the-oxford-dictionary-of-english-grammar-oxford-quick-reference-2nd_edition ( PDFDrive )

word 440 Wishing is sometimes singled out in grammatical description because the *verb of a *subordinate clause after an expression of wishing must be in the *past (2) tense, and as such is used to express *modal remoteness, e.g. I wish I knew/had known what to say If only I knew/had known Such expressions when referring to *present (1) or *past (1) time denote what is contrary to fact; for example, I wish I knew/had known implies I don’t/didn’t know. With reference to the *future (1), wishing implies some- thing that may be unlikely, but is not necessarily impossible. For example: I wish you would come tomorrow does not rule out your coming, though my remark is more diffident than I hope you come/will come tomorrow. See past (2); subjunctive. word 1. A meaningful unit of speech which is normally not interruptable, and which, when written or printed, has spaces on either side (also called orthographic word). Native speakers intuitively recognize words as distinct meaningful grammatical units of language. It is words whose meanings and very existence are catalogued in dictionaries, and which combine to form larger units such as *phrases, *clauses, and *sentences. Grammarians recognize smaller meaningful units in the grammatical hierarchy, such as *morphemes, but words have distinct characteristics. As has been noted, they are normally uninterruptable, and they are cohesive in the sense that their parts cannot be rearranged in the way that words in a sentence often can. Contrast unhappiness (in which no reor- dering is possible; e.g. *nesshappiun) with This sentence can be rearranged, which can be changed to Can this sentence be rearranged? Another characteristic of words, which would probably seem obvious to native speakers, is enshrined in Bloomfield’s definition of them as ‘minimal free forms’, i.e. the smallest units that can reasonably constitute a complete utterance, as in Do you accept? Yes/Maybe/Naturally w However, some words fail this test, e.g. a/an and the. The characteristic of being ‘complete in itself’ is supported by the writing convention that separates one word from another, but there are problems with this. Opinions vary as to whether certain *compounds are in fact one word or two (e.g. half way, half-way, halfway), and whether such forms as don’t and I’ll are single words or not.

441 word form w 2. A word, as listed in a dictionary, together with all its variants. Distinguished from sense (1) as *lexeme. Also called dictionary word. Although this is a more abstract sense of the notion word, it is a common meaning; thus e.g. see, sees, seeing, saw, seen are all part of the same ‘word’ see.  grammatical word: see grammatical word. word blend See blend. word class A category of *words that syntactically *distribute in the same way, and predominantly share the same *morphosyntactic characteristics. The classification of words into word classes (sometimes called form classes) is much the same as the more traditional classification of words into parts of speech, but the former favours more rigorous *distributional definitions and disfavours *notional ones. There is no single correct way of analysing words into word classes. Generally recognized are *nouns, *verbs, *adjectives, *adverbs, *conjunctions (*coordinators and *subordinators), *prepositions, and *interjections. In recent times the set of word classes has expanded to include items such as *complementizer, *determinative (1), and *determiner (2). Grammarians disagree about the boundaries between the word classes (see gradience), and it is not always clear whether to lump subcategories together or to split them. For example, in some grammars (e.g. CaGEL) *pronouns are classed as nouns, whereas in other frameworks (e.g. CGEL) they are treated as a separate word class. In some recent theoretical frameworks, word classes are regarded as *feature complexes (see phrase structure grammar) or as constructions (see *construction grammar). Compare major word class. word complex See word group. word ending See suffix. word form 1. The form that a particular *word can assume in speech or writing. Compare grammatical word (2). 2. Any variant of a *lexeme. (Also called form of a word.) The term is used as a way of avoiding the ambiguity of word. For example, see, sees, seeing, saw, and seen are word forms of (or forms of) the lexeme see.

