汉语有声阅读口误研究
|
摘要
本文从一种新的语源,即从有声阅读材料中所收集到的口误资料,检验了五个较有争议的汉语语言学理论,主要考察其心理现实性程度。
“口误”研究属于心理语言学的范畴。心理语言学主要研究言语产生(language production)、语言理解(language comprehension)、语言习得(language acquisition)三个方面。口误研究属于言语产生范畴,更确切地说,它是言语产生研究的主要推动力——由于言语产生的过程不可见,我们只有通过分析口误来推测。具体说,口误研究使得言语产生模型的提出、争论和改进成为可能。另一方面,口误是检验有争议的语言学理论的有效手段。一个相关的语言学理论如果不能解释口误现象,那么它一定有缺陷,甚至是错误的。口误观察的重要性和科学价值勿庸置疑。
口误研究由来已久,且从未停止。我们发现,用于收集口误的语源几乎从来都是自然话语。但是,语源不止一个。本文试图重新审视一个被忽视的语源,即所谓的没有失误、连续性言语(常见于念讲稿、背台词等场合)。但是,这种语源中是否真没有失误?桂诗春发现人们在念自己写的讲稿时也常常出错,并提出在这种情况下“哪里出错?为什么出错?”等问题。本文始于对这些问题的思考,并通过实证调查,检验了五个汉语理论。
实证调查是通过给受试录音的方式进行的,并对录音转写,然后找出口误并分类。这些阅读口误使得我们运用新的口误数据对有争议的语言理论进行检验成为可能。本文讨论了五个争议性理论的心理现实性程度。这些理论包括汉语声调的独立性问题、介音的归属问题、汉语拼音的内部结构问题(“声韵母说”抑或“元辅音说”)、区别性特征在汉语拼音中的体现以及汉语基本结构单位问题。我们的结论如下:
1)汉语声调与其说依附于声母或韵母,毋宁说它更具有独立性;
2)介音有依附声韵母的情况,但独立性更强;
3)“声韵母说”似乎比“元辅音说”的心理现实性稍强;
4)区别性特征不仅在理论上是重要的,而且很具有心理现实性;
5)汉语中,“词”比“字”的心理现实性更强。
本文主要是理论探讨,但研究结果也有一定的现实意义。它对人工智能中的语言合成以及对汉语教学都有一定的启示。
This thesis is dedicated to collecting slips of the tongue from quite a new angle, namely, voiced reading, and applying such evidence to the verification of some Chinese linguistic theories with regard to their psychological realities.
The study of slips of the tongue (SOT for short) falls in the realm of psycholinguistics. This relatively new branch of science generally covers three aspects of research, namely, language production, language comprehension and language acquisition. Studies on SOT belong to the domain of language production, and more exactly, it is the main contributor to it: the mysterious process of producing an utterance overwhelmingly depends on SOTs observed and unfolded. To put it in another way, it is by collecting and analyzing tongue slips that the process of language production could be assumed, and that language production models could be proposed, argued and modified. On the other hand, SOTs can be empirically applied to the verification of linguistic theories. Any relevant linguistic theories that fail to account for SOT phenomena are bound to be deficient or even false. It is, then, not difficult to see the significance and scientific value of SOT observation.
SOT studies started early and have never ceased. The source for tongue slips is almost solely naturally occurring utterances. However, there is more than just one source. This thesis attempts to explore a neglected source, which refers to the so-called“slips-free”, fluent utterances, such as reading or reciting lines. It is all very well to assume this source to be slips-free, but the fundamental question is: Are the utterances in this very source really slip-free in the first place? As Gui Shichun observes, there could be slips even when one is reading what he writes. He then raises questions for further thinking: Where do slips occur? Why do they occur? This is where the idea of the present thesis is driven and shaped.
In such an inquiry, an empirical investigation is carried out by recording subjects’reading performances. When the recordings are transcribed into texts, tongue slips are classified according to their types. With the help of tongue slips occurring in reading rather than in natural speeches, it is possible to verify the psychological reality of some Chinese linguistic theories against the new evidence. The theories in question are the status of tone in Pinyin, the status of medials, the internal syllable structure (the“initial-final claim”vs. the“consonant-vowel claim”), the psychological reality of the phonetic distinctive features, and the basic structural unit of Chinese language. After analyzing all the data, we come to the conclusions that:
1) Chinese tone is more likely to be independent than affiliating to the initials or the finals;
2) The medials are more independent than affiliating to the initials or the finals;
3) The“initial-final claim”is slightly more real psychologically than the“consonant-vowel claim”;
4) Phonetic distinctive features are not only theoretically important, but also psychologically real;
5) Chinese“word”is more psychologically real than“zi”(Chinese characters).
This thesis is mainly about theoretical speculating, but its research findings also bear considerable practical values. It may at least contribute to language synthesis in artificial intelligence (AI) on the one hand, and to Chinese teaching on the other.
“口误”研究属于心理语言学的范畴。心理语言学主要研究言语产生(language production)、语言理解(language comprehension)、语言习得(language acquisition)三个方面。口误研究属于言语产生范畴,更确切地说,它是言语产生研究的主要推动力——由于言语产生的过程不可见,我们只有通过分析口误来推测。具体说,口误研究使得言语产生模型的提出、争论和改进成为可能。另一方面,口误是检验有争议的语言学理论的有效手段。一个相关的语言学理论如果不能解释口误现象,那么它一定有缺陷,甚至是错误的。口误观察的重要性和科学价值勿庸置疑。
口误研究由来已久,且从未停止。我们发现,用于收集口误的语源几乎从来都是自然话语。但是,语源不止一个。本文试图重新审视一个被忽视的语源,即所谓的没有失误、连续性言语(常见于念讲稿、背台词等场合)。但是,这种语源中是否真没有失误?桂诗春发现人们在念自己写的讲稿时也常常出错,并提出在这种情况下“哪里出错?为什么出错?”等问题。本文始于对这些问题的思考,并通过实证调查,检验了五个汉语理论。
实证调查是通过给受试录音的方式进行的,并对录音转写,然后找出口误并分类。这些阅读口误使得我们运用新的口误数据对有争议的语言理论进行检验成为可能。本文讨论了五个争议性理论的心理现实性程度。这些理论包括汉语声调的独立性问题、介音的归属问题、汉语拼音的内部结构问题(“声韵母说”抑或“元辅音说”)、区别性特征在汉语拼音中的体现以及汉语基本结构单位问题。我们的结论如下:
1)汉语声调与其说依附于声母或韵母,毋宁说它更具有独立性;
2)介音有依附声韵母的情况,但独立性更强;
3)“声韵母说”似乎比“元辅音说”的心理现实性稍强;
4)区别性特征不仅在理论上是重要的,而且很具有心理现实性;
5)汉语中,“词”比“字”的心理现实性更强。
本文主要是理论探讨,但研究结果也有一定的现实意义。它对人工智能中的语言合成以及对汉语教学都有一定的启示。
This thesis is dedicated to collecting slips of the tongue from quite a new angle, namely, voiced reading, and applying such evidence to the verification of some Chinese linguistic theories with regard to their psychological realities.
The study of slips of the tongue (SOT for short) falls in the realm of psycholinguistics. This relatively new branch of science generally covers three aspects of research, namely, language production, language comprehension and language acquisition. Studies on SOT belong to the domain of language production, and more exactly, it is the main contributor to it: the mysterious process of producing an utterance overwhelmingly depends on SOTs observed and unfolded. To put it in another way, it is by collecting and analyzing tongue slips that the process of language production could be assumed, and that language production models could be proposed, argued and modified. On the other hand, SOTs can be empirically applied to the verification of linguistic theories. Any relevant linguistic theories that fail to account for SOT phenomena are bound to be deficient or even false. It is, then, not difficult to see the significance and scientific value of SOT observation.
SOT studies started early and have never ceased. The source for tongue slips is almost solely naturally occurring utterances. However, there is more than just one source. This thesis attempts to explore a neglected source, which refers to the so-called“slips-free”, fluent utterances, such as reading or reciting lines. It is all very well to assume this source to be slips-free, but the fundamental question is: Are the utterances in this very source really slip-free in the first place? As Gui Shichun observes, there could be slips even when one is reading what he writes. He then raises questions for further thinking: Where do slips occur? Why do they occur? This is where the idea of the present thesis is driven and shaped.
In such an inquiry, an empirical investigation is carried out by recording subjects’reading performances. When the recordings are transcribed into texts, tongue slips are classified according to their types. With the help of tongue slips occurring in reading rather than in natural speeches, it is possible to verify the psychological reality of some Chinese linguistic theories against the new evidence. The theories in question are the status of tone in Pinyin, the status of medials, the internal syllable structure (the“initial-final claim”vs. the“consonant-vowel claim”), the psychological reality of the phonetic distinctive features, and the basic structural unit of Chinese language. After analyzing all the data, we come to the conclusions that:
1) Chinese tone is more likely to be independent than affiliating to the initials or the finals;
2) The medials are more independent than affiliating to the initials or the finals;
3) The“initial-final claim”is slightly more real psychologically than the“consonant-vowel claim”;
4) Phonetic distinctive features are not only theoretically important, but also psychologically real;
5) Chinese“word”is more psychologically real than“zi”(Chinese characters).
This thesis is mainly about theoretical speculating, but its research findings also bear considerable practical values. It may at least contribute to language synthesis in artificial intelligence (AI) on the one hand, and to Chinese teaching on the other.
引文
[1] Berg, T. 1996. The modality-specificity of linguistic representations: Evidence from slips of the tongue and the pen [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 671-697.
[2] Berg, T. 2002. Slips of the typewriter key [J]. Applied Psycholinguistics 23: 185-207.
[3] Butterworth, B. 1980. Introduction: A brief review of methods of studying language production. In Butterworth, B. (ed.) Language Production[C], vol. 1: Speech and Talk. London: Academic Press
[4] Carroll, D. 2000. The Psychology of Language [M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
[5] Dell, G. 1985. Positive feedback in hierarchical connectionist models: Applications to language production [J]. Cognitive Science 9: 23-33.
[6] Dell, G. 1986. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production [J]. Psychological Review 93: 283-321.
[7] Dell, G. 1988. The retrieval of phonological forms in production: Test of predictions from a connectionist model [J]. Journal of Memory and Language 27: 124-142.
[8] Duanmu San. 1999. The Syllable in Chinese [A]. Harry van der Hulst & Nancy A. Ritter. The Syllable Views and Facts [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[9] Ellis, W. 1979. Slips of the pen [J]. Visible Language 13: 265-282.
[10] Freud, S. (1901/1953). The Psychopathology of Everyday Life [M]. In J. Strachey (ed.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud[C], vol. 6. London: Hogarth.
[11] Freud, S. 1963. Introductory Lectures on Psycho-analysis. (Part I and II) (Strachey, J. Trans.) London: Hogarth Press.
[12] Fromkin, V. A. 1971. The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances [J]. Language 47: 27-52.
[13] Fromkin, V. A. 1988. Grammatical aspects of speech errors [J]. In F. J. Newmeyer (ed). Linguistics: the Cambridge Survey III. Language: Psychological and Biological Aspects [C]. 117-138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[14] Fromkin, V. A. ed. 1980. Errors in Linguistic Performance: Slips of the Tongue, Ear, Pen and Hand [C]. New York: Academic Press
[15] Garnham, A. 1985. Psycholinguistics: Central Topics [M]. London: Methuen.
[16] Garrett, M. 1975. The analysis of sentence production [J]. In Bower, G. (ed.) Psychology of Learning and Motivation[C], vol 9. New York: Academic Press.
[17] Harrington, J & Tabain, M. 2006. Speech Production: Models, Phonetic Processes, and Techniques [M]. New York: Psychology Press
[18] Hotopf, N. 1980. Slips of the pen [J]. In Uta Frith, (ed.) Cognitive Processes in Spelling[C]. 287-307. London: Academic Press.
[19] Jos′e M. Ca?nas & Vicente Matell′an. 2007. From bio-inspired vs. psycho-inspired to etho-inspired robots [J]. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6v16-4PPMXPX-1-15&_cdi
[20] Laver, J. 1970. The production of speech [J]. In Lyons, J. (ed.) New Horizons in Linguistics. 61-62. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
[21] Levelt, W. 1989. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation [M]. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
[22] Meringer, R. & K. Mayer. 1895. Versprechen und Verlsen [J]. In Culter, A. & D. Fay (eds). Goschensche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
[23] MacKay, D. 1982. The problem of flexibility, fluency, and speed-accuracy trade-off in skilled behavior [J]. Psychological Review 89: 483-506.
[24] MacKay, D. 1987. The Organization of Perception and Action: A Theory of Language and Other Cognitive Skills [M]. New York: Springer-Verlag.
[25] Mortley, M. T. 1980. Verification of“Freudian slips”and semantic pre-articulartory editing via laboratory-induced spoonerism [J]. In V. A. Fromkin (ed.), Errors in Linguistic Performance: Slips of the Tongue, Ear, Pen and Hand [C]. New York: Academic Press
[26] Newkirk, D. , E. Klima, C. Pedersen & U. Bellugi. 1980. Language evidence from slips of the hand [J]. In Fromkin, V. 1980. (ed.), Errors in Linguistic Performance [C]. 165-197. New York: Academic Press.
[27] Stemberger, G. 1985. An interactive activation model of language production [J]. In Ellis, A. (ed.) Progress in the Psychology of Language.vol. 1: 143-186. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[28] Tatham, M & Morton, K. 2006. Speech Production and Perception [M]. Basingtoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
[29] Yip, M. 2003. Casting doubt on the Onset-rime distinction [J]. Lingua 113: 779-816
[30]陈振宇,1993,一些国语的自然语误及其分类[J],《华文世界》第69期,24-41页。
[31]陈振宇,1996,汉语语误之研究:研究方法与初期的研究发现[J],《张昭鼎纪念研讨会:认知科学与生命科学之发展》,台湾。
[32]傅懋勣，1956,北京话的音位和拼音字母[J],《中国语文》第5期,3-12页。
[33]高桂香,2003,英汉语口误对比[J],《河北师范大学学报》第3期,104-107页。
[34]桂诗春,1991,实验心理语言学纲要[M]。长沙:湖南教育出版社。
[35]桂诗春,2000,新编心理语言学[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
[36]郭锦桴,1993,汉语声调语调阐要与探索[M]。北京:北京语言学院出版社。
[37]胡明扬,1999,说“词语”[J],《语言文字应用》第3期,3-9页。
[38]贾旭杰,2002,俄罗斯的言语生成模型理论[J],《解放军外国语学院学报》第3期,31 -34页。
[39]姜美玉,2001,汉语口误研究[D]。北京:中国社会科学院。
[40]李行杰,2006,构建中国语言学特有的语汇学――读温端政《汉语语汇学》[J],《语文研究》第1期,1-4页。
[41]梁丹丹,2004,会话中的口误性缝制重复[J],《南京师范大学文学院学报》第3期,169-174页。
[42]刘希彦、刘桂玲,2004,心理语言学[M]。北京:高等教育出版社、吉林大学出版社。
[43]路致极,1987,试论普通话音位的区别特征[J],《语文研究》第2期,62-64页。
[44]彭玉康、胡袁圆,2006,对外汉语声调教学研究回望[J],《暨南大学华文学院学报》第4期,22页。
[45]任远,1984,对罗马尼亚学生的汉语语音教学琐谈[J],《语言教学与研究》第2期, 81-90页。
[46]沈家煊,1992,口误类例[J],《中国语文》第4期,306-316页。
[47]王理嘉,1995,《音系学基础》[M]。北京:语文出版社。
[48]王星星,2005,“司马光砸缸”抑或“司马缸砸光”――也谈口误[J],《四川外语学院学报》第1期,63-66页。
[49]文炼等,1998,祝贺全国语言文字工作会议召开(一),《语言文字应用》第1期,2-17页。
[50]吴飒,2005,英汉口误的共性[J],《江南大学学报》第1期,90-93页。
[51]许世荣,1957,试论北京话的“声调音位”[J],《中国语文》第6期,23-24页。
[52]徐通锵,1994,“字”和汉语研究的方法:兼评汉语研究中的“印欧语的眼光”[J],《世界汉语教学》第3期,1-21页。
[53]徐通锵,1998(a),声母语音特征的变化和声调的起源[J],《民族语言》第1期,1-15页。
[54]徐通锵,1998(b),说“字”:附论语言基本结构单位的鉴别标准、基本特征和它与语言建设的关系[J],《语文研究》第3期,1-12页。
[55]游汝杰等,1980,论普通话的音位系统[J],《中国语文》第5期,328-334页。
[56]张光宇,1988,汉语的音节结构[J],《国文天地》第4期,86-90页。
[57]张静,1957,谈北京话的音位[J],《中国语文》第2期,13-15页。
[58]张宁,1990,口误与言语生成模式[D]。上海:上海外国语学院。
[59]张宁,1994,汉语口误的类别[J],载邵敬敏、刘大伟编《90年代的语法思考》,217-225页。
[60]周耀文,1958,怎样处理声调在音位系统中的地位[J],《中国语文》第2期,88-89 页。
[2] Berg, T. 2002. Slips of the typewriter key [J]. Applied Psycholinguistics 23: 185-207.
[3] Butterworth, B. 1980. Introduction: A brief review of methods of studying language production. In Butterworth, B. (ed.) Language Production[C], vol. 1: Speech and Talk. London: Academic Press
[4] Carroll, D. 2000. The Psychology of Language [M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
[5] Dell, G. 1985. Positive feedback in hierarchical connectionist models: Applications to language production [J]. Cognitive Science 9: 23-33.
[6] Dell, G. 1986. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production [J]. Psychological Review 93: 283-321.
[7] Dell, G. 1988. The retrieval of phonological forms in production: Test of predictions from a connectionist model [J]. Journal of Memory and Language 27: 124-142.
[8] Duanmu San. 1999. The Syllable in Chinese [A]. Harry van der Hulst & Nancy A. Ritter. The Syllable Views and Facts [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[9] Ellis, W. 1979. Slips of the pen [J]. Visible Language 13: 265-282.
[10] Freud, S. (1901/1953). The Psychopathology of Everyday Life [M]. In J. Strachey (ed.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud[C], vol. 6. London: Hogarth.
[11] Freud, S. 1963. Introductory Lectures on Psycho-analysis. (Part I and II) (Strachey, J. Trans.) London: Hogarth Press.
[12] Fromkin, V. A. 1971. The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances [J]. Language 47: 27-52.
[13] Fromkin, V. A. 1988. Grammatical aspects of speech errors [J]. In F. J. Newmeyer (ed). Linguistics: the Cambridge Survey III. Language: Psychological and Biological Aspects [C]. 117-138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[14] Fromkin, V. A. ed. 1980. Errors in Linguistic Performance: Slips of the Tongue, Ear, Pen and Hand [C]. New York: Academic Press
[15] Garnham, A. 1985. Psycholinguistics: Central Topics [M]. London: Methuen.
[16] Garrett, M. 1975. The analysis of sentence production [J]. In Bower, G. (ed.) Psychology of Learning and Motivation[C], vol 9. New York: Academic Press.
[17] Harrington, J & Tabain, M. 2006. Speech Production: Models, Phonetic Processes, and Techniques [M]. New York: Psychology Press
[18] Hotopf, N. 1980. Slips of the pen [J]. In Uta Frith, (ed.) Cognitive Processes in Spelling[C]. 287-307. London: Academic Press.
[19] Jos′e M. Ca?nas & Vicente Matell′an. 2007. From bio-inspired vs. psycho-inspired to etho-inspired robots [J]. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6v16-4PPMXPX-1-15&_cdi
[20] Laver, J. 1970. The production of speech [J]. In Lyons, J. (ed.) New Horizons in Linguistics. 61-62. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
[21] Levelt, W. 1989. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation [M]. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
[22] Meringer, R. & K. Mayer. 1895. Versprechen und Verlsen [J]. In Culter, A. & D. Fay (eds). Goschensche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
[23] MacKay, D. 1982. The problem of flexibility, fluency, and speed-accuracy trade-off in skilled behavior [J]. Psychological Review 89: 483-506.
[24] MacKay, D. 1987. The Organization of Perception and Action: A Theory of Language and Other Cognitive Skills [M]. New York: Springer-Verlag.
[25] Mortley, M. T. 1980. Verification of“Freudian slips”and semantic pre-articulartory editing via laboratory-induced spoonerism [J]. In V. A. Fromkin (ed.), Errors in Linguistic Performance: Slips of the Tongue, Ear, Pen and Hand [C]. New York: Academic Press
[26] Newkirk, D. , E. Klima, C. Pedersen & U. Bellugi. 1980. Language evidence from slips of the hand [J]. In Fromkin, V. 1980. (ed.), Errors in Linguistic Performance [C]. 165-197. New York: Academic Press.
[27] Stemberger, G. 1985. An interactive activation model of language production [J]. In Ellis, A. (ed.) Progress in the Psychology of Language.vol. 1: 143-186. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[28] Tatham, M & Morton, K. 2006. Speech Production and Perception [M]. Basingtoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
[29] Yip, M. 2003. Casting doubt on the Onset-rime distinction [J]. Lingua 113: 779-816
[30]陈振宇,1993,一些国语的自然语误及其分类[J],《华文世界》第69期,24-41页。
[31]陈振宇,1996,汉语语误之研究:研究方法与初期的研究发现[J],《张昭鼎纪念研讨会:认知科学与生命科学之发展》,台湾。
[32]傅懋勣，1956,北京话的音位和拼音字母[J],《中国语文》第5期,3-12页。
[33]高桂香,2003,英汉语口误对比[J],《河北师范大学学报》第3期,104-107页。
[34]桂诗春,1991,实验心理语言学纲要[M]。长沙:湖南教育出版社。
[35]桂诗春,2000,新编心理语言学[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
[36]郭锦桴,1993,汉语声调语调阐要与探索[M]。北京:北京语言学院出版社。
[37]胡明扬,1999,说“词语”[J],《语言文字应用》第3期,3-9页。
[38]贾旭杰,2002,俄罗斯的言语生成模型理论[J],《解放军外国语学院学报》第3期,31 -34页。
[39]姜美玉,2001,汉语口误研究[D]。北京:中国社会科学院。
[40]李行杰,2006,构建中国语言学特有的语汇学――读温端政《汉语语汇学》[J],《语文研究》第1期,1-4页。
[41]梁丹丹,2004,会话中的口误性缝制重复[J],《南京师范大学文学院学报》第3期,169-174页。
[42]刘希彦、刘桂玲,2004,心理语言学[M]。北京:高等教育出版社、吉林大学出版社。
[43]路致极,1987,试论普通话音位的区别特征[J],《语文研究》第2期,62-64页。
[44]彭玉康、胡袁圆,2006,对外汉语声调教学研究回望[J],《暨南大学华文学院学报》第4期,22页。
[45]任远,1984,对罗马尼亚学生的汉语语音教学琐谈[J],《语言教学与研究》第2期, 81-90页。
[46]沈家煊,1992,口误类例[J],《中国语文》第4期,306-316页。
[47]王理嘉,1995,《音系学基础》[M]。北京:语文出版社。
[48]王星星,2005,“司马光砸缸”抑或“司马缸砸光”――也谈口误[J],《四川外语学院学报》第1期,63-66页。
[49]文炼等,1998,祝贺全国语言文字工作会议召开(一),《语言文字应用》第1期,2-17页。
[50]吴飒,2005,英汉口误的共性[J],《江南大学学报》第1期,90-93页。
[51]许世荣,1957,试论北京话的“声调音位”[J],《中国语文》第6期,23-24页。
[52]徐通锵,1994,“字”和汉语研究的方法:兼评汉语研究中的“印欧语的眼光”[J],《世界汉语教学》第3期,1-21页。
[53]徐通锵,1998(a),声母语音特征的变化和声调的起源[J],《民族语言》第1期,1-15页。
[54]徐通锵,1998(b),说“字”:附论语言基本结构单位的鉴别标准、基本特征和它与语言建设的关系[J],《语文研究》第3期,1-12页。
[55]游汝杰等,1980,论普通话的音位系统[J],《中国语文》第5期,328-334页。
[56]张光宇,1988,汉语的音节结构[J],《国文天地》第4期,86-90页。
[57]张静,1957,谈北京话的音位[J],《中国语文》第2期,13-15页。
[58]张宁,1990,口误与言语生成模式[D]。上海:上海外国语学院。
[59]张宁,1994,汉语口误的类别[J],载邵敬敏、刘大伟编《90年代的语法思考》,217-225页。
[60]周耀文,1958,怎样处理声调在音位系统中的地位[J],《中国语文》第2期,88-89 页。