Much A do About Pinyin

Driving along Jenai Road on Taipei's east side, you'd better hope you know the streets by heart, because the signs in some places seem designed for confusion. As you near the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall, the cross street is identified on one sign as Kwangfu, while another sign just across the street identifies it as Guangfu.

Debate rages

Turn left and head north. Soon you'll come to a major east-west artery called "Chunghsiao East Road." That's how it's identified on the street signs along Section 4, anyway. Turn right, travel a few hundred meters to Section 5, and you will find that someone else prefers to spell it "ZhongSiao." Such inconsistencies abound in Taipei. This may not be a problem for the locals, who are more likely to read the Chinese characters, but for foreigners who haven't studied Chinese, it's a major headache.

It all stems from the fact that several different romanization systems are used in Taiwan, including Mandarin Phonetic Symbols II (MPS II), Wade-Giles, an old postal system, and Tongyong Pinyin, which was first introduced only two years ago. There are about eight or nine systems in all, and it isn't just foreigners who have problems. For the postal service, which must handle mail from all over the world, the issue of standardization is a serious one, and it involves more than just the spelling of place names and streets. A single standard is needed in order to spell names on passports, and to establish official English names for government and private-sector organizations.

To clear up the confusion, the Executive Yuan instructed all agencies of the ROC central government to use MPS II, which had been put forward by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in 1986 as the nation's official romanization system. But this decision carried no compulsory authority, and Wade-Giles has remained a de facto standard for many government agencies at both the central and local levels. MPS II has been roundly criticized for being difficult to learn, and by 1986 mainland China's Hanyu Pinyin had already caught on throughout most of the international community. MPS II never really took root in Taiwan, and it had virtually no chance of being accepted abroad.

Why all the confusion?

Although romanization remains a matter of personal preference in Taiwan, the trend toward a globalized, information-based society is creating a growing need for a unified standard. In response, the Cabinet decided in July 1999 to adopt Hanyu Pinyin as Taiwan's official romanization system, but over a year passed without an official announcement, then last year it instructed the MOE to study the issue once more. The MOE's Mandarin Promotion Council eventually passed a resolution recommending Tongyong Pinyin, thus igniting a controversy that rages unabated today.

Wu Sangui all over again?

The Taipei City Government was the first to come out in opposition to the recommendation for Tongyong Pinyin, stating that since Hanyu Pinyin has become the de facto international standard, Taiwan ought to fall in line in order to facilitate communications, and to become more international. Many proponents of Hanyu Pinyin argue that romanized street names are for the benefit of foreigners and that it is only logical to use the romanization that is most widely accepted around the world.

This stance is widely supported by foreigners, including Robert Taylor, a native of Britain who has worked as a translator in Taiwan for more than a decade. He acknowledges, on the one hand, that Hanyu Pinyin's use of "q" and "x" is highly counter-intuitive for speakers of English, since they represent morphemes that sound to the uninitiated English speaker more like "ch" and "sh." Nevertheless, argues Taylor, the important thing for foreigners is that in Hanyu Pinyin, each morpheme is represented by only a single letter, and each letter only represents a single morpheme. The most important thing is that one can tell from the romanization how the Chinese is pronounced. It doesn't matter what morpheme "x" is used to represent. Says Taylor, "Since a perfectly well conceived romanization system already exists and is studied by most foreigners, why should Taiwan make up another one?"

Alexander Tsverianishvili, a Russian translator, holds a different view. He argues that there is no reason why Taiwan cannot have its own system, and that there is no need for Taiwan to follow mainland China's lead. He notes, "There are some letters in Hanyu Pinyin that are difficult to pronounce." What is more, many of the foreigners who support Hanyu Pinyin have studied Chinese, but a romanization system is needed that can easily be pronounced by people who are completely unfamiliar with the language. Although the Wade-Giles system, which has been widely used in Taiwan for many years, has taken a thorough beating in the current debate, it remains the preferred choice for Tsverianishvili, who says, "I think Wade-Giles works very well, and it's already used now for the names of places, people, and organizations in Taiwan. Why don't they just stick with it?"

