Revisiting the ENL-ESL-EFL continuum: A multifactorial approach to grammatical aspect in spoken Englishes

Paula Rautionaho, Sandra C. Deshors, Lea Meriläinen
{"title":"Revisiting the ENL-ESL-EFL continuum: A multifactorial approach to grammatical aspect in spoken Englishes","authors":"Paula Rautionaho, Sandra C. Deshors, Lea Meriläinen","doi":"10.1515/icame-2018-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study focuses on the progressive vs. non-progressive alternation to revisit the debate on the ENL-ESL-EFL continuum (i.e. whether native (ENL) and nonnative (ESL/EFL) Englishes are dichotomous types of English or form a gradient continuum). While progressive marking is traditionally studied independently of its unmarked counterpart, we examine (i) how the grammatical contexts of both constructions systematically affect speakers’ constructional choices in ENL (American, British), ESL (Indian, Nigerian and Singaporean) and EFL (Finnish, French and Polish learner Englishes) and (ii) what light speakers’ varying constructional choices bring to the continuum debate. Methodologically, we use a clustering technique to group together individual varieties of English (i.e. to identify similarities and differences between those varieties) based on linguistic contextual features such as AKTIONSART, ANIMACY, SEMANTIC DOMAIN (of aspect-bearing lexical verb), TENSE, MODALITY and VOICE to assess the validity of the ENL-ESL-EFL classification for our data. Then, we conduct a logistic regression analysis (based on lemmas observed in both progressive and non-progressive constructions) to explore how grammatical contexts influence speakers’ constructional choices differently across English types. While, overall, our cluster analysis supports the ENL-ESL-EFL classification as a useful theoretical framework to explore cross-variety variation, the regression shows that, when we start digging into the specific linguistic contexts of (non-)progressive constructions, this classification does not systematically transpire in the data in a uniform manner. Ultimately, by including more than one statistical technique into their exploration of the continuum, scholars could avoid potential methodological biases.","PeriodicalId":73271,"journal":{"name":"ICAME journal : computers in English linguistics","volume":"78 1","pages":"41 - 78"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ICAME journal : computers in English linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/icame-2018-0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Abstract This study focuses on the progressive vs. non-progressive alternation to revisit the debate on the ENL-ESL-EFL continuum (i.e. whether native (ENL) and nonnative (ESL/EFL) Englishes are dichotomous types of English or form a gradient continuum). While progressive marking is traditionally studied independently of its unmarked counterpart, we examine (i) how the grammatical contexts of both constructions systematically affect speakers’ constructional choices in ENL (American, British), ESL (Indian, Nigerian and Singaporean) and EFL (Finnish, French and Polish learner Englishes) and (ii) what light speakers’ varying constructional choices bring to the continuum debate. Methodologically, we use a clustering technique to group together individual varieties of English (i.e. to identify similarities and differences between those varieties) based on linguistic contextual features such as AKTIONSART, ANIMACY, SEMANTIC DOMAIN (of aspect-bearing lexical verb), TENSE, MODALITY and VOICE to assess the validity of the ENL-ESL-EFL classification for our data. Then, we conduct a logistic regression analysis (based on lemmas observed in both progressive and non-progressive constructions) to explore how grammatical contexts influence speakers’ constructional choices differently across English types. While, overall, our cluster analysis supports the ENL-ESL-EFL classification as a useful theoretical framework to explore cross-variety variation, the regression shows that, when we start digging into the specific linguistic contexts of (non-)progressive constructions, this classification does not systematically transpire in the data in a uniform manner. Ultimately, by including more than one statistical technique into their exploration of the continuum, scholars could avoid potential methodological biases.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英语- esl - efl连续体的重新审视:英语口语语法方面的多因素研究
摘要本研究聚焦于递进与非递进交替,以重新审视英语-ESL-EFL连续体的争论(即母语英语(ENL)和非母语英语(ESL/EFL)是英语的二分类还是形成梯度连续体)。虽然进行式标记传统上是独立于其未标记的对立物进行研究的,但我们研究了(i)这两种结构的语法上下文如何系统地影响ENL(美国、英国)、ESL(印度、尼日利亚和新加坡)和EFL(芬兰、法国和波兰学习者英语)中说话者的结构选择,以及(ii)轻说话者不同的结构选择给连续体辩论带来了什么。在方法上,我们使用聚类技术将英语的各个变体组合在一起(即识别这些变体之间的异同),这些特征基于语言语境特征,如AKTIONSART、ANIMACY、SEMANTIC DOMAIN(带有方面的词汇动词)、时态、情态和VOICE,以评估ENL-ESL-EFL分类对我们数据的有效性。然后,我们进行了逻辑回归分析(基于在进行式和非进行式结构中观察到的引理),以探索语法上下文如何影响不同英语类型的说话者的结构选择。虽然总体而言,我们的聚类分析支持ENL-ESL-EFL分类作为探索跨品种差异的有用理论框架,但回归表明,当我们开始深入研究(非)进行式结构的特定语言语境时,这种分类并没有系统地以统一的方式在数据中发生。最终,通过将不止一种统计技术纳入他们对连续体的探索,学者们可以避免潜在的方法偏差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
32 weeks
期刊最新文献
Ole Schützler and Julia Schlüter (eds.). Data and methods in corpus linguistics. Comparative approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. 357 pp. ISBN 978-1-10849964-4 Compiling a corpus of South Asian online Englishes: A report, some reflections and a pilot study A comparative corpus-based investigation of results sections of research articles in Applied Linguistics and Physics Tony McEnery and Vaclav Brezina. Fundamental principles of corpus linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. 313 pp. ISBN 978-1-1071-1062-5 Gender and evaluation in contemporary American English: A corpus study based on pronominal and nominal expressions with male and female reference
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1