Innovation at the Grammar-lexis Intersection in World Englishes1

Romasanta, Raquel P.

doi:10.35360/njes.504

“…This search retrieved a number of false positives and invalid examples, which were discarded (for more details, see Romasanta 2017). A precision and recall analysis was performed to test the accuracy of the data obtained, the results of which were very positive, with values of over 90 percent in almost all varieties, with the exception of BrE (89.2% recall; Romasanta 2019b).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negation as a predictor of clausal complement choice in World Englishes

Romasanta¹

2021

English Language and Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on complementizer selection has shown that the presence of a negative particle in a subordinate complement clause influences complement choice, leading to a relatively higher proportion of finite complementation patterns by increasing the complexity of the syntactic environment. Studies have also shown that different types of negation, namely not- and no-negation, increase the tendency towards more explicit complementation options (Rohdenburg 2015). The current study focuses on the effect of not- and no-negation on the complementation profile of the verb regret, which allows variation between finite that/zero-complement clauses and nonfinite (S) -ing clauses. The GloWbE corpus was used to create a data set of more than 4,000 examples from 16 varieties of English. The results of the analysis support previous findings that the presence of a negative marker in the complement clause increases the preference for finite patterns, especially in L2 varieties of English. However, contrary to the expectations of this study, no-negation was found to have a stronger effect on complement choice than not-negation.

show abstract

“…At the crossroads between lexicon and grammar, research into complementation has shifted over time from a diachronic perspective (cf. Warner 1982;Fischer 1988Fischer , 1989Fanego 1990aFanego , 1990bFanego , 1992Fanego , 1996aFanego , 1996bFanego , 1996cFanego , 1998Fanego , 2004aFanego , 2004bFanego , 2007Fanego , 2010Fanego , 2016Rohdenburg 1995Rohdenburg , 2006Rohdenburg , 2014Rudanko 1998Rudanko , 2000Rudanko , 2011Miller 2002;Los 2005;Vosberg 2006;de Smet 2008ade Smet , 2008bde Smet , 2009de Smet , 2010de Smet , 2013de Smet , 2014) and a synchronic one, and has looked at individual L2 languages and across L1 and L2 varieties (Steger & Schneider 2012;Bernaisch et al 2014;Bernaisch 2015;Deshors 2015;Gries & Bernaisch 2016;Szmrecsanyi et al 2016;Deshors & Gries 2016;Röthlisberger et al 2017;Romasanta 2017Romasanta , 2019aRomasanta , 2019bGarci...…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A morphosyntactic approach to language contact in African varieties of English. Studia Neophilologica

Romasanta

2023

Preprint

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to widen our knowledge of substrate influence and language transfer in World Englishes through the study of the verb complementation system of REGRET in four African postcolonial varieties. An examination of the most widely spoken substrates in each variety does not seem to explain the different tendencies in the distribution of finite and nonfinite complementation patterns across varieties, since English varieties with different complementation systems in their substrate languages, Kenyan English and Nigerian English, for example, show similar distributions in their use of English complementation. Such differences in the distribution seem to be the result of other factors playing an essential role in language contact situations, namely, the tendency towards transparency in second language varieties, the geographical proximity of the English varieties, and the evolution of the varieties measured in terms of the Dynamic Model (Schneider 2007).

show abstract

“…At the crossroads between lexicon and grammar, research into complementation has shifted over time from a diachronic perspective (cf. Warner 1982;Fischer 1988Fischer , 1989Fanego 1990aFanego , 1990bFanego , 1992Fanego , 1996aFanego , 1996bFanego , 1996cFanego , 1998Fanego , 2004aFanego , 2004bFanego , 2007Fanego , 2010Fanego , 2016Rohdenburg 1995Rohdenburg , 2006Rohdenburg , 2014Rudanko 1998Rudanko , 2000Rudanko , 2011Miller 2002;Los 2005;Vosberg 2006;de Smet 2008ade Smet , 2008bde Smet , 2009de Smet , 2010de Smet , 2013de Smet , 2014) and a synchronic one, and has looked at individual L2 languages and across L1 and L2 varieties (Steger & Schneider 2012;Bernaisch et al 2014;Bernaisch 2015;Deshors 2015;Gries & Bernaisch 2016;Szmrecsanyi et al 2016;Deshors & Gries 2016;Röthlisberger et al 2017;Romasanta 2017Romasanta , 2019aRomasanta , 2019bGarci...…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%