On June 6, Legislator Chen Pei-yu (陳培瑜) inquired about the suggestion that Taiwan Taiyu (台灣台語, Taiwan Taiwanese) be used alongside Minnanyu (閩南語, “Southern Min”) as the name for the language in government documents.
On July 18, the Ministry of Culture said at a conference that it would use “Taiwan Taiwanese.” The decision spurred a flurry of dissatisfied commentary by Hakka-language educators and social groups who were firmly opposed to using the term Taiwan Taiwanese in official government documentation.
Regarding how languages are legally referred to, Article 3 of the National Language Development Act (國家語言發展法) states that a “‘national language’ as referred to in this act shall mean the natural languages and sign languages used by the different ethnic groups in Taiwan.”
As for the naming conventions for a “national language,” apart from Mandarin and Taiwanese Sign Language, the issue of shifting from using the term Minnanyu in official documentation has been endlessly argued in the past few years due to political factors. Those who want to maintain the term Minnanyu prioritize preserving objective linguistic terminologies and the historical record.
The Ministry of Education has used Minnanyu for more than 28 years and its application has been used for 10 years in the naming of its Taiwanese Language Proficiency Test. Those opposed to using the term say it is tinged with a pejorative meaning.
The language’s localization in Taiwan over the past 400 years has produced noticeable differences between it and the other languages in the Southern Min language family. They say they should have the right to name their own language as they wish.
However, the crux of the debate is the government’s naming convention in official documentation, not the name of the language in a colloquial sense. If used colloquially, people of course have the right to call what they want.
However, when it comes to government documentation, Hakka speakers say that Hakka is also Taiwanese (台語, Taiyu). The common term Taiyu cannot be used solely by one population group within Taiwan and so they are opposed to the names Taiwan Taiwanese or Taiwan Taiyu.
Those who have ancestry tracing back to Fujian who speak Taiwanese say that the Chinese character for Min (閩) is a pejorative character composed of the simpler characters for a gate (門) — something to keep unwanted or uncivilized people out — and a worm or insect (虫). Therefore, they oppose the term Minnanyu.
As there is such fierce debate over the term, there is a possible solution: A third way between Taiyu and Minnanyu.
Hoklor Taiwanese (福佬台語) is problematic because while many Hakka speakers do not oppose using the term, the character “lor” (佬) has a pejorative connotation that refers to thievery, deception, blindness or being an uneducated country hick.
However, using the term “Hok Taiwanese” (福台語, Futaiyu) could be a solution. The character “hok,” or “fu” (福), has four basic contextual meanings or references:
It gives a historical reference to Taiwan’s first foreign name: Formosa (福爾摩沙); it provides a Hakka perspective: Hoklor Taiwanese (福佬); it provides a post-1949 Chinese emigres and Fujian Province perspective (福建); and it has connotations of being fortuitous (福氣).
“Hok Taiwanese” integrates ethnic perspectives and could be used by all groups in Taiwan without too much fuss.
Whenever the discussion does not involve interethnic arguments, many groups in Taiwan might use the shorter name “Taiwanese” internally to describe their own language. In 2005, during the 16th session of the education ministry’s National Languages Committee, a motion was proposed to switch to using Hok Taiwanese instead of Minnanyu.
However, proponents of Taiwanese phonetic spelling were adamant about using the term Minnanyu and were opposed to using the ingenious proposal, ultimately causing the motion’s failure to pass. Currently, the members are opposed to the use of Minnanyu in naming conventions, so perhaps now might be a suitable time to pass a proposal to use the term Hok Taiwanese in official government documentation.
Lai Chin-he is a former director of the New Taipei City Hakka Affairs Department and a former school principal. Boris B.C. Yu is president of the Taiwan Languages and Culture Association and convener of the Central Taiwan Association of University Professors.
Translated by Tim Smith
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS