Sinitic Brushtalk:
Using Classical and Literary Chinese as a Written Lingua Franca
in Premodern East Asia

People in East Asia – today’s China, North and South Korea, Japan and Vietnam – speak very different languages.

Have you ever wondered…

• For over a thousand years till 1900s, how did people in premodern East Asia communicate when crossing borders for transactional purposes, e.g., checking identities, asking for directions, buying and selling, or ordering food?
• What about interactional communication such as expressing opinions, debating controversial issues, asserting (dis)agreements, or even showcasing literary talents for the sheer pleasure of artistic appreciation?

Some highlights

• For over 1000 years, Classical and Literary Chinese functioned as a written lingua franca in cross-border communication in East Asia.
• Sinitic brushtalk between Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese literati was very common.
• The main purpose of Sinitic brushtalk may be transactional or interactional.
• Sinitic brushtalk allows for inter-ethnic, but also intra-ethnic communication
  e.g. brushtalk between Wang Guohua王國華 and Jao Tsung-I饒宗頤:
  「我與饒公交流的最大障礙是語言。我是山東口音，饒公是潮州口音。年齡上又是兩代人，百歲饒公是國學大師，語言與學問上的落差，使我們交流時經常借助於筆談。一次交流談話，一般要寫滿一個小本子。這也留下了許多珍貴資料。」
  Cited from G. Wang (2015) 《心經簡林》 (Xīnjīng Jiănlín, ‘Wisdom Path’), Chung Hwa Book Company, p. 50.
• As a written lingua franca and language contact phenomenon, Sinitic brushtalk is clearly under-researched linguistically and sociolinguistically.

What is brushtalk (also ‘brush conversation’)?

Eight discrete usages of the term 筆談 (Y. Wang 王勇 & Xie 謝詠 2015)

1. creative genre expressing personal thoughts or reflections
2. title of Hong Kong-based magazine in 1941
3. synonym of literary genre of epistolary writing
4. brush-and-ink meaning-making practice preferred to speech (guard against possible information leakage to eavesdroppers, especially life-and-death circumstance, political intrigue or espionage)
5. only means of communication (e.g. with bed-ridden patients)
6. vernacular-driven writing style (Zhou Zuoren周作人, 1920s)
7. mode of communication between Chinese dialect speakers
8. mode of cross-border, intercultural communication involving speakers from different countries with no shared spoken language

How does it work in the modern world?

Brushtalk in modern setting: Sinitic brushtalk as a sui generis lingua-cultural tradition in Sinographic East Asia

我與饒公交流的最大障礙是語言。我是山東口音，饒公是潮州口音。年齡上又是兩代人，百歲饒公是國學大師，語言與學問上的落差，使我們交流時經常借助於筆談。一次交流談話，一般要寫滿一個小本子。這也留下了許多珍貴資料。
from G. Wang (2015: 50)
‘In my verbal exchange with Master Jao Tsung-I, language is our greatest communication barrier. My speech is coloured with Shandong accent, while Master Jao’s is Chaozhou-accented. Age difference is another factor, as Master Jao is older than me by one generation. Master Jao being a centenarian with erudite knowledge in Sinology, plus the huge gap in our vernaculars and scholarly insights, we often rely on brushtalk in our interaction. A booklet full of scribbles would often result after our in-depth ‘conversational’ exchange. What is good about it is that plenty of precious materials are preserved for future reference.’ (our translation)

How does it work in ancient Sinosphere?

An exemplar of a brush-and-ink set designed for travelling literati

adopted from http://www.sohu.com/a/126030965_445056

Transactional communication between shipwrecked foreign seafarers and maritime officials (coastguards) of an East Asian polity

Ryūkyū-Chinese (1882)

問: 乘組人數何拾人。	C: ‘How many passengers are on board – in multiples of 10?’
答: 三十弍、內男二十九人、女三人。	R: ‘32 people: 29 male and 3 female.’
問: 何月何日從與那國島開船。	C: ‘When did you start sailing from Yonaguni Island?’
答: 六月六日。	R: ‘On the sixth day of the sixth lunar month.’
問: 寶船何之有貨物。	C: ‘What kind of goods are there on this ship?’
答: 有米粟。	R: ‘Rice and grain.’

C: a Chinese coastguard
R: a Ryūkyū seaman

Excerpted from 「城間船中国漂流顛末──八重山．一下級士族の生涯よりみた琉球処分前後」竹原房, 1982.7 pp.38−40, Cited in Cen 2014

Transactional communication between shipwrecked foreign seafarers and maritime officials (coastguards) of an East Asian polity

Korean-Japanese (1883)

問: 爾等何國何地方人耶。	C: ‘Which country and region are you [people] from?’
答: 日本國 長門州 阿武郡 鶴江村人耳。	J: ‘[We are from] Tsurue village, Abu district, Nagato province, Japan.’
問: 緣何事、何年何月日、自何處開船、向往何處、何以到此耶。	C: ‘What was the purpose [of your travel], which year, month and date and from where did you set sail, where were you heading, [and] why ended up here?’
答:我等五名、釣魚次、共乘一小船。今年九月二十一日、自本村浦口開船、多日釣魚之中。今月初八日、猝遇大風、不能制船、逐潮盪漾、十五日漂到貴境耳。	J: ‘We are five people, fishing on a small boat. From the 21st day of the ninth month this year, we set sail from our village and fished for many days. On the eighth day of this month, we encountered strong wind and lost control of our boat amid unruly waves; on the 15th day [the boat was] drifted and landed on your venerable territory.’

C: a Chosŏn coastguard
J: a Japanese fisherman

Excerpted from 各司謄録19 全羅途篇 2, cited in Matsuura 2014

Transactional communication between foreign visitors and locals

Japanese-Chinese (1872)

岡田: 上海現今儒醫、其高名者為誰。	O: ‘What are the esteemed names of well-known practitioners of the Confucian medical tradition in Shanghai?’
童: 高者赴京求官、留上海者、未知其高手為誰。恐無其人矣。	T: ‘The distinguished ones left for Peking to serve at the court; of those who stay in Shanghai, not sure who the esteemed ones are. [I am] afraid there are none.’
岡田: 現今天下高名儒醫、其著述新刊、請教。	O: ‘On the esteemed practitioners of the Confucian medical tradition in China and their recent published works, please advise.’
童: 醫則蘇州 葉天士、儒則劉墉官至宰相。	T: ‘There is medical doctor Ye Tianshi of Suzhou, but also Confucian scholar Liu Yong, [the latter] rose to become Prime Minister.’

O: Okada Kousho 岡田篁所
T: Tong Kunyu 童昆玉

Excerpted from 滬呉日記 ‘Shanghai Suzhou Travel Diary’; cited in Liang & Mayanagi 2005

Transactional communication between foreign visitors and locals

Korean-Chinese (1721)

問: 明朝制度尚有流傳者否？	Y: ‘Are there any inherited Ming institutions now?’
答: 大同小異。	P: ‘Mostly the same.’
問: 所謂大同小異者，指冠服而言耶？	Y: ‘ “Mostly the same” refers to clothes?’
答: 不過車服禮器。	P: ‘Only carriages, clothes, and ritual vessels.’

Y: Yu Tak-Gi 兪拓基, a Chosŏn scholar (1691−1767) asking two Chinese students while traveling in Peking
P: Peng Tan 彭坦 and Peng Cheng 彭城, who were going to sit for the civil service examination

Excerpted from 《燕行錄全集》卷三十八 《知守齋集》《辛丑燕行錄》 p. 121

Interactional communication between officials/diplomats discussing formal business

Chinese-Vietnamese (1882)

唐: 順安本局來信，謂貴官另有要件面商，不知是否。	T: ‘[I] received a letter from the main office of Thuận An, saying that your Esteemed Self have another important matter to discuss face-to-face. Is that true?’
阮: 河內省、海防兩處已為法人所佔 (...) 求貴大人代稟李伯相及兩廣督憲，務必憐恤藩封，設法拯救。	N: ‘Hà Nội and Hải Phòng were occupied by the French already! (...) I beg your honor to help pass this message to Li Boxiang and the Governor of Kwangtung and Kwanghsi. Do have pity on [your] good-neighborly tributary and try to rescue [us]!’
唐: 貴官有貴國公文帶來否。	T: ‘Do your Esteemed Self have any official document from your Esteemed country?’
阮: 此等密事，不敢用筆墨，故陳侍郎託貴局周大人函知，俾晚生面陳。	N: ‘These issues being highly confidential, [we] dared not write [them] down on paper. So Secretary Trần entreated Mr Zhou of your Esteemed Office to inform [you, and] to let me brief [you] in person.’

T: Tang Tinggeng 唐廷庚, a Merchants Bureau official
N: Nguyễn Tịch 阮籍, a member of the Hànlín Academy

Excerpted from 《中國近代史資料叢刊續編之中法戰爭》Volume 1, p. 155, cited in Yu & Liang 2013

Interactional communication between officials/diplomats discussing formal business

Korean-Japanese (1881)

三島: 弊邦氣候最好處，爲西京及大坂，如東京則稍寒，易生疾，眞如貴喩。	M: ‘In our modest country, the best climate [is found in] Kyōto and Ōsaka. Tōkyō is a little too cold, [and so people] easily get sick, indeed as you mentioned.’
崔: 此亦受濕所祟耶。 近以齒痛為苦。酒後愈甚 。	C: ‘It could also be due to humidity. Recently [I] suffer from toothache, [it gets] worse after drinking.’
三島: 今日驟暑。請先生脱冠縱談。	M: ‘Today gets very hot. Please, Master [may want to] remove [your] hat [so as] to talk more unrestrainedly.’

C: Choy Sengtay 崔成大, a Chosŏn official
M: Mishima Chuushuu 三島中洲, a Japanese sinologist

Excerpted from 三島中洲・川北梅山・崔成大筆談録, cited in Nishogakusha University Committee 2015:77

Interactional communication between officials/diplomats/scholars engaged in exchange of poetic verses or artistic improvisations

Chinese-Japanese (1905): penta-syllabic quatrain written by Chen Rongchang 陳榮昌 for a painting produced by Takada Tadachika 高田忠周

蘭為王者香	Orchids exude royal fragrance,
何事在空谷	what are they doing in an empty valley?
佳友結靈芝	In the company of good friend língzhī,
千秋播芬鬱	their aroma transcends a thousand years.

Cited in Chen 2013

Interactional communication between officials/diplomats/scholars engaged in exchange of poetic verses or artistic improvisations

Vietnamese-Korean (1597)

adopted from http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4d40cc3d0100f4yw.html

義安何地不安居	With righteousness in place, any land can become a peaceful habitat.
禮接誠交樂有餘	With rites and sincerity in hearts and minds, people will enjoy abundant happiness.
彼此雖殊山海域	Despite drastic difference in our lands and seas,
淵源同一聖賢書	[our] shared origin is rooted in the same Sages’ literary works.
交鄰便是信為本	Trust is the foundation of good-neighborly relations,
進德深惟敬作輿	reverence is key to attaining virtue.
記取使詔還國日	Ambassador’s repatriation day is on [my] mind,
東南五色望雲車	may Providence let peace prevail by bestowing five colors [to Chosŏn] in the Southeast’.
	(Our translation, with interpretation by Han Xiaorong韓孝榮 and Mok Wan-hon莫雲漢 incorporated)

Excerpted from 《皇越詩選》卷五 黎詩 葉一 馮克寬 〈答朝鮮國使李睟光〉

Example of trilateral brushtalk: Vietnamese-Chinese-Japanese

Between Vietnamese anticolonial leader Phan Bội Châu 潘佩珠, his Chinese contacts – reformist Liang Qichao 梁啓超 and revolutionary leader Sun Yat-sen孫逸仙, and Japanese leaders in 1905–1906

“Here [in Japan] Phan Boi Chau sought out Liang Qichao, a refugee from the wrath of the Emperor Dowager, and has several extended discussions with him. Their common language was Chinese, but in written form, for while Phan Boi Chau was able to read and write Chinese his Sino-Vietnamese pronunciation was unintelligible to his interlocutor. They sat together at a table and passed back and forth to each other sheets covered with Chinese characters written with a brush.”
(DeFrancis 1977: 161)

Role of brushtalk in opening of Tokugawa Japan

“I found myself quite an object of interest; and as they set a great value on Chinese characters and compositions, whenever I went to the hall of reception many of them were sure to ask me to write on fans for them. The fans I inscribed during a month while we were at Yokohama could not be fewer than five hundred. The applications were, indeed, troublesome, and the writing took up much of my time, but it was difficult to decline acceding to their pressing requests.”
(Luo 1854: 401; cited in Tao 2005: 104)

What research materials can we make use of?

There is no shortage of primary sources! To name a few:

• Wang Tao王韜: a three-volume collection of poems Fúsāng Yóujì扶桑遊記 (‘Travelogue in Japan’)
• Compilation from China: 清代首屆駐日公使館員筆談資料彙編 (Liu Yuzhen劉雨珍)
  
  adopted from https://book.douban.com/subject/5419548/
• Compilations from Korea: 燕行錄全集, 朝鮮後期通信使筆談唱和集飜譯叢書
  
  adopted from http://www.cityu.edu.hk/lib/about/event/cul_korea/collection-yon-chi.htm
  
  
  adopted from http://news.donga.com/3/07/20130906/57493117/1
• Compilation from Vietnam: 越南漢文燕行文獻集成
  
  adopted from http://www.sohu.com/a/216361700_661135
• Databases:
  • Japan: Waseda University 早稲田大学
  • Korea: Yonsei University 延世大學校
• Lord Ookouchi Teruna 大河内輝声 of Meiji Japan, an obsessed collector of ‘brushtalking’ data arising from his poetic exchanges in Classical Chinese with guests from Qing China.
  
  adopted from https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_1687759

What is the theoretical significance of Sinitic brushtalk?

Classical or literary Chinese was used as a written lingua franca in premodern East Asia – an age-old lingua-cultural practice

“The welcoming of the visitors from Parhae 渤海 began with an exchange of Chinese poems between Sugawara no Michizane 菅原道真 and the other Japanese hosts and the dignitaries from Parhae. Only when Chinese poetry had been exchanged could formal negotiations begin. Depending on the availability of interpreters, it can easily be imagined that both parties might be compelled to depend on the writing brush as the sole means of conducting negotiations.” (Keaveney 2009:7)

Is the function of Chinese as a written lingua franca in East Asia unique or sui generis?

