EATS, London (SOAS) 18-19 April 2004

Loading the Matrix: Taiwanese in Historical Perspective

Ann Heylen Research Unit on Taiwanese Culture and Literature Ruhr University, Bochum [email protected]

Abstract

In 1895, shifted from a Chinese province to a Japanese colony. This fundamental change in “belonging” drew the attention to Taiwan as an entity. It caused the awakening of the who directed their opposition to the structural and cultural inequalities established by the Japanese colonial authorities. One of these colonial policies was linguistic centralisation, mediated through formal education and literacy campaigns.

Intellectual debates in the formation of the Taiwanese nationalist discourse in the 1920s and 1930s inspired calls for colonial reform formulated in the context of ‘elevating Taiwan culture’. Demands for educational changes not only pertained to structural and institutional reform but also instigated a reflection on the inadequacy of the Chinese and Japanese language in Taiwan to respond to social changes. Three language reform movements emerged: the Mandarin baihuawen movement, the pe- oe-ji Romanisation movement and the Written Taiwanese movement. Each movement was driven by the search for a common language that was capable of mobilizing the Taiwanese population, overcome illiteracy, and make the masses receptive to change.

In this paper, I shall reflect on the discourse of Taiwanese (tai-gi) as a language within the colonial context. What facts and forces were incipient? Who were the proponents and opponents, whose interests were served, and, what was achieved? Special reference shall be made to the model of language standardisation embedded in the contemporaneous -state driven language ideology. Main question: how does language relate to the growth of and the development of writing, I shall draw on theories of socio-linguistics and discuss aspects of language development in a matrix form. In so doing I intend to provide a historical perspective on the linguistic underpinnings of .

Defining the Matrix

My paper is entitled “Loading the Matrix: Taiwanese in historical perspective”. Let us

1 start with a definition of matrix. Literature on cyber culture makes frequent use of cyberspace or virtual reality.1 In the same jargon, the matrix refers to the ‘inner’ or the Net, psyche, space.2 The Latin meaning of matrix is “mother-bottom” and closely related to ‘mater’, meaning ‘mother’, or ‘womb’ in Old-English. In these virtual- reality scenes, the search to the inner is often combined with ‘the return of the repressed’ theme. The attempt is to transcend the human body, travel through tunnels into the matrix and become virtual. One image that emphasises the interpretation of cyberspace as the ‘womb’ is the usage of the foetus.3 The foetus not only confirms the return into the matrix (womb), but also refers to the perfect superfluity of the womb, because it is able to survive and freed from the human body. In short, the matrix is the frame (wetware) that gives life to new experiences, but at the same time, it also has the power to terminate the survival of this new life, i.e. the virtual body. To conclude: regardless how, the freed, virtual body needs the wetware or matrix to become and to be.4

From Cultural Studies to Sociolinguistics. Another interpretation of matrix is found in socio-linguistics. I particularly draw on Einar Haugen’s discussion of the relationship between language and in defining the development of a vernacular, popularly called a ‘dialect’ into a language.5 The main question is: How does a vernacular, an ‘undeveloped language’ develop into a standard, a ‘developed language’?

Haugen uses a matrix model to demonstrate how this transition is intimately related to the development of writing and the growth of nationalism. He shows that this process involves the selection, codification, acceptance and elaboration of a linguistic norm.6 These four criteria operate on the level of the form and the function of a language in relation to the nation.

1 Cyberspace is the trendy word that William Gibson introduced in the science finction novel Neuromancer (1984). Cited in Anneke Smelik, “ Het lichaam ontstegen,” in Jan Baetens & Ginette Verstraete (red). Cultural Studies. Een inleiding. Nijmegen: Vantilt, 2002, p. 79. 2 Ibid., p. 82. 3 Ibid., p. 83. 4 Ibid.,. p. 84. 5 Einar Haugen, “Dialect, Language, Nation,” in J.B. Pride and Janet Holmes (ed). Sociolinguistics . Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd, 1972 (reprint 1982), p. 97. 6 For a discussion, see op.cit., pp. 97-111.

2 Following the rise of the nation-state (19th century nation building), 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 Standard, Official language. James Scott in this respect observed that campaigns of linguistic centralisation 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 civilisation and prerequisite of full participation in the national culture.7

Haugen is but one out of the group of sociolinguists, historians and social scientists 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 ‘underdeveloped languages’ must take to become adequate instruments for a modern nation.

This paper shall explore the path from Taiwanese as a dialect into its attempt to develop into a standard language. 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 reformers to debate and draft proposals concurrent with models of language reform (standardization, even challenging the writing tradition). 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 them to do so? What were constraining factors? Where does nationalism come in the picture, or was it merely proto-nationalism? Why is it worth the attention and study in view of Taiwan’s postcolonial condition? I shall apply Haugen’s four criteria, in so doing load the matrix, and conclude with a post structural Cultural Studies’ interpretation.

Setting the Stage

It was not until the late 1920s, early 1930s when a small group of Taiwanese writers

7 James C. Scott, Seeing like a State. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998, pp. 72-73.

3 and reformers engaged with the creation of Taiwanese as a ‘modern’ language: unification of the spoken and the written mode of the language. Such was the ideal of language standardisation at the time. It was also symbol of nationalism. A unified and common language was considered the vehicle for a strong nation and agent of knowledge.

Literature studies have addressed the relationship between literary reform and the popularity of contemporaneous social ideologies, such as Marxism and socialism. We may refer here to the rise of Japanese and Chinese proletarian literature, dialect writing, and nativist literature. Compared to Taiwan, there was one significant difference: Japanese and Mandarin was the national language in Japan and and even the most fervent advocators of dialect literature did not challenge the superiority and cultural prestige of the new national language.8 Writing dialect literature was an intellectual pass-time, not to replace the national language as to cure the disease of illiteracy.

In colonial Taiwan, the official and national language was Japanese. The Japanese colonial authorities did not even compare the Japanese language and script with its written Classical Chinese counterpart. Japanese was simply assumed superior. The and script was to be relocated to a secondary platform. Instrumental were the Japanese educational policies (formal schooling and literacy campaigns). However, spoken Taiwanese and other local languages remained the language of widespread communication in the Taiwanese colony.

As a modernizing force, Japanese educational policies were borne by a negative impulse – that is structural and cultural inequalities between Taiwanese and Japanese residents – but also a positive impulse. In want of a proper higher education, Taiwanese went to the metropolis. Around the 1920s, nationalist sentiment nurtured in Japan. One expression of a Taiwanese self-awareness was the creation of a vernacular press (Tai-Oan Chheng-lian, The Formosa, Taiwan Minpao) as spokes forum for the socio-political reform movement (Sin-bin-hoe). Inspired by the sweeping language

8 Gunn Gunn, Edward. Rewriting Chinese, Style and Innovation in Twentieth-Century Chinese Prose. Stanford University Press: Stanford, California, 1991.

4 reforms in the Chinese Republic, attempts were made to introduce and spread China’s new national language, Mandarin baihuawen among the Taiwanese literate public, first in Japan, from 1923 onwards in Taiwan.

By the late 1920s, Mandarin baihuawen as the new Chinese literary medium in Taiwan came under attack. Its opponents argued that Mandarin baihuawen was not compatible with the Taiwanese socio-linguistic reality. Similar to Japanese, Chinese language reform was as a foreign language and unable to capture the essence of Taiwanese society. The first appeals for the construction of a nativist literature were indeed in leftwing journals.9 In the literature discourse, the passage “You are Taiwanese. On your head you wear… ” has become the accepted trope for the nationalist discourse that centralises the popularity of leftist ideologies.10

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 written. Hence, we refer to a movement intent on creating Written Taiwanese. In so doing, they debated precisely these elements that make part of the transition from a dialect to a standard language in the theory of language development.

Loading the Matrix

How to render taiwanhua into taiwanhuawen? Pertinent questions are: 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 is represented in the following matrix form:

9 For a discussion, see Douglas Fix, “Advancing on Tokyo: The New Literature Movement, 1930- 1937,” in Riju shiqi taiwanshih guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji (Proceedings of the international symposium on the during Japanese rule, 1895-1945), : History Department, National Taiwan University, 1993, pp. 251-302. 10 Huang Shihui, “Zenme bu tichang xiangtu wenxue” (Why not Advocating Nativist Literature), Wurenbao (16/08/1930), pp. 9-11. Also cited in Liao Yuwen, “Taiwan wenzi gaige yundong shilue xia” (Outline of the History of Taiwan Script Reform Movements, part 2), Taipei Wenwu, no.1 (May 1955), p. 99.

