In an opinion piece, Chang Jui-chuan (張睿銓) suggested that Taiwan focus its efforts not on making citizens “bilingual,” but on building a robust translation industry, as Japan has done (“The social cost of English education,” June 29, page 6).
Although Chang makes some good points — Taiwan could certainly improve its translation capabilities — the nation needs a different sort of pivot: from bilingualism to multilingualism.
There are reasons why Japan might not be the most suitable role model for the nation’s language policy. Bluntly put, Japan’s status in the world is unquestioned. The same cannot be said of Taiwan.
Many confuse it with Thailand or assume it is either part of China or should be. Taiwan needs to communicate its message to the world — what it is, what it stands for, that it exists — in a way Japan simply does not.
Translation is valuable and necessary, but as it breaks down barriers between interlocutors, it also creates them. There is a reason why people say that subtleties are often “lost in translation.”
The burden falls not just on interlocutors, but on translators to ensure that messages are understood across cultural boundaries.
Instead, Taiwan might want to look to Palestine. Although they are not exactly the same, both nations want peace, recognition and to be understood on their own terms, but have repeatedly been denied a seat at the table by the international community.
Palestine’s message is understood more clearly, because communicators of that message have something Taiwan needs: intercultural communicative competence.
This is cultivated in part through multilingualism. The more languages someone is aware of and can communicate in, the more likely they are to be sensitive to and able to speak to others’ perspectives on the world.
Simply employing translators will not make Taiwan’s message more persuasive to the world over time. However, encouraging a multilingual citizenry will.
The social cost of learning English in Taiwan is dire, simply because it is poorly taught. Research confirms that most teachers are aware of better ways to teach communicative competence, but feel unable to use those methods due to the pressures of the examination system, the lack of communicative practice in required textbooks, large class sizes and lack of time.
Research also confirms that, if handled well, there is no social cost to learning multiple languages.
Instead of spending effort and money bringing over foreign language teachers who might not be as qualified as expected, the Taiwanese government should first deconstruct the English examination system and recognize reputable English language teaching qualifications.
There are already many talented teachers in Taiwan. Give them the support they need, and they can then be cultivated into teacher trainers, putting Taiwan’s multilingual future into Taiwanese hands.
At the same time, Taiwan must recognize that the phrase “bilingual country” is inappropriate. Taiwan is already a multilingual society.
Giving similar attention to Taiwan’s other languages, as well as English, merely formalizes and supports an existing reality, while improving Taiwanese’s ability to access all their languages. It also can help build a society that treasures its own culture, while showing its face to the world.
Jenna Lynn Cody studies teaching English to speakers of other languages and intercultural education at the University of Exeter’s Graduate School of Education.
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Acting Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) has formally announced his intention to stand for permanent party chairman. He has decided that he is the right person to steer the fledgling third force in Taiwan’s politics through the challenges it would certainly face in the post-Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) era, rather than serve in a caretaker role while the party finds a more suitable candidate. Huang is sure to secure the position. He is almost certainly not the right man for the job. Ko not only founded the party, he forged it into a one-man political force, with himself
RSS