近年台灣一方面透過《國家語言發展法》確立多種「國家語言」的法律地位，強調母語作為族群認同與文化載體的重要性；另一方面又以「2030雙語國家」為目標，透過教育與經濟政策大力推動英語普及，使「國家語言政策」與「雙語國家」願景之間呈現出既競爭又合作的張力。香港「兩文三語」政策在同時處理「書寫語文」與「社會語言／工作語言」的競合關係上，提供了台灣思考如何調和「國家語言政策」與「雙語國家政策」的一個重要比較視角。;Hong Kong， under British colonial rule from the late 19th century， inherited a language policy shaped by colonial governance. Across a century of British administration until the 1997 handover to China， its language policy underwent several major shifts: from using English as a symbol of elite identity， to gradually elevating the status of Chinese and Cantonese after the 1967 riots while restricting the use of local languages， and finally to the significant rise of Mandarin’s status after the return to Chinese sovereignty. In Hong Kong， English is not only a communication instrument， but it also symbolizes Hong Kong’s self-identity as an ex-colony， while Cantonese symbolizes local identity and a social language. Hakka is taken as a focal case to unpack how a “legally recognized national language” may still remain structurally disadvantaged when the macro-level language market and policy incentives continue to privilege Mandarin and English.
In contrast， Taiwan experienced Japan’s assimilationist policy through the promotion of Japanese during the colonial period， followed by the Kuomintang government’s authoritarian imposition of Mandarin after World War II， under which local languages were long suppressed. Since democratization， Taiwan’s language policy has moved toward pluralism—integrating local languages into education， establishing language promotion institutions， and more recently introducing English bilingual education in response to globalization， repositioning Hakka， Hokkien， and Aboriginal languages as identity and cultural carriers rather than instrumental languages. Taiwan government established a language promotion agency and began to promote bilingual English teaching in response to globalization. This creates a structural contradiction: the law strengthens the status of mother tongue and cultural identity through the “National Language Development Act”， but at the same time favours English through economic policies and educational resources， creating a tension between legal intensity and language market， resulting in a distinct language economy in which English accumulates economic capital while Hakka remains largely confined to identity functions
Through a comparative study with Hong Kong’s “biliterate and trilingual” policy， this paper analyses the tensions and gaps in Hong Kong’s language institutions， curriculum practices， and identity formation， and explores the implications for Taiwan’s language policy. Particular attention is given to the two languages having different configurations between “identity” and “economic value”: English in Hong Kong has dual status as an international working language and an identity symbol for colonial elites， while Cantonese is the language of social cohesion; Taiwan′s mother tongue purely carries culture and ethnic identity， while English is simply regarded as economic capital due to the lack of an identity carrier， resulting in completely different language stratification mechanisms in the two places. If language policy ignores students’ language foundation， local context and identity needs， it will easily lead to policy failure and learning failure.
This paper further argues that if Taiwan aims to successfully implement its “bilingual and national languages policies”， it must go beyond symbolic policies or the monopolization of resources by English. Instead， Taiwan needs to establish a sustainable model of language governance through legal protections， curriculum design， community language ecology， and balanced resource allocation. In particular， it is necessary to realize that the cultural identity value of mother tongue education cannot be replaced by purely economic logic. Otherwise， under the impact of market forces， disadvantaged languages will be marginalized， and ethnic identity and cultural identity will also be weakened. Hong Kong’s experience reminds us that building a multilingual society must balance equity， practicality， and cultural resonance; otherwise， it risks producing language stratification that undermines the very goals of multilingual education. This case foregrounds how minoritized languages such as Hakka remain structurally vulnerable even under formal recognition， and why macro-level coordination of law and market is indispensable for their revitalization.
In recent years， Taiwan has simultaneously promoted the “National Languages Development Act”， which legally affirms “multiple national languages” as carriers of cultural identity， and the “Bilingual Nation 2030” policy， which prioritizes English through education and economic measures. This paper adopts a macro-level perspective on legal frameworks and the language market. It examines how policy design and resource allocation in education and employment create stratified positions for English， Cantonese and Hakka in both Hong Kong and Taiwan. This creates a relationship of both competition and complementarity between the “national languages policy” and the “bilingual nation project”， particularly in terms of resource allocation， curriculum time， and political symbolism. Hong Kong′s “biliterate and trilingual” experience thus offers a critical reference point for Taiwan in coordinating “national languages policy” and the “bilingual nation project” at the macro level， especially in reconciling legal protection with market forces. For Hakka and other minoritized languages， sustainable revitalization requires not only symbolic recognition， but also concrete institutional incentives and media spaces that counterbalance the economic dominance of English and Mandarin.
