Gí-giân m̄ sī tiong-sèng ê ko͘-thong kang-khū, i sī lán lâng tī siā-hōe ji̍t-siông seng-oa̍h si̍t-chiān ê 1 chióng hêng-sek. Lâng put-koán soán-te̍k sú-iōng siáⁿ-mih gí-giân, pōe-āu lóng ū pōe-kéng ê éng-hióng kap ì-sek hêng-thài leh kā i chi-chhî. Chia só͘ kóng ê gí-giân sú-iōng pau-hâm su-siá bûn-jī ê soán-te̍k. Éng-kòe to-sò͘ Tâi-gí siong-koan ê gián-kiù kan-ta iàu-ì kháu-gí sú-iōng pún-sin, soah tiāⁿ-tiāⁿ hut-lio̍k bûn-jī ê kè-ta̍t. Chit ê gián-kiù kā gí-giân khòaⁿ chò 1 chióng siā-hōe-tek ê hêng-tōng, chioh koan-chhat lâng án-chóaⁿ soán-te̍k, khòaⁿ-thāi kap si̍t-chiān in só͘ su-iōng ê gí-giân, í-ki̍p thâu-chêng chit kúi hāng án-chóaⁿ pang-chān in hêng-sêng sin-hūn jīn-tông.
Chit ê gián-kiù chhái-iōng koan-chhat kap hóng-tâm 2 chióng hong-sek. Gián-kiù tùi-siōng ū 8 ūi, lóng sī 20-40 hòe, ē-hiáu siá Tâi-bûn, sú-iōng ê su-siá hē-thóng sī Pe̍h-ōe-jī he̍k-chiá sī Bân-lô. In tī kong-khai ê só͘-chāi (chhin-chhiūⁿ siā-kûn mûi-thé) ū siá Tâi-bûn ê koàn-sì. Gián-kiù būn-tê pau-hâm Pe̍h-ōe-jī kap Bân-lô sú-iōng-chiá ê pōe-kéng, chèng-tī ì-sek hêng-thài, gí-giân ì-sek hêng-thài, sin-hūn jīn-tông kap su-siá si̍t-chiān ê chêng-hêng siáⁿ-khoán, koh, kám ū chha-ī.
Chit ê gián-kiù ê kiat-lūn sī: 1. Chiū Pōe-kéng lâi kóng, Pe̍h-ōe-jī kap Bân-lô sú-iōng-chiá bô bêng-hián ê cheng-chha. 2. Chiū chèng-tī ì-sek hêng-thài lâi kong, Pe̍h-ōe-jī sú-iōng-chiá chú-tiuⁿ Tâi-oân to̍k-li̍p kiàn-kok. Bân-lô sú-iōng-chiá ê chèng-tī ì-sek hêng-thài hun chò 3 khoán, tē 1 khoán sī Tiong-hôa bîn-kok m̄ sī chèng-siông ê kok-ka; tē 2 khoán sī Tiong-hôa bîn-kok sī chú-koân to̍k-li̍p ê kok-ka; tē 3 khoán sī Tâi-oân to̍k-li̍p kiàn-kok. 3. Chiū gí-giân ì-sek hêng-thài kap sin-hūn jīn-tông lâi kóng, Pe̍h-ōe-jī sú-iōng-chiá hoán-tùi Tiong-gí Tiong-bûn, mā jīn-ûi gí-giân kap sin-hūn jīn-tông pa̍k tàu-tīn. Bân-lô sú-iōng-chiá sui-bóng chai-iáⁿ Tiong-gí Tiong-bûn sī pà-koân, in bû-nāi mā soán-te̍k chiap-siū hiān-si̍t, bô kī-choa̍t Tiong-gí Tiong-bûn. Bân-lô sú-iōng-chiá jīn-ûi gí-giân kap sin-hūn jīn-tông bô tiāⁿ-tio̍h ū khan-liân. 4. Chiū su-siá si̍t-chiān lâi kóng, ū gōa-pō͘ kap lāi-pō͘ ê in-sò͘ éng-hióng sú-iōng-chiá ê su-siá si̍t-chiān. Pe̍h-ōe-jī sú-iōng-chiá tāi-pō͘-hūn lóng sī khò lāi-pō͘ ê ì-sek lâi î-chhî ka-tī ê su-siá si̍t-chiān, Bân-lô sú-iōng-chiá chú-iàu sī khò gōa-pō͘ in-sò͘.
Chit ê gián-kiù ê kiàn-gī sī Tiong-hôa bîn-kok chèng-hú tan-ūi eng-kai chun-tiōng Pe̍h-ōe-jī ê le̍k-sú tē-ūi kap sú-iōng-chiá, mài hān-chè siā-hōe tāi-chiòng soán-te̍k su-siá hē-thóng ê koân-ek. Nā beh thê-kiong pó͘-chō͘ hō͘ sin-chhéng Tâi-gí siong-koan kè-e̍k ê kò-jîn á sī thoân-thé, m̄ hó kiông-chè lâng it-tēng ài sú-iōng Bân-lô.

