JCL Monograph Series NO.15 专著系列 15 卷 – 1999

Issues in Chinese dialect description and classification
汉语方言描述及分类问题探讨
Edited by Richard Vanness Simmons

A number of the papers in this collection were originally presented as part of the The panel was designed to address issues of Chinese dialect classification–as issues of criteria, methodology, and proposed groupings, and to promote fresh contributions to knowledge of the nature and relationships of Chinese dialects through comparative studies. The idea for the present collection was first proposed by William S-Y. Wang, who noted that the papers of the panel would fit nicely together in the form of a monograph. Since then we have been able to add a couple of other contributions to the original panel collection, making a total of eight papers in the present volume. The publication of this collection was made possible by a grant from the Chiang Ching-Kuo Foundation for International Scholarly Exchange (USA), for which the editor and all the contributors are sincerely grateful.

Dialect describtion is the foundation of dialect study and comes before comparison, which in turn develops the basis for dialect classification. This basic footwork of dialectology, the steps of description, comparison, and classification, utimately allows us to piece together the history of dialects and their relationships. The March 1996 panel at AOS intended to facilitate new efforts, and promote innovative approaches in these three basic activities of dialectology; and this collection of eight essays conceived out of that panel contains thought-provoking, path-breaking studies that strive toward those goals.

Description of a historical form of Chinese is represented in W. South Coblin’s paper exploring the identity of the language behind the ‘Phags-pa texts of the Yuan. Li Zhuqing’s examination of the syntactic features of neural tone in Fwujou [Fuzhou], is a description of a little understood facet of a dialect with extremly complex tone sandhi. Comparison identifies a set of retroflex initials for proto (or common) Mandarin in William Baxter’s paper utilizing the tool of comparative reconstruction, a method that has so far been little used in investigation of post Chiehyunn phonological system. Gu Qian’s paper complements Baxter’s study in presenting comparative evidence for a retroflex series of initials in the Southern Mandarin Tongtay [Tongtai] dialect group of Jiangsu, an area originally thought to have lost all trace of retroflex initials.

Classificaion is the focus of the remaining four studies. Jerry Norman presents the innovative idea of using vocalism as a comparative classificatory criterion to distinguish Mandarin, Wu and Gann, a set of dialect groups whose mutual boudaries are somewhat unclear when traced using the traditional criteria of features in initials. Yu Zhiqiang incorporates Norman’s vocalism criterion, lexical criteria, as well as featuers of initials, into his evaluation of a large set of classificatory features for Wu, and proposes a very workable set of features to identify Wu dialects. David Branner examines classificatory methodology through the lense of a dialect in western Fwujiann [Fujian, Fukien] and utilizes a systematic comparative approach to set up a new reginal dialect group he calls “Northern Miinnan.” Finally, in my paper I argue that the classification of dialects should beundertaken prior to attempts to solve questions of dialect history and that classification and the determination of dialect relatedness should be based primarily on direct comparison of dialects, I illustrate my argument using comparison to show how extensive and systematic parallels between the Harngjou [Hangzhou] dialect in Jehjiang [Zhejiang] and the Southern Mandarin dialect of Jehjian [Zhejiang] identify the former as a Mandarin dialect despite a traditional assumption that it is a Wu dialect.

Most of the papers in this collection challenge or call into question certain longstanding assumptions in Chinese dialectology. They provoke us to reconsider several issues that are usually considered to have been satisfactorily solved. We hope that the essays will not be passively accepted as the final word to any suggested approach, but rather serve to offer fresh perspectives that contribute to constructive dialogue and debate.

