<p>Modern Cantonese is generally considered not to have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_sandhi#What_is_and_is_not_tone_sandhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">tone sandhi</a> (in Chinese, 變調, but also more specifically 連續變調), that is to say, changes in the tonal values when in certain phonetic contexts.</p>
<p>Cantonese does have a phenomenon of lexical <em>derivation</em> which involves a change of tone, known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changed_tone" rel="nofollow noreferrer">變音 or changed tone</a>; many discussions consider both these tone changes together. This has been dubbed a <em>tonal morpheme</em> e.g. on page 32 of <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=D328u70WNgMC&amp;pg=PA32" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Tone Sandhi: Patterns across Chinese Dialects</em></a>, and a more comprehensive survey can be found in section 1.4.2 (starting page 29) of <em><a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bRCsAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA29" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Cantonese: A Comprehensive Grammar</a></em>. Several triggers exist, including (with the romanisation used being <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyutping" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Jyutping</a>):</p>
<ul>
<li>Contraction: <a href="http://www.cqvip.com/qk/87478x/201211/44130232.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">One paper (in Chinese)</a> specifically puts the trigger for this down to the deletion of <code>一 jat1 /jɐt5/</code>;</li>
<li>Reduplication: Especially when followed with the suffix <code>哋 dei2 /tei35/</code> as well as in onomatopoeia;</li>
<li>Certain classifiers when used as nouns;</li>
<li>Dimunitive function, especially with names after the prefixes <code>阿 aa3 /aa33/</code> and <code>老 lou5 /lou24/</code>;</li>
<li>Kinship terms, especially direct vocatives for family members.</li>
</ul>
<p>This &quot;morpheme&quot; generally surfaces as a rising tone /35/, akin to the 陰上 (2) tone. For some select ones, mainly kinship terms, it becomes high level tone /55/ (1); and for others, both parts change, to either /21 _ 35/ (4 _ 2) or /21 _ 55/ (4 _ 1) (e.g. <code>弟弟 dai4-dai2 /tɐi21 tɐi35/</code> and <code>哥哥 go4-go1 /kɔ21 kɔː55/</code>)</p>
<p>Nonetheless, many older papers on Cantonese describe a real tonal sandhi process for the high falling tone (53 in Chao's tone numbers), which was a specific variant of the 陰平 tone (often dubbed tone 1, e.g. in Cantonese romanisation systems). Before other 陰平 tones, the high falling tone would become a high level tone:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[53 _ 53|55] ⇒ [55 _ 53|55]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The 1982 paper <em><a href="https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/id/78730/UBC_1982_A1%20T74.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The acquisition of Cantonese phonology</a></em> notes that this had been contested in the 1970s, and questioned the existence of the existence of the high-falling tone in the Cantonese in an infant growing up in Guangzhou during the period. The paper itself shows that by the 1980s, the distinction <code>三 /sa:m53/</code> vs <code>衫 /sa:m55/</code> was extinct among the parents.</p>
<p>The 1997 <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DTtyU2CC-B8C&amp;pg=PA120" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Modern Cantonese Phonology</em></a> states that the majority of Cantonese speakers in Guangzhou retain the distinction, and also retain the sandhi law (<a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DTtyU2CC-B8C&amp;pg=PA162" rel="nofollow noreferrer">section 2.10</a>). But in modern <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bRCsAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA27" rel="nofollow noreferrer">colloquial Hong Kong Cantonese</a> the /53/ &quot;tone&quot; is only commonly preserved as the principal realisation in certain sentence-final particles, such as 先 or 添, and some contractions; otherwise it is not distinguished from the tone /55/. With the gradual passing of this distinction, the sandhi rule has ended up becoming obsolete as the two tones coalesced into one.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2014-09-16T17:37:38.603Z
2021-07-08T15:56:00.017Z
2021-07-08T15:56:00.017Z
Michaelyus
<p>In Mandarin, there is limited tone sandhi, mainly about third tones and the tone variations of <code>yi1</code> (one) and <code>bù</code> (not). By contrast, Min has sandhi rules for all tones, as illustrated by <a href="http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_sandhi#/image/File:Amoy_tones.svg" rel="noreferrer">this diagram</a>. So I was wondering: is there any sandhi in Cantonese? And if so, what are the sandhi rules?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-09T09:16:22.837Z
Yes but Wú (吴语, Shànghǎi area) has a lot, and very complicated !!!!
RROMANI BAXT
<cantonese><tones><topolect><sandhi>
Cantonese sandhi
# Cantonese sandhi

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-09-16)

In Mandarin, there is limited tone sandhi, mainly about third tones and the tone variations of `yi1` (one) and `bù` (not). By contrast, Min has sandhi rules for all tones, as illustrated by [this diagram](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_sandhi#/image/File:Amoy_tones.svg). So I was wondering: is there any sandhi in Cantonese? And if so, what are the sandhi rules?

**Tags:** cantonese, tones, topolect, sandhi
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Yes but Wú (吴语, Shànghǎi area) has a lot, and very complicated !!!!  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2014-09-16. Score: 11 | Accepted answer

Modern Cantonese is generally considered not to have [tone sandhi](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_sandhi#What_is_and_is_not_tone_sandhi) (in Chinese, 變調, but also more specifically 連續變調), that is to say, changes in the tonal values when in certain phonetic contexts.

Cantonese does have a phenomenon of lexical *derivation* which involves a change of tone, known as [變音 or changed tone](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changed_tone); many discussions consider both these tone changes together. This has been dubbed a *tonal morpheme* e.g. on page 32 of [*Tone Sandhi: Patterns across Chinese Dialects*](http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=D328u70WNgMC&pg=PA32), and a more comprehensive survey can be found in section 1.4.2 (starting page 29) of *[Cantonese: A Comprehensive Grammar](http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bRCsAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA29)*. Several triggers exist, including (with the romanisation used being [Jyutping](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyutping)):

* Contraction: [One paper (in Chinese)](http://www.cqvip.com/qk/87478x/201211/44130232.html) specifically puts the trigger for this down to the deletion of `一 jat1 /jɐt5/`;
* Reduplication: Especially when followed with the suffix `哋 dei2 /tei35/` as well as in onomatopoeia;
* Certain classifiers when used as nouns;
* Dimunitive function, especially with names after the prefixes `阿 aa3 /aa33/` and `老 lou5 /lou24/`;
* Kinship terms, especially direct vocatives for family members.

This "morpheme" generally surfaces as a rising tone /35/, akin to the 陰上 (2) tone. For some select ones, mainly kinship terms, it becomes high level tone /55/ (1); and for others, both parts change, to either /21 \_ 35/ (4 \_ 2) or /21 \_ 55/ (4 \_ 1) (e.g. `弟弟 dai4-dai2 /tɐi21 tɐi35/` and `哥哥 go4-go1 /kɔ21 kɔː55/`)

Nonetheless, many older papers on Cantonese describe a real tonal sandhi process for the high falling tone (53 in Chao's tone numbers), which was a specific variant of the 陰平 tone (often dubbed tone 1, e.g. in Cantonese romanisation systems). Before other 陰平 tones, the high falling tone would become a high level tone:

> [53 \_ 53|55] ⇒ [55 \_ 53|55]

The 1982 paper *[The acquisition of Cantonese phonology](https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/id/78730/UBC_1982_A1%20T74.pdf)* notes that this had been contested in the 1970s, and questioned the existence of the existence of the high-falling tone in the Cantonese in an infant growing up in Guangzhou during the period. The paper itself shows that by the 1980s, the distinction `三 /sa:m53/` vs `衫 /sa:m55/` was extinct among the parents.

The 1997 [*Modern Cantonese Phonology*](http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DTtyU2CC-B8C&pg=PA120) states that the majority of Cantonese speakers in Guangzhou retain the distinction, and also retain the sandhi law ([section 2.10](http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DTtyU2CC-B8C&pg=PA162)). But in modern [colloquial Hong Kong Cantonese](http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bRCsAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA27) the /53/ "tone" is only commonly preserved as the principal realisation in certain sentence-final particles, such as 先 or 添, and some contractions; otherwise it is not distinguished from the tone /55/. With the gradual passing of this distinction, the sandhi rule has ended up becoming obsolete as the two tones coalesced into one.


---

