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.