Cover not available
To be specified published In:
English Text Construction
Vol. 10:1 (2017) ► pp.132–164
article

Structuring subjectivity in Asian Englishes

Multivariate approaches to mental predicates across genres and functional uses

| New Mexico State University |
This study investigates the usage patterns of four near-synonymous mental predicates (believe, guess, suppose and think) across three Asian ESL (English as a Second Language) varieties as well as British and American Englishes. Using two multivariate techniques, multiple correspondence analysis and classification and regression tree analysis, the study shows the benefits of exploring cross-varietal variation through the lens of lexicalization patterns. The study also demonstrates that to make sense of semantic patterns it is crucial to account for extra-linguistic factors such as genre, as different ESL writers structure the meaning of believe, guess, suppose and think differently depending on their type of writing. Ultimately, in the broader context of the emancipation of ESL varieties, the results raise important questions about the developmental process of Asian Englishes and the place that semantic structure holds in this endeavor.
Keywords: Asian Englishes, classification and regression tree, mental predicates, multiple correspondence analysis, written genres
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Adopting a semantic perspective on cross-varietal variation in ESL: The case of mental predicates
    • 2.1The conceptual make-up of epistemic stance expressions: Believe, guess, suppose and think
    • 2.2Variation in the use of mental predicates: What are the triggering factors?
    • 2.3Towards an exploration of semantic variation across Asian Englishes
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Corpus data and annotation
    • 3.2Statistical evaluation
      • 3.2.1(Multiple) Correspondence Analysis
      • 3.2.2Classification And Regression Tree
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Joint Multiple Correspondence Analysis
    • 4.2Classification and regression tree analysis
  • 5.Discussion and concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 15 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.10.1.07des
References (69)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1997. I think – An English modal particle. In Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, Toril Swan & Olaf J. Westvik (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benzécri, Jean-Paul. 1973. L’analyse des données, 2. L’analyse des correspondances. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
. 1984. Analyse des correspondances, exposé élémentaire (2nd ed.). Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
Bernaisch, Tobias & Stefan Th. Gries. 2016. Exploring epicenters empirically: Focus on South Asian Englishes. English World-Wide 37 (1): 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernaisch, Tobias, Stefan Th. Gries & Joybrato Mukherjee. 2014. The dative alternation in South Asian English(es): Modelling predictors and predicting prototypes. English World-Wide 35 (1): 7–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan. 1989. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 91: 93–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biermeier, Thomas. 2008. Word-formation in New Englishes – A Corpus-based Analysis. Berlin, Münster: LIT.Google Scholar
. 2009. Word-formation in New Englishes. Properties and trends. In World Englishes – Problems, Properties and Prospects: Selected Papers from the 13th IAWE Conference, Thomas Hoffmann & Lucia Siebers (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 331–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Compounding and suffixation in World Englishes. In The Evolution of Englishes: The Dynamic Model and Beyond, Sarah Buschfeld, Thomas Hoffmann, Magnus Huber & Alexander Kautzsch (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 312–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brezina, Vaclav. 2013. Certainty and uncertainty in spoken language: In search of epistemic sociolect and idiolect. In Variation in Language and Language Use, Monika Reif, Justyna A. Robinson & Martin Pütz (eds). Frankfurt and Main: Peter Lang, 97–128.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary & Kira Hall. 2005. Identity and interaction: A socio-cultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7 (4–5): 585–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Callies, Marcus. 2016. Towards a process-oriented approach to comparing EFL and ESL varieties: A corpus-study of lexical innovations. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2 (2): 229–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds). New York: Able, 261–272.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Conrad, Susan & Douglas Biber. 2000. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 56–73.Google Scholar
DeCarrico, Jeanette S.. 1986. Tense, aspect, and time in the English modality system. TESOL Quarterly 20 (4): 665–682. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deshors, Sandra C. & Stefan Th. Gries. 2016. Profiling verb complementation constructions across New Englishes: A two-step random forests analysis of –ing vs. –to complements. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 21 (2): 192–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar. 2010. Structuring the Lexicon: A Clustered Model for Near-Synonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar & Stefan Th. Gries. 2009. Corpus-based cognitive semantics: A contrastive study of phrasal verbs in English and Russian. In Studies in Cognitive Corpus Linguistics, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & Katarzyna Dziwirek (eds). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 273–296.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John. 2007. The stance triangle. In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, Robert Englebretson (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 138–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Englebretson, Robert (ed.). 2007. Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 2001. Thoughts about thought. Cognitive Linguistics 121: 15–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gablasova, Dana, Vaclav Brezina, Tony McEnery & Elaine Boyd. 2015. Epistemic stance in spoken L2 English: The effect of task and speaker style. Applied Linguistics: 1–26. < [URL]〉 (Last accessed on 4 December 2016).Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan. 2014a. Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns. In Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy, Dylan Glynn & Justyna Robinson (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 443–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014b. Techniques and tools: Corpus methods and statistics for semantics. In Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy, Dylan Glynn & Justyna Robinson (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 307–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonzáles, Montserrat, Paolo Roseano, Jan Barràs & Pilar Prieto. 2014. Epistemic and evidential marking in discourse: Effects of register and debatability. Lingua DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles & Marjorie H. Goodwin. 1992. Assessments and the construction of context. In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 147–189.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H. 2006. The Hidden Life of Girls: Games of Stance, Status, and Exclusion. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenacre, Michael. 2006. From simple to multiple correspondence analysis. In Multiple Correspondence Analysis and Related Methods, Michael Greenacre & Jorg Blasius (eds). London: Chapman & Hall, 41–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Correspondence Analysis in Practice (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney. 1991. ICE: The International Corpus of English. English Today 7 (4): 3–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2006. Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many meanings of to run . In Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, Stefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 57–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horch, Stephanie. 2016. Innovative conversions in South-East Asian Englishes: Reassessing ESL status. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2 (2): 278–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, Chia-Ling. 2009. Epistemic stance taking in Chinese media discourse. Linguistic Theory Research 31: 1–35. 〈[URL]〉 (Last accessed on 4 December 2016).Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan & John Sinclair. 2000. A local grammar of evaluation. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 74–101.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan & Geoff Thompson. 2000. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2003a. ‘Is she vicious or dense?’: Dialogic practices of stance taking in conversation. In Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 12: Recent Studies in Empirical Approaches to Language, Toshihide Nakayama, Tsuyoshi Ono & Hongyun Tao (eds). Santa Barbara: University of California, Santa Barbara, 47–65.Google Scholar
. 2006. Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text & Talk 261: 699–731. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krawczak, Karolina. 2014. Epistemic stance predicates in English: A quantitative corpus-driven study of subjectivity. In Subjectivity and Epistemicity: Corpus, Discourse, and Literary Approaches to Stance, Dylan Glynn & Mette Sjölin (eds). Lund: Lund University Press, 303–328.Google Scholar
Labov, William & Joshua Waletzky. 1967. Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, June Helm (ed.). Seattle: University of Washington Press, 12–44.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leimgruber, Jacob R. E. 2011. Singapore English. Languages and Linguistics Compass 5 (1): 47–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linde, Charlotte. 1997. Evaluation as linguistic structure and social practice. In The Constructional of Professional Discourse, Britt-Louise Gunnarsson, Per Linell & Bengt Nordberg (eds). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 151–172.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Macken-Horarik, Mary & J. R. Martin. 2003. Negotiating Heteroglossia: Social Perspectives on Evaluation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Marín-Arrese, Juana. 2009. Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity/intersubjectivity in political discourse: A case study. In Studies on English Modality, Anastasios Tsangalidis & Roberta Facchinetti (eds). Berlin: Peter Lang, 23–52.Google Scholar
. 2011. Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse: Legitimising strategies and mystification of responsibility. In Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition, Christopher Hart (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 193–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Epistemicity and stance: A cross-linguistic study of epistemic stance strategies in journalistic discourse in English and Spanish. Discourse Studies 17 (2): 210–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato & Stefan Th. Gries. 2009. Collostructional nativisation in New Englishes: Verb-construction associations in the International Corpus of English. English World-Wide 301: 27–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato & Marco Schilk. 2008. Verb-complementational profiles across varieties of English: Comparing verb classes in Indian English and British English. In The Dynamics of Linguistic Variation: Corpus Evidence on English Past and Present, Terttu Nevalainen, Irma Taavitsainen, Päivi Pahta & Minna Korhonen (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 163–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Johan. 2001. Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics 331: 383–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Okunrinmeta, Uriel. 2013. Izon influences in Nigerian English syntax. English Language and Literature Studies 31: 30–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Syntactic and lexico-semantic variations in Nigerian English: Implications and challenges in the ESL classroom. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics 41: 317–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank. 1990. Modality and the English Modals. 2nd ed.. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Phelps, Mandy & Edgar Merkle. 2008. Classification and regression trees as alternatives to regression. Proceedings of the 4 th Annual GRASP Symposium , Wichita State University.
Põldvere, Nele. 2013. Stance-taking and social status on an online bulletin board: A qualitative and quantitative approach. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Lund University.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 〈[URL]〉.
Sanders, José & Wilbert Spooren. 1996. Subjectivity and certainty in epistemic modality: A study of Dutch epistemic modifiers. Cognitive Linguistics 7 (3): 241–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne. 2002. Point of View and Grammar: Structural Patterns of Subjectivity in American English Conversation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schilk, Marco, Tobias Bernaisch & Joybrato Mukherjee. 2012. Mapping unity and diversity in South Asian English lexicogrammar. In Mapping Unity and Diversity World-wide: Corpus-based Studies of New Englishes, Marianne Hundt & Ulrike Gut (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 137–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 1997. Modal (un)certainty in political discourse: A functional account. Language Sciences 19 (4): 341–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff & Susan Hunston. 2000. Evaluation: An introduction. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–27.Google Scholar
Timofeev, Roman. 2004. Classification and Regression Trees (CART): Theory and Applications. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Humboldt University, Berlin.Google Scholar
Werner, Janina & Joybrato Mukherjee. 2012. Highly polysemous verbs in New Englishes: A corpus-based study of Sri Lankan and Indian English. In Corpus Linguistics: Looking back – Moving forward, Sebastian Hoffmann, Paul Rayson & Geoffrey Leech (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Rodopi, 249–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Pyykönen, Maria
2023. Exploring patterns of lexical variation in the use of epistemic stance markers in written L2 English across task types and levels of proficiency. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 9:2 ► pp. 215 ff. DOI logo
Hilpert, Martin
2022. Review of Laporte, Samantha. 2021. Corpora, Constructions, New Englishes. A Constructional and Variationist Approach to Verb Patterning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ISBN: 978-9-027-20850-7. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.100. Research in Corpus Linguistics 10:2 ► pp. 147 ff. DOI logo
Deshors, Sandra C. & Sandra Götz
2020. Common ground across globalized English varieties: A multivariate exploration of mental predicates in World Englishes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Gries, Stefan Th., Tobias Bernaisch & Benedikt Heller
2018. A corpus-linguistic account of the history of the genitive alternation in Singapore English. In Modeling World Englishes [Varieties of English Around the World, G61], ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
Götz, Sandra
2017. Non-Canonical Syntax in South Asian Varieties of English: A Corpus-Based Pilot Study on Fronting. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 65:3 ► pp. 265 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Corpora, Constructions, New Englishes [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 100], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.