Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistics

An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Gast, Volker


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.066

CiteScore 2018: 0.97

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.384
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.409

Online
ISSN
1613-396X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 57, Issue 3

Issues

Bilingual children as “laboratories” for studying contact outcomes: Development of perfective aspect

Pui Yiu Szeto / Stephen Matthews / Virginia Yip
  • Department of Linguistics and Modern Languages, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2019-04-30 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2019-0012

Abstract

This paper examines the close parallels between the contact phenomena in Cantonese-English bilingual children and Southeast Asian creoles, especially in the domain of perfective aspect marking. ‘Already’ is a cross-linguistically common lexical source of perfective aspect markers given its conceptual link with the sense of perfectivity. In contact scenarios involving a European lexifier and Southeast Asian substrates, the development of ‘already’ into a perfective marker is further triggered by the incompatibility between the verbal morphology of the former and the isolating typology of the latter. Adopting an ecological approach to language transmission and creole genesis we discuss how the transient grammaticalization phenomena in the bilingual children can be compared to decreolization, and how the study of bilingual acquisition can contribute to contact linguistics. Despite the prevalence of unpredictable factors in contact scenarios, we argue that bilingual children can still serve as powerful “laboratories” for studying contact outcomes at the communal level.

Keywords: Cantonese-English bilingual acquisition; Asian-Portuguese creole; creole genesis; grammaticalization; language contact

References

  • Aboh, Enoch O. & Umberto Ansaldo. 2007. The role of typology in language creation: A descriptive take. In Umberto Ansaldo, Stephen Matthews & Lisa Lim (eds.), Deconstructing creole, 39–66. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Adone, Dany. 2012. The acquisition of creole languages: How children surpass their input. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ansaldo, Umberto. 2004. The evolution of Singapore English: Finding the matrix. In Lisa Lim (ed.), Singapore English: A grammatical description, 127–149. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Ansaldo, Umberto. 2009. Contact languages: Ecology and evolution in Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ansaldo, Umberto & Lisa Lim. 2004. Phonetic absence as syntactic prominence: Grammaticalization in isolating tonal languages. In Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Peridon (eds.), Up and down the clin: The nature of grammaticalization, 345–362. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Bao, Zhiming. 1995. Already in Singapore English. World Englishes 14(2). 181–188.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bao, Zhiming. 2005. The aspectual system of Singapore English and the systemic substratist explanation. Journal of Linguistics 41. 237–267.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Baptista, Marlyse. 2016. Creole formation and L2 acquisition: On re-evaluating processes and labels. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 31(2). 361–389.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Baxter, Alan N. 2013. Papiá Kristang structure dataset. In Susanne M. Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber (eds.), Atlas of pidgin and creole language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.http://apics-online.info/contributions/42.

  • Bayram, Fatih, Jason Rothman, Michael Iverson, Tanja Kupisch, David Miller, Eloi Puig-Mayenco & Marit Westergaard. 2017. Differences in use without deficiencies in competence: Passives in the Turkish and German of Turkish heritage speakers in Germany. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bickerton, Derek. 1984. The language bioprogram hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7(2). 173–188.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Binnick, Robert I. 1991. Time and the verb: A guide to tense and aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bisang, Walter. 2004. Grammaticalization without coevolution of form and meaning: The case of tense-aspect-modality in East and Mainland Southeast Asia. In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, 109–138. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Bisang, Walter. 2011. Grammaticalization and typology. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 105–117. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bisang, Walter. 2015. Problems with primary vs. secondary grammaticalization: The case of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages. Language Sciences 47. 132–147.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bolton, Kingsley (ed.). 2002. Hong Kong English: Autonomy and creativity. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar

  • Brown, Roger. 1973. A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Cardoso, Hugo C. 2013. Diu Indo-Portuguese structure dataset. In Susanne M. Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber (eds.), Atlas of pidgin and creole language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://apics-online.info/contributions/39.

  • Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. 2017. Hong Kong 2016 population by-census. http://www.bycensus2016.gov.hk/en/index.html.

  • Chaudenson, Robert. 2001. Creolization of language and culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Cheung, Samuel Hung-nin. 2007. 香港粵語語法的研究 [A grammar of Cantonese as spoken in Hong Kong], rev. edn. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.Google Scholar

  • Clements, J. Clancy. 2009. The linguistic legacy of Spanish and Portuguese: Colonial expansion and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Clements, J. Clancy. 2013. Korlai structure dataset. In Susanne M. Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber (eds.), Atlas of pidgin and creole language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://apics-online.info/contributions/40.

  • Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Edinburgh: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Dahl, Östen & Viveka Velupillai. 2013. The Perfect. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/68.

  • DeGraff, Michel. 1999. Creolization, language change, and language acquisition: A prolegomenon. In Michel DeGraff (ed.), Language creation and language change: Creolization, diachrony and development, 1–46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • DeGraff, Michel. 2002. Relexification: A reevaluation. Anthropological Linguistics 44. 321–414.Google Scholar

  • DeGraff, Michel. 2009. Language acquisition in creolization and, thus, language change: Some Cartesian-uniformitarian boundary conditions. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(4). 888–971.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • De Houwer, Annick. 1995. Bilingual language acquisition. In Paul Fletcher & Brian MacWhinney (eds.), The handbook of child language, 219–250. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Döpke, Susanne (ed.). 2000. Cross-linguistic structures in simultaneous bilingualism. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Elsness, Johan. 2009. The present perfect and the preterite. In Günter Rohdenburg & Julia Schlüter (eds.), One language, two grammars? Differences between British and American English, 228–245. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Enfield, Nicholas J. 2003. Linguistic epidemiology: Semantics and grammar of language contact in mainland Southeast Asia. London: Routledge Curzon.Google Scholar

  • Ferreira dos Santos, José. 1996. Papiaçám di Macau. Macau: Tipografia Welfare.Google Scholar

  • Fong, Vivienne. 2004. The verbal cluster. In Lisa Lim (ed.), Singapore English: A grammatical description, 75–104. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2003. Contact-induced grammaticalization. Studies in Language 27. 529–572.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hickey, Raymond. 2010. Contact and language shift. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The handbook of language contact, 151–169. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Ho, Mian Lian. 1999. Forms and functions of reduplication in Colloquial Singaporean English. Asian Englishes 1(2). 5–16.Google Scholar

  • Hulk, Aafke & Natascha Müller. 2000. Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3(3). 227–244.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lim, Choon Yeoh & Lionel Wee. 2001. Reduplication in Colloquial Singapore English. In Vincent Ooi (ed.), Evolving identities: The English language in Singapore and Malaysia, 89–101. Singapore: Times Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Khin Khin Aye, Daw. 2005. Bazaar Malay: History, grammar and contact. Singapore: National University of Singapore dissertation.Google Scholar

  • van der Klok, Jozina & Lisa Matthewson. 2015. Distinguishing already from perfect aspect: A case study on Javanese wis. Oceanic Linguistics 54(1). 172–205.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kouwenberg, Silvia. 2006. L1 transfer and the cut-off point for L2 acquisition processes in creole formation. In Claire Lefebvre, Lydia White & Christine Jourdan (eds.), L2 acquisition and creole genesis: Dialogues, 205–219. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Kupisch, Tanja & Jason Rothman. 2016. Terminology matters! Why difference is not incompleteness and how early child bilinguals are heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kwan-Terry, Anna. 1989. The specification of stage by a child learning English and Cantonese simultaneously: A study of acquisition processes. In Hans W. Dechert & Manfred Raupach (eds.), Interlingual processes, 33–48. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar

  • Lalla, Barbara & Jean D’Costa. 1990. Language in exile: Three hundred years of Jamaican Creole. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar

  • Lefebvre, Claire. 1998. Creole genesis and the acquisition of grammar: The case of Haitian Creole. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lefebvre, Claire. 2004. Issues in the study of pidgin and creole languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Li, Ping & Yasuhiro Shirai. 2000. The acquisition of lexical and grammatical aspect. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Lieven, Elena, Dorothé Salomo & Michael Tomasello. 2009. Two-year-old children’s production of multiword utterances: A usage-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 20(3). 481–508.Google Scholar

  • Lim, Lisa. 2007. Mergers and acquisitions: On the ages and origins of Singapore English particles. World Englishes 26(4). 446–473.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • MacWhinney, Brian. 2000. The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk, 3rd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Matras, Yaron. 2000. How predictable is contact-induced change in grammar? In Colin Renfrew, April McMahon & Larry Trask (eds.), Time depth in historical linguistics, vol. II, 563–583. Oxford: MacDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar

  • Matthews, Stephen & Virginia Yip. 2009. Contact-induced grammaticalization: Evidence from bilingual acquisition. Studies in Language 33(2). 366–395.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Matthews, Stephen & Virginia Yip. 2011. Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Maurer, Philippe. 2013. Batavia Creole structure dataset. In Susanne M. Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber (eds.), Atlas of pidgin and creole language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://apics-online.info/contributions/43.

