successive stages in the development of diminutive er...

Successive Stages in the Development of Diminutive er-Suffixation: A Feature-Based Account and Implications

for Mandarin Phonology*

CHRIS WEN-CHAO LI SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY

With few productive morphophonemic processes to draw upon, the study of synchronic Mandarin phonology has often had to rely on the distribution of segments, or in rare instances, look to its one true morphophonemic process— diminutive er-suffixation—for supporting evidence (Hashimoto 1970; Fu 1981; Wang 1985; Wang 1993; Wu 1994). In this paper, we treat diminutive suffixation not as a static state, but instead posit successive stages in the fusion of the er ending with its root syllable by looking to variant behavior in dialects in and around Beijing, which, on the one hand, elucidates the nature of this morphophonemic process, and on the other hand, sheds light on the structure of the Mandarin syllable and the distinctive features of its vowels and consonants. Dialect data will show that the diminutive er-suffix attaches to root morphemes following a strict order: syllables with front codas > syllables with no codas > syllables with back codas. Furthermore, in syllables where the coda position is underlyingly empty (middle category in above sequence), mid and low vowels appear to be more receptive to er-fusion than high vowels. After fusion of er with its root syllable, suffixed forms then undergo a series of mergers: merger between vowels of similar quality, and merger of nasal and non-nasal vowels. We propose to account for the aforementioned changes using a constriction-based feature geometry, whereby preferences for syllable type and vowel height are explained using the Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP); the post-fusion mergers of vowels, on the other hand, can be viewed simply as the shedding of features, resulting in unmarked vowels that are underspecified for PLACE and aperture.

1. INTRODUCTION

The study of synchronic Mandarin phonology in the past half century has had to rely predominantly on the distribution of segments to configure its underlying representations, largely due to the inconvenience that morphophonemic processes—commonly used in other languages to aid in determining phonemic status—are few and far between. The sole exception to this state of affairs is the presence of diminutive ér-suffixation (兒化) in many northern dialects, an across-the-board derivational process applicable to all forms in the Mandarin syllabary except ér itself, owing to which it would make sense to make use of this derivational mechanism to shed light on underlying segments, vowels in particular, for which underlying status is indeterminate. Fu (1981), for example, does just that, proposing a “reanalysis of the phonological structure of Mandarin finals on the basis of the phonological behavior of the retroflex suffix /–r/” (Fu 1981: 285). Fu’s derivation-based attempt at accounting for the Mandarin finals however runs into a dilemma faced by all studies seeking to characterize diminutive ér-suffixation in Beijing Mandarin at the synchronic level (Hashimoto 1970; Fu 1981; Wang 1985; Wang 1993; Wu 1994), namely, that the output of certain ér-suffixed forms exhibits variation among speakers.

* An earlier draft of this paper was presented at the 227th Meeting of the American Oriental Society at the Omni Hotel in Los Angeles on March 17, 2017.

Variant output of ér-suffixed forms in Beijing is widely documented (Wang 1963; Chao 1965; Hsueh 1986; Wang 1993). Hsueh (1986: 84), for example, writes that:

On the issue of ér-suffixation, there are different views, even within populations that speak Pekinese natively. These different speakers alter the rime in different ways when the diminutive ér-suffix is attached to a syllable.

Many linguists have pointed out that this variance in output is inter-generational, albeit differing in their definitions of “older” vs “younger” generations and attributing different surface manifestations to each group. Chao (1965: 59, 64) writes of a split between an “older generation” that distinguishes between the ér-suffixed forms of simple vs complex rimes, namely,

嘎兒≠竿兒 (a+er ≠ an+er) 歌兒≠根兒 (ȇ+er ≠ en+er)

and a “new generation” for which the distinction is “disappearing fast”: 嘎兒＝竿兒 (a+er = an+er) 歌兒＝根兒 (ȇ+er = en+er)

For illustration, Chao (1965: 64-65) cites his daughter Rulan Chao Pian (1922-2013), reared in 1920s-30s Beijing, as struggling to cling to the “older generation” practice purely for pedagogical purposes—based on which we may deduce that Chao’s “older generation” forms are based on a much earlier late Qing dynasty stratum, considering also that Chao was born in the late 1800s and left China for the U.S. as early as 1938.

Fushi Wang (1963: 117) writes also of variance in the realization of ér-suffixed forms: Different scholars entertain different views regarding how non-rhotic syllables are to be converted into rhotic syllables, i.e., they view differently the correspondence between rhotic and non-rhotic syllables…

But Fushi Wang’s characterization of “old” vs “new” pronunciations appears to be the exact opposite of Chao’s: in the “Old Pekinese speech of inner city elders”, simple and complex rimes are merged following diminutive suffixation, whereas speakers who distinguish between the two forms are “those who moved to Beijing from elsewhere after the communist liberation” (Wang 1963: 117). Fushi Wang’s view is supported by Jenny Wang (1993) some thirty years later, who writes of older speakers merging simple and complex suffixed rime forms while younger speakers distinguish between the two, “presumably due to increased contact between Beijing Mandarin and other varieties of Mandarin in which the distinction is present” (Wang 1993: 184).

Table 1. Generational differences in Beijing diminutive suffixation LATE QING

PRONUNCIATION (unmerged)

REPUBLICAN PRONUNCIATION

(merged)

POST-REVOLUTIONARY PRONUNCIATION

(unmerged) 嘎兒≠竿兒

歌兒≠根兒果兒≠滾兒 (＝鬼兒)

嘎兒＝竿兒歌兒＝根兒

果兒＝滾兒 (＝鬼兒)

嘎兒≠竿兒歌兒≠根兒

果兒≠滾兒 (＝鬼兒) YUEN REN CHAO [1892-1982] (Chao 1965: 59, 64)

older generation new generation

FUSHI WANG [1919-2001] (Wang 1963: 117)

inner-city old Pekinese (inner city elders)

new immigrants (those who moved to Beijing from

elsewhere after the communist liberation) JENNY WANG [1943-] (Wang 1993: 184)

older speakers younger speakers (due to increased contact between Beijing Mandarin and other varieties of Mandarin)

The overview above suggests that diminutive suffixation in Beijing Mandarin is in a continuing state of flux and as such is manifest differently in speakers of different age groups. To date, attempts to incorporate diminutive suffixation into Mandarin phonology have had to conflate this intergenerational variation into an artificially thin slice of synchrony (Hashimoto 1970; Fu 1981; Wang 1985; Wang 1993; Wu 1994), i.e., limit the description to the speech habits of a single generation and ignore sizeable data from other equally representative samples. Fu (1981), for instance, is built upon a type of Pekinese speech where, oddly, ér-suffixed simple and complex rimes are merged in finals containing a low vowel but left distinct in finals anchored by a non-low vowel. Jenny Wang (1993: 184) treats the minimal pairs above as distinct in line with the speech habits of the post-revolutionary generation, whereas Wu (1994: 261) reverts to a Republican pronunciation that is consistent with her own “personal dialect”.

In this paper we adopt a different approach to flux and variance in Beijing Mandarin diminutive suffixation. Instead of ignoring variance we choose to incorporate and expand on intergenerational data in the hope that the diachronic processes thus described will help us better understand the interaction of segments and features underlying the phonological system. To do so, we look at the state of diminutive ér-suffixation not just within the capital of Beijing, but in some 21 locales in its vicinity, whose various manifestations of ér-suffixation appear, when viewed in totality, to be representative of successive stages in a much larger process. In the following sections, we group these dialects into transitional, synthetic, and post-synthetic varieties with respect to diminutive suffixation, and define the necessary steps involved in the gradient fusion of the diminutive ér-ending.

2. DATA FROM HEBEI DIALECTS Before we proceed to examine diminutive ér-suffixation in 21 locales in Hebei province in the vicinity of Beijing, it is necessary to define three nominal degrees of fusion between the ér-suffix and the root syllable. By “analytic” we refer to a state in which the ér-suffix and the root syllable stand as two separate and independent syllables. “Fusional” forms, on the other hand, derive from a process whereby the suffix sheds its underlying vowel and attaches to the root syllable, resulting in a single syllable that carries the vowel of the root and the rhotic qualities of the ér-suffix. In addition, certain dialects exhibit an intermediate stage between full analyticity and fusion.

Table 2. Analytic vs fusional styles of ér-suffix appendage

根兒歌兒羮兒 ANALYTIC kən.əɹ kɤ.əɹ kəŋ. əɹ

(intermediate) kɤəɹ FUSIONAL kəɹ kɤɹ kəɹ̃

Based on the degrees of fusion defined above, we can then divide the Mandarin dialects of

Beijing and environs into three typological groups: (1) those in the transitional group retain, in whole or in part, ér-suffixes that can stand as independent syllables—which is to say, certain ér-suffixes have yet to be fused to the root syllable; (2) those in the synthetic group have evolved to the point where all ér-suffixes are fused to the root syllable— implying ér as a diminutive suffix is not allowed to stand alone as an independent syllable; (3) a further development in the synthetic group is that vocalic mergers begin to appear post-synthesis; in other words, fused suffixed forms exhibit fewer vocalic distinctions than root forms.

We take the three groups outlined above to be representative of three successive stages in the development of the diminutive suffix based on the assumption that the ér-suffix traces its roots to an independent diminutive morpheme weakening over time as a result of phonological bleaching. Chinese linguist Yuen Ren Chao (1892-1982), born in the nineteenth century and writing in the

twentieth, claims to have been privy to observing the ér-suffix in its pre-grammaticalized state, when fusion with the root syllable had yet to set in, writing of

…the slight divergence between the speech of the Manchus in Peiping and the rest of the inhabitants of the city. Among other things there is a tendency in the Manchu style of speech to give the diminutive suffix a separate syllable. For example, 兔兒爺 ‘the rabbit in the moon’ (instead of the man in the moon) is called tuh.erl-ye by the Manchus, but tull-ye by the non-Manchus. Since the Republican Revolution of 1911…the difference between the Manchu style and the general style of Peiping pronunciation has all but disappeared (Chao 1965: 187, parenthetical remarks by original author).

Writing in the early twenty-first century, Gao and Wu (2010: 35), following comprehensive surveys of dialects in Hebei, conclude that no such pre-fusional dialects exist today.

Zhao (1994: 117) advances a somewhat different hypothesis regarding the origins of the ér-suffix, attributing it to negative transfer from Manchu in the acquisition of Chinese by the Qing aristocracy. The ér-suffix, he explains, is the result of vocalization of Chinese function words (e.g., 來 lái, 裡 lǐ, 日 rì) with liquid initials:

The lateral /l/ and trill /r/ are realized as post-alveolar [ɭ] and [ɻ] in the Manchu language, suggesting that, in the transition from Manchu to Chinese, native Manchu speakers likely replaced the /l/ and /r/ of the target language with the corresponding post-alveolar forms of their native language. Furthermore, in unstressed syllables, Manchu speakers pronounce [ɭ] and [ɻ] as the rhotic-colored vowel [ɚ], and most likely would allow this vocalization to carry over into their pronunciation of Chinese, which explains the development of the ér-suffix in the Chinese speech of speakers of Manchu origin.

It would appear that Zhao’s (1994) hypothetical scenario is characteristic of an earlier period of the Qing, when the dynasty’s Manchu-speaking aristocracy was in the initial throes of acquiring spoken Chinese; Chao (1965), on the other hand, was clearly depicting the dynasty’s tail end, when the diminutive morpheme had vocalized into a stable rhotic syllable, albeit not yet achieved enough reduction in phonological form to become fully fused with its root syllable. The descriptions that follow of partial to full fusion of the diminutive ér-suffix in twentieth century Hebei dialects can be taken to be the next logical step in the phonological reduction of the the ér morpheme, which, in turn, will shed light on the structure of the Mandarin vowel space and the interaction of its phonological features.

2.1 Dialects in the Transitional Stage Bringing together data from dialect surveys by Chen (1986; 1988); Chen and Xu (1997),

Wang, Zhang and Li (1997), Hebei (2005), Q. Li (2007), X. Li (2008), and Gao and Wu (2010), we find that Mandarin varieties containing the ér-suffix pronounced as an independent syllable are concentrated in the county of Bǎodìng to the southwest of Beijing, which includes the locales of Gāobēidiàn, Yìxiàn, Dìngxing, Mǎnchéng, Dìngzhōu, Qīngyuàn, Ānguó and Bǎodìng City.

Fig. 1. Map of Hebei dialects

As we examine diminutive suffixation in this transitional region, a number of common patterns emerge. The first is that, in all eight dialects sampled, when the root syllable ends in a front coda –i or –n, the coda is deleted as the rhotic element of the suffix is fused with its host. That is to say, a diminutive ér-suffix is not allowed to stand as an independent syllable when its root morpheme contains a front coda.

In contrast, in nearly all of the surveyed dialects, when the coda position of the host syllable is occupied by a back coda –u or –ŋ, the ér-suffix cannot fuse with the root and must stand independently. In some of these dialects, an epenthetic initial consonant is inserted at the onset of the second syllable (with epenthetic initials w– and ŋ– when the coda of the root syllable is –u and –ŋ respectively).

Where there is greater variation is when the rime of the root syllable lacks an underlying coda and consists of a simple monophthong. With such a monophthongal host most dialects adopt a mix of strategies, allowing some vowels to fuse with the ér-suffix and barring others; only the dialect of Mǎnchéng joins all of its monophthongal rimes to the diminutive suffix in a manner identical to Beijing (Chen 1988: 105-106). More typical of this region is the dialect of Yìxiàn (Wang, Zhang and Li 1997: 96-98), where the diminutive ér-suffix fuses with simple rimes containing a mid or low vowel, but must stand alone following rimes anchored by a high vowel (except for u, which, in this dialect is dual-status in that both fused and non-fused outputs are observed). Similarly, the dialect of Gāobēidiàn (Gao and Wu 2010: 36) allows fusion of the ér-suffix in simple rimes with a front or central vowel (except for y, which is dual status), but bars such fusion when the rime consists of a back vowel.

In many dialects we find also intermediate forms, i.e. fused ér-suffixes that preserve the suffix’s default schwa vowel alongside the nucleus of the host syllable. In the dialect of Qīngyuàn, for example, intermediate forms arise when the host rime is a monophthongal mid vowel; when the rime is a low vowel or high vowel, the ér-suffix must stand independently (Q. Li 2007: 42-43). In the dialect of Dìngzhōu, where low vowels allow fusion and high vowels do not, the mid vowels combine with the ér-suffix to produce a schwa-bearing intermediate form (Q. Li 2007: 39-40). The dialect of Ānguó fuses simple rimes with mid and low vowels, but produces intermediate forms in the presence of high vowels (Q. Li 2007: 45-46). In the dialect of Bǎodìng City, all monophthongal rimes produce intermediate forms upon fusion with the ér-suffix (Chen 1986: 113-114; Hebei 2005: 54-56, elderly speakers).

Many dialects allow certain host rimes to be dual-status, i.e., allowing both fused and unfused versions the ér-suffix, as observed with the rime u in Yìxiàn (Wang, Zhang and Li 1997: 96-98) and the rime y in Gāobēidiàn (Gao and Wu 2010: 36). In the dialect of Dìngxīng, we see two types of dual status outcomes: the monophthongal back rimes ɤ and u either bar diminutive fusion or produce intermediate forms; the non-back high vowels i, ɨ, and y allow occasional fusion only when the host syllable is pronounced in the neutral tone (Chen and Xu 1997: 35-38).

Table 3. Features of Hebei Dialects in the Transitional Stage

FRONT CODA (-i, -n) NO CODA (-ø) BACK CODA (-ŋ, -u) -in, -ən, -an, -ei, -ai -ɨ, -i, -y, -ɛ, -ɤ, -ɑ, -o, -u -iŋ, -əŋ, -ɑŋ, -ou, -ɑu

清苑 Qīngyuàn (Q. Li 2007: 42-43)

FUSED

INTERMEDIATE: mid vowels [ɛ] = intermediate [ɤ] = intermediate [o] = intermediate

SEPARATE: low & high vowels [a] = separate [i] = separate [ɨ] = separate [u] = separate [y] = separate

SEPARATE

定州 Dìngzhōu (Q. Li 2007: 39-40)

FUSED

FUSED: low front vowel [a] = fused

INTERMEDIATE: mid vowels [ɨ] = intermediate [ɛ] = intermediate [ɤ] = intermediate [o] = intermediate

SEPARATE: high vowels [i] = separate [u] = separate [y] = separate

SEPARATE (with epenthetic initial

consonants)

定興 Dìngxīng (Zhang 2003: 21; 2008: 81-82; Wang 2002: 82; Chen & Xu 1997: 35-38)

FUSED

FUSED: [a] = fused

INTERMEDIATE: [ɛ] = intermediate [o] = intermediate

DUAL STATUS (separate or intermediate):

[ɤ] = dual status [u] = dual status

DUAL STATUS (sometimes fused when in neutral tone):

[ɨ] = dual status [i] = dual status [y] = dual status

SEPARATE

易縣 Yìxiàn (Wang, Zhang & Li 1997: 96-98)

FUSED

FUSED: mid & low vowels [a] = fused [e] = fused [ə] = fused [o] = fused

DUAL STATUS: high back vowel [u] = dual status

SEPARATE: high front vowels [ɨ] = separate [i] = separate [y] = separate

SEPARATE except for: [uŋ] = dual

status

高碑店 Gāobēidiàn (Gao & Wu 2010: 36)

FUSED

FUSED: non-back vowels [ɨ] = fused [i] = fused [y] = fused

SEPARATE

[e] = fused [ə] = fused [a] = fused

DUAL STATUS: [y] = dual status

SEPARATE: back vowels [u] = separate [o] = separate

安國 Ānguó (Q. Li 2007: 45-46)

FUSED

FUSED: mid & low vowel [ɨ] = fused [e] = fused [ɤ] = fused [o] = fused [a] = fused

INTERMEDIATE: high vowels [i] = separate [u] = separate [y] = separate


consonants)

保定 Bǎodìng (Chen 1986: 113-114; Hebei 2005: 54-56, older speakers)

FUSED INTERMEDIATE (fused but retaining own vowel [ə])


consonants)

滿城 Mǎnchéng (Chen 1988: 105-106)

FUSED FUSED SEPARATE

(with epenthetic initial consonants)

Patterns gleaned from the behavior of the diminutive suffix in the transitional region suggest that fusion of the ér-suffix with its host syllable occurs not as a single step, but rather in successive stages, as certain syllable types are more resistant to conjoinment than others. Compiled data shows that root syllables containing a front coda –i or –n are the most receptive to fusion with the diminutive suffix, whereas those with a back coda –u or –ŋ are the most resistant. Between the two extremes are root syllables that lack an underlying coda, whose state of flux is betrayed by variant conjoinment strategies and the occasional presence of dual-status or intermediate forms.

A number of authors have attempted to account for the order of events thus observed. Q. Li (2007: 121) writes that

The first to fuse are simple rimes with the vowels a, o, and e, and complex rimes carrying the n coda. Next are rimes with the i coda, then simple rimes with the high vowels i, u, y, and ɨ, followed by complex rimes with the codas ŋ and u.

In X. Li (2008: 78-79) we find a slightly different sequence: ANALYTIC ● ● ● ● ● ● ● FUSIONAL

coda u coda ŋ

rime u rime ɨ rime i rime y rime ɤ

rime a rime o

rime ua rime uo

medial i medial y

coda i coda n

Based on patterns extracted from our slightly larger pool of data, we propose a revision to

these earlier accounts, one that divides the attachment of the diminutive ér-suffix into 5 successive phases:

PHASE 1 involves root syllables containing a front coda –i or –n, (the type of syllable most prone to fusion with the ér-suffix); PHASE 2 involves simple rimes lacking underlying codas:

PHASE 2.1 involves simple rimes with mid vowels; PHASE 2.2 involves simple rimes with the high back vowel u; PHASE 2.3 involves simple rimes with high front vowels; PHASE 3 involves root syllables containing a back coda –u or –ŋ, (the type of syllable most resistant to fusion with the ér-suffix)

Note that we have not included in our five phases the low vowel /a/ or the high central vowel

/ɨ/, which in our data do not appear to behave consistently: /a/ is a PHASE 1 candidate in Dìngzhōu, Dìngxīng, Yìxiàn, Ānguó, and Gāobēidiàn, but groups with PHASE 3 candidates in Qīngyuàn; /ɨ/ patterns with PHASE 1 candidates in Ānguó and Gāobēidiàn, but behaves like a PHASE 3 vowel in Qīngyuàn and Yìxiàn—a discrepancy we will address in Section 3.3.

