What do you think?
Rate this book
Advanced English Grammar
Depraetere and Langford, with 40 years of teaching experience between them, present a grammar pitched precisely at advanced learners of English who need to understand how the English language really works without getting lost in the specifics. Most linguisticallyoriented grammars of English can be intimidating and complex. On the other hand, the more basic practical grammars also available are often not advanced enough.
This book pulls from linguistic theory all the relevant notions that will enable the language student to fully grasp English grammar. After introducing form and function, the authors cover verbs, nouns, aspect and tense, modality and discourse. Readers are led through the underlying principles of language use, with the book presupposing only a basic grasp of linguistic terminology. It does not get bogged down in huge amounts of detail and focuses on the crucial issues. Full of exercises and with attention paid to moving the reader through their course, this is the desk reference grammar of choice for both native and nonnative English speakers.
This book pulls from linguistic theory all the relevant notions that will enable the language student to fully grasp English grammar. After introducing form and function, the authors cover verbs, nouns, aspect and tense, modality and discourse. Readers are led through the underlying principles of language use, with the book presupposing only a basic grasp of linguistic terminology. It does not get bogged down in huge amounts of detail and focuses on the crucial issues. Full of exercises and with attention paid to moving the reader through their course, this is the desk reference grammar of choice for both native and nonnative English speakers.
- GenresLinguistics
376 pages, Paperback
First published June 21, 2012
17 people are currently reading
35 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
April 23, 2025
read for my degree. I don't like this approach to grammar, which seeks to explain the structure and theoretical principles of the language. It seems to me that it complicates (unnecessarily) concepts that could be explained in a much simpler way. But then I'm an ESL teacher for adults, and this approach doesn't fit with my daily targets, which I suspect is one of the (main?) reasons I feel frustrated with this type of grammar.
September 17, 2018
A book designed for advanced students of English as a second or foreign language. It is highly theoretical, hell-bent on structure, neglectful of meaning to the degree of obliviousness. In many cases the student would be well advised to consult a large, good dictionary. There he would find listed the different types of usages and their corresponding meanings. Viewing all by structure to the exclusion of meaning seems to me a very single-minded approach.
The book provides a large exercise section, but no key, though the latter can be consulted on the publishing company’s site.
Incidentally, the very first exercise in this section stands as a perfect example of what I mean by ‘obsession with structure’. The key (cited at the end) goes off into a paragraph-long explanation (word count 248), making use of no less than 11 grammatical expressions. Consulting a good English dictionary, one finds the word in question listing the meaning used in the given text as its third definition. (Webster’s New World Dictionary, published in 1989). Even thefreedictionary.com has it as its third definition, although this source does include a very lengthy footnote on the usage in question. But then, one may chose to read it or not.
While it is not my purpose to find fault with small details, I feel I would be amiss not to call out this point. Structure is important. When we don’t understand basic structure we miss out on a lot of understanding. But to use structure as the only method for clarifying language and its usages and rules not only gets things arduously long-winded and overly theoretical, but sooner or later gets to a point of lacking in depth.
The layout is lacking. In particular, highlights are not plainly set off, accounting for continuous strain in reading.
No doubt the book may be a useful reference work for the advanced student of English as a foreign language. I would not however recommend it to native speakers seeking a better comprehension of their language.
…….
Key cited above: (underscores added)
"The word if is a subordinating conjunction with two main uses: (1) If is used to introduce a clausal complement after verbs such as know (Do you know if he’ll be coming?) or wonder (I wonder if he’ll be coming.) In this case, if can usually be replaced by whether: Do you know whether he’ll be coming? I wonder whether he’ll be coming. In such sentences, we call if and whether complementizers because they introduce a complement. (2) If is also used to introduce a hypo- thetical clause (If I found a wallet, I’d turn it in to the police) or a counterfactual clause (If I had a million dollars (= but I don’t), I’d buy a yacht). In this case (but not in (1), above), the verb be very often takes the form were, even where the form was (which is usually possible as well) might be expected: If I were/was rich, I’d buy a yacht. If she were/was rich, she’d buy a yacht. In this case, if is not a complementizer since it does not serve to introduce a complement. In this sentence from the Guardian, the writer has used the form were as though if were introducing a hypothetical or counterfactual clause. In fact, the if here is a complementizer. It can be replaced by whether and is not normally fol- lowed by the form were. Although examples of this kind are common enough, they are not usually considered correct in standard English."
The book provides a large exercise section, but no key, though the latter can be consulted on the publishing company’s site.
Incidentally, the very first exercise in this section stands as a perfect example of what I mean by ‘obsession with structure’. The key (cited at the end) goes off into a paragraph-long explanation (word count 248), making use of no less than 11 grammatical expressions. Consulting a good English dictionary, one finds the word in question listing the meaning used in the given text as its third definition. (Webster’s New World Dictionary, published in 1989). Even thefreedictionary.com has it as its third definition, although this source does include a very lengthy footnote on the usage in question. But then, one may chose to read it or not.
While it is not my purpose to find fault with small details, I feel I would be amiss not to call out this point. Structure is important. When we don’t understand basic structure we miss out on a lot of understanding. But to use structure as the only method for clarifying language and its usages and rules not only gets things arduously long-winded and overly theoretical, but sooner or later gets to a point of lacking in depth.
The layout is lacking. In particular, highlights are not plainly set off, accounting for continuous strain in reading.
No doubt the book may be a useful reference work for the advanced student of English as a foreign language. I would not however recommend it to native speakers seeking a better comprehension of their language.
…….
Key cited above: (underscores added)
"The word if is a subordinating conjunction with two main uses: (1) If is used to introduce a clausal complement after verbs such as know (Do you know if he’ll be coming?) or wonder (I wonder if he’ll be coming.) In this case, if can usually be replaced by whether: Do you know whether he’ll be coming? I wonder whether he’ll be coming. In such sentences, we call if and whether complementizers because they introduce a complement. (2) If is also used to introduce a hypo- thetical clause (If I found a wallet, I’d turn it in to the police) or a counterfactual clause (If I had a million dollars (= but I don’t), I’d buy a yacht). In this case (but not in (1), above), the verb be very often takes the form were, even where the form was (which is usually possible as well) might be expected: If I were/was rich, I’d buy a yacht. If she were/was rich, she’d buy a yacht. In this case, if is not a complementizer since it does not serve to introduce a complement. In this sentence from the Guardian, the writer has used the form were as though if were introducing a hypothetical or counterfactual clause. In fact, the if here is a complementizer. It can be replaced by whether and is not normally fol- lowed by the form were. Although examples of this kind are common enough, they are not usually considered correct in standard English."
October 4, 2017
Doesn't always take my favourite approach to definitions and division in paragraphs but it's a good grammar that makes excellent use of examples.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews