Linguistics in East Asia and South East Asia [Reprint 2019 ed.] 9783110814637, 9789027900234

De Gruyter Book Archive - OA Title

222 116 68MB

English Pages 998 [1004] Year 1967

Report DMCA / Copyright


Table of contents :
Recommend Papers

Linguistics in East Asia and South East Asia [Reprint 2019 ed.]
 9783110814637, 9789027900234

  • 0 0 0
  • Like this paper and download? You can publish your own PDF file online for free in a few minutes! Sign Up
File loading please wait...
Citation preview








Linguistics in East Asia and South East Asia Associate



Assistant Editor: JOHN R. KRUEGER

m 1967


© Copyright 1967 in The Netherlands. Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague. No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form by print photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.


Printed in The Netherlands by Mouton & Co., Printers, The Hague.


There have been two major shifts in editorial policy (discussed below) since the appearance of the first volume in this series five years ago (1963). The practical application of these, added to various production problems which had to be surmounted by our printer, notably in the composition of Chinese and Japanese characters, caused this book to be delayed in publication for nearly two years after the third volume had come out (in 1966). For this I apologize to our patient authors (whose manuscripts were ready in 1965), and to the National Science Foundation, the volume's generous and forbearing sponsor (whose grant GN 132, to the Indiana University Foundation, is also hereby gratefully acknowledged). With the appearance of this second volume, the series will be back on schedule, and the outline of the master plan for Current Trends in Linguistics, most recently given on pp. v-vi of Vol. Ill, should now be revised and expanded as follows. Vol-1, Soviet and East European Linguistics, which had been sold out by 1967, was reprinted and will again be available by the time Vol. II comes off the press. Vol. Ill, Theoretical Foundations, is still available as a whole, and the chapters by Chomsky, Greenberg, and Hockett in separate booklets as well (Janua Linguarum, Series Minor 56, 59, and 60 respectively). Vol. IV, Ibero-American and Caribbean Linguistics, is in the final stages of pageproof reading and will appear a few months after Vol. II, i.e., early in the Spring of 1968. Vol. V, Linguistics in South Asia, is completely composed and the authors and editors are currently reading their first proofs; the book should, therefore, appear late in 1968. Vol. VI, Linguistics in South West Asia and North Africa, is being prepared in collaboration with Associate Editors Charles A. Ferguson (Stanford University), Carleton T. Hodge (Indiana University), and Herbert H. Paper (University of Michigan), and Assistant Editors John R. Krueger (Indiana University) and Gene M. Schramm (University of Michigan). Some articles have been received, and this volume is scheduled to go to press early in the Fall of 1968, to appear sometime in 1969. Vol. VII, Linguistics in Sub-Saharan Africa, is being prepared in collaboration with Associate Editors Jack Berry (Northwestern University) and Joseph H. Greenberg



(Stanford University), and Assistant Editors David Crabb (Princeton University) and Paul Schachter (University of California, Los Angeles). Some articles have also been received, and the book is expected to go to press and appear simultaneously with Vol. VI. Vol. VIII, Oceanic Linguistics, is being prepared in collaboration with Associate Editors J. Donald Bowen (University of California, Los Angeles), Isidore Dyen (Yale University), George W. Grace (University of Hawaii), and Stephen A. Wurm (Australian National University), and Assistant Editor Geoffrey O'Grady (University of Victoria). It is expected to go to press in the Winter of 1968 and appear late in 1969. The Editorial Board for Vol. IX, Linguistics in Western Europe, consisting of Associate Editors Werner Winter (University of Kiel) and Einar Haugen (Harvard University), and Assistant Editor Curtis Blaylock (University of Illinois), has just this month agreed on the design of this book, and the Editor has, accordingly, sent letters of invitation to some forty potential contributors. The deadline for manuscripts has been set for the end of 1968, and they are expected to go to press in the Spring of 1969, envisaging a publication date early in 1970. For Vol. X, Linguistics in North America, the following Associate Editors have agreed to serve: William Bright (University of California, Los Angeles), Dell Hymes (University of Pennsylvania), John Lotz (Center for Applied Linguistics), Albert H. Marckwardt (Princeton University), and Jean-Paul Vinay (University of Victoria). This Editorial Board will meet initially in January, 1968, to design the table of contents, but inasmuch as the Editor does not expect to issue invitations until next Fall against some deadline in late 1969, the book is thus unlikely to appear before late 1970. At least two more volumes, as previously announced, are under consideration to round out this cycle sometime in the 1970's, but their thematic focus has not yet wholly crystallized. One of these, however, is certain to deal with linguistics in its relationships with adjacent arts and sciences; and the other probably with the three cardinal methods of language classification, the genetic, the areal, and the typological, with special reference to the scholarly literature concerning those extinct languages not treated in previous volumes. Correspondents and reviewers have also made some further suggestions, and the Editor would welcome constructive opinions as to the manner in which the series could be made maximally useful. I referred at the outset to certain changes in editorial policy, which I would now like to explain. The first of these has to do with the provenience of the contributors. In Vol. I, only five of the twenty-two were located at institutions outside the United States at the time of writing, and all but one of these five (who remains at the Hebrew University in Israel) are in Western Europe (embracing Finland). In Vol. Ill, only one among the nine contributors was from a foreign university (Geneva). It is no doubt a great convenience for me to be able to keep in close touch with all contributors (who, by Vol. X, will number more than two hundred). However, linguistics is and should be, in Roman Jakobson's words, "a joint and responsible work where the



former differences between workshops of single countries or even single continents step by step lose their pertinence". The game of editorial efficiency at the expense of the candle of parochialism does not seem worth playing. Therefore, my aim — with the unanimous support of all Associate Editors and Assistant Editors — is now to select the best and most knowledgeable collaborators available, regardless of their location or even fluency in English. Accordingly, and for example in this volume, one hundred percent of the authors in Part One, Section 2, are residents of Japan; for the preceding Section, although no collaborators could be enlisted from China, one does reside in Denmark. Of the five chapters in Part Two, two were authored, respectively, in The Netherlands and in England. Most of the articles dealing with aspects of Japanese linguistic activities had to be translated into English and then further edited with exceptional care; Associate Editor Yamagiwa's vast experience in just this area, combined with his fortuitous stay in Japan at the time when these were in preparation, and thus his personal contact with the authors, was, though not the only conceivable, surely the best way to insure that I could make our editorial intent known to the leading Japanese experts, while they gained access to every facility to lucidly communicate to our readers the results of their researches. In the preparation of the volumes to come, we have also paid heed, to the greatest extent possible, to this principle of global distribution of authorship. The second change in editorial policy has to do with the coverage intended in chapters bearing as a title a geopolitical entity — for example, in Vol. I, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, or Yugoslavia. The contributors to these chapters were informed that the editors desired a survey and assessment of the "current" (this was roughly delimited as from World War II to date) state of linguistic activity in the area designated. Although all significant linguistic activity was, in fact, meant, in most cases the treatment turned out to focus on the principal language of the country, with subsidiary languages and other topics being assigned lesser space. This, however, did not matter as much as the fact that important research dealing with the official language of a country carried on outside its borders — for example, Hungarian studies in the United States — had either to be handled out of context — say, in Vol. X — or to remain altogether untreated. The unity of the subject is thus destroyed or, at best, distorted. In this volume — as in those to appear — we are attempting to remedy this deficiency by asking the authors to extend their scope and to cover, where appropriate, the full range of linguistic work done in a country as well as that done outside bearing on the principal language or languages; hence such titles as "Linguistics in Cambodia and on Cambodian", in Vol. II. (On the other hand, it seemed just, for linguistic if not political reasons, to treat here Thailand and Laos in one chapter, and so also Indonesia and Malaysia; Indonesian, by the way, will again be reviewed from the perspective of Oceania in Vol. VIII.) I now should like to comment on the format of presentation in this volume, and in the series generally, because this will not radically differ from that in the first



volume for which a well-meaning but obviously inexperienced reviewer has taken me to task (see Language, Vol. 41, pp. 115-26). Because some chapters included an alphabetical bibliography and others did not, some had copious footnotes and others had none, some chapters were carefully organized into sections and sub-sections while others were essentially essayistic, he gained the impression that "substantial confusion seems to reign." To counter such a charge, I can only employ the cliché, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink". It should be made clear that every author has been issued precise and detailed guidelines by the Editorial Board concerned with his area. It is another truism that proclamations meaning to have the force of law are issued only by naive editors and are obeyed only by scholarly mediocrities. I believe that an editor's prime responsibility (as that of any academic administrator) is to choose the best available scholar for a given subject, explain to him what is wanted, provide him with all the assistance that can be given within existing budgetary limitations, and then leave him alone to treat his subject as he sees fit. An editor who attempts to straightjacket his contributors and fit them, in his wisdom, into some mold, will soon find himself, and deservedly so, dealing with second-raters. What are the guidelines issued to Current Trends contributors? First, the Linguistic Society of America style sheet (for this volume the one designed by the late Bernard Bloch was used), but with the understanding that this is not perfect and that deviations may frequently not be only desirable but also necessary. Second, the list of abbreviations used in the latest Linguistic Bibliography of the Permanent International Committee of Linguists, to which other abbreviations may be added in the light of the dictates of economy — all of which are then assembled and printed together in the Master List of Abbreviations for that volume. Members of the Editorial Board may add, and more often than not do, further suggestions of a substantive character, usually having to do with the temporal or spatial scope of the article wanted; but, in any case, the author himself remains the final judge of the content, the extent of coverage required, and the manner of treatment best suited to his subject — which, of course, varies enormously from field to field. Some special words need to be said about Wang's bibliography of Chinese linguistics. Into this bibliography Wang has, in addition to a vast number of entries of his own, endeavored to systematically incorporate references from all the other articles in the Chinese section. Since his bibliography has been computerized for future use, it seemed simplest to photocopy the printout as received from Professor Wang and integrate it in that form into the book. I understand that the compiler intends to periodically reissue the bibliography, with corrections and additions. The Assistant Editor, apart from the usual routine chores and in addition to overseeing locally the work of several successive editorial assistants — notably, Lois Sollenberger's — supervised the preparation of the indexes of language names and of persons cited in the volume. In a few instances, he found it scarcely possible to distinguish the names of minor or rare dialects from the names of the cities or regions



where they are spoken. Occurrences of such little-known dialects are invariably restricted to the particular article about that country or family. A remark should be made about the style and order of Oriental names. In the sections devoted to China and Japan, an Oriental order of last-name first is employed, hence, Li Fang-kuei, Hattori Shiro. However, when such an author writes in English, the normal Western order is used to refer to him. Despite vigilant checking, a few inconsistencies have no doubt escaped correction. The use of a standard transcription for Chinese has also raised some problems, and the individual authors have not always felt themselves bound to employ any given system. Further, the matter of citing one and the same person under more than one style of transcription has immensely complicated the work of the indexer. The user not knowledgeable in the extant transcription systems will be aided by cross-references incorporated into the indexes, and by the tables of competing systems appended after the indexes. The Editor wishes to express his gratitude to the twenty-three contributors and his four editorial associates for their splendid cooperation, and to the staff of Mouton & Co. Bloomington, December 25, 1967








China Historical Linguistics, by Nicholas Cleaveland Bodman Descriptive Linguistics, by Kun Chang Dialectology, by S0ren Egerod Language and Script Reform, by John DeFrancis National Languages, by Kun Chang Linguistics in Taiwan, by Fang-Kuei Li Bibliography of Chinese Linguistics, by William S-Y. Wang

3 59 91 130 151 177 188

Japan Historical Linguistics, Including Affiliations with Other Languages, by Tsukishima Hiroshi Descriptive Linguistics in Japan, by Hattori Shiro Dialectology, by Willem A. Grootaers Studies of the Ainu Language, by Tamura Suzuko Postwar Studies of the Chinese Language, by Tödö Akiyasu The Study of English in Japan, by Öta Akira Languages of South East Asia, by Mineya Töru The Writing System: Historical Research and Modern Development, by Yamada Toshio

503 530 585 608 633 645 683 693

Korea, Mongolia, Tibet Linguistics in the Republic of Korea, by Fred Lukoff



The Mongolian Peoples Republic, by Nicholas Poppe Tibet, by Turrell V. Wylie


758 766


Burma, by William S. Cornyn Thailand and Laos, by William J. Gedney Vietnam, by Laurence C. Thompson and David D. Thomas Indonesia and Malaysia, by E. M. Uhlenbeck Linguistics in Cambodia and on Cambodian, by Judith M. Jacob

777 782 815 847 899










N.B. The abbreviations are listed in the form in which the contributors have given them.

AAS Acad. Sin. (BIHP)

AcOr Actes 21e Congr. Or. Addresses AM AmA AnL AnnLat Anthropos AO AOH AP ARCS AsC Asia AsS AuÜ AuÜ Beih. BaBu BAW BCC BEFEO

Annuals of Academia Sinica Chung-yang yen-ch'iu-yiian yüan-k'an Academia Sinica (Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology). Volumes 1-21 were published on the mainland; beginning from volume 22 the Bulletin resumed publication on Taiwan Acta Orientalia, Copenhagen Actes du 21e Congrès International des Orientalistes. Addresses and papers at specialists' conference, Sept. 3-7, 1956 Asia Major, new series, London American Anthropologist. Menasha, Wise. Anthropological Linguistics, Bloomington, Indiana Annali Lateranensi, the Vatican Anthropos, Switzerland Archiv Orientâlni, Prague Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae Asian Perspectives Annual Reports on Culture and Science (Hokkaido, Sapporo) Asian Culture Asian Quarterly of Culture and Synthesis, Saigon Asiatische Studien, Bern Afrika und Übersee, Berlin Beihefte zu AuÜ Bahasa dan Budaja, Djakarta Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin Bulletin, the China Council for East Asian Studies Bulletin de l'École Française d'Extrême-Orient, Saigon


Beih. Berita BIHP (CYYY) BijdrTLV


Beihefte Berita Dinas Purbakala, Djakarta Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Taipei Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, uitgegeven door het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 's-Gravenhage BILT Bulletin of the Institute of Language Teachers, Waseda, Tokyo BMFEA Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, Stockholm BNMA Biiglide Nairamdakhu Mongol Ardyn ("Mongolian Peoples' Republic") BP Balai Pustaka, Djakarta BPTJ Biuletyn polskiego towarzystwa jçzykoznawczego BS Bibliographical Series BSEIC Bulletin de la Société des Études indochinoises BSL Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, London BSOS Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies BT The Bible Translator, London BTGU Bulletin of Tokyo Gakugei University, Tokyo Wen-shih-che hsüeh-pao, Bulletin of the College of Arts, BTU National Taiwan University Bull. Ch. St. Bulletin of Chinese Studies Bull. Univ. Aurore Sec. Bulletin of University of Aurore Section CAnthr Current Anthropology, Chicago CBKK or CBK Chügoku Bunka Kenkyuukai Kaihoo CBS Chûbânshè CG Chügokugogaku (Bulletin of the Chinese Language Society of Japan), Tokyo CGG Chuugokugo CGGG Chuugoku Gogaku (Kenkyuukai) CGGG KS Chuugoku Gogaku Kenkyuu Shuukan CGK Chuubun Gakkai Kaihoo CHHP Ts'ing-hua Hsüeh-pao Chin. Lit. Mo. Chinese Literature Monthly CHM Cahiers d'Histoire Mondiale, Journal of World History, Paris CIPL Bibliographie Linguistique de l'annee..., Publiée par le Comité International Permanent des Linguistes. 1939-1947, Utrecht-Anvers




Chung-kuo yü-wen (Chinese Language and Writing) Peking. Chung-kuo yü-wen ts'ung shu Conference on Linguistic Problems of the Indo-Pacific Area, London CR China Review CRS Colonial Research Studies, London CYYY See BIHP DAb Dissertation Abstracts, Ann Arbor, Michigan DL Dà Lù Zä Zhi DVN Dan Viet-nam, Saigon E English EFEO École Française d'Extrême Orient EG English Grammar EP English Philology Ethnology Ethnology. An International Journal of Culture and Social Anthropology, Pittsburgh ETM The English Teachers' Magazine ETS English Teachers' Series E &W East and West, Rome FA France-Asie Fed. Mu. J. Federation Museums Journal, Kuala Lumpur FEQ Far Eastern Quarterly (now JAS) FYHPTHCK Fang yen ho p'u t'ung hua ts'ung k'an FYYPTHJK Fang yen yü p'u t'ung hua chi k'an GK Gengö Kenkyü (Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan), Tokyo Harvard Yanj. Inst. St. Harvard-Yanjing Institute Studies HJAS Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Cambridge L'Homme L'Homme. Revue française d'anthropologie, Paris HRAF Human Relations Area Files HYZSJH Hàn Yü Zhï Shi Jiäng Huà IAE International Archives of Ethnography, Leiden IBK Indogaku Bukkyo-gaku kenkyü IJAL International Journal of American Linguistics IJAL Mem. IJAL Memoirs, Indiana University Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics IL Indian Linguistics. Journal of the Linguistic Society of India, Poona IndMadjKeb Indonesia Madjalah Kebudajaan IPA International Phonetic Alphabet IRLT Bulletin Bulletin of Institute for Research in Language Teaching J Japanese





Journal of Sinological Studies Journal Asiatique, Paris Journal of American Folklore, Philadelphia Journal of the American Oriental Society, New Haven, Conn. Journal of Asian Studies, New York Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal Journal of East Studies, Manila Japanese with English Summary Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society Jen-min jih-pao, The People's Daily U. S. Joint Publications Research Service The Journal of the Polynesian Society, (New Zealand) Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, London JRAS North China Branch JRAS New Series Journal de la Société des Océanistes, Paris Kyoto Daigaku Bungakubu, Bulletin of the Faculty of Letters KD = Karlgren's Analytical Dictionary. Professor Boodberg issued several memoranda concerning the above work and entitled them KD Notes Kokugo Gaku (Studies in the Japanese Language) Konfrontasi, Djakarta Kratkie soobscenija AN SSR Instituta Ètnografii Kratkie soobscenija Instituta narodov Azii, Moscow Kratkie soobscenija Instituta vostokovedenija, Moscow Kexue Tongbao, i.e., Science Journal Leuvense Bijdragen, Louvain Language Leningradskii Gosudarstvennii Universitet (Leningrad State University) Lingua. International Review of General Linguistics, Amsterdam Linguistic Survey of India Medan Bahasa, Djakarta Medan Ilmu Pengetahuan, Djakarta Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung, Berlin Madjalah Ilmu-Ilmu Sastra Indonesia, Djakarta Minzokugaku kenkyü (The Japanese Journal of Ethnology) Tokyo Le Maître phonétique. London




Monumenta Serica, Los Angeles Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne, Helsinki Mitteilungen des Seminars fur Orientalische Sprachen Mongolyn sudlalyn zarim asuudal Narody Azii i Afriki Nihon Chuugoku Gakkaihoo Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap, Oslo Oceania, Sidney Oceania Linguistic Monographs, Sidney Oriens Extremus, Wiesbaden Osaka Gaikokugo Daigaku Gakuhô, Journal of the Osaka University of Foreign Studies Oceanic Linguistics Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, Berlin Orbis. Bulletin international de documentation linguistique, Louvain Oriens. Journal of the International Society for Oriental Research Olon ulsyn mongol xel bicgijn erdemtny angdugaar ix xural, Mongolia Ostasiatische Zeitschrift Pacific Affairs Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia Publication de l'École Française d'Extrême Orient Pembina Bahasa Indonesia, Djakarta Philippine Journal of Science, Manila Phonetica. International Journal of Phonetics Publications of the Linguistic Circle of Saigon Project on Linguistic Analysis, The Ohio State University Philippine Society of Science and Humanities Review, Quezon City Bulletin Onsei-gakkai kaiho (The Bulletin of the Phonetic Society of Japan) Problemy vostokovedeniya Plnyïn Romanica Gandensia, Gent Rocznik Orientalistyczny, Warszawa The Sarawak Museum Journal Studies in Descriptive and Applied Linguistics Studies in English Grammar and Linguistics Studies iij English Literature, Tokyo. Eibungaku-kenkyu




Sekai Gengo Gaisetsu (An Introduction to the Languages of the World), Vol. II Studia Instituti Anthropos, Vienna Studies in Linguistica, Buffalo, N.Y. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology Studia Linguistica, Lund-Copenhagen Sociologus, Berlin Sovetskaja Etnografija Studies from the Research Institute for Northern Culture, Hokkaido, Sapporo Slovo a Slovesnost, Praha Shao-shu min-tsu yü-wen lun-chi Shaoshu minzu yuwen lunji Society Science Review Tijdschrift voor de Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, Batavia Te Reo. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of New Zealand, Auckland, N.Z. Toyö Gakuhö Tokyo Gaikokugo Daigaku ronshu Toohoogaku or Töhögaku Transactions of the International Conference of Orientalists on Japan, Tokyo Ta-lu Tsa-chih (The Continent Magazine) T'oung Pao. Archives concernant l'Histoire, les langues, la geographie et les arts de l'Asie Orientale, Leiden Transactions of the Philological Society, Oxford Tribus. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie und ihre Nachbarwissenschaften vom Linden-Museum, Stuttgart Translations Series, The Hague Tijdschrift Nieuw-Guinea, The Hague Tooyoogaku Hoo University of California Publications in American Archeology and Ethnology Ucenye Zapiski, Institut mezdunarodnych otnosenij, Moskva. Ucenye Zapiski. Leningradskogo ordena Lenina gosudarstvennogo Universiteta im. A. A. Zdanova Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Bataviaas Genootschap van Künsten en Wetenschappen, Bandung Vän-hoa Nguyet-san, Saigon Voprosy jazykoznanija, Moskva





Verhandelingen van het koninklijke Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, The Hague Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeling Letterkunde. Nieuwe reeks, Amsterdam Vestnik Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Leningrad Tap San Nghien cüu Vän Su Dia, Hanoi Veröffentlichungen des Seminars für Indonesische und Südseesprachen der Universität Hamburg, Berlin Wending. Maandblad voor Evangelie en Cultuur, The Hague Wen Lam Xue Bao Word. Journal of the Linguistic Circle of New York Wen Zi Gäi Ge Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes Yanjing Journal of Chinese Studies Yenching Journal of Chinese Studies Yufa lunchu-chang Yu-wen hsüeh hsi, Peking Yü-Wen Xue Xi Yü-yen-hsüeh lun-ts'ung (Essays on Linguistics) Yü yen hsüeh lun ts'ung Yu-yen yen-chiu Yü Yän Yän Jiü Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Wiesbaden Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen-Sprachen, Berlin Beihefte zur ZES Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie, Braunschweig Zhong Guo Yu Wen Zhong guo yuwen cong shu Zeitschrift für Phonetik and Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berün Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung, Berün







The literature on Chinese historical linguistics is already very large, and indeed unti very recently at least, the history of the language and its writing system has been the major focus of attention for scholars writing on the Chinese language. These writings are now becoming more and more voluminous, and many of them deserve more than ever before to be characterized as having real linguistic value, in the modern sense of the term, whereas the earlier writings in this field pertain more to a traditional philological or sinological approach. 1 The native Chinese tradition of phonological studies had, in particular, reached a high degree of sophistication during the Ch'ing dynasty. This discipline2 has in fact made a generally happy marriage with modern Western linguistics. In surveying the major developments from the time of the Second World War to the present, I shall attempt to cover the most important current trends in the fields of historical phonology, morphology and syntax in writings dealing with the history of the Chinese language only,3 excepting where I touch upon comparative linguistic studies which would relate Chinese to other linguistic groups. The many works of a purely philological or text-critical nature and those having to do with semantic problems are not dealt with here. Important and numerous as they are, historical studies of lexical items are not treated here unless they are significant in a broader way or deal with matters having some phonological, morphological, or syntactic import. Similarly, I have not attempted any coverage of the large and important 1 The most important studies of the past twenty-five years are listed alphabetically by author in the Selected Bibliography at the end of this chapter. All references by short title with date of publication appearing in the footnotes refer to this bibliography. All of the items in the Selected Bibliography, and any other publications referred to in the text and footnotes, are also incorporated in the comprehensive Bibliography of Chinese Linguistics, Chapter 7. 2 Including yin-yiin-hsiieh, 'traditional phonology', ku-yin-hsiieh, 'studies of ancient sounds', teng-yiin-hsueh, 'study of the rhyme tables'. The very recent article by G. B. Downer, "Traditional Chinese phonology", Transactions of the Philological Society, pp. 127-42 (1963), deals particularly with different systems of fan-ch'ieh spellings. 3 The content of this chapter departs in this respect from that of most of the articles in Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 1. No mention is made here of writings by Chinese linguists on general historical linguistics or on the historical linguistics of languages other than Chinese. Such writings form only a minuscule proportion of what Chinese linguists have written.



body of writings on paleography and epigraphy since this study is in itself not strictly relevant to a discussion of the language.4 It is natural that the modern linguistic approach to the study of Chinese should initially have come in the main through the work of Western scholars. The situation nowadays is different. Western linguistic techniques have been well assimilated by the best of the Chinese scholars, and this fact is in itself an instance of a very important trend in the Chinese linguistics of today. However, the contribution to Chinese linguistics by writers from Japan, Europe, and America is very notable indeed and this survey must give due weight to the large number of writings done by such foreign scholars.5 For many years the name of the eminent Swedish sinologist, Bernhard Karlgren, overshadowed all others in the field of Chinese historical linguistics. His influence was paramount in China as in the scholarly world at large, for it was chiefly through his writings that the techniques of Western historical linguistics (as developed to about 1920) were applied to the study of Chinese, and it was mainly the stimulus of his work that has led to the present great resurgence of interest and new developments in this field. The contributions of this one man have been enormous, and if some of his work now begins to be outdated, or is controverted in part by newer studies based on more modern approaches, one cannot fail to give him a large share of the credit for our present systematic knowledge of the older stages of Chinese; certainly it is chiefly through his writings that the Western scholarly world has been made aware of the fascinating and intricate problems in Chinese historical linguistics. Karlgren's work still stands as a generally firm foundation upon which new studies can be based. His notation for Ancient Chinese (600 A.D.) and Archaic Chinese (about 800 B.C.) 6 is in common use, and he himself remains an extraordinarily productive scholar to this day. Starting from the early nineteen-forties, there has been a steadily increasing number of works whose authors have in one way or another taken issue with Karlgren. He is no longer universally considered the absolute authority on historical phonology, but the swing away from him has been a gradual process involving not only the discovery and dissemination of new phonetic data, but also a strongly growing tendency to interpret the data within a phonemic frame of reference. While some scholars still follow Karlgren closely in his avowedly nonphonemic presentation of the Ancient Chinese forms, others would substitute new phonetic interpretations; yet others have worked along phonemic lines while generally accepting Karlgren's phonetic analysis. Most recently, there have appeared studies which would not only revise details of the phonetic data, but which would treat the new 4 References to recent works on philological or paleographic matters may be found in the general bibliographical references given at the beginning of Selected Bibliography at the end of this chapter. 5 The inclusion here of works by foreign authors is another departure from the procedure generally followed in Volume 1 of this series. 6 As registered for both periods in the standard reference work, Grammata Serica Recensa, Karlgren, 1957.



findings in terms of a phonemic systematization. All these newly developed approaches will be described in some detail below, but the point at issue here is that the focus has now largely shifted away from Karlgren, and the present trend is characterized by diversity and great vitality. It is a time when major breakthroughs can be expected; it is the beginning of a new era in Chinese linguistics. One can no longer speak of the 'Karlgren age' since this new period has many spokesmen. Evidence of the lively new spirit is reflected in the title of Paul B. Denlinger's eloquent and important article: 'Chinese historical linguistics: The road ahead'. 7


Rather than following a strictly chronological order of presentation in recounting the developments of the past twenty-five years, it is more convenient to deal in sequence with the major topical fields, subdividing these where necessary according to the significant historical stages of the language. The major emphasis is on phonological research because of its primary importance and the large number of contributions on the subject. In dealing with Archaic Chinese, it will be more convenient to include studies on morphology with phonological work since morphological alternations have been important in contributing to the phonological analysis. New studies on syntax are mostly on the classical language, and will be discussed separately. In consonance with the principle that the further back we go in time the less data we have and that these data also become increasingly hard to interpret, this account will mostly be set down in an inverse chronological order of the historical periods. Dealing first with the more recent stages of the language is a procedure that emphasizes our dependence on knowledge of the data of one period for our generally, lesser knowledge of earlier periods. The methods of recovering information on the various older periods of Chinese are perforce very different from those used for languages that have old records in an alphabetic script. In order to make this matter clear to the non-specialist, I have found it necessary to go into considerable detail and at times to present the background of a problem in my own terms. I have tried to do this objectively, but may not always have been successful in repressing my personal views and preferences. Before treating the various subjects in detail, it may be helpful at this point to say a few words of a general nature, making some mention of the chief scholars and their particular specializations as well as listing the main works of a general nature that either cover the history of the language as a whole or that concern themselves with more than one of the major topics that we take up in more detail in subsequent sections. The three most famous linguists in China before 1939 were Chao Yuan-jen (Yuen-Ren Chao), Lo Ch'ang-p'ei, and Li Fang-Kuei, all members of Academia 7

Denlinger, 1961.



Sinica. Their influence on younger scholars through their writings and teaching has been very great. Among the latter, Wang Li, Chou Tsu-mo, Chou Fa-kao, and Tung T'ung-ho have with Chao, Lo, and Li all been leaders in Chinese linguistics. We must also add the name of Lu Chih-wei, who has contributed much of value in his linguistic studies. Chao has written very widely in linguistics. His most important article on historical phonology is "Distinctions within Ancient Chinese" ;8 but he has concentrated on descriptive studies of Chinese dialects and present-day Mandarin. Lo was the foremost scholar on historical phonology and also did some outstanding dialect studies where he combined the descriptive and historical aspects. Li has long specialized on the descriptive and comparative linguistics of Tai, and on American Indian linguistics as well. Wang Li and Lu Chih -wei have worked a great deal on phonological matters, but have both been very interested in syntax, not only of the ancient language, but also of modern Chinese. Chou Tsu-mo has worked on the ancient phonology and ancient dialects. Both Chou Fa-kao and Tung T'ung-ho have been prominent as phonologists. Chou Fa-kao has done work in all aspects of Chinese historical linguistics and Tung has worked also on dialects and synchronic linguistics. Of these men, Chao and Li have long taught in the United States, and after 1949, Tung and Chou Fa-Kao followed Academia Sinica to Taiwan. The other scholars mentioned above, and indeed the greater number of all linguists, remained on the Chinese Mainland. Although political developments caused this physical dispersion of many scholars, the new political situation does not seem to have had any very marked effect on the scholarly quality of Chinese linguistic work. Apart from Lo Ch'ang-p'ei who died in 1958 and Tung T'ung-ho who died in 1963, all these scholars are still producing work of the highest worth. I shall dispense here with mentioning the names of all the eminent foreign linguists and sinologists who, with Karlgren, have all so enriched the study of Chinese historical linguistics, and refer the reader instead to the Selected Bibliography which appears at the end of this chapter. Two of the most distinguished, however, have so greatly influenced the development of Chinese linguistics that we cannot pass them by in silence: Henri Maspero who, with Karlgren, contributed more than any other Westerner to the reconstruction of the old language, and George A. Kennedy, who was interested in all aspects of Chinese linguistics. Maspero died in 1945 so he barely falls within the time limits of this survey. Kennedy died in 1960, but almost all of his work falls well within the dates with which we are concerned. General works on Chinese historical linguistics have been surprisingly few. The most complete coverage of the whole field is undoubtedly Wang Li's Han-yii Shihkao [History of the Chinese language]9 where phonology, morphology and syntax are all described in an excellent comprehensive treatment. Another broad and detailed study, including only a brief sketch of the phonological system, is Chou 8 9

Chao, 1940. Wang Li, 1957.



Fa-kao's Chung-kuo Ku-tai Yii-fa [A Historical grammar of Ancient Chinese]10 where the coverage of the grammar under the volumes headed Morphology, Syntax, and Substitution is most thorough and exhaustive. W.A.C.H. Dobson in two ambitious works has given a meticulous analysis of the grammar of Classical Chinese of two periods: his Grammar of Late Archaic Chinese and Grammar of Early Archaic Chinese11 respectively. Since all the classics and other old Chinese books are always read with the modern pronunciation of the characters, Dobson follows a general practice in not devoting much attention to the phonology except where fusions or 'allegro forms' are involved. Two other books, both entitled The Chinese language, one by R. A. D. Forrest12 and the other by Karlgren,13 deserve some claim to the generality implicit in this title, but good as they are as introductions to the subject, they deal rather lightly with syntax. Both works are concerned mainly with phonology and problems of reconstruction. In addition, Forrest's book devotes a good many pages to the dialects and to questions of ultimate linguistic affiliation. Five important volumes of collected works have appeared within the last few years. They are, in order of publication: Chou Tsu-mo, Han-yii Yin-ytin Lun-wen-chi [Collected papers on Chinese phonology], (Shanghai, 1957); Han-yii-shih Lun-wen-chi [Collected works on the history of the Chinese language], by Wang Li, (Peking, 1958); Lo Ch,ang-p,ei Yti-yen-hsiieh Lun-wen Hsiian-chi [Selected works of Lo Ch'ang-p'ei on linguistics], The Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of Linguistics and Philology, (Peking, 1963); Chou Fa-kao, Chung-kuo Yii-wen Lun-ts'ung [Collected articles on Chinese language], (Taipei, 1963); and Selected works of George A. Kennedy, edited by Tien-yi Li, (New Haven, 1964). All of these collections contain articles of the highest importance, many of which are now very hard to find in the original journals. Although most of the studies appearing in the volume devoted to Lo's works appeared initially before 1939, they include some of the most significant writings on Chinese phonology. The collection of Kennedy's articles ranges from phonology through morphology and syntax and all exhibit his customary brilliance and originality. Chinese linguists, in addition to publishing in academic journals such as the Yenching Journal of Chinese Studies, and others, frequently had their articles published in the Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. Following the removal of Academia Sinica to Taiwan, new government-sponsored scholarly journals came into being. Three important new publications for historical linguistics are Yu-yen Yen-chiu [Linguistic research], Yu-yen-hsueh Lun-ts'ung [Collected articles on linguistics], and especially Chung-kuo Yii-wen [Chinese language and writing].1* The latter is the only regularly appearing periodical on linguistics. Its more recent issues over the last several years have been of high quality. 10

Chou Fa-kao; Parts 1, 2 and 3 appeared in 1961,1962 and 1959 respectively. Dobson, 1959 and 1962. 12 Forrest, 1948. 13 Karlgren, 1949. 14 Usually spelled as Pinyin ' Yuyan Yanjiu', ' Yuyanxue Liutcong', and 'Zhongguo spectively. 11

Yuwen' re-



3.1 The Background of Ancient Chinese studies The Chinese written language is well known to be morphemic in nature. The graphs with few exceptions stand for morphemes of one syllable each. Apart from the monosyllabic character of the graphs, they convey very little phonetic information when considered synchronically since even the preponderant type of Chinese character which includes recurrent partials as 'phonetic' components is based on the language of over two thousand years ago. Ancient texts are read with the modern pronunciation of the graphs, which of course varies according to dialect, and because of this, the reader is usually unconcerned with and indeed is quite unaware of the sounds of the ancient language. The reconstruction of the phonology of various periods could be accomplished by the usual techniques of comparative linguistics and internal reconstruction, using the modern dialect forms as a basis, yet this seemingly obvious procedure has never been completely and methodically carried out. (Chinese usage commonly has 'dialect' in a loose as well as in a more precise sense. Loosely used, it refers to regional speech which should properly be called 'language', such as Mandarin, Wu, Hakka, etc. Stricter usage refers to Mandarin dialects, the Peking dialect, etc. When old varieties of Chinese come into question, however, the data is often insufficient to determine whether it is language or merely dialect differences that are involved. Reconstruction from modern forms should proceed step by step from smaller to larger groupings with proto-Chinese as the ultimate construct). One reason is that well-based synchronic studies of the dialects have only very recently been attempted, but we can hope that soon there will be sufficient good data for this to be possible. However, the chief reason why reconstruction from the base of the living language has not been done is because we possess relatively complete data of an entirely different kind on a form of Chinese dating from 601 A.D. which is very strongly correctable with the modern dialects. This is what Karlgren calls Ancient Chinese and what has also been more appropriately named Middle Chinese by some authorities.15 It is the language of the Ch'ieh-yiin, T'ang-yiin, and Kuang-yun tradition where the words are arranged by tone and finals into a large number of 'rhyme categories'. Homophones are grouped together with a fan-ch'ieh spelling consisting of two characters: one character to represent the initial and the other to represent the final. These rhyme books do not in themselves separate out the initials from the finals, but there is a traditional list of initials belonging with the Chieh-yun tradition. 16 By about the end of the T'ang dynasty or the beginning of Sung, we find the CKiehyiin material appearing in the form of 'rhyme tables' listed now according to the initials and further specified into four 'divisions' according to the vowel quality of the rhyme and the presence or absence of a 'medial' element which may occur between 15 16

By French scholars generally, and recently by Pulleyblank. Conveniently listed in Martin, 1953. pp. 13-4.