2.2. Dialects in the Synthetic Stage We move on now to dialects in which fusion of the diminutive ér-suffix with its host syllable

is complete and comprehensive, which cover a much larger area of Hebei province to the northeast, southeast, and far south of Beijing. Sampling dialect surveys by Wang, Zhang and Li (1997), Zhang (2003), Hebei (2005), Ma (2007), and Che (2010), we examine ér-suffixation in the locales of Mìyún, Chéngdé City, Qīngdōnglíng, Zūnhuà, and Chānglí to the northeast of Beijing, Lángfang, Cāngzhōu, Héngshuǐ, Línxī to the southeast, and Wèixiàn, Hándān, and Shíjiāzhuāng in the far south to arrive at a more comprehensive picture of the stages of the process that follow suffixal fusion.

Table 4. Hebei Dialects in the Synthetic Stage (Low Vowel)

FRONT CODA (-ai, -an)

NO CODA (-a)

BACK CODA (-aŋ)

石家莊 Shíjiazhuāng (Hebei 2005: 70-71) ɐɹ aɹ ãɹ 廊坊 Lángfǎng (Hebei 2005: 24-25) ɐɹ aɹ ãɹ 北京 Běijīng [Late Qing and post-revolutionary pronunciations] (Zhang 2003: 22-23)

ɐɹ aɹ ɑ̃ɹ

Table 5. Hebei Dialects in the Synthetic Stage (Mid Vowel) FRONT CODA NO CODA NO CODA NO CODA NO CODA BACK CODA (-ei, -ən) (-ɨ) (-ɛ) (-ɤ) (-o) (-əŋ) 石家莊 Shíjiazhuāng (Hebei 2005: 70-71) əɹ ɨəɹ ɛɹ ɤɹ oɹ ɤ̃ɹ 廊坊 Lángfǎng (Hebei 2005: 24-25) əɹ əɹ ɛɹ ɤɹ oɹ ə̃ɹ 北京 Běijīng [Late Qing and post-revolutionary pronunciations] (Zhang 2003: 22-23)

əɹ əɹ ɛɹ ɤɹ oɹ ə̃ɹ

Of these speech varieties, the dialects of Lángfǎng and Shíjiāzhuāng, together with the

Republican (and later influenced post-revolutionary) variety of Pekinese, can be viewed as occupying a midpoint in the process of phonological reduction: the ér-suffix is no longer allowed as an independent syllable, yet vocalic distinctions in suffixed forms roughly match those found in root forms, with little or no merger of vowels on the height or backness dimensions, maintaining the distinctions found in Chao’s (1965: 59, 64) “older generation” Pekinese speech, i.e.,


2.3 Dialects in the Post-Synthetic Stage As we move east however, Chao’s “older generation” pattern begins to break down. The

dialect of Mìyún, in the northeast suburbs of Běijing, exhibits an exact match with Chao’s “new generation” (i.e., Republican era) pattern of ér-suffixation, showing a merger of suffixed forms derived from simple and complex rimes, i.e.,

嘎兒＝竿兒 (a+er = an+er) 歌兒＝根兒 (ȇ+er = en+er)

In many dialects, the merger takes a different shape, whereby upon diminutive suffixation, complex rimes containing the velar nasal ŋ lose the nasal coda together with its accompanying nasality and subsequently merge with the suffixed forms of their corresponding simple rimes, whose suffixed forms remain distinct from those derived from complex rimes with front codas. The dialect of Wèixiàn on the southern tip of Héběi province is characteristic of this development.

缸兒＝嘎兒≠竿兒 (ang+er = a+er ≠ an+er) 羹兒＝歌兒≠根兒 (eng+er = ȇ+er ≠ en+er)

As we move further towards the fringes of Héběi province, mergers are taken to greater extremes. In the dialect of Chéngdé City in the province’s far northeast, we see a complete merger of simple and complex rimes at each vowel height, namely,

缸兒＝嘎兒＝竿兒 (ang+er = a+er = an+er) 羹兒＝歌兒＝根兒 (eng+er = ȇ+er = en+er)

The development is taken a step further in the dialects of Yángyuán (Q. Li 2007: 86) and Chónglǐ (Q. Li 2007: 87) in the far northweast and in the dialect of Nánhé (Zhang 2011: 13-14) in the far south of the province, where distinctions in vowel height begin to break down as rimes bearing the low vowel begin to merge with rimes bearing a mid vowel following appendage of the diminutive suffix, i.e., ɐɹ > əɹ.

Table 6. Hebei Dialects in the Post-Synthetic Stage (Low Vowel)

FRONT CODA (-ai, -an)

NO CODA (-a)

BACK CODA (-aŋ)

臨西 Línxī (Che 2010: 32-34) ɐɹ aɹ ãɹ 北京 Běijīng [Republican pronunciation] (Chao 1965: 59, 64)

aɹ aɹ ɑ̃ɹ 密雲 Mìyún (Zhang 2003: 22-23) aɹ aɹ ãɹ 昌黎 Chānglí (Hebei 1960: 32-34; Zhang 2003: 22-23) ɐɹ ɑɹ ɑɹ 衡水 Héngshuǐ (Hebei 2005: 82-83) ɐɹ ɑɹ ɑɹ 滄州 Cāngzhōu (Hebei 2005: 94-96) ɐɹ ɑɹ ɑɹ 魏縣 Wèixiàn (Hebei 2005: 110-112) ɐɹ ɑɹ ɑɹ 遵化 Zūnhuà (Wang, Zhang & Li 1997: 87-88; Ma 2007: 31-32) ɐɹ aɹ aɹ 清東陵 Qīngdōnglíng (Wang, Zhang & Li 1997: 60-62, elderly speakers) ɐɹ aɹ aɹ 承德市 Chéngdéshì (Zhang 2003: 22-23) ɐɹ ɐɹ ɐɹ 邯鄲 Hándān (Hebei 2005: 155) ɐɹ ɐɹ ɐɹ

Table 7. Hebei Dialects in the Post-Synthetic Stage (Mid Vowel) FRONT CODA NO CODA NO CODA NO CODA NO CODA BACK CODA (-ei, -ən) (-ɨ) (-ɛ) (-ɤ) (-o) (-əŋ) 北京 Běijīng [Republican] (Chao 1965: 59, 64) əɹ əɹ əɹ ə̃ɹ 密雲 Mìyún (Zhang 2003: 22-23) əɹ əɹ əɹ ə̃ɹ 邯鄲 Hándān (Hebei 2005: 155) əɹ əɹ ɛɹ ɤɹ oɹ əɹ 清東陵 Qīngdōnglíng (elderly) (Wang, Zhang & Li 1997: 60-62) əɹ əɹ eɹ ɤɹ oɹ əɹ 昌黎 Chānglí (Hebei 1960: 32-34; Zhang 2003: 22-23) əɹ əɹ ɜɹ ɤɹ oɹ ɤɹ 衡水 Héngshuǐ (Hebei 2005: 82-83) əɹ əɹ ɛɹ ɤɹ oɹ ɤɹ 滄州 Cāngzhōu (Hebei 2005: 94-96) əɹ əɹ ɤɹ ɤɹ oɹ ɤɹ 遵化 Zūnhuà (Wang, Zhang & Li 1997: 87-88; Ma 2007: 31-32)

əɹ əɹ əɹ ɤɹ əɹ əɹ

魏縣 Wèixiàn (Hebei 2005: 110-112) əɹ əɹ ɤɹ ɤɹ ɤɹ ɤɹ 臨西 Línxī (Che 2010: 32-34) əɹ əɹ ɜɹ ɜɹ ɜɹ ɜɹ 承德市 Chéngdéshì (Zhang 2003: 22-23) əɹ əɹ əɹ əɹ

Assuming that the patterns described above reflect successive stages in a larger process, thus far we are able to identify three crucial mergers in the devolution of the Mandarin vowel system following comprehensive fusion of the diminutive ér-suffix to its host syllable:

MERGER 1 and MERGER 2 both promote the merger of suffixed forms derived from simple and complex rimes sharing the same vowel height: MERGER 1 merges the suffixed forms of simple rimes (i.e., those lacking underlying

codas) with those of complex rimes bearing a front coda –i or –n; MERGER 2 merges the suffixed forms of simple rimes (i.e., those lacking underlying

codas) with those of complex rimes bearing a back nasal coda –ŋ, whose nasality is subsequently deleted in the suffixed form;

MERGER 3, which applies typically upon completion of MERGERS 1 and 2, merges the suffixed forms of rimes bearing a low vowel (including both simple and complex) with those of rimes bearing a mid vowel, in effect conflating the low and mid vowel heights following fusion of the diminutive suffix

While exemplars of each merger were given in our earlier discussions, it is worth mentioning

that the application of MERGERS 1, 2, and 3 is often staggered and mixed, with many dialects showing selective features of each merger in different phonological environments. In the dialect of Línxī, for example, MERGER 2 applies with respect to the mid vowel, but not to the low vowel. In the dialect of Qīngdōnglíng, the denasalized suffixed form of a –ŋ coda rime merges not with its simple rime counterpart, but with its counterpart derived from rimes with front codas –i and –n. In the dialect of Handān, MERGERS 1 and 2 are complete at the level of the low vowel, but remain in progress at the level of the mid vowel.

Summary Thus far we have uncovered a number of behaviors associated with the fusion of the

diminutive ér-suffix with its host syllable. We have found that the fusion of the ér-suffix occurs in three relative stages: PHASE 1 involves host syllables with front codas –i or –n; PHASE 2 involves host syllables with empty codas; and PHASE 3 involves host syllables with back codas –ŋ or –u, pointing to the relative importance of the following dimensions of analysis:

(1) BACKNESS: the front-back dimension features prominently in the fusion process, with fusion occurring earlier in host syllables bearing front codas –i or –n than in those containing the back codas –ŋ and –u;

(2) POSITION-IN-SYLLABLE: the vowels –i and –u behave differently in the coda position than in the nucleus position; sub-syllabic constituency determines fusion behavior;

(3) MAJOR CLASS: while the front-back dimension features prominently, the major class (vowel vs consonant) of the front or back segment does not; the front vocalic coda –i behaves similarly to the front consonantal coda –n, likewise with the back vocalic coda –u and the back consonantal coda –ŋ

Furthermore, when the ér-suffix attaches to host syllables without an underlying coda, the

relative order of preference for attachment appears to be: non-high vowels high back vowels high front vowels.

Finally, upon completion of full fusion, dialects appear to undergo a merger of vowel forms involving, in relative order,

(1) FRONT-BACK MERGER: merger of front, central and back vowels sharing the same vowel height;

(2) LOSS OF NASALITY: loss of residual nasality from coda –ŋ, resulting in merger of nasal and non-nasal vowels;

(3) VOWEL HEIGHT MERGER: merger of low vowels with mid vowels;

In the following section we will attempt to account for the development of PHASES 1 through 3 in the transitional dialects and MERGERS 1, 2, and 3 in the post-synthetic dialects as well as give explanation to exceptions in individual dialects that appear to defy the general trend.

3. TOWARDS A NEW MODEL To explain the various phases that Mandarin dialects undergo prior to comprehensive fusion of the diminutive ér-suffix with its host syllable and the three mergers that occur subsequent to suffixal fusion that ultimately simplify the vowel space of suffixed forms, we look to the geometry of phonological features and processes that govern their interaction to provide a plausible explanation. With a system of features in place, the aforementioned phases and mergers can then be attributed to assimilatory forces (feature spread), dissimilatory restrictions (the Obligatory Contour Principle), and phonological reduction (feature loss).

We need first to select a system of features among the many available that best matches our descriptive needs. Considering that, in diminutive suffixation and elsewhere in Mandarin phonology, front (CORONAL) consonants generally pattern with front vowels, and back (DORSAL) consonants with back vowels, it would be desirable to employ a constriction-based model with duplicate sets of articulator features under the C-PLACE node and V-PLACE node respectively, so as to account for interaction between vowels and consonants sharing the same articulator features. To this end, we adopt a feature geometry developed for the description of Mandarin diachronic processes by W. Li (1999: 8), adapted from Clements (1995: 252).

Furthermore, to account for the grouping of front codas as a uniform class inclusive of both consonants and vowels, we follow Wang (1993: 164-171) in treating the nasal codas –n and –ŋ not as stops but as approximants (bearing the feature APPROX., with place features located under C-PLACE) due to lack of complete oral occlusion. The vocalic codas –i and –u are also treated as approximants (with place features located under C-PLACE), thus distinguishing them from true vowels (with place features located under V-PLACE) that appear in the nucleus position of the syllable.

Fig. 2: Constriction-based feature geometry (after W. Li 1999: 8)

3.1 Treatment of the Coda Let us first try to explain why, in the transitional dialects, the diminutive ér-suffix typically

displaces the front codas –i and –n, but finds the back codas –u and –ŋ much more difficult to dislodge.

Table 8. Coda Features FRONT CODAS BACK CODAS ɹ i n u ŋ

approximant +approx +approx +approx +approx +approx nasal -nasal -nasal +nasal -nasal +nasal

C-PLACE CORONAL CORONAL CORONAL DORSAL DORSAL posterior +post +post -post

distributed -distr +distr -distr

The articulator features of the rhotic ɹ consonant and the front and back codas are given in Table 8, from which we can see that whereas rhotic ɹ shares the articulator CORONAL with the front codas, it does not share an articulator feature with the back codas, who are bearers of the DORSAL articulator. This implies that were a front coda to be followed by an adjacent ɹ, the adjacent CORONAL articulators would constitute a violation of the Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP), generally defined as the prohibition of adjacent identical elements (McCarthy 1986: 208).

As shown below, the placement of coronal n adjacent to coronal ɹ constitutes a textbook OCP violation, which requires repair. The method of repair found in the majority of dialects is to spread the ROOT node of ɹ to that of n, completely replacing the n segment with the ɹ segment.

n ɹ | |

root tier ROOT ROOT root tier |

orality tier NON-ORAL ORAL ORAL orality tier | | |

voice tier VOICE C-PLACE C-PLACE place tier | | |

nasality tier +nasal LINGUAL LINGUAL linguality tier | | CORONAL CORONAL articulator tier -post +post -distr -distr

Fig. 3. Attachment of suffix [ɹ] to root with coda [n]

One might wonder why the repair involves the spread of a high level ROOT node rather than a

place node lower in the feature tree. We do find the latter in some dialects, although the practice is not common. In the dialect of Tángshān (Hebei 2005: 39), for example, the spread appears to involve a lower level C-PLACE, LINGUAL, or CORONAL node, resulting in the retention of nasality for suffixed forms of the rime –an.

n ɹ | |




nasality tier +nasal LINGUAL LINGUAL linguality tier | | CORONAL CORONAL articulator tier -post +post -distr -distr

Fig. 4. Attachment of suffix [ɹ] to root with coda [n] in the dialect of Tángshān

When the coda position is occupied by a back segment ŋ or u, considering that the coda bears

the DORSAL feature whereas the ér suffix is CORONAL, there is no violation of the OCP on the articulator tier and thus no great urgency to delete the coda: ɹ and coda are allowed to exist side-by-side for a much longer period.

ŋ ɹ | |




nasality tier +nasal LINGUAL LINGUAL linguality tier | | DORSAL CORONAL articulator tier +post -distr

Fig. 5. Attachment of suffix [ɹ] to root with coda [ŋ]

Where eventually ɹ does fuse with the host syllable, it is a feature-filling operation whereby

the CORONAL node of ɹ attaches to the LINGUAL node of the coda without replacing existing features. Thus in the suffixed syllable CORONAL and DORSAL co-exist, often with the CORONAL feature adding a rhotic coloring to the existing featural configuration. The co-existence of CORONAL and DORSAL can be interpreted as contour or hiatus depending on dialect. In the case of the coda –ŋ, the activity under the LINGUAL node does not affect nasality, which is determined higher up in the feature tree—hence the retention of the nasal feature following fusion with the ér suffix.

3.2 Treatment of the Nucleus When the Coda Position is Underlyingly Empty In host syllables with simple rimes, i.e., rimes in which the coda position is underlyingly

empty, we first posit that the coda position is occupied by a dummy glottal stop ʔ to prevent liaison. Fusion of the ér suffix involves removal of the glottal stop, the degree of difficulty of which depends on the properties of the nuclear vowel, the feature specifications for which are given in Table 9.

Table 9. Vowel Features

CORONAL CORONAL DORSAL (underspecified)

[high] i CORONAL,

[high]

y CORONAL,

LABIAL, [high]

ɨ CORONAL, DORSAL,

[high]

u DORSAL, LABIAL, [high]

(underspecified) e (later

inherits CORONAL through

assimilation from

medial onglide)

ə ɤ DORSAL

o DORSAL

(later inherits LABIAL through assimilation from medial onglide)

PHARYNGEAL ɑ PHARYNGEAL,

DORSAL

The vowels most receptive to the occupation of the coda position by ɹ are the non-coronal vowels, which include the non-high vowels e, ɤ, o, ɑ and the high back vowel u. The non-high vowels e, ɤ, o, ɑ have no CORONAL feature to speak of and thus do not violate the OCP with ɹ in the adjacent slot. The same is true of the high back vowel u, except that an additional [high] specification under APERTURE makes for a greater congestion of features. The most incompatible of nuclear vowels with the ér suffix are those with a CORONAL specification, namely, the high front and central vowels i, y, and ɨ, which, with ɹ adjacent in the coda position, produce an OCP violation that requires repair. The method of repair in most cases involves deletion of the vowel’s V-PLACE node, in essence replacing the vowel with a schwa ə that is unspecified for place.

One may wonder why OCP violations with vowels positioned in the nuclear slot appear to be repaired differently from when they appear in the coda position, as described back in Section 3.1. Here we must point out that whereas the CORONAL articulator of both suffix ɹ and front coda elements –i and –n appears under the C-PLACE node, the CORONAL articulator of the nuclear vowel appears under the V-PLACE node, which warrants different behavior. The fact that the vocalic nucleus is an obligatory component of the Mandarin syllable may also explain its alternate repair strategy.

Based on the feature properties of the nuclear vowel, we thus produce an account of the fusion of the ér suffix with simple rimes in three distinct stages:

– STAGE 1: non-coronal vowels e, ɤ, o, ɑ – No OCP violations under place node – Specification present for place; no specification for aperture (less congestion)

– STAGE 2: high back vowel u – No OCP violations under place node – Specifications present for both place and aperture (more congestion)

– STAGE 3: coronal vowels i, y, and ɨ – Adjacent CORONAL place specification – Occupancy of coda by ér suffix results in OCP violation

3.3 Variation between Dialects We mentioned earlier in Section 2.1 that the low vowel /a/ behaves somewhat erratically

across dialects with regard to fusion with ɹ: /a/ is a PHASE 1 candidate in Dìngzhōu, Dìngxīng, Yìxiàn, Ānguó, and Gāobēidiàn, but groups with PHASE 3 candidates in Qīngyuàn. We now account for this variation using feature specifications.

Table 10. Variation between Dialects: Shifting Vowel Features

CORONAL DORSAL DORSAL (underspecified)

[high] i CORONAL,

[high]

y CORONAL,

LABIAL, [high]

ɨ CORONAL, DORSAL,

[high]




assimilation from

medial onglide)

ə ɤ DORSAL

o DORSAL

(later inherits LABIAL through

assimilation from medial onglide)

PHARYNGEAL a CORONAL,

PHARYNGEAL

ɑ PHARYNGEAL,

DORSAL

As shown in Table 10, when a dialect features a back ɑ, which bears the place features PHARYNGEAL and DORSAL, the vowel does not contain a CORONAL feature, meaning that movement of CORONAL ɹ into the coda position will not trigger an OCP violation. Such a vowel is therefore more receptive to ér fusion and groups with PHASE 1 rimes.

When a dialect features a front a however, which bears the place features PHARYNGEAL and CORONAL, movement of CORONAL ɹ into the coda position will result in adjacent CORONAL specifications that violate the OCP, which makes the rime more resistant to such movement.

Similarly, the high central vowel /ɨ/ can be either unspecified for place, or alternatively, bear the features CORONAL and DORSAL. When it is unspecified, as in Ānguó and Gāobēidiàn, no place features block the movement of CORONAL ɹ into the coda position, making it a PHASE 1 vowel that is relatively receptive to ér fusion.

