English in the Chinese Foreign Language Classroom 9783034313094, 9783035106565, 2013042283

Table of contents :
Cover
Contents 5
Acknowledgements 9
Preface 11
Part 1 The Global spread of the Chinese and English languages 21
Chapter 1 Chinese as a foreign language (CFL) 23
The re-emergence of China and the Chinese language 23
A chronology of Chinese teaching 30
Linguistic accounts for the difficulty in learning Chinese 41
Learning Chinese in Chinese society 50
Chapter 2 English as a lingua franca (ELF) 57
The spread of English in the Expanding Circle 57
English in Europe and Asia 62
English in modern China 66
English in CFL education 70
Part 2 The paradigm shift in foreign language teaching 75
Chapter 3 Language choice and language pedagogy 77
Debating L1 use in the L2 class 77
Paradigm of the L2-only pedagogy 78
Paradigm shift to the multilingual pedagogy 84
Research on multilingual pedagogy 91
Chapter 4 Language choice in the Chinese context 101
The national language policy 101
The medium of instruction controversy 103
The monolingual norm: Chinese-only pedagogy 106
The multilingual reality: The ELF pedagogy 111
What is the ELF pedagogy 114
Part 3 How English is perceived and used in CFL 119
Chapter 5 English for CFL students 121
A bilingual questionnaire on student’s language attitudes 123
The portrait of a multilingual CFL class 125
Attitudes towards ELF pedagogy 133
Attitudes towards learning Chinese in China 135
What has influenced students’ language attitudes? 136
Students’ own comments on their language attitudes 137
Conclusion 140
Chapter 6 English for CFL teachers 145
A qualitative account of teachers’ perspectives 147
The virtual position: Chinese-only pedagogy 151
The maximal and optimal position: ELF pedagogy 158
Conclusion 164
Chapter 7 English in CFL classrooms 167
A classroom observation of actual language use 167
Three pedagogical funtions 169
Conclusion 186
Chapter 8 English in CFL textbooks 189
A short history of CFL textbook publications 189
Criticism of English in CFL textbooks 192
Surveys on the quality of English used in textbooks 195
Conclusion 203
Part 4 ELF pedagogy and beyond 207
Chapter 9 ELF pedagogy 209
A review of the research 209
Achieving a multilingual pedagogy: Start from simple 210
How to prepare for ELF pedagogy 213
Chapter 10 Future of Chinese foreign language teaching 219
Educating CFL teachers 219
Will Chinese replace English as a lingua franca? 226
From modernity to internationalization 228
World Chinese: Depoliticise CFL teaching 229
Future research 232
References 235
Appendix I: The questionnaire 265
Appendix II: The teacher interview protocol 271
Appendix III: Transcription conventions 273
Appendix IV: Textbooks reviewed 275

Citation preview

English in the Chinese Foreign Language Classroom

Danping Wang is an Assistant Professor at the Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong (THEi). She graduated from Renmin University in Beijing in English Linguistics and Chinese Linguistics and obtained her doctorate from the Hong Kong Institute of Education. Dr. Wang has taught Chinese as a foreign language at Universities in Beijing and Hong Kong. She has published several articles in both English and Chinese journals.

Danping Wang

Chinese is an ancient language, but the present scope of its global study is unprecedented. Comprehending the impacts of worldwide linguistic realities on ‘Chinese as a Foreign Language’ (CFL) teachers and students will be critical to its long-term success. The most important phenomenon has been the establishment of English as a lingua franca, especially in the expanding marketplaces of Asia. This book examines the role of English as a medium of instruction in CFL classrooms. It begins by integrating existing studies on the global spread of English with research on English as a medium of second language acquisition. Several valuable empirical analyses from actual CFL classrooms serve both to validate the use of English as a lingua franca and expose that much more work needs to be done to ground this practice in deep sociocultural and ecological settings. The author advocates the development of a new pedagogy that emphasizes taking account of specific cultural, social, and political contexts in order to reach an ever-more diverse body of students. The book concludes with a discussion of the role of English in China’s national education system and social development, as well as predictions about the future relationship between Chinese and English.

English in the Chinese Foreign Language Classroom Danping Wang

ISBN 978-3-0343-1309-4

www.peterlang.com

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

English in the Chinese Foreign Language Classroom

Danping Wang is an Assistant Professor at the Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong (THEi). She graduated from Renmin University in Beijing in English Linguistics and Chinese Linguistics and obtained her doctorate from the Hong Kong Institute of Education. Dr. Wang has taught Chinese as a foreign language at Universities in Beijing and Hong Kong. She has published several articles in both English and Chinese journals.

Danping Wang

Chinese is an ancient language, but the present scope of its global study is unprecedented. Comprehending the impacts of worldwide linguistic realities on ‘Chinese as a Foreign Language’ (CFL) teachers and students will be critical to its long-term success. The most important phenomenon has been the establishment of English as a lingua franca, especially in the expanding marketplaces of Asia. This book examines the role of English as a medium of instruction in CFL classrooms. It begins by integrating existing studies on the global spread of English with research on English as a medium of second language acquisition. Several valuable empirical analyses from actual CFL classrooms serve both to validate the use of English as a lingua franca and expose that much more work needs to be done to ground this practice in deep sociocultural and ecological settings. The author advocates the development of a new pedagogy that emphasizes taking account of specific cultural, social, and political contexts in order to reach an ever-more diverse body of students. The book concludes with a discussion of the role of English in China’s national education system and social development, as well as predictions about the future relationship between Chinese and English.

English in the Chinese Foreign Language Classroom Danping Wang

English in the Chinese Foreign Language Classroom

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

English in the Chinese Foreign Language Classroom Danping Wang

Peter Lang

Bern · Berlin · Bruxelles · Frankfurt am Main · New York · Oxford · Wien

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Bibliographic information published by die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie ; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at ‹http://dnb.d-nb.de›. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data : A catalogue record for this book is available from The British Library, Great Britain Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Wang, Danping, English in the Chinese foreign language classroom / Danping Wang. pages cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-3-03-431309-4 (alk. paper) – ISBN 978-3-03-510656-5 (eBook) 1. English language–Study and teaching–Chinese speakers. 2. English language– Study and teaching–Foreign speakers. 3. English language–Study and teaching– China. 4. English teachers–China. 5. China–Languages. I. Title. PE1068.C5W36 2013 428.0071'051–dc23 2013042283

ISBN 978-3-0343-1309-4 pb.

ISBN 978-3-0351-0656-5 eBook

© Peter Lang AG, International Academic Publishers, Bern 2014 Hochfeldstrasse 32, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland [email protected], www.peterlang.com All rights reserved. All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. Printed in Switzerland

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Contents

Acknowledgements .............................................................................. 9 Preface ................................................................................................ 11 Part 1 The Global spread of the Chinese and English languages ...... 21 Chapter 1 Chinese as a foreign language (CFL) ...................... 23 The re-emergence of China and the Chinese language ......... 23 A chronology of Chinese teaching ........................................ 30 Linguistic accounts for the difficulty in learning Chinese .... 41 Learning Chinese in Chinese society .................................... 50 Chapter 2 English as a lingua franca (ELF) ............................. 57 The spread of English in the Expanding Circle ..................... 57 English in Europe and Asia ................................................... 62 English in modern China ....................................................... 66 English in CFL education ...................................................... 70 Part 2 The paradigm shift in foreign language teaching ..................... 75 Chapter 3 Language choice and language pedagogy................ 77 Debating L1 use in the L2 class ............................................ 77 Paradigm of the L2-only pedagogy ....................................... 78 Paradigm shift to the multilingual pedagogy......................... 84 Research on multilingual pedagogy ...................................... 91 Chapter 4 Language choice in the Chinese context ................ 101 The national language policy .............................................. 101 The medium of instruction controversy .............................. 103

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

The monolingual norm: Chinese-only pedagogy ................ 106 The multilingual reality: The ELF pedagogy ...................... 111 What is the ELF pedagogy .................................................. 114 Part 3 How English is perceived and used in CFL ........................... 119 Chapter 5 English for CFL students ....................................... 121 A bilingual questionnaire on student’s language attitudes .. 123 The portrait of a multilingual CFL class ............................. 125 Attitudes towards ELF pedagogy ........................................ 133 Attitudes towards learning Chinese in China ...................... 135 What has influenced students’ language attitudes? ............. 136 Students’ own comments on their language attitudes ......... 137 Conclusion ........................................................................... 140 Chapter 6 English for CFL teachers ....................................... 145 A qualitative account of teachers’ perspectives .................. 147 The virtual position: Chinese-only pedagogy...................... 151 The maximal and optimal position: ELF pedagogy ............ 158 Conclusion ........................................................................... 164 Chapter 7 English in CFL classrooms .................................... 167 A classroom observation of actual language use ................. 167 Three pedagogical funtions ................................................. 169 Conclusion ........................................................................... 186 Chapter 8 English in CFL textbooks ...................................... 189 A short history of CFL textbook publications ..................... 189 Criticism of English in CFL textbooks................................ 192 Surveys on the quality of English used in textbooks ........... 195 Conclusion ........................................................................... 203 Part 4 ELF pedagogy and beyond ..................................................... 207 Chapter 9 ELF pedagogy ........................................................ 209 6 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

A review of the research ...................................................... 209 Achieving a multilingual pedagogy: Start from simple ...... 210 How to prepare for ELF pedagogy ...................................... 213 Chapter 10 Future of Chinese foreign language teaching ...... 219 Educating CFL teachers ...................................................... 219 Will Chinese replace English as a lingua franca? ............... 226 From modernity to internationalization ............................... 228 World Chinese: Depoliticise CFL teaching......................... 229 Future research .................................................................... 232 References ........................................................................................ 235 Appendix I: The questionnaire ......................................................... 265 Appendix II: The teacher interview protocol.................................... 271 Appendix III: Transcription conventions.......................................... 273 Appendix IV: Textbooks reviewed ................................................... 275

7 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to people who saw me through the process of writing this book. First of all, I would like to thank Professor Andy Kirkpatrick at the Griffith University for guiding me through this research project while we were both working at the Hong Kong Institute of Education. Without him, my research interests would never have been formed into a well-designed research project and now a scholarly monograph. Special thanks go to Professor Li Wei at Birkbeck, University of London and Dr Lawrence Zhang Jun at the University of Auckland for their insightful comments on my work. I am also grateful to Professor Li Quan at the Renmin University of China in Beijing, who encouraged me to integrate my knowledge of English language education with the study of the teaching of Chinese as a foreign language. Needless to say, this book could only have been accomplished with the help of many individuals. I am very grateful to those people who kindly agreed to participate in questionnaire surveys, individual interviews and classroom observations for research purposes in four key universities in Beijing. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to my lovely friends and colleagues in the Hong Kong Institute of Education. Particular thanks are due to Professor Phil Benson, Kathy Wong, Magdalene Wong for their consistent care and help during the preparation of the manuscript. Most of all, my profound gratitude goes to my family in Beijing, always supportive and warm, where the most powerful courage came from for me to face challenges in work and life in Hong Kong.

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Preface

The reemergence of China has attracted voluminous media coverage and the resulting global craze for learning Chinese as a foreign language (CFL) has led to academic studies of this phenomenon (Duff, 2013; Everson and Xiao, 2009; Gil, 2008; Lo Bianco, 2007; McDonald, 2011; Tsung and Cruikshank, 2010; Xing, 2006). CFL teaching and learning of Chinese is growing quickly, both as a language education market and as an independent discipline, both in undergraduate and postgraduate studies in China’s higher education institutions. There were over 100 million CFL learners worldwide by 2010 and by the end of 2011, there were 861 Confucius Institutes and Classrooms established in 106 countries and regions in the world (Hanban, 2012). Within the People’s Republic of China, there has also been a surge in the numbers of international students of Chinese: a record high of 292,611 students in 2011 from 194 different countries were studying in 660 universities and institutes in 31 provinces, according to the statistics released by the China Association for Foreign Students Affairs (2011). The large influx of international students of Chinese has quickly and inevitably brought different cultures and languages into the CFL classroom and into society. Prior to the global Chinese craze, English had spread widely around the world, and the number of English speakers is still increasing steadily, especially in what Kachru calls the “Expanding Circle” (Graddol, 2006; Jenkins, 2009b: 18; Kachru, 1985; 1992) where English is spoken as a foreign language. In the CFL classroom, it has been widely noted that Chinese teachers use English as a lingua franca (ELF) to assist their teaching in a number of ways, such as explaining Chinese grammar, directing classroom activities, giving assignments and introducing Chinese culture to their students. However, English is not exclusively used between native

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

speakers of English and Chinese teachers in the CFL classroom but among everyone who shares English as a common language, which is, as demonstrated by one of the studies in this book, the majority of CFL students. The popularity of the Chinese language and the fast development of ELF worldwide together mean that a new cultural and academic milieu of foreign language teaching and learning has evolved which requires more empirical attention. Based on the previous studies on the global spread of English and the growing importance of the Chinese language, this book focuses on the role of English in the CFL classroom, and specifically, how English can be used as a lingua franca, and more importantly, as a medium of instruction for teaching and learning the Chinese language. Chinese is an ancient language but teaching it internationally is fairly new. The language situation of today’s world is drastically different from that which existed in the past. English has become the most important global language, more widespread than any other language has ever been. However, few studies have been done on the impact of this global linguistic environment on foreign language teaching and learning, specifically on how the global spread of English as an international language influences CFL learners and teachers. Focusing on this previously neglected topic, this book has developed “ELF pedagogy” for preparing CFL teachers for a multilingual world and calls for improving CFL teaching not only from the linguistic side, but also from the social and global perspective. This book will contribute to a significant scholarly debate on the role of English in China’s education system and discussions of the future relationship between Chinese and English. The discussion of the role and use of English in CFL classrooms draws on the theoretical framework of a paradigm shift and a changing attitude towards first language (L1) use in second language (L2) teaching and learning. Research about using learners’ L1 or familiar languages in foreign language classrooms has been one of the most extensively researched topics in recent years (Butzkamm and Caldwell, 2009; Levine, 2011; Littlewood and Yu, 2009; Swain, Kirkpatrick and Cummins, 2010; Turnbull and Dailey-O’Cain, 2009; Wang Danping, 12 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

2010; 2012; Wang and Kirkpatrick, 2012), not only in the context of English as a Second Language (ESL), but also in the teaching and learning of German, French, Chinese and other foreign languages. It has proved not only necessary but also a pressing task to reexamine the overarching language policy whereby only the target language is allowed to be used in the L2 classroom. However, a comprehensive study of the issue of medium of instruction in CFL teaching is a relatively a new topic in foreign language education research. Previous empirical studies have suggested that EFL is becoming a de facto medium of instruction in CFL classroom teaching and learning (Wang Danping, 2012; 2013b) though “Chinese-only” pedagogy remains the predominant language policy in CFL teaching. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the current situation of language choice in CFL classrooms in China. Plenty of studies have been done on teaching Chinese linguistics, but very few have been done on the role and function of English in CFL teaching. Moreover, there is virtually no empirical research which strives to explore CFL teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards English use in teaching and learning CFL. The present research is designed to fill these gaps, investigating the actual situation of code choices for CFL teachers and students and eliciting CFL teachers and students’ attitudes towards English use, as well as describing how they practice the ELF pedagogy in natural classroom settings. This book looks at the use of English in the CFL classroom in a sociocultural and ecological perspective. It brings together two important areas in language teaching and learning research by exploring the impact of the globalization of English on Chinese foreign language education. Interest in classroom language choice, reflected in three recent books by Glenn Levine (2011), Miles Turnbull and Jennifer Dailey-O’Cain (2009) and Wolfgang Butzkamm and John A. W. Caldwell (2009) has been prompted by a growing number of studies on multilingual education through pedagogy development. There has also been a growth of interest in the encounters between the Chinese English languages. Feng Anwei (2007) suggests an additive relationship between Chinese and English, through various studies on bilin13 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

gual education as a site for these two eminent languages to be combined. Joseph Lo Bianco, Jane Orton and Yihong Gao (2009) examined the role of English in China’s education system and called for future research on the English language from “object of instruction” to “medium of instruction”. In a similar sense, this book also advocates the notion of English as a lingua franca, not only “as language produced” in the communicative marketplace of an expanding Asia, but also “as pedagogy”, which can be employed by foreign language teachers. If the Chinese language is to become another global language, the first step is to define the role of English in CFL teaching. It is a fact that the world today has been very powerfully dominated by western countries and cultures, but this should not be seen solely as a threat to Chinese tradition and identity. Given that the English language is the key to the gateway of the western world, there is no reason to stigmatize it and keep it isolated from CFL teaching and learning. A culture needs both to continue to develop its own traditions and so remain national, and also to update itself through the influence of other cultures (Orton, 2009: 283). Hoping to predict which language will triumph in the end is futile. Similarly, discussing whether English will be replaced by Chinese only serves an ideological purpose, but hardly has any pedagogical impact. To let the world hear China, CFL teaching may need to take the “English Express” in the first place and learn good practice from the successful models of English in foreign language education. Through English, the Chinese culture can open the country and its heritage to foreigners in a more comfortable and convenient way, which is beneficial for both China and the rest of the world. Why this book There are many reasons why I have become deeply involved in research on CFL teaching and learning in the context of the global spread of English. First of all, China has become the fastest growing 14 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

destination for college students studying abroad, who have a strong interest in learning the Chinese language. The increasingly diversified student population in CFL classes has made it imperative that teachers’ pedagogical practices be examined in the light of the different cultures and languages brought into the Chinese classroom by these students. Therefore, examining the issue of the medium of instruction has become an urgent issue. On the other hand, the spread of English around the world has resulted in many people using English as a lingua franca in cross-cultural communications. As a result, debates are unavoidable among those teachers who teach such students through using English to assist their learning of the Chinese language and their understanding of Chinese culture. For this reason, this book aims at integrate studies of the internationalization of English with the teaching and learning of the Chinese language by focusing on investigating whether English as a lingua franca plays a role as an alternative pedagogy in the CFL classroom, and how ELF can be used judiciously in that context. However, the CFL academy has apparently not adjusted itself to this multilingual reality. In an annual academic conference on CFL teaching that took place in Xiamen, China in November 2010, I gave a paper on the role of English in CFL teaching. The theme of the conference was “innovations” in teaching philosophy and practice, and this promised to make the topic of my presentation seem less challenging. However, it turned out to be a “bold”, “controversial”, “disturbing” and even “dangerous” talk that I was apparently giving, and it certainly resulted in a longer discussion than the presentation itself. Some scholars, educators and teachers in the lecture hall found it a bizarre idea to study how to use English to assist CFL teaching, because for them the ultimate goal of CFL teaching and learning was to reduce the influence of English rather than to promote its importance. Their arguments included assertions such as “speaking English can only benefit native English speakers”, “an immersion program is in accordance with best practice”, “students dislike teachers speaking English” and so on. To challenge these unproven assumptions, I decided to extend my research onto a larger scale, in order to provide 15 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

some empirical evidence to show that the CFL academy should acquire a global perspective and see English as a developing teaching pedagogy for CFL teachers and students, regardless of its controversial status in Chinese language education in China. One of the chief editors of a leading journal of CFL studies who sat on my discussion panel personally acknowledged my efforts, but verbally rejected the publication of my paper because it was “irrelevant”, “sensitive” and “incorrect”; this has also prompted the publication of this book. Overview of the book The book is organized so as to provide the reader with a broad understanding of the research issues on classroom language use in the CFL context. This will be supported by empirical evidence from a databased study that will present new insights into the paradigm shift in foreign language education and its implications for pedagogic innovation and teacher development. Specifically, this book consists of four parts in ten chapters. The first part deals with the two research backgrounds, namely the growth in popularity of Chinese as a foreign language, and the role of English as a lingua franca, and sets the scene in broader terms. Chapter 1 will provide a comprehensive review of CFL education from an interdisciplinary perspective. Chapter 2 offers close discussion of the spread of English as a lingua franca, identifying the unique status of English for China’s modernization as well as its highly controversial role in CFL education. Many of the issues which subsequently emerge from the data can be linked back to the patterns and backgrounds traced here. Part two elaborates the theoretical framework which guides subsequent analysis of the data. Chapter 3 begins with reviewing the literature to set the analytical framework and describes the discrepancies between the monolingual norm and the multilingual reality in foreign language classrooms. The conceptual framework of this study focuses on a paradigm shift has effected a rethinking of the traditional monolingual approach in foreign language teaching. Chapter 4 considers 16 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

national language policy, and introduces the current debate on English use in CFL classes. In line with the paradigm shift in foreign language teaching, the CFL classroom is also facing a potential pedagogical reform from a Chinese-only approach to a multilingual approach. Part three provides a multi-case study to look closely into this issue and attempts to liberate CFL teachers and students from the constraints brought about by the unproven assumptions, myths, and anecdotes identified in Part two. With regard to the research design, this study was constructed on the basis of a comprehensive literature review of previous studies of language of instruction issues with equal attention to L2 students, L2 teachers and L2 classroom practice and L2 textbooks. It goes on to encompass four studies which have taken account of perspectives from CFL learners, CFL teachers, CFL classroom interactions and CFL textbooks. Four interrelated studies are presented to provide empirical support for the “ELF pedagogy” that CFL teachers and students have co-constructed as an alternative pedagogy to the dominant “Chinese-only pedagogy”. Chapter 5 focuses on CFL learners’ attitudes towards English in CFL classes, Chapter 6 on CFL teachers’ beliefs about English for teaching and their career development, Chapter 7 on identifying patterns of English use in actual classroom practice and Chapter 8 on problems with English used in CFL textbooks. Each chapter introduces the research design in general and presents the detailed research results. All these four studies have found that a considerable amount of English is used by teachers and learners in the CFL classroom and in textbooks, however in various degrees of both quality and quantity, and for certain purposes. The final part considers the implications of this “ELF pedagogy” and suggests some changes that CFL education needs to make to ensure that the Chinese language reaches the world. Chapter 9 starts with a brief summary of this research, then discusses the research findings, and, lastly, puts forth suggestions for the future study of Chinese language teaching and learning in the global multilingual context. It focuses on pedagogic development and identifies English competence one of the most important skills for CFL teachers to possess in order to cope with a growing multilingual and multicultural classroom. 17 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Chapter 10 presents some final remarks regarding CFL teacher education and the future of the Chinese language. It points out that the traditional hierarchies of the CFL academy and the unpromising career trajectory of CFL teachers are holding back the development of CFL education. It then considers the competing yet interactive relationship between the English and Chinese languages and suggests that neither English nor Chinese will be replaced by each other in the foreseeable future. It calls for depoliticizing the question of CFL teaching so as to allow space for discussions of pedagogic development and innovations. The book ends by concluding that the reform of Chinese language pedagogy might bring internationalization to the Chinese language and culture in a similar way that Chinese language reform has led China toward modernization during the last century. To whom this book is addressed What is discussed and examined in this book will appear controversial to many of those institutionally trained Chinese language teachers and educators in China and elsewhere. For a long time, they have considered themselves as the only source of authority in teaching and learning the Chinese language, both locally and internationally. In this book, I sincerely acknowledge their hard work and effort in Chinese linguistic studies in the last few decades, but I also have to say that it is their established standards and lack of spirit in pedagogic innovation that are impeding the development of Chinese language education in the new era. A reform in Chinese language pedagogy is urgently needed. Despite resistance from the traditional Chinese language teaching profession, I hope this book can bring about some consensus and serve as a stepping-stone for further discussions of Chinese language teaching and learning. The aim of this book is not merely to repeat already formulated beliefs and practices from traditional Chinese language teachers or add another introductory work of Chinese language and culture to the existing stock of titles but rather, on the one hand, to produce an over18 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

view of Chinese language teaching and contribute new insights to the subject in a globalized context, and on the other hand, to critically examine the rationale and impact of language use in Chinese language classrooms in an ecological and sociocultural perspective. This book is particularly written for current and potential CFL learners, some of whom have studied painstakingly for years, yet still feel like outsiders, others who have just started learning the Chinese language but have been quickly overwhelmed by the very different Chinese teaching methods, and still others who wish to learn but are discouraged when their friends and teachers frequently refer to Chinese as the most difficult language to learn. It is also written for a group of young Chinese language teachers, who wish to experiment with new teaching approaches but are afraid of being marginalized by the dominant Chinese teaching tradition and those who wish to become teachers of Chinese, but are perplexed by the underdeveloped certification system and discouraged by the unclear career development and difficult employment situation they face both at home and abroad. I hope this book can also provide some insights into long-standing myths about the Chinese language and Chinese language education to international foreign language educators, curriculum developers, and policy makers who wish to incorporate Chinese foreign language teaching into their standardized foreign language education programs.

19 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Part 1 The Global spread of the Chinese and English languages

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Chapter 1 Chinese as a foreign language (CFL) The current discussions about the “emergence of China” and the increase in interest in the Chinese language have been well publicized in the news media. However, it is more accurate to refer to a “reemergence” of China and the Chinese language, since by both size and historical influence, China has long been a major power in East Asia (Nye, 2010). The time of peace in East Asia maintained by Chinese hegemony is now referred to as Pax Sinica. China maintained the dominant civilization in the region from the fifth to the fifteenth century due to its political, economic, military and cultural power. Only in the last half millennium was it overtaken by Europe and America. The re-emergence of China and the Chinese language suggests an important future presence for Chinese in research and in discussions about the communication profile of the world, but also within the language profession in places far from China itself (Lo Bianco, 2007: 4). This chapter will introduce the background and development of Chinese-as-a-foreign language (CFL) teaching from politico-economic, historical, linguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives in particular. The re-emergence of China and the Chinese language China held the Olympic Games in 2008 and the World Expo in 2010 for the first time in history. It surpassed Germany in 2007 and then Japan in 2010 to become the world’s second largest economy. In April 2011, the International Monetary Fund predicted that the size of China’s economy will surpass America’s by 2016, “far earlier than most mainstream economists have been forecasting” (Newman, 2011). Pew Research Center (2012) reported that China has already overshadowed the U.S. and will replace it as the world’s leading superpower. This

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

view is especially widespread in Western Europe, where at least six people in ten in France (72%), Spain (67%), Britain (65%) and Germany (61%) see China overtaking the U.S. The influential news magazine, The Economist, launched a weekly section devoted to China on 28th January 2012, in order to introduce China’s economy and society to the English-speaking world. The last time the magazine singled out a country for detailed coverage in this way was for the United States in 1942. The principal reason is that China is fast becoming an economic superpower, which will not only recast its own future but also shape the rest of the world. Mark Davis (2003) analysed the linguistic impact of this economic growth by calculating the proportion of world GDP that each language would account for by 2010 Such calculations raise many methodological questions, but some basic underlying trends are worth noting, in particular, the steady rise of the Chinese language. Figure 1.1 shows the percentage of the global economy accounted for by each language in 2010, as predicted in 2003.

Figure 1.1 The percentage of the global economy to be accounted for by each language by 2010.

24 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

As the figure shows, the world economy is trisected by English, Chinese and a few other top influential languages. However, while English is a major language, it accounts for slightly less than 30% of the world’s GDP, and is likely to account for far less in the future. In contrast, Chinese, estimated to account for around one quarter of world GDP, has seen a dramatic increase over the past few years and will keep growing fast in the near future. Davis’ prediction indicated that neglecting languages other than English means ignoring quite significant potential markets, among which Chinese is becoming the most important. As China is now the most important export market of many countries within the Asia Pacific region and beyond, and is also their major source of inward investment, the ability to speak Chinese will be of growing importance for trade, diplomacy and cultural exchange. Chinese is seen as an important language because knowledge of it can lead to a better job or bring economic benefits. Such perceptions are common in many parts of the world including native English-speaking countries. Globalization changes the conditions under which language learning takes place. People have always learned languages for economic reasons, but in a post-industrial economy, languages are coming to be treated more and more as economic commodities. Block and Cameron (2002: 5) summed this idea up by commenting that competence in one or two of the global languages represents valuable “linguistic capital”. With the rise of China’s economy, Chinese has become an important global language, used widely for communication among people from many different ethnicities and language backgrounds within and beyond the Asia-Pacific region. In many Asian countries, as well as the U.S. and Europe, Chinese has emerged as the new must-have language from kindergarten to university. Chinese is therefore gaining momentum internationally as a more widely studied language by students from non-Chinese ethnic backgrounds. Chinese has even been identified as the most important language for this millennium. As Dr. Raymond Ravaglia, Deputy Director of the Education Programme for Gifted Youth at Stanford University remarked:

25 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Latin had been the most important language for the first millennium. English has been the most important one for the second millennium. We believe that Chinese will be the most important one in the third millennium. It would be stupid if people today were not aware of the importance of Chinese (China News, 2007).

Similarly, in discussing China’s increasing economic and political importance, Lo Bianco (2007: 6) describes Chinese as potentially the “new English”. Svartvik and Leech (2006: 246) believe that “Chinese, now with more than twice the number of native speakers of any other language, will gain a more and more powerful role in the world of the coming decades, along with the increasing power of the Chinese economy”. A growing number of people around the world are beginning to acquire Chinese as a foreign language. The Report of the Language Situation in China, released by the Chinese Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, estimated that approximately 30 million people all over the world were learning Chinese as a foreign language in 2005 but that the number would have soon risen to 100 million in 2010 (Chinese Ministry of Education, 2006). This process has been actively promoted by the Chinese government with the establishment of Confucius Institutes all over the world. All Confucius Institutes are coordinated through the Confucius Institute Headquarters in Beijing, also known as Hanban, the Office of Chinese Language Council International. Hanban is composed of representatives from 12 ministries and commissions within the Chinese central government. Hanban was founded in 1987 under the direct auspices of the Chinese Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. Since the first overseas Confucius Institutes were set up in 2004 in South Korea, Hanban has been setting up Confucius Institutes and Confucius Classrooms to teach Chinese language and culture in overseas countries in a similar way to the UK’s British Councilsponsored schools of English, France’s Alliance Françaises and Germany’s Goethe Institutes. The Chinese Classroom is a junior version of the Institute aimed at secondary education rather than the university sector. Over recent years, the Confucius Institutes' development has been extremely rapid. Since 2004, a new Confucius Institute and Confucius Classrooms have sprung up every four days on average. By the 26 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

end of 2011, 861 Confucius Institutes and Classrooms had been established in 106 countries and regions in the world. In just eight years of existence, Confucius Institutes have already gained more branches than the British Council has acquired in over 60 years. Among all international cultural institutes, the Alliance Française has the biggest network, with 1,081 branches, but it has been in existence for over 120 years, while the German Goethe Institute maintains 149 institutes in 93 countries, having built its first one after World War II. In this context, the fast development of Confucius Institute project seems to be very impressive. The objective of the Confucius Institutes is primarily the teaching of the Chinese language and the promotion of Chinese culture. Hanban hopes to make Confucius Institutes a platform for cultural exchanges between China and the world as well as a bridge reinforcing friendship and co-operation between China and the rest of the world. According to Bloomberg (2011), the Chinese government had spent more than $500 million by 2011 on the Confucius Institute project and has plans to expand it further in the near future. Each Confucius Institute is set up through a partnership between a Chinese university and a university in the host country. According to Hanban, the establishment of the Confucius Institutes by partnering with academic institutions around the world is a very special design which helps to increase academic collaborations, to boost their connection with China, and enhance their own language and Chinese studies programmes. The host universities are expected to provide premises and a faculty member to serve as administrator. In return the school gets not just textbooks and teachers, financed by Beijing, but also financial support for a director’s salary. China has been quite assertive in this initiative, which has invited criticism and skepticism in the English-language discourse (Ding and Saunders, 2006; Hartig, 2012; Kurlantzick, 2007; Nye, 2005; Paradise, 2009; Starr, 2009). As China has become more integrated with and more attractive to the outside world with its rapid economic growth and increasing international influence, the Chinese government is itself on a drive to promote Chinese abroad, in hopes of putting it on a par with English. Hu 27 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Youqin, a National People’s Congress deputy and Chinese language professor, called for promoting Chinese for national purposes, and argued that promoting the use of Chinese among overseas people has “gone beyond purely cultural issues. It can help build up our national strength and should be taken as a way to develop our country’s soft power” (Xing Zhigang, 2006) (otherswise, “Xing” is for Xing Zhiqun). The Chinese leadership has recognized the importance of soft power in achieving comprehensive national power, and has accepted the mainstream academic view that the core of soft power is culture. Hu Jintao (Xinhua Net, 2007) at the 17th CPC congress in October 2007 said that “culture has increasingly become an important source of national cohesion and creativity and an important factor in the competition of overall national strength. And China must enhance the country’s cultural soft power.” The Chinese government published the National Outline for Medium and Long-Term Education Reform and Development (2010-2020) in 2010, which includes expanding international cooperation and higher education exchanges. Self-funding international students are set to become the largest overseas group in China, as the country plans to attract 500,000 of them by 2020, after a series of bilateral educational cooperation programmes launched in 2010. “It is an attempt to implement China's 10-year national education outline and an important part of the country's diplomatic work to show Chinese culture to the global community”, said Zhang Xiuqin, the director of the Ministry’s Department of International Cooperation and Exchange (Chen, 2010a). Figure 1.2 shows these trends.

28 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Thousands

2005

Prediction

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2020

Figure 1.2 China looks to attract more foreign students.

During his visit to China in 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama announced that the United States was committed to sending 100,000 more U.S. students to study in China over the next four years. China is the fastest growing destination for college students studying abroad. The then President Hu Jintao and his former French counterpart Nicolas Sarkozy vowed on Nov 4, 2010 to work together to increase the number of French students studying in China by 10,000 over the coming five years (Chen, 2010b). This is both an opportunity and a challenge to China’s education. The Minister of Education, Yuan Guiren said, “We encourage more presidents of universities, and heads of middle and primary schools to visit foreign countries and bring more of the Western educational concept to China.” He added “internationalization of education is a part of educational reform in China” (Chen, 2010b). For this reason, drawing on research into established language learning and teaching theories, reflecting the discussions or debates going on in the field of foreign language education (in particular the teaching of English as a foreign language), could be valuable for developing Chinese language educa-

29 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

tion. Such education serves as an integral part of the strategy to strengthen the cohesiveness of the Chinese nation. A chronology of Chinese teaching This section introduces the development of the teaching of Chinese as a foreign language from a historical perspective dating back to ancient times. Special attention will be given to the most recent 60 years from 1950 to 2010. Chinese for foreigners in ancient times Teaching Chinese to foreigners in China has a history of more than two thousand years. It began in the Han Dynasty, flourished in the Tang Dynasty and saw a resurgence in the Qing Dynasty before the country was officially disconnected from the outside world, with the establishment of the Canton System of Trade in 1757. Throughout history, the teaching of Chinese developed in two main ways: through formal school education and through the spread of religion. Spreading religion has been an important motivation for learning the Chinese language. Buddhism, Islam, and later, the spread of Catholicism and Christianity in China produced many world renowned sinologists, who studied the Chinese language and culture on their mission to spread their religions in China. In the Eastern Han Dynasty (25-220), the first surge of foreigners or non-Han ethnic groups arrived to study Chinese as a foreign language. The School for Four Ethnic Groups (⚃⥻⮷ὗ⬎, Si Xing Xiao Hou Xue), established in the year 66 CE, was the earliest school in history for teaching Chinese to foreigners (Fu, 1986: 3). At that time, teachers employed in this school were even more highly qualified than those in the imperial colleges. The reputation of the school soon spread abroad and the learning of Chinese as a foreign language became popular in countries nearby.

30 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

The interest in learning Chinese as a foreign language reached a peak in the Tang Dynasty (618-907). Emperors permitted Chinese classes for foreigners to take place in the National Hall in the Imperial Academy. Foreigners took around six to nine years to study the Chinese language before moving to Chinese philosophy, literature and other subjects. This model of Chinese education was continued in all the following dynasties. The earliest Chinese teacher deployed to teach Chinese overseas was the Monk Jian Zhen. After he arrived in Japan in 754, the Japanese emperor standardized the pronunciations of Kanji according to Jianzhen’s accent. Following him, hundreds of Japanese Buddhist monks were sent to China by the Japanese Government (715-748) to learn the Chinese language for translating Buddhist scriptures. In the Tang Dynasty, foreign students came to China from Tubo (Tibetan Tubo Dynasty), Silla and Goguryeo (two of the Three Kingdoms of Korea), and even came from as far away as today’s Arab countries. After Tazi (an Arab Kingdom) and China established diplomatic relations in 651, many Islamic missionaries learnt Chinese in Southern China and settled down there. In the late Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), Catholic missionaries from Portugal and Spain started to come to China. Later, with the introduction of Christianity, the teaching of Chinese was further promoted. The Italian Matteo Ricci (1552-1610) and the French missionary Nicolas Trigault (1577-1628) played an important role in bringing the Chinese language to the attention of Europe. Ricci arrived in Macau in 1582, and lived in China for about 30 years before his death in Beijing. Ricci was the first to offer the West a detailed account of the Chinese language in his diaries and journals, which were edited by Nicolas Trigault. It was also Matteo Ricci who first designed a scheme by which the sound system of Chinese characters could be alphabetized, and Nicolas Trigault refined Ricci’s system and published his “Aids to Listening and Reading for the Western Scholar (Xiru ermuzi)” in 1626. Western knowledge about the Chinese language began with missionaries and their practice in China. With their knowledge of Chinese language and culture, Matteo Ricci, Nicholas Trigault, Niccolo Longobardi, Michael Ruggieri and Johann Adam 31 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Schall von Bell all endeavoured to introduce western culture and science by writing in Chinese (Fu, 1986: 6). In the late Ming and early Qing Dynasty (1644-1912), many European missionaries from Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom came to spread their religions, and the first and primary task they had to undertake was the learning of the Chinese language, mostly through their personal efforts. Many indications of painstaking Chinese learning experiences can be found in the memoirs of world famous sinologists. Their work later influenced generations of sinologists and Chinese intellectuals. However, although there had been documents, reports and commentaries about the Chinese language, in fact, many of these works were “generally fragmented, unsystematic and inaccurate” (Tong, 2008: 500). The Russian Studies Hall was set up in 1690 in the Imperial Academy where a Chinese language programme was provided for four diplomats from Tsarist Russia. However, in the face of the first Industrial Revolution (1750-1830) in Europe and the growing imperial expansion of Britain in particular, the Qing Empire quickly declined. Fearing that its sovereignty would be overturned, Emperor Qianlong issued the Canton System of Trade, which forbade any direct trade between European merchants and Chinese civilians. The system, operated for roughly 150 years until the first Opium War with Britain brought it abruptly to a halt in 1842. During the time of the Canton System, China went through a period when it was forbidden to teach foreigners the Chinese language. Foreign language teaching and learning was officially banned when the country was secluded from the outside world in the fear of European expansionists attaining a foothold in China (Zhao and Huang, 2010). The Chinese government saw preventing foreigners from learning the language as a means of protecting national security and the imperial court of China was not willing to let westerners understand the country. As we know from some historical records, Chinese who offered to tutor westerners in the Chinese language could be imprisoned or even executed. For instance, in 1759, as Kane (2006) has described, a British missionary, James Flint, was arrested and jailed for three years because he had illegally learned to speak Chinese. Never32 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

theless, the teaching of Chinese language and culture resumed even before the old feudal system of the “Middle Kingdom” has reached a logical end in 1911. To summarise, in ancient and early modern times, the motives for learning Chinese primarily focused on spreading religion and doing business. Foreign students of Chinese mostly concentrated their study on speaking skills; while for translating scriptures and studying Sinology, writing skills were emphasized. During the warlord periods, famous Chinese writers, Lao She, Xiao Qian and many Chinese intellectuals were invited to teach Chinese language and culture in overseas universities. Although in China the practice of teaching Chinese to foreigners can be traced back to the Eastern Han Dynasty, it was not until the late 20th century that academics started to pay attention to teaching Chinese as a foreign language to foreigners as an independent discipline (Xing, 2006: 9). The expression “CFL teaching and learning” has only been used to represent Chinese teaching practice since 1949. Teaching Chinese as a foreign language since 1949 Since the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, CFL teaching and learning has developed hand in hand with China’s political situation, economic development and foreign policy. The development of CFL teaching in China since 1949 can be divided into four stages. The Initial stage (1950s – 1970s) CFL teaching started to serve China’s foreign diplomacy and the build-up of its international relations during the 1950s and the early 1960s, mainly in terms of working with socialist countries and the Third World (Cheng, 2005). Many Asian, African and Latin American countries established diplomatic relationships with China in quick succession. International students of Chinese therefore mostly came from countries such as Vietnam, Mongolia, North Korea, Kenya, Uganda, Cameroon, and Malawi. 33 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

China opened its education system for the first time to international students in 1950. In January 1951, 33 international students came to the newly-founded People’s Republic of China from Eastern Europe to study the Chinese language for diplomatic purposes and their arrival marked the beginning of CFL teaching in China. Under the direction of the Ministry of Education, a special course for Eastern European students in the Chinese language was set up at Qinghua University in Beijing. Following the global trend of foreign language teaching methods at the time of 1950s, this course used the Grammartranslation Approach, which focused primarily on studying literary texts. This method encouraged students to learn etymology, develop dictionary skills and master critical sentence structures (Xing, 2006: 7). However, the prerequisite for entering the CFL course required candidates to speak either fluent English or Russian (Cheng, 2005: 58). The importance of foreign languages as a medium of instruction was highly valued during this period of time. To take the Eastern European Chinese course as an example, CFL teachers usually gave a class in English first to introduce Chinese grammar knowledge and assigned exercises for students to practice (Zhao Jinming, 2009: 219). Coming from five different countries, namely, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, these 33 students of Chinese shared English as a common language. Therefore, the earliest model of the CFL classroom was in fact bilingual in Chinese and English. This model was regarded as an effective pedagogy since the class was kept communicative. With regard to CFL teacher development, it focused on training a teacher’s communication skills in a foreign language and preparing them for teaching Chinese abroad. In 1952, Zhu Dexi, one of the most famous Chinese linguists, was invited to teach Chinese in Sofia University in Bulgaria. He was the first CFL teacher sent by the new Chinese government to teach Chinese overseas. However, along with the rapid development of CFL teaching overseas, many countries began to require CFL teachers to have foreign language competence, which was considered as one of the basic qualifications for Chinese teachers to teach Chinese abroad. For this reason, in 1961, the Chinese gov34 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

ernment selected 35 top Chinese majors, and gave them 3-year foreign language training in English, French, Arabic or Spanish to enhance their ability to teach more effectively in these language mediums. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Education soon realized that it was not likely that Chinese majors would gain command of a foreign language very well in only three years and thus decided to set up a bachelor degree course in 1964, primarily for training qualified CFL teachers to teach Chinese abroad (Cheng, 2005: 86). All CFL teachers were strongly encouraged to learn a foreign language as well, to increase language awareness of the linguistic differences between Chinese and foreign languages (mainly English). That is to say, foreign language competence has long been a primary skill for CFL teachers, not only for teaching foreigners Chinese abroad but also within China. During the period 1950 to 1965, 7,259 CFL students from 68 countries came to study Chinese in China, and the teaching of CFL was somewhat similar to a “foundation course” preparing these students for entering universities in China. In order to meet the need of the fast gr owing number of CFL students, the establishment of the Beijing Language Institute was officially approved in 1965, the predecessor to the Beijing Language University. Unfortunately, all CFL teaching programmes in China were halted by the Cultural Revolution which lasted from 1966 to 1976, of which the period until 1971 was the most acute. With China’s admission to the United Nations in 1971, and President Nixon and Prime Minister Tanaka Kakuei’s much publicized visit to China in 1972, China resumed diplomatic communications with many “capitalist” countries. This called for an immediate resurgence of CFL teaching. In October 1972, Premier Zhou Enlai approved the reopening of the Beijing Language Institute, which received 383 CFL students from 42 countries in the following year. Nevertheless, learning Chinese was still forbidden in many neighbouring countries, including Indonesia, Cambodia and many others, because of the fear of revolution and social upheavals. From 1973 to 1977, 2,266 foreign students from 72 countries entered Chinese language programmes in China.

35 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

By the end of this period, CFL teaching methods had shifted to a Direct Approach, a shift which started in1964 under the influence of pedagogical developments in foreign language teaching (Fu, 1986: 284). As a result, the audio-lingual approach and pattern drills became the most popular teaching methods. However, it was believed to be a “relative” direct approach in CFL teaching (Cheng, 2005: 58) because while it favoured an exclusive use of the target language, it did not fully proscribe the use of students’ L1 as a medium of instruction. The opening-up stage (1980s - 1990s) China’s open-door policy in the late 1970s and early 1980s led to an increase of interaction in international relationships and brought CFL teaching into a new era (Zhao and Huang, 2010: 130). First of all, CFL students were not confined to Eastern European, Asian communist or “Third World” countries. The home countries of students gradually covered all continents, with a rapidly increasing number of students from Western European and North American countries as well as Japan. Second, CFL education was not limited to “foundation courses” for entering universities in China. Undergraduate CFL programmes began in 1978 and later Postgraduate CFL programmes were provided in only a few universities in China in 1985. One significant change was the beginning of “short courses (self-financed courses)”. In 1978, the arrival of 28 CFL students from France in China marked the beginning of the first short-term CFL courses. Shortly after, many universities started to offer summer programmes as well to meet the needs of an increasing number of international students visiting China for a short time. CFL students in 1978 numbered nearly two thousand, all of whom were provided with government scholarships. However, the number of students taking short self-funded courses quickly outweighed those taking degree courses with government supports. With regard to teaching methods during this period, the Direct Approach had lost its leading role and a Communicative Approach prevailed. As for diversifying the school curricula, the communicative approach gradually took over the structural syllabus, and the Task-

36 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

based Approach thrived. Since then, CFL teachers were introduced to different methods such as the “Silent Way”, “Total Physical Response”, “Suggestopedia”, etc. (Liu, 2006: 84-99; Zhao Jinming, 2010). Many of these teaching techniques are still practiced, leaving no particular approach being dominant. Such diverse methodologies indicated various aims of Chinese language teaching. Walton (1989: 16) argued cogently that “there were so many definitions of the substance of language study that it becomes difficult to find a common core of agreement of just exactly what Chinese language study is all about”. Without a comprehensive view of teaching methodology, I believed this may be one of the reasons why studies of Chinese methodologies and pedagogy remained underdeveloped. The professional development of more CFL teachers was needed not only to meet the demand from overseas, but also for providing sufficient qualified CFL teachers within China. In 1983, the first degree programme for CFL teacher education was officially set up in the Foreign Language Department in the Beijing Language Institute. Before this, CFL teachers were not organized as an independent profession. The flourishing stage (2000s to present) CFL teaching and learning has prospered most in the period from 2001 to the present, with the popularity of learning Chinese linked to the rapid development of China’s economy. The enrolment of international students in CFL courses has shown a very sharp increase since 2001. To be specific, the population of CFL students in China has kept increasing steadily at the rate of almost 20,000 per year between 2001 and 2009 with an exception of a slight drop in 2003 due to the outbreak of SARS in China (Yu, 2008: 79). Figure 1.3 presents a summary of statistics of the origin of CFL students in China from 2001 to 2011, released by the China Association for Foreign Students Affairs (henceforth, CAFSA).

37 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Figure 1.3 Origin of international students in China, by continent.

It can be seen that Asian students have remained the most dominant and fast-developing population. The next largest two populations were from Europe and America, constituting 16.2% and 11.1% respectively of the total number of CFL students in 2011. Although African and Oceanian students accounted for a small portion of the total, the number of students from the two continents has also increased steadily. With the rapid increase of CFL students in China, the demand for qualified CFL teachers is growing at an astonishing speed. Meanwhile, the growing importance of Chinese in overseas countries has called for more qualified CFL teachers to be able to teach Chinese abroad. According to government information, one CFL teacher is teaching around one thousand CFL students and therefore 4 million more CFL teachers will be needed to fill this global gap in the near future (Chinese Ministry of Education, 2006: 203). The numbers of CFL students in China surged to a record high of 292,611 in 2011, according to CAFSA. From 194 different countries, these CFL students were studying in more than 660 universities and language institutes in 31 provinces in mainland China (these figures 38 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

exclude those studying in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau). Of this total, 59.4% are studying Chinese in non-degree courses in either universities or language institutes in China. The top ten home countries of CFL students are: Korea (21.3%), United States (8.0%), Japan (6.1%), Thailand (4.8%), Vietnam (4.6%), Russia (4.6%), Indonesia (3.7%), India (3.2%), Pakistan (2.9%) and Kazakhstan (2.8%). The majority of CFL students from Korea are taking degree courses, whereas students from other countries have shown no particular patterns in taking degree or non-degree courses. These Korean students are having classes with other students and thus have formed highly linguistically diverse classrooms. The majority of CFL students are made up of many small groups from a large number of countries who speak different languages as their mother tongues. However, up to now, very little attention has been paid to the CFL classroom as a multilingual and multicultural setting. CFL programmes in various universities in China have been faring well, particularly in Beijing, the cultural, political, and educational center of the country. As one of the most popular places to learn Chinese, Beijing attracted more than 80 thousand college-age international students in 2010 from 183 countries, ranking first among all cities in China. According to the Beijing Municipal Commission of Education, by the end of 2010, there were 81 universities and 85 primary and secondary schools in Beijing offering Chinese language programmes to international students. However, CFL programmes in Beijing are mostly taught in universities and CFL students are studying Chinese for very diverse purposes, such as academic, business, or simply out of personal interest. The Beijing Language University is the only university in China which takes teaching and researching Chinese as its primary task. The Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi (HSK) developed by Beijing Language University, or the Test of Chinese as a Foreign Language (TOCFL), is regarded as an authoritative test similar in nature to TOEFL and IELTS. It is both nationally and internationally recognized as a standardized test to assess the Chinese proficiency of non-native speakers (including foreigners, overseas Chinese and students from Chinese national minorities). The HSK test aims to 39 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

be a certificate of language proficiency for higher educational and professional purposes and also promotes the systematic study of the standard Chinese language worldwide. The exam was enacted in 1991 and since 2000, the number of overseas candidates taking HSK has grown rapidly, as shown in Figure 1.4.

Figure 1.4 The number of overseas candidates taking the HSK during the period 1991-2011

CFL teaching and learning in China has developed at an astonishingly fast pace over the past 60 years, from having 33 international students from five Eastern European countries in 1951 to 292,611 from 194 countries in 2011. Examining the literature of Chinese pedagogy and acquisition makes it clear that the guiding principle of CFL teaching and learning has gradually changed in the last century from grammartranslation-based (1950s) to a more function-based (1960s-1970s) approach and then to a communicative-based one (1980s-1990s). With more and more factors (e.g. discourse, pragmatic, cultural, psychological, etc.) being identified as related to the process of teaching and acquisition, various teaching methods can be seen in use, but without specific trends (Xing, 2006: 11). The CFL teaching profession has been developing quickly as well. By 2009, 282 universities in China 40 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

were officially recognized for preparing qualified CFL teachers. Many young Chinese have been attracted to becoming teachers who teach their mother tongue to foreigners in China and preferably abroad. There was only one path to the teaching of Chinese as a foreign language before the Confucius Institutes were established. International students had to study abroad in China in order to get a proper Chinese language education. Since the appearance of the Confucius Institutes, Hanban has sent Chinese teacher volunteers to teach Chinese overseas, providing free Chinese textbooks for those who are interested in learning Chinese in their home countries. Now the learning and teaching of Chinese as a foreign language has become a twoway model, with its focus moving gradually from inward to outward. Linguistic accounts for the difficulty in learning Chinese Learning Chinese as a foreign language is rather complicated, particularly for those whose mother tongues are from different language families and who are not used to tonal languages and ideographic scripts. The difficulty possibly stems from language distance and the special characteristics of the Chinese language itself. Language distance That the learning of Chinese poses special difficulties for speakers of English has long been recognized. Among many studies, Kirkpatrick (1995) has explained reasons for the complexity of acquiring the Chinese language from the perspective of a person whose L1 is English. In order to measure the difficulty of the Chinese language, the School of Language Studies of the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) drew up a chart that divides languages into four groups. This is the “FSI scale”, which illustrated the expected levels of absolute speaking proficiency in languages taught at the FSI in April 1973.

41 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Table 1.1 The FSI scale.

Group I

Length of training

Groups of languages

240–720 hours

Afrikaans, Danish, Dutch, French, Haitian Creole, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Romanian, Spanish, Swahili, Swedish

Group II

480–1320 hours

Bulgarian, Dari, Farsi, Greek, Hindi, Indonesian, Urdu, German

Group III

480–1320 hours

Amharic, Bengali, Burmese, Czech, Finnish, Hebrew, Hungarian, Khmer (Cambodian), Lao, Nepali, Pilipino, Polish, Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Sinhala, Thai, Tamil, Turkish, Vietnamese

Group IV

480–2760 hours

Chinese, Arabic, Japanese, Korean

Group I, the easiest one, includes many languages cognate with English such as French, Italian and Spanish. These require 720 hours of intensive language study for adult students to reach basic proficiency. In contrast, Chinese is listed in Group IV, the “toughest” group, which requires 2760 hours for students to reach comparable proficiency (Cavalier, 1994: 129; Smith, 1993: 89). That means it takes four times longer for English speakers to reach basic proficiency in Chinese than in one of the easier languages in Group I. The relative degree of similarity between students’ L1 and L2, defined as the language distance, influences how much time students need to allocate to achieve high language proficiency (Elder and Davies, 1998). The study of language distance emerged in 1980s and many studies (Odlin, 1989) have provided support for this claim. For example, Crystal (1987: 371) argued: The structural closeness of languages to each other has often been thought to be an important factor in L2 learning. If the foreign language is structurally similar to the L1, it is claimed, learning should be easier than in cases where the L2 is very different. However, it is not possible to correlate linguistic difference and learning difficulty in any straightforward way, and even the basic task of quanti-

42 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

fying linguistic difference proves to be highly complex, because of many variables involved.

Further, Chiswick and Miller (2005) developed a quantitative measure of the “distance” between English and other languages. Such a measure provided a feasible operational measurement when references were needed to decide the linguistic distance between languages. However, most of the research so far has been done focusing on one branch of the “language family tree”. Chinese belongs to the SinoTibetan language family (including many other languages, the various Chinese dialects and languages, Burmese, Thai and Tibetan) whereas English and most European languages (including Bengali, English, French, German, Hindi/Urdu, Italian, Marathi, Punjabi, Persian, Brazilian Portuguese, Russian, the Scandinavian languages, and Spanish) are from the Indo-European language family. According to the language distance theory, Chinese remains one of the Less-Commonly Taught Languages in the United States and many other Indo-European language countries. Learning less commonly taught languages can produce strong negative affective reactions from the students which may hinder their learning motivation (Samimy and Tabuse, 1992). The high-demand level of the learning task may lessen motivation in learning the Chinese language as students face new challenges like mastering the four tones and the complicated scripts as well as the different syntactic structure. Even though learning Chinese in China is different from learning it in the English-speaking countries, the features of the target language and the distance between Chinese (the L2) and the student’s L1 still influence motivation, learning strategies and outcomes. However, the language distance theory is seldom considered in CFL classes. CFL teachers tend to treat everyone alike, and see themselves as landscaping the Chinese language on a blank slate in the student’s brain, regardless of their linguistic backgrounds and individual differences. However, there’s not only typological distance, but cultural distance as well, which will be discussed later in this chapter.

43 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Difficulties of learning the Chinese language The tonal and the logographic writing system of Chinese are regarded as two of the most challenging parts in the learning of Chinese as a foreign language (Walton, 1989). In a recent popular narrative of Chinese learning, an American linguist, Deborah Fallows (2010: 171), through her personal encounters of language learning, wrote that “Chinese dishes out a heavy dose of visual and oral demands, starting with the burdens of characters and tones.” Daniel Kane (2006: 11), an Australian linguist, also found the sound and form of the Chinese language extremely difficult to command. He said “Spoken Chinese sounds like a rapid series of almost identical monosyllables with rising and falling intonations. Written Chinese looks like a random set of stokes, dots and dashes. In its handwritten form it looks like a series of undifferentiated squiggles.” Acquiring these two features of the Chinese language can be accomplished by a dedicated learner. However, these two features of Chinese are not new to speakers from some Asian countries near to China. Chinese has been the historical language of learning in much of the Far East and has been a major influence in the past on the Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese, Thai and some other peoples, though the cultural influence of China has declined sharply over the past few hundred years. It explains why students from these Asian countries can effortlessly excel in a CFL class while most of the Western learners are still struggling with the tones and simple strokes. Tonal phonetic system A different tone makes a big difference in lexical meaning in the Chinese language. The Indo-European language family lacks a tonal system, which makes it one of the most difficult linguistic features to master in the learning of Chinese. Many international students find it hard to sound the tones correctly and master the four tones accurately and therefore confound mƗ (mother), má (hemp), mӽ (horse), and mà (revile), pronouncing all of these words as undifferentiated ma. They make lots of mistakes in oral communication, consequently being 44 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

labeled as having a “㲳僼㲳宫” (foreign accent). The examples of ma’s four tones are clearly distinguished both when accurately pronounced and when written in Chinese characters, as each is represented by a different character. DeFrancis (1984:6) argued that “tones would undoubtedly be the first casualty, as they had been in Korea, Japan, and to a lesser extent, Vietnam and Myanmar where the indigenous language was either tonal to begin with or became tonal in the course of its history”. However, tones to most students speaking IndoEuropean languages are certainly the first formidable challenge. Logographic writing system The Chinese language has a distinctive logographic writing system which is highly complex. The Chinese writing system has a long history of more than four thousand years. Chinese characters are conventionally called ideographs or ideograms, and these written symbols of the Chinese language mostly represent meanings, leaving only a small proportion of the components representing the sound. The independence of the written script from the spoken language makes Chinese learning an extremely time-consuming task. By contrast, the writing system of languages of the Indo-European language family consists of a series of graphemes to represent sounds, written out in an alphabet. The Chinese characters constitute a system of writing obviously different in appearance from alphabetic scripts. Figure 1.5 shows the systems of writing used in languages (Weber, 1997).

45 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Figure 1.5 Numbers of languages within different systems of writing.

Today, there are 172 languages using Latin script, 38 using Cyrillic, 22 using Arabic, 20 using Devanagari but merely two languages (Chinese per se and Japanese Kanji) using the Chinese script. Both North and South Korea have gradually abandoned the general use of Hanja in recent decades, leaving only older generations able to read Chinese characters. Vietnam has departed significantly due to its wide adoption of the Latin alphabet. Unfamiliarity with the writing system poses another difficulty in learning the Chinese language for students used to the Latin system of writing. The writing system of Chinese is a real obstacle and is believed to be one of main reasons driving away many CFL students who use the Latin alphabet. However, in fact, throughout history, more than two Asian languages and cultures have been influenced by the Chinese language and Chinese culture, which has, to some extent, formed a culture circle. James Matisoff (1990) coined the term “Sinosphere” to refer to the “Chinese character culture circle”. It refers to a grouping of countries and regions that currently have a majority Chinese population or were historically under Chinese linguistic and cultural influence. The writing systems of Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese are closely in46 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

fluenced by Chinese characters and share many Chinese cognates in their languages. Although Chinese belongs to the Sino-Tibetan language family and Japanese and Korean belong to the Altaic language family, the writing systems of Korea and Japan are based on Chinese characters. Thus, Chinese, Korean and Japanese are thought to have formed a Sinosphere, leaving the remaining languages in another “non-Sinosphere”. A minimum of 3,500 different characters are believed to be necessary for basic literacy in terms of daily reading in accordance with the “Table of the Most Common used Chinese Characters in China” (State Language Commission, 1988). CFL students in the beginner’s course, as Yu Baohua (2008: 85) estimated, are expected to learn about 35 words a day to achieve basic literacy in Chinese, which might be an overwhelming task for most students from the non-Sinosphere, not least because there is rarely a way of deducing a word’s meaning from its pronunciation. The “distance of language” theory suggests that CFL students from some countries neighbouring China should perhaps have an easier time learning Chinese. For instance, students from Vietnam, Thailand, and Myanmar probably have an ear for tones and those from Korea and Japan have advantages in learning to read and write the Chinese characters quicker. Therefore, it is inappropriate to treat all CFL students alike and neglect their differences in terms of linguistic background. A one-size-fits-all teaching method should not be favoured. This book does not suggest that CFL teachers emphasize the uniqueness of the Chinese language, because it does share commonality with a few other languages, and also because too much focus on its unique features would inevitably cause anxiety and frustration (Wang Danping, 2013a). It is essential that CFL teachers can identify the special features which constitute the main elements of distance between the Chinese language and English, and their students’ own L1, if possible. CFL students from English-speaking countries may not be as able to compete in acquiring Chinese as those from Asian countries, due to this language distance. Although the majority of CFL students are 47 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

from Asian countries, in particular, from Korea and Japan, the number of students from America and Europe is increasing rapidly, and this is the largest potential market for CFL education. This strategy can be seen from the fast global spread of Confucius Institutes and Classrooms in America and Europe. By the end of 2011, 439 (51.0%) of Confucius Institutes and Classrooms had been set up in America and 224 (26.0%) in Europe. The majority of Confucius Institutes are predominantly in the English speaking countries. In particular, when sorting the number of Confucius Institutes and Classrooms by country, major English-speaking countries ranked in the top four among those having the most Confucius Institutes and Classrooms. Specifically, the first four countries are the U.S. (377, 43.8%), Britain (77, 8.9%), Australia (33, 3.8%) and Canada (28, 3.3%), which together accommodate 59.8% of all the Confucius Institutes and Classrooms in the world. Figure 1.6 shows a heat map of distribution of Confucius Institutes and Classrooms around the world in 2011. The more Confucius Institutes and Classroom the country has, the darker the country shows on the map.

Figure 1.6 Distribution of Confucius Institutes and Classrooms around the world in 2011.

48 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Clearly, the U.S. has the largest number of Confucius Institutes of any single country (Zhao and Huang, 2010), four times the number in any other country. With the rapid development of CFL studies in the English-speaking countries, research on how to teach Chinese to English speakers through the English medium is a timely and practical task. There are plenty of testimonials to the fact that Chinese language is one of the world’s most difficult languages (Fallows, 2010: 169), and there may be even too many. Now the “FSI scale” has become a frequently-cited theory by CFL teachers and students, language educators and linguists as the most difficult language to learn for foreign language learners. However, this book argues that the language distance theory should be used for CFL teachers to get some insights into their students’ linguistic backgrounds, which are diverse and distant, rather than using it to advocate the popular idea that “Chinese is the most difficult language in the world”. Chinese language learning is difficult, because it is an unfamiliar language to CFL learners, but also possibly because CFL teachers have not developed a pedagogically sound approach to teach the Chinese language as a foreign language. Chinese is always presented as an inherently “difficult” language by many CFL teachers, and so much classroom time has been used in teaching the unique Chinese linguistic structure which is used only in limited circumstances. However, what’s more important for them is to know how to express their ideas in the first place by applying a strategy to avoid being overwhelmed by such difficult structures and muted by the fear of speaking wrongly. However, CFL teachers and educators seem to have little interest in teaching their students such speaking strategies which could quickly make them a functional Chinese speaker. To this end, McDonald (2011) complained that “linguistic and cultural strategies which would allow students to operate comfortably in a Chinese-speaking culture are never explicitly taught, and more damagingly, the type of language that is taught always marks the learner out as foreigners” (2011: 2). This problem creates a vicious circle, where CFL teachers pass on their belief in Chinese as the most difficult language to their students through their underdeveloped teaching strategies. As Orton (2011: 163) argued, Chinese language 49 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

pedagogy is comparatively underdeveloped and as yet it is hard to find innovative techniques which target the very particular and demanding learning challenges the Chinese language culture presents for English speaking students, and also for students speaking other L1s. Learning Chinese in Chinese society The culture of learning varies among CFL students from different cultural backgrounds. As defined by Cortazzi and Jin (1996), a culture of learning refers to “beliefs and values of quality learning and teaching that are shared by a homogeneous group of people with a similar cultural background and educational experience, and the behaviors or norms that are built on them”. Following this definition, CFL students can be roughly classified into two groups: Asian students and Western students. The Asian student group refers to students from East and Southeast Asian countries such as Korea, Japan and Vietnam. The Western student group refers to CFL students from major Englishspeaking countries such as the U.S. and Australia, from Eastern European countries such as Russia and Hungary, and also from Western European countries such as Sweden and France. Confucius culture of learning CFL students from different cultural backgrounds have different beliefs about how to teach or learn successfully. A culture of learning is seen as a set of “taken-for-granted frameworks of expectations, attitudes, values and beliefs about what constitutes good learning, about how to teach and learn, whether or how to ask questions, what textbooks are for, and how language teaching relates to broader issues to the nature and purpose of education” (Cortazzi and Jin, 1996: 169). From a cross-cultural perspective, it can be argued that most Western students may find it more difficult to learn Chinese than many East Asian students no matter how good their language aptitude is or how well they have acquired other foreign languages (Yu, 2008: 90). This

50 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

is due to the natural distance students feel between their native culture and the target culture, which appears to impact on their language attainment (Svanes, 1987). The difference between cultural backgrounds between the Asian group and the Western group and the ways in which people use their mother languages, and the degree of tolerance for other languages mingling with their mother tongue may influence CFL learning and teaching. More importantly, a potential difficulty in adapting to the Asian learning style may also need to be taken into consideration when a CFL class consists of multicultural students from both the West and the East. The traits of Chinese classrooms are deeply informed by Confucian philosophy, which involves close careful reading and memorization of authoritative works and the passing on of authoritative knowledge through didactic training, but at the same time is characterized by a lack of freedom of spontaneous oral participation, dialogical and discussion-based learning activities. Teacher leadership is reflected in models that lay stress on teachers’ academic growth, pedagogical growth, and the importance of the imparting of values to students by practicing what they preach (Sun Miantao, 2011: 319). Traditional Chinese classes favour the “duck-feeding” or “spoon-feeding” method. That is, the teacher gives lectures on the correct ways to speak, listen, read and write Chinese and students review the content after class. Western students may easily find this highly teacher-centered, rather than the “student-centered” ways they were used to in their home institutions (Xing, 2006: 65). For many experienced Chinese teachers, memorizing is essential to mastering the Chinese language because they were taught in this way and thus they believe it is the best way to learn languages. In each lesson, the CFL student is instructed to memorize sentences from the text, some “grammar points”, a dozen new words and new characters, and more challengingly to remember not only the shape of the character but also to follow strictly the same order of strokes as their teacher has demonstrated in class. It seems that learning the Chinese language requires little interaction with the teacher apart from mimicking their pronunciation. By practicing this rote learning, Chinese teachers establish themselves as the 51 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

absolute authority and the only legitimate owner of Chinese language knowledge when they teach the Chinese language to foreigners. However, this may result in acculturation difficulties, especially for students who have learnt other languages successfully through a communicative approach or in a more self-directed way. Although it has never been stated as an explicit reason, the different culture of learning is one of barriers to foreign students fully practicing their language learning strategies and benefiting from their established language learning styles. Realizing the difference in the cultures of learning, universities in China and CFL teachers have been adopting some popular Western teaching strategies, diversifying class activities, engaging students in these activities and creating an independent learning culture. Even though CFL teaching has made some effort to innovate in pedagogy, through inviting speakers from western countries to give lectures, many CFL teachers have not genuinely embraced a student-centered philosophy but pay only lip service to it. CFL teachers allow generous amounts of time for students to practice mechanically what they have taught them, but do not allow any conversations which are not closely related to the content of the class. If students talk in their L1 or in English, CFL teachers gently walk down to them from the platform and suggest to them that the best way to learn Chinese is to speak Chinese only. Sinophone society Sinophone is derived from Sinae, the Latin word for ancient China. Analogous to Anglophone and Francophone, Sinophone refers to those who speak at least one Chinese language natively, or prefer it as a medium of communication. Although Sinophone speakers need not be Chinese by nationality, the term in this book is used for describing the use of the Chinese language in China as the homeland for all Chinese diasporas. How local Chinese people use their mother tongue in their daily lives describes a dynamic model for CFL students to build language competence and to understand Chinese culture. As native

52 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Chinese citizens, CFL teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about the use of their language will inevitably influence or shape their teaching practice in the Chinese classroom. Despite the recent increase in migrants and foreigners, China remains a relatively homogeneous community where there is no tradition of a multilingual policy or practice and the tolerance for code mixing or switching is extremely low. China is different from the typical pluralistic immigrant society, being 92% ethnically homogeneous (Han), 94 % atheist, and with a net negative migration rate. For most westerners, even those trying to be open-minded, China’s population today probably seems relatively ethnically un-diverse. The people originally came from vastly different cultural, geographical and linguistic backgrounds, but they were brought and kept together in a single political unit. Chinese, a single language, at first only written and now spoken as well, unites nearly all of China’s population. China has a long history of xenophobia and ethnocentrism (Chua, 2007: 289). George Weber (1997) argued that Chinese is a language whose speakers are noticeably disinterested in spreading its use beyond their own people. He commented: Like any other people, the Chinese appreciate it if a foreigner makes the effort to learn their language, but they do not appreciate it if the foreigner succeeds. To tell the Chinese that their language is fiendishly difficult and practically impossible to learn, cheers up their whole day. Everybody may feel proud to have mastered something that is too complex for most others. The Chinese have elevated this feeling into a national art form.

Some feel the same way as Weber described, while others might argue that this perspective fits easily into the Orientalist view of the East as inherently “other”. Perceiving the Chinese language as a language incommensurable and inscrutable serves to increase the contemporary conflict between the two cultural poles of Sinophone China and Anglophone America and intensify the separateness between the East and the West. However, as McDonald (2011: 2) argued, both sides have a responsibility to go beyond this dichotomy by taking a perspective that encourages more than one linguistic-cultural sphere and multiple 53 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

simultaneous identities across personal and professional contexts, which is becoming the norm in a global world. Chinese national language pride The concept of nation has had a huge influence on the ways in which language and cultures have been defined (Pennycook, 2010). National pride indicates both admiration and stake holding – the feeling that one has some kind of share in an achievement or an admirable quality (Evans and Kelley, 2002: 303). Over the past one hundred years, Chinese people have been portrayed as inferior to the West since the decline of the Qing Dynasty. Many Chinese are still smarting from past humiliations and want to see China’s contribution to world culture better recognized. Since the People’s Republic of China was founded, China’s internal propaganda has been focusing on boosting Chinese national pride, first through the promotion of Putonghua as a national official language across China (Lam, 2005), and now by teaching Chinese as a foreign language to speakers of other languages. It is because the Chinese language, in particular, the writing script of Chinese characters, is so unique and difficult to master, that is has become a cultural and historical heritage all Chinese people can be proud of. The global spread of Confucius Institutes and the worldwide craze for Chinese language learning is projected in a high profile way in China’s mass media as an example of national success. The Chinese language as cultural heritage is functioning as a national tie which unites all Chinese speakers, including the enormous Chinese diaspora. The promotion of Confucius Institutes and the popularity of Chinese as a foreign language, publicised in both Chinese and English media, makes many speakers of Chinese, for the first time in the past one hundred years, feel proud when speaking their mother tongue and hearing other people speaking the Chinese language. Recent empirical studies (e.g. Wu and Guo, 2007) showed that young volunteer Chinese teachers teaching Chinese abroad in Confucius Institutes felt that their primary reason to work overseas was to promote the Chinese language and culture for the country, a reason which was barely heard from

54 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

native English-speaking teachers working abroad. Moreover, as Erard (2006) reported, these young Chinese teachers believed that “China is the mother country of the Chinese language, so it shoulders the responsibility of promoting the Chinese language and helping other nations to learn it better and faster”. This Chinese language pride has attracted many young Chinese to become CFL teachers who teach their mother tongue to foreigners in China and abroad. However, this national language pride is also reflected in overwhelmingly strong nationalism. More damagingly, this potentially makes CFL teaching and learning an even more complicated phenomenon, inviting criticism not only from educational perspectives but also from social and political angles. One of the most influential elements in Chinese language nationalism is the “Protecting the purity of Chinese” movement, or to use the term from The Economist (2010), “saving Chinese from English”. Huang Youyi, the director of the China International Publishing Group, proposed taking preventive measures to preserve the purity of Chinese at the 2010 Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. Huang said: If we don’t pay attention and don’t take measures to stop the growth in the mingling of Chinese and English, Chinese won’t be a pure language in a couple of years. In the long run, Chinese will lose its role as an independent linguistic system for passing on information and expressing human feelings (Wang Jingqiong, 2010)

With the appeal to be aware of the “English invasion”, major national and regional broadcasters all received the directive from the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television that they must avoid using certain English acronyms in Chinese-language channels and programmes. Television viewers in China will no longer hear GDP, NBA, WTO, MP3 and many commonly used English acronyms in China. The banning of the use of English acronyms in the Chinese media might have some impact on both CFL students and teachers by highlighting the relationship between language and national pride. However, CCTV’s English Channel is concerned that this new measure will lead to cultural conservatism. Mixing English and other for55 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

eign languages is commonly regarded as “polluting” the purity of the Chinese language (Yan and Deng, 2009). This has explained why the Chinese language has only a very limited amount of loanwords from other modern languages. English is considered to be a threat to the existence of the Chinese language and even harmful to national cohesion, though English as the global language is taught throughout the educational system in China from primary school to university. English is now used more and has higher status in China than at any time in the past and this has raised some concerns. However, as we have already seen, the Chinese language, far from being threatened, is currently expanding both in China and the world at large. Despite the prominence of English in China and the world generally, the Chinese language is in no danger of losing ground. Chinese is certainly safe within China and considerable effort has been made to promote the standard language, Putonghua, which much of the population now speaks and/or understands. Although the status of Chinese in this sense does not match that of English, it certainly has similar characteristics, and based on this evidence, Chinese can hardly be considered under threat from English. Of course, despite its huge number of native speakers, Chinese is not yet an internationally influential language. Its use is concentrated in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and overseas Chinese communities. The Chinese authorities would like the Chinese language to achieve a powerful status in a global context, as English has done, but as yet may know little about how to win and manage a global language education market. This is one of the reasons to examine the ways English has been used and studied, and how it evolved and spread as the international common language, in Chapter 2. In addition, such a comprehensive review of the power of English is urgently needed by educators and teachers in the CFL academy, in order to update their knowledge of today’s international linguistic environment. Many are eager to find out how English has become the global language and how to use it as a pedagogic tool to assist CFL teaching and learning.

56 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Chapter 2 English as a lingua franca (ELF) This chapter will introduce the worldwide spread of English. I assume that many CFL teachers and students are potentially English speakers, who are able to use or have already been using English as an international lingua franca for communicating, teaching or learning the Chinese language. This chapter focuses on the historical spread of English, citing Kachru’s three circles model and highlighting the potential changes to that model, as English is establishing itself as a lingua franca at a dramatically fast rate in the Expanding Circle, especially in Asia and in China. Special focus has been placed on the use of English as medium of instruction in China’s higher education and CFL teaching in China, which has provided the background to, and shown the significance of, conducting empirical research to find out how CFL teachers and students actually think about, and use, English. The spread of English in the Expanding Circle Although Chinese is the most widely spoken language in the world in terms of the number of speakers, far exceeding English, the vast majority of Chinese speakers live in China. English, by contrast, has flown the nest (Jacques, 2009: 115). No language has ever been in the same position as English is in today’s world. It is the first actual global language (Crystal, 2006). Jenkins (2009a: 40) has argued that it is a well-established fact that during the past four centuries, the English language has spread around the world, and that, as a result, it is used for a wide range of purposes by many millions of people for whom it is not a mother tongue in the traditional sense of the term. The most useful, and influential, model of the spread of English has undoubtedly been that of Kachru (1985: 12-3; 1992: 356). As shown in Figure 2.1, Kachru divided World Englishes into “three con-

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

centric circles”, the Inner Circle, the Outer Circle and the Expanding Circle. The three circles represent the type of English spread, the patterns of acquisition, and the functional allocation of English in diverse cultural contexts, as the language travelled from Britain in the first diaspora, to other “English as a Native Language” countries (together with the UK these constitute the Inner Circle), in the second diaspora, to the “English as a Second Language” countries (the Outer Circle) and, more recently, to the “English as a Foreign Language” countries (the Expanding Circle) (Jenkins, 2009b: 18).

Expanding Circle Inner Circle

Outer Circle

UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand

India, Kenya, Pakistan, Singapore …

China, Germany Korea, France, Japan, Spain, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, Turkey, Thailand, Egypt …

Figure 2.1 Kachru’s three concentric circles of the spread of English.

Honna (2008: 14) estimated that English is now used as an official or dominant language in 71 countries (around 36%) of the 195-nation world, with a total population of over two billion. It is an accepted fact that English is spoken as a native language by around 375 million people and as an L2 by around 375 million speakers in the world (Braine, 2005: xii). In the Inner Circle, there are only five countries (i.e. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the U.S.) which were inhabited by migrations of native English-speaking people; in the Outer Circle, there are several dozen nations for which English 58 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

serves as an official or institutional language. In the Expanding Circle, around 750 million people are believed to speak English as a foreign language (Crystal, 2003: 69). One out of four of the world’s population speaks English to some level of competence. Demand from the other three-quarters is increasing (Crystal, 1995; 1998). Graddol (2006: 10) puts the three circles of English as overlapping (see Figure 2.2, adapted from Graddol’s model), which makes it easier to show how the “center of gravity” has shifted since the start of the 21st century. Possible language shift

Possible language shift

375 million L2 speakers

375 million L1 speakers

750 million EFL speakers

Figure 2.2 The possible language shift of the three circles.

In many parts of the world there have been shifts in the status of English in recent years and these are ongoing. A slight increase in the proportion of the population speaking English in existing L2 areas (e.g., in India, Pakistan, Nigeria and the Philippines) will significantly increase the global total of L2 speakers. A recent survey (Honna, 2008: 17) done by the National Institute of Japanese Language showed how widespread the view is that English is as the most useful language for worldwide communication. In reply to the question “what languages do you think will be necessary for worldwide com59 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

munication from now on”, respondents in the survey generally selected English as an indispensable world language, even ahead of their national languages. As shown in Table 2.1, for ten countries where people speak English as a foreign language, English is singled out as the most important. Table 2.1 Language for future worldwide communication. 1

2

3

4

Egypt

English (85%)

Arabic (66%)

French (36%)

German (15%)

India

English (89%)

Hindi (32%)

Marathi (11%)

French (8%)

Indonesia

English (87%)

Indonesia (49%)

Japanese (8%)

Arabic (8%)

Israel

English (96%)

French (31%)

Arabic (22%)

Hebrew (15%)

Japan

English (90%)

Japanese (21%)

Chinese (9%)

French (2%)

Korea

English (93%)

Korean (48%)

Japanese (22%)

French (14%)

Nigeria

English (91%)

Hausa (30%)

Yoruba (21%)

Ibo (14%)

Philippines

English (98%)

Tagalog (25%)

Spanish (6%)

Chinese (4%)

Thailand

English (97%)

Thai (22%)

Chinese (15%)

Japanese (10%)

Vietnam

English (89%)

French (36%)

Chinese (36%)

Vietnamese (16%)

This survey suggested that people are prepared to treat English as “our” language, for economic promotion, social improvement, regional cooperation, and international exchange and collaboration. In terms of language teaching, it may not be appropriate to treat international students as monolingual speakers any longer. English, at least, to some extent, may have already become one of their basic language skills, acquired for worldwide communication when studying overseas. The most extensive spread of English, in terms of the number of speakers, has undoubtedly occurred in the countries in the Expanding Circle, such as Continental Europe, South Korea, Japan, Thailand and China. Kachru’s concentric model (1992) has already failed to capture the increasing importance of the Expanding Circle, and the degree to

60 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

which foreign language students in many countries are becoming more like L2 users. In the Expanding Circle, students of English will no longer learn English only to communicate with Inner Circle English speakers. Instead, they need English to provide them with a common language with which to communicate for both social and professional reasons with speakers of other first languages, particularly in the other Expanding Circle countries. In other words, they are learning and subsequently using English as a lingua franca (henceforth, ELF). The term lingua franca can be defined, in a general sense, as a medium of communication for people who do not speak the same language (Kirkpatrick, 2007; 2010). That English has become the international lingua franca means that it has become a language for multinational communication. There are several common features involved in ELF communication. First, fewer interactions now involve a native speaker. This has become an inexorable trend in the use of global English. Teachers and educators who support teaching ELF rather than ENL suggest that the way English is taught and assessed should reflect the needs and aspirations of the ever-growing number of non-native speakers who use English to communicate with other nonnatives. Second, intelligibility is of primary importance, rather than native-like accuracy. Proponents of ELF teaching have already given some indications of how they think conventional approaches to teaching EFL should be changed. Lastly, ELF focuses on pragmatic strategies required in intercultural communication. The target model of English, within the ELF framework, is not a native speaker but a fluent bilingual speaker, who retains a national identity in terms of accent, and who also has the special skills required to negotiate understanding with another non-native speaker. Understanding how non-native speakers use English among themselves is an established research area in Europe and Asia. The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE) project in Europe, led by Barbara Seidlhofer, is creating a computer-corpus of lingua franca interactions, which is intended to offer linguistic descriptions of ELF, and also to provide support for the recognition of 61 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

ELF users in the way English is taught. In a similar sense, the Asian Corpus of English (ACE), established by Andy Kirkpatrick in the Hong Kong Institute of Education, which works closely with the VOICE project, is establishing a corpus of spoken English as a lingua franca in Asia which analyzes its linguistic features and the communicative strategies of its speakers. English in Europe and Asia Examples from the European Union (EU), and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) show that the traditional “expanding circle” is seeing an increasing use of ELF. The use of English by English-knowing bilinguals/multilinguals for whom English is not a first language represents today’s major role of English in Europe, Asia and in many other parts of the world. The EU is a supranational union composed of 27 member states with 23 official and working languages. English has acquired a special place in school timetables in most EU countries. Steadily, across Europe, English has become the “first foreign” language in education systems, often displacing another language from that position. The 2012 First European Survey on Language Competences (ESLC), released by the European Commission, provides the first rigorous study on language learning in schools across 14 countries and 16 educational systems, covering 54,000 EU pupils. The pupil achievement scores are based on the average of the reading, listening and writing skills assessed in the ESLC. The ESLC found the five most widely taught official languages of the EU are: English, French, German, Italian and Spanish (European Commission, 2012: 9). The ESLC report confirms that English is the most widely adopted first foreign language learned by European pupils and it is also the one considered as the most useful and, for the majority of tested pupils, the easiest to learn. Figure 2.3 shows clearly that there are more advanced English speakers than those of other languages in the EU. This figure was adapted from the ESLC report (European Commission, 2012: 9). 62 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Figure 2.3 Percentage of pupils achieving each level by language.

A key finding from Figure 2.3 is that the independent user levels B1 and B2 in any skill are achieved in English by about 49% of tested pupils in terms of levels of achievement per language. Actually, even in educational systems where English is the second foreign language, the performance in English tends to be higher than in the other language tested. Further evidence of the particular status of English comes from the pupils’ questionnaire responses, their reported perception of its usefulness, and their degree of exposure to it and use of it through traditional and new media, which are all higher. Another important finding came from the overview of educational system performance in first foreign language competence. Five languages (EN – English, FR – French, DE – German, IT – Italian and ES – Spanish) are commonly spoken as the first language in Europe is indicated in brackets. Figure 2.4 shows the percentage of pupils at each level by educational system using the global average of the three skills. This figure was adapted from the ESLC report (European Commission, 2012: 10).

63 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Figure 2.4. Pupil’s competence in their first foreign languages in EU.

As Figure 2.4 shows, English is the first foreign language for the majority of European pupils. As can be seen from the “ESLC average”, the average of participants’ first foreign language competence across all 16 participating educational systems are high. The independent user levels B1 and B2 in any skill are achieved in English by about 42% of tested pupils in terms of levels of achievement in English. The ESLC reports also finds that the highest performance is observed in countries where English is formally the first foreign language. English is used as the sole working and official language in ASEAN’s 10 member countries (Kirkpatrick, 2010: 7-15). It achieved this official status with the signing of the ASEAN Charter in February 2009, after many years of debate. English is also the working lan64 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

guage of the extended grouping known as ASEAN + 3, which includes the ten states of ASEAN plus China, Japan and Korea. The majority of the speakers from the ten countries in ASEAN speak English as a second or later language, which is used more commonly between non-native English speakers. As regional trade grows, encouraged by ASEAN, English is becoming an ever more valuable lingua franca in Asia. Many countries in Asia are eager to make their country bilingual in English and their national language (Graddol, 2006). This trend is typical for many Asian countries. With the rapidly growing number of English students, some countries propose to legitimate the use of English as a working language on university campuses, in enterprise zones, public services or even as an additional official language. With regard to its rapid spread on a global scale, it will soon not be appropriate to regard English as a “foreign” language in countries like South Korea, Japan and China. According to Honna (2008: 16), foreign implies “out of system” socially and “undesirable” psychologically. This is no longer the situation. The English Proficiency Index (English First, 2011: 14), a benchmark for the assessment of international English proficiency, ranked South Korea 13th and Japan 14th as places where people speak English with moderate proficiency, among 44 non-English speaking countries in the world. Spoken or written, English has established itself as the world’s most effective intermediary language in many fields. By the end of 2005, Thailand, the Philippines, Japan, and Taiwan were all expressing grave anxiety about their national proficiency in English and had announced new educational initiatives (Graddol, 2006: 95). China is now setting the pace of change in the region. China’s decision to make English a key part of its strategy for economic development has had a galvanizing impact on neighbouring countries. Graddol (2006: 94) argued that “it is likely that it will be China who will determine the speed at which other Asian countries shift to a global English model”. Not only is China setting the pace, but until countries in the region are able to develop their national proficiency in

65 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Chinese, English will provide their main means of communicating with China (Graddol, 2006: 95). English in modern China More people are now learning English in China than in any other country. In China, the number of people who want to learn English is astounding. In an early article, Kachru (2005) estimated that there were already 200 million Chinese users of English in 1995. And in a recent report, the Asia Society (2011) estimated that there were over 300 million Chinese students learning English in China. Statistically, students of English in China outnumber the total populations of the United States and Britain combined (Kirkpatrick, 2007: 146) and many young educated Chinese speak the language with impressive fluency. Many new initiatives have been taken in order to promote English language proficiency. In September 2001, the Ministry of Education of China issued a circular instructing all universities and colleges to use English as the medium of instruction for certain subjects. These subjects include information technology, biotechnology, finance, foreign trade, economics and law. Already, in this significant move towards bilingualism in English and Chinese, China has made the teaching of English compulsory from Grade 3 (Braine, 2005: xviii). In practice, big cities, such as Beijing and Shanghai, have already introduced English at Grade 1. As a result of this policy, China now produces over 20 million new users of English each year. However, this is not to say that all of these people speak English fluently or use English as a working language. There are varying levels of proficiency depending on factors such as education, experience and exposure to English (Zhao and Campbell, 1995: 379). Cheng Zhaoxiang (2002: 259) argued that proficiency in English will increase with increasing exposure to English through various channels and ongoing developments in education. Many English learners in China have never been outside their hometown let alone to an English speaking country but are very competent speakers of English through years of hard 66 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

study. However, one common observation in China is that learners of English often have difficulties using it in a real life situation, but are incredibly knowledgeable about English grammar, sometimes even better than native English speakers. English has played an important role in China’s survival from imperialism, and in its reform and modernization processes in the last century. Scholars and officials such as Wei Yuan, Li Hongzhang and Zhang Zhidong advocated the adoption of Western technology and expertise in order to drive foreigners out of China. This idea became the basis for the “self-strengthening” movements, which, far from demanding revolution, aimed to gain knowledge of foreign technology and expertise while at the same time preserving traditional Chinese culture and society (Roberts, 1999: 184-185). Foreign language learning was at the forefront of the self-strengthening movements. The saying “ѝᆖѪփˈ㾯ᆖѪ⭘” (Chinese learning for fundamental principles, Western learning for practical application) came out of this period and English began to be seen as a tool for accessing Western technology and establishing links with the outside world (Lo Bianco, Orton and Gao, 2009). Foreign languages “became identified with a powerful but mistrusted package that bound together foreign interference and domination with techniques required for China’s survival” (Ross, 1993: 23). Numerous studies have discussed the relations between English language learning and teaching and the concept of modernization (Ross, 1992; 1993). Proficiency in foreign languages, especially English, was seen as necessary for achieving the Four Modernizations. English became a requirement for further education, employment, promotion and overseas travel and training (Ross, 1993: 38-40). Not surprisingly, the demand for English language skills has greatly intensified and enthusiasm for learning English also seems to be at an alltime high (Gil, 2005). However, following its domestic function for China’s modernization and transformation into an information society, the role of English has since 1991 become “English for international stature” (Lam, 2002: 246). Knowledge of English is certainly playing

67 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

an integral role in China’s attempt to take a greater part in world affairs. Although it is far from a lingua franca even in urban China, English is a fundamental element in progressive education, a necessary qualification for many respectable jobs, such as lawyers, doctors, teachers and public servants, a required skill for exposure to the influx of English audio and visual material, and a stepping-stone to an education abroad. For many people, proficiency in English is synonymous with the promise of well-being. A zealous public quest for the command of English has made the language so commercially viable that several Chinese media have recently launched English editions, supplements, or subsidiaries with an eye to competing for domestic audiences (Guo and Huang, 2002: 218-9). English is a significant issue for China and must be dealt with thoughtfully and carefully. Despite occasional campaigns to control the spread of Western thoughts, values and beliefs that are deemed unsuitable in Chinese society, English is now the main second language of the nation’s political, academic, industrial and commercial communities. However, although in many ways China has acknowledged the importance of English and made a concerted effort to learn it, it would be naïve to conclude that “the Chinese government holds a positive or favourable attitude toward English” (Zhao and Campbell, 1995: 382). Despite the astonishing number of English learners in China, the Chinese Census does not ask about language use or the level of proficiency in English. Concerns over the spread and use of English in China have emerged again in recent times among academics, the government and the general public. In fact, recent years have constantly seen a backlash against English. As Adamson (2002: 235) points out, “the study of English was controversial because it acted as a conduit for the introduction of new philosophies, religious and social theories”. Nevertheless, as Gil (2005: 282) argued, at present, English is used more and has higher status than at any other time in the past; it is used extensively in the domains of science and technology, the media, business and tourism and international connections, with its greatest 68 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

presence being in the education system, both formal and informal. Throughout its time in China, English has been viewed in a number of ways and has experienced several changes in its role and status. In fact, the Chinese situation reflects many of the issues discussed previously in that there have been long standing concerns about the cultural impact of learning English on the one hand and a desire to learn English to gain access to the knowledge and opportunities it provides on the other. Adamson (2002: 231) described the situation: The relationship between the English language and Chinese politics and society has historically been ambivalent. At different times, English has been associated in China with military aggressors, barbarians, and virulent anti-Communists. But English is also a principal language of trade partners, academics, technical experts, advisors, tourists and popular culture. At worst, the language has been perceived as a threat to national integrity. At best, it has been seen as a conduit for strengthening China’s position in the world community. These tensions have manifested in policy swings that have far-reaching impacts, most notably for the educational system.

China’s huge investment in English, together with its promotion of Chinese as a foreign language, must be seen in this global context. It is partly because English is proving popular as a means of internationalizing both the student community and teaching staff. China has taken a thoughtful approach to setting goals. As the most populous country in the world, China also boasts one of the largest populations of students of English and a history of over seven decades of English learning. As Boyle (2000: 15) puts it “at this stage in the last few years of the millennium, it does look as if China will continue to want English, and want it badly”. Moreover, Ruan Xianfeng (2010: 179) argued that China should use English to build a discourse power in the world. In fact, Ruan pointed out that English is the first step in allowing the Chinese language to reach the world. English has become a common language, important not only in the fields of trade or tourism, but also crucial in overseas studies and academic pursuits across the world. As mentioned earlier, English is increasingly being used as the medium of instruction both in schools and universities in many continental European countries, and more 69 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

recently in Expanding Circle Asian countries such as China. In the past two decades, a number of colleges and universities in the Chinese mainland have experimented with the use of English as a medium of instruction in teaching non-language subjects (Bolton, 2003: 250; Lam, 2005: 192). It is also valuable to investigate questions such as “has English helped a native Chinese speaker to learn German as a foreign language?” Butzkamm and Caldwell (2009: 14), in their thoughtprovoking book, have already said “yes” and explained why a student’s familiar languages can be a great aid for learning a foreign language. In non-Anglophone countries, the learning of German, French etc – if it comes – will most certainly come after the learning of English as a FL. Chinese learners of German who already know English will not just place German in a new compartment but can use English as a bridge to German, just as we all use our MT to make sense of a FL. Here, our bilingual reform becomes trilingual or even multilingual.

More significantly, with the large influx of CFL students coming to China, it is also vital to examine the extent to which English is used as a lingua franca between CFL teachers and students, as well as among CFL students themselves. English in CFL education English in CFL education has a paradoxical role. In the section above concerning the history of Chinese language teaching, I described the importance of English as a medium of instruction in its initial stage as an independent profession in China, though it later became controversial. The role of English has never been officially discussed or investigated because CFL education research focuses closely yet narrowly on developing students’ linguistic knowledge and linguistic competence, such as phonology, vocabulary, grammar and Chinese characters. However, English is the most widely studied language in cross70 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

linguistic research for teaching Chinese grammar. Four leading journals in CFL research in mainland China are primarily concerned with CFL teaching and learning both in China and abroad. They are Chinese Teaching in the World (ᶾ䓴㯱宕㔁⬎), Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies (宕妨㔁⬎ᶶ䞼䨞), Applied Linguistics (宕妨㔯⫿ ⸼ 䓐 ) and Chinese Language Learning ( 㯱 宕 ⬎ Ḉ ). Searching through the four journals with key words of “⮡⢾㯱宕㔁⬎” (CFL) AND “劙宕/劙㔯” (English), between 1990 and 2011, more than one hundred related articles were found in the database. The majority of these were cross-linguistic studies between the Chinese language and the English language. Not surprisingly, English is used in research and other academic activities relating to linguistics and language teaching. A high level of ability in English, in particular, reading and writing ability and a solid linguistic knowledge of the English language is seen as an advantage for professional development. Some Chinese scholars have realized the importance of English in academic research because the most up-to-date findings in foreign language education are usually presented in English in the first place, and so if they cannot read English they may have to wait several years before someone translates them into Chinese. Even then only those very popular texts, a book-length classic or the most widely cited journal articles will be translated. Although CFL has achieved some success in the last half century, it is still far behind international foreign language education standards (Li, 2009). This statement is an accepted fact among CFL teachers and educators, though many of them are reluctant to acknowledge their need to learn and adapt to the contemporary understanding of language teaching and learning established in many successful foreign language education programs, but instead base their hopes on developing “CFL language education with Chinese characteristics”. This idea has made CFL teaching linguistically and culturally Sinocentric, often unable to accommodate international CFL students, in that it excludes the students’ perspectives, differences and needs (Scrimgeour and Wilson, 2009). Although English is widely used in CFL classrooms in reality, it remains an unspoken pedagogic tool. Some of the institutionally 71 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

trained Chinese scholars lack an ecological perspective towards the global language environment, in particular, the wide spread of English in non-English speaking countries. They disagree with the lingua franca status of English and wish to ban the use of English, allegedly for the benefit of students who do not speak English, such as Koreans and Japanese. Yet, it is simply an unproven assertion to conclude that students from Korea and Japan are not likely to be English speakers. For example, Wang Hanwei (2007; 2009) challenged the lingua franca status of English in Asian countries and denied the possibility and rationality of using English legally in teaching CFL. Wang Hanwei (2007: 116) argued that the use of English in CFL classrooms only helps to spread English to CFL students, distorting the purposes of teaching and promoting Chinese to the world. Using English as a lingua franca is like “sewing a trousseau (ѪԆӪ‫ڊ‬ჱ㺓)” for the spread of English and therefore a politically and strategically unacceptable practice in CFL teaching. Furthermore, Ma Qingzhu (2003) quoted examples of how some people from France and Germany felt uncomfortable about the rise of English as a global language and expressed a strong antipathy towards learning and using English in China. In this and other similar articles, language is closely related to Chinese nationalism. CFL teachers learning and using English may be regarded as unpatriotic or even unprofessional because “experienced CFL teachers need no help from English”. Ma (2003: 13) also argued that the use of English will negatively affect CFL teaching and learning, hurt both teachers and students’ feelings, and eventually harm the fate of the Chinese language. Nevertheless, such perspectives sound more political than educational, and are not based on any empirical studies; rather to some extent they appear founded on an ambition to promote the international status of Chinese and make it another international lingua franca on a par with English. However, in the Confucius learning culture, scholars’ remarks are easily accepted, believed and practiced without being examined critically or challenged. These articles from the leading Chinese journals have helped to create a dominant discourse against the use of English in the CFL classroom and may have influenced both pre-service and in-service CFL teachers. Alt72 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

hough students from Korea make up over sixty percent of the total CFL student population at present (CAFSA, 2011), the future of CFL teaching will not be limited to neighbouring countries. Many potential learners of the Chinese language and large potential markets for Chinese language education lie in the U.S. and Europe. The long-term goal of Chinese education is to bridge the cultural gaps between the East and West. Since the focus has already been placed on the world’s major English-speaking countries, such a narrow concept of language teaching would to some extent hinder the ability of CFL teaching to make a global impact. To maintain or increase a hostile attitude toward English, or turn a deaf ear to the global spread of English, or attempt to avoid discussion of the current wide use of English in CFL classrooms, will only increase the cultural conflict between the two poles of Sinophone and Anglophone speakers. Knowledge of English is a must-have skill for many professionals including CFL teachers wishing to be promoted and selected for studying and working abroad. Sadly, however, the current quality of CFL teachers is variable and educating CFL teachers is believed to be a long-term effort (Orton, 2011: 163). It was found to be difficult for many of them to “go out” from China, due to their insufficient foreign language ability and lack of intercultural communication skills, as well as a poor understanding of students who had been educated in different educational systems. The Washington Observer argued that the shortage of qualified CFL teachers has created a “bottleneck” preventing the development of Chinese teaching in the English speaking countries (Su, 2006). Deng Xiaoqin (2008) also argued that a good command of English as a medium of instruction will play a vital role in CFL teaching, especially useful in the beginners’ class. The lack of English language proficiency among CFL teachers in China is impeding their career development, in particular, in terms of winning a chance to teach Chinese abroad. The ability to speak good English is now one of the most important requirements to recruit qualified candidates for teaching Chinese overseas. For example, since its launch in 2006, the Teachers of the Critical Languages Programme, administered by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the U.S. 73 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Department of State, only considers admission for those whose English language proficiency in written and spoken English is high (American Councils, 2006). CFL teachers in this programme were also asked to improve their English competence and adaptation to American teaching methodologies. In order to produce qualified CFL teachers, the Master of Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages (MTCSOL) was set up in 2007, and soon became one of the most popular masters programmes in China’s higher education system. In terms of foreign language competence, the MTCSOL programme guide stated that 50% of the core curriculum is to be taught in English. By the end of the 2-years’ masters’ programme, graduates are expected to teach and communicate fluently in English. Furthermore, Hanban has developed a set of standards for teachers of Chinese to meet the growing demand for more and better qualified teachers. One of the categories requires English competence across all the four skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing (Hanban, 2007). Moreover, only those with high proficiency in foreign languages will be considered as eligible to take the Qualification Test for CFL Teachers. To be certified, candidates will need a minimum English score of band 5 in IETLS or 500 in TOEFL. However, though the general requirement for English proficiency for qualified CFL teachers is high, the way CFL teachers will actually use their English ability to achieve practical goals in teaching has not been fully explained. Part Two will review the literature on the paradigm shift from the monolingual to multilingual approaches. Chapter 3 will focus generally on studies concerning the use of L1 in L2 learning in foreign language teaching and will consider this in terms of L2 students, L2 teachers and L2 classrooms. Chapter 4 will move to a closer examination of monolingual language policy in China, the medium of instruction in CFL teaching, and current discussions over allowing and disallowing the use of ELF in CFL classrooms.

74 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Part 2 The paradigm shift in foreign language teaching

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Chapter 3 Language choice and language pedagogy In this chapter, I will first revisit the theoretical rationale for the prevailing monolingual pedagogy in foreign language teaching and discuss the paradigm shift from monolingual to multilingual pedagogy. Models developed in recent studies serve as a framework that liberate us from the narrow constraints of monolingual norms, and compel us to rethink the reality of what goes on in the classroom at the level of discourses, politics, power relationships and even the role that language plays in society. Amongst many frameworks, Macaro’s continuum perspective of L1 use in L2 learning, and in particular, his optimal model, has provided a means of investigating and considering multilingual pedagogy in different research contexts. On this basis, I will move on to review previous studies on the use of L1 in L2 teaching from three angles: L2 students, L2 teachers and L2 classrooms. Debating L1 use in the L2 class The discussion about L1 use in the L2 class is an age-old issue yet remains controversial and unresolved. The debate has resulted in a plethora of literature. On the one side, governments, curriculum designers and policy makers have supported an exclusive use of the target language and the avoidance of students’ use of their L1 or any other possible medium of instruction. This monolingual teaching method is named “L2-only pedagogy” in this chapter, and to be more specific, “Chinese-only pedagogy” in the next chapter. On the other side, many frontline teachers and educators have argued that a good recognition of a student’s linguistic background and cultural origins and a judicious use of English as a communication medium can have many pedagogical benefits and can enhance language competence.

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

This multilingual teaching method will be called “L1-assisted pedagogy” in this chapter and “ELF pedagogy” in the next one. Despite widespread opposition to the exclusive use of L2, many educators continue to uphold the notion that the target language is the only acceptable medium of communication within the confines of the L2 classroom. Paradigm of the L2-only pedagogy One of the most widely known discussions of the monolingual pedagogy was from Phillipson’s (1992) “Five Tenets”, which described and criticized the common assumptions about, in this case, English as a Second Language (ESL) teaching and learning: Tenet one: English is best taught monolingually Tenet two: The ideal teacher of English is a native speaker Tenet three: The earlier English is taught, the better the results Tenet four: The more English is taught, the better the results Tenet five: If other languages are used much, standards of English will drop

The monolingual tenet (tenet one) holds that ESL teaching should be entirely through the medium of English. The only language permitted in the English classroom is English. Historically, assumptions about L1 use in the L2 class are traceable mostly to the “Great Reform” of the late 19th century (Hawkins, 1987: 404). Cook (2001) argued that these assumptions have affected many generations of foreign language teachers and students, and are taken for granted as the foundation of language teaching. Gatenby (1965: 14), one of the founding fathers of ESL, formulated that “what is essential is that the language being studied should be as far as possible the sole medium of communication in any given environment.” Since 1965, L2-only pedagogy in ESL teaching has always been the norm (Crawford, 1991; McMillan 78 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

and Rivers, 2011). However, it seems that the question of whether or not to support the students’ use of their L1 is not simply a pedagogical matter; these approaches are often determined by political rather than pedagogical factors. On the level of policy, the English Only Movement (Wiley and Lukes, 1996) in the U.S. convinced many language school administrators, teacher educators, policy makers and teachers and students to use English as the sole Medium of Instruction (henceforth, MoI). When the English language became associated with patriotism in the Americanization Movement during the first quarter of the 20th century, English-only became the norm in ESL classes for immigrants with other L1s. Baron (1990: 160) recommended that English be the sole MoI, and in grouping students, warned teachers to prevent the formation of “national cliques”, which would delay the work of Americanization. However, many people now believe that it has gone too far and has become an extreme perspective in ESL teaching, disregarding many important factors influencing students’ L2 learning. Atkinson (1993) and Phillipson (1992) argued that it had reached a hegemonic status with regard to the teaching and learning of English as an L2. This “linguistic imperialism” has not left much scope for the development of other languages in multilingual communities (Phillipson, 1992: 306–308). The discouraging of L1 use in the classroom originates in many traditions, anecdotes, assumptions and unproven beliefs. Many teachers have unconsciously reinforced this agenda in classroom teaching. Auerbach (1993: 10) pointed out that some schools and teachers even devised a penalty system to ensure that students did not use their L1 and they justified these practices with the claim that students’ use of their L1 would impede their progress in the acquisition of English. Early works extolled the virtues of fining students for using their L1. The teacher warned the students that “this is an English-only classroom. If you speak Spanish or Cantonese or Mandarin or Vietnamese or Russian or Farsi, you will pay me 25 cents. I can get rich” (Weinberg, 1990). This penalty system assumes that no other language can exist in the ESL classroom, except for English – the target language. 79 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Beyond the classroom, similar warnings and regulations were seen and heard constantly from official language policies, teaching syllabuses and teacher training guides as well. The convention of discouraging L1 use can be phrased in stronger or weaker forms (Cook, 2001). The strongest is to “ban” the L1 from the L2 classroom. This is often practiced in circumstances when teachers do not speak the students’ L1 or students have different L1s. The weakest one is to “minimize” the use of the L1 in the classroom, which requires teachers and students to use L1 as little as possible. A more positive version is to “maximize” the use of the L2 in the classroom. This stance emphasizes the usefulness of the L2 rather than the harm of the L1. However, L1 is still seen as negative: it is not something to be utilized in teaching but to be set aside. Theoretical underpinnings for monolingual pedagogy L2-only pedagogy has dominated foreign language teaching and learning for many decades and rigidly prescribed the avoidance of L1 or any other possible MoI (Turnbull and Arnett, 2002: 211). Proponents of the L2-only pedagogy see little or no pedagogical and communicative value in the L1. Discussions about interaction and input informed by an L2-only pedagogy can be found in the huge body of literature on second language acquisition which was mostly carried out in the 1980s and 1990s (Macaro, 2009: 36). The theoretical framework can be traced back to the psycholinguistic approach, which considers L1 primarily in relation to the ways in which it interferes with L2 comprehension and production, and therefore concludes that it should be forbidden in the L2 class. This paradigm has largely shaped mainstream foreign language teaching, where L2 form and meaning are mapped, and there has been little room for consideration of the role of the L1 in L2 learning. Overgeneralization of input and output hypothesis Based on Krashen’s (1985) comprehensive input hypothesis, proponents of L2-only pedagogy argued for the exposure of students to a 80 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

flood of comprehensive L2 input to ensure mastery of the L2 and at the same time advanced the idea that the use of L1 reduces exposure to that all-important L2 input. A further theoretical rationale for the L2-only pedagogy is drawn from Swain’s (1985) output hypothesis, which argues that comprehensive input alone will not ensure mastery of the L2. Swain also argued that students need to output (speak and write) in the L2 in order to master it. Proponents of L2-only pedagogy then also used Swain’s idea to reinforce their idea that speaking and writing must always and only be in the L2 (Macaro, 2005: 3). Equating L2 learning with L1 learning Proponents of L2-only pedagogy believe that the only completely successful method of acquiring a language is that used by L1 children, and that therefore, L2 teaching should be based on the characteristics of L1 acquisition. They draw on the L1= L2 learning hypothesis and argue that since L1 is the only language present during L1 acquisition, L2 should be the only language available when it is acquired (Ellis, 1986; Krashen, 1981). However, this comparison is questionable in that L2 students are usually adults who have more mature minds, greater social development, a larger short-term memory capacity, and many differences from L1-only young children. Compartmentalization between L1 and L2 learning Proponents of L2-only pedagogy argue that successful L2 acquisition happens solely through L2 rather than being linked to the L1. L1 is seen as the major problem in the process of acquiring the L2 due to its possible negative transfer to the learning of the L2. Lado (1957) developed the Contrastive Analysis in the mid-twentieth century and the rationale has prevailed in L2 teaching for many decades. Translated into practice, this means that teachers explain the L2 word, define or mime its meaning, show pictures, and so on, without translating, in the long-term hope that this builds up the L2 as a separate system (Cook, 2001: 403). As a matter of fact, many studies have proved that L1 and L2 are interwoven in people’s minds in vocabulary, in syntax, in pho81 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

nology, and in pragmatics. As Stern (1992: 282) puts it, “the L1-L2 connection is an indisputable fact of life”. Resistance of using L1 in the classroom Proponents of L2-only pedagogy suggest that the teacher can maximize the provision of useful L2 examples by avoiding the L1. They believe that if teachers use L1 for classroom communication, they are depriving the students of the only true experience of L2 and thus wasting students’ valuable time. However, Littlewood (1981: 45) argued students should accept the L1 as an effective means of satisfying their communicative needs while learning a foreign language. Likewise, as Willis (1996: 17) reminded us, classroom interaction has its own genre, where teachers and students produce meaningful interactions in turn. It is equally important for students to develop strategies based on their experience and knowledge for working out the meaning of L2 from realistic classroom contexts. Overall, accepting that students should meet natural L2 communication in the classroom actually supports maximizing the L2 rather than avoiding L1. Nevertheless, in daily classroom practices, these assumptions remain robust and are sometimes firmly held by many students and teachers. Practices of L2-only pedagogy Although the fundamentals of L2-only theory have been challenged in a number of ways in recent decades, many teaching approaches are – even if many of them are seldom spelled out – still based on untenable theoretical rationales. First of all, the Direct Approach – built on behaviorist theory and widely adopted since the 1880s – articulated support for a monolingual teaching practice: the L2-only pedagogy. Howatt (1984: 289) argued that it was the unique contribution of the 20th century to the language teaching classroom. Following this, the Audio-lingual Approach, fully developed during the World War II, recommended keeping L1 inactive while the new language is being learned. Recent teaching approaches do not forbid the use of L1 so forcefully, but still re82 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

gard it as unhelpful during the acquisition of L2. For instance, the Communicative Approach has no necessary relationship with the L1, yet the only times that the L1 is mentioned are when advice is given on how to minimize its use. Likewise, the Task-based Learning Approach does not even involve a discussion of the classroom use of L1 at all (Nunan, 1989). Further, L2-only pedagogy is also known and promoted in worldwide foreign language teaching, beginning with the influential French immersion programmes (McMillan and Turnbull, 2009). These language immersion programmes, which originated in Canada, are cited as the most successful examples of a language teaching and learning model and full credit to the L2-only pedagogy was given for this success. Due to the popularity of immersion programmes, many teachers and students, curriculum developers and school leaders have built a strong belief that L2 is best taught monolingually. Cummins (1998) argued that there was in fact nothing new in the phenomenon of “immersing” students in a L2 instructional environment over the last 30 years of practice. Due both to these teaching approaches and the overvaluation of immersion programmes, there is something of a blind acceptance of the L2-only pedagogy. Those who are committed to this notion refuse to entertain any kind of meaningful dialogue about the realism or desirability of the position or about the potential usefulness of students’ L1 or their familiar languages in comprehension, communication and acquisition. Nevertheless, since the late 1950s, the theoretical underpinnings of these approaches have been questioned by linguists such as Noam Chomsky (1959), who pointed out the limitations of structural linguistics. The relevance of behaviorist psychology to language learning was also questioned. An emerging multilingual pedagogy has brought about challenges to the hegemony of the L2-only pedagogy.

83 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Paradigm shift to the multilingual pedagogy The debate about the use of L1 in L2 classes was sparked by Cook (2001). Following this, many recent qualitative and quantitative empirical studies examining when and how much the L2 should be used have revealed that, in reality, L2-only pedagogy doesn’t always work. Many of the studies (e.g. Turnbull, 2001; Turnbull and Arnett, 2002; Turnbull and McMillan, 2007; Sanaoui, 2005; Swain and Lapkin, 2000) clearly show that teachers vary in terms of the quantity and quality of L2 used, even in contexts that are based on principles of exclusive L2 use. Cummins (1991) proposed an interdependency L1 and L2 proficiency model, which posits an underlying language proficiency common to the L1 and the L2 that students use to support the development of the L2, also supports judicious use of the L1 in L2 classrooms. In fact, many scholars now agree that “the language of thought for all but the most advanced L2 students is inevitably his or her L1” (Macaro, 2005: 68). Similarly, Auerbach (1993) revisited theoretical discussions on the use of L1 in L2 teaching beyond beginning levels and further pointed out that evidence from both research and practice suggests that the L1 is a potential resource rather than an obstacle. To have an adaptive view of the input hypothesis, scholars (e.g. Ellis, 1994; Cook, 2001; van Lier, 2000) revisited Krashen’s input hypothesis and added that L2 exposure is necessary, but not sufficient, to guarantee L2 learning, since L2 input must become intake. The L2 input must be understood by students and internalized, and here judicious and theoretically principled L1 use can facilitate intake and thereby contribute to learning. Therefore, students’ prior knowledge in L1 and their familiar languages can be of great significance in improving the internalization process. A growing number of scholars have been prompted to soften the insistence on using L2 only, and have begun to advocate a bilingual and multilingual pedagogy. Multilingual pedagogy sees the student’s L1 as the “greatest asset any human being brings to the task of L2 learning” (Butzkamm and Caldwell, 2009: 66) and the use of L1 as “instrumental to the emo84 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

tional and academic well-being” of the students (Swain, 1986: 101). Butzkamm and Caldwell (2009: 66) believe that teachers make extensive use of students’ L1, especially to build an indispensable “Language Acquisition Support System”. Moreover, Butzkamm (1998: 81) argued that systematic episodes of switching to the L1 can “function as a learning aid to enhance communicative competence in the L2”. Although it is generally accepted that “maximizing the use of the L2 in the classroom is beneficial in providing linguistic exposure” (Butzkamm and Caldwell, 2009: 18), many studies have shown that the use of L1 as a MoI can enhance students’ comprehension (Greene, 1998; Ramirez, 1992; Willig, 1985). Theoretical underpinnings for multilingual pedagogy Paulo Freire (1996), theorist of critical pedagogy, pointed out that the content of the curriculum of adult education is drawn from participants’ life experiences and invites reflection on these experiences. Similarly, in terms of language education, Rivera (1988: 2) argued that education is to empower students to use their L1 actively in order to generate their own curriculum and knowledge. In recent education theories, in particular, within a sociocultural (Vygotsky, 1978) and ecological framework (van Lier, 2004), rethinking and designing a curricular architecture using learners’ full linguistic repertoires becomes not only feasible, but a logical imperative for successful learning (Levine, 2011: 23). Therefore, a monolingual pedagogy for L2 learning should be rejected because it denies students the right to draw on their language resources and strengths by forcing a focus on childlike uses of language and excluding the possibility of critical reflection. I will now outline the key theories and models that support a multilingual approach to classroom language use. Sociocultural theory Multilingual pedagogy draws on Vygotsky’s (1978: 86) sociocultural theory, which supports the idea that cognitive development, including L2 development, is a mediated process driven by social interaction, 85 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

instead of a purely individual effort. The transfer of functions from the social (or inter-psychological) domain to the cognitive (or intrapsychological) plane occurs within the zone of proximal development (ZPD). Vygotsky also believed that it is within the ZPD that cognitive development occurs, not only during a child’s development in the early stage but throughout one’s life; and also it is within the ZPD that scaffolding occurs or that semiotically mediated interactions lead to development. People learn language for social communication. Whenever we participate in social activity, we participate in conversational ways of acting and being that are already deeply saturated with significance (Atkinson, 2002: 531). That is to say, code switching in conversation can be especially helpful in situations when the learner needs affordances for learning or simple maintenance of their social position in conversation with the teacher and other learners, or when learners scaffold interactions toward intelligibility and learning. Studies adopting a sociocultural perspective have provided evidence for the positive use of students’ L1 in the L2 classroom. Antón and DiCamilla (1998) surveyed a group of native English speakers who enrolled in a six-week intensive Spanish class at the beginner level and found that L1 was effectively deployed to provide scaffolded help in the ZPD. Similarly, Atkinson (2002), Swain and Lapkin (2000), Libscher and Dailey-O’Cain (2004), Üstünel and Seedhouse (2005), Dailey-O’Cain and Liebscher (2006) and many other studies have all expressed their support for the use of L1 in L2 teaching. To quote Macaro (2009:37), a sociocultural approach “encourages an inner voice and private speech which are essential contributors to the way we think and act”. Kim (2008), Stables and Wikely (1999), and Littlewood and Yu (2009) argued that depriving students completely of this support by immersing them in a strange environment, where they feel disoriented and powerless, has been identified as one possible source of de-motivation. The cognitive purpose is equally important for “adult students” with a low level of L2 proficiency dealing with challenging tasks and content (Turnbull and Dailey-O’Cain 2009: 6). The mediated language does not have to be the student’s L1 as in many foreign lan86 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

guage classes teachers and students do not share a common language. Morris and Adamson (2010: 159) also argued that students’ “familiar languages” can be helpful as a cognitive tool that assists them in L2 learning. If students are able to use their L1 or their familiar languages pedagogically in the classroom to negotiate new content while they are still developing their cognitive and academic language, they might also enjoy learning more. Ecological theory and beyond Drawing primarily on the ideas of Halliday, Bakhtin and Vygotsky, van Lier established a framework for considering language teaching and learning in an ecological perspective. An ecological perspective “adds significant direction and theoretical cohesion” to Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory (1978: 86). It focuses on “affordance as including both immediate and mediated actions, perception and interpretation, concerns with the quality of learning environments, and a critical perspective on educational activity; it values an appreciation of variation and diversity as well as the integration of self and identity in the learning process” (van Lier, 2004: 21). van Lier further explained (2004: 53) that language is always a meaning-making activity that takes place in a complex network of systems that are interwoven amongst themselves as well as with all aspects of physical, social and symbolic worlds. It is influenced by social, political and economic factors and misconceptions as well. Thus, any teaching method must reflect the dynamic complexity of language learning, rather than seeing it as a “cause and effect”. In an ecological perspective, language learning takes place in activity, whereby teachers create affordances for learners to function as bilinguals. Language skills developed in the classroom should be able to facilitate language use in the communicative situations that students may encounter in the future in their professional or academic lives, and should never be unconnected. In addition to functional language abilities, students should also develop critical language awareness, interpretation and translation skills.

87 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Language should always be viewed in terms of its functions, its roles in making meaning, for all language use involves this. To coconstruct the target language and culture is part of the L2 learning process. That is to say, the goal of adult L2 learning goes beyond the acquisition of what is generally understood under the rubric of communicative competence, rather the goal for learners is and should be to achieve intercultural communicative competence (Byram, 1997; Kramsch, 2006). Effective teaching depends crucially on teachers’ ability to help their students find a sense of personal meaningfulness in the teaching-learning process. Lastly, but equally importantly, Wenger’s (1998) social learning theory and the notion of communities of practice is also appealing because it advocates the notion that learning is a socially constructed event, that learning happens when people get together to pursue some common goal. A community of practice is therefore a social institution, a way of getting things done, of sharing knowledge and information, a forum for achieving satisfaction and in the many tasks of life, of learning in many subtle ways that are both explicit and implicit (Levine, 2011: 41). To use a mediating language in an L2 class and have students engaged in classroom activities critically allows a large part of the language learning process to remain in the control of the learners, and thus meaningful for them. Practices of multilingual pedagogy For many teachers, L1 use in the classroom is a well-kept secret for family, a skeleton in the cupboard, a taboo subject, a source of embarrassment, according to Prodromou (2002: 6). Time and again, using L1 is “accompanied by feelings of guilt” (Butzkamm and Caldwell, 2009: 18). For some others, any notion of using L1 connotes the fearful grammar-translation method. However, teaching bilingually and multilingually does not mean a return to that obsolete teaching method, but instead, “a standpoint that accepts that the thinking, feeling, and artistic life of a person are very much rooted in their mother tongue” (Piasecka, 1988: 97). That is to say, at the initial stages of

88 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

learning a new language, it is best done through one’s mother tongue or familiar languages. Many bilingual and multilingual programmes have emerged in ESL teaching in Canada, America and in European countries since the 1980s. Many bilingual and multilingual programmes have been developed for L2 students to learn using an alternating language approach, using only L2 in some classes and using their L1 in others. In order to achieve bilingualism in English and Spanish, the “Dual Language Programmes” emerged in the United States, where classes were taught through L2 (English) in the morning and L1 (Spanish) in the afternoon (García, 2005: 163). Further, the “Reciprocal Language Teaching” (Hawkins, 1987) approach was developed in European countries, in which English and French students learned each other’s languages on alternating occasions, and this course also took place in England and France on alternate years. Nevertheless, while alternating language methods recognize the importance of L1, L1 and L2 are still treated separately instead of integrating them into one class. These alternating language approaches are also limited as they require two more or less balanced groups of L1 speakers. In practice, the situation is usually not so ideal. As Cook (2001) pointed out, teaching methods that have favoured using both languages within the same lesson were not developed. To integrate L1 into L2 in one language class, and make language classes a more real community for language use, educators and teachers are endeavoring to develop new approaches where teacher and students switch from one language to another at key points according to particular rules. In this practice, code switching is acknowledged as an advanced language skill for bilingual speakers and a normal L2 activity. These teaching approaches include the “Community Language Learning” method (Curran, 1976), “Dodson’s Bilingual Method” (Dodson, 1985), and the “New Concurrent Method” (Jacobson, 1990). Among these, Dodson’s sandwich (Dodson, 1972) method remains one of the most widely applied, though seldom spelt out.

89 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Macaro’s continuum of perspectives With the fast development of L2 teaching and learning, many ideas have been proved to be only applicable under certain circumstances in particular areas, rather than forming a tenable framework that foreign language teachers can draw upon to analyse what they currently do and how they could improve in future. In recent years, a “continuum of perspectives” of L2 and L1 use has been developed by Macaro (2005; 2009: 36). The continuum illustrates three distinct personal beliefs that teachers might hold towards L1 use: the virtual position; the maximal position; and the optimal position (Turnbull and DaileyO’Cain, 2009: 4). On one extreme of the continuum, the virtual position holds a monolingual perspective. It holds that the L2 can only be learnt through that language per se, and that the exclusive use of the L2 provides a kind of “virtual reality” classroom. The maximal position admits that perfect learning conditions (where only L2 is used) do not exist in many of L2 classes, but it still supports maximizing the use of L2. As a result, teachers usually feel guilty about using L1 to aid L2 learning and switching codes between the students’ L1 and the L2. The optimal position holds a multilingual perspective, which is on the other extreme of the continuum. In contrast to the maximal position, proponents of the optimal position do not feel guilty about using students’ L1 in the L2 class. As Macaro (2009) pointed out, the optimal perspective recognizes value in the use of L1 without any pedagogical regrets. The optimal model acknowledges that there is recognizable value in students’ L1 use during the teaching and learning process. With an optimal model, code switching between L1 and L2 in broadly communicative classrooms can enhance L2 acquisition and/or proficiency better than L2 exclusivity (Macaro, 2009: 38). The optimal model is gaining wider acceptance and is beginning to take hold in practice. One of the most recent examples of support for the optimal model came from Swain, Kirkpatrick and Cummins (2010: 6–7). The handbook for ESL teachers in Hong Kong to have a guilt-free life using students’ L1 in the English Class has critically

90 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

examined the English-only principle and made three arguments for modifying the monolingual policy: (1) Language is a cognitive tool, so using a student’s L1 helps them to discover and express ideas in the L2; (2) Language is for communicating, thus bilingual and multilingual students regularly make use of a mix of their languages, giving them subtle and complex ways of conveying their ideas, emotions and identities; (3) A multilingual model is more appropriate for today’s world, in that English is now playing an important role as a lingua franca and the majority of communication is between people who come from non-English backgrounds. Following these three reasons, several guidelines were put forward for teachers and students to use their L1s in a planned and judicious manner: (1) make content comprehensible by building from the known, providing translations for difficult grammar and vocabulary, and using cross-linguistic comparisons, (2) focus on student process and product in task completion, and (3) use L1 for classroom routines. It is believed that the suggested key principles for use of the students’ L1 could help scaffold their learning of English. L2 teachers and students are advised to accept the notion that the L1 apparently serves numerous functions in the L2 class, and that denying a role to the L1 would appear to be a futile endeavor. As a result, these theories and suggestions soon prompted many studies examining the positive use of L1 in L2 teaching. Research on multilingual pedagogy Now that educators and teachers have seen the value in using students’ L1 in the L2 classroom, many of them have proceeded to investigate how to integrate L1 into L2 teaching effectively. The use of multilingual pedagogy has been examined extensively in research on foreign language teaching, mostly in ESL teaching, but also in the teaching of French, Spanish, German and many other foreign languages. These empirical studies are categorized in accordance with

91 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

three different research objects: L2 students, L2 teachers and L2 classrooms. Research on L2 students Norton (2000: 11) pointed out that when language students speak, they are not only exchanging information with target language speakers, but they are constantly organizing and reorganizing a sense of who they are and how they relate to the social world. Thus, code switching becomes a widely observed phenomenon as L2 students switch from one language to another in the same discourse to create new positions to improve their interactional opportunities. Students’ code-switching Code switching was first investigated systematically in the 1960s and 1970s. There is a rich body of literature in which different definitions and models of the concept and practice of code switching have been elaborated (Auer, 1984; Li, 1998; Lin, 2013; Myer-Scotton, 1993). The definition of code switching varies depending on the purpose of the research. In this book, the term “code-switching” will be used in a broader sense which includes code choice, code mixing, and other forms of use of different language elements involved in one interlocutor’s utterances. Code switching acquired a bad reputation in the field of L2 learning, as it was viewed by many teachers as a source of language interference at various levels. However, with the recognition of the usefulness of L1, code switching is also reported not only to facilitate classroom management and transmission of lesson content, but also to prepare students for their sociolinguistic life beyond the classroom (Canagarajah, 1995). Likewise, Halliday (1994) argued that students working in groups or pairs do not have to speak the L2 all the time; they can speak in the L1 about a text and if through this process they are producing hypotheses about the language, then what they are doing is communicative. Code-switching is thus regarded as a learning strategy for L2 students. 92 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

At present, studies on L2 students’ code-switching are mostly about how much L1 and L2 is used and in what circumstances they use their L1 to assist their L2 learning and conversations. In addition to “linguistic functions”, Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain (2004) studied a group of advanced German students in a content-based college course and suggested an affective and sociolinguistic function, which has delineated the reasons for students’ language choices in given circumstances. However, the reasons why they switch codes between L1 and L2 and their attitudes to their conscious or unconscious codeswitching behaviors call for more complex studies on students’ individual differences. Students’ individual differences Students’ individual differences include age, gender, language learning experience, mother tongue proficiency, personality, learning aptitude, learning attitude and motivation, sense modality preference and social preference (e.g. Altman, 1980; Skehan, 1989). As Pavlenko (2002) noted, L2 students’ individual differences can mediate their access to the linguistic and interactional resources available in the L2. Though studies on students’ individual differences cover various areas, this study focuses on L2 students’ attitude towards L2 learning, especially to their code-switching behavior. Studies on L2 learning strategies have suggested that students’ attitudes would be likely to be an underlying factor in code switching in an L2 class. With regard to the use of L1 in L2 teaching, the prevailing L2-pedagogy may cause an “L2-use anxiety” and many empirical studies have supported this assumption. For instance, Young (1990) found that students generally become anxious when they have to use the L2 in front of others. Levine (2003: 318) investigated six hundred FL students about the overall use of L2, attitudes about L2 and L1 use, and anxiety. Further, Polio and Duff (1994) noted that it is hard to have a relaxed atmosphere with L2 students in the L2-only classroom. For many students, it is widely accepted that greater L2 use may be accompanied by greater anxiety about it. As a result, students resort to

93 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

a language learning strategy to cope with the anxiety, and to build a comfortable, communicative and meaningful learning environment. Auer (2002: i) pointed out that, wherever it is employed, codeswitching counts as a discursive strategy that achieves communicative ends by either building on or violating what are commonly seen as fixed boundaries. That code-switching functions as a conversation and learning strategy has invited many mixed-method studies. Research on L2 teachers With regard to the use of L1 in L2 classes, L2 teachers are usually surveyed to examine their beliefs, the ways they construct their identity, and their actual instructional practices. Teachers’ beliefs Beliefs may be consciously or unconsciously held. A system of belief is evaluative in that it is accepted as true by the individual, and is therefore imbued with emotive commitment. Further, it serves as a “guide to thought and behavior” (Borg, 2001: 186). However, Williams and Burden (1997: 56) argued that “beliefs are notoriously difficult to define and evaluate, but there do appear to be a number of helpful statements that we can make about them. They tend to be culturally bound, to be formed early in life and to be resistant to change”. That is, a belief system is intellectually and affectively complex, and cannot presume to be fully captured by people’s responses to a set of normative statements (Wilkinson and Schwartz, 1989; Weinstein, 1994). The idea that teachers’ beliefs could have a direct effect on their teaching is not new. Ghaith (2004: 280) described teachers’ beliefs as “comprehensive of several dimensions relative to beliefs about learning, teaching, programme and curriculum, and the teaching profession more generally”. Borg (2006) summed these up by saying that teachers’ beliefs are teachers’ pedagogical beliefs or those beliefs of relevance to an individual’s teaching. The diversity of theoretical frameworks in language teaching and learning beliefs research creates a rich 94 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

tapestry of complementary studies. Many approaches to the study of teachers’ beliefs have been developed. On the basis of the definition of beliefs, research methodology, and the relationship between beliefs and other factors, Barcelos (2003) distinguished three main approaches to studies of teachers’ beliefs: nominative; metacognitive; and contextual. The contextual approach will be discussed in more detail. Research studies within the contextual approach are qualitative in nature and contribute to an interpretive paradigm. A number of research studies have employed the contextual approach to explore L2 teachers’ beliefs about using students’ L1 in L2 classes (e.g. RolinIanziti and Brownlie, 2002; Macaro, 2001; Levine, 2003; Crawford, 2004). To be specific, in a task-based ESL class, Carless (2008) interviewed ten teachers and ten teacher educators through semi-structured interviews in Hong Kong secondary schools to investigate their beliefs about the use of students’ L1. Most of the teacher participants took a pragmatic view of L1 use, considering it to be inevitable. Teacher participants generally expressed a preference for L2 use but acknowledged that in order to maintain students’ attention, interest or involvement, contributions in the L1 needed to be permitted (Carless, 2008: 333). Carless further classified teachers’ use of students’ L1 into two categories: communicative tasks and language analysis tasks. In a similar sense, Eldridge (1996) classified the teachers’ purposes in use of the students’ L1: equivalence; floor-holding; reiteration; and conflict control. Teacher identity Welmond (2002) pointed out that teacher identity is comprised of the beliefs that teachers hold about their individual role as teachers, as well as the view of society towards teachers. Drake, Spillance and Hufferd-Ackes (2001) saw teacher identity as the teachers’ individual self-concept as well as their knowledge, ideology, attitudes, and disposition towards responsibility and change. At its core, an understanding of teacher identity enables the researcher to analyse “the ways in which teachers achieve, maintain, and develop their identity, their

95 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

sense of self, in and through a career which is of vital significance in understanding the actions and commitments of teachers in their work” (Ball and Goodson, 1985: 18). Therefore, the concept of teacher identity becomes critical for researchers if they want to gain a deeper understanding of the factors that influence teachers’ attitudes and beliefs in everyday educational practice (Williams, 2007: 309). Identity is an emerging subject of interest in research on language teacher education and teacher development. Yet, for many, L2 teacher identity remains confused when discussing their attitudes about the use of L1 and L2. For many teachers, the argument about the language of education is also an argument about national identity, as much as it is about developing the intellectual skills of children. It also concerns countries which are facing challenges over how to maintain their identity in the face of the internationalization of English. Lee (2003) and Mardziah and Wong (2006) studied the relationship between ethnic identity and attitudes towards the use of English and found that ESL teachers in Malaysia strongly felt that English is a threat to their ethnic and national identity. Some teachers even regarded those who used English widely as unpatriotic. However, Tsui (2005) argued that many Asian countries are in the process of reinventing national identity at the same time as they are “legitimating” the hegemony of English by making it a central feature of national development. In most cases, this paradox is resolved by appropriating English in ways which do least damage to their national language and identity. This includes pedagogical practices and systematic biases in the research which evaluates them – traditional EFL privileges very western ideas about expected relations, for example, between teacher, student and text. Hence, arguments about the priorities of different languages in education and the best age to start learning them may conceal deeper issues about cognitive learning styles and expected relationships between teacher and student. But as English becomes more widely used as a global language, it will become expected that speakers will signal their nationality, and other aspects of their identity, through English.

96 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Studies of teacher belief and teacher identity are further examined by observing their actual classroom practice. Comprehensive reviews of teachers’ beliefs and practice have found both congruence and incongruence between the two. Johnson (1992) is one of the early studies that explored the relationship between ESL teachers’ beliefs and practices in reading instruction. It invited thirty ESL teachers for interviews to describe what they believed was an ideal ESL class. Their classroom practices were found to be consistent with their beliefs. In contrast, discrepancies were revealed between the teachers’ beliefs about using L2 only and their practice of a multilingual pedagogy. Polio and Duff (1994: 320) found that teachers reminded students a number of times that they must use the L2 in their small-group language practice, however, the teacher later soon witched to students’ L1 to give a translation and then a grammatical explanation in response to a certain language point. Research in L2 classrooms Studies on L1 use in L2 classrooms have two focuses. One is to derive principles for using the students’ L1 in a more conscious, sensitive and effective way. Another is to identify common functions of L1 use in the L2 classroom. Principles of L1 use in L2 class Studies adopting the multilingual paradigm have put forward rules and guidelines for frontline teachers to refer to. Lai (1996) investigated classroom teaching practice by four pre-service ESL teachers in Hong Kong and described the situations which rendered the use of the L1 necessary for the ESL teachers, the ways in which students’ L1 are used as well as what triggers the use of L2 in the ESL class. Later, Cook (2001) listed four factors to consider in terms of whether or not students’ L1 should be used: (1) Efficiency: Can something be done more effectively through the L1? (2) Learning: Will L2 learning be supported by using the L1 alongside the L2?

97 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

(3) Naturalness: Do the participants feel more comfortable about some functions or topics in the L1 rather than the L2? (4) External relevance: Will use of both languages help students to master specific L2 uses that they may need in the world beyond the classroom?

The four factors helps L2 teachers decide when and how to achieve practical goals in the learning of the L2. Moreover, Macaro and Mutton (2002) found that teachers can achieve many pedagogical functions in a very short time through using students’ L1, thus still allowing for significant “discourse space” in L2. Likewise, Macaro (2000: 184) reminds us that too much focus on the L2, with long periods of input modification, result in teacher-fronted lessons in which individual students only speak the L2 for limited amounts of time (Chambers, 1992). In the next few chapters, this study will identify core principles for using a student’s L1 and familiar languages in L2 classes, through which L2 teachers will know when to use students’ L1 to assist in teaching of the L2. Functions of L1 use in L2 class Swain and Lapkin (2000: 258), Polio and Duff (1994: 317), Cook (2001: 413-419), Eldridge (1996) and many other empirical studies have all proposed judicious use of multiple codes in L2 classes. First of all, Swain and Lapkin (2000: 258) developed three principal purposes for a task-based classroom. The coding categories they established for instances of L1 use are as follows: 1.

Moving the task along: (a) sequencing (figuring out the order of events); (b) retrieving semantic information, understanding pieces of information; developing an understanding of the story; (c) task management.

2.

Focusing attention: (a) vocabulary search; (b) focus on form; explanation; framing; retrieving grammatical information.

3.

Interpersonal interaction: (a) off task; (b) disagreement.

98 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Second, Polio and Duff (1994: 317) listed eight items for three categories of purposes for L1 use in the L2 classroom. 1.

Function of item/utterances produced: (a) for administrative vocabulary items; (b) for grammar instruction; (c) for classroom management; (d) to index a stance of empathy/ solidarity; (e) for L1 practice by the teacher with tutoring from the students.

2.

Difficulty of the language being used: (a) to provide translations for unknown L2 vocabulary; (b) to remedy students’ apparent lack of comprehension.

3.

Interactive effect involving students’ use of L1.

Third, Cook (2001: 413–419) described three ways of using L1 positively in teaching. 1.

Teachers use L1 to convey meaning: (a) to convey and check meaning of words or sentences; (b) to explain grammar.

2.

Teachers use L1 to organize the class: (a) to organize a task; (b) to maintain discipline; (c) to gain contact with an individual student; (d) to run tests and examinations.

3.

Student use L1 within class: (a) as part of the main learning activity; (b) as classroom activities.

Many similarities are seen from the above three studies. They all emphasized the importance of using students’ L1 for explaining L2 grammar and translating L2 vocabulary for explaining or conveying meaning. This will be termed the “explanatory function”. Second, the three models all mentioned the usefulness of L1 for teachers to manage classroom tasks and maintain a good learning environment. This function will be named the “managerial function”. Third, students can use the L1 to achieve interaction with teachers and among students themselves as well. This is the “interactive function”. To sum up,

99 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

there are three categories for using L1 sensibly in the L2 classroom, as follows: 1.

The explanatory function: teachers use students’ L1 for explaining metalinguistic content of L2, checking comprehension, providing necessary scaffolding for classroom student learning, etc.

2.

The managerial function: teachers use students’ L1 for giving activity instructions, giving feedback, praising, encouraging, disapproving, planning assignments or preparing tests, examinations, etc.

3.

The interactive function: students use L1 to communicate with each other or provide peer support for each other, etc.

In the next chapter, I will first introduce the context of CFL teaching in China, followed by a close examination of the connotation of “medium of instruction” in CFL studies. On this basis, I will expand the discussion by introducing the question of the conflict between the monolingual norm and the multilingual reality in CFL teaching.

100 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Chapter 4 Language choice in the Chinese context The purpose of this chapter is to lay the conceptual foundation for an ELF approach to CFL classroom teaching, and to establish the parameters of the theoretical and pedagogical imperative for it. I will begin this chapter by reviewing the Chinese national language policy and the endeavours of the Chinese government to achieve a Putonghua monolingual norm in educational sectors. The national language policy has inevitably influenced the approach to CFL teaching and curriculum design in China. This has led to confusion in discussions about the medium of instruction in CFL, because foreign students do not necessarily need to be covered by Chinese national education and cannot be transformed into a Putonghua-speaking monolingual Chinese. I will then introduce the question of the tension between the monolingual norm – the predominant Chinese-only pedagogy and the multilingual reality, which is the widely-applied approach of using English as a lingua franca in CFL teaching and learning. The national language policy China is a multidialectal and multilingual country. For the Han Chinese, the majority of the population, there are two main groups of dialects: the northern dialects and the southern dialects. The northern dialects can be subdivided into seven sub-groups and the southern dialects into six sub-groups (Huang, 1987: 33–45). In addition, around 80 to 120 languages are used among the 55 officially listed ethnic minorities (State Language Commission, 1995: 159). The standard dialect, Putonghua, maps well on to the written form of Modern Standard Chinese (Lam, 2005: 8). Putonghua is officially defined as

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

having “Beijing speech as its standard pronunciation, the northern Chinese dialect, and modern Chinese literary classics written in vernacular Chinese as its grammatical norm” (National Linguistics Work Committee, 1996: 12). Putonghua is spoken and taught as an official language in the People’s Republic of China. I will use the term “Putonghua” only in the discussion of language policy and return to the term “Chinese” throughout the remainder of the book. Despite the diversity of dialects spoken and languages taught in China, CFL teaching only focuses on Putonghua as the standard target language. Many efforts have been made to standardize Chinese and to promote the standard form since the 1950s (Lam, 2005). Reviewing the policy after half a century in the light of all the recent developments, the official promotion of Putonghua in all areas of the use of Chinese is evident. The promotion of Putonghua began in the mid-1950s and was reaffirmed in the 1980s. It is clear that the move was planned as an all-encompassing policy involving the schools, the media and other public services with specific implementation targets and follow-up action at both national and regional levels. The manpower resources mobilized for policy implementation were immense. Even though China is vast and a population of 1.3 billion makes state initiated language planning extremely challenging, much work has been done since the 1990s. The imperative for learning and speaking Putonghua remains an official task. In many places in China, plaques on the walls of schools and dormitories or government offices still exhort teachers, students and others to “speak Putonghua” while reminding them that language is the mark of a county’s nationhood ( 宕妨㔯⫿㗗ᶨ᷒⚥⭞ᷣ㛫䘬㞯⽿). In China, language learning has been closely related to ideological issues. CFL teaching also became a major target in the promotion of Putonghua. Now almost all students learning Chinese learn Putonghua (Kane, 2006; Xing, 2006). In order to assure standardization for assessing proficiency in Putonghua, the Putonghua Proficiency Test was developed in 1997 for native speakers of Chinese, with particularly high requirements for broadcasting personnel and teachers. All teachers should attain Grade 2B and teachers of Chinese (including those who teach CFL) should 102 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

attain Grade 2A. While the early emphasis in the 1950s was on local popularization, the later impetus from the 1980s has turned attention overseas. The Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi (HSK) was developed in 1988 as a national standardized test of Chinese for CFL students. Of all the recent measures, the clearest indication of policy intent is The Law on the Commonly Used Language and Script in China (ᷕ⋶Ṣ㮹ℙ␴⚥ ⚥⭞忂䓐宕妨㔯⫿㱽), which took effect on the first day of 2001. In Article 20, the law clearly spelt out that Chinese language teaching for foreigners shall involve Putonghua and standard Chinese characters (simplified Chinese characters) (Rohsenow, 2004: 41). The medium of instruction controversy Medium of instruction in this context denotes the language used for teaching or learning a language, including the target language, the students’ first language and/or a common language shared by teachers and students. However, the connotation of this term is slightly different from its established definition in English in CFL teaching and learning. Three groups of perspectives were found in the literature (Wang, 2012). MoI refers to “other” languages. Many (e.g. Wang, 2007; Fu, 2005: 49) believe MoI excludes the target language, and only refers to languages which teachers and students use for communication when students’ proficiency in Chinese remains limited. For example, Fu (2005: 49) says that: ⮡⢾㯱宕㔁⬎䓴㇨宜䘬⨺ṳ宕ᶨ凔ᶵ㊯䚖䘬宕㯱宕炻侴ᶻ㊯㔁ⶰᶲ宦㖞῁ ㇨䓐䘬ⶰ䓇ℙ⎴㌴㎉䘬宕妨炻征ᶨ宕妨ᶨ凔㗗㔁ⶰ䘬䫔Ḵ宕妨炻㗗⬎䓇䘬 㭵宕ㆾ䫔Ḵ宕妨ˤ The term medium of instruction excludes the target language, but particularly refers to a common language shared by teachers and students. This common language is usually the teachers’ second language or students’ mother tongue or second language.

103 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Nevertheless, viewing MoI simply as the non-target-language can be very problematic. To separate the target language and instructional language will result in a gap between students’ classroom language use, preferably in the target language only, and their daily communication in multiple languages. That is to say, language output in mixed codes will not be regarded as speaking good Chinese. More importantly, this perception of MoI has downplayed its role in foreign language teaching and learning, which is also the reason why research into MoI in CFL teaching and learning remains underdeveloped. MoI refers to “interlanguage”. Interlanguage means a linguistic system that is developed by a student of an L2 who has not yet become fully proficient (Selinker, 1972). Some (e.g. Chen Yi, 2011: 23; Du, 2009: 136) argue that MoI equals interlanguage, because they believe the MoI should be a part of the target language that students have already learnt in class. In this definition, teachers use students’ imperfect L2 output as a communication medium. Chen Yi (2011: 23) argued that: […] 㜩ᷢ慵奮䚖䘬宕䘬⸧㲃ἧ䓐ˤ[…] 校䚖ḇ䥱㈧䛨征ᶨ⬿㖐炻ẍ“䚜㍍䚖 䘬宕”㔁⬎ᷢ⍇⇁炻䦗㜩⇃学乗Ⅸ䘬㯱宕⬎Ḉ䍗⠫炻⛐㔁⬎ᷕ⯥慷性⃵䚜 ㍍侣孹㱽䘬ἧ䓐炻㚱シ孮⛘㏰⺫ᷕṳ宕炻⍾侴ẋᷳẍ檀⹎奮奱⊾䘬㔁⬎弭 ≑㛸㕁炻⣏慷ῇ≑㔁ⶰ偊ỻ宕妨ˣ䚜奪㔁℟䫱⎗奮⊾㔁⬎ⶍ℟␴ㇳ㭝㜍⺨ ⯽㔁⬎ˤ The extensive use of the target language is stressed….The programme upholds this proposition and supports a direct target-language-only pedagogy by creating a pure Chinese learning environment, making efforts to avoid the direct translation method and refusing the use of interlanguage. To replace it, teachers use highly visual assisting materials, relying on body language and highly visual tools for teaching.

However, actual classroom communications can be far more complicated than can be accommodated by the language structures taught in the L2 class, including inquiries and explanations of cultural background, grammar knowledge as well as individual learning difficulties. To keep the L2 classroom communicative, in particular to allevi-

104 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

ate anxiety for L2 beginners, a good understanding of the student’s first language or familiar languages can be very practical. MoI refers to English. Many CFL teachers put English in brackets as an equivalent of MoI in CFL. They (e.g., Zhang, 2007: 162; Deng, 2008: 5) believe that English is the first foreign language for the majority of CFL teachers and students, so they use English as the default MoI in CFL teaching. On the one hand, Chen Yi (2010), Jiao (2009) and Xu (2008) have discussed the principles of when, to whom and how to use English effectively. On the other hand, Du (2009), Liang (1998) and Wang (2007) have endeavored to promote an “Englishfree” CFL teaching method, where only Chinese is used in the classroom. Referring to the above three groups of perspectives, MoI in CFL teaching can be defined as languages that CFL teachers and students use for teaching and learning the Chinese language. The language includes Chinese as the target language, the students’ first language, as well as a common or familiar language that both teachers and students share. English is one of the most widely used MoIs in CFL classrooms. MoI includes all languages in use in the classroom. During the past 60 years, a total of eleven CFL teaching syllabuses have been published (Cui, 2005: 68). Regulations concerning the medium of instruction are mostly found in those for CFL beginners and short-term Chinese programmes. For example, an earlier one, edited by Yang Jizhou (1999: 5), explicitly states that English and other foreign languages should be forbidden in CFL classes: 㔁⬎䘬ᷣ天䓐宕㗗㯱宕ˤ戜Ḷᶨ凔㔁㛸悥㚱循慷䘬侣孹炻⣂㔘㬋奬㔁⬎⋽ ỵ➢㛔ᶲ㗗㶟⎰亾䎕炻⚈㬌炻宦➪㔁⬎ᷕ⍇⇁ᶲᶵ⃩孠ἧ䓐㝸䥵⬎䓇㭵宕 炷ἳ⤪烉劙宕ˣ㖍宕䫱炸ㆾ℞Ṿ⨺ṳ宕ˤ Chinese is the primary medium of instruction. In general circumstances, translation is appropriately provided in textbooks and the class is usually made up by students from different countries. In view of these two points, in principle, students’ L1 (e.g., English, Japanese, etc.) and other foreign languages are forbidden to be used as the medium of instruction in teaching Chinese.

105 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Moreover, Hanban’s syllabus (2002: 3) dealing with short CFL courses stated clearly and simply that “Teachers should teach in Chinese and minimize the use of L1 as the medium of instruction” (䓐㯱宕乬 乯㔁⬎炻㈲⨺ṳ宕䘬ἧ䓐ⅷ⮹⇘㚨Ỷ旸⹎) Besides teaching syllabuses, the similar “Chinese-only” principle can be seen almost in all compulsory readings for CFL teacher training and development programmes. Despite the rigid prescription of a Chinese-only pedagogy in the state language policy, teaching syllabuses and scholarly recommendations, there has been intensive debate on whether or not to adopt ELF as a MoI in CFL classes. Two schools of thought have formed on whether to allow or disallow the use of ELF. On the one hand, there is the Chinese-only pedagogy, which represents the monolingual norm in CFL teaching and learning. On the other hand, there is the ELF pedagogy, describing the multilingual reality of CFL classrooms. The monolingual norm: Chinese-only pedagogy Chinese-only pedagogy is the predominant language policy across many CFL programmes in China. Teachers who support the Chineseonly pedagogy argue that Chinese is best taught through Chinese only, and that the use of English (or other languages with which the students are familiar) always results in negative transfers in the process of acquiring Chinese (e.g. Liu, 2006: 118; Lü, 1993: 84; Sun, 2003: 101). Such a Chinese-only pedagogy follows the regulations laid down by the national language policy and teaching syllabuses. As can be seen from the excerpts below, little value is accorded to English, though it is obviously widely used in the CFL context. Some pedagogical assumptions are based on the ideas of several prestigious Chinese scholars whose opinions have influenced and shaped several generations of CFL teachers. For example, Lü Bisong (1993: 84) argued that ㆹẔ⍇⇁ᶲᶵ⍵⮡⛐䫔Ḵ宕妨㔁⬎ᷕἧ䓐⨺ṳ宕炻Ữᷣ⻈㈲⨺ṳ宕䘬ἧ䓐 ⅷ⮹⇘㚨Ỷ旸⹎炻⎒㗗⛐ᶵ⼿⶚䘬㖞῁ἧ䓐ˤ

106 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

In principle, we do not object to the use of English as the MoI in Chinese teaching, but we aim to minimize its use, or only use it as the last resort.

This was probably one of the earliest statements aiming to regulate the use of English as the MoI in CFL teaching. Moreover, CFL teachers are also warned to avoid switching codes between Chinese and English. Switching and mixing code is regarded as inappropriate input for CFL learners. For instance, Liu Xun (2000: 351) argued that ⸼⯥慷彸䓐䚖䘬宕ᶶ⬎Ḉ侭㱇忂, 性⃵宕妨弔㌊ㆾ⣡㛪⬎䓇䘬㭵宕ㆾ⨺ṳ 宕ˤ Use as much target language as possible to communicate with students, avoid switching or mixing students’ L1 or English with Chinese, the target language.

Yang Huiyuan (2004) specified circumstances where English can be used as a MoI and where not. Yang argued that 㔁ⶰ⛐孚妋䘬㖞῁⎗ẍ循⻻ἧ䓐⢾宕炻Ữ㗗宦➪䓐宕亅⮡ᶵ傥ἧ䓐⢾宕ˤ Teachers can use some foreign languages to explain a language point, but never use any foreign languages when giving directions.

It seems Yang understood that English is useful for explaining language knowledge but rejected the notion that English can be helpful as well in managing learning activity. However, no proper reason was given as to why ELF should be forbidden in classroom management. Similarly, negative consequences are presented as a result of using a student’s L1 or English. Sun (2003: 101) argued that ⭆嶝ᷕㆹẔ悥㚱征㟟䘬ỻỂ, ⬎䓇朆ⷠ⍵デ㔁ⶰᶲ宦⿣ẍ⢾宕孚㌰, 㚱䘬⬎ 䓇䓂军⸚傮ᶵ⭊㮼⛘⏲孱侩ⶰ “ㆹ㗗㜍⬎㯱宕䘬, ᶵ㗗㜍⬎⢾宕䘬”ˤ In teaching, we all have this experience. Students have found it very annoying when teachers overused the students’ L1 or English. Some students even complained that “I’m here to learn Chinese, not foreign languages”.

107 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Lastly, Liu Xun (2006: 118) pointed out that CFL teachers should strictly abide by the Chinese-only principle and use Chinese exclusively in class. Liu argued that 宦➪ᶲ⇁⸼᷍㟤ỻ䍘‘㰱㴠㱽’䘬䱦䤆炻⯥⎗傥ἧ䓐䚖䘬宕, 昌Ḯ⽭天䘬侣孹 乫Ḉ⢾, ᶵἧ䓐㭵宕ㆾ⨺ṳ宕ˤ We should strictly follow the ‘spirit of immersion approach’ in class and use the target language as much as possible. Except for necessary translation, the students’ L1 or English is forbidden.

Chinese-only pedagogy is thought to be the most successful model. CFL teaching borrowed the term “immersion” from the Canadian immersion programme, and used it in promoting Chinese-only pedagogy. The most famous immersion school using Chinese-only pedagogy was Middlebury College in the U.S. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, many Chinese scholars (Ji, 2006; Shi, 1994; Zhang and Tian, 2004) introduced the “Middlebury Model” to CFL teaching in China and believed China should also implement this monolingual approach. Therefore, in China, the “Princeton in Beijing (PiB)” programme was established, which follows and applies the Middlebury model and this became the first programme to promote the monolingual immersion approach in Beijing (Zhu, 1996: 46). PiB, which began in 1993, is one of the most well-known American summer language programmes in Beijing and PiB’s “total immersion” approach requires students to speak no language other than Chinese. Students are required to take a “language pledge” before they leave for Beijing (Mu, 2007). The text of the pledge is as follows: I hereby pledge to use, in all my contacts, no language other than Mandarin Chinese for the duration of the programme. I understand that failure to abide by the pledge will result in my dismissal from the programme and forfeiture of tuition (Princeton in Beijing).

PiB is famous for its rigorous monolingual pedagogy and its strict language pledge. Following this Chinese-only model, hundreds of summer intensive programmes and short term training Chinese pro108 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

grammes in universities in Beijing adopted this method. Examples include the Associated Colleges in China in Capital University of Economics and Business, the International Education of Students in Beijing Foreign Studies University and the Columbia University Programme in Peking University. However, it seems the focus has been put on how intensive and challenging the immersion programme can be, while leaving little room for exploring how helpful this teaching approach is in terms of building students’ intercultural Chinese language competence. The fundamental problem with this immersion programme is that it does not fit those CFL students who have little or no prior knowledge of Chinese, and also those who intend to learn Chinese for fun. For this reason, these study-in-China programmes are believed to be more suitable for highly capable and highly motivated CFL students (Xing, 2006: 71). As a matter of fact, there are quite a few “stubborn” scholars in CFL academy who write in opposition to what they have practiced in real classroom teaching. They have used their own experience as examples, often without any theoretical support and without taking a global view of the language situation for today’s CFL learners. All these articles are defensive in tone – “it is not entirely impossible to teach beginners through Chinese only”, “it does not hurt to explain new Chinese words in Chinese”, “there is no harm in asking students to study the English translation in textbooks or write the English translation on the blackboard while teachers stay away from uttering any English words in the CFL class”… etc. Some teaching techniques have been developed to help teachers to abide by the Chinese-only pedagogy in CFL classes. Liang Ninghui (1998: 41-42) suggested a few methods to avoid the use of English: (1) use flashcards; (2) make gestures; (3) elicit students to imitate; (4) use students’ interlanguage; (5) ask students to use a dictionary; (6) ask students to explain to each other, on occasions when the use of English is triggered. That is to say, no matter what the circumstances, CFL teachers should hold their tongue and refrain from speaking any English. These solutions were designed to avoid speaking English in situations where it is necessary to use English as a MoI and provide 109 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

affordance to students. Such an approach has clearly revealed that CFL students are to be treated as school pupils and also that the boundary of L1 acquisition and L2 learning is inevitably mixed. Moreover, the class is assumed to be teacher-centered, in that the importance of communication between teachers and students might be negatively impeded if teachers simply request students to “check new words in the dictionary by themselves”, instead of helping them figure out the meaning in time. All these methods seem to have fallen into pure formalism, where English is excluded not for any pedagogically sound reason, but because it is “English”. In a similar sense, Wang Hanwei (2007) surveyed 420 CFL students through questionnaires, to understand their choices of language in class. The study claimed that only English native speakers supported the use of English, whereas students from Korea and Japan opposed the use of English because their English proficiency was not good. However, there is room for doubt over these results due to an oversimplified research instrument and overgeneralization of this small-scale research into the conclusion that few CFL students from Korea and Japan speak English. In addition, following Wang’s assumption, Du Yalin (2009: 136) also argued that the use of English is limited to students from a few English-speaking countries and is only useful to students in the beginning stage. Du then suggested that the exclusion of English in CFL class is not only possible but also necessary. Some traditional Chinese scholars favour an “apprenticeship” style of learning where the master demonstrates and the apprentices follow and practice. They believe this is a perfect model for where the “teacher” speaks no English but teaches successfully. Ding Guangquan, a renowned Chinese comedian, is known for training foreigners to perform comic-cross talk shows on Chinese television, which is one of the most skilful Chinese language performing arts, very difficult for even native Chinese speakers to command. As a traditional Chinese language artist, Ding himself speaks very little English, but his foreign students were still able to follow him and have learned very difficult Chinese tongue-twisters from him. These stu110 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

dents have strived to cross linguistic and cultural boundaries. Two names are constantly heard: Dashan (Mark Rowswell) and Daniu (Daniel Newham), one from Canada and one from Britain; both are household names as Chinese television hosts. Their extraordinary performance in speaking the Chinese language is used as a model for encouraging Chinese learners to believe that “foreigners can speak as well as Chinese natives, and can be even better.” Although there are certainly more individuals who have demonstrated a surprisingly good Chinese language performance, it would be a little optimistic to expect that every Chinese learner has the potential to reach such a high level. Yet, Ding also taught his foreign students through years and years of hard work and monotonous practice, very different from classroom language teaching. Modern language classroom requires effective teaching techniques and management skills. Emphasising a single successful case of traditional style apprenticeship has to some extent become an excuse for CFL teachers to make no effortin pedagogy research and reform. The multilingual reality: The ELF pedagogy There have been some recognitions of the importance of using English as well as the students’ L1 for CFL teaching in recent years. In a small-scale study, Ouyang Wanjun (2003: 76) showed that CFL beginners from Korea were struggling with their class instructions and often needed to rely on CFL teachers with knowledge of Korean to help them translate the Chinese-only class into Korean after school. A bilingual model, using L1 and L2, can be very helpful to absolute beginners for improving their living conditions in China through enhancing the comprehensibility of conversations. In recent years, the Chinese government has striven to develop a group of multilingual CFL teachers, who are expected to speak one of the less-commonlytaught foreign languages in mainland China, such as Korean, Japanese, French, Russian, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Arabic, Bulgarian, Slovenian, Albanian, Croatian, Czech, etc. However, these multilin111 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

gual CFL teachers are trained to teach Chinese in designated overseas countries, instead of teaching through multiple codes in China’s universities. In fact, only a few empirical studies have attempted to address the issue of CFL teacher training for increasingly multilingual classrooms in China. There are a few recent Chinese articles on the subject of the growing use of English as a medium of instruction, which have attempted to suggest in which circumstances, for which purposes, and in which ways English can be used to achieve practical goals. However, many of these studies were based on people’s opinions, anecdotes and intuitions, instead of on empirical research. Empirical evidence shows that teachers and students in CFL class have in practice used English widely, though to varying degrees. Corresponding with the promotion of English language education in China (Lam, 2005), teachers’ English language competence is becoming as important as their comparative linguistic knowledge of English and Chinese (Zhang, 2006). Moreover, Xie, Huang and Li. (2007) and Wang Danrong (2010) argued that CFL teachers should at least become Chinese and English bilinguals and CFL teacher training should focus on their pedagogical skills in English as well. In some studies (e.g. Chen Fu, 2010), CFL teachers are portrayed as messengers who spread Chinese culture in addition to the role of a language educator. In one of my studies, I have also suggested that CFL teachers need to be able to use English as a lingua franca in increasingly globalized teaching contexts (Wang, 2010). This has increased the importance of English in order to keep the class communicative and interactive. However, only in rare cases can CFL teachers speak the L1 of their students. It would be ideal if a CFL teacher could speak several foreign languages and be able to use these languages to communicate, but English is the most basic one. Therefore, there is relatively little possibility of developing an “L1 pedagogy”. On the other hand, it is equally important to bear in mind that CFL students are highly diversified linguistically and that the CFL class usually contains very different L1 speakers. It is not realistic to expect CFL teachers to be able to speak all potential students’ L1s. However, under such circum112 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

stances, English is indisputably the most commonly and widely used foreign language for both the CFL teachers and the students. Thus, as one of the few shared languages between CFL teachers and students, and between students themselves, English is the default lingua franca in CFL classes. Studies of absolute beginners in China’s CFL programmes have also showed that a bilingual model might be necessary. The term “absolute beginner” refers to those who have little or no prior knowledge of the Chinese language before they come to study in China. In CFL programmes, these absolute beginners are usually mixed with other beginners who have more background knowledge of Chinese in the same class. They are expected to benefit from Chinese-only pedagogy as much as other CFL learners at higher levels. When asked why potential CFL students should come to China to study Chinese, most CFL professionals believe that China provides an opportunity for students to communicate with native Chinese in and out of the classroom, an environment absent in Western countries. Nevertheless, given the fact that native speakers of Chinese use their language fluidly and converse at a comparatively fast speed, many believe that only advanced or intermediate CFL students can benefit from the trip. Therefore, Kubler et al. (1997: 173) argued that only those who have studied Chinese for at least “two or three years” prior to their arrival in China will be able to “take optimal advantage” of this environment. Thus, for absolute beginners, especially in a short term course or summer course, it becomes questionable whether they should go to China to study Chinese in the first place. The American National Foreign Language Center’s Guide for Basic Chinese Language Programmes lists two major problems for CFL beginners in China: (1) They tend to stay by themselves because of their inability to converse in Chinese with the local people; (2) They feel pressured to learn fragmentary Chinese to meet their survival needs. Much effort has been made in developing principles for applying an ELF pedagogy. Studies on MoI have reached a consensus that ELF use in CFL classrooms should abide by a “moderation principle”. That is, ELF should be used judiciously, sensibly and to use Xu Pinxiang’s 113 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

(2008) term, “moderately” in CFL classes. Xu argued that ELF use should consider four factors: (1) to whom (student’s linguistic background), (2) at which level (student’s L2 level), (3) for how long and (4) how much. Following Xu’s idea, Jiao Jiao (2009: 24) suggested that 80% to 100% of the class for advanced CFL students should be in Chinese; and 50% for intermediate or lower level CFL students. Further, Chen Jingyang (2010) suggested that CFL teachers should observe Xu’s moderation principle and reduce the possibility of negative transfer from ELF. These and many studies have proved the importance of using ELF effectively. It is true that both advantages and disadvantages exist in the use of ELF, but it is not enough to stop at such a general principle without going further to examine students’ attitudes, teachers’ beliefs and actual classroom teaching practice in terms of language choice and language use. However, up to now, very few thick descriptions exist of the current situation of language use in CFL classrooms through empirical studies, and this study attempts to bridge this gap. What is the ELF pedagogy The research for this book took the form of a mixed-method study in four universities in Beijing, the People’s Republic of China. The aim of this study was to describe, analyse and interpret a culture-sharing group’s patterns of behavior, beliefs, and use of language (Creswell, 2008: 473). In order to answer the research questions, three individual yet interrelated studies were conducted. This mixed method approach helped to map out more fully the richness and complexity of human behavior by examining the phenomenon from more than one standpoint and by making use of both quantitative and qualitative data (Cohen and Manion, 1994: 235). A combination of research methods was applied, questionnaires were used to collect quantitative data from international students of Chinese, in-depth interviews were used to collect qualitative data from CFL teachers, and classroom observations were used to collect data from natural settings. 114 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

In brief, quantitative data were gathered from 497 CFL learners about their attitudes towards code mixing and code switching in CFL classes through an open-ended questionnaire; qualitative data were collected from 24 CFL teachers concerning their beliefs on the subject of language choice and the “Chinese-only pedagogy” by means of semi-structured in-depth interviews. Four teachers agreed to have their classes observed for further analysis of both learners and teachers’ language use in natural classroom settings. The outcome of these three studies is “ELF pedagogy”, a tentative model for judicious use of English in Chinese foreign language classrooms and its implications for curriculum design, teacher development, and pedagogical reform. It is seen as beneficial for foreign language teachers to develop an alternative pedagogy and to learn to adopt a practical view which can genuinely help to enhance meaning construction in class on the basis of the findings described in the book. The investigation was initially carried out during October 2010 in Beijing. I particularly chose to do this research around one month after the first academic semester began in China. After their first month of living in Beijing, I believed that these CFL students would be familiar with the teaching methods used in their classes and their CFL study needs, and also have a better understanding of the social environment. I began by inviting ten of Beijing’s key universities which offer CFL programmes to take part in this research, of which four agreed. The four universities were: Peking University (PU), Renmin University of China (RUC), Beihang University (BU) and Beijing Foreign Studies University (BFSU). Based on statistics from the respective administration offices, there were, at the time of the data collection, approximately 1,600 international students studying the Chinese language in the four universities and 116 full-time CFL teachers. Of these, this research managed to survey a total of 497 students, representing about 31.1% of the total cohort, and a total of 24 teachers, which was around 21.0% of all teaching fellows in the four research sites. Four CFL teachers among the 24 interviewed agreed to open their classes for observation.

115 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

In fact, I had considerable difficulty in identifying research participants and it took a year of making contacts before I was able to secure research sites. In particular, when I explained my research plan to potential CFL teacher participants, many of them felt it would be risky if they were heard speaking English in their CFL classes, which was considered to be violating the Chinese-only principle prevailing in their departments. Some other potential CFL teachers rejected my invitation to participate in this research because they simply thought that a discussion of English was irrelevant to their teaching because they believed Chinese and English should always be kept in separate places. As we have seen, the context in which this book was writtem involves both the growth in popularity of learning the Chinese language and the spread of ELF globally. This study attempts to unite these two phenomena into one research context. It seeks to answer the question of how CFL teachers and students feel about both the Chinese-only pedagogy and the ELF pedagogy and what they actually do with Chinese, English and their L1s in CFL classes, as well as the ways in which English is used and presented in CFL textbooks. To be specific, this research poses four questions and they are: 1.

What are CFL students’ attitudes towards the Chinese-only pedagogy and/or ELF pedagogy?

2.

What are CFL teachers’ beliefs about the Chinese-only pedagogy and/or ELF pedagogy?

3.

How is English used in actual CFL classroom teaching practices?

4.

What is the role of English and how is it used in CFL textbooks?

On the basis of empirical evidence, this study also aims to liberate teachers and students from the constraints of assumptions and anecdotes regarding the use of students’ L1 and English in CFL classrooms. Summarizing the previous discussion, there are many myths that are commonly held regarding language use in CFL teaching and learning: 116 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

1.

Teachers should obey the Chinese-only pedagogy in all circumstances;

2.

Chinese-only pedagogy is the best way to learn Chinese;

3.

Chinese-only pedagogy can keep the class equal.

4.

ELF pedagogy can only be used for students from U.S.;

5.

Korean and Japanese students do not speak English;

6.

Students dislike teachers speaking English;

7.

English has nothing to do with CFL teaching and learning;

8.

Chinese people do not mix codes;

9.

Chinese teachers have the responsibility to keep the Chinese language pure;

10. CFL teaching isa promising career and offers lots of chances to go abroad;

Many of these beliefs are so strong that they risk leaving CFL education as an underdeveloped subject and may tarnish the development of CFL teaching and learning. However, there are growing suggestions and demands from international foreign language educators that CFL teaching and teachers should meet the general standards that other foreign language education has reached. Prior to a fundamental change in CFL education, which is deeply informed by the Confucian learning culture and Chinese identity, it is crucial that challenges and problems be identified for discussion. In Part Three, I will move on to sketch out the status quo in classroom practice, firstly by describing CFL students’ attitudes and teachers’ beliefs on language choice and use when learning and teaching CFL, secondly by looking at how classroom participants actually do use Chinese, English and their L1s, and thirdly through a study of English use in CFL textbooks. Through these four empirical studies, a multilingual CFL classroom community practice will be described and the role of ELF in CFL teaching will be investigated in its increasingly globalized context. 117 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Part 3 How English is perceived and used in CFL

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Chapter 5 English for CFL students Despite some studies on CFL students from English-speaking countries (Zhang and Li, 2002; Xing, 2012), little work has been done on CFL students’ individual differences (Ding, 2010), especially their attitudes towards the use of English and what has influenced their attitudes. Recent studies on CFL students’ code-switching behavior have provided some evidence in support of a multilingual pedagogy. Zhao Jiangmin and Fan Zukui (2010) found CFL students from Central Asian countries near to Xinjiang switched codes frequently and naturally between Chinese and their mother tongue. Li Yao (2010) investigated a group of CFL students at beginner level and discussed the benefits for CFL students in switching codes between English and Chinese. Likewise, Yu Houlin (2007) found that CFL students often need to resort to English to understand the class. In addition, many studies on pragmatics (Jiang, 2008) have also provided support for CFL students’ code-switching practices between English and Chinese from a social interactive perspective. With regard to attitudes towards the use of English, Zhang Yifang (2007) investigated a group of CFL students (approximately 50% from Korea) through questionnaires and found that students switched codes mostly between Chinese and English, because they felt their teachers did not understand their mother tongues. 95% of Korean CFL beginners in this project thought unable to speak fluent English had left them silent in class or only capable of switching codes with their Korean fellows. 45% of intermediate level CFL students argued that they had to give up asking questions in their familiar languages when taking account of CFL teachers’ foreign language ability. CFL students’ individual differences are believed to have influenced their attitudes toward, and practices of, code switching, such as their overall Chinese proficiency, linguistic background, English lan-

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

guage proficiency, motivation for learning Chinese, learning strategy, anxiety over using Chinese in class and so on. In an early study, Qian Xujing (1999) investigated 95 CFL students in Peking University by using Horwitz’ (Horwitz, et al., 1986) FLCAS (Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale) and found a significant correlation between CFL students’ country of origin and their anxiety in CFL classes. CFL students were classified into three groups: (1) Japan, (2) Korea and (3) America, Canada and Australia. The findings indicated that CFL students from America, Canada and Australia have stronger anxiety levels in classroom communication than the other two groups due to their difficulties of fitting in with the different teaching pedagogy in China. The study also suggested that students from America, Canada and Australia were more anxious about reading and speaking than their Japanese and Korean peers due to their disadvantages in prior knowledge of Chinese characters. However, no other correlations were found between their personal variables (i.e. gender, age, cultural background, expectation, length and level of Chinese study) and their anxieties in class. Further, Jin Yi (2009) investigated 70 CFL students from a German university about their attitudes towards learning Chinese and English by using Horwitz’ (1988) BALLI (Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory) scale. The study found that students felt that Chinese was harder to learn than English, not only because of the unique features of the Chinese language but also the language distance, culture distance and different teaching methods in China. Moreover, the study found that these German CFL students attached greater importance to the learning of English because they believed that the chances of using English are much greater than for Chinese. Learning Chinese was like an extra bonus for them to look for a better job, whereas English was their basic communication skill. To sum up, previous studies on CFL students’ code switching between English and Chinese and attitudes towards code switching influenced by individual differences, were mostly quantitative ones, and they have been carried out in recent years, and with the help of established research models. 122 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

One key purpose of this study is to describe the current status quo of language use in the CFL classroom, based on the CFL students’ perspective, and their attitudes towards the use of English in CFL classes. To be specific, the study sought answers for the four following research questions: 1.

What is the current situation with regard to the use of languages in the classroom?

2.

If English is used, how do CFL teachers and students achieve practical goals through the ELF pedagogy?

3.

What are CFL students’ attitudes towards the Chinese-only pedagogy and ELF pedagogy?

4.

How do the reported attitudes relate to CFL students’ personal backgrounds?

By answering these questions, this study provides factual data and statistical outcomes which can be generalized to a larger population. The investigation of students’ attitudes also offered results which helped to adapt the teacher interview protocols for investigating CFL teachers, which are reported in Chapter 6, and to direct the classroom observations which are the subject of Chapter 7 A bilingual questionnaire on student’s language attitudes A questionnaire survey was thought to be the most appropriate research instrument for collecting data from CFL students for the study. As Dörnyei (2002: 6) wrote, a questionnaire is “any written instrument that presents respondents with a series of questions or statements to which they react either by writing out their answers or selecting from among existing answers”. A properly designed questionnaire can be used for eliciting opinions from a large number of multilingual and multicultural CFL students. Drawing on previous studies but unlike them, a new set of questionnaires was developed to survey CFL stu123 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

dents’ attitudes towards the use of ELF. Particular questionnaire items were selected from Horwitz’ FLCAS scale and BALLI scale, with careful consideration for relevance. However, the study did not use the complete scale or ask the same questions translated from the original version of the scale. Instead, questions were re-worded and a set of new questions were devised in order to elicit CFL students’ attitudes towards language choice and the use of English. Considering the variation in students’ proficiency both in Chinese and English, the questionnaire was bilingual (see Appendix I). The validation of the questionnaire went through the following three phrases. First, two experienced CFL teachers who were teaching CFL beginners during the time of this survey were invited to go through the questionnaire in Chinese and they gave several suggestions in order to simplify and shorten the questions and to use only high frequency Chinese characters. Expressions with difficult Chinese characters and structures were modified. Second, three advanced CFL students from the United States, France and Malaysia were invited to check the English versions. Their suggestions led to a series of revisions and adjustments. Based on their suggestions, my research team and I met several times to ensure that the questionnaire was appropriate in the context of Beijing’s CFL teaching, and helpful for generating results for the other two parts of the research. Finally the whole questionnaire was reviewed and checked by two specialists in the area of Chinese language teaching and one expert in English language teaching. The questionnaire was improved through the four phrases of validation. In this way, the Chinese and English bilingual questionnaire was developed. Data collection Questionnaires were distributed to Chinese teacher participants at the beginning of regular classes and they helped distribute the questionnaires to their CFL students. I invited teacher participants to provide assistance while their students were filling in the questionnaires. I believe this was a good opportunity for CFL teachers to understand

124 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

their students’ language background and difficulties in communication. Student participants were asked to give their immediate reaction to the questions and to be as truthful as possible. Students with very little knowledge in either English or Chinese were asked to work together with their peers who shared the same language with them. It took approximately ten minutes to complete the questionnaire. The average return rate in the four research sites was a very high 93.7% (542 handed out with 508 returned, and 11 invalid). The portrait of a multilingual CFL class The data was analysed statistically as follows: (1) Demographics of participants: four multiple choice questions and 50 Likert-scale variables were firstly presented using descriptive statistics; (2) Reliability and validity of the instruments; (3) Correlations between demographic variables and Chinese-only and ELF pedagogy variables. In the following, I address each of the research questions in turn. The CFL classroom is linguistically diverse The gender distribution of participants was approximately equal. 52.1% (n=259) were male and 47.9% (n=238) were female. Most participants sampled were college-aged students, aged between 20 and 25. 19.7% (n=98) were 15–20; 59.1% (n=294) were 20–25; 16.3% (n=81) were 25–30; and 4.8% (n=24) were above 30. Participants were asked to name their country of origin. Participants in this survey came from 54 countries and these were classified into five groups by their geographical locations: 1 (Asia), 2 (Europe), 3 (America), 4 (Africa) and 5 (Oceania). This showed a distinct majority of students from Asia. Indeed, 335 participants (67.4%) came from Asia, 98 (19.7%) came from Europe, 40 (8.0%) came from America, 24 (4.8%) from Africa and there were no participants from Oceania. The results mirror the statistics released by the Ministry of Education of China in the same year (2010) which showed that CFL students from Asian countries (especially, Korea) far outnumbered the rest. Table 5.1 shows the countries of origin of participants. 125 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Table 5.1. Number of CFL students by country of origin. Country

No.

Country

No.

Country

No.

Country

N o.

Korea

159

Saudi Arabia

6

Brazil

2

Ghana

Malaysia

46

Sweden

6

Cambodia

2

Guatemala

1 1

Japan

41

Canada

5

Egypt

2

Hungary

1

USA

29

Israel

4

Finland

2

Jamaica

1

Indonesia

28

Mongolia

4

Italy

2

Latvia

1

Thailand

27

Zimbabwe

4

Laos

2

Mauritius

1

Vietnam

14

Belize

3

Nigeria

2

Nicaragua

1

UK

13

Congo

3

Switzerland

2

Oman

1

France

12

Libya

3

Angola

1

Panama

1

Russia

10

Netherlands

3

Belgium

1

Romania

1

Germany

9

Poland

3

Croatia

1

Turkey

1

Spain

9

Salvador

3

Ethiopia

1

Turkmenistan

1

Kazakhstan

8

Sri Lanka

3

Gabon

1

Ukraine

1

Ireland

6

Algeria

2

Participants were asked to name their L1s. Participants in this survey spoke 35 different languages as their L1. Of these, 11.5% of the sample population reported being English native speakers. Table 5.2 shows the mother tongues of all CFL student participants in the study. Table 5.2. Number of CFL students by L1. L1

No.

L1

No.

L1

No.

Korean

158

Swedish

6

Hokkien

2

English

57

Kazakh

6

Portuguese

2

Malay

46

Dutch

4

Yoruba

2

Japanese

42

Mongolian

4

Cantonese

1

Thai

27

Polish

3

Khmer

1

126 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Indonesian

25

Shona

3

Ndebele

1

French

21

Hebrew

3

Romanian

1

Spanish

17

Sinhala

3

Turkish

1

Vietnamese

14

Finnish

2

Ukrainian

1

Arabic

14

Hungarian

2

Latvian

1

Russian

13

Italian

2

Turkmenistan

1

German

9

Lao

2

Students have little prior experience in learning Chinese Participants were asked to estimate the length of their residence in China. More than one third of the students sampled were in their first two months in China (35.2%, n=174); around a quarter of the sample were in their first 12 months in China (25.1%, n=124), 17.6% (n=84) were in their second year in China, 9.6% (n=48) were in their third year in China, and 13.5% (n=67) had been in China for more than three years. Participants were asked about whether or not they had studied Chinese before they came to China; and, if yes, to estimate for how long. Most participants reported having limited or no knowledge of Chinese before coming to China. 70.2% (n=349) reported no previous learning experience. 18.9% (n=94) of the sample had less than half a year’s experience before coming to China and 10.9% (n=54) had more than half a year of experience before coming to China. The average length of their study of Chinese before coming to China was 4.5 months. Participants were asked to report their current Chinese language proficiency. More than one third of the participants (37.6%, n=187) reported they were at the beginner level. More than half of the sample (53.7%, n=267) thought of themselves as at intermediate level. However, very few participants (8.7%, n=43) identified themselves as being at an advanced level.

127 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Students have more experience in learning English Participants were asked to name three foreign languages they spoke excluding their L1 and Chinese. Their responses were classified into four groups: 1 (speak no foreign language), 2 (speak at least one foreign language), 3 (speak two foreign languages) and 4 (speak three foreign languages). 12.1% (n=60) reported speaking no foreign language except for their L1 and Chinese. Meanwhile, 87.9% (n=437) of the total sample population spoke at least one foreign language with a certain proficiency, 27.3% (n=135) spoke two foreign languages and 5.4% (n=27) spoke three foreign languages. That is, participants in this survey were mostly bilinguals or multilinguals. Specifically, 79.0% (n=392) of the sample reported English as one of their foreign languages. However, this 79.0% excludes native English speakers, as English was of course their L1, and who mainly learned Spanish and French as their foreign languages. Figure 5.1 illustrates the five most frequently spoken foreign languages by CFL student participants in the study.

Figure 5.1 Top five most frequently spoken foreign languages.

128 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Participants were asked about whether or not they had studied English before they came to China; if yes, to estimate for how long. Their responses were classified into six groups: 0 (no previous English learning experience), 1 (LstE ” 6 month), 2 (6 months ” LstE ” 36 months), 3 (36 months ” LstE ” 72 months), 4 (LstE > 72 months) and 5 (native English speakers). 7.8% (n=39) of the sample reported no previous English learning experience. The majority identified themselves as having studied English before coming to China (80.7%, n=401). English therefore appears to be the common language shared by the majority of participants. The average length of their studying English before coming to China was 80.4 months, or 6.7 years. 11.5% (n=57) were native English speakers. Participants were asked to estimate their current English language proficiency. Their responses formed five categories: 0 (no previous English learning experience), 1 (beginner level), 2 (intermediate level) and 3 (advanced level) and 4 (native English speaker). As would be expected, this was consistent with the results from question 9: 7.8% (n=39) of the sample reported of no previous English learning experience; and 11.5% (n=57) of the sample stated they were native English speakers. One third of the participants (30.0%, n=129) reported that they were at the beginner level, 32.8% (n=163) at intermediate level and 21.9% (n=109) of the sample was at the advanced level. Actual and desired language use in the CFL classroom differ Section 2 sought to answer research question 1, that is, to describe the current situation of language use in the classroom. The CFL students were first asked to describe (1) languages used by teachers, (2) languages they wanted the teachers to use; (3) languages used by themselves; and (4) languages they wanted to use in the classroom. Figure 5.2 below shows the results.

129 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Figure 5.2 Teachers’ and students’ actual and wanted language use.

First and foremost, the result shows that the Chinese-only pedagogy was not strictly followed in practice. Based on the students’ impressions, their CFL class has a bilingual teaching pedagogy, and they did not strongly object to this bilingual model. The students view of teachers’ language use was that 54.1% (n=269) spoke “Chinese and some English” in the classroom and this number outweighed those who practiced the Chinese-only pedagogy (43.3%, n=215); only a small group of teachers (2.6%, n=13) were reported to have spoken foreign languages excluding English. These results basically mirrored students’ wants and expectations. For students’ language use, the proportion of students who identified themselves as switching between Chinese and English (41.7%, n=207) was about equal to those who spoke Chinese only (42.1%, n=209). However, a contrast emerged between the students’ actual use of their L1 (16.2%, n=81) and that of the teachers (2.6%, n=13). This, of course, is not surprising, as teachers can hardly be expected to 130 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

know several foreign languages. Furthermore, even though students wanted to speak more Chinese (62.2%, n=309) and less of their L1 (9.4%, n=47), their desired use of English remained considerable (28.4%, n=141), far exceeding the wanted use of L1. However, as the L1 was English for native English speakers, they were instructed to opt for “Chinese and some English” rather than “Chinese and some L1”. It is worth stressing that the reported number wanting the use of English for teaching and learning was relatively high, considering that there were only 11.5% native English speakers in the survey (see Table 6.4). Moreover, it seems that teachers (54.1%, n=269) were found to have spoken English more than their students (41.7%, n=207) in the class. This indicates that English was employed as a lingua franca on both the teachers and students’ side. Purposes of using English for teachers and students Section 3 sought to answer research question 2, including 18 items from both Part A and B in the questionnaire. That is, how teachers and students achieve practical goals by using English. In this section, student participants were first asked to recall to what extent their teachers use English to achieve practical goals in teaching Chinese and then to what extent students use English to achieve practical goals in learning Chinese. Table 5.3 shows how students perceived the purposes for which teachers and they themselves use English in class, respectively. Table 5.3 Purposes for which teachers and students use English in class. Teachers

Students

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Teach/learn Chinese grammar

4.27

.89

2.04

1.17

Teach/learn new lexical terms

4.02

.92

2.81

1.21

Teach/learn Chinese texts

3.29

1.10

3.08

.93

Teach/learn Chinese culture

2.36

1.00

4.31

.79

Assignments, quizzes and examinations

2.89

.94

3.54

.81

131 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Classroom activities

2.21

.85

3.19

.98

Ask/answer questions in class

2.41

.90

2.37

1.24

Communication in class

2.41

1.24

2.26

1.16

Communication after class

2.11

1.19

1.96

0.82

First of all, the sum of the means indicated that the total amount of overall use of English to achieve practical goals for teachers (m=26.01) outnumbered that of the students (m=24.72). Second, teachers focused more on using English as a translation or interpretation tool of Chinese grammar and lexical items, whereas students used English for many purposes during the L2 learning process. The results show that teachers tended to focus on linguistic analysis whereas students used English more for communicative tasks. Lastly, while teachers were reported to use English the most for explaining Chinese grammar (m=4.27), student participants found themselves using English the most for understanding Chinese culture (m=4.31). The descriptive analysis continues from section 4 to section 7. Through such analysis, the students’ attitudes towards the Chineseonly pedagogy and ELF pedagogy (research question 3), will be described and the question answered. Attitudes towards Chinese-only pedagogy Students’ attitudes towards the Chinese-only pedagogy were elicited in section 4. The first five (from item 19 to 23) statements were positively worded and the last five statements (from item 24 to 28) were negatively worded. The result is shown in Table 5.4. Table 5.4 Attitudes towards Chinese-only pedagogy in the CFL classroom. Mean

S.D.

19.

Speaking Chinese only makes me study Chinese better

3.90

1.16

20.

Speaking Chinese only helps me learn faster

3.02

1.29

21.

My goal is to become a native Chinese speaker

3.34

1.30

132 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

22.

Speaking Chinese only is the reason for me to come to China

4.31

.63

23.

People speak Chinese only in China, so I speak Chinese only

3.74

.87

24.

I don’t think my teachers understand foreign languages

2.77

.63

25.

I have no difficulty in speaking Chinese only

2.67

1.20

26.

I don’t feel nervous when speaking Chinese only

2.32

1.41

27.

I don't feel tired when speaking Chinese only

2.07

1.07

28.

I don't feel bored when speaking Chinese only

3.10

1.19

Speaking Chinese only was seen as a learning strategy by students (item 19 and 20) and a motivating factor for them to keep learning Chinese (item 21). Their perspective towards language use in China was, by and large, shared (item 22, 23 and 24). That is, China is a place where people were mostly monolinguals and thus an ideal place to practice Chinese. However, in terms of anxiety over actually speaking Chinese, students reported rather low support for the Chinese-only pedagogy (item 25, 26, 27 and 28), which was difficult and made them feel nervous, tired and bored. In summary, students’ responses from the first five positively worded statements were generally higher than the five negatively keyed items. It indicates that student participants support the Chinese-only pedagogy in theory, but that they indeed had difficulties with it in reality. Attitudes towards ELF pedagogy Following an analysis of attitudes towards Chinese-only pedagogy, section 5 elicited students’ attitudes about ELF pedagogy as a contrast. The first five items (from item 29 to 33) were positively worded and the last five items (from item 34 to 38) were negatively worded. Table 5.5 Attitudes towards ELF pedagogy in the CFL classroom. Mean

S.D.

29.

English education is very important in my country

4.67

.67

30.

English ability is very important to me

3.84

.92

133 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

31.

English language is an international language

3.91

1.05

32.

I feel more confident/comfortable when speaking English

3.51

1.10

33.

I can learn Chinese better with the help of English

3.84

1.12

34.

I don't understand the Chinese class well without English

3.73

1.07

35.

I can’t communicate well with my teachers and class-

3.79

1.08

3.01

1.14

4.86

1.13

3.83

1.33

mates in class without English 36.

I can’t communicate well with my teachers and classmates after class without English

37.

I shall not stop learning English though I’m studying Chinese in China

38.

I’m not very satisfied with my teacher’s English proficiency

First of all, positive responses about learning English were heard from student participants. This is not surprising because the demographic data showed that around 80% of the sampled students were Englishknowing students, though many were at beginner level. Learning English was regarded as priority in nearly all the home countries of student participants (item 29). They attached importance to the value of English (item 30) because they believed that English was an important language for international communication (item 31), although they were currently learning Chinese in China. Some even found themselves more comfortable and confident in speaking English in China, probably because English was much closer to their life (item 32). As the majority of the participating students reported prior knowledge of English, it was employed to assist their learning of Chinese and for communicating with Chinese teachers and classmates in and outside the class (from item 33 to 36). Now that English is an important international language and used for assisting Chinese learning, student participants reported a motivation to keep learning English and a wish for their teachers to improve their English proficiency as well so that they can both benefit from this useful tool (item 37 and 38). Students’

134 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

attitudes to English use in CFL textbooks (item 39 to 44) will be analysed and discussed in Chapter 8. Attitudes towards learning Chinese in China In the last section of the questionnaire, student participants were asked to evaluate their general feelings about learning Chinese in China, which included their self-perceptions of the distance of their L1 and culture from the Chinese language and Chinese culture, their interest in learning Chinese and the difficulties they had in learning Chinese, as well as the extent to which they felt satisfaction about their Chinese language class and life in China. Results are shown in Table 5.6. Table 5.6 General feelings about learning Chinese in China. Mean

S.D.

45.

Chinese language is very different from my mother tongue

3.84

1.14

46.

Chinese culture is very different from my country’s culture

4.12

.83

47.

Learning Chinese is fun

4.16

1.05

48.

Learning Chinese is hard work

4.27

.79

49.

I’m satisfied with my Chinese class

3.15

1.54

50.

I enjoy my life in China

3.27

1.13

The survey’s findings were that most students felt that their mother tongue and their home culture were very different to the Chinese language and Chinese culture (item 45 and 46), although 67.4% (n=335) of them were from nearby countries in Asia. Meanwhile, although the Chinese language remained hard work for student participants, they still found it interesting to learn (item 47 and 48). Lastly, in a general sense, student participants were, by and large, satisfied with their Chinese class and their life in China (item 49 and 50).

135 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

What has influenced students’ language attitudes? The most popular ways to analyse the data for beliefs and strategy use are methods such as descriptive analysis, factor analysis, and multiple regression analysis to show statistical significance in the results. The content validity of the scales used this study was first tested by expert-judge validity. Moreover, factor analysis with varimax rotation was then used to test the construct validity of each instrument. The result of the factor analyses led to modifications such as deleting and retranslation of a few items. Alpha coefficients above 0.70 are regarded as sufficient for research purposes (1XQQDOO\, 1978) and above 0.60 are acceptable (Hair et al., 1998). The four measures indicated sufficient alpha coefficients: the highest .91 (m=31.24, S.D.=10.75) for attitudes towards Chinese-only pedagogy and the lowest .74 (m=35.99, S.D.=10.61) for attitudes towards ELF pedagogy, all above the significant level. It indicates that the construct of these four sections were sufficient for the purpose of statistical analysis. Pearson Product-Moment correlations were obtained to examine the possible relationships between the two attitudinal variables and the ten demographic variables. The significance level was set to 0.05. 1tailed tests were conducted. This part of the test was to answer research question 4: correlations between the reported attitudes related to CFL students’ personal backgrounds. Table 19 shows the correlations between two attitudinal variables and ten demographic variables. Positive correlations were found between the three variables relating to students’ Chinese learning experiences. That is, increased support for the practice of Chinese-only pedagogy correlated with the length of studying Chinese (r=.40), the experience of studying Chinese before coming to China (r=.28) and Chinese language proficiency (r=.43). The Pearson correlation test yielded three significant results between the three independent variables for studying Chinese and the increasing support for Chinese-only pedagogy. As a result, three relationships were found: a) students who had studied Chinese longer supported the Chinese-only pedagogy more than those who had studied Chinese for a shorter time; b) students who had experience of

136 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

learning Chinese in their home country before coming to China supported the Chinese-only pedagogy more than those who had not; c) students with a higher Chinese level tended to support the Chineseonly pedagogy more than students at the beginner level. Another group of significant positive correlations was found between students’ foreign language ability (r=.23), experience of learning English (r=.29), English language proficiency (r=.40) and their attitudes towards ELF pedagogy. Three significant results were revealed and this indicated that students’ attitudes towards ELF pedagogy tended to correlate with their experience and proficiency in English: a) students who spoke foreign languages felt more comfortable speaking or using English than those who spoke no or few foreign languages; b) students who had richer experience in learning English supported using English more than those who had no or less experience; c) students with a higher English proficiency tended to support using English more than those with low English proficiency. No statistical significance appeared for gender and age. That is, male and female, younger and older CFL students did not differ in their opinions towards language use. Furthermore, no significant correlation was found between country of origin and mother tongues in terms of their attitudes towards Chinese-only and ELF pedagogy. In other words, students’ attitudes towards language use were not determined by which country they were from or which mother tongue they spoke. The long prevailing myths such as “Asian students prefer a Chinese-only pedagogy” and that “American students prefer a more ELF pedagogy”, were proved to be unfounded by this survey. Students’ own comments on their language attitudes An open-ended question was designed to encourage a full and meaningful answer from student participants about their own knowledge and feelings. After answering the previous 50 questions regarding their attitudes towards Chinese-only pedagogy and ELF pedagogy, students were invited to comment on their answers to the question –

137 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

“Do you think teachers and students should speak Chinese only or use some English in class?” Of the 497 valid questionnaires, there were in total 118 comments left by student participants. However, given the writing ability of students in English and Chinese, nine of them opted to answer this question in their L1 (Korean), and these comments were later translated into English. The 118 short answers were categorized into three groups: (1) supportive of Chinese-only pedagogy (49 comments); (2) supportive for ELF pedagogy (43 comments); and (3) ambiguous (26 comments), because these comments did not make it specific which pedagogy they favoured, but simply gave their ideas about the role of English in CFL education. First of all, many students see Chinese-only as a learning strategy. Some (49 comments) saw the Chinese-only pedagogy as an opportunity to have more exposure to Chinese. Here are some examples. “Only Chinese. I need to push myself to speak. That’s why I came to China.” “No English please. It is the reason why I come to learn Chinese in China.” “I feel I’m making progress when I speak Chinese only.” “I believe it is the best way to learn a language is to speak only this language.” “I have to practice Chinese so I speak Chinese only.”

Some were rather passive in their choice (5 comments). They spoke Chinese only because their teachers asked them to abide by the monolingual principle. They followed their teachers’ instructions and believed what their teachers told them was the best practice without thinking much about the reason. “I don’t have a choice.” “My teacher told us to speak only Chinese.” “Only Chinese is good.”

138 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Others (43 comments) believed that English was a very important medium for them to understand the class. In contrast to the passive group, it seems these students displayed autonomy in the learning process and attached great importance to understanding and communication. For example, some found that their understanding of the target language was slowed down because they did not understand what was going on in class. A few examples are “Chinese is difficult to learn. I don’t even understand what my teacher is saying.” “I speak English to my classmates because I want to make friends with them.” “I don’t even know what’s happening in class. Some English please.” “I want to understand everything. I need English translations.” “Some English can be helpful.” “More translation please.”

It is interesting to note that quite a few student participants commented on the importance of English though did not directly answer the open-ended question. One of these comments argued that “Only Chinese is not enough. I need to speak good English to become a flight attendant in Korea.” (written in Korean and translated into Chinese) “It could save a lot of time if my teachers speak better English.” “Too many technical terms. I don’t understand what it means even if it is English.”

However, some other students did not answer the question directly and thus their comments were included in the “ambiguous” category (21 comments). Many of them gave no explanations in their comments and some were irrelevant to the question. For example, “Never thought about it.”

139 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

“Does this questionnaire have nothing to do with my Chinese study?” “I have no problem speaking Chinese to my teacher.”

Most adult learners come to the university-level language class with a great deal of prior knowledge of classroom language learning and some experience of foreign language learning. They have developed, whether consciously or unconsciously, certain beliefs about good practices, impressions of what constitutes a successful L2 learning class, established models of good L2 teachers, and perhaps even assumptions about the value or usefulness of language learning. To accommodate the diversity of learners’ experience and beliefs is one of the challenges that teachers have to deal with before the teachers can help them learn L2 using a new approach. As Levine (2011: 172) argued, “to become truly bilingual or bicultural, the learner must learn to use a creative repertoire of languages in order to function in the L2 society, not simply as a poor imitator of a native speaker, but as a legitimate peripheral participant, an outsider with a role and stake at both the conversational and discourse levels in the L2 culture”. Conclusion This study has described a small population of students who studied CFL in Beijing in 2010. They were mostly young university-aged students, from a large range of home countries and speaking a good number of mother tongues. One third of them were in their first two months in China and over 70% of them had no prior knowledge of Chinese before coming to China. Over 90% were at the beginner and intermediate level of Chinese language proficiency. Nearly all surveyed students could speak a least one foreign language, among which around 80% of them were English language speakers. Their English language proficiency was equally distributed across beginning, intermediate and advanced level. Figure 5.3 Demographic variables and individual differences that might influence students’ attitudes.

140 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Figure 5.3 Demographic variables and individual differences that influenced student’s attitudes. Demographic variables 54 countries of origins 35 first languages 57 native English speakers 30% first two months in China 70% had no prior knowledge of Chinese 80% reported as English speakers

Individual differences influcned their attitudes

497 students

Prior knowledge of Chinese Chinese language proficiency Length of staying in China Length of English study English language proficiency Number of language spoken

Findings from this study can be summarized as follows. First of all, the Chinese-only pedagogy is not strictly observed in practice. Both CFL teachers and students reported practicing code switching to a certain degree and they did not regard it as unnecessary or unwelcome behavior. That is, the role of ELF as a medium of instruction is accepted both by teachers and students, though it was not publicly acknowledged. Meanwhile, the possibility of an L1 pedagogy developing in these CFL classes is again proven to be low, due to the highly multilingual make-up of the student body. This has answered research question one. Secondly, teachers were found to have used English more than students. Students showed a relatively broad application of English across a variety of contexts, whereas teachers concentrated more on using English for language analysis. This answered research question two. Thirdly, students’ attitudes towards Chinese-only pedagogy and ELF pedagogy were described by calculating the means of each item in the constructs of students’ attitudes towards Chinese-only pedagogy and ELF pedagogy. Only descriptive and factual data was involved. However, these results showed: (a) the Chinese-only pedagogy kept 141 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

students motivated yet made them anxious, (b) English is an important communication tool and CFL students valued the importance of English in the course of learning Chinese and during their stay in China. This answered research question three. Lastly, many possible correlations were expected to be found between students’ attitudes towards Chinese-only pedagogy and demographic variables. However, only three groups were at the significant level. Students’ attitudes towards Chinese-only pedagogy correlated to their length of studying Chinese, experience of studying Chinese before coming to China and their Chinese language proficiency. It is perhaps not surprising that the tendency to report higher levels of support for the exclusive use of Chinese was found among students who (a) had been studying Chinese longer, (b) had longer experience in studying Chinese before coming to China, and (c) had a higher level of Chinese language proficiency. Moreover, students’ attitudes towards ELF pedagogy were related to their foreign language ability, experience of studying English and their English language proficiency. In summary, the tendency to report higher levels of support for the ELF pedagogy was found among students who (a) were bi- or multilingual speakers, (b) had longer experience in learning English before coming to China, and (c) had a higher level of English language proficiency. This answered research question four. Figure 5.4 Factors that influence students’ attitudes.

Prior Knowledge of Chinese Chinese language proficiency Length of staying in China

more higher longer

Length of English study English language proficiency Number of language spoken

longer higher more

Chinese-only pedagogy + + +

ELF pedagogy

+ + +

Notwithstanding these results, several potential limitations of the present study should be kept in mind. The first area of concern that may

142 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

limit the strength of these findings relates to the representativeness of the sample. The research was based on a fairly small sample and on language classes at a few universities. A greater number of participants would be needed for generalizability of the findings. A second potential limitation is that there may be confounding variables unmeasured in the questionnaires or unaccounted for in the analyses. Therefore, any curricular decisions based on this study should be made with caution. As Levine (2003: 357) has suggested, it may be that teachers’ perceptions of target language use are simply determined by years of experience, pedagogical training, or their nativespeaker status, or it may be that a different instrument would be needed to gauge these relationships. Tis first study has introduced the situation of language use in CFL teaching and found that the Chinese-only pedagogy was not strictly observed; this made it necessary to hear teachers’ perspectives and examine actual daily activities in the classroom.

143 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Chapter 6 English for CFL teachers The 2009 International Conference on Chinese Language Teaching held in Hangzhou, China was specifically dedicated to areas that are known as the “Three T Problems” (йᮉ䰞仈) – Teacher, Textbook and Teaching – in CFL teaching and learning that have become more salient in the global context (Cui, 2010). As discussed in Part Two, only structural knowledge was considered as core research in CFL teaching over the past decades, but since the Hangzhou Conference, research on “CFL teachers” has become one of the core components in CFL and this has invited a rapid surge in empirical research on CFL teachers (e.g., Jiang and Hao, 2010; Liu and Jiang, 2010). There are more articles focusing on educational methodologies, introducing qualitative research and narrative inquiry (Sun, 2010). To some extent, the Hangzhou Symposium might have begun a new era in the research paradigm for CFL education and future studies will be more empirically oriented. One of the reasons why CFL teacher education was prioritized on the research agenda was due to teachers’ unsatisfactory performance. McDonald (2011: 1) argued that, “although the CFL teaching has currently constituted aims to give students access to Chinese language and culture, too often its practical outcome is to prevent foreigners from learning to use the language properly”. The major problems were identified as due to CFL teachers. CFL teaching has to deal with the varied quality of the language teaching profession both in and outside China, and this is regarded as the key obstacle in building capacity (Wang Shuhan, 2009). In addition, the global spread of Confucius Institutes and Chinese studies programmes has increased the importance of English as a communication tool which could effectively act as a bridge between CFL teachers and students. One problem is that ability to use English as an international lingua franca is likely to be important for coping with the increasingly diverse students of Chi-

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

nese. The wide spread of English around the world has resulted in many college-aged young adults using English as a lingua franca in cross-cultural communication. The large influx of such students into the CFL classroom has made it imperative that Chinese language teachers’ pedagogical practices be examined in the light of the different cultures and languages brought into the Chinese language classroom. As a matter of fact, as early as the first CFL programme held in China in 1950, the CFL teacher there used English as a lingua franca with the 33 students from Eastern European countries (Zhao Jinming, 2009: 219). English resumed its importance for CFL teaching and research after the Cultural Revolution (1966 to 1976). Since then, CFL teacher training has focused on developing CFL teachers’ contrastive linguistic awareness between the Chinese and English languages (Zhang, 2006: 98). In the 2000s, however, the focus shifted to the teachers’ English language competence. This has increased the importance of English in keeping classes communicative and interactive. For CFL teachers employed to teach Chinese in the United States, “Chinese language proficiency and communication skills in English” are regarded as increasingly important pedagogical skills (cited at Orton, 2011: 158). Nevertheless, this emphasis on English is a highly contentious issue for many CFL educators and teachers because the pedagogical tradition for CFL teaching has long been dominated by a Chinese-only principle. Previous works about the use of English in CFL teaching have concentrated on CFL teachers’ linguistic knowledge and awareness. A good command of English is considered essential for CFL teachers to study the Chinese language in a comparative way (Pan, 2004). Linguistic studies on the differences between the English and Chinese languages flourished and dominated CFL teaching in the 1990s; these were thought to have enriched our understanding of Chinese as a foreign language. Corresponding to the promotion of English language education in China (Lam, 2005: 9), the research focus shifted to CFL teachers’ English language competence and their intercultural understanding, with more emphasis on teacher training and career develop146 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

ment (Chen Fu, 2010; Zhang, 2006). However, little research has been done to investigate CFL teachers’ beliefs about the use of English. How do they reflect on their classroom language use? If they do not use English, what are the influencing factors? And if they do, what are the pedagogical functions of English? In addition, what do they think of English for their professional development as a CFL teacher? A qualitative account of teachers’ perspectives This present study has sought to provide a description of CFL teachers’ beliefs about their classroom language choice and their attitudes toward English. Qualitative methods have been adopted here as they facilitate the tasks of contrasting, comparing, replicating, cataloguing and classifying the object of the study (Miles and Huberman, 1994). A qualitative study can increase our understanding of the ideas, feelings, beliefs, and motives related to individuals’ actions within a certain culture (Schloss and Smith, 1999). Specifically, this qualitative study was informed by narrative inquiry (Clandinin and Connelly, 2000). Narrative inquiry is an excellent method to show the unique ways that people deal with their dilemmas and challenges (Beattie, 2000). Although a number of studies have used interviews and questionnaires to investigate beliefs (e.g., Levine, 2003), more recently narrative inquiry has been widely used in surveying teachers’ beliefs and identities (e.g., Tsui, 2007). Narrative inquiry allows teachers to reconstruct their personal knowledge and representations, helping them to become more aware of their actions and more able to be agents in their own practice (Telles, 2000). The overall aim of this study was to let each participant tell their own story and explain their beliefs and attitudes towards ELF use in CFL teaching. It sought to answer the following three research questions: 1.

What are CFL teachers’ attitudes toward the use of ELF?

2.

What factors contribute to these attitudes?

147 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

3.

What are the core functions for CFL teachers in using ELF?

The instrument A one-to-one in-depth interview technique was employed as the main method for collecting narrative data because interviews can “yield direct quotation from people about their experience, opinions, feelings and knowledge” (Patton, 2002: 4). The interview protocol was semistructured, since the researcher has a good enough overview of the domain in question and was able to develop broad questions about the topic in advance. The format of interview questions is open-ended and participants were encouraged to elaborate on the issues raised (Dörnyei, 2007: 136). The conversations were conducted in Putonghua, the target language of CFL teaching. CFL teachers who participated in this study were from many different parts of China, and were all highly proficient in Putonghua. In designing and developing the interview questions, this study has referred to many qualitative and narrative inquiry studies of ESL teachers (see e.g. Flores, 2001; Ramos, 2001). The interview protocol developed for this study is provided as Appendix II. Data collection Interview participants for this survey were chosen by theoretical sampling, used synonymously with purposive sampling (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Silverman, 2005) as the main goal of qualitative sampling is to find individuals who can provide rich and varied insights into the phenomenon under investigation, so as to maximize what we can learn (Dörnyei, 2007: 126). Based on theoretical sampling, participants were not chosen in order to produce a sample representative of the larger population, but rather, were chosen to represent a range of teachers with different backgrounds and experience, allowing this study to gain a comprehensive understanding of the issues of concern. 148 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Participants Interview participants signed the Consent Form in advance and agreed to have their conversations audio-recorded for research purposes. Pseudonyms are used when their opinions are quoted. Taking into account the heavy workload and each teacher’s timetable, the face-toface interview was limited to 30 minutes. Two audio recorders were used to ensure there was a recording in the event of one recorder malfunctioning. In order to increase the richness and depth of the responses and to help in tracking and identifying themes from the transcripts, notes and memos were taken while the participants were talking. The research was conducted at universities specializing in Chinese as a foreign language courses in Beijing. Based on the purposive sampling, 24 CFL teachers from four universities were selected to participate in face-to-face interviews. There were 11 male and 13 female teacher participants. These participants were all native Chinese language speakers, educated in China’s universities. 15 had master’s degrees and 9 had a PhD. In terms of their specialized areas, 15 had majored in Chinese, four in English and five in the MTCSOL. These participants had relatively rich teaching experience. 10 of them had been teaching CFL for longer than 10 years, seven for more than five years and another seven for less than five. The demographics of the participants are summarized in Table 6.1. Table 6.1 Demographics of CFL teacher participants.

Gender Male = 11 Female = 13

Qualifications M.A. = 15 PhD = 9

Qualified areas Chinese = 15 English = 4 MTCSOL = 5

Teaching experience 1–5 years = 7 5–10 years = 7 10–20 years = 10

Results During the transcription of the interviews, emerging themes and similarities or differences were noted. In keeping with grounded theory 149 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

methodology, interview transcripts and field notes were analysed using open coding techniques. Open coding consists of naming and categorizing data. As interview transcriptions were reviewed, concepts or themes with similar properties were grounded together (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). The categories were arranged and rearranged until saturated. Two groups of categories emerged in the opening coding process under the theme of teacher beliefs and teacher identity. CFL teachers’ beliefs about ELF were firstly analysed and factors that shaped or influenced these beliefs were accordingly elicited. This part first dealt with the major factors which influenced teachers who held the “Chinese-only principle” or “virtual position”. Secondly, teachers’ comments on “maximal and optimal” position would be presented together because their ideas would be equally helpful to construct the “ELF pedagogy”. 15 participants identified themselves holding the “Chinese-only principle” and were thus classified into the “virtual position”; seven were found to support the “maximal position” (i.e. to maximize the use of Chinese) and two fitted the “optimal position” (i.e. the optimal use of Chinese and English). Although some teachers hedged their answers at the beginning of the interviews, their positions became identifiable by the end. Teachers’ attitudes towards the use of ELF in the Chinese language classroom are summarized in Table 6.2. Table 6.2 Teacher participants’ general attitudes towards ELF use.

Virtual position

Responses

Participants

15/ 24 (62.5%)

T1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24

Maximal position 7/ 24 (29.2%)

T4, 5, 6, 10, 12,15, 17

Optimal position

T16, 23

2/24 (8.3%)

150 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

The virtual position: Chinese-only pedagogy The virtual position holds a monolingual perspective. It believes that the L2 target language should only be taught through that language per se, and that the exclusive use of L2 provides a kind of “virtual reality” classroom. First and foremost, the fifteen teachers who were classified as holding the virtual position showed a firm belief in the Chinese-only principle. They provided 51 comments and their ideas were further grouped into five themes and 11 sub-themes, as shown in Table 6.3. In particular, these 15 teachers’ views appear to have been influenced by the official language policy, their understanding of L1 and L2 acquisition, national and language identity, and their own English language competence, as well as by many unproven assumptions and perceived dangers in using ELF in the CFL classroom. Table 6.3 Comments in favour of the virtual position. Themes

No. of comments

Influence of language policy: language policy should always be abided by (T3, 7, 9, 19, 24)

5

Perceptions of L2 acquisition: L2 acquisition equals L1 acquisition (T13, 20, 21)

3

one’s L2 learning has no relation to one’s L1 (T7, 11, 18, 20, 24)

5

Sinophone identity: national language pride should be upheld (T2, 9, 19, 24)

4

code-switching damages one’s Sinophone identity (T2, 3, 14, 18, 19)

5

Teachers do not accept themselves as bilingual speakers (T2, 24)

2

English language competence: have no solid English speaking skills (T1, 8, 13, 14, 18, 20, 22 )

7

have no knowledge of teaching in English (T1, 11, 22)

3

Assumptions and perceived dangers:

151 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

immersion programme is the most successful model (T1, 7, 18, 19)

4

using English will be unfair to non-English speakers (T2, 9, 11, 14, 19, 20, 21)

7

using English will lead to an overuse by students (T2, 3, 11, 13, 20, 24)

6

Total

51

Influence of language policy Five participants expressed the view that CFL teachers were expected to practice what the language policy and teaching syllabus regulated. When these five teacher participants were asked to define their beliefs about language use in their classes, their answers were remarkably uniform. For example, T3 argued: Our school has a very strict rule of prohibiting the use of English. Every teacher knows it. As you can see along the corridors, posters and banners are plentiful on the walls reminding our students about speaking Chinese only. It is our responsibility to uphold the rule and help students to obey it.

Similarly, T9 and T19 also indicated that their universities promoted the exclusive use of the target language as a key feature for CFL education. It is logically believed that CFL teachers have to abide by the Chinese-only policy and act as role models for their students. T7 and T24 believed that CFL teachers should simply go along with the policy as set by the university, without giving much consideration to this issue. Perceptions of L1 and L2 acquisition When further elaborating the reason for their belief in the virtual position, many participants put forward their understanding of L2 acquisition. Although all teacher participants had completed their master’s degree and some had their PhD, their beliefs regarding language learning theory were surprisingly conservative. For instance, T13 felt that

152 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

learning Chinese as a foreign language resembled learning one’s mother tongue and thus the teaching method should be the same. We all succeed in learning our mother tongue. Why? Recalling how we learnt Chinese as children, we became native speakers by ear and imitation. There were no mediating languages helping us understand, right?

In addition to T13, T20 and T21 also believed that L1 and L2 acquisition were the same. However, five teacher participants expressed the view that one’s learning of L2 has no relation to one’s L1. They rejected the idea that one’s L1 and L2 could be interwoven and influence each other. For example, T7 said, What they need to do is to forget their mother tongue as much and as quickly as possible. They should activate a part of the brain to speak and think in Chinese only. They need to drop all ‘crutches’ and learn to walk on their own.

T7 regarded translation as unnecessary or even harmful. “Crutches” is a metaphor here for using ELF as a translation tool and he felt that using English would cause interference in learning Chinese. In T7’s eyes, CFL students were seen as “handicapped” in speaking Chinese, because they were struggling to achieve native proficiency. Moreover, T18 added that “students do not need to know why Chinese people speak it this way. All that they as learners needed to do was to keep practicing with us and try to become native Chinese speakers.” Furthermore, with regard to language transfer, T11, T20 and T24 argued that using more than one language would only result in an increasing “negative transfer”, which was of great harm to L2 acquisition. Sinophone identity The discussion of code choice went beyond the classroom. Interestingly, the teacher interviews generated considerable reflections about teachers’ national pride, and their Sinophone identity. Comments from T2, T9, T19 and T24 indicated a clear link between patriotism and

153 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

speaking Chinese only. On many occasions, teachers’ national pride was presented through stigmatizing the internationalization of English. For example, T9 expressed a strong antipathy towards English. The Nobel Prize winner, Ding Zhaozhong (Samuel Ting), delivered his speech in Chinese at the Award Ceremony and this broke the convention. He’s the pride of all Chinese people […] Chinese is a great language. We should defend ourselves against the invasion of English. For me, I don’t use a single English word in my class. Chinese language teachers are not simply a profession but also national representatives.

T9 further argued that CFL teaching was a “national profession shouldering the responsibility of spreading Chinese culture and showing China’s soft power to the world”. Furthermore, five teachers believed code switching was a stain on their Sinophone identity. For example, T19 said Responsible Chinese teachers should be role models for their students and help them speak Chinese like a native. As a Chinese teacher, we have a responsibility to keep the purity of the Chinese language. […] When I speak Chinese, I do not switch codes to English. It is too pretentious. Only fake foreigners switch codes.

T19 regarded code switching as the pretentious behavior of someone who tries to act or speak like a foreigner and show off their English. T19’s attitudes also reflected views of many on the current battle to “save Chinese from English”. In the same way, many teachers argued that English was a threat to the purity of the Chinese language and even sometimes harmful to national cohesion. Moreover, their disapproval of a foreign language identity was a potential further influencing factor. T2 and T24 felt uncomfortable about being labeled as bilinguals. In their view of the concept, bilingualism indicated a “subtractive” model (García, 2009: 51), in which the improvement of one’s English language competence would result in a degradation of one’s authority and loyalty to the Chinese language. They treated English as a useful tool, but did not regard it as an integral part of their identity. When being asked to comment on the question about foreign language identity, T24 explained, 154 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

I don’t think Chinese teachers are bilinguals. I do know that English is the first foreign language for most Chinese teachers, and they are using English to teach, but it is problematic if I am regarded as a bilingual teacher […] It is very wrong to put English onto the same level as Chinese.

T2 and T24 even regarded those who used English in CFL class as unpatriotic and thus rejected being regarded as bilinguals, though they both reported a high score in CET 6. English language competence Teachers’ beliefs also seemed to have been influenced by their own English language proficiency and knowledge of foreign language teaching. Lack of English competence naturally prevents CFL teachers from using English in their class. Seven teacher participants reported a low confidence in speaking English, which explained their avoidance of it. As T1 said, Foreign language teaching in Europe and America is very different. Teachers seem to have a very equal relationship with their students. I want to learn from them, but I’m afraid my English is too limited to develop a close relationship with my students. I’d rather not bother with my broken English. I don’t want to cause extra trouble or see my students laugh at me.

For T1, speaking in “broken” English would somehow diminish the teachers’ authority in class. T22 recalled that he hesitated to speak English due to his insufficient knowledge of English vocabulary associated with Chinese culture. When I first got to teach Chinese, some of my students asked me what Chinese people eat for breakfast. I suddenly found I don’t know how to say doujiang (soybean milk), huntun (won ton), baozi, (steamed bun), youtiao, (deep fried dough) […] All that we learned in our English class was western food terms: “pizza”, “hamburger” and “pasta”. I think it is very important for Chinese language teachers to learn enough English terms for translating specific Chinese symbols.

155 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

T22 pointed out that what they learned in their English class was the English vocabularywhich would prepare them for an English-speaking country. There seems to be a gap between what they have learnt and the English they actually need as a Chinese language teacher in China. English terms for denoting particular Chinese symbols are increasingly useful for introducing Chinese culture. While CFL teachers’ English in an ordinary setting would be described as proficient, they still have difficulty explaining in English aspects of their language and culture, and the information available to them is often inadequate (Orton, 2011: 162). Assumptions and perceived dangers Teachers’ beliefs were also influenced through exposure to the perspectives of colleagues and supervisors, and by anecdotes and intuitions. Four teachers, T1, T7, T18, and T19, thought an exclusive use of Chinese was the most effective way to help students reach a native level. They favoured an “immersion programme” which is usually characterized by its rigorous monolingual teaching method and the extremely challenging “language pledge” for speaking Chinese only. In the interview, T18 praised highly the “Princeton in Beijing” programme, described earlier, as the most successful. Its “total immersion” approach requires students to speak no language other than Chinese and to take a “language pledge”. As discussed earlier, an immersion programme of this type is probably more suitable for students who have certain prior knowledge and proficiency in Chinese. However, none of the four teachers who advocated such an immersion programme, which aims at an exclusive use of Chinese, expressed any concern over students’ individual differences with regard to their language aptitude, linguistic backgrounds, and their purposes and goals for studying Chinese. Seven teachers felt it unwise to use English, as some students might not speak English. They had no idea of their students’ English language proficiency, as they felt that this was completely irrelevant 156 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

to their teaching practices. They argued that they endeavored to keep the classroom equal by purposely avoiding the use of English in that “this is the only way to keep everybody in the class equal”. For example, T2 thought using English would make students from Korea and Japan (the majority of CFL students in Beijing) feel uncomfortable. Students from Korea and Japan, and many other places in Asia do not speak English at all. It will cause injustice in class. Students would question, why doesn’t my teacher use my mother tongue? Why English? We want to keep the class equal. We should not make our students feel we only like to communicate with those from America and Britain. This is the only way to keep everybody in the class equal.

T2’s notion about the English proficiency of students from Korea and Japan was no longer applicable yet remained quite representative among many teachers. It is clearly idealistic to suggest that each individual has the right to speak their mother tongue in a multilingual classroom; and it is impractical to expect Chinese language teachers to speak all languages. However, equality and language justice are not maintained by depriving people completely of their linguistic resources. Lastly, six teachers believed that, as most of their students were fluent English speakers, they were worried that if they were to use ELF, their students would probably increase their use of ELF as well. As T20 said, I’ll never ask my students to waste time on translation, because if I use English to translate for them, they would rely on it and expect me to translate for them all the time. Students are here to learn Chinese, not English.

The last sentence – “students are here to learn Chinese, not English” – was repeatedly used when teachers were explaining their reasons for supporting the virtual position. Their perspective corresponded to the view that “the classroom is like the target country. Therefore we should aim for total exclusion of the L1. There is no pedagogical value in L1 use” (Macaro, 2001: 535). All fifteen participants in favour

157 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

of the virtual position mentioned this as a reason at least once in their interviews. The maximal and optimal position: ELF pedagogy The maximal position admits that perfect learning conditions (where only L2 is used) do not exist, but it still supports the idea that teachers should maximize the use of L2. As a result, teachers usually feel guilty for switching codes between students’ L1 and the L2. The optimal position holds a multilingual perspective. However, in contrast to the maximal position, proponents of the optimal position recognize a value in the use of L1 without any pedagogical regrets. They regard ELF pedagogy as a “lubricant” (Butzkamm, 1998) to create a “harmonious and balanced teaching environment” (Senior, 2006: 270). Seven teachers adopted the maximal position in agreeing to maximize the use of Chinese but refusing to use it exclusively. In terms of resorting to other languages, they all expressed varying degrees of guilt. Indeed, there were only two teachers who felt completely free of guilt when using English to translate new lexical terms, explain sophisticated Chinese grammar or introduce Chinese cultures, etc. These nine teacher participants gave examples of when they used ELF in the CFL classroom. In total, they provided 41 comments, which were grouped into three themes, namely, the scope of ELF pedagogy, three core functions of ELF pedagogy, and a personal function of the ELF pedagogy, as shown in Table 6.4. Table 6.4. Comments in favour of the maximal and optimal position. Themes

No. of comments

Principles of using ELF pedagogy: suitable for beginners with little to no prior knowledge (T4, 6, 10,

6

15, 17, 23) Three pedagogical functions of ELF pedagogy: explanatory function: to explain Chinese linguistic knowledge (T4,

158 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

8

5, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 23) managerial function: to manage the classroom (T5, 6, 10, 12, 16,

7

17, 23) interactive function: to encourage interaction among students (T6,

3

12, 16) Three professional functions of ELF pedagogy: academic function: to read, write and publish journal articles in

3

English (T4, 15, 23) personal function: to land a proper position in CFL education (T1,

9

4, 5, 6, 10, 12,15, 17, 22) international function: to teach abroad and improve social mobility

5

(T4, 5, 12, 16, 23) Total

41

Principles of using ELF pedagogy The teacher participants in the interviews appeared to be very careful about expressing their ideas on this subject, because the first response they usually gave was to set out the pre-conditions for using English. They attempted to lay out the scope clearly before they discussed the functions of English in the CFL classroom any further. Six teacher participants mapped out when they used ELF in CFL classes. They argued that English was especially useful for beginners’ classes. For example, T4 recounted how she was made aware of language issues when she was asked to speak English by a group of absolute beginners of CFL from Europe. She said: A group of European students came to me after the class and wondered if I spoke English. I said yes and then they felt relieved. They started to complain about their frustrating Chinese study during the first week in Beijing. I had no idea they could only understand a very small part of my instructions. […] They also told me about their difficulties in paying school fees, buying the right textbooks, logging into the Internet. I thought what I was doing (using Chinese ex-

159 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

clusively) was good for them, but it wasn’t, at least, it was not desirable for beginners at all.

Many other teachers’ comments strongly suggested that classes, especially beginners’ classes, might benefit if taught bilingually in Chinese and English. For example, T17 argued that “it was unwise to practice the Chinese-only principle at the beginners’ level, as it would cause too much anxiety and frustration.” Similarly, T10 mentioned that some universities provide options for having CFL classes through the medium of English, which is very popular with students. If students are from the same language background, undoubtedly, their L1 would be the best mediating language to assist their learning of Chinese. The ELF pedagogy can benefit CFL beginners who speak English and are willing to use English to obtain content-area knowledge and to exchange information. Three pedagogical functions of ELF pedagogy Three core pedagogical functions for using ELF were identified in the teachers’ interviews. Firstly, the teachers’ use of ELF to interpret, translate or explain metalinguistic content of the Chinese language was categorized as an explanatory function. Secondly, the use of ELF to give routine instructions, praise, encourage, disapprove, plan assignments and prepare tests was classified as the managerial function. Thirdly, the students’ use of ELF to communicate with each other or provide peer support for each other was classified as the interactive function. The explanatory function Eight teachers employed ELF in similar situations and indicated the importance of teaching Chinese comparatively with English. All these eight participants spoke English well. They argued that the language was best taught through comparison. For instance, T5 gave an example of how she used ELF to explain a grammatical mistake (marked by an asterisk) made by one of her students.

160 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

My student said ㆹ㗗䕭 (wo shi bing*, I am sick.). It is a very common mistake for beginners of Chinese. So I told my student it is a mistake. 㗗 (shi, be) in Chinese cannot be used in this way. You should say ㆹ䕭Ḯ (wo bing le, I am sick.), because the adjective can work as a predicate in Chinese, and no link verbs are needed.

T5 said that explaining Chinese grammar through ELF was playing a pedagogical role. Similarly, T10 used ELF to translate new terms and phrases. T15, T16 and T17 used ELF to introduce Chinese cultural items, such as “fengshui”, “Chinese lucky and unlucky numbers”, and “the basic strokes of Chinese characters”, etc. T23 mentioned that even advanced students may need translations or interpretations now and then, thus it would be an advantage for CFL teachers to be able to understand English and be prepared to use English in their daily teaching practice. The managerial function Seven teachers provided examples of ELF use for classroom management. They argued that ELF was particularly helpful when giving instructions. T23 felt that persisting in doing routine activities in Chinese only might result in teacher-fronted lessons in which individual students might only be speaking and practicing Chinese for small amounts of time. However, as T23 pointed out, teachers could achieve many language and pedagogical functions in a very short time using ELF, leaving significant discourse space for their students. For example T23 said, If I want my class to divide into two groups and do some practice, I will say ‘two groups’ and ‘pair work’. […] It saves a great amount of time! I don’t want to spend my time on giving directions or maintaining discipline. I don’t think university teachers need to waste their time on classroom management.

T23 emphasized the efficiency brought by the use of ELF in her class. In addition, T16 argued that ELF could help build a rapport between teachers and students.

161 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

They are not simply Chinese language learners. […] They have come all the way from a foreign country without knowing a soul here. They are still young students and they need help. Although my English isn’t good enough, I’d still like to spend some time chatting with them in my class, to get to know where they are from, how their life is in China.

T16 realized that CFL students studying abroad needed time to adapt to the local culture and life style. Language is not simply a means of expression or communication; rather, it is a practice that constructs, and is constructed by, the ways language learners understand their social surroundings and their possibilities for the future. ELF was regarded as a useful way for CFL teachers and their students to get together, inside and outside class, for school study and for individual needs. The interactive function Three teachers added that ELF was also a good communication tool to enhance interaction and collaboration among students in a multilingual context. A typical CFL class in Beijing’s universities usually consists of approximately ten to twenty international students, whose countries of origin and linguistic backgrounds are highly diverse. ELF can play an important role for such CFL students while their knowledge of Chinese remains limited. For example T6 said, I encourage my students to negotiate meanings in any languages they like as long as they truly understand what I’m teaching about. Using English is a strategy for me in the class. […] Whenever I have some new Chinese words that I anticipate that most of my students do not know, I will ask those able students to translate into English in a louder voice. Then, the rest of class understands the meaning of that Chinese word through English.

T6’s perspective encourages student participation. T16 argued that code switching in English and Chinese can serve as a means to construct a multilingual space. For this and many reasons, teachers stressed the importance of ELF for CFL teachers to handle a multilingual class.

162 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Three professional functions of ELF pedagogy Beyond the classroom, English was also reported as helpful in many professional ways. Not surprisingly, it seems teachers have reached a consensus that a good knowledge of English can enhance their research skills, including facilitating publication, bring extra opportunities for getting jobs and promotion, and most importantly, the chance to teach Chinese overseas. Some teachers even expressed their regrets about not being able to use English well. The most important academic functions of English for CFL teachers were said to be the ability to read, write and publish journal articles in English. Unfortunately, only very few of them have this advantage. T15 argued: If you want to publish your research paper in a high quality journal in China, you have to write the ‘abstract’ in English. If you want to be competitive in the faculty, you need to learn to publish in English, which means you have to read English journals extensively. You also have to participate in seminars and conferences from time to time where many people are speaking English for academic purposes.

Not surprisingly, for many teachers, English also has practical and personal functions. Nine of them expressed their concerns about the importance of English to obtaining a proper job in the CFL education profession and other occupations in China. As T15 recalled: I majored in English in university. […] My good command of English helped me get many part-time jobs and also working experience. It is basically unthinkable if your English isn’t good enough. [...] To keep up the standard of my English, I listen to CRI every morning on my way to work. […] English is my advantage.

CRI is short for China Radio International, one of the few English radio programmes in China, which provides special broadcasts for Chinese English language learners. T15 had a keen interest in learning and using English and regarded himself as a life-long English language learner. T15 said that he had recently come under pressure to publish articles in international English language journals. Finally, English also has an international function, through which teacher 163 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

participants win opportunities to teach Chinese abroad, so as to improve their social mobility. Going abroad seemed to be a very important goal for some of the participants. Five of them, mostly younger teachers, expressed a personal hope that they will be able to teach Chinese abroad. For example, T12 said, I want to teach Chinese abroad. […] I’ve submitted my application form to Hanban […] Korea, I will be in Korea by next January if I succeed. It will be my first time abroad. […] No, I don’t speak Korean, so I need to speak English with my students. Otherwise, I will be deaf and dumb there. […] I need to practice my English a little bit before I leave for Korea.

As can be seen from T12’s comments, some teachers were still developing English language skills and relying on them to reach both pedagogical and personal goals. In addition to the three functions identified, some teachers mentioned the difficulties experienced in job-hunting for their undergraduate students and postgraduates who are studying to be CFL teachers. They worried about the low employment rate but were happy to see that some of those who failed to find a job in China have been accepted in advanced studies in overseas universities. Needless to say, only those who have good English and those who are able to afford overseas studies can take this path, leaving a large number of Chinese graduates in CFL teacher education programmes working in less related or unrelated occupations. Conclusion This section of the study has described interviews with CFL teachers in four Beijing universities and their perceptions and understandings of code choice in CFL teaching. Despite the rigid Chinese-only language policy, many participants believe that a cautious use of ELF could play an important role. An important finding is that CFL teachers employ English as a de facto lingua franca. For CFL students with little to no proficiency in Chinese, their knowledge of English can become a critical means for access to content-area knowledge. There164 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

fore, we suggest an “ELF pedagogy” as a tentative optimal model for effectively incorporating ELF into CFL teaching and learning across the three functions described above, namely, explanatory, managerial and interactive. Figure 6.1 Factors that influence Chinese-only pedagogy and ELF pedagogy. ELF pedagogy Influence of language policy

Three professional functions: The academic function The personal function The international function

Perceptions of L2 acquisition Three pedagogical functions: The explanatory function The managerial function The interactive function

Sinophone identity English language competence

Principles of using ELF pedagogy

Assumptions and perceived dangers Chinese-only pedagogy

This tentative model seems to be supported by previous research. As a matter of fact, Swain and Lapkin (2000: 258), Polio and Duff (1994: 317), Cook (2001: 413–419) and Eldridge (1996) have all proposed judicious use of multiple codes in L2 classes. In the context of CFL teaching, the model consists of three functions: (1) the explanatory function: the use of ELF to interpret, translate or explain metalinguistic content of the Chinese language and Chinese culture; (2) the managerial function: the use of ELF to give routine instructions and feedback, to encourage, disapprove, plan assignments and prepare tests; and (3) the interactive function: the use of ELF to encourage learnerlearner collaboration. This study suggests that there are many different 165 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

types of learner with different learning styles and preferences, and many different learning settings, and that, therefore, in practice, CFL teachers might need to follow an “instructional relativism” (Walton 1989: 21), through which they respect the multilingual and multinational reality of their particular Chinese classroom, and use ELF when appropriate as a vital, flexible and adaptable way to teach Chinese. An important issue which emerged as a factor making for the use of a Chinese-only pedagogy came from an explicit emphasis on building and maintaining a Sinophone identity. The exclusive use of Chinese was regarded as sign of a pure Sinophone, and mixing codes as pro-foreign. CFL teachers perceived that the job required them to show a strong national pride in front of foreigners by not mixing codes or borrowing any foreign words. Practically speaking, however, given the impact of the internationalization of English in higher education in China (Feng, 2007; Kirkpatrick, 2011), it may not be appropriate to treat code-switching with English as haphazard, detrimental behavior. In most cases, this paradox is resolved by appropriating English in ways which do least damage to their national language and identity. The findings of this study underscore the need for concrete, theoretically-grounded guidelines for CLF classroom language use that indicate which sorts of code switching behaviors facilitate L2 acquisition and which behaviors undermine it. Future studies might need to look into attitudes toward notions of multiple code choice and its effect on one’s identity from the learners’ perspectives. This study suggests that CFL teachers rethink and re-examine the overarching language policy and develop an alternative pedagogy, which allows the use of ELF in CFL classrooms in judicious ways, all of which are aimed at helping the learner learn the target language, particularly, though not exclusively, in beginners’ classes. This tentative optimal model is likely to become even more helpful as CFL classrooms become increasingly diverse and multilingual. However, teachers and students alike are not usually overtly aware of “how, when, and the extent to which” (Polio and Duff, 1994: 320) they actually make code choices.

166 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Chapter 7 English in CFL classrooms A classroom observation of actual language use Previous studies on the use of English in the CFL classroom have focused on describing to what extent and in which ways CFL teachers use ELF. Some recent articles have withstood the pressure of the Chinese-only principle and have suggested some practical ways of incorporating English into CFL classes. Zhao Xiaohui (2009) believes that the use of English can be of benefit in five ways: (1) to help teachers identify a student’s difficulty; (2) to build authority as a good foreign language speaker; (3) to make the relationship between teachers and students closer; (4) to increase efficiency in classroom management; and (5) to reduce the cost and time of making teaching materials (e.g. flashcards). Further, Jiao Jiao (2009) generally supports all the points made by Zhao Xiaohui but puts more emphasis on “increasing the CFL teacher’s linguistic awareness”, which will in return enhance the student’s learning of the target language. In a similar way, Zhou Jian (1999) argues for the use of English (1) to introduce new language points; (2) to analyse the source of errors; and (3) to manage exercises and classroom activities. Moreover, Wang Bing, et al. (2007) investigated a group of CFL students through questionnaires in the East China Normal University and found that CFL teachers and students used English for teaching or learning (1) grammar; (2) lexical items; (3) texts; (4) culture; (5) giving or doing assignments, quizzes and examinations; (6) directing or participating in classroom activities. Wang’s study found that 60% of the participants agreed that English translations are very necessary for them to check the extent of their understanding. In addition, Yang Yirong (1999) suggested a few possible ways for using English in the CFL beginner classroom, such as comparing lexical items and collocations between English and Chinese, checking comprehension, etc. Nevertheless, some of these studies

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

were not based on empirical research. It appears that few studies exist on the use of English in actual CFL classroom teaching. It is noteworthy that in many of the previous studies, such as Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (2002), Duff and Polio (1990) and Fu Chuanfeng (2005), the research results were presented in a quantitative way, such as percentages and means of L1 use in L2 classes. However, this current study does not intend to measure the quantity of English use in CFL classes. As Polio and Duff (1994: 314) argued, reporting percentages without examining the discourse context and purposes would fail to capture the dynamic and sequential nature of teacher-student interaction. This study will attempt to describe actual CFL teaching and examine how CFL teachers and students use English to achieve practical goals. It seeks to answer the following research questions: 1.

What actually occurs in the CFL class with regard to the use of English?

2.

How do CFL teachers and CFL students use English to achieve practical goals?

Research instrument Classroom observation is believed to be the most appropriate research method to collect evidence of CFL students’ and teachers’ use of English in naturalistic settings. As Good (1988: 75) put it, one role of observational research is to “describe what takes place in classrooms in order to delineate the complex practical issues that confront practitioners”. Good (1988: 376) further argued that one of the fundamental purposes of classroom observation research is describing the current status of instructional practices and identifying instructional problems. Likewise, Wajnryb (1992: 7) argued that an observation task is a focused activity to work on while observing a class in progress. It focuses on one or a small number of aspects of teaching or learning and requires the observer to collect data or information from the actual

168 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

class, such as the language a teacher uses when giving instructions or the patterns of interactions that emerge in a class. Data collection To collect data from the actual classroom, teachers and students were audio-recorded. Of the 24 CFL teachers interviewed in the previous chapter, seven agreed to have their classes audio-recorded for research purposes. Then, four out of the seven were selected on the basis of their availability during the time of data collection. All of the three CFL classes shared some common characteristics: (1) the average number of students in each class was around 15; (2) each recorded class lasted for around 90 minutes (including 10 minutes break); and (3) the countries of origin of CFL students were very diverse, including students from both Asian and Western countries. Three pedagogical funtions The main unit of analysis of classroom conversations was the turn, which has been defined as when an interlocutor stops talking and thus enables another interlocutor to initiate a turn, or when the interlocutor is interrupted by another who initiates another turn (Potowski, 2009: 94). Nevertheless, it is necessary to bear in mind that some of the observed classes were more teacher-centered than others, showing a disproportion between teachers’ and students’ interactions. As this study does not aim to calculate the proportion of English and Chinese used in class, only the parts which related to teacher and students’ code switching will be transcribed and translated. The transcript convention (see Appendix III) is adapted from Nagy and Robertson (2009: 86). The study examined actual language use in the CFL classroom on the basis of the coding scheme. The coding scheme was developed and adapted from three early models put forward by Cook (2001), 169 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Polio and Duff (1994) and Swain and Lapkin (2000). All interactions with code switching between English and Chinese in this study were categorized under a coding scheme with three major dimensions, namely “explanatory”, “managerial” and “interactive”, as suggested by the previous study with teacher participants, and subcategories. All examples of English use violating the principles were regarded as negative functions. As a matter of fact, some excerpts showed a combination of several purposes for code-switching to English. The following segment, for instance, was included under the “explaining grammar”, “motivating students to speak” and “supporting from peers”. Each instance will be calculated once and categorized according to its particular purpose, though appearing in turns of interactions all together with other code switching practices. Segment 1.

T: S1: T:

S2: S3: S2: T:

ᡁҠਟҀ. 侩ⶰ. How to say that, hum, I bought something? No, ㆹḘ is “I want to buy”, not “I bought”, OK? For example, ㆹḘ␾ is I want to buy coffee. 往㚱␊? Anything else? ᡁҠ [CUEING S2] (2.0) [NO RESPONSE] What do you want to buy? Oh, ㆹḘ (2.0) 产勞. Good, ⤥⓲. 㔯㥦, green tea.

Explanatory function The explanatory function includes teachers using ELF for explaining the metalinguistic content of CFL, checking comprehension, providing necessary scaffolding for classroom student learning and so on. The four classroom observations showed a clear pattern of using English particularly when teachers explained grammar knowledge, lexical 170 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

items, and checking whether their students have understood the lesson. Explaining Chinese Grammar All the four teachers used English to some degree for explaining grammar knowledge. As seen below, some utterances were entirely in English and others were not. Segment 2 was taken from the teacher who claimed in the interviews that he found himself supportive of the monolingual approach and thus he has been classified into Macaro’s virtual position. However, in the actual teaching situation, once he identified a mistake made by one of the students he switched to English immediately. Segment 2.

S1: T:

ㆹᶵ⎫㖑椕. You should speak 㱉. 㱉 and ᶵ, both are negative verb, but use different. OK? 㱉, not happened. ᶵ, not adjective. OK?

Segment 2 evidently betrayed a discrepancy between the teacher’s belief and his teaching practice. His explanation of 㱉 and ᶵ in English demonstrated a typical pattern of English use in the CFL classroom which was identified in all of the four classes. That is, English is employed as a literal translation of the original Chinese expression, without considering the English grammar or collocation of English words. As can be seen from Segment 2 and many other excerpts, there is no link verb to join the two nouns as subject and object. Some have even omitted the subject, leaving only the predicate. Articles are all missing and conjugation is not often in a correct form. These seem to be common mistakes made by Chinese speakers of English. On the one hand, the teacher might be deliberately forming a contrast between English and Chinese by preserving the Chinese sentence structure and filling it with English vocabulary. On the other hand, the teacher might not be able to speak English well so he has to translate

171 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

literally instead of using full and correct English sentences. However, in Segment 3, the teacher skillfully avoided the risk of having to speak full English sentences. She simply gave out the English equivalent but isolated the English academic vocabulary in what was otherwise Chinese discourse. Segment 3.

T: Ss: T:

ℵ㜍ᶨ᷒┌惺, Ṩᷰシ⿅? (2.0) [NO RESPONSE] ℵ㜍ᶨ᷒, Ṩᷰシ⿅? 䚳⓲, ⣏ ⭞ 䚳 . ℵ , ⎗ ẍ ≈ ≐ 孵 (can be followed by verb), verb, and a phrase with measure word. Yes. ᶨ䒞 , phrase with measure word. Yes. ℵ宣ᶨ念. Yes. 宣, 宜, Ḙ 悥㗗≐孵 . Verb, right? ᶨ念. ᷌念. ᶨ 䒞. A phrase with measure word, right?

It is clear that this teacher only used “verb” and “phrase with measure word” in her grammatical explanation, but provided several examples to elaborate. The four observed classes all showed, to different degrees, some use of English academic vocabulary to explain Chinese grammar. Explaining lexical terms For explaining lexical terms, new or confusing Chinese vocabulary, the teacher in Segment 4 adopted the Sandwich Technique (Chinese – English translation – Chinese). She repeated the Chinese word “恋ṃ” twice to make sure students heard it clearly. At the same time, she checked comprehension by giving the English equivalent, “those”. Segment 4.

T: Ss: S1:

征ṃ. 征ṃ [REPEAT] How about “those”?

172 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

T: Ss: T:

恋ṃ, those, 恋ṃ. 恋ṃ. ṃ, not only one, ᶵ 㬊ᶨ᷒, 㚱⼰⣂, more than one, OK烎

English translation occurred more frequently when new lexical items were introduced or teachers perceived that students’ Chinese proficiency was not enough to understand the content. In Segment 5, the teacher introduced a Chinese word “Ἀ䚳” and closely followed it by an English translation “look”. She used the same method when a student asked her for translation of another new word. The teacher repeated the Chinese “⤥䚳” first and gave the translation afterwards. Segment 5.

T: S1: T: S1: T:

֐ⴻ, look, ֐ⴻ, look. ֐ⴻ[REPEAT]. Yea, pay attention. What is ྭⴻ? ྭⴻ, good looking.

Checking comprehension Teachers and students use English to check comprehension. Segment 6 shows that teachers asked the class to translate Chinese vocabulary into English. One student introduced a new word, “scarf”, to the class and the teacher quickly checked whether the rest of the class could understand it. Another student translated the new term into English to the class and the teacher repeated the English equivalent again to make sure everyone had heard it. Segment 6.

S1: T: S2: T:

ㆹḘ⚜ⶦ. ⚜ⶦ, do you know ⚜ⶦ? [TO THE CLASS] Scarf. 朆ⷠ⤥, scarf, ⚜ⶦ.

173 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

The teacher in Segment 6 used “do you know” for cueing students to translate. In segment 7, the student proactively and correctly translated the teacher’s instructions into English and the teacher responded positively to the student. It was noted that throughout the class some students were very active in translating whatever teachers said to the class for practicing and reinforcing the understanding of the target language. Segment 7.

T: S: T:

ᢃᔰҖ, гॱҼ亥. Seventy two. Very good. гॱҼ亥.

Discourse marker, “right”, “OK”, “yes” and “very good” were frequently employed by teacher participants when checking comprehension with students. All of the four teachers used English words for giving signals before changing topics and left some time for students to react or ask questions. In segment 8, the teacher said “right” and “OK” twice for cueing a response from students before moving to a new topic. Segment 8.

T: Ss: T: Ss: T:

⇀㗗Ṩᷰ? (2.0) [NO RESPONSE] ⇀. A surname. Right? (2.0) Right? ⇀ [REPEATED THE SOUND] ㆹᶵ㗗⇀ⶰ‭. ㆹ㗗⇀侩ⶰ. OK? OK?

Managerial function The managerial function indicates teachers’ use of ELF for giving activity instructions, giving feedback, praising, encouraging, disapproving, planning assignments or preparing tests, examinations and so

174 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

on. Teachers in the four classes were found using English particularly for giving feedback, motivating and guiding students to practice and planning assignments and quizzes. Giving instructions The most common use of English came in routine instruction-giving. English used for this function occurred quite frequently in all of the four observed classes. Segment 9 showed that the teacher attempted to explain the difference between 㱉 and 㚱 through an activity. This was a beginner’s class, so the teacher did it entirely through English. Segment 9.

T:

Let’s try. The first thing. Take out, take out two piece paper. The small one, the small one. [POINTING AT PAPER] (2.0) Just like, just like this. Fold it into half and cut. One paper write 㚱䈁. Another paper write 㱉䈁 . [STUDENTS STARTED TO WRITE] Write by yourself. One paper write 㚱䈁 . The other paper write 㱉䈁 . [WALKED DOWN TO CLASS] (2.0) Yeah, Very good. Very good. We will show to your neighbour. OK, make sure, every person has did. OK, follow me.

Segment 9 showed that this teacher naturally used “let’s try”, “write by yourself” and “follow me” when leading the classroom activity. She wanted students to take out one piece of paper, tear it into half and write something on each piece of paper. However, it is very obvious that the teacher seemed to have ignored the grammar of English. Fragmented English rather than full English sentences was used and many mistakes can be identified. Her English seemed to be very childlike and she has taken too much time from the class for giving instructions for this activity. Giving feedback Teachers gave feedback in English for emotional, interpersonal, rapport-building purposes, such as praising, encouraging, showing empa175 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

thy and so on. The three examples below showed that teachers used English to converse with CFL students. In segment 10, the teacher praised the student’s pronunciation and demonstrated to the student how to pronounce the word better by saying “open your mouth big”. The teacher then gave the student a “bonus” when hearing a better pronunciation following her instructions. Segment 10.

S1: T: S1: T: S1 T:

⛐. No, open your mouth big. ⛐. ⛐. Very good. Big mouth, right? ⛐. ⛐. 朆ⷠ⤥. Bonus!

Some teachers switched to English to show concern for the students. As shown in segment 11, the teacher used English to digress from instructional sequences and shift his role to become an empathetic peer. The teacher stopped suddenly in the middle of a grammatical explanation when she heard one of the students complaining about the cold weather and reminded the class and also the student to “put on more clothes”. Segment 11.

T: S1: T: S1:

ṾẔⷠⷠᶨ崟. Cold. Cold. ⊿Ṕ. ⅔⣑. Winter. 朆ⷠ⅟. Very cold. Very cold. Wear more clothes. He Shan [THE NAME OF A STUDENT]. Wear more clothes. OK.

Motivating students to practice Teachers were found to be using English to motivate or guide students to practice more in Chinese. In Segment 12, the teacher spoke the 176 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Chinese phrases twice to cue some responses from the class but heard no response. Then the teacher resorted to English when realizing that the students had lost track of the lesson. Segment 12.

T: S1: T: S1:

ㆹ␴䍃⇑Ṃ. ㆹ␴䍃⇑Ṃ< Maria and I>. How to say that? How to say I and Maria^? ㆹ␴䍃⇑Ṃ. Yes? (2.0) And? ᶨ崟^. Together^. Doing what? ㆹ␴䍃⇑Ṃᶨ崟⎫椕ˤ

In fact, the Chinese equivalents for “yes” and “and” in segment 12 were found to be quite helpful for teachers to use in order to cue responses from students. Teachers use English to reassure the students about their output of the target language and alleviate the anxiety of making mistakes. Segment 13.

S: T: S:

Ḽ⋩⚃⛿. ⮡. Keep going. You are right. ᶱ㮃Ḽ↮.

In segment 13, the teacher kept encouraging the student to finish the sentence by saying “keep going”, “you are right” in English. And the student came out with the right answer after pausing for a few seconds. Planning assignments Teachers speak English for planning assignments and quizzes. By the end of the class, three out of the four teacher participants switched to English for giving assignments. The teacher shared the PowerPoint slides with the class, on which the content of Segment 14 could be found. Figure 8.1 is an example of a teacher’s PowerPoint slides.

