Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T19:37:33.797Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13. The “Question” Question

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2015

David S. Nivison*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper takes issue with the widely prevailing assumption that the “charge” (ming ci) in a Shang oracle inscription must always be understood as a question. I hold that we must distinguish between what the diviner is saying in the charge, 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. I present various arguments and examples to show this, e.g.:

(1) Li Hsüeh-ch'in'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, I hold, our first assumption should be that when a diviner does not use these forms, he does not intend his sentence to be understood as a question.

(2) When two sentences in the same inscription -- e.g., charge and prognostication -- are alike in form (both of them being without final negatives or particles), it is a mistake to construe one of them as a question and the other as a statement. But a prognostication must be a statement.

Type
Session IV: Shang Divination
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Study of Early China 1986