Between Communist Doctrines and Nationalist Agendas: Writing Reforms in Inner Mongolia,1954

Abstract

The writing reforms of the Mongolian language in Inner Mongolia from 1954 to 1980 are a notable case of Maoist China’s language planning projects. In those years, the Chinese government attempted to implement two consecutive reforms featuring Cyrillization and Latinization of the Mongolian writing system, but neither reform yielded any substantial result and the traditional Mongolian script remains in use today. This article explores the domestic and international dynamics behind these two closely related reform attempts and examines their origins, rationales, processes of implementation, and reasons for failure. Although the rationales of both reforms lay in the communist doctrine favoring easier, more regular, and more universal writing systems that could improve literacy and facilitate communication, hidden behind both reforms were nationalist agendas. The Cyrillization reform sought linguistic unity with the Mongolian People’s Republic, while the Latinization reform sought unity of writing systems among languages in China. In both cases, the hidden nationalist agendas undermined the original goals of the reforms, and the reforms lost momentum once contending agendas prevailed.

Keywords

Inner Mongolia Mongolian language writing system language policy nationalism

Inner and Outer Mongolia, separated by the Gobi Desert, experienced different fates after the collapse of the Qing dynasty. While Outer Mongolia declared independence in 1911 and eventually became the Soviet satellite state of the Mongolian People’s Republic (MPR) in 1924, Inner Mongolia remained part of China despite repeated unsuccessful secessionist attempts and years of Japanese and Soviet occupation. During the Chinese Civil War in the late 1940s, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), with help from the Soviet Union, managed to absorb the secession-aspiring Inner Mongolian elites, persuading them to give up secessionism and join the new communist regime. Inner Mongolia therefore became a provincial-level division, under the name of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (IMAR), in the People’s Republic of China, and many former Mongol secessionists became officials in the IMAR. This made the IMAR authority’s loyalty to the central government in Beijing doubtful. The choice of writing system within this context could become a sensitive political issue involving China’s national unity and territorial integrity.¹

Stemming from their struggle for the liberation of the masses and the elimination of national barriers, communist governments in many countries, from the Soviet Union to Vietnam, pursued writing reforms aiming at making writing systems easier, more regular, and more universal, believing that in this way writing systems could better serve the masses. In the early Soviet Union, the preference for simple and easy writing systems went to such extremes that many communist-oriented language workers objected to the use of capital letters, which they claimed were an unnecessary burden on the people (see Polivanov, 1928). The CCP also followed this ideology. As Mao Zedong claimed, “Writing systems must be reformed; they must take the direction of phoneticization common to all writing systems of the world” (Wu, 1957: 14). The logographic Chinese writing system became the major target of the CCP’s writing reform project. The CCP promoted simplification of Chinese characters and adopted the pinyin system, a phonetic auxiliary scheme of standard Mandarin Chinese based on the Latin alphabet with which the party originally intended to eventually replace Chinese characters.² Minority languages using writing systems that the CCP considered imperfect also became targets of the CCP-led writing reforms.

The communist governments in the Soviet Union and the MPR considered the traditional Mongolian writing system an obstacle to expanding literacy because of its complexity and ambiguity. Though a phonetic alphabetic system, this centuries-old writing system is based on Middle Mongolian, and therefore its spelling differs from the actual pronunciation of Modern Mongolian. Furthermore, many letters were intentionally designed to be ambiguous so that people speaking different dialects could pronounce a word differently but still share the same spelling. All these features distanced the written from the spoken language, making the writing system hard to learn for speakers of any modern dialect. To make the situation worse, the traditional script can only be written vertically, with letters in a word all connected with each other, each letter having different forms depending on its location within a word. These features caused difficulty in using the writing system with modern technologies such as typewriters.

In Outer Mongolia, soon after the founding of the MPR, the communist government tried to replace the traditional Mongolian script with the Latin script. In the early 1940s, when Moscow began to Cyrillize the writing systems of its minority languages, the MPR also followed suit and switched its policy from Latinization to Cyrillization. The fact that the majority of the MPR population spoke one single Mongolian dialect, namely the Khalkha dialect, facilitated the reform. Designating the Khalkha dialect as the basic dialect for standard Mongolian, the official scholars in the MPR designed the new writing system based on the actual pronunciation of words in the Khalkha dialect, with only limited consideration of the compatibility with other Mongolian dialects. Promoting the Khalkha-based Cyrillic script encountered some difficulties among people speaking other dialects (Paliya, 1956) and caused some inconsistencies in spelling rules (Jambalsüren, 1951), but to a much lesser extent than what would have happened if the IMAR would have launched this kind of reform because the situation of dialects in Inner Mongolia was much more complicated and an overwhelming major dialect did not exist. Some intellectuals in Inner Mongolia enthusiastically studied the Cyrillic script in the late 1940s, but they were soon discouraged by its incompatibility with dialects they spoke in Inner Mongolia (Chinggeltei, 1997: 1).³

The MPR officially claimed the reform to be a big success in that the Cyrillic script helped significantly improve the literacy rate, but there were also criticisms of its imperfect orthography, which made it difficult to learn and its meaning sometimes ambiguous (Vandui, 1952). A large part of the problems with this script was the excessive influence of the Russian writing system,⁴ which was not surprising since the Cyrillization reform itself was a result of Moscow’s strong influence over the MPR. Voices explicitly opposing the Cyrillic script were also strong. The famous MPR linguist Byambyn Rinchen described Cyrillization as a “national tragedy” that was destroying Mongolia’s cultural heritage, a criticism so harsh that it drew the attention of the Soviet embassy in Mongolia (Molotov, 1958). Possibly due to the complicated orthography and a lack of passion for study, a person working in the MPR embassy in Beijing failed to master the Cyrillic script well and had to write a self-criticism letter for making spelling mistakes during his work (Erentsensonom, 1955).

Beginning of the Cyrillization Reform, 1954–1955

In the early 1950s, the reform of the Mongolian writing system was not a priority among policymakers in either Beijing or Inner Mongolia. Beijing prioritized the creation of writing systems for ethnic groups in southern China that did not have their own scripts (Zhou, 2003: 177). The mainstream opinion among officials and scholars in Inner Mongolia was also against an immediate reform, though in 1951 the IMAR authority did select two elementary schools to run a Cyrillic Mongolian script pilot program (Chronicle on Education Editorial Committee, 2002: 619). In 1953, Chinggeltei, one of Inner Mongolia’s top Mongolian linguists, concluded in a conference that although it would be a future trend to replace the imperfect traditional writing system with a more phonetic one, any immediate reform would be both infeasible and unnecessary.⁵ It was infeasible, Chinggeltei pointed out, primarily because there were multiple influential dialects in use in Inner Mongolia. In order for the written language to reflect the actual spoken language, it would be necessary to first decide which variation of the spoken language the written language should reflect. That would require standardization of the spoken language with a basic dialect to be selected after a detailed survey, as well as promotion of the standard spoken language to the population at large. After that, it would be necessary to formulate orthographic rules, train teachers, and prepare teaching materials. Until then, Chinggeltei argued, the traditional Mongolian script, which had been functioning for centuries and was compatible with multiple dialects, should continue to be used (Chinggeltei, 1953: 48–49).

However, G. P. Serdyuchenko, the chief Soviet adviser to China on language policy, did not share Chinggeltei’s tolerance for the supra-dialect traditional script. Supra-dialect writing systems, according to Serdyuchenko, were compatible with different dialects only by being far away from any dialect, and therefore far away from the actual lives of the people, thus preventing the masses from mastering any such writing system. Such a script, Serdyuchenko believed, was destined to be monopolized by feudal elites and a small number of intellectuals (Serdyuchenko, 1956 [1955]: 3). Furthermore, Serdyuchenko believed that a supra-dialect writing system would delay the formation of a common spoken standard. In a lecture he delivered to Chinese scholars and officials at the Central Institute for Nationalities in Beijing during the 1954–1955 academic year, Serdyuchenko argued,

Our century is the century of radio communication, the century that requires formal language to be understood by all the people. The Communist Party and the People’s Government are leading the people to improve their lives within the process of socialist construction. [. . .] Within this context, we definitely need to formulate a unified standard. [. . .] Under new living conditions, preserving some certain “supra-dialect” written forms of languages can only result in the delay of the development of culture and of the entire nation, the delay of the development of socialist new life, national industrialization, and cultural revolution. (Serdyuchenko, 1956a: 40–41)

Unlike Chinggeltei, who cited the existence of multiple dialects and the lack of a common spoken standard as the core reason for the temporary tolerance of the traditional script, Serdyuchenko believed that exactly because people in Inner Mongolia still spoke different dialects, the supra-dialect traditional script had to be replaced as soon as possible. Concentrating on the necessity of an immediate reform, Serdyuchenko did not address Chinggeltei’s concerns over its feasibility. It appears that he did not anticipate that selecting a basic dialect and formulating consistent orthographic rules would ever become a problem.

According to Serdyuchenko, Cyrillic was a good choice for both ideological and practical reasons. The script is used by Russian, the language of the Bolsheviks, and it possesses more letters than the Latin script, which means that one does not need to combine multiple letters to represent a single phoneme (Serdyuchenko, 1956a: 127–28). This rhetoric was not his invention. More than a decade before, the MPR’s ruling party had already cited the ideological alliance with Moscow and the lack of sufficient letters in the Latin script as rationales for switching from Latinization to Cyrillization (Resolution, 1955 [1941]). However, only the ideological rationale makes sense. The Cyrillic script does possess more letters than the Latin script, which can be useful in some cases, but at the same time, some Cyrillic letters are redundant in the Mongolian language.⁶ The Cyrillic Mongolian script nevertheless included all the letters used in Russian, clearly demonstrating that the script’s proponents prioritized the uniformity with Russian over ease of learning and use among Mongolians.

The proposed Cyrillization reform conformed to Beijing’s policy. In May 1954, Beijing decided that while in principle non-Han peoples should adopt the Latin script when creating or reforming their writing systems, those living along the border with the Soviet Union and the MPR could adopt the Cyrillic script if they so wish (Culture and Education Commission, 2006 [1954]). At a time when all of China was modeling the Soviet Union, enjoying friendly relations with the MPR, and hoisting the flag of proletarian internationalism, this positive attitude toward Cyrillization was not surprising. Since Cyrillization had already taken place among peoples in the MPR and the Soviet Union, many of them sharing the same ethnicity with peoples living in China’s northern borderland, the adoption of the Cyrillic script could facilitate cultural communication with Beijing’s ideological allies, to which Beijing had no reason to object.

Pushed by Soviet advisers and with Beijing’s agreement, the IMAR authority, which had not been enthusiastic about an immediate reform in the early 1950s, decided in early 1955 to start the Cyrillization reform (Chinggeltei, 1997: 6). This decision began to be known to the public in May (Nei Menggu ribao, 1955a). In July 1955, the IMAR authority passed a resolution to promote the Cyrillic Mongolian script together with a detailed six-year plan to implement this reform (Nei Menggu ribao, 1955b). By the next January, the plan was shortened to four years (Nei Menggu ribao, 1956a). In March 1956, Beijing adopted a policy requiring local governments to conduct a certain period of experimentation before formally launching a writing reform (State Council, 1956). But this policy apparently did not apply to the Cyrillization reform in Inner Mongolia, which was launched the year before.

