Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-tsvsl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T18:11:39.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

LANGUAGE TRANSFER AND DISCOURSE UNIVERSALS IN INDIAN ENGLISH ARTICLE USE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2005

Devyani Sharma
Devyani Sharma
Affiliation:
King's College London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Stable nonnative varieties of English acquired and used in the absence of native English input can diverge systematically from native varieties over time (Cheshire, 1991; Kachru, 1983; Platt, Weber, & Ho, 1984). Focusing on Indian English article use, this study asks the following question: If divergence is indeed occurring, do new features derive primarily from first language (L1) transfer or from universal principles? Natural conversational speech is assessed in relation to four hypotheses relating to L1 transfer and language universals, and a multivariate regression analysis evaluates the relative strength of each factor. The new article system is not found to be identical to the L1 article system. Although L1 transfer appears to be operative when an overt form (the specific indefinite article) exists in the L1, when a gap occurs in the L1 (no definite article), speakers do not completely omit the definite article in their second language English. Using Prince's (1981) taxonomy of assumed familiarity, it is shown that the absence of a L1 model for definite articles permits the intervention of universally available discourse knowledge, such that speakers apply an economical, disambiguating principle to the use of overt articles, reserving them mainly for new (less given or inferable) information and omitting them in more redundant contexts.I am indebted to John Rickford, Elizabeth Traugott, Arnold Zwicky, Ishtla Singh, and the SSLA editors and anonymous reviewers for much helpful feedback. I also received valuable comments from audiences at the LSA, Atlanta (January 2003) and at UC Davis and UC San Diego (February 2003).

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , December 2005 , pp. 535 - 566
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Agnihotri, R. K., Khanna, A. L., & Mukherjee, A. (1994). The use of articles in Indian English: Errors and pedagogical implications. In R. K. Agnihotri & A. L. Khanna (Eds.), L2 acquisition: Sociocultural and linguistic aspects of English in India (pp. 178–198). New Delhi: Sage.
Andersen, R. (1978). An implicational model for second language research. Language Learning, 28, 221–282.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing NP antecedents. London: Routledge.
Bamgbose, A. (1998). Torn between the norms: Innovations in world Englishes. World Englishes, 17, 1–14.Google Scholar
Bayley, R. (1994). Interlanguage variation and the quantitative paradigm: Past tense marking in Chinese-English. In E. Tarone, S. M. Gass, & A. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in second language acquisition (pp. 157–181). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bayley, R. (1999). The primacy of aspect hypothesis revisited: Evidence from language shift. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 18, 1–22.Google Scholar
Bayley, R., & Preston, D. (Eds.). (1996). Second language acquisition and linguistic variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Berdan, R. (1996). Disentangling language acquisition from language variation. In R. Bayley & D. Preston (Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation (pp. 203–245). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bhatia, T. (1993). Punjabi: A cognitive-descriptive grammar. London: Routledge.
Bickerton, D. (1971). Inherent variability and variable rules. Foundations of Language, 7, 457–492.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1977). Pidginization and creolization: Language acquisition and language universals. In A. Valdman (Ed.), Pidgin and creole linguistics (pp. 49–69). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.
Birner, B., & Ward, G. (1998). Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bruyn, A. (1995). Grammaticalization in creoles: The development of determiners and relative clauses in Sranan. Amsterdam: Instituut voor Functioneel Onderzoek van Taal en Taalgebruik (IFOTT).
Cardona, G. (1965). A Gujarati reference grammar. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Chaudron, C., & Parker, K. (1990). Discourse markedness and structural markedness: The acquisition of English noun phrases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 43–63.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J. (Ed.). (1991). English around the world. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chesterman, A. (1991). On definiteness: A study with special reference to English and Finnish. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Corne, C. (1977). Seychelles creole grammar: Elements for Indian Ocean proto-creole reconstruction. Tübingen, Germany: TBL-Verlag Narr.
Dik, S. (1978). Functional grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
DeCamp, D. (1971). Toward a generative analysis of a post-creole speech continuum. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization of languages (pp. 349–370). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Errors and strategies in child second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 8, 129–136.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D., & Sag, I. (1982). Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5, 355–398.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1984). The pragmatics of referentiality. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Georgetown University round table on language and linguistics (pp. 120–138). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Goto Butler, Y. (2002). Second language learners' theories on the use of English articles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 451–480.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1978). Universals of human language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199–244.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. (1978). Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm.
Hawkins, R. (2001). Second language syntax: A generative perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ho, M. L., & Platt, J. (1993). Dynamics of a contact continuum: Singaporean English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hudson, T. (1993). Nothing does not equal zero: Problems with applying developmental sequence findings to assessment and pedagogy. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 461–493.Google Scholar
Huebner, T. (1983). A longitudinal analysis of the acquisition of English. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.
Ionin, T., Ko, H., & Wexler, K. (2003). Specificity as a grammatical notion: Evidence from L2 English article use. In G. Garding and M. Tsujimura (Eds.). WCCFL 22 Proceedings (pp. 245–258). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Jarvis, S. (2002). Topic continuity in L2 English article use. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 387–418.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. (1965). The indianness of Indian English. Word, 21, 391–410.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. (1983). The indianization of English: The English language in India. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kachru, Y. (2003). On definite reference in world Englishes. World Englishes, 22, 497–510.Google Scholar
Kandiah, T. (1991). South Asia. In J. Cheshire (Ed.), English around the world (pp. 271–288). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Klein, F. (1980). A quantitative study of syntactic and pragmatic indications of change in the Spanish of bilinguals in the U.S. In W. Labov (Ed.), Locating language in time and space (pp. 69–82). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Klein, W., & Perdue, C. (1992). Utterance structure: Developing grammars again. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lowenberg, P. (1986). Nonnative varieties of English: Nativization, norms, and implications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 1–18.Google Scholar
Lyons, C. (1999). Definiteness. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McGregor, R. S. (1995). Outline of Hindi grammar with exercises. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mesthrie, R. (1992). English in language shift. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mishra, A. (1982). Discovering connections. In J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 57–72). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mougeon, R., & Beniak, E. (1996). Social class and language variation in bilingual speech communities. In D. Schiffrin, G. Guy, J. Baugh, & C. Feagin (Eds.), Towards a social science of language: Vol. 1. A festschrift for William Labov (pp. 69–99). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Parrish, B. (1987). A new look at methodologies in the study of article acquisition for learners of ESL. Language Learning, 37, 361–383.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Meisel, J. M. (1993). The multidimensional model, linguistic profiling, and related issues. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 495–503.Google Scholar
Platt, J., Weber, H., & Ho, M. L. (1984). The new Englishes. London: Routledge.
Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223–255). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Rickford, J. (2002). Implicational scales. In J. Chambers, P. Trudgill, & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), Handbook of language variation and change (pp. 142–167). Oxford: Blackwell.
Rousseau, P., & Sankoff, D. (1978). Advances in variable rule methodology. In D. Sankoff (Ed.), Linguistic variation: Models and methods (pp. 57–69). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Sahgal, A. (1991). Patterns of language use in a bilingual setting in India. In J. Cheshire (Ed.), English around the world (pp. 299–308). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sankoff, G. (1983). Comments on Valdman's “Creolization and second language acquisition.” In R. Andersen (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization as second language acquisition (pp. 235–240). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Sankoff, G., & Mazzie, C. (1991). Determining noun phrases in Tok Pisin. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 6, 1–24.Google Scholar
Schiffman, H. (1999). A reference grammar of spoken Tamil. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sharma, D. (2005). Dialect stabilization and speaker awareness in nonnative varieties of English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9, 194–224.Google Scholar
Sridhar, K. K. (1985). Sociolinguistics of nonnative English. Lingua, 68, 39–58.Google Scholar
Sridhar, S. N. (1990). Kannada. London: Routledge.
Tarone, E., & Parrish, B. (1988). Task-related variation in interlanguage: The case of articles. Language Learning, 38, 21–45.Google Scholar
Trenkic, D. (2002). Establishing the definiteness status of referents in dialogue (in languages with and without articles). Working Papers in English and Applied Linguistics 7 (pp. 107–131). Cambridge: Research Centre for English and Applied Linguistics, University of Cambridge.
Vallduví, E. (1992). The informational component. New York: Garland.
Williams, J. (1987). Nonnative varieties of English: A special case of language acquisition. English World-Wide, 8, 161–199.Google Scholar
Wolfram, W. (1985). Variability in tense marking: A case for the obvious. Language Learning, 35, 229–253.Google Scholar
Young, R. (1996), Form-function relations in articles in English interlanguage. In R. Bayley & D. Preston (Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation (pp. 135–175). Amsterdam: Benjamins.