the initial and the nuclear vowel of the final.17 This tradition includes the further specification of the finals as being unrounded or rounded (the latter having a medial of high back quality) and also as belonging either to an 'inner series' nei chuan or an 'outer series' wai chuan which further characterize the finals according to vowel quality; the former comprising in general the higher vowel qualities, and the latter including the lower vowel qualities.18 The CWieh-yiin tradition as embodied in the rhyme tables certainly represents a later stage, perhaps dating to about 1000 A.D., but most phonologists including Karlgren have not hesitated to take the rhyme table evidence into account when reconstructing the CKieh-yun Language.19 The foregoing summary of the rhyme books shows that although the Chinese authors of the rhyme books lacked a notation in terms of purely phonetic symbols, nevertheless there was a highly developed system of classification with a specialized terminology long before Karlgren and his predecessors undertook to interpret these rather formulaic categorizations in terms of phonetic symbols. The assignment of phonetic values made use of data from the modern dialects, but was made primarily to fit the distinctions of the rhyme books. The reconstruction also gave great weight to the forms of Chinese loanwords in Sino-Japanese, Sino-Korean and Sino-Vietnamese. Foreign borrowings and transliterations of Sanskrit Buddhist terms were also of great importance in reconstructing the phonetic values of the rhyme categories. The important point of all this discussion is not to belittle this impressive achievement but merely to emphasize once again that this reconstructed language is only indirectly and incompletely based on living language as exhibited in current dialect forms. The modern dialect forms used by Karlgren are usually the character readings as pronounced in the various dialects and in some cases these differ markedly from the genuine spoken forms.20 Karlgren believes that his Ancient Chinese is the genuine protolanguage from which all modern dialects are descended with the exception of the Min (Fukienese) dialects. Kennedy's contrary opinion is worth quoting: "It has to be recognized as a general weakness in Karlgren's evaluative work that it is so precariously based in modern dialects. The dialect glossary which forms Part IV of the Phonologie chinoise lists an impressive 26, of which, however, the first four are 17

See Martin, 1953, p. 24. Lo Ch'ang-p'ei, p $$ Shih Nei Wai Chuan ["On the Meaning of nei and wai Groups"], CYYY 4.209-26 (1933), reprinted in Selected Works of Lo Ch'ang-p'ei on Linguistics, 1963, pp. 87103. Also see tables in Chao, 1940, pp. 232-3, and Martin, 1953, p. 38. 19 Karlgren, 1954, p. 217; Wang Li's chapter on rhyme tables, p. 121 of Han-yii Yin-yiin-hsueh, 1957. 20 See the forms registered in the list of dialect forms in Vol. IV of Études sur la phonologie chinoise (Leyde et Stockholm, 1915-26), and in Analytic dictionary of Chinese and Sino-Japanese (Paris, 1923). Here are many cases where certain dialect forms with irregular correspondences to the Ancient Chinese forms are pointed out by Karlgren and many cases of divergence between literary readings and popular forms, especially in the Min dialects. Willem A. Grootaers has pointed out many cases where the popular words in Mandarin dialects differ from the standard reading pronunciation. See Grootaers, 1943, and his "Linguistic geography of the Hsiian-hua region, Chahar province", CYYY 29.59-86 (1957). 18



non-Chinese, and the last sixteen are Mandarin. The Wu dialects are given only one representative, Shanghai, . . . there are questions concerning whole series of sounds. When the word for 'mountain' is archaic san, T sae, C san, but Mandarin shan, it is evidently showing a strong Mandarin bias to give shan for ancient Chinese. This bias may be there in the Kuang-yiin, which is after all the organized phonological system with which we have to work; and if two varieties of initial sibilant are shown in that system in minimal contrast, we are bound to distinguish them. But it will not seem very convincing to set up the formula for Tangsic as sae * < anc. shan < arch. san. At best, then, the current evaluation of ancient Chinese must be described for ancient northern Chinese, with another system for ancient southern Chinese, yet to be determined. Before assuming two separate systems, however, it is prudent and pertinent to inquire whether any modifications suggested by southern dialects can be made in the accepted sound-values for ancient Chinese without disturbing the phonological system shown in Kuang-yiin."21 Karlgren, moreover, asserts that Ancient Chinese is "essentially the dialect of Ch'ang-an in Shensi; during the lapse of the T'ang era it became a kind of Koiné, the language spoken by the educated circles in the leading cities and centres all over the country, except the coastal province of Fukien." 22 In a footnote to this passage he adds: "It stands to reason that the lowest strata of the population in various provinces to a large extent preserved their vulgar dialects and that traces of these 'pre-T'ang' dialects are still discernible in various t'u-hua vernaculars." The equating of Ancient Chinese to any one dialect is very much a disputed matter. For instance, E. G. Pulleyblank in his important article "The consonantal system of Old Chinese" 23 says "It may be that no one dialect in A.D. 600 retained all the distinctions made by the Ch'ieh-yiin but we may feel reasonably sure that all the distinctions were to be found currently in some variety of cultivated speech." In this he shows close agreement with Karlgren. Nonetheless, Pulleyblank positively rejects the assumption that Ancient Chinese was based on the dialect of Ch'ang-an. Rather he says that it reflects mainly the speech of educated people from the lower Yangtze region, and in this he is following Lo's observations that one particular Ch'ieh-yun contrast in finals was only observed in poetry by men from this very region. 24 Perhaps this is not enough to prove the case for the lower Yangtze region, but Pulleyblank's next remarks are convincing in excluding the Ch'ang-an dialect as forming the basis of Ch'ieh-yun: "That the standard at the beginning of the seventh century was not that of Ch'ang-an is evident from the marked change in the system of transcribing Sanskrit sounds that 21 Kennedy, 1952, Item I, especially Lg. 28 pp. 459-60 (1952) or Selected works, pp. 188-9. T stands for Tangsic and C for Cantonese. 22 Karlgren, 1954, p. 212. 23 Pulleyblank, 1962-3. _ 24 Lo Ch'ang-p'ei ij] f j & M ft R PJf W it "Ch'ieh-yiin yii yii chih Yin-chih chi ch'i so Chti Fang-yin K'ao" ["On the values of the Ch'ieh-yiin rhymes yii and yii and the Ancient dialect on which their distinction was based"], CYYY2 (1931). Reprinted in Selections, pp. 1-21.



becomes apparent from the end of the seventh century onward when the Ch'ang-an dialect did become the standard." 25 The disagreement with Karlgren's views that bears the most weight is not so much the question of which one dialect forms the basis of Ancient Chinese but rather the belief that it was an artificial construct, a kind of 'overall system' based on many dialects. This is indicated very strongly by the preface of the Chieh-ytin itself26 and can be inferred from the complexity of the phonological system and the large number of multiple pronunciations that occur for some characters when there is no corresponding meaning difference. This view, shared by the majority of Chinese phonologists, is very well expressed in Samuel E. Martin's The phonemes of Ancient Chinese where he says that "Others feel the material to be more 'homogenized'—eclectic in nature, a sort of standardized national literary language normalized by the compilers."27 Denlinger, in "Chinese Historical Linguistics: The road ahead", shows how Wang Li regards the composition of the Ch'ieh-ytin: "The editors used synchronic distinctions to reveal diachronic patterns . . . They would consult each other. Do you pronounce these characters alike or differently in your dialect? When they were different in any representative dialect, they made distinctions in 'Ancient Chinese'. When they found distinctions in ancient pronunciation, they would search until they found an equivalent distinction in a current dialect. Thus 'Ancient Chinese' had the maximum number of distinctions possible on the basis of the dialects consulted . . . In other words, all the contemporary natural dialects were less complex than the imposed 'standard' language." 28 As more work is done on the subject, it becomes increasingly clear that Ancient Chinese is not based on any one spoken dialect and may not even be strictly based on divergent dialect material of any one time.29 Poetic rhymes of the T'ang dynasty constantly violate the Ch'ieh-ytin 'rhyme' categories, pointing to a much simpler phonological system.30 Since the Ch'ieh-ytin is constituted on such a wide dialect base, it is not surprising that the modern dialects correlate as well as they do with its phonological system. Of course a good correlation also exists with Karlgren's Archaic Chinese since this is largely a backwards projection of his Ancient Chinese reconstructions. Actually we can be confident of the validity of much of the Archaic Chinese reconstructions since these 'projections' so largely coincide with other phonological data which are deducible from synchronic materials. Thus the construct 'Ancient Chinese', notwithstanding its syncretic nature and certain artificialities, is indeed of very considerable value if one wishes to use it working either forward or backward in time. At any rate, Ancient Chinese is so very 25

Pulleyblank, 1962-3, p. 64. Martin, 1953, p. 4-5. See below, note 104 on Yen Chih-t'ui. 27 Martin, 1953, p. 4. 28 Denlinger, 1961, p. 5. 29 Martin, 1953, p. 18. 30 See Kennedy, 1954, especially Wennti 6.5-6 (1954) or 'Selections' p. 230, on t'ung-yung. The rhymes of many T'ang poets show an even greater latitude, going outside the t'ung-yung indications of the Kuang-yun. 26



firmly established in the Chinese phonological tradition that one can hardly operate without it. The danger that has always to be borne in mind is that in such a system there are irrelevancies and redundancies that may not be reflected in any modern dialect, and that above all may have no place in the reconstruction of earlier stages of the language. The chief point made by Denlinger in "Chinese historical linguistics: The road ahead" is that two kinds of phonological tradition have developed in China. The Ch 'ieh-yiin-Kuang-yun tradition described above is the prime example of the 'school of classical etymology', the standardizing tradition which Denlinger characterizes as appearing in times of strong, centralized governmental authority. In contrast with this is the 'vernacular rhyme school' which appears when the government is weak, as in the conquest dynasties. A well-known example of the latter type is the Yiian dynasty rhyme book Chung-ytian Yin-yun, dated 1324, in a form of Ancient Mandarin ancestral to the modern language of Peking. Whether one follows this hypothesis of a strong relationship between weak government and the appearance of vernacular rhyme books or not, there is no doubt that throughout Chinese history phonological works which closely reflect the living language do appear from time to time and can be of great help in establishing the value of sounds ancestral to those in modern dialects. We can hopefully look forward to a day when our reconstruction of a real proto-language on the basis of current and old dialect forms will enable us to separate out some of the dialect mixture in the Ch'ieh-yun tradition. The Ch'ieh-ytin tradition is so strong that many studies of a primarily descriptive nature have long sections relating the Ch'ieh-y iin-Kuang-y tin phonological system to the synchronic system of a modern dialect or group of dialects. One of the best of these is the detailed study of the dialects of Hupei done by Chao and others.31 Another interesting study is Egerod's "TheLungtu dialect"32 but here the colloquial Minlayer is so far removed from the Ancient Chinese system that the historical section mostly consists of special statements of the correspondences. There is also, happily, a tendency now to try to interpret Ancient Chinese in terms of modern dialect reflexes instead of the other way around, or to point out the necessity for a variety of old Chinese dialects. Excellent examples of the latter procedure are P. Demiéville's "Archaïsmes de prononciation en Chinois vulgaire",33 Kennedy's "The voiced gutturals of Tangsic"34 and his "Ancient -an -on and the J-bomb".3S Another example is Hashimoto Mantarô's article on the Bon-Shio dialect of Hainan.36 A recent dialect study that brings contemporary evidence to bear on an Ancient Chinese distinction 31

-It W iSi fR ^ Hu-pei Fang-yen Tiao-ch'a Pao-kao ["Report on a Survey of the Dialects of Hupei"], Special Publication of Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 2 Volumes (Shanghai, 1948). 32 Egerod, 1956. See also the review by R. A. Miller in J AO S 77.250-3 (1957). 33 Demiéville, 1950. 34 Kennedy, 1952, Item I. 35 Kennedy, 1955. 36 Hashimoto, 1960, second item.



not hitherto attested in a living Chinese dialect is Chin Yu-ching's "Yi-wu-hua-li Hsien Shan Liang She San-ssu-teng tzu te Fen-pieh" ('A distinction in the two finals groups Hsien and Shan between Third and Fourth Division words in the speech of Yi-wu').37 Unrelated to historical reconstruction but of some interest is Wang Yute's study "The lexicostatistic estimation of the timedepths of the five main Chinese dialects". 38 Comparing the forms of Peking, Suchow, Canton, Meihsien, and Amoy and using Swadesh's list and formula, there is a timedepth of about 1700 years between Peking and Amoy, the two most divergent linguistic types. Using another formula would carry this timedepth even further, to about 2450 years! At any rate, this kind of study serves the valuable purpose of underscoring the great differences among the dialects. Chinese is, in fact, far from being the monolithic entity implied by its name. It is from the point of view of the modern dialects alone, at least comparable in its complexity of membership and age to the Romance branch of the Indo-European family.

3.2 From Ancient Mandarin to Ancient Chinese There have been several recent studies on Ancient Mandarin and on particular features of the linguistic history of Mandarin. The development of Ancient Chinese -p, -t, and -k was the object of a study by Forrest in 1950: "The Ju-Sheng tone in Pekingese".39 In 1962, HughM. Stimson wrote a brilliant article: "Ancient Chinese -p, -t, -k endings in the Peking dialect".40 It has always been difficult to account for the way the Ancient Entering Tone syllables were redistributed into the present four tone categories. Stimson has resolved most of the problem by setting up four ancestral 'strains', one of these is identified as the inherited strain and the others as borrowings, one of which can be labelled as 'literary'. Stimson is also the author of an excellent study "Phonology of the Chung-yuan Yin Yiin", 41 the Ancient Mandarin rhyme book discussed above in connection with Denlinger's article. Stimson analyzes the material phonemically. It is based on his Ph. D. dissertation42 which in addition to the synchronic analysis, traces the relationship between this work and Ancient Chinese, on the one hand, and current Mandarin, on the other. Stimson's latest study, (which appeared while this chapter was in proof) is ''The Jongyuan In Yunn: a guide to Old Mandarin Pronunciation' (Far Eastern Publications, Sinological Series N.12, New Haven, 1966) which develops from his earlier researches and presents the whole work with his reconstructions for Ancient Chinese and Old Mandarin, with the modern 37

Chin, 1964. Wang Yu-te, 1960. 39 Forrest, 1950. 40 Stimson, 1962, first item. 41 Stimson, 1962, second item. 42 The Chung Yuan Yin Yiin: A study in an early Mandarin phonological system Yale University Ph. D. Dissertation (1959). 38



Peking transcription and English glosses ; it will certainly prove to be a most useful research aid. Also for the Yuan period, we have M. A. K. Halliday's The language of the Chinese "Secret history of the Mongols"j43 an excellent description of this lengthy colloquial text. He concentrates on the grammar and lexicon, but includes a section dealing with transcription and Yiian phonology. One of the foreign writing systems widely used at this time for transcribing Mongolian and Chinese was the hPhags-pa script. In this script was written the Meng-ku Tzu-yiin in 1308 A.D. The phonological system of the Chinese revealed in this work is plainly conservative in comparison to that of the Chung-yiian Yin-yiin written only a very few years later, and is therefore assigned by Denlinger to the 'school of classical etymology'.44 Great interest has been shown in recent years in the writing systems of this period, as exemplified in Marian Lewicki's La langue mongole des transcriptions chinois du XIV siècle. Le Houa-yi yi-yu de 1389;45 Louis Ligeti's "Le Po kia sing en écriture 'phags-pa" j46 and in Pa-ssu-pa Tzu yii Yuan-tai Han-yii ['hP'ags-pa letters and Yuan Dynasty Chinese] co-authored by Lo Ch'angp'ei and Ts'ai Mei-piao.47 Lo has also dealt with this subject in a short article: "Lun Lung Kuo-fu te 'pa-ssu-pa Tzu ho Ku Kuan-hua' " [On Dragunov's "hP'ags-pa letters and Ancient Mandarin"]. 48 Spoken Chinese of the Yiian dynasty is also reflected in two Korean handbooks described by Yang Lien-sheng in his article "Lao Ch'i-ta P'u T'ung-shih li Yii-fa Yiï-hui" ["A study of the grammar and vocabulary as found in Lao Ch'i-ta and P'u T'ung-shih, two old Korean textbooks on colloquial Chinese"].49 Denlinger tells us that occasional differences in two spellings in Lao Ch'i-ta reflect colloquial versus standard pronunciations which are analogous to the differences between the phonology of Meng-ku Tzu-yiin and Chung-yuan Yin-yiin.™ When we go somewhat further back in time we find other valuable materials that throw light on early colloquial phonology. The P'ing-shui rhymes may be a case in point.51 Another very likely fruitful target for research would be the investigation of the heavy layer of old Northern Chinese elements in the Wu dialect of Hangchow, which was the capital of Southern Sung from 1127 A.D. The court had removed thither from the former capital, Kaifeng, after its fall to the barbarians in 1116, and one would therefore expect a large influence from the Kaifeng language.52 Chou Tsu43

Halliday, 1959. Denlinger, 1961, p. 3. 45 Lewicki, 1949. 46 Ligeti, 1956. "Le po kia sing en écriture h'phags-pa", AO H 6.1-52 (1956). 47 Lo and Ts'ai, 1959. 48 Lo, 1959. 49 Yang Lien-sheng, 1957. 60 Denlinger, 1961, p. 4. 51 Denlinger, 1961, p. 6. The rhymes were reduced to 107 by application of the t'ung-yung principle. See also Wang Li, Vol. 1, p. 58 (1957). 62 Y. R. Chao, M ft ^ fgW % "Hsien-tai Wu-ytt te Yen-chiu" ["Studies in the Modem Wu-Dialects"], Tsing Hua College Research Institute, Monograph No. 4 (Peking, 1928). See p. xiv of the English introduction. 44



mo has written an interesting study entitled "Sung-tai Pien-Lo Yii-yin K ' a o " ["An examination of the sounds of the Pien-Lo region in the Sung period"] 53 based on Shao Yung's tables which represent colloquial Chinese of the Loyang area in the eleventh century. These tables, although somewhat reminiscent of the Sung rhyme tables of the Kuang-yiin tradition, nevertheless diverge so much in organization and terminology from the latter that we must infer from them a very different language indeed.54 For a yet earlier period, many of the colloquial writings discovered at Tunhuang have provided a rich source of information ; among them is the genre of popular songs, pien-wen, many of which are rhymed, dating from the last centuries of the T'ang dynasty. A succinct account of the phonology of these rhymes is given by P. Demiéville in a bibliographical abstract55 of an article by Sakai Kenichi: "Tonko hembun no ôinji ni mirareru oninjô no tokushoku" ("Phonological characteristics manifested in the Tun-huang Pien-wen"). Many of the Ch'ieh-yiin distinctions are not observed in this verse; final -p, -t, and -k, and final -m, -n, and -ng are indiscriminately rhymed, and sometimes syllables with the final stops even rhyme with those that have final nasals. Comparative tables in Sakai's article show a very considerable measure of similarity between the rhymes of the pien-wen and those of the Chung-yiian Yinyiin, which is certainly unexpected for such an early period. How much of this to attribute to a difference of dialect is uncertain, but Lo had long ago demonstrated that the T'ang dialects of Northwestern China, recoverable in large part from Tunhuang materials and including much data from Tibetan transliterations of Chinese and Chinese renderings of Tibetan, did indeed differ very much from the Ch'ieh-yiin phonology and already showed marked characteristics of the present dialects of this region.56 Recently, Lo's materials have been ably supplemented by the work of Barna Csongor in his articles : "Chinese in the Uighur script of the T'ang-period", 57 "Some more Chinese Glosses in Uighur script", 58 and "Some Chinese texts in Tibetan script from Tun-Huang". 59 Forrest, in The Chinese language, gives a good general account of dialect variations in Ancient Chinese times. These are often relevant to the systematic phonology of the large number of loanwords from Chinese in Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese. Only the latter of these three borrowing languages is itself a tone language, and in tones, as in consonants and vowels, the correspondences show great regularity. The layer of loanwords in Japanese known as Kan-on is in its phonology close 63

Reprinted in Chou Tsu-mo, 1957 p. 189-235. 1 am grateful for Prof. E. G. Pulleyblank's interesting observations on Shao Yung's phonological tables, made in his Seminar on Chinese Phonology during the 1964 summer session of the Linguistic Institute, Linguistic Society of America, at Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind. 55 Item 544, p. 265 of Revue Bibliographique de Sinologie, N o . 4: année 1958 (Paris—La Haye, 1964). See Sakai, 1958. 56 Lo Ch'ang-p'ei, J f 3 l fô Ï Î M t i f - T'ang Wu-tai Hsi-pei Fang-yin [The Northwestern dialects of Tarng and Five Dynasties], CYYY Monograph A 12 (1933). 57 Csongor, 1952. 58 Csongor, 1954. 69 Csongor, 1960. 54



to the standard Northern tradition, and in one feature, the representation of CKiehyün nasal initials, it is especially close to the language of Ch'ang-an and other Northwestern dialects in the eighth century. Sanskrit borrowings from the eighth century tell us that CKieh-yün m-, for instance, was a homorganic nasal stop [mb-] except in syllables with nasal finals when it was [m-]. In Kan-on the reflex is b-. In the Go-on layer of borrowings, which are of more popular origin, and were borrowed somewhat earlier from various of the Wu dialects, the reflex of CKieh-yün m- was m- rather than b-. The standard language of today and most of the dialects also have kept the value m- in such items, as have Sino-Korean and Sino-Vietnamese.60 In Southern Min reflexes of ancient nasals have an allophonic distribution resembling that of Ch'angan, but it is not at all likely that there is any close ancestral relationship here. Forrest is wrong when he ascribes the Ch'ang-an type of dialect as the ancestor for the learned level in Min (his T'ang-min) since the ancient nasals have the same reflexes in both the colloquial and learned layers.61 In 1957 Günther Wenck published Die Phonetik des Sinojapanischen, Volume 3 of his thorough and careful study 1 Japanische Phonetik.'.62 The whole work has been reviewed by Martin; of particular interest are Martin's pointed remarks on the problem of loanwords in Japanese.63 Turning now to Sino-Vietnamese, Wang Li in 1949 completed a very interesting study entitled "Han-Yüeh-yü Yen-chiu" ["A study of Sino-Vietnamese"] which appears in his There seems to have been "Collected works on the history of the Chinese language. little new work done on Sino-Korean, but just received is "Ch'ao- Hsien-yü chung te HanTzu-Tz'u" ["Chinese words in Korean"] by Ch'en Chih-fan,65 which includes tables of the initial and final correspondences of Korean forms with Ancient Chinese categories. However, by far the best and most complete account of Sino-Korean (which appeared while this chapter was in proof) is Konö Rokuro's 'Chosen kanji-on no genkyü' ('A study on Sino-Korean') which appeared in four parts in Chosen Gakuhö; Part I: 31.1-47 (1964), Part II: 32.48-115 (1964), Part III: 33.116-161, and Part IV: 35.162-208 (1965). (Refer here to footnote 87 and accompanying text.) Before leaving the subject of the evidence of modern forms, native and foreign, as it may be applied to Ancient Chinese, I would like to add that we can expect much more of similar data as more good descriptive work is done. Even so, however, some dialect data such as the Fukienese forms of Chinese, cannot be matched except in part with the CKieh-yün categories. They point, rather, to a protolanguage of considerably greater antiquity. Another such case seems to be the position of the Hsiang dialects of Hunan which in their great divergence in phonology 60

Forrest, 1948, p. 158-68. See "Ancient Chinese and Sino-Japanese" in Karlgren's original Grammata Serica BMFEA 12.65-89 (1940), which deals very capably with both Kan-on and Go-on. 61 Bodman, Spoken Amoy Hokkien, on the initial phonemes, pp. 182-4. Published by the Government Federation of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. Vol. 1 (1955); Vol. 2 (1958). 62 Wenck, 1957. 63 Martin, 1959 review of Wenck, especially p. 37. 84 Wang Li, 1958, p. 290-406. 65 Ch'en Chih-fan, 1964. The othe works referred to in this article have not been available to me. See also Kono, 1939, and Martin, 1953, p. 30 for Kono, 1951.



from Ancient Chinese are of exceeding interest. An excellent description of the Shuang-feng dialect appears in Han-yii Fang-yen Kai-yao by Yuan Chia-hua (and others) where it is accompanied by rather full remarks on the historical correlations.66

3.3 Studies on the CH'IEH-YUN


Karlgren had completed his work on the phonology of Ancient Chinese and Archaic Chinese as well by the time of the publication of his well-known and extremely useful Grammata Serica. Script and phonetics in Chinese and Sino-Japanese*1 in 1940. This book is the standard reference for his reconstructions of both periods. In 1954 he issued his Compendium of phonetics in Ancient and Archaic Chinese,68 which is the most convenient exposition of the methods by which he arrived at his reconstructions. The system he established earlier has hardly changed an iota, but there is occasional reference to the contrary views put forward by other scholars. In 1957 Grammata Serica Recensa appeared, an improvement over the former version in that the tones of items in Ancient Chinese were included and the definitions refined by philological work he had done in the interim.69 The first major work criticizing Karlgren's Ancient Chinese reconstructions and suggesting important refinements in his system was Chao's "Distinctions within Ancient Chinese",70 an article which is one of the classics of the literature. Chao dealt with the data as a system and discussed such important points as the nondistinctiveness of Karlgren's k- and kj- initials, and the lack of distinction after labials of k'ai k'ou or ho k'ou (absence or presence of a -w- or -u- medial); he gave an explanation in phonetic terms between 'pure' type IV finals (such as Karlgren's -ien) and the mixed finals of type III/IV (Karlgren's -iari), and took up the problem of the minimal contrast in a small number of words between forms like ia and ta with type II finals and ti and ti with type III and type IV finals which are almost in complementary distribution. Chao suggested improvements in the vocalism of certain finals, i.e. kisi for kjei, and he went deeply into the conditions under which initial labial stops and the nasal became dentilabialized (resulting in Mandarin / - and w-), greatly contributing to the ultimate solution of this problem. Chao put the contrasts and distinctions into clear perspective: his approach was phonemic but he introduced no resymbolization. Years later, Martin did just this, basing himself on Karlgren's reconstructions as modified by Chao. His 66 Yuan Chia-hua and others fX. fg" 77 H Wt 1 c Han-yii Fang-yen Kai-yao (Peking, 1960). See especially the introduction to the Hsiang dialects on p. 103, and the sections on historical correlations of the Shuang-feng dialect, pp. 117-22. 67 Karlgren, 1940. Also see the review of this: Chao, 1941. 68 Karlgren, 1954. 69 Karlgren, 1957, and his "Glosses on the Kuo feng Odes", BMFEA 14.71-247 (1942); "Glosses on the Siao ya Odes", BMFEA 16.25-169 (1944); "Glosses on the Ta ya and Sung Odes", BMFEA 18.1-198 (1946); "Glosses on the Book of Documents", BMFEA 20.39-315 (1948) and "Glosses on the Book of Documents II", BMFEA 21.63-206 (1949). 70 Chao, 1940.



monograph "The phonemes of Ancient Chinese" is the first thoroughgoing attempt to analyze Ancient Chinese in terms of modern phonemic concepts. Martin represents Karlgren's contrast of voiceless and voiced aspirate initials as one of voiceless and voiced aspiration, thus /th/ rather than d(. He vastly simplifies the vowel system in an analysis reminiscent of Hartman's for Mandarin, 71 setting up two medials /i/ and /uI and six nuclear vowels, one of which /*/ is a high vowel with both front and back allophones. 72 Egerod's review of Martin 73 brings up many interesting points with some suggestions of his own, especially regarding the nature of the so-called 'primed finals'. Despite differences in matters of interpretation, the system of Karlgren, Chao, Martin, and Egerod are all based on a largely identical understanding of the Ch'ieh-yiin data. Those to be described below are in a very important feature different, because their systems all take account of a distinction that was ignored by Karlgren, although Chao was aware of it as a problem. A new trend in Ch'ieh-yiin studies was ushered in with the appearance of Paul Nagel's 'Beiträge zur Rekonstruktion der I i Ts'ieh-Yün-Sprache auf Grund von w. Ü Ch'en Li's tj] f j ¿5 Ts'ieh-Yün-K'au' in 1941 ;74 although it was to be several years before Chinese linguists working along much the same lines took note of Nagel's work. Nagel largely followed the methods of Ch'en Li, a nineteenth century Cantonese scholar, in arriving at a large number of distinctions in both initials and finals purely from the evidence of the linkage into 'chains' of the initial and final fan-ch'ieh spellers instead of taking for granted the number of initials as given in the later rhyme tables, and even increasing the number of rhymes over those set out in the Ch'ieh-yiin. Lu Chih-wei followed a similar procedure in his "Shih-ni Ch'ieh-yün Sheng-mu chih Yin-chih ping Lun T'ang-tai Ch'ang-an chih Sheng-mu" ["A new attempt to reconstruct the initials of the Ch'ieh-yiin with notes on the initials of the Ch'ang-an dialect of the T'ang dynasty"] which came out in 1940.75 Of greater importance was Nagel's discovery of a strong correlation between the ch'ung-niu (fan-ch'ieh doublets) and their reflexes in Sino-Vietnamese (with weaker traces of the distinction elsewhere). The ch'ung-niu phenomenon refers to the different placement in the rhyme tables of certain Ch'ieh-yiin finals with phonetically front nuclear vowels after velar and labial initials only. As an example, Ch'ieh-yiin words, which Karlgren reconstructs as kiän or piän all belonging to the rhyme -iän, sometimes appear in the rhyme tables under Division III, sometimes under Division IV. In Sino-Vietnamese, the reflexes of the Division III items with labial initials also show labials, but those placed in Division IV have palatal initials. Sino-Korean shows a different treatment of words with velar initials depending on their rhyme table placement. This same discovery also led to a 71

Hartman, L. M., "The segmental phonemes of the Peiping dialect", Lg. 20.28-42 (1944). Martin, 1953, p. 31. 73 Egerod, 1955. 74 Nagel, 1941. 75 Lu, 1940. 73



re-examination of the conditions for dentilabialization in the Chinese dialects. For example, Chao had separated Karlgren's -iau final into two: iau and jew.76 Dentilabialization occurs with the first final but not with the second. The second final occurs only with velar and labial initials, and in the rhyme tables this second final is always placed under Division IV, while the first final, which is distributed after all types of initial classes is always placed under Division III. The recognition of the validity of the ch'ung-niu distinctions was a great advance in Ch'ieh-yiin studies and resulted in a reconsideration of the phonetic values of the vowels and the general phonological system of Ancient Chinese as a whole. Using this new data, Nagel made several changes in Karlgren's vowel reconstructions, assigning front values to the nuclear vowels placed in Division IV and more back values for those placed in Division III. He carried back the distinctions into new reconstructions for Archaic Chinese as well. In many cases his reconstructed values for the earlier period agreed closely with those Karlgren had reconstructed on the basis of quite different evidence. Unaware of Nagel's work, Chou Fa-kao in 1948 published "Kuang-yiin Ch'ung niu te Yen-chiu" ["Studies on the fan-ts'ie doublets in Kuang-yiin"],77 and Tung published "Kuang-yiin Ch'ung-niu Shih-shih" ["A preliminary study of the fan-ts'ie doublets in the Kuang-yiin"],78 both scholars drawing conclusions very similar to those of Nagel. In the same year Chou also published "Ku-yin chung te San-teng Yiin chien Lun Ku-yin te Hsieh-fa" ["On the finals with medial i in Ancient Chinese"]79 when he first became aware of Nagel's article, and presented a system of transcription somewhat different from Nagel's. In 1954 Chou presented a revised system of transcription based on phonemic principles in his "Lun Ku-tai Han-hua te Yin-wei" ["A study of the phonemes of Ancient Chinese"]80 which was largely stimulated by the appearance the previous year of Martin's The phonemes of Ancient Chinese. He naturally took issue with Martin on his not having used the ch'ung-niu data nor having fully determined the conditions for dentilabialization. Chou's analysis makes further changes in Karlgren's reconstructions beyond those depending on the ch'ung-niu phenomenon. Chou's article can be considered the logical endpoint of the studies done by Nagel, Tung, and himself which make use of more knowledge of the Chieh-yun distinctions and which culminate in a phonemic analysis based on the fuller data. This sequence of works also owes much to the keen observations expressed in Chao's article and Martin's application of the phonemic principle. Lu Chih-wei in his phonological studies has pursued a very independent path that has led him into devising his own formulations that are often strikingly at variance 76

Chao, 1940, p. 225. Since these two finals constitute separate rhymes they are not technically 'doublets', although they can be regarded as having a parallel type of contrast in the medials. " Chou, 1948. This and the following article originally appeared in 1945 in a mimeographed volume Liu T'ung Pieh Lu, Lichuang. 78 Tung, 1948. See footnote 77. 79 Chou, 1949. 80 Chou, 1954.



with those of more conservative scholars. As early as 1939 in "San-ssu Teng yii So-wei Yti-hua" ["Third and fourth classes of initials and yodization"] 81 he put forward a new hypothesis that handled the ch'ung-niu data quite differently from the way mentioned above. First he followed Maspero in setting up all the 'pure' Division IV rhymes with a nuclear vowel of low front quality (-en for Karlgren's -ien, etc.), assuming that only later was this diphthongized so as to fall together with Karlgren's type ian when occurring with Division IV items. He then posited a difference in the medial of Division III and IV items, a short lax glide -i- for Division III and a high front value for Division IV: the contrasts were represented then as -ien and -ien respectively (for which Karlgren had -ian with no distinction in medial). This view, and variations upon it, has gradually come to prevail among most linguists who concern themselves with the problem. Since there was no rhyme distinction for such items in the Ch'iehyiin, it is more satisfying to ascribe the contrast to a difference in the medial. Any differences in vowel quality in the two environments can then be considered as allophonic and it allows for the possibility of a lesser number of vowel phonemes. Lu's 'Ku-yin Shuo-liieh' (' The phonology of Ancient Chinese')82 completes his analysis of the Ch'ieh-yiin language which he uses as a basis for his reconstruction of Old Chinese which is also dealt with at length in this monograph. In 1948 another article, Wang Ching-ju's 'Lun Ku Han-yii chih O-chieh-yun' ('The medial i in Ancient Chinese)',83 deals with the same problem in connection with the Sino-Vietnamese evidence and comes to conclusions very similar to those of Lu, bringing into consideration also the distribution of initial classes with these medials. The most complete recent study devoted entirely to the Ch'ieh-yiin is Li Jung's 'Ch'ieh-yiin Yin-hsi' {'The phonological system of the Ch'ieh-yiin') which appeared in 1952.84 Instead of Karlgren's ian, he writes ian and jdn for the distinctions in Divisions III and IV, ascribing the difference to the medial. In his exposition he follows the work of Karlgren and Chao in detail, but his reconstructions differ in several points. For instance, where Karlgren and others have -au he posits -u on the basis of Chinese transcriptions of Sanskrit, although the modern Chinese dialects all have diphthongs as reflexes of this final. It seems more reasonable to posit a value to account primarily for the present Chinese sounds and assume that -au was the closest thing in the Chinese system of finals at this time to Sanskrit u. We turn now to consider some of the Japanese contributions which have been of importance in the study of Ancient Chinese. Kono Rokuro deals with the problem of the medials in 'Chosen Kanjion no Ichi Tokushitsu' ('A characteristic of the phonology of Sino-Korean words').85 In 1962 he made an English translation with notes of his own of Arisaka Hideyo's 'Karlgren-shi no Yoonsetsu o Hyosu' ('A 81

Lu, 1939. Lu, 1947. 83 Wang Ching-ju, 1948. 84 Li Jung, 1952. 85 Kono, 1939.




critical study on Karlgren's medial i theory') which had originally appeared in Arisaka's book of collected works 'Kokugo On'inshi no Kenkyu' ('Studies on the phonetic history of Japanese)'.86 Arisaka's view is that the Division IV medial was i, and the medial of Division III was the retracted and centralized i. (Kono has an interesting note on Sino-Korean here. He regards it as containing several strata, but reflecting mostly the kind of old Northern Chinese of T'ang time observable in the phonological system of Hui-lin's 'I-chieh Ching Yin-i'.81 Mineya Toru in 'Inkyo no Sanshito ni tsuite' ('On Division III and IV of the Yun-ching'), rather than ascribing the distinction to the medials, interprets the doublets as having different initial phonemes: ki- for Division III and kji- for Division IV.88 In "Chuko Kango no inbo no taikei" 89 ["An attempt to interpret the Ts'ie-yiin finals"], a phonemic study, he sets up five nuclear vowels, the semivowels /i/ and /u/, and treats the 'pure' Division IV words identically with Karlgren, i.e. /-ien/; for Karlgren's -ung and -uong he has /AUT)/ and /ocui]/ which enables him to treat the problematical Division II rhyme as Iauq/. (Forrest had earlier arrived at a similar explanation for the Division II rhyme only.)90 In 1960, Mizutani Shinjo in "Bongo no 'sorisha' boin o arawasu Kanji" ["The Chinese characters representing the Sanskrit retroflex vowels"],91 in connection with the view that Sanskrit vowels in the neighborhood of retroflex consonants were phonetically retroflexed, points out that for a-colored Sanskrit vowels with retroflexion the Chinese representations have Division II finals, and that for a Sanskrit retroflexed i, Chinese has Division III (with Division IV for nonretroflexed /). A bold but intriguing inference from this data would suggest that the Division II vowel quality differed from Division I by the added feature of retroflexion and that Division III differed from Division IV in the same respect. This is an explanation that would apply after all types of initial classes and could explain Karlgren's t and ts type initials as the retroflex allophones of dental initials of type t- and ts- which in the rhyme tables occur only as Division I and Division IV. This explanation could not account for the rare contrasts like Chao's ta and ta with Division II vocalism, but these might, as Martin suggests, be assigned to "some coexistent or subsidiary phonemic system".92 Lo and Martin had previously assigned the feature ofretroflexion occurring with Division II and Division III finals to the initials.93 Referring it to the medial could at the same time assign the a-type vocalism in Division II as an allophone of the Division I vowel /a/ (and perhaps to /a/ as well to account for the 86 Arisaka Hideyo, jig- ^g- f j i g M il A Jg G ¥ H 7C ft 'M 1& ["hP'ags-pa Letters and Yiian dynasty Chinese"] (Peking, 1959). , m M m 5*c W ' A S B ¥ ÎP ÎT t IS' ["On Dragunov's hP'ags-pa letters and Ancient Mandarin"], ZGYW 79.575-81 (1959.12). The Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of Linguistics and Philology, M ^ ro o I ^ É ^ û É [Selected works of Lo Ch'ang-p'ei on linguistics] (Peking, 1963). Lu Chih-wei M J& H P9 Jg I I % it ["3rd and 4th Classes of initials and yodization"], YCHP 26.143-73 (1939). Mmmmm^^.^-iûmMiBRM^m^m^ t"A new attempt to reconstruct the initials of the Ch'ieh-yiin with notes on the initials of the Ch'ang-an dialect of the T'ang dynasty"], YCHP 28.41-56 (1940). , 9£ M I I + H9 M i l ^ ® W -h Î9- ["Changes in initials in the period between the Shuo-Wen and the Kuang-yün"], YCHP 28.1-40 (1940). , t f e ^ M ^ ï t i r î l r î Ë ["A phonographical study of the Tu-jo notations in the Shuo-Wen"], YCHP 30.135-278 (1946). , ÎT î f ["The phonology of Ancient Chinese"], YCHP Monograph 20 (1947). , I I H f t ["The rhymes of the Book of Songs"], YCHP Monograph 21 (1948). Lü Shu-hsiang S $8, 4* M ü 3c Ifö [An abridged grammar of Chinese], (Peking, 1942), Reprinted 1957. Ma Hsüeh-liang and Lo Chi-kuang «-0J f j » M P9 IJ W 7C ["The main vowel of the rhymes of the Ch'ieh-yiin pure 4th Division"], ZGYW 121. 533-9 (1962. 12).



Otto Maenchen-Helfen," Are Chinese hsi-p'i and kuo-lo Indo-European loan words?", Lg. 21.256-60 (1945). N. G. D. Malmqvist, "Some observations on a grammar of Late Archaic Chinese", TP 48.252-86 (1960). , "On a recent study of Han phonology", TP 49.194-207 (1961). , "On Archaic Chinese 3r and ad", BMFEA 34.107-20 (1962). , "Han phonology and textual criticism", The Australian National University, Center of Oriental Studies, Occasional Papers No. 1 (Canberra, 1963). Samuel E. Martin, "The phonemes of Ancient Chinese", Supplement to JAOS 16 (1953) (Baltimore, 1953). , Review of Wenck, Japanische Phonetik, Lg. 35.370-82 (1959). Henri Maspéro, "Préfixes et dérivations en chinois archaïque", Memoirs de la Société linguistique de Paris 23.317-27 (1939). , "Le chinois" (in Les Langues du mondé), pp. 589-608 (Paris, 1952). , "Les langues tibéto-birmanes", Les langues du monde, p. 529-70 (Paris, 1952). Roy A. Miller, Review of Tödö, Hyögenron teki on inron no kokoromi etc., Lg. 30.430-31 (1954). , Review of, Bodman, A linguistic study of the Shih Ming, TP 44.266-87 (1956). , Review of Karlgren, Sound and symbol in Chinese, Lg. 40.102-8 (1964). Mineya Töru H i ß H IH ^ K O X ["On the Illrd and IVth Divisions of the Yun-ching"], GK 22-23.56-74 (1953). , + "è Ü So © Iii # © M IS ["An attempt to interpret the Ts'ie-yün finals"], GK 31.8-21 (1956). ® f g - M M- ia © denasilizaMizutani Shinjö & E )&, fg f t K ¿J If h tion ÎÊ 'M ["The process of derealization of initial nasals during the T'ang Period"], Töyö Gakuhö 39.1-31 (1957). , RÉ • E M # © M i f ["On the sound values of hsiao and hsia initials"], Töyö Gakuhö 40.41-090 (1958). , & fg © " y V # i f £ ^ h 1" Ü ["The Chinese characters representing the Sanskrit retroflex vowels"], GK 37.45-55 (1960). J. W. F. Mulder, "On the morphology of the negatives in Archaic Chinese", TP 47.251-80 (1959). Paul Nagel, "Beiträge zur Rekonstruktion der -fcJJ f j Ts'ieh-Yün-Sprache auf Grund von B. Ch'en Li's ij] IM # Ts'ieh-Yün-K'au", TP 36.95-158 (1941). Ogawa Tamaki /h jl| M tëf, fa ^ I i ? X Cß 0 « © J& At ["A study of the differentiation of the pronouns ni and erh in Ancient Chinese and their sound changes"], GK 24.7-11 (1953). , Review of Serruys, The dialects of Han Time according to Fang Yen, MS 19.518-23 (1960). E. G. Pulleyblank, "Studies in early Chinese grammar", Asia Major (new series) 8.36-67 (1960).



E. G. Pulleyblank, "The consonantal system of Old Chinese", Part 1: Asia Major (new Series) 9.59-144 (1962), Part 2: id. 9.206-65 (1963). , "An interpretation of the vowel systems of Old Chinese and of written Burmese", Asia Major (new series) 10.200-21 (1963). , "Review of Dobson, Late Han Chinese", Asia Major (new series) 12.115-19 (1966). Rai Tsutomu f t 'It Ufr, Jr. Ü © Pß! ^ I i % O ^ X ("On the guttural finals in Archaic Chinese"), Ochanomizu joshidaigaku jinbun kagakukiyö 3.51-64 (1953). + M W CD f g (D $M # K M 1" & ["Two or three , ± problems regarding the finals of Archaic Chinese"], Töyö Gakuhö 40.62-81 (1957). , • _L 4* m CD § # I i M U CD & F4 n ["On the classification of the finals in *-n *-d *-t in Archaic Chinese"], Ochanomizu joshidaigaku jimbun kagaku kiyö 9.37-51 (1957). Sakai Ken-ichi # ßt — ft & K & ± & & U ±A •R ^



'S -r

a ft, ft. & >§ K Se a a ft. ft,

>§ f S R i a a ft, ft, •¡a -•a g? o r


I. j ft, I ^ I £ f S r a S s 3 « >R A -R




3 (O D a •s — o. ' 3 -R

-s R

o0 6 00 a u -a



There is just one requirement for broad structural identity: the utterances must have the same immediate constituent structure, i-sdr fdng-tzu 'a house', i-sor hsin fang-tzu 'a new house', and i-sor yu kao yii ta te hsin fang-tzu 'a new house which is both tall and large' are structurally identical in the broad sense: they have the same immediate constituents - i-sor on the one hand, fang-tzu, hsin fang-tzu, and yu kao yu ta te hsin fang-tzu on the other. (The last two phrases are expansions of fdng-tzu). Two types of endocentric construction are recognized, the subordinate and the coordinate. The two main types of subordinate constructions are: A. fdng-tzu 'a house' hsin fdng-tzu 'a new house' yu kao yu ta te hsin fdng-tzu 'a tall, large new house' mii-fou fdng-tzu 'a wooden house' yu ai yii hsiao te mii-fou fdng-tzu 'a low, small wooden house' fdng-tzu is the nucleus of these endocentric constructions, all of which can be preceded by i-sdr 'one'. B.

leng 'cold' hen leng 'fairly cold' leng te hen 'very cold' ling chi le 'extremely cold'

ling is the nucleus of these endocentric constructions, all of which van be preceded by chin-fien 'today'. There are three types of coordinate constructions, i.e. those with more than one nucleus. A.

Appositional: i-sor fdng-tzu: i-sor / fdng-tzu i-sdr hsin te fdng-tzu: i-sdr hsin te / i-sor fdng-tzu


Additive: 1. fien-ching ken pei-ching 'Tientsin and Peking' shdng-hai, t'ien-ching ken pei-ching 'Shanghai, T'ientsin, and Peking' kudng-chou, shang-hai, fien-ching ken pei-ching 'Canton, Shanghai, T'ientsin, and Peking'. 2. yu k'uai yu hdo 'both fast and good' yu k'uai yii hdo yu p'ien-i 'fast, good, and inexpensive' yu k'uai yu hdo yu p'ien-i yii chieh-shih 'fast, good, inexpensive, and durable'.


Alternative: chin-fien huo-che ming-fien 'today or tomorrow' chei-ke yiieh hai-shih shang-ke ytieh? 'this month or last month'?



Constructions are also classified on the basis of their transformations. For example: I.

(1) fdi-shang tsd-che lai-pin. lai-pin tso-te fai-shang 'the visitors are sitting on the stage'; (2) ch'uang-shang t'dng-che ping-jen. ping-jen fang-te ch'uang-shang 'the sick man is lying on the bed'; (3) ch'iang-shang kud-che hilar, huar kua-te ch'idng-shang 'the picture is hanging on the wall'; (4) shen-shang kai-che t'an-tzu. t'an-tzu kai-te shen-shang 'the blanket covers his body'.


(1) wai-fou hsid-che y&. wai-fou cheng-tsai hsia-che yti 'it is raining outside' ; (2) ww-// k'ai-che hiii. wu-li cheng-tsai k'ai-che hiii 'a meeting is going on inside the room'; (3) fai-shang ch'ang-che hsi. fai-shang cheng-tsai ch'ang-che hsi 'an opera is being performed on the stage'; (4) hsin-li tien-chi-che hai-tzu. hsin-li cheng-tsai tien-chi-che hai-tzu 'the worry about (his) child preoccupies (his) mind'.


(no transformations) (1) hai-tzu tiao-te chlng-li 'the child fell into the well'; (2) chien she-te pa-tzu-shang 'the arrow hit the target'; (3) fei-chi tiao-te hai-li 'the airplane fell into the sea'; (4) ?6u p'eng-te ch'iang-shang 'his head hit against the wall'.

Bibliography: Chu Te-hsi, "On sentence structures", CKYW 118.351-60 (August and September, 1962); Fan Fang-lien, "On sentences with verbs like tsd-che 'sitting'", CKYW 126.386-95 (October, 1963).




Since the division of China in 1949, two independent institutions, both called Academia Sinica, have been in operation, one in Peking, one in Taiwan.1 Both have published important work in dialectology (See Grootaers, Orbis 1. 210-18 (1952), 2. 165-75 (1953), 7.205-11 (1958)). On the mainland pertinent material has furthermore appeared in Chung-kuo yii wen (= CKYW, available to the author from 1956), Fang yen ho p'u t'ung hua ts'ung k'an (= FYHPTHCK, 1958), Fang yen yiip'u t'ung hua chi Van (= FYYPTHJK, 1958-1959), Yii yen hsueh lun ts'ung (= YYXLC, 1958-:1963), Chung-kuo yii wen ts'ung shu (= CKYWCS, 1956-1959). Local university journals on the mainland and on Taiwan have published a great many articles on dialectology. In 1955, Y. R. Chao's Character list for dialect survey (19341, 19402) was reissued in Peking (with no mention of the author's naipe). In 1956 the Ministry of Education, Peking, launched a new dialect survey in which it enlisted the help of not only the Academia Sinica but also all local universities and colleges. The following aids for the survey have been published: Ting and Li, Concise questionnaire for the Chinese dialect survey (1956); Ting and Li, Phonetically arranged card index for Chinese dialect survey (1956); Li, Handbook for the Chinese dialect survey (1957); Ting and Ii, Handbook for comparing ancient and modem pronunciation of characters (1958); Yuan, Synopsis of Chinese dialects (1960); List of characters with Chinese dialect pronunciations (1962); Yuan, List of words with Chinese dialect pronunciations (1964). [Further material on dialectology in general: Kao, Yen ching hsiieh pao 32.117-50 (1947); Lo, KXTB 4,15-20 (1953); Chao, Annals of Academia Sinica 1.117-28 (1954); 1 The present paper builds on material in The Royal Library, Copenhagen; The East Asian Institute, University of Copenhagen; The Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, Stockholm; The School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London; The Cambridge University Library, England. Besides my own collection two other private collections have been consulted, those of Mr. Cho Seung-bog, Uppsala, and Mr. Piet van der Loon, Cambridge. I wish to express my gratitude to Mr. Cho and Mr. van der Loon for their helpful interest. Appreciation is also extended to Father Paul Yang, S. J., for his generous assistance in procuring books and photo-copies. No book or article is quoted in this paper which I have not personally seen. Material published in Japan has not been included, because my bibliographical notes were too incomplete; see now Paul Yarg, Orbis 15.90-159 (1966), not available during the preparation of this paper.



Table of commonest characters (Peking, 1954); Li, CKYW 7, 37 and 30 (1956); Wang, Talks (Peking, 1954); Chou, Studies, (especially pp. 82-98) (Taipei, 1956); Li, CKYW 11, 3-9 (1956); Chang, CKYW 1, 12-16 (1957) (gives point of view of theory); Li, CKYW 1, 17-23 (1957); Fu, Examples (Peking, 1957); Sun, Vocabulary (Ch'ang ch'un, 1956); Ni, Comparative dictionary (Shanghai, 1951) (in a primitive transcription); Li, CKYW 4, 22-3 (1957) (has colloquial and literary pronunciation); Tung, Phonetics (Peking, 1958); Problems concerning dialect pronunciation, FYHPTHCK 1. 149-74 (1958); Yiian, YYXLC 2. 133-44 (1958); Chao, Linguistic problems (Taipei, 1959) (especially pp. 93-102). In English: Chao, TICOJ 4. 44-8 (1959)]. Of the Peking publications mentioned, Yuan Chia-hua's Synopsis of Chinese dialects (1960) is the most important (see below). Although the material published for the survey seems to favor direct interrogation of informants based on a character questionnaire, the actual published material clearly indicates that more than this has been aimed at and accomplished. The first extensive treatment of Chinese dialectology was done by Bernhard Karlgren in his Phonologie chinoise (1915-1926) which comprises thirty Chinese idioms, of which Karlgren had personally investigated the pronunciation of twenty-two according to a huge questionnaire. Karlgren divided the idioms treated into four dialect groups: (1) Mandarin: a. Peking (Hopei) b. Eight places in Shansi c. Three places in Kansu d. Three places in Shensi e. Three places in Honan f. One place in Szechwan g. Hank'ou (Hupei) h. Nanking (Kiangsu) i. Yangchou (Kiangsu) (2) Wu Three places in Chekiang (3) Min a. Fuchou (Fukien) b. Ch'iianchou, or loosely, Amoy (Fukien) c. Ch'aochou, or loosely, Swatow (Kwangtung) (4) Yiieh a. Canton (Kwangtung) b. Hakka (Kwangtung)



The phonetic transcription used was that of the Swedish Dialect Alphabet created by J. A. Lundell. For dialects not investigated by Karlgren himself a broad notation ('notation grossière') was used, which amounted to a phonemic writing in prephonemic days. The usefulness of the broad notation was further proved by its application in the Dialect Dictionary, the last part of the Phonologie chinoise (pp. 714-898). The dialect groups of the Phonologie chinoise constitute no rigorous system nor does Karlgren offer any concise justification for it. In the twenties and thirties a number of dialect monographs appeared written by Chinese linguists [Y.R.Chao, Studies in the modem Wu dialects (1928); Lo Ch'angp'ei, Phonetics and phonology of the Amoy dialect (1931); Chiù Bien-ming, Tone behaviour in Hagu, TP 38.245-342 (1931); T'ao Yü-min, Studies in Fuchou pronunciation (1931) and their results were summarized by Wang Li in his Chinese phonology (1937) (reprinted with changed title Peking, 1956). Lo Ch'ang-p'ei's Phonetics and phonology of the Linch'uan dialect appeared in 1940 and was followed in 1948 by Tung T'ung-ho, A Hakka dialect in Hua-yang district, Szechuan, and Y. R. Chao et al., Report on a survey of the dialects of Hupei, the first comprehensive study of the dialects of a larger area. Also published in 1948 was the Chinese translation of Karlgren's Phonologie chinoise by Y. R. Chao et al. with all dialect items «transcribed into IPA (reprinted, Taipei, 1966). R. A. D. Forrest's The Chinese language (1948), contained the most detailed treatment of Chinese dialects which had appeared till then, especially from the historical point of view, and this book was superseded only in 1960 (to a large extent) by Yiian Chia-hua's, Synopsis of Chinese dialects. Forrest divides the modern dialects into general types according to phonetic isoglosses defined by means of Karlgren's reconstructed Ancient Chinese of approximately A.D. 600, thus accepting Karlgren's contention that all modern dialects (with the exception of isolated features in Min) go back to a T'ang dynasty koiné.2 Features used by Forrest: (1) Dentilabialization oip- before -jw-. This takes place in all dialects except Min (Fukien, coast of Kwangtung, Hainan, coast of Chekiang). (2) Dentilabialization of m- before -jw-. This takes place in Mandarin (Northern Chinese : north of Yangtze, pockets south of Yangtze, Szechwan, Yiinnan, Kweichow) and in part of the Fuchou (Fukien) vocabulary (under northern influence, otherwise Fuchou behaves like Min). (3) Devoicing ('surdization') of voiced stops. In all dialects except Wu (southern Kiangsu, Chekiang). (The voiced stops are also kept as such in Hsiang, in Hunan, not well-known at the time Forrest wrote. In Wu these sounds are aspirated under certain conditions, in Hsiang they are not). * Bernhard Karlgren, Compendium ofphonetics in Ancient and Archaic Chinese, BMFEA 26.211367 (1954). Ancient Chinese (abbreviated Anc) forms are indicated in this paper by means of an asterisk, e.g. *d'; Archaic Chinese forms by means of two asterisks, e.g. **g'.



In Hakka all voiced plosives become voiceless aspirated ones. In Mandarin there is aspiration only in the Ancient first tone (p'ing sheng), in Cantonese in the Ancient first tone (p'ing sheng), and sometimes in the Ancient second tone (shang sheng).8 An important point in Forrest's treatment is the recognition of 'captured dialects', i.e. local substrata which have partially withstood the spreading of the T'ang koiné. Forrest also stresses the phenomenon of literary versus colloquial pronunciation4 (the so-called WEN PAX I TU "literary and colloquial readings of characters are different"), and by means of this untangles the levels of Min pronunciation. It has since then become apparent that this latter phenomenon (WEN PAI I TU) is much more widespread than formerly assumed [Li, CKYW 4,22-3 (1957); Li, Handbook (1957); Yüan, Synopsis (1960); cf. also Egerod, Lungtu pp. 71-82 and 208-11 (1956)] and is furthermore closely connected with the phenomenon of 'captured dialects'. In the forties a dispute flared up concerning the merits of a historical 'neogrammarian' approach versus a linguistic geographical 'neolinguistic' approach in Chinese dialectology [Ware, Language 25.80-3 (1949)]. Father Willem A. Grootaers ["La géographie linguistique en Chine", MS 8.103-66 (1943), MS 10.389-426 (1945)] sparked the dispute by condemning Karlgren's theory of a T'ang koiné as the common ancestor of modern Chinese dialects, and by expressing his doubts as to whether Karlgren had actually carried out his investigation by indirect questioning as stated in the Phonologie. As proof Grootaers quoted a number of words which Karlgren had recorded in their literary form, whereas to Grootaers only the colloquial form was linguistically relevant. The discussion [Grootaers, MS 8.103-66 (1943), MS 10.389426 (1945), MS 11.207-31 (1946); Giet, MS 11.233-67 (1946); Grootaers, LB 38.57-72 (1948); Ware, Lg. 25.80-3 (1949); Grootaers, TP 40.207-10 (1950); Giet, Zur Tonität (1950); Demiéville, TP 40.1-59 especially 56 (1950); Pop, La dialectologie 1101-1119 (1950); F. K. Li, Lg. 27.449-51 (1951); Grootaers, ZPhon 5.131-32 (1951); Grootaers, Orbis 1:1.210-18 (1952), Orbis 2.165-75 (1953)] made it clear that while the study of LIT and COLL forms should not be confused since their historical importance is on different levels, neither form should be neglected. The two strata are equally valuable for diachronic as well as for synchronic studies. Grootaers' and Giet's studies show interesting emerging results of the Wörter und Sachen approach. As for their call for a description of Chinese as it is really spoken, they must have been heartened by subsequent dialect monographs which include ample texts: [Chao, BIHP 20.49-73 (1948), 23.25-76 (1951); Yang, BIHP A 22 (1957); Tung, BIHP 729-1042 (1959); Pai, Report on a survey of the dialect pronunciation of Shensi (1954); Li, The Swatow dialect (1959); A record of the Œang-li dialect 3 Ancient Chinese liad four tones (sheng) known as p'ing (sheng), shang (sheng), ch'i» (sheng), and ju (sheng). The modern reflexes of those with voiceless initials are known as yin p'ing (sheng), yin shang (sheng). etc. Those with voiced initials are yang p'ing (sheng), yang shang (sheng) etc. All ju sheng syllables ended in a labial, dental or velar stop. Yang tone syllables are further divided according to initials: nasal, lateral, and zero initials are known as tz'u cho, the remaining initials as ch'fian cho. Yin tone initials are known as ch'ing. * In this paper literary pronunciation is abbreviated LIT and colloquial pronunciation coix.



(I960)], and especially by Y. R. Chao's minutely accurate phonetic notation in 'The linguistic material of T'ai Shan' BIHP 23.25-76 (1951) [cf. Grootaers, Orbis 2.165-75, especially 172-3 (1953)]. In the subsequent treatment of Chinese dialectology since the end of World War II, we shall follow the main outline of Yüan's Synopsis of Chinese dialects (1960) and give an annotated summary of the material and results presented in the Synopsis with bibliographical notes on related treatment and additional material, as up-todate as possible.5


2.0 Dialect groups The Synopsis accepts as a working hypothesis a grouping of dialects similar to those Forrest and others have used, but acknowledges that time is not ripe for a final statement. Many areas are still insufficiently known, and more and more overlapping of isoglosses becomes manifest. The dialect groups are treated under the following headings: Pei ('Northern') Wu Hsiang Kan Hakka Yiieh Min Nan ('Southern Min') Min Pei ('Northern Min')

with with with with with with with with

70 % 8.4 % 5% 2.4 % 4% 5% 3% 1.2 %

of of of of of of of of

the the the the the the the the

total total total total total total total total

population population population population population population population population

The reservations as to the final validity of this grouping are greatest concerning the border areas of Pei, Wu, Kan, and Hsiang (southern Kiangsu, southern Anhwei, eastern Hupei, and northern Kiangsi), and the Hsiang and Kan groups are the least adequately defined. 2.1 Pei (Northern Chinese) Pei (Northern Chinese, or Mandarin) covers all of China north of the Yangtze, a belt south of the Yangtze from Chiuchiang (Kiangsi) to Chenchiang (Kiangsu), Hupei except the southeastern corner, Szechwan, Yünnan, Kweichow, the northwestern part of Kwangsi, and the northwestern corner of Hunan. 5 It has been impossible to distinguish here between original material presented for the first time in the Synopsis and facts well-known previously. From the older material we have included only what is indispensable in the context.



The salient features combining these dialects are (1) Surdization of Ancient voiced stops, which are aspirated with Ancient p'ing sheng. 3 (or z) is usually the only voiced fricative, sometimes v is found. (2) P'ing sheng is divided into yin and yang. Shang sheng is divided so that ch'ing and tz'u cho form one tonal category, whereas shang ch'iian cho combines with ch'ii to form another tonal category. (3) The final consonants -p, -t, -k and -m are lost; -p, -t, -k becoming - ? or -zero, -m > -7j. Pei is divided into four subgroups: (1) Northern Mandarin, abbreviated NM (Hopei, Honan, Shantung, Manchuria, part of Inner Mongolia). The so-called Common Language (p'u t'ung hua, abbreviated CL), the standard language of China, belongs to Northern Mandarin and is in most respects based on the speech habits of Peking (abbreviated PK), Hopei. (2) Northwestern Mandarin, abbreviated NWM (Shansi, Shensi, Kansu, Ts'inghai, Ningsia, part of Inner Mongolia). (3) Southwestern Mandarin, abbreviated SWM (Hupei except southeastern corner, Szechwan, Yunnan, Kweichow, northwestern Kwangsi, northwestern corner of Hunan). (4) Yangtze-Huai or Lower Yangtze Mandarin, abbreviated LYM (Anhwei and Kiangsu north of the Yangtze except the area from Hsiichou to Pangfu, the belt south of the Yangtze from Chiuchiang to Chenchiang). Pei phonology .6 Peking can be described as having twenty-two initials (p, p\ m,f; t, t\ n, I; ts, ts\ s; ts, ts', s, tn, tn\ c; k, k\ x, zero); eight vowels (j, e, i, u, y, a, 8, o); -n, -r\ \ four tones (yin p'ing 55,7 yang p'ing 35, shang 214, ch'ii 51). Many ways have been suggested for reducing this inventory phonemically [Hartman, Lg. 20.28-42 (1944); Hockett, J AOS 67.253-67 (1947); Chao, Mandarin Primer (1948); Rygaloff, TP 43.183-264 (1954); Egerod, Lungtu 22-6 (1956)]. The Peking INITIAL CONSONANTS p, p', m,f, t, f are found as such throughout Pei. In Northwestern Mandarin aspiration tends to be manifested as x, p, or s, depending on the following vowel. Confusion of n and / is found in Lanchou, Kansu (NWM), in Hank'ou, Hupei (SWM) and in Nanking, Kiangsu (LYM). ts, ts\ and s lose their retroflexion in Shenyang, Liaoning (NM), T'aiyiian, Shansi (NWM), Ch'engtu, Szechwan (SWM), and Hank'ou, Hupei (SWM); before -u the voiceless retroflex initials become p f , pf \ f , and the voiced retroflex becomes v in Sian, Shensi, and Lanchou, Kansu (NWM). In some cases voiced retroflex initial before -i becomes n in Hank'ou, and I in Shenyang, Liaoning, and Tsinan, Shantung (NM). PK ta, /