  • McCawley, James D. 1971. Tense and time reference in English. In Charles J. Fillmore & D. Terence Langėndoen (eds.), Studies in linguistic semantics, 96–113. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar

  • McWhorter, John. 1998. Identifying the creole prototype: Vindicating a typological class. Language 74(4). 788–818.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McWhorter, John. 2002. The rest of the story: Restoring pidginization to creole genesis theory. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 17(1). 1–48.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Meisel, Jürgen M. 1989. Early differentiation of languages in bilingual children. In Kenneth Hyltenstam & Loraine Obler (eds.), Bilingualism across the lifespan, 13–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Meisel, Jürgen M. (ed.). 1994. Bilingual first language acquisition: French and German grammatical development. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Meisel, Jürgen M. 2011. First and second language acquisition: Parallels and differences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Michaelis, Susanne Maria, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber (eds.). 2013. Atlas of pidgin and creole language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://apics-online.info.

  • Mufwene, Salikoko S. 1994. On decreolization: The case of Gullah. In Marcyliena Morgan (ed.), Language and the social construction of identity in creole situations, 63–99. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Afro-American Studies.Google Scholar

  • Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2001. The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2006. Grammaticization is part of the development of creoles. Papia 16. 5–31.Google Scholar

  • Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2008. Language evolution: Contact, competition and change. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

  • Olsson, Bruno. 2013. Iamitives: Perfects in Southeast Asia and beyond. Stockholm: Stockholm University MA thesis.Google Scholar

  • Pinharanda Nunes, Mário. 2012. Traces of superstrate verb inflection in Makista and other Asian-Portuguese creoles. In Hugo C. Cardoso, Alan N. Baxter & Mário Pinharanda Nunes (eds.), Ibero-Asian Creoles: Comparative perspectives, 289–326. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Ringblom, Natalia. 2012. The emergence of a new variety of Russian in a language contact situation: The case of a Russian-Swedish bilingual child. In Kurt Braunmüller & Christoph Gabriel (eds.), Multilingual individuals and multilingual societies, 63–80. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Robson, Stuart. 2002. Javanese grammar for students. Clayton: Monash Asia Institute.Google Scholar

  • Romaine, Suzanne. 1989. Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Rowland, Caroline F. & Sarah L. Fletcher. 2006. The effect of sampling on estimates of lexical specificity and error rates. Journal of Child Language 33. 859–877.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Setter, Jane, Cathy S. P. Wong & Brian H. S. Chan. 2010. Hong Kong English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

  • Siegel, Jeff. 2008. The emergence of pidgin and creole languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Silva-Corvalán, Carmen. 2014. Bilingual language acquisition: Spanish and English in the first six years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Smith, Ian. 2012. Measuring substrate influence: Word order features in Ibero-Asian Creoles. In Hugo C. Cardoso, Alan N. Baxter & Mário Pinharanda Nunes (eds.), Ibero-Asian Creoles: Comparative perspectives, 125–148. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Soh, Hooi Ling. 2009. Speaker presupposition and Mandarin Chinese sentence-final -le: A unified analysis of the “change of state” and the “contrary to expectation” reading. Natural Language and Linguist Theory 27. 623–657.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Steinkrüger, Patrick O. 2013. Zamboanga Chabacano structure dataset. In Susanne M. Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber (eds.), Atlas of pidgin and creole language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://apics-online.info/contributions/46.

  • Szeto, Pui Yiu, Stephen Matthews & Virginia Yip. 2017. Multiple correspondence and typological convergence in contact-induced grammaticalization: Evidence from Cantonese-English bilingual development. Journal of Language Contact 10(3). 485–518.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language contact: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

  • Thomason, Sarah G. 2007. Language contact and deliberate change. Journal of Language Contact 1. 41–62.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Thomason, Sarah G. 2008. Social and linguistic factors as predictors of contact-induced change. Journal of Language Contact 2. 42–56.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Traugott, Elizabeth C. & John Waterhouse. 1969. ‘Already’ and ‘yet’: A suppletive set of aspect-markers? Journal of Linguistics 5(2). 193–320.Google Scholar

  • Velupillai, Viveka. 2015. Pidgins, creoles and mixed languages: An introduction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Wee, Lionel. 2004. Reduplication and discourse particles. In Lisa Lim (ed.), Singapore English: A grammatical description, 105–126. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in contact: Findings and problems. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York.Google Scholar

  • Yip, Virginia & Stephen Matthews. 2007. The bilingual child: Early development and language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2019-04-30

Published in Print: 2019-05-27


Citation Information: Linguistics, Volume 57, Issue 3, Pages 693–723, ISSN (Online) 1613-396X, ISSN (Print) 0024-3949, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2019-0012.

Export Citation

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in