1887
Volume 5, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2215-1354
  • E-ISSN: 2215-1362
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Heritage language speakers have frequently been reported to have language skills weaker than homeland (monolingual) speakers. For example, Wei and Lee (2001, p. 359), a study of British-born Chinese-English bilingual children’s morphosyntactic patterns (including classifier use), report “evidence of delayed and stagnated L1 development.” However, many studies compare heritage speaker performance to a prescriptive standard rather than to spontaneous speech from homeland speakers. We compare spontaneous speech data from two generations of Heritage Cantonese speakers in Toronto, Canada, and from Homeland Cantonese speakers in Hong Kong. Both groups are similar in a strong preference for general and mass classifiers, and classifier choice being primarily governed by the noun’s number. We observe specialization of to singular nouns, a grammaticalization process increasing with each generation. The similarity between homeland and heritage patterns replicates previous studies utilizing the same corpus.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aplv.17001.nag
2019-06-13
2019-08-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Census and Statistics Department
    Census and Statistics Department (2014) Hong Kong monthly digest of statistics: Use of language in Hong Kong in 2012. Accessed onApril 15, 2017, fromwww.statistics.​gov.hk/pub/B71406FB2014XXXXB0100.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Cheung, Ching-wan
    (2002) Classifier use by children with specific language impairment. Unpublished BS thesis, University of Hong Kong. hdl.handle.net/10722/56269
  3. Cummins, Jim
    (1991) Introduction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 47(4), 601–5. 10.3138/cmlr.47.4.FM
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.47.4.FM [Google Scholar]
  4. Ennser-Kananen, Johanna, & King, Kendall
    (2018) Heritage languages and language policy. InCarol A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp.1–6). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0500.pub2
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0500.pub2 [Google Scholar]
  5. Evans, Stephen
    (2016) The English language in Hong Kong: Diachronic and synchronic perspectives. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑50624‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50624-5 [Google Scholar]
  6. Erbaugh, Mary S.
    (1986) The development of Chinese noun classifiers historically and in young children. InColette Craig (Ed.), Noun classes and categorization (pp.399–436). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.7.25erb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.7.25erb [Google Scholar]
  7. (2002) Classifiers are for specification: Complementary functions for sortal and general classifiers in Cantonese and Mandarin. Cahiers de Linguistique – Asie Orientale, 31(1), 33–69. 10.3406/clao.2002.1602
    https://doi.org/10.3406/clao.2002.1602 [Google Scholar]
  8. Jia, Gisela, Chen, Jennifer, Kim, HyeYoung, Chan, Phoenix-Shan, & Jeung, Changmo
    (2014) Bilingual lexical skills of school-age children with Chinese and Korean heritage languages in the United States. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38, 350–358. doi:  10.1177/0165025414533224
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025414533224 [Google Scholar]
  9. Johnson, Daniel Ezra
    (2015) Rbrul [Software] (Version 2.3.2). Available fromwww.​danielezrajohnson.com/Rbrul.R
  10. Kang, Yoon-Jung, & Nagy, Naomi
    (2016) VOT merger in Heritage Korean in Toronto. Language Variation and Change28, 249–272. 10.1017/S095439451600003X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S095439451600003X [Google Scholar]
  11. Keefe, Amado, & Padilla, Susan
    (1987) Chicano Ethnicity. University of New Mexico Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Killingley, Siew-Yue
    (1983) Cantonese classifiers: Syntax and semantics. Newcastle upon Tyne: Grevatt & Grevatt.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Labov, William
    (1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (1984) Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation. InJohn Baugh & Joel Sherzer (Eds.), Language in use: Readings in sociolinguistics (pp.28–53). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Lapidus, Naomi, & Otheguy, Ricardo
    (2005) Overt nonspecific ellos in Spanish in New York. Spanish Context2, 157–174. 10.1075/sic.2.2.03lap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.2.2.03lap [Google Scholar]
  16. Lee, Teresa
    (2014) Dominant language transfer in the comprehension of L2 learners and heritage speakers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26, 190–210. 10.1111/ijal.12089
    https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12089 [Google Scholar]
  17. Li, Hui, Wong, M., & Chin, Eileen Chin Mei
    (2014) Comparing classifier use in 1995 and 2010 early child Cantonese to explore social change in Hong Kong. Chinese Language and Discourse, 5, 79–97. 10.1075/cld.5.1.04li
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.5.1.04li [Google Scholar]
  18. Loke, Kit Ken, & Harrison, Godfrey
    (1986) Young children’s use of Chinese (Cantonese and Mandarin) sortal classifiers. InHenry S. R. Kao & Rumjahn Hoosain (Eds.), Linguistics, psychology and the Chinese language (pp.125–146). Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lyons, John
    (1977) Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Łyskawa, Paulina, Maddeaux, Ruth, Melara, Emilia, & Nagy, Naomi
    (2016) Heritage speakers follow all the rules: Language contact and convergence in Polish devoicing. Heritage Language Journal13, 219–244.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lyskawa, Paulina, & Nagy, Naomi
    (2019) Case marking variation in Heritage Slavic Languages in Toronto: Not so different. Language Learning. doi:  10.1111/lang.12348
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12348 [Google Scholar]
  22. Mak, David L. W.
    (1991) The acquisition of classifiers in Cantonese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Reading.
  23. Matthews, Stephen, & Yip, Virginia
    (1994) Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Nagy, Naomi
    (2009) Heritage languages in Toronto. SSHRC Standard Research Grant 410-2009-2330.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2011) Lexical change and language contact: Faetar in Italy and Canada. Journal of Sociolinguistics15, 366–382. 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2011.00488.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2011.00488.x [Google Scholar]
  26. (2016) Heritage Languages speakers in Toronto – What do they tell sociolinguists?SSHRC Insight Grant 435-2016-1430.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Nagy, Naomi, Chan, Ariel, Lo, Samuel, Wu, Alfred, & Wang, Elaine
    (2015) Toronto Cantonese heritage speakers’ use of classifiers. Meeting of the Atlantic Pacific Linguistic Association, St. John’s, NF, Nov.6–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Nagy, Naomi, Chociej, Joanna, & Hoffman, Michol
    (2014) Analyzing Ethnic Orientation in the quantitative sociolinguistic paradigm. InLauren Hall-Lew & Malcah Yaeger-Dror (Eds.), Special issue ofLanguage and Communication: New perspectives on the concept of ethnic identity in North America35, 9–26. 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2013.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  29. Otheguy, Ricardo, Zentella, Ana-Celia, & Livert, David
    (2007) Language and dialect contact in Spanish in New York: Toward the formation of a speech community. Language, 83, 770–802. 10.1353/lan.2008.0019
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2008.0019 [Google Scholar]
  30. R Development Core Team
    R Development Core Team (2008) R: A language and environment for statistical computing (version 3.2.2) [software] Available fromhttps://cran.r-project.org/
  31. Statistics Canada
    Statistics Canada (2016) Census of Population, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-400-X2016060.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Statistics Canada
    Statistics Canada (2017) Focus on geography series, 2016 census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-404-X2016001. Ottawa, Ontario. Data products 2016 Census.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Tan, Ziwen Tracy, & Nagy, Naomi
    (2017) VOT in heritage and Hong Kong Cantonese. Association canadienne de linguistique [Canadian Linguistic Association], Toronto, May29.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Tse, Shek Kam, Li, Hui, & Leung, Shing On
    (2007) The acquisition of Cantonese classifiers by preschool children in Hong Kong. Journal of Child Language, 34, 495–517. 10.1017/S0305000906007975
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000906007975 [Google Scholar]
  35. Wei, Li, & Lee, Sherman
    (2001) L1 development in an L2 environment: The use of Cantonese classifiers and quantifiers by young British-born Chinese in Tyneside. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism6, 359–82. 10.1080/13670050108667738
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050108667738 [Google Scholar]
  36. Wittenburg, Peter, Brugman, Hennie, Russel, Albert, Klassmann, Alex, & Sloetjes, Han
    (2006) ELAN: A Professional Framework for Multimodality Research. InProceedings of LREC 2006, Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp.1556–1559).
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Wong, Sin Peng
    (2000) How Cantonese-speaking two-year-olds fend for themselves through the thicket of classifiers. InEve V. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Child Language Research Forum, (pp.149–58). Stanford: Centre for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Yip, Virginia, & Matthews, Stephen
    (2000) Basic Cantonese: A grammar and workbook. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/aplv.17001.nag
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/aplv.17001.nag
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error