What the article “Soulstealers” critiques is not merely a question of linguistic or cultural security; it is a core issue bearing on national language security. Under the holistic approach to national security, language security is the cornerstone of cultural security and a foundational element of the national security system. The scholarly orientation examined in “Soulstealers” — “correcting” Chinese by English standards — lies precisely in a sensitive zone of this security domain.
Language security is critical because language is the “gateway” of culture. It is not merely a tool of communication but the vehicle of national identity, historical memory and cultural transmission. Language security therefore plays a foundational role in the holistic approach to national security, and is a basic factor affecting political, cultural, ideological and other security domains.
The Nature of This Orientation: Three Risks to National Language Security
The scholarly orientation that “corrects” Chinese by the standards of English dictionaries poses systemic risks to national language security on exactly three levels — the language itself, academic discourse power, and ideology — and warrants the closest vigilance.
Risk One: Eroding the Security of the Language Itself — Undermining the Subjectivity of Chinese through “English Standards”
This orientation is exemplified by the research of Professor Wang Renqiang of Sichuan International Studies University: its central claim is to treat the part-of-speech conversion labelling conventions of English dictionaries as the “normal standard” for “correcting” Chinese, to judge that the Contemporary Chinese Dictionary “under-labels” such words, and to argue that Chinese should be “more like English.” Such an approach erodes the subjectivity of Chinese as an independent language system. When the grammatical facts of Chinese must be “certified” through an English framework, the security of the language itself has already been compromised. This is precisely a direct challenge by “English-centrism” to the autonomy of Chinese.
Risk Two: Weakening Academic Discourse Power — Reproducing the Cognitive Authority of “Western-Centrism”
The national character of language security is reflected in three aspects: safeguarding the language itself, enhancing national language capacity, and building a Chinese discourse system. When a conceptual system derived entirely from the West is promoted under a label of “Chinese originality,” its objective effect is to reproduce the cognitive authority of Western theory within China’s own academic system. Such practice constricts the space for building an autonomous theoretical system in Chinese linguistics and weakens China’s academic discourse power internationally, running counter to the national strategy of building an independent knowledge system.
Risk Three: Endangering Ideological Security — Guarding Against Western Academic Discourse as a Channel of Penetration
Language security and ideological security are inseparable. Today, linguistic hegemony entrenches Western values and intensifies ideological disputes, becoming a language-security risk in global governance. The extended effects of this orientation also warrant vigilance: when the representative achievements of Chinese linguists such as Lü Shuxiang, Zhu Dexi and Shen Jiaxuan are negated wholesale by the yardstick of Western theoretical frameworks, an external framework is in effect being used to judge the validity of China’s autonomous theoretical construction. Should such an evaluative paradigm spread, it would objectively facilitate the penetration of Western academic discourse, and must be examined from the standpoint of ideological security.
Conclusion
In summary, the scholarly orientation that “corrects” Chinese by English standards is by no means a mere difference of academic opinion; it is a serious issue involving national language security and cultural security. On the levels of the language itself, academic discourse power and ideology, it signals systemic risks that must be squarely addressed. Under the framework of the holistic approach to national security, maintaining scholarly scrutiny and sustained research on this orientation is a necessary step consistent with the requirements of that approach.
This article is part of the “Cultural Security Series” of commentaries of the Homing Strategic Institute.