華語語系研究自新世紀以來備受注目，海外學者各據一方，已作出不同的立論與回應。各類討論儘管壁壘分明，卻不脫對一種對「根」的空間政治的執著。本文試圖回答華語語系研究的若干疑義，同時對目前以後殖民主義或民族主義為基礎的「根」的空間論述，提出建言。首先回應黃維梁教授對「華語語系」命名問題的批評。相對黃教授的「正名說」，我認為必須正視中國／漢語文學眾聲喧「華」的辯證意義。與漢語對比，華語有相對較大的地域、文化、族群、語言／語音的駁雜性和包容性。其次，我對於個人的「後遺民論述」再作檢討，強調「後遺民」是具有強烈批判－以及自我批判－意識的論述。我以為「後遺民」心態瀰漫在華語語系的世界裡，成為海外華人拒斥或擁抱（已經失去的，從未存在的）「正統」中國最大動力。本文最後提出「勢」的詩學，作為「根」的政治的對應。華語語系在面對中國還是華語文學的選項時，與其只對「根」的定位，以及所來和所去的路徑作探索，不妨同時思考「勢」的詩學依違在審美與政治之間，所隱含審時觀勢的判斷力，以及蘊藉穿越的想像力。

Sinophone Studies has drawn increasing attention among scholars since the turn of the millennium. This essay seeks to examine the recent development of Sinphone Studies and reflect on the possibilities of a theoretical breakthrough. It contends that, while scholars have engaged themselves with a variety of contested stances and methodologies, they tend to base their arguments on the politics of ”root”. The assay points out the blind spots embedded in these arguments, particularly those along the line of post-colonialism and nationalism, and proposes instead a poetics of ”shi” or ”propensity.” The essay is divided into three parts. The first part takes issue with Professor Huang Weiliang's definition of ”Sinophone” as a homogeneous discourse, and highlights the phenomenon of heteroglossia in any Sinophone articulation. The second part proposes ”post-loyalism” as a dialogical critique of the extant paradigm which is rooted in post-colonialism and nationalism. The third part introduces the poetics of ”propensity,” as inspired by the traditional Chinese poetics of ”shi,” and suggests that beyond the geopolitics of ”root” scholars should look into the momentum arising from the aesthetic and humanistic engagement with Sinophone Studies.