Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CamGEL [n 1]) is a descriptive grammar of the English language. Its primary authors are Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum. Huddleston was the only author to work on every chapter. It was published by Cambridge University Press in 2002 and has been cited more than 8,000 times. [1]
For some time, Huddleston ran a project under Halliday in the Communications Research Centre at The University of London called the “OSTI Programme in the Linguistic Properties of Scientific English.” [5] (OSTI was the UK government's Office for Scientific and Technical Information.) [6] As a student of Halliday's, Huddleston was a proponent of Systemic Functional Grammar, [5] but as his ...
Geoffrey Keith Pullum (/ ˈ p ʊ l əm /; born 8 March 1945) is a British and American linguist specialising in the study of English.Pullum has published over 300 articles and books on various topics in linguistics, including phonology, morphology, semantics, pragmatics, computational linguistics, and philosophy of language.
Its grammar was similar to that of modern German: nouns, adjectives, pronouns, and verbs had many more inflectional endings and forms, and word order was much freer than in Modern English. Modern English has case forms in pronouns ( he , him , his ) and has a few verb inflections ( speak , speaks , speaking , spoke , spoken ), but Old English ...
A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language by Quirk et al., published in 1985 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language by Huddleston and Pullum, published in 2002 Topics referred to by the same term
Rodney Huddleston argues against this position in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, but Robert Levine counters these arguments. [5] Bettelou Los calls Pullum's arguments that to is an auxiliary verb "compelling".
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Donate
In 1988, Rodney Huddleston published a very critical review. [3] He wrote: [T]here are some respects in which it is seriously flawed and disappointing. A number of quite basic categories and concepts do not seem to have been thought through with sufficient care; this results in a remarkable amount of unclarity and inconsistency in the analysis, and in the organization of the grammar.