THE SO-CALLED "THIRD"-PERSON POSSESSIVE PRONOUN jue [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT] IN CLASSICAL CHINESE.

• Author: TAKASHIMA, KEN-ICHI

Jue [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT] in Classical Chinese is commonly understood as an anaphoric, possessive pronoun in the third person. An examination of bronze inscriptions from the Eastern Zhou to the Zhanguo period (ca. eigthth to fourth centuries B.C.) leads to a new understanding of jue and its morphological, prosodic, and syntactic characteristics: jue also functions as a first-and second-person pronoun, denotes a specific deictic range, as zhi [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT] also does, and, in terms of stress, is stronger than qi [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT] and nai [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT]. As a result of the latter two functions, we may conclude that jue is imbued with certain metaphorical extensions lacking in the latter two pronouns, such as a sense of dignity/solemnity and intimacy/affectiveness. Furthermore, grammaticalization is seen to have played an important role in the prosodic feature of stress which is separate from rhyming. This suggests the existence of a more precise distinction within unstressed pronouns and leads to a better understanding of bronze inscriptions, as well as the Shangshu.

1. INTRODUCTION

   THERE IS A CONSENSUS AMONG the commonly used dictionaries and reference works for Classical Chinese that the word jue [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT] functions as a third-person possessive pronoun meaning "his, her, its, their." [1] He Leshi, Ao Jinghao et al. (1985) have also recognized an anaphoric function in this word, mentioning that jue refers to antecedents such as a person, thing, event (real or imagined), condition, and so on. In this sense, jue may be interpreted as meaning "that," "the aforementioned," or "that sort of," When jue is placed between two clauses, they also assign a conjunctive function to the word, giving it the meaning "then" or "thus," At first sight, these definitions all seem to adhere to the examples they quote from transmitted Classical Chinese texts of comparatively early periods, such as the Shangshu [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT] Shijing [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT] [2] Zuozhuan [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCI BLE IN ASCII TEXT], and Yi Zhoushu [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT].

   Turning our attention to bronze inscriptions (jinwen [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT]) from the Eastern Zhou (770-403 B.C.) and Warring States periods (403-221 B.C.), we find some differences (to be discussed) in the use of what we may presume to be the word jue in its inscribed form [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT] and transcribed form [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT]. According to the Shuowen (SW), [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT] is pronounced like jue/[kjuat.sup.*] (?)[CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT] [3] Although this reading of [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT] cannot be wholly verified, there would be no recourse left for us if we do not accept this phonetic identity. It should, however, be noted that for reasons difficult to reconstruct the graphic substitution of [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT] with [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT] had already taken p lace by Han times.

   Past studies by Karlgren (1933), Schindler (1935), Bodman (1948), Zhou Fagao (1959), Ono (1968), Tang Yuming (1990), and Suzuki (1991 and 1994) have contributed in different ways to our understanding of the word jue. This is particularly true in the case of its use in early transmitted texts. These studies mainly discuss jue in relation to the word qi [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT], which performs a similar function and has roughly the same meaning. This paper concentrates instead on examples culled from several archaeologically excavated texts, of which the most significant are the three long bronze inscriptions found in the tomb of King Cuo [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT] who ruled over the State of Zhongshan [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT] during the Warring States period (r. ca. 320-310 B.C.). [4]

   Previously, when I attempted a close reading of these inscriptions, I gained the impression that jue had an honorific meaning, conveying both exaltation as well as a sense of humility. By contrast, qi did not seem to have any honorific meaning. However, I have come to feel that this impressionistic understanding reflects more a secondary function of jue. The lack of consistent contextual support for an honorific use of jue is central to this view. Moreover, since the "exalting" and "humble" meanings stand in opposition to each other, to assign both meanings creates a difficulty in the system of honorifics. The honorific function of the word seems to be a by-product of something more basic.

   My effort to distinguish jue from qi has given rise to the interpretation that although both words are deictic and anaphoric in the great majority of cases, [5] they differ in terms of their degree of stress or emphasis, as well as in their deictic scope. In short, jue is "stronger" than qi in terms of stress/emphasis and generally "narrower" or "more immediate" than qi in terms of deictic scope. In presenting this theory, I focus on the deictic function of the two words, specifically the shifting referent that is discernible within the immediate context of utterances containing them. I also rely on the assumed existence of "reference tracking mechanisms" by which the hearer of an utterance, or the reader of a text, can retrieve information from the form and structure of the discourse indicating which particular entity is being referred to. As will be discussed in more detail later, monitoring the coreference of core arguments is central to the reference tracking mechanism I employ (Foley and Van Valin 1984: 321ff.). The anaphoric function of jue and, if applicable, of qi, becomes a crucial issue in determining the category of person.

   In the pages that follow, I argue for the theory stated above, based on the following four perspectives: (1) contextual analysis of archaeologically discovered texts, (2) reference-tracking mechanisms, (3) prosodic/metrical features of Classical Chinese, and (4) the general tendency towards the grammaticalization of certain words, a process whereby plerotic, "full," words, shici [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT] change to kenotic, "empty," ones, xuci [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT]. This is a process that appears to be closely related to the assignment of a "weak" prosodic feature to a given word.

2. A CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF jue [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT] AND qi [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT] IN BRONZE INSCRIPTIONS AND RELATED ISSUES

   It is methodologically sound to base ourselves on the most common usage and meaning of a word. Only when something that does not comply with an accepted usage is discovered is it necessary to posit a new interpretation. Following this rationale, I will consider all the examples of jue and some representative examples of qi found in the Zhongshan bronze inscriptions (abbreviated hereafter as BI). This will provide a solid basis from which to observe how these words are used in this context and what they may have meant ([delta]2.1). I will then attempt to establish a theoretical basis for the apparent switching of reference from the first person to the third and even to the second that is manifest in the use of jue. Assigning a first- and second-person referent to jue may occasion skepticism. This is not only because the proposal is new; another point that may be seen to diminish the argument is the paucity of examples, particularly in the case of the pronoun's second-person function (that implies that it was well on its way to disuse, say by the end of Nanbeichao period; see fn. 67). I will therefore address the second-person use of jue in [delta]2.3, comparing it with the manifestly clear second-person referent of nai [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT] 'your'. The last subsection, [delta]2.4, discusses the existence of "strong" or "weak" prosodic feature assignable to jue (strong), qi (weak), and nai (weak).

   2.1. The Referent of jue [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT] and qi [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT] in the Zhongshan Bronze Inscriptions

   A total of eight occurrences of jue are observed in the BI: two in Zhongshan wang Cuo fanghu [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT] (FH), five in Zhongshan wang Cuo yuanding [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT](YD), and one in the Qie Ci yuanhu [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT] (YH) inscription. In contrast, we have twenty-five examples of qi: nine in FH, fourteen in YD, and two in YH. The following examples provide good material for scrutiny, containing as they do both qi and jue in the same sentence.

   (1) [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT] (FH) Heaven did not reject my wishes ([less than] lit. I have wishes), and made it possible for me to acquire Zhou, the wise man of talent and good assistant, so he could assist me.

   (2) [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII TEXT], (FH) Zhou did his utmost to fulfill his duties as a subject, assisting me in many ways. Without treachery in his heart, he accepted (my) charge to assist in state affairs.

   A careful analysis of these examples will allow us to test certain hypotheses, enabling us to distinguish qi and jue from one another. A fundamental assumption, however, should be acknowledged at the outset: there must have been some difference between these words. A free-variation theory such as that proposed by Tang Yuming (1990: 294) seems presumptuous; we must try to avoid it as far as...