This opinion is supported by Hung Wei-yuan, a professor of Chinese at Yuan-Ze University, who notes that Wade-Giles is used by many libraries overseas. "Wade-Giles has a long tradition behind it. Why should we just throw it all out?" He also sees the issue as part and parcel of the nation's policy on language, and argues that we should not regard romanization systems as nothing more than a tool.

Hung is quick to acknowledge that it makes sense to study Hanyu Pinyin, inasmuch as this system is widely accepted throughout the world. We all have a right to our personal preferences, says Hung. But he goes on to ask: "Why should we have to adopt the PRC system as our national standard?" Noting that the developers of Tongyong Pinyin describe their system as compatible with Hanyu Pinyin yet different from it, he adds with a slight note of derision, "It reminds me of Wu Sangui inviting the Manchus in through the Great Wall-they're getting themselves pinned in a corner and snuffing out all the other romanization systems in the process."

Can one suit all?

Researchers actually pointed out years ago that it would be extremely difficult to settle on a standard romanization system for Chinese. Apart from the requirement for supporting information systems, it must also be useful for foreigners studying Chinese and for instructing elementary school students in their native language. Academia Sinica President Lee Yuan-tseh has stated that the development of a single romanization system that is highly compatible with Hanyu Pinyin and capable of meeting everyone's needs would bring many benefits-children would only need to learn one system, Taiwan's software industry would receive a boost in its efforts to go international, and the system could also be used by elementary school students to learn their mother tongue.

According to Yu Bor-chuan, chief architect of Tongyong Pinyin, his system is basically just a modified version of Hanyu Pinyin, with such defects as "x" and "q" removed. Says Yu, "The systems only differ by 15%. Once you've learned Tongyong Pinyin, you pretty much know Hanyu Pinyin."

In order to promote better understanding among the different ethnic groups living in Taiwan, some of Yu's other modifications of Hanyu Pinyin are intended to make it suitable for the romanization of Hakka and Taiwanese. "We've tried to develop a single system that is easy to understand for foreigners who use Hanyu Pinyin, and can also be used to teach Mandarin, Taiwanese, and Hakka to elementary students."

Yu's approach has received a certain amount of support from groups that promote Taiwanese and Hakka.

Hsu Chao-chuan, a teacher at Hu Shih Elementary School, used Tongyong Pinyin to translate Le Petit Prince into Hakka. And Tan Hong-hui, head of the Lee Giong-chiu Taiwanese Language Foundation, describes the debate over Tongyong Pinyin and Hanyu Pinyin as "an effort to decide which rotten apple is preferable." Tan's primary concern is that an inappropriate choice of a standard romanization system could have an adverse impact on future efforts to teach Taiwanese to school children. Hanyu Pinyin is based strictly on Mandarin, and can't be used to represent some of the sounds in Taiwanese. "But at least they've taken Taiwanese pronunciation into account in devising Tongyong Pinyin," says Tan.

But can any single romanization system adequately represent the sounds in each of the three main Chinese dialects spoken in Taiwan?

Ho Dah-an, director of the Academia Sinica's Institute of Linguistics (Preparatory Office), and Yeh Teh-ming, a professor at the Institute of Chinese as a Second Language at National Taiwan Normal University, argue that every language is an independent linguistic system, and that "the best thing is for every language to have its own writing system, so that they don't interfere with each other." According to Tsao Feng-fu, a linguistic scholar and dean of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at National Tsing Hua University, "It would be ideal to have a single romanization system for all the different dialects of Chinese, but there are difficulties involved. The best you can possibly achieve is a high degree of compatibility."

Think globally? Or act locally?

There are many different aspects to the pinyin debate, including the question of internal logic and consistency, but in the public mind the entire argument has been simplified into a choice between international communication and preservation of local culture. More recently, the debate has even become entangled with the issue of Taiwan independence versus unification; Tongyong Pinyin advocates are associated by some with the independence movement, while in this same context Hanyu Pinyin supporters have been tagged with the unification label.

Those who favor Hanyu Pinyin point primarily to the fact that it is the de facto international standard, and charge that those pushing for any other system are simply motivated by political ideology. Those in the opposing camp argue, however, that language is more than just a tool for communication; it is also laden with feelings and a sense of identity, and these factors must be taken into consideration. What is more, they say, a language need not be a monolithic entity. The Mandarin of Beijing is different from the Mandarin of Taipei, and a romanization system that reflects the unique characteristics of Chinese as spoken in Taiwan ought to be seen as a very good thing in today's society, where the international community places so much importance on cultural diversity.

In response to those who say that Tongyong Pinyin supporters only object to Hanyu Pinyin because they are "afraid of playing into Beijing's hands on the issue of unification," Yu Bor-chuan states that language carries with it a sense of identity and therefore cannot be considered in isolation from politics: "Regardless of whether Taiwan opts for independence or unification, though, Taiwan can certainly have its own preferences."

In the opinion of Sun Ta-chuan, an associate professor of philosophy at Soochow University and former vice chairman of the Council of Aboriginal Affairs, ideology is an unavoidable aspect of all human affairs. Says Sun, "The important thing is not to try and force your ideology on everybody else." He further adds that we could also consider simply adopting whichever system is used by the greatest number of people, and with all the people in mainland China using Hanyu Pinyin, wouldn't that mean we should do away with Mandarin Phonetic Symbols as well? If Tongyong Pinyin can be used to represent all of Hakka and 80% of Taiwanese, says Sun, "Then it's a good thing. But Taiwan would have to make certain sacrifices to achieve such a thing, and we'll just have to see whether everybody is willing to bite the bullet."

Hsu Wen-lian, a research fellow at Academia Sinica's Institute of Information Science, is opposed to the adoption of Tongyong Pinyin on practical grounds: "Why should we expend so much time and energy on a romanization system that the international community isn't going to accept? Tongyong Pinyin is a brand new system. It doesn't have the benefit of tradition on its side. The choice is a very easy one."

Hsu adds that the world's most important libraries have switched to Hanyu Pinyin for cataloging Chinese-language publications. At a time when the march toward an information-based society is gaining momentum rapidly, says Hsu, Taiwan's progress would be severely hampered if we chose a different romanization system. Asks Hsu, "Is it really worth it?"

What to do?

The interesting thing about the pinyin debate is that Hanyu Pinyin has clearly become the international standard. The more a system differs from Hanyu Pinyin, the less "international" that system is. Even the promoters of Tongyong Pinyin accept this basic premise, which is why, when enumerating the advantages of their system, they argue that "it is also very international" because "it isn't very different from Hanyu Pinyin."

Apart from corroborating the position of Hanyu Pinyin as the international standard, this argument brings us face-to-face with some important questions: What must Taiwan do to make itself more international? What are the practical consequences if we don't use Hanyu Pinyin? Would it hamper the flow of information? If we adopt Hanyu Pinyin as the standard, would it erode the uniqueness of Minnan and Hakka language and culture, since it cannot be used to represent all the sounds in those languages? Is it even possible to devise a single romanization system to represent the sounds of all the languages one hears spoken in Taiwan, including Taiwanese, Hakka, accents from all over mainland China, and the languages of over ten indigenous tribes? From a cultural perspective, if the widely accepted Wade-Giles is sufficient to draw a distinction between Taiwan and mainland China, then why stop using it? Is the problem with Wade-Giles also related to the issue of internationalization?

Until the controversy is settled, it looks like each of us will just have to mind our P's and Q's as we see fit. What's your preference?