Abstract
The spread of English around the world provides an ideal focus for the study of glocalization. Focusing on the glocalization of English as it has spread in the context of Mainland China, this article examines the nature and impact of the social transformations that have taken place as a result of the global expansion of English and how English has been glocalized in the ecology of Mainland China. The article analyzes the appropriation, adaptation, and differentiation of English in Mainland China from a sociolinguistic point of view.
Introduction
The December 20, 2001 edition of the Economist contained a column entitled “The triumph of English: A world empire by other means.” The opening paragraph of this column reads as follows:
IT IS everywhere. Some 380m people speak it as their first language and perhaps two-thirds as many again as their second. A billion are learning it, about a third of the world’s population are in some sense exposed to it and by 2050, it is predicted, half the world will be more or less proficient in it. It is the language of globalisation—of international business, politics and diplomacy. It is the language of computers and the Internet. You’ll see it on posters in Côte d’Ivoire, you’ll hear it in pop songs in Tokyo, you’ll read it in official documents in Phnom Penh. Deutsche Welle broadcasts in it. Bjork, an Icelander, sings in it. French business schools teach in it. It is the medium of expression in cabinet meetings in Bolivia. Truly, the tongue spoken back in the 1300s only by the “low people” of England, as Robert of Gloucester put it at the time, has come a long way. It is now the global language.
Some 12 years later, there is an extensive and expanding literature on the global spread of English, World Englishes, English as an international language, Asian Englishes and many related topics and issues. Although English has not (and may never) become “the global language” of humanity, English is spreading rapidly in most parts of the world due largely to its increasing use in international business, politics and intercultural communications and its use as an international lingua franca “between persons who share neither a common native tongue, nor a common (national) culture, and for whom English is the chosen foreign language” (Firth, 1996, p. 240).
Since the 1990s, it has become customary to depict both the spread of English throughout the world and the varieties of existing World Englishes in terms of a series of three concentric circles (Kachru, 1992) as illustrated in Figure 1. The inner circle represents the countries where English is the first language of the majority of the population, for example, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States, etc. The second or outer circle represents the territories where English has become an official (institutionalized) language in a multilingual society, for example, India, the Philippines, Singapore, etc. The third and expanding circle represents the countries where English is being learned as a foreign language for the purposes of international communication, for example, China, Japan, Korea, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, etc.
Source: Kachru (1992).
The position of the different varieties of English in these circles represents the historical spread of English throughout the world. The inner circle represents the first wave of expansion from England to its first settler colonies in North America and Oceania, the outer circle represents the expansion of English to the British and US colonies in Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and the expanding circle represents the more recent expansion of English to countries around the world where it is increasingly being learned as a foreign language. It should be noted that this model presents a simplified illustration of the number and diversity of World Englishes (Kachru, 2005). It also unintentionally suggests that the inner circle Englishes – particularly British and North American Englishes – are the source of correct standards and pronunciation, the best teachers, and the source of the best English-language goods and services (Graddol, 1997, p. 10). We shall see how this view of these Englishes manifests itself in China.
While the triumphalist Economist column of 2001 on the so-called world empire of English makes no mention of English in Mainland China, today there is a flourishing body of literature on English in China, which is arguably the country with the largest number of people in the world learning English. This article seeks to contribute to this body of knowledge. It examines the nature and implications of the widespread and increasing use of English in Mainland China. It also contributes to the extensive literature on globalization, and particularly to the literature on glocalization. The conceptual paradigm of glocalization is used in this article to analyze the appropriation, adaptation, and differentiation of English in Mainland China and to assess the impact of English on Chinese society.
The Glocalization of English
Glocalization is an amalgam formed by merging the terms “globalization” and “localization.” Most scholars who use this term see globalization and localization as correlated processes of social transformation that evolve together through a relationship of dynamic interaction. In this paradigm of the complex reality of transnational social transformations, each of these processes is conceptualized as acting upon and modifying the other. The correlated and coevolutionary process of interaction between what is conventionally referred to as globalization and localization produces what is termed glocalization. The work of the well-known sociologist Roland Robertson (1992, 1994, 1995, 2001a, 2001b, 2009; Robertson & White, 2003) has done the most to develop and popularize this particular paradigm of the transnational social transformations that are now regularly taking place around the globe.
In this paradigm, social phenomena such as English that originate in some location(s) of the world become global (globalize) through expansion to an increasing number of other locations around the world, where they may take root through imposition and/or adoption and become locally differentiated (localized). In this paradigm the local variations of the globalizing phenomena are always a mixture or amalgam produced by the dynamic interaction (glocalization) that takes place between the original global phenomena and the local conditions these phenomena encounter.
Viewed from this conceptual perspective, the globalization of social phenomena such as English always takes place through glocalization, which involves the interaction between the expanding global phenomena and the diversity of local conditions they encounter. Glocalization produces local variations of the original phenomena. These variations in turn modify the original global phenomena through their feedback interaction with them. We can see that this has happened with the global spread of English. As English has spread to other locations around the planet, it has undergone glocalization and new varieties of English have been created by this process. These variations are changing the nature of English as well as the sociolinguistic ecologies in which they are developing (Crystal, 2003).
