Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T13:00:52.161Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hypercorrection in English: an intervarietal corpus-based study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2021

PETER COLLINS Open the ORCID record for PETER COLLINS [Opens in a new window]
PETER COLLINS*
Affiliation:
School of Humanities and Languages University of New South Wales Sydney NSW 2052 Australia [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article aims to provide a fresh approach to the study of hypercorrection, the misguided application of a real or imagined rule – typically in response to prescriptive pressure – in which the speaker's attempt to be ‘correct’ leads to an ‘incorrect’ result. Instead of more familiar sources of information on hypercorrection such as attitude elicitation studies and prescriptive commentary, insights are sought from quantitative and qualitative data extracted from the 2-billion-word Global Web-based English corpus (GloWbE; Davies 2013). Five categories are investigated: case-marked pronouns, -ly and non-ly adverbs, agreement with number-transparent nouns, (extended uses of) irrealis were, and ‘hyperforeign’ noun suffixation. The nature and extent of hypercorrection in these categories, across the twenty English varieties represented in GloWbE, are investigated and discussed. Findings include a tendency for hypercorrection to be more common in American than in British English, and more prevalent in the ‘Inner Circle’ (IC) than in the ‘Outer Circle’ (OC) varieties (particularly with established constructions which have been the target of institutionalised prescriptive commentary over a long period of time).

Keywords

hypercorrectioncorpusprescriptiveGloWbEWorld English
Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , June 2022 , pp. 279 - 305
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by 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.)

Footnotes

I wish to thank Mark Davies, Adam Smith, Rodney Huddleston, Laurel Brinton and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions.

References

Aarts, Flor. 1994. Relative who and whom: Prescriptive rules and linguistic reality. American Speech 69, 71–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Robert (ed.). 1999. Pocket Fowler's Modern English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alsagoff, Lubna. 2001. Tense and aspect in Singaporean English. In Ooi, Vincent (ed.), Evolving indentities: The English language in Singapore and Malaysia, 79–88. Singapore: Times Academic Press.Google Scholar
Angermeyer, Philipp S. & Singler, John Victor. 2003. The case for politeness: Pronoun variation in co-ordinate NPs in object position in English. Language Variation and Change 15, 171–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bao, Zhiming & Wee, Lionel. 1999. The passive in Singapore English. World Englishes 18, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Burchfield, Robert W. 1996. The new Fowler's modern English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burridge, Kate. 2010. Linguistic cleanliness is next to godliness: Taboo and purism. English Today 26(2), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, Jeremy (ed.). 2015. Fowler's dictionary of modern English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Deborah. 1995. Verbal hygiene. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1998. Historical linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter. 2020. Comment markers in world Englishes. World Englishes. Early view. Published online 26 September 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Peter & Yao, Xinyue. 2019. Colloquialisation and the evolution of Australian English: A cross-varietal and cross-generic study of Australian, British and American English from 1931 to 2006. English World-Wide 39(3), 253–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Philip B. 2008. Subjunctivitis. http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/subjunctivitis/Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 2006. Into the twenty-first century. In Mugglestone, Lynda (ed.), The Oxford history of English, 394–413. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Curzan, Anne. 2014. Fixing English: Prescriptivism and language history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008–. The Corpus of Contemporary American English. Available online at www.english-corpora.org/coca/Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2010–. The Corpus of Historical American English. Available online at www.english-corpora.org/coha/Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2013. The Corpus of Global Web-Based English. Available online at www.english-corpora.org/glowbe/Google Scholar
Davies, Mark & Fuchs, Robert. 2015. Expanding horizons in the study of World Englishes with the 1.9 billion word Global Web-based English Corpus (GloWbE). English World-Wide 36, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Winifred V. & Ziegler, Evelyn. 2015. Language planning and microlinguistics: From policy to interaction and vice versa. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeCamp, David. 1972. Hypercorrection and rule generalization. Language in Society 1(1), 87–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drake, Glendon F. 1977. The role of prescriptivism in American linguistics 1820–1970. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, Fred R., Iverson, Gregory K. & Song, Jae Yung. 2013. The role of hypercorrection in the acquisition of L2 phonemic contrasts. Second Language Research 29(3), 257–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fowler, Henry W. & Fowler, Francis G.. 1906. The King's English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Garner, Bryan. 1998. A dictionary of Modern American usage. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gowers, Sir Ernest. 1965. Fowler's modern English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2009. Normverletzungen und neue Normen. In Knopka, Marek & Strecker, Bruno (eds.), Deutsche Grammatik – Regeln, Normen, Sprachgebrauch, 117–40. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard, Joseph, Brian & Jacobs, Neil. 1994. Systematic hyperforeignisms as maximally external evidence for linguistic rules. In Lima, Susan, Corrigan, Roberta & Iverson, Gregory (eds.), The reality of linguistic rules, 67–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kachru, Braj. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the Outer Circle. In Quirk, Randolph & Widdowson, Henry (eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures, 11–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1966. The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: The Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, Sterling A. 1929. The doctrine of correctness in English usage, 1700–1800. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Loureiro-Porto, Lucia. 2017. ICE vs GloWbE: Big data and corpus compilation. World Englishes 36, 448–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowth, Robert. 1762. A short introduction to English grammar. London: A. Millar, R. and J. Dodsley.Google Scholar
Lukač, Morana. 2018a. Grassroots prescriptivism. University of Leiden dissertation. https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/67115Google Scholar
Lukač, Morana. 2018b. Grassroots prescriptivism: An analysis of individual speakers’ efforts at maintaining the standard language ideology. English Today 34(4), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukač, Morana. 2018c. What is the difference between thus and thusly? E-Rea: Revue électronique d’études sur le monde anglophone. https://doi.org/10.4000/erea.6152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukač, Morana & van Ostade, Ingrid Tieken-Boon. 2019. Attitudes to flat adverbs and English usage advice. In Jansen, Sandra & Siebers, Lucia (eds.), Processes of change: Studies in Late Modern and Present-Day English, 159–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2006. Twentieth-century English: History, variation, standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merriam-Webster's dictionary of English usage. 1994 (repr.). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.Google Scholar
Milroy, James & Milroy, Lesley. 2012. Authority in language: Investigating language prescription and standardization, 4th edn. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittins, W. H., Salu, Mary, Edminson, Mary & Coyne, Sheila. 1970. Attitudes to English usage: An enquiry by the University of Newcastle upon Tyne Institute of Education English research group. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morris, William & Morris, Mary. 1975. Harper dictionary of contemporary usage. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1997. The processes of adverb derivation in Late Middle and Early Modern English. In Rissanen, Matti, Kytö, Merja & Heikkonen, Kirsi (eds.), Grammaticalization at work: Studies in long-term developments in English, 145–89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Odlin, Terence. 1989. Language transfer: Crosslinguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otto, Inge. 2015. A fuss about the octopus. English Today 31(1): 3–4. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078414000479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary Online. 2020. www-oed-comGoogle Scholar
Partridge, Eric. 1963. Usage and abusage: A guide to good English. Baltimore: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Peters, Pam. 1995. The Cambridge Australian English style guide. Melbourne and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peters, Pam. 2007. The Cambridge guide to Australian English usage, 2nd edn. Melbourne and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pickett, Joseph P., Kleinedler, Steven & Susan, Spitz (eds.). 2005. The American Heritage guide to contemporary usage and style. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey. 2009. 50 years of stupid grammar advice. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 17 April.Google Scholar
Quinn, Heidi. 2005. The distribution of pronoun case forms in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Severin, Alyssa A. 2017. Vigilance or tolerance? Younger speakers’ attitudes to Australian English usage. Australian Journal of Linguistics 37(2), 156–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straaijer, Robin. 2014. Hyper usage guide of English. http://huge.ullet.net/Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2020. Describing prescriptivism: Usage guides and usage problems in British and American English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Touchie, Hanna Y. 1986. Second language learning errors: Their types, causes, and treatment. JALT Journal 8(1), 75–80.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt. 1991. Dialects and American English. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar