As Written Language: Cantonese
As Written Language: Cantonese
as Written Language
The Growth of a Written Chinese Vernacular
Don Snow
• *
~ ~ tl:: ltB. if.±.
HONG KONG UNIVERSITY PRESS
Hong Kong University Press
14/F Hing Wai Centre
7 Tin Wan Praya Road
Aberdeen
Hong Kong
Printed and bound by Condor Production Co. Ltd., in Hong Kong, China
Contents
Preface IX
Introduction
consistent in following the norms of the spoken language it is based on, and
one of the most important measures of its growing maturity as a written
language is the increased consistency with which written Cantonese follows
the norms of the corresponding registers of spoken Cantonese - and diverges
from the norms of written Standard Chinese.
In order to set the background for these two story lines in the growth of
written Cantonese, in this chapter we shall examine the relationship of spoken
Cantonese to Mandarin, and also how one goes about writing in Cantonese.
We shall also consider the questions of how faithfully various kinds of written
Cantonese adhere to the norms of spoken Cantonese, and whether or not
written Cantonese should be considered a language variety distinct from
Standard Chinese.
Perhaps a good place to start is with the question of whether Cantonese should
be considered a language or a dialect. One problem with the term "dialect"
is that it may convey the false impression that Cantonese is more closely related
to Mandarin than it actually is, and this is one reason why some have argued
that Cantonese should more accurately be described as a distinct language
within the Chinese language family.! For example, in a controversial 1990
article, LiJingzhong explicitly rejects the term "dialect" (jangyan 1J10, arguing
instead that Cantonese should be considered an "independent language" (duli
de yuyan 1ILlz:a9~1§) within the broader Chinese language family. The m;:yor
reason given by those who hold this view is that while spoken Cantonese and
Mandarin descend from the same ancestor, hence have many similarities in
grammar and vocabulary, they also differ enough that they are mutually
unintelligible; in fact they are no closer to each other than are the various
members of the Romance language family.2
The major argument for considering Cantonese a dialect of Chinese rather
than a separate language is based more on sociolinguistic grounds than purely
linguistic ones. As Trudgill (2000: 4-5) points out, the primary factors in
determining what is a "language" and what is a "dialect" are often more
political and cultural than linguistic. Varieties that are autonomous and
dominant are classed as "languages," while those varieties that are
"heteronomous," i.e. that look to a standard or dominant language for their
norms, are classed as "dialects." As Deng (1980: 84-85) points out, the major
reasons Cantonese is considered a dialect of Chinese have to do with China's
tradition of political unity, the traditional unity of its written language, and
the subordinate position that Cantonese plays in this scheme of things. It is
in this sense that the term "dialect" is accurate in describing the role of
Cantonese within the Chinese language family. For this reason, in this book I
Spoken and Written Cantonese 47
Grammar differences
Because Mandarin and Cantonese are different varieties within the same
language family, they share a great many similarities in syntax. In fact, grammar
is the level at which the two varieties are most similar. 3 However, we should
not overlook the fact that even at the syntax level there are differences between
the two varieties. 4 Some examples of such differences would include the
following:
(1) Word order in comparative structures: In Cantonese, the normal word
order for a comparative phrase would be: (Subject) + (adjective) +
(comparative maker) + (object). So, for example, the sentence "I am taller
than him" would be (C) Ngo gou gwo keoi ~i\!;~1e: (I + tall + more than +
him). In contrast, in Mandarin the normal order would be (Subject) +
(comparative marker) + (object) + (adjective), and the sentence above
would be (M) Wo hi ta gao ~ tt11B i\!; (I + compared to + him + tall).
(2) Positions of direct and indirect objects after the verb "to give": In
Cantonese the indirect object in constructions with "to give" would
normally precede the direct object. So, for example, the sentence "I gave
him money" would normally be (C) Ngo bei cin keoi ~f.!1j!.il1e: (I + give +
money + he). In contrast, in Mandarin the direct object comes first, so
the sentence would be (M) Wo gei ta qian ~Mrf1Bil (I + give + he + money).
(3) Deletion of relative marker: In some patterns Cantonese allows deletion
of the relative marker in constructions where it would be required in
Mandarin. For example, in a Cantonese phrase like (C) Keoi coeng (ge) go
zek go 1e:p~ (1lIJ%) IifmfHIx (He + sang + possessive + that + measure word +
song), the relative marker (C) ge is optional. In contrast, in the parallel
phrase in Mandarin, (M) Ta chang de na shou ge f1BP~ 1¥J~~§:m:, the marker
de cannot be deleted.
"Cantonese" only in the sense that they contain occasional Cantonese words
inserted into a framework that is basically Classical Chinese or Standard
Chinese. As later texts become more consistent in their adherence to the
norms of spoken Cantonese, distinctly Cantonese syntax patterns do begin to
emerge. However, the appearance of such structures tends to follow along after
the appearance of distinctly Cantonese vocabulary, with vocabulary leading
the way. So separate examination of the development of grammar structures
does not contribute much to our tracing of the pattern by which written
Cantonese breaks new ground.
A second reason I devote relatively little attention to syntax is that when
Chinese people who do not speak Cantonese attempt to read texts written in
Cantonese, the primary difficulty they experience is with unfamiliar Cantonese
vocabulary rather than grammar. Similarly, when Cantonese speakers attempt
to learn Standard Chinese, the main difficulty they face is with vocabulary,
not syntax. 5 Given that vocabulary is the main challenge Chinese face in
mastering the difference between the two varieties, it seems appropriate that
this be our focus as well.
Pronunciation differences
The most important difference between the spoken forms of Cantonese and
Mandarin lies in pronunciation. Even though Cantonese and Mandarin have
many words in common, the pronunciation of such words is often very
different, and this is the major reason why the two languages are mutually
unintelligible in spoken form. 6 For some words, the pronunciation difference
is minimal, lying in a single sound. The Cantonese word for "good," (C) hou
(tff), for example, is quite close to Mandarin (M) hao both in pronunciation
and tonal value. However, there are other Cantonese words that do not sound
like their Mandarin counterparts at all. For example, the Cantonese words (C)
hai (*) (department) and (C) hokzaap (¥W) (to study) are substantially
different phonetically from the corresponding Mandarin (M) xi and (M) xuexi,
despite the fact that they have evolved from a common phonetic ancestor and
are written with the same characters. 7
While pronunciation is the main area of difference between the spoken
forms of Cantonese and Mandarin, pronunciation differences generally do not
affect the written form of the two varieties. When Cantonese and Mandarin
share a vocabulary item in common, it is virtually always written with the same
Chinese character, so the effects of pronunciation differences tend to
disappear in the written form of the languages.
Spoken and Written Cantonese 49
Vocabulary differences
The main difference between the written forms of Cantonese and Mandarin
lies in their vocabulary systems. 8 This difference is particularly evident in the
most common daily words of Cantonese, many of which differ considerably
from their daily Mandarin translation counterparts. Consider the following
examples:
in, on, at (locative) hai IIf* zaz:tE to like zungji1!t;@': xihuan :glli:
this ni PJt zheEf to seek wanJJl! zhao t.14
Note that the list in Table 3.1 includes a number of very high frequency words,
including quite a few basic function words.
It is difficult to quantify precisely how different the vocabularies of
Cantonese and Mandarin are, and general estimates range from 30 to as high
as 50 percent.9 A more precise corpus-based estimate given by Ouyang (1993:
23) concludes that about one-third of the lexical items used in regular
Cantonese speech are not found in Mandarin. Ouyang, however, also points
out that the degree of lexical difference is considerably lower in more formal
registers. In an analysis of the transcription of a radio news broadcast, for
example, he concluded that only about 10.6% of the lexical items were
distinctly Cantonese (1993: 80-82).
As Ouyang's analysis suggests, the first step toward a more precise estimate
lies in making a distinction between formal and informal registers of Cantonese
because, due to the influence of written Chinese on formal Cantonese, formal
spoken Cantonese is considerably more similar to formal Mandarin than
colloquial Cantonese is to colloquial Mandarin. 1O Following Ouyang's lead, let
us compare the language of two formal Cantonese news broadcasts with that
of a colloquial Cantonese radio talk show.
Transcript #1: Examination of a Hong Kong Commercial Radio news
bulletin demonstrates two points. ll First, as Ouyang found, the occurrence of
distinctly Cantonese words in formal Cantonese speech is relatively low - only
12 percent of the total number of characters are markedly Cantonese.
50 Cantonese as Written Language
Table 3.2 Range of Cantonese vocabulary used in formal versus informal speech
higher total amount of markedly Cantonese vocabulary, but it also shows use
of a much broader range of marked Cantonese vocabulary. We shall later see
a similar pattern in the written Cantonese of colloquial novels. 16
These percentages are important for two reasons. First, they establish a
rough baseline from which we can judge how "authentic" a written Cantonese
text is; i.e. how faithfully it adheres to the norms of spoken Cantonese. Written
language is generally not an exact reproduction of spoken language, even
when that written language is intended to approximate speech. For example,
many of the features of natural speech - incomplete sentences, errors,
repetitions, and so forth - are filtered out when language is written down,
so in a written Cantonese text, we might expect to see less particle use than is
found in natural speech. However, on the basis of the evidence above, it would
seem that in Cantonese texts which attempt to faithfully and consistently
replicate spoken Cantonese, we should expect that (1) in formal written
Cantonese marked Cantonese characters should account for approximately 10
to 15 percent of the total characters in the text; and (2) in informal written
Cantonese marked Cantonese characters should account for between 25 to 40
percent of the characters in the text.
These percentages are also significant because they underscore the extent
to which Cantonese is lexically different from Mandarin Chinese. If a written
Cantonese text includes as many marked Cantonese vocabulary items as
colloquial Cantonese speech does, the text becomes very difficult for someone
who knows only Standard Chinese to read. When 30 percent or more of the
vocabulary in a text is unfamiliar, there simply is not enough comprehensible
text remaining to make guessing reliable. When a person literate in Standard
Chinese cannot read material written in Cantonese (or finds it so difficult that
the effort will rapidly be abandoned), it clearly becomes necessary to consider
written Cantonese a distinct writte~ variety of ChineseP
Writing Cantonese
been dealt in some detail elsewhere, most notably in Bauer (1988), Luke
(1995), and Cheung and Bauer (2002).18 My more limited goal here is to
present a general overview of the most common mechanisms used, and
consider the implications that choice of mechanism has for the growth and
development of written Cantonese.
It may help to begin with a hypothetical example. Consider the following
Cantonese dialogue, in which a disappointed suitor speaks to the object of
his ardor:
Boy: 1.!::!.~, ~IH$!U!i1$~f>iJ~-Jl'f~tii 0
Daanhai, camjat nei zung waa nei jiu tung ngo jat-cai sik faan.
But yesterday you still say you would with me together eat (rice).
A reader who understands Standard Chinese will see that quite a few of the
Chinese characters in the sentences above - fifteen to be exact - are familiar
in both their form and usage. However, eleven other characters, the ones in
bold, are "marked Cantonese" which clearly adhere to the norms of spoken
Cantonese rather than to the norms of Standard Chinese. Within these eleven
Cantonese characters, we see representative examples of the following major
categories of ways in which writers represent Cantonese words that fall outside
the range of Standard Chinese.
(1) Standard Chinese characters used in uniquely Cantonese ways: When
writing Cantonese, in some cases there is no problem finding the appropriate
Chinese character because it already exists in Standard Chinese. This is true
not only for the majority of Cantonese words which are the same as Mandarin
words in every respect except pronunciation, but also for a considerable
number of words that exist in both Cantonese and Mandarin but are used
quite differently in the two varieties. For example, in the first sentence of the
dialogue above, we find the word (C) waa (~I'i) as a verb meaning "to say."
This word is also common in Mandarin as a noun meaning "speech," but in
Mandarin it cannot function as a verb. Similarly, the words (C) tung (iPJ "with")
and (C) sik (~ "eat") also exist in Mandarin, but their usage is not the same
as in Cantonese.
Many words in this category preserve usages that existed in ancient
Chinese but have died out in modern Mandarin. Strictly speaking, then, these
are not cases of character formation, because characters for these Cantonese
words already exist. However, the way these characters are used in Cantonese
texts would often cause difficulty for a reader who only knows Mandarin.
(2) New (previously non-existing) Cantonese dialect characters: Sometimes
when confronting the "sound but no character" problem, Cantonese speakers
Spoken and Written Cantonese 53
of phonetic loan (jiajie 'ffi[1tf) characters, those which are borrowed in their
entirety because they have the same sound as the word to be represented. 30
This tendency to use Chinese characters phonetically is also found among
neighboring peoples who have used Chinese characters to represent their
languages. For example, the Zhuang people of southern China developed a
writing system that made use of Chinese characters to write the Zhuang
language, and borrowed Chinese characters for their sound value. 31 Also,
before colonization by the French, the Vietnamese language was often written
in a system called Nom which used Chinese characters for their sound value
to represent Vietnamese words. Sometimes these Nom Chinese characters were
borrowed in their original form for their sound value; in other cases, new
composite characters were created by borrowing two elements from different
Chinese characters, one for meaning and one for sound. 32
The fact that most Cantonese characters are created through phonetic
borrowing is very important to the spread of literacy in Cantonese. From the
reader's point of view, the predominance of this mechanism means that
readers know what strategy they should use in trying to figure out any
unfamiliar Cantonese characters they encounter. Furthermore, this strategy
is relatively easy to apply. As long as readers have a reading knowledge of
Standard Chinese and the ability to speak Cantonese, they can usually figure
out unfamiliar words quite easily merely by sounding them out in context. This
means that readers who are already literate in Standard Chinese can learn to
read in Cantonese without undergoing an education process like that needed
for literacy in Standard Chinese.
Widespread consensus in favor of the phonetic borrowing mechanism is
also helpful for writers of Cantonese. There are still Cantonese words for which
there is no widely-agreed-on written form, a fact which poses problems for
those who wish to write in Cantonese. However, the consensus in favor of
phonetic borrowing means that writers of Cantonese have a convenient and
widely accepted strategy for dealing with this problem, and this makes it much
easier for people to write Cantonese.
For some of these words, such as (C) jeand gam, the first character listed above
is clearly in wider use than the alternative form. However, for other words such
as (C) bei, dei, di, go, zungji, zung, and jigaa, more than one form is in
widespread use.
One might suppose that the widespread use of divergent forms would
cause confusion among readers, but this confusion is considerably reduced
by two factors: (1) the Cantonese pronunciation of all or most of the variants
is either the same or very similar; and (2) in many cases the difference between
the variant forms is minimal, often the presence or absence of a "mouth"
radical.
One reason for this lack of uniformity in which characters are used to
represent which Cantonese words is that Cantonese dictionaries do not always
agree as to which written form should represent any given Cantonese word.
It is not uncommon for the same word to be represented with different
characters in different dictionaries. 33 Furthermore, no single dictionary has
yet been accepted as an authoritative standard around which others would
converge. The influence of dictionaries and reference tools in the process of
standardizing a language - particularly its written form - is often
considerable. For example, the spelling of English words varied widely from
writer to writer until the publication of Samuel Johnson'S dictionary in 1755
established a widely accepted standard for English spelling. The absence to
date of a widely accepted authoritative reference work therefore helps account
for the lack of standardization in written Cantonese.
Of the Cantonese dictionaries available in Hong Kong, the first to make
much impact on the writing of Cantonese was the 1981 Cantonese Dialect
Dictionary (Guangzhouhua Fangyan Cidian J1HN t!ijJ1§~JI!t.) compiled by Rao
Bingcai (~*7f), Ouyang Jueya (lWc~i-l;.5.l), and Zhou Wuji ()WJ~,8.).
Although the authors reside in mainland China, the dictionary was published
Spoken and Written Cantonese 59
by the Commercial Press in Hong Kong, and a few Hong Kong authors and
publishers began to use it as their standard reference. 34 However, the impact
of this dictionary was limited by several factors. First, it has a relatively small
number of entries and does not include all the characters writers and
publi~hers need. 35 Second, while the entries in this dictionary generally provide
widely used forms of characters rather than more scholarly or obscure forms,
Hong Kong writers find that it does not always accurately reflect Hong Kong
usage. 36 Finally, some writers in Hong Kong have been hostile toward the
dictionary simply because it is the work of scholars from mainland China rather
than from Hong Kong. One example of this appeared from 27 February to 9
March 1990 in a series of articles in Hong Kong's Tin Tin Daily's "Chewing
over words" (Yao wen jue zi Il5e)cPi'=¥) column in which the author, (C) Lau
Sing Jtl~(JungJuk ~:E') not only criticized flaws in the dictionary, but even
questioned the qualifications of the authors to produce such a dictionary.37
The fact that no single Cantonese dictionary has yet established itself as
authoritative is no doubt one of the main reasons why most Hong Kong
authors do not rely much on formal reference tools when writing Cantonese.
Even when existing reference works are unanimous as to their choice of what
character should be used for a certain Cantonese word, it is not unusual to
find that writers have used another, often simpler, character which shares the
same pronunciation.38 However, lack of an authoritative reference work is only
part of the picture; there also seems to be an underlying sense that uniformity
of character use in written Cantonese is not terribly important to the average
writer. In fact, it is not unusual for an author to use different characters on
different occasions, apparently relying more on sound than precedent. 39
While one could not say that written Cantonese is standardized in the
conventional sense, it is important to recognize, as noted above, that there is
standardization of a sort in the widely held consensus in favor of using phonetic
principles in choosing Cantonese characters. This consensus is important
because wide agreement on this easy-to-use principle is sufficient to permit
the language to function and grow. Writers know how to go about putting
Cantonese words into print, and readers know how to go about decoding the
Cantonese words they see in print. While lack of complete standardization is
no doubt at times an annoyance for readers and writers of Cantonese, it seems
to be little more than that. As Li (2000: 201) notes, users of written Cantonese
are "somewhat inconvenienced by the absence of a standardized writing system.
Such a handicap, however, does little to prevent speakers of Cantonese in
Hong Kong from using the vernacular they know best to represent their
thoughts in writing." The fact that both writers and readers can readily go
about the task of using written Cantonese means that over time it is likely that
higher levels of standardization will eventually emerge.
60 Cantonese as Written Language
of new genres, each with conventions of language use that allow closer
adherence to the norms of spoken Cantonese than allowed by previous genres.
In this book, I have assumed that written Cantonese can and should be
considered a written language variety in its own right, one that is (at least in
the later stages of its development) distinct from the written form of Standard
Chinese. However, this is not necessarily an assumption that the average person
in Hong Kong would always share. This point was driven home to me the first
time I went into a Hong Kong bookstore and asked (in Cantonese) whether
or not they had any books written in Cantonese. While the point of the
question seemed perfectly obvious to me, it was not clear at all to the staff at
the store, and it was only after considerable explaining that one clerk suddenly
said: "Oh, he means those colloquial books!" (The actual Cantonese term she
used for "colloquial" was (C) haujyufaa Cl~{r..) As this experience repeated
itself in one store after another, it slowly dawned on me that what I perceived
to be a difference between two separate language varieties - Standard Chinese
and written Cantonese - was sometimes perceived in Hong Kong mainly as
a difference in register, with texts written in Cantonese seen as simply being
more colloquial.
At the risk of overgeneralizing, I would suggest that the popular view most
people in Hong Kong have toward written Chinese - and the role of written
Cantonese within that written language - is essentially the following:
(1) The main language distinction people in Hong Kong make is between
"Chinese" (C: Zungman *::lC), and English. While they are aware of
differences between Mandarin and Cantonese, the Chinese/English
distinction tends to be much more salient in people's minds, and
differences in varieties of Chinese tend to be viewed as variations within
a language rather than as different languages. 42
(2) There is relatively little emphasis on the tie between written Chinese
(Standard Chinese) and spoken Mandarin. While it is of course generally
known that Standard Chinese is based on Mandarin, from a Hong Kong
perspective the tie between these two language varieties is somewhat less
salient than it would be in other parts of China. Instead, the tendency in
Hong Kong is to view written Chinese as relatively independent of any
spoken variety of Chinese. Instead, it is seen more as a supra-dialect written
language that stands in roughly equal relationship to all spoken varieties
of Chinese, much as Classical Chinese did in pre-modern times. This
tendency is due in part to the fact that the Baihua movement reached
Hong Kong relatively late, and that Classical Chinese played major role
in school curriculums longer in Hong Kong than elsewhere in China. 43
Spoken and Written Cantonese 63
(3) Elements of Standard Chinese that are more distinctively Mandarin than
Cantonese (in other words, vocabulary which is common in Mandarin but
not in spoken Cantonese) are still considered to be part of "our Chinese
writing" in Hong Kong because they are identified primarily with a written
language rather than an (outsider) spoken language.
(4) The written form of distinctively Cantonese words is often viewed as use
of local colloquial language, a lower register rather than elements of a
distinct language variety.
It should also be noted that language users in Hong Kong frequently are
not sure precisely where the lines are between proper Standard Chinese and
written Cantonese. While an attempt is made in schools to teach students what
is and is not acceptable Standard Chinese, it has been repeatedly observed
that neither students nor teachers are always entirely sure which words are
acceptable in Standard Chinese and which are not. 44 In part as a result of this
confusion, Standard Chinese in Hong Kong has absorbed some Cantonese
words that have now largely or completely displaced their Standard Chinese
counterparts. For example, one will almost always see the characters for (C)
gaasi 1*{fA (furniture) on the signs of furniture stores rather than the Mandarin
term (M) jiaju *J'l" and it is not unusual to find (C) gaasi also appearing in
Hong Kong literary works ostensibly written in Standard Chinese. Other
Cantonese terms such as (C) sezilau~*. (office), (C) saanggwo1=.* (fruit),
and (C) syutgou ~~ (ice-cream) also appear from time to time in Hong Kong
Standard Chinese literary works in which there is no apparent evidence of
conscious intent to use Cantonese vocabulary. In Hong Kong, all of these terms
are becoming accepted as Standard Chinese, and people are not always aware
that these terms would be considered non-standard outside the Cantonese-
speaking regions of China. 45
However, it would be going too far to say that people in Hong Kong do
not make any distinction between Standard Chinese and written Cantonese,
or to say that written Cantonese is always considered just a lower register of
Standard Chinese. To the contrary, there is a general awareness that a
distinction should be made in writing between (acceptable) Standard Chinese
and (unacceptable) Cantonese dialect. As noted above, this issue is one that
is given much attention in schools, and attempts to teach what is and is not
acceptable in writing Standard Chinese absorb much of teachers' time and
attention. 46 So even if students and teachers are not always sure which terms
are acceptable when writing Standard Chinese, they are well aware that some
terms are acceptable and that others are not. They also know that the norm
they should follow in writing is that of a written language - Standard Chinese
- rather than that of their Cantonese speech.
Furthermore, as we will see in the following chapters, there are often fairly
clear patterns as to where and how written Cantonese is used, which suggests
64 Cantonese as Written Language
One of the main lines of development we shall see in the history of written
Cantonese is an increasing tendency to adhere to the norms of spoken
Cantonese, even when they conflict with the norms of written Standard
Chinese. In large part we shall see this in a gradual increase in the percentage
of Cantonese lexical items used in texts, and we shall follow this development
by looking for the presence of "marked Cantonese" terms in texts. In early
texts containing Cantonese, th~ percentage will be very small, and is not
reflective at all of how Cantonese is normally spoken. However, over time, texts
will come closer to percentages of distinctly Cantonese lexical items that are
normal for spoken Cantonese, approximately 10 percent for more formal
registers of the spoken language (news reports and so forth), and 30 percent
or more for informal and conversational registers.
At later stages of the development of written Cantonese, we shall also look
for the decreasing use of "marked Standard Chinese" as an indicator of the
extent to which a Cantonese norm is established and maintained. "Marked
Standard Chinese" words are those commonly used in spoken and written
Standard Chinese, but rarely if ever used in spoken Cantonese. Use of these
terms, therefore, suggests adherence to a Standard Chinese rather than written
Cantonese norm, and their disappearance suggests that the norms in a given
text have become fully Cantonese. For two reasons, however, less weight can
be placed on this indicator than on the presence or absence of marked
Cantonese. First, in one sense, there is no such thing as truly "marked"
Standard Chinese because even words that are more typical of Mandarin than
of Cantonese are sometimes still used in higher registers of Cantonese, though
Spoken and Written Cantonese 65
often in contexts that are closely associated with written texts. Secondly, the
use of marked Cantonese is a much more stigmatized choice in writing than
the use of marked Standard Chinese ever is; the presence of marked Cantonese
is therefore more significant as an indicator of a choice to move toward a
Cantonese norm.
A third important line of development has to do with the kinds of texts and
published materials within which written Cantonese is used. As noted above,
increase along this line has generally not resulted from Cantonese appearing
with increasing frequency in well-established genres of writing. In fact, the
evidence will show that once the language conventions of a genre are set, tliey
generally do not change much over time, and a genre in which people expect
Standard Chinese to be used will generally not begin to admit use of
Cantonese. Instead, increase in the use of written Cantonese normally occurs
through the creation of new genres within which written Cantonese has a
prominent role right from the start.
8
Epilogue: The Future of Written Cantonese
Given that much of this book has been dedicated to tracing the growth of
written Cantonese, it seems appropriate to close by casting an eye to the future
and asking whether this pattern of growth is likely to continue.
The most obvious reason to suspect that the role of written Cantonese
might possibly not continue to grow has to do with the reintegration of Hong
Kong into China, hence into a nation where Mandarin (Putonghua) is the
overwhelmingly dominant language. Clearly the return of Hong Kong to
Chinese sovereignty brings the Hong Kong speech community into even closer
relationship with mainland China, and - returning to the analogy used in
Chapter 2 - this will inevitably have some impact on the marketplace in which
Hong Kong people make their language choices. Because of China's enormous
population, growing wealth, growing political and military power, and
expanding cultural influence, the appeal of Putonghua in the Hong Kong
market cannot help but increase. The question is: In what precise ways?
One safe prediction is that more people in Hong Kong are likely to learn
Putonghua than in the past. The Hong Kong government has made more of
an effort in recent years to promote study of Putonghua, both among
government employees and among the populace at large. l Perhaps more
important, the case for learning Putonghua is ever easier to make in Hong
Kong because the practical advantages of learning Putonghua are so obvious.
Not only is there increasing opportunity, and even need, for Hong Kong
people to do business on the mainland; it is even becoming increasingly
common for young Hong Kong people to seek jobs on the mainland with
mainland companies and institutions. Likewise, the flow of people from the
mainland into Hong Kong for tourism, business, or simply to visit friends and
relatives is also increasing, thus expanding the opportunities for people in
Hong Kong to practice whatever Putonghua skills they learn. Because of the
214 Cantonese as Written Language
the role of Cantonese, and does not even provide much support for students'
efforts to learn to read and write Standard Chinese. Putonghua would need
to eclipse Cantonese almost entirely within the education system if Putonghua
were to replace Cantonese as students' language of identity or undermine their
ability to pronounce Chinese characters in Cantonese. It does not seem likely
that the role of Putonghua in Hong Kong schools would increase to this
degree, at least not in the near future. In fact, if the Hong Kong government
continues its recent policy of requiring most schools to use "mother tongue"
(spoken Cantonese and written Standard Chinese) as the medium of
instruction, rather than using English, it is possible that more young people
in Hong Kong will be exposed to greater amounts of educated discourse in
Cantonese and develop an even higher degree of proficiency in that language.
Therefore, at least for the immediate future, I suspect that written
Cantonese is likely to retain its current role in Hong Kong society, and perhaps
even expand its role in Cantonese-speaking areas of mainland China. I make
this prediction with some hesitation, because predicting the future - and
putting those predictions in print - is always a risky business, but there are
several reasons why I feel reasonably confident in this assessment. The first is
simply the evidence of the past. As I have endeavored to demonstrate in this
book, the trend over the past several centuries has been for the role of written
Cantonese to gradually but steadily increase, following the rising prosperity
of first Guangzhou and the Pearl River Delta region, and then Hong Kong.
While the past is by no means always a reliable guide to the future, there is
good reason to suspect that existing trends will continue unless there are
significant changes in the factors that have given rise to them.
A second point also has to do with the continued prosperity of Cantonese-
speaking regions of mainland China. The growing wealth of Guangzhou and
the Pearl River Delta region has contributed substantially to the growing vitality
of the spoken Cantonese language, a vitality which is reflected in a variety of
interesting ways.
As noted in Chapter 7, the unusually high prestige of Cantonese within
its own speech community is suggested by the fact that Cantonese-speaking
areas are the only part of China where a significant amount of local television
and radio broadcasting is done in a Chinese dialect. A significant amount of
this Cantonese-language broadcasting originates in Hong Kong; in fact, since
the 1980s the Hong Kong broadcast media have had a very substantial
audience in Guangdong province. 3 However, Cantonese is also the language
used in a significant amount of broadcasting in Guangdong, and even parts
of Guangxi.
The geographic range in which Cantonese is spoken as first language is
actually expanding. In some parts of Guangdong province where other dialects
were originally spoken, Cantonese is moving in at the expense of the original
dialects. This is happening, for example, in Shanwei, in Min-dialect-speaking
areas in Zhongshan, and around Huizhou and Boluo.4
216 Cantonese as Written Language
If we accept that the role of written Cantonese may continue to expand, the
final question is: How far? Is written Cantonese likely to eventually replace
Standard Chinese as the written language of Hong Kong or even Guangdong?
Despite my belief that written Cantonese may continue to grow and
Epilogue: The Future of Written Cantonese 217
develop, I do not believe the final outcome of this shift in social roles is likely
to be a replacement of Standard Chinese by written Cantonese, in Hong Kong
or anywhere else. As an important language of wider use the practical value
of Standard Chinese for people in Hong Kong is too high for the idea of its
replacement by written Cantonese to generate much support. Furthermore,
the political implications of abandoning the national Chinese written language
in favor of a written dialect would also not be acceptable to the majority of
people either in Hong Kong or elsewhere in China.
However, the more important point to make is that there is little or no
evidence that the replacement of Standard Chinese by written Cantonese is
desired by anyone in Hong Kong, including those who regularly use written
Cantonese. There is certainly no organized body working for the replacement
of Standard Chinese by written Cantonese, and to the extent that expressions
of support for written Cantonese appear in Hong Kong's press and media,
these voices suggest toleration of its limited use, not its conquest of Standard
Chinese.
The final destination of this growth of written Cantonese seems not to be
replacement of Standard Chinese. Rather, it appears to be a new diglossic
balance which better reflects the identity of Hong Kong's Cantonese-speaking
community, and perhaps to some extent that of other Cantonese-speaking
areas in China. In this new balance, Standard Chinese would continue to be
the language of choice for most texts, especially those with serious or formal
purposes. It would also serve as the written language of wider communication
for interaction with the broader Chinese-speaking world. Finally, it would serve
as a vehicle for expressing the Chinese component of the Hong Kong identity.
Written Cantonese, in contrast, is consolidating a limited role in the Hong
Kong community in texts that simulate spoken interaction between Cantonese
speakers, and in texts for light entertainment purposes. Underlying this, it is
becoming the language of choice for informal written interaction between
Cantonese speakers, an in-group language that allows Cantonese speakers to
express the local Hong Kong component of their identity. Such a diglossic
balance of roles reflects the mixed culture and identity of Hong Kong in a
way that neither Standard Chinese nor written Cantonese alone are able to
do. It seems likely that this new diglossic balance will continue to characterize
the language situation in Hong Kong for the foreseeable future.
Notes
CHAPTER 1
1. In the Chinese context, the term "dialect" is used to refer to a variety of Chinese
that differs significantly from Mandarin in pronunciation, vocabulary, and to some
degree in grammar.
2. A complete listing of books mentioned in this book, including both English and
Chinese titles, can be found in Appendix 3.
3. The Chinese titles of this and other periodical publications mentioned in this book
are listed in Appendix 3.
4. This particular list of article types is drawn from examination of the 11 November
2001 issue ot Apple Daily.
5. See, for example, DeFrands (1950: 194); Yuan (1960: 177); Cheung (1985: 191);
Ramsey (1987: 99); and Norman (1988: 215).
CHAPTER 2
1. Ferguson defines diglossia as "... a relatively stable language situation in which, in
addition to the primary dialects of the language (which may include a standard
or regional standards), there is a very divergent, highly codified (often
grammatically more complex) superposed variety, the vehicle of a large and
respected body of written literature, either of an earlier period or in another
speech community, which is learned largely by formal education and is used for
most written and formal spoken purposes but is not used by any sector of the
community for ordinary conversation" (1959: 336).
2. For additional discussion of differences between Hand L, see Fasold (1984: 53)
and Trudgill (2000: 96).
3. Chejne (1969: 39-41).
4. Frangoudaki (1992: 366).
5. Alexiou (1982: 162).
6. Keller (1982: 82). Ferguson also mentions Chinese briefly in his 1959 article,
proposing the pre-modern situation in China as a further instance of diglossia,
with Classical Chinese as the H language and colloquial Mandarin as L; in fact he
suggests that it "probably represents diglossia on the largest scale of any attested
instance" (337-8).
260 Notes to pages 77-32
language variety, as used by Li Rulong (1997: 235), describes essentially the same
phenomenon.
38. Allard and Landry (1994: 117).
39. See Ye (1996) and Luo (2000) for discussion.
40. Approximately 7.5% of China's population speaks a Wu dialect as home language,
as opposed to approximately 4.5 for Cantonese (Summer Institute of Linguistics
2003).
41. Hu ([1926] 1974: 24-25).
42. Hu ([1926] 1974: 33-34); Lu Xun cited in Cheng (1978: 52).
43. Zhang (1983: 19); Duval (1980: 177). Duval notes that Nzne-tazled Turtles was the
most popular of the Wu dialect novels at its time of publication.
44. As in the case of Cantonese southern songs, the brothel setting was probably also
important in providing sanction for dialect use. See Chapter 4.
45. Link (1981: 60).
46. Dolezelova-Velingerova (1980: 9).
47. To date the most comprehensive English-language study of written Taiwanese is
Henning Kloter's Written Taiwanese (2004). Unfortunately, it appeared too late for
me to make use of its wealth of information in this book.
48. Yao (1989: 16); Hsiau (2000: 135). See also Van der Loon (1992).
49. Hsiau (2000: 37).
50. Gu (1989: 80); Hsiau (2000: 40-2).
51. Hsiau (2000: 38-41).
52. Hsiau (2000: 45).
53. Hsiau (2000: 44).
54. Hsiau (2000: 54-5).
55. Hsiau (2000: 137).
56. Chen Ping (1999: 122-3); Hsiau (2000: 139).
57. Hsiau (2000: 7; 105).
58. Lin (1988: 13); Song (1988: 194-5); Lin (1989: 142); Lin Qiyang, interview, 5 June
1990.
