Министерство образования РеспубликиБеларусь
Учреждение образования
«Гомельский государственныйуниверситет им. Ф. Скорины»
Филологическийфакультет
Курсоваяработа
THE ORIGIN AND HISTORYOF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Исполнитель:
Студенткагруппы К-52
ЛовренчукТ.Е.
Гомель 2007
Содержание
Introduction
1.Origin of English language
2.History of English language
3.English literature
Conclusion
Literature
Introduction
Inorder that we may set a just value upon the literary labours of those who, informer times, gave particular attention to the culture of the English language,and that we may the better judge of the credibility of modern pretensions tofurther improvements, it seems necessary that we should know something of thecourse of events through which its acknowledged melioration in earlier daystook place. For, in this case, the extent of a man’s knowledge is the strengthof his argument. As Bacon quotes Aristotle, «Qui respiciunt ad pauca, defacili pronunciant.» He that takes a narrow view, easily makes up hismind. But what is any opinion worth, if further knowledge of facts can confuteit?
Whatsoeveris successively varied, or has such a manner of existence as time can affect,must have had both an origin and a progress; and may have also its particular history,if the opportunity for writing it be not neglected. But such is the levityof mankind, that things of great moment are often left without memorial, whilethe hand of Literature is busy to beguile the world with trifles or withfictions, with fancies or with lies. The rude and cursory languages ofbarbarous nations, till the genius of Grammar arise to their rescue, are amongthose transitory things which unsparing time is ever hurrying away,irrecoverably, to oblivion. Tradition knows not what they were; for of theirchanges she takes no account. Philosophy tells us, they are resolved into thevariable, fleeting breath of the successive generations of those by whom theywere spoken; whose kindred fate it was, to pass away unnoticed and nameless,lost in the elements from which they sprung.
Uponthe history of the English language, darkness thickens as we tread back thecourse of time. The subject of our inquiry becomes, at every step, moredifficult and less worthy. We have now a tract of English literature, bothextensive and luminous; and though many modern writers, and no few even of ourwriters on grammar, are comparatively very deficient in style, it is safe toaffirm that the English language in general has never been written or spokenwith more propriety and elegance, than it is at the present day. Modern Englishwe read with facility; and that which was good two centuries ago, thoughconsiderably antiquated, is still easily understood. The best way, therefore,to gain a practical knowledge of the changes which our language has undergone,is, to read some of our older authors in retrograde order, till the styleemployed at times more and more remote, becomes in some degree familiar.Pursued in this manner, the study will be less difficult, and the labour of thecurious inquirer, which may be suspended or resumed at pleasure, will be betterrepaid, than if he proceed in the order of history, and attempt at first theSaxon remains.
1.Origin of English language
Thevalue of a language as an object of study, depends chiefly on the character ofthe books which it contains; and, secondarily, on its connexion withothers more worthy to be thoroughly known. In this instance, there are severalcircumstances which are calculated soon to discourage research. As our languagetook its rise during the barbarism of the dark ages, the books through whichits early history must be traced, are not only few and meagre, but, in respectto grammar, unsettled and diverse. It is not to be expected that inquiries ofthis kind will ever engage the attention of any very considerable number ofpersons. Over the minds of the reading public, the attractions of novelty holda much greater influence, than any thing that is to be discovered in the duskof antiquity. All old books contain a greater or less number of obsolete words,and antiquated modes of expression, which puzzle the reader, and call him toofrequently to his glossary. And even the most common terms, when they appear intheir ancient, unsettled orthography, are often so disguised as not to bereadily recognized.
1.Thesecircumstances (the last of which should be a caution to us against innovationsin spelling) retard the progress of the reader, impose a labour too great forthe ardour of his curiosity, and soon dispose him to rest satisfied with anignorance, which, being general, is not likely to expose him to censure. Forthese reasons, ancient authors are little read; and the real antiquary isconsidered a man of odd habits, who, by a singular propensity, is led intostudies both unfashionable and fruitless– a man who ought to have been born inthe days of old, that he might have spoken the language he is so curious toknow, and have appeared in the costume of an age better suited to his taste.
