1 / 25

Using an enhanced MDA model in study of World Englishes

Using an enhanced MDA model in study of World Englishes. Richard Xiao University of Central Lancashire RXiao@uclan.ac.uk. Overview of the talk. Biber’s (1988) MF/MD analytical framework The enhanced multidimensional analysis (MDA) model

torgny
Download Presentation

Using an enhanced MDA model in study of World Englishes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using an enhanced MDA model in study of World Englishes Richard Xiao University of Central Lancashire RXiao@uclan.ac.uk

  2. Overview of the talk • Biber’s (1988) MF/MD analytical framework • The enhanced multidimensional analysis (MDA) model • An MDA analysis of five varieties of English in the ICE

  3. Factor analysis • The key to the multidimensional analysis approach • A common data reduction method available in many standard statistics packages such as SPSS • Reducing a large number of variables to a manageable set of underlying factors or dimensions • Extensively used in social sciences to identify clusters of variables

  4. Biber’s MF/MD approach • Established in Biber (1988): Variation across Speech and Writing (CUP) • Factor analysis of 67 functionally related linguistic features • 481 text samples, amounting to 960,000 running words • LOB • London-Lund • Brown corpus • A collection of professional and personal letters

  5. Biber’s MF/MD approach • Biber’s seven factors / dimensions • Informational vs. involved production • Narrative vs. non-narrative concerns • Explicit vs. situation-dependent reference • Overt expression of persuasion • Abstract vs. non-abstract information • Online informational elaboration • Academic hedging

  6. Biber’s MF/MD approach • Influential and widely used • Synchronic analysis of specific registers / genres and author styles • Diachronic studies describing the evolution of registers • Register studies of non-Western languages and contrastive analyses • Research of University English and materials development • Move analysis and study of discourse structure • …largely confined to grammatical categories

  7. The enhanced MDA model • Enhancing Biber’s MDA by incorporating semantic components with grammatical categories • Wmatrix = CLAWS + USAS • A total of 141 linguistic features investigated • 109 features retained in the final model • Five million words in 2,500 text samples, with one million for each of the 5 varieties of English • ICE – GB, HK, India, Singapore, the Philippines • 300 spoken + 200 written samples • 12 registers ranging from private conversation to academic writing

  8. ICE registers and proportions

  9. 141 linguistic features covered • A) Nouns 21 categories, e.g. • nominalisation, other nouns; 19 semantic classes of nouns (e.g. evaluations, speech acts) • B) Verbs: 28 categories, e.g. • Do as pro-verb, be as main verb, tense and aspect markers, modals, passives, 16 semantic categories of verbs • C) Pronouns: 10 categories, e.g. • Person, case, demonstrative • D) Adjectives: 11 categories, e.g. • Attributive vs. predicative use, 9 semantic categories

  10. 141 linguistic features covered • E) Adverbs: 7 categories • F) Prepositions (2 categories) • G) Subordination (3 categories) • H) Coordination (2 categories) • I) WH-questions / clauses (2 categories) • J) Nominal post-modifying clauses (5 categories) • K) THAT-complement clauses (3 categories) • L) Infinitive clauses (3 categories) • M) Participle clauses (2 categories) • N) Reduced forms and dispreferred structures (4 categories) • O) Lexical and structural complexity (3 categories)

  11. 141 Linguistic features covered • P) Quantifiers (4 categories) • Q) Time expressions (11 categories) • R) Degree expressions (8 categories) • S) Negation (2 categories) • T) Power relationship (4 categories) • U) Definiteness (2 categories) • V) Helping/hindrance (2 categories) • X) Linear order (1 category) • Y) Seem / Appear (1 category) • Z) Discourse bin (1 category)

  12. Procedure of data analysis • 1) Data clean-up • 2) Grammatical and semantic tagging with Wmatrix • 3) Extracting the frequencies of 141 linguistic features from 2,500 corpus files • 4) Building a profile of normalised frequencies (per 1,000 words) for each linguistic feature • 5) Factor analysis • Factor extraction (Principal Factor Analysis) • Factor rotation (Pramax) • Optimum structure: 9 factors • 6) Interpreting extracted factors • 7) Computing factor scores • 8) Using the enhanced MDA model in exploration of variation across registers and language varieties

