Volume 18, No 1
This paper aims at studying the use of address terms in the Cantonese language as spoken in Hong Kong. It focuses primarily on the kinship system, examining both vocatives and designatives, and provides an analysis of the various linguistic mechanisms that are at work, including phonological variations, morphological changes, semantic shifts, and socio-linguistic borrowings. In addition, some general remarks are made on the social terms, which are chiefly an extension in use of the familial forms. A collection of address terms is appended at the end of the paper for reference.
Susan Hess 贺苏安
This paper provides an in-depth look at the development of nasal finals in one Wu diapoint, Wenling. The Wenling data are compared with hypotheses presented by Chen (1975) and with those in work on phonetic universals of nasalization. Chen’s work on Chinese dialects suggested: 1) nasalization tends to spread from low to high vowels, 2) nasalization proceeds from anterior [-m, -n] to posterior [-] nasal endings, 3) nasalization caused finals from the XIAN and SHAN rime groups to raise in Wu dialects, 4) nasalized vowels have a certain lifespan, and that otherwise, denasalization proceeds from high vowels to low vowels. An internally motivated analysis of Wenling does not support the type of development offered by Chen’s hypotheses. Here it is argued that nasalization affects low and low mid vowels in one unitary process, rather than in stages as a function of vowel height and nasal place of articulation. Raising of vowel height in Wenling is shown not to be a result of nasalization, but a function of general vowel raising processes. Denasalization in this dialect can most plausibly be stated as depending on the front/back parameter rather than on the life-span of nasalized vowels. In addition, phonetic evidence is offered for the preferential nasalization of low and mid vowels and shift of nasal place of articulation.
本文用吴方言温岭话鼻韵尾演变的材料来讨论陈渊泉（1975）所提出的有关鼻音化普遍规律的假设。陈提出有关假设如下：一，鼻音化是自低元音至高元音进行的；二，鼻音化是自前鼻音韵尾（-m, -n）至后鼻音韵尾（ -） 进行的；三，鼻化使咸、山两摄的元音上移；四，鼻音化元音有一定的存在的时间，要不然，鼻化的消失会自高元音至低元音进行。我们的分析显示温岭话的发展并不按照陈氏的假设进行。低和半低元音似乎同时变成鼻化音，而没有经过连续的阶段照元音的高低或鼻音韵尾的部位而鼻化。元音的上移不是来自鼻音化而是由于温岭一般元音的高化。鼻化消失是按照元音前后，但和其存在的时间无关。另外，本文用对语音普遍规律的研究来解释低和半低元音鼻化的优先性。以及鼻音发音部位的转移。
It is believed that when the word le 了 occurs after the verb but before the complement of the verb it is a marker of Perfectivity, but when it is found after the complement of the verb at the end of the sentence it is a marker of Inchoativity. Perfectivity and Inchoativity have been thought to be aspectual primitives in the field of Tense and Aspect. In this article I argue that they are not aspectual primitives but are further decomposable into the Boundedness of situations and their Relative Anteriority status. Specifically, Perfectivity is the result of bounded situations viewed as relatively anterior, and Inchoativity obtains when unbounded situations are viewed as relatively anterior. According to this framework, there is only one le in Chinese not two, and its function is to signal relative anteriority of the situation it predicates.
In this paper, the question words used in question sentences or used as indefinite NPs are interpreted as the existential quantifier. To support this interpretation, four arguments are offered. It is shown that the interpretation of common question words as the existential quantifier can help explain not only the relation between yes-no questions and their negative replies but also the connection between rhetorical questions and their conversationally implied meanings.
本文认为疑问句里的疑问词与语当作虚指词的疑问词皆可解释为存在量词。我们从1. 特指限制，2. 共存限制， 3. 量词范围的歧义来证明这种解释是可行的。我们最后说明这种解释如何能帮助我们了解疑问句与回答之间的关系，以及反问句与它们所欲传达的意义之间的关系。
Zhongwei Shen 沈钟伟
In this article we investigate lexical diffusion from a population perspective. The case of sound change used is the ongoing merger of two vowels // and // in Shanghainese. Some theoretical concepts of lexical diffusion are discussed, and a method of investigation is introduced. By using a mathematical model to analyze the data, we find that the entry order of a word into a sound change determines 1) its rate of diffusion through a population, and 2) its time interval from a preceding word. These results reveal the relationship among the relevant words during a sound change.
本文从社会人口中观察王士元先生提出的有关音变的词汇扩散现象。我们采用在上海进行的// 和// 两个韵母合并的例子来作说明。在理论上，我们试图对造成词江扩散的原因作出解释；在调查方法上，我们介绍了一种音位变化的调查方法。对于获得的材料，我们进一步用数学模式进行了分析。分析的结果显示：一个词进入音变的先后决定其1）在人口中传播的速率；2）和前一个词的时间间隔的长短。这些结果揭示了音变中词与词之间的系统性的互相关系。
New Publication 新书
Volume 18, No 2
汉语方言中 V-neg-VO 和 VO-neg-V 问句句型分布的探讨
De-xi Zhu 朱德熙
This article is a continuation of Zhu (1985) and is attempting to demonstrate the following points: (1) The distinction between the interrogative sentence patterns VO-neg-V and V-neg-VO is of typological significance. The former prevails in northern Chinese dialects while the latter is employed mostly in Southern Chinese dialects. (2) There are dialects of the V-neg-VO type in which the V-neg-VO construction always contract to VVO. The process of contraction is either through the deletion of the negative or due to the fusion of the verb plus the negative. The different processes of contraction are also typologically significant.
