Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:04:21.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mapping out particle placement in Englishes around the world: A study in comparative sociolinguistic analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2019

Jason Grafmiller  and
Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
Jason Grafmiller
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
Affiliation:
KU Leuven
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study explores variability in particle placement across nine varieties of English around the globe, utilizing data from the International Corpus of English and the Global Corpus of Web-based English. We introduce a quantitative approach for comparative sociolinguistics that integrates linguistic distance metrics and predictive modeling, and use these methods to examine the development of regional patterns in grammatical constraints on particle placement in World Englishes. We find a high degree of uniformity among the conditioning factors influencing particle placement in native varieties (e.g., British, Canadian, and New Zealand English), while English as a second language varieties (e.g., Indian and Singaporean English) exhibit a high degree of dissimilarity with the native varieties and with each other. We attribute the greater heterogeneity among second language varieties to the interaction between general L2 acquisition processes and the varying sociolinguistic contexts of the individual regions. We argue that the similarities in constraint effects represent compelling evidence for the existence of a shared variable grammar and variation among grammatical systems is more appropriately analyzed and interpreted as a continuum rather than multiple distinct grammars.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , October 2018 , pp. 385 - 412
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

We thank Melanie Röthlisberger, Benedikt Heller, Jack Grieve, and members of the Quantitative Lexicography and Variational Linguistics research unit at KU Leuven for valuable comments and feedback. This research was supported by an Odysseus grant (principal investigator: second author) from the Research Foundation Flanders (Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek—Vlaanderen, grant no. G.0C59.13N). The usual disclaimers apply.

References

REFERENCES

Aldenderfer, Mark, & Blashfield, Roger. (1984). Cluster analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Bentz, Christian, & Winter, Bodo. (2013). Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case. Language Dynamics and Change 3(1):1–27.Google 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.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blais, Mary-Jane, & Gonnerman, Laura M. (2013). Explicit and implicit semantic processing of verb–particle constructions by French–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16(4):829–846.Google Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn, & Warren, Richard K. (1985). Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition 21(1):47–67.Google Scholar
Branigan, Holly P., Pickering, Martin J., & Tanaka, Mikihiro. (2008). Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua 118(2):172–189.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana, & Harald, Baayen. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In Boume, G., Kraemer, I. & Zwarts, J. (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science. 69–94.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, & Ford, Marilyn. (2010). Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86(1):168–213.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):245–259.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. (1986). The hunting of the quark: The particle in English. Language and Speech 29(4):311–334.Google Scholar
Bryant, D., & Moulton, Vincent. (2004). Neighbor-net: An agglomerative method for the construction of phylogenetic networks. Molecular Biology and Evolution 21(2):255–265.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82(4):711–733.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. (2009). Contextual cues for particle placement. In Bergs, A. & Diewald, G. (eds.), Contexts and constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 145–192.Google Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer, Smolensky, Paul, & Legendre, Géraldine. (2012). Learning biases predict a word order universal. Cognition 122(3):306–329.Google Scholar
Dale, Rick, & Lupyan, Gary. (2012). Understanding the origins of morphological diversity: The linguistic niche hypothesis. Advances in Complex Systems 15(03–04):1150017.Google Scholar
D'Arcy, Alexandra, & Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2015). Not always variable: Probing the vernacular grammar. Language Variation and Change 27(3):255–285.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):1–28.Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole. (2002). Particle verbs in English: Syntax, information structure, and intonation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Deshors, Sandra C., & Gries, Stefan Th. (2016). Profiling verb complementation constructions across New Englishes: A two-step random forests analysis of ing vs. to complements. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 21(2):192–218.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger, & Tomasello, Michael. (2005). Particle placement in early child language: A multifactorial analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1:89–112.Google Scholar
Elenbaas, Marion. (2007). The synchronic and diachronic syntax of the English verb-particle combination. Ph.D. dissertation, Radboud University.Google Scholar
Elenbaas, Marion. (2013). Motivations for particle verb word order in Middle and Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 17(3):489–511.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. (1976). The verb-particle combination in English. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Futrell, Richard, Mahowald, Kyle, & Gibson, Edward. (2015). Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(33):10336–10341.Google Scholar
Gardner, Dee, & Davies, Mark. (2007). Pointing out frequent phrasal verbs: A corpus-based analysis. TESOL Quarterly 41(2):339–359.Google Scholar
Garretson, Gregory. (2004). Coding practices used in the project Optimality Typology of Determiner Phrases. Unpublished manuscript, Boston University. Available at: http://npcorpus.bu.edu/documentation/BUNPCorpus_coding_practices.pdf. Accessed February 22, 2017.Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. (2014). The use of phrasal verbs by French-speaking EFL learners: A constructional and collostructional corpus-based approach. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 11(1):51–88.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. (2016). Tuning in to the verb-particle construction in English. In Nash, L. & Samvelian, P. (eds.), Approaches to complex predicates. Boston: Brill. 110–141.Google Scholar
González, Rafael Alejo. (2010). Making sense of phrasal verbs: A cognitive linguistic account of L2 learning. AILA Review 23(1):50–71.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney. (1996). Comparing English worldwide: The International Corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. (2003). Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. New York: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. (2011). Acquiring particle placement in English: A corpus-based perspective. In Medina, P. G. (ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English: Functional and cognitive perspectives. London: Equinox. 236–263.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., & Kootstra, Gerrit Jan. (2017). Structural priming within and across languages: A corpus-based perspective. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20(2):235–250.Google Scholar
Grieve, Jack. (2016). Regional variation in written American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haddican, Bill, & Johnson, Daniel Ezra. (2012). Effects on the particle verb alternation across English dialects. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 18:31–40.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google 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.Google 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):437–474.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. (2014). The cognitive evolution of Englishes: The role of constructions in the dynamic model. In Buschfeld, S., Hoffmann, T., Huber, M., & Kautzsch, A. (eds.), Varieties of English around the world. Vol. G49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 160–180.Google Scholar
Kachru, Braj B. (ed.). (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures. 2nd ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (2007). Transmission and diffusion. Language 83(2):344–387.Google Scholar
Liao, Yan, & Fukuya, Yoshinori J. (2004). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: The case of Chinese learners of English. Language Learning 54(2):193–226.Google Scholar
Lohse, Barbara, Hawkins, John A., & Wasow, Thomas. (2004). Domain minimization in English verb-particle constructions. Language 80(2):238–261.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 4:1–16.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. (1997). Second language acquisition and the competition model. In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. 113–142.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato, & Gries, Stefan Th. (2009). Collostructional nativisation in new Englishes: Verb-construction associations in the International Corpus of English. English World-Wide 30(1):27–51.Google Scholar
Osselton, Noel E. (1988). Thematic genitives. In Nixon, G. & Honey, J. (eds.), An historic tongue: Studies in English linguistics in memory of Barbara Strang. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Paolillo, John C. (2013). Individual effects in variation analysis: Model, software, and research design. Language Variation and Change 25(1):89–118.Google Scholar
Perek, Florent, & Goldberg, Adele E. (2015). Generalizing beyond the input: The functions of the constructions matter. Journal of Memory and Language 84:108–127.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana, & Tagliamonte, Sali. (2001). African American English in the diaspora. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Puente, Paula. (2016). Particle placement in Late Modern English and twentieth-century English: Morpho-syntactic variables. Folia Linguistica 37(1):145–175.Google Scholar
Röthlisberger, Melanie, Grafmiller, Jason, & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. (2017). Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics 28(4):673–710.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Norbert, & Redwood, Stephen. 2011. Learner knowledge of phrasal verbs: A corpus-informed study. In Meunier, F., De Cock, S., Gilquin, G., & Paquot, M. (eds.), A taste for corpora: In honour of Sylviane Granger. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 173–207.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, Gerold, & Zipp, Lena. (2013). Discovering new verb-preposition combinations in New Englishes. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 13:online. Available at: https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/82328/. Accessed June 6, 2015.Google Scholar
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27(3):379–423.Google Scholar
Shih, Stephanie S. (2017). Phonological influences in syntactic alternations. In Gribanova, V. & Shih, S. S. (eds.), The morphosyntax-phonology connection. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 223–252.Google Scholar
Siyanova, Anna, & Schmitt, Norbert. (2007). Native and nonnative use of multi-word vs. one-word verbs. IRAL—International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 45(2):119–139.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Grafmiller, Jason, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette, Tagliamonte, Sali, & 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). Available at https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/10.5334/gjgl.310/. Accessed October 26, 2017.Google Scholar
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):109–137.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, & Wolk, Christoph. (2011). Holistic corpus-based dialectology. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada 11(2):561–592.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. (2013). Comparative sociolinguistics. In Chambers, J. K. & Schilling, N. (eds.), Handbook of language variation and change. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 130–156.Google Scholar
Tamminga, Meredith, MacKenzie, Laurel, & Embick, David. (2016). The dynamics of variation in individuals. Linguistic Variation 16(2):300–336.Google Scholar
Thim, Stefan. (2012). Phrasal verbs: The English verb-particle construction and its history. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard. (2014). Algorithmic typology and going from known to similar unknown categories within and across languages. In Szmrecsanyi, B. & Wälchli, B. (eds.), Aggregating dialectology, typology, and register analysis: Linguistic variation in text and speech. Berlin: De Gruyter. 355–393.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. (2002). Postverbal behavior. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Wonnacott, Elizabeth. (2011). Balancing generalization and lexical conservatism: An artificial language study with child learners. Journal of Memory and Language 65(1):1–14.Google Scholar
Zipp, Lena, & Bernaisch, Tobias. (2012). Particle verbs across first and second language varieties of English. In Hundt, M. & Gut, U. (eds.), Mapping unity and diversity world-wide: Corpus-based studies of New Englishes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 167–196.Google Scholar