What's the most complete English grammar available?

[Kraut]

Ronald Carter and Michael McCarthy Cambridge University Press 2006
Cambridge Grammar of English

https://www.ihes.com/bcn/tt/articles/ca ... ammar.html

Here is another one, about 1000 pages, with a focus on British English.
And a review. There are some remarks at Amazon about an index that is not too helpful.

[Zegpoddle]

By complete I mean having everything on grammar that an English speaker needs to know.

Ask native speakers of English to explain the difference between "I drink coffee" and "I am drinking coffee," and most of them will be unable to do it. (If you don't believe me, try it. What any student of English can do after about four weeks of classes is beyond the capability of most native speakers.) Yet native speakers are perfectly competent users of their first language and excellent judges of whether a phrase or sentence is grammatical or not (though they usually won't be able to explain why).

So the question of how much grammar "an English speaker needs to know" is easy to answer: almost zero declarative knowledge (the ability to describe patterns and "rules"), but huge amounts of procedural knowledge (the ability to produce a string of words that fellow native speakers will judge as grammatically acceptable) that is mostly below the level of awareness. Native speakers certainly aren't walking around with the contents of a 700-page reference grammar committed to memory, nor did they need to study one before becoming able to produce the language with almost 100% grammatical accuracy. (I don't remember working my way through any gigantic tomes of grammar before I started producing the language relatively fluently at the age of two. Did you?)

Non-native speakers tend to mistakenly assume that native speakers know much more about the language they use every day than is really the case. Becoming a language teacher is the quickest way to disabuse yourself of this notion. It wasn't until I started teaching English as a second/additional language that I acquired the ability to describe even the most basic patterns of usage. (I hesitate to call them "grammar rules" because the language came before the rules did, not the other way around. Rules are just descriptions of the patterns that native speakers follow when they speak and write.) I do remember years and years of grammar lessons in school, but they were no more effective than the years of foreign language lessons I sat through as a teenager: in one ear and out the other. I was a good reader and writer from a young age, but I think that came from reading and writing a lot, not from grammar lessons in school. The only thing the grammar lessons instilled was the ability to apply terminology such as "subject-verb agreement" to a feature of the language that I already knew how to use intuitively.

I'm not trying to discourage your curiosity about the intricacies of English syntax. I'm only taking aim at the harmful and counterproductive misconception that "Once I have read 700 pages describing the grammar of X language, I will be able to speak and write in X as error-free as a native speaker can." Language-learning doesn't work like that, and extensive reference grammars are not designed to serve that purpose. The best way to approximate a more native-like usage of a language is to use it a lot over years and years, being as observant as you can and noticing how native speakers use (and don't use) different features...but don't ask them to explain why, unless you're prepared to get the less-than-helpful answer, "I don't know...that's just how we say it!" Maybe that is the point at which you might want to consult the heavy tome on the shelf: to get a more focused answer, from professional linguists, to the question of why people say it like that.

That's all a grammar book can ever be, no matter how huge and detailed. It's just a description of patterns. People say it this way, but not that way. Here is the unspoken, unconscious rule that they seem to be following that determines that verbal behavior. The rule is just a theoretical construct. You can't see or touch a rule. You won't find one if you open a native speaker's brain. It's just a pattern of behavior. We don't even know all of them. Linguists are discovering new ones all the time. There may be no end to the process. That's the bad news: you could never write or buy a book that comprehensively describes all of the patterns. The good news is that you don't need to in order to learn to speak or write a language to a high degree of accuracy.

[Which degree of accuracy you need is another question altogether. Nonnative speakers tend to overestimate that, too. ]

[Cavesa]

...

No s..t Sherlock!
You've said nothing new or useful in that long post.

The OP is not a native speaker and therefore is completely right to look for a solid resource on the grammar. The natives use the grammar without being able to describe it, but that has nothing to do with the learner. The learner profits from the explanations and rules and transforms them into the normal use of the grammar in normal speech and writing.

Native speakers certainly aren't walking around with the contents of a 700-page reference grammar committed to memory, nor did they need to study one before becoming able to produce the language with almost 100% grammatical accuracy.

No, but they are walking around with the ability to USE the content of the reference grammar with almost 100% accuracy. In order to get the same competence, the learners usually need to work their way through that reference grammar first. That is the whole point.

Children learning their native language and the adult second language learners are completely different. In everything. So, all those "grammar books are not useful, because children don't use them" arguments are totally stupid and based purely on ignorance.

I'm not trying to discourage your curiosity about the intricacies of English syntax. I'm only taking aim at the harmful and counterproductive misconception that "Once I have read 700 pages describing the grammar of X language, I will be able to speak and write in X as error-free as a native speaker can." Language-learning doesn't work like that, and extensive reference grammars are not designed to serve that purpose. The best way to approximate a more native-like usage of a language is to use it a lot over years and years, being as observant as you can and noticing how native speakers use (and don't use) different features...but don't ask them to explain why, unless you're prepared to get the less-than-helpful answer, "I don't know...that's just how we say it!" Maybe that is the point at which you might want to consult the heavy tome on the shelf: to get a more focused answer, from professional linguists, to the question of why people say it like that.

But the OP doesn't suffer from that misconception!!! Stop fighting these strawmen

The OP has said nothing like this and very clearly doesn't believe in the grammar book (and only reading it) teaching them to use everything. And as you may have noticed, they have already reached a solid level in English and very clearly consume content in English and do all the other important stuff. They are looking for a tool to deepen their knowledge.

And they are obviously going to use the book to not have to ask the natives, and to get high quality information. Are you gonna recommend them to breath in and out, and to wash their hands before meals?

[Zegpoddle]

No s..t Sherlock!
You've said nothing new or useful in that long post.

Sorry to have offended forum members to the point of obscenities by saying nothing new or useful.

So, all those "grammar books are not useful, because children don't use them" arguments are totally stupid and based purely on ignorance.

Actually, that's not my position at all and never has been (speaking of straw men).

Are you gonna recommend them to breath in and out, and to wash their hands before meals?

EDIT: Removed my childish threat to take my marbles and leave. The best response to ridicule is to ignore it.

[aaleks]

I regret that my posts weren't more helpful. I don't know how to give the little hearts back.

One of the two hearts given to your post above is from me and I don't want it back. I have found that post of yours being very helpful for me. Thank you.

[aravinda]

No, I'm going to leave a forum where people can't maintain a civil tone and disagree at the same time. So long, folks! I regret that my posts weren't more helpful. I don't know how to give the little hearts back.

Actually, I found your post insightful despite already being familiar with the ideas you expressed. And I'm sure many other members will appreciate it as well. Also, I remember I enjoyed reading some of your previous posts too.
Posts here rarely bring up anything entirely new unless you're quite new to language learning. Without meaning to be disrespectful to anyone, it is usually just rehashing old ideas, recommending personal favourites and repeating the same arguments (apparently without anyone budging an inch either way) and language-related small talk. That's all fine and this forum is overall a nice place to be and could be useful in many ways. For example, posts like yours could help (newer) members to see things in a different light and might have a positive influence.
By the way, reference grammars are for reference by advanced learners, native speakers (mainly for writing conventions) and language professionals*. They have very little role to play in language learning.
And I earnestly hope you wouldn't leave the forum.
* And for nerds and hoarders (like me).

[Kraut]

"Grammar" is physiologically built into the brain. Friederici talks about "Chinese", "English" etc brains. As a foreign leaner you are not exposed day in day out to native input. Therefore you have to take the short cut via grammar study.

http://gocognitive.net/interviews/langu ... -less-more

According to Dr. Friederici, focusing on syntax and the grammatical rules of a language is more efficient than learning vocabulary. In this case, a simple set of a few nouns, verbs, and adjectives can help the learner to understand the syntactical rules of the language before branching out into more complex semantic contexts.

https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 14&t=10210

Pupils at my old school have this grammar book from year 9
https://www.amazon.de/English-Grammatik ... 3464003728
This French grammar from year 11
https://www.amazon.de/Oberstufengrammat ... 3125209323

[Cavesa]

No, I'm going to leave a forum where people can't maintain a civil tone and disagree at the same time. So long, folks! I regret that my posts weren't more helpful. I don't know how to give the little hearts back.

