Innovation and Integration: Chinese Exegesis and Modern Semantics Before 1949

Hongwei Jia

Capital Normal University, China

Innovation and Integration: Chinese Exegesis and Modern Semantics Before 1949

Hongwei Jia

Capital Normal University, China

It is widely accepted that knowledge in the humanities is highly situated. Especially mediated is knowledge in the domain of meaning studies, the differences in time, space and language being particular challenges for researchers to interpret and represent the past. This article, in terms of linguistic historiography, offers an overview of the spread of modern semantics in China since 1906, its mixture with traditional Chinese Exegesis, and its growth into New Exegesis (Semantics), and presents the differences between traditional Chinese Exegesis and New Exegesis in their nature, scope, principles, and research methods in order to bring the past and the present into dialogic engagement, and meanwhile to offer references to the writing of a history of modern Chinese semantics before 1949.

modern semantics, New Exegesis, linguistic historiography, integration and innovation

1. The Mediated Nature of Knowledge and Chinese History of Modern Semantics

It is universally accepted today that knowledge in the humanities is not impersonal but highly situated. In both the production and the processing of knowledge, a researcher is acted upon by contextual pressures, influenced by prevailing intellectual trends, bound to tradition or torn between traditions, and shaped by both his/her own academic experiences and social ideology. If knowledge is mediated, this is all the more true of historical knowledge, especially in the field of language meaning studies, as L. P. Hartley (1953, p. 9) says, “The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.” Though there exist different traditions of dealing with language meaning between the East and the West, they both have the goal of serving the reading of ancient academic works. Therefore, in dealingwith the historical material in semantics, researchers have to overcome the problems of interpretation caused not only by the distance of time but also by the many formidable historical, linguistic and cultural frontiers negotiated by linguists in the past.

Though efforts have been conducted in the history of modern semantics in China, there is still disagreement over when modern semantics was introduced into China. Some researchers believe that modern semantics in China appeared in 1934 (Wang, 1997; Sheng et al, 2005), some hold the view that it came after the 1960s (Shao et al., 1991; He, 1995), and others think that it occurred in the 1970s and 1980s (Lin, 2000; Lin, 2003). In short, historical studies on modern semantics or language meaning studies depict sites of vigorous debates. Therefore, the history of modern Chinese semantics has yet to be finalized.

As to the history of modern Chinese semantics, some linguists put it into five stages: embryonic period (1930 – 1949), creeping period (1950 – 1966), debugging period (1978 – 1990), fast development period (1991 – 2000) and new century period (2001 – 2012) (Jia, 2013). However, modern semantics was brought into China before the official introduction in the form of translation in 1930 when Sperber’s (1914)über den Affekt als Ursache der Sprachver?nderung: Versuch einer dynamologischen Betrachtung des Sprachlebenswas translated. Actually, modern semantics in China can be traced back to 1906 when Chinese linguist Zhang Taiyan (1869 – 1936) published his ground-breaking paper “A Treatise on the Studies of Chinese Languages and Characters” (《論語言文字之學》) (1906) where he borrowed foreign theories to explore the origin of Chinese nouns, verbs and adjectives, and their semantic changes. Thus, a historical work on modern Chinese semantics needs to consider the works of this sort since 1906.

Examining the embryonic period (1906 – 1949) of modern Chinese semantics, two stages are characterized by the innovations and integrations by Chinese linguists, and by introductions and translations by native and overseas scholars. The former starts with Zhang Taiyan’s establishingthe studies of Chinese languages and character(語言文字學) as a discipline, which was developed into the studies of exegesis by Shen Jianshi (1887 – 1947) and Huang Kan (1886 – 1935), and renovated intoNew Exegesis(新訓詁學) by Zhang Shilu (1902 – 1991), Fu Maoji (1911 – 1988), Qi Peirong (1911 – 1961), Wang Li (1900 – 1986), etc. The innovation and integration movement ofthe traditional exegesis(傳統訓詁學) reached a climax in 1930s and 1940s by the introduction and translation of semantic works, but came to a standstill because of the influences from the Soviet Union (1949 – 1965) and the Great Cultural Revolution (1966 – 1976), and received its present identity in 1978. With the influences of the Soviet Union and the Great Cultural Revolution, modern Chinese semantics is focused more on lexical meaning and semantic change, losing sight of the previous part of new exegesis.

Up to now, little of the literature covers the transitional period from traditional Chinese exegesis to new exegesis. Additionally, we have little knowledge of the differences between the traditional and the new exegesis regarding their nature, scope, principles and research methods, and of how they have changed. The research on theaspects above is not only beneficial to the knowledge of how modern semantics spreads and gets itself merged into Chinese Exegesis during this period, but also to the writing of the modern Chinese history of linguistics.

2. Nature and Scope: Traditional Exegesis vs. New Exegesis

The achievements of foreign linguistics came into Chinese linguistics in 1906 when the exiled Chinese linguist Zhang Taiyan published inJournal of Chinese Quintessence(《國粹學報》) his groundbreaking paper “A Treatise of Chinese Languages and Character”. In this paper, he not only rectified the name and nature of traditional ChineseXiao Xue(小學)1, but declared language and character as its object, and establishedChinese languages and character studiesas a separate discipline. He borrowedDravya(實) ‘substance’,Guna(德) ‘quality’ andKarma(業) ‘activity’ fromVaisésika(《印度勝論說》) of ancient India to explore the origin of Chinese nouns, adjectives and verbs:

[Grounded onVaisésikaof ancient India, any form has its three interrelated properties of Dravya, Guna and Karma. For instance,humanandequineareDravyawhilebenevolentandvaliantare theirGuna;metalandfireareDravyawhiledefendanddestroyare theirKarma. A term for a substance has to come up with itsGunaandKarma, therefore Noun comes first. In primitive times, language served all people on the land, so there are only terms for substance in use, and terms forGunaandKarmacome later. Hereby, terms for ox and equine come the earliest while terms forGunaandKarmacome with the semantic shift of ox and equine. Coming with the civilization, terms forGunaandKarmacome earlier than those forDravya.]2

一切有形，大抵皆而以印度勝論之說，言之實、德、業三，各不相離。人雲馬雲，是其實也；仁雲武雲，是其德也；金雲火雲，是其實也；禁雲毀雲，是其業也。一實之名，必與其德或與其業相麗、相著，故名必有由起。雖然太古草昧之世共言語，惟以表實，而德業之名為後起，故牛馬之名成立最早，而事武之語，即由牛馬變化而生，稍近文明則德業之語早成。(1906, p. 1)

He insists that in ancient Chinese words for substance come first, while in modern Chinese words for quality and activity come first. In this quoted paragraph, he also implies the semantic roles of Chinese nouns, verbs and adjectives.

Zhang was also influenced by Max Müller (1823 – 1900), especially by the views on the power of roots inLectures on the Science of Languages(Vol. 2, 1873) in reconsidering the views of the origin and semantic changes of Chinese Characters sinceA Dictionary of Chinese Characters(《說文解字》)3in the Han Dynasty. He combined sound changes and significance of diversity into the research of Chinese semantic shift, and proposed his research method: starting with roots in exploring thederivation(孳乳) andsemantic shiftof Chinese characters throughout history.

In view of the revolution of traditional Chinese exegesis, Zhang puts Chinese exegesis in the pocket of modern linguistics. However, besidesOn the Origin of ChineseCharacters(《文始》) (1913), he did not set any specific mission for Chinese exegesis research, leaving it to be set by later writers such as Shen Jianshi and Huang Kan.

Shen Jianshi, in “On the Research Methods of Form and Meaning in Chinese Character Studies” (《研究文字學‘形’與‘義’的幾個方法》) (1920), puts forth its subject name ofChinese Exegesis Studies, and sets its scope as diachronic and synchronic studies of Chinese language and characters, which consists of three parts, namely (1) a general survey of its origin and development, key points and research methods; (2) a study of semantic change through history—based on Chinese canonical literature; (3) a study of differences and affiliations among Chinese dialects. This was the first time that Chinese exegesis had its subject name, research scope and methods. However, in terms of the nature and scope of modern linguistics, Shen’s Chinese exegesis studies are closer to today’s general linguistics rather than semantics.

Huang Kan, in “An Introduction to Chinese Exegesis” (《訓詁述略》) (1928/1935, p. 1), defines the name, nature and mission of Chinese exegesis, and further expounds on the methods and formation of exegesis. He holds that its nature is to explain speech and characters by means of meta-language without restraints of time and space, but not to deal with their composing principles. Therefore, it carries the property of general linguistics, and its mission is to explain ancient and foreign words by means of modern and native words. InNotes on Character, Rhyme and Exegesis(《文字聲韻訓詁筆記》) (1983)4, Huang further defines:

[Xiao Xue(Chinese Philology) is in essence the study of Chinese languages and character, of which Chinese character carries form, sound and significance. Chinese exegesis is the very branch focusing on the area of significance. It, resorting to the sound and form, aims to offer readers a comparatively correct explanation, a correct origin and a good usage for Chinese words. It also deals with its research methods with good examples in order to explore its origins and to construct its system.]

小學者，中國語言文字之學也。文字兼形、音、義三者。訓詁者，義之屬，而依附音與形，以探究語言文字正當明確之解釋，推求其正當明確之來源，因而得其正當明確之用法者也。(1983, p. 179)

As mentioned before, Huang (1928/1935, 1983) puts etymology, script studies (graphology), dialect studies (dialectology), etc. into the field of Chinese exegesis studies, covering ancient and modern, native and foreign speech and dialects on the levels of sound, form and significance. Therefore, Huang’s Chinese exegesis, by nature, is still pan-linguistics. Regarding what Huang has done in the building of Chinese exegesis studies, he is honored as the father of Chinese exegesis studies by Chinese native linguists. In spite of Huang’s efforts in building the discipline, his system of Chinese exegesis studies is not perfect, and cannot be a separate discipline.

To further construct the system, He Zhongying publishedAn Introduction to Chinese Exegesis Studies(《訓詁學引論》) (1933) based on the framework by Shen Jianshi(1920). His work covers (1) the origin, research methods and terms for Chinese exegesis; (2) the general semantic change since the Yin-Shang era, the power of Mandarin, grammar change and the loan words of foreign languages; and (3) the origin and types of Chinese modern dialects, the relationships between dialects and ancient Chinese speech, and between dialects and official Chinese. Generally speaking, his framework ranges from sound and grammar to significance, covering the ancient and modern, native and foreign speeches and dialects. As a part of Chinese linguistics, this is too wide in scope, I think.

Though semasiology and semantics were both introduced into China in 1930,5neither semasiology nor semantics had been borrowed for the construction of Chinese exegesis until 1940, except for “On Exegesis Studies and Grammar” (《訓詁學與文法學》) (1940) by Zhang Shilu. In this work, Zhang redefines in the perspective of history, the nature of Chinese Exegesis Studies:

[Chinese Exegesis Studies is considered the study of meaning at large, so it is regarded as the equivalent of semantics, a separate discipline as phonology and morphology. With traditional Chinese Exegesis as a reference, it is by nature hermeneutics rather than semantics. Actually, traditional Chinese Exegesis is not a pure study of meaning, but an applied research to some extent. To be more specific, it serves as a tool to read Chinese classics or identify the senses of words. So it does not have the same nature as semantics does.]

訓詁學，通常大都以為是屬於字義方面的研究，往往拿它來作字義學的別名，以與音韻之學、形體之學對稱。實在依據過去中國訓詁學的性質來看，與其說它是字義學，不如說它是解釋學；中國訓詁學過去並非純粹屬於字義的理論的研究，而是大部分偏於實用的研究，實際上，可以認為是讀書識字或辨認詞語的一種工具之學。所以，它和‘意義學’（semantics）的性質不同。(1940, p. 117)

In terms of scope, traditional Chinese exegesis covers etymology, parts of speech, word families, literal meaning, derived meaning, etc., which cannot be covered in hermeneutics, so it is closer to traditional Western Historische Semantik (historical semantics) rather than hermeneutics. As mentioned, Shen’s framework for Chinese Exegesis covers almost all areas of general linguistics while Zhang narrows down his research scope into the pocket of hermeneutics. Compared with all the works before 1940, only Zhang’s paper refers to modern semantics, but he does not absorb anything essential into Chinese exegesis studies. This picture changes with the works by Fu Maoji, Qi Peirong, Wang Li, and other important figures.

Officially combining modern semantic theory and research methods into the construction of new Chinese exegesis starts with “The Science of Chinese Exegesis” (1942) by Fu Maoji, followed by Qi (1943) and Wang (1947). Compared with innovation as the momentary feature of Chinese exegesis before 1940, this stage features the integration of modern semantics and Chinese exegesis studies, which can be seen in the works of Fu (1942), Qi (1943) and Wang (1947).

Based onA Dictionary of Chinese Literary Language(《爾雅》),6A Dictionary of Chinese Characters(《說文解字》),Notes on Ceremony Practice of Chou Era(《周禮》),7etc., Fu (1942) defines, from the perspective of Chinese historiography, Chinese exegesis. To wit: it is to explain ancient Chinese speech and characters in order to learn the meaning of words from ancient literature, point out the nature of this subject being a study of meaning, i.e. semantics or semasiology in the English context, and stress that the science of Chinese exegesis lies in scientific principles and methods in conducting Chinese meaning studies. Through the general introduction of semantic works in Europe and America for almost fifty years, he calls for innovating Chinese exegesis studies by combining diachronic and synchronic approaches into word meaning in the same time and same space, in the same time and different space, and in different time and the same space. With the current knowledge of linguistics as a reference, Fu’s framework has features of structural linguistics.

Qi Peirong, inA General Introduction to Chinese Exegesis Studies(《訓詁學概論》) (1943), states that it is not reasonable or precise to put form, sound and meaning study into Chinese exegesis studies by previous linguists, and redefines the nature of Chinese exegesis as “a study of the meaning of Chinese languages and character, especially a subject to study the relations between sound and meaning, the ancient Chinese speech and character” (1943, p. 1), so he considers it as a part of historical linguistics, and it is essentially historical semantics. He borrows the theory, method and terms of modern semantics to construct a new system for Chinese exegesis studies, touching on meaning and sound, semantic units, semantic shift, and semantic category in the area of Chinese exegesis studies for the first time, and divides Chinese exegesis into applied and theoretical branches. Qi’s efforts can be regarded as a response to Fu (1942), not only redefining the scope of Chinese exegesis studies but leading to a scientific path of meaning study.

Though Huang Kan (1983) put forth Chinese exegesis studies as a discipline and sets a scientific structure in order to push traditional Chinese exegesis, he dragged it into the scope of general linguistics. Later linguists tried to narrow down his structure and scope while borrowing modern semantics to make it a scientific study in theory, but it was still different from a modern study of meaning until Wang Li’s proposal of new exegesis studies became a new subject as semantics inOn New Exegesis Studies(《新訓詁學》) (1947).

As toNew Exegesis Studies, Wang (1947) thinks that grammar, semantics and phonology in modern linguistics are similar to character studies, exegesis and Chinese phonology inXiao Xue(Chinese Philology) in order to tell whyNew Exegesis Studiesis by nature semantics:

[The scope of our semantics is similar to that of traditional Chinese exegesis. However, the research methods of semantics differ from those of traditional Chinese exegesis, so we do not retain its original name. In order to make salient the differences between Chinese exegesis andsemantics, we name itNew Exegesis.]

我們所謂語義學（semantics）的範圍，大致也和舊說的訓詁學相當。但是，在治學方法上，二者之間有很大的差異，所以我們向來不大喜歡沿用訓詁學的舊名稱。……