南北吴语互通性不对称现象的音系学解释
|
摘要
吴语是我国十大主要方言中,仅次于官话区的第二大方言。学者们普遍认为南北吴语之间本身差别很大,南部吴语无法与北部吴语或太湖片通话。但对南北吴语不能互通这一现象的音系学研究至今还甚少,更没有从音系结构的标记性角度对此进行系统的分析论证。
影响方言间互通性的因素很多,除了社会因素外,主要因素是语言本身,而语言本身也涉及众多因素,包括语音、词汇、句子结构等。本文认为,决定方言间互通性的主要因素是方言的音系结构,即声母系统、韵母系统、声调系统以及它们之间的相互结构关系。但迄今为止,还没有一项研究专门分析南北吴语之间互通性的音系学研究。本论文旨在对南北吴语不能互通这一现象,尤其是互通性不对称这一现象进行音系学的研究,以互通度为出发点对比分析南北吴方言之间的音系结构,包括表层元辅音音段库、底层音段库、对比性特征、音节组构和声调系统,以标记性理论为依据,阐述不同音系结构层次的标记性程度差异。本研究试图验证以下研究假设：
1)方言的可通度、方言间可通度的不对称性与方言本身的音系结构有很大关系。
2)方言之间互通的难易程度与方言的音系结构的标记性程度有关,即方言的音系结构的标记性程度越高,其可通度越小；反之,越大。
本论文通过在吴语内部五个方言点(吴江、黄岩、衢州、永康、温州)进行传统听音测试,得出五个方言点的可通度大小排序为：黄岩话、吴江话>衢州话、永康话>温州话,测试同时也表明可通度不对称性在方言之间存在比较普遍。本论文以实验中不对称最明显的方言对(温州话—吴江话)作为研究对象,并把二者分别看作南部吴语和北部吴语的代表方言。
在对吴语已有研究成果的基础上,尤其是通过分析已有的对温州话和吴江话的语音分析等文献资料,我们重点结合共时分布和各类音系表现找出两个代表方言的底层音段库、对比性特征赋值、音节组构和连读变调等规律,理清两个方言的音系系统,并从标记性差异角度解读温州话与吴江话之间可通度的不对称性,找出可能导致温州话可通度较低的关键音系理据。
本研究通过运用标记性理论(de Lacy2002,2006)和对比特征层级理论(Drescher2002,2003,2009)相结合,对温州话和吴江话的音系结构进行系统分析。De Lacy (2002,2006)的新标记理论主张标记性与语言能力有关,人类语言中存在不同维度的标记性层级,各种标记性层级之间可以发生冲突,并且标记性层级之间的冲突受到标记性保留、融合和弱化这三种人脑中彼此相互冲突的机制决定,可以在优选论(OT)框架内表征为忠实性制约条件和输出项制约条件交互作用的结果,其中标记性保留一般由于忠实性制约条件排序较高引起,标记性弱化则是由于输出项制约条件起重要作用的结果。本论文将基于de Lacy的新标记理论比较分析温州话和吴江话的音系系统和各类音变过程,结合不同的标记性层级讨论标记性保留、融合和弱化机制在两个方言中的不同体现,找出两个方言中倾向保留的标记性较强的特征值和触发各类音变的标记性特征。
基于从标记性角度对温州话和吴江话的音段库、对比性特征数量、对比性特征标记性值的音系表现、表层音节结构和声调系统进行比较,我们发现：1)从声母辅音底层音段库看,温州话的标记性高于吴江话,主要表现在温州话的PoA对比性特征数量比吴江话多,底层仍然保留声母位置标记性较高的[GLOTTAL]音段,并且触发更多音系变化,影响后接元音的音系变化,同时温州话的MoA对比性特征也比吴江话多,底层赋值对比性特征[continuant],其标记性值[+continuant]主要影响唇部擦音,发生标记性弱化音变,此外温州话辅音对比性特征的标记性值更倾向触发音变；2)从元音音段库看,温州话和吴江话的标记性都比较大,底层对比性特征都较为丰富,且都包括标记性较高的元音音段(如/φ/),两个方言的主要差异在于温州话的中元音较为丰富,涉及特征数量较多,并且元音音段库中包括DTE位置响音度标记性较大的中间元音,吴江话中则高元音和低元音较为丰富,拥有较多标记性较高的元音,如包括舌尖元音、前圆唇元音、次高元音和后低非圆唇元音；3)从元辅音的对比性特征对音系系统的影响看,温州话的辅音对比性特数量多于吴江话,元音对比性特征数量与吴江话一样,但其对比特征的标记性值非常活跃,触发韵母的各类音变,致使表层和底层产生较大差异,因此从对比性特征的上述两点考虑,显然温州话的音系系统比吴江话复杂,标记性较大,同时结合比较连读变调的复杂程度,可以进一步看出温州话的音系系统总体来说比吴江话的复杂,标记性更大；4)从表层音节结构看,温州话和吴江话都在一定程度上向着标记性较弱的方向发展,同时两个方言表层都还保留某些标记性较高的结构。但是单从开音节结构考察,吴江话的开音节结构只有标记性最低的CV结构,而温州话的开音节结构中仍然保留标记性较高CVV结构,包括CVV后响双元音和CVV前响双元音,因此温州话的开音节结构明显比吴江话的开音节结构的标记性要大。总体而言,我们得出温州话音系系统的标记性比较强,验证了本论文提出的研究假设,即可通度低的方言(温州话)音系结构标记性较强,而影响音系结构标记性程度的关键因素主要是元辅音对比性特征的数量和对比性特征标记性值的音系表现。对比性特征数量越多,音段库就可能越大并且可能包括较多标记性较高的音段；尤其是对比性特征标记性值越活跃,触发音变越多,整个音系系统的历时、共时音变就越复杂。因此,如果一个方言音系系统既有较多数量的对比性特征,其标记性值又很活跃,那么该方言就既可能保留较多早期的声类和韵类,同时音系系统又有很大变化,最终导致该方言较为难懂。温州话的情况就是如此。
全文共分七章。第一章引论。介绍南北吴语对比研究的研究背景和已有的相关成果,同时说明本文要解决的问题、研究方法,以及资料来源等问题。
第二章介绍南北吴语互通性测试。本实验采用传统听音法,首先检验“南北吴语无法互通、北部吴语之间互通性高、南部吴语之间互通度低”等主观论述在多大程度上与实际沟通度相符,其次计算五个方言点的可通度并根据可通度高低排序,最后计算两两方言点之间的互通度以及可通度差异,并选取可通度差异最大的一对南北方言作为音系分析的代表方言点。基于实验结果,本文提出假设：方言的可通度、方言间可通度的不对称性可能与方言本身的音系结构有很大关系,方言之间互通的难易程度决定于方言的音系结构的标记性程度差异,不同音系结构的标记性程度可能导致不同方言的可通度。
第三章音系理论介绍。这一章旨在为从音系结构的标记性对比解读方言间存在可通度不对称建立理论框架,内容包括：1)介绍为什么可通度不对称可能由标记性差异引起,这部分首先介绍标记性差异假设(MDH)及其在二语习得研究中对语言间习得难度差异的解释力,接着提出本研究假设,认为MDH也同样可以解释可通度不对称；2)简单介绍标记性理论,着重讨论de Lacy (2002,2006)对该理论的新发展,这部分讨论标记性本质、如何确定标记性等级以及不同特征的标记性层级及其之间的相互冲突；3)介绍OT和音系对比性层级理论(Contrastive Hierarchy)(Dresher2002,2003,2009),这两个理论用来分析方言的音系结构,OT重点分析共时的音位变体分布、音段间共现限制以及历时音变等音系表现,对比性层级理论用来分析音段库底层对比性特征、特征排序、及其标记性值对音系结构的影响。
第四章和第五章分别描写并分析温州话和吴江话的音系结构,通过分析已有的对这两个方言进行过的语音研究文献资料,在现代音系理论框架内讨论两个方言的表层音段库、底层音段库、对比性特征层级赋值及其标记性值的音系表现、音节组构和声调系统。
第六章对比分析南北吴语两个代表方言点音系结构的标记性差异。从标记性角度对比分析两个方言的底层和表层音段库、底层到表层的变化和表层音节结构,讨论标记性与对比性之间的关系以及对比性特征对具体语言的音系系统的影响,从而验证比较结果是否符合我们的假设。
第七章结论。这一章总结文章以互通度为出发点对比分析南北代表吴方言的音系结构,并以标记性理论为依据,阐述音系结构的标记性程度与南北吴方言可通度不对称之间存在关联的音系理据。这一章还将说明本论文的局限和今后的研究方向。
This dissertation presents a pioneering study of a systematic phonological analysis of the asymmetrical mutual intelligibility between northern Wu and southern Wu, respectively represented by the Wenzhou dialect and the Wujiang dialect.
As one of the ten major dialects in China, Wu is second only to Mandarin. It is widely held by scholars that there exists a yawning gap in mutual intelligibility between the sub-dialects in northern Wu and southern Wu. Yet few phonological researches have yet been made regarding this unintelligibility, let alone those from the perspective of markedness of phonological structures.
Mutual intelligibility between dialects is determined by various factors, including social factors and linguistic ones. The latter can be phonetic, phonological, lexical or/and syntactic. Based on the assumption that mutual intelligibility between dialects is first and foremost due to their phonological structures, the dissertation makes a mutual intelligibility test between the five sub-dialects of Wu and a systematic comparison between the Wenzhou dialect, a southern Wu, and the Wujiang dialect, a northern Wu, in terms of their phonological structures, including surface and underlying inventories, underlying contrastive features, syllabic phonotactics and tonal system. Through these analyses, this dissertation tries to explore the phonological mechanisms behind the link between the varied degree of markedness of the phonological structures and the asymmetry of intelligibility between a southern Wu and a northern Wu. In so doing, this dissertation is supposed to be able to verify the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis1:Mutual intelligibility between dialects and asymmetry of intelligibility between dialects is in a great measure related to their phonological structures.
Hypothesis2:Mutual intelligibility between dialects is in reverse proportion to markedness of their phonological structures. That is, the stronger the markedness of their phonological structures, the weaker the intelligibility.
The mutual intelligibility test by means of traditional transcription (dictation) of the five regions speaking Wu reveals a hierarchy of intelligibility as follows:the Huangyan dialect≈the Wujiang dialect> the Quzhou dialect≈the Yongkang dialect> the Wenzhou dialect. The test also testifies to the prevalence of asymmetry of intelligibility between dialects. This dissertation takes as its object of study two of the five dialects with the greatest asymmetry of mutual intelligibility, namely, the Wenzhou dialect and the Wujiang dialect, and treats them as representatives respectively of sub-dialects in southern Wu and those in northern Wu.
Drawing upon researches on Wu, particularly literature on phonetic description of the Wenzhou dialect and the Wujiang dialect, we intend to make clear the phonological system of the two dialects by revealing the underlying inventories of consonants and vowels, the specification of contrastive features, syllabic phonotactics as well as tone sandhi rules. Based on these phonological analyses, this dissertation intends to explain the asymmetry of intelligibility between the two dialects from the perspective of difference in markedness of the two dialects, and to find the key phonological causes resulting in the low intelligibility of the Wenzhou dialect.
The present study conducts a systematic analysis of the phonological structures of the Wenzhou dialect and the Wujiang dialect under a combined framework of the new theory of markedness (de Lacy2002,2006) and the Contrastive Hierarchy Theory (Dresher2002,2003,2009). De Lacy (2002,2006) focuses on competence (or i-language) markedness and proposes a general theory based on the following principle ideas:1) Markedness is part of grammatical competence;2) There exist multiple markedness hierarchies, which may sometimes come into direct conflict with each other;3) The conflicts among markedness hierarchies are driven by a mutual impact of the pressures to become unmarked called "markedness reduction" and to preserve marked elements called "Preservation of the Marked", which can be formally represented within OT through an interaction between a set of faithfulness constraints and markedness constraints. Based on the leading ideas above, this dissertation explores the phonological structures and various phonological processes in the Wenzhou dialect and the Wujiang dialect to determine the phonologically contrastive features with the marked value, and reveals that the mechanism of "Preservation of the Marked" behave differently in the two dialects.