After the Republic of China took control of Taiwan, they aimed to quickly sever the connection between the Taiwanese people and their former colonizer, Japan, as well as to facilitate governance. To this end, they were determined to completely eradicate Japanese influences among the Taiwanese. The Republic of China first established the Taiwan Provincial Mandarin Promotion Committee to implement the Mandarin language policy, with the goal of removing Japanese cultural elements and replacing them with Chinese ones.

In a short period, the government banned the use of Japanese, causing it to vanish from the daily lives of the Taiwanese. However, this policy did not result in a better status for Taiwanese Hokkien. Instead, Mandarin was imposed as the new language of daily life, leading many Taiwanese, who had been educated under Japanese rule, to become effectively illiterate in their native language. This linguistic shift led to a disconnection from their mother tongue, replacing it with the language of the new colonizers.

Additionally, since the Republic of China's takeover, the Taiwanese experienced events such as the 228 Incident and the White Terror, which severely diminished their capacity for resistance. Politically, the Taiwanese were subjected to authoritarian rule by the Chinese, which left them with little opportunity to regain autonomy. Educational institutions focused on Chinese ideology and culture, further erasing local identities and imposing a Sinicized worldview.

Language functions as more than a mere neutral communication tool; it embodies a form of social practice in our everyday lives. The choice of language reflects underlying cultural influences and ideological frameworks. This study examines the use of Pe̍h-ōe-jī versus Bân-lô in terms of background, political ideology, linguistic ideology, identity, and literacy practices through observational and interview-based methods.

The findings indicate that there are no significant differences between the two groups regarding their backgrounds. However, in terms of political ideology, Pe̍h-ōe-jī users tend to support Taiwanese independence, whereas Bân-lô users show divergent positions. Regarding linguistic ideology and identity, Pe̍h-ōe-jī users reject Chinese and perceive a positive link between language and identity, whereas Bân-lô users hold the opposite view. In terms of writing practices, Pe̍h-ōe-jī users continue to write in Taiwanese due to internal motivations, while Bân-lô users write in Taiwanese due to external motivations.

The conclusions of this study are as follows: Background: There is no significant difference between Pe̍h-ōe-jī and Bân-lô users in terms of their background. Political Ideology: Pe̍h-ōe-jī users predominantly advocate for Taiwanese independence. Bân-lô users, on the other hand, exhibit three distinct political ideologies: (a) viewing the Republic of China (ROC) as an abnormal state; (b) recognizing the ROC as a sovereign and independent nation; and (c) supporting Taiwanese independence. Language Ideology and Identity: Pe̍h-ōe-jī users oppose the use of Mandarin and written Chinese, and believe that language and identity are inseparable. While Bân-lô users acknowledge the hegemony of Mandarin and written Chinese, they reluctantly accept this reality and do not reject their use. Additionally, Bân-lô users generally perceive no inherent connection between language and identity. Literacy Practices: Both external and internal factors influence the writing practices of users. Pe̍h-ōe-jī users primarily sustain their writing practices through internal motivation and self-awareness, whereas Bân-lô users are mainly influenced by external factors.

The study recommends that the Republic of China government should respect the historical significance of Pe̍h-ōe-jī and its users, and refrain from restricting the public's right to choose their preferred writing system. Furthermore, when providing subsidies for projects related to the Taiwanese language, the government should not impose the use of Bân-lô as a mandatory condition.

Ahearn, L.M. 2001a. Invitations to Love: Literacy, Love Letters, and Social Change in Nepal. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Ahearn, L.M. 2001b. Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology 30:109-137.
Ahearn, L.M. 2010. Agency and language. In Verschueren, J., Östman, J.-O., and Jaspers, J. (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 28-48.
Anderson, B. 1991. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.
Baker, C. 2001. Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Baynham, M. 1992. Literacy Practices: investigating literacy in social contexts. Longman.
Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power, ed. J.B. Thompson. Trans. G. Raymond and M. Adamson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chun, Allen. 陳奕麟. 1996. Fuck Chineseness: On the Ambiguties of Ehinicity as Culture as Identity. Boundary 2 23(2): 111-38.
Foucault, M. 1978. The History of Sexuality. Vols. 1 and 2. New York: Pantheon.
Goodwin, M.H. 1990. He-Said-She-Said: Talk As Social Organization Among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Kelman, Herbert C. 1971. Language as an aid and barrier to involvement in the national system. In Rubin, Joan & Jernudd, Bjorn H. (eds.) Can Language Be Planned?, pp. 21-52. University Press of Hawaii.
Kroskrity, P.V. 2000. Regimenting languages: language ideological perspectives. In Kroskrity, P.V. (ed.), Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, pp. 1-34.
Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. 1992. Think practically and look locally: language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:461-490.
Romaine, S. 1994. Hawai’i Creole English as a literary language. Language in Society, 23(4): 527-554.
Silverstein, M. 1979. Language structure and linguistic ideology. In Clyne, P., Hanks, W., and Hofbauer, C. (eds.), The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 193-247.
Silverstein, M. 2001. The limits of awareness. In Duranti, A. (ed.), Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 382-401.
王育德 1993《台灣話講座》。台北：自立晚報設文化出版部。
李壬癸1997《台灣南島民族的族群與遷徙》。台北：常民文化出版社。
李淑鳳2007《台灣羅馬字拼音符號史論》。國立台南大學：碩士論文。
黃佳慧2000《白話字資料中的台語文學研究》。台南師範學院：碩士論文。
張德麟 2015〈Pe̍h-ōe-jī發展史〉，《台語研究》，第 7卷，第2期，頁4-26。
張學謙2003〈母語讀寫與母語重建〉，《東師語文學刊》，第 13卷，頁97-120。
張學謙2014〈Pe̍h-ōe-jī ê本土 kah現代化〉，《台語研究》，第 6卷，第1期，頁42-70。
張雅閔2008《女性學習白話字之讀寫研究》。國立台東大學：碩士論文。
陳慕真2015《Pe̍h-ōe-jī的起源與在台灣的發展》。台灣師範大學：博士論文。
陳翼漢2021〈第二屆 世界記憶國家名錄簡介〉，《文化資產保存學刊》，（55），
85-91。
蔣為文2013〈教會內台語白話字使用人口kap現況調查〉，《台語研究》，第5卷，第1期，頁74-79。
蔣為文2014《CHHÙI KÓNG TÂI-GÍ CHHIÚ SIÁ TÂI-BÛN 喙講台語‧手寫台文》。台南：亞細亞國際傳播社。
蔣為文2017 《越南魂:語言、文字與反霸權》。台南：亞細亞國際傳播社。
鄭良光 2022 《台文通訊：30冬紀念特刊》。台南：亞細亞國際傳播社。
鄭溪泮2009《出死線》。台南：金安出版社。
劉承賢 2024, June 22〈「台語」一詞無罪，停止挑撥離間！〉。《自由時報》。 Ùi chia lia̍h: https://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/1652629。