Given that English is unquestionably the most learned and studied language in the world today, there is considerable need for a grammar of the language that is as comprehensive in its scope as possible while also being both portable and affordable to the audience for which it is intended. Until very recently, the only available survey that matched these criteria was that of Quirk et al. (1985). I do not wish to criticize this work: It is relatively easy to use and fairly affordable (increasingly so in its more student-friendly offshoots, such as Quirk and Greenbaum 1974). It is no bad thing to see a likely competitor to its authoritative position, however, primarily because rapid changes at certain levels of both grammar and semantics have rendered some of the examples used in these works rather old-fashioned. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language is, without question, just such a competitor.

Anyone involved in a task of this type must inevitably seek to serve and satisfy a number of audiences. The Grammar must be approachable to nonnative speaking students at a fairly elementary level, but must also be satisfying to scholars and other language professionals. This means that any theoretical basis for grammatical analysis must not be so pervasive as to discourage those who may be using the work largely as a reference source for “correct” usage. Moreover, a grammar of this type must be relatively straightforward to use, containing transparent means of cross-referencing.

At the same time, the diversity of the English-speaking world needs to be addressed. In their groundbreaking work, it could be argued that Quirk et al. (1985) were not entirely willing to carry this out, even if their introduction contains a discussion on just such variation. Naturally, it would be unrealistic to expect such an exemplification of diversity not to foreground both British and American usage, since these usages both account for a large part of the speakers of English in the world today and are the varieties that are most often taught to nonnative learners. It would be unjust (and also potentially confusing), however, if some cognizance of other major variants of Standard English were not taken. Given that so 360 Reviews few English speakers actually speak Standard English exclusively, some reference to colloquial and dialectal variation is also, arguably, necessary, even if, as might be argued, discussions of this type should not be allowed to disrupt comprehension for those who are learning the language.

This is a difficult set of tasks to accomplish. How well, therefore, does The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language perform according to these criteria? In the first place, the grammar is highly useable for a range of audiences. It is relatively straightforward to work around, with a considerable degree of cross-referencing. With this in mind, it might have been easier if chapters could have been marked as such at the edge of the book, as is the case with a range of reference books; it may be that the length of the work, and the implications for cost that such provision might have produced, could have counted against this, however. Its division into chapters is logical and fairly transparent for an informed layperson.

It probably would not be the first point of reference for a learner of the language; nor is it intended to be, however. It would be very useful to advanced learners, nonetheless, particularly since its wide use of examples would extend such a user's knowledge of idiomatic Standard English in much the same way that the excellent COBUILD series of dictionaries and grammars does. This is particularly the case with the chapter on punctuation. It would be of immediate use to native-speaking students of English language; it is highly recommended to all university and college libraries.

There is a theoretical basis to the Grammar. This is particularly noticeable in the treatment of the verb. But there are no occasions where this treatment would not be acceptable to scholars from a wide range of theoretical perspectives. It certainly feels more “modern” than does Quirk et al. 1985.

As has already been touched upon, the employment of examples is one of the most useful elements in the Grammar. These derive from a wide range of resources excerpted from a variety of genres. Although American and British (specifically, English) examples predominate, it is refreshing to see Australian examples in particular being given some prominence, as might be expected, since Huddleston lives and works there. Unlike many grammars, a strong sense of the variation inherent in Standard English is present, adding to its sense of vitality. It might have been preferable if more space had been given to the variation inherent in British varieties of Standard English and in particular the Scottish variety thereof, although this may be a personal gripe derived from being informed by computer grammar checkers that structures that, to me, are perfectly “standard,” are flagged as “incorrect.” There is little reference to nonstandard usage. This may be inevitable, given the complications the inclusion of such material would undoubtedly engender; nevertheless, the loss of material that might illustrate the differences between national and regional varieties of the language, whether standard or not, particularly, perhaps, for learners of the language, is regrettable. The use of examples derived from more casual, often spoken, registers is nevertheless to be welcomed, particularly in the context of second language acquisition.

One of the most striking features of the Grammar is that, while Pullum and Huddleston assume full editorial authority for the work, many of the chapters have been written in consultation with other scholars who are specialists in a given field. This might, of course, have resulted in a patchy work; it does not, however, in this case. Indeed, it could be argued that this combination of “voices” is an aspect of particular strength for the book as a whole.

There can be little doubt that the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language is a work of considerable importance that should become a standard reference work for the language. It is to be hoped that it will be disseminated widely.