Language attitudes and linguistic features in the 'China English' debate

In this paper we shall first try to define the term "China English" (with our own definition of this term deliberated in the "Discussion" section) as a performance variety in the larger conceptualization of World Englishes. Following that, we will adduce some linguistic features...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inWorld Englishes Vol. 28; no. 1; pp. 70 - 89
Main Authors HE, DEYUAN, LI, DAVID C. S.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.03.2009
Blackwell Publishing
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:In this paper we shall first try to define the term "China English" (with our own definition of this term deliberated in the "Discussion" section) as a performance variety in the larger conceptualization of World Englishes. Following that, we will adduce some linguistic features of "China English" from the relevant literature at four levels (phonology, lexis, syntax, and discourse pragmatics) and discuss the arguments in favor of developing localized pedagogic models in Expanding Circle countries such as China. Then we will report on the findings of our research project: college teachers' and students' perceptions of the ideal pedagogic model of college English in mainland China--"China English" as opposed to a native-speaker-based standard. Our findings suggest that the preferred teaching model of college English in mainland Chinese classrooms is a standard variety of English (e.g. "General American" or "Received Pronunciation") supplemented with salient, well-codified, and properly implemented features of "China English". The research design and overall findings will be discussed in light of a systematic comparison and contrast with those in a similar survey conducted with mainland Chinese university students.
Bibliography:In their article in World Englishes, Kirkpatrick and Xu (2002: 277) said: 'It will be interesting to repeat this study with a comparable cohort of students in future, perhaps in five years' time.' This study is a response to their call for more research in this area. We are grateful to George Yan and Candace Zhang for their precious comments on our earlier draft, and for the valuable comments from the reviewers and WE editors. We are responsible for all remaining inadequacies of this paper.
ark:/67375/WNG-C9LPQNJW-3
istex:EF3B844B045AD2071C505B78F6E8F2B38B895CAF
ArticleID:WENG1570
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0883-2919
1467-971X
DOI:10.1111/j.1467-971X.2008.01570.x