In: Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association (1989) XXIV.1:43-61.

CHINESE. By Jerry Norman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Pp. xi, 292.
$54.50 hardcover. $17.95 paperback.

1. The book is the fifth in a series of Cambridge Language Surveys whose main goal is the general account of the major languages of the world for linguistics students and general linguists. As there are surpisingly few general books in English on Chinese for such readers, Norman's Chinese fills a lacuna as a much-needed introduction to the Chinese language. It is useful for the general linguist seeking some overall knowledge of the phonology, syntax, genetic relationship, writing system, and historical development of Chinese, as well as some understanding of China's language policies, past, present, and future.

N has published widely on both Chinese and Altaic languages. Chinese is one of his first works on Chinese that is not intended solely for the specialist in Chinese linguistics. With his intimate knowledge of the Chinese language, N succeeds in presenting succinctly and in a lucid style numerous intriguing facets of the language's long history and great geographical spread. Drawing from a wealth of knowledge, he brings to his readers information as well as views and perspectives that only a veteran in the field can.

The main thesis of the book is that there are numerous varieties of Chinese, representing different historical stages and geographical variants, from the oracle bones of the Shang dynasty (16th - 11th c. B.C.) to the standard and dialectal forms of the modern language. N's goal is to examine Chinese in its many diverse aspects with the hope of clarifying some of their differences and interrelations. N divides the book into ten chapters, which vary in length from nineteen to thirty-five pages. The introductory chapter includes typological characteristics of Chinese and its genetic affiliation; Chapter 2 presents a fairly detailed study of historical Chinese phonology and its tradition; Chapter 3 gives the history of the writing system and recent developments; Chapter 4 presents a linguistic description of the classical and literary languages used in the past; Chapter 5 continues with the rise and development of today's written vernacular; Chapters 6 and 7 describe the phonology and syntax of the modern standard language; Chapters 8 and 9 outline the major Chinese dialects and their characteristics; and Chapter 10 concludes the book with a study of some sociolinguistic issues, touching upon such topics as prestige forms, diglossia, bilingualism, and language reform.

N's expertise on Chinese linguistics is primarily in historical Chinese phonology and dialectology, and it is in those two areas in particular (Chapters 3, 8 and 9) that N's greatest contribution lies. N's interest in dialectology is furthermore historical in perspective, with the view to reconstructing and understanding the historical development of the Chinese dialects. Historical Chinese phonology and dialectology are precisely the subjects traditionally taught in Asian language departments. There are also topics to which linguists working in Indo-European and modern languages are least exposed, because works concerning such topics are normally written for scholars steeped in the historical Chinese tradition. N's book is thus rare in acquainting the general reader with that tradition, and introducing him or her to the rich information on the characteristics of the major regional varieties of Chinese.

In general, N has handled astutely the broad range and massive array of information from diverse sources in English, Chinese, Japanese, French, German, as well as Russian, the last of which is typically less frequently studied and hence less accessible to American scholars working in Chinese linguistics. Due to his knowledge of Japanese and less well-studied Russian sources, N is able to use important findings in syntactic changes by Ohta and Gurevich, and incorporate them into Chapter 5 in his construction of a more updated history of grammatical development in Chinese during the past two thousand years. Thus, in the chapter, N points to some first-hand data in Buddhist texts and various genres of popular literature, and suggests a method for identifying and dating innovations. In view of the present infant stage of the study of historical grammar in Chinese, N's perspectives in historical Chinese grammar are of great value for future research in diachronic Chinese syntax.

Although N's expertise in not in modern Chinese syntax and his account of Chinese grammar in Chapter 7 is far too sketchy, he has some observations of his own to offer. For example, in discussing the plural suffix -men, he notes that it tends to refer to groups of people taken collectively. This observation and the highly restricted use of the suffix in question suggest an interesting theory that Chinese does not have 'number' as an overt grammatical category as in English. Furthermore, as an expert in Manchu, N is able to compare Manchu and Chinese to support Lyon's (1968) proposal of a transformational relationship between locative and existential sentences. N's remark concerning the "semantic looseness that characterizes the relationship of subject and predicate in Chinese" (167) is an insightful one with many ramifications for constructing formal grammars of Chinese beyond the conceptualization of Chinese as a topic-comment or as a discourse-oriented language.

N's remarks on various aspects of Chinese sociolinguistics are also refreshing. The shift of wenyan 'classical literary language' to baihua 'vernacular written language' on the one hand, and the development of quanhua 'Mandarin' to putonghua 'common language' on the other hand, represent China's most important sociolinguistic development in this century. Borrowing terms from Ferguson (1964), N pertinently sums up this development as from 'diglossia' to 'standard-with-dialects' (Chapter 10). His comparison of Classical Chinese in the history of China to that of Greek and Latin in Western history is illustrative for students of general linguistics, while his emphasis on the importance of the Classical literary element in modern written Chinese is particularly instructive for students of the Chinese language.

As a general introduction to the Chinese language, N has succeeded unequivocally. There are shortcomings, however, which will be illustrated in the next section. The review closes with an elaboration of a few of the central issues in Chinese linguistics raised by N.

2. This section is divided into four subsections. In section 2.1, we will present some inadequacies as a textbook for an introductory course. Sections 2.2 and 2.3 point out some of the major weaknesses in the conceptual framework that he has adopted for analyzing the phonology and syntax of Chinese. In the final subsection, we present some errors in his observations and analyses of grammatical rules of Chinese.

2.1. N sees as his intended readers both general linguists and specialists in Chinese studies. However, there is a bias in favor of the latter category.1 On page xi, for example, N kindly supplies a chronological table of the Chinese dynasties, but omits the modern period after the fall of the last dynasty in 1911, assuming at least a nodding acquaintance with China's modern history. A map of the provinces of China and other geographical locations would have been useful, so that references to Hunan, Yunnan, Guangxi, Hainan Island, the Yellow River Plain, and so forth in Chapter 1 would not be totally mystifying for readers not familiar with these names and their whereabouts. A linguistic atlas of China and its neighbors would also prove useful for reading the first chapter dealing with China's linguistic neighbors.

If the book is to be used as a textbook for an introductory course in Chinese linguistics, a character glossary of names and terms in the book would enhance its value.2 Further elucidation of figures 2.1 and 2.2 in Chapter 2, showing pages from the Guangyun rhyme dictionary and the Yunjing rhyme table respectively, is highly recommended to assist readers in overcoming the formidable task of comprehending the mysteries of these ancient Chinese works, which serve as the primary sources for the reconstruction of Middle Chinese. An explanation of the layout of the two figures, showing the location of both labelled and unlabelled terms and concepts that have been introduced, would facilitate reading of the chapter. Though written in a clear, expository style, Chapter 2 is one of the longest chapters, and is undoubtedly the most difficult to understand. It would be particularly overwhelming for uninitiated readers who are confronted by a barrage of unfamiliar, indigenous Chinese terms and concepts. Different ideas concerning reconstructions notwithstanding, even the interpretation of concepts such as deng 'grade, division' remains under dispute today (e.g., Pulleyblank 1984, Hsueh 1985). Readers cannot help but gain an appreciation for the monumental task of reconstructing the history of the Chinese language after reading the chapter.

Regarding technical aspects such as printing errors, they are relatively few in number. Most of them pertain to the misplacement of tone diacritics, particularly in the diphthong ui, where the tones are almost inevitably placed incorrectly above the u instead of over the i. There are also a few minor typographical errors, such as 1961 instead of 1960 for the Yuan's work on page 181, and hak7d instead of hak7b on page 221, and the misalignment of the lateral l in Table 2.3 on page 36. A slightly more serious error is the inclusion of a labialized velar nasal for the Yue dialect spoken in Guangzhou (or 'Canton'), for example. On the whole, the book appears to be relatively error-free.

2.2. One of the major weaknesses of the book is its reference primarily to works in the structuralist tradition. It ignores those in the generative framework and other post-structuralist approaches, thus bypassing many of the more recent well-cited contributions to modern Chinese phonology and syntax outside China. To do justice to the efforts by Chinese linguists in the United States in the past two decades, in the area of phonology, N should at least mention William Wang's theory of lexical diffusion (cf. Wang 1969, Chen and Wang 1973), his system of binary features for tones (Wang 1967), C.C. Cheng's (1973) generative treatment of Mandarin phonology, and more recent works in the autosegmental framework (e.g., Yip 1980). In the area of syntax, recognition needs to be given to Wang (1963, 1965) and Hashimoto (1971) for their pioneering contribution to Chinese transformational grammar, to Li and Thompson's (1981) functional grammar, and more recent works in the framework of the Government and Binding Theory (e.g., Huang 1982).

Due to his interest in historical Chinese phonology and not modern Chinese phonology, N provides only a quick sketch of the latter. In contrast to devoting thirty-five pages to historical Chinese phonology, N spends only about thirteen pages on the phonological system of the modern standard. Moreover, the phonetic and phonological description rely almost exclusively on Chao (1948, 1968), Kratochvil (1968), and Li (1963), with periodic references to well-known works by American structuralists, Samuel Martin (1957), Charles Hockett (1947) and Lawton Hartman (1944). Thus, N overlooks the research on segmental and prosodic phenomena. For example, N's comment that "the basic insights of medieval phonologists into syllabic structure have continued to maintain their validity, despite recurrent attempts to reinterpret Chinese phonology in ways more in conformity with Western linguistic theories" (138) does not take into consideration the incorporation of the syllable as a viable phonological unit in current phonological theories.

The syllable as a phonological unit has had mixed reception among American structuralists precisely because of linguists' inability to give it an adequate phonetic definition. Early generative phonologists working within the 'standard theory' of Chomsky and Halle's (1968) were similarly reluctant to introduce the syllable as an organizational unit in their theory. The tide only changed as a result of such influential works as Kahn (1976), which incorporated the syllable into autosegmental phonology. McCarthy (1979) further introduced internal structure into the syllable, with a bipartitite division into 'onset' and 'rhyme'. Thus, not only has syllable structure been incorporated into current linguistic theory, but also the subdivision into 'onset' and 'rhyme' for some phonologists, which corresponds as a result, to the medieval Chinese phonologists' tradition of dividing the syllable in Chinese into 'initial' and 'final', a tradition that has existed since late Han, or early second century A.D.

2.3. Although N works essentially within the structuralist tradition, in describing Classical Chinese sentences in Chapter 4, N has not, in fact, followed the traditional structural approach by treating non-declarative sentence types -- imperative and interrogative -- on a par with declarative sentences. They are treated as grammatical operations along with negation, voice, and modality. The underlying conceptualization is indeed reminiscent of the earliest transformational grammar by Chomsky (1957). As N has not clarified his reasons for so doing, this particular mode of description appears to be peculiar. On the other hand, one would wish he has discussed even briefly important grammatical operations such as deletion, topicalization, and relativization.

A very valuable account of grammatical changes in Chinese is given in Chapter 5. However, it is lacking in one important area, namely, some general observations regarding the similarities and differences between Classical Chinese and Modern Chinese. It seems that N has decided to let the reader infer from the data given. Nevertheless, if N aims for some generalizations in this regard, significant questions would immediately arise as to how the topic-comment construction in Modern Chinese has developed, and as to whether the serial verb construction in Modern Chinese has its analog in the constructions conjoined with the particles er 'then' and ze 'then' in Classical Chinese. There is one very striking difference between Classical Chinese and Modern Chinese which has been neglected by N. While Classical Chinese, like English, abounds in denominal verbs such as 'to father' and 'to clothe', they form a very limited set in modern Chinese. N's generalization of changes in word order in Chinese at the end of the chapter is, however, significant and close to the truth of the matter. Contrary to Li and Thompson's theory that Chinese has changed dramatically from SVO to SOV, N takes the position that word order in Chinese has remained remarkably stable throughout the history, a position shared by many Chinese linguists.

2.4. N's outline of the essentials of modern Chinese grammar in Chapter 7 is very sketchy, and does not do full justice to many of the important properties of this language. Moreover, as N has limited himself to the structuralist point of view, he fails to see many interesting characteristics of the grammar of Chinese from the point of transformational grammar and other post-structuralist modes of analyses. Even from the structuralist point of view, N's has made some errors in his presentation of modern Chinese grammar. For instance, N defines a verb in Chinese as a word "that can immediately be negated by bu 'not' and can be followed by a set of typically verbal suffixes like -le 'suffix perfect aspect', and -zhe 'suffix for durative aspect'" (157). Here, N uses a conjunctive definition which would exclude the copula verb shi 'to be' and the locative verb zai 'to be located at', since neither of the two verbs can be suffixed by either -le or -zhe. While a disjunctive definition would include the two verbs in question, it has two undesirable consequences. It would not be able to distinguish verbs from auxiliaries and adverbs on the one hand (the latter two can be negated by bu as in ta bu hui lai 'He will not come.' and in ta bu yiding lai 'He is not certain to come.'), and from coverbs and prepositions on the other (as can be seen in sentences such as ta gen-zhe wo zou-le bantian 'He walked with me for a long time.' and ta yan-zhe he zou-le bantian 'He walked along the river for a long time.'). It is obvious then that N's criteria for a verb in Chinese can apply only disjunctively, and only as necessary conditions. They must be supplemented by sufficient conditions. For another instance, in making the distinction between adjectives (as intransitive verbs of state) and verbs proper, N states that "adjectives can be modified by hen and verbs proper cannot" (157). This classification would immediately put stative transitive verbs such as xihuan 'to like' and xiang 'to desire' outside the category of verbs proper. It appears that hen serves as an excellent test for a stative predicative regardless whether the predicative contains a transitive or an intransitive verb. Thus, while sentences such as ta hen ku 'He cries a lot' and wo hen yao ni 'I want you very much' are ungrammatical, sentences such as zheiben shu hen zhide nian 'This book is very worth reading.' and ta hen yao mianzi 'He is very keen on face-saving.' are grammatical.

Some of N's statements regarding important grammatical rules in Chinese are inadequate. For instance, in stating "nouns which lack such definite modifiers can still be shown to be definite by putting them at the beginning of the sentence, or at least before the verb" (160), N fails to note that a bare noun in postverbal position can be interpreted as either definite or indefinite in different pragmatic contexts. Thus, in his sentence (2) on page 160, wo mei gei ta shu, the bare noun shu can be understood as 'the book' in conversational discourse. Since N has appropriately used the principle of 'marked' versus 'unmarked' to account for the ambiguity in the perfective interpretation in verbs without -le, the same 'markedness' principle can be applied to the interpretation of a bare noun with respect to definiteness. A principle governing definiteness interpretation in Chinese can be stated to the effect that while a bare noun in preverbal positions is 'marked' for definite interpretation, a bare noun in postverbal positions is 'unmarked'.

N's statement regarding the occurrence conditions for the negative mei is incomplete. First, as the existential negative, mei, can also occur with zai, in addition to the existential verb you. The subtle meaning difference between bu zai and mei zai is that bu zai is often used to describe situations of more permanent non-existence in the past, or the temporary non-existence in the present and the future, while mei zai is often used to describe situations of temporary non-existence in the past. Second, contrary to N's note that "auxiliary verbs are always negated with bu and not with mei" (165), the auxiliary neng 'to be able to' can be negated with mei, meaning 'to have failed to'.

3. We turn now to some central issues in Chinese linguistics raised by N. The issues to be discussed evolve around five main concerns: (1) the continuing controversy over the traditional use of 'dialects' among Chinese linguists and the preference for the term 'language' among general linguists for Mandarin, Cantonese, etc., (2) the criteria for classification of the regional dialects and N's new set of diagnostic features for the classification of Chinese, (3) Chinese as a non-tonal language originally, (4) the analysis of word classes, and (5) N's equation of putonghua 'the common language' with guoyu 'national language.'

3.1. In the general linguistics literature, the various dialect groups of Chinese, such as Mandarin, Cantonese, Wu and Min, are often treated as separate languages, based on the criterion of mutual intelligibility and taking as the model the Latin-derived, Romance languages of Europe. Ever since Bloomfield (1933:44) treated the term 'Chinese' as denoting "a family of mutually unintelligible languages," this controversy remains unresolved, with Western linguists using the term 'languages', and Chinese specialists using the term 'dialects'. In Chapter 1, N argues for the notion of a single Chinese language -- albeit manifested in numerous spoken and written forms during its history -- as due foremost to the Chinese language with its single script as a powerful symbol of cultural and political unity. A vernacular literary language, which has developed since the Tang dynasty (AD 618) and is the precursor of the modern standard written language, co-existed with the classical literary language until the early twentieth century. Such a development occurred without competing literary forms from non-standard, regional dialects rising to national stature and prestige. Ultimately, N argues that China has had one written and spoken standard language throughout most of its history. Thus, there exists a single orthographic system, a single national standard, and the perception of political, linguistic, and cultural unity in China. At the same time, there is inherent difficulty in applying the notion of 'mutual intelligibility' in cases of dialect chains, and in the recognition that there is not always an absolute, so that socio-political, economic and educational factors may determine the degree of 'mutual intelligibility'. Given these linguistic and extralinguistic considerations, perhaps the general linguists will concede to referring to Mandarin, Cantonese (Yue), Wu, Hakka (Kejia), etc., as regional dialects of Chinese, while allowing the Dutch, for example, to regard Dutch and German as two separate languages for reasons of national identity.