Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Defining Text and Textual Patterns and Describing Logic in Chinese Text

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Textual Patterns of the Eight-Part Essays and Logic in Ancient Chinese Texts

  • 137 Accesses

Abstract

The elementary units of text structures vary from language to language. Texts in both English and Chinese are not just a simple sequence of clauses and sentences, but rather a highly elaborate structure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    原文是薛涛《月》:魄依钩样小,扇逐汉机团。细影将圆质,人间几处看。Translated by Larsen.Tao, X. & Larsen, J. (2016). Brocade River Poems: Selected Works of the Tang Dynasty Courtesan. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  2. 2.

    原文是臧棣《月亮》( 节选):虽然你已钉好木框,并刷过四五道清漆,但它不是一幅画; 它也不是一个藏有珍宝的洞。它也许会让你联想到死去的人拼命想穿过的针眼,但它不是事情的终结。一只猫不会爬上它的肩头,这是因为老鼠从未想过要去那里藏身。一只老虎也不会去那里繁衍后代。……它有物的全部特征,但它不是我们曾在白天丢失的东西。它就像留在老房子里的一块表,它把校对时刻表的工作留给了不明底细的太阳。它很圆,像一个句号,但问题是我们真的说过那些话吗? ……translated by author.

  3. 3.

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2009/may/18/poem-of-the-week-zeng-di.

  4. 4.

    https://ctext.org/mengzi/gaozi-i translated by James Legg.

  5. 5.

    Ming-shih 明史 选举制, 卷七十, 志第46.

    https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E6%98%8E%E5%8F%B2/%E5%8D%B770

  6. 6.

    Translated by author.

  7. 7.

    cf. book 3 Chapter 1 Section 4, 1403b31, for further discussion on the distinction between rhythm and meter.

  8. 8.

    The original text is “说文/理, 治玉也。” (Shuowen jiezi 2010,28), Compiled ca.100AD, by Xu Shen(许慎).

  9. 9.

    The original text is “短长, 方圆, 坚脆, 轻重, 白黑之谓理.”(Han Fei 2010. Jie lao,29).

  10. 10.

    The original text is “形体色理以目异.”

  11. 11.

    The original text is “取牛肉必新杀者, 薄切之, 必绝其理” (Liji 2010. Nei ze:53).

  12. 12.

    The original text is “依乎天理” (Zhuangzi 2010. Yangsheng zhu.2).

  13. 13.

    The original text is “凡物者有形者, 易裁也, 易割也.何以论之, 有形则有短长, 有短长则有 大小, 有方圆。有方圆则有坚脆。有坚脆则有轻重, 有白黑、短长、大小、方圆、坚脆、轻重、白黑, 谓之理。理定而物易割也。故欲成方圆, 而随于规矩, 则万事之功形矣而万物莫不有规矩圣人尽随于万物的烧矩, 则事 无不事, 功无不功.凡理者方圆长短坚脆之分也故理定而后物可道。” (Han Feizi 2010 Jie Lao, 29).

  14. 14.

    The original text is “然一物之中, 天理完具.” (Zhou Dunyi 2010, Taiji tu shuo, 9).

  15. 15.

    The original text is “零零碎碎湊合起来不知不觉自然醒悟” (Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi, 1981 I, Yi shu, 13).

  16. 16.

    The original text is “而动静阴阳之理, 已悉具于其中矣。虽然, 推之于前, 而不见其始之合; 引之于后, 而不见其终之离也。故程子曰: ‘动静无端, 阴阳无始。’.”

  17. 17.

    The original text is “物之理即萬物之理。” (Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi 1981 I, Yi shu, 13).

  18. 18.

    The original text is “道, 即理之謂也” (Zhou dunyi 2010 I, Cheng shang 1,13).

  19. 19.

    The original text is “所送新诗, 皆兴寄高远。但语生硬, 不谐律吕, 或词气不逮初造意时。此病亦只是读书未精博耳。‘长袖善舞, 多钱善贾’, 不虚语也! 南阳刘勰尝论文章之难云: ‘意翻空而易奇,文征实而难工。’此语亦是。沈、谢辈为儒林宗主, 时好作奇语, 故后生立论如此。好作奇语, 自是文章病。但当以理为主, 理得而辞顺, 文章自然出群拔萃。观杜子美到夔州后诗, 韩退之自潮州还朝后文章, 皆不烦绳削而自合矣。” translated by the author.

  20. 20.

    The Duke Jing of Qi had a thousand teams, each of four horses, but on the day of his death, the people did not praise him for a single virtue. Bo Yi and Shu Qi died of hunger at the foot of the Shou Yang mountain, and the people, down to the present time, praise them. Is not that saying illustrated by this?

  21. 21.

