Does Editing Matter? Editorial Work, Endonormativity and Convergence in Written Englishes in South Africa

doi:10.1017/9781108340892.006

Chapter 6 - Does Editing Matter? Editorial Work, Endonormativity and Convergence in Written Englishes in South Africa

from I - A Framework for English in South Africa

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2019

Haidee Kotze

Edited by

Raymond Hickey

Show author details

Raymond Hickey: Affiliation:
Universität Duisburg–Essen

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter focuses on the relationship between editorial work, endonormativity and convergence in the South African context, presenting a corpus-based quantitative case study of how editing reshapes academic writing by users of the STL (White South African English, or WSAfE) and IDG (Black South African English, or BSAfE) strands in South Africa. An inductive, exploratory quantitative method is used to identify linguistic features that distinguish unedited BSAfE and WSAfE academic writing, and edited BSAfE and WSAfE academic writing, using a corpus of edited texts and their unedited counterparts. Two features are analysed in detail: the use of downtoners and possibility modals. The findings provide support for the endonormativity of BSAfE, with WSAfE more ambiguous. The two strands are largely divergent in their usage of the two individual features. With a few exceptions, editors leave BSAfE usage patterns unaltered but sometimes change WSAfE usage to be closer to British English usage. Editing thus either leaves the stylistic distance between the two varieties unaltered or increases it. These findings support an assessment of (sometimes problematised) endonormativity at the level of the individual strands, but no strong evidence for convergence.

Keywords

academic writing Black South African English convergence downtoners editing endonormativity modals White South African English

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: English in Multilingual South Africa
The Linguistics of Contact and Change
, pp. 101 - 126

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108340892.006 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ädel, Annelie and Erman, Britt (2012). ‘Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and non-native speakers of English: a lexical bundles approach’, English for Specific Purposes 31: 81–92.Google Scholar

Backus, Ad and Spotti, Massimiliano (2012). ‘Normativity and change: introduction to the special issue on Agency and power in multilingual discourse’, Sociolinguistic Studies 6(2): 185–208.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bamgbose, Ayo (1998). ‘Torn between the norms: innovations in world Englishes’, World Englishes 17(1): 1–14.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan and Finegan, Edward (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Bowerman, Sean (2012). ‘Standard South African English’, in Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Standards of English: Codified Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 198–212.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cameron, Deborah (1995). Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Coates, Jennifer (1995). ‘The expression of root and epistemic possibility in English’, in Bybee, Joan L. and Fleischman, Suzanne (eds.), Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 55–66.CrossRef Google Scholar

Collins, Peter (2009). Modals and Quasi-Modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Curzan, Anne (2014). Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

De Klerk, Vivian (2003). ‘Towards a norm in South African Englishes: the case for Xhosa English’, World Englishes 22(4): 463–81.Google Scholar

De Klerk, Vivian (2006). Corpus Linguistics and World Englishes: An Analysis of Xhosa-English. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Dutta, Debarati (2016). ‘How to perform variable feature selection (i.e. pick important variables) using Boruta Package in R’, www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2016/03/select-important-variables-boruta-package/ (last accessed 18 May 2019).Google Scholar

Facchinetti, Roberta (2003). ‘Pragmatic and sociological constraints in the functions of may in contemporary British English’, in Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred and Palmer, Frank (eds.), Modality in Contemporary English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 301–27.Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. and Deshors, Sandra (2014). ‘Using regressions to explore deviations between corpus data and a standard/target: two suggestions’, Corpora 9(1): 109–36.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd ed. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Harder, Peter (2012). ‘Variation, structure and norms’, Review of Cognitive Linguistics 10(2): 294–314.Google Scholar

Hickey, Raymond (ed.) (2012). Standards of English: Codified Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken (1996). ‘Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles’, Applied Linguistics 17(4): 433–54.Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken (1998). ‘Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge’, Text 18(3): 349–82.Google Scholar

Kachru, Braj B. (1985). ‘Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle’, in Quirk, Randolph and Widdowson, H. G. (eds.), English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–30.Google Scholar

Kachru, Braj B. (1986). The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions, and Models of Non-Native Englishes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

Kruger, Haidee (2017). ‘A corpus-based study of the effects of editorial intervention: implications for the features of translated language’, in de Sutter, Gert, Delaere, Isabelle and Lefer, Marie-Aude (eds.), Empirical Translation Studies: New Methodological and Theoretical Traditions, TiLSM: Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 113–56.Google Scholar

