DOCSLIB.ORG

The Construction of Norms of Linguistic Politeness: Valorizations of Korean Honorification in Language How-To Manuals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Construction of Norms of Linguistic Politeness: Valorizations of Korean Honorification in Language How-To Manuals The Construction of Norms of Linguistic Politeness: Valorizations of Korean honorification in language how-to manuals by EUN SEON KIM A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in The Faculty of Graduate Studies (Asian Studies) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) October 2010 © EUN SEON KIM, 2010 Abstract This thesis aims to examine metapragmatic discourses on linguistic politeness illustrated in Korean language how-to literature. The primary task lies in contextualizing the native awareness of ene yeycel (linguistic politeness in Korean) within the interests or values of certain social groups. The first group, South Korean government-sanctioned agencies, led a linguistic campaign promoting a new standard speech model in 1992. Language professionals, the second group of social actors, produced popular language how-to literature, especially after the establishment of the hegemonic standard speech model. Both language standardizing policy and the participants in the how-to industry represent the cultural process of constructing language and social conventions. The “normative” culture of ene yeycel can be empowered and widely circulated, gaining wider social practice. Standardization of honorification came to the surface as a public issue along with a new “cultural policy” of the Ministry of Cultural Affairs in 1990. In this cultural- political circumstance, the social meaning of standardized honorification was rediscovered as indigenous culture, a group identity shared by Korean speakers. Positively valorizing honorification as linguistic and cultural tradition, the standardized model preserves the sophisticated use of honorifics and reinforces superior-inferior relationships. However, the standard model of ene yeycel can be subjective and arbitrary. Moreover, different styles are too easily proscribed as errors made by sloppy speakers. Language how-to literature produces more diversified interpretations than the standard speech manual. As language users are confronted with the challenges of finding the proper level of honorification, language how-to manuals provide justifications to help ii speakers prioritize linguistic norms when internalizing social relationships. Positive valorizations of honorification derive from a speaker's respect for the interlocutor's social status or personality. Negative valorizations of honorification view deferential politeness as a kind of discriminatory behaviour indexing power-difference. The positive or negative values of honorification are based on different concepts of ene yeycel and on different identifications of social relationships. Such conceptualizations rationalize whether speakers should support honorification or not, and lead them to discuss language use in current society. iii Table of Contents Abstract............................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents............................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ vii Glossary ...........................................................................................................................viii Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 Outline of the research................................................................................................ 1 Why do people think honorification matters?............................................................. 6 Chapter 1 Honorification and Sociolinguistics................................................................. 11 1.1 Research review...................................................................................................... 11 1.1.1 Egalitarianism and the decreasing use of honorifics........................................ 13 1.1.2 Self-centrism and the increasing use of honorifics.......................................... 16 1.1.3 Linguistic change and ideology ....................................................................... 20 1.2 The relationship between society and honorification ............................................. 22 1.3 Makers of linguistic politeness norms .................................................................... 26 1.3.1 The formation of norms of ene yeycel ............................................................. 26 1.3.2 Social activities in the construction of norms of ene yeycel ............................ 30 1.3.2.1 State-sanctioned language standardizing project ...................................... 30 1.3.2.2 Language how-to publications.................................................................. 33 Chapter 2 State-Sanctioned Norms of Linguistic Politeness ............................................ 35 2.1 Privileging of cultural and linguistic tradition........................................................ 35 2.1.1 Linguistic model of ene yeycel ........................................................................ 36 2.1.2 Superior-oriented honorification...................................................................... 37 2.1.3 Concerns about lay speakers: prescriptive ideology........................................ 38 2.2 Challenges to standard honorification .................................................................... 40 2.3 Lay speakers’ interactions with standard ene yeycel .............................................. 44 2.3.1 As a source of information or verification....................................................... 44 2.3.2 Disputes over standard ene yeycel ................................................................... 45 2.4 Disregarded functions of non-standard honorification ........................................... 47 2.4.1 Non- or less honorification .............................................................................. 47 2.4.2 Over-honorification.......................................................................................... 50 Chapter 3 Popularized Norms of Linguistic Politeness .................................................... 53 3.1 Traditionalists ......................................................................................................... 53 3.1.1 Positive valorization: unique and admirable tradition ..................................... 54 3.1.2 Normative use: asymmetric honorification...................................................... 55 3.1.3 Negotiation with social reality......................................................................... 57 3.2 Anti-traditionalists .................................................................................................. 59 3.2.1 Negative valorization: discrimination and linguistic violence......................... 59 3.2.2 Normative use: simplified honorification ........................................................ 61 3.2.3 The quasi-authoritarianism inherent in honorification .................................... 63 3.3 Utilitarianists........................................................................................................... 64 3.3.1 Honorification as a personal strategy............................................................... 65 3.3.2 Normative use: reciprocal and flexible honorification .................................... 66 iv 3.3.3 Honorification as cultural capital..................................................................... 68 Chapter 4 Ene Yeycel as a Meaningful Social Practice..................................................... 71 4.1 Ene yeycel as the main issue of language policy .................................................... 71 4.1.1 Ene yeycel before standardization.................................................................... 71 4.1.2 Why in 1990?................................................................................................... 76 4.1.3 Honorification for the restoration of cultural homogeneity............................. 79 4.2 Ene yeycel in individual life.................................................................................... 82 4.2.1 Concerns of lay speakers ................................................................................. 83 4.2.2 Identification of social relationships and honorification ................................. 85 4.2.3 Multiple norms of linguistic politeness............................................................ 88 Conclusions: Linguistic Politeness as Normative Culture................................................ 91 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................. 98 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 111 APPENDIX A: Questions about the Proper Level of Politeness................................ 111 APPENDIX B: Titles of Language How-to Publications........................................... 112 APPENDIX C: Lay Speakers’ Reactions to Standard Honorification ....................... 114 v List of Tables Table 1 Dual-speech levels in the early twentieth century................................................ 14
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Writing Speech: Lolcats and Standardization Brittany Brannon Denison University
    Articulāte Volume 17 Article 5 2012 Writing Speech: LOLcats and Standardization Brittany Brannon Denison University Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.denison.edu/articulate Part of the English Language and Literature Commons Recommended Citation Brannon, Brittany (2012) "Writing Speech: LOLcats and Standardization," Articulāte: Vol. 17 , Article 5. Available at: http://digitalcommons.denison.edu/articulate/vol17/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the English at Denison Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articulāte by an authorized editor of Denison Digital Commons. Writing Speech: LOLcats and Standardization refined men...in their speech and writing" (quoted in Lerer 159). What becomes apparent in Gil's statement is that for the orthoepists, education was Brittany Brannon '12 tied to class—and, therefore, proper language was based as much on class interests as it was on the speech of the educated. It is here that Lerer's use of the term "educated" begins to become problematic. Today, most people in our society believe that education is From the time we are small, we are taught that there are only certain largely separate from class concerns. The American dream tells us that forms of spelling and grammar that are appropriate for written work, anyone who works hard enough can make something of themselves, often regardless of how closely those forms align with our speech. This distinction through education. This myth perpetuates the common lack of recognition is not an innocent one. The inability to use standard written English has that one's level of education still often has more to do with socioeconomic many social judgments attached to and embedded in it.
    [Show full text]
  • Korean Honorific Speech Style Shift: Intra-Speaker
    KOREAN HONORIFIC SPEECH STYLE SHIFT: INTRA-SPEAKER VARIABLES AND CONTEXT A DISSERATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN EAST ASIAN LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES (KOREAN) MAY 2014 By Sumi Chang Dissertation Committee: Ho-min Sohn, Chairperson Dong Jae Lee Mee Jeong Park Lourdes Ortega Richard Schmidt Keywords: Korean honorifics, grammaticalization, indexicality, stance, identity ⓒ Copyright 2014 by Sumi Chang ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS No words can express my appreciation to all the people who have helped me over the course of my doctoral work which has been a humbling and enlightening experience. First, I want to express my deepest gratitude to my Chair, Professor Ho-min Sohn, for his intellectual guidance, enthusiasm, and constant encouragement. I feel very fortunate to have been under his tutelage and supervision. I also wish to thank his wife, Mrs. Sook-Hi Sohn samonim, whose kindness and generosity extended to all the graduate students, making each of us feel special and at home over the years. Among my committee members, I am particularly indebted to Professor Dong Jae Lee for continuing to serve on my committee even after his retirement. His thoughtfulness and sense of humor alleviated the concerns and the pressure I was under. Professor Mee Jeong Park always welcomed my questions and helped me organize my jumbled thoughts. Her support and reassurance, especially in times of self-doubt, have been true blessings. Professor Lourdes Ortega's invaluable comments since my MA days provided me with a clear direction and goal.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Tewa Kwa Speech As a Mantfestation of Linguistic Ideologyi
    Pragmatics2:3.297 -309 InternationalPragmatics Association ARIZONA TEWA KWA SPEECH AS A MANTFESTATIONOF LINGUISTIC IDEOLOGYI Paul V. Kroskriw 1.Introduction "Whathave you learned about the ceremonies?" Back in the Summer of.7973,when I firstbegan research on Arizona Tewa, I was often asked such questionsby a variety of villagers.I found this strange,even disconcerting,since the questionspersisted after I explainedmy researchinterest as residing in the language "itself', or in "just the language,not the culture".My academicadvisors and a scholarlytradition encouraged meto attributethis responseto a combination of secrecyand suspicionregarding such culturallysensitive topics as ceremonial language.Yet despite my careful attempts to disclaimany researchinterest in kiva speech (te'e hi:li) and to carefully distinguish betweenit and the more mundane speech of everyday Arizona Tewa life, I still experiencedthese periodic questionings.Did thesequestions betray a native confusion of thelanguage of the kiva with that of the home and plaza? Was there a connection betweenthese forms of discoursethat was apparent to most Tewa villagersyet hidden fromme? In the past few years, after almost two decadesof undertaking various studiesof fuizonaTewa grammar, sociolinguistic variation, languagecontact, traditional nanatives,code-switching, and chanted announcements,an underlying pattern of languageuse has gradually emerged which, via the documentary method of interpretationhas allowed me to attribute a new meaning to these early intenogations.2The disparatelinguistic and discoursepractices, I contend, display a commonpattern of influencefrom te'e hi:li "kiva speech".The more explicit rules for languageuse in ritual performance provide local models for the generation and anluationof more mundanespeech forms and verbal practices. I Acknowledgements.I would like to thank Kathryn Woolard for her commentson an earlier rcnionof thisarticle which was presentedas part of the 1991American Anthropological Association rymposium,"language ldeologies: Practice and Theory'.
    [Show full text]
  • THE WOULD BE GENTLEMAN (Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme)
    1 THE WOULD BE GENTLEMAN (Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme) by MOLIÈRE (Jean-Baptiste Poquelin, 1622-1673) Comedy-Ballet presented at Chambord, for the entertainment of the King, in the month of October 1670, and to the public in Paris for the first time at the Palais-Royal Theatre, 23 November 1670. The Cast Monsieur Jourdain, bourgeois. Madame Jourdain, his wife. Lucile, their daughter. Nicole, maid. Cléonte, suitor of Lucile. Covielle, Cléonte’s valet. Dorante, Count, suitor of Dorimène. Dorimène, Marchioness. Music Master. Pupil of the Music Master. Dancing Master. Fencing Master. Master of Philosophy. Tailor. Tailor’s apprentice. Two lackeys. Many male and female musicians, instrumentalists, dancers, cooks, tailor’s apprentices, and others necessary for the interludes. The scene is Monsieur Jourdain’s house in Paris. 2 ACT ONE SCENE I (Music Master, Dancing Master, Musicians) PUPIL: Hums while composing MUSIC MASTER: (To Musicians) Come, come into this room, sit there and wait until he comes. MUSIC MASTER: (To Pupil) Is it finished? PUPIL: Yes. MUSIC MASTER: Let’s see … It’s fine. DANCING MASTER: Is it something new? MUSIC MASTER: Yes, it’s a melody for a serenade that I asked him to compose, while we are waiting for our man to wake up. DANCING MASTER: May I see it? MUSIC MASTER: You’ll hear it, with the dialogue, when he comes. He won’t be long. DANCING MASTER: We’re both very busy these days. MUSIC MASTER: That’s true. Here we’ve found the kind of man we both need. This Monsieur Jourdain, with his dreams of nobility and elegance, is a nice source of income for us.
    [Show full text]
  • Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Honorifics in British English, Peninsular
    DEPARTAMENT DE FILOLOGIA ANGLESA I DE GERMANÍSTICA Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Honorifics in British English, Peninsular Spanish and Ukrainian Treball de Fi de Grau/ BA dissertation Author: Kateryna Koval Supervisor: Sònia Prats Carreras Grau d’Estudis Anglesos/Grau d’Estudis d’Anglès i Francès June 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank my tutor, Sònia Prats Carreras, who helped me to choose the topic for my dissertation as well as to develop it. Additionally, I would like to acknowledge Yolanda Rodríguez and Natalya Dychka, who both provided me with valuable advices concerning the use of honorifics in Spanish and Ukrainian, respectively. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ........................................................................................................................ 1 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 2 2. Cross-cultural and Politeness pragmatics ................................................................... 4 2.1. The cultural approach to pragmatics................................................................... 4 2.2. Characteristics of politeness ............................................................................... 5 3. Pronouns of address and honorific titles .................................................................... 8 4. Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory .................................................................. 11 5. Comparison ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Date Title Author Jan-07 Intuition Allegra Goodman Feb-07 on The
    Date Title Author Jan-07 Intuition Allegra Goodman Feb-07 On the Road Jack Kerouac Mar-07 The Tender Bar J.R. Moehringer Apr-07 The Omnivore's Dilemma Michael Pollan May-07 Persuasion Jane Austen Jun-07 Life of Pi Yann Martel Jul-07 Devil in the White City Erik Larson Aug-07 Little Children Tom Perotta Sep-07 The Lost Painting Jonathan Harr Oct-07 An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore Nov-07 Empire Falls Richard Russo Jan-08 One Thousand White Women James Fergus Feb-08 Loving Frank Nancy Horan Mar-08 Sweet and Low: a family story Rich Cohen Apr-08 Away Amy Bloom May-08 Eat, Pray, Love Melissa Gilbert Jun-08 The Thirteenth Tale Diane Setterfield Jul-08 The Glass Castle Jeanette Walls Aug-08 the Handmaid's Tale Margaret Atwood Sep-08 House of Sand and Fog Andre Dubus III Oct-08 The Devil Came on Horseback Gretchen Steidle Jan-09 Three Cups of Tea Greg Mortenson Feb-09 City of Thieves David Benioff Mar-09 The Painted Veil W. Somerset Maugham Apr-09 The Space Between Us Thrity Umrigar May-09 River of Doubt Candace Millard Jun-09 Suite Francaise Irene Nemirovsky Jul-09 Belong to Me Marisa de los Santos Aug-09 People of the Book Geraldine Brooks Sep-09 Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Stieg Larsson Oct-09 How We Decide Jonah Lehrer Nov-09 Among the Missing Dan Chaon Dec-09 Last Night at the Lobster Stewart O'Nan Jan-10 Guernsey Literary & Potato Peel Pie Society Mary Ann Shaffer Feb-10 Beautiful Boy David Sheff Mar-10 The Great Gatsby F.
    [Show full text]
  • Oadest, Topics in the field Include Written Legal Discourse (Sources of Law, and Judicial Declaration Or Interpretation of the Law), Spoken Legal Discourse (E.G
    Language and Law A resource book for students Allan Durant and Janny H.C. Leung First published 2016 ISBN: 978-1-138-02558-5 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-138-02557-8 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-43625-8 (ebk) Chapter A1 ‘Legal Language’ as a Linguistic Variety (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) DOI: 10.4324/9781315436258-2 A1 2 INTRODUCTION: KEY CONCEPTS A1 ‘LEGAL LANGUAGE’ AS A LINGUISTIC VARIETY In this unit, we introduce the concept of legal language, perhaps the most obvious and traditionally debated intersection between language and law. The expression legal language designates what is often considered to be a recognisable linguistic variety, differing from other kinds of language use such as medical discourse, news reporting, Dorset dialect or underworld slang. But does a variety matching the name exist? And if so, what kind of variety is it: a dialect, register or something else? In order to refine the concept of legal language, we introduce sociolinguistic con- cepts that help distinguish different kinds of linguistic variation. In related units, we extend our exploration of the concept: in Unit B1, we examine specific linguistic features associated with the variety, and in Unit C1 we examine contrasting views expressed about it. In Thread 2 (i.e. Units A2, B2, C2 and D2), we describe this com - plicated variety’s historical development and the purposes it is thought to serve, as well as reasons why many people feel it is in need of reform if it is to achieve those purposes. Scope of legal language If you ask people what legal language is the language of, you will get different answers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gentleman Dancing-Master. by WILLIAM WYCHERLEY "Non Satis Est Risu Diducere Rictum Auditorus: Et Est Quædam Tamen
    The Gentleman Dancing-Master. BY WILLIAM WYCHERLEY "Non satis est risu diducere rictum Auditorus: et est quædam tamen his quoque virtus."[51]--HORAT. If we may trust the author's statement to Pope, this admirable comedy was written when Wycherley was twenty-one years of age, in the year 1661-2. It is impossible to fix with certainty the date of its first performance. The Duke's Company, then under the management of the widow of Sir William Davenant, opened its new theatre in Dorset Gardens, near Salisbury Court, on the 9th of November, 1671, with a performance of Dryden's Sir Martin Mar-all, and Wycherley's "Prologue to the City" points to the production of his play in the new theatre shortly after its opening. Genest states, on the authority of Downes, that "The Gentleman Dancing-Master was the third new play acted at this theatre, and that several of the old stock plays were acted between each of the new ones." Sir Martin Mar-all, having been three times performed, was succeeded by Etherege's Love in a Tub, which, after two representations, gave place to a new piece, Crowne's tragedy of Charles the Eighth. This was played six times in succession, and was followed, probably after an interval devoted to stock pieces, by a second novelty, an adaptation by Ravenscroft from Molière, entitled The Citizen turn'd Gentleman, or Mamamouchi, which ran for nine days together. The Gentleman Dancing-Master was then acted, probably after another short interval, and must therefore have been produced either in December, 1671, or in January, 1672.
    [Show full text]
  • National Language Policy Theor
    Lang Policy DOI 10.1007/s10993-015-9357-z 12 ORIGINAL PAPER 3 National language policy theory: exploring Spolsky’s 4 model in the case of Iceland 5 Nathan John Albury 6 Received: 15 December 2012 / Accepted: 19 January 2015 7 Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 8 Abstract Language policies are born amidst the complex interplay of social, cul- 9 tural, religious and political forces. With this in mind, Bernard Spolsky theorises that 10 the language policy of any independent nation is driven, at its core, by four co- 11 occurring conditions—national ideology, English in the globalisation process, a 12 nation’s attendant sociolinguistic situation, and the internationally growing interest in 13 the linguistic rights of minorities. He calls for this theory to be tested (Spolsky in 14 Language policy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,PROOF2004). This paper accepts 15 the invitation by firstly considering the contributions and limitations of Spolsky’s 16 theory vis-a`-vis other contemporary research approaches and then applies the theory to 17 the case of Iceland. Iceland is a dynamic locus for this purpose, given its remarkable 18 monodialectism, fervent linguistic purism and protectionism, and history of over- 19 whelming homogeneity. The study finds that all Spolsky’s factors have in some way 20 driven Icelandic language policy, except in issues of linguistic minority rights. Instead, 21 Icelandic language policy discourse reveals a self-reflexive interest in minority rights 22 whereby Icelandic is discursively positioned as needing protection in the global lan- 23 guage ecology. Accordingly, the paper examines how Spolsky’s theory may be refined 24 to account for non-rights-based approaches to national language policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Red Lake Falls, Minnesota: a Sociolinguistic Survey James Kapper SIL-UND
    Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session Volume 29 Article 5 1985 Red Lake Falls, Minnesota: A sociolinguistic survey James Kapper SIL-UND Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/sil-work-papers Recommended Citation Kapper, James (1985) "Red Lake Falls, Minnesota: A sociolinguistic survey," Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session: Vol. 29 , Article 5. DOI: 10.31356/silwp.vol29.05 Available at: https://commons.und.edu/sil-work-papers/vol29/iss1/5 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RED LAlCE FALLS, MINNESOTA: A SOCIOLINGUISTIC SUR.VEY James Kapper TABLE OF CORTENTS Chapter I. Introduction ••••••••••••••••••••••• o•••••••••285 Chapter II. Methodology ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 288 Chapter III. The Community •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 293 Chapter IV. Survey Results •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 301 Chapter v. Conclusions •••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••• 315 Appendices ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 317 Appendix A•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 317 Appendix B•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 321 Bibliography ....•..•.•.•.•••.••••••..••....•••••..•••..•.. 339 LIST OF TABLES TABLE I. Minnesota Migration
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome to LING 101!
    Welcome to LING 101! • Please sign your name in the book on the front desk and take a notecard and write down the following things about yourself: – Name – Year – What’s your major? – Where are you from? • Also potentially interesting: where are your parents from? – Why are you taking this class? – Something interesting about you linguistically. (e.g. How many languages have you studied/do you speak?) – Something else interesting about yourself Introduction LING 101 Summer Session II Amy Reynolds Overview • Introduction • Class Policies and Class Schedule • What is Linguistics? – What is mental grammar? – Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Grammars – Brief History of Prescriptivism (if time) Contact Information • LING 101 Summer Session II, Section 001 • Amy Reynolds – Office: Smith 104 • Hours: Tuesdays and Thursdays, 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. – E-mail: [email protected] • E-mail policy – Websites: amyrey.web.unc.edu and sakai.unc.edu General Class Schedule • When you first walk in: – Sign in – Homeworks (when applicable) • Each class will begin with a brief review of the previous day’s topics, a outline of the days topics, followed by lecture and practice questions. Class Policies • Laptop and Cell Phone Use • Two Assignments per unit: – Homeworks • Collaboration – Writing Assignments • Participation • Attendance • Honor Code • Grade Breakdown Class Schedule and Syllabus • The class schedule is available online on my site: amyrey.web.unc.edu • The schedule will be updated daily, based on what topics we have covered that day. I will also update the syllabus, which will include links to the powerpoints used for that day. A little bit about me • Alabama to Kansas to North Carolina.
    [Show full text]
  • Indian English Evolution and Focusing Visible Through Power Laws
    languages Article Indian English Evolution and Focusing Visible Through Power Laws Vineeta Chand 1,* ID , Devin Kapper 2, Sumona Mondal 2, Shantanu Sur 3 ID and Rana D. Parshad 2 1 Centre for Research in Language Development throughout the Lifespan (LaDeLi), Department of Languages and Linguistics, University of Essex, Colchester CO4 3SQ, UK 2 Department of Mathematics, Clarkson University, 8 Clarkson Ave., Potsdam, NY 13699-5815, USA; [email protected] (D.K.); [email protected] (S.M.); [email protected] (R.D.P.) 3 Department of Biology, Clarkson University, 8 Clarkson Ave., Potsdam, NY 13699-5815, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +44-01206-872101 Academic Editors: Usha Lakshmanan and Osmer Balam Received: 19 August 2017; Accepted: 20 November 2017; Published: 24 November 2017 Abstract: New dialect emergence and focusing in language contact settings is difficult to capture and date in terms of global structural dialect stabilization. This paper explores whether diachronic power law frequency distributions can provide evidence of dialect evolution and new dialect focusing, by considering the quantitative frequency characteristics of three diachronic Indian English (IE) corpora (1970s–2008). The results demonstrate that IE consistently follows power law frequency distributions and the corpora are each best fit by Mandelbrot’s Law. Diachronic changes in the constants are interpreted as evidence of lexical and syntactic collocational focusing within the process of new dialect formation. Evidence of new dialect focusing is also visible through apparent time comparison of spoken and written data. Age and gender-separated sub-corpora of the most recent corpus show minimal deviation, providing apparent time evidence for emerging IE dialect stability.
    [Show full text]