word formation 442 word formation 1. The subdiscipline of linguistics covered by *morphology, including *inflection, *derivation, and *compounding. 2. (More narrowly.) The formation of *lexemes through *derivation and *compounding (and sometimes *conversion). Also called lexical word formation. In this model, inflection is handled as part of syntax. 3. (More narrowly still.) Derivation only. Word Grammar (WG) A grammatical theory, developed by the British linguist Richard (Dick) Hudson since the 1980s, in which the notion of *dependency is central. It claims that the *word—rather than, say, the *phrase or *clause, or *levels of structure—is the most important element in language. 1990 R. HUDSON a. WG is lexicalist because the word is central—hence the name of the theory. Grammars make no reference to any unit larger than the word (except for the unit ‘word-string’, which as we shall see is used only in coordinate structures and is very different from the ‘phrase’ and ‘clause’ of other theories). b. WG is wholist because no distinction is recognized between the grammar ‘proper’ and the lexicon. The grammar includes facts at all levels of generality, all of which are handled in the same way. 2010 R. HUDSON Word Grammar is a theory of language structure based on the assumption that language, and indeed the whole of knowledge, is a network, and that virtually all of knowledge is learned. It combines the psychological insights of cognitive linguistics with the rigour of more formal theories. word group (In *Systemic Grammar.) A *head (1) together with other words that may complement or modify it. Also called word complex. Word groups occupy a special place in Systemic Grammar, because a *group (1) is syntactically defined as the expansion of a head, and is distinguished from a *phrase (2), which is viewed as a reduced *clause. Word groups therefore have a distinct *rank (2) in this kind of grammar. The groups recognized are *nominal group, *verb(al) group, and *adverbial group (corresponding to *noun phrase, *verb phrase, and w *adverb phrase in other models), plus *conjunction group (e.g. even if, if only) and *preposition group (e.g. right behind, in front of ). The latter is distinguished from *prepositional phrase. 2014 M. A. K. HALLIDAY & C. MATTHIESSEN A phrase is different from a group in that, whereas a group is an expansion of a word, a phrase is a contraction of a clause. Starting from opposite ends, the two achieve roughly

443 would have-condition the same status on a rank scale, as units that lie somewhere between the rank of a clause and that of a word. word order The order in which *words (more precisely, *constituents; see below) are arranged in *sentences and *clauses. In *inflected (varieties of) languages, such as *Old English or Latin, word order may be comparatively free, because the function of a word (or *phrase) is often indicated by an *inflectional form. Modern English, having few inflections, has a much more fixed word order. The basic (*unmarked) order of the main clause *elements in English is SVO (subject–verb–object). In grammatical models in which words are grouped into phrases, clauses, etc., it is more accurate to speak of constituent order. Compare adjective order; information structure. would condition See conditional. would have-condition See conditional. w

X X-bar syntax A model of *syntax, introduced by the American linguist Noam Chomsky into *Generative Grammar (2), that treats all *phrases as having the same skeletal hierarchical structure, as shown in the following *tree diagram: XP (specifier) XЈ (adjunct) XЈ X/head (complement) XP stands for a *phrase headed by X (the obligatory *head), where X stands for *N(oun), *V(erb), *A(djective), or *P(reposition), and sometimes *Adv(erb). In this representation X0 (read ‘X bar’) is called a bar level category, i.e. a category that is intermediate between XP and X. Optional *adjuncts are linked by *adjunction to the left of the lower X0 in the tree above (e.g. [V0 quickly [V0 opened the door]), but they can also be adjoined to the right ([V0 [V0 opened the door] quickly]). The adjunct and the lower X0 are sisters (i.e. they share the same *node immediately above them). The *specifier position is occupied by various kinds of elements in different phrases, for example by *determinatives (1) in *noun phrases (e.g. these lectures), intensifying adverbs in *adjective phrases (e.g. very kind), etc. *Complements, if present, are sisters of the head X. The various levels inside phrases are regarded as *projections of the head.

Y yes-no interrogative/question See interrogative; question.

