Book contents
- English in Multilingual South Africa
- Studies in English Language
- English in Multilingual South Africa
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Maps
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- I A Framework for English in South Africa
- Chapter 1 English in South Africa: Contact and Change
- Chapter 2 South Africa in the Linguistic Modeling of World Englishes
- Chapter 3 South African English, the Dynamic Model and the Challenge of Afrikaans Influence
- Chapter 4 The Historical Development of South African English: Semantic Features
- Chapter 5 Regionality in South African English
- Chapter 6 Does Editing Matter? Editorial Work, Endonormativity and Convergence in Written Englishes in South Africa
- II Sociolinguistics, Globalisation and Multilingualism
- III Language Interfaces
- Timeline for South African History
- Glossary
- Index
- References
Chapter 6 - Does Editing Matter? Editorial Work, Endonormativity and Convergence in Written Englishes in South Africa
from I - A Framework for English in South Africa
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2019
By
Edited by
Book contents
- English in Multilingual South Africa
- Studies in English Language
- English in Multilingual South Africa
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Maps
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- I A Framework for English in South Africa
- Chapter 1 English in South Africa: Contact and Change
- Chapter 2 South Africa in the Linguistic Modeling of World Englishes
- Chapter 3 South African English, the Dynamic Model and the Challenge of Afrikaans Influence
- Chapter 4 The Historical Development of South African English: Semantic Features
- Chapter 5 Regionality in South African English
- Chapter 6 Does Editing Matter? Editorial Work, Endonormativity and Convergence in Written Englishes in South Africa
- II Sociolinguistics, Globalisation and Multilingualism
- III Language Interfaces
- Timeline for South African History
- Glossary
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter focuses on the relationship between editorial work, endonormativity and convergence in the South African context, presenting a corpus-based quantitative case study of how editing reshapes academic writing by users of the STL (White South African English, or WSAfE) and IDG (Black South African English, or BSAfE) strands in South Africa. An inductive, exploratory quantitative method is used to identify linguistic features that distinguish unedited BSAfE and WSAfE academic writing, and edited BSAfE and WSAfE academic writing, using a corpus of edited texts and their unedited counterparts. Two features are analysed in detail: the use of downtoners and possibility modals. The findings provide support for the endonormativity of BSAfE, with WSAfE more ambiguous. The two strands are largely divergent in their usage of the two individual features. With a few exceptions, editors leave BSAfE usage patterns unaltered but sometimes change WSAfE usage to be closer to British English usage. Editing thus either leaves the stylistic distance between the two varieties unaltered or increases it. These findings support an assessment of (sometimes problematised) endonormativity at the level of the individual strands, but no strong evidence for convergence.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- English in Multilingual South AfricaThe Linguistics of Contact and Change, pp. 101 - 126Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Ädel, Annelie and Erman, Britt (2012). ‘Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and non-native speakers of English: a lexical bundles approach’, English for Specific Purposes 31: 81–92.Google Scholar
Backus, Ad and Spotti, Massimiliano (2012). ‘Normativity and change: introduction to the special issue on Agency and power in multilingual discourse’, Sociolinguistic Studies 6(2): 185–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamgbose, Ayo (1998). ‘Torn between the norms: innovations in world Englishes’, World Englishes 17(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan and Finegan, Edward (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Bowerman, Sean (2012). ‘Standard South African English’, in Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Standards of English: Codified Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 198–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, Jennifer (1995). ‘The expression of root and epistemic possibility in English’, in Bybee, Joan L. and Fleischman, Suzanne (eds.), Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curzan, Anne (2014). Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Klerk, Vivian (2003). ‘Towards a norm in South African Englishes: the case for Xhosa English’, World Englishes 22(4): 463–81.Google Scholar
De Klerk, Vivian (2006). Corpus Linguistics and World Englishes: An Analysis of Xhosa-English. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Dutta, Debarati (2016). ‘How to perform variable feature selection (i.e. pick important variables) using Boruta Package in R’, www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2016/03/select-important-variables-boruta-package/ (last accessed 18 May 2019).Google Scholar
Facchinetti, Roberta (2003). ‘Pragmatic and sociological constraints in the functions of may in contemporary British English’, in Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred and Palmer, Frank (eds.), Modality in Contemporary English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 301–27.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. and Deshors, Sandra (2014). ‘Using regressions to explore deviations between corpus data and a standard/target: two suggestions’, Corpora 9(1): 109–36.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd ed. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Harder, Peter (2012). ‘Variation, structure and norms’, Review of Cognitive Linguistics 10(2): 294–314.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond (ed.) (2012). Standards of English: Codified Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken (1996). ‘Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles’, Applied Linguistics 17(4): 433–54.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken (1998). ‘Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge’, Text 18(3): 349–82.Google Scholar
Kachru, Braj B. (1985). ‘Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle’, in Quirk, Randolph and Widdowson, H. G. (eds.), English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–30.Google Scholar
Kachru, Braj B. (1986). The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions, and Models of Non-Native Englishes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Kruger, Haidee (2017). ‘A corpus-based study of the effects of editorial intervention: implications for the features of translated language’, in de Sutter, Gert, Delaere, Isabelle and Lefer, Marie-Aude (eds.), Empirical Translation Studies: New Methodological and Theoretical Traditions, TiLSM: Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 113–56.Google Scholar
Kruger, Haidee and van Rooy, Bertus (2017). ‘Editorial practice and the progressive in Black South African English’, World Englishes 36(1): 20–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kursa, Miron B. and Rudnicki, Witold R. (2010). ‘Feature selection with the Boruta Package’, Journal of Statistical Software 36(11): 1–13, www.jstatsoft.org/v36/i11/ (last accessed 18 May 2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Liaw, Andy and Wiener, Matthew (2002). ‘Classification and regression by randomForest’, R News 2(3): 18–22.Google Scholar
Makalela, Leketi (2004). ‘Making sense of BSAE for linguistic democracy in South Africa’, World Englishes 23(3): 355–66.Google Scholar
Melchers, Gunnel and Shaw, Philip (2013). World Englishes: An Introduction, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend (2004). ‘Black South African English: morphology and syntax’, in Kortmann, Bernd, Schneider, Edgar W., Burridge, Kate, Mesthrie, Rajend and Upton, Clive (eds.), The Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol. 2: Morphology and Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 962–73.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend (2010). ‘Socio-phonetics and social change: deracialisation of the goose vowel in South African English’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 14(1): 3–33.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend, Chevalier, Alida and Dunne, Timothy (2015). ‘A regional and social dialectology of the bath vowel in South African English’, Language Variation and Change 27(1): 1–30.Google Scholar
Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley (2012). Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nini, Andrea (2014). Multidimensional Analysis Tagger 1.1, http://sites.google.com/site/multidimensionaltagger (last accessed 18 May 2019).Google Scholar
Rossouw, Ronel and van Rooy, Bertus (2012). ‘Diachronic changes in modality in South African English’, English World-Wide 33(1): 1–26.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie and Aijmer, Karin (2007). The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: A Corpus-Based Study of English Adverbs. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, Hothorn, Torsten and Zeileis, Achim (2009). ‘Party on! A new, conditional variable-importance measure for random forests available in the party package’, The R Journal 1(2): 14–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, Malley, James and Tutz, Gerhard (2009). ‘An introduction to recursive partitioning: rationale, application and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging and random forests’, Psychological Methods 14(4): 323–48.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Harald Baayen, R. (2012). ‘Models, forests, and trees of York English: was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice’, Language Variation and Change 24: 135–78.Google Scholar
Van Rooy, Bertus (2005). ‘Expressions of modality in Black South African English’, paper presented at the Corpus Linguistics Conference, Birmingham, 14–17 July 2005.Google Scholar
Van Rooy, Bertus (2011). ‘A principled distinction between error and conventionalised innovation in African Englishes’, in Mukherjee, Joybrato and Hundt, Marianne (eds.), Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging a Paradigm Gap. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 189–208.Google Scholar
Van Rooy, Bertus (2014). ‘Convergence and endonormativity at Phase 4 of the Dynamic Model’, in Buschfeld, Sarah, Hoffmann, Thomas, Huber, Magnus and Kautzsch, Alexander (eds.), The Evolution of Englishes: The Dynamic Model and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 21–38.Google Scholar
Van Rooy, Bertus and Kruger, Haidee (2016). ‘The innovative progressive aspect of Black South African English: the role of language proficiency and normative processes’, International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2(2): 205–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Rooy, Bertus and Terblanche, Lize (2010). ‘Complexity in word-formation processes in new varieties of South African English’, Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 28(4): 357–74.Google Scholar
Van Rooy, Bertus and Wasserman, Ronel (2014). ‘Do the modals of black and white South African English converge?’ Journal of English Linguistics 42(1): 51–67.Google Scholar
Wasserman, Ronel and van Rooy, Bertus (2014). ‘The development of modals of obligation and necessity in White South African English through contact with Afrikaans’, Journal of English Linguistics 42(1): 31–50.Google Scholar
Wilmot, Kirstin (2014). ‘“Coconuts” and the middle-class: identity change and the emergence of a new prestigious English variety in South Africa’, English World-Wide 35(3): 306–37.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by