The location of Chinese culture

Got a draft done of my paper for the conference of the International Society for the History of Rhetoric--the conference is in July, but to get a travel grant, I needed to finish a decent draft before the end of May. But my draft sucks... *Sigh*

I made some use of the Liang Rongruo stuff I posted here, as well as some writings by Zhang Qiyun (former Education Minister and founder of Chinese Culture University). My paper is trying to put some pressure on the "Chinese" part of "Chinese rhetoric." A lot of writing about Chinese rhetoric (and particularly, for my purposes, contemporary Chinese rhetoric) seems to assume that the "Chinese" part is relatively unproblematic. I tried to take one historical period (the approximately 20 years between the time the KMT took over Taiwan and the mid 1960s) and look at what kind of Chineseness the Nationalist government was promoting, in opposition to what, and to what ends. And then relate it to rhetoric and the teaching of writing and speaking. It's a bit of a tall order for a 20-minute conference presentation, but maybe it'll go over OK. (That's assuming, of course, I even get the grant.) At any rate, it did spur some thinking and writing that will help me in getting this *$*!$&!%0 dissertation written...

The title of my paper is "The Location of Chinese Culture: The Rhetoric of Chineseness in Post-World War Two Taiwan." (Originally I included colonial Taiwan, but found it was much too much to cover in a short presentation...)

A little about Liang Rongruo

This information about Liang comes from the dissertation I mentioned below by Su-San Lee.

Liang was born in Beijing in 1904 and went to the Imperial University of Tokyo for graduate school. According to Lee, "he stayed in the Japanese-occupied Beijing for seven years, ostensibly as a lecturer in two normal schools whereas [sic] secretly serving as a secretary to the underground KMT" (401).

He became a professor at Tunghai at the invitation of Xu Fuguan in 1957--at that time, Liang "was a famous essayist, the vice president of the National Language Daily, and a full-time professor at the Normal College" (402). "However," continues Lee, "conflicts began after Xu recommended Liang for the chairmanship of the Chinese department at Tunghai in 1961" (402).

Lee describes a power struggle between Xu and Liang that took several forms--anonymous letters attacking various colleagues, secret taping of confidential conversations between Liang and Xu, and accusations back and forth between Xu and Liang. People in literary circles quickly moved to either Xu's side or Liang's:

Pro-Xu and pro-Liang people formed two conflicting camps: Xu had the editors of Chinese Magazine, Yangming Magazine, Cultural Banner Magazine (Wenhuaqi) and the Poets Association as his supporters. To them Liang's scholarship as revealed in his prize winning book Biographies of Ten Writers (Wenxue shijia zhuang) was problematic; but his China-bashing remarks in "Japanese Culture and Chinese Culture" [an essay written during the Sino-Japanese War] were even more inexcusable. Yet Liang was backed by politically more powerful men of letters, including the former General Secretary of the KMT and Minister of Education Zhang Qiyun, many of whom believed that the patriotism that Liang later disclosed was strong enough to vindicate his earlier mistake. (403)

The conflicts between Xu and Liang simmered, then flared up again in 1968. Finally, in 1969, the Tunghai administration forced Liang to retire and Xu to leave, too (408).

Source: Lee, Su-San. Xu Fuguan and New Confucianism in Taiwan (1949-1969): A Cultural History of the Exile Generation. Doctoral dissertation, Brown University, 1998.

Liang Rongruo on youth language training

(If I seem to be writing a lot about Liang Rongruo, it's because the book is due today...)

Note: language training in the essay I discuss below seems to refer specifically to speech training, as in public speaking.

In his article "The Language Training of Youth" (青年語言訓練), written in 1953 and first published as an appendix to a vocational high school Guowen textbook, Liang argues for the importance of the spoken word in democratic society. He contrasts the times of absolute monarchy, when scholar-bureaucrats presented their views about national policy via writing, with democracies, where speaking--and particularly eloquence (雄辯)--becomes important for anyone in leadership positions. (It's interesting that he focuses on people in leadership positions.) Moreover, he says, since writing has become much more like speaking (文字口語化), language practice can both train speaking and provide a basis for writing practice (25).

Liang follows with a brief paragraph surveying the rhetorical nature of the history of Chinese thought, from the Shu Jing to Confucius, to Mengzi, Zhuangzi, Mozi, etc., until the Qin and Han dynasties, when authoritarianism reduced the freedom of speech and debate. After that point, Liang says, there was less emphasis on language training, although he does note such rhetorical displays as the qing tan (清談) of the Wei and Jin dynasties. But he calls the content of these mostly hollow and mysterious (空洞虛玄), and far from the spirit of the debates of the Warring States period (25-6).

