「華語語系研究」框架之於台灣文學的再商榷：從向陽台語詩集《土地的歌》出發

Reconsidering“Sinophone Studies”in Taiwan Literature: Beginning from Hiòng Iông’s Taiwanese Poetry Collection Songs of the Land

史書美架構下的「華語語系研究」（Sinophone studies）提出「在地性」以針對中國性的反思，是近年台灣文學研究重要的路徑。「華語語系研究」強調「華語語系」內存在不同的「語言」及「聲音」，試圖在「漢族中心」、「中國中心」的框架下，找尋新的研究路徑。然而，無論是戰前台灣話文或白話字文學，乃至戰後自向陽台語詩集《土地的歌》於1985年出版，陸續有各種本土語言文學運動等發展來看，「華語語系研究」之於台灣文學的討論，恐有需商榷之處。本論文以向陽《土地的歌》作為觀察的出發點，包含其語言、聲音與文字的建構，作為戰後台語文學發展的一個重點里程碑，來討論自西方漢學界發展的「華語語系」研究，其之於台灣文學的討論之適切性。本文試圖以「方言」與「漢字」問題切入，藉由台灣戰後第一部出版的全漢字台語詩創作向陽《土地的歌》為中心，探問「華語語系研究」對於台灣文學的語文發展是否存在著誤解或誤讀。本文發現，「華語語系研究」將台灣置於在地化的華語語系系譜之中，忽略了台灣在政治上曾維持中國正統地位，中國的普通話和台灣的國語地位並無二致；「國語」和「華語」的指涉，恐怕藉由漢字書寫而收束至文化上的中國。那麼，如此以「華語中心」作為視角的「華語語系研究」，其作為多語文的台灣文學之研究框架的適切性，或者需要重新商榷。

Shi Shu-mei’s construction of “Sinophone studies”, which proposes “locality” to reflect on Chineseness, has become an important approach to Taiwan literary research in recent years. “Sinophone studies” emphasizes the existence of different “languages” and “voices” within the “Sinophone”, trying to find new research paths against the construction of “Han-centrism” and “China-centrism”. However, when analyzing pre-war Taiwanese or P_h-ōe-jī literature, or the post-war emergence of Taiwanese language and literature movements, Sinophone studies’ theoretical usefulness in discussing Taiwan literature may be debatable. This paper takes Hiong Iong’s 1985 collection of Taiwanese poems Songs of the Land (土地的歌), a key milestone in the development of post-war Taiwanese literature in respect of its construction of language, sounds and use of characters, as the starting point from which to reconsider the appropriateness of “Sinophone studies”, a theory developed in the field of Western Sinology. Focusing on the issue of “dialect” and “Chinese characters” based on Hiong Iong’s Songs of the Land, the first full-Chinese-character Taiwanese poetry collection published in post-war Taiwan, this article questions whether there is a misunderstanding or misinterpretation in Sinophone studies’ concepts of language development in Taiwan literature. It is found that “Sinophone studies” places Taiwan in the localized Sinophone family tree, ignoring the fact that Taiwan once maintained a politically orthodox position as “China”. Besides, the status of Mandarin in Taiwan and China is similar, and both the terms “Guoyu” (國語) and “Huayu” (華語) may be incorporated and constricted to cultural China through the writing of Chinese characters. Therefore, the suitability of “Sinophone studies” with the perspective of “Mandarin-centrism” as a research framework for multilingual Taiwanese literature may need to be reconsidered.