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(xué)》) (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(xué)) 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(xùn)詁學(xué)) 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(tǒng)訓(xùn)詁學(xué)) 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(xué)報(bào)》) 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(xué))1, but declared language and character as its object, and establishedChinese languages and character studiesas a separate discipline. He borrowedDravya(實(shí)) ‘substance’,Guna(德) ‘quality’ andKarma(業(yè)) ‘a(chǎn)ctivity’ 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(shí)、德、業(yè)三，各不相離。人雲(yún)馬雲(yún)，是其實(shí)也；仁雲(yún)武雲(yún)，是其德也；金雲(yún)火雲(yún)，是其實(shí)也；禁雲(yún)毀雲(yún)，是其業(yè)也。一實(shí)之名，必與其德或與其業(yè)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(shí)，而德業(yè)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(yè)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(xué)‘形’與‘義’的幾個(gè)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(xùn)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(xùn)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(xué)者，中國語言文字之學(xué)也。文字兼形、音、義三者。訓(xùn)詁者，義之屬，而依附音與形，以探究語言文字正當(dāng)明確之解釋，推求其正當(dāng)明確之來源，因而得其正當(dāng)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(xùn)詁學(xué)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(xùn)詁學(xué)與文法學(xué)》) (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(xùn)詁學(xué)，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(xué)的別名，以與音韻之學(xué)、形體之學(xué)對(duì)稱。實(shí)在依據(jù)過去中國訓(xùn)詁學(xué)的性質(zhì)來看，與其說它是字義學(xué)，不如說它是解釋學(xué)；中國訓(xùn)詁學(xué)過去並非純粹屬於字義的理論的研究，而是大部分偏於實(shí)用的研究，實(shí)際上，可以認(rèn)為是讀書識(shí)字或辨認(rèn)詞語的一種工具之學(xué)。所以，它和‘意義學(xué)’（semantics）的性質(zhì)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(xùn)詁學(xué)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(xùn)詁學(xué)》) (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(xué)（semantics）的範(fàn)圍，大致也和舊說的訓(xùn)詁學(xué)相當(dāng)。但是，在治學(xué)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(xùn)詁學(xué)的舊名稱。這裡因?yàn)橐@示訓(xùn)詁學(xué)和語義學(xué)在方法上的異同，才把語義學(xué)稱為新訓(xùn)詁學(xué)。(1947, p. 175)

He further expounds the mission and object of New Exegesis:

[Doing research in New Exegesis, linguists need to (1) have a historical view to focus on when the significance of a word was born and died;8(2) study semantic changes including broadening, narrowing and semantic shift by considering the relations among sound, grammar and meaning; (3) take into account the history of civilization in exploring semantic changes, making semantic changes a part of civilization’s history. Only by holding these views can exegesis studies break away from the service of reading Chinese classics, and can New Exegesis be established as a separate discipline.]

至於新訓(xùn)詁學(xué)的研究語義，首先要有歷史觀念，研究每一語義產(chǎn)生和死亡的時(shí)期。其次研究語義的演變，考究它的擴(kuò)大、縮小和轉(zhuǎn)移等變化。並須顧到語音、語法和語義的關(guān)係，來幫助對(duì)於語義的歷史和演變的探討。再就考究語義的歷史說，還可以和文化史相印證，成為文化史的一部分。用這樣的觀點(diǎn)去研究訓(xùn)詁，訓(xùn)詁學(xué)才能脫離了經(jīng)學(xué)附庸的地位，新的訓(xùn)詁學(xué)才能建立起來。(1947, p. 175)

Here, we can see the changes of its nature and scope from a practice of adding notes to Chinese classics and compiling reference books for reading these classics, to the study of the laws of semantic changes; from studying only ancient speech and characters to taking into account foreign and native, ancient and modern speech and characters, dialects and official language, written and oral forms; from holding only historical views to keeping both historical views and cultural views; from historical linguistics to modern semantics as a branch of modern linguistics. In any event, the change of its nature is only one aspect of its innovation and integration. With the change of its nature, its research principles and methods also vary.

