@article{oai:kansai-u.repo.nii.ac.jp:00012564,
 author = {王, 娟},
 journal = {東アジア文化交渉研究 = Journal of East Asian cultural interaction studies},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {Voice in the philological studies of the Meiji Period was not translated into "aspect" as it is now but rather into "sou (相)" Otsuki Fumihiko however translated it as "tone" which 斉木・鷲尾 claimed to be "an excellent translated equivalent" (2012:130-150) He believed that this translated equivalent catered to the characteristics of Japanese, expanded the new concept of "voice" eliminated confusion and was a great contribution from Fumihiko's Grammar. As to the origin of "tone" 斉木・鷲尾 deemed that Fumihiko referred to a certain dictionary, most probably Webster's Dictionary (2012:130-150) But as for as the author of this paper is concerned, "tone" was a Chinese lexicon, and it is far from convincing that it was originated in an English dictionary. In light of this, this paper tries to discuss the origin of "tone" by a close examination of The Mandarin Chinese (1869) and Fumihiko's Explanation of Chinese Dictionary (1877), 文部科学省グローバルCOEプログラム 関西大学文化交渉学教育研究拠点, [東アジアの言語と表象]},
 pages = {27--35},
 title = {大槻文法における「口気」の来源考},
 volume = {11},
 year = {2018}
}