liudanqing_yuxu.doc-东方语言学.doc

PAGE  PAGE 13 “liudanqing_yuxu.doc” 汉语方言的语序类型比较,刘丹青,原载日本《现代中国语研究》创刊2期，2001年 汉语方言的语序类型比较* 本文写作得到香港研究经费拨款委员会项目“汉语三种方言广东话、上海话和普通话的参数变化”的部分资助。本文所涉及的吴语区田野调查为香港城市大学人文学院研究资助委员会项目。本文英文稿和中文初稿曾分别在香港城市大学中文、翻译及语言学系和2000年中国东南部方言比较研讨会（3月30日-4月1日 福建武夷山）上宣读，蒙与会先生多所指正，谨致谢忱。文中尚存的不足均应由笔者负责。 刘丹青 [Abstract英文提要] This paper compares word order patterns of topic, subject, object and the verb among Chinese dialects. Through a brief historical survey of order types since archaic Chinese, it claims that Chinese has been largely an SVO language but has never been a typical SVO language. In Wu dialects, topicalized patients are more common and are of more syntactic nature than in Mandarin, and topicalized patients prefer the subtopic position rather than the main topic position. Therefore a new verb-final pattern is developing through the grammaticalization of subtopics with patient role in these dialects, though it is not a real SOV type yet. The same is true for Min dialects, but not for other southern dialects such as Hakka, Gan and Hui. An interesting consequence arising from interaction between subtopic prominence and the SVO type is the frequent use of split topic structure, which divides a patient argument into two parts, one serving as subtopic and the other as object. By contrast, Cantonese exhibits the strongest SVO type in various respects. Thus the paper proposes a typological model among Chinese dialects. That is “Cantonese (strong SVO) : Mandarin/Hakka/Gan/Hui (moderate SVO) : Wu/Min (weak SVO)”, sharply different from previous models like Hashimoto’s “Mandarin : Wu/Cantonese : Min”. Real SOV order appears in some northwestern dialects due to the influence from SOV languages like Tibetan, as well as a developing case system, which is a crucial condition for being a real SOV language. [作者简介] 刘丹青，上海师范大学教授，语言研究所所长。 0. 引言 本文讨论的语序类型限于小句基本结构，即话题、主语、宾语、动词等成分的语序问题。这个问题不光涉及汉语事实问题，而且涉及怎么分析有关事实的问题，比如是前置宾语还是小主语等等。这些理论问题不解决，有了事实也难以得出结论。所以本文试图以语序共性和类型的研究成果为背景，结合语序理论、话题理论和语法化理论，以汉语从古到今