No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
There has recently been a pronounced turning toward the study of English syntax as a separate department of linguistics with its own technique. If, however, the study of English syntax is an attractive and fruitful field, it is too often a most bewildering and deceptive one. Aside from the external dangers of slipping off into irrelevant semantics or into morphology, there is an ever-present danger in the analysis and exposition of the strangely illogical fabric that holds our language together.
1 I say “Latin influence (if any)” with feeling because after seeing many of the older opinions about Latin influence discredited with reference to one construction after another, I am inclined to take the position that there is no clearly demonstrated taking over of a construction into the living language that had no previous existence in English. The creation of a vogue for certain native constructions has often been taken for a borrowing.
2 Frank R. Blake, A Semantic Analysis of Case, Curme Volume, Language Mono. vii, 35.