![]() With neither book-length treatise nor a single special issue of an international journal devoted to this topic, the research gap is all the more glaring. Kornicki (2018: 101) points out that “the history of brush conversation in East Asia is yet to be written”. anti-colonial struggle in Vietnam in late 19th and early 20th centuries (e.g., DeFrancis 1977: 161-162 Marr 1971: 112-113).early modern East Asian diplomacy (e.g., Japanese-Korean, Clements 2019 Japanese-US, Tao 2005), or.lingua-cultural encounters and literary exchange between (early) modern China and Japan (e.g., Fogel 1995, 2002, 2008, 2014 Howland 1996 Keaveney 2009).literacy development in Old Japan, Lurie 2011) the historical spread of script-specific written Chinese (Literary Sinitic or wényánwén 文言文) to what is now North and South Korea, Japan and Vietnam (e.g., Clements 2015 Denecke 2014 Handel 2019 Kornicki 2018 Whitman 2011 cf.Where Sinitic brushtalk is mentioned, it is typically ancillary to some other major theme, such as: By contrast, there has been little research in English focusing on brushtalk as a modality of cross-border communication, interactively face-to-face (but see Clements 2019 Li 2020). ![]() Research in Sinitic brushtalk (漢文筆談) is by no means terra incognita, but the bulk of research to date has been carried out and published mainly in East Asian languages: Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Vietnamese – in that order of relative numerical significance (see Li, Aoyama and Wong 2020 for an indicative list of references in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |