|
|
| May 2014 |
 |
2 |
|
 |
| 頁數：1-114 |
| 從「客家」到客家（二）：粵東「Hakka•客家」稱謂的出現、蛻變與傳播 |
| From the “Guest” to the Hakka (2): the Emergence, Transformation, and Spread of the Term Hakka on the Eastern Quangdong |
|
 |
|
|
| 作者 |
施添福 |
| Author |
T'ien-fu Shih |
| 關鍵詞 |
本貫主義、方言主義、「客家」、客家、移民、自稱、他稱、傳教士 |
| Keywords |
the Principle of Bon-Gwan, the Principle of Ethno-Linguistic, “Guest”, Hakka, Immigrants, Self-Identity, Given Identity, Missionaries |
| 摘要 |
本文的主要目的，在釐清客家名稱的歷史性和地域性。全文主要包括二大部份：首先討論自明中葉以降廣東惠州府和廣、肇兩府的移民史，以及這些地區的土著對異邑移民的各種稱謂和這些稱謂的貶義化過程。其次，探討歐美傳教士鑄造「Hakka•客家」標記及其傳播的過程。
全文論證的重點在：方言主義的客家一詞，究竟從何而來？以及究竟經由何種機制，而成為一個方言群或族群的自稱或標記？我的基本看法是：
其一，方言主義下的客家一詞，其直接源頭是19世紀中葉以後，由來自歐美的傳教士依據方言主義所鑄造的「Hakka•客家」標記。由本貫主義的「客家」轉向方言主義的客家，其關鍵在自清初以降湧入廣州府和肇慶府的移民，絕大部分來自粵東北的潮、惠、嘉等二府一州的客家方言分布區。移民「客家」的鄉音一致，遂為19世紀中葉以降來粵的傳教士創造了從方言的角度認識、理解，從而將本貫「客家」定義為方言客家的契機。
其二，方言主義的客家名稱，原是廣、肇兩府的土著，依據本貫主義的分類標準，用來稱呼異籍或異邑的移民，即「客家」，但卻賦予卑賤的意義。這個具有貶義的「客家」稱謂，在19世紀中葉後，經由西方傳教士，按照廣府方言的發音，以羅馬字拼寫成Hakka後，再將Hakka依方言特色重新定義為客家，即「Hakka•客家」，並與同樣按照方言界定的本地（Punti）、福老（Hoklo）並立為廣東境內漢人三大方言群之一，而回歸中性的人群分類意涵。同時，傳教士又經由對「Hakka•客家」源流、方言以及其他社會文化特徵的深入研究和文字報導，不但將「Hakka•客家」的標記向西方世界傳播，也促使「Hakka•客家」由中性轉向具有優質漢人種族屬性的意涵，而逐漸被客家的知識界和政治、軍事菁英所接受，作為自我認同意識的標籤。
其三，伴隨客家稱謂由賤稱轉向中性化、優質化的蛻變過程中，西方傳教士也同步藉由傳教站、學校、醫療診所等具有內在關聯機構的設立，而在客家聚居的地域上，構建起訊息流通的空間管道。沿著這些結構或組織嚴密的空間管道，客家的稱謂和概念，也日益在民間社會擴散。到了20世紀初期，西方傳教士足跡所及的民間社會，以及中國知識界，特別是客家知識界，基本上已經接受了這個由西方傳教士依方言主義所鑄造的「Hakka•客家」標記，不同的只是略加修正為「客家•Hakka」而已。也就是依據這個重新定義下的方言主義客家，羅香林提出了客家界說和所謂客家民系的概念，進而依此界說和概念追溯歷史上客家的源流和發展；最後，在1933年發表《客家研究導論》，樹立了「Hakka•客家」這個源頭發展的第一座里程碑。 |
| Abstract |
The paper aims to clarify the origins of the term Hakka （客家） and the territorial domain related to the term. The first part of the paper discusses the migration history of Huizhou （惠州）, Guangzhou （廣州）, and Zhaoqing（肇慶）Prefectures of Quangdong （廣東） since the mid-15th century and the process of the derogatory naming of the immigrants by the inhabitants. The second part explores how the term Hakka was coined by Western missionaries and later spread. The main focus of the paper is where the term Hakka as an ethno-linguistic term came from and how it turned into a self-identifying label. The paper argues for the following three main points.
First, the term Hakka as an ethno-linguistic term was molded by Western missionaries after the mid-19th century. Before that, the term Hakka referred to the idea of Bon-gwan （本貫）. Since most of the immigrants, who shared similar colloquial speech to Guangzhou and Zhaoqing, were from the Chaozhou （潮州）, Huizhou, and Jiaying （嘉應） prefectures of northeastern Quangdong, there was an opportunity for the missionaries to approach this group of people through a common language.
Second, according to the idea of Bon-gwan （本貫）, the term Hakka, or “Guest （客）”, had derogatory connotations for the inhabitants of Guangzhou and Zhaoqing Prefectures. After the missionaries used the Cantonese pronunciation of “Guest” and spelled it in Latin script as “Hakka,” and later applied the term to the same group of people, together with the Punti （本地） and the Hoklo （福老）, the 3 major ethno-linguistic groups in Quangdong, the term Hakka became neutral. The political and military Hakka elite later accepted the term as a self-identifying label after the spread of the history, language, and ethnography of Hakka by the missionaries to the world, which gradually transformed their image into that of Han people of high standing.
Third, the churches, schools, and hospitals established by the missionaries in the Hakka areas served as a network for the spread of the concept of Hakka as an ethno-linguistic term. In the early 20th century the term Hakka had become widely accepted. Then based on this concept of Hakka, Lo Hsiang-lin （羅香林） published his Introduction to Hakka Studies （客家研究導論） in 1933, which became the first milestone of Hakka Studies. |
|
|
 |
|
