谈汉语单复句学说“源”“流”的方枘圆凿关系长期存在——兼说汉语现代语法学史一个“历史性的大误会”及其原因

On the Long-Standing Contradictory Relations between Origin and Development of Simple and Multiple Sentences: Concurrently on a “Major Historic Misapprehension”: in Modern Chinese Grammatology History

汉语单复句学说"源"出自晚清学者严复(1904)著《英文汉诂》。严氏将英文的Simple、Compound、Complex分别译为单简句、合沓句、包孕句,并将后二者合并名繁句。严氏简句、繁句之分是据英文动词变化有定式、不定式之别而产生句法功能迥异的Clause(分句/子句)、Phrase(动词短语)。汉语动词"无变",不存在分句/子句跟动词短语之别。所定分句/子句实是一种短语——主谓短语,跟动词短语句法功能相同,且可互为结构成分。仿严氏书简句、繁句二分引以为"源"导出汉语单句、复句二分之"流",是机械引进、生硬照搬的方枘圆凿。这种"源""流"实践分析的方枘圆凿现象存在从1920年至今有90年,是汉语现代语法学史上"一个历史性的大误会"。"大误会"产生的深层原因是认为单复句是世界上一切语言公有之"大同文法","天之当然"存在于汉语。改革开放以来出现种种单复句划界理论是这种"大同文法"观的再反映。种种方法无一种能分清单复句,是理论分析表现出汉语有单复句这一"历史性的大误会"在当今的存在。

The doctrine of simple and multiple wenhangu） by Yan Fu, a late-Qing-Dynasty sentences originates from English Interpreted in Chinese （ Yingscholar. The author renders the terms as ＂Simple＂, ＂Cornpound＂, and ＂complex＂ into 简单句、合沓句、包孕句, and again merges the latter two into Complicated Sentence. His division between simple and complicated sentences is based upon the fact that the English verb has its finite and infinite forms, thus giving rise to the totally different clause and phrase, However, as the Chinese verb has no inflexions at all, there is not any division between clause and verbal phrase. The clause defined by him is actually a sort of phrase a subject-predicate phrase, with the same syntactical function of the verbal phrase. Both of the said phrases are structural elements to each other. Taking the division between simple and complicated sentence in imitation of Yan Fu as the ＂origin＂ and ＂development＂ of the division between simple and multiple sentences in Chinese is consequently a contradictory practice of mechanical application. And this contradiction has been a ＂major historic misapprehension＂ in modern Chinese grammatology history during the past 90 years from 1920 up to now. Its in-depth reason is a reflection of the concept of the ＂universal grammar＂. The fact that not a single approach is capable of defining distinctly the two sentence structures indicates that the ＂major historic misapprehension＂ still exists at present