|
As first-generation Cantonese-speaking Canadians, we wish to express our objections towards the misinformed pronunciation standard adopted by various Cantonese media outlets in Canada.
In the past few years, we observe a decrease in quality of Cantonese news programs due to the questionable choice of pronunciation standard employed by Cantonese news anchors and reporters in Canada, most notably by the news department of Fairchild TV, and OMNI Television. As native speakers of Cantonese, we find the news broadcast harsh to the ear. These awkward-sounding pronunciations are either unheard of or simply not employed in daily Cantonese language use, in settings formal or informal, cultural or otherwise. Given that the primary function of these news programs is to present the Weltanschauung (world view) of Cantonese-Canadian citizens, such disconnect between these news programs and the Cantonese perspective is unacceptable.
These pronunciations have been heavily promoted by Dr. Richard Ho at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, via the Hong Kong news media in particular. The movement was intended to promote “proper” Cantonese pronunciation. Although this movement has generated many reactions by Cantonese-speaking communities around the world, pronunciation standardization remains a controversial proposal.
Throughout history, with few documented exceptions where there were totalitarian standardizations, most language change takes place over a long period of time. Even in cases where a region is invaded, for example, the Mughal’s and the British’s rule over the Indian Subcontinent, local languages tend to interact with ruler class’ language to yield new languages and dialects. (Urdu is such an example.) Based on this observation, it is important to acknowledge that language evolves over a long period of time; and that regional differences are an inevitable result of geopolitical influences. Dr. Ho appears to be ignorant of these socio-linguistic factors by foisting upon us his notion of phonological correctness.
In addition, the premise of Dr. Ho’s standard is seriously flawed. Dr. Ho based his model of Cantonese pronunciations on Guangyun, a one-thousand-year-old rhyme dictionary, which reflects the Middle Chinese (cf. Middle English) dialect spoken in the region of Luo Yang in the Henan province. Not only is this region far away from Canton, the Middle Chinese influence has not been relevant to Modern Cantonese for centuries. Imagine pronouncing English using Middle English standard (e.g., pronouncing “you” as “thou”), or worse, Old English standard, (“I” as the Icelandic sounding “iċ”). To communicate effectively, there must be an agreed-upon set of symbols (namely, language). Any attempt of language standardization has to be done with careful consideration of historic, linguistic, and social issues. One cannot carelessly enforce them on the basis of one person’s opinion, i.e., Dr. Ho’s, which has not gained a widespread academic support to begin with. Reverting to an irrelevant and outdated standard is unnatural and absurd.
A responsible news organization should correctly inform and disseminate factual knowledge to the general public. It is in our society’s opinion that these Cantonese news programs have done considerable damage by misleading the younger generation of Cantonese-Canadians. Moreover, such action is an assault to the Cantonese dialect. We consider this a major disservice and an insult to the Cantonese-speaking community.
Therefore, the Cantonese Culture Promotion Society strongly objects to the pronunciations used in these Cantonese news programs. To rectify the situation in Canada, we will send a petition to the news departments of Fairchild TV and OMNI.2 Television, as well as Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to completely abolish the use of Dr. Ho’s standard by reinstating the use of Modern Cantonese.
|
