On December 27, 2025, China’s national legislature, the NPC Standing Committee (NPCSC), approved revisions to the 2000 Law on the Standard Spoken and Written Chinese Language (Standard Language Law or Law) [国家通用语言文字法]—a statute that defines China’s “national common language” and mandates its use across a variety of settings.
The Law’s first overhaul came after the Communist Party under Xi Jinping had elevated “forging a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation” [铸牢中华民族共同体意识] to “the main task for [its] ethnic work and all other initiatives in areas with large ethnic minority populations.” The task’s success hinges on cultivating a “deep” fivefold identification—with the motherland, the Chinese nation, the Chinese culture, the Party, and socialism with Chinese characteristics—among all ethnicities. And the key to such identification is a common language, Xi argues, calling for “comprehensive efforts to popularize the standard spoken and written Chinese language and the use of unified state-compiled textbooks, so as to facilitate shared psyche and future through communication.”
The revised Standard Language Law reflects the latest developments in China’s language policy, most visibly in its General Provisions. The Law’s legislative purpose now expressly includes “forging a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation” and “strengthening cultural self-confidence” (art. 1). It also newly requires “the State’s language undertakings” [国家语言文字事业] to uphold the Party’s leadership and requires using the national common language in a way that “inherits and develops fine Chinese culture [中华优秀文化] and builds a shared spiritual home for the Chinese nation” (art. 5). In addition, the revision codifies the long-standing practice of promoting Mandarin Chinese during the third week of September, (re)designating it as the “National Common Language Promotion, Popularization, and Publicity Week” [国家通用语言文字推广普及宣传周] (art. 8, para. 2), to “create a social atmosphere for learning and using” the common language.
The Law’s core substantive provisions define the national common language, outline the settings in which it must be used and any applicable exceptions, and specify enforcement mechanisms. We summarize these provisions below, with a focus on the changes introduced by the revision. For those interested, we have prepared a chart comparing the 2000 Law and the two versions of the revision.
The National Common Language
The Standard Language Law defines the “national common language” [国家通用语言文字] as Putonghua [普通话] (or Standard Mandarin Chinese) and Standard Chinese characters [标准汉字] (i.e., the officially recognized Simplified Chinese characters promulgated by the State Council in 2013) (art. 2). The revision adds a new clause declaring that, in case it was not already clear, the national common language is the “language statutorily designated by the State for nationwide use” (id.).
Given this definition, the following languages and forms are therefore non-standard under the Law, and their use is generally prohibited in covered settings (to be discussed in the following sections):
- foreign languages;
- what the Law terms “dialects” [方言], which encompasses both regional varieties of Mandarin (e.g., the Beijing dialect, on which Standard Mandarin is largely based) and non-Mandarin Sinitic languages (e.g., Shanghainese); and
- variant Chinese characters [异体字] and traditional Chinese characters [繁体字].
Of course, that definition also excludes ethnic minority languages. But the revised Law has retained the article that, as a formal matter, subjects the use of minority languages to a separate legal regime under “the relevant provisions of the Constitution, the Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law [民族区域自治法], and other laws” (art. 9, para. 2). That article also continues to recite the constitutional guarantee that all ethnicities “have the freedom to use and develop their own spoken and written languages” (id. para. 1; accord PRC Const. art. 4, para. 4).
What is belied by this textual continuity—though hinted at by another change we will discuss below—is that the separate regime governing minority languages has undergone profound changes in recent years. The permissible domains of their use have shrunken dramatically, particularly in schools, giving way to Putonghua.
Required and Encouraged Uses
Chapter II of the Standard Language Law sets out the settings in which use of the national common language is required (or, in one instance, encouraged).1 The table below summarizes these settings and the applicable rules, including setting-specific exceptions. The Law also provides for several universal exceptions to those requirements, which we will introduce in the next section. For brevity, we will refer to the national common language as the “standard language” or simply “Chinese” below.
Among all covered settings, education is a key battleground that warrants special attention. From the state’s perspective, schooling is core to its project of universalizing the standard language, whereas to speakers of minority languages, it is essential to realizing their constitutional right to “use and develop” their own languages.
The revised Law retains the requirement that schools and other educational institutions use the standard language as the “basic” medium of instruction, while deleting the provision allowing for statutory exceptions to that general rule, on the ground that it is “no longer necessary” (art. 11, para. 1). The revision also requires schools to use “unified state-compiled textbooks” [国家统编教材] as directed by national authorities (id. para. 2).
These amendments reflect a new model of bilingual education for minority students—implemented most recently in Inner Mongolia since 2020 and sparking public anger—under which all subjects are taught in Chinese, except for a “language and literature” course in the relevant minority language. This “Model 2” has since replaced the prior “Model 1” of using a minority language as the medium of instruction, with Chinese taught as a subject.
This policy shift rests in part on an aggressive reading of China’s constitutional policy of “promoting the nationwide use of Putonghua” (art. 19, para. 5), adopted by the NPCSC Legislative Affairs Commission, the body responsible for reviewing local legislation for legal infirmities. The Commission appears to have interpreted that provision to mandate Mandarin-medium education, thereby limiting the otherwise ambiguous “bilingual education” [双语教学] requirement for ethnic schools under the 2015 amendments to the Education Law [教育法] to “Model 2” only.2
In public writings, the Commission has never seriously considered whether—and if so, how—its decisions implicated the minority groups’ constitutional and statutory “freedom to use and develop” their own languages—a right it mentioned only in passing.3 Nor did it engage with Article 37 of the Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law, which still explicitly requires that ethnic schools, “when conditions permit, use textbooks in minority languages and use minority languages as the media of instruction” (art. 37, para. 3).
Since 2021, Inner Mongolia and the Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture in Jilin Province, among other ethnic autonomous areas, have repealed contrary local legislation at the Commission’s request.
| Setting | Applicable Rules |
|---|---|
| Official business | The standard language must be used, except as otherwise provided by statutes (art. 10). The Criminal Procedure Law [刑事诉讼法], for example, requires that criminal trials be conducted in the language commonly used in an area where ethnic minorities are concentrated or where multiple ethnic groups coexist (art. 9, para. 2). |
| Educational institutions | As discussed earlier, the standard language must be used as the “basic medium of instruction,” and unified state-compiled textbooks must be adopted (art. 11, paras. 1–2). The revision also newly requires students to have a “basic grasp” of the standard language upon the completion of compulsory education (i.e., by Grade 9) (id. para. 3). |
| Publications in Chinese | They must comply with the relevant specifications and standards issued by the State Language Commission [国家语言文字工作委员会] (the Ministry of Education’s alter ego) (art. 12, para. 1). Where foreign languages need to be used, they must be accompanied by explanatory notes in Chinese (id. para. 2). |
| Radio and television | Chinese must be the “basic broadcasting language” (art. 13, para. 1). To broadcast in a foreign language, the approval of the National Radio and Television Administration is required (id. para. 2). |
| “Public-facing service sector” [公共服务行业] | Standard Chinese characters must be used as the “basic script” (art. 14, para. 1). Foreign scripts may be used in materials such as shop signs, advertising, notices, and signage, but must be accompanied by Standard Chinese characters, which—in a new requirement—must appear prominently (id.). The sector is “encouraged” to adopt Putonghua as the language of service (id. para. 2). |
| Audiovisual programs | The standard language must serve as the “basic language” for radio, film, and television, and—as added by the revision—for online publications as well (including online audiovisual programs and online games) (art. 15, items 1–2). |
| Public signage | The standard language must serve as the “basic language” on public facilities (id. item 3). |
| Marketing and product information | The standard language must serve as the “basic language” for (1) shop signs and advertising and (2) the names, packaging, and instructions of goods sold domestically (id. items 4, 6). |
| Organizational names | The standard language must serve as the “basic language” for the names of enterprises and public-service institutions (id. item 5). |
| International exhibitions and conferences | The revised Law newly requires the parallel use of Chinese for any foreign languages that appear in signage and promotional materials at those events (art. 16). The final draft of the revision limits this requirement to physical media, so appears to exempt, for instance, non-Chinese speeches. |
| Information technology (IT) and online platforms | The Chinese used in information-processing and IT products must meet the relevant national specifications and standards (art. 17). The revision extends this requirement to internet platforms (including websites and mobile apps) run by the government or offering public services (id.). |
| “International Chinese-language education” [国际中文教育] | Such programs must teach the standard language (art. 22). The revision has replaced the original term, “对外汉语教学” (literally “teaching the Han language to foreigners”), with the new official terminology adopted in 2019. |
The Law requires news announcers, program hosts, actors (whether in film, television, or spoken drama), teachers, and state employees to meet the Putonghua level required by separate regulations (art. 21, para. 1). It mandates training for those who do not yet satisfy the requirements (id.).
The revision newly authorizes sectoral regulators to determine, in conjunction with the State Language Commission, the Putonghua level required of the “public-facing workers” in industries such as culture, tourism, and transportation (id. para. 3).
Finally, the Law authorizes the State Language Commission or other relevant departments to approve standardized Chinese translations of foreign proper nouns (including personal and geographical names) and sci-tech terminology (art. 27). In practice, the Ministry of Civil Affairs, for example, has organized the drafting of a series of non-binding standards for translating foreign geographical names, while the China National Committee for Terminology in Science and Technology (managed by the Chinese Academy of Sciences) promulgates binding translations of technical jargon.
Permissible Uses of Non-Standard Forms
The Standard Language Law has always permitted the use (or appearance) of dialects and non-standard Chinese characters in those settings where the national common language must otherwise be used, as introduced in the previous section. These exceptions are listed in the table below.
| Non-Standard Forms | Permissible Uses |
|---|---|
| Dialects (art. 18) |
|
| Variant or traditional characters (art. 19) |
|
Enforcement Mechanisms
The revised Standard Language Law does not designate a single bureaucratic hierarchy for enforcement. Rather, it clarifies that sectoral regulators are responsible for enforcing the Law’s requirements within their respective domains (art. 23, para. 2; see art. 30). Specifically, market regulators are to police the language used in corporate names; in the names, packaging, and instructions of goods; as well as in advertising (art. 25). The State Language Commission, by contrast, only drafts language policy, formulates medium- to long-term work plans, and sets standards, including the levels of the Putonghua Proficiency Test (art. 23, para. 1; art. 26).
After discovering violations of the Law, private entities may complain to the violators directly or, now under the revised Law, may also report the violations to the responsible agency, which must “promptly handle” the reports (art. 28). The Law gives violators an initial opportunity to rectify and imposes punishments—warnings or circulation of notices of criticism, and disciplinary sanctions against responsible personnel—only when the violations persist (art. 30). It also authorizes other statutes and administrative regulations to prescribe different penalties. For example, under the State Council’s Regulations on the Administration of Publications [出版管理条例], a serious violation of the relevant standards and specifications on the national common language may lead to business suspension or revocation of the publishing license (see art. 67, item 8).
Finally, as to five occupations—news announcers, program hosts, actors, teachers, and state employees—the Law also explicitly authorizes their employers to “criticize and educate” those who violate the Law and to “handle” those who refuse to rectify, likely referring to disciplinary or adverse employment actions (art. 29).
The revised Standard Language Law took effect on January 1, 2026.
- A new provision, Article 15, item 7, authorizes statutes and administrative regulations to prescribe additional circumstances in which the standard language must serve as the “basic language.” ↩︎
- See 规范性文件备案审查案例选编（二） [Selected Cases of Recording and Reviewing Normative Documents (II)] 60–62, 95–97 (张勇 [Zhang Yong] ed., 2024). ↩︎
- See, e.g., id. at 96. ↩︎