頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 國語運動與文化權力的創生--胡適與黎錦熙在1920與1930年代的討論=The National Language Movement and the Genesis of Cultural Power in Modern China: Hu Shih and Li Jinxi's Exchange in the 1920s and 1930s |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 徐兆安; | 書刊名 | 新史學 |
| 卷 期 | 35:2 2024.06[民113.06] |
| 頁 次 | 頁223-268 |
| 分類號 | 628.26 |
| 關鍵詞 | 國語運動; 五四運動; 新文化運動; 胡適; 黎錦熙; National Language Movement; May Fourth Movement; New Culture Movement; Hu Shih; Li Jinxi; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 萌芽於清末新政、成形在1910年代的「國語」，是現代中國影響力最大的新興文化領域之一。國語的「運動者」們，不但透過改造文字與語言，來重塑人們的生活世界；在構想國語應該如何推行的同時，更在定義現代國家的邊界。從這個角度來看，他們賦予自己的是有史以來最驚人，也最新穎的權力來源。 作為國語運動者的知識人，他們是如何理解、參與、運動這巨大的權力？本文以胡適與黎錦熙為中心，探討在1920至1930年代的國語運動者，如何逐漸摸索出一套理解文化權力的方式。胡適與黎錦熙不但從國語研究會時期就是該運動的重要代表，他們的運動論述也多有互相發揮、補足之處，而卻少有研究者注意。他們構想中的「運動」，有別於現有對五四運動與新文化運動的各種理解，既不是純粹的思想文藝的運動，也不是學生運動與群眾運動。國語這種運動，可說是知識人在新興的文化領域，以類似槓桿的手法，甚至接近突襲地操作國家權力，達到改變的成果。這種「運動」的觀念與實踐，展現出中國現代知識人鮮少受到重視的政治能動性。 |
| 英文摘要 | In the first two decades of the twentieth century, the “national language” emerged as one of the most robust fields of cultural production in modern China. Advocates for the national language not only reshaped everyday life in China through reforms of language but also defined the boundaries of the modern Chinese state with their ideas of reform. How did agents of the national language movement—mostly intellectuals active in the modern Chinese academy—understand and harness the enormous power involved in their project for reform? Focusing on the writings of Hu Shih and Li Jinxi, this paper traces the development of a discourse of power within the national language movement. Both Hu and Li are well-known as leaders within the movement, yet their interactions remain under-explored in the vast literature on the subject. This paper uncovers unnoticed connections between their writings, and more importantly, their unique concept of “movement,” which distinguished it other cultural movements of the time. The national language movement of Hu and Li, I argue, was neither a movement of cultural innovations nor a mass, student-led movement. Instead, they saw their movement as a series of strategic actions that enabled them to employ the power of the state for their goals of change. This alternative definition of movement underscores a new form of agency, often overlooked in scholarship on modern Chinese intellectuals. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。