以“才”充“再”？以“再”充“才”？新加坡华语里“才”和“再”的使用情况 = Study of the usage of adverb cai and adverb zai in Singapore Chinese

• Main Author: 余依霖 Er, Yee Ling
• Other Authors: Helena Gao Hong
• Format: Final Year Project
• Language: Chinese
• Published: 2009
• Subjects: DRNTU::Humanities::Linguistics::Sociolinguistics; DRNTU::Humanities::Language::Chinese
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10356/15074
• Institution: Nanyang Technological University

新加坡是个多语多方言的社会，语言环境极为复杂。因此，新加坡华语的趋异可说是难以避免的。其中，值得注意的是陆俭明、张楚浩、钱萍（2002）和邢福义（2005）研究的新加坡华语里以“才”充“再”的现象。为了证实他们的说法，也为了找出这种现象发展的程度，本文进行了一项问卷调查。调查结果显示，新加坡华语里确实有以“才”充“再”的现象。而且，几乎每个新加坡华语使用者都有这种以“才”充“再”的倾向。本文试图根据调查的结果分析，提出这种现象出现的可能原因，如“才”和“再”的语音和语义关系、多语者的语言负迁移、华文教育“不完全的教学”等。此外，本文也预测了华语里以“才”充“再”的现象的发展趋势，并对这种现象的规范问题进行讨论。简单来说，这种现象不是一般的语言误用，而是一种值得探究的语用现象。既然这种现象已长期稳定下来，今后还将继续稳定地使用下去，那么，如果华语里以“才”充“再”的现象符合二个原则——普遍性和系统性，又不妨碍华语使用者与他人沟通，我们不妨对这种现象有更大的包容度——根据华语使用者的华语能力和使用华语的目的来要求他们的华语规范程度。毕竟，语言是约定俗成的。As a multilingual society, Singapore has an extremely complicated language environment. Thus, integration of languages, which gives rise to unique language change and varieties of a language, is said to be inevitable. Singapore Chinese is one of such examples. According to Lu Jianming, Zhang Chuhao, Qian Ping (2002) and Xing Fuyi (2005), Singapore Chinese users tend to replace adverb zai with adverb cai. To find out whether such a phenomenon exists, and the extent of its usage, a questionnaire survey was carried out. The survey results indicate that such a phenomenon does exist, and most Singapore Chinese users show such a tendency to replace adverb zai with adverb cai. This thesis attempts to suggest possible reasons that give rise to this phenomenon - such as the phonetic and semantic relations between adverb cai and adverb zai, influence of other languages and inadequacy of Chinese teaching in schools. In addition, issues on its future developments and standardization are discussed. As a concluding remark, it is proposed that as long as such pragmatic phenomenon conforms to the two standardization principles, it should be allowed. After all, language is established by usage.