iii Rethinking East Asian Languages, Vernaculars, and Literacies, …elman/documents/Elman - Languages Vol... · 2014-08-18 · vi Contents 10riting and Speech: Rethinking the Issue

iii

Rethinking East Asian Languages, Vernaculars, and Literacies,

1000–1919

Edited by

BenjaminA.Elman

LEIDEN|BOSTON

This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV

vContents Contents

Contents

Contributors viiX

1 Introduction: Languages in East and South Asia, 1000–1919 1Benjamin A. Elman

2 The Vernacularization of Buddhist Texts: From the Tangut Empire to Japan 29

Peter Kornicki

3 The Sounds of Our Country: Interpreters, Linguistic Knowledge, and the Politics of Language in Early Chosŏn Korea 58

Wang Sixiang

4 Rebooting the Vernacular in Seventeenth-Century Vietnam 96John D. Phan

5 Mediating the Literary Classics: Commentary and Translation in Premodern Japan 129

Haruo Shirane

6 The Languages of Medical Knowledge in Tokugawa Japan 147Daniel Trambaiolo

7 The Manchu Script and Information Management: Some Aspects of Qing China’s Great Encounter with Alphabetic Literacy 169

Mårten Söderblom Saarela

8 Unintended Consequences of Classical Literacies for the Early Modern Chinese Civil Examinations 198

Benjamin A. Elman

9 Competing “Languages”: “Sound” in the Orthographic Reforms of Early Meiji Japan 220

Atsuko Ueda


vi Contents

10 Writing and Speech: Rethinking the Issue of Vernaculars in Early Modern China 254

Shang Wei

Index 303324

ContentsContents vContributors vii1.Introduction:LanguagesinEastandSouthAsia,1000–1919 1BenjaminA.Elman 12.TheVernacularizationofBuddhistTexts:FromtheTangutEmpiretoJapan 29PeterKornicki 293.TheSoundsofOurCountry:Interpreters,LinguisticKnowledge,andthePoliticsofLanguageinEarlyChosŏnKorea 58WangSixiang 584.RebootingtheVernacularinSeventeenth-CenturyVietnam 96JohnD.Phan 965.MediatingtheLiteraryClassics:CommentaryandTranslationinPremodernJapan 129HaruoShirane 1296.TheLanguagesofMedicalKnowledgeinTokugawaJapan 147DanielTrambaiolo 1477.TheManchuScriptandInformationManagement:SomeAspectsofQingChina’sGreatEncounterwithAlphabeticLiteracy 169MartenSoderblomSaarela 1698.UnintendedConsequencesofClassicalLiteraciesfortheEarlyModernChineseCivilExaminations 198BenjaminA.Elman 1989.Competing“Languages”:“Sound”intheOrthographicReformsofEarlyMeijiJapan 220AtsukoUeda 22010.WritingandSpeech:RethinkingtheIssueofVernacularsinEarlyModernChina 254ShangWei 254Index 303


1Introduction

© koninklijkebrillnv,leiden,2014 | doi10.1163/9789004279278_002

Introduction

Introduction: Languages in East and South Asia, 1000–1919

Benjamin A. Elman1

Today,westillpremisestudyofpremodernEastAsianlanguagesonthestarkdichotomybetween“theclassical”and“thevernacular.” InfluencedbyEuro-pean models explaining the transition from Latin as a classical language tolocal vernaculars as indigenous, scholars of East Asian cultural history havetendedtoviewclassical/literary/SiniticChinese,ontheonehand,andspoken/writtenvernaculars,ontheother,asdifferentlanguagesthatdidnotinteractand developed along separate tracks. Peter Kornicki, while recognizing theproblematicnatureofdoingso,hasdefinedtheterm“vernacular”“torefertolocally spoken, and later written, languages like Korean, Japanese and Viet-namese,incontrasttoliteraryChinese,thewrittenlanguagethatenjoyedhighprestigeandthatspreadthroughoutEastAsiaintheformoftexts.”2

Our“researchcluster”(seebelow)considerednewviewsoftheclassicalver-susvernaculardichotomythatareespeciallycentraltothenewhistoriographyofIndia.BasedonrecentIndian/SouthAsianfindings,weexaminedalterna-tive frameworks for understanding East Asian languages between 1000 and1919. Using new sources, making new connections, and reexamining oldassumptions,wehaveaskedwhetherandwhyEastAsianlanguagesshouldbeanalyzedinlightofaEurocentricdichotomy.ThisdiscussionencouragedustoexplorewhetherEuropeanmodernityisanappropriatestandardatallforEastAsia. Individually and collectively, we have sought to establish linkages be-tween societies without making a priori assumptions about the countries’internalstructuresorthegenealogyoftheirconnections.

Recent scholarship, some of it presented at our workshops and at ourNovember2011 finalconference,entitled“AsianLanguages,Vernaculars,andLiteracies,”haspresentedastrongchallengetoearliermodelsforunderstand-ingearlymodernlanguagesinEastAsia.FollowingtheleadofSheldonPollock,

1 SincerethanksandacknowledgmentsaredueDanielBarish(History),YuliaFrumer(HistoryofScience),MagnusRibbingGren(EastAsianStudies),andBingyuZheng(History),whoasPrincetongraduatestudentrapporteursorcommentatorsforourworkshopsandfinalconfer-encepreparedsuccinctsummariesandpenetratingcritiquesofourdiscussions.Eachofthemisacoauthorwithmeofthisintroductorychapter.

2 Kornicki2008,50.Cf.Lurie2011,342–353.

This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NVThis is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV

2 Elman

whodescribedthespreadofSanskritinwaysoftendiametricallyopposedtothehistoryofLatin,PeterKornicki,WangSixiang,JohnPhan,HaruoShirane,DanielTrambaiolo,AtsukoUeda,ShangWei,andmyselfpresentessaysinthisvolume that in aggregate challenge accepted distinctions between classicalandvernacularlanguagesinEastAsia.Insodoing,thisvolumepresentsanewconceptual frameworkthatrecognizesthat inEastAsiathe literaryandver-nacularregistershistoricallyinteractedandinfluencedeachotheraspartofaunified, if hybrid, language system that was mastered by Chinese, Japanese,Koreans,andVietnameseaccordingtotheirownuniquelinguisticresources.

Pollockhasshownhow,despitetheirsimilaritiesasearlymoderncosmo-politan languages, Latin and Sanskrit had very different histories. WhereasLatinwasdisseminatedbythemilitaryforceoftheRomancentralizedstate,Sanskritspreadinsteadthroughtradeandreligiousactivityinamoredecen-tralizedenvironment.Inthisway,Latinrepresenteda“coercivecosmopolitan-ism” while Sanskrit typified a “voluntaristic cosmopolitanism.” A centralconcernemergingfromourconferencevolumeistheneedtounderstand—butnotreduceEastAsianlanguagesto—Pollock’smodelof“voluntaristiccos-mopolitanismandavernacularismofaccommodation,whereverydifferentprinciples are at work inviting affiliation to these cultural-political orders.”Ratherthanthe“LatinofEastAsia,”perhapsacloseranalogyforclassicalChi-nesemightbeSanskrit.3

We firstmet in fall2008asa “researchcluster”under theauspicesof thePrincetonInstituteforInternationalandRegionalStudiesandtheEastAsianStudies Program. At two “brainstorming sessions” in fall 2008 and 2009, wecomparedandcontrastedhowpeopleinEastandSouthAsiausedlanguages.We also discussed the historical conditions under which Asian languageschanged.Wehopedtofathominanon-Eurocentricwayhowandwhyaristo-crats, warriors, officials, scholars, physicians, Buddhists, and teachers, whoshared a “cosmopolitan-like” classical language originally from China, wereable to forge an East Asian education revolution, circa 1500–1800, for elites,commoners,andwomen.Aprecocious,“earlymodern–like”woodblockprintrevolutionthatbeganinSongChina(960–1280)—threecenturiesbeforeEu-rope—andslowlyexpandedtoChosŏnKorea(1392–1910)andTokugawaJapan(1600–1867)wascertainlyanimportantenablingfactor.4

OurfocusinitiallywasonEastandCentralAsiaafter1000CE,withprecolo-nial India as a parallel example. Our “nested” research groups included twocoregroupsfromPrincetonandColumbia,whocouldmeetfrequentlyenough

3 Pollock2000,596.4 Cf.BrokawandChow2005withKornicki1998.


3Introduction

tostudyhistoricalconnectionsbetweenregions,thusyieldingmoreinterest-ing results than a purely comparative methodology. We asked ourselves inwhatwaysconsiderationofparallel issues inCentralAsiaandJapan,Korea,andVietnaminthe“earlymodern”period,1500–1800,mightenhanceourun-derstandingoflanguageprocessesinChinaandIndia.Wealsoqueriedwheth-er“earlymodern”wasanappropriatechronologytoapplytoourfindings.

WhenSheldonPollockaddressedthegroupinfall2008,hefocusedonthecaseofSanskrit,whichatfirstglanceappearedtobea“classicallanguage”thatparalleledLatininEurope.Nevertheless,SanskritdifferedfromLatinbecauseitsexpansionwasfacilitatedbylocalconsciousdecisionstohaveahomoge-neous language for cultural purposes, rather than by warfare and conquest.Furthermore,unlikeinearlymodernEurope,theinfiltrationoflocallanguagesintotheso-calledhighercultureofIndianclassicallanguageswasmotivatedneither by power struggles nor by appeals to nationalism. Could East Asianlanguagesbefore1800beunderstoodinthissense?Ifso,thenliterarypracticesinEastandSouthAsiacouldnotbedescribedas“earlymodern”intheEuro-peansense.Norwouldan“earlymodern”methodologicalframeworkbasedonthe“riseoftheWest”adequatelyexplaintheprocessesbywhichlocallanguag-escameintothepublicdomainandsuccessfullycompetedwiththeliterarytraditionsofSanskritinSouthAsiaandclassicalChineseinEastAsia.

Simplifyingitgreatlyvis-à-visLatinandSanskrit,theEastAsiancaseofa“cosmopolitanlanguage”uniquelyhadasinglecenterandcentrifugalflowsofclassicalChinesetexts,incontrasttotheEuropeanandIndiancasesofmulti-polarflowsoftextsandlanguages.Thisdifferenceisnotamajorpartofalltheessayspresentedinthisvolume,butitmeansthatthisintroductionhastobeclearabouttheissuesatstakeinthecomparisonsbetweenEastandSouthAsiain lightofwhatPollockcalled“cosmopolitanism.”Someauthorsatour finalconferenceinfall2011used“classicalversusvernacular(s)”ratherthan“cosmo-politanversusvernacular(s)”tomaketheirpoints,buttheformeralsohasitsproblemsbecauseHeianJapanesecirca800–1200mayhavebeena“vernacu-lar”vis-à-visclassicalChineseinJapan(kanbun 漢文),forinstance,butitat-taineditsown“classical”voiceinJapaneselater,intheTokugawaperiod.WehavetriedtoexplainthesimilaritiesanddifferencesinEastAsiarelativetotheEuropeanandIndiancases.

In this volume, we expand on our current knowledge of premodern EastandSouthAsianintellectualandculturalhistorytoglobalizethecentralityofclassical languages and vernaculars in Asian daily life. Can we prepare our-selvesandourgraduatestudentstoenvisionaculturalhistoryincomparativeterms,whichwillmatchandimproveontheglobalizedworkaccomplishedby


4 Elman

economichistorians?5Ratherthanjust“followthemoney,”can’tweimpartial-lymeasurethe“velocities”oflocallanguagesas“linguisticcurrencies,”whentheywereexchanged/translateddailyforclassicaleducations,religion,art,lit-erature,science,philology,antiquities,andsoon?6

Thevalueofourdialogueamongscholarsandstudentsworkingondifferentregionswasimmediatelydemonstratedbyabriefconversationthatoccurredonthefirstdayofour2011conferenceandthatconcernedtheroleofprintinginshaping“earlymodern”EuropeanandChineseculturesandlanguagesbutnot those of India. Many scholars of European and East Asian history havetendedtograntprintingtechnologiesaprofoundroleinshapingculturalde-velopments.WeseemanyofthesamedevelopmentsinSouthAsiaandJapanbefore1650,however,intheabsenceofanyextensiveuseofprinting,suggest-ingthattheimportanceofprintingintheEuropeanandChinesecasesmaybeeitheroverstatedormisinterpreted.Printingempoweredlanguages,butitdidnotdecidetheirraisond’être.Meetingsofspecialistsworkingonthesediffer-entregionshaveallowedustorefineourinsightsintothehistoryofourownregions without necessarily—and preemptively—subsuming them intobroadlycomparativeortheoreticalmodels.7

Theambitiousgoalthatwesetforourworkshopswastocomeupwithanew research methodology, detached from the teleological tendencies ofAsianists to draw on the European model, on the one hand, and remainingsensitivetoissuesspecifictobroaderEastAsianperspectives,ontheother.Thecoreissuethatwasechoedinmostofourdiscussionswastheneedtocomeupwithanalternativethatwouldgobeyondtheclassical/vernaculardichotomyandthusbemorereflectiveoftheactualusesof languagesratherthansub-sumingthemunderthegeneralstorylineoftheriseofvernacularsinemerg-ingnation-states.OurcomparativeapproachallowedustofocusonCentral,East,andSouthAsiainordertolearnabouthowthelocalusesofspokenandwrittenlanguageswererelatedtothecosmopolitanclassicswritteninChinesescriptbutalsopronouncedusinglocaldialects.

ThedifferencebetweentheEuropeancaseandthatofEastAsiacontinuedto be the main theme when we discussed how languages traveled. ClassicalChinese, for example, became dissociated from its geographical origins andwasincreasinglyidentifiedasaliterarylanguageinKorea,Japan,Vietnam,andtheRyukyus.Moreover,classicalChinesetraveledmainlyinawrittenform,so

5 PomeranzandTopik1999.6 Lurie2011,346–348.7 TheessaysinBrokawandChow2005presentprintingin“lateimperial”Chinaasintellectually

determinative.SeethecaveatsinElman2001,178–207.


5Introduction

thattheterm“linguafranca,”whichimpliesverbalcommunication,canbeap-pliedonlytoitswrittenplaceinEastAsia.AnotherimportantpointthatshouldbetakenintoaccountwhentalkingaboutthescopeofEastAsianliteraciesisthescaleofexpansion,inbothgeographicanddemographicterms.AsinIndia,evenwhenalanguageappearedtotravelamongasmallpercentageofpeopleinEastAsia,thatpercentagetranslatedintoanaggregatenumberofmillionsofpeoplewhosharedaspokenorwrittenlanguage.

Oneofourconferencediscussants,ConstanzeGuthenke,whocomesfromaWesternClassicsbackground,posedseveraluniversalquestionsandthemes.Shefirstpointedtothequestionofhowpeopledealwiththeclassicaltext,aconundrumfacedbythehistoricalactorsinEuropean,aswellasAsian,situa-tions.ShepointedoutthatamongscholarsofEuropeanhistoryitwasalsoverydifficulttotalkaboutlinguisticissueswithoutfallingintothenationalpara-digmof statebuilding.Guthenkehighlighted forus the issueof theanxietyoverlanguageintherecentpastwhen,influencedbymodernWesternlinguis-tics,peoplebegantoseelanguageasasinglemarkerofindividuality.Modernclassicistshavealsostruggledwiththeconceptofthecoexistenceoftwosepa-ratelinguisticregistersinonelanguage,eventhoughtheoriginalwritersnevershared the same worries. She compared the commentary traditions of EastAsiaandEuropeandpointedoutthatinEurope,fromPetrarchdowntoRanke,therewasanawarenessoftheforeignnessoftheclassicaltextsandadesireto“hearthevoicesofthepast”intheirnaturalregisters.Sheaskedwhethersuchquestionsoflanguageweretokensofanewmodernity.MartinKernalsopoint-edtotheotherfunctionsofcommentariesforconstituting,securing,andas-sertingthesuperiorityofthemastertextswhileatthesametimesettingthelimitsforreadingthem.JanetChensuggestedthatsincelanguageregistersstillsuggestedasenseofhierarchy,“spectrum”maybeabetterwordtodescribetheclassical/vernacularrelationshipin“classical”Chinese.

Pollock has shown that “vernaculars” rarely emerged on their own. Theyweretheself-consciousprojectsofeliteswithinasociety.Hence,thecategoriesofclassicalandvernacularlanguageswedeploymustbeproblematized.HowarewetounderstandtheproductionandspreadofnormativestylesandformsofwritingandspeechinpremodernEastAsia?DowehavethevocabularytoadequatelydescribethenatureofpremodernEastAsianlanguageswhilenotteleologically presuming the national boundaries for spoken vernaculars ormakingsimple-mindedcategorizationsofclassicalChineseasa“dead,”writtenlanguage?


6 Elman

Peter Kornicki (Cambridge University)

ThehighdegreeofculturalcommensurabilityachievedthroughtheuseoftheChinesescriptbyJapanese,Koreans,andVietnamesehaslongbeenacknowl-edged. According to Peter Kornicki, however, the adoption of the ChinesescriptwasnottheonlylinguisticoptionforpeoplesandstateswithinEastandCentral Asia. The Tangut Empire (called the Xixia dynasty, 1032–1227) em-barkedonamuchdifferentprojecttoachievepoliticalcommensurability.Ko-rnickithinksthattheTangutscriptwasdevisedandpromulgatedbytheXixiarulerin1036partlytofacilitatevernaculartranslationofBuddhisttextsforaTangutaudience.ThisisremarkablebecausetheencounterwithChinesetextsinJapan,Korea,andVietnamdidnotatfirststimulateanequivalentsearchfora vernacular script or the urge to translate per se.The question of why theTanguts,whodevelopedathrivingprintcultureproducinglargequantitiesofBuddhist works in several languages, decided to embark on projects of ver-nacular translation is puzzling. Kornicki posits a few possible explanations,rangingfromtheTanguts’exposuretonumerousscriptsandthemultilingualnatureofthemonasticcommunity.Althoughadefinitiveanswerforwhythescriptwascreatedremainselusive,Kornickipresentsacompellingcasethat“theTangutsprovideacounterexampletootherEastAsiansocietiesintheirresponsetoChinesewriting.”8

TogetattheroleofTangutvernacularizationinthetwelfthcentury,Kor-nickiusesTanguttextshiddeninBuddhisttemplepagodastofindclues.ThesetextsconsistedofBuddhistcanonstranslatedfromChinese,Tibetan,andUi-ghur,whichwereprintedusingmovabletypebytheXixiastatethreecenturiesbeforeGutenberg.ThenorthwesternTangutswereengagedinamassivetrans-lationprojectat thebehestof theirrulersandwerecommittedtousingthelatesttechnologyforitsdissemination.AttheirheighttheTangutsfoundedanempirethatrivaledtheHanChineseSongdynasty(960–1280)initspowerandindependentlydevelopedtheirownscriptandvernacularliterature.

WhydidtheTangutsinventtheirownscript?ThepeoplesfromthesteppesnorthwestofChinasuchastheTanguts,Uighurs,Tibetans,Khitans,Jurchens,andMongolsalldevelopedtheirownscriptswhenfoundingtheirmiddleim-perialstates,asdidthelateimperialManchuQingdynasty(1644–1911;seetheessaybyMårtenSöderblomSaarela).KhitanLiao (907–1125) rulers firstper-ceivedsuchscriptsintermsofpoliticallegitimationvis-à-vistheTangdynasty(618–907).CountrieslocatedeastandsouthofSongChina,suchasKorea,Ja-pan,andVietnam,didnotdeveloptheirownwritingformsuntilmuchlaterin

8 SeealsoKornicki2008;Lurie2011,343–347.


7Introduction

their histories. Kornicki contends that the steppe people were constantly atwarwithTangandSongChinaandwerethusmoreinclinedtoestablishtheirownlanguageasdistinctfromChinesethanwereKoreaandJapan,whichwereplacedinsubordinatepositionstoChinaandacceptedthedominanceofChi-neseculture.InthecaseoftheTanguts,theywereearlyonexposedtoscriptssuchasTibetanandUighurthatweredistinctfromChineseandcoulddecidewhich scripture tradition to follow. Such a luxury was available to the earlyKoreans,Vietnamese,andJapanesebuttoalesserdegree.9

WhiletheTangutinventionoftheirownscriptrepresentsamoreexplicitexampleofvernaculartranslationintoanon-Chinesescript, theuseofChi-nesecharactersbyearlyVietnamese,Koreans,andJapanese,asthefollowingchaptersbyJohnPhan,WangSixiang,andHaruoShiraneshow,alsoinvolvedaprocess of vernacularization and translation.We should also note, however,thatnotranslationsofclassicaltextsintotheChinesevernacularlanguageap-peared,althoughreadingprimersmayperhapsbeseenasanin-betweenstage.BothKoreaandJapaninventedneologismsusingChinesegraphstocreatenewwordsthatwereunintelligibleforcontemporariesinChina.Inthisway,eachcountrylocalizedthemorecosmopolitanclassicalChinesetochallengeChi-na’sclaimtotheownershipofthewritingsystem.Kornicki’sconclusionthattheTangut invention of their own script presented a challenge to the tradi-tionalChineseculturalordercanalsobeappliedlatertoKorea,Vietnam,andJapan. After 1400 each claimed the classical Chinese writing system as theirowntoasserttheirpotentialstatusas“secondRomes”forculturalsupremacyinEastAsia.

TheTangutvernaculartranslationofSinitictextsandtheirmeageroutputoftheirownvernaculartextssuggest,however,thatclassicalChinesewasthecosmopolitan language for political reasons.Was this because as the north-westernXixia,theTanguts(andtheUighursandTibetans)wereclosertothemedievalTang metropolitan cultural centers, while the Khitan Liao and Ju-rchenJin(1115–1234)werefrommoreperipheralareasinthenortheastwherethepowerofChineseasacosmopolitanlanguagewasstillquitelimitedorre-sisteduntiltheJurchenscapturedNorthChina?Japan,Korea,andVietnam,as“secondRomes,”musthavestruggledwithcontainingthecosmopolitanpowerofChineseintheirmidst,somethingtheywereambivalentabout,unliketheTanguts,whohadlivedunderandsawtheXixiaasalegitimatesuccessortotheGreatTang.Saarela’schaptershowsthatthesupportersoftheQingstatelan-guagesofManchuandMongolianalsohadtodevisewaystopreventtheirlan-

9 Cf.Lurie2011,344–345.


8 Elman

guagesfromplayingsecondfiddletotheChinese“Rome,”evenwhenallthreewereofficiallyauthorizedbythedynasty.

PoliticalcommensurabilitytookprecedenceinCentralAsia,whileculturalcommensurabilitywasthemaintargetinJapan,Korea,andVietnam.Therul-ersofCentralAsiandynastiesandthepeoplesofEastAsiastrovetokeepupwitheachotherinapoliticalandculturalrace,sotheywereconstantlymovingacrossborders,usingliteraryChineseasthecosmopolitanlanguage.Thefor-mationofvernacularscriptsamongtheCentralandEastAsianpeoplessur-rounding China came in waves. The initial pioneers included the Tibetans,Uighurs,Khitans,Tanguts,andMongols.Contrarytomodernnationalisticdis-courses,thesepeopleswereactuallyclosertotheChineseculturalcenterdur-ingtheeighthtotwelfthcenturiesandhadgreaterclaimstobetheinheritorsoftheTangEmpire.KoreaandVietnam,whodevelopedtheirscriptscenturieslater,canbeseenasreactingto thedevelopments in thesteppes.Kornicki’schapterinitiatesathemethatmanyofthesubsequentchaptersreturnto:theuseofawrittenandspokenlanguagetocarveoutadistinctidentitywithintheEastAsianworld.Suchvoluntarylinguisticsubordinationappearsalsotohaveparalleleddifferentformsofpoliticalsubordination,includingparallelformsofinsubordinationafter1850.

Wang Sixiang (Columbia University)

WangSixiang’schapterhighlightstheperformativepoweroflanguageinEastAsia. Language was more than simply a tool for communication, because italsotransmittedsignificantsymbolicpowerinitswordsandforms.PossessionoftherightlanguagewascrucialtowinningthelinguisticwarfarethatforeignenvoysfacedwhenmakingtributaryvisitstoimperialChina.WangcontendsthattheChineseinterpretersfromKoreamediatedbetweentheroyalandim-perial courts of Chosŏn Korea and the Ming and Qing (1368–1911) dynastiesthroughlanguageandtranslation.Manyinterpretersrosefromhumbleback-grounds,andtheywereoftendespisedbytheelitesfortheirlowlyoriginsandtheirpalaceintrigues.Theirexpertknowledge,however,madethemvaluableassetstobothstates,particularlyinthearenaofforeignrelations.

Korean interpreters had to be not only proficient in classical and spokenChinesebutalsoexpertinChineseritualbehaviorandliterature.WhenenvoysdemonstratedanexpertunderstandingofChinatoChineserulersanddigni-taries,theirexpertiseimpliedthatKoreawascivilized.DuringtheYuan–Mingtransition(1350–1400),afterwhichMongolspeakersinKoreawerenolongerusefulindiplomaticexchangeswithChina,thenew,Mingdynastyexpected


9Introduction

KoreandiplomatstospeakandwriteinMingChinese(atfirst,theversionspo-keninthecapitalinNanjingandthenthatspokeninBeijing).ThefirstMingemperor,forexample,belittledaKoreanenvoyforhisinabilitytounderstand“contemporary”Chinese.ThisdrovetheKoreancourttopromoteproficiencyinliteraryandspokenChinesebyestablishingtheOfficeofInterpreterstore-cruit and train new interpreters.Wang’s account shows how mastery of theChineselanguagewasimportantnotonlyinfacilitatingpoliticaldiscoursebe-tweenKoreaandChinabutalsoinestablishingKoreaasacivilizedstateandsociety.

The use of classical Chinese poetry as a lingua franca in interactions be-tweenChina,Japan,andKoreameantthatregulatedverseinparticular,withitssetpatternsofrhymesandlimitednumbersofgraphsperline,servedasauniversal medium for intellectual exchange and diplomacy in northeasternAsia.Envoysofemperors,kings,andlocalJapaneseelitesenjoyedgoodcom-pany, negotiated with their hosts, and complained about their treatmentthroughverse.10

Wang,however,complicatesourtraditionalunderstandingofthelinguisticexchangebetweenChinaandKoreabyshowingthatasharedwrittenlanguagewasnottheonlyrequirement.TheimportantrolethattranslatorsplayedonofficialmissionstotheMingcourtmeantthatspokenChinesewasalsoimpor-tantintheinteractionsbetweentheKoreanandMingstates.Theuseofclassi-calChinesemayhaveauthenticatedKoreanclaimstoclassicalantiquity,butthebrush could not totally replace thetongue in efforts to overcome differ-encesinspokenlanguage.WhenMingemperorsridiculedKoreanenvoysfortheir poor spoken Chinese, the Korean court tried to ameliorate the loss offace.WelearnthattheKoreanhan’gŭl 한글 scriptwasinventedinlargeparttoteachpeoplehowtopronounceChinesescriptaccordingtothecontemporarystandards of the Ming court. Neither side considered proficiency in literaryChinese sufficient to consummate the required cultural, political, and eco-nomicexchanges.Theclassicalwrittenformwasnotenoughforfullfluencyinthe language, which further demonstrates that the modern distinction be-tweentheclassicalandthevernacular,aswellasbetweenwritingandspeak-ing,hasdistortedthehistoricalrealitiesofthenatureofEastAsianlanguages.

ThevoluntaryadoptionofliteraryChinesetoaffiliateverballywithinasi-multaneously cultural, political, and economic order is reminiscent of Pol-lock’s narrative of the cultural spread of Sanskrit. Language empowered“culturalcommensurability,”wherebyeachsidecommunicatedthroughclassi-cal Chinese to adjudicate both cultural and political associations between

10 Goble2011,11.


10 Elman

Chinaanditsneighboringstatesandempires.Korea’sexpertuseofclassicalChinesegaveitaspecialplaceintheimaginationoftheMingEmpire.WhenKorean envoys communicated with their Chinese hosts using the brush tocomposepoetry,thisbroughthonortotheenvoysandempoweredKoreaasacivilizedstateintheeyesoftheMingcourt.

John D. Phan (Cornell University)

JohnPhanexploreshowVietnameseConfucianandBuddhistscholarstriedtobridge the distance between literary Chinese and the native Nôm喃 script(alsoknownasChữNôm𡨸喃,lit.,“charactersfortalking”)beginninginthefifteenthcentury.LiteraryelitesseekingcivilserviceappointmentsinVietnamlegitimatedthenewformsofSongclassicallearning,whichhadbecomeearlyMing orthodoxy, by mastering the Classics and composing the appropriateConfucian commentaries in classical Chinese. Marginalized Buddhist schol-ars,ontheotherhand,becausetheywereincreasinglydisinheritedfromstatepowerfromthefifteenthtothesixteenthcenturiesembracedtheheterodoxyofthevernacularandenunciatedtheirviewsintemplesusingNômwritingasthepreferredalternative.11

Oneproductoftheseparalleldevelopments,whichPhanfocusesoninhischapter, is the dictionary entitled Explication of the Guide to Jeweled Sounds(Chỉ nam ngọc âm giải nghĩa).ThisworkglossedtermscommonlyusedinCon-fucianintellectualdiscourses.Itstwoprefaces,oneinNômandoneinChinese,reveal a surprising overlap between the classical language and Vietnamese.Thecompiler,likelyaBuddhistmonk,contendedintheNômprefacethatse-mantosyllabicitywastheformthroughwhichtheancientsagesinventedchar-acters,thefoundationoftheChinesewritingsystem.Accordingtothemonk,Nômwasalsoconstructedinaccordancewithsemantosyllabism.IntheChi-nesepreface,theauthorspecifiedthatthesemantosyllabicChinesescriptwasdevisedtoenabletheChinesetopacifytheworldculturallybyassigningprop-ernames to themyriad things.Bycomparing the twoprefaces,PhanshowsthattheyprovideadefenseofbothChineseandNôm.Onthebasisofseman-tosyllabism,NômcouldbeseenasanauthenticextensionofliteraryChineseandproofthatVietnamwasanalogoustoChinaandhencecivilizedinuniver-salterms.

JustasWangSixiangforcesustoreconsidertheinteractionofthespokenandthewrittenlanguageintheKoreanmissionstoMingChina,Phanshows

11 Elman2013,chap.1.


11Introduction

that classical Chinese had a significant impact on both the spoken and thewrittenVietnameselanguage.Phancontendsthatthepushtowardsemanto-syllabicityinVietnameseledtomanydroppedinitialsoundsandtheadoptionofChinesegrammaticalparticlesinthespokenlanguage.Problematizingthepreviouslanguageparadigmthatseparatedthewrittenclassicalfromspokenvernacularsintodifferentspheres,Phanalsoshowsthatthetwointeractedsig-nificantly.ThroughaclosereadingofthetwoprefacesweseethatVietnameseintellectualsviewedtheirscript,ChữNôm,asafullyformedsagelyscript,ca-pable of the same intellectual and imaginative expressivity as literary Chi-nese—andnotasavernacularalternativetotheclassical.

JustasKoreansvaluedliteracyinclassicalChineseaswellasknowledgeoftheMingspokenlanguage,theVietnameseidealizationoftheChinesescriptledtosignificantchangesinboththewrittenandspokenformsofVietnamese.WhereasinroyalKorea,Chinesewasexplicitlytiedtocommunicatingcultur-allywiththeMingChinesecourt,PhanarguesthatalthoughtheVietnamesemay have venerated the Chinese script, they never explicitly referenced theChinese political world when they did so. This claim leaves open, however,howVietnamesetributarymissionstotheMingandQingcourtsaffectedlan-guagepolicyinVietnam.12

Haruo Shirane (Columbia University)

HaruoShirane’schapterfocusesontheinteractionsbetweencommentary,ver-nacular,andtranslationtounderstandvernacularsinancientJapan.ShiranepointsoutthatmedievalJapanesecommentariestotheChineseClassics,suchastheCollection of Japanese and Chinese Poems to Sing (Wakan rōeishū 和漢朗詠集; compiled 1012), served multiple functions in the medieval period, in-cludingexplicatingwordsandphrases,servingasmodelsforwritingandlearn-ing,givingthesourceoftheoriginaltext,providingfundamentalculturalandhistoricalknowledge,servingasmoderntranslations,andinterpretingthean-cienttexts.MartinKernaddedattheconferencethatcommentariesalsoclar-ify the pronunciation in the Classic, something very important for Chinesecommentariesbecausedifferentpronunciationsimplieddifferentmeanings.Oftenaphoneticglosssufficed,becausethecommentatorassumedthatthereaderwouldknowtheparticularmeaningthatwentwiththepronunciation.

Other functions that the commentary exerts, according to Kern, includeconstitutingthetextinitswording,boundaries,andformat;securingthetext

12 Ge2012.


12 Elman

againstcompetingversionsofthetext;limitingthewaysinwhichthetextcanbeinterpreted;tyingthetexttoadistinctbodyofothertextsandhencesituat-ingitwithinthelargertextualuniverse;constitutingthe“textualcommunity”thatsharesthetextasacommonpointofreference;elevatingthetextaboveother textsandsimultaneouslycensoringandsilencing itscompetitors;andconstitutingthediscursivevoiceofthecommentatorasthemediatorbetweentextandaudience.Inthesediverseways,thecommentariesinitiallymediatedbetween theoriginal textswritten in thecosmopolitan literaryChineseandthepopularworksvocalizedandwritteninmorevernacularforms.Suchan-cient and medieval forms contributed to the evolution of Japanese classicalregistersoflanguageparallelingclassicalChinese(kanbun).

Shirane also rethinks the written/oral dichotomy by showing that manycommentariesoriginatedfromorallecturesorsermons,whichwerelaterwrit-tendown.Insteadofjustassumingthatthewrittenautomaticallyhadculturalauthority and influenced the lower-brow oral registers, Shirane proposes aninitial two-wayrecyclingprocessbetweencosmopolitanandvernacular lan-guagescausedbythedualinteractionbetweenwrittenandoralpresentationandeliteandpopularworks.ShiraneoutlinesthevariousliterarygenresthatwerebasedonthevernacularsofancientJapanandweredevelopedbyvarioussocialgroupsfordifferentpurposes.Hecontendsthatcontemporariesrecog-nizedthedifferencesbetweenthevariousgenres.Thetensionbetweenwhatwasconsidered tobe “highbrow”andwhatwasconsidered tobe “lowbrow”wasconsciouslydeployedasaliterarydevice.ThediscussionofhierarchiesofgenresofwritingisoftenseeninJapaneseliterature,yetthehierarchiesthem-selveschangedovertimeandreflectspecificperiods.

ForIndiatoo,neithervernacularsnorcosmopolitanlanguageswerehomo-geneous. Inherpresentationof linguisticpractices inearlymodernIndiaatourfirstworkshop,AllisonBuschstressedtheinfluencenotonlyofSanskritbutalsoofPersianinformingmodernvernacularHindi.Inthesixteenthcen-tury,theinterestinpoetryledtotheproliferationofmanualswrittenintheBrajlanguageusingbothHindiandArabicscriptsandtherebyincorporatingideasfromSanskritandPersianpoetryintoHindi.UnderBritishcolonialism,however,adifferentidealaboutliteracyandeducationemerged,obviatingBrajand rendering it outdated. The linguistic engineering of modern-day HindiseparateditfromBrajaspartofa“de-Islamization”ofthelanguage.Thispro-cessparallelsthefateofChineselanguageandscriptintheformationofmod-ern Japanese,whichAtsukoUedadescribes inherchapterbelow in lightof“de-Sinification.”13

13 Busch2010.


13Introduction

ForShirane,commentariesinpremodernJapanwerecatalystsforintellec-tualandculturalactivity.Theyformedabodyofdiscoursethatrelatedtheca-nonicaltextnotonlytootherclassicaltextsbutalsotocontemporaryJapanesestate and society. Shirane also suggests that the practices of commentatorslikelyparalleledorprecededtheparatextualadaptationsofancienttextsbyvernacular writers, playwrights, and artists. The full-fledged translation of aChinesetextintoanotherlanguagesuchasJapanese,ontheotherhand,sug-gestsaJapanesereadershipunableandprobablyunwillingtoengagetheorigi-naltext.Translations—ifnottheproductofamoderntypeofscholarship—were presumably geared toward readers whose attitude toward the sourcelanguageanditsculturewasmoreofcuriositythanengagement.

Such distinctions are worth reconsidering when addressing why, initially,theJapanese,Koreans,andVietnamesedidnot fullytranslateChinesetexts,whereastheTanguts,Mongolians,andUighursdid.BasedontheDunhuangmanuscripts,KornickihasshownthatthefirststageinmakingSinitictextsac-cessibletoareadingaudiencewastheadditionofpunctuation,whichrequiredapriorgrammaticalunderstandingofthetext.KoreansbytheseventhcenturyreadSinitictextsinanewwayknownasidu 吏讀(lit.,“clericalreadingofdoc-uments”),which wasbasedon hundok 訓讀 (lit., “markings for reading”). Itentailedaddingglossestoencodethemissinggrammaticalparticlesneededfor Korean inflections. Korean monks transmitted this technique to Japan,where,afteradditionaldevelopment,itformedthefoundationforthereadingstrategyknowninJapanaskundoku 訓讀,whichaddedglossesto“translate”thetextviapunctuation.14

DavidLuriehassuggestedthatJapanesekundokupracticesforreadingandwritingineffectproduced“invisiblevernaculartexts.”Althoughthesewerenottranslationsinastrictsense,JapanesereadersproducedfromtheChinesetextareadingthatdifferedfromtheoriginalnotonlyphoneticallybutalsosyntac-tically.Luriehasshownhowthetextcouldbereadinmorethanonelanguagesimultaneously. Moreover, characters could be read both phonographicallyandlogographically.15

Daniel Trambaiolo (University of Hong Kong)

Toinvestigateclassicallanguagesandliteraciesandhowtheyinteract,DanielTrambaioloexaminesthelanguageregistersoftraditionalmedicalknowledge

14 Kornicki2008,5.15 Lurie2011.


14 Elman

inTokugawaJapan.HepointsoutthatwhileinEastAsiaasawhole,literaryChinese was the language of the center and radiated outward to Japan andKorea,therewasanother,complementaryprocessinthemedicalrealm,name-lythetextualizationofvernacularmedicine.Heshowsthatthesetwolanguageregisterswerenotexclusiveandoftenoverlapped,buttheyhaddifferentori-ginsanddevelopments.Tokugawawasaperiodofgreatchangeinsocialrela-tionsfordoctors.Inthemedievalera,medicallearningwasusuallyconfinedtoKyotoandtheBuddhistinstitutions.Duringtheseventeenthcentury,however,thedoctorsweregroupedtogetherwiththeclassicalscholar(ru 儒).Formedi-caltexts,classicalChinese(kanbun)wasconsideredthestandardwrittenlan-guage,butintheTokugawaera,anincreasingnumberoftextswerewritteninJapanese (wabun 和文), enabling more people to read them. Utilizing Japa-nesecommentariesonthemedicalclassicsandherbal(honzō 本草) encyclo-pedias,TrambaioloshowsthatmostmedicalnamesfordiseasesandmedicinalplantsweretransmittedviavernacularJapaneseratherthanclassicallanguage.

The vernacularization of classical medical knowledge and the textualiza-tionoforal traditionsofmedicinewereparallelprocesses.Someofushavereferredto“literaryChinese”(classicalChinese,Sinitic,etc.)asa“cosmopoli-tan language” in Sheldon Pollock’s sense. Daniel Trambaiolo thinks that al-though literary Chinese was transregional, the actual historical way thatliteraryChinesecreatedaunifiedregionalcultureinEastAsiawasverydiffer-entinpracticefromLatininEuropeorSanskritinSouthAsia.Japanesever-nacularliteraturedevelopedthroughconsciousdecisionsnottorenounceanearliercosmopolitancultureformorelocalandgeographically limitedones.Trambaiolostressesthedifferencesratherthanthesimilaritiesbetweenkan-bun inJapanandSanskritinIndiaascosmopolitanlanguages.ForPollock,ver-nacularization might mean something very different in a culture whereadoptionofthecosmopolitanlanguagewasvoluntary.TheChineselanguage,ofcourse,wasneverforciblyimposedonneighboringcultures.NordidChi-neseasacosmopolitanlanguageservethesolepurposeofpromotingtwo-waycommunicationbetweenChinaanditsneighbors.JapanesereadChinesetextsanddiscussedthemusingmodifiedformsoftheChineselanguage.Thepur-pose,however,wasseldomfor JapaneseworkstocirculateoutsidetheJapa-nese archipelago, at least up until the latter part of the eighteenth century.ScholarsinEastAsiausuallydidnottraveltomeeteachother,andevenwhentheydidmeet,theyoftencommunicatedsolelythroughwriting.

Inhercomments,CynthiaBrokawnotedthatTrambaiolo’schapterpointstotwoflowsofknowledge,onedownwardfromtheelitestothelowerclassesandoneupwardfromtheruraltotheelite.Whereexactlydidthesetwoflowsconverge?Brokawalsonotesthatthevernacularnamesusedfordiseasesand


15Introduction

plantswereprobablygiveninJapanesebecausethesediseasesandplantsex-istedonlyinJapan.BecausemuchofJapanesemedicalknowledgewaslocal,vernacularmedicinecouldbeprioritizedovermedicaltextsfromChina.

Mårten Söderblom Saarela (Princeton University)

ByaddressingboththeManchulanguageanditsscriptundertheQingrulersasoneofthethreeadministrative languagesoftheempire(theotherswereChineseandMongolian),MårtenSöderblomSaarelashowshowanalphabeti-calorderbasedontheManchuscriptwasdevelopedbyrelyingonsyllabariesusedtoteachliteracytobothManchuchildrenandsecond-languagelearners,especiallyChineseliterati-officials.BycomparingittotheWesternhistoryofalphabetization,SaarelacontendsthattheManchualphabeticalorderinlateimperialChinawasoneofthemostnoteworthyby-productsoftheQingdy-nasty’sencounterwithInnerAsianalphabeticalliteracyasdescribedbyPeterKornicki’spaperinthisvolume.

Indeed,despitetheuncomplimentarycomparisonsofChineseprintculturewith itsWestern counterparts that appeared in the writings of language re-formersduringtheRepublicofChinaandofWesternSinologists,Qingschol-ars had grappled with alphabetization for centuries. Although the ManchuschemaofferedcertainadvantagesoverextantChinesemodels,itsapplicationwasseeminglyheldbackbyimplicitstructuralproblemsandagenerallackofinterest fromapoliticalandintellectualestablishmentoblivious, ifnotcon-temptuous,ofitspotential.

AttimestheuntappedpotentialoftheManchuscriptwastheorizedinlightofQingdynastytreatisesofChinesephonology.Moreoften,however,thedic-tionariesfailedtostirupanydebateorcontroversyamongliterati.Qingschol-arsofManchurarelywrotecriticallyaboutthedictionariestheywereusing.Usually, any information about the progress of Manchu lexicography camefrom within the dictionaries themselves, not outside commentators. In theend,Manchulexicographystagnatedinthenineteenthcenturyafterapromis-ingstartduringtheseventeenthandeighteenthcenturies.Ontheotherhand,theManchuscriptasanorganizingdeviceunexpectedlyprosperedandcon-tributedtothelinguisticexperimentswithalphabeticscriptsthatcharacter-izedtheplethoraoflanguagereformeffortsinitiatedduringtheRepublicandearlyPeople’sRepublicofChina.


16 Elman

Benjamin A. Elman (Princeton University)

InmychapterIasktowhatusewasknowledgeoftheclassicallanguagebeingputinChina?Becausethecivilserviceexaminationsystemdoomedover90percentofitsparticipantstotheunofficialstatusofexaminationfailures,howarewetounderstandthespreadanduseofclassicalknowledgethroughedu-cation?Howdoesaninstitutionthatpassesonly1percentofitsparticipantssurvive? The creation of a large literate population and the use of classicallearning to pursue alternative careers and economic opportunities such asmedical practice, book publishing, and pettifoggery were likely unintendedconsequencesofthecivilexaminationsystem.

IftheunintendedconsequencesofclassicalliteracyinearlymodernChinaweredictatedbytheimperialexaminationsystem,thenwecannotcontinuetofocusonjusttheveryfewwhopassedtheexaminations.Wemustalsoaddresstheoverwhelmingmajorityofexaminationcandidateswhowerecalled“fail-ures.”AlargenumberofpeoplewereclassicallyliterateinlateimperialChina,buttheywereunabletoreachtheiroriginalgoalofenteringofficialdom.Rath-erthanbeingadeadendforthemany“failures,”theexaminationsystemanditsclassicalcurriculumsurprisinglyhelpedthesemenlandinotherrespect-ablepositions.

Inasocietywhereabout10percentoftheChinesepopulationparticipatedinthecivilserviceexaminations,andmorethan90percentofthisgroupfailedthem,somemeansofjustificationwasfoundforthedecadesspentmemoriz-ingclassicaltexts.Whatcandidatessharedwasknowledgeoftheclassicallan-guage, memorization of key parts of the canon, and an ability to composeeight-leggedessays.Evenifsocialmobility in imperialChinawas limitedbythecompetitivenatureoftheexaminationprocess,enoughalternativecareerswereavailableforthosewhowereclassicallyliteratethatanotherunintendedconsequenceoftheexaminationsystemwasthedevelopmentofanalterna-tiveliteraticulturethatreactedagainstandwroteagainstthegrainofthede-meaningexaminationprocess.

Atsuko Ueda (Princeton University)

AtsukoUeda’schapterunravelstherhetoricaldisguisesurroundingMeijicallsfor languagereform.Shecompares,historically,whatMeiji linguistsactuallyclaimedagainstthebackdropoftheevolvinghistoricalcontext.Uedapercep-tivelyrejectsteleologicalhindsightinfavorofworkingout“real-time”histori-calbeginnings.Heraccountofthereformspresentsthepaceandcadenceof


17Introduction

vernacularizationinJapan,whichlinguiststheresawasameanstounifythespokenandwritten languages.Shealsoaddresses thevirulenceofMeijina-tionalism and Japanese calls for de-Asianization and de-Sinification thatcoursedthroughthelanguagedebates.

We should also note that Ueda elsewhere criticizes Benedict Anderson’s“imaginedcommunities”approach.Thisapproach,whenappliedtoMeijiJa-pan,positsthenationasthegoalthatinspiredthelanguagereforms,therebybecoming a self-fulfilling, teleological prophecy. Ueda discovers that the re-formersdidnotpositthenationasagoalatthestart.The1880swerenotthefirststageofMeijilinguisticnationalism.Rather,whenUedareexaminesthehistoricalconditionsthatmadeanewJapanesenationallanguage(kokugo 国語)thinkable,shefinds insteadthatthekeystothestorywerethedifferentlinguisticapproachesarticulatedintheearlyMeijiperiod.Uedapresentsfourlinguistsinthischapter:(1)MoriArinori,whoarguedagainstChinesescriptinfavorofusingRomanlettersfortheirphoneticprinciplestomakeoralreadingandwritingcommensurable;(2)MaejimaHisoka,whosoughttoreplaceChi-nesescriptbyphoneticizingallkanjiwiththekana syllabary;(3)NanbuYoshi-kazu,whofavoredtheRomanalphabettoreformJapanesegrammarbasedonthefifty-soundsyllabarygrid;and(4)NishiAmane,whoasapublicistalsofa-voredtheRomanalphabetforthefifty-soundsyllabarygridinordertorecon-cilespellingandpronunciation.

LanguagereformerswishedtostandardizeJapaneseasaspokenlanguagebasedontheTokyopronunciation.TheyhopedtherebytounifyspokenandwrittenJapanesethroughvernacularization.BydefininganidealJapaneselan-guagethroughsoundratherthanwriting,Japaneselinguiststiedkanbun-stylelanguagein“Japanese”syntacticalorder (kanbun kundokutai漢文訓読対)toanti-Chineseandanti-elitesentimentsbasedonthedistinctionbetweendeadlanguages(ChineseandLatin)andlivinglanguages(JapaneseandEuropeanvernaculars).MoreradicalelementsattackedtheallegedideographicnatureofChinesescriptandoverlookeditsphoneticelements.Intheend,however,theadvocatesofkanbun kundokutai recognizedtheefficacyoftheChinesescriptfor newspapers, textbooks, fiction, and composition. They successfully setasidethefearsoftheanti-kanji movementandstressedinsteadtheusefulpho-neticaspectsofkanbun kundokutaibecausetheChinesescriptcouldeasilybephoneticallymarkedbykana.Remarkably,thesuperioreconomyandconcise-nessofChinesescript,whencoupledwiththeJapanesesyllabary,meantthatkanjicouldbeexploitedinthenameofaJapanese-inspiredlanguagereformthatreducedthenumberofrequiredcharacterstothreethousand.

The“new”orthographyseveredkanbun kundokutaifromitspre-Meijitiestokanbunandmobilizedbothanti-Chinesesentimentsandpro-Westernviewsof


18 Elman

languageinitsfavor.Kanbun kundokutai becameaversionoftheJapaneselan-guagethatbrokeawayfromstrictlykanbun readings.ItbecameanewformforwritingmodernJapanese.Newtextbooksnolongerneededtoincludetheorig-inalkanbun texts;theycouldsimplypresentthekanbun kundokutaiwithkana markingsforthekanji.Kanjiasaforeignmedium hadinterferedwiththe“Jap-aneseness”ofthelanguage.Nowkanbun kundokutaiasaJapaneseformofex-pression ironically was privileged over the Chinese script. Like han’gŭl inpremodernKorea, kana writing techniquesalsohada longhistory in Japan,mostofwhichwasunrelatedtonationalistsentiments.LooselyorganizedsetsofphonographsderivedbutdistinctfromChinesecharactersweredevelopedbeforetheninthcentury,butitwasonlyinthelatenineteenthcentury,withthewideadoptionofmovable-typeprinting,thatstrictone-to-onecorrespon-dencebetweenkanagraphsandsyllableswasestablished.

Uedashowshowmultipletranslingualpracticesshapedtheearlyandmid-dle Meiji periods and precipitated the rise of a new national language.Thespaceopenedupbykanbun kundokutaiwasthekeyfortheinventionofanewnationallanguage.Nationalismwaslaterconstructedteleologicallytobetheend-allforeverything,butinfact,aseriesoflinguisticstruggleswereinvolved.TheJapanese“nation”wasthefinalresultofthelinguisticdebatesandnotthesinglecausethatmotivatedthelanguagereforms.

Similarly,JoyKimpointedoutatourfirstworkshopthatscholarshiponKo-reanlanguageshadbeeninfluencedbythemodern,anticolonialdiscourses,whichfavoredanti-Siniticsentimentsandallegedly“pure”han’gŭltexts.InKo-rea,han’gŭlwasinventedin1443,notasanactofnationalism,buttoalargeextentasasyllabarytofacilitatethecorrectpronunciationofChinesetexts.WehaveseenthattheVietnameselanguagealsowasconceptualizedmoreasanextensionof,andanaidto,classicalChinesethanasanalternativetoit.

Shang Wei (Columbia University)

ShangWei’sconcludingchaptermovesusfrompost-1911andMayFourthlin-guisticprescriptionsforsaving“China”toahistoricallygroundedaccountofthespokenandliteraryaspectsofChineselanguage(s)since1400.Intermsofthe descriptive issues, Shang has rehistoricized the May Fourth agenda bystripping away the cognitive illusions and modernist teleologies based onhindsight that informed earlier accounts of language reform in Republican


19Introduction

China.LikeAtsukoUeda’stheoreticalworkonMeijilanguagereforms,Shangaimstode-teleologizemodernistviewsofpremodernlanguagesinChina.16

EarlierideologicalagendasandpoliticaldebateshavedictatedthatinbothMeijiJapanandlateQing–earlyRepublicanChinalanguagereformwasaracetocatchuptoWesternEuropeandtheUnitedStates.ThisisasoberinglessonofhowuniversaltheorycanbeembeddedintheindividualautobiographyofradicalChineselinguists,whoselinguistictheorieswerereallypoliticalweap-onsdisguisedasanobjectivemethodology.AconsensusemergedduringtheMayFourtherathatheldaderogatoryviewoftheclassicallanguage.ThisMayFourthrhetoricthenwasenshrinedasPRCstatedogmaafter1949.Themod-ernistlinguisticdiscoursesthatemergedwerenotreallyproofsforthesuperi-orityofvernacularspersebutasignofinsider,political,andsocialagendasused to advance the Cultural Revolution. May Fourth theories and analysishave until recently prevented acknowledging the cultural damage incurredduringtheturnawayfromtheallegedly“dying”classicallanguagetothealleg-edly“living”vernacularinBeijing.

ShangWei’schapter,accordingly,isabalancedcritiquethatrefutestheover-ly theorized linguistic claims of his predecessors and asks us to rethink thedevelopmentof theChinese “vernacular” (baihua 白話; lit., “plainspeech”).MayFourthintellectualspositedafalsedichotomybetweenclassical文言andvernacularChinese,accordingtoShang.Beforethetwentiethcentury,baihua was primarily the spoken language of well-educated elites (Beijing “Manda-rin”).Farfromachievingastandardizedform,therewereactuallyeightdiffer-ent branches of Mandarin. After the fall of the Qing dynasty, the newlyestablishedMinistryofEducationtriedtounifysoundandspeechunderana-tionaldialect,butaconsensuswasneverreached.NorthernersproposedBei-jingMandarinasthenationaltongue,whilesouthernersputforththeirownregionaldialectsasmore“authentic”phonologicaltraditions.

Shangalsopointsout thatbothbaihua and literaryChinesewereusuallyfoundtogetherintheso-called“vernacular”novelsbefore1900.Nobinarysys-tem of the Chinese language with a strict dichotomy between classical andvernaculareverexisted.Shangsuggeststhatweshouldperceivethemasdiffer-entregistersofthesamelanguageline.Aneducatedmanintheearlymodernperiodusedhisownregionaldialecttoaurallyrenderthetextsthatheread,regardlessofwhethertheywereclassicalorbaihua.Like“modern”Japanese,thevernacularizationmovementinChina,withitsstrictdividebetweenclas-sicalandbaihua anditsintoleranceforvariantsofanofficialbaihua,emergedonlythroughthemodernprocessesofnationalism.

16 SeeWu2013forarecentaccountofclassicalpoetryandlearningfrom1900to1937.


20 Elman

ByhighlightinganahistoricalpolarizingoftheclassicalandvernacularintoseparatelanguagesinRepublicanChina,Shangrelatesinpassinghowtheef-fortsoflinguisticreformerstocreateanewspokenvernacularweremisguided.Mandarinwasalreadyatransregionallanguagethatdefiedthedefinitionofavernacular.TheMinistryofEducation’sprojecttoinventaChinesevernacularwasmoresociopoliticalthanlinguistic.Thelinguistsclaimedthatastandard-izedpronunciationwasneededtocreateaunifiedstatecomposedofChinese-speakingcitizens.ThiseffortwasnewintheearlytwentiethcenturyandnotanoutgrowthfromanimaginarybifurcationofChineseintoclassicalandver-nacularelementsbefore1900.Shangaddsthatuntil1912nosystematiceffortsweremadetopromoteMandarinastheofficiallysanctionedspokenlanguagewhileatthesametimesuppressingregionaldialects.Theunityoftheempire,basedinpartonacommonwritingsystemfocusedonclassicalChinese,wasnotachievedatthecostofreducingregionaldiversityinspeechandvocaliza-tion.Theempireencompassedlinguisticdiversity,includingManchuandoth-eroutsideinputstothepronunciationofso-calledChinese.

The officials of the new Republic and May Fourth intellectuals self-righ-teouslyimaginedtheirtaskasundoingwhattheydeemedtobetheunnaturalrelationshipbetweenthewrittenandthespokenlanguageandbetweentheclassicalandthevernacular.Theprojectofconstructingthenation-statere-quiredahealthysynthesisofthespokenandthewrittenvernacular,bothofwhich were valorized as essential to overcoming the decrepit classical lan-guage. The dichotomy between baihua and wenyan as two opposed writingsystems was further rationalized in the twentieth century, when modernistChinese linguists, for political reasons, imagined the Chinese case as analo-gous to the turn to “modern”Europeanvernaculars from“medieval”writtenLatin.

Shang’sviewofvernacularsinChinadoesnotfitPollock’sSouthAsianmod-elofcosmopolitanversusvernacularlanguages,sincethewrittenlanguageofvernacular Chinese fiction was also a cosmopolitan (transdialectal) form ofwritten communication. By addressing the question of the relationship be-tweenclassicalChinese,vernacularization,andmodernity,Shanghaspresent-edarevisionistargumentthatreliesonapartialbifurcationoforality(“plainspeaking”)andliteracy(classicaltexts).Adoptionofawrittenvernacularclosetothespokenlanguagecouldnothavehappened,however,unlessalanguagefortranscriptionhadalreadybeenconstructed.MuchofMingfiction,forex-ample,wasclearlytheworkofeducatedliterati,butthevernacularregisterswerelikelybasedonthespokenlanguage.Wellintothetwentiethcentury,Chi-nesewritersremainedbilingualorallyandtextually.


21Introduction

JudgingfromprefacesandcolophonsbyMingandQingwritersofvernacu-larfiction,itisclearthattheirwritinginthevernacularintentionallyaccessedawiderreadershipthandidwritingintheclassicallanguage,asocialphenom-enonthatangeredclassicists tonoend!This further substantiates theargu-mentthatsuchtextsweresufficientlyclosetothespokenvernaculartomakethemcomparativelyeasyreading.Thelanguageofvernacularfiction,ofcourse,containedclassicalelements.Themeritofthenovelwasitsuseofbothcollo-quialandclassical language.BygettingridofclassicalChinesegrammaticalparticles,soessentialtoclassicalpunctuation,Qingstorytellers,andtheirre-corders, further developed the novel as a seamless language uniting speechandwritingbefore1900.17

Final Comments

PeterKornickihasnotedthatitisnotclearwhetherthevernacularizingpro-cess in imperial China paralleled the processes in the non-Chinese culturesdiscussedabove.Toputitanotherway,aretheinventionsofnewindigenousscriptsinnon-Chineseculturesandthepresumedvernacularizationthattookplace within China comparable?The invention of an indigenous script, de-scribedaboveinthecasesofJapanese,Vietnamese,andKorean,initiallydidnotserve thepurposeof transcribing the indigenousspoken language.Thatcamelater.Moreover,earlierscriptreformshadnodirectandnecessaryrela-tion to vernacularization until the rise of the nation-state declared them assuch.Inordertoaddressvernacularizationinthesenon-Chinesecultures,itisnecessarytomovebeyondthelevelofthescriptandmakedistinctionsregard-inghowthescriptwasused,forwhataims,andwithwhatrelationtothespo-kenlanguage.18

ThechaptersbyAtsukoUedaandShangWeidescribemodernattemptsbygroups in Japan and China to create new vernaculars that would serve as amarkerofaperson’sculturalandnationalidentity.Creationofaunifiedna-tional language entailed different problems for China and Japan, however.WhileawrittenclassicallanguagetheoreticallyunifiedChina,themultitudeofregionaldialects resulted inmutualunintelligibilitywhenthe textswere lo-callyvocalizedevenasthealleged“officialspeech”(guanhua 官話)ofManda-rin. The infusion of regional dialects into written baihua complicated theregisters of the writing system. In Japan, the continued use of Chinese

17 Blader1977.SeealsoPastreich2011onearlymodernJapanese“vernacular”stories.18 Kornicki2008.


22 Elman

characterswasinimicaltotheprojectofseveringthepresentfromthepastintheconstructionoftheMeijistate.YettherewasnoeasysolutiontolinguisticreformwithoutusingtheChinesescript,andasUedashows,theearlyMeijiperiod was a time of great experimentation, which reauthorized the use ofkanjiinatranslatedformcalledkundokupunctuation.19

Japanesekanaintheninthcentury,VietnameseNômintheeleventh,Ko-reanhan’gŭl inthefifteenth,alongwiththeevidencefromtheDunhuangman-uscripts written in Central Asian scripts, show that a first stage in makingSinitictextsmoreaccessiblewastheprovisionofpunctuation,whichdepend-edonapriorinterpretationofthetext.Kornickiandothersregardthislinguis-tic operation as a form of a “bound translation” in which “the original ispreservedvisuallyintheformoftheChinesecharacters,evenwhentheyareusedinobscuresenses,althoughtheyarepronouncedinaccordancewithver-nacular phonology.” Considered a form of translation (“circumlocutionarytranslationese”)byDavidLurie,thesereadingtraditionslikelydevelopedpri-marilytocomplementandnottoreplacethedirectreadingofclassicaltexts,whichtheMeijireforms,forexample,accomplished.Translationsandpunc-tuation using kana, Nôm, or han’gŭl increased the audience to those whosereading skillsofChinesescriptwerelimited.20

InEastAsia,aslongastheprestigeofclassicalChinesewasacceptedamongelitesandamongthosewhoaspiredtobecomeelites(i.e.,untilroughly1900),Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese elites embraced it. Except forManchusandMongols,mostCentralAsianTibetansandothershadstoppedaspiring to master classical Chinese as a cosmopolitan language. Ueda andShang,reveal,however,thatoncethelanguagefellfurtherfromgraceasalin-guafrancainthelatenineteenthcentury,EastAsians,includingChineserevo-lutionaries,ranawayfromitasfastaspossible.Thedualforcesofcolonialism(inKoreaandVietnam)andnationalism(particularlyinJapanandChinabutalsoinKorea,Vietnam,andCentralAsia)affectedthevalorizationofbaihua,han’gŭl,kana,andNômreadings.Suchnotationalformsnolongerwerewaystomasteror reduplicateclassicalChinese.Rather, thenative formswerere-valuatedusingmodernlinguistictacticstoinventnewvernacularsthatpartedwiththeofficiallanguageofthesickempirecalledQingChina.21

Before“flight”fromChinesebecamethenorminCentralandEastAsia,theauthority of the teacher of classical Chinese outside China was tied to hismastery of the corresponding Tangut-Uighur-Mongol-Vietnamese scripts or

19 OzakiandHirata1988.20 Cf.Lurie2011,169–212,esp.210–211,withKornicki2008.21 Yang2010.


23Introduction

Chinese-Japanese-Koreanmarkingtechniquesforreading,writing,andtrans-latingtheclassicalChineselanguage.Suchteacherswereabletointroducestu-dentstothetextsthroughaseriesofpracticalstepsofinstruction.ThisprocesscenteredonparsingtheChinese intoitsconstituentparts:(1)typesofwrittencharacters文字;(2)correctphrasesandsentences章句;and(3)formsofrea-soning 文理. Like their Chinese counterparts, the Central and East Asiangrammariansservedaspreserversandtransmittersoftheclassicallanguage.Theyrepresentedtherepositoryoffluentandcoherentutterancesinhighcul-ture by marking correct punctuation and readings, incorporating voicingmarks,andaddinginterlinearglossesforparticles助字(lit.,“connectives,”i.e.,prepositions,particles,endings),concretegraphs實字(lit.,namesofthings),and“insubstantials”虛字(i.e.,adjectivesandverbs).22

The top teachers transmitted thearticulationsof theFiveClassics; lesser,more technical teachers taught the medical classics and the mathematicalclassics.KoreanandVietnamesemasteryofthecanonwastestedforthecivilserviceasinChina,whileinJapantheleadingclassicalteachersquicklyfoundtheirnichesamongthemerit-sensitivecommonersandmerchantswholackedbutalsodisdainedthemarksofhighbirth.ManyJapanesecommonersroseinsocialstandingbecauseof theirclassical literacy,while landless,aristocraticwarriorsfellintopovertyanddisreputebecausethestyleoflifetowhichtheywerebredsubmergedthemindebtstomerchants.Manysamurai,recognizingthatsuccessrequiredclassicalliteracyratherthanmartialarts,nowstudiedtobecomescholarsordoctors.23

Wordsbecametheentrytoaworldof formalismandpedantry,rulesandcategories,andrarelexicaldiscussions.Theclassicist’scommandofafewclas-sical textssavedhimfromthebaseoccupationsof theunlearned.Weighingindividualwords,phrases,andversesallowedhimandhisstudents towritetheirwaytofameandfortune—oratleasttoteachandwriteforothers.Be-causeclassicalknowledgeenabledaprestigiousformofwritingandspeechintheeighteenthcentury,italsoappealedtoEastAsianrulers,whocametode-pendonaliteratebureaucracytoadministertheirdomains.

Theclassicist’sinstructionwasembeddedinasocialsystemwherewealth,distinction,andeloquencedifferentiatedelitesfromthosewhoweremainlypoor,anonymous,andilliterate.Thosewithoutclassicaleducationswerenowmorenoticeable;before,onlytheBuddhistsinKoreaandJapan,asamongthe

22 SeetheTokugawakanbun textbookscollectedinYoshikawa,Kojima,andTogawa1979–1981.ThesegrammaticaldivisionsderivedfromSongthroughMingperiodclassicalschol-arship.

23 Elman2008.


24 Elman

Tanguts,Mongols,andTibetans,hadbeenthemastersofChinese language.Classicalscholarsprovidedthelanguageandvaluesthroughwhichachangingsocialandpoliticaleliterecognizeditsownaspiringmembers.Thegoverningclassesofcourtiersandwarriors,oncetotallyaristocraticinJapanandKorea,nowsharedelitestatuswithcommonerswithclassicaleducations.Classical“letters”文signaledincreasedsocialstatus.Classicalstudiesprovidedupwardsocialcirculation,particularlyaccesstourbannetworksofpatronage.24

AsinChinasincetheSongdynasty,literacyandprintculturenowmatteredforEastAsians.Theywerenolongersimplywindowdressingforaristocratsoracallingformonks.Thevalueof“letters”amidthepervasiveilliteracyofEastAsiansocietiesmadegrammarthefirststepupwardformobilestudentswhoweredrawntoliteraryculture文化.Inturn,thesocialandculturalelitevaluedtheclassicalteacherandhiredhimtotraintheiryoung.Byopeningtheirownschoolsandpreparingtheirowntextbooks,classicalteachersalsobecametheagentsof languagetransmissionandthecivilizingprocess.Becausestudyofgrammarincorporatedmemorizationforaclassicaleducation,studentshadtomastermanytechnicalrules.Sincethegrammariancontrolledaccess totheclassicallanguage,hisprofessionwastherebyembeddedinthesharedlifeoftheelite.Chinesewasausefulmeasureofclassicalsuccessbecauseitworkedsowellandsmoothly—unlike the “vulgar”vernacular language俗語 of themarketplace.Grammarianstaughttheformsofclassical,medical,andliteraryanalysisandconceptualcategoriesinheritedfromthepastinChinaandnowreproducedinEastandCentralAsia;someeventaughtcolloquialChinese.25

Classicalscholarsledprofitablecareersasgrammarianswhoalsotaughtlit-erarystyle.Theirtextbooksestablishedabasicgrammarandsentencestruc-ture,whichenabledEastAsianstudentsintheeighteenthcenturytomasterChineseclassicalsyntax,eveniftheymentallytransposedsentencesintona-tivewordorder.Whatattractedtheelitestosuchclassicalteachers,inadditiontocareerism,wasthatChineseclassicallearningaffirmedtheconventionalvir-tues and the socioeconomic status quo. Novelty or change, if any occurred,usuallywasanunintendedby-productoflearningtoreadandwrite.Classicallearningbecametheguidetotherightchoices.Virtueandlettersupheldeachother.26

InJapan,unlikeinChina,Korea,andVietnam,urbanorvillagegrammari-ansdependedontheirpublicreputationsbecausetherewasnocivilexamina-tiondegreetomarktheirexpertise.Classicalteachersdisplayedaconsiderable

24 Ikegami2005.25 Pastreich1999.26 Cf.Kaster1988onRomangrammariansinantiquity.


25Introduction

range insocialoriginsand fortunes.Theyweresubordinate topatrons,whoprovidedthemwiththeirsonsasstudents.Theyenjoyedmiddlingrespectabil-ityamongurbanizedelites,particularlyaristocratsandsamuraiofficialsinthevariousTokugawadomains.Asteacherstheyhadsomechanceforprofession-al,social,andgeographicmobilitywithintheirdomainsandwithintheshogu-nalgovernment,butlackedaccesstothehighestpositions,whichwereheldbythemilitaryandimperialcourtaristocrats.Oftentheybecameprimaryconsul-tantsintheirdomains.Fromsamurai,commoner,andmedicalbackgrounds,they represented the respectable classes in the growing cities. Despite theirskillsandaccruedrespect,theyremainedclosertothemiddlethanthetopofthesocialpyramid,unliketheunmitigatedculturalprestigethatasmallnum-berofChinese,Koreans,andVietnameseachievedthroughtheesteemedcivilexaminations.

Althoughtheirroleasgrammarianscreatedanauraforclassicistsasmas-tersoftexts,theycouldovercomethelimitsoftheirsocialstatusonlyuptoapoint.Theirroleassocialandculturalmediatorsallowedthemtomixwiththearistocratsandwarrior-officials,particularlytheirsons,buttheruralteacherwasneverfarremovedfromhismodestbeginnings.Successfulclassicalgram-mariansweredrawntothemajorcitiesandregionalcenters,whichprovidedmorepupilsfromthemiddleandupperelitesfortheirschools.Classicalteach-ersweremotivatedbythehopeforfameintheincreasinglyfluidurbanworld,buttheirequivocalsocialstandingoftenpromptedthemtodespisetheaspir-ingdoctorsormerchantsjustbelowthem.Classicistscriticizeddoctorsasnou-veaurichewhoequatedtheir“lesser”classicallearningwithknowledgeoftheConfucianclassics.InearlymodernJapan,samuraiwhobecamescholarsenvi-ouslyremarkedhowclassicalphysiciansexploitedtheChineseClassicstorisein urban society. Many sons of doctors became classicists throughout EastAsia;classicistsinturnbecamemastersofthemedicalclassics.

OneofthemajorthemesthatemergesfromthisvolumeistheremarkablechangeoverinEastandCentralAsiafromthedesiretoreachculturalcommen-surabilitywithChinaviaclassicallearningtothedesiretoescapeintoculturalincommensurability by sustaining native vernaculars. In the early moderneras, states outside the Chinese cultural center tried to measure themselvesagainstChineseclassicalcivilization,usinglanguageasagaugeforthatecu-menical,hence“cosmopolitan,”culture.Thesestatesmodeledthemselvesasempiresvis-à-vis“Greater”ChinaandtriedtopositionthemselvespoliticallyasviablesuccessorstotheChineseculturaltraditionincasea“secondRome”(lit.,a“littleChina”小中華)wasneeded—forexample,afterthe1280Mongolorthe1644Manchuconquest.Inthetwentiethcentury,however,thenation-statenarrative took over, and the Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, and even the


26 Elman

Chinese themselves, not to mention the Mongols, Manchus, and Tibetans,soughttodistancethemselvesfromimperialChinaanditsclassicallanguage.TheinabilitytocompletelyexcisetheChinesepastfromtheirlanguageorfromtheirculturalandintellectualdiscoursesbecameasourceofanxietythathadnotbeensharedbytheirclassicistpredecessors,whohadtakenprideintheirorthodoxaccomplishments.

The chapters in this volume also demonstrate that beyond its linguisticfunctions,aclassical,cosmopolitan languageshouldalsobe thoughtofasaphilosophyofactionenunciatedthroughpoetryandprose,thatis,asthe“per-formativeutterances”ofaclassicalcommunityof students, teachers,aristo-crats,andofficials.Theabilitytospeak,read,andwriteinthecorrectlanguageineachspecifictimeorgeographicalspace,suchasbeingfluentinliteraryChi-neseinKoreaduringthefourteenthcenturyorunderstanding(andhelpingtoinvent)modernJapaneseduringtheMeijiperiod,grantedthespeakerorwrit-ertremendousculturalandintellectualprestige.

Several chapters rethink the relationship between cosmopolitan and ver-nacularlanguagesinEastandCentralAsia.ClassicalChineseandEastAsianvernacularsinparticularshouldnotbeoverdeterminedasanoppositionalbi-nary.Rather,weshouldseethemasEastAsianssawthem,namelyastworeg-isters of the same language system or as parts of a broader spectrum oflinguisticpossibilities.Thetwentiethcenturychampionedanalternativelin-guistic agenda that modern intellectuals temporarily accepted as universalandnormative.Wearenowdeconstructingthatposition.TheMayFourthnar-rativeinparticularshouldbehistoricizedinlightofitsROCandPRCteleolo-giesandre-understoodinlightofthelonger-termpossibilitiesthatencouragedEast Asians to seek cultural commensurability with imperial China and itsclassicallanguagesincemedievaltimes.

References

Blader,Susan1977.“ACriticalStudyofSan-hsia wu-yiandRelationshiptotheLung-t’u kung-anSong-Book.”Ph.D.diss.,UniversityofPennsylvania.

Brokaw,Cynthia,andKai-wingChow2005.Printing and Book Culture in Late Imperial China.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Busch,Allison2010.“HiddeninPlainView:BrajbhashaPoetsattheMughalCourt,”Modern Asian Studies 44,2:267–309.

Elman,Benjamin2001.From Philosophy to Philology: Intellectual and Social Aspects of Change in Late Imperial China, 2nd, rev. ed. Los Angeles: UCLA Asian PacificMonographSeries.


27Introduction

––––––2008.“SinophilesandSinophobesinTokugawaJapan:Politics,Classicism,andMedicineduringtheEighteenthCentury,”East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal (Taiwan)2,1(March):93–121.

––––––2013.Civil Examinations and Meritocracy in Late Imperial China.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Ge Zhaoguang 2012. “Costume, Ceremonial, and the East Asian Order: What theAnnameseKingWoreWhenCongratulatingtheEmperorQianlonginJeholin1790,”Frontiers of History in China7,1(March):136–151.

Goble,Andrew2011.Confluences of Medicine in Medieval Japan. Honolulu:UniversityofHawai’iPress.

Ikegami Eiko 2005. Bonds of Civility: Aesthetic Networks and the Political Origins of Japanese Culture.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Kaster, Robert 1988. Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity. Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Kornicki,Peter1998.The Book in Japan: A Cultural History from the Beginnings to the Nineteenth Century.Leiden:E.J.Brill.

––––––2008.SandarsLecturesinBibliography,March,UniversityofCambridge,https://sp.princeton.edu/eas/piirs-eap/Shared%20Documents/3%20-%20Research%20Module%20on%20Rethinking%20Asian%20Languages,%20Vernaculars,%20and%20Literacies,%20September%2024-25,%202010/Kornicki%20---%20Sandars%20Lectures%20-%20Latin%20of%20East%20Asia%202008.doc.

Lurie,David2011.Realms of Literacy: Early Japan and the History of Writing.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityAsiaCenter;distributedbyHarvardUniversityPress.

OzakiYujiro尾崎雄二郎andHirataShoji平田昌司,eds.1988.Kangoshi no shomondai 漢語史の諸問題[SeveralquestionsaboutthehistoryoftheHanChinesespokenlanguage].Kyoto:Kyotodaigakujinbunkagakukenkyujo.

Pastreich,Emanuel1999.“AnAlienVernacular:OkajimaKanzan’sPopularizationoftheChineseVernacularNovelinEighteenth-CenturyJapan,”Sino-Japanese Studies 11,2:39–49.

–––––– 2011. The Observable Mundane: Vernacular Chinese and the Emergence of a Literary Discourse on Popular Narrative in Edo Japan.Seoul:SeoulUniversityPress.

Pollock,Sheldon2000.“CosmopolitanandVernacularinHistory,” Public Culture12,3:591–625.

Pomeranz,Kenneth,andStevenTopik1999.The World That Trade Created: Society, Culture, and the World Economy, 1400 to the Present.NewYork:M.E.Sharpe.

Wu,Shengqing2013.Modern Archaics: Continuity and Innovation in the Chinese Lyric Tradition, 1900–1937.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityAsiaCenter.

YangRuisong楊瑞松2010.Bingfu, huanghuo yu shuishi 病夫、黃禍與睡獅[Sickman,yellowperil,andsleepinglion].Taibei:Zhengdachubanshe.


28 Elman

YoshikawaKojiro吉川幸次郎,KojimaNoriyuki小島憲之,andTogawaYoshiro戶川

芳郎,comps.1979–1981.Kango bunten sōsho漢語文典叢書[CollectaneaoftheHanChinesespokenandwrittenlanguage],vols.1–7.Tokyo:Kyukoshoin.
