古汉语中的韵律结构和合成词原文及译文.doc

译文 古汉语中的韵律结构和合成词Shengli, Feng1、简介本文旨在介绍古代汉语中音韵词的自然状况。笔者使用的古汉语例词包括从战国到汉代期间的词语和短语形式。笔者的研究主要集中在先秦到汉朝阶段。正因为我在下面要证明的，这主要是因为古汉语中的合成词在汉代有了数量上的极大发展。笔者将会讨论这些合成词的特点、判定的标准以及它们发展的原因。本文有三个论点，第一，古汉语中的合成词是确实存在的，并且它们的数量在汉代得到了极大的发展；第二，古汉语中的合成现象的发展主要归功于双音步的出现，这是因为古汉语中的双韵素大量减少，所以这种现象在汉代被建立；第三，笔者认为古汉语中的合成词不仅是句法词，也是韵律词。从韵律词态学上来看，合成词的每一部分是以句法模式来呈现的，它的字母则被韵律层级和双音步等理论所驱动。论文是这样组织内容的：第二部分阐述鉴别古汉语中合成词的标准；第三部分比较Mencius和Zhao Qi对这个问题的研究；第四部分讨论合成词发展前期的数量；第五部分讨论双音节的发展以及说明双音化是独立于合成化的；第六部分讨论古汉语音韵的发展。2、鉴别古汉语中合成词的标准我们讨论古汉语中的合成词之前，首先要回答它是什么的问题。比如说，“天-子”这个词包含一种合成，但“君-臣”则不然。这两个词有什么区别？它们是在句法上、形态上还是在语义上有所不同？很显然，我们需要确定一个标准，以此来判断什么样的词可以称之为合成词。但是，确定这样一个标准的主要问题在于它们并不令使用者满意，让我们先来看看Chao给出的定义：（1） 这条短语的一部分必须是中性语调（2） 它的一部分必须是受限形式（3） 部分之间必须是不可分离的（4） 内部结构必须是离心的（5） 整体的含义不能是两个语素含义的简单合成根据Chao的理论，如果两个语素按照这样的规则进行合成，那它们在现代汉语里就是合成词。我们先来测试标准（1）。中立语调的特性在用于测试现代汉语合成词的时候是非常行之有效的。比如“烧-饼”这个词是一个VO合成词，因为动词的宾语已经被抵消了。然而，在古汉语中这样的诊断是不确切的，这是因为古汉语是一种灭绝了的文学性语言。因此我们无法知道是否合成词的某一部分被中立或被抵消了。因此标准（1）也就不能被算为一条判定标准。根据第二条标准，如果它的某一部分是受限形式，那么它就是合成词。然而，众所周知古汉语中的词素是近乎完全自由的，这是因为任何一个合成词的语素都可以独立使用。如：小人少而君子多国家久安。晋国二则子之家坏。在这些例子中，虽然“国”和“家”能够作为语素构成合成词（例句1），但它们也可以独立地在句子中出现（例句2）。这说明有时候虽然两个语素能建立较密切的联系或作为一个词使用，但是也很难有证据证明它们中的某一部分是受限的。因此标准2 也无法作为评判标准。我们来看标准3，也就是说，合成词的各个部分之间必须是不可分离的。下面举出董仲舒在春秋繁露中写到的、非常恰当的合成词例子：天子，天之子也。天子是一个合成词，但这并不意味着这两部分不能被分开。鉴于古时候的合成词一般都由较自由的语素组成，甚至在一句话中它们都可以以用作两种形式，在其他文本中就更不用说了。换句话说，独立性标准不能检验上面的例子，所以它也无法作为评判标准。附原文Prosodic Structure and compound words in Classical ChineseShengli, Feng1、The purpose of this paper is to investigate the nature of compound words in Classical Chinese. I use the term Classical Chinese to cover the language from the Warring States Period to the Han dynasty. My study mainly concentrates on the Han dynasty and the Pre-Qin period. This is because compound words in Classical Chinese, as I will show below, developed to a large extent during the Han dynasty. I will discuss the properties of these compounds, the criteria used to identify them and the reason for their development. Three major points are proposed in this paper. First, I argue that compound words did indeed exist in Classical Chinese and the number of compound words in Classical Chinese sharply increased during the Han dynasty. Second, such a development of compounding in Classical Chinese is chiefly due to disyllabic foot formation, which was newly established around the Han dynasty caused by the loss of bimoraic feet in Old Chinese. Third, I argue that compounds in Classical Chinese are not only syntactic words, but also prosodic words. The former is shown by syntactic relations among each part of the compounds, and the latter is derived from the Prosodic Hierarchy and Foot Binarity in the theory of Prosodic Morphology.The paper is organized as follows: section two examines criteria for identifying compounds in Classical Chinese; Section three presents a comparative study of Mencius and the commentary on Mencius by Zhao Qi. Section five investigates the development of disyllabicity and proposes that the development of disyllabicity is independent of compounding. Section six discusses the phonological changes of Old Chinese and proposes that change of CVC basic syllable structure of Old Chinese to a CV basic syllable structure of Middle Chinese inevitably results in a loss of bimoraic foot formation. The loss of bimoraic feet was compensated for by the introduction of disyllabic feet, and disyllabic combinations are therefore produced in sharply increased quantity during or after the phonological change took place. Given this historical development and the monosyllabic nature of the language, I further propose a Word Formation Rule, incorporated with a FOOT Formation Rule based on the recent theory of Prosodic Morphology. Section seven discusses some theoretical implications and empirical consequences of the theory developed in this paper. Section eight provides a summary of this study.2、Criteria for identifving compounds in Classical ChineseBefore we discuss compound words in Classical Chinese, we must first answer the question what a compound word in Classical Chinese is. For example, the combination of two words tian-zi in Classical Chinese is generally considered a compound while jun-chen is not. What is the difference between these two? Are they differentiated syntactically, morphologically, or semantically? Obviously, we need a set of criteria to identify what can be called a compound in Classical Chinese.However, the problem with criteria proposed to date is that they are not entirely satisfactory for use with Classical Chinese compounds. For example, let us look at the criteria given by Chao:(1) a. Part of the item is neutral-tonedb. Part of the item is a bound form.c. The parts are inseparable from each other.d. The internal structure is exocentric.e. The meaning of the whole is not compositional of its parts.If a combination of two morphemes meets one of these criteria, according to Chao, it is considered a compound in Modern Chinese.Let us consider (1a) first. The “neutral-tone” test is quite reliable for identifying compounds in Modern Chinese, for example, shao.bing is a VO-compound because the object of the verb has been neutralized. However, this diagnostic is not valid in Classical Chinese, simply because Classical Chinese is an extinct literary language. Therefore we do not know whether any part of the two combined forms is neutral-toned or not. Therefore, criterion cannot be considered a criterion for Classical Chinese compounds.According to (1b), if part of the item is a bound form, this item is a compound. However, it is well knowm that morphemes in Classical Chinese are nearly always free forms, since each part of a compound can be used independently. For instance:（2）a.小人少而君子多国家久安。Xiaoren shao er junzi duo guo-jia jiu Villain few but gentleman more. country-family long an Save“If there are fewer villains but more gentlemen. the country will be safe forever.”b. 晋国二则子之家坏。Jin guo er ze zi zhi jia huai.Jin country two then yous family break.“If Jin country is broken up, your family will be destroyed as well.”In these examples, although guo and jia can form a compound in (2a), they can also be used independently in other sentences as in (2b). This shouws that although sometimes two elements are closely knitted together to be used as a compound, there is hardly any evidence to show that one of the parts is a bound form in Classical Chinese. As a result ,criterion (1b) would not work for Classical Chinese compounding either.Let us consider the criterion (1c), that is, the inseparability of the parts from