His second section, on conviction and the content of speaking, is a brief exposition of something quite similar to the Western concept of ethos. Liang points out the importance of not speaking only to promote oneself and of speaking what one believes. He gives examples of Mozi, Lu Zhonglian, and Abraham Lincoln, whose speeches/speech acts were done at the risk of their lives. He also emphasizes the importance of avoiding speaking about what one does not know, of avoiding talking for the sake of self-promotion and for the sake of talking. These kinds of speaking are not useful and waste time, he says (26-7).

The third section, on choosing and polishing one's words, covers the importance of spending time choosing the right words to express one's ideas in a way that is appropriate to the audience. Again, he emphasizes keeping one's speech brief, reminding readers that one is bound to say something wrong if one says too much (言多必失) and that many words lead to many failures (多言多敗). Liang suggests four things to avoid when one is polishing the diction of one's speech:

1) Avoid local dialects and colloquialisms. (He gives no explanation as to why.)
2) Be careful when using chengyu or classical language, to avoid making mistakes such as using the proverb incorrectly or sounding unnatural.
3) Avoid using unassimilated foreign words or undigested bits of technical jargon or stock phrases.
4) Avoid overlong and complicated descriptive sentences full of abstractions.

Many people, he says, throw foreign words or literary language into their speeches to show off their learning and cultivation, but this makes their speeches much less effective. Long sentences harm the natural rhythm, are hard to say, and sound strained. If one chooses one's words carefully and polishes one's language, one can get ideas across simply and more effectively (27-8).

The above reminds me of George Campbell's pronouncements on usage in his Philosophy of Rhetoric (1776). Campbell is famous for characterizing proper usage as "reputable, national, and present." As Bizzell and Herzberg summarize,

By reputable, he means the generally accepted customary usage of educated people and particularly of well-regarded writers. National means usage and pronunciation that are most widely understood through a country--again, usually that of the educated classes. And present refers both to "not absent" (that is, foreign or faddish) and to "not obsolete." ... (748)

I don't know if Liang had read Campbell's book at any point, or had come in contact with Campbell's thought in his studies, but perhaps that's not so important. The similarities might also come from the fact that both writers were working out of a context in which (for different reasons) usage was one of the ways in which particular groups of people were given a higher status than others. In eighteenth-century Britain, language was used to distinguish the higher classes from the middle classes and the speakers of an upper-class London variety from the "provincial" speakers of Scottish or Irish English. In 1950s Taiwan, "local dialects" referred to varieties such as Minnan and Hakka, which were seen as inferior to the national language (which is what "Guoyu" literally means). On the other hand, an important difference between Britain and Taiwan was that in Taiwan, even many of the mainlanders were speakers of "local dialects" (local mainland dialects, that is). As I mentioned below, even teachers of Guowen were not free of influence from their native language varieties.

The fourth section of the article is on the quality of the voice in public speaking. Liang suggests that although some aspects of the voice are inborn, they can to some extent be developed and improved through practice and training. The first point Liang emphasizes is standard pronunciation. He also deals extensively with the proper use of pitch in different situations (asking questions, emphasizing words, expressing disappointment or surprise, etc.). Finally, he addresses pacing and breathing.

Section five deals with gestures and facial expressions.

The final section discusses how to deal with the unexpected (such as hecklers) and how to conclude in a memorable way.

One of the things I find interesting about this article is the fact that it was originally published as an appendix to a vocational school Guowen textbook. I need to find out if other high schools also had similar discussions of public speaking as part of their textbooks. Also, I wonder how long this article remained in the textbook (in how many editions), and whether or how often it was actually used or reflected a real concern by language teachers with public speaking. (Or did students merely read about public speaking without ever doing it?)

A little more about vocational high schools: students who went to vocational high schools were usually not university-bound. If anything, they would go on to a two-year junior college (a sort of "vocational college") to get something like an associate's degree. Most vocational high graduates did not even go on for a junior college education. One thing that might be interesting to find out is the percentages of mainlanders vs. Taiwanese/Hakka/Aboriginal students who went to vocational high schools around the time of Liang's article. It might shed some light, for instance, on some of the ideas in the third section of the article.

Works Cited
Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. "George Campbell." [Introduction to excerpts from Campbell's Philosohy of Rhetoric.] The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Ed. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Campbell. Boston: Bedford, 1990. 746-49.

Liang, Rongruo 梁容若. "Qingnian de Yuyan Shunlian" 青年語言訓練. Appendix to Gaozhi Guowen Di'er Ce 高職國文第二冊, 1953. Rpt. in Guoyu yu Guowen 國語與國文. 2nd ed. Taipei: Guoyu Ribao She, 1969. 25-32.

[Updated 5/17/05, 2:25 a.m.; 5/20/05, 3:30 p.m.]

Liang Rongruo on the content of Guowen class

Liang Rongruo (in the same essay cited below) has the following to say about what students should read about in secondary-level Guowen class:

… 有些古代的文學作品，從文學史學術學的觀點上看，也許是很重要很有價值的，但是從現代的教育目標上看，或不合於民族主義，或不合於民權主義，或根本違反 民生主義，或與現代的科學知識不免牴觸，就失掉其為精讀教材的價值。譬如我們要建立職業平等，生產建設的社會，那麼凡以高官厚爵沾沾自喜，自居為特殊份子 的作品是不足取的。我們要提倡國內各民族一律平等，凡是偏激狹隘，輕視邊疆民族的作品，也是應當斟酌的。此外如迷信傳說，怪異掌故，妄誕的怪力亂神記事， 陰陽五行思想，大部與現代科學精神根本不相容。但是在舊文學作品裡，常常充滿這種氣氛。(15-16)

Here, Liang argues that while some ancient works of literature are perhaps worth studying from the perspectives of literature, history, or art, they are not necessarily worthy of studying from the point of view of modern educational goals. He goes on to name some of the "guilty parties," such as the Song dynasty's Gao Xi (高錫), whose essay 勸農論 advised against helping farmers increase their production, and the Tang writer Bai Juyi (白居易), who wrote an essay against killing locusts. Liang concludes that when choosing course materials for Guowen, one must make sure to avoid these kinds of historical poison (歷史的毒素).

It's notable (though not surprising) that Liang identifies educational goals (教育目標) and Sun Yat-sen's Three Principles of the People--the principles of nationalism (民族主義), democracy (民權主義), and the people's livelihood (民生主義). He also writes that literary works that conflict with modern scientific knowledge should also not be considered worthy of intensive study. (So works that discussed superstitious legends, gods, or the ideas of Yin/Yang and the Five Elements would best be avoided. But, as he admits, ancient writings are full of that kind of mythological atmosphere.)

Liang also discusses the issue of what students should write about in their Guowen classes. He suggests having students write about subjects that they study in other classes and emphasizes that writing for secondary students should be primarily focused on training students to record their thinking; training in literary composition is of less importance (中學生的作文應當以訓練記述思考能力為主，純文藝的寫作訓練是次要的…). One reason for this, he notes, is that few students will have an interest in or talent for literary composition; most students need only learn to write "practical" or "applied" compositions (應用文字) that are clear and accurate. He suggests that teaching such kinds of writing is an easy task on which it is almost unworthy to place too much emphasis (16).

Source: Liang Rongruo 梁容若. "Ruhe Gaijin Zhongxue de Guowen Jiaoxue" 如何改進中學的國文教學. Zhongdeng Jiaoyu 中等教育 6.2 (1955). Rpt. in Guoyu yu Guowen 國語與國文. 2nd ed. Taipei: Guoyu Ribao She, 1969. 13-18.

[updated 5/14/05, 12:14 a.m.]

Guowen teacher qualifications: another aspect of Taiwan's post-war literacy crisis

Much of the "blame" for Taiwanese students' problems learning Guoyu was often placed on the fifty years that Taiwanese were separated from the "fatherland" or on the influence of Japanese. From a different angle, the teachers themselves were part of the problem.

Liang Rongruo (梁容若), a scholar involved with the Guoyu Ribao and a Chinese dept. professor at Tunghai from 1957 until 1969, wrote in 1955 about the problem regarding the training of secondary school Guowen teachers. He pointed out that many secondary school Guowen teachers were not trained in Chinese, but rather had studied subjects like political science, history, economics, and law. So Guowen classes ended up discussing those topics rather than what students were supposed to be learning, such as training in Guoyu, grammar, style, and the "dissection" of essays--things that the teachers themselves had never studied (13).

In addition, teachers in the primary and secondary schools came from all over China and often brought with them the dialects of their home provinces. Not only was their Guoyu sometimes hard to understand, a student might even experience having his or her "standard" Guoyu pronunciation "corrected" according to the teacher's "nonstandard" accent, says Liang (13).

Liang regarded the teaching of Guowen as a profession that required professional knowledge, just as teachers of chemistry or physics needed training in those subjects (14).

Source: Liang Rongruo 梁容若. "Ruhe Gaijin Zhongxue de Guowen Jiaoxue" 如何改進中學的國文教學. Zhongdeng Jiaoyu 中等教育 6.2 (1955). Rpt. in Guoyu yu Guowen 國語與國文. 2nd ed. Taipei: Guoyu Ribao She, 1969. 13-18.