3. Principles: Traditional Exegesis vs. New Exegesis

Though research principles have been mentioned above, they are only fragmented remarks still to be systemized and structured. Zhang Taiyan calls for the dispensing of traditional approaches of exegesis instead of developing new approaches, based on the previous efforts in exegesis, to learn the laws of the similar sounds carrying the same meaning, and to study the semantic changes by exploring the word root, i.e. to explain the ancient speech and characters by means of ancient speech and characters, and to exemplify the modern speech and characters by the ancient speech and characters, the former of which is represented byOn the Origin of Chinese Characters(《文始》) (1913) while the latter isA Treatise of New Dialects(《新方言》) (1907).

Following Zhang’s principle, Shen Jianshi (c.f. 1920, p. 8) further proposes diachronic and synchronic research principles of Chinese exegesis, the former aiming to comb the historical change of written words from Chinese classics while the latter focuses upon the study of dialects in China.

Compared with Zhang’s and Shen’s arguments, Huang Kan (1928/1935) elaborates the micro principle of Chinese exegesis studies. He argues that exegesis research has three cardinal principles in turn: to find the relevant instances, to examine the etymological form of a character, and to explore a word root (1928/1935, p. 2). To find the relevant instances cited in ancient classics is to illustrate and expound word senses; to examine the etymological form of a character is to construct the consistent sense relation between its original form and sound; to explore word roots is to be ascertained by character meaning,9combing the origin of the meaning of sound, and considering the relations among sound, form and meaning. Therefore, it is agreed universally that this principle is the ultimate goal and primary task of Zhang’s and Huang’s exegesis studies (He, 1995, p. 506). Generally, Huang’s principle follows the universal law of human cognition from the surface to the deep, from individuality to universality, and from particularity to universalism.

In view of the relation between Chinese exegesis and grammar, Zhang Shilu (1940) puts forth two research principles. The first principle stresses that exegesis studies has to consider sound, form and meaning of a character, and meaning studies should be based upon the knowledge of the sound and form of the character, which is consistent with the laws of language studies, as is illustrated below:

[Grounded onextension(引申) andChia chieh(假借), Chinese characters signifying one thing are used to refer to another thing, so the explanation of the characters in a given context needs the practice of character studies and exegesis studies.]

中國文字的應(yīng)用，依據(jù)引申和假借（的）兩種方式，使得表明此義的字體轉(zhuǎn)而表明彼義；所以要解釋實(shí)際文辭當(dāng)中所應(yīng)用的字體，必須先有文字學(xué)、音韻學(xué)的訓(xùn)練。(1940, p. 119)

The second principle claims that meaning studies, grammar and context are complementary and interdependent, and the meaning of a character is situated, which is, to a large extent, close to “Meaning of words rooted in their pragmatic efficiency.” by Bronislaw Malinowski (1884 – 1942) in “The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages” (1923):

[The signification of a character can only make sense in the context formed by characters in use.… In other words, a character divorced from its context cannot make any sense. Therefore, if a character or a sentence has any ambivalence, it can only be reasonable that its explanation should cling to its contextual or textual meaning…. Only by learning the meaning of every character in the context can its usage be figured out. Once its function in a given contextis determined, the meaning of every character is clear. Both of the above practices need to consider the lexical collocation and contextual clues. Hereby, the relation of grammar and character studies in exegesis studies is complementary and interdependent.]

文字的應(yīng)用，必定是各字的相互連接以組成辭句，才能顯示意義?！髯值膽?yīng)用，不能離開辭句而獨(dú)立的顯示意義。所以對(duì)於一個(gè)有疑義的字句，必須求得一種解釋，在全篇全章或全句的總意義以及上下文的關(guān)係上都通得過去的，才可稱為精確妥當(dāng)。(1940, p. 119) ……明白了辭句裡各字的意義，自然能夠確定各字的用法；確定了各字在辭句組織上的功用，也自然因此瞭解各字的意義；而都要就各字彼此間的連結(jié)配置和上下文的關(guān)係來推斷。所以訓(xùn)詁學(xué)和文法學(xué)兩者?；ハ酁橛茫ハ嘀L(zhǎng)。(1940, p. 121)

Reconsidering the previous efforts in constructing exegesis principles, Fu Maoji (1942) points out thatexemplifying the primary meaning of a character by means of its ancient sound(古音古義交相證發(fā)) accompanying the principle of similar sound carrying the same meaning, and having a set pattern of a comprehensive description with roots as its focus, are necessary in constructing scientific principles of Chinese exegesis studies. As to the principle of a comprehensive formulary description, he makes the following remark:

[Words with the same root have the same semantic links. However, a given root may appear in other words, and these words carry their own semantic links. Though words have different roots, they may have the same semantic links.]

屬於同一種語根的詞，往往含有一個(gè)共象，但是這個(gè)語根還可以領(lǐng)有另外的一些詞，它們另外有它們的共象。不同語根的詞，往往有不同的共象，但是不屬於幾個(gè)不同的語根的詞，也可以有相同的共象。(Fu, 1942, pp. 25-26)

Besides the diachronic and synchronic studies mentioned above, Fu (1942) argues that a scientific exegesis study has to tell when and where a word meaning originates, and when and where this meaning changes. Only studies following this approach can be scientific examinations of semantic change.

Qi (1943) focuses on the semantic change of words with the change of time and space. He holds that language has the three aspects of sound, grammar and meaning. A word experiences the rise and decline of its institution and structure, and the interchangeable use of correct and ghost words. Besides, the change of social institutions and customs also leads to formal and semantic change. Therefore, exegesis studies is divided into theoretical and applied studies, with the relation between meaning and sound, semantic unit, semantic change and semantic types.

Wang (1947) criticizes the practices of traditional Chinese exegesis and proposes three principles of New Exegesis. The first principle is to hold a historical view. Though previous linguists dealt with it, Wang expounds it more systematically and thoroughly, which can be seen as follows:

[We consider the historical view as priority when we are conducting meaning studies. Whatprevious linguists do asliteral meaning(本義),extension(引申) andChia chieh(假借) only devotes to exploring the origin and change of word meaning.…What New Exegesis does is to correct this trend and consider the speech and characters in every period of history with the same weight and values.… And also, we need to tell when a word meaning comes into being and dies. Though the amount of ancient and modern literature is too small to help find in which book a word meaning appears first, at least we can be sure of its date.]

我們研究語義，首先要有歷史的觀念。前人所講字的本義和引申假借，固然也是追究字義的本源及其演變?！掠?xùn)詁學(xué)首先應(yīng)該矯正這個(gè)毛病，把語言的歷史的每一個(gè)時(shí)代看作同等的價(jià)值……對(duì)於每一個(gè)語義，都應(yīng)該研究它在何時(shí)產(chǎn)生，何時(shí)死亡。雖然古今書籍有限，不能十分確定某一個(gè)語義必系產(chǎn)生在它首次出現(xiàn)的書的著作時(shí)代，但至少我們可以斷定它的出世不晚於某時(shí)。(1947, p. 181)

The second principle is about how to combine modern semantics with traditional Chinese exegesis practices. Wang stresses that with reference to broadening, narrowing and semantic shift of modern semantics, meaning studies has to take into account the relations between meaning and sound or grammar, especially that between meaning and modern grammar except for the research methods of sound and meaning explanation in traditional exegesis. This principle is in nature the same as what Fu’s (1942) principle in that what Fu emphasizes is context while Wang’s emphasis is on modern grammar.

The third principle is to analyze the relation between New Exegesis and history, which has rarely been touched on before. He declares the relation between new exegesis (semantics) and language history and/or civilization history as follows:

[Language history is a part of the history of human civilization while the history of semantic change is a part of language history. Only by observing the semantic change in terms of history, does exegesis studies have its new values. Even if we only describe the meaning change over a certain time (a dynastic history) instead of through history, it still needs a historical view.]

一切的語言史都可認(rèn)為文化史的一部分，而語義的歷史又是語言史的一部分。從歷史上去觀察語義的變遷，然後訓(xùn)詁學(xué)才有新的價(jià)值。即使不顧全部歷史而只作某一時(shí)代的語義描寫，也就等於斷代史，仍舊應(yīng)該運(yùn)用歷史的眼光。(1947, p. 188)

Chinese linguists since Zhang (1906) have attempted to reform Chinese exegesis by referring to the theories and research methods of modern linguistics, especially modern semantics, and nearly every researcher proposes their research principles and pushes the development of this subject into modern semantics. In particular, the principles of Zhang (1940), Fu (1942), Qi (1943), etc. form the foundations for new exegesis (modern semantics) by Wang (1947). It is at that time when Chinese exegesis merged with modern semantics. With the pace of the research principles, research methods are also updated to better serve the goal of this new subject.

4. Research Methods

With the challenges of modern linguistics, Zhang Taiyan (1906) renews the research methods of Chinese exegesis and insists on doing exegesis research by following the three cardinal methods ofliteral reference(直訓(xùn)),roots, anddefinition(界說). Chinese gentry scholars followed these three methods until the 1920s. In the 1920s, Shen Jianshi (1920) proposed diachronic and synchronic study of character meaning by following the methods of derivation, extension, and interchangeable use of characters or words; Huang Kan’s circular reference is to a large extent close to Zhang’s literal reference and meanwhile his inference also has a similar function to Zhang’s root, though he tries to push the development of this subject and claims his research methods ofcircular reference,definitionandinference. By comparing Zhang’s and Huang’s research methods, we can see that Huang inherits a lot from Zhang’s research methods. That’s also why they both can stand side by side in Chinese exegesis studies in early China.

In the 1930s, He Zhongying re-thought about previous efforts in constructing exegesis research methods, and put forth, based on the general laws of Chinese character creation that Chinese characters were created with meaning first followed by sound, 16 methods covering sound and form aspects. Though he also considered the relation between meaning and sound, form and sound, and between meaning and form, and expounded his methods with rich examples as systematically and thoroughly as ever, his methods are still in the scope of traditional exegesis with little knowledge of modern semantics.

In the 1940s, Zhang Shilu (1940), in terms of the relation between Chinese exegesis studies and grammar, declared two new methods. One was interpreting ancient and modern speech and characters of all provinces. The other was defining and prescribing the meaning of every character and word to explain its significance. Fu Maoji (1942) criticizes that sound reference is too subjective and systematic to take one sound as its semantic links, form reference cannot distinguish itself from meaning reference as it contains more formal elements than semantic components, and meaning reference is featured by circular reference, semantic ambivalence, single characters serving as reference units, the ignorance of semantic individuality as well as the ignorance of semantic properties of time and space. He (1942) further offers his four point remedies: (1) determining word instead of character as the semantic unit; (2) describing by explaining a specific term with a general term, individuality with universality, reference, and contrast, the property and function of a word instead of copying the original explanation work; (3) illustrating the individuality situated in a given context; (4) noting down the information of time and space in exploring the semantic change of a word. Fu’s efforts, in the perspective of Chinese linguistic historiography, lead to the scientific building of Chinese exegesis studies, making it a separate modern scientific discipline.

Considering that Chinese exegesis has been focusing on form, Qi Peirong (1943) calls for taking sound and meaning as approaches to study the relation between meaning and sound, semantic unit, semantic change and semantic type on the level of sound, grammarand meaning. The reason why Qi (1943) ignores form is that, as Wang Li (1947) does, he thinks semantics should not be restrained by form.

As the above remarks show, Chinese exegesis research methods develop from the form as a priority to stressing the relations between meaning and grammar, or that between meaning and sound, going gradually into the modern scientific subject.

5. Contrastive Analysis

Though traditional Chinese exegesis has a long history, it is not a science as modern linguistics is. Chinese exegesis became a separate subject in the 1920s in Shen (1920) and Huang (1928). Ever since, Chinese linguists have tried to renovate Chinese exegesis, but the transitional period of traditional Chinese exegesis to New Exegesis is marked by “On Exegesis Studies and Grammar” (1940). Later, Fu (1942) talked about how Chinese exegesis became a modern scientific subject, followed by Qi (1943) and Wang (1947) establishing the Chinese Exegesis as a separate modern subject equivalent to modern semantics.

New Exegesis distinguishes itself from traditional Chinese exegesis in its nature, views, object, and method.

5.1 Nature

Traditional Chinese exegesis serves as a tool to read Chinese classics, similar to the compilation of a dictionary, aiming to collect almost all meanings of a word (character), compare them through history and tell what a word means in a given work. In nature, it is a branch of Chinese philology. To be more specific, it is historical comparative linguistics.

However, being another name of semantics, new exegesis has become a separate branch of linguistics with both theories and research methods borrowed from semantics. It not only has its modern and scientific framework, but also performs diachronic and synchronic semantic studies of ancient and modern Chinese speech and characters, aiming to learn the systematic laws of Chinese semantic changes.

The changes of their nature come with the challenges of modern intellectual development and the requirements of learning the role of the Chinese language in Chinese social ideological progress and national identity. Meanwhile, the advance and needs of modern language education in China of that time also play an important part in the evolution of Chinese exegesis studies. Actually, any change in any area goes with the change of intellectual and social ideological views. With Chinese exegesis as a reference, we try to explore how views change with the innovation of traditional Chinese exegesis and its integration with modern semantics.

5.2 Views

Traditional Chinese exegesis researchers keep only a historical view, trying to do historical surveys of combing significant changes through time. New exegesis researchers,however, hold historical and cultural views, accompanying modern semantic methods in doing meaning studies. In terms of historical views, they not only take into consideration the birth and growth of every significance, but pay attention to its cultural significance, with its objects beyond the classic literature of the Han dynasty; in terms of cultural views, they stress that semantic change needs to be studied under the history of social development and that of human civilization; and in terms of research methods, they adopt modern semantics to explore semantic changes diachronically and synchronically instead of focusing on the literal meaning and derived meaning of traditional Chinese exegesis, at the same time considering the role of sound, form and meaning.

Coming with the change of nature and academic concepts, the difference of objects and research methods between traditional and new exegesis occur.

5.3 Object

Traditional Chinese exegesis only focuses on explaining words from the classic literature before the Han dynasty, especially on the compilation of books and adding notes for the classics. Traditional Chinese exegesis remains in the isolated historical survey of word meaning by the relations between sound and meaning, and it stays on the research of literal and derived meanings of Chinese characters.

New exegesis studies the meaning aspect of language per se, taking ancient and modern speech and characters, dialects and official speech as its objects with the same values. It emphasizes the diachronic and synchronic studies of subtle meaning differences and semantic change by considering the role of sound, form and meaning, especially the relations between grammar and meaning.

5.4 Method

With literal and derived meanings of Chinese characters as its objects, traditional Chinese exegesis obeys the principles of characters with similar sounds carrying the same meaning, exemplifying and explaining the ancient and modern speech and characters with ancient classic speech and characters, and uses sound, form and meaning reference as its approaches and literal reference, circular reference, inference, definition, etc. as its methods. Thus, it inevitably ignores the relations between sound and meaning.

Comparatively, new exegesis not only inherits the principles and good methods of traditional exegesis, but borrows the semantic change research methods as broadening, narrowing and shift, emphasizing the relations between grammar and meaning. As it is a diachronic and synchronic study, it also regards comparison and contrast as its methods.

6. Concluding Remarks

The innovation of Chinese exegesis and the integration of Chinese exegesis with modern semantics are marked by the introduction and translation of modern semantic works into China since 1930. Before 1930, Chinese linguists devoted themselves to the systemizationand modernization of Chinese exegesis by referring to modern linguistics, making Chinese exegesis break away fromXiao Xue(Chinese philology) serving the reading of Chinese classics and became a separate subject. After 1930, Chinese exegesis studies borrowed much from modern semantics to make the subject modern and scientific, and it comes near to modern semantics. The efforts of Chinese linguists before 1949 helped the establishment of modern semantics as a separate discipline in the 1950s under the influence of Soviet semantics.

New exegesis, born in the 1940s, is a mixture of traditional Chinese exegesis and modern semantics, but is not copied directly from modern semantics, as there are so many Chinese exegesis research conventions left in new exegesis. As to the influence of this movement over the terms of Chinese exegesis before 1949, it is beyond the scope of this article to conduct a systematic comparative study.

Notes

1Xiao Xueis also termed “philology” in English. It is traditional Chinese linguistics which includes three branches as character studies, Chinese phonology and exegesis.

2 If not declared in any way, all the quotations in this article were translated by the author himself.

3 This is considered the first dictionary in the world, which proposes the theory of Chinese Character creation, namelySiang hing象形,Chi sze指事,Hway i會(huì)意,Chuan choo轉(zhuǎn)注,Chia chieh假借, andChieh shing 形聲.

4 This work was compiled by Huang’s nephew and student in 1983, and consists of almost all the notes he ever made on Chinese characters, rhyme and exegesis.

5 Semasiology was introduced by I. A. Richards in “The Meaning ofThe Meaning of Meaning”(Journal of Tsinghua University, 1930), and semantics was translated into Chinese by Wang Gulu inA General Introduction to Linguistics(《言語學(xué)通論》), Zhonghua Publishing House (中華書局), 1930.

6A Dictionary of Chinese Literary Language(《爾雅》) is the earliest dictionary with meaning as its focus, compiled by Chinese semantic system and matter classification principles. It has also been the most important tool in reading the Chinese classics since ancient times, and is an influential work in the areas of Chinese exegesis, phonology, etymology, dialectology, and character studies.

7 It was written in Latter Chou Era, noting down the Chou ceremony practice and Chinese characters before that time.

8 This view comes from the evolution theory of language prevailing in 19th century, regarding language as an organism experiencing birth, growth, variation, competition and death. In the 1890s, this view was introduced into China by translations such asEvolution and Ethics and Other Essays(《天演論》) (1897).

9 As Huang (1928/1935, p. 3) argues, a form which cannot be further divisible is Wen (a stroke in Chinese as a letter in English) while a form divisible further is a character, so a stroke is a part of a character while a character is a part of a word or word group.

References

Fu, M.-J. (1942).中國訓(xùn)詁學(xué)的科學(xué)化 [The science of Chinese exegesis].《大學(xué)》[Journal of Learning], (7), 18-30.

Hartley, L. P. (1953).The go-between. London: Hamish Hamilton.

He, J.-Y. (1995).《現(xiàn)代語言學(xué)史》[A history of modern Chinese linguistics]. Guangzhou: Guangdong Education Press.

He, Z.-Y. (1933).《訓(xùn)詁學(xué)引論》[An introduction to Chinese exegesis studies]. Shanghai: The Commercial Press.

Huang, K. (1928/1935). 訓(xùn)詁述略 [An introduction to Chinese exegesis].《制言半月刊》[Zhi Yan Bi-Weekly], (7), 1-9.

Huang, K. (1983).《文字聲韻訓(xùn)詁筆記》[Notes on character, rhyme and exegesis]. Shanghai: Shanghai Chinese Classics Publishing House.

