No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Optional elements and variant structures in the productions of bei2 ‘to give’ dative constructions in Cantonese-speaking adults and three-year-old children*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 March 2009
Abstract
To express object transfer, Cantonese-speakers use a ‘ditransitive’ ([V–R–T] or [V–T–R] where V=Verb, T=Theme, R=Recipient), or a more complex prepositional/serial-verb (P/SV) construction. Clausal elements in Cantonese datives can be optional (resulting in ‘full’ versus ‘non-full’ forms) or appear in variant orders (full non-canonical and full canonical). We report on usage of dative constructions with the word bei2 ‘to give’ in 86 parents and 53 three-year-old children during conversations. The parents used more P/SV than ditransitive bei2-datives, and vice versa for the children. Both groups showed a similar usage pattern of optional elements and variant structures in their ditransitive and P/SV bei2-datives. The roles of multiple construction types, optional elements and variant structures in children's learning of bei2-dative constructions are described.
- Type
- Brief Research Report
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2009 Cambridge University Press
Footnotes
[*]
This research is based on the second author's graduating thesis for a Bachelor of Science Degree in the Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences at the University of Hong Kong, completed under the supervision of the first author. We acknowledge the support of a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Project reference 4257/03H) awarded to the third author for collection and transcription of the language samples. We thank the children and their parents for their participation, Ka-wai Leung and our research assistants for their transcription, and Elaine Yung for a reliability check.
References
REFERENCES
Allen, S. E. M. (2000). A discourse–pragmatic explanation for argument representation in child Inuktitut. Linguistics 38, 483–521.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Development of linguistic forms: English. In Berman, R. A. & Slobin, D. I. (eds) Relating events in narrative: A cross linguistic developmental study, 127–88. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Campbell, A. L. & Tomasello, M. (2001). The acquisition of English dative constructions. Applied Psycholinguistics 22, 253–67.Google Scholar
Chan, W.-S. A. (2003). The development of bei2 dative constructions in early child Cantonese. Unpublished thesis for the degree of Master of Philosophy in Linguistics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Cheung, S. H.-N. (2007). A grammar of Cantonese as spoken in Hong Kong, rev. edn [in Chinese]. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lee, T. H.-T., Wong, C. H., Leung, S., Man, P., Cheung, A., Szeto, K. & Wong, C. S.-P. (1996). The development of grammatical competence in Cantonese-speaking children: Report of a project funded by Hong Kong Research Grant Committee 1991–1994.Google Scholar
Linguistic Society of Hong Kong (1994). The LSHK Cantonese Romanization Scheme. Hong Kong: Linguistic Society of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk, 3rd edn.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Matthews, S. (2003). On serial verb constructions in Cantonese. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Serial Verb Constructions, Research Centre for Linguistic Typology, La Trobe University, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Matthews, S. & Leung, T.-C. (2002). On dative constructions in Cantonese and Thai. Paper presented at the 35th International Conference on Sino-Tibetian Languages and Linguistics, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
Newman, J. (1999). Figurative giving. In de Stadler, L. & Eyrich, C. (eds) Issues in Cognitive Linguistics: 1993 Proceedings of the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, 113–40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. & Stomswold, K. (1997). The structure and acquisition of English dative constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 281–317.Google Scholar
Tang, S.-W. (1998). On the ‘inverted’ double object construction. In Matthews, S. (eds) Studies in Cantonese linguistics, 35–52. Hong Kong: Linguistics Society of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Tardif, T., Fletcher, P., Zhang, Z.-X. & Liang, W.-L. (2008). Chinese Communicative Development Inventories: User's guide and manual. Beijing: Peking University Medical Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2006). Acquiring linguistic constructions. In Kuhn, D. & Siegler, R. (eds) Handbook of child psychology, 255–98. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. & Stahl, D. (2004). Sampling children's spontaneous speech: how much is enough? Journal of Child Language 31, 101–121.Google Scholar
Wong, A. M.-Y. & Johnston, J. R. (2004). The development of discourse referencing in Cantonese-speaking children. Journal of Child Language 31, 633–60.Google Scholar
Wong, K.-S. (2004). The acquisition of polysemous forms: The case of bei2 (“give”) in Cantonese. In Fischer, O., Norde, M. & Perridon, H. (eds) Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization, 325–43. Amsterdam: John Adams.Google Scholar