William Baxter undertakes his exercise in reconstruction skeptical that the dialects currently classified in the Mandarin group “actually consitute a valid historical grouping.” Further, he goes about his comparative work without using the Chiehyunn or other rhyme books. This is certainly an appropriate approach in an attempt to determine the features of a system that is usually considered descendant from, or at least subsequent to, the Middle Chinese of the Cheihyunn system. Yet most examinations of individual dialect groups inevitably draw upon Chiehyunn features and terminology to characterize them. The traditional perspective is thus to stand in the Middle Chinese past and look toward the dialects of the present to try to see how things have changed, unquestioningly accepting the assumption that Chiehyunn Middle Chinese is the sole, or at least primary ancestor of the present dialects. Rigorous comparative reconstruction, however, demands that we look through the languages of the present to describe the ancestral languages of the past. What Baxter tentatively identifies as proto ‘Mandarin’ is a language of the past that must be identified and described primarily from the perspective of the present. Baxter’s paper initiates such a description using evidence from modern dialects to demonstrate that the Mandarin ancestral language had a single series of retroflex initials. Though the scope of his present effort is insufficient to evaluate definitively whether or not Mandarin is a valid historical entity, Baxter does succeed in tracing out the lines of one feature of an acestor common to that group.

David Branner’s paper examines dialect of the county seat of Longyan, in western Fukien. Longyan appears have much in common with the Jangjou variety of Miinnan. But, based on systematic comparative method, Branner assigns Longyan to a new group he calls “Northern Miinnan” or “Inland Miinnan”, whose primary characteristic is that it displays two conservative features of Coastal Miin: it distinguishes several categories of sibilant initials in lower-register words; it also displays an incomplete distinction between the Common Miin tones 5 and 6, pointing perhaps to the imperfect division of the Miin proto-chiuhsheng tone category. The first of these conservative features is charateristic of Miinnan and not of Miindong, and the second of Miindong but not of Miinnan. Branner argues that the unique retention of two conservative features marks Longyan and its neighboring dialects as a historically significant group separate from either Miinnan or Miindong, and perhaps typologically prior to both of them. His paper begins with a statement on classificatory methodology and concludes with an examination of some of longyan’s structural likenesses to Jangjou dialect.

W.South Coblin reassesses the assumption that 13th century ‘Phags-pa Chinese reflects the standard, or even a formal official, dialect of the Yuan — and presumably that of the Yuan capital, Dahdu [Dadu] – whose departures from Yuan colloquial may have been influenced by the rhyme book tradition. Through a careful comparison of ‘Phags-pa phonology with the phonologies of the Jong-yuan inyunn [Zhongyuan yinyun], the Guanhuah (Mandarin koine) represented in later Ming and Ching [Qing] period sources, and the Chiehyunn phonological tradition, Coblin determines that ‘Phags-pa was not based on the language of Dahdu. He also finds that the rather large number of places where ‘Phags-pa differs from Jongyuan inyunn phonology show a far stronger resemblance to later varieties of Guanhuah than to any earlier rhyme table system. In a broader perspective, this state of affairs suggests that the language of the national capital did not automatically and swiftly take up reign as a standard language, as is usually thought to be the case in Chinese linguistic history. Instead it appears that forces of tradition and social and cultural convention could allow a language very different from that of the capital to hold a greater prestige and currency.

Gu Qian refutes a widely, and broadly disseminated view that the Tongtay dialects have no retroflex series of initials. She draws this conclusion through a comparison of a large number of rural and urban dialects in the Tongtay region within the framework of the Chiehyunn Middle Chinese phonological categories. The key to her argument is her use of data from village dialects, which brought her to an innovative conclusion even through a very tradition methodology. Hence, Gu Qian’s study underscores the importance of gathering and analyzing data from rural dialects before drawing any conclusive characterizations of dialects, or dialect groups, and their history.

The topic of Li Zhuqing’s essay, the neutral tone of the Fwujou dialect in Fwujiann [Fujian], is so new and so little understood, that no assumptions concerning the phenomenon exist that might lend themselves to reevaluation. Instead, Li Zhuqing’s contribution is to point out that the southern dialect of Fwujou also possesses a feature of tone that is most commonly associated with northern dialects in China. In her extensive, detailed description of the phenomenon in Fwujou, she demonstrates that the dialect’s neutral tone is closely associated with syntactic and phonological features, and is not lexically determined as it commonly is in the north.

