國家認同議題是近年來在台灣高度爭論的問題之一,然而學術界的討論通常以一種較為抽象或巨觀的論點來進行。本文試圖遠離這種取徑,改以一種較為微觀的方式,論證在語彙使用而非論述的層次就有某種認同的作用力存在。由此筆者以三個角度檢視在台灣相關議題出現的國家認同語彙。首先筆者觀察五種文本裡國家認同語彙的變化,認為政治、媒體、學術等公共領域的發言者具有相對優勢位置。反映在與國家認同及統獨議題相關的民調上,「維持現狀」此一語彙就突顯出經由這個框架所形成的客觀化標準。然而,一般民眾並不是照單全收這些論述和定義,他們會以各自的觀點去使用相關認同語彙,進而肯認或顛覆它。本文試圖指出兩點:第一,在國家認同相關論述之下的語彙層次就有象徵鬥爭以陣地戰的形式出現;第二,而這些語彙的傳散和變遷絕非意見領袖便可掌握或達成,某種程度上須來自民眾及整個社會的肯認。
National identity is one of highly-disputed issues in Taiwan in recent years, but it was usually discussed in an abstract or macro scope. My research is an effort trying to escape this kind of approach and use a micro way to demonstrate that it’s not only the level of discourses but the use of vocabulary has something to do with national identity. From the viewpoint I look a set of vocabulary concerning national identity in Taiwan’s relative discussions in three angles. First I observe changes of these words in five kinds of contexts and consider voicers in public spheres such like politicians, media and academic researchers occupy a relatively advantageous position. This reflects on surveys concerning national identity and unification-independence issue, where an often-used Chinese term “maintaining the status-quo” becomes objective via their framing. Yet the mass doesn’t accept all of these discourses and definitions, individuals use these relative terms in their own viewpoints and thus recognize them or convert them. I try to point out that first, there are symbolic conflicts in the form of “war of position” happening in the level of vocabulary beneath the level of discourses concerning national identity. Second, diffusions and changes of vocabulary are not really led by opinion leaders unidirectionally, in some extent they still need recognition from the populace and the whole society.