[lg policy] bibitem: Language Policy in the KMT and DPP eras

[Harold Schiffman]

Language Policy in the KMT and DPP eras

Henning Klöter

Abstract

The revival of the Taiwanese language (Taiyu) in the past two decades
is a significant about-face, after the restrictive measures that the
government has adopted for local languages in the past. This article
compares the treatment of Taiyu by official language planning agencies
during the Kuomintang) KMT and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)
eras. It focuses on the debates on the creation of a written norm for
Taiyu. Attention is also given to the activities of non-governmental
language revival groups and the co-operation between official and
unofficial language planners in the implementation of recent language
reforms.
Top of pageOutlineHistorical overview
>>From oppression to toleration: 1949–1979
>>From toleration to cultivation: 1979–2004
The architects of change
Governmental and non-governmental language planners
Non-governmental planning: the case of written Taiwanese
Written Taiwanese: official measures
Governmental and non-governmental co-operation

1It is one of the paradoxes of any analysis of Taiwan’s linguistic
issues that the most widely spoken language lacks an established name.
The name Taiyu, literally “the language(s) of Taiwan, Taiwanese” is
often used as a collective term for the group of Southern Min dialects
spoken by about 73% of Taiwan’s present-day population. Other terms
for the same language include Hoklo (also spelled Holo; the etymology
of these terms is uncertain), Taiwanese Min, and Taiwanese Hokkien.
Hokkien reflects the Southern Min expression Hok-kien for Fujian.

1  Shuanfan Huang, Yuyan, shehui yu zuqun yishi: Taiwan yuyan
shehuixue de yanjiu (Language, society a (...)
2Its frequent use notwithstanding, the term Taiyu/Taiwanese has also
been criticised as it suggests that Southern Min is the only local
language of Taiwan. This is by no means the case. Other languages
spoken in Taiwan are Mandarin Chinese—the official language—, Hakka
(spoken by 12% of the population), and 12 Austronesian languages
spoken by the indigenous population in central Taiwan and along the
east coast. Speakers of Hakka dialects traditionally live in Xinzhu
and Miaoli counties in northwestern Taiwan, where they account for
about 60% of the population1. In bigger cities, Hakka speakers
constitute a minority.

2  Paul Jen-kuei Li, “Formosan Languages: The State of the Art”, in
David Blundell (ed.), Austronesian (...)
3Today it is not uncommon for younger speakers in Taiwan to be equally
fluent in Taiwanese and Mandarin. The Taiwanese spoken by young
persons is often regarded as impure and strongly Mandarinised by older
Taiwanese speakers. Most speakers of Hakka dialects also have high
fluency in Mandarin and often a good command of Taiwanese. The same
applies to speakers of Austronesian languages. The influx of Chinese
immigrants over the last four centuries has drastically reduced the
proportion of the indigenous population, which is now 1.7% of the
entire population. In the past two centuries, about a dozen
Austronesian languages have become extinct, and the remaining 12
languages are threatened with extinction2.

4For stylistic reasons it seems reasonable to prefer the benefits of
the term “Taiwanese” to the political correctness of cumbersome
alternatives. I will use “Taiyu” instead of “Taiwanese” only when
unambiguous reference to Taiwanese as a linguistic variety is
required, e.g., when Taiwanese literature, meaning literature produced
in Taiwan, needs to be distinguished from Taiyu literature, i.e.,
literature in the Taiwanese language.

3  China Handbook 1951, Taipei, China Publishing Co., 1951.
5In 1945, Taiwan ceased to be a Japanese colony and became a province
of the Republic of China (ROC). Since then, the official treatment of
local languages has shifted from systematic oppression to toleration
and, since the 1990s, modest inclusion in the school curriculum. At
the beginning of its rule in Taiwan, the ruling Kuomintang (KMT)
reiterated its view that linguistic diversity was a factor impeding
the country’s unity. In the China Handbook of 1951, linguistic issues
receive little attention: “China has only one written language. The
spoken language, however, consists of various dialects. In recent
years the National Spoken Language Movement has made considerable
progress in overcoming the difficulties caused by these dialects”3.

4  Taiwan Yearbook 2003, online at http://www.gio.gov.t accessed June
10th 2004. (...)
6More than 50 years later, many things have changed. The KMT is no
longer the ruling party, and the name of the official annual overview
has been changed from the former China Handbook into the Taiwan
Yearbook. In the latest edition of the Yearbook, the passage on
languages likewise contrasts sharply from the above quotation: “Taiwan
society is a rich mixture of diverse cultures, and more people are
becoming aware of the importance of preserving various languages and
dialects. This awareness has been the propelling force behind
government efforts to promote nativist education (xiangtu jiaoyu).
Starting in September 2001, primary school students throughout Taiwan
have been required to take at least one local language course. For
junior high school students, however, such language courses remain an
elective. The government supports such courses with various levels of
funding, which is used to compile teaching materials, publish teacher
handbooks, hold teacher workshops, produce audio and video
cassettes”4.

