Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-kv2lp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-04T09:59:04.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Syntactic variation in language shift: The relative clause in South African Indian English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Rajend Mesthrie  and
Timothy T. Dunne
Rajend Mesthrie
Affiliation:
University of Cape Town
Timothy T. Dunne
Affiliation:
University of Cape Town
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines syntactic variation in an English dialect that has emerged from the process of language shift. South African Indian English has a wide variety of relative clauses that can be categorized as follows: (a) standard, (b) almost standard, (c) substrate influenced, (d) discourse governed. Of some interest is the occasional appearance of left-branching relative clauses and correlatives normally associated with object-verb (OV) languages. Social patterning of the relative clause is examined according to the parameter standard/nonstandard and according to the use made of certain relativization strategies by specific groups of speakers.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , March 1990 , pp. 31 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Annamalai, E. (1969). Adjectival clauses in Tamil. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Asher, R. (1985). Tamil. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1977). Change and variation in Hawaiian English. Vol II — Creole syntax. University of Hawaii: Social Sciences and Linguistics Institute.Google Scholar
Bughwan, D. (1970). An investigation into the use of English by the Indians in South Africa, with special reference to Natal. Doctoral dissertation, University of South Africa.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J. (1987). Syntactic variation, the linguistic variable, and sociolinguistic theory. Linguistics. 25:257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chutisilp, P. (1984). A sociolinguistic study of an additional language: English in Thailand. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Downing, B. T. (1978). Some universals of relative clause structure. In Greenberg, J. (ed.), Universals of human language. Vol 4: Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 375–418.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Harris, J. (1984). Syntactic variation and dialect divergence. Journal of Linguistics 20:303–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kachru, B. B. (1983). The Indianization of English: The English language in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions, and models of non-native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. (1985). Relative clauses. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol II — Complex Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 141–147.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. (1982). A quantitative study of the syntax of speech and writing. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, report submitted to the National Institute of Education.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1982). Building on empirical foundations. In Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 79–92.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1987). The shape of English: Structure and history. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Lavandera, B. (1978). Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society 7(2):171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowenberg, P. H. (1984). English in the Malay Archipelago: Nativization and its functions in a sociolinguistic area. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Magura, B. J. (1984). Style and meaning in African English: A sociolinguistic analysis of South African and Zimbabwean English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Masica, C. (1972). Relative clauses in South Asia. In Peranteau, P. M., Levi, J. N. & Phares, G. C. (eds.), The Chicago which hunt: Papers from the Relative Clause Festival. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 198–204.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, R. (1985). A History of the Bhojpuri (or “Hindi”) language in South Africa. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cape Town.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, R. (1989). The dynamics of a dialect system: Aspects of the history, structure, and sociolinguistics of South African Indian English. Rondebosch, South Africa: University of Cape Town. report submitted to the Human Sciences Research Council.Google Scholar
Platt, J. T. & Weber, H. (1980). English in Singapore and Malaysia: Status, features, functions. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Platt, J. T.Weber, H. & Ho, M. L. (1984). The New Englishes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Ritchie, W. C. (1986). Second language acquisition research and the study of non-native varieties of English: Some issues in common. World Englishes 5(1):15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. (1981). On the problem of syntactic variation — A reply to Beatrice Lavandera and William Labov. Working Papers in Sociolinguistics. No. 82. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Developmental Laboratory.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (1982). Socio-historical linguistics: Its status and methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. (1988). Pidgin and Creole languages. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. (1973). Above and beyond phonology in variable rules. In Bailey, C.-J. N. & Shuy, R. (eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 44–61.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. & Brown, P. (1976). The origins of syntax in discourse: A case of Tok Pisin relatives. Language 52:631–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sridhar, K. K. & Sridhar, S. N. (1986). Bridging the paradigm gap: Second language acquisition research and indigenized varieties of English. World Englishes 5(1):3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarallo, F. (1986). Inside and outside relative clauses: Pronominal redundancy in Portuguese. In Sankoff, D. (ed.), Diversity and diachrony. Amsterdam: John Benjanuns. 249–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weiner, E. J. & Labov, W. (1983). Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 19:29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (1987). Non-native varieties of English: A special case of language acquisition. English World-Wide 8(2):161–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winford, D. (1984). The linguistic variable and syntactic variation in Creole continua. Lingua 62:267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfram, W. A. & Christian, D. (1976). Appalachian speech. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar