2011
DOI: 10.1075/scl.46
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Structural Nativization in Indian English Lexicogrammar

Abstract: This book contains the first in-depth corpus-based description of structural nativization at the lexis-grammar interface in Indian English, the largest institutionalized second-language variety of English world-wide. For a set of three ditransitive verbs give, send and offer –collocational patterns, verb-complementational preferences and correlations between collocational and verb-complementational routines are described. The present study is based on the comparison of the Indian and the British components of … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
29
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
3

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 75 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The frequency biases that a language user stores and uses are very much determined by the language user's linguistic environment. For instance, subcategorization preferences for particular verbs may differ among varieties of English (Schilk, 2011). Therefore, these preferences may not be the same for the L2 English learners who are tested in a study as they are for the native English speakers they are compared with.…”
Section: Frequency Informationmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…The frequency biases that a language user stores and uses are very much determined by the language user's linguistic environment. For instance, subcategorization preferences for particular verbs may differ among varieties of English (Schilk, 2011). Therefore, these preferences may not be the same for the L2 English learners who are tested in a study as they are for the native English speakers they are compared with.…”
Section: Frequency Informationmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…This absence of progress in the standardisation of this variety prompted Mukherjee (2007) to assert that IndE has entered a 'steady state' in its development as an indigenised variety of English, with progressive forces (emergence and use of indigenised endonormative language structures) and conservative forces (insistence on upholding exonormative BrE standards) balancing each other out. This includes lexical focus marking (Balasubramanian 2009a,b;Parviainen and Fuchs 2015;Sedlatschek 2009), topicalisation, dislocation and clefts , use of determiners (Davydova 2012;Sedlatschek 2009;Sharma 2005b), verb complementation (Hoffmann andMukherjee 2007;Koch and Bernaisch 2013;Mukherjee 2010;Mukherjee and Hoffmann 2006;Mukherjee and Schilk 2008;Schilk 2011), extension of the progressive (Collins 2008;Davydova 2012;Sharma 2009), use of past tense and present perfect (Davydova 2011;Fuchs 2016/to appear;Sharma 2009;Werner 2013), use of intensifiers (Fuchs and Gut 2016/to appear) and copula omission (Sharma 2009). Even if some Indians grow up speaking English, making them native speakers in the linguistic sense of the term, attitudes to IndE cause many Indians to deny that it can be their 'mother tongue'.…”
Section: Number Of Speakers and Sociolinguistic Varieties Of Indian Ementioning
confidence: 99%
“…This section presents a self‐contained introduction to the linguistics that is relevant to this study. For further details we refer the interested reader to Schilk (2011), Bresnan and Hay (2008) and McArthur and McArthur (2005).…”
Section: Linguistics Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%