摘要: 本報告將指出粵語句末助詞呈現出的兩點高度語法化的現象。 第一,句末助詞連用，已不能分析成各個單用助詞的結合體，而要分析成「前綴+詞根」的結合體。亦即，位於非終止位置的助詞是缺乏獨立性的黏著形式。 第二，與普通話的句末助詞「的」相比，粵語的「kə-」分佈更廣，能與各種助詞結合，其語義也隨之被高度虛化。 關於講者: 飯田真紀， 生於日本大阪 ，2005年畢業於東京大學大學院人文社會系研究科，獲博士學位。現為北海道大學傳媒研究院副教授，從事粵語語法研究和粵語教學工作。近期研究興趣為從跨語言視角探討粵語和其他周邊方言中的語法化或語義變化現象。已發表論文包括《粵語句末助詞的體系》《第十届國際粤方言研討會論文集》2007年、《粵語的條件分句標記“嘅”》《中國語文》2012 年第5期。
Abstract A fundamental question that has concerned social scientists since Barrington Moore is the political transformations that accompanied agrarian societies’ transitions to modern economy. One paradigmatic case is the peasant-based Communist revolution in China, the causes of which have been the subject of a long-standing debate. Scholars have emphasized peasant proletarianization, Communist leadership in peasant nationalism, the attraction of their socio-economic reforms, their effective mobilization, Nationalists’ failures, and geographical conditions. Based on county gazetteers and administrative records of 154 counties in the most heavily contested region during the crucial years, we conduct the first multivariate local-level analysis of revolution. The results show little support for existing narratives. Instead, they substantiate what we call the “Tocqueville-Fei thesis”, that state centralization in agrarian bureaucratic polities inadvertently facilitated social revolution. The state’s effort to penetrate local communities undermined traditional governance structures, upsetting the balance between the state and local norms/elites and turning state agents into unbridled predators on peasants, which created favorable conditions for the Communists. This study has implications for understanding the modernization of agrarian societies and the dynamics of social change, and casts new light on the long-term trajectory of the state-society relationship in China. (This is a collaborative work with Ivan Png, Junhong Chu and Yeh-ning Chen) Bio Xiaohong Xu is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Lingnan University in Hong Kong. His primary research interests include comparative historical analysis, social movements, and cultural sociology. He received his PhD from Yale University in 2014. His work has appeared in American Sociological Review and Critical Historical Studies, among others.
Prof. Tze-Ki HON (City University of Hong Kong) Prof. Greg MOSS (The Chinese University of Hong Kong) Prof. David CHAI (The Chinese University of Hong Kong) Prof. Yumi SUZUKI (The University of Hong Kong) Prof. Eric S. NELSON (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) Prof. Kam-ming YIP (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology)
Abstract Hegel remarked in his discussion of the nothing in the Science of Logic that: “It is well known that in oriental systems, and essentially in Buddhism, nothing, or the void, is the absolute principle.” Schopenhauer concludes a discussion of the joy of death in The World as Will and Representation with the comment: “The existence which we know he willingly gives up: what he gets instead of it is in our eyes nothing, because our existence is, with reference to that, nothing. The Buddhist faith calls it Nirvana, i.e., extinction.” It is noteworthy that reflections on void, nihility, and extinction in early nineteenth-century German philosophical discourse explicitly refer to this mysterious discourse from the East that was frequently identified as “the cult of nothingness,” as scholars such as Roger-Pol Droit have described. In this paper, I reexamine how the interpretation of nothingness and negativity in Hegel and Schopenhauer informed their encounter with “oriental thought,” their reception of Buddhism as a philosophical and religious system centering on absolute negativity, and trace how they interpreted the central Buddhist concept of emptiness in relation to the Western idea of the nothing. Both authors cannot be adequately aware of the changing senses and complex argumentative discourses addressing the Sanskrit expression śūnyatā and the Chinese term kong 空 and do not recognize the problem of translating emptiness as nothing or void. We can trace in their writings moments of how the reception of Buddhist emptiness became interculturally interconnected with and a source for arguments concerning the nature of being and nothing in modern European philosophy. Relying on the same range of historical sources that were then becoming available in the modern German speaking world, Hegel and Schopenhauer perceived related philosophical questions in these sources, while arriving at conflicting diagnoses of their philosophical and practical significance. Bibliography Eric S. Nelson is Associate Professor of Humanities at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. He works on Chinese, German, and Jewish philosophy. He is the author of Chinese and Buddhist Philosophy in Early Twentieth-Century German Thought (Bloomsbury, 2017) and Levinas, Adorno, and the Ethics of the Material Other (SUNY Press, 2019). He has published over seventy articles and book chapters and is the editor of Interpreting Dilthey: Critical Essays (Cambridge University Press, 2019). He co-edited with François Raffoul the Bloomsbury Companion to Heidegger (Bloomsbury, expanded paperback edition 2016) and Rethinking Facticity (SUNY Press, 2008); with John Drabinski, Between Levinas and Heidegger (SUNY Press, 2014); with Giuseppe D'Anna and Helmut Johach, Anthropologie und Geschichte: Studien zu Wilhelm Dilthey aus Anlass seines 100. Todestages (Königshausen & Neumann, 2013); and with Antje Kapust and Kent Still, Addressing Levinas (Northwestern University Press, 2005). He has also edited special topic issues of Frontiers of Philosophy in China and the Journal of Chinese Philosophy.