.

The origin and history of the English language

Язык: русский
Формат: курсова
Тип документа: Word Doc
0 881
Скачать документ

Ieienoa?noai ia?aciaaiey ?anioaeeee Aaea?onue

O/?aaeaeaiea ia?aciaaiey

«Aiiaeueneee ainoaea?noaaiiue oieaa?neoao ei. O. Nei?eiu»

Oeeieiae/aneee oaeoeueoao

Eo?niaay ?aaioa

THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

Eniieieoaeue:

Nooaeaioea a?oiiu E-52

Eia?ai/oe O.A.

Aiiaeue 2007

Niaea?aeaiea

Introduction

1. Origin of English language

2. History of English language

3. English literature

Conclusion

Literature

Introduction

In order that we may set a just value upon the literary labours of those
who, in former times, gave particular attention to the culture of the
English language, and that we may the better judge of the credibility of
modern pretensions to further improvements, it seems necessary that we
should know something of the course of events through which its
acknowledged melioration in earlier days took place. For, in this case,
the extent of a man’s knowledge is the strength of his argument. As
Bacon quotes Aristotle, “Qui respiciunt ad pauca, de facili
pronunciant.” He that takes a narrow view, easily makes up his mind. But
what is any opinion worth, if further knowledge of facts can confute it?

Whatsoever is 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 levity of mankind, that things of great
moment are often left without memorial, while the hand of Literature is
busy to beguile the world with trifles or with fictions, with fancies or
with lies. The rude and cursory languages of barbarous nations, till the
genius of Grammar arise to their rescue, are among those transitory
things which unsparing time is ever hurrying away, irrecoverably, to
oblivion. Tradition knows not what they were; for of their changes she
takes no account. Philosophy tells us, they are resolved into the
variable, fleeting breath of the successive generations of those by whom
they were spoken; whose kindred fate it was, to pass away unnoticed and
nameless, lost in the elements from which they sprung.

Upon the history of the English language, darkness thickens as we tread
back the course of time. The subject of our inquiry becomes, at every
step, more difficult and less worthy. We have now a tract of English
literature, both extensive and luminous; and though many modern writers,
and no few even of our writers on grammar, are comparatively very
deficient in style, it is safe to affirm that the English language in
general has never been written or spoken with more propriety and
elegance, than it is at the present day. Modern English we read with
facility; and that which was good two centuries ago, though considerably
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
style employed 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 the curious inquirer, which may be suspended or resumed at
pleasure, will be better repaid, than if he proceed in the order of
history, and attempt at first the Saxon remains.

1. Origin of English language

The value of a language as an object of study, depends chiefly on the
character of the books which it contains; and, secondarily, on its
connexion with others more worthy to be thoroughly known. In this
instance, there are several circumstances which are calculated soon to
discourage research. As our language took its rise during the barbarism
of the dark ages, the books through which its early history must be
traced, are not only few and meagre, but, in respect to grammar,
unsettled and diverse. It is not to be expected that inquiries of this
kind will ever engage the attention of any very considerable number of
persons. Over the minds of the reading public, the attractions of
novelty hold a much greater influence, than any thing that is to be
discovered in the dusk of 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 too frequently to his glossary. And even
the most common terms, when they appear in their ancient, unsettled
orthography, are often so disguised as not to be readily recognized.

1. These circumstances (the last of which should be a caution to us
against innovations in spelling) retard the progress of the reader,
impose a labour too great for the ardour of his curiosity, and soon
dispose him to rest satisfied with an ignorance, which, being general,
is not likely to expose him to censure. For these reasons, ancient
authors are little read; and the real antiquary is considered a man of
odd habits, who, by a singular propensity, is led into studies both
unfashionable and fruitless– a man who ought to have been born in the
days of old, that he might have spoken the language he is so curious to
know, and have appeared in the costume of an age better suited to his
taste.

2. But Learning is ever curious to explore the records of time, as well
as the regions of space; and wherever her institutions flourish, she
will amass her treasures, and spread them before her votaries.
Difference of languages she easily overcomes; but the leaden reign of
unlettered Ignorance defies her scrutiny. Hence, of one period of the
world’s history, she ever speaks with horror–that “long night of
apostasy,” during which, like a lone Sibyl, she hid her precious relics
in solitary cells, and fleeing from degraded Christendom, sought refuge
with the eastern caliphs. “This awful decline of true religion in the
world carried with it almost every vestige of civil liberty, of
classical literature, and of scientific knowledge; and it will generally
be found in experience that they must all stand or fall
together.”–Hints on Toleration, p. 263. In the tenth century, beyond
which we find nothing that bears much resemblance to the English
language as now written, this mental darkness appears to have gathered
to its deepest obscuration; and, at that period, England was sunk as low
in ignorance, superstition, and depravity, as any other part of Europe.

3. The English language gradually varies as we trace it back, and
becomes at length identified with the Anglo-Saxon; that is, with the
dialect spoken by the Saxons after their settlement in England. These
Saxons were a fierce, warlike, unlettered people from Germany; whom the
ancient Britons had invited to their assistance against the Picts and
Scots. Cruel and ignorant, like their Gothic kindred, who had but lately
overrun the Roman empire, they came, not for the good of others, but to
accommodate themselves. They accordingly seized the country; destroyed
or enslaved the ancient inhabitants; or, more probably, drove the
remnant of them into the mountains of Wales. Of Welsh or ancient British
words, Charles Bucke, who says in his grammar that he took great pains
to be accurate in his scale of derivation, enumerates but one hundred
and eleven, 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 not have mingled at all with these
people, or even have retained them in vassalage.

4. The ancient languages of France and of the British isles are said to
have proceeded from an other language yet more ancient, called the
_Celtic_; so that, from one common source, are supposed to have sprung
the present Welsh, the present Irish, and the present Highland
Scotch.[46] The term Celtic Dr. Webster defines, as a noun, “The
language of the Celts;” and, as an adjective, “Pertaining to the
primitive inhabitants of the south and west of Europe, or to the early
inhabitants of Italy, Gaul, Spain, and Britain.” What unity, according
to this, there was, or could have been, in the ancient Celtic tongue,
does not appear from books, nor is it easy to be conjectured.[47] Many
ancient writers sustain this broad application of the 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 the people
who, in his day, lived in France between the Seine and the Garonne, and
who by the Romans were called Galli, or Gauls.

5. The Celtic tribes are said to have been the descendants of Gomer, the
son of Japhet. The English historians agree that the first inhabitants
of their island owed their origin and their language to the _Celta_, or
Gauls, who settled on the opposite shore. Julius Casar, who invaded
Britain about half a century before the Christian era, found the
inhabitants ignorant of letters, and destitute of any history but oral
tradition. To this, however, they paid great attention, teaching every
thing in verse. Some of the Druids, it is said in Casar’s Commentaries,
spent twenty years in learning to repeat songs and hymns that were never
committed to writing. These ancient priests, or diviners, are
represented as having great power, and as exercising it in some respects
beneficially; but their horrid rites, with human sacrifices, provoked
the Romans to destroy them.

Smollett says, “Tiberius suppressed those human sacrifices in Gaul; and
Claudius destroyed the Druids of that country; but they subsisted in
Britain till the reign of Nero, when Paulus Suetonius reduced the island
of Anglesey, which was the place of their retreat, and overwhelmed them
with such unexpected and sudden destruction, that all their knowledge
and tradition, conveyed to them in the songs of their predecessors,
perished at once.”–_Smollett’s Hist. of Eng._, 4to, B. i, Ch. i.

2. History of English language

The Romans considered Britain a province of their empire, for a period
of about five hundred years; but the northern part of the island was
never entirely subdued by them, and not till Anno Domini 78, a hundred
and thirty-three years after their first invasion of the country, had
they completed their conquest of England. Letters and arts, so far at
least as these are necessary to the purposes of war or government, the
victors carried with them; and under their auspices some knowledge of
Christianity was, at a very early period, introduced into Britain. But
it seems strange, that after all that is related of their conquests,
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
of any permanent improvement.

The Roman government, being unable to sustain itself at home, withdrew
its forces finally from Britain in the year 446, leaving the wretched
inhabitants almost as savage as it found them, and in a situation even
less desirable. Deprived of their native resources, their ancient
independence of spirit, as well as of the laws, customs, institutions,
and leaders, that had kept them together under their old dynasties, and
now deserted by their foreign protectors, they were apparently left at
the mercy of blind fortune, the wretched vicissitudes of which there was
none to foresee, none to resist. The glory of the Romans now passed
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 gathered over all; settling and condensing, “till almost every
point of that wide horizon, over which the Sun of Righteousness had
diffused his cheering rays, was enveloped in a darkness more awful and
more portentous than that which of old descended upon rebellious Pharaoh
and the callous sons of Ham.”–Hints on Toleration, p. 310.

The Saxons entered Britain in the year 449. But what was the form of
their language at 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 of Europe, except some few of Sclavonian origin. The
only remaining monument of the Gothic language is a copy of the Gospels,
translated by Ulphilas; which is preserved at Upsal, and called, from
its embellishments, the Silver Book. This old work has been three times
printed in England. We possess not yet in America all the advantages
which may be enjoyed by literary men in the land of our ancestors; but
the stores of literature, both ancient and modern, are somewhat more
familiar to us, than is there supposed; and the art of printing is fast
equalizing, to all nations that cultivate learning, the privilege of
drinking at its ancient fountains.

It is neither liberal nor just to argue unfavourably of the intellectual
or the moral condition of any remote age or country, merely from our own
ignorance of it. It is true, we can derive from no quarter a favourable
opinion of the state of England after the Saxon invasion, and during the
tumultuous and bloody government 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 of his country’s sufferings and censor
of the nation’s depravity, who appears a solitary star in the night of
the sixth century–to the venerable Bede, the greatest theologian, best
scholar, and only historian of the seventh–to Alcuin, the abbot of
Canterbury, the luminary of the eighth–to Alfred the great, 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;–if
justice were done to all such, we might find something, even in these
dark and rugged times, if not to soften the grimness of the portrait, at
least to give greater distinctness of feature.

In tracing the history of our language, Dr. Johnson, who does little
more than give examples, cites as his first specimen of ancient English,
a portion of king [sic–KTH] Alfred’s paraphrase in imitation of
Boethius. But this language of Alfred’s is not English; but rather, as
the learned doctor himself considered 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 Danish and the Norman; and, still
being comparatively rude and meagre, afterwards received large
accessions from the Latin, the French, the Greek, the Dutch–till, by
gradual changes, which the etymologist may exhibit, there was at length
produced a language bearing a sufficient resemblance to the present
English, to deserve to be called English at this day.

The formation of our language cannot with propriety be dated earlier
than the thirteenth century. It was then that a free and voluntary
amalgamation of its chief constituent materials took place; and this was
somewhat earlier than we date the revival of learning. The English of
the thirteenth century is scarcely intelligible to the modern reader.
Dr. Johnson calls it “a kind of intermediate diction, neither Saxon nor
English;” and says, that Sir John Gower, who wrote in the latter part of
the fourteenth century, was “the first of our authors who can be
properly said to have written English.” Contemporary with Gower, the
father of English poetry, was the still greater poet, his disciple
Chaucer; who embraced many of the tenets of Wickliffe, and imbibed
something of the spirit of the reformation, which was now begun.

The literary 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 nearly simultaneous. Yet individuals may have acted a
conspicuous part in the latter, who had little to do with the former;
for great learning does not necessarily imply great piety, though, as
Dr. Johnson observes, “the Christian religion always implies or produces
a certain degree of civility and learning.”–_Hist. Eng. Lang. before
his 4to Dict._ “The ordinary instructions of the clergy, both
philosophical and religious, gradually fell into contempt, as the
Classics superseded the one, and the Holy Scriptures expelled the other.
The first of these changes was effected by the early grammarians of
Europe; and it gave considerable aid to the reformation, though it had
no immediate connexion with that event. The revival of the English
Bible, however, completed the work: and though its appearance was late,
and its progress was retarded in every possible manner, yet its
dispersion was at length equally rapid, extensive, and
effectual.”–_Constable’s Miscellany_, Vol. xx, p. 75.

Peculiar honour is due to those who lead the way in whatever advances
human happiness. And, surely, our just admiration of the character of
the reformers must be not a little enhanced, when we consider what they
did for letters as well as for the church. Learning does not consist in
useless jargon, in a multitude of mere words, or in acute speculations
remote from practice; else the seventeen folios of St. Thomas Aquinas,
the angelical doctor of the thirteenth century, and the profound
disputations of his great rival, Duns Scotus the subtle, for which they
were revered in their own age, had not gained them the contempt of all
posterity. From such learning the lucid reasoning of the reformers
delivered the halls of instruction. The school divinity of the middle
ages passed 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 drew from nature.

Towards the latter part of the fourteenth century, Wickliffe furnished
the first entire translation of the

Bible into 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 twenty years of age, he himself had not seen it in any
language. Wickliffe’s English style is elegant for the age in which he
lived, yet very different from what is elegant now. This first English
translation of the Bible, being made about a hundred years before the
introduction of printing into England, could not have been 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 of printing 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.

“Martin Luther, about the year 1517, first introduced metrical psalmody
into the service of the church, which not only kept alive the enthusiasm
of the reformers, but formed a rallying point for his followers. This
practice spread in all directions; and it was not long ere six thousand
persons were heard singing 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 of Hopkins, he completed the Psalter.
These poetical effusions were chiefly sung to German melodies, which the
good taste of Luther supplied: but the Puritans, in a subsequent age,
nearly destroyed these germs of melody, assigning as a reason, that
music should be so simplified as to suit all persons, and that all may
join.”-_Dr. Gardiner’s Music of Nature_, p. 283.

“The schools and colleges of England in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries were not governed by a system of education which would render
their students very eminent either as scholars or as gentlemen: and the
monasteries, which were used as seminaries, even until the reformation,
taught only the corrupt Latin used by the ecclesiastics. The time
however was approaching, when the united efforts of Stanbridge, Linacre,
Sir John Cheke, Dean Colet, Erasmus, William Lily, Roger Ascham, &c.,
were successful in reviving the Latin tongue in all its purity; and even
in exciting a taste for Greek in a nation the clergy of which opposed
its introduction with the same vehemence which characterized their
enmity to a reformation in religion. The very learned Erasmus, the first
who undertook the teaching of the Greek language at Oxford, met with few
friends to support him; notwithstanding Oxford was the seat of nearly
all the learning in England.”-Constable’s Miscellany, Vol. xx, p. 146.

“The priests preached against it, as a very recent invention of the
arch-enemy; and confounding in their misguided zeal, the very foundation
of their faith, with the object of their resentment, they represented
the New Testament itself as ‘an impious and dangerous book,’ because it
was written in that heretical language. Even after the accession of
Henry VIII, when Erasmus, who had quitted Oxford in disgust, returned
under his especial patronage, with the support of several eminent
scholars and powerful persons, his progress was still impeded, and the
language opposed. The University was divided into parties, called Greeks
and Trojans, the latter being the strongest, from being favoured by the
monks; and the Greeks were driven from the streets, with hisses and
other expressions of contempt. It was not therefore until Henry VIII and
Cardinal Wolsey gave it their positive and powerful protection, that
this persecuted language was allowed to be quietly studied, even in the
institutions dedicated to learning.”-Ib., p. 147.

These curious extracts are adduced to show the spirit of the times, and
the obstacles then to be surmounted in the cause of learning. This
popular opposition to Greek, did not spring from a patriotic design to
prefer and encourage English literature; for the improvement of this was
still later, and the great promoters of it were all of them classical
scholars. They wrote in English, not because they preferred it, but
because none but those who were bred in colleges, could read any thing
else; and, even to this very day, the grammatical study of the English
language is shamefully neglected in what are called the higher
institutions of learning. In alleging this neglect, I speak
comparatively. 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 of his own country than to be distinguished for any knowledge
which the learned only can appreciate. “Will the greatest Mastership in
Greek and Latin, or [the] translating [of] these Languages into English,
avail for the Purpose of acquiring an elegant English Style?

