透過布狄厄的賽局理論與相關概念如場域、慣習、資本與象徵性權力，本文試圖比較喬伊斯〈獨眼巨人〉與王禎和《玫瑰玫瑰我愛你》當中的語言遊戲，並認為，〈獨眼巨人〉呈現不同語言慣習間的衝突，而《玫瑰玫瑰我愛你》則展現場域中多樣語言並置下的狂歡面貌。首先，本論文將解釋布狄厄的相關概念如場域、慣習、資本與象徵性權力，並說明這些概念將有利於閱讀喬伊斯與王禎和作品。接著，本文從以下各方面說明〈獨眼巨人〉和《玫瑰玫瑰我愛你》的互文性：場域的形成、場域中的個人如何（被）形塑、以及場域的秩序面臨另一不同語言慣習時受到的擾動。兩文本雖然均以一個看似封閉的場域為背景，與地方社群有強烈的連結，但場域界線也在敘述者的批評下顯得脆弱與可笑：敘述者從不同角度揭露語言慣習如何建立場域，並指出建立過程中的不穩定性。另外，兩文本均可看到在地居民的語言慣習，但兩者卻有顯著差異：〈獨眼巨人〉中的在地語言慣習被提升為場域中唯一認可的語言，而《玫瑰玫瑰我愛你》中的在地語言慣習則與其他語言如國語、英語平起平坐。此外，前者的語言較具侵略性且排外，而後者則較為溫和且包容。當不同的語言慣習在同一個場域相遇，〈獨眼巨人〉爆發激烈的衝突，呈現宰制與從屬的關係；反之，在《玫瑰玫瑰我愛你》中，多種語言慣習和諧並置，呈現如布狄厄所言之對等的關係。最後，本文認為，以上所提兩文本的差異與兩作者對語言的態度相關：喬伊斯如此呈現語言，藉此提醒當愛爾蘭民族主義正達巔峰時，應小心勿形塑一拒斥外來影響的國家語言；而王禎和則對當時強力推行並邊緣化在地語言的單一語言政策提出質疑。

Drawing on Pierre Bourdieu’s game theory and relative notions of field, habitus, capital, and symbolic power, this paper attempts to compare and contrast the language games in James Joyce’s “Cyclops” and Chen-ho Wang’s Rose, Rose, I Love You. It argues that while “Cyclops” displays the confrontation of linguistic habituses, Rose, Rose demonstrates the carnivalesque juxtaposition of multiple languages in the field. This paper will first explain Bourdieu’s conceptions of field, habitus, capital, and symbolic power, and demonstrate the effectiveness of approaching Joyce’s and Wang’s works with these concepts. Next, the paper illustrates the intertextuality of “Cyclops” and Rose, Rose, I Love You by examining how the field is formed, how individuals structure and are structured in the field, and how the order of the field is disturbed by individuals with distinct linguistic habitus. It is discovered that both texts are set in an ostensibly enclosed field with a strong attachment to the local community. However, the boundary of the field appears fragile and preposterous in the narration of a critical voice. From different angles, the narrator exposes the exercise of linguistic habitus in forming the field and pinpoints the instability of such formation. Although there are linguistic habitus of the locals in both texts, they differ markedly from each other. While locals’ linguistic habitus in “Cyclops” is elevated and embraced as the only one authorized in the field, the one in Rose, Rose stands at the same level with other linguistic habituses, such as Mandarin and English. Moreover, the former tends to be aggressive and exclusive, and the latter is more moderate and inclusive. When different linguistic habituses encounter in the field, a fierce confrontation breaks out in “Cyclops,” illustrating the relation of domination and subordination. In contrast, diverse linguistic habituses are harmoniously juxtaposed in Rose, Rose, displaying the relation of homology as Bourdieu would say. The paper concludes by suggesting that the difference between the two texts comes from the two authors’ attitude toward language. Joyce’s representation of language as such serves as a warning against the expectation and formation of a national language immune to foreign tongues when Irish nationalism was at its zenith; Wang, on the other hand, questions the imposing, homogenizing language policy that marginalized local languages at his time.