i certainly don''t know where you''d find an English grammar, but i''m sure one''s out there. As for being in BNF, don''t they tell you not to use that? At least for NLP stuff. i don''t know, i could be wrong, it''s been a long time

A simple grammar would be something like:
s( Number, s( NP,VP) ) --> np(Number,NP), vp(Number,VP).
np(Number, np(D,Noun)) --> determiner(Number,D), noun(Number,Noun).
np(Number, np(PN) ) --> pronoun(Number,PN).
vp(Number, vp(V,NP) ) --> verb(Number,V), np(Number1,NP).
vp(Number, vp(V) ) --> verb(Number,V).
where it''s intended to be used with a lexicon that looks like:
noun(singular,noun(pizza)) --> [pizza].

Taking out the case agreement and all that you''d get something like:
S -> NP VP
NP -> Pronoun | Name | Noun
VP -> VP NP
PP -> Preposition NP

That''s part of the grammar for E1 that i think you can find in the AIMA book (ick) or look up on their Web site (aima.cs.berkeley.edu)

Not sure if that was what you were looking for

As for the context stuff, i believe most NLP work treats English as a CFG because it''s easier than writing context-sensitive and recursively enumerable grammars. i don''t know - it was never a big interest of mine and i''m surprised i remember this much

-baylor