Cover not available
Article published In:
English World-Wide
Vol. 39:1 (2018) ► pp.85–110

Pronoun omission in high-contact varieties of English

Complexity versus efficiency

| University of Santiago de Compostela

This paper considers pronoun omission in different varieties of English. It argues that omitted pronouns simplify structures if their referents are accessible in discourse, which explains the greater frequency of this grammatical feature in high-contact varieties of English, spoken in speech communities with a history of high numbers of second-language users. A corpus study of two high-contact varieties, Indian English and Singapore English, and a low-contact one, British English, is conducted in order to examine the distribution of omitted and overt pronouns. As expected, pronoun omission is more frequent in the high-contact varieties than in British English. Moreover, pronouns are omitted almost exclusively when they have highly accessible referents as antecedents, which is not a conventionalized feature of the grammars of Indian or Singapore English, where overt pronouns are the default choice when referring to antecedents.

Keywords: pronoun omission, complexity, efficiency, contact, varieties of English, Indian English, Singapore English, British English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Pronoun omission
  • 3.Linguistic complexity
    • 3.1Metrics of grammatical complexity: What do simple and complex mean?
    • 3.2Hawkins’ metric of communicative efficiency
    • 3.3Complexity, efficiency, and contact
  • 4.Pronoun omission in varieties of English
  • 5.Materials and methodology
  • 6.Results
  • 7.Discussion
  • 8.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Sources
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 1 February 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.00004.tam
References

Sources

International Corpus of English – the Indian Component
2002 Project Coordinated by Prof. S. V. Shastri at Shivaji University, India, and Prof. Dr. Gerhard Leitner at Freie Universität Berlin, Germany. Available online at [URL]
International Corpus of English – the Singaporean Component
2002 Project Coordinated by Prof. Paroo Nihilani, Dr. Ni Yibin, Dr. Anne Pakir and Dr. Vincent Ooi at The National University of Singapore, Singapore. Available online at [URL]
Kortmann, Bernd, and Kerstin Lunkenheimer
eds. 2013 The Electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology [URL] (accessed October 20, 2014).
Ariel, Mira
1988 “Referring and Accessibility”. Journal of Linguistics 241: 65–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990 Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
1994 “Interpreting Anaphoric Expressions: A Cognitive versus a Pragmatic Approach”. Journal of Linguistics 301: 3–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 “Accessibility Theory: An Overview”. In Ted Sanders, Joost Schliperoord, and Wilbert Spooren, eds. Text Representation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 29–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bao, Zhiming
2001 “The Origins of Empty Categories in Singapore English”. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 161: 275–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cole, Melvyn D.
2009 “Null Subjects: A Reanalysis of the Data”. Linguistics 471: 559–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “Thematic Null Subjects and Accessibility”. Studia Linguistica 641: 271–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen
2009 “Testing the Assumption of Complexity Invariance: The Case of Elfdalian and Swedish”. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil, and Peter Trudgill, eds. Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 50–63.Google Scholar
Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud, and August Fenk
2008 “Complexity Trade-offs between Subsystems of Language”. In Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki, and Fred Karlsson, eds. Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 43–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, and Elaine Tarone
1983 “Language Transfer and the Acquisition of Pronominal Anaphora”. In Susan Gass and Larry Selinker, eds. Language Transfer and Language Learning. Rowley: Newbury House, 281–296.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, Nancy Stenson, and Elaine Tarone
1984 “Acquiring Pronouns in a Second Language: Evidence for Hypothesis Testing”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 61: 215–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A.
2004 Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 “An Efficiency Theory of Complexity and Related Phenomena”. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil, and Peter Trudgill, eds. Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 252–268.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva
2005 Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James
1984 “On the Distribution and Reference of Empty Pronouns”. Linguistic Inquiry 151: 531–574.Google Scholar
Huang, Yan
1992 “Against Chomky’s Typology of Empty Categories”. Journal of Pragmatics 171: 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 Anaphora: A Cross-linguistic Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, Geoffrey K. Pullum, Laurie Bauer, Betty Birner, Ted Briscoe, Peter Collins, David Denison, David Lee, Anita Mittwoch, Geoffrey Nunberg, Frank Palmer, John Payne, Peter Peterson, Lesley Stirling, and Gregory Ward
2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo, and Kenneth J. Safir
eds. 1989 The Null Subject Parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kusters, Wouter
2003 Linguistic Complexity: The Influence of Social Change on Verbal Inflection. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John H.
2007 Language Interrupted: Signs of Non-native Acquisition in Standard Language Grammars. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti
2008 “Grammatical Complexity in a Cross-linguistic Perspective”. In Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki, and Fred Karlsson, eds. Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 23–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti, Kaius Sinnemäki, and Fred Karlsson
eds. 2008 Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moag, Rodney F., and Robert Poletto
1991 “Discourse Level Evidence for South Asia as a Linguistic Area”. Language Sciences 31: 229–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, Add and Kriszta Szendröi
2007 “Radical Pro Drop and the Morphology of Pronouns”. Linguistic Inquiry 381: 671–716. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
2009 “Linguistic Complexity: A Comprehensive Definition and Survey”. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil, and Peter Trudgill, eds. Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 110–125.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1986 “Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro ”. Linguistic Inquiry 171: 501–558.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey
2009 “A Linguistic Axiom Challenged”. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil, and Peter Trudgill, eds. Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 243–251.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar
2007 Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, Mike
2012 WordSmith Tools. Version 6. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius
2008 “Complexity Trade-offs in Core Argument Marking”. In Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki, and Fred Karlsson, eds. Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 67–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, and Bernd Kortmann
2009 “Between Simplification and Complexification: Non-standard Varieties of English around the World”. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil, and Peter Trudgill, eds. Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 65–79.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter
2009a “Sociolinguistic Typology and Complexification”. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil, and Peter Trudgill, eds. Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 98–109.Google Scholar
2009b “Vernacular Universals and the Sociolinguistic Typology of English Dialects”. In Markku Filppula, Juhani Klemola, and Heli Paulasto, eds. Vernacular Universals and Language Contacts: Evidence from Varieties of English and Beyond. London: Routledge, 304–322.Google Scholar
2011 Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Jessica
1987 “Non-native Varieties of English: A Special Case of Language Acquisition”. English World-Wide 81: 161–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988 “Zero Anaphora in Second Language Acquisition: A Comparison among Three Varieties of English”. Studies in Second Languages Acquisition 101: 339–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zyzik, Eve
2008 “Null Objects in Second Language Acquisition: Grammatical vs. Performance Models”. Second Language Research 241: 65–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Dunn, Jonathan
2019. Global Syntactic Variation in Seven Languages: Toward a Computational Dialectology. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 2 DOI logo
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Laura Rosseel
2020. English Corpus Linguistics. In The Handbook of English Linguistics, ► pp. 29 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.