汉语史研究要重视语体差异  

Stylistic Differences Should be Emphasized in the Study of the History of Chinese language

作　　者：汪维辉[1] Wang Weihui

机构地区：[1]浙江大学中文系/汉语史研究中心,浙江杭州310058

出　　处：《南京师范大学文学院学报》2020年第1期1-10,共10页Journal of School of Chinese Language and Culture Nanjing Normal University

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地重大项目“汉语基本词汇历史演变研究”(16JJD740015);国家社科基金重大项目“汉语词汇通史”(14ZDB093)。

摘　　要：语料的语体分析,现代汉语学界已经越来越重视,而在汉语史领域则这一意识还不强,需要引起汉语史研究者的正视。本文列举四个实例来说明在汉语词汇史和语法史研究中注意历史文献语体差异的重要性。(1)“硬”语义场的历史演变。认为汉语口语中“硬”语义场可能一直是一个贫乏系统或准贫乏系统,至多是“中等系统→贫乏系统”,而没有存在过丰富系统。中古近代汉语时期语义场成员多达9-10个,只是一种表象。(2)先秦-南北朝“躺卧”语义场的演变。认为“躺卧”概念域不存在“寝(先秦)-卧(西汉)-寝(东汉)-卧(魏晋南北朝)”的循环演变,得出这一结论的原因是语料选择不当。东汉口语中表达“躺卧”义也是用“卧”而不是“寝”,《太平经》和《道行般若经》等更接近口语的语料可以证明这一点。所以实际的演变应该是“寝-卧-卧-卧”。(3)“V于/在L”和“VL”结构的交替演变。认为汉语史上究竟是否存在过“V于/在L”和“VL”两种结构的“交替演变”,根据袁健惠(2017)的论证是无从确定的,因为该文在词项和语料的选择以及论证方法等方面都存在问题。用这个个案来证明“语言中并非所有的演变都是单向性的,也存在循环演变”,缺乏说服力。(4)“唯……是……”式句的语体差异。认为许嘉璐(1983)研究上古汉语“唯……是……”式句所得出的三点结论正确可信,使我们对“唯……是……”式句的性质及其使用的时代差异和语体差异有了比以往深刻、准确得多的认识,并且给人以方法论的启示,堪称语体分析的佳作。Modern Chinese scholars have paid more and more attention to the stylistic analysis of corpus,but this awareness is not strong enough in the field of Chinese language history.This paper gives four examples to illustrate the importance of paying attention to the stylistic differences of historical documents in the study of the history of Chinese vocabulary and grammar.(1)The historical evolution of the semantic field of“yin(hard)”.It is considered that the semantic field in spoken Chinese may always be an impoverished system or quasi-impoverished system,or at most"medium system→impoverished system",but no abundant system.There are as many as 9-10 semantic field members in middle and modern Chinese,which is just a fake illusion.(2)The evolution of the semantic field of“tang wo(lying down)”in the pre-Qin and northern and southern dynasties.It believes that the conceptual domain of this word does not have the cyclic evolution of“sleeping(pre-Qin)-lying(Western Han)-sleeping(Eastern Han)-lying(Wei,Jin,Southern and Northern Dynasties)”,the cause of this wrong conclusion is the improper choice of corpus.In the spoken language of the Eastern Han dynasty,“lying down”was expressed as“wo”instead of“qing”.So the actual evolution should be“sleeping-lying-lying-lying-lying”.(3)Alternate evolution of the“V yu/zai L”and“VL”structures.According to the argument of Yuan Jianhui(2017),it is impossible to determine whether these two structures have existed in the history of Chinese language,because there are problems in the selection of word items,corpus and argumentations in his paper.Using this case to prove that“not all the evolution in language is unidirectional,and there is also cyclic evolution”is not convincing.(4)The stylistic differences in the“wei...shi...”sentence pattern.The three conclusions made by Xu Jialu(1983)on this sentence pattern are correct,reliable,providing methodological inspirations,which lead us to a deeper and more accurate understanding of the nature of senten

关 键 词：汉语词汇史 汉语语法史 语体差异 语料分析 古代活语言 

分 类 号：H1-09[语言文字—汉语]