Page 311 - Kryukov_M_V_-_Sistema_rodstva_kitaytsev_-_1972

the historical development of the Chinese nomenclature, to discuss the
problem of the applicability of the regularities thus established to the
development of other systems. One further purpose is to use developmental
approach for tracing the interrelation between kinship terminology and the
underlying social determinants.
Part One which is of introductory character consists of two chapters.
In the first one the main problems confronting a student of the Chinese
kinship system are outlined, viz. the principles of collecting and denoting
the terms for kinsmen, the criteria of typological grouping of kinship
systems, the still vague aspects of the developmental consequence of
various types of nomenclature etc. The second chapter opens with a review
of the main data available for an investigation into the history of the
Chinese kinship terminology. These are grouped under several categories
including ethnographical material and written sources (early inscriptions,
lexicographical works, philosophic treatises, official histories, fiction); the
peculiarities of each category are summed up. Besides, a critical review
of previous studies in the Chinese kinship system by Chinese, Japanese,
and Western scholars is included.
In Part Two a detailed characteristic of the modern Chinese termino-
logy is proposed. Following F. Hsu and H. T. Fei, the present writer
differentiates between vocative, referential and official subsystems within
the modern Chinese system of relationship. Each of the vocative and the
referential subsystems is represented by two forms: one specific for
standard Chinese and the other found in dialects. The official nomenclature
differs from both of them. The componential analysis of these sybsystems
results in establishing the following differentials: a) sex of alter; b) cha-
racter of relationship (consanguinity and affinity); c) generation; d) li-
neality; e) sex of mediator; f) relative age within a generation. The official
nomenclature is considered to bellong to the lineage pattern (as defined by
G. E. Dole) the standard referential terms displaying some innovations in
the principles of classification of cousins.
Much attention is paid to the dialectal terminologies revealing conside-
rable differences, both morphological and structural. The present author
finds it very important to use the technics of reconstruction of the proto-
-systems of kinship by examining the nomenclatures in closely related
languages and then testing the degree of the reliability of the reconstruction
through a comparison with historically ascertained facts.
Morphologically, the dialectal terminologies clearly fall into three main
groups, one of them characterised by prefixation (Yangchiang, Meiihsien,
Amoi, Fuchon), another one marked by reduplication of the core term
without prefix (Peking, K'unming, Yangchou, Ch'angsha, Nanch'ang): the
nomenclatures of Suchou, Wenchou, Kanton form an intermediate group
posssessing both -features. These groups o! Chinese dialects have been
investigated lexicostatistically to elucidate the dates of their consequent
isolation (13—14th century for Suchou, dialect, 12th century for Kantonese,
10—11th centusses for Meihsien, and 2—3rd centuries for Amoi). Using this
chronological schedule as a basis for a hypothetical reconstruction of
structural changes in the Chinese nomenclature, it is supposed that at the

302