Asian Civilization Research from the Perspective of the Linguistics
Cheng Gong1,2, Liu Jiaqi1
1.School of International Studies, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China 2.The Institute of Asian Civilizations, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
Abstract：This paper explores the possible ways that linguistics, broadly construed as the study of both the spoken and written forms of human language, can contribute to the understanding of Asian civilizations. It is argued that insights may be gained by investigating the following fields of research. The first one concerns the genesis and disposal of language families. One striking fact about Asia is that it was the homeland of some of the most important phyla of languages, as 7 out of the world’s top 10 language families originated from two regions at the two extremities of this continent. One is the Futile Crescent, with Afro-Asiatic, Indo-European, Caucasian, and, possibly, Dravidian (which may be traced back to the now extinct Elamite) families; and the other is the Yangtze-Yellow River Basin, with Sino-Tibetan, Tai-Kadai, Austro-Asiatic, Austronesian, and the Miao-Yao (Hmong-Mien) families. These families together command 5.3 billion speakers, accounting for about 74% of the world’s population today. Moreover, the top 10 languages with the largest number of speakers all belong to these families. This prominence in language can be profitably employed in the studies of Asian civilizations, especially if we take the well-known Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis as a guideline, according to which early civilizations were brought about by the advent of agriculture, which offered better substance economy than hunting-gathering, leading to a dramatic increase in population, sedentary villages and towns, and the essential social and productive foundations of the first civilizations.The second area that linguistics may shed lights on the study of Asian civilizations is language contacts, by which speakers of different languages (or different dialects) interact with one another, leading to a transfer of linguistic features in various degrees. Such contacts offer a glimpse into the intimacy and the frequency of the interactions between and among different population groups, and more importantly, the nature of loanwords and other features into the contacting languages. The study of contact-induced areal diffusion, where similarities of linguistic features in terms of construction types, grammatical categories and organization of lexical and grammatical meaning, is also a helpful source of information about the communications of different populations as in the well-known case of Mainland Southeast Asian area. Moreover, interethnic communications are also evidenced by special languages which mixed features from different languages such as pidgins and creoles, as well as mixed languages generated in multilingual settings, including Sri Lankan Malay, and some varieties of Chinese like Daohua, Wutun and Tangwang languages. Intimate connections between population migration and language contacts can also be profitably investigated in the study of Asian civilizations.Writing, widely considered as one of the most important products of human civilization, is undoubtedly yet another area that linguistics can contribute to the study of civilizations in Asia. Early Asian civilizations and their writings may be deciphered in tandem as Asia is the land that witnessed the invention of the world’s first writing system, the cuneiform script, as well as the ancestor of most alphabetic systems, the Phoenician alphabet. Major script families can unveil a lot about the spread and spheres of different civilizations. There are three of them: Brāhmī, Arabic, and Chinese, representing Hinduism-Buddhism, Islam, and Confucianism respectively. Moreover, the huge amount of literature in the form of translation testifies the intensity of cultural exchanges on the continent.Building on a demonstration of the significance of linguistics in the field of Asian civilization studies, the present paper further examines some possible directions that linguistics can be better integrated into the study of Asian civilizations. It is suggested that while an increased willingness and greater efforts are needed, a synthesis with adjacent disciplines is required, as each discipline has its own advantages and limitations. So far as linguistics is concerned, its advantage over some other disciplines such as archaeology and genetics lies in the fact that it has a complete database in living languages and a reconstructed database from anciently written languages. Its limitations, however, are obvious, given the fact that present technologies do not permit the reconstruction to go too far beyond preliterate times. It is therefore argued that linguists need to update their technology, and, more crucially, take a multidisciplinary approach with which they can build in-depth cooperation with scholars from adjacent disciplines such as archaeology and genetics, so as to make greater contributions to the study of Asian civilizations.
程工, 刘家琪. 论语言学在亚洲文明研究中的作用[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2022, 52(2): 87-99.
Cheng Gong, Liu Jiaqi. Asian Civilization Research from the Perspective of the Linguistics. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2022, 52(2): 87-99.
Berwick R. C. & Chomsky N.， Why Only Us： Language and Evolution， Cambridge， MA： MIT Press， 2016.2 Bellwood P.， First Farmers： The Origins of Agricultural Societies， Malden： Blackwell Publishing， 2020.3 Renfrew C.， “Archaeology and language： the puzzle of Indo-European origins，” The American Historical Review， Vol. 29， No. 1 （1987）， pp. 437-441.4 Renfrew C.， “World languages and human dispersals： a minimalist view，” in Hall J. A. & Jarvie I. C. （eds.）， Transition to Modernity： Essays on Power， Wealth and Belief， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 1992， pp. 11-68.5 Bellwood P.， “The Austronesian dispersal and the origin of languages，” Scientific American， Vol. 265， No. 1 （1991）， pp. 88-93.6 Bellwood P.， “The origins and spread of agriculture in the Indo-Pacific region，” in Harris D. R. （ed.）， The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia， London：University College London Press， 1996， pp. 465-498.7 Benedict P. K.， Sino-Tibetan： A Conspectus， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 1972.8 Matisoff J. A.， “Response to Laurent Sagart’s review of Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman： system and philosophy of Sino-Tibetan reconstruction，” Diachronica， Vol. 24， No. 2 （2007）， pp. 435-444.9 Swadesh M.， “Lexico-statistical dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts，” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society， Vol. 96， No. 4 （1952）， pp. 452-463.10 Swadesh M.， “Towards greater accuracy in lexicostatistic dating，” International Journal of American Linguistics， Vol. 21， No. 2 （1955）， pp. 121-137.11 Sagart L.， Jacquesa G. & Lai Y. F. et al.， “Dated language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of Sino-Tibetan，” PNAS， Vol. 116， No. 21 （2019）， pp. 10317-10322.12 Zhang M.， Yan S. & Pan W.， “Phylogenetic evidence for Sino-Tibetan origin in northern China in the Late Neolithic，” Nature， Vol. 569， No. 7754 （2019）， pp. 112-115.13 LaPolla R. J.， “The origin and spread of the Sino-Tibetan language family，” Nature， Vol. 569， No. 7754 （2019）， pp. 45-47.14 Gray R. D.， Drummond A. J. & Greenhill S. J.， “ Language phylogenies reveal expansion pulses and pauses in Pacific settlement，” Science， Vol. 323， No. 5913 （2009）， pp. 479?483.15 Friedlaender J. S.， Friedlaender F. R. & Reed F. A. et al.， “The genetic structure of Pacific Islanders，” PLoS Genetics， Vol. 4， No. 1 （2008）， pp. 173-190.16 Friedlaender J.， Hunley K. & Dunn M. et al.， “Linguistics more robust than genetics，” Science， Vol. 324， No. 5926 （2009）， pp. 464-465.17 洪波、意西微萨·阿错： 《汉语与周边语言的接触类型研究》，《南开语言学刊》2007年第1期，第23-35，164页。18 安英姬： 《汉朝语亲属称谓词对比》，《延边大学学报（社会科学版）》1985年第2期，第38-53页。19 梁敏、张均如： 《从汉台语言的数词是否同源说起》，《民族语文》2004年第2期，第52-56页。20 Enfield N. J.， “On genetic and areal linguistics in mainland South-East Asia： parallel polyfunctionality of ‘acquire’，” in Aikhenvald A. Y. & Dixon R. M. （eds.）， Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance： Problems in Comparative Linguistics， New York： Oxford University Press， 2001， pp. 255-290.21 Bakker P. & Mous M. （eds.）， Mixed Languages： 15 Case Studies in Language Intertwining， Amsterdam： IFOTT， 1994.22 Velupillai V.， Pidgins， Creoles and Mixed Languages： An Introduction， Amsterdam： John Benjamins Publishing Company， 2015.23 孙宏开、胡增益、黄行主编： 《中国的语言》，北京：商务印书馆，2007年。24 徐丹： 《中国境内的混合语及语言混合的机制》，《语言战略研究》2018年第2期，第59-79页。25 LaPolla R. J.， “Language contact and language change in the history of the Sinitic languages，” Procedia： Social and Behavioral Sciences， Vol. 2， No. 5 （2010），pp. 6858-6868.26 Hashimoto M. J.， “The Altaicization of northern Chinese，” in McCoy J. & Light T. （eds.）， Contributions to Sino-Tibetan Studies， Leiden： E. J. Brill， 1986， pp. 76-97.27 Hashimoto M. J.， “Hakka in Wellentheorie perspective，” Journal of Chinese Linguistics， Vol. 20， No. 1 （1992）， pp. 1-48.28 Pope M.， “The origins of writing in the Near East，” Antiquity， Vol. 40， No. 157 （1966）， pp. 17-23.29 周有光： 《世界文字发展史》，上海：上海教育出版社，1997年。30 费孝通： 《乡土中国》，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，1985年。31 祁志祥： 《佛学与中国文化》，上海：学林出版社，2000年。32 王勇： 《大唐盛世与文化疆域》，见季卫东主编：《东亚研究》第1辑，上海：上海交通大学出版社，2019年，第111-123页。33 邢福义、吴振国主编： 《语言学概论》，武汉：华中师范大学出版社，2010年。34 Bomhard A.， Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic： Comparative Phonology， Morphology， and Vocabulary， Leiden： Brill， 2008.35 Starostin S. A.， “On the hypothesis of a genetic connection between the Sino-Tibetan languages and the Yeniseian and north Caucasian languages，” in Shevoroshkin V. （ed.）， Dene-Sino-Caucasian Languages， Bochum：Brockmeyer， 1991， pp. 12-41.36 Renfrew C.， “Archaeogenetics—towards a ‘new synthesis’？” Current Biology， Vol. 20， No. 4 （2010）， pp. 162-165.
1
Berwick R. C. & Chomsky N.， Why Only Us： Language and Evolution， Cambridge， MA： MIT Press， 2016.2 Bellwood P.， First Farmers： The Origins of Agricultural Societies， Malden： Blackwell Publishing， 2020.3 Renfrew C.， “Archaeology and language： the puzzle of Indo-European origins，” The American Historical Review， Vol. 29， No. 1 （1987）， pp. 437-441.4 Renfrew C.， “World languages and human dispersals： a minimalist view，” in Hall J. A. & Jarvie I. C. （eds.）， Transition to Modernity： Essays on Power， Wealth and Belief， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 1992， pp. 11-68.5 Bellwood P.， “The Austronesian dispersal and the origin of languages，” Scientific American， Vol. 265， No. 1 （1991）， pp. 88-93.6 Bellwood P.， “The origins and spread of agriculture in the Indo-Pacific region，” in Harris D. R. （ed.）， The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia， London：University College London Press， 1996， pp. 465-498.7 Benedict P. K.， Sino-Tibetan： A Conspectus， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 1972.8 Matisoff J. A.， “Response to Laurent Sagart’s review of Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman： system and philosophy of Sino-Tibetan reconstruction，” Diachronica， Vol. 24， No. 2 （2007）， pp. 435-444.9 Swadesh M.， “Lexico-statistical dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts，” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society， Vol. 96， No. 4 （1952）， pp. 452-463.10 Swadesh M.