To our knowledge, no such function has been documented in other historically comparable regional lingua francas such as Latin or Arabic. Part of the explanation for the sui generis written lingua franca function of classical or literary Chinese may be found in the morpho-syllabic, non-alphabetic writing system.

Theoretical significance of Sinitic brushtalk in language contact research

Learning difficulty? Two main linguistic differences

• Chinese – classical or modern, spoken or written – typologically an isolating language with verb-medial word order (i.e., SVO) and makes minimal use of morphology
• Japanese, like Korean: agglutinative, with verb-final SOV word order, and marks syntactic functions obligatorily with particles
• Sinograms being non-alphabetic, relationship between spelling and pronunciation oblique.
• All this adds up to “a seemingly insurmountable linguistic barrier” for Japanese students (Mizumura 2015: 107), conceivably for Korean students as well.

Acquisitional

• Some evidence of grammatical functions of brushtalkers’ L1 mapped onto L2 (Classical Chinese) grammatical markers
• interrogative morpheme 何 (pīnyīn hé; Jap. なにnani; Kor: ha; Vietnamese: hà/sao/nào/gì; see examples (1) and (2)) and
• sentence-final question marker 耶 (pinyin yé; Jap. かka; Kor. ya; see examples (2), (4), (6))
• How is mapping done – is it always consistent ?
• Brushtalk research: contributes to East Asian historical linguistics, sociolinguistics, and contrastive language contact research

Typological

• Plenty of brush talk evidence shows that Classical Chinese became a productive and lively communicative resource with tremendous artistic meaning-making potential in the hands of creative literati, especially when poetic elements are involved in their spontaneous artistic improvisations. How is that possible?
• The borrowing constraints operate in such a way that (Field 2002):
• language with fusional morphology can borrow grammatical morphemes from agglutinating or isolating language;
• agglutinating language can borrow grammatical morphemes from isolating or agglutinating language, but not from fusional language
• By contrast, an isolating language cannot borrow morphemes from a fusional or agglutinating language.
• Field’s (2002) postulated hierarchies of borrowability is clearly supported by our Sinitic brush talk data.
• For over a thousand years until the dawn of the modern era, there is ample evidence of Sinitic borrowing, principally in the form of graphic borrowing (Hansell 2002), to the point of spawning indigenized sinograms (e.g., Jap. wasei-kango 和製漢語; Viet. chữ nôm, the latter being written as 字喃 or 𡨸喃) that were unintelligible to Chinese literati in China.
• This shows clearly that agglutinative languages like Japanese and Korean can borrow from an isolated language like Chinese.
• But what about the borrowability of written Chinese into Vietnamese, another isolating language?

Are there any relevant studies?

Research in English

• Little research on Sinitic brushtalk as language contact phenomenon (e.g. written lingua franca) in premodern East Asia
• Keaveney (2009: 2–9): brief historical overview of brushtalk as deep-rooted lingua-cultural practice in East Asia
• Tao (2005) examines the role of brushtalk in early Japanese-U.S. diplomacy in mid-1850s
• Howland (1996) shows how brushtalk in Classical Chinese enabled Chinese and Japanese scholars to display Sinitic nexus of civilizations while projecting distinctive lingua-cultural representations
• Clements (2018) and Denecke (2015) both focus on functions, but from different angles
• Hur and Cho (2016) examine diplomatic relations between Japan and Korea during that period.

Denecke (2014: 209)

The greatest advantage of the Chinese script (...) is that it enabled literate people in premodern East Asia to communicate directly in the absence of a common spoken language. Chinese-style writing was the East Asian lingua franca, or we should rather say scripta franca, because unlike elites who wrote and conversed in Latin in medieval and early modern Europe, Chinese-style writing was written language, a grapholect.”

Research in Chinese

• Wang & Xie (2015): collection of conference papers on Chinese-Japanese and Chinese-Korean brushtalk produced by literati, gentry and diplomats, but also by Japanese monks and seafarers in different epochs
• Yuzhen Liu (2010): brushtalk data collected from Qing diplomats while they discharged duties as Chinese ambassadors or embassy personnel in Meiji Japan
• Y. Wang (2013): adduces sociocultural significance of brushtalk as shown in travelogues by Korean and Vietnamese envoys
• Yu & Liang (2013) exemplify brush talk between Chinese and Vietnamese officials, which reflect history of international relations between the two countries
• Zhang (2012) outlines six brush conversations produced by Vietnamese envoy Lê Quý Đôn 黎貴惇, a famous scholar-official dispatched by late Lê dynasty to China in 1761

Research in Japanese

• Matsuura (2007): examines discussion and implementation of mutual arrangements regarding return of crews shipwrecked in different parts of East Asia – 17th to 19th centuries
• Matsuura (2009) and (2011): handling of Chinese ships stranded in Korean and Japanese waters, respectively
• Shipwrecked seafarers and their rescuers: W.-S. Lee (1997); Ogawa (2012); Moon (2018)
• Japanese official visit to Shanghai on board Senzaimaru 千歲丸 in 1862: Feng (1999); Yokoyama (2002); Fujita (2015, 2016)

Research in Korean

• Koo (2011) analyzes how knowledge was spread from Korean envoys to Japanese in 17th century by 朝鮮後期通信使筆談唱和集飜譯叢書.
• Jang (2017) discusses significance of brush conversations between Japanese officials and Korean envoys to Japan in 1764.
• H.-S. Lee (1996) investigates brush conversations between Korean and Japanese scholars on neo-Confucianism in 1711.
• Kim et al. (2015) examine exchange on medical knowledge between Korean and Japanese medics through brushtalk.

Research in Vietnamese

• Lý (2007, 2009) and Trịnh & Đ. T. Nguyễn (2012a, 2012b) study poetic exchange between envoys from Vietnam and Korea.
• M. T. Nguyễn (2009) and T. T. Nguyễn (2012) examine diplomatic interchange between ambassadors from Vietnam and Korea in China during 18th century.

Who are we?

• LI, Chor Shing David 李楚成
• Aoyama, Reijiro 靑山玲二郎
• Wong, Tak-sum 黃得森

Symposium held by us

• Two-day International Symposium: Cultural and Linguistic Interactions Across Sinographic East Asia 東亞漢字文化圈中的語言文化交流國際研討會
  

Relevant conferences held in the past

• 「漢文筆談與意象西湖」國際學術研討會
  
  adopted from http://product.dangdang.com/23754059.html
• The Cultural Images and Interaction of Envoys in Early Modern East Asia「近世東亞文化意象與試節交流」國際學術研討會
  
  
  adopted from http://eastasia.litphil.sinica.edu.tw/eastasia2/news_details.php?NewsID=173
• 前近代における東アジア三国の文化交流と表象──朝鮮通信使と燕行使を中心に──
  Cultural Exchange and Representation of China, Korea and Japan in the Premodern Age
  
  
  adopted from http://publications.nichibun.ac.jp/ja/item/kosh/2011-03-31-1/pub

Other relevant link

• UNESCO Memory of the World

References

CLEMENTS, Rebekah. 2015. A Cultural History of Translation in Early Modern Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

CLEMENTS, Rebekah. 2018. Brush talk as the 'lingua franca' of East Asian diplomacy in Japanese-Korean encounters (17^th −19^th centuries). Historical Journal. http://dro.dur.ac.uk/25284/ (accessed before 25/11/2018).

DEFRANCIS, John. 1977. Colonialism and Language Policy in Viet Nam. The Hague: Mouton.

FIELD, Fredric W. 2002. Linguistic Borrowing in Bilingual Contexts. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

HANSELL, Mark. 2002. Functional answers to structural problems in thinking about writing. In Difficult Characters: Interdisciplinary Studies of Chinese and Japanese Writing, ed. by Mary S. Erbaugh, pp. 124−176. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University National East Asian Language Resource Center.

HOWLAND, Douglas R. 1996. Borders of Chinese Civilization: Geography and History at Empire's End. Durham & London: Duke University Press.

HUR, Kyoung-Jin, and CHO, Young-Sim. 2016. Aspects of Korea-Japan cultural exchanges analyzed through tongshinsa delegations during the national seclusion period. Athens Journal of History 2.2: 129−136. https://www.athensjournals.gr/history/2016-2-2-4-Hur.pdf (accessed before 25/11/2018)

MIZUMURA, Minae 水村美苗. 2015. The Fall of Language in the Age of English, trans. Mari Yoshihara & Juliet Winters Carpenter. New York: Columbia University Press. (Orig. Pub. 2008.)

KEAVENEY, Christopher T. 2009. Beyond Brushtalk: Sino-Japanese Literary Exchange in the Interwar Period. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

TAO, De-min 陶德民. 2005. Negotiating language in the opening of Japan: Luo Sen’s journal of Perry’s 1854 expedition. Japan Review 17: 91−119.

Chinese References:

CHÉN, Yǒukāng 陳友康. 2013. Wǎn-Qīng Chén Róngchāng yǔ Rìběn rénshì de shīgē jiāoliú 晚清陳榮昌與日本人士的詩歌交流 (Late Qīng scholar Chén Róngchāng’s exchange of poetic verses with Japanese friends). "Hànwén bǐtán yǔ yìxiàng Xīhú" guójì xuéshù yántiǎohuì (Hangzhou, September 2013) 「漢文筆談與意象西湖」國際學術研討會 (The international conference on brush conversation in Classical Chinese and impression of Xīhú). http://dyyjy.zjgsu.edu.cn/UploadFiles/Files/2013-09/YX_20130910115752452.doc (accessed before 26/11/2018)

LIÚ, Yǔzhēn 劉雨珍. 2010. Qīngdài Shǒujiè Zhùrì Gōngshǐguǎnyuán Bǐtán Zīliào Huìbiān 清代首屆駐日公使館員筆談資料彙編 (A collection of brushtalks by the staff of the first Qīng Embassy to Japan). Tianjin: Tianjin Renmin Press.

