搜索
Table_bottom

标签云
Table_bottom

分类
Table_bottom

声明
文章若未特別註明,皆採用 知识共享许可协议 請自覺遵守
Table_bottom

鏈。。。
Table_bottom

存档
Table_bottom

匆匆过客
40421
Table_bottom

功能
Table_bottom

語言文字

人云E云 posted @ 2018年5月11日 00:06 in 漢家語文 with tags 漢語文 漢字 , 87 阅读

每當我們提到中國,不可避免地總會想到“歷史悠久”、“文明傳承”這類的辭彙,並且我們也毫無疑問地以此自豪。而相比其他“文明”,華夏文明之所以稱自己爲唯一的未曾斷絕的文明古國,乃是因爲語言文字並未斷流。

從篆書到隸書、從隸書到楷書,史家告訴我們文字的演變一脈相承;二十世紀發現甲骨文,雖形態不同但仍可見其脈絡。楷書確立以後,後世最大的變化也就只是將兩千漢字進行簡化,但仍是楷書形魄。這是我們所知的內容,也是大家耳熟能詳甚至感慨耳朵磨出繭子的事實。但有意無意地,我們似乎忘記了語文乃是“語言文字”——除了文字(形),還有語言(音)。

的確,語言本身的變化遠比文字變化難以描述——文字有記載、有實物、可以被書寫繪畫,但在沒有留聲機的年代幾乎無法記錄語音。先民竭盡所能,也僅是使用轉寫、擬音的方式部分描繪語音變革——這算是我們的表意文字的唯一遺憾了吧。所幸,古代語音並非完全被埋沒於時光之中,音韻學家仍然找到方法去嘗試還原古音的面目——通過《廣韻》等著作,加之歷代反切註音,外加詩詞歌賦等韻文。我對該方面的粗淺瞭解到此爲止,不過至少我抓住了其中一個重要信息:語音演變也有脈絡可循。

該認知促成了我對當代標準漢語(普通話)語音規定的認知。就如我在知乎問題《为什么角色的角念jue,却仍有人念Jiao ?》下的回答所說:

和大多數人會稀泥似地認爲“語言是在變化的所以你不應該糾結”不同,我的看法是“有的讀音是可以接受的(符合演變規律的),有的讀音是不可以接受的(不符合演變規律胡來的)”,並且認爲“官方標準應該儘量取中道”。

該認知的基礎認知是:語言文字是交流的工具,但不只是同代之人交流的工具,也是歷史長河中前人和後人交流的工具。最優的選擇顯然是兩者兼顧,如果不能則在儘量兼顧的基礎上選擇“危害”更小的那個。但不幸的是多數情況下人們/機構們會優先選擇照顧前者——畢竟他們“認識”和“打交道”的都是同代之人,而非歷史上的先人或後人。

而今日看到一篇題爲《说shuō客?坐骑qí?我怕是上了个假学!》的文章,(再次)歷數語改委在語音標準上幹的事情,讓我既是慶幸又是無奈:語改委還是當年那個語改委——腦殘、吃乾飯。

近些年語改委做得最多的就是修改普通話文字讀音,而修改目的幾乎無一例外都是爲了“符合大衆認知”,換句話說就是“讀得錯了的多了也就成了對的”。這是典型的不顧歷史的做法,而且其對當代人交流的作用恐怕也極爲有限。人民的自我學習能力遠比語改委那幫老爺們想像得要強——我們可以理解、認知其他人和我們的不同讀音所指的是同一辭彙,就算不理解也可以去“詢問”。而如果說這是爲了在教育中減負,那就更是滑天下之大稽了。始終會有(不小的一部分)人和“標準”的讀音不同(不論是由於方言、誤聽、遵循歷史沿革還是什麼),所以始終需要在中小學教育中普及“標準”。既然需要普及“標準”,那麼這份努力始終需要,故而這些時間始終需要花費。在這件事上,考慮“有較多學生需要着重記憶標準”還是“有較少學生需要着重記憶標準”並沒有什麼意義。

該文中還特別點出了一件事:部分“標準”曾經由“符合歷史”改爲“符合多數當代人認知”(且不提樣本是否具有代表性)又改爲“符合歷史”。這件事更是顯示了語改委對該定義什麼樣的標準沒有自己的認知。

當然,看起來,《说shuō客?坐骑qí?我怕是上了个假学!》對“大衆要求這些字的語音標準照舊”這件事持淡淡的嘲諷態度——其作者要麼是認爲“(語音標準)只需要符合當代人需求就好”,要麼僅僅是習慣性嘲諷。首先作者似乎認爲只能在“完全不要變”和“隨便變”之間選擇一種。其次,作者看來,人民對於語音標準變化的態度大抵是“符合我的習慣的我就支持,不符合的我就反對”——這從作者列舉了數次“之前的”語音乃至語義改變,並說人們對此沒有意見可見一斑。最後,作者似乎是認爲人民對語音標準這件事只是被動的接受者,而一切變化全部取決於語改委的老爺。

然而這三點,恕我無法苟同。

如前文所述,語音的選擇應該是一個權衡的過程,要“在儘量兼顧的基礎上選擇‘危害’更小的那個”。其核心不是考慮“變”還是“不變”,也不是考慮“聽哪個人的”,而是考慮歷史和當下的平衡。而如上文所述,其實無論標準是什麼,對當下的影響都微乎其微,所以我認爲應該側重歷史。而當下對標準修改的反應是可以預期的:部分(是的,始終都只有部分)人會反對。那麼,爲什麼標準制定者不可以在頒佈標準的同時頒佈理由呢?人民不是傻瓜,只要說得在理,絕大多數人是會聽從的。

作者似乎並不知道,在萬維網的一些區域,許多人在不斷重新發掘詞的原始意義、字的合理讀音,並自發地總結其中規律並形成系統,且不斷告訴其他人這些東西本該是什麼樣。作者或許是認爲這些人太少,但我看到的卻是這些人越來越多,而且越來越多的人接受了對於“正確”的普及。只不過由於這種變化太過潤物細無聲,作者或許已經見過其結論,但並沒有意識到其來自於何處。

而對於標準制定者,也就是語改委,我一如既往地對其進行嘲諷。如果認同人民共和國,那麼語改委應該兢兢業業堅持尋求當代與歷史的平衡,並且向人民說明,而不是像現在這樣尸位素餐;如果是古代的士人成館,那麼語改委應該堅持先王之道,而非數易其化。無論是哪種,語改委都沒有做正確的事情,所以受這一聲嘲諷並無不妥。而無論是古代還是現代,無論是東方還是西方,政府始終是應當聆聽乃至受命於人民的。現在的部分部門不這樣做,不是我們應該認可他們行爲的理由——恰恰相反,這是我們應該更努力指出並反對的理由。

Merced_ro 说:
2018年6月07日 19:46

Hi,
I just stumbled upon this article by following a link in your app. I think it's topic is very interesting but Google's translation leaves much to be desired. Would you translate your article? Thanks!
Ps: Here's Google's take on it :

anguages
Whenever we refer to China, we inevitably think of vocabularies such as “a long history” and “civilized heritage”, and we are also proud to have no doubt. Compared with other "civilizations", the reason why Huaxia Civilization called itself the only ancient civilization that had not been cut off was because the language did not cut off.

From the regular script to the official script and from the official script to the regular script, the historians told us that the evolution of the script was the same strain; in the 20th century, the Oracle scriptures were found in different contexts but their veins were still visible. After the establishment of the seal, the greatest change in later generations is simply the simplification of the two thousand characters, but it is still a form of script. This is what we know. It is also a fact that everyone knows or even feels that they are scratching their ears. But intentionally or unintentionally, we seem to have forgotten that language is “linguistic writing”—in addition to words (shapes) and languages ​​(tones).

Indeed, the change in language itself is far more difficult to describe than textual changes - texts are recorded, in-kind, and can be written and drawn, but voices can hardly be recorded in the days when there were no gramophones. The ancestors did their best and only used the transcription and the method of writing to partially describe the change of speech—this is the only regret of our ideographic writing. Fortunately, ancient speech was not completely buried in time, and phonologists still found ways to try to restore the face of ancient sounds - through such works as "Rhyme", plus anti-snaught phonetic transcriptions of ancient times, plus poems and poems. My understanding of the aspect of this aspect has gone so far, but at least I have captured one of the important messages: the evolution of speech can also be traced.

This recognition led to my recognition of the contemporary standard Chinese (Putonghua) pronunciation regulations. As if I were aware of the question, "Why does the character think of jue, but someone still reads Jiao? The following answer says:

And most people will think very sparsely that "language is changing so you shouldn't be entangled." My opinion is: "Some pronunciations are acceptable (according to the laws of evolution), and some pronunciations are unacceptable. (not in line with the evolutionary laws), and believe that "the official standard should try to take the middle way."

The basic cognition of this cognition is that language is a tool for communication, but it is not only a tool for communication with people of the same generation, but also a tool for communication between former and future generations. The best choice is obviously both, and if not, choose the one with less harm based on the best possible balance. Unfortunately, in most cases, people/institutions will give priority to taking care of the former—after all, they are people of the same generation, not historical or descendants.

Today I saw an article titled "Say Shu hackers? Mount qí? I'm afraid it is a fake school! " The article", (again) the number of language reform commission to do things on the voice standard, let me both fortunate and helpless: the language reform commission or the language reform commission that year - brain damage, eat rice.

In recent years, the language reform commission has done the most to modify the pronunciation of Putonghua texts, and the purpose of the amendment is almost invariably in order to “conform to the public’s perception.” In other words, “Reading more than one will be correct. ". This is a typical disregard for history, and its role in the exchange of contemporary people is probably extremely limited. The self-learning ability of the people is much stronger than that of the literary reform magistrates. We can understand and understand that other people and our different pronunciations refer to the same vocabulary. Even if they don’t understand, they can “inquire”. If we say that this is to reduce the burden on education, it is even more slippery. There will always be (not a small part of) people who are different from the pronunciation of “standards” (whether because of dialects, misunderstandings, historical evolution, or anything), and so it is always necessary to popularize “standards” in primary and secondary education. Since there is a need to popularize "standards," this effort is always needed, and these times are always spent. In this case, it doesn't make much sense to consider “more students need to focus on memory standards” or “more students need to focus on memory standards”.

One thing that was specifically pointed out in the article was that some of the “standards” were changed from “consistent with history” to “consistent with most contemporary people’s perceptions” (and not to mention whether the sample is representative) and changed to “conform to history”. This incident also shows that the NDRC does not have its own understanding of what standards it defines.

Of course, it looks like, "Say hackers? Mount qí? I'm afraid it is a fake school! " The public's demand for these words is still a slight standard of ethical speech" - its authors either believe that "(phonetic standards) only need to meet the needs of the contemporary people like", or just a habitual taunt. First, the author seems to think that one can only choose between "do not change at all" and "arbitrarily change." Secondly, according to the author, the people’s attitude towards changes in the standard of speech is mostly "I support my habits. If I don't, I oppose it." - This is because the author listed several "previous" speech and even semantic changes. And saying that people have no idea about this. In the end, the author seems to think that the people are only passive recipients of the standard of speech, and all changes depend on the master of the NDRC.

However, I cannot agree with these three points.

As mentioned above, the choice of voice should be a trade-off process, and we should “choose the one with less damage” on the basis of the best possible balance. Its core is not to consider "change" or "invariability", nor is it to consider "which person to listen to", but to consider the balance between history and current. As mentioned above, in fact, no matter what the standard is, the impact on the current situation is negligible, so I think we should focus on history. The current response to the standard changes is predictable: some (yes, always only part of) people will object. So, why can't the standard setters promulgate the reasons for issuing standards? People are not fools. As long as they are right, most people will listen.

The author does not seem to know that in some areas of the World Wide Web, many people are constantly rediscovering the original meaning of the word, the reasonable pronunciation of the word, and spontaneously sum up the rules and systems, and continue to tell others what these things should be like. . The author may think that these people are too few, but what I see is that these people are more and more, and more and more people have accepted the "correct" popularity. Only because this change is too muted, the author may have seen its conclusion, but did not realize where it came from.

As for the standard setters, that is, the Language and Reform Commission, I always ridiculed them. If we agree with the People’s Republic, then the NDRC should work diligently to seek a balance between contemporary and historical and explain to the people rather than the corpse meal as it is now; if it is the ancient scholars’ establishment, then the NDRC should insist on the primacy of the king. It is not easy to change the number. No matter what kind, the NDRC did not do the right thing, so it was not wrong to be ridiculed by this sarcasm. Regardless of whether it is ancient or modern, whether it is Eastern or Western, the government should always listen to and even be appointed to the people. The fact that some departments are not doing so now is not the reason why we should recognize their actions. On the contrary, this is the reason why we should work harder to point out and oppose.

Avatar_small
人云E云 说:
2018年6月12日 11:52

Wow, I could never imagine such a post talking about Chinese language could attract a non-Chinese speaker :P

I'll provide an English translation later (probably within this week), probably as a new blog post.

Just in case: the email notification function of this website is down. Please don't rely on it.

(The google translation of the first paragraph can be considered correct, but other paragraphs are not, especially some keywords...)

Avatar_small
人云E云 说:
2018年7月04日 22:13

Sorry I failed to do so previously. I'll try to do this on this weekend.

Avatar_small
人云E云 说:
2018年7月10日 23:12

So I have done it. See http://renyuneyun.is-programmer.com/posts/213086.html


登录 *


loading captcha image...
(输入验证码)
or Ctrl+Enter