本文認為「文學傳統」的建構，背後牽涉龐大的意義認定的體系，那是不同時代的意義賦予的方式，必須透過反覆使用且熟悉上手的感知模式，才能讓事物連結出意義關係；換言之，中國文學的「傳統」，是在不斷變遷的意義認定模式下，所擬塑的或是所建議的「文學認定史」。現有的所謂「抒情傳統」論述，以魏晉「歎逝感物」說為主，而成為當前詮釋中國文學的主導性說法，但是顯然較難以涵蓋先秦、兩漢已有的書寫現象，於是探索這個「傳統」更初始的部分，也許是建構整個中國文學傳統的第一步。 如同本文的探索，發現所謂「感物」說並非魏晉人的專利，而是在「感物造端」的賦詩對話行為中最基本的替代法，被班固接續上辭、賦的文體批評之後，接下來的王逸進一步由語言的替換與意象的替換來分析楚騷，而鄭玄更由替換意象的角度，大規模地箋注《詩經》，而為後來的「情—物」對應說奠立了基礎。另外，除了這個以兩類別之間的關係拉引為主的發展，在「賦」或「誦」環境中，更透過大量關於國史或世系的記憶組構，來進言上諫；換言之，我們在替換、比興這個系列的發展之中，也不應該忽略屬於「誦」這個脈絡的持續存在，以及這個類推會聚的方式，如何不同於比興對應，而透過聚合輻輳來應和更大的宇宙世界。

In this article it is understood that in the construction of a “literary tradition,” in the background, a large system of significance is implied, that is, a method for assigning significance in different periods, a correlative mode that must pass through a process of repeated use and familiarity; only then is a link able to be forged between actuality and significance. In other words, the Chinese literary “tradition” on a fundamental level lies in a mode of potentially ever-changing significance that produces a sort of malleable or suggestive “history of literary subscription.” The existing discussions on the so called “lyric tradition” take as their basis the Wei-Jin expression “lamenting the departed and reacting to external things,” which has subsequently become the dominant interpretive view for the whole of Chinese literature; however, clearly it is difficult to deploy these constructs to cover texts that already existed in the pre-Qin and Han periods, therefore in examining this “tradition” it is perhaps in these earlier periods that the very first formative steps were taken in establishing the whole of the Chinese literary tradition. As we shall explore in this article, in tracing the origins and use of the term ganwu 感物 (reacting to external things) we find that it does not originate with the people of the Wei-Jin period, but rather is the most fundamental method of substitution in the poetic dialectic mode termed ganwu zaoduan 感物造端 (reacting to external things, one broaches a topic). After Ban Gu 班固 deployed this term to criticize the genres of ci 辭 and fu 賦, Wang Yi 王逸 then took the step of focusing on the interchangeability of language and the exchangeability of imagery in his analysis of the Chuci 楚辭 and sao 騷 style, and Zheng Xuan 鄭玄 made his far reaching jianzhu 箋注 to the Shijing 詩經, which he based on an even more intense focus on the exchangeability of imagery, laying the foundation for the subsequent qing-wu 情—物 theory of correspondences. More importantly, apart from focusing on the relationship between dualities (whether between two language features or language and an object), we also find that in the discourse surrounding fu or song 誦, poetry was originally paired with music or rhythmic recitation. And while recitation is based on delivered content extemporized by musicians in order to produce greater clarity, at the same time song often appeared in the context of the emperor overseeing administrative matters in the form of remonstrations filled with allusions to state and clan history. In other words, we should not subsume song within the development of the tradition of substitution and bixing 比興 and overlook the continued role that song played, as well as the fact that this process of unfolding convergence is in no way the same as its bixing counterpart, and that by passing through a converging axis point this discourse responded to an even larger cosmological world. If we are now to look back to the ancient world and attempt to describe the original territory of the so-called “lyric tradition” or “literary tradition,” it is clear that the accumulative imagery or groups of images derived from the modes of “substitution” and “convergence” as well as the ever sought for perceptual experience and worldly associations are in fact the most important step in China’s “history of literary subscription.”