Introduction
In recent years, China has made notable adjustments to its public language policies, particularly in the linguistic landscape of urban spaces. A significant change occurred in 2022, just ahead of the Winter Olympics, when Beijing began replacing English translations on subway signs with Pinyin (CNN, 2022). This shift was foreshadowed by new translation guidelines introduced in late 2020. According to Beijing Daily (2021), the Beijing Municipal Commission of Transport applied these measures to standardize subway station names in accordance with relevant national orthographic standards. Since then, translation methods have undergone multiple revisions, including the replacement of English terms with Pinyin transliterations and adjustments to Pinyin orthography (Lu and Liang Reference Lu and Liang2024).
In practice, the implementation of these standards has remained fragmented. Due to the complexity of the subway network, the updated signage has not been uniformly adopted, resulting in the prolonged coexistence of original and revised naming conventions across various stations and exits (see Figures 1 and 2).
As shown in Figure 1, the original signage included the English translation Station. In contrast, Figure 2Footnote 1 illustrates the revised signage, in which the English word Station on a Shichahai Station sign was removed and replaced by its Pinyin equivalent, Zhan. Yet the uneven implementation of this policy across different regions has led to a fragmented and inconsistent signage system, sparking widespread public debate. Much of this debate has unfolded on Chinese social media platforms, where users have expressed a diverse array of opinions and rationales.
Example of subway signage with English translation.
Example of revised subway signage using Pinyin.
Pinyin, officially known as Hanyu Pinyin, was developed in the 1950s as part of China’s language reform efforts. It was designed primarily as a phonetic system to standardize Mandarin pronunciation, support literacy education, and facilitate Chinese language learning for both native and non-native speakers. Unlike English, which functions as a standalone language with its own grammar and lexicon, Pinyin serves as a phonetic transcription system that supplements Chinese characters rather than replacing them. Pinyin is introduced early in school, often in kindergarten if not sooner, and is widely used in dictionaries, textbooks, and digital input systems. Despite its broad practical utility, the use of Pinyin in public signage, particularly as a substitute for English translations, has generated mixed public reactions.
Understanding public perceptions of replacing English with Pinyin is essential to examining how language policies affecting the linguistic landscape are received, negotiated, and contested within society. This study investigates public attitudes toward Pinyinization and the reasoning behind them, aiming to explore how these views reflect ongoing tensions among cultural identity, localization, globalization, and practical policy considerations.
Literature review
Since 1958, Pinyin has been institutionalized by the Chinese government as the official romanization system for Standard Mandarin. It has consistently been promoted as a modern, standardized, and internationally legible representation of the Chinese language. Accordingly, Pinyin carries political significance, functioning both as a symbol of national sovereignty in official discourse and as a tool for advancing cultural identity and linguistic standardization (Han and Wu Reference Han and Wu2020a; Shang Reference Shang2020). However, despite its institutional status, Pinyin has not secured a dominant position in public signage. In many urban settings, particularly globally oriented cities, English remains more prominent and visually pervasive, often connoting affluence and socioeconomic prestige (Han and Wu Reference Han and Wu2020a; Lai Reference Lai2013; Shang Reference Shang2020; Tan and Tan Reference Tan and Tan2015; Xie Reference Xie2020). Scholars have further observed that English is frequently employed to symbolize internationalism and elitism in China’s visual landscape (Shang Reference Shang2020, Reference Shang2024; Xie Reference Xie2020; Yuan Reference Yuan2019).
The coexistence of English and Pinyin in public signage reflects an ongoing tension between state-led efforts to localize language through Pinyin and the enduring symbolic power of English as a global language (Shang Reference Shang2020). As both systems utilize the Roman alphabet, several scholars have examined the broader presence of romanized scripts in China’s linguistic landscape (e.g., Han and Wu Reference Han and Wu2020a; Xie Reference Xie2020). In less affluent regions, Pinyin may serve as a substitute for English, given the limited English literacy among local residents (Han and Wu Reference Han and Wu2020a). Yet this pattern is not uniform across regions. Xie (Reference Xie2020), for instance, found that English is often preferred over Pinyin on street shop signs. Despite limited proficiency, local shop owners frequently adopt English to project modernity and cosmopolitan appeal, suggesting a perception of English as the more ‘competitive’ romanized script. Shang (Reference Shang2020) further argued that street name signage reflects ideological tensions between English and Pinyin as competing semiotic codes. Script choice, he contends, is not merely a technical decision but is deeply intertwined with language politics and identity negotiation.
