Classical Chinese as Lingua Franca in East Asia in the First to Second Millennia CE: Focusing on the Linguistic Situation in Traditional Korea (original) (raw)
Related papers
Some Ideas on the Origin of Language in Late Imperial China
The roots of the notorious European preoccupation with the origins of speech, language and linguistic diversity ever since the nascent Renaissance enlightenment (cf. Borst 1957-63, Gessinger & Rahden eds. 1989 for monumental, Eco 1993 for succinct overviews) have commonly been sought in the rejection of the Biblical master narrative of the Genesis. Within the Judeo-Christian tradition, this rejection led to an ever increasing urge to reinstate a creative power behind language, during a period when God became moribund and eventually died, but when none of the readily available antique concepts of nature or of a linguistically autonomous homo faber were felt fully adequate to fill in the metaphysical chasm God had left behind. Absent this theological background and its later political repercussions in the justification narratives of the European nation states, it is little wonder, then, that questions about the origin of language — although occasionally touched upon by pre-Qin and early Medieval scholars outside the realm of Buddhist philosophy of language, struggling with problems of reference, the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign, linguistic diversity and language change etc. (cf. Behr 2004, 2005) — never received any substantal interest in China before the Late Imperial period. In my talk, I will try to trace the major developments leading from Dai Dong's 戴侗 (fl. 1241-1275) emphatic assertion of the primacy of the spoken over the written in his Origins of the six scripts (Liushu gu 六書故), through statements on language origins encountered in the paratexts of the mainstream Qing evidential research scholars, down to the first sustained "Theory on the origin of language" (Yuyan yuanqi shuo 語言緣起說) in Zhang Taiyan’s 張太炎 (1868-1936) Guogu lunheng 國故論衡 of 1910. Special focus will be given to 17th century universalist conceptions of linguistic competence, garnered from the fragments of Liu Xianting’s 劉獻廷 (1649-95) Xin yun pu 新韻譜 and the introductory fascicle of Pan Lei’s 潘耒 (1646-1708) Lei yin 類音. If time permits, I will finally open a wider comparative perspective on the treatment of language origins in pre- or non-Judeo-Christian traditions beyond China and Europe, in order to assess the argument which holds that it is the structure of the Chinese language itself or its writing system, which impeded interest in a central question of European anthropology.
Sino-Platonic Papers, 2021
Contributions in any of the major scholarly languages of the world, including romanized modern standard Mandarin and Japanese, are acceptable. In special circumstances, papers written in one of the Sinitic topolects (fangyan) may be considered for publication. Although the chief focus of Sino-Platonic Papers is on the intercultural relations of China with other peoples, challenging and creative studies on a wide variety of philological subjects will be entertained. This series is not the place for safe, sober, and stodgy presentations. Sino-Platonic Papers prefers lively work that, while taking reasonable risks to advance the field, capitalizes on brilliant new insights into the development of civilization. Submissions are regularly sent out for peer review, and extensive editorial suggestions for revision may be offered. Sino-Platonic Papers emphasizes substance over form. We do, however, strongly recommend that prospective authors consult our style guidelines at www.sino-platonic.org/stylesheet.doc. Manuscripts should be submitted as electronic files in Microsoft Word format. You may wish to use our sample document template, available here: www.sino-platonic.org/spp.dot. All issues of Sino-Platonic Papers are free in PDF form. Issues 1-170, however, will continue to be available in paper copies until our stock runs out. Please note: When the editor goes on an expedition or research trip, all operations may cease for up to three months at a time.
Plurilingualism in Traditional Eurasian Scholarship: Thinking in Many Tongues (Brill), 2023
Xunzi compiled his tract on the “Rectification of Names” (zhengming 正名) in the third century in reference to a single passage on language in the Analects by Confucius. With a general interest in ethics, ritual, and moral question, this essay is concerned with language as the key to social and political order. Xunzi suggests a twofold process for rectifying names: first, to be conscious of historical practice, and second, to adhere to customary usage. No other master of his era dealt so elaborately with language change and diversity in this world region. Even today, scholars and philosophers still refer to him when discussing language and logic. The text illustrates the role of writing by the third century BCE, when China was a plurilingual Sinosphere.
Notes on the History of Chinese
Yǔyán yánjiù jíkān 語言研究集刊, 2018
A collection of notes by Jerry Norman, as edited by W. South Coblin and published in Yǔyán yánjiù jíkān 語言研究集刊 [Bulletin of Linguistic Studies], vol. 21 (2018). Shanghai: Shanghai cishu chubanshe. (Special number in honor of Jerry Norman.) pp. 79-122.
What Is Mandarin? The Social Project of Language Standardization in Early Republican China
Journal of Asian Studies, 2018
Scholars who study language often see standard or official languages as oppressive, helping the socially advantaged to entrench themselves as elites. This article questions this view by examining the Chinese case, in which early twentieth-century language reformers attempted to remake their society’s language situation to further national integration. Classical Chinese, accessible only to a privileged few, was sidelined in favor of Mandarin, a national standard newly created for the many. This article argues that Mandarin’s creation reflected an entirely new vision of society. It draws on archival sources on the design and promulgation of Mandarin from the 1910s to the 1930s to discuss how the way the language was standardized reflected the nature of the imagined future society it was meant to serve. Language reform thus represented a radical rethinking of how society should be organized: linguistic modernity was to be a national modernity, in which all the nation’s people would have access to the new official language, and thus increased opportunities for advancement.