摘要
太平天国运动与辛亥革命乃清末“反满”色彩最为浓烈的两次革命,其动员文本蕴含着浓厚的政治语言特征。以太平军之“杨萧三谕”与同盟会之《讨满洲檄》相较可见,双方均强调夷夏之辨,但其历史观与立论依据截然不同:前者奉“上帝”为中国之缔造者,并以基督教教义为立论基础;后者则尊黄帝为始祖,以三民主义为核心。就表达逻辑而言,两组檄文皆继承了传统檄文“罪彼扬己”的基本框架,然后者更为理性,在逻辑链条的建构中加入了对以往革命运动经验教训的反思。而从措词、修辞及文风、语气等语言技巧方面来看,两组檄文皆长于辞章之术,其中“杨萧三谕”不无“诬过其虐”之嫌,《讨满洲檄》则注重“征验”,讲究理性。是以从语言学角度重审两份檄文,可见文字本身即具有革命动员的功能,而语言技术水平的高下则会影响其功能的发挥。不过,两组檄文的语义又有明显的相关性,一定程度上反映了中国近代革命思想发展的轨迹。
The Taiping Rebellion and the 1911 Revolution were the two most intense anti-Manchu revolutions in the late Qing Dynasty. “Three Proclamations by Yang(Xiuqing) and Xiao(Chaogui)”(shortened as TPYX) by the Taiping army and An Anti-Manchu Proclamation(shortened as AAMP) by Tongmenghui(Chinese Revolutionary League),were crucial mobilization texts contained strong political language characteristics. Both texts emphasize the distinction between barbarian tribes and China,but their historical views and the basis of their arguments were completely different. The former believed in “God” as the foundation of China and adopted Christian teachings as the theoretical basis;the latter paid tribute to the Yellow Emperor as the first ancestor of the Chinese nation and took the Three Principles of the People as the core. As far as the logic of expression was concerned,the two groups of essays both inherited the basic framework of “promote oneself and crime against others”in official denunciation of the enemy in China’s political tradition,but the logic of the latter is more rational,adding reflections on the experience and lessons from the failures of previous revolutions in the construction of the logic chain. In terms of wording,rhetoric,style of writing,tone and other language skills,both documents were good at rhetorical skills.TPYX seemed to be “a bit excessive in stigmatization”,and AAMP solicited more rational evidence.Therefore,from the perspective of linguistics,it can be seen that texts themselves had the function of revolutionary mobilization,while the level of linguistic sophistication would affect the degree and validity of their impact. At the same time, there was an obvious connection of semantics between these two documents,which to a certain extent reflected the genealogy of modern Chinese revolutionary thought.
出处
《史学理论研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2022年第4期62-72,158,159,共13页
Historiography Bimonthly
