Adrian Tien
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

Perspectives on "Chinese" pluricentricity in Greater China and beyond

Keywords: pluricentricity; dialects and varieties; local versus localised languages; subcultures; perspectives and perceptions

Not everyone has the same take on the story of Chinese pluricentricity. As a result, not everyone’s version of the story is exactly the same. To get the full picture, it helps to realise that there is a cacophony of different voices and opinions out there that are driving at how the story of Chinese pluricentricity is told. Sometimes these voices and opinions may seem converging or even unified, sometimes they may appear incompatible or even completely at odds with one another. One thing is for certain: that there is (generally) a valid reason behind each of these voices and opinions, and it is worthwhile as well as important to come to grips with these voices and opinions in order to arrive at a comprehensive, objective and informed account of the story that is Chinese pluricentricity.

This paper reports on the most current and representative voices and opinions – i.e. perspectives – on Chinese pluricentricity as it is today. These perspectives include, among others, those of linguists (noting those who operate within the culture-internal context i.e. “Chinese” speaking linguists), those of the language policy-makers (the norm “setters” or norm-setting entities etc.) and those of the common folks. From these perspectives, we have examined Chinese pluricentricity not only within the confines of the boundaries of Chinese mainland but also outside them to encompass “Greater China” i.e. Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau as well as those of the Chinese-speaking diaspora e.g. those in Singapore and Malaysia.

It will be argued that the issue with the label “Chinese” for the language in question is more than meets the eye, and an overview of the issue necessitates contextualising the language in among other Chinese dialects, which are also widespread even if in a way that is non- dominant. Even the language we think we know that is “Chinese” is itself represented by many local or localised varieties that are, in effect, more dialect-like than they are examples of “Chinese”. For the current purposes, it has been crucial to examine, among others, issues arising from modern multimedia (e.g. the role of netizens, lit. “internet citizens”); different cultural domains and genres; sociolect and “generatiolect”; region-specific language use; historical versus contemporary uses of the language; and, the writing system. It will be clear at the conclusion of this report that the story of Chinese pluricentricity is at once compelling as it is complicated.