Aurelijus Vijunas’ recent opinion article “An accurate term for ‘Taiwanese’” (Aug. 3, page 8) argues that ‘Taiwanese’ (the common name for Hoklo) is not a suitable name for the Southern Min variety spoken in Taiwan. He presents three main points: Taiwanese is mutually intelligible with some Southern Min varieties, especially in China; the name was coined by Japanese officials without linguistic basis; and Taiwan is a multilingual and multicultural society.
Vijunas’ arguments are flawed based on global language naming.
First, he conflates language naming with linguistic classification. While Taiwanese is a Southern Min variety, many languages are named independently of their typological classification. For instance, English, a Germanic language, is not called Anglo-Saxon or British Germanic. Similarly, Icelandic, an Old Norse language, is not called Icelandic Norse or Icelandic Scandinavian.
Mutual intelligibility is also not a decisive factor in language naming. Norwegians can talk to Danish speakers without any difficulties, says A.E. Blomso, a student of mine whose family is from Norway. Does this mean Norwegian and Danish are not two distinct languages?
Languages which are mutually intelligible, but named differently, are not rare. Examples include Indonesian and Malay, Hindi and Urdu, and Croatian and Serbian.
Second, Vijunas incorrectly attributes the coinage of ‘Taiwanese’ to Japanese officials. Historian Ang Ka-im (翁佳音) found the terms in Dutch and Qing Dynasty documents, predating Japanese rule. Taiwanese emerged as a lingua franca among Taiwan’s diverse population. That challenges the notion that a language’s name must reflect a single ethnic group or a purely linguistic basis. Numerous countries, including the UK, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and Italy, are multilingual and multicultural, yet their primary languages are named after their respective countries.
Hakka and indigenous languages are undeniably important, but Taiwanese serves as the representative language of Taiwanese culture, arts, history and place names.
In an English-language interview with CommonWealth Magazine published in December last year, German journalist Leonardo Pape said: “Before coming to Taiwan, my biggest impression of Taiwan was its music. I liked Wu Bai (伍佰) for a very long time. I had heard Yeh Chi-tien’s (葉啟田) song Ai Pan Jiu Hui Ying (愛拼才會贏, Life Will Win If You Fight) in China before. My regret in Taiwan is that I didn’t make more effort to learn Taiwanese. Language is a key to culture, and if I truly wanted to become Taiwanese, learning Taiwanese should have been important.”
As Pape observed, Taiwanese is key to understanding Taiwan’s culture. In contrast, Mandarin was imposed by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and is not inherently connected to Taiwanese identity.
The name “Taiwanese” aligns with global language-naming practices. It organically developed as a lingua franca among Taiwan’s people and reflects the language’s cultural significance. As linguists, we should respect a community’s right to name its language, recognizing that such naming is a fundamental aspect of human rights.
Lau Seng-hian is an associate professor at National Taiwan Normal University.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS