Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:52:19.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vague language in Hong Kong English, ‘Something like that’

A comparative corpus investigation into a defining feature of English in Hong Kong

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2019

Patrice Quammie–Wallen
Patrice Quammie–Wallen*
Affiliation:
Hong Kong Polytechnic University
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The computational analysis of corpora, a body of ‘naturally occurring language texts chosen to characterize a state of variety of a language’ (Sinclair, 1991: 171) provided the opportunity to reveal otherwise unobservable features and patterns across varieties, registers and languages. One such language feature is a ‘lexical bundle’ otherwise known as an n-gram. Vague terms in any language variety can often present themselves in the form of not just individual words (e.g. things, plenty, scores, stuff) but as a group of words that tend to co-occur: a lexical bundle (e.g. loads of, stuff like that, and so on, or what have you). In this paper, the function in Hong Kong English (HKE) of the vague n-gram ‘something like that’ will be explored via corpus methodology to account for its observed hyper-usage in Hong Kong society.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Today , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 13 - 25
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

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

Bolton, K. 2003. Chinese Englishes: A Sociolinguistic History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brazil, D. 1997. The Communicative Role of Intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chan, J. Y. H. 2013. ‘Contextual variation and Hong Kong English.’ World Englishes, 32(1), 54–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Channell, J. 1994. Vague Language. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, W. 2007. ‘The use of vague language across spoken genres in an Intercultural Hong Kong Corpus.’ In Cutting, J. (ed.), Vague Language Explored. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 161–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, W., Greaves, C. & Warren, M. 2005. ‘The creation of a prosodically transcribed intercultural corpus: The Hong Kong Corpus of Spoken English (prosodic).’ ICAME journal, 29, 47–68.Google Scholar
Cheng, W. & Warren, M. 2001. ‘The use of vague language in intercultural conversations in Hong Kong.’ English World-Wide, 22(1), 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D. & Davy, D. 1975. Advanced Conversational English. (Davey, D., trans.) London: Longman.Google Scholar
Deese, J. 1974. ‘Towards a psychological theory of the meaning of sentences.’ In Silverstein, A. (ed.), Human Communication: Theoretical Explanations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Dines, E. 1980. ‘Variation in Discourse – and “stuff like that”.’ Language in Society, 9, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Document Sampler.htm. 1998. ‘The British National Corpus Sampler Corpus: Explanatory documentation.’ Online at <http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/bnc2sampler/sampler.htm> (Accessed December 2, 2018).+(Accessed+December+2,+2018).>Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. & Scott, M. L. 1997. ‘Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and taxonomies.’ Language Learning, 47(1), 173–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, F. 2006. ‘English in Scotland.’ In Kachru, B. B., Kachru, Y., & Nelson, C. L. (eds.), The Handbook of World Englishes. Singapore: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, B. L. 1987. ‘“Something on the order of around forty to forty-four”: Imprecise numerical expressions in biomedical slide talks.’ Language in Society, 16, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, S. 2011. ‘Hong Kong English and the professional world.’ World Englishes, 30(3), 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, S. 2016. The English Language in Hong Kong: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evert, S. 2009. ‘Corpora and collocations.’ In Ludeling, A. & Kyto, M. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook (Vol. 2). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1212–48.Google Scholar
Groves, J. M. 2012. ‘The issue of representativeness in Hong Kong English.’ Asian Englishes, 15(1), 28–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gut, U. 2011. ‘Studying structural innovations in New English varieties.’ In Joybrato, M. & Marianne, H. (eds.), Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging a Paradigm Gap. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub. Company, pp. 101–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kachru, B. B. 1983. ‘Models for non-native Englishes.’ In Bolton, K. & Kachru, B. B. (eds.), World Englishes: Critical Concepts In Linguistics (Vol. 4). London: Routledge, pp. 108–33.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. 1985. ‘Standards, codification, and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the Outer Circle.’ In Quirk, R. & Widdowson, H. (eds.), English in the World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. 1987. ‘Quantification and the use of English: A case study of one aspect of the learner's task.’ Applied Linguistics, 8(3), 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1972. ‘Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts.’ In Chicago Linguistic Society Papers. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Lee, J. F. K. & Collins, P. 2006. ‘Linguistic Acceptability in Hong Kong English.’ Asian Englishes, 9(1), 24–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, A. 1975. ‘Talking about wine.’ Language, 51(4), 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leung, A. H.–C. 2015. ‘Deteriorating standard? A brief look into the English standard in Hong Kong.’ Asian Englishes, 17(3), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, D. 2009. ‘Towards “biliteracy and trilingualism” in Hong Kong (SAR): Problems, dilemmas and stakeholders' views.’ AILA Review, 22(1), 72–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, D. 2010. ‘When does an unconventional form become an innovation?’ In Kirkpatrick, A. (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes. London: Routledge, pp. 617–33.Google Scholar
Li, D. 2018. ‘Two decades of decolonization and renationalization: The evolutionary dynamics of Hong Kong English and an update of its functions and status.’ Asian Englishes, 20(1), 2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, H. 2009. Corpus Linguistics and the Description of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, R. 2006. ‘Contact linguistics and World Englishes.’ In Kachru, B. B., Kachru, Y., & Nelson, C. L. (eds.), The Handbook of World Englishes. Singapore: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 273–88.Google Scholar
Overstreet, M. 1999. Whales, Candlelight, and Stuff Like That: General Extenders in English Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Oxford Text Archive. 2015. ‘British National Corpus: Design of the spoken component.’ Online at <http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/archive/worldURG/design.xml?ID=spodes> (Accessed May 21, 2019).+(Accessed+May+21,+2019).>Google Scholar
Palmer, H. E. 1933. Second Interim Report on English Collocations. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (ed.) 1902. Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology II. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
RCPCE. 2018. ‘Hong Kong corpus of spoken English.’ Online at <http://rcpce.engl.polyu.edu.hk/HKCSE/?menu=..%2FHKCSE%2F> (Accessed November 23, 2018).+(Accessed+November+23,+2018).>Google Scholar
Sankoff, D., Thibault, P. & Berubé, H. 1978. ‘Semantic field variability.’ In Sankoff, D. (ed.), Linguistic Variation: Models and Methods. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, E. 2003. ‘The dynamics of New Englishes: From identity construction to dialect birth.’ Language, 79(2), 223–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, E. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties Around the World: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Terraschke, A.& Holmes, J. 2007. ‘“Und Tralala”: Vagueness and general extenders in German and New Zealand English.’ In Cutting, J. (ed.), Vague Language Explored. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 198–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ting, S. S. P. & Wong, J. W. S. 2019. ‘Factors affecting the acceptability of grammatical features of Hong Kong English: Undergraduate students’ ambivalence towards the grammatical features of Hong Kong English.’ English Today, 35(2), 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullmann, S. 1962. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Van Rooy, B. 2011. ‘A principled distinction between error and conventionalized innovation in African Englishes.’ In Joybrato, M. & Marianne, H. (eds.), Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging A Paradigm Gap. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub. Company, pp. 189–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, M. 2007. ‘{/ [Oh] Not a < ^ Lot >}: Discourse intonation and vague language.’ In Cutting, J. (ed.), Vague Language Explored. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1986. ‘Precision in vagueness: The semantics of English approximatives.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar