1987
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-971x.1987.tb00189.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On nativization of English

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
12
0

Year Published

1989
1989
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
1
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…If innovations are seen as errors, a non-native variety can never receive any recognition." This definition of an innovation is parallel to those given by Kachru (1983) and Pandharipande (1987). In other words, Bamgbose (1998) argues for an existence of an innovation as an emerging linguistic feature of new Englishes.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 57%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…If innovations are seen as errors, a non-native variety can never receive any recognition." This definition of an innovation is parallel to those given by Kachru (1983) and Pandharipande (1987). In other words, Bamgbose (1998) argues for an existence of an innovation as an emerging linguistic feature of new Englishes.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 57%
“…If an innovation is accepted by reputable authorities for use, it will be codified and become a part of a non-native variety of English. Kachru (1983) and Pandharipande (1987) are similar in that they point out linguistic characteristics of an innovation with reference to a non-native variety of English whereas Bamgbose (1998) goes beyond such features by imposing criteria for justifying the actual recognition of an innovation. However, the three scholars' concepts meet at a description of lexical and grammatical features of an innovation as well as an acceptance of creative writing (or new literatures in English or non-native English literature) as a key source of an innovation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The following types of deviation occur in nativized features as a consequence of coping with Chinese grammar: using commas to join two sentences (comma splices), using deviant parts of speech, using no plural forms and articles for countable nouns, deleting or misusing third person singular present tense, omitting copula verbs before adjectives, using null subjects, and breaking collocational rules. In sum, Taiwanese copywriters utilize English for ‘intentional’ purposes; however, the result is an ‘unintentional’ transfer of Chinese structure to English by way of verbatim translation, showing ‘systematic, regular and productive’ deviation (Pandharipande, , p. 156).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In short, deviations are distinguished from mistakes in that they are violations of native speaker norms because they are a product of the non-native context in which the variety is being used; deviations result from 'productive processes' [e.g. Bokamba (1982)' Kachru (1983) and Pandharipande (1987)l which reflect a systematic transfer of features of the first language and its context into English. These productive processes include direct lexical borrowings from L1 into English (as mentioned above) as well as transfers of morphological processes from L1 to English, such as the West African English compound and the use of reduplication as intensifiers, e.g.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%