本文讨论了汉语方言里与 K-VP （K 指疑问副词）型反复问句对立的 VP-neg-VP 型问句带宾语时的两种形式：VO-neg-V 与 V-neg-VO。 文章指出：（1）这两种句式在方言里的分布是互补的。北方官话采用前者，而南方话（西南官话，粤语，闽语，吴语和客家话）则采用后者。因此两种句式的区分具有类型学上的意义。（2）在一部分南方方言里V-neg-VO 经常紧缩为VVO 形式。 紧缩的方法有两种：一是省略否定词（如吴语里的绍兴话），一是否定词跟前边的动词融合成一个音节（如闽西连城（新泉）的客家话）。文章认为这两种紧缩方式的区分也有类型学的意义。此外，文章还简略地讨论了VO-neg-V 句式的历史。
This paper is meant to report the discovery of a constraint on topics in Chinese. It first shows that verbs such as xihuan (like), just like such verbs as xiangxin (believe), take a sentential complement without Raising, while verbs such as qiangpo (force) take as complements a NP and a VP/S. Then the paper shows that in the sentential complements of such verbs as xihuan (like), topics as well as sentence-initial PP’s are not allowed, while in the sentential complements of such verbs as xiangxin (believe), these are allowed. If, following McCawley (1988), both topics and sentence-initial PP’s are structurally seen as sisters of a S dominated by a higher S, and subjects are seen as sisters of VP dominated by a S, then, only clauses of the type (a) but not of the type (b) are allowed as the complements of such verbs as xihuan (like). The explanation for such a constraint, in other words, generalizations covering this constraint as well as other related but independent phenomena, will await further researches.
本文报告中文中的一个对于话题的限制。本文首先证明以“喜欢”为代表的一类动词，就象以“相信”为代表的一类动词一样，以一个句子为补语，而以“强迫”为代表的一类动词的补语是一个名词词组和一个动词词组。然后，本文说明在“喜欢”一类动词的句子补语中，话题或者句首介词词组不能出现，而在“相信”一类动词的句子补语中，它们是能出现的。如果按照McCawley (1988) 说法， 话题和句首介词词组从结构上都被看作是由一个更高一层 S 支配的 S 的姐妹节点，而主语被看作是由S 支配的 VP 的姐妹节点，那么，只有 (a) 类句子，而不是 (b) 类句 子，能作为“喜欢”一类动词的补语句子。 这个限制存在的原因，换言之，对于这个限制和其它有关但是独立的句法现象的深一步概括还有待于进一步的研究。
This study examined the effect of a short precursor context on the perception of three Tone 1-Tone 2 continua. Eighteen listeners (9 Mandarin subjects and 9 English subjects) heard speech tokens which were either presented in an isolated-token condition, or in a paired- token condition and then rated them in terms of how similar their F0 contours were to either Tone 1 (high-level) or Tone 2 (mid-rising). In the paired-token condition, each test token was preceded either by a precursor with a high-level Tone 1 contour (ba1) or a mid-rising Tone 2 contour (ba2). For both Chinese and English listeners, there was only a borderline effect of context which was assimilatory in nature, which was consistent with the contention that the contextual effect can involve auditory perceptual mechanisms.
In the classical approach, an A-not-A question in Chinese is derived from its corresponding alternative question by transformational deletion. Huang (1988) challenges the traditional view with these claims: 1) The alternative question is syntactically different from the A-not-A question, and so they belong to different question types. 2) One type of A-not-A questions and information questions show certain similar syntactic behavior and undergo the same phonological realization process, and therefore they should belong to a single question type. While we basically agree with Huang’s first claim, i.e., the necessity to separate the A-not-A and alternative questions, we will in this paper demonstrate that his arguments for the formal syntactic distinction between the two are either faulty or unconvincing. Specifically, the Lexical Integrity (LI) and Preposition Stranding (PS) tests Huang (1988) provides for such a distinction prove to be so superficial that they can be covered by an independently motivated principle in the phonology of Chinese, i.e., the bisyllabification rhythm rule which applies in the prosodic domain formed on certain syntactic focus constructions. The principle in turn illustrates the fact that the two components of morphology/syntax and phonology may influence and constrain each other. Besides the LI and PS tests, the only seemingly acceptable evidence Huang presents for the distinction between the two types of questions, their distributions with regard to island constraints, turns out to be unconvincing, once pragmatic, phonological and parsing factors, along with further data, are taken into consideration. Huang’s second claim, that A-not-A and information questions belong to the same question type, will be refuted. In particular, the theoretical assumption on which his first argument is based, i.e., that there is a [+Q]-triggered phonological rule generating both types of questions, lacks independent support, and therefore the argument is logically circular. His second argument, the distributional similarity in some islands between the two question types, is invalidated by further data.
黄正德（1988）提出汉语正反问句与选择问句在句法上应分别归类，而正反问句与特指问句在句法上类似，应归为一类。本文将论证黄正德为正反问句和选择问句在句法上的不同所提供的论据是片面的，没有说服力，从而不能作为两类问句在句法上区别的依据。两类问句在“词语自主律” (Lexical Integrity) 和“介词悬空” (Preposition Stranding) 上的表面句法区别可以从汉语音系学的双音节节奏规则中找到解释。两者在“孤岛限制” (Island Constraints) 上的差异，也由于语用学，音系学及处理分析 (Parsing) 方面的考虑和反例的出现而变得没有说服力。黄正德的正反问句和特指问句同属一类的论点也不能成立。因为理论上的缺陷，由统一的语音形式产生两类问句的论证在逻辑上是循环论证；两者在“孤岛限制”上的相同，由于反例的出现而不能作为两类问句同归一类的依据。