ANALYSIS ON THE NAME EVOLUTION AND POWER RELATION OF HUANGYAN ISLAND IN THE CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE

doi:10.13959/j.issn.1003-2398.2017.04.016

PDF(2265 KB)

HUMAN GEOGRAPHY ›› 2017, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (4) : 115-120. DOI: 10.13959/j.issn.1003-2398.2017.04.016

ANALYSIS ON THE NAME EVOLUTION AND POWER RELATION OF HUANGYAN ISLAND IN THE CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE

LIU Xuan-yu, ZHANG Zheng-sheng, NIU Shu-ya

Author information +

History +

Abstract

The study of place naming, or toponymy, has recently undergone a critical reformulation as scholars have moved beyond the traditional focus on etymology and taxonomy by examining the politics of placenaming practices. This so-called ‘critical turn’ in toponymic scholarship has produced an exciting new body of research, which situates the study of toponymy within the context of broader debates in critical human geography. Under the background above, This paper summarized the achievements and the deficiencies of Western and Chinese geographers in the fields of toponymy in the past few decades, and focused on the political gaming under the toponym evolution by taking the toponym evolution of the Huangyan Island as an example. This research finds out that:1) the toponym evolution of the Huangyan Island reflects the process of international actors' political wrangling under China and the West's discourse system. 2) Huangyan Island's toponym evolution of China shows that, China has an indisputable sovereignty over Huangyan Island, numerous documents on the Chinese history have put down definitely in writing that the Huangyan Island belongs to China's territory. And the toponym evolution of current Philippines' government shows its aim of enhancing national identity and occupying more resources of ocean, island, and reefs. So sovereignty claims over Huangyan Island and Nansha Islands by any other country are illegal and invalid. 3) The toponym is not only the linkage between deconstruction and reconstruction of collective memory but also the indicator of gaming among different countries. So it pointed out that the adoption of the place names of the South China Sea Islands habitually used by local fishermen is of significance to toponymy and defending state sovereignty.

Key words

Huangyan Island / critical toponymy / power relations

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

LIU Xuan-yu, ZHANG Zheng-sheng, NIU Shu-ya. ANALYSIS ON THE NAME EVOLUTION AND POWER RELATION OF HUANGYAN ISLAND IN THE CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE[J]. HUMAN GEOGRAPHY. 2017, 32(4): 115-120 https://doi.org/10.13959/j.issn.1003-2398.2017.04.016

References

[1] Faraco J C G, Murphy M D. Street names and political regimes in an Andalusian town[J]. Ethnology, 1997(2):123-148.

[2] Wright J K. The study of place names recent work and some possibilities[J]. Geographical Review, 1929,19(1):140-144.

[3] Kearns R A, Berg L D. Proclaiming place:Towards a geography of place name pronunciation[J]. Social & Cultural Geography, 2002,3(3):283-302.

[4] Cohen S B, Kliot N. Israel's place-vames as reflection of continuity and change in nation-building[J]. Names, 1981,29(3):227-248.

[5] Herman R D K. The aloha state:Place names and the anti-conquest of Hawai'i[J]. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 1999,89(1):76-102.

[6] Azaryahu M. Renaming the past:Changes in" city text" in Germany and Austria, 1945-1947[J]. History and Memory, 1990,2(2):32-53.

[7] Myers G A. Naming and placing the other:Power and the urban landscape in Zanzibar[J]. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 1996,87(3):237-246.

[8] Cohen S B, Kliot N. Place-names in Israel's ideological struggle over the administered territories[J]. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 1992,82(4):653-680.

[9] Azaryahu M, Kook R. Mapping the nation:Street names and ArabPalestinian identity:Three case studies[J]. Nations and Nationalism, 2002,8(2):195-213.

[10] Alderman D H. Focus Section:Women in geography in the 21st century:A street fit for a king:Naming places and commemoration in the American South[J]. The Professional Geographer, 2000,52(4):672-684.

[11] Pinchevski A, Torgovnik E. Signifying passages:The signs of change in Israeli street names[J]. Media, Culture & Society, 2002, 24(3):365-388.

[12] Rose-Redwood R S. From number to name:Symbolic capital, places of memory and the politics of street renaming in New York city[J]. Social & Cultural Geography, 2008,9(4):431-452.

[13] Yurchak A. Privatize your name:Symbolic work in a post-Soviet linguistic market[J]. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 2000,4(3):406-434.

[14] Hagen J. ‘Pork’ spending, place names, and political stature in West Virginia[J]. Southeastern Geographer, 2007,47(2):341-364.

[15] Mitchelson M L, Alderman D H, Popke E J. Branded:The economic geographies of streets named in honor of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr[J]. Social Science Quarterly, 2007,88(1):120-145.

[16] Luo W, Hartmann J F, Wang F. Terrain characteristics and Tai toponyms:A GIS analysis of Muang, Chiang and Viang[J]. GeoJournal, 2010,75(1):93-104.

[17] Liu Y, Wang F, Kang C, et al. Analyzing relatedness by toponym cooccurrences on web pages[J]. Transactions in GIS, 2014,18(1):89-107.

[18] 刘博,朱竑.批判视角下广州地铁站命名与更名研究[J]. 地理科学, 2014,34(9):1139-1144.[Liu Bo, Zhu Hong. Naming and renaming:a critical study on Guangzhou metro stations[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2014,34(9):1139-1144.]

[19] 张超亚,张小林,李红波.城市演进视角下的城市道路地名演变研究——以南京市为例[J].地理与地理信息科学,2015,31(4):83-88.[Zhang Chaoya, Zhang Xiaolin. Study on urban road name evolvement based on the city evolvement:A case study of Nanjing[J]. Geography and Geo-Information Science, 2015,31(4):83-88.]

[20] 朱竑,周军,王彬.城市演进视角下的地名文化景观[J].地理研究, 2009,28(3):829-837.[Zhu Hong, Zhou Jun, Wang Bin, et al. Analyzing the decline and renewal of old town of Liwan, Guangzhou from the evolvement of toponym[J]. Geographical Research, 2009, 28(3):829-837.]

[21] 李鹏,封丹.地名变迁中的文化政治阐释——以从化温泉为例[J]. 人文地理,2015,30(2):58-64.[Li Peng, Feng Dan. The politics of place naming:Changing place name and reproduction of meaning for Conghua hostspring[J]. Human Geography, 2015,30(2):58-64.]

[22] 张向荣.从菲律宾的对外政策看"中间地带"国家的战略选择[J].东南亚南亚研究,2014(4):37-43.[Zhang Xiangrong. Strategic choice of the "Intermediate Zone" countries from Philippines's foreign policy[J]. Southeast Asia and South Asian Studies, 2014(4):37-43.]

[23] 李金明.近年来菲律宾在黄岩岛的活动评析[J].南洋问题研究, 2003(3):40-47.[Li Jinming. Comment on the Philippines' activities in Scarborough Reef in recent years[J]. Southeast Asian Affairs, 2003(3):40-47.]

[24] 贾宇.南海问题的国际法理[J].中国法学,2013(6):26-35.[Jia Yu. The international law of South China Sea issue[J]. China Legal Science, 2013(6):26-35.]

[25] 韩振华.元代《四海测验》中中国疆宇的南海[J].南洋问题,1979(6):1-28.[Han Zhenhua. The South China Sea in ‘All Test’ of Yuan Dynasty[J]. Southeast Asian Affairs, 1979(6):1-28.]

[26] 王胜,华涛.1908年菲律宾群岛地图研究——黄岩岛主权归属研究之一[J].中国边疆史地研究,2015,25(1):2.[Wang Sheng, Hua Tao. Study of a map of Philippine Islands of 1908:One of studies on the sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal[J]. China's Borderland History and Geography Studies, 2015,25(1):2.]

[27] 李孝聪.从古地图看黄岩岛的归属——对菲律宾2014年地图展的反驳[J].南京大学学报(哲学·人文科学·社会科学),2015(4):76-87.[Li Xiaocong. The ownership of the Huangyan Island as established in the antique map:A refutation of Philippine Map Show in 2014[J]. Journal of Nanjing University (Philosophy, Humanities and Social Sciences), 2015(4):76-87.]

[28] 张军芳.国际媒体"黄岩岛事件"报道中的隐喻分析[J].新闻界, 2012(16):17-19.[Zhang Junfang. The metaphor analysis of Huangyan Island issue in the international press reported[J]. Press Circles, 2012(16):17-19.]

[29] 王福斋,易中立,高学英,等.黄岩岛与南中国海航路关系研究[J]. 中国水运,2014,14(9):55-57.[Wang Fuzhai, Yi Zhongli, Gao Xueying, et al. The realtion research between Huangyan Island and sea lanes of the South China Sea[J]. China Water Transport, 2014,14(9):55-57.]

[30] 宋濂.元史[M].上海:中华书局,1976:6154.[Song Lian. The History of Yuan Dynasty[M]. Shanghai:The Chinese Publishing House, 1976:6154.]

[31] 韩振华.南海诸岛史地论证[M].香港:香港大学亚洲研究中心,2003:46-48.[Han Zhenhua. The History and Geography of South China Sea Islands Demonstration[M]. Hongkong:Asian Studies Center of the University of Hong Kong, 2003:46-48.]

[32] 陈史坚.南海诸岛地名资料汇编[M].广州:广东省地图出版社, 1987:185-193.[Chen Shijian. The Toponym Information Publication of the South China Sea Islands[M]. Guangzhou:Guangdong Map Publishing House, 1987:185-193.]

[33] 吴杰.地图制图视域下的中菲黄岩岛争端中的地图研究[J].金田, 2014(7):445-446.[Wu Jie. The cartographic research of China-Philippine Hungyan Island dispute in perspectives of cartography[J]. Jin Tian, 2014(7):445-446.]

[34] 郑资约.南海诸岛地理志略[M].上海:商务印书馆,1947:87.[Zheng Ziyue. The Records of Geography of the South China Sea Islands[M]. Shanghai:Commercial Press, 1947:87.]

[35] Lawrence D B, Jani V. Critical Toponymies:The Contested Politics of Place Naming[M]. London:Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, 2009:101-107.

[36] 叶韵翠.批判地名学——国家与地方,族群的对话[J].地理学报(台北), 2013(68):69-87.[Ye Yuncui. The critical toponymy:A dialogue of nation, place and ethnic group[J]. Journal of Geographical Science, 2013(68):69-87.]

[37] 查雯.菲律宾南海政策转变背后的国内政治因素[J].当代亚太, 2014(5):120-139.[Zha Wen. Domestic politics and change in the Philippine's policy towards the South China Sea[J]. Journal of Contemporary Asia-Pacific Studies, 2014(5):120-139.]

[38] 苏国勋.从社会学视角看"文明冲突论"[J].社会学研究,2004(3):21-29.[Su Guoxun. The conception of ‘clash of civilization’ based on sociological perspective[J]. Sociological Studies, 2004(3):21-29.]

[39] 黄晓晨.文化记忆[J].国外理论动态,2006(6):61-62.[Huang Xiaochen. Cultural Memory[J]. Foreign Theoretical Trends, 2006(6):61-62.]

[40] 刘北成.福柯的思想肖像[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2001:298.[Liu Beicheng. Portraits of Foucault's Mind[M]. Beijing:Beijing Normal University Press, 2001:298.]

[41] 王鸣野". 中间地带":和谐世界的枢纽[J].东北亚论坛,2010(3):82-90.[Wang Mingye. The intermediate zones:Key to the harmony world[J]. Northeast Asia Forum, 2010(3):82-90.]

[42] 黄雯娟.台北市街道命名的空间政治[J].地理学报(台北),2014(73):79-105.[Huang Wenjuan. The space politics in Taipei city street named[J]. Journal of Geographical Science, 2014(73):79-105.]

[43] Adebanwi W. Glocal naming and shaming:Toponymic(inter)national relations on Lagos and New York's streets[J]. African Affairs, 2012,111(445):640-661.