Loading the Matrix: Taiwanese in Historical perspective

Loading the Matrix: Taiwanese in Historical Perspective

Ann Heylen

Introduction In 1895, Taiwan shifted from a Chinese province to a Japanese colony. This funda-mental change in ‘belonging’ gradually drew the attention to Taiwan as an entity, along with the awakening of the Taiwanese people who directed their opposition to the structural and cultural inequalities established by the Japanese colonial authorities. One of these colonial policies was linguistic centralization, mediated through formal education and literacy campaigns. Intellectual debates in the formation of the Taiwan-ese nationalist discourse in the 1920s and 1930s inspired calls for colonial reform for-mulated in the context of ‘elevating Taiwan culture’ (tíshēng Táiwān wénhuà 提升臺灣文化). Demands for educational changes not only pertained to structural and insti-tutional reform but also instigated a reflection on the inadequacy of the Chinese and Japanese languages in Taiwan in participating in the modern world that Japan prom-ised. Three language reform movements emerged: the Mandarin báihuàwén move-ment (白話文運動, the Romanized peh-ōe-jī movement (羅馬字運動) and the Written Taiwanese movement (臺灣話文運動). Each movement was driven by the search for a common language that was capable to mobilize the Taiwanese population, overcome the widespread problem of illiteracy, and make the masses receptive to change.

The article intends to provide a historical perspective on the linguistic underpin-nings of present day Taiwanese nationalism, with special reference to the discourse of Taiwanese (táiyǔ 台語, táiwānhuàwén 臺灣話文) as a language within the colonial context. What facts and forces were incipient? Who were the proponents and oppo-nents of the Written Taiwanese movement, whose interests were served, and, what was achieved? Special reference shall be made to the model of language standardiza-tion embedded in the contemporaneous nation-state driven language ideology. I shall draw on one particular theory of socio-linguistics which discusses aspects of language development in a matrix form.

Defining the Matrix In the cultural studies jargon, the term matrix fits well into the discussion of cyber culture, virtual reality and the inner psyche of the Net.1 In socio-linguistics, a matrix model refers to an aggregate of variables mutually interdependent for understanding the interrelation between language and society. Used in this context, one can discuss 1 For a discussion, see SMELIK, ANNEKE, Het lichaam ontstegen, p. 73–84.

36 Ann Heylen

the relationship between language and dialect in defining the development of a ver-nacular, popularly called a ‘dialect’ into a language. The main question is: How does a vernacular, an ‘un(der)developed language’ develop into a standard, a ‘developed lan-guage’? EINAR HAUGEN uses a matrix model to demonstrate how this transition is intimately related to the development of writing (language) and the growth of nation-alism (society).2 He shows that this process involves the selection, codification, accep-tance and elaboration of a linguistic norm. These four criteria operate on the level of the form and the function of a language in relation to the nation.

HAUGEN is but one out of the group of sociolinguists, historians and social scien-tists who have written extensively about linguistic nationalism and related issues of language conflict. What these scholars do have in common with HAUGEN is that each of them underscores paths that ‘un(der)developed languages’ must take to become adequate instruments for a modern nation. These paths trace to the rise of the nation-state, more in particular the territorial-national type of alliance since at least the end of the 18th century, when it became common good for every self-respecting nation to have a language, not just a medium of communication (a dialect or a vernacular), but a fully developed language; a single linguistic code, inspired by the directive of a Stan-dard, Official language. JAMES SCOTT in this respect observed that campaigns of lin-guistic centralization went hand in hand with the expansion of state power, linked to a huge cultural project that regarded command of the standard language as the bearer of a national civilization and prerequisite of full participation in the national culture.3

How can we apply this matrix model to Taiwanese language development? The setting of the discussion takes us to the Japanese colonial period (1895-1945), as it was during this period that we find the first concerted effort by Taiwanese intellectuals to debate, and draft proposals concurrent with models of language reform. Some of these models of standardization even challenged the orthographic tradition of the Chi-nese character script, like the Romanized peh-ōe-jī movement. How did the Taiwanese go about in their attempts? What were the social and linguistics realities they had to take into account? What motives drove them to formulate their proposals? How did the social environment enable/constrain them to do so? Why is it worth the attention and study in view of Taiwan’s postcolonial condition?

Setting the Stage It was not until the late 1920s and early 1930s when a small group of Taiwanese intel-lectuals engaged with the creation of Taiwanese as a ‘modern’ language: unification of its spoken and the written mode. Such was the ideal of language standardization at the time. In Japanese, it is known as genbunitchi (言文一致), in Chinese as yánwényīzhì (言文一致). It was also symbol of nationalism: a unified and common language was considered the vehicle for a strong nation and agent of knowledge.

2 HAUGEN, EINAR, Dialect, Language, Nation, p. 97–111. 3 SCOTT, JAMES, Seeing like a State, p. 72–73.

Loading the Matrix: Taiwanese in Historical Perspective 37

Literature studies on colonial Taiwan and the rise of nationalism have addressed the relationship between literary reform and the popularity of contemporaneous social ideologies, such as Marxism and socialism.4 We may refer here to the popularity of proletarian literature, dialect writing, and nativist literature, both in Republican China and Imperial Japan.5 To keep in mind is that Japanese and Mandarin Chinese (guóyǔ 國語) was the national language in imperial Japan and Republican China respectively and that even the most fervent advocates of dialect literature did not challenge the superiority and cultural prestige of this new national language.6 Writing dialect litera-ture was an intellectual pass-time, not to replace the national language as to cure the disease of illiteracy.

