Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T17:28:56.532Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Noun phrase complexity in Nigerian English

Syntactic function and length outweigh genre in predicting noun phrase complexity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2017

Mayowa Akinlotan  and
Alex Housen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Structural simplicity/complexity is an important variable with which New Englishes and native varieties are identified and conceptualised, but predicting such variation in complexity has received little attention in the literature. New Englishes, especially the outer circle varieties such as Nigerian or Indian English, differ in form and function from the inner circle varieties, such as British or American English, but the extent of such variation varies greatly and merits further investigation. According to Gorlach (1998), we should expect New Englishes to demonstrate simplification at the levels of morphology, lexis, and syntax. This has indeed been shown to be the case in some varieties, but it has also been shown that this variation differs according to different linguistic and non-linguistic factors. Most recently, Schilk and Schaub (2016) have shown how noun phrase (NP) structure can reveal the underlying structural simpification predicted in the New Englishes varieties. Brunner (2014) examined NP complexity across three New Englishes (British, Singaporean, and Kenyan English), explicating how grammars of the indigeneous languages in Singapore and Kenya influence NP simplicity/complexity.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Today , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 31 - 38
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

Aarts, F. 1971. ‘On the distribution of noun-phrase types in English clause-structure.’ Lingua, 26, 281–93. doi: 10.1016/0024-3841(71)90013-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babalola, E. T. 2010. Nominal Group in Standard Nigerian and American English: A Systemic Linguistics Description. Saarbrucken, Deutschland: Verlag Dr. Muller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG.Google Scholar
Behaghel, O. 1909. ‘Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern.’ Indogermanische Forschungen, 25, 119–142 Google Scholar
Berlage, E. 2014. Noun Phrase Complexity in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/cbo9781139057684 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. 9th edn. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Reppen, R. 1998. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T. & Baayen, R. H. 2007. ‘Predicting the dative alternation.’ In Bouma, G., Kramer, I. and Zwarts, J. (eds.), Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, pp 69–94.Google Scholar
Brunner, T. 2014. ‘Structural nativization, typology and complexity: Noun phrase structures in British, Kenyan and Singaporean English.’ English Language and Linguistics, 18, 23–48. doi: 10.1017/S1360674313000269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cayer, R. & Sacks, R. 1979. ‘Oral and written discourse of basic writers: Similarities and differences.’ Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 121–28.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. 2004. Rediscover Grammar. 3rd edn. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
De Haan, P. 1993. ‘Sentence length in running text.’ In Souter, C. & Atwell, E. (eds.), Corpus-based Computational Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, p. 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, N. 2003. ‘Relative clauses in Hong Kong English.’ World Englishes, 19, 357–71. doi: 10.1111/1467–971X.00184 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorlach, M. 1998. ‘Varieties of English world-wide: Where we stand.’ Links & Letters, 5, 13–36.Google Scholar
Gut, U. 2014. International Corpus of English (Nigeria). Online at <http://ice-corpora.net/ICE/INDEX.HTM> (Accessed March 1, 2016).+(Accessed+March+1,+2016).>Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hillier, H. 2004. Analysing Real Texts: Research Studies in Modern English Language. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson-Ettle, O. & Nilsson, T. 2002. ‘Orality and noun phrase structure in registers of British and Kenya English.’ ICAME Journal 26, 33–62.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. 1992. Social Stylistics: Syntactic Variation in British Newspapers. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kperogi, F. A. 2015. Glocal English: The Changing Face and Forms of Nigerian English in a Global World. New York: Peter Lang Inc Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pastor, L. C. 2008. ‘English complex noun phrase interpretation by Spanish learners.’ RESLA, 21, 27–44. Online at <hispadoc.es/descarga/articulo/2925910.pdf> (Accessed March 1, 2016).Google Scholar
Schilk, M. & Schaub, S. 2016. ‘Noun phrase complexity across varieties of English: Focus on syntactic function and text type.’ English World-Wide, 37(1), 58–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. & Hinrichs, L. 2008. ‘Probabilistic determinants of genitive variation in spoken and written English: A multivariate comparison across time, space and genres.’ In Nevalainen, T., Taavitsainen, I., Pahta, P. and Korhonen, M. (eds.), The Dynamics of Linguistic Variation: Corpus Evidence on English Past and Present. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, T. 2002. Postverbal Behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar