Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T23:35:49.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Probabilistic indigenization effects at the lexis–syntax interface

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2019

IVÁN TAMAREDO Open the ORCID record for IVÁN TAMAREDO [Opens in a new window] ,
MELANIE RÖTHLISBERGER ,
JASON GRAFMILLER  and
BENEDIKT HELLER
IVÁN TAMAREDO
Affiliation:
Department of English and German, University of Santiago de Compostela, Avenida de Castelao (Campus Norte), 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain, ivan.tamaredo@usc.es
MELANIE RÖTHLISBERGER
Affiliation:
English Department, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 47, 8032Zürich, Switzerland, melanie.roethlisberger@es.uzh.ch
JASON GRAFMILLER
Affiliation:
Department of English Language and Linguistics, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, BirminghamB15 2TT, United Kingdom, j.grafmiller@bham.ac.uk
BENEDIKT HELLER
Affiliation:
Continental AG, mail@benedikt-heller.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Szmrecsanyi et al. (2016) define probabilistic indigenization as the process whereby probabilistic constraints shape variation patterns in different ways, which eventually leads to more heterogeneity in the constraints governing syntactic variation across different varieties of English. The present study extends our knowledge of the heterogeneity of probabilistic grammars by sketching a corpus-based variationist method for calculating the similarity between varieties thereby drawing inspiration from the comparative sociolinguistics literature. Based on linguistic material from the International Corpus of English, we ascertain the degree of regional variability of five probabilistic constraints on the genitive, dative, particle placement and subject pronoun omission alternations across three varieties of English, namely British, Indian and Singapore English. Our results indicate that, of the four alternations under study, the genitive alternation is the most homogeneous one from a regional perspective, followed – in increasing order of heterogeneity – by subject pronoun omission, dative and particle placement alternations. On the basis of these findings, we evaluate claims in the literature according to which the extent of probabilistic indigenization is proportional to the lexical specificity of the syntactic phenomenon under study, a hypothesis that is borne out by our data.

Keywords

probabilistic grammarWorld Englishesprobabilistic indigenizationalternation-internal homogeneitylexical specificity
Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , June 2020 , pp. 413 - 440
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Generous financial support from the following institutions is gratefully acknowledged: Regional Government of Galicia (grants no. ED431B 2017/12 and ED431D 2017/09); Spanish Ministry of Innovation, Science and Universities (grants no. FFI2017-86884-P, FFI2014-52188-P and BES-2015-071233); European Regional Development Fund; and the Research Foundation Flanders (grant no. G.0C59.13N). We would further like to express our gratitude to the editors and copy-editors of English Language and Linguistics, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions. Thanks are also due to Benedikt Szmrecsanyi and Daniela Pettersson-Traba for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this article. The usual disclaimers apply.

References

Sources

Davies, Mark. 2013. Corpus of Global Web-Based English: 1.9 Billion Words from Speakers in 20 Countries (GloWbE). https//corpus.byu.edu/glowbe (accessed 11 April 2018).Google Scholar
ICE-GB: International Corpus of English – The British Component. www.ice-corpora.net/ice/download (accessed 11 April 2018).Google Scholar
ICE-IND: International Corpus of English – The Indian Component. www.ice-corpora.net/ice/download (accessed 11 April 2018).Google Scholar
ICE-SIN: International Corpus of English – The Singaporean Component. www.ice-corpora.net/ice/download (accessed 11 April 2018).Google Scholar

References

Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin, Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1), 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernaisch, Tobias, Gries, Stefan Th. & Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2014. The dative alternation in South Asian English(es): Modelling predictors and predicting prototypes. English World-Wide 35(1), 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2007. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Featherston, Sam & Sternfeld, Wolfgang (eds.), Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base, 75–96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana & Harald Baayen, R.. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Bouma, Gerlof, Krämer, Irene & Zwarts, Joost (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Hay, Jennifer. 2008. Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 118(2), 245–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Ford, Marilyn. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86(1), 168–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic & Verbeke, Saartje. 2013. Dative alternation in Indian English: A corpus-based analysis. World Englishes 32(2), 169–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew. 2008. Scaling regression inputs by two standard deviations. Statistics in Medicine 27(15), 2865–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerwin, Johanna & Röthlisberger, Melanie. To appear. Dialectal ditransitive patterns in British English: Weighing sociolinguistic factors against language-internal constraints. In Röthlisberger, Melanie, Zehentner, Eva & Colleman, Timothy (eds.), Ditransitive constructions in Germanic languages: Diachronic and synchronic aspects (Studies in Germanic Linguistics). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason. 2014. Variation in English genitives across modality and genres. English Language and Linguistics 18(3), 471–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2018. Mapping out particle placement in Englishes around the world: A case study in comparative sociolinguistic analysis. Language Variation and Change 30(3), 385–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hajjem, Ahlem, Bellavance, François & Larocque, Denis. 2014. Mixed-effects random forest for clustered data. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 84(6), 1313–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrell, Frank E. Jr 2014. Hmisc: Harrell miscellaneous. R Package Version 3.14-6. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Hmisc (accessed 17 September 2018).Google Scholar
Heller, Benedikt. 2018. Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide: The genitive alternation across varieties of English. PhD dissertation, KU Leuven.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, Benedikt, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Grafmiller, Jason. 2017. Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide: The genitive alternation across varieties of English. Journal of English Linguistics 45(1), 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2007. Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora. English Language and Linguistics 11(3), 437–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2014. The cognitive evolution of Englishes: The role of constructions in the Dynamic Model. In Buschfeld, Sarah, Hoffmann, Thomas, Huber, Magnus & Kautzsch, Alexander (eds.), The evolution of Englishes: The Dynamic Model and beyond, 160–80. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hosmer, David W. & Lemeshow, Stanley. 2000. Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Buehlmann, Peter, Dudoit, Sandrine, Molinaro, Annette & Van Der Laan, Mark. 2006. Survival ensembles. Biostatistics 7(3), 355–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hundt, Marianne, Röthlisberger, Melanie & Seoane, Elena. To appear. Predicting voice alternation across academic Englishes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.Google Scholar
Kachru, Yamuna. 2006. Hindi. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Leimgruber, Jakob R. E. 2013. Singapore English: Structure, variation, and usage. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A.. 1989. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend & Bhatt, Rakesh M.. 2008. World Englishes: The study of new linguistic varieties. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2007. Steady states in the evolution of New Englishes: Present-day Indian English as an equilibrium. Journal of English Linguistics 35(2), 157–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato & Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2006. Describing verb-complementational profiles of New Englishes: A pilot study of Indian English. English World-Wide 27(2), 147–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana & Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 2001. African American English in the diaspora. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2017. R: A Language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2002. Genitive variation in English: Conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2003. Aspects of iconicity and economy in the choice between the s-genitive and the of-genitive in English. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 379–711. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2014. English genitive variation – The state of the art. English Language and Linguistics 18(2), 215–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2017. Constraints in contact: Animacy in English and Afrikaans genitive variation – A cross-linguistic perspective. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1), 72. 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Röthlisberger, Melanie. 2018. Regional variation in probabilistic grammars: A multifactorial study of the English dative alternation. PhD dissertation, KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Röthlisberger, Melanie, Grafmiller, Jason & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2017. Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics 28(4), 673–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2003. The dynamics of New Englishes: From identity construction to dialect birth. Language 79(2), 233–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, Devyani. 2012. Indian English. In Kortmann, Bernd & Lunkenheimer, Kerstin (eds.), The Mouton world atlas of variation in English, 523–30. Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Speiser, Jaime Lynn, Wolf, Bethany J., Chung, Dongjun, Karvellas, Constantine J., Koch, David G. & Durkalski, Valerie L.. 2019. BiMM forest: A random forest method for modeling clustered and longitudinal binary outcomes. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 185. doi: 10.1016/j.chemolab.2019.01.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Gries, Stefan Th.. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2), 209–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, Boulesteix, Anne-Laure, Zeileis, Achim & Hothorn, Torsten. 2007. Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinformatics 8(25), http://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2105-8-25 (accessed 17 September 2018).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strobl, Carolin, Boulesteix, Anne-Laure, Kneib, Thomas, Augustin, Thomas & Zeileis, Achim. 2008. Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics 9(307). http://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2105-9-307 (accessed 17 September 2018).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Grafmiller, Jason, Heller, Benedikt & Röthlisberger, Melanie. 2016. Around the world in three alternations: Modeling syntactic variation in varieties of English. English World-Wide 37(2), 109–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Grafmiller, Jason, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette, Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Todd, Simon. 2017. Spoken syntax in a comparative perspective: The dative and genitive alternation in varieties of English. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1), 86. 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Grafmiller, Jason & Rosseel, Laura. MS. Variation-based distance and similarity modeling: A case study in World Englishes. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Hinrichs, Lars. 2008. Probabilistic determinants of genitive variation in spoken and written English: A multivariate comparison across time, space, and genres. In Nevalainen, Terttu, Taavisainen, Irma, Pahta, Paivi & Korhonen, Minna (eds.), The dynamics of linguistic variation: Corpus evidence on English past and present, 291–309. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2002. Comparative sociolinguistics. In Chambers, J. K. & Schilling, Natalie (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, 729–63. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Harald Baayen, R.. 2012. Models, forests and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24(2), 135–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamaredo, Iván. 2018. Processing grammatical structures: Morphosyntactic complexity and efficiency in varieties of English around the world, with special reference to pronoun omission. PhD dissertation, University of Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena & Travis, Catherine E.. 2014. Prosody, priming and particular constructions: The patterning of English first-person singular subject expression in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 63, 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolk, Christoph, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2013. Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica 30(3), 382–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar