文学史上白话的地位和新文学中白话的走向——后五四时期提倡新文学者的内部论争

The Status of Vernacular Chinese in Literary History and the Vernacular Trend in the New Literature: The Debate among New Literature Advocates during the Post May Fourth Movement Period

20世纪 2 0年代初 ,文学研究会在上海的一些人曾有力地呼应了胡适提倡最力的整理国故 ,但双方在具体观念上又颇有歧异 ,这些歧异多与“白话”相关。文学研究会的严既澄指责胡适有“用白话的标准去估量旧韵文”的倾向 ,双方就此展开了论争 ,其核心议题即“什么是中国文学史的主流”。当白话文出现走向欧化的趋势而致时人抱怨看不懂时 ,文学研究会的同人多认为应该是读者转换思想以适应欧化的文风 ,也有人主张白话文同时向“欧化”和文言开放 ,而胡适明确表示不同意 。

In the early 1920’s, some Shanghai members of the Literature Studies Association vigorously echoed Hu Shi's call to put the nation's literary heritage in order. However, they had many differences with Hu over specific ideas. These differences mostly related to vernacular literature. Yan Jicheng, a member of the Literature Studies Association, criticized Hu Shi for a tendency to “evaluate old verse by vernacular standards.” Both sides argued over this point, focusing on “what was the mainstream of literary history.” When vernacular literature showed a tendency towards Europeanization, and people complained that they could not understand it, most members of the Literature Studies Association held that readers should change their ideas to adapt to the Europeanized style of writing. Some members argued that vernacular literature should be open to both “Europeanization” and classical literature. But Hu Shi sharply disagreed with this view; he thought it should only strive to appeal to the masses.