I think the Translator's introduction [Louis Swaim] should also be taken into account.
More problematic with regard to authorship are the “Preface” and “Introduction” presented under Yang Chengfu's name. The “Preface” has Yang Chengfu recounting first-hand conversations with his grandfather, Yang Luchan. This is an impossibility, given the fact that Yang Chengfu was born in 1883, eleven years after the date recorded as the year Yang Luchan died: 1872.6 One could speculate that Zheng wrote the “Preface” and “Introduction” based upon second-hand accounts of Yang family anecdotes. The anecdotes may have been true, save for the awkward anachronism of Yang being in his grandfather’s presence. But even apart from this sticky situation, a good deal of the discourse in the alleged conversation seems a better fit with the social and political background of Zheng Manqing than that of Yang Luchan’s generation.
If the form narratives in fact represent the direct teachings of Yang Chengfu, one might ask how it is they came to be recorded in book form. It has long been speculated that the book was actually ghostwritten by Zheng Manqing (Cheng Man-ch’ing). Yang Chengfu’s second son, Yang Zhenji, made it quite clear when he stated, “Taijiquan Tiyongquanshu was written by my father’s disciple, Zheng Manqing, according to my father’s performance narratives and requirements. This is factual.”3 Yang Zhenji thus makes it clear that the basis of the book was his fathers “performance narratives” (yanshu 演述). However, one must dig a little deeper to clarify Zheng’s role in writing the book. To this end, I have compared the form section texts of Taijiquan Tiyong Quanshu with an earlier book published in 1931 under Yang Chengfu's name, Taijiquan Shiyongfa (Application Methods of Taijiquan). That book is known to have been compiled and edited by another of Yang’s students, Dong Yingjie (Tung Ying-chieh).4 The earlier version was likely an assemblage of observations and notes collected over time from Yang Chengfu’s teaching sessions. These “class notes” were then distilled into Dong’s terse, semi-classical style of writing.
One immediate difference between the texts is that the earlier Shiyongfa sections are unpunctuated, while the form sections for Taijiquan Tiyong Quanshu have punctuation. Traditional Chinese books were not punctuated, and it was the reader’s job to parse the sentences, determine which clauses were subordinate, and to match up subjects and predicates. Dong Yingjie was a classically trained scholar and evidently did not feel compelled to use punctuation in his writing. However, among the many changes in society and education during China’s encounter with modernity, there came the introduction in the early twentieth century of Western-style punctuation (biaodian 標點). Increasingly, modern readers who were not trained in reading classical Chinese writings relied upon punctuation for their comprehension, 'The addition of punctuation in Yang’s later book was evidently an editorial decision on Zheng Manqing’s part. Zheng was classically trained, but he must have felt the need to make the book more accessible to modern readers.
In many cases, the added punctuation is the only difference between the earlier and later form section texts. In other cases, some rough or ambiguous wording has been smoothed or reworked. Finally, in a number of cases, there are identifiable qualitative changes and additions. These include cases where there are added allusions to literary’ or philosophical texts that we know Zheng was versed in.