When /ɨ/ is specified with the features CORONAL and DORSAL however, such as in Qīngyuàn and Yìxiàn, movement of CORONAL ɹ into the coda position results in adjacent CORONAL specifications that violate the OCP, making it less likely that the ér suffix should attach itself to the host syllable.

3.4 Explaining Post-Fusion Nuclear Mergers Having explained the varying level of difficulty with which the ér suffix may fuse with its

host syllable, we go on to account for vocalic mergers that occur following ér fusion in post-synthetic dialects.

We begin with what was labeled in Section 2.3 as MERGER 1, namely, the merger of suffixed simple rimes with corresponding suffixed complex rimes bearing front codas. Or, using the language of Chao (1965: 59, 64), the move is one from an “older generation” pronunciation, whereby


to a “new generation” pronunciation, in which 嘎兒＝竿兒 (a+er = an+er) 歌兒＝根兒 (ȇ+er = en+er)

In rimes built around a low vowel, as we can see from Table 11, the difference between the vowel ɐ of the suffixed complex rime and the vowel ɑ (or vowel a in some dialects) of the suffixed simple rime is that the former bears a single place feature PHARYNGEAL, whereas the latter contains an additional DORSAL or CORONAL specification—that is to say, the vowel in the simple rime bears two place features whereas the vowel in the complex rime bears one. In the process of phonological reduction, it is common for segments to shed phonological features: the loss of the DORSAL or CORONAL specification in the suffixed simple rime would render its vowel identical to that of the suffixed complex rime, making for a merger of the two forms.

Table 11. Post-Fusion Vowel Mergers: Feature Loss (Low Vowels) CORONAL DORSAL DORSAL (underspecified)

PHARYNGEAL a CORONAL,

PHARYNGEAL

ɐ PHARYNGEAL

ɑ PHARYNGEAL,

DORSAL

Similarly, at the level of the mid vowel, as shown in Table 12, the difference between the schwa ə of the suffixed complex rime and the various vowel forms found in suffixed simple rimes is that the former contains no place specification whatsoever, whereas the latter bear such place

features as CORONAL, DORSAL or LABIAL. Again, we can explain the merger between the two using feature loss: when vowels such as e, ɤ, and o shed their place specifications, they become indistinguishable from the neutral vowel ə, thereby allowing their carrier rimes to enter into merger with the suffixed form of mid level complex syllables bearing front codas.

Table 12. Post-Fusion Vowel Mergers: Feature Loss (Mid Vowels) CORONAL DORSAL DORSAL (underspecified)



assimilation from

medial onglide)

ə ɤ DORSAL

o DORSAL

(later inherits LABIAL through

assimilation from medial onglide)

Up to this point, we have yet to account for the fact that the suffixed form of simple rimes bearing the high central vowel ɨ often undergoes a vowel shift from ɨ to ə. This again is easily explained from the perspective of feature loss: as shown in Table 13, when the [high] specification of high central ɨ is deleted, the vowel naturally merges with schwa ə. In exceptional dialects such as Qīngyuàn and Yìxiàn, where ɨ is a PHASE 3 rime specified with CORONAL and DORSAL, all place features are deleted along with the aperture feature.

Table 13. Post-Fusion Vowel Mergers: Feature Loss (Level Conflation)

CORONAL DORSAL DORSAL (underspecified)

[high] i CORONAL, [high]

y CORONAL,

LABIAL, [high]

ɨ [high]


(underspecified)

ə

PHARYNGEAL ɐ PHARYNGEAL

Table 13 explains also how, upon completion of MERGER 1 (height-specific vowel merger) and MERGER 2 (merger of nasal and non-nasal vowels), in certain post-synthetic dialects we find the low vowel ɐ merging with the mid vowel ə. This, too, is easily explained using feature loss: the low vowel ɐ simply sheds its PHARYNGEAL feature to become unspecified ə.

In addition, the shedding of the feature NASAL under the VOICE node explains what was introduced in Section 2.3 as MERGER 2, namely, the conflation of nasal vowels derived from ér suffixation and their corresponding non-nasal vowels, as is found in Chānglí, Héngshuǐ, Cāngzhōu, Wèixiàn, Zūnhuà, Qīngdōnglíng, Chéngdéshì, and Hándān:

缸兒＝嘎兒 (ang+er = a+er) 羹兒＝歌兒 (eng+er = ȇ+er)

4. DISCUSSION

In the previous sections, we were able to demonstrate how the Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP), or the potential violation thereof, primarily sets the pace for the fusion of the diminutive ér-suffix with its host syllable. The avoidance of OCP violations where possible and repairs to violations where not together determine the path along which the ér-suffix is appended to its root in gradual phases:

PHASE 1 involves root syllables containing a front coda –i or –n, (the type of syllable most prone to fusion with the ér-suffix due to the need to eliminate adjacent CORONAL specifications that violate the OCP);

PHASE 2 involves simple rimes lacking underlying codas: a. PHASE 2.1 involves simple rimes with mid vowels (no CORONAL specification); b. PHASE 2.2 involves simple rimes with the high back vowel u (no CORONAL

specification but additional [high] aperture specification); c. PHASE 2.3 involves simple rimes with high front vowels (need to eliminate

adjacent CORONAL specifications that violate the OCP); PHASE 3 involves root syllables containing a back coda –u or –ŋ, (no adjacent CORONAL

specifications; co-existence of coda alongside ér-suffix OK)

Furthermore, upon completion of ér fusion, the shedding of place, aperture, and nasality features as part of a general phonological reduction process explains the gradual merger of vowels in suffixed forms, beginning with the merger of vowels of the same vowel height, proceeding to the loss of vowel nasality, and culminating with the conflation of the low and mid level vowels:

MERGER 1 merges the suffixed forms of simple rimes (i.e., those lacking underlying codas) with those of complex rimes bearing a front coda –i or –n via the shedding of articulator features such as LABIAL, CORONAL and DORSAL;

MERGER 2 merges the suffixed forms of simple rimes (i.e., those lacking underlying codas) with those of complex rimes bearing a back nasal coda –ŋ via the shedding of the higher level feature [nasal];

MERGER 3 merges the suffixed forms of rimes bearing a low vowel (including both simple and complex) with those of rimes bearing a mid vowel (including both simple and complex), in effect conflating the low and mid vowel heights, via the shedding of the low vowel articulator feature PHARYNGEAL

Which is to say that, with the right configuration of features in place, notably a constriction-based geometry that duplicates place features under C-PLACE and V-PLACE in order for the two to interact, the entire process of ér-suffixation, with its various stages, can be reduced to two simple mechanisms: (1) the dissimilatory force of OCP avoidance and repair, and (2) the wear and tear of feature loss—producing a much more simplified account of the diminutive suffixation process.