5 Graph

Form Function Society Selection Acceptance Language Codification Elaboration

The ultimate goal was a modern language supple enough to support impressionistic prose, expressionistic poetry, translations from world literature, grammar, linguistics, textbooks in natural science, terminology for plants and birds, schools and academies, 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 baihuawen produced a unique prose, excellent 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. Guoyu replaced wenyanwen in the educational, literary and public sphere. I. Linguistic Debate

Attempts towards the creation of a Written Taiwanese mirrored this process, were parallel to, but also in competition with Mandarin baihuawen. In its oral mode, Taiwanese was a living language, but in its written mode, it equalled the non- innovative static text of wenyanwen. Moreover, unlike Mandarin baihuawen it was endowed a dual linguistic structure, containing a reading and a colloquial form. The linguistic debate focused on these issues.

A. Selection of the norm

I have found that a good way to understand the linguistic structure of taiwanhua and its relation to taiwanhuawen is to have a look at the manner in which Taiwanese was taught in the Three Character Book (Sanzijing) in the Presbyterian Christian schools. I have taken an extract of the 1904 edition of the Three Character

6 Book. 11 I have maintained the same layout in order to highlight the problems inherent in the construction of a written form of taiwanhua. A text was thus represented as follows:

Character Reading Colloquial Pronunciation 人 jin lang 之 chi e, ti 初 chho khi-thau, chhut-si e si 性 seng seng, sim-seng 本 pun pun-jian 善 sian ho 性 seng seng, sim-seng 相 siong sa 近 kin kim, kin-oa _ sip khi-sip, oh 相 siong sa _ oan li-hng, hng

The purpose of a nativist literature in taiwanhuawen, or for that matter the construction of a Written Taiwanese for the masses to understand, meant taking the colloquial version as the new base language and find the designated characters for it. The colloquial version would read like the added explanation: Ti lang e khi-thau in-e seng pun-jian ho, chiu in-e seng tai-khai sa-kin, au-lai in-ui in-e khi-sip chiah sa li- hng. 12

The colloquial version was much longer and additional characters had to be inserted. This was essential for the people to understand the meaning. It included changes in phonology, grammar and lexicon. A non-literate person would not be able

11 George Ede, Sam-Ju-Keng Sin-choan Pek-oa -kai (The Three Character Classic Explained in the Colloquial) Tainan Presbyterian School, 1904, reprint Taipei: Nantian, 1997.

12 When people are born, their nature is good and their dispositions are similar. When they grow up, because the learning environment and what they learn differs, some change for the better, but some change for the worse, and this gives rise to different actions and attitudes.

7 to understand the text if it was read in the reading form, even if adapted to the colloquial grammatical structure. Consider the numerous characters to be inserted to render the first couplet into full character writing: Ti人之 khi-thau , in- e性本 jian 善 : chiu in-e性 tai-khai相近 , au-lai in-ui in-e khi-_ chiah相 li- 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. li- hng versus oan_ ).

The issue did not end here. The colloquial version as such posed severe problems for selecting an appropriate norm. The oral mode of Taiwanese was far from unified. Depending on the ancestral region from which the Taiwanese hailed, they spoke either the Zhangzhou or Quanzhou koine, in some cases a mixture of both, not to mention the Hakka speakers.

B. Codification

A rudimentary layout of the tasks involved in codification (minimal variation in form of the language) drew attention to the following points:

1. Selection of a Pronunciation-norm. Ye Rongzhong in 1929 pointed out the diversity of pronunciations as one of the difficulties in creating a common language (gongtongyu).13 Huang Dunqing suggested standardization according to the Taipei usage, but approximating the Xiamen-koine.14 Furen seconded Huang Dunqing that the Xiamen accent should be made the standard pronunciation.15

13 Ye Rongzhong, “Guanyu luomazi yundong (2),” Taiwan Minpao 261, (19/05/1929) p. 8. 14 Huang Dunqing, “Taiwanhua gaizaolun” (On Reforming taiwanhua), Taiwan Shinp_ (1931) , p. 8. Also cited in Wu Shouli, Fuke fangyuan zongzhi (Synthesis of the Hoklo and Hakka ), Taipei: Wu Shouli, 1997, pp. 152-153. 15 Furen, “Taiwanhuawen zabo”, (Notes on taiwanhuawen), Nanyin 1.1.(1932) p. 13.

8 2. The Character-database. The problem was threefold: a) 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 and Guo Qiusheng gave the examples of ‘a beautiful girl’16 and ‘rain’.17 Lian Yatang suggested conducting profound scholarship (kaozheng).18

b) In case there was no character at hand, there was the option to either create a new one or to tap into the character base of Mandarin baihuawen. 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, the classical or the new Guoyu Zidian, used for learning Mandarin baihuawen. Guo Qisheng was in favour of creating characters.19 Ye Rongzhong suggested a selective lexical borrowing20 Huang Shihui urged caution with selecting a character from the Mandarin baihuawen database. He preferred ‘using the Taiwan accent’ (Taiwan kouyin) and suggested to limit Mandarin borrowings to grammatical particles.21 c) What to do with new terminology? Expressions that language and society were in constant interaction were the influence and popularity of Japanese expressions for

16 For instance, the phrase “ a beautiful girl” in Mandarin baihuawen reads piaoliang nuzi. In Taiwanese this could be read either as bíjîn or súi tsa-bo. Another example was the literary reading form as s_t-hoàn with the more colloquial form chi_h-png for “to eat”. Huang Shihui, “Zenme bu tichang xiangtu wenxue”, p. 100. 17 For example with the character for “ rain” whose reading form read ú but colloquial form read hô, then the colloquial pronunciation of hô was preferred. But 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 , but the common phrase of “raining” should be according to the colloquial reading of ho, thus loh-hô. Guo Qiusheng, “Jianshe [taiwanhuawen] yi ti’an” (A Proposal for Constructing ‘Taiwanhuawen’) Taiwan Shinbun 33, (07/07/1931), pp.11-12. 18 Yatang, “Taiyu zhengli zhi douxu” (Clues to arranging taiyu), Taiwan Minpao 288, (24/11/1929), p. 8. It is also the preface to Lian Yatang’s Taiwanese Dictionary (Tai-oan gi-tian) Taipei: Jinfeng Chubanshe, 1986 (reprint), foreword by Yao Rongsong. 19 Guo Qiusheng, “Jianshe [taiwanhuawen] yi ti’an”, p. 11. 20 “In choosing Chinese idioms, we must adopt a resolute attitude, this means that we must run and tread on Taiwan ground, stand on the position of the Taiwanese people, identify that we are Taiwanese people, only then we will not arrive at the contradiction of “straighten a corner to kill an ox” Ye Rongzhong, “Guanyu luomazi yundong (3)” (On the Movement 3) Taiwan Minpao 262 (26/05/1931), p. 8. 21 Huang Shihui, “Zai tan xiangtu wenxue” (Once More on Nativist Literature), Taiwan Shinminpo, July 1931, p. 11.

9 words that may not have a Taiwanese spoken and written equivalent. Ye Rongzhong referred to ice cream and cocoa.22 Likewise, Mandarin baihuawen literature drew the attention to the considerable amount of synonyms for local Taiwanese expressions.23

3. The Phonetic script-norm In order to facilitate the proper pronunciation –still under discussion-, it was necessary to agree on a phonetic script. Again, diversity ruled. Guo Qiusheng showed his indignation over the fact that until present no one had thought of an appropriate phonetic system.24 Both romanization and a kana system were appropriate, but he disagreed with Huang Shihui’s suggestion to use the traditional fanqie system on the basis that the pronunciation of taiwanhua had not been unified.25 Zheng Kunwu criticized both the kana and romanization, and promoted a new phonetic script.26 Furen disagreed with Lin Kefu over a romanized phonetic system according to the taiwanyin (Taiwan accent), and corrected Lin that the romanization system in Taiwan was not according to the taiwanyin, but the Xiamen accent.27 The National Phonetic Alphabet (guoyin zimu) and Korean hangul alphabet were referred to, but not envisioned as appropriate.28

The debate on the character database became the topic that generated the most ink on paper. The hotheaded 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. If a

22 Ye Rongzhong “Guanyu luomazi yundong (2)” (On the Romanization Movement 2) Taiwan Minpao 261 (19/05/1929), p. 8. 23 Ye Rongzhong “Guanyu luomazi yundong (2)”, p. 8. To illustrate his point Ye gave some examples: the characters for “automobile” (ch_-t_ng-chhia) and “ricksha” (jîn-b_h-chhia) should not be changed to the Mandarin baihuawen version of qiche and huangbaoche. The Mandarin baihuawen construction for mother (muqin) in regional speech was ma, in Taiwanese the equivalents were l_u-bú and a-má. 24 Guo Qiusheng, “Shuo ji tiao taiwanhuawen de jichu gongzuo gei dajia zuo cankao.” (Speaking about some conditions for the basic construction of taiwanhuawen for everyone to consider), Nanyin 1.1.(1931), p. 14 25 Ibid., p. 14. and Huang, Shihui. “Yanwenyizhi de lingxing wenti” (Factional Problems on the Unification of the Spoken and the Written Language), Nanyin 1.6.(1932), pp. 12-13. 26 Zheng, Kunwu. “Jiu xiangtu wenxue shuo jiju” (A Few Sentences on Nativist Literature), Nanyin 1.2. (1932), p. 13. 27 Furen, “Taiwanhuawen zabo”, (Notes on taiwanhuawen), Nanyin 1.1.(1932), p.12. 28 Cited in Furen, “Taiwanhuawen zabo (4)”, NY 1.3. (1932), pp. 12-13 and Huang, Shihui. “Yanwenyizhi de lingxing wenti”, pp. 12-13.

10 nativist 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 it without too many difficulties.29 At this stage, the social debate concerned with the functionality of the language in society comes into the picture.

II. The Social Debate

C. Elaboration

Codification could not proceed very far without a substantial inculcation of its functionality (maximal variation in function) in society. The series of technical difficulties in standardizing characters and pronunciation for even some of the most straightforward words and sentences soon became apparent. However, the bigger picture informs us that the late 1920s and early 1930s attempts at creating a written Taiwanese language took place in interaction with two other language movements. One may even argue that both the model of Mandarin baihuawen and that of Romanised pe-oe-ji 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 and civilisation. Meanwhile, proponents for a Romanised pe-oe-ji added fuel to the debate that the state of the Chinese language in Taiwan was clearly in need of updating and reform. It is against this background that from the early start, te model of language standardization in Republican China is referred to.

As the debate unfolds, more voices seem predisposed to the advantages that Mandarin baihuawen offers for the standardization of Written Taiwanese, in particular for dubious characters or when none was available. Yet, it created a rift among the

29 See Huang Shihui: “Therefore what we write should be read by our closest people, and not for special purposes be given to read to people in far places, therefore our closest language should be used.” Huang Shihui, “Zai tan xiangtu wenxue”. Also see Furen: “As for Yuwen’s “the ideal of taiwanhuawen, is that it is understood in reading by the Taiwanese, and at the same time also by the China people, so that Taiwanese and China people can shake hands.” I completely agree with this. But, I also wish that it were not only a language that the Taiwanese can read; the Taiwanese should also use it. What people speak should also be written down in the most forward way, and spare the difficulties of translation.” Furen, “Taiwanhuawen zabo (2)” (Notes on Taiwanhuwen 2), Nanyin 1.2. (1932), p. 18.

11 Taiwanese language makers. The internal bickering was mainly conducted in the literary journal Nanyin and divided the camp in purists versus reformers. The reformers argued that it would be more adequate to select the Mandarin baihuawen character as base language and approximate a Taiwanese pronunciation (quhuajiuwen). The model of Mandarin baihuawen would aid in the elaboration (function) and at the same time cure the problem of codification where in need of characters. The purists, on the other hand argued that the pronunciation in taiwanhua had to be taken as the standard, and on basis of its pronunciation, a character should be selected (quwenjiuhua). In their eyes, Mandarin baihuawen was as much a foreign language as Japanese.30

During the process, the reformers obtained the support of the ones strongly in favour of abandoning the Taiwanese language venture. It was simply not socially acceptable to them. Their arguments bring us to the fourth and final category within the matrix model: the acceptance factor.

D. Acceptance

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 identity. In that respect, they are concerned with society.

The transformation from taiwanhua into taiwanhuawen entailed not only a linguistic transformation, but also pertained a social component. It required an ideological package that could justify the linguistic goal. Said otherwise, the selection of the norm had to be socially accepted. Even if the selected norm was fully capable of developing a codified system that integrated 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

30 For a discussion see, Ann Heylen, Language Reform Movements in Taiwan under Japanese Colonial Rule (1914-1936), Ph.D. dissertation, Catholic University Leuven, Sinology, 2001, chapter 6.

