The Notion of the Vietnamese Language and “Chinese Characters” in <i>Tap chi Nam Phong</i>

Abstract

A language cannot exist without the notion that “we” all speak the same unified language. This notion is conceptualized and formulated as part of a speaker's social identity, which may change as a result of a rearrangement of this notion. In this paper, we examine some articles about Vietnamese language in Tap chi Nam Phong (hereafter abbreviated as NP), which was one of the most influential journals in Vietnam in the 1920's. At that time, quoc-ngu (the Vietnamese writing system based on roman script) was rapidly gaining status as the official language of Vietnam, despite skeptical views from two strong linguistic hegemonies supporting more prestigious written languages: classical Chinese and French. In analyzing discourses on NP, the notion of a unified language can be seen, it is possible to observe the typical Vietnamese intellectual's attitude about language. This notion in turn can be transformed by their selection of national identity.Since the general policy of NP was to protect and promote the “unique” Vietnamese culture and language, it insisted on the protection and enrichment of quoc-ngu still regarded as “patois” (vulgar language) by traditional literati. But this “uniqueness”, for the writers on The Journal, also included Chinese classical literature and ethics, and the writers were convinced that it was necessary for quocngu to be supported by the rich expressiveness of classical Chinese. In 1919, refuting Nguyen Hao Vinh who criticized NP for using numerous unfamiliar Chinese vocabulary, Pham Quynh, the chief editor of The Journal, noted that classical Chinese should be taught in Vietnam because it was not only China's own but the common literature of the “Orient”, including Vietnam, and that Chinese vocabulary should be used as an indispensable component of the Vietnamese language. He tried to transform the traditional view on language, that is, classical Chinese vs. patois, into a new contrast between Chinese vocabulary and the “vulgar” (non-Chinese and non-Western) one in the sole dignified Vietnamese, so that the existing prestige of classical Chinese could be directly absorbed by the “new” Vietnamese. Such a transformation of the notion of language was concealed by the terminology used in discourses on NP, where a new concept “Annamese” (tieng An Nam) was invented to refer the whole system (the existing term “patois” [tieng nom] was left for indicating the “vulgar” vocabulary), while the whole system, characters and vocabulary of classical Chinese were never distinguished at all. Such terminology enabled the writers to refer to the new contrast with the same terms as before under the assumption that the Vietnamese language had an uninterrupted tradition.Interestingly enough, as for the notion of language of the writers on NP, only Chinese vocabulary was regarded as the core of “uniqueness” in the holified “Vietnamese language”, while Chinese characters were completely excluded. They insisted that Chinese characters should be instructed not in Vietnamese but in classical Chinese at public schools. Moreover, roman letters, which had originally been alien symbols, were integrated into the Vietnamese language without any questions. Both Chinese vocabulary and the “vulgar” one should be spelled with the same unified writing system, the writers believed, so that they might be blended into one unified quoc-ngu. In comparing such a notion with that of Japan and Korea, both categorized as being in the Chinese cultural sphere, a vast difference can be seen between these three examples. Japanese and Korean intellectuals generally paid attention to the distinction between scripts as the marker indicating their national identity, and each regarded Chinese characters in Japan and