早几年曾经有过一种议论,把创新和务实对立起来。说是务实就是反对创新,虽然没有人明说创新就不必务实。其实这是一种误会。创新和务实是矛盾的统一,谁也缺不了谁。从务实方面说,务实就是钻研材料,以语言学而论就是钻研语言事实。钻研的结果可能是对前人的结论有所补充,或者有所修正,如把某一种现象的出现提早几十或几百年,或者在某两种现象之间找出内在的联系,如此等等,都可以称做创新。由于钻研材料而把前人的结论整个推翻,代之以新的结论,这当然是创新,可是这个创新显然是务实的结果。当然也有钻研来钻研去,仍然不能修改或者补充前人的结论的情形,那就应该适可而止,否则倒是不务实了。从创新方面说,我们常常会忽然由一两个语言事实触动一种跟前人的成说不同的想法,这个说法能否成立就要费点时间,费点力气搜集例证,也就是得务点儿实。如果仅仅根据“一时想起”的意思就下结论,就建立一条规律,很有可能禁不起别人挑剔,一下子就垮了。所以我认为务实和创新虽然出发点不同,工作的过程是基本相同的。 A few years ago there was a discussion that opposed innovation and pragmatism. To say that pragmatism is to oppose innovation, although no one does not have to say that innovation must be pragmatic. In fact, this is a misunderstanding. Innovation and pragmatism are contradictory unification, who can not miss. From a pragmatic point of view, pragmatism is to study materials, linguistics is to study language facts. The results of the study may be to supplement or modify the conclusions of the predecessors, such as the emergence of a phenomenon a few tens or a few hundred years earlier, or in between the two phenomena to find the intrinsic link, and so on And so on, can be called innovation. Of course, it is certainly innovation, which is obviously a pragmatic result because all the conclusions of our predecessors were overthrown and replaced with new conclusions due to the study of materials. Of course, there are also studies to study, still can not modify or supplement the conclusions of the predecessors, then it should be enough, otherwise it is unrealistic. From an innovation point of view, we often suddenly come to a different opinion from the previous one by one or two linguistic facts. It takes time and hardworking to collect examples, that is, real. If we just make a conclusion based on what we think of as a “moment of remembrance”, we will establish a law that will most likely not allow others to be picky and suddenly collapse. So I think pragmatic and innovative although the starting point is different, the process of work is basically the same.