The main problem I see in your post is not that it doesn't bring anything new, that would be ok. It is the patronising attitude, where you just started to explain absolutely obvious stuff not relevant to the question of the OP at all. You treated an experienced and advanced English learner and their completely valid question as if they were a monolingual beginner and started explaining why their idea was bad. Yes, you admited in the end that a grammar book has some uses for an advanced learner and started lecturing on it, but these uses were exactly the point right from the beginning.

It's not primarily about your post bringing nothing new, it is absolutely normal and ok around here to repeat stuff a lot. It was your attitude towards the OP and the whole discussion in this thread, and also the level of ignorance with which you proceeded. Including fighting some strawmen there.

Forum Rules wrote:
"Some people enjoy flaming, personal attacks, starting trouble, and fighting online. But many people dislike these things greatly, and they will leave the forum rather than put up with that kind of atmosphere."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I was not personally attacking you, I was commenting on your post and your attitude in it. Learn the difference. Your post was patronising, condescending, arrogant, and showing clear lack of any relevant experience in the area (the subject of the thread was: "grammar resources for advanced English learners", not "are grammar books in general useful to beginners?" or "grammar and native speakers vs. learners")and obviously trying to get the discussion from the original and intended direction to an obviously unhelpful one just to draw attention to yourself.

Yes, the "obscene" word was used, but as a part of phrase used on the internet. Sure, "Thanks, Captain Obvious" may have been better and perhaps even more precise
But the ending with other unnecessary advice examples was just pointing out the absurdity of your chosen attitude.

[aaleks]

I am (hope) an advanced English learner but I am not an advanced, meaning experienced, language learner -- maybe that why I don't see anything offensive in Zegpoddle's post? But honestly I don't get what in the whole post might provoke such a fierce reaction. For me reading that post at that time was especially important because around that time I myself was personally attacked in another place by a very similar reason -- I dared to bring my own language learning experience as an example in my post. And that was about grammar too. Or even grammar vs native speakers. Etc. What I really don't get -- why can't pro-grammar learners/teachers stand when someone dares to have a slightly different opinion? Slightly different, not really opposite. Why I don't take offence and start acting out just because someone has posted in 100500 time that "first you need to learn grammar"? I see this advice everywhere, and it doesn't matter what question the person's asking this thought will hammered, or drilled haha , in their head. Sometimes I want to read something if not new but different. For a change. Something that matches my own experience, and I cannot learn grammar first -- in my case it's almost pointless. It's not effective. It's a waste of my time. Reading once again that it is the only right way to learn a language makes me feel inferior, feel that I'm doing it wrong. Who cares, right?
I was happy to read Zegpoddle's post because it reflected my thoughts, my experience. It made me feel better about my approach to language-learning.
IMO, Cavesa's posts in this thread are way more* arrogant and offensive for no good reason.
Sorry.

*as I've said I don't see anything arrogant or offensive in Zegpoddle's post but who I am to judge?

[Fantsuworkshard]

No s..t Sherlock!
You've said nothing new or useful in that long post.

Sorry to have offended forum members to the point of obscenities by saying nothing new or useful.

So, all those "grammar books are not useful, because children don't use them" arguments are totally stupid and based purely on ignorance.

Actually, that's not my position at all and never has been (speaking of straw men).

Are you gonna recommend them to breath in and out, and to wash their hands before meals?

EDIT: Removed my childish threat to take my marbles and leave. The best response to ridicule is to ignore it.

I'm sorry for the incident, Zeg. I really appreciated your comment. It was insightful and I saw no problem in it. Cavesa telling what I wanted and didn't want gave the impression we were of the same opinion, but as you can tell now, we were not. Hope you stay on the forum too and forgive your fellow language learner