The verb GIVE and double-object construction in Cantonese in synchronic, diachronic and typological perspectives

This dissertation examines the double-object verb [pei] and the double-object construction in Cantonese in diachronic, synchronic and typological perspectives.;Apart from being a verb, [pei] also performs a number of syntactic functions as a result of grammaticalization. Our survey on other Chinese dialects and genetically unrelated languages shows that some of these functions (i.e. as an indirect object marker and a causative verb) are cross-linguistically attested while some (i.e. as a passive marker and a verb introducing instruments) are not. The chronological development of these functions in Cantonese will also be examined.;As for the indirect object marker function of [pei] we propose that two types of indirect object markers can be identified in Cantonese, which are cross-linguistically attested: The go-type and the give-type. The former is performed by directional verbs such as in the 19th century Cantonese dialects while the latter is played by the double-object verb [pei] in modern Cantonese. Our survey on the oracle-bone inscriptions and other dialects shows that the go-type usually predates the give-type. With reference to the pre-modern Cantonese dialect materials and the recent field work data on the Conghua dialect, we will explore the syntactic and semantic factors contributing to the switchover from the go-type to the give-type.;The major syntactic construction in which GIVE involves is the double-object construction. Two typological patterns in terms of the word order of the objects are found across the Chinese dialects: IO DO and DO IO. The former is found in the Northern dialects while the latter in most of the Southern dialects. Over the last two decades, the non-native IO DO word order pattern has been gaining its ascendency in Hong Kong Cantonese due to the increasing influence of Putonghua and Modern Standard Chinese. A field work with 40 native speakers of Hong Kong Cantonese was carried out to find out the degree of usage and acceptance of the non-native patterns. We will also compare the results among the speakers in terms of age and occupation, which are correlated to their exposure to Putonghua or Modern Standard Chinese.