In colonial Taiwan, the official and new national language was Japanese. The Japa-nese colonial authorities did not even compare the Japanese language and script with its written Classical Chinese (wényánwén 文言文) counterpart. Japanese was simply assumed superior. The Chinese language and script was to be relocated to a secondary platform. Instrumental were the Japanese educational policies. Through formal schooling and literacy campaigns, the Taiwanese were destined to be linguistically sub-dued and culturally incorporated overtime. However, out of practical considerations, the colonial administration did not interfere too much with the local languages. Dur-ing the first to decades, local languages were incorporated in education, the media and socio-economic life. Consequently, Taiwanese, as the dominant mother tongue, re-mained the language of widespread communication in the Taiwanese colony.

As a modernizing force, Japanese educational policies were borne by a negative im-pulse – that is structural and cultural inequalities between Taiwanese and Japanese residents – but also a positive impulse. In want of a proper higher education, Taiwan-ese who could afford to do so went to the Tokyo metropolis. Around the 1920s, the rising educated elite formulated an intellectual discourse of anti-colonial nationalism, inspired by interpretations of colonialist ideology and metropolitan liberalism. One expression of the Taiwanese self-awareness was the creation of a vernacular press (Tâi-Oân Chheng-liân 臺灣青年, The Formosa 臺灣, The Taiwan Minpao 臺灣民報) as spokes forum for the socio-political reform movement (Sin-bîn-hōe 新民會). In-spired by the sweeping language reforms in the Chinese Republic, attempts were made to introduce and spread China’s new national language, Mandarin báihuàwén among the Taiwanese literate public, first in Japan, and from 1923 onwards in Taiwan.

By the late 1920s, Mandarin báihuàwén as the new Chinese literary medium in Tai-wan came under attack. Its opponents argued that Mandarin báihuàwén was not com-patible with the Taiwanese socio-linguistic reality. Similar to Japanese, Chinese lan-guage reform was as a foreign language and unable to capture the essence of Taiwan- 4 For a discussion, see FIX, DOUGLAS, Advancing on Tokyo: The New Literature Movement, 1930–

1937, p. 251–302, HSIAU, A-CHIN, Contemporary Taiwanese Cultural Nationalism and CHANG, YVONNE, Taiwanese new literature and the colonial context, p. 261–274.

5 For Republican China, see LINK, EUGENE, Mandarin Ducks and Butterflies. Popular Fiction in Early Twentieth-Century Chinese Cities and for imperial Japan, see KEENE, DONALD, Dawn to the West: Japanese Literature in the Modern Era (Fiction).

6 GUNN, EDWARD, Rewriting Chinese, Style and Innovation in Twentieth-Century Chinese Prose.

38 Ann Heylen

ese society. The first appeals for the construction of a nativist literature (xiāngtǔ wén-xué 鄉土文學) appeared in leftwing journals.7 In the literature discourse, HUANG SHI-HUI’s 黃石輝 passage “You are Taiwanese….What you speak is the Taiwanese lan-guage(s)” has become the accepted trope for the nationalist discourse on a nativist literature in the mother tongue.8

But even if these first initiatives came from the literary corner, the debate unfolded in a manner that not so much the content of the literary compositions was the issue of discussion, but the form of the language in which this nativist literature was to be writ-ten. Hence, a movement intent on creating Written Taiwanese emerged. Its propo-nents debated precisely these elements that make part of the transition from a dialect (táiwānhuà 臺灣話) to a standard language (táiwānhuàwén 臺灣話文) in the theory of language development.

Loading the Matrix In the matrix model, pertinent questions in this transition can be described as follows: how to select a norm in constructing and codifying an appropriate written character system that approximates the spoken form, able to function as an adequate vehicle for a sophisticated and ramified (elaborate) written network of information and socially acceptable to the community. The interaction between these four categories can be represented in the following graph:

Form Function Society Selection Acceptance Language Codification Elaboration

The ultimate goal was a modern language supple enough to support impression-

istic prose, expressionistic poetry, translations from world literature, grammar, linguis-tics, textbooks in natural science, terminology for plants and birds, schools and acad-emies, journalism, and a language for politics and urban civilization in a codified and standardized orthography, vocabulary, and terminology. The main achievement of the Literary Revolution was that Mandarin báihuàwén produced such a unique prose, ex-cellent modern poetry, and that its vocabulary indeed grew beyond recognition in every direction, with significant quantities of international words accepted into it or parallel ones invented.

