28-08-2014, 03:57 PM
Nativised Prepositional Verbs in Malaysian English from the Perspective of
Language Contact
[attachment=67264]
ABSTRACT
This study uses a corpus-based approach to explore processes of contact-induced change underlying the use of
four nativised prepositional verbs (PrVs) in Malaysian English (ME)—comprise of, demand for, discuss about
and discuss on. Located within Winford’s (2003) framework of group Second Language Acquisition (group
SLA), this article compares the contexts of these PrVs with those of their corresponding single word verbs
(SWVs). It is argued that there is a link between the polysemous nature of the SWVs comprise, demand and
discuss in ME and the relevance of the nativised PrVs. Based on evidence of usage, it is concluded that the
prepositions of, for, about and on in these PrVs are used to keep track of the transitivity of the SWVs in certain
contexts. The fact that these PrVs recur in the relatively formal register of newspaper texts and the fact that they
occur in systematic and stable syntactic environments suggest that they have become institutionalised. This
study demonstrates the value of language contact theories—in particular, those within the group SLA
framework—for elucidating the processes and outcomes of structural nativisation in varieties of English that
have emerged in postcolonial settings.
INTRODUCTION
This article explores the processes of contact-induced change underlying the emergence and
continuing use of nativised prepositional verbs (henceforth PrVs) in Malaysian English (ME).
Nativised PrVs are, of course, not limited to ME. They have been associated with, for
instance, Standard Nigerian English (Bamgbose 1992) and Philippine English (Gonzales
1983). Seidlhofer (2005, p. R92) includes them in her list of lexico-grammatical features of
English as a Lingua Franca which “do not seem to interfere with intelligibility.” Their
prevalence also led Schneider (2004, p. 227-249) to use their frequency, productivity and
patterns of use to “trace structural nativisation” in diverse World Englishes. The present study
focuses on four PrVs that are frequently observed in ME—comprise of, demand for, discuss
about and discuss on.
Typically occurring in contexts where so-called native speakers of English would use
the corresponding single-word verbs (SWVs)—in this case, comprise, demand and discuss—
these features are the bane of the purists in Malaysia. Textbook and workbook writers
routinely flag them as erroneous and “redundant” (Lee 2004, p. 33), while newspapers devote
entire sections to educating the public about the ungrammaticality of these and other such
features. Newspaper readers regularly write in with their comments on “glaring errors like
discuss about (and) voice out” (Noreen Retnam 2010).
IDISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Although this study is based on a small pool of data—77 instances of nativised PrVs and
1852 instances of their corresponding SWVs—there is enough evidence to support the
argument that these PrVs have become institutionalised. The fact that they recur in the MEN
Corpus suggests that they have been, as Winford (2003, p. 236) puts it, “conventionalized as
part of the communal grammar.” The MEN Corpus represents not the entirety of ME, but a
subset that is produced by educated ME speakers for a relatively formal domain. Many
newspapers in Malaysia are still governed by the belief that standard English equals authority
and quality. Therefore, although localised lexical features are well tolerated (Tan 2009a,
2009b), localised grammatical features are often avoided. The definite preference for the
“standard” variant in cases where the context allows either the PrV or the SWV demonstrates
this adherence to native-speaker norms. That the PrVs extracted in this study have crept into
journalistic writing and have evaded the detection of editors must suggest that they have been
conventionalised, at least to the degree that they do not appear unusual to the average ME
speaker. The systematicity in the syntactic environment of these PrVs also indicates the
formalisation of these features. This is not to suggest that ME speakers have deliberately and
consciously negotiated for their acceptance as legitimate linguistic variants of the language.
The institutionalisation of SLA features is a process of unconscious negotiation among ME
speakers that has been likened to the sedimentation of “sand on the bottom of the lake
Language Contact
[attachment=67264]
ABSTRACT
This study uses a corpus-based approach to explore processes of contact-induced change underlying the use of
four nativised prepositional verbs (PrVs) in Malaysian English (ME)—comprise of, demand for, discuss about
and discuss on. Located within Winford’s (2003) framework of group Second Language Acquisition (group
SLA), this article compares the contexts of these PrVs with those of their corresponding single word verbs
(SWVs). It is argued that there is a link between the polysemous nature of the SWVs comprise, demand and
discuss in ME and the relevance of the nativised PrVs. Based on evidence of usage, it is concluded that the
prepositions of, for, about and on in these PrVs are used to keep track of the transitivity of the SWVs in certain
contexts. The fact that these PrVs recur in the relatively formal register of newspaper texts and the fact that they
occur in systematic and stable syntactic environments suggest that they have become institutionalised. This
study demonstrates the value of language contact theories—in particular, those within the group SLA
framework—for elucidating the processes and outcomes of structural nativisation in varieties of English that
have emerged in postcolonial settings.
INTRODUCTION
This article explores the processes of contact-induced change underlying the emergence and
continuing use of nativised prepositional verbs (henceforth PrVs) in Malaysian English (ME).
Nativised PrVs are, of course, not limited to ME. They have been associated with, for
instance, Standard Nigerian English (Bamgbose 1992) and Philippine English (Gonzales
1983). Seidlhofer (2005, p. R92) includes them in her list of lexico-grammatical features of
English as a Lingua Franca which “do not seem to interfere with intelligibility.” Their
prevalence also led Schneider (2004, p. 227-249) to use their frequency, productivity and
patterns of use to “trace structural nativisation” in diverse World Englishes. The present study
focuses on four PrVs that are frequently observed in ME—comprise of, demand for, discuss
about and discuss on.
Typically occurring in contexts where so-called native speakers of English would use
the corresponding single-word verbs (SWVs)—in this case, comprise, demand and discuss—
these features are the bane of the purists in Malaysia. Textbook and workbook writers
routinely flag them as erroneous and “redundant” (Lee 2004, p. 33), while newspapers devote
entire sections to educating the public about the ungrammaticality of these and other such
features. Newspaper readers regularly write in with their comments on “glaring errors like
discuss about (and) voice out” (Noreen Retnam 2010).
IDISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Although this study is based on a small pool of data—77 instances of nativised PrVs and
1852 instances of their corresponding SWVs—there is enough evidence to support the
argument that these PrVs have become institutionalised. The fact that they recur in the MEN
Corpus suggests that they have been, as Winford (2003, p. 236) puts it, “conventionalized as
part of the communal grammar.” The MEN Corpus represents not the entirety of ME, but a
subset that is produced by educated ME speakers for a relatively formal domain. Many
newspapers in Malaysia are still governed by the belief that standard English equals authority
and quality. Therefore, although localised lexical features are well tolerated (Tan 2009a,
2009b), localised grammatical features are often avoided. The definite preference for the
“standard” variant in cases where the context allows either the PrV or the SWV demonstrates
this adherence to native-speaker norms. That the PrVs extracted in this study have crept into
journalistic writing and have evaded the detection of editors must suggest that they have been
conventionalised, at least to the degree that they do not appear unusual to the average ME
speaker. The systematicity in the syntactic environment of these PrVs also indicates the
formalisation of these features. This is not to suggest that ME speakers have deliberately and
consciously negotiated for their acceptance as legitimate linguistic variants of the language.
The institutionalisation of SLA features is a process of unconscious negotiation among ME
speakers that has been likened to the sedimentation of “sand on the bottom of the lake