吴粤方言动后限止算子“得”的比较研究

Post⁃verbal Number⁃restricting Operator“de”:A Comparison Between Wu and Yue Dialects

本文对吴语和粤语中动词后的限止算子(只/only义)“得”进行比较研究。文献中仅粤语“得”有此功能,作为右向量化的焦点算子。本文指出当代吴语吴江话和早期上海话也有类似成分。文章先详细描写吴江话动后“得”的句法语义功能,分析了动后“得”与动前副词“只”及“剩”的异同。“只”除数量成分外也可以后接名词,只限制名词的类,而“得”“剩”必须后接数量成分,限制数量。接着比较了吴粤方言的“得”。吴语“得”可以用在单双音节动词后及动结式动趋式之后,是副词性的后附缀,而粤语“得”只用于单音动词后,是动词后缀。吴语“得”必须后接数量成分,粤语“得”后也可以接并列成分。吴语粤语都是由完成类体标记“得”与限止义功能词同现后感染限止义,同时在完成体功能被“仔”/“佐”覆盖后成为独立的限止算子,是物尽其用原则和同源方言平行发展的沿流(drift)现象的例证。

This paper offers a comparative study of the post⁃verbal number⁃restricting operator(to approximately mean ONLY)“de”(得)between Wu and Yue(Cantonese)dialects.In the literature,only the Cantonese post⁃verbal de(得/tɐk/)is reported to have such function as a right⁃quantifying focus⁃sensitive operator.This paper notifies,however,that there is a similar de(得/təʔ/)in Wu dialects,as is attested in the early Shanghainese and the Wujiang dialect,the latter of which constitutes the main concern of this paper.Based on the detailed descriptions of its syntactic and semantic features,the paper unveils commonalities and differences between de and its pre⁃verbal counterparts zhi(只/tsəʔ/)and sheng(剩/z~a24/),which can co⁃occur with either a numeral or a nominal element following the verb,while the post⁃verbal de must be followed by a numeral element.Then,the paper compares the post⁃verbal de between Wu and Yue dialects.The Wu de follows monosyllabic or disyllabic verbs,or even a verb⁃resultative/directional phrase,behaving as an adverbial enclitic,whereas the Cantonese de always follows a monosyllabic verb as a suffix.While the Wu de must be followed by a numeral element,the Cantonese de can be followed by a coordinate phrase as well.De in both Wu and Yue resulted from its earlier usage as a perfective aspect marker,obtaining the meaning of ONLY via co⁃occurrence with ONLY⁃meaning adverbs or sentence final particle.When the perfective function of de is covered respectively by zi(仔/zɿ/)in Wu dialects and zuo(咗/tso/)in Cantonese,de can solely function as a number⁃restricting operator in both dialects.Such development satisfactorily exemplifies the Principle of Maximal Use of Linguistic Inventory as well as of“drift”in parallel change in departed dialects of the same origin as Sapir proposed.