维汉接触中的母语干扰机制研究
|
摘要
母语干扰是语言接触中的普遍现象。语音类型学特点差异显著的语言接触中,母语干扰问题尤其突出。汉语属汉藏语系,是单音节有声调语言,维吾尔语属阿尔泰语系,是多音节无声调语言。维吾尔语音系在音位数量、音节结构、声调等方面和汉语音系有明显的差异。接触语言的语音类型学特点差异的大小,可对母语干扰的过程、后果造成不同影响。同语音类型学特点差异不大的语言接触中的母语干扰相比,维汉语言接触中的母语干扰,呈现出独特的特点和规律。
母语干扰包括匹配、回归和并合。匹配,本文指维族人以母语语音来读汉语读音,使汉语所有的语音都能以母语的语音来替代,匹配不是语音的简单替代,而是维语、汉语之间系统性的或有条件的语音配对。维汉匹配的结果是产生维族汉语(即维族人所说的汉语)读音。回归,本文指维族汉语读音逐渐向汉语读音靠拢,直至变得与汉语读音相同。并合,指汉语受维族人所说的汉语语音影响而发生的语音变化或合流。
语音成分标记性和相似度,是标志特定语言间语音类型学差异的两个重要参项,也是观察维汉接触中母语干扰机制和规律的两个重要窗口。本文把标记性分为两大类。(1)类型标记性：在世界语言中分布广泛的,则标记性程度低；反之,在世界语言中分布不广泛的,则标记性程度高。(2)个别标记性：在某一个语言中使用频率高的,标记性程度低；反之,在一个语言中不存在或使用频率低的,则标记性程度高。
本文根据实地调查的维汉接触材料,借鉴当前语言接触研究的优秀成果,利用实验语音学、统计分析、数学计算等方法,基于维汉语音类型学特点差异,以语音成分的标记度和相似度作为体现维汉语音类型学差异的两个参项,考察语音类型学差异显著的维汉接触中的母语干扰机制及特点。维汉接触中经常见到的是匹配和回归,并合现象尽管存在,但相对较少。本文所说的维汉接触中的母语干扰机制,主要指维汉接触中的匹配机制和回归机制。
研究发现,维汉语音类型学特点差异对母语干扰过程可造成制约和影响,这突出表现在语音成分标记性和相似度对匹配、回归过程及结果的制约上。
(1)维汉匹配过程和结果受施配、受配语音成分相似度大小的制约。
维汉声母匹配受声母相似度大小的制约。本文通过设立相似度计算公式,对维汉声母间的相似度进行量化,提出维汉声母匹配的“相似度原则”,即维族人选择母语中与受配声母相似度最大的声母来参与匹配。相似度是对语言接触“相似匹配”的量化分析。
维汉韵母匹配受元音空间距离大小的制约。本文把维汉元音构建在一个三维声学空间中，利用距离公式计算出维汉元音间的三维空间距离。元音空间距离在一定程度上体现的是元音音值间的相似程度。一般来说,元音空间距离越小,元音相似度越高；反之,元音空间距离越大,则元音相似度越低。维汉韵母匹配同样受施配、受配元音间相似度大小的制约。
维汉声调匹配,则受调值相似度大小的制约,即倾向选择维语中与受配调类调值相似度最大的维语固有词词调调值来参与匹配。
(2)维汉匹配过程还受语音成分标记性制约
声母匹配主要受声母个别标记性的制约,类型标记性的制约作用不明显。
维汉韵母匹配中出现大量的维语音节结构对汉语音节改造的现象,这是由维汉语音类型学特点上的差异造成的。基于此,本文提出维汉韵母匹配的类型调整原则。类型调整原则体现了元音、音节结构类型等的标记性对韵母匹配的制约。
维汉声调匹配已是一个由无序到有序的发展过程,期间要经历“无声调意识→有声调意识→声调匹配有序化开始→实现声调有序匹配”等几个阶段,其结果必然使声调实现有序匹配会经历很长的时间。维汉声调匹配过程的漫长性,是由声调的标记性高造成的。
(3)语音成分的回归主要受标记性的制约。
语音成分标记性是引起回归的阶产生的一个重要原因。类型标记性、个别标记性越低,则越早回归出来,类型标记性或个别标记性越高,则回归出来的时间越晚。声母、韵母、声调的回归均存在标记性引起的回归的阶。
类型标记性和个别标记性单独或共同制约了回归的阶的产生。声母p先于t(?)而回归,主要是由p、t(?)的类型标记性差异造成的；韵母ei先于(?)u而回归,主要是由ei、au(?)的个别标记性差异引起的；而单元音韵母γ先于双元音ai回归出来,则是由类型标记性和个别标记性共同制约下产生的：γ的类型标记性和个别标记性均比ai低。
语音标记性,为研究语言接触回归的阶提供了一种新的视角。
(4)语音成分标记性和匹配、回归速度存在反函数关系。语音成分标记性越高,则匹配、回归速度越慢；反之,则匹配、回归速度越快。语音成分标记性的高低,可对匹配、回归速度起促进或延缓作用。标记性与匹配、回归速度间存在的反函数关系,体现出标记性高的语音成分对母语干扰中匹配和回归的制约。
Mother tongue interference is a general phenomenon in language learning or contact. This problem is obvious in contact between languages with great typological difference in their phonologies. Chinese is a Sino-Tibetan language which is mono-syllabic and tonal, while Uygur is a Altaic language which is multi-syllabic and atonal. The typological differences between languages in contact will affect the process and the result of mother tongue interference. The contact between Chinese and Uygur must have unique characteristics compared with contacts between languages with slighter differences in typology.
Mother tongue interference includes matching, approaching (target language), and merging. In this research matching refers to that Uygur people produce Chinese sounds with Uygur sound quality, substituting all Chinese sounds with similar sounds in Uygur. The base of matching is the phonologies of Chinese and Uygur and their cross-linguistic identification. The result of matching is Uygur Chinese sounds (a variety of Chinese spoken by Uygur people). Approaching (target language) refers to that Uyur Chinese sounds approach the sound of Chinese until they are the same. Merging refers to that Chinese spoken by Chinese people is affected by Uygur and becomes similar to Uygur.
Markedness and similarity are two parametres evaluating the typological differences between lanagueges in contact, serving as windows for observing the rules and characteristics of mother tongue interference in Chinese-Uygur contact. Markedness can be classified as two categories:(1) typological markedness which is decided by the universality of a linguistic element among world's languages;(2) individual markedness which is evaluated by the frequency of appearrence of a linguistic element in a specific language.
This research, based on materials of Chinese-Uygur contact collected from fieldwork, deals with rules and characteristics of contact between languages with great typological differences using phonetic experiments, statistical methods, and mathematical analysis, with an aim of discovering the mechanisms and characteristics of mother tongue interference. In Chinese-Uygur contact there are few examples of merging while that of matching and approaching (target language) are very common. In this research the mechanisms of mother tongue interference refer mainly to matching and approaching (target language).
This research reveals that the typological differences between Chinese and Uygur phonology may affect the process of mother tongue interference, presenting constraints from markedness of phonological elements and similarity on the process and results of matching and approaching (target language).
(1) The matching and approaching of Chinese-Uygur initials are subject to the similarity of phonological elements between the languages in contact.
This research proposes a formula to evaluate similarity of initial pairs between Chinese and Uygur, and generalizes the Principle of Similarity in matching of Chinese-Uygur initials. Similarity is the quantitative reflect of matching in languages contact.
The matching of finals in language contact is restricted by the acoustic spatial distances among related vowels, that is, the final pairs, which have the shortest spatial distances among Chinese and Uygur vowels, are matched primarily. The spatial distance between vowels to some extent reflects similarity between vowels. Generally, the shorter the distance between two vowels, the higher similarity they have. The matching of finals between Chinese and Uygur is also constrained by similarity.
The matching of tones between Chinese and Uygur is constrained by the similarity of tone values. Uygur people choose their own word tone which is the most similar to corresponding Chinese syllable tone in matching.
(2) The process of matching is also conditioned by markedness of phonological elements
The matching of initials is subject to the individual markedness of initials. Typological markedness has no obvious effect on the matching of initials.
In the matching of finals, Uygur people restructures Chinese syllables according to their own syllable structure. This is the result of typological difference between Chinese and Uygur syllables. This research proposes Type-adjustment Principle in language contact, which shows the constraint from typological markedness on matching of finals.
Usually, Uygur people take much more time to master Chinese tones than initials or finals. The progress from disordered matching to ordered matching is rather slow, going through stages of "tone consciousness absence"→"tone consciousness presence"→"ordering of tonal match"→"ordered match completion." Each stage takes a long time because of the difference of individual markedness and typological markedness between Chinese and Uygur.
(3) Approaching (target language) is mainly constrained by the markedness of phonological elements.
Markedness of phonological elements is an important reason for the stages in approaching period of language contact. Different stages in approaching of Chinese-Uygur initials, finals, and tones are resulted from the typological markedness and the individual markedness of phonological elements. Phonological elements with low markedness have a high degree of approaching while that with high markedness have a low degree of approaching.
Typological markedness or individual markedness alone, or they together constraint the stages in approaching. The initial p finishes approaching before (?) mainly because they have difference in typological markedness; the final ei finishes approaching before (?)u mainly because they have difference in individual markedness; the monophthong final γ finishes approaching before the diphthong final ai because the former has both lower typological markedness and individual markedness, reflecting the conspiracy of both types of markedness.
The markedness of phonological elements provides us a new perspective to study the stages in approaching period of language contact.
(4) The markedness of phonological elements and the progress of contact are negatively correlated:phonological elements with low markedness change fast in contact; phonological elements with high markedness may delay the process of contact. The negative correlation between markedness of phonological elements and the speed of matching or approaching also reflects the constraint of phonological elements with high markedness on matching and approaching in mother tongue interference.
母语干扰包括匹配、回归和并合。匹配,本文指维族人以母语语音来读汉语读音,使汉语所有的语音都能以母语的语音来替代,匹配不是语音的简单替代,而是维语、汉语之间系统性的或有条件的语音配对。维汉匹配的结果是产生维族汉语(即维族人所说的汉语)读音。回归,本文指维族汉语读音逐渐向汉语读音靠拢,直至变得与汉语读音相同。并合,指汉语受维族人所说的汉语语音影响而发生的语音变化或合流。
语音成分标记性和相似度,是标志特定语言间语音类型学差异的两个重要参项,也是观察维汉接触中母语干扰机制和规律的两个重要窗口。本文把标记性分为两大类。(1)类型标记性：在世界语言中分布广泛的,则标记性程度低；反之,在世界语言中分布不广泛的,则标记性程度高。(2)个别标记性：在某一个语言中使用频率高的,标记性程度低；反之,在一个语言中不存在或使用频率低的,则标记性程度高。
本文根据实地调查的维汉接触材料,借鉴当前语言接触研究的优秀成果,利用实验语音学、统计分析、数学计算等方法,基于维汉语音类型学特点差异,以语音成分的标记度和相似度作为体现维汉语音类型学差异的两个参项,考察语音类型学差异显著的维汉接触中的母语干扰机制及特点。维汉接触中经常见到的是匹配和回归,并合现象尽管存在,但相对较少。本文所说的维汉接触中的母语干扰机制,主要指维汉接触中的匹配机制和回归机制。
研究发现,维汉语音类型学特点差异对母语干扰过程可造成制约和影响,这突出表现在语音成分标记性和相似度对匹配、回归过程及结果的制约上。
(1)维汉匹配过程和结果受施配、受配语音成分相似度大小的制约。
维汉声母匹配受声母相似度大小的制约。本文通过设立相似度计算公式,对维汉声母间的相似度进行量化,提出维汉声母匹配的“相似度原则”,即维族人选择母语中与受配声母相似度最大的声母来参与匹配。相似度是对语言接触“相似匹配”的量化分析。
维汉韵母匹配受元音空间距离大小的制约。本文把维汉元音构建在一个三维声学空间中，利用距离公式计算出维汉元音间的三维空间距离。元音空间距离在一定程度上体现的是元音音值间的相似程度。一般来说,元音空间距离越小,元音相似度越高；反之,元音空间距离越大,则元音相似度越低。维汉韵母匹配同样受施配、受配元音间相似度大小的制约。
维汉声调匹配,则受调值相似度大小的制约,即倾向选择维语中与受配调类调值相似度最大的维语固有词词调调值来参与匹配。
(2)维汉匹配过程还受语音成分标记性制约
声母匹配主要受声母个别标记性的制约,类型标记性的制约作用不明显。
维汉韵母匹配中出现大量的维语音节结构对汉语音节改造的现象,这是由维汉语音类型学特点上的差异造成的。基于此,本文提出维汉韵母匹配的类型调整原则。类型调整原则体现了元音、音节结构类型等的标记性对韵母匹配的制约。
维汉声调匹配已是一个由无序到有序的发展过程,期间要经历“无声调意识→有声调意识→声调匹配有序化开始→实现声调有序匹配”等几个阶段,其结果必然使声调实现有序匹配会经历很长的时间。维汉声调匹配过程的漫长性,是由声调的标记性高造成的。
(3)语音成分的回归主要受标记性的制约。
语音成分标记性是引起回归的阶产生的一个重要原因。类型标记性、个别标记性越低,则越早回归出来,类型标记性或个别标记性越高,则回归出来的时间越晚。声母、韵母、声调的回归均存在标记性引起的回归的阶。
类型标记性和个别标记性单独或共同制约了回归的阶的产生。声母p先于t(?)而回归,主要是由p、t(?)的类型标记性差异造成的；韵母ei先于(?)u而回归,主要是由ei、au(?)的个别标记性差异引起的；而单元音韵母γ先于双元音ai回归出来,则是由类型标记性和个别标记性共同制约下产生的：γ的类型标记性和个别标记性均比ai低。
语音标记性,为研究语言接触回归的阶提供了一种新的视角。
(4)语音成分标记性和匹配、回归速度存在反函数关系。语音成分标记性越高,则匹配、回归速度越慢；反之,则匹配、回归速度越快。语音成分标记性的高低,可对匹配、回归速度起促进或延缓作用。标记性与匹配、回归速度间存在的反函数关系,体现出标记性高的语音成分对母语干扰中匹配和回归的制约。
Mother tongue interference is a general phenomenon in language learning or contact. This problem is obvious in contact between languages with great typological difference in their phonologies. Chinese is a Sino-Tibetan language which is mono-syllabic and tonal, while Uygur is a Altaic language which is multi-syllabic and atonal. The typological differences between languages in contact will affect the process and the result of mother tongue interference. The contact between Chinese and Uygur must have unique characteristics compared with contacts between languages with slighter differences in typology.
Mother tongue interference includes matching, approaching (target language), and merging. In this research matching refers to that Uygur people produce Chinese sounds with Uygur sound quality, substituting all Chinese sounds with similar sounds in Uygur. The base of matching is the phonologies of Chinese and Uygur and their cross-linguistic identification. The result of matching is Uygur Chinese sounds (a variety of Chinese spoken by Uygur people). Approaching (target language) refers to that Uyur Chinese sounds approach the sound of Chinese until they are the same. Merging refers to that Chinese spoken by Chinese people is affected by Uygur and becomes similar to Uygur.
Markedness and similarity are two parametres evaluating the typological differences between lanagueges in contact, serving as windows for observing the rules and characteristics of mother tongue interference in Chinese-Uygur contact. Markedness can be classified as two categories:(1) typological markedness which is decided by the universality of a linguistic element among world's languages;(2) individual markedness which is evaluated by the frequency of appearrence of a linguistic element in a specific language.
This research, based on materials of Chinese-Uygur contact collected from fieldwork, deals with rules and characteristics of contact between languages with great typological differences using phonetic experiments, statistical methods, and mathematical analysis, with an aim of discovering the mechanisms and characteristics of mother tongue interference. In Chinese-Uygur contact there are few examples of merging while that of matching and approaching (target language) are very common. In this research the mechanisms of mother tongue interference refer mainly to matching and approaching (target language).
This research reveals that the typological differences between Chinese and Uygur phonology may affect the process of mother tongue interference, presenting constraints from markedness of phonological elements and similarity on the process and results of matching and approaching (target language).
(1) The matching and approaching of Chinese-Uygur initials are subject to the similarity of phonological elements between the languages in contact.
This research proposes a formula to evaluate similarity of initial pairs between Chinese and Uygur, and generalizes the Principle of Similarity in matching of Chinese-Uygur initials. Similarity is the quantitative reflect of matching in languages contact.
The matching of finals in language contact is restricted by the acoustic spatial distances among related vowels, that is, the final pairs, which have the shortest spatial distances among Chinese and Uygur vowels, are matched primarily. The spatial distance between vowels to some extent reflects similarity between vowels. Generally, the shorter the distance between two vowels, the higher similarity they have. The matching of finals between Chinese and Uygur is also constrained by similarity.
The matching of tones between Chinese and Uygur is constrained by the similarity of tone values. Uygur people choose their own word tone which is the most similar to corresponding Chinese syllable tone in matching.
(2) The process of matching is also conditioned by markedness of phonological elements
The matching of initials is subject to the individual markedness of initials. Typological markedness has no obvious effect on the matching of initials.
In the matching of finals, Uygur people restructures Chinese syllables according to their own syllable structure. This is the result of typological difference between Chinese and Uygur syllables. This research proposes Type-adjustment Principle in language contact, which shows the constraint from typological markedness on matching of finals.
Usually, Uygur people take much more time to master Chinese tones than initials or finals. The progress from disordered matching to ordered matching is rather slow, going through stages of "tone consciousness absence"→"tone consciousness presence"→"ordering of tonal match"→"ordered match completion." Each stage takes a long time because of the difference of individual markedness and typological markedness between Chinese and Uygur.
(3) Approaching (target language) is mainly constrained by the markedness of phonological elements.
Markedness of phonological elements is an important reason for the stages in approaching period of language contact. Different stages in approaching of Chinese-Uygur initials, finals, and tones are resulted from the typological markedness and the individual markedness of phonological elements. Phonological elements with low markedness have a high degree of approaching while that with high markedness have a low degree of approaching.
Typological markedness or individual markedness alone, or they together constraint the stages in approaching. The initial p finishes approaching before (?) mainly because they have difference in typological markedness; the final ei finishes approaching before (?)u mainly because they have difference in individual markedness; the monophthong final γ finishes approaching before the diphthong final ai because the former has both lower typological markedness and individual markedness, reflecting the conspiracy of both types of markedness.
The markedness of phonological elements provides us a new perspective to study the stages in approaching period of language contact.
(4) The markedness of phonological elements and the progress of contact are negatively correlated:phonological elements with low markedness change fast in contact; phonological elements with high markedness may delay the process of contact. The negative correlation between markedness of phonological elements and the speed of matching or approaching also reflects the constraint of phonological elements with high markedness on matching and approaching in mother tongue interference.
引文
3李方桂：《李方桂先生口述史》,王启龙、邓小咏译,李林大校订,清华大学出版社,2003,p126。
4《维汉俄词典》,包尔汉根据前苏联学者巴斯卡科夫所编《维俄词典》编写,民族出版社出版,1953年。
5《汉维词典》,由新疆维吾尔自治区教育局等7家单位合编,新疆人民出版社出版,1974年。
6《维汉词典》,由新疆大学中国语言系编写,新疆人民出版社出版,1982年。
7赵相如(1984)没有使用“对应”或“匹配”,而是使用“对当一词,如声母对当、韵母对当等。赵相如(1984)“对当”的涵义与本文“匹配”概念基本-致。
阿不都若夫·塔吉,《汉维语言接触中汉语对维吾尔语的影响》,2008,新疆师范大学硕士论文。
阿不里克木·亚森,《吐鲁番回鹘世俗文书语言结构研究》,2001,乌鲁木齐：新疆大学出版社。
阿尔斯兰·阿不都拉,现代维吾尔语哈密方言初探,《新疆师范大学学报》,1986,第2期,8-21页
阿尔斯兰·阿不都拉,维吾尔语哈密次方言中的古语词,《民族语文》,2006,第1期,54-62页。
阿尔斯兰·阿不都拉,俄语对维吾尔语伊宁话的影响,《新疆大学学报(哲学人文社会科学版)》,2010,第1期,122-127页。
阿尔斯兰·阿不都拉,维吾尔语哈密次方言中的古语成分,《民族语文》,2011,第1期,78-81页。
阿孜古丽·阿布力米提,《维吾尔语基础教程》,2006,北京：中央民族大学出版社。
奥德林(T. Odlin),《语言迁移：语言学习的语际影响》,2001,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
鲍怀翘,普通话单元音分类的生理解释,《中国语文》,1984,第2期,117-184页。
贝先明、石锋,方言的接触影响在元音格局中的表现——以长沙、萍乡、浏阳方言为例,《南开语言学刊》,2008,第1期,32-38页。
布隆菲尔德,《语言论》,1933,袁家骅、赵世开、甘世福译,北京：商务印书馆,1997。
曹剑芬,《现代语音基础知识》,1990,北京：人民教育出版社。
陈保亚,从核心词分布看汉语和侗台语的语源关系,《民族语文》,1995,第5期,20-32页。
陈保亚,《论语言接触与语言联盟——汉越(侗台)语源关系的解释》,1996,北京：语文出版社。
陈保亚,《20世纪中国语言学方法论》,1999,济南：山东教育出版社。
陈保亚,语言接触导致汉语方言分化的两种模式,《北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2005,第2期,43-50页。
陈保亚,从语言接触看历史比较语言学,《北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2006a,第2期,30-34页。
陈保亚,穆罕默德·喀什噶里在历史语言学上的两个贡献——纪念穆罕默德·喀什噶里诞辰1000周年,《新疆大学学报(哲学人文社会科学版)》,2006b,第4期,142-143页。
陈保亚,《当代语言学》,2009,北京：高等教育出版社。
陈保亚、汪锋,试论重构原始语言的若干原则——以原始彝语的声调及前置声母*h-和*?为例,《语言学论丛》,2012,第45辑,128-127页,北京：商务印书馆。
陈海伦,论方言相似度、相关度、沟通度若干问题,《中国语文》,1996,第5期,361-368页。
陈海伦,方音系统的相似关系计算,《语言科学》,2006,第1期,23-3页。
陈慧优、玛依拉,维吴尔语中汉语借词的维语化,《乌鲁木齐成人教育学院学报》,1996,第3期,14-17页。
陈世明,清代新疆双语现象及其对各民族语言的影响,《新疆大学学报》,1995,第1期,87-93页。
陈世明,新疆民汉语互学现象的由来和发展,《新疆大学学报》,2001,第1期,64-69页。
陈世明,维吾尔语汉语借词新探,《西北民族研究》,2007,第1期,176-180页。
陈世明,《新疆民汉双语现象与社会发展之关系》,2010,北京：民族出版社。
陈燕,新疆维吾尔族学生的汉语发音偏误分析,《和天师范专科学校学报》,2005,第4期,120-121页。
陈伟(编),《阿尔泰语言学译文集》,2011,北京：社会科学文献出版社。
程试,音位理论与维吾尔语音位系统研究,《新疆大学学报(哲学人文社会科学版)》,1983,第1期,95-110页。
戴庆厦,《汉语与少数民族语言关系》,1990,北京：中央民族学院出版社。
戴庆厦,《汉语与少数民族语言关系概论》,1992,北京：中央民族大学出版社。
戴庆厦,双语学研究.中央民族大学《民族教育研究》增刊,2000。
戴庆厦,《社会语言学概论》,2004,北京：商务印书馆。
戴庆厦,《中国少数民族语言研究60年》,2009,北京：中央民族大学出版社。
戴庆厦、刘岩,从藏缅语、孟高棉语看亚洲语言声调的起源及演变,《中国民族语言论从》(二),1997,昆明：云南民族出版社。
戴庆厦、杨再彪,余金枝,语言接触与语言演变——小陂流苗语为例,《语言科学》,2005,第4期,3-10页。
邓晓华、王士元,壮侗语族语言的数理分类及其时问深度,《中国语文》,2007,第6期,536-576页。
邓晓华、上士元,《中国的语言及方言的分类》,2009,北京：中华书局。
迪丽达·吐斯甫汗,新疆自占就是一个多种语言齐鸣的地区,《中共伊犁州委党校学报》,2005,第2期,72-74页。
丁安琪,《汉语作为第二语言学习者研究》,2010,北京：世界图书出版公司北京公司。
杜兆金,类型学差异对语言接触中声调匹配及回归的影响,《南昌大学学报》,2011,第2期,137-141页。
杜兆金,维汉接触中声母匹配的特征基础Journal of Chinese Linguistics,2012,40.2:345-361.
杜兆金、陈保亚,元音三维声学空间与维汉韵母匹配,Language and Linguistics,2012,13.5: 845-885.
范祖奎、赵汀留,新疆汉话中维吾尔语借间的汉化现象,《语言与翻译》,2008,第1期,33-37页。
房德里耶斯著,岑麒祥、叶蜚声译,《语言论》中译本,1992,北京：商务印书馆。
方晓梅,论新疆的双语制,《新疆师范大学学报》,1998,第2期，42-47页。
傅懋勣,民族语言研究需要进一步加强的三个方面,《民族语文》,1982,第4期,1-5页。
高本汉(瑞典),《中国音韵学研究》,1940,赵元任、罗常培、李方桂合译,北京：商务印书馆,1994年缩印第一版。
高莉琴,久居乌鲁木齐的维吾尔人说汉语的特点,《语言与翻译》,1996,第1期,3-12页。
高莉琴,维吾尔族人说汉语的语音特点——语音调查分析总报告,载徐思益等主编,《语言的接触与影响》,1997,28-72页,乌鲁木齐：新疆人民出版社。
高莉琴,汉语作为第二语言学习的语音研究,《语言与翻译》,2000,第2期,55-60页。
高莉琴,新疆的屯垦移民与新疆汉语,《语言与翻译(汉文)》,2004,第3期,23-28页。
高莉琴,《不同时期维吾尔语中的汉语借词》,2005,乌鲁木齐：新疆大学出版社。
高莉琴、张新武,《新疆的语言状况及推广普通话方略研究》,2006,北京：北京语言大学出版社。
高名凯,论语言的融合,《中国语文》,1959,第5期,205-206页。
葛玛丽(A.von Gabain)回鹘文玄奘传中的信(Briefeder Uigurischen Huen-tsang-Biographie),载《普鲁士科学院学报(SPAW)》,1938,1-47页。
古力巴合热木·艾拜,新疆汉语中的维吾尔语借词初探,《和田师范专科学校学报》,2007,第3期,175-177页。
黄布凡,藏语方言声调的发生和分化的条件,《民族语文》,1994,第3期,1-9页。
黄行,语言接触与语言区域性特征,《民族语文》,2005a,第3期,7-13页。
黄行,汉藏民族语言声调的分合类型,《语言教学与研究》,2005b,第5期,1-10页。
黄行、赵明鸣,我国少数民族语言在型学研究,《中国社会科学院院报》,2004,第003版。
洪堡特,《论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神发展的影响》中译本,2008,姚小平译,商务印书馆。
胡坦,藏语(拉萨话)声调研究,《民族语文》,1980,第1期,22-36页。
江荻,藏语拉萨话现在时的标记及功能,《民族语文》,1999,第5期,55-62页。
江荻,《汉藏语言演化的历史音变模型——历史语言学的理论和方法探索》,2002a,北京：民族出版社。
江荻,缅语复合元音的来源,《民族语文》,2002b,第3期,21-31页。
江荻(译),《国际语音学会手册：国际音标使用指南》，国际语音学会编著,江荻译,2008,上海：上海教育出版社。
劲松,中介语“僵化”的语言学意义,《民族语文》,2004,第2期,32-37页。
孔江平,哈尼语发声类型声学研究及音质概念的讨论,《民族语文》,1996,第1期,40-46页。
孔江平,汉语双音节词声调组合模型研究,载《第五届全国人机语音通讯学术会议论文集》,1998,37-41页。
孔江平,《论语言发声》,2001,北京：中央民族大学出版社。
孔江平,现代语音学研究与历史语言学,《北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2006,第2期,34-38页。
孔江平,《动态声门与生理模型》,2007,北京：北京大学出版社。
雷盟,汉语词语在维吾尔语中的巧妙结合,《和田师范专科学校学报》,2008，第3期,247页。
李兵,优选论的产生、基本原理与应用,《现代外语》,1998,第3期,71-91页。
李兵、汪朋、贺俊杰,锡伯语双音节词重音实验语音学研究,《民族语文》,2012,第2期,55-63页。
李方佳,《上古音研究》,1980,北京：商务印书馆。
李辉,人类语言基本元音体系的多样性分析,《现代人类学通讯》,2008,第2期,42-51页。
李荣,官话方言的分区,《方言》,1985,第1期,2-5页。
李云兵,论语言接触对苗瑶语语序类型的影响,《民族语文》,2005,第3期,34-43页。
李云兵,语言接触对南方一些民族语言语序的影响,《民族语文》,2008,第5期,17-34页。
林青,从汉维语语序的对比看汉维语两种语言的语言类型特点,《喀什师范学院学报》,2010,第2期,65-68页。
林焘、王理嘉,《语音学教程》,1999,北京：北京大学出版社。
梁敏,对语言类型变化的一些看法,《民族语文》,1995,第6期,53-57页。
廖冬梅,新疆汉语方言中维吾尔语借词的读音,《民族语文》,2005,第1期,58-60页。
廖冬梅,《新疆民族双语发展历史现状与成就》,2008,鸟鲁木齐：新疆人民出版社。
刘俐李,同源异境三方言声调比较,《语言研究》,2003,第2期,104-109页。
刘俐李,《江淮方言声调实验研究和折度分析》,2007,成都：巴蜀书社出版社。
刘俐李,论中亚东干语的去汉语化音变,载《第八届中国语音学学术会议暨庆贺吴宗济先生百岁华诞语音科学前沿问题国际研讨会论文集》,2008,中国社会科学院语言所。
刘俐李,同源异境三方言核心词和特征词比较,《语言研究》,2009,第2期,81-89页。
刘俐李,《语思录——语言学求索集》,2012,北京：世界图书出版公司北京公司。
刘珉,汉维语对比说略,《语言与翻译》,1994,第3期,119-130+37页。
刘岩(主编),《中国无声调少数民族学习汉语声调语调的实验研究》,2009,北京：中央民族大学出版社。
刘岩、李玲等,维吾尔族学生学习汉语声调偏误的实验研究,《语言与翻译》,2006,第2期,62-66+75页。
罗美珍,论族群互动中的语言接触,《语言研究》,2000,第3期,1-20页。
马秋武,OT语法的可学性,《外国语》,2003,第5期,18-26页。
麦尔尼科夫,蒙古语的元音系统和阿尔泰假说,陈伟、周建奇译,载陈伟(编)《阿尔泰语言学译文集》,2011,95-108页,北京：社会科学文献出版社。
梅耶(法),《历史比较语言学中的比较方法》,1925,岑麒祥译。北京：世界图书出版公司北京公司,2008年6月出版。
梅祖麟,中古汉语的声调与上声的起源,黄宣范译,《中国语言学论集》,1977,台湾幼狮文化事业公司。
萌达来,《北方民族的历史接触与阿尔泰语言共同性的形成》,2001,北京：中国社会科学出版社。
牛汝极,西域语言接触概说,《中央民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2000,第4期,122-125页。
牛汝极,《阿尔泰文明与人文西域》,2003,乌鲁木齐：新疆大学出版社。
潘晓声、孔江平,武鸣壮语双音节声调空间分布研究,《民族语文》,2011,第2期,10-16页。
彭燕,维吾尔语哈密土语中的汉语词,《民族语文》,1999,第5期,43-45页。
戚雨村,词的借用和语言的融合,《中国语文》,1959,第2期,51-53页
瞿霭堂,相关语言学构想,《民族语文》,1992,第4期,7-15页。
瞿霭堂,双语和双语研究,《民族语文》,2000,第3期,25-32页。
萨丕尔,《语言论》中译本,1964,陆卓元译,北京：商务印书馆。
沈家煊,类型学中的标记模式,《外语教学与研究》,1997,第1期,1-10页。
沈炯,北京话声调的音域和语调,载林焘等著《北京语音实验录》,1985,73-130页,北京：北京大学出版社。
石锋,论五度值记调法,载《语音学探微》,1990,27-52页,北京：北京大学出版社。
石锋,北京话的元音格局,《南开语言学刊》,2002,第1期,30-36页。
石锋,《语音格局——语音学与音系学的交汇点》,2008,北京：商务印书馆。
石锋,《实验音系学探索》,2009,北京：北京大学出版社。
石锋,论语音格局,《南开语言学刊》,2010,第1期,1-14页。
石锋、廖荣蓉,《语音丛稿》,1994,北京：北京语言学院出版社。
石锋,温宝莹,汉语普通话儿童的元音发展,《中国语文》,2007,第5期,444-454页。
时秀娟,汉语方言元音格局的系统性表现,《方言》,2006,第4期,321-323页。
时秀娟,现代汉语方言元音格局的类型分析,《南开语言学刊》,2007a,第1期,70-78页。
时秀娟,《汉语儿童普通话元音习得的差异性——济宁方言背景下》,2007b,北京：线装书局。
时秀娟,《汉语方言的元音格局》,2010,北京：中国社会科学出版社。
史有为,《异文化的使者——外来词》,1991,长春：吉林教育出版社。
史有为,《汉语外来词》,2000,北京：商务印书馆。
史有为,《外来词——异文化的使者》,2004,上海：上海辞书出版社。
孙宏开,试论我国的双语现象,《民族研究》,1983,第6期,68-76页。
孙宏开,论羌族双语制——兼谈汉语对羌语的影响,《民族语文》,1988,第4期,55-65页。
孙宏开,开创新世纪民族语文工作的新局面,《民族语文》,2002,第6期,1-6页。
孙宏开,丝绸之路上的语言接触和文化扩散,《西北民族研究》,2009,第3期,52-58页。
孙宏开,汉藏语系历史类型学研究中的一些问题,《语言研究》,2011,第1期,113-120页。
孙宏开、胡增益、黄行,《中国的语言》,2007,北京：商务印书馆。
覃晓航,南丹话单元音复化的条件,《民族语文》,2004,第2期,61-64页。
上恩春,从安西、北庭都护府的设置看唐朝对西域的治理,《昌吉学院学报》,2008,第4期,72-75页。
汪锋,语音对应的两种放宽模式及其后果——以彝白比较为例,《语言学论丛》,2011,第44辑,1-39页。
汪锋,《语言接触与语言比较——以白语为例》,2012,北京：商务印书馆。
汪锋、孔江平,水语(三洞)声调的声学研究,《民族语文》,2011,第5期,37-44页。
汪锋、王士元,语义创新与方言的亲缘关系,《方言》,2005,第2期,157-167页。
工洪君,《汉语非线性音系学——汉语的音系格局与单字调》,1999,北京：北京大学出版社。
王洪君,《汉语非线性音系学——汉语的音系格局与单字调(增订版)》,2008,北京：北京大学出版社。
王嘉龄,优选论,《国外语言学》,1995,第1期,1-4页。
王景荣,新疆汉话中的维吾尔语借词,《语言与翻译》,1998,第3期,41-44页。
王力,现代汉语语音分析中的几个问题,《中国语文》,1979,第4期,281-286页。
王力,《汉语音韵》,1963,中华书局,1980年出版。
王力,《汉语语音史》,1985,北京：中国社会科学出版社。
王理嘉,北京话的中元音音位,《语言研究》,1983,第1期,21-26页。
工莉、赵平,改革开放以来新疆多民族语言接触使用及发展趋势,《新疆大学学报》,2008,第2期,134-138页。
上萍、贝先明、石锋,元音的三维空间,《当代语言学》,2010,第3期,241-251页。
王士元,《语言的探索——王士元语言学论文选译》,石锋等译,2000,北京：北京语言文化大学出版社。
王士元、沈钟伟,方言关系的计量表述,《中国语文》,1992,第2期,81-92页。
工远新,《突厥历史语言学研究》,1995,北京：中央民族大学出版社。
工泽民,试论民国时期的新疆语文政策,《新疆地方志》,2007,第2期,53-56页。
吴安其,语言接触对语言演变的影响,《民族语文》,2004,第1期,1,9页。
吴福祥,关于语言接触引发的演变,《民族语文》,2007,第2期,3-23页。
吴福祥,语法化的新视野——接触引发的语法化,《当代语言学》,2009,第3期,193-206页。
吴宗济、林茂灿,《实验语音学概要》,1989,北京：高等教育出版社。
吴宗济主编,《汉语普通话单音节语图册》,1986,北京：中国社会科学出版社。
邢欣,新疆汉语方言外来词研究,《语言科学》,2003,第1期,76-82页。
熊子瑜,中介语声调系统的评价方法研究,《第九届全国人机语音通讯会议论文集》,2007,417-423页。
徐世璇,彝缅语几种语言的声调比较,《语言研究》,1989,第2期,127-136页。
徐世璇,比苏语方音的形成和语言的接触影响,《民族语文》,1998,第3期,68-73页。
徐思益,试论语言的民族变体(上),《语言与翻译》,2000,第4期,5-10页。
徐思益,试论语言的民族变体(下),《语言与翻译》,2001,第1期,5-10页。
徐思益,《语言研究探索》,2009,北京：商务印书馆。
徐思益等,《语言的接触与影响》，1997,乌鲁木齐：新疆人民出版社。
徐思益、高丽琴,关于维吾尔语的重音、声调问题,《语言与翻译》,1992,第3期,12-15页。
徐通锵,《声母语音特征的变化和声调的起源关》,《民族语文》,1988,第1期,1-15页。
徐通锵,《声调起源研究方法论问题再议》,《民族语文》,2001,第5期，1-13页。
徐通锵,《历史语言学》,1991,北京：商务印书馆。
徐通锵,《语言论——语义型语言的结构原理和研究方法》,1997,长春：东北师范大学出版社。
薛才德,《汉藏语言研究》,2007,上海：复旦大学出版社。
薛宗正,《突厥史》,1992,北京：中国社会科学出版社。
阎丽莉、蔡金亭,对英语学习者习得英语辅音群的优选论分析,《解放军外国语学院学报》,2004,第1期,70-74页。
易斌,维汉语元辅音音位及其相关问题的对比研究初探,《语言与翻译》,1994,第4期,90-96页。
易斌,维汉语语音变化对比研究初探,《语言与翻译》,1996,第4期,32-33页。
依米提·赛买提著,汉语对维吾尔语语音的影响,解牛译,《语言与翻译》,1993,第1期,27-29页。
意西微萨·阿错,《倒话研究》,2004,北京：民族出版社。
余志鸿,语言接触与语言结构的变异，《民族语文》,2000,第4期,23-27页。
遇笑容、曹广顺、祖生利,《语言史中的语言接触问题研究》,2009,北京：语文出版社。
喻世长,应该重视语言互相影响研究,《民族语文》,1984,第2期,1-9页。
袁家骅,汉藏语声调的起源和演变,《语文研究》,1981,第2期,2-7页。
袁生武,50-80年代现代维语中汉语借词的发展及借用形式,《语言与翻译》,1998,第1期,32-34页。
袁焱,《语言接触与语言演变——阿昌语个案调查研究》,2000,北京：民族出版社。
曾晓渝,《汉语水语关系论——水语里汉语借词及同源词分层研究》,2004,北京：商务印书馆。
曾晓渝,论“壮汉语”的性质及其形成机制,《语言研究》,2009,第4期,31-37页。
曾晓渝,语言接触的类型差距及语言质变现象的理论探讨——以中国境内几种特殊语言为例,《语言科学》,2012,第1期,1-8页。
张慧丽,主动发音器官模型与国际音标的几个问题,Language and Linguistics,2010,11.4: 653-678.