Kruger, Haidee and van Rooy, Bertus (2017). ‘Editorial practice and the progressive in Black South African English’, World Englishes 36(1): 20–41.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kursa, Miron B. and Rudnicki, Witold R. (2010). ‘Feature selection with the Boruta Package’, Journal of Statistical Software 36(11): 1–13, www.jstatsoft.org/v36/i11/ (last accessed 18 May 2019).CrossRef Google Scholar

Labov, William (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Liaw, Andy and Wiener, Matthew (2002). ‘Classification and regression by randomForest’, R News 2(3): 18–22.Google Scholar

Makalela, Leketi (2004). ‘Making sense of BSAE for linguistic democracy in South Africa’, World Englishes 23(3): 355–66.Google Scholar

Melchers, Gunnel and Shaw, Philip (2013). World Englishes: An Introduction, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Mesthrie, Rajend (2004). ‘Black South African English: morphology and syntax’, in Kortmann, Bernd, Schneider, Edgar W., Burridge, Kate, Mesthrie, Rajend and Upton, Clive (eds.), The Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol. 2: Morphology and Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 962–73.Google Scholar

Mesthrie, Rajend (2010). ‘Socio-phonetics and social change: deracialisation of the goose vowel in South African English’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 14(1): 3–33.Google Scholar

Mesthrie, Rajend, Chevalier, Alida and Dunne, Timothy (2015). ‘A regional and social dialectology of the bath vowel in South African English’, Language Variation and Change 27(1): 1–30.Google Scholar

Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley (2012). Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Nini, Andrea (2014). Multidimensional Analysis Tagger 1.1, http://sites.google.com/site/multidimensionaltagger (last accessed 18 May 2019).Google Scholar

Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rossouw, Ronel and van Rooy, Bertus (2012). ‘Diachronic changes in modality in South African English’, English World-Wide 33(1): 1–26.Google Scholar

Schneider, Edgar W. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie and Aijmer, Karin (2007). The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: A Corpus-Based Study of English Adverbs. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Strobl, Carolin, Hothorn, Torsten and Zeileis, Achim (2009). ‘Party on! A new, conditional variable-importance measure for random forests available in the party package’, The R Journal 1(2): 14–17.CrossRef Google Scholar

Strobl, Carolin, Malley, James and Tutz, Gerhard (2009). ‘An introduction to recursive partitioning: rationale, application and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging and random forests’, Psychological Methods 14(4): 323–48.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Harald Baayen, R. (2012). ‘Models, forests, and trees of York English: was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice’, Language Variation and Change 24: 135–78.Google Scholar

Van Rooy, Bertus (2005). ‘Expressions of modality in Black South African English’, paper presented at the Corpus Linguistics Conference, Birmingham, 14–17 July 2005.Google Scholar

Van Rooy, Bertus (2011). ‘A principled distinction between error and conventionalised innovation in African Englishes’, in Mukherjee, Joybrato and Hundt, Marianne (eds.), Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging a Paradigm Gap. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 189–208.Google Scholar

Van Rooy, Bertus (2014). ‘Convergence and endonormativity at Phase 4 of the Dynamic Model’, in Buschfeld, Sarah, Hoffmann, Thomas, Huber, Magnus and Kautzsch, Alexander (eds.), The Evolution of Englishes: The Dynamic Model and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 21–38.Google Scholar

Van Rooy, Bertus and Kruger, Haidee (2016). ‘The innovative progressive aspect of Black South African English: the role of language proficiency and normative processes’, International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2(2): 205–28.CrossRef Google Scholar

Van Rooy, Bertus and Terblanche, Lize (2010). ‘Complexity in word-formation processes in new varieties of South African English’, Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 28(4): 357–74.Google Scholar

Van Rooy, Bertus and Wasserman, Ronel (2014). ‘Do the modals of black and white South African English converge?’ Journal of English Linguistics 42(1): 51–67.Google Scholar

Wasserman, Ronel and van Rooy, Bertus (2014). ‘The development of modals of obligation and necessity in White South African English through contact with Afrikaans’, Journal of English Linguistics 42(1): 31–50.Google Scholar

Wilmot, Kirstin (2014). ‘“Coconuts” and the middle-class: identity change and the emergence of a new prestigious English variety in South Africa’, English World-Wide 35(3): 306–37.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.