Japanese Models, Chinese Culture and the Dilemma of Taiwanese Language Reform 3447065575, 9783447065573

Citation preview

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

studia formosiana Edited by the Research Unit on Taiwanese Culture and Literature, Ruhr University Bochum General Editor: Henning Klöter Volume 7

2012 Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Ann Heylen

Japanese Models, Chinese Culture and the Dilemma of Taiwanese Language Reform

2012 Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

For further information about our publishing program consult our website http://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de © Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2012 This work, including all of its parts, is protected by copyright. Any use beyond the limits of copyright law without the permission of the publisher is forbidden and subject to penalty. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. Printed on permanent/durable paper. Printing and binding: Hubert & Co., Göttingen Printed in Germany ISSN 1612-572X ISBN 978-3-447-06557-3 e-ISBN PDF 978-3-447-19097-8

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Contents Introduction .........................................................................................................................

7

Chapter 1: Taiwan’s Historico-Linguistic Setting Introduction .................................................................................................................... Patterns of Migration and Development ................................................................... Organization of Qing Culture ..................................................................................... The Chinese Settlers and their Languages ................................................................. Poetry Societies and the Emergence of a Taiwanese Elite ...................................... The Making of a Province............................................................................................. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................

11 12 13 16 21 23 26

Chapter 2: The Japanese Regime Introduction..................................................................................................................... The Meiji Restoration and Expansionism .................................................................. The Annexation to Colonial Modernity...................................................................... Policies of Japanese Linguistic Colonialism ............................................................... Early Japanese-Chinese Language Accommodation in Education......................... The Asset of Chinese Literacy...................................................................................... The Janus-Face of Assimilation.................................................................................... Conclusion .......................................................................................................................

27 27 29 33 37 44 48 51

Chapter 3: The Romanized Taiwanese Movement Introduction..................................................................................................................... Introducing Cai Peihuo.................................................................................................. Cai Peihuo’s Education and Activism in Tokyo........................................................ Cai Peihuo’s Vision of Assimilation ............................................................................ Systems of Culture and Language ................................................................................ The Model of the Orthographic Innovation.............................................................. Generating Support for Romanized Taiwanese......................................................... The Model in Society: Limited Chances for Social Acceptance.............................. Narrating the Pros and Cons of Romanized Taiwanese .......................................... The Promise of a New Orthography........................................................................... Conclusion .......................................................................................................................

53 55 57 62 66 70 72 76 81 87 92

Chapter 4: The Mandarin Baihuawen Movement Introduction........................................................................................................................... 95

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

6

Contents

Educational Reform in the Colony .............................................................................. 98 Framing Educational Grievances and Demands ....................................................... 102 Japanese Support ............................................................................................................ 107 Reforming the ShobŇ ....................................................................................................... 109 Imagining Hanwen as the Cultural Bridge between Japan and China ..................... 111 The Ineloquence of the Chinese Literary Language ................................................. 114 The Two Huangs and the China Experience ............................................................. 117 Turning the Tables of Cultural-Linguistic Superposition......................................... 119 The Taiwan Minpao: Consolidating the Local Power Base......................................... 124 Getting the Language Right .......................................................................................... 127 Conflicting Repertoires .................................................................................................. 130 Learning the Linguistic Code........................................................................................ 134 The Spoken Dilemma .................................................................................................... 137 The Cultural Market ....................................................................................................... 140 Furthering the Educational Debate ............................................................................. 143 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 148 Chapter 5: The Written Taiwanese Movement Introduction..................................................................................................................... 151 The Future of the Taiwanese Language...................................................................... 152 Taiwanese Aspirations ................................................................................................... 156 The Taiwanese Language under Construction: The Linguistic Debate................. 159 Selecting the Character-Database................................................................................. 162 Lian Yatang and a Return to Kaozheng Scholarship (wenzixue) ................................. 163 Guo Qiusheng: Creating Characters (wenzihua).......................................................... 166 The Problem of Pronunciation: Balancing the Reading and Colloquial Forms ... 168 The Discourse on Language and Dialect.................................................................... 170 Attempts toward Codification: Standardizing Pronunciation ................................. 173 The Appeal of Mandarin Baihuawen: Purists versus Reformers............................... 175 The Historical Mission of Written Taiwanese ........................................................... 179 Back to the Beginning: The Ideological Significance of Folklore........................... 182 The “Language of Literature” in the 1930s ................................................................ 184 The Japanese Colonial Environment........................................................................... 188 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 192 Epilogue ................................................................................................................................. 195 Bibliography........................................................................................................................... 201 Index ..................................................................................................................................... .. 235

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Introduction One of the noteworthy phenomena in contemporary international contact and in cultural research has been the renewed interest in basic matters of language. Despite of the worldwide internationalization, and, in fact, due to this, communities still argue about their languages(s), (re)invent their languages and feel the need to redefine their linguistic principles. In view of this, one can no longer ignore the historical processes that have helped, shaped, and often accounted for the problematic interaction between language, culture and communication in contemporary society. The history of language modernization in East Asia has been discussed in literature covering Japan, China, Korea and Vietnam, but to date the case of Taiwan still has remained largely unexplored. That is to say, historians and social scientists situate present-day Taiwanese language issues, such as debates on the integration of mother tongue instruction into the educational curriculum, political controversy about the use of transliteration systems for street names and the ascent of Taiwanese in media and politics within the framework of Taiwan’s democratization since the late 1980s. However, no systematic study has been undertaken to elucidate its historical underpinnings, which trace to the Japanese colonial period (1895-1945). Said otherwise, the nature of Taiwan’s present-day linguistic diversity may not have manifested itself the way it did had Taiwan not been colonized by Japan and, equally important, had China and Japan not embarked upon their process of nation-building and language standardization at that time. These two historical realities define the background against which we have to understand linguistic modernization in Taiwan, past and present. The analytical framework of the book is centred round the concept of language standardization. In the ideology of nation-building, language standardization became the agency in achieving national cohesion and creating a common culture. Japan standardized its language in the wake of the Meiji reforms (1868) and China in its transition from empire to republic (1911). Within the span of these two dates, the island of Taiwan, dependency of Fujian Province since 1684 achieved its status as province in 1886, until it was annexed by Japan in 1895 following China’s defeat in the Sino-Japanese War (1894-95). This shift in territorial belonging announced a new language player on the scene: the Japanese language coated in policies of Japanese linguistic colonialism. The purpose of the Japanese language in transforming society was threefold. First, Japanese was economically productive. The Japanese colonial administrators required proficient Japanese speakers to integrate the colony into the homeland. Second, Japanese imparted modern ideas, based on Japanese norms, values and beliefs as the model social structure. Third, Japanese was repressive. The implicit logic of the Japanese literacy campaigns was to define a hierarchy of cultures, in which the Japanese language and script were culturally superior to the Chinese language and script.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Introduction

8

Population consensuses did not focus on how well the Taiwanese spoke the Japanese language, but how well they could write. Substantial educational reform in the colony was to impart these new social and cultural values. The grand discourse of “civilizing mission” trapped the Taiwanese colonial subjects into the locus of Japanese modernity. “Becoming Japanese” entailed a process that destined them to be linguistically subdued and culturally incorporated overtime. Yet, it was precisely the incompleteness of Japanese schooling which motivated Taiwanese to pursue higher education on the Japanese mainland as a means to ensure one’s chances for social mobility in colonial society. Having access to higher education in Japan inspired calls for colonial reform formulated in the context of “elevating Taiwan culture.” This gave rise to an educated Taiwanese middle-class that became actively engaged in determining their response to changing social and economic circumstances. Rather than passively surrendering to the political, economic and educational institutions imposed on them, they took hold of their newly acquired literacy. The consequences were a counter-movement to Japanese linguistic colonialism that I will refer to as linguistic nationalism. From this perspective, language in colonial Taiwan came to assume a cultural marker of identity. This book, then, will explore the context in which the colonized elites came to reflect on the state of their spoken and written Chinese languages, and more specifically, the channels by which they adopted contemporaneous models of language modernization to generate alternative home repertoires. Said otherwise, this study examines the dilemma of Taiwanese colonial language reform against the background of the interaction between Japanese imposed models and Chinese local culture. An investigation into literary works of fiction written during the colonial period, either in Chinese or in Japanese, does not form part of this study, nor does a comparative examination of the Japanese policies toward the Austronesian languages. Focus of attention are three language reform movements that emerged throughout the 1920s and 1930s and the arguments each of them presented in selecting a linguistic norm as an appropriate means to counter the Japanese foreign language imposition and its cultural ideology. These three were the Romanized Taiwanese, Mandarin baihuawen and Written Taiwanese movements. How did they emerge in the colonial context? What forces instigated orthographic reform, as exemplified in the Romanized Taiwanese movement? How significant was the influence of the May Fourth movement and model of Chinese language standardization? What were the major arguments for and against the Written Taiwanese movement? To what extent was each movement tolerated or not by the Japanese colonial authorities, and what was the response of society at large? What is their relevance for present day Taiwanese issues on language and culture in identity formation? These questions and others are addressed in this book. To date, scholarly discussions on the three language reform movements have remained clustered in literary approaches, in which special reference is made to the influence of the Chinese May Fourth movement. In so doing, not only has the Japanese

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

9

Introduction

colonial context been downplayed, but also has the socio-linguistic reality, which throughout the colonial period localized Taiwanese as the widespread language of communication. For instance, studies have taken for granted that the Taiwanese vernacular newspaper would publish in a language that was not commonly spoken, or that one in Taiwan barely had the means to study China’s new national language. Likewise, little attention has been paid to the Japanese accommodation to the local languages in education, and the fact that Taiwanese language reformers used the Japanese language as a vehicle of critique to the existing order. The first chapter sketches some of the basic features of Taiwan’s historio-linguistic development. This is situated against the background of Chinese migration to the island and the organization of a burgeoning literary culture during the Qing period. The second chapter situates the Taiwanese colony in the overall Japanese imperialist venture and examines the extent to which cultural policies had accommodated to the social reality of Taiwan. In particular, this chapter considers how the first two decades of the Taiwanese colonial experience created the conditions deemed necessary for Taiwanese reform-minded intellectuals to reflect on the Chinese language as a means for cultural advancement. The following three chapters are devoted to the three language reform movements. Chapter 3 discusses the Romanized Taiwanese movement. This movement departed from the traditional ideographic script and promoted the usage of romanized Taiwanese as the most efficient medium to counter the problem of widespread illiteracy. Its proponent Cai Peihuo drew on romanization as the imported model by the Christian church. The Mandarin baihuawen movement, explained in Chapter 4, sets out with a discussion of the manner in which Chinese language debates were incorporated in the 1920s Taiwanese nationalist discourse and moves on to explore the attraction of the model of Chinese language standardization. Chapter 5 then centers around the Written Taiwanese movement that put the ideal of language standardization based on the spoken form into practice. The movement was not only confronted with the technical difficulties from the linguistic perspective but also faced ideological obstacles. As shall be demonstrated, creating a written form of Taiwanese challenged the traditional belief of a unified written script as a marker of Chinese cultural identity. The manner in which the colonial debate on language reform has impacted a historically informed consciousness in the postcolonial period is briefly discussed in the epilogue. My analysis of language reform movements in Taiwan is based on a wide range of source material written by the educated fringe of colonial society. Basic materials are the writings in the vernacular journal The Taiwan Minpao and literary journals such as Nanyin amongst others. These popular articles are complemented with extensive use of diaries, (auto)biographies, textbooks, monographs and political treatises. References for the Japanese colonial framework include published and non-published Japanese colonial documents, as well as newspapers, journals and private correspondences.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Introduction

10

Finally, it should be emphasized that the study of language reform movements in correlation with identity and modernization in non-Western societies is still in its incipient stage. This study is merely one step of the research in tracing the linguistic development of Taiwan, and thereby furthering the academic discipline of Taiwan Studies. Therefore, this book is not meant to serve as a tome of reference, but as a platform to launch further discussion. This book is largely based on a doctoral dissertation (2001) written under the supervision of Willy Vande Walle, Catholic University Leuven, to whom I would like to express my gratitude for his constant support and enthusiasm. I also thank Douglas Fix and Masahiro Wakabayashi ऩ݅҅Ρ who were very generous with their time and knowledge. Particular mention must be made of Benoit Vermander, academic director of Taipei Ricci Institute and Raoul D. Findeisen, Ruhr Universität Bochum, Germany. I acknowledge with gratitude the grants received by the German-Japanese Center Berlin (1994-1995), the Center for Chinese Studies at the National Central Library in Taiwan (1997-98), the Pacific Cultural Foundation (1998-1999) and the Taipei Ricci Institute (1999-2001). Finally, my thanks to the Institute of Taiwan History at Academia Sinica and the Center for Asia-Pacific Studies at Stockholm University to finalize the revision as well as the various research institutes, universities and libraries in Taiwan and Japan. In helping to prepare the manuscript for publication, my thanks to Scott Sommers, Robert Fox and Henning Klöter. It is customary to comment on the use of characters and romanization. For pragmatic reasons, rather than political ideology, I have been forced to settle for the use of Hanyu pinyin ᅇᇟ࡫ॣ. It should be noted though that I have also followed the scholarly tradition of providing widely understood transliterations that come from other systems for the well-known exceptions. Names and terminology that have Japanese pronunciation are indicated with the letter J., accompanied by the Chinese translation indicated by Ch., H. for Hakka or T. for Taiwanese (Southern Min). In Japanese romanization, I have followed John H. Haig’s The New Nelson (1997). Both Chinese and Japanese romanizations are supplemented by characters. Taipei, November 2011 Ann Heylen

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Chapter 1 Taiwan’s Historico-Linguistic Setting Introduction Imperative to understanding Taiwanese society are its socio-geographical conditions: It is an island located at the periphery that was relatively lately incorporated into the Chinese empire. These two elements have determined the relationship of the Taiwanese community, its languages, and the institutions of learning with and within Chinese culture at large. Starting with a brief overview of the historical development of the migration waves to the island, this first chapter will then venture into a discussion that emphasizes the centrality of the island’s socio-cultural identity from the perspectives of its linguistic and literary culture. Special attention will be paid to the emergence of a local elite class, and the shaping of Taiwan’s linguistic boundaries in view of its settlement patterns. Patterns of Migration and Development The characteristics of Taiwan’s language history are intrinsically related to Chinese settlement patterns on the island since the 17th century. Before Dutch colonization (1624-1662), migration was sparse. The island was inhabited by several aboriginal communities who spoke different Austronesian languages, and was outside the jurisdiction of the Chinese empire. In 1367, the Penghu islands (Pescadores ዋ෫) were incorporated into the Chinese empire, but Chinese migration remained limited. Referred to as the Eastern Tribe (dongfan ܿพ) in Chinese official sources, the place was more a safe haven for Chinese and Japanese pirate-merchants roaming the coasts of South China. 1 The Dutch administration encouraged migration of male Chinese contracted labourers for cultivation of the land, or those who came to seek a living in hunting, handicrafts and trade (Heyns 2003b). Internal chaos on the mainland resulting from the transition from the Ming ܴ dynasty (1368-1644) to the Qing మ dynasty (1644-1911) led to further migration from the two southern coastal provinces of Fujian ᅽࡌ and Guangdong ቶܿ. By 1650, Chinese immigrants possibly reached as many as 25,000 (Chiang 1997). In 1662, Zheng Chenggong ᎄԋф (1624-1662), 1

In 1603, Chen Di (ഋಃ 1541-1617) visited Taiwan and recorded the customs of the Aborigines in A Note on the Eastern Tribe (Dongfangji ܿพ૶). For a discussion, see Chen (1961: 78-79). Other names for 17th century Taiwan in Chinese records are Da Liuqiu (ε੥ౚ Big Ryukyu). Even in 1744, the Gazetteer of Qing (Vol 271) appeared unclear on the exact geopolitical status of Taiwan in the Chinese empire: “‘Taiwan’, a wasteland since ancient time, was not part of China. Its name was dongfan. Under the reign of Ming (1621-27), it was occupied by the red-haired Dutch enemy. It belonged to Japan.” In the revised edition of 1842 and 1901, the sentence “It belonged to Japan” was omitted. Cited in Taiwan yinhang jingji yanjiushi (ed.) (1994: 1).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

12

Historico-Linguistic Setting

alias Koxinga, ousted the Dutch rulers, and took over control of the island. 2 This marked a new phase of Chinese settlement in Taiwan. The Koxinga reign (1662-1683) prepared the island for incorporation into the Qing empire in 1684. For the next 212 years, the integration of Taiwan within the Chinese sphere of influence further shaped its socio-linguistic configuration and consolidated its partaking in Han culturalism.3 Taiwan was culturally and economically underdeveloped when it joined the Qing empire, yet it was a strategically significant periphery of the southeast coastal macro region. The island of Taiwan and the Penghu islands became a Prefecture (fu ۬) of Fujian Province. The prefectural capital was in Tainan ᆵࠄ. Taiwan Prefecture was subdivided into three counties (xian ᑜ): Taiwan County covering the central portion of the southwest core and Penghu; Zhuluo ፏᛥ County in the north, and Fengshan ስξ County in the south.4 Heavy military deployment and a greater civil administrative presence in the three counties were secondary to concerted efforts by the Qing administration to become actively involved in the expansion of society. The basic policy was to maintain the status quo of the existing social order, to be effected by an alternating tightening and loosening of the immigration restrictions until the 1790s, which was followed by continuous liberalization (Lamley 1981: 296, Hsu 1994: 118119). By 1824 the population of Chinese settlers and Plains Aborigines (Pingpuzu ѳ঵ ௼), had risen from about 130,000 to 1,328,069, with full-scale land reclamation in the western lowland areas and the Taipei ᆵч basin in the north (Shepherd 1995: 161162). Further internal migration, compounded by immigration, led to new settlements in the course of the 19th century. These settlements were mainly concentrated on the western side, and in several small, dispersed enclaves on the east coast, as well as a major expansion in the northeastern Komalan (Yilan [I-lan]‫ە‬ើ) region (Ch’en 1994). On the eve of the Japanese takeover in 1895, the Han population numbered 2,545,731 (Shepherd 1999: 126). Toward the end of the 18th century, prominent local families arose. Claim to status resulted from the economic development of Taiwan based on trade and agriculture with the Chinese mainland. The specificities of the land-tenure system in the frontier region enabled peasant cultivators to rise to power and create a class of powerful commoner landlords. In most cases, the patent-holder of the reclaimed land was a Qing official who seldom lived in Taiwan, and acted as an absentee landowner. His peasant 2

3

4

Due to his loyalty to the Ming court, Zheng Chenggong was awarded the honorary title “Kok seng ia” (guoxingye ୯‫) ྭ ۉ‬, meaning “He who carries the title of Emperor,” and which the Dutch pronounced as Koxinga. He was the son of Zheng Zhilong (ᎄ޲ᓪ 1604-1661), known as Iquan, who acted as an intermediary in the Dutch-Chinese maritime trade. After his father’s death, Koxinga allied with the Ming dynasty during its final years of resistance against the Manchu ᅈ௼. The argument for 200 years of Chinese colonization of Taiwan, voiced by some, follows in the line of internal colonialism. In its historical dimension, this narrative highlights the continuity of colonialism across the ages, and finds ground in discourse by nation-states where issues of secessionism feature on the political agenda. For an example, see Lee (1995), Jacobs (2008). Minor adjustments were made to the boundaries of Taiwan County in 1731 and 1734. Cited in Shepherd (1995: 178-179, 209, 487).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Patterns of Migration

13

cultivators paid rent according to the kind of land they were working. Sometimes they inherited the land or became sub-letters of newly reclaimed land. In due time, they took over the social functions assumed by the original owner, which led to the decline of the original patent-holders. This saw the emergence of a commoner-landlord class, often in conjunction with the formation of a class of local headmen. The frequency in illegal crossings from China gave rise to local headmen who ignored the prohibition on land reclamation from the Aborigines. Depending on the situation, these headmen either constituted a threat to the legal settlers or offered them protection in cases of communal strife or attacks from the Aborigines. Some of these headmen managed to establish a network of kinsmen scattered throughout neighboring villages, and were able to increase their prestige in society. In order to exert direct control over the Chinese agricultural settlers and keep them within the effective territorial range of the established administration, the Qing court relied on this emerging local landowning class. Their socio-economic functions pertained to tax collection, maintenance of social order and furthering the economic development of the region, by constructing irrigation systems, for example. For this they were granted local judicial and, in frontier areas, even military power. Paradoxically, this created a system of chronic tax evasion and further illegal land reclamation. Governmental attempts to uncover these illegal practices often faced fierce resistance from the joint action of the patent holders and peasants (Ka 1995: 28). Formation of a local mercantile elite was concentrated in the harbour towns of Anping Ӽѳ, Lugang ജෝ and Danshui [Tamsui] ఩Н. At the end of the 18th century, Lugang and Danshui became official ports for direct trade with Hanjiang ᅇԢ and Fuzhou ᅽԀ respectively, and this significantly opened up more trade with the Chinese mainland, countering the flourishing “illegal crossing” trade which had developed over the past century (DeGlopper 1980: 152). Following further expansion of Taiwan in the 19th century, this emerging mercantile elite set up networks throughout the island and controlled most of the flow of goods and money. Especially in townships, local landlords and wealthy merchants shared the directorial positions in temples and public-safety organizations (Ch’en 1999: 159). Organization of Qing Culture Emergence of prominent local families was in keeping with the implementation of Qing cultural policies. Similar to economic life, the cultural base of society was determined by its relation to and dependency on the Chinese mainland. Organization of culture in Qing Taiwan was directed from the Chinese imperial state, whose strategy was to maintain hegemony based on regional development, implemented through an educational system that supported language, literature, folklore and religion. In particular, institution of the bureaucratic examination system was a key factor in the organization of culture. It fostered the growth of an orthodox elite with vested interests in the social order maintained by the state (Elman and Woodside 1996: 525-560). The

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

14

Historico-Linguistic Setting

channelling of social mobility was effected through a large network of state schools (guanxue ‫۔‬Ꮲ), private schools or academies (shuyuan ਜଣ), and community or charity schools (shexue ‫ޗ‬Ꮲ and yixue ကᏢ), where one prepared for the civil bureaucratic examination system which was steeped in Confucianism. Only state schools held the privilege of organizing Confucian rituals and ceremonies, and examine and promote local candidates (shengyuan ғ঩). Between 1684 and 1686, state schools were established in each of the four administrative districts: the prefectural seat of Taiwan (1685), Taiwan County (1684), Fengshan County (1684), and Zhuluo County (1685) (Chen 1996b: 4). During the same period, the Qing court elaborated the established examination system for the selection of civil officials, and assigned shengyuan quotas to Taiwan (Jiang 1960: 237, 239). This way, residents were encouraged to enroll their sons in schools that provided a Confucian education so as to prepare them for the civil service examination. Sustained educational expansion was thwarted by several factors, however. Taiwan in the early Qing was sparsely populated; the immigration ban on families did not encourage progressive settlement. The frontier region proved unruly, and was not a favorite posting for officials. Educational expansion was usually limited to the initiative of some vigorous reform-minded officials, or as part of reconstruction efforts following ethnic disturbances. From the 18th century onward, private schools were founded. In local gazetteers, these private schools are recorded as “academies,” shuyuan, and were therefore easily confused with the official academies of great learning. Community schools, shexue, provided basic instruction in literacy and elementary training in the Confucian Classics to the settler community in a certain area (she ‫)ޗ‬.5 The rhythm of shexue was adjusted to agricultural demands, with flexible hours according to planting and harvest time. Unlike the official academies, the Qing court did not regulate the rank of instructor, school fees or curriculum content. Teaching style and curriculum were individualized, that is, dependent on the instruction material provided by the lecturer (jiangxi ᖱಞ). The high degree of mobility among the instructors – some taught at two or three different academies – was yet another indicator of the sporadic and limited endorsement of educational matters by the Qing court (Lin 1991: 241-265). In fact, only ten community schools were promoted to the rank of “academies.” Still smaller in scale were the private tutoring places. These could be a family or clan school (minxue ҇Ꮲ), or a popular school (shufang ਜ‫ ܊‬or xuetang Ꮲ୸ T: chheh-óh-á) (Wang 1995: 112). Private tutoring catered to both children ages seven sui ྃ and up who were acquiring basic reading and writing skills, adults such as merchants in need of basic literacy, and candidates preparing for the civil service examination. Gradual expansion of education resulted from further divisions of administrative districts and the input of leading families who recognized that educational opportuni5

Yixue are related to shexue in that they developed out of a certain she, which had become a local community with a sufficient number of settlers wanting education. For a discussion that refutes the traditional interpretation that shexue developed into yixue, see Li (1993: 275-79).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

15

Qing Culture

ties gained them higher prestige and rank in the Qing power-structure. Customarily, it was impossible to hold office or engage in cultural and literary activities without an official title. The most rewarding post was joining the bureaucracy in the rotating system that was in place throughout the Chinese empire; this was reserved to members of the elite-upper stratum (jinshi ຾γ). These were candidates who had successfully passed the three-level examinations, and had the potential to be retained at the capital as an inner core of trusted officials (Chang 1967: 91). Although scholarship was the most revered way of participating in the cultural and literary life of Chinese society, the reality of the frontier necessitated the incorporation of clan members who displayed local dominance and sufficient wealth. Hence, Taiwan became equally prone to the popular practice of “purchasing degrees,” a system by which a degree or office could be obtained through imperial favor without having to compete in the examination (Chang 1967: 183).6 It mirrored the state’s initial reliance on the land-owning class. Settlers who assisted the authorities in campaigns of land reclamation and suppressing local disturbances were granted juridical and political powers. Economic dependency on China provided another avenue to purchase a degree. Both landlords and merchants had vested interests in the economic wellbeing of the mainland. Providing relief and quelling disturbances in one’s ancestral locality were often rewarded with honorary titles, which translated into respect and influence in the management of the local community. Taiwan-born candidates who successfully passed the imperial examinations usually served for a while in the imperial bureaucracy, before returning to Taiwan to train a local elite class.7 In the early 19th century, local degree holders (juren ᖐΓ)!and jinshi increasingly replaced the Qing-appointed officials in the educational presidency. The formation of this local elite can be illustrated by the appointment of the principals (shanchang!ξߏ) of three of the renowned academies: Baisha Shuyuan қ؅ਜଣ in Zhanghua [Chang-hua] ᄆϯ County (1745), Yufeng Shuyuan ҏঢ়ਜଣ in Zhuluo County (1759), and Mingzhi Shuyuan ܴ‫ד‬ਜଣ in Danshui Subprefecture (1763).8 From 1825 onward, Baisha Shuyuan was presided over by Zhanghua and Lugang natives, three of whom had obtained the degree of jinshi. 9 Likewise, the Mingzhi 6

7 8

9

The term “purchasing” should be understood as “being granted a title” in return for good deeds, rather than the conventional method of examinations. Chang has called these degree purchasers “irregular gentry” as opposed to the regular gentry who followed a conventional path of years of preparation for the civil service examination. For a list of the juren and jinshi in Qing-Taiwan, see Wang (1979: 115-120, 123-165). For a reinvestigation of the listing of degree holders in the Local Gazetteers, see Hsieh (1995: chapter 4). The former two developed out of community schools (yixue). The Yufeng Academy was once the literati temple (wenmiao Ўቴ). In 1728 county magistrate Tang Qisheng ෯௴ᖂ founded a yixue, which later became the Baisha Shuyuan, see Lin (1984: 18). The forerunner of the Mingzhi Shuyuan was kongsheng (ଅғ) Hu Banghan चٖᑣ, who set up an yixue in Xinzhuang Shanjiao ཥಷξဌ, see Chen (1996b: 5). The exception was Shi Shiji ࡼγᲑ who presided over the academy between 1876 and 1877. For a discussion of the academies and their leadership, see Lin (1991: 247-8).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

16

Historico-Linguistic Setting

Shuyuan presidency between 1826 and 1892 was shared among residents of the Danshui and Xinzhu [Hsin-chu]ཥԮ subprefectures and a Komalan (Yilan) local, whereas the Yufeng principals were exclusively Jiayi [Chia-yi]჏က residents. In areas with the oldest settlements, such as Fengshan County, Taiwan County and Taiwan Prefecture, a local Taiwanese literati class of degree holders began to emerge in the early to mid-19th century. Their engagement in the educational and literary establishments was a sign that these communities had reached a level of cultural maturity and of economic wellbeing sufficient to produce and support a local body of Confuciantrained literati. And practice of purchasing degrees enlarged the community of wellentrenched mid-19th century Taiwanese elite families. The Chinese Settlers and their Languages Chinese settlers of Taiwan primarily came from the two southeast coastal provinces of Fujian and Guangdong. Fujian inhabitants are commonly known as Hoklo, 10 a term that is derived from fulao ⭬‫٭‬, meaning “Fujian native.” It arose in conjunction with the settlement of Hakka, or “guest families” (kejia ࠼ৎ). Hakka were northern Chinese who since the Song ֺ dynasty (960-1127) had been migrating southward and settling within the Guangdong borders. By the end of the Ming dynasty, the northern part of Guangdong had become the Hakka cultural and economic center (Yang 1967: 7-8). Smaller enclaves of Hakka were also found in the southwestern part of Fujian. Hoklo migration to Taiwan predominantly hailed from Fujian’s southern Zhangzhou ᄼԀ and Quanzhou ࢨԀ prefectures. As the patterns of surnames suggest, the majority of the Zhangzhou immigrants originated from Nanjing ࠄႠ County, and the counties Zhao’an ຕӼ, Zhangpu ᄼ੅, Pinghe ѳ‫ ک‬and Longhai ᓪੇ. Quanzhou migrants primarily came from Anxi Ӽྛ County, Nan’an ࠄӼ, Pujiang ੅Ԣ and Hui’an ඁӼ. Migration from two prefectures of Zhangzhou and Quanzhou in Fujian accounted for the four dominant lineage surnames in Taiwan: “Chens and Lins fill half the world; Huangs and Zhangs pile up like mountains” (chen lin ban tianxia, huang zhang pai cheng shan ഋ݅ъϺΠǵ໳஭௨ԋξ) (Zhou 1996: 181). Hakka migrants came later, were smaller in number, and hailed from the four counties Meixian ఘᑜ, Xingning ᑫჱ, Zhenping ᙼѳ, and Changle ߏ኷, and the two counties Haifeng ੇ ᙦ and Lufeng ഌᙦ!(or Hailu ੇഌ) located in Chaozhou ዊԀ and Huizhou ඁԀ! (Tse 2000). Dutch archival sources do not readily distinguish between the Hoklo and Hakka enclaves. Relations with the “Chineesen” (Chinese) were for purpose of trade, and the civilizing mission of the Dutch was limited to the Aborigines (Heylen 2001a). Early literature on Chinese settlement patterns in Taiwan tends to support the mainstream 10 The term Hoklo, also spelled Holo may be written in different characters and interpreted by different scholars as having different meanings. Khou asserted that the widely used term, represented with the characters fulao ᅽ‫ ٭‬in Mandarin is more acceptable. See Khou (1992: 10-14). For other interpretations, see Lim (1984: 7-8) and Ang (1987: 148).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

17

Chinese Settlers

view that the Quanzhou immigrants arrived first.11 Accordingly, these Quanzhou migrants settled in the Dutch enclaves of Tainan, the west central coast areas of Yunlin ໦݅ and Huwei ߁‫׀‬, and reclaimed plots of surrounding lands obtained from the Aborigines.12 Zhangzhou migrants followed later and settled farther inland along the western plains. Hakka migration was dispersed, with settlements in rugged foothills areas among other regions. This mainstream view of pioneer settlement strategies is essentially based on the observations that centralize the Quanzhou descent of Koxinga and the official ban on immigration for Hakka. It is partially correct as it does not account for the extensive internal migration which was often the result of sub-ethnic feuding involving Hoklo, Hakka and aboriginal communities, new waves of Hakka migration in between the alternating lifting and reimposing of the migration bans, and the opening of new lands during the economic development of the island in the course of the 19th century. The most frequent forms of sub-ethnic feuding were clashes between Hakka and Hoklo, and Hoklo infighting. In this context, Harry Lamley (1981: 282-318) noted that Taiwan’s economic development was characterized by an 81-year period (1782-1862) of severe internal strife and sub-ethnic rivalry. Hoklo infighting usually consisted of feuds between contending Zhangzhou villagers and Quanzhou villagers, but could also take the form of a same/different surname dispute, or be related to occupational differences. The area most prone to Hoklo infighting was the central region, and it was not unusual that a third party (Hakka or neighboring aboriginal community) lent supporting manpower.13 Hoklo-Hakka feuding concentrated mostly in the older settlements like Fengshan County and Danshui Subprefecture. Some of these localities counted strong Hakka settlement, and the Hakka villagers could hold their own against the Hoklo alliance (Lim 1984: 152-157). In other localities, where Hakka had been the earliest settlers, the more numerous Hoklo pushed them into the less desirable locations in the foothills and uplands (Lien 1971: 9-21). The settlement of Yilan illustrates such a joint action of the three ethnic communities. After the Yilan area was reclaimed, an armed feud broke out in which the two minority groups, Quanzhou and Hakka, tried to break the dominance of the Zhangzhou majority. An armed feud went on for more than two years before the Zhangzhou group was able to defeat the Quanzhou and Hakka contenders (Hsu 1995: 73).

11 This view has been mainly derived from maps compiled around the turn of the century by the Japanese colonial administration. For example, see Chen (1959). 12 The general assumption that the Chinese drove the aboriginal population to the mountains lacks evidence. The discovery and study of land contracts illustrated that there was a fair amount of interaction between the two ethnic groups. This has also been discussed by Heyns (2003a) and Andrade (2008). 13 Meskill (1979) has well described the complexities involved in Taiwan’s frontier development. Ang (1995: 123) has argued that the Hakka tended to side with the Zhangzhou in fighting the Quanzhou. Also see Lim (1984: 152).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

18

Historico-Linguistic Setting

Differences in speech, customs and provenance between Hoklo and Hakka were also carried over to Taiwan. Relevant to this discussion is the degree to which these migration movements and settlement patterns helped to shape Taiwan’s linguistic boundaries. Within the dialectical mapping of the Chinese empire, Hoklo and Hakka belonged to two different language groups of which the vernaculars were not only mutually unintelligible, but also prone to considerable dialectal diversity within each language group. Accordingly, the Hoklo migrants from Zhangzhou and Quanzhou spoke different dialects of the Southern Min language (minnanyu መࠄᇟ).14 Southern Min, as the name suggests, was the southern variant of the Min language group. “Min” refers to the River Min which runs through Fujian, and was also the ancient name for the Fujian region and the Min peoples who inhabited the region. Within the field of Chinese historical linguistics, Southern Min has a peculiar history. From the end of the Han ᅇ dynasty (206 BC-220) until the beginning of the Sui ໙ dynasty (581-618), China was politically divided, with the exception of the shortlived Western Jin Ջਕ dynasty (265-316). The south saw a succession of short, weak dynasties, while the north was fragmented into a series of ephemeral states ruled over by various non-Chinese peoples (Norman 1988: 185). The chaos in northern China during the 4th century resulted in a first big migration wave of Han to the lower Yangtze River ඦηԢ Basin, during which the form of upper ancient Chinese (shanggu hanyu ΢ђᅇᇟ) was introduced. Three more waves of migration followed during the Tang ঞ dynasty (618-916), marking the start of the economic, cultural and educational development of southern China. This latter diachronic migration engendered significant linguistic changes. Through the gradual superimposition of middle ancient Chinese (zhonggu hanyu ύђᅇᇟ), a two-layered pronunciation system emerged for the Min lexicon; a colloquial mode (baiduyin қ᠐ॣ) embedded in the older shanggu hanyu rose in co-existence with a new literary reading mode (wenduyin Ў᠐ॣ) for writing and reciting literary compositions using the new Tang rhyming codex (tangyun ঞᜩ).15 This dual colloquial/reading pronunciation practice was further consolidated during the reigns of the Ten Kingdoms ϖжΜ୯ (909-979) and the Song dynasty. Nature also had its say. Mountainous topography isolated the Min region from the surrounding areas. This geographical isolation was significant on two accounts. First, it split the Fujian region up into several Min isoglosses that over time became mutually unintelligible. The Min vernacular spoken south of the River Min is known as the Southern Min isogloss and is spoken in the area that includes the Zhangzhou and 14 The scientific classification in Chinese dialectological research distinguishes seven different dialects. These are Mandarin (beifanghua ч Б ၉ ), Wu ֆ ,! Xiang ෩ ,! Gan ᡧ , Kejia (Hakka), Yue ࿵ (Cantonese), and Min. See Yuan (1961). Southern Min is also known as Hokkien or Fujianese. For terminology, see Klöter (2005: 3). 15 The Tang rhyming codex, tangyun, was an enlarged version of the Sui rhyme book (qieyun Ϫᜩ) that delineated the rules and regulations for poetic rhyming as required in the preparation for the civil service examination, Pulleybank (1998: 202-203). For comprehensive studies on historical stages of Chinese and historical Chinese phonology, I refer to Baxter (1992) and Sagart (1999).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

19

Chinese Settlers

Quanzhou prefectures, the islet of Xiamen হߐ!located in between, as well as the region of Shantou ԥᓐ and that of Cangnan ᇇࠄ. 16 Second, the Min lexicon has remained the longest excluded from the center of Chinese language development. With the exception of the Min መ kingdom (909-946), the capital of the Chinese empire was never set up in the Fujian region. From the Song dynasty onward, the capital moved between the north and the Jiangnan Ԣࠄ region. The Wu ֆ language, spoken throughout the Jiangnan region, in turn became integrated into the court language family (Denlinger 1961: 7; Ballard 1969). During the Mongol Yuan ϡ dynasty (11281367), the Chinese language was subjected to the first process of significant simplification, denoting an emerging northern (beifang чБ) standard based on the lowland vernaculars of north-eastern China, and substantially different from the complex TangSong rhyming codex still preserved in southern China (Rachewiltz 1965). The cultural prestige of this Tang-Song standard was revived during the Ming dynasty when Chinese scholarship resorted to a reappraisal of the written-character-laden tradition in the interpretation of the old texts in the Confucian canon. It was during this period that the Xiamen area developed into a regional administrative, educational and commercial center of Fujian province. Intra-regional migration between Zhangzhou, Quanzhou, and Xiamen gave rise to the emergence of a Xiamen koiné, intelligible to both the Quanzhou and Zhangzhou language communities. This Xiamen koiné is also known as the Amoy vernacular, and is one of the leading regional low languages – lingua illiteratae – in the southern hemisphere of the Chinese empire. In Charles Ferguson’s (1964: 435) definition of diglossia, the Southern Min isogloss corresponds to “the primary dialects of the language (which may include regional standard).” It was not standardized, normally not written, but spoken as the mother tongue. In Taiwan, the Zhang and Quan dialects of Southern Min, together with Hakka, were the low variety of the language which played the role of mother tongues. In localities with a concentration of Zhangzhou or Quanzhou villages, each of these dialects prevailed in the market place, retaining their diversity. But in regions characterized by a frequent interaction between Zhangzhou and Quanzhou speakers, a mixture of both dialects occurred, comparable with the formation of the Xiamen koiné in Fujian, which was also a mixture of the Zhang and Quan dialects. Li (2003: 52) defined this mixture as “also-Zhang, also-Quan (zhangquanlan ᄼࢨᔲ) phonetically, and “non-Zhang, non-Quan” (buzhangbuquan όᄼόࢨ) lexically. Over time, regular interaction among the two language communities ironed out most distinct differences between Zhang and Quan to the extent that the common rule for assigning colloquial or literary pronunciation to personal and place names was not really observed (Li 2003: 53). 16 The other isoglosses were Eastern Min (mindong መܿ), spoken in Fuzhou, Northern Min (minbei መ ч)!in Putian ಾҖ-the island of Hainan ੇࠄ and the peninsula of Luzhou, and Middle Min (minzhong መύ) in Yong’an ҉Ӽ. See Zhou (1996: 170).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

20

Historico-Linguistic Setting

The high variety, following Ferguson’s (1964: 435) definition, corresponds to “a very divergent, highly codified (often grammatically more complex) superposed variety, the vehicle of a large and respected body of written literature, either of an earlier period or in another speech community, which is learned largely through formal education and is used for most written and formal spoken purposes but is not used by any sector of the community for ordinary conversation.” The written Chinese language or Classical Chinese (wenyanwen Ў‫ق‬Ў) performed the function of this superposed high variety. It was the most prestigious language of religion, administration and scholarship, similar to Latin in pre-modern Europe or Arabic in the Arab/Islam world. Characteristic for diglossia is that both the low (L) and high (H) varieties form a stable language situation resulting from their complementary functionality in society. The L variety was used in everyday situations. It is the language of the home, casual conversation, popular entertainment, folk literature, and the market. Literature in the L variety did not have the same cultural and social prestige as literature in the H variety and writing in one’s mother tongue was not deemed appropriate for formal correspondence.17 Since the H variety consisted only in a uniform written form, regional standards developed a distinct reading pronunciation that was the medium through which the “high system” was read. Imperial decrees, orders, and court trials were thus read aloud in the reading pronunciation, and interpreted in the everyday colloquial variety (as illustrated in MacGowan 1912). In localities where Hakka and Hoklo were in close proximity, the local administration needed officials from both linguistic groups, while separate village schools instructed in Hakka and Southern Min. In the town of Miaoli भਪ for example, cleavages between the three subcultural groups resulted in the formation of three separate towns (Lamley 1981: 301). Depending on the geographical region in the empire, locally used lingua illiteratae varied greatly and had developed a literary and colloquial form of expression. This duality was equally maintained in education, belles-lettres and scholarship. The complementary function between the L and H varieties is best illustrated by education. Language ideology in imperial China associated “being literate” with knowing Classical Chinese, wenyanwen, rather than being able to read and write in the local lingua illiteratae. It was commonly understood that “reading the word,” that is, the Confucian canon, was taught and read aloud in the regional reading pronunciation, wenduyin (T: thƼk-im ᠐ॣ); therefore a pupil would learn the required text and recite it to the teacher, who corrected and explained the meaning in common colloquial speech baiduyin (T: péh-Ňeim қ၉ॣ). As a linguistic code, the Southern Min regional reading pronunciation had to be instructed to the uneducated who were used to the colloquial form of the language in their daily lives (Heylen 2001b: 145). Teaching materials were the Three Character Classic (Sanzijing Οӷ࿶), The Book of Family Names (Baijiaxing ԭৎ‫ )ۉ‬and 17 Examples of popular literature, songbooks and religious texts dating to Ming and Qing can be found in van der Loon (1992), Schipper (1985: 21-57) and Lien (1995: 219-246). Also see Klöter (2005: 5864, 71-87).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

21

Poetry Societies

the more complicated Confucian texts. When Ruth Hayhoe (1984: 31) referred to the usage of other materials that were not codified and varied greatly from locality to locality, she meant textbooks that instructed common phrases and vocabulary used in every day life. These textbooks were lower in rank to the basic Classics, and defined as wordbooks (zishu ӷਜ or zipu ӷ᛼) for learning how to read and write characters, mainly used for instruction within the family (jiating jiaoyu ৎ৥௲‫)ػ‬. In Taiwan, the better known of these compilations were the Book of Thousand Goldpieces (T: Chhian-kimphóź ίߎ᛼) and Miscellaneous Writings (T. Cháp-jĩ ᚇӷ) (Wang 1995: 116-118). The Four Speech Miscellaneous Writings (H: Si-ngiàn chhƜp-su Ѥ‫ق‬ᚇӷ) was one example for instruction in Hakka (Luo 1998: 34). During the two centuries of Chinese cultural consolidation (1684-1895), Southern Min in Taiwan developed into a distinctive, identifiable repertoire and well-established entity. The emergence of a local Taiwanese literati class was crucial to validating the effectiveness of the established language repertoire, that is, securing its perpetuation and making it historically accumulated. Poetry Societies and the Emergence of a Taiwanese Elite In Chinese society, literati functioned as guardians of traditional moral teachings. They engaged in educational expansion, in conjunction with their responsibility toward the consolidation and perpetuation of a Confucian society. Their command of the written language entrusted them with the compilation of Chinese traditional historiography, as well as in the more leisurely pursuits of verse-making and prose. Hence, local poetry societies, construction of garden estates, and artistic accomplishments, such as painting and calligraphy, mark the integration of the Taiwanese frontier society into the Chinese cultural sphere. This development did not occur until the beginning of the 19th century. Before that time cultural achievements, whether painting, calligraphy or poetry by Taiwan-born literati, were sporadic, and if existent, such works have yet to be discovered. 18 The first local poets were editors of the local gazetteers (difangzhi ӦБ‫)ד‬, which they used as a venue to publish their poetry and prose. In line with the economic and educational expansion of the frontier, the earliest of these literary achievements were concentrated in the cultural south. Some examples are juren Chen Hui ഋ፵, Tainan native and editor of Gazetteer of Taiwan Prefecture (‘Taiwanfuzhi’ ᆵ᡼۬‫ )ד‬and juren Zao Zhaochang ᨏᆬܱ, who was a Fengshan native and editor of Gazetteer of Fengshan County (‘Fengshanxianzhi’ ስξᑜ‫)ד‬. Chen obtained his degree in 1730 and Zao in 1750 (Liao 1989: 119, 124). It was not until the reign of Emperor Daoguang ၰӀ! (1821-1851) that local poetry societies made their appearance, and interestingly so, in the central and northern regions of the island (Huang 1999). Zeng Zuolin මբᓄ, 18 In 1685, Sheng Guangwen ؇ӀЎ (1613-1688), together with 14 other Qing officials, took the initiative to set up a poetry society. They chose the name “Eastern Reciting Society” (dong yinshe ܿ֗ ‫ )ޗ‬referring to the high mountain range in Eastern Taiwan. See Liao (1989: 28).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

22

Historico-Linguistic Setting

chief editor of Gazetteer of Zhanghua County (‘Zhanghuaxianzhi’ ᄆϯᑜ‫)ד‬, has been called the first Zhanghua poet (Liao 1989: 153). Poetry societies provided these men of letters with an opportunity to gather together, “recite poetry and drink wine” (shijiu yinchang ၃ଚ֗ୠ). They were meeting places to exchange ideas and demonstrate one’s mastery of the belles-lettres. Hence, poetry societies were an exquisite form of elite entertainment. Membership enhanced one’s status in society and was ideal for social networking. The more prestigious of these literary gatherings took place in the landscape garden estates. In 1851, Zheng Yongxi ᎄҔᒴ (1788-1858) established the Zhushe Poetry Society (zhushe shishe Ԯ‫ޗ‬၃‫ )ޗ‬in his Beiguoyuan ч೾༜ landscape garden estate in Xinzhu. Zheng was a Jinmen [Kinmen] ߎߐ native but settled in Zhuqian Ԯჟ, near Xinzhu. In 1823 he obtained his jinshi degree, and served for a short while in the imperial capital as a member of the Engraving and Printing Bureau in the Ministry of Rites (libu zhuyinju ᘶ೽᠗ӑֽ). After his return to Taiwan, he presided over the Mingzhi Shuyuan, and is ranked among the seven literati of Zhuqian (Liao 1989: 161; Huang 1999: 95-121). Around the same time, another Xinzhu local, Lin Zhanmei ݅эఘ (1821-1868) set up the Meishe Poetry Society (meishe ఘ‫ )ޗ‬in his Qianyuan ወ༜ garden estate. Lin had earned his local status through the custom of purchasing degrees. During one regional relief operation, he became acquainted with Lin Hao ݅ᇬ, another Jinmen native, and together with Lin Yitu ݅ҭკ, they renamed the Meishe Poetry Society as the Qianyuan Poetry Society (qianyuan yinshe ወ ༜֗‫)ޗ‬, after the garden estate. Its membership soon grew to more than 40 (Liao 1989: 174; Huang 1999: 212-236, 256-269). In 1886, the Zhushe and Meishe poetry societies merged into the Zhumei Poetry Society (zhumei yinshe Ԯఘ֗‫*ޗ‬. By that time, Lin Hao was no longer an associate. Rather, after he established the local office for the compilation of the Gazetteer of Danshui Subprefecture (‘Danshuitingzhi’ ఩Н᡺ ‫)ד‬, he went to Penghu and engaged in the compilation of the Gazetteer of Penghu Subprefecture (‘Penghutingzhi’ ዋ෫᡺‫( )ד‬Liao 1989: 183). Another kind of poetry society were the public gatherings held in literary temples and involving local literati and other prominent figures within the community. The Zhongyu Poetry Society (zhongyu shishe ដ྆၃‫ )ޗ‬set up in 1826 by Lin Gaochuan ݅ ଯӄ!from Zhanghua County, held poetry readings in the neighboring literary temple in Huwei County. Membership increased as a result of the arrival of new migrants following the disturbances of the Opium War in China. Other examples in the south were the Chongzheng Poetry Society (chongzhengshe ஖҅‫ ޗ‬1879), the Lipu Poetry Society (lipu yinshe ૗᛼֗‫ ޗ‬1890) and the Liangyin Poetry Society (liangyinshishe ੁ֗ ၃‫ ޗ‬1891). Founder of the Chongzheng and Liangyin poetry societies was jinshi degree holder Xu Nanying ೚ࠄम (1855-1917).19 In particular the Liangyin Poetry Society included several of the more famous southern literati, such as Cai Guolin ጰ ୯ฑ!(1843-1909), Zhao Zhongqi ᇳᗛ᜼!(1860-1936), Xie Shiqiu ᖴҡࣿ!(187919 The conditions under which he obtained his degree are debatable. See Hsieh (1995: 176) and Liao (1989: 206).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Making of a Province

23

1921) and Lian Heng ೱᐉ (penname Yatang ໡୸!1878-1936). Some scholars have argued that these early poetry societies resembled “amateur” gatherings (Fang 1975: 56).20 By this, it is meant they did not live up to the standards of the literary gatherings organized by Qing officials. Literary gatherings of this third type did not come into existence in Taiwan until the late 1880s and can best be understood against the background of the changes which took place in Taiwan following the aftermath of the Opium War. The Making of a Province Towards the end of the Qing dynasty, Taiwan became a pivotal intersection in the Far East. Its geographical position assumed new importance. Society could hardly remain unaffected by the course of changes marking the island’s final years under the Qing administration. The Second Opium War led to further concessions, stipulated in the Treaties of Tianjin (1858) and Peking (1860). The opening of the ports of Danshui and Anping ushered Taiwan into the international markets. European and American merchants came to purchase tea, sugar and camphor and to sell manufactured goods. This resulted in economic growth in the north of the island, aided not only by a new wave of immigrants, but also a population migration from central Taiwan to the north and east, nurturing closer cooperation between the northern and central guilds (DeGlopper 1980: 163-4). Meanwhile, commercial ventures with Western powers accelerated land concentration in the hands of merchants and prominent wealthy families involved in the export trade. The Japanese military incursion of 1874 was the first sign that prompted the Qing government to reconsider the situation in Taiwan. In 1871, a shipload of people from the Miyako islands ৐ђ৞ in the Ryşkyşan ੥ౚ chain, on the way to Okinawa ؑ䵋, was blown to Taiwan by a typhoon. Paiwan Aborigines (Paiwanzu ௨᡼௼) of nearby Mudan ‫أ‬Ϗ village massacred 54 of the shipwrecked; the 12 survivors were taken to the Fuzhou Liuqiu Bureau (ᅽԀ੥ౚ೽), and the following year they sailed homeward to Japan.21 The incident presented the Japanese government with an opportunity to formalize the claim of its suzerainty over the Ryşkyş islands, using the pretext that the murdered fishermen were Japanese citizens. At that time, the islands were in the process of being integrated into the Japanese political system, much to the ignorance of the imperial Chinese government, which continued to recognize the royal title of King Shotai. Negotiations between the Japanese and the Chinese governments concluded in an ambiguous arrangement in which China nominally consented to allow 20 It should be noted that this interpretation mirrors the sino-centric KMT historiographical narrative. Taiwan’s historical development is measured against imperial Chinese standards, also known as the interiorization (neidihua ϣӦϯ) debate. As such, Taiwan’s history conforms to the trends taking place in China at the time. For an overview, see Heylen (2001c). 21 The crew numbered 69 in total, but 3 had died during the shipwreck. It is said that the 12 survivors were saved by a Chinese, called Yang Youwang ླྀ϶‫ܮ‬. Cited in Akamine (1983: 21).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

24

Historico-Linguistic Setting

Japan to send a “military mission” to Taiwan. On the diplomatic level, a delegation was sent to China to negotiate for a peaceful settlement. But when negotiations stalled on Japan’s rights to punish the Aborigines, both sides became concerned with preparation for war. 22 A punitive expedition was dispatched in early 1874, but a second diplomatic delegation succeeded in preventing an armed conflict between China and Japan over Taiwan. What this illustrates is that within the course of more than a century, Taiwan had become strategically more vulnerable as well as economically more significant to the Chinese empire. From 1875 onward, reforms based on a self-strengthening policy were initiated. As Robert Gardella (1999: 185) pointed out, these reforms justified both the assertion of formal imperial control over the island’s rugged central and eastern regions and the development of sufficient indigenous fiscal resources to sustain this effort. Population shifts and settlement patterns in order to develop the backward areas in Taiwan entailed a restructuring of the district administration and prefectural seats. An active Qing policy was to pacify the raw or unassimilated Aborigines and open up the central mountains to Han settlement. These changes indicated that concern with the social stability through compromise was replaced by attempts at closer integration with the Chinese empire. Nevertheless, international encroachment on the island did not wane. Following the Sino-French War of 1884-5, the Qing government took a decisive step and raised Taiwan’s status to that of a separate province. Liu Mingchuan ቅሎ໺! (1836-1896) was appointed its governor and charged with strengthening the island’s defences. During his term of office (1885-1891), he launched a modernization program, reflecting the self-strengthening attempts of the empire (Chu 1963; Speidel 1967; Chang 1998). In addition to pioneering the promotion of industrialization, Liu Mingchuan’s statecraft included advocacy of reform. New schools were established to teach foreign languages and improve communications with the outside world (Lee 1995: 190-92). Samuel Chu (1963: 51-52) noted that although the avowed purpose was to produce a group of foreign-language specialists, it reflected the governor’s decision to produce a group of broadly educated graduates. All in all, the school was an expensive undertaking, and it was closed down in 1891 (Chu 1963: 52). Closure of the school might be indicative of the traditional Confucian character of Taiwanese society, showing ambivalence toward concepts of Western innovation. Under Shao Youlian ߉϶ᐗ (1840-1901), who succeeded Liu as governor from 1891 to 1894, any efforts at modernization were curtailed and Taiwan relapsed into administrative lethargy. This brief attempt at modernization under Liu Mingchuan’s aegis was not all in vain. Local elites benefited from the growing commercial and political opportunities, 22 In Taiwan history, the Incident is known as the Mudanshe Incident (mudanshe shijian ‫أ‬Ϗ‫ޗ‬٣ҹ) For studies that cover the Liuqiu controversy, see Kublin (1949: 213-31), Gordon (1970: 93-110) and Eskildsen (2002: 388-418).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Making of a Province

25

thereby accelerating the gentrification23 process. Closer integration with the Qing empire extended to the literary world in the form of established gatherings between local literati and officials. Noteworthy is Tang Jingsong ঞඳ஡ (1841-1903), who became Vice-Governor of Taiwan (buzhengshisi Ѳࡹ٬љ) in 1887, and patron of two poetry societies. Initially based in Tainan, in 1889 he set up the Feiting Recitation Society (feiting yinhui තߜ֗཮) named after a location in that city. In 1892, after being transferred to Taipei as provincial treasurer, he set up the Mudan Poetry Society (mudan shishe ‫أ‬Ϗ၃‫)ޗ‬. Lin Henian ݅៪ԃ (1847-1901), a Qing official residing in Taipei, rendered fame to this poetry society (Liao 1989: 231). In 1894, Lin Jingshang ݅ඳ୘, son of Lin Henian, established the Haidong Poetry Society (haidong yinshe ੇܿ֗‫)ޗ‬ also located in Taipei. Reinstitution of the Proper Pronunciation Academies (zhengyin shuyuan ҅ॣਜଣ) after 1885 illustrated the administrative transition from a prefecture to a province, and was coupled with the closer integration of an expanding frontier society into the Chinese empire. These were special language schools designed to promote the “court language” or “officials’ speech” (guanhua ‫۔‬၉) in order to bridge the communication gap between literati and officials from the south and north. Guanhua can be best described as the administrative lingua franca used among bureaucrats in the empire. Location of the court determined the more prestigious form spoken. Until late Ming this was the southern Nanjing variant (jianghuai guanhua Ԣూ‫۔‬၉). 24 When in 1728 the Qing government decided by imperial decree that these schools were to be established in the southern provinces of Guangdong, Fujian and Taiwan Prefecture, it was part of a deliberate strategy to endorse the imperial prestige of the northern variant (beifang guanhua чБ‫۔‬၉) (Luo 1996: 330-352). As of 1729, four of these academies were established in the counties of Taiwan, Zhuluo, Fengshan and Zhanghua, but appear to have closed down around the 1750s (Lin 1999: 26). This interruption has led scholars to assume that the Taiwanese literati world was without any proper knowledge of guanhua until its reintroduction during the governorship of Liu Mingchuan. Arguments pleading for the lack thereof mention the undeveloped conditions at the raw frontier, the reluctance of Qing officials to serve in Taiwan, and the belated emergence of a local elite class with high degree holders. An examination of the official careers of Taiwan literati since the end of the 18th century shows that they mainly served as minor officials in the Fujian and Jiangnan region. After their return to Taiwan, they devoted time to the expansion of education in their region, often as lecturers in the academies. For these lower ranking officials, the need 23 In this context it is appropriate to use the term “gentrificaton” to depict the closer integration of Taiwanese society with that of mainland China. However, Chen Chiu-kun (1999:160) has noted that during and after the Taiping ϼѳ rebellion, the mainland gentry class responded to the weaker power of the Qing government in forming its own militia and becoming local strongmen with control over substantial territory. 24 For a comprehensive analysis of the court language and its development, see Coblin (1997), (2007).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

26

Historico-Linguistic Setting

to converse in guanhua was less of a priority. The path to an official career where use of guanhua was the rule rather than the exception only presented itself at the level of the metropolitan examination in the capital for the degree of jinshi. Taiwanese jinshi degree holders and in particular those who served in the Hanlin Academy (hanlin yuan ᑣ݅ଣ) most likely had a working knowledge of guanhua by the time of their return to Taiwan. Especially in the field of educational expansion, cooperation between local literati and officials tends to reveal a shared southern ethno-linguistic background. This limited presence of guanhua was no longer desirable once Taiwan acquired the status of a full-fledged province, and the academies were thus reinstituted. Conclusion Following the incorporation of Taiwan into the Qing empire, a Chinese society based on the Confucian orthodoxy took shape. Internal autonomy in society was defined on a threefold basis: the community, the language, and the institutions of learning. The top stratum of society consisted of Qing-appointed bureaucrats, symbol of the Chinese empire. Their participation in society was limited to official duties and the privileges of an upper-elite. A local Taiwanese elite emerged out of the successive waves of Chinese migrants from the two southern coastal provinces of Fujian and Guangdong. These elite families consolidated power at the local level, and aided in the educational and literary expansion of Taiwanese society. The geographical origins of the island’s Chinese migrants determined its socio-linguistic configuration. Linguistically, Taiwan was a microcosm of Fujian province: a majority of Southern Min (Hoklo) speakers and a small minority of Hakka speakers. Southern Min, one of the leading vernaculars in China’s south, became the dominant language in Taiwan. Learning institutions passed on the intellectual sustenance defined by the classical canon of the Confucian writings in the literary Southern Min pronunciation, which was then interpreted in colloquial speech, or the language of everyday use. In this respect, literacy practices in Taiwan fit typical patterns of diglossia in Chinese linguistic culture. During the two centuries of Chinese cultural consolidation (1684-1895), Southern Min in Taiwan developed into a distinctive, identifiable repertoire and a well-established entity neatly integrated into the traditional social and cultural poly system held together by the Confucian framework. The annexation by Japan in 1895 put this traditional perception of the Chinese language as carrier of the Chinese cultural heritage in a new perspective.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Chapter 2 The Japanese Regime Introduction Japanese colonial rule imposed a 50-year period of ideological separation from China, the ancestral homeland and carrier of Han culture and civilization. Following annexation by Japan in 1895, Taiwan was no longer a Chinese province but became a Japanese colony. This fundamental shift in belonging drew attention to Taiwan as an entity and caused a nationalist-inspired awakening primarily among a group of Japan-educated Taiwanese elite who directed their opposition to structural and cultural inequalities established by the colonial authorities. The thrust of this chapter is to demonstrate the extent to which Japanese colonial educational policy accommodated to the realities of the Chinese-language practices in Taiwan. Particular attention is given to the first two decades, which saw the graduation of the first generation of Japan-educated Taiwanese, a group which would produce the leaders of the homefront mobilization movement of the 1920s and 1930s. The Meiji Restoration and Expansionism The Meiji Restoration (Meiji ishin ܴ‫ݯ‬ᆢཥ) equipped Japan with the machinery of a modern nation-state: a constitution, new legal code, capitalist industry, compulsory education and modernized navy and army. From the outset, Meiji power was concentrated in the hands of the two great western fiefs, Satsuma ᙓነ and ChŇshş ߏࢪ (also known as SatchŇ ᙓߏ), which maintained a tight grip on the military. Satsuma controlled the navy, and ChŇshş the army. SatchŇ’s victory in the overthrow of the Shogunate also concluded the restoration of its political and economic power, which was based on a tradition of overseas trade (Sakai 1964: 391-403). Meiji bureaucrats and top politicians were linked to large companies (zaibatsu ଄ሚ) that had emerged as Japan’s economy developed into a commodity market. Intense economic competition between these various independent clan-based economies had become part of the system. Under a slogan of “Enrich the country and strengthen the army” (fukoku kyŇhei ൤୯மծ), these economic entities were eagerly looking for means to increase their business interests, extending to economic gains from overseas markets, colonization and imperialism. As William Beasley (1987: 14) pointed out, the most distinctive feature of Japanese imperialism was that it originated within the structure of an informal empire established by the West in East Asia during the 19th century. Western exploration of the Pacific extended to Japan, with Britain, Russia and the United States imposing on Japan the same kind of legal and commercial disabilities that had been devised to serve their

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

28

The Japanese Regime

needs in China. Japanese nation-building was as much inspired by a feeling of cultural inferiority to the West as by ideas of Japanese cultural superiority in defining its relationship with its neighbouring countries. Resisting “white imperialism” legitimized overseas conquest and domination for the sake of winning security, reputation, economic advantages, and gave Japan’s civilizing mission an ideological footing. The origins of Japanese imperialism can be traced to the period of Tokugawa 㾇ο rule (1600-1868). When the Tokugawa founders declared their seclusion policy (sakoku ᙹ୯) in the 1630s, they envisioned peace, tranquillity and agricultural self-sufficiency. While this generated expansion of a commercial economy – with aspects new to the Japanese way of life and prevalent thought – seclusion also had repercussions on intellectual life. Japanese scholars became absorbed in a major wave of self-reflection – partly in reaction to the growing influence of Confucian ideas and scholarship in Tokugawa society – and sought a body of teachings originating in Japan. Self-reflection gave rise to textual analysis of the oldest form of the Japanese language as a means to locate refined moral norms that might guide the political order and control the rapidly changing society. A return to Japanese mythology and ancient classics such as the Collection of Ten Thousand Leaves (Man’yŇshş ᢩယ໣), Records of Ancient Matters (Kojiki ђ ٣इ) and Chronicles of Japan (Nihon shoki Вҁਜइ) was believed to provide a profound interpretation of Japanese life and identification of peculiarly Japanese cultural elements. In trying to establish a correlation between the way of the Confucian sages and the way of the native shintŇ (kami ઓ) tradition, the notion of Restoration ShintŇ (fukko shintŇ ൺᑫઓၰ) was born (Nakai 1980: 157-199). Ideas to explain and critique history, religion and politics were extracted from indigenous culture, which was being interpreted as a separate and distinctive entity. This nativist school of thought that emerged in the 18th century is known as Nativism (kokugaku ୯Ꮲ).1 Under influence of more radical thinkers and writers, the philological study of these particularly Japanese cultural elements shifted to ideological interpretation, and propagated the idea of returning to that fine “Japanism” or a pristine “true Japanese heart.” Hence, kokugaku teachings emphasized that Japan was the new “middle kingdom” (chşgoku ύ୯), independent of, and spiritually superior to the rest of the world (Harootunian 1978: 63-104; Collcut 1991: 111-156). At the same time, exponents of foreign trade and overseas expansion, such as Hayashi Shihei ݅ηѳ (1738-93) and Honda Toshiaki ҁӭճܴ (1744-1821), increasingly criticized the Tokugawa national isolation policy, and warned of dangers from the West.2 By 1868, kokugaku teachings 1

2

Kodansha defines this term as “the philological study of Japanese classical literature and ancient writings with the aim of identifying particularly Japanese cultural elements or examples of Japanese mentality,” but adds that “in the course of modern Japanese history until the end of World War II, it also meant the study of the imperial state, devoted to the elucidation of what was seen as Japan’s national polity or kokutai” (kokutai ୯ᡏ). See Gen (1983: 275). In 1775, Hayashi went to study in Nagasaki ߏ஘ and heard from the Dutch about the Russian expansion north of Japan. In 1785 he wrote An Illustrated Survey of Three Countries (Sankoku tsuran Zuitestsu Ο㡚೯䉉კ䁃), which gave a geographical account of three “countries” – Korea, the

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Meiji Restoration

29

had penetrated widely throughout Japan. Each clan had its vocal advocates on the direction of expansion. Expansionist aspirations were promoted by journals, newspapers, and various scholarly and nationalistic societies. Taking the example of Japanese expansion into the Philippines, Josefa Saniel (1998: 83) mentioned at least four societies that showed a lively interest in the Philippines. These were the Tokyo Geographical Association (Tokyo chigaku kyŇkai ܿ٧ӦᏢ‫ ཮ڐ‬1879), the Tokyo Economic Association (Tokyo keizaigaku kyŇkai ܿ٧࿶ᔮᏢ‫ ཮ڐ‬1887), the East Asian Association (TŇhŇ kyŇkai ܿ٥‫ ཮ڐ‬1880) and the Colonial Association (Shokumin kyŇkai ෗҇ ‫ ཮ڐ‬1893). These associations discussed the relative merits of policies such as the English laissez-faire and a gradual course of development as opposed to more interventionist policies accompanied by Japanese settlement schemes and emigration. But as this suggests, in the handling of foreign affairs, Meiji leadership was caught in an ongoing power struggle, and as Peter Duus (1995: 12) argued, “disputes revolved around the speed, direction, and management of expansion, not its legitimacy, which was no more questioned than the legitimacy of steam-driven machinery or constitutional reform.” Donald Calman (1992: 283) similarly observed that the succession of Meiji political crises (seihen ࡹ 㥐 ), “were not debates over whether the mainland [China] or Korea should be attacked, but were concerned essentially with who should lead the charge.” It is against this background that the annexation of Taiwan should be viewed. The Annexation to Colonial Modernity The 1895 annexation of Taiwan put Japan firmly on the international map in terms of contemporary nation-building. For the newly colonized Taiwanese, the annexation cut right through the mainland China-centred economic structure and cultural heritage. The military conquest caused an island-wide socio-economic upheaval. Initially gleeful at winning Taiwan as a prize of war, the colonizers were soon sobered by the reality of governing the new territory. The first three years were spent pacifying the island. Economic development during this period concentrated on constructing government buildings and roads for military purposes. A constant need to recruit soldiers to break down local resistance, combined with the fact that many lost their lives, either in battle or due to Taiwan’s subtropical climate, created an unfavorable impression of the colonial venture in the Japanese homeland. Japanese public opinion favored the sale of Taiwan to any available buyer, including imperial China (Yanaihara 1929: 9). More Ryşkyşs and Ezochi ጺӮӦ or the Land of the Ainu (present Hokkaido чੇၰ) – and also of the Ogasawara Islands λಀচፏ৞. The following year, he completed A Discussion of the Military Problems of a Maritime Nation (Kaikoku heidan ੇ୯ծፋ) in which he warned against the Russian menace, and called for improvement of arms and coastal defences. In a similar line, Honda Toshiaki wrote of the need to develop Ezochi, from where a commercial and military expansion could be launched into northern Asia. His works A Secret Plan for Governing the Country (Keisei hisaku ࿶Шઝ฼) and Tales of the West (Saiiki monogatari Ջୱ‫ނ‬ᇟ) were published in 1798. For more details on Honda’s writings and Ezochi, see Morris-Suzuki (1994: 1-24).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

30

The Japanese Regime

concerted efforts toward ruling the newly acquired territory were undertaken during the fourth administration (1898-1906) under Governor-General Kodama GentarŇ 㝺 ҏྍϼ॔ (1852-1907) and his civil affairs bureau chief, Dr. GotŇ Shimpei ࡕᛯཥѳ (1857-1929). Japanese state intervention subjected the local social order to active management, scientific social planning and engineering. Taiwanese society was to be redesigned, not by custom and historical accident, but according to conscious, rational, and scientific criteria. As observed by James Scott (1998: 93), the experience of modernity was, above all, an experience of disorientating speed, movement and change. The same experience befell Taiwan. In order to make the colony attractive to Japanese investment, GotŇ initiated a policy that actively promoted economic development projects, preparing for the entry of Japanese capital (Chang and Myers 1973: 446-449; Ka 1995: 82). Agricultural improvement and commercialization were intended to supply food and raw materials to Japan and for export abroad. This led early scholars discussing the nature of Japanese colonialism to believe that the main benefit to Japan of having a colonial empire was strategic rather than economic. It provided the metropole with control over an enlarged food base, created a ring of defensive barriers around Japan, and afforded bases for further expansion into East Asia (Myers and Peattie 1984: 35). The incorporation of Taiwan into the Japanese capitalist economy was accomplished through a process of conservation and restructuring of the indigenous socio-economic systems. Land reform restructured the traditional property system, but preserved continuation of a peasant economy in the countryside (Ka 1995). Adaptation of the traditional Chinese baojia (hokŇ ߥҘ) system of mutual household surveillance enforced and legitimized tight control over the Taiwanese (Ts’ai 2009). This hokŇ system also served as an auxiliary arm of the civil police force without having to significantly increase the number of policemen. Through this system, reform measures were introduced and a sizable body of compliant local elites was mobilized. This mobilization process concurred with cultural policies and will be addressed further below. Annexation made Taiwan an integral part of the Japanese empire. This brought the problem of its legal status to the foreground. The Meiji Constitution did not include any clauses dealing with foreign territory. Consequently, implementation of one legal system, consistent with that of the home islands, would imply the right for Taiwanese to participate, through the ballot box, in decision-making (Chen 1984: 247). Inevitably this would undermine colonial legitimization. Thus it was decided that the Constitution was not applicable to the colonial subjects. The legal strategy was subsequently amended and replaced by the controversial Law 6.3. (rokusanhŇ ϤΟ‫)ݤ‬. This law authorized the Taiwan Governor-General to issue executive ordinances (ritsurei ࡓз), with the same effect as Japanese law (Wang 1992). In reality, Law 6.3. translated into separate governance and formally codified the structural and cultural inequalities between colonizer and colonized. It is in this context that the mode of Japanese domination and its colonial discourse should be considered.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Colonial Modernity

31

Japan’s entry into the general culture of modernity coincided with the historical project of nation-building that had assumed a global dimension around the turn of the 20th century. The directive for a standard and official language, literacy campaigns, modern and liberal reforms of popular schooling, and institution-building established the network of educational, social, political, and economic relationships central to the dominant ideology of nation-building. Inspired by Western examples, modern Japanese statecraft proceeded with building a national culture, national language, and national tradition in which the people of the nation could take pride, and importantly, distinguish themselves from others. In Japan, substantial educational reform was intended to impart these new social and cultural values, and language standardization became the agency by which to achieve national cohesion and create a distinctly Japanese common culture. One of the hotly debated issues in the making of modern Japanese statecraft had to do with defining culturally inherited boundaries with its neighbour, the Chinese empire. This was particularly revealed in the redefinition and renegotiation of Japanese culture, language and script. Victory in the Sino-Japanese War intensified the search for a Japan that would be culturally and linguistically independent from China. Things Chinese were positioned next to things Western, and considered of a lower standing. Hence, the continued use of the Chinese script in the Japanese language was questioned by Japanese reformers advocating Westernization. Western studies on phonology were used to argue that an ideographic language was pre-modern and conservative (Unger 1990: 391-411). Increasingly, Japanese scholars argued for eliminating Chinese characters from the Japanese language and modernizing the language with the kana syllabary (kanazukai 㜓Ӝᇾ) or even the use of the romanized alphabet (rŇmaji hyŇkihŇ 嘎嘙嗿ӷ߄૶‫( )ݤ‬Sato 1997: 118-135). This renewed interest in modification of the existing script became not only the leitmotiv but also a source of conflict between scholars, writers and journalists concerned with national educational reform (Twine 1991; Lee 1996). As this suggests, Japan acquired Taiwan as a colony at a time when debates about Japanese-language standardization, educational reform, and the establishment of a common culture were firmly entwined. Colonial ambition extended the definition of Japaneseness to Taiwan. Using the grand discourse of a civilizing mission, Taiwanese colonial subjects were trapped in the locus of Japanese modernity. Becoming Japanese entailed a process that destined them to be linguistically subdued and culturally incorporated over a period of time. To this end, the Japanese colonial administration implemented a policy of assimilation (dŇka ӕϯ). The Japanese civilizing mission in Taiwan has been described as the assimilation doctrine (dŇkashugi ӕϯЬက), literally “making the colonized the same as the Japanese.” Leo Ching (2001: 95) observed that “dŇka was conceived as a colonial project, a fundamental strategy of cultural integration that, in its variable manifestations, projected a vague contour of what a colonial society ultimately should be.” That is to say that it was a colonial ideology that maintained a de-

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

32

The Japanese Regime

gree of legitimacy for Japanese rule and, as shall be discussed further below, left room for contestation and re-articulation by the colonized. On the surface, it served to conceal the gap between the realities of political and economic inequalities and the call for cultural assimilation inherent in Japanese colonial practices in Taiwan. The ideological underpinnings for assimilation were rooted in kokugaku teachings, summarized in the rhetorical use “same language, same race” (dŇbun dŇshu ӕЎӕᅿ) and “impartiality and equal favor” (isshi dŇjin ΋ຎӕϘ).3 DŇbun dŇshu referred to the cultural and racial affinities between the Chinese and Japanese peoples, and isshi dŇjin to the benevolence of all who came under the sway of the Japanese emperor and state. Using the rhetoric of the Japanese emperor as head of the Japanese race and state  alluding to an imperial “family”  Japaneseness could be extended to include new populations brought under Japanese dominion. The Japanese historical experience had endowed the Japanese race with unique talents for the assimilation of foreign peoples and ideas. The superior races had a moral right, a responsibility, to guide the destinies of lesser peoples. In due time, they would be properly assimilated into the Japanese empire, transformed into diligent, loyal, law-abiding “imperial peoples” (kŇmin ࣤ҇), imbued with the same values, bearing the same responsibilities, and sharing the same lifestyles of the Japanese. From this colonialist perspective, the Chinese language needed to be abandoned as soon as possible in Taiwan. Early administrators and educators, such as Izawa Shşji Ҳ㟾অΒ (1851-1917), shared in this ideological framework. The colonial project did not encourage the perpetuation of Chinese language and cultural practices in Taiwan. Hence, dissemination of the Japanese language was to play a crucial role as the vehicle for inculcating an understanding of and appreciation for the Japanese spirit. In this scenario, legitimization was granted by the dŇbun dŇshu rhetoric. In the face of white aggression, Japanese and Chinese were the “same race” (dŇshu ӕᅿ). The only difference was that Japan was at the top of the Asian racial hierarchy and was bestowed with a civilizing mission to liberate the lesser and therefore inferior Asian peoples from the white aggressor. Similarly, the goal of assimilation had more chance to succeed, because Japan and Taiwan shared a similar intellectual background and “same language” (dŇbun ӕЎ), which were the result of close geographical and historical links between the two countries. But whereas Japan had moved forward, Taiwan, at the time of its annexation, was still rooted in pre-Meiji times. Propagating Japanese as the language of wider communication in the empire was intended to consolidate the political and cultural force of the Japanese mother country and the superiority of the language itself. By doing so, the Japanese would never again suffer from a sense of linguistic inferiority. But once in Taiwan, the confrontation 3

Mark Peattie (1984: 80-127) has translated the concept dŇbun as “same script.” A more appropriate translation is “same written language”; in addition to the character script, the ideas of Confucianism were also considered to be shared by Chinese and Japanese.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Linguistic Colonialism

33

between Chinese and Japanese culture brought a different reality to the fore, and put Japan’s drafted assimilation policy to the test. Policies of Japanese Linguistic Colonialism Japanese policies toward the Chinese language in Taiwanese society illustrated the Janus face of colonial rule, which was reinforced by the ambiguous colonial ideology of assimilation. Japanese literacy campaigns and formal schooling served to liberate the native population from their backwardness and prepare them to participate in the modern world that Japan promised. There was a threefold rationale behind using the colonizer’s language to transform society (Carnoy 1982: 79-126). Firstly, Japanese was an economic-reproductive language: the colonial administrators required proficient Japanese speakers to integrate the colony into the Japanese homeland. Secondly, the Japanese language imparted modern ideas, based on Japanese norms, values, and beliefs as the model social structure. Thirdly, the Japanese language was repressive. The implicit logic of the Japanese literacy campaigns was to define a hierarchy of cultures, in which Japanese language and script were culturally superior to Chinese language and script. Collecting data from various population consensuses did not focus on how well the Taiwanese spoke Japanese, but how well they could write the language (Sato 2002; Tomita 2003). Japanese linguistic colonialism was thus not only about imposing its language but first and foremost about imparting the Japanese language and its script, which was considered culturally superior to the Chinese-character based system. Therefore, if Japanese linguistic colonialism and the imposition of its language are considered without specifically referring to the major distinction between the Chinese and Japanese orthographies, the locus of the problem will be overlooked. But as a distinct language and bearer of the Chinese cultural heritage in Taiwan, Chinese was a formidable obstacle to the process of colonization, control, manipulation, instruction and propaganda. The appropriate means for devaluing this local Chinese heritage was to embark on a linguistic colonialism that aimed to instill Japanese language and script as the new bearer of civilization in Taiwan. Educational policies were drafted to achieve this aim. In May 1895 an Education Bureau (gakumubu Ꮲ୍೽) was established in the colonial capital, Taihoku (Ch. Taipei). Rear Admiral Governor-General Kabayama Sukenori ᐇξၗइ (1837-1922) appointed Izawa Shşji as its acting chief.4 Izawa’s reasons for coming to Taiwan were mainly an attempt to try out his ideas on education in the new colony. In 1890, Izawa Shşji had organized the Society for State Education (kokka kyŇikusha ୯ৎ௲‫)ޗػ‬, which for several years had campaigned 4

Japanese scholars recognize the importance of Izawa Shşji to Meiji education, both in Japan and in the Taiwan colony. For biographical accounts, see Kaminuma (1962) and Hara (1987). For his collected works, see Matsuoka (1958). A comprehensive overview of Izawa’s pragmatic approach to education in Taiwan has been presented by Kleeman (2003: 137-140).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

34

The Japanese Regime

unsuccessfully for the public financing of education. As Patricia Tsurumi (1977: 13) observed, Izawa saw the cession of Taiwan to Japan as a second chance. His interest in Taiwan was further inspired by linguistic research on the Chinese language, as illustrated with his textbook Mirror of Sino-Japanese Character Pronunciation (Nisshin ji-on kagami Вమӷॣ᠘) (Nagao 1980: 100-110). Izawa intended to use this as a transitional tool for the educational endeavor in the colony, which signalled the general assumption in Japanese intellectual circles at the time that beifang guanhua was widely understood in Taiwan (Rokukaku 1959: 161-180). This is not to say, however, that Izawa Shşji had Chinese-language instruction in mind. In an editorial entitled “Discussing Taiwan Education,” published in the newspaper Hiroshima Shinbun (‘Hiroshima Newspaper’ ቶ৞ཥᆪ) on 25 May 1895, he elaborated his ideas on educational strategy, which were summarized as the instruction of Japanese and the replacement of the complex Chinese character script by the Japanese kana syllabary (Izawa 1958a: 571). In Taiwan, it did not take long for Izawa and the colonial administration to realize that there was an immense language barrier. While military conquest had spoken the language of gunshots, with rule in place, the colonial administration encountered major difficulties in communicating their directives to the local population. At least one or two interpreters were required to convey administrators’ directives to the populace, translating from Japanese into the local languages – Southern Min or Hakka – through the medium of either guanhua or English. A number of compliant interpreters were Christians, who had acquired conversational English with Presbyterian missionaries. Others were those with some working knowledge of Japanese, or literati conversant in guanhua. Still, this method of working put the Japanese administration in a difficult position. They had no means to verify that the interpreter had been conveying the correct message, given the Japanese inability to speak or understand the Taiwanese languages, and there was the reality of a limited functionality of guanhua in society at large. In fact, the only reliable and effective means of communication was Classical Chinese, the literary medium that embodied the “same language, same race” notion in the colonial project. The Chinese language offered two assets: the written character script and the embodiment of Confucian morality. Confucian morality was the foundation of orthodox Chinese culture, and had been historically assimilated into Japanese culture. The process of reading, writing and interpreting the Confucian canon written in Classical Chinese constituted the main purpose of Chinese and Japanese traditional learning. The difference between the two was that Japanese learning of the Confucian classics had given rise to a distinct reading form as well as variations in interpretation and selection of particular texts, also known as kanbun ᅇЎ. Despite debates on the pros and cons of kanbun as the expression of pure Japanese culture at the time, the classical texts and the style of the language in which these texts were composed still served as the ideological backbone of Japan’s modernization and were recognized as the literary language among the educated members of Japanese society. Yet, the objective of Japanese-

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Linguistic Colonialism

35

language standardization during the Meiji period was precisely to break the kanbun monopoly and its restrictions on literacy in society. Even if the Chinese script proved indispensable in setting up the educational structure in the Taiwan colony, there was still the reality of diglossia; Classical Chinese co-existed with Southern Min and Hakka as the languages of widespread communication. Consequently, Japanese literacy campaigns and the institutionalization of formal schooling could not proceed far without some kind of accommodation to the local languages spoken on a daily basis. Japaneselanguage instructors had to be able to communicate in the classrooms and in a language that made sense. In hindsight, Japanese literacy campaigns succeeded through the intermediary of Chinese literacy practices and the roles these performed in society. Izawa’s educational strategy was outlined in a proposal entitled “Written Opinion on Taiwan Education” (Taiwan kyŇiku ikenshŇ ᆵ᡼௲‫ػ‬ཀ‫ـ‬ਜ), which he presented to Governor-General Kabayama in May 1895 (TKES 1939: 6-10). It consisted of “emergency activities” and “permanent activities.” “Emergency activities” focused on instruction of the Japanese language to the colonized and the instruction of Southern Min – now koined Taiwanese (taiwango ᆵ᡼ᇟ)5 – to the Japanese residents. “Permanent activities” included institutions to popularize education for both Taiwanese and Japanese. At the end of October 1895 Izawa made a trip to Japan to report on the educational progress made in the colony and to recruit new teachers. He made sure that for a period of three months the new teachers were taught the basics of Taiwanese, mainly pronunciation and conversation, but also translation for use in the classroom. The intention was not to provide bilingual education, but to facilitate Japaneselanguage instruction by aid of the native tongue. Izawa made this vision clear during an encounter in October 1895 with Reverend Thomas Barclay (1849-1935), who had suggested instruction in Taiwanese, rather than Japanese (Kaminuma 1962: 221-222). As of 31 March 1896, the colonial administration commenced with the implementation of the “permanent activities”: the establishment of National Language Institutes (kokugo denshşsho ୯ᇟ໺ಞ‫)܌‬, throughout the island and of a National Language School (kokugo gakkŇ ୯ᇟᏢਠ). National language (kokugo ୯ᇟ) was to be understood as Japanese and was used to foster colonialist aims from the beginning. The National Language Institutes were built on the model of Izawa Shşji’s pioneering Zhishanyan School (Shizangan gakudŇ ޲ξᠯᏢ୸).6 The National Language School 5 6

The terms “Southern Min” and “Taiwanese” will be used interchangeably throughout the chapter. In July 1895, Izawa moved the Educational Bureau to the Zhishanyan hamlet near present-day Shilin γ݅. In exploring the countryside, Izawa had come across a temple, and decided to set up the Educational Bureau in this picturesque area. Through the intermediary of two literati, jinshi Chen Dengyuan ഋฦϡ and juren Pan Chengqing ዐԋమ, he was able to rent the place. Together with six Japanese officials from the Educational Bureau and the help of Lin Ruiting ݅ྷ৥ and interpreter Pa Lian-tek փೱቺ, he set his emergency activities in motion. The activities included linguistic research on the local vernaculars, compilation of textbook materials and the first Japanese language teacher-training program. The school opened on 26 July 1895. Initially six students enrolled. These were Ke Qiujie ࢒ࣿዅ, Pan Guangzhu ዐӀ㇕, Chen Zhaoluan ഋӂᢢ, Pan Guangming ዐӀܴ,

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

36

The Japanese Regime

was set up in Taihoku and included a department for teacher training and language instruction. During his third journey to Japan in May 1897, Izawa experienced the financial reality of colonialism. Mizuno Jun Нഁᒥ (1850-1900), head of the colonial government’s civil department (minseibu ҇ࡹ೽), apportioned the budget of the Taiwan administration in favor of military operations, such as police superintendents and prison wardens. Izawa’s educational expansion plans were too costly. He took it personally and resigned as the head of the Education Bureau (Tsurumi 1977: 17). For the Kodama administration it was clear that the colonial project of assimilation would take a long time and immediate needs were to make sure that colonial subjects could function according to the Japanese model as quickly and efficiently as possible. Izawa’s proposal for state education gave way to “elite education” paid for by the local community, with a preference for wealthy Taiwanese. During the Kodama administration, members of affluent families were appointed as local heads in the hokŇ system, and formed the backbone of the educational system. Hence, the colonial government anticipated making the island’s school system financially self-sufficient. Other aspects in the overall strategy directing the proliferation of new educational forms included developing a stratum of Taiwanese educated enough to service the administrative and clerical apparatus of the colonial government, educating Japanese nationals living in Taiwan, popularizing formal education for girls and producing Taiwanese teachers and medical personnel. All these directives followed the pattern of Izawa’s blueprint. Policies of Japanese linguistic colonialism not only imposed Japanese as the new national language, but the entire educational structure also changed radically. As a result, the languages of the colonizer and the colonized began to interact with each other. Steadily but surely, the Taiwanese population began to see signs of the Japanese centralizing forces at work. By imperial decree, the Taiwanese were ordered to adhere to the new rules and regulations, which they had not asked for, yet could no longer ignore. This became obvious after 1898 when the Kodama administration began to replace the National Language Institutes with Common Schools (kŇgakkŇ ϦᏢਠ), which provided a six-year course in elementary education. These schools were strictly for Taiwanese, while children of Japanese nationals residing in Taiwan were enrolled in Primary Schools (shŇgakkŇ λᏢਠ) (Tsurumi 1977: 32-34). The Taiwanese literati class saw no need to comply with the Japanese authorities, not in the least with their “barbaric education system” (Wu 1978: 66). Japanese statistics of 1898 specified that 7,548 boys (and 290 girls) were enrolled in the then 74 Common Schools, a number that included branch schools. Traditional Chinese learning institutions – by then lumped together under the Japanese term shobŇ (shufang ਜ‫ – )܊‬increased from 1,127 to 1,707 from 1897 to 1898, with a total of about 17,000 to 29,941 students (Yoshino 1927: 199; TKES 1939: 408-09). Pan Naiwen ዐଐЎ and Pan Guangkai ዐӀི. By September, the number had increased to 21, and they were divided into three groups, according to age and command of Classical Chinese. See Yoshino (1927: 309), Shizanganshi kankŇkaihen (1932: 17-20).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Language Accommodation

37

How this process of language interaction was imposed on and experienced by the Taiwanese will be discussed in the following section. The first part will focus on the Japanese-Chinese language accommodation in education; the second part will explore Japanese cultural policies in view of the assets of Chinese literacy in Taiwanese society. Early Japanese-Chinese Language Accommodation in Education In the first two decades of Japanese rule, the policies of Japanese linguistic colonialism accommodated to primary language and cultural differences in education and society at large. A new set of terms introduced Japanese as the national language, kokugo, and the spoken languages were defined as local language (dogo βᇟ) or Taiwan language, taiwango. Classical Chinese was given its Japanese pronunciation, kanbun. The Japanese educational system incorporated the Chinese language in three different institutions. These were the Common Schools, Normal Schools (shihan gakkŇ ৣጄᏢਠ) and shobŇ. Due to practical considerations, the colonial authorities did not tamper with the widespread customary use of spoken Taiwanese and Hakka in society. Rather, Japanese linguists in the administration compiled dictionaries and allocated room to instruct Japanese via the spoken mother tongue. For example, Ogawa Naoyoshi λοۘက (1869-1947), the most renowned Japanese linguist serving the colonial administration in Taiwan, lived most of his life on the island (Ang 1992a: 75-78; Tomita 1998: 97107). Acquisition of these linguistic data, with inclusion of the Austronesian languages, was primarily a political tool and a mechanism of governmental domination. At least six series on Taiwanese-language research were compiled and published by the administration in the early years. Examples are the periodicals Taiwango (‘Taiwan Language’ ᆵ᡼ᇟ 1901-), Taiwangogaku Zasshi (‘Taiwanese Language Magazine’ ᆵ᡼ᇟᏢ䁫ᇞ 1902-), and Go-en (‘The Language Collection’ ᇟल) which was published by the Research Society for Taiwanese (taiwango kenkyşkai ᆵ᡼ᇟࣴ‫ )཮ز‬in 1908. Although these publications were made for Japanese officials and colonial purposes, Taiwanese people were aware of them. The periodicals were available in Japanese bookstores and libraries, and their Japanese publishers employed a considerable number of Taiwanese staff members (Ang 1992a: 78). The Education Bureau took a total of seven years to complete the first series of instruction materials for the Common Schools (1899-1906). In these early Japaneselanguage primers, entitled Taiwan Chinese-language Reader (Taiwan kyŇkayŇsho kokumin yomihon ᆵ᡼௲ࣽҔਜǵᅇЎ侇ҁ), the emphasis was on dialogue and everyday vocabulary in Japanese. Each lesson started with a sentence in Japanese kanji (ᅇӷ), of which the pronunciation (ŇyŇ ᔈҔ) was noted in katakana syllabary. Then followed its translation under the heading “local reading” (dogo yomikata βᇟ侇Б), and each lesson concluded with a translation in Taiwanese, so that the students would understand the meaning of the text. Instead of a translation in Classical Chinese, the administration utilized the colloquial form (baiduyin) of Southern Min. The pronunciation

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

The Japanese Regime

38

was marked in katakana and a Japanese-style tonal system was printed on top of or next to it, which was included in the first lesson for further reference. This system was also used for other Taiwanese phonological features which do not exist in Japanese.7 The necessity of the situation favored side-by-side translation and attention to the local pronunciation. This particular method of language acquisition drew from ongoing research on improving the first textbooks used in the National Language Institutes mentioned above. Textbook materials for these early educational facilities were compiled between 1895 and 1897 under the auspices of the Education Bureau, and used the side-by-side translation method (Yoshino 1927: 309). Materials consisted of two kinds: language manuals for instructing Taiwanese students in the Japanese language and glossaries in Southern Min for training Japanese officials and language instructors (Ang 1992a: 6061). The glossaries were compiled in the Zhangzhou koiné, rather than the Quanzhou koiné (Murakami 1989: 30-33). Tomita Akira 㭦Җণ (1999: 160) has explained that this was because of the location of the Education Bureau and that the Taiwanese contributors, such as Ke Qiujie and Chen Zhaoluan were from the region where Zhangzhou was the dominant koiné. Another explanation suggests that its Japanese compilers relied on the rhyming glossaries and missionary works that were composed in the Zhangzhou koiné. Glossaries were compiled by KŇzu SensaburŇ ઓࢭиΟ॔ (1852-1897), who was in charge of the compilation section of the Education Bureau after its restructuring in 1896. These were Revised Taiwan Fifteen Sounds with Vowels and Consonants Table, with inclusion of the Eight Tonal Symbols (Teisei Taiwan jşgo on oyobi jibohyo, fu hachisei fugŇ ु҅ᆵ᡼ΜϖॣϷӷ҆߄ ߕΖᖂ಄ဦ) and Detailed Explanation of the Taiwan Fifteen Sounds with Vowels and Consonants Table (Taiwan jşgo on oyobi jibohyo shŇkai ᆵ᡼ΜϖॣϷӷ҆߄၁ှ), which were published in November 1896. Unfortunately, most of these early Japanese- and Taiwanese-language materials have been lost, so that current research has to draw from Kokubu Tanetake’s ୯۬ᅿ‫ ݓ‬descriptive study (1931). Regarding the language primers, Kokubu noted that these works served as the blueprint for the textbooks to be used in the Common Schools later on; as for the glossaries, Kokubu mentioned that KŇzu based his work on the kana system as used in Izawa’s textbook, while the symbols for the tonal representation were taken from John MacGowan’s English and Chinese Dictionary of the Amoy Dialect and Collection of English-Chinese Eloquence (Kokubu 1931: 69-71, 93). In 1899, the Education Bureau decided to follow the suggestions of a primary school instructor Hashimoto Takeshi ᐏҁ‫ݓ‬. Hashimoto suggested abandoning the side-by-side translation method and introduced a novel approach to the instruction of the Japanese language. His pedagogical method was based on the Frenchman François Gouin’s (1831-1895) The Art of Teaching and Studying Languages (L’art d’enseigner et étudier les langues 1880). Gouin’s method focused on the correlation between language learn7

For a discussion, see Klöter (2005: 136-147).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Language Accommodation

39

ing and its conceptualization by means of repeated hearing. Rather than copying and practicing character writing, pupils were to pay attention to listening and comprehension of set phrases. The Education Bureau translated it as Gouin’s Method of Language Instruction (Goan shi gengo kyŇju hŇ’an 噐 噴 嘽 噳М‫ق‬ᇟ௲௤Б ਢ ), and teachers were encouraged to use this method as a guideline for instruction of the new language primers, which were published in 1906. Until 1912, this method of instruction was prescribed in the Teachers’ Instruction Manual (Taiwan kŇgakkŇ kokugo kyŇju yŇshi ᆵ᡼Ϧ Ꮲਠ୯ᇟ௲௤ाԑ). Post-primary education in the colony consisted of a Medical School (igakkŇ ᙴᏢ ਠ) and a Normal School, the latter divided into a department for teacher training and language instruction. The two-year teacher-training course trained elementary school teachers. Out of a total of 34 hours of class per week, 10 hours were spent on Chinese-language instruction. In the first year this was mainly a study of the spoken language, while in the second year more attention was paid to learning the reading form of Southern Min (wenduyin) and essay composition (Ang 1992a: 67). The language department trained clerical staff. Again, a distinction was made between Taiwanese students instructed in the Japanese-language course (kokugoka ୯ᇟፐ), and Japanese students enrolled in the local language course (dogoka βᇟፐ). This course was the successor of the Local Language Training School (dogo kŇshşjo βᇟᖱಞ‫)܌‬, which had been set up during the military transition period (May 1895-April 1896) to train interpreters for the army and to teach Southern Min – or taiwango – to Japanese colonial officials.8 According to Yoshino Hidekimi ӓഁ‫ذ‬Ϧ (1927: 340), the course was discontinued in 1901 because of a lack of applicants. The Japanese-language course for Taiwanese students provided three-year adult training either in the educational sector or as translators/interpreters and clerks in the lower-level bureaucracy. Before March 1898, out of the 580 graduates of the National Language Institute’s adult classes, more than 230 were employed in the public sector (TKES 1939: 216-217; Yang 1996: 79). These jobs included interpreters or clerks in the township administration, post and telegraphic offices, court, customs, prison, garrison force, military police, or at the newspaper. For example, of the 21 graduates of Izawa’s Zhishanyan school, Ke Qiujie, Zhu Junying ԙߪम, Ye Shousong ယტ݊, Chen Zhaoluan and Zhang Botang ஭դ୸ became Taiwanese- language instructors in the Japanese Language School; Qiu Longguo ߋᓪ୯ contributed to the 1904 New Japanese-Taiwanese Dictionary (Nitai shinjiten Вᆵཥᜏ‫ )ڂ‬and Shi Yangwen ࡼᗟЎ became a court interpreter (Ang 1992a: 53).9 8

9

The school closed in June 1896. Restructuring of the colonial bureaucracy entailed that the Education Bureau take over all educational affairs in the colony. The administration employed Taiwanese instructors Wang Xingqiao Цࢃᐑ and Chen Wenxi ഋЎྛ. It was also for this reason that its Taiwanese instructors were not trained by Izawa. Ang (1992a: 64). More detailed information can be obtained from the Taiwan sŇtokufu kŇbun ruisan (ᆵ᡼ᕴ࿎۬ϦЎ ᜪᝪ), and the three records on the Taiwan gentlemen’s medals (shinshŇ ಓക). These are ņzono (1916), Hara (1931) and Taiwan shinminpŇsha (1934, 1937, 1943).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

40

The Japanese Regime

In 1899, three Normal Schools were set up in Taihoku, Taichş (Ch. Taizhong) and Tainan offering three-year courses to train Taiwanese as Japanese-language instructors. In 1902, the Taihoku and Taichş Normal Schools were discontinued. Staff, students and facilities were redirected to the National Language School, kokugo gakkŇ in the capital. Two years later, in 1904, the Tainan Normal School also closed. The authorities stated that centralization of the teacher training was more convenient and that the National Language School’s course provided a sufficient supply of Taiwanese teachers (Tsurumi 1977: 23). In 1910, 66 Taiwanese graduated as the first public school teachers. Customarily, they were employed as assistant language teachers in the Common Schools throughout the island. Meanwhile, the colonial authorities saw to a limited enrollment in the Taiwan Government General Medical School (Taiwan sŇtokufu igakkŇ ᆵ㵈䀏࿎۬ᙴᏢਠ) in Taihoku. In general, Japanese literacy campaigns and modern schooling were expected to benefit only a small percentage of the island’s population. The bottom-line policy of the Kodama administration held that educational facilities should be made available to those who could afford it financially and be deliberately limited so as to avoid producing overeducated Taiwanese. If Japanese-language instruction was considered economically reproductive, the Common School graduate or young professional was either encouraged to continue the family business or serve at a lower level in the colonial administration. From a colonialist perspective, the most prestigious positions were teaching assignments in Common Schools or positions in the Taihoku hospital. In the eyes of the Taiwanese, the regime change disrupted the local social structure. An imperial edict issued from Peking (Beiping чѳ) on 20 May 1895 ordered all Qing officials to vacate their island posts and return to China (Lamley 1999: 205). Taiwanese scholar-officials and literati followed.10 Since they held high degrees or office titles, they were privileged to enter officialdom or to continue to hold office under Qing rule in China. This hasty departure of the Qing bureaucracy and a number of Taiwanese degree holders drained the island of its instructors and created an intellectual vacuum in society. Local employees in the yamen (ဲߐ), but also juren, xiucai (‫ذ‬ω), or candidates still preparing for the civil service examination, were left without an income. Because of their command of the written language, this group of “lower gentry” – those who had not yet entirely passed the three-level examinations – was eager to fill the vacated positions, if only to find an alternative source of income as private teachers. In the years immediately following 1895, traditional Chinese education provided a source of income and perpetuated its function in the cultural market. Until 1904, the number of students in the traditional schools exceeded that of the Japanese-styled Common Schools (Wu 1978). Given the circumstances, this was not so unusual. What incentive did Taiwanese parents have to send their children to a Common School? 10 Earlier research has contended that there is no way of knowing how many Taiwanese left the island during the Japanese take over. According to a Japanese police record, during the first two years, up to 8 May 1898, approximately 5,460 Taiwanese left for China, cited in Chen (1988: 28 fn. 9).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Language Accommodation

41

Even if Common School had used Chinese as the language of instruction, the mere fact that from then on the educational system was to be run by Japanese was bitterly resented. Based on these premises, how much cooperation could Japanese expect in their educational policies and language imposition? Because the traditional Chinese institutes were the cradle of learning, they provided Japanese with the infrastructure needed to achieve the transition to Japanese literacy. In fact, these shobŇ, as they were now lumped together and statistically recorded in surveys, were a crucial and tangible communicative link that the Japanese rulers had with the local erudite communities. Echoing Izawa, some colonial officials also pointed out the importance of these traditional schools. In 1896 Kinoshita Kuniyoshi ЕΠٖܱ wrote that abolition of the shobŇ would do more harm than good to the implementation of Japanese rule. Instead he suggested adopting a reform policy: The shobŇ of this island date a long way back, and have greatly contributed to learning. If you abolish them, then the teachers won’t be able to make a living, and this will be harmful to the implementation of rule on this island. But on the other hand, we also need to set up educational institutions to replace the shobŇ. However, in the long run, the costs are too high, therefore, when spreading the new learning on the island, we must preserve the shobŇ, and only aim to adopt a reform policy”(TKES 1939: 969).

Tainan County magistrate Isogai Yasutada ᕚ‫ن‬Ⴀ۸ drew attention to the advantages traditional education offered for instilling the national spirit: Although we are about to start implementing our policy, the task before us is not small. But if the strategy of the imperial body and the standard of patriotism and loyal citizens can be transferred to the minds of the people, they will be gradually changed and it is this that is the urgent task. The conditions in this county show that teaching the books of Mencius or reciting poetry are really the simple way. Given the circumstances, because the students of this place study diligently, and have a strong memory, this is irreplaceable. If the grand strategy of Japan’s kokutai, and the words and actions of the loyal patriotic citizens were to be translated into kanbun, and spread throughout this island, and set as a rule to teach the children in the shobŇ as the accompanying textbooks for teachers and students, then this would be greatly beneficial for the education of the people (TKES 1939: 969-70).

Formalization of Classical Chinese (ᅇЎ kanbun/hanwen) in the Common School curriculum was designed to break the monopoly of these traditional schools. Distinguished shobŇ scholars were invited to instruct in the Common Schools. Teaching materials included the Three Character Classic (Sanzijing Οӷ࿶) and Classic of Filial Piety (Xiaojing ֵ࿶) in the first grade, and Greater Learning (Daxue εᏢ) and Doctrine of the Mean (Zhongyong ύன) in the second grade. Pupils in the third and fourth grades were introduced to the Analects of Confucius (Lunyu ፕᇟ). In the fifth and sixth grades, the Japanese on-reading replaced the Chinese reading pronunciation. Another accommodative aspect was the continuation of practical Chinese writing for letters and commercial documents. Izawa Shşji had noted that such practical instruction provided incentive for some Taiwanese to send their sons to school (Matsuoka 1958: 244-45).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

42

The Japanese Regime

Hence, Common School regulations reaffirmed the integration of practical instruction (TKES 1939: 230). In 1898, the colonial administration regulated the management of the shobŇ and their teaching materials. This policy tied in with the Kodama administration’s attempt to expand the network of Common Schools and create formal schooling institutions paid for by the local community. The shobŇ were placed under the jurisdiction of the local administration. Three rules were to be taken into account. First, shobŇ were to abide by Common School regulations. Second, the curriculum had to include Japanese -language instruction and arithmetic, and was to be supervised. Third, Japanese-language school graduates could enter shobŇ, and only in places where it was inconvenient to set up a Common School could shobŇ be opened (TKES 1939: 970-73). A revision later in the same year tightened the supervision and defined that shobŇ instructors were to adhere to government-compiled textbooks. These were translations from Japanese textbooks: Outline of Japanese History (Dainihon shiryaku εВҁўౣ), Commentary on the Imperial Rescript on Education (KyŇiku choguko jutsugi ௲‫௷ػ‬ᇟॊက), and Fukuzawa Yukichi’s ᅽ㟾ᒑӓ (1835-1901) Elementary Science for Schoolchildren (KunmŇ kyşri zukai ૽ᆾጁ౛კှ). ShobŇ that complied with prescribed standards of instruction, management and sanitation received additional government funding (TKES 1939: 974-75). From 1904 onward, composition, reading and writing were combined in the Japanese-language class, and instruction in Classical Chinese became a separate course that was taught for five hours a week. Chinese and Japanese materials were used for these three course subjects. For instance, Japanese primers were used to teach the Japanese on-reading of classical texts, while the Chinese reading pronunciation was reserved for the course in Classical Chinese. Similarly, the writing class was instructed in kana syllabary and in printed characters (kaisho ིਜ). In the first and second grades the Japanese primer used was titled Primary School Instruction Reader (ShŇgakkŇ yomikaki kyŇjusho λᏢਠ喲喩啵啷௲௤࿿), which was followed from the third grade onward by the Primary School Reader (ShŇgakkŇ tokuhonsho λᏢਠ侇ҁ) (TKES 1939: 232-33). In 1907 Chinese-language instruction was reduced to four hours in the fifth and sixth grades for boys, and two hours for girls from the third grade onward (TKES 1939: 282). In addition, the course was made optional and was offered according to the school’s local needs. The textbook Taiwan Chinese-language Reader – compiled between 1905 and 1906 – was also aimed at eventually rendering the course obsolete. This textbook replaced the Three Character Classic and was used for instruction in both the Common Schools and the shobŇ. It included lessons in geography, history, religion, biology and natural sciences, morality and practical topics. And teachers were encouraged to explain the content in Japanese rather than Taiwanese (TKES 1939: 395). Conversely, Japanese-language instruction increased from nine hours in the first grade to 12 hours in the second, 13 in the third and fourth grades, and 14 in the fifth and sixth grades. For girls in the fifth and sixth grades, instruction was set at 12 hours.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Language Accommodation

43

Though the colonial government put in a serious effort to develop the curriculum, it is not certain to what extent teachers were capable of following up the revisions or even implementing these rules. Educational debates in the Taiwan kyŇikukai zasshi (‘Journal of Taiwan Education’ ᆵ᡼௲‫཮ػ‬䁫ᇞ) are an indicator of the ongoing difficulties and important issues. Set up by the colonial administration, this journal acted as a sort of forum of discussion for instructors and colonial educators. Especially in the early years, hotly debated topics included the advantages and disadvantages of the methods of instruction, the use of katakana instead of characters, the merits of Classical Chinese instruction, and translation. Articles discussing Chinese character instruction were often related to the putitive relevance of ethical classes, which were deemed necessary for the nurturing of the Japanese spirit. ShobŇ, the mainstay of traditional education, constituted the strongest cultural counter-measure to the Japanese colonial schooling system. Between 1905 and 1906, the number of shobŇ teachers dropped from 1,056 to 916, which was most likely related to abolition of the civil service examination. But whereas teacher numbers reduced year by year, the number of students enrolling did not. Between 1906 and 1918, shobŇ student enrollment fluctuated from 19,915 in 1906 to 15,811 in 1910, then to 19,320 in 1916 (Wu 1978: 82). Only after 1918 did their total numbers decrease significantly. According to Chen Pei-feng ഋ୻ᙦ (1999, 2001) these figures became increasingly meaningless when compared to the steady increase of students in Common Schools. By 1910, for example, the 232 Common Schools had a total of 41,400 students. Chen argued that shobŇ started to decline within even the first few years of colonial rule, as Common Schools gained momentum. This demonstrated, he contended, that even early on the Taiwanese people realized the benefits of modern schooling and were less concerned about traditional learning. Wu Wen-hsing ֆЎࢃ (1978, 1992) on the other hand, argued that shobŇ warded off a more successful expansion of the Common Schools. For Wu, shobŇ epitomized the Chinese cultural heritage in the wake of the encroaching Japanese cultural assimilation and can be seen as a clear indicator of antiJapanese resistance. According to this argument, shobŇ upheld tradition and developed into the main institution for instruction of the Chinese language (hanwen), preserved Chinese culture, and maintained Chinese identity on the island (Wu 1978: 81). Both scholars insufficiently account for three facts: first, the continuation of Chinese-language instruction in the Common Schools; second, the dual existence of both Common Schools and shobŇ, and third, the respect paid to classical scholarship in education. Together, these three points generated a perception that the study of the Chinese language was not in danger in the wake of Japanese-language instruction and its proposed goal of assimilation. As long as there was the opportunity to enlist in some kind of schooling to continue the study of the Chinese Classics, the position of Japanese as the encroaching dominant language in colonial society was not felt as a threat. In this respect, continuation of shobŇ and hanwen, the latter more so than the former, became a barometer for measuring the intensity of the Japanese assimilation process.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

44

The Japanese Regime

Integration of hanwen into the school curriculum and toleration of shobŇ supported cultural policies. Japanese educators and colonial officials saw the advantages of traditional Chinese learning to introduce in a skillful manner the concept of the Japanese kokutai. The asset of Chinese literacy was above all useful for generating local Taiwanese support and sympathy for Japanese rule. Measures to win elite support for the new regime similarly included integration of the Chinese language and script in public life. The Asset of Chinese Literacy During the military conquest of 1895, the colonial administration had shown very little respect and regard for the literati class. They had not been approached with the necessary courtesy, as befitted their position in Taiwanese society. Using the literati temple as a field hospital to treat wounded Japanese soldiers was not viewed as an appropriate gesture on the part of the new rulers. In terms of the existing social hierarchy, Japanese officials damaged their relationship with the literati. As shown by Harry Lamley (1993), when the scholar gentry proved unwilling to support the authorities, or when the colonial administration intended to break the customary gentry monopoly of local leadership in certain areas, they favored the merchants and commoners as local community leaders. Japanese played on the status distinctions between the two groups. Furthermore, it was not a secret that many of the elite, especially those in the central part of the island, rendered support to anti-Japanese resistance activities. Without cooperation from the local elite, it was feared that rebellion would spread. Concerted efforts to deal with Taiwanese cultural resistance were taken up under Governor-General Nogi Maresuke ΏЕ‫( ڂ׆‬1849-1912), who held office from October 1896 until February 1898. In contrast to Kabayama Sukenori and Katsura TarŇ ਦϼ॔ (1848-1913), the previous two Governor-Generals, Nogi proved more diplomatic in his approach toward the Taiwanese. Whereas Kabayama and Katsura were men of military valor, Nogi appreciated the virtues of classical learning. Paying the literate class due respect implied treating them as separate from the population at large. The colonial administration saw the benefits of Classical Chinese as a medium of intercultural communication, and Japanese cultural policies served the purpose of creating contacts and fostering local elites supportive of the new regime. In so doing, the colonial administration tapped into existing Chinese literacy practices. JapaneseTaiwanese colonial banquets and literary gatherings held at regular intervals were to further mutual friendships between classically-trained Japanese colonial officials and Taiwanese literati. Examples of the Japanese appeasement policy were the Uplift Culture Society (yŇbunkai ඦЎ཮), and ceremonies for the elders (kyŇrŇten ៟Դ‫)ڂ‬, during which Governor-General Kodama appeared to honor the family elders of the local elites in the four major cities (Lamley 1993; Liao 1954: 77-92). At these occasions, the administration awarded gentlemen’s medals (shinshŇ ಓക) or rewards of formal recognition to Taiwanese deemed outstanding because of their wealth, community services or social status (Wang 1960a: 105-109; Wang 1960b: 13-22, Wang 1980: 20). The

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Chinese Literacy

45

endeavors were also an opportunity to inform community leaders of new policies aimed at modernizing society. Some of GotŇ Shimpei’s opening speeches, for example, contrasted the Japanese New Learning (shingaku ཥᏢ), with the backwardness of traditional learning at the shobŇ (GotŇ 1980: pt. 8. no 30). But while merchants considered shinshŇ as an opportunity to improve their status in society, the literati regarded these as empty degrees. One means to appease the literati and bestow respect upon them was by bringing them together at literary gatherings in more intimate cultural ways. The Taichş governor, for example, invited local literati to his residence for poetry-and-wine sessions after he assumed office, and continued to do so when he became the Taihoku prefectural governor three years later. Similarly, early Shinchiku (Ch. Xinzhu) and Tainan governors played host to literati at gatherings held at garden estates in their vicinities (Lamley 1993: 17). One of the more famous of these mixed literary gatherings was the Jade Mountain Recitation Society (yushan yinshe ҏξ֗‫)ޗ‬, set up at the end of 1899 in Taihoku under the auspices of the Kodama administration. The Taiwan nichinichi shimpŇ (‘Taiwan Daily News’ ᆵ ᡼ В В ཥ ൔ hereafter: TWNNSP) ran a three-day advertisement to publicize the event (TWNNSP No 191, 192, 193; Lai 1962: 91-92). Harry Lamley (1993: 18) argued that these events appeased the elite psychologically and also helped to bridge the gap between the colonial rulers and a portion of the former Qing elite. Whereas these mixed literary gatherings were a disguised form of official encounter between the two communities, the revival of the traditional Qingpoetry societies ensured a stronger continuity with the Chinese cultural heritage. In reviving traditional Chinese poetry societies, the colonial administration upheld the perceived cultural prestige of the Chinese written language in society. Poetry societies could henceforth develop into the mainstream form of Chinese literary entertainment. In 1897, Cai Qiyun ጰ௴ၮ (1862-1911), previously the founder of the Zhumei Poetry Society, set up the Luyuan Poetry Society (luyuan yinshe ജल֗‫)ޗ‬, named after the respective hometowns of its organizers, Xu Mengqing ೚ფߙ (1870-1904) from Lugang and Cai Qiyun from Yuanli ल္. The Society had the blessing of the Shinchiku County magistrate and functioned as a social encounter for literati from the vicinity (Lai 1962: 90-91; Liao 1989: 23). A favorite meeting spot was the xuetang or shuyuan, which had been converted into the Japanese-language institute. As reported in one of the newspapers, “the beating of the drums accompanying the recitation was very merry and attracted the interest of the Japanese school principal, who sent poems to be printed in the newspaper” (TWNNSP No 650). Because of the regime change, the tradition of the poetry societies, which were a carry over from Qing times, was bound to adapt. As such they became disconnected from their historical embeddedness in representing the traditional Chinese “upper gentry” lifestyle and were no longer limited to the most erudite section of Taiwanese society. Japanese imposition had made their social role obsolete but not their sociosemiotic function in society. A discussion of poetry societies in postcolonial scholar-

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

46

The Japanese Regime

ship has tended to picture them as clusters of anti-Japanese resistance a priori (Shi 1992: 281-284). For example, the increase of the poetry societies in the 1920s is often interpreted as being closely related with educational policy; in particular it is seen as a reaction to the assimilation policy and the reduction of Chinese language in Japanesestyle education (Chen 1994: 8). Poetry societies thus perpetuated traditional Chinese culture on the island and were equated with rejection of Japanese rule. Although this sentiment prevailed in some of the societies, it is not an accurate description of the function of the societies as a whole. As time progressed, poetry society audiences were increasingly composed of the emerging colonial elite, including conservative and reform-minded scholars, merchants and students. This change was most strongly present in the three poetry societies set up between 1902 and 1909, the Lishe (㇛‫ޗ‬ 1902, Taichş), Yingshe (㇍‫ ޗ‬1909, Taihoku) and Nanshe (ࠄ‫ ޗ‬1906, Tainan). After spending a few years travelling in China, Lin Chaosong ݅ර஡ (1875-1915) – a member of the Lin clan of Wufeng ᜦঢ় – returned to Taiwan and felt troubled at seeing the best talents of his generation going unused.11 Together with Fu Xiqi ഡᒴ ࿡ (1872-1946), Lai Shaoyao ᒘಏ൏ (1871-1917) from Zhanghua and Lin Youchun ݅Ѵࡾ (1880-1939), he set up Lishe (Wu 1966: 16-18). The Nanshe was a reorganization of Liangyin Poetry Society, after its founder Xu Nanying left for China. The Nanshe included many Liangyin members, such as Cai Guolin, Zhao Zhongqi, Xie Shiqiu and Lian Heng (Wu 1997a: 125-146). Finally, Hong Yinan ࢫаࠄ (1871-1927) and Xie Ruquan ᖴԟሑ (1871-1953) set up the Yingshe. Among its more than 150 members, many came from the Yongni Poetry Society (yongni shishe ຐᓆ၃‫)ޗ‬.12 In order to ensure cultural continuity with an increasingly distant past, the poetry societies’ frameworks were retained, but their natures and structures gradually changed. Meeting times were regulated to once or twice a month and members were asked for a membership fee. The poetry societies also increasingly absorbed younger Taiwanese. This was not done on a random basis. Youngsters still required a letter of recommendation from elder members. Leading members all came from wealthy and prominent families, and were in regular contact with the Japanese colonial authorities. A relatively large number of them had adapted to the changes brought about under colonial rule. Zhao Zhongqi, for example, was an interpreter at the local court. Xie Shiqiu ran a private business. Xie Ruquan and Fu Xiqi were employed in the newspaper business, while Hong Yinan represented the more traditional and elder members. Some openly supported the Japanese educational policy and criticized the incompetence of traditional Qing scholarship. 11 Lin Chaosong’s pennames were Juntang ߪ୸ and Chixian ᛔи. He was the sixth son of Lin Wenming ݅Ўܴ (1833-1870) who was the younger brother of Lin Wencha ݅Ўჸ (1828-1864). See Huang (1987: 76). 12 In 1905, Huang Chunqing ໳પߙ(1875-1956) set up Yongni Poetry Society, but it only existed for two years. After it was dissolved, some of its members joined the Yingshe. For a discussion of this poetry society, see Liao (1989: 225-241).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Chinese Literacy

47

This more varied membership enabled poetry societies to develop into the mainstream form of Chinese cultural entertainment, albeit with a socio-political undertone. The poetry society provided a familiar environment, where the Chinese language symbolized Chinese culture at its best. Remaining scholar holdovers were drawn together on closer terms than they had been previously. Shared identity was expressed through mastery of the written language, allowing room for those wishing to preserve and perpetuate the traditional genres of Chinese literature in Taiwan. For others, the poetry society became more a forum for exchanging their views and experiences under the new rule. According to Huang Mei-Er ໳ऍে (1997: 75), these characteristics did not develop until the TaishŇ ε҅ period (1912-1925); nonetheless, their seeds were sown in the years immediately following annexation. Significantly, the poetry societies upheld the perceived cultural prestige of the Chinese written language in colonial society, and were beneficial to the Japanese rulers. The printed media similarly tapped into the function of Chinese literacy practices. Between 1896 and 1901, three major publishing houses were set up, each distributing a newspaper. In 1898 the Kodama administration established the Taiwan Daily News publishing house (Taiwan nichinichi shimpŇsha ᆵ᡼ВВཥൔ‫)ޗ‬, whose newspaper edition  Taiwan nichinichi shimpŇ  was a merger of the weekly Taiwan shimpŇ (‘Taiwan News’ ᆵ᡼ཥൔ 1896) and Taiwan nippŇ (‘Taiwan Daily’ ᆵ᡼Вൔ 1897).13 The colonial government subsidized the newspaper while the publishing house remained under the control of its Japanese investors. The Tainan News publishing house (Tainan shimpŇsha ᆵࠄཥൔ‫ ޗ‬1899) was a joint-stock company under Japanese management but included a few business-minded literati from southern Taiwan, such as Wu Ruxiang ֆԟ౺ (1869-?) and Xu Jiefu ৪݇ϻ (1871-1959) (Wu 1960a: 43-48). In 1901, the Taizhong-based Taiwan shinbun (‘Taiwan News’ ᆵ᡼ཥᆪ) publishing house was established. Its directors included Cai Lianfang ጰጪ૑ (1875-1936) and shengyuan Wu Luanqi ֆᢢ᷼ (1871-1959), who were appointed for their financial help following the publication’s operational difficulties.14 About one-fourth to one-third of these early editions was written in Chinese. Chinese-language sections were aimed at the Taiwanese readership and acted as bulletin boards to inform the Taiwanese elite about official decrees, upcoming events and socio-cultural activities. Following a rise in its popularity, the Chinese language section 13 When Nogi Maresuke replaced Katsura TarŇ, he immediately planned to organize his own newspaper, the Taiwan nippŇ. Competition for Japanese readership and differing editorial policies on colonial rule in Taiwan between the two newspapers intensified and created a “war of words,” on several occasions leading to physical violence. See Jang (1968: 30-32). 14 Merger of the Taiwan shimpŇ weekly (1896) and the Taiwan nippŇ (1897) into the Taiwan nichinichi shimpŇ required a sales transaction with Moriya Zenbei, a close friend of Kodama. Without government subsidies, the paper soon encountered various financial problems. To solve the situation, Kodama suggested to Moriya that it should become a corporation. The colonial administration bought the majority of the stocks under the name of the Patriotic Women Club (aikoku fujinkai ང୯஁Γ཮). This change took place in March 1900. See Jang (1968: 34-37). Further financial help was obtained from Taiwanese literati. See Lamley (1964: 426).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

48

The Japanese Regime

was expanded to a six-page daily, and published separately as an independent entity. It thereby became the first Chinese-language newspaper in colonial society. Competition for readership with the Tainan shimpŇ resulted in a southern edition of the Taiwan nichinichi shimpŇ in Tainan in 1908. After completion of the railroads connecting all the major cities in Taiwan, another branch office was set up in Taizhong. As such, the newspaper provided coverage for the entire island. In 1910, two news bureaus were set up in Japan, one in Tokyo and one in Osaka εٞ. The expansion turned the Taiwan nichinichi shimpŇ into the leading daily in Taiwan, comparable with the major newspapers in Japan in both technology and news coverage. The same year, the paper increased size to eight full pages, the same size as Japanese-language newspapers (Jang 1968: 40-41). The printed media was an effort to reach out to the local population, as much in terms of potential sales figures as to propagate the new regime. Yet this new endeavor in journalism ran according to the dictates of Japanese managing editors, and the censoring institutions of the colonial government closely controlled content. Taiwanese employed in journalism seldom became spokesmen of popular opinion printed in the paper (Lamley 1964: 428). Meanwhile, growth of the newspaper sector reflected the economic restructuring of colonial society and created employment opportunities for the local elite. The Japanese colonial administration required reporters and editors for the Chinese-language section. Literati almost immediately filled these positions. Next to a position as a private teacher, the newspaper also proved another source of ready employment. While some took up jobs in the newspaper from lucrative or financial considerations, others stayed on longer or left a private teaching job for the paper. Fu Xiqi, for example, had been a village schoolteacher until he joined the local staff of the Taiwan nippŇ in 1897. Huang Maoqing ໳पమ (1877-?) had a similar career path. Li Pingjun worked for a short period as a reporter at the Taiwan nichinichi shimpŇ before he became involved in the administration of the salt monopoly (Lamley 1964: 427). Li and Huang were members of the Jade Mountain Recitation Society, yushan yinshe. Correlation between those employed in the newspaper business and those participating in poetry societies is not surprising. All three poetry societies counted journalists among their members. One example was Lian Heng who joined Nanshe in Tainan at the age of 29, but left only two years later to go and work for the Taizhong branch of the Taiwan shinbun Chinese edition. While in Taizhong, he joined the Lishe, and when he afterwards moved to Taipei, he joined the Yingshe (Wang 1997: 101-118). Working for the newspaper enabled him to publish Yingshe poetry in the Taiwan nichinichi shimpŇ Chinese column. The Janus-Face of Assimilation Schooling in Japanese taught skills needed in social and employment situations. It was not in the Japanese interest to create a highly educated colonial elite nor to produce a group of “educated unemployed” (Tsurumi 1977: 46-48). It was even less of an issue to make the Taiwanese culturally literate, for this would have implied that

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Assimilation

49

they had to be treated as equal to the Japanese residents in the colony, which they were not. These factors combined to ensure that Japanese literacy campaigns and schooling did not ex- tend beyond the level of “functional literacy.” Although Japanese education policy did encourage school graduates to continue the family businesses, it soon became apparent that a working knowledge of Japanese provided better employment opportunities. As the economic-reproductive language, Japanese was used at school and work but was not the language of daily communication. This dual-language situation was reinforced through a policy of residential and educational segregation. Taiwanese children were schooled separately from Japanese children, and Japanese residential areas were set apart from those inhabited by Taiwanese. Yet, it was precisely the incompleteness of Japanese schooling that motivated Taiwanese to pursue higher education on the Japanese mainland as a means of ensuring their chances for social mobility in colonial society. As noted by Jan Pluvier (1974), education as a force to generate a movement of change was borne by two powerful impulses: negative and positive. The negative impulse was the limited and unequal educational facilities provided for Taiwanese by the Japanese colonial administration. The positive impulse was that the transition to literacy and schooling in the Japanese language contributed to the emergence of a nationalist Taiwanese intellectual elite. The educated class had tapped into the economic restructuring of society. More importantly – and this was also what certain Japanese business people had in mind – there was money to be made in Taiwan. Commercial negotiations to further Japanese investments increasingly turned toward local elites. Their understanding of assimilation was inspired by practical considerations. Mutual cooperation between Taiwanese and the Japanese could only benefit the Japanese empire. These well-intentioned ideas about assimilation did have supporters in Japan proper as well. It is against this back ground of rapid changes in Taiwan’s education and commerce that Itagaki Taisuke’s ݈ࠢଏշ (1837-1919) short-lived Assimilation Society, (dŇkakai ӕϯ཮) of 1915 should be viewed. The Assimilation Society provided Taiwanese people with a pretext to address on a political level the structural and cultural inequalities between Taiwanese and Japanese on the island. Disillusion over its failure drew Taiwanese together and paved the way for a more politically conscious movement, which had the aim of seeking upward mobility by different means. The oppresssive nature of the colonial administration and the realization that not everyone in Japan was supportive of this policy became the basis of a creative interpretation by Taiwanese reform-minded intellectuals. From 1915 onward, Taiwanese took advantage of what Japanese literacy had to offer them. Insights into Japanese disagreements over colonial strategies provided an avenue through which to press Taiwanese demands for colonial reform. The ideal of assimilation, as promoted by Itagaki Taisuke and other Japanese intellectual voices highly critical of the direction of Japanese colonial expansion, played an important role in the formulation of the Taiwanese intellectual discourse in the 1920s, a subject that will be returned to in subsequent chapters.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

50

The Japanese Regime

Access to higher education in Japan created conditions for the rise and development of a local socio-political movement, which was formulated in the context of “elevating Taiwan culture” (tisheng Taiwan wenhua ගϲᆵ᡼Ўϯ). Emanating from Japan, Taiwanese students and young professionals became actively engaged in determining their response to changing social and economic circumstances. It was among this group in the 1920s that key figures of the Taiwan Nationalist movement (Taiwan minzu yundong ᆵ᡼҇௼ၮ୏) emerged. Rather than passively surrendering to political, economic, and educational institutions imposed on them, they took advantage of their newly acquired literacy. Japanese vocabulary offered a critique of the existing order and therefore, the necessary means for communicating a revolutionary anti-colonial mode of thinking and developing an alternative repertoire. If lack of social mobility became the driving force behind Taiwanese travelling to Japan proper, it was the very act of this displacement which opened the eyes of these Taiwanese youngsters to see the benefits of appropriating the new Japanese model of progress. In so doing, they became intermediaries who took the initiative to develop an alternative repertoire. The experience of these Taiwanese students in Japan was profound in several aspects. For many, it was their first journey abroad and the contrast with the colony was striking. A Taiwanese student enjoyed more personal and intellectual freedom than he or she could ever dream of in Taiwan under similar circumstances. Moreover, their sojourns to Japan coincided with most interesting times. The change from Meiji to TaishŇ brought in its wake a liberal intellectual climate during which international events and foreign ideologies were hotly debated. Amid these socio-political challenges and crises, Tokyo functioned as a metropole, a melting pot and model of East Asian modernization for its overseas students. Taiwanese students came in contact with Chinese and Korean students, among others. With Koreans, they shared a colonial present, and with Chinese a cultural past. The Christian churches in Tokyo played an important role in fostering contacts with these overseas students as well as with Japanese liberals and socialists. Central to the TaishŇ democratic movement was an effort to find new social values and patterns of organization. Intellectuals fervently argued that society required the constant generation and competition of new views and visions. Freedom of expression and the right to organize were supported by an expanding market of educated persons interested in public policy and committed to ideals of social and intellectual pluralism (Nolte 1987: 119). Under such circumstances, emerging Japanese student radicalism and burgeoning journalism developed a rhetoric of protest against censorship and repression, and engaged in lobbying and political activism. In 1919, the global community was changing. War was internationally condemned. Germany had lost its overseas colonies to the Allied Powers; its possessions in China were awarded to Japan, which was then invited to the table at the Peace Conference of Versailles in 1919. The Chinese republic was furious. The Japanese empire was estatic. Portions of the intellectual community reflected on the outcome. Domestic forces opposing the direction the Japanese empire pointed at the internal

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Conclusion

51

chaos, the sacrifice the Japanese population was making for winning wars while still undergoing the transformation from agricultural to industrialized society. The Japanese peace movement, inspired by socialism, crystallized into political pacifist organizations, whose members often belonged to Christian societies. The conclusion of the European War also evoked different reactions from overseas communities in Japan. In March 1919, Korean students mounted the March 31st movement (Korean Samil movement). Two months later, the May Fourth movement and massive anti-Japanese boycotts took place in China. Chinese students in Japan returned home, this time in greater numbers than in 1915. These outbursts of Korean and Chinese nationalism created a fertile breeding ground for Taiwanese activism, and resulted in the formation of the New People’s Society (Sin-bîn-hŇe ཥ҇཮) in Tokyo during the spring of 1920. In conjunction, Taiwanese students set up the publication of a vernacular journal, the Tai Oan Chheng Lian (‘Taiwan Youth’ ᆵ᡼ߙԃ). Its leitmotiv was “elevation of Taiwan culture,” tisheng Taiwan wenhua, and, as this suggests, the paper served the purpose of a forum of discussion, debating socio-cultural, political and educational reforms of the colony. In particular the debate on educational changes in the colony and the way in which education was implemented in Japan caught the attention of these Taiwanese students. Limited and discriminatory schooling facilities in the colony were interpreted as the cause of Taiwan’s cultural backwardness in comparison with Japan and the West. Japan as a model of modernization provided the intellectual background against which the demands for educational reform in the colony were phrased. These debates inevitably also extended to the role and significance of, as well as changes to the Chinese language in colonial society. As a consequence, debates on reforming the Chinese language became an integral part of the Taiwan Nationalist movement. In debating the educational situation in the colony, Taiwanese students in Tokyo suggested that perpetuation of written and spoken Chinese was essential to the elevation of Taiwan culture. As will be demonstrated, it was not the separation from China – the carrier of traditional Chinese culture – but integration of Taiwan as part of the Japanese empire that accounted for Taiwanese reform-minded intellectuals’ reflection on the status and position of their language. Hence, the transformation of the Chinese language from cultural good into political tool was encapsulated in the educational debate. Conclusion Japanese-language imposition from 1895 onward upset the natural balance between stability and change in the Chinese linguistic culture in Taiwan. This created a situation of superposition: the co-existence of two or more languages of significantly different prestige within the same community. Earl Joseph (1987: 45) defined this as a special type of multilingualism and argued that superposition is a precondition for standardization. From an early start, Japanese rulers pressed hard for the imposition of their language, both to assert cultural dominance and to assimilate the conquered people. Japanese interference implied that the Chinese cultural system was introduced

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

52

The Japanese Regime

to the concept of standard language functions. That was also the moment when language in colonial society came to be perceived as a problem. As much as local languages proved an immense obstacle to centralization for the Japanese rulers, and as long as the Taiwanese people spoke, read and wrote a different language, their distinct identity would be manifest, ever present, and the language itself would have the potential to be one of the first things they would ideologize as a symbol of nationalism and resistance. The prestige generated by the superior power of the West in its expansionist drive on the Asian continent ensured that Japan and China acculturated to these Westerndefined functions, of which the concept of language standardization was one. Possession of a common national language to further the creation of a new unit of loyalty became a crucial symbol in motivating nationalistic ideologies, which in the case of Japanese nation-building had its imperial dimension. Taiwanese linguistic nationalism equally acculturated to this Western concept of standardization, albeit conveyed to them through the model of Japanese-imposed social order, i.e. colonialism. Superposition of the Japanese language in colonial Taiwan, carried out through literacy campaigns and formal schooling, was the basis for the emergence of a linguistic nationalism embedded in an anti-colonial nationalist discourse of bringing culture  fashioned to be at once local and distinct  to the Taiwanese masses. This linguistic nationalism took the form of three different attempts at language reform throughout the 1920s and 1930s, and will be illustrated in the following three chapters. Special reference will be paid to the discourse in which proponents and protagonists drafted their proposals, rendered a “creative interpretation” to Japanese intellectual and political discourses on the triangular Japan-Taiwan-China relations, and vented Taiwanese criticism of the assimilation policy with regard to its colonial language planning. In Chinese-language scholarship on the subject (Liao 1955; Wu 1992; Zhuang 1994; Huang 1995, Yang 2008), these attempts at language reform are referred to as “movements” (yundong ၮ୏). This is because they are interpreted as anti-Japanese resistance acts in the postcolonial historiography. The three attempts at language reform are therefore best described as a cluster of actions taken by a small group of individuals to promote a certain idea embedded in a social ideology. In the case of the Romanized Taiwanese movement it resembled more of a one-man show.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Chapter 3 The Romanized Taiwanese Movement Introduction The three chapters on language reform start with an examination of the Romanized Taiwanese movement, not only because this was the first chronologically but also because its reform proposals encapsulated broader issues at stake with regard to models of language development as well as the prevalent undertones of what a modern language was to look like. A complementary way of looking at Chinese language reform in Taiwan under Japanese rule reveals that the influence of the May Fourth movement was not the sole factor behind attempts to generate a culture repertoire in the making of a Taiwanese worldview and self-identity. Far more pervasive was the impact of the immediate Japanese political reality. Even if the policies of Japanese linguistic colonialism introduced a new set of parameters for schooling and literacy, the socio-linguistic reality of the colony was worlds apart from these imposed innovations, and as will be shown, it was precisely some of these local practices which engendered models for a contrastive analysis of imposed cultural values and norms. Prior to moving on to a discussion of the derailment of the Romanized Taiwanese movement, it is necessary to briefly situate its protagonist, Cai Peihuo (Chhòa Pôe-hóe ጰ୻О 1889-1983), in modern Taiwanese historiography relating to the Japanese colonial period. To date, the scholarly attention to the Romanized Taiwanese movement has been limited. Generally, if discussed at all, it is mentioned only briefly and only as part of the New Literature movement (xin wenxue yundong ཥЎᏢၮ୏): an isolated element in between the Mandarin baihuawen movement and the Written Taiwanese movement, but not integrated within the overall discussion to facilitate interaction with the two other language reform movements (Huang 1954a: 140-141; ņ 1987: 222-224). Ye Shitao ယҡᔱ (1987: 26) observed that the Romanized Taiwanese movement had no potential to succeed because it was only popular with a particular group of intellectuals. Liao Qizheng ᄃ࿡҅ (1990: 38-39) in his concluding remarks on the Romanized Taiwanese movement seconded the Chinese culturalist view and failed to recognize the shared ideal of language standardization taking the spoken language as the norm in the Romanized Taiwanese and the Written Taiwanese movements. Lu Zhen-hwei ֈ ҅ඁ (1993: 6) attributed the failure of the Romanized Taiwanese movement to the fact that issues relating to language reform were defined a priori in terms of the ideographic character script. According to Fong Shiaw-chian Б‫ۯ‬ᇬ (1994: 179), when compared with other colonies such as Korea and Vietnam, Taiwan was exceptional in not proceeding with phonetic script reform. Fong did not develop his argument, but continued to use “Written Taiwanese” as an example of the relationship

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

54

Romanized Taiwanese

between national language and script reform (guoyu wenzihua ୯ᇟЎӷϯ). Likewise, Wu Wen-hsing’s (1992: 341-345) discussion of Cai’s linguistic activism confirmed this Chinese culturalist pattern, although Wu’s research deserves special mention for being an original contribution at the time in describing the three language movements as a reaction to policies of Japanese linguistic colonialism. Supporting evidence for the Chinese culturalist interpretation of the Romanized Taiwanese movement has been its foreign or Christian origins (Iuȭ 1993: 60-61; Liao 1955: 89; Liao 1990: 32). This religious influence is likely due to Cai Peihuo’s own beliefs  as a Christian he drew inspiration from the alphabetic writing system used by the Presbyterian Church of Taiwan. A recurring point in these discussions has also been the attention drawn to the negative attitude of the Japanese colonial authorities. Scholarly neglect of the Romanized Taiwanese movement not only stems from a Chinese culturalist interpretation per se. It also has to be understood in the broader context of the narrative on the Japanese colonial period in Taiwanese historiography. Cai Peihuo’s linguistic activism during the colonial period does not correspond to the Kuomintang’s (୯҇ល KMT) orthodox representation of Taiwan local history.1 Cai’s extensive Japanese networking and his interpretation of the assimilation policy were ill received. His advocacy of orthographic script reform, before and after retrocession, contrasted sharply to the national “Speak Mandarin movement” (shuo guoyu yundong ᇥ ୯ᇟၮ୏). Government-supported publications downplayed a critical discussion of the assimilation policy and minimal reference was made to his romanization attempts. For instance, in the essay “Between Mr. Guanyuan and me,” included in the commemoration volume for Lin Xiantang ݅᝘୸ (1881-1956), Cai described his suggestion for romanization during the Assimilation Society (dŇkakai) in 1914 as a joke, and he defended himself against the “assimilationist” label (Cai 1974: 2-3; Cai 1965: 175). In KMT culture planning policy, the propagation of Western-derived orthographies was seen as politically incorrect, and the ROC denounced the PRC’s use of Communist-inspired romanization (ladinghua ܎΍ϯ). The government also exerted pressure on the Presbyterian Church, which was known for its strong anti-KMT stance. These socio-political connotations explain why the Romanized Taiwanese movement did not receive the recognition it deserved. It is only in recent years that literary efforts in romanized Taiwanese have been included in the debate on Taiwanese as a full-fledged language. This discussion has been mainly perpetuated by a small group of scholars who trace the origins of Taiwanese romanization to the influence of Western missionaries’ efforts to promote literacy in Taiwan at the end of the 19th century and correlate an alphabetic orthography with modernization (Chiung 2001, 2007; Li 2005, 2006). Despite its appeal at academic conferences, it is only used by a small group of writers who compose literary works 1

In January 1946, Cai officially became a member of the KMT in Chongqing ख़ቼ, and was appointed as a member of the KMT executive committee. In 1948, he was elected as a member of the Executive Yuan of Taiwan Province. See Cai Peihuo nianbiao (2000b: 331).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Introducing Cai Peihuo

55

and research papers in written Taiwanese or those who argue that Taiwanese deserves the status of an endangered language in theories of language revival (Klöter 2009). Conversely, academic attention to Cai Peihuo has increased following the 1980s trend of national-identity history writing in Taiwan. In 2000, the Wu San Lian Foundation for Taiwan Historical Materials (Caituan faren Wu Sanlian Taiwan shiliao jijinhui ଄ი‫ݤ‬ ΓֆΟೱѠ᡼ў਑୷ߎ཮) published the Complete works of Cai Peihuo (Cai Peihuo quanji ጰ୻Оӄ໣) in seven volumes, which includes a diary (1929-1936) and a selection of his private correspondence (Chang et al. 2000). This disclosure of new material has stimulated more research on the role of Cai Peihuo in the colonial modernity dilemma that Taiwanese historians are still coming to grips with; a debate to which this chapter intends to share its insights and hindsight. Introducing Cai Peihuo Cai Peihuo was born into a lower-level literati family in 1889 in Beigang чෝ.2 His great-grandfather had emigrated from Quanzhou prefecture in Fujian and settled in Beigang, in central Taiwan’s Yunlin ໦݅ County. The area was known for its early community development, testimonies to which are the construction of the famous Mazu ༰઒ temple and the several shuyuan in the vicinity. The family earned a living from trading and teaching. Cai Peihuo’s father, Cai Ranfang ጰฅ‫ޱ‬, was a village tutor, and his two paternal uncles Cai Ranyuan ጰฅྍ and Cai Ranbiao ጰฅ኱ were reputed in the local literati scene (Yunlinxian zikao 1978: 142-143). Cai was the fourth of five children: Jiapei ჏୻, Peichuan ୻ο, Peiting ୻৥, Peihuo, and Peiding ୻ഗ. As was customary, he received instruction in writing and reciting Classical Chinese at the village school in the Beigang community temple. In 1895, the Japanese army occupied the region. Shortly thereafter, Cai Peihuo’s father passed away. On the verge of destitution, the family reunited with the paternal clan in Quanzhou but was forced to return to Taiwan to escape a life of poverty. In the meantime, the turmoil of the war had subdued, and the Cai family accommodated to the imposed directives of the new regime. Cai’s two eldest brothers were employed by the colonial authorities: Jiapei as a language teacher and Peichuan as a low-ranking clerk in the colonial administration. To make ends meet, Cai’s mother became a street vendor, while the younger children were sent into the nearby hills to gather wood to stoke the cooking fire at their mother’s food stall. During one of these outings, Cai hurt himself and was taken to hospital. To ensure the family’s much needed income, he worked as an apprentice nurse at the hospital for a short time. In 1898, when the colonial administration put their formal schooling system firmly into place, Cai, his third brother Peiting, and younger brother Peiding, were sent to the Beigang Common School. In 1906, he continued his studies at the normal school of the Taiwan Government Japanese 2

For biographical accounts on Cai Peihuo, see Su (1990); Lin and Hong (1984: 389-403); Xie (1987: 87-105) and Chang et.al. (2000a: 63-82).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

56

Romanized Taiwanese

Language School (Taiwan sŇtokufu kokugogakkŇ shihanpu ᆵ᡼ᕴ࿎۬୯ᇟᏢਠৣጄ೽), in the capital Taihoku. Cai graduated in 1910, one of the first group of 66 Taiwanese trained as common school-teachers. His first teaching assignment was at the Common School in the village of A-kong-tiàm (Ch. Agongdian ߓϦ۫), present-day Gangshan ‫۝‬ξ. As one of the first generation of Japanese-educated intellectuals, Cai experienced social transformations firsthand. Unlike the capital, Taihoku, the southern part of the island took much longer to accommodate itself to the new laws and regulations of Japanese colonial rule. Moreover, the Japanese presence consisted mainly of stationed army units, police forces and officials, an enforcement policy that partly resulted from the region’s reputation for mounting militant anti-Japanese resistance activities (Shi 1980: 426; TWSTZG 1959: 66, 69; Ang 1986). Although the colonial authorities had suppressed most of these activities by around 1902, the resentment against Japanese continued and occasionally surfaced in minor incidents. Traditional thought and lifestyles remained the biggest obstacle to Japanese imposed modes of innovation, even in their most rudimentary form. Education was still perceived as learning the Confucian canon, which at this stage stood in sharp contrast to the Japanese mandate to send children to the Common Schools. Rather than instilling a popular will to study Japanese, the harshness and penalties to which parents were subjected often had the opposite effect. Widespread illiteracy in the Chinese and Japanese languages merely aggravated the situation. In rural areas, the level of literacy among the village elders who served as heads in the hokŇ system was extremely low (Ts’ai 1990: 137). This is the background against which to evaluate Cai Peihuo’s early teaching career and his confrontation with a changing society, experiences that influenced his thoughts on socio-political reform in the years to come. Cai’s position as a teacher made him an influential member of the community, and his responsibilities extended beyond the classroom. A considerable amount of his time was taken up fulfilling an intermediary role between the Japanese school authorities and the parents of his pupils. These visits often had the purpose of easing tensions or sorting out misunderstandings in cases where parents had retained their children at home to work in the fields rather than sending them to school. School drop-out rates were high (Tsurumi 1977). Cai’s communication skills in Japanese were also required in daily life, as it was a common practice to have a literati act on the local person’s behalf when dealing with the authorities, such as at a police station or in court. Cai’s knowledge of Classical Chinese was useful in socializing with Japanese residents in Taiwan. During his teaching assignment at A-kong-tiàm, Cai befriended the Japanese school principal. Their friendship was based on an exchange of Chinese literary activities: writing poetry and practicing calligraphy. Thanks to the Japanese school principal’s recommendation, Cai was promoted to a position in Tainan Number Two Common School (Tainan daini kŇgakkŇ ᆵࠄಃΒϦᏢਠ). On one occasion, one of his pupils was punished for bringing to school two propaganda leaflets of the 1895

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Activism in Tokyo

57

Taiwan Democratic Republic. Through Cai’s intervention, the case was not reported to the local police, and as a gesture of respect, the family of the pupil invited him to be the Chinese teacher in the area. It was under these circumstances that Cai met his first wife, Wu Suqing ֆનঙ. They married the next year, 1912, and settled in Tainan. Cai was dismissed after just two years of teaching due to his involvement in the Assimilation Society, dŇkakai. The Assimilation Society, set up under the patronage of Japanese statesman Count Itagaki Taisuke, was a first attempt by local gentry families to engage with colonial officials and Japanese businessmen to bring about a more “humanitarian” interaction between locals and the colonial authorities. During one of Itagaki’s tours in the south of Taiwan, Cai Peihuo was introduced to Lin Xiantang, heir of the wealthy Lin clan in Wufeng, and was asked to act as an interpreter. The authorities reacted negatively to Itagaki’s island tour, during which he propagated assimilation and listened to Taiwanese people’s grievances. That also adversely affected Cai and led to his loss of employment in 1914. Temporary engagement as a private tutor in Chinese for the Lin clan allowed him to make ends meet, however. Lin also arranged for Cai to further his higher education in Japan. By that time, Cai Peihuo was 26 years old, married, and the family breadwinner. The regime change had not been easy, yet Cai had received the appropriate education and had found employment in the professional world catering to the needs of the new rulers. Unlike some of his contemporaries, he could not rely on an income generated by a large estate, which, following the colonies’ economic restructuring, had allowed for a prolonged protected upbringing from the new Japanese reality on the island. From a colonialist perspective, a starting career in teaching was perhaps the best Cai could hope for. Meanwhile, his teacher status meant that he was directly confronted with the changes brought to Taiwanese society, in which a traditional mindset was still prevalent. Knowledge of the Japanese language was crucial to accommodate to this changing society, and he knew that the new colonial reality had to be taken seriously. Cai took these personal experiences with him to Japan. Cai Peihuo’s Education and Activism in Tokyo Cai left for metropolitan Tokyo in February 1915 as one of the first Taiwanese overseas students to receive financial support under the patronage of Lin Xiantang. Following Lin’s suggestion, he chose a teacher-training program. Later on, Cai (1974: 4) recorded that this choice went against his mother’s wishes – she had wanted him to become a medical doctor – as well as the suggestions of his peers, who encouraged him to study political science or sociology. This particular choice was closely related to Lin’s plans to set up the Taichş Middle School (Taichş chşgakkŇ ᆵύύᏢ), which would be a first attempt to improve the educational facilities in the colony by and for the Taiwanese. It was Lin Xiantang’s intention to appoint Taiwanese instructors who had graduated from Japanese universities. This middle-school project was under discussion between the colonial authorities and influential local Taiwanese when Cai was

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

58

Romanized Taiwanese

entering a preparatory school for English and mathematics, but by 1916, when Cai had already enrolled in the Tokyo Higher Normal School (Tokyo kŇtŇ shihan gakkŇ ܿ٧ଯ฻ৣጄᏢਠ) to be trained as a public school teacher in biology and chemistry, the second negotiations for the Taichş Middle School had failed. Lodging in the student dormitory (takasagoryŇ ଯࣳቧ), Cai made friends with the other members of the Taiwanese student community, and quickly promoted himself as one of the key figures involved in student activism in Tokyo. He joined the Taiwan Youth Society (Taiwan seinenkai ᆵ᡼ߙԃ཮), and was elected vice-president in 1916 after its first president, Lin Maosheng ݅पғ (1887-1947), graduated from Tokyo Imperial University (Tokyo teikoku daigaku ܿ٧ࡆ୯εᏢ) and returned to Taiwan.3 Cai Shigu ጰԄዼ (1884-1951), a student at Meiji University (Meiji daigaku ܴ‫ݯ‬εᏢ), was elected president. From 1918 onward, the Taiwan Youth Society changed its name to Tokyo Taiwan Youth Society (Tokyo Taiwan seinenkai ܿ٧ᆵ᡼ߙԃ཮), and Chen Xin ഋᬩ (1893-1947) was chosen president.4 As a financial protégé of Lin Xiantang, Cai often met with Lin at the latter’s residence in Tokyo. Lin’s visits to Tokyo were mainly for reasons of health. Lin suffered from stomach problems, which may have been aggravated due to his opium-smoking addiction, and for which he sought medical treatment in Japan (Cai 1974: 4-5). In the summer of 1918, Lin Xiantang agreed to accept the presidency of the League for a Successful Abolishment of the 6.3. Law (liu-san-fa safei qicheng tongmeng ϤΟ‫ݤ‬ኜቲය ԋӕ࿉), but better known as the Instruction Society (khé-hoat-hŇe, J. keihatsukai 㭵ว ཮).5 Lin Chenglu ݅ำ࿢ (1886-1968), a student at Meiji University, was appointed its secretary. Cai Peihuo signed as one of the League’s 22 members.6 According to Cai (1965: 176), the idea to abolish the 6.3. Law had been suggested a few years earlier by two Japanese officials involved in the Assimilation Society, ItŇ Masashige Ҳᛯࡹख़ and Kuga BŇseisya Φ‫ך‬ᔌ҅‫ޣ‬, but that at that time the suggestion had fallen on deaf ears.7 That Lin Xiantang stayed in contact with these two Japanese officials may partly explain the resurgence of this particular issue, as it was Lin’s secretary Shi Jiaben ࡼৎҁ (1886-1921) who had been pointing out that the 6.3. Law was the cangue of the Taiwanese people, suggesting that it would be best to abolish it, the sooner the 3 4 5 6 7

After his return to Taiwan, Lin Maosheng became a teacher at the Presbyterian Middle School. He was in charge of the school affairs and taught English. Two years later, he was invited to teach at the Tainan Normal School. Cited in Lee (1996: 29). According to Chen Sanlang ഋΟ॔ (1981: 187), the name change from Taiwan (or Takasago) to Tokyo Taiwan seinenkai may be interpreted as a foreshadowing of a more assertive attitude on the part of the Taiwanese students. According to Ye Rongzhong ယᄪដ, the association never called itself league. Its members adopted khe-hoat-hoe instead. See Wu et al. (1971: 68). The other members are listed in Cai (1965: 175). Su Beng ўܴ!(1980: 460) also adds the names of Cai Shigu, Shi Huanchang, Huang Chaoqing and Chen Xin. Cai’s article is so far the most detailed reconstruction of these events. In the article, he also criticizes and clarifies some misunderstandings about the student organizations. The compilation, Wu et al., published in 1971, compliments the article. Later research draws on these two works.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Activism in Tokyo

59

better (Wu et al. 1971: 68). By the end of 1919, the Instruction Society dissolved. Cai Peihuo (1965: 175) later gave three reasons for the split up: the Society had ideals but lacked an ideological framework; despite its fairly large membership of about one hundred, the Society was disorganized; and its financial management was chaotic.8 Elsewhere, Cai (1974: 6) commented on the underlying cause of disagreement, which centered not on whether the 6.3. Law should be abolished but on that what should be advocated in its place. Another short-lived association in which Cai participated at the grass-root level was the Echo Society (yingshenghui ᔈᖂ཮), set up in the autumn of 1919 together with Lin Chenglu. Yingshenghui was an abbreviation of tongsheng xiangying (ӕᖂ࣬ᔈ) meaning “acting in unison,” and was a joint-association of Taiwanese and Chinese students in Japan. The main Chinese members were Ma Boyuan ଭդජ, Wu Yourong ֆԖ৒ and Liu Mulin ቅЕฑ, all of whom were members of the China Christian Youth Society (Zhonghua qingnian hui ύ๮ߙԃ཮). Cai Huiru ጰඁӵ (18811929) and Peng Huaying ൹๮म (1891-1968) were some of the Taiwanese members (Lin 1929; Luo 1976; Bai 1977; Chan 1987). Right from the start, Cai Peihuo tapped into Lin Xiantang’s networking strategies, and developed a close friendship with several prominent Japanese who were critical of domestic and foreign policies. These contacts encouraged him to expand social contacts in Japanese circles, and seek reform through the help of the established order. Cai frequented Japanese Christians circles, where he became friends with Reverend Uemura Masahisa ΢‫҅׸‬Φ (1857-1925), principal of the Tokyo Theological College (Tokyo shingagu gakuen ܿ٧ઓᏢᏢଣ) and a fervent propagator of pacifism. In later years, Cai (1980: 444) reflected in a letter on his intellectual indebtedness and gratitude towards Reverend Uemura: Reverend Uemura was very insistent on keeping contact with me. At the time we became acquainted, he was already more than 60 years old. Moreover, he was the best known Christian leader in Japan, and therefore very occupied with his daily affairs. Because I was not a Christian, I did not feel like getting close to him, nor did I attend service in his church. Nonetheless, he continued to be very kind to me, and came to my living quarters to visit me. Sometimes we even had lunch together and I spent the evening at his house discussing and talking.

In hindsight, Cai’s relationship with Reverend Uemura was important for several reasons. First, Uemura may have tipped the balance as one of the driving forces behind Cai’s conversion to Christianity. On 25 April 1921, Cai was baptized as a Presbyterian in Tokyo (Cai 2000a: 71). The Christian belief gave him the spiritual strength to further the Taiwanese cause as well as to persist in his political and linguistic activism.

8

A detailed explanation for its split up can be found in Xie Chunmu ᖴࡾЕ!(Nanguang ࠄӀ 19021969) “Ten Year History of the Taiwan Movement” (Taiwan yundong shinianshi ᆵ᡼ၮ୏Μԃў) but this work has never been published for fear of official reprisal, and the original so far has not been found. Cited in Chou (1989: 30).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

60

Romanized Taiwanese

Second, his acquaintance with Uemura introduced him to Christian organizations active in Japan. One of these was the China Christian Youth Society where Cai made friends with Chinese and Korean students. During one of these Christian meetings, Cai was given a copy of the magazine ChşŇ KŇron (‘The Central Review’ ύѧϦፕ) that contained SakuzŇ Yoshino’s article on democratic theory.9 Cai’s biography mentioned that he took it to the dormitory, copied it and passed it on to other students, engendering vigorous discussion. For doing so, he was reprimanded by the supervisor and received a police notification (Su 1990: 50). Through these Christian contacts, Cai became acquainted with Chong T’ae-ok ᎄੀҏ, editor of Ch’ongnyon Choson (‘Korea Youth’ ߙԃරᗲ) and Ryu Su-won ࢛ტࢨ, editor-in-chief of the Ajia KŇron (‘Asia Review’ 㝭ಒ㝭Ϧፕ). Cai engaged in the management of the Ajia KŇron for a short time, and contributed articles to the Ch’ongnyon Choson (TSKK 1939: 20).10 Third, Uemura introduced Cai Peihuo to several members of the Japanese House of Commons and the House of Peers. Some of these contacts became very valuable in the Petition Movement for the Establishment of a Taiwan Parliament League (Taiwan yihui shezhi qingyuan yundong ᆵ᡼᝼཮೛࿼ፎᜫၮ୏ 1920-1943). For instance, the first petition was supported by Ebina Motoroku ԢচનϤ (1842-1922), member of the House of Peers and Tagawa DaikichirŇ Җοεӓ॔ (1869-1947), member of the House of Commons. Both were Christians to whom Cai was introduced by Reverend Uemura (Cai 1965: 177). Other influential Japanese whom Cai met through Uemura included Sakatani YoshirŇ 㞯‫॔ޱك‬, Shimada SaburŇ ৞ҖΟ॔, Kiyose IchirŇ మᛃ ΋॔, Ozaki Yukio ‫׀‬஘Չ໢ and Watanabe Hiroshi ෠ᜐᄣ!(Wu et al. 1971: 79). Tagawa DaikichirŇ served in Uemura’s church, and his brother-in-law, Koyama Tosuke, had been Yoshino’s close friend since middle high school in Sendai иѠ (Matsuo 1998: 4). Shimada SaburŇ had close connections with Ebina, and together with Yoshino, had organized the Association for the Study of Korean Affairs in 1905 (Matsuo 1966: 389-90). Supporting evidence is that in 1921 Yoshino, Ozaki, Shimada and Tagawa left the political Constitutional Party (keiseikai Ꮶࡹ཮). Together with Kiyoshi, they later became core members of the Reform Club (kakushin kurabu ॠཥ 嗐嘊嗷), and supported the Taiwanese cause in the early 1920s (Duus 1968: 173-4). On Uemura, Cai (1980: 444) recorded: Uemura Masahisa expressed his deep hatred for the evil Japanese policy implementation toward Taiwan. He dared to speak frankly to me and said that if his people continued to revere the Emperor as a god, it would mean the downfall of the Japanese empire. He not only thought like this, his actions clearly showed that he supported us. Whenever we [Taiwanese] had planned a meeting, he was never too busy to attend, and on many occasions he made it possible Lin Xiantang and I to visit the Central Government, he even arranged 9 SakuzŇ Yoshino ӓഁբ೷ (1878-1933) was a Christian, politician and educator. He is known for his leading role in the TaishŇ democracy movement. 10 The TSKK Records also mention that Lin Chenglu at the time was involved with Korean activities. More research is needed.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Activism in Tokyo

61

for us to have an audience with Prime Minister Hara Kei. If we [Taiwanese] wanted to organize a political speech and had no meeting room, he let us use the church.

Another Japanese intellectual whom Cai met in Tokyo in 1924 was Yanaihara Tadao Ҡ㚵চ۸໢ (1893-1961), and this encounter marked the start of a longstanding correspondence and friendship (Cai 1962: 411-416; 1968: 431-438). Between January and March 1920, the Instruction Society was restructured as the New People’s Society (Sin-bîn-hŇe). Lin Chenglu, Cai Peihuo, Wang Minchuan Ц௵ο (1889-1942), Zheng Songyue ᎄ݊࿰ (1891-?), Peng Huaying, Cai Bofen ጰդҽ, Chen Xin, Liu Mingchao ቅܴර (1895-1985) and Cai Yulin ጰҏᡕ drafted three main points outlining the objectives of the Society: First, in order to promote the fortunes of the Taiwanese people, a movement for the reform of Taiwan rule should be carried out. Second, in order to propagate the proposals, enlighten the people of the island, and win over fellow members, a journal should be published. Third, the Society should seek contacts with the people in China.

From that time on, the movement to reform Taiwan rule implied a discussion of the 6.3. Law, and resulted in the establishment of the Taiwan Parliament Petition League movement. The driving forces behind this movement were Lin Chenglu, who formulated the demands, and Cai Peihuo, who dealt with the networking aspect of the movement (Chou 1989; Chen 1996a). The journal Tai Oan Chheng Lian (hereafter: TOCL) became the medium to voice their opinions, grievances and aspirations. Inspired by Korean and Chinese examples of vernacular press, it was the symbolic voice of the Taiwanese from 1920 to 1944. The Tai Oan Chheng Lian was a monthly publication in the Japanese and Chinese languages. Its inaugural issue appeared on 16 July 1920 and, for the first couple of years, the publishing house was run on a small scale. Cai Peihuo, Lin Chenglu and Peng Huaying were the permanent staff of three. Cai’s duties included those of publisher, editorial writer, editor-in-chief as well as the foreign liaison. Lin Chenglu was the accountant and wrote editorials while Peng Huaying was in charge of the general affairs. Contributions were written in Japanese, Classical Chinese (wenyanwen) or a variant of the “newspaper style” with a strong influence of Southern Min morphosyntax and grammar. Because of limited funds, the journal could not afford a trained Chinese-language journalist, which affected the quality of its Chinese-language contributions (Cai 1965: 178). Huang Chengcong ໳ևᖃ (1886-1963) helped with proofreading and translating from Japanese into Chinese (Cai 1965: 178). In the early years especially, there was a recurrent pattern of contributions by Taiwanese and Japanese. Japanese contributions were usually translated and appeared in the same or in the subsequent edition of the Chinese language section. Its target audience were other intellectuals, not only in Taiwan, but also in China and Southeast Asia or the region of the South Seas (J. NanyŇ ࠄࢩ). Because the journal was published in Japan, it was subject to rigid censorship by the colonial administration prior to distribution in Taiwan. Limited financial means and the severity of censorship meant that

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

62

Romanized Taiwanese

circulation was not high, and consequently, its initial reading public in Taiwan consisted only of students and a small group of graduate returnees from Japan. The journal was revolutionary to the extent that it aimed for the “elevation of Taiwan culture,” but did not express an overtly Chinese nationalist voice. Its vocabulary of Chinese nationalism was tempered and adjusted to the Taiwanese colonial situation. It also aspired to exert considerable influence on the administration. As such, the journal acted as a forum of discussion, which for the first time brought a variety of opinions together and acted as a burgeoning local powerbase from which to develop an alternative home repertoire in the years to come. The effect of the May Fourth movement and China’s humiliation in the Versailles Peace Conference provided certain Taiwanese with the opportunity to wholeheartedly reject any form of assimilation with Japan. Outbursts of Chinese nationalism fuelled some Taiwanese students with the desire to depart for China and like the Koreans, engage in anti-Japanese resistance movements. The “link with China,” initiated by Cai Huiru and Peng Huaying, signalled the start of an active Taiwan student movement in all the major Chinese cities (Lan 1993). Meanwhile, some students in Taiwan had begun to organize calling for reform. Such activities did not take place until the early 1920s, and were analogous to student activities in Japan. Medical doctor Jiang Weishui ጯ෭Н (1891-1931) formalized the ideals of some younger students and organized the Taiwan Cultural Association (Taiwan wenhua xiehui J. Taiwan bunka kyŇkai ᆵ᡼Ў ϯ‫( )཮ڐ‬Huang 1954b). In particular, the Taiwan Cultural Association relied on the oratorical formats of Japan’s New People Society (shinjinkai ཥ҇཮), such as open meetings on campus, academic lectures and provincial speaking tours.11 The Association underscored the connection with Taiwan as a vehicle for propelling political and cultural activities (Chen 1987). These activities, in conjunction with the journal, created a public sphere in Taiwan, providing a space in which ideas, both indigenous and foreign, were exchanged, debated, refined and made accessible to the population at large. In this respect, the Sin-bîn-hŇe in Tokyo, the Taiwan Cultural Association in Taiwan and the journal Tai Oan Chheng Lian together represented a significant part of Taiwan’s Geistesgeschichte throughout the 1920s. Cai had a considerable share of responsibility in each and made use of their platform to propagate his linguistic activism. Cai Peihuo’s Vision of Assimilation In conjunction with the activities of the political wing of the Sin-bîn-hŇe , a considerable number of articles in Tai Oan Chheng Lian were devoted to legal reform in the colony. This inevitably included elaborate discussions on the assimilation debate, touching on issues that went beyond the controversial 6.3. Law. From the moment a

11 The Shinjinkai, founded in December 1918 in Tokyo, was one of the more influential student movements. See DeWitt Smith (1972: 51).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Vision of Assimilation

63

consensus was reached to pursue the establishment of a Taiwan parliament, the discussion on assimilation was integrated in the wider debate of elevating Taiwan culture. In the inaugural issue, the article “A fundamental problem within Japan” set the tone for what Cai Peihuo considered the basic problems of Taiwanese society: “Taiwanese society was not moving forward because the people’s minds were clouded by simple vision, vulgar and low thinking, and narrow-minded aspirations.” (TOCL 1.1. 1920a: 47) He argued that Taiwan should follow in the footsteps of the civilized nations, like Japan and the West. This would entail strengthening the body through physical education, nurturing an interest in what was happening in the world around, adopting a scientific spirit, studying science and giving voice to public opinion. He wrote (TOCL 1.1. 1920a: 52): Compatriots, we should make up our minds firmly, devote ourselves totally to open discussion, describe and clarify the goal of the people. By discussing these issues together, we can provide reference to the authorities, so that the deteriorating situation can be reversed, the light can be seen, and then there will be good fortune for our country and our society.

The darkness in which Taiwan was enshrouded was a result of Chinese cultural characteristics, Cai argued, attributing it to traditional Chinese belief systems. Taiwanese understanding of “spiritual life” did not extend beyond the “belief that with three incense sticks, and a pair of candles, they can buy the favor of the Buddha god and their only desire is to look for unlimited happiness.” (TOCL 1.1. 1920a: 48) He further expounded these laments in the article “On my island and me” (TOCL 1.4. 1920e: 17; TOCL 1.5. 1920f: 35-42). Cai’s acquaintance with the Christian circles may have triggered his critical attitude toward the tradition of Chinese belief systems, but probably more influential was his exposure to empirically oriented education in Japan. The novelty of science, theories of positivism, characterized by its systematic and rational guidelines, offered an alternative approach for grappling with nature, humanity, knowledge and their relationship to one another (Havens 1972). Taking courses in biology and chemistry armed Cai with practical and polemical tools necessary to formulate his suggestions for colonial reform. Likewise, Cai seconded the popular theme that education about material things and application of scientific principles to all aspects of life would reap great rewards for the individual and society. Contributions of this sort were “Outline of a description of atmosphere” and “About water” (TOCL 1.3. 1920d: 46-52; TOCL 1.4. 1920f: 38-43; TOCL 4.2. 1922b: 19-23). In “Outline of the scientific method,” Cai contrasted Eastern culture that had stopped short of an objective understanding with Western culture that did not include human matters in the cosmic sphere, but by subjecting these to investigation and research, came to objective conclusions with valid proof (TOCL 4.1. 1922a: 38). Thus, equipped with notions of science and technology, Cai elaborated on the distinction between “natural” and “spiritual” sciences, defining the latter as ethics, psychology and philosophy (TOCL 4.1. 1922a: 38). His main point was that use of logic constituted the superiority of Western culture over Eastern civi-

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

64

Romanized Taiwanese

lization, a point he also emphasized in other articles (TOCL 1.1. 1920a: 51; TOCL 1.5. 1920g: 38; TOCL 2.3. 1921a: 40). It was the same strong belief in the validity of the scientific method that influenced his thinking on the colonial project of assimilation. Cai Peihuo dissected the ideology of assimilation and expounded his opinions in “My thoughts on assimilation” (TOCL 1.2. 1920b: 67-82; TOCL 1.3. 1920c: 16-28). At the outset, Cai distinguished between natural assimilation (shizenteki dŇka Ծฅӕϯ) and artificial or man-made assimilation (jiniteki dŇka Γࣁӕϯ). Natural assimilation implied self-sustenance, as it is known in the animal kingdom, and different from human knowledge acquisition and processing, by which he meant the psychological process of “assimilating experiences in the brain and functions of the consciousness” (dŇjuku ӕ᝺). In this definition, learning required a process of assimilation in which the mind had to assimilate new information to produce a new spirit imbued with the comprehension of new information (TOCL 1.2. 1920b: 70-71; TOCL 1.3. 1920c: 19). He illustrated this with the example of a pupil being taught that a train moves by steam. Only after understanding the function of water and power producing steam would it become clear to the pupil why the train moves forward. To make his point, he juxtaposed his understanding of natural assimilation with that of the socio-cultural development of mankind. Because of geographical differentiation, every country over time developed its own customs and habits, thoughts and beliefs. A logical consequence was that via contact with other people, other societies and other races, changes in certain customs and habits were bound to take place. This had occurred when Taiwan became part of the Japanese empire – Taiwanese abandoned such traditional Chinese practices as footbinding, hair queues and opium smoking (TOCL 1.2. 1920b: 70-71; TOCL 1.3. 1920c: 19). These were changes for the better: all civilized males wore short hair and women did not walk around crippled by bound feet. A similar process was taking place in the belief systems of the world, an example of which was the quest for equality amongst men. Slavery had been abandoned long ago, and at present mankind was engaged in the class struggle between those who had and those who had not. Animism and polytheism were gradually evolving toward monotheism. Civilization and enlightenment were facilitated through intercultural contact, driven by the three universal principles of truth (shin ੿), goodness (zen ๓) and beauty (bi ऍ) (TOCL 1.2. 1920b: 70-71; TOCL 1.3. 1920c: 19). The logic of civilization along these lines would ultimately result in one universal peace. Cai believed in such kind of natural assimilation of humanity, echoing the koined “human assimilation” reminiscent of Itagaki Taisuke’s theories. This exposé was then contrasted with the experience of assimilation from a Taiwanese  have not  point of view. Cai criticized the colonial project of assimilation for being “artificial assimilation,” jiniteki dŇka, namely, imposing the self as the absolute standard. Japanese assimilation policies in Taiwan were driven by the principle of power aggrandizement and the self-serving ambition of occupying other countries. He coated his argument in an imperialistic tone: “In the name of ‘unification,’

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Vision of Assimilation

65

the occupying country used its strength to train the population of the newly attached territory, and obliged it to take on the new customs as their own.” (TOCL 1.2. 1920b: 73-74; TOCL 1.3. 1920c: 21) He expressed his outright disapproval when this form of intrusion was presented as Japanese “kind-heartedness” in its strategy for ruling Taiwan. This was equivalent to artificial assimilation and posed three difficulties. First, it was totalitarian: it did not involve the consent of both parties; second, it did not take the individuality of human nature into account: certain habits could not change; third it challenged the logic of human development and progress (TOCL 1.2. 1920b: 74; TOCL 1.3.1920c: 21). Cai drew attention to the Taiwanese reality in a metaphorical way, and from the perspective of colonial Taiwan in relation to the Japanese empire. Taiwan was a small territory and far removed from the old motherland, therefore its pace in attaining the same cultural and economical level as Japan would be slower. Cai indirectly referred here to what he considered the unfair comparison of Taiwan with Okinawa (TOCL 3.3. 1921c: 43). More progress would be achieved by respecting the particularity of the newly attached territory and preserving the good points of its culture instead of forcefully or wilfully interfering in it. Cai used the metaphor of the bride (Taiwan) moving into the groom’s family (Japanese empire). If the family of the groom showed understanding for the live-in bride, her heart would be moved and she would diligently try to accommodate to her new environment. His third condition dealt with the concept of equality, phrased as “different bodies making up the same corporate whole” (ishin dŇtai ౦‫ي‬ӕᡏ). Finally, Cai urged the colonial authorities not to mention the policy of assimilation, since it would only reinforce the awareness of the “other” and create the opposite reaction: “When the babysitter takes care of the infant, does he command ‘sleep, sleep, sleep’ or does he continuously and gently rock, sing and whisper, so that the infant naturally falls asleep. For those planning assimilation, therefore, the best thing to do was to completely forget about assimilation” (TOCL 1.2. 1920b: 76; TOCL 1.3. 1920c: 23). To strengthen his argument, he did include everyday examples of this “artificial assimilation”: the segregation in education between Japanese and Taiwanese children, the second-rate training of officials and the unequal policy of employment for Taiwanese, the refusal to recognize interracial marriages, and the fact that Taiwanese people were forced to study Japanese and adopt Japanese customs and fashions were all contradictory to the basic aim of assimilation and were completely irresponsible. How could Taiwanese children improve at speaking Japanese, the national language (kokugo), when they were not in the same classroom as the Japanese children? How could mutual friendship between the Taiwanese and Japanese people develop when in the work-sphere Taiwanese could not associate with Japanese? What was the point of wearing a Japanese kimono and changing the street-names to Japanese when mixed marriages were forbidden and the bad habit of opium smoking was only gradually prohibited?

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

66

Romanized Taiwanese

Cai was not the only one debating the policy of assimilation, but he was more or less the first to raise the topic. The next year, 1921, Meiji law student Cai Shigu and Guo Dewei ೾ቺࣁ also contributed their opinions on assimilation to the journal. Whereas Cai Peihuo distinguished between natural and artificial assimilation, Cai Shigu in “About the assimilation policy” used the terms spiritual assimilation (seishinteki dŇka ᆒઓ‫ޑ‬ӕϯ) and material assimilation (busshitsu dŇka ‫ނ‬፦‫ޑ‬ӕϯ) (TOCL 2.3. 1921: 25). Cai Shigu noted that material assimilation was disrespectful of the culture of the newly attached people. Their customs and language were to be forgotten and to be replaced by those of the Japanese people (naichijin 㚵ӦΓ) (TOCL 2.3. 1921: 25). Guo Dewei in “Speaking on Taiwan culture and assimilation in the rule of Taiwan” argued that the colonial authorities had focused on material rather than spiritual assimilation (TOCL 2.3. 1921: 38-45). Echoing Cai Peihuo, Cai Shigu also singled out three conditions. First, good Taiwanese customs should be respected and bad ones eradicated. Second, discrimination against Taiwanese should be ended; a better position for the political status of society should be provided, coupled to a political and economic policy taking the foundations of Taiwan’s culture into account. Third, Japanese residents should stop looking down on Taiwanese people. The major shortcoming of the assimilation policy was that one race appropriated a new system to enforce its own culture and eradicate another culture that had been nurtured for several hundred generations (TOCL 2.3. 1921: 26-28). What annoyed Cai Shigu the most was the unfair comparison with Okinawa. Not only was the population and the area of the Taiwan colony much larger, moreover, its cultural heritage was different. Taiwanese were of the Han race and heir to the history of a 4000-year-old civilization: Taiwanese people therefore had their own belief system and morals (TOCL 2.3. 1921: 26). Systems of Culture and Language Taiwanese intellectual reflection on the status of the Chinese language in colonial society gained an impetus following the changes in educational decrees. As will be shown in more detail in the following chapter, between 1919 and 1922, the colonial administration carried out a series of educational reform policies in the colony. These took place alongside the change from a military to a civilian administration. Suffice to say that one of these educational reforms in 1919 included a further curtailing of Chinese-language instruction, hanwen, in the Common Schools as well as in the shobŇ. Chinese-language textbooks teaching Confucian morals were at best to be replaced with the Japanese kanbun reading, and made optional where there was a greater need of instruction in Japanese tout court. To the Taiwanese in Tokyo, this news produced a shockwave. In their eyes, it was proof moreover that the emphasis on cultural integration in the colonial assimilation (dŇka) discourse disclosed a fundamental social and political inequality between Taiwanese and Japanese. The colonial accommodation of the written Chinese language in

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Culture and Language

67

education and society proved no more than a transient tool in achieving a single, standardized, and schooled literacy in Japanese. This policy made Japanese colonialism no different from Western colonial practices. It was precisely because Japanese colonial discourse had legitimized itself on the basis of its difference from Western colonialism that this group of Taiwanese colonial intellectual elites, including Cai, now turned to remind the colonial policymakers of their grand rhetoric of a civilizing mission. Curtailing Chinese-language instruction acted as a powerful trigger in the peculiar way culture and its understanding intervened in the emergence of a Taiwanese colonial nationalist discourse. In “My thoughts on assimilation,” Cai openly disapproved of the Japanese motion to abolish Chinese-language classes (TOCL 1.2. 1920b: 80; TOCL 1.3. 1920c: 26). The decision to either create or reform one’s language was the property of the people who spoke that particular language, and interference by people of another country was not to be tolerated. He illustrated this with the efforts of Japanese- and English-language reform stemming from the will of the Japanese and English peoples, and argued that this should be the same for the Chinese people. For centuries, the Chinese language had been their vehicle of communication with the world, and it was the language closest to the heart of the island’s people. By using the phrase “closest to the heart of the island’s people,” Cai emphasized that language was an inherent cultural trait expressing one’s individuality, and not a custom subject to change over time. Unlike hair on the head, which could be cut and fashioned in different hairstyles, language was like the nose on the face, and could not be modified. Abandoning the study of the Chinese language, wenyanwen, to replace it with the useless Japanese version of Chinese characters, kanbun, was like “the feeling of breaking hands and feet, and the prospect of a dismal future paved with suffering” (TOCL 1.2. 1920b: 81; TOCL 1.3. 1920c: 27). His criticism was further expounded in the article “Basic proposals regarding Taiwan education.” The definition of artificial assimilation was most obviously at work in the colonial educational policy. He began his polemic by clarifying the meaning of education (TOCL 3.3. 1921: 40). The word education was derived from the word “educe,” meaning to enlighten, and was a prerequisite to attaining self-realization. Cai understood self-realization to be participation in the modernization process for which Japan and the West were models. Popularization of education and freedom of expression were two characteristics of modern civilizations such as those in Japan and the West. Consequently, civilized countries were endowed with strong education systems taught in their own spoken languages. Unfortunately, in colonial Taiwan, the particularistic and nationalist policy of Japanese assimilation in language matters severely hampered the process of attaining self-realization, and this explained its failure to truly incorporate the colony into Japan proper. He recalled that if Japanese policymakers were to properly educate, they were not doing it very well, and were definitely falling behind in their guidance.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

68

Romanized Taiwanese

Cai did not oppose the usefulness of the Japanese literacy campaigns as such, but remarked that the medium of instruction in the schools should remain bilingual. His understanding of bilingualism was the co-existence of Taiwanese, taiwango, with the Japanese language. The idea of instructing entirely in the Japanese language was too far-fetched. Taiwanese children were to understand what was being taught at school from the very basics, and this could only be successful when the Japanese and Taiwanese languages were used interactively. In Taiwan, the function of education  providing enlightenment  came second to the encompassing implementation of formalism (keishiki shugi ‫׎‬ԄЬက). Using the term formalism, Cai referred to the compulsory usage of the Japanese language in schooling as a means of instilling Japanese values. If the Japanese language were to bring modern ideas, it did not extend beyond forcing the Taiwanese to superficially adopt Japanese customs. “Rather than teaching pupils how to think for themselves, they simply parroted Japanese sentences,” wrote Cai in “Creating a new Taiwan and the romanized script.” (TW 3.6. 1922c: 38)12 Formalism was pursued and justified in the name of Japanese language unification throughout the Japanese empire. Although it might be practical and convenient for the entire nation to communicate in one language, it could not be justified in Taiwan, since the policy of language unification in Taiwan served the purpose of unifying national (Japanese) thought (TW 3.6. 1922c: 38). Cai considered this a big mistake and argued that assimilation would not be achieved by instruction in a language that was not properly explained in the mother tongue and embedded in a social structure where contact between Taiwanese and Japanese residents was restricted by official policy-making (TW 3.6. 1922c: 38). In a similar vein, Cai disagreed with the abolition of Chinese-language instruction, hanwen, in schools. Reading and writing Chinese characters were an integral part of the cultural heritage in Taiwan. How could the colonial administration consider abolishing this while at the same time promoting assimilation in education? A use of only Japanese would reduce the Taiwanese to robots. Was there not more to it than ruling Taiwan as an economically profitable colony? How could Taiwanese achieve the same intellectual and spiritual level as the Japanese when hanwen was to be abolished? Was this not a contradiction in terms? The study of hanwen was the only means to satisfy the Taiwanese population but would also benefit the Japanese (TW 3.6. 1922c: 46). What Cai was trying to formulate was the inequality in language practices throughout the island despite the fact that by now it had become commonplace for educated Taiwanese to speak, read and write Japanese in their dealings with the officialdom. This injustice he framed in the context of race relations between Chinese and Japanese. Hence, his theorizing on the ideal of natural assimilation fell into perspective. One of his strategies for appeal became the broader context of Sino-Japanese relations. Cai pointed out three potential dangers that could worsen Sino-Japanese relations in Asia. 12 In April 1922, Tai Oan Chheng Lian (TOCL) changed to The Formosa, hereafter: TW.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Culture and Language

69

These were the lack of mutual understanding, cultural differences between the two nations and international competition (TOCL 3.2. 1921: 44-45). It was in the interest of both the Japanese nation and the Taiwanese population to continue the use of the Chinese language: “Since there are several million Chinese living on this planet, should the need arise to befriend them, it is appropriate to learn the Chinese language which they use” (TOCL 1.2. 1920b: 81; TOCL 1.3. 1920c: 27). In so doing, Cai borrowed a line of argument from the kanbun apologists in Japan, who supported the “same language, same race” (dobun doshu) ideology. By the 1920s the use of kanbun as the official stance for a culturally independent Japan had developed into a convenient play of words used to rationalize the country’s entry into China, and to persuade Japan and China to unite in a solid front against the West. Theoretically speaking, unification of the Japanese language made kanbun obsolete as an indispensable ideographic representation of the language and its communication. More importantly, kanbun embodied the Confucian ethics that were the moral backbone of the Japanese people and nation. Cai and peers interpreted the abolition of hanwen as a reflection of this worsening relationship, but rather than rejecting colonial rule completely, they attempted a new cultural synthesis. The Taiwan colony was presented as a model for Sino-Japanese relations. This discourse was further developed and became the dominant framework within which the Chinese language assumed a counter-hegemonic role. The Japanese decision to curtail Chinese hanwen combined a shift of values with a gigantic shift of power: openly acknowledging that Taiwan’s cultural heritage was devalued and relegated to a secondary platform. The Chinese language as a cultural good was transient, on its way to being replaced by Japanese cultural superiority. Denied the opportunity to remain culturally literate, Taiwanese people would be rendered mute and marginal in their cultural allegiance to the outside world. In the world of models and social views of organization, the venture of Japanese literacy campaigns and formal schooling allowed for a growing proportion of colonial society to partake in modern life that previously had been restricted to the happy few. The colonial rulers tapped into the intellectual resources that local society had to offer, and targeted the social class which in the pre-colonial days may not have necessarily had the means to acquire a parallel privileged status in traditional society. Despite the high number of school drop-outs, more children were given access to basic literacy, Japanese and/or Chinese, and the skills needed to participate in modern life, from which they may have been excluded otherwise. Under these circumstances, the administration had created the first generation of Japanese-educated colonial intellectuals. This generation, to which Cai Peihuo belonged, had been witness to a social transformation whereby, within in a span of two decades, literacy had acquired the value of a modern common property to which everyone was entitled. Although this transition from restricted to widespread literacy was achieved through the Japanese language, nonetheless it kept the notion alive that the Chinese language and script were still the carrier of cultural understanding and spiritual guidance. When Japanese education

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

70

Romanized Taiwanese

policy officially curtailed hanwen, the voice of the Taiwanese intellectual discourse was receptive and ready to act. For not acting would have exacerbated the situation. In that respect, language became a tool of the culture repertoire change. But in order to be efficient, it had to be structured in such a manner that it appealed to the culture of popular understanding and did not upset the official Japanese linguistic code. Cai’s model through which he took literacy into his own hands drew from an imported model of language standardization in Taiwan society. His linguistic activism was centred on the propagation of romanized Taiwanese. Cai not only had to appeal to the culture of the Taiwanese masses but also had to ensure that his persuasive tactics would be tolerated by the colonial authorities. In as much as Taiwanese people were making an effort to communicate in the Japanese language and showing their willingness to accommodate to cultural integration, the Japanese administration should respect local literacy practices: For natural assimilation between the Han race and the Japanese race in Taiwan to succeed, Taiwanese clerks better speak Japanese with the authorities. But for the task of elevating the culture of the 3.5 million Taiwanese to the same level as the Japanese, we still need to strive more diligently. Therefore, using Taiwanese [taiwango] as the language of instruction in education is more than necessary” (TOCL 3.2. 1921b: 45).

As Leo Ching (2000: 110) noted, perhaps it was Cai’s naivety in striving for a human assimilation and the acceptance of the island by and within the Japanese empire – with due respect to its Chinese cultural specificity – that gave him the energy to propel his linguistic activism in the years to come. The Model of the Orthographic Innovation Romanized Taiwanese refers to the alphabetic transliteration for Southern Min spoken in Taiwan that the Presbyterian Church had been using as a medium in educational instruction, church publications and other writings related to evangelism since the latter half of the 19th century.13 Continuation of these activities was tolerated by the colonial administration as long as the foreign churches were compliant with the new directives. In the preface of his 1969 dictionary, Cai (1969: 1) recalled that his enthusiasm for the roman alphabet resulted from the simplicity it offered as a medium for written communication: My eldest brother first taught himself romanized Taiwanese used in the church for spreading the Gospel, and he later instructed me. It only took three days to study it, for a boy like me who was only 13 or 14 years old, being able to freely correspond with my eldest brother, made me feel free. Later on I discovered that its use was of tremendous help while studying Japanese or Chinese.

13 Another term is Church Romanisation (CR). For a historical classification, see Heylen (2001a: 135156) and Klöter (2005: 89-130).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Orthographic Innovation

71

The attraction of romanization was not so much its inherent quality as a secret writing script but rather its pedagogical advantages. He considered it an easy way to learn the transliteration system because of its alphabetic specificities. As a teacher, Cai was confronted with the reality of imparting the new language of officialdom while standing right in the middle of misunderstandings and blockages of communication in the Japanese-Chinese cultural encounter. Yet, his position in society gave him access to local elites and representatives of the foreign power holders. One example dates from the 1914 Assimilation Society (Cai 1974: 3). Acting as an interpreter, Cai met with its Japanese activists and became actively involved in the organization and propaganda. Count Itagaki Taisuke’s political speeches symbolized a spark of hope for those who felt themselves repressed or disillusioned. The ideal of assimilation, as suggested by Itagaki, also set Cai to thinking. He envisioned that the problem originated with the general mentality of the population, who at the present stage would not be receptive to the ideal of assimilation. Cai Peihuo’s suggestion was to enlighten the adult population through social education, and to publish journals in romanized Taiwanese as a first step in the direction of increasing their awareness of the need for social change. This idea found very little support among the Society’s Taiwanese and Japanese members (Cai 2000, entry 16 March 1934: 292). Cai (1974: 4) later wrote: “Lin Xiantang agreed, but the Japanese official accompanying Itagaki pretended to agree with a smile, and advised me to first become a member of the Association.” In Japan, Cai further developed the idea of promoting romanized Taiwanese as a didactic tool in language learning by linking contemporary notions of a strong nation, education, and instruction to the concept of language standardization. He explained its three-fold advantages in the essay “Creating a new Taiwan and the romanized script” (TOCL 3.6. 1922c: 38-43). First, the romanized script was a codified linguistic system; second, it could compensate for the inadequate teaching instruction in the schools and teach illiterate adults; third, it would help in reaching the goal of self-realization that would be necessary for attaining the same level of modernization as the Japanese empire (TOCL 3.6. 1922c: 40). By the educational system, Cai meant as much the traditional learning as the modern schooling. In other words, a combination of Taiwanese cultural traditionalism and Japanese educational policy were responsible for keeping the people ignorant. In propagating the romanized script in education, both on formal and informal levels, Cai anticipated that the population would develop the ability to think critically and open their eyes to the changing world around them. Not only was it an ideal substitute for Chinese characters in teaching Taiwan’s illiterate population, it also proved useful as a didactic tool in language learning on two other accounts. First, it was an easily learned transliteration system that facilitated student memorization of the pronunciation and meaning of Chinese characters in the Taiwanese mother tongue. Second, this mnemotechnical device enabled Taiwanese pupils to write in their mother tongue the meaning of what was taught in the Japanese-language classes. If teachers and pupils were instructed in romanized Taiwanese, they could write down the pro-

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

72

Romanized Taiwanese

nunciation and meaning of the subject matter taught in Japanese. Instructors in the Common Schools increasingly were Taiwanese graduates of the Normal School. They had a reasonable knowledge of Japanese, and unlike Japanese instructors, they were able to explain the content of the subject matter in Taiwanese. The problem was that there was no means to notate this explanation when the student did homework or prepared for examinations. How could he or she review if the meaning and pronunciation of the characters were forgotten? There is reason to believe that Cai’s first impression of this orthography was reminiscent of Tokugawa and Meiji advocates of romanization, (rŇmaji 嘎嘙嗿ӷ) who equally could not help noticing the conciseness of the 26-letter alphabetic writing compared with the more than ten thousand characters used.14 The self-realization of the Taiwanese population was not to start only with children. Cai considered adults to be a far more important group. Japanese educational policies did not encourage social education. Adults were trained to become Japanese-language instructors to fill the growing need for teachers. Extra curricular Japanese-language courses functioned mainly to accommodate the restructuring of Taiwanese society according to Japanese needs. This excluded a large portion of society from being educated, not only farmers and those living in the countryside, but also those working in factories. Cai envisioned that this group would benefit the most from learning the roman alphabet. It was not sufficient for the illiterate population to be orally told how to improve their lives. Being able to read and write would set them to thinking, formulate thoughts, exchange ideas and reflect on their own situations. Theoretically, the romanized script was no different from acquiring Japanese or Chinese, yet was much more practical than learning the ideographic script. Generating Support for Romanized Taiwanese The elevation of Taiwan culture, leitmotiv of the journal Tai Oan Chheng Lian, was inspired by the ideal to awaken the people, to make them receptive to the changing needs of time, and to ascertain their own rights. In 1922, Cai started to make his suggestions for the propagation of the romanized script an integral part of the homefront 14 For a short time, calls for a romanized national script played a role in the Meiji script-reform movements. As has been pointed out by Nanette Twine (1983: 116), the first to feel the need for script reform were students of the West, who discovered the alphabet’s simplicity and who read foreigners’ criticisms of the Japanese language. Parallel to the “language unification movement” (genbunitchi undŇ ‫ق‬Ў΋ठၮ୏) of the 1860s developed a script reform movement supported by the idea of ridding written Japanese of its heavy burden of kanji by either restricting the number of kanji to reasonable limits or using only kana or only rŇmaji. At the basis were Japanese fascination with Western culture and the ongoing debate in Japanese society and political life on domestic changes to be taken in order to walk the path to strong nationhood. Simplification of the Japanese language, calls for the development of one national language as well as the search for an appropriate means to attain universal education and improve the lot of the common people pervaded the larger socio-political debate on educational reform in the first decades of the Meiji. Universities saw the formation of both kana and rŇmaji clubs, each publishing its own journals to generate popular support.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Generating Support

73

mobilization in Taiwan. His determination to include romanized Taiwanese into the Taiwan culture repertoire was to ensure that his suggestion would be taken seriously. To this end, Cai Peihuo convinced the founding committee of the Taiwan Cultural Association to make propagation of romanized Taiwanese an official condition in their programs for social mobilization (Cai 1965: 183). After two requests (1921-1922), it was approved. Reasons for the reluctant attitude of the board members were related to the active propagation of Mandarin baihuawen on the one hand, and fear of a negative reaction from the colonial authorities on the issue of romanized Taiwanese on the other. After the approval was granted in June of 1922, Cai compiled a circular letter in which he explained his motives (Iuȭ 1993: 65-68). In October of the following year, 1923, during the third meeting of the Taiwan Cultural Association in Taihoku, propagation of publications in romanized Taiwanese were included in the statutes of the Association (Wu et al. 1971: 294). This circular letter was published in The Taiwan Minpao (ᆵ᡼҇ൔ hereafter: TWMP) in the form of an article addressed to both Japanese residents and Taiwanese inhabitants (TWMP 1.11. 1923a: 8). Cai’s participation in the summer lectures and circuit lectures throughout the island offered him another opportunity to advertize his romanized Taiwanese script movement. Even when lecturing on topics of social education, he probably referred to the advantages of the romanized script.15 Active public participation in writing romanized Taiwanese is mentioned by Zhang Hongnan ஭ࢫࠄ in an article in The Formosa (ᆵ᡼ 1923) detailing the amount of correspondence in romanized Taiwanese: Between January and November 1922, 38 percent of Cai Peihuo’s personal correspondence were letters received written in romanized Taiwanese (124 out of 321), and 47 percent (174 out of 380) consisted of his replies in romanized Taiwanese (TW 4.5. 1923: 51-52). Taiwan Cultural Association member Zhang Hongnan supported the Romanized Taiwanese movement. In May 1923, he published an article in The Formosa, with the appropriate title “Misunderstandings on the romanized script” (TW 4.5. 1923: 48-54). Zhang pointed out three common misunderstandings about the romanized script, which explained its lack of social acceptance. The first misunderstanding was that people thought of the romanized script as a foreign and Western writing system. This culturalist prejudice, he argued, was not limited to Taiwanese people but also supported by many Japanese intellectuals. Research into the origins of orthography showed that scripts could imitate either pronunciation or visual shape. Creating a script based on its pronunciation was a sign of modernity as it had directly contributed to the progress of Western nations. This may seem strange at first sight, but it was no different from seeing only monks wearing a hair queue, or women walking without bound feet, Zhang argued. Short hair and unbound feet, initially thought to be Western cultural phenomena, had become increasingly common in society. The Japanese language had also borrowed many words from Western language scripts, such as the English word for cup, match, pen and glass. On the other hand, Japanese words like kimono and kuruma 15 In July 1925, he lectured on “Outline of Science” and in August 1926, on “My View on Life.”

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

74

Romanized Taiwanese

were frequently used in the English language. Similar to the earlier efforts of Japanese advocates of rŇmaji, Zhang used these examples to show that Japan had been seriously debating the romanized script as an option for language reform. It was therefore worthwhile to consider its advantages in the Taiwan context (TW 3.6. 1923: 49-50). The second misunderstanding concerned the exclusive association of the romanized script with the Christian church, as illustrated with remarks like “when showing one friend my textbook in romanized Taiwanese, he immediately replied, ‘Ah, those things from the Church!’”(TW 3.6. 1923: 51) Zhang countered the popular idea that the Church propagated the romanized script only for clerical matters, such as the liturgy and the church newspaper, and were therefore extrinsic to Taiwanese society. Rather, the Christian church was very respectful of Taiwanese society. “Had the Reverend Campbell not compiled the valuable Chinese character dictionary Dictionary of the Amoy Vernacular (Ē-mng-im sin jĩ-tián 1913), Gushue Taylor published Common Terms in Anatomy and Physiology (LĆi gŇa khe khòaȭ-ho-hak 1917), not to mention the clergy’s translation of the Four Classics in romanization?” Zhang asked (TW 3.6. 1923: 51). The third prejudice against the romanized script held that it was suited only as a tool to educate the illiterate. Here, Zhang touched upon traditional ideas on the arts and aims of writing, which still focused on mastery of a written non-innovative static text. Romanization was taken as an example whereby the sound of the language served as the basis for its written representation. For these reasons it was looked down upon. Zhang had never heard it was impossible to write down the spoken tongue. He referred to Hu Shi च፾ (1891-1962) who in advocating the Literary Revolution, had succeeded in countering the prejudice that the spoken tongue was unsuited to serve as the basis for literary composition. To strengthen his argument, Zhang then cited the republican reformers Chen Duxiu ഋᐱ‫( ذ‬1879-1942), Zhong Wen’ao ᗛЎᡷ, Zhu Jingnong ԙ࿶ၭ (1887-1951) and Qian Xuantong ᒲҎӕ (1887-1939), who had engaged in the debate on an alphabetic orthography in China (TW 3.6. 1923: 53-54). Aware that selection of romanized Taiwanese would raise several questions and problems – which, interestingly, surfaced in the debate on the construction of a written Taiwanese a couple of years later – Zhang concluded his article with the observation that the romanization cause deserved a wider audience and to be known. Attitudes were changing on the perception of a spoken and literary language, with characterbased script in decline, and even in China there had been debate on propagating romanized script. Discussion of how to unify language and script into one system had long been an influential issue in Taiwan as well, and could not be ignored. This was an even greater reason, he argued, to be ambitious in critically assessing the misunderstandings, superstitions and embedded obstinacy. Between 1922 and 1927, Cai Peihuo’s theorizing on the propagation of romanized Taiwanese went through several phases. Each new article showcased another element by which Cai attempted to generate support, as much from the colonial authorities as the Taiwanese people. He became more outspoken in his opinion that as long as Tai-

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Generating Support

75

wan lacked an effective written script, the goal of education as a prime mover in social reform would be impossible to attain. Cai’s first publication in romanized Taiwanese, My humble opinion in ten points (Cháp hĆng koán kiàn) appeared in 1925 (Chhoa 1925).16 This monograph was a social critique that expounded his thoughts on Chinese culture, Japanese modernity, and the need for learning in Taiwanese society. Cai started writing in October 1923, but was interrupted in December when he spent 65 days in prison as one of the Taiwanese arrested and tried for involvement in the Social Order Violation Laws Incident (Zhi’an jingchafa weifan shijian ‫ݯ‬Ӽ᝾ჸ‫ݤ‬ၴϸ٣ҹ) (Chhoa 1925: iii). He finished the monograph on 28 October 1924. It was published by the Presbyterian Church’s publication house in Tainan (Tâi-lâm Sin-lâu Chheh-pâng) in 1925, and consisted of ten chapters. The second chapter, entitled “The Relation between a New Taiwan and the Romanized Script” (Sin Tâi-oân kap Lô-má-jĩ ê Koan-hē) elaborated on romanized Taiwanese as an appropriate medium for the Taiwanese people to learn about the world. Learning had two attributes; it enabled the people to develop moral character and provided the potential to make and construct things (Chhoa 1925: 13). Studying was the vehicle to attain knowledge. Unfortunately in Taiwan, lack of learning impeded change. Cai gave three reasons: ignorance of the value of learning; the insincerity of those in positions of power; the difficulty of the script and language to attain learning (Chhoa 1925: 1415). Since the Presbyterian Church published Cháp hĆng koán kiàn, there is reason to believe that it was also mentioned in the monthly publication of the Tâi-oân-hú siâȭ Kàu-hoē-pò (‘Taiwan Church News’) and propagated in Christian circles in Tainan. This is supported by the fact that Cai moved to Tainan in 1923 to set up the southern branch of the Taiwan Cultural Association. Because The Taiwan Minpao was the propaganda journal for the Taiwan Cultural Association, Cháp hĆng koán kiàn was also advertized in the journal (TWMP 60. 1925: 16). Cháp hĆng koán kiàn demonstrated that romanized Taiwanese was not confined to the select writings of the Church. Cai wanted to show that Taiwanese was a living language with an active vocabulary, able to express word-combinations, specific idiolects and genres of discourse, irrespective of its orthographic representation. It can be argued that its compilation was first and foremost didactic, as to render the idea of romanized Taiwanese socially acceptable. The linguistic significance of this work is that it enlarged the body of literature on the syntax, grammar and lexicon of 1920s Taiwanese. Cai noted in the preface that because he left Beigang at the age of 18, his pronunciation was neither pure Zhang nor Quan (Chhoa 1925: iii). Conveniently, this explanation served as a pretext to follow the standardized romanized Taiwanese based on the Xiamen koiné, to which he had become accustomed as it was being used by the Presbyterians. The Zhangzhou-Quanzhou hybrid was becoming a reality in Taiwan, and required a standardized form. This 16 According to Dong Fangyuan ဠ‫ޱ‬ल who in 1945 came across the work, the title and the cover attracted his attention. The original had a map of Taiwan on the cover. See Cai (2000, Vol. 5: 178).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

76

Romanized Taiwanese

linguistic codification was necessary to have any chance of succeeding, hence Cai’s explicit reference to the Xiamen koiné. Cháp hĆng koán kiàn was the first comprehensive oeuvre of Cai Peihuo’s intellectual thought dating back to the early 1920s. His other two books, To the People of the Japanese Mainland – For a Basic Solution to the Colonial Problems (Nihon hongoku kokumin ni atafu – Shokuminchi mondai kaiketsu no kichŇ Вҁҁ㡚㡚҇喕ᢳ喟– ෌҇Ӧୢᚒှ،喘୷ፓ) and A Child of East-Asia Thinks Like This (TŇ-A no ko kaku omofu ܿ㝭喘η啵啹ࡘ喟), published in 1928 and 1937 respectively, are much more impregnated with Japanese criticism of colonialism. Of immediate relevance is that the Romanized Taiwanese movement became an integral part of the long drawn-out battle among Taiwanese intellectuals and writers debating how the Chinese language should be reformed to achieve cultural enhancement of the colony throughout the 1920s and 1930s. The Model in Society: Limited Chances for Social Acceptance The Japanese public opinion towards a popularization of romanized Taiwanese was anything but appreciative. On 16 May 1922, the Taiwan nichinichi shimpŇ published a public opinion (shakusetsu ‫཮ޗ‬ᇥ) opposing any attempt at romanized Taiwanese (TWNNSP, 16/05/1922: 13).17 Its criticisms were threefold. First, if the Taiwanese were to learn romanized Taiwanese, they would have less time to study the national language. Propagation of romanized Taiwanese countered the common goal of Taiwanese and Japanese citizens studying Japanese. Second, the purpose of the “popularization of Japanese” was to assimilate the Taiwanese people into Japanese culture. How could this be achieved if they were to learn romanized Taiwanese? Third, the suggestion that illiterate masses over 30 years of age be instructed as a means to cultural enhancement was in itself not a bad idea, but use of romanized Taiwanese could not be tolerated in formal schooling. Cai Peihuo formulated a reply to these three points in the above-mentioned article “Creating a new Taiwan and the romanized script” published in The Formosa. The article “To the compatriots of the mother country,” followed by a reprint of “Creating a new Taiwan and the romanized script” in The Taiwan Minpao, supported his arguments on the correlation between propagation of a romanized script and the assimilation policy (TWMP 1.11. 1923a: 8; TWMP 1.13. 1923b: 8; TWMP 1.14. 1923c: 8). Two elements pervaded Cai’s advocacy of the romanized script. First, he argued that the study of romanized script would not be counter-productive to either the study of Japanese or the goal of assimilation. Since the Japanese take-over and implementation of the educational policy, there had been limited progress in improving literacy levels. Over the past 28 years of Japanese rule and the implementation of national language study, 17 It is interesting to note that in Japanese-language articles, romanization was rendered in Chinese characters and not in kana syllabary (kanazukai). This is an important observation of how the Japanese perceived indigenous romanization attempts in the Taiwan colony as different from the romanization of the Japanese language, called rŇmaji.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Limited Chances

77

only about 10,000 Taiwanese could be considered literate in Japanese. Out of a total population of 3.6 million, this figure was very small. The romanized script was concise and could be learned in about four weeks. Such a short period was negligible when compared to the six years required to graduate from Common School (TWMP 1.13. 1923b: 8). The romanized script was not meant to replace kanji writing, but to be used as a transitional tool with the intention of narrowing the cultural gap between the Taiwanese and Japanese on the island (TWMP 1.14. 1923c: 8). At the same time, the method of Japanese-language instruction could be greatly facilitated and the real purpose of learning attained, rather than just reading without understanding the meaning. High levels of illiteracy would impede assimilation between the two peoples (TWMP 1.14. 1923c: 8). Not only was the romanized script an aid in studying Japanese, it was also beneficial to Japanese officials and policemen who were instructed in Taiwanese (TWMP 1.14. 1923c: 8). In saying this, Cai pointed to the reality in Taiwanese society, that instruction in the Japanese language had not helped bridge the language barrier between Taiwanese and Japanese. Japanese policemen and officials were taught Taiwanese from textbooks compiled by the colonial government. The pronunciation and tone marks were indicated with the kana syllabary. By pointing out that that the romanized script was equally beneficial to the Taiwanese and the Japanese, Cai aspired to gain a more favorable response from the colonial authorities. At the same time, he also wanted to make clear that assimilation was not a one-way process, but dependent on the goodwill of both peoples in learning each other’s language. Nonetheless, Cai remained vague on how to best integrate the romanized script with the study of the Japanese language. He only hinted at the benefits it could offer the teachers who taught commercial courses (TWMP 1.14. 1923c: 8). But this was not the main goal at this stage. Far more important was the need to render romanized Taiwanese socially acceptable to both the Japanese and Taiwanese communities, and in particular to his educated peers. In November 1925, The Taiwan Minpao reported on the activities organized by the Taiwan Cultural Association (TWMP 80. 1925i: 14-15). Central to the Association was the organization of lectures that addressed cultural matters. Included was a report on the propagation of and compilations in romanized Taiwanese (TWMP 80. 1925i: 14). The report mentioned that in the spring of that year, the Tainan branch commenced preparations for a lecture on instruction using the romanized script. Enrollment soon exceeded the original limit of hundred students. The required application to the local authorities for approval was delayed month after month, however, before being ultimately rejected. Arguments used in support of the romanized script while negotiating with the local authorities and township heads to obtain permission summarized the Association’s intention to use the script as a tool for social education (TWMP 80. 1925i: 14). This was explained in three points. First, it was a tool for cultural enhancement. Through the use of romanized script, the illiterate majority could be brought into contact with as-

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

78

Romanized Taiwanese

pects of modern culture and improve their daily lives. Second, the romanized script could help in the popularization of the Japanese language, which was explained both in terms of modern (kokugo) and classical Japanese (kanbun). The emphasis was on finding a medium of the ideographic character script (ᅇӷ hanzi /kanji) using the Taiwanese pronunciation, which could be written in romanized script. More importantly, it was a step toward facilitating the study of character orthography, still the cornerstone of learning. This is what Cai meant by “helping to propagate the national language.” The emphasis was not on the Japanese language proper, but on the recognition and meaning of the characters. Propagation of the romanized script would encourage compilation of publications in Taiwanese. Written in the spoken form of everyday life, of which Cháp hĆng koán kiàn was a first example, the meaning of the text could be understood when read aloud. Third, a combination of the above two factors would contribute to bringing Taiwanese and Japanese residents closer together. In spite of these sincere attempts, the unanimous opinion was that the colonial authorities and the township heads feared that propagation of romanization would impede the progress of the national language instruction and harm Taiwanese-Japanese inter-ethnic relations (TWMP 80. 1925i: 14). Nevertheless, the article concluded on an optimistic note. The real reason why the colonial authorities had not granted approval was because it was a request for a group activity. Individual interest in the romanized script, however, would remain out of the scope of interference (TWMP 80. 1925i: 14). This resulted in a temporary halt to any further attempts at public propagation of the script, as was also reflected in Cai’s contributions to The Taiwan Minpao. His articles now shifted to addressing the unequal relations between the Taiwanese and the Japanese, and he urged his Taiwanese fellows to strive for social reform and change as the only prerequisites for improving their lives. As this suggests, the Romanized Taiwanese movement faced Taiwanese prejudices and fears as well as Japanese intolerance. In reality, both foes were equally strong, the one reinforcing the other. Cai (1925: 16) noted in Cháp hĆng koán kiàn: The objective of the Assimilation Society was that [Taiwanese] islanders (hontŇjin) would assimilate with the [Japanese] mainlanders (naichijin). Therefore everyone was enthusiastic about studying Japanese. If romanized Taiwanese would be taught and instructed to the hontŇjin in Taiwanese in the schools, the colonial authorities would certainly argue that the hontŇjin had no interest in studying the national language and wanted to separate themselves from the naichijin, therefore the colonial authorities evidently would be even more opposed.

Cai held firm to his belief that use of romanized Taiwanese was a better way to elevate Taiwanese culture. In November 1927, he repeated his stand on the romanized script in the serialized essay “My view on reforming Taiwan society” (TWMP 181. 1927a: 8; TWMP 182. 1927b: 8; TWMP 183. 1927c: 8; TWMP 184. 1927d: 8). Cai (184. 1927d: 8) wrote: The romanized script is a kind of script that expresses the sound of the language. The civilized countries of the world, like England, America, France and Germany, all use this

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Limited Chances

79

kind of script to write down their language. In Japan proper, many scholars have set up romanization societies, which in the past ten years have been very active in propagating its popularization.

Emphasizing romanized Taiwanese as a tool for social education was in conformity with the political influences and social trends, notably the rise of socialism and concern for the proletarian masses. Hence, the renewed plea for romanized Taiwanese focused on the necessity to instruct the illiterate peasants and laborers. Once more, Cai argued that the educational situation had not improved (TWMP 182. 1927b: 8). Only a minority could read, women were by definition illiterate, and so were the peasants and workers who constituted 78 percent of the total population. People’s mentality had not changed for 200 years. He illustrated this with an example of the peasant who came to see a friend that Cai was visiting. The peasant asked the friend to inform his landlord that the drains needed repair. When told to take care of this matter himself, the peasant hastily replied that he could not do this himself, because the landlord lived too far away and the peasant was afraid that he could not make his way home again. Cai’s comment was that if the peasant, who was illiterate, could only read and write the basics, he could have put the problem down in words, taken the notice to the nearby post office, paid for the stamp, instead of spending an entire working day walking to the house of his landlord (TWMP 182. 1927b: 8). This was another illustration of what Cai meant by self-realization, the need for growth of knowledge, and how this could be achieved if there was a written script that was effective and concise in disseminating information. In the same article, he also mentioned a proposal that he had suggested to the colonial authorities two or three years earlier. The proposal detailed how Cai Peihuo envisioned reforming Taiwanese society and elevating culture through the romanized script. If provided with a sum of 400,000 yen, he would spend 100,000 yen to instruct every village and town in the romanized script. With another 100,000 yen, he would open a large bookstore, employ a team of specialists for compiling books in romanized Taiwanese on every kind of topic, from the basics to the most advanced, but explained in the simplest and easiest way to comprehend. The remaining 200,000 yen would be spent on a printing press, and copies sold to every household (TWMP 182. 1927b: 8). This method would help cut down on the construction of new schools and expand the teacher-training program. A small team of teachers would be sufficient to instruct the entire island (TWMP 182. 1927b: 8). Cai’s idealism was not shared by the colonial authorities. On the contrary, he noted that the plan was received with the utmost apprehension and that every step in trying to implement it was impeded by the administration (TWMP 182. 1927b: 8). His plan to purchase a printing press and publish a magazine in romanized Taiwanese posed a threat to the Japanese-controlled media (TWMP 182. 1927b: 8). To examine this idea of a printing press and its magazine in more detail: It was not all that unusual for Cai to bring it up, and it needs to be seen in the context of the achievements of Taiwanese

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

80

Romanized Taiwanese

activism at that time. To properly evaluate Cai’s role and position within the Taiwanese community, the reform movement and the cultural avant-garde, there are several factors that deserve attention. First, the idea of a printing press and a magazine was not particularly inspired by the Christian church, even if it has been generally understood that the Church was among the instigators for vernacular movements. As mentioned previously, Cai was one of the founding members and key persons in the establishment of the vernacular press in Tokyo, and the transfer of The Taiwan Minpao to Taiwan in the mid-1920s. Second, 1927 is considered one of the key years in the historiography of the Japanese colonial period. The year started with the breakup of the Taiwan Cultural Association in January. Following the development of the Taiwan People’s Party (Taiwan minzhongdang ᆵ᡼҇౲ល), the Taiwan League for Home Rule movement (Taiwan difang zizhi lianmeng ᆵ᡼ӦБԾ‫ݯ‬ᖄ࿉) and the Peasant movement (nongmin yundong ၭ҇ၮ୏) subsequently all made their appearances. As argued by Leo Ching (2001: 88), these political developments reflected the internal differentiation related to the growing demands of Taiwanese neonationalist movements. Wu Rwei-Ren ֆᅴΓ (2003: 249) has highlighted the Left-Right Breakup of 1927, which had given rise to the development of a left-wing discourse and establishment of the Taiwanese Communist Party (Taiwan gongchandang ᆵ᡼Ӆౢល) in 1928. Wu (2003: 245, 246) further contended that the right-wing faction to which Cai Peihuo, Jiang Weishui and Lin Xiantang belonged, became increasingly subject to tensions between left and right within the Taiwan People’s Party, resulting in an official breakup in August 1930. Cai Peihuo also retreated from the Taiwan Cultural Association and set up the Mei-Tai Troupe (meitaituan ऍѠი), whose main activity consisted of touring the island with educational moving pictures that he had brought with him from Japan.18 In the meantime, Cai, Lin and Jiang regrouped and formed the Liberation Society (jiefang xiehui ှ‫)཮ڐܫ‬. This was later renamed as the Taiwan People Party (Taiwan mindang ᆵ᡼҇ល), but was soon banned by the colonial administration. In July, the Taiwan People’s Party, Taiwan minzhongdang, was formed and also approved by the authorities. Jiang Weishui became the party chairman and Cai Peihuo its advisor (Chang 1987). Cai combined this political activism with his engagement in the Taiwan Parliament Petition League movement. What this adds up to is that Cai had assumed a leadership position within the homefront mobilization. His power was derived from a moderate middle position as mediator in negotiating with the Japanese counterparts. From that perspective, 1927 marked another crucial event: the official transfer of The Taiwan Minpao to Taiwan under Taiwanese management. The paper’s transfer was officially approved by the Japanese colonial authorities on 16 July 1927. Cai’s role had been instrumental in the transfer. This was partly due to the fact that he had been involved in the newspaper project since early on and was responsible for preparing the paperwork needed for dealing with the Japanese administration. If the administration 18 For an overview of Taiwan’s film history, see Hong (forthcoming: chapter 1).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Pros and Cons

81

in Taiwan showed appreciation for a Chinese language-paper, they might also be more lenient toward a similar venture in romanized Taiwanese. Because of Cai’s familiarity with the contacts, procedures and networking, he considered it worth a try. In that respect, the disruption and changes on the socio-political agenda in 1927 provided Cai with more leverage to further integrate propagation of romanized Taiwanese into the homefront mobilization activism. Between 1929 and 1936, Cai Peihuo kept a diary, which, to date, is the primary source revealing not only the difficulties and many setbacks he experienced but also the ideals that inspired him to persevere for as long as he did with this linguistic mission (Heylen 2007). Further discussion of Cai’s role in the Taiwanese (romanization) script movement draws extensively from these diary entries. The aim of this more personalized approach is to shed light on how the encounter with modernity, narrated through the spectrum of Cai’s engagement with linguistic activism, reflected his inner dilemma in identifying with the colonial Weltanschauung. As will be shown, by March 1931 Cai no longer promoted romanization but had devised a new proposal for orthographic reform. The diary provides the contextual understanding of the facts and forces that were involved in the process of this orthographic alternation. Narrating the Pros and Cons of Romanized Taiwanese Cai Peihuo’s diary (the published and unpublished versions), written between 1929 and 1936, gives first-hand information on the further derailment of his romanization movement. By 1929, Cai had been propagating romanized Taiwanese for over a decade. His name had become synonymous with this particular linguistic activism, among both the Taiwanese cultural avant-garde and Japanese colonial officials. Entries concerning his linguistic mission from the year 1929 to the spring of 1931 vary from descriptions of his preparation and organization of several romanized teaching sessions – running back and forth between Tainan and the capital applying for permits from the colonial administration, and the ordeals of waiting, rejection and related bureaucratic red tape – to his efforts in compiling marching songs and didactic materials. Cai was an educator and this training was another yardstick by which he could evaluate the first-hand experience with the world of the Taiwanese classroom. Studying in Tokyo had strengthened his belief in the liberating effect of developing individual knowledge. In his opinion, learning was a tool of political liberalization, and skills and attitudes were a conduit for perpetuating self-consciousness in resonance with the modernisms of progress, humanism and civilization. For these reasons, grassroots literacy campaigns, such as the promotion of romanized Taiwanese, could not be disassociated from political activism. Nevertheless, this association was not always perceived as such or positively received by his peers. The first diary entry was recorded on 1 January 1929. Cai introduced his immediate family and felt it somehow appropriate to mention that the Japanese police office had not kept a file on him since he was last imprisoned in 1923. The entry ended with a

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

82

Romanized Taiwanese

spiritual resolution. This was written in the form of a confession in which Cai Peihuo mentioned twice his devotion to romanized Taiwanese. First, he called upon the Lord, “Father in Heaven” to send him a sign indicating whether or not the work lying ahead in the coming year would focus on the “task of propagating the romanized script.” Second, the entry informs us that Cai had completed the lyrics and the music for a marching song in the romanized script, which was to help him carry out his linguistic mission (Cai 2000, entry 1 January 1929: 83). From the entry recorded on 13 January, it appears that Cai took this dedication very seriously. That day the annual meeting with the board of directors of The Taiwan Minpao took place in Lin Xiantang’s mansion at Wufeng. Issues on the agenda concerned the restructuring of the board and the start of negotiations with the colonial authorities to obtain official permission to turn the weekly newspaper into a daily. Cai chose this occasion to announce his resignation as director and informed the immediate circle that he wanted to devote himself to the romanization cause: “From now on I will entirely change my way of doing [things]. From now my life-history will turn a new page.” (Cai 2000, entry 15 January 1929: 87) In accordance with his new schedule, he completed the manuscript of his Textbook in Romanized Taiwanese (Pèh-oē-jĩ khò-pún қ၉ӷፐҁ) that same month (Cai 2000, entry 28 January 1929: 87). In early March, the Presbyterian press had printed 5,000 copies (Cai 2000, entry 6 March 1929: 89). The textbook consisted of nine lessons. The first five lessons taught the alphabet using the National Phonetic Alphabet (guoyu zhuyin fuhao ୯ᇟ‫ॣݙ‬಄ဦ). Cai did not follow the Japanese kana syllabary. Tone marks and numbers were explained in the sixth and seventh lessons. The eighth lesson taught how to write a letter with the Western style of address. The ninth and last lesson was an essay in romanized Taiwanese in which he explained its importance for society (Chang ed. 2000, Vol. 2: 8-22). The next step was to organize a six-week lecture series. These lectures could not be held without official approval. Cai’s intention was to establish a Romanized Taiwanese Research Society (pèh-oē-jĩ gián-kiù-hŇe) under the auspices of the Tainan People’s Club (Tainan minzhong julebu ᆵࠄ҇౲ॿ኷೽). Already, the first lecture (11 January) was cancelled. A Tainan police officer came to tell Cai that he needed a permit. The entire morning and afternoon of the next day Cai spent negotiating with the chief of the Tainan police. The manner in which he reflected on this meeting in his diary shows that despite strong opposition from the chief, Cai was determined to proceed with the lectures. By six in the evening he had received a phone call from the Tainan police with the message that “a permit from the city government would allow him to proceed” (Cai 2000, entry 12 March 1929: 90). The lectures concluded on 22 April 1929. For the first term, 50 male students had enrolled. By the second term, this number had increased by 10, among whom were several housewives. In the third term, there were a total of 90 students, with as many as 40 housewives. A picture of this group was taken at the martial arts temple (wumiao ‫ݓ‬ቴ) in Tainan. The six weeks of instruction had taught him that the most diligent students could learn the romanized

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Pros and Cons

83

script in two weeks. The majority took about four weeks to master it. Applying for a permit was a fairly complicated procedure. The most common strategy was to submit an application to form a research society (kenkyşkai ࣴ‫)཮ز‬, and that required a written prospectus. In April, Cai finished the outline and traveled north to deliver the prospectus for the establishment of the Romanized Taiwanese Research Society to the colonial police headquarters in Taihoku. He also met with officer Ishiguro ҡ໵, head of the Bureau of Cultural and Educational Affairs (bunkyŇ kyoku Ў ௲ ֽ ), and recorded their conversation as follows (2000, entry 12 April 1929: 92): Half jokingly he said; ‘you [meaning me] seem quite ambitious about promoting romanization. Does it imply that you will become less interested in the People’s Party and the paper press? If so, then, it will be the same for your involvement in the Taiwan Parliament League Petition, right?’ This man laughed very loudly, but I had no intention of joking with him, and I replied: ‘This matter here is a basic proposal for Taiwan politics, I shall proceed accordingly and in a straightforward way!’

Back in Tainan, he continued the application procedure with the Tainan prefectural administration and pasted the sign “Office of the Romanized Taiwanese Society” (Tâioân pèh-oē-jĩ hŇe-sş-bş-sóź) on his front door (Cai 2000, entries 24 April and 25 April 1929: 92; 4 May and 14 May 1929: 93). These efforts, however, were in vain. On 25 July, Cai (2000, entry 25 July 1929: 100-101) wrote: The Romanized Taiwanese Lecture Society was not approved by the colonial authorities! In four years, it has not been approved once. That they have persisted in doing this to this day, I can say, is most malicious. An important person in Tainan saw me, however, and comforted me, saying, ‘Even though it has not been approved this time, quite a few people in the Governor-General Office sympathize with you. The Tainan Office believes that it will be approved, the Police Office also does not object, it is only the Bureau of Cultural and Educational Affairs that is fervently opposed to it, and that is why it has not been approved. If you do not persevere, you will incur the antipathy of those who have sympathized with you. If the Bureau of Cultural and Educational Affairs changes its mind, your proposal will be approved and be carried out.’ I now have no choice but to seek the opinion of Luo and the others on how to proceed!

Cai considered these words of comfort as good news; it felt as if he now had something to bargain for with Luo Wanju ᛥ࿤㤠 (1898-1963) and the others. It is difficult to gauge to what extent his peers were believers in the cause of romanized Taiwanese. Personal gain also played a role. If Cai gained approval from the Bureau of Cultural and Educational Affairs, this would set a precedent and reinforce efforts to change the educational situation in general, as well as demands for a continuation of Chineselanguage instruction.19 19 The educational demands were also taken up in the Outline of the Taiwan People’s Party (Taiwan minzhongdang gangling ᆵ᡼҇౲លᆜሦ) of 1927, under section 3, stipulating four points: 1) implementing compulsory education; 2) use of Taiwanese in the Common Schools; 3) obligatory course of hanwen; 4) equality of education with the naichijin. For a discussion, see Komagome (1993: 431).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

84

Romanized Taiwanese

The subsequent diary entries reveal that the visit to “Luo and the others” was related to the management of the newspaper, and for which another trip to Tokyo in September was arranged. Cai negotiated: “I told the three men [Lin Xiantang, Luo Wanju, Yang Zhaojia ླྀᆬ჏ (1892-1976)] that they only had to give their word to help me popularize romanized Taiwanese, and I promised I would accompany them to Tokyo to secure the newspaper permit.” In conclusion, the entry stated that he was assured of their full cooperation and support (Cai 2000, entry 10 August 1929: 101). The above-mentioned passage is but one example of Cai’s continuous efforts in following up on the state of the newspaper’s affairs, despite several admissions of a waning interest. From the newspaper’s inception, he had been closely involved in negotiations with Japanese officials in the colonial administration over practical and financial arrangements. These responsibilities provided him with an opportunity to journey several times a year to Japan, during which time he also continued to attend to other matters that he considered important. Cai habitually kept his diary and recorded each trip that he made to Japan. This usually included an entry in which he summed up the important things he wanted to commit himself to, or reflected on the outcome of his plans and intentions after returning to Taiwan. On this journey, Cai spent about three months in Japan (mid-September to earlyDecember 1929). His agenda was threefold: furthering the political movement and meeting with prominent politicians; encouraging Tokyo-based Taiwanese to remobilize; and taking time to read about political philosophy and language (Cai 2000, entry 7 September 1929: 103). The 6 October entry was a reflection on that day’s audience with former Governor-General Izawa Takio Ҳᐛӭ഻‫( ت‬1869-1949): Izawa shared Cai’s opinion that the earlier land reform policy had been a complete failure and that protest from the Taiwanese was not ill-founded. Furthermore, Izawa agreed with Cai that the Japanese ruling Taiwan were different from the average Japanese living in Japan. But when Cai mentioned the “romanization problem,” Izawa advised him to reconsider the matter. The entry concluded on a note of uncertainty as to whether “this man” was the right person to rely on for advice on how to further proceed with the romanization movement (Cai 2000, entry 6 October 1929: 104). On 31 December, Cai made an assessment of that year’s achievements and ended with an earnest plea: “On the first day of this year, I was determined to spread the romanization movement, but things did not turn out as planned, and I have been doing other things. Oh! Father in Heaven, how can this difficult road be Your will?” (Cai 2000, entry 31 December 1929: 113) The meticulousness with which Cai planned his linguistic campaign reveals the depth of his concern with script reform as a prime mover in self-realization and cultural enhancement on the one hand, and his staunch belief in modifying the existing situation on the other. It was as if the continuous disapproval of the authorities and the ridicule of his colleagues only fuelled his desire to go to extremes. But the zeal with which he went to the extremes also reveals that in Cai’s opinion, the Romanized

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Pros and Cons

85

Taiwanese movement was more than a personal mission in which he drew a great deal of strength from his religious beliefs. Its propagation was no different than voicing his opposition to the opium policy, furthering demands to abolish the hŇko system or seeking reform in demands for local self-rule. It was precisely this politicization of the Romanized Taiwanese movement that his colleagues did not understand. Thus their disagreements did not solely originate from personal rivalries. At the end of 1930, Cai Peihuo considered the possibility of moving to Tokyo for a while. His intention for doing so was politically motivated. He envisioned three tasks for this stay. First, the compilation of a textbook in romanized Taiwanese; second, generating political activism among Taiwanese in Tokyo; third, expanding his contacts in the political circles in Tokyo and seeking further support to promote the Taiwan cause (Cai 2000, entry 31 December 1930: 154). Seeking political reform through negotiating with the colonial authorities was making progress. Official approval to turn the Taiwan Shin Minpao (‘Taiwan New People’s Daily’ ᆵ᡼ཥ҇ൔ) into a daily paper would not take much longer. Once granted approval, Taiwanese would have their first daily, and Cai considered this an opportunity to use the paper as a means of furthering the Romanized Taiwanese movement (Cai 2000, entry 31 December 1930: 155). Accordingly, Cai brought up the romanization issue in a discussion of the paper’s internal affairs. Luo Wanju advised Cai to choose between his linguistic and political activism. Cai (2000, entry 5 January 1931: 155) wrote: I replied to him that the romanization movement is precisely part of the political movement. Japanese power is so strong that the majority of the population still live in darkness and ignorance, and that the several local mobilization movements are very disorganized. I told him not to remain passive. The reason why the Taiwan political movement is not making any progress is because its influential people are not self-conscious, and dare not make any courageous sacrifices to move ahead.

Cai’s linguistic activism was not spared criticism or ridicule. Some looked down on it as “only big talk,” while others cast doubt on his personality, describing him as someone “seeking a miserable ending for himself” (Cai 2000, entry 5 January 1931: 155). Lin Xiantang even admitted that he had not defended Cai against these accusations. Similar examples of personal animosity were recorded in the entry on 5 August 1931. Cai reflected on the contribution of Jiang Weishui to the homefront mobilization movement. Jiang had just passed away, and it was an open secret that they had not been on good terms. Cai concluded as follows: “The thing that I hated most was that he said that he aligned with the illiterate proletariat, but opposed my romanization movement. He slandered me as a despot because I disapproved of the membership board and because I was not sympathetic to the proletarian movement.” (Cai 2000, entry 5 August 1931: 181) These reciprocal expressions of personal animosity require a note of further contextualization. By the 1930s, despite several years of campaigning, the local power base of the political reform movement was as fragmented as ever. As Leo Ching (2001: 88)

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

86

Romanized Taiwanese

observed, the colonial reform movement manifested itself more and more as an anticolonialist movement. One of the reasons was the mounting disagreement within the Taiwan People’s Party, Taiwan minzhongdang. Jiang Weishui had become a staunch advocate of leftist class struggle. With the support of Xie Chunmu, he was campaigning to change the party to a class movement. Voices of radical Marxism were now openly competing with the rhetoric of metropolitan liberalism. The younger generation of Taiwanese questioned the extent to which Japanese hierarchical networking effectively came to the aid of Taiwanese needs. Mobilization of the masses appeared to be a more straightforward political strategy for those who had few close relationships with the Japanese and felt less comfortable in the existing intellectual milieux. In other words, political radicalization created a situation in which proposed solutions for “the advancement of Taiwan” (Taiwan de jinbu ᆵ᡼‫ޑ‬຾‫)؁‬, were no longer pleading for acceptance and equality within the Japanese empire. This popularity of Marxist vocabulary among the younger generation of Taiwanese put Cai in a more difficult position. Cai Peihuo belonged to the generation for which the assimilation (dŇka) ideology still offered an option in formulating colonial reformist policies. His understanding of metropolitan liberalism led him to emphasize the specific peace-nurturing role of the Taiwan colony in Sino-Japanese relations. This interpretation had originated in his formative years when the Japanese colonial ideology of equality and fraternity under assimilation was food for thought among Japanese Christians, intellectuals and statesmen. They were the ones who questioned the legitimacy of the continuing directives of colonial policymaking and imperialist expansion. Conversely, Japanese opposition politics benefited from the emergence of a dissident reform-minded opinion among Japanese-educated Taiwanese. In that context, Cai identified with this Japanese social pattern of hierarchal relations as a means to advance himself with colonial bureaucrats. He acquainted himself with high-powered Japanese and sought their political support. Accordingly, he became one of the staunch supporters of the first anti-colonial movement demanding the abolishment of the No 6.3. Law, later known as the Parliament Petition League movement. Transfer of the vernacular press from Tokyo to Taiwan had been achieved through a similar process of networking and negotiating strategies with Japanese. In Taiwan, Cai’s sustained leadership position was built on his elitist role as a mediator with Japanese in the Taiwanese homefront mobilization movement. His political actions remained meaningful through a critical dialogue with Japanese. Likewise, the diary testifies to such ceaseless efforts in obtaining the support of highranking Japanese friends for his linguistic mission, motivated by an underlying goal of influencing the opinion of the colonial authorities in Taiwan on the matter. This is probably the context framing the long diary entry of 28 February 1931, in which he pictured the development of the Romanized Taiwanese movement against the background of fortunate progress made in the efforts to set up a vernacular press (Cai 2000, entry 28 February 1931: 162-164). Without saying so explicitly, the Romanized

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

A New Orthography

87

Taiwanese movement and the ongoing requests to set up a vernacular press in Tokyo, its transfer to Taiwan, and the request to turn it into a daily paper, disclosed Cai’s concern with a movement demanding freedom of speech. The Promise of a New Orthography A common misconception in relation to this topic has been that Cai Peihuo’s linguistic activism was only about promoting romanized Taiwanese. Very little attention has been paid to the fact that in the first half of 1931 he abandoned the alphabetic writing and devised a new orthography for writing Taiwanese. During a conversation with Izawa Takio in Tokyo in March 1931, Cai gained the insight that the colonial administration, as well as Izawa, had a serious problem with his particular usage of the romanized script. According to Izawa, the problem lay not in Cai’s efforts to devise a transliteration system that would “encourage Taiwanese in studying Japanese,” but in the orthographic representation. Izawa argued that the government would show a much more lenient attitude if Cai agreed to giving instruction in Taiwanese through the use of the Japanese phonetic kana-syllabary, kanazukai. The conversation meant much more to Cai (2000, entry 30 March 1931: 167), however: In the past, I had seen that he [Izawa Takio] did not approve of me propagating the romanized script, so I was very suspicious and fearful that he might have bad intentions and wanted to obstruct using Taiwanese to teach the Taiwanese people; but now that Mr. Izawa has explained to me very clearly that this is not the main point, I feel at ease.

In April Cai Peihuo returned to Taiwan. In less than one month he had devised a new phonetic system and published Textbook in New Taiwanese Script (Sin-khoàn ê pè-oē-jĩ khòpún) (Cai 2000, Vol. 6: 24-44). This new phonetic script consisted of 28 symbols, of which 19 were taken from the phonetic Japanese kanazukai, five from the Chinese phonetic alphabet, and four were newly created symbols. Cai also added 14 different diacritics to indicate the tones and arranged the writing order in a way similar to that of the Korean hangul script. In June, he applied for a permit to organize a new series of lectures to be given at the martial arts temple (Cai 2000, entry 12 June 1931: 174). The lectures were deliberately scheduled for 16 July, a date that had become invested with special meaning: “On this date the inaugural issue of the Tai Oan Chheng Lian appeared [1919]; it is also the date when The Taiwan Minpao was transferred from Tokyo to Taihoku [1927]. Therefore I assign this as the starting date of my new movement.” (Cai 2000, entry 26 June 1931: 177) No permit was issued for that day, but Cai proceeded anyway. In the diary (2000, entry 16 July 1931: 178) he recorded: My work at this stage is not only hampered by the colonial authorities, but also by Lu Bingding [ᐽЧ΍] and several people from the Cultural Association who are inciting opposition wherever they can. They say that I am a Christian, that the kind of script that I propagate is no more than a means to preach my religion, and that it is of no benefit to their Marxism. They also say that since this new script is only for use in Taiwan, it is limited in scope and practice. They tell people not to study it.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

88

Romanized Taiwanese

He felt that their opposition was just as ignorant as that of the colonial authorities and noted that he had no intention at all of giving up: “Ah! This is really difficult for me, but I must persevere to the very end. I pray to God to open that road for me.” (Cai 2000, entry 16 July 1931: 178) For the first class in the series planned on that afternoon, only seven students had enrolled, but by the evening their number had increaseed to 50 (Cai 2000, entry 16 July 1931: 178). Han Shiquan ᗬҡࢨ (1897-1963) and Wang Shoulu Ц‫ڙ‬࿢ (1893-1977) – two of Cai’s Christian friends – presided over the name list. About ten days later, on 26 July, he made some notes on the progress of his students and that the second session would start on 29 July. At the time, already about 20 students of the Women’s Society (funühui J. fujokai!஁ζ཮) had enrolled. The total number was about 40, both males and females (Cai 2000, entry 25 July 1931: 179). The issue of the foreign origins of the orthographic representation appeared to be of secondary importance to Cai. With hindsight, it is peculiar indeed that he seemed to simply dismiss the culturalist factor in explaining the lack of social acceptance within the Taiwanese community. His peers were ambivalent toward the new phonetic orthography. Lin Xiantang had warned him not to overreact in his propagation efforts when reapplying for a permit from the colonial authorities (Cai 2000, entry 12 June 1931: 174). Lin also had told him that he could see the advantages of the phonetic script compared to its romanized counterpart, but that he [Lin] would not openly promote it (Cai 2000, entry 12 June 1931: 174). Han Shiquan approved of the new version, and Cai noted that he had also received some letters from people whom he did not know but who supported his endeavors (Cai 2000, entry 12 June 1931: 174). Lin Panlong ݅ᚹᓪ (1901-1983), son of Lin Xiantang, was optimistic, but suggested that Cai should use the romanized script instead of the new phonetic one (Cai 2000, entry 19 March 1932: 203). Nevertheless, there was one moment of panic when, in May 1932, Han Shiquan expressed his doubts on the matter to Cai (Cai 2000, entry 25 May 1932: 216). The diary entry is interesting in that Cai was more concerned about the possibility that Han would give up halfway through and not complete the mission, rather than that Han might have been of the opinion that the phonetic script was not worth pursuing any longer. Cai took a different view of the matter: If only the Taiwanese people would learn to communicate with the phonetic script, they would be culturally awakened. This mission had to be completed and those engaged in it were greatly contributing to the long road ahead in Taiwan’s future. Cai drew strength from the words that Yanaihara Tadao had once written in a letter to him: “Do not expect this mission to be completed in your lifetime. Ah! His words are a real comfort to me!” (Cai 2000, entry 25 May 1932: 217) In retrospect, the year 1932 was quite turbulent in a few respects. In March, Cai lost his mother. She passed away only three days after Cai had a conversation with her during which she seemingly approved for the first time of her son devoting so much of his time to this linguistic mission (Cai 2000, entry 18 March 1932: 202-203). His mother’s words encouraged Cai so much he became once more very serious about

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

A New Orthography

89

resigning from the newspaper. This personal decision coincided with precisely the moment when the newspaper contracts were being finalized, and The Taiwan Minpao became the Taiwanese-run-and-financed Taiwan Shin Minpao (Cai 2000, entry 15 April 1932: 208). For about a month, Cai recorded his inner struggle over whether he should resign. What complicated the situation was the financial benefit he would lose as he was offered a salary of 400 yen a month. This monthly income could well be used to support his family, in particular for paying the tuition fee for his daughter Shuhui లች who was studying in Japan. But Cai resigned, and relied on financial support from friends and benefactors to make ends meet for his family (Cai 2000, entry 20 April 1932: 212). The diary manuscript – in contrast to the published version – portrays in writing that from January 1932 onward, Cai started experimenting with this new Taiwanese phonetic script. Throughout the year 1931, he had still been writing about his plans in romanized Taiwanese. Interestingly, gradually the Chinese-character writing pushed to the foreground, and Cai started alternating between his phonetic writing and Chinesecharacter use. This moving back and forth between scripts continued until the middle of February 1934, when Cai settled for exclusive Chinese-character writing only. The Taiwanese phonetic script now disappeared as a form of writing, but nonetheless remained a major topic until early February 1935. Other information gleaned from the diary is that Cai invested time and energy in soliciting support from Japanese benefactors. One of these was the newly appointed Minister of Colonial Affairs, Nagai RyştarŇ ҉ϔ࢛ϼ॔ (1881-1944), whom Cai had met in Japan in August 1932 (Cai 2000, entry 8 September 1932: 228). In May 1933 Cai was again in Japan and had another audience with Nagai. This time, he took the opportunity to inform the minister about his Taiwanese script draft proposal. Nagai apparently showed an interest and asked Cai to send him the draft version of the proposal (Cai 2000, entry 13 May 1933: 257). On 10 June, Cai sent a copy of the prospectus. Of interest is Nagai’s response to Cai’s language proposals (Cai 2000, entry 25 June 1933: 263): Today I received a letter from Nagai which was signed by him. It read that he was deeply encouraged by my efforts, respectful of my draft proposal and that he would consider the matter of putting in a proposal for putting it into practice. This letter made my heart jump with joy!! I felt enormously comforted! My happiness is not because I have received a letter from a minister, but because I know that I have gained one more supporter on this matter for which I have held out hope over the past twenty years, and have come one step closer to the end of the tunnel.

In Cai’s narration and contextualization of these encounters, Nagai stands in contrast to some of the officials in the colonial administration with their arrogant attitude and sense of superiority. Testimony is a conversation with Yasutake Ӽ‫ݓ‬, who was chief of the Bureau of Cultural and Educational Affairs (Cai 2000, entry 25 July 1933: 26768):

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

90

Romanized Taiwanese …he told me that the pronunciation of the Japanese language was the clearest, the purest, and the best. Therefore it would be better for the Taiwanese to practice [adopt] a pronunciation similar to the Japanese pronunciation, that it was not good to make any more changes [to the prospectus]. I replied that Taiwanese speech had its specific pronunciation. If I were to use the [Japanese system with] the 50 sounds without making any changes, it would not sound like Taiwanese and would not be distinct. He told me that through practice it would gradually become similar and clearer. [He added that] people who said that [Taiwanese pronunciation] could not be made similar to Japanese pronunciation were the kind of people who could not assimilate, and who did not want to live in Taiwan. They had better return to the Chinese mainland!! Ah! This kind of person can still be the chief of the Bureau of Cultural and Educational Affairs. There is no way to deal with such people! I immediately walked out.

The 31 December entry on the Taiwanese phonetic script ended in minor despair: “No progress has been made on this matter, it is truly regrettable!” (Cai 2000, entry 31 December 1933: 279) Nonetheless, he did not give up: “I do not know what I will be doing this year, but I must persevere with the Taiwanese phonetic script!” (Cai 2000, entry 1 January 1934: 281) And so he did. Between February and April 1934, Cai was back in Tokyo. The main issue on his agenda involved seeking Japanese support for the “language question” (Cai 2000, entry 26 January 1934: 284). This was his final attempt to promote this movement, and if it was not successful, he would consider leaving Taiwan and opening a student dormitory in Tokyo. The influential friends whom Cai contacted to this end included Yanaihara Tadao, Izawa Takio, Iwanami Shigeo ۟‫ݢ‬प໢ (1881-1946), and Yasuoka Masahiro Ӽ‫҅۝‬ᑑ (1898-1983).20 The idea was to publish a prospectus entitled Prospectus for the Popularization of a Taiwanese Script and the Name List of Supporters within the Island (Taiwan hakuwaji fukyş no shuisho oyobi taiwan shimanai sanseisha shimei ᆵ᡼қ၉ӷදϷ喘፪ԑϷ喝ᆵ᡼৞ϣᜅԋ ‫ޣ‬МӜ) (Cai 1934a). Yanaihara Tadao wrote the addendum in which he elaborated on the usefulness of a Taiwanese script as a tool for instruction of the Japanese language in the colony. Returning to Taiwan, Cai rallied support and collected a total of 103 signatures for the petition list. Han Shiquan and Lin Panlong agreed to act as the prospectus’ co-authors. Another trip to Tokyo followed in August to make the final publication arrangements. On most of the occasions during which Cai succeeded in rallying Japanese support, he had to make sure that the promotion of the phonetic script was not contradictory or prejudicial to the Japanese language policy. It was an easy script to learn and was specifically aimed at the large illiterate masses who did not have proper access to Japanese-language instruction on a regular basis. Inauguration of his prospectus was celebrated with a ceremony in the presence of four supportive Japanese officials. They were Minister of Colonization Nagai RyştarŇ, Nagata HidejirŇ

20 Iwanami Shigeo was the founder of the Japanese publishing house, Iwanami Shoten (۟‫ݢ‬ਜ۫), in 1913. Yasuoka Masahiro was a Japanese nationalist and scholar of Confucianism who had taught East Asian thought at the Takushoku University (‫ܗ‬෗εᏢ) in the 1920s.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

A New Orthography

91

҉Җ‫ذ‬ԛ॔ (1876-1943), SaitŇ Makoto 㯐ᛯ㡷 (1858-1936) and Izawa Takio.21 Cai summarized the main points of their speeches, which revealed the emphasis each put on the complementarity between Cai’s phonetic system and the necessity for improveing the instruction of the Japanese language in the colony, and which described Cai’s activism as an act of loyalty to the Japanese empire. To this end, Nagata HidejirŇ even compared Cai’s mission with the patriotism of the Japanese Esperantists (Cai 2000, entry 14 December 1934: 308). Cai eventually was to find out at the beginning of the next year that support from top-level Japanese bureaucrats was no more than idle talk. It is therefore debatable to what extent this effort to publish a prospectus with Japanese intellectual backing may be seen as a swan song. In one long diary entry on 12 January 1935, Cai narrated his reflection on his 20 years of continuous effort and the Japanese-imposed obstacles that prevented him from making any progress.22 It recorded Cai’s conversations with Governor-General Nagakawa Kenzo ύο଼ᙒ (1875-1944), head of police Ishigaki ҡࠢ, head of security Sakaguchi 㞯α, and several officials of the Bureau of Cultural and Educational Affairs and the Bureau of Interior Affairs (naimukyoku ϣ୍ֽ). In these talks he elaborated on his argument that the script was compatible with Japanese policies. The entry also showed his disillusionment with the rhetoric of impartiality and equal treatment (or universal brotherhood, isshi dŇjin) (Cai 2000, entry 12 January 1935: 312-14). The final blow came during an audience with Governor-General Nagakawa on 2 February 1935. Although the Governor-General agreed with the basic idea, there was too much disagreement about the issue within the several bureaux of the colonial administration, so much so that Cai’s proposal could not be implemented at that stage (Cai 2000, entry 2 February 1935: 317). The next day, Cai celebrated Lunar New Year’s Eve at Lin Xiantang’s mansion. In reply to Lin Panlong’s question about his future plans, he said (2000, entry 3 February 1935: 318), “I am of the opinion that I can no longer proceed with the Taiwanese script, and I wish to take another road.” Cai described this as a path with three possibilities: to immerse himself in the work on the Taiwanese paper; to run a student dormitory and to conduct research in Tokyo; or to remain in the Tainan vicinity and establish an organization dedicated to the improvement of the livelihood and education of the local populace (Cai 2000, entry 3 February 1935: 318). On this note, Cai’s linguistic mission ended. 23 Further references in the diary regarding language pertained to his study of Mandarin Chinese in Japan and the disturbing news that the administration was going to ban the paper’s Chinese-language news coverage. One issue that 21 Nagata served in the Ministry of Interior and was formerly mayor of Tokyo (1930-33). Cai’s contact with him may be traced to earlier years when he was supervisor of the Taiwan and Korean student dormitories in Japan. Navy Admiral SaitŇ used to serve as Governor-General of Korea (1919-27), and was Prime Minister of Japan (1932-34). 22 An English translation of this entry is forthcoming in Caprio, “Japanese Imperialism (1895-1930)”. 23 Cai did continue his linguistic after 1945. For an overview, see Klöter (2005), chapter 5.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

92

Romanized Taiwanese

had moved to the forefront was his particular concern with the development of SinoJapanese relations. In hindsight, the stubbornness with which Cai pushed for a peaceful resolution in view of the deteriorating relations is reminiscent of the mission impossible that his language activism had proven to be. The final diary entry was recorded on 16 December 1936. Conclusion Neither Taiwanese nor Japanese public opinion was swayed by Cai’s efforts to popularize romanization. The Japanese maintained that it would hamper efforts to assimilate the Taiwanese, while Taiwanese opponents felt that it would lead to a further denigration of the Chinese language, a symbol of their culture. The colonial administration adopted a zero-tolerance attitude. The alphabetic writing was in direct competition with the Japanese language. Ideologically speaking, it was emblematic of the superiority of Western civilization. If successful, Cai’s proposals could have challenged not only the centrality of the Japanese language in ruling the colony, but also the superiority of the Japanese script in its civilizing mission tout court. As A-chin Hsiau (2000: 45) observed: Few Taiwanese intellectuals showed interest in Ts’ai’s [Cai’s] proposal, and many felt uneasy about its foreign origin. In particular, the colonial administration suppressed Ts’ai’s activities because it believed that the distribution of a tâi-ôan-Ňe (“Taiwanese”) romanization system would undermine the policy of linguistic assimilation. Thus by 1935, the promotion of the romanization form had come to a halt.

Japanese pressure toward and contempt for Cai’s non-Sinitic-rooted linguistic proposal forced him to abandon the project and re-embrace Chinese characters in his writing from 1934 onward – what more is there to say? Through its enactment in writing, Cai Peihuo may well have realized that the Taiwanese phonetic script was an appropriate mnemonic device to further his linguistic activism within colonial society, but the script was insufficient to serve as the sole basis to articulate his own modern self-fashioning in private writing. Elsewhere this orthographic code-switching has been framed as an expression of his encounter with social change and discussed from a self-fashioning perspective (Heylen 2007: 239-262). In addition, from the mid-1930s, interest for a persistent use of romanized Taiwanese had started waning in the Presbyterian Church. This poses the question of how to correlate Cai’s use of characters in his personal writings with his continued public advocacy of the phonetic script. Cai tried to gain with a colonial power that asserted the superiority of its own Weltanschauung, but at the same time denigrated the cultural codes of daily Taiwanese life and its traditional Chinese customs. Acquisition of qualities that enabled ambitious Taiwanese to attain good positions, economic advancement, and often the recognition by their own communities required the internalization of Japanese cultural values while being confronted on a daily basis with the devaluation of the indigenous self by the Japanese. This ambiguity was not easily resolved and may explain the other psy-

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Conclusion

93

chological dimension to Cai’s quest for a measure of parity with the Japanese rulers. Seeking appreciative benefactors not only nurtured Cai’s more individualized self, but also helped to counter the impact of Japanese contempt for the Taiwanese self in the colony. In his drive to advance Chinese-Japanese biliteracy, Cai internalized romanized Taiwanese as a viable medium of personal writing, which was analogous, but also juxtaposed to the dominant Japanese-language medium in public discourse. The alphabetic orthography, as opposed to the character script, not only introduced a new body of knowledge and a mnemonic device. It also represented a new concept of inscription, the transformative power of which lay in the simplicity of its representation. Gaining recognition from high-ranking Japanese officials enhanced Cai’s self-esteem and helped to consolidate his elitist middle position as mediator with the Japanese side in the Taiwanese homefront mobilization movement. Evaluating the Romanized Taiwanese movement as a factor in language modernization, Cai’s proposals underlined the advantages of a romanized script over a complicated character script as an instrument that would serve the population both as a means of disseminating information and values deemed necessary to evoke social change, and as a focus of “national” pride in being Taiwanese. Put in the context of Taiwanese cultural enhancement, the former corresponded with “growth of knowledge,” while the latter entailed an element of resistance to the implementation of the Japanese assimilation policy. Cai Peihuo’s suggestions pointed at implementing a program of basic literacy. Yet, his approach was too radical. It combined two revolutionary concepts at the same time. First, the notion that the use of language in society could no longer have the attribute of erudite learning limited to a small privileged segment of society but had to be made accessible to the population at large to correspond to the new social needs of a society in transition. Second, it was a radical departure from the traditional orthographic representation of the Chinese language, precisely at the time when Taiwan was plunged into a cultural identity crisis. The cultural values attributed to the Chinese language determined the fate of the Romanized Taiwanese movement in colonial Taiwan. Its main competitor was the Mandarin baihuawen movement.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Chapter 4 The Mandarin Baihuawen Movement Introduction The previous chapter examined how Cai Peihuo envisioned romanized Taiwanese as his strategy for challenging the existing order and suggesting an alternative. The difficulties he encountered did not result from the language inadequacies of the proposed linguistic system, but from value judgements within environment, that is, a lack of social acceptance within the Taiwanese community and the official Japanese attitude of zero tolerance. In addition, Cai had to face a powerful cultural force from the emerging language alternative of Modern Chinese, or Mandarin baihuawen. The impact of Chinese language reform on Taiwanese culture has been highlighted as a strong external force in the evolution of the modern Taiwanese literary canon. Particular attention has been paid to the manner in which the import of Modern Chinese informed Taiwanese literary culture and this has illustrated the influence of Chinese culture on the anti-Japanese resistance movement during the colonial period. Even if this interrogation with defining modern Taiwanese literature traces its origins to the Japanese colonial period, it is clearly written in an imagined dialogue that does not discern shifts in value judgments between a post-imperial Chinese transition to modernity and the pre-colonial Taiwan entity. The facts speak for themselves: Taiwan was cut off from China, and the separation delayed the introduction of Chinese language reform and its vernacular literature in Taiwan. Chinese cultural expressions in Taiwan came to a standstill in the wake of foreign Japanese cultural interference. Taiwanese tapping into modern Chinese literary experimentation and its gamut of literary journals published during the Japanese colonial period lagged behind those of Republican China. Even still, Taiwanese writers located themselves in the modern world, switched to Modern Chinese and adopted styles and themes of early May Fourth fiction (Yang 1981: 88; Ye 1987). Whereas the influence of Chinese nationalism, usually known as the May Fourth movement, has been used to underscore continuity with Chinese cultural identity, the Japanese imposition justified the belated response in Taiwan and indirectly furthered the notion of the cultural backwater trope to be carried over in the longstanding Sino-centric approach toward the legacy of Japanese colonialism from which the Taiwan-centric interpretation could only gradually detach itself. In view of this appropriation, A-chin Hsiau’s (2000: 38) discussion of literary and linguistic reform in colonial Taiwan served the purpose of underlining the identification with a Han Chinese cultural identity despite the separation from the Chinese motherland. Inspirited by the May Fourth period, promotion of Mandarin baihuawen played a crucial role in countering Japanese linguistic assimilation. Thus, A-chin Hsiau

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

96

Mandarin Baihuawen

(2000: 38) further argued that literary experimentation was secondary to linguistic reform because the discussion focused on the reform of the language as a tool used for literary expression. This interpretation veils the fact that the link between language and identity was not all that evident, but grounded in a discourse which required an acculturation to the Taiwanese understanding of Han identity. Identification with a Chinese cultural identity was not the cause, but rather the consequence, of an interrogation with Mandarin baihuawen as a literary expression. It was invented after the Mandarin language standard had been introduced, and was in turn related to the image of China in cultural understanding. Literary texts do portray a social reality derived from the content rather than focusing on the form of the language in which these texts were written and consumed. Similarly, polemics on language reform do not reveal the extra-linguistic factors at work that underwrite their discourse. As will be shown, identification with Han Chinese culture through the import of Modern Chinese combined traditional perceptions of literacy with a modern understanding of language. In so doing, it created not only a sense of possibility but also the illusion of genuine communication which was not in accordance with the basic essence of the concept they were promoting – language standardization – or to denote the fashionable terminology used in Japan and China, language unification (or: ‘unification of spoken and written language’ genbun itchi and yanwen yizhi ‫ق‬Ў΋ठ). It is incontestable that the Taiwan colony, located at the periphery of the Qing empire, did not suffer further marginalization in keeping up with the developments increasingly directed from the north of China after 1895. But this is different from saying that colonial Taiwan remained a Chinese cultural backwater when viewing what actually happened to the language in the totality of Chinese culture. If one fails to recognize that the cultural separation between Taiwan and China took place within a Japanese-Chinese geopolitical upheaval, one overlooks the locus of the problem: the nature of the language that was proposed and the function it was to perform in colonial society. The idea was to transform Taiwan from a cultural backwater in Chinese world orientation, even if by 1945 their literary achievements paled in comparison to those of their republican contemporaries. In a larger structure, the rising tide of standard languages was not limited to the Japanese state. Likewise, republican Chinese nation-building coincided with an equally profound language reform movement, directed from the highest level and carried out through all segments of Chinese society. Following the establishment of the Republic of China (Zhonghua minguo ύ๮҇୯ ROC) in 1912, the Chinese government initiated a movement to create a uniform and officially sanctioned national standard language, both as a tool for education and administration, and as a symbol of national unity. The coinage “Modern Chinese” refers to Mandarin baihuawen or the vernacular writing, and is the predecessor of standard Chinese. This vernacular writing replaced Classical Chinese wenyanwen, and combined a new literary standard, also known as baihuawen (қ၉

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Introduction

97

Ў) as the grammatical norm of written Chinese with a single standard form of speech and came to be based on the Beijing pronunciation. To this end, discussions were held to proceed with language standardization/unification, starting in 1913 with the Conference on Unification of Pronunciation (duyin tongyi hui ᠐ॣ಍΋཮). China’s new standard language was called guoyu (୯ᇟ!lit. national language) (DeFrancis 1984: 224). The Ausbau of Modern Chinese as a full-fledged language came into full swing during the 1919 May Fourth period. May Fourth reformers believed that literary and language reform was crucial in lifting the masses out of their ignorance, which was a late 19th century explanation for the roots of China’s weakness. Since writing was an important way to participate in the political and socio-cultural life of the new Chinese nation, it was through literature, endowed with a moral and didactic function, that new ideas could be conveyed to the common people. This would enable a transition from restricted to widespread literacy in one designated standardized language. Institutionalized education, journalism, the development of a non-fictional literature on diverse subject matters, scientific-technological writings and official community and state documents were instrumental in diffusing the emerging standard on a national basis. By the early 1920s, expressions of the Chinese language’s ineloquence had become the exception rather than the rule. With nationalism as its ideology and popular instruction as its goal, Mandarin baihuawen was proceeding steadily toward overcoming dialectical diversity and providing the ideal medium for communication among all members of the Chinese unit of loyalty. The energy emanating from this ideologization spread to the neighbouring nations with large Chinese communities, where KMT-funded schools had begun propagating Mandarin baihuawen. The situation in Japan was slightly different, in that the Treaty of Versailles resulted in a considerable return of Chinese students back to China (Chow 1960). This displacement coincided with the displacements of Taiwanese students seeking higher education in Japan. Nonetheless, it was in metropolitan Japan that the Taiwanese cultural avant-garde formulated their critique and incorporated Mandarin baihuawen as a major vehicle in their alternative repertoire. In the bedrock of the early 1920s educational debate, Mandarin baihuawen found a niche to compete with the policies of Japanese linguistic colonialism. When educational changes to the Chinese-language curriculum in colonial society revealed their predisposition to Japanese literacy campaigns, it became obvious that the Chinese language was no more than a transient tool in the process of “becoming Japanese.” But before the Taiwanese took the initiative and converted vernacular writing (baihuawen) from a cultural good into a useful tool for engendering repertoire change, they had to mount a series of arguments that justified its raison d’être and probe its chances for a successful transfer. These cultural-linguistic arguments initially did not focus on the cultural prestige of China’s common language, but were concerned with appropriating the need for language reform to the prevailing interplay of actions and images in the 1920s home repertoire. Once this was done, the new vehicle of communication was to create a larger circle and powerbase which would enable it to negotiate between the power

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

98

Mandarin Baihuawen

holders and the population at large. This was concretized through the vernacular press, which moved to Taiwan and began publishing in Mandarin baihuawen, rather than Japanese and Classical Chinese. It was at this stage that the superiority of the domestic constraints once more challenged the appropriateness and accessibility of the imported model. If Mandarin baihuawen became a cornerstone of a new repertoire for imparting a different sort of socio-cultural cohesion in colonial Taiwan, interference was imminent as a strategy to adapt itself to the changing circumstances. This chapter will illustrate how from its very incipient phase and throughout the colonial period until the late 1930s, the status and function of Mandarin baihuawen as an alternative item-ofrepertoire was discussed in view of its claim to dissimilarity with the extant options. Consequently, it will be shown how the language entered into dialogue with already established, more prestigious and therefore conflicting repertoires of cultural interference and generated socio-cultural cohesion. Special attention will be paid to Wang Minchuan, Huang Chengcong, Huang Chaoqin ໳රถ (1897-1972), Zhang Wojun ஭‫( ैך‬1902-1955) and other cultural avant-gardists who became active agents in the transfer of Chinese-language literacy and its domestication in colonial Taiwan. The discussion starts in the 1919-1922 period when changes in the educational policy called for radical reform. Educational Reform in the Colony Between 1919 and 1922, the colonial administration revised its educational policy. Declaration of the Taiwan Education Decree (Taiwan kyŇiku rei ᆵ㵈௲‫ػ‬з) on 4 January 1919 was a first attempt to streamline education for the Taiwanese (TKES 1939: 324-348). The proposal as announced by Governor-General Akashi MotojirŇ ܴ ҡϡΒ॔ (1864-1919, in office from June 1918 – October 1919) welded all the colony’s public schools for Taiwanese into a single, coordinated system and increased educational opportunities, especially in the field of vocational training. As Tsurumi observed (1977: 88), “The reform aimed to integrate Taiwanese into the colonial economy’s rapidly growing industrial and commercial sectors.” Three technical schools were set up: the commercial school in Taichş, the agriculture and forestry school in Kagi (Ch. Jiayi), and the industrial school in Taihoku, each offering a threeyear curriculum. This upgrade of the general educational level and more vocational education reflected the economic reality that Taiwanese with suitable training would need to be integrated into Taiwan’s growing economy and made more susceptible to Japanese national interests. In addition, administrative reforms, infra-structural expansion and the rapid increase in the number of Japanese residents necessitated the training and employment of more lower-ranking clerks in the colonial bureaucracy.1 Governor-general Akashi’s expansion of post-primary education was inspired by 1

The number of Japanese residents in 1896 was 10,584. By 1919 their number had increased to 153,304. This was roughly a fourteen fold increase. Cited in Yanaihara (1987: 123).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Educational Reform

99

financial incentives as well: Taiwanese salaries were less than half of Japanese salaries. Economic development of Taiwan in view of Japanese expansionist policy was a dominant undercurrent outweighing an official concession to local Taiwanese demands to modify the educational inequality between Japanese and Taiwanese. In other words, the policy of segregation between Taiwanese and Japanese was kept firmly in place, leaving no room for the development of an highly educated colonized elite. Akashi’s successor Den KenjirŇ Җ଼ԛ॔ (1855-1930, in office from October 1919-1923), the first civilian Governor-General of Taiwan, stipulated further changes. His adjustments pertained mainly to expanding facilities for elementary education and bridging the discriminatory colonial policies of segregation. Den’s educational policy followed in the line of Hara Kei’s চལ (1856-1921) proposal: “It should be made possible for the Taiwanese institutions to link up with their Japanese counterparts, and that finally there should be no discrimination between Taiwan and Japan.” (Du 1997: 189) Integration required making changes to the segregated Taiwanese and Japanese schooling systems, with inclusion of differences in curriculum, course length and financing the restructuring. In addition, many more Common Schools were to be opened and compulsory education would be adopted as soon as possible. Den also proposed to establish a university with faculties of medicine, agriculture and literature. Sincere in his plan to improve the educational lot of the islanders, the first step Den undertook in this process was to formalize procedures for Taiwanese entering primary schools and Japanese entering Common Schools. These schools were named Public Schools (kyŇgakkŇ ӅᏢਠ). However, Den’s hopes for such a coeducation policy came up against the realities of colonial life, and the new educational system remained more impressive on paper than in action. Equality in education was not meant to be absolute equality of opportunity for every Japanese and Taiwanese. Instructions for trial admission of Taiwanese to primary schools in the coeducation policy were extremely selective. On 27 December 1919, the district government heads were secretly informed that Taiwanese willing to enter a Japanese primary or high school should be admitted without hindrance. This new policy was declared official on 8 January 1920, but included several conditions that prospective Taiwanese students would be required to meet. In addition to fluency in Japanese, admission depended upon the level of the student’s education, his or her family position in the town or village, the family’s wealth and general educational background. On the basis of these non-academic factors, admission could be rejected. Taiwanese who were already enrolled in a Common School but wished to transfer, had to take entrance examinations. More regulations on entering or transferring were declared on 16 March 1920. Applications had to be handed in before the end of January. The age for first grade Taiwanese had to be between six and seven, and those transferring from a Common School could not be more than one year older than the Japanese pupils of the grade they were joining, and permission from the

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

100

Mandarin Baihuawen

school was needed. Meanwhile, tuition fees, curriculum and textbooks were to be upgraded to the same level as in the Japanese schools in Taiwan. In view of this streamlining attempt, Japanese entering the Common Schools were exempted from the study of Classical Chinese, hanwen, and girls were not required to take traditional sewing lessons. In November, more revisions were made to the procedures. Taiwanese entering the Japanese primary schools could not be more than two years older than their classmates, and those who transferred from a primary school in Japan were required to have spent at least one full year at the school in Japan. Coeducation in fact had the opposite effect: Japanese students, and not Taiwanese, gained new access to education in the colony, both at the secondary level (middle schools, higher girl’s schools, agriculture and forestry school, commercial school and industrial school) and at the specialized college level (agriculture and forestry college and commercial college). The ideal of admitting Taiwanese into a Japanese school was barred by other practical problems. These were not so much on the level of curriculum content, but pertained to course duration and teacher training. Before 1919, the duration of a Common School course was four years in urban areas and three years in rural areas, while Japanese children enrolled for six years. To equalize course length, schools now provided the option of four- or six-year courses but with adjustments to the curriculum. Further administrative amendments prescribed a centralization of the management of educational affairs. To encourage the opening of more Common Schools, approval of the colonial authorities was no longer required, as they now came under the jurisdiction of the prefecture- or district-head. The prefecture was also burdened with the expenses of salaries and educational equipment. On the financial level, almost no changes were made. Salaries and other expenses for the Common School teachers had to be paid from local tax revenue. Meanwhile shogakkŇ (λᏢਠ), the Private Schools for children of Japanese residents, continued to be financed from the national budget, as were schools for Aborigines. Apart from this concerted effort to increase the number of Common Schools, Den’s rescript did not set up new institutions nor expand existing ones. Decisions taken on the introduction of compulsory education were met with disappointment by Taiwanese consultative councillors. 2 Their proposal to initiate compulsory education by 1928 was not supported by the Japanese councillors. The final report on this issue instituted four years of compulsory education with local administrations being responsible for the financial burdens involved (Ide 1933: 637-639). The systematization of education in Taiwan was not limited to an expansion of the Common Schools and promulgation of new regulations. Japanese literacy campaigns through education also entered a new phase. A spectrum of course adaptations, and changes in the content of courses on ethics, history and geography featured in the 2

The Consultative Council (hyŇgikai ຑ᝼཮) was an initiative set up by Den in 1921. It consisted of nine senior government general officials, including Den, as president, and 18 distinguished residents of Taiwan, half of whom were Taiwanese. See Tsurumi (1977: 101).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Educational Reform

101

“popularization of the national language movement” (kokugo fukyş undŇ ୯ᇟදϷၮ ୏ ). These revisions reduced Chinese-language instruction in both the Common Schools and the shobŇ. In 1922, Den issued a new Education Decree, thereby finalizing the integration of all post-elementary facilities. Theoretically, all secondary and higher schools became equally open to Japanese and Taiwanese alike. In practice, the “Japanese language backwardness” of the Taiwanese remained a convenient excuse for restricting Taiwanese admission to the better-equipped schools. As pointed out by Patricia Tsurumi (1984: 290), “On paper and in the pious speeches of officials, Taiwanese educational opportunities took giant steps forward, but the Japanese who controlled school admissions did not abandon their longstanding habit of putting the interests of the rapidly growing Japanese community first.” Japanese linguistic chauvinism continued to go hand in hand with racial prejudices. As a minority, they feared losing their privileged position in society. Their opinions on the educational integration policy appeared in the Japanese-run newspapers and often contained harsh words for the Taiwanese. The colonial administration’s revisions of the educational policy did not go unnoticed by the Taiwanese student community in metropolitan Japan. Calls for educational reform were one of the regular contributions to Tai Oan Chheng Lian, with considerably more articles in the latter half of 1921. The change from military to civil government in 1919, ushering in a so-called period of liberalization, provided the Taiwanese with more leverage to discuss the educational changes against a backdrop of educational policy in Japan and in relation to the objectives of modern schooling in the West. Japanese educational policy was interrogated and confronted with its shortcomings as “enlightened rule.” In particular, the notion that Western countries were civilized because of their well-developed and institutionalized educational systems became the standard opening line for many of the articles on educational reform. The rise and the fall of a country were closely related to its educational system (Wang in TOCL 3.4. 1921b: 28; Zheng in TOCL 2.3. 1921: 35). The link between civilization and education was further elaborated with the concept of individualism: if the individual was not properly taught, the country could not be prosperous (Wang in TOCL 1.3. 1920: 41; Zheng in TOCL 3.1. 1921: 29). Thus, the educational models of the strong and powerful Western nations and Japan served the purpose of pointing out that the implementation of colonial education policy was the main cause for the backwardness of Taiwan in the early 1920s. Four urgent issues were closely scrutinized in the institutionalization of modern schooling in Taiwan: primary compulsory education, higher education beyond vocational schools, social education and improved methods of instruction. In a pleading tone, its authors localized Taiwan as a Japanese colony, and presented the problems in such a way as to show that the colony would contribute to the strength of the Japanese empire on a global scale. Writing in Japanese and/or Chinese, the vocabulary combined would-be egalitarianism and universalism with individual merit, freedom,

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

102

Mandarin Baihuawen

participation, productivity and emancipation in the search for a new society. Asking for educational equality on par with the conditions prevailing in metropolitan Japan reflected this widely accepted attitude toward a Japanese linguistic behavior and the desire for policy changes directed from the Japanese center. If successful, this would remedy the undesirable situation of perpetuated inferiority in the home repertoire. The less-than-desired home repertoire was not the immediate result of Japanese language superposition, but of the secondary appropriation of the formal schooling model in Taiwan. Metropolitan Japan disclosed a different repertoire that offered a new set of options of how the model was supposed to function, with additional support drawn from adjacent repertoires made accessible to them through the command of Japanese. Framing Educational Grievances and Demands Compulsory primary schooling was one of the pertinent issues on the minds of the reform-minded Taiwanese. In “My opinion on Taiwan’s educational problems,” Wang Minchuan, a student of politics at Waseda University (Waseda daigaku ԐዿҖεᏢ) from 1919 to 1924, claimed that the strength of the Western nations was directly related to compulsory schooling (TOCL 3.4. 1921b: 28). Compulsory schooling was representative for world culture and enabled rich and poor alike to achieve complete development (TOCL 3.4. 1921b: 31). In “My opinion on compulsory education,” Zheng Xueling ᎄഓᔂ attributed Prussia’s victory over France to compulsory schooling in Prussia (TOCL 3.1. 1921: 30). To remedy frequent truancy and the high number of school drop-outs, Wang Minchuan considered the need for enforcement of attendance in school by law as the only appropriate means to change the people’s entrenched attitudes and transform Taiwan from a traditional into a modern society (TOCL 3.4. 1921b: 28). In a similar vein, Cai Peihuo gave an historical overview of the implementation of compulsory schooling in the major European countries, America, and Japan (TOCL 3.3. 1921: 44-48). His objective was to demonstrate that these countries understood the social and psychological benefits of children’s education at an early age, and had not faltered in implementing such systems (TOCL 3.3. 1921: 46). Together with Wang Minchuan, Cai strongly argued for a six-year compulsory curriculum in Taiwan (Wang in TOCL 3.4. 1921b: 32; Cai in TOCL 3.3. 1921: 50). Cai and Wang’s arguments were in response to the colonial administration, which had presented a three-point plan considering the possibility of three-year, four-year or six year courses. In Taiwan, there was considerable debate over the financial burden of four-year or six-year compulsory curriculum. As in Japan, education in the colony was not free but was paid for by the local Taiwanese township administration. Some used the argument that a four-year curriculum was already a severe financial burden on Taiwanese households. It would not affect the wealthy, but only the poor families, especially in view of the fact that overseas education was becoming more accessible; and the total cost of education would become too expensive if compulsory schooling in Taiwan was raised to four years. Wang Minchuan opposed the four-year-curriculum and

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Grievances and Demands

103

suggested an alternative solution. He noted that, in comparison with Korea, which was annually financed by the colonial administration, Taiwan had been financially independent since 1905 (TOCL 3.4. 1921b: 36). As evidence that there was no financial problem, Wang Minchuan described in detail the sources from which revenues could be made available. Depending on the goodwill of the colonial administration, the extra expenses for compulsory schooling could be extracted from the opium monopoly revenue, the national treasury and the annual income from the sugarcane monopoly (TOCL 3.4. 1921b: 32). Zheng Xueling seconded Wang’s argument (TOCL 3.1. 1921: 30). Wang Jinhai in “My opinion on Taiwan education” observed that the financial aspect should not even be an issue in pressing for compulsory schooling in the first place (TOCL 3.2. 1921a: 36). With Japanese statistics, he showed that only 28 percent of Taiwanese school-aged children were enrolled in schools, and argued that if the colonial authorities were to postpone an island-wide compulsory schooling edict until enrolment had reached close to its full potential, the initial intention of compulsory schooling would by then have become futile and unnecessary (TOCL 3.2. 1921a: 36). The issue of middle schools as a first step toward higher education had been on the agenda since 1913 when Lin Xiantang lobbied for a Taichş Middle School. The promised expansion of higher educational facilities, with inclusion of a university, was therefore a strong incentive to emphasize its urgent need. In a two-part essay, entitled “On Taiwan educational reform,” published in August and September 1921, Huang Chengcong, another student of political science at Waseda, phrased this urgent need in the wider context of Taiwan’s right to participate in world culture (TOCL 3.2. 1921b: 1-7; TOCL 3.3. 1921c: 10-14). The increasing number and successful enrolment of Taiwanese overseas students in Japanese institutions of higher education was proof that they were intellectually competent. “Alas,” Huang sighed, “the educational system of our Taiwan and its institutions are simply not suited to bring forth talented people.” (TOCL 3.2. 1921b: 6) To illustrate his point, he listed the number of higher educational facilities in the colony for Taiwanese and Japanese residents, drawing attention to the unequal distribution of schools, based on a Taiwanese population of 3.5 million compared to fewer than 200,000 Japanese colonial residents. In the sequel, Huang criticized the hinterland extension policy for being less than thorough and contradictory in its goals. It was the task of higher education, starting with an expansion of middle schools for boys and girls, to introduce world culture to the Taiwanese people and allow them to live up to modern cultural standards (TOCL 3.3. 1921c: 13). The hinterland extension policy kept Taiwan out of reach of world culture and prevented exposure to new knowledge: “Our isolated island in the sea has no institutions for making contact with world culture.” (TOCL 3.3. 1921c: 13) In an earlier issue, published in February, He Lidong’s Ֆᘶෂ article “On establishing Taiwan middle schools,” criticized the educational discrimination to which colonies were subjected. However, he noted that since the late 19th century, Western colonies, like India, were endowed with university facilities as this was congruent with

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

104

Mandarin Baihuawen

a citizen’s right to self-determination. He continued by praising the American government for setting up universities on the colonial Philippine peninsula (TOCL 2.2. 1921: 46). All these were signs of a democratic world culture. Likewise, the Japanese empire had also the same intention to lead its colonial peoples on the road to cultural advancement. He included three quotations taken from a news article in the Taiwan nichinichi shimpŇ on 12 December 1920, which in big letters had printed that a 300,000 yen budget was planned for the establishment of higher education facilities, equal education for Taiwanese and Japanese, and the establishment of a university in the near future (TOCL 2.2. 1921: 47). Access to higher education would carry Taiwanese into the modern world and, writing into the colonialist discourse, further Japan’s fortunes as a world player. The message to the Taiwanese at home was to strive for this common good as well. Higher education, and in particular middle schools, was simply a necessary part of daily life. To be successful, it required the cooperation of the Taiwanese, because a lack of concern and interest on the Taiwanese side would only strengthen local Japanese opposition (TOCL 2.2. 1921: 48). Wang Minchuan in the November issue argued that young graduates were the backbone of Taiwanese society: “Society relies on them for its strength.” Local society therefore had a duty to help the colonial administration in every prefecture to establish middle schools and vocational schools so that “useful and talented people could be produced, able to contribute to society.” (TOCL 3.5. 1921c: 32) In Huang Chengcong’s opinion it was unacceptable that “There were many Taiwanese sitting and deeply sighing in their hometowns because they did not have the means to go and study abroad.” (TOCL 3.2. 1921b: 6) In addition to formal schooling, Japanese Meiji educators encouraged building a strong sense of community and taking educational values to all sections of the population. This linking of pedagogy with community building found its expression in the concept of social education (shakai kyŇiku, Ch. shehui jiaoyu ‫཮ޗ‬௲‫)ػ‬. By the 1920s, social education programs were well integrated in Japanese society but lagged behind in the Taiwan colony. At least, such was the opinion of Zhuang Juanfu ಷ੢ϻ and Wang Mingchuan, who urgently pleaded for an expansion of social education programs and make these complementary to formal schooling facilities. Zhuang Juanfu (TOCL 2.1. 1921: 9) in the article “The need for social education,” stated three reasons for this. First, schools were for the young, and social education served the purpose of self-education for elders. Second, formal schooling only taught subject matter, whereas social education was instrumental in teaching proper conduct and ways of changing bad habits and customs. Third, located at the border of the Eastern Sea, Taiwan was isolated from world civilization; therefore, social education was a complementary tool to lift the population out of its darkness and ignorance. A powerful dimension of social education was its practice of group organization. Those with learning, Zhang argued, were to organize the people into educational communities that would work toward the goal of cultural advancement (TOCL 2.1. 1921: 9). Wang Min-

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Grievances and Demands

105

chuan elaborated on Zhuang’s suggestion, and interpreted social education in its broadest sense (TOCL 3.5. 1921c: 29-38). He made several other points as well. First, following the example of Japan and the other civilized nations, the people of Taiwan should organize public lectures. These lectures would supplement shortcomings in formal schooling, in particular in rural areas. Second, there was a need for more journals. Unlike Korea which already had 30 independent journals, the printed media in Taiwan consisted of a mere three Japanese-run newspapers, which were biased appendages of the colonial bureaucracy. Whereas the educational benefits of libraries and museums were well known in Japan and the West, in Taiwan these cultural institutions were very few and were not put to their full use. The Taiwanese public was not aware that libraries stored journal collections that could nourish the taste of the reader and nurture self-study. Third, local efforts in contributing to the establishment of zoological gardens and arts societies throughout the island were to be encouraged (TOCL 3.5. 1921c: 36). Wang concluded that these were venues to attain complete education in colonial Taiwan, and expressed the wish that not only the government but also the populace would set their mind to these much-needed reforms (TOCL 3.5. 1921c: 38). This is not to say that the Japanese colonial administration and its educators had been neglecting social education in the colony. The journal of the Taiwan Education Society (Taiwan kyŇikukai ᆵ᡼௲‫ )཮ػ‬regularly printed short essays by Japanese teachers on the advantages and disadvantages of social education. Until the 1930s, community education organized by the Japanese local authorities mainly concentrated on Japanese-language courses, and little time and effort was invested in expanding its scope of operation and programs (Qiu 1990a: 207-242). Examples of the latter were the rapid island-wide increase of the Women’s Society (fujokai) and the Family Head Society (kachŇkai ৎߏ཮), where adults were instructed in household hygiene, child rearing, business and farming practices, general tips for life improvement, as well as a fair dose of Japanese-language training (Qiu 1990b: 148-49). Generally speaking, the popular rise of sports groups, music and arts societies, associations for cinematic entertainment and other organized leisure activities did not emerge until the mid of the 1920s. Evidently, the construction of libraries, museums and zoological gardens in the colony was part of the project to enhance imperial lustre. Taiwan’s first national public library, the Japan Governmental Library, was set up in 1914. It acted as the central depot for smaller libraries, and stored local historical documents as well as a rich collection of documentation on the Nanyang region (Zhu 1993: 194). This collection included the materials of the Private Taiwan Collection (shiritsu Taiwan bunko ‫د‬ ҥᆵ㵈Ў৤) in Danshui, which was set up in 1901 by the colonial Taiwan Association (Taiwan kyŇkai ᆵ᡼‫)཮ڐ‬. 3 Other initiatives were private collections and museums exhibiting indigenous artefacts from the Chinese and indigenous communities, informing the public of the island’s arts, skills and native industries. One example is 3

Most of the shiritsu Taiwan bunko materials were donations. In 1907 the library closed due to a lack of funding. Qiu (1990b: 137).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

106

Mandarin Baihuawen

the Ishisaka Collection (Ishisaka bunko ҡ㞯Ў৤) set up by Ishizaka SŇsaku ҡ㞯ಷբ (1870-1940) in 1909 in Jilong.4 These cultural institutions served the Japanese interests and were directed under the auspices of the colonial government, as were the newspapers and the amalgam of adult-learning activities. Wang’s aim was to appeal to the Taiwanese community to become sensitive to shortcomings in the socio-cultural organization of life, take initiative and become active agents in creating new living conditions that would enable them to realize the privileges enjoyed in Japan proper. Dissatisfaction with the pedagogical methods and the subject matter completed the circle of educational grievances. Reflecting on the method of instruction created room to address more specifically why Japanese literary campaigns and formal schooling did not yield the expected results. Sending children to school on a daily basis would not change the traditional mindset if teachers and textbooks were not living up to modern standards of proper and sincere education. In his essay “On reform of Taiwan’s education,” Huang Chengcong (TOCL 3.2. 1921b: 1) wrote: Many teachers teach in a formal way but cannot explain to the children. They look like robot teachers. Not only do they not develop the child’s personality, they waste the students’ talents and obstruct natural self-development. Education must stress personality, move the soul of the child and nurture it to its highest quality. Developing the merits of the personality, so that the child can be receptive to things related to the modern world and life, is the basic spirit of education.

Given the circumstances, this basic spirit of education had much to wish for. Huang compared the educational system and its teachers with a bureaucratic institution that often changed personnel, was staffed with bureaucrats who temporarily professed teaching, and had a schoolyard out of touch with real society. Most irritating was that throughout the entire educational structure Japanese teachers looked down upon Taiwanese like servants and this created discrimination (TOCL 3.3. 1921: 10). Huang then suggested that the Taiwan elementary school system better be on par with that in Japan and should recruit properly trained teachers rather than appointing poorly trained school graduates for short courses. He drew a parallel with American teachers recruited for the Philippines, contrasting this with the situation in Taiwan where the teaching profession was not taken seriously and was plagued by a high turnover. “The saddest thing is that pupils are only half-educated in something that they do not understand,” he wrote (TOCL 3.2. 1921: 7). Wang Minchuan supported Huang in his opinions on methodology but suggested a different solution for the current shortage of teachers. In the article, “My opinion on Taiwan educational problems,” he observed that recruiting more teachers from Japan would not circumvent the language barrier in the classroom. It was better that the Normal Schools take up the responsibility to train elementary school teachers in a five-year curriculum or three-year curriculum (TOCL 3.4. 1921b: 32). In the selection of the school curriculum, the teaching materials should be of the same level as those in the primary schools in Japan. Instead of teaching vocational skills, Taiwanese elementary school pupils should be taught proper 4

Cited in Taiwansheng wenxianhui (juan 5, 1958: 274).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Japanese Support

107

science courses. Nonetheless, the specific cultural context should not be lost sight of, and the Chinese-language hanwen course should be equal to the Japanese-language kokugo course and taught as many hours as the mathematics course (TOCL 3.4. 1921b: 33). Because of the low level of education in Taiwan, the wealthy were decreasing and the poor were increasing, a sign that the uncivilized populace was becoming more and more backward (TOCL 3.4. 1921b: 28). Reforming the content was imperative to becoming competitive on the world stage. Wang (TOCL 3.4. 1921b: 29) wrote: Therefore, we must first pay attention to the choice of the teaching materials, upgrade the content, use new textbooks and train teachers. Knowledge and skills of Common School graduates is not broad, therefore many look down on them, and people doubt the significance of the new education.

Japanese Support From a Taiwanese perspective, the strongest challenge to the colonial project of assimilation was the sustained racial inequality in society. The daily experience of being discriminated against on the basis of ethnicity merely strengthened the arguments to expose these structural inequalities. The displacement in terms of the educational journey to Japan brought out the contrast even more. This is not to say that Taiwanese were treated equally in Japan, but the intensity of racial perception was different. Meanwhile, these persistent Japanese prejudices toward Taiwanese were known in the metropole, and were brought up by Japanese voices critical of the education policy in the colonies. Japanese contributions to the Taiwanese vernacular press in the early 1920s stated openly that Japan could do better in its endeavors toward the promised goal of assimilation. To be sure, they did not criticize themselves, but launched their verbal attacks on the Japanese community in Taiwan, whose behavior did not correspond to the ethics of civilized rule. From their colonialist perspective, prevailing attitudes of racial discrimination, segregation and inequality in the colonial educational framework were to the detriment of the Japanese empire. In his essay “About the problem of Taiwan education,” Abe IsŇ Ӽ೽ᕚ໢ (18651949), professor at Waseda University and prominent Christian socialist, regretted that discrimination in Taiwan’s schooling was the main cause of educational problems (TOCL 1.4. 1920: 7-10; TOCL 1.4. 1920: 23-26). This discrimination was present at every level, segregated schools, facilities, transport, dormitories, curriculum and duration in elementary and secondary schooling alike. He urged the colonial government to approximate their colonial educational framework to that of Japan, and establish middle schools so that Taiwanese pupils could continue their studies in Japanese colleges and universities. Despite changes in the Education Decree, Taiwanese and Korean graduates were barred from Japanese university entrance because their curriculum was set at four years instead of five years for graduation. Assimilation remained a contradiction in terms as long as Japanese residents were reluctant to have their children educated together with Taiwanese pupils. In the concluding section, he warned the co-

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

108

Mandarin Baihuawen

lonial government that without fundamental changes in its approach, serious problems were bound to arise in the future. The colonial authorities had better change their attitude toward the Taiwanese and Japanese, and take the establishment of Taiwanese middle schools seriously (TOCL 1.4. 1920: 10; TOCL 1.4. 1920: 26). Several issues later, Tagawa DaikichirŇ Җοεӓ॔ (1869-1947), member of the House of Commons, in the essay “Transmission of education to subordinates,” wrote of his journey to London where he had the opportunity to visit and meet with members of the Workers Education Association (TOCL 3.3. 1921: 1-4; TOCL 3.3. 1921: 23-25). He took this association as an ideal example of an educational structure that could be easily implemented in the Taiwan colony, and improve both the current vocational learning and social education. The essay concluded with a comment in support of Taiwanese considerations raised on the issue of social education (TOCL 3.3. 1921: 3; TOCL 3.3. 1921: 25). Japanese lawyer Hiranuma YoshirŇ ѳ‫ݡ‬ల॔ (1864-1938) in his essay “Taiwanese people and the party line” illustrated how colonial education based on racial discrimination accounted for the failure of the Japanese assimilation policy (TOCL 2.1. 1921: 1-3; TOCL 2.1. 1921: 19-22). In his opinion, a major obstacle to guiding Taiwanese people to higher knowledge was related to the social background of Japanese residents in Taiwan. They were not very educated and the majority were at the lower end of the social strata. There was a large gap between what upper-class Japanese and Japanese residents in Taiwan thought, and this made intercultural relations between Taiwanese and Japanese residents difficult (TOCL 2.1. 1921: 3; TOCL 2.1. 1921: 21). In an earlier issue of the journal, Kinoshita TomosaburŇ ЕΠ϶Ο॔, Dean of Meiji University, had explained that the Japanese officials and residents in Taiwan had a wrong understanding of the assimilation policy (TOCL 1.1. 1920a: 23-28; TOCL 1.1. 1920b: 19-28). In his essay “Debate on the cultural problems between Taiwan and the homeland,” Tomoeda Takahiko ϶݄ଯࡏ (1876-1957), professor at the Tokyo Higher Normal School (Tokyo koto shihan gakkŇ ܿ٧ଯ฻ৣጄᏢਠ) examined the cultural problems between Taiwan and Japan (TOCL 1.5. 1920: 1-7; TOCL 2.1. 1921: 10-18). Despite the racial affinity of Japanese and Chinese as members of the Mongoloid race, differences in customs, language, political system and religion explained the frequent occurrence of conflict between the two peoples. The geographical proximity of Taiwan to Japan, and the outcome of international relations that had made Taiwan part of Japan, were not, however, sufficient reasons to continue exploiting Taiwan for its resources. Based on this argument, he expounded that these fundamental differences could not be changed in one or two generations and that the assimilation policy required patience. But in view of world peace and the League of Nations, Japan also had to fulfil a role and to work for the welfare of not only the Japanese, but also the Taiwanese and Korean peoples. Therefore, the Japanese should reconsider their behavior toward the Taiwanese because the fortunes of the Taiwanese were also the fortunes of the Japanese (TOCL 1.5. 1920: 6; TOCL 2.1. 1921: 18).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Reforming ShobŇ

109

Evidently, examples of this sort of questioning of and reflection on the Japanese model of colonial education and intraracial relations in the colony lent immediate support to the Taiwanese cause. It was precisely this discourse that once more served Taiwanese cultural avant-gardists such as Wang Minchuan, Huang Chengcong and other students when it became known to them that the Education Decree curtailed Chineselanguage instruction and took steps toward eliminating the shobŇ institutions. If asking for structural equality in education implied a loss of cultural identity, then the only and best possible alternative was to devise options and strategies that proved otherwise. Reforming the ShobŇ In his essay “Reform shobŇ education,” Wang Minchuan felt the need to address the misunderstandings on shobŇ and Chinese-language instruction. He wrote: “People complain that shobŇ teachers don’t do their jobs properly. Such opinion shows people don’t understand the value of shobŇ.” (TOCL 4.1. 1922: 28) Wang did not disagree that there was a problem with the teachers and their teaching ethic, but he argued that such was not a reason for abolishing the shobŇ institution altogether. He urged his audience to look at the function of the shobŇ in Taiwan society, and approach shobŇ as an educational institution from a positive rather than a negative side (TOCL 4.1. 1922: 28). Because shobŇ embodied the cultural foundations of Taiwanese society, its institution should be respected in and by society and its abolishment was intolerable (TOCL 4.1. 1922: 28-29). On the one hand, it was well-understood that holding on to traditional Chinese learning was no longer representative of the changing times, but on the other hand, shobŇ, as a cultural institution, epitomized the distinct Chinese identity that set them apart from the Common Schools and other facilities in the Japanese educational system. Many shobŇ were still located in temple compounds and catered to a broader segment of society, as they had in pre-colonial days. This was a temporary phenomenon, however, one that was featured in the educational experience of the generation of Japanese-trained Taiwanese in the 1920s. Closing them down would put a final seal on acquiring reading and writing skills in the Chinese language, and turn them into cultural artefacts. The reduction of the hanwen class in the Common Schools completed the circle toward the official termination of instructing Chinese-language instruction for younger ones. Wang outlined a threefold problem that plagued the shobŇ institution: the moral character of the teachers, their teaching approach and the use of teaching materials (TOCL 4.1. 1922: 28). After two decades of Japanese rule, the group of shobŇ teachers was no longer what it once was. The upper-gentry class had long since fled to China, leaving behind a substantial number of lower-degree literati. In 1904, for example, out of 1,073 shobŇ teachers, 677 may have been uncertified, 344 were of a low grade, and only 52 were of a high rank, including one juren (Wu 1978: 87). Lower-degree holders, tongsheng (ูғ), jiansheng (ᅱғ), yousheng (Ѵғ), quickly filled the positions. The

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

110

Mandarin Baihuawen

Japanese restructuring of society made it no longer a virtue to be poor-but-welleducated. The gradual decrease in students had an impact on the salary of the shobŇ teacher, which was already much lower than that of a teacher in a Common School. Paradoxically, the continuous shortage of teachers kept the traditional instructors in their positions and indirectly also perpetuated the shobŇ institution. Even if mathematics and Japanese, kokugo, were increasingly part of the curriculum, shobŇ represented orthodox Chinese learning. Wang criticized the traditional literati who still continued to teach as they had in the old days. He urged them to be more flexible rather than showing off their superior knowledge of the Confucian canon to the students, reduce rote learning, use common sense and imagination, and adopt a more modern educational program with greater emphasis on civic topics (TOCL 4.1. 1922: 31). Reading the Classics and being able to compose archaic poems was no longer relevant to present-day society. The Confucian ethic in education had moved beyond the mere repetition of the Classics, but was not being transmitted by science courses and the Japanese appropriation of the Chineselanguage textbooks either. Wang remained optimistic. Although Confucian and Mencian thought were ancient, they could be reinterpreted and offer new insights, and their knowledge by definition was not inferior to the new scientific knowledge. “How can we say that he who memorizes the formulas of physics, chemistry and biology is superior to the one who learned the Classics,” he wrote (TOCL 4.1. 1922: 31). Still, there was more. Wang’s explicit reference to the teaching ability of the younger teachers in the shobŇ touched on the heart of the cultural matter. Whereas traditionally educated scholars continued to instruct in the old-fashioned way, Wang observed that the modern schooling graduates did not have the same profound mastery of the Chinese Classics. As pointed out by Wu Wen-hsing (1992: 290), Japanese-educated graduates from the early 1920s onward increasingly replaced traditional literati as shobŇ teachers. More and more, the system faced challenges from within Taiwanese society. Even if reform proved the magic word, the gamut of suggestions did not remedy the cause. Closure of the shobŇ was merely a sign that the normative repertoire of the Chinese established order, embedded in acquiring Chinese literacy practices and the canonicity of the Confucian writings, had not remained unchanged. Japanese superposition had pushed this cultural repertoire to a peripheral status; its consequences were now becoming visible. It was not a matter of Japanese scientific learning being superior to Chinese classical learning but rather that instruction in both languages and their appropriated cultural repertoires were seen as being indispensable to Taiwanese societal development. As long as there was the opportunity to enroll in some kind of schooling to continue the study of the Chinese Classics, the dominant position of the Japanese language in colonial society was not perceived as an immediate threat. The dilemma was that the entity of Chinese learning and language stood no chance of survival if reform was not going to be concerned with the nature of the Chinese language itself, its image and function in the colonial system.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Hanwen as Cultural Bridge

111

The closure of the shobŇ heralded the official termination of traditional Chinese learning. Changes in Chinese-language instruction in the Common Schools as stipulated in the 1919 Education Decree were not merely a matter of reducing the hours of instruction from five per week to two per week. The decree’s real impact was that the course from then on was to be taught in the Japanese on-reading (Wang 1999: 114). In 1920, a new series of textbooks was compiled for use in the classroom. These were the revised editions of the Kanbun tokuhon of 1904.5 Comparison of the two editions showed that the revised version included 28 extra lessons, and new kinds of vocabulary: “business vocabulary” (shŇgyŇbun ୘཰Ў), “commercial vocabulary” (kŇko kubun ቶ֋Ў) and two more lessons that introduced vocabulary useful in drawing up contracts (keiyakushorei ࠨऊਜᜪ) (Wang 1995: 136). These new textbooks clearly emphasized that character instruction served a practical purpose, whereas the traditional practice of character writing was taught in a separate course on Japanese ethics, which was entirely instructed in Japanese. The Education Decree in 1922 made instruction of hanwen either an optional course or redundant. In reality, the educational planners were streamlining Chinese-language instruction in such a manner that over time the written Chinese language came to be associated with Japanese kanbun. This meant reading Classical Chinese texts with the Sino-Japanese pronunciation and making use of Japanese grammatical markers. Apart from this linguistic change, the selection of texts and their interpretation acculturated to the moral code of the Japanese Confucian-inspired canon. In a nutshell, not the standardized Japanese language, but the slow and steady advent of kanbun replacing hanwen formed the biggest challenge to the cultural prestige of Chinese morality in Taiwanese colonial society. This grew more apparent from the mid-1920s onward as the practice of Sino-Japanese reading became more widespread, and gave a new impetus to the demand for shobŇ learning. Imagining Hanwen as the Cultural Bridge between Japan and China The 1919 Education Decree reduced the instruction of hanwen, based on the pretext that a sustained instruction in hanwen was too burdensome for students. From a colonialist perspective, Taiwanese were supposed to rejoice at not having to learn Chinese any longer. The shobŇ debate revealed that they were not taking these “doing away withs” as something to exalt over, or feeling relief at the lightened burden of study. The idea cut against the grain of what they believed or made themselves believe the benevolence of the colonial model was about. The only means by which a successful transfer of the Japanese culture repertoire could be barred was by keeping the Chinese language alive in Taiwan. And in their bold way of phrasing things, the cultural avantgardists continued a contrasting discourse in dialogue with the Japanese repertoire they had grown accustomed to. Their arguments did not focus on a narrow Tai5

The 1904 version had replaced the 1898 Taiwan Textbooks, Chinese Readers (Taiwan kyŇka yosho – kanbun tokuhon).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

112

Mandarin Baihuawen

wanese-Japanese interrogation, but verbalized the looming exclusion from Chinese literary culture in a regional framework. Writing into the ambiguous relationship with the colonial state, they imagined the Taiwan geographical entity as distinct from Japan and China. Within the emerging concept of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (Dai-TŇa kyŇeiken εܿ٥Ӆᄪ ୮), Taiwan’s cultural allegiance to China, in racial and linguistic terms, combined with its political identity with Japan, endowed the island with the capacities to fulfil a prophetic role toward a more egalitarian form of community. Presenting Taiwan as a model for Sino-Japanese relations put the racial discourse between the white (Western) and the yellow (East Asian) races into a Taiwanese perspective. This hybrid format was possible because relations between Japan and China were not on a good footing, a state of affairs which was well verbalized by Japanese voices critical of the expansionist drive of the Japanese empire. The Taiwanese interpretation turned the peace rhetoric around and argued that the fortune of the Japanese empire was dependent on the friendship between China and Japan, with Taiwan as the peacekeeper between the two nations. Wang Jinhai (TOCL 3.2. 1921a: 32) was of the opinion that it was in the interest of both Japan and China to maintain peace in Asia, and that conflict would only benefit the white (Western) race. Therefore, Japan and China should cooperate to break the power of the West. However, at the same time, Japan should also stop its attitude of racial supremacy in the East. If the Chinese and Japanese cultures could peacefully coexist in Taiwan, it would prove that “enlightened rule” was indeed possible, and this could set a model for the rest of the world. Taiwan was in a position to understand the Chinese and Japanese cultures. Taiwan’s relationship with China through shared history and ethnicity, and its experience with Japanese rule and education, had endowed its population with a unique understanding of Japanese culture (TOCL 3.2. 1921a: 33). His argument contained a double message. First, the Japanese had no reason to look down on the Taiwanese, because the people of Taiwan were making steady progress at “becoming Japanese.” Second, it was their Chinese cultural heritage that endowed them with a Chinese worldview. Consequently, abolishing hanwen was unacceptable. Not only was hanwen omnipresent in Taiwanese society; it was also the widespread medium of communication between Japan and China, and equally instrumental in the economic development of Southeast Asia. If the Taiwanese people could no longer learn how to write letters in hanwen, personal and business correspondence with the people from China would become problematic (TOCL 3.2. 1921a: 38). Wang Minchuan espoused a similar opinion and observed that the friendship between Japan and China was not only related to peace in the eastern hemisphere but also to world peace. He regretted that up until the present the longstanding negotiations between the two nations’ intellectuals had failed to bring forth this friendship (TOCL 4.1 1922: 29). With the language and the script as vehicles with which to communicate intentions, the Chinese script offered practical advantages because it

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Hanwen as Cultural Bridge

113

was mutually intelligible in both China and Japan. Likewise, Taiwan was to play a role in this Sino-Japanese peace process. Thus, Wang (TOCL 4.1. 1922: 29) wrote: This is what our Taiwan people can do the best. It is because of this that the study of the Chinese language, and research into hanwen cannot be dispensed with. ShobŇ education is the institution for learning hanwen. Therefore [shobŇ] cannot be abolished, but it is necessary that it be reformed.

Huang Chengcong (TOCL 3.3. 1921c: 14) wrote along similar lines. Hanwen was the backbone of Asian culture. Its language had been the driving force in sustaining Taiwanese culture and the ancient Chinese culture up to the present, just as much as it had been a source to the Japanese culture. Such empty talk as abolishing hanwen paralleled that of abolishing Greek, which had once been the cultured language of written communication in Europe. Desirous of friendship between countries and with an eye on economic development, it was worthwhile researching the Chinese language. It would therefore be a mistake to abolish the use of hanwen in Taiwanese society. Ironically, in promoting hanwen as the cultural bridge between Japan and China, the Taiwanese were toying with a twofold colonial logic. In the name of hanwen, Japan justified its cultural interference in China. In the name of that same hanwen, Taiwan was willing to accept the Japanese imperial presence. By juxtaposing the Japanese language with the Chinese language as two equal partners, the Taiwanese interpretation implicitly furthered the logic of a nationalist language ideology and created a niche for their preservation of the Chinese language and its script in the wake of Japanese linguistic colonialism. As this suggests, the question left unanswered so far concerns the exact meaning of the term hanwen. The ambiguity of the characters was itself open to several interpretations. In the Japanese understanding, hanwen, read as kanbun, referred to the classical language of ancient China. To the Taiwanese, hanwen was that same classical language read in the Southern Min literary pronunciation. The Chinese communities in the region were also making use of hanwen as the common language of written communication, as the Taiwanese observed in their essays. A key question is to what degree were these cultural avant-gardists aware of the language reform in China? There is no doubt that they knew the classical connotation of hanwen in Taiwan and Japan was no longer applicable to hanwen in China. This, however, is different from saying that they were fully familiar with its linguistic codification in terms of lexicon, grammar and syntax. After all, their essays were not written in Modern Chinese and they spoke of it in a variety of terms. Wang Jinhai who wrote in Japanese, referred to Peking Mandarin (Ch. Beijing guanhua ч٧‫۔‬၉), and suggested that it be taught as a foreign language course, just like English. If the middle schools would teach this course two hours a week, he argued, pupils would be fluent in the language after about two years. Schools in Japan should also consider teaching courses in hanwen, just as there were courses in English, German and French (TOCL 3.2. 1921: 38, 39). Huang Chengcong observed that recently the phrase “revival of hanwen” (hanwen fuxing ᅇЎ

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

114

Mandarin Baihuawen

ൺᑫ) had become common parlance, and that the need to research hanwen as the new language of China (zhinawen ЍٗЎ) was heard everywhere at that time. Abolishing the practical use of hanwen from Taiwanese society would be a serious mistake; rather, the language should be added as a regular course in the Common School curriculum (TOCL 3.3. 1921c: 14). Wang Minchuan used different terms for what he understood by hanwen. In discussing the curriculum of the middle schools, he suggested that Chinese (huayu ๮ᇟ) be added as an additional course. Like English and Chinese, huayu reflected modern trends, and in view of the Sino-Japanese relations, this huayu and hanwen were the language and script that had the will to bring about mutual understanding (TOCL 3.5. 1921c: 31). Hanwen was the language which conveyed the philosophical underpinnings of life and was the script used by several countries in the world. Complaints that it was too difficult to study hanwen, in his opinion, could be countered by adopting another teaching approach in the Normal Schools. Wang explained that hanwen was taught in the national pronunciation and the vocabulary was read in Sino-Japanese grammar and syntax. This was an appropriate teaching method in Japan, but not in Taiwan, because it limited student’s reading abilities. But some Japanese middle school teachers had advised that hanwen courses could be replaced with instruction in baihuawen, the language of Republican China. This could be read in Chinese (huayin ๮ॣ), which Wang specified as the Beijing dialect, or common speech (putonghua ද೯၉). The extent to which the colonial administration would be willing to enforce this measure remained to be seen, but at present, the course was better taught in Taiwanese (taiyu Ѡᇟ), which did not require reversing the word order. This would halve the invested time and work and capture the students’ interest again. In the future, the course material could be read in the Chinese huayu pronunciation, explained in Taiwanese, and the exercises could be mixed with Japanese (TOCL 3.4. 1921b: 32). Huang Chengcong and Wang Minchuan expounded their theories and suggestions on hanwen in a language still heavily coated in a Classical Chinese grammar, syntax and lexicon. Ironically, the vagueness of term hanwen or their understanding thereof, created the time and space that was needed to figure out how the conscious use of Modern Chinese could engender repertoire change. The Ineloquence of the Chinese Literary Language The interrogation with the Chinese language and script in educational essays did not explain its innovative features. Nonetheless, the linguistic novelty of Modern Chinese and its enormous potential for evoking social change had been outlined in the inaugural issue of the Tai Oan Chheng Lian. In a parallel discourse, some of the cultural avantgardists felt that enlightened thinking and cultural advancement were closely related to the nature of writing and literature. Central to their essays was the innovation of Chinese literary experimentation and vernacular writing, baihuawen, as an effective means to compete with the encroaching Japanese literacy campaigns. In contradistinction

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Ineloquence

115

with the educational debate, these text producers pointed the finger at the ones who were responsible for its perpetuation: the traditional literati who kept Taiwan backward. This self-criticism coupled with the realization that their Chinese brothers across the Taiwan Strait had gone through the same experience but come up with a solution, triggered the language debate in the literary discourse. In the article, “Literature and duty,” Chen Xin (TOCL 1.1. 1920: 42) wrote in support of the May Fourth reformers who believed that the dominant literary form of wenyanwen was no longer suited to convey new ideas to the common people: “The Chinese nation was in decline because of the old fashioned form of the literature.” The classical curriculum upheld old-fashioned ideas and literature, and was no longer appropriate to fulfil its moral and didactic function in society. Similarly, Gan Wenfang ҒЎ‫( ޱ‬TOCL 3.3. 1921: 34) in “The Real Society and Literature,” criticized Taiwan’s literati for not engaging themselves in socially conscious literature: “They use literature as an end in itself, they can only talk about the form of literature and do not care about social problems, so that the function of literature remains empty.” In contrast, European and American literature responded to social changes and was a result of the scientific rationale in literary genres and styles (TOCL 3.3. 1921: 33). In the following issue, Onomura RinzŇ λഁ‫݅׸‬䅜 displayed his familiarity with modern Western literary styles (TOCL 4.1. 1922: 43-44). It was Chen Duanming ഋᆄܴ who took the correlation between enlightenment and language reform one step further. In “On advocating the vernacular language,” published in January 1922, he pointed out three shortcomings of the Chinese writing system in Taiwan. First, it limited people’s expression of their own thoughts. Second, the classical canon was too large for popularization, causing cultural stagnation, and third, the perpetual use of old phrases and allegories hindered linguistic progress (TOCL 4.1. 1922: 26). His solution was as follows: If we simplify it and reform it as a vernacular language then it will be easy for everyone to learn. Everyone will be able to express their own opinion, there won’t be hypocritical articles in this world, and culture will soon be popularized. Wouldn’t that be fortunate? (TOCL 4.1. 1922: 27)

Central to Chen Duanming’s thinking about the Chinese language was the concept of unification of its spoken and written forms – yanwen yizhi, the same model of language standardization that guided Japanese language reform, genbun itchi – to which Chen Xin had also briefly alluded. Chen Xin had observed that the new Chinese standard language was helpful in writing down words with sounds but no characters (youyin wuzi Ԗ ॣคӷ), as was the case with his hometown language. He then related this guiding principle to the recent literary creations in Republican China written in baihuawen, but still unknown in Taiwan (TOCL 1.1. 1920: 42). Chen Duanming observed that this same model of language standardization was already being used in many enlightened countries, and Taiwan was cut off from it. Present day China was self-conscious. The people used a kind of vernacular writing (baiwen қЎ) and had unified the spoken and

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

116

Mandarin Baihuawen

the written forms of the language. In contrast, “The literati and writers of our Taiwan watch with folded arms so that the people have difficulty in expressing their meaning” (TOCL 4.1. 1922: 26). Reforming literature would enlighten popular knowledge, and Chen explained the two advantages of writing in baiwen. First, it was a tool to attain enlightenment and cultural advancement, effective in nurturing national solidarity, and beneficial to a nation’s prosperity. Its influence in the country was not that small, Chen wrote (TOCL 4.1. 1922: 26-27). Linguistically speaking, baiwen was simplified and time-saving. In short, it was a modern language. The more immediate concern was that since Taiwan had become part of Japan, hanwen had been becoming obsolete and unnecessary. Chen (TOCL 4.1. 1922: 27) shared the view that on these terms Taiwanese would be excluded from the world, and this was inconsistent with Taiwan’s destiny as the peacekeeper in Asia: Don’t you know that the destiny of our Taiwan compatriots is the responsibility of maintaining the peace in Asia; this responsibility of Asian peace is very important and very big. As for improving the friendship between Japan and China, aren’t the Taiwanese people the most appropriate intermediary. I dare to say that it must be the Taiwan people. If hanwen is to be completely erased, we would be like a ship without rudder or compass. How then can we complete this great task?

His specific reference to the economic importance and overseas development of Taiwan into South China and Luzon, in fact, grounded the essence of Chinese-language reform. Taiwanese were left with no choice but to realize that the future of hanwen from then on was learning to write in baihuawen because in due course the Chinese communities would no longer correspond in wenyan. From a colonialist perspective, Taiwanese were to communicate in Japanese, but this was not how Chen and his peers interpreted their relationship with the world beyond Taiwan. The survival of Chinese, not Japanese, literacy was at stake, and the educated opinion held that something needed to be done about it. If the elevation of Taiwan culture was dependent on switching from Classical Chinese to Modern Chinese, the ironic reality was that it was easier for most people to write down their thoughts in Japanese and speak them in Taiwanese than it was for them to do either in the form of the Chinese language that was to save Taiwan from further slipping away. Chen Xin and Chen Duanming wrote in a heavily coated classical style, and Gan Wenfang submitted his contribution in the Japanese language. This suggests that the ones who wrote about the advantages of Modern Chinese were its absolute pioneers, and it was they who were in the process of educating themselves in the language, creating their own readership and suggesting this language to construct an alternative repertoire. Only after this group was convinced that vernacular writing had any hope for success could they move on to the next step and devise a strategy to popularize it with the larger audience and mobilize support. In between, a logical step was to go to the source, seeing with their eyes and seeking out its potential.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

The Two Huangs

117

They were indeed at the stage of “researching the China language” as Huang Chengcong had phrased his own ineloquence. The Two Huangs and the China Experience How are we to comprehend that Taiwanese looked to China as their model for the vernacular movement? If Huang Chengcong and Huang Chaoqin are credited with having initiated the vernacular movement and its subsequent impact on Taiwanese culture in early 1923, as Michelle Yeh (2001: 9) observed, this meant that their cultural labor and deliberate engagement reflected the degree of internalization of a cultural pattern deemed necessary for restoring the disequilibrium of the social system. It was this that they put in the center of a strategy for organizing the consensus about the appropriate objectives and the appropriate definitions of reality. Their visit to China, more than anything else confirmed this “sense of possibility.” In his memoirs Huang Chaoqin (1989:15) narrated what had been recognized as the trigger of their linguistic consciousness in postcolonial historiography on the subject: During the summer of 1922, my Waseda classmate Mr. Huang Chengcong and I returned to the ancestral homeland, and we made a short travel-inspection tour. We witnessed with our own eyes how vernacular writing [baihuawen] had spread after the May Fourth movement. It had a deep impact on enhancing the national awareness. Thereupon, we thought that the propagation of a Taiwan cultural movement could not do without the use of vernacular writing. After we returned to Japan, we separately wrote an article in vernacular writing, which we published in the 1923 February issue of The Formosa journal.

What makes this passage interesting is that one senses in these lines a degree of interconnectedness. It was as if a new world had opened to them, in a similar way that going to Japan had done previously. The June 1922 visit of Huang Chengcong and Huang Chaoqin to China followed in the footsteps of their classmate Wang Minchuan and Meiji University law student Lin Chenglu. For many, the passage to China went via Japan, because visa regulations were less strict. The two Huangs were students at Waseda University. The fact that there were many Chinese students at this university may have sparked their interest in going to China, but only partially. Their decision to go to China combined personal interest and socio-political activism. Huang Chengcong had left Taiwan for Tokyo in the middle of 1918. According to Masahiro Wakabayashi ऩ݅҅Ρ(1979: 72), his determination to go to Japan was inspired by the inability to speak up freely in Taiwan. Huang was born into a landowning family in the Zhanghua region in 1888. In 1903, after graduation from Common School, he entered the vocational department of the National Language School, kokugo gakkŇ, and continued his classical training in a shobŇ. In 1914, Huang had been named district head (kuchŇ ୔ߏ) and awarded several shinshŇ medals. In 1919, after one and a half years of preparation for university entrance, he entered the three-year course in politics and economics at Waseda University. This was also the year in which Wang Minchuan, Wang Jinhai and Huang Chaoqin enrolled

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

118

Mandarin Baihuawen

in the same course. Receptive to the student climate, Huang Chengcong at first joined the Khe-hoat-hoe, and together with Cai Shigu, he became the secretary of the Sin-bîn-hŇe in December 1920. In 1921, he was co-opted Taichş district head. In view of the changes Governor-General Den KenjirŇ made to the hokŇ system, Huang took his chance to strive for abolition of the system and resigned as district head.6 Huang Chaoqin had gone to Tokyo in 1916. For the first six months he enrolled in a preparatory school (buxiban ံಞ੤) to study English and mathematics, before entering the third year of middle school. Huang was born into a sugarcane-business family in Yanshuigang ᡶНෝ!near Tainan in 1897. The business had been set up by his paternal great-grandfather and expanded through intermarriage. Following the death of Huang’s elder brother in the resistance of 1895, his father returned to his ancestral hometown Jinjiang 㪫Ԣ in Fujian. His financial interests as a landowner soon compelled him to return to Taiwan and abide by the new rule, however (Huang 1989: 5). Following Japanese economic restructuring of the island, the Yanshui sugarcanebusiness was reorganized into a modern-style company with shares. Huang’s grandfather accepted the post of director, and later on became the head (hosei ߥ҅) of the Yanshuigang district hokŇ unit (Huang 1989: 6). At the age of ten, Huang lost his father and grandfather, leaving his mother behind with three children. The family did not incur economic hardships as a result of his father’s death. Huang enrolled in the Common School and studied the Chinese Classics at a shobŇ, but discontinued his schooling to open a bicycle store in his home village (Huang 1989: 10). After his younger brother Huang Chaobi ໳රᅸ was sent to a commercial school in KŇbe ઓ㛍, Huang also went to Japan. Huang Chaoqin’s early student activism in Tokyo seems to have centred on his participation in the Association of Oceanic Nobles (eishikai ᛁγ ཮), an association of Taiwanese students at Waseda that discussed contemporary political reform (Huang 1989: 13). 7 His personal wealth in Taiwan allowed him to continue a life of luxury in Japan, and he purchased a 170 ping (‫ )ڳ‬Japanese building in Western style with a garden. Huang developed a close relationship with the Chinese embassy in Tokyo, which occasionally hired him as a translator. 8 Through these contacts he met his first wife, Guo Peiyun ೾‫ٵ‬໦, the daughter of Guo Zuoqi ೾Ѱ య, a secretary at the Chinese embassy. The couple married in August 1922. In view of the fact that Huang and his wife travelled to Shanghai after he graduated from Waseda

6 7

8

In this respect, see Huang (TOCL 2.3. 1921a: 22-27) and Huang (TOCL 3.5. 1921d: 48-53). This was possibly the reason why his father left Taiwan and went to China in 1921. The name “Eishu” ᛁԀ refers to a legendary island in the Eastern sea of China, where the deities live. Japan used to be thought of as that island, hence Japan is sometimes referred to as Eastern Island (TŇei ܿᛁ). This association has been virtually unnoticed in scholarship on the formation of the Taiwan Nationalist Movement in Japan during these years. Huang had a close relationship with a Chinese named Zhuang Jingke ಷඳᲸ, who was a native of Fujian. See Huang (1989: 13).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Turning the Tables

119

in 1923, the trip to China in the summer of 1922 may well have been a cultural factfinding visit.9 From their educational training and immediate living environment in Japan, the two Huangs came to realize that Japanese rule of the Taiwanese colony amounted to what Partha Chatterjee (1993: 14) has called “a rule of colonial difference.” The experience of locality in Japan offered them a different set of options from those the Taiwanese were made to believe the Japanese culture repertoire stood for. Inasmuch as the Taiwanese overseas community in Japan was able to see the contrast with the colony, so was the experience of locality in China. Going to the ancestral homeland endowed them with an opportunity not so much to see the contrast with Taiwan but to witness an alternative repertoire to that of the Japanese empire. It can be said that this experience helped deconstruct the manner in which they had come to think about Taiwan and its Chinese cultural understanding through a Japanese imperial veil. This inevitably translated into a rediscovery of Chinese cultural prestige. Visible through the language spectrum, Republican China offered them a new paradigm, visibility and presence as a permanently available source that the Taiwanese cultural avant-gardists could no longer afford to ignore. It was Chinese cultural power manifest through its successful creation of a modern language. It was also the power of its dissimilarity to the extant options, that is Japanese and Classical Chinese, in the Taiwanese home repertoire which triggered Modern Chinese to be considered a strong antidote to remedy the evil of Japanese linguistic colonialism. Finally, Modern Chinese rejuvenated the idea of a rooted shared Taiwanese entity, and pushed the Chinese repertoire from the periphery back to the center. Upon their return to Taiwan, they pleaded for the conscious use of Modern Chinese. Turning the Tables of Cultural-Linguistic Superposition In February 1923, Huang Chengcong and Huang Chaoqin published two accounts in The Formosa (hereafter: TW) entitled “Discussing the new destiny of spreading baihuawen,” (TW 4.1. 1923: 12-25), and its follow-up “On reforming hanwen” (TW 4.1. 1923a: 25-31; TW 4.2. 1923b: 21-27). What distinguished these two articles from earlier interrogations with hanwen is the manner in which the two Huangs presented vernacular writing, baihuawen, as a cultural synthesis whose strength drew from a renewal of pride in Chinese culture. In China, it was the visible absence of Japanese hegemony and its associated language superiority which enabled them to open their eyes and foresee the contours of a different society. If nations like Japan and those of the West drew their strength from a common and national language, as the Taiwanese educational essays argued, then the new China was definitely among these nations. This crucial symbol of 9

Huang and his wife went to Shanghai, but left soon afterwards for the United States, where he enrolled in a master program in politics at the University of Illinois. In 1925, Huang became a member of the KMT, in 1926 he obtained his master’s degree, and in 1930 he joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) of the KMT. See Xie (1987: 184-85).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

120

Mandarin Baihuawen

China possessing a common and national language transcended its practical functions and was ideologized toward generating a Taiwanese unit of loyalty to China in contradistinction with Japan. Huang Chengcong and Huang Chaoqin both emphasized that in Taiwan literacy was still the privilege of the happy few (TW 4.1. 1923: 13; TW 4.1. 1923a: 27). The reason why Taiwanese culture was not moving forward and making progress was because society lacked a common language that could give the masses easy access to study, reading journals, writing letters and compiling books. As a result, they were ignorant of world matters, and society remained in the dark (TW 4.1. 1923: 12). Mastery of the classical language (guwen ђЎ) was simply not compatible with the spirit of modern times, unsuited to making life meaningful or enhancing the well-being of a civilized people (TW 4.1. 1923a: 31). Its incompatibility lay in the fact that classical language was too time-consuming and left no room for studying modern courses, such as science and foreign languages. Huang Chengcong furthered the link between popular instruction and a standard language. He observed that 400 years ago the European countries used Latin just like China used guwen: there was dialectal diversity and no national languages. European countries subsequently gradually changed their dialects into national languages, based on the principle of language unification. These languages were taught at schools, and people could read all kinds of journals and books and show an interest in study. Popular instruction in national languages was the foundation of present European culture (TW 4.1. 1923: 15). This logic of universal progress and language standardization was also at work in China. Vernacular writing, baihuawen, was not only adopted in national literature but was also used in schools and textbooks. To popularize its use among the people of the entire country, newspapers, journals, books and dictionaries were all written in baihuawen. This showed that it was not some curiosity. Its usage was widespread throughout the country and become the mainstream of society. Writings in the classical canon were visibly disappearing because they were no longer compatible with the needs of modern society. Huang Chengcong (TW 4.1. 1923: 13) went on to note that China’s common speech, putonghua, and this vernacular writing were very similar, almost the same, not like the differences between guwen and spoken language (yanyu ‫ق‬ᇟ). It would not be long before this vernacular writing united these confusing local dialects within China. In his opinion, adopting this kind of written language would create a new destiny for Taiwan. Because societies were in constant progress, Taiwan should follow suit and pay attention to improving those conditions that were no longer appropriate to modern life. In his two-part essay, Huang Chaoqin addressed 18 points which elaborated on three fundamental issues to convince the readership that Taiwan’s literati should adopt a unified spoken and written language, and follow in the footsteps of China. Huang presented his arguments from a traditional Chinese cultural perspective. Ridicule and self-criticism, interwoven with socialist connotations set the tone of the article. It was

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Turning the Tables

121

not a literary discourse but a nationalist language ideology coupled with the goal of popular instruction that dominated the content. Mastering the Chinese language in a lifetime was impossible, so it was correct to assume that Chinese was the most difficult language on earth. Other languages on the contrary, were not subject to this lifetime-learning difficulty, and this realization made him pessimistic about the future of Chinese characters (hanzi). Taiwan was economically and materially fairly prosperous, but the proletarian masses were still deprived of their destiny. Promises for popular instruction and a better society remained idle talk. This was the shameful doing of the educated elite, whose methods for changing society had generated a sick Taiwan. “We are medical doctors, but our healing methods and medicine are wrong,” Huang Chaoqin wrote (TW 4.1. 1923a: 26). The biggest shame was that this had not been done on purpose. How could there be any chance for improvement, when intellectual proposals and popular immobility were moving in opposite directions? Lack of widespread public instruction translated into human misery. In the end, the educated segment of society would become too intelligent and the masses would end up in one chaotic mess. Hanwen was not just the spiritual rice bowl for a few people but had to be made into a big loaf of bread for all to enjoy. Only then would social welfare and universal peace become possible (TW 4.1. 1923: 28). The message was clear. Knowledge was not the privilege of the happy few, and the written language should be made into a public tool accessible to the population at large. Despite its 4000-year history, China was not prosperous, because “working people have no time, hope and energy to research the old and incomprehensible Chinese language.” (TW 4.1. 1923: 28) Huang had heard these words uttered by a blind socialist Russian poet whose lecture he had attended in Beijing. This poet had also observed that in the entire world there was not one nation in which the language of the national literature and that spoken by the people was so different as that in China. The Chinese literary class was not only distanced from the Euro-American “barbarians,” but also from its own people. This was an obstacle more solid than the Great Wall, and proved a deeper crisis than the rule of despots. American educator Paul Monroe (1867-1947) was offered as another foreign example. He had observed that an efficient educational system used an easy and simple script, but that the language used in the schools in China was too difficult and hence limited learning. The 3.6 million Taiwanese who spoke the same language and were of the same race, were in a similar predicament. Huang Chaoqin continued with a description of the goals and achievements of the cultural movement of the Han-people. After China’s defeat in the Sino-Japanese War, political reform had proven imminent if China was not to lose out on the world stage. Under the impetus of Chinese students returning from the West, a cultural movement had sprung into life whose purpose was to rapidly civilize citizens and unify the nation (TW 4.1. 1923: 29). As he pointed out, the shortcut in achieving these goals had been the creation of a phonetic transcription and a vernacular writing, which was propagated through the popular education movement. This vernacular writing was based on

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

122

Mandarin Baihuawen

the principle of unifying the written and spoken language, and had the power to transform China from a sleeping old boar into a roaming tiger (TW 4.2. 1923: 21-27). But whereas the future for Chinese culture was manifestly hopeful, the outlook for Taiwan was pessimistic. “Since Taiwan has been ceded to Japan, the literati still preserved the eight-legged verse when teaching and the newspapers and journals on the island and the social gatherings still used this kind of un-unified Chinese language.” (TW 4.1. 1923: 23-24) This clumsy lingua franca produced unscientific knowledge. It was powerless because there was no forum for open discussion. Therefore, Taiwanese literati did not bother, journalists could not freely pen their judgments on educational matters, and the population at large clung to the old form of writing and did not take education seriously. Even worse, among the literati were some who called themselves “civilized,” but their so-called new writings were a sloppy mixture of Chinese and Japanese styles, confusing and meaningless (TW 4.1.: 23-24). To illustrate his point, Huang printed an example of such kind of writing and annotated the incorrect style. He also narrated the laughter and sarcasm (slanderous remarks) of the Taiwanese literati when he started writing articles in vernacular in the newspapers at home, and contrasted this narrow-minded attitude with his peers at the Tokyo-based journal The Formosa, who embraced the idea of publishing articles in vernacular writing. Without a prompt unification of the spoken and the written language, the illiterate masses in Taiwan would remain excluded from knowledge. Under Japanese capitalism, the educational system was not enforcing popular instruction for these masses either. Huang particularly lamented the manner in which Japanese-language sessions were organized by Taiwan township councillors, which were all about boosting egos, wasting time and money to obtain a shiny certificate without actually having made progress in the Japanese language. Yet, with the certificate they could call themselves civilized, and this amounted to local vanity and snobbish behavior in the community. Still the widespread problem of illiteracy remained. Though Huang Chaoqin wrote into the socialist rhetoric, he was aware of tensions within the local, daily realities at home. There was little evidence of the literate class going out and mingling with the poor and illiterate class. Hence, he wrote: “We should not be ashamed to make contact with the lower ones in society and even if by doing so we lose grace in the eyes of the gentry.” (TW 4.2. 1923b: 27) Yet, it was precisely this socialist undertone which enabled him to verbalize the purpose of vernacular writing in Taiwan as a literacy movement, which in turn responded to the educational grievances. The political stance was clear as well and, not surprisingly, was framed in a racialized context. Because the Taiwanese were the grandsons of the Han race, the Chinese language was intrinsically interwoven with their environment, habits and customs. The English language was not imposed as the standard in British colonial schools. Why could the Japanese colonial authorities not preserve hanwen, respect the language and customs of the Taiwanese people, and teach a course on vernacular writing in the schools? Taiwan was the Taiwan of the Taiwanese people, and it was

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Turning the Tables

123

unfair that the majority of the Taiwanese pupils were discriminated against by a minority of Japanese pupils (TW 4.2. 1923: 27). Huang Chengcong also tapped into this racialized discourse. Unlike the Japanese language and guwen, Mandarin baihuawen was the most efficient way to spread culture. He coupled this linguistic explanation to a cultural interpretation which would for once and for all do away with the inferiority status of the Taiwanese and change Taiwan into an enlightened society (TW 4.1. 1923: 24). Since guwen was not the language representative of the majority of the people, it did not fit the social Darwinist view of evolution (TW 4.1. 1923: 15-16). The people in Taiwan are a branch of the Chinese race, and therefore should become familiar with the vernacular literature as well (TW 4.1. 1923: 14-15). Times were changing and Taiwan should adapt and equally discuss the old and new as a means to improve human society (TW 4.1. 1923: 23): If there is no education for the people, the cultural level is very low, and we cannot form a public opinion to change the direction of the politicians who fool the people, so that many bizarre things happen. Therefore, spreading Mandarin baihuawen to the masses is most urgent.

Huang Chengcong and Huang Chaoqin turned the discourse of Chinese cultural inferiority versus Japanese supremacy on its head. Locating Taiwan’s destiny within the Sino-Japanese friendship ideology provided the contour of Taiwan’s specificity in the Japanese empire. This drew attention to the fact that preserving the Chinese language and script was a must, but the interpretation of hanwen still upheld the ambiguity in its relationship with the colonial state. Modern values were still situated in the Japanese world, and Taiwanese cultural traits clustered in Chinese inferiority versus Japanese supremacy. Hence, polemics continued regarding the need to reform hanwen in education and literature, but allusions to using Modern Chinese republican textbooks, introducing the language of China as a foreign language course and references to China’s new vernacular literature were factual explanations which remained descriptive and did not endow this Modern Chinese with the prestige needed to convert itself from a necessary good into a useful tool. This conversion became possible by turning the inferiority label around and bringing about a conscious movement that aspired to take on the privileges of the Chinese center, in competition with those already assigned by the Japanese center. Its strength therefore lay in underlining similarities with Chinese culture, and projecting its transition from a backward state into a modern culture onto Taiwan. It was the Han racial affiliation that added the political ingredient to the linguistic-cultural interrogation with education as a modernizing force in colonial society. This correlation between race, culture and language was grounded in a nationalist language ideology. In this respect, Huang Chengcong and Huang Chaoqin left the Sino-Japanese friendship for what it was worth along with their efforts at making sense of the Japanese new world order. The Chinese experience instilled a feeling of liberation from the Japanese metropolitan gaze, a world free of colonial oppression, racism and feelings of cultural

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

124

Mandarin Baihuawen

inferiority. Instead they discovered the autonomous richness of their own culture and language, and more importantly, the belief that it was structurally inferior to none. The modern Chinese mirror coupled literacy campaigns to popular instruction in a much more equal sense than they could ever dream of under Japanese rule. This shift of emphasis, which signalled a backlash in judging colonial education, turned the tables of Japanese linguistic-cultural superposition. With the rise of Republican China and its standardized language, Chinese culture was no longer to blame for Taiwan’s backwardness, but Japanese imposition was. And this was what prestige as transfer was all about: taking pride in being Han and having a tool in hand that proved its equality to Japanese culture and Western civilization. With the help of an audience and contributors, their efforts concretized this symbolic belief in the continuity of Chinese culture, and proved the alternative venue to communicate a proposed model of language reform that would be acceptable to the Taiwanese mindset. For Modern Chinese to function as a literary vehicle of anticolonial linguistic nationalism, it required a larger circle and cultural market. These were provided by the activities of the Taiwan Cultural Association (TCA) and The Taiwan Minpao, successor of The Formosa.

The Taiwan Minpao: Consolidating the Local Power Base On 15 April 1923 the first edition of The Taiwan Minpao rolled off the press in Tokyo. At the same time preparations were being made to have the paper press transferred to Taiwan. Financial arrangements drew to a close when on 24 June 1923 the Motoshi publishing company (Motoshi kaisha ਲ਼Ԅ཮‫ )ޗ‬was established with capital of 25,000 yen raised from 1,200 stockholders. Shares were registered in Japan at a value of 20 yen, and made official on 1 August 1923. Cai Peihuo mentioned that some shareholders did not want to publicize their names for fear of Japanese reprisals (Wu et al. 1971: 548; Cai 1965: 178). In Taiwan, this news was officially announced during a grand meeting at the Taizhong city market; it had the strong financial support of the Lin family of Wufeng and the greater central Taiwan area. Taiwan’s first publishing company involved more or less the same figures who founded the Sin-bîn-hŇe , and of the Taiwan Cultural Association. 10 Originally published as a biweekly, by the year’s end new issues of The Taiwan Minpao were coming out every ten days, and the journal had been named as the official organ of the Taiwan Cultural Association. In October 1923, during the third annual meeting of the Taiwan Cultural Association, Article 5 officially linked The Taiwan Minpao with the Association. The Taiwan Cultural Association had established its own journal, but the content of its contributions were considered too critical and damaging in the eyes of the colonial administration. In order to continue publishing, the journal changed its name with each new issue, but was banned after 10 All the names are listed in Wu et al. (1971: 548). Additional information can be obtained from the publications and New Years greetings in the journal.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

The Taiwan Minpao

125

the seventh issue. What this implied was that the failure of the Association’s journal left no alternative but to move ahead with relocation of The Taiwan Minpao to the homefront (Lin 1993a:100). It would take another three years of negotiations and strengthening its ties with the local network expansion before it became successful. From a colonialist perspective, distribution of a local newspaper by and for Taiwanese not only undermined the authority of the Japanese local press but also endangered the Japanese position as absolute power holders. As soon as the branch office was established in Taiwan, The Formosa and subsequently The Taiwan Minpao were shipped to Taiwan. Confiscation at the Jilong customs was more the rule than the exception. Controversial political propaganda was not allowed to enter the colony. Whenever an edition was intercepted, editorial notes in small print reported the event and summed up the reasons for confiscation: coverage of political activism, reports in favor of gathering support for the Taiwan Parliament League, or writings opposed to existing policy implementations. Inspections by the police in the Tokyo publishing house were also frequent. What most angered the Japanese administration in Taiwan was that members of the Taiwanese editorial board were seeking audiences with the Governor-General in Tokyo to negotiate permission to transfer the paper to Taiwan tout court. Prior to the first issue of The Taiwan Minpao in April 1923, Huang Chengcong, Huang Chaoqin and Lin Chenglu had brought up the permission issue with the new Governor-General Den KenjirŇ, but were told a reply that it was a matter for the local colonial officials in charge in the colony (Wu et al. 1971: 555). Thereafter, Cai Peihuo became the crucial negotiator in achieving permission for the transfer in 1927. During the devastating earthquake which struck Tokyo in September 1923, the printing company of The Formosa burnt down and publication was halted until April of the next year. Until December 1923, the Japanese-language section was taken over by The Taiwan Minpao and counted for about one-third of its publication, the last six pages of each edition. This temporary change in printing companies mainly affected the layout. Subheadings were missing and opinion pieces were reduced to one, with serialized Japanese articles instead. The temporary bilingual edition focused on domestic and foreign news, and ran extensive coverage of the earthquake both in Japanese and Mandarin baihuawen. The Formosa resumed publication in April 1924, but only for two issues, that is, for the months April and May. Meanwhile, the 1 January 1924 edition of The Taiwan Minpao informed its readers that The Formosa had ceased to exist, and from that issue onwards the publication would be entirely in Mandarin baihuawen (TWMP 1.1. 1923: 17). Indicative of a more organized body of early journalism, the paper featured a variety of scholarly analysis, translations, commentary on current affairs, news of its members and literary output. The content of each issue was clearly geared to being an informative journal on what was happening in the world, as well as providing space for open discussion. Each issue included a discussion section (pinglun ຑፕ) with the major news articles, and which usually ran from eight to ten pages. This was followed by

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

126

Mandarin Baihuawen

a section on domestic and foreign news (neiwai shishi ϣѦਔ٣), covering events in China, Japan, the West (Europe and the United States), and neighbouring countries. Depending on the number of articles or items of interest, this news section included a separate column for Taiwan and/or China news. New were the series of specialized columns. The column Academia (xueshu Ꮲೌ) published intellectual essays and foreign translations. For instance Huang Chaoqin’s translation of an English work Basics of Economics appeared in TWMP 1.2. to 1.6. From January 1924 (TWMP 2.4.), the Science Column (kexuelan ࣽᏢឯ) was inserted. The Economic World (jingjijie ࿶ᔮࣚ) gave an update of mainly the agricultural sector, in particular the rice and sugar industries. The Poetry Circle (shitan ၃Ꮭ) published poetry; Belles-Lettres (wenyi Ў᛬) introduced new literary styles, jokes and short stories.11 These two sections were exclusively devoted to examples of May Fourth literary experimentation. Other items worthy of interest were put together in the Miscellaneous section (zalu ᚇᒵ). Finally, three new smaller columns were designed to encourage readers to submit articles. Huang Chaoqin’s column, Receiving Room (yingjieshi ᔈௗ࠻), replied readers questions about law, sanitation and society, or any other matter that they felt unhappy about (TWMP 1.1. 1923a: 26; 1.2. 1923b: 15; 1.4. 1923c: 15; 1.7. 1923d: 15). In the column Legal Advice (falu guwen ‫ࡓݤ‬ᜫୢ), Zheng Songyue addressed juridical questions, and the column Oratorium (dayantang ε‫ )୸ق‬was reserved for sad stories, research topics or essays. A limitation of 250 characters was set. The inside news of the paper management, by far the most interesting for knowing its scope of operation, appeared on the last page in the editorial notes (bianji yuhua ጓ ᒠᇟ၉). This was a small bulletin board in smaller print and listed issues which kept the inside group aware of the paper’s position and its networking activities in expanding its power base in Taiwan. At the other end of the spectrum were the contributors. A new group entered the scene: the Taiwanese student community residing in China. Together with the editorial staff of The Taiwan Minpao, this group literally controlled the content and writing style of the paper until 1927. Compared to their brethren in Taiwan, Taiwanese students in China had full access to publications in Modern Chinese, and maintained close contact with Chinese intellectual circles. Generally speaking, they had arrived in China at the time when vernacular writing was becoming the medium par excellence of the educated discourse, literature and popular press. This is not to say that all news coverage embodied the republican spirit. China-related content was reduced to its direct socio-cultural relevance under Japanese colonial domination. The journal’s target readers were Common School graduates, young professionals and others who could read Chinese, the educated strata of colonial society. Moreover, it was in their financial interest to enlarge this group of potential consumers. A higher circulation meant more money to invest and would enable the publishers to increase 11 Initially, the column Poetry Circle, shitan was part of the column Belles Lettres, wenyi but once the journal started publishing, these two columns were separated.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Getting the Language Right

127

the number of news-related pages. The local market was not ignored either. Young professionals announced their newly found employment in schools and hospitals, publicized doctor’s or lawyer’s practices and advertized their commercial businesses. Advertizing for local commodities became a regular feature after the paper was officially transferred to Taiwan. In addition to these advertisements, political propaganda helped spread the word and broaden its readership. To this end, the paper recorded the meeting minutes of the Taiwan Cultural Association and progress on the Taiwan Parliament Petition League movement. Yet, it was the Japanese reprisal, known as “Social Order Violation Laws Incident” (zhi’an jingchafa weifan shijian) and the 1925 Erlin Incident (erlin shijian! Β݅٣ҹ)12 which consolidated the reputation of the paper as Taiwan’ alternative voice. In both instances, the paper included an extensive coverage of the public court trials in the wake of the “Social Order Violation Laws Incident,” published Jiang Weishui’s “Prison Diary” (Ruyu riji!ΕᅢВ૶), and printed a special edition in support of the Taiwan Farmers’ Association (Taiwan nongmin zuhe ᆵ᡼ၭ҇ಔӝ) with coverage of its trial, which had been suppressed by the colonial authorities. In order to reduce the degree of colonial censorship, the paper became a weekly as of 12 July 1925. Its circulation by then had reached over 10,000 copies. The advantage of a weekly paper was that it was classified under the heading of professional journals, on the same level, for instance, as the YakugyŇ shinbun (‘Pharmacist News’ ᛰ཰ཥᆪ) or the SŇba shşkan (‘Market Weekly’ ࣬൑‫ڬ‬т). Despite an annual increase in circulation, its readership within Taiwanese society was not that widespread, and was limited to one in every 400 people. Figures provided by Wu et al. (1971: 553) revealed that the paper’s circulation was comparable to that of the three Japanese daily newspapers, namely 18,790 copies for the Taiwan nichinichi shimpŇ, 15,026 copies for the Tainan shimpŇ and 9,961 copies for the Taiwan shimbun. To celebrate the five-year anniversary of The Taiwan Minpao, a special illustrated edition appeared on 26 August 1925. Getting the Language Right In the April 1923 inaugural statement of The Taiwan Minpao, Lin Chenglu, editor-inchief, announced that as times were progressing, the only existing journal, The Formosa, was not sufficient to tackle the varying needs of society. This new journal would therefore be published entirely in simple and plain Chinese (pingyi de hanwen ѳܰ‫ޑ‬ᅇЎ) to raise people’s consciousness, elevate the culture of Taiwan, arouse the spirit of the compatriots and work for the welfare of Taiwan and peace of the East (TWMP 1.1. 1923: 1). Cai Tiesheng ጰ៓ғ, penname of Cai Huiru, in his brief congratulatory piece explained the political aspiration. He wrote (TWMP 1.1. 1923: 2): 12 The Erlin Incident involved a farmer’s strike in the Erlin region on the autumn harvest day in October 1925. Strikers clashed with the Japanese police which resulted in the arrest and imprisonment of 17 men, including the leader of the Erlin Farmers Association (Erlin nongmin zuhe Β ݅ၭ҇ಔӝ* Li Yingzhang ‫׵‬ᔈക (1897-1954).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

128

Mandarin Baihuawen Since the annexation by Japan, Taiwanese have been forgetting the Chinese language, but as members of the Han race they should not let this happen. Huang Chengcong and Huang Chaoqin have investigated ways to keep the spirit of hanwen alive, and suggested this paper. Baihuawen means the unification of the spoken and the written language [yanwenyizhi]. It is easy to understand, and very popular in our ancestral country [zujia ઒ৎ], the Republic of China. Because the 3.6 million inhabitants of Taiwan are kin to the Chinese, it is a must to have this paper in venacular writing [baihuawen].

This conscious use of Modern Chinese was a bold step. Needless to say, its agents were quite aware of the task ahead. The double apology to the readers in the editorial notes of the second edition outlined some of practical issues the paper had to deal with given the circumstances under which it operated. The editorial board apologized for the many printing mistakes in the first edition, stating that the typesetting had been done by Japanese who were unfamiliar with the Chinese language. The editors also apologized for their own incomplete mastery of vernacular writing, which resulted in grammar mistakes and unrefined usage throughout the paper. But, because the journal’s aim was to be informative rather than literary, a simple and plain language would make it easier for the readership to understand the news coverage. With the editorial board and the Taiwanese community in China as the cultural and linguistic go-betweens, The Taiwan Minpao became the institution charged with the transmission and transfer of the new linguistic code into the home repertoire. Chosen strategies were the integration of lecture sessions into social education programs, introducing standard works and translations in Modern Chinese and furthering an informative correspondence with questions sent in from readers. Given the lack of official endorsement, these were about the only possible venues in which to commence the task of persuasion and didactic instruction. In the first edition of The Taiwan Minpao, the readership was encouraged to join the newly established “Taiwan Baihuawen Research Society” (Taiwan baihuawen yanjiuhui ᆵ ᡼қ၉Ўࣴ‫( )཮ز‬TWMP 1.1. 1923b: 29). The purpose of the Society was to introduce vernacular writing as a medium for social education, organize two-day lecture sessions and a question-and-answer section. Its cultural justification was illustrated by the switch from wenyanwen to baihuawen in China’s schooling system. Its political justification derived from a proposal submitted to the Japanese Diet, which, according to its coverage in the Asahi Shimbun (‘Asahi Weekly’ රВཥᆪ), had reported that the Chinese language was to be taught in Japanese secondary schools to cultivate peaceful Sino-Japanese relations (TWMP 1.1. 1923b: 29). In introducing the new literary norm, most of the articles featured the story of the Literary Revolution, that is a discussion of Hu Shi’s “eight don’ts” and Chen Duxiu’s “three-isms,” and its authors made sure that the historical overview was well covered. Hu Shi was introduced as a leading Chinese intellectual and it was pointed out that his forefathers had served as officials in Taiwan (TWMP 1.1. 1923: 20). In his overview of the history of the Literary Revolution, Xu Naichang ೚Ώߏ (1906-1975), writing

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Getting the Language Right

129

from Shanghai under the penname Xiuhu ‫ذ‬෫, informed the readership that more than 900 vernacular journals were published in China (TWMP 1.4. 1923: 3). Like republican reformers had done, he stressed the need for the introduction of Western literature through Chinese translation. To accommodate the Taiwanese readership, he added the transliteration of the Western authors’ names in Chinese and in Japanese kana between brackets. Su Weilin ᝵ᆢᓄ, writing from Beijing, sent in “Chinese ancient literature in the past twenty years and the strategy of the literary revolution” (TWMP 2.10. 1924: 5). His treatise was based on “Mr. Hu Shi’s Chinese literature in the past fifty years,” and aimed to explain the didactic function of writing the new literature (TWMP 2.10. 1924: 5). A few issues later, he introduced the reader to the world of Beijing literary factions (TWMP 2.13. 1924: 9-10). Cai Xiaoqian ጰֵଳ!published a serialized essay, “An outline of the new literature in China” (TWMP 3.15. 1925b: 1214; TWMP 3.16. 1925c: 14-15; TWMP 3.17. 1925d: 12). In the Belles-Lettres column, Huang Chaoqin systematically introduced translations of plays and short stories written by Hu Shi, and encouraged readers to send in short stories and plays. 13 Likewise, The Poetry Circle introduced poetry by Guo Moruo ೾‫ݣ‬ऩ (1892-1978), Xu Zhimo ৪‫ד‬ነ (1897-1931) and Hu Shi. And again, these examples were sent from Taiwanese residing in China, such as Shi Wenqi ࡼЎ ‫( ׻‬1922-?) and Zhang Wojun (TWMP 1.2. 1923: 13-14; TWMP 2.8. 1924b: 15; TWMP 2.13. 1924c: 15-16; Yang 1981: 77-80). Also popular were serialized essays, such as Zhang Geng’s ஭‫“ ׳‬Old Stories” (TWMP 2.17. 1924a: 15; TWMP 2.18. 1924b: 14-16; TWMP 3.16. 1925: 14-17) and “Journey to the West” (Xiyou ji Ջၯ૶) sent in by Yimin ຽ҇ (TWMP 1.7. 1923: 14; TWMP 1.19. 1924b: 10). Lu Xun’s Ꮉِ (1881-1936) short story Diary of a Madman (Kuangren riji ‫ئ‬ΓВ૶) was not introduced until 1925 (TWMP 3.1. 1925: 14-15; Elies 1997: 245-48). Helpful in implementing the practice of vernacular writing, the section Introducing Books (jieshao shuji ϟಏਜᙖ) included the novel Water Margin (Shuihuzhuan Н⠪໺) with the comments of Hu Shi and Chen Duxiu on the quality of its vernacular, the compilation Collected Essays of Hu Shi (Hu Shi wencun च፾ЎӸ) and a dictionary Explanation of Chinese Grammar (Zhongguo yufa jiangyi ύ୯ᇟ‫ݤ‬ᖱက) by Sun Hengong ৊ᮓ π (1894-1962). Readers were particularly informed that “this dictionary was used in primary schools throughout China.” All three works were published by the Shanghai Eastern Bookstore (Shanghai yadong tushuju ΢ੇ٥ܿკਜֽ), and the price in yuan (ϡ) was included (TWMP 1.1. 1923a: 27). The other three were Japanese works: Miyajima SŇden’s ৐৞࣬ҖӅ Twelve Lectures of Reforming Thought (KaizŇ shisŇ zyuni kyŇ ‫ׯ‬೷ࡘགྷΜΒᖱ), Sakai Toshihiko’s 㳊ճ㥴 (1870-1933) Socialist Economics (Sakai-

13 Hu Shi’s translations were Alphonse Daudet’s “La Dernière Classe,” misprinted as “Deruiere Chasse,” (TWMP 1.3. 1923: 11-12) and a play called “The Marriage” (Zhongshen dashi ಖ‫ي‬ε٣΢) (TWMP 1.1. 1923a: 20-23, TWMP 1.2. 1923b: 13-14). For an interpretation of “La Dernière Classe,” see Yang (1981: 68) and for a discussion of the play, see Elies (1997: 236-237).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

130

Mandarin Baihuawen

shugi kezaigaku ‫཮ޗ‬Ьက࿶ᔮᏢ), and Yamamoto Miono’s ξҁऍຫΏ Research of Colonial Policy (Shokumin seisatsu kenkyş ෗҇ࡹ฼ࣴ‫( )ز‬TWMP 1.1. 1923a: 27). Finally, in the column The Receiving Room, Huang Chaoqin replied to letters from people interested in researching Mandarin baihuawen (yanjiu baihuawen de taolun ࣴ ‫ز‬қ၉Ў‫૸ޑ‬ፕ). One of the letters was sent from Taipei, by Lin Foshu ݅Օᐋ, who had joined the Taipei Youth Study Group (Taibei qingnian dushuhui ᆵчߙԃ᠐ਜ ཮). This group was set up by Weng Zesheng શᐛғ (1903-1939) and a few other students who had returned from Xiamen (Huang 1954: 137-39). In his reply, Huang advised Lin to go to the Shanghai Eastern Bookstore, order a grammar book and some practice workbooks. Following this method, he would become fluent after a few months (TWMP 1.1. 1923a: 26). In another letter, Li Ziming ‫׵‬Ծܴ (TWMP 1.1. 1923a: 26) from Yanshui ᡶН wrote: How difficult is it not to study hanwen? These times if you want someone who is literate, how many are there?...Therefore, I think that if the form of hanwen is not easy and simple, primary school learners will have difficulty in memorizing it…In the future certainly it will perish and never again revive.

In his reply, Huang praised Li Ziming for being someone who understood the spirit and was willing to change to Mandarin baihuawen (vernacular writing). This was the correct attitude and through diligent study and instruction, Huang believed that “after a few years Taiwan’s culture would surely be enlightened” (TWMP 1.1. 1923a: 26). These examples show the easiness with which the language innovators introduced and presented their ideas, especially considering that they were promoting radically new literary norms and conventions embedded in an equally new linguistic code. This is to say, the form and content of Modern Chinese was simply unknown to the Chinese literary public in Taiwan, young and old alike. The established order, with inclusion of the Japanese educated younger ones, at best mastered the literary canon in guwen (wenyanwen) which they read in the Southern Min literary regional koiné, while conversing with one another in Taiwanese, Hakka and/or Japanese. The task The Taiwan Minpao language engineers faced was to show that vernacular writing possessed virtues superior to the literary norms of the eight-legged style poetry canon. This required rejection of those very literary norms. Another component was to explain and teach the new linguistic code and how to compose the new literary norms. Their practical suggestions reflected traditional attitudes toward language learning and acquisition, i.e. the inherent diglossia and a value judgment based on the staunch belief in the primacy of written language as a unifying factor. The emphasis on mastering writing and script was continued in the colonial period. Taiwanese were taught Japanese as a foreign language, and quite a few acquired the language by means of memorizing dictionaries and reading literature. But whereas Japanese language superposition challenged the social prestige of the Chinese language, importing Modern Chinese into Taiwanese society cut right through its cultural essence and dethroned the Chinese language in all its nostalgic beauty. Even if Modern Chinese was framed

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Conflicting Repertoires

131

in the context of countering Japanese cultural interference, its immediate challenge was the Chinese classical language as the extant option from which it had to prove itself as a distinct and separate entity. In this respect, Modern Chinese was another cultural-linguistic superposition on the existing Chinese literacy practices, oral and written, whose engineering was bound to head for a “questione della lingua.” Conflicting Repertoires By the 1920s, the poetry societies had developed into a bastion of appreciation for Chinese erudite learning. Membership consisted of traditional literati who had accommodated by varying degrees to colonial society, and segments of the younger generation. Scholars have noted that under the impetus of Den KenjirŇ’s liberal policy, poetry societies had expanded all around the island (Huang 1997). Although this does seem contradictory to the educational policy which curtailed Chinese-language instruction, the character of the poetry societies resonated with the constant change and innovation of the world around them, combining learning with entertainment. The colonial government had little incentive to outlaw their existence and based its tolerance on the fact that mastery of Classical Chinese was similar to the kanbun clubs in Japan proper. Besides, the core members of the poetry societies were influential local power holders not necessarily opposed to the policies of colonial economic expansion. The cultural market for these poetry compilations consisted of independent literary journals or the poetry column of the Japanese-run newspapers. But it was their usage of classical writing which labelled them as “traditional, unchanging and invariant” in the eyes of literary innovators. Zhang Wojun’s contributions to The Taiwan Minpao confronted the world of the Taiwan literati. His polemics were composed in the iconoclastic style of writing characteristic of the May Fourth intellectuals. Central to his attack was the unwillingness of the traditional literati to change their mode of thought. The first intimation of Zhang’s disdainful ridicule of the old literati appeared in “Letter to the Taiwan youth,” in which he compared the attitude of his Taiwanese compatriots with “feeling sympathy for Tolstoy’s no-resistance-ism, and being enslaved by empty poetry” (TWMP 2.7. 1924a: 10). A more serious criticism followed his return from Shanghai to Taiwan for the funeral of his father in the second half of October 1924. Zhang contacted The Taiwan Minpao office and became their Chinese-language editor. Under the penname Yilang ΋ਟ, he published “The terrible state of the Taiwan literary scene” (TWMP 2.24. 1924d: 6-7).14 He wrote that in contrast to Japan and China, where the literary scene had developed in line with political and economic changes, no such thing had taken place in Taiwan (TWMP 2.24. 1924d: 6). In his opinion, the literati’s unwillingness to break away from the superstitious dream of the old literature stemmed from 14 Zhang had several pennames: Misheng ଎ғ, M.S., Yi ሹ, Yema ഁଭ, Jianhua ቆ๮ among others. See Zhang (1997:81).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

132

Mandarin Baihuawen

ignorance; they did not even know that they were holding on to this antiquity (TWMP 2.24. 1924: 6). Zhang then moved on to point to the younger generation that continued to profess the same literary forms in the Japanese-sponsored poetry societies: The young people follow in their footsteps and use poetry to gain fame and a good reputation. They join the poetry gatherings organized by the Japanese colonists and make poems as a social activity so that their name is printed in the newspapers or they can win a prize.” (TWMP 2.24. 1924: 6)

Huang Chaoqin had made a similar remark (TW 4.1. 1923a: 30). Zhang admitted that having to write such things made his stomach turn and gave him a blinding headache. To save Taiwan literature from drowning, he encouraged the younger public to read more books on Chinese literary history and foreign translations of poetry, plays and short stories. Both venues were very helpful in understanding the meaning of the new literary norms and nurturing appropriate modes of thought (TWMP 2.24. 1924c: 7; TWMP 3.1. 1925a: 5). A couple of more essays were devoted to explaining Hu Shi’s writing principles in composing “national language literature” (guoyu wenxue ୯ᇟЎᏢ) (TWMP 3.1. 1925a: 5-6; TWMP 3.6. 1925b: 15). Rather than summarizing the “eight don’ts,” Zhang provided examples for each to illustrate that this kind of writing was in fact dead literature. Since the annexation by Japan, Taiwan was no longer in touch with the developments of the literary scene in China. In allegorical style, he described that when the “old temple” of classical literature in China collapsed, the storm that blew it over somehow missed the isolated little isle of Taiwan, and classical literature there was spared (TWMP 3.1. 1925a: 5). Particularly illustrative of this emphasis on contrasting vernacular writing with living literature and wenyanwen as a dead language was Zhang Wojun’s serialized essay by Hu Shi, called “Since the literary revolution” (TWMP 3.6. 1925b: 11-12; TWMP 3.7. 1925c: 19-20; TWMP 3.9. 1925d: 18-19; TWMP 3.10. 1925e: 13-14). Finally, in “Weeping for the Taiwan literary world,” Zhang took the example of Lian Yatang’s (Lian Heng) writings to expose the old-fashioned style of literature in Taiwan (TWMP 2.26. 1924e: 10-11). Lian Yatang belonged to the world of classical poets who published their literary compositions on a regular basis in their circle of literary journals. The journal from which Zhang reprinted the abstract was called Taiwan Shihui (‘Taiwan Poetry Collection’ ᆵ᡼၃⽥), the successor of Lin Xiaomei’s ݅λ࣭ (1893-1940) Taiwan Yongshi (‘Taiwan Writings’ ᆵ᡼ຐў) (Chen 1977: 23). In order to show the readers that “propagating the new literature” was not to be confused with “abolishing the Chinese language (hanwen),” as Lian had contended, Zhang reprinted a short passage and contrasted it with its version in classical style and the modern vernacular style, emphasizing that Lian himself had mixed the two writing styles (TWMP 2.26. 1924e: 11). If those opposing the new literature would be willing to familiarize themselves with some of the literature available on this topic, they would learn that the same arguments pro and con had been discussed in China ten years earlier, but that by now this issue had moved on from theoretical discussion to practical applica-

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Conflicting Repertoires

133

tion (TWMP 2.26. 1924e: 11). Zhang’s criticism of Lian’s passage on hanwen and new literature was part of the response it had evoked from the traditional literati (Chen 1977: 23). The war of words that followed between the proponents and opponents of written style reform is known as the Old-New Literature debate. It was discussed in the Japanese-run newspapers, such as Taiwan nichinichi shimpŇ, Taiwan shimbun and Taiwan shimpŇ, in which the traditional poets defended the beauty of the Classical Chinese language. The new literary styles were ridiculed as “a country woman with a flower in her hair” (cunfu zanhua ‫஁׸‬ᘾ޸), or described with the phrase “adding feet to a snake while painting it” (huashe tianzu ฝೂబ‫)ى‬, meaning “making undesirable additions.”15 The target of their attack was Zhang Wojun, who had noted in the essay “Random thoughts” that within a period of one month he had received 10 insulting letters (TWMP 3.12. 1925f: 10). The Old-New Literature debate has been well discussed in scholarly works on modern Taiwanese literature, and need not be repeated here (Zhuang 1994: 34-74; Chen 1977; Li 1979; Lin J.M. 1993, Huang 2006: 187-209). Of relevance here is how the iconoclastic language innovators, as they profiled themselves, challenged the established order – those vested in erudite classical learning – in the Taiwanese home repertoire. The younger generation which had returned from Japan and/or China with high expectations jeopardized the influential position of the traditional literati as intermediates between the Japanese colonial authorities and the local communities. Someone like Zhang Wojun confirmed their deep-seated fears. In the eyes of these traditionalists, Zhang was not born into the class of literati, but had risen in society by his own efforts, and had dared to accept the consequences of China’s language in revolution. The issue of style and script reform can be interpreted as a psychological liberation in Zhang’s life. It meant that it was possible for the individual to seek freedom and fortune without being bound to social class. Zhang’s experiences from childhood onward were living proof that the freedom of the individual could lead to success in a changing society. Zhang Wojun, whose official name was Zhang Qingrong ஭మᄪ, was born into a working-class family in northern Taiwan (Qin 1990: 129). After he graduated from the Banqiao ݈ᐏ Common School, he began an apprenticeship as a shoemaker in Taipei. Through the introduction of his former teacher, Mr Lin Mutu ݅Еβ, Zhang was employed as a clerk at the Shinko ཥଯ Bank, and soon after transferred to a higher position at the Taoyuan ਲ༜ branch office. In the evenings, he studied the middle school curriculum at the Chengyuan ԋస School, and took classical poetry classes with a xiucai named Zhao ᇳ. In 1918, Lin Mutu established a branch office of the Shinko Bank in Xiamen, and in 1921 Zhang was transferred to this branch. Once in 15 These two examples are taken from Lian Yatang’s article that he published in 1925 in TWNNSP (5 January 1925: 8) and Zheng Junwo’s ᎄै‫ ך‬reply to Zhang Wojun, published in Tainan shimpŇ, (29 January 1925: 8).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

134

Mandarin Baihuawen

China, he continued his studies of Classical Chinese literature with another xiucai.16 After the bank closed down in 1923, Zhang went to Shanghai and joined the Taiwanese overseas student movement.17 From there on, he went to Beijing and studied Chinese at the National Beijing Normal University (Guoli Beijing shifan daxue ୯ҥч٧ৣ ጄεᏢ) night school. In the autumn of 1924 he returned to Taiwan, but soon felt that he had come home to a world apart, in which “the masses pursuit of freedom and happiness was immobilized by the ancient rules and dictates of the fortunate few” (TWMP 2.26. 1924e: 10). Learning the Linguistic Code Persuading the established order to see the benefits of Mandarin baihuawen was mainly carried out through argumentation. The language innovators also labored to make the new standard linguistically acceptable, and convince their Japanese-educated Taiwanese-speaking contemporaries of the linguistically superior values of Mandarin baihuawen. Yet, the new Chinese freedom of expression had norms. Vernacular writing was more than freely expressing one’s opinions in a haphazard language mixture colored with Classical Chinese grammar, Japanese lexicon and Taiwanese idiom and syntax. Linguistic behavior of educated Taiwanese and potential consumers of Modern Chinese confronted the model with some painful realities, and they were not spared from negative value judgment. Inasmuch as the language innovators had to enhance the literary norm as the most prestigious, a similar task awaited them in engineering the social acceptability of the linguistic code. The obstacles to deal with related to the cultural prestige of the spoken languages in colonial society: Taiwanese and Japanese vis-à-vis Mandarin baihuawen as the new literary standard. One such obstacle was the fact that Taiwanese had adopted many Japanese linguistic borrowings, a phenomenon that manifested itself when these Taiwanese speakers practiced Mandarin as the new Chinese-language standard. Codification of grammar, syntax and lexicon were an integral part of the new literary norm, and cultural denouncement took priority in the process of persuasion. Lin Gengyu ݅હ‫ܭ‬, writing as Leizi ఽη, took up the issue of inappropriate language usage, code switching and false prestige. His article, sent from Shanghai, was a reply to a certain Ms Wu Suoyun ֆᅥ໦ who had suggested setting up a Taiwan Chinese study group hanxue (ᅇᏢ) for women (TWMP 1.4. 1923c: 6). Leizi described Ms Wu’s article as a true herald, criticized the silence of the Taiwan literary world, and expressed shame that the educated males had left it to a woman to take this initiative (TWMP 2.2. 1924: 12). His main argument, however, focused on the inaccurate use of the Chinese language spoken by Taiwanese in China. To illustrate his point, Leizi 16 No name is given for this xiucai, but he also used Zhang’s penname, Wojun. See Qin (1997: 130). 17 The bank closed in July 1923, hit by the economical crisis after WWI, and in August merged with the Kagi Bank and became the Taiwan ShŇkŇ Bank (Taiwan shanggong yinhang ᆵ᡼୘πሌՉ), predecessor of the First Commercial Bank (Diyi shangye yinhang ಃ΋୘཰ሌՉ). See Qin (1997: 130).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Linguistic Code

135

offered the example of a Taiwanese fellow in Shanghai “who has the habit of adding Japanese suffixes while speaking Taiwanese (taiyu),” such as “góa bô chàn-sêng ne” (‫ך‬ όᜅԋ嗮嘙) instead of “góa bô chàn-sêng” for “I do not appreciate it”, or “bô chit chióng ê hitsuyao” (ค೭ᅿ‫ޑ‬嗳嗥嘅嗇) instead of “bô chit chióng ê pit-iàu” (ค೭ᅿ ‫ޑ‬Ѹा*!for “that is not necessary.” In his opinion, such a manner of speech might be appropriate for Taiwan, where showing off with one’s knowledge of Japanese was acceptable, but it was definitely not appropriate in China. Intermingling the Japanese and Taiwanese language among the educated classes was a wrong starting point, and he labelled such people “bright as a bean” (yanguang ru dou ౳Ӏӵ‫)ل‬. Not only was it important to clearly make the distinction between Taiwanese and Japanese, moreover, being fashionable was not about bragging and boosting one’s ego with some Japanese sentences, but studying the Chinese language instead. Henceforth, his advice to Ms Wu was to start researching the new culture of China, go with the flow of the spirit of change, break the old slavish and corrupt literature, and embark on a new epoch of Chinese literary culture in Taiwan (TWMP 2.2. 1924: 13). The boundaries between written Chinese and written Japanese were clear. Chinese had its formal rules and conventions which were powerful enough to keep Japanese influence at bay. The Japanese language was no match for the cultural prestige of the Chinese written language. One could not boost a classical poem by inserting a Japanese character in a classical poem. However, the boundaries were much less rigid on the spoken level. Japanese language contact was “unavoidable,” making interference imminent. Whereas the written Chinese language remained a closed system, its spoken equivalent was more open to language interaction and influence. And again, this had an ideological and practical component. Commodities, technical innovations and societal novelties were introduced through the Japanese language. These were first taken up in the spoken language, and then written down either in kana syllabary or in kanji, but in a Japanese-language context. Japanese furnished Taiwanese with useful vocabulary and modern terminology. Lacunae were filled with Japanese lexicon, which implicitly contributed to the sentiment that Taiwanese idiom was ineloquent. Yet, the feeling of inadequacy did not prevail because peppering one’s spoken discourse with Japanese borrowings was all about status. It revealed that one was cultured and proficient in Japanese, and need not be mistaken for an illiterate islander. One could impress with one’s linguistic behavior. This acculturation to the Japanese-language model confirmed the success of Japanese interference, an indicator of a widely accepted attitude that Japanese was fashionable. The Taiwanese mother tongue was the cultural marker that distinguished Taiwanese from Japanese and constituted a person’s native identity. As long as this language distinction was balanced with the sustained moral authority of the Chinese character script, Taiwanese retained the status of a dialect equal among others. Speaking one’s mother tongue was not a marker of inferiority when the same Taiwanese went to China or those neighboring countries with Chinese-speaking communities. Following the rise of the new Chinese standard endowed

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

136

Mandarin Baihuawen

with the characteristics of a civilized and cultured language, the tables of the linguistic hierarchy turned. With the rise of the standard, the prestige differences were felt, and ineloquence and inadequacy replaced status-driven code switching. In the importing society, Mandarin baihuawen found itself vying for superiority over the Taiwanese idiom and Japanese. This was not only with regard to the spoken language but also seeped into those practising Mandarin and taking renewed pride in the Chinese living culture. The sensitive point was less the classical grammar than usage of Taiwanese idiom intermingled with Japanese borrowings. The new Chinese standard model created the realization of ineloquent Taiwanese, its inadequacies, lacunae and deficiencies. The two essays by Shi Wenqi and Yimin addressed the problems of lexical and grammatical and differences when Taiwanese wrote in Mandarin baihuawen. These were related to an inaccurate use of vernacular writing stemming from the linguistic differences in the Chinese language between Taiwan and China. It concerned a Taiwanese grammar and word-choice idiom, which was not in accordance with the concept of spoken and written unification of the language based on Mandarin. In “My opinion on Taiwanese writing in baihuawen,” Shi Wenqi illustrated this with the phrasefinal particle lah (୚), which was overused by Taiwanese writing Mandarin baihuawen (TWMP 2.4. 1924: 8). Another problem he pointed out was the use of Japanese characters for Chinese expressions, such as “holding a meeting” (kaisai ໒໽) and “circumstances” (tsugŇ ೿ӝ). He characterized the interchangeable use of baihuawen grammar with wenyanwen grammar as a man dressed in a Western suit, carrying a walking stick but wearing a Taiwanese style hat (óaȭ-bŇ-á ࿙൰в) on his head and pre-Qing footwear (TWMP 2.4. 1924: 8). The hat was a metaphor for Taiwanese and the preQing footwear for wenyanwen. Finally, there was the frequent usage of writing in the Zhangzhou or Quanzhou regional variants of Southern Min. Shi referred to the article entitled “Brandnew” by a certain “Seng” ‫ ܄‬entirely written in the Zhang-Quanzhou koiné. The suffix “a” was added, so that “dog” became káu-á (‫ކ‬в) and “bird” thus chiáu-á (ചв) instead of the single character each for dog (Ch. Gou ‫ )ކ‬and bird (Ch. niao ച). Another example was the use of lán (࠙) instead of women (‫ )ॺך‬for “we” (TWMP 2.1. 1924: 15). Yimin was more outspoken on the importance of Mandarin baihuawen. Writing in support of Shi Wenqi, his article “My opinion on Taiwan research in baihuawen,” also singled out the problem of Japanese characters instead of Chinese ones, e.g. summer holiday (natsuyasumi হҶ), top (chŇjŇ ഗ΢) and introduction (shŇkai ಏϟ) (TWMP 2.4. 1924c: 9). He criticized Taiwanese writing in the vernacular for not making the effort to learn the basics of Mandarin baihuawen. Japanese characters made the text incomprehensible if read by peoples from other provinces (bieshengren ձ࣪Γ). He showed no tolerance for those who advocated writing in the Zhang-Quan koiné, arguing that Taiwanese had not yet learned “the national language of China” (zhongguo guoyu ύ୯ ୯ᇟ) (TWMP 2.4. 1924c: 9). Yimin (TWMP 2.4. 1924c: 9) reproached Taiwanese who

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Spoken Dilemma

137

took Mandarin baihuawen for a simplified way of writing in the vernacular, ignoring the language’s rules of grammar and vocabulary: I fear that the Zhang-Quan [ᄼࢨ]-speaking people do not understand that by changing the written script which has been unified for two-thousand years into a non-unified one, is not progress, it can be called a setback.

Yimin then touched upon the ideological implications of writing vernacular in Taiwanese, notably cultural identification through language. He asked whether the Taiwanese wanted to be Taiwanese people of Taiwan (Taiwan de taiwanren ᆵ᡼‫ޑ‬ᆵ᡼Γ) or Taiwanese people of the Orient (dongyang de taiwanren ܿࢩ‫ޑ‬ᆵ᡼Γ) (TWMP 2.4. 1924: 9). If the former, then the use of romanized script would do. If they considered themselves as people of the Orient, then it was necessary to study the basics of hanxue as well as understand the national language of China (zhongguo guoyu) and learn how to write the language (TWMP 2.4. 1924c: 9). Linguistic universality of Mandarin baihuawen was considered a factor in defining Chinese identity. Yimin and Shi Wenqi both included suggestions on how to commence the study of Mandarin baihuawen. In this respect, they did not differ from their counterparts advocating the new literary styles, who stressed the universality of the literary values of Mandarin baihuawen. Shi Wenqi added the correct grammatical usage and difference in character of the possessive noun “de” (‫ )ޑ‬as adjective, adverb, or preposition in Mandarin baihuawen. The example was taken from the Chinese newspaper Zhongguo Ribao (‘China Daily’ ύ୯Вൔ) (TWMP 2.4. 1924c: 8). In the next issue, Yimin published a short account on “Script and literature,” in which he elaborated on the origins and development of the Chinese written language (TWMP 2.5. 1924d: 5). Later the same year, Qian Fei ߻ߚ contributed two articles in which he assessed the advantages of vernacular writing over wenyanwen. In “Why does The Taiwan Minpao not use wenyanwen?” he provided numerous grammatical examples contrasting vernacular writing with wenyanwen (TWMP 2.22. 1924a: 14-16). In “Forms and usages of the new punctuation marks,” he explained and illustrated twelve different forms of Western punctuation (TWMP 2.24. 1924b: 15-16). The Spoken Dilemma Even if the classically trained literati knew deep down that the rising standard of Modern Chinese was the future of China’s literary culture, the realization and recognition that the seal of finality was encroaching on what defined their status and dignity in the changing world around them was a bitter pill to swallow. One need not overlook the psychological pressure that followed in the wake of the regime change and Japanese language superposition on this segment of social leaders. Whereas some withdrew from the public arena, others adapted to the changing regime and tried to make the best of their new situation. What message did the freedom of the vernacular word and

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

138

Mandarin Baihuawen

its psychological liberation bring to them, if the language of this freedom was embedded in a radically new linguistic code? Among them, Chen Fuquan ഋፄӄ, in the Tainan shimpŇ (05/08/1925: 8) gave the starting signal. He mentioned that the real problem was that of the three million people in Taiwan, “very few understood guanhua”: What is called vernacular in Taiwan…does not have an established script. Reading it has no sound. What is its purpose? Reading it with the native pronunciation and confusing it with the guanhua baihuawen cannot be used as a suitable means of language unification in Taiwan.

This raised the issue that Mandarin was not spoken in Taiwan, as was also pointed out by Zheng Kunwu ᎄ‫ڷ‬ϖ (1885-1959). Even if vernacular writing proved simpler than Classical Chinese, the problem was that the Beijing vernacular (Mandarin baihuawen) was unknown to the Taiwanese. From an illiterate’s point of view, as was argued by Chen Fuquan (Tainan shimpŇ, 05/08/1925: 8), “the difference between a classical character, a Japanese kanji, a modern baihuawen, or a Taiwanese character would all be the same. It would only increase the burden of study, because it was not natural”. The arguments of the traditional literati were not just idle talk. On the contrary, they touched upon one of the fundamental issues in the transition from Classical Chinese to Mandarin baihuawen as the new literary language of Taiwan. The real everyday application was that Mandarin did not fulfil the ideal of the unification of the written and spoken language. Their arguments questioned the functionality of Mandarin baihuawen as a tool for cultural enhancement suited to the Taiwan context. Spoken Taiwanese derived its cultural prestige from the literary standard of Southern Min as a first among equals in the guanhua family. It was completely accepted that the language of widespread communication, as Joshua Fishmann (1972) uses this term, was Taiwanese, and on the same regional level as the Cantonese, Beijing and Shanghai dialectal varieties. As long as one could communicate in the same script, inferiority based on one’s mother tongue was not an issue. With Modern Chinese, this internal hierarchy drastically changed. As the new standard, the Beijing dialect assumed the position of a first among unequals. Because of the concept of yanwen yizhi, Taiwanese, Shanghainese and other provincials could freely communicate with one another, and were no longer hampered by having to resort to the written language in order to make themselves understood. Concurrent debates in the Republic about language standardization/unification favored a standardized form predisposed to a north-south compromise. More importantly, guanhua now assumed the most prestigious position in the language hierarchy. As a result, Taiwanese-language practices were considered inferior to both the Japanese and Chinese languages. This had come about in the process of trying to resolve language inadequacies through the implementation of a new standard. Following language unification, the Beijing dialect went from first among equals to first among unequals through its Ausbau. This widened the gap with others in the Chinese-speaking region, which were relegated to the status of variants or subdialects. Modern Chinese dethroned the moral authority of Classical Chinese. It localized the

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Spoken Dilemma

139

Taiwanese idiom as a local dialect. With the emergence of Modern Chinese as the new standard, Taiwanese became a dialect. Classical Chinese now being obsolete and outdated, only the koiné or mother tongue remained, but it lacked the cultural trappings and prestige associated with a standard language. Koiné and native dialect merged together and created the modern awareness of a local dialect lacking a written base. Not Japanese, but the rise of the new Chinese standard model created an awareness of the ineloquence of Taiwanese, its inadequacies, lacunae and deficiencies. Japanese superposition was responsible for the perception of inadequacy, and Modern Chinese created the inadequacies. And in so doing, the model of the standard language hit a sensitive nerve: the realization that the Chinese language spoken in Taiwan was a local dialect in the new hierarchy of Chinese linguistic culture. On top of the Japanese language, Modern Chinese super-superimposed, and left the Taiwanese people behind with no more than an unstandardized Taiwanese idiom: the only spoken mother tongue which, in view of standard-functions, was totally inadequate and no more than a subdialect. In August Zhang Wojun in “The meaning of the new literature movement” formulated a reply to those who questioned the functionality of Mandarin baihuawen in the Taiwan context (TWMP 67. 1925g: 19-21). Although Mandarin was not spoken in Taiwan, such was not a reason not to learn it and compose writings in Mandarin baihuawen. At this juncture, Zhang made the distinction between written reform and its relation to the spoken tongue. In other words, he suggested that being able to read and write in Mandarin baihuawen was of higher priority than speaking the language. Furthering national pride in the new national language (guoyu) of China entailed the construction of a national literature in guoyu. Because culture on Taiwan was inseparable from Chinese culture, Mandarin baihuawen should be taken as the model with which to reform the spoken language in Taiwan: Our speech of daily use, more or less has no written script. This is because our speech is a local dialect (fangyan) which has no script, and it makes it for a great deal that is not suitable. There is no doubt that it has no literary value. Therefore our New Literature movement has a duty to reform the Taiwan language. In changing our local dialect to a reasonable language, we must rely on the national language of China to reform the Taiwan local dialect. (TWMP 67. 1925g: 20-21)

This line of reasoning was not unusual. It tapped into the traditional mindset that ascribed to a diglossia in Chinese literacy practices. The practice of functional literacy continued into the colonial period. People spoke Taiwanese in daily life but adopted Japanese as the written language, a situation similar to the pre-colonial period when Classical Chinese was the written norm. From a socio-linguistic point of view, the popularity of Mandarin baihuawen drew on this tradition of language practice. Zhang Wojun was in favor of arranging the local dialect of Taiwan according to the Chinese version, but he did not give a concrete example of how to do so. As a

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

140

Mandarin Baihuawen

matter of fact, this was Zhang’s final article on the language debate. His subsequent publications were compositions in new literature, until he left Taiwan in 1927. Emphasis on contrasting vernacular writing with a living literature to wenyanwen, a dead language, created a venue to apply the same concept to writing Taiwanese literature. Literature became the matchmaker for the debate on creating a Taiwanese written language. The concept of a living literature encouraged others to put the ideal of standardization to practice and set to work to create a Taiwanese language, structurally and culturally inferior to none. One of these was Lai He ᒘ‫( ک‬Lai Ho 1894-1943). In an article in January 1926 called “A comparison between old and new literature in the Taiwanese-Japanese papers,” Lai wrote that the aim of the New Literature movement lay in combining the tongue and the pen: “If one wants to write down what one speaks, one has to improve the writing by making additions or deletions to give literature its beauty” (TWMP 69. 1926: 10-12). This was indeed a first reference underscoring that a living literature could not be detached from the spoken language. Lai He, who often wrote as Lai Yun ᒘ໦, was born in Zhanghua. He received traditional and modern schooling, graduating from a medical school. From February 1918 to April 1919 he practiced medicine in Xiamen, and it is believed that this stay further nurtured his interest in Classical Chinese. His participation in several classical poetry contests published by The Formosa mentioned his name among the top prize winners (Yang 1981: 97). His first venture into vernacular writing was free verse poetry, which he published from the mid-1920s onward in The Taiwan Minpao. If Lai He has been credited as the “father of Taiwanese vernacular writing” (Wang 1979: 400), it was because he actively experimented with the language and set the standardization cycle in motion. He put to use and demonstrated the requisite changes of form characteristic of elaboration and control in engineering the emergence of Written Taiwanese, which will be discussed in the following chapter. The Cultural Market The opening of bookstores and a limited number of literary journals incorporated Mandarin baihuawen into the cultural reform program of the Taiwan Cultural Association and created a literary public. The formation of a reading middle class developed out of this small elite group in society. Through access to literature in Modern Chinese, even on a limited scale, they could familiarize themselves with new literary forms, and through novels in translation, they gained a small understanding of social settings and intellectual changes in Western societies. As will be pointed out further, these foreign literary imports were to play an important role in the development of a Written Taiwanese movement in the 1930s. Not surprisingly, some of the core figures came from the literary circles described above. Publications from China often served as a source of inspiration. For instance, the 21 June edition of The Taiwan Minpao in 1925 ran an advertisement for the Zhengfa

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Cultural Market

141

yuekan (‘Zhengfa Monthly’ ࡹ‫ݤ‬Дт), a journal published by the Shanxi Law and Politics School (Shanxi zhengfa zhuanmen xuexiao ξՋࡹ‫ݤ‬஑ߐᏢਠ) (TWMP 3.8. 1925: 16). Another editorial, “Unreasonable interference of the Taiwan customs regarding imported books from China” drew attention to the unreasonable intervention of the customs on the import of books and newspapers from China (TWMP 59. 1925b: 1). The editorial argued that given the close cultural relationship between Taiwan and China, the elevation of Taiwan culture could not proceed without publications from China. The emphasis on the need for books and journals from China was partly to encourage the traditional elder literati to be more receptive to the new thought and refrain from a continuously “critical and insulting mentality,” as was mentioned in “The controversy over the non-gentlemen” in the journal’s column Notes (xiaoyan λ‫( )ق‬TWMP 64. 1925c: 7). But at the same time, the publishing industry in itself made its debut among the Taiwanese. In the middle of June 1926, Jiang Weishui opened the Cultural Bookstore (wenhua shuju Ўϯਜֽ) in Taipei, which sold new Japanese and Chinese books. Publicity for his bookstore appeared in the 15 July edition of the journal (TWMP 113. 1926: 16). The Taiwan Minpao subsequently announced the books for sale in his store. About one third of these were works on literature and education (TWMP 113. 1926: 16; TWMP 127. 1926: 10, TWMP 129. 1926: 4, TWMP 133. 1926: 16, TWMP 134. 126: 16). Included were Liang Qichao’s Encounter (Jinshi ߈Ш), Hu Shi’s Early Collection of Works (Wencun chuji ЎӸ߃໣) and Outline of the History of Chinese Philosophy (Zhongguo zhexueshi dagang ύ୯ণᏢўεᆜ), Zhang Jingsheng’s ஭ᝡғ(1888-1970) Concepts of Aesthetics (Mei de rensheng guan ऍ‫ޑ‬Γғᢀ), Zhang Taiyan’s കϼ‫( ݹ‬1869-1936) Outline of National Study (Guoxue gailun ୯Ꮲཷፕ), Liang Shuming’s The Cultures of East and West and their Philosophy (Dongxi wenhua ji qi zhexue ܿՋЎϯϷ‫ځ‬ণᏢ), Wu Zhihui’s ֆ࿧ ཧ (1864-1953) Encounter (Jinshi ߈Ш) and Complete Works of Wang Yangming (Wang Yangming quanshu Ц໚ܴӄਜ). The educational works were Popular Thousand Character Textbook (Pingmin qianzike ѳ҇ίӷፐ), Guowen Reader (Guowen duben ୯ҁ᠐ҁ), Selection of Chinese Poetry (Zhongguo shixuan ύ୯၃ᒧ), Sources of Ancient Poetry (Gushiyuan ђ၃ྍ), Explanation of the Analects (Lunyu huajie ፕᇟ၉ှ), New Character Dictionary (Xin zidian ཥ ӷ ‫) ڂ‬, The Origin of Phrases (Ciyuan ຒ ྍ ), New Culture Word Book (Xinwenhua cishu ཥЎϯᜏਜ), History of Chinese Culture (Zhongguo wenhuashi ύ୯Ўϯ ў), Collected Speeches of Famous People (Shijie mingren jiangyanji ШࣚӜΓᖱ‫ق‬໣), Eastern Archives (Dongfang wenku!ܿБЎ৤) and Eastern Culture (Dongfang wenhua ܿБЎϯ). The bookstore supplemented the Taiwan Culture Association’s cultural activities agenda, and supplied the association with literature for purposes of further research, lectures, or other means of introduction to Mandarin baihuawen. A second venture of the same kind was the Central Bookstore (Zhongyang shuju ύ ѧਜֽ), which was a part of the Central Club (Zhongyang julebu ύѧॿ኷೽). The original idea came from Lugang native Zhuang Chuisheng ಷࠟയ (1897-1962) who, during a trip in China in the spring of 1924, was captivated by the number of book-

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

142

Mandarin Baihuawen

stores in Shanghai. He made this trip after his graduation in Japan, first crossing over to Korea, then going to Beijing, eventually returning to Taiwan via Shanghai in the autumn of the year (Wu et al. 1971: 336). Shanghai at the time was in its golden days of publishing (Link 1981: 249-260). The Central Club provided a simple dining room, a guesthouse, a bookstore with reading section offering Chinese books and newspapers, a speech room, an entertainment room, and a conference room. It was designed to cater to all kinds of entertainment activities such as concerts, theater and cinema. The intention of the club was announced in the prospectus of 10 November 1925, and published the following month under the heading “Opening of the Central Club” (TWMP 85. 1925: 8). With the financial support of Lin Xiantang and Chen Xin, the plan was turned into a shareholding company, with a capital of 40,000 yen. Ye Rongzhong ယᄪដ (1900-1978) later wrote that one reason for its establishment was to counterbalance Jiang Weishui’s bookstore in Taipei (Wu et al. 1971: 336). Located in the city of Taizhong, the island’s intellectual center, the Central Club could provide entertainment facilities to the counties of Taizhong, Zhanghua and Nantou ࠄ‫׫‬. Within this context, it is not surprising that the 20 members who signed the prospectus were all members of the Taiwan Cultural Association living in the central part of Taiwan. The Central Club was officially established on 30 June 1926. During the openings ceremony, president, advisors and members were chosen (TWMP 114. 1926c: 7; Wu et al. 1971: 336; Lin 1993b: 166). The club did not start operating until January the next year. Reasons for the delay were most likely the filing procedures to obtain permission from the colonial administration. Moreover, its initial plan was reduced to the guesthouse and bookstore. The guesthouse did not attract many customers, because it was not at a convenient location. The bookstore did fine, and sold similar types of new books in Japanese and Chinese as the Cultural Bookstore in Taipei. Ye Rongzhong noted that of the two bookstores, the Central Bookstore was the biggest and most influential (Wu et al. 1971: 337). There was also Lian Yatang’s bookstore (Yatang shuju ໡୸ਜۚ), located in Taipei, established in the autumn of 1927 (Huang 1955: 80-82, Wu 2004: 253-257). Similar to the structure of the other two bookstores, it was a joint operation between Lian Yatang, Huang Panwan ໳ዐ࿤ and Zhang Weixian ஭䶭፣. Finally, a brief comment on the literary experimentation and achievements of vernacular writing is required. As observed by Jane Yang-Parish (1981: 88), the first experiments with short stories were an imitation of the romantic style of the early May Fourth literature. The content usually centered on a student going abroad for study or the choice of a partner who was not acceptable under the rigid family system. Examples were Shi Rongzhen’s ࡼᄪਁ work entitled “What is the final solution?” and a complete version of T.S.’s “Family complaint,” published about a year later in August 1924 (TWMB 1.7.: 14-15; TWMP 2.15.: 15-16). This story also dealt with an attack of the traditional social institutions in the name of preserving the integrity of the individual, and very accurately was labeled a “short story of Taiwan society” (Taiwan shehui

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Educational Debate

143

xiaoshuo ᆵ᡼‫཮ޗ‬λᇥ). The first short story “Who misled you?,” was sent in by Weng Zesheng from Xiamen. Although incomplete, it was written in a mixture of classical and vernacular styles, recording the patriotic awakening of a youth going to study abroad (TWMB 1.6. 1923: 13-14; Yang 1981: 80-82). There were fewer literary experimentations in poetry. Even Lai He’s poetry continued to be in the traditional verse, and some free verse (Yang 1981: 97-98). The first Mandarin baihuawen poetry magazine in Taiwan was called Renren (‘People Magazine’ ΓΓ). This was an initiative of Yang Yunping ླྀ໦๩ (1906-2000) and Jiang Mengbi Ԣფ฽. As a businessman, Jiang frequently travelled between Taiwan and China, and this provided him with the opportunity to purchase Chinese magazines and bring them into Taiwan (Zhang 1997: 68; Yang 1954: 50-55). The journal ran for only two issues. Other magazines noted were Xiaoshuo Ribao (‘Daily Novel’ λᇥВൔ ) and Dongfang Zazhi (‘Eastern Magazine’ ܿБᚇᇞ). Taking the literary achievements in their globality, the number of vernacular writings published in Taiwan was limited, as was their quality vis-à-vis the international standard. Furthering the Educational Debate With the establishment of the Taiwan Cultural Association and The Taiwan Minpao as its propaganda organ, the homefront mobilization movement furthered the work of Taiwan’s new destiny. One of the consequences of reading about the world was that the rising Taiwanese middle class began to picture their society in terms of class and struggle, with attention to the Taiwan peasants as a social class. Theories of socialism, highly critical of capitalist development and associated with Japanese rule, gained in popularity and formed the ideological underpinnings of social reform and political activism. The idea of setting up schools for the poor was part of this package. In 1922 Jiang Weishui suggested establishing a cultural school (wenhua yishu Ўϯက მ) for the poor with a curriculum that included Japanese and new Chinese textbooks. The effort was in vain. The school was not sanctioned by the colonial administration as Taiwanese were denied the right to set up private schools. A renewed attempt was undertaken in the spring of 1924, when the The Taiwan Minpao announced the establishment of “Banka Charity Private School Association” (Wanhua cihui yishu kaixue yihui ࿤๮ཁඁကმ໒Ꮲ᛬཮), to instruct children of the poor (TWMP 2.8. 1924b: 9). Whereas polemics on education in Tai Oan Chheng Lian and The Formosa in 1922 and 1923 considered the population as a whole, from the mid-1920s onward, the poor and illiterate lumped together under the convenient term “peasants,” were defined and singled out as a social class in need. As Jiang, writing as Xing ᒬ, noted in one editorial, they were the resources of Taiwanese society, hungry for knowledge and culture (TWMP 2.7. 1924: 1). Within the colonialist system, this class in particular was the most underprivileged, and also the least receptive to the benefits of endowing their children with a proper education. If the colonial authorities were not helping the situation – which they were

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

144

Mandarin Baihuawen

not – it was the task of local community leaders to take up the responsibility, especially in rural areas. The problem of illiteracy among young and old was perceived as being far more serious and extended beyond the contours of social education. Taiwanese society was in need of a popular instruction movement (pingmin jiaoyu yundong ѳ҇௲‫ػ‬ၮ୏) to compensate for the shortcomings of Japanese schooling. Inspiration came from similar attempts in rural and remote areas of China, and was aimed at bringing about the same effect in Taiwan. In July 1925, Cai Qingtan ጰమ዇ writing from Xiamen commented on the success of the popular instruction (pingmin jiaoyu ѳ҇௲‫ )ػ‬in every region of China (TWMP 62. 1925: 13). Another article published in December gave the example of general Feng Yuxiang ໱ҏ౺(1882-1948) who, in northwest China, advocated popular instruction (TWMP 83. 1925k: 5). Chinese-designed textbooks, such as the Popular Thousand Character Textbook (pingmin qianzike ѳ҇ίӷፐ), offered a more appropriate solution for dealing with everyday vocabulary acquisition. The leading article defending at all costs the Chinese textbook was published in August 1925. Nan Jiang ࠄԢ devoted three pages to an essay entitled “Advocating the education of Taiwan boys and girls who lack education.” The article showed how the Chinese popular-instruction movement and its textbook could provide an example for the improvement of education in Taiwan (TWMP 67. 1925: 26-30). It seemed that at last a textbook had been found that would not only remedy all existing educational problems, but would, moreover, merge ideology with practical implementation in conjunction with Japanese educational policy at the official level. Making use of a Mandarin textbook in colonial education would be a recognition and legitimization of Modern Chinese as the legitimate successor of Classical Chinese and would lift the Chinese language out of its peripheral status vis-à-vis Japanese. Within the Taiwan context, the Mandarin textbook had another advantage. In 1922, the colonial administration had issued a revised version of the Common Schools Chinese-language readers (Wang 1995: 135). Instead of systematically introducing each new character based on a rote learning method, the new textbooks grouped new characters together in sets of phrases. The vocabulary was also more adapted to everyday life, and the order in which characters were taught was stroke-determined, with characters of greater complexity being introduced gradually. A final distinction was that the new textbooks had 259 fewer characters, reduced to a total of 536. This reorganization of the style confused both students and teachers. (Wang 1995: 137) Wang Minchuan nuanced his demands for educational reform, and launched a plea for primary education in Taiwanese for all courses other than those of Japanese-language instruction. In the lengthy article, “On improving Common School education,” he gave a detailed outline of what he considered a balanced division of the languages of instruction in the Common Schools (TWMP 2.22. 1925: 5-6). Instruction up to the fourth grade should be in Taiwanese (taiwanhua Ѡ᡼၉) and would be best taught by a Taiwanese. If a Japanese teacher was willing to instruct the lower grades, he advised him to study the Taiwanese language and pay visits to the families of the children

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Educational Debate

145

(TWMP 2.22. 1925: 6). For the fifth and sixth grades, a Japanese teacher instructing in Japanese was appropriate, because at that stage “the child’s brain was gradually developing and becoming more familiar with the Japanese language” (TWMP 2.22. 1925: 6). But Wang did not go so far as to consider Taiwanese the equal of Chinese-language instruction. In his brief interrogation on the so-called “local specificity,” he compared Taiwan with Korea, and noted that if the Korean schools were teaching the Korean language, then Taiwanese schools should make the hanwen course compulsory again (TWMP 2.22. 1925: 6). Wang did not elaborate on which textbooks to use. In particular in the countryside, explanation in Taiwanese was still necessary. The situation in the countryside was different from that in the cities. As noted in one article on the effectiveness of education in the countryside Common Schools, most children did not continue past the third or fourth grade. The number enrolling in higher education was almost negligible, since most would continue to work in farming. Instruction in Japanese had a doubly negative effect. First, the children did not understand the content of instruction. Second, they lost all interest in studying. As such, the limited Japanese they had acquired was soon forgotten, and so were their chances of leaving the farming world. To alter this situation, it was suggested in the article that more emphasis be put on bilingual instruction, that the textbook material be adapted to the conditions in the countryside, and that local Taiwanese communities take a greater part in school management (TWMP 78. 1925e: 3; TWMP 81. 1925j: 2-4). One article entitled “Straightening out unreasonable teachers” (TWMP 100. 1926a: 3) elaborated on why instruction in hanwen was so problematic. It noted that even among the teachers, there were quite a few whose knowledge of hanwen was limited. This was especially the case for teachers who were Common School graduates. Given the importance of hanwen in society, the writer suggested that the colonial administration improve the training of the teachers and change the content of the textbooks, which were outdated. He hoped that the colonial administration would consider using the Chinese Popular Thousand Character Textbook to compile a new textbook more suited to the needs of the time (TWMP 100. 1926a: 3). In a following article “The urgency in setting up popular education” (TWMP 103. 1926b: 3-4), the Popular Thousand Character Textbook was also considered as an appropriate textbook to make the average population receptive to the benefits of modern schooling. Despite the Japanese efforts, very little had been achieved to convince the general population of its benefits. This attitude was reinforced by the discriminative and segregated nature of education. As a consequence, the traditional idea that education was a prerequisite to entering the government bureaucracy was still prevalent in society. The advantage of the Chinese textbook was that it emphasized Chinese-character learning on a popular basis, unlike the ones compiled by the colonial administration. Instruction in elementary reading and writing skills would take about six months. Night classes could be arranged in the temples, lasting about two hours, but no longer. The participation of schoolteachers and the literate community would be welcomed.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

146

Mandarin Baihuawen

To make the instruction effective, it was suggested that classes be kept small. The initiative was not limited to basic character learning. A second kind of adult-learning organized as study groups or through lectures would keep the students interested and improve their reading abilities. Other suggestions were welcomed and it was anticipated that the local administration be sensitive to these (TWMP 103. 1926b: 3). Use of these textbooks would also offer a solution to the predominance of kanbun, fuelling demands for reinstatement of hanwen courses. Student representatives or local parent societies started petitioning the local authorities to reinstate hanwen in the Common Schools (TWMP 3.6. 1925a: 5). These actions proved successful at Common Schools in Taoyuan, Nantou and Taizhong in 1925 (TWMP 74. 1925d: 5-6, TWNNSP 8891. 1925a: 4; TWNNSP 8937. 1925b: 4). Another format was the creation of hanwen evening classes to supplement the inadequate hanwen instruction in the Common Schools and/or shobŇ. These night classes were not limited to students, but welcomed anyone. For example, every evening the Nantou Study Association (Nantou shixiuhui ࠄ‫׫‬ჴঅ཮) held three-hour classes in hanwen, Japanese, Chinese history, geography, arithmetic and character-writing (TWMP 2.11. 1924c: 3). To judge from the article, the study club must have been rather well known, because it drew students from the Taichş Middle School, and the several vocational schools located in Taizhong (TWMP 2.11. 1924c: 3). Two others were the night classes in Shulin!ᐋ݅ and Xinzhu (TWMP 79. 1925f: 9; TWMP 80. 1925g: 7). Demands to reform the teaching material of shobŇ were not purely a matter of exchanging Chinese Classics for a Mandarin baihuawen textbook in support of the popular education movement in China. The underlying reason was that increasingly the hanwen course was taught in the Japanese on-reading. In other words, children were reading Classical Chinese texts in the Sino-Japanese pronunciation, which was not only incomprehensible but also simply not considered “Chinese.” The incomprehensible aspect stemmed from the fact that the hanwen course was taught in a Japanese manner, making use of Japanese grammatical symbols, as was the case of kanbun instruction in Japan. Many were sent to the shobŇ for instruction in the Southern Min pronunciation, or for explanation of the contents of the Chinese Classics. In the traditional mindset, the most appropriate of these shobŇ were the ones whose teachers were traditional literati. These were also the shobŇ that retained their traditional characteristics as institutions of Chinese learning. As one commentary “Instructors of hanwen in the Common Schools and the old-style shobŇ in Taiwan” (TWMP 147. 1927: 3) explained: “The method of teaching in these shobŇ consists of rote learning and recitation, using the Four Books, Five Classics and other selections of various ancient Confucian philosophers.” But students are no longer used to this method of instruction, and are often incapable of understanding the content of these ancient works (TWMP 147. 1927: 3). Increasingly, graduates were taught in shobŇ which were more in conformity with the standards of the Common Schools. Additional comments were made on the hygiene of the school and the learning environment (TWMP 147. 1927: 3).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Educational Debate

147

Mandarin baihuawen proved the perfect foil to the twin evils of enforced kanbun instruction and outdated Chinese teaching methods: All of China more or less propagates the use of this baihua writing, and this is the material of schoolbooks… because baihuawen is easy to study and write one’s thoughts in, Taiwanese should choose material in baihuawen when they wish to study hanwen; only then can it be appropriately used (TWMP 147. 1927: 4).

But, the question remains to what extent the pronunciation in Mandarin was instructed as well. Most of the articles concerned proposals and aspirations. No specific attention was paid to the fact that these works were written in Beijing/Peking Mandarin. At this point, the contemporary understanding of hanwen representing the ancient culture (guyou wenhua ‫ڰ‬ԖЎϯ) did not extend beyond the domain of proper writing and a correct literary pronunciation in Southern Min. One example to illustrate this point is Qin Yuan’s ؆༜ initiative for a Correct Reading and Writing Class (wenzi xiaokanhui Ўӷਠ୎཮) at Lugang. Throughout 1925, Qin contributed to the journal several wordlists on instructing the correct pronunciation and writing form of characters (TWMP 60. 1925a: 14-15; TWMP 61. 1925b: 14-15; TWMP 72. 1925c: 12-13; TWMP 75. 1925d: 13). The educational material in Mandarin baihuawen was taken as a starting point to modernize instruction in hanwen. Emphasis was on acquiring the written style, not the spoken form. Are we then to assume that no consideration was given to the correct pronunciation of Mandarin? There were occasions on which it was taught, and as Wu Wen-hsing (1992: 340) and Hanren 1978: 105-06) pointed out, lectures in the Beijing pronunciation (Beijinghua) sprang up throughout the island, particularly in the larger cities. However, in the general picture on the discussion of hanwen in the 1920s, the pronunciation of Mandarin baihuawen was secondary to the more dramatic developments of a new written literary style. As such, the traditional concept that the written form had priority over the spoken form obviously still prevailed. Moreover, Mandarin baihuawen reading groups often involved the participation of Chinese or returned students from China, and were subjected to police interference. The colonial administration adopted an ambivalent attitude to the demands for a reinstitution of hanwen in education. In general, the hanwen classes were allowed to start again, but it did not evoke changes in the Education Decree. If reinstated, it was applicable under the condition “according to local needs.” Some officials did acknowledge this. For instance, Shimishichi Matsuyama ݊ξⅯΎ (1926: 104) noted that an education based on Japanese-language instruction only was not possible in Taiwan. Therefore, he did not think it strange that hanwen be made compulsory in the schools. The decision on whether Common Schools could reinstate hanwen courses often depended on the relationship between the local administration, the influence of the Japanese community, and the township elders. Reasons for the revival can be ascribed to the limitations of the Common School curriculum in the eyes of the Taiwanese, reflecting student inability to function as pro-

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

148

Mandarin Baihuawen

ductive members of society after graduation. A general complaint heard from parents at local townships meetings was that Common School graduates were incapable of pursuing higher education because of their insufficient knowledge of hanwen (TWMP 87. 1926: 3-4). The complaint revealed that Common School hanwen courses failed to meet the needs of society. Without explicitly mentioning what these “needs” were, we can yet infer that hanwen was to a great extent part of daily life. Traditional customs were still widely practiced, and often required a particular knowledge of hanwen. However, a prevalent reason was the decrease of a general command of basic vocabulary in written Chinese, the subject matter in the traditional schools. The demands to replace these materials with textbooks in Mandarin baihuawen shed light on what Japanese instruction in hanwen had become. Conclusion The literary changes in China following the Literary Revolution found their way into Taiwan. Its most ardent supporters were Taiwanese who had traveled to China and observed the impact of language reform in society and education. The introduction of Mandarin baihuawen was an integral part in the program for cultural enhancement. Its aim was to further nurture societal self-knowledge that could be incorporated into the political sphere, and act as a basis of resistance against the structural and cultural inequalities maintained by the colonial authorities. Proponents of Mandarin baihuawen aimed at achieving the transition from a traditional cultural approach to literacy to a modern one. The new national language in China had been standardized through the introduction of a dictionary and textbook material. This achievement provided a basis for pursuing the sustained use of hanwen in colonial society, and drew attention to language as an effective means to respond to new social needs. The literary and linguistic values of Mandarin baihuawen were presented as universals, based on the belief that Taiwan and China shared a collective memory. The association between literacy in Mandarin baihuawen and growth of knowledge created a literary public that used vernacular literature as a source of inspiration in the search for new ideological tools with which to support programs of cultural and political reform. Furthermore, it provided common ground for continued educational reform, in particular demands for the use and reform of Chinese language instruction. Nonetheless, the association between literacy in Mandarin baihuawen and growth of knowledge touched upon some fundamental problems in the Taiwanese setting. The troublesome point in the ideal of introducing Mandarin baihuawen was not so much the literary values presented as universals, but its linguistic values. The Chinese language, as an expression of Chinese cultural identity, had taken on a new dress but not a new mindset. It launched the quest for a literary medium approximating a syntax and grammar in conformity with a continuity of Chinese culture and tradition in Taiwan. The language debate, which in the mid-1920s arose in the social context of the anticolonialist discourse critical of the inequality of Japanese colonial practices and policy-

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Conclusion

149

making, was no longer considered an option. Through The Taiwan Minpao, which had adopted Mandarin as its sole language of publication, the cultural avant-garde had created their niche of cultural resistance and furthered the confrontational dialogue with the colonial authorities by exposing biased news coverage in the local Japaneserun newspapers. At the same time, the existence of a Chinese language press for the Taiwanese expanded the printed literary culture and set up journals solely devoted to discussing literature and language. Having the option to write about literature in the new standard and with a forum of expression also put new ideas into circulation. The call for creating a written form of Taiwanese is framed in this context, and discussed in the next chapter. The increasing popularity of socialist rhetoric from the mid-1920s onward in both China and Japan generated further developments in Taiwan colonial society. These trends were also reflected in the literary circles, and precipitated a discussion on cultural enhancement that focussed narrowly on Taiwan as a distinct cultural entity. Leftwing writers and activists elaborated the ideal of a “nativist literature,” and created a new framework to answer the needs of the new social classes that had emerged with the economic restructuring and development of colonial society. This forms the starting-point of the next chapter, which shall focus on the discourse of language in defining Taiwanese cultural enhancement in relationship to the Chinese culture and its language.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Chapter 5 The Written Taiwanese Movement Introduction The language debate took off again in the late 1920s. Known as the Written Taiwanese movement (taiwanhuawen yundong Ѡ᡼၉Ўၮ୏), it focused on creating a written form of Taiwanese (T. tâi-ôan-Ňe-bûn, taiwanhuawen) out of its spoken vernacular (T. tâiôan-Ňe, taiwanhua).1 This attempt was situated in between an increased acculturation to the Japanese culture repertoire and the consequences of the debate over the adequacy of Mandarin baihuawen in the Taiwan colony. Scholarship concerned with the ascendancy of Taiwanese identity formation during the colonial period has linked these linguistic reforms for the creation of a written form of Taiwanese to the popularity of nativist literature (xiangtu wenxue ໂβЎᏢ) and the influence of socialism in literary circles (Hsiau 2000). The literary trends of socialist realism, proletarian literature and nativist literature provided the social context in which the literary scene in colonial Taiwan wrote into. Even if suppression of the leftwing genealogy in the homefront mobilization movement remained dominant, A-chin Hsiau (2000) correctly observed that socialism continued to be influential in literacy circles. This chapter examines the emergence of a Written Taiwanese movement not only as a result of the popularity of nativist literature but also as a consequence of the interplay of two other internal dynamics embedded in Taiwan’s linguistic-cultural reality. The 1930s language debate stemmed from a realization that the linguistic code of the Mandarin literary norm was inadequate for the planned repertoire of cultural advancement. The degree to which the elaboration of Mandarin as the new Chinese standard in Taiwanese literary culture could yield similar results to those occurring in Republican China was questioned. The new rising standard of the Chinese language as a linguistic model to aspire toward proved inadequate for the culture it was expected to express, despite the rhetoric of ethnic-racial Han affiliation between Chinese and Taiwanese. Nativist literature rapidly became a powerful focus of allegiance among the 1930s cultural avant-garde due to a coupling of political aspirations to the social function of literature and the cultural symbolism of that language. But as will be shown, nativist literature was not the only matchmaker in this process of raising Taiwanese language consciousness. Under the general umbrella of folklore, the spoken mother tongue was the primary and therefore real language of a speaker, claiming authenticity and moral significance, and satisfying a deeper quest for a rooted sense of identity. It is indeed remarkable that scholars consider the collection of 1

Throughout this chapter written Taiwanese will be used interchangeably with taiwanhuaswen, spoken Taiwanese with taiwanhua.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

152

Written Taiwanese

folksongs in the Written Taiwanese movement but do not venture into a discussion of its political significance. Finally, this chapter will demonstrate that the concept of language unification  the theory behind the practice of social-conscious, proletarian and nativist literary experimentation  proved a much more complex issue than it was presented on paper in leftwing journals. The Future of the Taiwanese Language Central to the thought of the late 1920s and early 1930s polemics concerned with the creation of Written Taiwanese was the idea of writing down the mother tongue and, in so doing, battle the problem of widespread illiteracy in Taiwanese society, which was one of the reasons keeping the people ignorant and fostering a backward mentality. It was not a novel idea. As shown in Chapter 3, Cai Peihuo had adopted the model of Church Romanization using the spoken tongue to evoke social change. Proponents of Mandarin baihuawen were inspired likewise and opted for the republican Chinese model of language reform. Early polemics on the new literary norm were cloaked in a socialist rhetoric, whereby the emphasis was not on addressing the inequalities in Japanese policies of linguistic colonialism but on persuading the Chinese literate public in Taiwan that the Chinese language canon was no longer equipped to address the needs of modern life and adapt itself to the spirit of the times. Said otherwise, promoting the new genres of social realism and proletarian literature, even suggesting the appropriation of a Mandarin textbook, were weighed against the measures of an outdated Classical Chinese repertoire in literary culture and educational policies. Exposing the ineloquence and inadequacies of the Chinese literary canon and language, and educating themselves first in the new rising Mandarin baihuawen standard, prevailed. The dialogue with the Japanese colonial authorities in terms of demanding equality, and questioning the colonial language policy in practice in Taiwan, had transformed itself into a different manner of confronting the power holders. Through the journal The Taiwan Minpao which adopted Mandarin as its language of written communication, the Taiwanese text-producing, cultural avant-garde pushed the Chinese culture repertoire back into the center. This enabled them to confront the Japanese power holders on a different level when questioning colonial language practices. The Taiwanese language debate was not initiated by the literary circles, but it was the literary circles which gave the promotion of the mother tongue as medium of communication a context. The push came from the leftwing political circles in the homefront mobilization movement. Playing the mother tongue card was one of the options deemed suitable to enlarge their audience. Since the mid-1920s core members of the Taiwanese leftwing had been participating full-heartedly in the language debate, voicing their critique on Japanese language policies supported by the Japanese anti-colonialist discourse. Despite the popularity of Mandarin baihuawen, which caught on because of its non-linguistic factors – that is, the power of Chinese nationalism – leftwing Taiwanese, in particular those who had been Japan-educated, like Wang Minchuan, continued to draw atten-

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Future of Taiwanese

153

tion to the usefulness and indispensability of co-existence of the mother tongue in education. Another proponent was Lian Wenqing ೱྕঙ (1895-1957), who joined the steering committee of the Taiwanese leftwing after 1927. Lian’s linguistic activism illustrates the mode of thinking for why the late 1920s and early 1930s language polemics became predisposed to the Taiwanese language. The context in which he phrased his arguments was the same as that of Huang Chengcong, Huang Chaoqin, Cai Peihuo and Wang Minchuan. Lian, however, did have a foot up in the language domain; he was an Esperantist. At the age of 18, Lian had joined the “Taiwan ESP Study Group” (Taiwan ESP xuehui ᆵ᡼ ESP Ꮲ཮) or the Taiwan branch office of the Japanese Esperanto Society (JEA Nihon esuperanto kyŇkai JEA Вҁࠛ嗚嗻嘊嘔嗩‫)཮ڐ‬, which had been set up in 1913 by Kodama ShirŇ 㝺ҏѤ॔ (?-1946). In 1919, Lian became the editor-in-chief of its journal, Verda Ombro (‘The Green Shadow’ ᆘጬ), and took over the leadership together with Su Bihui ᝵ᘫ፵ (?-1937) later on. Through his engagement in the Esperanto Society, Lian became exposed to the tenets of socialist thought. In 1923, after a failed venture to set up a “Research Society for Social Problems,” Lian, together with Jiang Weishui and Wang Minchuan, committed himself as one of the founding members of the “Taipei Youth Society” (Taibei qingnianhui J. Taihoku seinenkai ᆵчߙԃ཮) under the auspices of the Taiwan Cultural Association (Lian 1953: 6873). At the Esperanto Club he became friends with Yamaguchi Koshizu ξαλᓉ (1923-2000). This friendship continued when Koshizu returned to Japan to pursue higher education. So, when in 1924 Lian visited Japan to participate in the Tokyo Esperanto meeting, Koshizu introduced him to Yamakawa Hitoshi ξο֡ (1880-1958). Yamakawa was one of the leading figures in the development of interwar Japanese socialism (Swift 1970). The meeting between Lian and Yamakawa meant the start of a correspondence. In May, Lian presented a lecture at Keio University (Keio daigaku ቼ ᔈεᏢ) in which he reflected on the policies of colonial language planning in the colony. Following his return to Taiwan, Lian published the lecture in The Taiwan Minpao of October 1924 entitled “The social characteristics of language” (TWMP 2.19. 1924a: 13-14). Language offered a spectrum which enabled Lian to touch on the shortcomings of the theory in Taiwanese-Japanese practice. Central to his thought was the critical interrogation of Japanese assimilation policies at work. Lian focused on the Taiwanese language, as this was not only closest to the people’s hearts but also the most appropriate example in theoretical discussion viewing language as a social construct. In retrospect, his articles of the mid-1920s published in The Taiwan Minpao provided a blueprint for the language issue which would come to dominate the 1930s polemics. Lian started from an argument that language was not a static given but a social construct and prone to changes overtime. He illustrated this with the example of the loanword “magic,” spelled as majike (嗿嗥嗢) in kana syllabary. “Magic” did not have a Japanese origin. It was the imitation of a Western concept, had been borrowed after Japan and the West had made contact, and was assimilated into the Japanese language.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

154

Written Taiwanese

A similar process could be seen at work in the Taiwanese language (Taiwan yuyan ᆵ᡼ ᇟ‫)ق‬. Lian spelled out that the Taiwanese appropriation of the Japanese loanword magic could be substituted with the Taiwanese môź-sƽt (଎η), because its original meaning “lost” or “a lost child” was no longer used in the Taiwanese lexicon. Therefore, it was more appropriate than the Mandarin baihuawen equivalent mayueyige (ഞऊ Ҳঢ). Still, Lian did not venture into a critical questioning on the elaboration of the Mandarin code in the Taiwanese socio-linguistic context, but shifted to the Japanese discourse and drew the focus of attention to defining language in relation to nationbuilding. From the moment that “sound” was used as a means of communication for defining things between two different social groups, the status of “language” was acquired. Based on this thought, Lian argued that the origins of language and those of a nation (minzoku Ch. minzu ҇௼) were the same. Language acquired a social role from the moment that the group of its speakers started to diversify into clans (kazoku Ch. jiazu ৎ௼), localities (chihŇ Ch. difang ӦБ) and nations. Consequently, the operational scope of language and the economic structure of these communities expanded as well, resulting in the present day pluralistic societies and multilingualism (TWMP 2.19. 1924a: 13). Inspired by Dr. Nitobe InazŇ’s ཥ෠㛍㿻೷ (1862-1933) speech at the League of Nations, Lian put the Japanese colonial language policy and its implementation under scrutiny. According to Lian’s interpretation of Nitobe’s reading, language conflicts were intrinsically related to the nation-state concept. In political thinking of that time the concept of state (kokka Ch. guojia ୯ৎ) and nation, minzoku were considered one and the same. Conflating the Taiwan nation with the Japanese nation-state ideal had forced Taiwanese people to speak the language of the Japanese state. This practice translated into language imposition, a characteristic of imperialism practiced worldwide. Colonial language planning policies were not about forcing Taiwanese to speak Japanese because the latter refused to learn and speak it, but to satisfy the expansionist drives of the Japanese empire. This translated into the practice of Japanese language imposition on the Chinese language. Hence, it was no use treating the Chinese-Japanese language conflict in Taiwan as a “national sentiment” problem (minzoku kanjŇ Ch. minzu ganqing ҇௼ག௃), assuming that it was just a matter of time before the Taiwanese would embrace Japanese language superiority, but to see it as a socially constructed issue (TWMP 2.19. 1924a: 14). The sequel to Lian’s theorizing on colonial language planning policy appeared in the following three issues. In “The future of the Taiwanese language,” Lian used three times as many words expounding his ideas on sociolinguistics (TWMP 2.20. 1924b: 11-12; TWMP 2.21. 1924c: 14; TWMP 3.4. 1925: 14-15). In the first essay, he built his argument on the evolution of language. Speech came first, and its sounds formed a language when used as a vehicle for communicating with others. The next step was the invention of a script, by which it was possible to write down thoughts and ideas as society progressed. By virtue of the script, people could know the past and create the

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Future of Taiwanese

155

future. Therefore, in moments of social change, as in times of revolution, speech and script were bound to change as well (TWMP 2.20. 1924b: 11). Accordingly, changes in Taiwanese society had had a deep impact on its spoken and written language. In other words, the Taiwanese language of the present differed from the past, and Lian strongly urged reforming the Taiwanese language. In the second essay, Lian put these social changes into a global perspective. He believed that the end of World War I would positively affect the language problems of poor and weak nations. He appeared particularly inspired by the example of native language instruction in Hawaii as a means of gaining self-respect (TWMP 2.21. 1924c: 14). Interestingly, Lian turned the discourse on language in the Japanese colonialist understanding around, and juxtaposed claims for Taiwanese language instruction in the colony with similar claims for Japanese language instruction in Hawaiian communities with Japanese residents.2 The third essay elaborated on the potential of the Taiwanese language to change. Of immediate interest was his understanding of the language: Taiwan’s inhabitants consist of Quanzhou people, Zhangzhou people, and Hakka people. The pronunciation is different for each speech. In translating a new word, the Quan[zhou] people use the Quan pronunciation, the Zhang[zhou] people, the Zhang pronunciation, the Hakka people the Hakka pronunciation, thus a new word changes three times. Moreover, Taiwan is an isolated island in the sea. Although its inhabitants have hailed from China, differences in climate and customs have also affected their pronunciation. Similarly, translating a new term in the north or the south of China does not always result in the same word (TWMP 3.4. 1925: 14).

By means of example, he listed the word “father” and “two” in several different languages. His major complaint was that, in spite of Taiwanese material progress made over the past decades, with the exception of a few new words, in general Taiwanese language change was lagging far behind. Lian compared it to “the hanwen of an adult who could barely read” (TWMP 3.4. 1925: 15). His suggestions for reforming the Taiwanese language took the spoken form as its basis. The first priority was a study of the phonology to single out borrowed words; the second, the standardizing of pronunciation; and third, the establishment of a grammar (TWMP 3.4. 1925: 15). He felt very strongly about misconceptions among the Taiwanese regarding the idea that Taiwanese had no grammar, and he added a list of basic grammar rules with examples. This very much reflected the Western style grammar formulas such as “I go, you write, he reads.” Not surprisingly, this was also the manner in which Japanese was taught in Common Schools (TWMP 3.4. 1925: 15). Because of his involvement in the Esperanto movement, Lian’s ideas on the Taiwanese language, like those of Cai Peihuo, may well have been frowned upon. At the 2

Japanese migration to Hawaii and interpretations of assimilation policy on the integration of Japanese people in Hawaii was one of the topics of discussion in the Japanese press and intellectual circles. It was also one of the comparative examples that Japanese supportive of the Taiwanese cause referred to in their contributions on education to the TOCL.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

156

Written Taiwanese

time, his ideas did not evoke an immediate response, however. Zhang Wojun, whose writings were more powerful, argued that Mandarin baihuawen and Taiwanese language reform could not gain ground as long as literary culture was still mediated in Classical Chinese. Nonetheless, Lian’s ideas illustrated the trend in language theorizing that continued to persist in the 1930s. Socialist rhetoric was particularly susceptible to the idea that the mother tongue had great potential for bringing about change. The folklore movement offered an immediate context in which to make the search for language data socially acceptable; at the same time it allowed for tapping into the Japanese colonialist discourse which was predisposed to assuring its continuity of Taiwanese repertoire building. His peers, Huang Shihui ໳ҡ፵ (1900-1945), Guo Qiusheng ೾ࣿғ(1904-1980) and Ye Rongzhong, were to politicize these ideas through the medium of nativist literature, folklore and authenticity. Taiwanese Aspirations The Japanese socialist voice in Taiwan was heard in the spirit of Taiwanese students returning from Japan as well as those people who visited Japan frequently. The leftwing discourse in The Taiwan Minpao furthered the socialist rhetoric of battling illiteracy and promoting popular education (pingmin jiaoyu). Meanwhile, a new vanguard of leftwing activists dared publish political manifestos centralizing the entity of Taiwan. Huang Shihui was one of the 16 cadres who staffed the 2 January 1927 meeting at which leftists took over the Taiwan Cultural Association. Huang was chosen as one of the Association’s new directors and central executive committee members. Together with Lian Wenqing and Zheng Minglu ᎄܴ࿢, he was responsible for creating the propaganda for this reorganized political association. According to Douglas Fix (1998: 7), Huang’s literary manifesto of 1930 clearly illustrated his endowment to the leftist genealogy. In August in his article “Why not advocate nativist literature?” published in Wurenbao (ҴΓൔ) Huang (1930, cited in Liao 1955: 99) wrote: You are Taiwanese. On your head you wear a Taiwanese sky/Heaven. Your feet walk on Taiwanese soil. What you see are the Taiwanese conditions. What you hear is Taiwanese news. The time that is recorded is Taiwanese experience(s). What you speak is [the] Taiwanese language(s). Therefore, that powerful and talented pen of yours, that budding and productive, brilliant pen, should also write Taiwanese literature.3

Two years later, Ye Rongzhong, editor-in-chief of the literary magazine Nanyin (‘The Southern Voice’ ࠄॣ), encouraged the creation of a “literature and art of the masses” (dazhong wenyi ε౲Ў᛬) with fundamental Taiwanese characteristics. Ye preferred to call it “third literature” (disan wenxue ಃΟЎᏢ). In the preface to the 1932 article “Promoting third literature,” he wrote: “Third literature” seeks to plant its feet in this character of the entire collective in order to portray liberation, demands, feelings and life shared by the whole collective, the Taiwanese 3

The translation is taken from Douglas Fix (1998: 7).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Taiwanese Aspirations

157

people. Thus, “third literature” must plant its feet on Taiwan’s soil; above its head must be Taiwan’s blue sky. It should not imitate nor depend on [temporary] fads; [rather] it must be created from Taiwanese flesh and blood. Only this kind of literature can possess complete liberty and complete equality, and only thus can one progress a step further and present it to the literary circles of the world.

These two extracts have often been quoted as manifesting the development of a distinct Taiwanese identity (Hsiau 2000: 40, 43-44). But whereas Huang advocated a literature written in Taiwanese, Ye focused more on the construction of a literature reflecting the unique culture and consciousness of the Taiwanese people shaped by the particular cultural and social conditions of the island (Ye 1932: preface). Furthermore, in the literature discourse, Huang Shihui’s passage “You are Taiwanese…What you speak is [the] Taiwanese language(s)” has become the accepted trope for the nationalist discourse that centralizes the correlation of a nativist literature in the mother tongue (Liao 1955: 99). Huang and Ye were both inspired by the imported literary form of “nativist literature” that was particularly popular in Japan and China throughout the 1920s. Taiwanese understanding of nativist literature was colored by its colonial status and should not be confused or treated as equivalent to the mass language or regional style movements that took place in China. But unlike these regional speech movements, the debate on nativist literature in Taiwan portrayed an intellectual selfreflection on Taiwanese language modernization extending beyond the literary realm. Present research on the regional speech literature in China mentions in particular the late 1930s and 1940s, whereas in Taiwan it followed almost directly after the introduction of the Mandarin baihuawen movement, and took place from the end of the 1920s through the mid-1930s (Gunn 1991: 42). By 1934, tentative results had become visible, and the ideological discussion had reached its climax. The rise in popularity of regional speech literature in China after the mid-1930s renewed a similar interest in Taiwan, but this was short-lived. In China, advocates for a mass language, using a speech-based literary style that was distinct from baihuawen, were particularly active in north and northwest China. Their motives for employing regional speech in writing were in an attempt to counter the inadequate attempts of Mandarin baihuawen to promote literacy and literature among the working classes. Arguments for and against a regional literature were often portrayed against the background that the usage of China’s national language, guoyu tended to perpetuate the old division between speech and writing (Gunn 1991: 37). Although these arguments were seconded by Huang Shihui, he wrote that a vernacular literature based on Mandarin baihuawen in Taiwan would remain an “aristocratic literature developed and enjoyed exclusively by a small intellectual elite” (cited in Liao 1955: 99). The ideological nuances were different in China. Regional literature did not challenge the authority of Mandarin in the schools. Northwest Chinese did not need to be enlightened through literature in their spoken tongue (dialect) to become conscious of

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

158

Written Taiwanese

the fact that they were Chinese. Taiwanese people, on the other hand, did see a need for that kind of realization. The question of whether the illiterate masses would actually show any interest in learning how to read Taiwanese nativist literature was beside the point. The concept of the masses was as a matter of fact presented, if not created, for the small group of intellectuals to legitimize their own literary endeavours and consolidate their middleness position in the local community. They were in need of a broader social basis to consolidate their position as new social leaders, however. In view of this, the notion of “curing the sickness of illiteracy” (yi wenmang bingzheng ᙴЎ‫ )ੱੰޓ‬acted as a prominent element in the movement to elevate Taiwan culture in the 1930s. If socialism could cure the social evils of the times, the sickness of illiteracy raised two issues: Japanese functional literacy and Chinese cultural illiteracy. The dialogue with the colonial authorities was framed in the context of Japanese schooling and literacy campaigns. This social reality indeed proved a malleable tool with which to confront the colonial authorities, but it was a double-edged sword. The concept of illiteracy was not understood as illiteracy in the Japanese language, but illiteracy in the Chinese language. The Japanese language was still perceived as a foreign language, although it rapidly acquired the status of first foreign language. By the 1930s, Japanese literacy campaigns were well entrenched throughout the island, and the level of functional literacy was still quite high. The underlying tone was a plea for cultural literacy. By positioning themselves between the colonial administration and the population at large, Taiwanese cultural avant-garde were creating their own social identity. Because the Japanese language was perceived as an “unavoidable presence,” it was inevitable that the local discourse was framed in the context of JapaneseTaiwanese language interaction. Taiwanese wrote in Mandarin baihuawen and Japanese, but they did realize very well that calling out for a Taiwanese entity was linguistically contradictory with Mandarin as the medium of expression, because the dictate of nation-building was founded on the unification of the written and the spoken word in language reform. The appeal of nativist literature helped to further empower the socialist rhetoric and vocabulary. Japanese shared in the same rhetoric, and a similar literary trend was visible in Japanese literature. The Japanese discourse on the concept of the “proletarian and illiterate masses” offered a new nurturing ground to expand social mobilization programs. The introduction of proletarian literature also influenced the Japanese literary world. China and Japan were no longer weak nations because they had realized that their literary tradition and attitudes towards language learning and acquisition were too complex to function in an immediate way and make everyone literate. This powerful discourse was the fuel that powered the Taiwanese identity repertoire. The debate on illiteracy drew the educational and literary language aspirations together, and retained the leftwing discourse as a driving force in the homefront mobilization movement. It provided the terminology around which the cultural market was

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Linguistic Debate

159

built and the local powerbase enlarged. The matchmaker was the ideology of folklore as a literary and political (social) tool to further the communication with the Taiwan reality, and the unavoidable presence of the Japanese. The folklore movement, very much intent on seeking a pristine, pure essence  precisely what had inspired Japanese nation-building in its transition to empire  tapped into the Japanese nationalist discourse, and was carried over to the Taiwan colony. The Taiwanese Language under Construction: The Linguistic Debate The language of the late 1920s and early 1930s debates drew from the Chinese example, that is to say, that advocates for nativist literature challenged the functionality of Mandarin baihuawen, but they were not intent on replacing Mandarin as the national language. It was a literary issue, a debate that evolved out of elaboration of the new standard. 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 rather the form of the language in which this nativist literature was to be written. Hence, a movement intent on creating Written Taiwanese is referred to. In so doing, its advocates debated precisely these elements that make part of the transition from a dialect to a standard language in the theory of language development. What enabled them to proceed this way, and address the issues that Lian Wenqing had touched upon, was their interaction with the other ongoing proposals for language reform. Mandarin baihuawen became the literary medium, which enabled Taiwanese language reformers to commence the debate on the construction of a written Taiwanese. Chinese language modernization was a source of inspiration and became a model to follow. Its cultural values set the train in motion. In this respect, A-chin Hsiau (2000: 44) argued that the Written Taiwanese movement “promoted a writing system that consisted of Chinese characters with a view to maintaining Taiwanese connections with China and Han culture.” The limited functionality of Mandarin baihuawen on a widespread scale was not compatible with the social ideology and goal of nativist literature. The language expressing the culture for the Taiwanese population was a form of the Chinese language. But this Chinese language was far removed from the daily socio-linguistic reality and translated into a language literacy in which the language itself was of secondary importance. Mandarin baihuawen as a new approach to Chinese literacy revealed severe shortcomings for optimal functionality in Taiwan. Of primary importance was conveying information and funnelling written knowledge. It was literacy in function of a uniform Chinese language, irrespective of the fact that it corresponded to the linguistic reality of Taiwan. Set against the background of nativist literature, its proponents debated steps to ward standardization and codification of a written form for the Taiwanese language. In the process they touched upon the ideological connotations, notably that Taiwan-

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

160

Written Taiwanese

ese in relation to Mandarin baihuawen was a dialect. The debate illustrates the elements at stake when discussing the transition from a dialect to a standard language in theory of language development. Hence, an understanding and interpretation of nativist literature resulted in a movement toward creation of a written Taiwanese. 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 China’s literary revolution was that Mandarin baihuawen could be used to produce both a unique prose and 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 spheres. Mandarin baihuawen as a modern language was supple enough to support impressionistic prose, expressionistic poetry, and precise studies in economics and phonology. The Taiwanese language makers of the late 1920s and early 1930s attempted to create and experimented with a written form of the Taiwanese spoken dialect conforming to the contemporaneous nationalist model of language standardization, that is, they sought to unify the written and spoken to create a common, national, official and modern language. The basic idea was to render taiwanhua into taiwanhuawen. One way to view this development is in a socio-linguistic matrix form, as suggested by Einar Haugen (1972). Haugen (1972: 97) discussed the relationship between language and dialect in defining the development of a vernacular, popularly called a “dialect” into a language. He used a matrix model to demonstrate how this transition is intimately related to the development of writing and the growth of nationalism, and showed that this process involves the selection, codification, acceptance 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. The proposals set forth by the advocates for a written Taiwanese can be interpreted in a framework of transforming a vernacular or an “undeveloped language” into a standard, a “developed language,” so that the Haugen matrix helps to clarify the interrelation between the several factors that are linguistically and ideologically at work. The idea behind this drawn-out 1930s debate, carried out mainly in newspapers and literary magazines such as Nanyin, can be framed in the four categories suggested by Haugen’s matrix. Attempts toward the creation of a written Taiwanese mirrored this standardization process. It was parallel to, but also in competition with, Mandarin baihuawen and took advantage of Cai Peihuo’s Romanization movement to legitimize itself. Taiwanese was prone to considerable local diversity, not standardized, normally not written but spoken as 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

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Linguistic Debate

161

a matching pronunciation. But a duality inherent in the language complicated the process of its standardization. Unlike Mandarin baihuawen  which was based on the combination of a new literary standard (baihuawen) with a single form of spoken Chinese adopting the Beijing pronunciation as standard  the Taiwanese dialect was still characterized by a literary regional reading pronunciation (thƼk-im) which was substantially different from its colloquial form (péh-Ňe-im). Instrumental in explaining the linguistic structure of taiwanhua and its relation to taiwanhuawen is the fact that the language activists were not concerned with cultivating a Southern Min reading recitation. Rather, they aimed at establishing a Written Taiwanese that reflected the spoken language. This was difficult, however, as many morphemes of the spoken language lacked established written characters. As noted in Chapter 1, spoken Taiwanese was not unified. Depending on the ancestral region in China from which people hailed, they spoke either the Zhangzhou or Quanzhou variant, or a mixture of both (Ang 1992b: 84-100). In designating written characters one could consult rhyming dictionaries in Southern Min, rely on the Mandarin baihuawen model to decide on the Southern Min pronunciation, or create a new character based on the Southern Min pronunciation. But this raised two other problems. First, because the colloquial form was not used for literary purposes, it was possible that certain characters or compounds were not at hand, or not listed in the rhyming dictionaries, the classical Kangxi Dictionary (Kangxi zidian நᅚӷ‫ )ڂ‬or the Mandarin Dictionary (Guoyu zidian ୯ᇟӷ‫)ڂ‬. Second, social change and innovation were also reflected in the spoken and written language. In this respect, the late 19th century language-reform movements in China as Japan were in first and foremost a response to changing societies embarking on the path of modernization. Basic written reform of the Chinese and Japanese languages likewise required major innovations and the creation of new terminology. Consequently, the construction of a written Taiwanese was driven even more by the imperative of creating new characters. A major reason was the influx of Japanese words and phrases, in many cases themselves linguistic borrowings of foreign loanwords and new terminology. Most of the new vocabulary brought in via the Japanese language was in itself based on borrowings from the classical works, so that in theory both a reading form and colloquial version was existent, if one consulted one of the rhyming dictionaries. The difficulty was that the literary reading form was increasingly losing its prominence, so that the traditional method of looking up a character in a rhyming dictionary on the basis of its pronunciation became burdensome. The new vocabulary was often pronounced in Japanese, rather than in its Taiwanese equivalent. Of importance was that many of these new words were incorporated into daily life and marked a linguistic shift from Taiwanese to Japanese. Furthermore, the instruction of hanwen in the Common Schools increasingly taught Japanese on-reading, which was also different from the reading form of Southern Min.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

162

Written Taiwanese

By means of comparison, in the case of Mandarin baihuawen, Beijing guanhua acted as the model from which the norm of the spoken form had been derived. This choice was intrinsically linked to the large number of people already speaking this variety. Moreover it was the northern vernacular widely accepted and recognized by the bureaucratic elite, who were conversant in Beijing guanhua. In the case of Taiwanese, the problem of selection to attain standardization was situated on a different level. It pertained both to the spoken and the written form of the language. Selecting the Character-Database During this first stage, the point under discussion was the selection of which language nativist literature should be written in. It was not sufficient that taiwanhua acted as the basic spoken language of society, it had to be transformed into a language which could act as a dominant vehicle for a sophisticated and ramified written network of information. In those cases where a character already existed, selecting either the colloquial or reading pronunciation had to be agreed upon. There was no clear-cut rule. In certain expressions the colloquial was used, in others the reading pronunciation had become the accepted norm. In 1929, writing from Tokyo, Ye Rongzhong brought up the issue of the selection of a pronunciation norm. In his article “On the romanization movement,” Ye (TWMP 261. 1929a: 8) pointed out that the high diversity of spoken languages throughout the island accounted for some severe problems in the process of standardization. He not only mentioned the distinction between Hakka and Hoklo, but also the Zhangzhou and Quanzhou regional variants. In his opinion, different pronunciations for the same meaning were an obstacle in proceeding with a “common language” (gongtongyu Ӆ೯ ᇟ), whereas variations in the pronunciation equally complicated the process on defining appropriate characters. There was a need to supplement the number of characters (TWMP 261. 1929a: 8). Over time language had evolved and meanings were not always the same anymore. In particular was the pervasive influence of Japanese in the everyday language use. He quoted the examples of cocoa (kokoa 嗔嗔嗃) and ice cream (aisu kuriimu 嗃嗅嗚 . 嗐嘋嗅嘁) already readily in use in Taiwanese society. Another problem was what he called “intentionality”, and quoted the examples of “to be able to talk” (hanaseru ၉嗜嘌) and “cannot talk” (hanasenai ၉嗜嗫嗅). The standardization of taiwanhua would therefore have to pay urgent attention to this group of vocabulary for which no distinct written form existed (TWMP 261. 1929a: 8). A related issue was the abundance of synonyms in both Mandarin baihuawen and taiwanhua. Ye illustrated this with the characters for automobile (chş-tŇng-chhia Ծ୏ً) and rickshaw (jîn-bėh-chhia ΓΚً) and argued that these should not be changed to the Mandarin baihuawen equivalent of qiche (ًؓ) and huangbaoche (໳хً). Likewise, the Mandarin baihuawen characters for mother (muqin ҆ᒃ) in regional speech was ma (༰), but in Taiwanese the equivalents were lĆu-bú (Դ҆) and a-má (ߓ༰), and which should be kept (TWMP 261. 1929a: 8). Huang Shihui (1930: 9-11; Wu 1997b: 148) se-

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Lian Yatang

163

conded Ye’s suggestions regarding overlapping vocabulary between Mandarin baihuawen and taiwanhua. Whenever the baihuawen could be written with an equivalent expression in taiwanhuawen, it should be done. For instance, the Mandarin baihuawen word “to flatter, soft-soap, to curry favor” (pai mapi ‫ܡ‬ଭ‫ )־‬should be written as phô-lĆn-pha (‫ן‬ ғ‫ )ݰ‬with different characters. The vernacular expression “extremely funny” (hao xiao de hen ӳઢளࡐ) should be written as kėk-hó-chhio (ཱུӳઢ). He called this “using the Taiwan accent” (taiwan kouyin ᆵ᡼αॣ). Other examples were lan and gun (ٜ) instead of women (‫ )ॺך‬for the meaning “we, us” (Huang 1930: 9-11; Wu 1997b: 148). Huang Shihui went one step further and touched upon the problem of pronunciation in the selection of appropriate vocabulary. In his opinion nativist literature should use the colloquial and not the reading form of the language. For instance, the phrase “a beautiful girl” in Mandarin baihuawen read piaoliang nuzi (ᅆߝζη). In Taiwanese this could be read either as bíjîn (ऍΓ) or súi cha-bóź (ऍࢗࢌ) (Huang 1930: 9-11; Wu 1997b: 148). Bí was the reading form and súi was the colloquial expression. Another example was the literary reading form sƟt-hóan (१໭) and the more colloquial form chiƜh-png (१໭) for “to eat” (Huang 1930: 9-11; Wu 1997b: 148). Huang here pointed directly at a problematic issue resulting from the dual linguistic sets of pronunciation in Southern Min. In several instances, there was not a clear-cut distinction between the colloquial and reading form of a character when used in compound form, or for instance with proper names. But the most frequent problem occurred where the colloquial expression did not correspond in meaning or in pronunciation with the characters in the reading form. Lian Yatang and Guo Qiusheng tackled this problem in more detail. Lian Yatang and a Return to Kaozheng Scholarship (wenzixue) Born in 1878 in southern Taiwan, Lian was seventeen years old when Taiwan was ceded to Japan. As mentioned before, Lian belonged to this group of literate Taiwanese who accommodated themselves to the new political regime. His competence in wenyanwen provided him with employment in one of the Japanese-run newspapers. Not long afterwards he went to Fujian and became involved in the establishment of Fujian riri xinbao (‘Fujian Daily’ ᅽࡌВВཥൔ) (Lin and Hong 1984: 363). His literary interests were further cultivated when he became one of the co-founders of the Tainan Nanshe Poetry Society. Lian’s financial situation allowed him to regularly travel to and from China. During one of these intervals, the Office of Compilation of Qing History (qingshiguan మўᓔ) in the Chinese capital hired him as a visiting assistant editor, which gave him the opportunity to browse the archival materials related to Taiwan (Wu 2005: 155). This experience marked the beginning of what eventually be came his 1920 publication, known as A General History of Taiwan (Taiwan tongshi ᆵ᡼ ೯ў). In 1914, Lian returned to Taiwan. Lian’s profound interest in classical literature was expressed twofold. In 1924, he established the literary magazine Taiwan Shihui. It was a monthly devoted to several

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

164

Written Taiwanese

genres of poetry and other classical writings (Chuang 1987: 37). Another venture was the Yatang Bookstore which sold writing utensils in addition to Chinese books. The business was not very prosperous and closed in its second year (Chuang 1987: 38). Between 1925 and 1927 he spent some time in Hangzhou ܼԀ. There is reason to believe that he intended to settle there, but the internal chaos forced him to return to Taiwan. It was after his return that Lian started writing about the Taiwanese language. As cited by Li Tengyue ‫׵‬បᔃ (1951: 16), when writing in support of the debate on nativist literature in the San liu jiu xiao bao (‘The 3-6-9 Gazette’ ΟϤΐλൔ) in 1932, Lian “emphasized the need for phonological research” in the language (kaozheng Ե᛾), The last couple of years, we Taiwanese people have been interested in composing “nativist literature” because Taiwanese literature is becoming dispirited day by day. I therefore promote “nativist literature,” but first we need to arrange the native language, and this is a very complicated and difficult task. In essence, it means going back to the roots of the language.

Between 1929 and 1933, Lian compiled the Dictionary of Taiwanese (T. Tâi-ôan gí-tián ᆵ ᡼ᇟ‫)ڂ‬. This dictionary consisted of four volumes, of which the first part was published in serialized form as “Lectures on the Taiwanese Language” (Taiwanyu jiangxi ᆵ ᡼ᇟᖱಞ) in the San liu jiu xiao bao. Each lecture included a number of Refined Words (yayan ໡‫ )ق‬in which he explained the etymology of certain characters.4 It is against this background that Lian’s philological approach to problems involved in standardizing taiwanhuawen has to be seen. In the article “Clues to arranging the Taiwanese language,” he explained that there were two problems (TWMP 288. 1929a: 8; Lian 1986: preface). First, although the language of communication was Taiwanese, taiyu, the people lacked an etymological knowledge of Han characters and were there fore unable to understand the character’s meanings. Second, Taiwanese was related to Chinese, but there were obvious differences. This was due to the historical and linguistic origins of the languages of Zhangzhou and Quanzhou, which are lost to present day scholars. For these reasons, Lian argued that research on the Taiwanese language required a study of orthography (wenzixue ЎӷᏢ), phonology (yinyunxue ॣᜩᏢ) and dialectology (fangyanxue Б‫ق‬Ꮲ) (TWMP 288. 1929a: 8; Lian 1986: preface). Lack of knowledge of each of these three disciplines was a major obstacle in researching the Taiwanese language. A study of the formation of characters in Han orthography clarified the meaning of the characters, and he provided an example to illustrate this. The classical character compound for “digesting” was kok-tŇ (⟻ၰ) in the reading form.5 The colloquial expression was kha-chhng (ᣙο). An understanding of the Classics revealed that the character for kha corresponded in meaning and pronunciation 4

5

When the column “Lectures on the Taiwanese Language” was discontinued, “Refined Words” became a column in its own right. A collection of these columns, 304 in total, appeared as an appendix to Lian Yatang’s posthumously published Dictionary of Taiwanese, see Lian (1986: 152-307), Klöter (2005: 200ff). Kok-tŇ was a polite expression for “digesting,” but literally meaning “asshole.” I would like to thank the late Prof. Wu Shouli ֆӺᘶ (1909-2005) for pointing this out to me.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Lian Yatang

165

with kok, as the latter was used in Songs of the South (Chuci ཱᜏ), whereas the character for chhng, according to its usage in Collection of the Mountains and Seas (Shanhaijing ξੇ ࿶) corresponded in both meaning and pronunciation with the Taiwanese term. The compound kha-chhng therefore had the same meaning as kok-tŇ.6 Lian just wanted to show that an understanding of the formation of characters according to the six principles of writing (liu shu Ϥ ਜ ) 7 was crucial in approximating meaning and pronunciation in Taiwanese. The second difficulty concerned rhyming. Character pronunciation required knowledge of the ancient rhymes. Lian illustrated this with the usage of the hêng versus hiong rhyme in the character compound for “fertilized duck egg,” pronounced as ah-hêng. The combination ah with hêng would approximate the pronunciation ah-hêng, but would be meaningless. On the other hand, the combination ah with hiong would convey the correct meaning, but did not correspond with the rhyming, because of hiong. According to Lian, the ancient reading of hiong had also been hêng, therefore, the use of that character compound was justified. A third problem was related to dialectology. Knowing the regional origins of characters was helpful in locating their pronunciation. For instance, the character with meaning “no or not having” in its reading form was bû, in colloquial it was bô, but some also pronounced it as môź.8 According to Lian, the classical character, pronounced as wu in Mandarin, was not appropriate because of its differing pronunciation. Instead, he suggested using the character pronounced mo and also meaning “no or not having” in the northern China dialect spoken in Heshuo ‫ݞ‬ ਝ!(TWMP 288. 1929a: 8). In hindsight, Lian’s writings constituted an essential part of the development of the Written Taiwanese movement, but appear to have been neglected in secondary scholarship on the subject. 9 Lian’s motivation to support the “nativist literature” movement has been interpreted as an attempt to preserve the Taiwanese language (Liao 1955: 97). His classical literary endeavours differed from the so-called leftwing activists who promoted the construction of a literature in written Taiwanese. From a comparative point of view, Huang Shihui turned Lian Yatang’s proposals for “arranging taiwanhua” into a constructive tool for ready use, whereas Lian called for profound research. Another explanation has framed the discussion of the Written Taiwanese movement within the context of the New Literature movement.10 In doing so, Lian’s 6 Chuci is a collection of poems of unknown authorship. Shanhaijing is a work on geography of which the author is unknown. 7 The six principles of writing are phonetic compounds (xingsheng ‫׎‬ᖂ), joined meanings (huiyi ཮ཀ), pictographs (xiangxing ຝ‫)׎‬, indicators (zhishi ࡰ٣), loan characters (jiajie ଷॷ) and derivative cognates (zhuanzhu ᙯ‫)ݙ‬. 8 Personal communication with Professor Wu Shouli has been extremely helpful. 9 For a critical evaluation of Lian’s etymological approach, see Klöter (2005: 176-183). 10 Liao Hanchen has categorized Lian Yatang and Lian Wenqing’s writings on Taiwanese as an attempt to “preserve taiwanhua” (taiwanhua baocun yundong ᆵ᡼၉ߥӸၮ୏). Written in 1955, one should take into consideration the KMT language policy and the constraints under which local history of Taiwan was incorporated in KMT “greater China” ideology.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

166

Written Taiwanese

writings have not been included as an integral part of the 1930s Written Taiwanese movement. Hence, the crucial role of dialectology as a source for language reform has been overlooked. Lian’s contributions to the 1930s literary debates on language reform have been pigeonholed as the reaction of a classical scholar disgruntled with Japanese colonial educational policy towards the Chinese language. Or as Lian (1986: 3) wrote in the preface of his dictionary: The children nowadays start studying at the age of seven. They are still innocent and in the initial stage of learning the pronunciation, but the village schools have already forbidden Taiwanese. The young people nowadays go studying in Japan for about a decade, and when they return, they have already forgotten the Taiwanese language. The literati nowadays, even if they are low-level clerks, are often seen in the governmental offices, competing for power and influence…but when they communicate with each other they despise speaking in Taiwanese.

Lian was concerned about the fate of the Chinese language under Japanese rule: “The language of Taiwan (Taiwan zhi yu ᆵ᡼ϐᇟ) originated in China, and any encroachment upon its existence was a cultural matter (minzu jingshen ҇௼ᆒઓ)” (TWMP 288. 1929a: 8). No further attention has been given to the fact that Lian Yatang’s linguistic endeavors showed that the deep-rootedness of Southern Min was an identity marker in the literati’s perception of the Chinese language in Taiwan: “Because the Taiwanese language is diminishing day by day, I cannot but start to arrange it, on the one hand to preserve it, on the other hand to develop it (Lian 1986: 3).” Lian’s argument was that philological and etymological research (kaozheng) by using historical dictionaries should have priority in the process of selecting the character base for a written Taiwanese. Guo Qiusheng: Creating Characters (wenzihua) Writing in the Japanese-run paper Taiwan shimbun early July 1931, Guo Qiusheng’s essay “A proposal for the construction of a ‘Written Taiwanese’,” elaborated on the Chinese language in more detail (Guo 1931a: 11; Wu 1955: 55-56). Guo suggested creating a written form of Taiwanese in characters, also called wenzihua (Ўӷϯ). The article consisted of five parts. In the first part, he discussed the process of how the Chinese script had developed. He then addressed the relationship between language and script, followed by an explanation why speech and script had diverged from each other over the centuries. The fourth part focused on the special predicament of the Taiwanese people and their educational situation. This served as a background against which he mentioned the problem of illiteracy and the need for a written form of Taiwanese. In the final part he explained what he understood by “written Taiwanese.” Based on the causal relationship between speech and script, Guo distinguished four historical periods during which speech and script had diverged from each other. At this point, he made the correlation between vernacular writing in Mandarin and vernacular writing in Taiwanese. Baihuawen literature had emerged as a result of the growing dif-

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Guo Qiusheng

167

ference between speech and writing. In Guo’s opinion, this had created an historical precedent for the construction of a Written Taiwanese. In comparison to Huang, his discussion on how to proceed with Chinese characters as a tool for creating the Taiwanese language is well founded. He gave a rather detailed description on how the spoken and the written could be unified on the basis of its character “heritage.” His basic premise was that taiwanhua had an endless supply of characters with which it was possible to attain the goal of language standardization. Guo’s argument was based on a return to the origins of the character database, and from there devising a character in which meaning and pronunciation were compatible. He suggested using the six principles of writing (liu shu). And, he also set forth five principles for creating new characters (wenzihua). The five principles deserve a mention, because some of these later on became an issue for discussion. As for the first guideline, he advocated the idea that the writing system of any given language could never be complete. This was to underline that, at a certain times and under certain conditions, all languages would need to create new words. The other four principles related to the two properties of Chinese characters, that is, the correlation between meaning and pronunciation. In describing these principles, Guo did not pay much attention to the significance of the reading (ziyin ӷॣ) and the colloquial (yuyin ᇟॣ) pronunciation, and its changes over time. If the meaning of a single character or compound was the same, but differed slightly in pronunciation, he preferred the selected pronunciation that approximated the reading form. For example, the colloquial pronunciations for “too bad” and “luckily” were chin-hĆi (੿্) and ka-chài (уӆ) respectively. Guo pointed out that although the use of the characters for these two expressions was linguistically not correct, their correct forms were rarely used and its meaning might not be understood anymore.11 If, however, the meaning and pronunciation differed too much, for example with the character ߘ “rain” whose reading form was ú but colloquial form was hŇź, then the colloquial pronunciation of hŇź was preferred. But if a character of this kind were used in idioms and proverbs, the reading pronunciation should be taken as a standard. Following this principle the idiomatic expression “wind and rain” should be read in the reading form of ú, thus hóng-ú (॥ߘ), but the popular phrase “raining” should be in accordance with the colloquial reading of hŇź, thus lòh-hŇź (ပߘ). In cases where the correct written form was no longer understood – as a result of changes in the pronunciation or meaning – Guo advised adhering to the commonly used form rather than creating more confusion. This was in contradiction to the above-mentioned rule of staying faithful to the correct albeit rarely used written form.12

11 Wu Shouli suggested a third usage for ka-chài. 12 Ye Rongzhong had pointed out a similar problem resulting from the fact that taiwanhua was not standardized. He gave the example of “appropriate” (shidang ፾྽), pronounced in Taiwanese as sek-tòng, written with meaningless characters (dare ඪ and east ܿ), or the example of “great debater” (hiông-

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

168

Written Taiwanese

Aware of these problems, Guo suggested the creation of new characters. By this he did not mean the random construction of new characters, but “turning the old characters into a new usage” (jiuzi de zhuanhua bianyong ᙑӷ‫ޑ‬ᙯϯᡂҔ). This should proceed according to the phonological principles of phonetic compounds (xingsheng) or joined meanings (huiyi). Noteworthy in his suggestion was that a newly created character should approximate the Taiwanese pronunciation (quwen jiuhua ۙЎ൩၉). In this respect, Guo was seconding Ye Rongzhong’s opinion that if the need for creating new characters presented itself, one should be cautious with following the model of Mandarin baihuawen. Writing in The Taiwan Minpao, Ye (TWMP 262. 1929b: 8) had suggested selective lexical borrowing from the Mandarin baihuawen lexicon in cases where a character did not exist: 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 will we not arrive at the contradiction “straighten a corner to kill an ox.”

The issue did not end here. The colloquial version as such posed its own problems for selecting an appropriate norm. Depending on the ancestral region from which the Taiwanese hailed, they spoke either the Zhangzhou or Quanzhou koiné, increasingly a mixture of both, and then there were also the Hakka speakers. A rudimentary layout of the tasks involved in codification (minimal variation in form of the language) drew attention to the points addressed below. The Problem of Pronunciation: Balancing the Reading and Colloquial Forms Guo’s article addressed the complexity involved in selecting either the reading or the colloquial pronunciation. Huang Shihui, in support of wenzihua elaborated his views on this point. His article “Another discussion of nativist literature” appeared a few weeks later and was published in Taiwan shimbun (July 1931: 11; cited in Liao 1955: 101). According to Wu Shouli ֆӺᘶ (1955: 54), Huang Shihui’s earlier writing had evoked such a big response that many wrote him letters or came to see him in person. The designated article was divided into seven sections: the function of nativist literature, description of the problem, the script problem, arranging the language, the problem of the reading pronunciation, basic problems, and a conclusion. Of interest is the shift it showed from his earlier treatises on the language issue as it related to the construction of a nativist literature. As Masayoshi Matsunaga ݊҉҅ က ! (1989: 80) pointed out, “his discussion was no longer exemplar of socialist connotations and slogans, such as ‘making literature for the masses’ (wenyi dazhonghua Ў᛬ε౲ϯ).” First, Huang (July 1931: 11; cited in Liao 1955: 101) repeated that the

piĆn-ka ໢៏ৎ), written with the characters for “post office worker” (iû-piĆn-ka ແߡৎ). See Ye in TWMP (261. 1929: 8).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Problem of Pronunciation

169

purpose of a nativist literature was to represent the spoken language, which was typical and differed for each locality: Therefore what we write should be read by our people, and not for special purposes given to read to people in faraway places, thus our language closest to our heart should be used.

But there was a slight shift toward recognizing the advantages of Mandarin baihuawen. Huang contrasted the Taiwan linguistic setting with the one in China, and wrote: As much as Taiwanese [taiwanhua] contained many words that were not written down in Chinese [zhongguohua ύ୯၉], there were also many words in Chinese vernacular [zhongguo baihuawen] that were not spoken in Taiwanese (July 1931: 11; cited in Liao 1955: 101).

Huang saw this as a two-way street and called for a taiwanhuawen that would also be legible to readers of Mandarin baihuawen.13 He proposed using the Mandarin baihuawen forms for basic grammatical markers such as possessive nouns, auxiliary verbs and prepositions, and commonly used nouns. The most straightforward example was the character for “wanting, going to” (beh Ν) which Huang considered both unconventional and uncommon; he proposed replacing it with the Mandarin baihuawen character yao (ा). In cases where conflicts stemming from overlapping characters (fuzi ፄӷ) and/or single characters (danzi ൂ ӷ) existed, he felt it was best to adhere to the specific usages of taiwanhua. For in stance, the Mandarin baihuawen characters “here” (zheli ೭္) and “there” (nali ္ٗ) should be written in their Taiwanese equivalents chia (་) and hia (᥹). This argument makes sense. If in the written Taiwanese construction, “wanting to go there” (beh khì hia Νѐ᥹), the character for “there” were to be replaced with the Mandarin baihuawen characters nali, this would create confusion because of the compound structure of nali. Noteworthy in his article is that he emphasized using Taiwanese characters where specifically required. Therefore, rather than create new phonetic characters (yinzi), Huang preferred to use existing ideographs (yizi ကӷ). This stance also shed light on Huang’s reconsideration of the exclusivity of the colloquial pronunciation. Whereas in the past he had strongly argued for the colloquial pronunciation, he now stressed the value of the reading pronunciation: If we want to read in the Taiwan baihua tone, not at all does this mean that it has to be read for every character in the colloquial pronunciation [tuyin βॣ]. Sometimes we should read the colloquial pronunciation; sometimes we should read the reading pronunciation [zhengyin ҅ॣ]. For example the character for “offspring” should read Seȭ-K’eaȭ [ғη^, but in the compound for Confucius, the reading pronunciation should be Khong-tsu [Ͼη] (July 1931: 11; cited in Liao 1955: 101).

These above examples illustrate the importance of the literary pronunciation in Southern Min. Depending on the literacy level of the speaker, one would use more idioms or elegant phrases, which naturally were read in the literary pronunciation. 13 For a discussion of Huang’s proposals, see Klöter (2009).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

170

Written Taiwanese

Huang gave an example. He was of the opinion that the four-character compound for “it doesn’t become a problem” (put sêng bşn-tê όԋୢᚒ) should be read in the literary pronunciation, whereas the expression “You beast!” should be read in the colloquial pronunciation m-chiâȭ-lâng (όԋΓ) instead of put sêng. Liao Qizheng (1990: 69) argued that this departed from what Huang had written the previous year, and pointed out that Guo Qiusheng’s treatise on wenzihua could have influenced Huang. The realization of the numerous technical difficulties in composing a nativist literature based exclusively on the spoken form or colloquial reading may explain this change in Huang’s reasoning. As the debate over which language to use in composing nativist literature drew increasing attention, the relationship of written Taiwanese to Mandarin baihuawen became a pertinent issue among proponents and opponents of the former. Forum of expression were the Japanese-run newspapers and the Taiwan Shin Minpao. Striking was that proponents for a sustained use of Mandarin baihuawen took issue with the definition of a nativist literature. On another level, the controversy disclosed fundamental disagreement, and even confusion, on the purpose of a written Taiwanese. Both sides interpreted the concept of literacy differently. The following section will address the main arguments used by the Mandarin baihuawen writers against the use of a written Taiwanese. The Discourse on Language and Dialect The debate on the character-database became the topic that generated the most ink. This contentious issue did not focus on the creation of new characters; rather, its proponents became entangled over the functionality of which characters to use. They debated whether or not the language of their “to be nativist literature” was suited for widespread use among the Taiwanese people. If a nativist literature in Taiwanese were to cure the disease of illiteracy, it had to be functional, so that people could read, write and use it without too many difficulties. Yet, not everyone was interested in the creation of a Taiwanese literature and its language. These forums of debate were the Japanese-run papers and the Taiwan Shin Minpao.14 Articles by Liao Yuwen ᄃ௵Ў, Zhu Dianren ԙᗺΓ, Lai Minghong ᒘܴ Ѷ and Lin Kefu ݅լϻ questioned the functionality and the cultural-operationalmode of the Chinese language in a plurality of forms. In August 1931, Liao Yuwen retaliated with his opinions on the notion of nativist literature. In an article entitled “To Huang Shihui, once more appreciating nativist literature” in ShŇwa shimpŇ (‘Showa Newspaper’ ࡿ ‫ ک‬ཥ ൔ ), Liao (1931a: 8) took issue with the concept of nativist literature and referred to its 19th century German origins in Heimatkunst literature. Liao criticized Huang for taking nativist literature too literally in meaning by focusing on 14 Matsunaga Masayoshi’s source book (2006: 131-155) contains all the contributions mentioned by the proponents and opponents.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Language and Dialect

171

the spoken tongue and customs as its basis. In his opinion, the construction of a literature was not that simple. To counter Huang Shihui, he pointed to the diversity needed if the concept of a nativist literature could be applied to the Chinese world: “A locality needs a local literature. Taiwan consists of five prefectures, China of 18 different provinces. Does this imply the need for that many different local literatures as well?” (Liao 1931a: 8) The classically-educated Liao argued that composing poetry in taiwanhuawen was not just a matter of writing down some vulgar or popular phrases. In his opinion, taiwanhua was still coarse, and not sufficiently developed as a tool for writing literature. It was more appropriate to suggest the use of “Chinese vernacular” (zhongguo baihua) for creating literary works. To strengthen his argument, he gave the example of the Japanese language, which had been standardized on the basis of the Tokyo accent. Mandarin baihuawen was the result of that same process of standardization. By contrasting this with dialectic taiwanhuawen, he gave the impression that Mandarin baihuawen had completed the transition from dialect to standard language. If that same process were to be repeated for taiwanhua, it would just be too much time consuming (Liao 1931: 8). Brief, these counterarguments juxtaposed Taiwanese with Modern Chinese in the Greater-Chinese language family. Lin Kefu (1931: 11) published “Nativist literature under review and discussion, reading Huang Shihui’s outstanding statement” in Taiwan Shin Minpao. He agreed with the concept of nativist literature but not with Huang’s understanding of it and outlined his opposition in five points. According to Lin, Huang was mistaken in saying that literature was a written expression of the spoken tongue. Lin pointed out that literature also contained emotions and feelings such as laughter, hardship, joy, and so forth. Moreover, the Taiwan dialect (fulaohua ⭬‫٭‬၉) was too complicated. If nativist literature were to be written in fulaohua, it would still be extremely difficult for people throughout the island to read (Lin 1931: 11). He also rejected Huang’s criticism that Mandarin baihuawen could not completely represent taiwanhuawen. Lin argued that if this were the case, every locality of every province in China also had to create its own kind of literature to conform to nativist literature. It was much better working toward a literature in Mandarin baihuawen that people in China could also read. Finally, he objected to Huang’s suggestion to select substitute characters or create new ones in the construction of a Written Taiwanese. Lin equally emphasized that taiwanhua was coarse, immature and not refined. Importantly, he added another element, notably the diversity of pronunciation throughout the island. Therefore, it would be more practical to select Mandarin baihuawen (Lin 1931: 11). Zhu Dianren in “Investigating ‘nativist literature’” and in “Once more debating nativist literature” and Liao Yuwen (1931b: 8) in “A review and discussion of nativist literature, once more replying to Mr. Huang Shihui” seconded Lin Kefu’s arguments (Matsunaga 1989: 78-79). Huang Shihui replied to each of them. These were “My reply in a few sentences,” (1931b) “Once more reviewing and discussing nativist

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

172

Written Taiwanese

literature, exchanging opinions with Mr. Kefu,” (1931c) “Discussing branches and leaves with Mr Dianren,” (1931d) “To Mr. Dianren, problems concerning nativist literature” (1931e) and “Once more replying to Mr. Yuwen” (1931f). All of Huang’s replies centralized the colonial status of Taiwan in relation to its linguistic setting. To give one example, in “My reply in a few sentences” (1931b: 11), Huang argued that, for political reasons, China’s common parlance (putonghua) could not be implemented in Taiwan. For ethnic reasons, Japanese was not appropriate either; therefore, the only language that suited Taiwan society was taiwanhua. This called for an independent Taiwanese culture. In 1925, during a speech at the summer school, medical doctor Wang Shoulu had put forward a similar argument. He observed that for the Taiwanese people, the triple study of hanwen, Taiwanese and Japanese severely hindered the much needed process of cultural enhancement. By excluding hanwen and Japanese, and only making use of Taiwanese, cultural enhancement would progress much faster (Wu et al. 1971: 302). In the meantime, the debate was also continued in the leftwing paper Wurenbao by writers such as Cai Deyin ጰቺॣ, Huang Shiqiao, Liao Yuwen, Zhu Dianren and Wang Shilang Ц၃ౘ!(Wang 1954: 132). Arguments made by the proponents of a sustained use of Mandarin baihuawen in composing nativist literature ironically intensified the debate in favor of those advocating a written Taiwanese. Focus of the controversy became the threefold criticism illustrating that taiwanhua was a dialect and therefore unsuited for use as a literary vehicle. The forum for the discussion was the magazine Nanyin (hereafter: NY), which was established as a biweekly by Guo Qiusheng, Huang Chuncheng ໳ࡾԋ and Zhuang Chuisheng in 1931 (Wu 1960b: 80-82; Liao 1990: 89-96). In addition to promoting literary compositions in vernacular writing, the magazine also encouraged writers to discuss the construction of a literature in written Taiwanese. Five designated columns were created. From the third issue onward, there was the Readers’ Club (duzhe julebu ᠐๱ॿ኷೽) and Reply to the Reader (duzhe wenda lan ᠐๱ୢเឯ). The other three columns – Discussing Written Taiwanese (taiwanhuawen taolun lan ᆵ᡼၉ Ў૸ፕឯ), The Problem of New Words in Written Taiwanese (taiwanhuawen de xinzi wenti ᆵ᡼၉Ў‫ޑ‬ཥӷୢᚒ), Experimenting with Written Taiwanese (taiwanhuawen changshi lan ᆵ᡼၉Ў჋၂ឯ) – were more specialized, dealing with the technical difficulties that arose in composing written Taiwanese (taiwanhuawen). These columns were the first tangible evidence of attempts to construct a written Taiwanese, and represent the linguistic component in the transition from taiwanhua (vernacular) to taiwanhuawen (language): codification and elaboration. The problems and issues previously addressed in magazines and newspapers were now discussed in a more concentrated way. The magazine also elaborated the sociological component (selection and acceptance) in the discussion of a written Taiwanese.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Standardizing Pronunciation

173

Attempts toward Codification: Standardizing Pronunciation The codification debate touched on the issue of standardizing a phonetic script norm, so as to facilitate the selection of a proper pronunciation. Again, diversity ruled. The importance for a standardized pronunciation gained fuller attention after the proponents for a sustained use of Mandarin baihuawen pointed at the diversity of taiwanhua on the spoken level in Taiwan. This had not gone unnoticed in previous discussions, however. As Ye Rongzhong (TWMP 261. 1929a: 8) had pointed out: “Variations in pronunciation complicated the process on defining appropriate characters.” In October 1931, Taiwan shimpŇ printed Huang Chunqing’s ໳ ໌ ߙ “On reforming taiwanhua,” a lengthy article that consisted of four different topics, each pertaining to issues that required standardization (Huang 1931: 8; Wu 1997b: 152-153). One of these was the topic of pronunciation. The other three concerned standardization of the spoken and written forms, grammar and vocabulary. The article suggested a general standardization of characters approximating the Taipei usage for phrases and idioms. Pronunciation would be nearer to that of the Xiamen koiné, and the appropriate reading would be noted next to each character to ensure uniformity from the start (Huang 1931: 8; Wu 1997b: 152). Huang did not explain why he preferred the northern usage to the southern usage (qunan jiubei ѐࠄ൩ч), still a similar pattern is apparent in the standardization of writing in Japan and China, taking the political center as standard. Another reason was that the northern Taipei usage was a mixture of the Zhang and Quanzhou koiné, unlike the southern Tainan usage that had retained more Zhangzhou idioms (Huang 1931: 8; Wu 1997b: 153). Huang Chunqing’s concluding remarks on the reason for the creation of a written Taiwanese shed an interesting light on why he advocated the Xiamen koiné in favor of a Taiwan koiné. It was not only a practical matter in that it would take much longer to come to a standardized Taiwan koiné. Significant was that Huang Chunqing placed taiwanhua within the Southern Min language, whose leading koiné was the Xiamen accent. The need for a phonetic system was related to problems of pronunciation standardization. Despite the fact that such a system was still very much an undecided issue, it is worth mentioning because it shows the concern with standardization of pronunciation. Several suggestions were made, and interestingly, these came from different directions: Japanese language instruction in kana syllabary, the Romanization movement and the more traditional Chinese methods of phonetic representation. In “Speaking about some conditions for the basic construction of written Taiwanese for everyone to consider,” Guo Qiusheng (NY 1.1. 1932a: 14) remarked that “a phonetic system made up the other part of the construction of characters (wenzihua).” Guo also showed his indignation over the fact that up to that time no one had come up with an appropriate phonetic system. In his opinion, either alphabetic writing or kana syllabary were appropriate, but he disagreed with Huang Shihui’s suggestion to use the traditional rhyme system (fanqie ϸϪ), because the pronunciation of taiwanhua was not yet unified and standardized (NY 1.1. 1932: 14). Huang reiterated his support

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

174

Written Taiwanese

for the use of the traditional fanqie system. In his article “Factional problems on the unification of the spoken and the written language” (NY 1.6. 1932: 12-13), he favored fanqie over Japanese kana, romanization or the National Phonetic Alphabet (guoyu zhuyin fuhao). By using fanqie, the major shortcoming of the current diversity in pronunciation could be avoided. He gave the example of the character for “to sell,” romanized as bae in Taipei, suggesting that be was more correct. People of Taipei would not understand be, however. Using fanqie, the Taipei people would read it as bae, and Huang would read it as be, and this would take away the problem of not understanding (NY 1.6. 1932: 13). In reality, Huang advocated the fanqie system out of pragmatic considerations. For the time being it was the most convenient because a standardized pronunciation was still lacking. Zheng Kunwu (NY 1.2. 1932: 13) criticized the kana and romanized proposals, and promoted a new phonetic script in “A few sentences on nativist literature.” It should be a phonetic system that superseded the shortcomings of both kana and romanization, and which could complete the process for a written Taiwanese. For lack of a better method, he still preferred these two systems to the use of Chinese characters, which he felt would appear “unnatural” (NY 1.2. 1932: 13). Zheng’s push for an alternative phonetic script stemmed from his understanding of what he called “the invention of world languages,” which he referred to as “national languages” in the wake of the respective unifications of France, Germany and England (NY 1.2. 1931: 12). In this respect, he compared Mandarin baihuawen as the new national language of China to French, German and English. Taiwan should participate in that same process, just as the Japanese had chosen the Tokyo pronunciation as standard and the Chinese had chosen the Beijing pronunciation (NY 1.2. 1931: 12-13). In “Miscellaneous notes on written Taiwanese,” Fu Ren15ॄΓ!(NY 1.1. 1932a: 12) disagreed with Lin Kefu over a romanized phonetic system that was based on the Taiwan accent (taiwanyin ᆵ᡼ॣ), and he disputed Lin’s view that the romanization system in Taiwan followed the Xiamen koiné. Both Fu Ren (NY 1.3. 1932c: 4-9) and Huang Shihui (NY 1.6. 1932: 12-14) mentioned the National Phonetic Alphabet and the Korean hangul alphabet, but considered these inappropriate for Taiwan. Fu Ren seconded Huang Chunqing that the Xiamen koiné should be made the standard pronunciation. In his opinion, a single phonetic system should be chosen, irrespective of its orthography, and he stood open to the creation of a new one (NY 1.1. 1932: 13). While several possibilities were being considered and suggested, the issue remained that a single phonetic system could not be decided separately from that of character standardization. In other words, the phonetic representation required uniformity of the written script. Whereas the possibility of adopting either a kana script or romanization was played up in the debate on phonetic representation, it also surfaced in another controversy. Could kana or romanization be used as an alternative to creating 15 Fu Ren was the penname for Zhuang Chuisheng, who had set up The Central Club and bookstore in Taizhong. He came from a wealthy and literate background.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Purists versus Reformers

175

new characters? This was what Lin Kefu, one of the Mandarin baihuawen proponents, proposed. Conversely, Fu Ren (NY 1.1. 1932: 12) countered that proponents for a written Taiwanese should not spend too much energy on creating new characters, but use kana or romanization to represent these words for which no characters existed. The Appeal of Mandarin Baihuawen : Purists versus Reformers 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. The bigger picture shows that late 1920s and early 1930s attempts at creating a written Taiwanese language took place through an interaction with the two other language movements. Both the model of Mandarin baihuawen and that of romanized Taiwanese 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 added fuel to the debate on the lamentable state of the Chinese language in Taiwanese society and the widespread degree of poor functional literacy in the Japanese language. It is against this background that the model of language standardization in Republican China assumed a crucial role. As the debate unfolded, more voices seemed predisposed to the advantages that Mandarin baihuawen 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 magazine Nanyin and divided the camp into purists versus reformers. The reformers argued it would be more adequate to select Mandarin baihuawen characters as base language and approximate a Taiwanese pronunciation (quhua jiuwen ۙ၉൩Ў). The model of Mandarin baihuawen 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 pronunciation in taiwanhua had to be taken as the standard, and a character should be selected on the basis of its pronunciation (quwen jiuhua). The phrase quhua jiuwen denoted the primacy of the written over the spoken form, and pleaded in favor of composing a taiwanhuawen whereby the codified form of Mandarin baihuawen was taken as the standard but adjusted to a pronunciation in taiwanhua. The phrase quwen jiuhua meant the opposite, that the pronunciation in taiwanhua had to be taken as the standard, and that the character should be selected on the basis of its pronunciation. It denoted the primacy of the spoken over the written form and valued the role of the literary writings in Southern Min. This was the view of the purists, and in their eyes, Mandarin baihuawen was as much a foreign language as the Japanese language. Emphasising the dialectal status of taiwanhua worked to the advantage of Mandarin baihuawen being taken as a model on which to base the construction of taiwanhuawen. In this respect, Zhang Wojun’s earlier suggestion gained a new impetus.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

176

Written Taiwanese

During the process, the reformers obtained the support of others strongly in favor of abandoning the Taiwanese language venture. It was simply not socially acceptable to them. Their arguments led to the fourth and final category within the matrix model: the acceptance factor. Huang Chunqing in “On reforming taiwanhua” which he published in Taiwan shimpŇ (1931: 8) set the tone for a discussion that centralized Mandarin baihuawen and argued for a “reform” rather than the “creation” of a written Taiwanese. There where new characters were needed or in places of dispute, Mandarin baihuawen should be taken as the standard. He stipulated seven suggestions. Words with a pronunciation, but without characters, such as the expression “that’s it” (án-ne niĆ-niĆ ѝԜԶς), should be guided by the principle of quhua jiuwen. For words with characters but without meaning in Mandarin baihuawen, such as “my wife (is) clumsy” (góan khan-chhiú han-bĆn ٜ౐ Ћ֖ᄌ), he suggested an adaptation to Mandarin baihuawen and an alteration of some characters so that the meaning would also be understood in Mandarin baihuawen. He called this the principle of approximating character to meaning (quzi jiuyi ۙӷ൩က*. Wrongly used words should be corrected. The different usage of words throughout the island should be standardized based on usage in the north. By this he meant that the Tainan usage in pronunciation and character for year (tang о Ch. dong, meaning “winter”) should be replaced by its Taipei usage (nî ԃ!Ch. nian). Class-conscious vocabulary should not be used, because it was “no longer modern,” and “dirty or polluting words” were not “civilized,” and should therefore be omitted. A first reaction to these suggestions came from Huang Shihui and Guo Qiusheng, the latter criticizing Huang’s understanding of quhua jiuwen. Instead, Guo put forth the principle of quwen jiuhua as a guideline for the unification of the written and the spoken forms in the construction of a written Taiwanese (N.Y. 1.1. 1932: 4). The controversy centered on drawing boundaries between the creation of new characters and choosing between existing Mandarin baihuawen compounds or characters taken from the classical canon and using the Southern Min literary pronunciation. It also warned of the dangers of randomly constructing new characters and offered the norm of Mandarin baihuawen as a safety valve. This explains why Huang Shihui suggested that only in cases where there was no appropriate Taiwanese written form should a new character be created or a Mandarin counterpart be substituted (Huang 1931a, cited in Liao 1955: 101). Guo Qiusheng brought three related issues to attention. Firstly, in cases where two different characters could stand for the same concept, Guo favored the more colloquial one, and not, as suggested by Lian Yatang, search for the phonohistorical origins. Secondly, where the colloquial and reading forms for the same character were different, it should be decided which form to use, and by preference based on the rhyming form. Where the pronunciation and writing of a character were the same, but differed in meaning, an exception was made for set phrases and loanwords. Thirdly, new characters were to be created based on pronun-

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Purists versus Reformers

177

ciation. The creation process should follow the six principles of writing (liu shu), giving preference to the sound of the word (NY 1.1. 1932a: 14). Yang Yunping, who had the penname Qingyun ᔏ໦, wrote that the rhetoric of beauty should be the guiding principle for the concept of quhua jiuwen and the creation of new characters (NY 1.2. 1932: 18). Yang raised another criticism that taiwanhua was coarse and immature. He gave the example of which character compound to choose for the word “toilet.” There was saihák (࠿オ) the ancient character, or the newer term written with the characters piĆn-sóź (ߡ‫ )܌‬which was more widely used and more appropriate (NY 1.2. 1931: 19). Only in extreme cases should one apply the principle of quhua jiuwen. (NY 1.2. 1931: 19). Guo Qiusheng and Lai He debated the same issue. Guo was known for creating new characters; Lai, after having consulted a dictionary, felt that it was better to use existing characters rather than create new ones. The magazine Nanyin printed a letter from Lai to which Guo replied as “The problem of new characters in written Taiwanese, part 1” (NY 1.3. 1932b: 9). According to Lai, new words should only be created when there was no existing character that approximated the sound to the meaning. Even if the meaning of a character was contradictory to its pronunciation, it should still be used, but a note should be made beside this character (NY. 1.3. 1932b: 9). Guo repeated here that the construction of characters (wenzihua) based on the collection of folksongs would be a great help in deciding on which character to choose, and he referred to his article on wenzihua in the inaugural issue of Nanyin. The internal bickering over whether Mandarin baihuawen could serve as a model to “reform” taiwanhua into taiwanhuawen remained central to the debate on the problem of wenzihua.16 Meanwhile allusions were made to the time this process of standardization would take. In “Miscellaneous notes on written Taiwanese,” Fu Ren (NY 1.1. 1932a: 12) noted that despite the need for a standardization of the pronunciation, he did not believe in the possibility of an immediate unification of the spoken and the written forms: “I believe that language can be nurtured and developed. In furthering its growth and progress, one cannot reform it at will and make easy changes. I am afraid that this has not taken place in history either.” Fu Ren suggested handing in a proposal to the Japanese Diet and requesting the compilation of a Taiwanese dictionary and grammar book. In his opinion, this would not only save a lot of time and energy, but also benefit Taiwanese society, particularly with regard to the relationship between Taiwanese and Japanese peoples in the colony (NY 1.1. 1931a: 12). Likewise, Huang Shihui called for the compilation of dictionaries and textbooks to facilitate standardization, and proposed the creation of a “Nativist Literature Research Society” (xiangtu wenxue yanjiuhui ໂβЎᏢࣴ‫)཮ز‬.17 16 See Li Xianzhang in NY 1.5. (1932a: 8-9) and NY 1.6. (1932b: 14); Huang Chunqing in NY 1.5. (1932a: 9) and NY 1.6. (1932b: 14), and Guo Qiusheng in NY 1.7. (1932c: 24-25). 17 Huang suggested the compilation of three textbooks, one for everyday use (Siông-sek khò-pún த᛽ፐ ҁ), one for letter writing and correspondence (Chhioh-thók khò-pún Ёᛊፐҁ), and one for essay

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

178

Written Taiwanese

The dispute revealed that the creation of a written Taiwanese aimed to put the southern literary tradition on par with that of the north. The purists intended to elevate this southern literary tradition into a high culture, whereas the reformers still subordinated the southern literary tradition to Mandarin baihuawen in terms of word order, terminology and syntax. It indicated an awareness of the degree to which the grammar and framework of written Taiwanese (taiwanhuawen) was able to absorb foreign words, idioms, and syntactic patterns at will. Whereas the purists wished to see written Taiwanese on par with the Chinese northern literary culture as well as the Japanese language, the reformers believed that a written Taiwanese was no more than “a private curiosity in a backward province,” as had been cited by Fu Ren (NY 1.4. 1932d: 10) in “Miscellaneous notes on written Taiwanese, part 4.” These beliefs raised the issue of whether written Taiwanese could be interpreted as a challenge to Chinese cultural hegemony. Here, the correlation of taiwanhuawen and Southern Min came to the rescue, and provided a new sense of belonging to and for maintaining the cultural link with China. It refuted the idea that taiwanhuawen was limited to Taiwan, holding that it had the potential to develop into a language in its own right. Arguments in favor of the southern literary tradition were found in the fact that taiwanhua was not only spoken in Taiwan, but also in the neighboring countries with large Chinese speaking communities such as the Philippines and Singapore, as well as southern China. Fu Ren mentioned Quanzhou, Zhangzhou, Hainan and the islands in the South Seas where several thousand people spoke the same as language as the Taiwanese. He also added Fuzhou, Xinghua ᑫϯ, Yongting ҉ҋ and the neighboring regions to Fujian Province. Their language was very close to Taiwanese, and despite the differences, written Taiwanese still had the values and potential to act as a common language in this part of East Asia (NY 1.4. 1932d: 11). The debate had become a linguistic matter embedded in a larger ideological package, indeed. What were the arguments to advance written Taiwanese as the ideal solution to the elevation of Taiwan culture in the broader context of language reform? Fu Ren’s replies to his main four opponents provide a clear insight in understanding not only his point of view but also differences in interpretations of “literacy.” Said otherwise, it illustrated the dichotomy between functional and genuine literacy. The so-called need to cure the sickness of illiteracy in order to elevate Taiwanese culture centered on the idea of constructing a basic Taiwanese language prior to creating a literature. This can be illustrated with Guo Qiusheng’s phrase “create a literary taiwanhuawen to make a Taiwanese literature,” which he expounded on in the article “A weapon to reform life,” a recurring theme of the nativist literature controversy (NY 1.11. 1932e: 22-23). Proponents of Mandarin baihuawen were not concerned with calls for genuine literacy. Their priority was that the literary world in Taiwan would write in Mandarin writing (Chok-bûn khò-pún բЎፐҁ). He also proposed two dictionaries, one character dictionary (Péh-Ňe jĩ-tián қ၉ӷ‫ )ڂ‬and an annotated one (Péh-Ňe sû-tián қ၉ᜏ‫)ڂ‬. Huang 1931a, cited in Liao (1955: 101).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Historical Mission

179

baihuawen, holding that literature in and of itself was a means to solving the problem of illiteracy. Fu Ren argued strongly in favor of creating a genuine literacy, rather than stopping short at the functional literacy that would be brought about by a mastery of Mandarin baihuawen. His arguments not only dealt with the dichotomy between Mandarin baihuawen and taiwanhuawen, but also shed light on the internal division within the taiwanhuawen faction. Fu Ren was not particularly convinced that Mandarin baihuawen could cure the illiteracy of Taiwan. In reply to Liao Yuwen, a staunch proponent of Mandarin baihuawen, Fu Ren (NY 1.2. 1932b: 18) argued that the development of Mandarin baihuawen was based on the theoretical formulation that it fulfilled the needs of the masses. Liao had noted that the popular journals read among the Taiwanese all published in Mandarin baihuawen (NY 1.2. 1932b: 17-18). Fu Ren pointed out that the usage of baihuawen was not the cause of an increase in the readership; it was the content of the articles (NY 1.2. 1932b: 18). Mandarin baihuawen “in essence a simplified version of wenyanwen” was a lot easier to understand for the Taiwanese masses and readers of Mandarin baihuawen far outnumbered those who could read and understand the popular works and songbooks compiled in Taiwanese (NY 1.2. 1932b: 18). Fu Ren’s understanding of the need for basic literacy, or criticism of the functional literacy in Mandarin baihuawen can be seen from the fact that he emphasized not only the need to read but also use of the language to achieve reform in society, As for [Liao] Yuwen’s “the ideal of written Taiwanese is that it is understood in reading by the Taiwanese, and at the same time also by the people of China, so that Taiwanese and Chinese 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 straightforward way, and thus spare the difficulties of translation. (NY 1.2. 1932b: 18)

The Historical Mission of Written Taiwanese In defining the scope of writing taiwanhuawen, its relation to Mandarin baihuawen came to the surface. This was discussed in terms of the dialectal character of taiwanhua, and how a written Taiwanese would be justified in the greater family of the Chinese language, and more importantly vis-à-vis the status of Mandarin baihuawen constituting a continuation of Chinese civilization and culture through a uniform language. Creating a written form of Taiwanese would problematize the hierarchy of Mandarin baihuawen, and its proponents interpreted this as a frontal attack on the continuity of a uniform Chinese culture. Therefore, proponents for a written Taiwanese were confronted with 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 demonstrate that the creation of a written Taiwanese was not trying to break away from the tradition of a uniform language for the Chinese nation. The proponents of Mandarin baihuawen did

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

180

Written Taiwanese

not support the argument that Taiwan, finding itself in the special situation of being under Japanese colonial rule, was unique. It was mainly Huang Shihui and Guo Qiusheng who wrote against the argument that taiwanhua was a dialect. Because of the southern literary tradition, it was no longer appropriate to speak of taiwanhua in terms of a dialect. Guo (NY 1.9-10. 1932d: 36) in “Once more hearing a voice,” was of the opinion that the advocates of Mandarin baihuawen were “wishing for the ocean and throwing away the sea.” He further noted “how can they forget that they themselves are Taiwanese in a special situation, and do not realize that Mandarin baihuawen in this kind of form, for us Taiwanese is also a scary iron chain” (N.Y. 1.9-10. 1932d: 36). Fu Ren (NY 1.3. 1932c: 7) tried to address the dilemma in a pragmatic way: If Taiwanese [taiwanhua] is half Chinese [zhongguohua], then written Taiwanese [taiwanhuawen] cannot depart from written Chinese [zhonguohuawen ύ୯၉Ў]. In that case, the Chinese masses can read and understand written Taiwanese, but is it so that Taiwanese can read and understand written Chinese? Even if Taiwanese is a dialect of China, written Taiwanese still has the potential to develop into a language, with a literature in Taiwanese, and can contribute to the maturing of the Chinese national language, and transcend its ‘dialect mission’ [fangyan de shiming Б‫ޑق‬٬‫]ڮ‬. If written Chinese can be read and understood by the Taiwanese masses, then the coarse and immature Taiwanese has the potential to absorb Chinese to complement itself. This is then its historical responsibility [qi lishi de renwu ‫ځ‬ᐕ ў‫ޑ‬Һ୍].

Fu Ren’s theorizing on the position of taiwanhuawen within the Chinese language family revealed that there was no need for antagonism between Mandarin baihuawen and taiwanhuawen in the construction of a written Taiwanese. He argued that the Japanese had successfully incorporated Chinese characters into their writing system without losing their Japanese cultural identity. Next, he emphasized that Japanese language modernization followed the principle of approximating the written to the spoken form of the language. According to Fu Ren (NY 1.3. 1932c: 5), the fact that the Japanese used Chinese characters, of non-Japanese cultural origin, did not hinder the intellectual development of the Japanese people. On the contrary, Chinese characters were used to complete the Japanese language and its writing system. This linguistic borrowing took place at a time when the Japanese cultural level was still very low, and when it was appropriate to absorb Chinese culture. Because of this fact, the people’s intellect could develop; the nation could advance and achieve what Japan was by that time. Fu Ren proceeded by explaining that prior to the invention of the Japanese kana syllabary, the phonetic representation of the Japanese language was written entirely in Chinese characters. His argument was as follows. In pre-Meiji traditional education, the Japanese Classics and textbooks combined Chinese characters (kanji) with the kana syllabary. After the Meiji era, popular literature was written in the contemporary Japanese style, but in other areas – songs, and

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Historical Mission

181

fields such as politics, education, and the arts – kanji were still widely used. The genbun itchi (yanwen yizhi) movement had resulted in the establishment of a standard language. From then on, the Japanese vernacular (kouyuwen αᇟЎ) was used in all cultural institutions. Within 30 to 40 years, the once coarse, immature and vulgar Japanese baihua had become a literary language, and was used in politics, education, and other domains of social life. In unifying the spoken and written Japanese language, the principle “rule the written with the spoken” (yihua zhiwen а ၉ ‫ ݯ‬Ў ) had been adopted. Through its incorporation into the cultural and educational institutions, colloquial Japanese had developed into a literary language. This could serve as a model for a written Taiwanese. Linguistic borrowing from Chinese was meant only to complement the Japanese lexicon, and not to approximate spoken Japanese to literary or colloquial Chinese. “Although Japanese cuisine uses many Chinese ingredients, it still has a distinct Japanese taste” (NY 1.3. 1932c: 6). Chinese characters and borrowings were used frequently in Japanese society. Loanwords that made the language fashionable and new terms such as “modern,” “ideology” and the like, had been accepted into the Japanese language, but this was different from saying that this kind of vocabulary had turned Japanese into a foreign language (NY 1.3. 1932c: 6). In the last part of the essay, Fu Ren related the use of Chinese characters in the Japanese language to the debate on whether taiwanhuawen constituted a distinctive language in relation to zhongguohuawen. Linguistic borrowing from China to enrich the Japanese language illustrated that the creation of taiwanhuawen need not exclude zhongguohuawen, but that the two languages would be brought closer and unified in the long term. On these premises, Fu Ren disagreed with Zhu Dianren’s statement that in the making of a written Taiwanese, “zhongguohuawen should be the master, and taiwanhuawen the servant.” Fu Ren considered the internal bickering over whether to reform taiwanhuawen according to Mandarin baihuawen as an impediment to the more urgent cause. This was developing a “Taiwanese literature, constructing a literary Taiwanese to propagate among the Taiwanese masses and curing the sickness of illiteracy” (NY 1.3. 1932c: 6). Fu Ren called for a rapid popularization of a written Taiwanese. To achieve this goal, the principle “rule the written with the spoken” (yihua zhiwen) had to be adopted. This entailed that overlapping vocabulary with Mandarin baihuawen had to be read in Taiwanese. For words for which there were no popular sayings in Mandarin baihuawen, or with expressions for which no character had been found, a Taiwanese expression had to be used. He illustrated this with the Mandarin baihuawen saying “cut feet to fit small shoes” (xiaozu jiuju ߺ‫ى‬൩ቬ), meaning “an impractical solution of a problem” which in Taiwanese written as siah-kha-chiş-ê (ߺဌ൩Ꭰ) had better be used and would also be understood. At this stage, he considered it pointless arguing about the usage of “non-elegant language” (NY 1.3. 1932c: 7). In his opinion, every language had vulgar expressions, and using the Taiwanese pronunciation to translate vulgar expressions

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

182

Written Taiwanese

imported from abroad would not only be incomprehensible to the Taiwanese people, moreover, they would not be interested in it (NY 1.3. 1932c: 8). The most important was to follow the natural development of the language and not randomly construct it. Evolving naturally, taiwanhuawen would eventually come closer to zhongguohuawen. He cited Zhu Wonong, “script usually follows the changes in the language…when the language gradually unifies, the script will also unify” (NY 1.3. 1932c: 6). The discussion revealed the need for the support of a small segment of society in order to make written Taiwanese socially acceptable (acceptance, see Haugen 1972). Division among the Taiwanese was reflected in the cultural conflict over the choice of a language in its colonial setting. Internal bickering among the proponents of a written Taiwanese indicated the belief in continuity of a unified Chinese written language as important. Fu Ren emphasized that antagonism was pointless, and argued for a compromise solution. Back to the Beginning: The Ideological Significance of Folklore To counter criticism that taiwanhua was a dialect, arguments were constructed to show that it possessed the linguistic and social elements to attribute it the status of a language. The major obstacle for the proponents of written Taiwanese was to refute the “dialect” stigma, and somehow formulate arguments convincing enough to place taiwanhua above the cluster of dialect (fangyan). Taiwanhua’s status as a dialect was based on the fact that it lacked a written character-base and was therefore too immature to be written down, that on the spoken level there was too much diversity. As discussed earlier, the linguistic argument focused on trying to establish a relationship between Mandarin baihuawen and taiwanhuawen, and the sociological argument pertained to the dysfunction of Mandarin baihuawen in the linguistic reality of Taiwan. The pillar around which the arguments to challenge the dialectal status of taiwanhua were formulated was the ideal of a folk culture. It provided a common cultural and historical tradition and heritage, which allowed situating Taiwan in the broader context of Chinese culture and at the same time spell out its distinct cultural markers. One strategy to remove the dialectal stigma was the quest for folklore. At first, this seems paradoxical; folklore emphasizes genres of oral folk narratives as opposed to written tradition encased in words, grammatical forms and poetic verses. Two factors, however, need to be taken into account. The first was the imperative of having a living literature versus the reliance on a standardized form of writing that was promoted by the Mandarin baihuawen movement. Second was the colonial context that generated a search for a common cultural tradition to counter foreign Japanese cultural dominance. This was in conjunction with furthering cultural enhancement through which societal self-knowledge could be incorporated into the political sphere and serve as a point of cultural resistance. Therefore, the quest for folklore was motivated by socio-political concerns. The search for a common cultural tradition was powered not so much by the distress at seeing the elite increasingly abandoning the Chinese cultural heritage in

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Back to the Beginning

183

favor of Japanese and Western inspired models of refinement. Rather, it was seen as a vehicle for transforming basic social attitudes and forging a sense of unity among the population. The relationship between nativist literature and folklore facilitated the construction of a Taiwanese repertoire that could pride itself on a common cultural and historical tradition. These commonalities were politicized and collecting its narrative genres became pedagogical tools in a process of cultural socialization. Taiwanese interest in folksongs and folk literature was closely related to the understanding of nativist literature. In this respect, the firstly published composition of a Taiwanese folksong deserves a mention. In 1927, Zheng Kunwu published a popular love ballad (po-koa ፅᄺ), called “Taiwan Folksong” (Tâi-ôan kok-hong ᆵ᡼୯॥) in Taiwan Yiyuan (‘Taiwan Literary Circle’ ᆵ᡼᛬ल).18 Three years later, Huang Shihui referred to Zheng’s folksong as “capturing the true meaning of nativist literature” (Huang 1930, cited in Wu 1955: 53). He also noted that at the time of its composition and publication, the folksong was read as a curiosity and only noticed by those who were interested in ancient scholarly research on the language. Huang probably referred here to Lian Yatang’s articles on kaozheng research, published in The Taiwan Minpao of November 1929 (TWMP 288. 1929a: 8; TWMP 289. 1929b: 4). Liao Yuwen (1955: 97) observed that Zheng’s folksong, as the first expression of nativist literature, went unnoticed because he did not put it in a theoretical context. However, Liao fails to mention that it was precisely Huang’s manipulation of this Taiwanese folksong into an emblem of historical authenticity which constituted a driving force in gathering further support. By equating the value of this Taiwanese love ballad with that of the 300 poems in the Classic of Poetry (Shijing ၃࿶), Huang singled out folksongs and folk literature as the creators and the supporters of a Taiwanese culture, worthy of its own literature in taiwanhuawen. The rapprochement with the tradition of the folk was not a step backward, but rather a return to the beginning of society. This idea also stood central in the folk literature movements in Japan in the 1920s, when viewed against the background of Japanese nation-building (Brandt 1996). Not surprisingly, it inspired progressive journals, such as the San liu jiu xiao bao, operating from Tokyo, which started a separate column (Tai-san ta-chhiuȭ ᗽξᐑୠ). The politicization of authentic popular literature was equally linked to a renewed interest in the language. It marked the beginning of a language revival in taiwanhua. Lian Yatang was invited to pen his own column, titled Lectures on the Taiwanese Language (Tâi-ôan péh-Ňe káng-sƟp ᆵ᡼қ၉ᖱಞ), in which he elaborated on the historical origins of phrases and idioms. In January 1931, when The Taiwan Minpao became the Taiwan Shin Minpao, Huang Xingmin ໳ᒬ҇ also set up his folksong column. The column ran for half a year and published stories, legends and songs from all over the island. One of the contributors was Lin Qinlang ݅ถ॔, who had been publishing folksongs in San liu jiu xiao bao (Liao 1993: 60). The objective was not purely cultural. In the inaugura18 Taiwan Yiyuan was established on 15 April 1927. It was a Mandarin baihuawen journal published in Kaohsiung. See Zhao (1985: 90-91), Li (1986: 156).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

184

Written Taiwanese

tion statement “A proposal for arranging ‘folksongs’” Huang Xingmin wrote, “Popularizing 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.” (TWMP 345. 1931: 18) For a while, the folklore trope worked in furthering the localization of Taiwanese culture, and making its claim to authenticity acceptable within the Chinese cultural setting. It is against this background that Guo Qiusheng highlighted the importance of folksongs not only for the creation of a Taiwanese folk literature, but also for its intrinsic linguistic values. In an article in Taiwan Shin Minpao (TWSMP 379. 1931: 11), Guo suggested collecting folksongs from each region in Taiwan and comparing the several pronunciations to deduct a standard pronunciation. He emphasized that the common language of Taiwanese folksongs was linguistically part and parcel of the language spoken in Fujian. By means of example, Guo analyzed the popular folksong “Soat-bun’s Husband” (Soat-mûi su-kun ഓఘࡘ։) to counter the popular prejudice that taiwanhua was “a language for which no characters existed” (youyin wuzi Ԗॣคӷ). His conclusion was that out of a hundred characters only five or so did not have corresponding characters. Clearly, Guo’s intention was to lift taiwanhua out of the realm of its dialect cluster by proving that the narrative genres of folklore, such as folksongs, popular legends, tales and ballads were heir to a classical written tradition of Southern Min. Because of the character heritage, writing taiwanhuawen was progressing beyond the stage of a dialect with local color. At the same time, he sought to overcome the existing prejudice that taiwanhua was a coarse and immature language. Acknowledging that there were some unrefined and unpolished parts in the written language, one should not overlook the fact that taiwanhua also embraced a certain beauty (TWSMP 379. 1931: 11). A first and most efficient step to overturn the unrefined language stigma was the collection of folk literature and popular songs (TWSMP 379. 1931: 11). The “Language of Literature” in the 1930s At the end of 1932, the literary magazine Nanyin ceased publication. But this did not mean that the debate on which language should be used to compose nativist literature came to a halt. On the contrary, literary activities in support of the colony’s cultural enhancement illustrate how the folksong-collecting movement had expanded. This was directed by a group of young Taiwanese studying in Tokyo. In October 1933, their new literary magazine titled Forumosa (‘Formosa’ 嗶嗊嘌嘃嗖) was launched under the auspices of the Society for the Study of Taiwanese Art (Taiwan kenkyşkai ᆵ ᡼᛬ೌࣴ‫)཮ز‬, and the Taiwan Literary Association (Taiwan bungei kyŇkai ᆵ᡼Ў᛬ ‫)཮ڐ‬. The manifesto of the Society for the Study of Taiwanese Art noted that the society intended to collect, compile and research the popular legacy as a preliminary step in the transformation process of “recreating a real Taiwanese literature and art” (Taiwan Sotokufu, Keimukyoku, vol II: 58-60).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Language of Literature

185

This real Taiwanese literature and art emphasized the unique living environment of the Taiwanese people, which had produced a popular literature and folk art that could provide a base for future creative efforts. However, this popular cultural legacy was assessed as partly unfavorable because traditional extended family structure, heterodox religion, superstitions, a warped but still extant Confucian ideology, a passive belief in fate determined by Heaven, and Buddhism had combined to produce immeasurable spiritual corruption (Forumosa 1.1. 1933: 1). Despite its unfavorable combination of spiritual and ideological stimuli, this heritage was still considered a better base to build upon than the inherited Chinese cultural legacy, defined as painting, calligraphy and poetry. The manifesto stated that no traces of the painting or calligraphy tradition could be found in Taiwan, and that poetry had become a socializing activity (Forumosa 1.1. 1933: 1). Its first issue also carried Su Weixiong’s ᝵ᆢᅜ (1908-1968) analysis of Taiwanese folksongs (Forumosa 1.1. 1933: 2-15). Such a comprehensive examination would appear only once in Forumosa’s total of seven issues. With the exception of the recording of ballads in every issue, no other concerted efforts were made. The Taiwan-based Taiwan Literary Association was more industrious in catalogueing folksongs and released several anthologies of popular literature between 1934 and 1936. Some of these were published in the Association’s literary magazines, Xianfa budui (‘The Vanguard’ Ӄว೽໗) and its successor Diyi xian (‘Frontline’ ಃ΋ጕ). Due to Japanese censorship, both were limited to single issues. In the article “Expectations of Taiwanese folksongs,” Chen Junyu (1934: 11) ഋ։ҏ (1906-1963) highlighted the functionality of folksongs and rhymes, calling them “a popular amulet whose power to console, uplift and encourage the Taiwanese was unmatched by other literature.” Diyi xian was packaged as a special edition on popular Taiwanese literature and contained 15 newly compiled Taiwanese legends. In the preface “Knowing popular literature,” Huang Deshi (1935: 1) ໳ளਔ (1909-1999) described a Taiwan separate from Japan and China and noted the new interest in Taiwanese studies on the island. It was the duty of the Taiwanese, as descendants, to collect and study this ancestral legacy, not only for the sake of literature or to further the field of ethnography, but also in order to understand the feelings, cosmology, artistic spirit and philosophy of their Taiwanese ancestors. In this respect, comparison was made with the Japanese Kojiki and Greek mythology. The inclusion of legends was a new element, and was one of the favorite topics of Chinese folklorists. H.T. Sheng’s ғ (1935: 36-39) short essay in Diyi xian, titled “Some problems on the collection and description of legends” interestingly described the differences between the forms of legends in the northern and southern literary tradition. Between 1934 and 1936, the Association published a major anthology of popular literature, which included folksongs, nursery rhymes and legends. Its main compilers were Lian Yatang, Li Xianzhang and Guo Mingkun ೾ܴܲ!(1908-1943). In the summer of 1934, Li Xianzhang collected more than 200 riddles (Taiwan miyu suanlu ᆵ᡼ ᖮᇟᝪᒵ), which he published in the Taiwan Shin Minpao (Li 1986: 161). This was

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

186

Written Taiwanese

followed by “Compilation of Taiwanese folksongs and casual comments on its dialectal use” and “Compilation of Taiwanese love songs” (Li 1986: 161). The next year, Collection of Taiwan Popular Literature (Taiwan minjian wenxueji ᆵ᡼҇໔ЎᏢ໣) was published (Li 1935). Characteristic of the collection of traditional Taiwanese forms was that these folklorists emphasized the southern cultural heritage as their origins. A distinction was made between what they perceived as the northern and southern forms of folklore. This not only pertained to a discussion of the legends, but also to the folksongs and ballads. Chen Junyu (1934: 11-12) elaborated the difference between the “northern tune” (beiqu чԔ) and “southern tune” (nanqu ࠄԔ). Acknowledging that beiqu had become more popular in Taiwan, he still emphasized that its style had adapted to the Taiwan pronunciation. Chen defined four types of folksongs characteristic to Taiwan. These were the mountain songs (shange ξᄺ), tea-picking songs (caicha ௦ૡ), duets (xiangdai ࣬೓) and local songs (T. koa-á-chheh ᄺвн). The first three of these were originally imported from China, but had been sufficiently nativized. The Taiwanese creation was the last one, despite its short history. He singled this form out for both praise and criticism. Criticism pertained to its commercialization by the Japanese entertainment industry, which exported the form to south China and Southeast-Asia. Chen (1934: 14) was of the opinion that this commercialization contributed to the production of an inferior form of the genre, and feared that it would harm Taiwan’s cultural reputation. Cai Li’s ๼ಹ article in Diyi xian (1935: 40-52)!“My view on folksongs” from Taipei defined “popular songs” in relation to literature and music. Again, this can be interpreted as an effort to single out Taiwanese folksongs as a distinct artistic genre, a means of sup porting their cultural legacy. At the same time, folksong-collecting was part of a further attempt at creating a written Taiwanese. By the mid-1930s, its proponents and opponents had reached a certain consensus. The vigorous polemics in Nanyin show that disagreement over the standardization of characters, meaning and form went on at the expense of literary production aimed at furthering cultural advancement. As Fu Ren pointed out in Nanyin in 1932, arguing about the meaning of certain characters was less important than proceeding with the composition of literary works in the immediate present (NY 1.3. 1932c: 8). Mandarin baihuawen writers voiced similar opinions. For instance, Zhu Dianren suggested that Nanyin should use a clear and easy-to-understand language, so as to cure the sickness of illiteracy (NY 1.2. 1932: 1). Lai Qing writing for Xianfa budui (1934: 7) also held that “the literary world in Taiwan has to choose the simple and the plain.” The call for a “simple and plain language” also came to the fore during the 1934 island-wide literary arts conference, held in Taizhong on 6 May.19 A sizeable gathering 19 A record of this meeting can be found in the second issue of the literary journal The Taiwan-Bungei.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Language of Literature

187

of 82 writers and intellectuals from all over the island convened to establish an organization that would lead the budding literary movement (Fix 1993: 159). Written reform was addressed in relation to the promotion of the “popularization of literature” (wenyi dazhonghua Ў᛬ε౲ϯ). Three points of discussion dominated the gathering: first, literary works should describe what was very closely related to the life of the masses; second, the literary form and the script should be at a level which was easy for the average reader to understand; third, it should be of artistic interest to the general masses (The Taiwan-Bungei 2.1. 1935: 7). Its accompanying journal, The Taiwan-Bungei, appeared the same year and was committed to the popularization of literature. The Taiwan-Bungei published a total of 16 issues (November 1934 - August 1936). Its medium was Japanese and Mandarin baihuawen (Ye 1992: 23). The debate on standardization of written Taiwanese continued to run in The Taiwan-Bungei, especially in 1935 and 1936. However, the message was that writing in a clear and simple Mandarin baihuawen was preferred to compositions in written Taiwanese. Usage of taiwanhuawen was suggested for dialogues in particular. Membership of the literary organizations in Taiwan and their contributors included an increasing number of young intellectuals who had returned from China and who were fluent in writing Mandarin baihuawen. One of these was Zhang Shenqie ஭ుϪ (1904-1965). Moreover, their opinions on so-called dialect writing, as it was known in China, likely reinforced the growing trend to view taiwanhua as a dialect. Writings in the mid-1930s literary journals increasingly referred to taiwanhua as a dialect, a clear indicator of this trend. Noteworthy in this respect is Guo Yizhou’s ೾΋Ճ article “Beijing speech” (The Taiwan-Bungei 2.5. 1935a: 1-14) and his serialized article “Hoklo” (The TaiwanBungei 2.6. 1935b: 112-122; 2.10. 1935c: 128-140; 3.4-5. 1935d: 51-67). This ran counter to the writings in Nanyin and the polemics in the Japanese-run newspapers and leftwing journals in earlier years. Another influential development in the mid-1930s was the emergence of young Japanese-language writers. By 1933 there were sufficient numbers of accomplished young Taiwanese writers living in Tokyo, as well as an increasing number of returnees from Japan, who together with Japanese youngsters competed in the literary contests organized by the colonial authorities. As Douglas Fix (1993: 185) pointed out: “by 1935, some of the Taiwanese ‘local literature’ had begun to advance on the literary circles in Tokyo.” In between these two growing groups, support for a sustained development of composing literature in written Taiwanese was waning. There was another conflict that should not be overlooked. Several of the more influential contributors to The Taiwan-Bungei disagreed on the ideological underpinnings of the magazine and then current tendencies in Taiwanese literature. In June and July 1935, Yang Kui ླྀົ!(1906-1985), Li Xianzhang and Liao Yuwen openly attacked The Taiwan-Bungei (Fix 1993: 168-177). Yang Kui’s newly established Taiwan Shin Bungaku (‘Taiwan New Literature’ ᆵ᡼ཥЎᏢ) broke with The Taiwan-Bungei in December 1935. It survived until June 1937. Whereas The Taiwan-Bungei still devoted considerable

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

188

Written Taiwanese

attention to the language issue, Taiwan Shin Bungaku objectives were less recognizing of a standardization of written Taiwanese. One example was Wang Shilang’s writing on this (1936: 8). In the wake of these controversies, the language issue became increasingly polarized. If a literary language were to be created of taiwanhuawen, a tremendous ongoing effort would first be required to develop and enrich the language itself. Creating a new literature in taiwanhuawen aimed at establishing a beachhead to the modern world in the greater Chinese cultural mode, while maintaining a link to the cultural heritage of Southern Min contained in a traditional library of texts. Taiwanese writers therefore had to develop the instruments of this art during the very act of creating: they had to work out the genres suitable to the specific fictional world, modes of expression, language of literature and terminology of politics, nature and science. However, at the same time, they were confronting the challenges of the “language of literature” and its specific qualities. These considerations hampered concerted efforts to build an autonomous linguistic culture in taiwanhuawen. The polemics in the magazine Nanyin revealed that there were two main obstacles to writing in Taiwanese. First was the incomplete degree of linguistic standardization and internal disagreement on which form of written Taiwanese to adopt; second was the lack of social acceptance of the idea and its realization to guarantee its embodiment in society. Disillusionment on the part of some of its earlier advocates played a role as well. For instance, in “No need for criticism, first make the masses literate,” Huang Shihui (1934: 1) refused to talk any further about popularizing literature until a literacy campaign had been implemented. “New Taiwan literature had nothing to do with the masses, because the masses cannot read!” (Huang 1934: 1) Despite efforts to bring them closer, a great divide separated urban intellectuals from their rural audience, as Guo Qiusheng reluctantly admitted. Without a strong belief in the cause of creating a Taiwan literature that could act upon growth of knowledge and enlightenment, proceeding with the creation of a written Taiwanese seemed futile (Guo 1934: 21-22). The Japanese Colonial Environment There are two perspectives from which to evaluate the impact of Japanese colonial policy on the literary debates throughout the 1920s and 1930s. Underlying the assimilation policy, which was primarily aimed at instilling Japanese values into the Taiwanese, there were also measures clearly aimed at fostering a cultural separation between Taiwan and China. The colonial government tolerated publication of Mandarin baihuawen journals and periodicals. Yet, every issue was censored and news coverage from China in The Taiwan Minpao kept the colonial authorities informed. The security section of the Taiwan colonial police department was responsible for monitoring the press. Each newspaper press had to send two copies of every edition to the section for examination prior to publication. Permission had to be granted before issues could be

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Japanese Environment

189

distributed. Confiscations or blanking out sensitive sections occurred when higher officials overruled decisions by the censors. June of 1936 marked another step toward complete control. A semi-official news-agency was granted the rights to handle all news articles coming in and going out of Taiwan (Jang 1968: 67-68). The administration also subscribed to Chinese journals and periodicals, which were put on display in libraries. The readership and staff members of The Taiwan Minpao belonged to the new colonial elite, backbone of the colony’s economic development. New Japanese economic endeavors, such as the advertisement business, beer and wine monopoly, pharmaceutical industry, and paper and printing industries, could flourish and expand due to propagation within colonial society. A look at the layout and advertising of The Taiwan Minpao and, in particular the Taiwan Shin Minpao, reveals that a considerable amount of space was taken up by adverts for these Japanese products. It should be emphasized rather than just mentioned that the Taiwan colony was a market for Japanese products, and all means facilitating this end were welcomed. From the early 1930s onward, however, strict controls over the import of Chineselanguage publications increased.20 In 1936 this policy also extended to the Japaneselanguage periodicals published in Taiwan. For instance, the edition of Taiwan Shin Bungaku ᆵ᡼ཥЎᏢ, intended for December 1936 was prohibited from publication (Fix 1993: 181). From 1 April the following year onward, 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 Japanization, known as kŇminka (ࣤ҇ϯ), and lasted until the Japanese surrender in 1945. Notwithstanding, the Japanese colonial impact on the development of the Chinese language in Taiwan should not be discussed only in terms of oppression. Annexation separated Taiwan from China, yet colonial rule centered 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, based on the Japanese culture, language and values replaced it. This Japanese order embraced all the cultures of East Asia, creating the notion of a pan-Asianism or Greater East-Asia Co-prosperity sphere. The Taiwan colony acted as a base for Japanese geographic expansion into the South Seas, as illustrated in the move-southwards policy (nanshinron ࠄ຾ፕ). To this end, the South Seas Society (NanyŇ kyŇkai ࠄࢩ‫ )཮ڐ‬had been founded in Tokyo in 1915 by a group of influential politicians, businessmen, and bureaucrats, which included Uchida Kakichi 㚵Җ჏ӓ!(1866-1933), the chief civilian administrator of Taiwan, and also Shibusawa Ei’ichi 䭊㟾䪋΋!(1840-1931), a prominent businessman. The Society’s prospectus did not put a definite boundary on the geographical range of its activities. It simply declared “a boundless treasure house in the vast nanyŇ – as wide as a million square miles even though confined only to Java, Sumatra, Borneo, Celebes, the Malay 20 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.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

190

Written Taiwanese

Peninsula, and the Philippines – is awaiting development by the nations of the world” (NanyŇ kyŇkai nijş nen shi 1935: 6; Shimizu 1980: 6-34). This Japanese development initiative included research on the industries, social systems, and general conditions in the south, transmission of information between the regions in the south and Japan, promotion of Japanese skills and know-how, training of a work force as well as publication of periodicals, books and other academic activities (NanyŇ kyŇkai nijş nen shi 1935: 2). As pointed out by Lydia Yu-José (1999: 23), the colonial government in Taiwan made intensive studies of the Philippines and played a key role in gathering information. In the attempt to explore the areas where Japan could expand and find out what resources could be useful, research projects on the Philippines conducted by the Taiwan colonial government in the immediate years following World War I, dealt with the maguey and abaca, the Philippine Agricultural Bank, and the national economy in general (Yu-José 1999: 24). Two Taiwan-based publications on Philippine local government laws, education, and the non-Christian Filipinos, appeared during this period (Yu-José 1999: 24). Japanese anthropological research on Taiwan’s Austronesian speaking peoples and the continued linguistic efforts in the native languages of Taiwan were not only part of gaining a better understanding of the island but also fit the concept of an expanding colonial empire (Blundell 2001: 3-4; Michio 1999). The acquisition of these data was primarily a political tool and a mechanism of governmental domination. Japanese subscriptions to Western journals of colonialism and acquisitions of related works formed a considerable part of public libraries as well as the libraries of the Taihoku Imperial University.21 Japanese officials and scholars engaged in linguistic research on Taiwanese; at least six series on the Taiwanese language (taiwango) were compiled and published by the colonial government.22 The most renowned is Ogawa Naoyoshi, a linguist in service of the colonial administration who lived most of his life in Taiwan (Ang 1992a: 75-78; Tomita 1998). Although the series was compiled for Japanese officials and aimed at furthering colonization, it should not be assumed that their existence was unknown to the Taiwanese people. These periodicals were available in Japanese bookstores, libraries and employed a considerable number of Taiwanese staff members. In addition, new research discloses the market for private Japanese schools that instructed in Taiwanese (Tomita 2009: 66-70). Tied in with commercial interests was the development of a Japanese-run entertainment industry, encouraging sales of Japanese music and film, as well as Taiwanese records and films. Together with the motion industry, the music industry promoted Taiwanese songs. This explains why the Taiwanese folksong collection movement was tolerated by the colonial authorities, and because of this support, could develop. Its 21 These Japanese efforts at storing compilations have greatly facilitated the development of 17th century Dutch Formosan studies in later years. 22 For example see the journals Taiwango (1901-), Taiwangogaku Zasshi (1902-), and Go-en, published by the Taiwango kenkyşkai in 1908.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Japanese Environment

191

burgeoning period was between 1932 and 1938, not accidentally coinciding with the Japanese-owned Columbia Records Company. Its director, Kashino ShŇjirŇ ࢙ഁ҅ԛ ॔, set up a section for Taiwanese popular songs, hiring several Taiwanese songwriters and composers (Chuang 1995: 22). The record company was located in Taipei, and its records appealed mainly to this urbanite population. As a modern, upmarket form of entertainment, it stood in contrast to more traditional forms of musical styles, particularly the several forms of local opera and street performances which were famous for advertising medicines (Hsieh 1991: 153-67). Kashino saw the potential for local forms of music as well. According to one of the composers, Li Linqiu ‫׵‬ᖏࣿ (1909-1979), Kashino encouraged the production of a “Taiwanese flavor” (taiwanwei Ѡ᡼‫)ښ‬, not only to boast sales in Taiwan but also abroad (Chuang 1995: 27). Not surprisingly, among the songwriters and composers hired were several who also participated in the taiwanhuawen language debate. Among them were Chen Junyu, Cai Deyin, Liao Yuwen and Huang Deshi, who was the son of Huang Chunqing, as well as Zhang Fuxing ஭ᅽᑫ (1888-1954), who is known as the most renowned Taiwanese composer of the colonial period (Chuang 1987: 85-92). As soon as the success of Columbia Records had been noted, private Taiwanese investors began set up their own record companies and contracted these songwriters. Noteworthy in this respect are Guo Borong’s ೾റ৒!Popular Music Company (Boyou yuechangpian gongsi റ϶኷ୠТϦљ) and Lin Benyuan’s Victorola Gramophone Record Company (Nihon Bikutaa chikuon motokaisha В ҁ 嗴 嗐 嗠 嘙 ᆽ ॣ Ꮤ ਲ਼ Ԅ ཮ ‫) ޗ‬ (Chuang 1995: 36-37). Another initiative was the 1935 organization of the “Taiwan Singers Association” (Taiwan geren xiehui ᆵ៻ᄺΓ‫)཮ڐ‬, and its membership consisting of most of the songwriters and composers. Between 1925 and 1937, publications of Taiwanese songbooks (koa-á-chheh) totaling 451 different kinds, sold at 22 bookstores throughout the island (Ang 1995: 13). In view of these facts, one has to evaluate the mid-1930s trends that dominated the linguistic debate. Folklore and its commercialization by the colonial authorities reveal patterns that help explain the ideological (social and linguistic) underpinnings to the Written Taiwanese movement. Proposals made by Huang Shihui and Guo Qiusheng disclosed a form of popular resistance to the Japanese language and the functionality of Mandarin baihuawen as a vehicle to solve illiteracy in society. As they were inspired by the borrowed concept of nativist literature, Taiwanese intellectuals and writers became entangled in a debate on which language should represent Taiwanese new literature. Arguments to counter the criticism that taiwanhua was a dialect generated a first step in the direction toward standardizing taiwanhuawen and creating a written Taiwanese. Both the linguistic and social components of taiwanhuawen versus Mandarin baihuawen in the constitution of a language were discussed. In the process, a return to collecting folksongs was meant to establish a beachhead to gathering broader support for the definition of a distinct Taiwan culture by underscoring its unique linguistic characteristics.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

192

Written Taiwanese

Due to the incentive of the Japanese colonial entertainment sector in encouraging the composition of Taiwan-made popular songs, attention shifted. 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. As a matter of fact, 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 curtailed a sustained development of writing in taiwanhuawen. These issues concerned Taiwanese acceptance of the canonization of concepts of modern literature and poetry derived from the dominant cultures, whether Mandarin baihuawen or Japanese. Steps were taken toward the creation of a full-fledged cultural establishment in the form of literary associations and the accompanying magazines and publishing houses. The ideological dimension of a taiwanhuawen became less and less indicated by the concept of “composing in taiwanhuawen,” but rather by a new concept of social being, marked by its language as the genuine cultural legacy of Taiwan. The historical roots of Taiwanese, embedded in the reading form of Southern Min and popular literature, emphasized a continued belonging to Chinese culture. However, this Chinese culture was carried by Mandarin baihuawen as the new literary medium, and as a consequence undercut the development for proceeding with a unified movement to hasten the process of standardization of a written Taiwanese. Nonetheless, theoretically the foundations deemed necessary to develop taiwanhua into taiwanhuawen had been laid. Conclusion Inspired by the borrowed concept of nativist literature, Taiwanese intellectuals and writers became entangled in a controversy over which language should represent Taiwanese new literature. Taiwanese understanding and interpretation of this nativist literature resulted in a movement toward creation of a written Taiwanese. Writers discussing Taiwan nativist literature focused on the form of language, rather than on the content of their literary compositions. The arguments that were formulated have been presented in a socio-linguistic matrix. Initially, the selection of which language this nativist literature should be written in dominated the debate. It was agreed to choose idioms and character compounds approximating taiwanhua and not Mandarin baihuawen. The colloquial pronunciation of Taiwanese was favored over the reading pronunciation. Technical difficulties had to do with the choice and construction of new characters. Attempts at phonological-historical research (kaozheng) furthermore drew attention to the complexity of the southern literary tradition. These issues were taken up by the literary magazine Nanyin. Proposals by Huang Shihui and Guo Qiusheng contested the superiority of the Japanese language and the functionality of Mandarin baihuawen as a vehicle to solve illiteracy in society. This generated a linguistic and ideological controversy between the pros and cons of creating a written form of Taiwanese (taiwanhuawen).

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Conclusion

193

The push for written Taiwanese was not merely about promoting taiwanhua as the commonly spoken language of the Taiwanese people, more than that, it meant to transform the vernacular into a language that could express both ordinary ideas and sophisticated concepts. Inspirited by the achievements of the literary revolution in Republican China, Mandarin baihuawen had been developing into a modern language supple enough to support impressionistic prose, expressionistic poetry, and precise studies in economics and phonology. Its vocabulary was expanded considerably, and orthography and terminology were codified. Efforts toward the creation of a written Taiwanese were parallel to and in competition with that of Mandarin baihuawen. But there was one crucial difference: Taiwanese was an active spoken language but lacked a structured written form. Transforming taiwanhua into taiwanhuawen entailed linguistic and social components that provided an ideological bedding to justify the linguistic goal. Such could not take place in a vacuum. Historical, social and cultural legacies had to be considered, as well as changes resulting from colonial domination. Popularity of folklore and folk literature (folklore populism) combined with an emphasis on the linguistic authenticity of Southern Min were to re-invoke a belonging and sense of continued Chinese identity extending beyond Taiwan. To counter the criticism that taiwanhuawen was a dialect and unworthy of the same status as Mandarin baihuawen, the ideal of a folk culture established a beachhead. It enabled the gathering of 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 search for the remains of narrative genres of folklore became instrumental in proceeding with efforts to standardize taiwanhuawen and uncovering traces of a Taiwanese cultural heritage while maintaining the cultural link with China. This became the driving force that sustained the debate on the construction of a written Taiwanese despite the opposing voices maintaining that taiwanhua was a dialect and undercut the common cultural and historical tradition with China. The 1930s debate over creating a written Taiwanese defined itself against the boundaries of Mandarin baihuawen, not so much with the intention to break away from Chinese tradition, but to create its own place within the Chinese-language hierarchy. In doing so, its proponents challenged the uniformity of the Chinese written language in Chinese identity formation. Japanese cultural policies precipitated this phenomenon, underscoring a separation between China and Taiwan, but at the same time this was countered by an increasing popularization of Mandarin baihuawen as the modern Chinese literary medium and symbol of the Chinese civilization and culture.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Epilogue: Japanese Models, Chinese Culture and the Dilemma of Taiwanese Language Reform In 1895, the island of Taiwan became a Japanese colony. The transition from a Chinese administrative province to a Japanese colony cut right across the link with the ancestral homeland and drew a rift through the shared Han Chinese culturalism, which had developed over a span of 200 years under Qing rule. Participation in Han Chinese culturalism was embodied in the ideal of personal self-realization through study and trade. Instead, colonial rule presented a new framework that reorganized various elements in a different way, selected and highlighted previously neglected features, added other conspicuous ones, changed hierarchies and thus made the complex a new entity. This new entity did not destroy the expression of Chinese culture in Taiwan, though it did produce an incisive questioning of and reflection on their cultural heritage. In the making of the cultural repertoire as alternative, language became a central ingredient, and a major vehicle of socio-cultural interaction. This was because language was the cultural good affected most visibly in the newly imposed Japanese repertoire and in the intercultural interaction and intragroup competition. Attempts by the educated elite at language reform were determined by the colonial setting. Lack of social mobility in the Taiwanese home repertoire became the drive to go to Japan, yet it was the very act of this displacement which enabled them to see the benefits of appropriating to the new Japanese model and engender a change in the existing order at home. The way in which colonial educational policy played a crucial role has been illustrated with this study which has shown that the Japanese educational accommodation of the Chinese language, notably its institutionalization, provided the basis for reform-minded intellectuals to press their demands for a continuation of Chinese-language instruction. But there is more to add explaining why it was language which was selected as an option crucial for the elevation of Taiwan culture and participation in the world of modernity. It was not only the impact of experiencing modern life in the Japanese metropole, but also to witness the model of literacy being in full action, driven by the rise of standard languages and language standardization as a model for successful modification of the existing order and its repertoire. Language standardization, offered through Japanese, provided a new skill, a way of organizing and interpreting life which the domestic repertoire did not offer because of an outdated model of the Chinese language as the organizing principle for a modern way of life. The transition from Classical Chinese, wenyanwen to Mandarin baihuawen presented a new model of a modern Chinese language. It showed that the Chinese language as an expression of Chinese culture was, in the wake of a strong Japan, equally capable to lead China onto the road of modernization and turn the country into a strong nation. The centrality of the language dominance as an integral part in the making of the Tai-

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

196

Epilogue

wan alternative repertoire was to gain access to the same benefits and social privileges with the explicit purpose to create shifts and exercise control and come to the same footing as the Japanese. Because Taiwanese were mocked for not mastering the Japanese language best, the alternative was not to learn even better, but to use “their own language instead,” to be presented as a natural resource equally accessible to members of the Taiwanese home repertoire. This was coupled with an understanding that becoming literate and knowledgeable was the skill to acquire, and since this skill was not properly implemented with the Japanese language and its appropriation in the domestic existing repertoire, it had to be replaced by an alternative tool. The alternatives to Japanese and Classical Chinese – Romanized Taiwanese, Mandarin baihuawen and Written Taiwanese – centered on this concept of imparting that skill of literacy. Identification with the Chinese language in Taiwan was rooted in the Southern Min tradition, however. This fundamental characteristic of the Chinese language led to questioning Mandarin baihuawen as the appropriate new literary medium. Mandarin baihuawen was not representative for Taiwan in that it was too removed from the island’s spoken tradition of the Chinese language. The oral component of Chinese in language reform became a topic of discussion, and this point constituted the main element in the subsequent development of a Written Taiwanese movement in the 1930s. This is not to say that the Written Taiwanese movement developed in opposition to the Mandarin baihuawen movement. On the contrary, the Written Taiwanese movement could not have developed without the literary and linguistic input of the former. The reception of Mandarin baihuawen in Taiwan happened at a time when Mandarin baihuawen had gained the status of a “national language” (guoyu) in China and was in full expansion through literature. Consequently, Mandarin baihuawen as a language reform movement was introduced as a literary movement in Taiwan. It made available a range of new ideas through literature, often translated from Western and Japanese works. Among these “literary imports” were “proletarian literature” and “nativist literature.” Even though the distribution of Chinese literature was on a small scale, it instilled a new pride in the Chinese cultural heritage. It re-instituted Mandarin baihuawen in the perpetuation of a Chinese literature responding to modernization in its own right. This facilitated the formation of a “Chinese language reading middle class” in Taiwan. In view of the elevation of Taiwan culture, the literary forms and also a general acquaintance with the socio-intellectual settings and changes in 19th century European novels provided a new framework to further deal with urgent social problems. By the 1930s, the urgent problem was defined and narrowed down to illiteracy, but the elite were not necessarily concerned with the illiterate population at large. It became the common cause to center their efforts around, and gave them ground to consolidate their own indispensability in society. The introduction of Mandarin baihuawen in Taiwan resulted in the awareness that it was possible to write down freely what one wanted to say. It generated a new cultural approach to Chinese literacy, notably the transformation from an erudite literary lan-

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

197

Epilogue

guage to a tool for widespread communication. However, the emphasis remained on the written reform of the language while its spoken component was considered less of an issue. In that sense, the social and linguistic achievements of Mandarin baihuawen in Taiwan to address the issue of cultural enhancement proved to be a contradiction in terms. Emphasizing the spoken form of the language as basis for the creation of a nativist or proletarian literature was contradictory with a model that represented a basic reform of the written language and approximated a Chinese vernacular that was substantially different from the vernaculars customarily spoken in Taiwan. Consequently, converting Taiwanese into a modern language, capable of contributing in the cultural enhancement was incompatible with the approximation of Taiwanese to Mandarin baihuawen. For this reason, the 1930s literary debates witnessed the split in two factions. One group continued defining the content of nativist literature but in Mandarin baihuawen, while another group was concerned with the form in which this nativist literature had to be written. This group was not involved in debating literary forms, but proceeded with the construction of a Written Taiwanese. The Written Taiwanese movement in the early 1930s was in no sense the result of a natural evolutionary process, yet it was inevitable in light of contemporaneous developments in colonial society. While the proponents for creating a written form of Taiwanese may not have achieved their individual aims, they performed a valuable service to Taiwan society by drawing attention to the problem of the dichotomy between the spoken and the written form in Chinese language development. They disclosed the cultural values associated with the Chinese language as an expression of Chinese identity. In proceeding with their endeavours to standardize taiwanhua, they questioned the basic principle that Chinese unity was expressed in terms of its unified written language. Consequently, they laid the theoretical foundations for a Taiwanese linguistic consciousness whose legacy would resurface in postwar/colonial Taiwan. The colonial administration indirectly encouraged the debate on a written form of Taiwanese. Two reasons can be given. Firstly, furthering research and gathering information on the local languages and customs of the Taiwanese population served the purposes of strengthening colonial rule. Secondly, the creation of a local Taiwan culture would speed up the separation from China. One should not overemphasize this aspect in the ideological sense. More direct gains were on the economic level as products of “Taiwanese culture” or a “Taiwanese version of things Japanese” were marketed and sold for export. This has been demonstrated with a brief discussion of the music industry that employed several Taiwanese composers who also participated in the 1930s literary debate. Continuation of the Chinese cultural heritage, whether in Mandarin baihuawen or in Written Taiwanese, could exist as long as it served the purposes of Japanese rule. Romanization on the contrary amounted to negating the notions of dŇbun dŇshu and isshi dŇjin as the ideological pillars of the assimilation policy, or at least was presented as such. The colonial administration adopted a zero-tolerance attitude towards the Ro-

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

198

Epilogue

manization movement. Allowing a romanized version of taiwanhua for use in formal and social education could give impetus to define Taiwanese as distinct from both Japanese and Chinese languages. Although Cai Peihuo was a Christian and had close contact with the Church, his movement was not a religious one. Cai was active on the political reform scene, and if his movement were to have gained ground, it would have found grassroot support within the Presbyterian Church. The annexation to Japan compelled Taiwanese reform-minded intellectuals to reflect on their Chinese cultural identity. Taking after romanization would be a radical break with the Chinese cultural heritage. In fact, the emergence of the Mandarin baihuawen movement, more than the Japanese zero-tolerance, reduced its chances of acceptance in colonial society. The reason why the Romanization movement continued until the mid-1930s was because its zealous advocator had a large network of contacts both in Taiwan and in Japan. More importantly, propagation for the Romanization movement displayed the same tactics seeking approval for the political movement. The Mandarin baihuawen and Written Taiwanese movement were less intent on negotiating with the colonial administration in seeking approval. Cai Peihuo’s continuous efforts for socio-political reform through negotiating with the colonial administration and Japanese intellectuals and statesmen in Japan might have reinforced the zero-tolerance attitude of the colonial administration. In the early 1930s, this political undercurrent of Cai’s Romanization movement prevailed in Taiwanese opposition. Taiwanese romanization distinguished itself from the two other language reform movements in that it was less concerned with the symbolic value of Chinese culture than with direct action to solve urgent problems in a pragmatic manner. Its philosophical underpinnings were not culturally determined but inspired by the role language could play in the rapid dissemination of knowledge, irrespective of its cultural heritage. Cai argued that in particular the lack of a written script for taiwanhua was the cause of widespread illiteracy and ignorance among the population. The simultaneous suggestion of Mandarin baihuawen and romanization in the early 1920s paved the way for the later development of the Written Taiwanese movement. Proponents of Mandarin baihuawen criticized the attempts for a roman script and equated it with “for use in Taiwan only.” Proponents for a Written Taiwanese also resorted to the roman script as pretext to proceed with a taiwanhuawen in characters. It testified to the fact that the idea of a character script indicated the omnipresence and value of the Chinese language at the time. Likewise, the “for use in Taiwan only” argument was used in the ideological underpinnings to constitute taiwanhuawen as a language in its own right and representative of the Southern Min speaking regions. In this respect, the Romanization movement facilitated the transition from Mandarin baihuawen to taiwanhuawen. Given the constant reciprocal interaction between the three language reform movements, it is futile to try to assign greater importance to one movement than to another. Besides, all three movements were aborted because of changes in the colonial development of the island. The outbreak of the war in 1937 signified the beginnings

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

199

Epilogue

of the Japanese conquest of China. In Taiwan, the loyalty to Japan had to be strengthened. This was in conjunction with the return to a military governorship. In the final years of colonial rule, known as kŇminka, the Chinese language was prohibited from the public sphere. It was not until the postwar/colonial period when political activism highlighted the symbolic value of Taiwanese for Taiwan and drew the language in a framework in which taiwanhua and being Taiwanese were synonymous. The historical tradition of taiwanhua in Taiwan, reflected on and debated during the colonial period, and the crucial role of taiwanhua in social communication, provided this Taiwanese linguistic consciousness with a nurturing ground in which a social consciousness, expressed as Taiwanese nationalism, could develop. The ascent of Taiwanese as a symbol of Taiwanese nationalism came into full swing in 1990s. In these years, it became fashionable to study and research Taiwanese, the result of which saw the compilation of several textbooks, dictionaries, academic essays and literature. Interestingly, this process was reminiscent in many aspects with the 1930s debate, with some voices within the circle of scholars and writers compiling in Taiwanese and emphasizing the interchangeable use of romanized words, while others favored a full character representation. Similarly, it also entailed a discussion over which phonetic transliteration to use. Precisely this discussion carried a strong ideological and political undertone and was prominent news in 2001 alongside the protest against the construction of a fourth nuclear power plant. It concerned the controversy of transliteration using hanyu pinyin (ᅇᇟ࡫ॣ) versus tongyong (೯Ҕ) that brought into the open an internationalization of the relationship between Taiwanese and Mandarin Chinese as the national languages of Taiwan. The hanyu pinyin transliteration represented the dominant position of Mandarin as having become the international standard. Universities worldwide have adopted hanyu pinyin as the phonetic system and the transliteration system to represent Standard Chinese, thereby replacing earlier systems such as Yale, Wade-Giles and others. Since Mandarin Chinese is the national language of Taiwan, it was expected that in the representation of its phonetic system, Taiwan would follow suit. The tongyong system cut through this ideology and defended the usage of a transliteration that is able to represent all the languages of Taiwan. The main argument that tongyong was 80 percent compatible with hanyu pinyin was repetitive of the argument of the 1930s, when Fu Ren argued that the creation of a taiwanhuawen should not be viewed in opposition to Mandarin baihuawen, but as complimentary to each other. Likewise, tongyong advocates argued that one phonetic system representing several Chinese and even non-Chinese languages does not undermine the linguistic status quo of Mandarin Chinese. But tongyong was not to last. Internal disagreement with another group of advocates in favor of the already established Presbyterian Church Romanization caused its swift demise. By 2004, after a couple of conferences and some journal issues, tongyong proved to be a stillborn child, what its opponents had declared it to be since the beginning. So much for the selection of a phonetic transliteration system not only for the purpose of unifying the street names,

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

200

Epilogue

maps and transliteration of names, but also with the intention to use it in the schools and serve as a model for Southern Min textbooks in China and other regions home to overseas Chinese of Fujian and Guangdong descent. Activities of committed scholars who have played upon the theme of the relationship between language reform and national destiny added fuel to the debate and reinforced existing initiatives, subsequently resulting in government intervention in future language development and policy. The most significant of these schemes has been the nationwide program of mother tongue instruction coupled with creating awareness for Taiwanese culture and history. Public school teachers acquire extra certification to teach Taiwanese, Hakka or an Austronesian language for a very limited number of hours a week at primary or secondary schools. The Chen administration (2000-2008) allocated government funding to make all this happen. Reforms in the overall education system made possible for universities to set up programs offering undergraduate degrees in Taiwanese language, culture or literature, ranging from upgraded community colleges and private universities to leading national universities. Promoting Taiwanese as a full-fledged language in the drive toward official recognition of linguistic plurality has a dark shadow looming over it. The socio-linguistic matrix referred to in Chapter 5 delineating four ingredients to step from a dialect status to a national language has remained true to this day. The past decade has seen a conscious effort in the publication of textbooks, dictionaries and popular journals in the local languages and which corresponds to the components of linguistic codification and elaboration. Through these endeavours, the popular myth that Taiwanese has no written character base is being deconstructed. But the problem still remains on the social level. Not everyone in Taiwanese society agrees to have their children learn Taiwanese at school. Taiwanese still lacks cultural prestige, unlike Mandarin and English. Mandarin is strongly engrained as the national language, Taiwanese is not endowed with the same prestige, and English, the international language, has a higher status on the curriculum. Henceforth, arguments between pro and con that remain are conditioned by the interrelation between selection and social acceptance. It is not likely that any change will come about soon. Proposals to solve this dilemma prompt us to address a different set of questions that touch on the pervasive influence of the Chinesebased educational structure in Taiwan’s modernization since 1945.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Bibliography TOCL refers to Tai Oan Chheng Lian (‘Taiwan Youth’) ᆵ᡼ߙԃ TWMP refers to The Taiwan Minpao ᆵ᡼҇ൔ NY refers to Nanyin (‘The Southern Voice’) ࠄॣ TWSMP refers to Taiwan Shin Minpao (‘Taiwan New Daily’) ᆵ᡼ཥ҇ൔ TWNNSP refers to Taiwan nichinichi shinpŇ (‘Taiwan Daily News’) ᆵ᡼ВВཥൔ Abe, IsŇ Ӽ೽ᕚ໢ (1920a) “Taiwan no kyŇiku mondai ni tsuite” ᆵ᡼喘௲‫ػ‬ୢᚒ 喕൩啮喐(About the problem of Taiwan education), TOCL 1.4., August (Japanese version), pp. 7-11. --- (1920b) “Taiwan jiaoyu wenti” ᆵ᡼௲‫ػ‬ୢᚒ (About the problem of Taiwan education), TOCL 1.4., August (Chinese version), pp. 23-26. Akamine, Mamoru ‫ه‬ᔂӺ (1983) “Guangxu chunian liuqiu yu zhongri liang guo zhi guanxi” Ӏᆣ߃ԃ੥ౚᆶύВ‫ٿ‬୯ϐᜢ߯ (The Liuqiu at the beginning of the Guangxu reign and the relationship between China and Japan), unpublished Master thesis, National Taiwan University ୯ҥѠ᡼εᏢ. Andrade, Tonio (2008) How Taiwan Became Chinese: Dutch, Spanish, and Han Colonization in the Seventeenth Century. New York: Columbia UP. Ang, Kaim [Weng Jiayin] શ٫ॣ (1986) “Taiwan hanren wuzhuang kangri shi yanjiu (1895-1902)” Ѡ᡼ᅇΓ‫ݓ‬း‫ל‬Вўࣴ‫( ز‬1895-1902) (A history of Taiwanese armed resistance under Japanese rule (1895-1902)), unpublished Master thesis, National Taiwan University ୯ҥѠ᡼εᏢ. Ang, Ui-jin [Hong Weiren] ࢫோϘ (1987) Taiwan heluoyu shengdiao yanjiu Ѡ᡼‫ࢶݞ‬ ᇟᖂፓࣴ‫( ز‬Research on the tones in Holo Taiwanese). Taipei: Zili wanbao Ծ ҥఁൔ. --- (1992a) “Rijushidai de taiyujiaoyu” ВᏵਔж‫ޑ‬Ѡᇟ௲‫( ػ‬Education in Taiwanese during the colonial period), Taiwan fengwu ᆵ᡼॥‫‘( ނ‬The Taiwan Folkways’ ) 42.3., pp. 49-84. --- (1992b) Taiwan yuyan wenti Ѡ᡼ᇟ‫ق‬ୢᚒ (Taiwan’s language problems). Taipei: Qianwei ߻ፁ. --- (1995) “Taiwan wenxue de fenlei yu fenqi jiantao” Ѡ᡼ЎᏢ‫ޑ‬ϩᜪᆶϩයᔠ૸ (Attempt at cataloging and dividing Taiwanese literature), paper presented at the “Taiwan Literature Conference,” 30th Annual Commemoration of the Danshui Commercial College, Taipei. Bai, Cipiao қཁត (1977) Qimenren, Cai Huiru chuan ௴ߐΓɡጰඁӵ໺ (A man of open mind, The biography of Cai Huiru). Taipei: Jindai Zhongguo ߈жύ୯. Ballard, William Lewis (1969) “Phonological History of Wu,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Baxter, William (1992) A handbook of old Chinese phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Beasley, William G. (1987) Japanese Imperialism 1894-1945. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

202

Bibliography

Blundell, David (ed.) (2001 [2009]) Austronesian Taiwan. Linguistics, History, Ethnology, Prehistory. Berkeley CA, Taipei: Phoebe A. Hearst Museum, University of California, Shung Ye Museum of Formosan Aborigines, revised edition 2009, Taipei: SMC Publishing. Brandt, Lisbeth Kim (1996) “The folk-craft movement in early Showa Japan, (1925-1945),” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University. Cai, Li ๼ಹ (1935) “MinyŇ ni tsuite no kanken” ҇侊喕൩啮喐喘ᆅ‫( ـ‬My view on folksongs), Diyi xian ಃ΋ጕ (‘Frontline’) 1 (January), pp. 40-52. Cai, Peihuo ጰ୻О (1920a) “Dui neigenben wenti zhi yiduan” ჹϣਥҁୢᚒϐ΋ ᆄ (A fundamental problem within Japan ), TOCL 1.1., July (Chinese section), pp. 46-52. --- (1920b) “Gojin no dŇka kan” րΓ喘ӕϯ䎫 (My thoughts on assimilation), TOCL 1.2., August (Japanese section), pp. 67-82. --- (1920c) “Wuren zhi tonghua guan” րΓϐӕϯ䎫 (My thoughts on assimilation), TOCL 1.3., September (Chinese section), pp. 16-28. --- (1920d) “Shu kongqi zhi gaiyao” ॊ‫਻ޜ‬ϐཷा (Outline of a description of atmosphere), TOCL 1.3., September (Chinese section), pp. 46-52. --- (1920e) “Waga shima to warera” ‫ך‬৞喒‫ך‬฻ (My island and me), TOCL 1.4., October (Japanese section), pp. 13-24. --- (1920f) “Shu kongqi zhi gaiyao (xu)” ॊ ‫ ਻ ޜ‬ϐ ཷ ा ( ុ ) (Outline of a description of atmosphere, continued), TOCL 1.4., October (Chinese section), pp. 38-43. --- (1920g) “Wo dao yu wo deng” ‫ך‬৞ᆶ‫ך‬฻ (My island and me), TOCL 1.5., December (Chinese section), pp. 35-42. --- (1921a) “Hanzu zhi guyouxing” ᅇ௼ϐ‫ڰ‬Ԗ‫( ܄‬Basic characteristics of the Han race), TOCL 2.3., April (Chinese section), pp. 35-40. --- (1921b) “Chş-nichi shinzen no yŇtei” ύВᒃ๓喘ाᒅ (Restrictions of the Sino-Japanese friendship), TOCL 3.2., August (Japanese section), pp. 42-56. --- (1921c) “Taiwan kyŇiku ni kansuru konpon shuchŇ” ᆵ㵈௲‫ػ‬喕䁥喃喵ਥҁЬ ஭ (Basic proposals regarding Taiwan education), TOCL 3.3., September (Japanese section), pp. 40-61. --- (1921d) “Guanyu Taiwan jiaoyu zhi yi er sijian” ᜢ‫ܭ‬ᆵ᡼௲‫ػ‬ϐ΋Β‫ـد‬ (Some of my opinions on Taiwan education), TOCL 3.6., December 1921 (Chinese section), pp. 12-26. --- (1922a) “Kexue fangfa zhi dayao” ࣽᏢБ‫ݤ‬ϐεा!(Outline of the scientific method), TOCL 4.1., January (Chinese section), pp. 38-43. --- (1922b) “Jiu shui er yan” ൩НԶ‫( ق‬About water), TOCL 4.2., February (Chinese section), pp. 19-23. --- (1922c) “Shin Taiwan no kensetsu to romaji” ཥᆵ㵈喘ࡌ೛喒ᛥଭӷ (Creating a new Taiwan and the romanized script), The Formosa ᆵ᡼ 3.6., September, pp. 38-43.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Bibliography

203

--- (1923a) “Bokokujin dŇhŇ ni tsugu” ҆୯Γӕझ喕֋啺 (To the compatriots of the mother country), TWMP 1.11. (1 December), p. 8. --- (1923b) “Shin Taiwan no kensetsu to romaji” ཥᆵ㵈喘ࡌ೛喒ᛥଭӷ (Creating a new Taiwan and the romanized script), TWMP 1.13. (11 December), p. 8. --- (1923c) “Shin Taiwan no kensetsu to romaji (ni)” ཥᆵ㵈喘ࡌ೛喒ᛥଭӷ (Β) (Creating a new Taiwan and the romanized script, 2 ), TWMP 1.14. (21 December), p. 8. --- [Chhòa Pôe-hóe] (1925) Cháp hĆng koán kiàn Μ໨ᆅ‫( ـ‬My humble opinion). Tainan: Tâi-lâm Sin-lâu Chheh-pâng. --- (1927a) “Taiwan shehui gaizao guanjian (yi)” ᆵ᡼‫ׯ཮ޗ‬೷ᆅ‫( ـ‬΋) (My view on reforming Taiwan society (1)), TWMP 181 (06 November), p. 8. --- (1927b) “Taiwan shehui gaizao guanjian (er)” ᆵ᡼‫ׯ཮ޗ‬೷ᆅ‫( ـ‬Β) (My view on reforming Taiwan society (2)), TWMP 182 (13 November), p. 8. --- (1927c) “Taiwan shehui gaizao guanjian (san)” ᆵ᡼‫ׯ཮ޗ‬೷ᆅ‫( ـ‬Ο) (My view on reforming Taiwan society (3)), TWMP 183 (20 November), p. 8. --- (1927d) “Taiwan shehui gaizao guanjian (si)” ᆵ᡼‫ׯ཮ޗ‬೷ᆅ‫( ـ‬Ѥ) (My view on reforming Taiwan society (4)), TWMP 184 (27 November), p. 8. --- (1928) Nihon hongoku kokumin ni atafu–Shokuminchi mondai kaiketsu no kichŇ Вҁҁ 㡚㡚҇喕ᢳ喟–෌҇Ӧୢᚒှ،喘୷ፓ (To the people of the Japanese mainland, For a basic solution of the colonial problems). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten ۟‫ݢ‬ਜ۫. --- (1929) “Tuiguang Taiwanbaihuazi zhi zhuzhi ji jihua” ௢ቶᆵ᡼қ၉ӷϐЬԑᄤ ीჄ (Prospectus and plan for the popularizing of the Taiwan vernacular script), manuscript 25 April. --- (1929 [2000]) “Péh-oē-jĩ khò-pún” қ၉ӷፐҁ (Textbook in vernacular script), manuscript 1929, reprint in Cai Peihuo quanji ጰ୻Оӄ໣ (The complete works of Cai Peihuo) Vol. 6, “Taiwan yuyan xiangguan ziliao xia” ᆵ᡼ᇟ‫࣬ق‬ᜢၗ਑Π (Materials related to the Taiwanese language (2)), Chang Yen-hsien ஭‫ݹ‬Ꮶ, ed., pp. 8-22. Taipei: Wu Sanlian Historical Materials Foundation ଄იΓֆΟೱѠ᡼ ў਑୷ߎ཮. --- (1929-1936 [2000]) “Riji (1929-1936)” В૶ (΋ΐΒΐԃԿ΋ΐΟϤԃ) (Diary (1929-1936)), In Cai Peihuo quanji ጰ୻Оӄ໣ (The complete works of Cai Peihuo), Vol. 1, “Jiashi shengping yu jiaoyou” ৎШғѳᆶҬ϶ (Family, career and correspondence), Chang Yen-hsien ஭‫ݹ‬Ꮶ, ed., pp. 83-392. Taipei: Wu Sanlian Historical Materials Foundation ଄იΓֆΟೱѠ᡼ў਑୷ߎ཮. --- (1931) “Sin-sek Tâi-ôan pƝh-Ňe-jĩ khò-pún” ཥԄᆵ᡼қ၉ӷፐҁ (New Taiwan vernacular script textbook), manuscript. --- (1934a) “Taiwan hakuwaji fukyş no shuisho oyobi taiwan tŇ sanseisha shimei” ᆵ ᡼ қ ၉ ӷ ද Ϸ 喘 ፪ ཀ ਜ Ϸ 喝 ᆵ ᡼ ৞ 㚵 䅵 ԋ ‫ ޣ‬М Ӝ (Prospectus for the popularization of the Taiwan vernacular script and the namelist of approvals within the island). Tokyo, August 1934.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

204

Bibliography

--- (1934b) “Puji Taiwan baihuazi quyishu” දϷᆵ᡼қ၉ӷ፪ཀਜ (Prospectus on propagating the Taiwan vernacular script), manuscript 11 November. --- (1936) “Taiwan ni okeru kokuji mondai” ᆵ᡼喕‫ܭ‬啻喵୯ӷୢᚒ (The problem of kana syllabary in Taiwan), KyŇiku ௲ ‫‘( ػ‬Education’) 4.8. (August), pp. 1235-1238. --- (1937a) “‘Taiwan KyŇiku’ jş gatsu ni okeru Kokufushi no shoron ni tsuite” Ȩᆵ᡼ ௲‫ػ‬ȩΜД喕‫ܭ‬啻喵୯۬М喘‫܌‬ፕ喕൩喐 (On Mr Kokufu’s discussion in the October issue of the “Taiwan Education” journal), KyŇiku ௲‫‘( ػ‬Education’) 5.1. (January), pp. 137-139. --- (1937b) TŇ-A no ko kaku omofu ܿ㝭喘η啵啹ࡘ喟 (A child of East-Asia thinks like this). Taihoku: Iwanami Shoten ۟‫ݢ‬ਜ۫. --- (1962 [2000] “Shangdi zhongxiao de erzi Yanaihara Tadao xiansheng” ΢ࡆ۸ֵ ‫ٽޑ‬ηҠϣচ۸໢Ӄғ (Mr Yanaihara Tadao, faithful child of the Lord), reprint in Cai Peihuo quanji ጰ୻Оӄ໣ (The complete works of Cai Peihuo), Vol. 1, “Jiashi shengping yu jiaoyou” ৎ Ш ғ ѳ ᆶ Ҭ ϶ (Family, career and correspondence), Chang Yen-hsien ஭‫ݹ‬Ꮶ, ed., pp. 411-416. Taipei: Wu Sanlian Historical Materials Foundation ଄იΓֆΟೱѠ᡼ў਑୷ߎ཮. --- [Chai Pei-Huo] (1965) “Riju shiqi Taiwan minzu yundong” ВᏵਔයᆵ᡼҇௼ၮ ୏ (Nationalistic Movements in Taiwan under Japanese), Taiwan Wen Shian ᆵ៻ Ў᝘ (‘Report of the Historico-Geographical Studies of Taiwan’) 16.2. (June), pp. 171-186. --- (1968 [2000]) “Kami no chşboku Yanaihara Tadao sensei o omou” ઓ喘۸ႼҠ 㚵চ۸໢Ӄғ喼Ꮻ啰 (Remembering Mr. Yanaihara Tadao, faithful manservant of the Lord), reprint in Cai Peihuo quanji ጰ୻Оӄ໣ (The complete works of Cai Peihuo), Vol. 1, “Jiashi shengping yu jiaoyou” ৎШғѳᆶҬ϶ (Family, career and correspondence), Chang Yen-hsien ஭‫ݹ‬Ꮶ ed., pp. 431-438. Taipei: Wu Sanlian Historical Materials Foundation ଄იΓֆΟೱѠ᡼ў਑୷ߎ཮. --- (1969) Guoyu minnanyu duizhao changyong cidian ୯ᇟመࠄᇟჹྣதҔᜏ‫( ڂ‬Basic Mandarin– Southern Min Dictionary). Taipei: Zhongzheng shuju ύ҅ਜֽ. --- (1974) “Guanyuan xiansheng yu wo zhi jian” ឲ༜Ӄғᆶ‫ך‬ϐ໔ (Between Mr Guanyuan and me), In Lin Xiantang xiansheng jinianji ݅᝘୸Ӄғइ‫ۺ‬໣ (Essays in commemoration of Mr. Lin Xiantang), Vol. 3 “Zhuisilu” ଓࡘᒵ (Reminiscences), Lin Xiantang xiansheng jinianji bianji weiyuanhui ݅᝘୸Ӄғइ‫ۺ‬໣ጓᒠ ‫ہ‬঩཮, eds., pp. 2-9. Taipei: Wenhai Chubanshe Ўੇр‫ޗހ‬. --- (1980 [2000]) “Zhen qing zhen ai zui ling ren huainian” ੿௃੿ངനзΓᚶ‫ۺ‬ (Remembrance of a most sincere man), reprint in Cai Peihuo quanji ጰ୻Оӄ໣ (The complete works of Cai Peihuo), Vol. 1, “Jiashi shengping yu jiaoyou” ৎШ ғѳᆶҬ϶ (Family, career and correspondence), Chang Yen-hsien ஭‫ݹ‬Ꮶ, ed., pp. 443-444. Taipei: Wu Sanlian Historical Materials Foundation ଄იΓֆΟೱѠ ᡼ў਑୷ߎ཮.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Bibliography

205

--- (2000a) “Taiwan guangfu qian zhi jingli” ᆵ᡼Ӏൺ߻ϐ࿶ᐕ (Experiences in Taiwan before the retrocession), In Cai Peihuo quanji ጰ୻Оӄ໣ (The complete works of Cai Peihuo), Vol. 1, “Jiashi shengping yu jiaoyou” ৎШғѳᆶҬ϶ (Family, career and correspondence), Chang Yen-hsien ஭‫ݹ‬Ꮶ, ed., pp. 69-81. Taipei: Wu Sanlian Historical Materials Foundation ଄იΓֆΟೱѠ᡼ў਑୷ߎ ཮. --- (2000b) “Cai Peihuo nianbiao” ጰ୻Оԃ߄ (Chronology of Cai Peihuo) in Cai Peihuo quanji ጰ୻Оӄ໣ (The complete works of Cai Peihuo), Vol. 7, “Zawen ji qita” ᚇЎϷ‫ځ‬д (Miscellaneous writings and others), Chang Yen-hsien ஭‫ݹ‬Ꮶ, ed., pp. 325-333. Taipei: Wu Sanlian Historical Materials Foundation ଄იΓֆΟ ೱѠ᡼ў਑୷ߎ཮. Cai, Qingtan ጰమ዇ (1925) “Gao tongbao jiqi tichang pingminjiaoyu” ֋ӕझ࡚ଆ ගঀѳ҇௲‫( ػ‬Telling our compatriots to rapidly promote popular education), TWMP 62. (26 July), p. 13. Cai, Shigu ጰԄ⟻ (1921) “DŇka seisaku ni tsuite” ӕϯࡹ฼喕൩啮喐 (About the assimilation policy), TOCL 2.3., April (Japanese section), pp. 25-32. Cai, Xiaoqian ጰֵଳ (1925a) “Wei Taiwan de wenxuejie xuku” ࣁᆵ᡼‫ޑ‬ЎᏢࣚ ុন (Continuing to cry for the Taiwanese literary world), TWMP 3.5. (11 February), p. 13. --- (1925b) “Zhongguo xinwenxue gaiguan” ύ୯ཥЎᏢཷᢀ (An overview of new Chinese literature), TWMP 3.15. (21 May), pp. 14-17. --- (1925c) “Zhongguo xinwenxue gaiguan” ύ୯ཥЎᏢཷᢀ (An overview of new Chinese literature), TWMP 3.16. (01 June), pp. 14-15. --- (1925d) “Zhongguo xinwenxue gaiguan” ύ୯ཥЎᏢཷᢀ (An overview of new Chinese literature), TWMP 3.17. (11 June), p. 12. Calman, Donald (1992) The Nature and Origins of Japanese Imperialism. A Reinterpretation of the Great Crisis of 1873. London and New York: Routledge. Caprio, Mark (forthcoming) “Japanese Imperialism (1895-1930)” in East Asian Voices John Sagers, ed., New York: Longman. Carnoy, Martin (1982) “Education, Economy and the State,” In Cultural and Economic Reproduction in Education. Essays on Class, Ideology and the State Michael W. Apple, ed., pp. 79-126. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Chan, Su-chuan [Zhan Sujuan] ၏નী (1987) “Taiwan minzu yundong de kailu xianfeng, Cai Huiru” Ѡ᡼҇௼ၮ୏‫ޑ‬໒ၡӃ᎔ɡጰඁӵ (Pioneer of the Taiwan nationalist movement, Cai Huiru), In Taiwan jindai mingrenzhi Ѡ᡼߈жӜ Γᇞ (Record of Taiwan Modern Personalities), Chang Yen-hsien ஭‫ݹ‬Ꮶ Lee Hsiao-feng ‫☰׵‬ঢ় Chuang Yong-ming ಷ҉ܴ, eds., Vol. 4, pp. 39-50. Taipei: Zili wanbao Ծҥఁൔ. Chang, Chung-li (1967) The Chinese Gentry. Studies on their Role in Nineteenth-Century Chinese Society. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

206

Bibliography

Chang, Han-yu and Ramon H. Myers (1973) “Japanese Colonial Development Policy in Taiwan, 1895-1960: A Case of Bureaucratic Entrepreneurship,” Journal of Asian Studies 22.4., pp. 446-449. Chang, Lung-chih [Zhang Longzhi] ஭ໜ‫( ד‬1998) “Liu Mingchuan, GotŇ Shimpei yu Taiwan jindaihua lunzheng, guanyu shijiu shiji Taiwan lishi zhuanxingqi yanjiu de zai sikao” ቅሎ໺ǵࡕᛯཥѳᆶᆵ᡼߈жϯፕ‫ݾ‬ɡᜢ‫ܭ‬ΜΐШ૶ᆵ᡼ᐕ ўᙯࠠයࣴ‫ޑز‬ӆࡘԵ(Liu Mingchuan, GotŇ Shimpei and the modernization of Taiwan. A reexamination of Taiwan history in transition in the nineteenth century), In Zhonghua minguo shi zhuanti disiqu taolunhui minguo yilai de shiliao yu shixue lunwenji, ύ ๮ ҇ ୯ ў ஑ ᚒ ಃ Ѥ ۙ ૸ ፕ ཮ ҇ ୯ а ٰ ‫ ޑ‬ў ਑ ᆶ ў Ꮲ ፕ Ў ໣ (Proceedings of the Fourth Special Conference on History and Historical Materials Since the Republic of China), Guoshi guan ୯ўᓔ, ed., pp. 2031-2056. Taipei: Guoshi guan ୯ўᓔ. Chang, Yen-hsien [Zhang Yanxian] ஭ ‫ ݹ‬Ꮶ (1987) “Taiwan Minzhongdang de chuanglizhe, Jiang Weishui” ᆵ᡼҇౲ល‫ޑ‬ബҥ‫ޣ‬ɡጯ෭Н (Founder of the Taiwan People’s Party, Jiang Weishui), In Taiwan jindai mingrenzhi Ѡ᡼߈жӜΓᇞ (Record of Taiwan modern personalities), Chang Yen-hsien ஭ ‫ ݹ‬Ꮶ , Lee Hsiao-feng ‫☰׵‬ঢ়, Chuang Yong-ming ಷ҉ܴ, eds., Vol. 3, pp. 93-114. Taipei: Zili wanbao Ծҥఁൔ. --- (ed.) (2000) Cai Peihuo quanji ጰ୻Оӄ໣ (Complete works of Cai Peihuo), 7 Vols. Taipei: Wu Sanlian Historical Materials Foundation ଄იΓֆΟೱѠ᡼ў਑୷ߎ ཮. Chatterjee, Partha (1993) The Nation and its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. Chen, Ching-chih (1988) “Impact of Japanese colonial rule on Taiwanese elites,” Journal of Asian History 22, pp. 25-51. Chen, Chiukun (1999) “From Landlords to Local Strongmen: The Transformation of Local Elites in Mid-Ch’ing Taiwan, 1780-1862,” In Taiwan: A New History Murray A. Rubinstein, ed., pp. 133-162. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Ch’en, Ch’iu-k’un [Chen Qiukun] ഋࣿ‫( ڷ‬1994) Qingdai Taiwan tuzhu diquanɡGuanliao, handian yu Anlishe ren de tudi bianqian, 1700-1895 మжѠ᡼β๱Ӧ៾ɡ‫۔‬ Ⴛǵᅇ՝ᆶ۞္‫ޗ‬Γ‫ޑ‬βӦᡂᎂ, 1700-1895 (Taiwan’s Aboriginal Proprietary Rights in the Ch’ing Period. Bureaucracy, Han Tenants and the Transformation of Property Rights of the Anli Tribe, 1700-1895). Taipei: Institute of Modern History ύѧࣴ‫ز‬ଣ߈ў‫܌‬. Chen, Cuilian ഋᆧጪ (1987) “Riju shiqi Taiwan wenhua xiehui zhi yanjiu: kangri junying de jiecheng yu wajie” ВᏵਔයѠ᡼Ўϯ‫཮ڐ‬ϐࣴ‫ ز‬: ‫ל‬Вତᔼ‫่ޑ‬ ԋᆶґှ (Research on the Taiwan Cultural Society under Japanese Rule: The Formation and Disintegration of the Anti-Japananese Resistance Camp), unpublished Master thesis, Taipei: National Cheng-Chih University ୯ҥࡹ‫ݯ‬ε Ꮲ.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Bibliography

207

Chen, Duanming ഋᆄܴ (1922) “Riyongwen guchui lun” ВҔЎႴ֌ፕ (On advocating the vernacular language), TOCL 4.1., January (Chinese section), pp. 25-27. Chen, Edward I-te (1984) “The Attempt to Integrate the Empire: Legal Perspectives,” In The Japanese Colonial Empire, 1895-1945 Ramon H. Myers and Mark R. Peattie, eds., pp. 240-274. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. Chen, Fuquan ഋ൤ӄ (1925) “Baihuawen shiyong yu taiwan fou?” қ၉Ў፾Ҕ‫ܭ‬ ᆵ᡼ց (Does baihuawen apply to Taiwan?) Tainan shimpŇ ᆵࠄཥൔ (‘Tainan News’)(5 August), p. 8. Chen, Guowei ഋ୯࠶ (1994) “Taiwan shishe chutan” ᆵ᡼၃‫߃ޗ‬௖ (Preliminary discussion of Taiwan poetry societies), Lishang Xuebao ᚱ୘Ꮲൔ (‘Journal of the Chungli Commercial College’) 2 (May), pp. 1-22. Chen, Junyu ഋ ։ ҏ (1934) “Taiwan geyao de zhanwang” ᆵ ᡼ ᄺ ᖳ ‫ ޑ‬৖ ఈ (Expectations of Taiwan folksongs), Xianfa budui Ӄว೽໗ (‘The Vanguard’) 1 (July), pp. 11-15. Chen, Li-fu [Chen Lifu] ഋ߭‫( ة‬1996a) Rizhishiqi Taiwan zhengzhi yundong zhi yanjiu В‫ݯ‬ਔයѠ᡼ࡹ‫ݯ‬ၮ୏ϐࣴ‫( ز‬Research on the Taiwan political movement under Japanese rule). Taipei: Daoxiang ዿໂ. Chen, Pei-feng [Chen Peifeng] ഋ୻ᙦ (1999) “‘DŇka’ no dŇshŇ imu Nihon tŇchika Taiwan no kokugo kyŇikushi saikŇ” Ȩӕϯȩ喘ӕ‫׉‬౦ფɡВҁ಍‫ݯ‬ΠѠ㵈喘 㡚ᇟ௲‫ػ‬ўӆԵ (Strange Bedfellows of Japan’s “Assimilation Policy”. Japanese Colonial “kokugo” Education in Taiwan re-visited), unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Tokyo. --- (2001) “‘DŇka’ no dŇshŇ imu Nihon tŇchika Taiwan no kokugo kyŇiku seisaku no saikŇ” Ȩӕϯȩ喘ӕ‫׉‬౦ფȥВҁ಍‫ݯ‬Πᆵ᡼喘୯ᇟ௲‫ࡹػ‬฼喘ӆԵ (Strange Bedfellows of Japan’s “Assimilation Policy”.Japanese Colonial “kokugo” Education in Taiwan re-visited). Tokyo: Sangensha Οϡ‫ޗ‬. Chen, Shaoting ഋϿ‫( ׊‬1977) Taiwan xinwenxue yundong jianshi ᆵ᡼ཥЎᏢၮ୏ᙁ ў (A brief history of the Taiwan new literature movement). Taipei: Lianjing ᖄ࿶. Chen, Shaoying ഋ ẟ ྻ (1996b) “Wenxue de yuanzhumin yu yuanzhumin de wenxue” ЎᏢ‫ޑ‬চՐ҇ᆶচՐ҇‫ޑ‬ЎᏢ (Literary aboriginals and aboriginal literature), monograph. Taipei: Taiwan National University ୯ҥѠ᡼εᏢ. Chen, Xin ഋ ᬩ (1920) “Wenxue yu shiwu” Ў Ꮲ ᆶ ᙍ ୍ (Literature and its function), TOCL 1.1., July (Chinese section), pp. 41-43. Chen, Zhengxiang ഋ҅౺ (1959) Taiwan dizhi ᆵ᡼Ӧᇞ (A geography of Taiwan). Taipei: Shuming Chanye dili yanjiusuo ኦܴౢ཰Ӧ౛ࣴ‫܌ز‬. --- (1961) “Sanbainianlai Taiwan dili de bianqian” Οԭԃٰᆵ᡼Ӧ౛ᡂᎂ (Geographic changes in Taiwan in the last three hundred years), Taiwan Wen hsien ᆵ᡼ Ў᝘ (‘Report of the Historico-Geographical Studies of Taiwan’) 12.1., pp. 77-85. Chiang, Shu-sheng [Jiang Shusheng] Ԣᐋғ (1997) “Helan shidai Taiwan de hanren renkou bianqian” ಻ើਔжᆵ᡼‫ޑ‬ᅇΓΓαᡂᎂ (Evolution of the Chinese

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

208

Bibliography

population in Taiwan under the Dutch), In Mazuxinyang guojixueshu yantaohui lunwenji ༰઒ߞһ୯ሞᏢೌࣴ૸཮ፕЎ໣ (Proceedings of the International Conference on Mazu Religion). Yunlin County: Beigang Chaotiangongzhongshihui, Taiwansheng wenxian weiyuanhui чෝරϺ৐ဠ٣཮ǵᆵ᡼࣪Ў᝘‫ہ‬঩཮. Ching, Leo T. S. (2001) Becoming Japanese. Colonial Taiwan and the Politics of Identity Formation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Chiung, Wi-vun Taiffalo (2001) “Romanization and language planning in Taiwan,” The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal 9 (1), pp. 15-43. --- (2007) Gí-giân, bûn-hak kap Tâi-oân kok-ka chài-sióng-siŇng ᇟ‫ق‬ǵЎᏢ kap Ѡ᡼୯ ৎ ӆ གྷ Ⴝ (Language, literature, and reimagined Taiwanese nation). Tainan: National Cheng Kung University ୯ҥԋфεᏢ. Chou, Wan-yao [Zhou Wanyao] ‫஀ڬ‬ટ (1989) Riju shidai de Taiwan yihui shezhi qingyuan yundong ВᏵਔж‫ޑ‬ᆵ᡼᝼཮೛ॶፎᜫၮ୏ (Taiwan parliament petition league movement during the Japanese colonial era). Taipei: Zili wanbao Ծҥఁൔ. Chow, Tse-Tsung (1960) The May Fourth Movement: Intellectual Revolution in Modern China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP. Chu, Samuel C. (1963) “Liu Ming-ch’uan and modernization of Taiwan,” Journal of Asian Studies 23.1. (November), pp. 37-53. Chuang, Yong-ming [Zhuang Yongming] ಷ҉ܴ (1987) “‘Taiwan Tongshi’ de zuozheɡLian Yatang, 1878-1936” ᆵ᡼೯ў‫ޑ‬բ‫ޣ‬ɡೱ໡୸ 1878-1936 (The author of the “General History of Taiwan,” Lian Yatang, 1878-1936), In Taiwan jindai mingrenzhi ᆵ᡼߈жӜΓᇞ (Record of Taiwan modern personalities), Chang Yen-hsien ஭‫ݹ‬Ꮶ, Lee Hsiao-feng ‫☰׵‬ঢ়, Chuang Yong-ming ಷ҉ܴ, eds., Vol. 3, pp. 27-50. Taipei: Zili wanbao Ծҥఁൔ. --- (1995) Taiwan geyao zhuixiangqu Ѡ᡼ᄺᖳଓགྷԔ (Nostalgic lyrics of Taiwanese folksongs). Taipei: Qianwei ߻ፁ. Coblin, Weldon South (1997). “Notes on the Sound System of late Ming Guanhua,” Monumenta Serica 45, pp. 261-307. --- (2007) Modern Chinese phonology: from Guanhua to Mandarin. Collection des Cahiers Linguistique Asie Orientale. Paris: Ècole des Hautes Études in Sciences Sociales. Collcut, Martin (1991) “The Legacy of Confucianism in Japan,” In The East Asian Region, Confucian Heritage and its Modern Adaptation Gilbert Rozman, ed., pp. 111-156. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. DeFrancis, John (1984) The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. DeGlopper, Donald R. (1980) “Lu-kang: A City and its Trading System,” In China’s Island Frontier Studies in the Historical Geography of Taiwan Ronald G. Knapp, ed., pp. 143-165. Honolulu, HI: University Press of Hawaii. Denlinger, Paul (1961) “Chinese historical linguistics: the road ahead,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 131.1., pp. 1-7.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Bibliography

209

Dewitt Smith, Henry II (1972) Japan’s First Student Radicals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP. Du, Wuzhi ‫( ד ݓ ׹‬1997) Rizhi shiqi de zhimin jiaoyu В ‫ ݯ‬ਔ ය ‫ ޑ‬෗ ҇௲ ‫ػ‬ (Colonial education under Japanese rule). Banqiao: Taibeixian wenhua zhongxin Ѡ чᑜҥЎϯύЈ. Duus, Peter (1968) Party Rivalry and Political Change in Taisho Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP. --- (1995) The Abacus and the Sword. The Japanese Penetration of Korea 1895-1910. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Elies, Stefanie (1997) Kulturelle Orientierung in kolonialer Unterdrückung. Die taiwanesische Kultur-und Sozialbewegung der japanischen Besatzungszeit und die 4.-Mai-Bewegung der kulturellen Erneuerung Chinas. Bochum: Projekt Verlag, Edition Cathay. Elman, Benjamin A. and Alexander Woodside (eds.) (1996) Education and Society in Late Imperial China, 1600-1900. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Eskildsen, Robert (2002) “Of Civilization and Savages: The Mimetic Imperialism of Japan’s 1874 Expedition to Taiwan,” The American Historical Review 107, no. 2 (April), pp. 388-418. Fang, Yanhao Б‫ۯ‬ᇬ (1975) “Taiwan shishe zhi jinxi tan” ᆵ᡼၃‫ޗ‬ϐϞ‫ܯ‬ፋ (The present and the past of the Taiwan poetry societies), Yiwenzhi ᛬Ўᇞ (‘Literary Journal’) 123 (December), pp. 55-62. Ferguson, Charles A. (1959) “Diglossia,” Word 15, pp. 325-340. --- (1964) “Diglossia,” In Language in Culture and Society Dell Hymes, ed., pp. 429-439. New York: Harper and Row. Fishman, Joshua A. (1972) Language and Nationalism: Two Integrative Essays. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Fix, Douglas L. (1993) “North American memories of Taiwan: A retrospective of U.S. research on the history of Taiwan,” In Minguo yilai guoshi yanjiu de huigu yu zhanwang yantaohui lunwenji ҇ ୯ а ٰ ୯ ў ࣴ ‫ ޑ ز‬ӣ ៝ ᆶ ৖ ఈ ࣴ ૸ ཮ ፕ Ў ໣ (Proceedings of the Conference on Past Achievements and Future Prospects of Research on Chinese History since 1911), Vol. 3, pp. 1355-96. Taipei: National Taiwan University ୯ҥѠ᡼εᏢ. --- (1998) “From ‘Taiwanese experience’ to the traveling doctor’s subaltern tales: Colonial modernity and its radical vernacular critique,” paper presented at Conference on Competing Modernities in 20th Century Japan: Part II, Empires, Cultures, Identities, 1930-1960, February 12-16, San Diego. Fong, Shiaw-chian [Fang Xiaoqian] Бֵᖰ (1994) “Zhimindi minzuzhuyi yu 1920 niandai de rizhi Taiwan – yi ‘zhijingshijian’ ji tuyu yundong wei li” ෗҇Ӧ҇௼Ь ကᆶ 1920 ԃж‫ޑ‬В‫ݯ‬Ѡ᡼–аȨ‫ݯ‬᝾٣ҹȩϷβᇟၮ୏ࣁ‫( ٯ‬Colonial Nationalism and Taiwan in the 1920s), Dongwu shehui xuebao ܿ ֆ ‫ ཮ ޗ‬Ꮲ ൔ (Soochow Social Journal) 3 (March), pp. 161-197. Fu Ren see Zhuang, Chuisheng.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

210

Bibliography

Gan, Wenfang ҒЎ‫( ޱ‬1921) “Jissyakai to bungaku” ჴ‫཮ޗ‬喒ЎᏢ (The real world and literature), TOCL 3.3., September (Japanese section), pp. 33-35. Gardella, Robert (1999) “From Treaty Ports to Provincial Status, 1860-1894,” In Taiwan: A New History Murray A. Rubinstein, ed., pp. 163-200. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Gen, Itasaka (ed.) (1983) Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan, Vol. 4, Tokyo: Kodansha ᖱፋ ‫ޗ‬. Gordon, Leonard H.D. (ed.) (1970) Taiwan. Studies in Chinese Local History. New York and London: Columbia UP. GotŇ, Shimpei ࡕᛯཥѳ (1980) “YŇbunkai ni okeru ensetsu” ඦЎ㜘喕啴啻喵৏ 䁃 (The speech made at the YŇbunkai ), In GotŇ Shimpei Monjo ࡕᛯཥѳЎਜ (Documents of GotŇ Shimpei), GotŇ Shimpei Kinenkan ࡕᛯཥѳ૶‫ۺ‬ᓔ, ed., pt. 8, no. 30. Tokyo: YushŇdŇ ໢݊୸. Guo, Dewei ೾ቺࣁ (1921) “Taiwan no bunka to dŇka wo nobete Taiwan tŇchi ni oyobu” ᆵ᡼喘Ўϯ喒ӕϯ喼ॊ喣喐Ѡ㵈಍‫ݯ‬喕Ϸ喠 (Speaking on Taiwan culture and assimilation in the rule of Taiwan), TOCL 2.3., April (Japanese section), pp. 38-45. Guo, Qiusheng ೾ࣿғ (1931a) “Jianshe ‘taiwanhuawen’ yi ti’an” ࡌ೛ Ȩᆵ᡼၉ Ўȩ΋ගਢ (A proposal for the construction of a “Written Taiwanese”), Taiwan shimbun ᆵ᡼ཥൔ (‘Taiwan News’) 33. (07 July), pp. 11-12. --- (1931b) “Jianshe ‘taiwanhuawen’ yiti’an” ࡌ೛ Ȩᆵ᡼၉Ўȩ΋ගਢ (A proposal for constructing “Written Taiwanese”), TWSMP 379. (29 August), p. 11. --- (1932a) “Shuo ji tiao taiwanhuawen de jichu gongzuo gei dajia zuo cankao” ᇥ൳ చᆵ᡼၉Ў‫୷ޑ‬ᘵπբ๏εৎ଺ୖԵ (Speaking about some conditions for the basic construction of written Taiwanese for everyone to consider), NY 1.1., p. 14. --- (1932b) “Taiwanhuawen de xinzi wenti (yi)” ᆵ᡼၉Ў‫ޑ‬ཥӷୢᚒ (΋) (The problem of new characters in written Taiwanese, part 1), NY 1.3., p. 9. --- (1932c) “Xinzi wenti” ཥӷୢᚒ (The problem of new characters), NY 1.7., pp. 24-25. --- (1932d) “Zai ting ruan yi hui husheng” ӆ᠋ٜ΋ӣ‫ڥ‬ᖂ (Once more hearing a voice), NY 1.9-10., p. 36. --- (1932e) “Shenghuo gaizao de wuqi” ғࢲ‫ׯ‬೷‫ݓޑ‬Ꮤ (A weapon to reform life), NY 1.11., pp. 22-23. --- (1934) “Wenyi dazhonghua” Ў᛬ε౲ϯ!(Popularization of literature), The Taiwan-Bungei (ᆵ᡼Ў᛬) 2.1. (14 December), pp. 21-2. Guo, Yizhou ೾ ΋ Ճ (1935a) “Beijinghua” ч ٧ ၉ (Beijing speech), The Taiwan-Bungei (ᆵ᡼Ў᛬) 2.5. (5 May), pp. 1-14. --- (1935b) “Fulaohua (shang)” ᅽ‫٭‬၉ (΢) (Hoklo 1), The Taiwan-Bungei (ᆵ᡼Ў᛬) 2.6. (7 June), pp. 112-122.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Bibliography

211

--- (1935c) “Fulaohua (zhong)” ᅽ‫٭‬၉ (ύ) (Hoklo 2) The Taiwan-Bungei (ᆵ᡼Ў᛬) 2.10 (21 September), pp. 128-140. --- (1935d) “Fulaohua xia” ᅽ‫٭‬၉Π(Hoklo 3) The Taiwan-Bungei (ᆵ᡼Ў᛬) 3.4-5. (20 April), pp. 51-67. Gunn, Edward (1991) Rewriting Chinese, Style and Innovation in Twentieth-Century Chinese Prose. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP. Hanren ᅇΓ (1987) “Taiwan gemingshi” ᆵ᡼ॠ‫ڮ‬ў (A history of the Taiwan revolution), In Taiwan ᆵ᡼ (Taiwan), Li Xiefei ‫ߚ⎣׵‬, pp. 100-120. Taipei: Wenhai chuban Ўੇр݈. Hara, Hirao চѳϻ (1987) Izawa Shşji, Izawa Takio Ҳ㟾অΒǵҲ㟾ӭ഻‫ت‬ (Izawa Shşji and Izawa Takio). Tokyo: Ina Mainichi Shimbunsha Ҳٗ㝕Вཥᆪ ‫ޗ‬. Hara, KanjirŇ চ᠘ԛ॔ (ed.) (1931) Taiwan jichi seido kaisei jşshşnen kinen jimbutsu shi ᆵ᡼Ծ‫҅ׯࡋڋݯ‬Μຼԃ૶‫ۺ‬Γ‫ނ‬ў (Personalities in the commemoration of a decade of the Taiwan self-rule reform). Taihoku: KinrŇ Fugensha ༇മ൤ྍ‫ޗ‬. Harootunian, Harry (1978) “The Consciousness of Archaic Form in the New Realism of Kokugaku,” In Japanese Thought in the Tokugawa Period, 1600-1868: Methods and Metaphors Tetsuo Najita and Irwin Scheiner, eds., pp. 63-104. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Haugen, Einar (1972 [1982]) “Dialect, Language, Nation,” In Sociolinguistics Selected Readings J. B. Pride and Janet Holmes, eds., pp. 97-111. Middlesex: Penguin Books. Havens, Thomas R.H. (1972) Nishi Amane and Modern Japanese Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. He, Lidong Ֆᘶෂ (1921) “Taiwan zhongxue shelilun” ᆵ᡼ύᏢ೛ҥፕ (On establishing Taiwan middle schools), TOCL 2.2., February (Chinese section), pp. 45-50. Hayhoe, Ruth (1984) Contemporary Chinese Education. London & Sydney: Croom Helm. Heylen, Ann (2001a) “Dutch Language Policy and Early Formosan Literacy (1624-1662),” In Missionary Approaches and Linguistics in Mainland China and Taiwan Ku Wei-ying, ed., pp. 199-251. Louvain Chinese Studies, Leuven: F. Verbiest Foundation and Leuven UP. --- (2001b) “Missionary Linguistics on Taiwan. Romanizing Taiwanese: Codification and Standardization of Dictionaries in Southern Min (1837-1923),” In Authentic Chinese Christianity: Preludes to its Development (Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries) Ku Wei-ying and Koen De Ridder, eds., pp. 135-174. Louvain Chinese Studies, Leuven: F. Verbiest Foundation and Leuven UP. --- (2001c) “De l’histoire locale à l’histoire nationale. La difficile institutionnalisation d’une historiographie taiwanaise,”Perspectives chinoises No 66 (July-August), pp. 41-53. English version: “From Local to National History. Forces in the Institutionalization of a Taiwanese Historiography,” China Perspectives, No 37 (Sep-Oct), pp. 39-51.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

212

Bibliography

--- (2007) “An Excursion into Cai Peihuo’s Colonial Diary, 1929-1936,” Journal of Chinese Overseas (JCO) Vol. 3, no. 2 (November), pp. 239-262. Heyns, Pol [Han, Jiabao ᗬৎᝊ] (2003a) Helan shidai Taiwan de jingji, tudi yu shuiwu ಻ ើਔжᆵ᡼‫ޑ‬࿶ᔮǵβӦᆶิ୍!(Economic Relations in Dutch Formosa, Land and Taxation). Taipei: Bozhongzhe ኞᅿ‫ޣ‬/! --- (2003b) “Land Rights in Dutch Formosa,” In Around and About Formosa, Essays in Honor of Ts’ao Yung-ho Leonard Blussé, ed., pp. 175-207. Taipei: Ts’ao Yung-ho Foundation for Culture and Education. Hiranuma, YoshirŇ ѳ‫ݡ‬ల॔ (1921) “Taiwanjin to shisei hŇshin” ᆵ᡼Γ喒ࡼࡹ Бଞ(Taiwanese people and the party line), TOCL 2.1. January (Japanese version), pp. 1-3. --- (1921) “Taiwanren ji shizheng fangzhen” ᆵ᡼ΓϷࡼࡹБଞ (Taiwanese people and the party line), TOCL 2.1. January (Chinese version), pp. 19-22. Hong, Guo-juin (forthcoming) Cinema of Taiwan: A Contested Nation on the Screen. Hsiau, A-chin (2000) Contemporary Taiwanese Cultural Nationalism. New York: Routledge. Hsieh, Chun-pai Camilla (1991) “The Taiwanese hand-puppet theatre: A search for its meaning,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Brown University. Hsieh, Hao [Xie Hao] ᖴ ੏ (1995) Keju luncong ࣽ ᖐ ፕ ᘀ (The imperial examination system). Nantou shi: Taiwansheng wenxian weiyuanhui Ѡ᡼࣪Ў᝘ ‫ہ‬঩཮. Hsu, Cho-Yun (1980 [1995]) “The Chinese Settlement of the I-lan Plain,” In China’s Island Frontier Studies in the Historical Geography of Taiwan Ronald G. Knapp, ed., pp. 69-86. Honolulu, HI: University Press of Hawaii, reprint, Taipei: SMC. Hsu, Wen-hsiung (1994) “Ch’ing Policies Toward Taiwan,” In Unbound Taiwan: Closeups from a Distance Marshall Johnson and Fred Y.L. Chiu, eds., pp. 117-131. The Center for East Asian Studies, The University of Chicago, Selected papers Vol. 8. Hu, Shi च፾ (1923a) “Zhongshen Dashi (shang)” ಖ‫ي‬ε٣ (΢) (The marriage, part 1), TWMP 1.1. (15 April), p. 20. --- (1923b) “Zhongshen Dashi (xia)” ಖ‫ي‬ε٣ (Π) (The marriage, part 2), TWMP 1.2. (1 May), pp. 13-14. Huang, Chaoqin ໳රถ (1923a) “Hanwen gaigelun (shang)” ᅇЎ‫ׯ‬ॠፕ (΢) (On reform of hanwen, part 1), The Formosa (ᆵ᡼) 4.1. (January), pp. 25-31. --- (1923b) “Xu hanwen gaigelun ɡ changshe Taiwan baihuawen jiangxihui” ុᅇ Ў‫ׯ‬ॠፕ-ୠ೛ᆵ᡼қ၉Ўᖱಞ཮ (Continuation on reform of hanwen, Setting up a Taiwan baihuawen lecture society), The Formosa (ᆵ᡼) 4.2. (February), pp. 32-33. --- (1989) Wo de huiyi ‫ޑך‬ӣᏫ (My recollections). Taipei: Longwen ᓪЎ. Huang, Chengcong ໳ևᖃ (1921a) “HokŇ seido ron” ߥҘ‫ࡋڋ‬ፕ (Discussing the hokŇ system), TOCL 2.3. March (Japanese section), pp. 22-27. --- (1921b) “Taiwan jiaoyu gaizhao lun” ᆵ᡼௲‫ׯػ‬೷ፕ (On reform of Taiwan’s education), TOCL 3.2. August (Chinese section), pp. 1-7.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Bibliography

213

--- (1921c) “Taiwan jiaoyu gaizhaolun (duqian)” ᆵ᡼௲‫ׯػ‬೷ፕ(᠐߻) (On reform of Taiwan’s education, part 2), TOCL 3.3. September (Chinese section), pp. 10-14. --- (1921d) “Taiwan keizaikai no kiki to so no kyşsai ᆵ᡼࿶ᔮࣚ喘Ӓᐒ喒‫ځ‬喘௱ ᔮ (The crisis of the Taiwan economy and its recovery), TOCL 3.5. November (Japanese section), pp. 48-53. --- (1923) “Lun puji baihuawen de xin shiming” ፕ ද Ϸ қ ၉ Ў ‫ ޑ‬ཥ ٬ ‫ڮ‬ (Discussing the new destiny of spreading baihuawen), The Formosa (ᆵ᡼) 4.1. (January), pp. 12-25. Huang, Chunqing ໳પߙ (1931) “Taiwanhua gaizaolun” ᆵ᡼ ၉‫ׯ‬೷ፕ (On reforming taiwanhua), Taiwan shinpŇ ᆵ᡼ཥൔ(‘Taiwan News’) , p. 8. --- (1932a) “Xin zi wenti” ཥӷୢᚒ (The problem of new characters), NY 1.5., p. 9. --- (1932b) “Xin zi wenti” ཥӷୢᚒ (The problem of new characters), NY 1.6., p. 15. Huang, Deshi ໳ ள ਔ (1935) “Minjian wenxue de renshi” ҇ ໔ Ў Ꮲ ‫ ޑ‬ᇡ ᛽ (Knowing popular literature), Diyi xian ಃ΋ጕ (‘Frontline’) 1. (January), p. 1. Huang, Fu-san ໳൤Ο (1987) Wufeng Linjia de xingqi cong duhai tuohuang dao fengjiang dashi 1729-1864 ᜦঢ়݅ৎ‫ޑ‬ᑫଆவ෠ੇ‫ܗ‬૖‫࠾ډ‬ᛒε٬ 1729-1864 (The rise of the Wufeng Lin family. From land reclaimers to governor of a border province, 1729-1864). Taipei: Zili wanbao Ծҥఁൔ. Huang, Mei-Er ໳ऍে (1997) “Rizhi shidai taiwan shishe linli de shehui kaocha” В ‫ݯ‬ਔжѠ᡼၃‫݅ޗ‬ҥ‫཮ޗޑ‬Եჸ (Social investigation of the Taiwan poetry societies under Japanese colonial rule), Taiwan fengwu ᆵ᡼॥‫‘( ނ‬The Taiwan Folkways’ ) 47.3. (September), pp. 43-88. --- (1999) “Qingdai Taiwan zhuqian diqu chuantong wenxue yanjiu” మжѠ᡼Ԯჟ Ӧ୔໺಍ЎᏢࣴ‫( ز‬Research on the traditional literature in the Zhuqian area in Qing Taiwan), unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Taiwan National University ୯ҥ Ѡ᡼εᏢ. --- (2006) “Confrontation and collaboration. Traditional Taiwanese Writers’ Canonical Reflection and Cultural Thinking on the New-Old Literatures Debate During the Japanese Colonial Period,” In Taiwan under Japanese Colonial Rule, 1895-1945: History, Culture, Memory Ping-hui Liao and David Der-wei Wang, eds., pp. 187-209. New York: Columbia UP. Huang, Panwan ໳ዐ࿤ (1955) “Riju shiqi zhi zhongwen shuju (xia)” ВᏵਔයϐ ύЎਜֽ (Π) (Chinese language bookstores in the colonial era, part 2), Taipei Wenwu ᆵчЎ‫‘( ނ‬Taipei Cultural Facts’) 4.3. (October), pp. 80-82. Huang, Shihui ໳ҡ፵ (1930) “Zeme bu tichang xiangtu wenxue” ࡛ሶόගঀໂβ ЎᏢ (Why not advocate nativist literature?), Wurenbao ҴΓൔ (‘Wurenbao’) (16 August), pp. 9-11. --- (1931a) “Zai tan xiangtu wenxue” ӆፋໂβЎᏢ (Once more on nativist literature), Taiwan shinbun ᆵ᡼ཥᆪ, (July), p. 11.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

214

Bibliography

--- (1931b) “Wode jiju dabian” ‫ޑך‬൳ѡเ៏ (My reply in a few sentences) ShŇwa shimpŇ ࡿ‫ک‬ཥൔ (‘Showa Newspaper’) No. 142-144, (15, 22, 29 August). --- (1931c) “Xiangtu wenxue de zai jiantao, gei Kefu xiansheng de shangliang” ໂβ ЎᏢ‫ޑ‬ӆᔠ૸ɡ๏լϻӃғ‫ޑ‬୘ໆ (Once more reviewing and discussing nativist literature, Exchanging opinions with Mr. Kefu), Taiwan shimbun ᆵ᡼ཥᆪ (‘Taiwan News’), (August), p. 11. --- (1931d) “He Dianren xiansheng tan zhiye” ‫ک‬ᗺΓӃғፋ݄ယ (Discussing branches and leaves with Mr Dianren), Taiwan shimbun ᆵ᡼ཥᆪ (‘Taiwan News’), (September), p. 8. --- (1931e) “Gei Dianren xiansheng, wei xiangtu wenxue wenti” ๏ᗺΓӃғɡࣁໂ βЎᏢୢᚒ (To Mr. Dianren, Problems concerning nativist literature), repinted in “Guanyu xiangtu wenxue lunzheng, 1930-32” ᜢ‫ܭ‬ໂβЎᏢፕ‫ ݾ‬1930-32 (On the nativist literature controversy, 1930-32), Matsunaga Masayoshi ݊҉҅ က, pp. 70-82. Taiwan xueshu yanjiuhuizhi Ѡ᡼Ꮲೌࣴ‫཮ز‬ᇞ (Journal of Taiwan Academic Research) 4. December. --- (1931f) “Zai da Yuwen xiansheng” ӆเ྆ЎӃғ (Once more replying to Mr. Yuwen), repinted in “Guanyu xiangtu wenxue lunzheng, 1930-32”ᜢ‫ܭ‬ໂβЎᏢ ፕ‫ ݾ‬1930-32 (On the nativist literature controversy, 1930-32), Matsunaga Masayoshi ݊҉҅က , pp. 70-82. Taiwan xueshu yanjiuhuizhi Ѡ᡼Ꮲೌࣴ‫཮ز‬ᇞ (Journal of Taiwan Academic Research) 4. December. --- (1932) “Yanwen yizhi de lingxing wenti” ‫ق‬Ў΋ठ‫ޑ‬႟ࢃୢᚒ (Factional problems on the unification of the spoken and the written language), NY 1.6., pp. 6-14. --- (1934) “Meiyou piping de biyao, xian gei dazhong shizi” ؒԖ‫ץ‬ຑ‫ޑ‬ѸाӃ๏ε ౲᛽ӷ (No need for criticism, first make the masses literate), Xianfa Budui Ӄว ೽໗ (‘Vanguard’) 1., pp. 1-2. Huang, Shiqiao ໳ৣᐑ (1954a) “Jiang Weishui ji qi zhengzhi yundong” ጯ෭НϷ ‫ݯࡹځ‬ၮ୏ (Jiang Weishui and his political movement), Taipei Wenwu ᆵчЎ‫ނ‬ (‘Taipei Cultural Facts’) 3.1. (May), pp. 79-90. --- (1954b) “Xinwenxue yundong yu baihuazi yundong” ཥЎᏢၮ୏ᆶқ၉ӷၮ୏ (The new literature movement and the vernacular script movement), Taipei Wenwu ᆵчЎ‫‘( ނ‬Taipei Cultural Facts’) 3. 2. (August), pp. 140-141. Huang, Wenxiong ໳Ў໢ (1954) “Taibei qingnianhui, dushuhui, tiyuhui” ᆵчߙ ԃ཮ Ε ᠐ਜ཮ Ε ᡏ‫( ཮ػ‬Taipei new youth society, reading society, sport society), Taipei Wenwu ᆵчЎ‫‘( ނ‬Taipei Cultural Facts’) 3. 2. (August), pp. 137-139. Huang, Xingmin ໳ᒬ҇ (1931) “Zhengli ‘geyao’ de yige tiyi” ᏾౛Ȩᄺᖳȩ‫ޑ‬΋ঁ ග᝼ (A proposal for arranging “Folksongs”), TWMP 345. (01 January), p. 18. Huang, Shuan-Fan [Huang Xuanfan] ໳࠹ጄ (1995) Yuyan, shehui yu zuqun yishi: Taiwan yuyan shehui xue de yanjiu ᇟ‫ق‬Ƿ‫཮ޗ‬ᆶ௼ဂཀ᛽ǺѠ᡼ᇟ‫཮ޗق‬Ꮲ‫ޑ‬

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Bibliography

215

ࣴ‫( ز‬Language, Society and Ethnic Consciousness: Taiwanese Sociolinguistic Research). Taipei: Crane Publishing Co., Ltd Ў៪р‫ޗހ‬. Ide, Kiwata ϔр‫کۑ‬Җ (1933) Taiwan chiseki shi ᆵ᡼‫ݯ‬ᕮў (Administrative records in Taiwan). Taihoku: Taiwan nichinichi shinpŇsha ᆵ᡼ВВཥൔ‫ޗ‬. Iuȭ, Un-gian [Yang, Yunyan] ླྀ Ϣ ‫( ق‬1993) “Tâi-gí bûn-jĩ-hòa ê kòe-khì kap hián-chĆi” ѠᇟЎӷϯ㚚ၸѐӝ౜ӧ (Past and present of Taiwanese character writing), Taiwanshi ziliao yanjiu ᆵ᡼ўၗ਑ࣴ‫‘( ز‬Taiwan Historical Materials Studies’) 1, pp. 57-73. Izawa, Shşji ҲᐛঅΒ (1958a) “Taiwan kyŇiku dan” ᆵ᡼௲‫ػ‬ፋ (Discussing Taiwan education) Hiroshima Shinbun ቶ৞ཥᆪ!(‘Hiroshima Newspaper’) (May 1895), reprinted in Izawa Shşji Senshş Ҳ㟾অΒᒧ໣ (Selected works of Izawa Shşji), Matsuoka Hiroshi ݊‫۝‬㛴, ed., pp. 570-71. Nagano: Shinano KyŇikukai ߞᐚ௲‫ػ‬ ཮. --- (1958b) “Taiwan no kyŇiku” ᆵ᡼喘௲‫( ػ‬Taiwan education) (November 1895), reprinted in Izawa Shşji Senshş Ҳ㟾অΒᒧ໣ (Selected works of Izawa Shşji), Matsuoka Hiroshi ݊‫۝‬㛴, ed., pp. 582-96. Nagano: Shinano KyŇikukai ߞᐚ௲‫ػ‬ ཮. --- (1958c) “Shin hanto jimmin kyŇka no hŇshin” (Policy of acculturating the peoples of new territory) ཥ‫ހ‬კΓ҇௲ϯ喘Бଞ (autumn 1898), reprinted in Izawa Shşji Senshş Ҳ㟾অΒᒧ໣ (Selected works of Izawa Shşji), Matsuoka Hiroshi ݊‫۝‬㛴, ed., pp. 632-641. Nagano: Shinano KyŇikukai ߞᐚ௲‫཮ػ‬. Jacobs, Bruce (2008) “Taiwan’s Colonial History and Postcolonial Nationalism,” In The “One China” Dilemma Peter C. Y. Chow, ed., pp. 37-56. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Jang, John Lun (1968) “A History of Newspapers in Taiwan,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Claremont Graduate School and University Center. Jiang, Risheng ԢВܹ (1960) Taiwan waiji Ѡ᡼Ѧ૶ (Unofficial records of Taiwan). Taipei: Taiwansheng wenxian weiyuanhui Ѡ᡼࣪Ў᝘‫ہ‬঩཮. Joseph, John Earl (1987) Eloquence and Power. The Rise of Language Standards and Standard Languages. London: Frances Printers. Ka, Chih-ming (1995) Japanese Colonialism in Taiwan: Land Tenure, Development, and Dependency, 1895-1945. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Kaminuma, HachirŇ ΢‫ݡ‬Ζ॔ (1962) Izawa Shşji Ҳ㟾অΒ (Izawa Shşji). Tokyo: Yoshikawa KŇbunkan ӓοѶЎᓔ. Khou, kek-tun [Xu Jidun] ೚ ཱུ ቞ (1992) Taiwanyu gailun Ѡ ᡼ ᇟ ཷ ፕ (An introduction to Taiwanese language). Kaohsiung: First Press ‫ݞ‬੪р‫ޗހ‬. Kinoshita, TomosaburŇ ЕΠ϶Ο॔ (1920a) “Taiwanjin narabini naichijin ni taisuru kibŇ,” ᆵ ᡼ Γ ٠ 㚵 Ӧ Γ 喕 ჹ 喃 喵 ‫ ׆‬ఈ (Anticipations for Taiwanese and homeland people), TOCL 1.1., July (Japanese section), pp. 23-28.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

216

Bibliography

--- (1920b) “Dui Taiwanren ji neidiren zhi xiwang” ჹ‫ܭ‬ᆵ᡼ΓϷϣӦΓϐ‫׆‬ఈ (Anticipations for Taiwanese and homeland people), TOCL 1.1. July (Chinese section), pp. 19-28. Kleeman, Faye Yuan (2003) Under an Imperial Sun: Japanese Colonial South. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai’i Press. Klöter, Henning (2005) Written Taiwanese. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. --- (2009) “Re-writing language in Taiwan,” In Re-Writing Culture in Taiwan Fang-long Shih, Stuart Thompson and Paul-François Tremlett, eds., pp. 102-122. London and New York: Routledge. Kokubu, Tanetake ୯۬ᅿ‫( ݓ‬1931) Taiwan ni okeru kokugo kyŇiku no hatten ᆵ᡼喕 ‫ ܭ‬啻 喵 ୯ ᇟ ௲ ‫ ػ‬喘 ว ৖ (Development of national language education in Taiwan). Taihoku: Dai ichi KyŇikusha ಃ΋௲‫ޗػ‬. Komagome, Takeshi Ꮀ僬‫( ݓ‬1993) “KŇnichi undŇ ni okeru kyŇiku yŇkyş to sŇtokufu no kyŇiku seisakuɡ1920-30 nendai taichşshu SŇton shŇ no jisei o chushin ni” ‫ל‬Вၮ୏喕啴啻喵௲‫ػ‬ा‫؃‬喒䀏࿎۬喘௲‫ࡹػ‬฼ɡ1920-30 ԃж ѠύԀ૛Ђᤞ喘٣‫ٯ‬喼ύЈ喕 (Educational demands and colonial government educational policy in the anti-Japanese resistance movement, The case of the 1920-1930s Caodun county in Taichung), In Riju shiqi taiwanshi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji В Ᏽ ਔ ය ᆵ ᡼ ў ୯ ሞ Ꮲ ೌ ࣴ ૸ ཮ ፕ Ў ໣ (Proceedings of the International Conference on Taiwan Colonial History), pp. 415-440. Taipei: National Taiwan University ୯ҥѠ᡼εᏢ. Kublin, Hyman (1949) “The Attitude of China during the Liuch’u Controversy, 1871-1881,” Pacific Historical Review 18, pp. 213-31. Lai, Ho [Lai He] ᒘ‫( ک‬1926) “Du tai rizhi de ‘xinjiu wenxue zhi bijiao’” ᠐ᆵВર ‫ޑ‬ȨཥᙑЎᏢϐКၨȩ(Reading “A Comparison between the New and the Old Literature in the Taiwanese-Japanese Papers”), TWMP 69. (11 October), pp. 10-12. Lai, Qing ᒘቼ (1934) “Wenyi de dazhonghua, zeyang baozhang wenyi jia de shenghuo” Ў ᛬ ‫ ޑ‬ε ౲ ϯ ɡ ࡛ ኬ ߥ ም Ў ᛬ ৎ ‫ ޑ‬ғ ࢲ ” (Popularization of literature, How to guarantee the life of a literary family), Xianfa budui Ӄว೽໗ (‘The Vanguard’), pp. 5-7. Lai, Ziqing ᒘηమ (1962) “Gujin Taiwan shiwenshe (yi)” ђϞᆵ᡼၃Ў‫( ޗ‬΋) (Ancient and contemporary Taiwan poetry societies, part 1), Taiwan Wen Shian ᆵ ᡼Ў᝘ (‘Report of Historico-Geographical Studies of Taiwan) 10.3. (October), pp. 79-100. Lamley, Harry J. (1964) “The Taiwan Literati and Early Japanese Rule, 1895-1915: A Study of Their Reactions to the Japanese Occupation and Subsequent Responses to Colonial Rule and Modernization,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington. --- (1981) “Subethnic Rivalry in the Ch’ing Period,” In The Anthropology of Taiwanese Society Emily Martin Ahern and Hill Gates, eds., pp. 282-318. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Bibliography

217

--- (1993) “The YŇbunkai of 1900: An Episode in the Transformation of the Taiwan Elite During the Early Japanese Period,” In Riju shiqi Taiwanshi guoji xueshu yantao lunwenji В Ᏽ ਔ ය ᆵ ᡼ ў ୯ ሞ Ꮲ ೌ ࣴ ૸ ፕ Ў ໣ (Proceedings of the International Conference on Taiwan History under Japanese Colonial Rule), Taipei: National Taiwan University ୯ҥѠ᡼εᏢ. --- (1999) “Taiwan under Japanese Rule, 1895-1945: The Vicissitudes of Colonialism,” In Taiwan: A New History Murray A. Rubinstein, ed., pp. 201-260. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Lan, Bozhou ᙔറࢪ (1993) Rijushiqi Taiwan xuesheng yundong 1913-1945 ВᏵਔය Ѡ᡼Ꮲғၮ୏ 1913-1945 ԃ (The Taiwan student movement in the Japanese colonial era, 1913-1945). Taipei: Shibao wenhua ਔൔЎϯ. Lee, Hsiao-feng [Li, Xiaofeng] ‫☰׵‬ঢ় (1996) Lin Maosheng, Chen Xin he tamen de shidai ݅पғΕഋᬩ‫ک‬дॺ‫ޑ‬ਔж (Lin Maosheng, Chen Xin and their times). Taipei: Yushanshe ҏξ‫ޗ‬. Lee, Hsiung-huei (1995) “Education in Taiwan during the Ch’ing dynasty, 1683-1895: A case study in cultural colonialism?,” unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Connecticut. Lee, Yeounsuk ‫ְ׵‬ల (1996) Kokugo to iu shisŇ: Kindai Nihon no gengo ninshiki Ȩ㡚ᇟȩ 喒啮啰ࡘགྷ : ߈жВҁ喘‫ق‬ᇟᇡ᛽ (The ideology called “National Language”: Language identity in modern Japan). Tokyo: Iwanami shoten ۟‫ݢ‬ਜ۫. Leizi ఽη [Lin Gengyu ݅હ‫( ]ܭ‬1924) “Wo du minbao shishi duanpinglan de “nüzi xing hanxue de xiansheng” de yi duan hou” ‫ך‬᠐҇ൔਔ٣อຑឯ‫ޑ‬Ȩζη ᑫ ᅇ Ꮲ ‫ ޑ‬Ӄ ᖂ ȩ ‫ ޑ‬΋ ࢤ ࡕ (Shortly after reading “The herald of women interested in hanxue in the Minbao news section”), TWMP 2.2. (11 February), pp. 12-13. Li, Chin-An ‫׵‬༇۞ (2003) Taiwanese Lexical Change and Variation. Tainan: Kailiang. --- (2005) Zouchu zhimin yinxiang ‫ و‬р ෗ ҇ ഍ ቹ (Taiwan under colonialism). Kaohsiung: Taiwan Pen Ѡ᡼฽཮. --- (2006) “HŇ-ló gí-bun kap kok-ka jĩn-tông: í “Tâi-ôan Kàu-hŇe Kong-pò” 1885-1969 chò lē” Holo ᇟЎ kap ୯ৎᇡӕǺаȨѠ᡼௲཮Ϧൔȩ1885~1969 ଺‫( ٯ‬Holo literary language and national identity in the ‘Taiwan Church News’ (1885-1969), In Guojia rentong zhi wenhua lunshu ୯ৎᇡӕϐЎϯፕॊ (Cultural discourses on national identity), Shi Zhengfeng ࡼ҅᎔, ed., pp. 775-794. Taipei: Taiwan guoji yanjiu xuehui Ѡ᡼୯ሞࣴ‫ز‬Ꮲ཮. Li, Nanheng ‫ࠄ׵‬ᑽ (ed.) (1979) Rijushidai xia Taiwan xin wenxue mingji 1-5 ВᏵਔ жΠѠ᡼ཥЎᏢܴ໣ 1-5 (Compilation of Taiwan new literature in the colonial era), 5 Vols. Taipei: Mingtan ܴ዇. Li, Tengyue ‫׵‬បᔃ (1951) “Lian Yatang xiansheng de taiwanyu yanjiu” ೱ໡୸Ӄ ғ‫ޑ‬ᆵ᡼ᇟࣴ‫( ز‬Mr. Lian Yatang’s research on Taiwanese), Taiwan fengwu ᆵ᡼ ॥‫‘( ނ‬The Taiwan Folkways’ ) 1.1. (December), pp. 16-17.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

218

Bibliography

Li, Xianzhang ‫׵‬᝘ዞ (1932a) “Xin zi wenti” ཥӷୢᚒ (The problem of new characters) NY 1.5., pp. 8-9. --- (1932b) “Xin zi wenti” ཥӷୢᚒ (The problem of new characters), NY 1.6., p. 15. --- (1935) Taiwan minjian wenxueji ᆵ᡼҇໔ЎᏢ໣ (Collection of Taiwan popular literature). Taizhong: Taiwan xinwenxueshe Ѡ᡼ཥЎᏢ‫ޗ‬. --- (1986) “Taiwan xiangtu huawen yundong” Ѡ᡼ໂβ၉Ўၮ୏ (The Taiwan nativist language movement), translated by Lin Ruojia ݅ऩ჏, Taiwan Wenyi Ѡ ᡼Ў᛬ (‘Literary Taiwan’) 102 (September), pp. 150-161. Li, Xionghui ‫׵‬໢ච (1993) “Qingji Taiwan ‘shexue’ bing wu yanbian wei ‘she’ zhi bianzheng” మ‫ۑ‬Ѡ᡼Ȩ‫ޗ‬Ꮲȩ٠คᄽᡂࣁȨ‫ޗ‬ȩϐ៏᛾ (Demonstration that the “shexue” in Qing Taiwan did not develop from “she” ), Taiwan Wen Hsien ᆵ᡼ Ў᝘ (‘Report of Historico-Geographical Studies of Taiwan’) 43.3., pp. 275-279. Lian, Wenqing ೱྕঙ (1924a) “Yuyan zhi shehui de xingzhi” ᇟ‫ق‬ϐ‫܄ޑ཮ޗ‬፦ (The social characteristics of language), TWMP 2.19. (01 October), pp. 13-14. --- (1924b) “Jianglai zhi taiwanhua” ஒٰϐᆵ᡼၉ (The future of taiwanhua), TWMP 2.20. (11 October), pp. 11-12. --- (1924c) “Jianglai zhi taiwanhua (xuqian)” ஒٰϐᆵ᡼၉ (ុ߻) (The future of taiwanhua, continued), TWMP 2.21. (18 October), p. 14. --- (1925) “Jianglai zhi taiwanhua (xu)” ஒٰϐᆵ᡼၉ (ុ) (The future of taiwanhua, continued), TWMP 3.4. (01 February), pp. 14-15. --- (1953) “Taiwan wenhuaxiehui de faren ᆵ᡼Ўϯ‫ޑ཮ڐ‬วଉ (The beginning of the Taiwan Cultural Association), Taipei Wenwu ᆵчЎ‫‘( ނ‬Taipei Cultural Facts’) 2.3. (November), pp. 68-73. Lian, Yatang [Lian Heng ೱᐉ] ೱ໡୸ (1920-21) Taiwan tongshi ᆵ᡼೯ў (A history of Taiwan). 3 Vols. Taihoku: Taiwan tongshishe ᆵ᡼೯ў‫ޗ‬. --- (1929a) “Taiyu zhengli zhi touxu” ᆵᇟ᏾౛ϐᓐᆣ (Clues to arranging the Taiwanese language), TWMP 288. (24 November), p. 8. --- (1929b) “Taiyu zhengli zhi zeren” ᆵᇟ᏾౛ϐೢҺ (The responsibility of arranging Taiwanese), TWMP 289. (01 December), p. 4. --- (1957 [1986]) Tâi-ôan gí-tián ᆵ᡼ᇟ‫( ڂ‬Dictionary of Taiwanese). Taipei: Jinfeng Chubanshe ߎོр‫ޗހ‬. Lien, Chinfa (1995) “Language Adaptation in Taoist Liturgical Texts,” In Ritual and Scripture in Chinese Popular Religion: Five Studies Johnson David, ed., pp. 219-246. Berkeley, CA: Institute of East Asian Studies. Lien, Wen-Hsi [Lian Wenxi] ೱЎᒴ (1971) “Kejia ruken Taiwan diqu kaolue” ࠼ৎ ΕᏜѠ᡼Ӧ୔Եౣ (An outline on the Hakka pioneers in Taiwan), Taiwan Wen Shian ᆵ᡼Ў᝘ (‘Report of Historico-Geographical Studies of Taiwan’) 22.3. (September), pp. 9-21.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Bibliography

219

Liao, Hanchen ᄃ ᅇ Խ [Liao Yuwen ᄃ ྆ Ў ] (1954) “Yangwenhui” ඦ Ў ཮ (YŇbunkai), Taipei Wenwu ᆵчЎ‫‘( ނ‬Taipei Cultural Facts’) 2.4. (January), pp. 77-92. Liao, Qizheng ᄃ࿡҅ (1990) “Sanshi niandai Taiwan xiangtu huawen yundong” Ο ΜԃжѠ᡼ໂβ၉Ўၮ୏ (The Taiwanese writing movement of the 1930s), unpublished Master thesis, National Cheng Kung University ୯ҥԋфεᏢ. Liao, Xuelan ᄃഓើ [Yijin ΋ዠ ] (1989) Taiwan shishi Ѡ᡼၃ў (A history of Taiwan poetry). Taipei: Wulin Publishing ‫ݓ‬ഊр‫ޗހ‬. Liao, Yuwen ᄃ྆Ў (1931a) “Gei Huang Shihui xiansheng, xiangtuwenxue zhi zai yinwei” ๏໳ҡ፵ӃғɡໂβЎᏢϐӆ֗‫( ښ‬To Mr. Huang Shihui, Once more appreciating nativist literature), ShŇwa shimpŇ ࡿ‫ک‬ཥൔ (‘Showa Newspaper’) (1 August), p. 8. --- (1931b) “Xiangtu wenxue de jiantao, zai gei Huang Shihuixiansheng” ໂβЎᏢ‫ޑ‬ ᔠ૸ɡӆ๏໳ҡ፵Ӄғ (A review and discussion of nativist literature, Once more replying to Mr. Huang Shihui), ShŇwa shimpŇ ࡿ‫ک‬ཥൔ (‘Showa Newspaper’) (31 August), p. 8. --- (1955) “Taiwan wenzi gaige yundong shilue (xia)” ᆵ᡼Ўӷ‫ׯ‬ॠၮ୏ўౣ (Π) (Outline of the history of Taiwan script reform movements, part 2), Taipei Wenwu ᆵчЎ‫‘( ނ‬Taipei Cultural Facts’) 4.1. (May), pp. 88-104. Lim, Chai-hok [Lin Zaifu] ݅ӆൺ (1984) Minnanren መࠄΓ (The Minnan people). Taipei: Sanmin Shuju Ο҇ਜֽ. Lin, Bowei ࢙݅ᆢ (1993a) Taiwan wenhuaxiehui cangsang Ѡ᡼Ўϯ‫ྙ཮ڐ‬ਬ (The swift changes of the Taiwan Cultural Association). Taipei: Taiyuan Publishing Co ᆵচр‫ޗހ‬. Lin, Chenglu ݅ำ࿢!(1929) “Dui Cai Huiru zhi sheng ping de ganyan” ჹጰඁӵ Мғѳ‫ޑ‬ག‫( ق‬Thankword to the career of Cai Huiru), TWMP 262. (26 May), p. 3. Lin, Hengdao ݅ᑽၰ and Hong Jinfu ࢫᒸᅽ (eds.) (1984) Taiwan yibai weimingren chuan ᆵ᡼΋ԭՏӜΓ໺ (Biographies of one hundred famous Taiwanese). Taipei: Zhengzhong shuju ҅ύਜֽ. Lin, Jui-ming [Lin Ruiming] ݅ྷܴ (1993b) Taiwan wenxue yu shidai jingshen Ѡ᡼Ў Ꮲᆶਔжᆒઓ (Taiwan literature and the spirit of the time). Taipei: Yunchen Ϣ ః. Lin, Kefu ݅լϻ (1931) “Xiangtu wenxue de jiantao, du Huang Shihuijun de gaolun” ໂβЎᏢ‫ޑ‬ᔠ૸–᠐໳ҡ፵‫ޑ‬ଯፕ (Nativist literature under review, Reading Huang Shihui’s outstanding statement), TWSMP 377. (15 August), p. 11. Lin, Wen-lung [Lin Wenlong] ݅Ўᓪ (1984) “Zhanghua Baisha shuyuan xingfeikao” ᄆϯқ؅ਜଣᑫቲԵ (A Study on “Pai Sha Shih Yuan” of Chang-hua, Its Rise and Fall), Taiwan Wen Hsien ᆵ᡼Ў᝘ (‘Report of Historico-Geographical Studies of Taiwan’) 35.3. (September), pp. 1-21.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

220

Bibliography

--- (1991) “Qingdai Taiwan shuyuan jiangxi huilu” మжѠ᡼ਜଣᖱৢ༼ᒵ (The Lecture Digest Taiwan Academy in Ch’ing Dynasty), Taiwan Wen Hsien ᆵ᡼Ў᝘ (‘Report of Historico-Geographical Studies of Taiwan’) 42.2., pp. 241-266. --- (1999) Taiwan de shuyuan yu keju Ѡ᡼‫ޑ‬ਜଣᆶࣽᖐ (Taiwan academies and the imperial examination system). Taipei: Changmin wenhua த҇Ўϯ. Link, Eugene Perry (1981) Mandarin Ducks and Butterflies. Popular Fiction in Early Twentieth-Century Chinese Cities. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Loon, Piet van der (1992) The Classical Theatre and Art Song of South Fukien. Taipei: SMC. Lu, Zhen-hwei ֈ҅ඁ (1993) “Riju shidai ‘taiwanhuawen’ yundong pingyi” ВᏵਔ жȨѠ᡼၉Ўȩၮ୏ѳ᝼ (A fair and just discussion of the “Written Taiwanese” movement in colonial Taiwan), Second Conference on the Taiwan Experience, pp. 1-13. Tainan: Chungcheng University ύ҅εᏢ. Lu, Xun Ꮉِ (1925) “Kuangren riji” ‫ئ‬ΓВ૶ (Diary of a madman), TWMP 3.15. (21 May), pp. 14-15. Luo, Yougui ᛥԖਦ (1976) “Taiwanminzu yingxiong renwuɡCai Huiru” Ѡ᡼҇ ௼म໢Γ‫ނ‬ɡጰඁӵ (A Taiwan nationalistic hero, Cai Huiru), Daxue zazhi εᏢ ᚇᇞ (‘The Intellectual’) 100 (September), pp. 25-30. Luo, Zhaojin ᛥᆬᒸ (1996) “Man-Qing tongzhi yu hanyu zhibian” ᅈమ಍‫ݯ‬ᆶᅇ ᇟ፦ᡂ (The development of hanyu under Manzhu Qing rule), In Yuyan zhengzhi yu zhengce ᇟ‫ݯࡹق‬ᆶࡹ฼ (Language policy and rule), Shi Zhengfeng ࡼ҅᎔, ed., pp. 330-352. Taipei: Qianwei ߻ፁ. --- (1998) “Taiwan de tongmeng zishu” ᆵ᡼‫ูޑ‬ᆾӷਜ (Taiwan children’s books), Kejia zazhi ࠼ৎᚇᇞ (‘Hakka Magazine’) 13, pp. 34-36. MacGowan, John (1883) English and Chinese Dictionary of the Amoy Dialect. Amoy: London Missionary Society. --- (1912 [1974]) Men and Manners of Modern China. London: Fisher Unwin, reprint Taipei: Cheng Wen Publishing Co. Matsunaga, Masayoshi ݊ ҉ ҅ က (1989) “Guanyu xiangtu wenxue lunzheng, 1930-32” ᜢ‫ܭ‬ໂβЎᏢፕ‫ ݾ‬1930-32 (On the nativist literature controversy, 1930-32), Taiwan xueshu yanjiuhuizhi Ѡ᡼Ꮲೌࣴ‫཮ز‬ᇞ (‘Journal of Taiwan Academic Research’) 4 (December), pp. 70-82. --- (2006) Taiwan bungaku no omoshirosa Ѡ㵈ЎᏢ喘啴喬喁喷啿 (The fun of Taiwanese literature) Tokyo: Kenbun shuppan ࣴЎр‫ހ‬. Matsuo, Takayoshi ݊‫׀‬൧ի (1966) TaishŇ demokurashii no kenkyş ε҅嗨嘃嗐嘊嗘 ɡ喘ࣴ‫( ز‬Studies in Taisho democracy). Tokyo: Aoki shoten ߙЕਜ۫. --- (1998) Minponshugi to teikokushugi ҇ҁЬက喒ࡆ㡚Ьက (Minponshugi and Imperialism). Tokyo: Misuzu ShobŇ 喩喃善ਜ‫܊‬/! Matsuoka, Hiroshi (ed.) ݊‫۝‬㛴 (1958) Izawa Shşji Senshş Ҳ㟾অΒᒧ໣ (Selected works of Izawa Shşji). Nagano: Shinano KyŇikukai ߞᐚ௲‫ػ‬㜘.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Bibliography

221

Matsuyama, Shimishichi ݊ξⅯΎ (1926) “HontŇ ni okeru kokugo kyŇiku to kanbun (jŇ)” ҁ৞喕啴啻喵୯ᇟ௲‫ػ‬喒ᅇЎ (΢) (Japanese language education and kanbun on the island (1)), Daiichi KyŇiku ಃ΋௲‫‘( ػ‬First Education’) 5.4. (April), pp. 104-105. Meskill, Johanna Menzel (1979) A Chinese Pioneer Family, The Lins of Wu-feng, Taiwan 1729-1895. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. Michio, Suenari (1999) “A century of Japanese anthropological studies on Taiwan Aborigines,” paper presented at the International Conference on Formosan Indigenous Peoples, the Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica, Taipei. Morris-Suzuki, Tessa (1994) “Creating the Frontier: Border, Identity and History in Japan’s Far North,” East Asian History 7 (June), pp. 1-24. Murakami, Yoshihide ‫׸‬΢๓म (1989) “Ribenren zai shijiu shiji moqi dui taiwan minnan fangyan yinyun de yanjiu gongzuo” ВҁΓӧΜΐШइ҃යჹѠ᡼መ ࠄБ‫ॣق‬ᜩ‫زࣴޑ‬πբ (Research by Japanese on the tones of the Taiwan Southern Min dialect in the late 19th century), Tenri Daigaku gakuhŇ Ϻ౛ε䗄䗄ൔ (‘Journal of Tenri University’) 160, pp. 30-33. Myers, Ramon H. and Mark R. Peattie (eds.) (1984) The Japanese Colonial Empire, 1895-1945. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. Nagao, Kageyoshi ߏ‫׀‬ඳက (1980) “Wang Zhao to Izawa Shşji – Shinmatsu bungaku kaikakuka no nihon to no kŇshŇ” Цྣ喒Ҳ㟾অΒ–మ҃ЎᏢ‫ׯ‬ॠৎ 喘Вҁ喒喘Ҭੋ (Wang Zhao and Izawa Shşji, A discussion of a late Qing literary reformer), Shukan TŇyŇgaku ໣тܿࢩᏢ (‘Journal of Pacific Literature’) 43, pp. 100-110. Nakai, Kate Wildman (1980) “The Naturalization of Confucianism in Tokugawa Japan: The Problems of Sinocentrism,” Harvard Journal of Asian Studies 40.1. (June), pp. 157-199. Nan Jiang ࠄԢ (1925) “Jiaoyu Taiwan shixue nannü de tichang” ௲‫ػ‬ᆵ᡼ѨᏢ‫ت‬ ζ‫ޑ‬ගঀ (Advocating to educate the Taiwan boys and girls who lack education), TWMP 67. (26 August), pp. 26-30. NanyŇ KyŇkai ࠄࢩ‫( ཮ڐ‬1935) NanyŇ kyŇkai nijş nen shi ࠄࢩ‫཮ڐ‬ΒΜԃў (Twenty years of the South Seas Association). Tokyo: NanyŇ KyŇkai ࠄࢩ‫཮ڐ‬. No author (1922) “Romajiron, kokugo no shştoku ha sono dai ichi gi” ᛥଭӷፕǵ ୯ᇟ喘ಞள喙‫ځ‬ಃ΋က (On romanization as the fist meaning of studying the national language), TWNNSP (16 May), p. 13, editorial. --- (1923a) “Jieshao shujie” ϟಏਜᙖ (Introducing publications), TWMP 1.1. (15 April), p. 27. --- (1923b) “Changshe baihuawen yanjiuhui” ୠ ೛ қ ၉ Ў ࣴ ‫( ཮ ز‬For the establishment of a baihuawen research society), TWMP 1.1. (16 July), p. 29. --- (1923c) “Nüzi xing hanxuede xiansheng” ζηᑫᅇᏢ‫ޑ‬Ӄᖂ (The herald of women interested in hanxue), TWMP 1.4. (15 July), p. 6.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

222

Bibliography

--- (1924a) “Hanxue fuxing zhi qianqu” ᅇᏢൺᑫϐ߻០ (Herald of hanxue revival), TWMP 2.1. (1 January), pp. 12-13. --- (1924b) “Wanhua cihui yishu kaixue yihui” ࿤๮ཁඁကმ໒Ꮲ᛬཮ (Banka charity private school association), TWMP 2.8. (11 May), p. 9. --- (1924c) “Nantou shixiuhui” ࠄ‫׫‬ჴঅ཮ (Nantou study association), TWMP 2.11. (21 June), p. 3. --- (1924d) “Hanwenke teshe xuexiao” ᅇЎࣽ੝೛Ꮲਠ (Setting up a school for hanwen classes), TWNNSP 8767. (10 October), p. 4. --- (1925a) “Hanwen fushe zhi chenqing” ᅇ Ўൺ೛ ϐഋ௃ (Full account of reinstating hanwen), TWMP 3.6. (21 February), p. 5. --- (1925b) “Duiyu shuru zhongguo shubao de taiwan haiguan de wuli ganshe” ჹ‫ܭ‬ ᒡΕύ ୯ਜൔ‫ޑ‬ᆵ ᡼ੇ‫ޑ۔‬ค ౛υੋ (Unreasonable interference of the Taiwan customs regarding imported books from China), TWMP 59. (01 July), editorial. --- (1925c) “Feishenshi de lunzhan” ߚಓγ‫ޑ‬ፕᏯ (The controversy over the non-gentleman), TWMP 64. (09 August), p. 7. --- (1925d) “Taoyuan gongxuexiao zhi fuxionghui jueding zai she hanwenke” ਲ༜Ϧ ᏢਠϐРл཮،‫ۓ‬ӆ೛ᅇЎࣽ (The parent’s association of the Taoyuan Common School has decided to reinstitute the hanwen class), TWMP 74. (11 October), pp. 5-6. --- (1925e) “Nongcun gong xuexiao jiaoyu de xiaoguo ruhe?” ၭ‫׸‬ϦᏢਠ௲‫ޑػ‬ਏ ݀ӵՖ? (How can education in the countryside Common Schools be made effective?), TWMP 78. (01 November), p. 3. --- (1925f) “Shulin jiang she hanwen yexuehui” ᐋ݅ஒ೛ᅇЎ‫ڹ‬Ꮲ཮ (Shulin will set up a hanwen night class association), TWMP 79. (15 November), p. 9. --- (1925g) “Xinzhu qingnian rexin hanxue” ཥԮߙԃ዗ЈᅇᏢ (Xinzhu youth interested in hanxue), TWMP 80. (22 November), p. 7. --- (1925h) “Taiwan wenhua xiehui baogao” ᆵ᡼Ўϯ‫཮ڐ‬ൔ֋ (Proceedings of the Taiwan Cultural Association), TWMP 80. (22 November), pp. 8-9. --- (1925i) “Taiwan wenhua xiehui baogao (xia)” ᆵ᡼Ўϯ‫཮ڐ‬ൔ֋ (Π) (Proceedings of the Taiwan Cultural Association, part 2), TWMP 80. (22 November), pp. 14-15. --- (1925j) “Nongmin jiaoyu de gaizao wenti” ၭ҇௲‫ׯޑػ‬೷ୢᚒ (The Problem of reforming countryside education), TWMP 81. (29 November), pp. 2-4. --- (1925k) “Feng Yuxiang rexin pingminjiaoyu” ໱ ҏ ౺ ዗ Ј ѳ ҇ ௲ ‫( ػ‬Feng Yuxiang and the zeal for popular education), TWMP 83. (13 December), p. 5. --- (1925l) “Zhongyang julebu jiang chuxian le” ύѧॿ኷೽ஒр౜Α (Opening of the Central Club), TWMP 85. (27 December), p. 8. --- (1926a) “Bu heli de jiaoyuan zhengli” όӝ౛‫ޑ‬௲঩᏾౛ (Straightening out unreasonable teachers), TWMP 100. (11 April), p. 3.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Bibliography

223

--- (1926b) “Yiji she pingmin jiaoyu” ‫࡚ە‬೛ѳ҇௲‫( ػ‬The urgency in setting up popular education), TWMP 103. (02 May), pp. 3-4. --- (1926c) “Zhongyang julebu chuangli zonghui” ύѧॿ኷೽ബҥᕴ཮ (Meeting at the establishment of the Central Club), TWMP 114. (18 July), p. 7. --- (1927) “Gongxuexiao de hanwen jiaoshou he jiushi de taiwan shufang” ϦᏢਠ‫ޑ‬ ᅇЎ௲௤‫ک‬ᙑԄ‫ޑ‬ᆵ᡼ਜ‫( ܊‬Instructors of hanwen in the Common Schools and the old-style shobŇ in Taiwan), TWMP 147. (06 March), pp. 2-4. --- (1933) “SŇkan no ji” ബт喘ᜏ (Preface to the inaugural issue), Forumosa 嗶嗊嘌 嘃嗖(‘Formosa’) 1.1. (July), p. 1. Nolte, Sharon H. (1987) Liberalism in Modern Japan. Ishibashi Tanzan and His Teachers, 1905-1960. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. Norman, Jerry (1988) Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Onomura, RinzŇ λഁ‫݅׸‬䅜 (1922) “Xiandai wenyi zhi qushi” ౜жЎ᛬ϐᖿ༈ (Trends in contemporary literature), TOCL 4.1. January (Chinese section), pp. 43-44. ņ, Ikutoku [Wang Yude] Ц‫ػ‬ቺ (1987) Taiwan kaikyŇ Ѡ㵈ੇ㥨 (The Taiwan straits). Tokyo: Nicchş shuppan Вύр‫ހ‬. ņzono, IchizŇ ε༜ѱᙒ (1916) Taiwan jimbutsu shi ᆵ᡼Γ‫ނ‬ᇞ (Record of Taiwan personalities). Taihoku ᆵч. Peattie, Mark (1984) “Attitudes towards Colonialism,” In The Japanese Colonial Empire, 1895-1945 Ramon H. Myers and Mark R. Peattie, eds., pp. 80-127. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. Pluvier, Jan (1974) South-East Asia from Colonialism to Independence. Kuala Lumpur, London: Oxford UP. Pulleybank, Edwin G. (1998) “Qieyun and Yunjing: The Essential Foundation for Chinese Historical Linguistics,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 118. 2. (April-June), pp. 200-216. Qian, Fei ߻ߚ (1924a) “Taiwan Minbao zemeyang buyong wenyanwen ne?” ᆵ᡼ ҇ൔ࡛ሶኬόҔЎ‫ق‬Ў‫( ?ګ‬Why does Taiwan Minpao not use wenyanwen?), TWMP 2.22. (01 November), pp. 14-16. --- (1924b) “Xinshi biaodian fuhao de zhonglei he yongfa” ཥԄ኱ᗺ಄ဦ‫ޑ‬ᅿᜪ‫ک‬ Ҕ‫( ݤ‬Forms and usages of the new punctuation marks), TWMP 2.24. (21 November), pp. 15-16. Qin, Xianci છ፣ԛ (1990) “Taiwan xinwenxue yundong de dianjizhe” Ѡ᡼ཥЎᏢ ၮ୏‫ޑ‬൚୷‫( ޣ‬The founder of the Taiwan new literature Movement), In Yang Yunping, Zhang Wojun, Cai Qiutong heji ླྀ໦๩ǵ஭‫ैך‬ǵጰࣿਯӝ໣ (Anthology of Yang Yunping, Zhang Wojun, Cai Qiutong), Zhang Henghao ஭ࡡᇬ, ed., pp. 129-153. Taipei: Qianwei ߻ፁ. Qin, Yuan ؆༜ (1925a) “Wenzi xiaokanhuixu” Ўӷਠ୎཮௶ (Describing a society for comparing and correct writing), TWMP 60. (12 July), pp. 14-15.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

224

Bibliography

--- (1925b) “Chenghu zhi yuanshi ji houren zhi lanyong” ᆀ‫ڥ‬ϐྍ‫ۈ‬ϷࡕΓϐ㐗Ҕ (The origins of addressing someone, and the misuse by later generations), TWMP 72. (27 September), pp. 12-13. --- (1925c) “Duyin dingzheng (xu)” ᠐ॣु҅ (ុ) (Correct reading list, continued), TWMP 75. (18 October), p. 13. --- (1925d) “Wenzi xiaokanhui duyin dingzheng (xu)” Ўӷਠ୎཮᠐ॣु҅(ុ) (Correct reading list of the society for comparing and correct writing, continued), TWMP 76. (27 October), pp. 14-15. Qiu, Yisong ߋࠧ݊ (1990a) “Riben diguozhuyi xia zhi taiwan shehuijiaoyu (shang)” Вҁࡆ୯ЬကΠϐѠ᡼‫཮ޗ‬௲‫(ػ‬΢) (Taiwan social education under Japanese imperialism, part 1), Tainan Wenhua ѠࠄЎϯ (‘Tainan Culture’) 25, pp. 207-242. --- (1990b) “Riben diguozhuyi xia zhi taiwan shehuijiaoyu (xia)” Вҁࡆ୯ЬကΠϐ Ѡ᡼‫཮ޗ‬௲‫(ػ‬Π) (Taiwan social education under Japanese imperialism, part 2), Tainan Wenhua ѠࠄЎϯ (‘Tainan Culture’) 26, pp. 137-171. Rachewiltz, Igor e. (1967) “Some remarks on the language problem in Yuan China,” Journal of the Oriental Society of Australia 5, pp. 131-152. Rokukaku, Tsunehiro Ϥ‫ف‬㚌㛴 (1959) “Izawa Shşji to sono Chşgokugo kenkyş” Ҳ㟾অΒ喒喇喘ύ୯ᇟࣴ‫( ز‬Izawa Shşji and his research on the Chinese language), Waseda Shyogaku Ԑ 㿻 Җ ୘ 䗄 (‘Waseda Commercial Journal’) 138 (January), pp. 161-180. Sagart, Laurent (1999) The Roots of Old Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sakai, Robert K. (1964) “The Satsuma-Ryşkyş Trade and the Tokugawa Seclusion Policy,” Journal of Asian Studies 23.3. (May), pp. 391-403. Saniel, Josefa M. (1969 [1998]) Japan and the Philippines, 1868-1898. Manila: De La Salle UP. Sato, Kazuki (1997) “‘Same Language, Same Race’: The Dilemma of Kanbun in Modern Japan,” In The Construction of Racial Identities in China and Japan Historical and Comparative Perspectives Frank Dikötter, ed., pp. 118-135. London: Hurst & Co. Sato, Masahiro ՘ᛯ҅㛴 (2002) Kokuseichosa to nihonkindai 㡚༈ፓ㦞喒Вҁ߈ж (Census and modern Japan). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten ۟‫ݢ‬ਜ۫. Scott, James C. (1998) Seeing Like a State. How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale UP. Seng ‫( ܄‬1924) “Sin-cheng” ཥ҅ (New Life), TWMP 2.1. (01 January), p. 15. Sheng, H.T. ғ (1935) “Chuanshuo de qucai ji qi miaoxie de zhu wenti” ໺ᇥ‫ڗޑ‬ ‫׷‬Ϸ‫ځ‬ඔቪ‫ޑ‬ፏୢᚒ (Some problems on the collection and description of legends), Diyi xian ಃ΋ጕ (‘Frontline’) 1 (January), pp. 36-39. Shepherd, John Robert (1995) Statecraft and Political Economy on the Taiwan Frontier, 1600-1800. Taipei: SMC. --- (1999) “The Island Frontier of the Ch’ing, 1684-1780,” In Taiwan: A New History Murray A Rubinstein, ed., pp. 107-132. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Bibliography

225

Shi, Rongzhen ࡼᄪਁ (1923) “Zuihou di jiejue ruhe” നࡕ‫ޑ‬ှ،ӵՖ (What is the final solution?), TWMP 1.7. (17 November), pp. 14-15. Shi, Wenqi ࡼЎ‫( ׻‬1924) “Duiyu taiwanren zuo de baihuawen de wo jian” ჹ‫ܭ‬ᆵ ᡼Γ଺‫ޑ‬қ၉Ў‫( ـךޑ‬My opinion on Taiwanese writing in baihuawen), TWMP 2.4. (11 March), p. 8. Shi, Yilin ࡼ៼ฑ (1992) “Riju shiqi taiwan gudianshi de kangyi jingshen yu bixing fengyu chuantong”ВᏵਔයᆵ᡼ђ‫ڂ‬၃‫לޑ‬᝼ᆒઓᆶКᑫᒐേ໺಍ (The resistance spirit of the classical poems in the allegorical tradition), Gudian wenxue ђ‫ڂ‬ЎᏢ (‘Classical Literature’) 12 (October), pp. 243-293. Schipper, Kristofer (1985) “Vernacular and Classical Ritual in Taoism,” Journal of Asian Studies 45. 1. (November), pp. 21-57. Shimizu, Hajime (1980) Southeast Asia in Modern Japanese Thought: The Development and Transformation of “Nanshin-Ron”. Canberra: The Australian National University. Shizanganshi kankŇkaihen ޲ξᠯўтՉ཮ጓ (ed.) (1932) Shizanganshi ޲ξᠯў (History of Shisangyan). Taihoku ᆵч. Speidel, William Miller (1967) “Liu Ming-ch’uan in Taiwan, 1884-1891,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University. Swift, Thomas Duane (1970) “Yamakawa Hitoshi and the Dawn of Japanese Socialism,” unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley. Su, Beng [Shi Ming] ўܴ (1980) Taiwanren sibainian shi Ѡ᡼ΓѤԭԃў (A 400-year history of the Taiwan people). San Jose: Paradise Culture Associates. Su, Jinqiang ᝵຾ம (1990) Fenggu linxun de changzhe, Cai Peihuochuan ॥ମ⧲᯲‫ߏޑ‬ ‫ޣ‬ɡጰ୻О໺ (A man of moral strength and of principle, The biography of Cai Peihuo). Taipei: Jindai Zhongguo zazhishe ߈жύ୯ᚇᇞ‫ޗ‬. Su, Weilin ᝵ᆢᓄ (1924a) “Ershi nian lai de zhongguo guwenxue ji wenxue geming de lueshu” ΒΜԃٰ‫ޑ‬ύ୯ђЎᏢϷЎᏢॠ‫ޑڮ‬ౣॊ (Outline of China’s classical literature and the literary revolution in the past twenty years), TWMP 2.10. (11 June), p. 5. --- (1924b) “Beijing xuepaijie yu zhilipai” ч٧Ꮲࢴࣚᆶ‫ޔ‬ᗧࢴ (The world of the Beijing scholarly faction and the Hebei faction), TWMP 2.13. (21 July), pp. 9-10. Su, Weixiong ᝵ᆢᅜ (1933) “Taiwan kayŇ ni taisuru ichi shiron” ᆵ᡼ᄺ侊喕ჹ喃 喵 ΋ ၂ ፕ (An examination of Taiwan folksongs), Forumosa 嗶 嗊 嘌 嘃 嗖 (‘Formosa’) 1.1. (July), pp. 2-15. T.S. (1924) “Jiating yuan” ৎ৥࡜ (Family complaint), TWMP 2.15. (11 August), pp. 15-16. Tagawa, DaikichirŇ Җοεӓ॔ (1921a) “Katachu no kyŇiku” Πၲϐ௲‫(ػ‬Transmission of education to the subordinates), TOCL 3.3. September (Japanese section), pp. 1-4. --- (1921b) “Xiada zhi jiaoyu” Πၲϐ௲‫( ػ‬Tranmission of education to the subordinates), TOCL 3.3. September (Chinese section), pp. 23-25.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

226

Bibliography

TKES Taiwan KyŇikukai ᆵ᡼௲‫( ཮ػ‬1939 [1995]) Taiwan kyŇiku enkakushi ᆵ᡼ ௲‫ݮػ‬ॠᇞ (A history of Taiwan education). Taihoku, reprint Taipei: SMC ࠄϺ ਜֽ. Taiwan nichinichi shimpŇsha ᆵ᡼ВВཥൔ‫( ޗ‬1898/5-1944/3) Taiwan nichinichi shimpŇ ᆵ᡼ВВཥൔ (‘The Taiwan Daily News’). Taihoku: Taiwan nichinichi shimpŇsha ᆵ᡼ВВཥൔ‫ޗ‬. TWSTZG Taiwansheng wenxian weiyuanhui Ѡ᡼࣪Ў᝘‫ہ‬঩཮ (1958) Taiwansheng Tongzhigao Ѡ᡼࣪೯‫ד‬ዺ (Draft Gazetteer of Taiwan Province), juan 5, “Jiaoyu zhi, wenhua shiyebian” ௲‫דػ‬Ўϯ٣཰ጇ (Section on education and cultural matters). Taipei: Taiwansheng wenxian weiyuanhui Ѡ᡼࣪Ў᝘‫ہ‬঩཮. --- (1959) Taiwansheng Tongzhigao Ѡ ᡼ ࣪ ೯ ‫ ד‬ዺ (Draft Gazetteer of Taiwan Province), juan 9, “Kangri pian” ‫ל‬Вጇ (Section on anti-Japanese resistance). Taipei: Taiwansheng wenxian weiyuanhui Ѡ᡼࣪Ў᝘‫ہ‬঩཮. Taiwan shinminpŇsha ᆵ᡼ཥ҇ൔ‫( ޗ‬ed.) (1934) Taiwan jinshi kan ᆵ᡼Γγ᠘ (A who’s who of Taiwan). Taihoku: Taiwan shinminpŇsha ᆵ᡼ཥ҇ൔ‫ޗ‬. --- (1937) Taiwan jinshi kan ᆵ᡼Γγ᠘ (A who’s who of Taiwan). Taihoku: Taiwan shinminpŇsha ᆵ᡼ཥ҇ൔ‫ޗ‬. --- (1943) Taiwan jinshi kan ᆵ᡼Γγ᠘ (A who’s who of Taiwan). Taihoku: Taiwan shinminpŇsha ᆵ᡼ཥ҇ൔ‫ޗ‬. Taiwan sŇtukufu ᆵ᡼ᕴ࿎۬ (ed.) (1896) Taiwan sŇtokufu kŇbun ruisan ᆵ᡼ᕴ࿎۬ ϦЎᜪᝪ (Classified archives of the Government-General of Taiwan), juan 30 ‫ڔ‬ΟΜ (October). Taihoku: Taiwan SŇtokufu ᆵ᡼ᕴ࿎۬. --- Keimukyoku (1933) ᆵ᡼ᕴ࿎۬᝾ჸ‫ݮ‬ॠᇞ (Police Records of the Taiwan Governor -General). Taiwan sŇtokufu keisatsu engakushi [2] ᆵ᡼ᕴ࿎۬᝾ჸ‫ݮ‬ॠᇞ (The history of the police of the Government-General of Taiwan, Vol. 2).Taihoku: Taiwan SŇtokufu ᆵ᡼ᕴ࿎۬. --- Minseikyo gakumubu ᆵ᡼ᕴ࿎۬҇ࡹֽᏢ୍೽ (1896) Taiwan jşgo on oyobi jibohyo, fu hachisei fugŇ ᆵ᡼ΜϖॣϷӷӷ҆߄ ߕΖᖂ಄ဦ (Revised Taiwan fifteen sounds with vowels and consonants table, with inclusion of the eight tonal symbols). Taihoku: Taiwan SŇtokufu ᆵ᡼ᕴ࿎۬. --- (1896) Taiwan jşgo on oyobi jibohyo shŇkai ᆵ᡼ΜϖॣϷӷ҆߄၁ှ (Detailed explanation of the Taiwan fifteen sounds with vowels and consonants table). Taihoku: Taiwan SŇtokufu ᆵ᡼ᕴ࿎۬. TSKK Taiwan sŇtukufu ᆵ᡼ᕴ࿎۬ (1939) Taiwan sŇtukufu keisatsu enkakushi ᆵ᡼ ᕴ࿎۬᝾ჸ‫ݮ‬ॠᇞ (A history of the Taiwan Government-General police) Taiwan shakai undŇshi 1913- 1936 ᆵ᡼‫཮ޗ‬ၮ୏ў 1913-1936 (A history of the Taiwan social movement 1913-1936), Vol. II, Taihoku: Taiwan SŇtokufu ᆵ᡼ᕴ ࿎۬. Taiwan yinhang jingji yanjiushi ᆵ᡼ሌՉ࿶ᔮࣴ‫( ࠻ز‬ed.) (1994) Daqing yitongzhi, Taiwanfu εమ΋಍‫ד‬ᆵ᡼۬ (Gazetteer of Qing, Taiwan Prefecture). Nantou shi: Taiwansheng wenxian weiyuanhui Ѡ᡼࣪Ў᝘‫ہ‬঩཮.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Bibliography

227

The Taiwan-Bungei ᆵ᡼Ў᛬ (‘Literary Taiwan’) (November 1934 - August 1936). Tomita, Akira 㭦Җণ (1998) “Nihon tŇchi jidai shoki Taiwan ni okeru nihongo kenkyş – kokugo kyŇju kenkyşkai oyobi Ogawa Naoyoshi no kenkyş ni tsuite” Вҁ ಍‫ݯ‬ਔж߃යѠ㵈喕啴啻喵Вҁᇟࣴ‫–ز‬㡚ᇟ௲௤ࣴ‫ز‬㜘啴喲喝λοۘက 喘ࣴ‫ز‬喕喎啮喐 (Research on the Japanese language in Taiwan at the beginning of the Japanese colonial era, Research pertaining the national language teachers research association and Ogawa Naoyoshi), Nihon kokugo kyŇiku Вҁ㡚ᇟ௲‫ػ‬ (‘Journal of Japanese Language Teaching’) 99 (December), pp. 97-107. --- (1999) “Nihon tŇchi jidai shoki no Taiwan SŇtokufu ni yoru ‘taiwango’ no sŇshutsu” Вҁ಍‫ݯ‬ਔж߃යѠ㵈喘ᕴ࿎۬喕喲喵ȨѠ㵈ᇟȩ喘ബр (Creation of the “Taiwanese language” by the Taiwan Government-General at the beginning of the Japanese colonial era), Kokusai kaihatsu fŇrumu 㡚ሞ໒䱆ࣴ‫ز‬嗶嗊嘌嘁 (‘Forum of International Development Studies’) 11 (March), pp. 155-166. --- (2003) “1905 nen rinji Taiwan kokochosa ga kataru Taiwan shakai” 1905 ԃᖏਔѠ 㵈㛍αፓ㦞啶ᇟ喵Ѡ㵈‫ޗ‬㜘!(Taiwan Government-General’s Census in 1905), Nihon Taiwangakkai ho ВҁѠ㵈䗄㜘ൔ (‘Journal of the Japan Association for Taiwan Studies’) 5, pp. 87-106. --- (2009) “NihontŇchi kaishichokugo no ‘taiwandogo’ o meguru chitekikşkan no keisei” Вҁ಍‫ݯ‬໒‫ࡕޔۈ‬喘ȨѠ㵈βᇟȩ喼喫啺喵‫ޜޑޕ‬໔喘‫׎‬ԋ (Discursive formation on “Taiwanese Local Languages” at the Beginning of Japanese Colonial Period), Tagengo shakai kenkyşkai nenpŇ ӭ ‫ ق‬ᇟ ‫ ޗ‬㜘 ࣴ ‫ ز‬㜘 ԃ ൔ (‘Annual Report of The Society for Multi-Linguistic Studies’) 5, pp. 56-77. Tomoeda, Takahiko ϶݄ଯࡏ (1920) “Bunka mondai toshite naichi to Taiwan to no kankei wo ronzu” Ўϯୢᚒ喒喁喐㚵Ӧ喒ᆵ᡼喒喘䁥߯喼ፕ善 (Debate on the cultural problems between Taiwan and the homeland), TOCL 1.5. December (Japanese section), pp. 1-7. --- (1921) “Dui wenhua wenti lun nei tai zhi guanxi” ჹЎϯୢᚒፕϣᆵϐᜢ߯ (Debate on the cultural problems between Taiwan and the homeland), TOCL 2.1. January (Chinese section), pp. 14-18. Ts’ai, Hui-yu Caroline (1990) “One kind of Control: The hokŇ system in Taiwan under Japanese rule, 1895-1945,” unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia University. --- (2009) Taiwan in Japan’s Empire-Building: An Institutional Approach to Colonial Engineering. Abingdon, Oxford (UK): Routledge. Tse, John Kwok-ping (2000) “Language as a rising new identity in Taiwan,” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 143, pp. 151-164. Tsurumi, E. Patricia (1977) Japanese Colonial Education in Taiwan, 1895-1945. Harvard: Harvard UP. --- (1984) “Colonial Education in Korea and Taiwan,” In The Japanese Colonial Empire, 1895-1945 Ramon H. Myers and Mark R. Peattie, eds., pp. 275-311. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

228

Bibliography

Twine, Nanette (1983) “Toward Simplicity, Script Reform Movements in the Meiji Period,” Monumenta Nipponica 38.2. (Summer), pp. 116-132. --- (1991) Language and the Modern State: the Reform of Written Japanese. London & New York: Routledge. Unger, J. Marshall (1990) “The very idea. The Notion of Ideogram in China and Japan,” Monumenta Nipponica 45.4. (Winter), pp. 391-411. Wakabayashi, Masahiro ऩ݅҅Ρ (1979) “Huang Chengcong ni okeru ‘taiki’ no imi–nihon tŇchi ka Taiwan chishikijin no kŇnichi minzoku shisŇ” ໳ևᖃ喕啴啻 喵Ȩࡑᐒȩ喘ཀ‫ښ‬Вҁ಍‫ݯ‬ΠѠ㵈‫ޕ‬᛽Γ喘‫ל‬В҇௼ࡘགྷ (The Attitude of “Waiting” of Huang Ch’eng- ts’ung: National Anti-Japanese Consciousness of the Taiwanese Intellectuals under Japanese Rule), Taiwan kingendaishi kenkyş Ѡ㵈߈౜ жўࣴ‫‘( ز‬Research of Taiwan Contemporary History’) 2, pp. 61-118. Wang, Jinhai Цߎੇ (1921a) “Taiwan kyŇiku ni kansuru shiken” ᆵ᡼௲‫ػ‬喕ᜢ喃 喵‫( ـد‬My opinion on Taiwan education), TOCL 3.2., August (Japanese section), pp. 29-42. Wang, Jinjiang ЦᒸԢ (1979) “Lai Lanyun lun” ᒘᚷ໦ፕ (On Lai Lanyun), In Rijushidai xia Taiwan xin wenxue mingji 1, Lai He xiansheng quanji ВᏵਔжΠᆵ᡼ ཥЎᏢܴ໣ 1ǵᒘ‫ک‬Ӄғӄ໣ (Compilation of Taiwan new literature in the colonial era 1, Complete works of Lai Ho), Li Nanheng ‫ࠄ׵‬ᑽ, ed., pp. 399-406. Taipei: Mingtan ܴ዇. Wang, Liqian Цᘶᖰ (1960a) “Riju chuqi de huairou zhengce” ВᏵ߃ය‫ޑ‬ᚶࢋࡹ ฼ (Appeasement policy in the early period of Japanese colonial rule), Taipei Wenwu ᆵчЎ‫‘( ނ‬Taipei Cultural Facts’) 10.1. (November), pp. 105-109. Wang, Minchuan Ц௵ο (1920) “Nüzi jiaoyulun” ζη௲‫ػ‬ፕ (On education for girls), TOCL 1.3., September (Chinese section), pp. 38-42. --- (1921b) “Taiwan jiaoyu wenti guanjian” ᆵ᡼௲‫ػ‬ୢᚒᆅ‫( ـ‬My opinion on Taiwan Educational Problems) TOCL 3.4., October (Chinese section), pp. 27-33. --- (1921c) “Taiwan jiaoyu wenti guanjian (duqian)” ᆵ᡼௲‫ػ‬ୢᚒᆅ‫( ـ‬᠐߻) (My opinion on Taiwan educational problems, continued) TOCL 3.5., November (Chinese section), pp. 29-38. --- (1922) “Shufang jiaoyu gexinlun” ਜ ‫ ܊‬௲ ‫ ػ‬ॠ ཥ ፕ (On reform of shobŇ education), TOCL 4.1., January (Chinese section), pp. 27-36. --- (1924) “Gongxuexiao jiaoyu gaishanlun” ϦᏢਠ௲‫ׯػ‬๓ፕ (On the reform of the education in the Common Schools), TWMP 2.22. (01 November), pp. 5-6. Wang, Shilang Ц ၃ ౘ [Wang Jinjiang Ц ຾ Ԣ ] (1936) “Yige shiping, yi taiwanwenxue wei zhongxin” ΋ঁਔຑаᆵ᡼ЎᏢࣁύЈ (A criticism on Taiwanese literature), Taiwan Shin Bungaku ᆵ᡼ཥЎᏢ (‘Taiwan New Literature’) 1.4., pp. 6-10. --- (1979) Taiwan renwu biaolu Taiwan renwu xia juan 8 ᆵ᡼Γ‫߄ނ‬ᒵɡѠ᡼Γ‫( ނ‬Π) ( ‫ ڔ‬Ζ ) (List of eminent Taiwanese, Eminent Taiwanese, Part 2, Scroll 8). Kaohsiung: Deshengzhi Chubanshe ቺធ࠻р‫ޗހ‬.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Bibliography

229

--- (1980) Riben zhimindi tizhixia de Taiwan Вҁ෗҇Ӧᡏ‫ڋ‬Π‫ޑ‬ᆵ᡼ (Taiwan under Japanese colonial rule). Taipei: Longwen ᓪЎ. Wang, Shunlong Ц໩ໜ (1995) “Cong jinbainian de Taiwan minnanyu jiaoyu tantao taiwande yuyanshehui” வ߈ԭԃ‫ޑ‬Ѡ᡼መࠄᇟ௲‫ػ‬௖૸Ѡ᡼‫ޑ‬ᇟ‫཮ޗق‬ (Discussing the socio-linguistics in Taiwan from the past hundred years of Taiwan Southern Min education), Taiwan Wen Hsien ᆵ ᡼ Ў ᝘ (‘Report of Historico-Geographical Studies of Taiwan’) 46.3., pp. 109-172. --- (1999) “Rizhi shiqi taiwanren ‘hanwenjiaoyu’ de shidaiyiyi” В‫ݯ‬ਔයѠ᡼ΓȨᅇ Ў௲‫ػ‬ȩ‫ޑ‬ਔжཀက (The contemporary meaning of “hanwen education” for the Taiwanese in the Japanese colonial period), Taiwan Fengwu ᆵ᡼॥‫‘( ނ‬The Taiwan Folkways’) 49.4., pp. 107-128. Wang, Wenyan ЦЎᚑ (1997) “Lian Yadang xiansheng de shishe huodong” ೱ໡୸ Ӄғ‫ޑ‬၃‫( ୏ࢲޗ‬Mr. Lian Yatang and the activities of the poetry societies), In Zhongguo jindai wenhua de jiegou yu zhongjian Lian Heng ύ୯߈жЎϯ‫ޑ‬ှᄬᆶख़ࡌ ɡ ೱ ᐉ (Lian Heng, Framing and reconstruction of contemporary Chinese culture), pp. 101-118. Taipei: National Chengchih University ୯ҥࡹ‫ݯ‬εᏢ. Wang, Yigang Ц΋খ (1954) “Sixiang dingli shiqi de zazhi” ࡘགྷႳҥਔය‫ޑ‬ᚇᇞ (Journals reflecting thought in the era of a triangular balance of power), Taipei Wenwu ᆵчЎ‫‘( ނ‬Taipei Cultural Facts’) 3.3. (October), pp. 129-134. --- (1960b) “Riju chuqi de xisu gailiang yundong” ВᏵ߃ය‫ޑ‬ಞ߫‫ؼׯ‬ၮ୏ (Customs and manners reform movement in early Japanese colonial rule), Taipei Wenwu ᆵчЎ‫‘( ނ‬Taipei Cultural Facts’) 9.2-3. (November), pp. 13-22. Wang, Tay-sheng (1992) “Legal Reform in Taiwan under Japanese Colonial Rule (1894-1945): The Reception of Western Law,” unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Washington. Weng, Zisheng શᐛғ (1923) “Shui wuju” ፔᇤԟ (Who misled you?), TWMP 1.6. (11 November), pp. 13-14. Wu, Rui ֆⶀ (1966) “Lishe yu Taiwan shiyun” ㇛‫ޗ‬ᆶѠ᡼၃ၮ (Lishe poetry society and the Taiwan poetry society movement), Changliu ᄣ ࢬ (‘Flowing Freely’) 33.3. (March), pp. 16-18. Wu, Rwei-Ren (2003) “The Formosan ideology: Oriental colonialism and the rise of Taiwanese nationalism 1895-1945,” unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, The University of Chicago. Wu, Sanlian ֆΟೱ Cai Peihuo ጰ୻О Ye Rongzhong ယᄪដ (eds.) (1971) Taiwan minzu yundong shi ᆵ᡼҇௼ၮ୏ў (History of the Taiwan nationalist movement). Taipei: Zili wanbao Ծҥఁൔ. Wu, Shouli ֆӺᘶ (1955) Jin wushinian lai taiyu yanjiu zhi zongchengji ϞϖΜԃٰѠ ᇟࣴ‫ز‬ϐᕴԋᕮ (Compilation of taiyu research in the last fifty years). Taipei: Dali Publishing εҥ. --- (1997b) Fuke fangyan zongzhi ᅽ࠼Б‫ق‬ᆕᇞ (Synthesis of the Hoklo and Hakka dialects). Taipei: Wu Shouli ֆӺᘶ.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

230

Bibliography

Wu, Shu-hui (2005) Lien Heng (1878-1936). Taiwan’s Search for Identity and Tradition. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University, Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies. Wu, Wen-hsing [Wu Wenxing] ֆЎࢃ (1978) “Riju shidai Taiwan shufang zhi yanjiu” ВᏵਔжѠ᡼ਜ‫܊‬ϐࣴ‫( ز‬Research of shufang in colonial Taiwan), Siyuyan ࡘᆶ‫‘( ق‬Thought and Word’) 16.3. (September), pp. 62-89. --- (1992) Riju shiqi Taiwan shehuilingdao jieceng zhi yanjiu ВᏵਔයᆵ᡼‫཮ޗ‬ሦᏤ໘ቫ ϐࣴ‫( ز‬Research on the Taiwan social leaders class in the Japanese colonial era). Taipei: Zhongzheng shuju ύ҅ਜֽ. Wu, Yingtao ֆᛁᔱ (1960a) “Riju shiqi chubanjie gaiguan” ВᏵਔයр‫ཷࣚހ‬ᢀ (General view of the publishing world during the period of Japanese control), Taipei Wenwu ᆵчЎ‫‘( ނ‬Taipei Cultural Facts’) 4.8. (February), pp. 43-48. --- (1960b) “Taiwan xinwenxue de diyi jieduan” ᆵ᡼ཥЎᏢ‫ޑ‬ಃ΋໘ࢤ (The first stage in the Taiwan new literature), Taipei Wenwu ᆵчЎ‫‘( ނ‬Taipei Cultural Facts’) 5.1. (May), pp. 80-82. Wu, Yuqi ֆ ྆ ฐ (1997a) “Tainan ‘nanshe’ chutan” Ѡ ࠄ Ȩ ࠄ ‫ ޗ‬ȩ ߃ ௖ (Introduction to the Tainan “Nanshe” poetry society), Yunhan Xuekan ໦ᅇᏢт (‘Yunhan Bulletin’) 4 (May), pp. 125-146. Xie, Dexi ᖴቺᒴ (1987) “Diyiwei Taiwansheng yihui yichang, Huang Chaoqin” ಃ ΋Տᆵ᡼࣪᝼཮᝼ߏɡ໳රถ (The first head of senate of the Taiwan province, Huang Chaoqin), In Taiwan jindai mingrenzhi ᆵ᡼߈жӜΓᇞ (Record of Taiwan modern personalities), Chang, Yen-hsien ஭‫ݹ‬Ꮶ, Lee Hsiao-feng ‫☰׵‬ ঢ়, Chuang Yong-ming ಷ҉ܴ, eds., Vol. 1, pp. 165-188. Taipei: Zili wanbao Ծ ҥఁൔ. Xing ᒬ [Jiang Weishui ጯ෭Н] (1924) “Tichang nongmin de jiaoyu” ගঀၭ҇‫ޑ‬ ௲‫( ػ‬Promoting education for the peasants), TWMP 2.7. (21 April), editorial. Xiu, Hu ‫ذ‬෫ [Xu Naichang ೚Ώߏ] (1923) “Zhongguo xinwenxue yundong de guoqu xianzai he jianglai” ύ୯ཥЎᏢၮ୏‫ޑ‬ၸѐ౜ӧ‫ک‬ஒٰ (The past and future of the China new literature movement), TWMP 1.4. (15 July), p. 3. Yanaihara, Tadao Ҡ㚵চ۸໢ (1929) Teikokushugi ka no Taiwan ࡆ୯ЬကΠ喘ᆵ ᡼ (Taiwan under imperialism). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten ۟‫ݢ‬ਜ۫. --- (1987) Riben diguozhuyi xia zhi Taiwan Вҁࡆ୯ЬကΠϐᆵ᡼ (Taiwan under Japanese imperialism), transl. Zhou Xianwen [‫ڬ‬ᏦЎ]. Taipei: Pamir Bookstore ‫ۦ‬ ԯ㛲ਜֽ. Yang, Jane Parish (1981) “The Evolution of the Taiwanese New Literature Movement from 1920 to 1937,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Wisconsin. Yang, Paul Fu-mien S.J. (1967) “An Ethnolinguistic Survey of Hakka,” unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Georgetown. Yang, Yongbin ླྀ ҉ ர (1996) “Taiwan shengshang yu zaoqi riben zhimin zhengquan de guanxi 1895 nian–1905 nian” Ѡ᡼ಓ୘ᆶԐයВҁ෗҇ࡹ៾‫ޑ‬ ᜢ߯ 1895 ԃɡ1905 ԃ (Taiwan merchant-gentry and the early Japanese colonial

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Bibliography

231

regime, 1895-1905), unpublished Master thesis, National Taiwan University ୯ҥ Ѡ᡼εᏢ. Yang, Yunping ླྀ ໦ ๩ [Qingyun ᔏ ໦ ] (1932) “Quhua jiuwen” ۙ ၉ ൩ Ў (Approximating the spoken to the written), NY 1.2., p. 18. --- (1954) “‘Renren’ zazhi chuangkan qianhou” ȨΓΓȩᚇᇞബт߻ࡕ (Before and after the inauguration of “Renren” magazine), Taipei Wenwu ᆵчЎ‫‘( ނ‬Taipei Cultural Facts’) 3.2. (August), pp. 50-55. Yang, Yunyan ླྀϢ‫ق‬, Zhang Xueqian ஭Ꮲᖰ, Lu Meiqin ֈऍᒃ (eds.) (2008) Taiyuwen yundong. Fangtanji shiliao huibian Ѡ ᇟ Ў ၮ ୏ ɡ ೖ ፋ ᄤ ў ਑ ༼ ጓ (Written Taiwanese Movement:” Interviews and the Collection of Historical Materials). Taipei: Academia Historica ୯ўᓔ. Ye, Rongzhong ယᄪដ (1929a) “Guanyu luomazi yundong (2)” ᜢ‫ܭ‬ᛥଭӷၮ୏ (Β) (On the romanization movement 2), TWMP 261. (19 May), p. 8. --- (1929b) “Guanyu luomazi yundong (3)” ᜢ ‫ ܭ‬ᛥ ଭ ӷ ၮ ୏ ( Ο ) (On the romanization movement 3), TWMP 262. (23 May), p. 8. --- (1932) “Disan wenxue tichang” ಃΟЎᏢගঀ(Promoting third literature), NY 1.8., yantoujuan ‫ق‬ᓐ‫( ڔ‬preface page). Ye, Shitao ယҡᔱ (1987) Taiwan wenxue shigang Ѡ᡼ЎᏢўᆜ (Outline of the history of Taiwan literature). Taipei: Wenxuejie zazhishe ЎᏢࣚᚇᇞ‫ޗ‬. --- (1992) Taiwan wenxue de kunjing Ѡ᡼ЎᏢ‫֚ޑ‬ნ (The predicament of Taiwan literature). Kaohsiung: Baise Wenhua қՅЎϯ. Yeh, Michelle, Malmqvist, N. G. D. (2001) Frontier Taiwan: An Anthology of Modern Chinese Poetry. New York: Columbia UP. Yingjieshi ᔈௗ࠻ (The Receiving Room) (1923a) “Yanjiu baihuawen de taolun” ࣴ ‫ز‬қ၉Ў‫૸ޑ‬ፕ (Discussing research on Mandarin baihuawen) TWMP 1.1. (15 April), p. 26. --- (1923b) “Fumu daiding de hunyue yao zeyang shefa” Р҆ж‫ޑۓ‬ஆऊा࡛ኬ೛ ‫( ݤ‬How to make a marriage contract legal?) TWMP 1.2. (1 May), p. 15. --- (1923c) “Da Xiang xiansheng shu” เໂӃғਜ (Reply to Mr Xiang’s letter) TWMP 1.4. (15 July), p. 15. --- (1923d) “Falü guwen” ‫៝ࡓݤ‬ୢ (Legal advice), TWMP 1.7. (1 September), p. 15. Yimin ຽ҇ (1923) “Xiyou ji buyi” Ջၯ૶ံᒪ!(Journey to the West, addenda), TWMP 1.7. (1 September), p. 14. --- (1924a) “Xiyou ji buyi” Ջၯ૶ံᒪ!(Journey to the West, addenda) TWMP 1.19. (21 January 1924), p. 10. --- (1924c) “Dui zai Taiwan yanjiu baihuawen de wo jian” ჹӧᆵ᡼ࣴ‫ز‬қ၉Ў‫ޑ‬ ‫( ـך‬My opinion on Taiwan research in baihuawen), TWMP 2.4. (11 March), pp. 8-9. --- (1924d) “Wenzi yu wenxue” ЎӷᆶЎᏢ (Script and literature), TWMP 2.5. (21 March), p. 5.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

232

Bibliography

Yoshino, Hidekimi ӓഁ‫ذ‬Ϧ (1927) Taiwan KyŇikushi ᆵ᡼௲‫ػ‬ў (A history of Taiwan education). Taihoku: Taiwan nichinichi shimposha ᆵ᡼ВВཥൔ‫ޗ‬. Yuan, Jiahua ૲ৎ㔘 (1961) Hanyu fangyan gaiyao ᅇᇟБ‫ཷق‬ा (An outline of the Chinese dialects). Beijing: Wenzi gaige chubanshe Ўӷ‫ׯ‬ॠр‫ޗހ‬. Yunlinxian wenxian weiyuanhui ໦݅ᑜЎ᝘‫ہ‬঩཮ (1977-1980) Yunlinxian zhigao ໦݅ᑜ‫ד‬ዺ (Yunlin draft gazetteer), juan 7, “Renwuzhi” Γ‫( דނ‬Section on population). Yunlin: Yunlinxian wenxian weiyuanhui ໦݅ᑜЎ᝘‫ہ‬঩཮. Yu-José, Lydia N. (1999) Japan Views the Philippines 1900-1944. Manila: Ateneo de Manila UP. Zhang, Geng ஭‫( ׳‬1924a) “Taolun jiuxiaoshuode gaige wenti (1)” ૸ፕᙑλᇥ‫ׯޑ‬ ॠୢᚒ (΋) (Debating problems on reforming the old novels (1)), TWMP 2.17. (11 September), p. 15. --- (1924b) “Taolun jiuxiaoshuode gaige wenti (2)” ૸ፕᙑλᇥ‫ׯޑ‬ॠୢᚒ (Β) (Debating problems on reforming the old novels (2)), TWMP 2.18. (21 September), pp. 14-17. --- (1925) “Taolun jiuxiaoshuode gaige wenti (3)” ૸ፕᙑλᇥ‫ׯޑ‬ॠୢᚒ (Ο) (Debating problems on reforming the old novels (3)), TWMP 3.16. (01 June), pp. 14-16. Zhang, Henghao ஭ࡡᇬ (1987) “Lieyan tunqu qiliner, zhanqian xiaoshuojia Zhu Dianren ji qi wenxue xinlu ਗ਼ฃտѐ᜼ᡕ‫–ٽ‬Ꮿ߻λᇥৎԙᗺΓϷ‫ځ‬ЎᏢЈ ၡ (Blazing flames engulfing a wonderchild, Prewar novelist Zhu Dianren and his literary career), Taiwan Wenyi Ѡ᡼Ў᛬ (‘Literary Taiwan’), 105 (May-June), pp. 67-81. --- (ed.) (1990) Yang Yunping, Zhang Wojun, Cai Qiutong heji ླྀ໦๩ǵ஭‫ैך‬ǵጰࣿ ਯӝ໣ (Anthology of Yang Yunping, Zhang Wojun, Cai Qiutong). Taipei: Qianwei ߻ፁ. Zhang, Hongnan ஭ࢫࠄ (1923) “Gokai sareta rŇmaji” ᇤှ啿営喉嘎嘙嗿ӷ (Misunderstandings on the romanized script), The Formosa 4.5. (May), pp. 48-54. Zhang, Wojun ஭‫( ैך‬1923) ȸHang shuȹ‫( ژؘ‬Deep Silence), TWMP 1.2. (1 May), pp. 13-14. --- [Yilang ΋॔] (1924a) “Zhi Taiwan qingnian de yifengxin” ठᆵ᡼ߙԃ‫ޑ‬΋࠾ߞ (Letter to the Taiwan youth), TWMP 2.7. (21 April), p. 10. --- (1924b) “Dui yue guang ge” ჹДӀᄺ!(Madly singing to the moon), TWMP 2.8. (11 May), p. 15. --- (1924c) “Wu qing de yu” ค௃‫( ߘޑ‬Rain without feelings), TWMP 2.13. (11 July), pp. 15-16. --- [ Yilang ΋॔] (1924d) “Zaogao de Taiwan wenxuejie” ᕪᑖ‫ޑ‬ᆵ᡼ЎᏢࣚ (The terrible state of the Taiwan literary scene), TWMP 2.24. (21 November), pp. 6-7. --- [Yilang ΋॔] (1924e) “Wei Taiwan de wenxuejie yiku” ࣁᆵ᡼‫ޑ‬ЎᏢࣚ΋ন (Weeping for the Taiwan literary world), TWMP 2.26. (11 December), pp. 10-11.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Bibliography

233

--- (1925a) “Qing heli chaixia zhe zuo baicao cong zhong de pojiu gutang” ፎӝΚ‫ܨ‬ Π೭০௳૛㓁ύ‫ޑ‬ઇᙑ྅୸ (Please help dismantle this old tumble-down house in the thicket of weeds), TWMP 3.1. (01 January), pp. 5-7. --- (1925b) “Wenxue gemingyundong yilai” ЎᏢॠ‫ڮ‬ၮ୏аٰ (Since the literary revolution), TWMP 3.6. (21 February), pp. 11-12. --- (1925c) “Wenxue gemingyundong yilai (xu)” ЎᏢॠ‫ڮ‬ၮ୏аٰ (ុ) (Since the literary revolution, continued), TWMP 3.7. (1 March), pp. 19-20. --- (1925d) “Wenxue gemingyundong yilai (xu)” ЎᏢॠ‫ڮ‬ၮ୏аٰ (ុ) (Since the literary revolution, continued), TWMP 3.9. (21 March), pp. 18-19. --- (1925e) “Wenxue gemingyundong yilai (xu)” ЎᏢॠ‫ڮ‬ၮ୏аٰ(ុ) (Since the literary revolution, continued), TWMP 3.10. (1 April), pp. 13-14. --- [Yilang ΋॔] (1925f) “Suiganlu” ᒿགᒵ (Random thoughts), TWMP 3.12. (21 April), pp. 9-10. --- (1925g) “Xinwenxue yundong de yiyi” ཥЎᏢၮ୏‫ޑ‬ཀက (The meaning of the new literature movement), TWMP 67. (26 August), pp. 19-21. Zhao, Shi ྣў (1985) Gaoxiong renwu pingshu ଯ໢Γ‫ނ‬ຑॊ (Description of Kaohsiung personalities). Kaoshiung: Chunhui chubanshe ࡾཧр‫ޗހ‬. Zheng, Junwo ᎄै‫ך‬, see Zheng Kunwu ᎄ‫ڷ‬ϖ. Zheng, Kunwu ᎄ‫ڷ‬ϖ (1925) “Zhi Zhang Wojun yilang shu” ठ஭‫ैך‬΋॔ਜ (A letter to Zhang Wojun, Yilang), Tainan shimpŇ ᆵࠄཥൔ (‘Tainan News’) (29 January), p. 8. --- (1932) “Jiuxiangtu wenxue shuojiju” ൩ໂβЎᏢᇥ൳ѡ (A few sentences on nativist literature), NY 1.2., pp. 12-14. Zheng, Songyue ᎄ ݊ ࿰ (1921) “Taiwan to gimu kyŇiku” ᆵ ᡼ 喒 က ୍ ௲ ‫ػ‬ (Taiwan and compulsory education), TOCL 2.3., March (Japanese section), pp. 35-37. Zheng, Xueling ᎄഓᔂ (1921) “Guanshou(yu) yiwujiaoyu zhi guanjian” ᜢЋက୍ ௲‫ػ‬ϐᆅ‫( ـ‬My opinion on compulsory education), TOCL. 3.1., July (Chinese section), pp. 29-32. Zhou, Changqi ‫( ེߏڬ‬1996) Minnanyu de xingcheng fazhan ji zai Taiwan de chuanbo መ ࠄᇟ‫׎ޑ‬ԋว৖Ϸӧᆵ᡼‫ޑ‬໺ኞ (Formative development of Southern Min and its dissemination in Taiwan). Taipei: Taili chuban Ѡಀр‫ހ‬. Zhu, Dianren ԙᗺΓ (1931a) “Jian yijian ‘xiangtu wenxue’” ᔠ΋ᔠȨໂβЎᏢȩ (Investigating “nativist literature”), ShŇwa shimpŇ ࡿ‫ک‬ཥൔ (‘Showa Newspaper’) (22 August). --- (1931b) “Jiantao ‘zai tan xiangtuwenxue’” ᔠ૸ȨӆፋໂβЎᏢȩ (Review and discussion on “Once more debating nativist literature”) ShŇwa shimpŇ ࡿ‫ک‬ཥൔ (‘Showa Newspaper’) (29 August). --- (1932) “Nanyin de shizhe” ࠄॣ‫ޑ‬٬‫( ޣ‬The Nanyin messenger), NY 1.2., p. 1. Zhuang, Chuisheng ಷࠟയ [ Fu Ren ॄΓ] (1932a) “Taiwanhuawen zabo”ᆵ᡼၉ Ўᚇር (Miscellaneous notes on written Taiwanese), NY 1.1., pp. 10-13.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

234

Bibliography

--- (1932b) “Taiwanhuawen zabo (2)” ᆵ᡼၉Ўᚇር (Β) (Miscellaneous notes on written Taiwanese 2), NY 1.2., pp. 15-18. --- (1932c) “Taiwanhuawen zabo (3)” ᆵ᡼၉Ўᚇር (Ο) (Miscellaneous notes on written Taiwanese 3), NY 1.3., pp. 4-9. --- (1932d) “Taiwanhuawen zabo (4)” ᆵ᡼၉Ўᚇር (Ѥ) (Miscellaneous notes on written Taiwanese 4), NY 1.4., pp. 9-13. Zhu, Qihua ԙ௴๮ (1993) “Taiwan Shehui jiaoyu zhi yanjin” Ѡ᡼‫཮ޗ‬௲‫ػ‬ϐᄽ຾ (The evolution of Taiwan social education), In Taiwan jiaoyushi Ѡ᡼௲‫ػ‬ў (The history of Taiwan education), Xu Nanhao ৪ࠄဦ, ed., pp. 185-192. Taipei: Shida shuyuan ৣεਜल. Zhuang, Juanfu ಷ੢ϻ (1921) “Shehuijiaoyu zhi biyao” ‫཮ޗ‬௲‫ػ‬ϐѸा (The need for social education), TOCL 2.1., January (Chinese section), pp. 8-9. Zhuang, Shuzhi ಷల޲ (1994) Taiwan xinwenxue guannian de mengya yu shijian Ѡ᡼ཥ ЎᏢᢀ‫ޑۺ‬๴޵ᆶჴ፬ (The budding and practice of the Taiwan new literature thought). Taipei: Maitian ഝҖ.

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Index A

Aborigines 13, 16, 17, 100 Paiwan (௨᡼௼) 23, 24 Plains (ѳ঵௼) 12 administration Chen 200 colonial 30, 31, 34-35, 39-40, 43-44, 47-49, 54, 61, 66-70, 80, 81, 83, 84, 87, 89, 91-92, 98, 101, 102, 104, 114, 124, 142-145, 147, 158, 189, 197, 198 Dutch 11 Kodama 36, 40, 42, 45, 47 local 20, 42, 100, 145, 147 Qing 12-13, 20, 23-24 academies (ਜଣ) 14, 15, 25-26 Akashi MotojirŇ (ܴҡϡΒ॔) 98, 99 alphabet 54, 70, 72, 74, 82, 87, 92-93, 173-174 National Phonetic 173, 174 Roman 31, 70, 72 alternative 40, 63, 95, 102, 109, 124, 127, 174-175, 196 annexation 26, 27, 29-30, 32, 47, 127, 132, 189, 196 anti-colonial 50, 52, 86, 124, 146, 152 anti-Japanese 43-44, 46, 51, 52, 56, 62, 95 Asian 32, 52, 113, 116, 189 assimilation (ӕϯ) 31-33, 36, 43, 46, 48-49, 52, 54, 58, 62, 64-68, 70-71, 76-77, 86, 92, 93, 95, 107-108, 153, 188, 197 Assimilation Society (ӕϯ཮) 49, 54, 57-58, 71, 78 authorities colonial 8, 27, 37, 40, 46, 48, 55, 56, 57, 65, 66, 70, 73, 74, 77-80, 82, 83, 85-88, 100, 103, 108, 122, 127, 133, 143, 148, 152, 158, 187, 189, 191

B baiduyin (қ᠐ॣ) 18, 20, 37, baojia (ߥҘ) see also hokŇ 30 bilingual 35, 67, 125, 145, borrowings 168, 180, 181, Japanese 134, 135, 136, 161 buxiban (ံಞ੤) 208

C Cai Huiru (ጰඁӵ) 59, 62, Cai Peihuo ጰ୻О9, 53-93, 95, 102, 124, 125, 152, 153, 155, 160, 169, 185, 198 Cai Shigu (ጰԄዼ) 58, 66, 117 Cháp hĆng koán kiàn 75-76, 78 Chen Junyu (ഋ։ҏ) 185, 186, 191 Chen Duanming (ഋᆄܴ) 115, 116 Chen Duxiu (ഋᐱ‫ )ذ‬74, 128, 129 Chen Xin (ഋᬩ) 58, 61, 115, 116, 141, 58f China 7, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 29, 40, 50, 51, 52, 59, 61, 62, 69, 74, 96, 97, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116-119, 120, 121, 123, 126, 132, 139-141, 143, 146, 148, 157-159, 161, 171, 181, 185, 187, 189, 193, 195, 196, 200 Chinese Classical 20, 34, 35, 37, 41, 42, 43, 44, 55, 56, 61, 96, 98, 100, 111, 114, 116, 119, 131, 133, 134, 138, 139, 140, 144, 146, 152, 156, 175, 195, 196 see also wenyanwen (Ў‫ق‬Ў) Classics 14, 21, 34, 43, 74, 110, 118, 146, 164, Modern 95, 96, 97, 113, 114, 116, 119, 123, 124, 126, 128, 130, 134, 137, 138-140, 144, 171, 195 see also Mandarin baihuawen church 9, 50, 59, 60, 70, 74-75, 80, 198, Presbyterian 54, 70, 75, 92, 198, 199 citizen 23, 41, 76, 103, 121, civilization 27, 33, 63, 64, 66, 67, 81, 92, 101, 104, 124, 160, 175, 179. 189, 193 clerk 39, 55, 70, 98, 133, 166 codification 76, 113, 134, 159, 160, 168, 172, 173, 175, 200 coeducation 99, 100 compound character 163-165, 167, 169-170, 177 colonialism 30, 66, 67, 95, 190 linguistic 8, 33, 36, 37, 53, 152 colonial 7, 8, 9, 29, 30-33, 34, 45, 47, 48-49 government 36, 43, 47, 48, 77, 106, 107, 131, 188, 190 official 39, 41, 44, 57, 81, 125 project 31, 32, 34, 36, 64, 107 rule 27, 33, 43, 46, 56, 180, 189, 185, 197, 199 society 8, 9, 31, 43, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 66, 69, 92, 96, 97, 110, 111, 123, 126, 131, 134, 148, 149, 189, 197, 198

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

236

Index

colony 7, 8, 9, 27, 30, 31, 33, 35, 39, 49-51, 53, 57, 62, 66-69, 76, 86, 90-93, 96, 98, 100-105, 108, 109, 119, 125, 151, 153, 155, 159, 177, 184, 189, 195 commoner 12, 13, 44 confucian 14, 16, 26, 28, 110, 146, 185 canon 19, 20, 34, 56, 110, 111 morality 34, 66, 69 society 21, 24 Confucianism 14 controversial 30, 62, 125 cultural 8, 12, 13, 15-16, 18, 21, 26, 27, 32, 65, 71, 77, 92, 95, 105, 108, 113, 117, 119, 128, 134, 140, 148, 151, 158, 166, 178, 182, 184, 186, 193 avant-garde 80, 81, 97, 98, 113, 148, 151, 152, 158 enhancement 9, 76, 77, 84, 93, 104, 114, 138, 148, 149, 172, 182, 184, 197 good 51, 69, 97, 195 heritage 26, 29, 33, 43, 45, 66, 68, 69, 112, 183, 186, 188, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198 identity 8, 9, 93, 95, 96, 109, 148, 180, 198 inequalities 27, 30, 49, 148 interference 95, 98, 113, 130 legacy 185, 186, 192, 193 policies 9, 13, 30, 37, 44, 193 prestige 19, 20, 45, 47, 97, 111, 119, 134, 135, 138, 200 resistance 44, 148, 183 superiority 7, 28, 69 values 8, 31, 53, 92, 93, 159, 197 customs 18, 64, 65, 66, 68, 92, 104, 108, 122, 147, 155, 171, 197

D Den KenjirŇ (Җ଼‫ )॔ݯ‬99, 100, 118, 125, 131, dialect 97, 114, 120, 135, 138, 139, 157, 159, 160, 161, 164, 165, 166, 170, 171, 172, 175, 179, 180, 182, 184, 186, 187, 191, 193, 200 diary 55, 81, 82, 84, 86, 87-89, 91, 92, 127, 129 diglossia 19, 20, 26, 35, 130, 139 dilemma 8, 55, 81, 110, 137, 179, 180, 195, 200 discourse 9, 30, 31, 49, 52, 66, 67, 69, 75, 80, 93, 96, 104, 109, 111, 112, 114, 115, 120, 122, 123, 126, 135, 148, 149, 152, 154-158, 170 discrimination 66, 99, 103, 106, 107, 108 diversity 7, 18, 19, 97, 120, 160, 162, 171, 173, 182 Diyi Xian (ಃ΋ጕ)!185-186 dŇbun dŇshu (ӕЎӕᅿ) 32, 197

Dutch 11, 12, 16, 17, 28f, 190f

E education 8, 9, 13, 14, 18, 20, 31, 33-41, 43, 49-50, 56-57, 63, 65-67, 70-71, 74, 83, 91, 96-97, 98-102, 106, 109-110, 114, 115, 119, 121-123, 128, 141, 143-145, 147, 158, 160, 181, 190, 200 compulsory 27, 99-101, 102 Decree 98, 101, 107, 109, 111, 147 expansion 14, 21, 25-26, 36 higher 8, 49, 50, 57, 97, 101, 103-104, 145, 147, 153 policy 27, 33, 46, 49, 67, 69, 72, 98, 99, 101, 107, 131, 152, 166, 195 popular 121, 145- 146, 156 reform 7-8, 31, 51, 66, 101, 144, 148 social 71, 72-73, 77, 79, 101, 104-105, 108, 128, 143, 198 elevating Taiwan culture 8, 50, 62 elite 8, 11, 13, 15-16, 21, 24-27, 30, 44, 48-49, 67, 71, 99, 121, 140, 157, 162, 183, 189, 195, 196 Esperanto movement 153, 155

F

fanqie rhyme system 173, 174 folklore 13, 151, 156, 159, 182-184, 186, 191, 193 foreign 8, 24, 28, 29, 30, 32, 50, 54, 59, 61, 62, 70, 71, 73, 88, 92, 95, 113, 120, 121, 123, 125, 130, 132, 140, 158, 161, 175, 178, 181, 182, fortune 61, 63, 104, 108, 112, 133 Forumosa (嗶嗊嘌嘃嗖) 184, 185 friendship 44, 56, 59, 61, 65, 153 Sino-Japanese 112, 113, 116, 123 Fujian 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, 25, 26, 55, 112, 163, 178, 184, 200 Fulao (⭬‫ )٭‬16, 171 Fu Ren (ॄΓ) 174, 175, 177-182, 186, 199

G

gentry 40, 44, 45, 57, 109, 122 GotŇ Shimpei (ࡕᛯཥѳ) 30, 45 government 23, 29, 42, 54, 82, 96, 101, 105, 145, 200 colonial 36, 37, 43, 47, 48, 77, 99, 106, 107, 108, 131, 188, 190 Qing 13, 23, 24, 25

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Index

237

Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (εܿ٥ Ӆᄪ୮) 112 genbun itchi (‫ق‬Ў΋ठ) 96, 115, 181 see also yanwen yizhi 96, 115, 138, 181 Guangdong 11, 16, 25, 26, 200 guanhua (‫۔‬၉) 25, 26, 34, 113, 137, 138, 162 Guo Qiusheng (೾ࣿғ) 156, 163, 166, 170, 172, 173, 176-178, 180, 184, 188, 191, 193 guoyu national language (୯ᇟ) 53, 54, 82, 97, 132, 136, 157, 160, 161, 174 guwen (ђЎ) 120, 123, 130

H Hakka (࠼ৎ) 16, 17, 18, 20, 155 language 10, 18, 20, 21, 26, 34, 35, 37, 130 162, 168. 200 Han Chinese (ᅇ) 12, 18, 24, 27, 66, 70, 95, 96, 122, 123, 124, 127, 151, 159, 164, 195 Han Shiquan (ᗬҡࢨ) 82, 88, 90 hanwen (ᅇЎ) 41, 43, 44, 68, 69, 107, 109, 111-114, 116, 119, 121, 123, 127, 130, 132, 144-148, 155, 161, 172 hanyu pinyin (ᅇᇟ࡫ॣ) 10, 199 hanxue (ᅇᏢ) 134, 137 hanzi (ᅇӷ) 78, 121 happy few 69, 119, 121 Hawaii 155 heritage 4, 9, 10, 33, 66, 117-122, 124-133, 160, 161, 185 hinterland extension policy 103 Hoklo (⭬‫ )٭‬16, 17, 18, 20, 26, 162 hokŇ 30, 36, 56, 118, see also baojia homefront mobilization movement 27, 72, 80, 81, 85, 86, 93, 143, 151, 152, 158, homeland (Chinese) 27, 117, 119, 195 (Japanese) 7, 29, 33, 108 Huang Chaoqin (໳රถ) 98, 117-123, 125-127, 129, 132, 153, Huang Chengcong (໳ևᖃ) 61, 98, 103-104, 106, 109, 113-114, 116-117, 119-120, 122-123, 127, 153, Huang Shihui (໳ҡ፵) 156, 157, 162, 163, 165, 168, 170-171, 173, 174, 176, 177, 180, 183, 188, 191, 193 huayin (๮ॣ) 114 huayu (๮ᇟ) 114 Hu Shi (च፾) 74, 128, 129, 132, 141

I identity 8, 10, 11, 47, 52, 53, 55, 93, 96, 109, 112, 135, 151, 158, 166 Chinese cultural 9, 43, 95, 109, 137, 148, 193, 197, 198 Taiwanese 151, 157, 158 Japanese cultural 180 identification 28, 95, 96, 136, 196 ideology 7, 8, 10, 20, 31, 33, 52, 64, 69, 86, 97, 113, 120, 123, 144, 159, 181, 185, 199 illiteracy 9, 56, 77, 122, 143, 152, 156, 158, 166, 170, 178, 179, 181, 186, 191, 193, 196, 198 inequalities 27, 30, 32, 49, 107, 148, 152 imperial examination 15 imperialism 27, 28, 154 institutionalization 35, 101, 195 instruction 7, 33, 35-36, 43, 67-68, 70-71, 90, 97, 106, 110, 120-123, 128, 144-146, 148, 155 Chinese language 14, 21, 34, 39, 41-43, 55, 66, 67-68, 83, 101, 109, 111, 114, 120, 131, 142-148, 155, 195, Japanese language 35, 37-40, 42-43, 66, 77, 90-91, 144-147, 155, 173 romanized 77, 78, 82 Taiwanese language 35, 70, 87, 144, 146, 155, 200 integration 12, 21, 24, 25, 31, 51, 66, 70 education 42, 44, 99, 101, 128 interpreter 34, 39, 46, 57, 71 intellectual 73, 76, 86, 91, 92, 112, 126, 128, 131, 142, 158, 187, 188, 191, 192, 195, 198 isshi dŇjin (΋ຎӕϘ) 32, 91, 197 Itagaki Taisuke (݈ࠢଏշ) 49, 57, 64, 71 Izawa Shşji (Ҳ㟾অΒ) 32-36, 38, 39, 41 Izawa Takio (Ҳᐛӭ഻‫ )ت‬84, 87, 90, 91

J

Japan-educated 27, 56, 69, 86, 110, 134 Jiang Weishui (ጯ෭Н) 62, 80, 85, 86, 127,141-143, 153 jinshi (຾γ) 15, 22, 26 journalism 48, 50, 97, 125, 160 juren (ᖐΓ) 15, 21, 40, 109

K Kabayama Sukenori (ᐇξၗइ) 33, 35, 44 kanazukai (㜓Ӝᇾ) 31, 34, 38, 42, 77, 82, 87, 129, 135, 153, 173, 174, 175, 180, 181

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

238

Index

kanbun (ᅇЎ) 34, 35, 37, 41, 66, 67, 69, 78, 111, 113, 131, 145, 146 kanji (ᅇӷ) 37, 77, 78, 135, 138, 181 see also hanzi kaozheng (Ե᛾) 163, 164, 183 Kashino ShŇjirŇ (࢙ഁ҅ԛ॔) 191 katakana syllabary 37, 38, 43 Katsura TarŇ (ਦϼ॔) 44, 47f Kodama GentarŇ (㝺ҏྍϼ॔) 30, 44 koiné 19, 38, 76, 130, 136, 138, 168, 173, 174 kokugaku (୯Ꮲ) 28, 32 kokugo (୯ᇟ) 35, 37, 39, 65, 78, 107, 110 kŇminka (ࣤ҇ϯ) 189, 199 Korea 7, 29, 53, 102, 105, 141, 144 peoples 50, 51, 60-61, 62, 107, 108 script 87, 144, 174 Kuomintang (୯҇ល KMT) 54, 97

L Lai He (ᒘ‫ )ک‬139, 140, 177 language Austronesian 8, 11, 37, 190, 200 barrier 77, 106 Chinese 7-9, 19, 20, 26, 32-34, 37, 43-44, 46, 47, 51, 53, 61, 66-69, 76, 81, 92-93, 95, 97, 109-111, 113-116, 120-123, 127-128, 130-139, 144, 148, 151, 154, 158-159, 166, 170, 171, 175, 180, 189, 195-199 common 97, 113, 120, 162, 175, 178, 184 development 19, 53, 159, 160, 197, 200 foreign 8, 113, 123, 175, 181 Japanese 7, 8, 9, 28, 31-33, 35, 38, 39, 49, 52, 56, 67-70, 73, 77-78, 90-92, 101, 102, 110, 111, 113, 115, 116, 122, 130, 135, 137, 139, 144, 152-155, 158, 161, 171, 173, 175, 178, 180-181, 191, 193, 196 imposition 8, 41, 51, 154 inadequacies 95, 138 innovators 130, 133-134 local 29, 35-40, 43, 45, 57, 72, 202-206, 210 modernization 7, 8, 157, 159, 180 policy 27, 31, 72, 199, 202, 210 reform 8-9, 10, 52-53, 67, 73, 95-97, 113, 115, 116, 124, 148, 152, 156, 158-159, 166, 178, 195-196, 198, 200 spoken 37, 39, 53, 67, 120, 121, 134-135, 138-140, 161-162, 169, 193 standardization 7, 8, 9, 31, 35, 52, 53, 70, 71, 96, 97, 115, 120, 138, 160, 167, 175, 195

Taiwanese 7, 9, 34, 68, 135, 139, 144, 151, 152-160, 164-167, 175, 176, 178, 183, 190, 200 teacher 40, 55, 35f, Law 6.3. (ϤΟ‫ )ݤ‬30, 58-59, 61, 62, 86 legacy 95, 185, 186, 192-193, 197 Lian Wenqing (ೱྕঙ) 153-155, 156, 159 Lian Yatang (ೱ໡୸) 22, 132, 142, 163-164, 165, 166, 176, 183, 186 see also Lian Heng (ೱᐉ) 22, 46, 48, 132 Liao Yuwen (ᄃ௵Ў) 170-172, 179, 183, 188, 191 liberalization 12, 81, 101 Lin Chenglu (݅ำ࿢) 58, 59, 61, 117, 125, 127 lingua franca 25, 122 linguistic activism 54, 59, 62, 70, 81, 85, 87, 92, 153, code 20, 70, 128, 130, 134, 137, 151 Lin Kefu (݅լϻ) 170, 171, 174, 175 Lin Panlong (݅ᚹᓪ) 88, 90, 91 Lin Xiantang ݅᝘୸ 54, 57-59, 60, 71, 80, 82, 84, 85, 88, 91, 103, 141 literature 7, 13, 16, 20, 75, 97, 99, 114-116, 120, 126, 130, 135, 139-142, 163, 165, 166, 170, 178, 180, 181, 182, 185-188 Chinese 47, 128-129, 130-133, 196 folk 20, 183-184, 193, nativist 151, 156-160, 162, 163, 164-165, 168, 169-172, 174, 183-184, 191, 192, popular 181, 183, 185, 192, proletarian 151, 152, 158, 196, 197 vernacular 95, 123, 148, 157, Taiwanese 95, 133, 139, 156, 164, 170, 179, 181, 185, 187, literacy 14, 35, 37, 44, 49, 54, 66, 69, 70, 76, 96, 98, 116, 119, 122-123, 148, 151, 157-159, 169, 170, 195 campaign 7, 31, 33, 35, 40, 49, 52, 67, 69, 81 97, 100, 114, 123, 158, 188 functional 139, 158, 175, 179 practice 26, 35, 44, 47, 70, 110, 130, 139 literary canon 95, 130, 152 circles 140, 149, 151, 152, 157, 187 gatherings 22-23, 44-45 norm 128, 130, 132, 134, 151, 152 literati local 22, 25-26, 45, 55 traditional 110, 115, 131, 132-133, 138, 146 Liu Mingchuan (ቅሎ໺) 24, 25 loanword 153, 154, 177, 181

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Index

239

M

P

Mandarin baihuawen movement 53, 93, 95-149, 157, 182, 196, 198 manifesto 156, 184, 185 matchmaker 139, 151, 159 matrix model 160, 176, 192, 200 May Fourth movement (ϖѤၮ୏) 8, 51, 53, 62, 95, 97, 115, 117, 126, 131, 142 Meiji 7, 27, 29, 30, 32, 35, 50, 92, 104, 181 merchant 11, 13, 14, 15, 23, 44, 45, 46 migration 9, 11-14, 16-19, 23 minority 17, 26, 79, 122 mission 23, 81, 82, 85, 86, 88, 91, 179-180 civilizing 8, 16, 28, 31, 32, 67, 92 modernity 8, 29, 30-31, 55, 73, 75 81, 95, 195 modernization 7, 8, 10, 24, 34, 50, 51, 54, 67, 71, 93, 157, 159, 161, 180, 195, 196, 200

peace 28, 51, 64, 86, 108, 112-113, 116, 121, 127, 128 periodical 37, 188, 189, 190 poetry society 22, 25, 45-47, 163 police 30, 36, 39, 56, 57, 60, 77, 81, 82, 83, 91, 125, 147, 189, postcolonial 9, 45, 52, 117, 197, 199 postwar 197, 199 pronunciation 18, 19, 20, 26, 35, 37-38, 41, 42, 71-73, 75, 77-78, 90, 97, 111, 113, 114, 137, 146-147, 155, 161-171, 173-177, 182, 184, 186, 192 province 7, 11, 12, 16, 19, 23, 24-26, 27, 136, 171, 178, 195

N Nagai RyştarŇ (҉ϔ࢛ϼ॔) 89, 90 Nanshinron (ࠄ຾ፕ) 189 Nanyin (ࠄॣ) 9, 156, 160, 172, 175, 177, 184, 186-188, 193 NanyŇ (ࠄࢩ) 61, 190 nation-building 7, 27, 29, 31, 52, 96, 154, 158, 149, 183 national language see also kokugo and guoyu nationalism 8, 51, 52, 62, 95, 97, 124, 152, 160, 199 negotiation 23, 24, 49, 58, 82, 84, 112, 124 newspaper 9, 29, 34, 39, 45, 46, 47-48, 61, 74, 80, 82, 84, 89, 101, 105, 106, 120-122, 124, 127, 131-133, 137, 140-141, 148, 160, 163, 170, 172, 187, 189 Nogi Maresuke (ΏЕ‫ )ڂ׆‬44, 47f

O Ogawa Naoyoshi (λοۘက) 37, 190 on-reading 41, 42, 111, 146, 161 opium 58, 65, 65, 85, 103 War 22, 23 Okinawa 23, 65, 66 Old-New Literature debate 132, 133 orthography 54, 72, 73, 74, 78, 87-88, 93, 160, 164, 174, 193

Q Qing (మ) 9, 11, 12-15, 23-26, 40, 45-46, 96, 195 Quanzhou 16-19, 55, 75, 136, 155, 164, 178 koiné 38, 136, 161-162, 168, 173 quhua jiuwen (ۙ၉൩Ў) 175-177 quwen jiuhua (ۙЎ൩၉) 168, 175-176

R

race 32, 34, 64, 66, 68, 70, 108, 112, 121, 122-123, 127 repertoire 21, 26, 98, 102, 110, 151-152, 156, 183, 195 alternative 8, 50, 62, 97, 98, 116, 119, 195 change 69, 97, 114 culture 53, 69, 72, 110-111, 119, 151, 195 home 62, 97, 102, 119, 128, 133, 195-196 Republican China 95, 114, 115, 119, 123, 151, 175, 193 residents Japanese 35, 49, 56, 66, 68, 73, 78, 98, 100, 103, 107, 108, 155 Taiwanese 14, 16, 78, 103 resistance 13, 29, 43, 44, 46, 52, 56, 62, 93, 95, 118, 148, 183, 191 rŇmaji (嘎嘙嗿ӷ) 31, 72, 73, 72f, 76f romanized Taiwanese movement 8, 9, 52, 53-93, 95, 175 rote learning 144, 146 rural 56, 100, 105, 143, 188 !

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

240

Index

S San liu jiu xiao bao (ΟϤΐλൔ) 164, 183, 184 schooling 33, 35, 40, 42, 43, 48-49, 51, 53, 55, 68, 69, 99, 101-104, 106, 107, 110, 118, 128, 158 schools Common (ϦᏢਠ) 36, 37, 38, 40-43, 56, 66, 71, 99-101, 109, 111, 144-147, 155, 161 community (‫ޗ‬Ꮲ0ကᏢ) 14 Private (λᏢਠ) 100 Public (ӅᏢਠ) 98, 99 state (‫۔‬Ꮲ) 14 script 139, 154, 155, 166, 168, 182, 187, 198 Chinese 7, 9, 31, 33, 34-35, 44, 69, 112-114, 121, 123, 130, 133, 135-136, 138, 166, 198 Japanese 7, 31, 33, 92 phonetic 53, 87-92, 173-174 ideographic 9, 53, 72, 78, 92 romanized 31, 68, 70-79, 81-84, 87-88, 93, 137, 198 segregation 49, 65, 99, 107 self-realization 76, 71, 72, 79, 84, 195 separation 67, 93, 93, 138, 139, 141, 142 settlement 11-12, 14, 16-18, 24, 29 shengyuan (ғ঩) 14, 47 Shi Wenqi (ࡼЎ‫ )׻‬129, 136, 137 shufang (ਜ‫ )܊‬14, 36 see also shobŇ 36, 37, 41-44, 45, 66, 101, 109-111, 113, 117, 118, 146 shuyuan (ਜଣ) 14-15, 22, 25, 45, 55 Sin-bîn-hŇe (ཥ҇཮) 51, 61, 62, 117, 124 Sino-Japanese War 7, 31 socio-linguistics 9, 12, 26, 53, 139, 154, 159, 160, 192, 200 song 81, 92, 91, 152, 177, 181, 183-186, 191 book 179, 191 popular 184, 191-192 Southern Min (መࠄᇟ) 18, 20, 21, 26, 34, 35, 37-39, 61, 70, 113, 130, 136, 138, 146, 147, 161, 163, 166, 169, 173, 175, 176, 178, 184, 188, 192, 193, 196, 198, 200 see also Taiwanese language stigma 182, 184

T Tai Oan Chheng Lian (ᆵ᡼ߙԃ) 51, 61, 62, 72, 97, 101, 114, 143 Taiwan Cultural Association (ᆵ᡼Ўϯ‫ )཮ڐ‬62, 72, 73, 75, 77, 80, 124, 127, 140, 142, 143, 153, 156 taiwanhua (tâi-ôan-Ňe Ѡ᡼၉) 144, 160, 161-163,

165, 167, 169, 171-173, 175-180, 182-183, 184, 187, 191-193, 197, 198, 199 taiwanhuawen (tâi-ôan-Ňe-bûn Ѡ᡼၉Ў) 151, 160, 161, 163-164, 169, 171-172, 175-182, 183, 184, 187-188, 191-193, 198, 199 Taiwan Literary Association 184, 185 Taiwan Nationalist Movement 50, 51, 118f Taiwan Parliament Petition League 60, 61, 80, 83, 86, 125, 127 Taiwan People Party (ᆵ᡼҇ល) 80, 86, 83f Taiwan nichinichi shinpŇ (ᆵ᡼ВВཥൔ) 45, 48, 76, 104, 127, 133, 47f Taiwan Shin Minpao (ᆵ᡼ཥ҇ൔ) 85, 89, 170, 171, 184, 186, 189 Taiwan Studies 10 taiyu (Ѡᇟ) 114, 134, 164 see also Taiwanese language 7, 9, 34, 68, 135, 139, 144, 151, 152-156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 164-167, 175, 176, 178, 183, 190, 195, 200 territory 29, 30, 64, 65 textbook 9, 21, 34, 38, 41, 42, 66, 74, 77, 82, 85, 99, 106, 107, 110, 111, 120, 123, 143-146, 148, 152, 160, 178, 181, 199, 200 The Formosa (ᆵ᡼) 73, 76, 117, 122, 124-125, 127, 140, 143 The Taiwan-Bungei 187, 188 The Taiwan Minpao (ᆵ᡼҇ൔ) 9, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 82, 87, 89, 124-128, 130, 131, 137, 140-141, 143, 148, 152-153, 156, 168, 183, 189 Tokyo 67, 111, 150, 152-153, 156, 157, 158 tongyong (೯Ҕ) 199 tool 34, 63, 69, 77, 79, 96, 104, 116, 121, 123, 124, 138, 148, 158, 165, 167, 171, 183, 196 didactic 71, 74, 90 political 37, 51, 81, 159, 190 transient 66, 77, 97 tradition 9, 19, 27, 28, 31, 43, 45, 63, 139, 148, 158, 178, 180, 182, 183-185, 192, 193, 196, 199 traditional Chinese culture 46, 51, 64, 92, 120, 147, 185 learning 34, 36, 40-44, 45, 71, 109-111, mindset 57, 106, 139, 146 society, 69, 102

U Uemura Masahisa (΢‫҅׸‬Φ) 59-60 unification 64 language 68, 69, 96, 97, 115, 120, 122, 127,

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Index

241

136, 137, 138, 152, 158, 174, 176, 177 university 99, 103, 104, 107, 117

V vocabulary 21, 37, 50, 62, 75, 86, 101, 111, 114, 135, 136, 144, 147, 158, 160-163, 173, 176, 181, 193

W Wang Minchuan (Ц௵ο) 61, 98, 101, 103-105, 106, 107, 109-111, 112, 113, 114, 117, 144, 152-153 Wang Shilang (Ц၃ౘ) 172, 188 Wang Shoulu (Ц‫ڙ‬࿢) 88, 172 Weltanschauung 81, 92 wenduyin (Ў᠐ॣ) 18, 20, 39 wenyanwen (Ў‫ق‬Ў) 20, 61, 67, 96, 115, 128, 130, 132, 136-137, 139, 160, 163, 179, 195 wenzihua (Ўӷϯ) 53, 166-168, 170, 173, 177 Women’s Society (஁ζ཮) 88, 105 writing vernacular 96, 87, 114-117, 119-122, 126, 128-130, 132, 134, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142, 143, 166, 172 see also Mandarin baihuawen Written Taiwanese movement 8, 9. 53, 140, 151-193, 196, 197, 198 Wurenbao (ҴΓൔ) 156, 172 Wu Shouli (ֆӺᘶ) 168, 164f, 165f, 167f, 189f

X Xiamen 19, 75, 76, 130, 133, 140, 142, 143, 173, 174 Xianfa budui (Ӄว೽໗) 185, 186 xiucai (‫ذ‬ω) 40, 133

Y Yamaguchi Koshizu (ξαλᓉ) 153 yanwen yizhi (‫ق‬Ў΋ठ see also genbun itchi Yanaihara Tadao (Ҡ㚵চ۸໢) 61, 88, 90 Yang Yunping (ླྀ໦๩) 142, 177 Ye Rongzhong (ယᄪដ) 142, 156, 162, 168, 173 Yimin (ຽ҇) 129, 136, 137 yŇbunkai (ඦЎ཮) 44

Z Zhang Shenqie (஭ుϪ) 187 Zhang Wojun (஭‫ )ैך‬98, 129, 131-133, 139, 156, 176 Zhangzhou 16-19, 75, 155, 164, 173, 178 koiné 38, 136, 161-162, 168 Zheng Kunwu (ᎄ‫ڷ‬ϖ) 137, 174, 183 Zheng Songyue (ᎄ݊࿰) 61, 126 zhengyin shuyuan (҅ॣਜଣ) 25 zhongguohua (ύ୯၉) 169, 180 zhongguohuawen (ύ୯၉Ў) 180, 181-182, Zhu Dianren (ԙᗺΓ) 170, 171, 172, 181, 186 Zhuang Chuisheng (ಷࠟയ) 141, 172

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

Studia Formosiana Veröffentlichungen des OstasienInstituts der RuhrUniversität Bochum Herausgegeben von Henning Klöter Edited by the Research Unit on Taiwanese Culture and Literature, Ruhr University Bochum

1: Christina Neder, Ines Susanne Schilling (Eds.)

Transformation! – Innovation? Perspectives on Taiwan Culture 2003. 235 pages, pb ISBN 978-3-447-04791-3 € 58,– (D)

2: Henning Klöter

Written Taiwanese 2005. XXI, 352 pages, 26 ill., pb ISBN 978-3-447-05093-7 € 78,– (D)

3: Lloyd Haft

Zhou Mengdie’s Poetry of Consciousness 2006. 108 pages, pb ISBN 978-3-447-05348-8 € 38,– (D)

4: Dafydd Fell, Henning Klöter, Chang Bi-yu (Eds.)

What has changed? Taiwan Before and After the Change in Ruling Parties 2006. 288 pages, 29 ill., pb ISBN 978-3-447-05379-2 € 58,− (D)

5: Carsten Storm, Mark Harrison (Eds.)

6: Ann Heylen, Scott Sommers (Eds.)

Becoming Taiwan: From Colonialism to Democracy 2010. 223 pages, pb ISBN 978-3-447-06374-6 € 54,– (D) One of the most important aspects of democracy has been the transition from colonialism. In Taiwan this discussion is typically framed in political discourse that focuses on theoretical issues. Becoming Taiwan departs from this well-traveled route to describe the cultural, historical and social origins of Taiwan’s thriving democracy. Contributors were specifically chosen to represent both Taiwanese and nonTaiwanese researchers, as well as a diverse range of academic fields, from Literature and Linguistics to History, Archeology, Sinology and Sociology. The result represents a mixture of well-known scholars and young researchers from outside the English-speaking world. The volume addresses three main issues in Taiwan Studies and attempts answers based in the historical record: How Chinese is Taiwan? Organizing a Taiwanese Society, and Speaking about Taiwan. Individual chapters are grouped around these three themes illustrating the internal dynamics that transformed Taiwan into its current manifestation as a thriving multiethnic democracy. Our approach addresses these themes pointing out how Taiwan Studies provides a multidisciplinary answer to problems of the transformation from colonialism to democracy.

The Margins of Becoming Identity and Culture in Taiwan 2007. 290 pages, 5 fig., pb ISBN 978-3-447-05454-6 € 64,– (D)

HARRASSOWITZ VERLAG • WIESBADEN www.harrassowitz-verlag.de • [email protected]

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978

East Asian Economic and Socio-cultural Studies

ᵅ Ѳ ㍧ △ 㟛 ⼒᳗᭛࣪ 䂪 শ

East Asian Maritime History 11

Angela Schottenhammer (Ed.)

Taiwan – A Bridge Between the East and South China Seas

Harrassowitz Verlag

Angela Schottenhammer (Ed.)

Taiwan − A Bridge Between the East and South China Seas East Asian Economic and Socio-cultural Studies 11 2011. IX, 132 pages, 5 ill., 2 tables, hc ISBN 978-3-447-06173-5 € 32,− (D) January 1, 2012, the Republic of China (ROC, 1912–), which was officially declared by Sun Yatsen’s ᄿ䘌ҭ (or Sun Zhongshan Ёቅ) on January 1, 1912, will celebrate its centenary. The Peoples Republic of China (PRC), since its establishment in 1949, considers Taiwan to be a part of mainland China, but Taiwan actually only relatively late became part of the Chinese Empire, namely in 1683 under the Manchu Qing Emperor Kangxi ᒋ❭ (r. 1661–1722). And still in Qing times, the island used to be considered “a remote outer island” “lonely hanging outside in the seas”. The volume edited by Angela Schottenhammer is a collection of papers (except one) originally presented for a conference of the research project The East Asian ‘Mediterranean’ entitled “Taiwan – a Bridge between the East and South China Seas” and held at Munich University on November 5, 2007. The contributions narrate aspects of Taiwan’s eventful history, providing a brief historical survey, discussing the emergence of Taiwan as an international trading rendezvous in the sixteenth century, its role as a bridge and barrier between two “Mediterraneans”, that is, the East and the South China Sea, Portuguese Impressions of Taiwan, the role of Castilians in North Taiwan, naval and military diets in early modern Taiwan, the rise of Powchong tea merchants during the period when Taiwan was a colony of Japan, and finally the image of Taiwan in early Qing Chinese poetry.

HARRASSOWITZ VERLAG • WIESBADEN www.harrassowitz-verlag.de • [email protected]

© 2014, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 9783447065573 — ISBN E-Book: 9783447190978