177 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Figure 7.1. CFL teachers use English to plan assignments.

In this class, the teacher firstly reminded the class about the dictation and then read through the four assignments one by one. Segment 14.

T: S: T:

S: T:

㚨⎶. ἄ᷂. 㖶⣑ㆹẔ㚱^? 㖶⣑ㆹẔ㚱dictation. ⮡. 䚳⓲. 䫔⚃᷒. 宣. Read. 䫔ᶱ᷒. Make sentence. 䫔Ḵ᷒. 䫔 Ḵ᷒. ⣏⭞䚳⓲. Make a paragraph. ᶵ⣂. Not so much. Peter, make a note. Are we going to present? No, just show me. 亁侩ⶰ䚳.

178 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Interactive function The interactive purpose means students use ELF to communicate with each other or provide peer support for each other. The first two functions of English were practiced mostly by teachers, were usually initiated by teachers and took place between the teacher and students. However, the interactive function was, by contrast, used among students and was led by students as well. Teachers were sometimes seen to be in a passive position due to their limited English listening and speaking skills. Peer teaching Students were found to be communicating with each other very often through the medium of English. In segment 15, one student asked the teacher about the meaning of a word and while the teacher tried the student seemed not very satisfied with the answer, then another student interjected and gave a better translation. Segment 15.

T: S1: T: S1: S2: S1: T:

21 嶗℔ℙ㰥弎. What is 嶗? Just the number. (2.0) ӰѸ number? It means the route number of the bus. Route number. OK. Yes, route number.

The first student who asked the question quickly understood when hearing the explanation from another student. This may not be the best answer to the Chinese word but it seemed it was considered helpful. Segment 16.

S1: T: S1:

Yes. How to say teeth? Oh. 䈁. Teeth. 䈁.

179 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

S2 S1:

What is it? 䈁. Teeth. [S1 REPEATED THE SOUND TO S2]

Students in segment 16 communicated with each other and looked for translations and to fill in what they missed from the teacher. It was often noted that students used English to translate questions raised by teachers to classmates sitting nearby. Segment 17.

S1: T: Ss: S1: T: S1: T: S2: S3: S2: S3: T:

ㆹ天Ḙ. I don’t know. How do I say it? I want to buy shoes. Ṩᷰ᷄大? Shoes. Yea, shoes. 朳⫸. ㆹ天Ḙᶨ. ㆹ天Ḙᶨ⍴朳⫸? But is it the measure word for shoes? Yes. Really? I thought it is for 䬟⫸< chopsticks>. Yes, but it is also for things in pairs. ⍴. ⍴. OK? For double things. ᶨ⍴䬟⫸. ᶨ⍴塄⫸. ᶨ⍴朳⫸. Understand?

The class in Segment 17 helped the teacher translate a question in English raised by one student. Some of them discussed whether the measure word was correct. One of the students gave out a short explanation prior to their teacher’s own explanation. Teachers learning English from students Teachers sometimes encountered unfamiliar English vocabulary spoken by their students and they were observed learning and practicing new English words with their students now and then. In segment 18, the teacher looked for an English equivalent and asked students to 180 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

suggest one. The students modeled words for the teacher to choose and then the teacher found the right one and repeated it twice carefully, ending the exchange with a discourse marker “OK” to signal a move onto the next topic. Segment 18.

T2: S1: T2: S1: S2: T: S1: T:

䕤 (2.0) How to say 䕤 < Téng >^ How to say that? Hurt. Yea, hurt. (2.0) Is there any adjective? 䕤 < Téng >^ Pain? Painful? ⮡. Painful. Painful. 䈁䕤. Painful [POINTING AT HER TEETH] Toothache? Yea, Yea, Yea, toothache. OK.

As shown in segment 19, the reversal of roles based on the teacher’s and the student’s respective English expertise can occur when the teacher is unsure about the English she has used. Furthermore, it is clear that the teacher learned this English expression from the students. Segment 19.

T: Ss: S1: T: S1: T:

S: T:

㰥㯜. 㰥㯜. What is 㰥? 㰥? What does it mean? Like in 㰥㯜 and 䨢㮼. ⓲. ᶵᶨ㟟. 䨢㮼. This is gas in the air. 㰥㯜. That is vipo, veipo [TRYING TO PRONOUNCE VAPOR] Vapor [CORRECTS TEACHER’S PRONOUNCIATION] Vapor.

181 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Segment 19 shows that teachers learn English from their students. The teacher tried to pronounce “vapor” when giving an explanation of the difference between the two homophones. The teacher learnt the correct English pronunciation from her students and repeated the English after them. Segment 20.

T: Ss:

⣏⭞㜍⻻ᶨ⻻侩㜧. OK? Boss. We are boss. Shopkeeper. Not boss. Shopkeeper. OK? Shopkeeper.

In Segment 20, the teacher wanted her students to practice expressions for buying and selling things in Chinese. She firstly tried “boss” and quickly changed to “shopkeeper” for a more appropriate English word for this case and the class repeated it after the teacher. Negative function Some examples from the classroom observation were regarded as violating the principles for English use in CFL class and hence fitted the category of unhelpful function. They emerged as a supplementary dimension of English use in CFL class. To be specific, the examples were analysed in the following three aspects: (1) misunderstanding; (2) overuse of English; (2) misuse of English; and (4) avoiding English unnecessarily. Misunderstanding Misunderstandings happened or communication broke down due to teachers’ lack of English proficiency. Some teachers were not able to understand students’ questions in English. In Segment 21, one student was trying clarify whether the measure word can represent the shape of things it modified. Another student responded to this question by replying “some of them”. However, the teacher seemed to have not understood throughout the whole conversation. The question was repeated three times but the teacher still could not figure out what the 182 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

student was trying to ask, but seemed only to have understood “measure word”, the grammatical term only. Then the teacher described the general rules for measure words, ended the discussion and moved on to other topics. Segment 21.

S1: T: S1: S2: S1: T: S1: T: S1: T:

Can you, hum, explain to the class about the (2.0), the measure word. Is it for the different shape of things it represents? (2.0) [NO RESPONSE] Does it mean that the measure word represents the shape of things? Some of them. But I didn’t realize that measure word represents the shape of something by its meaning. Measure word? 慷孵? Yea. You mean ᶨ᷒孵, ⬫㚱ᶨ᷒慷孵. For example, Ḏ. That is 㛔. Yea, 㛔 is it like it represents the shape of something? (3.0) ⓲. ⤥. ㆹẔ䫱ᶨᶳℵ宜⓲.

Another example is seen from segment 22. The student asked for the measure word for “can” (noun), a type of container, but the teacher couldn’t figure out what the student was trying to ask. The teacher thought this “can” was the modal auxiliary verb, and said “Yes, you can”. The students repeated his question again. After hesitating for a few seconds, the teacher replied with an ambiguous answer that “you can also say a bottle”, which seemed to have no relation to the student’s question. The student repeated his question but the teacher’s explanation remained irrelevant. The more obvious proof of his failure to understand the question came from “a bottle is for something long, with no handle” in Chinese. These Chinese expressions went far beyond the students’ Chinese proficiency, but it seemed that the teacher just needed to utter something when she encountered tricky questions.

183 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Segment 22.

T: S1: T:

S1: T:

ᶨ䒞┌惺. 侩ⶰ. 䒞 is for bottle. How about a can? (2.0) [NO RESPONSE]. Yes, you can. ḇ⎗ẍ宜ᶨ䒞. ᶨ䒞⯙㗗攧䘬, 㱉㈲⃧ 䘬. What about a can? ᶨ䒞⯙㗗 for 征᷒ [POINTING AT A WATERBOTTLE ON THE DESK]. 㱉㚱征᷒ handle.

Overuse of English Overuse of English occurred when teachers were managing classroom activities. As seen in Segment 23, the teacher repeated the English words “tiger” four times and “game” three times when she was giving instructions for an activity. Segment 23.

T:

You can draw a tiger. A tiger. [DRAWING A TIGER] So there is a tiger. A tiger. One person, for example, raise this paper, and, and the other person say 䈁䕤 . OK, let’s have a game. A game, OK? A game.

These English words were not used for explaining the target language and thus should be reduced and avoided. If the teacher instead gave the Chinese equivalent for “tiger” or “game” in this case, then the CFL students could have learned some extra Chinese lexical items while they were preparing for a classroom activity. However, the teacher seemed to feel very confident about her English and did not attempt to give the Chinese equivalents. This overuse of English runs the risk of turning the CFL class into a beginners’ English class. Misuse of English Some teachers were found translating Chinese words very carelessly and this led the class into confusion. In Segment 24, the student 184 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

looked for a word in Chinese. The teacher first gave a wrong translation and further explained the Chinese translation again which resulted in some unnecessary discussions about the teacher’s translation. Segment 24.

T: S1: T: S1: T: Ss: T:

Ἀ╄㫊Ṩᷰ flavor? Hum, vanilla ␴ cream. 楁勱␴Ṩᷰ? Cream. ⒎, 湬㱡 湬㱡[STUDENT REPEATED THE WORD] Yes. 湬 is yellow, 㱡 is oil, 湬㱡 is yellow oil in Chinese.

Note that cream here is not exactly 湬㱡. Translating it to ⤞ 㱡 may be better in this case. However, the class discipline fell apart after the teacher said “湬㱡” is yellow oil in Chinese. Students started to talk about what “yellow oil” represented and made fun of the teacher’s translation. Avoiding English unnecessarily Teachers sometimes avoided the use of English unnecessarily, even though they knew their students were English-speaking bilinguals. A few examples extracted here demonstrate the teacher’s reluctance to resort to English, though he had to give the English translation in the end, which helped learners understand the new lexical terms. The segment below was from the beginning of a class, when the teacher was telling a story and asked the class if they understood one lexical term which occurred occasionally in the conversation. Segment 25.

T: S1: T: S2:

ᶨ弰⫸Ṩᷰシ⿅? (3.0) [NO RESPONSE] Yí bèi zi… [REPEATING THE SOUND] ᶨ弰⫸< yí bèi zi>. ⓲^. Ṩᷰシ⿅? 㜗⫸? [POINTING AT THE WATERBOTTLE ON THE

185 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

T:

S: T:

S: T: S1: S2:

DESK] ᶵ㗗㜗⫸, ᶨ弰⫸. ⶍἄḮᶨ弰⫸ ᶨ弰⫸. 㭼⤪宜. ᶨ弰⫸⯙㗗ᶨ᷒Ṣ< yí bèi zi is a person>. ᶨ弰⫸⯙㗗㇨㚱䘬㖞斜. 㭼⤪宜< for example>. ㆹ䍘⛐ 24 Ⱙ< I’m 24 now>. 恋ㆹ䘬 ᶨ 弰 ⫸ , 24 ⸜ . 㖶 䘥 Ḯ ⎿ ? …… (3.0) [NO RESPONSE] ㇨㚱䘬. 㭼⤪宜. 㭼⤪宜 . ᶨ᷒侩 ⣒⣒ 80 ⰩḮ. ⤡䘬ᶨ弰⫸, 80 ⸜. ᶨ弰⫸⯙㗗䓇␥䘬㇨㚱㖞斜㖶䘥Ḯ⎿? ……(3.0) [NO RESPONSE] ᶨ弰⫸⯙㗗 whole life . Oh. [NODDING HEAD] Whole life. [REPEATED]

Segment 25 violated the principle of efficiency. As can be seen, the class was dominated by the teacher’s talk and the CFL students remained rather passive. The teacher insisted on explaining the term in Chinese and kept cueing the students. The whole process took five minutes and 47 seconds until the teacher finally gave up his Chinese explanation and resorted to English, which helped the whole class finish the long process of negotiating the meaning. Conclusion This part of the study has described language choice and language use in the CFL class. CFL teachers’ and students’ code switching between English and Chinese were presented and analysed according to the three functions identified in the previous study with CFL teachers: explanatory, managerial and interactive functions. In addition, it has also identified examples of violating the principles for using ELF in the CFL classroom and classified them as negative functions. 186 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Table 7.1 Pedagogical functions identified in the study.

Explanatory function

Managerial function

Interactive function

Negative function

Explaining Chinese grammar Explaining lexical items Checking comprehension Giving instructions Giving feedback Motivating students to practice Planning assignments Peer teaching Teachers learning English from students Misunderstanding Overuse of English Misuse of English Avoiding English unnecessarily

In summary, the findings of this study underscore the need for concrete and theoretical guidelines for CLF classroom language use that indicate which sorts of code switching behaviors facilitate L2 acquisition and which behaviors undermine it (Levine, 2003: 356). The findings from this study, aside from shedding light on what actually occurs in the CFL class with regard to the use of English, support a number of conclusions. English was first and foremost employed in direct translations of the Chinese original but often used in a problematic way. As shown in almost all the excerpts, English translations were presented in a fragmented form and some were even grammatically incorrect. However, it was noted that both teacher and student participants in the four observed classes were making efforts to keep the class communicative with the help of English, though the quality of English was not very satisfactory. Secondly, English proficiency for some CFL teachers was not sufficiently high to manage a multilingual class, as examples of communication breakdowns were often found. The lack of English profi187 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

ciency was probably the reason for teachers using mainly fragmentary English words instead of complete English sentences. The English employed by the teacher participants was simply a “word for word” translation from the Chinese. Further, it might also have explained why the use of English was limited only to explaining grammar and lexical items. This study did not find any evidence of translation of a whole Chinese paragraph or of introducing Chinese culture through English by CFL teachers. Interpretations of Chinese culture or the translation of Chinese texts to some extent requires a higher English ability for CFL teachers. One teacher even said “I will give you five minutes to read the culture introduction (in English).” Lastly, these code switching practices included an integral role for communication among students in addition to that between teacher and student. Previous studies have not given much consideration to multilingual interactions among students. Although students were from different countries, they were very active and willing to help the class with their knowledge of English. English was indeed used in the CFL class as a genuine lingua franca, with different L1 speakers relying on English for communicating and learning CFL. Those who think English should be banned must have only seen its negative functions but have neglected the other three positive functions. Notwithstanding these findings, data from only four classroom observations is not sufficient as a basis for generalizing what teachers and students do with English in the CFL classroom. Thus, a more detailed qualitative study of classroom observation over a longer period of time is particularly needed. Further, with regard to research design, not following up the classroom observation with CFL students’ and teachers’ self-reported reasons for their multiple discursive practices to some extent left some aspects unexplored in this study. A stimulus recall might be a necessary follow-up to enrich the observational studies by supplementing them with the teachers’ selfexplanation of their language choices.

188 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Chapter 8 English in CFL textbooks A short history of CFL textbook publications Learning materials are an indispensable component in the development of an adequate pedagogy. The earliest Chinese learning materials for foreigners can be traced back to 14th century, China’s Yuan Dynasty. Lao Qida (侩Ḇབྷ, literally The Old Khitan) and Piao Tongshi (㛜 忂һ, literally Translator Piao), written for Korean students and published during the years 1346 and 1368 were believed to be the earliest two CFL textbooks in history (Wadley, 1987; Cheng, 2001: 56). The former was developed as a primer and the latter was for more advanced learners of Chinese in Korea. Later editions of these two textbooks were used as classic Chinese language learning materials in the Korean Peninsula until the late 18th century. They the most complete and effective study aids for Korean students to learn Chinese over nearly five centuries (Zhang, 2005). The learning content was conversational and practical, with a focus on developing good speaking skills in the Beijing dialect. For example, in the first lesson in Lao Qida, students would learn some simple dialogues: ֐Ӿଚ䟼ᶕ˛(Where are you from?) ᡁӾ儈ѭ⦻ӜᶕDŽ(I’m from Korea.) ྲӺଚ䟼৫˛(Where are you going now?) ᡁᖰेӜ৫DŽ(I’m going to Beijing.)

They were written in a very simple way with Chinese texts annotated by Korean pronunciation and translations. When European missionaries of different religions arrived in China from the 16th century onwards, there arose an urgent need to learn the language of this “un-

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

known land”. Two of the most important and influential Chinese textbooks were A Help to Western Scholars (大₺俛䚖峬) by Nicolas Trigault (1995) (first publishd in 1625) and A progressive course designed to assist the student of colloquial Chinese (宕妨冒徑普) by Thomas Francis Wade (2002) (first published in 1867). Most of these textbooks used the Latin grammatical system to illustrate types of words and structures in Chinese. These works took the form of dictionaries with word-by-word glossaries, conversational texts and translation to French, English, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian and other European languages. However, none of these early sets of Chinese textbooks were produced in China or written by Chinese people. The textbook used for the Eastern European Chinese course, the earliest CFL programme in China, was an edited version of ⚥宕ℍ斐 (Mandarin Primer: An Intensive Course in Spoken Chinese) developed by Zhao Yuanren (1948), originally published by Harvard University for Chinese language education in American universities. The grammar-translation approach adopted by this textbook has influenced the development of Chinese textbooks in China, though medium languages were banned in classroom teaching. Ever since Mandrin Primer, it seems that textbooks, including many of today’s CFL textbooks, still follow the “Chinese text-English translation-Chinese example” style. China published its first CFL textbook, the Chinese Textbook (㯱宕㔁䥹Ḏ) by Deng Yi (1958), a renowned Chinese educator and translator. This textbook made an effort to establish the core educational Chinese grammar for people who are learning Chinese as a foreign language by recognising the difference between learning Chinese as an L1 and L2. This Chinese grammar system remained little changed over the past 60 years. CFL textbooks were greatly influenced by the calamitous political upheaval of the Cultural Revolution Language content in the textbooks was full of political slogans and ideological issues. All forms of education took second place to ideological correctness. Even though the Cultural Revolution officially finished in 1972, the influence of the movement wasn’t really excised until 1978. With the rapid development of Chinese as a foreign 190 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

language teaching, numerous new Chinese textbooks and learning materials were published in China. Before the 1980s, CFL textbooks in China drew mainly on “structuralism”, which focused closely on grammar knowledge of the Chinese language. However, since the early 1980s, CFL textbook writing started to combine elements of “structure”, “situation” and “function”. For example, the Practical Chinese Reader (⭆䓐㯱宕宦㛔) by Liu Xun (1981) adapted to a “structure – function” style, and reduced the dominance of Chinese grammar by increasing the proportion of communication knowledge in Chinese. It is one of the most popular CFL textbooks published in China. During this period, many Chinese universities started to write their own CFL textbooks and many series came onto the market. Chinese 301 (㯱宕 301 ⎍) (1984) was developed for CFL crash courses and the Modern Chinese Textbook (䍘ẋ 㯱宕宦㛔) (1998) won popularity in CFL programmes in China’s universities. Both published by Beijing Language Institute, these two textbooks adopted the “structure – function” style. Since 1995, “culture” was added as an important new component so that the textbook style has now evolved into “structure – function – culture”. The development of the CFL textbook style reflected different linguistic theories that have influenced CFL teaching over the last half century (Cheng, 2001: 37). A total of 146 CFL textbooks were published in mainland China between 1950 and 1985, compared with more than 400 between 1988 and 1999, with the quantity of such new publications peaking in the early 1990s (Li, 2002: 101). At the onset of the 21st century, along with the rapidly increasing number of CFL learners in China, there has been a dramatic development in the publication of CFL textbooks as well. In 2007 alone, there were 722 sets of CFL textbooks published by the three major publishing houses, Peking University Press, Beijing Language University Press and Sinolingua (Hu, 2007: 31). In a recent study, Han Xuan (2009) compared six sets of CFL textbooks for beginners published in Beijing, Hong Kong, Taiwan and America and found that all these Chinese textbooks used English as the only explanatory language. However, although some of these 191 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

learning materials have been used by generations of CFL learners, many others have not endured the test of time. Criticism of English in CFL textbooks There is a huge body of literature analysing CFL textbooks. Li Quan (2002: 104) argued that the CFL textbook market is thriving but is short of fine works. CFL teachers and educators in mainland China evidently said that they are satisfied with the quantity of CFL textbooks but disappointed by the quality of them (Wu, 1998; Wang, Danping, 2005; Wang Jianqin, 2000). They felt that CFL textbooks lack a standard methodology, the style and concepts are out of date, and there is too much literary material. For example, Zhu Pingping (2004: 134) commented that most of today’s CFL textbooks are still under the influence of L1 Chinese textbooks, and these can barely survive in any overseas CFL market. As the most commonly used medium language, English has played an important role throughout the development of CFL textbooks. CFL textbooks in China have been bilingual since the first one was published in the 1950s, and they have mostly been bilingual in English and Chinese. In some sense, English proficiency is a necessary prior knowledge for most CFL learners in order to read Chinese textbooks when their Chinese literacy remains limited. Therefore, studies of English in Chinese textbooks are essential to understand CFL teaching and CFL pedagogy. English appears mostly in beginner’s level CLF textbooks, and sometimes also in intermediate levels, where it is used for translating grammar explanations, for introducing new Chinese words and giving instructions for exercises. However, the subject of “English in CFL textbooks” is also one which has earned much criticism from students, teachers and researchers both in and outside China. Zhao Jinming (1998) has suggested to examine the quality of English translation in CFL textbooks and have also the standard of English should be one of the items considered when textbooks are evaluated. Both of them have proposed 192 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

standards for English translation in CFL textbooks, for example, that it be accurate and easy to understand. However, almost one decade later, Zhao Jinming (2009: 218) found that, unfortunately, CFL textbooks are still full of poor and even useless English translations. Early works on CFL textbooks focused on the issue of correcting wrong and inappropriate English translations (e.g. Tong, 1991; Wu, 2010; Yu, 1997; Lu, 1995). Recent studies have turned to focus on investigating the English translation from a semantics perspective, to examine whether the English translation and the Chinese original share the same connotation. This effort has resulted in many research outputs (e.g. Wang Shan, 2008; Zhou, 2007). Many of these studies gave examples of incorrect English translations that they have identified in textbooks and spelled out the consequences resulting from the inappropriate translations. For example, Lu Guizhi (2010: 170) described a misuse of English in the beginning of her paper, using an example of a CFL learner complaining to her teacher how difficult Chinese is: “侩ⶰ炻㯱宕⼰≒≃” (Teacher, Chinese is very hardworking). The teacher was confused and later found that the English translation in the CFL textbook for “≒≃” (hardworking) is “hard”, which also means “difficult”. The learner was, in fact, trying to say 㯱 宕⼰晦 (Chinese is difficult) but was misled by the translation in textbook. Another example was from Ling Dexiang’s (2003: 153) study. Ling pointed out that many CFL textbooks translated “⒒慴ˣ⒒慴” (politely responding to praise given/ not at all) into “Thank you”. He worried that this might make learners express gratitude to someone by saying “⒒慴ˣ⒒慴”. Only those textbooks with high quality English translations, both accurate and easy to understand, have stood the test of time, such as Kan Qian’s (1995) Colloquial Chinese: A complete language course, which has been widely used in many European countries. Yu Xinle (1997) pointed out that the English translation is supposed to be scaffolding, helping CFL learners understand the teaching content so that tteaching efficiency can be enhanced. Therefore, English translations should not only be correct but also easy for CFL learners to understand.

193 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Nevertheless, these studies, to some extent, might have raised a false alarm, sending the signal that English can be “dangerous” and “trouble-making” in CFL education, although they have contributed to improving the overall quality of CFL textbooks. It is the careless mistakes made by CFL textbook writers, editors and translators that are to blame not English per se. Due to an abundance of these studies identifying poor or incorrect English translations, a growing number of attempts were made to explore alternative ways to replace English translation, so as to avoid such criticisms for good (Guo, 2005; Xu, 2010; Wang Hanwei, 2009). For example, Xu Pinxiang (2010: 53) examined six sets of recently published Chinese textbooks and found that the overall quality of English had been improved and the misuse of English substantially diminished due to the efforts of both Chinese teachers and editors. However, Xu suggested that future research should be focusing on using the target language to explain the target language. In a similar sense, Wang Hanwei (2009) suggested getting rid of English altogether in CFL textbooks by using symbols, pictures, cartoons, and also by using simple Chinese to explain difficult Chinese. However, given the complexity of the Chinese script, using Chinese characters to explain Chinese seems an impractical ideal. Wang Hanwei (2009: 126) argued that CFL textbooks should not allow English as the lingua franca and that CFL teaching should not leave any space for English. He stressed that CFL textbooks should protect the purity of the Chinese language. Nevertheless, the primary purpose of a textbook is for students to learn. Although there exist plenty of studies of CFL textbooks, few of them seem to have included space for opinions and comments on the textbooks from students themselves. Whether CFL textbooks ought or ought not to use English as a medium should depend on whether students need it for assisting their learning, rather than being determined by teachers and scholars. In a small-scale project on CFL learners’ attitudes towards the English in Boya Chinese (⌂晭㯱宕), Wang Shan (2008) found that more participants preferred to read the English translation when both Chinese and English explanations were provided, probably due to the high level of English proficiency of these par194 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

ticipants and the difficulty of using the target language for metalinguistic purposes (p. 145). The study also found that many students were not satisfied with the English in the CFL materials because it employed less commonly used terms, which appeared academically advanced but extremely difficult to understand (p. 147). Wang Shan (2008) calculated that the amount of English used in Boya Chinese decreased from 100% in the beginners and quasi-intermediate level to 68.08% in intermediate, and 12.46% in advanced level (p. 20). However, as for “for whom”, “where” and “how” English is used, it seems there exists no such a comprehensive study so far. To this end, this part of my study focuses on CFL learners’ attitudes towards the quality of language use in CFL textbooks. Surveys on the quality of English used in textbooks This part of the study includes results from several small-scale independent research projects that have been conducted over the last five years. First and foremost, it begins with the findings from the student questionnaire survey (see Chapter 6 for details of the survey). Student participants’ attitudes towards the use of English in CFL textbooks were elicited in section 6 of the questionnaire (see Appendix I for the questionnaire sample). This group of questions was designed to yield descriptive results only. Student participants were asked to give their opinions based on their general experience of using CFL textbooks. No specific ones were given as examples. The results are shown in Table 8.1. Table 8.1 Attitudes towards the use of English in CFL textbooks. Mean

S.D.

39.

I read the English in textbooks

2.96

1.13

40.

English in the textbooks is helping me learn Chinese

3.16

.83

41.

I need more English translations in textbooks

3.29

.54

42.

I don’t understand the English in textbooks well

3.61

1.21

195 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

43.

I found mistakes in the English used in textbooks

3.72

.90

44.

English in Chinese textbooks should be improved

4.21

.96

Student participants’ attitudes about English use in the textbooks were less positive than those about English used in the classroom. To be specific, although the number of students who read English in the textbooks was not high (item 39, m=2.96), some of them expressed their need for English in the CFL textbooks as a medium language (item 40, m=3.16), and some other participants even found there was insufficient English in CFL textbooks (item 41, m=3.29). Results from item 42, 43 and 44 might have explained why student participants needed English but did not resort to the English explanations in their textbooks. It seems their attitudes towards English in textbooks might be influenced by the quality of it, in addition to their own English language proficiency. That is, if the overall quality of CFL textbooks can be improved, students could learn better with help from their proficiency in English. In addition to this survey, this section reports some research findings from several small-scale projects that I carried out on attitudes towards English in CFL textbooks, with both CFL teachers and students, during 2007 and 2011. Three major issues emerged. One was about the purpose of providing English in CFL textbooks: is it for teachers or for students? If it is for teachers, there’s every reason to move it to the teachers’ book. If it is for students, it should fully consider the needs of students, such as their levels of English and where they need English for translation. Secondly where is English usually used? Which part of a CFL textbook usually has an English translation, and is English used ahead or behind the Chinese characters and Chinese pinyin, and is here a particular pattern or style involved? Another problem identified was about how to use English, not only as a literal translation of the Chinese equivalent, but also as useful affordance for students’ understanding of the target language Chinese and culture.

196 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

For whom is English used Few CFL textbooks define the purpose of English translations or give directions as to how to use the English translations. Little research has been done on how, how often and how well teachers and students see and use the English translations in the textbooks. From 99 survey responses from a small group of CFL students and 27 CFL teachers in two Beijing universities, I found that both students and teachers believed that English was provided for both students and teachers, as shown in Table 8.2. Table 8.2 Whom do you think the English is for? Students think

Teachers think

For students only

34.3%

19.5%

For teachers only

20.2%

18.5%

For both students and teachers

45.5%

63.0%

As can be seen from Table 8.2, students and teachers’ views varied with regard to the purpose of English in CFL textbooks. Only 34.3% of student participants thought English was written for them, whereas 20.2% believed it was only for their teachers, and nearly half of them thought English was for both students and teachers. As for teachers, 63.0% of them believed the English translation could be a good resource for them to use when they have to explain certain Chinese grammar points in English. 19.5% of teacher participants thought English was for students only and 18.5% of them for teachers only. It used to be a common practice that CFL teachers would read aloud the English translation for conveying grammar knowledge and explain it by using a few examples. While students read the English for understanding the basic rules, teachers used the English to further explain the language structure. However, whether students and teachers can find enough useful English, and where they can find it does, to some

197 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

extent, determine how convenient any textbook is for learning and teaching. Where English is used Although teaching methodologies develop according to the influence of foreign language teaching methods worldwide, little change has taken place to the style and appearance of CFL textbooks. In fact most language textbooks in China by far have been adopted some version of the grammar-translation approach (McDonald, 2011: 42). Grammatical rules are first provided in Chinese, followed by literal English translations. Up to date, there has been no empirical research to examine when and where English is needed, and as yet, no reflection on whether this pattern of “Chinese-English” is applicable or efficient. To better understand the patterns of where English is used, this section presents a textbook review. I have selected 18 series (35 volumes and books) of CFL textbooks published in China and abroad during the period 1958 to 2011 (see Appendix IV). Many of these represented the best quality and most popular series of CFL textbooks at the time. I have reviewed all the books and volumes (mostly up to beginners and intermediate level) with English translations and instructions from these 18 series of textbooks. Table 8.3 shows the number of textbooks that used Chinese characters, Chinese pinyin, or English as the main instruction language. Table 8.3 Languages used as the main instruction medium Eng

Eng + PY

Chi+Eng

Chi

Pinyin

Chi + PY

Introduction

4

-

9

4

-

-

Content page

4

-

8

6

-

-

Classroom instruction

-

-

2

-

-

-

Main text

-

3

6

2

-

7

Vocabulary list

-

3

14

-

-

-

Grammar

4

-

13

-

-

-

Examples

-

2

1

12

1

2

198 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Culture introduction

4

Glossary

-

-

-

-

-

7 begin with Chi; 5 begin with PY; 2 begin with Eng

Eng: English; Chi: Chinese; PY: Chinese pinyin.

As can be seen from Table 8.3, English is used widely in all components in CFL textbooks. It is also the predominant medium of instruction throughout the whole beginner’s book in five of the CFL textbooks published overseas. In CFL programmes in China, students are instructed to obtain a particular series of textbooks that their teachers feel is the most suitable for them and students seem to have little flexibility in choosing their favorite textbooks. As Table 8.3 shows, four series of CFL textbooks omitted an English introduction, and six of them even had their contents page completely in Chinese only. In this case, there can be no doubt that students would have little clue as to what they need to learn. Only two out of the 18 series provided a classroom instruction language for both teachers and students. There were in total 55 sentences for teachers to use and 12 for students before the first lesson starts. For example, Dă kƗi shnj, fƗn dào dì __ yè. ᢃᔰҖˈ㘫ࡠㅜ__亥DŽ Please open your book, and turn to page at __. TƯng bù dǂng, qƱng jǎ shǂu. ੜн៲ˈ䈧Ѯ᡻DŽ If anyone of you doesn’t understand, please raise your hand. Kàn yǎ fă zhù shì. ⴻ䈝⌅⌘䟺DŽ Read the grammar, please. (Intensive Chinese Primary Tutorial Textbooks, 1996: 20-24) ሩн䎧ˈᡁ䘏ࡠҶDŽ Duì bù qƱ, wǂ chí dào le. Sorry, I am late. 199 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

㘱ᐸˈᡁ⯵ҶDŽ Lăo shƯ, wǂ bìng le. I am sorry, I am/ was ill. 䈧䈤ធа⛩DŽ QƱng shuǂ màn yì diăn. Speak a little slowly, please (Undergraduate textbook series: Chinese Course, book 1, 1999: XI–XIII) These classroom instruction sentences can help to keep the classroom interactive, with students being empowered in the class. However, English is also widely used for translating the main text, vocabulary and grammar. It is the only language medium for Chinese culture introduction. Four textbooks included a part on culture knowledge at the end of each lesson, introducing topics such as “forms of address for family relatives”, “Chinese herbal medicine” and “ancient Chinese capitals”. However, there was only one series of textbook that offers English example sentences in the grammar notes. When a certain Chinese grammar point was introduced, students might have problems in reading the examples given in the textbooks because they were in Chinese characters that students have not yet learnt. Some textbooks offer Chinese pinyin as a “comfort zone” before students have to jump into the Chinese characters ocean. With all the textbooks that provide glossaries, seven out of 18 began with Chinese characters, five with Chinese pinyin and only two with English. CFL textbooks published in China generally follow the “ChineseEnglish” pattern. However, Chinese instructions seem to be more symbolic than functional, especially in the beginner’s book, regardless of whether the students need the Chinese. For example, before students have learnt their first word of the Chinese language, a systemic introduction of Chinese phonetics is provided both in Chinese and English. For example,

200 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

⃧⊾烉⍹枛㖞⮮冴⣜Ṷ⍹ e 䘬ỵ伖䦵⎹⇵Ỡ⸞㉔崟炻ἧ冴⮾月役䠔儕ˤ The retroflex finals: This sound is produced by moving the tongue a little forward from the position of “e” and turning up the tip of the tongue toward the hard palate. (Boya Chinese, Elementary 1, 2004: 8)

It can be seen that English is only translated to preserve the originality of the Chinese. English is “subordinate” to Chinese in the CFL textbooks. It is rare to see English appear independently without Chinese in textbooks published in China. If all English translations from CFL textbooks were taken out, the learning content shows little difference from a grammar book written for university Chinese teachers and scholars. If we hope to use English to benefit both teachers and students, we should first of all liberate English from literally following the Chinese original, or even allow English to resume its role as the only instruction language in the beginner’s book. It would be a waste to have given such generous space to English but simultaneously disabled it from having its pedagogic functions. There should be considerations of when to provide English, where English can be the most helpful medium, and how to gradually stop providing it as the student’s proficiency in Chinese increases. How English is used CFL educators only inform textbook editors “where” the English translation should be placed but not “how” to use English enhance learners’ understanding. Admittedly, for many CFL teachers and educators, this part of the study seems to have gone “beyond their expertise”. That’s exactly why “medium of instruction” has never been regarded as an independent research topic until now. However, throughout the earlier discussion of the importance of learner’s L1 and familiar languages, English in CFL textbooks is playing a vital pedagogical role for students to pre-view, study and reexamine the structural knowledge of the target language. How to use the English language, choose the most appropriate English terms, and use the most easy way to understand sentence for the majority of ELF speakers can be a challenge. Despite the fact that many efforts have been made to 201 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

improve the accuracy of English translation, the overall efficacy is far from satisfactory. For example, 㚱ṳ孵“㈲”䘬≐孵宻宕⎍㗗“㈲”⫿⎍炻堐䣢⮡㝸Ṣˣ㝸ḳ䈑㕥≈㝸䥵≐ἄ 炻⸞⻢宫ἧ㝸Ṣ㝸ḳ䈑ṏ䓇㝸䥵乻㝄ㆾ⼙⑵ˤ Verb-predicate sentences with the preposition “㈲” are known as “㈲” sentences which contain a subject (a person or a thing) and an action which emphasis on a result or an effect on the object (also a person or a thing). (A New Chinese Course Book, 1996: 364)

“Ba-sentence” is arguably one of the most special characteristics of the Chinese language. This English translation is so literal that “㝸Ṣ 㝸ḳ䈑” is put as “a person or a thing” rather than a more common expression as “someone or something”. Yet, it is too short to explain the function of the ba sentence, such as when to use and when not to use it. In addition, it is not likely that Chinese beginners know about these technical terms such as “verb-predicate” or “preposition”. With this excessive use of grammatical terms, it is questionable how much of the English explanation Chinese learners could truly understand. To further understand this problem, 16 native English speakers who had studied in China during the time of the review of the textbooks were invited to participate in a focus group interview. They were asked to give comments on the quality of English and help identify the major problems with the English used in their textbooks. Their comments were synthesized and summarized into four major categories. In the survey, participants were asked to choose (more than one) from the four problems which emerged from the focus group interview. The result is that 31 of them found the English in their textbooks was “too short to give a clear explanation”, while, 43 found the English was “very vague and confusing”, which was probably due to “overuse of linguistic terms” (59). These were technical terms of Chinese grammar in English, which appeared in every lesson, even in every line in the CFL textbooks. Almost every participant argued that there was “insufficient English translation in the example sentences”.

202 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Table 8.4 Four major problems identified with the English translations in CFL textbooks.

Problems identified too short to give a clear explanation using very vague or confusing language too many linguistic terms Example sentences lack English translations

Number of students 31 43 59 96

As native English speakers, they relied on English to understand the content of the textbook. Among all the 99 CFL students, these 16 native English speakers tended to read the English in the books more than the other non-native English speakers. English translation was their major resource for understanding the structural aspects of the Chinese language. One of the students in the focus group reminded us that “authors should keep in mind that those learning a new language are not always people who have a major in some field relating to second language learning”. Conclusion There are plenty of CFL textbooks on the market for teachers to choose and use but many frontline teachers still have to write their own textbooks because few of the published ones are good enough to be used throughout a CFL programme. The ability to write textbooks has already become one of the most important job requirements for CFL teachers. Corresponding to the criticism of the quality of CFL textbooks, many more Chinese textbooks have emerged in China, their publishers hoping to build up their reputation and survive in the competitive CFL textbooks market both in China and abroad. This is referred to as “localization” of CFL textbooks, which means developing textbooks for specific countries (He and Luo, 2010). These Chinese textbooks usually have many different language versions. They were written for the overseas Chinese teaching environment where local learners usually share the same the L1. However, due to the

203 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

growing interest in “localization” in CFL studies since early 2000s, few considerations have been given to CFL classes within China. The disproportionate focus on overseas markets (more profitable than the domestic market) to some degree has resulted in neglect of the growing demand for high quality CFL textbooks to accommodate CFL learners within China. First of all, it should be made clear to textbook authors and editors that the English ought to be written for CFL learners who speak English as a lingua franca. The level of difficulty of the English content should be kept simple, and fewer technical terms should be used. If it is possible, CFL textbook editors are advised to call a focus group meeting with their potential textbook users, especially learners from different countries, to review the English and tell them whether it is effectively presented. English translations should first of all be accurate. That is to say, it should never become the source of negative transfer. Secondly, English should be used wherever students might need it. The aim of a textbook is to help students learn so learning should be the focus. CFL textbooks have often been focused on maintaining the integrity of the linguistic system of the Chinese language rather than taking care of learners’ potential difficulties in understanding when they are learning it as a foreign language. Before they are fully involved in the systematic study of Chinese linguistics, they need to know how to communicate in the language. They need to know how to use the textbook, how to let the teacher know if they are lost, and how to ask the teacher to repeat what they want to learn. Lastly, there should be principles and standards for English used in CFL textbooks. Before these guidelines are established, it requires empirical studies on how to use English in CFL textbooks as a lingua franca for speakers of different languages studying in China. In the last three studies, I identified three practical functions of English in the CFL class: pedagogical, managerial and interactive. I believe these functions can be extended to CFL textbooks if English itself is regarded as a research topic rather than a passive subordinate to mirror the Chinese original. 204 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Part Four looks at several major issues that are vital to the future development of CFL teaching. In Chapter 9, I will firstly summarize the four studies that I elaborated in Part Three. On the basis of the results from these studies, I will then explain how English can be used as a lingua franca to achieve a multilingual pedagogy in CFL teaching and sketch out how to prepare for a multilingual learning environment. Chapter 10 deals with some fundamental issues beyond the classroom. It begins with an in-depth analysis of CFL teachers with regard both to the hierarchies in the CFL academy and their uncertain career development. It then explains that if the Chinese language ever hopes to gain world lingua franca status alongside English, the quality of CFL teaching must be improved, but also it must be depoliticized by being freed from the burden of language nationalism.

205 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Part 4 ELF pedagogy and beyond

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Chapter 9 ELF pedagogy A review of the research The purpose of this book was to reexamine the use of English in the CFL classroom and to bring about a rethink about the role and function of English in CFL teaching and learning in China. The “Englishin-Chinese-class” phenomenon has invited heated debates on whether English should be allowed in the CFL class, drawing on linguistic, pedagogical, cultural, social and political perspectives. I hope readers have been able to gain some insights into the complexity of this issue through this theoretically grounded and empirically supported research. In line with the paradigm shift in foreign language teaching, the CFL class is also facing a potential pedagogical reform from a Chinese-only approach to a multilingual approach. To prepare CFL teachers and to inform policy makers and curriculum designers, this book has provided case studies looking closely into the issues. The aim has been to liberate CFL teachers and students from the constraints brought about by unproven assumptions, myths, and anecdotes. Through the four linked case studies, this book has described the status quo of ELF use in CFL teaching. And it has suggested a tentative model of judicious ELF use for CFL teachers to refer to in their daily practice. I hope such an alternative pedagogy can help CFL teachers see English as a helpful tool rather than a regrettable fact that has to be endured. In other words, I hope CFL teaching can see the positive functions of English and license the use of it to achieve pedagogical benefits. For many decades, Chinese language teaching has been dominated by the principles that teachers should use Chinese only to teach CFL students and avoid using English except as a last resort. As a matter of fact, English as a lingua franca has often been applied as an

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

implicit and covert language policy in classrooms as a dynamic medium of instruction and this has been taken for granted. The findings from the four studies in this book have suggested that the one-sizefits-all Chinese-only policy is destined to fail in a global context. It would be beneficial for CFL teachers to get prepared for pedagogical reforms and develop an alternative pedagogy on the basis of the findings described in the book. In a word, CFL teachers should let go of the simplistic opposition s “to use or not to use English” in their CFL classes, and learn to adopt a practical view which can genuinely help to enhance meaning construction in class. Achieving a multilingual pedagogy: Start from simple The four studies in this book have provided evidence that English is widely used by CFL teachers and students in CFL classes. CFL teachers need to acknowledge the fact that English is the de facto lingua franca in the everyday CFL classroom. Learning is intended to produce meaning. In CFL classes, teachers and learners make use of their full linguistic repertoires to convey meanings. I have put forward the “ELF pedagogy” as an optimal model in the context of CFL teaching and learning, which can serve as a threshold for effectively and actively incorporating a multilingual approach into CFL teaching and learning. Some may still wonder why we need a multilingual approach in Chinese language classes and for students learning Chinese in China. In the first place, we must ask what the ultimate goal is for teaching and learning Chinese. Are we teaching Chinese as a tool to enrich students’ linguistic capital by adding Chinese to the list of languages they speak? Or are we trying to transform them into native Chinese speakers like us by deliberately erasing their prior knowledge of their mother tongue and the other languages they use? Butzkamm (2003) said “we only learn language once”. No one starts an L2 with a clean slate, because our brains and minds have been shaped by years of L1 input and interactions, which can be overwhelmingly helpful for the 210 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

acquisition of a new language. All the L2 teacher has to do is give the new words for already-known concepts. Butzkamm and Caldwell (2009: 67) suggested that rather than re-conceptualize the world, teachers need to extend students’ concepts, with any necessary cultural adjustment or refinement. In essence, language choice is a question of ideology. Chineseonly pedagogy as an extreme perspective is discouraged by this study, in that this ideologically-rooted monolingual approach forces a focus on childlike uses of language and excludes the possibility of critical reflection (Auerbach, 1993: 22). Such a monolingual principle may not just slow the acquisition of Chinese but also denies students the right to draw on their language resources and strength, and to build the new on the known. The enthusiasm for, and insistence on, Chineseonly pedagogy might result in a fear of learning Chinese. The way to regulate the status of ELF might be found through reinventing national identity around a distinctive mix rather than a single language which is kept pure. By unveiling the mechanism of ideological influence in the CFL classroom, the book suggests pedagogical models for positively and effectively using ELF. CFL teachers should also bear in mind their students’ social life and their future use of Chinese in their daily life. CFL students in China are still bonding with their fellows who are from the same home country and with other international students. It is not very likely that CFL students can learn everything about the Chinese language solely from their class, and they have to learn to communicate with the limited CFL knowledge they have. To become truly competent in a foreign language, as Levine (2011) pointed out, the “learner must learn to use a creative repertoire of codes in order to function in the L2 society, not simply as a poor imitator of a native speaker, but as a legitimate peripheral participant, an outsider with a role and stake at both the conversational and discourse levels in the L2 culture”. CFL classes in China do not necessarily have to be monolingual; students may have enough input from the natural setting, and their learning in class should be more practical and instructional, so they can learn how to use Chinese for communication outside. Therefore, for CFL students 211 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

in China, it is more appropriate to say “I’m here to communicate with local people”, not only with their teachers in classrooms. To achieve a multilingual CFL classroom, one needs to start simple. First of all, let go of many of those taken-for-granted assumptions and keep an open-mind on the rich resources which could help enhance CFL students’ CFL proficiency. The research found that many CFL teachers have long been under pressure from the unspoken anti-English syndrome, which has prevented CFL teaching from looking rationally at ways in which English can be used in the classroom. The foremost task might start from identifying effective pedagogical principles that both acknowledge and support the classroom as the multilingual environment that it is. On the basis of previous discussions and findings from the three studies, it seems there are three principles we need to bear in mind before we decide “whether to use ELF” and “whether the use of ELF is positive or negative” to CLF teaching. These three principles are as follows: 1.

Comprehension. As long as the use of ELF can help explain or translate so as to increase the comprehension of CFL, then the use of ELF is judicious.

2.

Communication. As long as the use of ELF is for better communication between teachers and students or among students, for organizing or participating, sharing information, then the use of ELF is helpful.

3.

Efficiency. As long as the use of ELF can save time and energy, for example, avoiding body gestures and making flashcards, then the use of ELF is wise.

The “CCE principle” suggests that as long as the use of English can help to enhance comprehension, maintain communication and increase efficiency, and eventually can scaffold Chinese language learning, it can be regarded as good practice. Rather than regarding ELF creeping in as a necessary evil, it can be deliberately and systematically used in the classroom.

212 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

How to prepare for ELF pedagogy Proposing a multilingual approach does not mean that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, that baby being what we know about adult L2 acquisition and learning (Levine, 2003; 2011). That is, it doesn’t mean that allowing the use of English will necessarily decrease the use of Chinese. To practice an ELF pedagogy effectively, this book explores some pedagogical implications. Firstly, it is suggested that CFL teachers reflect on their use of languages in class and that CFL educators re-examine the language policy of CFL teaching. Further, the following points could help CFL teachers to prepare an ELF pedagogy. Offer options for English medium CFL courses With an increasing number of multilingual CFL students coming into China’s universities in the past decade, it is a challenge for CFL teachers as well as programme coordinators to manage multinational and multilingual classrooms. This study has proved that English is internationalized and many CFL students are in fact bilingual in English and their mother tongue. Therefore, I would suggest offering options for English medium courses, especially for CFL beginners in China. In fact, at one of the research sites, a bilingual course in English and Chinese was recently set up as an opportunity for CFL beginners to learn Chinese with the help of English. To start simple, offer bilingual CFL courses in English, and if possible, expand to other foreign languages when teaching resources are sufficient. To opt or not is one problem, but to have an option or not is another. However, the CFL academy should be prepared for this educational innovation and CFL teachers need to be trained in how to use English appropriately. It is far from enough that teachers can use English as a medium, they need to know when, how and how much and how effectively to use it.

213 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Make initial assessments As suggested by Auerbach (1993: 22), CFL teachers can use English as a tool to identify student needs and goals. CFL teachers are advised to conduct a preliminary survey at the beginning of the programme or each semester, and ask CFL students to describe their purposes in studying Chinese, their prior knowledge of Chinese, their English language proficiency, and knowledge of other foreign languages, etc. This may help the CFL teachers to have a sense of each student’s individual differences. If the majority of the students report a certain level of English proficiency in the initial assessment, the CFL teacher might find it pedagogically helpful to adopt ELF pedagogy as an alternative method to assist CFL teaching. To some extent, the initial assessment may help CFL teachers clear up the uncertainty of whether or not students understand English and thus alleviate their anxiety when resorting to ELF pedagogy. The Questionnaire used in this book could be a good tool for the initial assessment. Foster interactive classrooms Teachers should harness CFL students’ ability to carry out learning tasks through collaborative dialogue with fellow students, whether in Chinese, English or other languages they know or share. As the classroom observation showed, CFL students help each other in translation and interpretation. It is also suggested that able CFL students can work as tutors for students with a lower Chinese proficiency. CFL students are encouraged to build a close relationship with peers from different countries with the help of mixing English and Chinese. CFL teachers are expected to create a meaningful and communicative learning environment and help students build strategies for international communication. Cultivating students’ interactive capability, and developing affective attributes in students, such as motivation, emotion, willpower, and moral understanding are necessary steps to take before the teacher can nurture a truly communicative classroom.

