4.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the procedure undertaken to collect the linguistic data for analysis. A brief and informal discussion about the original source of data, its reliability and the motivation for using it is first presented. An overview of Matthew Chen's hypothesis concerning Simplified Middle Chinese (SMC) reconstruction is then given, followed by an outline of Matthew Chen's and John Newman's proposals for the diachronic phonology between SMC and Modern Beij ing (MB) and Modern Cantonese (MC) . In the following sections, Chen76 is used to refer to the Chen ( 1976) hypothesis for the diachronic phonology -
*SMC>MB. CN84 is used to refer to the Chen and Newman ( 1 984a, 1 984b, 1985) hypothesis - *SMC>MC. A brief overview of the Relative Chronologies (RC) in Chen76 and CN84 is then given. Finally the procedure by which C hen76 and CN84 were used to produce and modify the raw data into a form directly usable in this project is described.
4.2 O riginal Sources and Reliability
In his book Chinese, Norman ( 1988, p.42) , states
Chinese historical phonology hitherto has been the study of the development of the various stages of the literary language as codified
in traditional dictionaries.
Indeed, all scholarly work in historical Chinese phonology ultimately derives
from the rhyming and pronouncing dictionary Qie yun, a single work compiled
in AD 601 by a small group of scholars aiming at providing a guide to the proper
recitation of literary texts (Arendrup 1994, p.523 ) . The Qie yun mentions
various earlier rhyming dictionaries in its preface, but they all seem to have
been eclipsed by Qie yun's status and prominence. The person principally
responsible for its compilation seems to have been the poet Lu Fayan (Norman
1988, p.24).
4.2.1 The Qie yun
The Qie yun, which is considered for all practical purposes identical to and thus the primary source for the Middle Chinese language (Norman 1988, p.24,40ff) records the pronunciation of Chinese characters arranged by tone and rhyme.
It is said to have made the innovation called fan qie or 'reverse cut' , by means
of which pronunciation of words without homophones could be specified. The
fan qie is a method by which a syllable is broken down into its component parts
- the initial consonant and the syllable final elements with the tone - and
the pronunciation of each is given by citing a known syllable in which it occurs (Wang and Asher 1994, p.526) . An example in English would be that of saying
that the initial of life is pronounced the same way as in light and the final the
same way as in wife. The scheme itself and its interesting history is discussed in
more detail in three recent publications - Yiming (1990) , Jianing ( 1 990) and Wen ( 19 95 ) .
The exact nature o f the language the Qie yun represents i s the subject of
some controversy. Bernhard Karlgren, one of the earliest and most prominent Western scholars of Chinese linguistics, held that it represented the language
of the Sui dynasty capital, Changan (Karlgren 1954, p.212) . However, most
Chinese linguists of the present time accept Zhou Zumo's view ( Zumo 1963) that it represents a compromise between the the literary pronunciation of north and south of that time (Norman 1988, p.24) .
4.2.2 Reliability
One thing certain, though, is that the Qie yun represents the literary com ponents of the language rather than popular ones. Popular forms are those which go back in an unbroken line to the protolanguage, while literary forms are those that at some point had ceased to be living words in the language (Norman 1988, p.41 ) . In this, popular forms must be distinguished from col loquial forms, which refers to their contemporary status. The popular/literary distinction is of a historical nature, whereas colloquial refers more to synchronic usage. It is also incorrect to say that popular forms are those literary forms that have survived to the present day because literary forms may have ceased to exist at some point in the past, yet survived to the present day because of revival from texts, perhaps more than once. Thus a form in current usage might still be considered literary, just as Latin forms in contemporary English are considered literary.
The Qie yun, unfortunately however, makes no distinction between popular
and literary forms. In fact, it does not even reflect the spoken language at the time it was written, but was an attempt to codify the proper pronunciation of words that were fast becoming literary. The express intention of Yan Zhitui, one of the principal advisers to Lu Fayen in the compilation of the Qie yun, in fact, was that his "children and grandchildren should speak correctly" (Pulleyblank 1984, p.60) , presumably using literary forms and the Qie yun was a step towards ensuring this.
But just how reliable would such a base be for work in historical phonol ogy? Opinion on this matter is clearly divided. Norman ( 1 988, p.42) seems to advocate that a "reconstruction of the ancestor of spoken (popular) forms of Chinese, working backwards from present spoken dialects .. . would avoid much of the artificiality which plagues the traditional approach," a proposal that is also welcomed in Newman ( 1996, p.l lO, note 2 ) . It must be remembered, however, that reconstructed forms in Chinese are a result of both combining insights of the Chinese philological tradition and the comparative method in modern linguistics (Newman 1 987) . Indeed, Newman ( 1996, p.93) states:
The weight of the tradition is such that it would take an extremely brave (or arrogant) researcher to dismiss the philological evidence.
Miller ( 1 975) , on the other hand, had mounted a vicious attack on all tra ditional methods in Chinese linguistics. He describes them as "highly eclectic" and even tainted by "mystical speculation" (Norman 1 988, p.40) although these are not the only grounds on which he condemns them. Chang ( 1 974) maintains
the extreme possibility that the phonology embodied in the Qie yun represents
the sum of all distinctions in one dialect known to the compilers rather than a
dialect that can be considered standard in some sense.
Pulleyblank ( 1970) himself, a prominent sinologist, had criticised the tra ditional approach in 1970, but in 1984, he seemed more forgiving. Reporting from the work of Zumo ( 1963 ) , he says:
. . . there is no basis for such exaggerated scepticism [towards Qie yun] .
. . . [It] represents a standard of correct speech common to the edu cated classes of north and south China in the sixth century. In other words, it was a cultivated "Mandarin" , not narrowly based on a single regional dialect but representing a norm which those in both parts of the country could aim at (Pulleyblank 1 984, p. 129) .
Under these circumstances, an exclusive reliance on the Qie yun or its derivatives as a base for ongoing research in historical Chinese phonology seems j ustified, if only by the absence of any other equally authoritative source. A significant component of the data used in this study is thus ultimately based on the Qie yun - the Middle Chinese reconstructed forms as interpreted, pho netically, by Chen76. The remaining data is derived using diachronic rules that give forms in two modern Chinese dialects from these reconstructions. The next section discusses this in more detail.