The Prototypical Determinatives in Egyptian and Chinese Writing

SCRIPTA Volume 8, October 2016 The Hunmin jeongeum Society Contents Ko Sung-ik An Analysis of the Korean Alphabet’s Featural Characteristics ...................1 Lee SeungJae Developing a Terminology for Pre-hangeul Korean Transcription .............25 William G. BoLtz Orthographic Monosyllabicity ..................................................................73 J. Marshall UnGer Avoiding Circularity: A Response to Handel .............................................87 Chen Yongsheng The Prototypical Determinatives in Egyptian and Chinese Writing ........101 The Prototypical Determinatives in Egyptian and Chinese Writing* Chen Yongsheng Ocean University of China, China From the perspective of prototype theory in cognitive science this article conducts a comparative study between prototypical determinatives in Egyptian and Chinese writing. A prototypical determinative stands for a prototypical member (or subcategory) of a category, and is hence used to mark words labelling other members. Through comparable examples of prototypical determinatives in Chinese and Egyptian writing, this article analyses the working mechanisms of prototypical determinatives and the cultural factors that inluence their usage. Keywords: determinative, prototype, categorization, Chinese writing, Egyptian hieroglyphs *This study is a part of my project “A Comparative Study between Ancient Chinese Writing and Egyptian Hieroglyphs” which is supported by Grant No.13CYY047 from the Chinese National Foundation for Philosophy and Social Science (國家社會科學基金), the Noble Group Fellowship from W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, and the PBC Post-doctoral Fellowship from the Israel Council for Higher Education’s Planning and Budgeting Committee and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. This study is also supported by Grant No.QDSKL1601004 from Qingdao City Foundation for Philosophy and Social Science (2016年度青島市社會科學規劃研究項目). I am extremely grateful to Professor Dr. James P. Allen who taught me Middle Egyptian and Egyptian hieroglyphs. He has also given me valuable suggestions on this study and helped me proofread this article. I also owe enormous gratitude to Professor Dr. Orly Goldwasser. Her great work on Egyptian determinatives (she calls them “classiiers”) inspired my comparative study between Chinese and Egyptian determinatives. She ofered me an opportunity to work with her and shared her time and knowledge to supervise my comparative study. She also gave me very helpful advice for revising this article. I would also like to thank Professor Dr. Angela McDonald who kindly and speedily sent me her ofprints and pdf articles on Egyptian determinatives, which is a great convenience. Also my thanks go to Professor Dr. John Wineland, Professor Dr. Joseph Lam and PhD. candidate Geofrey Ludvik for improving the English. Last but not the least, I should thank the two anonymous reviewers for many valuable and constructive suggestions. SCRIPTA, Volume 8 (October 2016):101–126 © 2016 The Hunmin jeongeum Society SCRIPTA, VOLUME 8 (2016) 102 1. Introduction 1.1 Determinative Both Egyptian and Chinese writing applied three basic methods to record words: 1) the Meaning-oriented method (M); 2) the Sound-oriented method (S); and 3) the “Sound+Meaning” combination method (SM).1 In Tables 1 and 2 are some examples. table 1. Three Basic Methods in Egyptian Writing2 SOUND2 MEANING M r mouth S r toward SM rk time, age, era WRITING table 2. Three Basic Methods in Chinese Writing3 WRITING WRITING 舔 舔 M 舔 舔 蟖 S SM 舔 SOUND ɯ ɯ *kjɯ 舔 *kjɯ ɯ ɯ *djɯ ɯ 舔 之 zhī, MEANING ɯ ɯ 舔 place leave for some ɯ 3rd person舔 pronoun ɯ season, time ɯ My formulation of the three 舔 basic之methods zhī isɯbased on the Chinese writing analysis by Chen (1956:77), Lin (1986:14) and Qiu (2000:167). They all proposed these three basic methods with their slightly different terms. Here I generalize this framework to the 蟖 旹 ɯ Egyptian writing system. Presumably it is also applicable to other first writing systems like Sumerian and Mayan. 1 The Egyptian scribes consistently ignored and omitted words’ vowels in writing. The transliteration of Egyptian words is only說文解字 a renderation of consonants alone. Xiǎozhuàn 2 The three Chinese examples are from Shuo Wen Jie Zi 說文解字. The first two examples 說文解字 蟖 古文 蟕 時 “Xiǎozhuàn”Xiǎozhuàn 古文ɯ form of of ““蟕”(時 古文 form are Xiǎozhuàn (see footnote 蟖 古文 21) forms, 蟕 and 時 the third one 蟖蟖is the Gǔwén “Xiǎozhuàn” “Xiǎozhuàn” section (1.1). ” (時 shí). “Shuo蟖Wen Jie Zi” and 古文 蟕 will 時 be explained later in this “Xiǎozhuàn” On Gǔwén, see Qiu (2000:82-84). 舔 之 zhī, ɯ 3 說文解字 Xiǎozhuàn 舔 之 zhī ǎishū 楷書 說文解字 ɯ 蟖 旹 ɯ The Prototypical Determinatives in Egyptian and Chinese Writing 103 table 3. Structure of Sound-Meaning Compound (SMC) SMC SOUND PART Egyptian Chinese Chinese (r) + MEANING PART (k) 舔舔ɯ(*kjɯ) ɯ) 蟖 蟖 (sun) (sun) ɯ 蟏(sun) (sun) 舔 ɯ 舔 ɯ 舔 之 zhī, ɯ ɯ for some place) 5 are (r, mouth) and 舔 4 (之 zhī, *kjɯ, leave zhī ɯ ideograms6 created by M; 舔 (r,之toward) and 舔 (之 zhī, *kjɯ, 3rd ɯ person 舔 (rk, time, age, era) and pronoun) are loan phonograms created by S;7 ɯ 蟖 旹 compounds ɯ 蟖 (旹 shí, *djɯ, season ɯ or time) are sound-meaning (SMC) created by SM, and their structures are analyzed in Table 3. 舔 之 Each zhī, SMC ɯ comprises two parts: the sound part and the meaning part. 舔 之 zhī ɯ The sign’s older form in Oracle-Bone Inscriptions (OBI) is , which depicts a foot leaving the place indicated by the horizontal stroke for other places (Oracle-Bone 說文解字 蟖 旹 Inscriptions are hitherto the earliest evidence ofɯ Chinese writing, dated to the 14th‒11th century BC). 形旁 義符 4 蟖 蟕 時 For the Chinese examples in this article, their Kǎishū (楷書, Standard Script) forms and their modern Mandarin pronunciations (transcribed in Pinyin romanization system) are 說文解字 provided alongside for convenience. In 楷書 some places like the Table 2, the Old Chinese ǎishū Xiǎozhuàn reconstructions are also provided. (They are 說文解字 reconstructed and can be 蟖 古文 by Pan蟕Wuyun 時 found at the following URL: http://www.eastling.org/oc/oldage.aspx.) 5 蟖 古文 蟕 時 “Xiǎozhuàn” “Ideogram” and “logogram” are two closely related but different terms. An “ideogram” is a written sign which refers to the concept shown in its picture. The term is a combination of the Greek “idea” (“outward appearance”) and “gramma” (“written character”). However, the term “logogram” is a combination of the Greek “logos” (“word”) and “gramma” (“written character”), meaning a written sign of a whole word (Depuydt 1999:50-51). An ideogram is not necessarily a logogram. It is at the same time a logoǎishū 楷書 gram when used independently as a writing for a word. However, it is not a logogram when used dependently as a determinative (see next paragraph and footnote 11). A logogram is not necessarily an ideogram, because a loan phonogram (see footnote 7) when used independently as a writing for a word (like the second examples in Table 1 and Table 2) is also a logogram. 6 古文 A “loan phonogram” is originally a logogram. The logogram is borrowed to express a sound which is identical or similar to the logogram’s sound. A loan phonogram can be used independently as a logogram for the other word (typical for Chinese writing), like r “toward” and 舔 *kjɯ, 3rd personɯpronoun; it can also be used with other loan phonograms to spell the complex sound of other words (typical for Egyptian rn “name” r+ n). ɯ The method S is called Jiǎjiè “borrowing” writing), like 舔 ( (the Chinese characters formed in this way are known as Jiǎjièzì “loangraph”) in the traditional study of Chinese writing (Qiu 2000:5‒7), and形旁 is referred to as “rebus principle” in the Western study of writing systems. 7 舔 iǎjiè ɯ Xiǎozhuàn “Xiǎozhuàn” “ 104 SCRIPTA, VOLUME 8 (2016) The sound part contains one (typical for Chinese writing) or several loan phonograms (typical for Egyptian writing) which serve as phonetic indication(s) to the sound of the word.8 The meaning part consists of one or several meaning-signs which serve as semantic indication(s) to specify the meaning of the word, but convey no phonetic information. These kinds of meaning-signs are usually called “determinatives”9 by Egyptologists and are usually called “xíngpáng” (形旁, iconic part) or “yìfú” (義符, semantic sign)10 in the traditional study of Chinese writing. Here I adopt the Western term “determinative” and give a more general description with considerations of Chinese determinatives: 1) a meaning-sign, not conveying phonetic information; 2) position: in the meaning part of a SMC; 3) function: serving as a semantic indication to specify the meaning (or the signiied) of the word.11 As we can see in table 3, both Egyptians 8 Egyptian SMCs often use more than one loan phonograms to represent the consonantal structure (1‒4 consonants, 3-consonantal structure is the most common) of a word analytically. They use not only uniconsonantal but also biconsonantal or triconsonantal phonograms. And there are often phonetic complements following biconsonantal and triconsonantal phonograms (Gardiner 1957:38; 44). In contrast, Chinese SMCs often take only one phonogram to represent the sound of the word as a whole. (Most of the Old Chinese words are monosyllabic). It should be noted that “ideogram,” “phonogram” and “determinative” are not “sign classes” but rather “sign function classes” (Zeichenfunktionsklasse) as some Egyptologists explained and first named by Kammerzell (Schenkel 1984:714-718; Depuydt 1999:7273; Kammerzell 1999; Allen 2000:3; Lincke & Kammerzell 2012:59-60). Every basic sign in both writing systems has the potential to be used as an ideogram, a phonogram or a determinative. 9 Qiu (2000:Chapter 8). Note that the translators rendered “xíngpáng (形旁)” into “semantic symbol” or “signific,” and also note that they rendered SMC into “phonogram” incorrectly. 10 The term “determinative” (“déterminatif” in French) was first proposed by J. F. Champollion (1836:109), and more clearly defined by Alan H. Gardiner (1957:31 §23) as follows: “In several of the examples quoted in §22 the ideogram follows one or more phonograms and ends the word. In cases such as these it is called a determinative, because it appears to determine the meaning of the foregoing sound-signs and to define that meaning in a general way.” After Gardiner, some Egyptologists such as Schenkel, Kammerzell, Goldwasser and Polis/Rosmorduc have given more explanations on the nature of determinatives (for an overview see Polis/Rosmorduc 2015). Among them, Goldwasser, Kammerzell and their followers hold that “classifier” is a more accurate term than “determinative” and the words taking the same determinative constitute a cognitive category (Goldwasser 2002; Lincke/Kammerzell 2012). From my point of view, the term “determinative” is suitable for designating the sign’s function within individual words, while “classifier” is more suited for studying the sign’s function in a group of words all taking it. But because the category formed by a graphemic “classifier” is 11 The Prototypical Determinatives in Egyptian and Chinese Writing 105 and Chinese use a “sun” sign as determinative to indicate that the word’s meaning is associated with the sun, because ancient people primarily judged time by the sun’s position in the sky.12 Some diferences between Chinese and Egyptian determinatives should be noted here.13 First, it’s not uncommon that an Egyptian SMC takes more than one determinative, while a Chinese SMC normally takes only one determinative. Second, the Egyptian determinatives are usually written after the phonograms, while the Chinese determinatives are commonly written before the phonograms.14 Third, Egyptian determinative usage is more flexible. Alteration, redundancy, omission and even pragamatic use15 of determinatives are common in Egyptian script. Whereas in Chinese script, redundancy and pragmatic use of determinatives are rare.16 And Chinese determinatives are very integral to their SMCs after usually complex and heterogeneous as Kammerzell himself (2012:75-85) acknowledged, this still needs further investigation and observation to obtain a clearer definition of “classifier” and a detailed explanation of the homogeneity and heterogeneity between graphemic and linguistic classifiers (cf. McDonald 2004a:238). Presumably, specifying the meaning of individual words was the initial intention of determinative usage, while classifying words was an optimized way for the systematic and economical determinative application. From the perspective of cognitive linguistics, the use of sun determinatives as the indication of “time” can be called “metonymy,” which is based on the spatial, temporal, or causal contiguity between two concepts (or “categories,” see Lakoff 1987: Chapter 5). A comparison between Chinese and Egyptian metonymic determinatives will be conducted in a forthcoming publication. 12 For an overview of the commonalities and singularities between SMCs of Chinese writing system and those of Egyptian writing system, see Chen (2013:125-152). 13 Note that a Chinese SMC arranges its phonogram and determinative into a squareshaped space with the similar size to other characters in the same text, whereas an Egyptian SMC arranges its phonogram(s) and determinative(s) into either a linear sequence (e.g. iAw “old”) or a nonlinear spatial block (e.g. st “place”), and commonly takes different size of space from other words in the same text. Chinese writing has eight types of spatial arrangement for compounding a determinative and a phonogram into a SMC square. For four types of them (i.e. “determinative on the left, phonogram on the right,” “determinative on the top, phonogram on the bottom,” “determinative surrounding the phonogram” and “phonogram in a corner”), the determinative is written before the phonogram (Qiu 2000:242-243). 14 Pragmatic use of determinative means a determinative is used according to its actual referent in co-text and context, see Loprieno (2003:243-246); McDonald (2004a:239-248); Lincke & Kammerzell (2012:Section 4). 15 The linguistic and cultural reasons for this difference will be explored in a future study. 16 106 SCRIPTA, VOLUME 8 (2016) the standardization in Qin Dynasty, although omission and alteration of determinatives also occurred in Pre-Qin manuscripts.17 Determinatives appeared at a very early stage in both writing systems.18 After a process of gradual development,19 the systems of determinatives became mature. For Egyptian writing, the system of determinatives was already elaborate in the Pyramid Texts and reached complete maturity in the Middle Egyptian texts.20 For Chinese writing, the system of determinatives was already elaborate in the scripts of the Seven States in the Warring States Period and reached complete maturity at the stage of “Xiǎozhuàn 小篆.”21 In both Middle Egyptian writing and Chinese Xiǎozhuàn there were more than 300 determinatives, of which fewer than 100 were frequently used.22 My current comparative study focuses primarily on the determinatives in Middle Egyptian writing and those in Xiǎozhuàn script. For Egyptian determinatives, some examples from the Pyramid Texts will also be used 17 See Qiu (2000:Section 8.5.2) and Boltz (1994:163-165). Egyptian determinatives existed already in the writings from Predynastic Period and Early Dynastic Period (Kahl 2001:118; Kahl 1994:105-135). Chinese determinatives existed already in the Oracle Bone Inscriptions. 18 Egyptian writing and Chinese writing underwent a similar process of gradual optimization after their initial development. In the beginning stage, M and S were the principal methods, while SM was not as prevalent. But gradually, because of its clarity and productiveness, SM was applied more often and became the most frequently-used method. Consequently, a system of determinatives became fully developed in both writing systems. (William G. Boltz designates the optimization stage of Chinese script as “determinative stage,” see Boltz 1994:67.) 