The Chiehyunn system and the current state of Chinese historical phonology.

• Author: Coblin, W. South

1. INTRODUCTION

   Since the nineteenth century the field of historical phonology has encompassed two separate enterprises. The first and older of these is the phonological interpretation of written sources. The second is phonological reconstruction, within which may be distinguished comparative and internal reconstruction. Throughout most of the twentieth century, Chinese historical phonology was a field dominated by the first major approach, the interpretation of texts. It was only in the final years of the century that, particularly among the younger generation of scholars, interest shifted towards phonological reconstruction based on the comparative method. As the twenty-first century begins, we face the question of how the two major approaches, interpretive and reconstructive, are to be reconciled and integrated into a single discipline. Put another way, we must ask what role traditional philological sources should play in the continually developing field of Chinese historical phonology. This paper is a reflection on that question.

2. PHONETIC INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CHIEHYUNN SYSTEM

   The traditional field of Chinese historical phonology is focused on the Chiehyunn [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] System (ChYS) and takes as its primary goal the phonetic interpretation of that system. The underlying assumption is that the system is based on some actual, spoken form of Chinese and that the phonology of that speech form is recoverable by determining the phonetic values underlying each ChYS category. This endeavor is conventionally called "phonological reconstruction." In fact, what it most resembles, albeit imperfectly, is the phonological interpretation of written systems, such as those of Latin, Greek, and other ancient languages. It does not involve comparative or internal reconstruction as these methods are generally understood and applied in the field of historical linguistics.

   In recent years, dissatisfaction with the traditional field has led to an increasingly intense questioning of the assumptions underlying ChYS studies. Defenders of the earlier approach have replied by offering arguments for the phonetic reality of the system, contending that it represents some chronologically and linguistically valid reality of its own time. We shall now review and assess some of these arguments.

   1. It is argued that the distinctions in the ChYS agree well with poetic riming conventions of the late Six Dynasties period. One way or another, the system holds together and must therefore represent a living speech form (Jou 1966: 459-69).

      In fact, rimed poetry is a conventional art form. The riming conventions of that time are part and parcel of the same tradition the Chiehyunn (ChY) was trying to describe and codify. One may speculate that riming in those days was done entirely by ear. But this is only an hypothesis. An equally valid and plausible hypothesis is that formuaic conventions were involved. The assertion that Luh Faayan [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (fl. 601) would have included in his faanchieh only distinctions represented in actual speech is unsubstantiated. Also, we know from the Chiehyunn preface that the major part of his work was done alone and in isolation, when he could not have consulted other scholars about their particular oral realizations of Chinese characters. In the end, his system can be viewed as a summa of late Six Dynasties riming and reading practices. But there is no proof, nor even any strong indication, that it represents a speech form.

   2. It is stated that the distinctions in the ChYS agree well with those found in the sixth-century Yuhpian [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and the early seventh-century Jingdean shyh'wen [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (Jou 1966: 469-71). Hence, all three of these works must be based on some common form of pronunciation of the time.

      The situation here is analogous to that of poetic riming. The various dictionaries of Six Dynasties times, both lost and extant, are thought to have been rooted in school traditions for the chanting of texts. (1) Luh Faayan seems to have wanted to regularize these in some way. Since Luh was trying to reconcile the reading traditions of his time, it would be surprising if there were not systematic and direct correlations between the ChYS and these other lexicons. But this does not prove that they were based on a common speech form or pronunciation system.

   3. Attention is paid to suggested parallels with modern standard pronunciation systems, such as that of Modern Standard English (MSE). It is sometimes asserted that the ChYS was essentially like the phonology of MSE, i.e., basically one system, valid for a single, recognizable language type, but admitting of certain minimal internal variations among speakers--e.g., marry vs. merry vs. Mary or witch vs. which (Pulleyblank 1984: 134; Baxter 1992: 37).

      This scenario is theoretically possible; but it is only an hypothesis, not a fact. It is also possible that the ChYS encompassed language types that differed more radically than do those of MSE. We can conceive, for example, of a situation where we have English night (in both its general [nait] and Scots [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] realizations), but concurrently also an inherited faanchieh [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] form equivalent to...