Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T11:02:44.252Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 6 - The Role of Gender in Postcolonial Syntactic Choice-Making

Evidence from the Genitive Alternation in British and Sri Lankan English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2020

By
Stefan Th. Gries ,
Benedikt Heller  and
Nina Funke
Edited by
Tobias Bernaisch
Tobias Bernaisch
Affiliation:
Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen, Germany
Get access

Summary

This paper studies the genitive alternation in British English and Sri Lankan English on the basis of more than 4,000 annotated cases of of- and s-genitives from the British and Sri Lankan components of the International Corpus of English. Specifically, we explore the effects of a variety of language-internal and language-external effects, focusing in particular on how these factors affect genitive choices both on their own, but also in interaction with each other and, a first in this kind of variety research, with the gender of the speakers. Our results corroborate previous findings regarding the language-internal factors, but we also obtain a variety of statistical effects representing interactions of those with variety and gender: for instance, animacy effects are stronger in Sri Lankan English, but animacy and length/weight effects are moderated by speaker gender; we discuss these and other findings with regard to processing, language contact and gender (in-)equality. Methodologically, we are developing two innovations for variationist research, namely a principled way to identify and then also visualise the effect of interactions in random forests.

Keywords

Sri Lankan EnglishBritish Englishgenitive alternationconditional random forestsocial rolesL1 transferWorld Englishesgendercorpus linguisticsmultifactorial statistics
Type
Chapter
Information
Gender in World Englishes , pp. 121 - 146
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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

Altenberg, Bengt. 1982. The Genitive v. the of-Construction: A Study of Syntactic Variation in 17th Century English. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1909. ‘Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern’, Indogermanische Forschungen 25: 110–42.Google Scholar
Bernaisch, Tobias. 2012. ‘Attitudes towards Englishes in Sri Lanka’, World Englishes 31(3): 279–91.Google Scholar
Bernaisch, Tobias. 2015. The Lexis and Lexicogrammar of Sri Lankan English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn. 1982. ‘Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: information processing contributions to sentence formulation’, Psychological Review 89(1): 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunner, Thomas. 2014. ‘Structural nativization, typology and complexity: noun phrase structures in British, Kenyan and Singaporean English’, English Language and Linguistics 18(1): 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandralal, Dileep. 2010. Sinhala. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Deshors, Sandra C. and Gries, Stefan Th. in press. ‘Mandative subjunctive vs. should in world Englishes: a new take on an old alternation’, Corpora.Google Scholar
Fox, John. 2003. ‘Effect displays in R for generalised linear models’, Journal of Statistical Software 8(15): 1–27.Google Scholar
Friedman, Jerome H. 2001. ‘Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine’, Annals of Statistics 29(5): 1189–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason. 2014. ‘Variation in English genitives across modality and genres’, English Language and Linguistics 18(3): 471–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney. 1996. ‘Introducing ICE’. In Greenbaum, Sidney, ed. Comparing English Worldwide: The International Corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon, 3–12.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. in press. ‘On classification trees and random forests in corpus linguistics: some words of caution and suggestions for improvement’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.Google Scholar
Gunesekera, Manique. 2005. The Postcolonial Identity of Sri Lankan English. Colombo: Vijitha Yapa Publications.Google Scholar
Hansen, Beke. 2017. ‘The ICE metadata and the study of Hong Kong English’, World Englishes 36(3): 471–86.Google Scholar
Heller, Benedikt. 2018. Stability and Fluidity in Syntactic Variation World-Wide: The Genitive Alternation across Varieties of English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
Heller, Benedikt, Bernaisch, Tobias and Gries, Stefan Th. 2017a. ‘Empirical perspectives on two potential epicenters: the genitive alternation in Asian Englishes’, ICAME Journal 41: 111–44.Google Scholar
Heller, Benedikt, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Grafmiller, Jason. 2017b. ‘Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide’, Journal of English Linguistics 45(1): 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Hornik, Kurt and Zeileis, Achim. 2006. ‘Unbiased recursive partitioning: a conditional inference framework’, Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15(3): 651–74.Google Scholar
Janitza, Silke, Strobl, Carolin and Boulesteix, Anne-Laure. 2013. ‘An AUC-based permutation variable importance measure for random forests’, BMC Bioinformatics 14: 119.Google Scholar
Kachru, Braj B. 1985. ‘Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle’. In Quirk, Randolph and Widdowson, Henry G., eds. English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge University Press, 11–30.Google Scholar
Kendall, Tyler, Bresnan, Joan and van Herk, Gerard. 2011. ‘The dative alternation in African American English: researching syntactic variation and change across sociolinguistic datasets’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7(2): 229–44.Google Scholar
Künstler, Viktoria, Mendis, Dushyanthi and Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2009. ‘English in Sri Lanka: language functions and speaker attitudes’, International Journal of English Studies 20(2): 57–74.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen C. 2013. ‘How language production shapes language form and comprehension’, Frontiers in Psychology 4: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyler, Michael. 2007. A Dictionary of Sri Lankan English. Colombo: Mirisgala.Google Scholar
Molnar, Christoph. 2018. ‘Interpretable machine learning: a guide for making black box models explainable’ (Manuscript). Retrieved from https://christophm.github.io/interpretable-ml-book/index.html.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2008. ‘Sri Lankan English: evolutionary status and epicentral influence from Indian English’. In Stierstorfer, Klaus, ed. Proceedings / Anglistentag 2007 Münster. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 359–68.Google Scholar
Revis, Melanie and Bernaisch, Tobias. 2020. ‘Pragmatic nativisation in Asian Englishes? evidence from filled and unfilled pauses’, World Englishes 39(1): 135–153.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2002. Genitive Variation in English: Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2005. ‘Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English’, Language 81(3): 613–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2014. ‘English genitive variation – the state of the art’, English Language and Linguistics 18(2): 215–62.Google 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.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2011. English around the World: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2017. ‘Variationist sociolinguistics and corpus-based variationist linguistics: overlap and crosspollination potential’, Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 62(4): 1–17.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Hinrichs, Lars. 2008. ‘Probabilistic determinants of genitive variation in spoken and written English: a multivariate comparison across time, space, and genres’. In Nevalainen, Terttu, Taavitsainen, Irma, Pahta, Päivi and Korhonen, Minna, eds. The Dynamics of Linguistic Variation: Corpus Evidence on English Past and Present. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Biber, Douglas, Egbert, Jesse, and Franco, Karlien. 2016. ‘Toward more accountability: modeling ternary genitive variation in Late Modern English’, Language Variation and Change 28(1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Grafmiller, Jason, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette, Tagliamonte, Sali A. and 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
Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Baayen, R. Harald. 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.Google Scholar
United Nations Development Programme. 2014. ‘Human development report 2014: sustaining human progress: reducing vulnerabilities and building resilience’ (Manuscript). Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr14-report-en-1.pdf.Google Scholar
Wolk, Christoph, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2013. ‘Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: exploring cross-constructional variation and change’, Diachronica 30(3): 382–419.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×