1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. English World-Wide
  4. Volume 37, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 37, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0172-8865
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

We sketch a project that marries probabilistic grammar research to scholarship on World Englishes, thus synthesizing two previously rather disjoint lines of research into one unifying project with a coherent focus. This synthesis is hoped to advance usage-based theoretical linguistics by adopting a large-scale comparative and sociolinguistically responsible perspective on grammatical variation. To highlight the descriptive and theoretical benefits of the approach, we present case studies of three syntactic alternations (the particle placement, genitive, and dative alternations) in four varieties of English (British, Canadian, Indian, and Singapore), as represented in the International Corpus of English. We report that the varieties studied share a core probabilistic grammar which is, however, subject to indigenization at various degrees of subtlety, depending on the abstractness of the syntactic patterns studied.

© 2016 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/eww.37.2.01szm
2016-06-24
2024-09-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/eww.37.2.01szm
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adger, David , and Graeme Trousdale
    2007 “Variation in English Syntax: Theoretical Implications”. English Language and Linguistics11: 261–278. doi: 10.1017/S1360674307002250
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674307002250 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, R. Harald , Anna Endresen , Laura A. Janda , Anastasia Makarova , and Tore Nesset
    2013 “Making Choices in Russian: Pros and Cons of Statistical Methods for Rival Forms”. Russian Linguistics37: 253–291. doi: 10.1007/s11185‑013‑9118‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-013-9118-6 [Google Scholar]
  3. Behagel, Otto
    1909 “Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern”. Indogermanische Forschungen25: 110–142.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bernaisch, Tobias , Stefan Th. Gries , and Joybrato Mukherjee
    2014 “The Dative Alternation in South Asian English(es): Modelling Predictors and Predicting Prototypes”. English World-Wide35: 7–31. doi: 10.1075/eww.35.1.02ber
     https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.35.1.02ber [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, Douglas , Stig Johansson , Geoffrey Leech , Susan Conrad , and Edward Finegan
    1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bod, Rens , Jennifer Hay , and Stefanie Jannedy
    eds. 2003 Probabilistic Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bresnan, Joan
    2007 “Is Syntactic Knowledge Probabilistic? Experiments with the English Dative Alternation”. In Sam Featherston , and Wolfgang Sternefeld , eds.Roots: Linguistics in Search of Its Evidential Base. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 75–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bresnan, Joan , Anna Cueni , Tatiana Nikitina , and Harald Baayen
    2007 “Predicting the Dative Alternation”. In Gerlof Boume , Irene Krämer , and Joost Zwarts , eds.Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, 69–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bresnan, Joan , and Marilyn Ford
    2010 “Predicting Syntax: Processing Dative Constructions in American and Australian Varieties of English.” Language86: 168–213. doi: 10.1353/lan.0.0189
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0189 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bybee, Joan , and Paul Hopper
    2001 Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.45
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cappelle, Bert
    2005 “Particle Patterns in English: A Comprehensive Coverage”. Ph.D. dissertation, K.U. Leuven, Belgium.
  12. Davies, Mark , and Robert Fuchs
    2015 “Expanding Horizons in the Study of World Englishes with the 1.9 Billion Word Global Web-Based English Corpus (GloWbE)”. English World-Wide36: 1–28. doi: 10.1075/eww.36.1.01dav
     https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.36.1.01dav [Google Scholar]
  13. De Cuypere, Ludovic , and Saartje Verbeke
    2013 “Dative Alternation in Indian English: A Corpus-Based Analysis”. World Englishes32: 169–184. doi: 10.1111/weng.12017
     https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12017 [Google Scholar]
  14. Ehret, Katharina , Christoph Wolk , and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
    2014 “Quirky Quadratures: On Rhythm and Weight as Constraints on Genitive Variation in an Unconventional Data Set”. English Language and Linguistics18: 263–303. doi: 10.1017/S1360674314000033
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674314000033 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gahl, Susanne , and Susan Garnsey
    2004 “Knowledge of Grammar, Knowledge of Usage: Syntactic Probabilities Affect Pronunciation Variation”. Language80: 748–775. doi: 10.1353/lan.2004.0185
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0185 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gahl, Susanne , and Alan C.L. Yu
    2006 Special Theme Issue: Exemplar-Based Models in Linguistics. The Linguistic Review. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Garretson, Gregory , M. Catherine O’Connor , Barbora Skarabela , and Marjorie Hogan
    2004 “Coding Practices Used in the Project Optimality Typology of Determiner Phrases”. corpus.bu.edu/documentation/BUNPCorpus_coding_practices.pdf. (accessedJanuary 8, 2016).
  18. Grafmiller, Jason
    2014 “Variation in English Genitives across Modality and Genres”. English Language and Linguistics18: 471–496. doi: 10.1017/S1360674314000136
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674314000136 [Google Scholar]
  19. Grafmiller, Jason , and Melanie Röthlisberger
    . In prep. “Construction Grammar Goes Global: Syntactic Alternations, Schematization, and Collostructional Diversity in World English(es)”.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Gries, Stefan Th
    2003 Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement. New York: Continuum Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Harrell, Frank E
    2001 Regression Modeling Strategies With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis. New York: Springer New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Harrell, Frank E. Jr
    2014 Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous. R Package Version 3.14-6 (version 3.14-6). CRAN.R-project.org/package=Hmisc (accessedJanuary 14, 2016).
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Hinrichs, Lars , and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
    2007 “Recent Changes in the Function and Frequency of Standard English Genitive Constructions: A Multivariate Analysis of Tagged Corpora”. English Language and Linguistics11: 437–474. doi: 10.1017/S1360674307002341
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674307002341 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hoffmann, Thomas
    2014 “The Cognitive Evolution of Englishes: The Role of Constructions in the Dynamic Model”. In Sarah Buschfeld , Thomas Hoffmann , Magnus Huber , and Alexander Kautzsch , eds.The Evolution of Englishes: The Dynamic Model and Beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 160–80. doi: 10.1075/veaw.g49.10hof
     https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g49.10hof [Google Scholar]
  25. Hothorn, Torsten , Kurt Hornik , and Achim Zeileis
    2006 “Unbiased Recursive Partitioning: A Conditional Inference Framework”. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics15: 651–674. doi: 10.1198/106186006X133933
     https://doi.org/10.1198/106186006X133933 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kachru, Braj B
    ed. 1992 The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. (2nd ed.) Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Labov, William
    1972 Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 1982 “Building on Empirical Foundations”. In Winfred Lehmann , and Yakov Malkiel , eds.Perspectives on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 17–92. doi: 10.1075/cilt.24.06lab
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.24.06lab [Google Scholar]
  29. Levy, Roger
    2008 “Expectation-Based Syntactic Comprehension”. Cognition106: 1126–1177. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  30. MacDonald, Maryellen C
    2013 “How Language Production Shapes Language Form and Comprehension”. Frontiers in Psychology4: 1–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Mesthrie, Rajend , and Rakesh Mohan Bhatt
    2008 World Englishes: The Study of New Linguistic Varieties. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791321
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791321 [Google Scholar]
  32. Mukherjee, Joybrato
    2007 “Steady States in the Evolution of New Englishes: Present-Day Indian English as an Equilibrium”. Journal of English Linguistics35: 157–187. doi: 10.1177/0075424207301888
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424207301888 [Google Scholar]
  33. Mukherjee, Joybrato , and Sebastian Hoffmann
    2006 “Describing Verb-Complementational Profiles of New Englishes: A Pilot Study of Indian English”. English World-Wide27: 147–173. doi: 10.1075/eww.27.2.03muk
     https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.27.2.03muk [Google Scholar]
  34. Olavarría de Ersson, Eugenia , and Philip Shaw
    2003 “Verb Complementation Patterns in Indian Standard English”. English World-Wide24: 137–161. doi: 10.1075/eww.24.2.02ers
     https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.24.2.02ers [Google Scholar]
  35. Osselton, Noel
    1988 “Thematic Genitives”. In Graham Nixon , and John Honey , eds.An Historic Tongue: Studies in English Linguistics in Memory of Barbara Strang. London: Routledge, 138–144.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Quirk, Randolph , Sidney Greenbaum , Geoffrey Leech , and Jan Svartvik
    1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Rohdenburg, Günter
    1996 “Cognitive Complexity and Increased Grammatical Explicitness in English”. Cognitive Linguistics7: 149–182. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.149
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.149 [Google Scholar]
  38. Rosenbach, Anette
    2014 “English Genitive Variation – the State of the Art”. English Language and Linguistics18: 215–262. doi: 10.1017/S1360674314000021
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674314000021 [Google Scholar]
  39. Schilk, Marco , Tobias Bernaisch , and Joybrato Mukherjee
    2012 “Mapping Unity and Diversity in South Asian English Lexicogrammar: Verb-Complementational Preferences across Varieties”. In Marianne Hundt , and Ulrike Gut , eds.Mapping Unity and Diversity World-Wide: Corpus-Based Studies of New Englishes. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 137–165. doi: 10.1075/veaw.g43.06sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g43.06sch [Google Scholar]
  40. Schneider, Edgar W
    2003 “The Dynamics of New Englishes: From Identity Construction to Dialect Birth”. Language79: 233–281. doi: 10.1353/lan.2003.0136
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0136 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2007 Postcolonial English: Varieties Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511618901
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618901 [Google Scholar]
  42. Strobl, Carolin , Anne-Laure Boulesteix , Thomas Kneib , Thomas Augustin , and Achim Zeileis
    2008 “Conditional Variable Importance for Random Forests.” BMC Bioinformatics9: 307. bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2105-9-307 (accessedJanuary 14, 2016). doi: 10.1186/1471‑2105‑9‑307
     https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-9-307 [Google Scholar]
  43. Strobl, Carolin , Anne-Laure Boulesteix , Achim Zeileis , and Torsten Hothorn
    2007 “Bias in Random Forest Variable Importance Measures: Illustrations, Sources and a Solution”. BMC Bioinformatics8: 25. bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2105-8-25 (accessedJanuary 14, 2016). doi: 10.1186/1471‑2105‑8‑25
     https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-8-25 [Google Scholar]
  44. Tagliamonte, Sali
    2001 “Comparative Sociolinguistics.” In Jack Chambers , Peter Trudgill , and Natalie Schilling-Estes , eds.Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell, 729–763.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Tagliamonte, Sali , and Harald Baayen
    2012 “Models, Forests and Trees of York English: ‘Was/were’ Variation as a Case Study for Statistical Practice”. Language Variation and Change24: 135–178. doi: 10.1017/S0954394512000129
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394512000129 [Google Scholar]
  46. Wasow, Thomas , and Jennifer Arnold
    2003 “Post-Verbal Constituent Ordering in English”. In Günter Rohdenburg , and Britta Mondorf , eds.Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, 119–154.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Wolk, Christoph , Joan Bresnan , Anette Rosenbach , and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
    2013 “Dative and Genitive Variability in Late Modern English: Exploring Cross-Constructional Variation and Change”. Diachronica30: 382–419. doi: 10.1075/dia.30.3.04wol
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.30.3.04wol [Google Scholar]
  48. Zwicky, Arnold M
    1987 “Suppressing the Zs”. Journal of Linguistics23: 133–148. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700011063
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700011063 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/eww.37.2.01szm
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): dative alternation; genitive alternation; multivariate analysis; particle placement; Probabilistic grammar; probabilistic indigenization; syntax; variation

Most Cited

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