that in its entirety encompasses such branches as: comparative grammar, historical grammar, tranformational-generative grammar, and a few other types.


----------



## dreamlike

Skatinginbc said:


> Can you give us some examples of the course content that are not descriptive?  Phonetic transcriptions are tools for _*describing *_speech sounds.  Generative phonology is _*descriptive *_when used to analyze and formulate the underlying rules about a  language actually used by its speakers.


I thought I made myself clear. The reason why I object to the name 'desriptive grammar' is because on hearing or reading it, one automatically thinks of one the approaches adopted to teaching grammar - describing how actually the language/grammar is used by people, not how it should be, without evaluating their correctness. 

It is descriptive in the sense it describes a number of things pertaining to language, but the name overlaps with another well-established name, and is therefore misleading. 

Also, I can't see how, for instance _2. The anatomy and physiology of the vocal tract. (one of the topics we've covered)_ could have anything whatsoever to do with grammar. It's more of a biology to me...


----------



## lucas-sp

dreamlike said:


> I can't think of a non-literal translation from Polish. I'd probably abandon the 'grammar' part altogether, since there are some subjects we've covered, or are yet to cover, that can heardly be regarded as having anything to do with grammar.


Oh no! You're coming up with a _better_ title for the class!

I think what Loob and I would like to know is what "descriptive gramar of English" (and in particular "descriptive") mean in Polish. If this is a calque from Polish, what is the non-calque translation of the word "descriptive"?


----------



## dreamlike

lucas-sp said:


> Oh no! You're coming up with a _better_ title for the class!


Oh, If I were to remove 'grammar', I wouldn't keep 'descriptive', either, because that would be one hell of a weird title for the course!  An adjective without a noun to modify. 



lucas-sp said:


> think what Loob and I would like to know is what "descriptive gramar of English" (and in particular "descriptive") mean in Polish. If this is a calque from Polish, what is the non-calque translation of the word "descriptive"?


Oh my, that's a tough nut to crack. The thing is that in Polish there are two words -- the first one is an adjective derived from the noun 'description' which precedes the word 'grammar' in the Polish tittle. It means 'saying what somebody/something is like'.  

The second word is the very 'descriptive' (it differs only by a few letters from the English word, instead 'i' there is 'y' and instead 'v' there is 'w', and the ending is a tad idifferent) which carries the same meaning as the English word, namely -- #1 saying how language is actually used, without giving rules for how it should be used (OALD), #2 giving an account of something without judging.

The Polish title uses the first word.

It's complicated, as you can see. I don't know if I got the distinction across.


----------



## lucas-sp

dreamlike said:


> Oh my, that's a tough nut to crack. The thing is that in Polish there are two words -- the first one is an adjective derived from the noun 'description' which precedes the word 'grammar' in the Polish tittle as well. It means 'saying what somebody/something is like'.


So the original title in Polish is closer to meaning "Overview of English Grammar" / "Complete Description of English Grammar" / "Survey of English Grammar."

Is this same word used before, say, "French Literature" in French literature survey courses? Are their classes in "Descriptive Anthropology"? I think you're looking for "Linguistic Survey of Contemporary English" as a translation.


----------



## dreamlike

lucas-sp said:


> So the original title in Polish is closer to meaning "Overview of English Grammar" / "Complete Description of English Grammar" / "Survey of English Grammar."


Yes, these would be far more telling titles. But as I said, some components of the course have little if anything to do with grammar as I understand it, so I don't like the word 'grammar' itself. Anyway, the title is now eschewed in favour of 'Phonetics and phonology of English' as the name for the first part of the course, and 'Syntax and morphology of English' as the name for the second part of the course. The webpage of the course says that it has been formerly known jointly as 'Descriptive grammar of English'. It appears here and there sometimes, though. 



> Is this same word used before, say, "French Literature" in French literature survey courses? Are their classes in "Descriptive Anthropology"? I think you're looking for "Linguistic Survey of Contemporary English" as a translation.


