「言文『不』一致」的起點－重論張我軍〈新文學運動的意義〉及其時代

劉捷在1936年發表的〈臺灣文學の史的考察〉一文中，曾列舉黃呈聰〈論普及白話文的新使命〉、黃朝琴〈漢文改革論〉、蔡培火〈新臺灣の建設と羅馬字〉、張梗〈討論舊小說的改革問題〉、連溫卿〈將來之臺灣話〉、張我軍〈新文學運動的意義〉六篇文章，謂為1920年代初期台灣新文學運動相關的「導火線文章」。本論文以這六篇文章作為討論中心，嘗試論析台灣新文學運動初期，不同背景的知識分子們對於台灣新文學的主張與實際的語文改革提案，並重新定義它們在台灣新文學運動開展初期中的位置。尤其藉著張我軍的〈新文學運動的意義〉以外的五篇文章之討論，來論析張我軍在此文中提起的兩項要點：「白話文學的建設、台灣語言的改造」，究竟如何在日後的台灣新文學運動之場域中被討論、實踐，以及因此所產生在台灣新文學當中的文學、語言及文字的問題。

關鍵字

言文一致；台灣新文學運動；張我軍；新書面語；新口語

並列摘要

In the article ＂Historic Observation of Taiwan Literature＂ published in 1936, Lâu Tsiat(Liu Chieh) listed six articles: ＂New Mission of Popularizing Vernacular Literature＂ by Ng Thîng-tshong(Huang Cheng-Chung), ＂Chinese Reformatory Theory＂ by Ng Tiâu-khîm(Huang Chao-Chin), ＂The Construction of New Taiwan and Church Romanization＂ by Tshuà Puê-hué(Tsai Pei-Huo), ＂Discussing the Reform of Old Novels＂ by Tiunn Kíng(Jang Geng), ＂Taiwanese in the Future＂ by Liân Un-khing(Lian Wen- Ching), and ＂The Significance of the New Literature Movement＂ by Tiunn Ngóo-kun(- Jang Wo-Jiun). These are called ＂Fuse Articles＂ and they are related to the Taiwan New Literature Movement in the early 1920s. The six articles are at the center of discussion as the paper attempts to analyze the claims on Taiwan New Literature and actual language reform proposals by intellectuals from different backgrounds in the early phase of Taiwan New Literature Movement, and redefining their position in the early stages of the Taiwan New Literature Movement. Thus, through the discussion of five articles by Tiunn Ngóo-kun(Jang Wo-Jiun) apart from ＂The Significance of the New Literature Movement＂, I will analyze the two main points mentioned by Tiunn Ngóo-kun(Jang Wo-Jiun) in the article ＂Construction of Vernacular Literature, Transformation of Taiwanese Language＂ in order to reveal how it is later discussed and practiced in the field of the Taiwan New Literature Movement, and also highlight the issues of literature, language and writing in Taiwan New Literature.