Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 38:4 (2014) ► pp.836–863

Transferability of semantic functions in contact-induced grammaticalization

The case of Singapore Colloquial English one

| Stanford University
Unlike Standard English, one in Singapore Colloquial English (SCE) not only functions as a numeral and a pronoun, it also functions as a nominalizer and a contrastive focus marker. Even though previous studies on SCE one have unequivocally proven that the expanded functions of one were a result of Chinese influence, few have provided an explanation for the non-transferability of the nominal modification marker function. Based on Heine & Kuteva’s (2005) theory that contact-induced grammaticalization conforms to the principles of grammaticalization, this paper argues that an alternative reason why certain functions of Chinese de were not transferred into SCE is due to an absence of ambiguous or bridging contexts, which are mediating conditions for grammaticalization to take place. A detailed analysis of Chinese and English data clearly demonstrates how similarities between one and de create ambiguity in the input of SCE, thereby allowing one to grammaticalize via the mediation of bridging contexts.
Keywords: similarity, interlingual identification, bridging context, language transfer, contact-induced grammaticalization
Published online: 8 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.4.07teo
References
Alsagoff, Lubna & Ho Chee Lick
1998 The relative clause in colloquial Singapore English. World Englishes 17(2). 127–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, R.W.
1983 Transfer to somewhere. In Susan Gass & Larry Selinker (eds.), Language transfer in language learning, 177–201. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Ansaldo, Umberto
2009 Contact Languages: Ecology and Evolution in Asia. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bao, Zhiming
2005 The aspectual system of Singapore English and the systemic substratist explanation. Journal of Linguistics 41(2). 237–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 One in Singapore English. Studies in Language 33(2). 338–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Substratum transfer targets grammatical system. Journal of Linguistics 48(2). 479–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Adam
1999 Singapore English in a nutshell: An alphabetical description of its features. Singapore: Federal Publications.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2003 Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In M. Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology of Language, Vol.21, 145–167. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
Chen, Ping
2009 Aspects of referentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 41(8). 1657–1674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G.
2002 A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. Typological Studies in Language 491. 103–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Döpke, Susanne
2001 The interplay between language-specific development and crosslinguistic influence. In Susanne Döpke (ed.), Cross-linguistic structures in simultaneous bilingualism, 79–103. Asterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Rod
2008 The study of second language acquisition, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gupta, Anthea Fraser
1992 Contact features of Singapore colloquial English. In Kingsley Bolton & Helen Kwok (eds.), Sociolinguistics today: International perspectives, 323–345. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
1994 The step-tongue children’s English in Singapore. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Haiman, John
1994 Ritualization and the development of language. In William Pagliuca (ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization, 3–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd
2002 On the role of context in grammaticalization. Typological Studies in Language 491. 83–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
2005 Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
2004 Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal?. In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components [Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 158], 21–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hole, D.
2011 The deconstruction of Chinese shì...de clefts revisited. Lingua 121(11). 1707‐1733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2003 Grammaticalization. 2nd edn. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kellerman, Eric
1977 Towards a characterization of the strategies of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 21. 58–145.Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin E.
1998 Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2). 245–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lanza, Elizabeth
(2001) Concluding Remarks: Language contact - A dilemma for the bilingual child or for the linguist? In Susanne Döpke (ed.), Cross-linguistic structures in simultaneous bilingualism, 227–45. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson
1981 Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lim, Lisa
(ed.) 2004 Singapore English: A grammatical description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Mergers and Acquisitions: On the ages and origins of Singapore English particles. World Englishes 26(4). 446–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lü, Shuxiang
1980 Xiandai hanyu babai ci [Eight hundred words in Modern Chinese]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Natascha
1998 Transfer in bilingual first language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1(3). 151–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Odlin, T.
1989 Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, Waltraud & John Whitman
2008 shì...de focus clefts in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistic Review 25(3). 413–451.Google Scholar
Ringbom, H.
2007 The importance of cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning: Comprehension, learning and production. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Schiering, René
2010 Reconsidering erosion in grammaticalization: Evidence from cliticization. In Ekaterini Stathi, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues, 73–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selinker, Larry
1992 Rediscovering interlanguage. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Siegel J.
2012 Constraints on substrate transfer revisited. Journal of Linguistics 48(2). 473–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stark, Elisabeth & Natascha Pomino
2010 How the Latin neuter pronominal forms became markers of non-individuation in Spanish. In Ekaterini Stathi, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues, 273–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Su, Zhengjie
2010 Jie gou zhu ci ‘de’ de yu fa hua li cheng [On the grammaticalization of the structural particle ‘de’]. Hanyu Xuebao [Chinese Linguistics] 29(1). 23–35.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna
1981 The semantics of topic-focus articulation. In J.A.G. Groenendijk, T.M.V. Janssen & M.J.B. Stokhof (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, 513–540. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
The British National Corpus
, version 3 (BNC XML Edition) 2007 Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. [URL] (15 Aug, 2013).
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman
1988 Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C. & G. Trousdale
2010 Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect? In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), Gradience, gradualness, and grammaticalization, 19–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wee, Lionel
2004 Reduplication and discourse particles. In Lisa Lim (ed.), Singapore English: A grammatical description, 105–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wee, Lionel & Umberto Ansaldo
2004 Nouns and noun phrases. In Lisa Lim (ed.), Singapore English: A grammatical description, 57–74, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel
1953 Languages in contact, findings and problems. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald
2003 An introduction to contact linguistics. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Wode, Henning
1978 The L1 vs L2 acquisition of English negation. Working Papers in Bilingualism 151. 37–57.Google Scholar
Wong, Jock
2005 Why you so Singlish one? A semantic and cultural interpretation of the Singapore English particle one. Language in Society 34(2). 239–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, Liejiong
2002 Hanyu shi huati jiegouhua yuyan ma? [Is Chinese a topic-structuralized language?]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese Language] 51. 400–410.Google Scholar
Yip, V. & S. Matthews
2007 The bilingual child: Early development and language contact. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Contact-induced grammaticalization: Evidence from bilingual acquisition. Studies in Language 33(2). 366–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhan, Fangqiong & Sun Chaofen
2013 A copula analysis of shì in the Chinese cleft construction. Language and Linguistics 14(4). 755–789.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Teo, Ming Chew
2022. The [有 yǒu + vp] construction in Singapore Mandarin. Chinese Language and Discourse. An International and Interdisciplinary Journal 13:2 ► pp. 275 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 november 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.