micromicro- ---and macroand macroand macro ... · pdf filemicromicro- ---and macroand macroand...

MicroMicroMicroMicro---- and Macroand Macroand Macroand Macro----Perspectives Perspectives Perspectives Perspectives on the Rise of Englishon the Rise of Englishon the Rise of Englishon the Rise of Englishon the Rise of Englishon the Rise of Englishon the Rise of Englishon the Rise of English

Eline Zenner (FWO Flanders), Eline Zenner (FWO Flanders), Dirk Geeraerts & Dirk SpeelmanDirk Geeraerts & Dirk Speelman

University of LeuvenUniversity of LeuvenRU Quantitative Lexicology and Variational LinguisticsRU Quantitative Lexicology and Variational Linguistics

Overview

Background and Research Question

Methodology

Results

ICLCE 4, Osnabruck, Germany (July 2011)

Conclusion

Background: The Spread of English

Crystal (2003: 61), using Kachru's circles (Kachru 1986):- inner circle: 300 million – 500 million speakers of English- outer circle: 320 million – 380 million- expanding circle: 500 million – 1000 million

Focusing on Europe, the spread of the English language presentsitself at two separate levels, each studied in a specific paradigmFocusing on Europe, the spread of the English language presentsitself at two separate levels, each studied in a specific paradigm

MACRO-levelthe spread of English as language for (international) communication

MICRO-levelthe spread of English as resource for borrowing


ELF paradigm

anglicismresearch

ELF vs. Anglicism Research

� typically, MACRO and MICRO spread are dealt with separately� lack of communication between both lines of research

BUT: (1) how different are the phenomena under scrutiny really?

~ how different are the mechanisms underlying the spread of English as a language for (international) communication and the English as a language for (international) communication and the spread of English as resource for borrowing? E.g.: diachronic evolution and contextual distribution

(2) methodological issues: how to make the comparison in a reliable way? Following the Cognitive Sociolinguistic approach, we advocate

- the use of large datasets- employing a multivariate approach- verifying the impact of effects with inferential statistics


� TOPIC: language choice on MACRO and MICRO level

Research Questions

MICRO: what determines the choice for inserting English elements in ones mother tongue?

how comparable are the mechanisms underlying language choice on both levels and how can we

MACRO: what determines the choice for English as a language for communication?

language choice on both levels and how can we measure this in a reliable way?


CASE STUDY: the use of English in two Dutch job ad magazines

Research Questions



BODY: what determines the choice for using English as matrix language of an ad?

TITLE: what determines the choice for using English elements in job titles?


Research Questions

BODY: what determines the choice for using English as matrix language of an ad?

TITLE: what determines the choice for using English elements in job titles?




how comparable are the mechanisms underlying language choice on BODY and TITLE level and how

can we measure this in a reliable way?

Overview


Methodology

Results

Conclusion


METHOD

1. collect data

2. determine language choice

3. identify possible determinants of language choice (which apply to both levels of analysis)

why job ads?which job ads?

to both levels of analysis)

4. measure the impact of the different determinants at both levels

5. compare the impact of the determinants at both levels


Why Job Ads?

1. as previous studies show: both BODY and TITLE

2. accessibility of data


What Job Ads?

• 16 622 job ads

• period of 40 years (1970 to 2008)� asymmetrical collection

• 2 magazines:

JulyApril

1970

1989• 2 magazines:

Vacature (Belgian Dutch)Intermediair (Netherlandic Dutch)

NDNDNDND BDBDBDBD

2008

n=13508


METHOD

1. collect data


3. identify possible determinants of language choice (which apply to both levels of analysis)

at BODY levelat TITLE level

to both levels of analysis)




Measuring the Spread of English: language choice on two levels

BODY: what is the matrix language of the ad?


TITLE: is English used in the job title?

(note: only elements recognizable as English by naive Dutch NS)

METHOD

1. collect data


3. identify possible determinants of language choice (which apply to both levels of analysis)to both levels of analysis)




Possible Determinants for Language Choice

CULTURAL

CONTEXTUAL

INTERNALINTERNAL


-Period

-Region

-Branch of industry


1989-1995

1995-2000

-Job Content

-HR Agency

-Size

1995-2000

2000-2005

2005-2008

-Period

-Region

-Branch of industry


-Job Content

-HR Agency

-SizeNetherlandic DutchBelgian Dutch (Flanders)

-Period

-Region

-Branch of industryDegree of foreign influence (Geeraerts 2004)

Belgian Dutch: - ambivalent relationship with French


-Job Content

-HR Agency

-Size

Belgian Dutch: - ambivalent relationship with Frenchoil-stain: purist tendency for English

- English L3 in education

Netherlandic D: - English L2 in education- no history of foreign rule

open attitude towards foreign languages� more English in Netherlandic Dutch?

-Period

-Region

-Branch of industry


IT company

-Job Content

-HR Agency

-Size

government

Information Technology Industry

Service & HR Food

Sales Health

-Period

-Region

-Branch of industry


Pharmaceutical Industry Education & Research

Finance Government

Energy & Safety unknown

-Job Content

-HR Agency

-Size

Information Technology Industry

Service & HR Food

Sales Health

-Period

-Region

-Branch of industry


modern, internationally oriented branches

Pharmaceutical Industry Education & Research

Finance Government

Energy & Safety unknown

-Job Content

-HR Agency

-Size"traditional" and locally

based branches

-Period

-Region

-Branch of industry


sales job

-Job Content

-HR Agency

-Sizefinancial job

-Period

-Region

-Branch of industry


Information Technology

Human Resource Management

Sales & Marketing

Financial Jobs

modern, internationally oriented branches

-Job Content

-HR Agency

-Size

Financial Jobs

Technical Jobs

Administration & Communication

Public Sector

(Other)

"traditional" branches

-Period

-Region

-Branch of industry


0.6

0.8

1.0

it

hr

sales

finance

techn

adm.com

public

other

admin

fin

techn techn techn techn

public

public

0.6

0.8

1.0

it

hr

sales

finance

techn

adm.com

public

other

admin

fin

techn techn techn techn

public

public

-Job Content

-HR Agency

-Sizeit srv.HR sales fin phrm indr erg.saf food edu.rch health govern.cult unknown

0.0

0.2

0.4

it

sales

sales sales sales sales sales

techn

sales

it srv.HR sales fin phrm indr erg.saf food edu.rch health govern.cult unknown

0.0

0.2

0.4

it

sales

sales sales sales sales sales

techn

sales

-Period

-Region

-Branch of industryno


-Job Content

-HR Agency

-Size

yes

with external agency: more English

(~ survey JobAt)

-Period

-Region

-Branch of industrysmall vs.

large


-Job Content

-HR Agency

-Size

larger add � bigger company? � more English?

METHOD

1. collect data






Statistical AnalysesWhat we wish to explain:

language choice (English or not?)

What features we think help explain this:period, region, branch of industry, job content, HR agency

Method to assess impact:Logistic Regression AnalysisLogistic Regression Analysis

BUT: assess impact both for BODY and for TITLE level

two regression models1. impact of predictors on language choice at BODY level2. impact of predictors on language choice at TITLE level


METHOD

1. collect data






Comparison of Regression Analyses

RQ: how comparable are the mechanisms underlying language choice on both levels?

BODYBODYBODYBODY MODELMODELMODELMODEL TITLE TITLE TITLE TITLE MODELMODELMODELMODEL

COMPARE:• overall amount of English on each level (descriptive)• impact of each of the predictors• behaviour of each of the predictors

using graphs based on confidence intervals(the actual regression models aren't presented)


Overview


Methodology

Resultsoverall amount of English on each level (descriptive)• overall amount of English on each level (descriptive)

• impact of each of the predictors• behaviour of each of the predictors


AttenuationConclusion


Results (1): How much English is used?

BODY level TITLE level

English ads:1093

Titles with English:4765

Total number of ads:13 508

Total number of titles:1309413 508 13094

% English:8.1%

% English:36.4%


� the spread of English as a language of communication is less wide-spread (so far) than the intrusion of English elements in given language

Overview


Methodology




AttenuationConclusion


Results (2): Presenting the Models

BODY model TITLE model

selected all predictors all predictors

pseudo R² 15.7% 35.2%

C 0.76 0.81


� the spread of English as a language of communication is less tied to our predictors than the intrusion of English elements in Dutch. This might be linked to the general sparseness of ads with English as a matrix language (8% vs. 36%).

yearGr

branch

funcGr

Results (3): Impact of Predictors in ANOVA

branch

yearGr

funcGr

BODYBODYBODYBODY MODELMODELMODELMODEL TITLE TITLE TITLE TITLE MODELMODELMODELMODEL

χ2 − df

0 200 400 600 800

funcGr

region

hrAgency_Gr

sizeGr

χ2 − df

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

funcGr

hrAgency_Gr

region

sizeGr

� The diachronic parameter is far stronger for the TITLE-model, where the effect of branch of industry is stronger for the BODY-model. A more detailed analysis of the actual patterns is needed:

Overview


Methodology




Conclusion


Results (4): Impact of the PredictorsExplaining the method: the effect of Period on choice for English at BODY-level

<<

< n

oEng

en

g >

>> 2

3

reference value

behaviour of other value on the predictor

(with confint)

sign. more chance of English than reference

value


<<

< n

oEng

en

g >

>>

-10

1

BODY

reference value(i.c. 1989-1995)

reference value1989-1995

Results (4): Impact of the Predictors<

<<

noE

ng

eng

>>

> 23

Explaining the method: the effect of Period on choice for English at BODY-level

reference value


(with confint)


<<

< n

oEng

en

g >

>>

-10

1

BODY

no sign difference with reference value




<<

noE

ng

eng

>>

> 23

Explaining the method: the effect of Period on choice for English at BODY-level

reference value behaviour of other


<<

< n

oEng

en

g >

>>

-10

1

BODY



(with confint)


sign less chance of English than reference

value


<<

noE

ng

eng

>>

> 23

Explaining the method: adding the TITLE-level


<<

< n

oEng

en

g >

>>

-10

1

BODYTITLE


if overlap � similar behaviour

if no overlap � difference in effect


<<

noE

ng

eng

>>

> 23

DIACHRONIC EVOLUTION


<<

< n

oEng

en

g >

>>

-10

1

BODYTITLE


Results (4): Impact of the PredictorsDIACHRONIC EVOLUTION

0.6

0.8

1.0

� the rise of English as a language for communication is less steep than the cline for the intrusion of English elements in Dutch. Macro-level change as more drastic, and hence slower?


BODYTITLE

% E

ng

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

1989-1995 1995-2000 2000-2005 2005-2008

Results (4): Impact of the PredictorsREGIONAL VARIATION

<<

< n

oEng

en

g >

>>

0.5

1.0

1.5

reference valueBELGIAN DUTCH

<<

< n

oEng

en

g >

>>

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

BODYTITLE

� there is a clear difference in behaviour: compared to Netherlandic Dutch, we see a purist tendency for Belgian Dutch at the TITLE-level, but an embracing of the BODY-level use of English

Results (4): Impact of the PredictorsBRANCH branch of industry

<<

< n

oEng

en

g >

>>

2-1

01


reference valueIT

<<

< n

oEng

en

g >

>>

-5-4

-3-2

BODYTITLE

� very similar patterns, but notice how government and social profit agencies are more reluctant to switch to English as a language for communication than to use English in job descriptions

Results (4): Impact of the PredictorsJOB CONTENT

<<

< n

oEng

en

g >

>>

2-1

01


reference valueIT

<<

< n

oEng

en

g >

>>

-5-4

-3-2

BODYTITLE

� similar behaviour for public jobs as for government as branch of industry (mind: attenuation below), but bigger differences between groups on TITLE-level

Results (4): Impact of the PredictorsHR AGENCY

<<

< n

oEng

en

g >

>>

0.5

1.0


reference value"no external involvement"

<<

< n

oEng

en

g >

>>

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

BODYTITLE

� similar and expected behaviour

Results (4): Impact of the PredictorsSIZE

<<

< n

oEng

en

g >

>>

0.5

1.0


reference valuesmall ads

<<

< n

oEng

en

g >

>>

-0.5

0.0

0.5

BODYTITLE

� similar and expected behaviour(but impure measure)

Overview


Methodology

Results

Conclusion


ConclusionAmount of English used:

the use of English as language for communication (BODY; MACRO) is not as widely spread as the use of English elements in Dutch (TITLE; MICRO)

Impact of the predictors:bigger impact of period for TITLE vs. bigger impact of branch of industry for BODYindustry for BODY

Effect size:overall, results are very much in line with expectations, and there appears to be a large degree of overlap between both levels (micro and macro)

in our dataset, the mechanisms underlying the choice for English as a language of communication and the choice for English elements in Dutch are highly comparable


For more information:For more information:http://wwwling.arts.kuleuven.be/qlvl

[email protected]

micromicro- ---and macroand macroand macro ... · pdf filemicromicro- ---and macroand macroand...

Documents