The “Question” Question
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20380554 |
|---|---|
| Authors | David S Nivison (Stanford University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1989 |
| Volume | 14 |
| Pages | 115-125 |
| Publication date | 1989-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Early China (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0362-5028 • E-ISSN: 2325-2324 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0362502800002613 |
| OpenAlex | W2217086598 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 1 |
When we read Shang oracle-bone inscriptions, we should distinguish between what the diviner is saying (in the “charge,” mingci ) and what he is doing in the whole divination rite. What he is doing is not always seeking information; and even when he is doing this, what he says is usually not a question. This paper offers various arguments and examples to show this. For example, Li Xueqin's research proves that the oracle language possessed grammatical forms, such as final particles and final negatives, for marking a sentence as a question. Therefore, the first assumption should be that when a diviner does not use these forms, he does not intend a sentence to be understood as a question. And when two sentences in the same inscription — e.g., the charge and the prognostication — are alike in form (both of them being without final negatives or interrogative particles), it is a mistake to construe one of them as a question and the other as a statement
Art · Divination · Interrogative · Linguistics · Literature · Mistake · Oracle · Sentence · Chinese history and philosophy · Computer Science · Law · Philosophy
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,06 |
| Citation span | 2009 - 2009 (1) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |