Discover

(Redirected from Daoism-Taoism Romanization issue)
'Daoism' and 'Taoism' are the subject of an ongoing controversy over the preferred English romanization for naming this native Chinese philosophy and Chinese religion. The root Chinese word "way, path" is romanized ''tao'' in the traditional Wade-Giles system and ''dào'' in the modern Pinyin system. The sometimes heated arguments over ''Taoism'' vs. ''Daoism'' involve Sinology, phonemes, loanwords, and politics – not to mention whether ''Taoism'' is "correctly" pronunced [taυizəm] or [daυizəm].
First, some linguistic terminology and notations need to be introduced. Phonetic transcription (representing each distinct speech sound with a separate symbol) is shown with the International Phonetic Alphabet enclosed in square brackets [ ], and phonemic transcription (representing a small set of speech sounds that a particular language distinguishes) is enclosed within virgules or forward slashes / /. In articulatory phonetics, "aspiration" is an articulation that involves an audible release of breath. For example, the /t/ in ''tore'' [tʰɔər] is "aspirated" with a noticeable puff of breath, but the /t/ in ''store'' [stɔər] is "unaspirated." The IPA diacritic for aspiration (deriving from Greek Spiritus asper) is a superscript "h", (e.g., tʰ dʰ), and normal unaspirated consonants are not explicitly marked. "Voice" or "voicing" distinguishes whether a particular sound is either "voiced" (when the vocal chords vibrate) or "unvoiced" (when they do not). Examples of IPA phonation diacritics include voiceless [d̥ n̥], voiced [s̬ t̬], breathy voiced [a̤ b̤], and creaky voiced [a̰ b̰].

Contents

Phonology of 道

Romanizations of 道

The ''Taoism/Daoism'' loanword

Lexicography of ''Taoism''

Ramifications

References

External links

Phonology of 道

Due to some fundamental differences between Chinese and English phonology, neither English ''d'' nor ''t'' adequately represents the unvoiced unaspirated consonant /t̥/ that begins the Chinese word ''dao''/''tao'' 道 [t̥aυ].
English and Chinese make dissimilar phonemic contrasts for [t] and [d] consonants, with voicing (e.g., voiced /d/ in ''Dow'' [dau] vs. unvoiced /t/ in ''Taos'' [taus]) in English, and with aspiration (e.g., unvoiced aspirated /tʰ/ in ''tào'' [tʰaυ] 套 'cover' vs. unvoiced unaspirated /t̥/ in ''dào'' [t̥aυ] 道 'way') in Chinese. The linguist Michael Carr explains.

The provenance of the pronunciation with [t] of ''Taoism'' is a gap in the English phonemic paradigm for the unvoiced unaspirated [t̥] in ''dào'' [t̥au] 'way'. This Chinese /t̥/ phoneme is nearer to the pronunciation of English voiced unaspirated /d/ in ''Dow'' than the voiceless aspirated /t/ in ''Taos'', but it is neither. The Chinese aspirated vs. non-aspirated phonemic contrast is almost the opposite of the English voiced vs. unvoiced contrast. In certain positions, English non-aspirated consonants can occur as variants of aspirated ones. Stops after initials [s-] in English
★ e.g., ''spy'', ''sty'', ''sky'') are unvoiced unaspirated and close to the /t̥/ phoneme in [t̥au] 'way', but these are not highly voiced, and the English distinction can be analyzed as one of aspiration, with voicing redundant and predictable. (1990:60)

Romanizations of 道

The history of transcribing spoken Chinese is lengthy and inconsistent. Sinologist Paul Kratochvil describes how Westerners predictably misheard Chinese unvoiced consonants, such as the unvoiced unaspirated /t̥/ in 道 [t̥aυ].

Since the great majority of people who first attempted to transcribe Chinese were not linguists (and even if they were, the principles of modern phonemics were not discovered for another two centuries), their endeavour was marred by a lack of systematic approach and many contemporary European misconceptions about language. Even more than two hundred years later, during the last century, when Western specialists in Chinese, who had by that time created the discipline known as sinology, designed the early forms of numerous transcriptions used today, the first mistakes of enthusiastic missionaries, envoys and business men were not fully eliminated. In fact their traces can be seen even today. (1968:50-51)

There are numerous rival systems for the Romanization of Chinese, none of which is completely satisfactory for Standard Mandarin pronunciation. Compare these transcriptions of Chinese 道 [t̥aυ]: Wade-Giles ''tao'' or ''tao''⁴ (marking 4th tone), Legge romanization ''tâo'', Latinxua Sin Wenz ''dau'', Yale Romanization ''dàu'', Mandarin Phonetic Symbols II ''dau'', Hanyu Pinyin ''dào'', Tongyong Pinyin ''daˋo'', Gwoyeu Romatzyh or National Romanization ''daw'', Zhuyin fuhao ㄉㄠ, and Cyrillic Palliday system ''дао''.
Romanization systems use one of two arbitrary ways to represent the Chinese phonemic opposition between aspirated and unaspirated consonants. Take for example, Chinese unaspirated [t̥aυ] "way" and aspirated [tʰaυ] "peach". Some systems, like Wade-Giles ''tao'' 道 and ''t'ao'' 桃, introduce a special symbol for aspiration; others, like Pinyin ''dao'' 道 and ''tao'' 桃, use the English voiced and unvoiced distinction, which is not phonemic in Chinese.
From a theoretical perspective, both ''tao'' and ''dao'' transliterations are equally close to, or far from, the Standard Mandarin pronunciation of 道 [t̥aυ]. However in practice, most English speakers think the Chinese pronunciation sounds more like an English /d/ than a /t/. Therefore, some argue that ''Dao'' is in that sense more "accurate" than ''Tao''.
An inherent problem with the arcane Wade-Giles use of apostrophes to differentiate aspiration is that many English readers do not understand it, which has resulted in the frequent mispronunciation of ''Taoism'' as [taυizəm] instead of [daυizəm]. Alan Watts (1975:xix) explains using Wade-Giles "in spite of its defects" but writes: "No uninitiated English-speaking person could guess how to pronounce it, and I have even thought, in a jocularly malicious state of mind, that Professors Wade and Giles invented it so as to erect a barrier between profane and illiterate people and true scholars."

The ''Taoism/Daoism'' loanword

In loanword terminology, English ''Taoism/Daoism'' is a "calque," "loan-rendering", or "hybrid" that blends a borrowed word with a native element, for example, '') blends Chinese Pidgin English ''chop'' (< Cantonese ''kàp'', pinyin ''kuài'' 快 "fast; quick") with English ''stick''. ''Taoism/Daoism'' is one of a few Chinese ''-ism'' borrowings, along with ''Confucianism'', ''Mohism'', and ''Maoism''.
According to the ''Oxford English Dictionary'' (2nd ed.), the first recorded occurrences of the relevant words were ''Tao'' 1736, ''Tau'' 1747, ''Taouism'' and ''Taouist'' 1838, ''Taoistic'' 1856, ''Tao-ism'' 1858, ''Taoism'' 1903 [clearly wrong, at least antedated by Balfour (1881)], ''Daoism'' 1948, ''Dao'' and ''Daoist'' 1971.
Carr (1990:66) contrasts the English pronunciations of ''gung-ho'' and ''kung-fu'' to differentiate borrowings deriving from spoken and written Chinese. The ''OED'' records the first usage of ''gung-ho'' in 1942 (referring to Evans Carlson's Marines) and of ''kung-fu'' in 1966 (referring to Bruce Lee's movies). ''Gung-ho'' (Pinyin ''gōnghé'' 工合 "work together", see Cohen 1989) is more "correctly" pronounced [ɡʌŋhou] because it was first imported from spoken rather than written Chinese. Nevertheless, many English speakers read the Wade-Giles ''kung-ho'' as [kʌŋhou] (the ''OED'' gives "''kung-hou''" [sic]). ''Kung-fu'' (Pinyin ''gōngfú'' 功夫 "ability", meaning "Chinese martial arts") is commonly mispronounced [kʌŋfuː] instead of [gʌŋfuː] owing to confusion over Wade-Giles romanization of unaspirated ''k'' [g] vs. aspirated ''k' [k].

Many Anglo-Chinese borrowings besides ''Taoism'' are mispronounced because of romanization. A commonly heard example is the ''Yijing'' [ïdʒiŋ] "Book of Changes" which, owing to Wade-Giles "''I Ching''," is usually cacologized as [aɪtʃiŋ] taking ''yi'' 'change; easy' in false analogy (ego?) with English ''I''. In most cases, Pinyin romanization more accurately represents Chinese pronunciations than Wade-Giles; English speakers would read the martial art "''Tai Ji Quan''" closer to ''tàijíquán'' [taitʃitʃʰuan] 'great ultimate fist' than "''T'ai Chi Ch'üan''." (Carr 1990:67-8)

More generations of English speakers have learned about China through Wade-Giles (proposed in 1859, revised in 1892) than through Pinyin (approved in 1958, adopted in 1979). The English word ''Taoism'' is unquestionably older and more familiar than ''Daoism''. However, in academia and international politics, there have been continuous trends towards adopting pinyin, which is widely used in the Western study of the Chinese language and official in the People's Republic of China. Hanyu Pinyin has become the international standard for Chinese romanization, used by the United Nations, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 7098), and similar associations.
While sinologists increasingly prefer the term ''Daoism'', traditionalists continue using the well-known ''Taoism''. Some scholars consciously adopt "''Daoism''" in order to distinguish the Chinese philosophy and religion from what "''Taoism''" embodied in the 19th- and 20th-century Western imaginations. Girardot, Miller and Liu (2001: xxxi) explain, "earlier discussions of the Daoist tradition were often distorted and misleading - especially in terms of the special Western fascination with the 'classical' or 'philosophical' ''Daode jing'' and the denigration and neglect of the later sectarian traditions."

Lexicography of ''Taoism''

English dictionaries provide some insights into the ''Daoism''-''Taoism'' problem. For over a century, British and American lexicographers glossed the pronunciation of ''Taoism'' as [taυizəm], but more recently they corrected it to [daυizəm], and added ''Daoism'' entries.
Carr analyzes how English dictionaries gloss ''Taoism's pronunciation, comparing 12 published in Great Britain (1933-1989) and 11 published in the United States (1948-1987).

Pronunciations are given in various dictionary respelling systems, rather than IPA, but for purposes of discussion, they are divisible into four types: [daυizəm], [daυizəm, taυizəm], [taυizəm, daυizəm], and [taυizəm]. The first is strictly "correct," the second and third are partially so, depending upon descriptive/prescriptive policies, and the last is inaccurate. Since many, if not most, English speakers pronounce ''Taoism'' as [taυizəm], it can legitimately be listed as an alternate. Dictionaries are justified in glossing [daυizəm, taυizəm] if they follow a convention of giving preferred pronunciation first, or as [taυizəm, daυizəm] if they give common pronunciation first (and if they have some way to determine this). (1990:64)

Within Carr's sample, most American dictionaries gloss [daυizəm, taυizəm], while most British ones gloss [taυizəm] and have been slower to add the [daυizəm] rectification. The respective first accurate glosses for ''Taoism'' were "''douizm; tou''-" (''Webster's International Dictionary of the English Language'', 2nd ed., 1934) and "Also 'Daoism' and with pronunc. (dau•iz'm)" (''Oxford English Dictionary Supplement'', 1986).

Ramifications

As detailed above, proponents for both sides of the ''Daoism''-''Taoism'' controversy make valid arguments. Some prefer Wade-based ''Taoism'' because it is more familiar than ''Daoism'', and because the borrowing is a fully assimilated English word that presumably should be unaffected by foreign romanizations. However, many of these traditionalists will accept using pinyin for more recent Chinese borrowings. Others prefer pinyin-based ''Daoism'' because the international community (notably excepting the Republic of China) largely accepts Hanyu Pinyin as the standard Chinese romanization, and because it is consistent with other English changes, viz. pinyin ''Beijing'' replaced Wade ''Pei-ching'' or Chinese Postal Map Romanization ''Peking''. In conclusion, three illustrative outcomes of ''Daoism'' vs. ''Taoism'' are given from publishing, library, and Wikipedia spheres.
First, publishing houses have profit concerns about changing romanizations of foreign books. There are more English translations titled Tao Te Ching than Dao De Jing, seeing as it is more familiar to native speakers. However, some academic publishers have abandoned Wade-Giles in favor of pinyin; Columbia University Press changed the titles of Burton Watson's translations from "Chuang Tzu" to "Zhuangzi" and from "Han Fei Tzu" to "Hanfeizi".
Second, libraries have independent concerns about revising legacy Wade-Giles catalogs to contemporary pinyin. After the Library of Congress converted to pinyin in 1997, librarian Jiajian Hu (1999:250-1) listed three reasons why they deemed Wade-Giles unsatisfactory and added four more.

★ First, it had phonetically redundant syllables.

★ Second, it failed to render the Chinese national standard pronunciation.

★ Finally, it wasn't able to show the semantic distinctions between multiple readings of single characters. …

★ The Pinyin system of romanization of Chinese is now generally recognized as the standard through the world. …

★ Most users of America libraries today are familiar with the pinyin romanization of Chinese names and places. …

★ The use of pinyin romanization by libraries also will facilitate the exchange of data with foreign libraries. …

★ Pinyin has more access points than Wade-Giles for online retrieval.
Third, some Wikipedia article titles have inconsistencies between pinyin and Wade-Giles romanizations, compare pinyin Daozang (道藏, Wade ''Tao Tsang'') with Wade Tao Te Ching (道德經, Pinyin ''Dàodéjīng''). Editors disagree over interpreting two conflicting rules: the convention is to "," but the says to "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." (For a good illustration, see the archived 2006 editorial discussions at about whether to change "Laozi" to "Lao Tzu".) Unlike a printed encyclopedia that necessarily cross-references either "Mo Tzu" to "Mozi" or vice versa, Wikipedia takes advantage of hyperlinked , and searching for "Mo Tzu" results in "Mozi". Nearly all of the current articles about Chinese topics use pinyin, but a handful use Wade-Giles, still preferring "Tao" over "Dao" and "Taoism" over "Daoism".

References

★ Balfour, Frederic Henry, tr. 1881. ''The Divine Classic of Nan-Hua; Being the Works of Chuang Tsze, Taoist Philosopher''. Kelly & Walsh.

★ Carr, Michael. 1990. "Whence the Pronunciation of ''Taoism''?" ''Dictionaries'' 12:55-74.

★ Cohen, Gerald. 1989. "''Gung Ho'' Revisited, Part 1." ''Comments on Etymology'' 29.3:1-42.

★ Girardot, N. J., James Miller and Liu Xiaogan, eds. 2001. ''Daoism and Ecology: Ways within a Cosmic Landscape''. Harvard University Press.

★ Hu, Jiajian. 1999. "Chinese Romanization in Library of Congress Cataloging". Illinois Periodicals Online.

★ Kratochvil, Paul. 1968. ''The Chinese Language Today''. Hutchinson.

★ Watson, Burton, tr. 1964. ''Chuang Tzu: Basic Writings''. 2003. ''Zhuangzi: Basic Writings''. Columbia University Press.

★ Watson, Burton, tr. 1996. ''Han Fei Tzu: Basic Writings''. 2003. ''Han Feizi: Basic Writings''. Columbia University Press.

★ Watts, Alan. 1975. ''Tao: The Watercourse Way''. Pantheon.

External links

★ Daoism or Taoism?, James Miller, Queen's University

★ Tao Te Ching Pronunciation Guide, True Tao