    The original text is “道与理大概只是一件物, 然析为二字, 亦须有分别。道是就人所通行上立字。与理对说, 则道字较宽, 理字较实, 理有确然不易底意。故万古通行者, 道也; 万古不易者, 理也。理无形状, 如何见得? 只是事物上一个当然之则便是理。” (《北溪字义》, 1983: 41, Zhonghua Book Campany).

  22. 22.

    The original text is “ 理, 虚字也, 可为物乎? (Li Gong ny, 385).”

  23. 23.

    The original text is “上具天文, 下具地理” (Shij2010, Qinshi huang ben j, 47).

  24. 24.

    The original text is “故先王圣人安为之立中制节, 一使足以成文理。” (Xunzi 2010, Llun, 28).

  25. 25.

    The original text is “凡知说,有益于理者, 为之; 无益于理者, 舍之。” (Xunzi 2010, Ru xiao 9).

  26. 26.

    http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_698085bf0102y8bs.html. The original text is “王充《论衡•本性篇》: 九州田土之性, 善恶不均, 故有黄赤黑之别, 上中下之差。水潦不同, 故有清浊之流, 东西南北之趋。人禀天地之性, 怀五常之气, 或仁或义, 性术乖也; 动作趋翔, 或重或轻, 性识诡也; 面色或白或黑, 身形或长或短, 至老极死不可变易, 天性然也。余固以孟轲言人性善者, 中人以上者也; 孙卿言人性恶者, 中人以下者也; 扬雄言人性善恶混者, 中人也。若反经合道, 则可以为教。尽性之理, 则未也。”.

  27. 27.

    The original Chinese text is on the Appendix E.

References

  • A Dictionary of Chinese Grammar and Rhetoric. (1985). Ji-nan: Anhui Education Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle: Rhetoric II. In Chapter 24, section 2, p. 1401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle: De Sophisticis Elenchis section 4, 166b10-19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle: Poetics. (1987). Trans. Stephen Halliwell. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005. Print. Loeb. 19, 1456b9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, K. (1993). A history of god: The 4,000-year quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. New York: Ballantine Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breton, A. (1969). Manifesto du Surréalisme, University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buljan, I. (2008) Philosophy and “Zhexue”. Time to Another and Back. In: Filozof-ska istraživanja, 28 (4), 988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, K. (1945/1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley: Univ of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, K. (1950). A Rhetoric of Motives. New York: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, H. (Trans.). (1989). Cicero: Rhetorica Ad Herenium. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu, Y. (1994). Examples of forms of articulation in ancient Chinese. Peking: Chinese Youth Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Connor, U. (2011). Intercultural rhetoric in the writing classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, E. (1965). Classical rhetoric for the modern student. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coulthard, M., et al. (2000). Written discourse. Birmingham: The Centre for English Language Studies at University of Birmingham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijksterhuis, A., & Nordgren, L. F. (2006). A theory of unconscious thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elman, B. A. (1999) Classical reasoning in late imperial chinese civil examination essays. Journal of Humanities East/West, 20–21, 361–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elman, B. A., & Woodside, A. (Eds.). (1994). Education and society in late imperial China, 1600—1900. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enos, T. (Ed.). (1996). Encyclopedia of rhetoric and composition. New York: Garland Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B. T. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychon Bull Rev, 13(3), 378–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: textual analysis for social research. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, C. (2013). Distinctions, judgment, and reasoning in classical Chinese thought. History and Philosophy of Logic, 34(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freese, J. H. (1924). The “Art” of Rhetoric. London: William Heinemann. New York: G. P. Putnam’s sons Mcmxxvi. p. 36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garver, N. (1973). Preface. Speech and Phenomena by Jacques Derrida. Trans. David Allison. Evanston: Northwestern University Press 1973. ix–xxix.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York: Little, Brown and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graecae. A digital library of Greek literature. Univ. of California, Irvine. Web. 15 Jan. http://www.tlg.uci.edu/.

  • Graham, A. C. (1978). Later mohist logic, ethics, and science. Hong Kong and London: Chinese University Press/SOAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimaldi, W. M. A. (1972). Studies in the Philosophy of Aristotle Rhetoric 1972. F. Steiner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimaldi, W. M. A. (1980). Aristotle’s Rhetoric: A Commentary, 2 vols. Bronx, N.Y: Ford-ham University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosz, B. J., & Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3), 175–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guy, R. K. (1994). Fang Pao and the Ch’in-ting Ssu-shu-wen, from Education and Society in Late Imperial China, 1600—1900. In Elman, B. A. (ed.), Alexander Woodside (p. 170). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, C. (1983). Language and logic in ancient China, Michigan studies on China. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press. Preface.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harbsmeier, C. (1998). Language and logic” 7th volume of “Science and Civilization in China”. Cambridge University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harbsmeier, C. (1999). Review: Chinese Rhetoric, Source: T’oung Pao, Second Series, Vol. 85, Fasc. 1/3, pp. 114–126. Published by: Brill.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harbsmeier, C. (2002). Chinese rhetoric in comparative perspective, Unpublished manuscript, (pp. 42–60). http://tls.uni-hd.de/documents/Chinese_Rhetoric.pdf.

  • Hobbs, J. R. (1990). Literature and cognition (p. 21). Number: CSLI Lecture Notes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoey, M. (1983). On the surface of discourse. London: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoey, M. (1994). Signalling in discourse: a functional analysis of a common discourse pattern in written and spoken English. In Coulthard, M. (ed.) (1994a) (pp. 26–45).

    Google Scholar 

  • Holyoak, S. & Piper, A. (1997). Talking to second language writers: using interview data to investigate contrastive rhetoric. Language Teaching Research 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, Y. (1988). Dictionary of Chinese Grammar and Rhetoric et al.. Hefei: Anhui Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J. (1995). Dictionary for the appreciation of Chinese rhetorical figures. Nanjing: Dongnan University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ikoski, J. S. (1978). An outline sketch of sentence structures and word classes in classical Chinese—three essays on classical chinese grammar I. Computational Analyses of Asian & African Languages, 8, 17–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Julien, F. (2004). Translated by Sophie Hawkes. Detour and Access: Strategies of Meaning in China and Greece. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. B. (2005). Contrastive rhetoric. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 375–392). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, G. A. (1972). The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World, 300 B.C.–300 A.D. (p. 22). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, A., & Xu, Z. (2012). Chinese Rhetoric and Writing: An introduction for language Teachers. Parlor Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laërtius, D. (2011). The lives and opinions of eminent philosophers. Thesaurus Linguae.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liddell, M. G., Scott, R., Jones, H S., & McKenzie, R. (eds.) (1996). A greek-english lexicon. Rev. and augm with Supplement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, X. (1998). Rhetoric in Ancient China, Fifth to Third Century B.C.E. A Comparison with Classical Greek Rhetoric. University of South Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. R. (1992). English Text, System and Structure. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuda, P. K. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric in context: a dynamic model of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(1), 45–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, M. (2001). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Needham, J. (1998). Science and Civilization in China (vol. 7)—language and Logic [M] by Christoph Harbsmeier. Cambridge university Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation. Trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pernot, L. (2005). Rhetoric in antiquity. Trans. W.E. Higgins. Washington, D. C. The Catholic University of America press. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosker, J. S. (2012). Traditional Chinese philosophy and the paradigm of structure (Li “理”). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rošker, J. S. (2014). Specific features of Chinese logic: analogies and the problem of structural relations in confucian and Mohist discourses. Synthesis Philosophica, 57(1), 23–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W. P. M., & Noord-man, L. G. M. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15, 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, Y. (1980). The moist logic. Beijing: Chinese Social and scientific Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, W. H. (1868). Introduction to Plato’s Phaedrus with Notes and Dissertations. London: Whittaker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trevett, J. C. (1996). Aristotle’s knowledge of Athenian oratory. Classical Quarterly, 46 (2), 371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, D. (2011). How to teach contrastive (intercultural) Rhetoric: Some Ideas for pedagogical application. New Horizons in Education, 59 (3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L. (1979). Chinese prosody (2nd ed.). Shanghai: Shanghai Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, D. (1987). Dictionary of Rhetoric. Zhejiang Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Z. (1988). Thematic dictionary of the ancient Chinese language. Chengdu: Si-chuan Cishu Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yi, P. A., & Li, J. (1989). Outline of the History of Chinese Rhetoric. Jilin Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, K. (1983). A simple discussion of ancient Chinese Rhetoric. Peking: The Commercial Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, D., & Tan, Q. (1980). A compilation of materials on ancient Chinese Rhetoric. Shanghai: The Commercial Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, D., & Gu, H. (1991). A dictionary of ancient Chinese language teaching. Changsha: Yuelu Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, X., & Gu, W. (1994). The interpretation of rhetoric device (“Cige”). Nanchang: Jiangxi College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zong, T., & Yuan, H. (1990). History of Chinese Rhetoric. Hefei: Anhui Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zong, T. (1990). A history of modern Chinese Rhetoric. Zhejiang Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai, China

    Chunlan Jin

Authors
  1. Chunlan Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chunlan Jin .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Jin, C. (2020). Defining Text and Textual Patterns and Describing Logic in Chinese Text. In: Textual Patterns of the Eight-Part Essays and Logic in Ancient Chinese Texts. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2337-3_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2337-3_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-15-2336-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-15-2337-3

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation