中国传统吟诵研究
|
摘要
吟诵是中国传统的古典诗歌创作和诵读的方法,与古典诗歌相伴而生,具有抑扬顿挫的节奏和独特的旋律腔调,是国家非物质文化遗产。而当前会传统吟诵的人都是接受过传统私塾教育的年逾古稀的老先生,且现有吟诵的音像资料大多是零碎的,不足以供学习和研究之用,传统吟诵这一古老的文化面临消失和失传的危险。而且从吟诵角度对古典诗歌的节奏、格律、语言与音乐关系等问题的研究尚未开展。
因此本文首先从语音多模态研究的理念出发,精心挑选吟诵人和吟诵篇章,采录温州、常州、江阴和福州四个方言区四位先生的传统吟诵的视频、语音、嗓音EGG和胸腹呼吸信号,语料包括五言和七言近体诗、古体诗、词和古文共118首,最大限度的呈现和保存这门濒危的传统文化。同时编写程序建立言语呼吸韵律分析系统,用实验语音学的技术手段和语言学理论方法对吟诵进行研究,探索语言与音乐间的关系,比较古诗词文朗读和吟诵在韵律、旋律、发声和呼吸各方面的异同,探析古典诗歌节奏、呼吸与字数演变的关系,近体诗以五言、七言为主流和押平声韵的原因,以及不同方言近体诗吟诵的异同。同时归纳吟诵的方法,从而更好的学习吟诵,传承中国传统文化。
本文研究结果显示：五言、七言近体诗朗读和吟诵的差异主要体现在音步节奏的划分和长短序列的差异方面,以及吟诵中句末字的拖腔特点方面。由顿歇形成的音步是节奏的基础,音步是节奏的最小单元。五言近体诗朗读中音步的结构是2+3,七言是2+2+3,音步由两个音节或句末三个音节构成。而吟诵中五言近体诗的音步结构是2+2+1,音步节奏长短序列是三拍“长+短+长”,或者“短+长+长”。七言近体诗吟诵中是四拍2+2+2+1,音步节奏长短序列是“长+短+长+短”,或者“短十长十短+长”。词和古文吟诵的句式可以分为两类,四言、六言偶数句和三言、五言奇数句,从左往右每两个音节构成一个音步,奇数句句末最后一个音节拖音延长后单独成为一个音步。
古诗词文吟诵中音步时长比朗读中显著延长,音步具备“平长仄短”的规律。“平平”组合音步后音节时长大于前音节,音步内前后音节结合紧密,形成“松紧型”音步。吟诵中韵律句末字存在较长的拖腔现象,成为传统吟诵最为显著的标志。入声字通常加字拖腔。句内音节调值的高低变化是旋律产生的基础,平仄的交错变化形成旋律的高低起伏变化,朗读中调值变化同吟诵中旋律变化一致。平仄格律相同的韵律句具有相同的旋律走向,而且节奏完全一致,可以用同样的旋律去吟诵相同类型的近体诗或词牌。
古诗词文传统吟诵与朗读在嗓音发声方面的主要差别在于吟诵句末拖腔的发声特点不同。吟诵中平声字拖腔的基频低,开商大,速度商小,发声比朗读中较松,高频能量弱。入声字拖腔特点表现为基频高,开商小,呈现紧嗓音特点。
古诗词文朗读与吟诵呼吸的主要差别在于：近体诗朗读中腹呼吸重置分为两级,一级、二级呼吸交替出现,而吟诵中基本都是一级呼吸重置。腹呼吸重置时间点早于胸呼吸,韵律短语边界在胸腹呼吸信号上体现为断点抖动或水平段。吟诵中气息量比朗读中增加数倍。词朗读中一级呼吸重置只出现在上阕、下阕开始处,而吟诵中每长句开始处都有一个一级呼吸重置。
古典诗歌字数的变化本质上是节奏的变化。五言诗是在四言诗的基础上增加一个字添加一拍。七言诗是在五言诗的句首增加了一个双音节音步,从三拍变为四拍。古典诗歌以五言和七言为主流的主要原因是因为呼吸生理极限和音步节奏的缘故。押平声韵主要是因为句末的单音节需单独成为一个音步,构成一拍,而平声字比仄声字更易延长。
经过分析发现四位先生的吟诵可分为两派,差异在于常州、江阴和福州三位先生的吟诵中旋律高低与平仄格律关系密切,“平平”组合音步的位置决定了韵律层级的划分和节奏模式,“平平”音步后字延长,句末字拖腔。而温州潘先生的吟诵中旋律模式和延长字的位置固定,与平仄格律无关。同时两派的拖腔特点也不同。
Chanting is a traditional method of composing and reciting classical poems. It appeared since the occurrence of classical poems with cadenced rhythm and unique melody, and has been approved as national intangible cultural heritage. However, all chanters are senior people who had received education in private schools in the old days. The audio-visual materials of chanting are far from enough for learning and research. Therefore, chanting is in the danger of being lost. Another important matter is that the research of chanting in the perspective of the relationship between music and the rhythm, the meter, and the language of classical poems has not yet been carried out.
