From: chou@cs.washington.edu (Pai Hsiang Chou)
Subject: Re: Language
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 00:42:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.225711.343@engage.pko.dec.com> li@sicvax.enet.dec.com (Tong-Kang Li) writes:
>I usually speak Mandarin with my Chinese/Taiwanese friends even in the places
>where people mostly are Americans but I will switch to English if there
>is one American in our conversation group because I understand English is
>common language in here and this American can not speak Mandarin but not
>because I feel Mandarin "less than legitimate, useless, shameful, or ugly
>or need to be hidden in my home or little group". On the contrary, I am glad
>I can speak one more language. 


In the U.S., you are a newcomer/immigrant/visitor.

Your analogy doesn't work because you got the roles reversed.
To correctly apply your analogy, it's like forcing the majority
of Americans to speak Mandarin for the reason that the world
needs a common language (and 1 billion Chinese speak it)
and allow English speaking only in their own homes.


In Taiwan, H"ol"o, Hakka, and aboriginal people have lived
there for hundreds of years.  Mandarin is a newcomer.
Yet it is killing all these languages.  Why?

During the 50 years of Japanese rule, Taiwanese had 20 years
of bilingual education, and the Japanese also published
a H"ol"o dictionary using kana to mark pronunciation.
And Japanese happened to be called KokuGo (same characters
as GuoYu, a term Chinese borrowed from the Japanese).
Bilingual education, dictionary/official phonetic system
are things that have been implemented over half a century
ago, so don't tell me they can't be done.  But tell me why
they are not done?


>Certainly, Switzerland is a good example of multi-language systems. But much
>more countries adopted one common-langauge policy (with coexistence of
>different languages). U.S., Singapore, Philipine ..... Their situations are
>similar to us. Certainly, if multi-language systems is the only answer,
>that is fine, but almost everyone in Taiwan can speak common language now
>why do we have to abolish this policy and push backwards to the old times? 
-------------------------------------------********************************


What do you mean push backwards?  Are you implying that
these non-Mandarin mothertongues are inferior languages
than Mandarin?  What makes them backwards?  Or are you
saying the multilingual policy is backwards?

Does pride mean anything to you?  Does pride means backward?
Why do so many hard working Taiwanese citizens have to
feel inferior about their mothertongues (and hence themselves),
while someone in Beijing (not even Taiwanese!) enjoys a superior
image for speaking his/her own language?

Have you read any Taiwanese H"ol"o literature?  Or do you
know there are such things?  What about literature from
Japanese occupation era?  From post WWII era?
This policy has detached Taiwanese from their identity
and imposes an artificial one.
By imposing the different language on a people you wipe
out their culture.


>Also, H"ol"o, Mandarin, Hakka, and Taiwanese aboriginals are just four out 
>of hundred different languages. If some members of our legislator decide to 
>speak Shanghai, cantonese at legislator, tell me how to handle this?


Shanghainese, Cantonese, etc are not Taiwanese mothertongues.
At least not yet.  If one day they should become one,
then a significant number of people will understand them.
But given today's situation, this could only mean that they
refuse to identify with Taiwan.  And just how do they get
elected to the legislative positions in the first place if
they can't talk to Taiwanese voters?


Pai
Xref: sparky soc.culture.taiwan:12434 soc.culture.korean:3965