Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:35:58.145Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of formality and channel on relative pronoun choice in New Zealand English1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2008

Robert Sigley
Robert Sigley
Affiliation:
Department of LinguisticsVictoria UniversityPO Box 600WellingtonNew [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper describes the effects of text formality and channel on relativizer choice in data from three corpora of written and spoken New Zealand English. That and the null relativizer Ø are typically regarded as intrinsically less formal than the wh-pronouns; but are they in fact commoner in spoken/informal texts? If so, is this a direct response to formality? Do prescriptions influence relativizer choice in written/formal texts? These questions are addressed by identifying and controlling significant linguistic influences on relativizer choice, and comparing results for text categories representing a range of formality levels from both channels.

Type
Articles
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , November 1997 , pp. 207 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarts, F. (1993). Who, whom, that and Ø in two corpora of spoken English. English Today 35: 19–21.Google Scholar
Aarts, F. (1994). Relative who and whom: prescriptive rules and linguistic reality. American Speech 69: 71–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adamson, D. (1992). Social and processing constraints on relative clauses. American Speech 67: 121–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, C. N. (1996). A diachronic study of relative markers in spoken and written English. Language variation and change 8: 227–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (1993). Manual of information to accompany the Wellington corpus of written New Zealand English. Wellington: Department of Linguistics, Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1994). Watching English change. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (1987). The use of relative markers in modern American English. In Denning et al. (eds.), 1987: 13–21.Google Scholar
Copperud, R. H. (1980). American usage and style: the consensus. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
de Haan, P. (1984). Problem-oriented tagging of English corpus data. In Aarts, J. & Meijs, W. (eds.), Corpus linguistics: recent developments in the use of computer corpora in English language research. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 123–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Haan, P. (1989). Postmodifying clauses in the English noun phrase. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dear, I. C. B. (1986). Oxford English: a guide to the language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dekeyser, X. (1975). Number and case relations in 19th century British English. Amsterdam: De Nederlandsche Boekhandel.Google Scholar
Denning, K., Inkelas, S., McNair-Knox, F., & Rickford, J. (eds.) (1987). Variation in language: NWAVE–XV at Stanford. Stanford: Dept of Linguistics, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Dupré, L. (1995). BUGS in writing: a guide to debugging your prose. Reading, MA; New York, etc: Addison–Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Fowler, H. W. (1926). A dictionary of modern English usage. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, I. (1980). A word in your ear. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S. & Nelson, G. (1996). The International Corpus of English (ICE) project. World Englishes 15: 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, S. & Whitcut, J. (1988). Longman guide to English usage. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Guy, G. R. & Bayley, R. (1995). On the choice of relative pronouns in English. American Speech 70: 148–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. (1995). The Wellington Corpus of Spoken New Zealand English: a progress report. New Zealand English Newsletter 9: 5–8.Google Scholar
Ivers, M. (1991). The Random House guide to good writing. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
Jacobsson, B. (1994). Non-restrictive relative that-clauses revisited. Studia Neophilologica 66: 181–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, C. (1995). The relativizers whose and of which in Present-day English: description and theory. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis; Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 90.Google Scholar
Kikai, A., Schleppegrell, M., & Tagliamonte, S. (1987). The influence of syntactic position on relativization strategies. In Denning et al. (eds.), 1987: 266–77.Google Scholar
Lowth, R. (1762). A short introduction to English grammar, with critical notes. Facsimile edition, 1967. Menston: Scolar Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1988). The syntactic phenomena of English, Vol. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Olofsson, A. (1981). Relative junctions in written American English. Goteburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis; Gothenburg Studies in English 50.Google Scholar
Peters, P. (1994). The Cambridge Australian English style guide. Cambridge; Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, R. (1957). Relative clauses in educated spoken English. English Studies 38: 97–109.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schmied, J. (1991). English relative constructions: corpus-linguistic analyses in British and Indian English. Postdoctoral thesis, University of Bayreuth, Germany.Google Scholar
Schmied, J. (1993). Qualitative and quantitative research approaches to English relative constructions. In Souter, C. & Atwell, E. (eds.), Corpus-based computational linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, E. W. (1992a). Who(m)? Case-marking of wh-pronouns in written British and American English. In Leitner, G. (ed.), New directions in English language corpora: methodology, results, software developments. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 231–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, E. W. (1992b). Constraints on the loss of case-marking of wh-pronouns. In Rissanen, M., Ihalainen, O., Nevalainen, T. & Taavitsainen, I. (eds.), History of Englishes: new methods and interpretations in historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 437–52.Google Scholar
Shnukal, A. (1981). There's a lot mightn't believe this…variable subject relative pronoun absence in Australian English. In Sankoff, D. & Cedergren, H. (eds.), Variation omnibus. Edmonton: Linguistic Research. 321–8.Google Scholar
Sigley, R. J. (forthcoming). Text categories and where you can stick them: a crude formality index. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics.Google Scholar
Van den Eynden, N. (1993). Syntactic variation and unconscious linguistic change: a study of adjectival relative clauses in the dialect of Dorset. Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, etc: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Wallace, D. & Hughes, J. (1995). Style book. Wellington, NZ: GP Publications.Google Scholar
Young, M. (1989). The technical writer's handbook. Mill Valley, CA: University Science Books.Google Scholar