本文選題：“萬寶山事件”　切入點(diǎn)：認(rèn)同性　出處：《延邊大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：“萬寶山事件”發(fā)生于1931年,宣告日本的對(duì)華侵略擴(kuò)張全面拉開序幕。這一事件由于牽扯到中國人、日本人、韓國人,事件發(fā)生后成為中國、日本、韓國的作家們多部小說的素材。如李輝英的《萬寶山》、伊藤永之介的《萬寶山》、安壽吉的《水稻》、李泰俊的《農(nóng)軍》等。 這些作品同樣以“萬寶山事件”為素材,卻由于作者對(duì)事件的認(rèn)識(shí)與理解不同,對(duì)事件的描述也存在不少相異點(diǎn)。歸根結(jié)底,是作者的認(rèn)同性決定了作者看待事件的立場(chǎng)。因此,從歷史事件與文學(xué)作品的互文性入手,比較上述作品能夠闡明在日帝殖民統(tǒng)治這一特定環(huán)境下中韓日作家對(duì)民族、國家、階級(jí)等方面的認(rèn)同性問題。 但是就先行研究成果而言,對(duì)上述個(gè)別作品的研究已經(jīng)取得不少成果,將上述作品置于同一地平線上加以比較的研究成果卻不多。 本文以上述中韓日作家以“萬寶山事件”為素材的作品為研究對(duì)象,著重考察文學(xué)作品與事件的異同點(diǎn),從而闡明作家的階級(jí)認(rèn)同性、民族認(rèn)同性、國家認(rèn)同性對(duì)作家們認(rèn)識(shí)和處理歷史事件的視角和立場(chǎng)造成的影響。 基于上述研究目的,本論文將從以下三個(gè)部分展開論述。 首先,根據(jù)相關(guān)的歷史資料和研究成果,盡力還原“萬寶山事件”‘的真相。這是本論文的前提。因?yàn)?只有盡可能客觀充實(shí)地還原歷史事件的真相,才能查明不同的作家對(duì)事件的認(rèn)識(shí)以及在作品中的處理。 第二,對(duì)“萬寶山事件”在中韓日三國小說中的藝術(shù)形象化進(jìn)行探討和對(duì)比,闡明不同身份的作家對(duì)同一歷史事件的不同處理。 第三,從歷史與文學(xué)的互文性入手,闡明階級(jí)身份、民族身份、國家身份對(duì)作家認(rèn)識(shí)和解釋歷史事件的過程中引發(fā)的影響。 概而言之,中國作家李輝英的《萬寶山》是作者立足于階級(jí)身份對(duì)“萬寶山事件”的解釋,而日本無產(chǎn)階級(jí)作家伊藤永之介立足于階級(jí)立場(chǎng),但是其作為日本人的國家認(rèn)同性也影響到其對(duì)“萬寶山事件”的解釋。而韓國作家安壽吉和李泰俊,則基本立足于民族立場(chǎng),解釋“萬寶山事件”。但是由于兩位作者對(duì)民族矛盾的視角不同,兩者解讀事件的視角也存在相異點(diǎn)。
[Abstract]:The "Mount Marlborg incident", which occurred in 1931, declared that Japan's invasion and expansion of China began in full swing. This incident involved the Chinese, the Japanese, the Korean, and after the incident it became China, Japan, Korean writers have many novel materials, such as Li Huiying's Mount Marlboro, Ito Yong-suke 's Marlboro Mountain, an Shouji's Rice, Li Taijun's Agricultural Army, and so on. These works are also based on the "Mount Marlborg incident," but due to the author's different understanding and understanding of the event, there are many differences in the description of the event. It is the identity of the author that determines the author's position on the matter. Therefore, from the perspective of the intertextuality of historical events and literary works, the comparison of the above works can illustrate the relationship between Chinese, Korean and Japanese writers against the nation and country under the specific environment of the colonial rule of the Japanese Emperor. The problem of class identity. However, as far as the first research results are concerned, a lot of achievements have been made in the study of the above mentioned individual works, and the results of comparing the above works on the same horizon are few. This paper focuses on the similarities and differences between literary works and events in order to clarify the class identity and national identity of the writers, taking the above-mentioned works of the Chinese, Korean and Japanese writers as the research objects, which are based on the "Marlboro incident", and focuses on the similarities and differences between the literary works and the events. The influence of national identity on the perspective and position of writers to understand and deal with historical events. For the above purpose, this paper will be discussed from the following three parts. First of all, according to the relevant historical data and research results, try to restore the truth of the "Mount Marlborg incident". This is the premise of this paper. In order to find out the different writers' understanding of events and how they are handled in their works. Secondly, it discusses and compares the artistic visualization of Marlboro Mountain incident in the novels of China, Korea and Japan, and clarifies the different handling of the same historical events by writers of different identities. Thirdly, starting with the intertextuality of history and literature, this paper clarifies the influence of class identity, national identity and national identity on the writers' understanding and interpretation of historical events. To sum up, Chinese writer Li Huiying's Marlboro Mountain is the author's interpretation of the "Marlboro incident" based on his class identity, while Japanese proletarian writer Ito Yutsuke is based on the class position. However, his national identity as a Japanese also affected his interpretation of the "Marlborough incident." Korean writers Anshouji and Lee Tae-joon, on the other hand, were basically based on their national position. But because the two authors have different perspectives on the ethnic contradictions, there are also differences in the interpretation of the incident between the two authors.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：延邊大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：I106.4-03

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 李弘慧;萬寶山事件與《萬寶山》[J];東北師大學(xué)報(bào);1995年01期

2 孫茂生;;略論萬寶山事件[J];遼寧大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);1990年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：1652792