這篇論文企圖闡釋一種檢閱上區域性的偏差，此偏差造成對文本─日本帝國內部的閱讀材料─全面性的影響。「法域」意指法律、行政規則等檢閱手段對某地域及其人口集團產生影響的效力範圍。殖民地時期，朝鮮在領土上隸屬於日本帝國，卻被置於與日本內地不同的檢閱標準。這樣的法律區別，導向檢閱過程中嚴密性的差異，且廣泛影響了朝鮮的殖民地知識文化。進一步言，這樣的連繫，成為在殖民地文本與「內地」文本間系統性地建立非對稱結構的背景。作為結果，此非對稱性衍生的明顯差異，在「文域」裡─特定的文學領域，亦即在各個「法域」許可的再現的可能性─被帶出。而這些現象的起因，並不僅限於法律及其適用。也就是說，日本的出版資本透過帝國而參與其中，這也應被視為產生朝鮮文本之差異性的因素之一。這些論點顯示了：只有在對國家權力與資本活動的全面檢視之下，才能適切認識殖民地的「文域」。 The paper is aiming at paraphrasing a kind of regional deviation in censorship which caused comprehensive influence on texts—reading materials inside the Japanese Empire. "Bōbyōk(法域)" means a possible sphere within which the criteria such as law rules and administrative acts applied to censorship are in force over the relevant region and its residents. During colonial era, Korea was territorially belong to Japanese Empire but was under the differential censorship criteria—unequal to Mainland Japan. This distinction of jurisdiction came to be linked to the strictness differential in censorship process, and it generally influenced the culture of colonial intellectual in Korea. By extension, this linkage became a background which established an asymmetrical structure systematically between texts of colony and those of “mainland” respectively. As a result, the apodictic distinction due to this asymmetry was brought about in "Munyōk(文域)"—a certain literary sphere, namely the limits of possibility in representation each "Bōbyōk" allowed. Meanwhile, the cause of all these phenomena was fundamentally not confined only to law and its application. That is to say, the Japanese publishing capital having worked throughout the Empire should be also regarded as one of the factors that created distinctiveness of the texts in Korea. These views bespeak that colonial "Munyōk" could be properly identified only with a comprehensive perspective into state power and capital activity.
台灣文學學報, 21, 227-250 Bulletin of Taiwanese literature, 21, 227-250