比起褒貶現實政治的「論事之文」，討論傳統學問的「述學之文」，無疑更能體現1910年代中國讀書人的趣味。以白話為文學創作的工具，這還不夠，還必須深入到以白話為述學工具，白話文運動的成功，才有充分的保證。這裏有高低雅俗的文體偏見，但不排除「述學」中處理古今對話的艱難。雖有諸多不盡如人意處，胡適的《中國哲學史大綱》畢竟開啟了以白話述學的新時代。胡適強調「著作」必須是「精心結構」，而不應只滿足於語錄、劄記或文章結集。這裏所說的「結構」是表，「名學」是裏，而作為貫串線索的，則是精密的心思與清晰的表達。這一文體的形成，與胡適本人長期熱中於演講大有關係。演講者之胸有成竹，以氣勢取勝，而極少自我質疑，迂迴前進，直接影響胡適的述學之文。這也是我們在欣賞胡適文章之清朗、暢達的同時，對其不夠深邃、尖銳略表遺憾的緣故。胡適之講求「述學」之文，目的是打破其時十分流行的「純文學」與「雜文學」對舉的論述框架。談論晚清以降的文學進程，學界一般欣賞現代文學意識的確立，推崇所謂的「純文學」。但胡適（及其前輩章太炎）相對寬泛的文學觀，代表了近代中國學人重新溝通「文學」與「學術」的嘗試，同樣值得重視。

Compared with the style of argumentative prose used to discuss immediate political questions, the academic prose of traditional scholarship more clearly reveals Chinese academic taste in the 1910s. It was not enough to use vernacular Chinese in literary writing, but necessary to use it as a mode of academic prose to ensure the success of the vernacular movement. There were still stylistic prejudices as to what was high or low and elegant or vulgar, though this did not solve the difficulties in handing the relationship between the present and the ancient in "academic writing". In spite of flaws, Hu Shi's Zhongguo zhexueshi dogang [Outline of Chinese Philosophical History] opened a new era of vernacular academic writing. Hu Shi emphasized that "works" must be "well-wrought structures" rather than just a collection of quotations, notes or conclusions from articles. The concept of "structure" here refers to the framework while and "academic writing" indicates the nature of the contents. Stylistic harmony then stems from the well-wrought structure and clear expression. The formation of this style had much to do with Hu Shi's long-term enthusiasm for delivering lectures. A good lecturer succeeds through a well-thought-out plan and an imposing manner but seldom doubtshimself or proceeds circuitously, and this approach exerted a direct influence on Hu Shi's academic writing. This is also a reason we regret the lack of profundity and incisiveness in Hu Shi's articles while appreciating his crystal clarity and eloquence. The intention of Hu Shi's call for using the vernacular in academic writing was to break down the then-popular argument that contrasted "pure literature" with "jumble literature". In terms of literary development since the late Qing, most scholars have appreciated the formation of modern literature and particularly praise so-called "pure literature". But the relatively broad view of literature held by Hu Shi (and his predecessor Zhan Taiyan) represents an attempt to bridge literature and scholarship by modern Chinese scholars, and this attempt too should be appreciated.