How does the study of Taiwanese syntax contribute to the broader field of Taiwan Studies? (Questions about Taiwanese; part 7)

Okay, so, everyone knows we tend to focus on indigenous languages to show Taiwan's different from China, which makes sense. But honestly? That's only part of the story.  Taiwanese isn't just some dialect of Chinese. It might have roots there, sure, but it's grown into its own thing.  It's deeply tied to our culture and history here, and let's face it, it has been the natural lingua franca. Plus, legally speaking, it's a national language here in Taiwan, which is pretty different from how other similar languages are treated elsewhere. Plus, Taiwanese is actually the most prominent version of Southern Min spoken around the world.

Think of it this way: when we study British stuff, we don't get too hung up on the old Germanic roots of English. Instead, we look at how English is used to build British culture and literature. Same idea here.

So, I’m not going to say that diving into Taiwanese syntax is like unlocking the secrets of Taiwan's culture and history, even if the language is super connected to the island's identity. Us syntacticians, we're mostly interested in sentence structures and function words – they're basically linguistic data for us. We see them as specimens of Taiwan, just like scholars study literature, politics, history, culture, or even the animals, plants, and geography here. All of that stuff is part of Taiwan, and Taiwanese syntax should be too. If we take a broader look at Taiwan studies, then yeah, studying Taiwanese syntax definitely contributes because it gives us another way to understand how this linguistic part of Taiwan builds sentences, in contrast to languages spoken elsewhere around the world.

Basically, for Taiwan Studies, focusing on Taiwanese syntax adds another perspective. Currently, there’s a heavy emphasis on Chinese since it's widely spoken, but Taiwanese holds centuries of local history. Examining Taiwanese syntax helps us maintain and honor Taiwan's diverse language and culture, and it also encourages us to acknowledge Taiwan's authentic languages, moving away from Chinese political narratives. So, it's about more than just language—it's about reconnecting with Taiwan's true heritage.

While Taiwanese and Mandarin share a basic subject-verb-object word order, how does their syntax differ significantly enough to warrant in-depth study? (Questions about Taiwanese; part 6)

Honestly, this is a fantastic question. We need to address this for both the general public and linguists here in Taiwan.

As a syntactician, it feels like many linguists assume that understanding Chinese automatically means you understand Taiwanese. Any differences are seen as minor and not really important.

You know, it's interesting – I've noticed that linguists specializing in Mandarin seem to have a unique perspective, and I haven't seen that replicated with those studying other languages, even ones with similar structures. A lot of the misconception about Taiwanese being just a dialect really stems from past political propaganda and, honestly, a general decline in fluency among speakers.

Japanese and Korean might seem similar with their word order, but dig deeper and you'll find lots of differences. Similarly, while Taiwanese and Chinese have common ground, there are key distinctions in several areas. Let's break down four of these.

First, word formation. Here's an interesting thing about Chinese and Taiwanese: you might think they just directly translate word for word, but that's totally not the case. Take "chàngkū" in Chinese, which is like saying "sing-cry" and means someone's singing makes someone else cry. If you try to say the exact same thing using Taiwanese words, "tshiùnn-khàu," it just sounds weird and doesn't work. Taiwanese is just a bit pickier about how you put words together.

Second, subtle word order. In fact, word formation influences word order. For instance, a Taiwanese resultative verbal compound like ‘tsú-si̍k’, meaning to cook something thoroughly, requires its object to come before the compound itself. This isn't the case in Chinese. Consequently, some Taiwanese sentence structures are obligatorily subject-object-verb, differing from Chinese's subject-verb-object pattern. Also, some Taiwanese adverbs can appear in positions where their Chinese equivalents cannot, similar to English versus French. Both use subject-verb-object as their basic order, but French adverbs typically follow the verb, unlike English adverbs which precede it or appear at the end of the sentence.

Third, Languages might have the same basic word order, but they use different sentence structures. For example, English uses "be" plus "Ving" for ongoing events. French can't do that; it has its own ways. Also, Taiwanese has some unique sentence patterns, like the kám-question, evaluative verbal reduplication, and the event control construction.

Fourth, different languages use function words in distinct ways. Take Chinese and Taiwanese, for example. Both have words like bǎ and kā which seem to move an object to somewhere before the verb. But there are subtle rules. Bǎ needs the verb to have a clear result. Taiwanese kā only cares this when the object is not a living thing. Plus, kā can also include nouns that aren't objects at all, like who benefits or suffers because of the event, or who or what is the goal or source. Function words just don't translate one-to-one across languages.

All in all, we could really dive deep into comparing tons of stuff here. Honestly, what we're finding with Taiwanese syntax is super valuable and could seriously impact linguistic typology and theories.

Taiwan is linguistically rich, particularly with its Austronesian languages. Given that Taiwanese is a Sinitic language, what makes its study particularly significant? (Questions about Taiwanese; part 5)

Honestly, the Austronesian languages in Taiwan are super valuable globally. But the claim from some people that Taiwanese isn't "Taiwanese enough" is just off base. Some folks think only indigenous stuff counts as genuinely Taiwanese, which I find kind of silly. You don't really see that kind of thinking elsewhere.

For example, Spanish isn't originally from Spain. It, along with other several languages there, comes from Latin way back in Italy. As far as I know, Basque is the only truly indigenous language in Spain. But should that mean we only care about Basque? Would anyone argue that just Basque is genuinely Spanish and that Spanish, a Romance language, doesn't play a vital role in Spain's culture, history, and who they are?

Likewise, English wasn't originally from Britain. It's a Germanic language brought over by immigrants way back when. The real indigenous languages are the Celtic ones like Welsh and Cornish. But nobody questions that English is super crucial for British culture, literature, theater, and history, right?

So for me, the Taiwanese language, it's really the heart of Taiwan—I mean the heart of Taiwan’s traditional culture, literature, theater, and history. It's surprising how some colleagues in Taiwan studies miss that point.

So, think about it this way. Without the Korean language, would we really see Korean traditional music, architecture, clothing, festivals, and food as distinct from Chinese ones? The differences between their traditions are pretty subtle, honestly, sometimes even less obvious than regional variations within China itself. It's really the language that sets Korean culture apart, right?

Basically, Taiwan's population is primarily made up of people whose ancestors came from today’s China, similar to how the UK's population is mostly descended from people from today’s Germany and the Nordic regions, not the original indigenous peoples in Britain. Just like studying English is crucial in Britain, understanding Taiwanese is super important for anyone looking at Taiwanese culture and society. Anyway, it's the language of the biggest ethnic group and lingua franca of this island.

Many people associate syntax and grammar with the rules found in textbooks. How does linguistic research go beyond these written rules? Specifically, how does the work of a research linguist differ from the prescriptive rules used in teaching and language testing? (Questions about Taiwanese; part 4)

First, let's clarify two concepts: descriptive grammar and prescriptive grammar. The languages we know, especially our first languages, have their descriptive grammar already ingrained in our minds. We simply "know how to use" them but can't necessarily "explain" them.

It's similar to how we all know how to walk, but if you ask us to explain the bodily functions involved: how the brain sends commands through nerve signals, how the cerebellum coordinates, how nerve signals travel to the muscles, which muscles contract, and how the semicircular canals in the inner ear coordinate with the brain and muscles to maintain balance while walking—we "know how to do" these things, but we "can't explain" them. To explain them, we need experts in sports science, physiology, and neuroscience to dissect and organize the processes.

The descriptive grammar in our minds works the same way. Let’s take syntax as an example. We use the principles of sentence formation daily, but we can't articulate them. The task of linguists is to use research methods to organize the descriptive grammar in our minds. Why organize it? Why do we want to know how we walk? Why do we want to know about black holes millions of light-years away? The answer lies in science and the pursuit of knowledge: to understand language, to understand our brain's cognitive functions. In practical terms, it can be applied to language teaching.

In other words, descriptive grammar is the grammar of the languages we naturally know how to speak; we "don't know" it consciously, nor do we particularly want to know it. 

Contrary to descriptive grammar, what we generally find "difficult" is prescriptive grammar. We only need to learn prescriptive grammar when we study languages we don't know, like when I learn English as a second or third language. 

Prescriptive grammar is a standardized grammar developed for "teaching" and "testing." Because the grammar of a language varies by location, age, and individual, a standard is needed for teaching and testing. For example, when we go to English-speaking countries like the United States or watch English movies, we often hear people say, "I didn’t do nothing." This type of double negation is a usage that we absolutely cannot use in tests like TOEFL, TOEIC, or IELTS; otherwise, we will lose points because it doesn't conform to the "prescriptive grammar" of English teaching and testing. Yet, this is precisely a grammatical form that some native English speakers use, which is "descriptive grammar."

In sum, linguists work to find the descriptive grammar of languages. These findings are then standardized to make the prescriptive grammar.

You specialize in syntax. Could you explain what syntax is? And how does it differ from the broader concept of grammar? (Questions about Taiwanese; part 3)

[The 'Questions about Taiwanese' series consists of drafted answers to interview questions prepared for an episode recording of the NTNU International Taiwan Studies Centre Podcast.]

======================

Okay, so syntax is all about how words and phrases are put together to make a sentence. Syntacticians, like me, dig into sentence structures and how words, especially those function words, connect with each other. Grammar, though, that's a much bigger deal. It covers all the rules of a language – not just sentences, but also sound features and changes studied in phonetics and phonology, word formation studied in morphology, and how language works in different situations studied in pragmatics. Basically, grammar includes all the rules in a language.

That said, my main focus is on how sentences are formed. I don't specialize in the details of sounds, word composition, or the more situational aspects of language. My expertise is primarily in sentence structure.

How linguistically distinct is Taiwanese from Mandarin? And how would you respond to the claim that Taiwanese is simply a dialect of Chinese? (Questions about Taiwanese; part 2)

[The 'Questions about Taiwanese' series consists of drafted answers to interview questions prepared for an episode recording of the NTNU International Taiwan Studies Centre Podcast.]

======================

Taiwanese and Mandarin Chinese? Totally different sound systems. Like, the consonants and vowels? Super different. And the way syllables are put together is not the same either.

Chinese has 21 consonants and 6 vowels with a retroflex base, plus five tones. Taiwanese has fewer consonants at 15 but the same number of vowels, and a whopping nine tones including a neutralized tone and a special high rising tone. Chinese has the famous third tone sandhi and special rules for "bu" and "yi," while Taiwanese has tone sandhi for basically every single tone.

In addition, Taiwanese differs from Chinese by having syllables that end in unreleased stops, which are sounds ending abruptly, and a nasal bilabial sound, which ‘m’ stands for. In terms of syllable structure, Taiwanese is more similar to English than Mandarin is.

As for vocabulary, a researcher named Ong Iok-tek found something interesting. He compared word similarities between Amoy, which is close to Taiwanese, and Chinese and then compared English and German. Turns out, English and German have more similar words than Amoy and Chinese do! Lots of people in Taiwan think Taiwanese is just Chinese with a different way of saying things, but that's definitely not the case.

In terms of syntax, Taiwanese has its own distinctive characteristics. For instance, the Taiwanese language utilizes negations differently from Mandarin. Only in Taiwanese is obligatory object fronting required with certain verbal compounds. Additionally, there are unique sentence patterns in Taiwanese, such as evaluative verbal reduplication and the event control construction.

Basically, these two languages are totally different and people can't understand each other. So, yeah, Taiwanese is definitely its own thing, not just a dialect of Chinese.

Okay, so I know "dialect" can be a loaded term, like it's used to put down languages that aren't the "official" one. But Taiwanese is now officially recognized as a national language here since 2018. The Ministry of Education has even standardized its orthography. People might still think Mandarin is the big cheese around here, but legally and politically, Taiwanese isn't just a "dialect" in any sense.

Additionally, many people mistake Taiwanese for a dialect of Chinese because they both use Chinese characters. But, other languages in East Asia, like Japanese, also use those characters. Even Korean and Vietnamese used them before switching to their own systems. Basically, writing is just about picking symbols. Whether we write Taiwanese with characters or Roman script, linguistically speaking, it's its own language, not just a dialect of Chinese.

As a linguist, what name do you think we should give to ‘Taiwanese, Taiyu, Taigi, Hokklo, Holo, Hokkien, Minan? (Questions about Taiwanese; part 1)

[The 'Questions about Taiwanese' series consists of drafted answers to interview questions prepared for an episode recording of the NTNU International Taiwan Studies Centre Podcast.]

======================

It's interesting that we question whether to use Taiwanese as a language name but not other ones like English, Chinese, Vietnamese, or Italian. I mean, have we ever really thought about what we call those other languages? Probably not. So, why is it different for Taiwanese?

To tackle that question, here I've got three angles we can explore: how people choose names for themselves, what history tells us, and how naming works globally.

We prioritize how people choose to identify themselves, including their names, where they live, and their language.  Essentially, we respect their right to self-identification and don't usually step in to change how they refer to these things.

Instead of questioning someone's name choice, like asking, "Why Josh? Wouldn't Michael be better?" we call them according to how they introduce themselves.

If native speakers refer to the language as "Tai-gi" or "Tai-uan-ue," directly translating to Taiwanese, why should there be an effort to alter that?

Alright, some folks say we should just call it 'Tai-gi' like in Taiwanese. But then should we call Japanese 'Nihongo' and Korean 'Hankuko' instead of their English names? I don't hear people suggesting that for Japanese or Korean, only for Taiwanese. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

So, here's the deal. For over a hundred years, this language has been known as Taiwanese. Even a historian like Ang Ka-im says he found the name in old documents during the Dutch colonial period. Basically, "Taiwanese" isn't a new name; it's been around in history, government stuff, and publications for a while. The Japanese used "Taiwango" in Japanese, which means Taiwanese language, in official documents, dictionaries, and learning materials when they were here. And when the KMT first took over, they called it in their publications "Tai-yu," which is Taiwanese in Mandarin, before they started cracking down on local languages.

So, why did the Japanese and KMT government go with that? Well, it wasn't just because people here call their language "Taiwanese." That name actually makes a lot of sense. It's like how languages are named pretty much elsewhere in the world. And that's something we can definitely dig into more.

Basically, you'll never find a place with just one ethnicity or language. However, languages often get names based on locations - Chinese, English, Spanish, you name it. People might point out the diversity in these places and ask how one language gets to "own" the name. But come on, isn't it a common practice? We typically name a language after a place when it's the lingua franca, the main language spoken there.

So, Taiwanese has been the main language people use in Taiwan for ages. Turns out, even when the Japanese showed up and started running things, they just called it Taiwanese straight up, no fuss.

I'm aware some people are uncomfortable about using the term "Taiwanese" as a language name. And I hope they're consistent. If the language name "Taiwanese" bothers them, they should also question "Vietnamese." Vietnam officially recognizes 54 ethnic groups, and they call the language of the Kinh majority "Vietnamese."

Also, when these people hear someone saying ‘I’m learning Chinese.’ They should interrogate ‘Which Chinese are you learning? Are you learning Shanghainese, Cantonese, the Zhuang languages, or Tibetan?’’ Similarly, there are more than a dozen languages spoken in Italy. Will they ask people ‘which Italian are you studying?’

So even the language we are speaking now, it didn't actually start in England. Nope, it came from what's now Germany. Makes you wonder if we should call it something else, like Anglo-Saxon or maybe British German, instead of English. Have any linguists in the world ever wondered that? I don’t think so.

So, basically, if we're being consistent, we should be fine calling the natural lingua franca in Taiwan "Taiwanese," right?

Lastly, as a linguist, I consider the term Minnan or Hoklo as an umbrella term for a group of language varieties. We've got varieties like Amoy, Quanzhou, Zhangzhou, and Teochiw over in China. Then there are Southern Min versions spoken in Southeast Asia too, such as Lan-lang-ue in the Philippines, Mianlan Hokkien in Indonesia, and Penang Hokkien in Malaysia.

Think about it. Who has ever wondered why these Minnan varieties can be named respectively? And why cannot the variety in Taiwan have its own name?

That’s all I’d like to say about the language name Taiwanese.