论文部分内容阅读
Abstract：
This article introduces the methodology of geolinguistics within Tibetan dialectology. It uses it to analyze the so-called “Khams dialect” of Tibetan by discussing geolinguistic features， and claims that the “Khams dialect”， as referred to in previous studies， does not work， and that it should be understood as a “language complex”. Following this analysis， general issues regarding the difference between “language” and “dialect” are also discussed from a typological viewpoint.
There are many earlier studies concerning Tibetan dialects， such as， Qu （1990）， Jiang （2002）， and Zhang （2009）. Based on these studies， it seems that Tibetan dialectology is well researched and has its own methodology. However， because the dialectology needs information about the geographical and historical relationship other than the linguistics itself， it should be treated differently than individual dialect studies. sKal-bzang Gyur-med & sKal-bzang dByangs-can （2002） mention three research topics in Tibetan dialectology： descriptive study， historical study， and geolinguistic study. It is the last topic that this article primarily discusses.
As the first step， Section 1 of this article compares the research points in the Eastern Tibetosphere studied by Chinese scholars （Zhang 1996） with those by the present author. The comparison illustrates that the present authors research is more appropriate for conducting a geolinguistic survey， because it basically requires as much data as one can collect. Following the introduction to the research points， the article draws attention to the radical problem of the concept of the “Khams dialect”. Although the dialectal classification should be based on the geographical and historical relationship， as well as the shared innovation regarding such linguistic features as phonology， lexicon， and syntax， previous works of Tibetan dialectology used typological criteria， i.e.， existence of tone and voiced obstruents， to classify varieties （Qu 1996）， and， the general classification into three parts （dBus-gtsang， Khams， and Amdo） is still widely accepted. The present author claims that this classification method is not scientific， and that if Tournadres （2014） claim of “Tibetic languages” is adapted， the traditional “Khams dialect” no longer exists. The “Khams dialect” in the eastern Tibetosphere can be divided into two major groups called “Khams” and “Shar”. Shar Tibetan corresponds to varieties of the traditional “Khams dialect” spoken in the Amdo area （around the Sichuan-Gansu border）. In previous works， Shar Tibetan was regarded as a member of Khams because it has a tonal distinction. However， the term “tone” itself is polysemic （Zhu 2010）， hence， the existence of tone as a criterion of dialect classification does not work well. Finally， a brief introduction to geolinguistic analysis is provided. It emphasizes that this methodology requires extra-linguistic factors， such as geographical and historical information regarding a given region， and that producing interpreted linguistic maps is indispensable. Section 2 deals with three issues regarding the “Khams dialect”. The first issue is concerned with the linguistic variation attested within the traditional “Khams dialect”. Displaying linguistic maps concerning the sound development of varieties spoken in the eastern Tibetosphere， the author claims it is difficult to regard all of them as members of a single dialect. In addition， the linguistic maps provided here effectively enable us to understand the rich variation， and where varieties with common features are distributed. The discussion concludes that the way of thinking that takes a dialect as a representative of “Khams dialect” is inappropriate for Tibetan dialectology. The second issue is regarding “Shar Tibetan” just introduced in Section 1. The article provides macroscopic linguistic maps on its phonological and morphological features， and discusses the difference between shared innovation and typological similarity. If a common feature is attested in two different regions which are far from one another， the feature might be just a typological similarity； unless the historical relationship is evident， we should not consider these two as a shared innovation. The peculiarities in Shar Tibetan are certainly common， or quite similar with， the southern （south-eastern） varieties of Khams Tibetan. Based on this fact， it is a valid interpretation to say that Shar Tibetan and Khams Tibetan are not mutually related， but accidentally similar. Moreover， it is an inappropriate claim that the variegated phonological features found and attested in Shar Tibetan just corresponds to that in Khams Tibetan as mentioned in Rig-dzin dBang-mo （2013）. This is because there is no significance of this claim if seen from a dialectological viewpoint. The third issue is regarding the relationship between Cone Tibetan （Shar） and Shangri-La Tibetan （Khams）. According to the Tibetan manuscript Dzam-gling rgyas-bshad （Wylie 1962）， one finds a brief mention concerning the linguistic relationship between Cone （Zhuoni， Gansu） and Shangri-La （Xianggelila， Yunnan）. In addition， the Cone region has an oral narrative says that the ancestors of the Cone Tibetans were from Dar-rtse-mdo （Kangding， Sichuan）. Hence， this article attempts to analyze common phonetic features shared by them by drawing linguistic maps. The maps show that Cone and Shangri-La certainly have common phonological features， however， those attested in Shangri-La have a much clear historical background of the given sound changes. Therefore， they are not common innovations shared with Cone. This result means the genetic linguistic relationship between Cone and Shangri-La， if seen in this regard， is far from each other， and this similarity cannot be used as a criterion that they are in the same dialect group. Finally， Section 3 discusses the hierarchy between “language” and “dialect” from a broader viewpoint， and the consequence of this had on the field of linguistics. The first claim is that a common understanding regarding the definition of “language” and “dialect” is not necessary， and this is done by citing two cases of Sinitic languages and Saami languages （Todal 1998）. There are many disputes regarding the linguistic status of these two lanuages as one single language or as one language complex consisting of many languages， and every claim has its own reasoning. The present authors emphasis is that the best definition for these concepts does not exist and that one should accept various definitions of “language”. This generous view will not make any interference between the linguistics and other social science fields occur. The second claim is that smaller languages are more beneficial for linguistics， especially for typology， than bigger languages. In typological studies regarding Tibeto-Burman， Tibetan is often considered a single language， and the mention of this language is， thus， limited to only a few varieties， or even only one， as seen in Huang （2013）. The linguistic reality of the complexity of the Tibetic languages is as the article shows. Thus a small number of varieties cannot contribute good typological discussions to the Tibeto-Burman linguistics. For this purpose， the importance of the idea of language complex for one single Tibetan can emerge， as the varieties spoken in Khams area tell us.
The article concludes that creating linguistic maps is an inevitable process needed to advance dialectology， with which we can then understand each dialects distribution areas. In the academic field， the idea that “Tibetan is a single language” is no longer of any use. Language diversity should be well understood and described properly. This attitude will also be more beneficial for linguistic typological discussions within Tibeto-Burman， or， within the worlds languages.
Key Words：Tibetic languages； dialectology； Khams region； geolinguistics
References：
Huang Chenglong. zangmianyu cunzailei dongci de gainian jiegou.（The Concept Structure of Substantive Verbs in Tibeto-Burmese Languages），In Minzu Yuwen 2， 31-48，2013.
Jiang Di.zangyu yuyinshi yanjiu（On The History of Tibetan Pronunciation）. Beijing：minzu Chubanshe， 2002.
Qu Aitang. zangyu yunmu yanjiu.（Syllable Rime in Tibetan） Qinghai：qinghai minzu chubanshe，1990. Qu Aitang. zangzu de yuyan he wenzi（ Tibetan Language and Scripts ）. Beijing：zhongguo zangxue chubanshe，1996.
Rig-dzin dBang-mo. diebu zangyu yanjiu（A Study on the Tibetan Language in Diebu）. Beijing： zhongyang minzu daxue chubanshe，2013.
sKal-bzangGyur-med & sKal-bzang dByangs-can. zangyu fangyan gailun（A General Introduction to Tibetan Dialects）. Beijing： minzu chubanshe，2002.
Todal， Jon. Minorities with the Minority： Language and the School in the Sámi Areas of Norway. Language， Culture， and Curriculum 11.3， 354-366， 1998.
Tournadre， Nicolas. The Tibetic languages and their classification. In Thomas Owen-Smith & Nathan W. Hill （eds.） Trans-Himalayan Linguistics： Historical and Descriptive Linguistics of the Himalayan Area， 105-129. Berlin： Walter de Gruyter.2014.
Wylie， Turrell Verl.The Geography of Tibet according to the Dzam-gling-rgyas-bshad： Text and English Translation. Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.1962.
Zhang Jichuan. A Sketch of Tibetan Dialectology in China： Classifications of Tibetan Dialects. Cahiers de Linguistique – Asie Orientale 25.1， 115-133，1996.
Zhang Jichuan. zangyu cizu yanjiu—gudai zangzu ruhe fengfu tamen de cihui（A Study on Tibetan Phrase—How the Ancient Tibetan Develop Their Phrases）. Beijing：shehui kexue wenxian chubanshe，2009.
Zhu Xiaonong.yuyinxue（Phonetics）. Beijing：shangwu yinshuguan， 2010.
This article introduces the methodology of geolinguistics within Tibetan dialectology. It uses it to analyze the so-called “Khams dialect” of Tibetan by discussing geolinguistic features， and claims that the “Khams dialect”， as referred to in previous studies， does not work， and that it should be understood as a “language complex”. Following this analysis， general issues regarding the difference between “language” and “dialect” are also discussed from a typological viewpoint.
There are many earlier studies concerning Tibetan dialects， such as， Qu （1990）， Jiang （2002）， and Zhang （2009）. Based on these studies， it seems that Tibetan dialectology is well researched and has its own methodology. However， because the dialectology needs information about the geographical and historical relationship other than the linguistics itself， it should be treated differently than individual dialect studies. sKal-bzang Gyur-med & sKal-bzang dByangs-can （2002） mention three research topics in Tibetan dialectology： descriptive study， historical study， and geolinguistic study. It is the last topic that this article primarily discusses.
As the first step， Section 1 of this article compares the research points in the Eastern Tibetosphere studied by Chinese scholars （Zhang 1996） with those by the present author. The comparison illustrates that the present authors research is more appropriate for conducting a geolinguistic survey， because it basically requires as much data as one can collect. Following the introduction to the research points， the article draws attention to the radical problem of the concept of the “Khams dialect”. Although the dialectal classification should be based on the geographical and historical relationship， as well as the shared innovation regarding such linguistic features as phonology， lexicon， and syntax， previous works of Tibetan dialectology used typological criteria， i.e.， existence of tone and voiced obstruents， to classify varieties （Qu 1996）， and， the general classification into three parts （dBus-gtsang， Khams， and Amdo） is still widely accepted. The present author claims that this classification method is not scientific， and that if Tournadres （2014） claim of “Tibetic languages” is adapted， the traditional “Khams dialect” no longer exists. The “Khams dialect” in the eastern Tibetosphere can be divided into two major groups called “Khams” and “Shar”. Shar Tibetan corresponds to varieties of the traditional “Khams dialect” spoken in the Amdo area （around the Sichuan-Gansu border）. In previous works， Shar Tibetan was regarded as a member of Khams because it has a tonal distinction. However， the term “tone” itself is polysemic （Zhu 2010）， hence， the existence of tone as a criterion of dialect classification does not work well. Finally， a brief introduction to geolinguistic analysis is provided. It emphasizes that this methodology requires extra-linguistic factors， such as geographical and historical information regarding a given region， and that producing interpreted linguistic maps is indispensable. Section 2 deals with three issues regarding the “Khams dialect”. The first issue is concerned with the linguistic variation attested within the traditional “Khams dialect”. Displaying linguistic maps concerning the sound development of varieties spoken in the eastern Tibetosphere， the author claims it is difficult to regard all of them as members of a single dialect. In addition， the linguistic maps provided here effectively enable us to understand the rich variation， and where varieties with common features are distributed. The discussion concludes that the way of thinking that takes a dialect as a representative of “Khams dialect” is inappropriate for Tibetan dialectology. The second issue is regarding “Shar Tibetan” just introduced in Section 1. The article provides macroscopic linguistic maps on its phonological and morphological features， and discusses the difference between shared innovation and typological similarity. If a common feature is attested in two different regions which are far from one another， the feature might be just a typological similarity； unless the historical relationship is evident， we should not consider these two as a shared innovation. The peculiarities in Shar Tibetan are certainly common， or quite similar with， the southern （south-eastern） varieties of Khams Tibetan. Based on this fact， it is a valid interpretation to say that Shar Tibetan and Khams Tibetan are not mutually related， but accidentally similar. Moreover， it is an inappropriate claim that the variegated phonological features found and attested in Shar Tibetan just corresponds to that in Khams Tibetan as mentioned in Rig-dzin dBang-mo （2013）. This is because there is no significance of this claim if seen from a dialectological viewpoint. The third issue is regarding the relationship between Cone Tibetan （Shar） and Shangri-La Tibetan （Khams）. According to the Tibetan manuscript Dzam-gling rgyas-bshad （Wylie 1962）， one finds a brief mention concerning the linguistic relationship between Cone （Zhuoni， Gansu） and Shangri-La （Xianggelila， Yunnan）. In addition， the Cone region has an oral narrative says that the ancestors of the Cone Tibetans were from Dar-rtse-mdo （Kangding， Sichuan）. Hence， this article attempts to analyze common phonetic features shared by them by drawing linguistic maps. The maps show that Cone and Shangri-La certainly have common phonological features， however， those attested in Shangri-La have a much clear historical background of the given sound changes. Therefore， they are not common innovations shared with Cone. This result means the genetic linguistic relationship between Cone and Shangri-La， if seen in this regard， is far from each other， and this similarity cannot be used as a criterion that they are in the same dialect group. Finally， Section 3 discusses the hierarchy between “language” and “dialect” from a broader viewpoint， and the consequence of this had on the field of linguistics. The first claim is that a common understanding regarding the definition of “language” and “dialect” is not necessary， and this is done by citing two cases of Sinitic languages and Saami languages （Todal 1998）. There are many disputes regarding the linguistic status of these two lanuages as one single language or as one language complex consisting of many languages， and every claim has its own reasoning. The present authors emphasis is that the best definition for these concepts does not exist and that one should accept various definitions of “language”. This generous view will not make any interference between the linguistics and other social science fields occur. The second claim is that smaller languages are more beneficial for linguistics， especially for typology， than bigger languages. In typological studies regarding Tibeto-Burman， Tibetan is often considered a single language， and the mention of this language is， thus， limited to only a few varieties， or even only one， as seen in Huang （2013）. The linguistic reality of the complexity of the Tibetic languages is as the article shows. Thus a small number of varieties cannot contribute good typological discussions to the Tibeto-Burman linguistics. For this purpose， the importance of the idea of language complex for one single Tibetan can emerge， as the varieties spoken in Khams area tell us.
The article concludes that creating linguistic maps is an inevitable process needed to advance dialectology， with which we can then understand each dialects distribution areas. In the academic field， the idea that “Tibetan is a single language” is no longer of any use. Language diversity should be well understood and described properly. This attitude will also be more beneficial for linguistic typological discussions within Tibeto-Burman， or， within the worlds languages.
Key Words：Tibetic languages； dialectology； Khams region； geolinguistics
References：
Huang Chenglong. zangmianyu cunzailei dongci de gainian jiegou.（The Concept Structure of Substantive Verbs in Tibeto-Burmese Languages），In Minzu Yuwen 2， 31-48，2013.
Jiang Di.zangyu yuyinshi yanjiu（On The History of Tibetan Pronunciation）. Beijing：minzu Chubanshe， 2002.
Qu Aitang. zangyu yunmu yanjiu.（Syllable Rime in Tibetan） Qinghai：qinghai minzu chubanshe，1990. Qu Aitang. zangzu de yuyan he wenzi（ Tibetan Language and Scripts ）. Beijing：zhongguo zangxue chubanshe，1996.
Rig-dzin dBang-mo. diebu zangyu yanjiu（A Study on the Tibetan Language in Diebu）. Beijing： zhongyang minzu daxue chubanshe，2013.
sKal-bzangGyur-med & sKal-bzang dByangs-can. zangyu fangyan gailun（A General Introduction to Tibetan Dialects）. Beijing： minzu chubanshe，2002.
Todal， Jon. Minorities with the Minority： Language and the School in the Sámi Areas of Norway. Language， Culture， and Curriculum 11.3， 354-366， 1998.
Tournadre， Nicolas. The Tibetic languages and their classification. In Thomas Owen-Smith & Nathan W. Hill （eds.） Trans-Himalayan Linguistics： Historical and Descriptive Linguistics of the Himalayan Area， 105-129. Berlin： Walter de Gruyter.2014.
Wylie， Turrell Verl.The Geography of Tibet according to the Dzam-gling-rgyas-bshad： Text and English Translation. Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.1962.
Zhang Jichuan. A Sketch of Tibetan Dialectology in China： Classifications of Tibetan Dialects. Cahiers de Linguistique – Asie Orientale 25.1， 115-133，1996.
Zhang Jichuan. zangyu cizu yanjiu—gudai zangzu ruhe fengfu tamen de cihui（A Study on Tibetan Phrase—How the Ancient Tibetan Develop Their Phrases）. Beijing：shehui kexue wenxian chubanshe，2009.
Zhu Xiaonong.yuyinxue（Phonetics）. Beijing：shangwu yinshuguan， 2010.