Chinese Dialect Classification: A Comparative Approach to Harngjou, Old Jintarn, and Common Northern Wu.

• Author: Handel, Zev
• Position: Reviews of Books

Chinese Dialect Classification: A Comparative Approach to Harngjou, Old Jintarn, and Common Northern Wu. By RICHARD VANNESS SIMMONS. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, series 4: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, vol. 188. Philadelphia: JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY, 2000. Pp. xviii + 317, tables. $99.

The field of Chinese dialectology has been undergoing rapid changes in recent years. The ideology and methodology underlying systems of dialect classification prevalent for most of the twentieth century have been challenged, and new approaches are currently being advocated and debated. The volume under review is a significant contribution to this ongoing reinvention of the field, and is one of only a few available full-length studies illustrating how these important ideas are to be practically applied to the work of Chinese dialect analysis and classification, and ultimately to the broader task of reconstructing the history of the Chinese language.

As the author notes in chapter 2, Chinese dialectology has for too long been understood and practiced as an extension of the text-based studies which have formed the basis of most scholarly work in Chinese historical phonology. The phonologies of modem dialects have too often been viewed through the lens of the phonological categories induced from analysis of medieval rime books (such as Qieyun [CHINESE CHARACTER NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and its Song redaction Guangyun [CHINESE CHARACTER NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) and rime tables (such as Yunjing [CHINESE CHARACTER NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). Whether one believes that this so-called "Qieyun System" of phonological categories is representative of one or more actual languages or is an artificial construct, it is clear that it cannot possibly be the single ancestor of the modern dialects. Treating it as such is not only historically inaccurate, but dangerously misleading, blinding the researcher to much of the evidence that the dialects themselves contain about th eir history and affiliations.

But if the Qieyun System [QYS] is not to be taken as the reference point for dialect analysis, what should replace it? Drawing on and amplifying the theoretical contributions of researchers like Jerry Norman, W. South Coblin, Yu Zhiqiang, and others, as well as his own earlier work, the author proposes that dialect classification must begin with "common phonological systems" of small groupings of clearly related dialects, determined through "careful comparison of comprehensive sets of dialect data." (There is, of course, a danger of circularity here, which is presumably rendered moot by the initial selection of dialects of such similarity and geographic proximity that a close genetic relationship can be taken as given.) Once these common phonological systems have been established and described, then "dialect affiliation is demonstrated where systematic correspondences allow us to identify systemic distinctions characteristic of a common dialect phonology" (p. 176)...