A Brief History of Mandarin

Author(s): W. South Coblin

Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 120, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 2000), pp. 537-
552
Published by: American Oriental Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/606615 .
Accessed: 16/06/2014 02:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
the American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:13:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A BRIEF HISTORY OF MANDARIN
W. SOUTHCOBLIN
UNIVERSITY
OFIOWA

The received view of standardMandarinis that it has been Pekingese-basedfor at least six hundred
years. Recent research, little known outside a small circle of specialists, has revealed that this view is
flawed and that for most of its history this standardlanguage had little to do with Pekingese. The
present paper introduces these new developments to the academic community at large.

I. INTRODUCTION
WHENUSEDIN REFERENCE
TOlanguage, the term "Man-
darin"has several distinct senses. Its first and oldest ap-
plication was to the universal standardlanguage or koine
spoken by officials and educated people in traditional
China during the Ming (1368-1644) and Qing (1644-
1912) dynasties. In this use it parallels and may in fact be
modeled on early southernEuropeanmissionary expres-
sions, such as la lengua mandarina,falla midarin, etc.,
which in turn directly render the native Chinese term
guanhua ~'t ("the language of the officials, or manda-
rins"),a compoundfirstattestedin mid-Mingtimes. More
recently, historical linguists have extended the venue of
the word "Mandarin"back to the Yudn period (1260-
1368); they refer to the putative standard language of
that time as "Old Mandarin"(in Chinese, usually zdoqi
guanhua -.^a?). Concurrently, dialectologists and
comparativelinguists use "Mandarin"in reference to the
entire family of northernor northern-likeChinese speech
forms which in modern Chinese are called beifang
fangydn jd;2j;) or guanhua fangydn f ;Tit . And
finally, "Mandarin,"when not otherwise qualified, is
often taken today as a designation for modern standard
Chinese, the language now called guoyu I Wr, putonghua
di:l,
_ or Hudyau
a in Chinese-speakingareas. In the
present article, the word "Mandarin"will be understood
in its oldest sense, and our primaryconcern will therefore
be with the history of the spoken (as opposed to written)
Chinese koin6 of the Ming and Qing periods. The re-
ceived wisdom and currently prevalent view of this
history is that Mandarinhas throughoutits life been iden-
tical with or closely based upon the language of the city
of Peking. But recent research, still little known outside
basically flawed and that for most of its history standard
Mandarinhad little to do with Pekingese.
In order to understand the history of Mandarin it is
essential that we treatit in terms of three separatecompo-
nents, i.e., phonology, lexicon, and syntax. Consequently,
our discussion will be organized around this tripartite
division.
II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF MANDARIN PHONOLOGY
Ourclearest views of pre-modernMandarinphonology
come to us through foreign alphabetic transcriptionsde-
vised by non-Chinese who wished to learn and teach the
standard language. The earliest of these transcriptions
were recordedby the Korean sinologist and government
interpreter, Sin Sukchu 4EYki1f (1417-75), and are
written in the Han'guilalphabet. They are said by him
to represent the "standardreadings" (zhengyin IEiE) of
the period in which he wrote. Yhchi (1990: 18) argues
from historical evidence that they reflect a form of
fifteenth-centuryGuanhuaand derive from detailed dis-
cussions between Sin and one Ni Qian {X0, a Ming
official who visited Korea in 1450. The "standardread-
ing" forms are preserved in two sources, the Hongmu
chong'un yokhun :iE? -I^il (completed in 1455),
and the Sasong t'onggo [Z]S4?_ (completed ca. 1450),
a lost work whose spellings are preserved in the Sasong
t'onghae eZ_ij (completed 1517) of Ch'we Sejin t
t?' (1478?-1543). All of this materialhas been the sub-
ject of a recent study in English (Kim 1991). The details
of Sin's "standardreading" system are not of primary
concern to us here, but certainsalient featuresof it can be
noted as a matterof interest.The system possessed a sep-
arate series of "turbid"or zhu6 initial syllables, cor-
a

a small circle of specialists, has revealed that this view is responding to the zhu6 (sometimes called "voiced")

537

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:13:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
538 Journal of the American Oriental Society 120.4 (2000)

initial class of the traditionalChinese phonologists, e.g., phonetic interpretationsof orthographicspellings. Hypo-
b), baw (f_), baw (e), d y ( f3), i dgy (_he).' thetical reconstructedZhongyudnyinyun forms are added
Sin's very precise description of these sounds suggests from Pulleyblank (1991) for comparison.
that the feature in question was not really voicing of syl-
lable initials but rather some type of syllabic feature,
such as murmuror stridentbreathiness,probably in sub- 'Phags-paSystem Sin System ZYYY
tle association with pitch register. The language had no paw ( z) [baw] baw (F) *phaw'
separate series of palatal initials. Instead, gutturals and paw (_) [baw] baw (_) *paw'
sibilants could occur freely before high front elements, ccyu (f) [dzy] dgy (5) *tshy'
e.g, ,,2 ki (XF), f tsiU (:F), RRxy (X]), 40 sy (1'). In the ~ cyu ( ) [dzy] d.y (_? .-) *tSy'
syllable finals the most striking feature was a series of , gying (f) [kjir] kir (f) *kir3
checked finals ending in a glottal stop [-?]. There were M dzing (?f) [tsir] tsiq (~) *tsirq
also interesting vowel configurations. For example, the )T hyu (+) [xy] xy (X) *xy
'
present-dayhomophonesgudn and guan J differedin ?X syu (f) [sy] sy () *sy
vocalism and were realized as kwon (:) and kwan (2), gon (T) [kon] kwon(p) *kan
respectively. Another notable characteristicwas the pres- 1 gwan (-_) [kwan] kwan ()) *kwan
ence of final -m in certain syllables, e.g., jL sim (]), _E L sim (:) [sim] sim (:f1) *sim
sam (X). There were five tones, yinping 9*:, ydngping sam (:f) [sam] sam (2) *sam
2[W, shang _L, qiu , and ru A. All ru tone syllables pay (A) [baj?] boj (A) [baj?] *paj'
had the final glottal stop, and this sound occurredonly in F1Zhyu(A) [ry?] ru (A) [ru?] *riw,ry
ru tone, e.g., E baj (A), phonetically: [boj?];1f ru (A),
phonetically: [ru?].
What were the origins, historically and geographically, In these examples, the Zhongyudnyinyun reconstruc-
of the sound system recordedby Sin Sukchu?Sin himself tions lack the murmuredor zhuo initial types and glottal
has nothing to say on this matter.Comparisonof his sys- stop finals which the 'Phags-paand Sin systems have in
tem with that representedin the Yuan-period syllabary, common. Despite their similarities, however, detailed
Zhongyudn yinyiunJ-ff (published 1324), shows comparisonreveals differenceswhich preclude the possi-
significant differences, both in general features and in bility that the "standardreading" system of Ming times
numerous points of detail. If, as is sometimes averred, could have evolved directly from the 'Phags-paone (Cob-
the Zhongyudnylnyiunreflects the pronunciationused at lin Forthcominga). Compare,for example, the following
the Yuan capital, Dadu 7t&[ (later to become Peking), forms:
then the Sin system must have originated somewhere
other than the Peking area.2It is also interesting to com-
'Phags-pa Sin Sukchu ZYYY
pare Sin's forms with those found in 'Phags-pa Chinese
orthography.The 'Phags-pa system was devised in the M xyu (f) [fiy] uy () *y'
1260s, somewhatbefore the founding of the Yuan capital RfIxyu (_ ) [fiy] y (_ ) *y
in 1276. It seems to be a mixed or composite entity and
may to some extent be a conflation of several standard
sound systems current in immediately pre-Yuan times Here, Sin's readingsmaintainan archaicinitial distinction
(Coblin 1999). It bears many striking resemblances to which the 'Phags-pa system did not preserve. They are
Sin Sukchu's"standardreading"system. Let us now con- not predictablefrom the 'Phags-paspellings. Such cases
sider again the same syllables cited as examples in the lead us to suspect that, though Sin's "standardreadings"
preceding paragraph.Forms in square brackets indicate may have come from something similar to the 'Phags-pa
system, they cannot be directly derived from it. They
apparentlyarose out of one or more late pre-Yuan pho-
1 Sin's forms are
given here in IPA transcription.Subsequent nological systems of a sort to which 'Phags-pa also be-
phonetic forms enclosed in squarebrackets are also renderedin longed and which may have differed from whatever
this notation. standard underlies the Zhongyudn yinyun.
2 The dialectal base of the Zhongyudnyinyiunis controversial. Ournext clear pictureof standardMandarinphonology
An alternate view is that the text reflects a Luoyang or upper emerges one hundredand fifty years after Sin Sukchuand
Central Plains phonological system. See Mei (1977: 258, n. 4) comes to us from European Catholic missionaries (Lu
and Li (1994). 1985; Yang 1989). From the opening years of the seven-

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:13:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COBLIN:
A Brief History of Mandarin 539

teenth century we have a set of literary Chinese essays other.... [They] also have another language which is
written in Peking by Matteo Ricci (1552-1610) during like a universal and common language; this is the official
the decade before his death. The Chinese characters in language of the mandarinsand of the court; it is among
these texts are accompanied by romanized forms which them like Latin among ourselves.... Two of our fathers
survive today in a collection known as the Xizi qiji Z I [Michele Ruggieri (1543-1607) and Matteo Ricci] have
iI:g (see Wenzi Gaig6 1957). The second source is the been learning this mandarinlanguage...
Xiru e'rmiziVI/Z T l -, a large syllabary of zhengyin
readings compiled by Niklaas (Nicola, Nicolas) Trigault 2. Matteo Ricci, letter dated November 12, 1592:
(1577-1628) and printed in 1626. The phonological sys-
tem reflected in these materials is rather similar to that The letters are common in all fifteen provinces of
represented in Sin's Korean spelling system, with the ex- China. However, the language in each of the provinces is
ception that the zhu6 series of initials and the final nasal different. There is also a universal language. We call it
-m have been lost. In effect, the Sin system appears to the language of the law courts. Because this language is
feed directly into that of Ricci and Trigault, and the two used in all the tribunalsby all magistratescoming from
types can for the most part be viewed as belonging to a differentprovinces, it is the one that we are learning.
direct line of development. Let us compare again the
sample syllables cited above: 3. Matteo Ricci, Storia dell' introduzione del cristiane-
simo in Cina:
Sin System Trigault System With all the varieties of languages, there is also one that
t baw (?) 'pao [p'au] we call cuonhoa, that is to say, the language of the law
t baw (_L) po, pao [pao] courts; it is used in audiences and tribunals;and, if one
r~ dz,y (~) c'hu [ts'q] learns this, he can use it in all the provinces; in addition,
- d7.y(?.) chu.,chu [tsq] even the childrenand women know enough of it to be able
i kirj(k) kim [kiq] to communicatewith all the people of anotherprovince.
et tsiq (g) 9im [tsiq]
1 xy (F) hiu [xy] Further references in texts of this period throw light
X sy (O) siu [sy] on the regional affiliations of the Guanhua koine. For ex-
T kwon (F) kuon [kuon] ample, from Ricci's diary for the year 1600 we find an
H kwan (f)) kuan [kuan] account of a journey from Nanking to Peking, during
JL sim (T) sin [sin] which Ricci was helped in various ways by a friendly
sam (:) san [san] court eunuch named Leupusie. The following passage
E baj (A) [baj?] pe [pe?] occurs there (Yang 1989: 228):
1 ru (A) [ru?] j6 [2o?]
Before his departure, the eunuch Leupusie was very
happy and as a present he gave to the Fathers a boy
As we have noted, Sin Sukchu had relatively little to whom he had bought at Nanking. The boy, who speaks
say about the actual language underlying his standard very good Chinese, can teach Fr. Pantoja [i.e., Diego de
readings. But the European missionaries have on the con- Pantoja (1571-1618)], who is going to study Chinese
trary left detailed observations on the speech form they with him.
were recording. First of all, it is clear that there was in-
deed a standard language, by this time called Guanhua, of In Trigault's adapted and published version of Ricci's di-
which the zhengyin formed the phonological component. ary, this passage reads (Yang 1989: 228):
From Yang (1989: 198-99) we adapt the following sam-
ple passages. The eunuch who had been in charge of the expedition,
sailed away joyfully, and as a present to the Fathers he
1. Alessandro Vilignano (1539-1606), Historia del left them a boy because he spoke so distinctly, and he
Principio y progresso de la Compaia de Jesus en las could teach Father Didaco the purity of the Nanchinese
Indias Orientales (1542-1564): tongue.

The Chinese have different languages in different prov- Thus, in the current Chinese view as represented by the
inces, to such an extent that they cannot understandeach eunuch, the phonological system of Guanhua was closely

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:13:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
540 Journal of the American Oriental Society 120.4 (2000)

associated with the language of the city of Nanking. The 'i Kwan hwa, is spoken generally in 3EM Keang-
reasons for this are now fairly well understood.Nanking nan and M1iAHo-nan Provinces, in both of which, the
had been the capital of China from 1356 until 1421, and Court once resided" (p. x). And then, somewhat later,
it was presumably during this period that the dialect of he says: "The pronunciationin this work, is ratherwhat
that areabecame identified with the national standard.By the Chinese call the Nanking dialect, than the Peking"
Ricci's time Peking had been the major political center (p. xviii). Interestingly,he describesthe rejectedPekingese
for approximatelyone hundredand eighty years, but the pronunciationas having a numberof featuresstill found in
phonological basis for the koine had never shifted to the Peking-basedstandardof our times, e.g., palatals in
Pekingese. The reason for this would seem to be that, as place of velars before high frontvowels, absence of a final
Ricci remarksin his diary (1953: 268-69, 309), in late glottal stop in rusheng syllables, etc.3 This type of pro-
Ming times Nanking, ratherthan Peking, still served as nunciation,he tells us, is a "Tartar-Chinesedialect."But,
the cultural hub of the country. thoughhe rejects it as a standardfor his dictionary,he re-
From later in the seventeenth century we have further marks that it is "now gradually gaining ground, and if
missionary records of standard Mandarin. Two of the the Dynasty continueslong, will finallyprevail"(p. x). The
most extensive and informative are a complete grammar orthographicrenderings found in Morrison's dictionary
(Arte de la Lengua Mandarina [Canton, 1703]; actually and in similar works of the period representa sound sys-
completed in 1682 at F6zh6u) and a romanized Spanish- tem which is recognizably a later stage of that described
Mandarindictionary ("Vocabulario de la Lengua Man- by Varo and Premarea century earlier and is by Morri-
darina,"MSSin the GermanState Library,Berlin, and the son's own accountdifferentfrom the Pekingese of his day.
British Library, London) by the Spanish Dominican, Let us refer again to our set of exemplarysyllables:
Francisco Varo (1627-87). The language recorded by
him was phonologically almost identical to that repre-
sented in the works of Ricci and Trigault,and his attitude Trigault Premare Morrison
towards correct pronunciationwas also similar to that of M 'pao [p'au] p'ao [p'au] paou [p'au]
his predecessors. In his grammar(1703: 8) he remarks t pao, pao [pao] pao [pau] paou [pau]
that, in order to enunciate Mandarin words well, "one 1 c'hO [ts'q] tch'f [t~'y] ch'6o [tg'u]
must understandthe way in which such words are pro- t chu.,chu [tgq] tchu [tsy] choo [tgu]
nounced by the Chinese. Not just any Chinese, but only ikim [kiq] king, kin [kii - kin] king [kiq]
those who have the naturalgift of speaking the Mandarin 9qim[tsiq] tsing [tsiq] tsing [tsiq]
language well, such as those natives of the Province of T hiu [xy] hiu [xy] heu [xy]
Nan king, and of other provinces where the Mandarin XI sii [sy] siui, su [sy] seu [sy]
tongue is spoken well" (Coblin and Levi 2000: 31). And ' kuon [ku3n] kouon, kouan kwan
in the preface to his "Vocabulario"he points out that the [kuon,kuan] [kuan]
spellings he gives for his Chinese entries "conform to I kuan [kuan] kouan [kuan] kwan
what is spoken in the province of Nan king" (p. 2).
[kuan]
Moving ahead fifty years we encounter yet another L sin [sin] sin [sin] sin [sin]
grammar of Mandarin, the Notitia Linguae Sinicae of san [san] san [san] san [san]
Joseph Pr6mare (1666-1736), completed ca. 1730 and 6pe pe[] ph' [p
[pi?]h
published in editions of 1831 and 1893. The phonology 1 j6 [to?] j6u, j6 [?u? - ?o?] juh [?u?]
of the language described by Pr6mare is slightly more
evolved than that of Varo, e.g., the distinction between
[kuon] H' and [kuan] [j was lost, both being pronounced From Morrison'saccount we lear that in his time the
as [kuan] in his time. However, it is clear that Pr6mare
northern, Peking-based pronunciation, stigmatized by
was describing a later stage of essentially the same him as "Tartar-Chinese," was gaining ground against this
speech form his predecessors had recorded. standard Mandarin pronunciation. Morrison's opinion,
Our next step forwardin the history of Mandarinpro- which probably reflected the views of the Chinese
nunciationbrings us to British grammarsand dictionaries scholar-official class of his day, associated northern
of the early nineteenth century.The foremost of these is
the great Dictionary of the Chinese Language by Robert
Morrison(1782-1834). In his preface, dating from 1815, 3 Fora fullcitationof thepertinent
passageandcertainrelated
he remarks: "What is called the Mandarin Dialect, or ones, see Coblin(1997:288-91).

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:13:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COBLIN:
A Brief History of Mandarin
speech habitswith the Manchugoverningclass, who were
pejoratively referredto as Dazi HT (i.e., "Tartars")by
the Chinese. But it is clear that many Chinese were al-
ready inclined to adopt it as an up-and-coming standard.
Morrison himself was resigned to the fact that this new
pronunciation might "finally prevail," but for his own
time he still consideredthe traditionalstandard,which he
associated with Jiangnan or Henan, to be preferable for
the phonological component of his dictionary.
Morrison, S. Well Williams, and their "Nankingist
school"of transcribers,were primarilymissionaries,work-
ing in various areas of central and south China. But after
about 1850 there emerged a new group of "Pekingist"
language specialists who were in many cases associated
with the British diplomatic and consular services. These
persons, who included such luminaries as Sir Thomas
Wade (1818-95), Joseph Edkins (1823-1905), and some-
what later, Herbert Giles (1845-1935), urged that Pe-
kingese pronunciationbe adopted by British learners of
standardChinese. Edkins, as quoted by Wade (1867: vi)
explained that though "the Nanking Mandarin is more
widely understoodthanthat of Peking ... the Peking dia-
lect must be studied by those who would speak the lan-
guage of the imperialcourt, and what is, when purifiedof
its localisms, the accredited'kuan 'hua of the empire."
We see, then, that from the British standpointa change
had occurred in the status of Pekingese over a period of
some four or five decades. Though the Nanking-related
pronunciationof Mandarinwas still more widely under-
stood in China, the Pekingese-based system (minus
identifiably dialectal "localisms") had by mid-century
assumed the true mantle of Guanhuaphonology. It was
the preferredlinguistic medium of the imperial court and
was rapidly gaining ground among the scholar-official
class. As Morrisonhad predictedfifty years earlier, it did
finally prevail, becoming the standardpronunciationof
late Qing Guanhua,and subsequently,of the new koine,
gu6yu/puitnghua, the standardMandarinof today.
The ultimate origins of the features we now charac-
terize as Pekingese pronunciationare a part of the gen-
eral history of Peking dialect per se, for ground-breaking
surveys of which, see Y6 (1984) and Lin (1987). As we
have seen, they were fully presentin Morrison'stime, but
it is clear thatthey predatehim. Some of them are already
reflected in certain Korean transcriptions of the mid-
eighteenth century (Kim 1991: 265-68). Others were
heard by John Barrow, who visited Peking in 1793 as a
member of the Macartneyembassy to the court of Qian-
16ng (Barrow 1806: 241-70). Exactly what happened to
the language of Peking after the majorpopulationdisrup-
tions attendant on the Manchu conquest, and how it
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:13:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
541
evolved during the further course of the dynasty, is an
area awaiting furtherstudy. In any case, it is certain that
by Edkins' time a phonology based on this speech type
representedthe "accreditedguanhua of the country."4
Let us now summarizeour observationson the history
of Ming-Qing Mandarinphonology. The "standardread-
ing" or zhengyin system first recorded by Sin Sukchu in
the mid 1400s differs from but bears a close resemblance
to the 'Phags-pa Chinese system dating from the 1260s.
Sin's system may thereforederive from one or more of the
standardsystems currentin the CentralPlain in late pre-
Yuan times. In fact, it may to some extent be a continu-
ation of late Sbng standards(cf. Norman 1997: 26-27).
It does not appearto have been directly associated with
the sound system of the Zhongyudnyinyun, which some
believe representsthe standardpronunciationof the Yuan
capital, D'adu.We may suspect that it came into ascen-
dancy during the initial decades of the Ming dynasty,
when the locus of political power lay in the lower Yangtze
watershed and the capital was at Nanking. By the late
1500s this koine was universally called Guanhua.In the
technical terminology of the native phonological tradi-
tion, the terms zhengyin "standardpronunciation"and
Guanhua"languageof the officials" were fairly carefully
distinguished (Geng 1992: 117-26), but in common par-
lance, as reflectedin the missionarydictionariesand glos-
saries of the vernacular,they were synonymous, thus la
lengua mandarina = Guanhua = zhengyin.
Missionary accounts, almost certainly reflectingnative
perceptions,generallydescribethe standardpronunciation
of Guanhuaas "Nankingese."However the significance
of this identificationrequiresfurtherconsideration.For it
is clear that, although similar to Nankingese pronuncia-
tion in many ways, the zhengyin system from its incep-
tion lacked a numberof typically Nankingese and central
Jiang-Huai features, such as the failure to distinguish
initial 1- and n- and (in certainenvironments)final -n and
-y (Coblin Forthcomingb). Consider the following:
4 It shouldbe noted,however,thatthe linguisticsituationin
the city duringthis periodwas still farfromstable.Phonologi-
cally mixedor compositesystemswereencountered thereeven
in Edkins'day.Heremarks (1864:279):"ManymenfromKiang-
nanresidein Peking,especiallyof theclassof scholars.Theyre-
tainmanypeculiarities of thesouthernpronunciation, evenafter
thelapseof threeorfourgenerations. Insuchcases,thetonesof
Pekingaresometimesusedin conjunctionwiththe initialsand
finalsof Nanking."
542 Journal of the American Oriental Society 120.4 (2000)

alects have affricate initials in syllables of this type. In

Sin Trigault Pr6mare Morrison the same dialects cited above we find for xidng -T the
following forms:
nL najq(Nz) nem [ner] neng [nerj] nang[naeIj]
lem [irj] Nanking Jur6ng Yangzh6u Gaoy6u
lajrj(i) leng [ler] lang [laej]
7q nuj ( :) nui [nui] nu6i,nuii ny [nui] [t?'ifi13]
[ti'iai324]T] [t?'ia2] 'i 34 4] [t?'iar213R*]
[nuei - nui]
i. luj (T) lui [lui] loui [lui] luy [lui] How are we to understandsuch phenomena? At the
outset we may suppose that the zhengytn system of ca.
1450 was based not on the pronunciationof a single dia-
In these cases all standardGufnhua sources strictly dis- lect or area but was instead a composite entity reflecting
tinguish initial n- and 1-. Now compare the following the sound systems of a congeries of southerly Central
central Jiang-Huai dialect forms, taken from Jiangsu Plains-typedialects, includingthose of the lower Yangtze
sheng he Shanghai shi (1960: 499): watershed, such as Nankingese. (We may, for example,
remember that Morrison in one passage cited above
characterized the zhengyin system as that of the Nan-
Nanking Jur6ng Yangzh6u Gaoy6u king region and H6enn, ratherthan of the former alone.)
The fact that this standardsystem was used continually
[la313F] [nn24WV] [a ] [a34WF] [la3213 ]
in Nanking from at least 1400 until about 1850 would
[1ar22-] [nan213L] [1l1342&] [laJ21i]
have led to ongoing convergence throughoutthat period,
F [luai441] [nai55t] [luoi551] [luoi53"]
, [luoi44`] [nai551 ] luoi55a]
[ [luoi53:]
contributingto the perceptionthat the two were more-or-
less identical. But it should be rememberedthat such no-
No dialects of this type make an n-/l- distinction com- tions were general and impressionistic sentiments rather
parable to that found in the standard system. Similar than technically accurate taxonomic judgments. In any
data can be cited for the final -n/-y distinction after the case, in traditionaltimes Nanking probablywas the most
vowel i: prominent urban area of China where something ap-
proaching an accurate rendition of zhengyin phonology
Sin Trigault Pr6mare Morrison could be heard in everyday use.
When the nationalcapital was moved from Nanking to
3 pin (F) pin [pin] pin [pin] pin [pin]
E piIJ( p) pim [pij] Peking in 1421 there was no concomitant shift in the re-
ping [pii] ping [pii]
gional basis of the standardsound system. Instead, the
Nanking-like system remained in place as the national
standard.And this situation had not changed by the early
Nanking Jur6ng Yangzh6u Gaoy6u Qing period, when Varo was active. However, Pr6mare
[piti31iV] [pin31r] [pin319V] [pirJ44T] begins to mention here and there alternatePekingese pro-
[pin31VL] [
[pin3l P][pint31^ ] [pir44**] nunciations,which he nonetheless seems to regardas sus-
pect or non-standard.For example, he observes (1893: 15)
Nevertheless, comparison of the Sin and missionary that the syllable tchu [tsy] (as in zhiu 4 "pig") is (mis-)
spelling systems shows that between 1450 and 1600 the pronouncedby the Pekingese as tchou [tsu]. By the mid-
standardsystem did in fact take on certain Nankingese- 1700s, Koreanobserversrecordmoreof these features,and
like features which it had originally lacked (Coblin by the 1790s Barrow clearly hears them competing with
Forthcomingc). As an exemplar, consider the following: standard(i.e., Nanking-like) pronunciationsin the streets
of Peking. A decade or so later Morrison grudgingly ad-
Sin Trigault Pr6mare Morrison mits that the imperialcourt prefers this "TartarChinese,"
R zjari(F) siam,q'iam which he predicts may eventually become the national
ts'iang tseang
[siar - ts'iar] [ts'iarj] [ts'iarj] standard.By about 1850 this predictionhas been realized,
and a wholesale shift to a Pekingese-like phonological
In this case, the syllable in question had a fricative ini- base has occurred.The result remains with us to this day.
tial z- in Sin's system, but by Trigault'stime competing In closing this section we may take some account of
fricative/affricatereadings in s-/ts'- had developed; and several orthographicallyattested"non-standard"varieties
it was the affricate forms that prevailed. It is therefore of Guanhuapronunciation.Examples of the firstof these
noteworthythat Nankingese and other closely related di- are found in a Portuguese-ChineseDictionary manuscript

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:13:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A Brief History of Mandarin
COBLIN:
held in the ArchivumRomanumSocietatis Jesu in Rome.
This text is attributedto Matteo Ricci and/or Michele
Ruggieri and is believed to have been compiled in the
1580s near Canton (Yang 1989). It may represent a re-
gional (andprobablysouthern)varietyof late Ming Guan-
hua. Ricci and his confreres had abandonedthis form of
pronunciationby ca. 1600 in favor of the variety attested
in the sources discussed above. A second and very closely
related Guanhua variety is found in a set of vernacular
dialogues included in the same Jesuit manuscript. The
materialhas been studied and analyzed by Furuya(1988,
1989). A thirdGuanhuatype is attestedin the Towa sanyo
Xfi5$ V, a Chinese language primerpublished in Japan
in 1716. This text has been examined by Richard Sim-
mons in two recent articles (1995, 1997) and is thoughtto
representa Guanhuavariety used in the Hangzhou area.
The language resembles Sin's zhengyin variety in retain-
ing a zhu6 series of initials. Interrelationshipsbetween
these different Guanhua types and that reflected in the
standardmaterialsdiscussed here remainto be clarifiedby
detailed comparisons. But what is recognizable at this
point is thatwithin Guanhuaas a whole thereexisted com-
peting regional sub-varieties of standardpronunciation,
some of which were clearly felt by Europeanobserversto
have higher prestige than others.
III. LEXICON
Jiang Shaoyu A7], perhapsthe leading modern au-
thority on the history of the Chinese lexicon, has ob-
served that work in post-Tang lexical studies is still in
its infancy (1989: 240). In his own researchhe has drawn
a careful distinction between traditionalkoines as actual
spoken languages (kouyu de gbngtongyu 2i--Hj:~,r)
and contemporary written or literary vernaculars (shu-
mian gongtongyu fjjfit-l ) based on or related to
these spoken koines (see, e.g., 1994: 126). In this con-
nection he has also pointed out that spoken materialhas
heretofore been accessible only indirectly through the
medium of the literary sources (1994: 252). The result
has been a scholarly emphasis on the identification and
study of individually gleaned lexical items, without suf-
ficient consideration of the spoken lexicon as a system-
atic whole (1989: ch. 10; 1994: 287-88). With regardto
the Guanhuhkoine, a solution to the problem posed by
Jiang would now seem to be offered by the recent discov-
ery of grammars,dictionaries, and dialogue texts of the
sort mentioned in the preceding section. For these works
were composed specifically as language-learningmateri-
als and were intended to reflect actual speech ratherthan
the usage of the literaryvernaculars.It will be necessary
to compare this material systematically with the lexical
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:13:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
543
stock of the written texts, on the one hand, and of mod-
ern standardMandarin,on the other, before the precise
relationships among them can be established. However,
a few preliminaryobservations can be ventured.
Considering, for example, Varo's "Vocabulariode la
Lengua Mandarina,"text samples selected at randomap-
pear to show a ratherhigh degree of continuity with the
lexicon of moder Mandarin,once neologisms known to
have appearedin the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
have been excluded.5 Let us examine the following ex-
cerptof ten contiguous entries from the Berlin manuscript
of Varo'stext (p. 44), to which Chinese charactershave
been added here for reference:
Casamentero [malematchmaker]. moeyjin A.
Casamentera [femalematchmaker]. moeyp6' .
Cascaras,ut de guebos,o cosasduras[shells,as of eggs
or hardthings].ki6'UQ.
Cascaras,o mondaduras de frutas [rindsor peels of
fruit]. py' 12.
Cascarasde texasquebradas [flatpiecesof brokentiles].
ua sty 2i / uh pi6n'It".
Cascajo,piedrequelas[shardsof brokenvessels;gravel,
pebbles].ua lieXtt.
Cascosde calabaza[skull,cranium].nao ki6'SfOfi.
Cascosde cebollas[onionskins].,ghing' py' Xi.. de
canas[of canes].cho6hing'tqt.
Cascabeles[hawksbells,smallbellsfor animals].ling ul
Jl / hiang ling M/ chu6n' ling -P.
Cascode morrion[a steelhelmet].tie'kuey'9 .
Most items in this passage are still currentin moder
standard Mandarin. Wdpian A t' is in common use.
WasuiiTLF is attested in texts of Ming and Qing times
but is probably no longer used in spoken Mandarinto-
day. Naoke 'SK is listed in moder dictionaries in the
sense "head,"ratherthan "skull,"and is said to have a dia-
lectal flavor. Chuan ling $ occurs in vernaculartexts
of late Qing and early Republican times and is perhaps
still current among at least some speakers. The rate of
continuity here may be as high as 85-90%, with attrition
and substitutionof a sort which would be expected in suc-
cessive stages of the same language for the time period in
question. This would suggest that in the area of lexicon
there has been no large-scale shift of the sort observed in
the phonological component of the language. However,
if specific common lexical items are chosen for scrutiny,
a different picture emerges. Let us now consider several
of these.
5 Fora
verydetaileddiscussionof suchneologisms,seeMasini
(1993), who provides references to earlier studies.
544 Journal of the American Oriental Society 120.4 (2000)
1. Difang ttfi "place."This word appearsin the gen-
eral sense "place" in Qing novels and is well known to
the mid-nineteenthcentury "Pekingist"textbook and dic-
tionary compilers. Varo uses it in the specialized sense
"region, vicinity."He also lists it both alone and in longer
expressions in the general sense "place," but always in
second position behind his preferredword, su6ozi jfi.
In his grammar he never uses difang in example sen-
tences, employing su6zaaiinstead. Su6zai is still currentin
certaindialects of centraland south China. It is also listed
in nineteenth-centurydictionariesof Pekingese,e.g., Stent
(1877: 438); but difang is the ordinaryword used in the
language textbooks. This word had apparently com-
pletely replaced suozai in the lexicon of the standard
koin6 by the mid-1800s, and its origin seems to have been
either Pekingese or the northerndialects generally.
2. Dou V "all." For this word the Guanhuamaterials
of Varo, Pr6mare, and Morrison all write tia (= moder
Mandarindi); and the nineteenth-centurytextbooks also
give this pronunciationfor standardPekingese Mandarin
of thattime. However, Edkins (1864: 69) remarksthatthe
word actually used in the Pekingese dialect (as opposed
to standardPekingese Mandarinof the day) was not tu
but rathera sort of vulgarism pronouncedteu (= modern
standarddou). Giles (1892: 1187) identifies this dou as a
northerndialect form. By the early twentieth century it
had enteredthe standardkoin6 and completely ejected dii,
for in his spoken Mandarin language materials Giles
(1901) gives only dou in the sense "all."It is importantto
note that this development was not simply a sound
change as such but rathera lexical replacementin which
the Pekingese word supplantedthe Guanhuaone.
3. Gei M,"to give." This word is unknownin the older
Guanhua sources, which always identify yu ff or bdyu
tEfi as their words for "to give." Morrisondoes list gei,
along with yuiin this sense. Ota (1958 [1987]: 241) states
that gei was an established Pekingese form in Qing
times; and it must in fact be much older than that in some
types of north Chinese, since it appears in a Tibeto-
Chinese colloquial phrasebook from Dunhuang (Takata
1988: 199). It was well known to mid-nineteenth-century
Pekingists. It is also found in the modern Jiang-Huai di-
alects, but almost always in an unusual syllabic shape.
For example, in Nankingese it is ki11,which violates the
syllable canon of that language by placing a high front
vowel after a gutturalinitial. This suggests that it is prob-
ably a later intrusion in such dialects (Coblin Forthcom-
ing b). And, in fact, Edkins (1864: 278-79) remarksthat
ba tf ratherthan gei was the common word for "to give"
in the Yangtze watershed dialects of his time. In sum-
mary, gei may have entered the lexicon of the standard
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:13:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
koine from a northerndialect such as Pekingese during
the latter part of the eighteenth century.
4. Hdi X "still, yet." In the Guanhua materials the
word "still," written by Premareas X, is always spelled
as the equivalent of modern Mandarinhudn. A number
of Jiang-Huai dialects preserve this form, where it is the
preferredreading among elderly speakers. Ch'we Sejin
mentions that in his time it was sometimes pronounced
as a homophone of hdi r "child" (Kim 1991: 218, n. 1).
The nineteenth-century Pekingese textbook compilers
list two readings for it, hai and hdn. It would appearthat
hdi replaced hudn as the standard koin6 form at some
point after Morrison'stime.
5. He Xg "to drink."This word is already attested in
Yuan-time texts and is well known to the nineteenth-
century Pekingists. But it does not appear in the spoken
Guanhua sources until Morrison's time. Like gei it
seems to be an eighteenth-century importation from
north Chinese.
6. Hen fR (earlieralso I, RR)"very."This is the ordi-
nary intensifierfor stative and certainother verbs in mod-
ern standardMandarin.It does not appearat all in Varo's
dictionary, nor for that matter in any other of the alpha-
betically recordedmid-Qing Guanhuamaterials, even as
late as Morrison's time. The usual spoken Guanhua
forms were instead words like shen : "very, extremely"
andji 1&"extremely."However, the use of hen as an in-
tensifier is textually attested as early as Yuan times and
is common in various Qing novels. It was also well
known to the Pekingist grammarians.Its adoptionin stan-
dard Mandarinby this time may indicate a shift towards
a Pekingese lexical base by the standardkoine duringthe
nineteenth century.
7. H6uzi 4-F "wart,pimple."This word is alreadyat-
tested in Song-period texts and is well represented in
mid-nineteenth-centurydictionaries of Pekingese (e.g.,
Stent 1877: 175). Thus, it was by this time an established
Pekingese noun with a long pedigree. Morrisonalso lists
it. Interestingly,however, Varodoes not know it at all. In-
stead, he gives an entirely differentexpression, ldoshunadi
jM~, which occurs twice in his dictionary.Ldoshundi
is found today in certain Yangtze-watersheddialects6but
does not seem to be used elsewhere. It was apparentlythe
standardGuanhuaterm in Varo'stime. By the early nine-
teenth century, the Pekingese word had replaced it and
remains the usual term for "wart" in modern standard
Mandarin.
6I am gratefulto ProfessorRichardSimmonsfor this
information.
 COBLIN:A Brief History of Mandarin
8. Suoyoude PTi t "all, whatsoever."This term first
appearsin Ming and Qing novels. It is well known to the
nineteenth-centuryPeking Mandarintextbook writersbut
is not found in the Guanhua records of Varo, Premare,
and Morrison. Instead, they use other modifiers such as
qudnde wi, wdnqudnde zh:t, zhenggede SfflJ,
simiande [ m t, etc. Thus, su6youde would appearto be
a nineteenth-centuryadditionto the standardkoine, prob-
ably from Pekingese.
9. Xin { "letter, epistle." The compound shaxin mB
"letter" is quite old, dating from at least Six Dynasties
times. The term jiaxin *f "tidings from home" is at-
tested in Taingtexts. The monosyllable xin in the sense
of "tidings, news" is attested in Qing novels such as
H6ngl6umeng g,TII. Xin in the sense of "letter"is well
known to the nineteenth-centuryPekingese textbook writ-
ers and is the usual word in modern standardMandarin.
Varo, on the other hand, uses only shu - for "letter."But
the word xin in this sense must have existed somewhere
in his time, for he gives xinqidn f I as an alternateform
for daishuqidn-ft-l "postagefor letters."Nevertheless,
he apparentlydid not consider xin to be a standardword
for "letter."There appearsto be no case of xin "letter"in
Premare'sgrammar.Morrisonlists the compound shuxin,
but this may be a literaryform taken from texts. It would
seem that in Guanhuhthe ordinaryword for "letter"was
sha, which was later replaced in the standardkoin6 by
Pekingese xin, the form still currenttoday.
10. Zhdo Vtz"to seek." This verb is unknown in the
Guanhuasources until Morrison'sdictionary, where it is
said to have the sense "to supply." However, he also
gives the compound zhaoxun :ti-, which he glosses as
"to seek for." The monosyllable xuin H is the normal
wordfor "seek"in the Guanhuamaterials.Zhdois attested
in Ming and Qing vernaculartexts and is found in all the
nineteenth-centurytextbooks of Pekingese Mandarin.It
may have entered the standardkoin6 from Pekingese be-
tween the times of Pr6mareand Morrison.
Examples of this sort suggest that, while the bulk,of
the Ming-Qing Guanhuakoin6 lexicon may have passed
more or less directly into modern standardMandarin,a
numberof common or high-frequency lexemes were not
inheritedin this way. Instead, these may have entered the
word-stock from the northChinese speech area generally
or from the local language of Peking in particular.This
development can therefore be viewed as a smaller-scale
lexical parallel of the wholesale phonological shift to a
Pekingese base duringthe eighteenth and nineteenthcen-
turies, especially since it usually resulted in complete re-
placement of received Guanhuhlexical material.
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:13:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
545
A much smaller but equally interesting body of lexical
discrepanciesbetween olderGuanhu'aandthe modernstan-
dard lexicon may in fact have been dialect syllables and
compounds in Guanhua phonological garb, which crept
into particular regional sub-varieties of the koin6 but
never became a permanentpart of the general lexicon of
Guanhua.Consider,for example, Varo'sexpressions tung
- "grainharvest"and xeu tung 1>- "to harvest,"which
are widely found in Fukien and contiguous Mm-speaking
areas but are not generally known elsewhere. Another
example is Varo'snunniui 41:-, given along with xiaoniu
/J\4 for "calf." Niunniuappears to be a Mtnd6ng rj
dialect form, adopted from the speech of the area where
Varo lived and worked. With this we may compare the
Ricci-Ruggieridictionaryformniuizai?ff "yearlingcalf"
(written gnieu zai 4# in the text), which appearsto be
a Yue - dialect borrowinginto the Guanhuavarietyused
in the Cantonregion. None of these expressionsremained
partof the standardlexicon of subsequentperiods,suggest-
ing thatthe koin6 word-stockmay have been relativelyim-
permeableto regionalinfluencesand shifts in dialect base,
accepting briefly but then ultimately shedding most pa-
tently dialectalor regionalmaterial(cf. Hanan 1981: 2, 8).
Significantly,though Varo'sdictionarycontains no Chi-
nese characters,almost all syllables in it can be directly
associated with writtenChinese graphs.And Pr6marehas
no difficultyat all in supplyingcharactersfor his example
phrases and sentences. Unlike the spoken dialects known
to us today, which often possess hundredsof etymolog-
ically and graphically obscure morphemes, nearly every
lexical item in spoken Guanhua would seem to be for-
mally "authorizable"in terms of the Chinese script. It is
almost as if the growth of the standardlexicon was con-
sciously monitoredwith such "authorizability"in mind.
How much older thanthe early Qing period is the com-
mon word-stock sharedby works such as Varo's"Vocab-
ulario"and the moder standardMandarinlexicon? What
is the relationship of this old word-stock to the lexical
corpus of the Ming-Qing literaryvernaculars?Did north-
ern dialect words which had alreadyappearedin vernacu-
lar literarytexts have a particularadvantagethat enabled
them to enterthe newly forming nineteenth-centurykoine
more easily? Or were they simply more robust because
they were widely currentin the spoken vernacularof the
currentcultural and political heartland?Full-scale com-
parison of entire lexical systems, as called for by Jiang
Shaoyi, may shed furtherlight on the interrelationships
between the spoken and literary sources and may ulti-
mately show that the standard Mandarin lexicon as a
whole is quite old, perhaps predating"Mandarin"as we
have defined it here.
546 Journal of the American Oriental Society 120.4 (2000)
IV. SYNTAX
The syntax of the literary or written vernacularshas
been the subject of increasingly intense study during the
past half century both in China and elsewhere.7Here too,
however, we should remain mindful of Jiang Shaoyu's
counsel regardingthe difference between shumian gong-
tongyuaand k6uyu'gongtongya. Similar thoughts have
been expressed by others. For example, Norman (1988:
111) remarksthat, "in no case can one point to a particular
text and say unequivocally that it is written in a purely
vernacular style. All texts represent to one degree or
anothera mixture of the literaryand spoken languages."
More recently Chen (1999: 69-70) has characterizedtra-
- Basilio Brollo de Glemona: Confesionario (Varo 1703:
ditional bdihua 6 5 (as opposed to wenydn `) as
"closer to the contemporaryvernacular"and "an approx-
imation of the spoken vernacular."There seems to be
consensus among these observers that traditionalliterary
texts are at best approximations of spoken language.
And the obvious corollary is that they must be viewed
circumspectlywhen attemptingto unearthevidence about
the spoken language of earlier periods. For this reason
Chinese language-teaching materials of the sort men-
tioned in the preceding sections are of particularinter-
est for the study of spoken Guanhuasyntax. The various
dictionary and dialogue manuscripts all contain direct
recordings of spoken language. But of even more sig-
nificance for the study of syntax are the analytical and
teaching grammars,such as those of Varo and Premare,
andthe newly discoveredmanuscript,"Principiosda lingua
Sinica Mandarina,"of Joseph Monteyro (1646-1720),
held by the Royal Academy of Sciences in Lisbon. These
materialscan now be studied in their own right as exem-
plars of early spoken Mandarinand then compared with
the writtenvernacular,on one hand, and modernstandard
Mandarin,on the other.
Viewed in toto, the grammarof the spoken Guanhua
materials does not seem sharply different from that of
moder Mandarin,once allowance is made for the chro-
nological gap between the two. This might suggest that
the differences between old Guanhua and the standard
language of today have in the main resulted from a linear
process of historical evolution. The following are three
illustrative examples, with modern Mandarinromaniza-
tions and Chinese characters added (except in the case
of Pr6mare,wherecharactersarealreadypresentin the origi-
nal). English versions are direct translationsof the ori-
7 Forextensive referencesto thesesee, forex-
bibliographical
ample,Jiang(1989:ch. 4) andSun(1996).Cf. also the biblio-
graphicalsectionsof Norman(1988)andChen(1999).
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:13:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ginal Spanish and Latin renderings, rather than of the
Chinese.
Varo (1703: 2):
El que quiesiere subir a el cielo, le conviene obrarla vir-
tud, y de no, segino no lo conseguira. [He who
wishes to ascend to heaven must practice virtue, and
if he does not do so, surely he will not succeed in it.]
Tan fan jin iao xing t'ien, kai tang goei xen, jo po
goei xen, chuijen p6 hooi xing t'ien.
Dan fan r6n yao sheng tian, gai dang wei shan, rub bu
wei shan, zi ran bh hui sheng tian.
76, appendix):
1. Furatusne es aliquid alienius? [Did you steal some-
thing of someone else's?]
N'i t'eu leao jin tie vue kien mb?
Ni t6u le ren de wh jian ma
2. Hoc aliquid quanti valet? [How much is the thing
which you stole worth?]
Che k6 vue kien che to xao in chu?
Zhe ge wh jian zhi duo shao yin zi
3. Quae post postremamconfesionem furatus es, simul
sumptaquantivalent?[How much is the total value of
the thingsyou have stolen since your last confession?]
N'ikao kiai heu t'eutie tuingsi, king che t6 xao in chu?
Ni gao jie hbu t6u de dong xi gbng zhi duo shao yin zi
Premare (1893: 46):
Utinam possem illius cor jecurque avellere, et dare cani-
bus ad vorandum![Wouldthat I might tear out his heart
and liver and give them to be devoured by the dogs!]
Ngb hen pou te oua t'chou t'a ti sin kan, pa ii keou k'i.
W6 hen b'ude wa chi ta de xin gan, pa yuig6u chi.
WfRTN4t'fflj9f ii mU
One does not detect in these samples a wholesale shift
of language base comparable to that which occurred in
the areaof phonology. However, as was the case with lex-
icon, if particulargrammatical elements or features are
examined, a more complex picture emerges. Let us now
consider several such cases.
1. Gender markers for animals. In modern standard
Mandarinand in northChinese dialects generally the gen-
der markers for domestic animals, gong 5' "male" and
 COBLIN:A Brief History of Mandarin
mu f- "female,"are prefixed, e.g., gongniu /X4 "bull,"
muniu f-t "cow." In the Guanhuasources the markers
are usually suffixed, and the form for the male is often gu
E ratherthan gong, e.g., gougu nJnt "male dog,"goumu
Ja "bitch";jigong 16 "cock,"jima i "hen."This
configuration is typical of the central and southern dia-
lects of Norman'snomenclature(1988). It has been com-
pletely replaced by the northernpattern in the modern
standardkoine.
2. Classifiers or measure words. Certain measure
words in the Guanhuh materials differ from those used
in modern standard Mandarin and standard Pekingese
Mandarinof the mid-1800s. This can be determined by
comparing full lists of the two sets as given in Varo
(1703: 72-73; and passim in the "Vocabulario"),Edkins
(1864: ch. 5), and Chao and Yang (1962: 283-86). For
example, the presentday and mid-nineteenth-centuryPe-
king Mandarinclassifier for mountains and hills is zub
IT. Varo in such cases consistently uses t6u i, a word
cited as a classifier for a range of domestic animals by
Edkins and more specifically by Chao and Yang for cat-
tle. Wade (1867: pt. III, p. 17) gives ge {1 as the classifier
for wan l "bowl,"and this usage is still currentin stan-
dard Mandarintoday. Varo on the other hand gives kuai
5, which is used today as a classifierin the standardlang-
uage but is not applied to bowls. In cases of this type,
what are probablyindigenous Pekingese forms have been
substitutedfor the old Guanhuaclassifiers.
3. The inclusive pronoun zd(men) [nff "we." This
word is attestedin Sbng and Yuan texts and is mentioned
in all the nineteenth-century grammars of Pekingese.
Modern Chinese dictionaries today list it as a standard
form. It is, however, totally unknownin the Guanhuama-
terials until one reaches Morrison.He gives it but then re-
marks:"This word is confined to the northernpeople." It
is therefore probably a nineteenth-centurycontribution
of north Chinese to the standardMandarinpronominal
system.
4. The interrogative adverb zem(me) 1- "how."
Modern standard zem(me) is widely thought to be a
reflex of an earlier form, zub m6 ftI, already found in
Sbng-time vernaculartexts. It has a literary reading zen
(me) but is normallypronouncedzem(me)in actualspeech.
It is well attestedin the nineteenth-centuryPekingeseMan-
darinhandbooks.In the Guanhuasources the comparable
form is tseng (m6) [= Mod. zeng (mo)]. Premare writes
it as ,EV, but the first syllable is never spelled either
tsen or tsem in any of the Guanhuamaterials.Nor can a
Guanhuatseng be regularlyderived from an earlier -n or
-m final syllable in the sound system of this language.
Now, in Tang times there was another word, written
zheng -, which also meant "how."Wang (1958, II: 294)
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:13:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
547
considers this to be cognate to later ~,~, while Lu
(1985: 336) argues against this view. In this connection,
we should note that - is regularly spelled tseng in the
Guanhua sources, a reading which differs from that of
Guanhua tseng , only by tone. One wonders if there
could be an historical connection between the two. In
any case, by about 1860 the Guanhuaword tseng (mo) had
already been replaced in the standardkoine by zem(me),
which was also the Pekingese dialect form for "how" in
that period (Stent 1877: 568).
5. The perfective negative. In the Guanhuamaterials,
in addition to certain rarer and clearly literary expres-
sions, there is for this construction apparentfreedom of
choice between three equally currentforms, wei ceng 7
i, bi ceng T^f1, and meiyou r . Edkins (1864: 196)
also reportsall three of these in the standardMandarinof
his time. The first two are today associated with the cen-
tral dialects, whereas the third, which is identical in form
with the existentialnegative, is a typically northernconfig-
uration. It is only this last expression which has been re-
tained in the moder standardkoine. This choice seems
to reflect northerninfluence.
6. Agent markersin passivization. Agents of passive-
like verbs are markedby the word bei a in the Guanhua
materials.In this role Premarealso uses chi [t, a particle
found in Ming and Qing novels (Jiang 1994: 229). Varo
does not use this chi at all. Moder standardMandarin
employs the bei passivizer in the same way that Guanhua
did. But in addition it also uses the causative wordsjiao
n1 - t and rang a in this role. Jiao t as a passivizer
is in fact quite old, occurring already in Tang texts. The
use of the graph l- to write it began in Qing times (Ota
1958 [1987]: 232). It is common in the nineteenth-
centuryPekingistmaterials(see, e.g., Wade 1867: pt. VIII,
pp. 256-57). Edkins (1864: 126) specifically identifies it
as a Pekingese form. Rang is not used as a passivizer in
these works. The use of jiao as an agent markerin mod-
ern standardMandarinappearsto derive from Pekingese,
for it is not inherited from Guanhua.
7. The durativesuffix -zhe i. Durative -zhe (also pro-
nounced -zhi) was known to the nineteenth-centurygram-
mariansof Peking Mandarin,who were wont to call it a
"participial"element. They usually romanized it as cho.
Wade (1867) records variant readings, cho and che, but
he uses only cho in his examples. Edkins (1864: 192)
gives the pronunciationschoh and chi (= moder stan-
dard zhi) for it. The latter he says is derived from "the
colloquial of Shantung."He furtherremarks, "This is a
colloquialism not authorized by books, nor is it correct
mandarin.Perhapsit is a corruptionfrom ; choh, which
is the form used by correctspeakers."The older Guanhua
word spelled cho X has a numberof functions as a verbal
548 Journal of the American Oriental Society 120.4 (2000)
suffix, but durativeor continuativeaspect is not explicitly
identified as one of them in the grammars.Nonetheless,
there are examples in the materialwhich are suspiciously
reminiscent of modem Mandarin-zhe. For example, in
Varo's"Vocabulario"we find:
Dormirde lado [to sleepon one'sside].che'ch6 xuy
Estaren pie [to be standing].chanch6 Mt.
Estarsentado[to be seated,sitting].qh6chio =.:.
The process of grammaticalizationthroughwhich the du-
rative sense of -zhe evolved out of earlier full verbs was
exceedingly subtle and complex (cf., Mei 1989; Chen
1995; Sun 1998), and it is possible that the durative
markerwas in fact already present in Guanhuabut was
not fully understoodby Varo and Pr6mare.On the other
hand, if they were correct in not finding it there, then we
may suspect that it entered nineteenth-centuryMandarin
from Pekingese.
8. The sentential particle le T. It is widely believed
thatthe verbal suffix -le is a reducedform of the verb liao
7 "to finish."On the other hand, Y. R. Chao (1968: 246)
suggested thatsentence-finalle, a perfectparticlemarking
currentlyrelevantstate, is in fact a weakened form of final
ldi 5, as firstfound in texts of the Sbng andYuan periods.
This hypothesis has garneredsome latersupport(e.g., Sun
1996: ch. 4, with references to earlier studies). However,
alternatetheories have also been suggested, such as that
of Lif (1985), who argues on the basis of parallels in
Qingjian Mi T#, a Shanxi Rl dialect, that sentential le is
a fusion of earlierle ye' 7tt. These theories have in com-
mon the view that sententialle is not directly,or in Chao's
case even indirectly, derived from earlier lido.
The following are examples of sentential le from our
Guanhuamaterials:
Varo (1703: 57):
t'axi Petelota tie leao
fft;l Petelo Tf 7T
Aquelfue aporreado
de Pedro.[Thatone was beatenby
Peter.]
de Glemona: Confesionario (Varo 1703: 2a, appendix):
nl j6 p6 k'engh6 m6, 9hi6up6 k'bvuangt'ienchuxe ni
tie chhuileao
Si tu non vis inimico reconciliari,non potes sperare
Deumtibi tua peccatadimissurum.[If you are not
willingto be reconciledwithyourenemy,you cannot
expectthatGodwill forgiveyou yoursins.]
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:13:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Premare (1893: 72):
tchip'ani ki6nleao koueileao
Lemures,credo,vides;je crois que tu reves [(Latin)I
thinkyou areseeingghosts./(French)I thinkyou are
dreaming.]
In all such cases, sentential le is spelled leao [= liao] in
the Guanhuasources. Parallelsfor this readingof the par-
ticle are found in certain conservative Jiang-Huai dia-
lects. For example, in the Lishan i [IIdialect of Hiubi i
jb we find (Chao et al. 1948: 896):
0o53 mn tciau44 iau55 iau424 tau1I tii53 tien3 to55 S44 niau
"Nowwe needto hit thebooksagainfor a coupleof hours."
Edkins (1864) gave for 7 the reading liao in all posi-
tions, with no furthercomment. But Wade (1867: pt. III,
p. 7) has more to say regardingsentential le. He remarks,
"at the end of a clause [it is] very often a mere expletive,
and then pronouncedla, or lo." By the beginning of the
twentieth century Giles (1901) gave only [la] as the
pronunciation of both verbal and sentential le. It would
appear,then, that in the mid-nineteenth-centurythe pro-
nunciations liao and le for the final particle were in com-
petition in standard Pekingese Mandarin. How are we
to interpret this? One possibility is that Chao and Lif
were simply wrong and that the sentential particle was
originally derived from liao "to finish,"whose pronunci-
ation was reducedto le duringthe nineteenthcentury.But
there is another, and perhaps preferable, interpretation.
Chao and Lif may have been right that in certain parts
of China the sentential particle arose in such a way as
to yield le as the actual form in regional vernaculars of
the north, including that of Peking. Early nineteenth-
century standardPekingese Mandarin(as opposed to the
spoken dialect of the city) may have continued the use
of the Guanhuaform lido, itself perhapsbased on Jiang-
Huii usage. But by mid-century the northernvernacular
form le may have come into competition with this lido
in the standardspeech of Peking, ultimately unseating it
as the preferredform by around 1900. If this scenario is
valid, then what we see here is a shift of grammatical
base from old Guanhua to the vernacular usage of the
north.
9. Sentence final ba m - nE. This particle is common
in modern standardMandarin,where it conveys various
imperative, suggestive, and advisative nuances. It is at-
tested in vernaculartexts by at least the Yuan period and
is well-known to the mid-nineteenth-centurygrammari-
ans of Peking Mandarin.It does not occur at all in the old
 COBLIN:
A Brief History of Mandarin
Guanhuamaterials. Premare does list a final particle bo
which is similar to ba in certain ways, e.g., (p. 77):
k'bpoilche po
an-nonita est? [Isn'tit so?]
This word bo, which appearsin early vernaculartexts in
the written form [&, is considered by Ota (1958 [1987]:
340) to be etymologically related to modern ba. Be that
as it may, it seems clear that the addition of ba itself to
the grammar of the standard koin6 coincides with the
emergence of Peking-based standard Mandarin in the
nineteenth century.The Ming-Qing koine of Varo, Pre-
mare, etc., did not have it.
10. The sentential interrogativema Rn.According to
Ota (1958 [1987]: 334) the use of the graph RI to repre-
sent a final interrogativeparticle first appearsin texts of
the Qing period. His examples for it come from the
Hongl6umeng. Before this time the graph 1 was com-
monly used for a word which functioned like ma UPin the
old vernaculartexts. In the Guanhuamaterials ma is not
used at all. Instead, there is a final interrogativeparticle,
spelled mb (= moder m6), which behaves like moder
Mandarinma. Pr6marewrites this mb with the character
)V. A final interrogativehaving this phonetic shape (i.e.,
initial m- with a mid back roundedvowel) occurs in a num-
ber of moder Jiang-Huaidialects. Among the nineteenth-
century textbook compilers, Edkins (1864) usually spells
the sentential interrogative as mo and writes it as S.
However, he occasionally uses the spelling ma, which he
says (1864: 218) is "frequentlyheardin colloquial usage"
and may also be written RIj.Wade gives the variant pro-
nunciationsmo and ma, with alternatewritings ) and nj
for each spoken variant.It is possible thatma was the true
northern or local Pekingese particle, while mo was a
carry-overfrom earlierGuanhua.Ma has, of course, won
out in modern standardMandarin.
In summary,this brief survey of selected grammatical
featuressuggests parallelswith the developmentof the lex-
icon. To wit, while the bulk of the pre-nineteenth-century
Guanhua syntactic system may indeed have passed over
into late Qing standardMandarin,it seems probable that
a number of basic, high-frequency functors in the new
koin6 were derived from the Pekingese dialect, or at least
from northern dialects generally. Detailed comparative
studies areneeded before this mattercan be fully clarified.
V. CONCLUSIONS
Let us now summarize our findings regardingthe his-
tory of Mandarin.We began with the intentionof showing
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:13:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
549
that "Mandarin,"defined as the standardChinese koin6 of
Ming and Qing times, was not, as is often still asserted,
the dialect of Peking. But our engagementwith this ques-
tion has led us beyond it to furtherconsiderations.For in
the end it would seem that Mandarinwas in fact never the
dialect of any particularplace. Nor was it really a "dia-
lect" at all. In its earliest stages we hypothesize thatit was
a language with a composite, southerly Central Plains-
like phonological structure. This system progressively
converged at certain points with that of the city of Nan-
king, but it was never really identicalwith the Nankingese
system. On the contrary, it remained "dialectally ab-
stract."Mandarinlexicon and syntax may have been of
a general literary or text-based character, rather than
regionally dialectal in any real sense. Over the centuries,
lexicon and syntax remainedrelatively stable, while the
pronunciation shifted dramatically to a Pekingese-like
phonology in the mid-nineteenth century. Modern stan-
dard Mandarin, which is in no sense the actual dialect
of the city of Peking (cf. Hi 1987: 27-31; Chen 1999:
37-41), is the direct descendant of this late nineteenth-
century koine.
What we have envisaged here is ratherdifferent from
the expected history of a "natural"language or dialect,
and the reason for this may have been that Mandarinwas
indeed a koin6 ratherthan a regional vernacular,as such.
In fact, in traditionaltimes it may not even have been the
native language of very many people, but rathera second
language for nearly everyone who used it.8This supposi-
tion then leads to the question of how such an "unnatu-
ral" or second language was learned and transmitted.
About this we have at hand some interesting anecdotal
evidence. Y. R. Chao (1892-1982) was born near the end
of the traditionalGuanhuaperiod. His description of the
transmission process as he had observed it was as fol-
lows: "Most educated persons acquire a Mandarin of
sorts either by 'picking it up' from people who speak-or
have learnedto speak-Mandarin, or merely by adopting
the vocabularyof Mandarinnovels like the Dream of the
Red Chamberwithout attemptingany adjustmentin pro-
nunciation"(1948: 7). Some three hundredyears earlier
Varo had remarkedin the preface to his grammarthat,
just as aspiring Latinists should be thoroughly conver-
sant with Cicero, anyone who would learn to speak Man-
darin well "should be exposed to all those [presentday]
Ciceros who in China are in fact the books they call sido
8
Exceptionsprobablyexistedin newly settledareassuchas
thesouthwestandnorthwest frontierregions,wheremilitaryand
colonialvarietiesof the koin6couldhavebecomethe primary
linguisticmediausedby manyspeakers.
550 Journal of the American Oriental Society 120.4 (2000)
xue /JJ\ ['vernacularnovels']." Fifty years after Varo,
Premare (1893: 35) was to express a similar view. Thus,
it would seem that vernacularliteraturecame to be both a
repositoryof Mandarinlexicon and syntax and the vehi-
cle for their transmissionduring much of the language's
history. Regardless of what native dialect one spoke, for
correct Mandarinusage it was to sources such as these
that one could turn for guidance.
This intimate relationship between spoken Guanhua
and the broadcorpus of written vernacularor bdihua lit-
erature leads to a furtherconsideration. Previous gram-
matical studies of these texts have sometimes focused
on the question of their dialectal underpinnings, even
attempting to determine "which dialect" they represent.
But our findings suggest that,to the extent thatthese writ-
ings reflect spoken Chinese, they may not be directly con-
nected with dialects per se but ratherwith varieties of the
spoken koin6, Guanhua. At most, vernaculartexts may
contain nothing more dialectal than occasional intrusive
regionalisms, like Varo'sxeu tung lt, grafted onto the
general trunk of the received lexicon and syntax. In the
end, the full extent to which spoken Guanhuaand vernac-
ularliterarylanguagearerelatedremainsto be determined
by detailed comparisonbetween source materialssuch as
those mentioned here and the broadcorpus of vernacular
literarytexts.
The transmission process for Mandarinphonology is
less clear thanthatfor lexicon and syntax. Throughoutthe
life of Ming-Qing Mandarinthere were traditionalrime
tables andrelatedworkswhich dealt in one way or another
with Guanhua(see Geng 1992), but these were the baili-
wick of adepts in the very specialized field of traditional
phonology. It is uncertainto what extent the generalrunof
educated speakers would have delved into them. In the
1730s the central government established schools for
Guanhua pronunciationin the provinces of Fijian and
Guangdong(Paderni 1988; Geng 1992: 120, n. 1; Masini
1993: 4), but the rest of the country seems to have been
left to its own resources.9For the majority of Guanhua
9 Whatsortof textbookswereusedin the
mid-QingGuanhuh
schoolsremainsan interestingquestion.A possiblerepresenta-
tiveof themmaybe thesomewhatlaterZhengyinQieyunzhtndn
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:13:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
users, acquiring correct pronunciationmay have been a
rather informal and individual matter, as Chao's obser-
vations suggest. This might explain why a large-scale
shift of the sort observed in the mid-nineteenth-century
Guanhua sound system was more likely to occur in the
phonological sphere than in the textually codified areas
of lexicon and syntax.
In closing, the above conclusions lead us to a more
generalreflectionon the natureof Chinese koin6s. Ming-
Qing Mandarinis the traditionalkoine which lies closest
to the present and which we are best able to observe in
detail. For this reason it provides a suggestive model for
hypotheses about the natureof even earlier standardlan-
guages, such as those of the medieval period, concerning
which we have less direct evidence. To begin, we must
entertain the possibility that these earlier standardlan-
guages were never, within the period of imperialunity at
least, the naturaldialects of particularplaces. Secondly
and more specifically, we must grapple with the likeli-
hood that their phonologies were eclectic and composite
and that their lexicons were to some extent text-basedand
thereforeunnaturallyconstrainedby textual norms. And,
finally, we must question whether koin6s of this type
could ever have been ancestralto true, spoken dialects of
later periods, as traditionalphilologists such as Bernhard
Karlgren have sometimes suggested, and whether suc-
cessive koines fell into direct lines of historical filiation,
of the "Old Chinese > "Middle Chinese" > "Modern
Chinese" variety, as has hitherto often been assumed by
Chinese historical linguists. The study of Mandarin,the
Ming-Qing koin6, is importantin its own right as a spe-
cialty within Chinese historical linguistics. But beyond
that it may serve as a laboratoryfor the study of tradi-
tional Chinese koin6s throughouthistory.
-E'tEJffi hti (Canton,1860)of ShaYizuniy? i4.Thiswork
is in facta collectionof tabularly
arranged
homophone lists.One
canimaginethatthe teachingtechniquewas to impartorallyto
the studentsthe correctpronunciation of eachlist andthenre-
quirethemto practicethesaidreadingandmemorizeall charac-
ters in the list. Twomoresuchtextbooks,not availableto me,
havebeenmentionedby Paderni(1988:262, n. 20).
 COBLIN: A Brief History of Mandarin51 551

REFERENCES

Barrow,John. 1806. Travelsin China. London:Cadell & Davies. Hti Mingydng MHJM 1987. B9ijinghua chfttrn ALATUAMM4.
Chao, Y. R. khTf?. 1948. MandarinPrimer.Cambridge,Mass.: Peking: Shangwu.
HarvardUniv. Press. Jiitng, Shiioy6i#M M 1989. Ga Hainyac(hui giingyio -NAUIA
1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: Peking: Peking Univ. Press.
Univ. of California Press. 1994. Jindiii Ha4nyiiydnjia gtiikuang fI{
Chao, Y. R., and Lien-sheng Yang. 1962. Concise Dictionary of fKR Peking: Peking Univ. Press.
Spoken Chinese. Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniv. Press. Jiangsti sh6ng h6 Sh'anghAish)ifangydindiaochd zhiddozii6
Chao, Y. R. et al. 1948. Hdibaifdngydndiaochd baiogiioMJL}i~ ~~~~ ~~~1960.
Jidingsiashang hd6
-4 Shanghai: Shangwu. Shtinghadi shi fdingydngaikuang jj~f?Qf~~`KR
Chen, Ping. 1995. "Pathof Grammaticalizationof 'Zhu':A Case N.p.: Jiangsu renmin.
Study of Aspect Genesis in Chinese."In Studies on the His- Kim, Kwangjo. 1991. "A Phonological Study of Middle Manda-
tory of Chinese Syntax, ed. Chaofen Sun. Pp. 203-23. Jour- rin: Reflected in Korean Sources of the Mid-15th and Early
nal of Chinese Linguistics monographseries, no. 10. 16th Centuries."Ph.D. diss., University of Washington.
1999. Modern Chinese: History and Sociolinguistics.
Li, Xinku6i #J*.1994. "L'un'ZhflngyudnyIny'in' de x'ing-
Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press. zhi ji ta su6 d4aibidode yinxY'" r rPW el ,ItNR
Coblin, W. South. 1997. "Notes on the Sound System of Late - In LI Xtnku,6i
yaiydnxuelaj -1nf i
Ming Guanhua."MonumentaSerica 45: 261-307. afff Peking: Zhonghua.
1999. "Thoughts on the Identity of the Chinese
Lin, Tao 4A "Beijing gudnhua s'u yuan ALATVaM "
'Phags-paDialect." In Issues in Chinese Dialect Description
Zhd5nggu6yiiwanF-k~-33: 161-69.
and Classification, ed. Richard V. Simmons. Pp. 84-144.
Lidi, Xtinning tft* 1985. "Xiand'ai Wany6iijuw6i 'le' de
Journal of Chinese Linguistics monographseries, no. 15.
Forthcominga. "Phags-paChinese and the Standard
1985: 128-33.
Reading Pronunciatonof Early Ming A ComparativeStudy."
L6, Gu6ydo ViK14. 1985. "Mingd4aigudnhua ji qi jichil
Forthcomingin Languageand Linguistics(AcademiaSinica).
fangyan w6nti" Ndnjtng
.Forthcoming b. "The Phonology of Proto-Central
d,ixua6xueb6oT~DT, 4: 47-52.
Jidng-Huai: An Exercise in Comparative Reconstructure."
Lfl Shiixidng ERA 1985. Jindaii Htinya!zhtdciict
Forthcoming in F. K. Li memorial volume. ri

Forthcomingc. "A DiachronicStudy of Ming Gu5nhu4a t~~.Shanghai: Xuelin.

Phonology."Forthcomingin MonumentaSerica 48 (2000). Masini, Frederico. 1993. The Formation of Modern Chinese
Coblin, W. South, and Joseph A. Levi. 2000. Francisco Varo's Lexicon and its Evolution toward a National Language: The
Grammar of the Mandarin Language (1703): An English Period from 1840 to 1898. Journal of Chinese Linguistics
Translationof the 'Arte de la lengua Mandarina'.Amster- monographseries, no. 6.
dam: John Benjamins. Mei, T L. W11M 1977. "Tones and Tone Sandhi in Sixteenth
Edkins, Joseph. 1864. A Grammar of the Chinese Colloquial CenturyMandarin."Journalof ChineseLinguistics5: 237-60.
Language CommonlyCalled the Mandarin Dialect. Shang- 1989. "H4anyif-angyanlixtcic'zhe/zhu6' z3 sanzho'ng
hai: PresbyterianMission Press. y'ongfade laiyuan" -~~~1-~ IP"t" r ~ ~n
Furuya,Akihirot R n 1988. "Hinshumondiishigi no onkei" ~.Zh35nggu6i bMo ~M tf % 3: 191-206.
yiiydnxud6
r- ~9f- N) Kai Pian: Chiigokugogaku kenkyiir7f Monteyro, Joseph (1646-1720). No date. "Principios da Lin-
gua Sinica Mandarina."Bibliotheca da Academia Real das
1989. "Mindai kanwa no isshiryii: Ricci, Ruggieri Sciencias de Lisboa, Lisbon.
no 'Hinshumondfl shigi'-" HAi 5 O , 9 -Y1' Morrison, Robert. 18 15-22. Dictionary of the Chinese Lang-
"/X---9QOD FWI:1-rW
ikL-',Y 7t lI11iJ - . Ti5y5 gakuhdW5 uage, in Three Parts. Macao and London: The Honorable
V* 70.3-4: 1-25. East India Company's Press.
G6ng, Zh6nshang 1kINt-t. 1992. M(ng-Qtng d9ngyi~nxuj Norman, Jerry L. 1988. Chinese. Cambridge:CambridgeUniv.
ttngltin HA IARA_afl Peking: Yuwen. Press.
Giles, HerbertA. 1892. A Chinese English Dictionary. London: .1997. "Some Thoughts on the Early Development of
B. Quaritch. Mandarin."In Hashimoto Mantari3kinen: ChCagokugogaku
1901. Chinese without a Teacher,Being a Collection ronshii ~ ~: rP-,A 'ffX ed. AnneYue-
of Easy and Useful Sentences in the Mandarin Dialect. Hashimoto and Endo Tamaki.Pp. 21-28. Tokyo: Uchiyama
Shanghai: Kelly & Walsh. shoten.
Hanan,Patrick.1981. The Chinese VernacularStory.Cambridge, Ota, Tatsuo 1958 (1987). Chaigokurekishi bump,5
Mass.: HarvardUniv. Press. - -
LfP
NgF*'- Tokyo: K6nan shoin. Chinese translationby

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:13:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
552 Journal of the American Oriental Society 120.4 (2000)
Jiang Shaoyu and Xu Changhuiafi V. 1987. Peking: Pe-
king Univ. Press.
Paderi, Paola. 1988. "The Problem of kuan-huain Eighteenth
CenturyChina:The Yung-chengDecreeforFukienandKuang-
tung."Annali, Istituto Orientalede Napoli 48.4: 257-65.
Premare,Joseph. 1730. Notitia Linguae Sinicae. First circulated
in manuscript; then published 1831, Malacca: Academiae
Anglo-Sinensis; 1893, Hong Kong: Societe des Missions-
Etrangeres.[Both editions used in the present study.]
Pulleyblank,E. G. 1991. Lexiconof ReconstructedPronunciation
in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese, and Early
Mandarin.Vancouver:Univ. of British ColumbiaPress.
Ricci, Matteo. 1953. China in the Sixteenth Century: The Jour-
nals of Matthew Ricci: 1583-1610. Tr. Louis J. Gallagher,
S.J. New York: Random House.
Simmons, RichardVanNess. 1995. "A Note on the Phonology of
the Towa sanyo." JAOS 115: 26-32.
.1997. A Second Look at the Towa sanyo: Clues to
the Nature of the GuanhuahStudied by the Japanese in the
Early Eighteenth Century."JAOS 117: 419-26.
Stent, George C. 1877. A Chinese and English Vocabularyof the
Pekinese Dialect. Shanghai:American PresbyterianMission
Press.
Sun, Chaofen. 1996. Word-OrderChange and Grammaticaliza-
tion in the History of Chinese. Stanford:StanfordUniv. Press.
.1998. "AspectualCategories that Overlap:A Histori-
cal and Dialectal Perspective of the Chinese Zhe." Journal
of East Asian Linguistics 7.2: 153-74.
Takata,Tokio i HE frt. 1988. Tonkoshiryo ni yoru Chigokugo
shi no kenkyiu ~i W a 4o[]P
5t:. - Tokyo:
Sobunsha.
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:13:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Trigault,N. 1626. Xiru egrmiuzitg H.
E Rpt. Peking, 1933.
Varo, Francisco. 1703. Arte de la Lengua Mandarina.Ed. Pedro
de la Pifiuela. Canton. Biblioteca dell' Accademia Nazionale
dei Lincei e Corsiniana, Rome, and Bibliotheque Nationale
de France, Paris.
.MSS. "Vocabulario de la Lengua Mandarina."Ger-
man State Library,Berlin, and the British Library,London.
Wade, Thomas F 1867. A Progressive Course Designed to
assist the student of Colloquial Chinese as spoken in the
Capital and the Metropolitan Department. London: Triib-
ner & Co.
Wang Li :EJ7. 1958. Hanyu shtgdo iPIftF4 . Peking: Kexue.
Wenzi gaig6 chiubnsh6e ~t-i i . 1957. Mingmo
ludmazi zhuyin wenzhang B)5,.,,E-:t- Peking:
Wenzi gaige.
Williams, S. Wells. 1844. English and Chinese Vocabulary in
the Court Dialect. Macao: Office of the Chinese Repository.
Yang, Paul E-M. 1989. "The Portuguese-ChineseDictionary of
Matteo Ricci: A Historical and Linguistic Introduction."
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Si-
nology, Section on Linguistics and Paleography, 1: 191-241.
Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Yu, Min AiW. 1984. "Beijing yinxi de ch6ngzhang he ta shbu
de zhouw6i yingxiang"jL, E {J:[ .Ja WJ
Fangydn 1984: 272-77.
Yuchi, Zhiping 7I~M^ . 1990. "Lao Qida Piao tongshi yanjie
Hanziyin de yiyin jichi" ;k ' ~[t'_-
iM :
A. Yuiydn ydnjiui 1 I-ffA 1990.1: 11-24.