19 20 See Goldwasser (2002:13); Kammerzell and Lincke (2012). Middle Egyptian texts refer to the writings of Middle Egyptian, including not only the hieroglyphic texts but also the cursive hieroglyphic texts and hieratic texts. “Xiǎozhuàn” is the national standard writing in the Qin Dynasty (221-207 BCE). After unification of the seven separate states, the emperor Qin Shi Huang commanded the premier Li Si to standardize the script. The standardization was based on the writing of the Qin State in the Spring-Autumn Period and the Warring States Period (see Qiu 2000:89-103). The name “Xiǎozhuàn” was rendered into English as “lesser seal script,” because it has often been used for seal inscriptions, though it was replaced by other styles of script in daily usage. Also it is simpler than older script styles used in seal inscriptions. 21 In Gardiner’s sign-list there are about 320 signs functioning as determinatives (Gardiner 1957:442-543). Among them, 94 were listed in his list of “more important generic determinatives” (ibid:31-33). In the Xiǎozhuàn dictionary Shuo Wen Jie Zi there are 374 determinatives, of which 72 are highly productive (Li 1996:48; 56). 22 The Prototypical Determinatives in Egyptian and Chinese Writing 107 in this article. For Chinese determinatives, all examples are from the Xiǎozhuàn dictionary Shuo Wen Jie Zi 說文解字, which was compiled by Xu Shen 許慎 around 100 AD in Eastern-Han Dynasty. 1.2 Prototypical Determinative A determinative provides semantic indication of the word’s meaning in various ways. Both Sinologists and Egyptologists have been interested in the different relations between determinatives and the words they specify. Significantly, the Sinologist Xiang Duolin and the Egyptologist Orly Goldwasser reached very similar conclusions about determinativeword relation types based on their respective studies of Chinese and Egyptian determinatives. Basically, they both divided determinatives into four types: 1) taxonomic determinatives; 2) metonymic determinatives; 3) metaphorical determinatives; and 4) repeater-like determinatives.23 The difference between Xiang’s and Goldwasser’s studies is that the latter is based on a clear cognitive perspective and yields more profound explanations of determinative usage. Goldwasser’s central hypothesis is that the determinative phenomenon of Egyptian hieroglyphic writing relects a system of knowledge organization.24 She assumes that the range of words taking the same determinative constitutes a conceptual category.25 So she employed cognitive categorization theory26 to deal with the determinative system in Egyptian writing.27 Among the cognitive approaches Goldwasser applied, the prototype approach proved to be successful and fruitful.28 She has found that in 23 See Xiang (1987); Goldwasser (2002:15-18). The terms here are mainly adopted from Goldwasser. Xiang’s corresponding terms are “biāolèi xíngfú 標類形符,” “xiāngguān xíngfú 相關形符,” “bǐkuàng xíngfú 比況形符” and “biāoyì xíngfú 標義形符.” His terms have identical ideas, but are not as explicit as Goldwasser’s. 24 25 Goldwasser (1999:49). Goldwasser (2002:25). The cognitive categorization theory was first proposed by the cognitive psychologist Eleanor Rosch (1973a; 1973b; 1975a; 1975b; 1978; 1983) and later adopted and developed by George Lakoff in the field of cognitive linguistics (Lakoff 1987). 26 27 For a detailed explanation of her methodology, see Goldwasser (2002:25-38). Prototype theory is a central observation of the Roschian categorization theory. In the 1970s, Rosch found there is “centrality” and “degree of membership” with natural categories (i.e. results of folk classification rather than scientific classification). 28 SCRIPTA, VOLUME 8 (2016) 108 Egyptian writing a taxonomic determinative often depicts a prototype of a superordinate category to which the word’s meaning belongs.29 As Goldwasser states, “the prototype moves from its original meaning to ‘represent’ the whole category.”30 One of Goldwasser’s examples is the determinative (No. G38 in Gardiner’s Sign-list). She considers this sign as a depiction of “duck.” Then she proposes that because duck is a prototype of the birds in the Nile Valley, and because the superordinate category [bird] is image-defying (i.e. “people typically do not have a single, perceptual representation for a superordinate.”31), the sign was used as a determinative to represent the whole “bird” category (see Table 4), and even the fuzzy-edge members32 of this category such as mosquito (see Table 5).33 table 4. SMCs of Various Birds Taking the Prototypical Determinative P. D. 34353637 KINDS OF BIRDS 34 35 36 37 mnwt DAt hnt niw dove grey crane pelican ostrich “Prototype” is a central member and “best example” of a natural category. This discovery is quite different from the traditional theory of categorization where a category is defined by a series of shared properties within the members, and all the members have equal status. For example, as Rosch’s psychological experiment suggests (1975a:232), for American people “robin” (ranking 1st in goodness for example) and “sparrow” (2nd) are among the prototypes of the [bird] category, while ostrich (50th) and penguin (53rd) are among the peripheral members. 29 30 31 Goldwasser (1999:55). Goldwasser (2009:32). Lassaline et al. (1992:339). Most prototype categories do not have clear-cut boundaries, but rather fuzzy boundaries. The atypical peripheral members (or “bad examples”) of a category are on the fuzzy edge (see Lakoff 1987 Chapter 2, and the references there). 32 33 34 35 36 37 Goldwasser (2009:32-33; 1999:56-58; 2002:40). Wb 2, 79.3-5. TLA: DZA 31.538.790. Wb 3, 104.2-3. FCD 125. The Prototypical Determinatives in Egyptian and Chinese Writing 109 table 5. SMCs of Fuzzy-edge Members of Bird Taking the Prototypical 383940 Determinative P. D. FUZZY-EDGE MEMBERS OF BIRD 39 38 40 snHm xnws pwy locust mosquito lea One point worth mentioning is that there is no consensus on what depicts.41 As Angela McDonald suggested that a prototypical the sign determinative can be “a pictorial amalgamation of the prototypical attributes,”42 I would think it is more plausible to analyze this sign as an abstract depiction based on some prototypical ducks and geese. As Helen Strudwick states, when creating or drawing a hieroglyph, the Egyptian 38 39 It can also be written with a locust determinative, . FCD 192. “Flea” can also be written with a flea determinative or a hide determinative (F27): (FCD 88), (Wb 1, 502.2). Fleas’ wings have become vestigial, but they are very capable of jumping. We are not sure about the reason why the writing of “flea” as determinative. The ancient Egyptians might have thought either could take that fleas’ jumping was like flying or that fleas could be found on birds’ bodies. The reason for the hide determinative is probably that fleas can be found on hides. If the usages of and are based on the contiguity between flea and bird or hide, they are metonymic determinatives. 