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
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS