No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Learning the game: playing by the rules, playing with the rules
The International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE) shows how English learners playfully innovate
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 April 2011
Extract
Language change is inevitable. If it wasn't, English learners would all be trying to sound like King Alfred. There is never a period of stability in language and the only languages which have reached a kind of equilibrium are those like Latin where are there are no longer any native speakers. The pressure for change on English is particularly high because of its global status and the diversity of contexts in which it operates. In 2006 David Graddol (p. 101) stated that in 2010 two billion people would be learning English. The size of the figures involved makes it impossible to verify whether this prediction was accurate but Graddol's most recent publication (2010: 68) states that up to 350 million people may speak English in India alone. Obviously, most of these English users around the world speak it as a second language. Consequently, any discussion of change in modern English must take into account the input of those who have had to learn English. The purpose of this article is to present examples of learner language which demonstrate principles and mechanisms of language change through the much-discussed phenomenon of language play.
- Type
- Original Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011
References
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Essex: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Britain, D. 2008. ‘When is a change not a change? A case study on the dialect origins of New Zealand English.’ Language Variation and Change, 20, 187–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, R. & McCarthy, M. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cross, J. & Papp, S. 2008. ‘Creativity in the use of verb + noun combinations by Chinese learners of English.’ In Gilquin, G. & Papp, S. (eds.), Linking up Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 57–81.Google Scholar
Fleisher, N. 2006. ‘The origin of passive get.’ English Language and Linguistics, 10(2), 225–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. 2003. ‘The International Corpus of Learner English: a new resource for foreign language learning and teaching and second language acquisition research.’ TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 538–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, C. & Leech, G. 2006. ‘Current change in English syntax.’ In Aarts, B. & MacMahon, A. (eds.), The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 318–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M. & Carter, R. 2007. From Corpus to Classroom: Language Use and Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Promodrou, L. 2007. ‘Bumping into creative idiomaticity.’ English Today, 89(23), 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rimmer, W. 2009. ‘Operationalising grammatical creativity.’ In Taylor, L. & Weir, C. (eds.), Language Testing Matters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.176–89.Google Scholar
Summers, D. (ed.). 2005. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (4th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. & D'Arcy, A. 2007. ‘Frequency and variation in the community grammar: tracking a new change through the generations.’ Language Variation and Change, 19, 199–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tin, T., Manara, C. & Ragawanti, D. 2010. ‘Views on creativity from an Indonesian perspective.’ English Language Teaching Journal, 64(1), 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar