Patrick Chu, PhD
Research on Linguistics
Bibliographies on Cantonese tone research
Are there Six or Nine Tones in Cantonese?
Patrick Chun Kau Chu and Marcus Taft University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Most contemporary linguists adopt a six- over nine-tone system in Cantonese. This study confirmed the psychological validity of the six-tone system through Cantonese speakers’ knowledge of Mandarin tone pronunciations using a Mandarin pinyin transcription task. There are pronunciation relationships between Cantonese and Mandarin at the lexical level and previous studies have shown that Cantonese speakers were more accurate in giving the Mandarin pronunciation when the word followed the dominant correspondence than when it did not. Results from ANCOVA and regression analysis showed that the pronunciation correspondences using the six-tone system accounts better for the accuracy data than the nine-tone system, thus providing empirical support for the former.
Onset, Rhyme and Coda Corresponding Rules of the Sino-Korean Characters between Cantonese and Korean
Patrick Chun Kau Chu Chinese University of Hong Kong
Korean language has a large number of vocabularies which contain Sino-Korean characters. Sino-Korean characters are words in Korean which are originated from ancient or middle Chinese. Cantonese, one of the Chinese languages, also preserves a lot of phonological features from Middle Chinese, like the codas /p/, /t/ and /k/. There are many similarities between the pronunciation of Sino-Korean words in Cantonese and Korean. For
most of the Chinese characters with codas /p/, /k/, /m/, /n/ and /ng/ in Cantonese, their corresponding Korean pronunciation also have the same coda (e.g. /hok/ in Cantonese and /haak/ in Korean for the Chinese character 學). For most Chinese characters with coda /t/ in Cantonese, the corresponding pronunciation in Korean is /l/ (Kang & Simmons, 2001).
In this study, a corpus based study is carried out to investigate the corresponding relationships in the onset, rhyme and coda positions between the pronunciations of the Chinese characters in Cantonese and Korean. 2044 frequently used Sino-Korean characters which are selected by the Korean Ministry of Education were used in this study (Kim & Jang, 2003). The pronunciations of the Chinese characters in Cantonese were based on He and Zhu (2001). The Cantonese-Korean correspondence table for onsets, rhymes and codas were composed to show the percentage and the number of words using each corresponding rule. A summary of the major corresponding rules are listed in the appendix. Many content words in Korean consist of Sino-Korean characters. For example, 學生 [haak.saeng] (Noun), 入學 [ip.haak] (Verb), 幸福 [haeng.pok] (Adjective) and 特 [theuk] (Adverb). I am going to illustrate how these Cantonese-Korean corresponding rules can be used to facilitate the learning of Korean vocabularies and pronunciations by native speakers of Cantonese.
Appendix
Onset:
Cantonese [k-] -> Korean [k-] (e.g., 基,假,古,界)
Cantonese [kh-] -> Korean [k-] (e.g., 期,啟,球,拒)
Cantonese [kw-] -> Korean [k-] (e.g., 季,果,過,怪)
Cantonese [kwh-] -> Korean [k-] (e.g., 誇,困,狂,規)
Cantonese [m-] -> Korean [m-] (e.g., 馬,母,貿,美)
Cantonese [j-] -> Korean [ø-] (e.g., 入,言,恩,業)
Rhyme:
Cantonese [-ei] -> Korean [-i] (e.g., 基,美,氣,李)
Cantonese [-aau] -> Korean [-o] (e.g., 考,教,貌,抄)
Cantonese [-au] -> Korean [-u] (e.g., 宙,九,球,口)
Cantonese [-e] -> Korean [-aa] (e.g., 社,夜,野,者)
Cantonese [-oi] -> Korean [-ae] (e.g., 開,內,海,代)
Cantonese [-iu] -> Korean [-o] (e.g., 小,紹,標,要)
Cantonese [-aa] -> Korean [-aa] (e.g., 打,沙,家,他)
Coda:
Cantonese [-p] Korean [-p] (e.g., 十,習,業,接)
Cantonese [-t] Korean [-l] (e.g., 一,八,術,脫)
Cantonese [-k] Korean [-k] (e.g., 百,國,德,學)
Cantonese [-m] Korean [-m] (e.g., 三,音,驗,男)
Cantonese [-n] Korean [-n] (e.g., 半,段,真,戰)
Cantonese [-ng] Korean [-ng] (e.g., 定,等,爭,中)
most of the Chinese characters with codas /p/, /k/, /m/, /n/ and /ng/ in Cantonese, their corresponding Korean pronunciation also have the same coda (e.g. /hok/ in Cantonese and /haak/ in Korean for the Chinese character 學). For most Chinese characters with coda /t/ in Cantonese, the corresponding pronunciation in Korean is /l/ (Kang & Simmons, 2001).
In this study, a corpus based study is carried out to investigate the corresponding relationships in the onset, rhyme and coda positions between the pronunciations of the Chinese characters in Cantonese and Korean. 2044 frequently used Sino-Korean characters which are selected by the Korean Ministry of Education were used in this study (Kim & Jang, 2003). The pronunciations of the Chinese characters in Cantonese were based on He and Zhu (2001). The Cantonese-Korean correspondence table for onsets, rhymes and codas were composed to show the percentage and the number of words using each corresponding rule. A summary of the major corresponding rules are listed in the appendix. Many content words in Korean consist of Sino-Korean characters. For example, 學生 [haak.saeng] (Noun), 入學 [ip.haak] (Verb), 幸福 [haeng.pok] (Adjective) and 特 [theuk] (Adverb). I am going to illustrate how these Cantonese-Korean corresponding rules can be used to facilitate the learning of Korean vocabularies and pronunciations by native speakers of Cantonese.
Appendix
Onset:
Cantonese [k-] -> Korean [k-] (e.g., 基,假,古,界)
Cantonese [kh-] -> Korean [k-] (e.g., 期,啟,球,拒)
Cantonese [kw-] -> Korean [k-] (e.g., 季,果,過,怪)
Cantonese [kwh-] -> Korean [k-] (e.g., 誇,困,狂,規)
Cantonese [m-] -> Korean [m-] (e.g., 馬,母,貿,美)
Cantonese [j-] -> Korean [ø-] (e.g., 入,言,恩,業)
Rhyme:
Cantonese [-ei] -> Korean [-i] (e.g., 基,美,氣,李)
Cantonese [-aau] -> Korean [-o] (e.g., 考,教,貌,抄)
Cantonese [-au] -> Korean [-u] (e.g., 宙,九,球,口)
Cantonese [-e] -> Korean [-aa] (e.g., 社,夜,野,者)
Cantonese [-oi] -> Korean [-ae] (e.g., 開,內,海,代)
Cantonese [-iu] -> Korean [-o] (e.g., 小,紹,標,要)
Cantonese [-aa] -> Korean [-aa] (e.g., 打,沙,家,他)
Coda:
Cantonese [-p] Korean [-p] (e.g., 十,習,業,接)
Cantonese [-t] Korean [-l] (e.g., 一,八,術,脫)
Cantonese [-k] Korean [-k] (e.g., 百,國,德,學)
Cantonese [-m] Korean [-m] (e.g., 三,音,驗,男)
Cantonese [-n] Korean [-n] (e.g., 半,段,真,戰)
Cantonese [-ng] Korean [-ng] (e.g., 定,等,爭,中)
The Acquisition of Cantonese Container Classifiers by native Cantonese children
Patrick Chun Kau Chu and Fay Wong Chinese University of Hong Kong
Cantonese is a numeral classifier language in which the use of classifiers has to accord with the noun referent. In this paper, we focus on how children acquire the container classifiers in Cantonese and their developmental patterns across various age groups, ranging from age 2 to 9. Chu and Wong (2007) proposed a hierarchy to explain the categorization and the co-occurrence conditions of container classifiers in Cantonese based on a semantic analysis of the container classifiers with adult Cantonese speakers. The proposed hierarchy is based on matching the shape, material, flexibility and size features of the items and the container classifiers in Cantonese. Shapes and dimensions are perceived first for the decision on the choice of classifiers. After this processing, if the item could not be classified into a particular category and assigned a suitable classifier, it needs to be processed through the next hierarchy. There is a mapping for the features of each classifier and the packaging material of the item. If the features of the classifier and the item match with each other, that particular classifier will be chosen by the speaker and used with that particular item. If a suitable mapping cannot be found, the process continues down the hierarchy. If a one-to-one mapping could not be established after processing through the last level - size (i.e. there are still more than one classifier suitable for the item), then each individual may have a different choice of classifiers.
