Search

Chinese is a highly complex language with internal variation unprecedented in most other languages. Yet, that does not mean Chinese is unique in the sense that it cannot be compared to other languages and new concepts need to be introduced for the description of it. This paper is dedicated to the question of how to apply the notion of pluricentricity to the Chinese language whilst at the same time keeping Chinese comparable to other pluricentric languages. Attempts have been made to see Chinese through a pluricentric lens, yet they have not incorporated the entirety of Chinese with its various Fangyán or have introduced concepts that distort the discussion on Chinese from its linguistic reality. To ensure comparability across pluricentric languages, this paper acknowledges that the term "Chinese" is an umbrella term that does not refer to any single Fangyán but that encompasses all of them. Hence, instead of Chinese, Fangyán are used as a point of departure for the application of pluricentricity. This paper proposes an inclusive framework of Chinese pluricentricity comprising 15 standard varieties: two Cantonese, three Hokkien and five Mandarin varieties as well as two varieties of the Chinese script and three varieties of Mandarin phonetisation systems.

Research involving international research communities has been advocated in the field of behavior analysis (Dymond et al., 2000; Martin et al., 2016). The purpose of the present study was to report the status of behavioral research in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, in terms of number of publications, types of research, and frequency of collaboration with international researchers. Fifteen behavioral journals were selected from the list by Cooper et al. (2020). These were searched by hand to find publications conducted in or authored by researchers from mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan dating from each journal's inception to December 2021. The earliest publication we found appeared in 1980 in The Psychological Record. Over the following four decades (1980–1989; 1990–1999; 2000–2009; 2010–2021), the number of publications per decade increased dramatically and continues in recent years to rise. Publications include research reports, review papers, and conceptual articles, with the majority being basic research reports published in Behavioral Processes. Approximately half the publications involve collaboration with international researchers, mostly in North America. Implications for behavioral research, practice, and policy in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a tendency in the study of modern Chinese history to seek uniqueness in the history of modern China while attempting to identify differences from some presumed universality. However, modern Chinese history research that emphasizes uniqueness is likely to be used to create a negative image of China in the minds of the Japanese general public, given that China has become a major power and Sino-Japan relations have become unstable in the 21st century. As China is becoming a major power and an increasing global presence, the Japanese view that China is becoming distanced from universals and is instead becoming something entirely different from the "norm" is likely to amplify misunderstanding and prejudice regarding China. Therefore, we have to consider how to study the history of modern China. I believe it is only natural to study it based on the political problem that was the constant theme throughout the history of modern China. It is the history of constitutional government and revolution. From these two keywords, this paper reconsiders the universality and uniqueness of modern Chinese history, and also presents a new perspective on the relationship between China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the New Taiwan Series (NTS), a journal published between 1947 and 1948 in Hong Kong by Taiwanese socialists who fled the island following the 228 Uprising. It does so to intervene in ongoing debates in the field of Sinophone studies. While two major theorizations of the Sinophone exist—one that sees the field as a network of minoritized sites that operate against China-centrism, and the other grounding the Sinophone in a lyrical negotiation with cultural China—neither framework is sufficient for understanding the complex subject positions taken by Taiwanese socialists during these years. For the NTS, social activism was not a flattened binary of either ethnic identification with or resistance to a "China" articulated in terms devoid of political-economic analysis. Rather, politics had to dialectically integrate minoritarian aspirations (Taiwanese sovereignty) with majoritarian projects (the Chinese Revolution). The NTS thus encourages us to reimagine the Sinophone in socialist terms, where two analytical lenses—one grounded in the endogenous local and the other in the exogenous revolutionary center—are dialectically intertwined. The NTS navigated the resulting tensions of such a dialectical stance, making it a critical archive of Taiwanese socialist thought before the 1949 rupture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]