【作者】 宫辰；

【导师】 李开；

【作者基本信息】 南京大学 ， 汉语言文字学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 高本汉的汉语中古音研究是他全部学术生涯的起点,也是他全部学术研究的核心所在。高本汉全面、系统地建立了一个汉语中古音的音系,并且为其中每个声母、韵母——拟定音值。他的研究是建立在中国传统音韵学研究基础之上的,同时将西方近现代语音学、方言学与历史比较语言学研究方法系统应用于中古音研究中,取得了辉煌的成就。高本汉的中古音研究在汉语语言研究史上具有开创性意义,在其后的汉语音韵学界影响深远。本论文在前人高本汉研究的基础上,较为全面地论述了高本汉中古音研究的成绩与不足。论文主要包括以下几个方面：第一章为绪论,主要介绍了高本汉中古音系统对中国音韵学界的影响,回顾了前人对高本汉进行研究的成果,探讨了高本汉中古音研究中几个争论较大的问题。第二章为高本汉生平与学行的介绍。在叙述高本汉的生平之前,作为背景资料,先对西方汉学研究和瑞典汉学研究的历史略加介绍。在高本汉的生平部分,我们把注意力主要集中在：高本汉的家庭给他提供了很好的语言环境；高本汉的导师伦德尔是斯拉夫语历史语言学家、语音学家和瑞典方言学家,给了高本汉很好的语言学训练；高本汉在法国学习汉学时,法国是欧洲汉学的中心,当时处于欧洲汉学的顶峰时期；高本汉是位天才的语言学家,同时也是极为勤奋的学者。这一章的最后我们介绍了《中国音韵学研究》译介到中国来的过程。第三章从中国汉语研究史演进的角度探讨了高本汉《中国音韵学研究》的意义所在。在汉语音韵学领域,可以说从该书问世到1949年是音韵学上的“高本汉时代”。我们在这里集中讨论了高本汉历史比较语言学、语音学和方言学的学术背景,指出高本汉是新语法学派的嫡系后学。在汉语方言研究领域,可以说高本汉是中国现代方言学的开拓者,但是他的方言调查是为比较重建古代汉语服务的,和后来的描写方言学有很大区别。高本汉调查、记录了22种方言,其中晋方言的记录尤为详细,是最早关于晋方言的较为全面的调查。利用高本汉的方言记录可以进行一些方言点20世纪方言演变的研究,我们以南京方言为例证明了高本汉方言记录的价值。高本汉的方言记录也存在被调查人数量不足、调查对象选择不当、不注意区分文白读、对白读音不够重视等等问题。第四章从域外汉语研究史发展的角度讨论了《中国音韵学研究》的意义。在域外汉语音韵学研究领域,20世纪早期马伯乐也取得了比较大的成绩,但是他在学界的影响远不及高本汉,我们对其中的原因进行了分析。在域外汉学家研究、调查汉语方言方面,我们主要将贺登崧和高本汉进行了对比,高本汉的调查就字以问字,只求得单字的读音,是为重建古音提供材料的；贺登崧则主张对方言进行全面的描写,记录言语,绘制同语线,其着眼点全在语言共时方面。两种研究的角度截然不同,都有其意义与价值,应该将二者互补、结合,用共时描写以阐释历时的变异,将汉语的历史与现实联系起来。第五章讨论了高本汉构拟中古音所使用的三种研究方法：反切系联法、审音法、历史比较法。前两种方法主要用于音类的建立,后一种方法用于音值的拟定。因为高本汉用来系联反切的汉字不多,所以他对反切系联法没有规定很多原则,只是大体使用了互用、递用的方法。他的反切系联是比较严格的,唇音字严格地按照反切下字来确定开合。在拟测中古音音值之前,高本汉先利用审音法整理音系框架,以确定各声类、韵类之间的结构关系。他的审音依据主要是等韵学、普通语音学和现代方言的情况。历史比较法是高本汉研究、拟测汉语中古音的根本方法,他的历史比较法与印欧语经典历史比较法有很大的不同,实则是“历史文献考证法”和“历史比较法”互相结合,其文献考证的部分主要来自于中国传统音韵学的研究成果。高本汉的历史比较法的主要缺陷是忽视方言之间的影响,特别是通语对方言的影响,认为所研究的《切韵》音系是同质系统,对传统音韵学的研究缺乏必要的考证、分辨。第六章考察了高本汉在研究中古音时所使用的材料。反切和韵图是高本汉用来建立中古音音类系统的主要材料,他将两种材料的时代截然分开,反切反映的是《切韵》时代的语音,是他要研究的主要对象,韵图则反映了编制时代的语音现象,晚于反切好几百年。不少研究者认为高本汉使用的《广韵》反切是从《康熙字典》里抄出来的,有较多错误。本论文对这个问题进行了探讨,认为高本汉实际参考了《广韵》,而且从《康熙字典》里抄出来的反切错误率非常低,用来建立中古音系并无问题。高本汉在韵图的使用上较为谨慎,主要用它们来作为讨论中古音各声类、韵类的框架,但是在一些音类的归属上还是为使用的韵图时代较晚所误。方言和域外汉字音是高本汉构拟音值的主要材料。他使用的方言材料数量虽多,但是重视北方而轻于南方,重视文读而轻于白读,这使得他拟测音值的可信度受到影响。他重视域外汉字音而对梵汉对音等材料比较排斥,主要原因是他将域外汉字音也视为汉语的方言材料,而用活的语言或方言材料重建古语,这正是历史比较语言学的研究思路。第七章对高本汉的《切韵》单一音系说进行了讨论。《切韵》单一音系说是高本汉整个中古音构拟的重要基础,如果这个基础不够牢靠的话,那么整个中古音构拟的系统将出现危机。我们首先回顾了学界对《切韵》音系性质的争论,总结了《切韵》综合音系说的一些较为确实的证据,并且从语言的经济性角度对综合音系说进行了证明。然后我们在分析《颜氏家训·音辞篇》基础之上,总结鲁国尧、张琨等学者的看法,提出了我们自己的汉语南北双线发展史观,并初步设想了研究南、北通语可采用的方法。论文最后对全文予以总结,并且提出了我们未来的三项研究计划。更多还原

【Abstract】 Bernhard Karlgren’s research of Ancient Chinese phonology is not only the starting point of his entire academic career, but also the very core of all of his academic research. Karlgren built a comprehensive frame for Ancient Chinese phonology, and reconstructed phonetic values for each consonant and vowel. His research is based on the research of traditional Chinese phonology, and comprehensively applies the Western modern phonetics, dialectology and historical linguistics into the study of Ancient Chinese phonology, having made brilliant achievements. Karlgren’s research of Ancient Chinese phonology is of great originality in the history of Chinese research, and has a far-reaching influence over the field of Chinese phonology.In this paper, based on previous studies, we fully discuss the successes and failures of Karlgren’s research of Ancient Chinese phonology. Paper includes the following parts:The first chapter is the Introduction. We here describe the influence of Karlgren’s research of Ancient Chinese phonology on the Chinese phonological academia, review previous research on Karlgren’s research and discuss several controversial issues of Karlgren’s Ancient Chinese reconstruction.The second chapter introduces Karlgren’s life and his academic achievement. Before the description of Karlgren’s life, we first describe the history of Sinology in Western world and especially in Sweden as the background information. About Karlgren’s life we focus mainly on: Karlgren’s