Based on the single pre-Qin attestation of the compound yǎyán 雅言 in the Confucian Analects (Lúnyǔ 論語 7.18) the idea of a normative spoken standard language is often projected back by early modern and modern authors into remote pre-imperial antiquity. An overview of the conceptual history of the term and of the competing etymologies of yǎ in early Chinese texts is offered in order to problematize this “invented tradition” and its ideological baggage. Four types of evidence (uniformity of phonology and syntax in excavated texts, ode citation practices, phonophoric repair by double phonophoric characters, lexical variation) are then presented and their usefulness to support an early written standard of elite inter-communication is discussed. Straightforward creolization and mixed language accounting for the emergence of Old Chinese are rejected. Instead, a scenario of interrupted language transmission in a highly diverse linguistic Sprachbund area is sketched and argued to best account for the observed asymmetries between a high degree of early lexical and orthographical variation (including substrate influences) on the one hand, and phonological and syntactic uniformity of texts from geographically diverse areas on the other.
{"title":"TRACING VARIATION IN OLD CHINESE: WHAT, IF ANYTHING, WAS “YǍYÁN 雅言”?","authors":"W. Behr","doi":"10.1353/jcl.2017.0137","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jcl.2017.0137","url":null,"abstract":"Based on the single pre-Qin attestation of the compound yǎyán 雅言 in the Confucian Analects (Lúnyǔ 論語 7.18) the idea of a normative spoken standard language is often projected back by early modern and modern authors into remote pre-imperial antiquity. An overview of the conceptual history of the term and of the competing etymologies of yǎ in early Chinese texts is offered in order to problematize this “invented tradition” and its ideological baggage. Four types of evidence (uniformity of phonology and syntax in excavated texts, ode citation practices, phonophoric repair by double phonophoric characters, lexical variation) are then presented and their usefulness to support an early written standard of elite inter-communication is discussed. Straightforward creolization and mixed language accounting for the emergence of Old Chinese are rejected. Instead, a scenario of interrupted language transmission in a highly diverse linguistic Sprachbund area is sketched and argued to best account for the observed asymmetries between a high degree of early lexical and orthographical variation (including substrate influences) on the one hand, and phonological and syntactic uniformity of texts from geographically diverse areas on the other.","PeriodicalId":44675,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chinese Linguistics","volume":" ","pages":"-"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47360392","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
At the outset of writing a bilingual Cantonese-English dictionary that is comprehensive in scope, the lexicographer confronts a series of challenging issues that are fundamental to the successful creation of such an ambitious dictionary. Among the crucial questions to be satisfactorily resolved are at least the following eight: 1) What are the principal criteria that guide the lexicographer’s selection of the Cantonese lexical items that form the contents of the bilingual dictionary? Further, what is the scope of the lexical contents? Broad, by encompassing all lexical items that occur in the speech of Hong Kong Cantonese speakers, even those items that overlap with standard Chinese? Or, narrow, by focusing only on the uniquely Hong Kong Cantonese lexicon? 2) What categories of information about the lexical items should form the structural contents of lexical entries? These could include parts of speech, speech registers, cross-referencing of related lexical items, synonyms, alternative pronunciations and variant written forms, example sentences, etc. 3) How detailed should the equivalent English translations of the Cantonese lexical items be? 4) Should lexical entries include information on their social, cultural, historical, and political associations, usage, etymology (origin and historical development), etc.? 5) What is the organizing principle by which the Cantonese lexical entries are listed in the dictionary, as there are at least four? 6) As for Cantonese pronunciation, which register of the language should be romanized? The conservative, literary, standard pronunciation? The colloquial, informal, commonly-used 懶 音 laan5 jam1 “lazy” pronunciation? Or both of these? 7) Several Cantonese romanization systems are currently in use, so which one is best for representing Hong Kong’s contemporary Cantonese pronunciation? 8) Given that the written form of the Cantonese language has never been formally or officially standardized, so that some lexical items are typically written in two or more different ways, what criteria should guide the lexicographer in deciding how Cantonese words are graphically transcribed in a Cantonese-English dictionary? In writing his ABC Cantonese-English Comprehensive Dictionary 粵語英語大詞典 (Bauer 2020) over the past decade and a half, the author had to face and then answer appropriately each of these important questions. This article has described how he addressed and practically resolved these and other related problems.
