Cover not available
Article published In:
English World-Wide
Vol. 45:2 (2024) ► pp.196–223

Constrained communication in EFL and ESL

The case of embedded inversion

ORCID logo | UCLouvain
ORCID logo | University of Eastern Finland
This study relies on the constrained communication framework to compare the use of embedded inversion in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and English as a Second Language (ESL). It is based on several (sub)corpora of EFL and ESL, but also reference corpora of native English, which differ along the constraint dimensions of language activation (monolingual/bilingual), proficiency (native users/proficient L2 users/learners), and modality (speech/writing). In addition to these constraint dimensions, we also investigate the possible effect of linguistic factors that have been claimed to play a role in the use of embedded inversion. A multifactorial analysis comparing embedded inversion with standard-like indirect questions, supplemented by a close examination of the patterns of use of embedded inversion, reveals both shared and distinctive features across EFL and ESL. It also highlights the importance of linguistic factors and variety/L1, and their interaction with communicative constraints.
Keywords: English as a Foreign Language, English as a Second Language, Learner Englishes, World Englishes, constrained communication framework, embedded inversion, indirect questions, generalised linear mixed model tree analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Embedded inversion as object of study
  • 3.Constrained communication framework
  • 4.Data, research questions, and methods
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Multifactorial analysis
    • 5.2Linguistic contexts and patterns of use of embedded inversion
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • Sources
  • References
Published online: 2 July 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.23001.gil
References (48)
Sources
De Cock, Sylvie. 2004. “Preferred Sequences of Words in NS and NNS Speech”. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures (BELL), New Series 21: 225–246.Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle, Sylvie De Cock, and Sylviane Granger. 2010. The Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane. 1998. “The Computer Learner Corpus: A Versatile New Source of Data for SLA Research”. In Sylviane Granger, ed. Learner English on Computer. London: Addison Wesley Longman, 3–18.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane, Estelle Dagneaux, Fanny Meunier, and Magali Paquot. 2009. The International Corpus of Learner English. Version 2. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney, ed. 1996. Comparing English Worldwide: The International Corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
References
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Braidi, Susan M. 1999. The Acquisition of Second Language Syntax. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Charkova, Krassimira D., and Laura J. Halliday. 2011. “Second- and Foreign-Language Variation in Tense Backshifting in Indirect Reported Speech”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 331: 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deshors, Sandra C., Sandra Götz, and Samantha Laporte, eds. 2018. Rethinking Linguistic Creativity in Non-Native Englishes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filppula, Markku, Juhani Klemola, and Heli Paulasto. 2008. English and Celtic in Contact. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fokkema, Marjolein, Julian Edbrooke-Childes, and Miranda Wolpert. 2020. “Generalized Linear Mixed-model (GLMM) Trees: A Flexible Decision-Tree Method for Multilevel and Longitudinal Data”. Psychotherapy Research 311: 329–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2011. “Corpus Linguistics to Bridge the Gap between World Englishes and Learner Englishes”. In Leonel Ruiz Miyares, and Maria Rosa Álvarez Silva, eds. Comunicación Social en el siglo XXI, Vol. II. Santiago de Cuba: Centro de Lingüística Aplicada, 638–642.Google Scholar
. 2024. “Lexical Use in Spoken New Englishes and Learner Englishes: The Effects of Shared and Distinct Communicative Constraints”. In Bertus van Rooy, and Haidee Kotze, eds. Constraints on Language Variation and Change in Complex Multilingual Contact Settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 120–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle, and Sylviane Granger. 2011. “From EFL to ESL: Evidence from the International Corpus of Learner English”. In Joybrato Mukherjee, and Marianne Hundt, eds. Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging a Paradigm Gap. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 55–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilbert, Michaela. 2008. “Interrogative Inversion in Non-Standard Varieties of English”. In Peter Siemund, and Noemi Kintana, eds. Language Contact and Contact Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 261–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Interrogative Inversion as a Learner Phenomenon in English Contact Varieties: A Case of Angloversals?”. In Joybrato Mukherjee, and Marianne Hundt, eds. Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging a Paradigm Gap. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 125–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, and Katrin Vogel. 2011. “Overuse of the Progressive in ESL and Learner Englishes – Fact or Fiction?”. In Joybrato Mukherjee, and Marianne Hundt, eds. Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging the Paradigm Gap. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 145–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ivaska, Ilmari, Adriano Ferraresi, and Silvia Bernardini. 2022. “Syntactic Properties of Constrained English: A Corpus-Driven Approach”. In Sylviane Granger, and Marie-Aude Lefer, eds. Extending the Scope of Corpus-Based Translation Studies. London: Bloomsbury, 133–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kachru, Braj B. 1985. “Standards, Codification and Sociolinguistic Realism: The English Language in the Outer Circle”. In Randolph Quirk, and Henry G. Widdowson, eds. English in the World. Teaching and Learning the Language and Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 11–30.Google Scholar
Kolbe, Daniela, and Andrea Sand. 2010. “Embedded Inversion Worldwide”. Linguaculture 1(1): 25–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd, Kerstin Lunkenheimer, and Katharina Ehret. 2020. “The Electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English”. 〈[URL]〉 (accessed August 28, 2023). DOI logo
Kortmann, Bernd, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2004. “Global Synopsis: Morphological and Syntactic Variation in English”. In Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar W. Schneider, and Clive Upton, eds. A Handbook of Varieties of English. Vol. 2: Morphology and Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1142–1202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kotze, Haidee. 2020. “Converging What and How to Find out Why: An Outlook on Empirical Translation Studies”. In Lore Vandevoorde, Joke Daems, and Bart Defrancq, eds. New Empirical Perspectives on Translation and Interpreting. New York: Routledge, 333–371.Google Scholar
. 2022. “Translation as Constrained Communication: Principles, Concepts and Methods”. In Sylviane Granger, and Marie-Aude Lefer, eds. Extending the Scope of Corpus-Based Translation Studies. London: Bloomsbury, 67–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kotze, Haidee, and Bertus van Rooy. 2024. “The Constrained Communication Framework for Studying Contact-Influenced Varieties”. In Bertus van Rooy, and Haidee Kotze, eds. Constraints on Language Variation and Change in Complex Multilingual Contact Settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruger, Haidee, and Bertus van Rooy. 2016. “Constrained Language: A Multidimensional Analysis of Translated English and a Non-Native Indigenised Variety of English”. English World-Wide 371: 26–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lanstyák, István, and Pál Heltai. 2012. “Universals in Language Contact and Translation”. Across Languages and Cultures 131: 99–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meriläinen, Lea. 2017. “The Progressive Form in Learner Englishes: Examining Variation across Corpora”. World Englishes 361: 760–783. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “The Progressive Form and its Functions in Spoken Learner English: Tracing the Effects of an Exposure-Rich Learning Environment”. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 41: 164–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. “The Interplay between Universal Processes and Cross-Linguistic Influence in the Light of Learner Corpus Data: Examining Shared Features of Non-Native Englishes”. In Bert Le Bruyn, and Magali Paquot, eds. Second Language Acquisition and Learner Corpora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 67–95.Google Scholar
Meriläinen, Lea, and Heli Paulasto. 2017. “Embedded Inversion as an Angloversal: Evidence from Inner, Outer and Expanding Circle Englishes”. In Markku Filppula, Juhani Klemola, and Devyani Sharma, eds. The Oxford Handbook of World Englishes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 676–696.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato, and Marianne Hundt, eds. 2011. Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging the Paradigm Gap. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paulasto, Heli, and Lea Meriläinen. 2023. “The Processes of Preposition Omission across English Variety Types”. In Paula Rautionaho, Hanna Parviainen, Mark Kaunisto, and Arja Nurmi, eds. Social and Regional Variation in World Englishes: Local and Global Perspectives. New York: Routledge, 91–122.Google Scholar
Penha-Marion, Laura A. de S., Gaëtanelle Gilquin, and Marie-Aude Lefer. 2024. “The Effect of Directionality on Lexico-Syntactic Simplification in French><English Student Translation”. In Bertus van Rooy, and Haidee Kotze, eds. Constraints on Language Variation and Change in Complex Multilingual Contact Settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 153–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ranta, Elina. 2013. “Universals in a Universal Language? Exploring Verb-Syntactic Features in English as a Lingua Franca”. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Tampere.
Rautionaho, Paula, Sandra C. Deshors, and Lea Meriläinen. 2018. “Revisiting the ENL-ESL-EFL Continuum: A Multifactorial Approach to Grammatical Aspect in Spoken Englishes”. ICAME Journal 421: 41–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rose, Heath, Jim McKinley, and Nicola Galloway. 2021. “Global Englishes and Language Teaching: A Review of Pedagogical Research”. Language Teaching 541: 157–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sand, Andrea. 2008. “Angloversals? Concord and Interrogatives in Contact Varieties of English”. In Terttu Nevalainen, Irma Taavitsainen, Päivi Pahta, and Minna Korhonen, eds. The Dynamics of Linguistic Variation: Corpus Evidence on English Past and Present. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 183–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sridhar, Kamal K., and S. N. Sridhar. 1986. “Bridging the Paradigm Gap: Second Language Acquisition Research and Indigenized Varieties of English”. World Englishes 51: 3–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stringer, David. 2015. “Embedded Wh-Questions in L2 English in India: Inversion as a Main Clause Phenomenon”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 371: 101–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, and Bernd Kortmann. 2009. “Vernacular Universals and Angloversals in a Typological Perspective”. In Markku Filppula, Juhani Klemola, and Heli Paulasto, eds. Vernacular Universals and Language Contact: Evidence from Varieties of English and Beyond. New York: Routledge, 33–53.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Typological Profiling: Learner Englishes Versus Indigenized L2 Varieties of English”. In Joybrato Mukherjee, and Marianne Hundt, eds. Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging a Paradigm Gap. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 167–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., and R. Harald Baayen. 2012. “Models, Forests, and Trees of York English: Was/Were Variation as a Case Study for Statistical Practice”. Language Variation and Change 241: 135–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Rooy, Bertus, and Haidee Kotze. 2024. “Cumulative Insights into Constrained Communication”. In Bertus van Rooy, and Haidee Kotze, eds. Constraints on Language Variation and Change in Complex Multilingual Contact Settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 255–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeileis, Achim, and Marjolein Fokkema. 2019. Glmertree: Generalized linear mixed model trees. (R package version 0.2-0). 〈[URL]〉 (accessed August 28, 2023).