2.ButLearning is ever curious to explore the records of time, as well as theregions of space; and wherever her institutions flourish, she will amass hertreasures, and spread them before her votaries. Difference of languages sheeasily overcomes; but the leaden reign of unlettered Ignorance defies herscrutiny. Hence, of one period of the world’s history, she ever speaks withhorror–that «long night of apostasy,» during which, like a loneSibyl, she hid her precious relics in solitary cells, and fleeing from degradedChristendom, sought refuge with the eastern caliphs. «This awful declineof true religion in the world carried with it almost every vestige of civilliberty, of classical literature, and of scientific knowledge; and it willgenerally be found in experience that they must all stand or falltogether.»–Hints on Toleration, p. 263. In the tenth century,beyond which we find nothing that bears much resemblance to the Englishlanguage as now written, this mental darkness appears to have gathered to itsdeepest obscuration; and, at that period, England was sunk as low in ignorance,superstition, and depravity, as any other part of Europe.
3.TheEnglish language gradually varies as we trace it back, and becomes at lengthidentified with the Anglo-Saxon; that is, with the dialect spoken by the Saxonsafter their settlement in England. These Saxons were a fierce, warlike,unlettered people from Germany; whom the ancient Britons had invited to theirassistance against the Picts and Scots. Cruel and ignorant, like their Gothickindred, who had but lately overrun the Roman empire, they came, not for thegood of others, but to accommodate themselves. They accordingly seized thecountry; destroyed or enslaved the ancient inhabitants; or, more probably,drove the remnant of them into the mountains of Wales. Of Welsh or ancientBritish words, Charles Bucke, who says in his grammar that he took great painsto be accurate in his scale of derivation, enumerates but one hundred andeleven, as now found in our language; and Dr. Johnson, who makes them but ninety-five,argues from their paucity, or almost total absence, that the Saxons could nothave mingled at all with these people, or even have retained them in vassalage.
4.Theancient languages of France and of the British isles are said to have proceededfrom an other language yet more ancient, called the _Celtic_; so that, from onecommon source, are supposed to have sprung the present Welsh, the presentIrish, and the present Highland Scotch.[46] The term Celtic Dr. Websterdefines, as a noun, «The language of the Celts;» and, as anadjective, «Pertaining to the primitive inhabitants of the south and westof Europe, or to the early inhabitants of Italy, Gaul, Spain, andBritain.» What unity, according to this, there was, or could havebeen, in the ancient Celtic tongue, does not appear from books, nor is it easyto be conjectured.[47] Many ancient writers sustain this broad application ofthe term _Celtae_ or _Celts_; which, according to Strabo’s etymology of it,means horsemen, and seems to have been almost as general asour word Indians.But Casar informs us that the name was more particularly claimed by thepeople who, in his day, lived in France between the Seine and the Garonne, andwho by the Romans were called Galli, or Gauls.
5. TheCeltic tribes are said to have been the descendants of Gomer, the son ofJaphet. The English historians agree that the first inhabitants of their islandowed their origin and their language to the _Celta_, or Gauls, who settled onthe opposite shore. Julius Casar, who invaded Britain about half a centurybefore the Christian era, found the inhabitants ignorant of letters, anddestitute of any history but oral tradition. To this, however, they paid greatattention, teaching every thing in verse. Some of the Druids, it is said inCasar’s Commentaries, spent twenty years in learning to repeat songs and hymnsthat were never committed to writing. These ancient priests, or diviners, arerepresented as having great power, and as exercising it in some respectsbeneficially; but their horrid rites, with human sacrifices, provoked theRomans to destroy them.
Smollettsays, «Tiberius suppressed those human sacrifices in Gaul; and Claudiusdestroyed the Druids of that country; but they subsisted in Britain till thereign of Nero, when Paulus Suetonius reduced the island of Anglesey, which wasthe place of their retreat, and overwhelmed them with such unexpected andsudden destruction, that all their knowledge and tradition, conveyed to them inthe songs of their predecessors, perished at once.»–_Smollett’s Hist. ofEng._, 4to, B. i, Ch. i.
