語言的回聲：語文改革運動與日治時期新文學白話文小說之關係研究

Abstract

本論文以日治時期新文學白話文小說為研究範圍，探討語言之於創作的影響，依序關照的三層次為：大環境中被期許的創作語言、作家作品中實際表現出的創作語言、以及足以撐持起小說的敘事語言。 第二章先行梳理「言文一致」在日本、中國兩地的發展過程，歸納出「言文一致」與時代的交互關係；而後將焦點轉向以日本、中國為師表的臺灣文學界，以時論點出當時做為理想的文體是「中國白話文」，並借中國近代白話書寫之經驗，闡明新文學在萌芽時期即可能存有「口頭語」與「書面語」之糾葛；再則實際分析一九二○年代新文學作家的小說語句，由單一作家不同作品的比較，拓展至作家之間的全面比較，發現特定語句句法之表現異同；最後，接續討論語句句法產生歧異的可能原因，並列述作家群的發展動向，解讀語言對創作歷程的影響。就「言文一致」的觀點而言，新文學作家使用不熟悉的中國白話文來創作實有隔閡，創作者意識到自身的創作並非「我手寫我口」；評論者亦認知到不倫不類的白話文之可能成因，遂出現以臺灣話文為書寫系統的呼聲。 第三章由鄉土文學和臺灣話文論戰切入，帶出一九三○年代新文學發展之背景，「臺灣話文」在此時被提出做為理想的書寫語言，本論文舉出「滿洲國」鄉土文藝論爭做為對照，凸顯臺灣做為日本殖民地，於論戰中發展出的獨特議題；接續觀察賴和、楊守愚的小說語句從一九二○到三○年代間發生的變化；另外針對參與鄉土�話文論戰的作家──郭秋生和朱點人的小說語句進行分析，並對照其各自的主張，檢視理論與實踐的貼合或落差。實際討論此時期的作家作品後，發現愈是彰顯臺灣話文使用的小說，所形成的敘事語言相對愈不流暢，常引起時論批評。「言文一致」在臺灣的發展不但欠缺中央力量的推動，還存在有被先行實踐的中國白話文之阻力，欲將臺灣話文落實於新文學創作中於是難上加難。 分別討論了一九二○、三○年代的新文學小說的發展背景與實際創作的句法呈現之後，第四章則以綜觀的角度，探究外在環境與作家內在思辨對創作語言的影響。第一節藉由新文學對「言文一致」的受容連結起一九二○到三○年代語文改革運動與新文學小說的關係；第二節整合作家本身認知到的創作困境以及小說語句句法之表現，推論出新文學小說敘事語言的形成方式。 過去所見和日治時期書寫語言相關的研究，多半導向兩個面向的結論，一是表述作品中的語言混雜反映出時代面目，並肯定作家多元的書寫風貌；一是以語言傾向詮釋作家的認同，彰顯其抵殖民精神。在這樣的討論之下，語言永遠是被動受選擇的。本文藉由實際分析小說文本的語句，比對創作意識的表現，並考慮小說文類的特性，發現作家們因為語言環境的殊異，所呈現出的語言樣貌不盡然都是自己能主導的，作家確實能主動選擇書寫語言，然而語言終究反身影響了思考、影響了書寫成果。

With the scope of the vernacular novels in New Literature during Japanese colonial period, this thesis explores the influence of language on literary creation. Three levels according to writing sequence are the expected literary creating language in Japanese colonial period, the literary creating language in practice, and the narrative language that can sustain a novel. In Chapter Two, the first section elucidates the development of “the accordance between vernacular and written language” in Japan and Chinese, inducing the relationship between “the accordance between vernacular and written language” and the period in history. The second section focuses on the Taiwan literary circles that followed the steps of Japan and Chinese, pointing out that according to the journal editorials, the ideal literary style was “Chinese vernacular”. Later, with the experience of the written form in Modern China, this section elucidates that there might have been a struggle between the vernacular language and the written language at the beginning of Taiwan New Literature. The third section analyzes the sentences in Taiwan New Literature writer’s novels. With the comparison between different works of a single writer and the comprehensive comparison between different writers, the third section discusses the difference and similarity of certain syntax. The latter part of this chapter discusses the possible reasons that result in the difference of the syntax in sentences, the development of writers, and the possible influence of the language on literary creation. Chapter Three begins with Taiwan Regional Literature and Vernacular Literature Debate, followed with the development of New Literature in the 1930s. During this period, “Taiwan vernacular” was seen as the ideal language of writing. In the first section, the Regional Literature Debate of “Manchukuo”(滿洲國) was presented as a contrast, which emphasizes the special issues that Taiwan, being a colony of Japan, raised in its debate. Through the analysis of the language of Lai, Ho(賴和), and Yang, Shou-Yu(楊守愚), the second section observes the development of their narratives in novels from 1920s to 1930s. The third section analyzes the language of Kuo Chiu-Sheng(郭秋生) and Chu, Tien-Jen(朱點人) with their positions in the Regional Literature and Vernacular Literature Debate, inspecting the similarity and difference between their theory and practice. After the discussion of the vernacular novels development and the syntax of literary creation in the 1920s and the 1930s in Chapter Two and Chapter Three, Chapter Four, in a comprehensive way, explores the influence of the social expectation and the writers’ inner reflection on writing language. The first section deals with the linkage between the language and literature reforms in the 1920s and 1930s and the vernacular novels through New Literature circles’ reception of “the accordance between the vernacular and the written language”. In the second section associates the writers’ awareness of the predicament in writing and the presentation in novel syntax, inferring the way the narrative language in vernacular novels is formed. Most of the present researches on the written language in Japanese colonial period lead to two kinds of conclusions: first, to assert that the intermingling of different languages reflects the generation and to affirm the multifarious writing styles of writers in this period; second, to interpret the language preference as the identity of writers, which manifests their resistance to colonization. Under these viewpoints, language is always the passive, which waits to be chosen. Through analyzing the sentences in novels, comparing the awareness of literary creation, and considering the features of novel as a genre, I assert that writers cannot fully control their language. While they can actively choose the writing language, the language nevertheless influences thinking and writing inversely.