Ending the Pinyin debate
It was from the radio news that I heard that this year's Nobel Prize in Literature went to a Chinese writer. Both the BBC and National Public Radio broadcasters pronounced his name so that it sounded very like that of Kao Hsin-chiang (高信疆), a noted newspaper editor in Taiwan who moved to Hong Kong. Only when I read the newspaper did I realize the winner's name was Gao Xingjian (高行健). One more strike against the Hanyu Pinyin (漢語拼音) system. It also demonstrates the whole debate about foreigners trying to read Chinese and international isolation are just red herrings in the debate over Tai-wan's phonetic system ("Calls grow for use of Hanyu Pinyin system," Oct. 12, p 2).
First and foremost, the system's function is to facilitate the learning of the languages used in Taiwan: Mandarin, Holo, Hakka, etc. Foreigners will learn the system if they need to. Those who worry about international isolation are being disingenuous or simply too blind to see that Taiwan has already been isolated. Not using the Hanyu system will not change that.
But, of course, despite a parade of Japanese and Americans to bolster the pro camp's case for Hanyu, the foreigners these people have in mind are the Chinese. They worry secretly that Taiwan's rejection of a Pinyin system in use in China, would mean one more nail in the coffin of their unification dream. Unfortunately for them, the Pinyin system should be the least of their concerns. After all, it is just an arbitrary, artificial system to denote sounds. Nobody questioned or complained when the Wade-Giles system was used exclusively.
If Taiwan eventually decides on a different system from the Chinese one, it shouldn't be a big deal, considering the fact that simplified and traditional writing systems have coexisted for 50 years. I haven't heard anyone suggesting Taipei's students learn both writing systems. If these people have any true understanding of the relationship between language and culture, they should be more worried about the divergence of the Chinese language on both sides of the Strait. Sharing a common Pinyin system is not going to arrest or reverse the progression.
I think part of the battle is the legacy of Taiwan's authoritarian past. In spite of Taiwan's gallant march toward democracy and plurality, there remain elements still steeped in the dictatorial belief that uniformity in appearance will internalize it and lead to uniformity in people's mind and thoughts.
The fact that we can debate the Pinyin issue openly and enthusiastically in Taiwan today is a resounding rebuttal of such belief systems, which were relentlessly and brutally applied for decades under the Chiang regime. The sooner they get used to the idea of the choice and variety a democratic society has to offer, the better. Then, there will be really no need for the government to decide. Why not let each system compete and the free market be the final judge?
Short of that, I would suggest those who base their choice on political considerations alone just relax and let linguistic experts decide what's best. That includes Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who should stay within the bound of his core competence: anti-communism and patriotism, at which he excelled and distinguished himself during his student days in Boston.
Charng-Ming Liu
Boston, Massachusetts
As I understand it, the strength of the Wade-Giles system is that it offers greater compatibility with various Chinese dialects and with Korean and Japanese. That is, if you see a word written in Wade-Giles, it will be a little easier for you to indentify it with the Romanization of some other East Asian dialect or language. The problem with greater compatibility is that it makes it more difficult to understand the rules of pronounciation.
In Wade-Giles, for instance, "ch" or "k" is "j" in Pinyin and "ch'" is represented as "q" in Pinyin. But "k" also appears in Cantonese, Taiwanese and even Korean Romanization. A good example is the word "gold" which is "kim" in Korean, "kin" in Taiwanese-Hokkien and "jin" in Pinyin. (Actually, "k" isn't strictly Wade-Giles, although people do frequently use it in Wade-Giles Romanization.)
Hanyu was developed to teach Russians how to speak Chinese. For this reason, there are some aspects that are awkward for the English speaker. Examples: "Xin" should not be pronounced "Zin," but "Shin." "Qin" should not be pronounced "Kin" but "Chin." And I feel that "Zhang" should really be pronounced as "Jhang."
Now it can be argued that English is the lingua franca of the world. So why doesn't somebody champion a Romanization that is (almost) fully compatible with English pronunciation? I don't really buy the argument that Taipei must use Hanyu in order to be an international city. Since simplified characters are used in the UN, does this mean that Taipei must use simplified characters to be international? Or could we say that New York is not an international city because it still uses the English measurement system instead of the metric system? Or maybe we should tell all cities of the world that they must use American English in order to be an international city.
Taipei should not strive to become a so-called international city. It should develop its own unique sense of culture in an age when major world cities are becoming increasingly dull and stereotyped. A tourist should come to Taipei to look at Chinese-Taiwanese art and culture rather than to see generic Western-style buildings and hear Western music.
Allen T. Chang
Berkeley, California
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
From the Iran war and nuclear weapons to tariffs and artificial intelligence, the agenda for this week’s Beijing summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is packed. Xi would almost certainly bring up Taiwan, if only to demonstrate his inflexibility on the matter. However, no one needs to meet with Xi face-to-face to understand his stance. A visit to the National Museum of China in Beijing — in particular, the “Road to Rejuvenation” exhibition, which chronicles the rise and rule of the Chinese Communist Party — might be even more revealing. Xi took the members
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on Friday used their legislative majority to push their version of a special defense budget bill to fund the purchase of US military equipment, with the combined spending capped at NT$780 billion (US$24.78 billion). The bill, which fell short of the Executive Yuan’s NT$1.25 trillion request, was passed by a 59-0 margin with 48 abstentions in the 113-seat legislature. KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), who reportedly met with TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) for a private meeting before holding a joint post-vote news conference, was said to have mobilized her
RSS