Although the Saussurian contention that a “langue” is a system of signs, where they are determined by mutual contrast and discrimination, and the consequent clear cut separation of linguistic study into “synchronique” and “diachronique”, are perfectly valid, as operational postulates, they are over simplificcation of reality. A language is a hierarchical structure where innumerable elements form several closed parts such as phonemes, morphemes on different levels as well as cases, tenses in different categories on the same level. Elements of each part contrast each other and form a complete entity by themselves, which exists by itself in isolation, e. g. cases and numbers of noun, but on a higher level several parts of a lower level become elements forming another part, e. g. noun, and so on. Consequently each part has its own history, and undergoes change by itself regardless of the rest of the linguistic system. Further a language, though a social phemenon, is after all a result of accumulation of patterns in the memory of individuals belonging to a linguistic community. Each individual is receiving linguistic experiences all the time and accumulating them through the “parole”, which would alter his linguistic patterns. These experiences come from various sources which would represent different dialects, different social environments. The result of which is that a language at a given time and place is not a well-knit system of signs on the same diachronic level. As a language is a final stage of a long tradition, the patters of which forming by themselves their own parts severally, all its patterns are not on the same diachronic level. Some are old, antiquated, almost dying, some are still vigorous although old, some are recently created and so on. There are other differences, social, dialectal, familiar, formal. These considerations lead us to the conclusion that a language is a conglomerate, at least, of several different systems of signs not wholly coordinated. Apparent synchronization is due to the fact that they are controlled by individuals. Therefore if the study of a language is conducted following its patterns and systems on their different levels, we might be able to combine the synchronic and diachronic phases, reconciliate their antithesis as well as get the real structure of a language in its synchronic phase.

View full abstract

In recent years, there have appeared new interpretations of the Ancient Chinese from the phonemic point of view, e.g. The Phonemes of Ancient Chinese (Supplement to the JAOS No.16 1953) by Samuel E. MARTIN, “Setsuin no imbo o kaishaku -suru”(in the Okayama Daigaku Hobungakubu Kiyo 3, 1954) by Fumio KUSAKABE, and “Chtigokugo no Shiteki-on'inron”(in the Nihon Cita gokugakkai Kaiho 6, 1954) by Akiyasu TODO One of the most controversial problems is how to solve the isolated final in the rhyme The author assumes this final as *aun just as FORREST reconstructed in his The Chinese Language (London 1948), and pushing this assumption to the whole system of finals, he attempts a tentative solution of the system of finals in the Ancient Chinese (represented by the Ts'ie-Yün) as shown on p.16. The apparent self-consistency of the system, however, does not necessarily mean that the Ts'ie-Yün was compiled basing on one dialect as assumed by B. KARLGREN and CHOU Fakao. The author follows the opinion that the Ts'ie-Yün had the characteristics of the Northern standard language reflecting partially the system of prcedent times and also of another dialects. The different usage of fan-ts'ie in Hsiian-Ying's Yi-ts'ie Ching Yin-yi shows that the system of the Ts'se-Yuuml;n had been followed as a norm at that period.

View full abstract