7It would be tempting to attribute this about-face in language policy
to the regime change in the presidential office of 2000, when for the
first time in Taiwan’s post-war history the KMT lost power to the
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and its candidate Chen Shui-bian.
Chen had, after all, during the campaign, wrapped his Taiwan-centred
political agenda in a strong pro-Taiwanese rhetoric, both
ideologically and linguistically. By frequently addressing his
electorate in Taiyu, he had succeeded in presenting himself as a
representative of a genuine Taiwanese identity. And there is little
doubt that the regime change of 2000 has led to some changes in the
government’s language policy. However, as I argue in this paper, it
would be oversimplifying to view the turnaround from oppression to
promotion of Taiyu in blue (KMT) and green (DPP) terms only. Important
changes in the policy towards Taiyu had rather already been introduced
during the 1980s. But they were not primarily the result of a paradigm
change on the part of the government, rather being brought about by
non-governmental language revivalist groups. Neither the KMT nor the
DPP governments have thus far fully embraced the agenda of the
revivalists. Lacking substantiality, changes achieved so far have
above all a symbolic value.

Historical overview From oppression to toleration: 1949–1979
8For several years after 1945, the ROC administration tried to adjust
its language policy to Taiwan’s linguistic reality. According to
Feifel, “[i]n an attempt to resinify the population, the Nationalist
government ran a programme to encourage the use of Minnan hua [i.e.,
Taiyu] in Taiwan, but this was regarded as a first step toward the
acquisition of Mandarin by the local people. A phonetic script for
Minnan hua was adopted and promoted for this purpose”5. In the late
1940s, the withdrawal of the Nationalist government to Taiwan led to a
new wave of immigration from the mainland and to drastic linguistic
changes.

5  Karl-Eugen Feifel, Language Attitudes in Taiwan: A Social
Evaluation of Language in Social Change, (...)
6  Robert L. Cheng, “Language Unification in Taiwan: Present and
Future”, in Murray A. Rubinstein (ed. (...)
9After the mid-1950s, the KMT government began severely restricting
the use of local languages in public settings. The exclusive use of
Mandarin was enforced on the grounds that Taiwan was a province of
China and that Mandarin represented the national language of China. In
Robert Cheng’s words, to survive as the legitimate government of the
whole of China, the ROC government had to maintain Mandarin as the
national language. Furthermore, as Mandarin speakers were in the
minority, the government had to take steps “to maintain the status of
Mandarin against the natural tendency of Mandarin speakers to be
assimilated into the Taiwanese majority”6.

7  Feifel, Language Attitudes in Taiwan, op. cit., p. 72.
8  Huang, Yuyan, shehui yu zuqun yishi, op. cit., p. 119.
10Following these considerations, the government began severely
restricting the use of local languages in public settings after the
1950s. According to Feifel, “[t]he more benign attitude which the
government had shown towards Minnan hua in the past was replaced by
active hostility. From this time on schooling was conducted solely in
Mandarin and the use of any other language variety was punished”7. The
oppression of local languages followed a series of language laws and
decrees issued between 1950 and 1980. For instance, in 1956 the KMT
government officially restricted the use of dialects in schools.
Schools set up disciplinary patrols (jiuchadui) which controlled that
the law was respected8. One year later, an official decree ruled that
missionaries were no longer allowed to preach in a dialect. The
Broadcast and Television Law of 1976 limited the use of languages
other than Mandarin in television and radio broadcasts.

9  Marinus E. Van den Berg, Language Planning and Language Use in
Taiwan: A Study of Language Choice B (...)
11This active promotion of Mandarin has produced a generation of
multilinguals. Hence, Mandarin evolved as the main language of
government, education and the media. It also serves as a lingua franca
among mainland immigrants who arrived after 1945, commonly referred to
as waisheng ren (literally “people from outside provinces”. These
immigrants were in most cases speakers of different Chinese dialects,
for instance Cantonese, Hunanese and Shanghainese. Nowadays these
dialects are hardly used9.

>>From toleration to cultivation: 1979–2004
12The about-face from the former oppression of Taiyu and other local
Taiwanese languages was made after the late 1970s, when Taiwan’s
political landscape changed drastically. Following its gradual
international isolation, the island entered a period of political
liberalisation and democratisation. In the same period, calls for
Taiwan’s political separation from China intensified. A conception of
Taiwan’s distinctiveness has meanwhile expanded beyond the political
arena and it now dominates literary, linguistic, and historical
discourses.

13It was after the arrest of leading opposition figures in the
aftermath of the Kaohsiung Incident in 1979 that cultural debates
discovered the Taiwaneseness of Taiwan. In the aftermath of the
protest, leading members of the opposition were sentenced to long
prison terms. Political decision-making gradually adapted to the new
intellectual and social trends. Laws and regulations prohibiting the
use of local languages in public settings were gradually lifted. In
November 1987, for instance, the three government-controlled
television stations started to broadcast news in Taiwanese. In
parliament, the use of Mandarin was taken for granted without official
regulation until the late 1980s. When the legislator Zhu Gaozheng used
Taiyu during a parliamentary debate in March 1987, he provoked a
substantial scandal. In the meantime, Taiwanese has become a
fully-accepted language of the legislature and the dominant language
in electoral campaigns.

10  Huang, Yuyan, shehui yu zuqun yishi, op. cit., p. 146
11  Ibid.
12  Yang Chaur-shiang, “National Education Develop­ment and Reform for
the New Millennium”, 1999, onlin (...)
14In 1990, Yilan County became the first county to offer elective
Taiyu language courses in elementary and junior high schools. In the
following years, similar programs were initiated in other counties and
also included courses for Hakka and Austronesian languages. In 1993,
the Interior Ministry conceded that the repressive language policy of
the past had been a mistake10. Since then, the “assimilationist
[language] policy has been replaced with strong support for
multiculturalism and official respect for, even nurturing of,
aboriginal [i.e., Austronesian] languages and other minority
languages”11. In late 1999, the then Minister of Education, Yang
Chaur-shiang, proclaimed the inclusion of “local culture education” in
the elementary and junior high school curriculum. He furthermore
announced that, “in the future […] as a part of the new […]
curriculum, indigenous languages will be listed as a required subject
for third grade students and above. Other indigenous culture teaching
activities will be integrated into various domains of learning”12.

13  Ministry of Education (MOE), “Explanation Why the ‘Language
Equality Law’ Will Be Drafted by the Co (...)
15Taiwan-centred political reforms were intensified after the victory
of the DPP in the presidential elections of 2000. In 2001, nativist
education was declared a compulsory subject at elementary schools. In
principle, the programme includes language courses in one local
language, i.e., Taiwanese, Hakka, or an Austronesian language. Due to
a lack of teachers and other resources, most schools offer Taiwanese
classes only. One year later, a language equality law was drafted. It
aims at creating legal foundations for equal treatment of all
Taiwanese languages and contains guidelines for the standardisation of
Taiyu, Hakka and Austronesian languages as well as their role in
education13.

The architects of changeGovernmental and non-governmental language planners
16Changing the status of a language in a society follows political
decisions and a complex set of preparatory language planning measures.
In the preceding paragraphs, the changing status of Taiwanese has been
described as a consequence of political decision-making from above. On
an official level, new language laws and decrees have chiefly been
formulated by two institutions under the Ministry of Education: the
Department of Elementary and Junior High School Education (Guomin
jiaoyu si, hereafter: DEJ) and the National Languages Committee (Guoyu
tuidong weiyuanhui, hereafter: NLC; significantly, its official
English translation has been changed from the former “Mandarin
Promotion Council”). The DEJ devises the guidelines for mother tongue
education at primary and secondary schools, while the NLC formulates
linguistic standards.

14  Robert L. Cooper, Language Planning and Social Change, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, 1989, (...)
17However, language planning measures can be but are not necessarily
taken by government agencies. According to Cooper, “[l]anguage
planning may be initiated at any level of a social hierarchy, but it
is unlikely to succeed unless it is embraced and promoted by elites
and counter-elites. […] Neither elites nor counter-elites are likely
to embrace the language planning initiatives of others unless they
perceive it in their own interest to do so”14. From this perspective,
the post 1979-period can best be described as the governmental
embracement of non-governmental language planning.

Non-governmental planning: the case of written Taiwanese
18Arguably the most prominent example for non-governmental language
planning is the development of a written norm for Taiyu. In the 1960s
and 1970s, debates on written Taiwanese had been impeded by the
rigorous promotion of Mandarin. As A-chin Hsiau points out, “postwar
debates on literature […] barely addressed the linguistic issue,
because the use of Mandarin was taken for granted”15. Although this
period “did witness the cultural elite’s lively interest in, and
enthusiastic inquiry into, local social life and cultural resources,”
such trends were “far from a ‘Taiwanese consciousness’ with explicit
political implications”16. This changed during the 1980s, when various
literary writers, lexicographers, and language revivalists started to
engage in developing a Taiyu orthography and promoting written
Taiwanese. After the late 1990s, various language revivalist
organisations were founded. According to Hsiau, these non-governmental
groups “were created for the purpose of reviving native languages,
devising Hoklo (Taiyu) vernacular writing systems, and promoting Hoklo
literature”17. In 2004, a number of Taiyu revivalist groups set up
parent organisation jointly set up the Global Coalition for Taiwanese
Mother Languages (Shijie Taiwan muyu lianmeng). The major political
goal of this parent organisation is the elevation of the legal status
of all Taiwanese languages18.

15  A-chin Hsiau, Contemporary Taiwanese Cultural Nationalism, London,
Routledge, 2000, p. 74.
16  Ibid.
17  Ibid, p. 137.
18  “Shijie Taiwan Muyu Lianmeng” (Global Coalition for Taiwanese
Languages), 2004, online at http://20 (...)
19  For details, see Henning Klöter, Written Taiwanese, Ph.D.
dissertation, Leiden University, 2003.
19The proposed orthographies make use of a variety of scripts.
Typologically, these scripts can be divided into the Chinese character
script, alphabetic orthographies, phonetic symbols, and mixed scripts.
Whereas all these orthographies have important philological
dimensions, answers to questions on the diversity of written Taiwanese
lie outside the realm of grapheme-morpheme relations19. Instead, they
are to be sought in the changing ideological patterns which have
emerged from Taiwan’s tumultuous past. For the sake of brevity, the
following paragraphs are restricted to the character-based and
alphabetic orthographies.

20  Hsiau, Contemporary Taiwanese Cultural Nationalism, op. cit., p.
136; Lin Yangmin, Taiyu wenxue yun (...)
20Character-based scripts for Taiwanese are largely to be found in
Taiyu fiction and dictionaries. Taiwanese dialect poems (fangyan shi)
were an important input for the postwar debate on written Taiwanese.
In the 1970s, literary experimentation in the local vernacular was
initiated by Lin Zongyuan who in turn inspired the younger poet Xiang
Yang20. This new generation of dialect poets was originally not driven
by any political motivations. However, the new theoretical debate on
genuine Taiwanese literature and the establishment of a Taiwanese
orthography soon became closely linked to the socio-political and
cultural movement against the “Greater China” policy of the KMT
government.

21  For a more comprehensive introduction to recent Taiyu literature,
refer to Zhang Chunhuang et al., (...)
21Today, the number of authors writing in Taiwanese has increased
considerably. Whereas pioneering collections of prose or poetry were
initially often published at the author’s own expense, recognised
publishing houses now include various genres of dialect literature in
their programme. The Taipei-based Qianwei Chubanshe (Vanguard
Publishing House) for instance, has regularly published series of
Taiyu literature. The recognition of Taiyu literature by commercial
publishers, however, has not contributed to orthographic
standardisation, as the publishing houses do not have internal
standards for the writing of Taiwanese21.

22Recognised and up-and-coming young writers also publish in literary
journals exclusively devoted to the promotion of written Taiwanese.
One of the first major journals in and about the Taiwanese language—
the Tai-Bun Thong-Sin (Taiwanese Writing Forum)—has been published in
the United States since 1991. Among major magazines presently
published in Taiwan we find La-cing (Sowing seeds) and Tai-bun bong-po
(Casual reports on written Taiwanese). The former was first published
in 1995, the latter one year later. The editions contain
announcements, short stories, poems, and historical anecdotes.

22  For example, Dong Zhongsi, Taiwan Minnanyu cidian (A Dictionary of
Southern Min of Taiwan), Taipei, (...)
23Taiwanese lexicography has likewise developed quickly in the last
two decades. Without exception, Taiyu dictionaries published during
the 1990s result from the private efforts of single authors22. Lacking
official authorisation and general acceptance, particular spellings of
such dictionaries have remained individual suggestions for written
Taiwanese rather than a normative codification. The authors generally
adhere to individual principles of character selection and do not feel
bound to the prevalence of particular characters in Taiwanese
literature. As a result, there is generally little orthographic
overlap between written Taiwanese in a literary context and written
Taiwanese arranged in Taiyu dictionaries.

23  Klöter, Written Taiwanese, op. cit., p. 214ff.
24Alphabetic orthographies for Taiwanese and other Southern Min
dialects were initially only used by missionaries for church-related
publications. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
the use of either script was thus restricted to distinct social groups
and literary genres. The disassociation of alphabetic writing from the
missionary context was first promoted by the political activist Cai
Peihuo during the Japanese period (1895–1945). Since the 1990s, the
use of alphabetic writing has gone different directions within and
outside the missionary context. Whereas the Presbyterian Church has
switched to the use of characters, the traditional missionary
romanisation system has considerably gained ground among local Taiyu
groups not associated with the church. This new trend has been
initiated by two organisations based in the southern port of
Kaohsiung, viz. the Ko-hiong Tai-gi Lo-ma-ji Gian-sip-hoe (Kaohsiung
Seminar for Church Romanisation), and the Tai-oan Lo-ma-ji Hiap-hoe
(Association of Taiwanese Romanisation). The former is a rather loose,
seminar-like group established in 1996. It is supported by some 600
people, mostly local school teachers, interested in the cultivation of
Taiwanese and its alphabetic representation. The latter was formally
registered with the Interior Ministry in 2001. It comprises about two
hundred members from Taiwan and abroad. Among the members are
scholars, politicians, journalists, teachers and clergy of the
Presbyterian Church23.

