Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T05:22:04.236Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Two rules are at play when it comes to none’: A corpus-based analysis of singular versus plural none

Most grammar books say that the number of the indefinite pronoun none depends on formality level; corpus findings show otherwise

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2018

Sugene Kim
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper identifies discrepancies between prescriptive grammar rules concerning the number of the indefinite pronoun none and the actual use of this pronoun in modern academic English as shown in the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE) and Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Whereas prescriptive rules state that the number of none is determined by its referent or by the user's desired effect, the analyses of the MICASE and MICUSP search results suggest that, regardless of the modality of discourse, (1) the number of none with an anaphoric referent is determined by the number of its referent and (2) the principle of proximity applies without exception when none is used as part of a ‘none of + singular noun/pronoun’ phrase and applies frequently but not always when followed by an ‘of + plural noun/pronoun’ phrase.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Today , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 50 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Heritage Book of English Usage. 1996. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th edn. 2011. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Azar, B. & Hagen, S. A. 2009. Understanding and Using English Grammar, 4th edn. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Leech, G. 2002. Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Cook, C. K. 1985. Line by Line: How to Edit Your Own Writing. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, E. & Murphy, D. 1967. Speed Grammar: The New Functional Method for Clear Writing. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
Einsohn, A. 2006. The Copyeditor's Handbook. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
English Plus +. 2008. ‘And then there were none?’ Online at <http://www.englishplus.com/news/news1008.htm> (Accessed February 1, 2017).+(Accessed+February+1,+2017).>Google Scholar
Hairston, M., Ruszkiewicz, J. & Friend, C. 1999. The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Kolln, M. 1986. Understanding English Grammar, 2nd edn. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage. 1994. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.Google Scholar
Murphy, R. 2015. English Grammar in Use, 4th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary, 4th edn. 2006. New York: New American Library.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. 2003. ‘Grammar.’ In Nunan, D. (ed.), Practical English Language Teaching. New York: McGraw Hill, pp. 153‒172.Google Scholar
OxfordDictionaries.com. n.d. ‘None.’ Online at <https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/none> (Accessed February 5, 2017).+(Accessed+February+5,+2017).>Google Scholar
Oxford Learner's Dictionary of Academic English. 2014. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Penguin Concise English Dictionary. 2004. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, 2nd edn. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Römer, U. & Wulff, S. 2010. ‘Applying corpus methods to written academic texts: Explorations of MICUSP.’ Journal of Writing Research, 2(2), 99‒127.Google Scholar
Schutt, W. E. 1949. Effective Written English. New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Simpson, R. C., Briggs, S. L., Ovens, J. & Swales, J. M. 2002. The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Stilman, A. 1997. Grammatically Correct: The Writer's Essential Guide to Punctuation, Spelling, Style, Usage and Grammar. Cincinnati, OH: Writer's Digest Books.Google Scholar