No – we know just the Reverse from woeful Experience! And, as Mr. Locke
and the Spectator observe, Men who have threshed hard at Greek and Latin
for ten or eleven years together, are very often deficient in their own
Language.” – Preface to the British Gram, 8vo, 1784, p. xxi.

3. English literature

That the progress of English literature in early times was slow, will
not seem wonderful to those who consider what is affirmed of the
progress of other arts, more immediately connected with the comforts of
life. “Down to the reign of Elizabeth, the greater part of the houses in
considerable towns, had no chimneys: the fire was kindled against the
wall, and the smoke found its way out as well as it could, by the roof,
the door, or the windows. The houses were mostly built of wattling,
plastered over with clay; and the beds were only straw pallets, with a
log of wood for a pillow. In this respect, even the king fared no better
than his subjects; for, in Henry the Eighth’s time, we find directions,
‘to examine every night the straw of the king’s bed, that no daggers
might be concealed therein.’ A writer in 1577, speaking of the progress
of luxury, mentions three things especially, that were ‘marvellously
altered for the worse in England;’ the multitude of chimneys lately
erected, the increase of lodgings, and the exchange of treen platters
into pewter, and wooden spoons into silver and tin; and he complains
bitterly that oak instead of willow was employed in the building of
houses.”–REV. ROYAL ROBBINS: Outlines of History, p. 377.

Shakspeare appeared in the reign of Elizabeth; outlived her thirteen
years; and died in 1616 aged 52. The English language in his hands did
not lack power or compass of expression. His writings are now more
extensively read, than any others of that age; nor has any very
considerable part of his phraseology yet become obsolete. But it ought
to be known, that the printers or editors of the editions which are now
read, have taken extensive liberty in modernizing his orthography, as
well as that of other old authors still popular. How far such liberty is
justifiable, it is difficult to say. Modern readers doubtless find a
convenience in it. It is very desirable that the orthography of our
language should be made uniform, and remain permanent. Great alterations
cannot be suddenly introduced; and there is, in stability, an advantage
which will counterbalance that of a slow approximation to regularity.
Analogy may sometimes decide the form of variable words, but the
concurrent usage of the learned must ever be respected, in this, as in
every other part of grammar.

Among the earliest of the English grammarians, was Ben Jonson, the poet;
who died in the year 1637, at the age of sixty-three. His grammar,
(which Horne Tooke mistakingly calls “the first as well as the best
English grammar,”) is still extant, being published in the several
editions of his works. It is a small treatise, and worthy of attention
only as a matter of curiosity. It is written in prose, and designed
chiefly for the aid of foreigners. Grammar is an unpoetical subject, and
therefore not wisely treated, as it once very generally was, in verse.
But every poet should be familiar with the art, because the formal
principles of his own have always been considered as embraced in it. To
its poets, too, every language must needs be particularly indebted;
because their compositions, being in general more highly finished than
works in prose, are supposed to present the language in its most
agreeable form. In the preface to the Poems of Edmund Waller, published
in 1690, the editor ventures to say, “He was, indeed, the Parent of
English Verse, and the first that shewed us our Tongue had Beauty and
Numbers in it. Our Language owes more to Him, than the French does to
Cardinal Richelieu and the whole Academy. * * * * The Tongue came into
His hands a rough diamond: he polished it first; and to that degree,
that all artists since him have admired the workmanship, 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 may transfer the greater part of it to Dryden and Pope. He
admits that, “After about half a century of forced thoughts and rugged
metre, some advances towards nature and harmony had been already made by
Waller and Denham;” but, in distributing the praise of this improvement,
he adds, “It may be doubted whether Waller and Denham could have
over-born [overborne] the prejudices which had long prevailed, and which
even then were sheltered by the protection of Cowley. The new
versification, as it was called, may be considered as owing its
establishment to Dryden; from whose time it is apparent that English
poetry has had no tendency to relapse to its former
savageness.”–Johnson’s Life of Dryden: Lives, p. 206. To Pope, as the
translator of Homer, he gives this praise: “His version may be said to
have tuned the English tongue; for since its appearance no writer,
however deficient in other powers, has wanted melody.”–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:

“But ever since Pope spoil’d the ears of the town With his cuckoo-song
verses half up and half down.”