This research, from the perspective of multi-model phonetic research, has carefully chosen chanters and poems, recorded data of four chanters from Wenzhou, Changzhou, Jiangyin, and Fuzhou respectively. The data includes visual, audio, phonation (with Electronic Glottal Graph), and respiratory (including costal and abdominal respiration) signals. The material includes five-and seven-syllable rhythm poems and XX poems, ci, and essays,140pieces in all, with an aim of presenting and protecting the endangered traditional culture. Through programming, a system of respiration prosody analysis has been built. On this basis, this research studies chanting with linguistic theories and experimental methods, exploring the relationship between language and music, comparing reciting and chanting in aspects of prosody, melody, phonation, and respiration, analyzing the relationship between prosody and respiration of classical poems and the change of syllable numbers, and the reason of the predominance of five-and seven-syllable poems and level-tone rhythmic syllables. Chantings in different dialects have been taken into description and comparison. This research also generalizes methods of chanting, in order to contribute to the teaching of chanting and the protection of Chinese traditional culture.
The result shows that the differences between chanting and reciting of five-and seven-syllable poems lie in the division of feet, length series, and sentence-final lengthening. feet formed by pauses is the basis of rhythm and the minimal unit of it. In reciting, the foot structure of five-syllable poems is2+3and that of seven-syllable poems is2+2+3, the foot is composed by two syllables or three syllables (sentence-final position). In chanting, the foot structure of five-syllable poems is2+2+1, the length series is a three-foot "long-short-long" or "short-long-long"; the foot structure of seven-syllable poems is2+2+2+1, the length series is a four-foot "long-short-long-short" or "short-long-short-long". There are two sentence patterns in the chanting of Song poems and essays:one is for sentences with even-number syllables in which from left to right every two syllables form a foot; the other is for sentences with odd-number syllables in which the final syllable lengthens and form a foot by itself.
The length of feet in chanting of classic poems, ci, and essays is obviously longer than that in reciting them, which is the most obvious characteristics of chanting. For checked syllables, another syllable is added after it to realize the lengthening. The high-low alternation of the tone value of syllables in a sentence is the basis of melody in chanting. The melody pattern of reciting is similar to that of chanting. Sentences with same rhythm pattern have same melody pattern. One can use same melody to chant each poem or ci with the same rhythm pattern.
The difference of respiration between chanting and reciting is:in reciting there are two levels of abdominal respiration resetting, the first and the second level of respiration appears in alternation; in chanting only the first level of respiration appears. The resetting time of abdominal respiration is earlier than that of costal respiration. The signal appearance related to the boundaries of prosodic phrases is fragmental jitter or level section. The amount of aspiration in chanting is several times more than that in reciting. In reciting of ci, the first level respiration resetting only appears before the beginning of the first part and the second part. In chanting the first level respiration resetting appears before the beginning of each long sentence.
The difference of phonation between chanting and reciting lies in that the sentence-final lengthening in chanting has a special phonation type. In chanting, the lengthening of level-tone syllables has a low pitch, high OQ value, and low SQ value. The lengthened syllable in chanting is more lax than that in reciting and has weak high-frequency energy. The lengthening of checked syllables has a high pitch and low OQ value, showing characteristics of creaky voice.
The nature of change of syllable number in classical poems is change of prosody. Five-syllable poems add a syllable to each sentence of four-syllable poems in order to add a foot. Seven-syllable poems add a disyllabic foot in front of each sentence of five-syllable poems, shifting from three-foot to four-foot. The reason of five-syllabic and seven-syllabic classical poems have become the mainstream lies in the restriction of respiration and foot prosody. The rhyming syllables are mainly level-tone syllables because sentence-final syllables need to form a foot by itself, and level-tone syllables are easier to lengthen than contour-tone syllables.
Two schools can be recognized from chanting of the four chanters. In chanting of chanters from Changzhou, Suzhou, and Jiangyin, the melody and the rhythm patterns are closely connected. The positions of "level-level" feet decide the segmentation of prosodic layers and the pattern of prosody. The second syllables of "level-level" combinations lengthen; sentence-final syllables have a drawl. In contrast, Mr. Pan from Wenzhou in his chanting has a fixed pattern of melody and syllable-lengthening which are independent from the rhythm pattern. There are also differences in the characteristics of drawl of the two schools of chanting.
因此本文首先从语音多模态研究的理念出发,精心挑选吟诵人和吟诵篇章,采录温州、常州、江阴和福州四个方言区四位先生的传统吟诵的视频、语音、嗓音EGG和胸腹呼吸信号,语料包括五言和七言近体诗、古体诗、词和古文共118首,最大限度的呈现和保存这门濒危的传统文化。同时编写程序建立言语呼吸韵律分析系统,用实验语音学的技术手段和语言学理论方法对吟诵进行研究,探索语言与音乐间的关系,比较古诗词文朗读和吟诵在韵律、旋律、发声和呼吸各方面的异同,探析古典诗歌节奏、呼吸与字数演变的关系,近体诗以五言、七言为主流和押平声韵的原因,以及不同方言近体诗吟诵的异同。同时归纳吟诵的方法,从而更好的学习吟诵,传承中国传统文化。
本文研究结果显示：五言、七言近体诗朗读和吟诵的差异主要体现在音步节奏的划分和长短序列的差异方面,以及吟诵中句末字的拖腔特点方面。由顿歇形成的音步是节奏的基础,音步是节奏的最小单元。五言近体诗朗读中音步的结构是2+3,七言是2+2+3,音步由两个音节或句末三个音节构成。而吟诵中五言近体诗的音步结构是2+2+1,音步节奏长短序列是三拍“长+短+长”,或者“短+长+长”。七言近体诗吟诵中是四拍2+2+2+1,音步节奏长短序列是“长+短+长+短”,或者“短十长十短+长”。词和古文吟诵的句式可以分为两类,四言、六言偶数句和三言、五言奇数句,从左往右每两个音节构成一个音步,奇数句句末最后一个音节拖音延长后单独成为一个音步。
古诗词文吟诵中音步时长比朗读中显著延长,音步具备“平长仄短”的规律。“平平”组合音步后音节时长大于前音节,音步内前后音节结合紧密,形成“松紧型”音步。吟诵中韵律句末字存在较长的拖腔现象,成为传统吟诵最为显著的标志。入声字通常加字拖腔。句内音节调值的高低变化是旋律产生的基础,平仄的交错变化形成旋律的高低起伏变化,朗读中调值变化同吟诵中旋律变化一致。平仄格律相同的韵律句具有相同的旋律走向,而且节奏完全一致,可以用同样的旋律去吟诵相同类型的近体诗或词牌。
古诗词文传统吟诵与朗读在嗓音发声方面的主要差别在于吟诵句末拖腔的发声特点不同。吟诵中平声字拖腔的基频低,开商大,速度商小,发声比朗读中较松,高频能量弱。入声字拖腔特点表现为基频高,开商小,呈现紧嗓音特点。
古诗词文朗读与吟诵呼吸的主要差别在于：近体诗朗读中腹呼吸重置分为两级,一级、二级呼吸交替出现,而吟诵中基本都是一级呼吸重置。腹呼吸重置时间点早于胸呼吸,韵律短语边界在胸腹呼吸信号上体现为断点抖动或水平段。吟诵中气息量比朗读中增加数倍。词朗读中一级呼吸重置只出现在上阕、下阕开始处,而吟诵中每长句开始处都有一个一级呼吸重置。
古典诗歌字数的变化本质上是节奏的变化。五言诗是在四言诗的基础上增加一个字添加一拍。七言诗是在五言诗的句首增加了一个双音节音步,从三拍变为四拍。古典诗歌以五言和七言为主流的主要原因是因为呼吸生理极限和音步节奏的缘故。押平声韵主要是因为句末的单音节需单独成为一个音步,构成一拍,而平声字比仄声字更易延长。
经过分析发现四位先生的吟诵可分为两派,差异在于常州、江阴和福州三位先生的吟诵中旋律高低与平仄格律关系密切,“平平”组合音步的位置决定了韵律层级的划分和节奏模式,“平平”音步后字延长,句末字拖腔。而温州潘先生的吟诵中旋律模式和延长字的位置固定,与平仄格律无关。同时两派的拖腔特点也不同。
Chanting is a traditional method of composing and reciting classical poems. It appeared since the occurrence of classical poems with cadenced rhythm and unique melody, and has been approved as national intangible cultural heritage. However, all chanters are senior people who had received education in private schools in the old days. The audio-visual materials of chanting are far from enough for learning and research. Therefore, chanting is in the danger of being lost. Another important matter is that the research of chanting in the perspective of the relationship between music and the rhythm, the meter, and the language of classical poems has not yet been carried out.
This research, from the perspective of multi-model phonetic research, has carefully chosen chanters and poems, recorded data of four chanters from Wenzhou, Changzhou, Jiangyin, and Fuzhou respectively. The data includes visual, audio, phonation (with Electronic Glottal Graph), and respiratory (including costal and abdominal respiration) signals. The material includes five-and seven-syllable rhythm poems and XX poems, ci, and essays,140pieces in all, with an aim of presenting and protecting the endangered traditional culture. Through programming, a system of respiration prosody analysis has been built. On this basis, this research studies chanting with linguistic theories and experimental methods, exploring the relationship between language and music, comparing reciting and chanting in aspects of prosody, melody, phonation, and respiration, analyzing the relationship between prosody and respiration of classical poems and the change of syllable numbers, and the reason of the predominance of five-and seven-syllable poems and level-tone rhythmic syllables. Chantings in different dialects have been taken into description and comparison. This research also generalizes methods of chanting, in order to contribute to the teaching of chanting and the protection of Chinese traditional culture.
The result shows that the differences between chanting and reciting of five-and seven-syllable poems lie in the division of feet, length series, and sentence-final lengthening. feet formed by pauses is the basis of rhythm and the minimal unit of it. In reciting, the foot structure of five-syllable poems is2+3and that of seven-syllable poems is2+2+3, the foot is composed by two syllables or three syllables (sentence-final position). In chanting, the foot structure of five-syllable poems is2+2+1, the length series is a three-foot "long-short-long" or "short-long-long"; the foot structure of seven-syllable poems is2+2+2+1, the length series is a four-foot "long-short-long-short" or "short-long-short-long". There are two sentence patterns in the chanting of Song poems and essays:one is for sentences with even-number syllables in which from left to right every two syllables form a foot; the other is for sentences with odd-number syllables in which the final syllable lengthens and form a foot by itself.
The length of feet in chanting of classic poems, ci, and essays is obviously longer than that in reciting them, which is the most obvious characteristics of chanting. For checked syllables, another syllable is added after it to realize the lengthening. The high-low alternation of the tone value of syllables in a sentence is the basis of melody in chanting. The melody pattern of reciting is similar to that of chanting. Sentences with same rhythm pattern have same melody pattern. One can use same melody to chant each poem or ci with the same rhythm pattern.
The difference of respiration between chanting and reciting is:in reciting there are two levels of abdominal respiration resetting, the first and the second level of respiration appears in alternation; in chanting only the first level of respiration appears. The resetting time of abdominal respiration is earlier than that of costal respiration. The signal appearance related to the boundaries of prosodic phrases is fragmental jitter or level section. The amount of aspiration in chanting is several times more than that in reciting. In reciting of ci, the first level respiration resetting only appears before the beginning of the first part and the second part. In chanting the first level respiration resetting appears before the beginning of each long sentence.
The difference of phonation between chanting and reciting lies in that the sentence-final lengthening in chanting has a special phonation type. In chanting, the lengthening of level-tone syllables has a low pitch, high OQ value, and low SQ value. The lengthened syllable in chanting is more lax than that in reciting and has weak high-frequency energy. The lengthening of checked syllables has a high pitch and low OQ value, showing characteristics of creaky voice.
The nature of change of syllable number in classical poems is change of prosody. Five-syllable poems add a syllable to each sentence of four-syllable poems in order to add a foot. Seven-syllable poems add a disyllabic foot in front of each sentence of five-syllable poems, shifting from three-foot to four-foot. The reason of five-syllabic and seven-syllabic classical poems have become the mainstream lies in the restriction of respiration and foot prosody. The rhyming syllables are mainly level-tone syllables because sentence-final syllables need to form a foot by itself, and level-tone syllables are easier to lengthen than contour-tone syllables.
Two schools can be recognized from chanting of the four chanters. In chanting of chanters from Changzhou, Suzhou, and Jiangyin, the melody and the rhythm patterns are closely connected. The positions of "level-level" feet decide the segmentation of prosodic layers and the pattern of prosody. The second syllables of "level-level" combinations lengthen; sentence-final syllables have a drawl. In contrast, Mr. Pan from Wenzhou in his chanting has a fixed pattern of melody and syllable-lengthening which are independent from the rhythm pattern. There are also differences in the characteristics of drawl of the two schools of chanting.
引文
赵元任(1994).赵元任音乐论文集[C].中国文联出版社,北京.
赵元任(1979).汉语口语语法[M].商务印书馆,北京.
罗常培,王昀(1981).普通话语音学纲要[M].商务印书馆,北京.
陈保亚(2009).当代语言学[M].高等教育出版社,北京.
陈少松(2002).古诗词文吟诵[M].社会科学文献出版社,北京.
杨荫浏(1981).中国古代音乐史稿[M].人民音乐出版社,北京.
陈平原(2004).词曲研究[M].湖北教育出版社,武汉.
王力(2000).诗词格律[M].商务印书馆,北京.
俞平伯(1983).论诗词曲杂著[M].上海古籍出版社,上海.
任半塘(1982).《唐声诗》(上下编)[M].上海古籍出版社,上海.
秦德祥(2002).吟诵音乐[M].中国文联出版社,北京.
盘石(1995).中国古诗词吟诵曲选[M].江苏文艺出版社,南京.
朱谦之(1989).中国音乐文学史[M].北京大学出版社,北京.
朱自清(1988).朱自清全集[M].江苏教育出版社,南京.
章鸣(1998).语言音乐学纲要[M].文化艺术出版社,北京.
戴维.克里斯特尔编,沈家煊译(2007).现代语言学词典[M].商务印书馆,北京.
朱光潜(1984).诗论[M],三联书店,北京.
罗常培、王均(1957).普通语音学纲要[M],科学出版社,北京.
方特、高奋(1994).言语科学与言语技术[M],商务印书馆,北京.
王士元、彭刚(2006).语言、语音与技术[M],上海教育出版社,上海.
林焘、沈炯(1985).北京语音实验录[M],北京大学出版社,北京.
王洪君(2008).汉语非线性音系学[M].北京大学出版社,北京.
Matthew Y. Chen(陈渊泉,2001).汉语方言的连续变调模式[M].外语教学与研究出版社,北京.
孔江平(2001).论语言发声[M].中央民族大学出版社,北京.
刘现强(2007).现代汉语节奏研究[M].北京语言大学出版社,北京.
叶军(2001).汉语语句韵律的语法功能[M].华东师范大学出版社,上海
孙玄龄、刘东升(1990).中国古代歌曲[M],人民音乐出版社出版,北京.
王恩保、石佩雯(1993).古诗文吟诵集粹[M],北京语言学院出版社,北京.
王恩保(1998).吟诵文化漫议[J].中国文化研究1998年夏之卷(总第20期).
钱一凡(2009).言语发声与艺术发声嗓音特性比较研究[D],北京大学硕士学位论.
谭晶晶(2008).汉语普通话朗读时的呼吸节奏研究[D].北京大学硕士学位论文.
叶泽华(2010).新平彝语松紧嗓音研究[D].北京大学硕士学位论文.
尹基德(2010).汉语韵律的嗓音发声研究[D].北京大学博士学位论文.
伊小柯(2007).传统吟诵调的艺术价值与当前生存状况[D],中国艺术研究院硕士学位论文.
胡立华(2006).论吟诵的音乐价值[D].江西师范大学硕士学位论文.
任半塘(1957).唐声诗之范围与定义[J].四川大学学报,第3期.
钱璱之(1998).话说“吟诵”[J].常州工业技术学院学报,第3期.
林庚(1964).略谈唐诗的语言[J].文学评论,第1期.
林庚(1985).漫谈中国古典诗歌的艺术借鉴——诗的国度与诗的语言[J].社会科学战线,第4期.
王洪君(2004).试论汉语的节奏类型——松紧型[J].语言科学,第3期.
端木三(2000).汉语的节奏[J].当代语言学,第4期.
陈炳铮(1998).读诵吟唱[J],中国音乐,第3期.
陈炳铮(1981).谈古典诗歌的吟诵[J].中国音乐,第3期.
杜亚雄(1990).论五度结构[J],中国音乐,第4期.
杜亚雄(1990).语言和音乐的关系[J],中国音乐,第1期.
杜亚雄(1996).中国传统音乐中的两个基本概念——“声”与“拍”[J],人民音乐,第5期.
胡俊林(2006).论中华吟诵文化的发展轨迹[J],内江师范学院学报,第5期.
杜兴梅(2002).中国古代音乐文学发展轨迹扫描[J].西安音乐学院学报,第4期.
李欢喜(2004).吟诵艺术初探[J].内蒙古艺术,第1期.
胡俊林(2006).论中华吟诵文化的发展轨迹[J].内江师范学院学报,第5期.
华钟彦(1983).关于近体诗的读法[J].唐代文学论丛.陕西人民出版社.
华锋(1999).论古典诗词的吟咏[J].河南大学学报(社会科学版),第5期.
华锋(2009).漫谈吟咏的节奏[C].吟诵经典、爱我中华——中华吟诵周论文集.
华锋(2010).传统吟诵与音乐的演唱[J].湛江师范学院学报,第1期.
杨荫浏(1986).杨荫浏音乐论文选集[J].上海文艺出版社.
松浦友久(1992).关于中国古典诗歌的节奏结构——以“休音”(虚音)的功能为
中心[C].唐代文学研究(第三辑)——中国唐代文学学会第五届年会暨唐代文学国际学术讨论会论文集.
冯胜利(1996).论汉语的“韵律词”[J].中国社会科学,第1期.
冯胜利(1996).论汉语的“自然音步”[J].中国语文,第1期
葛晓音(2010).诗歌形式研究的古为今用——林庚先生关于古诗节奏和新诗格律
的理论思考[J].北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版),第4期.
葛晓音(2011).关于诗型与节奏的研究——松浦友久教授访谈录[J].文学遗产,第4期.
王泽龙(2011).中国现代诗歌节奏研究的历程与困惑[J].武汉大学学报(人文科学版),第2期.
王永(2007).节奏与诗——兼论节奏的起源[J].贵州大学学报(社会科学版),第3期.
陈本益(2011).探索汉语诗歌节奏的一个思路[J].汉语言文学研究,第5期.
陈本益(2003).汉语诗歌句式的构成和演变的规律[J].南昌大学学报(人社版),第2期
方兢(2001).简论汉语诗歌形式的构成规律——兼与杨柄同志商榷[J].人文杂志,第6期.
李西安(2001).汉语诗律与汉族旋律[J].音乐研究,第3期.
傅雪漪(1994).中国古典诗词的吟与唱[J].音乐研究.
吉颖颖(2009).古典诗词的吟诵与吟唱[J].黄河之声,第20期.
钱明锵(2009).诗词吟诵八法[C].吟诵经典、爱我中华——中华吟诵周论文集.
钱茸(1993).吟唱调在民歌分类中的归属[J].音乐研究,第4期.
秦德祥(2004).吟诵音调与平仄声调[J].西安音乐学院学报,第3期.
谢桃坊(2000).关于古典诗词的吟诵[J].文史杂志,第5期.
徐建顺(2009).吟诵的规则初探[C].吟诵经典、爱我中华——中华吟诵周论文集.
朱立侠(2009).古代诗歌语音表述形式考[J].中国诗歌研究动态,第1期.
谭晶晶、李永宏、孔江平(2008).汉语普通话不同文体朗读时的呼吸重置研究[J],
清华大学学报——2007年第九届全国人机语音通讯学术会议NCMMSC特刊,清华大学出版社.
王蓓、杨玉芳、吕士楠(2004)汉语韵律层级边界结构的声学相关物[J],声学学报,第1期.
王蓓、杨玉芳、吕士楠(2005)语篇中大尺度信息单元边界的声学线索[J],声学学报,第3期.
王洪君(2000).汉语的韵律词和韵律短语[J],中国语文,第6期.
Halliday,M.A.K.A Course of Spoken English:Intonation[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,1970.
Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Gramm ar[M].London:Edward Arnold,1994.
Thomas J.Hixon(1987) Respiratory Function in Speech and Song. College-Hill Press. San Diego.
Ron J. Baken et al. (1979) Chest wall movements prior to phonation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,22,862-872
Baken.RJ(1992)Electroglottography, Journal of Voice, Vol.6, No.2,98-110.
Baken.RJ, Orlikoff RF(2000) Correlates of Vocal Fold Motion, Clinical Measurement of Speech and Voice,2nd edition, Singular/Thompson Learning.
Kong, J, (2007) Laryngeal dynamics and physiological models:high speed imaging and acoustical techniques, Peking University Press.
Peng, G. (2006) Temporal and tonal aspects of Chinese syllables:A corpus-based comparative study of Mandarin and Cantonese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 34.1,134-154.
Peter Ladefoged, (2006) A course in phonetics, Thomson Wadsworth.
Rothenberg, (1981) Some relations between glottal air flow and vocal fold contact area, ASHA Rep.11,88-96.
Rothenberg, M, and Mahshie, J. J. (1988) Monitoring vocal fold abduction through vocal fold contact area, Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,31,338-351.
Fant, G. and Kruckenberg, A. (1996). On the quantal nature of speech timing, Proc. ICSLP 1996,2044-2047. (Revised version).
Kruckenberg, A. and Fant, G. (1993). Iambic versus trochaic patterns in poetry reading, Nordic Prosody VI, Stockholm,1993,123-135.
Fant, G., Kruckenberg, A and Barbosa-Ferreira, J. Individual variations in pausing. A study of read speech. (2003). Proc. of the Swedish Phonetics meeting in Umea, Phonum 2003.
Fant, G. and Kruckenberg, A. (2004). An integrated viewof Swedish prosody.Voice production, perception and synthesis. To appear in Gunnar Fant, Selected Writings.
Pike, K.(1945).The Intonation of American English(2nd edition)[M].Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
赵元任(1979).汉语口语语法[M].商务印书馆,北京.
罗常培,王昀(1981).普通话语音学纲要[M].商务印书馆,北京.
陈保亚(2009).当代语言学[M].高等教育出版社,北京.
陈少松(2002).古诗词文吟诵[M].社会科学文献出版社,北京.