I. Linguistic Debate Attempts towards the creation of a Written Taiwanese mirrored this process, were parallel to, but also in competition with Mandarin báihuàwén. Taiwanese was prone to considerable local diversity, not standardized, normally not written but spoken as

7 For a discussion, see FIX, DOUGLAS, Advancing on Tokyo, p. 251–302. 8 HUANG, SHIHUI, Zénme bú tíchàng xiāngtŭ wénxué, p. 9–11. Also cited in LIAO, YUWEN, Táiwān

wénzì găigé yùndòng shĭlüè xià, p. 99.


the mother tongue. The main issue in the linguistic debate concerned an agreement on the selection of the written form of the character, and appropriating this with a match-ing pronunciation. However, the duality inherent in the language complicated its stan-dardization process. Unlike Mandarin báihuàwén – based on the combination of a new literary standard (báihuàwén 白話文) with a single form of spoken Chinese adopting the Beijing pronunciation as standard – the Taiwanese (táiyǔ, táiwānhuà) dialect was still characterized by a literary regional reading pronunciation (thak-im 讀音) which was substantially different from its colloquial form (peh-ōe-im 白話音). That is to say, in traditional Chinese education in Taiwan, the Confucian canon was taught in the regional reading pronunciation (thak-im); a pupil would learn the re-quired text, recite it to the teacher, who corrected and explained the meaning in the every day colloquial (peh-ōe-im). One may illustrate this with the character representa-tion for ‘mouton’ (羊 ) in Classical Chinese, read as ‘mutton’ and interpreted as ‘cooked lamb’.9 Depending on the geographical locality, ‘cooked lamb’ could be either pronounced in the Quanzhou (泉州) or Zhangzhou (漳州) variant or Hakka (客家話). Imperial decrees, orders and court trials were equally read aloud in the reading pronunciation, and interpreted in the every day colloquial.

A. Selection of the Norm I have found that a good way to understand this particular linguistic structure of tái-wānhuà and its relation to táiwānhuàwén is to have a look at the manner in which Taiwanese was taught in the Three Character Book (Sānzìjīng 三字經) in the Pres-byterian Christian schools. An extract of the 1904 Tainan 臺南 edition of the Three Character Book illustrates what was meant by the construction of a written form of táiwānhuà10: Character Reading Colloquial 人 jîn lâng 之 chi ê, ti 初 chho· khí-thâu, chhut-sì ê sì 性 sèng sèng, sim-sèng 本 pún pún-jiân 善 siān hó 性 sèng sèng, sim-sèng 相 siong saⁿ 近 kīn kīn, kīn-óa 習 sip khì-sip, oh 相 siong saⁿ 遠 oán lī-hng, hng 9 HEYLEN, ANN, Missionary Linguistics on Taiwan. Romanizing Taiwanese: Codification and

Standardization of Dictionaries in Southern Min (1837–1923), p. 135–174. 10 EDE, GEORGE, Sam-Jū-Keng Sin-choān Pek-ōa Chù-kái, p. 1.

40 Ann Heylen

A non-literate person would not be able to understand the text if it was read in the reading form, even if adapted to the colloquial grammatical structure. Therefore, in order to convey the meaning of this passage, a colloquial interpretation was added at the bottom of the page, and read: “Tī lâng ê khí-thâu, in-ê sèng pún-jiân hó, chiū in-ê sèng tāi-khài saⁿ- kīn, aū-lâi in-ūi in-ê khì -sip chiah saⁿ- lī-hng.”11 This explanation came closest to the mother tongue, and was essential for the people to understand the meaning of the passage.

The purpose of a nativist literature in táiwānhuàwén, or for that matter the con-struction of a Written Taiwanese for the masses to understand, meant taking the col-loquial version as the new base language and select appropriate characters. In order to do so, the colloquial version, which was much longer, would have to include changes in phonology, grammar and lexicon, and that additional characters were needed to complete the sentence. Thus, consider the numerous characters to be inserted to ren-der the first couplet into full character writing: Tī 人之 khí-thâu, in-ê 性本 jiân 善: chiū in-ê 性 tāi-khài 相近, aū-lâi in-ūi in-ê khì - 習 chiah 相 lī-hng.

Even if the appropriate characters were inserted for the grammatical particles, there was still the problem of lexicon and phonology. The colloquial pronunciation made frequent use of compounds, whereas the reading pronunciation did not (i.e. lī-hng versus oán 遠). The issue did not end here. The colloquial version posed severe problems for selecting an appropriate pronunciation. Spoken Taiwanese was not uni-fied. Depending on the ancestral mainland region from which the Taiwanese hailed, they spoke either the Zhangzhou or Quanzhou variant, in some cases a mixture of both.12

B. Codification Selection of the norm was decided to be the spoken Taiwanese dialect. Tasks involved in codification (minimal variation in form of the language) drew attention to a stan-dardized pronunciation, lexicon, grammar and an appropriate phonetic system. The diversity of pronunciation was intrinsically related to the selection of the written char-acter norm and vice versa. Therefore, the debate on the character- database generated the most ink on paper. The hot-headed issue did not focus on the creation of new characters; on the contrary, the advocates became entangled over the functionality of which characters to use. Said otherwise, they engaged in a debate that addressed the adequacy of their ‘to be nativist literature’ as a common language for widespread use in Taiwan.

In 1929, YE RONGZHONG 葉榮鐘 brought up the issue for the selection of a pro-nunciation norm. He pointed out that the high diversity of spoken Taiwanese lan-guage throughout the island accounted for some severe problems in the process of 11 When people are born, their nature is good and their dispositions are similar. When they grow up,

because of the learning environment, some change for the better, but some change for the worse, and this gives rise to different actions and attitudes.

12 A discussion of Hakka is beyond the scope of this article. Also see, ANG, UI-JIN, Zhāng-Quán fāngyán zài Táiwān de rónghé, p. 84–100.


standardization.13 He not only mentioned the distinction between Hakka and Hoklo (褔老話), but also the regional variants of Zhangzhou and Quanzhou. In his opinion, different pronunciations for the same meaning were an obstacle in proceeding with a ‘common language’ (gōngtòngyǔ 共通語), whereas variations on the pronunciation equally complicated the process on defining appropriate characters.14 HUANG CHUN-QING 黃純青 suggested standardization of the pronunciation according to the Taibei 台北 usage, but not steering away too far from the Xiamen-‘koine’ 夏門.15 FUREN 負人 seconded HUANG CHUNQING that the Xiamen ‘koine’ should be made the stan-dard pronunciation.16 Reference to the Xiamen ‘koine’ as the preferred norm is signifi-cant. First, despite differences in local pronunciations, it was an acceptable compro-mise to take the Xiamen ‘koine’ which had developed into the leading regional pro-nunciation of the Southern Min vernacular (mínnányǔ 閩南語). Secondly, it was one of the arguments in the social debate, and will be further discussed below.

Most confusing were the several issues that involved the selection of the character database. The problem was threefold, and the model of Mandarin báihuàwén rather seemed to complicate than simplify the process. First, in case a character existed, it required agreement on selecting the colloquial or the reading pronunciation. There was no clear-cut dividing rule. In certain expressions the colloquial was used, in others the reading pronunciation had become common-good. HUANG SHIHUI illustrated the problem with the example of ‘a beautiful girl’, which in Mandarin báihuàwén read piāoliàng nǔzĭ (漂亮女子). In Taiwanese (táiyǔ, táiwānhuà) this could be read either as bíjîn or súi tsa-bo.17 GUO QIUSHENG 郭秋生 gave examples for the character ‘rain’ (雨). Its reading form read ú but its colloquial form read hô. GUO preferred the collo-quial pronunciation hô. However, in case a character of this kind was used in idioms and proverbs, the reading pronunciation should be taken as a standard. According to this principle the idiomatic expression ‘wind and rain’ should be read according to the reading form of ú, thus hong-ú (風雨), but the plain phrase of ‘it is raining’ should be according to the colloquial reading of hô, thus loh-hô (落雨).18 LIAN YATANG 連雅堂, who also joined the debate, argued that philological and etymological research (kăo-zhèng 考證) using the historical dictionaries should have priority.19 At the time, LIAN was compiling a Taiwanese dictionary, for which he had consulted several works of classical literature in determining the etymological origins of phrases and idioms recur-rent in spoken Taiwanese.

13 YE, RONGZHONG, Guányú luŏmăzì yùndòng (2), p. 8. 14 Ibid., p. 8. 15 HUANG, CHUNQING, Táiwānhuà găizaòlùn, p. 152–153. 16 FUREN, Táiwānhuàwén zábó, p. 13. 17 Another example was the literary reading form as sίt-hoàn with the more colloquial form chiάh-png

for ‘to eat’ (食飯). HUANG, SHIHUI, Zénme bú tíchàng xiāngtŭ wénxué, cited in LIAO, YUWEN, Táiwān wénzì găigé yùndòng shĭlüè xià, p. 100.

18 GUO, QIUSHENG, Jiànshè [táiwānhuàwén] yī tí’àn, p. 11–12. 19 LIAN, YATANG, Táiyŭ Zhĕnglĭ zhī toúxù, p. 8. It is also the preface to LIAN, YATANG, Tâi-oân gí-

tián.

42 Ann Heylen

Second, in case there was no character at hand, there was the option to either cre-ate a new one or to tap into the character-base of Mandarin báihuàwén. Because the colloquial form was not used for literary purposes, it was possible that there was no character or compound at hand, not in the rhyming dictionaries or the imperial Kàngxī 康熙 dictionary. GUO QIUSHENG was in favour of creating new characters.20 YE RONGZHONG suggested a selective lexical borrowing, and wrote:

“In choosing Chinese idioms, we must adopt a resolute attitude, this means that we must run and tread on Taiwanese ground, stand firm on the position of the Taiwanese people, identify that we are Taiwanese people, only then we can avoid the contradiction of ‘straighten a corner to kill an ox’”.21

HUANG SHIHUI urged caution with selecting a character from the Mandarin bái-huàwén character-base. He preferred using the Taiwan accent (Táiwān koǔyīn 臺灣口音) and suggested to limit Mandarin borrowings to grammatical particles.22

Third, still left was the problem of new and modern vocabulary. To illustrate his point, YE RONGZHONG gave some examples: the characters for ‘automobile’ (chū-tōng-chhia 自動車) and ‘ricksha’ (jîn-bėh-chhia 人力車) should not be changed to the Mandarin báihuàwén version of qìchē (汽車) and huángbāochē (黃包車). The Manda-rin báihuàwén construction for mother (mǔqīn 母親) in regional speech was mă (媽), in Taiwanese the equivalents were lāu-bú (老母) and a-má (阿媽).23 In so doing, YE remarked that Mandarin báihuàwén literature offered a solution for the considerable amount of synonyms for local Taiwanese expressions. The issue was further com-pounded with popular Japanese expressions for words that may not have a Taiwanese spoken and written equivalent. YE referred to examples such as ice cream (aisu kuriimu アイスクリイム) and cocoa (kokoa ココア).24

The debate on codification also pertained to standardizing a phonetic script norm, as to facilitate the selection of a proper pronunciation. Again, diversity ruled. GUO QIUSHENG showed his indignation over the fact that until present no one had thought of an appropriate phonetic system.25 In his opinion, either a romanized or a kana (カナ假名) system were appropriate, but he disagreed with HUANG SHIHUI’s suggestion to use the traditional fănqiē (反切) system, because the pronunciation of táiwānhuà was not yet unified.26 ZHENG KUNWU 鄭坤五 criticized both the kana and romanized proposals, and promoted a new phonetic script.27 FUREN disagreed with LIN KEFU 林克夫 over a romanized phonetic system according to the táiwānyīn (臺灣音 Taiwan accent), correcting LIN that the romanization system in Taiwan fol-

20 GUO, QIUSHENG, Jiànshè [táiwānhuàwén] yī tí’àn, p. 11. 21 YE, RONGZHONG, Guányú luŏmăzì yùndòng (3), p. 8. 22 HUANG, SHIHUI, Zài tán xiāngtŭ wénxué, p. 11. 23 YE, RONGZHONG, Guányú luŏmăzì yùndòng (2), p. 8. 24 Ibid., p. 8. 25 GUO, QIUSHENG, Shuō jī tiáo táiwānhuàwén de jīchŭ gōngzuò gěi dàjiā zuò cānkăo, p. 14. 26 Ibid., p. 14. and HUANG, SHIHUI, Yánwényīzhì de língxīng wèntí, p. 12–13. 27 ZHENG, KUNWU, Jiù xiāngtŭ wénxué shuō jījù, p. 13.


lowed the Xiamen ‘koine’.28 The National Phonetic Alphabet (guóyǔ zhùyīn fúhào 國語注音符號) and the Korean hangul alphabet were referred to, but not considered appropriate in the Taiwan context. 29

II. The Social Debate In the matrix model, elaboration and acceptance refer to the function, selection and codification to the form of language. Unlike codification and elaboration, selection and acceptance concern issues related to power and prestige as the affective qualities of a language. The selection of the norm had to be socially accepted, and this required an ideological package to justify the linguistic goal of standardization. Thus, if a nativ-ist literature in Taiwanese was to cure the disease of illiteracy, it had to be functional. People (literate and illiterate alike) would have to read, write and use Taiwanese with-out too many difficulties. HUANG SHIHUI wrote: “Therefore what we write should be read by our people, and not for special purposes given to read to people in far places, therefore our language closest at heart should be used.”30 In one of his replies to LIAO YUWEN, FUREN observed that he agreed with LIAO’s notion that “the ideal of tái-wānhuàwén is that it is understood when read by the Taiwanese, and at the same time also by the Chinese, so that Taiwan and China people can shake hands”. 31 Nonethe-less, FUREN added:

“But, I also wish that it were not only a language that the Taiwanese can read; the Taiwan-ese should also use it. What people speak should also be written down in the most straight-forward way, and be spared of the difficulties of translation.”32

Here, we come to the third category, namely the elaboration or ‘Ausbau’ of the lan-guage.

A. Elaboration Codification could not proceed very far without a substantial inculcation of its func-tionality (maximal variation in function) in society. The series of technical difficulties in standardizing characters and pronunciation for even some of the most straightfor-ward words and sentences soon became apparent. However, the bigger picture in-forms us that the late 1920s and early 1930s attempts at creating a written Taiwanese language took place in interaction with two other language movements. Both the model of Mandarin báihuàwén and that of Romanized peh-ōe-jī were significant sources of inspiration. The tremendous effort of literary reform in Republican China no doubt set an example that it was possible to modernize Classical Chinese and create a new and common language to perpetuate Chinese culture and civilization. Meanwhile, CAI PEIHUO 蔡培火, proponent of Romanized peh-ōe-jī added fuel to the 28 FUREN, Táiwānhuàwén zábó, p. 12. 29 Ibid., p.11–12 and HUANG, SHIHUI, Yánwényīzhì de língxīng wèntí, p. 12–13. 30 See HUANG, SHIHUI, Zài tán xiāngtŭ wénxué, p. 11. 31 FUREN, Táiwānhuàwén zábó (2), p. 18. 32 Ibid., p. 18.

44 Ann Heylen

debate on the lamentable state of the Chinese language in Taiwanese society and wide-spread degree of poor functional literacy in the Japanese language. It is against this background that from the early start, the model of language standardization in Repub-lican China assumed a crucial role.

As the debate unfolded, more voices seemed predisposed to the advantages that Mandarin báihuàwén offered for the standardization of Written Taiwanese. Yet, it created a rift among the Taiwanese language makers. The internal bickering was mainly conducted in the literary journal Nányīn (Southern Voice 南音) and divided the camp in purists versus reformers. The reformers argued that it would be more adequate to select the Mandarin báihuàwén character as base language and approxi-mate a Taiwanese pronunciation (qūhuàjiùwén 屈話就文). The model of Mandarin báihuàwén would aid in the elaboration (function) and at the same time solve the problem for dubious characters or when none was available. The purists, on the other hand argued that the pronunciation in táiwānhuà had to be taken as the standard, and on basis of its pronunciation, a character should be selected (qūwénjiùhuà 屈文就話). In their eyes, Mandarin báihuàwén was as much a foreign language as Japanese.33

During the process, the reformers obtained the support of the ones strongly in fa-vour of abandoning the Taiwanese language venture. It was simply not socially accept-able to them. Their arguments bring us to the fourth and final category within the ma-trix model: the acceptance factor.

B. Acceptance Even if the selected norm was fully capable of developing a codified system that inte-grated grammar, phonology and lexicon, combined with a maximum variation of function in its elaboration, certain cultural markers of this selected norm needed the consensus of the community in making the transition from dialect into language. Ac-cordingly, it may occur that a selected norm equipped with a fully codified system but limited functionality in the given society, be preferred on the basis of its cultural pres-tige. These cultural markers viewed the language variety in relation to its status and underlying stereotypes, or its affective qualities. How much ‘cultural prestige’ was at-tributed to táiwānhuàwén in correlation with Mandarin Chinese?

In the eyes of the Mandarin báihuàwén proponents, Taiwanese – no matter how many new or old characters were devised and tried – is and remained a dialect. Their criticism can be summarized in three points: 1) coarse and immature nature of táiwān-huà, 2) diversity of the spoken variants, 3) unintelligible for the Chinese brethren from ‘other provinces’. These observations pertained to the dialect stigma of táiwānhuà versus Mandarin báihuàwén as the standard language. Clearly, not only the attempt at standardization was attacked, its ideological grounds equally came under fire. The forums of the debate were the Japanese run newspapers and the Táiwān Xīnmínbào (臺灣新民報). In August 1931, LIAO YUWEN 廖毓文 wrote: “A locality needs a local

33 For a discussion see, HEYLEN, ANN, Language Reform Movements in Taiwan under Japanese

Colonial Rule (1914–1936), chapter 6.


literature, Taiwan consists of 5 prefectures, China of 18 different provinces, so do we also need this many different local literatures?”34

Creating a written form of Taiwanese problematized the hierarchy of Mandarin báihuàwén, and its proponents interpreted this as a frontal attack to the continuity of a unified Chinese culture, especially now that Mandarin had replaced Classical Chinese in the public and literary discourse. Therefore, proponents for a Written Taiwanese faced a dilemma. On the one hand, they had to provide solid arguments that táiwān-huà was not a dialect, and on the other hand, they had to find a means to show that the creation of a written form of Taiwanese was not trying to break away from the tradition of a unified language for the Chinese nation. The Mandarin báihuàwén camp did not accept the argument that the colonial status of Taiwan was reason enough for creating a literature and language in Taiwanese.

In retaliation, the Taiwanese language makers sought legitimacy in the historical and linguistic roots of Chinese culture: authenticity by means of folklore. The search for the remains of narrative genres of folklore became instrumental in proceeding with the attempts to standardize táiwānhuàwén (linguistic component) and uncovering traces of a Taiwanese cultural heritage while maintaining the cultural link with China (ideological component).

HUANG SHIHUI singled out folksongs and folk literature as the creator and the pil-lar of a Taiwan culture, worthy of its own literature in táiwānhuàwén.35 He valued a Taiwanese love ballad (pò˙-koa 褒歌) equal to the 300 poems in the Shījīng (Book of Poems 詩經). The rapprochement with the tradition of the Folk (Volk) was also found in the folk literature movements in Japan in the 1920s.36 Not surprisingly, this inspired progressive journals, such as the Sānliùjiŭ Xiăobào (369 Paper 三六九小報), operat-ing from Tokyo, to publish their folksong columns. Meanwhile, authentic popular literature generated a renewed interest in the language. LIAN YATANG was invited to start his own column, called Tâi-oân-ōe Káng-chō (Lectures on the Taiwan Language 臺灣話講習), in which he elaborated on the historical origins of phrases and idioms in táiwānhuà. In January 1931, when The Taiwan Minpao changed name to the Táiwān Xīnmínbào, HUANG XINGMIN 黃醒民 also set up his Folksong column. In the inau-guration statement he noted: “Popularizing the arrangement of folksongs has two goals, and under the special circumstances at present, one of these goals is the preser-vation of our ancient culture.”37 The column ran for half a year and published stories, legends and songs from all over the island.38

GUO QIUSHENG encouraged the Nanyin readership to collect folksongs from every region in Taiwan and compare the several pronunciations to deduct a standard pronunciation. In his article, GUO emphasized that the common language of the folk-

34 LIAO, YUWEN, Gĕi Huáng Shíhuī xiānshēng, xiāngtŭ wénxué zhī zài yínwèi, p. 8. 35 HUANG, SHIHUI, Zénme bú tíchàng xiāngtŭ wénxué, p. 10. 36 For a discussion, see BRANDT, KIM LISBETH, The folk-craft movement in early Showa Japan, (1925–

1945). 37 HUANG, XINGMIN, Zhĕnglĭ ‘gēyáo’ de yīge tíyì, p.18. 38 Cited in LIAO, QIZHENG, Sānshí niándài Táiwān xiāngtŭ huàwén yùndòng, p. 60.

46 Ann Heylen

songs in Taiwan was for the mere part linguistically inherent of the language spoken in Fujian 福建.39

Integrating táiwānhuàwén in the Southern Min linguistic family was to provide a new sense of belonging and maintaining the cultural link with China. It refuted the idea that táiwānhuàwén was limited to speakers within the geographical entity of Tai-wan. This argument was especially taken up by the proponents of Mandarin. In re-sponse, the Taiwanese language creators remarked that táiwānhuà was widely spoken amongst the Chinese communities in the neighbouring countries such as the Philip-pines and Singapore, as well as Southern China. FUREN in particular made the effort to list the several regions in Southern China where several thousand peoples speak the same language as ‘we Taiwanese’, and did not seem to consider ‘minor differences in pronunciation’ as a major obstacle to the potential of creating a táiwānhuàwén.40 As noted earlier, it is against this background that the debate on the standardization of the pronunciation norm favoured the Xiamen ‘koine’.

According to FUREN there was no need for an antagonism between Mandarin bái-huàwén and táiwānhuàwén:

“If táiwānhuà is half of zhōngguóhuà (中國話), there is táiwānhuàwén. If one cannot sepa-rate it from zhōngguóhuàwén (中國話文), then there is no táiwānhuàwén. The Chinese people can read it, but is it so that Taiwanese masses can read and understand zhōng-guóhuàwén? Even if táiwānhuà is a dialect of China, táiwānhuàwén still has the potential to develop into a language, with a literature in táiwānhuà; and contribute to the maturing of the Chinese national language, and transcend its ‘dialect mission’ (fāngyán de shĭmìng 方言的使命). If zhōngguóhuàwén can be read and understood by the Taiwanese masses, then the coarse and immature táiwānhuà can absorb and enrich itself with zhōngguóhuà. This is then ‘its historical responsibility’ (qí lìshĭ de rénwù 其歷史的任務).”41

FUREN further argued that the Japanese people had successfully incorporated Chi-nese characters into their writing system without loosing their Japanese cultural iden-tity.42 The Japanese Classics and the textbooks in pre-Meiji traditional education used Chinese characters (hànwén 漢文) in combination with the Japanese kana system. With the emergence of a standard language, resulting from the genbunitchi (yánwén-yīzhì) movement after Meiji, Japanese vernacular (koŭyŭwén 口語文) was used in all cultural institutions. Popular literature was now written in the contemporary Japanese style, but the majority of vocabulary in politics, education, and arts still used hànwén. Such an example of Japanese-Chinese linguistic borrowing showed that creating a tái-wānhuàwén was still compatible with zhōngguóhuàwén. In citing the words from ZHU WONONG 朱我農 “the script usually follows the changes (evolution) in the lan-guage […] when the language gradually unifies, so that the script also will unify”,

39 GUO, QIUSHENG, Jiànshè [táiwānhuàwén] yī tí’àn, p. 11. 40 FUREN, Táiwānhuàwén zábó (4), p. 11. 41 FUREN, Táiwānhuàwén zábó (3), p. 7. 42 Ibid., p. 7.


FUREN wanted to show that overtime táiwānhuàwén and zhōngguóhuàwén would gradually grow closer to one another and be unified in the long term.43

FUREN is but one example illustrating the internal bickering amongst the propo-nents for a Written Taiwanese in their attempt to render táiwānhuàwén socially ac-ceptable. The linguistic debate tied neatly in with the social debate. The functionality of the selected norm based on spoken Taiwanese challenged the traditional ideal of a unified Chinese language represented by Mandarin Chinese as the new national lan-guage in Republican China.

The Japanese Colonial Environment From the early 1930s onwards, strict controls over the import of Chinese language publications increased.44 In 1936 this policy also extended to the Japanese language periodicals published in Taiwan. For instance, the issue of Taiwan Shin Bungaku (Taiwan New Literature 臺灣新文學), intended for publication in December 1936 was prohibited from publication.45 As from April 1st the next year, the colonial au-thorities ordered that all Chinese-language sections of local periodicals be discontin-ued within two months. It marked the beginning of a comprehensive policy of Japani-zation, known as the Kōminka (皇民化) Movement and lasted until the Japanese sur-render in 1945.

Notwithstanding, the Japanese colonial impact on the development of the Chinese language in Taiwan should not be discussed in terms of absolute oppression. The an-nexation separated Taiwan from China, yet colonial rule centred on Taiwan as an en-tity within the expanding Japanese empire. Chinese culture was no longer envisioned as the pillar of East-Asian civilization. A new order, based on Japanese culture and values replaced it. This Japanese order embraced all the cultures of East Asia and cre-ated the notion of a pan-Asianism or Greater East-Asia Co-prosperity sphere. The Taiwan colony acted as a base for the geographical expansion into the Nan’yō (南洋 South Seas, Nanyang), as illustrated in the southmove policy (nanshinron 南進論).46

Tied in with these commercial interests was the development of a Japanese run en-tertainment industry, encouraging the sales of Japanese music and film, as well as Tai-wanese commodities. The music industry, in conjunction with the motion picture in-dustry promoted Taiwanese songs. It is therefore not surprising that the Taiwanese folksong collection movement was tolerated by the colonial authorities, and could develop because of its Japanese support. Its burgeoning period was between 1932 and 1938, not accidentally coinciding with the Japanese owned Columbia Records Com-pany in Taiwan. Its director, KASHINO SHŌJIRŌ 柏野正次郎, set up a section for Tai- 43 Ibid., p. 6. 44 Until 1931, Chinese publications could be read freely. This has also been seconded by WU SHOULI in

interview. When complaints were made, it was mainly about Taiwanese importing books, not the colonial administration. Interview with WU SHOULI, March 2001.

45 FIX, DOUGLAS, Taiwanese nationalism and its late colonial context, p. 181. It was issue No 10 of Vol 1.

46 I refer here to the 1915 founding of the Nan’yō Kyōkai (南洋協会) in Tokyo.

48 Ann Heylen

wanese popular songs, hiring several Taiwanese songwriters and composers.47 Accord-ing to LI LINQIU 李臨秋, one of the composers, KASHINO encouraged the production of a ‘Taiwanese flavour’ (táiwānwèi 臺灣味), not only to boast sales in Taiwan but also abroad.48 It comes to no surprise that the hired songwriters and composers in-cluded several ones who also participated in the táiwānhuàwén language debate.49 As soon as the success of Columbia Records had been noted, private Taiwanese investors set up their own record companies and contracted these songwriters. Between 1925 and 1937, publications of Taiwanese songbooks (ko-á-chheh 歌仔冊) totalled 451 dif-ferent kinds, sold at 22 bookstores throughout the island.50

Composers and songwriters joined the mid 1930s theorizing on the further devel-opment of Taiwan literature and the form of the language in which it should be writ-ten. But even if a niche had been created in which táiwānhuàwén could find a place in its own right, however, broader issues reflecting the challenges of the ‘language of literature’ and its specific nature further undercut the development for proceeding with a unified movement to speed up the process of standardization of Written Tai-wanese. These issues concerned Taiwanese acceptance of the canonization of con-cepts of modern literature and poetry either in Mandarin báihuàwén or Japanese. Within the ideological dimension of composing in táiwānhuàwén, one issue re-mained: “How much cultural prestige did a Three Character Book in Taiwanese char-acters have for their Chinese fellows in Beijing? They would not be able to properly read and fully understand it.”

Conclusion Inspired by the borrowed concept of nativist literature, Taiwanese intellectuals and writers became entangled in a debate on the language that should represent Taiwanese new literature. HUANG SHIHUI and GUO QIUSHENG’s proposals contested the supe-riority of the Japanese language and the functionality of Mandarin báihuàwén as a vehicle to solve illiteracy in society. This generated a linguistic and ideological debate between pro and cons on creating a written form of Taiwanese (táiwānhuàwén). To counter the criticism that táiwānhuà was a dialect and not worthy the same status as Mandarin báihuàwén, the ideal of folk culture established a beachhead. It enabled gathering broader support for a distinct Taiwanese entity, a new conception of social being, marked by its language as the authentic cultural legacy of Taiwan.

The arguments that were formulated and presented in this sociolinguistic matrix, nonetheless, remind us of the present day. The current debate on Taiwanese as a full-fledged language underscores the official recognition of linguistic plurality as the cur-rent socio-cultural discourse in which Taiwanese seek their place as historical subjects. 47 ZHUANG, YONGMING, Táiwān gēyáo zhuīxiăngqŭ, p. 22. 48 Ibid., p. 27. 49 Amongst them were CAI DEYIN 蔡德音, LIAO YUWEN 廖毓文, HUANG DESHI 黃德時 who was the

son of HUANG CHUNQING 黃純青, and ZHANG FUXING 張福興, also known as the first Taiwanese composer.

50 Cited in Ang, Ui-jin, Táiwān wénxué de fēnlèi yú fēnqí jiăntăo, p. 13.


The Taiwanese language is but one, yet a crucial element in defining the historical au-thenticity of the Taiwanese political and cultural entity. Current policies focus as much again on these four elements. The publication of textbooks, dictionaries, and popular journals in the local languages further the national debate on codification and elabora-tion. Similarly, the arguments pro and con are conditioned by the interrelation be-tween selection and social acceptance. Not everyone in Taiwanese society agrees to have their children learn Taiwanese at school. The common belief that Taiwanese has no written script is still prevalent. One may well say that Taiwanese still lacks the cul-tural prestige, unlike Mandarin and English, the international language. Yet the debate rages on. Multilingualism and diversity keep fuelling the claim to historical and linguis-tic authenticity. From the moment it becomes no longer fashionable and socially ac-ceptable to compete over the mother tongue in the culture repertoire, the same ideol-ogy which gives it life, has control over the Ctr + delete button.

Documents

Loading the Matrix: Taiwanese in Historical perspective