Z Z element See element. zero An abstraction, often symbolized by ‘ø’, representing the absence of any *realization, where there could theoretically be, or in comparable grammatical contexts there is, a morphological or syntactic realization. The concept of zero is used as a way of making *rules more comprehensive and consistent than they would otherwise be. It is not generally used in relation to *elliptical structures, where the symbol [∧] is sometimes preferred.  zero allomorph: see allomorph.  zero anaphor: see anaphor.  zero article: a unit posited before an *uncountable *noun or a *plural *count noun when either is used with an *indefinite meaning, e.g. ø food, ø vegetables.  zero genitive: the realization of the *genitive *inflection without an additional s in *words that already end in -s. This is the usual genitive with regular plural nouns, as in the athletes' achievements, where the form is identical in pronunciation with the ordinary plural form (athletes), and differs only in having an *apostrophe added to the written form. The zero genitive also occurs with some *singular words, particularly foreign names ending in /z/, e.g. Aristophanes' plays. By contrast, *irregular plurals not ending in -s show a contrast of form between the plural *common *case (e.g. men) and the plural genitive (e.g. the men's achievement), just like their singular forms (e.g. common case man; genitive man's).  zero-place predicate: see predicate.  zero plural: a plural form of a count noun that is not distinct from the singular. Some count nouns have no distinct plural form (e.g. sheep, cod, deer). Other nouns for animals can have zero plurals or *regular plurals (e.g. fish/fishes, pheasant/pheasants).  zero relative pronoun: a phonetically unrealized *relative pronoun in a relative clause, e.g. The books ø I bought yesterday The girl ø I was talking to Such relative clauses are called *contact clauses.

447 zeugma  zero that-clause: a *clause which could be introduced by that, but from which it is absent, e.g. He said Ø he was sorry (= that he was sorry) The use of zero in synchronic linguistics was introduced in Bloomfield (1926). zeugma See syllepsis. z

References Aarts, B. (2007). Syntactic gradience: the grammar of spoken and written English. nature of grammatical indeterminacy. London and New York: Longman. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bloomfield, L. (1926). ‘A set of postulates for the science of language’ in Hockett, Aarts, B. (2011). Oxford Modern English C. F., ed. Leonard Bloomfield anthology grammar. Oxford: Oxford University (1970), 128–138. Bloomington: Indiana Press. University Press. Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New Aarts, F. (1986). ‘English grammars and the York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Dutch contribution: 1891–1985’ in Leit- ner, G. The English reference grammar: Bolinger, D. (1971). The phrasal verb in language and linguistics, writers and English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni- readers, 363–386. Tübingen: Max versity Press. Niemeyer. Bolton, W. F. (1975). The English language. Adams, V. (1988). An introduction to Mod- Sphere History of Literature in the En- ern English word-formation. London: glish Language, volume 10. London: Longman. Sphere Books. Adams, V. (2001). Complex words in En- Brinsley, J. (1612). The posing of the parts. glish. Harlow: Pearson Longman. London: Thomas Man. Aitchison, J. (2012). Words in the mind Brown, E. K. & Miller, J. E. (1980). Syntax: a (edn. 4). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. linguistic introduction to sentence struc- ture. London: Hutchinson. Algeo, J. (1990). ‘It’s a myth, innit? Polite- ness and the English tag question’ in Carter, R. & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cam- Ricks, C. & Michaels, L. The state of the bridge grammar of English. Cambridge: language, 443–450. Berkeley and Los Cambridge University Press. Angeles: University of California Press. Cassidy, F. G. (1961). Jamaica talk: three Austin, J. L. (1955). Lectures published in: hundred years of the English language in How to do things with words (1962). Ox- Jamaica. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- ford: Oxford University Press. versity Press. Baker, M. (2003). Lexical categories: verbs, Catford, J. C. (1959). ‘The teaching of En- nouns and adjectives. Cambridge: Cam- glish as a foreign language’ in Quirk, R. & bridge University Press. Smith, A. H., eds. The teaching of English, 164–189. London: Secker and Warburg. Baskin, W. (1959). Translation of F. de Saussure’s Course in general linguistics. Chalker, S. (1984). Current English gram- New York: The Philosophical Library, mar. London and Basingstoke: Inc. Macmillan. Bennett, D. C. (1975). Spatial and temporal Chalker, S. (1995). Little Oxford dictionary uses of English prepositions: an essay in of English grammar. Oxford: Oxford stratificational semantics. London: University Press. Longman. Chomsky, N. (1955a). The logical structure Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Leech, G. (2002). of linguistic theory (microfilm, Massa- Longman student grammar of spoken chusetts Institute of Technology). and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education. Chomsky, N. (1955b). Transformational analysis (Ph.D. dissertation, University Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, of Pennsylvania). S. & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman

449 References Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. structure of the clause (edn. 2). Berlin and The Hague: Mouton. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of Dixon, R. M. W. (2005). A semantic ap- syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. proach to English grammar (edn. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of lan- guage: its nature, origin and use. New Downing, P. (1977). ‘On the creation and York: Praeger. use of English compound nouns’ in Language 53: 810–842. Chomsky, N. (1994). ‘Naturalism and du- alism in the study of language and mind’ Durkin, P. (2009). The Oxford guide to ety- in International Journal of Philosophical mology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Studies 2: 181–200. (Reprinted in Chom- sky, N. (2000). New horizons in the study Earle, J. (1873). The philology of the English of language and mind, 75–105. Cam- tongue (edn. 2, revised). Oxford: Claren- bridge: Cambridge University Press.) don Press. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist pro- Elsness, J. (2009). ‘The present perfect and gram. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. the preterite’ in Rohdenburg, G. & Schlüter, J. One language, two gram- Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound mars: differences between British and pattern of English. New York: Harper and American English, 228–245. Cambridge: Row. Cambridge University Press. Collins Cobuild English grammar (1990). Fillmore, C. J. (1968). ‘The case for case’ in London: Collins. Bach, E. & Harms, R. T., eds. Universals in linguistic theory, 1–90. New York: Holt, Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Rinehart and Winston. Cambridge University Press. Firth, J. R. (1935). ‘The technique of Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge: semantics’ (Transactions of the Philolog- Cambridge University Press. ical Society) in Firth, J. R. (1957), Papers in linguistics 1934–1951, 7–33. London: Cristofaro, S. (2003). Subordination. Oxford University Press. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Firth, J. R. (1951). ‘Modes of meaning’ Croft, W. (1990). Typology and universals. (Essays and Studies) in Firth, J. R. (1957), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Papers in linguistics 1934–1951, 190–215. London: Oxford University Press. Crystal, D. (2004). The stories of English. London: Penguin. Fowler, H. W. (1926). Modern English usage. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Curme, G. O. (1931/1935) A grammar of the English language in three volumes Francis, W. N. (1958). The structure of (2 vols.). Boston and London: Heath. American English. New York: Ronald Press Co. Curme, G. O. (1931). Syntax, a grammar of the English language, volume 3. Boston: Fries, C. C. (1940). American English Heath. grammar. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts. Curme, G. O. (1947). English grammar. New York: Barnes and Noble. Fries, C. C. (1952). The structure of English: an introduction to the construction of Decamp, D. (1968). ‘The field of Creole English sentences. New York: Harcourt, language studies’ in Latin American Brace and Company; London: Long- Research Review 3:35–46. mans, Green and Company, 1957. Depraetere, I. & Langford, C. (2012). Ad- Givón, T. (1993). English grammar: a vanced English grammar. London: function-based introduction (2 volumes). Continuum. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. de Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguis- tique générale. Paris: Lausanne. de Saussure, F. (1959). See Baskin (1959). Dik, S. (with Hengeveld, K.) (1997). The theory of functional grammar. Part 1: The