214 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

English enhancement for CFL teachers It is understandable that many CFL teachers have little English proficiency because the majority majored in Chinese literature or Chinese linguistics, without appropriate knowledge in language teaching and learning (Zhang Hesheng, 2006: 310–311). CFL teachers are increasingly called upon to incorporate an understanding of SLA or applied linguistics into their teaching (Lam, 2005: 189). It is suggested that they rethink their beliefs and the identity built upon their experience from learning English as a foreign language in schools and universities. The prevailing assumptions about the harm of using English might have stemmed from negative functions of the ELF pedagogy. The ability to cope with a multilingual teaching environment is becoming a challenge for CFL teachers. A good command of English can benefit CFL teachers in a few ways: (1) to gain a bilingual ability to do linguistic analysis between Chinese and English and a sensitive awareness of the difference between Chinese and English; (2) to own a better bilingual reading ability for academic advancement, a wider vision in international research exchange and a chance to introduce the rich research resources of CFL teaching and learning into the world’s L2 studies; and (3) to earn confidence as a bilingual or multilingual CFL teacher who understands the hardships, joys and strategies for learning a foreign language, and to gain good interpersonal skills for international communication and for gaining advantages in teaching CFL and adapting to living in overseas countries. Li Quan (2009) and Liu Xun (2004) called on CFL teachers to learn from ESL teaching and TESOL program and apply the good teaching practices there to CFL teaching. These suggestions are not new. In fact, some universities in China have already recognized the importance of English in today’s CFL teaching environment and the fact that CFL teachers often struggle in handling the English medium. They have started to offer courses in the English medium for pre-service CFL teachers and are using some reference books which are bilingual or entirely in English. Some research sites also provide English speaking and writing camps (some

215 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

are even compulsory to take) and teachers go there for the purpose of professional development. However, many of these teaching enhancement courses have turned out to be introductions to British and American literature, which does not closely relate to their teaching practice. In addition, CFL teachers in the Chinese departments and teaching fellows in English departments do not seem to have any dialogue or knowledge about each other’s work. Invited lecturers from English departments have little understanding of the needs of CFL teaching from their expertise in English language and culture. It is therefore better if there are CFL teaching enhancement programs for in-service CFL teachers which have the clear purpose of (1) deepening teachers’ linguistic and philological knowledge of the target language (Chinese) and instructional language (e.g. English, French, Japanese, Spanish, German, Korean) in a comparative way; (2) developing teachers’ intercultural competence through comparative cultural studies; and (3) improving teachers’ classroom management ability through experimenting with different teaching approaches for students from different cultures of learning. In particular, for current in-service CFL teachers, a pedagogical English course should be provided. CFL teachers need to familiarize themselves with the basic expressions of English used for teaching foreign languages and managing multilingual classrooms as well as appropriate interpersonal communication skills with CFL students in multicultural classrooms. They should also advance their English competence in explaining Chinese language structures, translating Chinese terms and describing Chinese culture with specific English terms. CFL teachers with high English proficiency scores in College English Test (CET) and Test for English Major (TEM) are not necessarily good at using English pedagogically and judiciously in CFL teaching. They could overuse English due to their confidence in speaking. English language teachers and other foreign language teachers, who have built up their cross-cultural communication ability and gained a better understanding of western social values, have advantages in further CFL teaching and should feel encouraged to join the CFL teaching team. What they need is to equip themselves with structural knowledge of the Chinese language and 216 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

gain insights into CFL teaching and learning. Admittedly, a systematic study of the Chinese language will take a considerable amount of time, but with their prior knowledge and learning experience of a foreign language, I believe that acquiring the necessary pedagogical grammar knowledge of their mother tongue will be a relatively easy task.

217 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Chapter 10 Future of Chinese foreign language teaching Educating CFL teachers The most pressing task for better CFL teaching in future is to build a quality CFL teaching profession. Educating Chinese language teachers will be a long-term endeavour but is certainly one of the decisive elements in the future of Chinese language teaching. Most attention is currently being paid to “providing sufficient candidates to fill the increasing demand and developing their capacity to practice as accomplished teachers” (Orton, 2011: 163), particularly in the English speaking countries. In the meantime, CFL teachers in China need not only to improve their intercultural understanding but also improve their teaching and learning ability for coping with the challenges of teaching in multilingual and multicultural CFL classrooms within China. To provide quality CFL teaching in China, a sustainable development plan is urgently needed and is critical to solving the employment difficulty experienced by CFL teachers. In bringing this book to a close, it is necessary to examine the status quo of CFL practitioners, and also those who hope to join this profession but have little idea about the hierarchy and career trajectory of most CFL teachers in China. Hierarchies of CFL teachers Ronald Walton (1989: 28) argued that CFL teaching practitioners hold a “core of shared assumptions about knowledge and practice”, which have been passed on as authoritative beliefs to later generations of CFL teachers. Although his review was based on Chinese language instruction in the United States, the state of the art of CFL teaching in mainland China shares some similar problems to those identified in

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Walton’s comprehensive reflections. In particular, the hierarchies of CFL teachers have not changed much in the last few decades. Chinese linguistics is called benti in Chinese. It shares exactly the same two Chinese characters with benti for “ontology”, which is a philosophical study of the basic categories of being and their relations. To some extent, this implies that the study of Chinese linguistics is the most fundamental knowledge for disciplines related to the Chinese language. Those without a systematic study of benti in mainstream Chinese education therefore tend to suffer from disadvantages in their career path and find it difficult to become a “legitimate” CFL teacher. Graduates from other majors and disciplines who wish to become CFL teachers are constantly reminded by colleagues to strengthen their benti research and always feel challenged in the academic atmosphere where teaching CFL equals teaching benti. To be fair, those who have a degree in English or with high English proficiency do enjoy some advantage in reading English materials and communicating with students. However, they are also under pressure because they have not had institutional Chinese linguistics training. This situation may have changed slightly during the past decade when more Chinese scholars in universities in China have drawn their attention to the advancing theory in applied linguistics and have adapted their research with modern research methods for empirical studies, but it is only very recently that some educational research methodology has been introduced into CFL (Sun, 2010). However, while such a linguisticsgrounded discipline may be the most effective way to train sinolinguists, translators, journalists or diplomats, it is not exactly appropriate for teaching Chinese to those who simply want to learn some the language for fun or for doing business with Chinese people, and these constitute the great majority of potential CFL learners. The Confucian worldview takes the hierarchically ordered family as a model for nearly all other forms of social organization; and young generations of Chinese teachers strictly and proudly follow the tradition. Without a proper teacher certification system, it is rather difficult to break the legitimacy built up over a long period by the traditional Chinese scholars. This Confucian tradition is so strong that it travels 220 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

with the Chinese teachers and scholars wherever they go. Chinese teaching in America, Britain, Australia and many other places shares similar traits to that in China. CFL teachers educated and trained in China carried their beliefs about language teaching to overseas countries, showing very slow and limited adaptation to local educational and cultural expectations. CFL teachers educated and trained in Chinese society will need very special and long-term development of their intercultural understanding and practical competence as CFL teacher training programmes and postgraduate study in China currently omit any appreciation of the dynamics of western social life. Although it is been suggested that CFL education should learn good practices from ESL, no concrete guidelines, pedagogies or teacher development plans have ever been designed about exactly what and how to integrate the most advanced research results from ESL into CFL teaching. More frustratingly, these ideas of “using ESL research findings to inform CFL teaching” easily invite attack from institutionally trained Chinese majors and become quickly submerged in their effort to make Chinese pedagogy a unique pedagogy, free from the influence of other foreign language teaching. For example, Teaching and learning Chinese as a foreign language (Xing, 2006) claims to be “the first book written in English that systematically addresses all major aspects involved in teaching and learning Chinese as a foreign language and intends to be beneficial to Chinese language practitioners in a general way”. However, despite the fact that the book was presented in the English language, it book shows little consideration of the most up-to-date theories in applied linguistics in the English discourse. Following this, Xing’s (2011) second book on CFL pedagogy, A contrastive model of teaching Chinese to native English speakers, focuses on identifying acquisition sequences when teaching CFL to speakers of English, introducing little that is new in teaching Chinese to native English speakers. Despite having titles such as “new approach” or “effective teaching”, many of the newly published books on CFL education, in fact, make little in the way of breakthroughs in theoretical advancement and pedagogical innovations.

221 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

There are a number of barriers that are unconsciously created by CFL teachers, incorporated into the design of Chinese language textbooks, and reflected in many of the academic and popular understandings of the nature of language itself. A CFL pedagogy burdened by these barriers will never succeed in bridging the gap to Chinese language competence for their foreign students. A CFL teacher should act as an experienced “tour guide” leading foreigners toward the inner circle of the Chinese sphere, rather than being a “gatekeeper” using the uniqueness of the Chinese language as a fort to keep foreigners away as outsiders. Unfortunately, although it is not an intended outcome, many the CFL teachers in practice “prevent” foreigners from learning to use the language properly (McDonald, 2011: 1). It is not exactly that the Chinese language is difficult but that those Chinese teachers make the language difficult to learn. The focus of educational research has shifted from valuing theory construction to valuing the guiding function of education theories in educational reform practice, from valuing literature interpretation to valuing empirical research on issues or phenomena in education, and from valuing research on humanity to valuing research on the thoughts, willpower, and emotions of human beings and on human rights (Sun, 2011). Traditional research methods of constructing theoretical systems through literature interpretation are no longer able to adapt to the demands currently being made on educational research. Career trajectory of CFL teachers The career trajectory of a CFL teacher is not as smooth and promising as it appears in media coverage. In fact, the excessive publicity about the “Chinese craze” might have helped to cause the current employment difficulties. The fast expansion of both undergraduate and postgraduate CFL teacher training programs has ignored domestic market demand and has oversupplied CFL teachers in China. In contrast to the high profile media coverage of CFL learning as the largest potential education market, the employment situation of CFL teachers in China is far from satisfactory. In the case of working abroad, given the

222 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

underdeveloped channel (only through Hanban and universities) and the difficulty of applying for working visas for CFL teachers coming from China, graduates from CFL teacher training programs are having a very hard time finding teaching positions to advance their careers. First of all, there are some practical concerns focusing on the overseas market for CFL teachers. Since March 2004, the Confucius Institutes have relied on recruiting younger, less experienced candidates to join the Volunteer Programme for International Chinese Teachers. Up to now, more than eight thousand young volunteer Chinese teachers have been deployed to Confucius Institutes for one or two years of service after a short period of teacher training. But their visa status, understanding of western culture and moral values, teaching methods and communication skills have all become concerns and pose challenges to the attempt to build a professional teaching team providing high quality Chinese language education in the Confucius Institutes. It is difficult to persuade experienced teachers of Chinese to go abroad for a one or two-year temporary contract on a low salary, especially as, when they return to China, there is no continuing professional pathway for these volunteers. Only those who have a relatively long teaching experience in schools and university, or have a PhD (a Master’s degree is no longer competitive now) are considered preferred candidates, which have left working in the Confucius Institute an impossible job for degree-level students. Many CFL graduates choose to study aboard for a higher degree to be sufficiently wellqualified to find a teaching position in China or in the Confucius Institutes. However, in the meantime, the overheated promotion of the Confucius Institutes has resulted in growing unrealistic expectations of CFL teaching as an easy channel for young Chinese to work overseas. But if they do go abroad, when they return, many of them have to look for jobs from the beginning again in the competitive domestic market, together with all the other freshly graduated CFL teachers. To solve this problem, the authorities in China need to provide the necessary policy guidance to Chinese teachers returning from Confucius Institutes, set up overseas cooperation platforms and rectify the CFL teacher certification system for CFL teachers as quickly as possible. 223 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

At present, there is no teaching certificate that allows candidates to teach Chinese as a foreign language in overseas countries. All countries have their specific education systems and teacher certification standards. CFL teaching is a new discipline and a new market, so it will take some time for the TCSOL certificate to establish itself in a similar fashion to TESOL. The employment situation of CFL teachers in the home market is also problematic. CFL teacher training programmes in China have enjoyed a high enrolment rate in the past few years. However, China’s universities are not able to accommodate rapidly increasing number of graduates from CFL teacher training programmes. It is now almost impossible for a CFL graduate with just a first degree to find a CFLrelated job in a university, so many of them have to apply for a master’s programme or even a PhD programme in order to land a proper teaching position in China’s universities. CFL teachers are also needed in international schools but the vacancies are limited and the English proficiency requirement is very high. Some CFL teachers choose to go to primary and secondary schools to teach Chinese to Chinese children (only very few are lucky enough to teach international students), or to commercial language training centres where they work as private tutors. In a recent empirical study, Hu and Feng (2012) found only a small number of graduates from these teacher training programs were able to find a proper teaching job in China’s universities. Every year there will be a total of 15 thousand of these graduates from 285 universities but only 10% of them actually get a job teaching Chinese, and a mere 1% of them have a chance to work for a Confucius Institute. Sadly, the majority of CFL pre-service teachers, after failing in several rounds of job applications, have to engage in unrelated occupations. Up till now, even within China, there is no proper Chinese language teacher certification system that meets international standards. Hanban used to have such a system but it has been suspended since 2008. There are also many experienced language teachers who wish to join the CFL teaching profession, but find it difficult to do so. Table 10.1 shows the employment situation of graduates from CFL teacher education programmes in and outside China. 224 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Table 10.1 Employment situation of graduates from CFL teacher education programmes. Overseas

Within China

Advanced studies for a Master or PhD

Advanced studies for a Master or PhD Working in universities in China (e.g. summer programs)

Graduates from CFL teacher education programmes in China

Primary and secondary schools (e.g. international Universities in China schools)

(includingEngaged immersion in programmes) unrelated Commercial languageoccupations training centre

Volunteer programmes organized by Hanban

Engaged in unrelated occupations

Xu Lin, director-general of Hanban, in her opening speech at the 11th International Conference on Chinese Language Teaching, held at Xi’an in August 2012, mentioned that 90% of graduates from CFL teacher training programmes have to look for jobs in unrelated occupations. In contrast, 90% of the Volunteers deployed overseas from Hanban are non-CFL major candidates. This highly unstable professional trajectory is seriously impeding the sustainable development of Chinese language teaching.

225 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Will Chinese replace English as a lingua franca? English as a lingua franca has played a critical role in the development of CFL teaching and research. Even frontline native Chinese teachers seek help from English as a communication tool and use English as a research resource. With the fast globalization of English, it will play an increasingly important role in China’s higher education and also in CFL education. Setting aside the identity issue, ELF has come to be regarded as the ideal commodity in the knowledge economy, during the process of modernization in China and many other Asian countries. For China, English is useful for communicating with the rest of the world. China’s decision to make English a key part of its strategy for economic development has had a galvanizing impact on neighbouring countries where enthusiasm for English was in danger of waning. Therefore, until countries in the region are able to develop their national proficiency in Chinese, English will provide their main means of communicating with China (Graddol, 2006: 95). English is seen as a bridge to engage China with the rest of the world (Zhao and Huang, 2010: 131). English as a lingua franca is a critical means for China to understand and connect to the rest of the world in an increasingly globalized era. In other words, “China will continue to want English, and want it badly” (Boyle, 2000: 15) and so does the Chinese teaching profession. Many of the current discussions about globalization and foreign language teaching end up asking whether the Chinese language will replace English as the world’s lingua franca in the coming era (Lo Bianco, 2011: xvi). The fact is that the popularity and power of a language follows the power of the people who speak the language. Some have predicted the possibility of Chinese taking over from English as an international lingua franca, while others have said that it has already become one (Yasukata, 2009). Such a perspective sounds more politico-economic than educational, however, and is not based on any actual surveys, but rather to some extent on an ambition to promote the international status of Chinese and make it another international lingua franca on a par with English. Although the world embraces 226 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

CFL and the Chinese government strives to promote it, even enthusiastic proponents of Chinese do not see that it will overtake English as the world’s most commonly used language in the near future (Gil, 2009; Wang and Kirkpatrick, 2012; Zhao and Huang; 2010). Crystal (2003) argued that this will certainly not occur in the foreseeable future, but the opinion that the Chinese language and culture will be an important element in the future unity of the world has been voiced. According to Crystal (1998: 2; 2006: 422), the special role of English as the actual “global language” is shaped by three components: it is the native language of the majority of people in some countries; it has been widely adopted as an official language; and it is a priority in foreign language teaching around the world. These three components are the correct criteria to judge the current status and possible future prospects of Chinese as a global language, through quantitative and qualitative comparisons to English. Chinese has some of the characteristics of a global language, but its current status is far from being so. Nevertheless, the role of English as the most powerful global language currently can offer a route by which Chinese can expand its global status (Gil, 2011: 57). If Chinese ever wants to achieve the international status that English has achieved, it can only be done through international high quality Chinese foreign language education. On the other hand, there is much that could also tarnish the future of Chinese language learning. First of all, learning the Chinese language is riding a wave of popularity due largely to its great commercial potential. As much of China’s soft power depends on its economic and political prominence, if China were to lose this for any of the reasons suggested by scholars, or for reasons that have yet to be foreseen, there is likely to be a significant decrease in the desire to learn Chinese. China faces a daunting list of internal challenges and a multitude of serious problems, including pollution, food safety, corruption, soulless consumerism, authoritarianism and support for authoritarian regimes in other nations (Chua, 2007: 299). The appeal of learning Chinese could also decrease as people become more aware of China’s real social conditions. Therefore, although much effort has been devoted to international CFL teaching and the Confucius Institutes, there are still 227 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

many obstacles that stand in the way and it is by no means certain that these gains will last forever (Gil, 2008). Economically, China is already a leading power, but in terms of cultural prominence, China has a long way to go. From modernity to internationalization In the last century, the Chinese language has contributed significantly to the project of modernizing China and now in this millennium it is playing an important part in carrying China toward its new international role. Its social function makes the Chinese language a very complex and dynamic research topic. Nearly one hundred years ago, the leaders of the May Fourth Movement (1917-1921), Qian Xuantong, Lu Xun, Chen Duxiu and many other Western educated Chinese intellectuals realized that China had been left far behind the West and feared that it would be dismembered by the western powers and Japan. They believed that the fundamental way to prevent this catastrophe and allow China to become a civilized nation in the 20th century was to abolish Confucianism and the ancient written Chinese language in which Confucian thought and sayings were recorded. The Chinese language, especially in its written form, was very difficult to master and was considered almost “a conspiracy for keeping the masses illiterate for the purpose of easy control and governing” (Tong, 2000: 8). These leaders reiterated many of the criticisms of early Western commentators and convinced a large number of Chinese intellectuals that China’s modernization project required in the first place a new form of language. Although of course the Chinese language was eventually not discarded, it has changed, becoming more colloquial than rhetorical, and its written form has to a large extent been simplified. Since the 1950s, a Pinyin system has been developed, based on earlier forms of Romanization, to transcribe Chinese characters into Latin script, but not without replacing the characters. Through these reforms, the Chinese language is no longer

228 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

the privilege of the educated and ruling class, but belongs to all Chinese people and Sinophone speakers. As China has become more integrated with and more attractive to the outside world with its rapid economic growth and increasing international influence, the Chinese government is eager to assert itself internationally. An early report in Time magazine (Ramzy, 2006) stated that the Chinese government is on a drive to promote the Chinese language internationally in the hopes of putting it on a par with English (Jin, 2006: 98). Through the Confucius Institute, China not only hopes to boost national pride within China itself, but also to increase the power of Chinese discourse in a global context. To fully perform its mission in teaching Chinese language and culture, the Confucius Institutes need to provide high quality Chinese language education and qualified Chinese language teachers. And this requires interdisciplinary research on theoretically and pedagogically sound CFL methodology. Despite criticism and skepticism about the Confucius Institute’s operational model, the fast spread of the Institutes around the world is now demonstrating China’s determination to improve its international reputation. The global popularization of the Chinese language serves as a mechanism for China to embark on a phase of internationalization in the 21st century. World Chinese: Depoliticise CFL teaching World Chinese refers to the Chinese language owned not just by Chinese native speakers, but by all those who come to use it. It is a language actually being used and developed in the world, by Chinese overseas and by foreigners as well, not only in China itself. In theory anyway, the Chinese language will not be a cultural privilege reserved exclusively for native Chinese people. There are several boundaries that CFL teaching has to break before it can reach the world. First of all, it needs to depoliticize CFL teaching both in and outside China. CFL teaching should not aim at domesticating the others into the nation or imposing “Chineseness” on 229 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

CFL students through language education, though acquiring a language identity may be unavoidable through learning a language. However, it is for the learner to decide which part of that identity they would like to carry and which they do not, rather than for the teacher or the curriculum. Putonghua is promoted as a part of Chinese citizenship education in China. Although CFL teaching focuses on Putonghua, it should exclude those elements of patriotism that are involved in Chinese education for native Chinese students. There should be an international standardized Chinese as a foreign language curriculum to separate its pedagogy and learning content from Chinese as national language education. Despite the fact that China has realized the need to provide a standardized curriculum for international and local CFL teaching (Hanban, 2008), its attempts so far have largely failed to capture the developments and understanding of classroom language teaching in international contexts (Scrimgeour and Wilson, 2009; Moloney, forthcoming). In the same sense, CFL teachers should not aim to teach foreign students to achieve the same Chinese language proficiency and fluency level as native Chinese students, but concentrate on developing their intercultural communication skills, while allowing some imperfections in their grammatical progress, pronunciation of tones and memorization of characters. During my last eight years of teaching and working with Westerners in Beijing and Hong Kong, it was not unusual to hear them discussing their unpleasant experiences with learning Chinese and their comments on their Chinese teachers. A former colleague of mine from Spain, a very capable multilingual speaker of Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, German, Russian and English, told me how he ended up giving up Chinese. He said: “Chinese teachers are perhaps the most hardworking and enthusiastic foreign language teachers in the world. My teachers treated us like school pupils. They overestimated my memory switching from pinyin to characters far too quickly, about two weeks after the course started. The teacher did not even allow students to talk unless we talked in Chinese. It is so intense and frustrating that I gave it up in despair.” It is still seen as pedagogically sound to ban students from speaking other languages than Chinese, yet it is unreasonable to con230 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

strain students from using their own languages or EFL for discussion, for seeking knowledge or for trying to understanding Chinese social problems. In contemporary foreign language teaching, there is an expectation that there are few restricted topics in classrooms. However, CFL students in China and elsewhere sometimes find themselves intruding on certain areas that are considered highly sensitive in China. CFL teachers seem to believe it is their duty and a question of honour to make sure their students perceive China’s political stance “correctly”. A recent infamous incident occurred to China’s Confucius Institutes for its fear of talking Tibet, Taiwan, or inviting Dalai Lama for talk or visiting. Chinese officials requested no talk about Tibet as a premise to finance the Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Massachusetts. Confucius Institute director Bailian Li told North Carolina State provost Warwick Arden that a visit by the Lama could disrupt “some of the strong relationships we were developing with China” (Bloomberg, 2011), including the Institute, joint programs, student exchange, summer research and faculty collaboration. Feeling academic freedom under threat, America’s top universities are very careful about their decision of having a Confucius Institute on campuses. Limits on academic freedom are one reason many elite universities in the U.S. haven’t had a Confucius Institute built on their campuses. Academic freedom gives both students and faculty the right to express their views – in speech, writing and through electronic communication, both of an off campus – without fear of sanction (Nelson and Watt, 1999). It is the principle that affirms there are no limits to what subjects and issues educational institutions may study, investigate, debate, and discuss. It is the principle that guarantees faculty members the right to speak and write as they please without interference from the university, the state, or the public. Chinese officials requested there be no discussion of Tibet as a precondition for to financing the Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Massachusetts. Confucius Institute director Bailian Li told North Carolina State provost Warwick Arden that a visit by the Dalai Lama could disrupt “some of the strong relationships we were developing with China” (Bloomberg, 2011). As a 231 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

new cultural phenomenon, the Confucius Institute does not closely measure up to the new ethics code. Such incidents are even more controversial in CFL classrooms in China in spite of few reports of similar incidents. One of my former students, a mother of two children from Ireland, wrote to me about her new CFL teacher who felt she could not leave any doubts in her students’ minds about China’s sovereignty over Taiwan. She said: “Our teacher was very sweet – really sweet but had a much more conservative approach to the classroom. I was a little taken back when she became fearful when we were discussing Bo Xilai in the classroom. She also told me not to believe people when they say Taiwan is not part of China.” The CFL classroom is very politically oriented and CFL teachers are full of national spirit, something which is seldom seen in other foreign language programs. Such a close association of nationalism and language study may be one of the reasons why it is difficult for the Chinese language to reach the world. It will take CFL education a long time to conceptualize its contemporary culture in terms of universal human values, which alone can genuinely make Chinese a world language. Future research This study raises some issues for further research. Current Chinese pedagogy is school-based, grammar and theory-focused, teacher and textbook-centred and suffers from a lack of research-informed teaching techniques or understanding of international foreign language teaching and learning standards. There is an increasing number of studies calling for in-depth analysis of the pedagogical approaches to be used in international CFL language teaching and a standardized international curriculum for CFL education (Orton, 2011; Scrimgeour and Wilson, 2009; Casas-Tost and Rovira-Esteva, 2009; Wang, Moloney and Li, forthcoming). Studies of pedagogical innovations in local and international CFL education are extremely urgently needed. However, future studies do not necessarily have to be by Chinese scholars 232 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

but should also come from international foreign language educators. Research in CFL education will greatly enrich foreign language learning studies. This is first and foremost of special relevance in the discussion of language choice and the multilingual approach in CFL teaching. It would be worth conducting a more in-depth narrative study of how CFL is taught, learnt and used in the multilingual classroom setting over an extended period to find out if the amount and frequency of ELF use decreases as students’ Chinese language proficiency increases. It is particularly relevant to China and other similar contexts, where such studies are seldom conducted and thus insufficiently documented. Research in this area would offer a contribution to the study of CFL teaching in China, which has already become a global phenomenon. Preparing to achieve this goal would provide language scholars with a rich research agenda. Secondly, future research should seek ways of improving CFL teaching not only from the linguistic side, but also from the social and global perspective. If Chinese aspires to the status that English has achieved, it should not isolate itself from other languages and cultures. The four studies in this book can serve as a basis for knowledge transfer for CFL teachers who want to adopt a multilingual approach in their classes. It would be of particular benefit to develop a handbook for CFL teachers to refer to when they are in need of theoretical and pedagogical support. Lastly, this book has brought the study of English as a lingua franca to a new field of enquiry. Previous research on ELF closely focused on sketching out the phonetic variations of Englishes, while little attention was paid to its practical use in learning other foreign languages, especially among English-knowing speakers in the Expanding Circle. In particular, there was little research on the foreign language classroom, where teachers and students share only English as a common language. If we strive to promote a multilingual approach, we should first consider providing the vehicle for carrying out basic communication. Further study of English as a lingua franca should seek to provide theoretical and practical guidance in using 233 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

English to assist foreign language teaching and learning, and enhance the academic interaction between teachers and students. Future studies in this area should include further developing English as a pedagogic tool, not only in the CFL classroom, but also in the teaching and learning of other foreign languages. As a final remark, I believe an integrated view of the Chinese and English languages is particularly important to the continuing efforts to break the “academic balkanization” (van Lier, 2004) between Chinese and English studies in China as well as cultivating a holistic language teaching, learning and research paradigm.

234 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

References

Adamson, B. (2002). Barbarian as a Foreign Language: English in China’s Schools. World Englishes, 21(2), 231-243. Altman, H. (1980). Foreign language teaching: Focus on the learner. In H. Altman & J. Vaughan (Eds.), Foreign language teaching: Meeting individual needs. Oxford: Pergamon. American Councils. (2006). Teacher of Critical Language Programme. Available at Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 54(3), 314-342. Asia Society. (2005). Expanding Chinese-language capacity in the United States. Available at ———— (2011). Should young Americans learn Chinese? Available at Atkinson, D. (1993). Teaching in the target language: A problem in the current orthodoxy. Language Learning Journal, 8(1), 2-5. ———— (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 525545. Auer, P. (1984). Bilingual conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ———— (Ed.). (2002). Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity. New York, NY: Routledge. Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Reexanming English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 9-32.

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Ball, S. J., & Goodson, I. F. (1985). Understanding teachers: Concepts and contexts. In S. J. Ball & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), Teachers’ lives and careers (pp. 1-24). Lewes, UK: Falmer. Barcelos, A. M. F. (2003). Researching beliefs about SLA: A critical review. In P. Kalaja & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New Research Approaches (pp. 7-33). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Baron, D. (1990). The English only question: An official language for Americans. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Beattie, M. (2000). Narratives of professional learning: Becoming a teacher in learning to teach. Journal of Educational Inquiry, 1(2), 1-23. Block, D., & Cameron, D. (2002). Introduction. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 1-10). London and New York: Routledge. Bloomberg (2011). China says no talking Tibet as Confucius funds U.S. universities. Available at Bolton, K. (2003). Chinese Englishes: A sociolinguistic history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Borg, S. (2001). Teacher beliefs. ELT Journal, 55(2), 186-8. ———— (2006). Teacher Cognition and Language Education. London: Continuum. Boyle, J. (2000). A brief history of English language teaching in China. IATEFL, 155, 14-15. Braine, G. (2005). Teaching English to the world: History, curriculum, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum associate. Butzkamm, W. (1998). Code-switching in a bilingual history lesson: The mother tongue as a conversational lubricant. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1(2), 81-99. ———— (2003). We only learn language once. The role of the mother tongue in FL classrooms: death of a dogma. Language Learning Journal, 28(1), 29-39.

236 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Butzkamm, W., & Caldwell, J. A. W. (2009). The bilingual reform: A paradigm shift in foreign language teaching. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Canagarajah, S. (1995). Functions of codeswitching in ELS classrooms: Socializing bilingualism in Jaffna. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 6(3), 173-195. Carless, D. (2008). Student use of the mother tongue in the task-based classroom. ELT Journal, 62(4), 331-8. Casas-Tost, H., & Rovira-Esteva, S. (2009). Orientalism and occidentalism: two forces behind the image of the Chinese language and construction of the modern standard. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 4(2), 107-121. Cavalier, R. (1994). Speaking of business – The needs of business and industry for language skills. Canberra: AGPS: Australian Language and Literacy Council. Chambers, G. (1992). Teaching in the target language. Language Learning Journal, 6 (66-7). Chao, Y. (1948). Mandarin primer: An intensive course in spoken Chinese [⚥宕ℍ斐]. Harvard University Press. Chen, F. (2010). Hanyu guoji tuiguang yu duiwai hanyu jiaoxue [㯱宕 ⚥旭㍐⸧宕⮡⢾㯱宕㔁⬎]. In Beijing Language University (Ed.), Hanyu guoji jiaoyu san jiao wenti: Di liu jie duiwai hanyu xueshu yantaohui lunwen ji [≹䈝ഭ䱵ᮉ㛢“йᮉ”䰞仈: ㅜ‫ޝ‬ቺ ሩཆ≹䈝ᆖᵟ⹄䇘Պ䇪᮷䳶] (pp. 1–12). Beijing: Beijing Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Chen, J. (2010a). Country looks to attract more foreign students. Available at ———— (2010b). Class act promotes global “soft power”. Available at

237 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Chen, J. Y. (2010). Qiantan duiwaihanyu jiaoxue zhong de meijieyu shiyong [㳭宰⮡⢾㯱宕㔁⬎ᷕ䘬⨺ṳ宕ἧ䓐]. Zhongguo Keji Bolan [ѝഭ、ᢰঊ㿸], 2, 121. Chen, Y. (2011). Zhijiage daxue xingtan xiangmu tese fenxi [剅≈⒍ ⣏⬎㗇宰校䚖䈡刚↮㜸]. Beijing Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue Xuehui Tongxun [ेӜц⭼≹䈝ᮉᆖᆖՊ䙊䇟], 1, 23-4. Cheng, X. (2001). The role of “Old Khitan” and “Translator Piao” in the history of teaching Chinese as a foreign language [˪侩Ḇ⣏ ˫␴˪㛜忂ḳ˫⛐㯱宕䫔Ḵ宕妨㔁⬎⍹⯽⎚ᶲ䘬⛘ỵ]. Hanyu Xuexi [㯱宕⬎Ḉ], 2, 55-62. Cheng, Y. (2005). Xinzhongguo duiwaihanyu jiaoxue fazhanshi [㕘ᷕ ⚥⮡⢾㯱宕㔁⬎⍹⯽⎚]. Beijing: Peking University Press. Cheng, Z. (2002). English Departments in Chinese Universities: Purpose and Function. World Englishes, 21(2), 257-267. China Association for Foreign Students Affairs. (2011). The 2011 statistics of the international students in China. Available at

China News. (2007). Sitanfu Daxue kecheng fuzhuren cheng huawen shi di sanqian nian zhongyao yuwen [㕗✎䤷⣏⬎宦䦳∗ᷣả䦘 ⋶ 㔯 㗗 䫔 ᶱ ⋫ 慵 天 宕 㔯 ]. Available at Chinese Ministry of Education. (2006). The report of the language situation in China (Year 2005). Beijing: Commercial Press. Chiswick, B. R., & Miller, P. W. (2005). Linguistic distance: A quantitative measure of the distance between English and other languages. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 26(1), 1-11. Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of BF Skinner’s Verbal Behaviour. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chua, A. (2007). Day of empire: How hyperpowers rise to global dominance and why they fall. New York: Anchor Books. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

238 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research Methods in Education. London: Routeledge and Kegan Paul. Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 57(3), 402-423. Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). Cultures of learning: language classrooms in China. In H. Coleman & L. Cameron (Eds.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 169-206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crawford, J. (1991). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory, and practice. Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Education Services. ———— (2004). Language choices in the foreign language classroom: Target language or the learners’ first language? Regional Language Centre Journal, 35(1), 5-20. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. ———— (1995). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———— (1998). English as a global language (Canto ed.). Combridge: Cambridge University Press. ———— (2003). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———— (2006). English worldwide. In R. Hogg & D. Denison (Eds.), A history of the English language (pp. 420-439). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cui, X. (2010). Hanyu guoji jiaoyu sanjiao wenti de hexin yu jichu [ 㯱宕⚥旭㔁做ᶱ㔁斖桀䘬㟠⽫ᶶ➢䟨]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [ ц⭼≹䈝ᮉᆖ], 1, 73-81. Cui, Y. (2005). Ershi nian lai duiwaihanyu jiaoxue yanjiu redian huigu [Ḵ⋩⸜㜍⮡⢾㯱宕㔁⬎䞼䨞䂕䁡⚆栦]. Yuyan Wenzi Yingyong [䈝䀰᮷ᆇᓄ⭘], 1, 63-70.

239 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependency of first-and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In B. Ellen (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 70-89). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. ———— (1998). Immersion education for the millennium: What have we learned from 30 years of research on second language immersion? In M. R. Childs & R. M. Bostwick (Eds.), Learning through two languages: Research and practice. Second Katoh Gakuen International Symposium on Immersion and Bilingual Education (pp. 34-47). Katoh Gakuen, Japan. Curran, C. A. (1976). Counseling-learning in second language. Apple River, IL: Apple River Press. Dailey-O’Cain, J., & Liebscher, G. (2006). Language learners’ use of discourse markers as evidence for a mixed code. International Journal of Bilingualism, 10(1), 89-109. Davis, M. (2003). GDP by Language. Unicode Technical Note #13. Available at . DeFrancis, J. (1984). The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Deng, X. (2008). Hanyu huanjing yu fei hanyuhuanjing xia hanyu lingqidianban zhi bijiao – Yi shantou daxue hanyu zhongxin he taiguo Wang Klaikangwon xuexiao hanyu jiaoxue weili [㯱宕䍗 ⠫ᶶ朆㯱宕䍗⠫ᶳ㯱宕暞崟䁡䎕ᷳ㭼弫 – ẍ㯽⣜⣏⬎㯱宕ᷕ ⽫␴㲘⚥ Wang Klaikangwon ⬎㟉㯱宕㔁⬎ᷢἳ]. Paper presented at the Di jiu Jie Guoji Hanyu Jiaoxue Yantaohui, Beijing. Ding, A. (2010). Hanyu zuowei di’er yuyan xuexi zhe yanjiu [㯱宕ἄ ᷢ䫔Ḵ宕妨⬎Ḉ侭䞼䨞]. Beijing: World Publishing Campany in Beijing. Ding, S., & Saunders, R. A. (2006). Talking up China: an analysis of China’s rising cultural power and global promotion of the Chinese language. East Asia, 23(2), 3-33. Dodson, C. J. (1972). Language teaching and the bilingual method. London: Pitman. ———— (Ed.). (1985). Bilingual education: Evaluation, assessment and methodology. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. 240 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Dörnyei, Z. (2002). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ————. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Drake, C., Spillane, J. P., & Hufferd-Ackles, K. (2001). Storied identities: Teacher learning and subject-matter context. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(1), 1-23. Du, Y. (2009). Meijieyu queshi qingjing xia dui lingqidian rihan xuesheng hanyu tingshuo nengli de peiyang [⨺ṳ宕仢⣙ね⠫ᶳ ⮡ 暞 崟 䁡 㖍 枑 ⬎ 䓇 㯱 宕 ⏔ 宜 傥 ≃ 䘬 ➡ ℣ ]. Ningbo Daxue Xuebao (Jiaoyu Kexue Ban) [ᆱ⌒བྷᆖᆖᣕ˄ᮉ㛢、ᆖ⡸˅], 3, 136-138. Duff, P., Anderson, T., Ilnyckyj, R., VanGaya, E., Wang, R., & Yates, E. (2013). Learning Chinese: Linguistic, sociocultural, and narrative perspectives. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Duff, P. A., & Polio, C. G. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 74(2), 154-166. Elder, C., & Davies, A. (1998). Performance on ESL examinations: Is there a language distance effect? Language and Education, 12(1), 1-17. Eldridge. (1996). Codeswitching in a Turkish secondary school. ELT Journal, 50(4), 303-311. Ellis, R. (1986). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———— (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. English First. (2011). EF English Proficiency Index. Available at

Erard, M. (2006). The Mandarin Offensive inside Beijing’s global campaign to make Chinese the number one language in the world. Wired-san francisco-, 14(4), 84. 241 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

European Commission. (2012). Final report of the First European Survey on Language Competences (ESLC). Available at

Evans, M. D. R., & Kelley, J. (2002). National pride in the developed world: Survey date from 24 nations. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14(3), 303-338. Everson, M. E., & Xiao, Y. (2009). Teaching Chinese as a foreign language: theories and applications. Boston: Cheng & Tsui. Fallows, D. (2010). Dreaming in Chinese: Lessons in life, love, and language. London: Short Books. Feng, A. (Ed.). (2007). Bilingual education in China: Practices, policies, concepts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Flores, B. (2001). Bilingual education teachers’ beliefs and their relations to self-reported practices. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(3), 275-299. Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed (New edn.). London; New York: Penguin Books. Fu, C. (2005). Duiwai hanyu jiaoxue yuyan yanjiu [⮡⢾㯱宕㔁⬎宕 妨䞼䨞]. Master Thesis. Fudan University. Shanghai. Fu, K. (1986). Zhongguo waiyu jiaoyu shi [ᷕ⚥⢾宕㔁做⎚]. Shanghai: Foreign Language Education Press. García, E. (2005). Teaching and learning in two languages: Bilingualism and schooling in the United States. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. García, O. (2011). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell Pub. Gatenby, E. V. (1965). Conditions for success in language learning. In H. B. Allen (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second Language: A Book of Readings (pp. 9-14). New York: McGraw-Hill. Ghaith, G. (2004). Correlates of the implementation of the STAD cooperative learning method in the English as a foreign language classroom. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(4), 279-294. Gil, J. (2005). English in China: The implication of the global language on China’s language situation. PhD thesis. Brisbane: Griffith University. 242 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

————

(2008). The promotion of Chinese language learning and China’s soft power. Asian social science, 4(10), 116-122. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Good, T. L. (1988). Observational Research … Grounding Theory in Classrooms. Educational Psychologist, 25, 375-9. Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London: British Council. Guo, L. (2005). Chuji hanyu jiaocai yuyandian biaoshu kaocha ji duomeiti biaoshu yanjiu [ࡍ㓗≹䈝ᮉᶀ䈝䀰⛩㺘䘠㘳ሏ৺ཊჂ փ㺘䘠⹄ウ]. Master Thesis. Beijing: Beijing Language University. Guo, Z., & Huang, Y. (2002). Hybridized Discourse: Social Openess and Functions of English Media in Post-Mao China. World Englishes, 21(2), 218-230. Halliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. & Black. W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th edn.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Hanban. (2002). Gaodeng xuexiao waiguo liuxuesheng hanyu zhuanye jiaoxue dagang [檀䫱⬎㟉⢾⚥䔁⬎䓇㯱宕ᶻ᷂ 㔁⬎⣏乚]. Beijing: Beijing University Press.

———— (2007). Standards for Teachers of Chinese to Speakers

of Other Languages (English edn.). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. . ———— (2012). Hanban (Confucius Institute Headquarters) 2011 Annual Report. Beijing: Hanban (Confucius Institute Headquarters). Han, X. (2009). Quanqiu Shifa xia de duiwai hanyu jiaocai pingshu [䰸лⲴሩཆ≹䈝ᮉᶀ䇴䘠]. Yunan Shifan Daxue Xuebao (Duiwai Hanyu Jiaoxue yu Yanjiu ban) [Ӂইᐸ㤳བྷᆖᆖᣕ˄ሩཆ≹ 䈝ᮉᆖо⹄ウ⡸˅], 7(4): 1-8.

243 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Hartig, F. (2012). Confucius Institutes and the Rise of China. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 17, 53-76. doi: 10.1007/s11366-0119178-7 Hawkins, E. (1987). Modern languages in the curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. He, B., & Luo, Y. (2010). New Effort in Compiling Country-specific Chinese Materials: Routledge Modern Chinese Course [㯱宕⚥⇓ ⊾㔁㛸亾⅁㕘⯅孽烉˪Routledge 䍘ẋ㯱宕宦䦳˫]. Overseas Chinese Education [㴟⢾⋶㔯㔁做], 3, 23-30. Honna, N. (2008). English as a multilingual language in Asian contexts: Issues and ideas. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72, 283-294. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 1(70), 129130. Howatt, A. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hu, X. (2007). Zai hanyu re zhong zouchuqu: Jinnian lai guonei duiwai hanyu jiaocai chuban shuping [൘≹䈝✝ѝ䎠ࠪ৫—䘁ᒤᶕ ഭ޵ሩཆ≹䈝ᮉᶀࠪ⡸䘠䇴]. Zhongguo Chuban [ѝഭࠪ⡸], 12: 31-33. Hu, X. & Feng, L. (2012). Employment survey and analysis of TCSL postgraduates. Journal of Yunnan Normal University (Teaching and Research of Chinese As A Foreign Language), 10(1), 1-6. Huang, J. (1987). Hanyu fangyanxue [㯱宕㕡妨⬎]. Xiamen: Xiamen University Press. Jacobson, R. (1990). Allocating two languages as a key feature of a bilingual methodology. In R. Jacobson & C. Faltis (Eds.), Language distribution issues in bilingual schooling (pp. 3-17). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Jacques, M. (2009). When China rules the world: The end of the western world and the birth of a new global order. London: Penguin Press. 244 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Jenkins, J. (2009a). Exploring attitudes towards English as a lingua franca in the East Asian context. In K. Murata & J. Jenkins (Eds.), Global Englishes in Asian Contexts: Current and future Debates. (pp. 40-56). Houndmills: Palgrave. ———— (2009b). World Englishes: A resource book for students. London: Routledge. Ji, C. (2006). Lun duiwaihanyu jiaoxue moshi de guojian –You Meiguo mingde daxue hanyu jiaoxue tanqi [孢⮡⢾㯱宕㔁⬎㧉⺷䘬 㜬⺢-䓙伶⚥㖶⽟⣏⬎㯱宕㔁⬎宰崟]. Hanyu Xuexi [≹䈝ᆖҐ ], 4, 64-69. Jiang, X., & Hao, L. (2010). Duiwaihanyu jiaoshi shijianxing zhishi de ge’an yanjiu [⮡⢾㯱宕㔁ⶰ⭆嶝⿏䞍孮䘬᷒㟰䞼䨞]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [ц⭼≹䈝ᮉᆖ], 24(3), 394-405. Jiao, J. (2009). Qiantan duiwaihanyu jiaoxue zhong de meijieyu shiyong de “shidu yuanze” [㳭宰⮡⢾㯱宕㔁⬎ᷕ䘬⨺ṳ宕ἧ䓐 䘬“循⹎⍇⇁”]. Chengdu zhongyiyao daxue xuebao (jiaoyu kexue ban) [ᡀ䜭ѝ५㦟བྷᆖᆖᣕ˄ᮉ㛢、ᆖ⡸˅], 11(3), 23-24. Jin, L. (2006). Shi lun hanyu guoji tuiguang de guojia celue he xueke celue [孽孢㯱宕⚥旭㍐⸧䘬⚥⭞䫾䔍␴⬎䥹䫾䔍]. Huadong Shifan Daxue Xuebao (Zhexue Shehui Kexue Ban) [ॾьᐸ㤳བྷ ᆖᆖᣕ˄ଢᆖ⽮Պ、ᆖ⡸˅], 38(4), 97-103. Jin, Y. (2009). Deguo daxuesheng han ying yu xuexi guannian bijiao yanjiu [ ⽟ ⚥ ⣏ ⬎ 䓇 㯱 劙 宕 ⬎ Ḉ 奪 ⾝ 䞼 䨞 ]. Master Thesis. Shanghai: East China Normal University. Johnson, K. E. (1992). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 24(1), 83-108. The Economist. (2010). Chinese purism: Saving Chinese from English. Available at Kachru, B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11-36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 245 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

———— (1992). Teaching world Englishes. In B. Kachru (Ed.),

The other tongue: English across cultures (pp. 355-366). Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. ———— (2005). Asian Englishes: Beyond the canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kane, D. (2006). The Chinese language: Its history and current usage. Singapore: Tuttle Publishing. Kim, S. Y. (2008). Five years of teaching English through English: Responses from teachers and prospects for learners. English Teaching, 63(1), 51-70. Kirkpatrick, A. (1995). Learning Asian languages in Australia – Which languages and when? Babel, 30(1), 6-29. ———— (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———— (2010). English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: A multilingual model. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. ———— (2011). Internationalization or Englishization: Medium of instruction in today’s universities Centre for Governance and Citizenship Working Paper Series 2011/003. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Education. Kramsch, C. (2006). From communicative competence to symbolic competence. The Modem Language Journal, 90(2), 249-252. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. New York, NY: Pergamon. ———— (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman. Kubler, C. et al. (Ed.). (1997). NFLC guide for basic Chinese language programmes. Washington, DC: The National Foreign Language Center. Kurlantzick, J. (2007). Charm offensive: how China’s soft power is transforming the world. New Haven: Yale University Press. Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

246 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Lai, M. L. (1996). Using the L1 sensibly in English language classrooms. Journal of Primary Education, 6(1/2), 91-9. Lam, A. (2002). English in Education in China: Policy Changes and Learners’ Experiences. World Englishes, 21(2), 245-256. ———— (2005). Language education in China: Policy and experience from 1949. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Lee, S. K. (2003). Multiple identities in a multicultural world: A Malaysian perspective. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 2(3), 137-158. Levine, G. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. The Modern Language Journal, 87(3), 343364. ———— (2011). Code choice in the language classroom. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Li, Q. (2002). Jin 20 nian duiwai hanyu jiaocai bianxie he yanjiu de jiben qingkuang shuping [䘁 20 ᒤሩཆ≹䈝ᮉᶀ㕆߉઼⹄ウⲴ สᵜᛵߥ䘠䇴]. Yuyan Wenzi Yingyong [䈝䀰᮷ᆇᓄ⭘], 3, 100106. ———— (2009). Guanyu jianli guoji hanyu jiaoxue xueke de gouxiang [‫ޣ‬Ҿ⺢䩳⚥旭㯱宕㔁⬎⬎䥹䘬㜬゛]. Shiejie Hanyu Jiaoxue [ц⭼≹䈝ᮉᆖ], 3, 399-413. Li, W. (1998). The “why” and “how” questions in the analysis of conversational code-switching. In P. Auer (Ed.), Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction, and identity (pp. 156-176). London: Routledge. Li, Y. (2010). Cong yuyong shunying jiaodu tan yumazhuanhuan xianxiang [Ṷ宕䓐栢⸼奺⹎宰宕䞩弔㌊䍘尉]. Guangzhou Daxue Xuebao (Shehui Kexue Ban) [ᒯᐎབྷᆖᆖᣕ˄⽮Պ、ᆖ⡸˅ ], 7, 88-91. Lin, A. (2013). Classroom code-switching: three decades of research. Applied Linguistics Review, 4(1), 195-218. Liang, N. (1998). Buyong meijieyu congshi duiwaihanyu jiaoxue de tantao [ᶵ䓐⨺ṳ宕Ṷḳ⮡⢾㯱宕㔁⬎䘬㍊子]. Hanyu Xuexi [ ≹䈝ᆖҐ], 3, 40-3. 247 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Liebscher, G., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2004). Learner code-switching in the content-based foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 60(4), 501-525. Ling, D. (2003). Zhongjieyu lilun yu duiwai hanyu jiaoxue [ѝӻ䈝⨶ 䇪оሩཆ≹䈝ᮉᆖ]. Nanjing Daxue Xuebao (Zhexue, Renwen Kexue, Shehui Kexue) [ইӜབྷᆖᆖᣕ˄ଢᆖˈӪ᮷、ᆖˈ⽮ Պ、ᆖ˅], 40(3), 149-154. Littlewood, W., & Yu, B. (2009). First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teaching, 44(01), 64-77. Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Liu, X. (2000). Duiwaihanyu jiaoyu xue yinlun [⮡⢾㯱宕㔁做⬎⺽ 孢]. Beijing: Beijing Language University Press. ———— (2006). Hanyu zuowei di’er yuyan jiaoxue jianlun [㯱宕 ἄᷢ䫔Ḵ宕妨㔁⬎䬨孢]. Beijing: Beijing Language University Press. Liu, X., & Jiang, X. (2010). Jiaoxue shixi dui zhiqian duiwaihanyu jiaoshi yufa jiaoxue guannian de yingxiang – jiyu wenjuan diaocha de yanjiu [㔁⬎⭆Ḉ⮡俴⇵⢾㯱宕㔁ⶰ宕㱽㔁⬎奪⾝䘬⼙ ⑵-➢Ḷ斖⌟宫㞍䘬䞼䨞]. In Beijing Language University (Ed.), Hanyu guoji jiaoyu san jiao wenti: Di liu jie duiwai hanyu xueshu yantaohui lunwen ji [≹䈝ഭ䱵ᮉ㛢“йᮉ”䰞仈: ㅜ‫ޝ‬ቺሩཆ≹ 䈝ᆖᵟ⹄䇘Պ䇪᮷䳶] (pp. 130-145). Beijing: Beijing Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Lo Bianco, J. (2007). Emergent China and Chinese: language planning categories. Language Policy, 6, 3-26. ————. (2011). Chinese: The Gigantic up-and-corner. In L. Tsung & K. Cruickshank (Eds.), Teaching and learning Chinese in global contexts. London: Continuum. Lo Bianco, J., Orton, J., & Gao, Y. (2009). China and English: Globalisation and the Dilemmas of Identity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

248 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Lu, G. (2010). Youguan duiwai hanyu jiaocai zhong shengci yingwen zhushi wenti [ᴹ‫ޣ‬ሩཆ≹䈝ᮉᶀѝ⭏䇽㤡᮷⌘䟺䰞仈]. Hengyang Shifan Xueyuan Xuebao [㺑䱣ᐸ㤳ᆖ䲒ᆖᣕ], 31(1), 170173. Lu, W. (1995). Duiwai hanyu jiaocai zhong kewen ciyu hanyiying de yuanze he fangfa [ሩཆ≹䈝ᮉᶀѝ䈮᮷䇽䈝≹䈁㤡Ⲵ৏ࡉ઼ ᯩ⌅]. Xiamen Daxue Xuebao (Zhexue shehui kexueban) [৖䰘 བྷᆖᆖᣕ(ଢᆖ⽮Պ、ᆖ⡸], 2. Lü, B. (1993). Duiwaihanyu jiaoxue yanjiu [ ⮡⢾㯱宕㔁⬎䞼䨞 ]. Beijing: Beijing Language University Press. Ma, Q. (2003). Guanyu duiwaihanyu jiaoxue de ruogan jianyi [‫ޣ‬Ḷ⮡ ⢾㯱宕㔁⬎䘬劍⸚⺢孖]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [ц⭼≹䈝ᮉᆖ ], 3, 13-16. Macaro, E. (2000). Issues in target language teaching. In K. Field (Ed.), Issues in modern foreign language teaching. London: Routledge. ———— (2001). Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision-making. The Modern Language Journal, 85(4), 531-548. ———— (2005). Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession. New York, NY: Springer. ———— (2009). Teacher use of codeswitching in the L2 classroom: Exploring “optimal” use. In M. Turnbull & J. DaileyO’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning (pp. 35–49). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Macaro, E., & Mutton, T. (2002). Developing language teachers through a co-researcher model. The Language Learning Journal, 25(1), 27-39. Mardziah, H. A., & Wong, B. E. (2006). Listening to the ethnic voice in ESL learning. The English Teacher, 35, 15-26. Matisoff, J. A. (1990). On megalocomparison. Language, 66(1), 106– 120.