That's even better than the titles you proposed in the first sentence. The course is not restricted to contemporary English, though. We sometimes learn about how things used to be in the past.  I haven't a clue how those courses might be called in Polish.


----------



## lucas-sp

There are two things:

1. What does the title actually mean in Polish? 
2. Is that title appropriate?

Once we correctly translate "Survey," then we can think about whether "grammar" or "contemporary English" or just "English" is the most appropriate thing to include in the title.

But your post #27 makes it quite clear that the use of the word "descriptive" here has nothing to do with "grammar." (In other words, we aren't looking at [[Descriptive Grammar] of English] but instead [Descriptive [Grammar of English]].) There is no comparison between this course and other classes in descriptive grammar (of English). Instead, this particular course is the first part of the multi-course English linguistics survey.


----------



## LilianaB

lucas-sp said:


> So the original title in Polish is closer to meaning "Overview of English Grammar" / "Complete Description of English Grammar" / "Survey of English Grammar."
> 
> Is this same word used before, say, "French Literature" in French literature survey courses? Are their classes in "Descriptive Anthropology"? I think you're looking for "Linguistic Survey of Contemporary English" as a translation.



Not, it is not. It a word-for-word equivalent of the English term. _Descriptive grammar_, as a course, is a detailed study of grammar of a particular languge (English in this case). It is a highly specialized course, more on a graduate level, regardless of the fact at which stage of the langauge studies it is administered. By descriptive they mean here more -- a synchronic, contemporary grammar -- at a particular stage of development (including phonology, morphology and syntax) as opposed to diachronic approach, historical or comparative grammar (of two or more langauges). It is understandable that they will teach elements of human anatomy and things related to the production of sounds because these things are very important for phonetics, and thus phonology, which is a part of grammar. I personally don't know about a 100% equivalent course to this one in the US, at least. They have similar courses, or at least used to have, in Scandinavia, the ex-communist countries, perhaps England -- I am not sure about the last one. It is probably the closest to _Complete (Linguistic) Overview of Contemporary English Grammar_, or something similar. (It might be an oxymoron a _complete overview_, but the course is pretty much complete, so I don't really know how to better describe it. It is very detailed.)


----------



## Loob

Dreamlike, is your main concern that the Polish equivalent of the English word "grammar" tends to include phonology as well as morphology and syntax? If so, then I think one answer is that "grammar" in English _can_ include phonology ~ though you're right that it often doesn't.

Sorry if I've still misunderstood....


----------



## dreamlike

My main concern, Loob, is that 'descriptive grammar' is a very well-established term in English which means something different from what the course deals with, and makes one think of what Keith Bradford has written in post #2. 


lucas-sp said:


> There are two things:
> 
> 1. What does the title actually mean in Polish?
> 2. Is that title appropriate?.



1. It means, roughly speaking, describing grammar in theoritical terms. 
2. It's not for me to judge. I can't come up with a good single term myself, and would just give two different names to the two parts of the course, rather than try to come up with some generic term. And that's what they now do, anyway.

Liliana, I'd like to know your opinion. Do you think that 'descriptive grammar' is an apt name for this course?


----------



## Skatinginbc

dreamlike said:


> 'descriptive grammar' is a very well-established term in English which means something different from what the course deals with, and makes one think of what Keith Bradford has written in post #2.


I honestly don't see the contradiction.  For instance, a research study that formulates rules regarding glottal stops in the Oklahoma accent is descriptive in essence.  And such rules are part of "descriptive grammar".  Your course is teaching you the basic vocabulary and techniques in understanding such rules or conducting such studies.


----------



## lucas-sp

Skating, did you read this?





dreamlike said:


> The thing is that in Polish there are two words -- *the first one is an adjective derived from the noun 'description' *which precedes the word 'grammar' in the Polish tittle. It means 'saying what somebody/something is like'.
> 
> *The second word is the very 'descriptive**'* (it differs only by a few letters from the English word, instead 'i' there is 'y' and instead 'v' there is 'w', and the ending is a tad idifferent) *which carries the same meaning as the English word*, namely -- #1 saying how language is actually used, without giving rules for how it should be used (OALD), #2 giving an account of something without judging.
> 
> *The Polish title uses the first word*.


Whether or not the content of the course relates to "descriptive grammar," the title of the course is not "descriptive grammar." Instead it is "general description of grammar." The best translation would be "Linguistic Survey of English."


----------



## LilianaB

dreamlike said:


> My main concern, Loob, is that 'descriptive grammar' is a very well-established term in English which means something different from what the course deals with, and makes one think of what Keith Bradford has written in post #2.
> 
> 
> 1. It means, roughly speaking, describing grammar in theoritical terms.
> 2. It's not for me to judge. I can't come up with a good single term myself, and would just give two different names to the two parts of the course, rather than try to come up with some generic term. And that's what they now do, anyway.
> 
> Liliana, I'd like to know your opinion. Do you think that 'descriptive grammar' is an apt name for this course?



It might be,  after all. Course titles are constructed in a similar way as slogans. You really need to read the description to find out what the course is about. They could really split it into: Phonology, Morphology and Syntax. They call it _descriptive_, I think, to make it distinct from _Grammar_ -- a course for English learners, rather than people studying languages in detail to become language teachers and theoretical linguists. I think they could call it _the Basics of Linguistics_, but then they would have to teach the history of linguistics and various approaches, which they do in a course called _General Linguistics_ and _Historical Linguistics_.


----------



## dreamlike

I no longer know what to make of it. I don't like the name, that's all.  In any case, instead of using a generic term 'Descriptive grammar' they split it into 'Phonetics and phonology of English' for the first part of the course, and 'Syntax and morpology' of English for the second part of the course. And it's better this way, I think. 

Thanks for all your contributions.


----------



## Skatinginbc

lucas-sp said:


> Skating, did you read this?...the title of the course is not "descriptive grammar." Instead it is "general description of grammar."


Not permitted to cite the course title in Polish, I can only say it is "descriptive" (an adjective, whether before or after the noun), not "description".


----------



## lucas-sp

Skatinginbc said:


> Not permitted to cite the course title in Polish, I can only say it is "descriptive" (an adjective, whether before or after the noun), not "description".


That's not what the only Polish native speaker here has to say.

According to dreamlike, the word "descriptive" used in this title is:

A) not the word used for "descriptive grammar" (as opposed to pre/proscriptive grammar or as a methodological field of linguistics)
B) modifying "course" and not "grammar" (it is a "descriptive course/course giving a general description" of grammar, not a course about "descriptive grammar")

The noun "description" comes _in my translation_. Languages do not correspond 1-to-1 with each other. It's clear that "Survey of X" would be said in English when "Descriptive X" would be said in Polish.

We have a usage like this in English: "*Comprehensive* X." In courses with that title, it's certainly the course which is giving a _comprehensive_ survey of X; the course is not giving a survey of "_comprehensive X._"


----------



## LilianaB

It is basically a course that describes grammar, as opposed to teaching its rules and providing practical exercises. It is a theoretical course in English grammar -- this is why it it called descriptive, I am pretty sure. (describing all grammatical phenomena).


----------



## lucas-sp

LilianaB said:


> It is basically a course that describes grammar, as opposed to teaching its rules and providing practical exercises. It is a theoretical course in English grammar -- this is why it it called descriptive, I am pretty sure. (describing all grammatical phenomena).


So again, the course is descriptive; the grammar isn't. 

This distinction seems clear in Polish - there are two different words, even - but in English it is confusing. Maybe this is why the name of the sequence has been changed.


----------



## dreamlike

lucas-sp said:


> *So again, the course is descriptive; the grammar isn't. *
> 
> This distinction seems clear in Polish - there are two different words, even - but in English it is confusing. Maybe this is why the name of the sequence has been changed.


Yes, Lucas, thank you, at least one person that seems to share my reasoning. That's the point I was trying to make...


----------



## Loob

Make that two: your post 27 was crucial, as was lucas's post 30 (coupled with your clarification that it wasn't the word "grammar" that you were worried about).

Which all goes to show how difficult it is, sometimes, to formulate questions!


----------



## dreamlike

I'm sorry to add to the confusion. It should be 'which follows the word 'grammar'. Does that change anything? Everything else holds true. Both in Polish and English, it is not the grammar itself that is descriptive, but the course. 



> Oh my, that's a tough nut to crack. The thing is that in Polish there are two words -- the first one is an adjective derived from the noun 'description' which *precedes* the word 'grammar' in the Polish tittle. It means 'saying what somebody/something is like'.


----------



## LilianaB

lucas-sp said:


> So again, the course is descriptive; the grammar isn't.
> 
> This distinction seems clear in Polish - there are two different words, even - but in English it is confusing. Maybe this is why the name of the sequence has been changed.



I am not sure if only the course is descriptive. I would think it deals with the type of grammar or grammatical approaches that analyze grammatical phenomena at the present time and describe them (in relation to the English language only, in this particular case). Its sister courses are _Historical Grammar_ and _Comparative Grammar_. _Analytical Grammar of Contemporary English_ -- might be close to what it really means. I think _An_ _Overview of English Phonology, Morphology and Syntax _might be also a good term, or some of the terms you suggested.


----------



## lucas-sp

dreamlike said:


> Yes, Lucas, thank you, at least one person that seems to share my reasoning. That's the point I was trying to make...


It seems to me like that point was made in the first 12 or so posts, before there was confusion about the various meanings of the word "descriptive" in both English and Polish.

I think that what we've learned can be summarized as follows:

 - classes entitled "Descriptive Grammar of English" are completely reasonable in English _when they are classes about descriptive grammar_. Keith pointed this out right away - the title says rather plainly that the course will be about descriptive grammar (vs. pre/proscriptive grammars). Skating gave some very good examples in post #13 of courses in descriptive grammar; the contents of the courses she mentions are specifically descriptive and about the methodologies and issues specific to descriptive grammar. (For instance, one of the courses studies speech-act theory and Austin's notion of "picking up the ball and running with it.")

 - the adjective "descriptive" in English doesn't work in general, and _really_ doesn't work in this specific case, as an adjective meaning "providing a general overview of." So we wouldn't use "Descriptive Mesoamerican Archaeology" as the title of a course; we would say "Comprehensive Survey of Mesoamerican Archaeology." (I disagree with Liliana's post #40 - as someone who's seen a heck of a lot of university schedules, they really don't use "descriptive" in the way she describes there.) This is an awkward translation from Polish. In this case, it's even worse because the two words "descriptive grammar" stick together to form a unit.

I don't know why some of the other posters don't seem to want to believe your explanations of how the Polish phrase works. To me, you made its meaning and structure perfectly clear, particularly when you mentioned that the word for "descriptive" in this title is not the same as the word for "descriptive" in the concept "descriptive grammar."


----------



## LilianaB

Another thing -- this course is often taught by Oxford and other prestigious universities' professors in countries like Poland, and some other European non-English speaking countries, so I think they would have noticed if there was something essentially wrong with the title, unless they just did not want to interfere with the universities' course description procedures. You are right, Lukcas -- I have not encountered a simlar course in the US, but here courses in linguistics are often a part of the Cultural Anthropology Departments, so the approach and the courses differ.


----------



## dreamlike

Thank you, Lucas, for your comprehensive answer. I find your post to be a perfect summary of the thread, and the points I was labouring. 

Liliana, I don't think any Oxford professor paid a visit to my University to teach this this course. Even if they did, I don't think they would have the audacity to fiddle with other university procedures.


----------



## LilianaB

Apparently the times have changed.


----------