Thus, globalizing phenomena are modified by the varying local conditions they encounter, and these conditions become the ecology in which new variations of these phenomena are spawned and evolve. We shall see how this is happening in China as a result of the spread of English to China and its glocalization there.
Glocalization does not occur in those instances where the expansion of phenomena from one part of the world to other parts of the world is effectively opposed, blocked, and/or fail for one reason or another to take root and develop (localize). It occurs only when the global phenomena adapt, fuse, merge, and blend with the local conditions they encounter. In this process, neither the transplanted global phenomena nor the local ecology remains the same. Both are modified to some extent. This is happening in China with the spread of English. English is adapting to the local sociolinguistic ecology in China and this ecology is being modified as a result.
The spread of English around the world provides an excellent case for the study of glocalization. By focusing on the glocalization of English as it has spread to societies such as China, we can appreciate and more accurately comprehend the nature and the impact of the social transformations that take place as a result of the global expansion of this language. In particular, we can see how local cultures assign their own meanings to globalizing phenomena such as English, and how these phenomena are received, modified, appropriated, and differentiated in accordance with local needs, local values, and the local social structure. At the same time, we can also perceive how these globalizing phenomena modify local needs, values, and social structure through their adaptation and acculturation to these local conditions. We see the unintended consequences of glocalization and the hybridity that results from the mixing and blending of global phenomena and local conditions. The glocalization of English in China has produced unintended consequences.
This conceptual paradigm makes it possible to gain much more insight into contemporary social reality than the stereotypical globalization paradigm which provides a reified model of homogenizing, unilateral, unconditional imposition and/or undifferentiated adoption of globalizing phenomena (Khondker, 2004). The conventional globalization paradigm is biased in favor of a macro analysis of transnational social transformations and is not well suited to examining transnational social transformation at the micro level – on the ground as it were – or the relationship between macro phenomena and micro conditions (Harris, 2000). The concept of glocalization, on the other hand, offers a conceptual paradigm that facilitates the analysis of the relationship between macro (global) phenomena and micro (local) phenomena (Robertson, 1994).
The Glocalization of English in China: More Appropriation than Adaptation
The so-called globalization of English (Crystal, 2003) generally refers to the spread of English around the world during the last 200 years, but English has a long history in China dating back to the first contacts between English and Chinese speakers in the seventeenth century (Bolton, 2003). Over the last three and a half centuries the impact of English on Chinese society has varied considerably. It has increased as well as decreased in response to local conditions in China and the evolution of the international environment, particularly the expanding international economic, political, and cultural influence of the English-speaking countries. Viewed in this historical and international context, the expanding economic, political, and cultural hegemony of the English-speaking countries, and in particular the United States since the end of the Second World War, has had an unprecedented impact on China.
During the last two decades, the influence of English in China has greatly accelerated due to the increasing integration of China into the global economic and political system and the rising popular demand for English among the Chinese population. To quote the coeditors of a recent issue of the international journal English Today: “the current popularity of English in China is unprecedented, and has been fueled by the recent political and social development of Chinese society” (Bolton & Graddol, 2012, p. 2).
Like most of the countries in Asia, China has embraced English as the language of global commerce and international communications and the Chinese government has made it a compulsory subject of study at all levels of the educational system. In this context, as both foreign and Chinese observers have noted, the demand for learning English in China has exploded because it is increasingly seen as an important asset to both educational and economic achievement. This is one of the more notable effects of the glocalization of English in China over the last three decades.
As Schneider (2011, pp. 136–137) has recently written: “English is spreading vigorously everywhere, and the desire to acquire some competence and fluency in it, if only for the purpose of international interaction in the domains of business and technology, unites many countries on the continent [of Asia].” Schneider also notes that because English is required for entrance to the universities in China, and it is a prerequisite for many attractive civil service posts, “the demand for the language is immense.” He further states that “the globalization of China’s economy and the role of English as the door to improvement and wealth play major roles in the language’s attraction.”
Local observers in China such as Wang (2008) at Beijing Foreign Studies University have also observed the nature and effects of the increasing demand for English in China. Wang has observed the following:
As an international language, English empowers individuals with the skills that are absolutely essential in the pursuit of a college education at home, education opportunities abroad, as well as career development and job promotion. Besides, speaking English projects a very positive image to the public as being well-groomed, informed, open-minded and pro-West. Even state leaders of the country try to woo their foreign counterparts by breaking into English sometimes when they meet on public occasions. Increasingly, there are needs arising from more practical considerations as well, with China becoming irreversibly more interwoven into the world market, for instance, communicating with people from other countries at work, operating their own business globally, or simply updating themselves on current affairs through the Internet and other channels of the media in this age of information explosion.
Observations such as these reveal the meaning assigned to English by many members of the Chinese population and we can see how the perception of the instrumental value of English has affected individual motivations and fueled the expanding social demand for learning and using English in contemporary Mainland China. We see how the global influence of English has been perceived in local terms and how local needs and values have been affected.
It is interesting to note that Wang has applied the concentric circles conceptualization of the expansion of English to the linguistic reality of contemporary China. According to Wang (2008, p. 32.1):
This notion can be extended and adapted to describe the situation concerning the use of English and other foreign languages in China, with the “Inner Circle” (IC) referring to situations where only Chinese is used for communication among those who speak the language; the “Outer Circle” (OC) to situations where China is dealing with other non-English speaking countries on a bilateral basis and where the language of that country is used; and the “Expanding Circle” (EC) to situations where English is used in dealing with people who are native speakers of English or who speak English as their second or foreign language. In the latter case, English serves as a lingua franca among non-native speakers of English.
Wang uses his adaptation of the concentric circles model to emphasize the fact that “China remains basically a Chinese-speaking society: that is to say that when they are interacting among themselves, Chinese is used to the exclusion of English and other foreign languages.” The inner circle in his concentric circles analogy accurately represents this situation in China today. Thus, it is important to note that English has not been adopted by the general population as an intra-national language. In other words, its impact has been limited to the expanding number of situations “where English is used in dealing with people who are native speakers of English or who speak English as their second or foreign language” in which case English is used as a lingua franca to communicate with them.
Wang’s outer circle calls our attention to the fact that there are other foreign languages taught and used in China besides English. In fact, as Wang notes, the Chinese government has a policy of encouraging the use of native languages in China’s bilateral relations with people from other countries around the world, and many of these languages (for example, Spanish, French, Russian, Arabic, Japanese, etc.) are taught in special schools at the secondary and university levels, where there are programs in over 50 different languages. Because of this situation, he also notes that when the 2008 Summer Olympic Games were held in Beijing there were Chinese volunteers who spoke 48 foreign languages.
As Wang’s observations reveal, the spread of English in China (his expanding circle) has not only allowed Chinese users of English to gain increasing access to the English-speaking world, it has also facilitated Chinese interactions with people in other parts of the world who speak English as a second or foreign language. In this way, it serves as a useful international lingua franca. However, he laments the fact that the dominant position of English has had the effect of marginalizing the learning and use of other foreign languages in China (one of the unintended consequences of the enthusiastic appropriation of English and the importance given to it in the educational system).
According to one relatively recent estimate (Bolton, 2008a, p. 3), English is now being learned and used by more than 800 million multilinguals in Asia. A good case can be made that the largest number of Asians who are learning/using English are in Mainland China, where recent estimates indicate that nearly 400 million people (Wei & Su, 2012) or about one-third of the country’s population of 1.3 billion people are learning and/or using English. Since 2001, English has become a compulsory subject at the primary level of the educational system in addition to the secondary and tertiary levels where it was already compulsory. And outside the formal educational system, a two-billion dollars industry composed of some 30,000 organizations has emerged to provide Chinese adults and their children with various types of English language instruction, English learning materials and English test preparation services (Thorniley, 2010).
As any astute sociolinguist can observe (Cole, 2007), the motives most people have for learning English are for the most part based upon an instrumental and functionalist logic (Crystal, 2003, p. 24), in which English is assumed to offer largely economic and social benefits to those who learn and use it. Its instrumental value is strengthened by the government’s national proficiency examination in English, which must be passed by all those who wish to gain entry into the country’s universities. In addition, English is often a requirement for many well paid and high status positions in the government, the large state enterprises as well as most of the transnational corporations operating in China. Thus, the glocalization of English in China is being driven to a considerable extent by the instrumental and functionalist logic which motivates most Chinese who want to learn and use it. It is fulfilling local needs and has been appropriated for this purpose.
One of the most important local conditions affecting the development of English in Mainland China is the competency and proficiency of the large number of teachers who are teaching English. While most of the teachers are Chinese there are also a large number of so-called native speaker teachers who have come to China from the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, etc. Questions have been raised about their lack of training and teaching competency as well as the English proficiency of the Chinese English teachers, most of whom have never visited an English-speaking country (He & Miller, 2011, pp. 429–430). The effects of both these factors on the relatively low English proficiency of Chinese learners of English is an issue of considerable concern and debate (see Figure 2).
Source: Education First (2012).
Education First’s recent international survey of the English proficiency level of people in China and 53 other countries and territories ranked the Chinese participants as 36th in English proficiency in comparison with the participants from the other countries – countries where English is not the first language of the population (Education First, 2012). Between 2009 and 2011, Education First surveyed 1.7 million people in these 54 countries. The 11 highest countries in terms of the English proficiency of their participants in the survey are all European with Sweden at the top.
Note that the proficiency level of people in China was the second-lowest in Asia. Thailand was the only Asian country with a lower proficiency rating – much lower with a ranking of 53. With regard to China, the survey report states:
China is attempting a remarkable linguistic feat. It is at once pushing its citizens towards Mandarin as a shared national language and ramping up English training to reap the full economic benefit of its current global position. More people are learning English in China than in any other country. 100,000 native English speakers are currently teaching there. The EF EPI score shows that China still has a long way to go before it can consider itself adequately proficient in English. But the government has shown drive both in training children via the public schools and in retraining adults—particularly those in the public sector. These efforts are already having measurable results among professionals. Tests administered to working adults in China show they have a large advantage in English proficiency over the population as a whole. (Education First, 2012, pp. 28–29)
The report indicates that compared with other countries, like Singapore and India, China lacks an environment where people can practice English. Most Chinese students study English to pass tests which emphasize reading and writing rather than listening and speaking English. The dean of the School of Foreign Languages at Peking University, Zhaoxiang Cheng, was asked to comment on this report and he said: “Especially in the Chinese mainland, English is still rarely used in our daily life…Also, in many other non-English-speaking countries, most teachers giving English lessons in universities are from English-speaking countries, whereas in China, English lessons in universities are still taught by Chinese” (quoted in Zhang, 2012). Cheng said China needed to improve the opportunities for practicing English and the methods of teaching English.
Throughout China (including the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau) there is a pronounced preference for teaching and learning “standard” British and North American English, and most learners want to learn to speak like native-speakers from the UK and the US. This is reflected in the teaching of English at all levels of the educational system as well as in attitudinal surveys of English teachers and students. A recent survey by He and Miller (2011) revealed that a large proportion of the Chinese university students in the survey: (a) thought most of their textbooks were in British and American English, (b) indicated they had a preference for learning British and American English, and (c) wanted to speak like native speakers of English (see Table 1). These preferences suggest that the glocalization of English in China has not produced any popular support for “nativizing’” English. On the contrary, it appears that the norms of British and American English have been largely accepted by both local English teachers and learners.
English Teacher Preference: The Case of China’s Non-English-major Students
Source: He and Miller (2011, p. 433).
Notes: a1: strongly disagree; 2: disagree; 3: no opinion or don’t know; 4: agree; 5: strongly agree.
bThe percentage has been rounded off to one decimal place.
cThe mean has been rounded off to two decimal places.
The variations of English present in China can be differentiated along a continuum of acceptability and status. As already mentioned, standard native-speaker English variations are at the highest end of this continuum. They have the most acceptability and status. Conversely, Chinese Pidgin English is at the lowest end of the continuum. It originated in the eighteenth century but the stigma it acquired in the past has carried over today to the most localized existing variation of English, which is called Chinglish. This variation is a mixture of Chinese and English that is generally considered to be “bad” or “incorrect” English with too much interference from Chinese. It is often characterized by embarrassingly outrageous mistranslations of Chinese into English on some public signs, restaurant menus, product instructions, etc. (more will be said about this later).
The next local variation of English on the lower end of the continuum is referred to as Chinese English. This term has been used as a neutral descriptive label by some sociolinguists to describe the local variation(s) of English spoken by many Chinese who have learned or are learning English in China. However, this local variation of English has been criticized for being “learner” or “beginners’” English. It has almost as low acceptability and status as Chinglish, with which it is sometimes confused. Note the large percentage of respondents in the survey (reported in Table 1) who indicated they do not want to be identified as Chinese when they speak English.
Highest on the continuum of the more local variations of English – at least among some Chinese scholars and their students – is what is called China English or Zhongguo Yingyu. This is an idealized variety of Chinese English. It has been proposed as a unique variety that is based on the standards of native speaker English, but with enough local variation to express Chinese culture and ways of thinking while remaining suitable for international communication. Most English teachers, learners, and users throughout China have not heard about this largely idealized variety of China English and/or have not adopted it (He & Miller, 2011). Moreover, the Chinese authorities have shown no inclination to recognize or sanction it (more will be said about this later).
Note that the glocalization of English in China has produced a continuum of variations rather than a single variant of this global phenomenon, and the more localized or nativized variations (Chinglish and Chinese English) have a low level of acceptability and social status. In fact, the imported standard versions of English – British and North American Englishes – have the most acceptability and status. At least in this respect, it appears that the globalizing phenomenon – English – has not been modified to any significant extent (yet) by the local conditions in China. Most Chinese teachers and learners have adopted British and North American English standards without any reservations or desire to replace them with more localized standards, which have much less acceptability (He & Miller, 2011).
For this reason, the English being taught, learned, and used in Mainland China is best classified as a “performance variety” and not an “institutionalized variety.” The classification of institutionalized varieties of English (Kachru, 1985; Mufwene, 1994) refers to nativized varieties of English that have an official status in multilingual societies where they are used on a regular basis among members of the local population. On the other hand, the classification of performance varieties of English refers to varieties of English that are being learned as a foreign language and used primarily for international communication purposes. Performance varieties are not used locally by a significant number of members of the population and they are not institutionalized as an official language. In Mainland China, English is not used as a local language among the population to any significant extent and it is not an official language. In contrast, English is used as an institutionalized variety in Hong Kong, India and Singapore where it is an official language and it is used locally among a sizeable proportion of the population.
The glocalization of English in these locations has led to more differentiation and a more localized/nativized variation of English than the glocalization of English in China. There has been less modification, differentiation, and adaptation of English in China to the local linguistic ecology. The mixture of global and local elements in the glocalization of English in China is one in which the global influence is quite strong. English has been appropriated by the Chinese to serve local needs and the influence of Mainland China’s linguistic ecology has produced some hybrid variations such as Chinglish and Chinese learner English, but the preferred and most acceptable variations are the standard British and American Englishes.
Because China has become an important global player in international commerce and politics, English is perceived by China’s political leaders and many members of its population as an important tool of international communications for achieving the country’s national interests and improving the prosperity of its people (Lam, 2005). This is the primary political reason that English has been made a compulsory subject in the educational system and one of the main reasons why the Ministry of Education has continued to issue guidelines for English education in China that emphasize that English is to be taught as a foreign language and based on the standards of the English-speaking countries (as opposed to Chinese standards; Pan, 2011).
