An Old Essay with a New Preface: Of the Fate of the Chinese Language
New Preface
The Essay following I penned a few years past; lamenting, not (for want of perfect foresight) what new page the Chinese University was to turn respecting the language of instruction, but the strange fate the Chinese language itself was to suffer, in a time when dwellers in this former colony were eager to detect, and chant, the revival of Chinese after allegedly many years of discriminaion and subjection. That Chinese had been under outright discrimination and subjection I did not, nor do I, dispute; in I know not how many renowned secondary schools in Hong Kong today, is there still a preference for English; no longer perhaps in the colonial way, but subtly in the belief, that, while it is imperative to write and speak English properly, and, for the more aspiring, elegantly (hence the great demand of books, workshops, training courses for this purpose), much less is exacted when it comes to Chinese, propriety and elegance being very rarely in question, as if these notions were the exclusive concern of readers of literature.
Speaking of the fate of Chinese, I cannot help enlarging upon two questions, which may be regarded by some as outside its reach; namely, 1. change in popular attitude towards culture, and 2. influence of the academia on learned discourse. These two developments deserve examining in their own right; but together they will constrict the future of the Chinese language, in ways not entirely propitious.
1. Change in popular attitude towards culture.
Under the first head, let me say briefly, that it is no sign of divine grace, but an omen indeed, when over a society prevails such a sentiment, that to write, not properly, but wrongly, is a thing to be proud of, to be bandied around, and even deserving of endorsement and praise; that to speak in vulgar terms, in foul phrases, not because the speaker were in danger or in need of overthrowing a government, but simply because it is, on some lately imported argument, an act of emancipation, to condemn which being quickly termed oppression, is a feat to be lauded. Out of a culture of aspiration grows a culture of leveling, excepting perhaps the sports (being intrinsically competitive) and those skills conducive to commercial success. How strange it is, that today it is deemed more urgent to prepare a colorful power-point presentation than to write a proper and elegant essay. The decoloration of a literary culture is one element of the commercialization of society; whether this, or the wider use of English in instruction, be more threatening to the upkeep of the Chinese language, I leave to the reader to judge.
2. Influence of the academia on learned discourse.
The second development, whose impact on the Chinese language I doubt not, though (I concede) not as far-reaching as the first, pertains to the influence of the academia. Academic writers, in subjects which do invite them often to comment on political and cultural matters, have fostered over the past two decades not a small habit of seeding their writings with many parentheses, each declaring the inadequacy of the Chinese term, however painstakingly chosen, to translate what English original the writer has in mind; so many indeed, that one cannot fail to be impressed, that it is almost impossible to treat the subject in Chinese, nor to speak in a learned manner without resorting to English terms. But what English terms am I thinking of? Not something as esoteric as a "fee simple" or "thing indifferent" (which I believe can too be translated properly, once and for all), but "nationalism" or "diversity" or "civil society" or, verily, "alternative" (permit me, for propriety's sake, not to cite the writers who wrote thus, though if it be urged, I can well supply the sources, some of which being on this Forum.) Even granting that such notions as these are not originally Chinese (excepting "alternative," over which I do not think any language can have an exclusive claim), how necessary it is to parenthesize the English original, and how helpful to the reader, I simply cannot tell. But if neither necessity nor help is in question, what can it be, but an academic habit, well received (and tacitly coerced) in the academia, which now overflows to all kinds of public scribbling.
A parenthesis or two cannot kill the Chinese language. But frequent planting of them will kill the belief, that Chinese can of itself be a language of learned discourse. Each time a writer wants to speak of nationalism, or reference a book on the subject, he will be fast tempted to seed the English term, sometimes to what purpose he knowing not. And by and by, a hierarchy is plainly in sight; to write in Chinese, one must English the article hither and thither. But not only to write: even to think, to apprehend, to speak, and to argue, it becomes imperative to rely upon a heavily Englished structure, as if every bit of it were indispenable to a proper measure of the world. And this structure, by terms and perspectives and methodologies and theories filled, not only directs our experience, but defines it, in an academically warranted way. (How emancipatory this may be, I again cannot tell.) Very well if the self-same structure reflects truly a good part of what we have undergone; but then, shall we not think, that it must be possible to articulate it in Chinese, believing that our language is not so deficient, that it failed even to express what must be so genuinely our own. But academic writers, concerned as they are to popularize this structure, are often more desirous of keeping up with its latest mutations - termed developments in this or that theory - than of examining what our daily experiences might, before being subjected to some well-worn methodology or perspective, offer.
Though yet I say, the harmful effect of the academia, in this regard, is mercifully bounded by its own reach: While students, and quite a handful of them indeed, may be trained to speak the structure as if by reflex, most readers of editorials and columns, I surmise, simply skip the English seeds, or at least are very little concerned by them. They will take them as a sign of academic writing, of the academic need of Englishing a piece in Chinese. But still, the mind-set formed of their training, the students will probably carry on much longer; for they having been urged to English their Chinese term papers quite a few years, will find it natural to continue Englishing their writing in the years to come, and indeed very hard not to. This I think is properly ominous. And in the formation of which complicitors are not wanting.
Old Essay
珍惜中文
從當年家長學生一例崇拜英文﹐到今天連商界也埋怨英文水平下降﹐獅子山下﹐真可謂歷經了半場不自覺的語文“去殖民化”運動。我說半場﹐因為所有去殖民化運動的半邊天--本地意識的提高--完全沒有在香港產生應有的語文影響﹕中文不見得就比許冠傑唱“無知井裡蛙﹐徒望添聲價”的年代好﹐反而更差。半場成功了﹐半場沒蹤影﹐但無論哪一半﹐這種奇怪的語文“去殖民化”﹐隔岸觀之﹐無不嘆息。
在一些歷史悠久的中學--我不喜歡“傳統名校”這種提法--英文水平算是保住了。英文崇拜的陰魂﹐繞著鐵欄老樹數十年而不散﹔學生都以英文過人為榮﹐隱隱然以中文不甚了得為傲﹐自是一種殖民地時代的貴族風情。中文確實不濟了﹐哪怕﹖反正父母早準備好讓他或她放洋﹐日後拿了個甚麼長青藤學校的甚麼學位﹐歸來蘭桂坊跟長青藤校友碰頭﹐半句中文三句英文﹐才夠突顯那特殊的經歷特殊的身分。貴族風情﹐迎著國際化的潮流﹐混上了幾絲美國色彩﹐繼續在獅子山下漂蕩。
蘭桂坊外﹐也不見得就是中文的家園。九七回歸﹐中文成為法定語言了﹔與大陸商業往來日益頻繁﹐同學都硬著頭皮說半鹹半淡的普通話了。於是有心人爭相宣佈﹕中文的地位提高了﹔蘭桂坊內的人﹐恐怕也要重拾中文了。然而﹐在浮世不經意的一刻﹐一句話﹐一個表情﹐卻狠狠的告訴我們﹕無論蘭桂坊內外﹐獅子山下的人﹐尤其是獅子山下的年青人﹐並沒有從此而珍惜中文。我們從來沒有以中文為傲。
你聽﹕說到語言﹐小男孩小女孩就會羨慕人家操一口流利英語﹐說法文如何浪漫﹐說德文如何嚴謹。法國人高傲嗎﹖小男孩小女孩會說﹕“法國人的確有點怪﹐但法國﹐巴黎﹐香水﹐時裝﹐愛情﹐就是語言也是最浪漫的啊。”法國人對文字執著﹐他們的執著﹐逼使我們的小男孩小女孩最終都心甘情願的對法文執著起來﹐然後以此為傲。
在我們的想象中﹐英國人﹐法國人﹐德國人﹐他們對本國文字執著﹐天經地義﹔在我們的想象中﹐他們的文字是範式﹐是尺度﹐是精準的同義詞﹔在我們的想象中﹐我們應當寫合乎文法的英文﹐卻大可寫不通不順口語連篇的中文﹔在我們的想象中﹐政府公函﹐法律文書﹐英文都要寫得漂亮﹐寫得有法律精英的神韻﹐但中文呢﹖噢﹐算了把﹐反正中文永遠不及英文精準﹐管它典雅不典雅﹐照英文翻譯出來就算完了差事。
當我們在嘴上埋怨﹐在心底嚮往法國人以法文為傲的時候﹐為何就只會藉學法文來沾一點光﹐而不會想到自己的文字呢﹖當法律精英動輒說英文精準﹐中文不及﹐為何就只會唱和一番﹐而不會想到法律中文也可以信雅達兼備呢﹖今天﹐請一位受過良好香港法律教育的同學翻譯 presumption of innocence, 如果他不諳傳統中文譯法﹐他可能會說﹕清白的假設。然則﹐為何當年的大狀可以譯出一個典雅的“無罪推定”來﹖To the best of my knowledge 與其譯作“根據我知道的其中最真確者”一類﹐說“極我所知”就夠了。
中文要面對現代世界﹐必須不斷更新﹐不斷創造新詞﹐創造新的表達方式。假如英文可以現代而不失其雅﹐中文一樣可以﹐只在乎獅子山下﹐我們願意不願意珍惜中文。今天﹐外國人學中文﹐多為與大陸商貿之便﹐而我們亦樂見其事。但我們不會說﹕“我們以中文為傲﹐不是因為中國的經濟發展令你們都要學中文﹐而是因為中文本是我們的語言﹐中文有足以為傲的純美。”
珍惜中文﹐請自筆下始。