激烈的交鋒－香港戰後方言文學運動的言文關係

晚清以來，「言」與「文」的思路深刻地影響現代中國的語言和文學發展。二十年代，作為書面系統的白話文得以建立，可說代表言文一致的成功，但事實上，白話文的代表性很快受到左翼文人的挑戰，被指為脫離群眾的語言。及至四十年代末，現代中國進入另一個關鍵的歷史階段，隨著國共內戰爆發，一批左派文人在香港發動方言文學運動，繼承三十年代以來左翼文藝理論，進一步深入探討華南方言在文藝大眾化的角色，以粵語為中心，思考何謂方言文藝、方言如何書面化、方言和白話文、方言和普通話的關係等問題。把方言文學運動置於左翼文藝發展脈絡、抗戰和內戰的歷史背景，可以發現，它代表左派在二十世紀上半期以方言為武器，結合政治的合法性和現實的合理性，對已然建立的白話文發動最強烈的一次挑戰。儘管方言文學運動的左派文人都以文藝大眾化為標桿，但他們對於如何運用方言卻有不同的立場，無論在理論和創作都充滿「言」與「文」的張力。筆者根據他們的論爭分為「揉雜派」和「純粹派」。前者傾向接受白話文運動的成果，認為方言不能獨立使用，其超越政治功利的文學觀至今仍有重要價值；後者認為華南方言未嘗沒有達至言文一致的可能，而且對於廣大群眾來說，方言是最有效的表達工具，他們在粵語等廣東方言的書面化、廣東說唱文藝的創作和改良等方面不無貢獻。同時，分析符公望、黃谷柳和陳殘雲等左派作家不同體裁的作品，可知他們不同的政治取向使他們在創作動機和方言運用上也有不小差別。以符公望為代表，純粹派對廣東說唱文藝的研究和實踐頗能活現他們的眼光和熱情，而黃谷柳和陳殘雲的小說則證明言文揉雜對創造文學語體有不可取代的重要性。以「言」與「文」為視角，我們可以發現：當時左派對方言文學的想像和實驗，對今天我們思考方言書面化的問題，未嘗沒有幫助；同時，豐富多元、言文並舉的書寫方式始終是錘煉文學語體的必由之路。

關鍵字

方言文學運動；言文一致；革命文學；書面粵語

並列摘要

Starting from late Qing period, unification of spoken (yan) and written (wen) languages has been an important goal of advanced intellectuals. In 1920s, vernacular of northern population has developed into Bei HuaWen, a writing system derived from oral dialects. However, leftists challenged the writing system very soon. They claimed that May-Fourth elites produced Bei HuaWen for themselves and neglecting vocal languages of public mass. In the background of Sino-Japanese war and civil war, dialects became more and more important. In late 1940s, there was another critical stage of modern China. Leftists fled to Hong Kong and initiated Dialect Literature Movement (DLM). By inheriting theories and goal of revolutionary literature in 1930s, they explored how dialects in Southern China, mainly Cantonese, can become resources in the process of ＂popularization of arts and literature＂. Although all leftists aimed at ＂popularization of arts and literature＂, their views regarding how to use dialects are very different. According to their arguments, there are two groups in DLM: The compromised leftists regarded dialects as supplementary elements in creative works while the radical leftists advocated purely usage of dialects for sake of illiterate mass. The former reminds us there is critical boundary between literature and politics while the latter contributes their passion in exploring limit of written Cantonese and other Southern Chinese dialects. By investigating three representative writers: Fu Gong-wang, Huang Gu-liu and Chen Can-yun, we can discover that how political belief and cultural background affects their choices in spoken and written languages. It is obvious that tension between spoken and written languages is still unneglectable in late 1940s. The imagination and experience of DLM is valuable resources for us to develop written forms of dialects. On the other hand, equilibrium of both form of languages is prerequisite in producing written styles of literary works.