閩南族群之他稱族名「Hoklo∕Hohlo」的漢字名書寫形式與變遷：從歷史文獻與地圖地名的檢索來分析

Abstract

本文從文獻檢索與地圖地名兩個面向切入，希望發掘指稱閩南族群之他稱族名Hoklo / Hohlo 漢字名（河老、貉獠∕䝤、貉老、鶴老∕佬、學老∕佬、福老∕佬、河洛）用詞的起源、變遷、使用年代與頻率，發掘更有力的論證，以突破過去在這方面議題探討的視野侷限性。研究發現，這些稱呼似乎都是來自以音套字（音名），且很可能來自客家族群對閩南族群的他稱用法。這些「地圖地名」只出現在廣東，不見於臺、閩。其中數量最多的是「學老」地名；其次為「鶴老」，未見「河老」與「河洛」地名。「Hoklo / Hohlo」的漢字名中，最早出現的是河老與貉獠，貉老與鶴老可能稍晚一些；再來為學老，再次為福老。鶴佬、學佬與福佬出現最晚，廣泛被認知應在19 世紀末到20 世紀初。本文推測新竹地區閩南人的「Hohlo lang」自稱用法，應是受粵東移民裔用法的影響。及至今日，「Hohlo」（音名）與「福佬」（漢字名）已經成為臺灣閩南族群的慣用稱呼了。

This paper searches through the literatures and map names, and explores the origin, change, using periodand frequency of the Chinese writing forms and changes of the Minnan ethnic group name ‘Hoklo / Hohlo’from other ethnic groups. We also want to explore more powerful arguments to break through the limitationsof the past in this issue. The findings of this study are as follows: these Chinese writing forms all seem tooriginate from the ‘sound name’, and mainly from the Hakka ethnic group. The study also found that these‘map names’ only appeared in Guangdong, and not in Taiwan or Fujian. Most map names are ‘Xuelao (學老)’, and then ‘Helao (鶴老)’, but we could not find ‘Helao (河老)’ or ‘Heluo (河洛)’. In these Chinesewriting forms, the earliest appearing are ‘Helao (河老)’ and ‘Helao (貉獠)’; the second earliest forms are‘Helao (貉老)’ and ‘Helao (鶴老)’; the third is ‘Xuelao (學老)’; and later ‘Fulao (福老)’ appeared. The finalforms that appeared are ‘Helao (鶴佬)’, ‘Xuelao (學佬)’ and ‘Fulao (福佬)’. They were widely recognized inthe late 19th and early 20th centuries. This paper also speculates that self-proclaimed (‘Hohlo lang’) usage ofthe Minnan ethnic group in Hsinchu, should be influenced by the usage of emigrants in eastern Guangdong.And today, ‘Hohlo’ (sound name) and ‘Fulao (福佬)’ (Chinese name) become the customary names ofTaiwan’s Minnan ethnic group.