论文部分内容阅读
Astract：From the 1920s to the 1980s， many scholars analyzed the “Song of the White Wolf ”（ai Lang Ge） from different perspectives. However， it is not easy to interpret it ecause “it is written in the language of one of the ethnic minorities from a long time ago， and “the words and meanings are difficult to clarify; in addition， the dialects are difficult to understand， and the pronunciations of the characters have changed from ancient to present times ” . Therefore， up to now， there has een no consensus with regard to many issues， for example， the classification of the language， or the ethnic identity of the people， etc. Since the 1980s， a group of scholars， on the asis of previous studies， and y making use of the latest achievements in the study of historical phonology， have conducted indepth research on the “Song of the White Wolf”. This article reviews the results of several representative investigations， in order to identify the issues in the research， and provide a reference for the next steps of research.
The latest research on the Song of the White Wolf can e seen from three perspectives： 1） Identifying the ethnic attriution of the Song of the White Wolf; 2） classifying the language of the Song of the White Wolf which also happens to e the focus of most of the research， and 3. focusing on the semantic interpretation of the Song of the White Wolf.
1.Identifying the ethnic attriution of the Song of the White Wolf.
There have een long deates on the ethnic attriution of the Song of the White Wolf. Among them， Wang Jingru’s research has een the most influential. Wang （1932） elieved that the Chinese characters lou rang （偻让） used in the “White Wolf” language was the selfdesignated name used y the “White Wolf” people for their clan. He also found some examples of the ancient “Yi language”（夷语，or language of the Yi ararians） in the zhongguo fei hanyu yuyan huiian （ Chinese nonChinese Language Compilation）. He then compared them with 18 characters from characters in the Song of the White Wolf， and found that they were roughly the same， which seems to estalish that characters read as “klou sou” is the term for “White Wolf”. Susequently， Chen Zongxiang and Deng Wenfeng （1979） agreed that Wangs comparative study was very promising. Ma Xueliang （1981） lent further confirmation to Wang Jingrus view ased upon the pronunciation of what the Yi ethnic group calls itself today in the yi language， which is “trusu” and “klousou” （彝族）. Yan Hua （1983） put forward an opinion opposite to that of Wang Jingru and Ma Xueliang. He made his reuttal ased upon four aspects： terms of selfdesignation， phonetics， semantics and modern location. Yan Hua elieves that the language found in the Song of the White Wolf elongs to the Pumi sugroup. However， we consider it somewhat aritrary to draw conclusions ased only on a phonetic comparison of individual words. It is impossile to determine the specific ranch to which the White Wolf language elongs y a phonetic comparison of only one or several words. In addition， Yan Hua used the area in which the White Wolf trie was supposed to e active as evidence to determine the ranch of the language they spoke. However， he neglected such factors as migration and language integration. One of the results of a migration process was the integration of different languages among the different groups， and different linguistic communities asored language elements from each other. Therefore， it is inappropriate to judge the area of activity of the White Wolf trie as that which coincides with the area of todays Pumi language speakers. Liu Yaohan and Chen Jiujin （1985） discussed the ethnicity of the “White Wolf” trie from the perspective of their customs， trial names， and geographical movement. Using this in comination with historical records and documents， and extensive field investigations with today’s ethnic minorities， they confirmed the translated name “White Wolf”. They elieved that the “Xifan” were the direct descendants of the “White Wolf” of the Han dynasty. However， this research does not take into account the prolem of errors in the transmission of literary records， a common phenomenon in historical communication. It is impossile to get reliale conclusions only y relying on literary evidence. As such， these documents can only e regarded as an auxiliary tool， and we must ultimately rely on linguistic arguments. Ma Xueliang （1986） considered “lou rang” （僂让）to e the selfdesignation of the Yi （彝族）.This is ased on the names for the Yi since ancient times. Similarly， Yang Fengjiang （1987） elieves that “White Wolf” in the Yi language means “mountain tiger”. The Yi take the “tiger” as their totem， so， the White Wolf is the ancestor of the Yi， and then the White Wolf elongs to the Yi language ranch. However， as we have discussed aove， there are still some risks in determining a generic appellation y using only one or two words. 2.Classifying the language found in the Song of the White Wolf
Seen from many studies， the White Wolf language should elong to the Tietourman language group. However， the distriution of Tietourman speakers is quite wide，and there are many ranches within Tietourman language family . There were some discussions of this issue in academic discourse efore the 1980s.
Ma Xueliang，and Dai Qingxia （1982） selected 26 words from the White Wolf Song which have a homologous relationship with Tietourman speaking ethnic groups， and when they compared them with Tietan， urmese and 19 other Tietourman languages， they discovered that the White Wolf language is closer to the Yi and urmese language suranches （including urmese， Achang， etc.）. Furthermore， judging from the reconstruction of pronunciation， the White Wolf language seems to e closer to the urmese language. Ma Xueliangs research has some limitations; for example， esides these 26 words， he cannot explain the origin and differences of other words. In addition， although， judging from its phonetic reconstruction， the pronunciation of the White Wolf language is closer to urmese， the article does not further interpret to which sulanguage it elongs. Later， Zhengzhang Shangfang （1993） interpreted the full text of the Song of the White Wolf y virtue of the latest results of historical phonetic research， and compared the Chinese phonetic records of the White Wolf language， word y word， with oth the urmese and Tietan languages. He concluded that the White Wolf language should e a proto urmese language， which， to some extent， is very close to the urmese language. Zhengzhang Shangfang and Ma Xueliang asically hold the same view， ut that of Zhengzhang Shangfang is more comprehensive in its investigation. He aandons the “characteristic word” approach， and chooses to compare the full text. As a result， he provides more detailed conclusions and a clearer scope for the language classification of White Wolf language. Huang Yilu （2001） puts forward another opinion. Huang elieves that the Song of the White Wolf elongs to Zhuang language. He compared the phonetics， vocaulary， grammar and semantics of White Wolf language with today’s Zhuang language， and elieves that the Song of the White Wolf is a song from the ancient Yue people. However， the shortcoming of Huang’s phonetic reconstruction seriously affects the reliaility of his conclusion. In order to avoid the drawacks of Huang’s phonetic reconstruction， Wu Anqi （2007） reconstructed the phonetic system of the Chinese spoken in the Eastern Han dynasty， and then used it to make a phonetic reconstruction of the Chinese characters in the Song of the White Wolf. According to the results of the reconstruction and some grammatical rules of Proto Yiurmese language， he elieves that the Song of the White Wolf was a Proto Yiurmese language two thousand years ago， and it is an ancestor language or a related language of present day Yiurmese languages. 3. The prolem of deciphering the meaning of the words in the Song of the White Wolf.
Liu Yaohan and Chen Jiujin （1985）， ased on the phonetic system of the Pumi lanauge， reached a conclusion that the author of the Song of the White Wolf， i.e. the “White Wolf King”， was not satisfied with the ruler of Han dynasty. This explanation is contrary to the records found in the hou han shu （the ook of the Later Han Dynasty）. These contradictory statements are confusing. The crux of the prolem lies in his interpretation of the content of the Song of the White Wolf found in Pumi language， which is similar to that of Yang Zhaohui. Yang （1987） compared the existing Pumi language found in northwestern Yunnan and southwestern Sichuan with ancient “Yi words” （夷言）in the Song of the White Wolf y comining historical documents and field investigation. Yang elieves that the transliterations of the Chinese characters are phonetically ancient Pumi. Yangs approach exposed the prolem of identifying the suranch of the language of the White Wolf in advance， and then matching todays Pumi with socalled ancient or ProtoPumi. As we have said aove， it more than 2，000 years have passed since the Han dynasty. No matter whether if it is the “Chinese language” or “Yi language”， their phonetic systems have undergone many changes， so， it is impossile to pursue a complete translation （although this method is more rigorous）. Chen Zongxiang and Deng Wenfeng （1987） when they interpreted the sentence “lou rang long dong”（僂让龙洞）， they elieved that “rang ” meant “lack trial group”. Chens perspective is very unique， exiting from some of the limitations of previous studies， and gives people a sense of something refreshing. However， Chens argument also needs to solve the prolem of the relationship etween “lou rang” and “White Wolf”. Huang Zhenhua （1998），ased on the research of Wang Jingru， continued to interpret the White Wolf language as the Xixia language. Luo Qijun （2005） further uncovered some pure phonetic characters amidst the transliterated characters. However， it is regrettale that Huang used the phonetic transcription of kangxi zidian （ Kangxi Dictionary） or shiyong da cidian （Practical Dictionary） to reconstruct the phonetic transcription of the Chinese characters in the White Wolf language. Wu Anqi （2007） interpreted the Song of the White Wolf veratim， ut this explanation is not veratim of the meaning ， it centered on a theme. He thinks that the translator of the poem put together various allads and nursery rhymes. Although Wus interpretation is not consistent with the ook of Later Han Dynasty， this method is relatively novel， and it provides a good angle for the study of the Song of the White Wolf . It has een nearly 2000 years since the Song of the White Wolf came into eing， ut the research on it is uninterrupted. From the original collation of songs and lyrics to the discussion of ethnicity， the characteristics of the poetry， language features， language classification and so on， various scholars have conducted multipronged research on it y comining ethnology， history， linguistics， archaeology and so on. With the progress of research and the latest achievements of relevant disciplines， the interpretation of the Song of the white Wolf Song will ecome more and more clear.
Key Words： the Song of the White Wolf; language classification ; word interpretation; ethnic attriution
References：
Chen Zongxiang，Deng Wenfeng. ailangge yanjiu shuping（A Review of the Studies on the Song of the White Wolf）. In Journal of Southwest Normal University，1979（4）.
Chen Zongxiang，Deng Wenfeng. “ailangge”di shiyiju “lou rang long dong”shijie（An Interpretation of the 11th Verse “Lou Rang Long Dong” in the “Song of the White Wolf” ）. In Journal of Southwest University for Nationalities，1987（1）.
Chen Zongxiang，Deng Wenfeng. “ailangge”yanjiu[1]（Studies of the Song of the White Wolf[Vol.I]）.Chengdu：Sichuan remin chuanshe，1991.
Fan Ye.hou han shu （the ook of Later Han Dynasty）.eijing：zhonghua shuju，1965.
Fang Guoyu.yizu shigao（History of the Yi）.Chengdu：Sichuan minzu chuanshe，1984.
Huang Yilu.dongha “ailangge”shi yueren geyao（The Song of the White Wolf in the Eastern Han Dynasty is a Song of the Yue People）. In Ethnic Studies of Guangxi，2001（3）.
Liu Yaohan，Chen Jiujin.handai “ailing yi”de zushu xintan（New Exploration on the Ethnic Attriution of the White Wolf in the Han Dynasty）. In Journal of Southwest Normal University，1985（4）.
Luo Qijun.ailangge shi yijie（An Annotation to the Song of the White Wolf）. In Journal of Ningxia University，1998（3）.
Ma Xueliang.yiwen he yiwen jingshu（The Yi Script and Manuscripts）.In Minority Language of China，1981（1）.
Ma Xueliang，Dai Qingxia. ailangge yanjiu （The Study of the Song of the White Wolf）.In Minority Languages of China，1982（5）.
Ma Xueliang.ailangge zhong de “lou rang” kao（ An Exploration of “Lou Rang”in the Song of the White Wolf）. In Journal of Minzu University of China （supplement），1986（3）.
Wang Li.hanyu yuyin shi（History of the Voice of Han Chinese ）. Jinan：Shandong jiaoyu chuanshe，1987.
Wu Anqi.ailangge jiede（An Interpretation of the Song of the White Wolf）. InMinority Languages of China， 2007（6）.
Yan Hua. “ailangge”zucheng yanjiu zhiyi（Questions on the Ethnic Attriutes of the Song of the White Wolf）. In Journal of Southwest Normal University，1983（1）.
Yang Fengjiang.guayu ailangge zuzhu wenti tantao（On the Ethnic Attriution of the Song of the White Wolf）. In Yi Culture，1987（1）.