Jerry Norman suggests a novel method of dialect classification in which patterns of vocalism are used to distinguish dialect groups. The longstanding practice has been to classify dialects primarily on the basis of consonantal distinctions, usually of initials. Comparative characteristics of initial consonants are fairly straightforword and transparent when viewed from the perspective of the Chiehyunn, the traditional framework for representing classificatory criteria; and the customary method is thus easy to follow and preserve. Yet this practice is not without drawbacks. For example, determining Wu dialect affiliation by the presence of a set of voiced initials is not completely successful in excluding some dialects of other groups. On the other hand, vocalic distinctions in dialects are often badly splintered when viewed through the Chiehyunn framework; and generalizations are extremly difficult to discern. Norman clarifies the picture by redrawing the Chiehyunn vowel contrats to more closely conform to distinctions actually found in modern dialects. With this simple move, a set of useful general vocalic distinctions reveal themselves in strikingly sharp relief. Norman is then able to show how differing patterns of preservation and/or mergers of the distinctions can singularly characterize the Mandarin, Wu and Gann dialect groups and their divergent lines of evolution. His paper is a succinct demonstration of the gains that can be made by pushing beyond traditional assumptions and methods.

The question of exactly what constitutes a Wu dialect is the subject of Yu Zhiqiang’s article, in which he proposes a feature oriented system for identifying dialects of the Wu group. Yu Zhiqiang derives his classificatory features through an objective review and evaluation of previously suggested characterizations of Wu against the published data of a large number of dialects. His final group of 11 criteria incorporates features of lexicon, initial and tone, as well as Norman’s Wu vocalism. Yu’s initial and tone features are in origin derived from Chiehyunn based analyses, though he redefines the former without reference to Chiehyunn categories. He ranks all of his criteria as some degree of either sufficient or necessary or both. In Yu’s scheme, criteria that are labeled ‘sufficient’ are found in some or most Wu dialects, but not found in non-Wu dialects. Yu notes that sufficient criteria are strong in their ability to include a dialect in the Wu group when they are present, but weak in excluding dialects—marking them non-Wu–if they are absent. The criteria Yu labels ‘nescessary’ are found in all Wu dialects, and in some non-Wu dialects. Necessary criteria are strong in their ability to exclude dialects from the Wu group when they are absent, but weak in including dialects –marking them as Wu—when they are present. Yu then ranks his features as ‘highly valuable’ or ‘mid-valuable’. His system of value weighted features is useful in quickly determining a dialect’s possible affiliation with Wu.

With my contribution to these essays, I adopt a slightly polemic tone in the hope of sparking debate on issues of dialect classification. I believe that Chinese dialectologists need to reevaluate the accepted classificatory divisions and standards on the basis of comparative evidence alone and without slavish resort to Chiehyunn modes of analysis. While I have every confidence that the outcome of such a reevaluation will affirm generally accepted notions about the overall relatedness of Chinese dialects, I belive that a strictly comparative approach will substantially alter our understanding of the details of their divisions and interrelatedness. Norman’s essay in this collection is an independent corroborative illustration of this point.

The illustrative case I bring to the argument is the Harngjou dialect, which is widely acknowledged to contain a great number of Mandarin characteristics, but is still classified as a Wu dialect due to features in its initials which parallel a general Wu dialect reflection of Chiehyunn voiced initials. Comparing Harngjou to Jennjiang, a small city on the southern bank of the Yangtze just east of Nanjing, I show that Harngjou possesses an extensive set of phonological correspondences to the latter, a Southern Mandarin dialect. These correspondence far outweigh any congruence that Harngjou shares with even nearby Wu dialects and urge us to acknowledge that the language of this Jehjiang provincial capital is fundamentally a dialect of the Mandarin group. Significantly, if we apply the methods proposed in these pages by Jerry Norman and Yu Zhiqiang to assess the Harngjou dialect, we come to the same conclusion: Yu Zhiqiang’s feature system disqualifies Harngjou as Wu, while the dialect conforms to a Southern Mandarin pattern of vocalism in Norman’s scheme. This is clear evidence that the city’s dialect was completely replaced by the language of immigrantes from the north when Harngjou —then knowns as Lin’an—was established as the capital of the Southern Sonq [Song] in 1138.

