迷失在逻辑中:论“北京话是一个重音语言”之说

Lost in Logic:On Feng’s(2016,2021)Claim that Beijingese is a Stress Language

针对冯胜利(2016,2021)提出的北京话“具有复杂的重音系统”因而“北京话是一个重音语言”的论断,本文先摆语言事实,后讲逻辑道理。鉴于声调语言和重音语言是音系类型学的专门术语,本文首先描述了这两大音系类型的地理分布与特征,表明世界上声调语言或重音语言均具有规律性的声调系统或重音系统;然后聚焦该论说中的研究方法与语言事实,揭示出其依据是数量有限的语言单位在话语语境里呈现出的随机性特征,而非汉语在词层系统化的音系特征。最后,本文指出:1)将汉语(包括北京话)界定为重音语言的论说,本质上是将语用表现误作语法学知识(包括音系学知识)的结果;2)该论说意味着同一种语言里存在着两种并行不悖的音系系统,即声调系统和重音系统,这在汉语(包括北京话)这种单音节语言里是不可能的;3)科学的论断是与“前提真,结论必真”这样一套演绎逻辑密切相关的。我们对一种语言的音系特征进行定性时,不能按照“有X”就可称为“X类型语言”的简单逻辑。

Feng(2016,2021)claims that Mandarin Chinese(including Beijingese,or Beijing dialect)is a stress language.Based on crosslinguistic facts,this article first presents a description of the geographical distributions as well as the characteristic features of tone and stress languages,showing that all typical tonal and stress languages across the world have the regular tone or stress system.With a particular focus on its research methodology and linguistic data,it is then demonstrated that Feng’s claim heavily relies on the stochastic characteristics of a rather limited number of expressions and utterances,rather than the phonological manifestations of Mandarin lexicon.As far as some data are concerned,Feng(2016)claims that only few Beijingese speakers can perceive the differences between expressions with the same characters,e.g.,chof1n(fried rice)as a nominal phrase and cho f1n(to fry rice)as a verb phrase.This claim is too subjective and is hence far from convincing.First,if Mandarin Chinese(including Beijingese)has a regular stress system,most of the words in the Mandarin lexicon are supposed to possess a lexical stress.Second,if Beijingese genuinely possesses a regular stress system,it is supposed to be perceived by most of the native speakers,just as the tonal system of Beijingese is.Clearly,Feng’s claim is essentially the consequence of mistaking pragmatic performance for grammatical knowledge(encompassing phonological knowledge).Furthermore,Feng’s claim implies that there should be two separate systems co-existing in Mandarin Chinese(including Beijingese),namely,the tone system and the stress system which are working in parallel.This should be impossible,whether in theory or in practice,for a typical tone language.Finally,the article addresses the logical deduction of the claim,pointing out that when defining the phonological typology of a particular language,one cannot simply call a language X-typed language just based on some parsimonious data which are of pragmatic nature.