{"title":"CHALLENGING ISSUES IN CANTONESE-ENGLISH LEXICOGRAPHY","authors":"Robert S. Bauer","doi":"10.1353/jcl.2017.0136","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jcl.2017.0136","url":null,"abstract":"At the outset of writing a bilingual Cantonese-English dictionary that is comprehensive in scope, the lexicographer confronts a series of challenging issues that are fundamental to the successful creation of such an ambitious dictionary. Among the crucial questions to be satisfactorily resolved are at least the following eight: 1) What are the principal criteria that guide the lexicographer’s selection of the Cantonese lexical items that form the contents of the bilingual dictionary? Further, what is the scope of the lexical contents? Broad, by encompassing all lexical items that occur in the speech of Hong Kong Cantonese speakers, even those items that overlap with standard Chinese? Or, narrow, by focusing only on the uniquely Hong Kong Cantonese lexicon? 2) What categories of information about the lexical items should form the structural contents of lexical entries? These could include parts of speech, speech registers, cross-referencing of related lexical items, synonyms, alternative pronunciations and variant written forms, example sentences, etc. 3) How detailed should the equivalent English translations of the Cantonese lexical items be? 4) Should lexical entries include information on their social, cultural, historical, and political associations, usage, etymology (origin and historical development), etc.? 5) What is the organizing principle by which the Cantonese lexical entries are listed in the dictionary, as there are at least four? 6) As for Cantonese pronunciation, which register of the language should be romanized? The conservative, literary, standard pronunciation? The colloquial, informal, commonly-used 懶 音 laan5 jam1 “lazy” pronunciation? Or both of these? 7) Several Cantonese romanization systems are currently in use, so which one is best for representing Hong Kong’s contemporary Cantonese pronunciation? 8) Given that the written form of the Cantonese language has never been formally or officially standardized, so that some lexical items are typically written in two or more different ways, what criteria should guide the lexicographer in deciding how Cantonese words are graphically transcribed in a Cantonese-English dictionary? In writing his ABC Cantonese-English Comprehensive Dictionary 粵語英語大詞典 (Bauer 2020) over the past decade and a half, the author had to face and then answer appropriately each of these important questions. This article has described how he addressed and practically resolved these and other related problems.","PeriodicalId":44675,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chinese Linguistics","volume":"0 1","pages":"-"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43370514","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT:Wh-question phrases in Mandarin remain in-situ at their base position (e.g., John bought what?). Although theoretical studies show that there is a covert dependency between the in-situ question word/phrase and SpecCP, little is known how this dependency is evidenced in the processing of Mandarin wh-in-situ questions. In addition, bare Mandarin wh-phrases like shéi 'who' are different from complex ones like nǎge tóngxué 'which classmate', as the former are known as wh-indeterminates, on a par with indefinites (Cheng 1991), while the latter are considered on a par with definites (Rullmann and Beck 1998). To uncover the processing mechanism of wh-in-situ questions, we conducted two self-paced reading studies where we compared their processing behavior with that of their declarative counterparts. Specifically, and due to the claims made in the literature regarding the nature of bare and complex wh-questions, we compared bare wh-questions with declarative counterparts that contained indefinites, and complex wh-questions with declarative counterparts that contained definites. Our findings show that, regardless of their bare or complex nature, wh-questions were in general processed with more cost (i.e., reading delay) than their declarative counterparts, providing evidence that a covert-dependency is built in wh-questions. In particular, based on our results we claim that after reading the core whelement, the parser immediately starts the process of resolving the wh-question interpretation by establishing the covert dependency.摘要:汉语普通话的特殊疑问句是在位疑问句,即疑问词的位置和陈述句对应名词的位置相同(例如"约翰买了什么?"),并不移到句首。理论语言学的研究表明,在位的疑问词与句子左缘的 SpecCP 存在隐性的依存关系,但这种依存关系能否从在线句子加工中找到证据,尚不得而知。除此之外,光杆疑问词(例如"谁")与复杂的疑问词(例如"哪个同学")本质不同,因为前者是 wh-不定指,类似于不定代词 (Cheng 1991), 而后者性质与有定代词类似 (Rullmann and Beck, 1998)。为了更好地揭示普通话特殊疑问句的加工机制,文章进行了两个自控步速阅读实验,来对比疑问句和对应陈述句的加工模式。具体说来,根据文献中对光杆疑问词和复杂疑问词的区分,我们分别对比了光杆疑问句和包含了对应不定代词陈述句的加工区别,以及复杂疑问句和包含了对应有定代词陈述句的加工区别。研究结果表明,尽管疑问词的性质有光杆和复杂之分,疑问句整体上都要比对应陈述句加工成本更高 (即需要更多的加工时间) 。这为普通话特殊疑问句中隐性依存关系的建构提供了在线加工上的证据。此外,实验的结果显示,只要阅读到 wh-成分 (例如"哪个"、"谁") ,被试就开始了疑问依存关系的建构,不需要读完整个词组 (例如"哪个同学")。
ABSTRACT: Wh question phrases in Mandarin remain in situ at their base position (e.g., John bought what?) Although theoretical studies show that there is a cover dependency between the in situ question word/phrase and SpecCP, little is known how this dependency is evinced in the processing of Mandarin wh-in-situ questions In addition, bar Mandarin wh phrases like sh é i 'who' are different from complex ones like n ǎ Ge t ó ngxu é 'which classmate', as the former are known as wh indicators, on a par with definitions (Cheng 1991), while the latter are considered on a par with definitions (Rullmann and Beck 1998) To uncover the processing mechanism of wh-in-situ questions, we conducted two self paced reading studies where we compared their processing behavior with that of their declarative counterparts Specifically, and due to the claims made in the quality regulation of the nature of bare and complex wh questions, we compared bare wh questions with declarative counterparts that contained definitions, and complex wh questions with declarative counterparts that contained definitions Our findings show that, regulations of their bare or complex nature, wh questions were in general processed with more cost (i.e., reading delay) than their declarative counterparts, providing evidence that a cover dependency is built in wh questions In particular, based on our results we claim that after reading the core element, the parser immediately starts the process of resolving the wh question interpretation by examining the cover dependency. Abstract: Special questions in Mandarin Chinese are in place questions, where the position of the question word is the same as the position of the corresponding noun in the declarative sentence (such as "What did John buy?") and do not move to the beginning of the sentence. Theoretical linguistics research has shown that there is an implicit dependency relationship between the interrogative words in place and the SpecCP at the left edge of the sentence, but it is not yet known whether this dependency relationship can be found in online sentence processing. In addition, bare rod interrogative words (such as "who") are fundamentally different from complex interrogative words (such as "which classmate") because the former is a wh indefinite referent, similar to an indefinite pronoun (Cheng 1991), while the latter has properties similar to a definite pronoun (Rullmann and Beck, 1998). In order to better reveal the processing mechanism of special interrogative sentences in Mandarin, the article conducted two self paced reading experiments to compare the processing patterns of interrogative sentences and corresponding declarative sentences. Specifically, based on the distinction between bare pole interrogative words and complex interrogative words in the literature, we compared the processing differences between bare pole interrogative sentences and declarative sentences containing corresponding indefinite pronouns, as well as the pr
{"title":"The processing mechanisms of Mandarin wh-questions","authors":"Yang Yang, Leticia Pablos, L. Cheng","doi":"10.1353/jcl.2023.0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jcl.2023.0009","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:Wh-question phrases in Mandarin remain in-situ at their base position (e.g., John bought what?). Although theoretical studies show that there is a covert dependency between the in-situ question word/phrase and SpecCP, little is known how this dependency is evidenced in the processing of Mandarin wh-in-situ questions. In addition, bare Mandarin wh-phrases like shéi 'who' are different from complex ones like nǎge tóngxué 'which classmate', as the former are known as wh-indeterminates, on a par with indefinites (Cheng 1991), while the latter are considered on a par with definites (Rullmann and Beck 1998). To uncover the processing mechanism of wh-in-situ questions, we conducted two self-paced reading studies where we compared their processing behavior with that of their declarative counterparts. Specifically, and due to the claims made in the literature regarding the nature of bare and complex wh-questions, we compared bare wh-questions with declarative counterparts that contained indefinites, and complex wh-questions with declarative counterparts that contained definites. Our findings show that, regardless of their bare or complex nature, wh-questions were in general processed with more cost (i.e., reading delay) than their declarative counterparts, providing evidence that a covert-dependency is built in wh-questions. In particular, based on our results we claim that after reading the core whelement, the parser immediately starts the process of resolving the wh-question interpretation by establishing the covert dependency.摘要:汉语普通话的特殊疑问句是在位疑问句,即疑问词的位置和陈述句对应名词的位置相同(例如\"约翰买了什么?\"),并不移到句首。理论语言学的研究表明,在位的疑问词与句子左缘的 SpecCP 存在隐性的依存关系,但这种依存关系能否从在线句子加工中找到证据,尚不得而知。除此之外,光杆疑问词(例如\"谁\")与复杂的疑问词(例如\"哪个同学\")本质不同,因为前者是 wh-不定指,类似于不定代词 (Cheng 1991), 而后者性质与有定代词类似 (Rullmann and Beck, 1998)。为了更好地揭示普通话特殊疑问句的加工机制,文章进行了两个自控步速阅读实验,来对比疑问句和对应陈述句的加工模式。具体说来,根据文献中对光杆疑问词和复杂疑问词的区分,我们分别对比了光杆疑问句和包含了对应不定代词陈述句的加工区别,以及复杂疑问句和包含了对应有定代词陈述句的加工区别。研究结果表明,尽管疑问词的性质有光杆和复杂之分,疑问句整体上都要比对应陈述句加工成本更高 (即需要更多的加工时间) 。这为普通话特殊疑问句中隐性依存关系的建构提供了在线加工上的证据。此外,实验的结果显示,只要阅读到 wh-成分 (例如\"哪个\"、\"谁\") ,被试就开始了疑问依存关系的建构,不需要读完整个词组 (例如\"哪个同学\")。","PeriodicalId":44675,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chinese Linguistics","volume":"51 1","pages":"147 - 171"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49101675","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper discusses the property of voicing and releasing in coda stops in Old Chinese, which is of great significance to the phonetic types and historical comparison between Chinese and Tibetan Languages. The nature of Old Chinese is mainly based on the historical comparison between Chinese and Tibetan Languages and Chinese loan words in other languages. For example, in Ancient Tibetan the stop codas were transcribed to voiced letters. The majority of bound function words in Classical Tibetan have two variants based on whether the preceding codas are voiced or not. The /-l(-r)/ coda in the ancient Chinese northern languages and early Sanskrit-Chinese phonetic transcription comes from the /-d/ coda. Old Chinese loan words in Japanese have voiced stop codas. Modern Chinese dialects also have voiced stop codas. In addition, stop codas in Tibetan Xigaze, Balti, Lajiao and other dialects, Xifan yiyu and Qiang languages all have the nature of releasing. The “broken tone” in Chinese is caused by a released glottal stop.
{"title":"The Voiced and Released Stop Codas Of Old Chinese","authors":"Wuyun Pan, Zining Zheng","doi":"10.1353/jcl.2017.0133","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jcl.2017.0133","url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses the property of voicing and releasing in coda stops in Old Chinese, which is of great significance to the phonetic types and historical comparison between Chinese and Tibetan Languages. The nature of Old Chinese is mainly based on the historical comparison between Chinese and Tibetan Languages and Chinese loan words in other languages. For example, in Ancient Tibetan the stop codas were transcribed to voiced letters. The majority of bound function words in Classical Tibetan have two variants based on whether the preceding codas are voiced or not. The /-l(-r)/ coda in the ancient Chinese northern languages and early Sanskrit-Chinese phonetic transcription comes from the /-d/ coda. Old Chinese loan words in Japanese have voiced stop codas. Modern Chinese dialects also have voiced stop codas. In addition, stop codas in Tibetan Xigaze, Balti, Lajiao and other dialects, Xifan yiyu and Qiang languages all have the nature of releasing. The “broken tone” in Chinese is caused by a released glottal stop.","PeriodicalId":44675,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chinese Linguistics","volume":"0 1","pages":"-"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66396441","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}