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.]