EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF TAIWAN STUDIES CONFERENCE
School of Oriental and African Studies (London), 17-18 April 2004
Written Taiwanese: a complementary approach
(draft only, do not cite without permission of the author)
Henning Klöter
Ruhr-Universität Bochum (Germany)
Research Unit on Taiwanese Culture and Literature
[email protected]
0. Introduction
Written sources occupy a modest position within modern linguistic description. The
notion that “speech is central and writing is peripheral” (Sampson 1985: 13) is a
broadly accepted maxim in linguistic fieldwork. In the field of Chinese dialectology,
written sources likewise lead a shadowy existence. This is due not only to the primacy
of speech in linguistic methodology. Because it is commonly held that the Chinese
script represents a supradialectal standard, students of Chinese writing have paid
relatively little attention to sources in local Chinese languages.
Writing is more than a graphic representation of speech. The cultural and social
contexts in which languages are written differ from those of unwritten languages.
Writing a hitherto unwritten language presupposes new practical applications and an
enhanced prestige of the language to be written. Changes in the status of a language
typically occur within socio-political movements and cultural reorientation. Written
languages are thus associated with symbolic values hardly ever ascribed to unwritten
languages. Symbolic values associated with writing have also attracted much interest
from anthropologists, historians, and social scientists. Written Taiwanese1, notably in
studies by Fix (1993) and Hsiau (2000), has so far been analyzed chiefly as a social
and historical phenomenon embodying Taiwan’s quest for a national identity.
1
In Taiwan, Southern Min dialects are now collectively referred to as Taiyu, lit. ‘the language(s) of
Taiwan, Taiwanese’. Although Taiyu is most widely used, the term has also been criticized as it
suggests that Southern Min is the only local language of Taiwan, ignoring Hakka and Formosan
languages (Hsiau 2000: 140ff.). Other terms include Hoklo (also spelled Holo; the etymology of these
terms is uncertain), Taiwanese Min, and Taiwanese Hokkien. For stylistic reasons it seems reasonable
to prefer the benefits of the short 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.
2
I treat written Taiwanese both as a codification of the Taiwanese language and as a
socio-political phenomenon. The linguistic description focuses on the interrelation
between graphic units and Taiwanese speech. For the sake of brevity, I confine this
aspect to a an overview of contemporary sources in written Taiwanese in the first
section of this paper, followed by an inventory of employed scripts in section 2. For a
linguistic analysis of scripts, I refer to Klöter (2003). In section 3, I analyze the
functional distribution of Taiwanese scripts from a sociolinguistic viewpoint. Finally,
in section 4, I shortly discuss ideological roots of written Taiwanese.
1. Contemporary sources of written Taiwanese
1.1 Historical background
Since the change of power from the Japanese colonial government to KMT rule in
1945, the official treatment of local Taiwanese languages has shifted from systematic
oppression to toleration and, since the 1990s, modest inclusion in the school
curriculum.
As Robert Cheng points out, after the withdrawal of the nationalist troops to
Taiwan in 1949, 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” (1994: 361). Following 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” (1994: 72). In 1976, new laws
prohibited the use of local languages in the media (Shuanfan Huang 1993: 119).
Not surprisingly, the rigorous promotion of Mandarin impeded debates on written
Taiwanese. As A-chin Hsiau points out, “postwar debates on literature […] barely
addressed the linguistic issue, because the use of Mandarin was taken for granted”
(2000: 74). 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” (p. 47).
3
In the 1970s, Taiwan’s political landscape changed drastically. Following its
gradual international isolation, the island entered a period of political liberalization
and democratization. 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. It 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. The Kaohsiung Incident (or “Meilidao Incident” Meilidao shibian) was an
anti-government demonstration held on Human Rights Day (December 10) in 1979.
In the aftermath of the protest, leading members of the opposition were sentenced to
long prison terms. For an introduction to the historical events and the leading
opposition politicians involved in the incident, see Geoffroy (1997: 209-216). In
Hsiau’s words, after the incident “the history of Taiwanese literature was reinterpreted
as a history of searching for a distinct Taiwanese national identity” (Hsiau 2000: 113).
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 governmentcontrolled 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. Meanwhile, Taiwanese has become
a fully accepted language of the legislature and the dominant language in electoral
campaigns.
