Abstract：Since the 1980s, toponymy studies in the Western societies has shifted away from traditional to critical paradigm. Critical toponymy holds that toponyms take active part in creating place and in building identity by implanting cultural-political connotations and power relations into neutral physical spaces. But Chinese scholars always consider toponyms only as transparent signifiers that designate places as objects or artifacts within a predefined geographical space has paid little attention to this turning. The intrinsic trait of a place-name make it disputed, thus the critical paradigm attaches more importance to insight on cultural, economic, ethnic and political conflicts of naming practices. As to the critical toponymy, human geographers have made great contribution to examine the motivation, contradiction and identification involved in place naming or renaming and to the advance in critical social theory. Based on the context of social transformation, by collecting the website material about the discussion on the changes in administrative division and place name of Huizhou, by using the critical paradigm for reference and combing the theory of field and social memory, this pepper adopt the text analysis to explore the social responses and driving force to the changes in place-name of Huizhou. It found a great difference existing in social responses to the changes. At the first time of belonging to Jiangxi Province, the common people in Wuyuan County vigorously resisted the policymakers and succeed finally, at the second time, they accepted gradually the reality. The media, scholar, civilian and official have different opinions and focuses about the renaming and recovering of Huizhou place-name and each of their semantic network has a pattern of its own. The intrinsic mechanism of toponymic changes of Huizhou can be explained as next, political rights, economic capital and social memory respectively reconstructed the field boundary of Huizhou place-name, weakened the field strength of Huizhou place-name, and gave away to and merged with the field of Huangshan place name separately.
纪小美. 基于资本与场域理论的徽州地名变迁的社会响应与内在机理研究[J]. 人文地理, 2020, 35(6): 44-49,105.
JI Xiao-mei. STUDY ON THE SOCIAL RESPONSE AND INTRINSIC MECHANISM OF HUIZHOU PLACE-NAME BASED ON THE CAPITAL AND FIELD THEORY. HUMAN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 35(6): 44-49,105.
Rose-Redwood R, Alderman R D, Azaryahu M. Geographies of toponymic inscription:New directions in critical place-name studies[J]. Progress in Human Geography, 2010,34(4):453-470.
[2]
刘丽丽,徐蕊.改革开放以来中国县级以上政区名称变更及其问题探讨[J].人文地理,2010,25(4):77-81.[Liu Lili, Xu Rui. A study on the name changes and problems of administrative regions above county level after the implemention of reform and opening-up policy[J]. Human Geography, 2010,25(4):77-81.]
[3]
朱昌春.地名在风景名胜区的应用[J].旅游学刊,2002,17(6):19-22.[Zhu Changchun. On the application of the local names in the scenic spots[J]. Tourism Tribune, 2002,17(6):19-22.]
[4]
张朝枝.旅游与遗产保护:政府治理视角的理论与实证[M].北京:中国旅游出版社,2006:109-162.[Zhang Chaozhi. Tourism and Heritage Protection:Theory and Empiricism under the View of Government Administration[M]. Beijing:China Travel & Tourism Press, 2006:109-162.]
[5]
范今朝,张锦玲,刘盈军.行政区划的调整与遗产原真性的保护:以遗产(地)所在政区的更名对区域遗产保护的负面影响为例[J].经济地理,2009,29(9):1558-1563.[Fan Jinzhao, Zhang Jinling, Liu Yingjun. The influence of the reform of the system of administrative division on the conversation of heritage and its authenticity in contemporary China[J]. Economic Geography, 2019,29(9):1558-1563.]
[6]
柴海燕.风景旅游城市地名变更现象的透析[J].地域研究与开发, 2000,19(2):82-85.[Chai Haiyan. On the name changing of tourism city[J]. Areal Reseach and Development, 2000,19(2):82-85.]
[7]
孙鹏.基于人本主义理念的我国城市地名更改探析[J].现代城市研究,2014,21(11):88-91.[Sun Peng. Analysis on the change of urban place names based on the thoughts of humanism[J]. Modern Urban Research, 2014,21(11):88-91.]
[8]
Wodak R, Meyer M.批判话语分析方法[M].李战子,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2014:9-14.[Wodak R, Meyer M. The Method of Critical Discourse Analysis[M]. Li Zhanzi, trans. Beijing:Peking University Press, 2014:9-14.]
[9]
徐松如.试析同乡网络在婺源回皖运动中的社会动员能力[J].江西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2014,58(1):106-112.[Xu Songru. Analysis of the social mobilization of the fellow townsmen network in the movement of Wuyuan's being put under Huizhou again[J]. Journal of Jiangxi Normal University (Social Science), 2014,58(1):106-112.]
[10]
刘伯山.告别过去, 拥抱黄山时代[J].黄山学院学报,2001,3(4):16-17.[Liu Boshan. Say goodbye to the before and embrace the Huangshan age[J]. Journal of Huangshan College, 2001,3(4):16-17.]
[11]
皮埃尔·布迪厄,华康德.实践与反思:反思社会学导引[M].李猛, 李康,译.北京:中央编译出版社,1998:19.[Bourdieu P, Loic Wacquant. Practice and Reflection:A Guide to Reflective Sociology[M]. Li Meng, Li Kang, trans. Beijing:Central Compilation & Translation Press, 1998:19.]
[12]
莫里斯·哈布瓦赫.论集体记忆[M].毕然,郭金华,译.上海:上海人民出版社,2002:106,335.[Halbwachs M. Collective Memory[M]. Bi Ran, Guo Jinhua, trans. Shanghai:Shanghai People's Publishing House, 2002:106,335.]
[13]
保罗·康纳顿.社会如何记忆[M].纳日碧力戈,译.上海:上海人民出版社,2000:40.[Connerton P. How the Social Memorizes[M]. Naran Bilik, trans. Shanghai:Shanghai People's Publishing House, 2000:40.]
[14]
高萍.社会记忆理论研究综述[J].西北民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2011,34(3):112-120.[Gao Ping. Summary of social memory theory studies[J]. Journal of Northwest University for Nationalities (Philosophy and Social Science), 2011,34(3):112-120.]
[15]
Schwartz B. Memory as a cultural system:Abraham Lincoln in World War II[J]. American Sociological Review, 1996,61(5):908-927.
[16]
Giraut F, Houssay-Holzschuch M. Place naming as dispositif:Toward a theoretical framework[J]. Geopolitics, 2016,21:1-21.
[17]
徐建平.互动:政府意志与民众意愿——以民国时期婺源回皖运动为例[J].中国历史地理论丛,2007,22(1):49-50.[Xu Jianping. Intercommunion:The purpose of the government and the desire of the mass of common people:Case analysis on "Wuyuan back to Anhui movement" in Republic of China[J]. Journal of Chinese Historical Geography, 2007,22(1):49-50.]
[18]
孙祥伟.政治博弈与省籍矛盾:以婺源回皖运动为中心的考察[J]. 黑龙江史志,2009,25(24):50-51.[Sun Xiangwei. The political game and birthday contradiction:The exploration on the act of Wuyuan's return to Anhui[J]. History in Heilongjiang, 2009,25(24):50-51.]
[19]
毛建国.复名徽州别走更名黄山老路[N].华商报,2019-04-15(A4).[Mao Jianguo. Do not the old way of renaming Huangshan when recovering the name of Huizhou[N]. Huashang Daily, 2019-04-15(A4).]
[20]
蒋荣.黄山现弊分析与重设徽州构想探述[J].中国方域:行政区划与地名,2004,12(5):2-9.[Jiang Rong. The Huangshan's problem and the Huizhou's restruction[J]. China Region:Administrative Division and Placename, 2004,12(5):2-9.]
[21]
唐伟.黄山复名徽州:尊重程序比改回地名更为重要[J].中国地名, 2016,33(9):14.[Tang Wei. Huangshan recovering as Huizhou:Respect the process is more important than restoration[J]. China Place Name, 2016,33(9):14.]
[22]
许宗元.旅游地市行政地名命名的思考:以徽州-黄山为例[J].旅游科学,2002,17(2):23-27.[Xu Zongyuan. Reflections on administrative naming of tourism areas and cities:A case of HuizhouHuangshan city[J]. Tourism Science, 2002,17(2):23-27.]
[23]
澎湃新闻.人民日报官微发起"黄山市恢复老名字徽州" 投票, 超七成支持[EB/OL].(2016-04-14)[2016-08-29]. http://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_1456216.[The Paper. People's Daily Official Microblog call the vote of "recovering Huangshan as Huizhou", over 70% voters support[EB/OL]. (2016-04-14)[2016-08-29]. http://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_1456216.]
[24]
澎湃新闻.网友询问黄山市政府对复名徽州的态度, 官方:当务之急是发展[EB/OL].(2016-07-11)[2016-08-29]. http://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_1496653_1.[The Paper. Netizen ask the Huangshan Official about his attitude toward recovering the name of Huizhou, the Official replied:The urgent task is to develop.[EB/OL].(2016-07-11)[2016-08-29]. http://www.thepaper.cn/newsDeta-il_forward_1496653_1.]
[25]
皮埃尔·布迪厄.文化资本与社会炼金术[M].包亚明,译.上海:上海人民出版社,1997:207-211.[Bourdieu P. Cultural Capital and Social Alchemy[M]. Bao Yaming, trans. Shanghai:Shanghai People's Publishing House, 1997:207-211.]
[26]
米歇尔·福柯.规训与惩罚[M].刘北成,杨远婴,译.上海:三联书店, 2004:35.[Foucault M. Discipline and Punish[M]. Liu Beicheng, Yang Yuanying, trans. Shanghai:SDX Joint Publishing Company, 2004:35.]
[27]
Borer M I. From collective memory to collective imagination:Time, place and urban redevelopment[J]. Symbolic Interaction, 2010,33(1):96-114.