There is much more that remains to be discovered concerning the relationships and history of the all the Chinese dialects. We only have a very sketchy understanding of their evolution even during the most recent half of the past millenium. Still, there is a great deal we can sift out if we continue to add to the raw data of dialect description, rigorously press forward in evaluating the data through comparison and classification, are willing to adopt innovative techniques, and do not confine ourselves to tradition assumptions, views, or methodologies. This collection is a small set of examples of such labor that also makes a few initial contributions toward the end goal. I am greatly pleased to have the oppportunity to present efforts in the forum of a JCL monograph.

Article 文章

Abstract 摘要

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
This study is part of a larger project to investigate the history of Chinese dialects – especially the dialects traditionally called ‘Mandarin’ (guanhua 官話) – using techniques derived from traditional comparative reconstruction. I focus here on the history of syllables which have (in at least some dialects) distinctive retroflex affricates and fricatives. The reason for using comparative reconstruction is that the modern dialects offer a very considerable amount of internal evidence about their own history, which may tell us things that the Qieyun 切韻, the Yunjing 韻鏡, and other documents of traditional phonology cannot. At the same time, comparative reconstruction can provide independent evidence by which to judge the provenance and reliability of these traditional sources.

2. CORRESPONDENCES AND RECONSTRUCTIONS
2.1 TONES
2.2 RETROFLEX INITIAL CONTRASTS AND CORRESPONDENCES
2.3 WHERE DO RETROFLEX INITIALS COME FROM?
2.4 PROTO-‘MANDARIN’ *j AND *i IN PATTERNS 1 AND 2
2.5 VOWELS IN PATTERNS 4 AND 5
2.6 PATTERN 3 AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF LABIODENTALS IN XI’AN
2.7 PROTO-MANDARIN *ʐ

3. SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT BY DIALECT
3.1 RETROFLEX DEVELOPMENT IN JINAN
3.2 RETROFLEX DEVELOPMENT IN XI’AN
3.3 RETROFLEX DEVELOPMENT IN HEFEI
3.4 RETROFLEX DEVELOPMENT IN YANGZHOU

4. CONCLUSIONS

Abstract 摘要
1. INTRODUCTION This essay considers the classificatory status of the dialect spoken in the country seat of Longyan [Lóngyán] 龍巖 in western Fukien. Superificial inspection of Longyan dialect shows it to be very similar to the dialects of the Miinnan [Mǐnnán] 閩南 or Southern Miin [Mǐn] 閩 group. But when viewed systematically, Longyan suggests a subclassification of Coastal Miin that differs from the usual two-part division. The methods and conclusions of this paper are applicable to dialect field-work and classification in Taiwan and the whole Coastal Miin area. 2. INCOMPATIBLE MERGERS OF CONTRASTIVE FEATURES 3. LONGYAN AND THE MAJOR COASTAL MIIN DIAGNOSTIC FEATURES 3.1 The Behavior of Lower-Register Sibilants 3.2 Series 2 Initials in Tone {6} 4 LIKENESS TO JANGJOU 漳州DIALECT 4.1 The Significance of Longyan’s /ui /Rime 4.2 The Significance of the /е/ and ue/ Rimes 5. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE PROSPECTS

Abstract 摘要

I. INTRODUCTION

The ‘Phags-pa alphabet was created between 1260 and 1269 at the behest of the Mongol emperor Qubilai (known in China as Yuán Shizǔ 元世祖). It was to be used not only to write Mongolian but also to “transcribe all writings” (譯寫一切文字), and one of the scripts for which it was accordingly adapted was Chinese. Since the ‘Phags-pa scripts was alphabetic, it was presumably necessary to select some pronounceable form of Chinese as the basis for the ‘Phags-pa spellings of words; but historical sources do not state what this was. The present paper is a reflection on this question.

There has in fact been considerable discussion of the identity of “Phags-pa Chinese.” Common sense would suggest that the script should have been applied to whatever constituted “standard Chinese” of Yuán times; but there are problems with this assumption. For it is also generally supposed that this standard language, which is by many averred to have been the dialect of the Yuán capital, Dàdū 大都 (occupying the site of present-day Peking), has been codified in a rime dictionary called Zhōngyuán yīnyùn 中原音韻 (published in 1324; hereafter: ZYYY). And the fact is that the spelling conventions found in Chinese ‘Phags-pa sources of various sorts reflect a sound system which is more complex than that inherent in the ZYYY sound classes. Therein lies the conundrum.

Opinions on this matter have for the most part been of two types. The first and now most widely accepted one is exemplified in a number of papers and miscellaneous notes of Paul Pelliot, published in the 1920’s and 30’s in T’oung Pao and the Journal Asiatique. This view holds that the ‘Phags-pa texts basically record the dialect of Dàdū but that they have, on the basis of rime books and other traditional philological sources, been infused with phonetic features and details which did not exist in the actual speech of Yuán times. Essentially the same idea has most recently been espoused by Cheng (1985:46), who in connection with two specific ‘Phags-pa sources remarks (p.46),”… the systems in the MT [Měnggǔ zìyùn 蒙古字韻] and the MY [Měnggǔ yùnluè 蒙古韻略] probably reflect the literary language of Ta-tu (now Peking), the capital of the Yuan dynasty, and the date of their completion could be as early as 1269, the year the hPhags-pa script was announced.” In support of this position Cheng gives an interesting set of examples from Yuán-time ‘Phags-pa inscriptions where, when faced with the practical task of producing Chinese texts in the ‘Phags-pa script, the writers have failed to maintain the so-called zhuó 濁 or “voicing” distinctions in initials, as called for in the spelling conventions of the system (1985:50). The position represented here has been adopted by a number of scholars who, in attempting to reconstruct the sound system underlying the ZYYY, have drawn upon ‘Phags-pa spellings for help on moot points.

The second and opposing view on the dialect identity question was first set forth in detail by Dragunov (1930). He concluded (p.646) that,

” We have not sufficient reasons to consider the phonetic structure of the Ancient Mandarin language to have been homogeneous. On the contrary, our sources enable us to state that there existed two large dialects (or groups of dialects) widely divergent from the point of view of their consonantic system: one of them, let us call it type B – in various transcriptions of foreign names and in the Persian transcription. Moreover, it is very likely that the phonetic forms of the A dialect (i.e. of the hPhags-pa inscriptions) also served for political reasons as a certain official standard for some regions, where the spoken language belonged to the B type. These regions consequently had two parallel pronunciations of the characters – one of them official, registered by the hPhags-pa script, and the other a more modernized vernacular, registered, e.g. by the Persian transcription. In such cases the Ancient Mandarin pronunciation embodied in the hPhags-pa script may be actually archaic.

A rather similar position was adopted by Hashimoto (1978). After considerable discussion he stated (I, p.74),

From these … points we assume that the Chinese characters were actually pronounced in more or less the same way as they are spelled by hPhags-pa script. These pronunciations were used in official proclamations to the literate intellectuals; then the phonological system inferred from these transcriptions should reflect some formal speech which the great majority of the intellectuals of the period spoke or at least understood.”

And further on (p.76),

“We may conclude that the language reflected in the hPhags-pa transcriptions is very likely a natural variant of Chinese at that time, though it may not be a stage in the linear development from Ancient Chinese to Mandarin.”

Reduced to its essentials, the first view admits the existence of only one linguistic entity underlying both the ‘Phags-pa texts and other contemporary sources such as the ZYYY and certain transcriptional materials. Where the ‘Phags-pa system varies in the direction of increased complexity, these variations are held to be archaizing and artificial. The second view finds at least two varieties of Chinese in the relevant sources. The ‘Phags-pa texts represent a more formal, “official” dialect, while the other sources reflect a vernacular idiom of some sort. With these opposing viewpoints in mind, we shall now embark on some historical and phonological considerations.

II. THE POLITICAL AND LINGUISTIC BACKGROUND
A. Northern Sòng and Liáo
B. Jīn and Southern Sòng
C. The Mongol Period

III. A TRANSLITERATION AND PHONETIC INTERPRETATION OF THE ‘PHAGS-PA CHINESE ORTHOGRAPHY

IV. PHONOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 Syllable Initials
4.2 Syllable Finals

V. CONCLUSIONS

Abstract 摘要

INTRODUCTION
The Tongtay 通泰 dialect is spoken in the middle region of Jiangsu province. It belongs to the larger Jiang-Hwai 江淮 dialect group. Its system of initial consonants is quite unusual; all stops and affricates descended from voiced Middle Chinese initials are realized as voiceless aspirates regardless of tone. This feature is found throughout the entire Tongtay area. Although the Gann and Kehjia (Hakka) dialects share this feature, the situation is quite different from that of the Horngchaur 洪巢 dialect area (which also belongs to the Juang-Hwai dialect group) to the north and the Wu dialects to the south. The Horngchaur dialect is the same as Mandarin in that voiced initials have become aspirated in ping tone and unaspirated in the other tones. In the Wu dialect, on the other hand, voiced initials are preserved.

Abstract 摘要

Neutral tone is for the most part associated with the study of northern dialects. While it appears to be mainly a lexical phenomenon in the northern dialects, it is more of a syntactic and phonological feature in the Fuzhou dialect. The present paper is a syntactic analysis of neutral tone in the Fuzhou dialect. The paper examines occurrences of Fuzhou neutral tone in pre-nucleus, post-nucleus and inter-nucleus positions. The study shows that Fuzhou neutral tone is not only a syntactic phenomenon, but also a phonological phenomenon. Syntactically, the post-verbal neutral tone words include particles and complements of various kinds. The pre-verbal neutral tones are mostly adverbs. Neutral tone also occurs between two phrases each with its own tone sandhi nucleus. Phonologically, pre-nucleus neutral tone can only occur in antepenultimate position, while the post-nucleus neutral tone does not have this restriction. Both pre- and post-nucleus neutral tones can only occur outside of tone sandhi domain.

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 TONE SANDHI DOMAIN AND NUCLEI

2.1 POST-NUCLEUS NEUTRAL TONES
2.1A. FULL NEUTRAL TONE
2.1B. SEMI-NEUTRAL TONE
2.1C. POST-NUCLEUS NEUTRAL TONES IN A SERIES
2.2 PRE-NUCLEUS NEUTRAL TONES
2.3. SUMMARY OF THE ANALYSIS

3.0. DISYLLABIC NEUTRAL TONE WORDS:
3.1. POST-VERBAL NUCLEUS DISYLLABIC NEUTRAL TONE WORDS
3.2. PRE-VERBAL NUCLEUS NEUTRAL TONES

4.0. INTER-NUCLEI NEUTRAL TONES
4.1. VERBAL REDUPLICATION
4.2. VERBAL EXPRESSION IN SERIES

5.0 PHONOLOGICAL NEUTRAL TONE?

6.0 CONCLUSION

Abstract 摘要
Up until the present time consonants, particularly initials consonants, have played a major role in attempts to classify Chinese dialects. These attempts have not been wholly successful. As far as I am aware no one has attempted to use vocalism as a basis for dialect classification. The present note is an attempt to do this. It has long been recognized that the various reconstructions of medieval Chinese based on the Chiehyunn and related works have a very complex vocalism and that the vocalism underlying most modern Chinese dialects is much less complex. In the present paper I will focus my attention on dialects of the Mandarin, Wu, Gann and Shiang groups.

Abstract 摘要


INTRODUCTION – PRINCIPLES AND METHOD
This essay is about dialect classification. Questions of Chinese dialect classification first engaged my attention when I undertook the research for my dissertation on the language of Harngjou 杭州 and whether it is a Mandarin of Wu dialect. I continue to grapple with the issues of classification in my present research on dialects in Jehjiang 浙江 and Jiangsu江蘇 at the Mandarin-Wu dialect boundary. As my research progresses, I have come to realize that we need a theoretical design that identifies just what Chinese dialect classification is attempting to do and how it should be done. To fulfill that need, I present here a short, preliminary theoretical outline. I also briefly demonstrate the theory in practice using data from my recent research. In the process I will argue that some traditional tools of the classification workshop, notably the biological model of dialect relationship, reconstruction of proto-systems, and the Middle Chinese- Chiehyunn 切韻 – phonological system, need to be reevaluated.

CASE STUDY: A CLASSIFICATION OF SOME DIALECTS IN THE HUHNING-HARNG REGION

Abstract 摘要


This paper focuses on issues in selecting classificatory features for the Wú dialect group. By studying Chao’s criteria and the dialectal facts, this research reveals the defects in older classification schemes and suggests a new set of criteria.

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Purpose of Classifying Wú Dialects
1.2. Two Major Issues
1.2.1 Criteria for Selecting Features
1.2.2 Number of Features

2.PROBLEMS IN SELECTING CLASSIFICATORY FEATURES
2.1. Unfolding Problems
2.2. Problems

3. PURPOSES AND TYPES OF CLASSIFICATION
3.1. Typological Approach
3.2. Sociolinguistic Approach
3.3. Areal Approach
3.4. Genetic Approach

4. LOGICAL NATURE OF FEATURES
4.1. Sufficient Features
4.2. Necessary Features
4.3. Necessary and Sufficient Features
4.4. Indeterminate Features

5. NUMBER OF FEATURES
5.1. Preference of Fewer Features
5.2. Preference of More Features
5.3. The Non-Congruence Principle
5.3.1. Evidence in Mandarin
5.3.2. Evidence in Wú Dialects
5.3.3. Feature Coincidence

6. VALUE OF FEATURES
6.1. Differences in Values
6.1.1. Minimally Valued Features
6.1.2. Moderately Valued Features
6.1.3. Highly Valued Features
6.2. Results of Combination of the Two Highly Valued Features
6.2.1. Situations 1 and 2
6.2.2. Situation 3
6.2.3. Situation 4
6.3. Subsidiary Features

7. PROBLEMS OF OLD FEATURE SELECTION
7.1. Chao’s Proposal
7.2. Difficulties of Chao’s Proposal

8. STUDY OF THE TWO HIGHLY VALUED FEATURES
8.1. Vocalism in Wú dialects
8.1.1. Mandarin Dialects
8.1.2. The Southern Dialects
8.1.3. Wú Dialects
8.1.4. Exceptions
8.2. The Simple Negative Word
8.2.1. Mandarin Dialects
8.2.2. Yuè Dialects
8.2.3. Kèjiā Dialects
8.2.4. Gàn Dialects
8.2.5. Xiāng Dialects
8.2.6. Wú Dialects

9. CONCERNS OF PRECONCEPTION
9.1. Bases of “Wú” Dialects
9.2. Previous Classification as a Starting Point
9.3. Previous Results as Reference

10. CONCLUSION

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on google
Google+
Share on twitter
Twitter
zh_HKZH-HK