59. For analysis of the advantages of romanization, see Zheng (1988b: 32).
60. Interestingly, in response to Chen Ruoxi's complaint, advocate of written Taiwanese
Lin Yangmin effectively concedes the point, arguing that this just demonstrates
the need for promotion of Taiwanese in the education system (1999: 200).
61. In Song Zelai, A Weak Small People (Ruoxzao Mznzu ~~/J\~~) (Taipei: Qianwei
chubanshe, 1987), 173-263.
62. Hsiau (2000: 140-4).
63. Tsao (1999: 349); Hsiau (2000: 131).
64. Tsao (1999: 369).
65. Such textbooks as I have seen include texts in written Taiwanese, and sometimes
also in Taiwanese romanization.
66. There is controversy as to the extent to which the prompt books were used by
storytellers. For example, Jaroslav Prusek holds that these texts were used by
storytellers, though he concedes that they were also intended for a reading public
(1970: 427). Patrick Hanan, on the other hand, feels that these texts were primarily
intended for a reading public (1981: 9).
67. Hanan (1981: 6); Norman (1988: 111).
68. Hanan (1981: 20).
262 Notes to pages 41-50
69. This pattern is similar to that in which vernaculars first appeared in many
European nations. See Joseph (1987: 76).
70. Hanan (1981: 10-11).
71. Hanan (1981: 6); Norman (1988: 111).
72. On the idea that a form of diglossia is developing in Hong Kong's written Chinese,
see also Zhong (2000: 156).
73. Halliday (1989: 29-30).
CHAPTER 3
1. Another problem with the term "dialect" is that it can carry negative connotations
of inferiority; in fact, the sinologist Victor Mair has proposed that in discussion of
China the term "dialect" be replaced with the more neutral term "topolect," as
he does in Mair (1994) and elsewhere. While acknowledging the problem, I have
chosen to continue using the term "dialect" in part because of its familiarity, in
part because the social role of Cantonese and other Chinese dialects is more
limited than that of Mandarin.
2. DeFrancis (1950: 195; 1984: 39); Deng (1980: 84-5). Incidentally, there are, of
course, different sub-dialects of Cantonese, some of which differ considerably from
the varieties of Cantonese spoken in Guangzhou and Hong Kong. Historically,
however, Cantonese has been relatively homogeneous, and until recent years the
form of Cantonese spoken in Guangzhou was clearly the prestige dialect of the
region and has provided a regional standard (Norman 1988: 214-5). In recent
years, Hong Kong Cantonese has taken over much of this role.
3. Zeng (1982: 343); DeFrancis (1984: 63); Chan and Kwok (1986: 407).
4. Bruche-Schulz (1997: 3011); Matthews and Yip (2001: 266). See Zeng (1982: 358-
75) and Matthews and Yip (2001) for a more extensive discussion of grammatical
differences between Cantonese and Mandarin. For a comprehensive introduction
to Cantonese grammar, see Matthews and Yip (1994).
5. Zhong (1994: 224).
6. Zeng (1982: 343).
7. Obviously the difference apparent here to a reader of English results partly from
different romanization systems being used for Cantonese and Mandarin, but even
so these renderings give a good idea of how different the words sound.
8. As Hanan (1981: 14) notes, this was also the major difference between classical
and vernacular Chinese in traditional Chinese literature.
9. Zhan (1986: 47); Deng (1989: 3); Mai (1993: 66-7). LiJingzhong (1990: 42)
proposes an even higher estimate, suggesting that the level of lexical difference
between Cantonese and Mandarin may be in the range of 77 to 98 percent, but
his results are biased significantly by the fact that the sample corpus Li uses
(Cantonese dictionaries) generally only contain lexical items that are unique to
Cantonese.
10. Chan and Kwok (1986: 408); Bauer (1988: 249). See Luke (1998: 148-9) for more
detailed analysis of the different registers of speech in Hong Kong, many of which
include an admixture of English.
11. 5 a.m., 18 September 1989, Commercial Radio, taped and transcribed by the
author.
12. Here and throughout this book, the term "marked Cantonese" refers to use of
Notes to pages 50-53 263
22. Among the other words that have been represented with single letters are some
obscene terms. It may be that the use of romanization in these cases emotionally
distances the author and audience somewhat from the impact of taboo terms, but
more likely the practice was borrowed from the rather handy English custom of
just putting down the first letter of an obscene word and then leaving the rest
blank, something that is not easy to do with Chinese characters. For example, see
Wu Gun-man's Growing up in Hong Kong, pp. 16-18.
23. As K K Luke points out, ICQ chats tend to be short and rapid, and romanization
is often used for Cantonese words in part because English letters are easier to type
rapidly than Chinese characters. Interview, 26 September 2002.
24. Xue (1985a: 22). For more on The Flowery Scroll, see Chapter 4.
25. See DeFrancis (1984), Chapters 6 and 7 for discussion.
26. Bauer (1988: 261). Chan and Kwok (1986: 423) note that the "mouth" radical is
also often added when Chinese characters are used in Hong Kong to transliterate
English words.
27. In Taiwan scholars have played a more active role in the creation and promotion
of written Taiwanese, and one result of this is that there is a greater variety of
principles being used for character selection/creation. Less educated readers and
writers are most likely to choose characters for Taiwanese words on the basis of
sound, but such choices are often considered ignorant by scholars and more
educated groups (Cheng 1978: 311). For Cantonese examples of such studies, see
Luo (1960), Bai (1980) and Tan (1994).
28. Bauer (1988: 261, 276); Li (2000: 206).
29. Huang Xiaoya (2000: 246).
30. Hayford (1987: 152); DeFrancis (1989: 99); Norman (1988: 68).
31. Ramsey (1987: 242-3).
32. DeFrancis (1977: 21-24).
33. Huang Xiaoya (2000: 247).
34. The publishing arm of TVB, Publications Holdings Limited, one of Hong Kong's
leading publishers of pocketbooks, took the Cantonese Dialect Dictionary as its
standard, as did a number of writers associated with Publications Holdings (Kwan
Wing-kei, interview, 25 September 1990; Joseph Yau, interview, 3 July 1990; Ng
Chun-bong, interview, 3 July 1990). No other publishers that I spoke with used
this dictionary, or any other, as their standard reference.
35. Ng Chun-bong, interview, 3 July 1990.
36. Kwan Wing-kei, interview, 25 May 1990; Ng Chun-bong, interview, 3 July 1990.
37. This was one of several series of articles criticizing Cantonese reference books
produced by mainland Chinese scholars. Lau's suspicions as to the credentials of
the authors of the Cantonese Dialect Dictionary typify his attitude toward the other
works as well.
38. For example, reference works are quite unanimous in assigning the character III
to the word (C) laan (to crawl). However, A Foon's Diary of The Little Man series
uses ~ instead. We find the same pattern with the word (C) mit (to tear off). The
reference works use ~, while Diary of The Little Man uses "Mit."
39. For example, in the Diary of The Little Man series, the following Cantonese
words have varying forms: (C) caan (to rush): ~ and rJl~J ; (C) daap (to taste):
"DEP" and ~ ; (C) duk (to poke): r~J and rtf J ; (C) wt (to squeeze): it
r
and 1t J ; (C) zit (to tickle): nfp and I!lt. The same phenomenon can be seen
Notes to pages 60-72 265
in other books as well. In Gam Gwok-loeng's Vanishing from .the Human Race,
(C) di (a little) is sometimes written as I¥J and sometimes as nag.
40. For another taxonomy, see Liang (1987: 65-6).
41. Hanan (1981: 5; 10). For example, rather than replacing classical Chinese as the
language of the classical tale (chuanqi 1$*), use of Baihua appeared in a new kind
of vernacular short story (Baihua xiaoshuo B lm/J\Jm). A number of features which
distinguish the classical tale from the vernacular story have to do with the role of
the narrator. For example, in classical tales the narrator never addresses the
audience, and makes "editorial" comments only before or after the tale. In the
vernacular story, on the other hand, the narrator interjects comments and
questions to the audience throughout the story. For a complete discussion of these
and other differences, see Hanan (1981: 20-26).
42. Lin (1996: 80).
43. Chang (1981: 61-62); Chan (1987: 235).
44. Chan (1987: 243); Deng (1989: 3); Kwo (1992: 205); Zhong and Zhang (1993:
24-26); Zhong (1994: 229); Yu (2001: 2-3).
45. Another feature of the Standard Chinese of Hong Kong and Cantonese-speaking
areas in Guangdong province is the use of English vocabulary that was first
borrowed into Cantonese, and then worked its way into local Standard Chinese
usage. Even in Guangzhou, one frequently finds signs for (C) diksi I¥J± ( taxi)
and (C) baasi B± (bus) rather than for (M) chuzuche tl:lm* and (M) gonggong
qiche -0~7~*, and in Hong Kong the two Cantonese terms have won out
completely, becoming the normally used terms for "taxi" and "bus" in any writing,
no matter how formal or standard.
46. Zhou (1987); Tong (1989: 15).
CHAPTER 4
1. Siu (1993: 20); Lary (1996: 16).
2. Liang (1982: 88); Huang (1999: 215).
3. Wiens (1967: 132); Huang (1999: 34-35).
4. Huang (1999: 36); 209; Lary (1996: 9).
5. Huang (1999: 215; 219).
6. Wakeman (1966: 43);Jiang and Fang (1993: 121); Faure (1996: 38); Huang (1999:
44); Tsin (1999: 17).
7. Faure (1996: 38).
8. Schafer (1967: 45).
9. Wiens (1967: 143-4).
10. Faure (1996: 38).
11. Schafer (1967: 28); Wiens (1967: 143).
12. Huang (1999: 215); Siu and Faure (1995: 2); Jiang and Fang (1993: 158-66).
13. Wiens (1967: 182).
14. Huang (1999: 210).
15. Faure (1996: 38-9).
16. Siu (1993: 22-23); Faure (1996: 44); Siu and Faure (1995: 11-12).
17. Wakeman (1966: 57,121); Liang (1982: 78-79). An interesting manifestation of
this ability to defy national authority while claiming true patriotism may be found
in the Triads of the southeast Chinese coast. These secret societies, common in
266 Notes to pages 72-79
both Fujian and Guangdong, were ostensibly devoted to the overthrow of the Qing
and the restoration of the Ming, though in practice they were often primarily
organized crime groups (Wakeman 1966: 119-20).
18. Liang (1988: 28); Naquin and Rawski (1987: 181).
19. Naquin and Rawski (1987: 180). The most complete account of this warfare is to
be found in J.A.G. Roberts, "The Hakka-Punti War" (PhD dissertation, Oxford,
1968).
20. Wakeman (1966: 56-58). The role inter-group conflict played in creation of a
distinct Cantonese identity was by no means unique. Despite the fact that Hakka
people had been present in southeastern China for centuries, it was only when
the Hakka began entering Guangdong in the Ming dynasty and found themselves
in conflict with neighboring groups, first the She (~n people and later other Han
Chinese, that a common sense of Hakka identity began to grow. Significantly,
Hakka-speaking people in southern Jiangxi who did not experience such conflicts
were also slow to develop any sense of Hakka identity (Leong 1997: 35-39; 63;
Lutz and Lutz 1998: 11).
21. Vogel (1969: 32); Eastman (1974: 255).
22. Eastman (1974: 255-60). Goodman and Feng (1994: 179) point out that, unlike
the several independent dynasties that established themselves in Guangdong over
the centuries, which aspired to be national rather than regional governments,
Chen Jitang's government in the 1930s attempted to promote a localist political
identity. However, they also note that this had much to do with his competition
with Chiang Kai-shek. Lary (1996: 18) describes the recent "re-discovery" of Chen
by Chinese historians, and the tendency to portray him sympathetically as one who
was able to keep the Guangdong economy going during the Depression.
23. Attempts of the national government to assert its control over Guangdong are a
major theme of Ezra Vogel's 1969 Canton Under Communzsm.
24. Li (1990: 32): Huang (1999: 91).
25. See also Norman (1988: 210-11) and Bauer and Benedict (1997: xxxix).
26. Mai (1993: 69-70).
27. Liu (2000).
28. Naquin and Rawski (1987: 173).
29. Yang (2000).
30. In a recent research project, when Cantonese, Hakka and Chaozhou people in
Guangdong were asked how they determined who belonged in which group, the
first criterion cited by most people was language. Blood ties were second, and home
region third (Huang 1999: 478).
31. Huang (1999: 217).
32. Wakeman (1966: 57).
33. Li (1989: 1); Goodman and Feng (1994: 178); Huang (1999: 222).
34. Wakeman (1966: 57); Pan (1991: 15); Ching (1996: 54); Fitzgerald (1996: 159).
35. Similar arguments have been made for how it was that the vernacular came to be
used in the written languages of other Asian countries. For example, John
DeFrancis suggests that early vernacular writing in Vietnamese can also trace its
origins to Buddhist literature (1977: 21).
36. Liang (1988: 19).
37. Liang (1978: xiii); Xue (1985a: 108-9).
38. Tan and Tan (1982: 7).
Notes to pages 79-83 267
39. Rawski (1979: 6, 116-7); Hegel (1998: 6). While there is no conclusive evidence
as to the period when wooden fish books were first published, Liang Peizhi believes
it was in the late Ming. In interviews with wooden fish book publishers, he found
that they had seen woodblocks carved as early as the late 1500s (1978: 245-47).
See also Tan and Tan (1982: 2). Gazetteers also preserve some evidence of
distinctive Cantonese writing. For example, New Words about Guangdong (Guangdong
Xinyu JJDIl:*'Tj'fg) by Qu Dajun OHljc±IJ) (1630-1697) has a section on "local words"
(tu yan ± 1r) which includes a number of Cantonese terms. However, the section
fails to list many of the common Cantonese terms which were already appearing
in wooden fish books, and is thus not a very good indicator of the state of the
written language at the time.
40. Rawski (1985a: 25-27).
41. Fu (1949: 42); Liang (1978: xiv, 226, 247-52).
42. Topley (1975: 75); Liang (1978: 232); Rawski (1979: 6); Xue (1985a: 2).
43. Tan and Tan (1982: 2, 16); Xue (1985a: 1); Hu ([1926] 1974: 24-25).
44. Liang (1978: xiii); Xue (1985a: 107).
45. Chen (1998: 289); Chan Sauyan, interview, 12 March 2003; Wong Yiu-kwan,
interview, 26 April 2003.
46. Xue (1985a: 108-9). There is not complete agreement as to how the term "wooden
fish song" (C: muk jyu go *:*Jf1q should best be used. Some scholars use it as a
general term covering a broad variety of genres (Tan and Tan 1982: 19-20), while
others use it in reference to a particular genre of long narrative song (Xue 1985a:
108-9; Liang 1988: 18; Yung 1989: 138). The confusion arises from the fact that
there is little difference between the verse structures of the wooden fish songs and
southern song genres (Yung 1989: 193).
47. Yung (1989: 138); Xue (1985a: 1-2).
48. Liang (1978: 256-7); Tan and Tan (1982: 17); Xue (1985a: 110); Yung (1989: 139).
49. The English title, The Flowery Scroll, is taken from the translation by Sir John
Bowring published in London by Wm. H. Allen and Co. in 1868.
50. Xue (1985a: 4); Liang (1988: 18);Ye (1996: 59).
51. Tan and Tan (1982: 17); Xue (1985a: 2). There may have been two authors; see
Xue (1985a: 4) and Ye (1996: 59) for discussion.
52. For explanation of what constitutes "marked Cantonese" see Chapter 3, and also
the introduction to Appendix 1.
53. Xue (1985a: 2). One interesting measure of the influence of the work is perhaps
the number of times it has been translated into Western languages. A prose
translation into English was published by Sir John Bowring as The Flowery Scroll
(London: Wm. H. Allen and Co., 1868). Earlier verse translations into English
( Chinese Courtship by P. P. Thomas) and Dutch (Geschiedenis van het gebloemde Brief
Papier, by "Mr Schlegel") had also been published (Bowring 1868: v-vi).
54. For discussion of different theories, see Chen (1998: 280).
55. Liang feels that local folk songs formed the base of the southern song genre, and
discusses the arguments of other scholars who feel that the southern song owed
more to other genres imported from outside Guangdong. In either case, the
consensus is that elements of both local and outside genres went into the formation
of southern songs. See Liang (1988: 31-33) for further discussion of this theory.
For alternative theories, see Chen Zhiqing (1999: 19).
56. Fu (1949: 44); Liang (1988: 24).
268 Notes to pages 83-89
57. For example, the Xiangjiang Wanbao, a Hong Kong newspaper which was published
between 1922-24, included a southern song, a dragon boat song, or a Cantonese
love song in its entertainment section almost every day.
58. Fu (1949: 44); Xu (1958: 30); Liang (1978: 256-7); Tan and Tan (1982: 17); Yung
(1989: 138).
59. This was the highest national imperial examination.
60. For discussion of this theory, see Liang (1988: 85,98-99) and Tan and Tan (1982:
23-25). Another possibility is that the author was a native of Hangzhou writing
under the name Liao Lianxian (Ye 1996: 53).
61. Here and following I use the term "Standard Chinese" to refer to a written
language which was somewhere between Classical Chinese and modern Mandarin.
As Hanan notes, early "Baihua" texts were actually written in a mix of Baihua and
Classical Chinese (1981: 6-7). My point is to distinguish between Cantonese dialect
and forms of written Chinese used widely throughout China.
62. Interview, 17 May 1990.
63. Wong Yiu-kwan, interview, 26 April 2003. See Yung (1989, Chapter 9), for
discussion of padding syllables as used in Cantonese opera.
64. Liang (1988: 19); Chen Zhiqing (1999: 20); Yung (1989: 138); Ye (1996: 49-50).
65. Fu (1949: 44). This is not to say that dragon boat songs were never published.
One collection from the late 1800s, Improved Lingnan Notes (C: Goiloeng Lingnaam
Ziksi rj( IHJtl¥i lW~) contains a number which are very colloquial. (Reprint; Macao:
Xinsheng chubanshe, pp. 24-28).
66. Liang (1988: 24-25); Chen Zhiqing (1999: 20).
67. Liang (1988: 149, 151).
68. This was the degree granted for passing the imperial examination at the provincial
level.
69. Jiang and Fang (1993: 498). For biographical information, see Tan and Tan (1982:
24); and Liang (1988: 156).
70. Chen Zhiqing (1999: 23). The translation of Jyut Au as "Cantonese Love Songs"
follows Sir Cecil Clementi's 1904 translation and also Peter Morris' 1992
translation. Liang (1988: 165) notes that there was at least one other writer of
Cantonese love songs who was a contemporary of Zhao Ziyong, a holder of the
jinshi degree named Feng Xun (l~mu). Unfortunately, however, Feng's works are
now all lost.
7l. See Liang (1988: 215) for discussion.
72. Liang (1988: 228-9).
73. Clementi (1904: 1); Chen (1986: 8-9). Over ten editions of the Cantonese Love Songs
have survived, and according to Chen (1986: 5-6) even non-Cantonese speakers
have read and enjoyed these verses. Hu Shi, for one, was familiar with them and
cited them as the leading example of Cantonese dialect literature ([1926] 1974:
27).
74. For text, see Liang (1988: 235-6).
75. This single case is the usage of zai as the preposition of place, and even this case
is not clear. While hai is the more common preposition of place in Cantonese,
even today sometimes zai (C: zot) will be heard, and it often appears in texts which
are otherwise quite purely Cantonese, a fact that would tend to indicate that it is
generally not considered marked Standard Chinese.
76. The edition of Cantonese Love Songs found in volume 56 of the Folklore and Folk-
Notes to pages 89-94 269
literature Series edited by Lou Zukuang [Lou Tsu-k'uang] (Taipei: Orient Culture
Service, 1971) includes the dialect term glossary, which explains 74 Cantonese
words and expressions. Unfortunately, while More Cantonese Love Songs is included
in the same publication, its dialect glossary is not included.
77. Yet a third possibility is that the glossaries reflect the needs of Cantonese people
living in Shanghai, Beijing and other places who might have been interested in
such works but not gained literacy in Cantonese. Chan Sau-yan, interview, 12 March
2003.
78. A substantial literature in Cantonese was produced by missionaries in the late
1800s, written for the most part in Chinese characters, and this book may be an
example of such efforts. Ball (1894: vii-xvi) provides an annotated bibliography
of 64 texts either written in or translated into Cantonese by missionaries.
Unfortunately, Ball provides no information as to how widely these texts were
circulated.
79. By contrast, the romanization system for the Xiamen (Amoy) dialect of Fujian
devised in 1850 still plays a role in the church in Taiwan today, and outside the
church romanized Taiwanese is now advocated by a number of writers as the best
system for writing down Taiwanese words for which there are no agreed upon
characters (Zheng 1988b: 32).
80. This text is reproduced in volume 122, set 7, of the Folklore and Folk Literature
Series of Peking University and Association for Chinese Folklore edited by Lou
Zukuang [Lou Tsu-k'uang] (Taipei: Orient Cultural Service, 1974). While no
publication information is given, it was probably published in 1929, the same date
as other materials in the volume. It could not be much earlier as Nanjing is referred
to as China's capital in the text.
81. For biographical information on these two men, see Luk (1984).
82. This was the degree granted for passing the imperial examination at the county
level.
83. There is some doubt here, because the copies in my possession were rescued from
a library garbage heap some years ago by David Faure, and the two texts which I
discuss in this paragraph mayor may not have been published in one single bound
volume along with Chen Ronggun's Essentials for Women and Children. The string
binding had deteriorated, so it was no longer clear what exactly had been bound
to what; they seem to have originally been published separately, and then
republished together in 1919 by the Shanghai Geyan Congjishe. The similarity of
the titles of these books to Chen's other texts also suggests that Chen was the
author.
84. Ching (1996: 56).
85. Lai and Huang (1988: 12).
86. Liang (1982: 7, 174); Liang (1988: 259); Yung (1989: 9).
87. Liang (1982: 153-4). For the story ofLi Wenmao, see Lai and Huang (1988: 13-
17); also Lai (2001: 127-31).
88. Liang (1982: 55-56).
89. Liang (1988: 259-60).
90. Lai and Huang (1988: 2~27); Lai (2001: 206).
91. Liang (1982: 174, 179); Liang (1988: 20).
92. Liang (1982: 179); Liang (1988: 259-60).
93. Liang (1982: 177).
270 Notes to pages 94-/05
CHAPTER 5
1. As a very large percentage of the Chinese laborers working in the United States
were from the Pearl River delta region, it is not surprising that Guangzhou became
one of the main centers of the boycott movement. See Liang (1988: 266-74) for
a detailed account of the role of traditional verse forms in the boycott.
2. Liang (1988: 267).
3. Ye (1996: 52).
4. Xiangjiang Wanbao, 4June 1922, p. 4.
5. Xiangjiang Wanbao, 3 May 1922, p. 1.
6. This journal only lasted a few months and ceased publication in 1933 when Ouyang
Shan and other leftists had to flee Guangzhou (HuaJia, interview, 18June 1990).
The journal evidently had little influence (Jing 1949c: 6).
7. Mao Dun was in Hong Kong in 1938 and was the editor of one of Lih Pao's feature
sections (Lu 1987: 145).
8. See page four of the 5 July, 12 July, and 14 November 1938 issues of Lih Pao
respectively.
9. Lih Pao, 9 July 1938, p. 4.
10. Despite the apparent lack of success of the Lih Pao experiment, it may have had
some influence on the Dialect Literature Movement through Mao Dun. In his role
of editor on the Lih Pao staff, he would almost certainly have been aware of the
column, and in his postwar involvement with the Dialect Literature Movement it
is reasonable to assume that he would have passed this experience on to other
writers more deeply involved in the movement than he was.
11. It should be noted, however, that some early proponents of Baihua, including Qian
Xuantong (~1rIRJ) and Hu Shi, had a relatively positive attitude toward the
inclusion of dialect terms in Baihua (Gao 1993: 63-64).
12. Ramsey (1987: 12).
13. Gunn (1991: 46); Holm (1986: 7-8).
14. Gunn Piing (1991: 46); Chen Ping (1999: 80); Ramsey (1987: 13); Gao (1993: 119).
15. Gao (1993: 117-8, 135).
Notes to pages 105-113 271
44. Zheng Bao, 8 November 1947. Ironically, however, the letter itself is written in rather
formal Standard Chinese.
45. Huang (1988: 161).
46. HuaJia (1949: 34-35).
47. HuaJia, interview, 18June 1990; Fung Gwong-lit, interview, 11 July 1990.
48. Holm (1986: 13).
49. Feng and Quan (1948: 53).
50. Fu (1947: 16); Feng and Quan (1948: 47); Mao (1948: 17).
51. Hua (1949: 22); Liu (1949: 6).
52. To the best of my knowledge, neither Lan Ling nor Lin Luo was able to publish
anything related to the DLM after 1947, and in Jing Wen's 1949 list of the
movement's major theorists they are not included despite the amount of debate
generated by their 1947 articles (1949c: 6). Even though they were silenced fairly
early in the movement, the fact that in 1949 HuaJia still felt the need to refute
their views suggests that other writers shared their feelings on this issue.
53. See HuaJia's "Counting Dead Grass" (C: Syun sei cou .jE1j!.) in Hua (1949: 100-
16); Chen Canyun's "Third Aunt Yang" (Ta Kung Pao, 9 March 1949, p. 7); and
Gan Niu's "The Strange Case of the Guangzhou Baby Murder" (C: Joengseng saat
jing kei on $~~lJUf~) (First installment, Zheng Bao, 3 April 1948, p. 27).
54. Huang (1988: 167-8).
55. Hua Jia, interview, 18 June 1990.
56. Hua (1987: 7).
57. Hua (1949: 63-64); Huang Sheng (1949: 24).
58. Hua (1949: 34-35).
59. Lou Qi, interview, 19 June 1990.
60. Hua (1949: 61).
61. Hua (1949: 62).
62. Lou Qi, interview, 19 June 1990.
63. Hua Jia said he did not recognize any of the names of the writers who wrote dialect
works in the Nanfang Ribao in 1950 and 1951. Interview, 18 June 1990.
64. Fung Gwong-lit, interview, 11 July 1990.
65. Of the writers and newspaper personnel I talked to in Hong Kong, most had never
even heard of the DLM, or remembered it only vaguely. The exceptions were all
people who had been involved in leftist politics, such as Cheung Chor, editor of
the Hong Kong Commercial Daily. As a youth he studied the DLM works while
working in a factory, and even wrote dragon boat songs in that style. His interest
in dialect writing, and the influence it has had on Hong Kong Commercial Daily's
policies toward dialect material, were the one concrete legacy I was able to find
of the DLM's influence on the growth of written Cantonese. Cheung Chor,
interview, 10 July 1990.
66. For the beer advertisement, see Narifang Ribao, 10 March 1951.
67. DeFrancis (1984: 226).
68. Peterson (1994: 934-5).
69. Yu et al. (1979: 462); Hayford (1987: 167).
70. For example, see Chen Canyun's 1960 "Duck-House Notes" (Yaliao ji shi ~~~
~). There are four dialect terms used in a 13-page story, all footnoted. In
Guangdong Zhong-duanpian Xiaoshuo Xuan (Jjt~ i=fmJt /J\~j1!), vol. 2 (Guangzhou:
Guangdong renmin chubanshe, 1979), pp. 33-46.
Notes to pages 121-131 273
CHAPTER 6
1. Fonoroff (1988: 297).
2. LiJiayuan (1989: 31).
3. See Link (1981: 18-19) for discussion of the mosquito press in Shanghai.
4. Choi notes the predominance of Cantonese people, especially those from Hong
Kong, in the early Mandarin as well as Cantonese film industry, and attributes this
to the greater familiarity of the Cantonese with Western culture (1990: 63).
5. Various explanations have been offered for the origin of the term saam kap dai.
At a dinner with several of the "elder statesmen" of Hong Kong's newspaper world,
Hon Zung-syun (.'PiiJE), editor of Sing Pao Daily; Leung Tol (mIl), best known
as the columnist Lou Gam (.~); and the columnist Lau Sing (~tl~), the
following two explanations were offered to me. One possibility is that the term
may somehow be derived from the traditional Chinese examination system. In
Cantonese, the three top places in the provincial examinations are known
collectively as the (C) saam jyun kap dai (-='j(;'&~), or (C) saam kap dai (-=..&~)
for short. A second explanation is that the term comes from a kind of porridge
eaten in Guangdong which is made with three different kinds of pig innards and
is called (C) saam kap dai zuk (-=..&~~) or (C) kap dai zuk (.&~~). A final
possible explanation, suggested in Huang (2002: 3) is that the term originally
referred to badly cooked rice that had three levels: uncooked on top, cooked in
the middle, and burned on the bottom.
yi*,
6. The Classical Chinese elements are generally particles, such as (M) ye -tE and (M)
used at the ends of sentences, and (M) yue B (to say) which is normally
used to introduce quotations.
7. Such as (M) yue B, (M) yun z;; , (M) yi
8. LiJiayuan (1989: 29-30).
*, and ke fou PJ~.
9. Mao (1948: 6); Feng and Quan (1948: 46);Jing (1949a: 10).
10. Even in 1938, (C) Jam Wu-faa (fffii:ft:.), the same man who was later to start Hung
Lok, started a short-lived newspaper called Xian Dao (JIG.) which made
considerable use of saam kap dai. Huang (2002: 92).
11. The focus of the paper on the working class is suggested by one regular column
called "A Record of Workers' Grievances" (C: Daagungzai soujyun luk trlff~~
~). As the writer of the 10 August 1947 column asserts, Hung Lok is the only place
a poor worker can go to have his case heard.
12. One interesting point is that the word (C) saau Pl'l (to skim - in reading) is
marked in brackets, probably indicating that this is a term the author felt readers
might not be familiar with, and that they needed to be warned to pronounce this
word rather than read it for its normal meaning, "to whistle."
13. This last-mentioned feature was cited in an article by Mao Dun as an example of
the success of many urban writers (shimin zuojia mB.Ht~) (1948: 6).
14. To some extent, popular kungfu novels (wuxia xiaoshuo ~f!JvHm.) were also a part
of the history of published Cantonese in this period. While most novels in this
genre did not use Cantonese, the books of authors such as (C) Chan Ging (~!fYJ;
274 Notes to pages 732-138
pen-name Ngo si saanjan 1'Jt~ ill A, "The Mountain Man"), were written in a saam
kap dai style that included some Cantonese.
15. LiJiayuan (1989: 63).
16. Fung Gwong-lit, interview, 11 July 1990.
17. Fung Gwong-lit, interview, 11 July 1990.
18. This honor may belong to odd opinion columns written by (C) Gam Ngaaji (~
3f =) in the mosquito press newspaper Xian Dao in the late 1930s. Huang (2002:
92).
19. For a collection ofSaam So's articles, see Selected Odd Opinions of San Su (C: Saam
So gwaaileon syun -=:,*'~liifU~) (Hong Kong: Zuojia shuwu, 1975). For English
translation of one of Saam So's odd opinion articles, see Renditions 29 & 30: 68-
70.
20. For example, (C) Haa Gong (*0), one of Hong Kong's better-known odd
opinion columnists, more often wrote without using Cantonese than with it.
21. Interview, 3 July 1990.
22. Gou Dak-hung (Ginggei Laa), The Stockbroker's Diary (C: Ginggei jatgei ~*c. S ae)
(Hong Kong: Dagong shuju, 1953).
23. For a collection of Haa Gong's odd opinion articles, some of which contain
Cantonese, see Haa Gong, Haa Gong's Odd Opinions (Haa Gong gwaaileon *0'~
liifU) (Hong Kong: Xingji chuban youxian gongsi, 1986). For English translations
of Haa Gong columns, see Renditions 29 & 30: 320-28; and Seeds of Fire: Chinese
Voices of Conscience, edited by Geremie Barme and John Minford (New York: Hill
and Wang, 1988).
24. Among the mass-market newspapers, through the 1980s, Oriental Daily published
a column called "Third Uncle's Odd Opinions" (C: Saam Suk gwaaileon -=:*~'~liifU),
later replaced by "Brother Liao's Odd Opinions" (C: Liu Go gwaaileon T{If'~liifU).
Sing Pao Daily ran the column "Chats" (C: Taam tin ~7C), and Tin Tin Daily had
one called "Sound from Beyond the String" (C: Sin ngoi jam ~?T~{f). Among leftist
newspapers during the same period, Wen Wei Po ran a column called "Ms Lu's Odd
Opinions" (C: Luk neoisi gwaaileon 1lt:9:±'~liifU) which had some of the
characteristics of the odd opinion genre. A column which appeared in Ta Kung
Pao in the mid-1980s, "Go Naa's Notes" (C: Gonaa saugei ~JF¥ae), was also
arguably at least descended from the odd opinion tradition. While it used little
Classical Chinese, it did introduce direct speech with the classical yue B, and while
the author did not refer to herself by name, she continued the tradition of strong
narrator presence by writing in the first person.
25. Interview, 3 July 1990.
26. Interview, 10 July 1990.
27. For example, as of the early 2000s, Oriental Daily Olt:n S ¥l) had an odd opinion
column entitled "The Crow's Odd Opinions" (Wu Ngaa gwaaileon ,~~'~mfU), and
Apple Daily OijL* S ¥l) had a column entitled "GG's Tidbits" (GG sai jyu GG #.lIB
l'ia) with all the traits of an odd discourse column.
28. Ng (1989: 392); Rafferty (1989: 44).
29. Vogel (1989: 58); Rafferty (1989: 65).
30. Cheung (1985: 99).
31. Luk (1989: 55-56).
32. Chan and Kwok (1986: 407); Chen (1989: 33).
33. Zou (1989: 3).
Notes to pages 138-147 275
63. Figures for number of columns containing Cantonese per day are approximate.
Features regularly appear and disappear in Hong Kong newspapers, and colUmnists
are not always consistent in their choice of style or language.
64. Chan and Choi (1989: 312).
65. To some extent, the relatively large number of Cantonese features in top-selling
mass-market newspapers is accounted for by the fact that the mass-market papers
tended to have many pages, hence more features than some other newspapers
such as Express or Jig Yip Ma Po. However, some newspapers with relatively few
Cantonese features, such as Mzng Pao Daily and Sing Tao Jih Pao were also large
newspapers with many pages, so in these cases the difference in total Cantonese
use was accounted for by policy rather than size of the newspaper.
66. Far Eastern Economic Review, 27 September 1990, p. 26.
67. Chan and Choi (1989: 312).
68. Leung Shu-chiu, interview, 9 July 1990. Hon Zung-syun, editor of Sing Pao Daily
also attributed the success of his paper (it had the second largest circulation in
Hong Kong through the 1980s) to the fact that it was responsive to the culture of
Hong Kong, a culture which he explicitly argued was not simply Chinese but rather
something unique and distinctive. Interview, 7 July 1990.
69. Steven Yao, interview, 25 May 1990.
70. Sing Pao Daily, 13 September 1989, p. 32.
71. Tin Tin Daily, 13 September 1989.
72. Like odd opinion articles, "Notes" articles are also generally written by upper-level
members of the newspaper staff. Cheung Chor, interview, 10 July 1990.
73. See Nan BeiJi, 16 October 1982, p. 2, and 16 March 1986, p. 8, for examples.
74. It is not unusual even for Hong Kong publications which are written entirely in
Chinese to have an English title along with a Chinese title. In fact, for some Chinese
publications like Movie and Fun Magazine, the English title is displayed far more
prominently on the cover than the Chinese title.
75. Cheung (1985: 97).
76. See City, October 1984, p. 8; December 1984, p. 8; and October 1989, p. 46.
77. See, for example, the January 1990 special issue on young Yuppies. Incidentally,
the English word ''Yuppie'' is generally used, even in Chinese text.
78. Cheung (1985: 91).
79. City, January 1980, p. 91.
80. City, December 1982, p. 30. For another article defending City's liberal approach
to use of dialect, see Ye (1981: 82).
81. In a 12 June 1990 interview with Joseph Yau, one of the founders of City and a
frequent contributor during its early years, he noted that the magazine never had
a formal language policy and that there was considerable diversity of viewpoints
within the staff. Support for the views he presented in his December 1982 article
was by no means unanimous.
82. Chan Hing-kai, interview, 10 July 1990.
83. Liang (1989: 5).
84. Among the better-known pocketbooks writers are numbered one college professor,
a CPA, and a middle school Chinese teacher. To the best of my knowledge, most
pocketbooks writers are graduates of tertiary institutions.
85. Luke (1995: 102).
86. Kwan Wing-kei, interview, 25 May 1990.
Notes to pages 160-172 277
115. See Yau (1992: 6) and Chin (1997: 80) for expression of such concerns.
116. I make this claim realizing full well that Cantonese has so far only "proven itself'
in light entertaining texts. However, in theory at least, formal texts written in
Cantonese should be easier to read than colloquial Cantonese texts because formal
Cantonese is closer to Standard Chinese than is colloquial Cantonese (Bauer 1988:
249).
CHAPTER 7
1. Joseph (1987: 38); Crystal (2000: 138).
2. Ho (1976: 551-4); Harrell (1993: 93-94); Lewis (1999: 339); Hansen (2000: 104).
3. Ramsey (1987: 3-4); Fitzgerald (1996: 13).
4. DeFrancis (1984: 225).
5. DeFrancis (1984: 226); Hayford (1987: 167).
6. Fitzgerald (1996: 14).
7. See Li Yunhan (1997: 190) and Pei (1997: 34) for views on the proper use of dialect
in Chinese literature.
8. Chen Ping (1999: 118).
9. Chan Chee-shing (1987: 242); Yu (1987: 229): Kwan-Terry and Luke (1997: 291-
2).
10. Fung Gwong-lit, interview, 11 July 1990; Leung Tol, interview, 26 June 1990;
Cheung Chor, interview, 10 July 1990. See also Chen (1985: 85) and Deng (1980:
86).
11. Kwok Wing-ki, interview, 14 September 2002; Fok Lai-zan, interview, 24 September
2002. For examples of such accusations, see Yin (1981: 38-40); Yang (1982: 36);
Lin (1986: 116); Liu (1986: 79): He (1987: 39).
12. Chan Man-hung, interview, 12 July 1990; Robert Lord, interview, 17 July 1990.
Kwan-Terry and Luke (1997: 292).
13. Fu (1975: 85-86; 1987: 28-29); Liang et al. (2001: 2).
14. T'sou (1985: 16); Zou [T'sou] (1989: 3).
15. Si (1981: 101); Tong (1989: 14).
16. Deng (1980: 87); Chan Chee-shing (1987: 243); Chen (1988: 18); Li (1988: 42).
17. Chang (1981: 61-62); Chan Chee-shing (1987: 235).
18. Deng (1980: 87); Li (1988: 41-42). While Deng does not stress the value ofa
knowledge of spoken Mandarin in the process of learning to write Standard
Chinese, he does note that knowledge of written Standard Chinese would facilitate
students' acquisition of spoken Mandarin.
19. Kang (2000: 7-9); Yu (2001: 2).
20. Zhong and Zhang (1993: 17); Kwo (1992: 205); Huang (1998: 3); Liang et al.
(2001: 4).
21. See also Yang (1982: 37); Fu (1987: 29); Zhou (1987: 71); Deng (1989: 3).
22. Deng (1989: 3).
23. Kang (2000: 10); Yu (2001: 2).
24. See also Kwo (1992: 209); Yu (2001: 3). As more teachers in Hong Kong have
studied Mandarin (Putonghua) in recent years, the ease with which they can
determine what is and is not acceptable as Standard Chinese is also increasing.
Chung Ling-sung, interview, 26 September 2002.
25. Yang (1987: 53).
Notes to pages 182-186 279
26. Liang (1987: 66). Similarly, Zheng Liangwei points out that for more than twenty
years after 1945, Taiwan's noted authors were almost all native Mandarin speakers
from outside Taiwan, and feels that even now the ability of Taiwanese authors to
break into the creative writing scene is somewhat hampered by their non-native
Standard Chinese skills (1984: 5).
27. Interview, 3 July 1990.
28. Interview, 13 June 1990.
29. Interview, 18 June 1990. This view was echoed by Guangzhou publisher and author
Yang Chonghua (interview, 18June 1990), and also by the Dialect Literature
Movement writer Lou Qi, who commented on the unusual difficulty Cantonese
speakers seem to have in learning to write Standard Chinese (interview, 19 June
1990).
30. Choi Po-king, interview, 29 November 1989; Joseph Yau, interview, 12June 1990.
31. As LePage and Tabouret-Keller (1985: 188) note: "For some people in the world
it is true that one particular variety of linguistic behavior has a peculiar force and
intimacy from being powerfully associated with early childhood ... "
32. Zhong (1994: 227). As David Li points out, an additional reason why Hong Kong
people may prefer to use Cantonese terms to Standard Chinese equivalents is that
the Standard Chinese "equivalents," having arisen in a cultural context different
from that of Hong Kong, may actually not mean exactly the same thing as the
Cantonese term in question (personal communication).
33. Writers to whom I spoke generally felt that the only real difficulty involved in
learning to write in Cantonese was that of choosing characters for less common
dialect terms. Joseph Yau (pen-names Gu Sai-mung, Wu Gun-man), for example,
noted that the only composition problem he faced when working in Cantonese
was that of finding characters for obscure dialect words, a problem he can generally
solve by reference to a dictionary. Interview, 12June 1990. When faced with the
same problem, Ng Chun-bong (pen-name Ng Hau) said he often simply avoids
the obscure word, partly out of concern that if he does not know the character,
readers might not know it either. Interview, 3 June 1990. Chan Hing-kai (pen-
name A Foon) said he usually either spells such words out in romanization or
simply uses another character which has the same sound. Interview, 10 July 1990.
None of the above said they found learning to write Cantonese difficult.
34. This is the experience described to me by a number of people in Hong Kong.
Kwok Wing-ki, interview, 14 September 2002; Fok Lai-zan, interview, 24 September
2002; Leung Wai-mun, interview, 26 September 2002. Incidentally, it also describes
my own experience of learning to read written Cantonese.
35. Kwok Wing-ki, interview, 14 September 2002; Fok Lai-zan, interview, 24 September
2002; Leung Wai-mun, interview, 26 September 2002. Discussions I had with
university and middle school students elicited very similar responses.
36. As mentioned in Chapter 2, Hu Shi felt that heavy use of dialect was a m;yor reason
for the low readership of Shanghai Flowers; other Wu dialect novels which made
much more limited use of dialect sold much better. The sheer difficulty in reading
works written entirely in Taiwanese has also been a m;yor factor in their poor sales
to date.
37. Kwan Wing-kei, interview, 25 May 1990.
38. As of 1990, approximately 20,000 copies had to be sold for a book in mainland
China to break even. Yang Chonghua, interview, 18 June 1990. Yang stated that
280 Notes to pages 186-197
while a few books of the Guangdong publishing house are marketed mainly in
Guangdong, most are distributed nationally.
39. Luke (1995: 101).
40. Lin Qiyang, interview, 5 June 1990.
41. For example, the Diary of The Little Man radio scripts were later published as books
with little further editing. Chan Hing-kai, interview, 10 July 1990.
42. Kwan Wing-kei, interview, 25 May 1990.
43. Singer (1998: 56).
44. Giles and Coupland (1991: 96). See also Giles et al. (1977: 307).
45. Psychologist Marilyn Brewer argues that two of the most basic human motivations
are: (a) the need to be included by and assimilated with other people, a need
met within the in-group; and (b) the need to be differentiated from other people,
a need which is met by making distinctions between in-groups and out-groups
(1999: 188).
46. Tong et al. (1999).
47. Public Opinion Programme (1998).
48. For similar survey results, see also Brewer (1999: 194).
49. Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups (1994, 1998,2000).
50. Rawski (1985b: 400).
51. Pierson (1994: 81).
52. Li and Thompson (1982: 87).
53. See Cheung (1985: 195-8); Bauer (1988: 282-3); Snow (1991: 260-82, 1993: 143);
Li (2000: 221-3); Wu (2000: 91).
54. Pierson (1992: 1295).
55. This belief that Cantonese has no grammar was one of the motivations behind
the writing of Cantonese: A Comprehensive Grammar. As Virginia Yip, one of the
authors, noted: "We want to debunk the myth that Cantonese has no grammar.
This is entertained by so many educated people - even our scientist friends and
students. They were so shocked and surprised to hear that we have produced a
whole book for Cantonese grammar." Quoted in Tsui (2000: 3).
56. Kalmer, Zhong, and Xiao (1987).
57. See Pierson (1994); Tong et al. (1999).
58. Report (1993: 3). See also Zhan (1997: 36).
59. Bauer (1988: 285).
60. Wu Changjiang, interview, 18 December 1991.
61. Kwan-Terry and Luke (1997: 289).
62. Bauer (1984: 298); Lo and Wong (1990: 29); Huang (1999: 171). For examples
of such attitudes, see He (1982: 45); Li (1982: 60); Yang (1982: 37); Li et al. (2000:
288); Tacey (2000: 9); and Tsui (2000: 3).
63. Liang (1987: 65); Li (2000: 222).
64. This quotation came from an informal survey I conducted in a university evening
school linguistics class. While many students in the class said they found the
language of a selection from Diary of The Little Man lively, all but three commented
that it was "sub-standard," "bad," or "unacceptable." Even those who, on the whole,
liked the passage felt compelled to note that the language was not appropriate.
See also Pierson (1992: 195).
65. See iI\l#l9='X (C: Gamsau Zungman, Splendid Chinese), Hong Kong: Education
Department, 2001.
Notes to pages 191-202 281
Hong Kong flavor to his poems, and he believes that Hong Kong audiences
respond positively to written Cantonese. Interview, 25 May 1990. AB mentioned
earlier, essayist Lo Wai-Iuen (/J\,I[I" pen-name Siu Si Jal$~) both teaches and
writes in Standard Chinese, but has also made some use of written Cantonese in
her essays because she feels it gives her work more punch. Interview, 13 June 1990.
86. Wu (1992: 94).
87. Fok Lai-zan, interview 24 September 2002.
88. An interesting reflection of this is the strong tendency for Hong Kong young
people to spell out Cantonese words using the English alphabet when engaging
in ICQ chat on the computer. In this approach, students are writing down what
they would say - representing the sounds of their Cantonese speech - rather
than following a purely written norm. Cheng (2002: 26--27).
89. Liang (1989: 106); Ng Chun-bong, interview, 10 July 1990; Chan Hing-kai,
interview, 19 July 1990.
90. Joseph Yau, interview, 12June 1990. Chan Hing-kai said his target audience is the
14-30 age range, and noted that many of his readers are students. Interview, 10
July 1990.
91. Bi and Shu (1989: i). All of the works included in the reader were, however, in
Standard Chinese.
92. Interview, 12June 1990.
93. Kwan Wing-kei, interview, 25 May 1990.
94. Lau Sing, interview, 3 July 1990; Cheung Chor, interview, 10 July 1990; Fung
Gwong-Iit, interview, 11 July 1990.
95. Public panel discussion, 23 June 1990.
96. Interview, 12June 1990.
97. Kwan Wing-kei, 25 May 1990; Ng Chun-bong, interview, 10 July 1990. Two
pocketbooks which are readily comparable are Joseph Yau's (Gu Sai-mung) On a
Weekend Bed, published by Publications Holdings in 1986, and Chan Hing-kai's (A
Foon) Diary of The Little Man, published in 1988. Both share the same office setting
and content matter, and the same diary format. Both also made unusually heavy
use of Cantonese, and sold unusually well. However, Diary of The Little Man was
written entirely in Cantonese, was targeted at a younger audience, and sold many
times more copies. There are, of course, a variety of possible explanations for the
sales differences between these two books, but it is quite possible that the key lies
in the combination of colloquial Cantonese use and a young audience (Liang 1989:
106).
98. Public panel discussion, 23 June 1990.
99. Halliday (1989: 29-30).
100. In my own admittedly much more informal investigations of Nantong dialect
(Jiangsu province), I have also found that while people who speak the dialect do
have a sense of identity which is related in part to the dialect, they do not feel
their local Nantong identity - or the preservation of their distinct local dialect
- to be a terribly high priority.
101. An interesting case in point is provided by the role of the Chu Nom written
vernacular in Vietnam in the 1800s. While some were entirely against use of Chu
Nom, preferring Classical Chinese, and others wished to replace Classical Chinese
entirely with Chu Nom, many favored a middle ground in which Classical Chinese
was retained in the H role, but Chu Nom had a limited role in certain kinds of
literature, especially poetry. DeFrancis (1977: 44).
Notes to pages 273-233 283
CHAPTER 8
1. Even as I write this chapter in Hong Kong, we are in the midst of a "promote
Putonghua month," with an abundance of billboards and television advertisements
encouraging people to study Putonghua. However, for perspective it should be
added that similar campaigns for promotion of English are even more common.
2. See the South China Morning Post, 9 November 2003, Agenda, p. 11, for articles
debating the relative merits of replacing Cantonese with Putonghua in Hong Kong
schools.
3. White and Li (1993: 170); Guldin (1995: 96-99); Huang (1999: 144-6).
4. Huang (1999: 101, 142); Chen Ping (1999: 51).
5. See also Chen (1994: 304); Qian (1995: 38); Zeng (2000: 28).
6. Zhan (1993: 52).
7. Tang and Tu (2000: 357-8; 370). See also Huang (1999: 141); Chen (2002: 6).
8. Through friends teaching in Guangdong I have seen at least a few examples of
personal notes passed between secondary school students which are written in
Cantonese.
APPENDIX 1
1. Use of a measure word without being preceded by a number or demonstrative is
distinctively Cantonese, so it is in bold as marked Cantonese. In later texts this
distinctly Cantonese grammar structure will appear repeatedly.
2. This text is taken from Xue (1985a: 14).
3. Soeng Ngo (~~) is a famous character from Chinese legend who stole a potion
of immortality and floated off to the moon.
4. Text from Liang (1988: 63-64).
5. SungJuk (SongYu *33.) was a poet of the Warring States period (circa 300 BeE).
6. This is an allusion to a line in the poem "Song of the South" (Jiang nan ge tt1¥i
WZ) by Tang dynasty poet Li Yi (*~) (748-827?).
7. Text from Fu (1949: 45).
8. Bags from Siu Hing (Zhaoqing), a city near Guangzhou, were made of a local
variety of reed, and did not stand up to wear and tear as well as bags made of
leather or cloth. The tendency of these bags to leak coins caused them to become
a symbol of bad luck (Guan 1990: 220).
9. Text from Folklore and Folk Literature Series #56 (Taipei: Oriental Cultural Service,
1972), pp. 37-38. This text is also in Morris (1992).
10. This is an allusion to a line in a poem composed by an early Ming dynasty poet
from Guangdong, Sun Fen (I*ji), as he was on his way to execution (Chen 1986:
99).
11. Text from Jiu ben Yueju congkan Cif*~"J~fiJ) #9 (Hong Kong: Shenzhou tushu
gongsi, 1980), no pagination. Originally published in Guangzhou by Da xin shuju,
probably in the 1920s.
12. There is apparently a misprint here of the Cantonese character 1E: (he).
13. This is also apparently a misprint; the character should probably be 1\I!l.
14. Text from Zheng Baa, 4 October 1947, p. 28.
15. Text from Hua (1949: 61). Originally published in Ta Kung Pao, 9 March 1949,
p.7.
16. This character is rather puzzling; it is neither Cantonese nor Standard Chinese.
284 Notes to pages 233-243
vernacularization of written Chinese Counting Dead Grass (Syun sei cou) 272
6-7 (see also Baih ua; Classical Crow's Odd Opinions, The (Wu Ngaa
Chinese; Mandarin; Putonghua; gwaaileon) 274
Standard Chinese; written Chinese) Cuba 87
Chinese characters 2, 29, 35, 38-39, 45, Cultural Revolution 137-8
52-57,60,171,207,277
Chinese civilization 27-29 Daai Loeng Aa Dau Gun 131
Chinese culture 6, 29, 31, 35, 38, 53, 73, Daan Ding (see Gou Dak-hung)
75-77, 111,126-7,139,176,187-8, Dante 197
192, 200, 205-7 Dalian 216
Chinese dialects 1-2, 33, 35, 51, 55, 73- Demotic 17, 21
74,83,91-92,104-5,128,175,180, dialect 46, 121, 259, 262; dialect
192, 195,200,215, 259, 262; written superiority 195 (see also Chinese
forms of 6-7,42, 45, 53, 77,91, 101, dialects)
104-6,176-7,184,208,217,232,278 Dialect Literature (Fangyan wenxue) 107
(see also dialects) Dialect Literature column (Fangyan
Chinese people 1, 190,270 (see also Han wenxue) 107,117,232
Chinese) Dialect Literature Movement (DLM) 11,
Chinese speech communities 8, 18 61,101-23,129-30,132,177-8,182,
Chinese vernacular fiction 40, 265 ' 199,201,203,231-4,263,270,272,
Chow Sing-chi 275 280; history of 106-7, 271; sample
ChuYun 109 texts 109, 1l0, 230-1 (seealsowritten
City Magazine 61,127, 157-62, 168-9, Cantonese - genres)
205-6, 276 Dialect Literature Research Society
Classical Arabic 18, 23-24, 29 (Fangyan wenxue yanjiu huz) 271
Classical Chinese 6, 8, 12, 19, 23-5, 35- Dianshi Zhoubao 136
36,48,60-62,67-68,75,78,82,84, Diao Yu Tai movement 138
92,99,106,112,156,176,180,188, Diary of a Hong Kong Kid (Hoenggongzai
192-3, 199, 203, 232, 238, 259-60, jatgez) 169
262,265,268,270-1,282; in Baihua Diary of a Madman (Kuangren rijz) 31
movement 29-31, 42, 104, 158; in Diary of The Little Man (Siu naamjan
Japan 27-29, 198; in saam kap dai 60, zaugei) 3, 54, 60, 131, 141, 161-2,
127,133-6,144,146,234,236,273- 169, 196, 199-200, 204-6, 240-1,
4 263-4,280; sample text 160, 240
classical tale (chuanqi) 265 diglossia 10, 15-40, 200, 210; definition
Clementi, Sir Cecil 268 16,259; diglossic shift 15-16, 21-40,
comic books 3,142,146-8,170,199,275 43,64; in Hong Kong 17-18, 41, 217,
(see also written Can tonese - 262; in Japan 27-8; in pre-modem
publication type) China 29
Commercial Press 3, 59 Dilhert 169
Communist Party (CCP) 73,101, 104-8, Dirge for Cau Hei (Diu Cau Hez) 88-89,
111-2,114-5,117-9,121,123,126, 226; sample text 88, 225
136,142,177-8 Divine Comedy 197
competitive ahility (jingzhenglt) 260 dog racing 144, 148 (see also written
Conggin Manfu 161 Cantonese - genres)
Corner of Guangzhou, A (Gwongzau jat Don't Think I Will be So Good to You
gok) 109 (Mai gu waa tung nei gam hou) 89
CouJat 169 dragon boat songs (lung zau) 80-81,86-
310 Index
How can we write well? (Dimjoeng se zeng Journal of Travels in Heaven (Tintong
se dak hou?) 109 jaugei) 132
Hu Shi 31, 34, 260, 268, 270-1, 279 Joyce,James 157
HuaJia 106-11, 113, 115-9, 182, 232, 272 juren degree 87, 91
Hua Shang Bao 106-7,114,117 Jyut Ping 12, 172
Huang Chao 70
Huang Guliu 107 Kaifeng 71
Huang Luyi (see Xiang Mizi) Kaleidoscope (Maanfaa tung) 132
Huang Ningying 108 Kam Yeh Pao 281
Huang Sheng 111, 113, 117 Kang Youwei 73, 91
Huang Shihui 35 Kangxi dictionary 56
Huang Zunxian 30-31, 37 katakana 27
Huaqiao Ribao (see Wah Kiu Yat Po) Katharevousa 17, 21
Hui, Sam (Heoi Gun-git) 140 King James English 127
Huizhou 215 Koran 16
Hung Lok 129-30, 132, 234, 273 Korea 25, 198
Hungary 26 kun qu 33
kungfu novels (wuxia xiaoshuo) 130, 182,
ICQ 6, 54, 264, 282 273
I Have a Date with Spring (Ngo wo ceontin
jau go joekwut) 3, 169 Lai He 36
identity 189-91; and language 176, 189, Lai,Jimmy (Lai Chi-ying) 164, 166
193, 204-6, 210, 266 Lam Dik (see Lam Gaa-hung)
Imagined Communities 25 Lam Gaa-hung (Mung Zung Jan, Lam
Improved Lingnan Notes (Gailoeng Lingnaam Dik) 132, 144
Ziksz) 268 Lan Ling 111,113-5,199,271-2,281
In the Underworld (Jan zoi gongwu) 132 language death 7, 37, 175, 211
India 70 Lao She 31
Indonesia 70 Latin 15, 18-20,23-26,29, 197-8, 210
Inside and Outside the Goldfish Bowl Lau Sing (JungJuk, Dau Lung) 59, 134,
( Gamjyu gong noi ngoz) 145 136,264,273
Islam 16,24 Lau Waa-dung 131
Italy/Italian 15, 18,24,26, 197 Leftist Alliance of Writers (Zuoyi zuojia
lianmeng) 105
Jam Wu-faa 273 Legislative Council 137
Japan 19,25,27-28,30-31,35,41,94, Leon Man-zeoi 98
103,130,137,177,198 Letter Writing Reference Materials for Women
Japanese 19, 27, 35-36, 40, 198 (see also and Children (Fujyu seonzaat coiliu) 92,
written Japanese) 128
Jia Pingwa 121 Leung Shu-chiu 150
Jiangsu 282 Leung Tol (Lou Gam) 136, 273
Jiangxi 71, 266 Li, Aurthur 243
Jig Yip Ma Po 276 Li Jingzhong 46
Jing Wen 112 Li Poetry Magazine (Li Shi Kan) 37
jinshi degree 83, 268 Li Wenmao 93, 269
John and Mary 161 Li Yi 83,283
Johnson, Samuel 58 Liang Qichao 30-31, 73
Index 313