Volume 10, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1874-8767
  • E-ISSN: 1874-8775
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This study investigates the usage patterns of four near-synonymous mental predicates (, , and ) across three Asian ESL (English as a Second Language) varieties as well as British and American Englishes. Using two multivariate techniques, multiple correspondence analysis and classification and regression tree analysis, the study shows the benefits of exploring cross-varietal variation through the lens of lexicalization patterns. The study also demonstrates that to make sense of semantic patterns it is crucial to account for extra-linguistic factors such as genre, as different ESL writers structure the meaning of , , and differently depending on their type of writing. Ultimately, in the broader context of the emancipation of ESL varieties, the results raise important questions about the developmental process of Asian Englishes and the place that semantic structure holds in this endeavor.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aijmer, Karin
    1997I think – An English modal particle. InModality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, Toril Swan & Olaf J. Westvik (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–48. doi: 10.1515/9783110889932.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110889932.1 [Google Scholar]
  2. Benzécri, Jean-Paul
    1973L’analyse des données, 2. L’analyse des correspondances. Paris: Dunod.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 1984Analyse des correspondances, exposé élémentaire (2nd ed.). Paris: Dunod.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bernaisch, Tobias & Stefan Th. Gries
    2016 Exploring epicenters empirically: Focus on South Asian Englishes. English World-Wide37 (1): 1–25. doi: 10.1075/eww.37.1.01gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.37.1.01gri [Google Scholar]
  5. Bernaisch, Tobias , Stefan Th. Gries & Joybrato Mukherjee
    2014 The dative alternation in South Asian English(es): Modelling predictors and predicting prototypes. English World-Wide35 (1): 7–31. doi: 10.1075/eww.35.1.02ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.35.1.02ber [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan
    1989 Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text9: 93–124. doi: 10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93 [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, Douglas , Stig Johansson , Geoffrey Leech , Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan
    1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Biermeier, Thomas
    2008Word-formation in New Englishes – A Corpus-based Analysis. Berlin, Münster: LIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2009 Word-formation in New Englishes. Properties and trends. InWorld Englishes – Problems, Properties and Prospects: Selected Papers from the 13th IAWE Conference, Thomas Hoffmann & Lucia Siebers (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 331–349. doi: 10.1075/veaw.g40.20bie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g40.20bie [Google Scholar]
  10. 2014 Compounding and suffixation in World Englishes. InThe Evolution of Englishes: The Dynamic Model and Beyond, Sarah Buschfeld , Thomas Hoffmann , Magnus Huber & Alexander Kautzsch (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 312–330. doi: 10.1075/veaw.g49.18bie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g49.18bie [Google Scholar]
  11. Brezina, Vaclav
    2013 Certainty and uncertainty in spoken language: In search of epistemic sociolect and idiolect. InVariation in Language and Language Use, Monika Reif , Justyna A. Robinson & Martin Pütz (eds). Frankfurt and Main: Peter Lang, 97–128.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bucholtz, Mary & Kira Hall
    2005 Identity and interaction: A socio-cultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies7 (4–5): 585–614. doi: 10.1177/1461445605054407
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054407 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bybee, Joan , Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca
    1994The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Callies, Marcus 2016 Towards a process-oriented approach to comparing EFL and ESL varieties: A corpus-study of lexical innovations. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research2 (2): 229–251. doi: 10.1075/ijlcr.2.2.05cal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.2.2.05cal [Google Scholar]
  15. Chafe, Wallace
    1986 Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. InEvidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds). New York: Able, 261–272.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Coates, Jennifer
    1983The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Conrad, Susan & Douglas Biber
    2000 Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. InEvaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 56–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. DeCarrico, Jeanette S.
    1986 Tense, aspect, and time in the English modality system. TESOL Quarterly20 (4): 665–682. doi: 10.2307/3586517
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586517 [Google Scholar]
  19. Deshors, Sandra C. & Stefan Th. Gries
    2016 Profiling verb complementation constructions across New Englishes: A two-step random forests analysis of –ing vs. –to complements. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics21 (2): 192–218. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.21.2.03des
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.21.2.03des [Google Scholar]
  20. Divjak, Dagmar
    2010Structuring the Lexicon: A Clustered Model for Near-Synonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110220599
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220599 [Google Scholar]
  21. Divjak, Dagmar & Stefan Th. Gries
    2009 Corpus-based cognitive semantics: A contrastive study of phrasal verbs in English and Russian. In Studies in Cognitive Corpus Linguistics, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & Katarzyna Dziwirek (eds). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 273–296.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Du Bois, John
    2007 The stance triangle. InStancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, Robert Englebretson (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 138–183. doi: 10.1075/pbns.164
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164 [Google Scholar]
  23. Englebretson, Robert
    (ed.) 2007Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.164
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164 [Google Scholar]
  24. Fortescue, Michael
    2001 Thoughts about thought. Cognitive Linguistics12: 15–45. doi: 10.1515/cogl.12.1.15
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.1.15 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gablasova, Dana , Vaclav Brezina , Tony McEnery & Elaine Boyd
    2015 Epistemic stance in spoken L2 English: The effect of task and speaker style. Applied Linguistics: 1–26. < applij.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/10/31/applin.amv055.full.pdf+htm〉 (Last accessed on4 December 2016).
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Glynn, Dylan
    2014a Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns. InCorpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy, Dylan Glynn & Justyna Robinson (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 443–485. doi: 10.1075/hcp.43.17gly
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.17gly [Google Scholar]
  27. 2014b Techniques and tools: Corpus methods and statistics for semantics. InCorpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy, Dylan Glynn & Justyna Robinson (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 307–341. doi: 10.1075/hcp.43.12gly
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.12gly [Google Scholar]
  28. Gonzáles, Montserrat , Paolo Roseano , Jan Barràs & Pilar Prieto
    2014 Epistemic and evidential marking in discourse: Effects of register and debatability. Lingua doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.008 [Google Scholar]
  29. Goodwin, Charles & Marjorie H. Goodwin
    1992 Assessments and the construction of context. InRethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 147–189.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Goodwin, Marjorie H. 2006The Hidden Life of Girls: Games of Stance, Status, and Exclusion. Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470773567
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470773567 [Google Scholar]
  31. Greenacre, Michael
    2006 From simple to multiple correspondence analysis. InMultiple Correspondence Analysis and Related Methods, Michael Greenacre & Jorg Blasius (eds). London: Chapman & Hall, 41–76. doi: 10.1201/9781420011319.ch2
    https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420011319.ch2 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2007Correspondence Analysis in Practice (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC. doi: 10.1201/9781420011234
    https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420011234 [Google Scholar]
  33. Greenbaum, Sidney
    1991 ICE: The International Corpus of English. English Today7 (4): 3–7. doi: 10.1017/S0266078400005836
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078400005836 [Google Scholar]
  34. Gries, Stefan Th
    2006 Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many meanings of to run . InCorpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, Stefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 57–99. doi: 10.1515/9783110197709
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197709 [Google Scholar]
  35. Horch, Stephanie
    2016 Innovative conversions in South-East Asian Englishes: Reassessing ESL status. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research2 (2): 278–301. doi: 10.1075/ijlcr.2.2.07hor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.2.2.07hor [Google Scholar]
  36. Hsieh, Chia-Ling
    2009 Epistemic stance taking in Chinese media discourse. Linguistic Theory Research3: 1–35. 〈web.ntnu.edu.tw/~clhsieh/2_Research/2.1_Publication/A07_2009.12_RTL.pdf〉 (Last accessed on4 December 2016).
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Hunston, Susan & John Sinclair
    2000 A local grammar of evaluation. InEvaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 74–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Hunston, Susan & Geoff Thompson
    2000Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kärkkäinen, Elise
    2003a ‘Is she vicious or dense?’: Dialogic practices of stance taking in conversation. InSanta Barbara Papers in Linguistics 12: Recent Studies in Empirical Approaches to Language, Toshihide Nakayama , Tsuyoshi Ono & Hongyun Tao (eds). Santa Barbara: University of California, Santa Barbara, 47–65.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2003bEpistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of its Interactional Functions, with a Focus on ‘I think’. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.115
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.115 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2006 Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text & Talk26: 699–731. doi: 10.1515/TEXT.2006.029
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.029 [Google Scholar]
  42. Krawczak, Karolina
    2014 Epistemic stance predicates in English: A quantitative corpus-driven study of subjectivity. InSubjectivity and Epistemicity: Corpus, Discourse, and Literary Approaches to Stance, Dylan Glynn & Mette Sjölin (eds). Lund: Lund University Press, 303–328.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Labov, William & Joshua Waletzky
    1967 Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. InEssays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, June Helm (ed.). Seattle: University of Washington Press, 12–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1999Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110800524
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2009Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110214369
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369 [Google Scholar]
  46. Leimgruber, Jacob R. E.
    2011 Singapore English. Languages and Linguistics Compass5 (1): 47–62. doi: 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2010.00262.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00262.x [Google Scholar]
  47. Linde, Charlotte 1997 Evaluation as linguistic structure and social practice. InThe Constructional of Professional Discourse, Britt-Louise Gunnarsson , Per Linell & Bengt Nordberg (eds). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 151–172.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Lyons, John
    1977Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Macken-Horarik, Mary & J. R. Martin
    2003Negotiating Heteroglossia: Social Perspectives on Evaluation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Marín-Arrese, Juana
    2009 Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity/intersubjectivity in political discourse: A case study. InStudies on English Modality, Anastasios Tsangalidis & Roberta Facchinetti (eds). Berlin: Peter Lang, 23–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 2011 Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse: Legitimising strategies and mystification of responsibility. InCritical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition, Christopher Hart (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 193–223. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.43.10mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.43.10mar [Google Scholar]
  52. 2015 Epistemicity and stance: A cross-linguistic study of epistemic stance strategies in journalistic discourse in English and Spanish. Discourse Studies17 (2): 210–225. doi: 10.1177/1461445614564523
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445614564523 [Google Scholar]
  53. Mukherjee, Joybrato & Stefan Th. Gries
    2009 Collostructional nativisation in New Englishes: Verb-construction associations in the International Corpus of English. English World-Wide30: 27–51. doi: 10.1075/eww.30.1.03muk
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.30.1.03muk [Google Scholar]
  54. Mukherjee, Joybrato & Marco Schilk
    2008 Verb-complementational profiles across varieties of English: Comparing verb classes in Indian English and British English. InThe Dynamics of Linguistic Variation: Corpus Evidence on English Past and Present, Terttu Nevalainen , Irma Taavitsainen , Päivi Pahta & Minna Korhonen (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 163–181. doi: 10.1075/silv.2.14muk
    https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.2.14muk [Google Scholar]
  55. Nuyts, Johan
    2001 Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics33: 383–400. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00009‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00009-6 [Google Scholar]
  56. Okunrinmeta, Uriel
    2013 Izon influences in Nigerian English syntax. English Language and Literature Studies3: 30–43. doi: 10.5539/ells.v3n2p30
    https://doi.org/10.5539/ells.v3n2p30 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2014 Syntactic and lexico-semantic variations in Nigerian English: Implications and challenges in the ESL classroom. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics4: 317–332. doi: 10.4236/ojml.2014.42026
    https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2014.42026 [Google Scholar]
  58. Palmer, Frank
    1990Modality and the English Modals. 2nd ed.. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Phelps, Mandy & Edgar Merkle
    2008 Classification and regression trees as alternatives to regression. Proceedings of the 4 th Annual GRASP Symposium , Wichita State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Põldvere, Nele
    2013Stance-taking and social status on an online bulletin board: A qualitative and quantitative approach. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Lund University.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. R Development Core Team
    2015 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 〈www.R-project.org〉.
  62. Sanders, José & Wilbert Spooren
    1996 Subjectivity and certainty in epistemic modality: A study of Dutch epistemic modifiers. Cognitive Linguistics7 (3): 241–264. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1996.7.3.241
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.3.241 [Google Scholar]
  63. Scheibman, Joanne
    2002Point of View and Grammar: Structural Patterns of Subjectivity in American English Conversation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.11 [Google Scholar]
  64. Schilk, Marco , Tobias Bernaisch & Joybrato Mukherjee 2012 Mapping unity and diversity in South Asian English lexicogrammar. InMapping Unity and Diversity World-wide: Corpus-based Studies of New Englishes, Marianne Hundt & Ulrike Gut (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 137–166. doi: 10.1075/veaw.g43.06sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g43.06sch [Google Scholar]
  65. Schneider, Edgar W.
    2007Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511618901
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618901 [Google Scholar]
  66. Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie
    1997 Modal (un)certainty in political discourse: A functional account. Language Sciences19 (4): 341–356. doi: 10.1016/S0388‑0001(96)00068‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(96)00068-X [Google Scholar]
  67. Thompson, Geoff & Susan Hunston
    2000 Evaluation: An introduction. InEvaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Timofeev, Roman
    2004Classification and Regression Trees (CART): Theory and Applications. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Humboldt University, Berlin.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Werner, Janina & Joybrato Mukherjee
    2012 Highly polysemous verbs in New Englishes: A corpus-based study of Sri Lankan and Indian English. InCorpus Linguistics: Looking back – Moving forward, Sebastian Hoffmann , Paul Rayson & Geoffrey Leech (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Rodopi, 249–266. doi: 10.1163/9789401207478_018
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401207478_018 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error