While prior research has offered valuable insights into the symbolic and ideological dimensions of script selection, it has largely relied on observational data drawn from urban spaces. Even when public opinion is considered, it is typically gathered through surveys or interviews targeting narrow demographic samples, such as college students, working professionals, or residents of a specific community (e.g., Lu and Liang Reference Lu and Liang2024; Shang Reference Shang2021; Yao et al. Reference Yao, Pan, Zhang and Nie2024). To date, few studies have explored how the general public interprets and responds to language policy changes in open, unstructured, and spontaneous discourse settings.
The rise of digital media in recent years has opened new avenues for exploring bottom-up language discourse. Public commentary on social media platforms offers rich, unprompted insights into how ordinary citizens perceive and respond to shifts in language policy. As Han and Wu (Reference Han and Wu2020b) and Yao et al. (Reference Yao, Pan, Zhang and Nie2024) argue, a persistent disconnect exists between top-down policy objectives and the lived language experiences of everyday users—a gap that becomes especially visible during moments of linguistic change. Yet user-generated discourse remains largely underexamined in studies of China’s linguistic landscape.
Comparative research from other national contexts has shown that language policy debates are often embedded within broader struggles over cultural identity and belonging. In South Korea, for instance, E. Kim (Reference Kim2021) analyzed 1,940 online comments on a Yonhap News Footnote 2 article and found that while many South Koreans expressed pride in their country’s growing global cultural influence, a substantial number also voiced strong resistance to the increasing anglicization of everyday language. This resistance stemmed not only from concerns about ‘linguistic inferiority,’ but also from broader anxieties over cultural authenticity and national identity.
Building on this line of inquiry, S. Kim (Reference Kim2021, Reference Kim2024) conducted two studies analyzing over 1,800 online comments about English-dominant signage in public buildings and digital kiosks. In both cases, English signage was denounced as ‘linguistic toadyism’ (S. Kim Reference Kim2021, 137), a self-disparaging stance that idolizes a foreign culture over one’s own, and as ‘linguistic dandyism’ (S. Kim Reference Kim2021, 138), the pretentious use of English to signal elite social status. According to these studies, such criticisms were driven by the ideology of ‘externalization,’ whereby English is construed as ‘the language of an Other’ (S. Kim Reference Kim2024, 1925) that threatens the national and ethnic integrity of Korean identity. While some commenters acknowledged the utility of English as an indispensable global tool, most framed its dominance as a superficial marker of modernity that marginalizes the Korean language and culture.
Outside of East Asia, Vessey and Sheyholislami (Reference Vessey and Sheyholislami2020) analyzed over 580 online comments regarding Chinese-only signage in Richmond, Canada. Using a critical discourse studies approach, they found that many commenters positioned English as the neutral and rightful language of public space, while framing Chinese as exclusionary and ethnically marked. These debates illustrate how linguistic landscapes often function as symbolic battlegrounds for broader ideological struggles over national identity, multiculturalism, and belonging. Such insights underscore that language visibility and legibility are not merely technical concerns but are deeply embedded in social and political contestation—a point equally relevant to China’s shifting script practices and the ongoing public discourse around Pinyinization.
Taken together, prior studies demonstrate the analytical value of online public discourse as a lens through which linguistic landscapes can be understood not merely as visual artifacts but as ideologically charged spaces negotiated by everyday users. Yet in the Chinese context, this form of spontaneous, user-generated discourse remains underexplored.
To address this gap, the present study analyzes online public discourse surrounding Pinyinization, examining the distribution of public sentiments, the rationales underlying them, and the broader ideological themes they reflect. Drawing on user comments on a popular Chinese platform, it seeks to offer insights into linguistic landscapes as both policy instruments and symbolic arenas where cultural identities, values, and practical concerns intersect.
