Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > A new Gray’s anatomy of English grammar : revie...

Research

Electronic data

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

A new Gray’s anatomy of English grammar : review article on R. Huddleston and G. Pullum, ‘The Cambridge grammar of the English language’, 2002.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

A new Gray’s anatomy of English grammar : review article on R. Huddleston and G. Pullum, ‘The Cambridge grammar of the English language’, 2002. / Leech, Geoffrey.
In: English Language and Linguistics, Vol. 8, No. 1, 05.2004, p. 121-147.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Leech, G 2004, 'A new Gray’s anatomy of English grammar : review article on R. Huddleston and G. Pullum, ‘The Cambridge grammar of the English language’, 2002.', English Language and Linguistics, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 121-147. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674304001273

APA

Leech, G. (2004). A new Gray’s anatomy of English grammar : review article on R. Huddleston and G. Pullum, ‘The Cambridge grammar of the English language’, 2002. English Language and Linguistics, 8(1), 121-147. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674304001273

Vancouver

Leech G. A new Gray’s anatomy of English grammar : review article on R. Huddleston and G. Pullum, ‘The Cambridge grammar of the English language’, 2002. English Language and Linguistics. 2004 May;8(1):121-147. doi: 10.1017/S1360674304001273

Author

Leech, Geoffrey. / A new Gray’s anatomy of English grammar : review article on R. Huddleston and G. Pullum, ‘The Cambridge grammar of the English language’, 2002. In: English Language and Linguistics. 2004 ; Vol. 8, No. 1. pp. 121-147.

Bibtex

@article{0c5a82869723406b8f414e0655ee1738,
title = "A new Gray{\textquoteright}s anatomy of English grammar : review article on R. Huddleston and G. Pullum, {\textquoteleft}The Cambridge grammar of the English language{\textquoteright}, 2002.",
abstract = "This article reviews Huddleston & Pullum (2002) from the viewpoint of a co-author of Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech & Svartvik (1985). (This author, however, makes no claim whatsoever to represent the views of the other authors of Quirk et al.) Particular attention is paid to some of the more controversial aspects of Huddleston & Pullum's analysis. It is argued that the two grammars, although similar in their comprehensively wide coverage of English, are not strictly comparable, in that Huddleston & Pullum's grammar is more theory-oriented and Quirk et al.'s grammar is more observation-oriented. These different orientations go with different strengths and weaknesses. In some areas Huddleston & Pullum's more up-to-date account has manifest advantages over that of Quirk et al., but there are also arguably areas where Huddleston & Pullum have not moved with the times.",
author = "Geoffrey Leech",
note = "http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=UHY The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, English Language and Linguistics, 8 (1), pp 121-147 2004, {\textcopyright} 2004 Cambridge University Press.",
year = "2004",
month = may,
doi = "10.1017/S1360674304001273",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
pages = "121--147",
journal = "English Language and Linguistics",
issn = "1469-4379",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - A new Gray’s anatomy of English grammar : review article on R. Huddleston and G. Pullum, ‘The Cambridge grammar of the English language’, 2002.

AU - Leech, Geoffrey

N1 - http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=UHY The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, English Language and Linguistics, 8 (1), pp 121-147 2004, © 2004 Cambridge University Press.

PY - 2004/5

Y1 - 2004/5

N2 - This article reviews Huddleston & Pullum (2002) from the viewpoint of a co-author of Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech & Svartvik (1985). (This author, however, makes no claim whatsoever to represent the views of the other authors of Quirk et al.) Particular attention is paid to some of the more controversial aspects of Huddleston & Pullum's analysis. It is argued that the two grammars, although similar in their comprehensively wide coverage of English, are not strictly comparable, in that Huddleston & Pullum's grammar is more theory-oriented and Quirk et al.'s grammar is more observation-oriented. These different orientations go with different strengths and weaknesses. In some areas Huddleston & Pullum's more up-to-date account has manifest advantages over that of Quirk et al., but there are also arguably areas where Huddleston & Pullum have not moved with the times.

AB - This article reviews Huddleston & Pullum (2002) from the viewpoint of a co-author of Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech & Svartvik (1985). (This author, however, makes no claim whatsoever to represent the views of the other authors of Quirk et al.) Particular attention is paid to some of the more controversial aspects of Huddleston & Pullum's analysis. It is argued that the two grammars, although similar in their comprehensively wide coverage of English, are not strictly comparable, in that Huddleston & Pullum's grammar is more theory-oriented and Quirk et al.'s grammar is more observation-oriented. These different orientations go with different strengths and weaknesses. In some areas Huddleston & Pullum's more up-to-date account has manifest advantages over that of Quirk et al., but there are also arguably areas where Huddleston & Pullum have not moved with the times.

U2 - 10.1017/S1360674304001273

DO - 10.1017/S1360674304001273

M3 - Journal article

VL - 8

SP - 121

EP - 147

JO - English Language and Linguistics

JF - English Language and Linguistics

SN - 1469-4379

IS - 1

ER -