2.History of English language
TheRomans considered Britain a province of their empire, for a period of aboutfive hundred years; but the northern part of the island was never entirelysubdued by them, and not till Anno Domini 78, a hundred and thirty-three yearsafter their first invasion of the country, had they completed their conquest ofEngland. Letters and arts, so far at least as these are necessary to thepurposes of war or government, the victors carried with them; and under theirauspices some knowledge of Christianity was, at a very early period, introducedinto Britain. But it seems strange, that after all that is related of theirconquests, settlements, cities, fortifications, buildings, seminaries,churches, laws, &c., they should at last have left the Britons in so helpless,degraded, and forlorn a condition. They did not sow among them the seeds ofany permanent improvement.
TheRoman government, being unable to sustain itself at home, withdrew its forcesfinally from Britain in the year 446, leaving the wretched inhabitants almostas savage as it found them, and in a situation even less desirable. Deprived oftheir native resources, their ancient independence of spirit, as well as of thelaws, customs, institutions, and leaders, that had kept them together undertheir old dynasties, and now deserted by their foreign protectors, they wereapparently left at the mercy of blind fortune, the wretched vicissitudes ofwhich there was none to foresee, none to resist. The glory of the Romans nowpassed away. The mighty fabric of their own proud empire crumbled into ruins.Civil liberty gave place to barbarism; Christian truth, to papal superstition;and the lights of science were put out by both. The shades of night gatheredover all; settling and condensing, «till almost every point of that widehorizon, over which the Sun of Righteousness had diffused his cheering rays,was enveloped in a darkness more awful and more portentous than that which ofold descended upon rebellious Pharaoh and the callous sons of Ham.»–Hintson Toleration, p. 310.
TheSaxons entered Britain in the year 449. But what was the form of their languageat that time, cannot now be known. It was a dialect of the Gothic or_Teutonic_; which is considered the parent of all the northern tongues ofEurope, except some few of Sclavonian origin. The only remaining monument ofthe Gothic language is a copy of the Gospels, translated by Ulphilas; which ispreserved at Upsal, and called, from its embellishments, the Silver Book. Thisold work has been three times printed in England. We possess not yet in Americaall the advantages which may be enjoyed by literary men in the land of ourancestors; but the stores of literature, both ancient and modern, are somewhatmore familiar to us, than is there supposed; and the art of printing is fastequalizing, to all nations that cultivate learning, the privilege of drinkingat its ancient fountains.
Itis neither liberal nor just to argue unfavourably of the intellectual or themoral condition of any remote age or country, merely from our own ignorance ofit. It is true, we can derive from no quarter a favourable opinion of the stateof England after the Saxon invasion, and during the tumultuous and bloodygovernment of the heptarchy. But I will not darken the picture through design.If justice were done to the few names–to Gildas the wise, the memorialist ofhis country’s sufferings and censor of the nation’s depravity, who appears asolitary star in the night of the sixth century–to the venerable Bede, thegreatest theologian, best scholar, and only historian of the seventh–toAlcuin, the abbot of Canterbury, the luminary of the eighth–to Alfred thegreat, the glory of the ninth, great as a prince, and greater as a scholar,seen in the evening twilight of an age in which the clergy could not read;–ifjustice were done to all such, we might find something, even in these dark andrugged times, if not to soften the grimness of the portrait, at least to givegreater distinctness of feature.
Intracing the history of our language, Dr. Johnson, who does little more thangive examples, cites as his first specimen of ancient English, a portion ofking [sic–KTH] Alfred’s paraphrase in imitation of Boethius. But this languageof Alfred’s is not English; but rather, as the learned doctor himselfconsidered it, an example of the Anglo-Saxon in its highest state of purity.This dialect was first changed by admixture with words derived from the Danishand the Norman; and, still being comparatively rude and meagre, afterwardsreceived large accessions from the Latin, the French, the Greek, theDutch–till, by gradual changes, which the etymologist may exhibit, there wasat length produced a language bearing a sufficient resemblance to the presentEnglish, to deserve to be called English at this day.
Theformation of our language cannot with propriety be dated earlier than thethirteenth century. It was then that a free and voluntary amalgamation of itschief constituent materials took place; and this was somewhat earlier than wedate the revival of learning. The English of the thirteenth century is scarcelyintelligible to the modern reader. Dr. Johnson calls it «a kind ofintermediate diction, neither Saxon nor English;» and says, that Sir JohnGower, who wrote in the latter part of the fourteenth century, was «thefirst of our authors who can be properly said to have written English.»Contemporary with Gower, the father of English poetry, was the still greaterpoet, his disciple Chaucer; who embraced many of the tenets of Wickliffe, andimbibed something of the spirit of the reformation, which was now begun.
Theliterary history of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries is full of interest;for it is delightful to trace the progress of great and obvious improvement.The reformation of religion and the revival of learning were nearlysimultaneous. Yet individuals may have acted a conspicuous part in the latter,who had little to do with the former; for great learning does not necessarilyimply great piety, though, as Dr. Johnson observes, «the Christianreligion always implies or produces a certain degree of civility andlearning.»–_Hist. Eng. Lang. before his 4to Dict._ «The ordinaryinstructions of the clergy, both philosophical and religious, gradually fellinto contempt, as the Classics superseded the one, and the Holy Scripturesexpelled the other. The first of these changes was effected by the earlygrammarians of Europe; and it gave considerable aid to the reformation,though it had no immediate connexion with that event. The revival of the EnglishBible, however, completed the work: and though its appearance was late, and itsprogress was retarded in every possible manner, yet its dispersion was atlength equally rapid, extensive, and effectual.»–_Constable’sMiscellany_, Vol. xx, p. 75.
Peculiarhonour is due to those who lead the way in whatever advances human happiness.And, surely, our just admiration of the character of the reformers mustbe not a little enhanced, when we consider what they did for letters as well asfor the church. Learning does not consist in useless jargon, in a multitude ofmere words, or in acute speculations remote from practice; else the seventeenfolios of St. Thomas Aquinas, the angelical doctor of the thirteenth century,and the profound disputations of his great rival, Duns Scotus the subtle, forwhich they were revered in their own age, had not gained them the contempt ofall posterity. From such learning the lucid reasoning of the reformersdelivered the halls of instruction. The school divinity of the middle agespassed away before the presence of that which these men learned from the Bible,as did in a later age the Aristotelian philosophy before that which Bacon drewfrom nature.
Towardsthe latter part of the fourteenth century, Wickliffe furnished the first entiretranslation of the
Bibleinto English. In like manner did the Germans, a hundred and fifty years after,receive it in their tongue from the hands of Luther; who says, that at twentyyears of age, he himself had not seen it in any language. Wickliffe’s Englishstyle is elegant for the age in which he lived, yet very different from what iselegant now. This first English translation of the Bible, being made about ahundred years before the introduction of printing into England, could not havebeen very extensively circulated. A large specimen of it may be seen in Dr.Johnson’s History of the English Language. Wickliffe died in 1384. The art ofprinting was invented about 1440, and first introduced into England, in 1468;but the first printed edition of the Bible in English, was executed in Germany.It was completed, October 5th, 1535.
«MartinLuther, about the year 1517, first introduced metrical psalmody into theservice of the church, which not only kept alive the enthusiasm of thereformers, but formed a rallying point for his followers. This practice spreadin all directions; and it was not long ere six thousand persons were heardsinging together at St. Paul’s Cross in London. Luther was a poet and musician;but the same talent existed not in his followers. Thirty years afterwards,Sternhold versified fifty-one of the Psalms; and in 1562, with the help ofHopkins, he completed the Psalter. These poetical effusions were chiefly sungto German melodies, which the good taste of Luther supplied: but the Puritans,in a subsequent age, nearly destroyed these germs of melody, assigning as areason, that music should be so simplified as to suit all persons, and that allmay join.»-_Dr. Gardiner’s Music of Nature_, p. 283.