张莉萍,试论维吾尔语的汉语借词,《西北第二民族学院学报》,2006,第2期.40-43页。
张世方,汉语方言三调现象初探,《语言研究》,2000,第4期，48-61页。
张世禄,《语言学原理》,1931,上海：商务印书馆。
张世禄,《语言学概论》,1934,上海：中华书局。
张淑芳,维吾尔语中成系统借入的汉语借词,《新疆教育学院学报》，1994,第2期,60-66页。
张铁山,《回鹘文献语言的结构与特点》,2005,北京：中央民族大学出版社。
张洋,维吾尔语音位剖析,《新疆大学学报》,1983,第4期,133-139页。
张洋,《哈密方言研究》,1996,乌鲁木齐：新疆大学出版社。
张洋,汉维语区别特征对比,《新疆大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,1997,第2期,104-107页。
张洋,汉、维吾尔语元音对比,《中央民族大学学报》,1998,第6期,80-86页。
张洋,汉维语音对比研究方法初探,《语言与翻译》,1999a,第1期,16-19页。
张洋,《汉维语音对比研究与维吾尔语音析辨》,1999b,乌鲁木齐：新疆大学出版社。
张洋,古代新疆多语种双语的流向,《中央民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2003,第2期,133-136页。
张洋,《新疆汉语方言与维吾尔语比较研究》,2009,乌鲁木齐：新疆人民出版社。
张玉萍主编,《汉维语法对比》,1999,乌鲁木齐：新疆人民出版社。
张卫国,双语学与新疆双语问题,2005,中央民族大学博士学位论文。
赵江民,论新疆历史上民汉语言的接触,《新疆社会科学》,2008,第2期,113-117页。
赵杰,《北京话的满语底层和“轻音”、“儿化”探源》,1996,北京：北京燕山出版社。
赵杰,北方民族语言的发展态势与研究路径,《西北第二民族学院学报》,2007a,第4期,26-29页。
赵杰,从日本语到维吾尔语——北方民族语言关系水平性研究，2007b,北京：民族出版社。
赵明鸣,《突厥语词典》的基本元音系统及其元音和谐研究,《民族语文》,1997a,第2期,18-27页。
赵明鸣,从《突厥语词典》看维吾尔语元音的历史演变,《民族语文》,1997b,第6期,68-77页。
赵明鸣,论现代维吾尔语元音e的语音特征,《语言与翻译》,1998,第3期,14-19页。
赵明鸣,《突厥语词典》语言研究,2000,北京：中央民族大学出版社。
赵明鸣,《突厥语词典》中的ol,《民族语文》,2011,第6期,40-46页。
赵相如,维吾尔语的音节结构和借词拼写法的关系,《民族语文》,1984,第4期,26-38页。
赵相如,《突厥语与古汉语关系词对比研究》,2012,北京：社会科学文献出版社。
赵相如、朱志宁,《维吾尔语简志》,1983,北京：民族出版社。
郑锦全,汉语方言亲疏关系的计量研究,《中国语文》,1988,第2期,87-102页。
郑京华,《优选论框架下英语简单WH疑问句的第二语言习得研究》,2006,北京语言大学硕士论文。
周磊,《乌鲁木齐方言词典》,1995,南京：江苏教育出版社。
周磊,吐鲁番汉语方言音系，《方言》,1998,第2期,122-131页。
周磊,乌鲁木齐方言借词研究,《方言》,2004,第4期,347-355页。
朱晓农,基频归一化——如何处理声调的随机差异,《语言科学》,2004,第2期,3-19页。
朱晓农,近音——附论普通话日母,《方言》,2007,第1期,2-9页。
朱晓农,说元音,《语言科学》,2008,第5期,459-482页。
朱晓农,《上海声调实验录》,2004,上海：上海教育出版社。
朱晓农,《语音学》,2010,北京：商务印书馆。
朱学佳,新疆维吾尔族使用汉语的变异及其规范研究,《新疆大学学报》,2005，第3期,141-145页。
朱学佳,维吾尔族使用汉语方言词的状况调查,《语言文字应用》,2006,第2期,43-51页。
朱学佳,乌鲁木齐市维吾尔族汉语使用声调变异状况的声学分析,《语言文字应用》,2007a,第3期,101-106页。
朱学佳,《维吾尔族汉语使用变异研究》,2007b,北京：中央民族大学出版社。
邹嘉彦、游汝杰,《语言接触论集》,2004,上海：上海教育出版社。
祖菲亚·玉努斯,浅论维吾尔语中借词的出现及其对维吾尔语所产生的影响,《新疆教育学院 学报》,2000,第3期,72-74页。
Altenberg, E.& R. Vago, Theoretical Implications of an Error Analysis of Second Language Phonology Production, Language Learning,1983,33:427-447.
Andersen, H., Diphthonggization, Language,1972,48:11-50.
Appel, Muysken, Language Contact and Bilingualism,1997, London:mayfkenpreff.
Ascoli, G, L., Corsi di Glottologia:Lezioni di Fonologia Comparata,1870, Turin and Florence: Ermanno Loescher.
Auwera, Johan Van Der, Revisiting the Balkan and Meso-American Linguistic Areas, Language Sciences,1998,20.3:259-270, Elsevier Science Ltd, Printed in Great Britain.
Bailey, Charles-James N., Language Change, Naturalness, Mixture, and Structural Principles, Papiere zur Lingistik,1977,16:6-73.
Battistella, E., Markedness:The Evaluative Superstructure of Language,1990, Albany:The State University of New York Press.
Battistella, E. The Logic of Markedness,1996, Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Best, C. T., A Direct-realist View of Cross-language Speech Perceptions, In W. Strange (ed.) Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience:Theoretical and Methodological Issues,1995, 229-273, Timonium, MD:York Press.
Bickel, Balthasar, Typology in the 21st Century:Major Current Developments, Paper presented at the Workshop on Typology in American Linguistics:An appraisal of the field, Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting,2005, Oakland, California.
Boersma, Paul. Learning a Grammar in Functional Phonology. In Joost Dekkers, Frank van der Leeuw and Jeroen van de Wijer (eds.) Optimality Theory, Phonology, Syntax, and Acquisition,2000,465-523, Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Briere, Eugene, A Psycholinguistics Study of Phonological Interference,1968, The hague: Mouton.
Broselow, E., R. Hurtig and C. Ringen, The Perception of Second Language Prosody. In Georgette Loup and Steven Weinberger (eds.) Interlanguage Phonology,1987, Rowley, Mass:Newbury House.
Broselow, E. and Zheng Xu, Differential Difficulty in the Acquisition of Second Language Phonology, International Journal of English Studies,2004,2:135-163.
Campbell, L., Explaining universals and their exceptions, In E. C. Traugott et al. (eds.) Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Historical Linguistics,1980,17-26, Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Chao, Y. R. (Zhao Yuan-ren), Interlingual and Interdialectal Borrowings in Chinese,载吴宗济、赵 新那(编)《赵元任语言学论文集》,2006,869-895页,北京：商务印书馆。
Chen, Baoya and Feng Wang, More Evidence for the Genetic Relationship between Austronesian and Kam-Tai, Journal of Chinese Linguistics,2009,37.1:28-76.
Chen, Baoya and Feng Wang, On Several Principles in Reconstructing a Proto-language -With the Reconstruction of Tone and Pre-initial *h- and *?- of Proto-Yi, Journal of Chinese Linguistics,2011,39.2:370-402.
Cheng, R. L., Mandarin Phonological Structure, Journal of Linguistics,1966,2:135-158.
Chiang, Thomas, Some Interferences of English Intonations with Chinese Tones, IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics,1979,17:245-250.
Chomsky, N., The Minimalist Program,1995. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N.& M. Halle, The Sound Pattern of English,1968, New York:Harper & Row.
Comrie, B., Language Universals and Linguistic Typology,1981, Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Comrie, B., Language Universals and Linguistic Typology (Second edition),1989, Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Coteanu, I., A Propos des Langues Mixtes (sur l'istro-roumain),1957, Bucharest:Melanges linguistiques.
Croft, W., Typology and Universals,1990, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W.,'Markedness' and 'Universals':From the Prague School to Typology, In Kurt R. Jankowsky (ed.) Multiple Perspectives on the Historical Dimentions of Language,1996, 15-21, Milnster:Nodus.
Croft, W., Typology and Universals (Second Edition),2003, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Crothers, J., Typology and Universals of Vowel Systems, In J. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson, and E. A. Moravcsik (eds.) Universals of Human Language,1978, Vol.2:Phonology,93-152, Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Clements, George N.& Samuel Keyser, CV Phonology:A Generative Theory of the Syllable,1983, Cambridge, Mass:The MIT Press.
Dunn, Michael et al.. Statistical Reasoning in the Evaluation of Typological Diversity in Island Melanesia, Oceanic Linguistics,2007,46.2:388-403.
Earle, M. A., An Acoustic Phonetic Study of Northern Vietnamese Tones,1975, Santa Barbara, CA: Speech Communications Research Laboratory, INC.
Eckman, F., Markedness and the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, Language Learning,1977,27: 315-330.
Eckman, F., Universals, Typologies and Interlanguages, In W. E. Rutherford (ed.) Language Universals and Second Language Acquisition,1984,79-105, Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Eckman, F., The Structural Conformity Hypothesis and the Acquisition of Consonant Clusters in the Interlanguage of ESL Learners, Studies in Second Language Acquisition,1991,13:23-41.
Eckman, F., A Functional-typological Approach to Second Language Acquisition Theory, In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (eds.) Handbook of Second Language Acquisition,1996,195-211, San Diego:Academic Press.
Eckman, F., Typological Markedness and Second Language Phonology, In J. G. Hansen-Edwards and M. L. Zampini (eds.) Phonology and Second Language Acquisition,2008,95-115, Philadelphia and Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ellis. R., The Study of Second Language Acquisition,1994, Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., Understanding Second Language Acquisition,1995, Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., SLA Research and Language Teaching,1997, New York:Oxford University Press.
Fant, G., Acoustic Analysis and Synthesis of Speech with Applications to Swedish, Ericsson Technics,1959,15.1:3-108.
Flege, J., Phonetic Approximation in Secand Language Acquisition, Language Learning,1980,30: 117-134.
Flege, J., and Robert Hammond, Mimicry of Non-distinctive Phonetic Differences Between Language Varieties, Studies in Second Language Acquisition,1982,5:1-17.
Gandour, J.& R. Harshman, Crosslanguage Difference in Tone Perception:A Multidimensional Scaling Investigation, Language and Speech,1978,21:1-33.
Givon, T., Prolegomean to any Sane Creology, In Ian F. Hancock (ed.) Readings in Creole Studies, 1979,3-35, Ghent:Story-Scientia.
Greenberg, Joseph H., Language Universals:With Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies, 1966, The Hague:Mouton.
Greenberg, Joseph H., Language Universals,1976, The Hague:Mouton.
Greenberg, Joseph H., Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements, In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.) Universals of Language (Second Edition),1963/1966,73-113, Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.
Gundel, J., K. Houlihan & G. Sanders, Markedness Distribution in Phonology and Syntax, In F. Eckman, E. Moravcsik & J. Wirth (eds.) Markedness,1986,107-138, New York:Plenum Press.
Heath, Jeffrey, Linguistic diffusion in Arnhem Land, Australian Aboriginal Studies:Research and Regional Studies 13,1978, Canberra:Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Heine, Bemd & Tania Kuteva, Language Contact and Grammatical Change,2005, London: Cambridge University Press.
Hickey, Raymond, The Handbook of Language Contact,2010, Wiley-Blackwell, A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication.
Jakobson, R., uber die phonologischen Sprachbunde, Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 1931,4.
Jakobson, R., Sur la Theorie des Affinites Phonologiques Entre des Language,1938, Selected Writing,1962,1:234-246, The Hague:Mouton,.
Jakobson, R., Child Language, Aphasia, and Phonological Universals,1941/1968, The Hague: Mouton.
Jakobson, R., Implications of Language Universals for Linguistics, In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.) Universals of Language (Second Edition),1963/1966,263-278, Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.
Jeffers, Robert J.& Ilse Lehiste, Principles and Methods for Historical Linguistics,1979, Cambridge:MIT Press.
Johnson, K., An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching,2002, Beijing:Foreign Language Learning and Research Press.
Joos, M., Acoustic Phonetics, Language,1948,24.2:1-136.
Kiparsky, Paul., Phonological Representations, In Osamu Fujimura (ed.) Three dimensions of linguistic theory,1973,1-136, Tokyo:TEC Co., Ltd.
Klamer, Marian, Typical Features of Austronesian Languages in Central/Eastern Indonesial, Oceanic Linguistics,2002,41.2:363-383.
Kong, Jiangping (孔江平), Laryngeal Dynamics and Physiological Model:High Speed Imaging and Acoustical Techniques=动态声门与生理模型，2007,北京:北京大学出版社。
Labov, William, Principles of Linguistic Change:Internal Factors,1994, Blackwell:Oxford.
Ladd, D. R., K. Silverman, F. Tolkmitt, G Bergmann & K. Seherer, Evidence for the Independent Function of Intonation Contour Type, Voice Quality, and F0 Range in Signaling Speaker Affect, Journal of Acoustical Society of America,1985,78:435-444.
Ladefoged, P., Three Areas of Experimental Phonetics,1967, London:Oxford University Press.
Ladefoged, P., A Course in Phonetics,1975, New York:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Ladefoged, P. and 1. Maddieson, The Sound of the World's Languages,1996, Blackwell:Oxford.
Lado, R., Linguistics Across Cultures:Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers,1957, Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
Lakoff, G., Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things,1987, Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Lee W., Thoughts on Contrastve Linguistics in the Context of Language Teaching, In Alatis J. (ed.) Report on the Nineteenth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies,1968, Washington DD:Georgetown University Press.
Li Fang-kuei, Some Old Chinese Loan Words in the Tai Languages, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies,1945, Vol.8, No.3 and 4:333-342.
Li, Hui, Diversity Analyses on the Basic Vowel Qualities among the Human Languages, Communication on Contemporary Anthropology,2008,2:42-51.
Liberman, A., K. Harris, H. Hoffman, and B. Griffith, The Discriminarion of Speech Sounds within and across Phoneme Boundaries, Journal of Experimental Psychology,1957,54: 358-368.
Lin, You-Jing (林幼菁), By No Means Marginal:Privetive Tone in Zhuokeji Rgyalrong, Language and Linguistics,2012,13.4:625-662.
Lindblom, Bjorn, Phonetic Universals in Vowel Systems, In John J.Ohala & Jeri J. Jaeger (eds.) Experimental Phonology,1986,13-42, London:Academic Press, INC.
Lombardi, L., Second Language Data and Constraints on Manner:Explaning Substitutions for the English Interdentals, Second Language Research,2003,19:225-250.
Lovins, Julie, Why Loan Phonology is Phonology, In A. Bruck et al. (eds.) Papers from the Parasession on Natural Phonology,1974,240-250. Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society.
Maddieson, Jan, Patterns of Sounds,1984, Cambridge University Press.
Major, R., Foreign Accent:The Ontogeny and Phylogeny of Second Language Phonology,2001, Mahwah:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Major, R.& E. Kim, The Similarity Differential Rate Hypothesis, Language Learning,1996,46: 465-496.
Martinet, Andre & Thomas G. Penchoen, Structure and Language, Yale French Studies,1966, 36/37,10-18, Yale University Press.
McCarthy, J., (ed.) Optimality Theory in Phonology:a reader,2004, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
McCarthy, J., Optimality Theory:Applying Theory to Data,2008, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
McCarthy, J.& A. Prince, Prosodic Morphology Ⅰ:Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction,1993, Ms. University of Massachusetts/Rutgers University.
Meillet, A., Le Probleme de la Parente des Language, Reprinted in Linguistique Historique et Linguistque Generale, ed. by Meillet,1921,17-101, Paris:Champion.
Moravcsik, Edith A., Language Contact, In J. H. Grreenberg (ed.) Universals of Buman Language, 1978,1:93-122, Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
Moulton, W. G., The Sounds of English and German,1962. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Mufwene, Salikoko S., The Ecology of Language Evolution,2001, London:Cambridge University Press.
Mufwene, Salikoko S., Language Evolution:Contact, Competition and Change,2008, London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Muhlhausler, Peter, Structural Expansion and the Process of Creolization, In Albert Valdman and Arnold Highfield (eds.) Theoretical Orientations in Creole Studies,1980,19-55, New York: Academic Press.
Odlin, T., Language Transfer:Cross-linguistic Influence in Language Learning,1989, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peirce, Charles S., Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss,1965-1966, Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
Prince, A.& P. Smolensky, Optimality Theory:Const raint Interaction in Generative Grammar, 1993, New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.
Ramat, Paolo, Typological Comparison and Linguistic Areas:Some Introductory Remarks, Language Sciences,1998,20.3:227-240.
Rose, Phil, Acoustic Characteristics of the Shanghai-Zhenhai Syllable Types, In David Bradley (ed.) Tonation,1982, Pacific Linguistics Papers in South-east Asian Linguistics 8,1-53.
Ross, John R., Islands and Syntactic Prototype, In B. Need et al. (eds.) Papers from the 23rd Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Part Ⅰ:The General Session), 1987,309-320, Chicago:CLS.
Ross, Malcolm D., Contact-induced Change and the Comparative Method:Cases from Papua New Guinea, In Malcolm Ross and Mark Durie (eds.) The Comparative Method Reviewed: Regularity and Irregularity in Language Change,1996,180-217, New York:Oxford University Press.
Ross, Malcolm D., Exploring Metatopy:How does Contact-induced Typological Change Come About? Approximate text of keynote talk given at the Australian Linguistic Society's annual meeting, Perth,1999.
Scholes, Robert, Phonemic Interference as a Perceptual Phenonmenon, Language and Speech, 1968,11:86-103.
Schleicher,A., Die Darwinische Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft,1863.
Schwartz, J. L., L. J. Boe and C. Abry, Linking Dispersion-Focalization Theroy and the Maximum Utilization of the Available Distinctive Features Principle in a Perception-for-Action-Control Theory, In Maria-Josep Sole, P. S. Beddor and M. Ohala (eds.) Experimental Approaches to Phonology,2007,104-124, New York:Oxford University Press.
Selinker, L., Interlanguage, International Review of Applied Linguistics,1972,10.3:209-231.
Shapiro, Michael, Asmmetry:An Inquiry into the Linguistic Structure of Poetry,1976, Amsterdam: North Holland.
Sherzer, Jole, Universals of Languistic Structure:A North American Perspective, Lingua,1977,42: 177-189.
Siemund, P. and Noemi Kintana (eds.), Language Contact and Contact Language,2008, Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Stockwell, R.& J. D Bowen, The Sounds of English and Spanish,1965, Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Stockwell, R., J. D. Bowen & J. W. Martin, The Grammatical Structures of English and Spanish: An Analysis of Structural Differences Between the Two Languages,1965, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Swadesh, M., Lexico-statistic Dating of Prehistoric Ethnic Contacts, Proceedings of the American philosophical society,1952,96.4:452-463.
Swadesh, M., Time Depths of American Linguistic Groupings, American Anthropologist,1954,56. 3:361-377.
Takefuta, Y., Method of Acoustic Analysis of Intonation, In S. Singh (ed.) Measurement Procedures in Speech Hearing and Language,1975,363-378, Baltimore:University Park Press.
Thomason, Sarah G, Language Contact,2001, Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
Thomason, Sarah G., Language Contact and Deliberate Change. Journal of Language Contact Thema,2007,1:41-62.
Thomason, Sarah G.& Terrence Kaufman, Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistcs,1988, Berkeley:University of California Press.
Tesar, B. and P. Smolensky, Learnability in Optimality Theory, Linguistic Inquiry,1998,29: 229-268.
Tiersma, Peter Meijes, Local and General Markedness, Language,1982,58.4:832-849
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs.1973. Some Thoughts on Natural Syntactic Processes. In C.-J. N. Bailey and R. Shuy (eds.) New Way of Analyzing Variation in English,313-322, Washington, D. C:Georgetown University Press.
Trubetzkoy, N., Die Phonologischen System, Travaux du Cercle Lingistique de Prague,1931,4: 96-116.
Trubetzkoy, N., Principles of Phonology (Translation of Grundzuge der Phonologie, Prague,1939), 1939/1969, Berkeley and Los Angeles:Unversity of California Press.
Trubetzkoy, N., Letter and Notes, Edited by Roman Jakobson,1975, The Hague:Mouton.
Uffmann, C., Optimality in L1 acquisition, L2 acquisition and Creole Formation,2002, UQAM, Handouts.
Waugh, Linda, Markedness and Phonological Systems, In W. Wolck and Paul Garvin (eds.) The Fifth LACUS Forum,1979,155-165, Columbia, S. C.:Hornbeam Press.
Wang, Feng (汪锋), Comparison of Languages in Contact:The Distillation Method and the Case of Bai. Language and Linguistics Monograph Series B:Frontiers in Linguistics Ⅲ,2006, Taipei:Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
Weinreich, Uriel, Language in Contact:Findings and Problems,1953 (Reprented in 1968), The Hague:Monton.
Weinreich Uriel, William Labov, Marvin I. Herzog, Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Language Change, In W. P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel (eds.) Direction for Historical Linguistics,1968, University of Texas Press.
Whinnom, Keith, Creolization in Linguistic Change, In Albert Valdman and Arnold Highfield (eds.) Theoretical Orientations in Creole Studies,1980,203-210, New York:Academic Press.
Wichmann, S(?)ren, Loan Verbs in a Typological Perspective, Paper presented at the seminar oncontact linguistics, The Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen, Kobenhavn,2004.
Wichmann, S(?)ren & David Kamholz, A Stability Metric for Typological Features, STUF: Language Typology and Universals,2008,61.3:251-262.
Winford, Donald, Some Issues in the Study of Language Contact, Journal of Language Contact, 2007, Thema 1:22-40.
Zee, Eric, The Phonetic Value of the Vowels, Diphthongs, and Triphthongs in Beijing Mandarins,载蔡莲红、周同春、陶建华主编《第五届现代语音学国际研讨会论文集》,2001,54-60页,北京：清华大学出版社。
Zhao Yuan-ren (赵元任), Interlingual and Interdialectal in Chinese,载吴宗济、赵新那(编)《赵元任语言学论文集》,2006,869-895页,北京：商务印书馆。
4《维汉俄词典》,包尔汉根据前苏联学者巴斯卡科夫所编《维俄词典》编写,民族出版社出版,1953年。
5《汉维词典》,由新疆维吾尔自治区教育局等7家单位合编,新疆人民出版社出版,1974年。
6《维汉词典》,由新疆大学中国语言系编写,新疆人民出版社出版,1982年。
7赵相如(1984)没有使用“对应”或“匹配”,而是使用“对当一词,如声母对当、韵母对当等。赵相如(1984)“对当”的涵义与本文“匹配”概念基本-致。
阿不都若夫·塔吉,《汉维语言接触中汉语对维吾尔语的影响》,2008,新疆师范大学硕士论文。
阿不里克木·亚森,《吐鲁番回鹘世俗文书语言结构研究》,2001,乌鲁木齐：新疆大学出版社。
阿尔斯兰·阿不都拉,现代维吾尔语哈密方言初探,《新疆师范大学学报》,1986,第2期,8-21页
阿尔斯兰·阿不都拉,维吾尔语哈密次方言中的古语词,《民族语文》,2006,第1期,54-62页。
阿尔斯兰·阿不都拉,俄语对维吾尔语伊宁话的影响,《新疆大学学报(哲学人文社会科学版)》,2010,第1期,122-127页。
阿尔斯兰·阿不都拉,维吾尔语哈密次方言中的古语成分,《民族语文》,2011,第1期,78-81页。
阿孜古丽·阿布力米提,《维吾尔语基础教程》,2006,北京：中央民族大学出版社。
奥德林(T. Odlin),《语言迁移：语言学习的语际影响》,2001,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
鲍怀翘,普通话单元音分类的生理解释,《中国语文》,1984,第2期,117-184页。
贝先明、石锋,方言的接触影响在元音格局中的表现——以长沙、萍乡、浏阳方言为例,《南开语言学刊》,2008,第1期,32-38页。
布隆菲尔德,《语言论》,1933,袁家骅、赵世开、甘世福译,北京：商务印书馆,1997。
曹剑芬,《现代语音基础知识》,1990,北京：人民教育出版社。
陈保亚,从核心词分布看汉语和侗台语的语源关系,《民族语文》,1995,第5期,20-32页。
陈保亚,《论语言接触与语言联盟——汉越(侗台)语源关系的解释》,1996,北京：语文出版社。
陈保亚,《20世纪中国语言学方法论》,1999,济南：山东教育出版社。
陈保亚,语言接触导致汉语方言分化的两种模式,《北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2005,第2期,43-50页。
陈保亚,从语言接触看历史比较语言学,《北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2006a,第2期,30-34页。
陈保亚,穆罕默德·喀什噶里在历史语言学上的两个贡献——纪念穆罕默德·喀什噶里诞辰1000周年,《新疆大学学报(哲学人文社会科学版)》,2006b,第4期,142-143页。
陈保亚,《当代语言学》,2009,北京：高等教育出版社。
陈保亚、汪锋,试论重构原始语言的若干原则——以原始彝语的声调及前置声母*h-和*?为例,《语言学论丛》,2012,第45辑,128-127页,北京：商务印书馆。
陈海伦,论方言相似度、相关度、沟通度若干问题,《中国语文》,1996,第5期,361-368页。
陈海伦,方音系统的相似关系计算,《语言科学》,2006,第1期,23-3页。
陈慧优、玛依拉,维吴尔语中汉语借词的维语化,《乌鲁木齐成人教育学院学报》,1996,第3期,14-17页。
陈世明,清代新疆双语现象及其对各民族语言的影响,《新疆大学学报》,1995,第1期,87-93页。
陈世明,新疆民汉语互学现象的由来和发展,《新疆大学学报》,2001,第1期,64-69页。
陈世明,维吾尔语汉语借词新探,《西北民族研究》,2007,第1期,176-180页。
陈世明,《新疆民汉双语现象与社会发展之关系》,2010,北京：民族出版社。
陈燕,新疆维吾尔族学生的汉语发音偏误分析,《和天师范专科学校学报》,2005,第4期,120-121页。
陈伟(编),《阿尔泰语言学译文集》,2011,北京：社会科学文献出版社。
程试,音位理论与维吾尔语音位系统研究,《新疆大学学报(哲学人文社会科学版)》,1983,第1期,95-110页。
戴庆厦,《汉语与少数民族语言关系》,1990,北京：中央民族学院出版社。
戴庆厦,《汉语与少数民族语言关系概论》,1992,北京：中央民族大学出版社。
戴庆厦,双语学研究.中央民族大学《民族教育研究》增刊,2000。
戴庆厦,《社会语言学概论》,2004,北京：商务印书馆。
戴庆厦,《中国少数民族语言研究60年》,2009,北京：中央民族大学出版社。
戴庆厦、刘岩,从藏缅语、孟高棉语看亚洲语言声调的起源及演变,《中国民族语言论从》(二),1997,昆明：云南民族出版社。
戴庆厦、杨再彪,余金枝,语言接触与语言演变——小陂流苗语为例,《语言科学》,2005,第4期,3-10页。
邓晓华、王士元,壮侗语族语言的数理分类及其时问深度,《中国语文》,2007,第6期,536-576页。
邓晓华、上士元,《中国的语言及方言的分类》,2009,北京：中华书局。
迪丽达·吐斯甫汗,新疆自占就是一个多种语言齐鸣的地区,《中共伊犁州委党校学报》,2005,第2期,72-74页。
丁安琪,《汉语作为第二语言学习者研究》,2010,北京：世界图书出版公司北京公司。
杜兆金,类型学差异对语言接触中声调匹配及回归的影响,《南昌大学学报》,2011,第2期,137-141页。
杜兆金,维汉接触中声母匹配的特征基础Journal of Chinese Linguistics,2012,40.2:345-361.
杜兆金、陈保亚,元音三维声学空间与维汉韵母匹配,Language and Linguistics,2012,13.5: 845-885.
范祖奎、赵汀留,新疆汉话中维吾尔语借间的汉化现象,《语言与翻译》,2008,第1期,33-37页。
房德里耶斯著,岑麒祥、叶蜚声译,《语言论》中译本,1992,北京：商务印书馆。
方晓梅,论新疆的双语制,《新疆师范大学学报》,1998,第2期，42-47页。
傅懋勣,民族语言研究需要进一步加强的三个方面,《民族语文》,1982,第4期,1-5页。
高本汉(瑞典),《中国音韵学研究》,1940,赵元任、罗常培、李方桂合译,北京：商务印书馆,1994年缩印第一版。
高莉琴,久居乌鲁木齐的维吾尔人说汉语的特点,《语言与翻译》,1996,第1期,3-12页。
高莉琴,维吾尔族人说汉语的语音特点——语音调查分析总报告,载徐思益等主编,《语言的接触与影响》,1997,28-72页,乌鲁木齐：新疆人民出版社。
高莉琴,汉语作为第二语言学习的语音研究,《语言与翻译》,2000,第2期,55-60页。
高莉琴,新疆的屯垦移民与新疆汉语,《语言与翻译(汉文)》,2004,第3期,23-28页。
高莉琴,《不同时期维吾尔语中的汉语借词》,2005,乌鲁木齐：新疆大学出版社。
高莉琴、张新武,《新疆的语言状况及推广普通话方略研究》,2006,北京：北京语言大学出版社。
高名凯,论语言的融合,《中国语文》,1959,第5期,205-206页。
葛玛丽(A.von Gabain)回鹘文玄奘传中的信(Briefeder Uigurischen Huen-tsang-Biographie),载《普鲁士科学院学报(SPAW)》,1938,1-47页。
古力巴合热木·艾拜,新疆汉语中的维吾尔语借词初探,《和田师范专科学校学报》,2007,第3期,175-177页。
黄布凡,藏语方言声调的发生和分化的条件,《民族语文》,1994,第3期,1-9页。
黄行,语言接触与语言区域性特征,《民族语文》,2005a,第3期,7-13页。
黄行,汉藏民族语言声调的分合类型,《语言教学与研究》,2005b,第5期,1-10页。
黄行、赵明鸣,我国少数民族语言在型学研究,《中国社会科学院院报》,2004,第003版。
洪堡特,《论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神发展的影响》中译本,2008,姚小平译,商务印书馆。
胡坦,藏语(拉萨话)声调研究,《民族语文》,1980,第1期,22-36页。
江荻,藏语拉萨话现在时的标记及功能,《民族语文》,1999,第5期,55-62页。
江荻,《汉藏语言演化的历史音变模型——历史语言学的理论和方法探索》,2002a,北京：民族出版社。
江荻,缅语复合元音的来源,《民族语文》,2002b,第3期,21-31页。
江荻(译),《国际语音学会手册：国际音标使用指南》，国际语音学会编著,江荻译,2008,上海：上海教育出版社。
劲松,中介语“僵化”的语言学意义,《民族语文》,2004,第2期,32-37页。
孔江平,哈尼语发声类型声学研究及音质概念的讨论,《民族语文》,1996,第1期,40-46页。
孔江平,汉语双音节词声调组合模型研究,载《第五届全国人机语音通讯学术会议论文集》,1998,37-41页。
孔江平,《论语言发声》,2001,北京：中央民族大学出版社。
孔江平,现代语音学研究与历史语言学,《北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2006,第2期,34-38页。
孔江平,《动态声门与生理模型》,2007,北京：北京大学出版社。
雷盟,汉语词语在维吾尔语中的巧妙结合,《和田师范专科学校学报》,2008，第3期,247页。
李兵,优选论的产生、基本原理与应用,《现代外语》,1998,第3期,71-91页。
李兵、汪朋、贺俊杰,锡伯语双音节词重音实验语音学研究,《民族语文》,2012,第2期,55-63页。
李方佳,《上古音研究》,1980,北京：商务印书馆。
李辉,人类语言基本元音体系的多样性分析,《现代人类学通讯》,2008,第2期,42-51页。
李荣,官话方言的分区,《方言》,1985,第1期,2-5页。
李云兵,论语言接触对苗瑶语语序类型的影响,《民族语文》,2005,第3期,34-43页。
李云兵,语言接触对南方一些民族语言语序的影响,《民族语文》,2008,第5期,17-34页。
林青,从汉维语语序的对比看汉维语两种语言的语言类型特点,《喀什师范学院学报》,2010,第2期,65-68页。
林焘、王理嘉,《语音学教程》,1999,北京：北京大学出版社。
梁敏,对语言类型变化的一些看法,《民族语文》,1995,第6期,53-57页。
廖冬梅,新疆汉语方言中维吾尔语借词的读音,《民族语文》,2005,第1期,58-60页。
廖冬梅,《新疆民族双语发展历史现状与成就》,2008,鸟鲁木齐：新疆人民出版社。
刘俐李,同源异境三方言声调比较,《语言研究》,2003,第2期,104-109页。
刘俐李,《江淮方言声调实验研究和折度分析》,2007,成都：巴蜀书社出版社。
刘俐李,论中亚东干语的去汉语化音变,载《第八届中国语音学学术会议暨庆贺吴宗济先生百岁华诞语音科学前沿问题国际研讨会论文集》,2008,中国社会科学院语言所。
刘俐李,同源异境三方言核心词和特征词比较,《语言研究》,2009,第2期,81-89页。
刘俐李,《语思录——语言学求索集》,2012,北京：世界图书出版公司北京公司。
刘珉,汉维语对比说略,《语言与翻译》,1994,第3期,119-130+37页。
刘岩(主编),《中国无声调少数民族学习汉语声调语调的实验研究》,2009,北京：中央民族大学出版社。
刘岩、李玲等,维吾尔族学生学习汉语声调偏误的实验研究,《语言与翻译》,2006,第2期,62-66+75页。
罗美珍,论族群互动中的语言接触,《语言研究》,2000,第3期,1-20页。
马秋武,OT语法的可学性,《外国语》,2003,第5期,18-26页。
麦尔尼科夫,蒙古语的元音系统和阿尔泰假说,陈伟、周建奇译,载陈伟(编)《阿尔泰语言学译文集》,2011,95-108页,北京：社会科学文献出版社。
梅耶(法),《历史比较语言学中的比较方法》,1925,岑麒祥译。北京：世界图书出版公司北京公司,2008年6月出版。
梅祖麟,中古汉语的声调与上声的起源,黄宣范译,《中国语言学论集》,1977,台湾幼狮文化事业公司。
萌达来,《北方民族的历史接触与阿尔泰语言共同性的形成》,2001,北京：中国社会科学出版社。
牛汝极,西域语言接触概说,《中央民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2000,第4期,122-125页。
牛汝极,《阿尔泰文明与人文西域》,2003,乌鲁木齐：新疆大学出版社。
潘晓声、孔江平,武鸣壮语双音节声调空间分布研究,《民族语文》,2011,第2期,10-16页。
彭燕,维吾尔语哈密土语中的汉语词,《民族语文》,1999,第5期,43-45页。
戚雨村,词的借用和语言的融合,《中国语文》,1959,第2期,51-53页
瞿霭堂,相关语言学构想,《民族语文》,1992,第4期,7-15页。
瞿霭堂,双语和双语研究,《民族语文》,2000,第3期,25-32页。
萨丕尔,《语言论》中译本,1964,陆卓元译,北京：商务印书馆。
沈家煊,类型学中的标记模式,《外语教学与研究》,1997,第1期,1-10页。
沈炯,北京话声调的音域和语调,载林焘等著《北京语音实验录》,1985,73-130页,北京：北京大学出版社。
石锋,论五度值记调法,载《语音学探微》,1990,27-52页,北京：北京大学出版社。
石锋,北京话的元音格局,《南开语言学刊》,2002,第1期,30-36页。
石锋,《语音格局——语音学与音系学的交汇点》,2008,北京：商务印书馆。
石锋,《实验音系学探索》,2009,北京：北京大学出版社。
石锋,论语音格局,《南开语言学刊》,2010,第1期,1-14页。
石锋、廖荣蓉,《语音丛稿》,1994,北京：北京语言学院出版社。
石锋,温宝莹,汉语普通话儿童的元音发展,《中国语文》,2007,第5期,444-454页。
时秀娟,汉语方言元音格局的系统性表现,《方言》,2006,第4期,321-323页。
时秀娟,现代汉语方言元音格局的类型分析,《南开语言学刊》,2007a,第1期,70-78页。
时秀娟,《汉语儿童普通话元音习得的差异性——济宁方言背景下》,2007b,北京：线装书局。
时秀娟,《汉语方言的元音格局》,2010,北京：中国社会科学出版社。
史有为,《异文化的使者——外来词》,1991,长春：吉林教育出版社。
史有为,《汉语外来词》,2000,北京：商务印书馆。
史有为,《外来词——异文化的使者》,2004,上海：上海辞书出版社。
孙宏开,试论我国的双语现象,《民族研究》,1983,第6期,68-76页。
孙宏开,论羌族双语制——兼谈汉语对羌语的影响,《民族语文》,1988,第4期,55-65页。
孙宏开,开创新世纪民族语文工作的新局面,《民族语文》,2002,第6期,1-6页。
孙宏开,丝绸之路上的语言接触和文化扩散,《西北民族研究》,2009,第3期,52-58页。
孙宏开,汉藏语系历史类型学研究中的一些问题,《语言研究》,2011,第1期,113-120页。
孙宏开、胡增益、黄行,《中国的语言》,2007,北京：商务印书馆。
覃晓航,南丹话单元音复化的条件,《民族语文》,2004,第2期,61-64页。
上恩春,从安西、北庭都护府的设置看唐朝对西域的治理,《昌吉学院学报》,2008,第4期,72-75页。
汪锋,语音对应的两种放宽模式及其后果——以彝白比较为例,《语言学论丛》,2011,第44辑,1-39页。
汪锋,《语言接触与语言比较——以白语为例》,2012,北京：商务印书馆。
汪锋、孔江平,水语(三洞)声调的声学研究,《民族语文》,2011,第5期,37-44页。
汪锋、王士元,语义创新与方言的亲缘关系,《方言》,2005,第2期,157-167页。
工洪君,《汉语非线性音系学——汉语的音系格局与单字调》,1999,北京：北京大学出版社。
王洪君,《汉语非线性音系学——汉语的音系格局与单字调(增订版)》,2008,北京：北京大学出版社。
王嘉龄,优选论,《国外语言学》,1995,第1期,1-4页。
王景荣,新疆汉话中的维吾尔语借词,《语言与翻译》,1998,第3期,41-44页。
王力,现代汉语语音分析中的几个问题,《中国语文》,1979,第4期,281-286页。
王力,《汉语音韵》,1963,中华书局,1980年出版。
王力,《汉语语音史》,1985,北京：中国社会科学出版社。
王理嘉,北京话的中元音音位,《语言研究》,1983,第1期,21-26页。
工莉、赵平,改革开放以来新疆多民族语言接触使用及发展趋势,《新疆大学学报》,2008,第2期,134-138页。
上萍、贝先明、石锋,元音的三维空间,《当代语言学》,2010,第3期,241-251页。
王士元,《语言的探索——王士元语言学论文选译》,石锋等译,2000,北京：北京语言文化大学出版社。
王士元、沈钟伟,方言关系的计量表述,《中国语文》,1992,第2期,81-92页。
工远新,《突厥历史语言学研究》,1995,北京：中央民族大学出版社。
工泽民,试论民国时期的新疆语文政策,《新疆地方志》,2007,第2期,53-56页。
吴安其,语言接触对语言演变的影响,《民族语文》,2004,第1期,1,9页。
吴福祥,关于语言接触引发的演变,《民族语文》,2007,第2期,3-23页。
吴福祥,语法化的新视野——接触引发的语法化,《当代语言学》,2009,第3期,193-206页。
吴宗济、林茂灿,《实验语音学概要》,1989,北京：高等教育出版社。
吴宗济主编,《汉语普通话单音节语图册》,1986,北京：中国社会科学出版社。
邢欣,新疆汉语方言外来词研究,《语言科学》,2003,第1期,76-82页。
熊子瑜,中介语声调系统的评价方法研究,《第九届全国人机语音通讯会议论文集》,2007,417-423页。
徐世璇,彝缅语几种语言的声调比较,《语言研究》,1989,第2期,127-136页。
徐世璇,比苏语方音的形成和语言的接触影响,《民族语文》,1998,第3期,68-73页。
徐思益,试论语言的民族变体(上),《语言与翻译》,2000,第4期,5-10页。
徐思益,试论语言的民族变体(下),《语言与翻译》,2001,第1期,5-10页。
徐思益,《语言研究探索》,2009,北京：商务印书馆。
徐思益等,《语言的接触与影响》，1997,乌鲁木齐：新疆人民出版社。
徐思益、高丽琴,关于维吾尔语的重音、声调问题,《语言与翻译》,1992,第3期,12-15页。
徐通锵,《声母语音特征的变化和声调的起源关》,《民族语文》,1988,第1期,1-15页。
徐通锵,《声调起源研究方法论问题再议》,《民族语文》,2001,第5期，1-13页。
徐通锵,《历史语言学》,1991,北京：商务印书馆。
徐通锵,《语言论——语义型语言的结构原理和研究方法》,1997,长春：东北师范大学出版社。
薛才德,《汉藏语言研究》,2007,上海：复旦大学出版社。
薛宗正,《突厥史》,1992,北京：中国社会科学出版社。
阎丽莉、蔡金亭,对英语学习者习得英语辅音群的优选论分析,《解放军外国语学院学报》,2004,第1期,70-74页。
易斌,维汉语元辅音音位及其相关问题的对比研究初探,《语言与翻译》,1994,第4期,90-96页。
易斌,维汉语语音变化对比研究初探,《语言与翻译》,1996,第4期,32-33页。
依米提·赛买提著,汉语对维吾尔语语音的影响,解牛译,《语言与翻译》,1993,第1期,27-29页。
意西微萨·阿错,《倒话研究》,2004,北京：民族出版社。
余志鸿,语言接触与语言结构的变异，《民族语文》,2000,第4期,23-27页。
遇笑容、曹广顺、祖生利,《语言史中的语言接触问题研究》,2009,北京：语文出版社。
喻世长,应该重视语言互相影响研究,《民族语文》,1984,第2期,1-9页。
袁家骅,汉藏语声调的起源和演变,《语文研究》,1981,第2期,2-7页。
袁生武,50-80年代现代维语中汉语借词的发展及借用形式,《语言与翻译》,1998,第1期,32-34页。
袁焱,《语言接触与语言演变——阿昌语个案调查研究》,2000,北京：民族出版社。
曾晓渝,《汉语水语关系论——水语里汉语借词及同源词分层研究》,2004,北京：商务印书馆。
曾晓渝,论“壮汉语”的性质及其形成机制,《语言研究》,2009,第4期,31-37页。
曾晓渝,语言接触的类型差距及语言质变现象的理论探讨——以中国境内几种特殊语言为例,《语言科学》,2012,第1期,1-8页。
张慧丽,主动发音器官模型与国际音标的几个问题,Language and Linguistics,2010,11.4: 653-678.
张莉萍,试论维吾尔语的汉语借词,《西北第二民族学院学报》,2006,第2期.40-43页。
张世方,汉语方言三调现象初探,《语言研究》,2000,第4期，48-61页。
张世禄,《语言学原理》,1931,上海：商务印书馆。
张世禄,《语言学概论》,1934,上海：中华书局。
张淑芳,维吾尔语中成系统借入的汉语借词,《新疆教育学院学报》，1994,第2期,60-66页。
张铁山,《回鹘文献语言的结构与特点》,2005,北京：中央民族大学出版社。
张洋,维吾尔语音位剖析,《新疆大学学报》,1983,第4期,133-139页。
张洋,《哈密方言研究》,1996,乌鲁木齐：新疆大学出版社。
张洋,汉维语区别特征对比,《新疆大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,1997,第2期,104-107页。
张洋,汉、维吾尔语元音对比,《中央民族大学学报》,1998,第6期,80-86页。
张洋,汉维语音对比研究方法初探,《语言与翻译》,1999a,第1期,16-19页。
张洋,《汉维语音对比研究与维吾尔语音析辨》,1999b,乌鲁木齐：新疆大学出版社。
张洋,古代新疆多语种双语的流向,《中央民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2003,第2期,133-136页。
张洋,《新疆汉语方言与维吾尔语比较研究》,2009,乌鲁木齐：新疆人民出版社。
张玉萍主编,《汉维语法对比》,1999,乌鲁木齐：新疆人民出版社。
张卫国,双语学与新疆双语问题,2005,中央民族大学博士学位论文。
赵江民,论新疆历史上民汉语言的接触,《新疆社会科学》,2008,第2期,113-117页。
赵杰,《北京话的满语底层和“轻音”、“儿化”探源》,1996,北京：北京燕山出版社。
赵杰,北方民族语言的发展态势与研究路径,《西北第二民族学院学报》,2007a,第4期,26-29页。
赵杰,从日本语到维吾尔语——北方民族语言关系水平性研究，2007b,北京：民族出版社。
赵明鸣,《突厥语词典》的基本元音系统及其元音和谐研究,《民族语文》,1997a,第2期,18-27页。
赵明鸣,从《突厥语词典》看维吾尔语元音的历史演变,《民族语文》,1997b,第6期,68-77页。
赵明鸣,论现代维吾尔语元音e的语音特征,《语言与翻译》,1998,第3期,14-19页。
赵明鸣,《突厥语词典》语言研究,2000,北京：中央民族大学出版社。
赵明鸣,《突厥语词典》中的ol,《民族语文》,2011,第6期,40-46页。
赵相如,维吾尔语的音节结构和借词拼写法的关系,《民族语文》,1984,第4期,26-38页。
赵相如,《突厥语与古汉语关系词对比研究》,2012,北京：社会科学文献出版社。
赵相如、朱志宁,《维吾尔语简志》,1983,北京：民族出版社。
郑锦全,汉语方言亲疏关系的计量研究,《中国语文》,1988,第2期,87-102页。
郑京华,《优选论框架下英语简单WH疑问句的第二语言习得研究》,2006,北京语言大学硕士论文。
周磊,《乌鲁木齐方言词典》,1995,南京：江苏教育出版社。
周磊,吐鲁番汉语方言音系，《方言》,1998,第2期,122-131页。
周磊,乌鲁木齐方言借词研究,《方言》,2004,第4期,347-355页。
朱晓农,基频归一化——如何处理声调的随机差异,《语言科学》,2004,第2期,3-19页。
朱晓农,近音——附论普通话日母,《方言》,2007,第1期,2-9页。
朱晓农,说元音,《语言科学》,2008,第5期,459-482页。
朱晓农,《上海声调实验录》,2004,上海：上海教育出版社。
朱晓农,《语音学》,2010,北京：商务印书馆。
朱学佳,新疆维吾尔族使用汉语的变异及其规范研究,《新疆大学学报》,2005，第3期,141-145页。
朱学佳,维吾尔族使用汉语方言词的状况调查,《语言文字应用》,2006,第2期,43-51页。
朱学佳,乌鲁木齐市维吾尔族汉语使用声调变异状况的声学分析,《语言文字应用》,2007a,第3期,101-106页。
朱学佳,《维吾尔族汉语使用变异研究》,2007b,北京：中央民族大学出版社。
邹嘉彦、游汝杰,《语言接触论集》,2004,上海：上海教育出版社。
祖菲亚·玉努斯,浅论维吾尔语中借词的出现及其对维吾尔语所产生的影响,《新疆教育学院 学报》,2000,第3期,72-74页。
Altenberg, E.& R. Vago, Theoretical Implications of an Error Analysis of Second Language Phonology Production, Language Learning,1983,33:427-447.
Andersen, H., Diphthonggization, Language,1972,48:11-50.
Appel, Muysken, Language Contact and Bilingualism,1997, London:mayfkenpreff.
Ascoli, G, L., Corsi di Glottologia:Lezioni di Fonologia Comparata,1870, Turin and Florence: Ermanno Loescher.
Auwera, Johan Van Der, Revisiting the Balkan and Meso-American Linguistic Areas, Language Sciences,1998,20.3:259-270, Elsevier Science Ltd, Printed in Great Britain.
Bailey, Charles-James N., Language Change, Naturalness, Mixture, and Structural Principles, Papiere zur Lingistik,1977,16:6-73.
Battistella, E., Markedness:The Evaluative Superstructure of Language,1990, Albany:The State University of New York Press.
Battistella, E. The Logic of Markedness,1996, Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Best, C. T., A Direct-realist View of Cross-language Speech Perceptions, In W. Strange (ed.) Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience:Theoretical and Methodological Issues,1995, 229-273, Timonium, MD:York Press.
Bickel, Balthasar, Typology in the 21st Century:Major Current Developments, Paper presented at the Workshop on Typology in American Linguistics:An appraisal of the field, Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting,2005, Oakland, California.
Boersma, Paul. Learning a Grammar in Functional Phonology. In Joost Dekkers, Frank van der Leeuw and Jeroen van de Wijer (eds.) Optimality Theory, Phonology, Syntax, and Acquisition,2000,465-523, Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Briere, Eugene, A Psycholinguistics Study of Phonological Interference,1968, The hague: Mouton.
Broselow, E., R. Hurtig and C. Ringen, The Perception of Second Language Prosody. In Georgette Loup and Steven Weinberger (eds.) Interlanguage Phonology,1987, Rowley, Mass:Newbury House.
Broselow, E. and Zheng Xu, Differential Difficulty in the Acquisition of Second Language Phonology, International Journal of English Studies,2004,2:135-163.
Campbell, L., Explaining universals and their exceptions, In E. C. Traugott et al. (eds.) Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Historical Linguistics,1980,17-26, Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Chao, Y. R. (Zhao Yuan-ren), Interlingual and Interdialectal Borrowings in Chinese,载吴宗济、赵 新那(编)《赵元任语言学论文集》,2006,869-895页,北京：商务印书馆。
Chen, Baoya and Feng Wang, More Evidence for the Genetic Relationship between Austronesian and Kam-Tai, Journal of Chinese Linguistics,2009,37.1:28-76.
Chen, Baoya and Feng Wang, On Several Principles in Reconstructing a Proto-language -With the Reconstruction of Tone and Pre-initial *h- and *?- of Proto-Yi, Journal of Chinese Linguistics,2011,39.2:370-402.
Cheng, R. L., Mandarin Phonological Structure, Journal of Linguistics,1966,2:135-158.
Chiang, Thomas, Some Interferences of English Intonations with Chinese Tones, IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics,1979,17:245-250.
Chomsky, N., The Minimalist Program,1995. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N.& M. Halle, The Sound Pattern of English,1968, New York:Harper & Row.
Comrie, B., Language Universals and Linguistic Typology,1981, Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Comrie, B., Language Universals and Linguistic Typology (Second edition),1989, Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Coteanu, I., A Propos des Langues Mixtes (sur l'istro-roumain),1957, Bucharest:Melanges linguistiques.
Croft, W., Typology and Universals,1990, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W.,'Markedness' and 'Universals':From the Prague School to Typology, In Kurt R. Jankowsky (ed.) Multiple Perspectives on the Historical Dimentions of Language,1996, 15-21, Milnster:Nodus.
Croft, W., Typology and Universals (Second Edition),2003, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Crothers, J., Typology and Universals of Vowel Systems, In J. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson, and E. A. Moravcsik (eds.) Universals of Human Language,1978, Vol.2:Phonology,93-152, Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Clements, George N.& Samuel Keyser, CV Phonology:A Generative Theory of the Syllable,1983, Cambridge, Mass:The MIT Press.
Dunn, Michael et al.. Statistical Reasoning in the Evaluation of Typological Diversity in Island Melanesia, Oceanic Linguistics,2007,46.2:388-403.
Earle, M. A., An Acoustic Phonetic Study of Northern Vietnamese Tones,1975, Santa Barbara, CA: Speech Communications Research Laboratory, INC.
Eckman, F., Markedness and the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, Language Learning,1977,27: 315-330.
Eckman, F., Universals, Typologies and Interlanguages, In W. E. Rutherford (ed.) Language Universals and Second Language Acquisition,1984,79-105, Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Eckman, F., The Structural Conformity Hypothesis and the Acquisition of Consonant Clusters in the Interlanguage of ESL Learners, Studies in Second Language Acquisition,1991,13:23-41.
Eckman, F., A Functional-typological Approach to Second Language Acquisition Theory, In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (eds.) Handbook of Second Language Acquisition,1996,195-211, San Diego:Academic Press.
Eckman, F., Typological Markedness and Second Language Phonology, In J. G. Hansen-Edwards and M. L. Zampini (eds.) Phonology and Second Language Acquisition,2008,95-115, Philadelphia and Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ellis. R., The Study of Second Language Acquisition,1994, Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., Understanding Second Language Acquisition,1995, Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., SLA Research and Language Teaching,1997, New York:Oxford University Press.
Fant, G., Acoustic Analysis and Synthesis of Speech with Applications to Swedish, Ericsson Technics,1959,15.1:3-108.
Flege, J., Phonetic Approximation in Secand Language Acquisition, Language Learning,1980,30: 117-134.
Flege, J., and Robert Hammond, Mimicry of Non-distinctive Phonetic Differences Between Language Varieties, Studies in Second Language Acquisition,1982,5:1-17.
Gandour, J.& R. Harshman, Crosslanguage Difference in Tone Perception:A Multidimensional Scaling Investigation, Language and Speech,1978,21:1-33.
Givon, T., Prolegomean to any Sane Creology, In Ian F. Hancock (ed.) Readings in Creole Studies, 1979,3-35, Ghent:Story-Scientia.
Greenberg, Joseph H., Language Universals:With Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies, 1966, The Hague:Mouton.
Greenberg, Joseph H., Language Universals,1976, The Hague:Mouton.
Greenberg, Joseph H., Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements, In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.) Universals of Language (Second Edition),1963/1966,73-113, Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.
Gundel, J., K. Houlihan & G. Sanders, Markedness Distribution in Phonology and Syntax, In F. Eckman, E. Moravcsik & J. Wirth (eds.) Markedness,1986,107-138, New York:Plenum Press.
Heath, Jeffrey, Linguistic diffusion in Arnhem Land, Australian Aboriginal Studies:Research and Regional Studies 13,1978, Canberra:Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Heine, Bemd & Tania Kuteva, Language Contact and Grammatical Change,2005, London: Cambridge University Press.
Hickey, Raymond, The Handbook of Language Contact,2010, Wiley-Blackwell, A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication.
Jakobson, R., uber die phonologischen Sprachbunde, Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 1931,4.
Jakobson, R., Sur la Theorie des Affinites Phonologiques Entre des Language,1938, Selected Writing,1962,1:234-246, The Hague:Mouton,.
Jakobson, R., Child Language, Aphasia, and Phonological Universals,1941/1968, The Hague: Mouton.
Jakobson, R., Implications of Language Universals for Linguistics, In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.) Universals of Language (Second Edition),1963/1966,263-278, Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.
Jeffers, Robert J.& Ilse Lehiste, Principles and Methods for Historical Linguistics,1979, Cambridge:MIT Press.
Johnson, K., An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching,2002, Beijing:Foreign Language Learning and Research Press.
Joos, M., Acoustic Phonetics, Language,1948,24.2:1-136.
Kiparsky, Paul., Phonological Representations, In Osamu Fujimura (ed.) Three dimensions of linguistic theory,1973,1-136, Tokyo:TEC Co., Ltd.
Klamer, Marian, Typical Features of Austronesian Languages in Central/Eastern Indonesial, Oceanic Linguistics,2002,41.2:363-383.
Kong, Jiangping (孔江平), Laryngeal Dynamics and Physiological Model:High Speed Imaging and Acoustical Techniques=动态声门与生理模型，2007,北京:北京大学出版社。
Labov, William, Principles of Linguistic Change:Internal Factors,1994, Blackwell:Oxford.
Ladd, D. R., K. Silverman, F. Tolkmitt, G Bergmann & K. Seherer, Evidence for the Independent Function of Intonation Contour Type, Voice Quality, and F0 Range in Signaling Speaker Affect, Journal of Acoustical Society of America,1985,78:435-444.
Ladefoged, P., Three Areas of Experimental Phonetics,1967, London:Oxford University Press.
Ladefoged, P., A Course in Phonetics,1975, New York:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Ladefoged, P. and 1. Maddieson, The Sound of the World's Languages,1996, Blackwell:Oxford.
Lado, R., Linguistics Across Cultures:Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers,1957, Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
Lakoff, G., Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things,1987, Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Lee W., Thoughts on Contrastve Linguistics in the Context of Language Teaching, In Alatis J. (ed.) Report on the Nineteenth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies,1968, Washington DD:Georgetown University Press.
Li Fang-kuei, Some Old Chinese Loan Words in the Tai Languages, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies,1945, Vol.8, No.3 and 4:333-342.
Li, Hui, Diversity Analyses on the Basic Vowel Qualities among the Human Languages, Communication on Contemporary Anthropology,2008,2:42-51.
Liberman, A., K. Harris, H. Hoffman, and B. Griffith, The Discriminarion of Speech Sounds within and across Phoneme Boundaries, Journal of Experimental Psychology,1957,54: 358-368.
Lin, You-Jing (林幼菁), By No Means Marginal:Privetive Tone in Zhuokeji Rgyalrong, Language and Linguistics,2012,13.4:625-662.
Lindblom, Bjorn, Phonetic Universals in Vowel Systems, In John J.Ohala & Jeri J. Jaeger (eds.) Experimental Phonology,1986,13-42, London:Academic Press, INC.
Lombardi, L., Second Language Data and Constraints on Manner:Explaning Substitutions for the English Interdentals, Second Language Research,2003,19:225-250.
Lovins, Julie, Why Loan Phonology is Phonology, In A. Bruck et al. (eds.) Papers from the Parasession on Natural Phonology,1974,240-250. Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society.
Maddieson, Jan, Patterns of Sounds,1984, Cambridge University Press.
Major, R., Foreign Accent:The Ontogeny and Phylogeny of Second Language Phonology,2001, Mahwah:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Major, R.& E. Kim, The Similarity Differential Rate Hypothesis, Language Learning,1996,46: 465-496.
Martinet, Andre & Thomas G. Penchoen, Structure and Language, Yale French Studies,1966, 36/37,10-18, Yale University Press.
McCarthy, J., (ed.) Optimality Theory in Phonology:a reader,2004, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
McCarthy, J., Optimality Theory:Applying Theory to Data,2008, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
McCarthy, J.& A. Prince, Prosodic Morphology Ⅰ:Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction,1993, Ms. University of Massachusetts/Rutgers University.
Meillet, A., Le Probleme de la Parente des Language, Reprinted in Linguistique Historique et Linguistque Generale, ed. by Meillet,1921,17-101, Paris:Champion.
Moravcsik, Edith A., Language Contact, In J. H. Grreenberg (ed.) Universals of Buman Language, 1978,1:93-122, Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
Moulton, W. G., The Sounds of English and German,1962. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Mufwene, Salikoko S., The Ecology of Language Evolution,2001, London:Cambridge University Press.
Mufwene, Salikoko S., Language Evolution:Contact, Competition and Change,2008, London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Muhlhausler, Peter, Structural Expansion and the Process of Creolization, In Albert Valdman and Arnold Highfield (eds.) Theoretical Orientations in Creole Studies,1980,19-55, New York: Academic Press.
Odlin, T., Language Transfer:Cross-linguistic Influence in Language Learning,1989, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peirce, Charles S., Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss,1965-1966, Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
Prince, A.& P. Smolensky, Optimality Theory:Const raint Interaction in Generative Grammar, 1993, New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.
Ramat, Paolo, Typological Comparison and Linguistic Areas:Some Introductory Remarks, Language Sciences,1998,20.3:227-240.
Rose, Phil, Acoustic Characteristics of the Shanghai-Zhenhai Syllable Types, In David Bradley (ed.) Tonation,1982, Pacific Linguistics Papers in South-east Asian Linguistics 8,1-53.
Ross, John R., Islands and Syntactic Prototype, In B. Need et al. (eds.) Papers from the 23rd Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Part Ⅰ:The General Session), 1987,309-320, Chicago:CLS.
Ross, Malcolm D., Contact-induced Change and the Comparative Method:Cases from Papua New Guinea, In Malcolm Ross and Mark Durie (eds.) The Comparative Method Reviewed: Regularity and Irregularity in Language Change,1996,180-217, New York:Oxford University Press.
Ross, Malcolm D., Exploring Metatopy:How does Contact-induced Typological Change Come About? Approximate text of keynote talk given at the Australian Linguistic Society's annual meeting, Perth,1999.
Scholes, Robert, Phonemic Interference as a Perceptual Phenonmenon, Language and Speech, 1968,11:86-103.
Schleicher,A., Die Darwinische Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft,1863.
Schwartz, J. L., L. J. Boe and C. Abry, Linking Dispersion-Focalization Theroy and the Maximum Utilization of the Available Distinctive Features Principle in a Perception-for-Action-Control Theory, In Maria-Josep Sole, P. S. Beddor and M. Ohala (eds.) Experimental Approaches to Phonology,2007,104-124, New York:Oxford University Press.
Selinker, L., Interlanguage, International Review of Applied Linguistics,1972,10.3:209-231.
Shapiro, Michael, Asmmetry:An Inquiry into the Linguistic Structure of Poetry,1976, Amsterdam: North Holland.
Sherzer, Jole, Universals of Languistic Structure:A North American Perspective, Lingua,1977,42: 177-189.
Siemund, P. and Noemi Kintana (eds.), Language Contact and Contact Language,2008, Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Stockwell, R.& J. D Bowen, The Sounds of English and Spanish,1965, Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Stockwell, R., J. D. Bowen & J. W. Martin, The Grammatical Structures of English and Spanish: An Analysis of Structural Differences Between the Two Languages,1965, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Swadesh, M., Lexico-statistic Dating of Prehistoric Ethnic Contacts, Proceedings of the American philosophical society,1952,96.4:452-463.
Swadesh, M., Time Depths of American Linguistic Groupings, American Anthropologist,1954,56. 3:361-377.
Takefuta, Y., Method of Acoustic Analysis of Intonation, In S. Singh (ed.) Measurement Procedures in Speech Hearing and Language,1975,363-378, Baltimore:University Park Press.
Thomason, Sarah G, Language Contact,2001, Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
Thomason, Sarah G., Language Contact and Deliberate Change. Journal of Language Contact Thema,2007,1:41-62.
Thomason, Sarah G.& Terrence Kaufman, Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistcs,1988, Berkeley:University of California Press.
Tesar, B. and P. Smolensky, Learnability in Optimality Theory, Linguistic Inquiry,1998,29: 229-268.
Tiersma, Peter Meijes, Local and General Markedness, Language,1982,58.4:832-849
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs.1973. Some Thoughts on Natural Syntactic Processes. In C.-J. N. Bailey and R. Shuy (eds.) New Way of Analyzing Variation in English,313-322, Washington, D. C:Georgetown University Press.
Trubetzkoy, N., Die Phonologischen System, Travaux du Cercle Lingistique de Prague,1931,4: 96-116.
Trubetzkoy, N., Principles of Phonology (Translation of Grundzuge der Phonologie, Prague,1939), 1939/1969, Berkeley and Los Angeles:Unversity of California Press.
Trubetzkoy, N., Letter and Notes, Edited by Roman Jakobson,1975, The Hague:Mouton.
Uffmann, C., Optimality in L1 acquisition, L2 acquisition and Creole Formation,2002, UQAM, Handouts.
Waugh, Linda, Markedness and Phonological Systems, In W. Wolck and Paul Garvin (eds.) The Fifth LACUS Forum,1979,155-165, Columbia, S. C.:Hornbeam Press.
Wang, Feng (汪锋), Comparison of Languages in Contact:The Distillation Method and the Case of Bai. Language and Linguistics Monograph Series B:Frontiers in Linguistics Ⅲ,2006, Taipei:Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
Weinreich, Uriel, Language in Contact:Findings and Problems,1953 (Reprented in 1968), The Hague:Monton.
Weinreich Uriel, William Labov, Marvin I. Herzog, Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Language Change, In W. P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel (eds.) Direction for Historical Linguistics,1968, University of Texas Press.
Whinnom, Keith, Creolization in Linguistic Change, In Albert Valdman and Arnold Highfield (eds.) Theoretical Orientations in Creole Studies,1980,203-210, New York:Academic Press.
Wichmann, S(?)ren, Loan Verbs in a Typological Perspective, Paper presented at the seminar oncontact linguistics, The Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen, Kobenhavn,2004.
Wichmann, S(?)ren & David Kamholz, A Stability Metric for Typological Features, STUF: Language Typology and Universals,2008,61.3:251-262.
Winford, Donald, Some Issues in the Study of Language Contact, Journal of Language Contact, 2007, Thema 1:22-40.
Zee, Eric, The Phonetic Value of the Vowels, Diphthongs, and Triphthongs in Beijing Mandarins,载蔡莲红、周同春、陶建华主编《第五届现代语音学国际研讨会论文集》,2001,54-60页,北京：清华大学出版社。
Zhao Yuan-ren (赵元任), Interlingual and Interdialectal in Chinese,载吴宗济、赵新那(编)《赵元任语言学论文集》,2006,869-895页,北京：商务印书馆。