論漢語音韻學的「接受」轉向──以龍為霖《本韻一得》接受史為例

Abstract

文本（text）意涵並非自足、封閉的體系，今人對於傳統音韻文獻的解讀，理應涉及「撰者」、「文本」、「音系」、「讀者」等基本要素。自高本漢（BernhardKarlgren）以來，漢語音韻學者大多依循著「語音史」的主流路徑，逕將韻書、韻圖預設為某種現實方音之客觀記錄，使得觀看焦點大多固著在「文本」與「音系」的對應上，從而漠視「文本」與「撰者」、「讀者」之間的聯繫。雖說「語音史」研究具有鮮明的客觀主義色彩，表面看似十分科學，但實際上卻已窄化了觀看的視野，同時也割裂了漢語音韻學與其他人文學科之間的連結。 魯國堯教授在〈語言學和接受學〉（2011 年）一文中，懇切地呼籲語言學界應接受「接受理論」（Reception Theory），將目光轉移到讀者的反應上。本文響應魯國堯教授的呼籲，並試著進一步思考：如何能將「接受理論」運用在漢語音韻學史的建構上，因而選擇以「龍為霖《本韻一得》的接受史」作為研究案例，一方面從歷時角度觀看，考察二百六十餘年間（從1750 年至2012 年），不同讀者對於《本韻一得》有何不同理解與評價；一方面則站在音韻思想史的\\r 高度，試著發掘造成讀者不同反應的可能因素。冀望藉由《本韻一得》接受史之個案研究，申論「接受轉向」對於漢語音韻學有何意義與價值。

The signification of text is not a self-sufficient or closed system. Scholar nowadays should address the basic factors such as author, text, phoneme, and reader in the interpretation of classical phonological literature. From Bernhard Karlgren onwards, the Chinese phonologists mostly follow the mainstream of the history of phonology, regarding rhyme books and rhyme tables as objective records of dialects. This approach assumes the equivalents between the text and the phoneme, and fails to show the relations among text, author and reader. While seemingly scientific and objective, it actually narrows the horizon of viewing and isolates Chinese phonology from other disciplines of humanities. Professor Guo-yao Lu in his “Linguistics and Reception Theory” calls for the attention to reception theory among linguistics scholars, asking for more emphasis on the reader’s responses in the studies of linguistics. The present paper, as a response to Professor Lu’s article,goes further to conceptualize the possibility of applying reception theory to theconstruction of the history of Chinese phonology. The reception history of Wei-Lin Long’s Ben Yun Yi De is used as the case study of the paper. Firstly, there would be a diachronic survey of the different understandings and evaluations made by readers of Ben Yun Yi De from 1750 to 2012. Secondly, I will probe into the possible factors which cause different responses in different readers from the perspective of phonological history. By so doing, I argue for the significance of reception theory in the studies of Chinese phonology.