«Theschools and colleges of England in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries werenot governed by a system of education which would render their students veryeminent either as scholars or as gentlemen: and the monasteries, which wereused as seminaries, even until the reformation, taught only the corrupt Latinused by the ecclesiastics. The time however was approaching, when the unitedefforts of Stanbridge, Linacre, Sir John Cheke, Dean Colet, Erasmus, WilliamLily, Roger Ascham, &c., were successful in reviving the Latin tongue inall its purity; and even in exciting a taste for Greek in a nation the clergyof which opposed its introduction with the same vehemence which characterizedtheir enmity to a reformation in religion. The very learned Erasmus, the firstwho undertook the teaching of the Greek language at Oxford, met with fewfriends to support him; notwithstanding Oxford was the seat of nearly all thelearning in England.»-Constable’s Miscellany, Vol. xx, p. 146.
«Thepriests preached against it, as a very recent invention of the arch-enemy; andconfounding in their misguided zeal, the very foundation of their faith, withthe object of their resentment, they represented the New Testament itself as’an impious and dangerous book,’ because it was written in that hereticallanguage. Even after the accession of Henry VIII, when Erasmus, who had quittedOxford in disgust, returned under his especial patronage, with the support ofseveral eminent scholars and powerful persons, his progress was still impeded,and the language opposed. The University was divided into parties, calledGreeks and Trojans, the latter being the strongest, from being favoured by themonks; and the Greeks were driven from the streets, with hisses and otherexpressions of contempt. It was not therefore until Henry VIII and CardinalWolsey gave it their positive and powerful protection, that this persecutedlanguage was allowed to be quietly studied, even in the institutions dedicatedto learning.»-Ib., p. 147.
Thesecurious extracts are adduced to show the spirit of the times, and theobstacles then to be surmounted in the cause of learning. This popularopposition to Greek, did not spring from a patriotic design to prefer andencourage English literature; for the improvement of this was still later, andthe great promoters of it were all of them classical scholars. They wrote inEnglish, not because they preferred it, but because none but those who werebred in colleges, could read any thing else; and, even to this very day, thegrammatical study of the English language is shamefully neglected in what arecalled the higher institutions of learning. In alleging this neglect, I speakcomparatively. Every student, on entering upon the practical business of life,will find it of far more importance to him, to be skillful in the language ofhis own country than to be distinguished for any knowledge which the learnedonly can appreciate. «Will the greatest Mastership in Greek and Latin, or[the] translating [of] these Languages into English, avail for the Purpose ofacquiring an elegant English Style?
No- we know just the Reverse from woeful Experience! And, as Mr. Locke and theSpectator observe, Men who have threshed hard at Greek and Latin for ten oreleven years together, are very often deficient in their own Language.» — Prefaceto the British Gram, 8vo, 1784, p. xxi.3. English literature
Thatthe progress of English literature in early times was slow, will not seem wonderfulto those who consider what is affirmed of the progress of other arts, moreimmediately connected with the comforts of life. «Down to the reign ofElizabeth, the greater part of the houses in considerable towns, had nochimneys: the fire was kindled against the wall, and the smoke found its wayout as well as it could, by the roof, the door, or the windows. The houses weremostly built of wattling, plastered over with clay; and the beds were onlystraw pallets, with a log of wood for a pillow. In this respect, even the kingfared no better than his subjects; for, in Henry the Eighth’s time, we finddirections, ‘to examine every night the straw of the king’s bed, that nodaggers might be concealed therein.’ A writer in 1577, speaking of the progressof luxury, mentions three things especially, that were ‘marvellously alteredfor the worse in England;’ the multitude of chimneys lately erected, theincrease of lodgings, and the exchange of treen platters into pewter, andwooden spoons into silver and tin; and he complains bitterly that oak insteadof willow was employed in the building of houses.»–REV. ROYAL ROBBINS: Outlinesof History, p. 377.
