臺灣學者洪惟仁教授《小川尚義與高本漢漢語語音研究的比較─兼論小川尚義在漢語研究史上應有的地位》是 20 多年來在國內外漢語音韻學史研究上頗具影響力的一篇論文，其中涉及到洪惟仁教授以小川尚義與高本漢漢語中古音研究「構擬」比較，其對小川尚義漢語中古音「構擬」方法及其來源的認識有嫌模糊，因此，帶來了小川尚義與高本漢漢語中古音比較研究的「非對稱性」問題。小川尚義漢語中古音「擬音」方法與日本漢語音韻學界《韻鏡》音構擬傳統相關，並不是他的獨創，而是他繼承和發展許多學者研究的結果。日本學者豬狩幸之助《漢文典》（1898）所附《〈韻鏡〉解釋》中古音構擬、稍後於小川尚義日本學者對《韻鏡》中古音「擬音」的佐藤仁之助《速成應用漢學捷徑》（1910）和大島正健《韻鏡音韻考》（1912）都可以為證。小川尚義與高本漢中古音「構擬」比較的「非對稱性」也很突出，比如性質與內涵、「邏輯」與文獻依據、功用等。小川尚義中古音「擬音」及與其他方音比較「邏輯謬誤」也十分明顯。小川尚義「構擬」《韻鏡》中古音「發現」與「發明」乏善可陳，完全是繼承和發展前人研究的結果，並無「獨創」體系的驚人之處。由此，所謂「小川尚義對漢語中古音研究做出巨大貢獻」的定評是不符合實際的。小川尚義與高本漢中古音「構擬」比較存在著如此多的「非對稱性」，比較的合理性也就大打折扣了。

　　A Comparison of Research on Chinese Phonology by Ogawa and Karlgren with a Critique on Ogawa’s Position in History of Modern Chinese Linguistics a paper by Taiwan scholar professor Ang Ui-jin has no doubt exerted great influence in the history of historical Chinese phonology research in recent two decades. Professor Ang made a comparison of research on Middle Chinese phonological reconstruction by Ogawa and Karlgren, while in his paper Ogawa’s research method and theory source was not made clear, which, in our eyes, resulted in the asymmetries shown in comparison between researches on the Middle Chinese phonological reconstruction by Ogawa and Bernhard. We found that Ogawa’s research method and theory source is from researches on the phonological reconstruction of Yunjing in the Japanese phonological circle, which means his method of phonological reconstruction is not original but a result of inheritance and development of other scholars’ method, and evidence can be found in Yunjing Explanation attached in Grammata Serica Recensa by Igari Konosuke in 1898, Shortcut for Learning Chinese in A Short Term by Sato Jinnosuke in 1910 and Phonological Study on Yunjing by Oshima Masatake in 1912. The asymmetries are obvious especially in property and implication, logic and literature basis, function as well. Big logical fallacies can be seen in the comparison between Ogawa’s Middle Chinese phonological reconstruction and pronunciation of other Chinese dialects. Therefore, professor Ang’s comment that Ogawa made great contribution to Chinese phonology research is not in accordance with historical facts, and the reasonability of his research should be reconsidered because of so many asymmetries shown in comparison between researches on the Middle Chinese phonological reconstruction by Ogawa and Bernhard.

臺灣洪惟仁; 古音「構擬」; 小川尚義與高本漢; 比較; 「非對稱性」

Ang Ui-jin; Middle Chinese phonological reconstruction; Ogawa Naoyoshi; Bernhard Karlgren; comparison; asymmetries