隱蔽下的文學世代傳播：鍾肇政與葉石濤的台灣文學旗幟

鍾肇政在台灣文學運動上，除了創作的重要貢獻外，在台灣文學認同的意識更有推動與傳播上的相當的重要性。而除了鍾肇政以外另有葉石濤也是標舉台灣文學的旗幟。特別從兩人的書信往來，可以進一步的證實這說法。這些書信就是所謂的隱蔽文本。而從鍾肇政、葉石濤以下之文學世代，他們個別的對鄉土文學或者台灣文學的認同為何？恐怕是相當分歧的。除了從歷史上公開發表的文獻外，更可從隱蔽文本來進一步的建構。也可以看出上世代作家對他們的影響。而非可以簡單的二分法，認為本省籍作家包括鍾、葉都是受到美麗島事件的影響，才開始有與中國意識切割的台灣文學認同。雖說如此，實際上鍾肇政與葉石濤被次世代作家所認知的台灣文學認同，因為戒嚴獨裁統治等因素，在解讀他們在傳播媒體下的文章，以及通信，都有部分認知誤解的部分。在第四章將詳細從傳播文本中考察與解析被誤解的文字。並透過符號的還原，作者意圖的重新建構，而建構出真正的台灣文學歷史脈絡。最後在結論與相關研究作對話，討論1970年代的鄉土文學論戰，可以說是戒嚴統治下的產物，對鍾、葉可說本來就是沒有標舉鄉土文學的，次世代作家也並非都認同鄉土文學的概念。真正的論戰的原因是中國國民黨與所謂的左派作家的意識形態問題。而由於台灣作家的克制，台灣文學與中國文學的衝突或者論爭在戒嚴下被拖延了，或者說是隱蔽了。台灣文學的認同與次世代作家的接受是在美麗島事件之前就存在了。這部分跟蕭阿勤對話，結論是蕭阿勤誤讀了台灣文學的文獻了。本論文藉由隱蔽文本的研究，將傳播中符號如何被扭曲、意義被延遲給還原了，台灣文學的世代傳播問題，成為相當好的符號如何被建構與誤讀的傳播個案。

關鍵字

隱蔽文本；世代；文學傳播；台灣文學；鄉土文學；認同

並列摘要

In addition to his important contributions to the Taiwanese literary movement, Zhong Zhaozheng's awareness of Taiwanese literary identity is more important in promoting and disseminating. In addition to Zhong Zhaozheng, Ye Shitao is also the banner of Taiwanese literature. This statement can be further confirmed by the correspondence between the two in particular. These letters are so-called hidden transcript. And from the literary generation below Zhong Zhaozheng and Ye Shitao, what is their individual identification with local literature or Taiwanese literature? I'm afraid it's quite divisive. In addition to historical published documents, hidden transcript can be further constructed. The influence of writers of the previous generation on them can also be seen. Instead of a simple dichotomy, it is believed that the writers of this province, including Zhong and Ye, were influenced by the Formosa incident and began to have Taiwanese literary identity cut with Chinese consciousness. Nevertheless, in fact, Zhong Zhaozheng and Ye Shitao are recognized by the next generation of writers as Taiwanese literature, because of martial law dictatorship and other factors, there are some cognitive misunderstandings in the interpretation of their articles under the communication media, as well as in correspondence. In Chapter 4, I will examine and analyze misunderstood texts in detail from disseminated transcript. And through the restoration of symbols, the author's intention is reconstructed, and the real historical context of Taiwanese literature is constructed. Finally, in the conclusion, he made a dialogue with relevant research, and discussed the local literature controversy in the 1970s, which can be said to be a product of martial law, and Zhong and Ye were not originally marked by local literature, and the next generation of writers did not all agree with the concept of local literature. The real controversy was due to the ideological problems of the Chinese Kuomintang and the so-called leftist writers. And because of the restraint of Taiwanese writers, the conflict or controversy between Taiwanese literature and Chinese literature was delayed or hidden under martial law. The identification of Taiwanese literature and the acceptance of the next generation of writers existed before the Formosa incident. This part of the dialogue with Hsiau A-Chin concluded that Hsiau A-Chin misread the literature of Taiwanese literature. Through the study of hidden transcript, this thesis restores how symbols are distorted and meanings are delayed in communication, and the problem of generational transmission of Taiwanese literature has become a very good case of how symbols are constructed and misinterpreted.