249 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

McDonald, E. (2011). Learning Chinese, Turning Chinese: challenges to becoming sinophone in a globalised world. London: Routledge. McMillan, B., & Turnbull, M. (2009). Teachers’ use of the first language in French immersion: Revisiting a core principle. In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning (pp. 15-34). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. McMillan, B. A., & Rivers, D. J. (2011). The practice of policy: teacher attitudes toward “English only”. System, 39, 251–263. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Moloney, R. (forthcoming). Providing a bridge to international pedagogy for native speaker teachers of Chinese in Australia. Language, Culture and Curriculum Morris, P., & Adamson, B. (2010). Curriculum, schooling and society in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Mu, L. (2007). Meiguo daxue zaihua shuqiban de moshi he yingxiang [伶⚥⣏⬎⛐⋶㘹㛇䎕䘬㧉⺷␴⼙⑵]. In A. Cheng, W. Ho & L. Mu (Eds.), Duimei hanyu jiaoxue lunji [ ሩ㖾≹䈝ᮉᆖ䇪䳶 ] (Vol. A. Cheng, W. Ho, & L. Mu, pp. 55-59). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Center. Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Social motivations for codeswitching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford: Clarendon. Nagy, K., & Robertson, D. (2009). Target language use in English classes in Hungarian primary schools. In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning (pp. 66-86). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. National Linguistics Work Committee. (1996). Wenzi gaige he xiandai hanyu guifanhua 40 zhounian jinian shouce [㔯⫿㓡朑␴䍘 ẋ㯱宕奬劫⊾ 40 ␐⸜乒⾝ㇳℴ]. Beijing: Yuwen Chubanshe. . Newman, A. (2011). IMF: Chinese economy to surpass U.S. by 2016. Available at

250 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. London: Longman. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd edn.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nye, J. (2005). The rise of China’s soft power. Wall Street Journal Asia, 29. ———— (2010). China’s reemgerence as a major power doesn’t challenge U.S. Available at Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Orton, J. (2009). East goes west. In J. Lo Bianco, J. Orton & Y. Gao (Eds.), China and English: Globalisation and the dilemmas of identity (pp. 271-293). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. ———— (2011). Educating Chinese language teachers – Some fundamentals. In L. Tsung & K. Cruickshank (Eds.), Teaching and learning Chinese in global contexts (pp. 151-164). London: Continuum. Ouyang, W. (2003). Duiwaihanyu jiaoxue yunyong liangzhong yuyan guodeshi jiaoxue fangfa chutan [⮡⢾㯱宕㔁⬎彸䓐᷌䥵宕妨“ 彯㷉⺷”㔁⬎㕡㱽⇅㍊]. Tianjin Chengren Gaodeng Xuexiao Lianhe Xuebao [ཙ⍕ᡀӪ儈ㅹᆖṑ㚄ਸᆖᣕ], 4, 76-78. Pan, W. (2004). Hanying yu duibi gangyao [㯱劙宕⮡㭼乚天]. Beijing: Beijing Language University Press. Paradise, J. F. (2009). China and international harmony: The role of Confucius Institutes in bolstering Beijing’s soft power. Asian Survey, 49(4), 647-669. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3 edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pavlenko, A. (2002). Poststructuralist approaches to the study of social factors in second language learning and use. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 275-302). Clevedon Hall, UK: Multilingual Matters. 251 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Pennycook, A. (2010). Nationalism, identity and popular culture. In N. Hornberger & S. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 62-85). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Pew Research Center. (2012). China perceived to be overtaking U.S. as leading superpower. Available at Piasecka, K. (1988). The bilingual teacher in ESL classroom. In S. Nicholls & E. Hoadley-Maidment (Ed.), Current issues in teaching English as a second language to adults (pp. 97-103). London: Edward Arnold. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Polio, C. G., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Teachers’ language use in university foreign language classrooms: a qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 313-326. Potowski, K. (2009). Forms and fuctions of codeswitching by Dual Immersion students: A comparison of heritage speaker and L2 children. In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning (pp. 87-114). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Prodromou, L. (2002). The role of the mother tongue in the classroom. IATEFL Issues, April-May, 6-8. Qian, X. (1999). Waiguo liuxuesheng xuexi hanyu shi de jiaolü [⢾⚥ 䔁⬎䓇⬎Ḉ㯱宕㖞䘬䃎嗹]. Yuyan Jiaoxue Yu Yanjiu [䈝䀰ᮉᆖ о⹄ウ], 2, 144-154. Ramirez, D. (1992). Executive summary of the final report: Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit bilingual education programmes for language minority children. Bilingual Research Journal, 16, 1-62. Ramos, F. (2001). Teachers’ opinions about the theoretical and practical aspects of the use of native language instruction for language minority students: A cross-sectional study. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(3), 357-374. 252 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Ramzy, A. (2006). Get Ahead, Learn Mandarin: China’s economic rise means the world has a new second language—and it isn’t English. Available at Rivera, K. (1998). Not “either/or” but “and”: Literacy for non-English speakers. . Focus on Basics, 1(3/4), 1-3. Roberts, J. A. G. (1999). A History of China. Houndmills: Macmillian Press Ltd. Rohsenow, J. S. (2004). Genesis of the language law of 2001. In M. Zhou & H. Sun (Eds.), Language policy in the People’s Republic of China: Theory and practice since 1949. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Rolin-Ianziti, J., & Brownlie, S. (2002). Teacher Use of Learners’ Native Language in the Foreign Language Classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revne canadienne des langues vivantes, 58(3), 402-426. Ross, H. (1992). Foreign Language Education as a Barometer of Modernization. In R. Hayhoe (Ed.), Education and Modernization: The Chinese Experience (pp. 239-254). Oxford: Pergamon Press. ———— (1993). China Learns English: Language Teaching and Social Change in the People’s Republic. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Ruan, X. (2010). Yi yuyan wei meijie goujian zhongguo huayu [ẍ宕 妨ᷢ⨺ṳ㜬⺢ᷕ⚥宅宕]. Yuyan Wenzi Tansuo [䈝䀰᮷ᆇ᧒㍒], 8, 179-180. Samimy, K., & Tabuse, M. (1992). Affective variable and a less commonly taught language study in beginning Japanese classes. Language Learning, 42, 377-399. Sanaoui, R. (2005). English in the discourse of four French immersion teachers. Paper presented at the The International Association of Applied Linguistics, Madison, WI. Schloss, P. J., & Smith, M. A. (1998). Applied behavior analysis in the classroom. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

253 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Scrimgeour, A., & Wilson, P. (2009). International Curriculum for Chinese Language Education. Babel, 43(3), 3. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209-241. Senior, R. (2006). The experience of language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shi, Z. (1994). Mingde zhongwen shu xiao jingyan de qishi [㖶⽟ᷕ 㔯㘹㟉乷樴䘬⏗䣢]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [ц⭼≹䈝ᮉᆖ], 1, 76-8. Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research. London: Sage: Sage Skehan, P. (1989). Individual difference in second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold. Smith, D. (1993). Unlocking Australia’s language potential – Profiles of 9 keys language in Australia (Vol. 2 (Chinese)). Canberra: NLLIA. Stables, A., & Wikeley, F. (1999). From bad to worse? Pupils’ attitudes to modern foreign languages at ages 14 and 15. Language Learning Journal, 20(1), 27-31. Starr, D. (2009). Chinese language education in Europe: The Confucius institutes. European Journal of Education, 44(1), 65-82. State Language Commission. (1988). Xiandai hanyu changyong zi biao [䍘ẋ㯱宕ⷠ䓐⫿堐]. Beijing: Yuwen Chubanshe. ———— (1995). Yuyan wenzi gongzuo baiti [宕妨㔯⫿ⶍἄ䘦桀 ]. Beijing: Yuwen Chubanshe. Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Su, D. (2006). Meiguo zhongwen jiaoxue mianlin shizi duanque de pingjing [ 㖾ഭѝ᮷ᮉᆖ䶒Ѥᐸ䍴⸝㕪Ⲵ⬦亸 ]. Available at

Sun, D. (2003). Duiwaihanyu jiaoxue yuyan yanjiu chuyi [⮡⢾㯱宕 㔁⬎宕妨䞼䨞↵孖]. Yuyan Wenzi Yingyong [䈝䀰᮷ᆇᓄ⭘], 3, 98-105.

254 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

————

(2010). Jiaoyu xushi yanjiu yu duiwaihanyu jiaoshi fazhan [㔁 做⎁ḳ䞼䨞ᶶ⮡⢾㯱宕㔁ⶰ⍹⯽]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [ц⭼≹䈝ᮉᆖ], 24(3), 383-393. Sun, M. (2011). Educational research in mainland china: current situation and development trends. Comparative Education, 47(3), 315325. Svanes, B. (1987). Motivation and cultural distance in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 37, 341-359. Svartvik, J., & Leech, G. (2006). English: One tongue, many voices. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input and second language acquisition (pp. 235-254). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. ———— (1986). Bilingualism without tears. In J. Cummins & M. Swain (Eds.), Bilingualism in Education (pp. 99-110). London: Longman. Swain, M., Kirkpatrick, A., & Cummins, J. (2010). How to have a guilt-free life using Cantonese in the English Class: A handbook for the English Teachers in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Research Center in to Language Acquisition and Education in Multilingual Societies, Hong Kong Institute of Education. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251-274. Telles, J. A. (2000). Biographical connections: Experience as sources of legitimate knowledge. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(3), 162-251. Tong, B. (1991). Chuji hanyu jiaocai de bianxie wenti [ࡍ㓗≹䈝ᮉᶀ Ⲵ㕆߉䰞仈]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [ц⭼≹䈝ᮉᆖ], 1: 33-9. Tong, Q. S. (2000). Inventing China: the use of orientalist views on the Chinese language. Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies, 2(1), 6-20.

255 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

———— (2008). Between knowledge and ‘plagiarism’, or, how

the Chinese language was studied in the West. Language Sciences, 30(5), 499-511. Trigualt, N. (1995). A help to western scholars [大₺俛䚖峬]. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe. Tsui, A. B. M. (2005). Language policy, culture and identity in the era of globalization. Paper presented at the IATEFL, Canterbury. ———— (2007). Complexities of identity formation: A narrative inquiry of an EFL teacher. TESOL Quarterly, 41(4), 657-680. Tsung, L., & Cruikshank, K. (Eds.). (2010). Teaching and Learning Chinese in Global Contexts. New York: Continuum. Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching, but…. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 57(4), 531-540. Turnbull, M., & Arnett, K. (2002). Teachers’ use of the target and first langauges in second and foreign language classrooms. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 204-218. Turnbull, M., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (Eds.). (2009). First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning. Bristol Multilingual Matters. Turnbull, M., & McMillan, B. (2007). Teachers’ code-switching in French immersion: revisiting a core principle. Paper presented at the The Annual Conference of American Association of Applied Linguistics, Costa Mesa, CA. Üstünel, E., & Seedhouse, P. (2005). Why that, in that language, right now? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 302325. van Lier, L. (2000). Form input to affordance: Socio-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 245-259). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ———— (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston, Mass: Kluwer Academic Publication.

256 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development In L. S. Vygotsky, M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological Processes (pp. 79-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Universality Press. Wade, T. F. (2002). A progressive course designed to assist the student of colloquial Chinese [䈝妨冒徑普: 19 ᶾ㓚ᷕ㛇䘬⊿Ṕ䈍]. Beijing: Beijing Daxue Chubanshe. Wadley, S. (1987). A translation of the Lao Qida and investigation into certain of its syntactic structures. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Washington. Wajnryb, R. (1992). Classroom observation tasks: A resource book for language teachers and trainers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walton, A. R. (1989). Chinese language instruction in the United States: Some reflections on the state of the art. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers’ Association, 24: 1-42. Wang, B., Wu, Z., Xia, Y., & Yang, J. (2007). Duiwaihanyu yu zhongguo wenhua jiaoxue zhong de meijieyu shiyong diaocha baogao [⮡⢾㯱宕ᶶᷕ⚥㔯⊾㔁⬎ᷕ䘬⨺ṳ宕ἧ䓐宫㞍㉍⏲]. East China Normal University. Available at http://jpkc.ecnu.edu.cn/1001/downloads/student_report/11.html. Wang, D. (2005). A study of grammar notes on the textbooks of teaching Chinese as a foreign language [ሩཆ≹䈝ᮉᆖ䈝⌅⌘䟺⹄ ウ]. Master Thesis. Beijing: Renmin University of China. ———— (2010). A study of English as a lingua franca in teaching Chinese to speakers of other languages. The International Journal of Learning, 17(6): 257-272. ———— (2012). On the medium of instruction issue in the teaching of Chinese as a foreign language [ሩཆ≹䈝ᮉᆖⲴჂփ䈝䰞 仈]. Newsletter of Chinese Language [䈝᮷ᔪ䇮䙊䇟], 91(2), 838. ———— (2013a). Chinese Language Learners in Hong Kong: A Narrative Inquiry. In S. Cao, & Z. Yu (Eds.). Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Chinese Language Pedagogy, 257 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, 28-30 June (pp. 816-825). Sichuan, China: Bashu Shushe. ———— (2013b). The Use of English as a Lingua Franca in Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language: A Case Study of Native Chinese Teachers in Beijing. In Hartmut, H. and Preisler, B. (Eds.), Language Alternation, Language Choice and Language Encounter in International Tertiary Education (pp. 161-177). Amsterdam: Springer. Wang, D., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2012). Code choice in the Chinese as a foreign language classroom. Multilingual Education, 2(3). doi: 10.1186/2191-5059-2-3. Wang, D., Moloney, R., & Li, Z. (2013). Towards internationalisating the curriculum: A case study of Chinese language teacher education in China and Australia. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(9), 116-135. Wang, D. R. (2010). Putong gaoxiao duiwaihanyu zhuanye shuangyu jiaoshi de peixun yu jianshe [㘖忂檀㟉⮡⢾㯱宕ᶻ᷂⍴宕㔁ⶰ 䘬➡孕ᶶ⺢学]. Xiandai Yuwen [⧠ԓ䈝᮷], 21, 133-4. Wang, H. (2007). Duiwai hanyu jiaocai zhong de meijieyu wenti shishuo [⮡⢾㯱宕㔁⬎ᷕ䘬⨺ṳ宕斖桀孽宜]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [ц⭼≹䈝ᮉᆖ], 2, 111-117. ———— (2009). Lun duiwaihanyu jiaocai shengci shiyi moshi [ 孢⮡⢾㯱宕㔁㛸䓇孵慲ᷱ㧉⺷]. Yuyan Wenzi Yingyong [宕妨 㔯⫿⸼䓐], 1: 124-133. Wang, Jingqiong. (2010). Beware of English invasion. Available at

Wang, Jianqin. (2000). Duiwai hanyu jiaocai xiandaihua chuyi [ሩཆ ≹䈝ᮉᶀ⧠ԓॆ࠽䇞]. Yuyan Wenzi Yingyong [䈝䀰᮷ᆇᓄ⭘], 1: 9-15. Wang, S. C. (2009). Preparing and supporting teachers of less commonly taught languages. The Modem Languag Journal, 93(2), 282-7.

258 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Wang, S. (2008). Duiwai hanyu zongheke jiaocai shengci shiyi yanjiu [ሩཆ≹䈝㔬ਸ䈮ᮉᶀ⭏䇽䟺ѹ⹄ウ]. Master Thesis. Xiamen: Xiamen University. Weber, G. (1997). Top languages. The world’s 10 most influential languages. Language Today, 2(3), 12-8. Weinberg, J. (1990). Pennies from He Vinh. TESOL newsletter, 24(3), 5. Weinstein, C. E. (1994). A look to the future: What we might learn from research on beliefs. In R. Garner & P. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about Text and about Instruction with Text (pp. 295-302). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Welmond, M. (2002). Globalization viewed from the periphery: The dynamics of teacher identity in the Republic of Benin. Comparative Education Review, 46(1), 37-65. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wiley, T. G., & Lukes, M. (1996). EnglishǦonly and standard English ideologies in the US. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 511-535. Wilkinson, W. K., & Schwartz, N. H. (1989). Epistemological orientation: Its meaning and role in learning and instructional contexts. Paper presented at the The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Williams, G. (2007). Investigating the influences on the teaching identity of international teaching assistants. In M. Mantero (Ed.), Identity and second language learning: Culture, inquiry, and dialogic activity in Educational contexts (pp. 305-328). Charlotte, NC: IAP. Williams, M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social constructivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Willig, A. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Education Research, 55, 269-270. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based language learning. Harlow: Longman. 259 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Wu, L. (2010). Duiwai hanyu jiaocai ciyu yingyu yishi yanjiu gailan [ሩཆ≹䈝ᮉᶀ䇽䈝㤡䈝䈁䟺⹄ウᾲ㿸]. Guoji Hanyu Xuebao [ഭ䱵≹䈝ᆖᣕ], 31. Wu, Y. (1998). Guanyu Yanjiu chengguo de jieyan yu xishou [‫ޣ‬Ҿ⹄ ウᡀ᷌Ⲵُ䢤о੨᭦]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [ц⭼≹䈝ᮉᆖ], 44(2): 55-9. Wu, Y., & Guo, J. (2007). A Research Report of Chinese Language Teaching Volunteer Programme in Thailand [㲘⚥㯱宕㔁⬎⽿ョ 侭校䚖宫㞍㉍⏲]. Journal of Yunnan Normal University (Teaching and Research on Chinese as a Foreign Language Edition) [ḹ ⋿ⶰ劫⣏⬎⬎㉍(⮡⢾㯱宕㔁⬎ᶶ䞼䨞䇰)], 5(1), 8-11. Xie, M., Huang, N., & Li, C. (2007). Jiangxi gaoxiao duiwaihanyu zhuanye shuangyu jiaoxue xianzhuang fenxi [㰇大檀㟉⮡⢾㯱宕 ᶻ᷂⍴宕㔁⬎䍘䉞↮㜸]. Yichun Xueyuan Xuebao (Shehui Kexue) [ᇌ᱕ᆖ䲒ᆖᣕ(⽮Պ、ᆖ)], 29(3), 117-9. Xinhua Net. (2007). Hu Jintao calls for enhancing "soft power" of Chinese culture. Available at Xing, Zhigang. (2006). NPC deputy calls for promoting Chinese. Available at Xing, Zhiqun. (2006). Teaching and learning Chinese as a foreign language: a pedagogical grammar. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Xing, Zhiqun. (2012). Guobie hua: Duiying hanyu jiaoxue fa [ഭ࡛ ॆ˖ሩ㤡≹䈝ᮉᆖ⌅]. Beijing: Peking University Press.  Xu, P. (2008). Chuji jieduan duiwaihanyu ketang jiaoxue zhong meijieyu shiyong wenti tantao [⇅乏旞㭝⮡⢾㯱宕宦➪㔁⬎ᷕ⨺ṳ 宕ἧ䓐斖桀㍊子]. Xiandai Yuwen [⧠ԓ䈝᮷], 9, 119-121. ———— (2010). Jiaocai shengci yingyi wenti fumian yingxiang de jiejue duice: Cong cihui jiaoxue de jiaodu tanqi [ᮉᶀ⭏䇽 㤡䈁䰞仈䍏䶒ᖡ૽Ⲵ䀓ߣሩㆆ——Ӿ䇽≷ᮉᆖⲴ䀂ᓖ䈸䎧]. Huanan Shifan Daxue Xuebao (Shehui Kexue ban) [ॾইᐸ㤳 བྷᆖᆖᣕ炷⽮Պ、ᆖ⡸˅], 3: 53-7.

260 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Yan, Y., & Deng, T. (2009). On Chinese loanword from English language. English Language Teaching, 2(4), 33-7. Yang, H. (2004). Shilun ketang jiaoxue yanjiu [孽孢宦➪㔁⬎䞼䨞]. Yuyan Jiaoxue Yu Yanjiu [䈝䀰ᮉᆖо⹄ウ], 3, 37-42. Yang, J. (1999). Duiwaihanyu jiaoxue chuji jieduan jiaoxue dagang [ ⮡⢾㯱宕㔁⬎⇅乏旞㭝㔁⬎⣏乚]. Beijing: Beijing Language University Press. Yang, Y. (1999). Tan duiwaihanyu rumen jieduan de jiaoxue [宰⮡⢾ 㯱宕ℍ斐旞㭝䘬㔁⬠]. Qian dongnan minzu Shizhuan Xuebao [ 唄ьই≁᯿ᐸуᆖᣕ], 1, 76-8. Yasukata, Y. (2009). The future of English: Beyond the Kachruvian three circle model. In M. Murata & J. Jenkins (Eds.), Global Englishes in Asian Contexts: Current and future Debates (pp. 208226). Houndmills: Palgrave. Young, D. J. (1990). An investigation of students’ perspectives on anxiety and speaking. Foreign Language Annals, 23, 539-553. Yu, B. (2008). Cross-culture adaptation and second language acquisition: a study of international students in universities of the people’s republic of China. PhD Dissertation. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong. Yu, H. (2007). Duiwaihanyu ketang jiaoxue meijieyu zhong yumazhuanhuan de jiexi [⮡⢾㯱宕宦➪㔁⬎⨺ṳ宕ᷕ宕䞩弔㌊䘬妋 㜸]. Kejiao Wenhui (Xueke Yuandi) [、ᮉ᮷≷˄ᆖ、ഝൠ˅], 8, 44–5. Yu, X. (1997). Tantan duiwai hanyu jiaocai yingwen zhushi yu shuoming de “xin” yu “da” [䈸䈸ሩཆ≹䈝ᮉᶀ㤡᮷⌘䟺о䈤᰾Ⲵ “ؑ” о “䗮”]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [ц⭼≹䈝ᮉᆖ], 3: 57-63. Zhang, D. (2005). Lao Qida and Piao Tongshi: Their Role in the History of Second Language Teaching. Journal of Taiwan Normal University: Humanities & Social Sciences, 50(1), 65-74. Zhang, D., & Li, X. (Eds.). (2002). Dui yi yingyu wei muyuzhe de hanyu jiaoxue yanjiu [ ሩԕ㤡䈝Ѫ⇽䈝㘵Ⲵ≹䈝ᮉᆖ⹄ウ ]. Beijing: Renmin Education Press. Zhang, H. (2006). Duiwaihanyu jiaoshi suzhi yu peixun yanjiu de huigu yu zhanwang [⮡⢾㯱宕㔁ⶰ䳈峐ᶶ➡孕䞼䨞䘬⚆栦ᶶ⯽ 261 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

㛃]. Beijing Shifan Daxue Xuebao (Shehui Kexue Ban) [ेӜᐸ

㤳བྷᆖᆖᣕ˄⽮Պ、ᆖ⡸˅], 3, 108-133. Zhang, X., & Tian, D. (2004). Meiguo mingde xueyuan de zhongwen jiaoxue [伶⚥㖶⽟⬎昊䘬ᷕ㔯㔁⬎]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [ц ⭼≹䈝ᮉᆖ], 1, 108-110. Zhang, Y. (2007). Duiwaihanyu jiaoxue zhong xuexi zhe de yumazhuanhuan fenxi [⮡⢾㯱宕㔁⬎ᷕ⬎Ḉ侭䘬宕䞩弔㌊↮㜸]. Yuwen Xuekan (Gaojiao Ban) [䈝᮷ᆖ࠺(儈ᮉ⡸)], 7, 161-4. Zhao, H., & Huang, J. (2010). China’s policy of Chinese as a foreign language and the use of overseas Confucius Institutes. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 9(2), 127-142. Zhao, J. (1998). Lun duiwai hanyu jiaocai pinggu [䇪ሩཆ≹䈝ᮉᶀ 䇴ՠ]. Yuyan Jiaoxue yu Yanjiu [䈝䀰ᮉᆖо⹄ウ], 3: 4-19. ———— (2009). Jiaoxue huanjing yu hanyu jiaocai [㔁⬎䍗⠫ᶶ 㯱宕㔁㛸]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [ц⭼≹䈝ᮉᆖ], 2, 210-223. ———— (2010). Duiwaihanyu jiaoxuefa huishi yu zai renshi [⮡ ⢾㯱宕㔁⬎㱽⚆奮ᶶℵ孌孮]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [ц⭼≹䈝 ᮉᆖ], 2, 243-254. Zhao, J., & Fan, Z. (2010). Xinjiang zhongya liuxuesheng hanyu jiaoxue de shehui yuyanxue toushi [ᯠ⮶ѝӊ⮉ᆖ⭏≹䈝ᮉᆖⲴ⽮ Պ䈝䀰ᆖ䘿㿶-]. Minzu Jiaoyu Yanjiu [≁᯿ᮉ㛢⹄ウ], 21(100), 95-8. Zhao, X. H. (2009). Qiantan duiwaihanyu jiaoxue zhong meijieyu de shiyong [㳭宰⮡⢾㯱宕㔁⬎ᷕ䘬⨺ṳ宕䘬ἧ䓐]. Beijing Di’er Waiguoyu Daxue Xuebao (Zeng Kan)[ेӜㅜҼཆഭ䈝བྷᆖᆖᣕ (໎࠺)], 12. Zhao, Y., & Campbell, K. P. (1995). English in China. World Englishes, 14(3), 377-390. Zhou, J. (1999). Shilun yinghan duibi zai chuji hanyu jiaoxue zhong de yingyong [孽孢劙㯱⮡㭼⛐⇅乏㯱宕㔁⬎ᷕ䘬⸼䓐]. Jinan Xuebao (Zhexue Shehui Kexue Ban) [᳘ইᆖᣕ(ଢᆖ⽮Պ、ᆖ ⡸)], 2, 109-113. Zhou, L. (2007). Duiwai hanyu jiaocai tongyi ciyu ji yingyu beijing liuxuesheng shiyong pianwu yanjiu [ሩཆ≹䈝ᮉᶀ਼䈁䇽䈝৺

262 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

㤡䈝㛼Ჟ⮉ᆖ⭏֯⭘‫ٿ‬䈟⹄ウ]. Master Thesis. Beijing: Beijing Language University. Zhu, P. (2004). Some thoughts on recent L2 Chinese textbooks. NUCB JLCC, 6(2), p. 133-143. Zhu, Z. (1996). Mudiyu huanjing zhong de qianghua jiaoxue yili [䚖 䘬宕䍗⠫ᷕ䘬⻢⊾㔁⬎孖桀]. Yuyan Jiaoxue Yu Yanjiu [䈝䀰ᮉ ᆖо⹄ウ], 3, 46-50.

263 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Appendix I: The questionnaire

⮡⢾㯱宕宦➪⬎䓇宕妨⾩⹎䘬宫㞍斖⌟ The questionnaire survey on student’s language attitudes in the Chinese as a foreign language classroom ㆹẔⶴ㛃忂彯征᷒䞼䨞Ḯ妋⬎䓇⮡Ḷ㯱宕㔁⬎宕妨ἧ䓐ね⅝䘬⾩⹎␴䚳㱽ˤ実 Ἀ⠓⅁Ἀ孌ᷢ㬋䠖䘬徱㊑ˤ㲐シ烉征᷒斖⌟ᶵ暨天Ἀ⠓⅁⥻⎵炻Ἀ㇨亁Ḱ䘬ᾉ 〗⮮Ể塓ᾅ⭮炻⸞ṭ䓐Ḷ㬌校䞼䨞ˤ寊寊ˤ This is a study on the use of languages in the Chinese language classroom. Please write the answer that you think it is correct. Please note that you are not required to provide your name and your answers will remain confidential. Thank you.

䫔ᶨ悐↮ Section One 1.

⿏⇓ Gender: 䓟 Male ⤛ Female

2.

⸜漬 Age:

3.

⚥䯵 Nationality : ___________________________

4.

㭵宕 Mother Tongue: ________________________

5.

Ἀ⬎㯱宕⬎Ḯ⣂攧㖞斜 How long have you been learning Chinese:

15–20 Ⱙ 20–25 Ⱙ 25–30 Ⱙ 30–35 Ⱙ

35–60 Ⱙ

____⸜ Year ___㚰 Month 6.

㜍ᷕ⚥⇵炻Ἀ㚱㱉㚱⬎Ḉ彯㯱宕 Have you studied Chinese before coming to China? 㚱 Yes, ______⸜ Year______㚰 Month烊㱉㚱 No

7.

Ἀ䍘⛐䘬㯱宕㯜⸛㗗 Which is your Chinese level: ⇅乏 Beginner level/ᷕ乏 Intermediate level/檀乏 Advanced level

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

8.

昌Ḯ㯱宕炻Ἀ往Ể宜⒒ṃ宕妨烎 What other languages can you speak other than Chinese? _______⇅乏 Beginner level /ᷕ乏 Intermediate level/檀乏 Advanced level _______⇅乏 Beginner level /ᷕ乏 Intermediate level/檀乏 Advanced level _______⇅乏 Beginner level /ᷕ乏 Intermediate level/檀乏 Advanced level

9.

㜍ᷕ⚥⇵炻Ἀ㚱㱉㚱⬎Ḉ彯劙宕 Have you studied English before coming to China? 㚱 Yes, _______⸜ Year ______㚰 Month烊㱉㚱 No

10. Ἀ䍘⛐䘬劙宕㯜⸛㗗 Which is your English level? ⇅乏 Beginner level/ᷕ乏 Intermediate level/檀乏 Advanced level

䫔Ḵ悐↮ Section Two 実Ἀ⛐ A炻B ␴ C ᷕ徱㊑Ἀ孌ᷢ㚨⎰循䘬ᶨ᷒ˤ Please choose the most suitable one from A, B and C. 1.

2.

3.

4.

ᶲ宦㖞炻ㆹ䘬侩ⶰ In class, my teacher speak ( ) A. ℐ悥宜㯱宕 speak Chinese only B. 宜㯱宕␴ᶨṃ劙宕 speak Chinese and some English C. 宜㯱宕␴ᶨṃㆹ䘬㭵宕 speak Chinese and my mother tongue ㆹⶴ㛃ㆹ䘬侩ⶰ⎗ẍ I hope my teacher could ( ) A. ℐ悥宜㯱宕 speak Chinese only B. 宜㯱宕␴ᶨṃ劙宕 speak Chinese and some English C. 宜㯱宕␴ᶨṃㆹ䘬㭵宕 speak Chinese and my mother tongue ᶲ宦㖞炻ㆹ In class, I ( ) A. ℐ悥宜㯱宕 speak Chinese only B. 宜㯱宕␴ᶨṃ劙宕 speak Chinese and some English C. 宜㯱宕␴ᶨṃㆹ䘬㭵宕 speak Chinese and my mother tongue ㆹⶴ㛃ㆹ⎗ẍ I hope I could ( ) A. ℐ悥宜㯱宕 speak Chinese only B. 宜㯱宕␴ᶨṃ劙宕 speak Chinese and some English C. 宜㯱宕␴ᶨṃㆹ䘬㭵宕 speak Chinese and my mother tongue

266 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

実Ἀ⛐ 1 军 5 ᷕ徱㊑Ἀ孌ᷢ㚨⎰循䘬ᶨ᷒ˤ Please choose the most suitable one from number 1 to 5. ⬴ℐᶵ⎴シ

ᶵ⎴シ

ᷕ䩳

⎴シ

⬴ℐ⎴シ

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither

Agree

Strongly agree

1

2

3

4

5

䫔ᶱ悐↮ Section Three (Part A) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9.

侩ⶰ䓐劙宕妋慲宕㱽 Teachers use English to explain Chinese grammar 侩ⶰ䓐劙宕妋慲䓇孵 Teachers use English to translate new words 侩ⶰ䓐劙宕侣孹宦㔯ℭ⭡ Teachers use English to translate the content of the texts 侩ⶰ䓐劙宕ṳ乵ᷕ⚥㔯⊾ Teachers use English to introduce Chinese culture 侩ⶰ䓐劙宕ⶫ伖ἄ᷂ˣ侣孹㳳樴␴侫孽䘬桀䚖 Teachers use English to explain homework, quizzes and examinations 侩ⶰ䓐劙宕乬乯宦➪㳣≐ Teachers use English to organize classroom activities 侩ⶰ䓐劙宕⚆䫼ㆹ䘬斖桀 Teachers use English to answer my questions ᶲ宦㖞炻侩ⶰ䓐劙宕␴⎴⬎㱇忂 Teachers use English to communicate with students in class ᶳ宦⎶炻侩ⶰ䓐劙宕␴⎴⬎㱇忂 Teachers use English to communicate with students after class

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

䫔ᶱ悐↮ Section Three (Part B) 10.

劙宕ⷖㆹ⬎Ḉ㯱宕宕㱽

267 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

English helps me learn Chinese grammar 劙宕ⷖㆹ⬎Ḉ䓇孵 English helps me learn new words 劙宕ⷖ≑ㆹ⬎Ḉ宦㔯ℭ⭡ English helps me study the content of texts 劙宕ⷖㆹ⬎Ḉᷕ⚥㔯⊾ English helps me understand Chinese culture ㆹ忂彯劙宕Ḯ妋ἄ᷂ˣ㳳樴␴侫孽䘬天㯪ᶶ桀䚖 English helps me understand homework, quizzes and examinations 劙宕ⷖㆹ⍪ᶶ宦➪㳣≐ English helps me participate in classroom activities ㆹ⏔ᶵㅪ㖞Ể䓐劙宕㍸斖 If I don’t understand I will ask questions in English ᶲ宦㖞炻ㆹ䓐劙宕␴⎴⬎㱇忂 I use English to communicate with classmates in class ᶳ宦⎶炻ㆹ䓐劙宕␴侩ⶰ㱇忂 I use English to communicate with my teachers after class

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

䫔⚃悐↮ Section Four 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

ℐ悥宜㯱宕⎗ẍ㍸檀ㆹ䘬㯱宕㯜⸛ Speaking Chinese only makes me study Chinese better ℐ悥宜㯱宕⎗ẍ孑ㆹ⬎⼿㚜⾓ Speaking Chinese only helps my learn faster ㆹ䘬䚖㞯㗗⎗ẍ宜⼿⁷ᷕ⚥Ṣᶨ㟟 My goal is to become a native Chinese speaker ℐ悥宜㯱宕㗗ㆹ⇘ᷕ⚥㜍䘬⍇⚈ Speaking Chinese only is the reason for me to come to China ⛐ᷕ⚥炻ṢẔ悥⎒宜㯱宕 In China, people speak Chinese only ⚈ᷢㆹ㉭⽫侩ⶰ⏔ᶵㅪ⢾宕 I don’t think my teachers understand foreign languages ᶲ宦宜ℐ宜㯱宕炻ㆹ㱉㚱⚘晦 I have no difficulty in speaking Chinese only ᶲ宦宜ℐ宜㯱宕炻ㆹᶵỂ䳏⻈ I don’t feel nervous when speaking Chinese only ᶲ宦宜ℐ宜㯱宕炻ㆹᶵỂ奱⼿䳗

268 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

28.

I don’t feel tired when speaking Chinese only ᶲ宦宜ℐ宜㯱宕炻ㆹḇᶵỂ奱⼿㖈俲 I don’t feel bored when speaking Chinese only

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

䫔Ḽ悐↮ Section Five 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

36.

37. 38.

ㆹ䘬⚥⭞⼰慵奮劙宕⬎Ḉ Learning English very important in my country 劙宕⮡ㆹ㜍宜⼰慵天 English is every important to me ㆹ孌ᷢ劙宕㗗ᶾ䓴忂䓐宕妨 English is the international language ␴㯱宕㭼炻ㆹ宜劙宕㚜㚱冒ᾉ I feel more confident to speak English than Chinese 劙宕⎗ẍⷖ≑ㆹ⬎Ḉ㯱宕 English is helping me learn Chinese ⤪㝄㱉㚱劙宕䘬ⷖ≑炻ㆹᶲ宦Ể⏔ᶵ㖶䘥 Without English, I don’t understand the class well ⤪㝄㱉㚱劙宕䘬ⷖ≑炻ㆹᶲ宦㖞ᶵ傥␴侩ⶰˣ⎴⬎ 㱇忂 Without English, I cannot communicate with my teachers and classmates in class ⤪㝄㱉㚱劙宕䘬ⷖ≑炻ㆹᶳ宦⎶ᶵ傥␴侩ⶰˣ⎴⬎ 㱇忂 Without English, I cannot communicate with my teachers and classmates after class ㆹ⬎Ḉ㯱宕䘬㖞῁炻ᶵỂ 㬊⬎Ḉ劙宕 I shall not stop learning English while I’m studying Chinese in China ㆹᶵ㺉シ侩ⶰ䘬劙宕㯜⸛ I’m not satisfied with my teachers English 䫔ℕ悐↮ Section Six

39. 40.

ㆹỂ䚳㔁㛸ᶲ䘬劙宕 I read the English in textbooks 㔁㛸ᶲ䘬劙宕⎗ẍⷖㆹ⬎Ḉ㯱宕 English in the textbooks is helping me learn Chinese

269 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

41. 42. 43. 44.

ㆹⶴ㛃㔁㛸ᶲ㚱㚜⣂劙宕䘬侣孹 I need more English translations in textbooks ㆹ⎗ẍ䚳ㅪ㔁㛸ᶲ䘬劙宕 I understand well the English in textbooks ㆹ⍹䍘㔁㛸ᶲ䘬劙宕㚱擁宗 I found mistakes of English in textbooks ㆹⶴ㛃㔁㛸䘬劙宕㯜⸛⎗ẍ㍸檀 English in Chinese textbooks should be improved

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

䫔ᶫ悐↮ Section Seven 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

㯱宕␴ㆹ䘬㭵宕朆ⷠᶵ⎴ Chinese language is very different from my mother tongue ᷕ⚥㔯⊾␴ㆹ䘬⚥⭞䘬㔯⊾朆ⷠᶵ⎴ Chinese culture and the culture of my country are very different ⬎Ḉ㯱宕⼰㚱シ⿅ Learning Chinese is fun ⬎Ḉ㯱宕⼰彃劎 Learning Chinese is hard work ㆹ㺉シㆹ䍘⛐䘬㯱宕宦 I’m satisfied with my Chinese class ㆹ╄㫊⛐ᷕ⚥䘬䓇㳣 I enjoy my life in China 䫔‫ޛ‬悐↮ Section Eight

51.

֐䇔Ѫ≹䈝䈮к㘱ᐸ઼ᆖ⭏ᓄ䈕‫ޘ‬䜭䈤≹䈝ˈ䘈ᱟ ⭘аӋ㤡䈝˛Do you think teachers and students should speak Chinese only or use some English in class?

270 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Appendix II: The teacher interview protocol

1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

実斖Ἀ䘬㔁做乷⌮ˤ Tell me about your previous education ἈỂ宜⒒ṃ⢾宕炻䦳⹎⤪ỽ烎 Ἀ⬎Ḉ劙宕䘬乷⌮㗗⾶㟟䘬烎 How many foreign languages do you speak and how well? What about English? Ἀ㗗⏎㚱㴟⢾㔁⬎䘬乷樴ˤ Do you have any experience of teaching Chinese overseas? Ἀ孌ᷢἈ䘬⬎䓇Ể宜劙宕⎿? Do you know how if your students speak English? Ἀ⾶ᷰ䚳⼭⨺ṳ宕䘬斖桀ˤ What do you think of the use of MoI? Ἀ␴Ἀ䘬⎴ḳỂᶵỂἧ䓐劙宕ἄᷢ⨺ṳ宕徃埴㔁⬎? Do you and your colleagues use some English for teaching Chinese? Ἀ孌ᷢ㯱宕宦⸼宍⎒宜㯱宕⎿炻ᷢṨᷰ? Do you support Chinese-only pedagogy in your class and why? Ἀ孌ᷢἧ䓐劙宕ἄᷢ⨺ṳ宕㔁⬎炻㚱Ṩᷰ⤥⢬? If you find ELF pedagogy useful, please give examples. Ἀ孌ᷢἧ䓐劙宕ἄᷢ⨺ṳ宕㔁⬎炻㚱Ṩᷰ斖桀? If you find ELF pedagogy problematic, why and give examples. Ἀ孌ᷢ㗗Ṩᷰ⼙⑵ḮἈ⮡劙宕䘬⾩⹎? What do you think are the factors influencing your attitudes? Ἀ孌ᷢ劙宕⮡Ἀ㜍宜慵天⎿? Do you think English is important to you? Ἀ孌ᷢ劙宕⮡Ἀ䘬俴᷂⍹⯽慵天⎿? What does English mean to your career development? Ἀ孌ᷢ㯱宕㔁ⶰ⸼宍㗗⍴宕䘬⎿烎

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Do you think CLF teachers are bilingual? 14. Ἀ孌ᷢ劙宕⮡㯱宕侩ⶰ㜍宜㚱Ṩᷰシᷱ? What does English mean to you as a Chinese teacher? 15. Ἀ孌ᷢἈ䍘⛐䘬劙宕䦳⹎㗗⏎嵛⣇㔁⬎ἧ䓐? Do you think your English competence is enough for being a Chinese teacher? 16. Ἀ孌ᷢ⮡⢾㯱宕㔁ⶰ㗗⍴宕ㆾ侭⣂宕䘬⎿? Do you think Chinese teachers are bilinguals or multilinguals? 17. Ἀ孌ᷢἧ䓐劙宕ἄᷢ⨺ṳ宕徃埴㯱宕㔁⬎⮮㜍ỂᶵỂ㚱⍹ ⯽? Do you think ELF pedagogy will become important in future?

272 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Appendix III: Transcription conventions

T:

teacher

S:

student

Ss:

students

:

English gloss of Chinese original

(2.0):

pause in seconds

^:

rising intonation, cue

Capitalized: researcher’s comment Xxx:

not audible

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

Appendix IV: Textbooks reviewed

Year

Title

Volume

Editor

Publisher

1.

1958

1–2

2.

1980

总ㆧ Deng Yi 㛶➡⃫ Li Peiyuan

3.

1981

ᰦԓࠪ⡸⽮ Time Press ⢾㔯↢䇰䣦 Foreign Languages Press ⓮≉⌘Ḏ椮 Commercial Press

4.

1982

㯱宕㔁䥹Ḏ Chinese Textbook ➢䟨㯱宕宦㛔 Elementary Chinese Readers ⭆䓐㯱宕宦㛔 Practical Chinese Reader Colloquial Chinese

5.

1989

1–4

6.

1996

7.

1996

㯱宕⇅乏㔁䦳 Elementary Chinese Course 㕘亾㯱宕㔁䦳 A New Chinese Course Book 忇ㆸ㯱宕⇅乏㔁䦳 Intensive Chinese Primary Tutorial Textbooks

8.

1997

1–2

9.

1997

ᷕ㔯⏔宜宣⅁ Integrated Chinese (Level 1) 崘徃ᷕ⚥炼⇅乏㛔 Meeting China

10.

1999

㕘㯱宕㔁䦳 A New Perspective

1–2

1–2

1–2

⇀䎋 Liu Xun

1

Ping-cheng Tung and D.E. Pollard 总ㆧ Deng Yi

1

1

1

湬㓧㼬 Huang Zhengcheng ⊿Ṕ宕妨⣏ ⬎忇ㆸ⬎昊 The College of Intensive Chinese Training ⇀㚰⋶ Liu Yuehua 㜐⽟Ⲙ Yang Defeng 㛶㗻䏒 Li Xiaoqi

Routledge & Kegan Paul ⊿Ṕ⣏⬎↢䇰䣦 Peking University Press ⓮≉⌘Ḏ椮 Commercial Press ⊿Ṕ宕妨⣏⬎↢ 䇰䣦 Beijing Language University Press Cheng & Tsui Company ⊿Ṕ⣏⬎↢䇰䣦 Beijing University Press ⊿Ṕ⣏⬎↢䇰䣦 Beijing University Press

Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)

11.

1999

㯱宕Ể宅 301 ⎍ 301 Chinese

1

⹟䌱⋶ Kang Yuhua

12.

1999

1–6

㜐⭬㳚 Yang Jizhou

13.

1999

1

Kan Qian

Routledge

14.

2002

⮡⢾㯱宕㛔䥹䲣↿ 㔁㛸烉㯱宕㔁䦳 Undergraduate Textbook Series: Chinese Course Colloquial Chinese: The complete course for beginners 㕘⭆䓐㯱宕宦㛔 New Practical Chinese Reader

1–2

⇀䎋 Liu Xun

15.

2003

1

16.

2004

⏜ᷕệ Wu Zhongwei 㛶㗻䏒 Li Xiaoqi

17.

2010

⻻ẋᷕ㔯 Contemporary Chinese ⌂晭㯱宕 ⇅乏崟㬍䭯 Boya Chinese: Elementary The Routledge Course of Mandarin Chinese

⊿Ṕ宕妨⣏⬎↢ 䇰䣦 Beijing Language University Press ⋶宕㔁⬎↢䇰䣦 Sinolingua

18.

2011

Discover China

1–2

1–4

1

Claudia Ross, Baozhang He, PeiChia Chen and Meng Yeh Ding Anqi

⊿Ṕ宕妨㔯⊾⣏ ⬎↢䇰䣦 Beijing Language University Press ⊿Ṕ宕妨㔯⊾⣏ ⬎↢䇰䣦 Beijing Language University Press

⊿Ṕ⣏⬎↢䇰䣦 Beijing University Press Routledge

McMillan

276 Danping Wang - 978-3-0351-0656-5 Downloaded from PubFactory at 04/18/2020 04:57:49AM via University of Sydney (CEIRC)