近几年学术界围绕“振聋发聩 (目贵 )”一词展开了一场争论。有人认为这个成语“组词没有客观依据”,因而是错误的 ,在规范性和理据性上都是站不住脚的。要再使用就应将“聩”改为“目贵”。为澄清这种用所谓“客观依据”来检验一切语词“意义理据”的错误观点 ,本文对“振聋发聩 (目贵 )”一语的版本依据、意义理据、源头流变等进行了辨析考证 ,认为这不过是一种修辞上的夸张性的比喻说法 ,应重视文学修辞语言与科学逻辑语言的区别 ,对“振聋发聩”的版本依据和意义理据不应再有怀疑 ,对它的规范地位不应再有动摇 In recent years, there has been a debate among academics about the term “enlightened.” Some people think that this idiom “group of words does not have an objective basis” and therefore is wrong, norms and motivation are untenable. To re-use it should be “聩” changed to “head expensive.” In order to clarify this erroneous view that all the words “meaning motivation” are tested by so-called “objective evidence”, this dissertation analyzes the version basis, meaning motivation and origin of the phrase “ This is but a metaphor of rhetorical exaggeration. It should pay attention to the difference between literary rhetoric language and scientific logic language. There should be no doubt about the version basis and meaning of ”enlightening," and its normative status should not be repeated Shaken