40 Gardiner (1957:471) considers this sign a depiction of a white-fronted goose (anser albifrons). However, according to Houlihan’s observation, “even when carefully executed and painted, this sign can usually only be identified as an Anser goose.” Only one unusually well detailed example of this sign can at a glance be called a white-fronted goose (Houlihan 1986:59). This sole occurrence is not enough to firmly determine the sign is a depiction of a white fronted goose, since it is possible that the specification resulted from the scribe’s unique intention or interest. Goldwasser thinks the prototype represented by the sign is a duck, because Faulkner (1952) argued that the word Apd in the Pyramid Texts originally referred to “duck” instead of “goose” before it obtained a generalized meaning “bird.” However, after reexamining the texts Faulkner mentioned, I think Apd originally should have referred to a certain species of duck, probably not “duck” in general. We should also be aware that “duck” and “goose” are modern designations of biological taxonomy, and that Egyptians may not have separated the Anatidae family into these two groups, although they categorized this family into more specific species. So it is prudent to say Apd originally referred to a certain species of Anatidae which in modern biological view is a kind of duck. 41 42 McDonald (2004a:244). SCRIPTA, VOLUME 8 (2016) 110 scribe or artist was more concerned with writing a word than producing an accurate representation of a speciic species.43 Distinguishing certain species of ducks or geese or even distinguishing a duck from a goose by simple line drawing needs too much thankless efort. After Goldwasser’s cognitive treatment of Egyptian determinatives, the Sinologist Chen Feng also applied cognitive approaches to analyze Chinese determinatives and mentioned the prototypicality of Chinese 玺 determinatives.44 Although her analysis of prototypical determinatives was not in-depth and some demonstrations were inappropriate, she did 鰱 mention some proper examples of prototypical determinatives, such as 缭 45 玺 clams take 琪 this 鑒缭 (魚, yú, *ŋa, ish). She noticed that some words denoting sign as a prototypical determinative, but she did not analyze them clearly. 鮒 鱅 yōng The following is my interpretation. The sign 缭 (OBI: 鰱 ; Bronze Inscription: 46 ) is a prototypical image of ish which is based on some prototypical 玺 琪 鑒 鐻 attributes of the prototypes of the [fish] category. Apparently, scaleless fish like the catfish are not typical in the ancient Chinese mind. As a 47 鰱 only used 鮒 鱅 yōng 鮎 as the logogram prototypical image of ish, the sign 缭 was not of *ŋa “ish,” but also used as a prototypical determinative marking words labelling various members of the fish category (see Table 6),48 even the fuzzy-edge members of the ish category (see Table 7). 缭 琪 玺 缭 缭缭 缭 缭 缭 鑓 table 6. SMCs of Various Fish Taking the Prototypical Determinative 缭 P. D. 缭 鑗 鰱 KINDS OF FISH 鑒 鐻 鑅 鑒鑒 鐻鐻 鑒 鑒 鑒 鐻 鐻 鐻 鑓 鑅鑅 鑅 鑅 鑅 鑗 鰱 鮒 fù 鮎 nián 鯫 zōu yōng 鰱lián 鮒 鱅鱅yōng 鮎 鯫 zōu 缭 lián yōng zōu 鰱 鱅 yōng 鮎鮎 鮎 nián 鯫鯫 鯫 lián yōng zōu 鰱 鰱 lián liánlián 鮒鮒 鮒 鮒fù fù鮒 fù fù 鱅鱅 鱅 鱅 yōng yōng 鮎 nián 鯫 鯫 zōu zōuzōu 缭缭 Xiǎozhuàn 缭 缭 缭 鰱鰱 缭 鮎 鰂a kind 鰒 white of small silver carp crucian carp bighead carp catish ish a kind of 玺 玺玺 玺 玺 玺 鰂 鮒 鰒 鰝 X 琪 琪琪 琪 琪 琪 50 鑥 鱉 鰝 biē 50 鑓 缭 43 44 45 46 Xiǎozhuàn 缭缭 缭 缭 Strudwick (1990:214). 缭 ChenP.(2006:Chapter 5). FUZZY -EDGE MEMBERS OF FISH P. P.D. P.D. D. D.P. D. Ibid:102. 鑓 鑗 鑥 鑧 鑗鑗 鑥鑥 鑧鑧 鑓 鑓 鑓 鑗 鑗 鑗 鑥 鑥 鑥 鑧 鑧 鑧 Xu (2010:4983). 鑓鑓 鱉 缭 See footnote 6 for 鰂 the definition 鰒 of “logogram.” 缭 鰝 魧 缭 鰝鰝 魧魧 缭 缭 缭 all 鰂 鰂 鰝 are hào from 魧 háng 鰂 zéi 鰒 鰂 鰂Xiǎozhuàn zéi zéi zéi 鰒 鰒 鰒 fù鰒 fù fù definitions 鰝 鰝 hào 魧 魧Shuo In this缭 article, the examples’ Wen Jie Zi unless 50 otherwise specified. 5050 5050 50 abalone cuttlefish abalone big shrimp big clam cuttlefish abalone cuttlefish cuttlefish big shrimp 47 biē 鰂 Xiǎozhuàn 48 Xiǎozhuàn Xiǎozhuàn Xiǎozhuàn Xiǎozhuàn Xiǎozhuàn Xiǎozhuàn 鱉 biē 鱉鱉 鱉 biē 鱉 鱉biē biē biē biē 鱷 鱷鱷 鱷 鱷 鱷 Duan Yuc 玺 缭 缭 玺 玺琪 玺琪 鰱 鮒 缭 鰱缭 鰱缭 鰱 鮒 鰱 鮒 琪 鑒琪 鑒 鑒 鐻鑒 鐻 鐻 鑅鐻 鑅 鱅 yōng 鮎 鯫 zōu 缭 鮒鱅 鮒 yōng 鱅 yōng 鱅 yōng 鮎鱅 yōng 鮎 鮎 鯫鮎zōu 鯫 zōu 鯫 zōu 鯫 zōu 玺 琪 鑒 table 7. SMCs of Fuzzy-edge Members of Fish 鰱 鮒 鱅 yōng Determinative 缭 玺 琪 鑒 P. D. 缭 缭 鑓 鑓鰱 鑓 111 鐻 鑅 缭 缭 缭 Taking the 49 鑅 The Prototypical Determinatives in Egyptian and Chinese Writing 缭 Page 11 缭 缭 鑅 鮎 缭 缭 Prototypical 鯫 zōu 鐻 FUZZY-EDGE MEMBERS OF FISH 鑗 鑥 鑧 鑗 鑗 鑥鑗 鱅 鑥 yōng 鑥 鑧鑥 鑧鮎 鑧 鑓 鑗 鑓鮒 鑅 鑧 鰒 fù 鰝 鰝魧hào 鰂鰂 zéi 鰒 缭 缭 鰂 zéi 鰂 zéi鰂 鰒 zéi鰂 鰒 zéi fù鰒 鰝 fù 鰒 鰝 fù 鰝 魧 hào 鰝魧 hào 魧 49 big shrimp cuttleish abalone 缭 魧 háng big clam 50 50 50 50 abalone abalone abalone cuttlefish cuttlefish cuttlefish cuttlefish big shrim big shrimp big clam 50 鯫 zōu 魧 háng In addition, the Xiǎozhuàn Xiǎozhuàn 鱉 form biē of 鱉 biē, soft-shelled 鱷 turtle) has not 缭 鑓 Xiǎozhuàn Xiǎozhuàn Xiǎozhuàn 鱉 in biē 鱉 biē 鱉鑗biē 鱉 biē 鑥 鱷 鱷 鑧鱷 鱷 form of 鱉 biē, soft-shelled turtle) has Xiǎozhuàn not been found, but later been found, but in later stages it took the ish determinative; the Xiǎozhuàn �, è,è,alligator) writing alligator) got two later-stage variants (鱷 and tive; the Xiǎozhuàn writing 駏 ((฀, got two later-stage 缭 鰂 鰒 鰝 魧 鰐) both taking ish determinative. ng fish determinative. 50 Inspired by the previous studies of Goldwasser and Chen, in this article 鑓 鑗 鑥 鑧 I attempt to ind more comparable prototypical determinatives in Egyptian Xiǎozhuàn 鱉 biē 鱷 and Chinese writing, and observe the commonalities 缭 鰂 鰒 鰝and culture-speciic 魧 peculiarities of prototypical determinative usage. 50 Xiǎozhuàn for Three 鱉 Types biē 2. Prototypical Determinatives of Categories There are mainly three types of conceptual categories which underlie the main body of vocabulary of a given language: categories of objects, events, and attributes. In section 2, I provide some comparable examples of prototypical determinatives for words labeling those three types of Duan Yucai’ 鑗 categories. Duan Yucai’ Duan Yucai’ Duan Yucai’ Duan Yucai’ 鑗 鑗 鑗 鑗 2.1 Prototypical Determinatives for Words Labeling Object Categories Besides and som other comparable examples are as follows. and 缭,, 缭 some Duan Yucai’ 鑗 &惚 & 惚 (N36) is a depiction of a canal. The water indicated by undulating lines between the two borders can be easily seen in some detailed Old Kingdom 49 Duan Yucai’ retationof of 鑗 (Xu ( Xu 2010:5016). 2010: Here I follow Duan Yucai’s interpretation 鱷 SCRIPTA, VOLUME 8 (2016) 112 examples.50 Canals were very important for both irrigation and navigation in ancient Egypt. “It is not unusual to see inscriptions about monarchs or other high functionaries that list among their accomplishments the excavation or repair of a silted-in canal.”51 The canal had become the prototype of the [water body] category because of its importance. So the was used as a prototypical determinative to mark words labeling sign various bodies of water. For example, 惚 惚 惚 惚 惚水 水 shuǐ shuǐ 52 惚 水 shuǐ river itrw 惚 水 shuǐ 水 shuǐ 水 水 shuǐshuǐ54 惚 惚 水 shuǐ wAD-wr sea 水 shuǐ 53 55 Xnw brook pHww marshlands 水 shuǐ) 惚 ((水 shuǐ delineates a flow of water or a river. It was used as the logogram which denotes both “water” and “river.” Because the flowing river was considered a prototype of the [water body] category, it is not only used as a determinative marking proper names of various rivers (see the following examples on the left side), but also other types of water 愠河 河 錺洼 洼 wā wā 愠 愠 河 錺 錺 洼 wā bodies (see the following examples on the right side): 洼 wā 愠 愠 河 河 錺 錺 洼 wā 愠 河 錺 洼 wā 錺 洼 wā 愀河 江 jiāng jiāng 錽沼 沼 zhǎo zhǎo 愀 江 愀 愠 江 jiāng 錽 錽 沼 zhǎo 愠 (河 錺 洼 wā 河 洼 hé), the Yellow River wā), deep ( ( 愠 河 錺 (洼 wā 江 jiāng 沼 zhǎo pool 愀 愀 江 jiāng 錽 錽 沼 zhǎo 愀 江 jiāng River 錽 (沼 江 沼 jiāng), the Yangtze River zhǎo), pond ( ( 愀 (江 jiāng 錽 沼 阍 洛 錿 湖zhǎo 湖 阍 阍 洛 洛 錿 錿 湖 zhǎo 愀 江 jiāng 錽 沼 zhǎo 愀 江 jiāng 錽 沼 zhǎo 阍 錿洼 湖 洛 luò), the Luo River 湖 阍 河 洛 ((洛 錿 hú), big lake 愠 錺((湖 wā 阍 洛 錿(浏 湖hǎi), 洛 錿 湖 泫((淮 淮 浏 海 hǎi hǎi 泫 海 淮 海 泫 阍 淮 浏 (海 hǎi huái), the Huai River sea 阍 洛 錿 湖 阍 洛 錿 湖 泫 淮 浏 海 hǎi 泫 江 淮 jiāng 浏錽 海沼hǎizhǎo 愀 泫 泫 淮 淮 浏 浏 海 海 hǎi hǎi &&锌 锌浏海 hǎi 海 hǎi 泫 泫 淮 淮 浏 锌 锌 锌錿 阍 洛 湖 Goldwasser has done comprehensive case study thedeterminative determinative 锌case 锌 Goldwasser done aacomprehensive study ofofthe Goldwasser has done a comprehensive case study of the determinative Goldwasser hashas done comprehensive case study of the determinative 锌 锌 Goldwasser has done a comprehensive case study of the determinative 56 Goldwasser has done a comprehensive case study of the determinative 泫 淮 浏 海 hǎi (M1). She considers this sign as a depiction of the “sycamore tree,” which Goldwasser has has donedone a comprehensive casecase study of the Goldwasser a comprehensive study of determinative the determinative isGoldwasser a Goldwasser prototype of done the [tree] category in study the ancient Egyptian mind. (One has a comprehensive of determinative the determinative has done a comprehensive casecase study of the main line supporting evidence is that 锌the name of the sycamore tree “nht” 50 obtained generalized meaning “tree” the Goldwasser has done a comprehensive study the determinative ””case obtained aaof generalized meaning “tree” ininthe ” obtained a generalized meaning “tree” in the Betrò (1996:160). 51 Ibid. 52 FCD: 33. 53 54 55 56 ” obtained a generalized meaning “tree” in the ” obtained a generalized meaning “tree” in the ” obtained a generalized meaning “tree” in the ” obtained a generalized meaning “tree” in the ” obtained a generalized meaning “tree” in the ” obtained a generalized meaning “tree” in the FCD: 202. FCD: 56. FCD: 92. ” obtained a generalized meaning “tree” in the Goldwasser (1999:54-55; 2002:39-55). 58 5858 59 5959 58 58 59 59 58 58 59 59 58 58 59 59 The Prototypical Determinatives in Egyptian and Chinese Writing 113 obtained a generalized meaning “tree” in the New Kingdom.) Then she presumes that, because of the sycamore tree’s prototypicality, the sign was 60 60 60 used as a determinative to represent the superordinate [tree] category from 60 60 60onwards, as the following writings show: the Old Kingdom 60 锌锌 禾 锌禾 禾 锌 禾60 60 锌 禾 锌 禾 57 锌 禾 nht sycamore tree 锌 锌 禾 禾 60 59 58 nDm carob tree 锌锌 锌 锌 锌 60 SnD acacia 锌 锌 锌 锌 bAq olive tree 锌 ((禾 禾 hé) depicts a millet plant. The bent top is the millet ear, as shown , .61 锌 The deinition of more clearly in the OBI and Bronze Inscriptions: Xiǎozhuàn Xiǎozhuàn 锌锌 锌 Xiǎozhuàn definition of 锌 in in Shuo Wen Jie Zi is “good grain,”Xiǎozhuàn because millet is锌a better grain for Xiǎozhuàn 锌 Xiǎozhuàn eating and ofering than other grains growing in the Central Xiǎozhuàn 锌 锌Plains region Xiǎozhuàn 锌 锌 of ancient China. Its name graduallyXiǎozhuàn obtained a generalized meaning definition of 锌 was in used as a determinative to write “grain.” In Xiǎozhuàn writing, other grains, even barnyard grass, which is similar but not a grain as such. 凶凶 穄 胸胸 稻 凶穄 are 穄 as follows: 胸稻 稻 Examples Xiǎozhuàn 锌 àn 锌 凶 穄 胸 稻 凶 穄 胸 稻 or 胸 凶稬 稬 穄 凶汹 稬 穄 胸 汹 雄雄稻 稴 汹 雄稴稻 稴 穄 稻 凶稬 凶 穄((穄 胸 ((稻 胸 稻 汹 稬jì), broomcorn 雄dào), 稴 rice 汹 雄 稴 汹 (稬 雄 稴 稬 稴 nuò), xián), ((稴 汹熊 秔 稬 雄羞 jīng 熊 穬 熊秔(jīng 秔 jīng sticky rice 羞穬 穬 rice which is not sticky Xiǎozhuàn 锌 羞 汹秔 汹 稬(jīng 稬 雄((穬 雄 稴 稴 a kind of barley with long awn 熊 (秔 jīng a kind of rice 羞 穬 秔 穬 jīng), kuàng), 熊 羞 熊 秔 jīng 羞 熊修 秏 秔 羞嗅 穬 稗穬 修 嗅 秏 hào), a kind of rice 稗 修秏(jīng (秏 嗅bài), 稗barnyard grass ((稗 熊秏 熊 秔 秏 jīng 秔 jīng 羞 嗅 羞 穬 稗 穬 修 修 凶 穄 胸 嗅 稻 稗 修 秏 嗅 稗 修 秏 嗅 稗 & & 修 修 秏 秏 嗅 嗅 稗 稗笆 笆笆 汹 稬 雄 稴 笆笆 笆 笆is differentiated from other 胸 稻portrays a collar of gold which (S12) 熊 秔 jīng 羞 穬 笆笆 collars by the beads delineated on its lower edge and by its hanging ends.62 雄 稴 writing, it is usually used as an ideogram to write the word Egyptian 修In秏 嗅 稗 nbw “gold” (determinatives or phonetic complements were often added): 羞 穬 , , or .63 The nature of gold made it ideal for representing the 57 58 59 60 61 62 . 63 笆, 嗅 稗 Wb 2, 282.6-283.2. , , Wb 1, 423.9-15. 笆 Wb 2, 378.2-7. , , , or, ,, or ,, or , , , or , , , or , or . . or . or . or . . . . . Wb 4, 520.9-13. Xu (2010:2770). Wilkinson (1992:171). FCD: 129. or , indicates the plural, of small , or pellets. of metal or mineral. The , or . SCRIPTA, VOLUME 8 (2016) 114 divine. Representations of divinity often have limbs of gold and gold itself came to symbolize divinity. In fact, the gilded mummy “could be identiied with the solar god Ra (the golden god by definition), and insure itself a 67 silver destiny of eternal rebirth.”64 Undoubtedly, gold became the prototype of precious metals for the Egyptian people. Correspondingly, was used as 笆（玉 ） ŋog a determinative to mark other precious metals. For example, 68 65 68 68 Damw electrum 66 HD67 silver silver 笆（玉 ŋog “jade,” depicts a string of jade lakes (OBI: (玉 yù),）the logogram of *ŋog 67 ). (Note: both Egyptians and Chinese used the jewelry signs to represent gold or jade, because the materials are not easy to portray directly, while the gold collar and the jade string are more identiiable.) China is a country 笆 Chinese people had which adores jade. From the Neolithic period regarded 67 silver jade as the most precious stone and a symbol67 of noble silver rank. Shuo Wen Jie ） ŋog is笆“beautiful stone.” As a prototype of precious stones, Zi’s deinition of 笆（玉 笆（玉 ŋog was not）only used as a determinative for various type of jades, but also 68 for many other precious stones which are similar or inferior to jade. For 眐 㺿 example, 笆 眐 㺿 眐 珢 㺿 眑 眃 瑀 yǔ), of precious stone similar to jade ((瑀 眐 㺿 yǔ a kind 笆 眑 珢 眐 (㺿 㺿 眑 (玤 珢yí), a kind of precious stone similar to jade 眅 珢 yín), a kind of precious stone similar to jade ( 眑 (珢 眅 玤 眑 ((玤 珢 眅 玤 眎 璓bàng), a kind of precious stone inferior to jade 眅 ((璓 玤xiù), a kind of precious stone inferior to jade 璓 眎 眅 璓 玤 眎 玖 jiǔ), 眏 ((玖 jiǔ a kind of black precious stone inferior 笆 to jade 眎 玖 璓 眃 瑀 jiǔ yǔ 眏 笆 眎 璓 眏 玖 jiǔ 笆 2.2 Prototypical Determinatives for Event Categories 眏 玖 jiǔ 眏 玖 jiǔ 笆 Event categories have prototypes too. For example, the prototype of “to sleep” is probably sleeping on a bed rather than sleeping on a 眃 瑀 yǔ 眃 瑀 yǔwhich is a paronym of nbw was written as golden collar nbyt 64 65 66 67 Betrò (1996:176). FCD: 320. FCD: 181. Xu (2010:1176). Xiǎozhuàn Xiǎozhuàn Xiǎozhuàn Xiǎozhuàn or (ibid). 眎 璓 眏 玖 jiǔ 眐 㺿 眑 珢 The Prototypical Determinatives in Egyptian and Chinese Writing 115 眅 玤 lawn. However, most events are hard to delineate 眐 㺿 by simple icons. So 眎 璓 there is only a small number of basic signs portraying events in either 眑 珢 眏 玖orjiǔChinese writing. As I observed, there are fewer than 50 Egyptian Xiǎozhuàn Xiǎozhuàn sign-list, and event signs out of 671 in Gardiner’s are even fewer in 眅 there 玤 68 Chinese Xiǎozhuàn. Accordingly, there are very few prototypical event 眎 璓 determinatives in either writing system. Among them, I found the two 眷;;; & 稱玖 jiǔwill && 眷 &眏稱 .. (As (As will be shown in following pairs very comparable:: a future article, most of the words event words in both writing systems were ing systems were written wit in both writing written with metonymic determinatives which represent the entities involved in the events. Kammerzell and his follower Lincke analyze these Xiǎozhuàn metonymic determinatives as “semantic roles,” such as agent, experiencer, Xiǎozhuàn Xiǎozhuàn instrument, patient etc.69) Xiǎozhuàn : && 眷; 稱 words in both writing (A24, gradually replaced by the abbreviated form from Middle : and & 眷; (攴/攵 稱 Kingdom) pū) depict a man holding a stick and a hand Xiǎozhuàn holding a instick, respectively. Interestingly, both the ancient Egyptians words both writing and the ancient Chinese saw this action as theXiǎozhuàn prototype of force or efort (presumably, the actions with hands may be more prototypical than & 眷; were used 稱 as actions with other body parts).70 Consequently, : and Xiǎozhuàn determinatives to mark various action words words which do not necessarily in both writing concern sticks or striking in both writing systems (see Table 8). Teaching and attacking might have been associated with sticks originally, however, anointing, slaughtering, imitating, or changing, etc. have nothing Xiǎozhuànto do with sticks. Note that I am talking about simple signs instead of compound signs. There is a small group of ideographic compounds representing event in Chinese Xiǎozhuàn, but they almost only serve as logogram, seldom as determinative. In Egyptian writing many event words are determined with more than one determinative which together describe an event such as (gs to anoint). However, the collaborating determinatives basically do not constitute a scene of event. For instance, the two determinatives in , the oil jar and the man striking with a stick, do not constitute an image of anointing. If we think them as integral parts of an image, it would mean striking an oil jar. So here is a determinative depicting an action, whereas is not. 68 69 70 Kammerzell (2015). Goldwasser has mentioned the prototypicality of in her article (2009:35). 8 (2016) SCRIPTA, VOLUME Xiǎozhuàn 116 table 8. The Prototypical Determinatives / / : 稱 Actions71727374 Various & 眷 眷; 眷 稱 縄 决 效 縄 變 變 喀 in教both writing jiāo 縄 變words 喀 ((教 jiāo 教 jiāo), to teach sbA to72teach 决 效 縩 ((攻 gōng to attack 攻 gōng), 縄 變 縩 (攻 gōng 72 hd to attack 73 gs to anoint 决 效 qn to slaughter 縄er er 變 73 73 74 && 走 zǒu zǒu : 决 决 效 效 决in both 效 writing words 72 71 Xiǎozhuàn 眷 眷 & 眷;for and 稱 稱 稱 决 縄 變 Xiǎozhuàn Xiǎozhuàn 效 决 ((效 效 xiào), to imitate 稱縄 (變 變 biàn), to change 縄 ((變 稱 稱 稱 稱 稱 稱 稱 稱 走 zǒu sign The Egyptian depicts legs walking. It is considered a prototype of 走决 zǒu效 匪 motion by foot determinative to mark various 走 zǒuand used as a prototypical 匪 縄 變 匪 words concerning movement (see 匪 examples in the left column of Table 9). 走 zǒu 75 稱 & 稱 (走 zǒu, Bronze inscription: ) portrays a person running. The Chinese The upper part Itis a person running; the bottom is aa foot, which legs walking. bottom part part 匪 is 走 zǒu 走 zǒu 走 most zǒu related body part to this action. As a prototype of emphasizes the 匪 motion by foot, it serves as a匪determinative various words of run匪 决marking 稱 效 ning, walking and jumping (see examples in the right column of Table 9). 稱 legs walking. It 稱縄 76 77 78 决 效 變 稱 稱 匪 縄 變 Motions by Foot & 稱 for Various and 稱 table 9. The Prototypical Determinatives legs walking. It 76 77 稱 78 79 (趋 稲 71 72 73 74 75 76 稲 趋 qū 稲 趋 趋 qūqū legs walking. It 稲 趋 qū), 稲 ((趋 qū to walk fast tkn 飞 (趒 趒 稱 趒 飞 approach 稱 飞 趒 稱 to 走approach zǒu 飞 ((趒tiào), to hop like sparrow approach 飞 (趒 tiào hasten 穉 (� xiá Wb 4, 83.18-84.14. FCD: 160. Ibid. 稱 飞 趒 to approach hasten to(� hasten hasten 穉 (� xiá 穉 穉 (�稱 稱 hasten 穉 � 稲 (趋 qū (W23, jar) is used here. 稱 飞 (趒 approachknife) (T30, is tiào used here. 稲 (趋 hasten 鄱 峻 qū 穉 (� xiá approach 飞 (趒 tiào hasten 穉 (� xiá 惚 水 shuǐ 踰 山 shān 稱 稱 稱 穉 (� 稲 趋 qū 匪to go 稶 ((超 chāo 超 chāo), (趋 to qūjump over 稲 (趋 qū 稲 稲 (趋 qū Gardiner (1957:457). 78 稱 穉 (� 穉 xiá to run hastily 穉 ((� (�xián), (趒 approach 飞 (趒 tiào 飞 飞 (趒 approach 稱 Wb 5, 44.6. Another determinative Xu (2010:3703). 匪 approach FCD: 219. Another determinative Ibid. 稱 to go approach 77 稱 稱 稱 & 稱 Sm hasten hasten to hasten hasten xAx 稱 走 zǒu hasten qū to stride stride iA 稱 稱 鍯（準 zhǔn ） 稱 踰 踰 山 山 shānshān 鄱 鄱 峻 峻 ves, ves, such such as a a“knife” determinative determinative ves, ves, such such asasaaas“knife” “knife” “knife” determinative determinative for “sharp” “sharp” and and aa “fire” a a“fire” determinative determinative for “hot” “hot” The Prototypical Determinatives in Egyptian and Chinese Writing forforfor “sharp” “sharp” and and “fire” “fire” determinative determinative forforfor “hot” “hot” 117 table 10. Comparable Prototypical Determinatives 稶 超 chāo for Attributes 稶稶超超chāo chāo Egyptian (T30, knife) → → →→→ 80 Chinese 漠漠刀 刀dāo dāo dāo →墓 →墓 剡 剡剡 yǎn yǎn dāo, knife)→墓 →墓 yǎn yǎn sharp) 刀刀 剡 dāo, knife) yǎn, (漠 ((剡 dm sharp sharp sharp漠(刀 → 撸撸(火 huǒ huǒ, fire)→郤 →郤 →→→ 81 tA hot hot hot hot 火火 熱(熱rè, hot) huǒ, ire) (Q7, ire) → → ((熱 → 熱 (火 火 huǒ huǒ fire)→郤 →郤 熱 hot 撸 (撸 79 80 81 2.3 Prototypical Determinatives for Attribute Categories Attributes are abstract. Their prototypes can only be shown when they adhere to objects.82 Both Egyptian and Chinese writing systems tend to choose an object which is typical of an attribute as the prototypical (M2, determinative of that attribute. For example, Egyptians used 83 84 herb) for (isi “light”),惚 (U32, pestle) for (dns “heavy”) ; 水 shuǐ 鍯（準 zhǔn ） Chinese peopleused used 惚惚 shuǐ zhǔn ）） 踰 ((山 shuǐ “water”) water”) for for鍯（準 鍯（準 zhǔn 水水 山 shān shuǐ, zhǔn, “flat”), ((水 (準 Chinese people 踰 山 shān“mountain”) ountain”) for for 鄱 ((峻 峻 jùn, “high”). For some parallel attributes, they shān, 踰踰山山shān shān 鄱峻峻 prototypes as determinatives, such as a “knife” may have chosen鄱similar such as a “knife” determinative for “sharp” and a “ire”ves, determinative for determinative “hot” (see Table ves, such as as a “knife” determinative ves, such a “knife” determinative for “sharp” and a “f 10). for “sharp” and a “fire” determinative for “hot” However, it is common that they had culture-specific prototypes for forfor “sharp” andand a “fire” determinative forfor “hot” “sharp” a “fire” determinative “hot” some attributes. I will talk about this case in the next section. Egyptian 3. Cultural Factors in the Assignment Chinese of Prototypical 84 漠 刀 dāo →墓 剡 yǎn → dm s Determinatives 刀刀dāodāo knife)→墓 →墓 剡(剡 yǎnyǎn →→ dm sharp sharp 漠漠 (Q 85 撸 火 huǒ →郤 熱 → tA hot Ancient Chinese and Egyptian people lived in different geographical →郤 熱(熱 →→ tA hothot 撸撸火火huǒ huǒ fire)→郤 regions and created diferent material and spiritual cultures. These cultural differences have led to some different categorizations based on different prototypes.85 As a result, some parallel objects and concepts from these two 79 Wb 1, 26.1-2. 80 Ibid:515. 81 Ibid:500. The determinative is a depiction of a brazier with flame. 82 Zhang (2007:119). 83 Gardiner (1957:478). 84 Ibid:520. The lower part of the sign U32 is a mortar. For a general view of how and to what extent cultural factors influence categorization, see Malt (1995). 85 → → 118 SCRIPTA, VOLUME 8 (2016) cultures can take contrasting prototypical determinatives. I will give some culture-speciic examples of prototypical determinatives in three diferent aspects in sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. 3.1 Culture-speciic Folk Classiication 瘀 蝗 Different cultures may have different folk categorizations for plants or animals, especially at the supra-generic levels.86 Some contrasting usages of prototypical determinatives reflect this well. For example, as we have mentioned above, in Egyptian hieroglyphs the writings of locust 饃 and mosquito can take the determinative (see Table 5), because in 饃 Egyptians’ minds they are fuzzy-edge members of the category of [bird] 饃 whose 饃 prototype is a duck or goose. By contrast, the Chinese writings of 瘀 袼 穹 鹎 駄 饃 饃 huǐ） minative 饃（虫 which is a depiction (虫 huǐ) locust and mosquito take the determinative 穹 袼 蝎袼 of a snake (OBI: ), because ancient into azǎo supra饃 Chinese 蝗 classiied 蚊 them瘀 蚤瘀 xiē 穹 䗇 袼 穹 鹎 駄 87 generic category [small animals], whose prototype (see Table 穹 11). 瘀 is饃snake 鹎瘀 穹 饃蝗袼 瘀蝗 蚊 袼蚊 蚤 zǎo蚤 Other small animals like the lea, the scorpion, and the toad also belong 蚊 蚤 zǎo 蝎 xiē 䗇 to this category (see also in Table 11).饃However, writings of 蝗 the 蚊蝗 蚤蚊 zǎo 蝎 xiēzǎo 饃Egyptian 饃 蝗蚤 scorpion, frog, turtle and crocodile can take the determinative ,88 which is a depiction of “hide and tail” representing the prototypical features of mammals,89 because Egyptians classiied them into a supra-generic category [quadruped],90 of which [mammal] is the prototypical subcategory (see 饃 Ethnobiological data suggests that culture-specific influences have the most potential impact on categorization at the supra-generic levels (Malt 1995:129-130). 86 87 pitkūn viper, and it is Shuo Wen Jie Zi interprets 饃 as coua logogram of brevicaudate 癫 䖵 褙used 蟲 as determinative for other small animals because the snake is representative (Xu Shen 1963:278). However, I believe the determinative 饃 could form of cou 饃 be an abbreviated form 癫 of 䖵癫 kūn(䖵 kūn 癫 kūn OBI: OBI: )) or or 褙 (蟲 (蟲 chóng, Chu-State Bamboo slip writing: (䖵䖵 ), the logogram of kūn, 癫 䖵 kūnform OBI: or the general name of small animals 饃 (Ji 2004:221; 224). of 饃 And the component of (䖵褙kūn(蟲 饃 cou癫) or could be a depiction of a worm, which is very饃 similar 癫 to the 褙 depiction of a snake. 