Mariko Takahashi
Kyoto University, Japan

A Corpus-Based Comparative Analysis of Indigenous Invariant Tags in Asian Englishes: Features, Usage, and Registers

Keywords: Asian Englishes, invariant tags, corpus analysis, indigenous features

The purpose of this study was to describe and compare the features and usage of invariant tags in four non-dominant varieties of English in Asia, namely, Hong Kong English, Philippine English, Indian English, and Singapore English with emphasis on indigenous forms of invariant tags. Invariant tags (e.g., You went to the mall yesterday, ‘right’?) refer to tags whose form remains the same regardless of the main clause to which they are attached (e.g., Algeo, 2006, pp.302-303; Bieber, 1999, p.210). Previous studies on invariant tags have mainly focused on describing invariant tags in a single variety of English such as American English (e.g., Norrick, 1995) and British English (e.g., Stenström, 1997).

There have only been a limited number of comparative studies (e.g., Columbus, 2009; Takahashi, 2014), and such studies have been limited in scope as in focusing on selected forms of invariant tags in a single register. The present study aimed to describe, analyze, and compare invariant tags in the four Asian Englishes across registers by using data from parallel corpora designed for comparative studies. Data was extracted from the International Corpus of English (ICE) by using a concordance software and was statistically analyzed by SPSS. The ICE database consists of parallel corpora of English varieties, and the corpora are suitable for identifying and describing indigenous features of non-dominant varieties of English. There were 1113 invariant tags (13 forms) in ICE-HK, 2274 (21 forms) in ICE-PHI, 711 (14 forms) in ICE-IND, and 3062 (18 forms) in ICE-SIN. The data indicated that invariant tags can be classified into those which derive from indigenous languages and are unique to the variety (indigenous invariant tags) and those which are shared across the varieties (non-indigenous invariant tags). ICE-HK had 4 forms of indigenous invariant tags (a, la, lo, wah: 2.2%), ICE-PHI had 11 forms (ano, ba, di ba, e, ha, hindi ba, lang, na, na lang, naman, ‘no: 32.1%), ICE-IND had 6 forms (accha, ah, ahn, haan, hai na, na: 22.6%), and ICE-SIN had 9 forms (ah, ha, hah, hor, lah, leh, lor, mah, meh: 50.5%). Non-indigenous forms included eh, huh, no, okay, right, see, yeah, yes, you know, and you see. Certain forms of invariant tags appeared significantly more frequently than others in each variety. In all four corpora, more than 94% of the invariant tags were identified in the spoken component. In Hong Kong English and Philippine English, invariant tags were frequently observed in private conversations, class lessons, and product demonstrations, whereas invariant tags concentrated on private conversations in Indian English and Singapore English. A qualitative analysis of functions showed that indigenous invariant tags are used to express subtle attitudinal differences of the speaker, which cannot be exactly expressed by non-indigenous invariant tags. The usage of indigenous invariant tags also illustrated how Asian speakers of non-dominant varieties of English mark their identity when they communicate in English.