시노폰 문학(Sinophone literature), 경계의 해체 또는 재획정

Abstract

According to scholars such as Shu-mei Shih and David Der-Wei Wang, Chinese (Hanyu) consists of various kinds of languages, contrary to the popular view that it is a singular entity. Thus, what they call “Sinophone communites” are those that use Sinitic-languages (Huayu) rather than Chinese (Hanyu), and their literature, accordingly, is called “Sinophone litearture”. Definition and concepts such as Sinophone, Sinophone literature, Sinophone culture, Sinophone community, and Sinophone studies have been constantly shifting over the past decade. Nonetheless, consistency can be found from the context in which arguments on Sinophone literature have emerged. Shih, Wang, and scholars with similar arguments share the common goal of establishing the concept of the Sinophones and Sinophone literature, and to expand the discussion through notions of “heteroglossia”, “against diaspora”, “anti-Sino-centrism”, “post-loyalism”, and “poetics of propensity”. Their effort is an attempt to acknowledge the particularities of Sinophone literature, and to reestablish its relationship with mainland Chinese-language literature as that on an equal footing with. Meanwhile, the biggest difference between Shu-mei Shih and David Der-Wei Wang is that Shih attempts to maintain the mainland Chinese-language literature to the exterior of Sinophone literature (排除在外), whereas Wang argues to include the former to the latter’s exclusion (包括在外). Their arguments refuse marginalization of Sinophone literature by the existing discourse centered around mainland Chinese literature. In other words, they intend to reestablish the relationship between Sinophone literature and mainland Chinese-language literature. Moreover, their critiques reach beyond mere refusals or intention: they ultimately aim to reconstruct territory and scope of “Chinese literature by its broader definition” that incorporates Sinophone literature and mainland Chinese-language literature, by means of which they aspire to lead the future discourse. Sinophone literature, especially Chinese-language literature by Overseas Chinese, has great potentials in that it has the traits of minor literature, and that it germinates new suggestions to world literature as well as the notion of literature itself. However, it seems to be excessively immersed in its relationship with Chinese literature, which could be self-debasing. Whether the argument is about exclusion of China or inclusion of it, the overall discussion is predominantly propelled by the centripetal figure of China and centrifugal figure of overseas Chinese. In result, it is possible that instead of the deconstruction of Sino-centrism, it may contribute to the consolidation of Sino-centrism and the formation of an “even bigger China”. That is, in contrast to their ambitious goal, it may be paving the way towards a more foreceful Sino-centrism and “the grand Sino-community”.