Yang Zhaohui. “ailangge” ianxi（An Analysis of the Song of the White Wolf），1987（1）.
Zhengzhang Shangfang.shanggu miange—“ailangge de quanwen jiedu”（urmese Songs in Ancient Time：A Complete Interpretation of the Song of the White Wolf）. In Minority Languages of China，1993（1）.
The latest research on the Song of the White Wolf can e seen from three perspectives： 1） Identifying the ethnic attriution of the Song of the White Wolf; 2） classifying the language of the Song of the White Wolf which also happens to e the focus of most of the research， and 3. focusing on the semantic interpretation of the Song of the White Wolf.
1.Identifying the ethnic attriution of the Song of the White Wolf.
There have een long deates on the ethnic attriution of the Song of the White Wolf. Among them， Wang Jingru’s research has een the most influential. Wang （1932） elieved that the Chinese characters lou rang （偻让） used in the “White Wolf” language was the selfdesignated name used y the “White Wolf” people for their clan. He also found some examples of the ancient “Yi language”（夷语，or language of the Yi ararians） in the zhongguo fei hanyu yuyan huiian （ Chinese nonChinese Language Compilation）. He then compared them with 18 characters from characters in the Song of the White Wolf， and found that they were roughly the same， which seems to estalish that characters read as “klou sou” is the term for “White Wolf”. Susequently， Chen Zongxiang and Deng Wenfeng （1979） agreed that Wangs comparative study was very promising. Ma Xueliang （1981） lent further confirmation to Wang Jingrus view ased upon the pronunciation of what the Yi ethnic group calls itself today in the yi language， which is “trusu” and “klousou” （彝族）. Yan Hua （1983） put forward an opinion opposite to that of Wang Jingru and Ma Xueliang. He made his reuttal ased upon four aspects： terms of selfdesignation， phonetics， semantics and modern location. Yan Hua elieves that the language found in the Song of the White Wolf elongs to the Pumi sugroup. However， we consider it somewhat aritrary to draw conclusions ased only on a phonetic comparison of individual words. It is impossile to determine the specific ranch to which the White Wolf language elongs y a phonetic comparison of only one or several words. In addition， Yan Hua used the area in which the White Wolf trie was supposed to e active as evidence to determine the ranch of the language they spoke. However， he neglected such factors as migration and language integration. One of the results of a migration process was the integration of different languages among the different groups， and different linguistic communities asored language elements from each other. Therefore， it is inappropriate to judge the area of activity of the White Wolf trie as that which coincides with the area of todays Pumi language speakers. Liu Yaohan and Chen Jiujin （1985） discussed the ethnicity of the “White Wolf” trie from the perspective of their customs， trial names， and geographical movement. Using this in comination with historical records and documents， and extensive field investigations with today’s ethnic minorities， they confirmed the translated name “White Wolf”. They elieved that the “Xifan” were the direct descendants of the “White Wolf” of the Han dynasty. However， this research does not take into account the prolem of errors in the transmission of literary records， a common phenomenon in historical communication. It is impossile to get reliale conclusions only y relying on literary evidence. As such， these documents can only e regarded as an auxiliary tool， and we must ultimately rely on linguistic arguments. Ma Xueliang （1986） considered “lou rang” （僂让）to e the selfdesignation of the Yi （彝族）.This is ased on the names for the Yi since ancient times. Similarly， Yang Fengjiang （1987） elieves that “White Wolf” in the Yi language means “mountain tiger”. The Yi take the “tiger” as their totem， so， the White Wolf is the ancestor of the Yi， and then the White Wolf elongs to the Yi language ranch. However， as we have discussed aove， there are still some risks in determining a generic appellation y using only one or two words. 2.Classifying the language found in the Song of the White Wolf
Seen from many studies， the White Wolf language should elong to the Tietourman language group. However， the distriution of Tietourman speakers is quite wide，and there are many ranches within Tietourman language family . There were some discussions of this issue in academic discourse efore the 1980s.
Ma Xueliang，and Dai Qingxia （1982） selected 26 words from the White Wolf Song which have a homologous relationship with Tietourman speaking ethnic groups， and when they compared them with Tietan， urmese and 19 other Tietourman languages， they discovered that the White Wolf language is closer to the Yi and urmese language suranches （including urmese， Achang， etc.）. Furthermore， judging from the reconstruction of pronunciation， the White Wolf language seems to e closer to the urmese language. Ma Xueliangs research has some limitations; for example， esides these 26 words， he cannot explain the origin and differences of other words. In addition， although， judging from its phonetic reconstruction， the pronunciation of the White Wolf language is closer to urmese， the article does not further interpret to which sulanguage it elongs. Later， Zhengzhang Shangfang （1993） interpreted the full text of the Song of the White Wolf y virtue of the latest results of historical phonetic research， and compared the Chinese phonetic records of the White Wolf language， word y word， with oth the urmese and Tietan languages. He concluded that the White Wolf language should e a proto urmese language， which， to some extent， is very close to the urmese language. Zhengzhang Shangfang and Ma Xueliang asically hold the same view， ut that of Zhengzhang Shangfang is more comprehensive in its investigation. He aandons the “characteristic word” approach， and chooses to compare the full text. As a result， he provides more detailed conclusions and a clearer scope for the language classification of White Wolf language. Huang Yilu （2001） puts forward another opinion. Huang elieves that the Song of the White Wolf elongs to Zhuang language. He compared the phonetics， vocaulary， grammar and semantics of White Wolf language with today’s Zhuang language， and elieves that the Song of the White Wolf is a song from the ancient Yue people. However， the shortcoming of Huang’s phonetic reconstruction seriously affects the reliaility of his conclusion. In order to avoid the drawacks of Huang’s phonetic reconstruction， Wu Anqi （2007） reconstructed the phonetic system of the Chinese spoken in the Eastern Han dynasty， and then used it to make a phonetic reconstruction of the Chinese characters in the Song of the White Wolf. According to the results of the reconstruction and some grammatical rules of Proto Yiurmese language， he elieves that the Song of the White Wolf was a Proto Yiurmese language two thousand years ago， and it is an ancestor language or a related language of present day Yiurmese languages. 3. The prolem of deciphering the meaning of the words in the Song of the White Wolf.
Liu Yaohan and Chen Jiujin （1985）， ased on the phonetic system of the Pumi lanauge， reached a conclusion that the author of the Song of the White Wolf， i.e. the “White Wolf King”， was not satisfied with the ruler of Han dynasty. This explanation is contrary to the records found in the hou han shu （the ook of the Later Han Dynasty）. These contradictory statements are confusing. The crux of the prolem lies in his interpretation of the content of the Song of the White Wolf found in Pumi language， which is similar to that of Yang Zhaohui. Yang （1987） compared the existing Pumi language found in northwestern Yunnan and southwestern Sichuan with ancient “Yi words” （夷言）in the Song of the White Wolf y comining historical documents and field investigation. Yang elieves that the transliterations of the Chinese characters are phonetically ancient Pumi. Yangs approach exposed the prolem of identifying the suranch of the language of the White Wolf in advance， and then matching todays Pumi with socalled ancient or ProtoPumi. As we have said aove， it more than 2，000 years have passed since the Han dynasty. No matter whether if it is the “Chinese language” or “Yi language”， their phonetic systems have undergone many changes， so， it is impossile to pursue a complete translation （although this method is more rigorous）. Chen Zongxiang and Deng Wenfeng （1987） when they interpreted the sentence “lou rang long dong”（僂让龙洞）， they elieved that “rang ” meant “lack trial group”. Chens perspective is very unique， exiting from some of the limitations of previous studies， and gives people a sense of something refreshing. However， Chens argument also needs to solve the prolem of the relationship etween “lou rang” and “White Wolf”. Huang Zhenhua （1998），ased on the research of Wang Jingru， continued to interpret the White Wolf language as the Xixia language. Luo Qijun （2005） further uncovered some pure phonetic characters amidst the transliterated characters. However， it is regrettale that Huang used the phonetic transcription of kangxi zidian （ Kangxi Dictionary） or shiyong da cidian （Practical Dictionary） to reconstruct the phonetic transcription of the Chinese characters in the White Wolf language. Wu Anqi （2007） interpreted the Song of the White Wolf veratim， ut this explanation is not veratim of the meaning ， it centered on a theme. He thinks that the translator of the poem put together various allads and nursery rhymes. Although Wus interpretation is not consistent with the ook of Later Han Dynasty， this method is relatively novel， and it provides a good angle for the study of the Song of the White Wolf . It has een nearly 2000 years since the Song of the White Wolf came into eing， ut the research on it is uninterrupted. From the original collation of songs and lyrics to the discussion of ethnicity， the characteristics of the poetry， language features， language classification and so on， various scholars have conducted multipronged research on it y comining ethnology， history， linguistics， archaeology and so on. With the progress of research and the latest achievements of relevant disciplines， the interpretation of the Song of the white Wolf Song will ecome more and more clear.
Key Words： the Song of the White Wolf; language classification ; word interpretation; ethnic attriution
References：
Chen Zongxiang，Deng Wenfeng. ailangge yanjiu shuping（A Review of the Studies on the Song of the White Wolf）. In Journal of Southwest Normal University，1979（4）.
Chen Zongxiang，Deng Wenfeng. “ailangge”di shiyiju “lou rang long dong”shijie（An Interpretation of the 11th Verse “Lou Rang Long Dong” in the “Song of the White Wolf” ）. In Journal of Southwest University for Nationalities，1987（1）.
Chen Zongxiang，Deng Wenfeng. “ailangge”yanjiu[1]（Studies of the Song of the White Wolf[Vol.I]）.Chengdu：Sichuan remin chuanshe，1991.
Fan Ye.hou han shu （the ook of Later Han Dynasty）.eijing：zhonghua shuju，1965.
Fang Guoyu.yizu shigao（History of the Yi）.Chengdu：Sichuan minzu chuanshe，1984.
Huang Yilu.dongha “ailangge”shi yueren geyao（The Song of the White Wolf in the Eastern Han Dynasty is a Song of the Yue People）. In Ethnic Studies of Guangxi，2001（3）.
Liu Yaohan，Chen Jiujin.handai “ailing yi”de zushu xintan（New Exploration on the Ethnic Attriution of the White Wolf in the Han Dynasty）. In Journal of Southwest Normal University，1985（4）.
Luo Qijun.ailangge shi yijie（An Annotation to the Song of the White Wolf）. In Journal of Ningxia University，1998（3）.
Ma Xueliang.yiwen he yiwen jingshu（The Yi Script and Manuscripts）.In Minority Language of China，1981（1）.
Ma Xueliang，Dai Qingxia. ailangge yanjiu （The Study of the Song of the White Wolf）.In Minority Languages of China，1982（5）.
Ma Xueliang.ailangge zhong de “lou rang” kao（ An Exploration of “Lou Rang”in the Song of the White Wolf）. In Journal of Minzu University of China （supplement），1986（3）.
Wang Li.hanyu yuyin shi（History of the Voice of Han Chinese ）. Jinan：Shandong jiaoyu chuanshe，1987.
Wu Anqi.ailangge jiede（An Interpretation of the Song of the White Wolf）. InMinority Languages of China， 2007（6）.
Yan Hua. “ailangge”zucheng yanjiu zhiyi（Questions on the Ethnic Attriutes of the Song of the White Wolf）. In Journal of Southwest Normal University，1983（1）.
Yang Fengjiang.guayu ailangge zuzhu wenti tantao（On the Ethnic Attriution of the Song of the White Wolf）. In Yi Culture，1987（1）.
Yang Zhaohui. “ailangge” ianxi（An Analysis of the Song of the White Wolf），1987（1）.
Zhengzhang Shangfang.shanggu miange—“ailangge de quanwen jiedu”（urmese Songs in Ancient Time：A Complete Interpretation of the Song of the White Wolf）. In Minority Languages of China，1993（1）.