family provided him with a good language environment; Lundell, who was Karlgren’s mentor, a great Slavic linguist, phonetician and Swedish dialectologist, gave Karlgren a good academic training of linguistic research; when Karlgren studied Sinology in France, that country was the center and the peak of European Sinology; Karlgren was a gifted linguist, and also an extremely hard-working scholar. At the end of this chapter we introduce how the book Etudes sur la phonologie chinoise was translated into Chinese.The third chapter investigates the value of Karlgren’s Etudes sur la phonologie chinoise from the viewpoint of the evolution of Chinese language research in China. In the field of Chinese phonology, it can be said that from the year of the publication of this book until1949is the "Karlgren’s era". We discuss here mainly Karlgren’s academic background of the historical comparative linguistics, modern phonetics and dialectology, pointing out that Karlgren was the direct descendant of the Neogrammarians. In the field of the research of Chinese dialects, we can say that Karlgren is a pioneer of modern Chinese dialectology, but at the same time, we should point out his survey of Chinese dialects was for the purpose of reconstruction of the Ancient Chinese, differentiating from the later descriptive dialectology. Karlgren investigated, recorded22Chinese dialects, among which the Jin dialects were recorded in detail, and his investigation of the Jin dialects was the first complete one in this area. We can use Karlgren’s dialects’records to research the evolution of some Chinese dialects over the20th century, and we use Nanjing dialect as an example to prove the value of these records. There are also errors in his dialects records, such as the insufficiency of the people being investigated, the inappropriate choice of the survey, paying no attention on the distinguishment between the literary pronunciation and the colloquial pronunciation, and etc.The fourth chapter investigates the value of Karlgren’s Etudes sur la phonologie chinoise from the perspective of the evolution of Chinese language research outside China. In the field of Chinese phonology research outside China, Henri Maspero also made relatively great achievements in the early20th century, but his influence in the academic community was far less than Karlgren. We analyze the reasons beneath this situation. In the field of Chinese dialects’research and investigation made by the Sinologist, we mainly make a comparison between W. A. Grootaers and Karlgren. Karlgren’s survey asked the pronunciation of only the characters, and was to provide materials for the reconstruction of ancient sound; while Grootaers was in favor of a comprehensive description of the dialect, recording the parole, drawing the isoglosses, focusing completely on the synchronic side of the language. The two researches have different points of view and both have their meaning and value. The two researches have different points of view, both have their meaning and value and should be integrated to make complementation to each other.The fifth chapter discusses the three research methods that Karlgren used in his reconstruction of the Ancient Chinese:the method of linking the Fanqie, the method of examining ancient pronunciation and historical comparative method. The first two methods were used to establish the sound class, while the third one was used to study out the sound value. Karlgren’s linking work of the Fanqie is relatively strict, and the characters of labial initials were determined their unrounding or rounding strictly in accordance their latter character in the Fanqie. Before the reconstruction the sound values of the Ancient Chinese, Karlgren used first the method of pronunciation examining to list systematically the phonology framework, and to