， “Towards greater accuracy in lexicostatistic dating，” International Journal of American Linguistics， Vol. 21， No. 2 （1955）， pp. 121-137.11 Sagart L.， Jacquesa G. & Lai Y. F. et al.， “Dated language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of Sino-Tibetan，” PNAS， Vol. 116， No. 21 （2019）， pp. 10317-10322.12 Zhang M.， Yan S. & Pan W.， “Phylogenetic evidence for Sino-Tibetan origin in northern China in the Late Neolithic，” Nature， Vol. 569， No. 7754 （2019）， pp. 112-115.13 LaPolla R. J.， “The origin and spread of the Sino-Tibetan language family，” Nature， Vol. 569， No. 7754 （2019）， pp. 45-47.14 Gray R. D.， Drummond A. J. & Greenhill S. J.， “ Language phylogenies reveal expansion pulses and pauses in Pacific settlement，” Science， Vol. 323， No. 5913 （2009）， pp. 479?483.15 Friedlaender J. S.， Friedlaender F. R. & Reed F. A. et al.， “The genetic structure of Pacific Islanders，” PLoS Genetics， Vol. 4， No. 1 （2008）， pp. 173-190.16 Friedlaender J.， Hunley K. & Dunn M. et al.， “Linguistics more robust than genetics，” Science， Vol. 324， No. 5926 （2009）， pp. 464-465.17 洪波、意西微萨·阿错： 《汉语与周边语言的接触类型研究》，《南开语言学刊》2007年第1期，第23-35，164页。18 安英姬： 《汉朝语亲属称谓词对比》，《延边大学学报（社会科学版）》1985年第2期，第38-53页。19 梁敏、张均如： 《从汉台语言的数词是否同源说起》，《民族语文》2004年第2期，第52-56页。20 Enfield N. J.， “On genetic and areal linguistics in mainland South-East Asia： parallel polyfunctionality of ‘acquire’，” in Aikhenvald A. Y. & Dixon R. M. （eds.）， Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance： Problems in Comparative Linguistics， New York： Oxford University Press， 2001， pp. 255-290.21 Bakker P. & Mous M. （eds.）， Mixed Languages： 15 Case Studies in Language Intertwining， Amsterdam： IFOTT， 1994.22 Velupillai V.， Pidgins， Creoles and Mixed Languages： An Introduction， Amsterdam： John Benjamins Publishing Company， 2015.23 孙宏开、胡增益、黄行主编： 《中国的语言》，北京：商务印书馆，2007年。24 徐丹： 《中国境内的混合语及语言混合的机制》，《语言战略研究》2018年第2期，第59-79页。25 LaPolla R. J.， “Language contact and language change in the history of the Sinitic languages，” Procedia： Social and Behavioral Sciences， Vol. 2， No. 5 （2010），pp. 6858-6868.26 Hashimoto M. J.， “The Altaicization of northern Chinese，” in McCoy J. & Light T. （eds.）， Contributions to Sino-Tibetan Studies， Leiden： E. J. Brill， 1986， pp. 76-97.27 Hashimoto M. J.， “Hakka in Wellentheorie perspective，” Journal of Chinese Linguistics， Vol. 20， No. 1 （1992）， pp. 1-48.28 Pope M.， “The origins of writing in the Near East，” Antiquity， Vol. 40， No. 157 （1966）， pp. 17-23.29 周有光： 《世界文字发展史》，上海：上海教育出版社，1997年。30 费孝通： 《乡土中国》，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，1985年。31 祁志祥： 《佛学与中国文化》，上海：学林出版社，2000年。32 王勇： 《大唐盛世与文化疆域》，见季卫东主编：《东亚研究》第1辑，上海：上海交通大学出版社，2019年，第111-123页。33 邢福义、吴振国主编： 《语言学概论》，武汉：华中师范大学出版社，2010年。34 Bomhard A.， Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic： Comparative Phonology， Morphology， and Vocabulary， Leiden： Brill， 2008.35 Starostin S. A.， “On the hypothesis of a genetic connection between the Sino-Tibetan languages and the Yeniseian and north Caucasian languages，” in Shevoroshkin V. （ed.）， Dene-Sino-Caucasian Languages， Bochum：Brockmeyer， 1991， pp. 12-41.36 Renfrew C.， “Archaeogenetics—towards a ‘new synthesis’？” Current Biology， Vol. 20， No. 4 （2010）， pp. 162-165.
2022, Vol. 52 