  13. The enhanced MDA model • Nine factors established in the new model • 1) Interactive casual discourse vs. informative elaborate discourse • 2) Elaborative online evaluation • 3) Narrative concern • 4) Human vs. object description • 5) Future projection • 6) Personal impression and judgement • 7) Lack of temporal / locative focus • 8) Concern with degree and quantity • 9) Concern with reported speech • Robustness of the model in register analysis

  14. 5 English varieties across 9 factors • Both differences and similarities • This general picture may blur many register-based subtleties • Language can vary across registers even more substantially than across language varieties (cf. Biber 1995)

  15. 1) Interactive casual discourse vs. informative elaborate discourse F=9.04, 4 d.f. p<0.001 • Indian English displays the lowest score in nearly all registers - it is less interactive but more elaborate • Sanyal (2007): “clumsy Victorian English [that] hangs like a dead Albatross around each educated Indian’s neck” • Modern BrE appears to be most interactive and least elaborate (e.g. S1A, S1B, W2D) • 3 varieties of English used in East and Southeast Asia are very similar

  16. 2) Elaborative online evaluation F=14.13 4 d.f. p<0.001 • BrE generally shows a higher score than non-native varieties of English (e.g. W2A, W1B, S2B) • Non-native English varieties tend to be very similar in most registers

  17. 3) Narrative concern F=7.97 4 d.f. p<0.001 • BrE demonstrates a greater propensity for narrative concern • Most noticeably in news reportage (W2C) and instructional writing (W2D) • Indian English is least concerned with narrative • Esp. in registers like correspondence (W1B), instructional writing (W2D), and unscripted monologue (S2A)

  18. 4) Human vs. object description F=5.92 4 d.f. p<0.001 • Very close in a number of registers • Indian English and BrE show similarity in a greater range of registers • HK and Singapore Englishes display great similarity

  19. 5) Future projection F=47.63 4 d.f. p<0.001 • BrE has the highest score in all printed written registers (W2A–W2F) • Indian English shows the lowest score in nearly all registers

  20. 6) Personal impression / judgement F=12.25 4 d.f. p<0.001 • Very similar in many registers…with most noticeable differences in non-printed written registers (W1A, W1B), non-academic writing (W2B), and news reportage (W2C) • HK English displays a distribution pattern similar to Singapore English in spoken registers (S1A–S2B) and unpublished written registers (W1A, W1B), but it is very close to Philippine English in printed writing (W2A–W2F)

  21. 7) Lack of temporal / locative focus F=2.28 4 d.f. p=0.058 • Overall difference is not significant statistically • …but there are noticeable differences in some registers (e.g. W1B, W2D) • Indian English demonstrates a consistently higher score in spoken registers (S1A-S2B) • …but a lower score in unpublished writing (e.g. W1B)

  22. 8) Concern with degree / quantity F=24.32 4 d.f. p<0.001 • BrE generally displays a higher score in nearly all registers • HK English does not appear to be concerned with degree and quantity (e.g. W2D) • Similarly Indian English also lacks a focus on degree and quantity (e.g. W1B)

  23. 9) Concern with reported speech F=1.51 4 d.f. p=0.196 • Overall difference is not significant • Noticeable difference in news reportage (W2C) • East and Southeast Asian English varieties show a greater propensity for concern with reported speech than BrE and Indian English

  24. Summary and future research • Summary • Seeking to enhance Biber’s MDA model with semantic components • Introducing the new model in research of World Englishes • Directions for future research • More native English varieties from the Inner Circle • A wider and more balanced coverage of geographical regions • Including socio-culturally relevant semantic categories • Combining corpora and more traditional resources in socio-cultural studies and historical research • …adequately descriptive + sufficiently explanatory…

  25. Thank you!

More Related