12 dialect into language.31 Elements that relate to the degree of social acceptance manly concern the cultural field, one of which – and often the most pronounced- is known as ‘cultural prestige’. Accordingly, 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 prestige.32

In the eyes of the Mandarin baihuawen 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 taiwanhua, 2) diversity of the spoken variants, 3) unintelligible for the Chinese from “other provinces”. These observations pertained to the dialect stigma of taiwanhua in opposition to Mandarin baihuawen as standard language. Clearly, not only the attempt at standardisation was attacked, its ideological grounds equally came under fire. 33

Creating a written form of Taiwanese would problematize the hierarchy of Mandarin baihuawen, and proponents of Mandarin baihuawen interpreted this as a frontal attack to the continuity of a unified Chinese culture. Therefore, proponents for a Written Taiwanese faced a dilemma. On the one hand, they had to provide solid arguments that taiwanhua 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 baihuawen camp did not accept the argument that the colonial status of Taiwan was a reason for creating a literature and language in Taiwanese.

In retaliation, the Taiwanese language makers sought legitimacy in the historical and linguistic roots of the Chinese culture to prove its oral and written authenticity: folklore. The search for the remains of narrative genres of folklore became instrumental in proceeding with the attempts to standardize taiwanhuawen and

31 The Romanised pe-oe-ji movement is exemplar in this respect. 32 The Mandarin baihuawen movement is exemplar in this respect 33 In August 1931, Liao Yuwen retaliated with his opinions on the notion of nativist literature: “A locality needs a local literature, Taiwan consists of 5 prefectures, China of 18 different provinces, so do we also need this many different local literatures?” Liao Yuwen , “Gei Huang Shihui xiansheng, xiangtuwenxue zhi zai yinwei”(To Mr. Huang Shihui, Once More Appreciating Nativist Literature), Sh_wa Shinp_, (31/08/1931), p. 8. Zhu Dianren, Lai Minghong and Lin Kefu joined him in support. The forums of debate were the Japanese run newspapers and the Taiwan Shinminpao.

13 uncovering traces of a Taiwanese cultural heritage while maintaining the cultural link with China. It became the driving force in sustaining the debate on the construction of a Written Taiwanese despite the opposing voices that taiwanhua was a dialect and undercut the common cultural and historical tradition with China. Folk culture (folklore populism) was seen as the foundation of the national heritage. It provided a common cultural and historical tradition that enabled situating Taiwan in the broader context of the Chinese culture and at the same time spelling out its distinct cultural markers. Folklore as an expression of the locality of the Taiwan culture not only emphasized the social existence of its language but also its historical contingency with the past and the broader embodiment of the Chinese culture.

By equating the value of this Taiwanese love ballad (po-koa) on the same level as the 300 poems in the Shijing (Book of Poems), Huang Shihui singled out folksongs and folk literature as the creator and the supporter of a Taiwan culture, worthy of its own literature in taiwanhuawen.34 The rapprochement with the tradition of the Folk (Volk) was also found in the folk literature movements in Japan in the 1920s.35 Not surprisingly, this inspired progressive journals, such as the Sanliujiu Xiaobao (369 Paper), which operating from Tokyo, started a separate column Tai-san ta-chhiu_. Authentic popular literature generated a renewed interest in the language. Lian Yatang was invited to start his own column, called Tai-oan-oe Kang-cho (Lectures on the Taiwan Language), in which he elaborated on the historical origins of phrases and idioms in taiwanhua. In January 1931, when The Taiwan Minpao changed to the Taiwan Shinminpao, Huang Xingmin also set up his Folksong column. In the inauguration statement he noted: “Popularising the arrangement of folksongs has two goals, and under the special circumstances at present, one of these goals is the preservation of our ancient culture”.36 The column ran for half a year and published stories, legends and songs from all over the island.37

34 Huang, Shihui. “Zenme bu tichang xiangtu wenxue”, p. 10. 35 For a discussion, see Lisbeth Kim Brandt, “The folk-craft movement in early Showa Japan, (1925- 1945)” Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1996. 36 Huang Xingmin, “Zhengli ‘geyao’ de yige tiyi”, (A Proposal for Arranging “Folksongs”), Taiwan Minpao 345 (01.01.1931), p.18. 37 Contributions came from Lin Qinlang, who had been publishing folksongs in the Sanliujiu Xiaobao. Cited in Liao Qizheng, “Sanshi niandai Taiwan xiangtu huawen yundong” (The Taiwanese writing Movement of 1930s). MA thesis, Tainan: National Cheng Kung University, 1990, p. 60.

14 Guo Qiusheng suggested collecting folksongs from each region in Taiwan and compare the several pronunciations to deduct a standard pronunciation. In his treatise, Guo emphasized that the common language of the folksongs in Taiwan was for the mere part linguistically inherent of the language spoken in .38

Defining taiwanhuawen within the linguistic family of provided a new sense of belonging and maintaining the cultural link with China. It refuted the idea that taiwanhuawen was limited to Taiwan, and had the potential to develop into a language. This reveals that the debate on the approximation became a linguistic matter embedded in a larger ideological package of social acceptance. Arguments were that taiwanhua was not only spoken in Taiwan, but also in the neighbouring countries with large Chinese speaking communities such as the Philippines and , as well as Southern China.39

According to Furen there was no need for an antagonism between Mandarin baihuawen and taiwanhuawen:

If taiwanhua is half of zhongguohua, then taiwanhuan cannot depart from zhonguohuawen. In that case, the Chinese masses can read and understand taiwanhuawen, but is it so that Taiwanese can read and understand zhongguohuawen? Even if taiwanhua is a dialect of China, taiwanhuawen still has the potential to develop into a language, with a literature in taiwanhua, and can contribute to the maturing of the zhongguo national language, and transcend its ‘dialect mission’ (fangyan de ). If zhongguohuawen can be read and understood by the Taiwanese masses, then the coarse and immature taiwanhua has the potential to absorb zhongguohua to complement its content. This is then ‘its historical responsibility’ (qi lishi de renwu).40

Furen further argued that the Japanese people had successfully incorporated Chinese characters into their writing system without loosing any of their Japanese cultural

38 Guo Qiusheng, “Jianshe taiwanhuawen yi ti’an”, p.11. 39 Furen, “Taiwanhuawen zabo (4)” (Notes on Taiwanhuwen 4), NY 1.4. (1932), p. 11. Furen mentioned Quanzhou, Zhangzhou, Hainan and the islands in the Souh Seas (nanyang) where several thousand peoples speak the same as we Taiwanese. He also added Fuzhou, Xinghua, Yongding and the neigbouring regions to Fujian province. He argued that their language was very close to taiwanwese, and despite the differences, Written Taiwanese still had the values and potential to act as of a common language in this part of East-Asia. 40 Furen, “Taiwanhuawen zabo (3)” (Notes on Taiwanhuwen 3), Nanyin 1.3. (1932), p.7.

15 identity.41 This example of linguistic borrowing should be taken as an example illustrating that the creation of a taiwanhuawen should not exclude zhonghuohuawen, but that the two languages gradually would come closer and mix so that they would be unified in the long term.42

Furen is yet one example that illustrates the internal bickering amongst the proponents for a Written Taiwanese in their attempt to render taiwanhuawen socially acceptable. The division amongst the Taiwanese reflected the underlying cultural values over the choice for a language that would be suitable for the elevation of Taiwan culture in a colonial setting.

The Japanese Colonial Environment

From the early 1930s onwards, strict controls over the import of Chinese language publications increased.43 In 1936 this policy also came to extend to the Japanese language periodicals published in Taiwan. For instance, the issue of Taiwan Shin Bungaku, intended for publication in December 1936 was prohibited from publication.44 As from April 1st the next year, colonial authorities ordered that all Chinese-language sections of local periodicals be discontinued within two months. It marked the beginning of a comprehensive policy of , known as the K_minka Movement and lasted until the Japanese surrender in 1945.

Notwithstanding, the Japanese colonial impact on the development of the Chinese language in Taiwan should not only be discussed in terms of oppression. The annexation separated Taiwan from China. The implementation of colonial rule was

41 Ibid. Furen noted that the Japanese Classics and the textbooks in pre-Meiji traditional education all used Chinese characters in combination with the kana system. Even after the Meiji, although popular literature was written in the contemporary Japanese style, and the use of old Japanese in songs, in other fields such as politics, education, and arts, the major part still used hanwen. The emergence of the genbunitchi (yanwenyizhi) movement following Meiji had resulted in the establishment of a standard language. From then on, the Japanese baihuawen (kouyuwen) was used in all cultural institutions. 42 Ibid., p. 6. He cited the words of Zhu Wonong, that “the script usually follows the changes (evolution) in the language… when the language gradually unifies, so that the script also will unify”. 43 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. 44 Douglas Fix, “Taiwanese nationalism and its late colonial context.” Ph. D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1993, p. 181. It was issue No 10 of Vol 1.

