Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:43:07.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corpus evidence of anti-deletion in Black South African English noun phrases

Testing the extent to which Black South Africans restore elements of the underlying structure of English noun phrases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2013

Yolande Botha
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Black South African English (BSAfE) is now generally regarded as an independent variety of English rather than an interlanguage on the way to Standard English (Van Rooy, 2008: 274, 300 and in this issue). Mesthrie (2006: 115) demonstrates that many of the characteristic features of BSAfE can be ascribed to the overarching tendency of anti-deletion. Anti-deletion is a term coined by Mesthrie (2006: 115) to encompass three kinds of linguistic phenomena that are the opposite of deletion in generative analyses of English, namely undeletion, non-deletion and insertion. Undeletion ‘restores an element that is often assumed to be deleted or to have an empty node in generative analyses of English’ (Mesthrie, 2006: 125), e.g. She made me to go (Mesthrie, 2006: 111) in which the infinitive marker to is undeleted. Insertion entails the addition of grammatical morphemes, e.g. can be able (Mesthrie, 2006: 139–40). After examination of a number of undeletion phenomena in interviews with 12 mesolectal speakers of BSAfE, Mesthrie (2006: 129) arrives at the following principle: ‘If a grammatical feature can be deleted in [Standard English], it can be undeleted in [Black South African English] mesolect.’ He points out that such undeletions are not mandatory and adds the following corollary to the principle of undeletion: ‘If a grammatical feature can be deleted in StE, it can also be (variably) deleted in [Black South African English] mesolect, at a lower rate of frequency’ (Mesthrie, 2006: 129).

Type
Research Article
Information
English Today , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 16 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

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

Botha, Y. V. 2012. ‘Specification in the English nominal group with reference to student writing.’ Unpublished PhD thesis. Potchefstroom: North-West University.Google Scholar
De Klerk, V. 2003. ‘Towards a norm in South African Englishes: the case for Xhosa English.’ World Englishes, 22(4), 463–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F. & Paquot, M. (eds). 2009. International Corpus of Learner English, Version 2. Louvain: UCL Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, R. 2006. ‘Anti-deletions in an L2 grammar: a study of Black South African English mesolect.’ English World-Wide, 27, 111–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, J. & Huddleston, R. 2002. ‘Nouns and noun phrases.’ In Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. (eds), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 323–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayson, P. 2008. ‘From key words to key semantic domains.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 519–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. 2010. Wordsmith Tools: version 5.0. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Van Rooy, B. 2008. ‘A multidimensional analysis of student writing in Black South African English.’ English World-Wide, 29(3), 268–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Rooy, B. 2011. ‘A principled distinction between error and conventionalised innovation in African Englishes.’ In Mukherjee, J. & Hundt, M. (eds), Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging a Paradigm Gap. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 191–209. Google Scholar