本研究主要探討《方言》一書中各地區的語言關係。《方言》為漢代實際語言調查的成果，當中蘊藏相當豐富與多元的語言資料。這也是歷來諸多學者不斷以《方言》作為研究漢代方言的重要題材。觀察眾多針對《方言》內方言區劃分的研究成果，結論往往大不相同。這表示對於《方言》內方言區的劃分方式，具備多樣詮釋的可能性。而筆者正是立足在過去諸多研究成果上，希望能以嶄新的研究視野重新分析《方言》內的語言關係。《方言》中的方言資料，主要是由詞彙與地名或是詞彙與地名組合的配合所構成，當中大量的方言資料表面上看似繁雜而毫無關聯。而本研究的主要目的，就是將零散的趨於系統、複雜的趨於簡單、隱晦的趨於清晰。以等語線理論作為基礎，將《方言》中的方言資料數據化。並以交際密度理論的角度去分析區域間的方言連繫方式，依此歸納出初步的方言區域。最後，對照文化、歷史、自然地理等文獻，以證實本研究的方言分區結果。 This research primarily discusses the connection between the languages of different geographic areas in the book “Fang Yan”. “Fang Yan” was the result of investigation actually existing languages of the Han Dynasty. It was also the largest, the most abundant source of language material collected during that period of time. A great number of linguists constantly used “Fang Yan” as the most important and valuable material for researching dialects of the Han dynasty. Observing the numerous conclusions about the territorial division of dialects in the “Fang Yan”, we realized they had been extremely different and often contradictory. It means there is a strong possibility of existing very different annotations to the methods of distinguishing dialects in “Fang Yan”. With reference to many researchers’ works, but using principally new viewpoints, we attempted to reanalyze the relations between the languages of the “Fang Yan”. The dialects of “Fang Yan” are organized according to the combination of vocabulary and geographical names or vocabulary and the groups of phrases. Visually the content or the data of “Fang Yan” seemed to be very complicated and absolutely irrelevant. Therefore, the main goal of our research was to make the scattered, complicated and unobvious structure to be systematic, simple and clear. Based on the “Isogloss Theory” (geographical boundary or delineation of a certain linguistic feature) we counted the dialects of the “Fang Yan”. On the assumption of the “Meta-communication Density Theory”, we attempted to analyze the relation between the dialects’ zones and proceeding from that we summarized the earliest dialects’ zones. In conclusion, comparing with the cultural, historical, geographical and other records, we proved the result of our research.