16 centred on Taiwan as an entity within the expanding Japanese empire. Chinese culture was no longer envisioned as the pillar of East-Asian civilization. A new order, notably the Japanese order replaced it. This Japanese order embraced all the cultures of East Asia and created the notion of a pan-Asianism or Greater East-Asia Co-prosperity sphere. The Taiwan colony acted as a base for the geographical scope of the Nan’y_ (South Seas, Nanyang), as illustrated in the southmove policy (nanshinron).45

Tied in with the commercial interests was the development of a Japanese run entertainment industry, encouraging the sales of Japanese music and film, as well as Taiwanese products. The music industry, in conjunction with the motion picture industry promoted Taiwanese songs. It is therefore not surprising that the Taiwanese folksong collection movement was tolerated by the colonial authorities, and because of its Japanese support could develop. Its burgeoning period was between 1932 and 1938, not accidentally coinciding with the Japanese owned Columbia Records Company. Its director, Kashino Sh_jir_, set up a section for Taiwanese popular songs, hiring several Taiwanese songwriters and composers.46 According to Li Linqiu, one of the composers, Kashino encouraged the production of a “Taiwanese taste” (taiwanwei), not only to boast sales in Taiwan but also abroad.47 It comes to no surprise that the hired songwriters and composers included several ones who also participated in the taiwanhuawen language debate.48 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-ts’ai-chhe) totalled 451 different kinds, sold at 22 bookstores throughout the island.49

45 I refer here to the 1915 founding of the Nan’y_ Ky_kai in Tokyo. 46 Zuang Yongming, Taiwan geyao zhuixiangqu (Nostalgic Lyrics of Taiwanese Folksongs), Taipei: Qianwei, 1995, reprint 1996, p.22. 47 Ibid., p. 27. 48 Amongst them were Junyu, Cai Deyin, Liao Yuwen and Huang Deshi, who was the son of Huang Dunqing , and Zhang Fuxing, known as the first Taiwanese composer. 49 Cited in Ang Ui-jin, Taiwan wenxue de fenlei yu fenqi jiantao (Attempt at cataloging and dividing ). Paper presented at the "Taiwan Literature Conference", 30 Annual Commemoration of the Danshui Commercial College. Taipei,1995, p. 13.

17 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 Japanese language and the functionality of Mandarin baihuawen as a vehicle to solve illiteracy in society. Creating genuine literacy required a language suitable to Taiwan. This generated a linguistic and ideological debate between pro and cons on creating a written form of Taiwanese (taiwanhuawen). To counter the criticism that taiwanhua was a dialect and not worthy the same status as Mandarin baihuawen, 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 genuine cultural legacy of Taiwan.

Composers and songwriters joined the mid 1930s theorizing on the further development of Taiwan literature and the form of the language in which it should be written. But even if a niche had been created in which taiwanhuawen 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 Taiwanese. These issues concerned Taiwanese acceptance of the canonization of concepts of modern literature and poetry either in Mandarin baihuawen or Japanese. Within the ideological dimension of “composing in taiwanhuawen” one issue remained: “How much cultural prestige did a Three Character Book in Taiwanese characters have for their Chinese fellows in Beijing? They would not be able to read and understand it.”

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 (official language) underscores the official recognition of linguistic plurality as the current socio-cultural discourse in which Taiwanese seek their place as historical subjects. The Taiwanese language is but one, yet a crucial element in defining the historical authenticity of the Taiwanese political and cultural entity.

18 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 elaboration. Similarly, the arguments pro and con are conditioned by the interrelation between 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 cultural prestige, unlike Mandarin and even English.

So far for the socio-linguistic matrix. Loading the matrix in the cyberspace context, then, denotes the frame that may give life to a new creation, i.e. the embryo. The search for the inner (the return of the repressed) may be seen as the search for the historical and linguistic authenticity that is acceptable in the broader Chinese linguistic culture. The new creation in the virtual reality then fills in as a freed Taiwanese language. Current social discourse of multilingualism and linguistic diversity feeds it, yet at the same time has control over the Ctr + delete button. From the moment it is no longer fashionable and socially acceptable to integrate the discussion in the culture repertoire, it vanishes. The same ideology that hold the Ctr + delete button also gives it a life.

19