1887
Volume 39, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0172-8865
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9730

Abstract

This paper considers pronoun omission in different varieties of English. It argues that omitted pronouns simplify structures if their referents are accessible in discourse, which explains the greater frequency of this grammatical feature in high-contact varieties of English, spoken in speech communities with a history of high numbers of second-language users. A corpus study of two high-contact varieties, Indian English and Singapore English, and a low-contact one, British English, is conducted in order to examine the distribution of omitted and overt pronouns. As expected, pronoun omission is more frequent in the high-contact varieties than in British English. Moreover, pronouns are omitted almost exclusively when they have highly accessible referents as antecedents, which is not a conventionalized feature of the grammars of Indian or Singapore English, where overt pronouns are the default choice when referring to antecedents.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/eww.00004.tam
2018-02-01
2019-08-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/eww.00004.tam.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/eww.00004.tam&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. International Corpus of English – the Indian Component
    International Corpus of English – the Indian Component 2002 Project Coordinated by Prof.S. V. Shastri at Shivaji University, India, and Prof. Dr. Gerhard Leitner at Freie Universität Berlin, Germany. Available online at ice-corpora.net/ice/download.htm
  2. International Corpus of English – the Singaporean Component
    International Corpus of English – the Singaporean Component 2002 Project Coordinated by Prof.Paroo Nihilani, Dr. Ni Yibin, Dr. Anne Pakir and Dr. Vincent Ooi at The National University of Singapore, Singapore. Available online at ice-corpora.net/ice/download.htm
  3. Kortmann, Bernd, and Kerstin Lunkenheimer
    eds. 2013The Electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology www.ewave-atlas.org (accessedOctober 20, 2014).
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ariel, Mira
    1988 “Referring and Accessibility”. Journal of Linguistics24: 65–87. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700011567
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700011567 [Google Scholar]
  5. 1990Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 1994 “Interpreting Anaphoric Expressions: A Cognitive versus a Pragmatic Approach”. Journal of Linguistics30: 3–42. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700016170
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700016170 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2001 “Accessibility Theory: An Overview”. InTed Sanders, Joost Schliperoord, and Wilbert Spooren, eds.Text Representation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 29–87. doi: 10.1075/hcp.8.04ari
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.8.04ari [Google Scholar]
  8. Bao, Zhiming
    2001 “The Origins of Empty Categories in Singapore English”. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages16: 275–319. doi: 10.1075/jpcl.16.2.03zhi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.16.2.03zhi [Google Scholar]
  9. Chomsky, Noam
    1981Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cole, Melvyn D.
    2009 “Null Subjects: A Reanalysis of the Data”. Linguistics47: 559–587. doi: 10.1515/LING.2009.019
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2009.019 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2010 “Thematic Null Subjects and Accessibility”. Studia Linguistica64: 271–320. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.2010.01172.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2010.01172.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Dahl, Östen
    2009 “Testing the Assumption of Complexity Invariance: The Case of Elfdalian and Swedish”. InGeoffrey Sampson, David Gil, and Peter Trudgill, eds.Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 50–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud, and August Fenk
    2008 “Complexity Trade-offs between Subsystems of Language”. InMatti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki, and Fred Karlsson, eds.Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 43–65. doi: 10.1075/slcs.94.05fen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.94.05fen [Google Scholar]
  14. Gundel, Jeanette, and Elaine Tarone
    1983 “Language Transfer and the Acquisition of Pronominal Anaphora”. InSusan Gass and Larry Selinker, eds.Language Transfer and Language Learning. Rowley: Newbury House, 281–296.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gundel, Jeanette, Nancy Stenson, and Elaine Tarone
    1984 “Acquiring Pronouns in a Second Language: Evidence for Hypothesis Testing”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition6: 215–225. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100005027
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100005027 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hawkins, John A.
    2004Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2009 “An Efficiency Theory of Complexity and Related Phenomena”. InGeoffrey Sampson, David Gil, and Peter Trudgill, eds.Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 252–268.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva
    2005Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511614132
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614132 [Google Scholar]
  19. Huang, C.-T. James
    1984 “On the Distribution and Reference of Empty Pronouns”. Linguistic Inquiry15: 531–574.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Huang, Yan
    1992 “Against Chomky’s Typology of Empty Categories”. Journal of Pragmatics17: 1–29. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90026‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90026-8 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2000Anaphora: A Cross-linguistic Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Huddleston, Rodney, Geoffrey K. Pullum, Laurie Bauer, Betty Birner, Ted Briscoe, Peter Collins, David Denison, David Lee, Anita Mittwoch, Geoffrey Nunberg, Frank Palmer, John Payne, Peter Peterson, Lesley Stirling, and Gregory Ward
    2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  23. Jaeggli, Osvaldo, and Kenneth J. Safir
    eds. 1989The Null Subject Parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑2540‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2540-3 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kusters, Wouter
    2003Linguistic Complexity: The Influence of Social Change on Verbal Inflection. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. McWhorter, John H.
    2007Language Interrupted: Signs of Non-native Acquisition in Standard Language Grammars. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195309805.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195309805.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Miestamo, Matti
    2008 “Grammatical Complexity in a Cross-linguistic Perspective”. InMatti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki, and Fred Karlsson, eds.Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 23–41. doi: 10.1075/slcs.94.04mie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.94.04mie [Google Scholar]
  27. Miestamo, Matti, Kaius Sinnemäki, and Fred Karlsson
    eds. 2008Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.94
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.94 [Google Scholar]
  28. Moag, Rodney F., and Robert Poletto
    1991 “Discourse Level Evidence for South Asia as a Linguistic Area”. Language Sciences3: 229–254. doi: 10.1016/0388‑0001(91)90016‑T
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0388-0001(91)90016-T [Google Scholar]
  29. Neeleman, Add and Kriszta Szendröi
    2007 “Radical Pro Drop and the Morphology of Pronouns”. Linguistic Inquiry38: 671–716. doi: 10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.671
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.671 [Google Scholar]
  30. Nichols, Johanna
    2009 “Linguistic Complexity: A Comprehensive Definition and Survey”. InGeoffrey Sampson, David Gil, and Peter Trudgill, eds.Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 110–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Rizzi, Luigi
    1986 “Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro”. Linguistic Inquiry17: 501–558.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Sampson, Geoffrey
    2009 “A Linguistic Axiom Challenged”. InGeoffrey Sampson, David Gil, and Peter Trudgill, eds.Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 243–251.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Schneider, Edgar
    2007Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511618901
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618901 [Google Scholar]
  34. Scott, Mike
    2012WordSmith Tools. Version 6. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Sinnemäki, Kaius
    2008 “Complexity Trade-offs in Core Argument Marking”. InMatti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki, and Fred Karlsson, eds.Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 67–88. doi: 10.1075/slcs.94.06sin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.94.06sin [Google Scholar]
  36. Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, and Bernd Kortmann
    2009 “Between Simplification and Complexification: Non-standard Varieties of English around the World”. InGeoffrey Sampson, David Gil, and Peter Trudgill, eds.Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 65–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Trudgill, Peter
    2009a “Sociolinguistic Typology and Complexification”. InGeoffrey Sampson, David Gil, and Peter Trudgill, eds.Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 98–109.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2009b “Vernacular Universals and the Sociolinguistic Typology of English Dialects”. InMarkku Filppula, Juhani Klemola, and Heli Paulasto, eds.Vernacular Universals and Language Contacts: Evidence from Varieties of English and Beyond. London: Routledge, 304–322.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2011Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Williams, Jessica
    1987 “Non-native Varieties of English: A Special Case of Language Acquisition”. English World-Wide8: 161–199. doi: 10.1075/eww.8.2.02wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.8.2.02wil [Google Scholar]
  41. 1988 “Zero Anaphora in Second Language Acquisition: A Comparison among Three Varieties of English”. Studies in Second Languages Acquisition10: 339–370. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100007488
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100007488 [Google Scholar]
  42. Zyzik, Eve
    2008 “Null Objects in Second Language Acquisition: Grammatical vs. Performance Models”. Second Language Research24: 65–110. doi: 10.1177/0267658307082982
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658307082982 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/eww.00004.tam
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/eww.00004.tam
Loading

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