【作者】 廖文辉；

【导师】 庄国土；

【作者基本信息】 厦门大学 ， 专门史， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 马来亚自古成为东西交通孔道,东西文化荟萃,留下了不少政治、经济、社会和文教的遗迹,这其中不乏文字记录。这些文字语种纷呈,有葡文、荷文、英文、中文和巫文等,不一而足;其内容也五花八门,有档案记录、个人观感和游历文字、传教文字、报章杂志、学术研究著述等是;撰述的作者也极为庞杂,有传教士、殖民官员、旅行探险家、作家、文教人员、学术人员等等。这些由身份各异的作者以不同语文所撰述成的著述,无疑成为构筑马新学术发展史的重要组成部分。本文针对1965年以前英文和中文源流在马新之学术发展脉络、概况、演变和发展进行整理爬梳,理清两者的流变,并进行比较研究,以见其异同和交汇之所在。在英文源流方面本文将之分成三期,第一期是观察家主导时期,从1800年开始至1876年止,此时期只是初步认识和观察的开始,主要以个人观感和记录为主,或者是一种提供英人在进行殖民统治或商贸之需的了解。第二期是殖民学术行政人员主导时期,从1877年开始至1941年,这些殖民官员因为职务上的需要以及个人兴趣,利用他们政务繁忙以外的时间进行研究,并组织学会共同砥砺,提供发表平台。从第一期的记录书写开始进入研究的领域。第三期是专业学术研究人员为主的时期,从1946年开始迄1960年代,研究的话语权开始从殖民官员过渡至学院派的学术人员,更为重要的是开始自觉地摆脱殖民者的论述,追求本土化。中文源流方面同样也分成三期,第一期是滥觞期,开始于1930年代至1941年太平洋战争爆发前夕,一批南来的学者和报人透过报章开始积极推动南洋研究,是华文源流学术研究的起点。之后经历了一段三年八个月的日据时期,学术研究基本停滞。第二期是开创期,从1945年至1955年止,南来学人延续第一期的努力,并逐渐凝聚一股南洋研究的队伍,形成风气。第三期是高峰期,开始于1956年,至1969年止,由于南洋大学历史系的成立,南洋研究由民间自发的研究进入学院,成为专业的学术研究,同时也透过大学培育研究专员。这三个时期的研究传统统称为“南洋研究”的学术传统。以上两个看似没有太多交汇,异质性要大于同质性的学术源流,其实也有不少少相似的地方。两者的学人背景和研究动机皆经历由业余书写走向学术研究、从外来人员到本土人员、从工具理性到学术理性的转换过程,两者皆不约而同以马来亚为主要研究区域。研究方法上则英文源流最早是从语言入手,中文则以传统文献考据为主,战后中文源流学者接受西方学科训练后,在方法上两者也渐合流;两者可谓皆建构了各自的学术研究传统。两者最大的歧异反映在研究内容,中文源流侧重华侨华人研究和古史地考据,英文源流侧重马来研究。中文源流透过译作、征引和参考和英文学界有所互动交流,反之英文源流向中文学界取经则属罕见。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since ancient times, the Malay Peninsula had been an important route between the east and the west and a concourse of cultures from both sides of the world. Abundant relics had therefore been left behind, including written works in different languages such as Portuguese, Dutch, English, Chinese, Malay etc. Such works comprise archives, itineraries, essays, periodicals, newspapers and monographs. The authors include missionaries, colonial officers, explorers, writers, cultural and educational scholars etc. These works in different languages by authors in different capacities had become an integral part of Southeast Asia Studies in Malaysia and Singapore.This article aims at tracing the academic developments of Southeast Asia Studiesin both the Chinese and English streams in Malaysia and Singapore prior to 1965 andthereafter comparing them to reveal their differences, similarities as well asinteractions. For works in the English stream, this article divides the developmentsinto three periods. The first is the Observer Dominated Period from 1800 to 1876.Works in this period consisted of initial explorations and observations based mainlyon personal views and records or some kind of understanding provided to the Britishofficers for purposes of executing their colonial rule or trade. The second period is theColonial Scholar-Administrator Dominated Period from 1877 to 1941. This was theperiod when the colonial officers conducted research works during their free time inorder to serve specific needs in their work or out of their personal interests. Theyformed relevant societies for mutual encouragement and as platforms for publishingtheir works. The trend had thus shifted from documentary records in the first period tothe research phase. The third period is the Professional Academician DominatedPeriod from 1946 to 1960. During this period, the discourse power of research shiftedfrom the colonial officers to the professional academicians. More importantly, it was atime when the academicians began to break away from the colonial narratives topursue their own indigenous studies.Works in the Chinese stream can also be seen as having gone through three periods. The first is the Initial Period from 1930 to 1941. During this period, Chinese scholars and journalists who had settled down here began to promote South Sea Studies through the newspapers. This was the beginning of academic research works on Southeast Asia Studies using the Chinese language. Subsequently there was the Japanese occupation which lasted for three years and eight months, during which academic works had all come to a standstill. The second period of development is the Founding Period from 1945 to 1955. By this time, the scholars from China continued their efforts in the first period and gradually they formed a strong force in South Sea Studies. The third period is the Peak Period from 1956 to 1969. This period saw the formation of the Faculty of History in Nanyang University which led to the establishment of South Sea Studies as a specialized field of academic work and the training of academic researchers through the university. The research traditions in these three periods are collectively referred to as the "Academic Traditions of South Sea Studies".The two academic streams of Southeast Asia Studies mentioned above appeared to be very different and did not have much interaction. However, there are still some similarities that could be discerned between them. For both of them, the backgrounds of their scholars and the motives of research had moved from part-time studies to professional academic research, from foreign scholars to local academicians and from instrumental rationality to academic orientation. Both had focused on Malaya as their subject of study. In terms of research methodology, the English stream started with the linguistic approach while the Chinese stream focused on studies of traditional documents. After World War II, scholars in the Chinese stream began to receive training on Western scientific studies and gradually both streams showed more similarities in research methodology. It could be said that both streams had constructed their own academic research traditions. The most obvious difference between them is reflected in their research contents. While the Chinese stream focused on studies of overseas Chinese and ancient topology, the English stream had concentrated on Malay studies. Scholars in the Chinese stream were able to have access to works in the English language through translations, citations and references. However, very few scholars in the English stream have so far made reference to works written in the Chinese language.更多还原