Lei Zhu
Shanghai International Studies University
The speech sound, being the most important medium between our physical body and linguistic mind, is one of human beingsâ oldest objects of study. In different cultures, it has been understood in different ways, depending on the role it plays in social life (e.g. in religious activities), the technologies available, the dominant philosophy, and various other factors. If we take the position that each writing system is a preliminary analysis of the speech sound, even more varieties may be considered.
The above having been said, one might assume that the Chinese, with a long history, an autonomous culture, and a unique writing system, must have a rather independent tradition in the study of the speech sound. Indeed, this is the belief of many Chinese scholars as well, to whom the fact that speech sound study (yinyunxue éłé»ćž, literally âpronunciation and rhyme studyâ) makes one of the three branches of the âbasic learningâ (xiaoxue ć°ćž, somewhat similar to the Western trivium) in traditional Chinese scholarship and played a leading part in its culmination during the Qing Dynasty (1616-1911, the last Chinese dynasty) is enough to support the view.
In this post, I will show that the above view is at least partly wrong. At the heart of the speech-sound branch of the âbasic learning,â a tension between the Chinese and the Indian approach has existed since the 2nd century A.D. Moreover, as the branch started to be modernised at the beginning of the 20th century, since which time it has been customarily called âhistorical Chinese phonologyâ (hanyu lishi yinyunxue æŒąèȘæ·ćČéłé»ćž), the tension has been further complicated by the introduction of the Western approach. Throughout the process, the Chinese approach has never been really dominant, but it has never been dispensable, either. This poses a problem for those who argue for the independence of traditional Chinese scholarship, because âspeech sound studyâ is regarded as a core component of the scholarship (in much the same way as philology is the basis for classical studies). On the other hand, this is also problematic for the modern linguists, who often feel that the modernisation of historical Chinese phonology is not enough.