文學革命以來，胡適（1891－1962）首倡「自然音節」，強調擺脫聲音拘束，重視意義上的分節，引發了1920年以後一場聲音與意義的拉鋸戰。所謂「音節」，主要是指句裡的「節奏」，也就是詩句裡的「頓挫段落」，漢字單音獨體，因此討論焦點就在於詩行中的幾字一節，究竟是為了意義或是為了音調，這可以說是建立現代漢詩的過程中最為重要的問題。尤其，文學革命之後的二、三十年間，新詩音韻問題擴大到對整個「漢詩」或「中國詩」的反省，著重討論「『中國詩』的節奏」或是漢字所構成的詩文「節奏」這樣的本質問題。本文因此特別以一般新詩論者較少注意的唐鉞（1891－1987）、胡樸安（1878－1947）、陳世驤（1912－1971）三人為主，呈現文學革命以來，激發於現代新詩卻又不背離中國詩（或漢詩）的「音節」論述。唐鉞在試圖擺脫「顯著」的音韻－體制性的四聲押韻這背景下，轉進了「隱微的音韻」，無意間竟觸及最根本的語音構義問題，而我們發現胡樸安早已系統地探問漢字本身如何由模仿外物音進而可以透過聲音象徵情態，乃至於聯字造詞，而形成具有意義的語音分節。然而，這語音表意的說法，只是第一個轉折，早在任叔永（1886－1961）、聞一多（1899－1946）就提及的生理節奏，往後不約而同地超越口腔舌齒的發音，進一步如陳世驤也超越字詞意義的分節，而在語言的「聲音」與「意義」之外，提示了另一個轉折，溯及一個「本質性」的情意姿態，彷彿會覺醒般引逗著全肢體的動盪節奏。而正是這一路由「隱微的音韻」到「語音構義」，又轉進「示意姿態」的新向度，明顯相對於當時以語言、文字為「工具」的說法，而嘗試構築出漢語詩學的「音節」本體論。

During the early-nineteenth-century literary revolution in China, Hu Shi 胡適 (1891-1962) advocated the concept of natural cadence, in which the emphasis is placed on sound liberation and meaning segmentation. This concept gave rise to a tug-of-war between sound and meaning. Briefly, cadence means the rhythm or the cadenced section of a poetic sentence. As Chinese characters are monosyllabic and independently-formed units, the contention was primarily about whether poetic phrasing was for meaning or for intonation. This was arguably the crucial issue in the development of modern Han poetry. In the twenty to thirty years following the literary revolution, this debate was not only applied to modern Han poetry, but was also extended to re-evaluate ”Chinese poetry” or ”Han poetry” in general.In this study, the theories of three lesser-known Chinese scholars-Tang Yue 唐鉞 (1891-1987), Hu Pu-an 胡樸安 (1878-1947), and Chen Shih-hsiang 陳世驤 (1912-1971)-are discussed for the purpose of presenting their new discourse of ”poetic articulation” which, while based on the poetics of classical Chinese poems, was inspired by modern Han poetry. Tang Yue attempted to break away from ”primary” rhyming, transforming the set rhyming four tones into ”subtle rhyming.” Through these efforts, he unintentionally touched the most fundamental issue of what Hu Pu-an called ”construction of meaning through sound.” We can see that Hu conducted a systematic exploration of how Chinese characters symbolize feelings through an imitation of animal sound, and how characters are combined into phrases and developed into meaningful articulation. However, this theory of conveying meaning through phonological sound is just the first turn. This bodily rhythm in poetry had been mentioned as early as Ren Shu-yung 任叔永 (1886-1961) and Wen Yi-duo 聞一多 (1899-1946). They both agreed that meaning is beyond the working of vocal organs. Taking it one step further, Chen Shih-hsiang went past segmentation of language meaning, presenting another turn which is beyond the traditional idea of ”sound” and ”meaning.” Tracing back to an ”innate” affective gesture, a mobile rhythm awakens and lures the whole body to dance. This is a journey from ”subtle rhyming” to ”construction of meaning through sound,” and then to a new dimension of ”affective gestures.” Apparently contradictory to the idea of language as a ”tool” at the period, this sequence of ideas presents an endeavor of constructing the ontology of ”cadenced articulation” in Han poetics.