24  Jacob Landau and Barbara Kellner-Heinkele, Politics of Language in
the Ex-Soviet Muslim States: Aze (...)
25  Hsiau, Contemporary Taiwanese Cultural Nationalism, op. cit., p. 139.
25As indicated above, arguments in favour of or against particular
scripts belong largely to socio-political debates on practical needs
and cultural symbolism. The choice of a particular writing system may
generally serve as an indicator for a changing national identity in
colonial or post-colonial societies, as for instance in the former
Soviet states Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, where the
abolition of Cyrillic writing clearly reflects a cultural trend
towards de-russification after the fall of the Soviet empire24.
Similarly, sociological studies on written Taiwanese analyse the
option for a particular script in ideological terms. For instance,
comparing ideological convictions of Taiyu activists of the 1930s with
those of the present generation, A-chin Hsiau writes:25 “Comparatively
speaking, contemporary attempts to establish a Hoklo [i.e., Taiyu]
script and establish Hoklo literature has achieved more than the
efforts to promote writing in tai-oan-oe and hsiang-t’u literature in
the Japanese colonial period. On the one hand, the promoters of the
latter in the early 1930s still held a relatively intense Han cultural
consciousness. Thus, all of them, with the notable exception of Ts’ai
P’ei-huo (Cai Peihuo), advocated using characters to write Hoklo in
order to maintain Taiwanese connections with the Chinese Mainland and
Han culture. […] By contrast, devoting themselves to the establishment
of a unique Taiwanese culture, the advocates of new writing methods in
the last decade have been, almost without exception, Taiwanese
nationalists. Most of them do not stick to Chinese characters and
freely romanise certain Hoklo morphemes. Romanisation makes it easier
to write Hoklo and facilitates the development of Hoklo literature.
The use of phonetic characters represents a historic step toward local
nationalism within an old ideographic area dominated by China,
including other bordering countries”.

Written Taiwanese: official measures
26Official language planning agencies have thus far steered off
orthographic standardisation. The extent to which statements and
decrees formulated by government agencies have passed over this issue
is striking26. In 2002, official examinations for Taiwanese and Hakka
teachers took place. The procedure of the examinations was regulated
in a law that passed the legislature in late 200127. According to the
examination sample published in advance, candidate teachers were free
to use characters, any romanisation system or a mixed script in the
written examinations28. Standardisation of requirements for language
teaching has, in other words, not been matched with orthographic
specifications.

26  For example, in NLC, “Xiangtu yuyan jiaoxue xiankuang yu weilai
yuwen jiaoxue zhi fazhan” (The Pres (...)
27  MOE, “Jiaoyubu xinwen gao: Minnanyu, Kejiayu zhiyuan jiaoxue
renyuan jiange gongzuo jijiang banli” (...)
28  MOE, “Jiaoyubu xinwen gao: Jiaoyubu gongbu xiangtu yuyan jiaoxue
zhiyuan renyuan jiange bishi, kous (...)
29  NLC, Minnanyu zihui (yi) (A Lexicon of Southern Min, Part I), Taipei, 1998.
27This neglect cannot be attributed to a lack of awareness, as
orthographic issues have long been on the agenda of academic symposia
organised by language planning institutions. A first symposium ‘Issues
concerning local language education’ was held in June 1990 at the
Academia Sinica. The event was jointly organised by seven local
governments. The nine papers presented at this occasion focused on two
issues exclusively: character usage and romanisation. Since then,
numerous similar events have followed, and orthographic issues have
continued to play an important role in the academic agenda. Also in
the early 1990s, the Ministry of Education encouraged private research
on local languages by awarding prizes for studies on Taiwanese and
Hakka in five different categories: lexicon and orthography, grammar,
teaching, traditional popular sources, and Chinese translations of
studies on Taiyu29.

30  NLC, Fangyin fuhao xitong (System of Phonetic Symbols for
Dialects), 1998, online at http://www.edu (...)
31  NLC, “Guojia yuwen ziliaoku jiangou jihua” (The Plan to Set Up a
Database for National Languages), (...)
32  NLC, Minnanyu zihui (yi), op. cit., p. 1.
28Official measures in the field of orthographic standardisation for
local languages have not gone beyond non-binding recommendations.
Spelling schemes for three script types have been put forward, viz.
Chinese characters, a romanisation system, and phonetic symbols.
Recommendations for character usage were devised in a research project
initiated by the NLC and carried out between 1995 and 1999. The
project aimed at the compilation of the four-volume lexicon for
Taiwanese with approximately 600 monosyllabic entries. By the spring
of 2000, two volumes of the lexicon had been published30. The
publication of the final issues is listed among the NLC current
projects31. As regards orthographic standardisation, the aim of the
project is described in rather vague terms. The compilers express the
hope that the lexicon will “reduce difficulties in writing Southern
Min”32.

33  NLC, “Min Ke yu zhuyin fuhao zhuan’an yanjiu” (Special Aspects of
the Research Into Phonetic Symbol (...)
34  Ibid.
35  Ibid.
29Phonetic symbols for Mandarin, Taiwanese and Hakka were devised in a
research project carried out at the Preparatory Institute of
Linguistics, Academia Sinica, between October 1999 and September
200033. The need for a new system was explained with the high degree
of orthographic diversity in Taiwanese and Hakka sources. This was
considered “inconvenient for the reader and harmful for the research
on and development of Southern Min and Hakka”34. It is assumed that
the project will benefit the promotion of local language education,
the compilation of books in and reference works for local languages,
and the development of local language literature35.

36  Dong Zhongsi, “Guanyu ‘Taiwan yuyin yinbiao fang’an’” [On ‘TLPA’],
in Dong Zhongsi (ed.), ‘Taiwan M (...)
37  For example, Dong, Taiwan Minnanyu cidian, op. cit.; Qiu Wenxi and
Chen Xianguo, Shiyong huayu taiy (...)
30Systems for the romanisation of local languages were published in
early 1998, viz. the Taiwan Language Phonetic Alphabet (TLPA) for
Taiwanese and Hakka. Both systems were developed by the Linguistic
Society of Taiwan (Taiwan yuwen xuehui)36. TLPA systems are
recommended for the indication of character readings and not as
substitutions for the character system. Both TLPA versions have gained
acceptance in textbooks and dictionaries37.

38  NLC, “Guojia yuwen ziliaoku jiangou jihua”, op. cit.
39  Ibid.
31Meanwhile, the NLC has announced the establishment of a database for
national languages. This project is scheduled for completion in June
2004. The plan includes the publication of online databases for
Mandarin and local languages, the compilation of language atlases,
research on Taiwanese and Hakka grammars, the compilation of teaching
materials, the compilation of a trilingual Mandarin-Taiwanese-Hakka
dictionary of frequently used expressions, databases for Taiwanese and
Hakka proverbs, a database of loan words used in Taiwan, and
dictionaries for Austronesian languages. It is not clear what the
status of the databases is. The Minister of Education is merely quoted
as saying that “the work on databases for local languages (Taiwanese,
Hakka, Austronesian languages) should be intensified in order to fit
the needs of the new school curriculum”38. One of the “expected
benefits” of the databases is the “availability for use in scientific
research and education”39.

Governmental and non-governmental co-operation
32The inclusion of Taiwanese and other local languages into the school
curriculum marks a crucial turning point in Taiwanese language
policies. For various practical reasons, the decision to make learning
a local language compulsory for primary school students entails a
number of related language-planning measures. Most importantly, Taiyu
textbooks need to be compiled. Textbook compilation is for obvious
reasons receiving increasing attention of academics and language
revivalists: they are the only source of written Taiwanese with a
substantial readership outside particular interest groups. Thus far,
textbooks for various levels have been published, viz. for elementary
and secondary school students40. School textbooks are typically
compiled by municipal or county governments, in co-operation with
academics and local language revivalists. Textbooks jointly compiled
by groups of authors generally gain more acceptance than those
published by individuals.

40  For an overview, see Klöter, Written Taiwanese, op. cit.
33Textbook compilation has thus far not come along with orthographic
standardisation. This has led to the awkward situation that primary
school students at different schools learn different forms of written
Taiwanese, depending on the policy of the respective school authority
and the non-governmental advisors. Future research needs to examine
the way central and local government agencies, universities and
private interest groups interact in implementing language education
reforms. For the purpose of this present study it is sufficient to
point out that the co-operation of non-governmental and governmental
language planners goes beyond the compilation of textbooks. Academics
and members of private Taiyu circles are furthermore recruited for the
organisation of preparatory courses for Taiyu school teachers and the
development of curricula.

34Is Taiwan on the way to becoming a multilinguistic society in which
all languages are equal? I argue that despite the recent promotion of
local languages Mandarin will remain more equal than other languages.
The main reason is that language planning measures taken so far are
largely of symbolic value, and will arguably not lead to substantial
changes in Taiwan’s linguistic hierarchy.

41  Harald Haarmann, “Language Planning in the Light of a General
Theory of Language: A Methodological (...)
42  Ibid.
43  Ibid.
44  Karl Erland Gadelii, Language Planning: Theory and Practice.
Evaluation of Language Planning Cases (...)
35In language planning theory, determining the written standard for a
language relates to the field of corpus planning. Other aspects of
corpus planning are “elaboration of phonological, grammatical, and
lexical norms for a standard language variety”41. Orthographic
standardisation as a part of corpus planning is unlikely to succeed if
implemented independently from other fields of language planning, such
as status planning. Status planning relates to the sociocultural and
political status of languages, for example “the status of a language
as a medium of school education to various specialised functions, such
as those of a working language to be used in a state bureaucracy, in
juridical affairs, or as an official state language”42. In other
words, the success of particular corpus planning measures ultimately
depends on whether these measures occur within the context of status
planning, and vice versa. As Haarmann puts it, “the elaboration of a
written standard for a hitherto unwritten language requires the
planning of social functions in which it can be used”43. A similar
stance is formulated by Gadelii, who holds that “well-intentioned
bilingual programmes and similar actions only have symbolic value in
the long run if the languages involved are not recognized in other
formal contexts”44.

45  Shuanfan Huang, “Language, Identity and Conflict: A Taiwanese
Study”, International Journal of the (...)
36Taking these aspects into account, it is obvious that recent
language planning measures with regard to Taiyu and other local
languages still lack comprehensiveness. Within the field of corpus
planning, the main focus has been orthographic standardisation. Other
aspects, like standardisation of pronunciation and grammar, have
largely been ignored. More importantly, there are also crucial missing
links between the different fields of language planning. Despite the
introduction of nativist education, Taiyu continues to play a marginal
role in education and in the media. In Shuanfan Huang’s words, “local
languages have to contend not only with Mandarin, the official
language, for breathing space, but also with international languages
[…] for survival”45. The role of Taiwanese in the school curriculum is
thus not a sufficient formal context that could contribute to the
implementation of a Taiwanese orthography. Stated conversely, the fact
that the introduction of mother tongue education was not accompanied
by orthographic standardisation is in line with the modest position of
local language education in the school curriculum.

46  Cooper, Language Planning and Social Change, op. cit., p. 77.
37The MOE’s cautious approach to orthographic regulation is apparently
not without reason. Official language planning institutions still
suffer from their past sins. Bitter reminiscences about the
government’s oppression of local languages before the 1980s now
clearly undermine what Cooper calls “the coercive power of the state
to enforce language-planning decisions”46. In other words, the
governmental authority of the MOE and its NLC is in fact
counterproductive when it comes to acceptance in Taiyu circles.

38
Top of pageNotes1 Shuanfan Huang, Yuyan, shehui yu zuqun yishi: Taiwan
yuyan shehuixue de yanjiu (Language, society and ethnic identity: A
sociolinguistic study on Taiwan), Taipei, Crane, 1993.
2 Paul Jen-kuei Li, “Formosan Languages: The State of the Art”, in
David Blundell (ed.), Austronesian Taiwan: Linguistics, History,
Ethnology, Prehistory, Berkeley, Taipei, Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of
Anthropology, Shung Ye Museum of Formosan Aborigines, 2000, pp. 45-67.
3 China Handbook 1951, Taipei, China Publishing Co., 1951.
4 Taiwan Yearbook 2003, online at
http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5-gp/yearbook/chpt02.htm,
accessed June 10th 2004.
5 Karl-Eugen Feifel, Language Attitudes in Taiwan: A Social Evaluation
of Language in Social Change, Taipei, Crane, 1994, p. 72.
6 Robert L. Cheng, “Language Unification in Taiwan: Present and
Future”, in Murray A. Rubinstein (ed.), The Other Taiwan: 1945 to the
Present, Armonk, Sharpe, p. 361.
7 Feifel, Language Attitudes in Taiwan, op. cit., p. 72.
8 Huang, Yuyan, shehui yu zuqun yishi, op. cit., p. 119.
9 Marinus E. Van den Berg, Language Planning and Language Use in
Taiwan: A Study of Language Choice Behavior in Public Settings,
Taipei, Crane, 1986, p. 184.
10 Huang, Yuyan, shehui yu zuqun yishi, op. cit., p. 146
11 Ibid.
12 Yang Chaur-shiang, “National Education Develop­ment and Reform for
the New Millennium”, 1999, online at
http://www.edu.tw/minister/case/report4.htm, accessed April 2nd 2002.
13 Ministry of Education (MOE), “Explanation Why the ‘Language
Equality Law’ Will Be Drafted by the Council for Cultural Affairs”,
2004, online at http://www.edu.tw, accessed June 10th 2004.
14 Robert L. Cooper, Language Planning and Social Change, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 183.
15 A-chin Hsiau, Contemporary Taiwanese Cultural Nationalism, London,
Routledge, 2000, p. 74.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid, p. 137.
18 “Shijie Taiwan Muyu Lianmeng” (Global Coalition for Taiwanese
Languages), 2004, online at http://203.64.42.21/TG/BGLB, accessed June
10th 2004.
19 For details, see Henning Klöter, Written Taiwanese, Ph.D.
dissertation, Leiden University, 2003.
20 Hsiau, Contemporary Taiwanese Cultural Nationalism, op. cit., p.
136; Lin Yangmin, Taiyu wenxue yundongshi lun (The History of the
Taiyu Literature Movement), Taipei, Qianwei, 1996, p. 19f.
21 For a more comprehensive introduction to recent Taiyu literature,
refer to Zhang Chunhuang et al., Tai-gi bun-hak kai-lun (An
Introduction to Taiyu literature), Taipei, Qianwei, 2001.
22 For example, Dong Zhongsi, Taiwan Minnanyu cidian (A Dictionary of
Southern Min of Taiwan), Taipei, Wu Nan Tushu Chuban, 2001; Qiu Wenxi
and Chen Xianguo, Shiyong huayu taiyu duizhao dian (A Practical
Comparative Mandarin-Taiwanese Dictionary), Taipei, Zhangshu, 1996;
Shiyong Taiwan yandian (A Practical Dictionary of Taiwanese Sayings),
Taipei, Zhangshu, 1999; Gô Kok-An, Taiyu siyong hanzi ziyuan / The
Origins of Hanji Usage in Taiwanese: The Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
for Writing Taiwanese, Taipei, privately published, 1998; Wu Shouli,
Zonghe Taiwan Minnanyu jiben zidian chugao (A First Draft of a Basic
Dictionary for the Southern Min Dialect of Taiwan), Taipei, Wen Shi
Zhe, 1987; Guo–Tai duizhao huoyong cidian: cixing fenxi, xiang zhu Xia
Zhang Quan yin (shang, xia ce) (A Comparative Mandarin-Taiwanese
Dictionary For Practical Use, With Detailed Annotations of Xiamen,
Zhangzhou, and Quanzhou Sounds), 2 Vols., Taipei, Yuanliu, 2000.
23 Klöter, Written Taiwanese, op. cit., p. 214ff.
24 Jacob Landau and Barbara Kellner-Heinkele, Politics of Language in
the Ex-Soviet Muslim States: Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan, Ann Arbor, University of
Michigan Press, 2000.
25 Hsiau, Contemporary Taiwanese Cultural Nationalism, op. cit., p. 139.
26 For example, in NLC, “Xiangtu yuyan jiaoxue xiankuang yu weilai
yuwen jiaoxue zhi fazhan” (The Present Situation of Local Language
Education and the Future Development of Language Teaching), Yuwen
jianxun / Language Education Newsletter 3 (May), 2000, online at
http://www.edu.tw/mandr/ publish/jian/03/p1.htm, accessed April 2nd
2002; DEJ, “How should the Ministry of Education implement local
language education?”, 2001, online at http://teach.eje.edu.tw,
accessed June 28th 2001.
27 MOE, “Jiaoyubu xinwen gao: Minnanyu, Kejiayu zhiyuan jiaoxue
renyuan jiange gongzuo jijiang banli” (MOE News Release: Assessments
of Personnel Assisting the Teaching of Southern Min and Hakka About to
Take Place), 2002, online at
http://www.edu.tw/secretary/importance/901220-2.htm, accessed April
2nd 2002.
28 MOE, “Jiaoyubu xinwen gao: Jiaoyubu gongbu xiangtu yuyan jiaoxue
zhiyuan renyuan jiange bishi, koushi shijian ji tixing” (MOE News
Release: MOE Announces Time and Question Types for Written and Oral
Tests for Personnel Assisting the Teaching of Local Languages), 2002,
online at http://teach.eje.edu.tw/data/
sun/20022251056/910222.htm?paperid=2945, accessed April 2nd 2002.
29 NLC, Minnanyu zihui (yi) (A Lexicon of Southern Min, Part I), Taipei, 1998.
30 NLC, Fangyin fuhao xitong (System of Phonetic Symbols for
Dialects), 1998, online at http://www.edu.tw/mandr/bbs/1-4-7.htm,
accessed February 2nd 2003; Minnanyu zihui (er) (A Lexicon of Southern
Min, Part II), Taipei, 1999.
31 NLC, “Guojia yuwen ziliaoku jiangou jihua” (The Plan to Set Up a
Database for National Languages), 2001, online at
http://www.edu.tw/mandr/business/kuhdbf.htm, accessed April 2nd 2002.
32 NLC, Minnanyu zihui (yi), op. cit., p. 1.
33 NLC, “Min Ke yu zhuyin fuhao zhuan’an yanjiu” (Special Aspects of
the Research Into Phonetic Symbols for Southern Min and Hakka), 2000,
online at http://www.edu.tw/mandr/news/xtxj.htm, accessed April 2nd
2002.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid.
36 Dong Zhongsi, “Guanyu ‘Taiwan yuyin yinbiao fang’an’” [On ‘TLPA’],
in Dong Zhongsi (ed.), ‘Taiwan Minnanyu gailun’ jiangshou ziliao
huibian (A Compilation of Teaching Materials for “An Introduction to
the Southern Min Language of Taiwan”), Taipei, Taiwan yuwen xuehui,
1996, pp. 27-69.
37 For example, Dong, Taiwan Minnanyu cidian, op. cit.; Qiu Wenxi and
Chen Xianguo, Shiyong huayu taiyu duizhao dian, shiyong Taiwan
yandian, op. cit.
38 NLC, “Guojia yuwen ziliaoku jiangou jihua”, op. cit.
39 Ibid.
40 For an overview, see Klöter, Written Taiwanese, op. cit.
41 Harald Haarmann, “Language Planning in the Light of a General
Theory of Language: A Methodological Framework”, International Journal
of the Sociology of Language, No. 86, 1990, p. 106ff.
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid.
44 Karl Erland Gadelii, Language Planning: Theory and Practice.
Evaluation of Language Planning Cases Worldwide, Paris, Unesco, 1999,
p. 24.
45 Shuanfan Huang, “Language, Identity and Conflict: A Taiwanese
Study”, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, No. 143,
2000, pp. 139-149.
46 Cooper, Language Planning and Social Change, op. cit., p. 77.
References

Electronic reference
Henning Klöter, « Language Policy in the KMT and DPP eras », China
perpectives [Online], 56 | 2004, Online since 29 December 2008,
connection on 12 July 2010. URL :
http://chinaperspectives.revues.org/442
AuthorHenning Klöter

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents.
Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal,
and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message.
 A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman,
Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************

_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list