如果說，台灣文學及其相關研究的演變過程，乃是近百年來台灣文學歷史中最令人瞞自的脈絡之一，那麼，賴和文學及其研究，則顯然又是其中的關鍵因素。這也就是說，賴和文學及其研究，在整個台灣文學歷史轉折的關鍵上，扮演了相當重要的角色。正如同三十年代中葉王詩琅初步底定的陳述「賴和：台灣新文學之父」及其於太平洋戰爭期間後績的沿用所示，此一命題之陳述，幾乎──與日本在台文人所發動的「外地文學」，形成針鋒相對的態勢。來到戰後初期，賴和文學及其研究，又被賦予了不同的功能。例如楊逵之用來為大陸來台文人，提示日據台灣文學運動之成果。在一段角力的過程後，約莫自六十年代中期，經鄉土文學論戰前後，直到八十年代初期，「賴和：台灣文學之父」的說法，又被重新彰揚、確認。透過文學史與民族主義相關研究的初步結果，我們可以發現到如此這般的命題，所具有的民族主義活動層面之意涵。換言之，假如說族群的政治化，大致體現在黨外運動、選舉支持傾向的話；那麼，我們同樣可以從這一命題的演變過程，發現到文學論述領域裡頭的政治化。綜言之，本文的討論對象，即是以「賴和：台灣新文學之父」的形成、演變過成為主，當然也會旁及過程中的其他相對性言論。最主要的目的，則是想要初步釐清這一形成、角力、演變之過程。

　　If the changing process of the Taiwanese literature and its research is one of the most prominent processes, then the works of Lai Ho and its researches will no doubt play a key role in this process. That is to say, the works of Lai Ho and its researches play a rather important role in the turning point of the whole process of the history of Taiwanese literature. Like the messages showed in the statement "Lai Ho: the Father of Taiwanese Modern Literature" which elementarily put forward by Wang Shi-Lang in the middle of 1930s and continued to be used in the Pacific-war period, and which were almost opposing to another statement "Colonial Literature" pronounced by the Japanese literary critics and writers living in Taiwan. When it came to the early period of post-world war 11, another efficacy was granted to the works of Lai Ho and its researches, such as the using of Yang Qui who pointed out the achievement of Japanese-ruling Taiwanese literature movement to the Mainlanders of literary circle now living in Taiwan. After some argument and dispute, from the middle of 1960s via Nativist literary debate to the early 1980s around, the statement "Lai Ho: the Father of Taiwanese Modern Literature" was pronounced and recognized again. With the aid of elementary results of literary history and nationalism issue research, we might find that such a statement would surely possess or provide its meaning very close to the nationalist movement. From the other point of view, if we were to say that the ethnical politicizing approximately revealed in the field of anti-KMT movement or supporting inclination of election, then the changing process of this statement will similarly show the same politicizing in the literary discourse. In brief, the main discussion of this paper is to focus on the formation and changing process of the statement "Lai Ho: the Father of Taiwanese Modern Literature", by the way, the relative or opposite voices will surely involved. Nevertheless, the attempt to clear the outline of its formation, conflict and change is our first concern.