Shakspeareappeared in the reign of Elizabeth; outlived her thirteen years; and died in1616 aged 52. The English language in his hands did not lack power or compassof expression. His writings are now more extensively read, than any others ofthat age; nor has any very considerable part of his phraseology yet becomeobsolete. But it ought to be known, that the printers or editors of theeditions which are now read, have taken extensive liberty in modernizing hisorthography, as well as that of other old authors still popular. How far suchliberty is justifiable, it is difficult to say. Modern readers doubtless find aconvenience in it. It is very desirable that the orthography of our languageshould be made uniform, and remain permanent. Great alterations cannot besuddenly introduced; and there is, in stability, an advantage which willcounterbalance that of a slow approximation to regularity. Analogy maysometimes decide the form of variable words, but the concurrent usage of thelearned must ever be respected, in this, as in every other part of grammar.
Amongthe earliest of the English grammarians, was Ben Jonson, the poet; who died inthe year 1637, at the age of sixty-three. His grammar, (which Horne Tookemistakingly calls «the first as well as the best Englishgrammar,») is still extant, being published in the several editions of hisworks. It is a small treatise, and worthy of attention only as a matter ofcuriosity. It is written in prose, and designed chiefly for the aid offoreigners. Grammar is an unpoetical subject, and therefore not wisely treated,as it once very generally was, in verse. But every poet should be familiar withthe art, because the formal principles of his own have always been consideredas embraced in it. To its poets, too, every language must needs be particularlyindebted; because their compositions, being in general more highly finishedthan works in prose, are supposed to present the language in its most agreeableform. In the preface to the Poems of Edmund Waller, published in 1690, theeditor ventures to say, «He was, indeed, the Parent of English Verse, andthe first that shewed us our Tongue had Beauty and Numbers in it. Our Languageowes more to Him, than the French does to Cardinal Richelieu and the wholeAcademy. * * * * The Tongue came into His hands a rough diamond: he polished itfirst; and to that degree, that all artists since him have admired theworkmanship, without pretending to mend it.»–British Poets, Vol.ii, Lond., 1800: Waller’s Poems, p. 4.
Dr.Johnson, however, in his Lives of the Poets, abates this praise, that he maytransfer the greater part of it to Dryden and Pope. He admits that, «Afterabout half a century of forced thoughts and rugged metre, some advances towardsnature and harmony had been already made by Waller and Denham;» but, indistributing the praise of this improvement, he adds, «It may be doubtedwhether Waller and Denham could have over-born [overborne] the prejudices whichhad long prevailed, and which even then were sheltered by the protection ofCowley. The new versification, as it was called, may be considered as owing itsestablishment to Dryden; from whose time it is apparent that English poetry hashad no tendency to relapse to its former savageness.»–Johnson’s Life ofDryden: Lives, p. 206. To Pope, as the translator of Homer, he gives thispraise: «His version may be said to have tuned the English tongue; forsince its appearance no writer, however deficient in other powers, has wantedmelody.»–Life of Pope: Lives, p. 567. Such was the opinion of Johnson;but there are other critics who object to the versification of Pope, that it is«monotonous and cloying.» See, in Leigh Hunt’s Feast of the Poets,the following couplet, and a note upon it:
«Butever since Pope spoil’d the ears of the town With his cuckoo-song verses halfup and half down.»
Theunfortunate Charles I, as well as his father James I, was a lover and promoterof letters. He was himself a good scholar, and wrote well in English, for histime: he ascended the throne in 1625, and was beheaded in 1648. Nor wasCromwell himself, with all his religious and military enthusiasm, wholly insensibleto literary merit. This century was distinguished by the writings ofMilton, Dryden, Waller,Cowley, Denham, Locke, and others; and the reign ofCharles II, which is embraced in it, has been considered by some «theAugustan age of English literature.» But that honour, if it may well bebestowed on any, belongs rather to a later period. The best works produced inthe eighteenth century, are so generally known and so highly esteemed, that itwould be lavish of the narrow space allowed to this introduction, to speakparticularly of their merits. Some grammatical errors may be found in almostall books; but our language was, in general, written with great purity andpropriety by Addison, Swift, Pope, Johnson, Lowth, Hume, Horne, and many othercelebrated authors who flourished in the last century. Nor was it much beforethis period, that the British writers took any great pains to be accurate inthe use of their own language;
«Late,very late, correctness grew our care, When the tir’d nation breath’d from civilwar.»–Pope.
Conclusion
Englishbooks began to be printed in the early part of the sixteenth century; and, assoon as a taste for reading was formed, the press threw open the flood-gates ofgeneral knowledge, the streams of which are now pouring forth, in a copious,increasing, but too often turbid tide, upon all the civilized nations of theearth.
Thismighty engine afforded a means by which superior minds could act moreefficiently and more extensively upon society in general. And thus, by theexertions of genius adorned with learning, our native tongue has been made thepolished vehicle of the most interesting truths, and of the most important discoveries;and has become a language copious, strong, refined, and capable of noinconsiderable degree of harmony. Nay, it is esteemed by some who claim to becompetent judges, to be the strongest, the richest, the most elegant, and themost susceptible of sublime imagery, of all the languages in the world.
/>Literature
Brill,E. and Mooney, R. J. (1997), ‘An overview of empirical natural languageprocessing’, in AI Magazine, 18 (4): 13-24.
Chomsky,N. (1957), Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Curme,G. O. (1955), English Grammar. New York: Barnes and Noble.
Dowty,D. R., Karttunen, L. and Zwicky, A. M. (eds) (1985), Natural LanguageParsing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Garside,R. (1986), ‘The CLAWS word-tagging system’, in R. Garside,
G.Leech and G. Sampson (eds) The Computational Analysis of English. Harlow:Longman.
Gazdar,G. and Mellish, C. (1989), Natural Language Processing in POP-11. Reading,UK: Addison-Wesley.
Georgiev,H. (1976), ‘Automatic recognition of verbal and nominal word groups inBulgarian texts’, in t.a. information, Revue International du traitementautomatique du langage, 2, 17-24.
Georgiev,H. (1991), ‘English Algorithmic Grammar’, in Applied Computer Translation, Vol.1, No. 3, 29-48.
Georgiev,H. (1993a), ‘Syntparse, software program for parsing of English texts’,demonstration at the Joint Inter-Agency Meeting on Computer-assistedTerminology and Translation, The United Nations, Geneva.
Georgiev,H. (1993b), ‘Syntcheck, a computer software program for orthographical andgrammatical spell-checking of English texts’, demonstration at the JointInter-Agency Meeting on Computer-assisted Terminology and Translation, TheUnited Nations, Geneva.
Georgiev,H. (1994—2001), Softhesaurus, English Electronic Lexicon, produced andmarketed by LANGSOFT, Sprachlernmittel, Switzerland; platform: DOS/ Windows.
Georgiev,H. (1996-2001a), Syntcheck, a computer software program for orthographicaland grammatical spell-checking of German texts, produced and marketed byLANGSOFT, Sprachlernmittel, Switzerland; platform: DOS/Windows.
Georgiev,H. (1996-200lb), Syntparse, software program for parsing of German texts, producedand marketed by LANGSOFT, Sprachlernmittel, Switzerland; platform: DOS/Windows.
Georgiev,H. (1997—2001a), Syntcheck, a computer software program for orthographicaland grammatical spell-checking of French texts, produced and marketed byLANGSOFT, Sprachlernmittel, Switzerland; platform: DOS/Windows.
Georgiev,H. (1997-2001b), Syntparse, software program for parsing of French texts, producedand marketed by LANGSOFT, Sprachlernmittel, Switzerland; platform: DOS/Windows.