Methodology
Data collection
Data were collected from Bilibili, a widely used Chinese video-sharing platform, where the replacement of English with Pinyin on subway signs has sparked considerable public discussion. Relevant videos were identified using keywords such as ‘拼音化’ (Pīnyīnhuà ‘Pinyinization’), ‘地铁站名’ (Dìtiězhàn míng ‘subway signs’), and ‘英语改拼音政策’ (Yīngyǔ gǎi pīnyīn zhèngcè ‘English-to-Pinyin policy’). One video (Bilibili 2023) was selected for in-depth analysis based on two criteria: a balanced narrative tone, intended to minimize framing effects (Tversky and Kahneman Reference Tversky and Kahneman1981), and a high level of user engagement. Featuring on-the-ground footage of the revised policy, the video offers a relatively neutral portrayal of the evolving linguistic landscape. A total of 2,064 top-level comments, all written in Chinese, were collected from comments posted in response to the video. These comments were posted between July 30, 2023, when the video was uploaded, and November 25, 2024. Irrelevant content, including spam and advertisements, was excluded.
Data analysis
We adopted a mixed-methods approach. In the quantitative phase, sentiment analysis was conducted using the Erlangshen-MegatronBert-1.3B-Sentiment model (Zhang et al. Reference Zhang, Gan, Wang, Zhang, Zhang, Yang and Gao2022) to classify comments as positive, negative, or neutral. Prior to analysis, the dataset was preprocessed to remove noise, including URLs, user mentions, irrelevant hashtags, and special characters. The model then generated probability scores for positive and negative sentiments, with comments being categorized based on optimized thresholds. These thresholds were determined by testing various configurations on a validation set of 200 randomly sampled comments, which were manually labeled by two Chinese-speaking annotators. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Manual validation confirmed a general alignment between the model’s sentiment predictions and the consensus labels.
In the qualitative phase, 564 high-engagement comments (i.e., those receiving more than five ‘likes’) were selected for thematic analysis using NVivo. Comments addressing multiple issues were coded into more than one category to capture the complexity of public discourse. Themes were identified through a recursive process of coding, categorizing, and re-coding, repeated three times at spaced intervals to enhance rigor and reliability. While the data were coded and analyzed in the original Chinese to preserve linguistic nuances, all quoted comments cited in the article were translated into English by the first author.
Sentiment patterns and themes
The sentiment analysis revealed a clear divide in public attitudes toward the policy of replacing English with Pinyin on subway station signs. Of the 2,064 comments analyzed, negative sentiments predominated (n = 1,257, 60.90%), followed by positive (n = 668, 32.36%) and neutral responses (n = 139, 6.73%). Percentages in the figure and tables are rounded to two decimal places; therefore, totals may not sum to exactly 100%.
As seen in Figure 3, the distribution reveals a widespread dissatisfaction with and resistance to the policy. Nonetheless, nearly one-third of the comments expressed support or offered more balanced views. These sentiment patterns formed the basis for the subsequent thematic analysis, which examined 564 high-engagement comments and yielded 634 coded instances, reflecting the presence of multiple themes in some comments. The following sections outline the key thematic categories within each sentiment classification, illustrated with representative excerpts.
Public attitudes toward replacing English subway names with Pinyin.
Critiques of Pinyinization: Cultural, practical, and policy concerns
Negative comments on the use of Pinyinization fell into five themes, spanning cultural identity, practical utility, and policy implementation.
As shown in Table 1, the most prominent theme concerned the cultural identity of Pinyin (n = 113, 33.04%), with many commenters questioning whether Pinyinization was a genuine expression of cultural confidence or, conversely, a deeper form of cultural insecurity, as illustrated in the following comments:
Themes underlying negative sentiment
(1) Converting subway station names into Pinyin doesn’t signal cultural confidence; it’s a deeper form of cultural inferiority (Comment by user 之助爱建六 on 2023-08-01 23:32).Footnote 3
(2) This is not cultural pride. Promoting Chinese culture requires genuine engagement, not superficial efforts. It’s like during the Kangxi period when officials rejected the Western calendar. It seemed patriotic, but it turned out to be counterproductive (Comment by user 听力蔡虚鲲 on 2023-07-30 20:12).
Others noted that Pinyin’s romanized script makes it inherently foreign, raising questions about its symbolic value as a marker of national and cultural identity:
(3) Pinyin uses the Latin alphabet. It’s not authentically Chinese. If we’re serious about cultural confidence, we should just stick to Chinese characters (Comment by user 黃昏雙鏢客 on 2023-07-30 19:31).
The second most prominent theme criticized the practical limitations of Pinyin in international communication contexts (n = 112, 32.75%). These comments questioned its ability to meet users’ practical needs, pointing out issues such as the lack of tonal and word boundary markers (i.e., spacing), which can create confusion for both local and international users:
(4) Chinese people don’t need Pinyin, and foreigners can’t understand it; so, who is it for? (Comment by user 贛言貓 on 2023-07-30 18:12).
(5) Who uses Pinyin without spaces or tonal marks? It’s unreadable and looks like a secret code (Comment by user 阿里_波拿巴帕夏 on 2024-04-02 11:22).
Critics also pointed out signage such as 西站 (xī zhàn ‘West Station’), rendered redundantly as ‘XIZHANZHAN,’ and 滨海国际机场 (Bīnhǎi Guójì Jīchǎng ‘Binhai International Airport’), presented as an unreadable string such as ‘BINHAIGUOJIJICHANG’.
A smaller group of comments (n = 34, 9.94%) emphasized the global utility of English. These comments framed the policy as a regressive move away from international openness and communicative efficiency:
(6) I haven’t traveled abroad much, but when I was in Seoul and Chiang Mai a few years ago, English was the only way to get by. Like it or not, it is the most widely used language today (Comment by user 沉迷物理的陶 YOTA on 2023-07-30 22:29).
(7) We shouldn’t reduce the importance of English – if anything, we should embrace it. Why can’t there be a version of Chinese English that serves our needs? (Comment by user 陈默 Silencer on 2023-08-01 10:33).
Another group of commenters (n = 31, 9.06%) criticized the policy’s inconsistent execution and unnecessary cost, pointing out the lack of proper planning and transparency.
(8) The policymakers completely ignored the practical function of place names. Decisions were made arbitrarily without proper deliberation (Comment by user 卢德分子 on 2023-07-30 18:27). This is a total waste of taxpayers’ money (Comment by user 节操少女猪 on 2023-07-31 22:39).
Finally, approximately 15% of the negative comments (n = 52) expressed opposition without clear reasoning. Despite the absence of explicit rationale, such responses nonetheless contribute to the public’s overall discontent with the policy.
Endorsement of Pinyinization: Identity, utility, and global alignment
Comments falling under the positive category endorsed the use of Pinyin on subway signage, emphasizing both its symbolic and functional value. Six key themes emerged from this category (see Table 2).
Themes underlying positive sentiment
The most prominent theme (n = 55, 25.58%) showed general support for Pinyinization, often accompanied by suggestions related to formatting enhancements or the inclusion of supplementary translations. The second most frequent theme (n = 50, 23.26%) highlighted Pinyin’s role in affirming cultural identity (e.g., ‘it’s important to preserve local identity’) and resisting the English dominance:
(9) Learning English while forgetting Pinyin is a form of cultural invasion that affects all of us (Comment by user ど雪颜づ on 2023-07-30 18:22).
Another major theme (n = 36, 16.74%) centered on accessibility. Supporters highlighted Pinyin’s usability for a wide range of users, including children, the elderly, and those with limited literacy skills:
(10) Most Chinese people can read Pinyin, and since it uses the Latin alphabet, foreigners can also roughly pronounce it too (Comment by user 握紧我的抱枕 on 2023-10-22 22:47).
(11) Over 2% of people in China are illiterate. Pinyin can help them too; as long as they can read Pinyin, they can understand it (Comment by user lancelot86 on 2023-07-30 22:01).
The fourth theme (n = 32, 14.88%) underscored the functional utility of Pinyin in digital contexts, particularly its precision, consistency, and efficacy for urban navigation. These commenters pointed out that converting subway names into Pinyin is ‘unambiguous and cost-effective, meeting the needs of information systems.’
Other commenters (n = 25, 11.63%) expressed skepticism about English translations, arguing that they can distort or obscure meaning, while Pinyin can preserve semantic fidelity and cultural authenticity.
(12) It is impossible to translate all Chinese into English, but all Chinese can be represented in Pinyin (Comment by user DoraTaiTai on 2023-08-01 18:40).
Some others also mentioned that Pinyinization can avoid the ‘embarrassment of distorting the meaning of words’ that have no corresponding translations.
Finally, a smaller group of supporters (n = 17, 7.91%) noted Pinyin’s alignment with international naming conventions, where local place names are typically retained in their original form, citing examples such as Palais Royal—Musée du Louvre in Paris, which remains in French without translation.
Neutral views: Diagnosis and alternatives
Neutral comments, though less frequent, offered analytical reflections and pragmatic suggestions, yielding four core themes (see Table 3).
Themes underlying neutral sentiment
The most common theme (n = 36, 46.75%) centered on diagnosing the problem and reframing the debate. Rather than taking sides in the Pinyin-versus-English debate, commenters pointed to structural flaws in policy implementation.
(13) Instead of debating whether this is a matter of cultural confidence or insecurity, we should take a serious look at the management chaos (Comment by user 尼鲁瓦修 on 2023-07-31 02:06).
Many attributed the inconsistency to the fragmented nature of subway governance and frequent policy shifts, which made it difficult to ‘unify the translation standards across systems.’ Others (n = 20, 25.97%) proposed practical alternatives, such as multilingual signage, numeric identifiers, or reverting to Chinese-only signage.
(14) Instead of using just Pinyin, why not include a few more languages and assign a single team to ensure consistency? (Comment by user 阿船 nihility on 2023-08-01 05:02).
A smaller group (n = 16, 20.78%) offered neutral observations without taking a clear stance, while others (n = 5, 6.49%) expressed disinterest, suggesting that most subway passengers are indifferent to signage changes:
(15) In reality, subway passengers don’t have the time to worry about all of this. People only care about ticket prices and whether they can get to their destination on time (Comment by user 田小玖与田小喵 on 2023-07-31 09:11).
Discussion
The findings reveal a complex interplay of symbolic, practical, and ideological concerns surrounding the replacement of English with Pinyin on subway signage. While policy efforts portray Pinyinization as a sign of cultural confidence and linguistic modernization, public responses are far from uniform.
Negative comments largely conveyed dissatisfaction, often rooted in concerns over cultural authenticity, limited readability, and fragmented implementation. On the other hand, positive comments framed Pinyinization as both an assertion of linguistic and cultural sovereignty and a practical tool for navigation. Neutral responses tended to offer more balanced engagement, identifying systemic issues and proposing practical solutions. Taken together, these findings complicate the official narrative of cultural empowerment, illustrating how symbolic language policies are subject to divergent and at times conflicting interpretations by the public. The following sections elaborate on three salient themes that emerged from the analysis.
Top-down policy, bottom-up responses
The sentiment analysis revealed a clear divergence between state-led policy intentions and public reactions. While Pinyinization has been promoted as a symbol of cultural confidence and linguistic sovereignty, the findings suggest that such top-down efforts do not necessarily garner public support. This disconnect highlights a broader challenge in language planning: policy goals often misalign with the communicative needs and lived experiences of everyday users. As one commenter remarked, ‘Chinese people read characters, not Pinyin; foreigners don’t understand Pinyin either … so who is it really for?’ Such comments echo trends observed in other national contexts, where grassroots reactions frequently challenge official language policy narratives (E. Kim Reference Kim2021; S. Kim Reference Kim2021; Vessey and Sheyholislami Reference Vessey and Sheyholislami2020). Rather than serving solely as a reflection of institutional intent, the linguistic landscape emerges as a contested space shaped by bottom-up negotiations (Han and Wu Reference Han and Wu2020b; Yao et al. Reference Yao, Pan, Zhang and Nie2024).
While policymakers may envision Pinyinization as a step toward decolonizing public space and affirming national identity, public discourse more often conveyed confusion, ambivalence, or resistance, underscoring the persistent gap between institutional narratives and societal reception (Shang Reference Shang2020). For many, functional utility and everyday communicative needs outweighed ideological symbolism, a pattern consistent across all sentiment categories in our analysis.
Among negative comments, critiques focused on practical concerns, including ‘Questioning international practicality and readability,’ and ‘Emphasizing English as a global lingua franca’. Even among supportive comments, function-oriented arguments such as ‘Highlighting accessibility for diverse audiences’ and ‘Emphasizing functionality in digital or transport contexts’ outweighed symbolic themes like ‘Upholding Pinyin’s cultural identity and linguistic sovereignty’. Neutral comments further reinforced this orientation, focusing primarily on problem-solving through themes such as ‘Diagnosing and objectively discussing the issue’ and ‘Proposing alternative solutions’. Several commenters explicitly argued that English translations are intended to serve non-Chinese speakers, warning that ‘replacing English with Pinyin ignores this basic function.’ Others criticized the policy as being ‘more about projecting cultural confidence than addressing real communicative needs.’
Pinyin as a semiotic paradox
While the tension between language policy and public perception may not be unique to China, the nature of opposition in this case reveals a distinct identity paradox. In South Korea, resistance to English signage is often rooted in strong nationalist ideologies and a commitment to preserving linguistic purity (S. Kim Reference Kim2021; Reference Kim2024). Similarly, in Canada, reactions to Chinese-only signage typically position English as the ‘neutral’ and rightful language of the public sphere, thereby reinforcing monolingual norms (Vessey and Sheyholislami Reference Vessey and Sheyholislami2020). In China, however, the debate over Pinyinization reflects neither a wholesale rejection of foreign influence nor an uncritical embrace of localization. Instead, it reveals a nuanced ambivalence shaped by the unique semiotic status of Pinyin.
Unlike Korean or English, Pinyin is a romanized transcription system that supplements, rather than replaces, Chinese characters. It neither supplants Chinese characters nor directly competes with English. Instead, it occupies a symbolic middle ground, aligning with international norms through its use of the Latin script, while simultaneously serving state goals of standardizing Mandarin pronunciation. As such, Pinyin carries both global and local semiotic value, yet lacks the symbolic clarity and emotional resonance of either English or Chinese characters.
This duality helps explain why cultural identity emerged as a theme in both positive and negative sentiment categories. Some commenters regarded Pinyin as a symbol of cultural autonomy and resistance to English dominance, while others critiqued it as insufficiently ‘authentic’ due to its reliance on the Roman script. In this respect, Pinyin is caught in a semiotic paradox: too foreign to represent national identity, yet too localized and too obscure to function effectively as a global communicative medium.
Unlike the more clear-cut dichotomy between local and foreign languages in other contexts, the use of Pinyin reflects a more complex interplay of alignment and resistance. As Yuan (Reference Yuan2019) notes, linguistic landscapes often become symbolic battlegrounds for deeper societal negotiations over identity, modernity, and national positioning. The ambivalence surrounding Pinyin reflects such a negotiation. In this sense, the debate over Pinyinization transcends signage itself, raising broader questions about what it means to exhibit cultural confidence in a globalized era. For many commenters, true cultural confidence was not seen merely in replacing scripts but in fostering meaningful international influence. The dual positioning of Pinyin underscores the broader challenge of managing symbolic meaning in language policy, where scripts must navigate the tension between affirming national identity and securing global visibility.
Rethinking English and embracing diversity
While English has traditionally served as the dominant language in global public signage, the current findings indicate a shift in how it is perceived and appropriated in the Chinese context. Rather than viewing English as a symbol of Western hegemony, some scholars expressed more nuanced perspectives, framing localized varieties of English (e.g., Chinese English or Singaporean English) as legitimate expressions within the broader ecosystem of World Englishes (Foo and Tan Reference Foo and Tan2019; Hu Reference Hu2004). From this perspective, Chinese adaptations of English should not be dismissed as incorrect or deficient, but rather recognized as part of the linguistic diversity shaped by global-local or translocal interactions. This view reflects an emerging sense of ownership over English as a global language that belongs to all of its users, not just those in the so-called ‘inner circle’. (Crystal Reference Crystal2003; Deng Reference Deng2025; Foo and Tan Reference Foo and Tan2019; Parmegiani Reference Parmegiani2014).
As a global lingua franca, English is increasingly reappropriated and redefined by speakers across diverse sociocultural contexts (Boonsuk Reference Boonsuk2025; Deng Reference Deng2025). Several commenters argued that English usage in China need not conform to native-speaker norms, but could instead be adapted to better serve local communicative needs. Rather than rejecting English, they advocated for its selective integration in ways that resonate with local linguistic practices and cultural identities. As one commenter put it: ‘If there’s British English and American English, why can’t there be Chinese English?’
This advocacy for Chinese English presents an intricate counterpoint to the state-led Pinyinization policy. Whereas Pinyinization seeks to assert linguistic sovereignty by replacing a foreign language with a national romanization system (Han and Wu Reference Han and Wu2020a; Shang Reference Shang2020), bottom-up calls for Chinese English reflect an emerging sense of ownership over English, framing it not as an external threat but as a flexible semiotic resource that can be localized and appropriated to meet unique communicative needs (Shang Reference Shang2021).
