Author: Yun Wang

The Chinese language that we speak, its standard appellation is called ‘Putonghua,’ and some people also call it ‘Guoyu.’ Is there a difference between these two terms? After diligent research, what presents itself before me is a piece of history little known to people.

Regarding ‘Guoyu,’ Lü Shuxiang defined it in three layers of meaning in 1944: firstly, it is equivalent to the Chinese language, different from foreign languages; secondly, it equals the standard language, distinct from other dialects; lastly, it refers to the Guoyu of elementary Chinese language education, that is, the vernacular.

During the Qing Dynasty, Guoyu was once referred to as the Manchu language, but its application was limited. The concept of Guoyu as the language of a nation arose and was established along with the Guoyu movement. At the end of the 19th century, the Guoyu movement, which rose alongside the Hundred Days’ Reform, was initially aimed at solving the problem of literacy difficulties and revolved around the cutting of sounds (phonetic segmentation), from south to north. The several schemes of phonetic segmentation invented by Lu Gangzhang, Wang Zhao, and others were all based on the official speech of various regions and did not solve the problem of ‘people from the north and south facing each other without understanding what was said.’

Before the Guoyu movement, the ‘literature’ of the Chinese people was unified, which was somewhat due to the imperial examination system, but the ‘speech’ of the Chinese people was vastly different. So, which is more important, ‘literature’ or ‘speech’? This once caused no small debate. Most scholars at the time believed that the West placed more emphasis on sound, hence they created phonetic writing, while China has always valued written characters more, hence the abundance of pictographic characters. As the culture of sound gradually became the mainstream of the world, including the spread of speeches, debates, and radio broadcasts began to penetrate deeply into people’s hearts, ‘the sound entering the heart’ became very important. Therefore, the second phase of the Guoyu movement was centered around ‘the consistency of speech and writing’ and ‘the unification of Guoyu,’ marking the beginning of the shift from a ‘literature’-centric to a ‘language’-centric focus in Chinese education.

In 1916, the National Language Research Association of the Republic of China was established, and a clear concept of Guoyu appeared. In 1919, the National Language Unification Preparatory Committee was established under the Ministry of Education, starting the era of promoting the unification of Guoyu with government support. The main members of the committee included Zhang Yilu, Yuan Xitao, Wu Jingheng, Li Jinxixi, Chen Maozhi, Shen Yi, Li Buqing, Lu Ji, Zhu Wenxiong, Qian Daosun, Qian Xuantong, Hu Shi, Liu Fu, Zhou Zuoren, Ma Yuzao, Zhao Yuanren, Wang Yi, Cai Yuan Pei, Bai Zhenying, Xiao Jialin, Zeng Yijin, Sun Shiqing, Fang Yi, Shen Jianshi, Li Jinhuai, Xu Dishan, Lin Yutang, and Wang Pu, among others. These individuals were the core of the Guoyu movement. In 1920, the Ministry of Education of the Republic of China published the ‘National Pronunciation Dictionary,’ unifying pronunciation, something unprecedented in the Chinese nation. At the same time, the first primary and secondary school Guoyu textbooks were published. In 1932, the National Education Association drafted and published the ‘Curriculum Outline for All Subjects in Primary and Secondary Schools,’ which set the standard for Guoyu teaching and officially changed the ‘National Literature Department’ to the ‘National Language Department.’ During the same period, the promotion of Phonetic Symbols, Guoyu Romanization, and the publication of the ‘Common National Pronunciation Vocabulary’ effectively promoted the popularization of Guoyu.

During the thirty years that the National Language Unification Preparatory Committee existed, this institution, together with colleagues in the educational field, persevered in establishing the standard for Guoyu and institutionalized it through measures such as school curriculum settings, gradually making Guoyu the official language of the Chinese nation and widely used. At the same time, with the rise of nationalism, the concept of ‘Guoyu’ became associated with emerging political terms such as ‘nation,’ ‘international,’ ‘national citizen,’ ‘national territory,’ and was endowed with special political significance, receiving strong support from the Nationalist government.

Putonghua is generally considered a term introduced from Japan together with the concept of Guoyu at the end of the Qing Dynasty, and it is also regarded as synonymous with Guoyu, but there are still differences. For example, Hu Shi considered Guoyu as an enhancement of Putonghua. Qian Xuantong thought the definition of Putonghua was very vague and ambiguous. In fact, many scholars believe that Putonghua is equivalent to ‘Lanqing Guanhua,’ which is a mix of southern and northern accents.

However, Putonghua was given a new political color by left-wing cultural figures and even became a weapon to overthrow Guoyu. This shift was promoted by Qu Qiubai. In an article published in 1931, he pointed out that Guoyu, as a state-designated language, was an oppressive mechanism, designating the language of the ruling nation as Guoyu, making language a tool to oppress minority nations, while Putonghua did not have the suspicion of forced designation. The following year, Qu Qiubai emphasized that Putonghua was generated in modern factories, was the language of the proletariat, representing advancement, and endowed Putonghua with distinct class characteristics. Nie Gannu believed that the Guoyu movement represented the bourgeois class, and China’s bourgeois class was oppressed by Western imperialism and the remnants of Chinese feudalism, and this class was inherently deformed in China. In addition, left-wing figures such as Lu Xun, Hu Yuzhi, and Wei Mengke were also supporters of this faction.

It should be said that from the perspective of language technology rather than language politics, there is not much difference between the Guoyu movement proponents and left-wing cultural figures. However, from the perspective of worldview and historical view, the two become irreconcilable. Advocates of Guoyu placed more emphasis on the continuity of history, while left-wing cultural figures focused on association with new social formations; the ideological roots behind Guoyu presented more liberal colors, which is quite distant from the class and historical views of Marxism upheld by the left-wing. In addition, Putonghua is a natural product of a mixture of dialects, not as standardized as Guoyu, and left-wing cultural figures are against standardization. In fact, the left-wing’s questioning of the Han cultural color of the term Guoyu is inseparable from the influence of the Soviet Union on them at that time.

In the debate between Guoyu and Putonghua in the 1930s and 1940s, Guoyu won out. Due to party conflicts, the ruling party at the time, the Nationalist Party, naturally strongly supported Guoyu.

In 1949, with the change of government in mainland China, the concept of Putonghua was raised again. Li Jinxi once tried to maintain the status of Guoyu by revising the definition of Guoyu, but since it was an irreconcilable conflict of worldviews, many outcomes were actually predetermined. In 1955, Zhang Xiwo, then Minister of Education, gave a report at the National Conference on Language Reform titled ‘Vigorously Promote Putonghua with Beijing Pronunciation as the Standard,’ proposing that the common language of the Han nationality is Putonghua. Here ‘common’ means universal and shared, not ordinary and commonplace. From then on, Putonghua took to the historical stage of the mainland. He emphasized that teaching and learning Putonghua are for the further unification and development of the motherland, for the great cause of building socialism, and therefore it is a serious political task. Afterwards, the promotion of Putonghua was rapidly carried out, and related policies were also released one after another. Phonetic symbols and other products of the Guoyu movement were replaced by Pinyin, thus completing its historical mission on the mainland. For many years, the mainland believed that the Nationalist government had done nothing in language unification and popular education.

It is not difficult to find that today’s so-called Putonghua and the Guoyu promulgated by the Nationalist government, in official statements, are both traced back to Guanhua, and ‘with Beijing pronunciation as the standard sound’ and ‘with exemplary modern vernacular writings as grammar standards’ were once vehemently opposed by left-wing figures at that time. Ultimately, the mainland official chose the concept of Putonghua over Guoyu, obviously more for its symbolic significance.

Taiwan has continued to use the term Guoyu. In the 1980s, there were also scholars on the mainland who proposed to restore the appellation of Guoyu, but it did not cause much stir. Today, with the cultural exchange between the mainland and Taiwan and the re-examination of history, more and more people are accepting the term ‘Guoyu.’

References:

“Sound Entering the Heart” by Wang Dongjie, published by Beijing Normal University Publishing Group (April 2019)

“Outline History of the National Language Movement” by Li Jinxi, published by The Commercial Press (May 2011)

February 29, 2024, in Beijing