「並稱」理論的提出——談「並稱」如何影響中國文學史之建構

The Proposal of the“Parallel Naming”Theory—Discussion on the Influence of“Parallel Naming”on the Construction of Chinese Literary History

過去學界雖有「並稱」研究，然尚未出現系統性之理論。本文企圖建構中國文學「並稱」理論之雛形，並從語法學的角度切入，認為「並稱」係透過「省略連詞」而形成，以拼音文字為主的西方文學難以出現「並稱」。在此基礎上，本文提出「位移說」，文人一旦被「並稱」，此一「並稱」往往在接受過程中產生「位移」，使「並稱」的內涵產生變化。本文亦探討「並稱」如何影響中國文學史之「建構」，並以「唐代」為例。古典文學評論中，評論家闡述其對文壇的理解，往往大量運用「並稱」。文學史編纂者受此一傳統影響，因此被「並稱」的文人，優先成為被寫入的對象，或出現於標題，或成為行文主軸，因此「唐代時期」的「文學史圖像」具有某種相似性、共通性。被「並稱」的文人獲得進入文學史的機會，未納入「並稱」的文人，除非文學成就相當高，否則極可能被淡化或忽略。「並稱」與文學史存在微妙的關係，對某一類文人的凸顯，亦成為對部分真相的遮蔽。「中國文學史」如何被建構，亦可從「並稱學」中找到值得深入的探究點。

Although the phenomenon of parallel naming has received scholarly attention, no systematic theoretical framework has yet been established. This paper aims to construct a preliminary theoretical framework for parallel naming in Chinese literature from a grammatical perspective. It argues that“parallel naming”is formed through“ellipsis conjunction,”a feature is difficult to reproduce in alphabetic languages and, consequently, in most Western literary traditions. On this basis, the paper proposes the“displacement theory”, which explains how the meanings of parallel appellations evolve during their reception and transmission. Once authors become associated through parallel appellation, the pairing frequently undergoes a process of semantic displacement, resulting in shifts in its cultural and literary significance. This paper also explores how“parallel naming”influences the formation of Chinese literary history, using the Tang dynasty as a case study. In classical literary criticism, critics employed“parallel naming”extensively to articulate their understanding of the literary world. Influenced by this critical practice, compilers of literary histories tended to privilege writers who had been associated through parallel naming, either by pairing their names in chapter titles or by placing them at the center of literary narratives. As a result, the“images of literary history”of the Tang dynasty exhibited certain similarities and common features. Writers“paired”thus were included in literary history, while those excluded from such pairings, unless with exceptionally high literary achievement, were likely to be marginalized or overlooked. The relationship between“parallel naming”and literary history is therefore subtle. The highlighting of certain writers inevitably obscures parts of the historical truth. The way“Chinese literary history”is constructed can thus be further explored through“parallel naming studies”.