1920年代台灣新文學運動興起之際，郭沫若不但有作品被當作白話文學的範本，陸續被介紹到台灣來，其本人也與台灣作家有過面對面的接觸。1934年底，郭沫若在日本見到賴明弘時，曾對台灣文學的走向進行指導。1935年郭沫若投書《臺灣文藝》，指出增田涉〈魯迅傳〉的記載有誤，隨即引發增田涉的投稿回應，促成了台灣文壇與日本的中國研究界直接交流。爾後，因為左翼立場觸犯政治禁忌，郭沫若及其作品的介紹幾乎呈現中斷的現象，直到1987年解除戒嚴之後，終於走向全面開放的時代。本論文主要藉由文獻史料的整理與爬梳，勾畫台灣人接受郭沫若文學的過程，以及歷來推崇與貶抑兩種不同評價背後，所反映的政治環境與文化氛圍。此外，亦考察郭沫若作品在台灣刊載，以及郭沫若有關台灣文學的發言，對台灣新文學運動和創作造成的影響。藉由台灣作家對郭沫若文學及其世界文學譯作的傳播與接受，不僅可描繪出台灣與中國新文學交流的軌跡，亦可窺見日治時期的台灣曾經以日本為橋樑，與中國知名作家進行直接或間接的交流與對話，證明台灣新文學運動確實承受來自中國、日本與歐洲等地，不同文化場域與文學思潮或深或淺的薰染。

When Taiwan's Neo-Literary Movement emerged in the 1920s, the Chinese writer Guo Moruo, whose works had been regarded as a paradigm for how to write in the Bai-Hwa style (the oral Chinese language), was introduced to Taiwan. He had a direct contact with Taiwan's writers several times. At the end of 1934, when meeting the Taiwan's writer Lai Ming-Hong in Japan, Guo gave advice on the development of Taiwan literature. In 1935, Guo wrote to Taiwan Literature and Arts pointing out the mistakes in Wataru Masuda's ”Lu Xun A Biography”. Masuda's quick response to Guo's questions led to a direct communication between Taiwan's literati and Japanese scholars of Chinese Literature. Thereafter, Guo's works were suspended for his left-wing stance failed to agree with that of the ruling class. It was not until the Martial Law was lifted in 1987 that his works were allowed extensively to be published in Taiwan.The aims of the article are to sort out the historical documents to outline the course of Guo's literature dissemination and acceptance in Taiwan, as well as the political environment and cultural context at that time from both positive and negative remarks about Guo. In addition, the article also investigates Guo's influence on the Neo-Literary Movement and literary creation by examining his works published in Taiwan, as well as his comments on Taiwan literature. Through the dissemination and acceptance of Guo's literary and translated works in Taiwan's literary circle, the articl can not only picture the trajectory of exchange of the new literature between Taiwan and China, but also shows that Taiwan's writers in the Japanese colonial period employed Japan as a bridge to communicate with China's important writers in a direct or indirect way. The findings of the article support the fact that Taiwan's Neo-Literary Movement is indeed under the influence of the culture and literary thoughts from China, Japan, and Europe.