Cited by 274Language Development and DisordersNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation

Syntactic transfer in a Cantonese–English bilingual child

Yip, Virginia, Matthews, Stephen·2000·Bilingualism: Language and Cognition

Abstract

Research on early bilingual development has suggested that syntactic transfer in bilingual acquisition is dependent on patterns of dominance and properties of the dual input the child is exposed to. In a case study of a Hong Kong bilingual child we present evidence of transfer from Cantonese to English in three areas where the two languages contrast typologically: wh-in-situ interrogatives, null objects and prenominal relatives are observed at a period when Cantonese is dominant as measured by MLUw. Comparisons with monolingual development show both qualitative and quantitative differences attributable to transfer. Language dominance is seen as the major determinant of transfer, with input ambiguity playing a role in the domain of null objects. While two distinct and separate linguistic systems are simultaneously developing in the bilingual mind, the pervasiveness of transfer implies a high degree of interaction between them. The findings show that the bilingual subject in our case study has taken a different path from monolinguals toward the target.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s136672890000033x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Bilingual children whose L1 is morphologically rich (e.g., Spanish) are likely to have higher accuracy in L2 morpheme production than bilingual children whose L1 is morphologically isolating (e.g., Mandarin).

    “Studies have shown that, bilingual children whose L1 is morphologically rich such as Spanish are likely to have a higher accuracy in morpheme production than bilingual children whose L1 is a morphologically isolating language such as Mandarin.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yip, V., & Matthews, S.
Affiliations
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • University of Hong Kong (HK)
Venue
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
Published
2000-12
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
193-208
ISSN
  • 1366-7289 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-1841
OpenAlex
W2130406508
Cited by
274
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 10
FWCI
3.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Bilingualism Language and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Keywords
syntactic transfer, Cantonese-English bilingualism, language dominance, null subjects, language transfer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review