Jump to content

User:Lovewhatyoudo/s2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remembrance

[edit]
  • internally, the CPC claimed the whole credit for the victory of the War, so a victor’s narrative dominated the war memory. [...] In mainland China, the Nationalist Party was blamed by the CPC for its alleged ‘non-resistance’ policy during the War, while its contributions and losses were not acknowledged. [...] Domestic imperatives constitute an important driver for developing the memory of victimisation. As China opened its door to global markets, there emerged unprecedented challenges to the CPC’s authoritarian leadership. These included the emergence of liberal, pro-democracy thinking, the disbanding of the former Soviet bloc and student demonstrations at Tiananmen Square in 1989, which was suppressed by the government. It was urgent then that the CPC leadership find a rallying point to hold together public opinion and convince the nation that ‘only the CPC can save China’(a phrase repeatedly used by the CPC). The term Century of National Humiliation, coined by nationalist elites in the early twentieth century and symbolic of nationalist emotions, was retrieved and applied in patriotic education programmes.[1]
  • During Mao’s time, however, China’s national history and especially the national humiliation narrative were not used by the CCP leaders as a major ideological tool or source of legitimacy. [...] There are several reasons [...]. [T]he CCP made class distinction rather than ethnicity the foundation of political identity. [...] “victory” was the key word of the CCP’s legitimacy claims. Mao was a master when it came to “hero” or “victor” narratives intended to mobilize popular support. The CCP’s propaganda machine taught people again and again that it was under Mao’s brilliant leadership that the party achieved one victory after another. [...] Besides the above mentioned reasons related with the CCP’s ideology, there was also a very special but important reason [...] As Buruma comments: 'little was made in the People’s Republic of the Nanking Massacre because there were no Communist heroes in the nationalist capital in 1937. Indeed there had been no Communists there at all. Many of those who died in Nanking, or Shanghai, or anywhere in southern China, were soldiers in Chiang Kai-shek’s army. Survivors with the wrong class or political backgrounds had enough difficulty surviving Maoist purges to worry too much about what had happened under the Japanese.' [...] Mao and his colleagues even felt some gratitude toward the Japanese. Without the Japanese full-scale invasion from 1937 to 1945, the Communist troops could have already been eliminated by Chiang Kai-shek.[2]
  • vilifying Japan would not serve to glorify Communist China[3]
  • Apart from the abovementioned factors, the theory and the practice of class struggle contributed to the way in which the War was remembered during the Mao era. Essentially, the Maoist ideology was about class struggle, and this mind-set dominated all walks of life in China throughout Mao’s rule. Public commemorations conducted to promote loyalty to Mao and the CPC were dedicated to ‘people’s heroes’—particularly revolutionary martyrs who gave their lives for the cause of socialism and communism, instead of victims of wartime atrocities.[1]
  • So do many of China's foreign apologists. I cannot count the number of times I have been urged to "stop harping on the past" when I refer to what has happened to Chinese citizens during the last 50 years. [...] When it comes to the Cultural Revolution, described officially in China as the greatest catastrophe in the Communist period, there has been no written apology to the millions of victims. Nor is there a museum commemorating the disaster [...]. [T]he famine of 1959-1961 after Mao's crazed Great Leap Forward. Between 30 and 50 million people starved to death (37 years later this number remains impossible to fix); the living ate the dead. This famine is rarely officially discussed, and never apologized for.[4]
  • China consistently reminds its people of Japan’s historical brutality, such as the 1937 Nanjing Massacre [...]. When asked if the government would release documents related to the 1958-1961 Great Leap Forward and the chaotic 1966-1976 Cultural Revolution, Li looked flustered and declined to directly address the issue [5]
  • Nobel Prize-winning author Elie Wiesel suggested that to forget a holocaust is to kill twice. The Nanjing Massacre Memorial and other similar monuments exist to prevent us from forgetting needless deaths and reenacting similar crimes. But as noted in Yang’s study, more Chinese were killed by the Great Leap Forward than by the Imperial Japanese Army during World War II.[6]
  • I home in on three core episodes from China’s long twentieth century—the Nanjing Massacre of 1937; the Cultural Revolution, which lasted from 1966 to 1976; and the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests—to argue that understanding their afterlives in terms of public secrecy opens up new ways of thinking about the past as an ongoing process of making and unmaking that textures life in China today. All these momentous events are well remembered by those who experienced them. But all have, at different points in the past, been rendered either publicly unsayable or open to only limited kinds of enunciation.[7]

The remembrance of the massacre has evolved drastically in China. From 1949 to 1982, mentioning of the massacre is suppressed because ideologically the communists would rather promoted "martyrs" of class struggles rather than wartime victims, especially when the Battle of Nanjing was fought by the Nationalist and hence there were no communist heroes or any communists in Nanjing. Only since the 1990s through the Patriotic Education Campaign, the massacre has become a national memory as an episode of "the Century of Humiliation prior the communist takeover of China". There is a sizable minority of deniers of Nanjing Massacre in post-WWII Japan which have become a point of tension in Sino-Japanese relations.

However, the Chinese government is also criticized for its selective remembrance of Nanjing Massacre instead of the much deadlier Great Chinese famine (1959-61) and Cultural Revolution

The Fall of communism in Eastern Europe in 1989 challenged the ideological legitimacy of the CCP It was urgent then that the CPC leadership find a rallying point to hold together public opinion and convince the nation that ‘only the CPC can save China’

. ...., inflicted by the Japanese Army, is often compared to the deadlier Great Chinese famine (1959-61)[8][9] and the Cultural Revolution, inflicted by the Chinese government, among other massacres in China. [10] [11] [12]

Capital

[edit]

List of protests in national capitals cleared by the military

Mandarin history

[edit]
A sample of Mongolian and Beijing Mandarin (1:14-1:37) by a Mongolian Chinese husband and wife
A sample of Beijing Mandarin (0:55-1:28) by a Oirat Chinese shepherd
A sample of Sichuan Mandarin (1:31-2:11) by an Amdo Tibetan.
A sample of Sichuan Mandarin by a native (Qiangic) Horpa speaker.
A sample of Beijing Mandarin (1:23-1:38) by two (Turkic) Kazakh Chinese.
A sample of Central Plains Mandarin by a (Turkic) Kyrgyz Chinese.

The clearest views of pre-modern Mandarin phonology come to us through foreign alphabetic transcriptions devised by non-Chinese who wished to learn and teach Mandarin.

  • some the Turkic elements in the code-mixing eventually gained prominence and have become permanent part of the northern vernacular, predecessor of modern Mandarin. This paper discusses twelve such Turkic-rooted verbal functional expressions: (1). The causative-passive qu 取; (2). Transitive passive sha 殺, sha 煞, si 死; (3). Causative dou 鬥, dou 逗; (4). Continuative hai 還, que 卻; (5). Resultative que 卻; (6). Reflexive nə 呢 (7). Positive indirective mo shi 莫是; (8). Negative indirective bu dao 不道; (9). Future participle cai 才, cai 纔; (10). Conditional yao shi 要是, yao 要, yao bu shi 要不是; (11). INDUCE-base nong 弄; (12). The speech quote verb dao 道.[17] An-king LIM (1969 PhD in Fluid dynamics, University of Iowa; https://web.archive.org/web/20211023080529/http://ap.itc.ntnu.edu.tw/ePaperHistory/200905131033491262129306483.html)
  • Mandarin simply tends to display Sinitic features in less complexified form than any of its sisters, and, in addition, the sisters display these features more elaborately in a gradient increase, roughly, as one travels due southeast.(2007: 106)
  • Mandarin has structural reductions in the following: (1) inventory of final consonants, e.g. -p, -t, -k; (2) number of tones, (3) tone change rules, (4) usage of classifiers, (5) number of aspect markers, (6) number of negator allomorphs, (7) number of complementizers, (8) number of sentence-final particles, e.g. 添㗎啦喎, (9) plural pronouns in Wu language, (10) 2 vs 3-way demonstrative pronouns, e.g. this & that, (11) number of derivational prefixes and suffixes (2007: 107-121, esp. 121)


  • Cantonese displays more overspecification and structural elaboration, including requiring attendance to more semantic distinctions in a phonetic string. (2007: 107)[18]


  • "it has traditionally been assumed that Chinese has been resistant to influence from outside and that copying has always proceeded in the direction from Chinese to other languages, not vice versa"[19]
  • Adopting a quantitative approach, we find that the degree of typological diversity within the Mandarin dialect group is comparable to that of the Sinitic branch as a whole. This implies that, if the various Chinese dialect groups are indeed as internally diverse as the Romance or Germanic languages, the Mandarin dialect group alone may carry such a degree of internal diversity from a typological (or structural) perspective.
  • While this sentence may look perfectly natural to Mandarin speakers, cross-linguistically speaking, the head-final adjective phrase actually correlates with SOV languages (Dryer 1992Dede, Keith. 2007a. The origin of the anti-ergative [xa] in Huangshui Chinese. Language and Linguistics 8(4). 863–881.), which typically have the parts of the sentence structured in the order of subject-object-verb. It is in fact unusual for an SVO language like Mandarin to possess such a word order. Unsurprisingly, the adjective-final comparative constructions are more common in Northern China, , where influence from the SOV Altaic languages is relatively profound. [20] Also refer to [21]
  • Altaic influence on Mandarin's vowel inventory and syllables:[22]
  • Selected Northwestern Mandarin which received even more Altaic influences than Beijing Mandarin. The extreme cases:
  • Yongzhong, Zhu, Üjiyediin Chuluu, Keith Slater, and Kevin Stuart. "Gangou Chinese Dialect [甘沟话]. A Comparative Study of a Strongly Altaicized Chinese Dialect and Its Mongolic Neighbor." Anthropos 92, no. 4/6 (1997): 433-50.
  • Dwyer, Arienne M. 1995. From the Northwest China Sprachbund: Xúnhuà Chinese dialect data. Yuen Ren Society Treasury of Chinese Dialect Data 1. 143–182.
  • "Altaic Elements in the Línxià dialect [of NW Chinese]: Contact-induced Change on the Yellow River Plateau" (PDF). Journal of Chinese Linguistics. 20 (1): 160–179.
  • The order of adjective and noun in Mandarin thus more closely resembles the languages to the north than many TB [Tibeto-Burman] languages.[24]
  • Hashimoto 1976[25]; Hashimoto 1980:160 suggested that “the basic typological features of the Chinese language stayed more or less intact until the end of the Tang period […] this is the time the Chinese language underwent definite Altaicization in the northern part of its territory”[26]; Hashimoto 1986:95, “these original Altaic residents accommodated into their mother tongue(s) the Chinese lexicon and morphology in their entirety, maintaining however their own syntax and perhaps most of their phonetics […].”[27]
  • [28]
    • Daniel Kane (2009: 209), “the type of Chinese spoken in Hebei even from the early Tang was likely to be subjected to the type of creolization described above [Hashimoto 1986:95, Altaic residents accommodated into their mother tongue(s) the Chinese lexicon and morphology in their entirety, maintaining however their own syntax and perhaps most of their phonetics], with subsequent differentiation from the Tang standard of Chang'an. This process must have increased as the north-eastern provinces became politically autonomous to the point where by 831 Youzhou was no longer part of the empire. We can then hypothesize that the differentiation of the Chinese spoken north of the Yellow River was underway long before 937, when the Sixteen Prefectures were annexed. Northern Chinese had been developing at least semi-independently from the dialect of the central plains for at least 300 years before that date,”[29]
  • Check this source to find the page number on Altaic: Word-Order Change and Grammaticalization in the History of Chinese by Chaofen Sun.
  • Half of the phonological characteristics of Liao dynasty Mandarin is consistent with Northern Song dynasty's Old Central Plains Mandarin, another half is only seen Southern Song, Yuan and Ming.[30]


  • Daniel Kane (2009: 209), “...long before 937, when the Sixteen Prefectures were annexed. Northern Chinese had been developing at least semi-independently from the dialect of the central plains for at least 300 years before that date,”[29]
  • Earliest Cantonese corpus:[31]
  • 1828 Morrison, Robert. A Vocabulary of the Canton Dialect. Macao: The Honorable East India Company Press.
  • 1841 Bridgman, Elijah Coleman. Chinese Chrestomathy in the Canton Dialect. Macao: S. Wells Williams.
  • 1856 Williams, S. Wells. Tonic Dictionary of the Chinese Language in the Canton Dialect. Canton: The Office of the Chinese Repository.
  • 1877 Eitel, Ernst Johann. A Chinese Dictionary of the Cantonese Dialect. London: Trubner and Co., Hong Kong: Lane, Crawford & Co.
  • 1883 Ball, J. Dyer. Cantonese Made Easy. Hong Kong: The China Mail Office.
  • 1888 Ball, J. Dyer. Cantonese Made Easy. 2nd edition, revised and enlarged. Hong Kong: The China Mail Office.
  • 1888 Stedman, T. J., and K. P. Lee. 英語不求人 A Chinese and English Phrase Book. New York: William R. Jenkins.
  • 1907 Ball, J. Dyer. Cantonese Made Easy. 3 rd edition, revised and enlarged. Hong Kong: Kelly and Walsh, Ltd.
  • 1908 Ball, J. Dyer. The Cantonese Made Easy Vocabulary. 3rd edition. Hong Kong: Kelly and Walsh, Ltd.
  • 1910 LeBlanc, Charles. Cours de Langue Chinoise Parlée Dialecte Cantonnais. Hanoi-Haiphong: Imprimerie d’Extrême-Orient.
  • 1920 Cowles, Roy T. Inductive Course in Cantonese. Hong Kong: Kelly and Walsh, Ltd.
  • 1924 Ball, J. Dyer. Cantonese Made Easy. 4th edition, revised and enlarged. Hong Kong: Kelly and Walsh, Ltd.
  • 1936 Hoh, Fuk Tsz, 何福嗣 and Belt, Walter. The Revised and Enlarged Edition of a Pocket Guide to Cantonese. Canton: Lingnan University.
  • 1941 O’Melia, Thomas A. First Year Cantonese. 2 nd edition. Hong Kong: Maryknoll House.
  • 1947 Chao, Yuen Ren 趙元任. Cantonese Primer 粵語入門. Harvard University Press.

[32]

Classical Chinese came to an end by the 2nd century, yet remained to be the literary standard. Traits of Old Mandarin's features appeared in the 4th century after the Five Barbarians conquered Northern China, yet Old Mandarin is generally accepted to have emerged no latter than the mid-9th century, evident from the trend of writing Buddhist stories in Classical Chinese mixed with Old Mandarin.[33] A major dialect, Beijing Mandarin, emerged out of creolization during the consecutive rule of Beijing by Khitan, Jurchen and Mongol nomads from 937 to 1368 (Liao, Jīn and Yuan dynasty).[29][34][35][36][37][38] Their language contact is famously described as, "Altaic residents accommodated into their mother tongue(s) the Chinese lexicon and morphology in their entirety, maintaining however their own syntax and perhaps most of their phonetics." (Hashimoto 1986:95)

  • Because of the consecutive regimes run by Altaic groups, namely the Khitans, the Jurchens, and the Mongols, in the northern and northeastern parts of modern-day China, along with the gradual expansion of their territory into the territory of the Song, the Chinese phonological standard in the Liao territory gradually became a new national standard for all Chinese-speaking areas. Later in the Yuan dynasty this new phonological standard was finally established and published in the systematic form of rhyme books. The transition of the national standard from the Middle Chinese of Sui–Tang time to the Old Mandarin of the Yuan time was not just a change of the phonological system in time, but more importantly it was a change of a geographical dialect. From the tenth century on, the northern dialects, represented by the dialect of the modern Beijing area, gradually gained its standard status.[39]

Mandarin and others, could only be deciphered had been scant. Two distinct varieties of Middle Chinese, northern and southern (南朝通語), arose in the 4th century after the Five Barbarians conquered Northern China.[40][41] As the successor of northern Middle Chinese, Old Mandarin might began as early as the 4th to 6th century, during the Northern and Southern dynasties (why?).[42]

  • Colloquial expressions of Old Mandarin were extensively attested in huaben, thought to be Song dynasty
  • Lin Tao 1987: 936年，石敬瑭把燕云十六州割让给契丹，北京地区……达三百年之久，和外族语言长期密切接触，和广大中原地区的本族语言反而关系疏远。这种语言背景对北京话的发展起了很大的推动作用，使得北京话在辽金时期就可能已经成为我国发展最快、结构最简单的汉语方言。......蒙语对元大都话的影响估计并不很大。所谓元大都话，实际是辽金两代居住在北京地区的汉族人民和契丹、女真等族经过几百年密切交往逐渐形成的，到元建大都时已趋于成熟，成为现代北京话的源头。*Population history of Beijing and Northeast China Plain[36]
  • Zhang 2021: 早期北京官话兴起于契丹语、女真语和北方汉语的融合。....Vocab, SOV, 兒化.[38]


  • Jerry Norman (1982:243): “Northern China was controlled by dynasties of northern nomadic origin for a total of more than 800 years between the fourth and twentieth centuries. A majority of these northern rulers were of Altaic stock, generally speakers of either Mongolian or Tungusic. During this long period of contact between Chinese and Altaic, there was naturally a good deal of mutual linguistic influence. [...] // (1982: 245) 與其說該語法特徵是漢語從滿語借入的, 母寧說一開始那只是一些兼操滿漢兩種語言的滿人的一種言語習慣--他們在學習漢語過程中, 自然會將母語的一些特徵帶到所說的漢語裡面來, 然後, 由於他們是統治者, 處於中國社會的頂層, 他們所說的漢語自然也就被治的漢人所模仿."[43]

魏培泉(1997)所提出“漢語以多線模式發展”的觀點，除了漢語內部因素之外，北方阿爾泰語對北方方言的影響，也直接促成了「把」、「給」最後成為處置及被動標誌的結果。張華克(1998)的研究指出女真語的後置格助詞-ba為處置標誌「把」的語源，而宋金蘭(1990)則指出蒙語語族的給予動詞和附加成分-g-為「給」作給予動詞和被動等標誌的語源

  • 魏培泉 (1993). 古漢語介詞「於」的演變史略. 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊 62(4): 717-786.
  • 魏培泉 (1994). 古漢語被動式的發展與演變機制. 中國境內語言暨語言學 2: 293-319.
  • 魏培泉 (1997). 論古代漢語中幾種處置式在發展中的分合. 中國境內語言暨語言學 4: 555-594.
  • 張華克 (1998). 元曲中處置式句法的探討. 台北: 國立政治大學碩士論文.
  • 宋金蘭 (1990). 青海漢語助動詞“給”與阿爾泰語言的關係. 民族語文 (2): 46-52.
  • Beijing, for example, was a secondary capital of the Liao dynasty (Khitan people; 907-1125) and the early Jin dynasty (Jurchen;1115-1234), and was capital of the Jin from 1153 to 1234. Beijing was again the capital of the Yuan (Mongol; 1234-1368), Ming (Han; 1368-1644), and Qing (Manchu; 1644-1911) dynasties. Except for three hundred years during the Ming dynasty, Beijing was a political centre of non-Chinese peoples for the last thou-sand years.[44]
  • 我们接受前人近代官话始于晚唐五代的观点，认为这一时期的北方通语存在中原、河朔和西北三类地方变体[45]

Vernacular records of Mandarin

[edit]