A thorough comparison of the two dialects regarding segmental inventories, number of contrastive features, phonological behaviors of contrastive feature with the marked value, surface syllabic inventories and tonal system leads us to believe that the Wenzhou dialect has a higher degree of markedness in phonological system. To be more specific, the comparative study yields the following findings. Firstly, in terms of the underlying inventory of consonants, the Wenzhou dialect is more marked than the Wujiang dialect in that the Wenzhou dialect has more PoA contrastive features and underlyingly preserve the highly marked contrastive feature [GLOTTAL], which not only triggers phonological processes but also makes impact on the phonological behavior of the adjacent vowels; meanwhile, the Wenzhou dialect also has more MoA contrastive features and the marked value of the contrastive feature [continuant] triggers the alternation of labial fricatives; what' more, the marked value of the contrastive features in the Wenzhou dialect are more likely to be triggers of phonological processes. Secondly, in terms of the vowel inventory, both the Wenzhou dialect and the Wujiang dialect are marked due to a large number of underlying contrastive features and several highly marked segments, such as/(?)/and/(?)/in Wenzhou and/(?)/and/(?)/in Wujiang. However, the major difference in the two inventories lies in the distribution of the marked segments and the phonological behavior of the marked segments. Thirdly, in terms of the role the contrastive features play in the phonological system, the Wenzhou dialect seems more marked since it has a larger number of contrastive features and involves more complicated phonological processes triggered by the marked value of the contrastive features, which leads to a big gap between the underlying presentations and the surface ones. Additionally, like the segmental system, the tonal system of the Wenzhou dialect is also demonstrated to be more complex than that of the Wujiang dialect. Fourthly, in terms of syllabic inventory, it is assumed that the Wenzhou dialect is also more marked than the Wujiang dialect. Although both the Wenzhou dialect and the Wujiang dialect develop towards a system with less marked structures, both dialects preserve some highly marked structures so as to avoid excessive neutralization. Regarding open syllables, one of the most important of phonological structures, the Wenzhou dialect preserves many highly marked structures, including both falling diphthongs and rising diphthongs, while the Wujiang dialect has only CV structures, the least marked structure in the syllabic inventory.
The results of the comparative study also attest to the hypothesis put forward by this dissertation:A dialect of a lower degree of intelligibility like the Wenzhou dialect has a higher degree of markedness in phonological system, which is mainly due to a relatively larger number of contrastive features and the more active role the contrastive features with marked value play in the phonological processes. The more contrastive features a dialect has, the bigger inventory it owns together with more highly marked segments; the more active behaviors the contrastive features have, the more synchronic and diachronic phonological processes they trigger and the more complicated the phonological system turns out to be. Accordingly, if a dialect boasts a great number of contrastive features and their marked values are highly active, the dialect may not only have inherited more initial and final categories from the ancient times, but also undergone a significant change in its phonological system. In this case, the dialect is likely to be very low for intelligibility. The Wenzhou dialect is one typical example.
The dissertation is made up of seven chapters. Chapter One is the introduction. It surveys the background and achievements of comparative studies of southern and northern Wu dialects. It also introduces the research questions, methodology, and data source of this research.
Chapter Two includes an experiment on mutual intelligibility between northern and southern Wu dialects. Resorting to the traditional transcription (dictation) tests, the experiment first evaluates the plausibility of the statements like "southern and northern Wu dialects are mutually unintelligible","northern Wu dialects have a high degree of mutual intelligibility", and "southern Wu dialects have a low degree of mutual intelligibility". It then calculates the degree of intelligibility of dialects of five regions, clarifies their positions in a hierarchy, and then computes the intelligibility between every two of the five dialects and their difference. On the basis of the experiment, the dissertation advances several hypotheses:the mutual intelligibility between dialects and the asymmetry of intelligibility between dialects is in a great measure related to their phonological structures; the mutual intelligibility between dialects is determined by the difference in markedness of phonological structure of the dialects; the varied markedness of phonological structure results in the varied intelligibility of dialects.
Chapter Three provides a theoretic framework to explain the asymmetry of intelligibility of dialects from the perspective of markedness of phonological structures. It first introduces the reason why asymmetry of intelligibility may result from difference in markedness. For this purpose, we introduce the Markedness Differential Hypothesis and its application to researches in second language acquisition in accounting for difference in difficulty of language acquisition, with the belief that MDH may also be borrowed to account for asymmetry of intelligibility. The chapter gives a brief introduction to the theory of markedness, particularly de Lacy's developments of the theory, such as the nature of markedness, the way to determine hierarchy of markedness and the interactions among different hierarchies (2002,2006). The chapter also gives an introduction to Optimality Theory as the framework for analyses of synchronic distributions and co-occurrence restrains, as well as diachronic processes, and the Contrastive Hierarchy Theory (Dresher2002,2003,2009) as the framework for analyses of underlying specification of contrastive features and the role their marked value plays in the phonological system.
Chapter Four and Chapter Five depict respectively the phonological structures of the Wenzhou dialect and the Wujiang dialect. By examining the existing literature on these two dialects, these two chapters take advantage of modern phonological theories to explore surface and underlying inventories, contrastive features, syllabic phonotactics and tonal system of the two dialects.
Chapter Six compares the markedness of phonological structures of the Wenzhou dialect and the Wujiang dialect. To be more specific, we conduct a comparative study on the marked degree of different phonological structures of the two dialects regarding surface and underlying inventories, alternations between them, and syllabic inventories, examine the relationship between markedness and contrastiveness and the influence of contrastive features on phonological systems, and explore the major phonological factors impacting on intelligibility of the dialects, in order to test our hypotheses against the results of the comparison.
Chapter Seven is the conclusion. This chapter summarizes the comparison of phonological structure of the two representative dialects in terms of their mutual intelligibility, and the phonological causes of the possible link between markedness of phonological structure and asymmetry of intelligibility between the two groups of dialects. As a conclusion, this chapter also points to the limitedness of this research and researches to be continued after this research.
影响方言间互通性的因素很多,除了社会因素外,主要因素是语言本身,而语言本身也涉及众多因素,包括语音、词汇、句子结构等。本文认为,决定方言间互通性的主要因素是方言的音系结构,即声母系统、韵母系统、声调系统以及它们之间的相互结构关系。但迄今为止,还没有一项研究专门分析南北吴语之间互通性的音系学研究。本论文旨在对南北吴语不能互通这一现象,尤其是互通性不对称这一现象进行音系学的研究,以互通度为出发点对比分析南北吴方言之间的音系结构,包括表层元辅音音段库、底层音段库、对比性特征、音节组构和声调系统,以标记性理论为依据,阐述不同音系结构层次的标记性程度差异。本研究试图验证以下研究假设：
1)方言的可通度、方言间可通度的不对称性与方言本身的音系结构有很大关系。
2)方言之间互通的难易程度与方言的音系结构的标记性程度有关,即方言的音系结构的标记性程度越高,其可通度越小；反之,越大。
本论文通过在吴语内部五个方言点(吴江、黄岩、衢州、永康、温州)进行传统听音测试,得出五个方言点的可通度大小排序为：黄岩话、吴江话>衢州话、永康话>温州话,测试同时也表明可通度不对称性在方言之间存在比较普遍。本论文以实验中不对称最明显的方言对(温州话—吴江话)作为研究对象,并把二者分别看作南部吴语和北部吴语的代表方言。
在对吴语已有研究成果的基础上,尤其是通过分析已有的对温州话和吴江话的语音分析等文献资料,我们重点结合共时分布和各类音系表现找出两个代表方言的底层音段库、对比性特征赋值、音节组构和连读变调等规律,理清两个方言的音系系统,并从标记性差异角度解读温州话与吴江话之间可通度的不对称性,找出可能导致温州话可通度较低的关键音系理据。
本研究通过运用标记性理论(de Lacy2002,2006)和对比特征层级理论(Drescher2002,2003,2009)相结合,对温州话和吴江话的音系结构进行系统分析。De Lacy (2002,2006)的新标记理论主张标记性与语言能力有关,人类语言中存在不同维度的标记性层级,各种标记性层级之间可以发生冲突,并且标记性层级之间的冲突受到标记性保留、融合和弱化这三种人脑中彼此相互冲突的机制决定,可以在优选论(OT)框架内表征为忠实性制约条件和输出项制约条件交互作用的结果,其中标记性保留一般由于忠实性制约条件排序较高引起,标记性弱化则是由于输出项制约条件起重要作用的结果。本论文将基于de Lacy的新标记理论比较分析温州话和吴江话的音系系统和各类音变过程,结合不同的标记性层级讨论标记性保留、融合和弱化机制在两个方言中的不同体现,找出两个方言中倾向保留的标记性较强的特征值和触发各类音变的标记性特征。
基于从标记性角度对温州话和吴江话的音段库、对比性特征数量、对比性特征标记性值的音系表现、表层音节结构和声调系统进行比较,我们发现：1)从声母辅音底层音段库看,温州话的标记性高于吴江话,主要表现在温州话的PoA对比性特征数量比吴江话多,底层仍然保留声母位置标记性较高的[GLOTTAL]音段,并且触发更多音系变化,影响后接元音的音系变化,同时温州话的MoA对比性特征也比吴江话多,底层赋值对比性特征[continuant],其标记性值[+continuant]主要影响唇部擦音,发生标记性弱化音变,此外温州话辅音对比性特征的标记性值更倾向触发音变；2)从元音音段库看,温州话和吴江话的标记性都比较大,底层对比性特征都较为丰富,且都包括标记性较高的元音音段(如/φ/),两个方言的主要差异在于温州话的中元音较为丰富,涉及特征数量较多,并且元音音段库中包括DTE位置响音度标记性较大的中间元音,吴江话中则高元音和低元音较为丰富,拥有较多标记性较高的元音,如包括舌尖元音、前圆唇元音、次高元音和后低非圆唇元音；3)从元辅音的对比性特征对音系系统的影响看,温州话的辅音对比性特数量多于吴江话,元音对比性特征数量与吴江话一样,但其对比特征的标记性值非常活跃,触发韵母的各类音变,致使表层和底层产生较大差异,因此从对比性特征的上述两点考虑,显然温州话的音系系统比吴江话复杂,标记性较大,同时结合比较连读变调的复杂程度,可以进一步看出温州话的音系系统总体来说比吴江话的复杂,标记性更大；4)从表层音节结构看,温州话和吴江话都在一定程度上向着标记性较弱的方向发展,同时两个方言表层都还保留某些标记性较高的结构。但是单从开音节结构考察,吴江话的开音节结构只有标记性最低的CV结构,而温州话的开音节结构中仍然保留标记性较高CVV结构,包括CVV后响双元音和CVV前响双元音,因此温州话的开音节结构明显比吴江话的开音节结构的标记性要大。总体而言,我们得出温州话音系系统的标记性比较强,验证了本论文提出的研究假设,即可通度低的方言(温州话)音系结构标记性较强,而影响音系结构标记性程度的关键因素主要是元辅音对比性特征的数量和对比性特征标记性值的音系表现。对比性特征数量越多,音段库就可能越大并且可能包括较多标记性较高的音段；尤其是对比性特征标记性值越活跃,触发音变越多,整个音系系统的历时、共时音变就越复杂。因此,如果一个方言音系系统既有较多数量的对比性特征,其标记性值又很活跃,那么该方言就既可能保留较多早期的声类和韵类,同时音系系统又有很大变化,最终导致该方言较为难懂。温州话的情况就是如此。
全文共分七章。第一章引论。介绍南北吴语对比研究的研究背景和已有的相关成果,同时说明本文要解决的问题、研究方法,以及资料来源等问题。
第二章介绍南北吴语互通性测试。本实验采用传统听音法,首先检验“南北吴语无法互通、北部吴语之间互通性高、南部吴语之间互通度低”等主观论述在多大程度上与实际沟通度相符,其次计算五个方言点的可通度并根据可通度高低排序,最后计算两两方言点之间的互通度以及可通度差异,并选取可通度差异最大的一对南北方言作为音系分析的代表方言点。基于实验结果,本文提出假设：方言的可通度、方言间可通度的不对称性可能与方言本身的音系结构有很大关系,方言之间互通的难易程度决定于方言的音系结构的标记性程度差异,不同音系结构的标记性程度可能导致不同方言的可通度。
第三章音系理论介绍。这一章旨在为从音系结构的标记性对比解读方言间存在可通度不对称建立理论框架,内容包括：1)介绍为什么可通度不对称可能由标记性差异引起,这部分首先介绍标记性差异假设(MDH)及其在二语习得研究中对语言间习得难度差异的解释力,接着提出本研究假设,认为MDH也同样可以解释可通度不对称；2)简单介绍标记性理论,着重讨论de Lacy (2002,2006)对该理论的新发展,这部分讨论标记性本质、如何确定标记性等级以及不同特征的标记性层级及其之间的相互冲突；3)介绍OT和音系对比性层级理论(Contrastive Hierarchy)(Dresher2002,2003,2009),这两个理论用来分析方言的音系结构,OT重点分析共时的音位变体分布、音段间共现限制以及历时音变等音系表现,对比性层级理论用来分析音段库底层对比性特征、特征排序、及其标记性值对音系结构的影响。
第四章和第五章分别描写并分析温州话和吴江话的音系结构,通过分析已有的对这两个方言进行过的语音研究文献资料,在现代音系理论框架内讨论两个方言的表层音段库、底层音段库、对比性特征层级赋值及其标记性值的音系表现、音节组构和声调系统。
第六章对比分析南北吴语两个代表方言点音系结构的标记性差异。从标记性角度对比分析两个方言的底层和表层音段库、底层到表层的变化和表层音节结构,讨论标记性与对比性之间的关系以及对比性特征对具体语言的音系系统的影响,从而验证比较结果是否符合我们的假设。
第七章结论。这一章总结文章以互通度为出发点对比分析南北代表吴方言的音系结构,并以标记性理论为依据,阐述音系结构的标记性程度与南北吴方言可通度不对称之间存在关联的音系理据。这一章还将说明本论文的局限和今后的研究方向。
This dissertation presents a pioneering study of a systematic phonological analysis of the asymmetrical mutual intelligibility between northern Wu and southern Wu, respectively represented by the Wenzhou dialect and the Wujiang dialect.
As one of the ten major dialects in China, Wu is second only to Mandarin. It is widely held by scholars that there exists a yawning gap in mutual intelligibility between the sub-dialects in northern Wu and southern Wu. Yet few phonological researches have yet been made regarding this unintelligibility, let alone those from the perspective of markedness of phonological structures.
Mutual intelligibility between dialects is determined by various factors, including social factors and linguistic ones. The latter can be phonetic, phonological, lexical or/and syntactic. Based on the assumption that mutual intelligibility between dialects is first and foremost due to their phonological structures, the dissertation makes a mutual intelligibility test between the five sub-dialects of Wu and a systematic comparison between the Wenzhou dialect, a southern Wu, and the Wujiang dialect, a northern Wu, in terms of their phonological structures, including surface and underlying inventories, underlying contrastive features, syllabic phonotactics and tonal system. Through these analyses, this dissertation tries to explore the phonological mechanisms behind the link between the varied degree of markedness of the phonological structures and the asymmetry of intelligibility between a southern Wu and a northern Wu. In so doing, this dissertation is supposed to be able to verify the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis1:Mutual intelligibility between dialects and asymmetry of intelligibility between dialects is in a great measure related to their phonological structures.
Hypothesis2:Mutual intelligibility between dialects is in reverse proportion to markedness of their phonological structures. That is, the stronger the markedness of their phonological structures, the weaker the intelligibility.
The mutual intelligibility test by means of traditional transcription (dictation) of the five regions speaking Wu reveals a hierarchy of intelligibility as follows:the Huangyan dialect≈the Wujiang dialect> the Quzhou dialect≈the Yongkang dialect> the Wenzhou dialect. The test also testifies to the prevalence of asymmetry of intelligibility between dialects. This dissertation takes as its object of study two of the five dialects with the greatest asymmetry of mutual intelligibility, namely, the Wenzhou dialect and the Wujiang dialect, and treats them as representatives respectively of sub-dialects in southern Wu and those in northern Wu.
Drawing upon researches on Wu, particularly literature on phonetic description of the Wenzhou dialect and the Wujiang dialect, we intend to make clear the phonological system of the two dialects by revealing the underlying inventories of consonants and vowels, the specification of contrastive features, syllabic phonotactics as well as tone sandhi rules. Based on these phonological analyses, this dissertation intends to explain the asymmetry of intelligibility between the two dialects from the perspective of difference in markedness of the two dialects, and to find the key phonological causes resulting in the low intelligibility of the Wenzhou dialect.
The present study conducts a systematic analysis of the phonological structures of the Wenzhou dialect and the Wujiang dialect under a combined framework of the new theory of markedness (de Lacy2002,2006) and the Contrastive Hierarchy Theory (Dresher2002,2003,2009). De Lacy (2002,2006) focuses on competence (or i-language) markedness and proposes a general theory based on the following principle ideas:1) Markedness is part of grammatical competence;2) There exist multiple markedness hierarchies, which may sometimes come into direct conflict with each other;3) The conflicts among markedness hierarchies are driven by a mutual impact of the pressures to become unmarked called "markedness reduction" and to preserve marked elements called "Preservation of the Marked", which can be formally represented within OT through an interaction between a set of faithfulness constraints and markedness constraints. Based on the leading ideas above, this dissertation explores the phonological structures and various phonological processes in the Wenzhou dialect and the Wujiang dialect to determine the phonologically contrastive features with the marked value, and reveals that the mechanism of "Preservation of the Marked" behave differently in the two dialects.
A thorough comparison of the two dialects regarding segmental inventories, number of contrastive features, phonological behaviors of contrastive feature with the marked value, surface syllabic inventories and tonal system leads us to believe that the Wenzhou dialect has a higher degree of markedness in phonological system. To be more specific, the comparative study yields the following findings. Firstly, in terms of the underlying inventory of consonants, the Wenzhou dialect is more marked than the Wujiang dialect in that the Wenzhou dialect has more PoA contrastive features and underlyingly preserve the highly marked contrastive feature [GLOTTAL], which not only triggers phonological processes but also makes impact on the phonological behavior of the adjacent vowels; meanwhile, the Wenzhou dialect also has more MoA contrastive features and the marked value of the contrastive feature [continuant] triggers the alternation of labial fricatives; what' more, the marked value of the contrastive features in the Wenzhou dialect are more likely to be triggers of phonological processes. Secondly, in terms of the vowel inventory, both the Wenzhou dialect and the Wujiang dialect are marked due to a large number of underlying contrastive features and several highly marked segments, such as/(?)/and/(?)/in Wenzhou and/(?)/and/(?)/in Wujiang. However, the major difference in the two inventories lies in the distribution of the marked segments and the phonological behavior of the marked segments. Thirdly, in terms of the role the contrastive features play in the phonological system, the Wenzhou dialect seems more marked since it has a larger number of contrastive features and involves more complicated phonological processes triggered by the marked value of the contrastive features, which leads to a big gap between the underlying presentations and the surface ones. Additionally, like the segmental system, the tonal system of the Wenzhou dialect is also demonstrated to be more complex than that of the Wujiang dialect. Fourthly, in terms of syllabic inventory, it is assumed that the Wenzhou dialect is also more marked than the Wujiang dialect. Although both the Wenzhou dialect and the Wujiang dialect develop towards a system with less marked structures, both dialects preserve some highly marked structures so as to avoid excessive neutralization. Regarding open syllables, one of the most important of phonological structures, the Wenzhou dialect preserves many highly marked structures, including both falling diphthongs and rising diphthongs, while the Wujiang dialect has only CV structures, the least marked structure in the syllabic inventory.
The results of the comparative study also attest to the hypothesis put forward by this dissertation:A dialect of a lower degree of intelligibility like the Wenzhou dialect has a higher degree of markedness in phonological system, which is mainly due to a relatively larger number of contrastive features and the more active role the contrastive features with marked value play in the phonological processes. The more contrastive features a dialect has, the bigger inventory it owns together with more highly marked segments; the more active behaviors the contrastive features have, the more synchronic and diachronic phonological processes they trigger and the more complicated the phonological system turns out to be. Accordingly, if a dialect boasts a great number of contrastive features and their marked values are highly active, the dialect may not only have inherited more initial and final categories from the ancient times, but also undergone a significant change in its phonological system. In this case, the dialect is likely to be very low for intelligibility. The Wenzhou dialect is one typical example.
The dissertation is made up of seven chapters. Chapter One is the introduction. It surveys the background and achievements of comparative studies of southern and northern Wu dialects. It also introduces the research questions, methodology, and data source of this research.
Chapter Two includes an experiment on mutual intelligibility between northern and southern Wu dialects. Resorting to the traditional transcription (dictation) tests, the experiment first evaluates the plausibility of the statements like "southern and northern Wu dialects are mutually unintelligible","northern Wu dialects have a high degree of mutual intelligibility", and "southern Wu dialects have a low degree of mutual intelligibility". It then calculates the degree of intelligibility of dialects of five regions, clarifies their positions in a hierarchy, and then computes the intelligibility between every two of the five dialects and their difference. On the basis of the experiment, the dissertation advances several hypotheses:the mutual intelligibility between dialects and the asymmetry of intelligibility between dialects is in a great measure related to their phonological structures; the mutual intelligibility between dialects is determined by the difference in markedness of phonological structure of the dialects; the varied markedness of phonological structure results in the varied intelligibility of dialects.
Chapter Three provides a theoretic framework to explain the asymmetry of intelligibility of dialects from the perspective of markedness of phonological structures. It first introduces the reason why asymmetry of intelligibility may result from difference in markedness. For this purpose, we introduce the Markedness Differential Hypothesis and its application to researches in second language acquisition in accounting for difference in difficulty of language acquisition, with the belief that MDH may also be borrowed to account for asymmetry of intelligibility. The chapter gives a brief introduction to the theory of markedness, particularly de Lacy's developments of the theory, such as the nature of markedness, the way to determine hierarchy of markedness and the interactions among different hierarchies (2002,2006). The chapter also gives an introduction to Optimality Theory as the framework for analyses of synchronic distributions and co-occurrence restrains, as well as diachronic processes, and the Contrastive Hierarchy Theory (Dresher2002,2003,2009) as the framework for analyses of underlying specification of contrastive features and the role their marked value plays in the phonological system.
Chapter Four and Chapter Five depict respectively the phonological structures of the Wenzhou dialect and the Wujiang dialect. By examining the existing literature on these two dialects, these two chapters take advantage of modern phonological theories to explore surface and underlying inventories, contrastive features, syllabic phonotactics and tonal system of the two dialects.
Chapter Six compares the markedness of phonological structures of the Wenzhou dialect and the Wujiang dialect. To be more specific, we conduct a comparative study on the marked degree of different phonological structures of the two dialects regarding surface and underlying inventories, alternations between them, and syllabic inventories, examine the relationship between markedness and contrastiveness and the influence of contrastive features on phonological systems, and explore the major phonological factors impacting on intelligibility of the dialects, in order to test our hypotheses against the results of the comparison.
Chapter Seven is the conclusion. This chapter summarizes the comparison of phonological structure of the two representative dialects in terms of their mutual intelligibility, and the phonological causes of the possible link between markedness of phonological structure and asymmetry of intelligibility between the two groups of dialects. As a conclusion, this chapter also points to the limitedness of this research and researches to be continued after this research.
引文
Anderson, H. (2005). Intelligibility testing (RTT) between Mendankwe and Nkwen. Summer Institute of Linguistics, Dallas, Texas. Electronic Survey Reports 2005-002,30.
Archangeli, D. (1984). Underspecification in Yawelmani phonology and morphology. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Ashby, M., & Maidment, J. (2005). Introducing Phonetic Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Avery, Peter & Keren Rice (1989). Segmental structure and coronal underspecification. Phonology 6,179-200.
Ballard, W. L. (1969). Phonological history of Wu. Doctoral dissertation, University of California in Berkeley.
Bao, Zhiming (1990). On the nature of tone. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Beckman, Jill (1997). Positional faithfulness, positional neutralization, and Shona vowel harmony. Phonology 14,1-46.
Beckman, Jill (1998). Positional faithfulness. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Distributed by GLSA.
Benua, Laura (1997). Transderivational identity:phonological relations between words. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Bezooijen, R. van, & R. van den Heuven (1997). Assessment of speech synthesis. In D. Gibbon, R. Moore, R. Winksi (eds.) Handbook of Standards and Resources for Spoken Language Systems. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,481-653.
Biggs, B. (1957). Testing intelligibility among Yuman languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 23:57-62.
Blevins, Julie (1995). The syllable in phonological theory. In John A Goldsmith (ed.) The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge:Blackwell,206-244.
Bradley, C. H. (1968). Dialect intelligibility testing:the Mixtec case. In H. M. Blalock & A. B. Blalock (eds.) Methodology in Social Research. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Brickford, Anita C., & Rick Floyd (2003). Articulatory Phonetics:Tools for Analyzing the World's Languages (3rd ed.). Dallas, Texas:SIL International.
Calabrese, Andrea (1995). A constraint-based theory of phonological markedness and simplification procedures. Linguistic Inquiry 26 (2),373-463.
Casad, E. H. (1974). Dialect Intelligibility Testing. Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics and Related Fields 38. Norman:Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma. xiv,201 pages.
Casali, R.F. (2003). [ATR] value asymmetries and underlying vowel inventory structure in Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan. Linguistic Typology 7,307-382.
Causley, T. (1999). Complexity and markedness in Optimality Theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
Chao Y. R. (1967). The contrastive aspects of the Wu dialects. Language 43(1), 92-101.
Chen, Matthew Y. (1996). Tonal geometry-a Chinese perspective. In Huang and Li, 21-48.
Chen, Matthew Y. (2000). Tone Sandhi:Patterns Across Chinese Dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N., & M. Halle (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Clark, Ross (1976). Aspects of proto-Polynesian Syntax. Te Reo Monograph. Auckland, Linguistics Society of New Zealand.
Clements, G. N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2,225-252.
Clements, G. N. (1991). Vowel height asiimilation in Bantu languages. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 5,37-76.
Clements, G. N. (1999). Affricates as noncontoured stops. In Osamu Fujimura, B. D. Joseph, and Bohumil Palek (eds.) Proceedings of LP'98:Item Order in Language and Speech. Prague:The Karolinum Press,271-299.
Clements, G. N., & Elizabeth Hume (1995). The internal organization of speech sounds. In John Goldsmith (ed.) The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell,245-306.
d'Anglejan, A., & G. R. Tucker (1975). The acquisition of complex English structure by adult learners. Language Learning 25,281-296.
de Lacy, Paul (2002). The formal expression of markedness. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
de Lacy, Paul (2004). Markedness conflation in optimality theory. Phonology 21, 1-55.
de Lacy, Paul (2006). Markedness:Reduction and Preservation in Phonology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Dinnsen, D., & F. Eckman (1975). Some substantive universals in atomic phonology. Lingua 45,1-14.
Dresher, B.E. (2002). Determining contrastiveness:a missing chapter in history of phonology. In Sophie Burelle and Stanca Somesfalean (eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Montreal: Department de linguistique et de didatique des langues, Universite du Quebec a Montreal,82-93.
Dresher, B.E. (2003). Contrast and Asymmetries in Phonology. In Anna-Maria. di Sciullo. (ed.) Asymmetry in Gramma Ⅱ:Morphology, Phonology, Acquisition. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,239-257.
Dresher, B.E. (2009). The Contrastive Hierarchy in Phonology. Cambridge University.
Dresher, B. E., & Keren Rice (2007). Markedness and the Contrastive Hierarch in Phonology. www.chass.utoronto.ca/-contrast/.
Dresher, B. E., & Xi Zhang (2004). Phonological contrasts and phonetics in Manchu Vowel Systems. In P. M. Nowak, C. Yoquelet & D. Mortensen. (eds.) Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 29,59-71. Berkeley:Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Duanmu, San (1993). Rime length, stress, and association domains. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2,1-44.
Duanmu, San (1999). The syllable in Chinese. In Hulst H. van der & Ritter N. A. (eds.) The Syllable:Views and Facts. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,477-500.
Duanmu, San (2000). Phonology of Standard Chinese. Oxford:UOP.
Eckman, F. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning 27,315-330.
Fortescue, Michael, Steven A. Jakobson & Lawrence D. Kaplan (1994). Comparative Eskimo Dictionary with Aleut Cognates. Fairbanks:Alaska Native Language Center.
Fu, Yi-Chin (1986). The phonological representation of certain vowel-obscured syllables in Mandarin:an autosegmental approach. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Sinology at Academia Snica, Taipei.
Gilley, L. (1992). An Autosegmental Approach to Shilluk Phonology. Arlington, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Gnanadesikan, Amalia (1997). Phonology with ternary scales. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Goldsmith, John (1976). Autosegmental phonology. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Gooskens, C., & W. Heeringa (2004). Perceptive evaluation of Levenshtein dialect distance measurements using Norwegian dialect data. Language Variation and Change 16,189-207.
Gooskens, C. (2007). The contribution of linguistic factors to the intelligibility of closely related languages. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 28(6),445-467.
Gooskens, C, V. J. van Heuven & R. van Bezooijen (2008). Linguistic distance between Flemish and Norwegian around 1900:subjective views and objective measurements. In P. Broomans, G. Jensma, H. Vandevoorde, Maarten van Ginderachter (eds.) The Beloved Mothertongue. Ethnolinguistic Nationalism in Small Nations:Inventories and Reflections. Groningen Studies in Cultural Change 33. Leuven:Peeters,121-139.
Gradman, H. (1971). Limitations of contrastive analysis predictions. Working Papers in Linguistics 3,11-15.
Gr(?)nnum, N. (2003). Why are the Danes so hard to understand? In H. Galberg Jacobsen et al. (eds.) Take Danish-for instance:linguistic studies in honour of Hans Basboll presented on the occasion of his 60th birthday,12 July 2003. Odense:University Press of Southern Denmark,119-130.
Halle, M., & K. Stevens (2002 [1971]). A note on laryngeal features. In Morris Halle (ed.), From Memory to Speech and Back. Berlin/New York:Mout on de Gruyter,46-61.
Heeringa, W. (2004). Measuring dialect pronunciation differences using Levenshtein Distance. Doctoral dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Hickerson, H., G. D. Turner & N. P. Hickerson (1952). Testing procedures for estimation transfer of information among Iroquois dialects and languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 18,1-8.
Hollenbach, B.E. (1977). Phonetic vs. phonemic correspondence in two Trique dialects. In W. Merrifield (ed.), Studies in Otomanguean Phonology. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics,35-68.
Hume, Elizabeth (1992). Front vowels, coronal consonants, and their interaction in nonlinear phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.
Hyman, Larry M. (2003). A Theory of Phonological Weight. Stanford:CSLI Publications.
Jabobson, Roman (1941). Kindersprache, Aphasie, und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Uppsala:Uppasala Universitets Arsskrift. Translated by A. R. Keiler as Child Language, Aphasia, and Phonological Universals. The Hague:Mouton,1968.
Jakobson, Roman (1929/1971). Remarques sur l'evolution du russe comparee a celle des autres langues slaves". Selected writings, vol.1:Phonological studies. The Hague:Mouton,2nd edition,117-136.
Jakobson, Roman & John Lotz (1949). Notes on the French phonemic pattern. Word 5, 151-158.
Jakobson, Roman & M. Halle (1956). Fundamentals of Language. The Hague: Mouton.
Jensen, J. B. (1989). On the mutual intelligibility of Spanish and Portuguese. Hispania 72,848-852.
Jesperson, W. (1954). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principals. (Part Ⅰ: Sounds and Spellings). London:George Allen & Unwin.
Jun, Jongho (1995). Perceptual and articulatory factors in place assimilation:An Optimality-Theoretic approach. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA.
Kager, R. (1999). Optimality Theory. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Kapalan, Lawrence D. (1981). Phonological Issues in North Alaskan Inupiaq. Fairbanks, AK:Alaska Native Language Center.
Kenstowicz, Michael J. (1994). Phonology in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Kenstowicz, Michael J. (1996). Quality-sensitive stress. Rivista di Linguistica 9: 157-187 [also Rutgers Optimality Archive 33].
Kenstowicz Michael & Charles Kisseberth (1979). Generative Phonology: Description and Theory. New York:Academic Press.
Kessler, B. (1995). Computational dialectology in Irish Gaelic. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Dublin:ACL,60-67.
Kiparsky, Paul (1982). Lexical phonology and morphology. In I.S. Yang (ed.) Linguisitcs in the morning calm. Vol.2. Seoul, Hanshin,3-91.
Kiparsky, Paul (1985). Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology 2, 85-138.
Kiparsky, Paul (1995). The phonological basis of sound change. In John Goldsmith (ed.) The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, Blackwells,640-670.
Kirchner, R. (1996). Synchronic chain shifts in optimality theory. Linguistic Inquiry 27,341-351.
Kirk, P. L. (1970). Dialect intelligibility testing:the Mazatec Study. International Journal of American Linguistics 36,205-211.
Kisseberth, Charles (1970). On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1,291-306.
Kramer, Martin (1998). A correspondence approach to vowel harmony and disharmony. Rutgers Optimality Archive 293.
Kramer, Martin (2000). Yucatec Maya vowel alternations:harmony as syntagmatic identity. Rutgers Optimality Archive 423.
Ladefoged, Peter & Ian Maddieson (1996). The Sounds of the World's Languages. Oxford:Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
Laver, John (1994). Principles of Phonetics. Cambridge:CUP.
Leben, William R. (1973). Suprasegmental phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Liberman, Mark (1975). The intonational system of English. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Lin, Yen-hwei (1989). Autosegmental treatment of segmental processes in Chinese phonology. Doctoral dissertation. The University of Texas, Austin.
Lindau, Mona (1978). Vowel features. Language 3,541-563.
Lombardi, Linda (1995). Why place and voice are different:constraint-specific alternations and Optimality Theory. Rutgers Optimality Archive 105.
Lombardi, Linda (1998). Coronal epenthesis and unmarkedness. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 5,156-175.
Lombardi, Linda (1999). Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17,267-302.
Lombardi, Linda (2002). Coronal epenthesis and markedness. Phonology 19, 219-251.
Lombardi, Linda (2003). Markedness and the typology of epenthetic vowels. Linguistics and Phonetics 2002 Proceedings:Prosody and Phonetics [also Rutgers Optimality Archive 578].
Maddieson, Ian (1984). Patterns of Sounds. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Maddieson, Ian (1992). UCLA Phonological Segment Inventory Database. Los Angeles, UCLA.
Martinet, Andre (1964). Elements of General Linguistics. With a foreword by L.R. Palmer. Translated by Elisabeth Palmer. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
McCarthy, J. (1999). Sympathy and phonological opacity. Phonology 16,331-399.
McCarthy, J., & A. Prince (1994). The emergence of the unmarked:Optimality in prosodic morphology. In Merce Gonzalez (ed.) Proceedings of NELS 24. Amherst, MA, GLSA,333-379.
McCarthy, J., & A. Prince (1999). Faithfulness and identity in prosodic morphology. In R. Kager et al. (eds.) The Prosody-Morphology Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,218-309.
McCarthy, J., & A. Taub (1992). Review of C. Paradis & J.-F. Prunet (eds.) The Special Status of Coronals:Internal and External Evidence. Phonology 9, 363-370.
Mohanan, K. P. (1993). Fields of attraction in phonology. In John Goldsmith (ed.) The Last Phonological Rule:Reflections on Constraints and Derivations. Chicago, University of Chicago Press,61-116.
Moren, Bruce (2003). The parallel structures model of feature geometry. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory. Cornell, NY, Cornell University, ch. 5.
Moulton, W. G. (1962). The Sounds of English and German. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Paradis, Carole & Jean-Francois (1990). The coronal vs. Velar placelessness controversy. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 6 (2),192-228.
Parker, Stephen (2002). Quantifying the sonority hierarchy. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Pawel Matulewicz (帕维尔·玛突来维切)(2005).《吴语瓯江方言韵母演变研究》博士论文.北京语言大学.
Pike, Kenneth (1948). Tone Languages. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
Pierce, J.E. (1952). Dialect distance testing in Algonquian. International Journal of American Linguistics 18,208-218.
Pierce, J.E. (1954). Crow versus Hidatsa in dialect distance and in glottochronology. International Journal of American Linguistics 20,134-136.
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. (1983). Vowelless Chinese? An application to the three tired theory of syllable structure to Pekingese. Paper presented for the Ⅶ International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics at University of Washington.
Pulleyblank, Douglas (1997). Optimality theory and features. In Diana Archangeli & D. Terence Langendoe (eds.) Optimality Theory:An Overview. Oxford: Blackwell,59-101.
Prince, A., & Paul Smolensky (1993). Optimality Theory:Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Rutgers Technical Reports TR-2. New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science [also Rutgers Optimality Archive 537]. Published in 2004 by Blackwells.
Pulleyblank, E.G. (1989). The role of coronal in articulator based features. In C. Wiltshire, R. Graczyk, & B. Music (eds.) Papers from CLS 25. Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society,379-393.
Qiao Sanzheng & William Shi-Yuan Wang (1988). Evaluating phylogenetic trees by matrix decomposition. Anthropoloogical Science 106 (1),1-22.
Riad, Tomas (1992). Structures in Germanic Prosody. Stockholm:Dept. of Scandinavian Languages, Stockhom University.
Rice, K., & P. Avery (1993). Segmental complexity and the structure of inventories. In Carrie Dyck (ed.) Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 12. Toronto, University of Toronto,131-154.
Rice, K. (1996). Default variability:The coronal-velar relationship. NLLT 14, 493-543.
Rice, K. (1999a). Featural markedness in phonology:variation. Part 1. GLOT 4 (7), 3-6.
Rice, K. (1999b). Featural markedness in phonology:variation. Part 2. GLOT 4 (8), 3-7.
Rice, K. (2007). Markedness in phonology. In Paul de Lacy (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,79-98.
Richards, J. (1971). A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. English Language Teaching 25,204-219.
Roca, Iggy (1994). Generative Phonology. London:Routledge.
Rohany, Rahbar (2006). Vowel height in Persian. Ms., Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto.
Rohany, Rahbar (2008). On distinguishing Persian vowels. In Susie Jones (ed.), Proceedings of the 2008 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, ww.chass.uuutoronto.ca/-cla-acl/actes2008/CLA2008_Rahbar.pdf.
Rose, Phil (2000). Wenzhou dialect disyllabic lexical tone sandhi with first syllable entering tones. In M. Barlow (ed.) Proc.8th Australian Intl. Conf. on Speech Science and Technology, Australian Speech Science and Technology Association:Canberra,230-235.
Rutgers, Roland (1998). Yamphu:Grammar, Texts and Lexicon. Leiden, Research School CNWS.
Sagey, Elizabeth C. (1986). The representation of features and relations in non-linear phonology. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Sapir, Edward (1925). Sound patterns in language. Language 1,37-51. Reprinted in Joos (1957),19-25.
Schane, Sanford A. (1984). Two English vowel movements:a particle analysis. In Mark Aronoff & Richard T. Oehrle (ed.) Language Sound Structure:Studies in Phonology. Cambridge:MIT Press,32-51.
Smith, Jennifer (2002). Phonological augmentation in prominent positions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Smith, J.M. (2007). [-ATR] Harmony and the vowel inventory of Sumerian. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 59,19-38.
Smolensky, P. (1993). Harmony, markedness and phonological activity. Handout of talk presented at Rutgers Optimality Workshop-1, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. Rutgers Optimality Archives 87.
Smolensky, P. (1995). On the internal structure of the constraint component CON of UG. Handout from talk, University of Arizona. Rutgers Optimality Archives 86.
Stampe, David (1979). A dissertation on Natural Phonology. New York:Garland Publishing.
Steriade, Donca (1987). Redundant Values. In A. Bosch & E. Schiller (eds.) Parasession on Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Chicago Linguistic Society vol.23, University of Chicago.
Stewart, J.M. (1967). Tongue root position in Akan vowel harmony. Phonetica 16, 185-204.
Stewart, J.M. (1983). Akan vowel harmony:the word structure conditions and the floating vowels. Studies in African Linguistics 14,111-139.
Stockwell, R., & J. Bowen. (1965). The Sounds of English and Spanish. University of Chicago Press.
Tang, Chaoju (2009). Mutual intelligibility of Chinese dialects:an experimental approach. Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University.
Trask, R.L. (1996). A Dictionary of Phonetics and Phonology. London:Routledge.
Trubetzkoy, N.S. (1939). Grundzuge der Phnologie. Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Translated by A. M. Baltaxe as Principles of Phonology. Berkley: University of California Press,1969.
Voegelin, C. F., & E. W. Voeglin (1946). Linguistic considerations of Northeastern North America. In F. Johnson (ed.) Papers of the Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology 3.
Voegelin, C. F., & Z. S. Harris (1951). Methods for determining intelligibility among dialects of natural language. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 95,322-329.
Walker, Rachel (1998). Nasalization, neutral segments, and opacity effects. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Walker, Rachel (2011). Vowel Patterns in Language. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Wang, Jialing & Norval Smith (1997). Studies in Chinese Phonology. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Wardhaugh, R. (1970). The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly 4, 123-130.
Wiese, Richard (1997). Underspecification and description of Chinese vowels. In Wang Jialing & Normal Smith (eds.) Studies in Chinese Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,220-249.
Yip, Moira (1980). The tonal phonology of Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Yip, Moira (1989). Feature geometry and cooccurrence restrictions. Phonology 6, 349-374.
Yip, Moira (1993). Cantonese loanword phonology and Optimality Theory. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2,261-291.
Yip, Moira (2001). Segmental unmarkedness versus input preservation in reduplication. In Linda Lombardi (ed.) Segmental Phonology in Optimality Theory:Constraints and Representations. Cambridge, CUP,206-228.
Yip, Moira (2002). Tone. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Zhang, Jisheng (2006). The Phonology of Shaoxing Chinese. Utrecht:LOT.
Zhang, Xi (1996). Vowel systems of the Manchu-Tungus languages of China. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
北大中国语言文学系和语言学教研室(1989).《汉语方音字汇》.北京：文字改革出版社.
彼得·赖福吉(Peter Ladefoged)(张维佳译)(2011).《语音学教程(第五版)》(A Course in Phonetics (5th ed.)).北京：北京大学出版社.
蔡勇飞(1984).吴语的边界和南北分区.《方言》第1期,13-14.
曹志耘(2001).南部吴语的小称.《语言研究》第3期,33-44.
曹志耘(2002).《南部吴语语音研究》.北京：商务印书馆.
陈保亚(1996).《论汉语接触与语言联盟》.北京：语文出版社.
陈忠敏(1995).上海市区话语音的一百多年来的演变.《吴语和闽语的比较研究》.上海：上海教育出版社,18-31.
陈忠敏(1998).吴语及邻近方言鱼韵的读音层次.《第六届中国境内语言暨语言学国际研讨会论文集》,345-364.
丁邦新(1975).平仄新考.《史语所集刊》47(1)1-15.
丁邦新(2003).《一百年前的苏州话》.上海：上海教育出版社.
丁邦新(2008).《语言学论文集》.北京：商务印书馆.
丁锋(2005).一百年来绍兴方言的语音演变.《吴语研究》.上海：上海教育出版社,156-162.
冯力(2007).从北部吴语的“V快”看中心谓语成分虚化为助词的现象.《中国语文》第3期,248-255.
傅国通、方松熹、蔡勇飞、鲍世杰、傅佐之(1985).浙江吴语分区.浙江省语言学会编《语言学年刊》第3期方言专刊.
傅佐之、黄敬旺(1980).温州方言端透定三母的腭化现象.《方言》第4期,263-266.
郭锡良(1986).《汉字古音手册》.北京：北京大学出版社.
侯精一(1989).《晋语研究》.东京外国语大学亚非言语文化研究所.
黄晓东(2007).浙江临海方言音系.《方言》第1期,35-51.
江苏省和上海市方言概况指导组编(1960).《江苏省和上海市方言概况》.南京：江苏人民出版社.
金有景(1982).关于浙江方言中咸山两摄三四等字的分别.《语言研究》第1期,148-162.
李荣(1979).《温岭方言的连读变调》.《方言》第1期,1-29.
李小凡(2004).《汉语方言连读变调的层级和类型》.《方言》第1期,16-33.
林素娥、苏宪萍(2007).方言可通度计算研究刍议.《甘肃联合大学学报》第1期,58-60.
刘丹青(1992).吴江方言[g]声母字研究,《语言研究》第2期,65-71.
刘俐李(2005).吴语声调的音区特征、曲拱特征、调类合并和包络式变调.《吴语研究》.上海：上海教育出版社,320-330.
刘镇发(2006).温州方言在过去一世纪的元音推移.《语言研究》第2期,32-35.
马希文(1988).比较方言学中的亲疏计量方法.《中国语文》第2期,348-360.
马秋武(2001).普通话舌尖元音的优选论分析.《新世纪的现代语音学》.北京：清华大学出版社.
马秋武(2003).《优选论与汉语普通话的音节组构》.天津：南开大学出版社.
马秋武(2008).《优选论》.上海：上海教育出版社.
梅祖麟(2001).现代吴语和“支脂鱼虞,共为不韵”.《中国语文》第1期,3-15.
潘悟云(2006).竞争性音变与历史层次.《东方语言学》(创刊号).上海：上海教育出版社,152-165.
潘悟云(2008).吴语韵母系统主体层次的一致性.《东方语言学》第3期,132-137.
潘悟云(2009).吴语形成的历史背景——兼论汉语南部方言的形成模式.《方言》第3期,193-203.
彭建国(2009).吴语、湘语主元音链变类型比较.《中国语文》第5期,454-461.
平田直子(2007).北部吴语遇摄的语音演变.《吴语研究》.上海：上海教育出版社.163-170.
钱乃荣(1988).吴语声调系统的类型及其变迁.《语言研究》第2期,63-80.
钱乃荣(1992).《当代吴语研究》.上海：上海教育出版社.
钱乃荣(2003).《北部吴语研究》.上海：上海大学出版社.
钱乃荣(2006).上海话在北部吴语分区中的地位问题.《方言》第3期,272-277.
阮咏梅(2010).台州方言在吴语中的内外关系.《宁波大学学报(人文科学版)》第1期,13-18.
绍兴县地方志编纂委员会(1999).《绍兴县志》.北京：中华书局.
沈克成、沈迦(2006).《温州话》.宁波：宁波出版社.
盛芳(2005).北部吴语语音研究.硕士论文.上海师范大学.
石锋(1992).吴江方言声调格局的分析.《方言》第3期,189-194.
石汝杰等(2006).江苏吴江盛泽方言音系.[日本]《熊本学员大学文学·语言学论集》第13卷第2号.
史有为(1985).从吴方言看音变扩展的不平衡性——吴方言部分奉、微母字声母清化现象.《语言研究》第1期,150-159.
陶寰(2003).吴语一等韵带介音研究——以侯韵为例,《吴语研究》.上海：上海教育出版社,15-21.
王福堂(2005).《汉语方言语音的演变和层次》(修订本).北京：语文出版社.
王福堂(2010[1959]).绍兴话记音.《汉语方言论集》.北京：商务印书馆,207-241.
王洪君(2004).也谈古吴方言覃谈寒桓四韵的关系.《中国语文》第4期,358-362.
王士元、沈钟伟(1992).方言关系的计量表述.《中国语文》第2期,81-92.
汪平(1987).苏州音系再分析.《语言研究》第1期,41-48.
汪平(2005).北部吴语三小片的重新画分.《方言》第2期,149-156.
汪平(2010a).《吴江市方言志》.上海：上海社会科学院出版社.
汪平(2010b).江苏通州方言音系探讨.《方言》第1期,201-210.
温瑞政(1985).《忻州方言志》.北京：语文出版社.
翁寿元、石汝杰(1998).《江苏省志·方言志》中吴江方言部分(p.135).江苏省地方志编纂委员会.南京：南京大学出版社.
吴安其(2005).温州话的韵母及其文白异读.《南开语言学刊》第1期,9-24.
吴安其(2006).温州话声母的文白读和中古声韵的构拟.《南开语言学刊》第1期,21-32.
吴瑞文(2005).《吴闽方言历史音韵比较》.博士论文.中央研究院语言研究所.
许宝华、汤珍珠、游汝杰(1984).北片吴语内部的异同.《方言》第4期,13-18.
许宝华、汤珍珠(1988).《上海市方言志》.上海：上海教育出版社.
许珍(2009).吴江方言声调研究.硕士论文.上海师范大学.
徐通锵(1996).《历史语言学》.北京：商务印书馆.
徐越(1991).浙江吴语声调略说,《杭州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》第3期,176-186.
徐云扬(1995).《吴语研究》.香港：香港中文大学新亚书院.
颜逸明(1994).《吴语概说》.上海：华东师范大学出版社.
颜逸明(2000).《浙南瓯语》.上海：华东师范大学出版社.
杨蓓(2003).吴语五地研究相关度的计量研究.《语言文字研究》第1期,120-130.
叶建、徐之明(2009).浙江黄岩话的文白异读.《遵义师范学院学报》第2期,62-66.
叶祥苓(1983).吴江方言声调再调查.《方言》第1期,32-35.
叶晓峰(2008).《温州方言语音研究》.硕士论文.上海师范大学.
游汝杰(2002).吴语内部各片的音韵对应.《声韵论丛》第十二辑.台湾学生书局.
游汝杰(2008).吴语元音的简约性问题.《吴语研究》.上海：上海教育出版社,11-16.
游汝杰、杨蓓(1998).广东话、上海话和普通话词汇接近率的计量研究.《汉语计量与计算机研究》第12期,57-77.
游汝杰等(2001).《吴语声调的实验研究》.上海：复旦大学出版社.
游汝杰,杨乾明(1998).《温州方言词典》.南京：江苏教育出版社.
张拱贵、刘丹青(1983).吴江方言声调的初步调查.《南京师范学院学报》第3期.
张吉生(2006).从吴方言看声母-声调的相互关系.《当代语言学》第2期,121-128.
张吉生(2007).汉语韵尾辅音演变的音系理据.《中国语文》第4期,291-297.
张吉生(2009).绍兴方言连读变调的底层声调特征.《当代语言学》第4期,299-308.
张琨(1985).论吴语方言.《史语所集刊》56(2),215-260.
赵德忠、马秋武(2011).《西方音系学理论与流派》.北京：商务印书馆.
赵日新(2007).汉语方言中的[i]>[(?)].《中国语文》第1期,46-54.
赵元任(2011[1928]).《现代吴语的研究》.北京：商务印书馆.
郑锦全(1988).汉语方言亲疏关系的计量研究.《中国语文》第2期,87-102.
郑锦全(1994).汉语方言沟通度的计算.《中国语文》第1期,35-43.
郑伟(2008).《太湖片吴语音韵演变研究》.博士论文.复旦大学.
郑伟(2011).《切韵》寒韵字的演变特征与现代吴语.《中国语文》第4期,352-363.
郑晓峰(2005).闽北方言和南部吴语的共同点举隅.《吴语研究》.上海：上海教育出版社,362-371.
郑张尚芳(1964).温州音系.《中国语文》第1期,28-60.
郑张尚芳(1989).温州话流摄一三等交替的特点.《温州师范学院学报》第4期,97-100.
郑张尚芳(2002).汉语及其亲属语言语音演变中的元音大推移.历史语言学研讨会(2002.8温州)论文.
郑张尚芳(2008).《温州方言志》.北京：中华书局.
《中国语言地图集》(1987).香港：朗文出版(远东)有限公司.
周法高(1948).说平仄,《中央研究院历史语言研究所集刊》13，153-162.
朱晓农(夏剑钦摘译)(1996).上海音系.《国外语言学》第2期,29-37.
朱晓农(2004).汉语元音的高顶出位.《中国语文》第5期,440-451.
朱晓农(2010).《语音学》.北京：商务印书馆.
Archangeli, D. (1984). Underspecification in Yawelmani phonology and morphology. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Ashby, M., & Maidment, J. (2005). Introducing Phonetic Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Avery, Peter & Keren Rice (1989). Segmental structure and coronal underspecification. Phonology 6,179-200.
Ballard, W. L. (1969). Phonological history of Wu. Doctoral dissertation, University of California in Berkeley.
Bao, Zhiming (1990). On the nature of tone. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Beckman, Jill (1997). Positional faithfulness, positional neutralization, and Shona vowel harmony. Phonology 14,1-46.
Beckman, Jill (1998). Positional faithfulness. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Distributed by GLSA.
Benua, Laura (1997). Transderivational identity:phonological relations between words. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Bezooijen, R. van, & R. van den Heuven (1997). Assessment of speech synthesis. In D. Gibbon, R. Moore, R. Winksi (eds.) Handbook of Standards and Resources for Spoken Language Systems. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,481-653.
Biggs, B. (1957). Testing intelligibility among Yuman languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 23:57-62.
Blevins, Julie (1995). The syllable in phonological theory. In John A Goldsmith (ed.) The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge:Blackwell,206-244.
Bradley, C. H. (1968). Dialect intelligibility testing:the Mixtec case. In H. M. Blalock & A. B. Blalock (eds.) Methodology in Social Research. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Brickford, Anita C., & Rick Floyd (2003). Articulatory Phonetics:Tools for Analyzing the World's Languages (3rd ed.). Dallas, Texas:SIL International.
Calabrese, Andrea (1995). A constraint-based theory of phonological markedness and simplification procedures. Linguistic Inquiry 26 (2),373-463.
Casad, E. H. (1974). Dialect Intelligibility Testing. Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics and Related Fields 38. Norman:Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma. xiv,201 pages.
Casali, R.F. (2003). [ATR] value asymmetries and underlying vowel inventory structure in Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan. Linguistic Typology 7,307-382.
Causley, T. (1999). Complexity and markedness in Optimality Theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
Chao Y. R. (1967). The contrastive aspects of the Wu dialects. Language 43(1), 92-101.
Chen, Matthew Y. (1996). Tonal geometry-a Chinese perspective. In Huang and Li, 21-48.
Chen, Matthew Y. (2000). Tone Sandhi:Patterns Across Chinese Dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N., & M. Halle (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Clark, Ross (1976). Aspects of proto-Polynesian Syntax. Te Reo Monograph. Auckland, Linguistics Society of New Zealand.
Clements, G. N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2,225-252.
Clements, G. N. (1991). Vowel height asiimilation in Bantu languages. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 5,37-76.
Clements, G. N. (1999). Affricates as noncontoured stops. In Osamu Fujimura, B. D. Joseph, and Bohumil Palek (eds.) Proceedings of LP'98:Item Order in Language and Speech. Prague:The Karolinum Press,271-299.
Clements, G. N., & Elizabeth Hume (1995). The internal organization of speech sounds. In John Goldsmith (ed.) The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell,245-306.
d'Anglejan, A., & G. R. Tucker (1975). The acquisition of complex English structure by adult learners. Language Learning 25,281-296.
de Lacy, Paul (2002). The formal expression of markedness. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
de Lacy, Paul (2004). Markedness conflation in optimality theory. Phonology 21, 1-55.
de Lacy, Paul (2006). Markedness:Reduction and Preservation in Phonology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Dinnsen, D., & F. Eckman (1975). Some substantive universals in atomic phonology. Lingua 45,1-14.
Dresher, B.E. (2002). Determining contrastiveness:a missing chapter in history of phonology. In Sophie Burelle and Stanca Somesfalean (eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Montreal: Department de linguistique et de didatique des langues, Universite du Quebec a Montreal,82-93.
Dresher, B.E. (2003). Contrast and Asymmetries in Phonology. In Anna-Maria. di Sciullo. (ed.) Asymmetry in Gramma Ⅱ:Morphology, Phonology, Acquisition. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,239-257.
Dresher, B.E. (2009). The Contrastive Hierarchy in Phonology. Cambridge University.
Dresher, B. E., & Keren Rice (2007). Markedness and the Contrastive Hierarch in Phonology. www.chass.utoronto.ca/-contrast/.
Dresher, B. E., & Xi Zhang (2004). Phonological contrasts and phonetics in Manchu Vowel Systems. In P. M. Nowak, C. Yoquelet & D. Mortensen. (eds.) Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 29,59-71. Berkeley:Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Duanmu, San (1993). Rime length, stress, and association domains. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2,1-44.
Duanmu, San (1999). The syllable in Chinese. In Hulst H. van der & Ritter N. A. (eds.) The Syllable:Views and Facts. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,477-500.
Duanmu, San (2000). Phonology of Standard Chinese. Oxford:UOP.
Eckman, F. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning 27,315-330.
Fortescue, Michael, Steven A. Jakobson & Lawrence D. Kaplan (1994). Comparative Eskimo Dictionary with Aleut Cognates. Fairbanks:Alaska Native Language Center.
Fu, Yi-Chin (1986). The phonological representation of certain vowel-obscured syllables in Mandarin:an autosegmental approach. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Sinology at Academia Snica, Taipei.
Gilley, L. (1992). An Autosegmental Approach to Shilluk Phonology. Arlington, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Gnanadesikan, Amalia (1997). Phonology with ternary scales. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Goldsmith, John (1976). Autosegmental phonology. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Gooskens, C., & W. Heeringa (2004). Perceptive evaluation of Levenshtein dialect distance measurements using Norwegian dialect data. Language Variation and Change 16,189-207.
Gooskens, C. (2007). The contribution of linguistic factors to the intelligibility of closely related languages. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 28(6),445-467.
Gooskens, C, V. J. van Heuven & R. van Bezooijen (2008). Linguistic distance between Flemish and Norwegian around 1900:subjective views and objective measurements. In P. Broomans, G. Jensma, H. Vandevoorde, Maarten van Ginderachter (eds.) The Beloved Mothertongue. Ethnolinguistic Nationalism in Small Nations:Inventories and Reflections. Groningen Studies in Cultural Change 33. Leuven:Peeters,121-139.
Gradman, H. (1971). Limitations of contrastive analysis predictions. Working Papers in Linguistics 3,11-15.
Gr(?)nnum, N. (2003). Why are the Danes so hard to understand? In H. Galberg Jacobsen et al. (eds.) Take Danish-for instance:linguistic studies in honour of Hans Basboll presented on the occasion of his 60th birthday,12 July 2003. Odense:University Press of Southern Denmark,119-130.
Halle, M., & K. Stevens (2002 [1971]). A note on laryngeal features. In Morris Halle (ed.), From Memory to Speech and Back. Berlin/New York:Mout on de Gruyter,46-61.
Heeringa, W. (2004). Measuring dialect pronunciation differences using Levenshtein Distance. Doctoral dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Hickerson, H., G. D. Turner & N. P. Hickerson (1952). Testing procedures for estimation transfer of information among Iroquois dialects and languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 18,1-8.
Hollenbach, B.E. (1977). Phonetic vs. phonemic correspondence in two Trique dialects. In W. Merrifield (ed.), Studies in Otomanguean Phonology. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics,35-68.
Hume, Elizabeth (1992). Front vowels, coronal consonants, and their interaction in nonlinear phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.
Hyman, Larry M. (2003). A Theory of Phonological Weight. Stanford:CSLI Publications.
Jabobson, Roman (1941). Kindersprache, Aphasie, und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Uppsala:Uppasala Universitets Arsskrift. Translated by A. R. Keiler as Child Language, Aphasia, and Phonological Universals. The Hague:Mouton,1968.
Jakobson, Roman (1929/1971). Remarques sur l'evolution du russe comparee a celle des autres langues slaves". Selected writings, vol.1:Phonological studies. The Hague:Mouton,2nd edition,117-136.
Jakobson, Roman & John Lotz (1949). Notes on the French phonemic pattern. Word 5, 151-158.
Jakobson, Roman & M. Halle (1956). Fundamentals of Language. The Hague: Mouton.
Jensen, J. B. (1989). On the mutual intelligibility of Spanish and Portuguese. Hispania 72,848-852.
Jesperson, W. (1954). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principals. (Part Ⅰ: Sounds and Spellings). London:George Allen & Unwin.
Jun, Jongho (1995). Perceptual and articulatory factors in place assimilation:An Optimality-Theoretic approach. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA.
Kager, R. (1999). Optimality Theory. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Kapalan, Lawrence D. (1981). Phonological Issues in North Alaskan Inupiaq. Fairbanks, AK:Alaska Native Language Center.
Kenstowicz, Michael J. (1994). Phonology in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Kenstowicz, Michael J. (1996). Quality-sensitive stress. Rivista di Linguistica 9: 157-187 [also Rutgers Optimality Archive 33].
Kenstowicz Michael & Charles Kisseberth (1979). Generative Phonology: Description and Theory. New York:Academic Press.
Kessler, B. (1995). Computational dialectology in Irish Gaelic. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Dublin:ACL,60-67.
Kiparsky, Paul (1982). Lexical phonology and morphology. In I.S. Yang (ed.) Linguisitcs in the morning calm. Vol.2. Seoul, Hanshin,3-91.
Kiparsky, Paul (1985). Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology 2, 85-138.
Kiparsky, Paul (1995). The phonological basis of sound change. In John Goldsmith (ed.) The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, Blackwells,640-670.
Kirchner, R. (1996). Synchronic chain shifts in optimality theory. Linguistic Inquiry 27,341-351.
Kirk, P. L. (1970). Dialect intelligibility testing:the Mazatec Study. International Journal of American Linguistics 36,205-211.
Kisseberth, Charles (1970). On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1,291-306.
Kramer, Martin (1998). A correspondence approach to vowel harmony and disharmony. Rutgers Optimality Archive 293.
Kramer, Martin (2000). Yucatec Maya vowel alternations:harmony as syntagmatic identity. Rutgers Optimality Archive 423.
Ladefoged, Peter & Ian Maddieson (1996). The Sounds of the World's Languages. Oxford:Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
Laver, John (1994). Principles of Phonetics. Cambridge:CUP.
Leben, William R. (1973). Suprasegmental phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Liberman, Mark (1975). The intonational system of English. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Lin, Yen-hwei (1989). Autosegmental treatment of segmental processes in Chinese phonology. Doctoral dissertation. The University of Texas, Austin.
Lindau, Mona (1978). Vowel features. Language 3,541-563.
Lombardi, Linda (1995). Why place and voice are different:constraint-specific alternations and Optimality Theory. Rutgers Optimality Archive 105.
Lombardi, Linda (1998). Coronal epenthesis and unmarkedness. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 5,156-175.
Lombardi, Linda (1999). Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17,267-302.
Lombardi, Linda (2002). Coronal epenthesis and markedness. Phonology 19, 219-251.
Lombardi, Linda (2003). Markedness and the typology of epenthetic vowels. Linguistics and Phonetics 2002 Proceedings:Prosody and Phonetics [also Rutgers Optimality Archive 578].
Maddieson, Ian (1984). Patterns of Sounds. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Maddieson, Ian (1992). UCLA Phonological Segment Inventory Database. Los Angeles, UCLA.
Martinet, Andre (1964). Elements of General Linguistics. With a foreword by L.R. Palmer. Translated by Elisabeth Palmer. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
McCarthy, J. (1999). Sympathy and phonological opacity. Phonology 16,331-399.
McCarthy, J., & A. Prince (1994). The emergence of the unmarked:Optimality in prosodic morphology. In Merce Gonzalez (ed.) Proceedings of NELS 24. Amherst, MA, GLSA,333-379.
McCarthy, J., & A. Prince (1999). Faithfulness and identity in prosodic morphology. In R. Kager et al. (eds.) The Prosody-Morphology Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,218-309.
McCarthy, J., & A. Taub (1992). Review of C. Paradis & J.-F. Prunet (eds.) The Special Status of Coronals:Internal and External Evidence. Phonology 9, 363-370.
Mohanan, K. P. (1993). Fields of attraction in phonology. In John Goldsmith (ed.) The Last Phonological Rule:Reflections on Constraints and Derivations. Chicago, University of Chicago Press,61-116.
Moren, Bruce (2003). The parallel structures model of feature geometry. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory. Cornell, NY, Cornell University, ch. 5.
Moulton, W. G. (1962). The Sounds of English and German. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Paradis, Carole & Jean-Francois (1990). The coronal vs. Velar placelessness controversy. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 6 (2),192-228.
Parker, Stephen (2002). Quantifying the sonority hierarchy. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Pawel Matulewicz (帕维尔·玛突来维切)(2005).《吴语瓯江方言韵母演变研究》博士论文.北京语言大学.
Pike, Kenneth (1948). Tone Languages. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
Pierce, J.E. (1952). Dialect distance testing in Algonquian. International Journal of American Linguistics 18,208-218.
Pierce, J.E. (1954). Crow versus Hidatsa in dialect distance and in glottochronology. International Journal of American Linguistics 20,134-136.
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. (1983). Vowelless Chinese? An application to the three tired theory of syllable structure to Pekingese. Paper presented for the Ⅶ International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics at University of Washington.
Pulleyblank, Douglas (1997). Optimality theory and features. In Diana Archangeli & D. Terence Langendoe (eds.) Optimality Theory:An Overview. Oxford: Blackwell,59-101.
Prince, A., & Paul Smolensky (1993). Optimality Theory:Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Rutgers Technical Reports TR-2. New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science [also Rutgers Optimality Archive 537]. Published in 2004 by Blackwells.
Pulleyblank, E.G. (1989). The role of coronal in articulator based features. In C. Wiltshire, R. Graczyk, & B. Music (eds.) Papers from CLS 25. Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society,379-393.
Qiao Sanzheng & William Shi-Yuan Wang (1988). Evaluating phylogenetic trees by matrix decomposition. Anthropoloogical Science 106 (1),1-22.
Riad, Tomas (1992). Structures in Germanic Prosody. Stockholm:Dept. of Scandinavian Languages, Stockhom University.
Rice, K., & P. Avery (1993). Segmental complexity and the structure of inventories. In Carrie Dyck (ed.) Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 12. Toronto, University of Toronto,131-154.
Rice, K. (1996). Default variability:The coronal-velar relationship. NLLT 14, 493-543.
Rice, K. (1999a). Featural markedness in phonology:variation. Part 1. GLOT 4 (7), 3-6.
Rice, K. (1999b). Featural markedness in phonology:variation. Part 2. GLOT 4 (8), 3-7.
Rice, K. (2007). Markedness in phonology. In Paul de Lacy (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,79-98.
Richards, J. (1971). A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. English Language Teaching 25,204-219.
Roca, Iggy (1994). Generative Phonology. London:Routledge.
Rohany, Rahbar (2006). Vowel height in Persian. Ms., Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto.
Rohany, Rahbar (2008). On distinguishing Persian vowels. In Susie Jones (ed.), Proceedings of the 2008 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, ww.chass.uuutoronto.ca/-cla-acl/actes2008/CLA2008_Rahbar.pdf.
Rose, Phil (2000). Wenzhou dialect disyllabic lexical tone sandhi with first syllable entering tones. In M. Barlow (ed.) Proc.8th Australian Intl. Conf. on Speech Science and Technology, Australian Speech Science and Technology Association:Canberra,230-235.
Rutgers, Roland (1998). Yamphu:Grammar, Texts and Lexicon. Leiden, Research School CNWS.
Sagey, Elizabeth C. (1986). The representation of features and relations in non-linear phonology. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Sapir, Edward (1925). Sound patterns in language. Language 1,37-51. Reprinted in Joos (1957),19-25.
Schane, Sanford A. (1984). Two English vowel movements:a particle analysis. In Mark Aronoff & Richard T. Oehrle (ed.) Language Sound Structure:Studies in Phonology. Cambridge:MIT Press,32-51.
Smith, Jennifer (2002). Phonological augmentation in prominent positions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Smith, J.M. (2007). [-ATR] Harmony and the vowel inventory of Sumerian. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 59,19-38.
Smolensky, P. (1993). Harmony, markedness and phonological activity. Handout of talk presented at Rutgers Optimality Workshop-1, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. Rutgers Optimality Archives 87.
Smolensky, P. (1995). On the internal structure of the constraint component CON of UG. Handout from talk, University of Arizona. Rutgers Optimality Archives 86.
Stampe, David (1979). A dissertation on Natural Phonology. New York:Garland Publishing.
Steriade, Donca (1987). Redundant Values. In A. Bosch & E. Schiller (eds.) Parasession on Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Chicago Linguistic Society vol.23, University of Chicago.
Stewart, J.M. (1967). Tongue root position in Akan vowel harmony. Phonetica 16, 185-204.
Stewart, J.M. (1983). Akan vowel harmony:the word structure conditions and the floating vowels. Studies in African Linguistics 14,111-139.
Stockwell, R., & J. Bowen. (1965). The Sounds of English and Spanish. University of Chicago Press.
Tang, Chaoju (2009). Mutual intelligibility of Chinese dialects:an experimental approach. Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University.
Trask, R.L. (1996). A Dictionary of Phonetics and Phonology. London:Routledge.
Trubetzkoy, N.S. (1939). Grundzuge der Phnologie. Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Translated by A. M. Baltaxe as Principles of Phonology. Berkley: University of California Press,1969.
Voegelin, C. F., & E. W. Voeglin (1946). Linguistic considerations of Northeastern North America. In F. Johnson (ed.) Papers of the Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology 3.
Voegelin, C. F., & Z. S. Harris (1951). Methods for determining intelligibility among dialects of natural language. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 95,322-329.
Walker, Rachel (1998). Nasalization, neutral segments, and opacity effects. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Walker, Rachel (2011). Vowel Patterns in Language. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Wang, Jialing & Norval Smith (1997). Studies in Chinese Phonology. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Wardhaugh, R. (1970). The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly 4, 123-130.
Wiese, Richard (1997). Underspecification and description of Chinese vowels. In Wang Jialing & Normal Smith (eds.) Studies in Chinese Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,220-249.
Yip, Moira (1980). The tonal phonology of Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Yip, Moira (1989). Feature geometry and cooccurrence restrictions. Phonology 6, 349-374.
Yip, Moira (1993). Cantonese loanword phonology and Optimality Theory. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2,261-291.
Yip, Moira (2001). Segmental unmarkedness versus input preservation in reduplication. In Linda Lombardi (ed.) Segmental Phonology in Optimality Theory:Constraints and Representations. Cambridge, CUP,206-228.
Yip, Moira (2002). Tone. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Zhang, Jisheng (2006). The Phonology of Shaoxing Chinese. Utrecht:LOT.
Zhang, Xi (1996). Vowel systems of the Manchu-Tungus languages of China. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
北大中国语言文学系和语言学教研室(1989).《汉语方音字汇》.北京：文字改革出版社.
彼得·赖福吉(Peter Ladefoged)(张维佳译)(2011).《语音学教程(第五版)》(A Course in Phonetics (5th ed.)).北京：北京大学出版社.
蔡勇飞(1984).吴语的边界和南北分区.《方言》第1期,13-14.
曹志耘(2001).南部吴语的小称.《语言研究》第3期,33-44.
曹志耘(2002).《南部吴语语音研究》.北京：商务印书馆.
陈保亚(1996).《论汉语接触与语言联盟》.北京：语文出版社.
陈忠敏(1995).上海市区话语音的一百多年来的演变.《吴语和闽语的比较研究》.上海：上海教育出版社,18-31.
陈忠敏(1998).吴语及邻近方言鱼韵的读音层次.《第六届中国境内语言暨语言学国际研讨会论文集》,345-364.
丁邦新(1975).平仄新考.《史语所集刊》47(1)1-15.
丁邦新(2003).《一百年前的苏州话》.上海：上海教育出版社.
丁邦新(2008).《语言学论文集》.北京：商务印书馆.
丁锋(2005).一百年来绍兴方言的语音演变.《吴语研究》.上海：上海教育出版社,156-162.
冯力(2007).从北部吴语的“V快”看中心谓语成分虚化为助词的现象.《中国语文》第3期,248-255.
傅国通、方松熹、蔡勇飞、鲍世杰、傅佐之(1985).浙江吴语分区.浙江省语言学会编《语言学年刊》第3期方言专刊.
傅佐之、黄敬旺(1980).温州方言端透定三母的腭化现象.《方言》第4期,263-266.
郭锡良(1986).《汉字古音手册》.北京：北京大学出版社.
侯精一(1989).《晋语研究》.东京外国语大学亚非言语文化研究所.
黄晓东(2007).浙江临海方言音系.《方言》第1期,35-51.
江苏省和上海市方言概况指导组编(1960).《江苏省和上海市方言概况》.南京：江苏人民出版社.
金有景(1982).关于浙江方言中咸山两摄三四等字的分别.《语言研究》第1期,148-162.
李荣(1979).《温岭方言的连读变调》.《方言》第1期,1-29.
李小凡(2004).《汉语方言连读变调的层级和类型》.《方言》第1期,16-33.
林素娥、苏宪萍(2007).方言可通度计算研究刍议.《甘肃联合大学学报》第1期,58-60.
刘丹青(1992).吴江方言[g]声母字研究,《语言研究》第2期,65-71.
刘俐李(2005).吴语声调的音区特征、曲拱特征、调类合并和包络式变调.《吴语研究》.上海：上海教育出版社,320-330.
刘镇发(2006).温州方言在过去一世纪的元音推移.《语言研究》第2期,32-35.
马希文(1988).比较方言学中的亲疏计量方法.《中国语文》第2期,348-360.
马秋武(2001).普通话舌尖元音的优选论分析.《新世纪的现代语音学》.北京：清华大学出版社.
马秋武(2003).《优选论与汉语普通话的音节组构》.天津：南开大学出版社.
马秋武(2008).《优选论》.上海：上海教育出版社.
梅祖麟(2001).现代吴语和“支脂鱼虞,共为不韵”.《中国语文》第1期,3-15.
潘悟云(2006).竞争性音变与历史层次.《东方语言学》(创刊号).上海：上海教育出版社,152-165.
潘悟云(2008).吴语韵母系统主体层次的一致性.《东方语言学》第3期,132-137.
潘悟云(2009).吴语形成的历史背景——兼论汉语南部方言的形成模式.《方言》第3期,193-203.
彭建国(2009).吴语、湘语主元音链变类型比较.《中国语文》第5期,454-461.
平田直子(2007).北部吴语遇摄的语音演变.《吴语研究》.上海：上海教育出版社.163-170.
钱乃荣(1988).吴语声调系统的类型及其变迁.《语言研究》第2期,63-80.
钱乃荣(1992).《当代吴语研究》.上海：上海教育出版社.
钱乃荣(2003).《北部吴语研究》.上海：上海大学出版社.
钱乃荣(2006).上海话在北部吴语分区中的地位问题.《方言》第3期,272-277.
阮咏梅(2010).台州方言在吴语中的内外关系.《宁波大学学报(人文科学版)》第1期,13-18.
绍兴县地方志编纂委员会(1999).《绍兴县志》.北京：中华书局.
沈克成、沈迦(2006).《温州话》.宁波：宁波出版社.
盛芳(2005).北部吴语语音研究.硕士论文.上海师范大学.
石锋(1992).吴江方言声调格局的分析.《方言》第3期,189-194.
石汝杰等(2006).江苏吴江盛泽方言音系.[日本]《熊本学员大学文学·语言学论集》第13卷第2号.
史有为(1985).从吴方言看音变扩展的不平衡性——吴方言部分奉、微母字声母清化现象.《语言研究》第1期,150-159.
陶寰(2003).吴语一等韵带介音研究——以侯韵为例,《吴语研究》.上海：上海教育出版社,15-21.
王福堂(2005).《汉语方言语音的演变和层次》(修订本).北京：语文出版社.
王福堂(2010[1959]).绍兴话记音.《汉语方言论集》.北京：商务印书馆,207-241.
王洪君(2004).也谈古吴方言覃谈寒桓四韵的关系.《中国语文》第4期,358-362.
王士元、沈钟伟(1992).方言关系的计量表述.《中国语文》第2期,81-92.
汪平(1987).苏州音系再分析.《语言研究》第1期,41-48.
汪平(2005).北部吴语三小片的重新画分.《方言》第2期,149-156.
汪平(2010a).《吴江市方言志》.上海：上海社会科学院出版社.
汪平(2010b).江苏通州方言音系探讨.《方言》第1期,201-210.
温瑞政(1985).《忻州方言志》.北京：语文出版社.
翁寿元、石汝杰(1998).《江苏省志·方言志》中吴江方言部分(p.135).江苏省地方志编纂委员会.南京：南京大学出版社.
吴安其(2005).温州话的韵母及其文白异读.《南开语言学刊》第1期,9-24.
吴安其(2006).温州话声母的文白读和中古声韵的构拟.《南开语言学刊》第1期,21-32.
吴瑞文(2005).《吴闽方言历史音韵比较》.博士论文.中央研究院语言研究所.
许宝华、汤珍珠、游汝杰(1984).北片吴语内部的异同.《方言》第4期,13-18.
许宝华、汤珍珠(1988).《上海市方言志》.上海：上海教育出版社.
许珍(2009).吴江方言声调研究.硕士论文.上海师范大学.
徐通锵(1996).《历史语言学》.北京：商务印书馆.
徐越(1991).浙江吴语声调略说,《杭州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》第3期,176-186.
徐云扬(1995).《吴语研究》.香港：香港中文大学新亚书院.
颜逸明(1994).《吴语概说》.上海：华东师范大学出版社.
颜逸明(2000).《浙南瓯语》.上海：华东师范大学出版社.
杨蓓(2003).吴语五地研究相关度的计量研究.《语言文字研究》第1期,120-130.
叶建、徐之明(2009).浙江黄岩话的文白异读.《遵义师范学院学报》第2期,62-66.
叶祥苓(1983).吴江方言声调再调查.《方言》第1期,32-35.
叶晓峰(2008).《温州方言语音研究》.硕士论文.上海师范大学.
游汝杰(2002).吴语内部各片的音韵对应.《声韵论丛》第十二辑.台湾学生书局.
游汝杰(2008).吴语元音的简约性问题.《吴语研究》.上海：上海教育出版社,11-16.
游汝杰、杨蓓(1998).广东话、上海话和普通话词汇接近率的计量研究.《汉语计量与计算机研究》第12期,57-77.
游汝杰等(2001).《吴语声调的实验研究》.上海：复旦大学出版社.
游汝杰,杨乾明(1998).《温州方言词典》.南京：江苏教育出版社.
张拱贵、刘丹青(1983).吴江方言声调的初步调查.《南京师范学院学报》第3期.
张吉生(2006).从吴方言看声母-声调的相互关系.《当代语言学》第2期,121-128.
张吉生(2007).汉语韵尾辅音演变的音系理据.《中国语文》第4期,291-297.
张吉生(2009).绍兴方言连读变调的底层声调特征.《当代语言学》第4期,299-308.
张琨(1985).论吴语方言.《史语所集刊》56(2),215-260.
赵德忠、马秋武(2011).《西方音系学理论与流派》.北京：商务印书馆.
赵日新(2007).汉语方言中的[i]>[(?)].《中国语文》第1期,46-54.
赵元任(2011[1928]).《现代吴语的研究》.北京：商务印书馆.
郑锦全(1988).汉语方言亲疏关系的计量研究.《中国语文》第2期,87-102.
郑锦全(1994).汉语方言沟通度的计算.《中国语文》第1期,35-43.
郑伟(2008).《太湖片吴语音韵演变研究》.博士论文.复旦大学.
郑伟(2011).《切韵》寒韵字的演变特征与现代吴语.《中国语文》第4期,352-363.
郑晓峰(2005).闽北方言和南部吴语的共同点举隅.《吴语研究》.上海：上海教育出版社,362-371.
郑张尚芳(1964).温州音系.《中国语文》第1期,28-60.
郑张尚芳(1989).温州话流摄一三等交替的特点.《温州师范学院学报》第4期,97-100.
郑张尚芳(2002).汉语及其亲属语言语音演变中的元音大推移.历史语言学研讨会(2002.8温州)论文.
郑张尚芳(2008).《温州方言志》.北京：中华书局.
《中国语言地图集》(1987).香港：朗文出版(远东)有限公司.
周法高(1948).说平仄,《中央研究院历史语言研究所集刊》13，153-162.
朱晓农(夏剑钦摘译)(1996).上海音系.《国外语言学》第2期,29-37.
朱晓农(2004).汉语元音的高顶出位.《中国语文》第5期,440-451.
朱晓农(2010).《语音学》.北京：商务印书馆.