determine the structural relationship among the sound and the rhyme category. His basis for pronunciation examining was mainly the equiprosody, general phonetics and the investigation of modern dialects. Historical comparative was Karlgren’s fundamental method of studying and reconstructing the Ancient Chinese, but his historical comparative method was different from the classical historical comparison of Indo-European languages. His method was actually an integration of "historical textual research" and "historical comparison", in which the part of textual research came mainly from the achievements of traditional Chinese phonology researches. The main flaws of his historical comparative method are ignoring the impact between the dialects, especially the impact from the common language onto the dialects, considering the Qieyun phonetic system as a homogeneous one, lacking the necessary textual criticism and discrimination on the traditional phonology research.The sixth chapter examines the materials used by Karlgren in the study of Ancient Chinese. Fanqie and rhyme tables were the main materials used by him to establish the phonetic framework of Ancient Chinese and when in discussion, Karlgren separated completely the time of Fanqie and rhyme tables. Fanqie reflected the sounds of "Qieyun" era, and were the main object of his study; while rhyme tables reflected the sounds of the time when they were compiled, and which was several centuries later than the Fanqie. Many researchers believe that Karlgren copied Guangyun’s Fanqie from the Kangxi Dictionary and therefore had many errors. We discussed this issue in this chapter, believing that Karlgren actually referred to Guangyun and the Fanqie he copied out from Kangxi Dictionary had a very low error rate, therefore can be used in establishing the framework of Ancient Chinese. Karlgren made a more cautious use of the rhyme tables, using which to serve as the framework when discussing the category of the initials and finals. Chinese dialects and "the four foreign dialects" were the main material Karlgren used to reconstruct the phonetic values. In spite of the abundant dialects material he used, his paying more attention on the northern dialects than on the southern ones, more attention on the literary pronunciation than on the colloquial pronunciation affected the reliability of his reconstruction. He attached importance to the "foreign dialects" and held conservative attitude towards the Sanskrit-Chinese and other diaphone materials. The main reason behind this difference was that he valued the "foreign dialects" as the Chinese dialects, and using the living languages and dialects to reconstruct the ancient language is the research idea of the historical comparative linguistics.The seventh chapter discusses Karlgren’s viewpoint of considering Qieyun as a single and homogeneous phonetic system. This viewpoint is an important basis of Karlgren’s entire Ancient Chinese’s reconstruction, and if the basis is not solid enough, the whole reconstruction will be in a crisis. We first reviewed the controversy of the Qieyun’s phonological nature in the academia, and then summed up the more conclusive evidence supporting the viewpoint of the synthesized nature of Qieyun phonetic system. At the same time, we attempted to prove the Qieyun’s synthesized nature from the viewpoint of the linguistic economic characteristic. Based on the analysis of an essay from Yanshi Jiaxun and on the summary of the viewpoints of Professor Lu Guoyao and other scholars, we proposed a concept of northern and southern double-line of the developing of Ancient Chinese, and we also conceived the methods of studying these separate northern and southern common language.The final part summarized the full text of this paper and presented three future research projects.更多还原