林玉体Lin, Yu-Tee徐郁荃Hsu, Yu-Chuan2025-12-092025-08-122025https://etds.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/thesis/detail/060c5fbcbf9f7f057210cd22fbd3c6e7/http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/handle/20.500.12235/124576語言不僅是溝通工具，也是權力、文化與認同的載體。台灣經歷日本殖民統治與中華民國「接收」兩個連續性的政權轉換，這兩個時期的統治者皆以語言政策作為治理的重要手段。本文是比較台灣總督府政權殖民下的語言政策，以及解嚴前中國國民黨政權推動的語言政策，看這兩個政權如何以語言政策作為殖民或者是統治的工具，並對台灣社會產生影響，最後比較兩個政權相同與相異之處。全文共分為五章，第一章是緒論；第二章是台灣總督府政權的國語運動；第三章是國民黨政權的國語運動；第四章是針對兩個統治政權的「國語」運動比較其同與異；第五章是結論。從比較中發現到這兩個政權在進行「國語運動」的相同之處有以下：林茂生的博士論文的觀點可以通用、使台灣人產生對國家政權的認同、有較寬鬆的時間、在「國語運動」中語言不是溝通的工具。相異之處有以下：台灣人對兩種語言推行的態度相異、兩個政權對於方言限制徐相異、兩個政權對於「國語教育」相比，戒嚴時期的中國國民黨政權比較「嚴厲」。從比較中也看到語言政策的殖民性與連續性，從台灣總督府到國民黨政府，雖然推行的官方語言不同，但兩個政權皆以語言作為統治策略的核心。無論是日語或中國語（北京話），藉由官方語言壓制地方語言，重塑被統治者的文化認同，以達成社會控制的目的。語言政策的歷史提醒我們，語言本身是中立的，卻隨著政治權力運作、使其變得不中立。Language functions not merely as a medium of communication but also as a vehicle for the exercise of power, the transmission of culture, and the construction of identity. Taiwan has undergone two successive regime transitions: Japanese colonial rule (1895–1945) and the subsequent governance of the Republic of China under the Kuomintang (KMT). In both periods, the ruling authorities employed language policy as a key instrument of governance. This study compares the language policies of the Taiwan Governor-General’s Office during Japanese colonial rule and the"National Language" movement promoted by the KMT government before the lifting of martial law, examining how each regime used language policy as a means of colonization or political control, and assessing their impacts on Taiwanese society, followed by an analysis of similarities and differences between the two regimes. The study is organized into five chapters: Chapter 1 introduces the research; Chapter 2 examines the "National Language" campaign under the Taiwan Governor-General's Office; Chapter 3 explores the"National Language" campaign under the KMT government; Chapter 4 compares the similarities and differences between the two; and Chapter 5 presents the conclusion. The comparative analysis reveals the following similarities: the applicability of interpretive insights from Mo-Sei Lin's doctoral dissertation; the use of language policy to cultivate identification with the state; the relatively flexible timeframes for policy implementation; and the framing of language in the "National Language" campaigns as more than a mere communicative tool. Differences include: divergent public attitudes toward the respective language campaigns; varying degrees of restrictions on local dialects; and, in terms of"National Language" education, the greater severity of policy enforcement under the KMT during the martial law period. The findings highlight both the colonial nature and the continuity of language policies. From the Taiwan Governor-General's Office to the KMT government, although the designated official language shifted from Japanese to Mandarin (Beijing dialect), both regimes made language policy a core governance strategy—suppressing local languages, reshaping the cultural identity of the governed, and consolidating political authority through linguistic unification. The historical trajectory of these policies underscores that while language may be inherently neutral, it loses this neutrality when shaped and deployed by political power.皇民化黨化教育國語運動Kominka PeriodPartification of EducationNational Language Movement學術論文