Cantonese GIVE and Double-Object Construction: Grammaticalization and word order change

Cantonese GIVE and Double-Object Construction
Editorial page
Title page
Copyright page
Table of contents
Abstract
Glossary and transcriptions
	Notes on transcriptions
Acknowledgements
Part I. Grammaticalization of GIVE in Cantonese
Chapter 1. Introduction
	1.1 The double-object verb GIVE and its linguistic features
	1.2 giving in the linguistic sense
	1.3 Terminology: Double-object, ditransitive, three-place predicate and dative
	1.4 Syntactic realization of double-object construction
		1.4.1 Word order of IO and DO
		1.4.2 Marked and unmarked double-object constructions
	1.5 Other syntactic functions performed by GIVE
	1.6 Organization of this book
Chapter 2. Multi-functionality of GIVE in Chinese dialects and neighboring non-Sinitic languages: An areal-typological perspective
	2.1 Linguistic situation of Southeast Asia
		2.1.1 Relationship between Chinese and Southeast Asian languages
		2.1.2 The Southeast Asian linguistic area
	2.2 A survey of GIVE in Chinese dialects
		2.2.1 The Yue dialects
			2.2.1.1 The morpheme 畀
			2.2.1.2 The morpheme [ɂi] or [ei]
		2.2.2 The Hakka dialects
			2.2.2.1 The morpheme 分
			2.2.2.2 The morpheme 拿
		2.2.3 The Min dialects
			2.2.3.1 The morpheme 乞
			2.2.3.2 The morpheme 互 or與
			2.2.3.3 The morpheme 欠
			2.2.3.4 The morpheme 納
		2.2.4 The Gan dialects
			2.2.4.1 The morpheme 把 or 擺
		2.2.5 The Xiang dialects
			2.2.5.1 The morpheme 把
			2.2.5.2 The morpheme 得
		2.2.6 The Wu dialects
			2.2.6.1 The morpheme 撥, 不 or 八
		2.2.7 The Mandarin dialects
			2.2.7.1 The morpheme 給
			2.2.7.2 The morpheme 把
	2.3 Multiple forms of GIVE as a result of language contact
		2.3.1 Inter-dialectal influence
		2.3.2 Inter-lingual influence
	2.4 Multi-functionality of GIVE in Chinese dialects and neighboring non-Sinitic languages
		2.4.1 Linguistic contact between Northern dialects and Altaic languages
		2.4.2 Linguistic contact between Southern dialects and Southeast Asian languages
	2.5 Multi-functionality of GIVE in world’s languages
		2.5.1 As an IO marker or a beneficiary marker
		2.5.2 As a causative verb
		2.5.3 As a passive marker (and a causative marker)
	2.6 Summary
Chapter 3. Grammaticalization of GIVE in Cantonese
	3.1 What is grammaticalization?
	3.2 Grammaticalization of GIVE
	3.2.1 As an indirect object marker
	3.2.2 As a beneficiary marker
	3.2.3 As a causative verb
	3.2.4 As a passive marker
		3.2.4.1 Relationship between causative and passive constructions
		3.2.4.2 Passive morphology
	3.2.5 As a verb introducing instruments
	3.3 Summary
Chapter 4. Diachronic development of GIVE and its functions in Cantonese
	4.1 Studying the language of the past with authentic textual materials
	4.2 Pre-modern Cantonese dialect materials
	4.3 Functions of GIVE in pre-modern Cantonese
		4.3.1 As a double-object verb
		4.3.2 As a causative verb
		4.3.3 As an IO marker
			4.3.3.1 From [kʷͻ] 過 to [pei] 畀
			4.3.3.2 Typological significance of go-type and give-type IO markers
			4.3.3.3 Null IO marker in pre-modern Cantonese
		4.3.4 As a passive marker
		4.3.5 As a verb introducing instruments
			4.3.5.1 Disappearance of the instrument marker function
	4.4 Summary
Part II. Word order change in Cantonese double-object construction
Chapter 5. Word order typology of the double-object construction in Chinese dialects
	5.1 Typological features in Northern and Southern Chinese grammar
	5.2 Typology of double-object construction in Chinese dialects
		5.2.1 The IO DO pattern
		5.2.2 The DO IO pattern
	5.3 Syntactic stratification in double-object construction
	5.4 Double-object construction in Beijing Mandarin
		5.4.1 The V DO 給 IO pattern in Beijing Mandarin
		5.4.2 The 給 IO V DO pattern: A beneficiary or a double-object construction?
		5.4.3 Summary
	5.5 Double-object construction in the Yue dialects
	5.6 Summary
Chapter 6. Relationship between IO DO and DO IO patterns
	6.1 Transformational approach
		6.1.1 Does Cantonese have dative shift?
			6.1.1.1 S. Tang (2003): Lack of dative shift in Cantonese
			6.1.1.2 Peyraube (1981): Dative shift in Cantonese
	6.2 Discourse approach
		6.2.1 Discourse approach on Chinese double-object construction
		6.2.2 Discourse approach on Cantonese double-object construction
	6.3 Cognitive linguistics approach
	6.4 An alternative explanation: A loan feature resulting from language contact
Chapter 7. Ongoing word order change in Cantonese double-object construction
	7.1 Sociolinguistic situation of Hong Kong
	7.1.1 Status of Putonghua and Modern Standard Chinese in Hong Kong
	7.1.2 What does “Chinese” mean in Hong Kong?
	7.1.3 Contact with mainland China after the 1970s
	7.1.4 Language attitude toward Putonghua
	7.2 Fieldwork study on Cantonese double-object construction
	7.3 Fieldwork data on Cantonese double-object construction
		7.3.1 Background information of the forty informants
		7.3.2 The production task
			7.3.2.1 The V IO DO pattern
			7.3.2.2 The V 畀 IO DO pattern
			7.3.2.3 The 畀 IO V DO pattern
			7.3.2.4 Summary of the production task
		7.3.3 The perception task
			7.3.3.1 The native pattern: V DO (畀) IO
			7.3.3.2 The V IO DO and V 畀 IO DO patterns
			7.3.3.3 The 畀 IO V DO pattern
			7.3.3.4 Summary of the perception task
	7.4 Development of Cantonese double-object construction
Chapter 8. Concluding remarks and future work
References
Appendix 1. Survey of the syntactic functions of GIVE in Chinese dialects and neighboring non-Sinitic languages
Appendix 2. List of pre-modern Cantonese dialect materials
Appendix 3. Frequency distribution of double-object patterns in Wang Shuo’s corpus
Appendix 4. Double-object sentences with the IO DO pattern found in the pre-modern Cantonese dialect materials
Appendix 5. Sentences used in the production task
Appendix 6. Sentences used in the perception task
Appendix 7. Information sheet for the fieldwork of the double-object construction in Hong Kong Cantonese
Appendix 8. Non-native double-object sentence patterns used by the informants in the production task
Index