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-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:30:15.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - ELF and Language Change at the Individual Level

from Part II - Zooming in on ELF

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2020

By
Svetlana Vetchinnikova  and
Turo Hiltunen
Edited by
Anna Mauranen  and
Svetlana Vetchinnikova
Anna Mauranen
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki
Svetlana Vetchinnikova
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki
Get access

Summary

In this chapter we attempt to separate the communal and the individual levels of language representation and explore how linguistic regularities emerge at each of them. We sample one communal and ten individual corpora of language use from the same ELF environment and examine to what extent syntactic structure, priming and chunking influence linguistic choice in each corpus by looking at the variation between contracted and full forms (it is/it’s). We find clear differences in how these three factors work across the corpora and attempt to interpret them in relation to the properties of individual languages, language change and the role of ELF.

Keywords

individual languagesindividual and communal levels of language representationscomplex adaptive systemscontractionmorphosyntactic variationsyntactic structurechunkingprimingreductionredundancyemergence
Type
Chapter
Information
Language Change
The Impact of English as a Lingua Franca
 , pp. 205 - 233
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

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

Arnon, Inbal & Christiansen, Morten H.. 2017. The role of multiword building blocks in explaining L1–L2 differences. Topics in Cognitive Science 9(3), 621–636.Google Scholar
Barlow, Michael. 2013. Individual differences and usage-based grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(4), 443–478.Google Scholar
Barth, Danielle & Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2017. A multimodel inference approach to categorical variant choice: Construction, priming and frequency effects on the choice between full and contracted forms of am, are and is. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 13(2), 203–260.Google Scholar
Beckner, Clay, Blythe, Richard, Bybee, Joan, Christiansen, Morten H., Croft, William, Ellis, Nick C., Holland, John, Ke, Jinyun, Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Schoenemann, Tom. 2009. Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning 59(s1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Bernolet, Sarah & Hartsuiker, Robert J.. 2010. Does verb bias modulate syntactic priming? Cognition 114(3), 455–461.Google Scholar
Bernolet, Sarah, Hartsuiker, Robert J. & Pickering, Martin J.. 2009. Persistence of emphasis in language production: A cross-linguistic approach. Cognition 112(2), 300–317.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Branigan, Holly P., Pickering, Martin J. & Cleland, Alexandra A.. 2000. Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition 75(2), B13–B25.Google Scholar
Branigan, Holly P., Pickering, Martin J., McLean, Janet F. & Cleland, Alexandra A.. 2007. Syntactic alignment and participant role in dialogue. Cognition 104(2), 163–197.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Spencer, Jessica. (n.d.). Frequency and variation in English subject-verb contraction. Unpublished manuscript. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Department of Linguistics and Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2002. Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change 14(3), 261–290.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4), 711–733.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Scheibman, Joanne. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics 37(4), 575–596.Google Scholar
Charles, Maggie. 2004. The Construction of Stance: A Corpus-Based Investigation of Two Contrasting Disciplines. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Cheng, Winnie, Greaves, Chris, Sinclair, John McH. & Warren, Martin. 2009. Uncovering the extent of the phraseological tendency: Towards a systematic analysis of concgrams. Applied Linguistics 30(2), 236–252.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra & Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 2015. Not always variable: Probing the vernacular grammar. Language Variation and Change 27(3), 255–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2012. Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2(3), 219–253.Google Scholar
de Bot, Kees & Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2013. Researching second language development from a dynamic systems theory perspective. In Verspoor, Marjolijn, de Bot, Kees & Lowie, Wander (eds.), A Dynamic Approach to Second Language Development: Methods and Techniques, 5–23. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
de Bot, Kees, Lowie, Wander & Verspoor, Marjolijn. 2007. A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10(1), 7–21.Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar & Arppe, Antti. 2013. Extracting prototypes from exemplars: What can corpus data tell us about concept representation? Cognitive Linguistics 24(2), 221–274.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. & Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2006. Language emergence: Implications for Applied Linguistics – Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics 27(4), 558–589.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet D. 2002. Psycholinguistics cannot escape prosody. Proceedings of Speech Prosody, 83–90. Aix-en-Provence, France.Google Scholar
Francis, Gill, Hunston, Susan & Manning, Elizabeth. 1998. Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns: Nouns and Adjectives. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Frank, Austin F. & Jaeger, T. Florian. 2008. Speaking rationally: Uniform information density as an optimal strategy for language production. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 30, 939–944.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2017. Syntactic alternation research: Taking stock and some suggestions for the future. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 31(1), 8–29.Google Scholar
Groom, Nicholas. 2005. Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4(3), 257–277.Google Scholar
Hall, Christopher J., Joyce, Jack & Robson, Chris. 2017. Investigating the lexico-grammatical resources of a non-native user of English: The case of can and could in email requests. Applied Linguistics Review 8(1), 35–59.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, Robert J., Pickering, Martin J. & Veltkamp, Eline. 2004. Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. Psychological Science 15(6), 409–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.). 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Mollin, Sandra & Pfenninger, Simone E.. 2017. The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan. 2007. Semantic prosody revisited. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12(2), 249–268.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan. 2010. Starting with the small words. In Römer, Ute & Schulze, Rainer (eds.), Patterns, Meaningful Units and Specialized Discourses, 7–30. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian. 2006. Redundancy and Syntactic Reduction in Spontaneous Speech. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2015. Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca. Englishes in Practice 2(3), 49–85.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Jennifer, Baker, Will & Dewey, Martin (eds.). 2017. The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca (Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics). Milton Park, Abingdon; New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel, Bell, Alan, Gregory, Michelle & Raymond, William D.. 2001. Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. Typological Studies in Language 45, 229–254.Google Scholar
Kaschak, Michael P. & Glenberg, Arthur M.. 2004. This construction needs learned. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 133(3), 450.Google Scholar
Kaschak, Michael P., Kutta, Timothy J. & Schatschneider, Christopher. 2011. Long-term cumulative structural priming persists for (at least) one week. Memory & Cognition 39(3), 381–388.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45(4), 715–762.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2006. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Luka, Barbara J. & Barsalou, Lawrence W.. 2005. Structural facilitation: Mere exposure effects for grammatical acceptability as evidence for syntactic priming in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 52(3), 436–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, Laurel E. 2012. Locating Variation Above the Phonology. PhD thesis. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2017. From priming and processing to frequency effects and grammaticalization? Contracted semi-modals in present-day English. In Hundt, Marianne, Mollin, Sandra & Pfenninger, Simone E. (eds.), The Changing English Language, 191–212. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2005. English as a Lingua Franca – an unknown language? In Cortese, Giuseppina & Duszak, Anna (eds.), Identity, Community, Discourse: English in Intercultural Settings, 269–293. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-Native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2013. Hybridism, edutainment, and doubt: Science blogging finding its feet. Nordic Journal of English Studies 12(1), 7–36.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2017. Conceptualising ELF. In Jennifer, Jenkins, Baker, Will & Dewey, Martin (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca (Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics), 7–24. Abingdon; New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
McCauley, Stewart M. & Christiansen, Morten H.. 2017. Computational investigations of multiword chunks in language learning. Topics in Cognitive Science 9(3), 637–652.Google Scholar
Mollin, Sandra. 2009. “I entirely understand” is a Blairism: The methodology of identifying idiolectal collocations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3), 367–392.Google Scholar
Myers, Greg. 2009. The Discourse of Blogs and Wikis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. & Garrod, Simon. 2004. Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27(02), 169–190.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. & Garrod, Simon. 2017. Priming and language change. In Hundt, Marianne, Mollin, Sandra & Pfenninger, Simone E. (eds.), The Changing English Language, 173–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2012. Creativity meets convention: idiom variation and re-metaphorization in ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(1), 27–55.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana. 1980. The notion of the plural in Puerto Rican English: Competing constraints on (s) deletion. In Labov, William (ed.), Locating Language in Time and Space, 55–67. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David. 1988. Sociolinguistics and syntactic variation. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, 140–161. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2009. Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a Lingua Franca. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(2), 195–215.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John McH. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2006. Morphosyntactic Persistence in Spoken English: A Corpus Study at the Intersection of Variationist Sociolinguistics, Psycholinguistics, and Discourse Analysis. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. 2011. Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2006. Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vetchinnikova, Svetlana. 2015. Usage-based recycling or creative exploitation of the shared code? The case of phraseological patterning. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4(2), 223–252.Google Scholar
Vetchinnikova, Svetlana. 2017. On the relationship between the cognitive and the communal: A complex systems perspective. In Filppula, Markku, Klemola, Juhani, Mauranen, Anna & Vetchinnikova, Svetlana (eds.), Changing English: Global and Local Perspectives (Topics in English Linguistics). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William & Herzog, Marvin. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, Winfred P. & Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Directions for Historical Linguistics, 99–188. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wright, David. 2017. Using word n-grams to identify authors and idiolects. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(2), 212–241.Google Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie, Gries, Stefan Th. & Lester, Nicholas. 2018. Optional that in complementation by German and Spanish learners: Where and how German and Spanish learners differ from native speakers. In Tyler, Andrea, Huang, Lihong & Jan, Hana (eds.), What is Applied Cognitive Linguistics: Answers from Current SLA Research, 99–120. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle 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
×