先秦知識分子的歷史述論

葉達雄臺灣大學：歷史學研究所謝昆恭2007-11-282018-05-292007-11-282018-05-292005http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw//handle/246246/59569先秦知識分子的歷史述論 ──以《詩經》、《尚書》、《左傳》、《國語》為中心摘要古代中國的知識分子，一般是指春秋戰國以下，由先秦諸子開其端緒。本文基於對歷史的認識以及相關的述論，在不以求全的認知下，早於先秦諸子，應有相應於時代發展而產生的一群知識上的「有職之士」，就文化發展的作用而言，不妨以廣義的知識分子稱之。因此，巫、史以下，至春秋時期列國的「有職之士」，是本文討論的對象。先秦諸子之前無私家著作，無法像子學時代的研究，取其一家一派或一人之作以為探索。相關的資料散見於幾本古典的載籍，本文取資的是《詩經》、《尚書》、《逸周書》、《左傳》與《國語》。就知識的積累或轉化、深化而言，不能捨離實際的應用，包括一己之身並其推擴的群體思慮。本文所指涉的「歷史述論」，含攝的主要是針對當代知識分子所傳誦、勾稽、鋪敘、申揚的歷史情狀，討論諸如此類的述論出現的時、空情境；同時說明其中的實際狀況，以論證此類歷史述論的應用實質。本文除緒論與結論，計分五章：第一章：知識的累積與傳承並其與群體發展的關係，不能沒有一番疏理、審視。本文首揭原型知識分子— — 巫覡、瞽、史歷史述論的形態。從三者的身分、地位、角色的同質性、分化性，討論三者在歷史述論上的大概。約略而言，巫覡與瞽師的歷史述論或受制於本身職任上宗教性質大於世俗性，或因身障之故，不能像史官有更深入更具體的呈現。緃使如此，三者實際上是構成歷史述論承擔者的最早成員。第二章：典冊，尤其是諸子之前的典冊，是文化集體創造的彙纂，也是早期知識分子智性的集中呈現，其中有豐富的歷史內容，與關於歷史認識的述論。《詩經》涉及商、周二代史迹。＜商頌＞透露商人的國史構成，也鼓舞殷遺的追踪步武心思。＜周頌＞、＜魯頌＞、二＜雅＞，則集中體現周人的國族思維，舉凡肇建、突破、茁壯、奄有天下，莫不深致情思。同時對於西周末季，民人殄瘁的情形，多所關注。兩相究詰，《詩經》中知識分子的歷史述論，實有某種程度的社會性。第三章：《尚書》與《逸周書》的典、謨、誥、誓、訓、命等，皆與政事治道緊緊相扣，是典型的「述古之作」。而「述古之作」除了作為文獻存真，更有其現實的考量，亦即為了闡明「當世之務」。因此，在《尚書》與《逸周書》中的歷史述論，主要是周代（尤其是西周）的知識子針對典冊遺留的夏、商資料加以揄揚評騭；同時貼近己身的時代，論證政權變異的不可逆性，以強化周族的憂患意識，彰顯周族聖王崇隆的道德、敬恪形象，將《詩經》中的人格賢王的述論深度、廣度，進一步加以詮證。第四、五章：《詩經》、《尚書》中的知識分子，除了少數幾人之外，絶大部分不知其人。至於出現在《左傳》與《國語》中的春秋時期的知識分子，幾乎是名姓咸具；同時其國籍、族屬，乃至階層、職任，都能尋繹其詳。數量龎大的個別知識分子，分屬於不同的政治體（國家），分處於二百餘年的歷史鉅變階段，對於「當時」、「此地」的現實境遇，常見此輩人物推衍史迹，詳為論析，或為存國，或為圖霸，或為一身，或為他人……。凡此種種，莫不具顯於這群知識分子的言談舉止之間。從應用的觀點言，《左傳》與《國語》二載籍中的知識分子的歷史述論，可說是深含工具性的實用指涉。Ahrens, Kathleen, Siaw-Fong Chung and Chu-Ren Huang. 2003. “Conceptual Metaphors: Ontology-based Representation and Corpora Driven Mapping Principles.” ACL Workshop on the Lexicon and Figurative Language. Sapporro, Japan. pp. 35-41. Ahrens, Kathleen, Siaw-Fong Chung and Chu-Ren Huang. 2004. “From Lexical Semantics to Conceptual Metaphors: Mapping Principle Verification with WordNet and SUMO.” In Donghong Ji, Kim Teng Lua and Hui Wang (eds.). Recent Advancement in Chinese Lexical Semantics: Proceedings of 5th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop (CLSW-5). Singapore: COLIPS. pp. 99-106. Ahrens, Kathleen. 2002. “When Love is Not Digested: Underlying Reasons for Source to Target Domain Pairings in the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.” In Y. E. Hsiao (Ed.). The First Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Cheng-Chi University, Taiwan. pp. 273-302. Ahrens, Kathleen. 2006. “Using a Small Corpus to Test Linguistic Hypotheses: Evaluating ‘People’ in the State of the Union Addresses.” International Journal of Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing. 11(4). pp. 377-392. Blake, William. 1794. Song of Experience. Budanitsky, Alexander and Graeme Hirst. 2006. “Evaluating WordNet-based Measures of Semantic Relatedness.” Computational Linguistics. 32(1). pp. 13-47. Cameron, Lynne and Graham Low (eds.). 1999. Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series, Cambridge University Press. Charteris-Black, Jonathan and Andreas Musolf. 2003. “‘Battered Hero’ or ‘Innocent Victim’?” A Comparative Study of Metaphors for Euro Trading in British and German Financial Reporting.” English for Specific Purposes. 22. pp. 153-176. Charteris-Black, Jonathan and Timothy Ennis. 2001. “A Comparative Study of Metaphor in Spanish and English Financial Reporting.” English for Specific Purposes. 20. pp. 249-266. Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2000. “Metaphor and Vocabulary Teaching in ESP Economics.” English for Specific Purposes. 19. pp. 149-165. Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Palgrave-MacMillan. Charteris-Black, Jonathon. 2005. Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Palgrave-MacMillan. Chen, Keh-jiann, Chu-Ren Huang, Li-ping Chang, and Hui-Li Hsu. 1996. “Sinica Corpus: Design Methodology for Balanced Corpora.” In. Byung-Soo Park and Yongbeom Kim (eds.). Proceeding of the 11th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation. Seoul: Kyung Hee University. pp. 167-176. Chung, Siaw-Fong, Kathleen Ahrens and Chu-Ren Huang. 2003. “ECONOMY IS A PERSON: A Chinese-English Corpora and Ontological-based Comparison Using the Conceptual Mapping Model.” In the Proceedings of the 15th ROCLING Conference for the Association for Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing National. Tsing-Hwa University, Taiwan. pp. 87-110. Chung, Siaw-Fong, Kathleen Ahrens and Chu-Ren Huang. 2004a. “Using WordNet and SUMO to Determine Source Domains of Conceptual Metaphors.” In Donghong Ji, Kim Teng Lua and Hui Wang (eds.). Recent Advancement in Chinese Lexical Semantics: Proceedings of 5th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop (CLSW-5). Singapore: COLIPS. pp. 91-98. Chung, Siaw-Fong, Kathleen Ahrens and Chu-Ren Huang. 2004b. “RECESSION: Defining Source Domains through WordNet and SUMO.” In the Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of Korea (LSK) International Conference. Volume II: General Sessions. Seoul: The Linguistic Society of Korea (LSK) and Yonsei Institute of Language and Information Science (ILIS). pp. 43-52. Chung, Siaw-Fong, Kathleen Ahrens and Chu-Ren Huang. 2005. “Source Domains as Concept Domains in Metaphorical Expressions.” Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing (CLCLP). 10(4). pp. 553-570. Chung, Siaw-Fong, Kathleen Ahrens and Yahui Sung. 2003. “STOCK MARKETS AS OCEAN WATER: A Corpus-based, Comparative Study in Mandarin Chinese, English and Spanish.” In the Proceedings of the 17th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC). Singapore. pp. 124-133. Chung, Siaw-Fong. 2005. “ECONOMIC GROWTH and Its Source Domains: A Methodological Concern.” In Maya Yu-ting Yeh (ed.). National Taiwan University Working Papers in Linguistics. 8. pp. 41-89. Chung, Siaw-Fong. 2005. “Kena as a Third Type of Malay Passive.” Oceanic Linguistics. 44(1). University of Hawaii Press. pp. 194-214. Chung, Siaw-Fong. 2005. “MARKET Metaphors: Chinese, English and Malay.” In the Proceedings of the 19th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC19). Taipei: Academia Sinica. pp. 71-81. Church, Kenneth W. and Patrick Hanks. 1990. “Word Association Norms, Mutual Information and Lexicography.” Computational Linguistics. 16(1). pp. 22-29. Cienki, Alan. 2005. “Metaphor in the “Strict Father” and “Nurturant Parent” Cognitive Models: Theoretical Issues Raised in an Empirical Study.” Cognitive Linguistics. 16(2). pp. 279-312. Clausner, Timothy C. and William Croft. 1997. “Productivity and Schematicity in Metaphors.” Cognitive Science. 21(3). pp. 247-282. Clausner, Timothy C. and William Croft. 1999. “Domains and Image Schemas.” Cognitive Linguistics. 10 (1). pp. 1-31. Croft, William. 2003. “The Role of Domains in the Interpretation of Metaphors and Metonymies.” In René Dirven and Ralf Pörings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 161-205. deGroot, Adrian D. 1965. Thought and Choice in Chess. The Hague: Mouton. Deignan, Alice. 1999. “Metaphorical Polysemy and Paradigmatic Relations: A Corpus Study.” Word. 50(3). pp. 319-338. Deignan, Alice. 2005. Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics: Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research. Volume 6. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Bejamins. Dobrovol’skij, Dmitrij and Elisabeth Piirainen. 2005. Figurative Language: Cross-cultural and Cross-linguistic Perspectives: Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface. Volume 13. Amsterdam, Boston & Heidelberg: Elsevier. Fass, Dan and Yorick Wilks. 1983. “Preference Semantics, Ill-formedness, and Metaphor.” Computational Linguistics. 9(3-4). pp. 178-187. Fass, Dan. 1988. “Metonymy and Metaphor: What's the Difference?” In the Proceedings of the 12th conference on Computational Linguistics, p. 177-181. Fellbaum, Christiane (ed.). 1998. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press. Fellbaum, Christiane (ed.). 2007. Idioms and Collocations: Corpus-based Linguistic and Lexicographic Studies. London : Continuum. Fillmore, Charles J. 1977. “Scenes-and-Frames Semantics.” In Antonio Zampolli (ed.). Linguistic Structures Processing: Fundamental Studies in Computer Science, Volume 5. Amsterdam: North-Holland. pp. 55-81. Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. “Frame Semantics.” Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin. pp. 111-138. Fillmore, Charles J. and Beryl T Atkins. 1992. “Toward a Frame-based Lexicon: The Semantics of RISK and its Nneighbors.” In Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Feder Kittay. (eds.). Frames, Fields and Constrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrense Erlbaum. pp. 75-102. Gibbs, Raymond W., Josephine M. Bogdanovich, Jeffrey R. Sykes, and Dale J. Barr 1997. “Metaphor in Idiom Comprehension.” Journal of Memory and Language. 37. pp. 141-154. Gildea, Patricia, and Sam Glucksberg. 1983. “On Understanding Metaphor: The Role of Context.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 22, pp. 577-590. Glucksberg, Sam and Boas Keysar. 1993 “How Metaphors Work.” In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Second nd Edition, New York, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 401-424. Glucksberg, Sam and Boas Keyser. 1990. “Understanding Metaphorical Comparisons: Beyond Similarity.” Psychological Review. 97. pp. 3-18. Glucksberg, Sam, Patricia Gildea and Howard Bookin. 1982. “On Understanding Nonliteral Speech: Can People Ignore Metaphors?” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 21. pp. 85–98. Goatly, Andrew. 1997. “Metaphorical and Literal Language.” In The Language of Metaphor. Chapter 1. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 14-40. Grady, Joseph E. 1997. “THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS Revisited.” Cognitive Linguistics. 8(4). pp. 267-290. Grady, Joseph E. 1999. “A Typology of Motivation for Conceptual Metaphor: Correlation vs. Resemblance.” In Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. and Gerard J. Steen (eds). Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 79-100. Graff, David and Chen Ke. 2003. Chinese Gigaword. [Corpus]. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia. Gries, Stefan. Th. 2003. Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement. London, New York: Continuum Press. Heywood, John and Elena Semino. 2005. “Source ‘scenes’ and source ‘domains’: Insights from a Corpus-based Study of Metaphor for Communication.” In the Proceedings of the Third Interdisciplinary Workshop on Corpus-Based Approaches to Figurative Language. pp. 12-19. Huang, Chu-Ren, Chang, Ru-Yng, Lee, Shiang-Bin. 2004. “Sinica BOW (Bilingual Ontological Wordnet): Integration of Bilingual WordNet and SUMO”. Presented at the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC2004). Lisbon. Portugal. Huang, Chu-Ren, Kathleen Ahrens, Chang Li-li, Chen Keh-jiann, Liu Mei-chun, and Tsai Mei-Chih. 2000. “The Module-Attribute Representation of Verbal Semantics: From Semantics to Argument Structure.” In Yung-O Biq (ed.). Special Issue on Chinese Verbal Semantics. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing. 5(1). pp. 19-46. Huang, Chu-Ren. 1994. “Corpus-based Studies of Mandarin Chinese: Foundational Issues and Preliminary Results.” In Matthew Y. Chen and Ovid J-L. Tzeng. (eds.). In Honor of William S-Y. Wang. Interdisciplinary Studies on Language and Language Change. Taipei: Pyramid. pp. 165-186. Huang, Chu-Ren. 2006. “Automatic Acquisition of Linguistic Knowledge: From Sinica Corpus to Gigaword Corpus.” Invited Speech at 13th National Institute of Japanese Literature (NIJL). Tokyo, Japan. Kennedy, Graeme. 1998. An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman Kilgarriff Adam and David. Tugwell. 2001. “WORD SKETCH: Extraction and Display of Significant Collocations for Lexicography.” In the Proceedings of the ACL Workshop COLLOCATION: Computational Extraction, Analysis and Exploitation. Toulouse. pp. 32-38. Kilgarriff, Adam, Chu-Ren Huang, Pavel Rychly, Simon Smith, David Tugwell. 2005. “Chinese Word Sketches.” In the Proceedings of Asialex, Singapore. Knowles, Murray and Rosamund Moon. 2006. Introducing Meaphor. London and New York: Routledge. Koller, Veronika. 2004. Metaphor and Gender in Business Media Discourse: A Critical Cognitive Study. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kövecses, Zoltán. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kövecses, Zoltán. 2006. Book Review: Figurative Language: Cross-Cultural and Cross-Linguistic Perspectives. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(3). pp. 191-198. Labov, William. 1973. “The Boundaries of Words and their Meanings.” In Charles James Baily and Roger W. Shuy (eds.). New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English, Washington D.C: Georgetown University Press. pp. 340–373. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphor We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, George. 1987. “Image Metaphors.” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity. 2(3). pp. 219-222. Lakoff, George. 1993. “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.” In Andrew Ortony (ed.). Metaphor and Thought. (second edition). CUP. pp. 202-251. Landes, Shari, Claudia Leacock and Randee I. Tengi. 1998. “Building Semantic Concordances.” In Christiane Fellbaum (ed.). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. pp. 199-216. MIT Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Volume 1. California: Stanford University. Leezenberg, Michiel. 2001. Contexts of Metaphor: Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface. Volume 7. Amsterdam, London & New York: Elsevier. Lemmens, Maarten. 2001. “Computational Economy in Metaphor Analysis.” In John Barnden, Mark Lee and Katja Markert (eds.). Proceeding Workshop on Corpus-Based and Processing Approaches to Figurative Language. Lin, Dekang. 1998. “Automatic Retrieval and Clustering of Similar Words.” In the Proceedings of COLING-ACL. pp. 768-774. Ma, Wei-yun and Huang Chu-Ren. 2006. “Uniform and Effective Tagging of a Heterogeneous Giga-word Corpus.” Presented at the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC2006). Genoa, Itlay. Marim-Arrese, Juana. 1996. “To Die, To Sleep: A Contrastive Study of Metaphors for Death and Dying in English and Spanish.” Language Sciences. 18(1-2). pp. 37-52. Martin, James H. 1990. A Computational Model of Metaphor Interpretation. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. Mason, Zachary J. 2004. “CorMet: A Computational, Corpus-Based Conventional Metaphor Extraction System.” Computational Linguistics. 30. pp. 23-44. McClelland, James L. and David E. Rumelhart .1986. Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Volume 2: Psychological and Biological Models, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press McEnery, Tony and Andrew Wilson. 2001. Corpus Linguistics. Second Edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Miller, George A., Richard Beckwith, Christiane Fellbaum, Derek Gross and Katherine J. Miller. 1990. “Introduction to WordNet: An On-line Lexical Database.” International Journal of Lexicography. 3(4). pp. 235-244. Musolff, Andreas. 2004. Metaphor and Political Discourse. Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Niles, Ian and Adam Pease. 2001. “Towards a Standard Upper Ontology.” In the Proceedings of the international conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems. (FOIS-2001). pp. 2-9. O’Connor, Kathleen T. 1998. “Money and Finance as Solid, Liquid, and Gas in Spanish.” Metaphor and Symbol. 13(2). pp. 141-157. .............................................................. 253 二為人開脫、設想、助成......................................... 257 三荐舉人才及其他.................................................... 264 （一）荐舉人才........................................................ 264 （二）能否入國得政................................................ 266 （三）臧否他國君、臣行止..................................... 268 本章結語............................................................... ............. 277 第五章列國時期載籍中的歷史述論─ ─ 《左傳》、《國語》（下） . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 第一節強大圖霸............................................................... 283 一齊桓肇霸（附宋襄） ............................................. 284 二晉文成霸及其後繼................................................ 289 三楚莊圖霸及其後繼................................................ 300 第二節列國圖存............................................................... 314 一對內的勸諫、儆誡................................................ 315 （一）魯........................................................... ....... 315 （二）晉........................................................... ....... 325 （三）齊........................................................... ....... 329 （四）楚........................................................... ....... 332 （五）吳........................................................... ....... 338 二外交的應對、折衝................................................ 344 （一）魯與齊、晉、吳............................................ 344 （二）鄭與秦、晉................................................... 347 （三）其餘諸國....................................................... 354 晉與鄭........................................................... 354 戎與晉........................................................... 357 越與吳........................................................... 359 本章結語............................................................... ............. 363 結論. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 一、歷史述論的雛形藉巫、史、瞽奠立............................. 370 二、歷史述論中時見國族意識............................................ 372 三、確立典範殷鑑，並以為依違取捨................................. 375 四、史述常涉興廢因果證成的理據.................................... 377 徵引與參考書目. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3854141566 bytesapplication/pdfen-US知識分子歷史述論history conceptionintellect先秦知識分子的歷史述論thesishttp://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/59569/1/ntu-94-D85123003-1.pdf