Perry Link on Chinese "rhythm, metaphor, politics"

« previous post | next post »

One reason that I was so interested in San Duanmu's work on Chinese "elastic words" is that I'm in the middle of reading Perry Link's recent book An Anatomy of Chinese: Rhythm, Metaphor, Politics.

From the introduction:

In the fall of 1988, shortly after I arrived in Beijing for a year of work in the Beijing office of the Committee on Scholarly Communication with China (administered by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences), I noticed a sign that was intended for pedestrians crossing Haidian Road. In other countries such a sign might have said “Caution” or “Look both ways.” But this one read: Yi kan, er man, san tongguo 一 看 , 二 慢 , 三 通 过 ‘First look, then go slowly, then cross’. The phrase is not only rhythmic but exhibits the 1– 2, 1– 2, 1– 2– 3 pattern of syllables that is at least as old as mirror inscriptions of the Han period and that has pervaded not only elite poetry but folksongs, proverbs, and storytelling in many later eras. (In Chinese it is called qiyan 七 言 ‘seven speakings’, and I will ask the non-Chinese-speaking reader to adopt it as a technical term.) A banner stretched above the road’s northbound lane, apparently intended for vehicles headed out of the city, read:

Gaogao xingxing chu cheng zou 高 高 兴 兴 出 城 走
An’an quanquan hui jia lai 安 安 全 全 回 家 来

Have a happy trip leaving the city, and be very safe in coming home.

Here was a couplet that exhibited not only the qiyan rhythm but grammatical parallelism and “semantic antitheticality” (i.e., paired opposites in meaning: chu ‘exit’ versus hui ‘return’ and zou ‘leave’ versus lai ‘come’) of a kind favored by classical poetry. The message seemed somehow more formal and exalted than if it had been put in ordinary language.

Formal? Exalted? I crossed the street and saw a public toilet. A sign warned: Jinzhi suidi daxiaobian 禁 止 随 地 大 小 便 ‘Don’t just relieve yourself anywhere you like’. Qiyan again. The pattern seemed useful in a variety of contexts, exalted or not, but in any case seemed to bear a kind of authority. Its partner wuyan 五 言 , the equally classical 1– 2, 1– 2– 3 syllabic pattern, was also widely in evidence. A television advertisement for cockroach killer promised: Zhanglang siguangguang 蟑 螂 死 光 光 ‘Cockroaches dead to the last one!’ Somehow the poison seemed a bit more lethal in wuyan. A notice for a childbirth class promised wutong fenmianfa 无 痛 分 娩 法 ‘pain-free delivery’. Could wuyan mollify even labor pain? No, I thought. But it was apparent that someone, somewhere had felt that wuyan could add credibility to a claim about pain reduction.

Share:



7 Comments »

  1. Bathrobe said,

    May 14, 2013 @ 8:20 am

    The happy trip and safe return seem reasonable enough. But do 禁止随地大小便 and 无痛分娩法 really consciously follow a pattern? These result quite naturally from ordinary syntactic patterns. 无痛分娩法 just means 'painless delivery method', made up of two disyllabic words of the type that is extremely common in Chinese (无痛 painless and 分娩 delivery) plus 法 'method'. How else would you phrase 'painless delivery' in Chinese?

  2. Phil said,

    May 15, 2013 @ 11:44 am

    In addition to the five-syllable and seven-syllable patterns discussed above, there are also plenty of four-syllable "chéngyu" classical clichés such as 無家可歸,“without a home to return to," "homeless." The morpho-syllabic nature of the Chinese writing system lends itself well to rhythmic jingles of the advertiser and propagandist.

  3. maidhc said,

    May 15, 2013 @ 8:16 pm

    Since this is a short thread, maybe there's room for a stupid question?

    Is 高 高 兴 兴 different from 高 兴 ? None of the online translation resources seem to give an answer.

  4. leoboiko said,

    May 16, 2013 @ 8:38 am

    @maidhc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduplication#Chinese

  5. maidhc said,

    May 16, 2013 @ 5:44 pm

    So it's "reduplication" I should have been looking for, not "duplication". Seems a little redundant. But thanks, leoboiko, for answering my question.

  6. leoboiko said,

    May 16, 2013 @ 9:25 pm

    Yeah, I always thought reduplication should be 4 times (or, arguably, 3)…

  7. maidhc said,

    May 17, 2013 @ 3:07 am

    Like that old song: "How can you call me a two-time man when I only two-timed one time?"

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment