中華文化政治中的全球化、在地化、與國族化

行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫成果報告

※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※

※ ※

※

㆗華文化政治㆗的全球化、在㆞化與國族化 ※

※

※

※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※

計畫類別：5個別型計畫 □整合型計畫

計畫編號：NSC 89－2412－H－002－028－

執行期間：89 年 8 月 1 日至 91 年 1 月 31 日

計畫主持㆟：汪宏倫

共同主持㆟：

本成果報告包括以㆘應繳交之附件：

□赴國外出差或研習心得報告㆒份

5赴大陸㆞區出差或研習心得報告㆒份

□出席國際學術會議心得報告及發表之論文各㆒份

□國際合作研究計畫國外研究報告書㆒份

執行單位：國立台灣大學社會學系

㆗ 華 民 國

91 年 4 月 29 日

行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告

計畫編號：NSC 89－2412－H－002－028－

執行期限：89 年 8 月 1 日至 91 年 1 月 31 日

主持㆟：汪宏倫 國立台灣大學社會學系

㆒、㆗英文摘要 本研究藉由探討「㆗華文化的政治」， 試圖釐清全球化與在㆞化（localization）的 過程㆗，國族（nation）、國家（state）與 文化㆔者之間的關連。過去有關此㆒議題 的研究，多半忽略了「制度」在其㆗的作 用。有鑑於此，本研究採取㆒個「全球觀 點的制度論取向」，以「漢字的羅馬拼音 化」為例，試圖去分析「㆗華民國」與「㆗ 華㆟民共和國」兩個國家，如何在「語文」 這個制度場域進行符號抗爭，以達到全球 化、在㆞化、乃至國族化的歷史過程。研 究發現，㆗華㆟民共和國的政府，能夠成 功㆞制訂「漢語拼音方案」，成為新的㆗ 文標音方式，同時在國際㆖成為普遍採用 的標準，主要的原因在於「語言改革」向 來是㆗共政權在「國族打造」過程當㆗的 核心問題之㆒，同時在制訂「漢語拼音方 案」之時，國內、國外情勢，都對其「國 族打造」工程有利。而㆗共在1970 年代之 後，在政治場域㆖獲勝，更奠定了「漢語 拼音方案」的在全球的文化霸權（領導權） 基礎。反之，㆗華民國政府，在㆒開始的 時候就固著在國民黨元老吳稚暉所整理的 「注音符號」㆖，而為了與㆗共區隔，更 是在語言政策㆖刻意與㆗共劃清界限。等 到九零年代，為了因應全球化的需要，而 想要制定㆒套拼音標準的時候，已經喪失 了先機。在外有「與國際（漢語拼音方案） 接軌」的壓力、內有統獨爭議的情形之㆘， ㆗華民國的拼音政策終究面臨內外交逼、 進退失據的窘境，至今仍舊難以做出明確 的決策來。 關鍵詞：全球化、在㆞化、民族國家、文 化、制度論 Abstract

This research project intends to investigate the relationships between nation, state, and culture in the global era by analyzing the politics of “Chinese Culture,” with capital C, within and without Taiwan. Most of the existing discussions on the impacts of globalization on nation-states and/or national identities tend to ignore the effects of institutions. In contrast, this research project adopts an “institutionalist approach with a global perspective” to analyze how the two states of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and of the Republic of China (ROC) engaged in symbolic struggles in the institutional field of language. Focusing on their policies towards romanization of the Chinese characters, it is found that the state of the PRC has been successful in implementing the Hanyu Pinyin

Fang’an as an institutionalized standard both

at the national and at the global levels. There were two major reasons for their success: first, the timing was favorable, and second, by winning the diplomatic battle in the political field in the 1970s, the PRC was able to extend its victory to the symbolic field. In sharp contrast, the state of the ROC had not concerned itself with the issue of romanization until 1990s, when the pressure of globalization gave rise to the need of a standard transliteration system. However, the timing has gone, and the pressures both from inside and from outside have made romanization a thorny issue that the state has not been able to make a decision to date.

Keywords: globalization, localization,

nation-state, culture, institutionalism ㆓、緣由與目的

This project is to examine how forces of globalization, nationalization and

localization have shaped the politics of Chinese culture. The making of a distinctive “national culture” has been widely considered a key part in the social and political engineering in the process of nation-building. However, since there has been two states -- namely, the state of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and that of the Republic of China (ROC) – that claim to be the Chinese nation, the situation is much more complicated than other cases.1 Language, which has long been considered the “carrier of culture,” is an important institutional device for nation-building. Thus, this study select language policy – more specifically, the policy towards romanization of Chinese characters – as a strategic site for examination.

The aims of the study are not merely about examining the relationships between the state and culture in the process of nation-building; it concerns the general issue of globalization as well. In the study of globalization, the communication between different linguistic communities has been largely ignored by current literature. Indeed, as I have argued before, globalization did not take place in an institutional vacuum (Wang 1999); and more importantly, through what linguistic channels people come to communicate and understand each other remain unexplored. It has been taken for granted that English, as a global language, has become the lingua franca of the world. However, this is too narrow a view to provide us with any insights into the linguistic mechanisms in global communication. Instead, following Liu He’s notion of “translingual practice,” this study intends to examine how translingual practice has been made possible through a certain institutional device – that is, the

transliteration system. In the Chinese case, it is the romanization system that forms the focus of our study.

____________________________________

____________________________________

1 _{One has to note that the state of the ROC has} dramatically changed since Chen Shui-bian’s election as the ROC president, and it no longer claims to be the Chinese nation. However, to make my analysis easier, I shall differentiate this difference in proper contexts. In general situations, the state of the ROC refers to the KMT state that had ruled the island for fifty-five years until 2000.

㆔、結果與討論

Translingual practice occurs as soon as two linguistic communities encounter each other. Thus, the issue of romanization can be dated back to as early as the Ming Dynasty when the Italian preacher Matteo Ricci visited China. In 1605, he published

The Miracle of Western Scripts (Xizi qiji) in

Beijing, in which the first systematic efforts were made to transliterate Chinese characters into Latin alphabets. In the Qing period, another two systems were invented and popularized: the one was the so-called “Church Roman Words2” (Jiaohui luomazi), the other was the Wade-Giles system (Li 1999). In the Republican period, two more systems were introduced: the Mandarin Roman Words (Guoyu luomazi), and the Northern Latin Scripts. After 1949, the two states on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait adopted very different attitudes towards romanization.

In 1958, the state of the PRC implemented the Hanyu pinyin Fang’an and prescribed that it be the standard for the romanization of Chinese characters. In terms of globalization and nationalization, the Hanyu pinyin Fang’an can be said a success. On the one hand, it has become a standard worldwide to romanize Chinese names and characters; on the other hand, it is now the official phonetic signs used in the PRC that bears strong national emblems. In sharp contrast, the efforts by the ROC government to standardize the romanization system in Taiwan has been a failed attempt to cope with either globalization or nationalization.

2 _{I use “Roman words” instead of “Roman}

characters” to translate the term luomazi, because, once being romanized, Chinese characters, which are largely considered ideographic, are already turned into “words” that are spelled by phonetic alphabets.

There are a few reasons that account for such a discrepancy. The first concerns the incentive. While language reforms had long been CCP’s primary concern for a long time before they seized the power, the KMT, in sharp contrast, barely made romanizatin its primary concern. The second reason concerns the timing. When the state of the PRC implemented the Hanyu Pinyin Fang’an, the timing and the general environment were favorable to such a project. In the wake of decolonization and nation-building in the post-WWII period, linguistic engineering to “standardize” and normalize a national language was considered normal and received little criticisms or resistance. When the PRC institutionalizing the Hanyu

Pinyin Fang’an in 1958, the “second wave”

of globalization was just taking off, while the international communities paid relatively little attention to “trivial” issues like this. The volumes of international travelers, either to the PRC or the POC, were rather small as compared with the rapidly increasing flows emerging in the 1990s. Furthermore, the overall international environment has not been favorable to the ROC, especially after the 1970s. As the PRC won the battle in the political field, it has also gained an upper-hand in the symbolic field in defining Chinese culture – this is the motto of nationalism, that every culture must have a political roof and no more than one roof. As a consequence, when the ROC intended to implement another system of romanization, it was already too late.

Finally but most importantly, romanization is now a battleground for the domestic politics. It is one of the important fields in which cultural hegemony – that is, moral and intellectual leadership – is contested by two camps, the unificationists and independentists. In other words, the ROC state faces the challenges both from

within and from without. It has missed the

timing, also in these two senses. Internationally, it had not done it before globalization became a conspicuous phenomenon. Internally, it had not done it before the break down of the authoritarian rule. Considering the KMT’s success in

implementing Mandarin as the national language island-wide, it is reasonable to imagine that the romanization system, no matter which system was invented or adopted, would have been implemented successfully had the KMT state done it simultaneously.

The linguistic situation in Hong Kong is another interesting case for reference. On the one hand, the Cantonese dialect used in Hong Kong is rather different phonetically from Chinese Mandarin; on the other hand, the British colonial government had neither interests nor incentives to impose a standardized romanization system in Hong Kong. For the colonizer, insofar as their dominance and administration could be maintained, they did not carry the burden to build a distinctive “national culture.” The lack of a standard of romanization system has rarely been considered a problem. ㆕、計畫成果自評

The self-evaluation of the project can be elaborated from two aspects:

First, on the contributions of the study, this project has systematically built up a database for the romanization of Chinese characters. In terms of first-hand or secondary materials, this project has compiled rather comprehensive and updated database concerning the debate. Intellectually, it also helps us clarify the relationships between globalization, culture and the nation-state. In addition, the issue of translingual practice has also been brought into the picture of globalization, making our understanding of the process of globalization more comprehensive.

Second, as with most studies, this project has its own limitations as well. There are at least two things that this project has not dealt with and will remain to be explored in further studies. First, because of the lack of access, I was unable to investigate how the Hanyu Pinyin Fang’an was implemented the practiced in the PRC, especially before the 1980s. My

preliminary finding suggests that the pinyin policy might not have been so successful as outsiders imagine in early years. Although the pinyin system was in part invented in order to “sweep illiteracy” (saomang), ironically, it is found that in rural areas, where “sweeping illiteracy” were supposedly most needed, the pinyin system was rarely taught.

The second limitation concerns the ROC’s side, and it is a limitation that can hardly be overcome because of the intrinsic nature of the topic. The debate concerning the pinyin system has not been settled yet, and since it is a highly sensitive issue that is tightly connected with the issue of unification/independence, its future is as undetermined as the status of the ROC. As pointed out above, the momentum of institutionalizing the pinyin system has been reversed ever since DPP’s Chen Shui-bian was elected the President of the ROC, it remains unclear whether the policy will be modified again if there is to be a change-over of the regime in the future.

There are some future studies that can be done following this exploratory one. It is possible to expand the scope of the study to include other cases where Hanzi (Chinese characters) or non-Roman linguisitic system are in use – for instance, Singapore, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, to name but a few. A project of this kind, of course, calls for a research team that combines experts and specialists of different kinds and in different areas. However, such a comparative study is quite promising and is worth pursuing. 五、參考文獻(Selected Bibliography) [1] 文字改革出版社 (Ed.). 1957. 漢語拼 音方案草案討論集. 北京: 新華書店. [2] 文字改革出版社 (Ed.). 1957. 漢語拼 音方案草案討論集. 北京: 新華書店. [3] 文字改革出版社 (Ed.). 1976. ㆗國㆟ 名㆞名拼寫規範化問題. 北京: 新華 書店. [4] 文字改革出版社 (Ed.). 1983. 《漢語拼 音方案》的制訂和應用. 北京: 新華書 店. [5] ㆞圖出版社 (Ed.). 1974. 漢語拼音《㆗ 華㆟民共和國㆞圖》㆞名索引. 北京: 新華書店. [6] 李樂毅. 1999. 你了解漢語拼音嗎？. 香港: ㆔聯書店. [7] 汪學文. 1967. ㆗共文字改革與漢字前 途. 台北: 國際關係研究所. [8] 汪學文. 1974. 共匪文字改革總批判. 台北: ㆗華民國國際關係研究所. [9] 汪學文. 1977. ㆗共簡化漢字之研究. 台北: 國立政治大學國際關係研究㆗ 心. [10] 周有光. 1997. 漢語拼音方案基礎知識. 香港: ㆔聯書店.

[11] Chen, Ping. 1999. Modern Chinese:

History and Sociolinguistics. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

[12] DeFrancis, John. 1972. Nationalism and

Language Reform in China. Princeton:

Princeton University Press.

[13] DeFrancis, John. 1984. The Chinese

Language: Fact and Fantasy. Honolulu:

University of Hawaii Press.

[14] DeFrancis, John. 1989. Visible Speech:

The Diverse Oneness of the Writing Systems. Honolulu: University of Hawaii