Linguistic Capital in Taiwan by Todd L Sandel

                 The author is skeptical, analytical and self justifying in context. He is seeking moral justification to the plight of language acquisition and regulation in a republic dogged by controversy in its search for a nationalist perspective and lingua. Within the aspects of the conformity to ethics of sincerity and exposition of genuine perceptions, he makes the issue of oppression due to use of the banned lingua to make it the subject of his prose objectively. Hence, without ambiguity, he condenses his perspectives and imbues the reader articulately with the notion and pathetic feelings to the people making this his topic in context. The overall purpose of this topic is many way traffic, it is an appeal to liberation and a search for moral justice over linguistic recognition and revolution against oppressive doctrines and principles.

His point is clarified within the assertion that ‘Language is a symbolic capital’ Bourdieu 1991 a principal borrowed to conform to the objectives of the author. He morally vilifies Tai yu’ as while in context it is the forbidden dogma that brings in the horrors of punitive measures on human physiology and physical power. To further justify his perceptions he cites the Bourdie, Lee Teng Hui and James Soongs cohesive language exposes. James and Lee made their preferences in principal and being nearer and cognitively within the centre of oppressive ambiguity in the authors perspective explicated, literally jurisdicised, and collectively condemned, gave possible resolve and vilified the Tai Yu contextually, hence the author’s escalation. He shows the James and Lee sought to use the native lingua to make their political projections more correct to the society literally at the expense of the electorate. This then gives the authors case of a background to his assertions and linguistic discontent in the Taiwanese language morality.

   The case against political escalation on the language dogma in Taiwan and the Soong and Lee prop is the onset of the authors overall contribution to the topics moral value and essence to academic diversity. Here, the author is teaching and advising within moral perspectives of academics through conformity to ethics and values of academic distinctions purposefully. He drives the point home that, language is emotive and impartial. He uses the case of Soongs and Lee’s marketplace oration, based on their violation of ethics which stipulated that officials use Mandarin Chinese, instead used a local dialect to address the market crowd making a significant impression. It is from this perspective he seeks to proffer theoretical assumptions through his cognitive approach to the Chinese and Japanese values which seek to impart ethics of cohesiveness and moral agreement to a dissemination of a policy that gives polity to a language fit for the Taiwanese, seen in his borrowed assumption cum appeal made in contextual and inspiration ‘ to bring teachers of the national language, national figures not Japanese Kanji’ to help the Taiwanese comrades conform to their ancestral values’ Huang 1995: 106, Authors Translation.

This, academically as the author seeks to justify, is the thesis of the prose and the explication of the theoretical assumptions discussed, explication. Within this perspective, the manifestation of a Taiwanese national language is the bone of contention, the punitive measures and oppression perspectives within language use continues as seen with the authors redress on the language policy incepted in Taiwan after phases of impartial language use and establishment of the policy. It within this perspective he justifies the perpetual oppression on the lingua perspective through a Huang assertion ‘… falsely belief that the national language policy is meant to eliminate dialects’ Huang 1995: 57-58; Authors Translation, from which it correlates with the punitive-ness in school over the language issue. The objective reverts to expounding the theme and purpose of his long, phased and impartial search for a notional moral value over the issue, Taiwanese search for a national language based on the long struggle to do the same. Academically, it is identified that this is the plateau of the author’s objectivity. This is where his work exactly contributes to the overall topic. He makes his plot, prose and ideologies clearer and morosely clears the mist by admitting points in the context, that the general problems in the Taiwanese language revolution are conceptual and engaging.

  Tai Gi and Mandarin language policy is the contentious and ambiguous case from the onset but the author seeks to gradually address the political and educational background to transform the scenes and bring forth his point. Mandarin is being forced into the Taiwanese, is his point, and the local dialect is slowly being dissolved into a national dilemma through systematic impartialness and inducement of punitive doctrines to stifle its accession. (pg 533) Henceforth the pedagogy of the linguistic extremism in Taiwan becomes apparent and trough identifier methodologies, he quantifies, theorizes and factices the development of the Mandarin and the oppression of the Tai Gi in the community. He shows Tai Gi’s dominancy in the younger generation and the subsequent regulation and punitive measure of riding it in the same generation in certain academic grades. It is typical banishment of linguistic democracy and the inversion of policy to escalate political supremacy through colonizing lingual ethics in a colony. This he does through the same ethics, quantifying facts by theoretical and supportive data, as seen in the Sandel conversations, biographical perspectives, through quoting and exemplifying and quantifying his assertions through previous works and cognitively, exemplifying and quantifying his issue using the history of the problem and its phases (435-450)

  In his forlorn acceptance of the manifestation of Mandarin and TAI Gi in the Taiwanese community he seeks to understand the insights of the people and their children by moralizing the perspectives through the Sandel interviews. It is here the overall perspective becomes manifested as an effort that was futile and the Chinese political effect in Taiwan won the day by forcibly imparting principles of Mandarin lingua into the Taiwanese and making the local and almost ancestral Tai gi a second language. This is tentatively an alternative within academic proxies. It is the aspect of his summary and the skills of comparative analysis and use of academic skills to make the prose academically sufficing to make a case example. He is aware of his skills and the ability of  his perspective to make a competent argument of his case through his skills and tone. It is a summary and more of an academic pedagogy of politically killing the cultural values of a colony.