88 They can also take their own icons as determinatives, see Goldwasser (2002:Appendix 42*–45*). no horizontal line on its top 89 On what this sign depicts, there are different opinions. Gardiner considered it as a leopard-skin in his first edition of Egyptian Grammar, but as a cow-skin in his second and ： third edition. Goldwasser (2002:57-61) argues that it is a leopard-skin. McDonald (2004a: 243-244) contends that it possibly represents the prototypical attributes of the mammal category’s members rather than an individual species’ hide. I follow McDonald’s ： ： explanation. ： 90 ： category, and ： Goldwasser (1999:59) first proposed the term “quadruped” for this then 褙 褙 The Prototypical Determinatives in Egyptian and Chinese Writing 119 饃 饃 饃 饃minative 饃 Various 饃（虫 huǐ） Small Animals table 11. The Prototypical Determinative for P. D. SMALL ANIMALS 穹 袼 穹鹎 穹鹎穹 鹎 駄鹎 駄鹎 駄 瘀袼 瘀袼瘀 袼穹 袼 瘀 瘀 駄 駄 minative 饃（虫 huǐ） 蝗 huáng 蚊 wén 蚤 zǎo 蝎 xiē 蝗饃 huáng 蝗饃 huáng 蚊蚤wén 蚤wén zǎo 蚤 蝎zǎo xiē 䗇 饃 饃蝗 饃 huáng 蚊 zǎo 蝎zǎo xiē 蝗蚊 huáng 蝗wén huáng 蚊 蚊 wén 蚤 蚤xiē蝎 zǎo䗇 蝎䗇 xiē 蝎 xiē 䗇 䗇 jú mosquito osquito flea flea flea scorpion locustlocustlocustlocust locust osquito osquito scorpion toad locust lea mosquito 饃 toad QUADRUPEDS QUADRUPED UPEDS 91 饃 scorpion for Various Quadrupeds table 12. The Prototypical Determinative P. P.D.D.P. D. P. D. P. D.P. D. 䗇 jú 92 93 94 Stw abxn bfnt msH turtle frog scorpion crocodile 91 92 93 94 饃 饃 饃 饃 Table 12). 饃 kūn䖵癫kūn䖵 癫 䖵癫kūn䖵癫 褙kūn 癫 䖵蟲褙 kūn 蟲褙 蟲褙 蟲 褙 蟲 3.2 Region-speciic Prototypes for Attributes 饃 饃 癫 癫 饃 褙 癫 褙 饃 褙 癫褙 饃 癫 Different cultures may have their characteristic regional prototypes for some attributes or abstract concepts. For example, in Egyptian hieroglyphs (E32), and qnd “be furious” takes the baboon determinative 钤 細 ： ： ： ： ： determinative At “striking power” takes the hippopotamus 钤 钤 細 細 ese writing 钤 (細 細 xì) “minute, tiny” takes the silk ( (F3), while in Chinese writing 睢 糸 鏵 冷 lěng determinative 睢 冷 lěng 睢 ((糸 糸mì), mì),and and鏵 鏵 ((冷 lěng “cold” takes the ice determinative 糸 冷 lěng) determinative 鏵 冷and lěng hippopotamus were familiar to the ancient minative 鏧 ((仌 bīng糸 The baboon 仌睢 bīng). 鏧 bīng 鏧 仌 仌 bīng Egyptians but not at all to the ancient Chinese, and by the same token, silk 鏧 仌 bīng and ice are common to China but completely foreign to Egypt. conducted a detailed study of this category, see Goldwasser (2002:chapter 4). For the statistical data of the determinative assignment for turtle, frog, scorpion and crocodile, see ibid: Appendix 41*–45*. 91 92 93 94 See Goldwasser (2002:68; Appendix 41*). FCD: 41. Wb 1, 456. 2. FCD: 117. However, 氙 女 nǚ 氙 氙 女 女 nǚ nǚ 氙 女 nǚ is very rarely used with crocodile (Goldwasser 2002:69). 褙 鏵 冷 lěng 睢 糸 SCRIPTA, VOLUME 8 (2016) 120 鏧 仌 bīng for Smallness and Badness table 13. The Prototypical Determinative P. D. SMALLNESS AND BADNESS 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 nDs Hns bin Sw nhw mr Aq small narrow bad empty loss ill perish 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 3.3 Culture-speciic Value Judgments Diferent cultures may have diferent value judgments of parallel objects. A most interesting pair of prototypical determinatives which relect special aspects of Egyptian and Chinese values are the Egyptian determinative terminative 氙 (女 (女nǚ, nǚ woman). (G37, sparrow) and the Chinese determinative Sparrow is a prototype of unsatisfactory and defective things in the ancient Egyptian mind. As we can see in Table 13, many words concerning smallness and badness were written with the sparrow determinative. According to Arlette David’s research on the sparrow determinative, the sign is originally used as an ideogram or determinative exclusively for the word nDs “small,” because the sparrow is a prototypical small bird, and is consequently used as a metaphor for smallness. From the Sixth Dynasty onwards, the sparrow determinative was subsequently used for negative words associated with badness. David proposed three hypotheses behind this extension of usage. A very plausible one is that the grain-eating sparrows became a more serious threat to agriculture.102 Actually, Houlihan proposed this earlier and used other scholars’ research as support to point out that sparrows are still a considerable problem for agriculture in modern Egypt.103 95 96 97 98 99 Wb 2, 384.8–385.4. Wb 3, 116.12–16. Wb 1, 442.15–443.17. Gardiner (1957:471). FCD: 135. 100 Gardiner (1957:471). 101 Ibid. 102 David (2000:chapter 2–4). McDonald (2004b:225–228). 103 Houlihan (1986:137). The Prototypical Determinatives in Egyptian and Chinese Writing 氙 氙 霧 霧媄14. měi 媄 měi table The Prototypical 氙 氙 氙 氙 氙 氙 氙 氙 氙祢 氙祢 婪氙婪 terminative (女Both nǚ Determinative for 121 Beauty and Bad Quality 媄 měi 霧霧 媄 měi 祢祢 婪婪 霧 媄 祢 婪 媄 měi 婪 霧 媄 měi 祢 婪 霧 霧 媄 měi měi 祢 祢 婪炱 BEAUTY 靁 婉shū wǎn AND GRACE 佞 BAD QUALITY 霫 姝 shū 焯 妨 霫 姝 焯 霧 霧 媄 měi 祢 祢 婪妨 媄 měi 婪 霫 姝 shū 焯 妨 霫 姝 shū 焯 妨 媄 měi fulface face 焯 媄 婪 lán), greedy 霧 (霧 (媄 měi 祢祢 婪((婪 měi), having beautiful 霫 姝 妨 姝 焯 妨 霫 姝 shū shū 霫 霫 姝 shū shū 焯 焯 妨 妨 霶 媌 焱 妄 霶 媌 焱 妄fáng), to harm, harmful 姝 妨 beautiful 霫 (霫 (姝shū), shū 焯 焯 妨((妨 姝 shū 媌 霶 媌 焱 妄 焯 妨 霫 姝 shū 霫霶 姝 shū 焯焱 妨妄 霶 媌 妄 媌 妄wàng), careless, not behaving oneself 焱 霶 媌 eyes 焱 媌 妄 miáo), having beautifulfuleyes 霶 (霶 (媌 焱 焱 妄((妄 霺 婠 wān 祛 娝 pōu 霺 婠 wān 祛 娝 霶 霶 媌 媌 焱 焱 妄 妄 pōu pōu not promising 霺 婠 wān fulbody body 祛 霺 (婠 wān 娝 pōu 婠 娝 having beautiful pōu), 焱 妄 媌 霶 (霶 媌wān), 焱祛 妄((娝 霺 婠 祛 娝 婠 娝 霺 婠 wān wān 祛 娝 pōu pōu 霺 霺 婠 wān wān 祛 祛 娝 pōu pōu 霼 (㜺 祓 㜤 shěn 㜺 iful shěn no ambition and fond of play 㜺 㜤 white and beautiful shěn), 霺 (霼 婠zàn), wān 祛祓 娝((㜤 pōu 霺 婠 wān 祛 娝 pōu 㜤 shěn 霼 㜺 wān 霼 㜺 祓 㜤 shěn 祛 娝 pōu 婠 霺 (霺 婠xián), wān 祛祓 娝((㜤 pōu 嫻 嬾 elegant lǎn), 霼 (㜺 祓 㜤 shěn 霼 㜺 iful 祓 shěnlazy 霼 霼 㜺 㜺 祓 祓 㜤 㜤 shěnshěn 靦 嫻 祗 嬾 lǎn 靦 嫻 祗 嬾 lǎn 104㜤 105 霼 㜺 祓 㜤 shěn 祓 shěn 霼 㜺 婉 靁 (靁 (婉 婉 wǎnwǎn 炱炱 佞 佞 wǎn), gentle nìng), good at lattery (佞 嬾 lǎn 靦 嫻 靦 嫻 祗 嬾 lǎn 祓 㜤 shěn 霼霼 㜺㜺 祓祗 㜤 lǎn shěn 靦 嫻 祗 嬾 靦 嫻 祗 嬾 lǎn 靦 嫻 祗 嬾 lǎn 靦 104 嫻 祗 嬾 lǎn 靦 靦 嫻 嫻 祗 祗 嬾 lǎn 嬾 lǎn 靦 嫻 hometown (Shandong Province, 嬾 lǎn 靦 In 嫻my 祗祗 嬾 lǎn China), farmers often go to ields to scatter sparrows during harvest time, especially if they grow millet. They also attempt to scatter sparrows when they leave cereals to dry on the threshing ground. Apparently, the sparrow is also not a good bird for Chinese people. However, ancient Chinese people did not view it as a prototype of bad things. Ancient Chinese men had conflicting attitudes about women. They appreciated women’s beauty and grace. As we can see in the left column of Table 14, many words related to beauty and grace take the woman determinative. However, Chinese men disliked other qualities of women which they perceived as negative. As we can see in the right column of Table 14, many words concerning negative qualities of human beings also take the woman determinative. Obviously, such bad qualities are not exclusive to women. Ancient Chinese women had no rights to education nor rights to take part in social activities in the ancient patriarchal society, so they were mainly restricted to work at home.105 These restrictions limited their experience and made them seem short-sighted and narrow-minded to ancient Chinese men. These men held power over education and developed the writing system which used the woman determinative to represent bad qualities. In (B1) to contrast, Egyptian men did not use the woman determinative indicate either words meaning beautiful or words describing bad qualities. 104 105 s SMCis is 择 (仁). 仁 The phonogram of this SMC Hao (2002:Chapter 1). 择 仁 择 仁 122 SCRIPTA, VOLUME 8 (2016) 4. Conclusion Prototype effect is a universal phenomenon in human cognition. Prototypical determinatives are attested in both Egyptian and Chinese writing. This is not surprising, because humans have similar physical brain structures, and diferent civilizations encountered similar problems when creating writing systems. There are probably prototypical determinatives in Sumerian and Mayan writing too. We expect future studies of these other writing systems to confirm this. The comparative study of prototypical determinatives is not only helpful for a better understanding of the commonality of the workings of the first writing systems, but also for discovering culture-specific peculiarities. In this respect, it is a type of cultural archaeology. References Allen, James P. (2014). Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Betrò, Maria C. (1996). Hieroglyphics: The Writing of Ancient Egypt, trans. by S. A. George. New York: Abbeville Press. Boltz, William G. (1994). The Origin and Early Development of the Chinese Writing System. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Champollion, J. F. & M. Champollion-Figeac (1836). Grammaire égyptienne: ou Principes généraux de l’écriture sacrée égyptienne appliquée à la représentation de la langue parlée. Typ. de Firmin Didot frères. Chen, Feng 陳楓 (2006). Hanzi Yifu Yanjiu 漢字義符研究. Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe. Chen, Yongsheng 陳永生 (2013). Hanzi Yu Shengshuzi Biaoci Fangshi Bijiao Yanjiu 漢字與圣書字表詞方式比較研究 (Chinese characters and Egyptian hieroglyphs: a comparative study). Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe. Chen, Mengjia 陳夢家 (1956). Yinxu Buci Zongshu 殷虛卜辭綜述. Beijing: Kexue Chubanshe. Depuydt, Leo (1999). Fundamentals of Egyptian Grammar 1: Elements. Norton: Frog Publishing. The Prototypical Determinatives in Egyptian and Chinese Writing 123 David, A. (2000). De l’infériorité à la perturbation: l’oiseau du “mal” et la catégorisation en Egypte ancienne. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Erman, A. & H. Grapow (1926–1963). Wörterbuch der Ägyptischen Sprache, 7 vols. plus 5 vols. References. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs & Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Faulkner, Raymond O. (1952). Apd = duck. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 38. 128. FCD = Faulkner, Raymond O. (1962). A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Oxford: Griith Institute & Ashmolean Museum. Gardiner, Alan H. (1957). Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs (3rd ed.). Oxford: The Griith Institute. Goldwasser, Orly (1995). From Icon to Metaphor: Studies in the Semiotics of the Hieroglyphs. Fribourg: University Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Goldwasser, Orly (1999). The Determinative System as a Mirror of World Organization. Göttinger Miszellen 170. 49–68. (with an appendix by M. Müller). Goldwasser, Orly (2002). Prophets, Lovers and Girafes: Wor(l)d Classiication in Ancient Egypt. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. Goldwasser, Orly (2009). A comparison between Classiier Languages and Classiier Script: The case of Ancient Egyptian. In Gideon Goldenberg & Ariel Shisha-Halevy (eds.), Egyptian, Semitic and general grammar. Studies in the memory of H. J. Polotsky (Studies in the Humanities), Jerusalem. 16–39. Hao, Runhua 郝潤華 (2002). Funü Yu Daode Chuantong 婦女與道德傳統. Nanjing: Jiangsu Guji Chubanshe. Hao, Yixing 郝懿行 (1757–1825) (1983). Erya Yishu 爾雅義疏. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe. Ji, Xusheng 季旭昇 (2004). Shuo Wen Xin Zheng 2 說文新證 (下). Taipei: Yi Wen Yinshuguan. Houlihan, P. F. & S. M. Goodman (1986). The Birds of Ancient Egypt. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Kahl, J. (1994). Das System der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift in der 0.–3. Dynastie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kahl, J. (2001). Hieroglyphic Writing during the Fourth Millennium BC: An Analysis of Systems. Archéo-Nil 11. 101–134. Kammerzell (1999). Klassifikatoren und Kategorienbildung in der 124 SCRIPTA, VOLUME 8 (2016) Ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift. Spektrum Informationen aus Forschung und Lehre 3. 29–34. Kammerzell (2015). Egyptian Verb Classiiers. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Egyptologists, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, 22–29 May 2008. Leuven: Peeters. Lakof, George (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lassaline et al. (1992). Basic Levels in Artiicial and Natural Categories: Are All Basic Levels Created Equal? In Burns, B. (Ed.) Percepts, Concepts, and Categories. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 327-378. Li, Guoying 李國英 (1996). Xiaozhuan Xingshengzi Yanjiu 小篆形聲字研究. Beijing: Beijing Shifan Daxue Chubanshe. Lin, Yun (1986). Guwenzi Yanjiu Jianlun 古文字研究簡論. Changchun: Jilin Daxue Chubanshe. Lincke, E. S. & F. Kammerzell (2012). Egyptian Classiiers at the Interface of Lexical Semantics and Pragmatics. Lexical Semantics in Ancient Egyptian, Lingua Aegyptia Studia Monographica 9. 55–112. Lincke, E. S. (2015). The Determinative is Prescribed and yet Chosen: A Systematic View on Egyptian Classiiers. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Egyptologists, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, 22–29 May 2008. Leuven: Peeters. Loprieno, A. (2003). Is the Egyptian Hieroglyphic Determinative Chosen or Prescribed? In L. Morra & C. Bazzanella (eds.), Philosophers and Hieroglyphs. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier. 237–250. Malt, B. C. (1995). Category Coherence in Cross-cultural Perspective. Cognitive Psychology 29. 85–148. McDonald, Angela. (2002). Animal Metaphor in the Egyptian Determinative System (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford). McDonald, Angela. (2004a). Review of: Goldwasser (2002). Lingua Aegyptia 12. 235–244. McDonald, Angela. (2004b). Review of: David (2000) and Shalomi-Hen (2000). Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 90. 225–230. Polis, S. & S. Rosmorduc (2015). The Hieroglyphic Sign Functions: Suggestions for a Revised Taxonomy. In S. Uljas etc. (Ed.) Fuzzy Boundaries: Festschrift für Antonio Loprieno 1. Hamburg: Widmaier Verlag. 149–174. Qiu, Xigui 裘錫圭 (2000). Chinese Writing 文字學概要. Trans. by G. L. Matto The Prototypical Determinatives in Egyptian and Chinese Writing 125 & J. Norman. Berkeley: Society for the Study of Early China and Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California. Rosch, E. (1973a). Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology 4. 328–350. Rosch, E. (1973b). On the Internal Structure of Perceptual and Semantic Categories. In Timothy E. Moore (ed.), Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language. New York: Academic Press. 111–44. Rosch, E. (1975a). Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology 104. 192–233. Rosch, E. (1975b). Cognitive Reference Points. Cognitive Psychology 7: 532– 547. Rosch, E., Mervis, C., Gray, W., Johnson, D., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic Objects in Natural Categories. Cognitive psychology 8. 382–439. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of Categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. 27–48. Rosch, E. (1983). Prototype Classification and Logical Classification: The two systems. In E. K. Scholnick (ed.), New Trends in Conceptual Representation: Challenges to Piaget’s Theory. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 73–86. Strudwick, Helen M. (1990). Review of: Houlihan, P. F., & Goodman, S. M. (1986). The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 76. 211–214. TLA = Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae and Das Digitalisierte Zettelarchiv (DZA), ed. by Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin): http://aaew2.bbaw. de/tla/. Wilkinson, Richard H. (1992). Reading Egyptian Art: A Hieroglyphic Guide to Ancient Egyptian Painting and Sculpture. New York: Thames and Hudson. Xiang, Duolin 向多林 (1987). Xingshengzi Si Da Xingfu Fenlei Shi Shuo 形聲字四大形符分類試說. Yuxi Shizhuan Xuebao 玉溪師專學報, Issue 2. Xu, Shen 許慎 (c.58–c.147) (1963). Shuo Wen Jie Zi 說文解字. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju. Xu, Zhongshu 徐中舒 et al. (eds.) (2010). Hanyu Da Zidian 漢語大字典. Chengdu: Sichuan Cishu Chubanshe; Wuhan: Chong Wen Shuju. Zhang, Weiding 張維鼎 (2007). Yiyi Yu Renzhi Fanchouhua 意義與認知範疇化. Chengdu: Sichuan Daxue Chubanshe. 126 SCRIPTA, VOLUME 8 (2016) Chen Yongsheng Department of Chinese Language and Literature Ocean University of China, China <[email protected]> [Received 11 February 2016; revision received 11 July 2016; accepted 16 September 2016]