This monograph presents a comparative, corpus-based study of noun phrase structure in Singaporean and Kenyan English (with British English included as a yardstick). The study’s goal is to investigate two processes of language change theorised to be at work in New Englishes, namely cross-linguistic influence, induced by language contact, and simplification, a universal process of language change. The construction under analysis is the noun phrase (NP), a hitherto under-researched syntactic construction in the World Englishes paradigm, which is still dominated by research into phonological, lexical and morphosyntactic variation. In this review, I will first situate the study in the larger context of the discipline, then I will provide a chapter-by-chapter overview of the book, followed by a critical evaluation.

In his introduction to an edited volume, Jucker (Reference Jucker1993) declares that ‘[t]he English noun phrase has always been treated as the lesser brother of the verb phrase. It seems to be less problematic, simpler, and more straightforward than the verb phrase, which consequently is taken to offer more exciting and more rewarding research questions’ (Jucker Reference Jucker1993: 7). Undoubtedly understood as a call to action, the research situation has since improved in favour of the English noun phrase, which is reflected in a number of monographs devoted to understanding structure, variation and diachronic change of the English NP from a range of different perspectives (see, e.g., Meyer Reference Meyer2000; Keizer Reference Keizer2007; Berlage Reference Berlage2014). This assessment is confirmed by Martínez-Insua & Pérez-Guerra (Reference Martínez-Insua and Pérez-Guerra2011) in their introduction to a special issue on noun phrase structure in English, where it is reported that ‘[s]tudies on noun phrases abound in the linguistics literature, and come from a variety of different perspectives and theoretical backgrounds’ (Martínez-Insua & Pérez-Guerra Reference Martínez-Insua and Pérez-Guerra2011: 201). In particular, the relevance of the English NP in the context of linguistic complexity has been increasingly acknowledged in research from variationist (Brunner Reference Brunner2014; Schilk & Schaub Reference Schilk and Schaub2016), register (Biber & Gray Reference Biber and Gray2011) and second-language perspectives (Biber, Gray & Ponpoon Reference Biber, Gray and Poonpon.2011; Parkinson & Musgrave Reference Parkinson and Musgrave2014; Kreyer & Schaub Reference Kreyer and Schaub2018). Despite the growing interest in the English NP, Jucker’s statement still rings true for research in the World Englishes paradigm, where studies on verb phrase variation prevail (see, e.g., Hundt & Gut Reference Hundt and Gut2012). Existing corpus research on noun-phrase-related phenomena in regional varieties of English is mostly limited to individual morphosyntactic features such as irregular pluralisation or article use (see Mesthrie & Bhatt Reference Mesthrie and Bhatt2008: 47–58, for an overview). Most recently, a number of researchers have sought to shift the imbalance, resulting in the publication of corpus studies on NP syntax in World Englishes (see Brunner Reference Brunner2014; Schaub Reference Schaub2016; Schilk & Schaub Reference Schilk and Schaub2016; Akinlotan Reference Akinlotan2018). Another relatively new strand of scholarly inquiry combines corpus-linguistic research into varieties of English with probabilistic grammar research on syntactic variation (see Szmrecsanyi et al. Reference Szmrecsanyi, Grafmiller, Heller and Röthlisberger2016 for a detailed description of this ongoing research). The study reviewed here, which feeds into these new developments, stands out as the first monograph-length comparative corpus study of NP structures in varieties of English.

The book is divided into eight chapters, grouped into two equally long parts: following an introduction, part A lays out the theoretical background of the study in four chapters; part B presents the design and results of the corpus study in two chapters; the book closes with a conclusion. Each chapter is well structured and includes interim summaries, making for an accessible read.

The Introduction (chapter 1) maps out the central questions and theoretical assumptions of the study as well as the structure of the book. Chapter 2 (‘New varieties of English’) situates the study in the larger context of research into varieties of English. Brunner defends his use of the term ‘New’ Englishes despite recent scholarly criticism of this term. He then briefly discusses models of World Englishes and selects Schneider’s (Reference Schneider2007) Dynamic Model as the theoretical framework for his study, for two reasons: first, the Dynamic Model is inherently diachronic, allowing for varieties to undergo language change, and second, the model can be applied to different, geographically distant postcolonial varieties. In a brief excursion, Brunner addresses the similarities and differences between the study of New Englishes on the one hand and second-language acquisition on the other. Finally, two processes of language change are singled out to be the focus of the analysis, namely contact-induced language change (or cross-linguistic influence), and the universal process of simplification. It is demonstrated how these two processes are at work in New Englishes.

In chapter 3 (‘Modelling language change in New Englishes’), Brunner presents a model of language change in New Englishes which is able to accommodate language contact and simplification. The goal is to develop a model which explains the spread of language behaviour from individual speakers (especially L2 speakers, i.e. language learners) to larger speech communities of New Englishes. He observes three patterns of syntactic transfer phenomena in the syntax of learner language, namely avoidance patterns, overuse, and blending of L1 and L2 structures. Brunner also discusses some constraints on L1 transfer in SLA contexts. Most importantly, he challenges the statement that basic word order (i.e. on a highly abstract level) is impervious to transfer, providing an important premise for his own study of L1 interference on basic NP structure in English.

Chapter 4 (‘Kenyan and Singaporean English’) introduces the two varieties that are the focus of the present study. Both varieties are outlined according to their historical development and current sociolinguistic standing in terms of Schneider’s (Reference Schneider2007) Dynamic Model, culminating in an assessment of the placement of those varieties in the model’s five-stage cycle: Singaporean English has undergone a process of nativisation, which is evident in numerous indigenised linguistic features, and the variety is widely spoken across all tiers of Singaporean society. From that, Singaporean English is characterised as a clearly endonormative and self-sufficient variety of English, and thus placed in stage 4 of Schneider’s Dynamic Model. Kenyan English, on the other hand, is placed in stage 3, as it is much more limited in terms of speaker number and situations of use in Kenya, where it mainly functions as a lingua franca in official, formal contexts. Brunner argues that the advanced development of Singaporean English and its widespread use in society yield a larger number of complex NPs and a higher influence of language contact, whereas Kenyan English is predominantly shaped by simplification. The discussion of the English varieties is complemented by a detailed historical and synchronic account of dozens of substrate languages in each region and their NP-structural typological profiles. It is shown that the substrates spoken in Singapore predominantly use head-final NP structures, whereas the substrates in Kenya clearly favour head-initial patterns. These typological profiles lead Brunner to argue that speakers of Singaporean English tend to favour head-final NP structures, while Kenyan English speakers prefer head-initial NP structures.

In chapter 5 (‘The English NP – structure and variation’), Brunner develops a functional model of the English NP based on Bache’s (Reference Bache2000) model with his own adaptations. The model separates the English NP into four zones (Determination, Premodification, Head, Postmodification) with different formal subcategories in each zone except for the Head. Special constructions, such as compounds and so-called SKT-constructions (i.e. constructions with nouns such as sort, kind and type (of)), which have been notoriously challenging in any formal description of English NP structure, are discussed and methodologically accounted for separately. With regard to known factors influencing NP structure and variation, three language-internal factors (word class and semantic class of the head noun, syntactic position of the NP) and two language-external factors (spoken versus written modality, register) are identified which have an influence on NP structure in general. These factors have clear methodological implications: for instance, Brunner reacts to the influence of the word class of the head noun by excluding from his study any NPs with a proper noun or pronoun as its head due to their tendency towards low modification. Three factors are identified which govern a speaker’s choice between pre- and postmodification, namely register, modality and region (variety). Most notably for the present study, with regard to regional variation, previous studies show that Singaporean English has a propensity for densely complex premodification patterns as compared to other national varieties of English, which is in line with the typologically informed argumentation established in chapter 4, and thus presents compelling evidence for Brunner’s general hypothesis. The second part of the chapter is devoted to a critical discussion of linguistic complexity, with special attention to NP complexity. The chapter closes with a methodological framework for describing the complexity of NP modifiers and NPs as a whole. In addition to using length as an index of NP complexity, Brunner devises a set of hierarchies by which the complexity of NP pre- and postmodifiers as well as whole NPs can be ranked. In addition, the total number of modifiers per NP, the overall syntactic depth of the NP and the total number of complex subject NPs are gauged as well. Finally, all metrics of NP complexity are realigned to match the two dimensions of interest in the study, (a) the choice between pre- and postmodification, and (b) the choice between simple and complex NPs.

Chapter 6 (‘Methodology, corpus handling and statistics’) outlines the methodological procedure of the corpus study. The data is drawn from the Singaporean and Kenyan components of the International Corpus of English (ICE), with the British English component used as a comparative yardstick. The study uses a subsample composed of two text categories, ‘direct conversations’ (S1A) and ‘student essays’ (W1A), which are seen as forming a continuum on the dimensions of formality (informal to formal) and modality (spoken to written). Brunner also addresses problems and incongruences associated with ICE, but ultimately defends his choice mainly on the basis of the comparability and authenticity of the ICE data. The CLAWS tagger and the ‘R’ environment are used for data annotation and extraction as well as for the statistical analyses. The study employs a wide range of statistical methods, from calculations of ratio values and standard deviation, to one- and two-way ANOVAs, and contingency tables. As for the data-handling procedure, Brunner uses a hybrid semi-automatic approach which combines the advantages of automatic pre-processing of the data with the precision of manual postediting.

Chapter 7 (‘Studying NP modification in Singapore English and Kenyan English’) constitutes the bulk of the work and presents the hypotheses and results of the corpus analysis. Brunner formulates five hypotheses, which reflect the expected influence of language contact and simplification on the NPs in the data set. He then tests these hypotheses against each text category (conversation, student essays) separately, comparing the Singaporean, Kenyan and British data. Hypotheses 1 to 3 are concerned with contact influence. Hypothesis 1 predicts differences in the frequency distributions of pre- vs postmodified NPs across the two varieties, which the analysis clearly confirms in alignment with the typological background of the respective varieties: the Singaporean English data predominantly yield premodified NPs, while the Kenyan English data show relatively frequent NPs with postmodification. This is partially corroborated with findings regarding hypothesis 2, which predicts that the length of the premodifiying and postmodifying strings corresponds to this preferential pattern. Hypothesis 3 predicts differences in the internal complexity of pre- vs postmodifiers in the two varieties. Brunner finds marked differences for individual modifier types such as adjectival premodification (see also evaluation below), but does not observe generalisable patterns. Hypotheses 4 and 5 are concerned with simplification effects. Here, Kenyan English is shown to employ shorter and structurally simpler NPs and NP modifications. Across all hypotheses, the patterns follow the hypothesised tendencies, but often fail to reach statistical significance; only the analysis for hypothesis 1 yields statistically significant results throughout. The concluding findings are that both contact influence and simplification have an effect on Singaporean and Kenyan English noun phrases along the hypothesised predictions, but not always to a statistically significant degree. In addition, the effects are much more pronounced in ‘direct conversation’ than in ‘student essays’. In chapter 8 (‘Conclusion’), the study and its results are summarised, and the implications of the methods as well as the results of the study are discussed.

This study is the first book-length comparative description of noun phrase structure in Singaporean and Kenyan English. The study is innovative in a number of respects: first, it concentrates on the English noun phrase, a construction which has hitherto received relatively little attention in the World Englishes research paradigm. Furthermore, the study goes beyond the morphosyntactic level of description, which has been the dominant strand in corpus research on varieties of English in the past two decades, and instead studies a purely syntactic construction. As such, Brunner’s work is at the forefront of two parallel developments in corpus research on varieties of English, namely a growing interest in phrasal constructions other than the verb phrase (particularly, the noun phrase), and research into purely syntactic variation across regional varieties of English. A third characteristic worth highlighting is the effective combination of corpus-linguistic methods and typological information to corroborate claims of contact-induced language change. Although the approach is not novel (see, e.g., Tan Reference Tan2013 on Malaysian English for a similar approach), it is still the exception, rather than the rule, in corpus research on varieties of English. Future work can build on this by means of other methods of elicitation, e.g. questionnaires or judgement tasks combined with interviews, to see if speakers in fact opt for certain syntactic structures due to substrate preferences.

Owing to the fact that the study’s focus is on contact-induced influence and simplification, the influence of register and syntactic function necessarily take a less prominent role. For instance, acknowledging the labour-intensive annotation involved, the author limits his data to two text categories (direct conversation, student essays) and aligns them with two register characteristics known to have a strong influence on NP structure, namely formality and modality. However, each of the two text categories collates these two characteristics (direct conversation is informal/spoken; student essays are formal/written). In the analysis, it is impossible to disentangle whether any effects on NP structure are due to the level of formality or the modality of the text category. Such an analysis would minimally require a 2x2 set of text categories, where each category represents one end of the formality and modality dimensions (see Schilk & Schaub Reference Schilk and Schaub2016 for such an approach). More generally, it is clear from the results of the present study and similar studies that the strong influence of register (including formality and modality as separate characteristics of it) and syntactic function (and the interaction of all factors involved) must take centre stage in any research design hoping to uncover any other factors influencing NP variation.

Furthermore, some of Brunner’s conclusions appear eager to align with the hypotheses without considering simpler explanations: for instance, on page 189, he observes an overuse of adjectival premodification in Kenyan English, which he attributes to Kenyan English speakers avoiding nominal premodification due to its potential implicitness. This assumption is then interpreted as support for his hypothesis that Kenyan English is subject to simplification. The examples of adjectival premodification which Brunner provides, however, may also simply reflect collocational preferences (he lists examples such as creative writing or sexual harassment), where a nominal premodification strategy would be considered unidiomatic even in the input variety. This is not to say that Brunner’s conclusion is necessarily inaccurate; any such analysis must, however, take collocational strength into account.

The shortcomings mentioned above, however, do not inhibit the answer to the study’s main question: do contact effects and simplification have a predictable effect on noun phrase syntax across regional varieties of English? The partially strong evidence positively suggests that both, contact influence and simplification, are at work even on highly abstract levels of syntax, as posited by Schneider’s (Reference Schneider2007) Dynamic Model. These findings, obviously, have to be confirmed in subsequent research including other varieties of English and a wider range of textual categories.

The present study is, without a doubt, a comprehensive and carefully designed description of noun phrase structure in two varieties of English, and makes an important contribution to new developments in corpus research on varieties of English. Bridging the gap between corpus linguistics and typological research, the study is sure to serve as a vantage point for further research and as food for thought regarding methodology and theoretical implications. The book is of particular interest to English corpus linguists, researchers of varieties of English, contact linguists, typologists and variational sociolinguists.