杨荫浏(1981).中国古代音乐史稿[M].人民音乐出版社,北京.
陈平原(2004).词曲研究[M].湖北教育出版社,武汉.
王力(2000).诗词格律[M].商务印书馆,北京.
俞平伯(1983).论诗词曲杂著[M].上海古籍出版社,上海.
任半塘(1982).《唐声诗》(上下编)[M].上海古籍出版社,上海.
秦德祥(2002).吟诵音乐[M].中国文联出版社,北京.
盘石(1995).中国古诗词吟诵曲选[M].江苏文艺出版社,南京.
朱谦之(1989).中国音乐文学史[M].北京大学出版社,北京.
朱自清(1988).朱自清全集[M].江苏教育出版社,南京.
章鸣(1998).语言音乐学纲要[M].文化艺术出版社,北京.
戴维.克里斯特尔编,沈家煊译(2007).现代语言学词典[M].商务印书馆,北京.
朱光潜(1984).诗论[M],三联书店,北京.
罗常培、王均(1957).普通语音学纲要[M],科学出版社,北京.
方特、高奋(1994).言语科学与言语技术[M],商务印书馆,北京.
王士元、彭刚(2006).语言、语音与技术[M],上海教育出版社,上海.
林焘、沈炯(1985).北京语音实验录[M],北京大学出版社,北京.
王洪君(2008).汉语非线性音系学[M].北京大学出版社,北京.
Matthew Y. Chen(陈渊泉,2001).汉语方言的连续变调模式[M].外语教学与研究出版社,北京.
孔江平(2001).论语言发声[M].中央民族大学出版社,北京.
刘现强(2007).现代汉语节奏研究[M].北京语言大学出版社,北京.
叶军(2001).汉语语句韵律的语法功能[M].华东师范大学出版社,上海
孙玄龄、刘东升(1990).中国古代歌曲[M],人民音乐出版社出版,北京.
王恩保、石佩雯(1993).古诗文吟诵集粹[M],北京语言学院出版社,北京.
王恩保(1998).吟诵文化漫议[J].中国文化研究1998年夏之卷(总第20期).
钱一凡(2009).言语发声与艺术发声嗓音特性比较研究[D],北京大学硕士学位论.
谭晶晶(2008).汉语普通话朗读时的呼吸节奏研究[D].北京大学硕士学位论文.
叶泽华(2010).新平彝语松紧嗓音研究[D].北京大学硕士学位论文.
尹基德(2010).汉语韵律的嗓音发声研究[D].北京大学博士学位论文.
伊小柯(2007).传统吟诵调的艺术价值与当前生存状况[D],中国艺术研究院硕士学位论文.
胡立华(2006).论吟诵的音乐价值[D].江西师范大学硕士学位论文.
任半塘(1957).唐声诗之范围与定义[J].四川大学学报,第3期.
钱璱之(1998).话说“吟诵”[J].常州工业技术学院学报,第3期.
林庚(1964).略谈唐诗的语言[J].文学评论,第1期.
林庚(1985).漫谈中国古典诗歌的艺术借鉴——诗的国度与诗的语言[J].社会科学战线,第4期.
王洪君(2004).试论汉语的节奏类型——松紧型[J].语言科学,第3期.
端木三(2000).汉语的节奏[J].当代语言学,第4期.
陈炳铮(1998).读诵吟唱[J],中国音乐,第3期.
陈炳铮(1981).谈古典诗歌的吟诵[J].中国音乐,第3期.
杜亚雄(1990).论五度结构[J],中国音乐,第4期.
杜亚雄(1990).语言和音乐的关系[J],中国音乐,第1期.
杜亚雄(1996).中国传统音乐中的两个基本概念——“声”与“拍”[J],人民音乐,第5期.
胡俊林(2006).论中华吟诵文化的发展轨迹[J],内江师范学院学报,第5期.
杜兴梅(2002).中国古代音乐文学发展轨迹扫描[J].西安音乐学院学报,第4期.
李欢喜(2004).吟诵艺术初探[J].内蒙古艺术,第1期.
胡俊林(2006).论中华吟诵文化的发展轨迹[J].内江师范学院学报,第5期.
华钟彦(1983).关于近体诗的读法[J].唐代文学论丛.陕西人民出版社.
华锋(1999).论古典诗词的吟咏[J].河南大学学报(社会科学版),第5期.
华锋(2009).漫谈吟咏的节奏[C].吟诵经典、爱我中华——中华吟诵周论文集.
华锋(2010).传统吟诵与音乐的演唱[J].湛江师范学院学报,第1期.
杨荫浏(1986).杨荫浏音乐论文选集[J].上海文艺出版社.
松浦友久(1992).关于中国古典诗歌的节奏结构——以“休音”(虚音)的功能为
中心[C].唐代文学研究(第三辑)——中国唐代文学学会第五届年会暨唐代文学国际学术讨论会论文集.
冯胜利(1996).论汉语的“韵律词”[J].中国社会科学,第1期.
冯胜利(1996).论汉语的“自然音步”[J].中国语文,第1期
葛晓音(2010).诗歌形式研究的古为今用——林庚先生关于古诗节奏和新诗格律
的理论思考[J].北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版),第4期.
葛晓音(2011).关于诗型与节奏的研究——松浦友久教授访谈录[J].文学遗产,第4期.
王泽龙(2011).中国现代诗歌节奏研究的历程与困惑[J].武汉大学学报(人文科学版),第2期.
王永(2007).节奏与诗——兼论节奏的起源[J].贵州大学学报(社会科学版),第3期.
陈本益(2011).探索汉语诗歌节奏的一个思路[J].汉语言文学研究,第5期.
陈本益(2003).汉语诗歌句式的构成和演变的规律[J].南昌大学学报(人社版),第2期
方兢(2001).简论汉语诗歌形式的构成规律——兼与杨柄同志商榷[J].人文杂志,第6期.
李西安(2001).汉语诗律与汉族旋律[J].音乐研究,第3期.
傅雪漪(1994).中国古典诗词的吟与唱[J].音乐研究.
吉颖颖(2009).古典诗词的吟诵与吟唱[J].黄河之声,第20期.
钱明锵(2009).诗词吟诵八法[C].吟诵经典、爱我中华——中华吟诵周论文集.
钱茸(1993).吟唱调在民歌分类中的归属[J].音乐研究,第4期.
秦德祥(2004).吟诵音调与平仄声调[J].西安音乐学院学报,第3期.
谢桃坊(2000).关于古典诗词的吟诵[J].文史杂志,第5期.
徐建顺(2009).吟诵的规则初探[C].吟诵经典、爱我中华——中华吟诵周论文集.
朱立侠(2009).古代诗歌语音表述形式考[J].中国诗歌研究动态,第1期.
谭晶晶、李永宏、孔江平(2008).汉语普通话不同文体朗读时的呼吸重置研究[J],
清华大学学报——2007年第九届全国人机语音通讯学术会议NCMMSC特刊,清华大学出版社.
王蓓、杨玉芳、吕士楠(2004)汉语韵律层级边界结构的声学相关物[J],声学学报,第1期.
王蓓、杨玉芳、吕士楠(2005)语篇中大尺度信息单元边界的声学线索[J],声学学报,第3期.
王洪君(2000).汉语的韵律词和韵律短语[J],中国语文,第6期.
Halliday,M.A.K.A Course of Spoken English:Intonation[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,1970.
Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Gramm ar[M].London:Edward Arnold,1994.
Thomas J.Hixon(1987) Respiratory Function in Speech and Song. College-Hill Press. San Diego.
Ron J. Baken et al. (1979) Chest wall movements prior to phonation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,22,862-872
Baken.RJ(1992)Electroglottography, Journal of Voice, Vol.6, No.2,98-110.
Baken.RJ, Orlikoff RF(2000) Correlates of Vocal Fold Motion, Clinical Measurement of Speech and Voice,2nd edition, Singular/Thompson Learning.
Kong, J, (2007) Laryngeal dynamics and physiological models:high speed imaging and acoustical techniques, Peking University Press.
Peng, G. (2006) Temporal and tonal aspects of Chinese syllables:A corpus-based comparative study of Mandarin and Cantonese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 34.1,134-154.
Peter Ladefoged, (2006) A course in phonetics, Thomson Wadsworth.
Rothenberg, (1981) Some relations between glottal air flow and vocal fold contact area, ASHA Rep.11,88-96.
Rothenberg, M, and Mahshie, J. J. (1988) Monitoring vocal fold abduction through vocal fold contact area, Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,31,338-351.
Fant, G. and Kruckenberg, A. (1996). On the quantal nature of speech timing, Proc. ICSLP 1996,2044-2047. (Revised version).
Kruckenberg, A. and Fant, G. (1993). Iambic versus trochaic patterns in poetry reading, Nordic Prosody VI, Stockholm,1993,123-135.
Fant, G., Kruckenberg, A and Barbosa-Ferreira, J. Individual variations in pausing. A study of read speech. (2003). Proc. of the Swedish Phonetics meeting in Umea, Phonum 2003.
Fant, G. and Kruckenberg, A. (2004). An integrated viewof Swedish prosody.Voice production, perception and synthesis. To appear in Gunnar Fant, Selected Writings.
Pike, K.(1945).The Intonation of American English(2nd edition)[M].Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.