These divergent orientations reveal competing understandings of what cultural confidence entails. For policymakers, confidence is equated with linguistic substitution, whereas public discourse suggests that true confidence lies in the ability to renegotiate and adapt a global language to local contexts. Such perspectives signal a broader reframing of English—from a symbol of external dominance to a dynamic semiotic resource open to negotiation and localization. The debate, therefore, cannot be reduced to a simple binary of global intelligibility versus cultural resistance; instead, it reflects a dynamic process through which Chinese speakers assert agency over how global languages are used, adapted, and situated in local contexts. Rather than privileging one semiotic code over another, public sentiment appears to endorse a pluralistic and functional linguistic ecology, in which multiple semiotic systems coexist to fulfill complementary roles (Shang Reference Shang2021).
Conclusion and implications
This study demonstrates that linguistic landscapes are not static artifacts of policy but dynamic arenas where national identity, ideology, globalization, and everyday user experience are constantly negotiated (Zhang and Xu Reference Zhang and Xu2015). Drawing on unsolicited online discourse, this study provides an authentic account of how linguistic landscapes are interpreted, contested, and reframed by citizens in digital public spheres. Echoing findings from other contexts, where grassroots reactions often challenge official language policies (E. Kim Reference Kim2021; S. Kim Reference Kim2021; Vessey and Sheyholislami Reference Vessey and Sheyholislami2020), the results reveal a persistent gap between official narratives and the communicative needs of everyday users.
In China, this gap stems less from resistance to English than from skepticism about the symbolic and functional adequacy of Pinyin as its substitute. Positioned as neither fully local nor wholly global, Pinyin occupies a space of semiotic in-betweenness. This dual identity complicates its role as a stable emblem of national identity, creating a semiotic paradox that invites further inquiry into language localization and identity formation.
The findings also highlight an emergent discourse that reframes English not as a foreign imposition but as a flexible communicative resource. Rather than rejecting English outright, many commenters endorsed localized or hybridized forms, reflecting an increasing openness to non-conformity with native norms (Boonsuk et al. Reference Boonsuk, Ambele and McKinley2021; Boonsuk Reference Boonsuk2025) and a broader recognition of the pluralistic ownership of English (Crystal Reference Crystal2003; Deng Reference Deng2025; Foo and Tan Reference Foo and Tan2019; Hu Reference Hu2004; Parmegiani Reference Parmegiani2014). From this perspective, Chinese English is not a deviation from ‘standard’ English but a legitimate manifestation of global linguistic diversity. These insights contribute to ongoing discussions on Global Englishes and language policy, emphasizing hybridity, pluralism, and functional utility over rigid linguistic binaries.
While replacing English with Pinyin may be framed as projecting linguistic sovereignty and cultural pride, it risks undermining China’s soft power by reducing the cognitive accessibility of urban infrastructure for international users. This tension raises a broader question: How can linguistic sovereignty be preserved without compromising international comprehensibility and accessibility? The challenge is particularly salient in the context of China’s global cities, envisioned as hubs of international exchange whose linguistic landscapes must accommodate diverse users while balancing cultural aspirations with global engagement (Shang Reference Shang2021). In this regard, the current findings underscore the need for language planning that harmonizes global intelligibility with sensitivity to local sociocultural realities.
The present study is limited by its reliance on anonymous online comments, which, while spontaneous and authentic, do not allow for demographic differentiation. Future research could therefore examine attitudes across age groups, regions, cultural backgrounds, and socioeconomic contexts. In addition, because the data capture public sentiment at a single point in time, they do not account for potential shifts over time. Longitudinal research would thus be valuable in tracing how public attitudes evolve in response to policy changes and broader sociolinguistic developments.
SIYING LYU is a PhD candidate in Applied Linguistics and TESOL at Sogang University. Her research interests include language learner identities, language policy and planning, native speakerism, and language attitudes. She is currently exploring the interplay between language ideologies and learner psychology. Email: lvsiying0313@gmail.com
EUN SUNG PARK is Professor of Applied Linguistics and TESOL at Sogang University. Her research interests include second language acquisition, asset-based pedagogy for refugee-background students, and multilingual users’ ELF and translanguaging practices. Her work has appeared in Applied Linguistics, ELT Journal, Journal of Language, Identity & Education, Language Learning, Language Teaching Research, and TESOL Quarterly, among others. She co-edited English Education at the Tertiary Level in Asia (Routledge, 2017) and BTS and Languages: K-pop Transcending Language and Communication (Routledge, 2025). Email: eunsungp@sogang.ac.kr
Open access