References 450 Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: Huddleston, R. D. (1976). An introduction the nature of generalization in language. to English transformational syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. London: Longman. Greenbaum, S. (1996). Oxford English Huddleston, R. D. (1984). Introduction to grammar. Oxford: Oxford University the grammar of English. Cambridge: Press. Cambridge University Press. Greenbaum, S. (2000) (ed. E. S. C. Weiner). Huddleston, R. D. (1988). English gram- Oxford reference grammar. Oxford: mar: an outline. Cambridge: Cambridge Oxford University Press. University Press. Greenbaum, S. & Quirk, R. (1990). A stu- Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. (2005). A stu- dent’s grammar of the English language. dent’s introduction to English grammar. London: Longman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Greenwood, J. (1711). An essay towards a Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. et al. (2002). practical English grammar. London: The Cambridge grammar of the English Keeble, Lawrence, Bowyer, Bonwick and language. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- Halsey. versity Press. Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to Gov- Hudson, R. A. (1980). Sociolinguistics. ernment and Binding Theory (edn. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford: Blackwell. Hudson, R. A. (1990). English word Haegeman, L. & Guéron, J. (1999). English grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. grammar: a generative perspective. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Hudson, R. A. (2003). ‘Gerunds without phrase structure’ in Natural Language Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction and Linguistic Theory 21. 3: 579–615. to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Hudson, R. A. (2010). An introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). University Press. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Jacobs, R. A. & Rosenbaum, P. S. (1968). Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. (2014). English transformational grammar. An introduction to functional grammar Waltham, MA: Blaisdell Publishing (edn. 4). Abingdon: Routledge. Company. Harris, Z. S. (1951). Methods in structural Jakobson, R. (1973). Main trends in the linguistics. Chicago: University of Chica- science of language. London: Allen and go Press. Unwin. Herbst, T. & Schüller, S. (2008). Introduc- Jespersen, O. (1909–49). A modern English tion to syntactic analysis: a valency grammar on historical principles (7 vol- approach. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. umes). Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard; Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitäts- Hockett, C. F. (1958). A course in modern buchhandlung; London: George Allen linguistics. New York: Macmillan. and Unwin. Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of lexis in text. Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of Oxford: Oxford University Press. grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin. Honey, J. (1989). Does accent matter? London: Faber and Faber. Jespersen, O. (1933a). The system of gram- mar. London: George Allen and Unwin. Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization (edn. 2). Cam- Jespersen, O. (1933b). Essentials of English bridge: Cambridge University Press. grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin. Householder, F. W. (1952). Review of Z. S. Harris, Methods in structural linguistics, Johnson, S. (1755). A dictionary of the in International Journal of Applied English language. London: Longman. Linguistics 18:260–268. Kruisinga, E. (1909–32). A handbook of present-day English (4 volumes).

451 References Utrecht: Kemink en zoon; Groningen: McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis P. Noordhoff. and language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kruisinga, E. & Erades, P. A. (1941). An English grammar. Groningen: McCawley, J. (1998). The syntactic phe- P. Noordhoff. nomena of English (edn. 2). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kuryłowicz, J. (1936). ‘Dérivation lexicale et dérivation sémantique’. Contribution McEnery, T. & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus à la théorie des parties de discours. In linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de University Press. Paris 27:79–92. McMahon, A. (1994). Understanding Labov, W. (1968). The study of nonstandard language change. Cambridge: English (revised edn., 1978). Urbana: Cambridge University Press. National Council of Teachers of English. Malinowski, B. (1923). ‘The problem of Ladusaw, W. A. (1988). ‘Semantic theory’ meaning in primitive languages’ in in Newmeyer, F. J., ed. Linguistics: the Ogden, C. K. & Richards, I. A. The Cambridge survey I. Cambridge: meaning of meaning, 451–510. London: Cambridge University Press. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co. Ltd. Latham, R. G. (1841). The English language (edn. 3). London: Taylor, Walton, and Marsh, G. P. (1860). Lectures on the English Maberley. language. London: John Murray. Leech, G. N. (1966). English in advertising. Matthews, P. H. (1974). Morphology. London: Longmans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leech, G. N. & Svartvik, J. (1975). A com- Matthews, P. H. (1991). Morphology municative grammar of English. London: (edn. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge Longman (3rd edn. 2003). University Press. Leech, G. N., Deuchar, M., & Hoogenraad, Matthews, P. H. (1993). Grammatical the- R. (1982). English grammar for today. ory in the United States from Bloomfield London and Basingstoke: Macmillan to Chomsky. Cambridge: Cambridge Press in conjunction with the English University Press. Association. Matthews, P. H. (2007). Syntactic relations: Linn, A. (2006). ‘English grammar writing’ a critical survey. Cambridge: Cambridge in Aarts, B. & McMahon, A., eds. The University Press. handbook of English linguistics, 72–92. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell. Matthews, P. H. (2014). The concise Oxford dictionary of linguistics (edn. 3). Oxford: Long, R. B. (1961). The sentence and its Oxford University Press. parts: a grammar of contemporary English. Chicago: The University of Meisel, J. M. (2011). First and second Chicago Press. language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge Meyerhoff, M. (2011). Introducing socio- University Press. linguistics (edn. 2). Abingdon: Routledge. Lyons, J. (1970). Chomsky. London: Fontana/Collins. Miller, D. G. (2002). Nonfinite structures in theory and change. Oxford: Oxford Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (2 volumes). University Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Minkova, D. & Stockwell, R. (2009). English Lyons, J. (1991). Chomsky (edn. 3). words: history and structure (edn. 2). London: Fontana. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McArthur, T. (1992) (ed.). The Oxford Mitchell, T. F. (1975). ‘Syntax (and associ- companion to the English language. ated matters)’ in Bolton (1975), 135–213. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

References 452 Morley, G. D. (1985). An introduction to Palmer, H. E. (1924). A grammar of spoken systemic grammar. London and Basing- English, on a strictly phonetic basis. stoke: Macmillan. Cambridge: Heffer. Morris, R. (1872). Historical outlines of Partridge, E. (1947). Usage and abusage English accidence. London: Macmillan. (UK edn.). London: Hamish Hamilton. Mort, S. (1986). Longman Guardian new Payne, J., Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. words. Harlow: Longman. (2010). ‘The distribution and category status of adjectives and adverbs’ in Word Murphy, M. L. (2010). Lexical meaning. Structure 3.1: 31–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Plag, I. (2003). Word-formation in English. Murray, L. (1824). English grammar Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (edn. 38). London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green. Platt, J. T. (1977). ‘The sub-varieties of Singapore English: their sociolectal and New English dictionary (1884–1928). functional status’ in Crewe, W. ed. The (Oxford English dictionary, edn. 1). English language in Singapore. Singa- Oxford: Clarendon Press. pore: Eastern Universities Press. Newmeyer, F. J. (1986). Linguistic theory in Poutsma, H. (1904–29). A grammar of late America (edn. 2). San Diego, Calif.: modern English (5 volumes). Groningen: Academic Press. P. Noordhoff. Nida, E. A. (1948). ‘The analysis of Prince, A. and Smolensky, P. (2004). Opti- grammatical constituents’ in Language mality theory: constraint interaction in 24: 168–177. generative grammar. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Nida, E. A. (1960). A synopsis of English syntax. Norman, OK: Summer Institute Puttenham, G. (1589). The arte of English of Linguistics of the University of poesie (ed. Arber, 1869). London: Oklahoma. Edward Arber. Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of Quirk, R. (1988). Introduction in Green- translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill. baum, S. & Whitcut, J., eds. Longman guide to English usage, iii–xii. Harlow: Nida, E. A. (1969). ‘Science of translation’ Longman. in Language 45: 483–498. Quirk, R. & Greenbaum, S. (1973). A uni- Nikolaeva, I. (2007). ‘Introduction’ in versity grammar of English. London: Nikolaeva, I., ed. Finiteness: theoretical Longman. and empirical foundations, 1–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of con- Noreen, A. (1904). Vårt språk, Nysvensk temporary English. London: Longman. grammatik i utförlig framställing. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive Olsson, Y. (1961). On the syntax of the grammar of the English language. English verb. Gothenburg Studies in London and New York: Longman. English 12. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Robins, R. H. (1953). ‘Formal divisions in Sundanese’ in Transactions of the Philo- Onions, C. T. (1932). An advanced English logical Society, 52 (1): 109–141. syntax (edn. 6). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Robins, R. H. (1964). General linguistics: an introductory survey. London: Longmans. Palmer, F. R. (1975). ‘Language and languages’ in Bolton (1975). Robins, R. H. (1990). A short history of linguistics (edn. 3). London: Longman. Palmer, F. R. (1984). Grammar (new edn.). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Rosch, E. (1978). ‘Principles of categoriza- tion’ in Rosch, E. & Loyd, B., eds. Palmer, F. R. (1987). The English verb Cognition and categorization, 27–48. (edn. 2). London: Longman.

453 References Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Washington DC: Georgetown University Associates. Press. Ullman, S. (1962). Semantics. Oxford: Ross, A. S. C. (1958). Etymology: with Blackwell. especial reference to English. London: Vachek, J. (1964). ‘Notes on the phone- Andre Deutsch. matic value of the Modern English [ŋ]- sound’ in Abercrombie, D. et al., eds. In Sag, I. A., Wasow, T., & Bender, E. (2003). honour of Daniel Jones: Papers contrib- Syntactic theory: a formal introduction uted on the occasion of his eightieth (edn. 2). Stanford: CSLI Publications. birthday, 191–205. London: Longmans. Vanderveken, D. (1990). Meaning and Samuels, M. L. (1972). Linguistic evolution speech acts, volume 1. Cambridge: Cam- with special reference to English. Cam- bridge University Press. bridge: Cambridge University Press. Van Valin, R. (1993). ‘A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar’ in Van Valin, R., Siegel, J. (2008). The emergence of pidgin ed. Advances in Role and Reference and creole languages. Oxford: Oxford Grammar, 1–164. Amsterdam and Phila- University Press. delphia: John Benjamins. Van Valin, R. & LaPolla, R. J. (1997). Spencer, A. & Luís, A. R. (2012). Clitics: an Syntax: structure, meaning and function. introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge Cambridge: Cambridge University University Press. Press. Wasow, T. (2001). ‘Generative grammar’ in Stockwell, R., Schachter, P., & Partee, B. H. Aronoff, M. & Rees-Miller, J., eds. The (1973). The major syntactic structures of handbook of linguistics, 295–318. English. New York and London: Holt, Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell. Rinehart and Winston. Watson, I. H. (1985). Letter to the editor. In English Today 1.4: 3. Strang, B. M. H. (1962). Modern English Weekley, E. (1912). The romance of words. structure. London: Edward Arnold. (3rd London: John Murray. edn. 1968). Weiner, E. S. C. & Delahunty, A. (1994). The Oxford guide to English usage. Strang, B. M. H. (1970). A history of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. London: Methuen. Whorf, B. L. (ante 1941). ‘The relation of habitual thought and behavior to lan- Stump, G. T. (2001). Inflectional morphol- guage’ in Carroll, J. B., ed. Language, ogy: a theory of paradigm structure. thought and reality: selected writings of Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Benjamin Lee Whorf (1956), 134–159. Cambridge: MIT Press. Sweet, H. (1874). A history of English Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional syllabuses. sounds. London: English Dialect Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zandvoort, R. W. (1945). A handbook of Sweet, H. (1892a). A short historical English English grammar. Groningen: Wolters- grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Noordhoff. Sweet, H. (1892b). A new English grammar, Part 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sweet, H. (1898). A new English grammar, Part 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Thompson, S. (1985). ‘ “Subordination” in formal and informal discourse’ in Schif- frin, D., ed. Meaning, form, and use in context: linguistic applications. Proceed- ings of the 1984 Georgetown University Roundtable on Linguistics, 85–94.

Useful Web Links A This is a web-linked dictionary. To access the websites, go to the dictionary’s web page at www.oup.com/uk/reference/resources/englishgrammar, click on Web links in the Resources section, and click straight through to the relevant websites. EAW: English for Academic Writing • An app for mobile devices (Apple and Android phones and tablets) which offers guidance for improving your academic writing. The Electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English • A database on grammatical variation in a wide range of different varieties of English, compiled at the University of Freiburg, Germany. ESP: English Spelling and Punctuation • An app for mobile devices (Apple and Android phones and tablets) which offers a complete approach to improving your spelling and punctuation. Glossary of Linguistic Terms • A glossary of linguistics produced by SIL International. Glottopedia • A freely editable encyclopaedia of linguistics. iGE: the interactive Grammar of English • A grammar app for mobile devices (Apple and Android phones and tablets), developed at University College London. The Internet Grammar of English • An online course in English grammar written by linguists at University College London. Lexicon of Linguistics • A glossary of linguistics compiled at Utrecht University. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English Online • An online dictionary covering British and American English. Macmillan Dictionary Online • An online dictionary with an option to select British or American English. Merriam Webster Online • An online dictionary of American English. Oxford Advanced American Dictionary Online • An online dictionary of American English. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary Online • An online dictionary covering British and American English. Oxford Dictionaries Online • An online dictionary with an option to select British & World English or American English.