|
項次 |
書目 |
1 | 題名: | 小川尚義與高本漢漢語語音研究之比較 兼論小川尚義在漢語研究史上應有的地位  A Comparison of Research on Chinese Phonology by Ogawa and Karlgren With A Critique on Ogawa's Position in History of Modern Chinese Linguistics | 著者: | 洪惟仁(Ui-Jin Ang) | 出版地區: | 台灣 | 出版城市: | 台北市 | 學科: | 歷史 | 刊名: | 臺灣史研究 | 卷期: | 1卷2期(1994.12) | 頁碼: | 25-84 | 語言: | 繁體中文 | 摘要: | 中文摘要PDF ; 英文摘要PDF
高本漢於1915~26年發表了Etudes sur la phonologie chinoise的論文,這篇論文比較了三十三點的漢語方言及域外漢字音,並進一步擬測了中古漢字音音值。1940年趙元任、羅常培、李方桂參照高本漢後來的修正,譯?中文,題?《中國音韻學研究》,對漢語音韻學、方言學造成極大的影響,在漢語語言學史上獲得極高的評價。
然而類似的工作在漢語語言學史上高本漢並非第一人,早在1907年,小川尚義即以現代語言學的方法,作廣泛的漢語方言及域外漢字音的比較,並擬測了中古聲母、韻尾的音值,在若干方面得到更合理的結果。
小川尚義的目的,是?了呈現閩南語在漢語中的音韻特徵,因而作了廣泛的漢語方言及域外漢字音比較,?了理解今音分歧,而作了一些中古漢字音的擬音工作;而高本漢的目的,主要是中古漢字音的擬測,作?擬測的基礎工作,他作了漢語方言及域外漢字音的調查、描寫、比較。因?目的不同,因此工作的重點和處理方式也不同,但他們卻都作了類似的工作。
由本文的比較可知,就研究方法而言,高本漢比小川尚義精密而嚴謹,尤以對漢語方言廣泛的調查、描寫,更是小川尚義所不及;但就成果而言,小川尚義也有超過高本漢的地方,最重要的是,小川尚義是漢字音比較研究的開拓者。因此小川尚義在漢語研究史上應該也有他的地位,可是高本漢在漢語音韻學及漢語方言學界,被公認?偉大的開拓者,然而小川尚義在漢語語言學界毫無名氣,在漢語語言學史上也毫無地位,這是?什麼?
本文的目的是比較小川尚義和高本漢的研究成果,並從漢語語言學史的觀點分析兩人的名氣與地位何以有這樣天壤之別的原因。 |
Karlgren's monumental work "Etudes sur la phonologie chinoise" (1915~26) has no doubt exerted great influence on Chinese phonology and dialectology. He reconstructed the sound values of Middle Chinese on the basis of 33 Chinese dialects, Sino-Japanese, Sino Korean, and Sino-Viet-names.
However, before Karlgren, a similar effort had already been made by a Japanese scholar, Ogawa Naoyoshi, as early as 1907. He conducted broad research comparing the sounds of Chinese dialects and Sinoxenic characters by means of modern linguistics. He reconstructed the phonetic values of Middle Chinese initials and final consonants and, in some respects, achieved more reasonable results. This was highly significant in the history of Chinese linguistics.
This paper has two main goals. One is to compare the studies on Chinese phonology made by Karlgren and Ogawa, particularly on phonetics, historical linguistics, and phonological comparison; the other is to explain why Ogawa has been ignored, in spite of his achievements in the field of Chinese linguistics.
In terms of research methodology, we regard Karlgren as superior to Ogawa in the reconstruction of the phonetic values of Middle Chinese, as well as in the investigation and description of Chinese dialects. However, in terms of research results, there are some respects in which Ogawa is superior to Karlgren. The most important thing is that Ogawa was the first scholar to study Chinese using modern linguistic methods, and therefore his position as a pioneer in the history of modern Chinese linguistics deserves to be recognized. |
| |

|
|
|
|
本卷期目次 |
臺灣史研究 1卷2期 (1994.12)
|
|
|