In a noteworthy linguistic maneuver, the Chinese government has officially changed the English translation of the autonomous region widely recognized as Tibet to “Xizang” in various official communications. This significant shift comes on the heels of the release of a white paper by China’s cabinet, the State Council, providing insights into the region’s development under President Xi Jinping’s leadership.
Transition to “Xizang”:
The document, titled “CPC Policies on the Governance of Xizang in the New Era: Approach and Achievements,” marks a historic departure from the traditional use of “Tibet” in a series of publications on the region. This switch reflects the pinyin transliteration of the region’s name from Mandarin, signaling a deliberate move away from the historically utilized term.
The Chinese word “Xizang” for “Tibet” comes from the Chinese phrase “29fi” (Xizàng), which literally means “Western Treasury” or “Western Storehouse.” The “Xi” (129) in the word refers to the fact that Tibet is located to the west of China’s historical capital, Xian. Historically, the Chinese Empire had a practice of naming regions based on their location relative to the capital. So, “Xizang”refers to the region being located to the west of the capital, rather than in relation to other regions inhabited by Tibetans.
Impact on Media Reports:
Following the release of the white paper in early November, the term “Xizang” has taken precedence over “Tibet” in Chinese official media reports. An analysis of English-language content from Xinhua, the state news agency, reveals a distinct preference for “Xizang” in subsequent articles. Prior to this change, “Tibet” was the dominant term, with over 700 instances found on Xinhua’s website.
Media Outlets Adopting the Change:
This linguistic shift is not limited to Xinhua but is also reflected in other state-affiliated English media outlets, including the People’s Daily and China Daily. These outlets have significantly increased the usage of “Xizang” following the release of the aforementioned white paper. However, it is noteworthy that “Tibet” is retained when referring to established geographical terms and institutional names, such as the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and Tibet University.
Political Implications:
The decision to adjust the English nomenclature for Tibet aligns with Beijing’s assertive stance on the sovereignty of the region. It is part of a broader initiative aimed at wielding greater influence over the global discourse regarding Tibet. This movement towards “Xizang” seeks to reinforce the Chinese narrative surrounding the governance and identity of the region, a strategic effort echoed in both academia and political rhetoric.
Conclusion:
China’s linguistic shift from “Tibet” to “Xizang” in official communications represents a calculated move to reshape the narrative on the autonomous region. As the usage of “Xizang” gains prominence, it underscores Beijing’s determined efforts to assert control over the global discourse surrounding Tibet, emphasizing the region’s governance and identity from a Chinese perspective.