Reviewed by Marjorie K. M. Chan, The Ohio State University.
Published in: Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 33.3 (October 1998): 97-106.

(This (once Big5-encoded but now) UTF8-encoded review uses C.C. Cheng's Chinese Pinyin Fonts (
zip file for Windows here).)
[ back to publications page ]

Cantonese: A Comprehensive Grammar
By Stephen Matthews and Virginia Yip.
London and New York: Routledge. 1994. Xvi, 429 pp. Paperback. $32.99.

Matthews and Yip make a formidable team in putting together what is, in esence, the first full-length treatment in English to date of the grammar of modern spoken Cantonese, based on Hong Kong Cantonese. Until this book came out, the few reference grammars on modern spoken Cantonese, be they based on Guangzhou Cantonese or Hong Kong Cantonese, have been written in Chinese. Cheung (1972) was the most recent grammar of Hong Kong Cantonese and it was written a quarter of a century ago and in Chinese. Other grammatical descriptions have been part of language textbooks where grammatical points are organized and presented from pedagogical perspectives. Cantonese: A Comprehensive Grammar, which is part of the publisher’s Routledge Grammars series, aims at a broad spectrum of readers: from language learners to teachers, speech therapists and translators/interpreters, and to linguists (broadly construed) interested in Cantonese per se or in making cross-dialectal, cross-linguistic comparisons.

M&Y (1994) is densely packed with explanations that are straightforward. Technical jargon that is used in more abstract, theoretical frameworks in Chinese linguistics is generally avoided, though they show up here and there (e.g., ‘The class of words or operators which license the indefinite usage of question words is complex.’ (Ch.14, n.1, p.409)). The book is rich with examples, some of which are excerpted from natural discourse and media (radio, TV, and film). The examples are, moreover, well laid out with three lines of information: romanization on the first line, morpheme-by-morpheme (or word-by-word) glosses on the second line, placed immediately below the relevant romanization for a columnar, one-to-one correspondence, followed by a third line containing English translation. Probably to save space, examples are not numbered so that romanized transcriptions of an example typically fit one line, and often two columns are laid out for placement of two examples across the page. This enables the authors to present many more examples without unduly increasing both bulk and printing expenses that would be passed along to the buyer. With spiraling costs of books in recent years, a paperback at a fairly reasonable price is very much appreciated by readers, and so this reviewer will refrain from lamenting too much the absence of Chinese characters in the examples and text.

Perhaps the added publication expense for a much thicker book including Chinese script is the reason for the omission of characters. However, the authors themselves offer two reasons for the omission of Chinese characters that are not cost-driven; namely, one, the premise that the spoken form is primary and the written form derivative (p.1); and two, the pedagogical concern that it would be taxing both for the teachers and for the learners to need to deal with both spoken and written forms simultaneously. Regarding the first, for English and other alphabetic languages, the orthographic system is used in presenting examples in linguistic literature. There is no pressing need to render the examples phonetically to emphasize the point that one is dealing with the spoken language and not the written language. For languages such as Chinese that use a non-alphabet script, a practical consideration really is that those outside the Chinese field would not be able to even begin to try to pronounce the words without some kind of romanization. The second reason only addresses the teacher-learner situation, and even then, as this is a reference source, serving in some ways similar to dictionaries, the argument of not doubly taxing students does not really hold. For more advanced learners with a larger vocabulary base and some knowledge of the writing system, juxtaposing the script with romanization would probably help them to grasp the meaning of the sentences more quickly than if they had to rely on romanization and morpheme/word glosses, and then the English translation. And, of course, those two reasons given do not take into consideration the remainder of the intended readership, a portion of whom would know the Chinese script.

For cross-dialectal comparison between Cantonese and Mandarin, inclusion of Chinese characters would have made it much easier for those who know standard Chinese to see at a glance which are indigenous Cantonese words and expressions, and which are simply different modern reflexes in the pronunciation of the same Chinese characters. Regarding the former case, Cantonese has two ways to deal with indigenous words: one is the creation of a set of special vernacular characters to represent those words. Some of these have, in fact, entered standard dictionaries and are marked as ‘dialect forms’. One such case is m9uh 冇 ‘not have’, in which the two horizontal lines in y0u 有 ‘have’ were removed to form ‘not have’ (This and some other Cantonese vernacular characters have made their way into the Big-5 code and are now part of Unicode, the new international standard.) The second solution is for standard characters to be ‘borrowed’ for sound value only via the principle of phonetic loan (ji2ji7 假 借), as in d^m g1ai 點 解 ‘why.’ Indigenous vocabulary and how to render them in writing, then, contrasts with cases that merely involve differences in pronunciation of the same standard Chinese characters. Yet, the situation may be tricky in that the pronunciation of the same Chinese characters may differ sharply between the two dialects. For example, y`mngohk-g` ‘musician’ (p.35) is simply the Cantonese (Yale romanization) syllable-by-syllable (y`m + ngohk + g`), pronunciation corresponding to standard Chinese (Pinyin romanization) y%nyu7-ji` (音 樂 家), and Cantonese waahkj5 ‘maybe’ (p.239) is the Cantonese pronunciation (waahk + j5) standard Chinese hu-zh6 (或 者). The book’s use of word division that does not display syllable boundaries probably compounds the problem by giving Mandarin (and other Chinese dialect) speakers unfamiliar with Cantonese the impression of greater differences between the two dialects than there are in some of the examples. Word division is a recalcitrant problem in the romanization of Chinese and is not limited to this book. (More on this later.)

The book begins with a twelve-page introduction that covers background issues to set the stage for the main chapters in the book, viz., language and its speakers, the descriptive approach adopted in the book, cross-dialectal differences between Cantonese and Mandarin, the status of spoken versus written Cantonese and the recording of Cantonese as a written medium, romanization systems and the adoption of Yale romanization with slight modification (viz., the elimination of /53/ tone marking, as syllables with /53/ tone are all transcribed with /55/ tone to reflect current Hong Kong speech), and published materials on Cantonese, including linguistic literature, dictionaries, and language textbooks. There is no mention of recent Cantonese language learning materials on CD ROM. Perhaps such materials are too recent. For this writer, it would have desirable if the book also aimed to make grammatical observations of subdialectal differences between Hong Kong Cantonese and Guangzhou Cantonese. Mainland China publications on Guangzhou Cantonese---linguistic articles, grammars, language textbooks, dictionaries, etc.---are not listed in the references.

The main body of the book consists of twenty-one chapters. Chapter 1 is devoted to the phonology of the dialect and Chapter 2 to morphology. Two chapters that are non-core areas involving lexical items are placed at the end: Chapter 20 on politeness conventions and terms of address, and Chapter 21 on numerals and times (days, months, dates, times of day). If more chapters were to be added, one such chapter might be loanwords and recently-coined vocabulary items and expressions used in Hong Kong. Yet another chapter might be on gender-linked differences in language use and other sociolinguistic topics. Nonetheless, as is, the book has extensive grammatical coverage. The remaining seventeen chapters of M&Y contains a systematic presentation of all important aspects of the grammar of Cantonese. In the order presented in the book, Chapters 3 through 19 cover: syntactic categories (parts of speech), sentence structure (word order and topicalization), pronouns, the noun phrase, prepositions and expressions of location, the verb phrase, adjectival constructions, adverbial constructions, aspect and verbal particles, modality, negation, quantification, existential sentences, coordination and subordinate clauses, questions, sentence particles and interjections, and imperative sentences (commands and requests). The chapter headings themselves show very clearly the broad scope of topics in syntax and semantics that are covered and in fairly great detail with ample examples that reflect the depth and breadth of the authors’ knowledge of the topics.

In studying the table of contents, one observation is the mixing of domains of analysis in the topics of ‘questions’ in one chapter and ‘imperative sentences’ in another. One would expect to find, in a book on grammar, a discrete presentation of ‘declarative sentences,’ ‘interrogative sentences,’ and ‘imperative sentences.’ Then, within those chapters, discourse functions of statements, questions, commands, requests, and so forth, could be presented to a large, heterogeneous readership. The mixing of subfields of linguistic analysis suggests a corresponding blending of formal and functional linguistic approaches in the book. Precisely because readers less accustomed than academicians to documenting every reference, such references are normally relegated to comments in end notes, as in the case of the Mandarin grammar by Li and Thompson (1981). For the hard-core linguist, however, the footnoting practice is somewhat unfortunate, since viewpoints and ideas cannot then be ascribed easily to the originator of those ideas. Consider one simple case. The appendix on romanization systems states that "the romanized form i is generally pronounced as IPA [i:]; however, it is pronounced as IPA [e] before ng and k. The transcription of the nuclear vowel in finals -ing and -ik as IPA [e] goes back at least to Chao (1947), who posits [e] occurring in the -ei diphthong and before velar codas -ng and -k. However, many sources since, including Hashimoto (1972), transcribe the vowel as the lax high, front vowel [I]. Huang (1970:xiii) in fact states that "The compiler of this dictionary pronounces the final -ik to rhyme with sick." Trying to cater to laypersons and linguists in the field at the same time is not an easy endeavor, as the needs of these two groups may often be at odds. One can only sympathize with the authors in grappling with this difficult task.

As noted above, in addition to the main chapters, there is an appendix of romanization systems. It provides a cross-comparison among Yale, International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), and the romanization system proposed and adopted by the Linguistic Society of Hong Kong in 1993. It would have been especially useful if the comparison chart included the romanization system in Lau’s dictionary (1977), which accompanies his government-published textbook series, and the romanization system developed in mainland China that is used in their textbooks (e.g., Zheng 1993) and dictionaries (e.g., Rao et al. 1981, Wu 1997). Following the appendix is a set of endnotes for the introduction and for most of the twenty-one chapters. An informative eight-page glossary of grammatical terms is included, as well as references and a useful index that includes: (1) grammatical terms, (2) English grammatical words, and (3) Cantonese words that have grammatical function or syntactic properties that are described in the grammar. All in all, the contents of the grammar have been carefully and painstakingly cross-referenced.

For M&Y, to try to juggle the needs and interests of the language learner at one end of the spectrum, and those of Chinese linguists in the field at the other, is daunting and not always fully satisfactory. A case in point is the retention of European-based word classes or ‘parts of speech’, such as ‘adjectives’ even in predicate position. Despite noting that ‘adjectives’ in Chinese (Mandarin and other dialects) behave very much like verbs in predicates since they occur without the copula ‘to be’, the authors find it practical to retain the term in all syntactic contexts in order to distinguish adjectives as a class separate from that of verbs (p.157). Hence, they use the term ‘predicative adjectives’ for what has variously been called ‘adjectival predicates’ (by Chao (1968:88) since they are ‘a species of verbs’), stative verbs by Kratochvil (1968:113) and many other Chinese linguists, and ‘adjectival verbs’ by Li and Thompson (1981:142) since ‘the vast majority of adjectives may function as verbs in Mandarin’). The decision may very well be based on easing English speakers’ learning of Cantonese grammar. For instance, it may be easier for English L1 learners to treat h8is`m ‘(to be) happy’ as simply the adjective ‘happy’, in the sentence (p.157), K5uih n% p3aih h9u h8is`m (s/he these days very happy) ‘She’s happy these days.’

Given the breadth of topics presented in the book, it would be impossible to do justice to all of them in this review, particularly with respect to core syntactic issues. Instead, I will simply focus on one topic for discussion, namely sentence-final particles, and then raise two issues or points, one concerning wordhood and the other marking of progressivity with h1ihdou ‘to be t/here.’ We turn to the first of these three topics. In studying the grammar of Cantonese, there are many areas in which Cantonese differs from Mandarin in some very interesting ways. One pertains to sentence-final particles, a subject that is covered in Chapter 18, on sentence particles and interjections. It may be worth noting that Chapter 18, together with Chapter 11 on aspect and verbal particles, are the only two chapters in M&Y which highlight grammatical structures in Cantonese that differ from English. (Another topic that could easily have formed a separate, interesting chapter in the book is reduplication, since it is such a productive morphological process in Cantonese and other Chinese dialects, in contrast to its extremely limited use in English.)

M&Y rightly observe that Cantonese is especially rich in sentence-final particles. They note that there are some thirty basic forms (Kwok 1984). Ouyang’s (1993) estimate is comparable. Others give much higher figures: Egerod (1984) sixty-two and Ball (1924) seventy-seven. Mandarin has significantly fewer sentence-final particles than Cantonese, whether one uses M&Y’s count of seven, or Hu’s (1981) of eight (for Beijing Mandarin), or even or Chao’s (1968) of 17. Aside from those particles that serve a grammatical function, such as changing a declarative sentence into an interrogative one, most have affective use, reflecting the attitude or emotion of the speaker. These particles serve a role similar to intonation in a non-tone language such as English. Egerod (1984: 76) is probably correct in suggesting that the reason for the difference in sentence particle inventory size between the two Chinese dialects is that Mandarin has fewer tones along-side a stress accent system. As a result, there is less motivation for using such particles instead of intonation. Cantonese, with its three level tones (high /55/, mid /33/, and low /22/), a low-falling tone (/21/) and two rising tones (/35/ and /13/)1, and its lack of a stress system in its phonology, leaves very little room for pitch modulation to create different intonation patterns. At most, questions are produced with an overall, slightly raised pitch compared to the corresponding statements (Wu 1989:174ff, cited in M&Y (p.409). With respect to raised pitch for questions, Cantonese and Mandarin do not differ (cf. Shen 1989, 1990; Chan 1993), although there are other differences, such as greater pitch modulation and syllable lengthening in Cantonese at sentence-final position, with or without sentence-final particles.2

M&Y (p.339) state that ‘the vowel of a sentence particle may be pronounced short or prolonged for up to a second or so.’ My informal observations of syllable duration of sentence-particles in Cantonese corroborate that. This prolonged duration is particularly significant as compared to the duration of these particles with regular citation syllables in the language. Using duration measurements given in Bauer and Benedict (1997:37-38) from Kao (1971) and Li (1985), the following information can be obtained for Cantonese. The shortest Cantonese syllables are those that are both checked (ending in -p, -t, or -k) and has a short (lax) vowel in the nucleus; these syllables average 86 milliseconds. The longest syllables are open syllables, where there is no vowel length contrast, as they all contain a long vowel nucleus; these syllables average 300 milliseconds. Against this backdrop, a sentence-final particle with duration that can be up to one full second is extremely long indeed. Even in cases where they are not lengthened to such a degree, sentence-final particles can easily be up to two or more times the duration of corresponding, ordinary citation syllables in Cantonese. Sentence-final particles produced with especially long duration are necessarily open syllables and not checked ones. One should also keep in mind that Cantonese allows for compound particles containing as many as three sentence particles concatenated and clustered at the end of an utterance!

One example3 of a prolonged final particle is given below. The audio file used for making measurements was digitized from an audiotape that accompanies Fung (1996)4. The audiotape is part of the Kaleidoscope series, a set of multimedia Cantonese language learning materials that evolves around a television series produced in Guangzhou. (cf. Chan 1996 for details). The speaker is Sing Baak (Uncle Sing). He is talking to his neighbor, Giu Ma (Giu’s mother), who runs the neighborhood clothing stall. Sing Baak is being very patient with Giu Ma. He punctuates his utterance with a protracted final m4, uttering the sentence as a rhetorical question. He emphasizes that what he had said earlier had only been in jest (with j4 serving the downplaying function), and that his words were not to be believed. The syllable m4 is 0.9 second in duration, starting high and gradually falling towards the end of the utterance. Combined with the preceding particle, ge, the compound particle ge m4, has a total duration of 1.04 seconds. Another syllable that is extra-long is m`, with a duration of 0.75 second. The syllable is uttered with sustained high level pitch. Extra length is transcribed with a colon. (Chinese characters are omitted to avoid complications in printing vernacular Cantonese characters.)

G%u M`[:], g9ng-h1h-s^u ge j4, l5ih g{ j`n ge m4[:]!
Giu Ma, talk-PRT-laugh PRT PRT, you guess real PRT PRT
‘Giu Ma, I’m just joking; you think I’m saying it for real?! (Of course not!)’

We turn now to one theoretical issue that cannot be addressed in a reference grammar such as M&Y, but which is nonetheless important. Throughout the book, assumptions are made about what is a word and what are larger syntactic units.5 Compounds are treated orthographically as a word, with syllables concatenated without a space. Affixes are added to nouns, verbs, etc., and aspect markers are treated as bound to the verbs. However, it is not clear to what extent word breaks in the romanization in the book are influenced by the translational target language, English, for ease of presentation of word-by-word, or morpheme-by-morpheme, glosses, and to what extent word breaks reflect some conscious application of concepts of wordhood. As Chao (1968:185) notes, ‘The consideration of word units in a translational target language is ... of no use in recognizing words in the source language and would not have to be mentioned if it were not so often invoked, whether avowedly or implicitly.’

Consider, for example, the presentation of what are described in Chao (1968) as resultative verb (R-V) constructions, including those containing a directional complement, such as ch4ut ‘out’ and h5i ‘up.’ These complements are analyzed as verbal particles in M&Y, as in jy{ h9u (cook + finish) ‘finish cooking’(p.219) and gwa h5i (hang + up) ‘hang up' (p.215). M&Y (p.42) make a distinction between ‘aspect markers’, which they treat as suffixes and bound to the verb, and ‘verbal particles’, which, ‘although typically occurring directly after the verb which they modify, they may be separated from it by the negative mh or the modal d`k." An example would be sihk d`k saai (eat + can/able + all/up) ‘can eat up.’ Hence, aspect markers are joined to the verb orthographically with a hyphen in Yale romanization, whereas verbal particles are not so joined. Verbal particles are treated orthographically as independent words, as exemplified above, where both Cantonese and English ‘finish’ and ‘up’ are ostensibly independent words in the spelling/romanization in the two languages.

Nonetheless, in discussing verb-object compounds, such as duhk-sy[ (study + book) ‘study’, M&Y (pp.52-53) notes that ‘despite the close relationship between verb and object suggested by their meanings, these compounds may be separated in various contexts.’ One of these is when aspect markers and verbal particles come between the verb and the object, as in duhk-y]hn-sy[ (study + finish + book) ‘finish studying.’ Under these circumstances, the verbal particle, y]hn ‘finish,’ is bound to both the preceding and following elements of the verb-object compound, behaving like an infix. What seems rather odd, then, is that the same verbal particle is not bound as some kind of suffix when it follows a simple verb, such as jy{ ‘cook.’ While M&Y’s models for their grammar are Chao (1968) and Li and Thompson (1981) (p. 4), it is noteworthy that M&Y’s verbal particles are part of compounds for both Chao (1968) and Li and Thompson (1981): the former analyzes such constructions as verb-complement (V-R) compounds, and the latter as resultative verb compounds (or RVC’s). Moreover, these compounds could have potential form, via infix -de- and –bu-. One cannot help wondering if M&Y’s decision to treat these resultative verb constructions as containing free-standing verbal particles rather than forms bound to the preceding verb was not at least partially motivated by some sincere desire to create translational equivalents, combined with orthographic similarity between the English words and Cantonese Yale romanization, to aid English learners. In any case, word-formation is a complex area in Chinese linguistics in general, and is probably all the more problematic in Cantonese, where one cannot rely on stress phenomena to assist in making decisions on what is a word in the dialect. At the same time, it is precisely research in Cantonese syntax that uses romanization that brings this problem into sharp focus. As Chao (1968:186) states in a different but equally relevant context, ‘with recent activities in devising an alphabetic system of writing Chinese, the problem of what is a syntactic word, to be written as an orthographic word, becomes very important.’6

This review cannot begin to discuss the many interesting points and observations in M&Y. The book, covering all major areas of Cantonese grammar, is meticulously researched and carefully edited and proof-read. Written clearly and articulately, it is very readable for readers from layman to specialist. Examples are plentiful; and idioms and other interesting tidbits are placed here and there within frames to entice and intrigue the reader. Stephen Matthews and Virginia Yip are to be highly commended for their excellent scholarship in producing this immensely useful volume as a resource for a wide readership. This book is a valuable reference source for a grammatical description in English of modern spoken Cantonese and will remain so for many years to come.

[ Back to Top ]


1. In M&Y; (p.22), what are transcribed as tones /35/ and /13/ are noted as having alternative representations in different systems: 35 and 25 have both been used for the high-rising tone, while 23 and 13 have both been used for the low-rising tone. Note that in both cases, what is held constant in the different systems is the preservation of ‘5’ and ‘3’. What is important in the different systems for recording the tones of Cantonese is that the end-point is ‘5’ for the high-rising tone and ‘3’ for the low-rising tone, which would be what would have been predicted in Chan (1987), where a study of tone-melody interaction in modern Cantonese songs show the importance of the end-points. Tones /55/, /5/, and /35/ are sung to the same note. By the same token, tones /33/, /3/, and /13/ are sung to the same note. And in songs sung to quick melodies, tone contours may flatten out, but the end-points, the targets, are still preserved. In that study, tone /22/ is paired with tone /2/, while low-falling tone /21/ (or /11/) is extra low, sometimes ending in creakiness. Tone /21/ is also extra-short, since one has reached the bottom of one’s pitch range in producing that tone. [BACK]

2. This is partly based on Kwok and Luke (1986) and partly on my acoustic data of some Cantonese utterances. [BACK]

3. The example is from Episode One, Y{hgwo T%nch*ng ‘Sunny Sky After the Storm.’ [BACK]

4. Duration measurements are made using the Summer Institute of Linguistics’ Speech Analyzer software for Windows. [BACK]

5. This topic owes its presence here to a discussion on the Chinese list initiated by James Dew on ‘bound’ and ‘free’ morphemes. My thanks to Jim for his persistence in follow-up inquiries and comments on my responses to him. Thanks also go to Lin Hua and Olli Salmi for their online input. [BACK]

6. This portion was omitted in the published review, but is included here in this webpage version for possible interest:

One final point will be addressed, connected with h1idouh ‘to be t/here’ as an alternative indicator for progressivity that precedes the verb. An example is K5uih h1idouh g9ng-g1n dihnw1. (s/he + be-here + talk-PROG + telephone) ‘She’s (talking) on the phone.’(p.202). M&Y; offers the suggestion that its use as a progressive marker is probably due to influence from Mandarin z3i ‘to be situated’ or ‘to be doing,’ which also functions as a marker of progressivity. Chao (1968:333) has a discussion on z3i (nar):

The verb tzay ‘to be at’ ... is used either alone or as first verb, with omissible object, in a V-V series. .... The only object after tzay that is often omitted is 那 兒 .nall in otzay.nall ‘right there’ used in connection with the progressive aspects of a verb or its equivalent, as in 他 在 那 兒 吃 著 飯 吶 . Ta otzay.nall chyj fann ne. ‘He is right there eating meal, --he is eating his meal.’, where .nall is often omitted, giving rise to the form tzay chyj fann ‘is at eating meal,’ which seems to suggest the English form a-eating. But actually the tzay here is really a first verb in a V-V series with an omitted object. This form is used more often in the Central dialects and has now spread over Northern Mandarin....

In Chan (1980:70), the association between progressivity and locative predication is noted not only for Mandarin and Cantonese, but also for Margi (Northern Nigeria), Sonay, and Fulani (from Anderson (1973:16,50), where the locative predicate can be translated as ‘in place’, ‘there’, or ‘here’ with the action marked by progressivity. Chan (p.70) goes on to state:

Perhaps the English paraphrase of ‘to be in the midst of V-ing’ would be an approximation of these structures. Anderson (1973:5) in fact claims that the ‘main verb’ in the English progressive construction is actually a nominalized form in a locative predication whose verb serves as the auxiliary of the progressive form.

Chan then quotes directly from Anderson (1973:15):

(i)n those other languages for which I have been able to find some sufficiently explicit account of tense and aspect, there is also a consistent association of this kind, i.e., of progressive aspect (where it is given separate expression) and (if anything) predications involving (‘be’ plus) case particles (marking the verbal noun) – inflexions, prepositions, post-positions – that are also used (or have been used) to indicate ‘(spatial) location at or in’, except for those less numerous instances where we find superficially simply (‘be’ plus) predicative nominal.

Thus, what one finds in the use of h1idouh ‘to be t/here’ in Cantonese, and z3i (nar) ‘to be there’ in Mandarin, for marking progressivity appears to be a more general tendency among languages. A survey of Chinese dialects may very well reveal that the association of locative predication and progressivity is widespread among Chinese dialects, and that such an association need not imply Mandarin influence. An historical linguistic study of this should prove extremely interesting. [BACK]

[ Back to Top ]


Anderson, John. 1973. An Essay Concerning Aspect. The Hague: Mouton.

Ball, J. Dyer. 1924. Cantonese Made Easy. Fourth Edition. Hong Kong: Kelly and Walsh Ltd.

Bauer, Robert S. and Paul K. Benedict. 1997. Modern Cantonese Phonology. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Chan, Marjorie K.M. 1980. Temporal reference in Mandarin Chinese: an analytical-semantic approach to the study of the morphemes le, zai, zhe, and ne. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association XV.3:33-79.

Chan, Marjorie K.M. 1987. Tone and melody in Cantonese. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS):13:26-37.

Chan, Marjorie K.M. 1993. Review. Xiao-nan Susan Shen. 1990. The Prosody of Mandarin Chinese. (Berkeley: University of California Press.) Journal of Phonetics 21.3:343-347.

Chan, Marjorie K.M. 1996. Gender-marked speech in Cantonese: the case of sentence-final particles je and jek. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 26.1/2 (Spring/Fall 1996):1-38.

Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cheung, Samuel Hung-nin. 1972. Xianggang Yueyu Yufade Yanjiu (Cantonese as Spoken in Hong Kong). Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press.

Egerod, Soren C. 1984. Verbal and sentential marking in Indo-European and East Asian languages. Computational Analyses of Asian and African Languages 22:71-82.

Fung, Roxana Suk-yee (chief compiler). 1996. Kaleidoscope. Volume V. Columbus, Ohio: Foreign Language Publications, The Ohio State University.

Hashimoto, Oi-Kan Yue. 1972. Phonology of Cantonese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hu, Mingyang. 1981. Beijinghuade yuqi zhuci he tanci (Modal particles and interjections in the Beijing dialect). Zhongguo Yuwen (1981) 5&6:347-350, 416-423.

Huang, Parker Po-fei. 1970. Cantonese Dictionary: Cantonese-English, English-Cantonese. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kao, Diana L. 1971. Structure of the Chinese Syllable in Cantonese. The Hague: Mouton.

Kratochvil, Paul. 1968. The Chinese Language Today: Features of an Emerging Standard. London: Hutchinson University Library.

Kwok, Helen. 1984. Sentence Particles in Cantonese. Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong.

Kwok, Helen and Kang-Kwong Luke. 1986. "Yueyue yudiao chutan." (A preliminary investigation of Cantonese intonation) Yuwen Zazhi 13:32-40.

Lau, Sidney. 1977. A Practical Cantonese-English Dictionary. Hong Kong: The Government Printer.

Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Li, Xingde. 1985. Guangzhouhua yuanyinde yinzhi ji changduan duili (Opposition of vowel quality and length in Cantonese). Fangyan 1:28-38.

Ouyang, Jueya. 1993. Putonghua Guangzhouhuade Bijiao yu Xuexu (Comparison and study of Putonghua and Cantonese). Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe.

Rao, Bingcai, Ouyang Jueya, and Zhou Wuji (ed.) 1981. Guangzhouhua Fangyan Cidian (Cantonese Dialect Dictionary). Hong Kong: Commercial Press.

Shen, Xiao-nan Susan. 1989. Interplay of the four citation tones and intonation in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 17.1:61-74.

Shen, Xiao-nan Susan. 1990. The Prosody of Mandarin Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Wu, Kaibin. 1997. Xiangganghua Cidian (Hong Kong Speech Dictionary). Guangzhou: Huacheng Chubanshe.

Wu, Kam-yin. 1989. A Linguistic Study of Interrogation in Cantonese: Comparisons with English. Unpublished M.Phil. thesis, University of Hong Kong.

Zheng, Dingou (chief compiler). 1993. Jinri Yueyu (Cantonese Today). Volume 1. Guangzhou: Jinan Daxue Chubanshe.

Marjorie K.M. Chan    
The Ohio State University    

To Publications Page.
Copyright (c) 1998 Marjorie K.M. Chan. All rights reserved.
Created 8 December 1998.