神话已破,定论何寻——读《之乎者也非口语论》

Myth Has Been Cracked and How to Find the Truth——Review of Words of Zhi,Hu,Zhe and Ye Do Not Pertain to Colloquial Language

第一,本文肯定了孟昭连先生《之乎者也非口语论》的问题意识和理论勇气,称许其立足事实、立足常识、立足逻辑的学术责任感。第二,通过梳理归纳该作,本文认为"之乎者也非口语"论的理论前提、古人语料和论述证据,及据以勾勒出的汉语史发展脉络、对古人口语被误认为用文言的原因分析,都令人信服。该作从"之乎者也"由文人创造、仅用于书面语的核心观点出发,对诸多语言现象的解释,简单明白;由此展开得出的相关结论,顺理成章。孟著颠覆了多年来的"定论""常识",故而"之乎者也是口语"的神话已被打破。第三,本文认为孟著尚需探讨的问题,包括浅层的疏失、表述抵牾及深层的"口语"标准、"辞"的概念和逻辑难题诸方面。尤其在逻辑上"说有易,说无难"",是口语"论者从未证明古人口语用文言之"有",而由"非口语"论者证明古人口语不用文言之"无",可谓带有悲壮的意味。此外,面对孟著,语言学界几无反响,难说正常。期盼语言学、古汉语专家们明确的、有理有据的回答,即使将孟论推翻,也功德无量。

This paper tries to convey the following ideas.1.It affirms the consciousness and theoretical courage of the author in writing the book Words of Zhi,Hu,Zhe and Ye Do Not Pertain to Colloquial Language,and praises his academic responsibility based on facts,common sense and logic.2.By carefully sorting out and summarizing this book,it holds that the book is are convincing in theoretical premise,ancient corpus and arguments as well as historical development of the Chinese language and analysis of the reasons for mistaking ancient colloquial language as classical Chinese.Based on the core point that the words of zhi,hu,zhe and ye were coined literati and were used only in written language,it provides simple and clear explanation of numerous linguistic phenomena,reaching the relevant conclusions logically.Meng’s book overturns the long-established"verdict"and"common sense",cracking the myth that the words of zhi,hu,zhe and ye pertain to colloquial language.3.It maintains that further discussions are needed on what are not well addressed in Meng’s book,including negligence of something superficial,contradiction in expression,well-defined standard of"colloquial language",and the concept and logic of"ci".It is logically easy to confirm the existence and difficult to prove the non-existence.The"colloquial believers"have never proved that ancient people used colloquial language in classical language,and it is unnatural for the opposition to prove that ancient people did not use colloquial language in classical language.4.It is not normal that the linguistic circle remains silent to Meng’s book.It is hopefully beneficial that the experts in linguistics and classical Chinese language respond to Meng’s idea,whether for or against it.