針對洪惟仁教授關於日本學者小川尚義和瑞典學者高本漢在世界範圍內漢語音韻研究史地位及相關問題研究進行了評述。認為，他對小川尚義在漢語音韻學史上研究的地位評估確有用心「拔高」之嫌。論文中涉及到一些有關小川尚義與高本漢漢語音韻研究的重要結論與史實不符。將漢語和閩南語作為兩個學科範疇並列是錯誤的；小川尚義不是世界範圍內漢語語言學史上第一個進行漢字音方言比較的語言學家；戰前日本唯一的漢學家實在非小川莫屬的觀點也是不對的；小川尚義漢語比較研究不是唯一一篇純學術的漢語語言學論文；小川尚義「古今漢字音對應表」不是漢語語言學史上第一張表；小川尚義不是第一個採用現代語言學方法進行漢語研究的東方人；小川尚義中古音「擬音」及與其他方音比較存在著明顯的「邏輯謬誤」；日本本土的現代漢語語言學不是從 1937 年岩村忍、魚返善雄合譯高本漢的論文輯為《支那言語學概論》開始萌芽的；最先將高本漢學術研究成果介紹給中國的不是羅常培，而是林語堂；小川尚義「擬音」與高本漢中古音「構擬」比較存在著明顯的「非對稱性」；伊沢修二不是民間學者，其純語言學的漢語語音實驗語言學研究和其他語言比較研究在世界範圍內具有重要地位。本文認為，小川尚義的語言學學術源流在日本，如果我們不去看小川尚義和日本的學術源流關係，很顯然，對小川尚義的學術評價就不會到位，與高本漢漢語音韻學的比較也就顯得不合理據。站在世界漢語研究史的角度上看，小川尚義之前或同時代學者，對漢語語音學研究的貢獻也不可忽視，必須本著客觀公正的態度而進行研究。

　　Based on review and comment of the position and influence of Japanese scholar Ogawa Naoyoshi and Swiss scholar Bernhard Karlgren in the history of historical Chinese phonology research by Taiwan scholar Ang Ui-jin, we find that there is some intentional overestimation of Ogawa’s position in this field, especially the inaccurate research results made by professor Ang in his paper. For instance, in our eyes, it is improper to separate Chinese and Minnan dialect as two subject categories; Ogawa cannot be the first linguist doing research on the pronunciation of Chinese characters by comparing with Chinese dialects in the history of Chinese linguistics world-widely; it is inaccurate to state that Ogawa was the only sinologists in pre-war Japan; Ogawa’s article on comparative study of Chinese was not the only single pure academic paper in Chinese linguistics; the comparison table of pronunciation of Chinese characters in ancient and modern times by Ogawa is not the first one in the history of Chinese linguistics; Ogawa is not the first oriental scholar applying the research method of modern linguistics to study Chinese; there is obvious logical fallacy comparing Ogawa’ Middle Chinese phonological reconstruction with other Chinese dialects; the starting point of Japanese domestic modern Chinese linguistics is not the Introduction of Chinese Linguistics a collection of Bernhard’s papers compiled by Iwamura Shinobu and Ogaeri Yoshio in 1937; the first scholar who introduced research results of Bernhard Karlgren was not Luo Changpei but Lin Yutang; asymmetries are obvious when it comes to compare the Middle Chinese phonological reconstruction by Ogawa and Bernhard respectively; Isawa Shuji is not a folk scholar whose research on phonological experimental linguistics and comparative linguistics exerted influence world-widely. We think that Ogawa’s academic research source originated form other Japanese scholars, without this basic understanding, our academic evaluation for him will be hardly accurate and objective, the same is the case with comparison with Bernhard’s research influence on historical Chinese phonology. From the perspective of the history of Chinese linguistics research worldwidely, contributions made by scholars before or contemporary with Ogawa in this field should not be attached little weight and a just and objective attitude is a must in our research.

臺灣洪惟仁; 日本小川尚義; 瑞典高本漢; 重要史實辨正

Ang Ui-jin; Ogawa Naoyoshi; Bernhard Karlgren; rectification of main historical facts