From late 1955 to early 1956, a state-run publishing house in Hohhot, the capital of Inner Mongolia, published several versions of basal readers (Damdinsüren, 1956a) and orthographic books (Damdinsüren, 1956b) from the MPR, while the IMAR authority edited a “reader for cadre training” for people who already knew the traditional Mongolian script, mostly cadres, to learn the Cyrillic script (Commission for Mongolian Writing Reform, 1956). The training of teachers quickly started. More than six hundred teachers from throughout Inner Mongolia received intensive training for three months from March to May 1956 (Department of Education, 1956a). By July, more than three thousand cadres were trained in the Cyrillic script (Erdenetogtoh, 1956b), and local governments made plans to extend the training to still more cadres. For example, the government of Hure Banner 库伦旗 ordered its Mongol cadres to reduce work time by four hours each week in order to make time for the study of the Cyrillic script, and asked Han cadres to take on more responsibility when their Mongol colleagues were busy studying (Hure Banner, 1956). The IMAR Department of Education ordered primary schools to start teaching the Cyrillic script in the fall semester beginning in September 1956. First and second grade students, with little to no foundation in the traditional script, were completely switched to the Cyrillic script, while a more gradual approach was adopted for higher grades. For example, students in the fifth grade spent three class hours each week learning the Cyrillic script and five class hours each week learning reading and composition using the traditional script (Jirim League, 1956). The Department of Education also ambitiously planned that by the following academic year, Mongol students would study subjects such as mathematics and physics with textbooks in the Cyrillic script (Department of Education, 1956b). Starting in January 1957, the IMAR ordered all party and government organs to use the Cyrillic script when making new seals and doorplates (Alxa Left Banner, 1957).

Reports from local governments showed that students enthusiastically welcomed the adoption of the Cyrillic script and the transition proceeded rapidly (Summary, 1957b), to the extent that the official newspaper Inner Mongolia Daily (Nei Menggu ribao, 1955c) even had to warn against the tendency to precipitously abandon the traditional script. This passion, however, encountered a more complex reality, as the hasty promotion of the Cyrillic script caused several problems. Many teachers were not sufficiently trained, which caused inconsistency in the pronunciation of letters even among teachers within the same school. Furthermore, some teachers apparently mixed up the name of a letter with its phonetic value, and, for example, taught students to pronounce the word лам (lam, or “lama”) as elam because they thought the letter л (l) stood for the sound el. Many publications in the Cyrillic script were of low quality (Summary, 1957a). Also, since the pace of teaching the Cyrillic script in schools was faster than its implementation in society at large, students found it difficult to apply what they learned in the classroom to daily life (Summary, 1957b).

Controversies over Basic Dialect and Orthography, 1955–1957

The IMAR authority ambitiously decided in early 1956 that within four years the transition from the traditional script to a Cyrillic one should be completed in every aspect of social life except the study of classical literature. Strikingly, however, by this time the IMAR leaders had not yet decided whether they were going to promote the Cyrillic script as used in the MPR or a new one specially designed for the IMAR. All work involved in implementing the reform was carried out based on the IMAR leaders’ decision to temporarily promote the existing version of the Cyrillic script used in the MPR while they were still deciding on this matter (Nei Menggu ribao, 1955b).

Adopting Ulaanbaatar’s Standard

The IMAR authority adopted a resolution to start the reform in 1955:

We must select a basic dialect that is easily understood by Mongol people in different parts of Inner Mongolia [. . .] so that in our New Mongolian Script spelling and speech will be in agreement insofar as possible, and will well serve the vast majority of the Mongol people. At the same time, we shall also make [the New Mongolian Script] consistent with the writing system in the Mongolian People’s Republic as far as possible, in order to facilitate cultural communication. (Nei Menggu ribao, 1955b)

In this resolution, the IMAR sought to balance two distinct goals of the reform. One was to make the writing system easy to learn and use for the IMAR’s Mongol masses, which required that it accurately represent the spoken language in Inner Mongolia. The other goal was to facilitate cross-border communication by making the writing system consistent with that used in the MPR.

These two goals, however, were hard to reconcile. The orthographic rules of the MPR’s Cyrillic script were based on the Khalkha dialect, which, as Soviet adviser B. Kh. Todayeva argued,⁷ had no decisive influence in Inner Mongolia (Todayeva, 1955). The future standardized Mongolian language in Inner Mongolia, Chinggeltei argued, should be based on the dialect spoken in the Jou Uda League 昭乌达盟 in southeastern Inner Mongolia, which was not close to the Khalkha dialect (Chinggeltei, 1953: 45). To accurately represent Inner Mongolia’s spoken language, the IMAR authority would have to formulate separate orthographic rules, which would lead to many words being spelled differently in the IMAR than in the MPR.

Immediately after deciding to start the reform in early 1955, the IMAR authority organized Mongol linguists to discuss a specific plan for Cyrillization and the selection of a basic dialect. Only a few scholars supported the direct adoption of the MPR’s Cyrillic script. Most scholars believed it was necessary to modify the system to make it more consistent with the dialects spoken in the IMAR. However, they also believed there should be only minor modifications of orthography so that people in the MPR could still understand publications from Inner Mongolia (Chinggeltei, 1997: 29–30). Serdyuchenko disagreed, claiming that minor modifications were far from enough. Citing the significant difference between the Khalkha dialect and dialects in Inner Mongolia, he argued that a separate Cyrillic writing system for Inner Mongolia was warranted. Since the purpose of the reform was to serve the masses, he contended, the primary goal should be making the writing system consistent with the IMAR’s own dialects, instead of facilitating communication with the MPR (Chinggeltei, 1997: 31–32). This was a realistic argument from a purely linguistic stance, since the MPR’s Cyrillic script was difficult even for Inner Mongolian intellectuals due to dialect differences. The Soviets might also have been worried about the possibility of a unified writing system across the Gobi Desert enhancing China’s influence over the MPR.

Ignoring Serdyuchenko’s arguments, the IMAR authority made the surprising decision in early 1956 to directly adopt the Cyrillic script used in the MPR, not making even the minor modifications Mongol scholars had suggested. Furthermore, as a natural move accompanying this decision, it selected the dialect spoken in the Xilingol League 锡林郭勒盟, which was much closer to the Khalkha dialect across the border than to most other dialects spoken in the IMAR, as the basic dialect for the standard spoken Mongolian in Inner Mongolia. The IMAR authority planned to formally announce this decision during an academic conference that was to be held in Hohhot in May 1956. Serdyuchenko was furious, claiming that the IMAR authority’s actions were ridiculous, and threatening to boycott the conference (Chinggeltei, 1997: 34–35). The two parties eventually reached a compromise. The IMAR authority refrained from explicitly identifying the choice of a basic dialect, while Serdyuchenko attended the conference and likely unwillingly endorsed the decision to adopt the MPR’s version of the Cyrillic script (Serdyuchenko, 1956b: 257).

The conference adopted a resolution that did not explicitly select a basic dialect for Inner Mongolia, but instead called for “developing a common language of the [Mongol] nation by adopting the New Mongolian Script” (Nei Menggu ribao, 1956d). This would have the same effect as selecting the Khalkha dialect as the basic dialect, since the IMAR adopted the Cyrillic Mongolian script used in the MPR that was based on it. What might have consoled Serdyuchenko to some extent was that the conference, following his earlier suggestion (Serdyuchenko, 1956 [1955]: 5–6), approved a separate Cyrillic writing system for the Daur language (Institute of Ethnology, 1991: 224), a Mongolic language closely related to Mongolian. This decision overrode the IMAR authority’s earlier proposal to have Daur pupils learn Mongolian instead of creating a separate writing system for them (Chronicle on Education Editorial Committee, 2002: 619). The IMAR authority likely chose to follow Serdyuchenko’s suggestion to create a separate Cyrillic Daur script not because they agreed with his opinion, but rather because there was a strong tendency among Daur intellectuals to stress their distinct Daur identity, some even going so far as to pretend not to understand Mongolian (General Office, 1956).

As a result, the IMAR authority promoted the MPR’s Khalkha-based Cyrillic script, a step Inner Mongolian intellectuals had already found problematic back in the 1940s. Linguists and other intellectuals working in the field of education and publishing were among the first to study the new script, and their difficulty with the complex orthography and dialect differences were noted by the MPR embassy in China as early as April 1956 (Mishig, 1956b). When the IMAR authority formally announced its decision to adopt the MPR’s writing system in May 1956, an editorial in Inner Mongolia Daily argued that people should overcome their worries about dialect differences and promote the new writing system (Nei Menggu ribao, 1956c). A few months later, the newspaper partially yielded to the reality on the ground and suggested that spellings by the masses that incorporated elements from their own dialects and violated the official Khalkha-based spelling rules should temporarily be considered correct in order not to undermine their passion for study (Nei Menggu ribao, 1956e). This tolerance in spelling, however, could not help alleviate difficulties in reading. Due to the difference between spellings in the Cyrillic script and the actual pronunciation in local dialects, many teachers resorted to using the Chinese language to explain the meaning of sentences, and even used Chinese characters to mark the pronunciation of words written in the Cyrillic script, resulting in the absurd scenario where the study of the Cyrillic Mongolian script by Mongols resembled the study of a foreign language (Spare-time Culture School, 1956). In December 1956, Inner Mongolia Daily eventually recognized that “teaching with the Khalkha dialect as the standard pronunciation has caused conflicting thoughts among teachers, who fear that they cannot master it and students cannot learn it well.” The newspaper cautioned that “this thought, if not overcome, will definitely affect teaching work” (Nei Menggu ribao, 1956f). Instead of making the writing system better serve the masses, the IMAR authority’s decision to adopt the MPR’s orthographic rules made learning harder, thus undercutting the rationale of the reform.

The IMAR authority’s tendency to blindly follow the MPR’s standards even affected Mongolian vocabulary in Inner Mongolia. For example, Mongols in Inner Mongolia were already used to referring to the automobile as chiche, a loanword from Chinese qiche. During the Cyrillization reform, this word was replaced with mashin, a loanword from Russian used in the MPR (Chinese People’s Political Consultative Committee, 1956). This kind of fiddling increased the difficulty of learning the Cyrillic script.

Yearning for Pan-Mongol Unity

Why did the IMAR authority decide to adopt the MPR’s standard? While Soviet advisers pushed the IMAR’s policymakers to introduce a writing system that could better serve the Mongol masses in Inner Mongolia, the policymakers might have been yearning for some form of unity with the MPR. The person directly in charge of the Cyrillization reform was Hafungga,⁸ the vice chairman of the IMAR, head of the IMAR Department of Education, and director of the IMAR Commission for Mongolian Writing Reform. His pursuit of Pan-Mongol unity dated back to his young days, when he expressed in a poem his wish to cut through the Gobi Desert dividing Inner and Outer Mongolia and connect the two (Bao, 1996).⁹ If that was merely a romantic dream, his real action came following Japan’s surrender in 1945, when he visited Ulaanbaatar to lobby for the annexation of eastern Inner Mongolia to the MPR. It is therefore not surprising that, in a letter to Chinggeltei in 1956, he argued that, “considering the linguistic unity of Greater Mongolia, we cannot ask the already-standardized language in the Mongolian People’s Republic to change with us,” and that by adopting the MPR’s Khalkha dialect in Inner Mongolia, “after several years a unified Mongolian language in all of Inner and Outer Mongolia will emerge” (Hohhot Workers’ Assembly, 2008 [1968]).

Erdenetogtoh, a famous Mongol linguist and philologist and deputy director of the IMAR Commission for Mongolian Writing Reform, was also a subscriber to the idea of linguistic unity with the MPR. In 1958, MPR scholar Rinchen visited the Inner Mongolia Institute of Language and Literature in Hohhot, and mentioned to Erdenetogtoh that the term “language and literature” was used in an abbreviated form in the MPR.¹⁰ Erdenetogtoh soon ordered the institute to change the inscriptions of its Mongolian name on all its doorplates and seals to the term used in the MPR (Four Clean-ups Movement Taskforce, 1966). During a conference in March 1956 to discuss the selection of a basic dialect, Erdenetogtoh argued that “the Khalkha dialect is the most developed and richest” dialect. He added, “There is no large difference between dialects spoken in Inner and Outer Mongolia, so we can use Khalkha dialect as our basic dialect.”¹¹

Ironically, while leaders in the IMAR were determined to follow the MPR’s practices, and ignore objections from local scholars, grassroots school teachers, and Soviet advisers, intellectuals in the MPR became increasingly dissatisfied with the MPR’s writing system. In 1955 and 1956, linguists from the Philology Office of the Mongolian Academy of Science studied the possibility of improving the Cyrillic Mongolian orthography (Mishig, 1956a; Luvsandendev, 1956). At the end of 1956, a fierce debate took place among MPR linguists over whether and how to revise the writing system. Even more ironically, the IMAR’s decision to adopt the Cyrillic script contributed to the flare-up of the MPR intellectuals’ dissatisfaction with it. Erdeniin Vandui, an MPR linguist who argued for significant revisions to the alphabet, stressed that improving the Cyrillic Mongolian writing system was imperative especially because Inner Mongolia was about to adopt it (Vandui, 1957: 29). If linguists failed to fix its disadvantages, he argued, the result would be a problematic writing system that would harm the entire Mongol nation in the coming decades. Rinchen, who also proposed major revisions to the alphabet, criticized the system for over-stressing consistency with Russian orthographic rules and making it hard for Mongols in China to learn (Rinchen, 1957: 15). Even the most conservative linguist, Tsendiin Damdinsüren, who opposed any major change to the writing system (Damdinsüren, 1957b), agreed that some minor modifications to the spelling rules were necessary and should be carried out through cooperation with Inner Mongolian linguists (Damdinsüren, 1957a: 25–27).

Eventually, in April 1957, the IMAR and the MPR decided to convene a conference in Ulaanbaatar in the summer to discuss possible changes to the Cyrillic Mongolian orthography (Tegüs, 1957). The IMAR authority was open-minded about suggestions to revise the orthography, as long as any changes would be simultaneously taken by the MPR. What the IMAR pursued was linguistic unity with the MPR, rather than any particular set of orthographic rules.

Beijing’s Attitude

If the IMAR’s leaders, many of whom had a problematic history of separatism, pursued linguistic unity with the MPR at the expense of the original goal of crafting a writing system easy for the masses to learn and use, then why would Beijing give the green light to such a decision? One possibility was that Beijing approved of Cyrillization in principle because of its policy to model the Soviet Union and side with communist states, and did not care about the highly technical issue of which specific kind of Cyrillization the IMAR would implement. Also, judging from Beijing’s stance favoring simpler and more regular writing systems, even if imperfect, a Khalkha-based Cyrillic script still had some obvious advantages over the traditional script,¹² and thus Beijing had reason to believe that the adoption of the MPR’s Cyrillic script still conformed to its line that writing systems should serve the masses.

It was also possible that Beijing was willing to tolerate the IMAR’s Pan-Mongolist inclination because it wanted to take advantage of Pan-Mongolism for the sake of its own nationalist agenda. As early as 1936, Mao expressed his wish to have Outer Mongolia “returned” to China once the Chinese revolution succeeded.¹³ Mao and other CCP leaders repeatedly raised this issue with Soviet leaders during mutual visits in 1949 (Ledovskiy, 1995: 107), 1950, 1954, 1956, and 1957.¹⁴ Apparently, when the Cyrillization reform was decided, the CCP’s leaders still harbored the dream of Outer Mongolia eventually becoming part of China. Adopting the MPR’s writing system and orthographic rules would facilitate the potential annexation of the MPR in the future. Multiple sources indicate that Ulanhu, the top leader of the IMAR and a vice premier of the central government, once commented that “unifying the writing system with Outer Mongolia is [a way] to influence them” (North China Bureau, 1967; Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping’s Talk, 1966: 406). This argument could hold true considering that the Mongol population in China was larger than the total population of the MPR.

In addition, Beijing had to justify its formal recognition of the MPR’s independence. It did so by arguing that the MPR, where Communist rule was established as early as the 1920s, had started to build socialism much earlier than China and had entered an ideologically more advanced stage, and thus China should not hold it back by insisting on reunification (Hu, 1950). This narrative also appeared after the 1959 Tibetan uprising and enabled pro-Communist intellectuals to reconcile the paradox of Beijing’s policy of recognizing the MPR’s independence while insisting that other non-Han areas, such as Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Tibet, must remain part of China (Joint Committee, 1959). Modeling the writing reform on the practices in the MPR was in line with this rhetoric. As Inner Mongolia Daily argued, adopting the MPR’s writing system would facilitate the introduction of the “advanced culture” of the MPR (Nei Menggu ribao, 1956c).

While policymakers in Beijing and those in the IMAR had different political motives originating from their different nationalist agendas, they likely both found it in their interests to directly adopt the Cyrillic writing system used in the MPR instead of creating a separate one for Inner Mongolia. Although this decision made the study and use of the script more difficult and therefore contradicted the communist doctrine of serving the masses, its supporters could nevertheless defend it with the rhetoric of proletarian internationalism since it could facilitate communication with the MPR, at the time China’s friendly and revolutionary neighbor. As Ulanhu argued, the controversy over the adoption of the MPR’s writing system in Inner Mongolia could be labeled a struggle between internationalism and “localism” 地方主义 (Ulanhu, 1956). The latter, within the CCP’s ideological discourse, meant a combination of “extreme individualism and feudalist sectarianism,” which People’s Daily proclaimed had to be “totally wiped out” (Renmin ribao, 1957).

Abandoning Cyrillization and Proclaiming Latinization, 1957–1958

For language workers in Inner Mongolia, the summer of 1957 was a particularly busy time. Erdenetogtoh and Chinggeltei, together with three other scholars, visited Ulaanbaatar to discuss possible improvements to the Cyrillic Mongolian writing system with their MPR colleagues. Earlier that year, likely out of fear of angering the Soviets, the MPR party leadership tried to suppress the expression of opinions on revising the alphabet and limited the scope of discussion to modifying spelling rules. Facing pressure from the party leadership, linguists in the MPR were silent for a few months, but the arrival of their Inner Mongolian colleagues emboldened them to speak out during the conference. It turned out that most scholars supported major revisions to the writing system (Embassy of China in Mongolia, 1957). At the end of the conference, scholars recommended eliminating several letters that they deemed unnecessary for Mongolian, and suggested several principles for further improving spelling rules (Ünen, 1957). Had these recommendations been implemented, the writing system would have become more regular, with simpler spelling rules, and Inner Mongolian teachers and students would have had an easier time mastering it. But they would still be troubled by the problem of dialect difference, an issue the conference made no effort to address. Since the IMAR authority was willing to adopt the Khalkha dialect as the de facto basic dialect for Inner Mongolia, it was unsurprising that language workers from Inner Mongolia had no objection to the Khalkha-based orthography, and focused on fine-tuning the alphabet.

Back home in Inner Mongolia, the study of the Cyrillic script continued in full swing despite encountering difficulties. Cadres in Naiman Banner 奈曼旗, for instance, took turns in a one-month off-the-job training, where they studied for nine hours a day (Naiman Banner People’s Committee, 1957). In Hohhot, the IMAR Department of Education announced a plan for teaching the Cyrillic script in ethnic Mongol secondary schools for the upcoming 1957–1958 academic year (Chronicle on Education Editorial Committee, 2002: 620). Beyond everyone’s expectation, in the seaside city of Qingdao almost a thousand kilometers away from Hohhot, a conference on ethnic policies held by the central government would cast all their efforts to the wind.

During this conference, Premier Zhou Enlai expressed the wish to unify the alphabets used by China’s different ethnic groups (Institute of Ethnology, 1991: 226–27). Soon the National Commission for Writing Reform formally proposed several principles for writing reforms in minority languages, which were then approved by the State Council in late 1957 (Institute of Ethnology, 1991: 227). The principles established the pinyin system, the Latin-based phonetic spelling system for Standard Mandarin that was in the final stage of revision by that time, as a model for writing reforms of minority languages. They required that the Latin script be adopted when creating or reforming a minority language writing system and that the same letters used in pinyin be used to represent the same or similar sounds that exist both in the minority language and in Mandarin (State Council, 1960 [1957]). While the Cyrillization reform of Mongolian aimed at linguistic unity with the MPR, the State Council now stressed linguistic unity among ethnic groups in China, and particularly unity with the Chinese language.

The IMAR authority soon followed those guidelines and halted the Cyrillization reform. In late September 1957, a few weeks after the start of the new school year, the IMAR Department of Education ordered all primary and secondary schools to immediately switch back to the traditional Mongolian script. The department, however, allowed exceptions in some cases. For example, first, second, and third graders would continue to use arithmetic textbooks written in the Cyrillic script for one semester, because it would take time to prepare a sufficient number of textbooks in the traditional script, and because some students, especially second graders who had entered elementary school in September 1956, had never studied the traditional script before. The Department of Education only gave a simple and vague explanation for the sudden policy change, saying that the decision to launch the Cyrillization reform had been made hastily and that many problems had appeared during the implementation of the reform (Department of Education, 1957). During the following months, the IMAR authority gradually provided more detailed rationales for the end of the reform. In December 1957, just a few months after delivering a speech praising the Cyrillic script in Ulaanbaatar (China National Radio, 2016), Erdenetogtoh published an article with a totally different tone. Claiming that the Cyrillic script suffered from flawed orthography, while the traditional script had deep roots in Mongol culture and was compatible with various Mongolian dialects, he urged a switch back to the traditional script (Erdenetogtoh, 1988 [1957]). In January 1958, the IMAR authority circulated a propaganda guideline among its subordinate units in which it explained that although the Cyrillic script is easier to learn than the traditional script during the stage of recognizing letters, difficulties and problems will appear in later stages due to incompatibility with multiple dialects, the complexity of orthography, and the use of unnecessary letters. Finally, in March 1958, the IMAR authority formally adopted a resolution to officially stop the Cyrillization reform, in which it also claimed the existence of a relatively mature and time-honored traditional Mongolian writing system, in addition to the decision by the State Council, as the reason behind this sudden policy change (Nei Menggu ribao, 1958).

The IMAR authority slapped itself in the face by citing the existence of a mature traditional script and the difficulties in learning the Khalkha-based Cyrillic orthography as two of the reasons for ending the Cyrillization reform. The former was one of the major reasons that Mongol scholars argued against a hasty writing reform in the early 1950s, while the latter was exactly why Serdyuchenko opposed the direct adoption of the MPR’s Cyrillic script and proposed to create a separate one for Inner Mongolia. It was the IMAR authority itself, led by almost identical personnel, that decided to replace the “mature” traditional script with the “difficult” system used in the MPR, overriding opposition from both Mongol scholars and Soviet advisers. Therefore, neither of these two sociolinguistic reasons it provided could convincingly explain this sudden policy change. The real reason could only lie in Beijing’s new guideline.

Zhou explained the rationale for Beijing’s guideline in his speech in January 1958:

If dozens of peoples each develop a separate writing system, this will obstruct mutual learning and communication among all the peoples. [. . .] Many brotherly peoples have expressed their wish to achieve unanimity with the Han people on writing systems in order to facilitate cultural communication, the study of Chinese, and the adoption of Chinese loanwords. [. . .] Therefore, formulating the pinyin system must not be further delayed. Otherwise we will trouble them. Now that the Latin script has been adopted as the phonetic spelling system for the Chinese language, we lay down this principle: When creating or reforming writing systems, all minority languages should use the Latin script in principle, and the pronunciation and usage of letters should be in accordance with the Chinese pinyin system as far as possible. (Renmin ribao, 1958)

According to Zhou, it was the non-Han peoples themselves who sought to make their alphabets consistent with the pinyin system, and therefore Beijing rushed to finalize that system to serve as a basis for the writing reform of minority languages in addition to its primary purpose of facilitating the elimination of illiteracy among Han Chinese. In this way, Zhou depicted this policy as a long-awaited move that eventually became possible with the finalization of the pinyin system. This explanation, however, is hardly convincing. Beijing had decided as early as October 1955 that pinyin should be based on the Latin alphabet (Institute of Ethnology, 1991: 224), and formally announced this decision through a CCP Central Committee Directive in January 1956 (CCP Central Committee, 2013 [1956]: 139), but did not reverse its 1954 policy of allowing ethnic groups living along China’s northern border to pursue Cyrillization until the summer of 1957. Furthermore, during the 1956 conference in Hohhot where the IMAR authority announced its decision to adopt the orthography of the MPR, the director of the National Commission for Writing Reform from Beijing even announced that the pinyin system would be based on the Latin script (Nei Menggu ribao, 1956b). The director’s speech was followed by Erdenetogtoh’s (1956a) comment that the recent progress in the formulation of the pinyin system became “immeasurable inspiration and [provided] guidance” for the ongoing Mongolian writing reform. After merely more than a year, ironically, the Latin-based pinyin system became the reason for ending this same reform. Rather than a long-awaited natural move following the finalization of pinyin as Zhou depicted, this 1957 guideline reflects a drastic change in Beijing’s policy.

The overall domestic and international political atmosphere in 1957 may help in puzzling out the reasoning behind this policy change. The Anti-Rightist movement, which started that year and led to the persecution of more than half a million intellectuals whom the CCP considered disloyal in one way or another, targeted the so-called local nationalist tendencies in non-Han areas. The Cyrillic writing system, which could foster cross-border Pan-Mongol identity, became problematic within this context. Using the same script as the pinyin system, on the other hand, could facilitate the adoption of loanwords from and the learning of Chinese, and could therefore accelerate Beijing’s integration, or even assimilation, of non-Han ethnic groups, helping Beijing to strengthen its control over the borderlands. After the start of the radical political movements in 1957, promoting the adoption of Chinese loanwords in minority languages, especially for new political lexicons, became of central importance in language planning. As a report in 1965 indicated, some translators working for the IMAR government had committed what it described as a serious political offense by translating the word “commune” 公社 not with the Chinese loanword güngshe but with a native Mongolian word nigedül, and translating the word “cadre” 干部 not with the Chinese loanword ganbü but with the Russian loanword kadr (General Office, 1965).

Although the Sino-Soviet disagreements were still under control in the late 1950s, starting in 1956 Beijing began to consider itself as an equal partner with the Soviet Union, instead of its disciple (Chen, 2001: 145–62). Beijing further manifested its ambition to pursue its own path of building socialism by launching the disastrous Great Leap Forward in late 1957 and early 1958. Unlike in the earlier years when Beijing itself modeled Moscow and allowed ethnic groups in China’s northern borderlands to follow Moscow’s language policy and adopt the Cyrillic script, Beijing now demanded that those borderland peoples switch their model from Moscow to Beijing, stop Cyrillization, and pursue a pinyin-based Latinization reform aimed at promoting unity among languages in China. This new move to some extent resembled the imperial Chinese tradition, dating back to the emperor Qin Shi Huang (259–210 BCE), of unifying the writing system within the boundaries of the empire to ensure that its subjects throughout its vast territory abided by the center’s authority. Traditionally, classical written Chinese served as the tool to link together subjects—both Han and non-Han—of the Chinese empire. While the pursuit of mass literacy in modern times outdated supra-lingual and supra-dialect written languages like classical Chinese, the CCP regime could nevertheless pursue unity among writing systems by unifying the choice of alphabet and the phonetic value of letters.

Latinization in Stagnation, 1958–1974

In line with Beijing’s 1957 policy on adopting pinyin as a basis for writing reforms of minority languages, the restoration of the traditional Mongolian script was declared to be a makeshift policy to be applied until the Latinization reform could be implemented. But the IMAR authority was not enthusiastic about Latinization, stating that it would “wait until conditions mature in the future” before considering whether and how to reform the writing system (Leading Party Members’ Group, 1958). The 1958 resolution ending Cyrillization also renamed the IMAR Commission for Mongolian Writing Reform as the Commission for Mongolian Language Work (Nei Menggu ribao, 1958).

It was not until August 1960, three years after the Qingdao conference that halted Cyrillization, that the IMAR finally acted and internally circulated a draft Latin Mongolian script (Commission for Language Work, 1960). As a writing system specially designed for Inner Mongolia, this Latin script, unlike the Russian-influenced Cyrillic Mongolian script, did not have unnecessary letters and signs and its spelling did not reflect the unfamiliar Khalkha dialect. However, while eliminating those major disadvantages, this new Latin script was not necessarily easier for Mongolian speakers to learn due to the overwhelming Chinese influence. In order to make it possible to spell the plethora of Chinese loanwords with exactly the same letters as in pinyin, the drafters assigned a few letters to represent multiple phonemes, while a single syllable could be spelled differently depending on whether it was a native Mongolian word or a Chinese loanword.¹⁵ After all, since the pinyin system was designed to represent the sounds of Mandarin Chinese, its designers did not and could not take into consideration the dozens of other languages in China when formulating its spelling rules. In addition to the draft of the Latin writing system, the IMAR authority drafted a resolution to launch the Latinization reform, proposing to start the reform in 1960, fully implement the Latin script by 1963, and complete the transition to the Latin script by 1965 (People’s Committee, 1960). It also composed basal readers, orthographic books, and other reading materials for widespread implementation of the Latin Mongolian script (Research Office, 1973).

Despite what the reformers intended, the reform did not start in 1960. During the academic year between September 1960 and July 1961, one of the seventh-grade classes at the Middle School Attached to the Inner Mongolian Teacher’s College, one of the best middle schools in Hohhot, tentatively taught the Latin script as an experiment. The teachers told students that Latinization was a global trend, but did not give any explanation when the experiment was discontinued after only one academic year.¹⁶ In May 1961, the IMAR reworked the resolution and circulated it internally with a slightly revised draft of the Latin Mongolian script. As the year 1960 had obviously passed, the new draft resolution postponed the start of the reform to 1961, while the date of full implementation was postponed to 1967 and the time to fully complete the transition was unspecified. The IMAR authority also called on its departments to submit feedback on the draft resolution by October 1961, and stressed that the reform was not to be immediately launched, and thus the draft should not be openly cited or reported in the newspapers (People’s Committee, 1961). It was unclear what feedback the IMAR authority received by October 1961, but by December, the IMAR party committee internally circulated a report from its propaganda department which suggested indefinitely postponing the Latinization reform and stopping experiments in schools, claiming that the current writing system needed to remain stable in order for the Mongolian language to develop healthily, and that while reform would be the future direction, it would require standardization of the spoken language, which would take a relatively long time (CCP Committee, 1961). In February 1962, the IMAR authority officially announced the decision to postpone the Latinization reform (Nei Menggu ribao, 1962).

With the Latinization reform postponed indefinitely, the only immediate use of the Latin Mongolian script formulated in 1960 was to mark the pronunciation of Mongolian words in dictionaries, serving as a transcription system for the less phonetic traditional Mongolian script (Research Office, 1973). Government-sponsored scholars continued to revise this Latin script to better serve this end. The Latin script developed into the “Mongolian Language Latin Phonetic Spelling Plan,” “Draft of Rules on Proper Pronunciation of the Mongolian Language,” and “Draft Plan for Mongolian Phonetic Transcription” (Mongolian Language Latin Phonetic Spelling Plan, date unclear; Editorial Group, 1965; Draft Plan, 1965). The last, formulated in late 1965, was part of a project that would celebrate the IMAR’s upcoming twentieth anniversary in 1967. During the continual revision of the transcription system, language workers in the IMAR began to mix up a writing system with a phonetic auxiliary system, and seemed confused about the eventual goal of the writing reform. A conference in 1964 used the ambiguous and confusing term “New Mongolian Script Phonetic Spelling Plan” to refer to the Latin Mongolian script (Inner Mongolia Institute of Language and Literature, 1964). Also noteworthy is that the draft plan revised in 1965 had as many as eleven vowel letters (Research Office, 1973), making it resemble a phonetic auxiliary system rather than a writing system. This 1965 plan could likely provide guidance on accurately transcribing pronunciation in dictionaries, but, because of its complexity, it is unlikely it could ever have functioned as a writing system.

Two major factors may explain the IMAR authority’s decision to indefinitely postpone the Latinization reform. First, the key figures leading the Cyrillization reform, including Hafungga and Erdenetogtoh, were still in charge of the language work in the IMAR in the early 1960s. Their belief in Pan-Mongol unity likely continued to influence their work, which might also be the reason for the alleged continued use of the Khalkha dialect in radio broadcasts in Inner Mongolia on some occasions as late as 1965 (Revolutionary Criticism Group, 2011 [1970]: 1022). Once Beijing announced that Cyrillization was to be stopped, Hafungga and others would have found preserving the traditional script much more desirable than adopting a pinyin-based Latin script. The former was part of the Mongols’ cultural tradition and was still understood at least by intellectuals in the MPR, while the latter would inevitably entail an ever-increasing influx of Chinese loanwords. Ulanhu, the IMAR’s top leader, also became increasingly troubled by Beijing’s radical policies in the early 1960s, and concerned about the consequences for Inner Mongolia (Qi, 2010: 68–71). The second factor behind the decision to postpone the Latinization reform involved technical difficulties. Unlike the Cyrillization reform, which simply adopted the MPR’s Khalkha-based standard, at this time the IMAR had to formulate its own standard, which would require selecting and promoting a basic dialect and coming up with detailed orthographic rules based on that dialect. Even before the start of the Cultural Revolution in 1966, the political atmosphere was chaotic, complicating the work of the IMAR authority. The first draft of the resolution on Latinization composed in 1960 specified that the Latin script would be based on the Chahar dialect (People’s Committee, 1960), which is still close to the Khalkha dialect, though less so than the Xilingol dialect, which the IMAR leaders wanted to select as the basic dialect back in 1956. The new resolution in 1961 (People’s Committee, 1961), however, did not specify a basic dialect, suggesting that the subject was still highly controversial even though Soviet experts had left.

In a parallel case, in the late 1950s there was some attempt to impose Cyrillization on Uyghur and Kazakh, two major Turkic languages in Xinjiang, but in 1965 it was decided to implement Latinization. Uyghur and Kazakh leaders in Xinjiang might have supported Latinization because Turkey, the only independent Turkic nation at that time, had, in the late 1920s, adopted the Latin script for Turkish. Also, Latinization of Uyghur and Kazakh faced fewer technical difficulties because there were relatively smaller dialect differences and because the original Arabic scripts the two languages used were already relatively phonetic.

Why did Beijing tolerate the IMAR’s decision to postpone Latinization? First, although Mao claimed in 1951 that Chinese should eventually switch to a phonetic writing system, Beijing did not pursue the immediate Latinization of Chinese, but instead mandated the use of pinyin only as a phonetic auxiliary system. This decision may have turned on nationalist sentiments, practical difficulties, and frequent political movements. Whatever the actual reasons were, the IMAR could use Beijing’s official explanation for the postponed Latinization reform for Chinese, namely the need for long-term preparation (Wu, 1957: 17), to argue against such a reform for Mongolian. Also, the use of the traditional Mongolian script already served to distance the written Mongolian in the IMAR from that in the MPR and the Soviet Union, and, unlike the Arabic scripts in Xinjiang, it had no significant religious connection, and thus it was easier for Beijing to tolerate its use for the time being. Finally, until the start of the Cultural Revolution in 1966, the IMAR continued to revise and improve the Latin Mongolian script, showing that it was indeed preparing for a future reform.

During the Cultural Revolution many of the IMAR’s leaders, Mongols and Hans alike, were attacked and deposed. Their reluctance in promoting Latinization was used against them as evidence of their disloyalty (North China Bureau, 1967). In any case, the Latinization reform could not be resumed because the Cultural Revolution led to the implementation of a suppressive language policy, greatly reducing the use of Mongolian in society and its teaching in schools.

The Silent Abortion of Latinization, 1974–1980

The political atmosphere began to relax in the early 1970s, and a few Inner Mongolian officials who had been purged returned to power. The IMAR authority, now officially called the IMAR Revolutionary Committee and staffed with mostly different cadres from before the Cultural Revolution, started to gradually resume the use of Mongolian. In early 1974, the State Council approved a proposal by the IMAR to resume work on language planning, including the preparation for Latinization (State Council, 1974). Language-planning work now required inter-provincial cooperation because Beijing partitioned the IMAR in 1969 out of worries over its loyalty, resulting in the transferring of more than sixty percent of the IMAR’s territory and more than eighty percent of its Mongol population to five neighboring provincial-level units. Overcoming difficulties caused by the chaotic political environment, a coordinative taskforce on Mongolian language work involving eight provinces and autonomous regions was launched in May 1975.¹⁷ One of its first acts was dispatching a delegation to Xinjiang to inspect the Latinization reforms of the Uyghur and Kazakh languages there. The delegation, however, could not reach a consensus about whether it would be desirable to pursue the immediate Latinization of Mongolian (Senamjil, 2000: 32–33).

In December 1975, the IMAR finally decided to continue the preparatory work for Latinization, aiming to formulate a Latin writing system by the end of 1977 (Revolutionary Committee, 1975: 30–31). However, by the year 1977 the only visible accomplishment was a collection of reprinted reports of surveys on Mongolian dialects conducted in the 1950s. In the foreword to the collection, the editors reiterated that “the Latinization of the Mongolian language and the unification of the written and spoken language are the sole correct direction and must be maintained” (Joint Editorial Team, 1977). The inter-provincial coordinative taskforce formulated a new plan in 1978, which postponed the scheduled completion of a Latin Mongolian script to the year 1985 (Mongolian Language Offices, 1985: 91, 133).

Surprisingly, just one year later, in autumn 1979, the taskforce announced the creation of a phonetic auxiliary system for Mongolian (Institute of Ethnology, 1991: 234). Meanwhile, without announcing it to the public, the IMAR decided to “maintain the stable use of the traditional Mongolian script” and to “only consider amelioration instead of reform” (Senamjil, 2000: 157, 160). When the IMAR formally approved the phonetic auxiliary system in 1980, the deputy director of the IMAR Commission for Mongolian Language Work stressed that the phonetic auxiliary system was only a transcription system that could not replace a writing system and had nothing to do with a writing reform (Namtsarai, 1980). This implicitly marked the end of the attempts—which lasted for more than two decades—to reform the Mongolian writing system in China.

The phonetic auxiliary system the IMAR authority approved in 1980 functions awkwardly in transcribing pronunciations of Mongolian words. It does not have enough letters to represent each Mongolian phoneme with one corresponding grapheme, but uses orthographic rules to govern the phonetic values of some of its letters (Chinggeltei, 1997: 22–23). This would be reasonable for a writing system where the need for efficiency in writing requires limiting the number of letters, but inappropriate for a phonetic auxiliary system where grapheme-to-phoneme correspondence should be the top priority. If the IMAR authority indeed wanted to formulate a phonetic auxiliary system, the 1965 draft system, with as many as eleven vowel letters, would have been a good choice. But the 1979 system resembled to a much greater extent the original 1960 plan for a Latin Mongolian writing system. It is therefore highly likely that this so-called phonetic auxiliary system announced in 1979 was originally intended to be a writing system, and that the IMAR authority instead proclaimed it to be a phonetic auxiliary system so as to gracefully terminate its Latinization efforts. Some publications in Inner Mongolia, such as a Mongolian primer for Chinese speakers (Su, 1981) and a textbook for Mongols to learn standard Mongolian pronunciation (Nadamid and Peljee, 1997), used this system to transcribe pronunciations of Mongolian words, but a professional dictionary (Center for Mongolian Studies, 1999) chose to use the International Phonetic Alphabet instead.

Because the IMAR authority never implemented the Latinization reform, it did not have to openly stop it, and was able to silently abandon the reform without providing the public with any explanation. But the abandonment of the Latinization reforms of the Uyghur and Kazakh languages in Xinjiang in 1982 suggests that the rejection of the Maoist era’s radical policies was likely an important reason. After the start of the economic reform in late 1978, Beijing sought to ameliorate ethnic relations by redressing the Maoist-era grievances of non-Han peoples and accommodating their ethnic identities. An important aspect of this policy was the restoration of the language rights of non-Han peoples, which the central and local authorities had seriously violated during the Maoist political campaigns. The forcibly imposed Latinization reforms in Xinjiang were therefore deemed to have been products of ultra-leftism and Han chauvinism (Dai and Jia, 1993: 17)—they even became taboo in the following decade (Zhou, 1989: 44). The proposed Latin Mongolian script could not be exempted from this backlash against radical policies. An important purpose of the proposed Latinization reform was to facilitate the adoption of Chinese loanwords, while after the end of the Cultural Revolution, officials and scholars in the IMAR endeavored to trim the excessive number of Chinese loanwords, erasing the raison d’être of the Latin Mongolian script. Preserving the unique traditional script, on the other hand, could accommodate the Mongols’ sense of ethnic identity. Especially since the Mongols outside China had abandoned the traditional Mongolian script decades earlier, Beijing’s support of the continued use of the traditional Mongolian script could foster among the Mongols a sense of belonging to China, since China was the only country where their cherished traditional script was exclusively used.

Conclusion

With the Mongolian Revolution of 1990 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in the following year, the Cyrillic script lost its ideological supremacy in the MPR, renamed simply “Mongolia” in 1992. Newly democratized Mongolia decided to revitalize the traditional Mongolian script, and Inner Mongolia dispatched teachers to help (Okamoto, 2008: 243). This was a dramatic reversal from the 1950s, when Inner Mongolia followed the MPR’s standards by adopting the latter’s Cyrillic alphabet and orthography.

In the early 1950s, neither Beijing nor the IMAR authority had any intention of launching an immediate writing reform. The Cyrillization reform in Inner Mongolia was a direct result of the Soviet influence in China. Soviet advisors pushed for Cyrillization and Beijing consented based on the communist conviction that easier writing systems would better serve the masses and on the Soviet’s leading role in building socialism. However, likely out of their respective nationalist agendas, the IMAR authority decided and Beijing acquiesced to the direct adoption of the MPR’s Khalkha-based orthographic rules in order to achieve linguistic unity with the MPR. This made it hard for the Mongols in Inner Mongolia to learn and use the script, and undermined the communist ideal underpinning the reform.

In 1957, when Beijing developed a new nationalist agenda of attaining equal standing with Moscow and greater control over its borderlands, it no longer acquiesced to the IMAR’s pursuit of Pan-Mongol linguistic unity, stopped the Cyrillization reform, and demanded the promotion of pinyin-based Latinization. The IMAR authority, however, resisted the Latinization reform on the basis that it would lead to excessive Chinese influence. The chaotic political atmosphere of the time and technical difficulties also contributed to the stagnation of the reform. After the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese government prioritized improving ethnic relations and accommodating minority identities. This policy led to the decision to abandon the Latinization reform and preserve the traditional Mongolian script.

Both the Cyrillization and Latinization reforms in Inner Mongolia were launched in the name of the communist doctrine favoring easier, more regular, and more universal writing systems which help improve the literacy rate and facilitate communication between different peoples. Yet both reforms had hidden, underlying nationalist agendas that undermined this communist goal. The Cyrillization reform sought linguistic unity with the MPR, while the Latinization reform sought linguistic unity among languages in China, leading to difficulties and irregularities with the new writing systems being promoted in both cases. Not only did those underlying nationalist agendas make it less likely the reforms would achieve their original goal of serving the masses, but they also caused the reforms to end before long. Within the changing political atmosphere, once the nationalist agenda behind a reform became outdated, a new nationalist agenda would end the reform, as when Beijing replaced Cyrillization with Latinization and eventually abandoned Latinization as well. During the long campaign for the Mongolian writing reform, which lasted two and a half decades, the IMAR authority implemented a Cyrillic script that was claimed to be easy to learn but was not, formulated a Latin writing system that resembled a phonetic auxiliary system, and proclaimed a Latin phonetic auxiliary system that resembled a writing system. All this yielded no positive results, leaving us where we are today, with the unique traditional Mongolian script still in use in Inner Mongolia.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Masakazu Iino and Joseph Errington for helping me formulate my initial ideas on this research topic years ago. I am indebted to Xiaoyuan Liu, Huasha Zhang, and Nathan W. Lindberg for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of this article, and Minglang Zhou for generously sharing with me extremely valuable materials. My extensive field research in Mongolia and Inner Mongolia could not have been fruitful without the generous support of Bai Tuyaral, Guo Yihua, Höh, Huo Jiamian, Wang Hao, and Yaruhan, to whom I am extremely grateful.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authordeclared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: a Cornell University Knight Biggerstaff Fellowship.

Notes

Author Biography

Anran Wang is a PhD candidate in history at Cornell University. His research interests lie in the interaction between ethnonational identity and communist ideology in the Cold War era. His dissertation project focuses on ethnopolitics in Inner Mongolia between the end of World War II in 1945 and the start of the Cultural Revolution in 1966.

References

Alxa Left Banner People’s Committee 阿拉善左旗人民委员会 (1957) “关于机关印章和机关名牌逐步使用新蒙文刊写的通知” (Notification on the gradual transition to the New Mongolian Script for seals and doorplates of institutions), Jan. 25. Alxa Left Banner Archives, 2-1-84.

BAO

SHUHAI

包树海 (1996) “哈丰阿” (Hafungga). 哲里木报, Sept. 27.

CCP Central Committee (2013 [1956]) “中共中央关于文字改革工作问题的指示” (CCP Central Committee’s directive on issues of works on writing reform), Jan. 27. Pp. 138–51 in Central Archives 中央档案馆 and CCP Central Committee Party Documents Research Office 中共中央文献研究室 (ed.), 中共中央文件选集 (Selection of CCP Central Committee documents), vol. 22. Beijing: 人民出版社.

CCP Committee, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region 内蒙古自治区党委 (1961) “批转宣传部关于当前蒙古语文情况的报告” (Approval and circulation of Department of Propaganda’s report on the current work on Mongolian language), Dec. 4. Tongliao Municipal Archives, 1-4-884.

Center for Mongolian Studies, Inner Mongolia University 内蒙古大学蒙古学研究院蒙古语文研究所 [ed.] (1999) ᠮᠣᠩᠭᠣᠯ ᠬᠢᠲᠠᠳ ᠲᠣᠯᠢ᠄ ᠨᠡᠮᠡᠨ ᠵᠠᠰᠠᠭᠰᠠᠨ ᠲᠠᠪᠳᠠᠷ (Mongolian-Chinese dictionary: enlarged edition). Hohhot: 内蒙古大学出版社.

CHEN

JIAN

(2001) Mao’s China and the Cold War. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press.

China National Radio, Mongolian Language Broadcast (2016) «ᠮᠣᠩᠭᠣᠯ ᠣᠯᠣᠰ ᠲᠣ ᠬᠢᠭ᠍ᠰᠡᠨ ᠡᠷᠳᠡᠨᠢᠲᠣᠭᠲᠠᠬᠣ ᠭᠣᠸᠠᠢ ᠵᠢᠨ ᠬᠣᠶᠠᠷ ᠣᠳᠠᠭᠠᠨ ᠤ᠋ ᠠᠢᠢᠯᠴᠢᠯᠠᠯᠲᠠ» (Mr. Erdenetogtoh’s two visits to Mongolia), Dec. 29.

Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Committee, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region 中国人民政治协商会议内蒙古自治区委员会 (1956) “关于反映推行新蒙文意见的函” (Official letter on opinions on promoting the New Mongolian Script), Nov. 23. Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Archives, 310-1-71.

CHINGGELTEI 清格尔泰 (1953) “关于蒙古语文工作中的几个问题” (On some issues concerning Mongolian language work). Pp. 37–49 in 蒙古语文工作学习资料 (Study material for Mongolian language work). Guisui [Hohhot]: 绥远人民出版社.

10.

CHINGGELTEI (1997) 语言文字论集 (A collection of papers on language and script). Hohhot: 内蒙古大学出版社.

11.

Chronicle on Education Editorial Committee 《教育志》编纂委员会 (2002) 内蒙古自治区志: 教育志（验收稿）(Chronicle of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region: Chronicle on education [draft for review]). Unpublished draft, available at the Inner Mongolia Library Reading Room for Ethnic and Local Materials.

12.

Commission for Language Work, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region 内蒙古自治区语文工作委员会 (1960) “蒙古新文字方案(草案)” (Mongolian New Script plan [draft]), date unclear. Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Archives, 310-1-65.

13.

Commission for Mongolian Writing Reform, IMAR People’s Committee Өвөр Монголын Өөртөө Засах Орны Ардын зөвллийн Монгол үсгийг өөрчлөх комисс [ed.] (1956) Кадрчуудыг боловсруулахад хэрэглэх монгол шинэ үсгийн үсэглэл (New Mongolian Script reader for cadre training). Hohhot: 内蒙古人民出版社.

14.

Culture and Education Commission Steering Committee on Ethnic Language and Writing System Studies 政务院文化教育委员会民族语言文字研究指导委员会 and Ethnic Affairs Commission, Government Administration Council 民族事务委员会 (2006 [1954]) “关于帮助尚无文字的民族创立文字问题的报告” (Report on the issue of helping ethnic groups with no writing system to create writing systems). Approved at Government Administration Council of the Central People’s Government 中央人民政府政务院 conference no. 127 on May 20. P. 30 in State Ethnic Affairs Commission Culture and Propaganda Office 国家民委文化宣传司 (ed.), 民族语文政策法规汇编 (Collection of policies and laws on ethnic languages). Beijing: 民族出版社.

15.

DAI

QINGXIA

戴庆夏 and JIA

JIEHUA

贾捷华 (1993) “对民族文字‘创、改、选’经验教训的一些认识” (Some thoughts on the experiences and lessons concerning the creation, reform, and selection of writing systems of minority languages). 民族研究 6: 13–19.

16.

DAMDINSÜREN

TSENDIIN

Цэндийн Дамдинсүрэн (1956a) Монгол шинэ үсгийн үсэглэл (New Mongolian Script basal reader). Hohhot: 内蒙古人民出版社.

17.

DAMDINSÜREN

TSENDIIN

ᠼ᠂ ᠳᠠᠮᠳᠢᠨᠰᠦᠷᠦᠩ (1956b) ᠮᠣᠩᠭᠣᠯ ᠰᠢᠨ᠎ᠡ ᠦᠰᠦᠭ ᠦ᠋ᠨ ᠲᠤᠪᠴᠢ ᠳᠦᠷᠢᠮ (Concise orthography of the New Mongolian Script). Hohhot: 内蒙古人民出版社.

18.

DAMDINSÜREN

TSENDIIN

次·达木丁苏伦 (1957a) 关于蒙古文字改革问题 (On Mongolian writing reform). Trans. Ding Shihao 丁师灏 and Orgil 奥尔黑勒. Beijing: 民族出版社. The original Mongolian version, ᠮᠣᠩᠭᠣᠯ ᠬᠡᠯᠡ ᠪᠢᠴᠢᠭ᠌ ᠢ᠋ ᠰᠠᠢᠢᠵᠢᠷᠠᠭᠣᠯᠬᠣ ᠲᠣᠬᠠᠢ, was published in the Mongolian version of Inner Mongolia Daily, October 7–8, 1956.

19.

DAMDINSÜREN

TSENDIIN

Цэндийн Дамдинсүрэн (1957b) «Үсгээ өөрчлөлгүй, дүрмээ сайжруулъя» (Improve the orthography without changing the script). Pp. 9–12 in Tsevel and Vandui, 1957.

20.

Department of Education, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region 内蒙古自治区教育厅 (1956a) “一九五六年上半年推行新蒙文的师资训练工作计划” (The plan to train teachers for promoting the New Mongolian Script during the first half of the year 1956), Feb. 16. Tongliao Municipal Archives, 20-2-139.

21.

Department of Education, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region ᠥᠪᠥᠷ ᠮᠣᠩᠭᠣᠯ ‍ᠤᠨ ᠥᠪᠡᠷᠲᠡᠭᠡᠨ ᠵᠠᠰᠠᠬᠤ ᠣᠷᠣᠨ ‍ᠤ ᠰᠤᠷᠭᠠᠨ ᠬᠦᠮᠦᠵᠢᠯ ‍ᠤᠨ ᠲᠢᠩᠬᠢᠮ (1956b) «ᠮᠤᠨᠭᠭᠤᠯ ᠰᠢᠨ᠎ᠡ ᠦᠰᠦᠭ  ᠢ ᠵᠢᠭᠠᠬᠤ ᠫᠷᠤ᠍ᠭ᠍ᠷᠠᠮ ‍ᠤᠨ ᠡᠬᠡ ᠲᠦᠯᠦᠪᠯᠡᠭᠡ  ᠢᠢᠨ ᠲᠤᠬᠠᠢ ᠬᠡᠳᠦᠨ ᠲᠠᠢᠢᠯᠪᠤᠷᠢᠯᠠᠯ» (Several explanations on the preliminary teaching program for the New Mongolian Script), May 10. Tongliao Municipal Archives, 20-2-163.

22.

Department of Education, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (1957) “关于在学校和业余教育中停止推行新蒙文, 继续学习和使用旧蒙文的规定” (Provisions on the cessation of the promotion of the New Mongolian Script in schools and spare-time education and the continuation of the study and use of the Old Mongolian Script), Sept. 27. Tongliao Municipal Archives, 20-2-194.

23.

Draft Plan for Mongolian Phonetic Transcription “蒙语注音方案草案” [Nov. 9] (1965) Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Archives, 310-1-65.

24.

Editorial Group for Correct Writing and Pronunciation 正字正音编写组 (1965) “蒙古语正音规则草稿” (Draft of rules on proper pronunciation in Mongolian), Dec. 25. Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Archives, 310-1-65.

25.

Embassy of China in Mongolia 驻蒙古大使馆 (1957) Letter to Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China and International Liaison Department of the Chinese Communist Party, July 22. Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, 106-00374-09.

26.

ERDENETOGTOH 额尔敦陶克陶 (1956a) “为进一步贯彻党的使用与发展民族语文政策而奋斗——九年来内蒙古自治区使用与发展民族语文的总结及今后全面推行新蒙文的意见” (Struggle for further implementation of the party’s policy of using and developing minority languages: summary of the use and development of minority languages in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region in the past nine years and opinions on the full implementation of the New Mongolian Script in the future), May 22. Hohhot: 蒙古语族语言科学讨论会秘书处. Internal publication provided by Minglang Zhou 周明朗 (Univ. of Maryland).

27.

ERDENETOGTOH (1956b) “关于推行新蒙文中的几个问题” (On several issues concerning the promotion of the New Mongolian Script). Speech at the First IMAR Congress of the CCP 中共内蒙古自治区第一次代表大会. The Congress was held in July 1956. The specific date of the document is unclear. Tongliao Municipal Archives, 1-2-221.

28.

ERDENETOGTOH ᠡᠷᠳᠡᠨᠢᠲᠤᠭᠳᠠᠬᠤ (1988 [1957]) «ᠮᠣᠩᠭᠣᠯ ᠬᠠᠭᠣᠴᠢᠨ ᠦᠰᠦᠭ ᠵᠢᠠᠨ ᠴᠢᠨᠠᠭᠰᠢᠳᠠ ᠰᠣᠷᠣᠯᠴᠠᠨ ᠬᠡᠷᠡᠭᠯᠡᠬᠦ ᠵᠢᠨ ᠠᠴᠢ ᠬᠣᠯᠪᠣᠭᠳᠠᠯ» (The significance of continually studying and using the traditional Mongolian script). Pp. 104–11 in ᠡᠷᠳᠡᠨᠢᠲᠤᠭᠳᠠᠬᠤ  ᠢᠢᠨ ᠵᠤᠬᠢᠶᠠᠯ ᠪᠦᠲᠦᠭᠡᠯ  ᠤᠨ ᠲᠡᠭᠦᠪᠦᠷᠢ (Selected works by Erdenetogtoh). Beijing: 民族出版社.

29.

ERENTSENSONOM Эрэнцэнсоном (1955) «Намын үүрийн товчоонд» (To the party branch committee), Jan. 25. National Central Archives of Mongolia, Section of Political Party and Civil Society Archives, 4-22-132.

30.

Four Clean-ups Movement Taskforce, IMAR Commission for Language Work 内蒙古语委四清工作队 (1966) “蒙古语文工作中不同意见争论的材料” (Material on the debate between different opinions in Mongolian language work), Feb. 29. Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Archives, 310-1-59.

31.

General Office, CCP IMAR Committee 内蒙古自治区党委办公厅 (1956) “关于巴达荣嘎同志给王书记的来往信” (On the correspondence between Comrade Badarangga and Secretary Wang), Sept. 5. Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Archives, 310-1-71.

32.

General Office, IMAR People’s Committee 内蒙古自治区人民委员会办公厅 (1965) “内蒙古人委直属机关翻译人员学习讨论乌兰夫同志‘关于蒙古语文工作的八点指示’的报告” (Report on the study and discussion of Comrade Ulanhu’s “Eight Instructions on Mongolian Language Work” among translators in departments under the Inner Mongolia People’s Committee), Aug. 23. Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Archives, 310-1-59.

33.

Hohhot Workers’ Assembly 内蒙古呼和浩特工代会 (2008 [1968]) “彻底清算内人党党魁哈丰阿反党叛国滔天罪行” (Completely liquidate the heinous anti-party, treasonous crimes of the Inner Mongolia People’s Revolutionary Party chieftain Hafungga), Mar. 10. In Hohhot Worker’s Assembly (ed.), 呼和浩特无产阶级革命派愤怒声讨乌、哈反党叛国集团滔天罪行 (Proletarian revolutionaries in Hohhot furiously condemn the heinous atrocities of the anti-party, treasonous group of Ulanhu and Hafungga). In Service Center for Chinese Publications (ed.), 中共重要历史文献资料汇编 (Collections of important documents and materials in CCP history), collection 16, vol. 455: 内蒙古问题之十七: 有关各级领导人的批判资料(6) (Inner Mongolia issue 17: criticism materials about leaders on various levels [6]). Los Angeles, 2008. Original page number unknown.

34.

HUA

胡华 (1950) “关于承认和保证蒙古人民共和国的独立地位” (On recognizing and guaranteeing the independent status of the Mongolian People’s Republic). 人民日报, Feb. 24.

35.

Hure Banner CCP Committee ᠳᠤᠮᠳᠠᠳᠤ ᠤᠯᠤᠰ ᠦ᠋ᠨ ᠡᠪ ᠬᠠᠮᠲᠤ ᠨᠠᠮ ᠍ᠦ᠋ᠨ᠋ ᠬᠦᠷᠢᠢ᠎ᠠ ᠬᠤᠰᠢᠭᠤᠨ ᠤ᠋ ᠬᠤᠷᠢᠢ᠎ᠠ and Hure Banner People’s Committee ᠬᠦᠷᠢᠢ᠎ᠠ ᠬᠤᠰᠢᠭᠤᠨ ᠤ᠋ ᠠᠷᠠᠳ ᠦ᠋ᠨ ᠵᠥᠪᠯᠡᠯ (1956) «ᠮᠤᠨᠭᠭᠤᠯ ᠰᠢᠨ᠎ᠡ ᠦᠰᠦᠭ  ᠢ ᠶᠡᠬᠡᠪᠡᠷ ᠳᠡᠯᠭᠡᠷᠡᠭᠦᠯᠬᠦ ᠲᠤᠬᠠᠢ ᠵᠢᠭᠠᠪᠤᠷᠢ» (Instructions on vigorously promoting the New Mongolian Script), June 9. Tongliao Municipal Archives, 20-2-164.

36.

Inner Mongolia Institute of Language and Literature 内蒙古语言文学研究所 (1964) “蒙古语文研究工作协作座谈会结果汇报” (Report on the results of the conference on the coordination of Mongolian language research work). Date of conference: April 14–18, 1964; date of document: unclear. Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Archives, 310-1-60.

37.

Institute of Ethnology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 中国社会科学院民族研究所 and Division of Culture and Propaganda, State Ethnic Affairs Commission 国家民族事务委员会文化宣传司 [ed.] (1991) 中国少数民族文字 (Writing systems of China’s ethnic minorities). Beijing: 中国藏学出版社.

38.

JAMBALSÜREN

N. Н.

Жамбалсүрэн (1951) «Үсгийн дүрмийн зөв бичих толь бичгийн тухай» (On the dictionary of orthography). Үнэн 246 (Oct. 28).

39.

Jirim League People’s Committee Department of Culture and Education 哲里木盟人民委员会文教处 (1956) “为贯彻执行‘关于在中、小学中推行新蒙文的方案’的通知” (Notification on implementing “The Plan for Promoting the New Mongolian Script in Secondary and Elementary Schools”), June 11. Tongliao Municipal Archives, 20-1-84.

40.

Joint Committee of the China National Democratic Construction Association and the Beijing Federation of Industry and Commerce 中国民主建国会、北京市工商业联合会 (1959) “中国民主建国会、北京市工商业联合会两会委员关于人民公社问题的学习计划、记录” (Plans and records of study on the issue of people’s communes by the Joint Committee of the China National Democratic Construction Association and Beijing Federation of Industry and Commerce), May 18 and 20. Beijing Municipal Archives, 126-001-00556.

41.

Joint Editorial Team for the Collection of Mongolian Dialect Survey Materials from Mongolian Language Offices of Eight Provinces and Autonomous Regions八省区蒙语办蒙古语方言调查材料汇编小组 [ed.] (1977) 蒙古语方言调查材料汇编（征求意见稿）上册II（语音、语法部分）(Collection of Mongolian dialect survey materials [draft for feedback], volume 1, part 2 [phonology and grammar]). May 1977. Unpaginated. Available at the Inner Mongolia Library Reading Room for Ethnic and Local Materials.

42.

Leading Party Members’ Group of the IMAR Mongolian Writing Reform Committee 内蒙古自治区文字改革委员会党组 and of the IMAR Department of Education内蒙古自治区教育厅党组 (1958) “关于停止推行新蒙文, 继续学习和使用旧蒙文的报告” (Report on the cessation of the promotion of the New Mongolian script and the continuation of the study and use of the Old Mongolian Script), Jan. 7. Tongliao Municipal Archives, 11-2-515.

43.

LEDOVSKIY

ANDREY MEFOD’YEVICH

Андрей Мефодьевич Ледовский (1995) «Секретная миссия А. И. Микояна в Китай (январь-февраль 1949 г.)» (A. I. Mikoyan’s secret mission to China [January to February 1949]). Проблемы дальнего востока 3: 96–111.

44.

Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping’s Talk with Ulanhu during the Northern China Bureau Working Conference 刘少奇、邓小平在华北局工作会议期间与乌兰夫的一次谈话 [July 2] (1966) Pp. 403–8 in Yang, 2011.

45.

LUVSANDENDEV

A. А.

Лувсандэндэв (1956) Half-year summary of works by the Philology Office of the Mongolian Academy of Science, July 30. Original file untitled. National Central Archives of Mongolia, 470-1-8.

46.

LUVSANVANDAN

SHADAVYN

Шадавын Лувсанвандан (2005 [1941]) «ᠰᠢᠨ᠎ᠡ ᠦᠰᠦᠭ  ᠢ ᠰᠢᠭᠦᠮᠵᠢᠯᠡᠨ ᠬᠡᠯᠡᠯᠴᠡᠭᠰᠡᠨ  ᠤ  ᠳᠦᠢᠨᠭ᠌ ᠡᠴᠠ» (Summary of discussions on the new script). Pp. 26-27 in Luvsanvandan

Shadavyn

(ed.), Хэл, харьцаа, тэмдэг (Languages, terms, signs). Ulaanbaatar: МУИС-ын хэвлэх үйлдвэр.

47.

MISHIG

LKHAGVAJAVYN

Лхагважавын Мишиг (1956a) «Хэл бичгийн кабинетын ажилтан нарын 1955 оны хувийн төлөвлөгөөний дүн» (The 1955 personal plan of the Philology Office staff), Jan. 3. National Central Archives of Mongolia, 470-1-7.

48.

MISHIG

LKHAGVAJAVYN

(1956b) Letter to the ambassador of the MPR to China, April 18. Central Archives for Foreign Relations, Mongolia, 5-2-185.

49.

MOLOTOV

VYACHESLAV MIKHAYLOVICH

ВячеславМихайловичМолотов (1958) «Зав. Дальневосточным отделом МИД СССР тов. Зимянину М. В.» (To comrade M. V. Zimyanin, director of the Far Eastern Department of the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs), June 26. Foreign Policy Archives of the Russian Federation, 0111-40-258-50, pp. 25–30.

50.

Mongolian Language Latin Phonetic Spelling Plan [draft] “蒙语拉丁拼音方案(草案)” (date unclear) Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Archives, 310-1-65.

51.

Mongolian Language Offices of Eight Provinces and Autonomous Regions 八省、区蒙语办 [ed.] (1985) 八省自治区蒙古语文协作工作文件选编 (Selected documents on coordinating work on the Mongolian language and script among eight provinces and autonomous regions). Cited in Okamoto, 2008: 243, 285.

52.

NADAMID ᠨᠠᠳᠠᠮᠢᠳ and PELJEE ᠫᠧᠯᠵᠡᠶ (1997) ᠮᠣᠩᠭᠣᠯ ᠬᠡᠯᠡᠨ ᠤ᠋ ᠪᠠᠷᠢᠮᠵᠢᠶ᠎ᠠ ᠠᠪᠢᠶᠠᠨ ᠤ᠋ ᠣᠩᠰᠢᠯᠭ᠎ᠠ (Mongolian standard pronunciation textbook). Hohhot: 内蒙古教育出版社.

53.

Naiman Banner People’s Committee 奈曼旗人民委员会 (1957) “为抽调直属机关干部离职学习新蒙文由” (On releasing cadres of people’s committee departments from their regular work to study the New Mongolian Script), June 6. Naiman Banner Archives, 6-17-960.

54.

NAMTSARAI 拿木四来 (1980) “谈谈确定蒙古语标准音和音标方案的几个问题” (On several issues about the selection of Mongolian language standard pronunciation and the plan for a phonetic spelling system). 内蒙古日报, Aug. 26.

55.

Nei Menggu ribao 内蒙古日报 (1955a) “内蒙古准备推行新蒙文” (Inner Mongolia plans to promote the New Mongolian Script), May 27. Eastern edition 东部版.

56.

Nei Menggu ribao (1955b) “内蒙古自治区人民委员会关于通过推行新蒙文的决定” (Decision by the IMAR People’s Committee on promoting the New Mongolian Writing System), Sept. 1.

57.

Nei Menggu ribao (1955c) “普遍推行新蒙文前仍应学好旧蒙文” (The Old Mongolian Script should still be mastered before the New Mongolian Script is widely implemented), Sept. 26.

58.

Nei Menggu ribao (1956a) “加强领导, 发掘潜力, 为四年完成推行新蒙文而奋斗” (Strengthen the leadership, tap the potential, and struggle for completing the promotion of the New Mongolian Script within four years), Feb. 4.

59.

Nei Menggu ribao (1956b) “吴玉章同志在蒙古语族语言科学讨论会上的讲话” (Comrade Wu Yuzhang’s speech at the Mongolic Languages Linguistic Science Conference), May 23.

60.

Nei Menggu ribao (1956c) “社论: 努力推行新蒙文——祝贺蒙古语族语言科学讨论会开幕” (Editorial: Strive to promote the New Mongolian Script: congratulations on the opening of the Mongolic Languages Linguistic Science Conference), May 26.

61.

Nei Menggu ribao (1956d) “蒙古语族语言科学讨论会决议” (Resolution of the Mongolic Languages Linguistic Science Conference), May 30.

62.

Nei Menggu ribao (1956e) “社论: 大力开展学习新蒙文运动” (Editorial: Vigorously promote the campaign of studying the New Mongolian Script), Aug. 18.

63.

Nei Menggu ribao (1956f) “提高认识克服困难做好新蒙文教学工作” (Improve understanding, overcome difficulties, and fulfill the task of teaching the New Mongolian Script), Dec. 14.

64.

Nei Menggu ribao (1958) “内蒙古自治区人民委员会决定: 停止推行新蒙文继续使用旧蒙文” (Decision by Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region People’s Committee: stop the promotion of the New Mongolian Script and continue the use of the Old Mongolian Script), Mar. 25.

65.

Nei Menggu ribao (1962) “发展丰富民族语文提高民族语文队伍我区举行民族语文和民族教育工作会议” (Develop and enrich ethnic languages and improve the ethnic language workforce: our autonomous region held a conference on ethnic languages and ethnic education work), Feb 9.

66.

North China Bureau, CCP Central Committee 中共中央华北局 (1967) “关于乌兰夫错误问题的报告” (Report on the faults of Ulanhu), Jan. 27. Gansu Provincial Archives, 143-3-835-14.

67.

OKAMOTO

MASATAKA

岡本雅享 (2008) 中国の少数民族教育と言語政策 (China’s ethnic minority education and language policy). Tokyo: 社会評論社.

68.

Outline (1964) “周总理对苏联代办谈苏联占领邻国领土问题的提纲(稿)” (Outline for Premier Zhou’s talk with the USSR chargé d’affaires on the issue of the USSR occupying territories of neighboring countries [draft]), July 24. Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, 105-01295-01.

69.

PALIYA

DOGSOMYN

伯利亚 (1956) “关于蒙古人民共和国采用新蒙文的报告” (Report on the adoption of the New Mongolian Script in the Mongolian People’s Republic). Document of the Mongolic Languages Linguistic Science Conference, Hohhot, Mar. 21. Available at the Inner Mongolia Library Reading Room for Ethnic and Local Materials.

70.

People’s Committee, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region 内蒙古自治区人民委员会 (1960) “关于改革现行蒙古文字的决定(草案)” (Decision on reforming the current Mongolian Writing System [draft]), date unclear. Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Archives, 310-1-66.

71.

People’s Committee, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (1961) “关于内部颁发‘蒙古新文字方案(草案)’和‘关于改革现行蒙古文字的决定(草案)’征求意见的通知” (Notification on the internal circulation and request for feedback on the “Mongolian New Script Plan [Draft]” and “Decision on Reforming the Current Mongolian Writing System [Draft]”), May 13. Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Archives, 310-1-66.

72.

POLIVANOV

YEVGENIY DMITRIYEVICH

Евгений Дмитриевич Поливанов (1928) «К вопросу о заглавных буквах» (On the issue of capital letters). Pp. 91–95 in Культура и письменность востока: Сборник Всесоюзного центрального комитета нового тюркского алфавита (Culture and writing of the East: collection of the All-Union Central Committee of the New Turkic Alphabet), vol. 1. Moscow: Книжная фабрика центриздата народов СССР.

73.

ZHI

启之 (2010) 内蒙文革实录——“民族分裂”与“挖肃”运动 (Record of the Cultural Revolution in Inner Mongolia: “Ethnic secessionism” and “Campaign to Dig Out and Purge”). Hong Kong: 天行健出版社.

74.

Record of Conversations (1958) «Запись беседы с первым заместителем председателя Совета министров МНР Цэнде и секретарем ЦК МНРП Самданом» (Record of conversations with First Deputy Chairman of the MPR Council of Ministers Tsend and Secretary of the Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party Central Committee Samdan), Feb. 7. Foreign Policy Archives of the Russian Federation, 0111-40-252-5, pp. 126–35.

75.

Renmin ribao 人民日报 (1957) “地方主义同共产主义不相容中共广东省代表大会彻底批判地方主义” (Localism is incompatible with Communism: CCP Guangdong Provincial Congress thoroughly criticizes localism), Dec. 14.

76.

Renmin ribao (1958) “当前文字改革的任务” (The tasks of current writing reforms), Jan. 13. Report at CPPCC National Committee by Zhou Enlai 周恩来 on Jan. 10, 1958.

77.

Research Office of Mongolian Language Studies, Inner Mongolia University 内蒙古大学蒙古语文研究室 (1973) 关于蒙古标音拉丁字母方案的讨论意见 (Opinions from a discussion of the plan for the Mongolian Latin Alphabet Pronunciation Notation System), Dec. 1973. Unpublished ms. Available at Minzu Univ. of China Library.

78.

Resolution on Creating a New Mongolian Script “关于制订新蒙文的决议” (1955 [1941]) Resolution of the joint conference of the Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party Central Committee and the MPR Council of Ministers. Original title: Монголын шинэ үсгийг тогтоох тухай. March 25. Trans. Buyandalai 博彦达赉. P. 8 in 文字改革参考资料——蒙古文字改革问题 (Writing reform reference material: the issue of Mongolian writing reform). Beijing: 中国文字改革委员会. Available at Minzu Univ. of China Library.

79.

Revolutionary Committee, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region 内蒙古自治区革命委员会 (1975) “内蒙古自治区一九七五年下半年至一九七七年上半年蒙古语文工作计划” (Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region plan for Mongolian language work from the second half of 1975 to the first half of 1977), Oct. 18. Pp. 26–33 in 内蒙古自治区语文工作会议文件汇编 (Collection of documents from IMAR Conference on Mongolian Language Work). Hohhot: 内蒙古自治区革委会蒙古语文工作领导小组办公室. Available at the Inner Mongolia Library Reading Room for Ethnic and Local Materials.

80.

Revolutionary Criticism Group of the Inner Mongolia Section of the Mao Zedong Thought Study Group Organized by the CCP Central Committee 中央办的毛泽东思想学习班内蒙班革命大批判组 [ed.] (2011 [1970]) “乌兰夫是内蒙各族革命人民的死敌——彻底揭露乌贼的反革命滔天罪行” (Ulanhu is the deadly enemy of revolutionary people of all nationalities in Inner Mongolia: a complete exposure of the heinous counterrevolutionary atrocities of bandit Ulanhu), July 10. Pp. 1006–60 in Yang, 2011.

81.

RINCHEN

BYAMBYN

Бямбын Ринчен (1957) «Бичиг үсгээ боловсон болгох хэрэгтэй» (The writing system needs to be made mature). Pp. 13–16 in Tsevel and Vandui, 1957.

82.

SENAMJIL 舍纳木吉拉 (2000) 中国民族语文工作的创举——蒙古语文“八协”工作二十年回顾 (Pioneering undertaking in China’s ethnic language work: review of the twenty years’ work by the Eight-Province Coordinative Taskforce on the Mongolian Language). Shenyang: 辽宁民族出版社

83.

SERDYUCHENKO

GEORGIY PETROVICH

谢尔久琴柯 (1956 [1955]) “关于中国各族人民的语言文字” (On languages and scripts of various nationalities in China). Written on Aug. 19, 1955, and revised on Nov. 25, 1955. Chinese version internally published in Feb. 1956. Translator unknown. Acquired at a flea market.

84.

SERDYUCHENKO

GEORGIY PETROVICH

(1956a) 关于创立民族文字和建立标准语的问题 (On the creation of ethnic writing systems and the establishment of a standard language). Trans. Liu Yongquan 刘涌泉 et al. Beijing: 民族出版社.

85.

SERDYUCHENKO

GEORGIY PETROVICH

(1956b) “论新蒙文” (On the New Mongolian Script). Speech delivered at the Mongolic Languages Linguistic Science Conference, Hohhot, May 1956. Pp. 236–61 in Serdyuchenko, 1956a.

86.

SNOW

EDGAR

(1968) Red Star over China. First revised and enlarged ed. New York: Grove.

87.

Spare-time Culture School for Departments Directly under the Jirim League 哲盟直属机关业余文化学校 (1956) “新蒙文教学中点滴的体会” (Some experiences in teaching the New Mongolian Script), Aug. 30. Tongliao Municipal Archives, 20-2-164.

88.

State Council 国务院 (1956) “国务院关于各少数民族创立和改革文字方案的批准程序和实验进行分工的通知” (State Council’s notification of the division of work on the procedure of approval and experiments of the plans of ethnic minorities creating and reforming writing systems), Mar. 10. Beijing Municipal Archives, 002-008-00191.

89.

State Council (1960 [1957]) “国务院对‘中国文字改革委员会关于讨论僮文方案和少数民族文字方案中涉及字母的几项原则的报告’的批复” (State Council’s reply to “Report from the Chinese Commission for Writing Reform on discussions over the Zhuang writing system and on several principles concerning alphabets in ethnic minority writing systems”), Dec. 10. Pp. 86–89 in 民族政策文件汇编 (Collection of documents on ethnic policy), vol. 3. Beijing: 人民出版社.

90.

State Council (1974) “国务院关于内蒙古自治区蒙古语文工作问题报告的批复” (State Council’s reply to the report by the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region on the issue of Mongolian language work), Jan. 9. Gansu Provincial Archives, 247-2-29-1.

91.

RUO

苏若 [ed.] (1981) 蒙古语音标会话读本 (Conversational reader of Mongolian with phonetic spelling). Hohhot: 内蒙古人民出版社.

92.

Summary of the Work of Promoting the New Mongolian Script in Chahar Right Rear Banner in 1956 “察右后旗1956年推行新蒙文工作总结” [Feb. 21] (1957b) Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Archives, 302-2-163.

93.

Summary on Promoting the New Mongolian Script in the Jirim League in 1956 «ᠵᠢᠷᠢᠮ ᠠᠢᠮᠠᠭ ᠦ᠋ᠨ 1956 ᠳ᠋ᠣᠭᠠᠷ ᠣᠨ ᠳ᠋ᠣ ᠮᠣᠩᠭᠣᠯ ᠰᠢᠨ᠎ᠡ ᠦᠰᠦᠭ ᠢ᠋ ᠳᠡᠯᠭᠡᠷᠡᠭᠦᠯᠦᠯ ᠶᠠᠪᠣᠭᠣᠯᠣᠭᠰᠠᠨ ᠳ᠋ᠦᠩᠨᠡᠯᠳᠡ»[Jan. 21] (1957a) Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Archives, 302-2-163.

94.

TEGÜS 特古斯 (1957) “十年来使用与发展民族语文工作的成就” (Achievements in the past ten years in using and developing ethnic languages). 内蒙古日报, April 22.

95.

TODAYEVA

BULYASH KHOYCHIYEVNA

托达耶娃 (1955) “有关中国蒙古语族语言和方言的研究问题” (On issues concerning the study of Mongolic languages and dialects in China). Document of Ethnic Linguistic Science Conference 民族语文科学讨论会, Dec. 1955. Available at Minzu Univ. of China Library.

96.

TSEVEL

YADAMJAVYN

Ядамжавын Цэвэл and ERDENIIN

VANDUI

ЭрдэнийнВандуй [eds.] (1957) Монголын шинэ үсгийн асуудалд (On the issue of the New Mongolian Script). Ulaanbaatar: Шинжлэх Ухааны Хүрээлэнгийн хэвлэл.

97.

ULANHU 乌兰夫 (1956) “关于蒙文改革的讲话” (Speech on Mongolian writing reform). Quoted in Qi, 2010: 76.

98.

Ünen Үнэн (1957) «Монгол үсгийн дүрмийн тухай эрдэм шинжилгээний зөвлөлгөөний дүн» (Conclusions of the scholarly discussion on Mongolian orthography). Үнэн 177 (July 31).

99.

VANDUI

ERDENIIN

Эрдэнийн Вандуй (1952) «Шинэ бичгийн дүрмийг шинжлэх ухааны үүднээс боловсруулах нь чухал» (It is important to mature the orthography of the new script with scientific methods). Үнэн 230 (Sept. 30).

100.

VANDUI

ERDENIIN

(1957) «Монголын шинэ үсгийн цагаан толгойн үсгүүдийн талаар тавих санал» (Proposals on letters of the Mongolian New Script alphabet). Pp. 29–32 in Tsevel and Vandui, 1957.

101.

YUZHANG

吴玉章 (1957) “文字必须在一定条件下加以改革” (Writing systems must be reformed under certain conditions). Pp. 11–19 in National Writing Reform Conference Secretariat 全国文字改革会议秘书处 (ed.), 第一次全国文字改革会议文件汇编 (Collection of documents of the First National Writing Reform Conference). Beijing: 文字改革出版社.

102.

YANG

HAIYING

楊海英 [ed.] (2011) モンゴル人ジェノサイドに関する基礎資料3: 打倒ウラーンフー(烏蘭夫) (Documents related to the Mongolian genocide during the Cultural Revolution in Inner Mongolia (3): the overthrow of Ulanhu). Tokyo: 風響社.

103.

ZHOU

MINGLANG

(2003) Multilingualism in China: The Politics of Writing Reforms for Minority Languages 1949–2002. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

104.

ZHOU

YOUGUANG

周有光 (1989) “‘求同存异’和‘创新保旧’——纪念《民族语文》十周年” (Seeking common ground while preserving differences and creating new things while preserving old things: in commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the journal Minority Languages of China). 民族语文 4: 42–44.

Between Communist Doctrines and Nationalist Agendas: Writing Reforms in Inner Mongolia,1954–1980

Abstract

Keywords

Beginning of the Cyrillization Reform, 1954–1955

Controversies over Basic Dialect and Orthography, 1955–1957

Adopting Ulaanbaatar’s Standard

Yearning for Pan-Mongol Unity

Beijing’s Attitude

Abandoning Cyrillization and Proclaiming Latinization, 1957–1958

Latinization in Stagnation, 1958–1974

The Silent Abortion of Latinization, 1974–1980

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Notes

Author Biography

References