Into-causatives in World Englishes
The paper analyses the frequency and use of the relatively rare, yet highly productive into-causative construction in twenty varieties of English on the basis of the 1.9-billion word Corpus of Web-based Global English (GloWbE; Davies 2013)  1 and Schneider’s (2007) Dynamic Model. It hypothesises differences in frequency, variation in the preference for particularly frequent fillers as well as productivity differences in line with Schneider’s stages of linguistic evolution. However, it shows that only frequency differences reflect the Dynamic Model; with regard to the preference for frequent realisations and productivity, postcolonial varieties turn out to be very similar to British English. These results come as a surprise against the background of similar studies of the way-construction, where all of these effects have been documented convincingly. It is argued that the properties of into-causatives themselves (e.g. their idiomatic and semantic simplicity) might contribute to their more native-like usage patterns in postcolonial varieties of English.
- 2.1The dynamic model of the evolution of New Englishes
- 2.2Construction grammar
- 2.2.1 Into-causatives from a construction grammar perspective
- 2.2.2Dimensions of constructional variation in World Englishes
- 126.96.36.199Frequency of non-compositional constructions in New Englishes
- 188.8.131.52Preference for frequent fillers
- 184.108.40.206Productivity of constructions in World Englishes
- 3.Methods and data
- 3.1Corpus and data extraction
- 3.3Statistical methods
- 3.3.1Correspondence analysis
- 3.3.2HCFA tests
- 3.3.3LRNE models
- 4.1The frequency of into-causatives (hypothesis I)
- 4.2Filler preferences (hypothesis II)
- 4.2.1Broad overview of associations: Correspondence analysis
- 4.2.2Fillers of the cause slot
- 220.127.116.11Verbal lemmas in the cause slot
- 18.104.22.168Semantic classes in the cause slot
- 4.2.3Semantic classes of the fillers in the result slot
- 4.2.4Correlations between the fillers of the cause slot and the result slot
- 4.3Productivity (hypothesis III)
- 4.3.1Productivity of the cause slot
- 4.3.2Productivity of the result slot
Published online: 16 November 2021
Baayen, Rolf Harald, and Elnaz Shafaei-Bajestan
2019 languageR: Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics. R package version 1.5.0. https:cran.r-project.org/package=language (accessed January 21, 2021).
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan
Brunner, Thomas, and Thomas Hoffmann
Croft, William, and D. Alan Cruse
2013 Corpus of Global Web-Based English. https://www.english-corpora.org/glowbe/.
Evert, Stefan, and Marco Baroni
2014 The zipfR Package for Lexical Statistics: A Tutorial Introduction. http://zipfr.r-forge.r-project.org/materials/zipfr-tutorial.pdf (accessed June 21, 2020).
2017 zipfR: User-friendly LNRE Modelling in R. R package version 0.6-70. http://zipfr.r-forge.r-project.org (accessed November 27, 2017).
Gries, Stefan Thomas
2004 HCFA 3.2 – A Program for Hierarchical Configural Frequency Analysis. http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/research/overview-research.html (accessed 11 July 2014).
Gries, Stefan Thomas, and Anatol Stefanowitsch
Mukherjee, Joybrato, and Stefan Thomas Gries
Mukherjee, Joybrato, and Sebastian Hoffmann
Rinker, Tyler W.
2018 Textstem: Tools for Stemming and Lemmatizing Text. R package version 0.1.4. Buffalo, New York. http://github.com/trinker/textstem (accessed January 21, 2021).
Schneider, Edgar W.
The IMS Open Corpus Workbench
2017 Version 3.2.30. http://cwb.sourceforge.net (accessed January 21, 2021).
Wulff, Stefanie, Anatol Stefanowitsch, and Stefan Thomas Gries