This project began in 1973 when one of us purchased a copy of Greene’s Grammar [1] at a rummage sale in Rhode Island.  The book was in good shape and cost only twenty-five cents. The amazing thing about this text was that it covered ideas about the description of the English language that could not be found in the books that were being used as grammar or writing texts both in secondary schools and in college. After teaching English and composition for years at both the high school and college level, we found that the standards we used and that our fellow teachers used to evaluate the quality of our students’ writing varied from day to day and from class to class. And we also realized that few of our fellow teachers and almost none of our students had mastered the concepts or the terminology of the description of the English language. Most knew the familiar definition of a noun as “the name of a person, place, thing, or idea,” but few understood many of the implications of that definition. While most could identify most of the personal pronouns, only a few knew about other kinds of pronouns. But Samuel Greene back in the 19th century had published a book that presented a rather complete presentation of both the terminology of English grammar and methods of understanding the relationships among the words, phrases, and clauses in written English. The idea of doing an update of Greene for modern students and teachers of English grammar and writing seemed obvious.

We discovered in Greene’s work the perspective that grammar derives from the thoughts written by the best authors; and that from these writings, patterns emerge that produce an analysis of the prevailing linguistic framework. We strongly believe that it is difficult to grasp the rules of correct written expression without a strong foundation in the structure of language. Therefore, we concur with Greene, that to ignore the framework of a language complete with its particular vocabulary, misses a vital link in the process of acquiring language fluency and appreciation of where, when, and why certain rules have emerged.

If we have a bias towards the word “grammar” understood and practiced this way, we can blame our superb Latin teacher. We are both graduates of the same public high school in the late 1950s. Between us, we took Latin a total of five years. Probably no course gave a better foundation to understand the workings of our American tongue.

As retired teachers of English, we have experienced that friends and colleagues understand the word “grammar” to mean rules of correct writing and speaking. For many, “correct writing” means having few spelling errors, getting the punctuation right, and avoiding profanity, slang, or other informal vocabulary. Today’s fast-paced world demands a rush to the bottom line.  Most of today’s grammar guides, while useful as quick references, do not answer why and how these rules came into existence. We do not disagree on the importance of having standards of correct written or spoken expression. But we know that over time, usage can change, and that acceptability of expression can and does vary.  However, the essential elements of a language do not alter. And, as any student or teacher of a foreign language knows, the grammar or structure of the language is essential. These critical points motivated us to bring Greene into the 21st century.

We will eschew any discussion of the current linguistic climate in this country, driven as it is by technology and globalization. Among these topics, best left to others to sort out, are the widespread tolerance of words and phrases once thought to be shocking and inappropriate, dialects, cultural influences, paucity of vocabulary choices, and the many influences of contemporary communication technology. We accept the inevitability of language evolution; however, we find value in classical forms, much as contemporary composers both depart from yet build upon the rhythms and arrangements of the masters.

Yet, in the English and literacy classes of schools today, we know that a review of language structure often is bypassed. Perhaps this is so because it is assumed that native-born speakers of English have acquired this knowledge intuitively. Indeed, American students’ pervasive dislike for the study of grammar has led to the unfortunate elimination of rigorous language analysis. After all, no teacher wants to force-feed knowledge! Understandably, confronted with a list of grammar rules for effective writing and speaking, students often question, “Who says this is so, and why?” These inquiries are not merely a reflection of normal student rebellion against difficult subject matter; indeed, they legitimately probe the authority of grammarians. (We know more than a few students who think of grammar experts as a subset of alien beings better confined to the dusty offices of some obscure university, or at best, as unnecessary relics of the past.) We hope that this update of an early grammar text will help to belie the stereotypes and offer value for those engaged in helping others improve clarity and fluency.

What is grammar? The word has roots in Latin [grammatica] and Greek [grammatik] (grammar, learning); and gramma (something written, letter) or graphein (to write). It can be traced also to Old French [gramaire], and Middle English [gramer]. According to the Webster’s New World Dictionary (World Publishing Company, 1956), the “term applied to the whole apparatus of literary study, critical and historical as well as linguistic; in the medieval period, it came to mean ‘the study of Latin,’ hence ‘all learning as recorded in Latin.’’’ Several definitions are listed. The first definition reads, “that part of the study of language which deals with the forms and structures of words (morphology), and with their customary arrangement in phrases and sentences (syntax)…” Definition No. 3 says that grammar is a “a system of rules for speaking and writing a given language, based on the study of its grammar…or on some adaptation of Latin grammar.” Only Definition No. 5 refers to correct expression: “one’s manner of speaking as judged by conventional grammatical rules.”

Why should we study it at all? This controversial question has been a central part of the educational debate about what should be taught to students in American schools. Through the 1950s, intensive study of grammar routinely was integrated into secondary English classes. In some cases, grammar was taught as a stand-alone class. Elementary students were introduced to parts of speech and the basic structure of the English language, together with the customary rules for punctuating written sentences. Things began to change in the early 1960s when criticism mounted about the value of including grammar in the standard curriculum.

The chief concern came from teachers of English who questioned whether  learning grammar led to better writing on the part of their primary and secondary students. Indeed, educational research in the late 1960s indicated that the teaching of grammar was not useful in helping students become better writers because the results found no statistical quantifiable difference between the quality of writing done by students who received instruction in “grammar” and those who did not. On the basis of that research, the minimal teaching of descriptive grammar at the public school and colleges almost disappeared.

These research studies, however, had no reference to the kind of descriptive grammar that was taught, how well it was taught, or how much knowledge students had of descriptive grammar before the studies began.  At the same time, the findings of all of those studies showed that the differences “were not significant at some statistical level.” This statement meant that we could not be 95% (or 99%) sure that any improvement in the writing, however that may have been judged, was “caused by” the teaching of descriptive grammar. In other words, the research actually did not prove or disprove that a relationship existed between skill in descriptive grammar and skill in writing.

It may well be that teaching parsing and the terminology of a descriptive grammar does not, in itself, help students write “better” English. But it is clear that further research is needed on whether students who know the terminology of descriptive grammar and those who have  parsing skills are better able to master the rules of standard written English.  It is also clear that the teaching of prescriptive grammar, which stresses how writing should and should not be done, can best be accomplished by teachers who use the same terminology and with students who understand that terminology.

Whatever the merits or shortcomings, slowly over time, in-depth grammar instruction slipped away. Instruction in diagramming or parsing sentences, and analyzing sentence elements eventually became passé. By the time traditional English teachers approached retirement, they found themselves working with generations of colleagues whose own education contained little or no knowledge of grammar.

However, a resurgence of interest in grammar is taking place nearly 50 years since the teaching of grammar came into question. Perhaps teachers feel the pressure of meeting new content standards. The language portions of some state-mandated assessment tests cover grammatical knowledge:  parts of speechs, correct sentences, identifying fragments and run-on sentences, subject-verb agreement, and pronoun-antecedent agreement.  Students taking college entrance tests are confronted with usage and correct word choice questions. Some have discovered that a solid foundation in the structure of the English language will point them to the logic, for example, of correct pronoun usage. Furthermore, some parents are demanding more rigorous, back-to-basics studies for their children.

Grammar texts had been published in this country from the 1700s on, with the authors leaning largely on structures used by English grammarians.  Greene, who had published books on grammar since the 1840s,  is given credit for departing from earlier grammarians, who emphasized memory, to that of “analysis and classification of sentences into their component parts.”[2] This observation was noted in an essay  written in 1868 on the state of English grammar texts published up to that point. Here is a quote from that article, a critique of Greene’s 1867 text: 

“Though there has been a great advance in philological learning during the present century, our grammars still follow in the beaten track of Lindley Murray, differing only in the mode of treating the subject, and perhaps in accuracy and fullness of detail. They are only different patterns out of the same material… They give us none of the modern inquiry into the nature and origin of speech, nor even into the specialties of our English tongue, but the subject is presented in a series of arbitrary rules based in great part merely upon the concurrent practice of well-informed speakers. Upon that which constitutes the real structure of the language they enter but slightly, if at all. The grammar of Professor Greene may be taken as a partial exception to this statement. Though his stand-point is the same as that of older grammarians, yet he has given us some of the results of his philological research… He might have drawn more largely, indeed, from this source, but his aim has been to prepare a practical grammar which should comprise, within moderate limits, the ordinary rules of the language, and in this he has eminently succeeded. He has adopted the extreme analytical method in treating the subject, which to many teachers will prove a strong recommendation of his book.”[3]

In his preface, Greene offers a refreshing explanation that we find strikingly relevant –   yet often overlooked in current texts:   “No theory of grammar is true or reliable that cannot be abundantly verified by direct appeals to the usage of standard authors.”

Greene believes that his approach to grammar should not wait until the child is old enough to understand grammar as a science.  He favors, as we do, talking about language from the earliest point possible.  In other words, by implication exposure to the best in children’s literature would be a good start.

So, how does this book fit in? What does it offer to contemporary students, teachers, and language lovers?

This book is not a how-to grammar manual. Nor is it simply a linguistic retrospective to satisfy historical curiosity. In updating this 19th century grammar textbook for the 21st  century, we have attempted to capture its relevance for a modern audience. We have left most of Greene’s original text in place, but have taken the liberty of eliminating clearly outmoded items.  In some places, we have recast sentences to alter Greene’s 19th century writing style. We have formatted the text for readability; however, most of the original structure of the book, the illustrating examples,  and many of the parsing exercises remain. We have added a glossary. But the most dramatic improvement, we believe, is the removal of the chapter exercises to form a companion piece referred to in this online version as simply Exercises.  Thus, analysis is combined with practice.

What does this book purport to offer, and to whom?

• A reference book for English teachers who wish to understand the derivation of grammar rules, most of which are still acknowledged today.
• A technical manual providing an overarching framework of English language structure.
• A linguistic analytical tool, with examples drawn from classical authors as well as parsing exercises, which are almost altogether eliminated in current grammar texts.
• A practical guide to improve understanding of the language (Exercises).

These groups should find it useful:

• Teachers of descriptive or prescriptive grammar at all levels, including professors of education or others who train future teachers of English.
• Trainers or facilitators of community college or university level writing labs or tutoring services, including those working with foreign language speakers.
• Students who need to understand and use terminology of descriptive grammar in order to improve both spoken and written English, when standard forms are required.  Examples illustrating the grammar principles include quotations from Milton, Shakespeare, and the Bible. (We have added some modern authors as well.)  Apt candidates for this book might be upper elementary through high school students who are receiving instruction by means of a rigorous academic curriculum.
• Parents of students – those in home school environments and “back to basics” schools where grammar is still being taught.

If nothing else, the example sentences taken from many great writers make this book a valuable text for any teacher or student of English. These pieces of writing illustrate written English at its best. Professor Greene, one of several historical American literacy champions, can help to revive an honored tradition of excellence in understanding and practice of our American tongue.

Editors
John Fink, Ph.D.
Nancy Roeder, M.S.S.