In 1993, the Interior Ministry conceded that the repressive language policy of the
past had been a mistake (Shuanfan Huang 2000: 146). Since then, the “assimilationist
[language] policy has been replaced with strong support for multiculturalism and
official respect for, even nurturing of, aboriginal languages and other minority
languages” (ibid.). Taiwan-centered political reforms were intensified after the victory
of the independence-oriented Democratic Progressive Party in the presidential
elections of 1996. In 2003, the DPP government announced a new school curriculum
aiming to reinforce the study of local languages, including Taiyu, Hakka, and
aboriginal languages (Yun-ping Chang 2003).
4
1.2 Taiyu literature
First attempts to standardize written Taiwanese were made during the Japanese
period. These attempts never developed beyond an initial stage. One rudimental
blueprint for a Taiwanese orthography evolved out of the debate of a group of young
intellectuals associated with the magazine Nanyin ‘Sounds of the South’. The most
active contributors of this group were Huang Shihui (1900-?) and Guo Qiusheng
(1904-1980). The ideological significance of the movement is generally
acknowledged. Most studies agree that the debate on language and writing marks an
important ideological turning point in Taiwan’s colonial history (e.g. Fix 1993: 149).
On the other hand, it is emphasized that the proponents of the movement did not reach
their goal of creating a literature in the Taiwanese vernacular. This failure is attributed
to their inability to agree on a fully-fledged Taiwanese orthography (Fix 1993: 180f.,
Hsiau 2000: 45). It can also be argued, however, that the participants had shown a
clear understanding that the creation of orthography needed a broader organizational
framework than Nanyin could provide. Due to political circumstances, these
suggestions were never realized.
The use of Taiwan-centered literary images and the Taiwanese language resurfaced
in the nativist literature movement of the 1970s. Literary experimentation in
Taiwanese was initiated by Lin Zongyuan who in turn inspired the younger poet
Xiang Yang (Hsiau 2000: 136; Lin Yangmin 1996a: 19f.). Their Taiwanese dialect
poems (fangyan shi) were an important input for the postwar debate on written
Taiwanese. 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 Nationalist government.
Today, the number of authors writing in Taiwanese has increased considerably.
Whereas pioneering collections of prose or poetry were often published at the author’s
own expense, recognized publishing houses now include various genres of dialect
literature in their programs. The Taipei-based Qianwei Chubanshe (‘Vanguard
Publishing House’) for instance, has regularly published series of Taiyu literature,
including the Taiyu wenxue congshu ‘Anthology of Taiyu literature’ (Lin Yangmin
1992, 1996b, 1997, Robert Cheng 1990a, Tan Beng-jin 1992, Dongfang Bai 1995)
and the Taiyu jingxuan wenku ‘Selected repertoire of Taiyu literature and articles’
5
(Song Zelai 1998, Lin Yangmin 1998a, b, c, Lü Xingchang 1999). The recognition of
Taiyu literature by commercial publishers, however, has not contributed to
orthographic standardization. As the author and editor of Taiyu literature Lin
Yangmin points out, publishing houses do not have internal standards for the writing
of Taiwanese. The choice of a script is left to the authors themselves.
Recognized 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 – Tai-Bun Thong-Sin ‘Taiwanese
Writing Forum’ – has been published in the United States since 1991. Among major
magazines currently published in Taiwan we find Ia-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. These journals are usually published by local literary
and language revivalist circles. According to Hsiau, twelve such organizations were
founded between 1989 and 1995. These groups “were created for the purpose of
reviving native languages, devising Hoklo [Taiyu] vernacular writing systems, and
promoting Hoklo literature” (2000: 137). For a more comprehensive introduction to
recent Taiyu literature, I refer to Zhang Chunhuang et al. (2001).
1.3 Taiwanese lexicography
For decades, the development of Taiwanese lexicography was impeded by legal
restrictions on local languages. The most prominent example is the Dictionary of
Southern Min by the Canadian Presbyterian missionary Bernard L.M. Embree (1984
[1973]). The publication of the dictionary was prohibited, as the government had
strong objections to its use of an alphabetical orthography. Interestingly, restrictions
against using romanized transcriptions were directed against Taiyu and Hakka only,
and not against Mandarin (Feifel 1994: 73). In view of Mandarin-centered language
policies, we may assume that the local languages themselves were the real target of
the ban, and not specifically their written representation in the Roman alphabet. Still,
further research needs to reveal the extent to which official restrictions account for the
fact that major Taiyu dictionaries in the Chinese script were not published in this
period.
Once restrictions on local languages were lifted and general interest in local
languages had grown, Taiwanese lexicography developed quickly. Most Taiyu
6
dictionaries published during the 1990s use the Chinese character script. Without
exception, these works result from the private efforts of single authors, as for instance
Dong Zhongsi (2001), Qiu Wenxi and Chen Xianguo (1996, 1999), Go Kok-An
(1998a), Wu Shouli (1987, 2000), Xu Chengzhang, Yang Qingchu (1998), Zhang
Qingbo (1999).
Lacking official authorization and general acceptance, particular character
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. Exceptions are literary works published by
the lexicographers themselves, or vice versa, as for instance manifested in the literary
works of Yang Qingchu (1999a), the prose of Go Kok-An (1998b), or the dictionary
by Huang Yuanxing (1998).
1.4 Taiwanese textbooks
Official support for the cultivation of local languages initially came from county
governments. Bilingual programs were first offered in Yilan County, which started
Taiwanese courses at elementary and junior high schools in 1990. Other counties soon
followed suit. In September 2001, mother tongue education became compulsory for
all elementary school students. With the inclusion of local languages in the
curriculum, compilation of Taiwanese textbooks for obvious reasons received
increasing attention from 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 students (e.g. Ang Ui-jin, ed., 1998, Dong Zhongsi, ed., 2002, Liu
Zhengmei (n.y.), university students (e.g. Yang Qingchu 1999b), foreign learners (e.g.
Wu and Bodman 1983, Cheng et al. 1996, Maryknoll 1990-1997), adult learners and
general public (e.g. Tiun and Ong 2001, Robert Cheng et al. 1996, Wu Xiuli 1997,
Fang Nanqiang (1994, 1996).
School textbooks are typically compiled by municipal or county governments, in
cooperation with academics and local language revivalists. Textbooks jointly
compiled by groups of authors generally gain more acceptance than those published
7
by individuals. Still, 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 paper it is
sufficient to point out that textbook compilation has thus far not gone along with
orthographic standardization.
2. Scriptal diversity
2.1 Typological overview
Sources in written Taiwanese make use of a variety of scripts. Typologically, these
scripts can be divided into (a) the Chinese character script, (b) alphabetic
orthographies, (c) the use of syllabaries like Japanese kana and Mandarin phonetic
symbols, and (d) mixed scripts.
Character-based writing of Southern Min dialects has a history of more than 400
years. Early popular writing conventions can be found in printed versions of Fujianese
stage plays (e.g. the Li jing ji ‘The story of the lychee and the mirror’ of 1566), local
rhyme books (e.g. the Huiyin Miaowu [1800] and the Shiwu yin [1818], Ang
1993a, b), popular songbooks (Ong 1993), and liturgical texts (Lien 1995). Linguistic
localisms are in these sources represented with semantic and phonetic loan characters
and with dialect characters (see Klöter [2003: 41-87] for details).
Alphabetic orthographies for Taiwanese and other Southern Min dialects were
initially only used by missionaries for church-related publications. In the late 19th and
early 20th century, 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 romanization
system has considerably gained ground among local Taiyu groups not associated with
the church. This new trend has been initiated by two organizations based in the
southern port of Kaohsiung, viz. the Ko-hiong Tai-gi Lo-ma-ji Gian-sip-hoe
‘Kaohsiung Seminar for Church Romanization’, and the Tai-oan Lo-ma-ji Hiap-hoe
‘Association of Taiwanese Romanization’ The former is a rather loose, seminar-like
group established in 1996. It is supported by some 600 people, mostly local
schoolteachers, interested in the cultivation of Taiwanese and its alphabetic
8
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 priests of the Presbyterian
Church.
The first syllabary for Taiwanese was devised by language specialists of the
Japanese colonial government. This system is a modified adaptation of the Japanese
katakana syllabary (for details, see Klöter 2003: 135-151). It was used together with
Chinese characters in numerous textbooks, dictionaries, and journals. Similarly, after
1945, different adaptations of phonetic symbols for Mandarin known as Guoyu zhuyin
fuhao ‘Mandarin Phonetic Symbols’ have been used as auxiliary devices to indicate
Taiwanese character readings in dictionaries and teaching manuals.
The fourth common way of rendering Taiwanese expressions is the combination of
Chinese characters with romanized transcriptions. Since the 1970s, this amalgam of
two different writing systems has chiefly been developed and promoted by the
Hawaii-based scholar Robert L. Cheng (Zheng Liangwei). In his numerous
publications, Cheng has developed a multi-layered blueprint for this script and has
proposed specific political measures for its implementation. For a synopsis of Cheng’s
publications, I refer to Buchler (2002). The principle of interspersing characters with
romanized forms has meanwhile gained a high degree of acceptance among other
Taiyu writers. Thus far, however, no commonly accepted way of applying this
principle has emerged. As a result, there is still a considerable degree of diversity
among different mixed scripts regarding the selected characters, the proportion of
romanized forms and the applied romanization system.
3. The functional distribution of Taiwanese scripts
The existence of different scripts leads us to the question of the functional distribution
of scripts. Petr Zima has introduced the terms DIGRAPHIA and DIORTHOGRAPHIA with
reference to the existence of two writing systems for the Hausa language. His
distinction is as follows (1974: 58):
Theoretically as well as practically, we must distinguish clearly between two
[…] situations:
(a) Either two types of written form of one language co-exist, based upon the
usage of two distinct graphical systems (scripts) by the respective language
community, or
9
(b) Two types of written form of a particular language co-exist, using the
same script, but they are based upon the usage of two distinct orthographies by
the same language community.
We shall call the former situation DIGRAPHIA and the latter DIORTHOGRAPHIA.
In the last 25 years, the term digraphia has been applied in several case studies. In
these studies, it is mainly applied to two situations, viz. (a) the co-existence of two
writing systems for the same language, (b) the change of writing systems for a
language (Grivelet 2001a: 3). In Magner’s (2001) analysis of the situation in the
former republics of Yugoslavia, co-existence of the Cyrillic and the Latin scripts and
the replacement of the former by the latter are both mentioned. Co-existence applies
to the situation in Serbia, whereas digraphia has become monographia in Croatia
(Magner 2001: 20). Comparable instances of alphabet changes are mentioned in a
recent case study on language policy in the former Soviet States Azerbayjan,
Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan (Landau and
Kellner-Heinkele 2001).
Co-existence of two scripts is also exemplified in Mongolia (Grivelet 2001b) and
in the Ashkenazic printing conventions among Eastern European Jews (Fishman
2001). The former study distinguishes the use of either the Cyrillic alphabet or the
traditional Mongolian script in different scriptal surroundings, such as billboards,
advertisements, information posters in the streets, signs for shops, postal materials,
etc. (Grivelet 2001b: 88). Fishman points to culturally determined distinctions that
account for the usage of either square or Rashi letters in Ashkenazic printing
conventions.
To which extent may the present situation in Taiwan be analyzed in terms of
digraphia, as for example suggested by Tiun (1998) and Chiung (2000)? I argue that
digraphia is applicable only to a limited extent. Most obviously, written Taiwanese
differs from the situations in the above studies in terms of the large number of
competing scripts. Furthermore, Taiwanese scripts do not co-exist in either different
scriptal environments or culturally-determined niches. Advocates of written
Taiwanese rather vie for recognition in various scriptal environments without
functional restrictions. The second application of the term digraphia suggests a shift
from one script to another. As no script has ever been well-established for the writing
of Taiwanese, this definition likewise does not apply. Modifying Zima’s terms, I
10
hence propose to describe the situation of written Taiwanese as one of POLYGRAPHIA
and POLYORTHOGRAPHIA.
4. Ideological roots of polyorthographia
The above description of written Taiwanese in terms of polygraphia and
polyorthographia does not include an explanation as to why Taiwanese has been
written with different scripts. Arguments in favor of or against particular scripts
belong largely to socio-political debates on practical needs and cultural symbolism. A
linguistic description of a script without a description of its historical background and
practical application would ignore its very raison d’être.
Sociological studies on written Taiwanese analyze 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
(2000: 139):
Comparatively speaking, contemporary attempts to establish a Hoklo [i.e.
Taiyu – H.K.] 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, 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
romanize certain Hoklo morphemes. Romanization 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.
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 Azerbayjan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan, where the
abolishment of Cyrillic writing clearly reflects a cultural trend towards derussification after the fall of the Soviet empire.
In the case of Taiwan, however, the issue is more complex. It cannot be questioned
that in the early 1930s, advocates of literature in the local Taiwanese vernacular had a
strong bias towards the Chinese motherland. However, contrary to Hsiau I argue that
11
it seems overly simplified to map the use of Chinese characters to Chinese
nationalism. As opposed to the present situation, the option of using a writing system
other than the Chinese script was not really an issue of great contention at that time.
As regards the present situation, the choice of a particular system can likewise not
serve as a basis for clear-cut distinctions between Taiwanese and Chinese nationalists.
Taiyu dictionaries, for instance, are almost exclusively based on Chinese character
writing. Despite Hsiau’s claim, we find many ardent advocates of Taiwanese
nationalism among the compilers of these dictionaries.
Instead, I argue that written Taiwanese as such epitomizes a significant cultural
revaluation of the Taiwanese language. This is arguably true of any form of written
Taiwanese, including Taiwanese written with Chinese characters. The creation of
character-based Taiwanese orthographies is after all incompatible with the widespread
conception of Chinese writing being supra-dialectal and thus by definition resistant
against localization trends. Moreover, promoting a character-based orthography of
written Taiwanese also shows a sense of sociolinguistic realism with regard to the
audience. As previous research indicates (Chiung 1999), a population with a
Mandarin/character literacy rate of more than 95 percent is more likely to accept
Taiwanese represented with an established script than alphabetic orthographies.
Conclusion
It is axiomatic that written Taiwanese has long steered a course through turbulent
social conditions. Taking that into account, I stake my basic claim that the
complexities involved in the examination of sources require a complementary
approach. Only descriptions of the ways in which various scripts render the
Taiwanese language legible enable us to approach the contents of Taiyu literature and
lexicography. On the other hand, answers to questions on the diversity of written
Taiwanese lie outside the realm of grapheme-morpheme relations. Instead, they are to
be sought in the changing ideological patterns which have emerged from Taiwan’s
tumultuous past.
12
References
Ang Ui-jin. 1992. “Riju shidai de Taiyu jiaoyu” [Taiyu education during the Japanese period].
Taiwan Fengwu 42/3, pp. 49-84.
_____. 1993a. “Huiyin Miaowu de banben ji yindu” [Editions and readings of the Huiyin
Miaowu]. Introduction to Part 1 of Minnanyu jingdian cishu huibian [An edition of
classical reference books for Southern Min]. Taipei: Wuling Chuban Youxian
Gongsi.
_____. 1993b. “Zhangzhou Shiwuyin de yuanliu yu duyin” [Origins and readings of Shiwuyin
books from Zhangzhou]. Introduction to Part 2 of Minnanyu jingdian cishu huibian
[An edition of classical reference books for Southern Min]. Taipei: Wuling Chuban
Youxian Gongsi.
_____, ed. 1998. Taiwan Minnanyu jiaocai [Textbook for Taiwanese Southern Min]. Taipei:
Kaituo Chuban Gongsi.
Buchler, Maja. 2002. Sprachplanung im Schafspelz?! Robert Cheng und die Verschriftlichung
des Taiwanesischen [Language planning in disguise?! Robert Cheng and the writing
of Taiwanese]. Bochum: Projekt Verlag.
Chang, Yun-ping. 2003. “New curriculum to stress ‘Taiwan-centered values’ “. Taipei Times
O n l i n e , 23 January 2003. Internet: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/
archives/2003/01/23/1920, 20 February 2003.
Cheng, Robert L. 1990a. Taiyu shi liu jia xuan [Selected Taiwanese poems by six poets].
Taipei: Qianwei Chubanshe.
_____. 1994. “Language unification in Taiwan: Present and future”. Rubinstein, Murray A.,
ed., (1994): The other Taiwan: 1945 to the present. Armonk: Sharpe, pp. 357-391.
_____ et al. 1996. Shenghuo Taiyu [Living Taiwanese]. Taipei: Zili Wanbao She Wenhua
Chuban Bu.
Chiung, Wi-vun Taiffalo. 1999. Language attitudes toward Taibun the written Taiwanese.
M.A. thesis. The University of Texas at Arlington.
_____. 2000. “Peh-oe-ji, a childish writing?”. Paper presented at the 6th Annual North
American Taiwan Studies Conference. Cambridge, Harvard University, 16-19 June
2000.
Dong Zhongsi. 2001. Taiwan Minnanyu cidian [A dictionary of Southern Min of Taiwan].
Taipei: Wu Nan Tushu Chuban Youxian Gongsi.
_____, ed., 2002, Guomin xiaoxue Taiwan Minnanyu, di er ce [Taiwanese for primary
schools, vol. 2]. Taipei: Guangfu Shuju.
Dongfang Bai. 1995. Nga gu nga bun [Elegant language and elegant literature]. Taipei:
Qianwei Chubanshe.
Embree, Bernard L.M. 1984 [1973]. A dictionary of Southern Min. Taipei: Taipei Language
Institute.
Fang Nanqiang. 1994. Qingsong jiang Taiyu: biaozhun xiangtu muyu xuexi fanben [Speak
Taiwanese easily: A model for studying the standard mother tongue of our
hometown]. Taipei: Kaituo Chuban Gongsi.
_____. 1996. Kuaile jiang Taiyu: biaozhun xiangtu muyu xuexi fanben [Speak Taiwanese
happily: A model for studying the standard mother tongue of our hometown]. Taipei:
Kaituo Chuban Gongsi.
Feifel, Karl-Eugen. 1994. Language attitudes in Taiwan: A social evaluation of language in
social change. Taipei: Crane.
Fishman, Joshua A. 2001. “Digraphia maintenance and loss among Eastern European Jews:
Intertextual and interlingual print conventions in Ashkenazic linguistic culture since
1800”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 150, pp. 27-41.
Fix, Douglas Lane. 1993. Taiwanese nationalism and its late colonial context. Ph.D.
dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.
Geoffroy, Claude. 1997. Le mouvement indépendantiste Taiwanais: Ses origines et son
développement depuis 1945 [The Taiwanese independence movement: Its origins and
development since 1945]. Paris, Montréal: L’Harmattan.
13
Gô Kok-An. 1998a. Taiyu siyong Hanzi ziyuan / The origins of hanji usage in Taiwanese: The
advanced learner’s dictionary for writing Taiwanese. Taipei: privately published.
_____. 1998b. Giok-lan-hue [Magnolia]. Taipei: privately published.
Grivelet, Stéphane. 2001a. “Introduction”. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language 150, pp. 1-10.
_____. 2001b. “Digraphia in Mongolia”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language
150, pp. 75-93.
Hsiau, A-chin. 2000. Contemporary Taiwanese cultural nationalism. London: Routledge.
Huang, Shuanfan. 1993. Yuyan, shehui yu zuqun yishi: Taiwan yuyan shehuixue de yanjiu
[Language, society and ethnic identity: A sociolinguistic study on Taiwan]. Taipei:
Crane.
_____. 2000. “Language, identity and conflict: A Taiwanese study”. International Journal of
the Sociology of Language 143, pp. 139-149.
Huang Yuanxing. 1998. Taiyu Huayu liangqian wubai jiao nan ju duizhao dian [ A
comparative dictionary of 2,500 difficult Taiwanese and Mandarin sentences]. Taipei:
Jiadong Taiwen Yuekan She.
Klöter, Henning. 2003. Written Taiwanese. Ph.D. dissertation. Universiteit Leiden.
Landau, Jacob and Barbara Kellner-Heinkele. 2000. Politics of language in the ex-Soviet
Muslim states: Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and
Tajikistan. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Lien, Chinfa. 1995. “Language adaptation in Taoist liturgical texts”. David Johnson, ed.,
Ritual and scripture in Chinese popular religion: Five studies. Berkeley: Institute of
East Asian Studies Publications, pp. 219-246.
Lin, Alvin. 1999. “Writing Taiwanese: The development of modern written Taiwanese”.
Sino-Platonic Papers 89. Philadelphia: Department of Asian and Middle Eastern
Studies, University of Pennsylvania.
Lin Yangmin. 1992. Sai hiong Tai-uan e hang-loo [Route to Taiwan]. Taipei: Qianwei
Chubanshe.
_____. 1996a. Taiyu wenxue yundongshi lun [The history of the Taiyu literature movement].
Taipei: Qianwei Chubanshe.
_____. 1996b. Ham chinn cio koo iann [Cold stars cast lonely shadows]. Taipei: Qianwei
Chubanshe.
_____. 1997. Koo-hiong Tai-uan e cing-kua [Love song of my hometown Taiwan]. Taipei:
Qianwei Chubanshe.
_____. 1998a. Yuyan wenhua yu minzu guojia [Linguistic culture and the democratic state].
Taipei: Qianwei Chubanshe.
_____. 1998b. Tai-gi si cit kah-ci [Sixty years of Taiyu poetry]. Taipei: Qianwei Chubanshe.
_____. 1998c. Tai-gi san-bun cit khi-ni [Twelve years of Taiyu prose]. Taipei: Qianwei
Chubanshe.
Liu Zhengmei, n.y. Minnanyu duben [A Southern Min reader]. Taizhong: Taizhong County
Government.
Lü Xingchang. 1999. Taiyu wenxue yundong lunwenji [Collected articles on Taiyu literature
movements]. Taipei: Qianwei Chubanshe.
Magner, Thomas F. 2001. “Digraphia in the territories of the Croats and Serbs”. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 150, pp. 11-26.
Maryknoll. 1990-1997. Taiwanese. Three volumes: Vol.1 (1997), Vol. 2 (1990), Vol. 3
(1993). Taizhong: Maryknoll Language Service Center.
Ong Sun-liong. 1993. “Tan Tai Min ‘gezi ce’ de chuban gaikuang” [The publication of
Taiwanese Min ballads]. Taiwan Fengwu 43/3 (1993), pp. 109-131.
Qiu Wenxi and Chen Xianguo. 1996. Shiyong Huayu Taiyu duizhao dian [A practical
comparative Mandarin - Taiwanese dictionary]. Taipei: Zhangshu Chubanshe.
_____. 1999. Shiyong Taiwan yandian [A practical dictionary of Taiwanese sayings]. Taipei:
Zhangshu Chubanshe.
Sampson, Geoffrey. 1985. Writing systems: A linguistic introduction. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
14
Song Zelai. 1998. Taiyu xiaoshuo jingxuan juan [A collection of novels in Taiwanese].
Taipei: Qianwei Chubanshe.
Tan Beng-jin. 1992. Cau-chue liu-long e Tai-uan [Search for drifting Taiwan]. Taipei:
Qianwei Chubanshe.
Tiun Hak-khiam. 1998. “Writing in two scripts: A case study of linguistic digraphia in
Taiwanese”. Written Language and Literacy 1/2 (1998), pp. 225-247.
Tiun Hok-chu and Ong Siok-tin. 2001. Tai-uan ci ABC: Tai-gi ki-choo kau-cai [The
Taiwanese alphabet: A basic course for Taiwanese]. Taipei: Taiyu Chuanbo.
Wu Shouli. 1987. Zonghe Taiwan Minnanyu jiben zidian chugao [A First Draft of a basic
dictionary for the Southern Min dialect of Taiwan]. Taipei: Wen Shi Zhe Chubanshe.
_____. 2000. 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. Two
Volumes]. Taipei: Yuanliu Da Chuban Gongsi.
Wu, Su-chu and Nicholas C. Bodman. 1983. Spoken Taiwanese. Ithaca: Spoken Language
Services.
Wu Xiuli. 1997. Shiyong Hanzi Taiyu duyin [A practical reader for the Taiwanese reading of
Chinese characters]. Taipei: Student Book.
Xu Chengzhang. 1992. Taiwan Hanyu cidian [A dictionary of Taiwanese]. Taipei: Zili
Wanbao She Wenhua Chuban Bu.
Yang Qingchu. 1998. Tai-Hua shuangyu cidian [A Taiwanese-Mandarin bilingual
dictionary]. Kaohsiung: Dunli Chubanshe.
_____. 1999a. Iunn Ching-thiok Tai-gi cu-im tok-pun [Textbooks with Taiwanese
transcriptions by Yang Qingchu]. 15 vls. Kaohsiung: Dunli Chubanshe.
_____. 1999b. Tai-hak Kok-bun Tai-gi cu-im tok-bun [A university textbook on Chinese
literature with Taiwanese phonetic symbols]. Yang Qingchu 1999a, vol. 5.
Zhang Chunhuang et al. 2001. Tai-gi bun-hak kai-lun [An introduction to Taiwanese
literature]. Taipei: Qianwei Chubanshe.
Zhang Qingbo. 1999. Taiyu zhengzi [Correct characters of Taiwanese]. Xinying: Tainan
Xianli Wenhua Zhongxin.
Zima, Petr. 1974. “Digraphia: The case of Hausa”. Linguistics 124, pp. 57-69.