Through a cross-sectional elicitation experiment, we would like to see whether the developmental pattern of container classifiers in Cantonese children would follow this hierarchy. Thirty five children who are native speakers of Cantonese participated in an object-counting task. Twelve food or drink items with different shapes, material, flexibility and size were used to elicit different target classifiers (e.g. hap6, zeon1, zi1, gun3, baau1, tung4, paai4). In the experiment, the children were first shown a real object for identification. Upon correct naming of the object by the children, they were asked to count the quantity of this item on a sheet of paper showing various items. The response to the question obligatorily requires the children to use the classifier construction Number-Classifier or Number-Classifier-Noun. If the children only give a numeric response without the use of classifiers, they were prompted to answer the question in full sentence.
The results show that there is a general trend for younger children to omit the container classifier when they have not fully acquired the need for an obligatory use of it. For older children, they tend to use the general classifier go3 to replace the more appropriate classifier in obligatory contexts. The classifiers with features higher in the hierarchy were acquired earlier with little inappropriate and overgeneralization usage than those with more features in lower level of the hierarchy. The error patterns of each classifier would be discussed to support our findings.
Reference
Chu, Patrick Chun Kau & Fay Wong. (2007). A Semantic Study of Container Classifiers in Cantonese. Poster presentation at the 12th International Conference on the Processing of East Asia Related Languages (PEARL 2007), National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, December 28-29.
Through a cross-sectional elicitation experiment, we would like to see whether the developmental pattern of container classifiers in Cantonese children would follow this hierarchy. Thirty five children who are native speakers of Cantonese participated in an object-counting task. Twelve food or drink items with different shapes, material, flexibility and size were used to elicit different target classifiers (e.g. hap6, zeon1, zi1, gun3, baau1, tung4, paai4). In the experiment, the children were first shown a real object for identification. Upon correct naming of the object by the children, they were asked to count the quantity of this item on a sheet of paper showing various items. The response to the question obligatorily requires the children to use the classifier construction Number-Classifier or Number-Classifier-Noun. If the children only give a numeric response without the use of classifiers, they were prompted to answer the question in full sentence.
The results show that there is a general trend for younger children to omit the container classifier when they have not fully acquired the need for an obligatory use of it. For older children, they tend to use the general classifier go3 to replace the more appropriate classifier in obligatory contexts. The classifiers with features higher in the hierarchy were acquired earlier with little inappropriate and overgeneralization usage than those with more features in lower level of the hierarchy. The error patterns of each classifier would be discussed to support our findings.
Reference
Chu, Patrick Chun Kau & Fay Wong. (2007). A Semantic Study of Container Classifiers in Cantonese. Poster presentation at the 12th International Conference on the Processing of East Asia Related Languages (PEARL 2007), National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, December 28-29.
A Semantic Study of Container Classifiers in Cantonese
Patrick Chun Kau Chu and Fay Wong Chinese University of Hong Kong
Previous studies in Cantonese classifiers mainly focused on general noun phrases with little ambiguity, which overlook the ambiguous boundaries for the choice of mensural and sortal classifiers. Our study mainly focuses on the choice of container classifiers When counting these items, it is obligatory for language users to use classifiers. The classifiers used cannot be easily categorized binarily by the previous framework into sortal or mensural. By slicing and analyzing the patterns of the choices of classifiers, we hope to find a structure/ hierarchy in the classifier-noun
phrase mapping in Cantonese container classifiers.
Based on our previous study on the semantics of the container classifiers with adult Cantonese speakers, we proposed a hierarchy to explain the categorization and the co-occurrence conditions of container classifiers in Cantonese. The proposed hierarchy is based on matching the shape, material, flexibility and size features of the items and the container classifiers in Cantonese. Shapes and dimensions are perceived first for the decision on the choice of classifiers. After this processing, if the item could not be classified into a particular category and assigned a suitable classifier, it needs to be processed through the next hierarchy. There is a mapping for the features of each classifier and the packaging material of the item. If the features of the classifier and the item match with each other, that particular classifier will be chosen by the speaker and used with that particular item. If a suitable mapping cannot be found, the process continues down the hierarchy. If a one-to-one mapping could not be established after processing through the last level - size (i.e. there are still more than one classifier suitable for the item), then each individual may have a different
choice of classifiers.
phrase mapping in Cantonese container classifiers.
Based on our previous study on the semantics of the container classifiers with adult Cantonese speakers, we proposed a hierarchy to explain the categorization and the co-occurrence conditions of container classifiers in Cantonese. The proposed hierarchy is based on matching the shape, material, flexibility and size features of the items and the container classifiers in Cantonese. Shapes and dimensions are perceived first for the decision on the choice of classifiers. After this processing, if the item could not be classified into a particular category and assigned a suitable classifier, it needs to be processed through the next hierarchy. There is a mapping for the features of each classifier and the packaging material of the item. If the features of the classifier and the item match with each other, that particular classifier will be chosen by the speaker and used with that particular item. If a suitable mapping cannot be found, the process continues down the hierarchy. If a one-to-one mapping could not be established after processing through the last level - size (i.e. there are still more than one classifier suitable for the item), then each individual may have a different
choice of classifiers.
Rules and constraints of the code-mixing patterns in Hong Kong Cantonese
Patrick Chun Kau Chu Chinese University of Hong Kong
Li (1998) used the “Principle of Economy” to explain Cantonese speakers‟ lexical choice between Cantonese and English. He observed that speakers prefer to code-mix English words into Cantonese utterances if the English words are shorter than the Cantonese equivalents. This study is to put this principle under empirical investigation. In particular, we tested Cantonese speakers‟ code choice of non-jargon noun phrases in order to avoid code-mixing preference due to a lack of translation equivalents.
Fifty university students participated in a questionnaire survey about their frequency usage of some noun phrases in both Cantonese and English. Both the Cantonese and English noun phrases were embedded in the same utterance and the students were asked to indicate their frequency of usage of both utterances using a 5-point Likert scale. We expect that Cantonese speakers prefer to use the noun phrase in the language which has a fewer number of syllables. If the number of syllables is the same in both languages, they will use both the Cantonese and the English terms equally often.
The results showed that most of the items followed our expectation. For example, speakers prefer to use „notebook‟ (2 syllables) more often than its Cantonese equivalent „sau.tai.din.lou‟ (4 syllables) while they prefer to use Cantonese „din.lou‟ (2 syllables) more often than „computer‟ (3 syllables). For items with the same number of syllables (e.g. „tennis‟ and „mong.kau‟), speakers tend to use both terms equally often. Phonotactic constraints are used to explain the items which do not follow this rule.
Fifty university students participated in a questionnaire survey about their frequency usage of some noun phrases in both Cantonese and English. Both the Cantonese and English noun phrases were embedded in the same utterance and the students were asked to indicate their frequency of usage of both utterances using a 5-point Likert scale. We expect that Cantonese speakers prefer to use the noun phrase in the language which has a fewer number of syllables. If the number of syllables is the same in both languages, they will use both the Cantonese and the English terms equally often.
The results showed that most of the items followed our expectation. For example, speakers prefer to use „notebook‟ (2 syllables) more often than its Cantonese equivalent „sau.tai.din.lou‟ (4 syllables) while they prefer to use Cantonese „din.lou‟ (2 syllables) more often than „computer‟ (3 syllables). For items with the same number of syllables (e.g. „tennis‟ and „mong.kau‟), speakers tend to use both terms equally often. Phonotactic constraints are used to explain the items which do not follow this rule.
