【作者】 戴黎刚；

【导师】 游汝杰；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 汉语言文字学， 2005， 博士

【摘要】 近年,汉语的层次问题逐渐得到语言学界重视,历史层次分析法已经成为方言研究的重点。闽语的音系复杂而古老,是历史层次分析最好的样本,具有重要的研究价值。但是,就我们所知,至今还没有专门分析闽语历史层次的论著。本文力图弥补这一缺憾。 实际上,有关历史层次的内涵及其分析的方法,目前学界并不太统一。因此,本文首先从理论上对历史层次分析法进行归纳总结。我们阐明了历史比较法产生的背景,界定历史层次的定义和类型,并总结历史层次的具体分析方法,比如,如何离析不同的历史层次、如何确定不同层次的年代及来源。同时,我们也讨论了目前历史层次分析法存在的一些问题。 根据这一新的分析方法,我们分韵摄讨论闽语的历史层次。在具体的分析中,我们总是从比较莆仙话的历史层次入手,排比其历史层次,然后通过层次关系字,系联闽语其他方言的历史层次。在每节之后,我们都详细列出闽语各地的层次对应表。这些比较表,能够为寻找同源词以及拟测原始母语提供更可靠的基础。 同时,我们还尽可能为各个层次确定其年代和来源,并揭示闽语的内部音变。我们通过音系的对比,发现了许多前人不曾留意的历史音变,比如,泉州话支韵ia音类和a音类之间互补,a音类是由ia音类脱落i介音发展而来;仙游话的山摄开口原本没有u(?)音类,该层次借自泉州话;仙游话咸摄开口一二等(?)音类内部经历了“语音推链”的变化。 另外,我们运用历史层次分析法,做了一些比较有意思的专题研究。通过分析莆仙话“五”的特殊语音地位,我们展示其与闽南话、福州话、吴语和官话的复杂关系。我们发现莆仙话白读层的撮口呼并不是受福州话影响产生的,而是原始闽语特征的保留。我们论证了漳州话山摄的i(?)音类是闽南话早期固有特征,并引泉州话、漳平话为佐证,进而拟测早期闽南话的鼻化韵都读为-(?)尾。我们离析出闽南话曾、梗摄-n/-t韵尾的历史层次,并证明了宋代中原官话的曾、梗摄也是广泛地读为-(?)/-(?)韵尾,而不是-(?)/-k韵尾。更多还原

【Abstract】 Recently, the linguists pay more and more attention to the historical strata of Chinese, and the historical strata analysis is the focus of Chinese dialects now. The phonological components of Min dialects are very old and complex. They are the best samples for the historical strata analysis. Undoubtedly, it must be a meaningful study to analyze the strata of Min dialects. But, as we know, so far there is no special works have been done in this field. So, the author tries his best to mend such neglect.In fact, there is still no agreement on the definition of historical strata analysis and their methods to comparison. Thus, the author has to summarize the historical strata analysis theoretically at first. The author illustrates its background, definition, styles, and methods. Some examples are discussed to show how to analyze the different strata and how to identify their age and origin. Furthermore, the author points out the shortcomings in current theory.With this new method, the author analyzes Min dialects rime group by rime group. He always begins with analyzing the stratum of the Puxian dialect, and arranges their sequence. Then, he tries to find out the same stratum in the other Min dialects by the common relative characters, which can show the strong relation between two dialects. At the end of each section, a diagram is used to show the phonetic correspondence in Min dialects in detail. As to finding cognate and reconstructing the proto-min dialect, the author believes that his diagrams are more reliable than other’s.At the same time, the author tries his best to identify their age and origin of those strata, and sets forth their inner evolution. By comparison, the author notices some historical changes neglected by other scholars. For example, in the Quanzhou dialect, the final ia and a of ZHI(支)-rime are in complementary distribution, and the final ia changes to a after the medial i loses. In the Puxian dialect, The final ui of open SHAN(山)-group is transplanted from the Quanzhou dialect. It doesn’t exist in the Puxian dialect in the earlier stage. In the Puxian dialect, there must be a chain shift in the final ofdivision I, II of the open XIAN(咸)-group.The present studies also include some interesting research by applying historical strata analysis. The author analyzes the special phonetic structure of WU(五) in the Puxian dialect to show its complicated relation with the Minnan dialect, Fuzhou dialect. Wu dialects, and Mandarin. The author points out that the Cuokouhu(撮口呼) in the colloquial strata of the Puxian dialect inherit from proto-min dialect rather than更多还原