Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Purpose:

This study aimed to explore whether the choice of complex or simple categories depends on speakers’ behavioral and conceptual habits. Habits acquired when individuals speak their first language can influence their use of the second language, and vice versa. The system of bilingual speech is complex.

Methodology:

I employed a quantitative approach to the available natural data of Longxi Qiang and Wenchuan Chinese and conducted statistical counts of numerals and classifiers.

Data and Analysis:

The data consisted of 6 hours of recorded and transcribed natural conversations and monologues. Up to 433 numerals and 621 classifiers were found in the natural data.

Findings:

Results suggest that complex numerals and classifiers do not indicate complexity in language uses. Qiang–Chinese bilinguals prefer simpler Chinese loanwords to express large or complex numerals when they speak Longxi Qiang, although all numerals can be expressed in that language. Correspondingly, in natural corpora, the Qiang classifiers that combine with numerals are not as abundant as those presented in Longxi Qiang glossary. On the other hand, the complex verbal suffixes found in Longxi Qiang have been borrowed into Wenchuan Mandarin, which lacks verbal morphology.

Originality:

Previous studies on Qiang–Chinese bilinguals were based on vocabulary and a small number of sentences and only revealed language contact regarding loan words and phonemes or changes in word order. Chinese loan words in Qiang are borrowed when referents cannot be expressed. This study was the first to investigate the characteristics of Qiang–Chinese bilinguals based on numerous natural conversations.

Originality:

The findings indicate that linguistic complexity does not describe the complexity of a language as a whole; instead, its subsystems or categories may be simple. There are no natural boundaries between the speeches of Qiang–Chinese bilinguals. Furthermore, this study provides a new perspective for future studies of Tibeto-Burman languages and Chinese bilinguals.

Keywords

Complexity complex system numeral-classifier construction language contact Longxi Qiang–Chinese bilinguals

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aikhenvald

A. Y.

(2000). Classifiers: A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford University Press.

Bisang

(1999). Classifiers in East and Southeast Asian languages: Counting and beyond. In Gvozdanović

(Ed.), Numeral types and changes worldwide (pp. 113–186). Mouton de Gruyter.

Bradley

(1997). Tibeto-Burman languages and classification. In Bradley

(Ed.), Papers in Southeast Asian linguistics No.14: Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas (pp. 1–72). Pacific Linguistics.

Burkette

Kretzschmar

W. A.

(2018). Exploring linguistic science: Language use, complexity, and interaction. Cambridge University Press.

Chirkova

(2012). The Qiangic subgroup from an areal perspective: A case study of languages of Muli. Language and Linguistics, 13(1), 133–170.

Downing

(1986). The anaphoric use of classifiers in Japanese. In Craig

(Ed.), Noun classes and categorization (pp. 437–452). John Benjamins.

Fellner

H. A.

Hill

N. W.

(2019). Word families, allofams, and the comparative method. Cahiers De Linguistique Asie Orientale, 48(2), 91–124.

Gao

(2018). A comparative study on Southern Qiang from the perspective of language contact [语言接触视野下的南部羌语比较研究] [Doctoral dissertation]. Jiaotong University.

Handel

(2019). A brief response to Fellner and Hill’s “Word families, allofams, and the comparative method.” Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale, 48(2), 125–141.

10.

Hopper

P. J.

(1986). Some discourse functions of classifiers in Malay. In Craig

(Ed.), Noun classes and categorization (pp. 209–325). John Benjamins.

11.

Huang

Zhou

(2006). Qiangyu yanjiu [Researches on Qiang]. Sichuan Renmin Press.

12.

Huang

(2007). Puxi Qiangyu yanjiu [Researches on Puxi Qiang]. Minzu Chubanshe.

13.

Jacques

. (2021). A grammar of Japhug. Language Science Press.

14.

Jacques

Michaud

(2011). Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages: Naxi, Na and Laze. Diachronica, 28(4), 1–25.

15.

Kretzschmar

W. A.

(2009). The linguistics of speech. Cambridge University Press.

16.

Kretzschmar

W. A.

(2015). Language and complex systems. Cambridge University Press.

17.

LaPolla

R. J.

(2005). Typology and complexity. In Minett

J. W.

Wang

W. S.-Y.

(Eds.), Language acquisition, change and emergence: Essays in evolutionary linguistics (pp. 465–493). City University of Hong Kong Press.

18.

LaPolla

R. J.

(2009). Causes and effects of substratum, superstratum and adstratum influence, with reference to Tibeto-Burman languages. In Nagano

(Ed.), Issues in Tibeto-Burman historical linguistics (Senri Ethnological Studies No. 75, pp. 227–237). National Museum of Ethnology.

19.

LaPolla

R. J.

with Huang

(2003). A grammar of Qiang with annotated texts and glossary. Mouton de Gruyter.

20.

Liu

(1998). Mawo Qiangyu yanjiu [Studies on the Mawo dialect of the Qiang language]. Sichuan Nationality Press.

21.

Matisoff

J. A.

(2003). A handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman. University of California Press.

22.

Shi

(2001). Hanyu de huati yu zhuyu zhi bian [The distinction between topic and subject in Chinese]. Yuyan Yanjiu, 2, 82–91.

23.

Sims

N. A.

(2013, September 2–4). Towards a more comprehensive understanding of Qiang dialectology: New evidence from Yonghe Qiang. Third Workshop on Sino-Tibetan Languages of Sichuan, Paris, France.

24.

Sims

N. A.

(2014). A phonology and lexicon of the Yonghe variety of Qiang. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 37(1), 34–74.

25.

Sun

(1981). Qiangyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Qiang language]. Nationalities Press.

26.

Sun

(1988). On Qiang bilingualism: Influences of Mandarin on Qiang [论羌语双语制：浅谈汉语对羌语的影响]. Minzu Yuwen, 4, 55–65.

27.

Sun

(2001). Lun Zangmian yuzu zhong de Qiangyuzhi yuyan [On language of the Qiangic branch in Tibeto-Burman]. Language and Linguistics, 2(1), 157–181.

28.

Sun

(2014). Lun Yanyan Jiechu de Gezhong Xingshi [On various forms of language contacts]. Proceedings of the 11th Academic Conference on Chinese Linguistics, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China.

29.

Tan

(2001). Cong lingshi liangci kan cilei de zhuanbian yu cixing biaozhu [Temporary classifiers, the shift of parts of speech and their marking in dictionary]. Zhongguo Yuwen, 4, 291–301.

30.

Thomason

S. G.

(2001). Language contact. Edinburgh University Press.

31.

Thomason

S. G.

Kaufman

(1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. University of California Press.

32.

Wen

(1941). Chuanxi Qiangyu zhi chubu fenxi [A tentative classification of the Chiang languages in North-Western Szechuan]. Studia Serica, 2, 38–71.

33.

Zhu

(1982). Yufa jiangyi [Grammar notes]. Commercial Press.

Complexity or simplicity of categories: Evidence from Qiang–Chinese bilinguals

Abstract

Purpose:

Methodology:

Data and Analysis:

Findings:

Originality:

Originality:

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References