Implicit Arguments in Ugandan English
Abstract
In standard British/American English, some transitive verbs, which are ontologically specified for objects, may be used with the objects not overtly expressed (for example, leave), while other transitive verbs do not permit this syntactic behavior (for example, vacate). The former have been referred to as verbs that allow implicit arguments. This study shows that while verbs such as vacate do not ideally allow implicit arguments in standard British/American English, this is permitted in Ugandan English (a non-native variety), thereby highlighting structural asymmetries between British/American English and Ugandan English, owing mainly to substrate influence and analogization. The current study highlights those structural asymmetries and ultimately uncovers some characteristic features in the structural nativization process of English in Uganda, thereby contributing to the growing larger discourse meant to fill the gaps that had characterized World Englishes scholarship, where thorough delineations of Ugandan English have been virtually absent.
References
Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc (Version 3.4.4w) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. http://www.laurenceanthony.net
Blench, R. (2006). A Dictionary of Ghanaian English. https://www.rogerblench.info/Language/English/Ghana%20English%20dictionary.pdf
BNC (British National Corpus). https://www.english-corpora.org/bnc/
Buregeya, A. (2019). Kenyan English. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614516255
COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English). http://corpus.byu.edu/coca
COHA (Corpus of Historical American English). http://corpus.byu.edu/coha
Davies, M., & Fuchs, R. (2015). Expanding horizons in the study of World Englishes with the 1.9 billion word Global Web-based English Corpus (GloWbE). English World-Wide, 36, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.36.1.01dav
Edmonds, P., & Hirst, G. (2002). Near-synonyms and Lexical Choice. Computational Linguistics, 28, 105-144. https://doi.org/10.1162/089120102760173625
Esimaje, U. A, & Hunston, S. (2019). What is Corpus Linguistics? In Esimaje U. A, Gut, U. & Antia E. B. (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics and African Englishes (pp. 7-35). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.88
Fillmore, J. C. (1986). Pragmatically Controlled Zero Anaphora. Berkeley Linguistics Series 12, 95-107. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v12i0.1866
Fisher, E. C. A. (2000). Assessing the State of Ugandan English. English Today 16(1), 57–61. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078400011470
Gillon, S. B. (2007). On the Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Synthese, 165, 373-384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9186-5
Glass, L. (2014). What Does It Mean for Implicit Arguments to Be Recoverable?. U.Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 20, 121-130.
GloWbE (Global Web-based English Corpus). https://www.english-corpora/org/glowbe
Haspelmath, M. 2007. Further Remarks on Reciprocal Constructions. In Nedjalkov P. V. (Ed.), Reciprocal Constructions: Typological Studies in Language, (pp. 2087-2115). John Benjamins.
Hocking, D. W. B. (1974). “All What I Was Taught, and other Mistakes”: A Handbook of Common Errors in English. Oxford University Press.
Hopper, J. P., & Thompson, A. S. (1980). Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language, 56(2), 251-299. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017
Huber, M., & Dako, K. (2004). Ghanaian English: Morphology and Syntax. In Kortmann, B. & Schneider, W. E. (Eds.), A Handbook of Varieties of English, Volume II: Morphology and Syntax (pp. 854-865). Mouton de Gruyter.
Huddleston, R. (2002). The Clause: Complements. In Huddleston R. & Pullum K. G. (Eds.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (pp. 213-322). CUP.
ICE-UG (International Corpus of English – Uganda). https://www.rub.de/englin/ResearchUG3.html
Isingoma, B., & Meierkord, C. (2019). Capturing the Lexicon of Ugandan English: ICE-Uganda and its Effective Complements. In Esimaje U. A, Gut, U. & Antia E. B. (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics and African Englishes (pp. 294-328). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.88.13isi
Isingoma, B. (2014). Lexical and Grammatical Features of Ugandan English. English Today, 30(2), 51-56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078414000133
Isingoma, B. (2018). Accounting for Variability in the Linearization of Ditransitive Constructions in English among Native Speakers. Argumentum, 14, 383-399. https://epa.oszk.hu/00700/00791/00015/pdf/EPA00791_argumentum_2018_14_383-399.pdf
Isingoma, B. (2020). Implicit Arguments in English and Rutooro: A Contrastive Study. Linguistik Online, 101(1), 19–47. https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.101.6671
Iten, C., Junker, M. O. Pyke, A., Stainton, R., & Wearing, C. (2005). Null Complements: Licensed by Syntax or by Semantics-Pragmatics? Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 1-15.
Jowitt, D. (2019). Nigerian English. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504600
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovvář, V., Michelfeit, J. , Rychlý, P., & Suchomel V. (2014). The Sketch Engine: ten years on. Lexicography ASIALEX 1, 7-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9
Levin, B., & Hovav-Rappaport, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantic Interface. The MIT Press.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (LDOCE). www.ldoceonline.com
Merriam-Webster Dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com
Mukherjee, J. (2009). The lexicogrammar of Present-day Indian English: A Corpus-based Perspective on Structural Nativisation. In Römer, U. & Rainer, S. (Eds.). Exploring the Lexis-Grammar Interface (pp. 117-1369). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.35.9muk
Namyalo, S., Isingoma, B., & Meierkord, C. (2016). Towards Assessing the Space of English in Uganda’s Linguistic Ecology: Facts and Issues. In Meierkord C., Isingoma B., & Namyalo, S. (Eds.), Ugandan English: Its Sociolinguistics, Structure and Uses in a Globalizing Post-protectorate (pp. 19-49). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g59.02nam
Németh, T. E. (2000). Occurrence and Identification of Implicit Arguments in Hungarian. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1657–1682. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00114-9
Németh, T. E., & Bikok, K. (2010). Interaction between Grammar and Pragmatics: The Case of Implicit Arguments, Implicit Predicates and Co-composition in Hungarian. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 501-524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.001
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (OALD), Ninth Edition. OUP.
Oxford English Dictionary (OED) – CD-ROM Version 4.0. 2009. OUP.
Pethö, G., & Kardos, E. (2010). Cross-linguistic Evidence and the Licensing of Implicit Arguments. In Brehrens, B. & Fabricius-Hansen, C. (Eds.), Structuring Information in Discourse: the Explicit/Implicit Dimension. Oslo Studies in Language, 1(1), 33-61. https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.3
Ruda, M. (2014). Missing Objects in Special Registers: The Syntax of Null Objects in English. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 59(3), 339-372. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100000396
Ruda, M. (2017). On the Syntax of Missing Objects: A Study with Special Reference to English, Polish, and Hungarian. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.244
Ruppenhofer, J., & Michaelis, A. L. (2014). Frames and Interpretation of Omitted Arguments in English. In Bourns, K. S. & Myers, L. L. (Eds.), Perspectives on Linguistic Structure and Context (pp. 57-84). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.244.04rup
Schneider, W. E. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties of English Around the World. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.244.04rup
Siemund, P. (2014). The Emergence of English Reflexive Verbs: An Analysis Based on the Oxford English Dictionary. English Language & Linguistics, 18(1), 49-73. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674313000270
Velasco, D. G., & Muñoz, C. P. (2002). Understood Objects in Functional Grammar. Working Papers in Functional Grammar 76, 1-24.
Copyright (c) 2021 Bebwa Isingoma
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All published articles in the ESNBU are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.
In other words, under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license users are free to
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
Under the following terms:
Attribution (by) - All CC licenses require that others who use your work in any way must give you credit the way you request, but not in a way that suggests you endorse them or their use. If they want to use your work without giving you credit or for endorsement purposes, they must get your permission first.
NonCommercial (nc) - You let others copy, distribute, display, perform, and modify and use your work for any purpose other than commercially unless they get your permission first.
If the article is to be used for commercial purposes, we suggest authors be contacted by email.
If the law requires that the article be published in the public domain, authors will notify ESNBU at the time of submission, and in such cases the article shall be released under the Creative Commons 1 Public Domain Dedication waiver CC0 1.0 Universal.
Copyright
Copyright for articles published in ESNBU are retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. Authors retain full publishing rights and are encouraged to upload their work to institutional repositories, social academic networking sites, etc. ESNBU is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author.
Exceptions to copyright policy
Occasionally ESNBU may co-publish articles jointly with other publishers, and different licensing conditions may then apply.