In turn, the mechanisms developed for the purpose of explaining ér-suffixation shed light on the phonological properties of the Mandarin sound system, for which we now not only have an explanatorily adequate non-linear geometry of features, but also understand the pivotal nature of the following dimensions:

BACKNESS: C-PLACE and V-PLACE features govern segmental interactions; SUB-SYLLABIC CONSTITUENCY: position-in-syllable determines phonological behavior; MAJOR CLASS FLUIDITY: distinctions blurred between consonantal and vocalic segments

Using the system we have in place, we are able to go back and explain why earlier attempts

to incorporate diminutive suffixation into the study of Mandarin phonology have always been plagued a mix of “older generation” and “newer generation” forms: Mandarin, it appears, is in a continual state of flux, in which ongoing feature loss continually moves the younger generation towards a different vowel configuration. The more conservative transitional dialects of Bǎodìng county give us a sense of diminutive suffixation in Beijing prior to its current state, and vowel mergers in the post-synthetic dialects of the Northeast give us an idea of where the Modern Standard Chinese vowel system is most likely headed.

In this study we have limited ourselves to dialects situated within Hebei province that exhibit a rhotic ɹ type diminutive suffix. For future study, researchers may want to look at Hebei dialects that carry a non-rhotic vocalic diminutive suffix ɯ, as well as dialects along this continuum situated outside of Hebei to the northeast, northwest, and southeast that may shed further clues as to the phonological properties of the Mandarin dialect family.

REFERENCES Chao, Yuen Ren 趙元任. 1965. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press. Chē, Huì 車慧. 2010. Héběi Línxī fāngyán yǔyīn diàochá yánjiū 河北臨西方言語音調查研究. M.A. thesis, Hebei University.

Chén, Shújìng 陳淑靜. 1986. Héběi Bǎodìng dìqū fāngyán de yǔyīn tèdiǎn 河北保定方言的語音特點. Fāngyán 方言 1986.2: 112-115.

_________. 1988. Héběi Mǎnchéng fāngyán de tèdiǎn 河北滿城方言的特點. Fāngyán 方言 1988.2: 103-112.

Chén, Shújìng 陳淑靜, and Jiànzhōng Xǔ 許建中. 1997. Dìngxīng fāngyán 定興方言. Beijing: China Local Records Publishing 方志出版社.

Clements, George N. and Elizabeth V. Hume. 1995. The Internal Organization of Speech Sounds. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, ed. John A. Goldsmith, 245-307. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Fù, Yī-chín 傅一勤. 1981. Some Problems in the Phonology of Mandarin Finals 國語韻母系統上的幾個

問題. Proceedings of the International Conference on Sinology, Section on Linguistics and Paleography. Taipei: Academia Sinica.

Gāo, Bīng 高兵, and Jìzhāng Wú 吳繼章. 2010. Some Ér-hua Related Issues in Hebei Dialects 河北方言

中與兒化有關的問題. Journal of Hebei University / Philosophy and Social Science 河北大學學報: 哲學社會科學版 154: 34-41.

Hashimoto, Mantaro J. 橋本萬太郎. 1970. Notes on Mandarin Phonology. In Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics Presented to Shirô Hattori on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, eds. Roman Jakobson and Shigeo Kawamoto, 207-220. Tokyo: TEC Co. Ltd.

Héběi Gazetteer Editorial Committee 河北省地方志編纂委員會. 2005. Gazetteer of Héběi Province (Vol. 89: Dialects) 河北省志第 89 卷：方言志. Beijing: China Local Records Publishing 方志出版社.

Héběi Province Chānglí County Gazetteer Editorial Committee 河北省昌黎縣縣志編纂委員會. 1960. Chānglí Dialect Gazetteer 昌黎方言志. Beijing: China Science Publishing & Media Ltd.科學出版社.

Hsueh, Frank Feng-sheng 薛鳳生. 1986. Guóyǔ yīnxì jiěxī 國語音系解析. Taipei: Student Publishing Company 學生出版社.

Keyser, Samuel Jay, and Kenneth N. Stevens. 1994. Feature Geometry and the Vocal Tract. Phonology 11.2: 207-236.

Lǐ, Qiǎolán 李巧蘭. 2007. Héběi fāngyán zhōng de X-ér xíngshì yánjiū 河北方言中的 X-兒形式研究. Ph.D diss., Shandong University.

Li, Wen-chao 李文肇. 1999. A Diachronically-Motivated Segmental Phonology of Mandarin Chinese. New York: Peter Lang.

Lǐ, Xù 李旭. 2008. Héběi zhōngbù nánbù gāngyán yǔyīn yánjiū 河北省中部南部方言語音研究. Ph.D. diss., Shandong University.

Mǎ, Zhìxiá 馬志俠. 2007. Zūnhuà fāngyán yǔyīn ránjiū 遵化方言語音研究. M.A. thesis, Hebei University.

McCarthy, John J. 1986. OCP Effects: Gemination and Antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry 17.2: 207-263. Wáng, Fǔshì 王輔世. 1963. Běijīnghuà yùnmǔ de jǐge wèntí 北京話韻母的幾個問題. Zhōngguó yǔwén中國語文 2: 115-124.

Wáng, Fútáng 王福堂. 2002. Běijīnghuà érhuàyùn de chǎnshēng guòcheng 北京話兒化韻的產生過程. Yǔyánxué lùncóng 語言學論叢 26: 75-88.

Wang, Jenny Zhijie 王志潔. 1993. The Geometry of Segmental Features in Beijing Mandarin. Ph.D. diss., University of Delaware.

Wáng, Lǐjiā 王理嘉. 1985. Běijīnghuà de gāoyuányīn yīnwèi 北京話的高元音音位. Yǔwén yánjiū 語文

研究 14: 20-24. Wáng, Yuǎnxīn 王遠, Yáng Zhāng 張陽, and Nuǎndōng Lǐ 李暖冬. 1997. Běijīng Guānhuà fāngyándǎo yánjiū: Qīngdōnglíng hé Qīngxīlíng de Mǎnzú Hānyǔ 北京官話方言島研究：清東陵和清西陵的滿族

漢語. Beijing: China Minzu University Press 中央民族大學出版社. Wu, Yuwen 吳玉雯. 1994. Mandarin Segmental Phonology. Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto. Zhāng, Lì 張麗. 2011. Héběi Nánhé fāngyán yīnbiàn diàochá yánjiū 河北南和方言音變調查研究. M.A. thesis, Hebei University.

Zhāng, Shìfāng 張世方. 2003. Cóng zhōubiān fāngyán kàn Běijīnghuà érhuà de xíngchéng 從周邊方言

看北京話兒化韻的形成. Yǔyán jiàoxué yǔ yánjiū 語言教學與研究 102: 20-28. _________. 2008. Běijīng guānhuà yǔyīn yánjiū 北京官話語音研究. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press 北京語言大學出版社.

Zhào, Jié 趙杰. 1996. Běijīnghuà Mǎnyǔ dǐcéng hé qīngshēng érhuà tányuán 北京話滿語底層和輕聲

音、兒化探源. Beijing: Beijing Yanshan Press 北京燕山出版社.

successive stages in the development of diminutive er...

Documents