We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 March 2011
Even as recently as a dozen years ago, one learned basic Sinological methods rather much the way one learned about sex: by osmosis and “from the gutter.” One puzzled over the remarks of his professors, looked up the strange words in the dictionary, and listened to the older boys in the hall. “I got it from the Kanshi taikan,” some graduate student would say, and you made a mental note to ask a friend about the Kanshi taikan the next time you could be alone together. For all the limitations, it was a pleasant and reasonably effective way to learn Sinology. The atmosphere was clubby, the pace was slow, and there was usually time for patient professional attention.
1 JAS, XXIII/4 (1964) and XXIV/i (1964).
2 Professor F. W. Mote has written very effectively on this problem in “Reflections on Chinese Language Study,” JAS, XXIII/4 (1964), pp. 591–594.Google Scholar
2a This outline, too long and tentative for reproduction here, groups the problems and topics of methodology under twelve very broad headings. Anyone interested may obtain a mimeographed copy by writing to: Mrs. Hertha Vandiver Center for Asian Studies University of Illinois 1208 West California Urbana, Illinois 61801
3 Twitchett, Denis, “A Lone Cheer for Sinology,” JAS, XXIV/1 (1964). p. 111.Google Scholar
4 I think, in particular, of materials of the type prepared at Yale. In a sense, they are “too good,” for they enable a student to go along smoothly for several years without ever coming face to face with the basic difficulties and frustrations of Chinese. We forget, perhaps, that the qualities that make those materials outstanding for military instruction do not make them unqualifiedly right for the college classroom.
5 See note 2. His full statement (p. 593) was, “Here we must face the facts more honestly than has usually been the case and not accept token study and token use as equivalent to real study and real use; that is, we should not continue to glut the market with language cripples who have all of the pretensions and few of the capacities of the expert student of China.”
6 I am not really very enthusiastic about surveys, but it should not be hard to devise a simple set of criteria for evaluating the operational effectiveness of our facilities. For example:
PART ONE
A. Library, reference room, and classrooms under the same roof … 300 points (If not under same roof, but classes can be held in the reference room, allow 100 points.)
B. Chinese and Japanese books separate from the main collection … 200 points (If Chinese and Japanese books are separate from the main collection, but are themselves intershelved, allow only 100 points.)
C. Collection classified by Harvard-Yenching system … 300 points
D. Basic Western-langauge works on the Far East are available in the same area as the Chinese and Japanese collection … 100 points
E. Open-stacks for undergraduates and graduates … 100 points
PART TWO
A. See attached list of 20 basic orientological journals and allow 10 points for each one held. (If holding is less than a complete run, calculate percentage held and allow that fraction of 10.) Maximum allowable total … 200 points
B. See attached list of 20 basic collections and allow points as indicated for each one held. Maximum allowable total 300 points
C. See attached list of 100 basic reference works and allow points as indicated for each one held. (The work must be in reference room to qualify for full point total. If held, but not in reference room, allow one-half of points indicated.) Maximum allowable total … 500 points
7 While we are about it, would it not be good to devise a code so that the Center can let us know which books are reprints of post-1949 Mainland publications? Since these items are generally superior to Taiwan compilations, this added bit of data ought to help the Center's sales.
8 Note, for example, that Satō Hisashi's invaluable Kodai Chibetto shi kenhyū [Historical Study of Ancient Tibet], directly subsidized by Harvard-Yenching, now sells for over U.S. $90.00 if and when available, and the T'ang Civilization Reference Series has just been listed at U.S. $747.00! Most puzzling, perhaps, is the fact that Harvard Yenching did not use its influence—or money, if necessary—to get the Kyoto catalogue (Kyōto Daigaku Jimbunkagaku Kenkyūsho Kanseki bunrui mokuroku tsuki shomei-jimmei tsūken) published in a reasonable quantity. It is a work so useful and so basic to methodology that we might wish every student to own a copy—but little chance of that with the two-volume set now selling for $125.00. The list of such items is long, and the only ones benefitting are the book dealers and blackmarketeers.
9 Chū-Nichi daijiten, ed. by the Aichi University Chinese-Japanese Dictionary Editorial Board (Tokyo: Daian, 1968), 2 p.l., 11 + [1] + 88 + [1] + 1947 + 68 + [1] + 22 pp.; 18.5 cm. The dictionary gives approximately 11,000 single-character entries and 130,000 compounds. It is very strong in current usage and colloquial, good also for classical vocabulary, and virtually unsurpassed in the accuracy of its pronunciations.
9a Dr. Frank A. Kierman, Jr., Director of Research in the Chinese Linguistics Project, Princeton University, tells me that one reason for denying support to the Aichi translation was a general feeling that we needed a dictionary prepared from scratch according to sound linguistic principles and not one that was simply a translation of another, He adds that he and his associates hope to persuade an American scholar to undertake the preparation of such a dictionary in the foreseeable future. I am delighted that there is this concern to provide us with the much needed dictionary, but I hope this is to be more than a one-man project and that we do not simply end up with another beginner's dictionary. It is also only too easy to imagine a dictionary that might be a linguist's delight, but a lexicographical and methodological disaster. Let us hope, therefore, that we users and teachers may also be consulted.
10 Goodrich, L. Carrington, “Recent Developments in Chinese Studies,” JAOS, 85:2 (1965), pp. 117–121.Google Scholar
