下载
加入VIP
  • 专属下载特权
  • 现金文档折扣购买
  • VIP免费专区
  • 千万文档免费下载

上传资料

关闭

关闭

关闭

封号提示

内容

首页 日韩语同源问题

日韩语同源问题

日韩语同源问题

wene
2011-05-30 0人阅读 举报 0 0 暂无简介

简介:本文档为《日韩语同源问题pdf》,可适用于人文社科领域

stateofthefieldcouldtherebeakorean–japaneselinguisticrelationshiptheoryscience,thedata,andthealternativesChristopherIBeckwithIndianaUniversityEmail:beckwithindianaeduTheethnolinguistichistoryofearlyEastAsiadependsonthecomparativehistoricalstudyofthedifferentlanguagesScholarshavelongstudiedtheearlyinterrelationshipsamongthemajorlanguagesofEastAsia,butonlyrarelyaccordingtothetheoryandmethodologyofscientificcomparativehistoricallinguisticsandlinguistictypology,inwhichtheoriesareexpectedtoconformtothedataAmongthemanyhighlycontestedgeneticrelationshipproposalsintheregionisthe“KoreanJapanesetheory”Despitenearlyacenturyofworkbysomeveryprominentscholars,noonehasgivenaconvincingdemonstrationofsucharelationship,partlyduetothepaucityofsupportingdata,despitethefactthatthetwolanguagesinquestionarevibrantandwellattestedNowtwoleadingscholarsofJapaneseandKoreanlinguisticswhoarefamiliarwitheachother’swork,JMUngerandAVovin,havealmostsimultaneouslypublishednewbooksonthetopic,oneinfavorofthetheory,oneagainstitThecontributionsandflawsofthetwobooks,andtheirpositionrelativetothedevelopmentofascientifictraditionofcomparativehistoricallinguistics,arediscussedSpecialattentionispaidtoKoguryo,theextinctJapaneserelatedlanguageoncespokenontheKoreanPeninsulathatiscrucialtoanydiscussionofthehistoricalrelationshipofJapaneseandKoreanintroductionTheearlyethnolinguistichistoryofEastAsiahaslongbeencontroversialLeavingasidenonscholarlyissues,thereasonformostofthetroubleisthestateofthetheoryandmethodologyofthedisciplinesofcomparativehistoricallinguisticsandtypologicallinguisticsinconnectionwiththestudyofEastAsianlanguagesBycomparisonwithWesternAbbreviations:AKog,APK:ArchaicKoguryo,ArchaicPuyoKoguryoCJK:CommonJapaneseKoguryoicKJ:KoreanJapaneseLOC:LateOldChineseMKor,MK:MiddleKoreanOJpn,OJ:OldJapaneseOKog:OldKoguryoOKor,OK:OldKoreanPJK:ProtoJapaneseKoguryoicPJpn,pJ:ProtoJapanesepKJ:protoKoreanJapaneseSOV:SubjectObjectVerbAstar(⭐)marksaformattestedinChinesecharactertranscriptionInternationalJournalofAsianStudies,,(),pp–©CambridgeUniversityPress,doi:SAsia,SouthAsia,andOceania–nottospeakofEuropeandtheNearEast,whichhaveenjoyedadvancedscholarshipsincetheverybeginningsofthesedisciplines–itisasifapowerfulspellhasbeencastoverEastAsiaanditsneighbors,preventingtheregionfromcatchingupwiththerestoftheworldOneofthemostoutstandingmanifestationsofthisphenomenonisthegreatnumberofrelationship“theories”involvingthemajorEastAsianlanguagesThiswasheadlinedin–bytwospecialissuesofGengoKenkyu¯,themostrespectedgenerallinguisticsjournalpublishedinEastAsiaThefirstfeaturesarticlesbytheleadingJapaneseproponentsofthe“JapaneseDravidiantheory”,the“JapaneseAltaictheory”,andthe“JapaneseAustronesiantheory”,whoexpoundtheirviewsinfullThesecondissuefeaturesarticlesbyleadingJapanesespecialistsintheDravidian,“Altaic”,andAustronesianlanguagefamilies,whorefutethecorrespondingarticlesinthepreviousissueWhileitisextremelyoddthattheeditorsdidnotincludeanarticleonthe“KoreanJapanesetheory”,thesinglemostprominentone,inallfairnessitmustbementionedthattherearemanymoresuch“theories”Nevertheless,itremainspuzzlingthatanyonecouldtakeanyoftheseparticularonesseriouslyenoughtoexpendsomucheffortonthemAmongprofessionallinguistsinJapantodaythedominantviewiseitheragnosticism–thatis,“wedonotknow,orcannotknow,anythingabouttherelationshipofJapanesetoanylanguagespokenelsewhere”–orthebaldassertion(oftenwithnonlinguisticmotivations)thatJapaneseisanisolate,unrelatedtoanythingelseTheseviewsmightseem“safe”totheuninitiated,astheycertainlydototheirproponents,butbecausetheytooultimatelyrejectsciencetheyareequallyasproblematicastheaboverelationship“theories”proposedandattackedinGengoKenkyu¯ThesituationinKoreaislesscomplex,inthatmostKoreanlinguistsevidentlysupportoneoranotherversionofthe“macroAltaictheory”(seebelow),buttheretooalternatetheoriesabound,includinga“KoreanDravidiantheory”Duringtheearlydaysofcomparativehistoricalphilologyinthelateeighteenthcenturyandwellintothenineteenthcentury,similar“theories”–IndoEuropeanandSemitic,Uralicand“Altaic”,etc–werepropoundedquiteseriouslyButinthenineteenthcentury,asthebasicregularityofphonologicalchangewasdiscoveredanditsconceptualizationTheyaresotenuous,irregular,andpoorlysupportedbydatathattheyareuntestableandthereforenottheoriesatall,fromthepointofviewofscienceforthesakeofsimplicitytheyarecalled“theories”hereThe“Altaic”theoryhasbeenresoundinglydisprovedfromseveralpointsofview,mostrecentlybyVovin(b)AversionofthetheorystilldominantinJapanandKoreaincludesthetwolanguageswithinamuchlargerfamily,“MacroAltaic”ThearticlebyItabashi()onJapaneseand“Altaic”thusincludesKoreanHowever,“MacroAltaic”isnowrejectedbythemainproponentsofKJoutsideJapanandKoreaSeealsotheprecedingnoteTherelationshipofJapanesetotheextinctKoguryolanguageofManchuriaandKoreaispassedoverinsilencebyGengoKenkyu¯,perhapsbecausethenameKoguryo˘(=Koryo˘)isthesourceofthedominantforeignnameforKorea(Koryo˘)andtheKoreanlanguage(Beckwitha),andearlierscholarsoftenconfusedthetwolanguagesAlso,Ryukyuanisincorrectlyconsideredbymanytobesimplyadialectgroupor“branch”ofJapaneseBeckwith,pn,pp–nBeckwithforthcoming–bcfSearleAversionofitissupportedbyUngerseebelowakorean–japaneselinguisticrelationshiptheoryrefined,philologydevelopedintothesciencenowcalledlinguisticsTextphilologydevelopedalongwithitintoscientificcriticaltexteditionAndinthemidtwentiethcentury,linguistictypology,whichfocusesonlinguisticuniversaltendenciesinhumanlanguage,becameoneofthedrivingforcesbehindtherevitalizationoflinguisticsasawholeAsaresult,unscientificrelationship“theories”attemptingtorelateIndoEuropean,Semitic,andUralic(amongnumerousotherlanguagesandlanguagefamilieslargeandsmall)havesoonerorlaterbeenrefutedandeventuallyexcludedfromprofessionaldiscourseUnfortunately,thishasnothappenedinthestudyofthelanguagesofEastAsiaAlthoughthespecialissuesofGengoKenkyu¯mightrepresenttimidstepsinthedirectionofscienceinEastAsiancomparativehistoricallinguistics,nearlyadecadelaterthefieldremainsdominatedbyunprofessionalideasTomakemattersworse,nearlyallscholarsofEastAsianstudiesingeneralhavenoideawhatcriticaltexteditionis,andinformedtypologicalworkiseithernaïveornonexistentThefundamentalproblemis,simply,thelackoftheideaofscienceinthesefieldsofEastAsianstudiesForthepastcenturyEastAsianistscholars,especiallybutnotexclusivelynonnativeJapaneseandKoreanscholars,havebeenentrancedbythe“KoreanJapanese”(KJ)theory:theproposalthattheKoreanandJapaneselanguagesarerelateddivergentlyor“genetically”fromacommonancestor,“protoKoreanJapanese”(pKJ)MajorpublicationsbyMartinandWhitmanhavepropelledthistheoryintoapositionofdominanceinthecomparativehistoricallinguisticstudyofthetwolanguages,despitethestaggeringproblemsstandinginthewayofdemonstratinganypremodernrelationshipwhateverbetweenthemotherthananinsignificantloanrelationshipIndeed,KJhascometobeseenbyitsproponentsasakindoforthodoxy,muchasSinologistsoutsideChina(aswellasnativeChineselinguists)almostuniversallybelievein“SinoTibetan”,asimilarspeculationthatshouldbeinsearchofascientifictheoryAlthoughatthispointonemightbeinclinedtoaskwhetherthejadedagnosticismoftheJapaneselinguistsnotedaboveisnotperhapsjustified,theirviewactuallyimpliesthatsciencedoesnotworkinEastAsia,oratleastnotforEastAsianlanguagesButscienceworkseverywhere,includinginEastAsia,whetherornotitsvalidityisrecognizedbyscholarsworkingontheregionAccordingly,“theories”whichrequireastheirfoundationalprinciplethatsomeorallofthedatamustberejectedorignoredcannotbeacceptedasvalidScientifictheoriesmustaccountforthedataifatheorydoesnotconformtothedata,itisthetheorythatmustbemodified,notthedataThisprincipleseemsnottobewellunderstoodbymostscholarsworkingonEastAsianethnolinguistichistoryForcomparativehistoricallinguisticsingeneralseeCampbellforIndoEuropeanseeSzemerényiSeethePrefaceofthelonepublishedexampleofacriticaleditionofanEastAsiantext(Thompson)Fortypologicallinguistics,includingcriticismoflargelyunexaminedEastAsianistnotionsaboutmorphophonology(suchas“phonemic”toneandregister,whicharementionedbybothUngerandVovin)andmorphosyntax,seeBeckwithb,b,ThereisnospaceheretoexpoundatlengthonthehistoricalandpoliticalrootsofthiswidespreadproblemSeethereferencesinnoteAboveall,MartinHelaterbackedawayfromhisearlyenthusiasmforKJMostinfluentially,WhitmanchristopheribeckwithInthelasthalfdozenyears,anumberofbooksonthehistoricallinguisticsofthelanguagesofancientKoreaandJapanhaveappearedorareforthcomingTheyinclude,inchronologicalorder,thefirstmonographontheKoguryolanguageatwovolumestudyofWesternOldJapaneseanewhistoryoftheJapaneselanguageandarevisedandupdatedversion,inEnglish,ofLeeKimoon’shistoryoftheKoreanlanguageHowever,withtheexceptionofthecomparativepartsofthefirstofthesebooks,andsomerelatedarticles,formanyyearsnomajornewworkontheinterrelationshipsorlackthereofamongtheselanguageshadappeared,orwasslatedtoappear,untilafewmonthsago,whensuddenlynotonebuttwonewbookswerepublished:firstly,byJMarshallUnger,arguinginfavoroftheKJtheory,andsubsequentlybyAlexanderVovin,arguingagainstitBothscholarsareleadingspecialistsinOldJapaneseandintheKoreanJapanesetheory,andtheirworksthusmaybeconsideredtosumupthestateoftheartinKoreanJapanesecomparativestudiestoday***Thisarticleisdevotedtoexaminingfirstlywhetherthesetwonewbooks,andotherrecentworks,succeedinsupportingorfalsifyingthedominantKJtheory,andsecondly,towhatextenttheyutilizeordependonscientificcomparativehistoricallinguisticsandlinguistictypology,andconsequentlyattempttobuildtheoriesthatconformtothedata,atleastThatis,canonedeclarethatsciencehasfinallybeguntoreplacethealternativesinthesefieldsofEastAsianstudiesThefirstofthenewbooksisUnger’sTheRoleofContactintheOriginsoftheJapaneseandKoreanLanguages,whicharguesinfavorofadivergentor“genetic”relationshipbetweenKoreanandJapaneseHavingassumedsucharelationship,themainproblemtheauthorthenaddressesishowexactlythesimilaritiesanddissimilaritiesbetweenthetwolanguagescouldhavecomeaboutAbriefIntroductionsummarizeshisargument(pxi):“RemovetheborrowingsfromtheetymologiesofferedinsupportofprotoKoreanJapaneseandoneisstillleftwithmorelexicalmaterialpointingtowardcommonoriginthanoughttobetherebychance,nottomentionparallelismsingrammarnotseeninnearbylanguagesofsimilartype”Healsomentionsafewotherputativejustificationsforhistheory(cfpp,)andconcludes(pxiii)“thatthehypothesisofageneticrelationshipbetweenJapaneseandKoreanisnoworsethanthealternative”Thisunusualargument,whichUngerrepeatselsewhereinhisbook,assumesthattheconvergencetheoryisjustasweakasthedivergencetheoryAswillbeseenbelow,thisisclearlynotthecaseItranscribethisnameandothermajorpropernamesoftheregiontraditionally,withoutdiacritics–eg,“Koguryo”insteadof“Koguryo˘”–exceptinverbatimquotationsofotherscholarsBeckwith(a)Igenerallycitethesecondedition(Beckwitha)inthisarticleVovin–FrellesvigthishadnotyetappearedbythetimethisarticlewenttopressLeeandRamseyforthcomingUngerVovinakorean–japaneselinguisticrelationshiptheoryChapter,“ContactHypothesesandTheirConsequences”,discussesdivergenceandconvergenceingeneralandinconnectionwiththeancientandearlymedievallanguagesinvolvedinanycomparativehistoricalstudyoftheKoreanandJapaneselanguagesmuchofthechapterishighlypolemicalHestates,“onecanneverprovethatKoreanandJapanese–orforthatmatter,anytwolanguages–areunrelated”(p,hisemphasis)Thisstatementexplicitlycontradictstheprinciplesofscientificcomparativehistoricallinguistics,andinfactrejectsscienceingeneralInChapter,“CriticalAssessmentofthepKJReconstruction”,Ungerpresentshisviewson“protoKoreanJapanese”phonologyandhismainargument(p)forageneticrelationshipbetweenKoreanandJapanese,basedonsharedgrammaticalfeaturesHeoutlinesninesyntacticfeaturessharedbyJapaneseandKorean(andinonecasealsoChinese,whichherightlynotesis“notanSOVlanguage”),claiming(p)thatthesesharedfeaturesrequireanexplanation:IfKoreanandJapaneseareunrelatedlanguages,oneortwomightbepurelyfortuitous,butcouldallninebeIfanyofthemarenotpurelycoincidental,thentheymustbeexplainedintermsofcontactOntheotherhand,ifKoreanandJapanesearegeneticallyrelated,thensomeofthesefeaturesmightbetakenascommoninnovationsshowingthatprotoKoreanJapanesebrokeofffromalargerfamily,suchasMacroTungusicIndeed,thefocusparticlesofKoreanandJapaneseseemtobeprimecandidatesforbeingtheproductsofsuchasharedinnovationHeliststhesefeatures(p):•highlydevelopedsystemsofhonorificverbmorphology,includingauxiliaryverbsofgivingandreceiving•theheavyuseoffocusmarkingpostpositionsofspecificfunction•distinctattributiveandpredicativeverbandadjectiveforms•heavyrelianceonabstractnounsforclausenominalization•predominanceofaspectovertenseintheinterpretationofpredicates•zeropronominalization•infrequentuseofovertpluralorclassmarking•verbformsindicatingdegreeofcertaintyorprobability•theuseoffinalparticlestomarkdifferentmainclausetypes(questions,emphaticstatements,etc)AlthoughevenforJapanesesomeoftheseclaimsrequireconsiderableclarification,forthesakeofargumenttheycanbeacceptedYetisthesharingofthesemorphosyntacticfeaturesreallysoremarkableUngermentionsthatInote“Japanesesharesspecificphonological,lexical,andtypologicalgrammaticalfeatureswithTibetoBurmanlanguages”(Beckwith,pp,)Indeed,everysingleoneofthefeaturesonUnger’slistisalsoafeatureofTibetanLinguistsworkingonthatlanguageshouldthankhimforhavingsummarizedsomanyofitsoutstandingfeaturesinaconvenientlistButTibetanandJapaneseareunlikelytoberelatedgenetically,soUnger’scontentionthathislistisauniquechristopheribeckwithsignofageneticrelationshipbetweenJapaneseandKorean,andthatonlyageneticrelationshipcouldexplainwhathebelievestobesuchremarkable,unprecedentedsimilaritiesinstructure,isnotsupportedInfact,JosephGreenberg–noneofwhosefundamentalworksontypologyarecitedbyUnger–longagoshowedthatsuchsimilarities,oftenincludingthefinestdetails,arepurelytypologicalandaresetbyafewbasicparametersAfterthispresentation,Ungerremarks,absolutelycorrectly(p):“Theforegoingargumentis,ofcourse,nosubstituteforaclassicaldemonstrationofgeneticrelationship”Hisremarkmayberestatedmoreexplicitlyandprecisely,“Theforegoingargumentforatypologicalrelationshipis,ofcourse,nosubstituteforascientificdemonstrationofagenetic(divergent)relationship”InChapter,“ConvergenceTheories”,Ungercriticizes“Beckwith’stheory”and“Vovin’stheory”,arguingstridentlyandatconsiderablelengthagainsttheformerHeignorestheextensive,detailedpublicationsshowingthathisargumentsaredirectlyandexplicitlycontradictedbythedata,andinparticular,thathisclaimstohavediscoveredsignificanterrorsinmyreconstructionsofKoguryoorJapaneseKoguryoicformsareincorrectUngernowrepeatstheseclaimsalmostverbatimfromhispaper,withtheadditionofnewmistakesandmisunderstandingsHealsosuggests(p)thatIhaveattemptedtohideagreatnumberofKoreanlikewordsthathebelievesarefoundinthedata,orsomethingelseequallydastardly,andinsinuatesthatbecauseIhavebasedmyreconstructionofKoguryoontheKoreanPeninsuladialectofChinese,noton“standardreconstructionsofMiddleChinese”,thereare“doubtsabouttheobjectivity”ofmy“identificationofKoguryo˘anmorphemes”Itthereforeseemsnecessarytorepeat,onceagain,thatthelanguagematerialfromtheformerKoguryoKingdomincludesmuchthatissimplypureChinese,andthereforeofnouseforreconstructingKoguryooranyothernonChineselanguageAscholarwhoactuallyreadtheChinesetextoftheSamguksagi三國史記wouldimmediatelydiscoverthatinmostcasestheexistingChinesetoponymsremainedChineseafterthemideighthcenturychangessuchcasesthustellusnothingabouttheKoguryolanguageorothernativelanguagesofthepeninsula,thoughsometimestheycantellussomethingaboutthephonologyofArchaicNortheasternMiddleChinese,thelanguagespokenbytheChineseinhabitantswhodominatedthenorthwesternpartoftheKoreanPeninsulaunderKoguryoruleManyothertoponymtranscriptionsareunglossedphoneticimitations,asalsoexplainedinmybookItiscertainlyconceivablethatoneortwoexamplesmightbecoincidentallysimilarphonetically,andactuallymighthavebeenintendedasrealglossesNevertheless,iftheydoseemtobehomonymsitwouldbepoorscholarshiptoincludesuchexamplesasKoguryoorothernonChinesemorphemesatbesttheycanbeusedtohelprevealthephonologyofthetranscriptionallanguage,ArchaicMostfamously,GreenbergUngerdoesciteoneworkbyGreenberg,onIndoEuropeanand“itsClosestRelatives”,butitiswellknownthatGreenberg’shighlyunscientificforaysintocomparativehistoricallinguisticsaretobeavoidedatallcostsUnger’sbibliographycitesanumberofgeneralworksonthecomparativehistoricalmethod,butdoesnotincludeasinglereliable,majoroneTheseworks(Beckwitha,a,a)allappearedtwoyearsormorebeforeUnger’sbookwaspublishedMostofhisargumentshavealrea

用户评价(0)

关闭

新课改视野下建构高中语文教学实验成果报告(32KB)

抱歉,积分不足下载失败,请稍后再试!

提示

试读已结束,如需要继续阅读或者下载,敬请购买!

文档小程序码

使用微信“扫一扫”扫码寻找文档

1

打开微信

2

扫描小程序码

3

发布寻找信息

4

等待寻找结果

我知道了
评分:

/19

日韩语同源问题

VIP

在线
客服

免费
邮箱

爱问共享资料服务号

扫描关注领取更多福利