3

I came across sentences similar to the following in a cricket commentary.

  • He is a superb timer of the ball, is Cook.
  • He is a great ambassador of the game, is Tendulkar.

Are these sentences grammatically correct or do they belong only to informal English? Is it stylish to use the pronoun before introducing the noun? Is the usage archaic or poetic?

Bravo
  • 16,067

2 Answers2

13

Words that occur at the end of a clause in this way in speech are known as tails. Their function is to reinforce what is being said.

They are the opposite of heads, which occur at the beginning of a clause in speech to help the listener to prepare for what is coming next. Using your first sentence, an example would be ‘Cook, he’s a superb timer of the ball.’

These devices are not normally found in written English, but they are frequent in informal speech.

Barrie England
  • 140,205
  • 4
    Is that construct a UK thing? I don't recall ever hearing it in the US. – Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight Apr 11 '13 at 13:05
  • 3
    to my mind they sound particularly Yorkshire? but that might be me guessing who said this. – jk. Apr 11 '13 at 13:46
  • @ jk. Inversion is incidental to the concept of tails, but it may well be a regional variant of ‘He is a superb timer of the ball, Cook is.’ – Barrie England Apr 11 '13 at 14:17
  • @Dan Neely. Is it just the inversion that you haven’t heard in the US, or do you mean that you haven’t heard words placed at the end of the clauses in this way at all? – Barrie England Apr 11 '13 at 14:18
  • 2
    I agree with @DanNeely this is not common to speech in the US. I would actually say that this is more common in written language then in informal speech. Even your example of a head sounds slightly off. If I were to say something in that way, I would construct it as: 'That Cook, man is he one superb ball timer'. That is much closer to how it would be used in informal speech in the US. – Ryan Apr 11 '13 at 15:40
  • @ryan. Sorry. Problems of discussing this sort of thing in comments. What I mean is, yes,it's just as much a 'head' as my example. Other constructions within the utterance are incidental. I'm sure 'tails' must exist in American English as well. For example, 'He's really great, that guy.' If so, it does seems as if it's the inversion that is uncommon in American English. – Barrie England Apr 11 '13 at 16:37
  • @BarrieEngland I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, but I found all of the tail examples in your answer (linked to in the question comments) jarring to the point that in isolation my first reaction would probably be "bad translation?"; while they seemed a bit odd I didn't a strong negative reaction to the inversion examples I saw when looking the term up in Wikipedia. – Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight Apr 11 '13 at 19:12
6

There are two different constructions merged in this example. Shifting the subject of the sentence to the right is perfectly normal both in speech and in writing, putting more emphasis on the description than the usual, and dull, Tendulkar is a great ambassador for the game.

The redundant is, on the other hand, is strictly incorrect but not uncommon in spoken English. It may be to improve the rhythm: it may be that the speaker is momentarily confused between the two (equally acceptable) choices He's a great ambassador, Tendulkar or A great ambassador for the game, is Tendulkar; it may be simple inattention, as in The thing is, is that...

Bear in mind also that cricket commentators have to hold the audience's attention for several hours discussing a single game, so are usually accorded some latitude both in use of language and in relevance of topic (Test Match Special had a famously long-running discussion on cake, between balls, overs, or even sessions).

Tim Lymington
  • 35,168
  • It's not incorrect; it's just a variety of Right Dislocation (He's a great player, Tendulkar) that dislocates is along with the NP, producing an emphatic tag statement (note reversed order). – John Lawler Apr 11 '13 at 15:48
  • @JohnLawler: I thought that was what I said. Using the same main verb twice, however, cannot be strictly correct however common it is in spoken dialect. – Tim Lymington Apr 11 '13 at 17:56
  • 1
    That is not entirely true, is it? (P.S. All forms of be are always treated as auxiliaries, even when it's the only verb in the sentence. See Syntax Topics) – John Lawler Apr 11 '13 at 18:14
  • @John Lawler: According to the AHD, 'treat as' implies 'regard as' : (2) To regard and handle in a certain way. I certainly don't regard main verb be as an auxiliary. At http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/box-modals.html is: Be (auxiliary and main verb)

    Main verb be differs from main verb have and main verb do in behaving exactly like auxiliary be. In other words, main verb be is the only main verb in modern English that moves from V to I.

     – Edwin Ashworth Apr 12 '13 at 09:03
  • I.e, all forms of be are always treated as auxiliaries. So there's no point in calling it a main verb and then making an exception out of it. Be has been totally bleached of any meaning and is simply a part of the grammar. – John Lawler Apr 12 '13 at 14:18
  • I'll prefer Eli Hinkel's take here: Be, Have, and Do as Main Verbs "Several verbs, such as be, have, and do, have a variety of syntactic and lexical functions: They can be main or auxiliary verbs.

    (Eli Hinkel, Teaching Academic ESL Writing: Practical Techniques in Vocabulary and Grammar. Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004) The functions of auxiliaries are very different from that of delexical verbs (He had bathed vs he had a bath). Also, existential be is arguably semantically weighted.

     – Edwin Ashworth Apr 12 '13 at 15:08