Book contents
- Heritage Languages
- Heritage Languages
- Copyright page
- Epigraph
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 What Are Heritage Languages and Why Should We Study Them?
- 2 Experimental and Variationist Research on Heritage Languages
- 3 The Toronto Context
- 4 HLVC Methods and Tools
- 5 Cross-Variety Comparisons
- 6 Cross-Language Comparisons
- 7 Heritage Cantonese
- 8 Indexicality in Heritage Languages
- 9 Working with Heritage Languages in Linguistics Classes
- 10 What Heritage Language Speakers Tell Us about Language Variation and Change
- Bibliography
- Index
7 - Heritage Cantonese
A Case Study
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 July 2024
- Heritage Languages
- Heritage Languages
- Copyright page
- Epigraph
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 What Are Heritage Languages and Why Should We Study Them?
- 2 Experimental and Variationist Research on Heritage Languages
- 3 The Toronto Context
- 4 HLVC Methods and Tools
- 5 Cross-Variety Comparisons
- 6 Cross-Language Comparisons
- 7 Heritage Cantonese
- 8 Indexicality in Heritage Languages
- 9 Working with Heritage Languages in Linguistics Classes
- 10 What Heritage Language Speakers Tell Us about Language Variation and Change
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
We have analyzed many variables in Cantonese but not in other languages: classifier specialization, tone mergers, vowel splits and mergers, motion event expression, and (L > R), as well as (VOT) and (PRODROP). As little sociolinguistic work on any variety of this globally large language exists, these studies serve as useful models to expand variationist studies to languages that vary in many ways from the North American, Indo-European languages of focus to date. We show that classifiers are developing a specific semantic contrast (for number-marking) in Heritage Cantonese, amplifying a homeland trend; that three tone mergers that were reported to be completed are only partial, in both homeland and heritage varieties; that some vowel mergers and splits may be attributed to influence from English, but that changes in the constraints governing motion event expression cannot be attributed to simplification or English-contact effects. We report on covariation among the variables, showing that it is not the case that the same speakers lead change in each. Thus, it is not easy to claim that language proficiency or patterns of use are responsible for the variation. Rather, internal change and identity-marking motivations for change must be considered.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Heritage LanguagesExtending Variationist Approaches, pp. 167 - 191Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024