WÁNG, Guóhuá 王國華. 2015. Xīnjīng Jiǎnlín: Ráo Zōngyí de Shūfǎ Yìshù 心經簡林：饒宗頤的書法藝術 (Wisdom Path: Jao Tsung-I's calligraphic art). Hong Kong: Chung Hwa Book Company.

WÁNG, Yǒng 王勇. 2013. Review on written documents of travelers to Běijīng in Míng and Qīng Dynasties — One research of East Asian written documents 燕行使筆談文獻概述──東亞筆談文獻研究之一. Foreign Studies 外文研究 1.2: 37−42.

WÁNG, Yǒng 王勇, and XIÈ, Yŏng 謝詠 (Eds). 2015. Dōngyà de Bǐtán Yánjiū 東亞的筆談研究 (Studies on brushtalk in East Asia). Hangzhou: Zhejiang Gongshang University Press.

YÚ, Xiàngdōng 于向東, and LIÁNG, Màohuá 梁茂華. 2013. A way of communication between Chinese and Vietnamese in history: Writing conversation 歷史上中越兩國人士的交流方式：筆談. China's Borderland History and Geography Studies 中國邊疆史地研究 23.4: 108−116.

ZHĀNG, Jīnghuá 張京華. 2012. Sānyíxiānghuì: Yǐ Yuènán hànwén Yānxíng wénxiàn wèi zhōngxīn 三夷相會：以越南漢文燕行文獻為中心 (Meeting of the three barbarians: Focusing on the Yānxíng literatures of Vietnam written in Chinese). Foreign Literature Review 外國文學評論 2012.1: 5−44.

Japanese References:

CÉN, Líng 岑玲. 2014. Language contact with crew of Ryukyu's drifting ships in the Qīng Dynasty 清朝中国に漂着した琉球船乗員の言語接触. Journal of East Asian Cultural Interaction Studies 東アジア文化交渉研究 7: 449−461. https://kuir.jm.kansai-u.ac.jp/dspace/handle/10112/8264 (accessed before 6/1/2019)

FÉNG, Tiānyú 馮天瑜. 1999. "Senzaimaru" no Shanhaikou: Nihon Bakumatsuki no Chuugoku kansatsu wo hyousu, 「千歳丸」の上海行――日本幕末期の中国観察を評す (The "Sensaimasu" visit to Shanghai: Comments on China's observations towards the end of the tokugawa period). Chuugoku 中国 (China) 21.7: 169−198.

FUJITA, Yoshihisa 藤田佳久. 2015. The feature of Shanghai at 1862 documented by two Japanese 幕末期に日本人が訪れ記録した上海像――納富介次郎と日比野輝寛の日記の場合――. Annual Reports of Open Research Center, Toa Dobun Shoin Memorial Center 同文書院記念報 23: 91−114. https://aichiu.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=repository_uri&item_id=7801&file_id=22&file_no=1 (accessed before 26/11/2018)

FUJITA, Yoshihisa 藤田佳久. 2016. The space of field works in Shanghai by Japanese each young samurai visiting from Japan in 1862 幕末期に上海を訪れた日本人青年藩士たちの行動空間――名倉予何人、中牟田倉之助、高杉晋作――. Annual Reports of Open Research Center, Toa Dobun Shoin Memorial Center 同文書院記念報 24: 143−173. https://aichiu.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=repository_uri&item_id=7803&file_id=22&file_no=1 (accessed before 26/11/2018)

LEE, Won-sik 李元植. 1997. Chousen Tsuushinshi no Kenkyuu 朝鮮通信使の研究 (Studies of Chosǒn envoys). Kyōto: Shibunkaku.

LIÁNG, Yǒngxuān 梁永宣, and MAYANAGI, Makoto 真柳誠. 2005. Okada Kousho and historical material of medical exchange between Japan and China in the last part of the Qing dynasty 岡田篁所と清末の日中医学交流史料. Journal of the Japanese Society for the History of Medicine 日本医史学雑誌 51.1: 25−49. http://jsmh.umin.jp/journal/51-1/25.pdf (accessed before 26/11/2018)

MATSUURA, Akira 松浦章. 2007. The aspects of the salvage in early modern of the East China Sea surrounding nations 近世東アジア海域諸国における海難救助形態. The Bulletins of the Institute of Oriental and Occidental Studies, Kansai University 関西大学東西学術研究所紀要 40: 1−20. https://kuir.jm.kansai-u.ac.jp/dspace/handle/10112/3085 (accessed before 6/1/2019)

MATSUURA, Akira 松浦章. 2009. Kinsei higashi ajia kaiiki ni okeru chuugokusen no hyouchyaku hitsudan kiroku 近世東アジア海域における中国船の漂着筆談記録 (The record of brush conversation of drifting ship from China in early modern of the East China Sea surrounding nations). The Journal of Korean Studies 韓國學論集 45: 181−243. http://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/landing/article.kci?arti_id=ART001347254 (accessed before 6/1/2019)

MATSUURA, Akira 松浦章. 2011. Edojidai kouki ni okeru Amakusa Sakitsu hyouchaku tousen no hitsudan kiroku 江戸時代後期における天草崎津漂着唐船の筆談記録 (The record of brush conversation of drifting ship from China in Amskusa Islands in late Edo period). In Cultural Interaction Studies on the Amskusa Islands (Cultural Interaction Studies of Peripheral-areas Series Vol. 2) 天草諸島の文化交渉学研究（周縁の文化交渉学シリーズ 2）, ed. by Kenichirou Aratake 荒武賢一朗, Haruo Noma 野間晴雄, and Yutaka Yabuta 藪田貫, pp. 115−138. Suita: Institute for Cultural Interaction Studies, Kansai University. Retrieved January 6, 2019, from https://kuir.jm.kansai-u.ac.jp/dspace/handle/10112/4381

MATSUURA, Akira 松浦章. 2014. Aspects observed in records of written dialogues concerning Chinese shipwrecks in Joseon-dynasty Korea 朝鮮国漂着中国船の筆談記録にみる諸相. The Bulletins of the Institute of Oriental and Occidental Studies, Kansai University 関西大学東西学術研究所紀要 47: 57−69. https://kuir.jm.kansai-u.ac.jp/dspace/handle/10112/8430 (accessed before 6/1/2019)

MOON, Kyungchol 文慶喆. 2018. Communication of Japan and Korea by a conversation by means of writing 筆談による日韓のコミュニケーション. Policy Management Studies 総合政策論集 17.1: 73−88.

Nishogakusha University Committee 二松學舍大学大学資料展示室運営委員会. 2015. Chushu and Modern 三島中洲と近代. Tōkyō: Nishogakusha University.

OGAWA, Kazuya 小川和也. 2012. Tenwado Chousen tsuushinshi to tairou Hotta Masatoshi no "hitsudan shouwa" 天和度朝鮮通信使と大老・堀田正俊の「筆談唱和」 ("Brushtalk and poetry exchange" between Tenwado Korean envoys and the Tairou Hotta Masatoshi). Nikkan sougo ninshiki 日韓相互認識 (Mutual Understanding between Japan and Korea) 5: 1−53. https://hermes-ir.lib.hit-u.ac.jp/rs/handle/10086/22237 (accessed before 26/11/2018)

YOKOYAMA, Hiroaki 横山宏章. 2002. The first visit to Shanghai by the "Senzai-maru" in 1862 文久二年幕府派遣「千歳丸」随員の中国観――長崎発中国行の第１号は上海で何をみたか――. Journal of the Faculty of Global Communication, Siebold University of Nagasaki 県立長崎シーボルト大学国際情報学部紀要 3: 197−206.

Korean References :

HE, Shu-yi 何淑宜. 2010. Observations on Chinese rituals and customs by Korean ambassadors in 17-18th century China 17‧18세기 조선사절의 중국 예속 관찰 (17‧18世紀 朝鮮使節의 中國 禮俗 觀察). Korean Studies 國學硏究 16: 537−574.

HUR, Kyoung-Jin 許敬震 (Ed.). 2013. Joseon Hugi Tongsinsa Pildam Changhuajip Beonyoek Chong Seo: Sanghanchangchujip 조선 후기 통신사 필담 창화집 번역 총서 (朝鮮 後期 通訊使 筆談 唱和集 飜譯 叢書) (The translation series on the brushtalk and poetry exchange by the envoys during the late Chosǒn period). Paju-si, Gyeonggi-do: Bogosa.

JANG, Jin-Yeop 張眞熀. 2017. Gyemi Tongsinsa Piltamui Dongasiajeok Uimi 계미통신사 필담의 동아시아적 의미 (癸未通信使 筆談의 東아시아적 意味) (The significance of the brush conversations by the 1761 Chosǒn envoys in East Asia). Paju-si, Gyeonggi-do: Bogosa.

KIM, Hye-il 金惠一, JEONG, Chang-hyun 丁彰炫, JANG, Woo-chang 張祐彰, and BAIK, You-sang 白裕相. 2015. A content analysis of the medical conversation records from the visits of joseontongshinsa - Focused on the medical classics- 조선통신사 의학필담록 내용 분석 -의서 관련 내용을 중심으로- (朝鮮通信使 醫學筆談錄 內容 分析 -醫書 關聯 內用을 中心으-). Journal of Korean Medical Classics 大韓韓醫學原典學會誌 28.4: 193−212.

KOO, Jea Hyoun 具智賢. 2011. Exchanging books between Joseon and Japan as shown in the 17th century tongshinsa pildam 17세기 통신사 필담에 나타난 한일간 서적 교류의 모습 (17世紀 通信使 筆談에 나타난 韓日間 書跡 交流의 모습). Hanguk Hanmunhak 韓國漢文學研究 (Studies in Korean Han Literature) 47: 527−551.

LI, Su-Guang 李晬光. 2001. Annamguk sasin changhwamundaprok 安南國使臣唱和問荅録 (Records of poetic exchange and interlocution with Vietnam ambassadors). In Yeonhaengrok Jeonjip (vol. 10) 燕行錄全集（卷十） (Complete works of Yeonhaengrok), ed. by Gi-jung Lim 林基中, pp. 127−160. Sŏul: Dongguk Daehakkyo Press.

YU, Tak-Gi 兪拓基. 2001. Jisujae Yeonhaengrok 知守齋燕行錄. In Yeonhaengrok Jeonjip (vol. 38) 燕行錄全集（卷三十八） (Complete works of Yeonhaengrok), ed. by Gi-jung Lim 林基中, pp. 27−137. Sŏul: Dongguk Daehakkyo Press.

Vietnamese references:

LÝ, Xuân Chung 李春鐘. 2007. Về văn bản thơ xướng họa giữa Nguyễn Công Hãng (Việt Nam) với Du Tập Nhất, Lý Thế Cấn (Hàn Quốc) trong chuyến đi sứ Trung Quốc năm 1718 衛文版詩唱和𡧲阮公沆（越南）唄兪集一、李世瑾（韓國）𥪝轉𠫾使中國𢆥 1718 (The poetry masterpieces between Nguyễn Công Hãng (Vietnam) and Du Tập Nhất, Lý Thế Cấn (Chosǒn) when they visited China in 1718). Thông Báo Hán Nôm Học 通報漢喃學 (Announcement in Hán-Nôm Studies) 2007. http://www.hannom.org.vn/detail.asp?param=1505&Catid=597 (accessed before 26/11/2018)

LÝ, Xuân Chung 李春鐘. 2009. Nghiên cứu, đánh giá thơ văn xướng hoạ của các sứ thần hai nước Việt Nam - Hàn Quốc 研究丶打價詩文唱和𧶮各使臣𠄩渃越南-韓國。 (A study of the poetry exchange between the Vietnam and Korean envoys). PhD dissertation, Institute of Hán-Nôm Studies.

NGUYỄN, Minh Tường 阮明祥. 2009. Cuộc tiếp xúc giữa sứ thần Đại Việt Lê Quý Đôn và sứ thần Hàn Quốc Hồng Khải Hy, Triệu Vinh Tiến, Lý Huy Trung tại Bắc Kinh năm 1760 局接觸𡧲使臣大越黎貴惇吧使臣韓國洪啟禧、趙榮進、李徽中在北京𢆥 1760 (The meeting between Lê Quý Đôn and Chosǒn envoys, Hồng Khải Hy, Triệu Vinh Tiến, Lý Huy Trung in 1760 in China). Tạp chí Hán Nôm 雜誌漢喃 (Journal of Hán-Nôm) 2009.1: 3−17.

NGUYỄN, Thanh Tùng 阮青松. 2012. Giao hảo và cạnh tranh: Về cuộc hội ngộ giữa sứ thần Đại Việt và sứ thần Joseon trên Đất trung hoa năm 1766 – 1767 交好吧競爭：衛局會晤𡧲使臣大越吧使臣朝鮮𨕭坦中華𢆥 1766-1767 (Friendship and competition: On the meeting between the delegation of Đại Việt's envoys and the delegation of Joseon's envoys in 1766-1767 in China). “Hội Thảo Khoa Học Quốc Tế ‘Quan Hệ Việt Nam - Hàn Quốc: Quá Khứ, Hiện Tại Và Tương Lai’” (Sài Gòn, 2012) 會討科學國際“關係越南-韓國：過去、現在吧將來” (International Conference on Vietnam-Korea Relationship in the past, the present and the future).

TRỊNH, Khắc Mạnh 鄭克孟, and NGUYỄN, Đức Toàn 阮德全. 2012a Thơ xướng họa của sứ thần Đại Việt - hoàng giáp Nguyễn Đăng với sứ thần Joseon - Lý Đẩu Phong 詩唱和𧶮使臣大越──黃甲阮登唄使臣朝鮮──李斗峰 (The poetry masterpieces between the Vietnam envoy Nguyễn Đăng and the Chosǒn envoy Lý Đẩu Phong). Tạp chí Hán Nôm 雜誌漢喃 (Journal of Hán-Nôm) 2012.3: 3−10.

TRỊNH, Khắc Mạnh 鄭克孟, and NGUYỄN, Đức Toàn 阮德全. 2012b Thêm hai sứ thần Đại Việt có thơ xướng họa với sứ thần Joseon 添𠄩使臣大越𣎏詩唱和唄使臣朝鮮 (Discover again the poetry masterpieces between two Vietnam envoys and Chosǒn envoys). Tạp chí Hán Nôm 雜誌漢喃 (Journal of Hán-Nôm) 2012.5: 32−37.

---

Last Updated: 6^th January, 2019 1:37 ante meridiem