Romanization must strike a balance
Hwang Hsuan-fan, Chiang Wen-yu, Lo Seo-gim and Cheng Liang-wei
On April 6 last year, the Ministry of Education sponsored a national
conference in Taipei on Mandarin Romanization systems. Four competing
systems were presented for deliberations at the conference: the
Wade Giles (WG) System («Â§´º¿|¡), Mandarin Phonetic
Symbols II (MPS-II) (ª`-µ?G|¡), China Hanyu Pinyin
(º~»y«÷-µ) and Taiwan Tongyong Pinyin (3q¥Î«÷-µ).
Of these, the Wade Giles system is the most traditional and, until
very recently, the most widely used. But it has now lost its appeal
largely because a total of 136 syllables require additional phonetic
signs or diacritic marks, making it a fairly cumbersome system for
printing and typing. As a consequence, a consensus emerged at the
conference that the WG system should be rescinded from the list
of potential systems for future deliberations.
The remaining three systems represent three different models of
thinking. What underlines MPS-II is the credo that Taiwan should
say no to whatever system China comes up with; adoption of the Hanyu
Pinyin system, on the other hand, represents a contrary belief that
there is little rational basis for going against a system that is
already enjoying international currency. Finally, Taiwan Tongyong
Pinyin was developed to achieve an optimal balance between internalization
and national autonomy.
On June 21, the Ministry of Education, having decided to dump the
MPS-II, proposed a still-newer system -- Guoyu Pinyin (°ê»y«÷-µ).
On July 6, the Cabinet vetoed Guoyu Pinyin and introduced the concept
of an Improved Modular System (IMS) for Mandarin Romanization (¼Ò2Õ|¡§ï¨}º~»y«÷-µ).
Both Guoyu Pinyin and IMS can also be understood as an attempt to
achieve an appropriate mix of internalization and national autonomy.
This means that the avowed goal implicit in Taiwan Tongyong Pinyin
was beginning to be embraced by the central government.
Six county commissioners and a dozen or so legislators from both
sides of the aisle soon endorsed a proposal for the Executive Yuan
to strive for a Romanization system which embodies the idea of internalization
and national autonomy.
On July 26, the government, in a surprise move, announced the use
of China's Hanyu Pinyin System for the Romanization of street names
throughout the island, a move seen by many as a blatant disregard
of the fact that the system is currently used in Beijing and could
therefore suggest to the world that Taiwan is part of PRC.
Thereupon, 14 county commissioners and a number of prominent educators
and linguists openly voiced strong opposition to the policy change,
including Paul Jen-Kuei Lee (§õ?¬Ñ), director
of the Institute of Linguistics at Academia Sinica; Robert Cheng
(¾G¨}°¶), professor of East Asian Languages and
Literatures at University of Hawaii; Chen Chi-nan(3¯¨ä«n),
a former member of the Committee on Educational Reform and Dean
of College of Humanistics and Social Sciences at National Chiaotung
University; and Lo Lung-cheng (Ã1¶©¿),
chairman of the ROC Educational Reform Association.
On Sept. 16, legislator Weng Chin-chu (¯Îª÷¯])
called on Deputy Premier of the Executive Yuan Liu Chao-hsuan (¼B¥ü¥È),
and both agreed, in a joint announcement, that a Mandarin Romanization
system being worked on for Taiwan should not be tied to China's
Hanyu Pinyin.
Since the concept of IMS is nearly equivalent to that which underlies
Tongyong Pinyin, it behooved us to consider in some detail the differences
between Guoyu Pinyin and Taiwan Tongyong Pinyin. Basically, they
boil down to two issues: One has to do with the way the zero-initial
is handled. In Tongyong Pinyin, one single value is applied to all
of the syllables with the same zero-initial. Thus the morpheme "¯Î"
(£1£¶) is represented as "wong" and "ªF
" (£x£1£¶), which contains the same syllable
£1£¶, is represented as "dong." In Guoyu Pinyin,
¯Î is "weng," whereas "ªF"
is "dong." While there is no denying of a phonological basis for
the way these and other syllables are represented in Guoyu Pinyin,
the Tongyong Pinyin System has the virtue of being more consistent
in this regard. Furthermore, "ong," rather than "eng" is also a
closer approximation to the phonetic value of the morphemes in the
dialects spoken in Taiwan.
A second difference between Guoyu Pinyin and Tongyong Pinyin pertains
to the issue of dentals and palatals.In Guoyu Pinyin, "£?£¥£|"
and "£¡£¢££" are in complementary distribution,
and the symbols used are j, ch, sh respectively. In Tongyong Pinyin
"£¨£©£ª" and "£¡£¢££" are
in complementary distribution and the symbols used are z,c, s respectively.
While these are equally plausible phonemic analyses, Tongyong Pinyin
would argue that palatalization from "£¨£©£ª
to£¡£¢££" is much more widely observed across
languages of the world; while the "£?£¥£|" series,
in relation to "£¨£©£ª," is generally recognized
as an unnatural class of sounds and should therefore be treated
as such by giving them separate representation symbols, as is done
in Tongyong Pinyin. The letter "j" used in Guoyu Pinyin for "£?,"
an inheritance from the MPS-II era, would be in direct conflict
with Hanyu Pinyin where it is used to represent "£¡"
instead. In Guoyu Pinyin, the syllable £?£µ is
"jang," and the syllable £¡£¸£µ is "jiang," but
their phonetic differences, so represented, would be nearly indistinguishable
to the normal ear. It would be desirable to have a system of Romanization
that differentiates them in a way that is more indicative of the
actual phonetic values. The representations "zhang" and "ziang"
seem clearly to have the desired effect.
It is important to note that Tongyong Pinyin has joined hands with
inventors of the Natural Input Method (|ÛµM¿é?Jªk)
in developing an input software program whereby computer users can,
under the same mode, key in Chinese characters using either Tongyong
Pinyin or Hanyu Pinyin, resolving in one stroke any possible conflicts
between the two systems and enhancing the competitive edge of Tongyong
Pinyin in either character input or pedagogical effectiveness. The
software, called National Input Method 99, is being donated to schools
at all levels, city and county governments, and educational institutions.
To sum up briefly, we believe that any Mandarin Romanization system
developed for Taiwan should ideally strive for a principled balance
between internalization and national autonomy as suggested above
and that the Taiwan system should, therefore, contain distinctive
features that sets it apart from China's Hanyu Pinyin. It is our
hope, however, that the two systems may learn to accommodate each
other in a productive symbiosis.
Hwang Hsuan-fan is director of the Graduate Institute of Linguistics
at National Taiwan University; Chiang Wen-yu is associate professor
of the Graduate Institute of Linguistics at National Taiwan University;
Lo Seo-gim is a professor in the department of Chinese at National
Changhua University of Education; and Robert Liang-wei Cheng is
a professor in the department of East Asian languages and literatures
at University of Hawaii in Manoa.
This story has been viewed 687 times.
Printer-friendly Version
Back to Front
Page
|