The lack of vernacular literature from the 7th to 8th century made it difficult to determine what language did the early Tang dynasty speak.[46][47]

  • From the mid-8th century onwards, Classical Chinese were written with some Mandarin, later on, some literature were written in a form of Mandarin polished extensively with classical Chinese. These texts were often often inaccurately labelled as "vernacular Mandarin" texts. Genuine vernacular Mandarin texts are first written by Koreans as foreign language textbooks, the earliest published in 1473.[33] 水浒传, a vernacular Mandarin novel, dated to around 1520s. Written Cantonese, written Wu and written Hokkien dated to late 16th century.

the attestation of its syntax in Buddhist bianwen and Chan literature. 

in the Anthology of the Patriarchal Hall (952), among other .[48][33]
  • various korean textbook[51]

[52]

[53]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b Qian, Fengqi; Liu, Guoqiang (2019). "Remembrance of the Nanjing Massacre in the Globalised Era: The Memory of Victimisation, Emotions and the Rise of China". China Report. 55 (2): 86-88.
  2. ^ Wang, Zheng (2012). Never Forget National Humiliation: Historical Memory in Chinese Politics and Foreign Relations. Columbia University Press. p. 85-89.
  3. ^ French, Howard W. (2017). Everything under the Heavens: How the past helps shape China's push for global power. Knopf. p. 201-203.
  4. ^ Mirsky, Jonathan (1998-12-02). "The Chinese, Too, Have Much to Apologize For". New York Times.
  5. ^ Martina, Michael (2014-07-03). "China cites Japan wartime 'confessions' in propaganda push". Reuters.
  6. ^ Brown, Clayton D. (2014). "Book review. 'Tombstone: The Great Chinese Famine, 1958–1962' by Yang Jisheng". Education About Asia. 19 (2): 92.
  7. ^ Hillenbrand, Margaret (2020). Negative exposures : knowing what not to know in contemporary China. Duke University Press. p. xix.
  8. ^ Mao, Yushi (2014). "Lessons from China's Great Famine" (PDF). CATO Journal. 34 (3): 486.
  9. ^ Monk, Paul (1997). "Book review. 'Hungry Ghosts: Mao's Secret Famine' by Jasper Becker". The China Journal. 38: 201–202. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  10. ^ {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help)
  11. ^ {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help)
  12. ^ {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help)
  13. ^ Lim, An-king [林安慶] (2006). "On Old Turkic consonantism and vocalic divisions of acute consonants in Medieval Hàn phonology". In Branner, David Prager (ed.). Chinese Rime Tables: Linguistic philosophy and historical-comparative phonology. John Benjamins. p. 59-64,71.
  14. ^ Lim, An-king [林安慶] (2016). "On Sino-Turkic, a first glance" (PDF). Journal of Language Contact. 9: 439,443. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-02-12.
  15. ^ Lim, An-king (2010). A Sinitic historical phonology [漢字古今音論]. Academia Sinica.
  16. ^ Wang, Yanhong [王艳红] (2012). 上古汉语突厥语对应词研究 [Equivalents of Ancient Chinese and Turkic Languages] (PhD). Nankai University.
  17. ^ Lim, An-king [林安慶] (2021). "On Sino-Turkic verbal functional expressions". International Journal of Chinese Linguistics. 8 (1): 102-138.
  18. ^ McWhorter, John (2007). "Mandarin Chinese: Altaicization or simplification?". Language Interrupted: Signs of Non-Native Acquisition in Standard Language Grammars. Oxford University Press. p. 104-137.
  19. ^ Johanson, Lars (2021). "10.6.6 The Karluk (SE) Contact Area". Turkic. Cambridge University Press. p. 189-190. Archived from the original on 2021-08-16.
  20. ^ Szeto, Pui-yiu; Ansaldo, Umberto; Matthews, Stephen (2018). "Typological variation across Mandarin dialects: An areal perspective with a quantitative approach". Linguistic Typology. 22 (2): 233–275.
  21. ^ Szeto, Pui-yiu (2021). "Sinitic as a typological sandwich: revisiting the notions of Altaicization and Taicization". Linguistic Typology.
  22. ^ Li, Wen-chao [李文肇] (2006). "The four grades: an interpretation from the perspective of Sino-Altaic language contact" (PDF). In Branner, David Prager (ed.). Chinese Rime Tables: Linguistic philosophy and historical-comparative phonology. John Benjamins. p. 49, 55, 57, 58. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-07-25.
  23. ^ Cheng, Robert L. [鄭偉良] (1985). "A Comparison of Taiwanese, Taiwan Mandarin, and Peking Mandarin". Language. 61 (2). Linguistic Society of America: 352-376.
  24. ^ Dryer, Matthew S. (2003). "Word order in Sino-Tibetan languages from a typological and geographical perspective". In Thurgood, Graham; LaPolla, Randy (eds.). The Sino-Tibetan languages. Routledge. p. 52-53. Archived from the original on 2021-10-19.
  25. ^ Hashimoto, Mantarō (1976). "Language diffusion on the Asian continent: Problems of typological diversity in Sino-Tibetan". アジア・アフリカ語の計数研究. 3: 49-65.
  26. ^ Hashimoto, Mantarō (1980). "Typography of Phonotactics and Suprasegmentals in Languages of the East Asian Continent". アジア・アフリカ語の計数研究. 13: 160.
  27. ^ Hashimoto, Mantarō (1986). "The Altaicization of Northern Chinese". In McCoy, John; Light, Timothy (eds.). Contributions to Sino-Tibetan Studies. Brill. p. 95.
  28. ^ Zhang, Min [张敏] (2011). "漢語方言雙及物結構南北差異的成因：類型學研究引發的新問題" [Revisiting the alignment typology of ditransitive constructions in Chinese dialects] (PDF). In Li Fang-Kuei Society (ed.). 中國語言學集刊第4卷第2期. Beijing: Zhonghua Book. p. 87-90, 225-241. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2022-05-28. An English abstract is available on p. 259
  29. ^ a b c Kane, Daniel (2009). "Ch.7 Liao Chinese". The Kitan Language and Script. Brill. p. 229.
  30. ^ Li, Xindi [黎新第] (2005). "在辽代石刻韵文中见到的辽代汉语语音" [The Chinese phonetics in rhymed composition on stone inscriptions of Liao dynasty]. 语言科学. 4 (4): 51-52. Archived from the original on 2021-10-15.
  31. ^ Cheung, Hung-nin Samuel (2006). "早期粵語「個」的研究" [A study on 個 in Early Cantonese] (PDF). 山高水長：丁邦新先生七秩壽慶論文集. p. 815-816. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-08-19.
  32. ^ 張洪年 (2017). "語法講話: 傳教士筆下的舊日粵語風貌". 一切從語言開始. 香港中文大學出版社. p. 4.
  33. ^ a b c Jou, Bi-shiang [周碧香] (2017). 《雲門廣錄》詞彙探析 [An analysis of the vocabulary of the 'Record of Yunmen Wenyan']. Taipei: Wu-Nan Book. p. 12-14.
  34. ^ Shimunek, Andrew (2017). Languages of Ancient Southern Mongolia and North China: A Historical-Comparative Study of the Serbi or Xianbei Branch of the Serbi-Mongolic Language Family, with an Analysis of Northeastern Frontier Chinese and Old Tibetan Phonology. Harrassowitz Verlag. p. 99-100.
  35. ^ a b c d Shen, Zhongwei (2011). "The Origin of Mandarin". Journal of Chinese Linguistics. 39 (1): 1,7,20,24,25. His draft first appeared as: 沈钟伟 (2006). "辽代北方汉语方言的语音特征". 中国语文 (6): 483-498.
  36. ^ a b Lin, Tao [林焘] (1987). "北京官话溯源" [On the origins of Beijing Mandarin]. 中国语文 (3): 161-169. Reprinted in: 遇笑容, ed. (2010). 汉语史中的语言接触问题研究. Beijing: 语文出版社. An English synopsis is available as: Lin, Tao (1991). "The scope of Pekingese". Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series: No. 3. UC Berkeley: 362-364.
  37. ^ Fu, Lin [傅林] (2017). "辽代汉语与河北方言语音层次的形成" [Chinese in Liao dynasty and the formation of the phonological strata of Hebei dialects] (PDF). 河北大学学报哲学社会科学版. 42 (4). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-07-01. This work was later expanded into the monograph: Fu, Lin (2019). 契丹语和辽代汉语及其接触研究. Beijing: Commercial Press.
  38. ^ a b Zhang, Haimei [张海媚] (2021-03-30). "北京官话雏形" [Early origins of Beijing Mandarin]. 中国社会科学报. p. 6. Archived from the original on 2021-04-29.
  39. ^ Shen, Zhongwei [沈钟伟] (2020). A Phonological history of Chinese. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 196.
  40. ^ Liu, Xiaonan [刘晓南] (2003). "中古以来的南北方言试说". 湖南师范大学社会科学学报. 32 (4): 109-110.
  41. ^ Wang, Dong [王东]; Luo, Mingyue [罗明月] (2006). "南北朝时期的南北方言词". 中南大学学报社会科学版. 12 (4).
  42. ^ Peng, Fei [彭飞] (2017). "中古汉语分期研究所涉及的语料问题" [What corpus should be included in the study of the periodization of Middle Chinese]. 安徽文学 (9): 89-90. Archived from the original on 2021-10-16.
  43. ^ Norman, Jerry (1982). "Four notes on Chinese-Altaic linguistic contacts". 清華學報. 14 (1). National Tsing Hua University: 243. Translated into Chinese as: 遇笑容, ed. (2010). "汉语和阿尔泰语互相影响的四项例证". 汉语史中的语言接触问题研究. Beijing: 语文出版社. p. 61-63.
  44. ^ LaPolla, Randy J. (2002). "The role of migration and language contact in the development of the Sino-Tibetan language Family" (PDF). In Aikhenvald, Alexandra (ed.). Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance. Oxford University Press. p. 230. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-10-19.
  45. ^ 《近代官话音韵演变研究》（专著） 商务印书馆，2019年
  46. ^ Wei, Pei-chuan [魏培泉] (2000). "東漢魏晉南北朝在語法史上的地位" [Where does the Han, Wei, Northern and Southern dynasties stand in the history of Chinese grammar] (PDF): 204-208, 226-227. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-10-16. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  47. ^ Guo, Ciliang [郭赐良] (2005) [First published 1992]. "汉语历代书面语和口语的关系" [How are the written and the vernacular Chinese related over the course of Chinese history]. In 郭锡良 (ed.). 汉语史论集（增补本）. Beijing: Commercial Press. p. 607, 613-617. Archived from the original on 2021-10-20.
  48. ^ Mei, Tsu-lin [梅祖麟] (1994). "唐代、宋代共同语的语法和现代方言的语法" [The grammar of T’ang-Sung koine and the grammar of modern Chinese dialects] (PDF). 中國境內語言暨語言學. 2: 61-97. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-10-15.
  49. ^ 王幼敏, 关旭 (2012). "古代朝鲜汉语教材对中国评话文学的借鉴——以《训世评话》为例". 华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版). 44 (5): 146-151. Archived from the original on 2021-10-16.
  50. ^ 明初汉语常用词新旧质素的兴替变化——以《训世评话》为中心, 张美兰《安徽理工大学学报· 社会科学版》, 2013
  51. ^ Takekoshi, Takashi [竹越孝] (2018). "朝鲜时代汉语教材的内部差异——以"是"的用法为例" [Differences among Chinese textbooks in Joseon dynasty: a focus on the use of the copula “shi 是”] (PDF). 南开语言学刊 (1). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-09-09.
  52. ^ {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help)
  53. ^ {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lovewhatyoudo/s2&oldid=1090281768"