The unfortunate Charles I, as well as his father James I, was a lover
and promoter of letters. He was himself a good scholar, and wrote well
in English, for his time: he ascended the throne in 1625, and was
beheaded in 1648. Nor was Cromwell himself, with all his religious and
military enthusiasm, wholly insensible to literary merit. This century
was distinguished by the writings of Milton, Dryden, Waller,Cowley,
Denham, Locke, and others; and the reign of Charles II, which is
embraced in it, has been considered by some “the Augustan age of English
literature.” But that honour, if it may well be bestowed on any, belongs
rather to a later period. The best works produced in the eighteenth
century, are so generally known and so highly esteemed, that it would be
lavish of the narrow space allowed to this introduction, to speak
particularly of their merits. Some grammatical errors may be found in
almost all books; but our language was, in general, written with great
purity and propriety by Addison, Swift, Pope, Johnson, Lowth, Hume,
Horne, and many other celebrated authors who flourished in the last
century. Nor was it much before this period, that the British writers
took any great pains to be accurate in the use of their own language;

“Late, very late, correctness grew our care, When the tir’d nation
breath’d from civil war.”–Pope.

Conclusion

English books began to be printed in the early part of the sixteenth
century; and, as soon as a taste for reading was formed, the press threw
open the flood-gates of general knowledge, the streams of which are now
pouring forth, in a copious, increasing, but too often turbid tide, upon
all the civilized nations of the earth.

This mighty engine afforded a means by which superior minds could act
more efficiently and more extensively upon society in general. And thus,
by the exertions of genius adorned with learning, our native tongue has
been made the polished vehicle of the most interesting truths, and of
the most important discoveries; and has become a language copious,
strong, refined, and capable of no inconsiderable degree of harmony.
Nay, it is esteemed by some who claim to be competent judges, to be the
strongest, the richest, the most elegant, and the most susceptible of
sublime imagery, of all the languages in the world.

Literature

Brill, E. and Mooney, R. J. (1997), ‘An overview of empirical natural
language processing’, 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
Language Parsing. 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 in Bulgarian texts’, in t.a. information, Revue International du
traitement automatique 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-assisted Terminology and Translation, The United Nations,
Geneva.

Georgiev, H. (1993b), ‘Syntcheck, a computer software program for
orthographical and grammatical spell-checking of English texts’,
demonstration at the Joint Inter-Agency Meeting on Computer-assisted
Terminology and Translation, The United Nations, Geneva.

Georgiev, H. (1994—2001), Softhesaurus, English Electronic Lexicon,
produced and marketed by LANGSOFT, Sprachlernmittel, Switzerland;
platform: DOS/ Windows.

Georgiev, H. (1996-2001a), Syntcheck, a computer software program for
orthographical and grammatical spell-checking of German texts, produced
and marketed by LANGSOFT, Sprachlernmittel, Switzerland; platform:
DOS/Windows.

Georgiev, H. (1996-200lb), Syntparse, software program for parsing of
German texts, produced and marketed by LANGSOFT, Sprachlernmittel,
Switzerland; platform: DOS/Windows.

Georgiev, H. (1997—2001a), Syntcheck, a computer software program for
orthographical and grammatical spell-checking of French texts, produced
and marketed by LANGSOFT, Sprachlernmittel, Switzerland; platform:
DOS/Windows.

Georgiev, H. (1997-2001b), Syntparse, software program for parsing of
French texts, produced and marketed by LANGSOFT, Sprachlernmittel,
Switzerland; platform: DOS/Windows.

Нашли опечатку? Выделите и нажмите CTRL+Enter

Похожие документы
Обсуждение

Оставить комментарий

avatar
  Подписаться  
Уведомление о
Заказать реферат
UkrReferat.com. Всі права захищені. 2000-2019