A recent article (“Embracing English quality control,” April 18, page 8) called for higher standards of English language quality control among “internationalizing institutions” in Taiwan and for a start to be made in such institutions by having native English speakers installed in positions of authority for all outgoing English-language documents.
It was a perceptive and intelligent piece whose observations on many of the failings in the production of high-quality English-language material in Taiwan are, in my experience, entirely accurate. Its emphasis simply on placing “native speakers” in the vanguard of efforts to improve English language standards, however, ignores the far greater need, quite simply, for linguistic expertise.
Britain’s outstanding war-time prime minister and legendary wit Sir Winston Churchill famously quipped that Britain and the US were two great civilizations divided by their common language. He should have known. Not only was he one of history’s most accomplished and versatile exponents of English, he was also the son of a British father and an American mother.
Like many of the great man’s pronouncements, it was a deeply perceptive observation with implications beyond its immediate, explicit point. Languages develop, essentially, with a unifying purpose — to universalize communication so that people can understand each other, but of course, even as language “universalizes,” it divides along national and regional boundaries, class lines, professional lines and so on.
Within the cornucopia of issues involved in the question of quality control of English language in Taiwan are numerous linguistic divisions — those between Mandarin, Hoklo and Hakka, those between all three and English, those between the many different versions of English (British and American, the other principal native English-speaking countries and the massive, global, English-as-a-second-language community.)
All of these divisions are capable of being bridged, but for that to be achieved, less emphasis should be placed on “native speakers” and more, quite simply, on experts — people with genuine and proven talent in the required field of linguistic endeavor, regardless of what their native tongue happens to be.
Native versus non-native represents one more division, but there is another far more critical division to be addressed — that between experts and non-experts.
Taiwan is blessed with some highly talented linguistic professionals, of many nationalities and native tongues, working as translators and at the higher end of the teaching market.
In both sectors, however, and more particularly in the field of English-language editing, high-quality personnel (experts) are massively outnumbered by low-quality personnel (non-experts). The advancement of linguistic standards will proceed only slowly and falteringly, if at all, in a market in which being a native English speaker, rather than an expert, is the primary criterion for appointment to senior positions in the various fields of English-language activity.
This is a critical point and one which touches nerves. Never mind: “I think, therefore I am.” The communities of native English-speaking teachers and editors are full of Joe Blows who proudly wear on their sleeve a large badge bearing the legend: “I am a native English speaker, so I can edit/teach.”
I can see many of them now preparing to fill the Taipei Times mailbag with indignant, linguistically flawed protestations. There is much irony in this state of affairs.
Presumably, when we dispatch our children to schools and cram schools to learn, we hope that they will be well taught. Editing, specifically, is nothing more and nothing less than a quality control job. A truly professional editor makes no changes to a piece of text unless it truly requires them. A splendid British colloquialism sums up this imperative perfectly: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Native English-speaking editors in Taiwan make changes (and butcher good text in the process) because, as one supervising editor who condoned the practice once put it to me, “they like to leave their mark.”
Sadly, in my experience, even Taiwan’s Chinese-English translation market is saturated by extremely inexperienced native English speaking practitioners only slightly less well-versed in interpreting Chinese than they are at writing their own language, performing low-quality work at break-neck speed for derisory pay from clients whose only concern is to have some English text emblazoned cosmetically on their product in some form, be it comprehensible or not.
Mere native speakers of all languages make linguistic mistakes. Of course they do. I would make mistakes if I attempted to repair my washing machine. In my daily Chinese-English translation work, I frequently have to request clarification from Chinese clients as to the meaning of this or that Chinese phrase because, not being an expert in the use of their own language, they have expressed something unclearly or nonsensically.
Language is like any other field of human endeavor. It takes the leadership of experts for it to develop, and advance quickly and constructively.
Mark Rawson is a translator, editor and writer based in Taiwan.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
After 37 US lawmakers wrote to express concern over legislators’ stalling of critical budgets, Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) pledged to make the Executive Yuan’s proposed NT$1.25 trillion (US$39.7 billion) special defense budget a top priority for legislative review. On Tuesday, it was finally listed on the legislator’s plenary agenda for Friday next week. The special defense budget was proposed by President William Lai’s (賴清德) administration in November last year to enhance the nation’s defense capabilities against external threats from China. However, the legislature, dominated by the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), repeatedly blocked its review. The
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
RSS