Peer Report by European Journal of English Language Teaching

 

Re: ARTICLE SUBMISSION: European Journal of English Language Teaching 10/10/2025 6:59 AM

 

Reviewer: YT85:85 October 30, 2025 A. Reviewer’s Report

The article “English Grammar Reimagined: A Scientific Theory of Verbal Nouns and Key Predicate Words” presents a radical reinterpretation of English grammar by proposing that English does not, in fact, have verbs in the traditional sense. Instead, what are conventionally regarded as verbs are redefined as “verbal nouns.” The author argues that action in English is expressed through these verbal nouns, while the true structural and logical core of a sentence lies in the “key predicate word,” a category that replaces what traditional grammarians would identify as finite verbs or auxiliaries. This theory claims to offer a more scientific, law based understanding of English syntax, contrasting with what the author describes as the vague or “mysterious” explanations found in conventional grammar.

The abstract clearly articulates the author’s main contention: English predicates are formed through combinations of verbal nouns and specific auxiliary elements—identified as “am, is, was, are, were, does, do, and did”—which serve as the “real key predicate words.” Imaginary or modal auxiliaries such as “will,” “would,” or “may” are reinterpreted as “imaginary key predicate words.” The author’s emphasis on the scientific nature of this classification suggests a desire to ground grammar in what appears to be a system of logical relationships rather than the descriptive traditions of linguistics. However, this notion of “scientific grammar” seems more philosophical than empirical, relying heavily on logical deduction rather than linguistic data or corpus evidence.

In the introduction, the author criticizes mainstream grammar for maintaining the verb as the central element of a sentence and for introducing what is called an unnecessarily “complex definition” of the verb. The article claims that the mainstream framework, by failing to differentiate properly between “verbal nouns” and “verbs,” leads to confusion among learners and teachers. The proposed model rejects the very existence of verbs, as well as the concept of supporting or auxiliary verbs. This claim directly contradicts centuries of grammatical theory from Latin-based traditions through modern linguistics, which consistently recognize the verb as a fundamental part of speech. The author’s decision to discard this core category and replace it with “key predicate words” is strikingly unconventional and seems to depend on a redefinition of basic grammatical concepts rather than on new linguistic evidence.

The author’s argument about the structure of sentences—particularly the “inviolable law” that a simple sentence can express only one action and thus contain only one key predicate word—bears some resemblance to early 20th-century structuralist approaches, which sought to identify essential components of a sentence based on function rather than form. Yet, the classification of “am, is, was, are, were, does, do, and did” as the only real key predicate words is inconsistent with the distributional evidence of English syntax. Modern linguistic research (e.g., Huddleston & Pullum, 2002; Quirk et al., 1985) demonstrates that English verbs are inflected for tense and aspect and can themselves serve as predicates without auxiliary support, contrary to the author’s claim that “come” in “Peter comes” contains “does” within it.

The author’s reliance on the idea that “comes” equals “does + come” or that “came” equals “did + come” recalls older pedagogical traditions of grammar analysis used in early modern English instruction, where such decompositions were used to teach tense formation. However, modern descriptive linguistics abandoned this view because it does not correspond to the morphological reality of the English verb system. The forms “comes” and “came” are not compound expressions but single lexical items carrying tense and agreement morphology. Therefore, the author’s assertion that mainstream grammar ignores this “essential clue” is not entirely accurate. Linguists have long analyzed these forms as morphological rather than syntactic phenomena.

Despite these conceptual divergences, the article’s conclusion presents an interesting self-awareness. The author acknowledges that many of the newly coined terms emerged organically from classroom discussions with postgraduate students, suggesting that the work was pedagogically motivated rather than purely theoretical. The description of the learning environment and the spontaneous development of terminology highlight a genuine commitment to improving clarity in grammar teaching. In this sense, even though the theory challenges established frameworks, it may still hold value as a didactic tool designed to make certain abstract grammatical relationships more intuitive for learners.

When compared to established linguistic theories, however, the article’s conclusions stand in clear disagreement with previous research. For example, according to Jespersen (1924) in “The Philosophy of Grammar”, the verb is the nucleus of predication in English, and its inflectional forms cannot be reduced to combinations of auxiliaries and nouns. Similarly, Halliday’s (1994) systemic-functional grammar identifies the verb group as the central carrier of the clause’s experiential and temporal meanings, a position that directly contradicts the claim that verbs do not exist. Even more recent works by cognitive linguists, such as Langacker (2008), maintain that verbal constructions represent conceptual processes distinct from nouns. Therefore, the author’s reclassification of all verbs as “verbal nouns” conflicts with both structural and cognitive models of grammar.

Nonetheless, the article’s merit lies in its creative approach and the boldness with which it seeks to reimagine English grammar. Its insistence on logical consistency, the differentiation between “real” and “imaginary” predicate words, and the law-like structure of sentence formation reflect an analytical curiosity that challenges readers to question inherited grammatical conventions. While the proposed framework lacks empirical grounding and diverges from mainstream linguistic consensus, it introduces a stimulating perspective that might inspire further inquiry into how grammatical concepts are conceptualized and taught.

In conclusion, “English Grammar Reimagined: A Scientific Theory of Verbal Nouns and Key Predicate Words” offers an unconventional and speculative reformulation of English grammar. The author’s conclusions diverge sharply from the findings of major linguists and grammarians, who maintain that verbs are indispensable to sentence structure. Yet, the article’s originality, clarity of argumentation, and pedagogical motivation give it value as a thought-provoking experiment in grammatical theory. It does not align with previous linguistic research, but it contributes to ongoing discussions about how English grammar might be simplified, clarified, or reinterpreted for learners seeking new ways to grasp the logic of language.

B. Conclusion The research work has a good value of conceptual consistency and a very good coverage of the planned topic, a good research design, and clarity of the objectives.

The article is ACCEPTED for publication unconditionally, without the necessity of major content and structure adjustments.