Jia, H.-W. (2013).《國外語義學(xué)在中國的傳播與影響》[The spread and impact of modern semantics in China]. Postdoctoral research report. Minzu University of China.

Lin, Y.-S. (2000).《語言學(xué)的歷史與現(xiàn)狀》[Modern linguistics: Today and yesterday]. Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Publishing House.

Lin, Y.-S. (2003). 20世紀(jì)語言學(xué)回眸 [A historical survey of 20th century Chinese linguistics]. In X.-P. Yao (Ed.),《〈馬氏文通〉與中國語言學(xué)史》[MA Jianzhong’s Chinese grammar and history of Chinese linguistics] (pp. 293-327). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In Ogden, C. K. & I. A. Richards (Eds.),The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism(pp. 296-336). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul LTD.

Müller, M. (1873).Lectures on the science of languages(Vol. 2). New York: Scribner, Armstrong, & Co.

Qi, P.-R. (1943).《訓(xùn)詁學(xué)概論》[A general introduction to Chinese exegesis studies]. North-China National Library, Beiping.

Shao, J.-M., & Fang, J.-M. (1991).《中國理論語言學(xué)史》[A history of Chinese theoretical linguistics]. Shanghai: East-China Normal University Press.

Shen, J.-S. (1920). 研究文字學(xué)“形”與“義”的幾個(gè)方法 [On the research methods of form and meaning in Chinese character studies].《北京大學(xué)月刊》[Peking University Monthly], (8), 4-9.

Sheng, L., Gong, C., & Li, K. (2005).《二十世紀(jì)中國的語言學(xué)》[Chinese linguistics in 20th century]. Beijing: Party Building Publishing House.

Sperber, H. (1914).über den Affekt als Ursache der Sprachver?nderung: Versuch einer dynamologischen Betrachtung des Sprachlebens. Halle Seale: Max Meyer.

Wang, L. (1947). 新訓(xùn)詁學(xué) [New exegesis]. In S.-T. Ye (Ed.),《開明書店二十周年紀(jì)念文集》[A collection of papers for celebrating twentieth anniversary of Kaiming Book Store] (pp. 173-188). Shanghai: Kaiming Bookstore.

Wang, X.-J. (1997). 一百年來中國的普通語言學(xué)的道路 [100 year development of general linguistics in China].《平頂山師專學(xué)報(bào)》[Journal of Pingdingshan Normal College], (4), 1-8.

Zhang, S.-L. (1940). 訓(xùn)詁學(xué)與文法學(xué) [On exegesis studies and grammar].《學(xué)術(shù)》[Scholars],3, 117-123.

Zhang, T.-Y. (1906). 論語言文字之學(xué) [A treatise on Chinese languages and characters].《國粹學(xué)報(bào)》[Journal of Chinese Quintessence], (24-25), 1-33; 1-12.

(Copy editing: Alexander Brandt)

About the author

Hongwei Jia (yywhyj@163.com) obtained his Ph.D. of linguistics from Beijing Foreign Studies University in 2011, and did his post-doctoral research in the Department of Chinese Ethnic Languages and Literature at Minzu University of China from 2012 to 2014. Currently, he is an Associate Professor in the Department of College English at Capital Normal University, and Managing Director of Xu Yuanchong Institute of Translation and Comparative Culture Studies, Da Tong University, Shanxi Province, China. His academic research interests include translation semiotics, social linguistics, the history of modern linguistics, and overseas sinology. His recent publications includeExploring the Chinese Translations of General Linguistic Classics: 1906-1949(2017),“Roman Jakobson’s Triadic Division of Translation Revisited” (2017),Academic Writing: A Methodology(2016), “A Translation-semiotic Perspective of Jakobson’s Tripartite of Translation” (2016), “Chinese Semiotics before 1949: A Historical Survey” (2016),“Tradition and Innovation: Linguistic Field Research in China” (2016), etc.