本书内容分为九类：一、声韵学；二、汉语语法；三、天文历法；四、历史学；五、文学；六、佛学；七、书信；八、日记；九、其他。
此书涉及诸多领域，对于后学研究具有一定学术价值。

      本书是我国第一部研究汉语离合词的专著，也是第一部研究汉语言单位的专著。其独创性如下：
一、汉语的语素、词和短语都不是形式单位，而是功能单位。本书的研究证明：汉语的语素、词和短语之间在功能上并不存在泾渭分明的界限，而是一个连续不断的整体。
二、汉语的词不同于印欧语的词。汉语的语素、词和短语三级语言单位是寄生在汉语单字和字组身上的意义功能单位。
三、离合词在意义上是一个不可分割的统一体，在结构上是由两个音节字连接而成的组合体。

本书稿分三大部分：第一部分介绍和评述西方历史语言学研究音变的历史和理论方法，其中对经典的历史比较法运作过程作了详细的阐述，籍此来指出比较法的得失。第二部分是本书的重心。作者根据汉语方言演变的特点提出一中心多层次的汉语方言演变观，并提出与此演变相配的历史层次分析法，最后分三个过程来全面阐述历史层次分析的方法。第三部分运用历史层次分析法来研究分析吴闽赣徽方言语音层次。

《十九世纪欧洲语言学史》详尽地介绍了西方比较语言学的兴起和发展，对于近代欧洲语言科学的发展、方法和成果做了综合的叙述介绍了欧洲古典时代、中世纪以及16，17，18世纪的语言学的演进，叙述了印欧语系各个语支以及世界各个语系的研究情形，并从碑铭与考古的发现情况对文字史进行了探讨，最后还讨论了比较语言学的方法论及其演进过程。作者严谨的科学态度，受到学界的赞许，文笔流畅生动，被中国语言学家朱德熙先生誉为“最好的一本介绍历史比较方法的书”。

书中有些章节还谈到了清代学者的研究情况，因为现代音韵学是本土的传统学术与引进的西方学术相结合的产物，它的研究方法，一部分是从传统的音韵学继承下来的，一部分是从西方引进的，少数是近代研究者自己的发明。为了说清楚一种方法的产生条件，不免要回溯历史，谈谈来历。在必要的地方，书中就要先讲一下清朝学者的研究，尔后再谈20世纪的研究，都是因为来自传统音音乐这的研究方法大多是清朝学者发明或开始运用的，那些方法的产生就完全是为了研究汉语古音，是近代音音乐这的先导，不能不讲。从西方引进的方法也简单说一下来历，但那些方法本来不是为研究汉语而发明的，早期的用例不在汉语，所以不必多讲。
本书虽然以“论”冠名，但对读者最有用的部分可能还是所“述‘的内容，即前辈与当代学者们的研究实践，各种方法的实践过程。所谓“论”也者，不过是作者一得之愚、一已之见，仅供读者参考而已。

《汉语动结式的句法语义研究》综合运用了结构主义语法、生成语法、从属关系语法、配价语法、认知语法、构式语法、语言类型学等多种理论来研究动结式。作者没有拘泥于一种理论框架或研究基础，而是根据描写和解释语言事实的需要，采用了多角度多侧面的研究。对所运用的理论理解得比较到位，运用得比较合理，使得《汉语动结式的句法语义研究》具有较高的理论含量。特别是较好地坚持了句法形式和语义关系相互验证、共时分析和历史考察相结合的研究原则，使得所得出的结论比以前的研究更有解释力。
近年来，句式构造和句式意义的关系成为句法理论的热点问题，其中对致使结构句法语义特点的研究生成、检验和发展了很多新的句法观念和理论。动结式作为致使结构系统的一种类型，是汉语句法系统中非常重要且颇具特色的句法结构，其句法语义特点引起了学界的极大关注。正是在这种背景下，本项研究试图从动结式的论元结构和配位方式这两个角度来比较系统地考察动结式在句法和语义这两个方面的特点，从而探讨句法结构的形式和意义之间的互动关系。

《唐五代关中方音研究》将关中地区的语音分为三个层次：雅言、通语、方音。雅言即人们常说的读书音，以音义反切系统为代表，而唐人音义反切系统基本与《切韵》相同；通语即交际语言，具体表现形式是诗文用韵系统与梵汉对音系统；方音可以通过特殊反切、特殊用韵现象和特殊对音来考求。这三个层次之间，虽然有着密切的联系，但仔细观察，仍可发现它们各自的一些特点。通过这样的分析，就很好地解决了不同的材料所反映的音系差异问题。
《唐五代关中方音研究》提出了一个全新思路并且进行了大胆而有益的尝试。作者认为律诗的失救现象可能是诗人受方音影响导致的，于是通过统计失律诗歌在拗救位置上的四声分布，发现关中方音平声与上声关系较远，而与去声关系较近，而通语里则是平声与上声调型相近（中唐以后）。这一思路具有求新、创新意义。

本书主要内容包括：绪论；藏族的语言和文字；安多方言的内部分区；安多方言音系；安多方言声母研究等。

《欧美语言学简史》(修订本)是根据近几年来作者在复旦大学中文系汉语专业和现代汉语助教班讲授欧美语言学史的讲稿整理而成的。“欧美语言学史”实际上是一门学习语言学的入门课程，主要介绍欧美语言学的发展历程，对在历史上有重大影响的语言学派和语言学家的理论和研究方法进行述评，目的在于使学生在进行深入研究之前，能在理论和背景知识方面有所准备。

《当代语言学丛书·元代汉语音系研究：以<中原音韵>音系为中心》基于历史语言学研究的基本方法，以书面文献音系“存雅求正”的观念为理论指导和分析手段，从汉语共同语演变的历史脉络出发，围绕《中原音韵》音系，对所见元代汉语各书面文献音系进行了系统整理、全面比较和详细分析。《当代语言学丛书·元代汉语音系研究：以<中原音韵>音系为中心》在近代汉语语音研究的理论建设、文献整理、语音特征揭示等各方面有所突破，尝试为元代汉语代表音系构建一套可行的方案，给纷繁复杂的其他各类书面文献音系提供一种合理的解释。

19世纪是中西交流**一个**重要的历史时期，伴随着西方的军事、经济和文化侵略，西方对中国语言也展开了深入研究。
19世纪英美传教士的翻译、词典、汉语教材以及汉语语法编纂等语言学活动对当时西方了解中国语言文化起到了重要的推动作用。
在语法编纂者中，马士曼、马礼逊、艾约瑟、文璧等是*有代表性的人物。他们的作品继承了17世纪天主教传教士开启的以拉丁语法框架来描写汉语语法的思路，同时又受到了普遍唯理语法、历史比较语言学、英语语法等语言学思想的影响。他们的汉语语法在以词类及其形态为主的基础上对句法作出了*多探索。他们的语法探索对19世纪西人的汉语学习有很大的帮助，同时对19世纪及后来西方语言学界的汉语研究也起到了一定的推动作用。
由于中西语言学界早期交流的隔断，以及意识形态、学术偏见、客观研究条件等方面的原因，中国语法学界对西洋汉语语法研究的历史一直缺乏应有的了解和重视。这种情况直到*近十余年来才开始改变。董方峰所著的《十九世纪英美传教士的汉语语法研究》将17—19世纪西洋汉语语法研究看作一个整体，并根据研究者和文本特点划分出三个传统：17—18世纪的天主教传统、17—19世纪欧洲本土汉学家传统以及19世纪英美传教士传统。这三个传统的代表人物和作品以及相互关系都构成重要的研究问题。本文选择以19世纪英美传教士传统作为切入点，详细地分析了19世纪英美传教士汉语语法研究的历史背景、主要文本、他们语法思想的来源以及影响，并对其历史意义作出了评价。
19世纪英美传教士的汉语语法在宏观层面上的特征表现为对西洋语法的模仿、对口头语言的重视、普遍主义思想、历史比较思路等。在语法体系上，他们对词类、句法的具体讨论较前人*为详细，尤其是对句法的讨论*有深度，已经搭建起了较为完备的汉语语法体系。在思想源头上，希腊—罗马语法传统、普遍唯理语法、基督教语言观、历史比较语言学和英语教学语法等语言学思想都影响了19世纪英美传教士的汉语语法研究。
19世纪英美传教士的汉语语法研究对当时的西方汉语学习者起到了很大作用，是他们学习汉语的主要参考资料。他们的研究对西方语言学界持续深入地了解汉语语法形态也起到了参考作用，后来的西方汉语语法研究者都或多或少地参照了他们的成果。但这些成果无论是对19世纪的中国语言学界还是当代中国语法学界都未能产生实质性的影响，后世的中国语法学家大多数对西洋汉语语法研究的成果知之不多或刻意忽略。这一方面可以归咎于中西语言学界交流的不畅，另一方面也是缘于政治意识形态影响、学术偏见、客观研究条件限制等原因。
《十九世纪英美传教士的汉语语法研究》认为，应该以历史的眼光来客观、公允地评价19世纪英美传教士的汉语语法研究。在当时的历史语境下，他们以英汉比较、模仿拉丁语法或者英语语法为基础，迎合汉语教学的功利目的而进行的语法研究一方面较好地实现了他们的研究目的，另一方面也建构起了较为完整的汉语语法体系，并且相较前人有一定的进步。他们的研究对于今人仍然存在材料上和方法论上的价值。同时，他们因受时代、学术背景以及研究目的的制约，也表现出了很大的局限l生。系统整理19世纪英美传教士乃至整个西洋汉语语法研究的历史，对于汉语语法学史的书写有重要价值。

《普通话语音史话》是唐作藩先生2000年在语文出版社出版的“百种语文小丛书”的一种。主要内容讨论现代普通话的形成，讨论《中原阴韵》是否普通话语音系统的历史源头。对普通话唇音声母的来源、普通话卷舌声母的来源、普通话舌面音声母的来源、普通话零声母的来源等，以及普通话单韵母的来源、普通话复韵母的来源、普通话鼻音韵母的来源、普通话儿韵和儿化韵的来源、普通话四呼的形成、普通话四声的形成和发展等都条分缕析，令人信服。

This volume has been compiled as a tribute to a scholar who has devoted his prodigiously productive career to the study of Chinese and Sino-Tibetan linguistics: W. South Coblin. To honor this man whose depth and range of scholarly interests and accomplishments are nothing short of awe-inspiring, and whose influence on the field is broad and powerful, on the occasion of his seventieth birthday we have gathered together a collection of studies that speak to those interests in various ways and that also provide new and diverse contributions to the field.
South Coblin (known in Chinese as Kē Wèinán 柯蔚南) has exerted a profound impact on the field of Chinese and Sino-Tibetan linguistics as a researcher, teacher, mentor, and colleague. His career thus far has spanned over four decades, and his research has touched upon areas as varied as Sino-Tibetan comparative and historical linguistics, Chinese historical phonology, Chinese historical and comparative dialectology, Classical Chinese grammar, Old Tibetan, the language of early Chinese vernacular texts, the history and development of Chinese koines and pre-modern Mandarin, Chinese transcriptions in 'Phags-pa script, and most recently, in Korean. He has written groundbreaking and seminal studies in all of these fields, and many of his published works have become essential references. At present writing, he is author of eleven monographs and over eighty articles and book chapters, and these numbers will surely continue to grow. After this introduction appears a brief biography that gives an overview of South Coblin’s scholarly career and traces the trajectory of development of his many and various interests and projects, and this in turn is followed by a complete bibliography of his publications to date.
Among the twenty-three contributors to this volume are South Coblin’s graduate school classmates, colleagues and peers in the field, and students and others he has mentored. In gathering the papers we endeavored to assemble a selection of research that reflects the diversity of South’s scholarship and that engages with his scholarly interests. The resulting compilation comprises twenty-two papers, which have been arranged topically into five sections: Chinese historical linguistics, Chinese dialects, Tibetan and Tibeto-Burman, language contact and transcription, and texts and written Chinese. Each section corresponds to an area in which South Coblin himself has engaged in research, and thus the collection as a whole reflects the breadth of his scholarship. Many papers are at the forefront of their respective fields, and build on South’s earlier work to arrive at significant new conclusions.
The opening section of this volume, “Chinese Historical Linguistics,” represents the area in which South Coblin began his scholarly career, and the first paper was written by the late Professor Jerry Norman, the scholar who perhaps had the deepest influence on his scholarly work. Norman’s “A Model for Chinese Dialect Evolution” is a distillation of ideas he developed over the years, many in conversations with South, and provides an alternative model for the comparative study of Chinese dialects, a model that we anticipate will ultimately supersede and replace the conventional approach of relying primarily on the phonological categories of the Qièyùn 切韻. Norman outlines two historical stages of Chinese, Common Dialectal Chinese (CDC) and Early Chinese (EC), which he developed using a strictly comparative approach based entirely on observable and documented dialect data. In his paper, he deliberately eschews the incorporation of distinctions supported only by written evidence, which might be artifacts of the literary tradition, and without basis in the actual spoken dialects. He intended that CDC and EC would provide an objectively realistic framework for understanding Chinese linguistic evolution and the phonological development of the Chinese dialects, one from which the modern dialectal forms of Chinese could be easily and naturally derived. Jerry Norman had discussed many of the details of this work with South Coblin, and thus decided to contribute it to this volume as a tribute to his close friend. He sent the final version to the editors just twelve days before his death on July 7, 2012.
The next two papers in this section address other aspects of Chinese language history. Ho Dah-an’s study, “Phonological Problems in Imperial Naming Taboos” (史諱中的音韻問題) presents an examination of Chén Yuán’s 陳垣 1928 Examples of Imperial Naming Taboos 史諱舉例 and, following a brief critique, explores the issue of taboo names and their relationship to Chinese phonological history. Ho’s discussion underscores the importance of historical phonology in any examination of issues bearing on Chinese linguistic history. Through a demonstration of the ways in which changes in the language affect the particularities of which graphs were taboo at different periods, Ho shows that once we obtain a clear understanding of the pertinent phonological issues, we may find that ostensible errors or exceptions to expected practice were not in fact departures from regular convention. Ting Pang-Hsin’s contribution, “A Comparative Study of Frequently Used Action Verbs in Hàn and Táng-Sòng Times” (漢與唐宋兩代若干常用動作動詞的比較), seeks clues to trends in Chinese lexical change through an examination of frequently used action verbs in Hàn times, as glossed in Xǔ Shèn’s許慎 Shuōwén jiězì 說文解字, and through comparison of the Hàn vocabulary with the Táng-Sòng lexicon as recorded in the complete editions of Wáng Rénxù’s 王仁昫 Kānmiù bǔquē Qièyùn 刊謬補缺切韻and the Guǎngyùn 廣韻. Ting concludes that overall, the Chinese lexicon shows a strong trend toward continuity, and consequently was only minimally influenced by other neighboring language families.
The second section, “Chinese Dialects,” comprises five essays that explore Chinese dialects from historical and descriptive perspectives. The first three papers examine various issues related to initials in dialect phonology. William H. Baxter’s “Northern Mǐn ‘Softened’ Initials in Borrowed Vocabulary” presents evidence for early Mandarin influence on southern dialects, arguing that the softened initials in the Northern Mǐn dialects have two origins. One appears in a set of words native to the dialects and originating very early therein; the other occurs in a set of words forming a borrowed literary stratum that the author’s analysis shows entered the Mǐn dialects from an early form of Mandarin. This early form of Mandarin would have been a southern type that retained the voiced obstruents of Middle Chinese. The second paper, by Zhongmin Chen, “On the Relationship between Tones and Initials of the Dialects in the Shànghǎi Area,” analyzes the correlation between tones and initials in the Shànghǎi region dialects. Chen first looks at the general relationship between tones and various types of initials, and then proceeds to examine a specific set of issues regarding the nature of voiceless stops followed by vowels with breathy phonation. These issues include the relationship between stops and tones, the influence of aspirated stops on tones, and the nature and distribution of pre-glottalized stops. Chen demonstrates that aspiration is a factor in the split of tone categories into different tone values and in the development of new tone categories owing to the influence of the initial type. The evolution of initials is also the subject of the next paper, “A Study of Diachronic Evolution and Age Variation in the Three Initials Groups of Zhī, Zhuāng and Zhāng in Nánjīng Dialect” (南京方言知莊章三組歷時演變與年齡差異研究), by Gù Qián 顧黔 and Zhāng Zhìlíng 張志凌. Gù and Zhāng examine the distribution in Nánjīng dialect of retroflex affricate initials [tʂ, tʂh, ʂ] and dental sibilant initials [ts, tsh, s] that reflect the three Qièyùn initial groups identified in the title. They conclude that variation in the distribution of the two groups of initials correlates to speaker age. Their paper explores the reasons for this age variation and investigates the course and diachronic direction of the evolution of the differing distribution of these groups of initials.
The final two articles of this section examine dialect phonologies from a broader perspective. Chāng Méixiāng’s昌梅香contribution, “A Homophone Syllabary of the Yúnlóu Dialect in Jí’ān County, Jiāngxī Province” (江西吉安縣雲樓方言同音字彙) presents primary dialect data. Her report describes the phonological system of the dialect spoken in Yúnlóu 雲樓 in Jí’ān County, Jiāngxī and provides an extensive syllabary of homophonous morphemes. Chāng was a recent visiting scholar at the University of Iowa, and during extensive discussions with South Coblin about this dialect material, he encouraged her to make data set available for scholarly reference. The last paper of the section investigates a dialect data source that dates back to the Qīng period. In “A Comparative Look at Common Southern Jiāng-Huái and the Southern Mandarin Influences in Hé Xuān’s Yùnshǐ,” Richard VanNess Simmons examines the phonology presented in the Yùnshǐ 韻史 (History of Rimes) compiled by Hé Xuān 何萱 (1774-1841). Hé Xuān, a native of Tàixīng 泰興 and Rúgāo 如皋 Counties in Jiāngsū 江蘇, revised the traditional Qièyùn system of initials to accord more closely with the dialects of his native place. Hé developed a simplified system of 21 initials that do indeed match those of the Tàixīng and Rúgāo dialects. But Simmons finds that the Yùnshǐ also clearly evidences additional influence from the literary tradition and from nearby prestige Guānhuà 官話 dialects, with the result that its tonal system only partially reflects the local dialect phonology of Rúgāo and Tàixīng.
The third section in this collection comprises research concerning “Tibetan and Tibeto-Burman.” The first three papers reflect South Coblin’s impact in this field by exploring and refining some of his foundational contributions. Guillaume Jacques’ contribution, “On Coblin’s Law,” examines the empirical basis of Coblin’s law, which has become a key phonetic law in Tibetan historical phonology. Jacques notes that while this law was originally devised to explain alternations in the verbal system, its range of application is broader, and can be observed in the nominal system as well. Additionally, his paper proposes an extension of this law, namely *sNC- > sC-. Nathan W. Hill’s “Tibeto-Burman *dz- > Tibetan z- and Related Proposals” offers an adjustment to the sound laws proposed in Coblin 1976. Hill presents evidence for the changes *dz > z and *ǰ > ź and the other origins of ź, specifically *lj and *rj, and endeavors to establish the relative chronology of those changes. Laurent Sagart’s “A Note on Tibeto-Burman Bone Words and Chinese Pitch-pipes” also develops an issue inspired by a word treated by South Coblin (Coblin 1986). Exploring Tibetan gra ‘fish bones’ and rus ‘bone’, Sagart proposes an explanation to the observation that the Chinese names for odd- and even-numbered pitch-pipes exhibit sound correspondences with related terms in Sino-Tibetan languages.
The subsequent two papers focus on issues in modern Tibeto-Burman linguistics. James Matisoff’s “Using Native Lexical Resources to Create Technical Neologisms for Minority Languages” departs from a historical focus and offers an investigation of practical applicability to living languages. Matisoff examines the issues and challenges entailed in the creation of technical linguistic terminology for Lahu, a language that lacks a technical vocabulary with which to discuss scientific subjects such as linguistics. The hope is to obviate the need for Lahu speakers to resort to borrowing technical terminology from other, majority languages. Jackson T.-S. Sun, in “Typology of Generic-Person Marking in Tshobdun Rgyalrong,” focuses on expressions that languages use to refer to the generic person (GP), or ‘people in general’. His paper investigates GP-representation in Tshobdun Rgyalrong, a morphologically complex Sino-Tibetan language spoken in Sichuan, approaching the issue from a typological perspective. Sun shows that Tshobdun marks GP with an unusual encoding device, namely, dedicated verbal morphology that evolved from erstwhile nominalizers, and he proposes that the integration of the generic person into the inflectional person category as a ‘fourth person’ reveals the salience of humanness marking in Rgyalrong grammar.
The fourth section of the volume, entitled “Language Contact and Transcription,” contains essays that examine aspects of the interaction between Chinese and other languages. The first three papers treat transcriptional evidence, which has played a prominent role in South Coblin’s scholarship; that is, they deal with the use of non-Chinese phonetic scripts to record Chinese words and phrases or the transcription of foreign words using Chinese characters. This section begins with Axel Schuessler’s “Phonological Notes on Hàn Period Transcriptions of Foreign Names and Words.” Schuessler examines a corpus of Hàn time transcriptions of Central Asian and Indic terms into Chinese, identifying the phonological patterns revealed by the transcriptional choices and exploring what they reveal about the Chinese language of the time, and about the foreign languages they transcribe. To this paper is appended an extensive dataset that collects transcriptions of Central Asian and Indic names from pre-Hàn, Former (Western) Hàn, and Later (Eastern) Hàn Chinese textual sources. The second paper, Zev Handel’s “Why did Sin Sukju Transcribe the Coda of the Yào 藥 Rime of 15th Century Guānhuà with the letter ㅸ <f>?” addresses Sin Sukju’s 申叔舟transcriptions of Mandarin into Korean in the Saseong tonggo 四聲通解, a Korean rimebook of Chinese that has also been of great use to South Coblin in his work on the history of Guānhuà. Handel focuses on the transcription of Chinese entering-tone syllables, most of which were transcribed with a final glottal stop. Handel seeks to account for the previously unexplained transcription of a subset of syllables (those in the Yào 藥rime) with the Hangul letter for <f>. He proposes that the transcriptions in fact represented a single Mandarin sound with two different graphs, and that this was the result of the orthographic structure of Hangul, and not of a phonological distinction in Mandarin. The following paper treats transcriptional materials that yield new insights into a yet earlier stage of Mandarin. In “The Chē-Zhē syllables of Old Mandarin,” Zhongwei Shen draws on evidence from ancient Altaic scripts, including ḥP’ags-pa ('Phags-pa), Jurchen, and Khitan materials, to demonstrate that although the earliest Chinese rimebook to treat jɛ and ɥɛ type finals as an independent rime, chē-zhē 車遮, was the Zhōngyuán yīnyùn 中原音韻 of 1324, transcriptional evidence reveals that this type of syllable existed earlier, by the Khitan Liáo 遼 dynasty (916-1125). Shen proposes that the vowel system represented by these finals was maintained until the nineteenth century, when a new final -ɤ became distinctive in coda-less syllables, as part of the transformation from Old Mandarin to modern Mandarin.
Following are two papers that treat the interaction between Chinese and Western languages. Lǔ Guóyáo 魯國堯 contributed a pair of notes entitled “Trivial Musings from Dull Lǔ’s Cottage Study” (愚魯廬學思脞錄二則). Lǔ is well-known for his work in the history of Mandarin, an interest he shares with South Coblin. But in this whimsical pair of notes he ventures off in new directions. The first note is a commentary on an essay by Qián Zhōngshū 錢鍾書 (1910-1998) focusing on late Qīng English to Chinese translation, and the second concerns Chinese nomenclature pertaining to binomes, that is, simple (non-compound) bisyllabic words, which in Chinese are conventionally divided into three separate categories. Lǔ proposes a single Chinese term (yīn’ǒu 音耦) that would encompasses all three types. This section concludes with a paper by Joseph A. Levi, who together with South Coblin co-authored Franciso Varo’s Glossary of the Mandarin Language. Levi addresses a different aspect of early missionary dictionaries of Chinese in his paper, “The Ricci-Ruggieri Dicionário Europeu-Chinês: Linguistic and Philological Notes on Some Portuguese and Italian Entries.” The Dicionário was the first bilingual dictionary composed by and for European missionaries to assist them in learning Chinese. Rather than focusing on Chinese, Levi explores the Dicionário as a source for understanding the evolution of Portuguese and, to a lesser extent, Italian, through a series of notes on various linguistic and philological points.
The final section, “Texts and Written Chinese”, brings together four papers that explore various aspects of written texts and individual graphs or words. The first two concern the Chinese writing system and examine issues regarding the interpretation of individual characters. In “Two Competing Interpretations: Cóng 从 or Bì 比 in Oracle-Bone Inscriptions,” Ken-ichi Takashima explores the graphic ambivalence between the oracle bone graphs conventionally transcribed as bì 比 ‘side by side’ and cóng 从 ‘to follow’. He revisits earlier claims concerning the form and meaning of these graphs, and draws on both palaeographic and philological evidence to support his conclusion that these OBI forms all may be understood as cóng 从. The next piece, by David Prager Branner, “The Lingering Puzzle of Yán 焉: A Problem of Oral Language in the Chinese Reading Tradition,” examines the origins of the graph 焉, long thought to represent a contraction of yú 於 plus another unknown element, meaning “at this [place].” Branner argues that the character 焉 is a “portmanteau” character, or a semantic ligature of two graphs equivalent to modern 於+是, but that it is far from certain that it represents a spoken contraction. The essay by Morten Schlütter, “Textual Criticism and the Turbulent Life of the Platform Sūtra,” explores the textual history of the Platform Sūtra, and proposes a new understanding of the stemmatic relationships among multiple distinct versions that span over five centuries. Schlütter assembles detailed evidence concerning these versions of the Platform Sūtra, to which he applies the methodology of textual criticism, demonstrating among other things that what he refers to as the “longer version” of the Platform Sūtra, which was both the orthodox and most popular version, was actually a later version of the text. This paper is an elegant demonstration of the ways in which textual criticism can lead us to revise our understanding of the relationships among texts, and more broadly, of the history of ideas or religious developments. The final paper in this section, “Spring and Autumn Use of Jí 及and its Interpretation in the Gōngyáng and Gǔliáng Commentaries” by Newell Ann Van Auken, analyzes usage of the word jí 及, which functions as a comitative marker ‘and, with’ in the Spring and Autumn (Chūnqiū 春秋), and proposes that some Gōngyáng 公羊 and Gǔliáng 穀梁 readings of jí resulted from the fact that the commentators understood jí in a different way, as a full verb. Common wisdom tells us that grammatical particles such as the comitative marker jí are derived from full verbs, and thus it is unexpected to find the same word as a particle in an earlier text and a full verb in a later one; Van Auken ascribes this apparent discrepancy to dialect differences, and explains this unusual situation by proposing that the language of the Spring and Autumn was probably not ancestral to that of either Gōngyáng or Gǔliáng.
* * *
We owe a debt of gratitude to many friends and colleagues who have supported us in this tribute to South Coblin, and most of all, to the contributors to this volume. Two in particular deserve special acknowledgment, the late Jerry L. Norman, who gave us initial encouragement, pronouncing this endeavor “a splendid idea!” and Axel Schuessler, who has provided unfailing and enthusiastic support at every step as we have prepared this volume. Other contributors who have provided additional assistance in various ways include (in alphabetical order) David Branner, Zev Handel, Nathan Hill, Ho Dah-an, Jackson T.-S. Sun, Morten Schlütter, and Zhongwei Shen.
We would also like to express our deep appreciation to the editorial staff of Language and Linguistics at the Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica. The former Executive Editor, Dr. Elizabeth Zeitoun, took on primary responsibility for managing the onerous editorial labor, tirelessly continuing her hard work even after her term as Executive Editor of Language and Linguistics had officially ended. Special thanks are due also to Kuo Chun-yu (Joyce) for her meticulous and patient work in copy-editing and typesetting this volume. Dr. Wu Rui-wen at the Institute of Linguistics has likewise gone out of his way to provide assistance and support. We also thank Lin Chih-hsien, Lin Hsiu-lien, Chuang Ya-ying, Chen Yu-kuan (Vicky), and others for their help. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers of each paper for their assistance and insightful comments.
The Norman family warrants our special thanks for working with us in preparing Jerry Norman’s paper for this publication, and for their continued support, even as they were grieving the loss of their husband and father. Jing Coblin kindly provided the photograph of her husband, which appears as the frontispiece, and gave us warm, enthusiastic, and helpful encouragement from the outset. Russ Ganim provided helpful advice as we began this project, and Eden Lunde assisted with numerous proof-reading tasks. Zhāng Yànhóng assisted with translations of a number of abstracts. Matthias Richter, Brandon Dotson, Steve Wadley, and Young Oh, together with a number of our contributors, provided help with the cover images, and Oliver Emery assisted with the cover design.
Finally and most importantly, we join with our contributors in thanking our honoree, W. South Coblin, for teaching us all so much, whether directly in the classroom and conversations, or indirectly through his research and publications, and for thereby inspiring the research contained in this volume.

这本文集共收文章四十四篇，包括有关汉语文字音韵训诂三方面的论文、札记和书籍的序跋。其中有一部分曾在一九五七年编为汉语音韵文集，这些文章，以在一九三四年至一九四九年之间所写的居多。有些是关于书籍或资料的考证和校订，有些是问题的探讨，有些是对前人著述的评论。大抵从考察和分析材料入手，进而论述材料所反映的语言现象，以供学者参考。

唐五代诗歌总集。编者明代胡震亨 (1569～1645?)，字孝辕,号遁叟,又号赤城山人。浙江海盐人。万历二十五年(1597)举人，屡试进士不第。历任固城教谕、合肥知县、定州知州、职方员外郎,乞归。晚年家居,藏书万卷，日夕探讨，校读精勤。著有《赤城山人稿》、《读书杂记》、《海盐县图经》、《李诗通》、《杜诗通》、《唐音统签》等。其中尤以《唐音统签》一书，辑录唐五代诗，卷帙浩繁，网罗宏富，是中国古代私人纂辑的一部最大的唐五代诗歌总集。　　《明史·艺文志》著录此书为1024卷，《千顷堂书目》著录为1032卷,《四库全书总目》著录为1027卷,惟故宫博物院所藏范希仁抄补本1033 卷最为完全。全书以十干为纪，自《甲签》至《壬签》，按时代先后辑录唐及五代的诗作以及词曲、歌谣、谚语、酒令、占辞等。《癸签》则包括体裁、法微、评汇、乐通、诂笺、谈丛、集录等部分，是胡氏在广泛收集资料的基础上研究唐诗的总结。此书对唐诗的源流与变革、体制的形成、风格流派的异同、作家的高下以及有关的知人论世材料，都作了较系统的论述；对常用词汇的注释和考订，唐诗别集、总集、金石著录、唐诗评论的综合目录，也都分门类地作了交代；所引明人诗话，亦有为今日不易得见者，因而又具有文献价值。此外，书中各家诗人小传也具有较高的学术价值,除新旧《唐书》外,还引用了杂史、笔记、地志、诗话及各家别集的材料，并加以考订。又采辑了许多诗人的遗闻逸事，附入小注，其中引用的材料大都注明出处，有时还注明编纂时所援用的版本。这些，对唐诗研究都是有用的。　　《唐音统签》编成后,未能全部刻印,历来通行易见的刻本只有《戊签》和《癸签》两种。前人记述此书者，多出于传闻，如清代王士即误以《全唐诗》为《唐音统签》的转刻本。但是，据俞大纲《记唐音统签》所录，故宫博物院图书馆所藏范氏抄补本《唐音统签》，其中全部为刻本者是《甲》、《乙》、《戊》、《癸》四签；《丙签》卷八七至九二、卷九六至一七一为刻本，卷九三至九五、卷一七一至二一一抄补；《丁签》卷二一二至三二一、卷四○○至卷四九七为刻本，卷三二二至三九九卷四八○至五五二抄补;其他各签都是抄本。《四库全书总目》认为《唐音统签》中仅《戊》、《癸》两签有刻本，亦为臆断。　　《唐音统签》与清代康熙时所刊印的《全唐诗》有重要关系。《全唐诗》 900卷，就是以《唐音统签》及季振宜《唐诗》为底本编纂而成的。其中初、盛唐部分主要采用季振宜书的成果，中、晚唐部分则在很多地方吸取了《唐音统签》的成果。季书中所缺的中、晚唐诗，一般都可在《唐音统签》得到补充。例如《全唐诗》中的殷尧藩诗，就是据《唐音统签》补充的。此外，《全唐诗》所辑录的散佚诗篇和断章零句，也多半采自《唐音统签》。

《国际汉藏语研究译丛:境外汉语历史语法研究文选》收录了15篇具有代表性的关于境外汉语历史语法研究的学术论文，包括《中国语法札记》《汉语语法的变迁》《从SVO到SOV语序变化的解释》《古汉语句法演变中的韵律制约》《上古汉语的语序》《说中古汉语的使成结构》等，代表了境外汉语历史语法研究的最高水平。