Notes et documents

Retroflex initials in the history of Southern Guanhua phonology

W. South COBLIN

During most of its history the GuÄ홢nhuÃ홢 koine is thought to have been rooted in the southern Mandarin dialects of the Yangtze watershed. H o w e v e r , t h e e a r l i e s t a l p h a b e t i c r e c o r d i n g s o f t h i s l a n g u a g e , d a t i n g f r o m

the mid-fifteenth century, show that it had certain distinctly northern characteristics. The present paper studies one of the features, i.e., retroflexion of certain syllable initials, and concludes that this is attributable to northern migration into the Nanking area from mid-Yuán to early Ming times. Subsequently, the koine came under increasingly heavy southern influence, resulting in competing non-northern forms in the lexicon. These probably became dominant later in the history of the koine.

Key words : Chinese koines, GuÄ홢nhuÃ홢 history, Chinese migration history.

La koiné chinoise ou guÄ홢nhuÃ홢, fondée pour l'essentiel sur les dialectes mandarins du bassin du Yangzi, présente pourtant dans ses premières transcriptions alphabétiques (datant du milieu du 15Ã̈me siècle) certaines caractéristiques propres au mandarin du nord. Cet article analyse l'une d'elles, la retroflexion de certaines initiales, et l'attribue Ã홢 une migration vers la région de Nankin de populations venues du nord, qui se serait produite entre le milieu des Yuan et le début des Ming. Une influence méridionale de plus en plus marquée aboutit ensuite Ã홢 l'introduction dans la koiné de diverses formes différant de l'usage septentrional, qui rentrent en compétition dans le lexique avec les formes plus anciennes, et finissent par l'emporter.

Mots-clés : koinés chinoises; histoire du guÄ홢nhuÃ홢, histoire des migrations en Chine.

Cahiers de Linguistique - Asie Orientale 38( 1 ): 125-162 (2009) 0 CRLAO-EHESS 54, Bd Raspail 75006 Paris 0153-3320/2009/038-125

1. INTRODUCTION

The present article is intended as a supplement and addendum to our recent monograph (2007) on the history of Guanhua Hfg]§ phonology. In that work we dealt with a rather large number of different topics having to do with the way the sound system of southern Guanhua came into being and also how it influenced the formation of northern Guanhua. pronunciation in later times. Our general conclusions there were that (1) standard Guanhua of Ming and early Qing times was based on southern Mandarin pronunciation and (2) that standard northern pronunciation of contemporaneous and later times was a northern attempt to replicate the southern system.

In the present paper we intend to focus in more detail on a single one of the questions dealt with in this monograph. To wit, we wish to consider why, in the earliest attested stage of southern Guanhua as represented in Korean transcriptions, the distribution of retroflex and dental sibilant initials in certain syllables show a northern Mandarin configuration rather than the expected southern one, in that northern-like retroflexes appear where one would expect southern-like sibilants. In dealing briefly with this matter in the monograph, we provided only limited selections of illustrative examples. Here, on the contrary, we shall cite data pertinent to our question in extenso, in order to provide a clearer and more focused picture. The monograph provided a considerable amount of background material on textual sources, general historical questions, matters of methodology etc. Here we shall mention many of these only briefly by way of introduction, rather than going into them in depth.

A second purpose of the present paper is to address a question raised by Dr. Laurent Sagart in his introduction to our 2007 monograph. To wit, if the northern system is indeed an attempted replication of the southern one, why do certain selected syllables in the northern system today show northern-type retroflex initials rather than southern-accented dental sibilant ones? The coverage in

the monograph did not deal directly with this matter.' Here we shall try to remedy that.

In 1356, the soon to be founded Ming H홢 Dynasty established its national capital at Nanking. The first Ming emperor, Zhu Yuanzhang 홢7GJ홢, and many of his followers and associates came from the Yangtze watershed; and it seems likely that they spoke to each other in a koine or lingua franca, of indeterminate antiquity, which was rooted in the southern Mandarin dialects of their native

area. It is now widely believed that the pronunciation of this koine was the basis for the so-called Nanyin pig i f , the southern Mandarin-type pronunciation which was influential throughout the Ming and early Qing 1îf periods. It is sometimes said that this type of pronunciation was identical with that of Nankingese itself. In our view, however, it is probably safer to envisage it as a general Jiang- Huai-based koine rather than the speech of one single place. At this point it is worth mentioning that, though the belief in the primacy of southern-type Mandarin pronunciation in the history of standard Chinese of the Ming and Qing periods has steadily gained favor in recent decades, it is not universally accepted as not a few scholars hold the older view that, the north was the center of standard pronunciation in this period.2

1 The pertinent paragraphs will be found at (2007:5-6). 2 The older view is the predominant one in Korea, though we personally have no direct access to most material published there. There are fortunately exceptions to

this. For example, Professor Chae Yeong Sun H S I M sometimes writes in Chinese or translates his work into Chinese. To our knowledge, the most recent of his publications of this type that deal with this issue is Chae (2007), which summarizes the traditional Korean view. However, we remain convinced that the newer view is

the more convincing one, and we shall continue to hold it, as we have in all our work on Guanhua, unless and until we are presented with credible evidence and arguments to the contrary. For a more detailed presentation of our views on this issue, together with a review of the relevant literature concerning it, see Coblin

(2002b). For a very recent statement of the full case for the new view by one of its pioneers, see La (2007)

In 1375 the Ming government published the H6ngwfi zhengyim 홢ft\IE홢, a rime dictionary whose purpose was to codify the standard reading pronunciation of characters for the new dynasty. All but one of the ten compilers of this work were from central or south China, and it is highly likely that the type of pronunciation they attempted to record was connected in some way with the Nanyin pronunciation of the current capital (Chou 1989: Chap. IV). However, it must be noted that in their work they also consulted a number of earlier rime books; and it is generally agreed that this influenced their decisions at various points in the compilation process (e.g., Chou 1989; Ning 2003). For this reason, the text itself contains many complex and archaic features that cannot automatically be assumed to have been current anywhere in 1375. One cannot, in other words, without further ado assume that the Hongwu zhengyim is a direct reflection of any current form of early Ming reading pronunciation.

Fortunately, however, we have further information from a different source on standard Ming pronunciation. In the mid- fifteenth century the Korean Sinologist, Sin Sukchu W+,Y41 (1417- 1475), together with a team of collaborators, used a specially modified form of the newly invented Han'gul alphabet to record reading pronunciations taken directly from the Hdngwu zh홢ngyiin. Sin's main Chinese informant in this work is thought to have been one Ni Qian {5l홢 (1415-1479), a Chinese diplomat who spent time in Korea in 1450 and worked directly with Sin to compile what became known in Sino-Korean studies as the zhengyin IE 1f or Standard Reading (hereafter: SR) system. The evidence for this collaboration has been adduced by Professor Yuchi Zhiping k홢A홢n, 2p ̀ (Yuchi 1990), who has assembled and examined all relevant historical documents (which are fortunately all in literary Chinese), including Sin Sukchu's own accounts, Ni Qian's diary, etc. We have in our own research personally checked all these original documents against Yuchi's citations and have carefully considered

his reasoning and arguments. In our view his position is completely convincing, and we have accordingly embraced it in our own work.

This having been said, we may now further note that Nf Qian had been born and raised in Nanking and spent considerable time at the southern court in this city before being transferred to north China. It seems likely that his pronunciation of the characters in the Hdngwu zhengyun was close to the standard Nanym system current in his own time. This point cannot be too strongly emphasized. When Ni Qian read aloud for Sin, he must have used some sort of current reading pronunciation. There is no conceivable way he, who knew nothing of alphabets and had only fanqie 1:Z fl) and his own primary schooling to go on, could have "reconstructed" some essentially alien sort of archaic pronunciation based on rime book categories. To claim this flies in face of all we know about how the Chinese script was read aloud in traditional China.3 What Sin heard must have been what Ni Qian, and of course in some cases possibly others, considered to be the correct SR pronunciations. Now, there are clearly cases where Sin recorded things he had not heard. But, due to his own intellectual honesty, when this occurs, he tells us. For example, in his monumental compendium, the Hongmu chong'un y6khun c o m p l e t e in 1455 and surviving

3 For general discussions of the basic education of the elite in traditional China, see Reischauer and Fairbank (1960:306-308; 1965:84-87). For interesting first-hand accounts of the process of acquiring literacy in late traditional times, see Chao (1961:272-280; 1968: Chap. 4, passim). To this may be added a further piece of anecdotal information. The present writer's first teacher of classical Chinese was born in China in 1903 and received her basic education in written Chinese in the

last years of the Qing. Her schooling took place in a slshu f.L.홢 or "private clan

academy". The pronunciation of Chinese characters was transmitted entirely orally by the teacher and had to be memorized on the spot. If any unknown graph was

encountered, the teacher consulted traditional ftnqid dictionaries and glossaries to

determine the correct reading. No other type of source was, or could have been,

used for this purpose. The flnqiè formulae were translated by the teacher directly

into the current sound system of the students. The idea of his "reconstructing" some pre-modern pronunciation would have been inconceivable.

only in part, he adds to rusheng A 3 ? syllables the finals [-p], [-t], and [-k]. But he tells us that these were not actually pronounced as such by his informant(s) and that the syllables in question were merely short or clipped in actual s p e e c h And in his Sasong t'onggo [9 W jj 홢 (completed ca. 1450), a lost work whose spellings are preserved in the Sasong t 'onghae [ 9 V j j M (completed 1517) of Ch'we Sejin l t f t i t (1467-1542), he leaves off the final consonants altogether.5 Again, though he makes an initial distinction between [n-] and [0] in his transcriptions, he tells us that this graphic convention is artificial and entirely based on earlier rime books. It was done, he says, faute de mieux, because he could find no Chinese speakers who could make the distinction consistently; and, yet, his use of an alphabet to represent the problematic forms forced him to write something at the beginnings of these syllables.6

Another distinction Sin makes, and which is often condemned

as artificial, is the graphic indication of a separate zhu6 1m series of initials. There are in fact some authorities who specifically aver that this is not a Guanhua feature at al l . With this view we must totally disagree. To begin, contra the conventional wisdom, ancestral or common Mandarin, as the progenitor of the modem Mandarin dialects, must have had a zhu6 series. This has been demonstrated

conclusively in two comparative reconstructive studies by Professor W. H. Baxter (1999:31-2; 2006: passim). Though none of the dialects used by Baxter in his comparisons possesses a separate ahuo series of initials, the sound correspondences he uncovers show incontestably that the proto-language from which the modern

4For a full discussion of this issue, with all original passages translated, see Kim

홢 1991:80-82). In the preface to the T'onggo, which has fortunately survived, Sin gives a very lengthy

explanation and discussion of the real pronunciations in his time of the syllables involved. Again, all of this has been covered in detail by Kim (1991:loc. cit.). 6 The issue and the pertinent text passage are fully discussed by Kim (1991:71-5). 7 owe of our anonymous reviewers has in fact raised this objection.

dialects derive must have had such a series, whatever its exact phonetic properties may have been.

Now, it is interesting to note that the same situation observed by Baxter exists in the Yangtze Watershed sub-branch of Mandarin.e This is not surprising, since the crucial dialectal material underlying his reconstruction comes from one of these dialects. The state of affairs in the watershed dialects had been known for quite some time by persons working with these languages but had not, to our knowledge, been specifically discussed in print. However, with the advent of the new century, there were two important advances in this area. First, Bao and Wang (2002) reported data from a Lower Yangtze Watershed dialect called Finsh5 3l:1.o/, which has a distinct zhuo series, transcribed by them with IPA voiced letters. Their data for this particular dialect are given only in tables, with no articulatory description of the consonants in question and no discussion of the dialect's taxonomy. Because of this, and probably because their book has not been widely circulated or read, their report has not attracted much attention. More recently, however, the situation has changed even more significantly. Simmons et al (2006) provide a detailed treatment of Tinsha. Their contribution establishes two important points, i.e., (1) Jillshä is incontestably a Lower Yangtze Watershed Mandarin dialect (as opposed, for example, to being a Northern Wu outlier), and (2) the zhud initials in this language are characterized by murmur or breathy voice, as described in the works of the Peter Ladefoged and his collaborators (Ladefoged 1982; Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996). In the second chapter of their book, Simmons and his co-authors give a full comparative phonological reconstruction for the common ancestor of the dialects they study, and this system, which they call "Common Southern Jiang-Huai", of course has a murmured initial

8 This designation as used here refers to the southern or general Jiang-Huai (I홢 branch of Mandarin as spoken in the drainage system of the Yangtze River and its major tributaries.

series. This ensures that a full Common Yangtze Watershed reconstruction would also have had such a system (Coblin, in press). Thus, this branch of Mandarin agrees entirely with the general, earlier system already proposed by Baxter. So we may be reasonably certain that as of Southern Song times, when it is thought that Watershed dialect continuum was carried into its present location (see Coblin 2002a), these languages had zhu6 initials, which were probably murmured.

All this now brings us back at last to the specific case of Sin Sukchu. As we have noted, Sin indicates an independent zhu6 series of initials in his SR transcriptions. He does this with a special set of reduplicated letters, which Kim (1991) renders in IPA transcription with voiced letters. Sin does not say that this distinction is artificial or contrived. Instead, and quite significantly, he describes its precise phonetic characteristics as he perceived them. There are two such descriptions in his writings, both of which we have cited, translated, and discussed in an earlier article (2000a:272-3). But since these passages may be unknown to some readers, we shall now cite the longer of them again. It comes from the preface to the Sasong t'onggo. Though, as pointed out above, this work is now lost, the preface has been preserved in other sources, including Sin's collected works. Most of these sources are difficult to obtain, but one of them, Yu (1973: xxi), is readily accessible to interested readers. We shall consequently quote the text from this work. It runs as follows:

In the case of words in the shang, qu, and ru tones which are "fully turbid", the initials which the present-day Chinese use are close [in sound] to the 'clear' initials, and yet each type preserves the distinction between "clear" and "turbid". Only

in ping tone words are the initials close [in sound] to the "secondary clear" type. However, in the case of the "secondary clear" initials, their pronunciation is [by definition] clear; so the way the syllable ends is consistently low (i.e., soft, not loud, hushed). In the case of the "turbid" sounds, their pronunciation is [by definition] turbid, so the way the syllable ends is somewhat harsh.

In this passage we note several salient points. First, in the SR system, the zhuo class of initials has split into two types, and this development closely parallels the bifurcation of the traditional zhu6 series into voiceless plain and voiceless aspirated obstruents, as found in the initial systems of most modern Mandarin dialects. Secondly and most importantly, however, though the zhuo reflexes of this split in the SR were "close" in sound to the corresponding voiceless plain and voiceless aspirated initials respectively, they had according to Sin not fully merged with these voiceless sounds. Instead, a distinction of some sort was still maintained and was clearly audible to him. And finally, this distinction is described by him not simply as a property of the initials alone but instead as a syllabic feature of some sort, which was in fact most clearly noticeable in the way the syllables ended, i.e., zhuo syllables are said to have had a "harsh" or strident timbre, while voiceless syllables were quiet or hushed.

It seems clear that what Sin was describing here was voice quality of some sort, and that this almost certainly was breathy voice or murmur. Indeed, the description he gives would be accepted by most modern phoneticians as an adequate perceptual characterization of the phonetic quality of murmur or breathy voice. From all this we can draw two significant conclusions. The first is that the time-honored shibboleth, that lack of a distinct zhuo class of initials is a prototypical feature of Mandarin (and, by implication, all forms of Guanhua), is untenable and must be discarded. We see that this has been established during the last decade by the

comparative reconstructive work of several different individuals working with different sets of comparanda, by the publication of new dialect data resulting from recent fieldwork, and by archival records from the fifteenth century deriving from none other than Sin Sukchu himself.

A third and final aspect of the SR system which some might cite as an example of artificial "non-Mandarin" archaism is the classification of tones. For, as Sin Sukchu presents them to us, the SR data are arranged according to the four classical tones, pang 홢P, shang 1 : , q홢 홢, and ru A - Sin does not tell us anything in particular about this arrangement in his introductory matter, and so it would seem that we are to take it at face value. But we must

consider the question more carefully before coming to conclusions about this. To begin, it is now generally believed that Proto- Mandarin or Common North Chinese had seven tones (Baxter 1999:4-5). Common Yangtze Watershed Mandarin, a daughter of this earlier entity, must be reconstructed with exactly the same seven-tone system (Coblin, in press). This type of tonal system can therefore be considered prototypically Mandarin.

Now, we have seen that the SR system had a true zhuo series of initials, and it is possible on this basis to assume that there were in this sound system two tonal registers, upper and lower, which were conditioned by initial types. To wit, at the phonetic level, lower register would have been germane to syllables with zhud obstruent initials, while upper register would have been present elsewhere. This would give us altogether eight phonetic tones (four upper register and four lower register) and would bring us close to the prototypical Mandarin system. Close, but by no means close enough. For all known Mandarin varieties have undergone a development called in traditional philology zhudshang gui qu 홢 .L 홢홢 or ydngshing bian qu 홢1:홢$; "yangshang -tone syllables with zhuo obstruent initials shift to (ydng)o tone." This change is thought to have begun somewhere in north China by at least the eighth century, and it is clearly manifested in Proto-Mandarin,

having caused the earlier ycingshdng tone of this parent language to shift to yángqù and reducing an original eight tone system to the recognized seven-tone one. Thus, an eight-tone configuration such as we have envisaged for the SR system would indeed be non- Mandarin in nature. However, in this connection, Kim (1991:124- 129) has noted a very interesting fact. In the T'onghae a large number of zhuo initial ybngshang syllables are in fact given two readings, one in the shang tone and one in the qu tone. There are also a few that have only qu readings and a significant number with only shang readings. Among the latter, nine still irregularly have shang readings in Modern Standard Chinese today, e.g.,jù M,ju- 홢, and hu6n 0 . We need to try and understand what has happened here. One possibility is that the zhu6shdng guT qir change was actually in progress in Sin Sukchu's time in standard Guanhua. This might have resulted in some competing forms, some as yet unchanged ones, and, finally, a still surviving unshifted residue. In our view, this is the less likely possibility. The more likely one by far, we feel, is that Sin's Chinese informants supplied him with a number of hypercorrect, "etymologically adjusted" readings. In some cases two forms were given, i.e., "what we ought to be saying" versus "what you will most often hear". In other instances, especially in the case of literary register words, only the hypercorrect readings were given. Some of these have survived to the present day. A well-known example of this sort of etymological hypercorrection is the pronunciation shang in the name for the shangsheng ± f # tone. It is generally agreed that this is a case where an etymologically "correct" tone has been artificially substituted for the one used in actual speech.

There is evidence that this sort of "reconstructed shangsheng" reading was in earlier times more common in cultivated speech than it is today. For example, in Francisco Varo's glossary of seventeenth century Guanhua (Coblin 2006b), there are a number of words and phrases that exhibit this feature. Thus, we may suppose that Sin Sukchu's informants gave him such readings in all

seriousness. They were not just playing philological games. His problem was then one of what to do about the material. His decision would presumably have been governed by two desiderata, i.e., consistency and honesty. However words of this type were to be classified in his lexical compendia, they should all be placed in the same category, rather than being scattered between two different ones. And when two different readings had been elicited for a single item, his readers should definitely be supplied with both. Ultimately, he chose the shangsheng section of his works for the home of these words. And, true to form, he assigned them whatever readings he elicited, either single ones in shang or doublets in shang and qu. Words for which he elicited only qusheng readings were naturally placed only under the qusheng. In the end, then, the sometimes heard claim that Sin's tonal classification was archaic or

"non-Mandarin" is questionable.9 Sin was clearly working with actually elicited forms, even when these in some cases reflected un- etymological readings. Where he tells us a certain feature is artificial rather than real, we can believe him. But when he does not say this, we cannot reject the data he gives us simply because of preconceptions we may have about the prototypical features of the language he is describing.

With these issues behind us we must consider one further

matter regarding our source material. As pointed out above, our concern in this paper is with Sin Sukchu's SR system, i.e., the reading pronunciation system that he and his collaborators recorded. However, in addition to this system, Sin's works contain another set of forms, called the suyin 홢 홢 or Popular Readings (hereafter: PR). These forms are said to represent the pronunciation of spoken standard Guanhua, as opposed to the reading pronunciations of characters, and are specifically given by Sin in cases where popular and reading pronunciations differ. Yuchi (1990) has concluded,

Such a claim has in fact been made by an anonymous reviewer of the present article. (

again on the basis of very detailed study and arguments, that the major portion, though of course not all, of this material was elicited from one Huang Zan ffJJ! (1413?-1448?), an official from Jiangxi il Vg, who had served for years in the southern court but was spending the final period of his life in political exile in Liaodong .if 홢, where he was easily accessible to the Korean transcription team. Though the PR forms are not directly relevant to our task here, we have added them as a matter of interest, in case some readers might be curious about them.

As indicated above, we hold that the NAny-in or southern-type Guanhua pronunciation underlay the sound system of the dominant standard koine of Ming times. And we further believe that Sin Sukchu's SR system reflected the standard reading pronunciation of his time. It is thus puzzling to find that there are in the SR reading system features, which do not seem to accord with what we know about central Jiang-Huai Mandarin pronunciation of historic times. It is to just such an anomaly that we now turn.

2. THE PRIMARY PROBLEM

In certain syllables, reconstructed Common Jiang-Huai phonology has dental sibilant initials where northern Mandarin has retroflexes. For example, for the word shi ffi "teacher" Peking Mandarin has [ru while Nankingese has [sll. Our expectation would be that standard southern Guanhua of various periods would have dental sibilant initials in such cases. It turns out, however, that in the SR system these syllables have retroflex rather than sibilant initials. This pattern is illustrated by the examples in the following table, which have been chosen specifically because they illustrate the pattern. After each Chinese character we give its Qieyun i;7]홢 System (QYS) form in the orthography of Bernhard Karlgren, as emended by F. K. Li. We make no assumptions about the historical reality or accuracy of these forms. They are given merely for ease

of reference to the traditional classification scheme. Next follow the

SR system forms of Sin Sukchu, given in the transcription of Kim (1991). This is followed by the PR forms. Where these are not available, this is indicated by a dash. Finally, to represent southern Mandarin, we give reconstructed Common Jiang-Hudi (CJH) forms, as posited by us in two earlier articles (Coblin 2000b; 2004).

10 For this syllable and for sh l æ below, modem Nankingese has initial 홢- rather

than s-. We have argued (2000b:85) that the modem Nankingese retroflexes in such cases are probably intrusive readings or loans, attributable to the high or literary register of the words involved. Thus, we continue to reconstruct the CJH initials as *s-. Compare also initial *ts'- in the word ching 홢 below, where a similar problem arises.

If we move two centuries downward in time to the Xirú ermùzï (ffi fXJ I : f j* (XREMZ) of Nicholas Trigault ( 1577-1628), published in 1626 and representing the standard Nányïn pronunciation of that period, we find that syllables of the type seen above often have competing variant readings, one with a retroflex initial and one with a dental sibilant. This is illustrated in the following table. The XREMZ forms are given in Trigault's orthography followed by phonetic interpretations in square brackets. The selection criterion for including examples here is that the SR form must have a

retroflex initial and the XREMZ must have competing or alternate retroflex/dental sibilant initials.

" SR forms having final -m take PR final -n in the Y6khun. According to Ch'we Sejin this was also true in the now lost T'onggo. Having noted this, in the T'onghae, Ch'we leaves all PR forms of this type out, giving only the SR forms. However, he adds the interesting observation that in his time some speakers actually still used final -m rather than -n in speech. In our table, we follow Sin's usage and give the PR forms as he transcribed them.

The preceding table is limited to examples where Sin Sukchu's SR readings are available for comparison. The XREMZ contains numerous further examples of this type, mostly rare characters, for which SR readings do not happen to occur in Sin's material. These have not been cited here. It will be noted in passing that the initials of the PR forms are identical with those in the SR system.

How are we to account for the data displayed above? Why do the older Guanhua forms found in Sin's SR system have northern features, while the later ones of Trigault's time show competing northern and southern-type forms? The answer to this question is suggested by migration history.

After Nanking was designated the capital of the new Ming dynasty in 1356, there was a large-scale influx of new inhabitants. This comprised four major classes of people (G6 et al. 1993:347; 1997, vol. 5: 20-31). First, there were military personnel, consisting on the one hand of the city garrison, estimated to have numbered, with dependants, 200,000 persons, and on the other, of further forces quartered in the outer environs, numbering, with dependants, approximately 150,000. Second, there were common laborers and their dependants, amounting to perhaps 100,000. Third were government officials, numbering with dependants about 10,000. And finally there were ordinary persons not of the above three classes, to the number of approximately 150,000. In addition to all these, there were artisans brought in on a rotating basis, students, merchants, and others who came and went as occasion demanded but who cannot be considered to have been permanent residents.

G6 et al. believe that relatively few of the city's inhabitants in early Ming times were survivors of the indigenous pre-Ming population. Some of the military personnel in and around the city may have been troops picked from Zhu Yuanzhang's Jiang-Huai

power base. However, the majority were probably from elsewhere, due to the rather stringent Ming-time regulations requiring that garrison troops not be stationed in their native areas. The laborers and artisans were from nearer Nanking; many came from the surrounding neighborhood, others from the Suzhou 4,Ji,l area and from northern Zhèjiang mT1I. The government officials came from various parts of China, but few can have been local people in the opinion of G6 et al. In addition, it is noteworthy that once the capital had been established, prominent Mongols, high-ranking Yuan military personnel, and others who had been connected in one way or another with the old regime were forced to move south to Nanking. Also, several thousand wealthy or influential Chinese families (fuhu 홢 p) were required to relocate there.

In addition, it is interesting that G6 et al. (1997, vol. 4: 675- 79) have noted that, beginning in at least mid-Yuan times there were migrations out of north central and north China to a number of other areas, due to harsh governmental policies, oppressive taxation and corvee exaction, and to natural disasters, for the amelioration of which the Mongol rulers showed little concern.'2 Exactly how many of these immigrants settled in the middle Yangtze area is difficult to determine, but Ge et al. cite clear archival examples that some did, especially during the fourteenth century. Their numbers may have been sufficient to exercise linguistic influence of various types.

This information on north-to-south migration patterns suggests a solution to our linguistic conundrum. Though Nanking was located in the southern Mandarin-speaking area, in pre-Ming times there may have been a significant influx of northern speakers to this city. In addition, in the early years of the new dynasty the population of the city included a number of persons from more northerly areas; and many of these people were socially and culturally prominent. We may surmise that they influenced the

12 We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for drawing our attention to these Yuan period migrations.

formation of the standard Guanhua sound system in significant ways. If we assume that the formation of the k i n d occurred over a period of 100 to 120 years, from the time of the earliest Yuan migrations to the moving of the capital to Beijing in 1421, and that this evolution had continued to ca. 1450, when Sin and his colleagues compiled their linguistic materials, this would have been long enough for the formation of a new, hybrid standard sound system. This, then, may be why an educated southerner like Ni Qian used northern accented pronunciations in the words we have examined here. However, we may also suspect that very early on competing southern forms existed in the koind. Perhaps they were already present in Ni Qian's time, and he simply did not use them. In any case, by Trigault's time they were very much in evidence and were duly listed in his Guanhua syllabary.

Before we leave this section, it is worth commenting on the types of sound changes that led to the configurations seen above. To begin, it can be noted that a rather large number of examples involve syllables having members of the so-called QYS zhaoer H홢 s e r i e s of initials [i.e. QYS initials of the type ts-, ts'-, etc.] Can the variations we have seen be explained in terms of this observation? The fact is that they cannot, for not all QYS initials in the data belong to the zhaoer series. Lest there be any doubt on this point, let us relist the cases that are not of this type:

And, by rights we are probably justified in adding to the list the following example:

Though no historical QYS form is available for this word, slightly later rime books, such as the Jiyùn m M indicate that the QYS reading for it is almost certainly [t'ong]. Here we see that a number of example syllables have initials of the so-called sheshang 1S'1:: series of the QYS, one belongs to the zhaosan 9홢홢. series (i.e., QYS ts-, ts'-, etc.), and one even has d-, which belongs to the shétóu É Ova series.

With all this in mind, let us now briefly summarize the QYS class congruencies and incongruencies in our SR and XREMZ material as regards three salient traditional initial series, i.e., the zhaoer, zhaosarr, and sheshang É 1:: (i.e., t-, t'-, etc.) groups. To begin, in the SR system the initials of all three QYS classes mentioned above are retroflex. About this nothing more need be said for the moment, though we shall return to it briefly below. Moving on the XREMZ system, we note first of all that all zhaosan initials are realized as retroflex. In the zhaoer series, the correspondences are far less neat. This was noticed early on by Lu6 Chingpdi m m 1 # (Lu6 1930: Table 11), who indicated the problem in tabular form but did not discuss it. Considerably later, Lu Zhiw홢i 1I¥!;:t.홢 (Lu 1947:118) took up the question again and treated it discursively. Lu notes that zh6o홢r initials become either his palatal/retroflex class (= our retroflexes) or dental sibilants, but he concludes that it is impossible to determine the conditions for these developments on the basis of the QYS finals. He also notes that

.

there are many doublet readings of the sort found in our examples above.

In fact, the situation is not quite as discouraging as this. There are certain consistencies in the material that can now be briefly noted. For example, in syllables having zhaoer initials, there is a strong tendency for those having finals of the traditional zht;she 1.1: 10 combinatory group to have XREMZ sibilants or retroflex/sibilant pairs. This same tendency is noticeable in the cases of the specific QYS finals [-jwo], [-ju], [-joul, and [-jen], and in the finals of the ggngshe fj! tI group. However, there appears to be no way to predict in any given case whether a particular syllable will have a sibilant initial or a retroflex/sibilant doublet. This uncertainty may have fueled Lu's pessimism here. In any case, to our knowledge no one has provided a cogent or phonologically meaningful account of the phenomena observed in this material, as viewed from the standpoint of the QYS.

As regards sheshang initial syllables, about which Lu did not specifically comment, we may note that the usual corresponding XREMZ initial will be retroflex. Exceptional, however are syllables belonging to the traditional gingsh홢, where there may be either sibilants or retroflex/sibilant pairs. In other environments, such as before QYS finals [-jam] and [ jang], there may be either sibilants or doublets, or simply retroflex initials. The situation appears to be unpredictable. The upshot of all this is that study of the XREMZ material from the standpoint of the QYS tells us relatively little of interest regarding the history of Guanhua. It is clear that we must approach the problem from an entirely different angle.

To begin, it should be noted that what we have been dealing with in this paper is really Common Jiang-Huai phonology, a diasystem arrived at by comparative reconstruction, as outlined in our two earlier articles (2000b; 2004). This system was reconstructed using data from a number of different central Jiäng- Huai dialects. But for the present purposes we can simplify matters and deal with only two of these, i.e., Nankingese and Hefesi I^JJE-

Put very succinctly, in comparative Jiang-Huai reconstruction, if Nankingese and Héféi both show a retroflex initial, then one can reconstruct a retroflex in Common Jiang-Huai, while if both dialects show a sibilant, then one should reconstruct a sibilant for the ancestral system. This is the basis on which the two initial types are distinguished in the reconstructed proto-language. Cases where Hdf6i shows a retroflex and Nankingese a sibilant are virtually non- existent, and in fact no such cases occur in our own Common Jiang- Huai database. If such a rare correspondence ever did appear in a cognate set, one would immediately suspect that the H6fdi form was intrusive, i.e., a loan of some sort. Where Hdf6i shows a sibilant as against a retroflex in Nankingese, which in fact does sometimes occur, we may again suspect a loan, this time into Nankingese. In some cases, we can actually corroborate this suspicion in one way or another. For example, for cheng 홢 we find for modem Nankingese the form [ts'ag 홢' `], but for Héféi we have [ts'ag 홢 7F]. We suspect that the Nankingese form is a loan from some other dialect, which had a retroflex initial here. Now, as it happens, in early twentieth century Nankingese Hemeling (1907) recorded the reading of this syllable as ts'6ng/ts'8n, indicating that a sibilant initial form did exist in Nanking in earlier times. On the other hand, Ktihnert (1898) gives Nankingese [ts'en],'홢 showing that the retroflex reading was also present at nearly the same time. We assume that the two forms, one a native one in initial ts'- and the other a borrowed one having initial ts'-, were in competition about a century ago. Today, the loan form has ousted the native one. A reverse scenario is found for the syllable zh6ng 4p. Here He"f6i has [tsan ^ ^ p ] while Nankingese has [t8:)1J WZF], allowing us to reconstruct the Common Jiang-Huai initial as *ts- without difficulty. But let us now examine the pre-modern Nankingese forms. Hemeling has tsen/tseng, agreeing well with the current modem

홢3 We have converted KUhnert's rather complex orthographic form to IPA. For a discussion of K(ihnert's method of phonetic transcription, see Coblin (2008).

reading. But Ktihnert gives competing variant readings: [tseq - tsEg]. Apparently, there was in his time a retroflex initial reading, which we would consider intrusive. This borrowed reading has not survived, having failed in competition with the native sibilant initial form. The upshot of all this is that we posit a difference between sibilant and retroflex initials in Common Jiang-Huai based on what our comparative data tell us. The sound categories of the proto- system are derived directly from the data, not from the QYS.

Let us now move on and consider the entire problem from the standpoint of general Mandarin history, we may begin by noting that all modern spoken forms of Chinese may be assumed to have evolved from earlier spoken forms of Chinese. And the modem Mandarin dialects should, theoretically at least, derive from some common ancestor, which we may for the present purposes designate as "Common North Chinese" (CNC). The subsequent phonological developments in various branches and sub-branches of this family must be conceived of in terms of their evolution from the

phonological system of the common ancestor, a parent system that can only be restored through comparative reconstruction. It turns out that, in the light of the work we are doing with retroflexes in the present paper, we are singularly lucky. For Baxter's 1999 paper is specifically devoted to the reconstruction of retroflexes in CNC." We should therefore carefully consider his findings in that article. First of all, we note the very interesting fact that CNC is reconstructed with a single, large, undifferentiated retroflex initial category, which in fact encompasses all initial types classifiable under the traditional zh6o홢r, zhaosan, and sh홢sh6ng initial series of the QYS. In other words this CNC initial class includes all the initial types that have been of interest to us in the present paper.15 From

홢° Baxter himself uses for this entity the term "Proto-'Mandarin"', indicating with . his quotation marks his own dissatisfaction with the term. We suspect he would

Probably not strongly object to our use of the term CNC in lieu of it. 5 This state of affairs is of course identical to that found in the SR and PR systems.

Consequently, we may assume that at this point these systems have preserved

this, we draw a most significant conclusion. Since the CNC retroflex class is uniform and undifferentiated, all subsequent changes in it in the individual dialects represented in Baxter's reconstruction must have been conditioned by features of the CNC finals, not the initials. It is therefore among these finals, rather than in any sort of pre-CNC initial distinctions, either real or inherent in the QYS, that we must look for whatever caused the sibilantization of retroflexes in the northern dialects. At the end of his article Baxter discusses the

historical development of the CNC retroflexes in each of the daughter dialects he used in his reconstructive work, supplying series of ordered rules which yield the modem outcomes. Though he works with only a limited number of token syllables in the paper, from the material he does give, we find one and only one dialect in his study whose patterns of sibilantization agree closely with those we observe in Nankingese. This is Hefei.'6

Specialists in Yangtze Watershed dialectology have traditionally considered Hdfdi to be closely related to Nankingese; and, interestingly, in his 2006 article already alluded to above, Baxter has published cladograms in which these two dialects are grouped closely together in computer generated trees. This provides independent corroboration of the traditional taxonomic view. Examining Baxter's derivational rules for the CNC retroflexes in Hdfdi, we immediately see the conditions that account for sibilantization there. To wit, it is specifically blocked by high front elements (i.e. *-j-, *-i, and *-y) and occurs in all other environments. So far as we can determine from the data he gives, the same rule will account for all sibilant/retroflex contrasts in our

own Common Jiang-Huai system and also, of course, for Nankingese itself, except in those cases where, as mentioned earlier,

Baxter's primitive CNC configuration unchanged. This of course does not mean that the SR and PR systems are totally identical with CNC, but only that at this point, they clearly are. 16 Baxter did not use Nankingese data in his reconstructive work for this article.

we suspect that borrowings have replaced sibilant with retroflex forms. Baxter's rule provides a simple, elegant, and linguistically meaningful explanation for sibilantization in the Jiang-Huai dialects. We could, if we wanted, look up the QYS forms for all sibilantized syllables in Common Jiâng-Huái, and specifically in Nankingese and give a long list of QYS initials and finals associated with the phenomenon. But in the end this would merely be an inventory of forms with no meaningful phonetic or phonological coherence. It would lead us nowhere in our efforts to understand the linguistic events under study. This having been said, in closing, we should note that the set of sibilantized syllables generated by Baxter's "Retroflex Loss" rule for Hdfdi corresponds with gratifying exactitude to syllables in the XREMZ which have either sibilants or sibilant/retroflex doublets opposite pure retroflexes in the SR forms. The class congruence between the two types is striking and is not found for any of the other northern-type dialects used by Baxter in his comparative work. All this tends to confirm the general and now widely accepted hypothesis that the Ndnyin system of Gu5nhuA pronunciation in Ming and early Qing times was Jiang-Huai-based.

3. THE SECONDARY QUESTION

As mentioned in the introduction, Dr. Sagart has raised an interesting question in the introduction to our earlier monograph (Coblin 2007: Introduction, p. 5). If, as we have surmised (2007: 23-42), the standard northern Gu5nhuA pronunciation of Ming and Qing times (i.e., the so-called Beiyïn) was at base a northern effort to replicate the prestigious Nányïn, then why does the Modern Standard Chinese sound system, which is the lineal descendant of the Beiyïn, pronounce words like shi Bffi "teacher" as [n], homophonous with shi 홢 [Fo "poetry", rather than as [s3], as would be expected in southern-type Mandarin? The material we have examined in the present paper suggests a possible answer to

this question. For it would seem that in cases like this the standard Nanyin system possessed competing variant readings having retroflex and sibilant initials. In adopting a new standard GuiinhuA pronunciation, northern speakers would have had a choice here. They could either say dental sibilants in the true southern way, or retroflexes in agreement with their own northern speech habits. And, quite naturally, they most often chose the northem-style readings. Interestingly, however, exceptions to this general trend apparently did occur. A prime example is the bilingual Manchu-Chinese text, entitled Giyan man han ioi man jeo tao huwa cing wen ki m e n g * 홢rJ:홢rm1iHf홢ï5홢)('ð=홢, dated 1761 and held by the Toyo Bunko. It consists of colloquial dialogues in Manchu and Chinese, the Chinese part being given first in Manchu alphabetic transcription and then in interlineated Chinese characters. The Chinese material, with Manchu transcriptions fully romanized, has been published by Ochi'ayi (1989), whose article furnishes the data used h e r e . 17 In this text we find the following forms that are pertinent to our discussion: 3a shi 홢 (dzT-): sy. This form occurs scores of times in the material. There are also five instances where the word is spelted si (e.g. 48b, 53b, etc.), representing a northern retroflexed realization.

14b zheng 홢 (tseng): dzeng.

26a chu 홢7J (ts'jwo): tsu.

34a m (홢i): sy.

35b suo #f (sjwo:): so.

The expected northern realization of this syllable would be [홢u], which is in fact Sin Sukchu's SR for it. For colloquial or spoken

" I n the present paper Ochi'ayi's Manchu romanizations are changed to agree with the Mtlllendorff transliteration system (Mollendorff 1892) and with that used by Norman (1978). Our numbering system for pages of the original text is that of Ochi'ayi's article.

Guanhua pronunciation of his time Sin gives the Left Reading (홢E # ) form [홢WO].18 " In the nineteenth century northern Guanhua syllabary of Wade (1867) we find four readings, i.e., shu3, su', shuoJ, and suo 3. Of these, shu3 and shuo3 agree with Sin's forms. SU03 corresponds to the standard southern form so, as given by Trigault in the XREMZ. SU4 differs only in tone from an alternate reading su given by Trigault. In Modem Standard Chinese, only the Nånyln reading [shu6] survives in ordinary usage.

36b s h 6 n g I (song): seng.

37a zheng 홢 (---): dzeng.

SOb shu OIL (sjwo): su. The southern reading su is still a known variant of shu in Modem Standard Chinese.

59b zhai 홢 (took): dze. Wade ( 1867) lists chain and tse' as variant readings for this syllable. Thus, the Nanyln-based form still survived in his time.

73c shu I5l (홢u-): su. Sense of "a number".

It is generally assumed that this material represents standard northern Guanhua. of ca. 1760, probably from the Peking area. From it we see that southern non-retroflex readings for our pertinent characters were still in use by some speakers in the north as late as the latter part of the eighteenth century. And some of them still survive today.

18 the so-called "Left Readings" are character readings attributed to Sin Sukchu and included by Ch'we Sejin on the left sides of his sound glosses to characters in his annotations of the Chinese language textbooks, Ponyok No G61tae 1 J !홢홢 z * and Ponyok Pak t'ongsa Ss홢-홢N홢 (both published ca. )5t0). They are thought to have represented the pronunciation of spoken Guanhua. of Sin's time, as opposed to formal reading pronunciations.

Further interesting cases of this sort can be cited. For example, for the word s i n A (QYS sjam) Sin Sukchu gives a northern-type SR form, sam (홢 홢). And, as expected, Trigault has competing forms: xln, sen [sin - sen]. In these circumstances we would expect the standard Bêiyln system to choose the retroflex reading and ignore the dental sibilant one. However, in the nineteenth century Wade (1867) gives two readings for sin 홢, i.e., sen' and shin1. For some reason the Bdiyln preserved both earlier readings here. And, interestingly, most dictionaries of Modern Standard Chinese give only the southern form, sin, today. The old Nånyïn reading has won out for most speakers in this case.'9 An intriguing converse case involves the common word chú if¡ "hoe". As we have seen above, this syllable had both northern and southern readings in Trigault's syllabary, i.e., ch'u, c'u [t홢'u - ts'u]. Now, the seventeenth century missionary Francisco Varo (1627-1687) lived and worked in Fukien, and in his Guanhua romanization he almost invariably chooses southern variants for syllables of the type we have examined here. However, for some reason he writes "hoe" as ch 'u t 'eu 홢 홢, reflecting the northern reading rather than the southern one (Coblin 2006b: 38). Thus, we see that divergence is possible from the general tendencies of usage observed in the data gathered here.

4. CONCLUSIONS .

In this paper we have addressed two different but related questions, a general one, and a specific one. First, given that early Ming Guanhua is today widely thought to have had a southern Mandarin dialectal base, we wished to determine why this language, as reflected in Korean transcriptions of the fifteenth century, shows northem-like retroflex initials in syllables where southern Mandarin has dental sibilants. Our suggested solution to this puzzle is that,

19 The present writer has heard the pronunciation shin used by some elderly Pekingese speakers.

beginning in mid-Yuan times and continuing into the early Ming period, there was significant northern migration into the area of Nanking, the early Ming capital and the presumed center of gravity of the standard koine. Our view is that this migration was sufficient to give rise to certain northern features being adapted in the standard pronunciation of that period, features which accordingly found their way into the Korean orthographic records. Subsequently, over a period of more than a century, the unremitting pressure of southern influence on the standard pronunciation led to the increasing prominence of parallel southern features, which was ultimately reflected in numerous competing variant retroflex/dental sibilant readings in the pertinent syllables, as recorded by Western missionaries in late Ming and early Qing times. With this theory, we propose to account for the anomalous discrepancy we have found between the early and later alphabetic records of standard southern Guanhua pronunciation. In developing this solution, we have also had occasion to explore briefly the origins and development of the disparity between the lexical incidence of retroflex/dental sibilant contrasts in northern and southern Guanhua.

Our second problem has been narrower in scope and has specifically involved the assumption in our 2007 monograph that the northern Guanhua pronunciation of Ming and Qing times, called the B iyin, was at base a northern attempt to replicate the more prestigious southern or Nanyin pronunciation. If this view is valid, then why, one may ask, is it that standard northern pronunciation of today, which is ostensibly directly descended from the B iyin, has northern-type retroflexes in certain of the very syllables where southern Mandarin pronunciation is expected to have dental sibilants? Our answer to this question is two-fold. First of all, as noted above, the pronunciation of the standard southern-based koine was by late Ming times a mixed system, which offered to speakers alternate retroflex/dental sibilant pronunciations in the particular syllable types which appear to be problematic. It would seem that over the centuries northerners have tended to avail

themselves of the northern-style variants rather than southern ones. Our second response to the question has been to show that, as late as the latter part of the eighteenth century, a number of the syllables here in question actually did still have southern-style sibilant pronunciations in the B홢iyin, as revealed by Manchu transcriptional data. It is in nineteenth century materials that a shift to retroflex realizations first appears in these words. It would seem, then, that the retroflex initials found in a number of the pertinent modern standard forms today have in fact arisen through a process of substitution, subsequent to the end of the eighteenth century.

In conclusion, the two problems dealt with here may at first glance appear to be only superficially related, but in fact they have proven to be intimately intertwined. In like manner, the histories of northern and southern Guanhua over the past six centuries are inextricably woven into a complex and intricate linguistic tapestry.

REFERENCES

BAXTER William H. (1999). Reconstructing Proto-'Mandarin' retroflex initials. Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series No. 15, Issues in Chinese Dialect Description and Classification, ed. by Richard V. SIMMONS. Berkeley : University of California, Project on Linguistic Analysis.

BAXTER William H. (2006). Mandarin dialect phylogeny. Cahiers de Linguistique - Asie Orientale, 35(1), pp. 71-114.

CHAO Y. R. (1961). Mandarin Primer. Cambridge : Harvard University Press.

CHAO Y.R. (1968). Readings in Sayable Chinese. San Francisco : East Asian Publications and the University of California.

CHOU Shizhen (1989). Hong Wu Zheng Yun: Its relation to the Nanjing dialect and its impact on Standard Mandarin. Ann Arbor : UMI Dissertation Services.

COBLIN W. South (2000a). A diachronic study of Ming GuÄ홢nhuÃ홢 phonology. Monumenta Serica, 58, pp. 267-335.

COBLIN W. South (2000b). The phonology of Proto-Central Jiang-Huai: an exercise in comparative reconstruction. In : In memory o f Professor Li Fang-kuei: Essays on linguistic change and the Chinese dialects, edited by TING Pang-hsin and Anne O. YUE. Taipei and Seattle : Academia Sinica and The University of Washington. Pp. 73-140.

COBLIN W. South (2002a). Migration history and dialect development in the lower Yangtze watershed. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 65(3), pp. 529-543.

COBLIN W. South (2002b). Reflections on the study of Post-Medieval Chinese historical phonology, Papers from the Third International conference on Sinology, Linguistics Section, Dialect Variation in Chinese, ed. Dah-an HO, Taipei : Institute of Linguistics, Preparatory Office, Academia Sinica. Pp. 23-50.

COBLIN W. South (2004). Towards a common Jiang-Huai sound system. In : Studies on Sino-Tibetan languages: Papers in Honor o f Professor Hwang-cherng Gong on his Seventieth Birthday. Taipei : Academia Sinica, Institute of Linguistics. Pp. 745-767.

COBLIN W. South (2006b). Francisco Varo's glossary of the Mandarin language, Monumenta Serica Monograph Series, vols. LIII/1 and LIII/2, Nettetal : Steyler Verlag.

COBLIN W. South (2007). Modern Chinese phonology: from GuÄ홢nhuÃ홢 to Mandarin. Collection des Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale, no. 11. Paris : Centre de Rescherches Linguistiques sur l'Asie Orientale.

COBLIN W. South (2008). Franz Kuhnert and the phonetics of Late Nineteenth century Nankingese. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 128(1), pp. 131-137.

COBLIN W. South In press. The phonology of common Yangtze watershed Mandarin.

HEMELING K. (1907). Die Nanking Kuanhua. Gottingen : W. Fr. Kaestner.

KIM Kwangjo (1991). A phonological study of Middle Mandarin: Reflected in Korean sources o f the Mid-15th and Early 16th centuries. Ann Arbor : UMI Dissertation Services.

KUHNERT Franz (1898). Syllabar des Nankingdialektes oder der correkten Aussprache sammt Vocabular. Wien : Alfred Hölder.

LADEFOGED Peter (1982). A course in phonetics. Second Edition. New York, San Diego, London : Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovitch.

LADEFOGED Peter and Ian MADDIESON (1996). The sounds of the

world's languages. Oxford and Boston : Blackwell.

MOLLENDORFF P.G. von (1892). A Manchu grammar, with analyzed texts. Shanghai : American Presbyterian Mission Press.

NORMAN Jerry L. (1978). A concise Manchu-English lexicon. Seattle : University of Washington Press.

REISCHAUER Edwin O. and John K. FAIRBANK (1960). East Asia: the great Tradition. Boston : Houghton Mifflin.

REISCHAUER Edwin O. and John K. FAIRBANK (1965). East Asia: the modern transformation. Boston : Houghton Mifflin.

WADE Thomas F. (1867). A progressive course designed to assist the student o f colloquial Chinese as spoken in the capital and the metropolitan department. London : Triibner 홢 Co.

YU Chang-kyun (1973). Sa-seong thong-ko or SsÅ홢-shÈ홢ng t'ung-k'ao. Chinese Materials Research Center, Occasional Series, No. 16. Taipei : Chinese Materials Research Center.

W. South COBLIN

Department of Asian Languages 홢 Literature University of Iowa Iowa City 52242 USA

South-coblin@uiowa.edu