Enseignements |

Résumés des conférences du séminaire EHESS 2016 "Typologie linguistique de l’Asie orientale"

Pour toute information complémentaire, veuillez contacter Hilary Chappell sur hmchappell@gmail.com ou au CRLAO, 105 bd Raspail,  M. Hugues Feler au 01 53 10 53 71.

Liu Yahui 刘亚辉 (Associate Professor, Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics, Hangzhou, China & Postdoc au CRLAO), 16-20世纪初汉字欧洲传播简史 (A Brief History of the Dissemination of Chinese Characters in Europe from the 16th Century to the early 20th Century)

Vendredi 13 mai 2016

本论文主要研究16-20世纪初汉字欧洲传播的简史,勾勒历史线索,划出历史分期,分析每个阶段汉字欧洲传播的性质和特点。
论文主要使用16-20世纪初欧洲传教士、汉学家等编写的汉西辞书、汉语教科书、与汉字有关的论文等材料进行研究。
结论:16-20世纪初汉字欧洲传播简史分为三个大的阶段:
第一阶段,1565年- 1684年:汉字向欧洲的介绍,欧洲人初识汉字。
第二阶段,1685年-1812年:欧洲本土出现了汉西辞书及汉语教科书,并出现一些对汉字的研究甚至论战。
第三阶段,1813年-1911年:汉西辞书和汉语教科书大量编纂。随着欧洲进入“专业汉学”阶段,汉字传播也进入欧洲教育体系。

[On the basis of bilingual Chinese–Occidental language dictionaries and Chinese textbooks compiled by European missionaries and sinologists from the 16th century to the early 20th century, we will present the dissemination of Chinese characters in Europe during this period. We propose that this process can be further divided into three stages:
Stage I –1565-1684: Chinese characters were introduced for the first time into Europe. Europeans began to learn about the special features of this writing system.
Stage II –1685-1812: Chinese dictionaries and textbooks began to be compiled in Europe. Some studies, even some controversy over the nature of Chinese characters appeared.
Stage III –1813-1911: Dictionaries of Chinese-Occidental languages and textbooks were compiled in abundance. Chinese characters spread into the European education system as Europe entered the ‘professional Sinology’ stage.
Finally, we also draw some conclusions about the different characteristics of each stage during this presentation.]

 

Alexander R. Coupe (Nanyang Technological University Singapore), On the development of case-marking systems in Sino-Tibetan

Mercredi 27 avril 2016

The Sino-Tibetan (ST) languages are surprisingly diverse in the strategies they employ for encoding ‘who does what to whom’. Some have little in the way of head or dependent marking and instead rely exclusively upon contextual pragmatics for encoding semantic roles, while others are consistently ergative-absolutive or nominative-accusative according to their dependent marking characteristics. Yet others have additionally reanalyzed head-marking morphology from independent pronouns, some with hierarchical agreement systems.
As a result of the profusion of text-based grammatical descriptions done in recent decades, it is becoming increasingly apparent that a substantial number of ST languages evince a hitherto unrecognized type of core case-marking that is neither consistently ergative-absolutive, nominative-accusative, or neutral. Languages that employ differential case marking on either an actor or an undergoer argument may eventually conventionalize the syntactic requirement to always mark one core argument of a bivalent clause, thus conforming to either an ergative-absolutive or nominative-accusative pattern, depending upon which core argument comes to be overtly marked. The fact that the distribution of core case marking is not syntactically constrained in some languages needs to be explained; it would appear that the development of case-marking alignment is a diachronic process that first begins with the need to encode either agency or affectedness, but only under pragmatically constrained situations.
The conclusions to be presented have typological relevance for understanding what the diachronic precursors of grammatical functions are, and why a pragmatic motivation for core argument marking logically precedes the development of syntactically determined alignment systems based on the transitivity status of the clause. This is of relevance not only to the ST languages, but arguably also to other languages of the world that have grammaticalized relational morphology.

 

►Chen Dandan 陈丹丹 (Chercheur à l’Institut de Linguistique, Académie des Sciences Sociales de Chine à Pékin, Résidente au Collegium de Lyon)
«从《清文指要》 和《重刊老乞大》 的差异看满语 对汉语 的影响 (Analyse comparative du Qingwen zhiyao et du Chongkan Lao Qida : influence du mandchou sur le chinois)»

Mercredi 2 mars 2016

从《清文指要》和《重刊老乞大》的差异看满语对汉语的影响

《老乞大》是高丽、朝鲜时期学习汉语的教科书,现存多种版本,其中《重刊老乞大》刊行于乾隆六十年(1795年),应该反映的是清代中期的汉语面貌。《清文指要》是清代的满汉双语教科书,同样存在多种版本。目前所见最早的版本为乾隆五十四年(1789年)双峰阁刻本,与《重刊老乞大》的刊行时间大体相当。《清文指要》与《重刊老乞大》同为教科书,篇幅和刊行时间大体相当,内容又均以日常会话为主,其内容和语言风格有很多相似之处。但由于其教学对象不同(前者为满人,后者为朝鲜人),性质自然存在差异。如:《清文指要》中使用方位词“上/(的)上头”表示原因,使用“(的)时候”表示假设,这些在《重刊老乞大》中都没有找到用例。不仅如此,在较早版本的《老乞大》中,曾经出现过上述用法的用例,但是到了《重刊老乞大》均已改掉。《清文指要》还大量使用“罢咧”“来着”“是呢”等,这些虚词《清文指要》和《重刊老乞大》的使用比例分别为55:1、50:1和6:0。以上所列举的特殊语法现象,通过《清文指要》会话部分的满汉对照,可以看出满语的影响。

这些受满语影响产生的语法现象绝大部分没有保留到现代汉语中,而是迅速消亡了。从《语言自迩集·谈论篇》和《清文指要》的对比1可以清楚地看出这些特殊语法现象的发展变化,如:

1 《语言自迩集》是英国驻华公使威妥玛编写的一部供西方人学习汉语(主要是当时的北京官话)的教材,初版刊行于1867年。据考证,该书中的“《谈论篇》(百篇)直接改编自《清文指要》或由《清文指要》的流传本再间接改编而成”,所以在张美兰、刘曼(2013)对《清文指要》诸版本进行汇校时,《谈论篇》是作为其中的一个版本进行考察的。
(1)a.生成的心正口直,言行端方的上头...,人都心悦诚服。(《清文指要》)
b._我是生成的心直口快。想来说话、行事,还正派,故此..,人家都服我。(《谈论篇》)
(2)a.无事的时候...絮叨些何妨?(《清文指要》)
b.我若.没有事,絮叨些儿何妨呢?(《谈论篇》)
(3)a.你是会汉书的人啊,学翻译狠容易罢咧..。(《清文指要》)
b.你是明白汉字的人哪,要学繙译,很容易。(《谈论篇》)
(4)a.阿哥们请吃肉,泡汤喫是呢..。(《清文指要》)
b. 兄台们请喫肉!泡上汤喫!(《谈论篇》)

以上绝大多数属于广义的接触结果,随着满语的衰落,这些特殊的语法现象也随之消失,并未进入汉语的语法体系,真正属于狭义的接触结果的,“来着”可能算是一例。

上举这些特殊语法现象都可以算作语言接触引发的语法变化,但这些变化只是第二语言习得者在学习第二语言的过程中所犯的错误,随着满人汉语水平的不断提高,他们也在不断修正之前所犯的错误,对《清文指要》中这些特殊语法现象的删除和修改就是最好的例证。

综上所述,从《清文指要》的满汉对照中,我们确实可以看出其满语来源,但这些特殊语法现象只是中介语阶段所犯的错误,真正进入汉语的只限于少数。随着满人汉语水平的不断提高,这些错误用法也随之消失。这些由语言接触引发的语法变化,哪些迅速被淘汰,哪些能真正进入汉语,其内部的机制和制约条件如何,还有待于我们进一步深入研究。

 

►Wang Jian 王健 (Shanghai Jiaotong University 上海交通大学 Professeur invité et Directeur d’Etudes associé à l’EHESS), donnera une série de quatre communications sur «Les langues sinitiques et leurs caractéristiques typologiques» :

1) 安徽南部的“着” “了”交替现象 (The Phenomenon of Aspectual Alternation between zhuo and le in Southern Anhui, China)
Vendredi 22 janvier 2016

“着”“了”交替现象指的是在某些汉语方言中,完成体和持续体共用一个标记的现象。“着”“了”交替现象分布并不广泛,但是在安徽南部的江淮官话、徽语、吴语、赣语中都有这种现象。我们认为这是方言接触的后果。本文在描写的基础上探讨了方言接触的机制。

2) 汉语方言中的动态与静态:对立与中和
Vendredi 29 janvier 2016

3) How to ask for who without who: a typological perspective on interrogative words for PERSON in Sinitic languages
Mercredi 10 février 2016

In a crosslinguistic study of 79 languages by Ultan (1978), the observation is made that even given that the number of interrogative words may be extremely variable across languages, one contrast nearly always present is that between personal and impersonal interrogative pronouns (cf. English who and what). Cysouw (2004) shows that the interrrogative categories of PERSON and THING are commonly expressed by an unanalyzable or irreducible morpheme. In this paper, we test out these two hypotheses regarding WHO and WHAT for Sinitic languages which in the main show quite substantial differences in their inventories of interrogative pronouns and expressions.
According to the data we have collected, PERSON is surprisingly not an independent interrogative category in most southern Sinitic languages, in our sample based on the ten main groups. In our sample of over 300 Sinitic languages, there are five main morphological strategies. Type A languages employ an irreducible, lexically- specialized morpheme SHEI 谁who to ask for WHO. Type B languages use phrases which are formed by the interrogative morpheme WHICH and a CLASSIFIER, compatible with the noun ren 人 ‘people’. Type C languages employ the phrase WHAT+PEOPLE to ask for WHO. Type D languages use the phrase WHICH+PEOPLE to ask for WHO. Type E languages which employ the phrase WHAT+CLASSIFIER to ask for WHO are very rare in our sample. Nearly all Northern Sinitic languages belong to Type A languages. In most Southern Sinitic languages the word SHEI 谁 who cannot be found.
We also conduct the research on the interrogative words for PERSON from a diachronic
perspective. We find that the word SHEI谁 who can be traced back to Early Archaic Chinese. Why did SHEI谁 who disappear in most contemporary Southern Sinitic languages? We propose the following hypothesis: the preservation of SHEI 谁, the specific and monomorphemic word for WHO, in Northern Sinitic languages could have been reinforced by protracted language contact with Altaic languages, while the loss of SHEI谁 who in most Southern Sinitic languages could equally be a measure of their long-term language contact with co-territorial Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) and Tai-Kadai (Zhuang-Dong) languages, leading to preferential treatment for the analytic type of strategy, with composite forms, favored among a choice of native strategies.
Keywords
interrogative words, who, Sinitic Languages, lexical typology
References
Cysouw, Michael. 2004. Interrogative words: an exercise in lexical typology. http://web.me.com/cysouw/presentations/index_files/cysouwQUESTION_handout.pdf
Ultan, Russell. 1978. Some general characteristics of interrogative systems. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language. Vol.4: Syntax, pp. 211-48. Stanford University Press.
Wang Huayun. 2005. Hanyu Fangyan Daici Lunlue ( A brief sketch of pronouns in Sinitic languages). Chengdu: Bashu Publishing House.

4) The multifunctional discourse marker jiaosha 叫啥 in Suzhou Wu (Sinitic): a case study on the relationship between lexicalization and grammaticalization of speech act verbs
Mercredi 17 février 2016

Abstract

 

►Mena Lafkioui (Directeur de recherche au LLACAN – CNRS/INaLCO), Négation, grammaticalisation et changement linguistique en Afrique du Nord

Mercredi 13 janvier 2016

This talk examines how new negation patterns are created in Moroccan Arabic (Oujda region, North East Morocco) by contact with Berber (Tarifit, North Morocco). The discussed cases concern contact-induced innovation processes in Moroccan Arabic negation through which the morphological data as well as the syntactic structuring and functioning have been modified by analogy with Berber negation. A special focus is put on the contact-induced innovated negation marker NEG ___ bu and its origin, which is discussed by developing mainly two diachronic scenarios. These are (1) the grammaticalization of a verbal form related to iba (or variant) meaning ‘there is no’ and presently occurring in Tuareg Berber and (2) the grammaticalization of the nominal head bu, attested in Berber as well as in Arabic. The talk also addresses two subsidiary options: one involving the re-analysis of the expressive marker bu and another involving reduplication of the proclitic negator.



Document(s) à télécharger

EHESS
CNRS
inalco
federation typologie
labex

flux rss  Actualités

Prix 2015 du National Institutes for the Humanities (Japon)

Les travaux d'Alexander Vovin, directeur d'études à l'EHESS (CRLAO), récompensés au Japon

Lire la suite

Prix Leonard Bloomfield 2016 de la Linguistic Society of America

Le prix a été décerné à William Baxter et Laurent Sagart pour leur livre Old Chinese: a new reconstruction (OUP, 2014)

Lire la suite

Guillaume Jacques, médaille de bronze CNRS 2015

Les travaux de Guillaume Jacques (CRLAO) récompensés par le CNRS

Lire la suite

28e Journées de Linguistique - Asie Orientale

Organisées par le CRLAO, elles se tiendront du 2 au 3 juillet 2015 à l’INALCO (Paris).

Lire la suite

Nouveaux horizons en linguistique chinoise

Colloque organisé par le CRLAO à l'occasion de la venue à Paris en juin d'une délégation de linguistes de l'Académie des sciences sociales de Chine

Lire la suite

105 Boulevard Raspail
75006 Paris
Tél : 33 (0)1 53 10 53 71