Jun. 18, 2025
Home
About Us
Editorial
Instruction
Subscribe
Advertising
Message
Contact Us
中文
Quick Search
Office Online
Journal Online
Current Issue
Archive
Advanced Search
Read Articles
Download Articles
RSS
Email Alert
2025 Vol. 10, No. 1
Published: 2025-01-10
1
The “Language” of Large Language Models Is Fundamentally Different from Natural Languages
Lu Jianming
2025 Vol. 10 (1): 1-1 [
Abstract
] (
0
)
HTML
(1 KB)
PDF
(0 KB) (
0
)
5
Experts on “Two Decades of Research on Language Life in Society”
Chen Ping, Zhou Qingsheng, Zhao Shiju, Zhao Shouhui, Liu Haitao, Fang Xiaobing and Dong Jie
2025 Vol. 10 (1): 5-11 [
Abstract
] (
0
)
HTML
(1 KB)
PDF
(0 KB) (
0
)
12
A Review of the Twenty-Year Study of Language Life in China
Li Yuming
DOI: 10.19689/j.cnki.cn10-1361/h.20250101
While the term “language life” has been used in China for at least 70 years, its recognition and thorough development as a fundamental concept in language planning has primarily emerged over the past two decades. During this period, the studies on language life have yielded substantial results and effectively advanced the development of language life in China. The achievements manifest in four key dimensions: Firstly, the concept “language life” has been redefined and more in-depth researches are done to gain a thorough understanding of the language situations both in China or globally. Secondly, focused research and practical implementations have been conducted across various domains, including monitoring language life and public opinion, establishing and maintaining linguistic standards, language poverty alleviation and rural revitalization initiative, language services and emergency language services, development of language economy and language industry, etc. Thirdly, the field has developed institutional infrastructure through the establishment of research institutions, annual reports in series, journal networks and a group of degree awarding units of linguistics, and a variety of measures have been explored for talent cultivation. Fourthly, six major theoretical principles have been proposed: namely building a harmonious language life, realizing barrier-free social communication, comprehensively carrying out language services, promoting language capacity, protecting and developing language resources, and exploring and carrying forward the Chinese language civilization. The field has embraced a research paradigm of “originating in and returning to language life”. This has led to the establishment of distinctive academic and discourse systems in Chinese language life research, which have generated significant scholarly impact internationally.
2025 Vol. 10 (1): 12-25 [
Abstract
] (
0
)
HTML
(1 KB)
PDF
(0 KB) (
0
)
26
Language Legislation in the New Era: A Linguistic Functional Planning Perspective
Zhang Ripei
DOI: 10.19689/j.cnki.cn10-1361/h.20250102
China’s language legislation has made significant strides and notable achievements, though it still faces challenges such as weak systematisation, low feasibility and limited content. To address these issues and scientifically advance language legislation in the new era, it is essential to strengthen research on linguistic functional planning. Linguistic function planning involves the planning of the fields, realisation paths, and coordination of multilingual multifunctionalities. It emphasizes the orderly and comprehensive utilisation of multilingual multifunctionalities and provides an analytical framework for constructing language policy and strategy systems. The core task of language legislation is to establish a comprehensive language policy system, while its primary function is to provide legal guarantees for implementing the national language strategy. From the perspective of linguistic functional planning, language legislation in the new era should oversee the overall situation of language life, coordinate the relationship between multilingual multifunctionalities, explore the construction of a national obligation model, and address the needs for high-quality development in language and writing. It should aim to build a legal system that encompasses language norms, language education, language and cultural construction, and language services.
2025 Vol. 10 (1): 26-35 [
Abstract
] (
0
)
HTML
(1 KB)
PDF
(0 KB) (
0
)
36
A Review and Reflection on the
Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Standard Spoken and Written Chinese Language
Zhang Zhenda
DOI: 10.19689/j.cnki.cn10-1361/h.20250103
The
Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Standard Spoken and Written Chinese Language
serves as the fundamental framework of the legal governance of language use in China. Since its promulgation and implementation 25 years ago, research on this law can be categorized into three distinct periods: legal interpretation, “good law(良法)” discussion, and a shift towards “good governance(善治)”. These studies reflect two main perspectives: linguistic research and legal research. The academia in China has largely reached a consensus on the law’s role, primary functions, scope of application, characteristics, and principles. However, debates remain on the following aspects: the conceptualization and definition of “national common language and script”, the status. nature and usage scope of
Hanyu Pinyin
, language rights and obligations, the nature of “soft law”, legislation for non-common languages and writing systems, and the use and regulation of foreign languages. Considering the new requirements for the legal governance of language of the new era, the article suggests the following key areas for revisions to the law: (1) Conducting thorough scientific analysis and in-depth exploration of the legal basis; (2) Updating legal provisions in line with contemporary developments; (3) Ensuring systematic implementation and alignment with enforcement and judiciary processes; (4) Promoting shared governance and enhance legal awareness.
2025 Vol. 10 (1): 36-43 [
Abstract
] (
0
)
HTML
(1 KB)
PDF
(0 KB) (
0
)
44
Revision of the
Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Standard Spoken and Written Chinese Language
from the Perspective of National Identity
Ye Qiang
DOI: 10.19689/j.cnki.cn10-1361/h.20250104
Previous researches on the revision of the
Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Standard Spoken and Written Chinese Langu
age have shifted the focus from the standardization of the national common language and script to the protection of language rights, and then to the role of the national common language and script in national identification, thus forming a consensus towards strengthening the sense of community of the Chinese nation. From the perspective of national identity, the revision of the law should start with handling the relationship between the national common language and script and ethnic minority languages and scripts, and focus on addressing the following issues: what legal status should the national common language and script have? How should ethnic minority languages and scripts be learned and used? Is there a mandatory requirement for certain special groups in terms of their proficiency in the national common language and script? As the main battlefield of national common language and script education, what should schools do? With reference to the national policies and local regulations and rules in recent years, it is recommended to confirm the dominant position of the national common language and script, clarify the specific circumstances for the use of ethnic minority languages and scripts, establish language proficiency requirements for personnel in state organs, educational institutions, and other public service industry, provide ethnic minority schools with teaching materials, faculty, and equipment for teaching the national common language and script, and truly make this law the foundation for the protection and inheritance of the national common language and script.
2025 Vol. 10 (1): 44-53 [
Abstract
] (
0
)
HTML
(1 KB)
PDF
(0 KB) (
0
)
54
Language Legislation and the Development of Language Relations in Contemporary Russian Federation
He Junfang and Guo Yaxing
DOI: 10.19689/j.cnki.cn10-1361/h.20250105
Nowadays many countries around the world have enacted language legislation in various forms. Language legislation is an important legal act for the regulation of the status, rights, use, and relationships of languages. This study focuses on language legislation in the Russian Federation. Language legislation of the Russian Federation is typical, with both nation-level special legislation and local-level related legislation, making its language legislation relatively complete and systematic. However, there have long been some prominent issues in Russia’s language relations, such as the question of whether the learning of the national language of republics should adhere to the principle of obligation or voluntariness, and the problems brought about by equating “mother tongue” with ethnic language at the official level of the Russian Federation. The aforementioned issues have been resolved through the revision of the Education Law in the Russian Federation, but some other problems still exist. In conclusion, the development of language legislation and language relations in contemporary Russian Federation enlightens us that in the linguistic construction of multi-ethnic nations, a legal governance approach should be adopted to safeguard the use and development of the national common language and other languages, and to maintain the dominant position of the common language and the appropriate linguistic order.
2025 Vol. 10 (1): 54-61 [
Abstract
] (
0
)
HTML
(1 KB)
PDF
(0 KB) (
0
)
62
How versus Why
: Reflections on the Two Objectives of Linguistics by Means of ChatGPT
Yuan Yulin
DOI: 10.19689/j.cnki.cn10-1361/h.20250106
Since its public release at the end of 2022, ChatGPT has attracted worldwide attention. Much research has been conducted on the opportunities and challenges ChatGPT has brought to linguistic studies. At the same time, scholars hold different views on the roles of ChatGPT in linguistic studies. This paper begins with Norvig’s (2011) argument on two competing goals in linguistic studies: descriptive accuracy (of linguistic performance, that is, how) and scientific explanation (of linguistic competence, that is, why). Centered on this issue, a series of related questions are discussed, leading to the following conclusions: (1) ChatGPT and Large Language Models (LLMs) can surpass Markov Process Model to capture long-distant dependency holding between different words in a sentence. They can implicitly learn basic syntactic and semantic knowledge, enabling them to understand, recognize, and generate semantically anomalous sentences. (2) Descriptive accuracy and scientific explanation do not contradict each other, and the former is more important than the latter in linguistic studies. (3) Categorical grammar within the “principles and parameters” paradigm of generative grammar faces insurmountable difficulties in describing human natural language. (4) The approach of grammar study should prioritize semantics over syntax. (5) The success of LLMs shows that the descriptive accuracy of linguistic performance is far more basic than abstract explanation of linguistic competence.
2025 Vol. 10 (1): 62-74 [
Abstract
] (
0
)
HTML
(1 KB)
PDF
(0 KB) (
0
)
75
ChatGPT’s Linguistic Competence: Debates and Reflections in the International Academic Community
Shi Zhong, Tian Yinghui and Si Fuzhen
DOI: 10.19689/j.cnki.cn10-1361/h.20250107
With the great success of ChatGPT and other large language models (LLMs) in practical applica-tions, a heated debate has arisen regarding whether language faculty is unique to human beings. Two contrasting perspectives have emerged within the international academic community. One perspective argues that LLMs have achieved human-level proficiency in language understanding and production, thereby challenging Chomsky’s linguistic theories and even potentially replacing the theoretical framework of Generative Grammar. The opposing perspective argues that while humans acquire language despite “poverty of stimulus”, demonstrating a remarkable generative capacity, LLMs “learn” language by leveraging massive data input. Therefore, LLMs fundamen-tally differ from human language faculty in their core attributes and cannot adequately explain the essential nature of human language. Empirical studies have also criticized the tendency to overstate the role of LLMs for linguistic theory. This paper argues that discussions on this issue should begin by addressing the following key issues: (1) the differentiation between scientific theory formulation and engineering applications; (2) the principled predictions and explanations regarding the distinction between “possible languages” and “impossible languages”; (3) the underlying factors accounting for the contrast between natural language acquisition under “poverty of stimulus” and LLMs’ reliance on massive data input; and (4) multi-dimensional and systematic comparative evaluations of the role of syntax in human language versus LLMs.
2025 Vol. 10 (1): 75-86 [
Abstract
] (
0
)
HTML
(1 KB)
PDF
(0 KB) (
0
)
87
Where Do Large Language Models Challenge Linguistics?
Shi Feng
DOI: 10.19689/j.cnki.cn10-1361/h.20250108
The critique of Chomsky by Geoffrey Hinton, often referred to as the “Godfather of Artificial Intelligence”, raises profound questions about the intersection of linguistics and artificial intelligence. This paper explores four critical dimensions where large language models are fundamentally challenging traditional linguistic paradigms: (1) Should we pursue macro or micro linguistics? This debate fundamentally concerns the expansion of linguistic research objects and methodological transformations. The current academic landscape urgently requires a conceptual shift from a narrow, discipline-confined linguistic perspective to a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach. The proposed “macro linguistics” advocates that macrolinguistics can integrate with disciplines such as humanities, science, medicine, and engineering, and span various domains like phonetics, grammar, semantics, and pragmatics, offering vast potential. (2) Are language and thought inseparable or distinct? The question challenges traditional dichotomies, and the current research argues that Human thought cannot be entirely separated from language. Communication is the primary purpose of thought and thought loses vitality without novel information. Artificial attempts to disconnect thought from communication are counterproductive. (3) Is language acquisition innate or experiential? Artificial intelligence has significantly challenged Chomsky’s innateness hypothesis by abandoning the theory of language as a pre-programmed, innate capacity and embracing language as fundamentally experiential, achieving milestone successes through experience-based learning models. (4) Can AI possess thought or even life? The paper presents a nuanced perspective on AI’s cognitive capabilities. We argue that artificial intelligence cannot possess life in the biological sense. AI’s language is fundamentally disconnected from genuine thought, linguistic fluency does not equate to autonomous thinking and AI remains dependent on human intelligence and control. Without human intelligence to guide and control, AI will accomplish nothing. The conclusion emphasizes human agency: we must learn to navigate and harness artificial intelligence, adapting to this new technological landscape to create a more promising future.
2025 Vol. 10 (1): 87-96 [
Abstract
] (
0
)
HTML
(1 KB)
PDF
(0 KB) (
0
)
Copyright © Editorial Board of
Supported by:
Beijing Magtech