Most outsiders do not realize just how culturally and linguistically diverse the population of China is and that the increasing impact of English on this population has added to the complexity of its language policies; and perhaps also to the growing inequality between both the urban and rural populations and between the country’s majority and minority language communities. The central government officially recognizes 56 ethnic minorities and in the 1990s it reported that there were over 80 different languages that were used among these minorities, but more recent research indicates that there are more than 130 languages in China (People’s Daily, 2011). The total minority population is between 8 and 9 percent of the population. Furthermore, among the majority language group, the Han Chinese, there are two main groups of dialects (northern and southern) which contain seven subgroups of northern dialects and six subgroups of southern dialects (Lam, 2005).
Not only are English loan words and brand names becoming an important part of the lexicon of Chinese and its major dialects, the resources and attention that are being dedicated to the teaching and learning of English are of some concern to those who are afraid that many of the languages of the ethnic minorities are now being or will be neglected in favor of English and the official national language, Putonghua (Mandarin), which along with English is taught in the primary and secondary schools (Feng, 2007; Lam, 2005). Putonghua functions as a lingua franca in those parts of the country where the mixture of dialects and minority languages are not mutually intelligible.
Most minority students do not learn English in primary school (Lam, 2005). They go through a transitional bilingual education in primary school during which time their native languages are used as a medium of instruction along with a local Chinese dialect before they switch to Putonghua (ibid.). If they make it to the university level, there is some evidence that their performance in English is generally equal to that of the Han majority learners even though they do not have as much learning or access to English at the primary level and often at the secondary level as well (ibid.). There is also some evidence that suggests they are generally eager to learn Putonghua and English since the use of their own languages and dialects are not officially discouraged or threatened by the government and they see that learning Putonghua and English are necessary to gain access to higher education and good jobs.
However, because these two languages play such prominent roles in China’s educational system, there is a concern that some minority learners may experience the gradual loss of their languages. According to Lam (2005, p. 172):
One can almost work out a survival index for the minority languages taking into account the following variables: the size of the population, the stability of the script and the religious affiliation or other cultural connections with other parts of the world. The larger the population, the more stable the script, the stronger the religious or cultural affiliation with other populations in other parts of the world, the less likely it is that a minority language in China will be lost. This is because the larger the population and the more stable the writing script, the more likely it is that some education in the minority language can be pursued.
Here we see a possible additional unintended consequence of the widespread influence of English in China. Lam suggests that as more resources, time, and attention are given to the teaching and learning of English, there may be less resources, time, and attention given to minority languages.
On the basis of suggestive survey data (Lam, 2005, Chapters 4 and 5), it appears that northern dialect speakers have a somewhat easier time mastering English and other foreign languages due to a variety of socio-linguistic factors that lead them to be more open to learning foreign languages and because they have to spend less time learning Putonghua, which gives them more time and energy to learn foreign languages. Learners who grow up in the coastal area of China also seem to have an advantage because of their greater exposure to international interaction and more opportunities to use English and other foreign languages after they complete their learning.
As already mentioned, the primary purposes or functions for which English is being taught in Mainland China are associated with its status as the predominant language of international commerce, science, and communications in the current era. In this regard, it is frequently taught for special purposes such as international business, scientific, technical, medical, tourism, aviation, and maritime affairs. The country’s leaders want English to be used in these fields to keep China at the forefront of all these important fields of knowledge and technology and to convey China’s rich cultural heritage, values, political ideals, ways of thinking as well as national and international interests to the rest of the world. For this reason, English is increasingly being used as a medium of instruction in universities that teach subjects in these fields. Bolton and Graddol (2012, p. 6) have also reported on the large numbers of Chinese students who are going to the United States, Britain, and Australia to take degree-level or postgraduate courses in a wide range of subjects. They cite a 2010 China Daily article that estimated that around 230,000 Chinese students were studying abroad and that by 2014 the number was expected to increase to around 600,000.
Since 2001, the government has mandated that English be taught as a compulsory foreign language at the primary school level starting at Primary Grade 3. This policy of expanding the teaching and learning of English to the primary level was prompted by increasing public demand for English to be taught at this level and the government’s determination to improve the relatively poor English proficiency of English learners graduating from the secondary schools (Hu, 2005; Lam, 2005; Pan, 2011). Bolton and Graddol (2012, p. 5) report that:
On the mainland, one of the fastest growing sectors in private education is that of kindergartens which proclaim the ability to teach English to Chinese toddlers. All of this reflects the way that English language has become one of the key strands of modern Chinese education, alongside literacy in Chinese and math. The private sector in education has grown very fast and exists at all levels of study. In addition to maids, nurseries and kindergartens, there exist many chains of language schools and tutorial colleges at which children and older students supplement their school study…The national policy of beginning the teaching of English in mid-primary school thus greatly underestimates the likely number of children learning English in China, and the number of hours that are devoted to this endeavor.
China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, its successful bid to host the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, the selection of Shanghai for the 2010 World Expo and the country’s growing international economic and political influence have all contributed to the increased emphasis on English in the educational system. As noted by various scholars, English language education in China is closely linked to the country’s foreign policy and international goals (Hu, 2005; Lam, 2005; Pan, 2011). Thus, English has been increasingly appropriated by the Chinese government and the population, especially the new middle class, to serve both national interests as well as individual goals. In this regard, the glocalization of English in China is clearly serving local needs, local values, and the local (national) social structure.
However, at the primary education level, research indicates that only about 5 percent of total classroom time is devoted to learning English and there is considerable variation in the delivery of the English primary school curriculum between the rural and urban areas as well as between the towns and cities in the interior and the coastal areas as well as between the minority ethnic areas and the Han majority areas of the country. There is also a shortage of qualified teachers, particularly in the rural areas, and insufficient teaching and learning resources and there are concerns about these conditions contributing to unequal access to English language education and the increasing social inequality in China since English is widely viewed as a passport to higher education, good jobs, and other personal opportunities (Lam, 2005; Pan, 2011).
China English: A Glocalization Stepchild
The term “China English” was first introduced by Ge (1980) in the early 1980s, and it has been the subject of debate in Chinese journals for more than 30 years (see Du & Jiang, 2001; He & Li, 2009; Kirkpatrick & Xu, 2002). It has been defined as “the English used by the Chinese people in China, being based on standard English and having Chinese characteristics” (Wang, 1991). This definition was supplemented by Li (1993), who added that the Chinese characteristics of China English are in its lexicon, sentence structure, and discourse style although he claimed that it does not have any native language (Chinese) interference. According to Li (1993, p. 18):
China English has normative English as its core but with Chinese characteristics in lexicon, syntax and discourse, and it is employed to express China-specific things through the means of transliteration, borrowing and semantic regeneration but without interference from the Chinese language.
Li distinguished China English from Chinese English and Chinglish. He said the latter is generally associated with unintelligibility and “bad English,” while Chinese English is considered “beginners English” with an undesirable amount of interference from the Chinese language.
Cheng (1992) studied the wide use of “sinicized” English in China during the 1980s and early 1990s, and according to his findings (p. 169): “The distinct Chinese cultural element in English is shown mostly in idioms, phrases coined during political movements, lexical connotations and semantic shifts, and the style of discourse.” However, as Pride and Liu (1988) observed in the late 1980s, these unique features have generally been considered as learning deficiencies or mistakes rather than linguistic innovations resulting from the nativization of English in China.
Pride and Liu (1988) described the characteristics of Chinese English in terms of certain distinct elements of pronunciation, vocabulary, and syntax, but they concluded that these characteristics were the product of unfortunate “interference errors transferred from the Chinese language” and due largely to “the lack of exposure to native-spoken English.” In this regard, Cheng also observed that there is no local English-speaking community in China. According to Cheng (1992, p. 163):
There is no English-speaking Chinese community; nor does English serve as an interlanguage among the nation’s fifty-six ethnic groups. In this sense, the functions of English are much different in China than in Africa and in South Asia…English is used primarily in international communication, and written English in China appears in publications mainly for international consumption. And since it is used for international communication, an exonormative model is needed.
According to Pride and Liu (1988, p. 63): “since English instruction in China has been following Standard British English as the model, these features [of Chinese English], especially those of pronunciation and syntax, in the eyes of most, if not all, Chinese English teachers, have been considered as interference errors.” Pride and Liu compared the features of English in China with the English in India and Singapore, and concluded: “unlike the situation in Singapore or India, such features, complex and widespread as they appear to be, are not considered to constitute or to be representative of an established variety.”
As mentioned above, localized variations of English in China have been consistently denigrated and discouraged because of their supposed unintelligibility, unacceptability, and their alleged corrupting influence on the teaching and use of “good” or standard English. This situation is somewhat similar to what Lim (2009) has reported in her research on Singapore, where the government has sought to discourage the use of the nativized Singapore dialect of English called “Singlish” and to promote instead the use of what the government has defined as Standard Singapore English as well as other varieties of “good English” so that Singaporeans can retain their competitive edge in the global economy. And in this regard, Adamson (2004, p. 231) has cogently observed that “China has had a strategy to mitigate undesirable cultural transfer in place since the mid-nineteenth century: a policy of controlled and selective appropriation, to use English for the purposes of state building, while maintaining cultural integrity.” This observation by Adamson is extremely important as it explains clearly and concisely why the glocalization of English in China has not led to the nativization of this language and why local variations such as China English have not found favor with the political authorities. English has been appropriated selectively and used for “state building.” It has also been carefully controlled by the state so that it does not threaten the “the cultural integrity” of China.
For all of the reasons mentioned above, so-called native speaker standards and pedagogical models continue to dominate the English curricula and pedagogy practiced in Mainland China (see Bolton, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2008; Kirkpatrick, 2010; Li, 2007). However, most of the literature on World Englishes and to some extent the literature on second-language acquisition suggest that native speaker pedagogical models that use native speaker standards of English are by their very nature disempowering and inappropriate in the expanding circle of countries such as China where English is being increasingly taught, learned, and used for various purposes. It has been argued in these academic and professional circles that this approach should be replaced with pedagogical models in which the learner’s first language and culture as well as the many varieties of English in the world today are taken into account and treated with equal respect.
Kirkpatrick (2010, pp. 169–190) argues for this approach in his recent book on the use of English as a lingua franca in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). His research on the use of English as a lingua franca (ELF) in the multilingual ASEAN region is the first book length publication on this subject in Asia. Kirkpatrick’s book calls attention to the fact that with the signing of the ASEAN Charter in 2009, English was adopted as the official “working language” of this intergovernmental association. It has also been chosen as the working language of the larger grouping known as ASEAN + 3, which includes the 10 member states of ASEAN plus the People’s Republic of China, Japan, and Korea.
He argues that rather than following the traditional native speaker pedagogical model based on the learning of English as the acquisition of native speaker proficiency, a more contextual and multilingual perspective of language acquisition should be adopted in the teaching of English for multilingual areas of the world such as Asia. The major goal of this multilingual approach, Kirkpatrick says, should be the ability to use English successfully as a lingua franca. However, this reform in educational policy and pedagogy raises the questions asked by Saraceni (2008) regarding how the people involved relate to English, what it represents to them and their identities, their motives for teaching/learning English, and whether the policy makers, educators, and teachers of English are predisposed to adopt or oppose these kinds of pedagogical reforms. So far as Mainland China is concerned, there does not appear to be much interest in teaching or learning English as an international lingua franca. Perhaps this may change as more time goes by and greater awareness of the use of English as an international lingua franca develops among educational officials, teachers, and learners.
Political Conditions affecting the Glocalization of English in China
Since China lost the First Opium War to Britain in the early nineteenth century, China’s political leadership has sponsored the teaching and learning of English in China for the purposes of acquiring Western knowledge to be used in defending the country from foreign aggression and to transform China into a powerful nation with a modern economy, advanced technology, and a strong military (Lam, 2005, p. 71). As Adamson (2004, p. 208) states in his comprehensive history of English education in China:
The principles of curriculum development are those of the Self-Strengtheners in response to Western gunboats: take foreign learning and make it serve China through synthesis. English language teaching with Chinese characteristics is viewed (as is Western learning in general) as a tool that can promote the economic and cultural well-being of the citizens of China, and can enable the country to enjoy international status as a strong, independent nation, rather than one subjugated by foreign powers.
The purposes of English language education in China today continue to be aligned with the country’s political ideology and strategy for economic development and international security. As Adamson has noted earlier, the country’s leaders want English and foreign learning in general to serve China through a “synthesis” with China’s values, goals and contribute to its rise to preeminent economic and political power in the world at large.
Although some scholars contend that the global spread of English contributes to the economic, political, and cultural domination of the US and the UK and represents a form of linguistic imperialism (Crystal, 1997; Pennycook, 1994; Phillipson, 1992), China’s current political leaders and top educational officials emphasize the neutrality and instrumental value of English. In contrast to criticizing English as a tool of Western cultural imperialism, English is presented to the public by China’s political leaders and government officials as a politically and culturally neutral international language that the Chinese people need to use in pursuing the nation’s global economic and political interests. In fact, English has been appropriated as a tool for state-building in China and the country’s English language policies are endowed by the political leaders “with the mission of cultivating patriotism and spreading Chinese culture” around the world (Pan, 2011). English is to be used to communicate Chinese culture and promote China’s political and economic interests around the world.
The government’s policies do not specify the teaching of any particular national variety of English rather they mandate that the English of the “English-speaking countries” should be taught and learned in China. As a result, these policies have the effect of neutralizing the political and cultural identity of English in China. Pan argues that they purposively ignore the development of a Chinese variety of English since this would contradict the political and cultural neutrality that is assigned to English and give it more local cultural and political significance than the government desires (Pan, 2011, p. 254). By characterizing English as neutral tool it can be synthesized, merged, and fused with the policies of state-building, economic development, and the strengthening of China’s international power and status.
In this regard, it is important to note that the Ministry of Education issued new guidelines in 2011 for the curriculum of compulsory education in English, and these new guidelines reaffirm that the mission of English language education in China is to teach English as a foreign language based on the standard English spoken in the English-speaking countries. This is the same terminology that was used in the guidelines issued in 2003. As in the past, there is no mention in these guidelines of China English and of teaching a Chinese variety of English.
Thus, the glocalization of English in China has an important political dimension. The spread of English in China has been subject to the control of the Chinese state and the direction of the political leadership of the country, which have kept it from undermining the cultural integrity of the country and serving as a medium for foreign cultural and political subversion in China. As a result, the glocalization of English in China has involved much more appropriation and control of English by the local political authorities and the population as a whole than it has involved the modification of the local culture and social structure to accommodate the introduction and absorption of this language throughout the society. To a certain extent, English has been compartmentalized in China and its synthesis with the local social structure had been largely confined to the educational system and the economy.
The National Campaign against Chinglish: Reversing Glocalization
With the increasing growth of China’s economic and political power in the world, the Western media have taken a special interest in China. One of the Chinese subjects that has attracted the attention of the Western media is Chinglish, which has gained a great deal of international prominence in recent years. A search of this term on the Internet turns up hundreds of websites and thousands of images of Chinglish signs such as “Slip Carefully” (see Figure 3) and “Deformed Man Toilet.” These images are increasingly popular as a source of derisive humor in the Western media. Apart from the electronic media, a number of essays and books on Chinglish have been published in recent years (Erard, 2008; Harmsen, 2009; Henry, 2010; Mair, 2010; Radtke, 2007, Radtke, 2012; Wang, 2009; Zhang, 2012). They provide a variety of perspectives on the origins, nature, and effects of Chinglish. There are also numerous columns in newspapers, reports in popular magazines, and even a hit Broadway theatrical comedy in the USA entitled Chinglish, which is now on an international tour and will soon be made into a movie.
Source: McKay Savage (London, United Kingdom), 2013.
However, as already indicated, in Mainland China public attitudes toward Chinglish are quite negative, and the Chinese government has made persistent efforts to eliminate so-called Chinglish signs in Beijing, Shanghai, and other major cities in China. The reasons for this national campaign against signs are not only because these so-called Chinglish signs are considered “bad English,” but because they conflict with the image of China, the government, and what Chinese people want to project to international visitors and the world at large.
As part of the national campaign against Chinglish and in preparation for Expo 2010, the municipal government of Shanghai created the Shanghai Commission for the Management of Language Use to remove all inappropriately translated signs from public places throughout the city (Jacobs, 2010, p. A12). With the help of some 600 volunteers, the commission reportedly replaced more than 10,000 public signs and assisted hundreds of restaurants to retranslate their menus. The Shanghai campaign was modeled on a similar effort carried out in Beijing before the 2008 Summer Olympics where some 40,000 signs and over 1,300 restaurant menus were replaced. According to the director general of Beijing’s Foreign Affairs Office: “The purpose of signage is to be useful, not to be amusing” (Jacob, 2010, p. A12). In 2010, as a follow-up to the campaign launched before the 2008 Summer Olympics, the Beijing government launched a plan to encourage people in the city from kindergarten students to bathroom attendants to learn English, and every public servant under the age of 40 with a bachelor’s degree to master a minimum of 1,000 English sentences (Dai Tian, 2010, p. 1). This plan is part of a highly publicized campaign to transform Beijing into a world city.
But while the campaign against the so-called Chinglish signs continues in China, according to the New York Times, the Western aficionados of Chinglish “are wringing their hands in despair” (Jacobs, 2010, p. A12). Alarmed over Chinese efforts to eradicate these signs, some bloggers and journalists have launched a campaign to protect what they call a “cultural heritage” (Zhang, 2008), and maintain the “endangered species of Chinglish in its natural habitat” (Radtke, 2007, p. 1). Indeed, they also acknowledge that they want to preserve these signs as a source of entertainment and humor – at least for Westerners.
Most of these so-called Chinglish signs contain spelling mistakes that look like they are the result of translation software errors, typos, incompetent translators, and lack of adequate proofreading rather than genuine linguistic errors, for example, “Sham Poo” (Radtke, 2007, p. 26), “Caution Dander” (p. 30) and “Unrecycle Rubdish” (p. 62). In these cases it is the poor workmanship of the workers who made the signs or the translation software they used that created these mistakes. Many of the mistakes seem to be one-of-a kind and hardly representative of the English most people in China use either today or when many of the signs were produced. Some of the most outrageous signs are “Deformed Man Toilet” (p. 80), Disability-free Slope (p. 90) and “Dongda Hospital for Anus and Intestine Disease Beijing” (p. 93). These signs are hilarious and/or outrageous not only to English speakers in the West but also to English speakers in China.
The [Blend of Chinese n. and English n. Compare earlier Japlish n., Spanglish n. Compare also Hinglish n.2, Singlish n.2] A mixture of Chinese and English; esp. a variety of English used by speakers of Chinese or in a bilingual Chinese and English context, typically incorporating some Chinese vocabulary or constructions, or English terms specific to a Chinese context.
Note the use of the word “blend” in this definition. The choice of words in this definition is appropriate in that the actual Chinglish is a product of the glocalization of English in China, which is a process that has involved the blending of English with Chinese in certain circumstances.
However, when the term Chinglish is “applied to ungrammatical or nonsensical English in Chinese contexts” and has “pejorative or deprecating connotations” it does indeed reflect “the attitudes of those who apply the label” (see the Wikipedia definition above). It makes the people who are in some way associated with the production of the signs appear to be inferior or unworthy, that is, the Chinese people, and it reflects the underlying “pejorative and deprecating attitudes of those who apply this label.” This is one of the reasons why the Chinese government and the Chinese people are offended and embarrassed by most of these signs and why the government is determined to remove these signs from public places throughout the country. The government wants the world to see China as a modern society with a cosmopolitan culture rather than a society with a hybrid and “quirky” or idiosyncratic culture.
As a result of the media attention given to what is called Chinglish in the West, many Western tourists are likely to regard any English they see in China as Chinglish when it does not conform to the linguistic, cultural, and/or ideological norms of what they consider proper English. What they find awkward or humorous may be misspellings, the choice of inappropriate vocabulary, grammatical errors, or expressions that conflict with their Western mindsets and ideological norms. What they may not realize is that the English on the Chinese signs, menus, instructions, etc., is used for a variety of purposes, and not just to provide an accurate English translation of a Chinese message. Most examples of Chinglish signs are clearly straightforward spelling errors, for example, the sign “Caution Dander” (Radtke, 2007, p. 30) contains a misspelling of the word danger. It should read Caution Danger and is a good example of the kind of spelling mistakes made by the Chinese sign makers involved in producing such signs. But other signs express a Chinese mindset and style of expression that are quite different from the Western mindset and style of expression.
Many of the most popular examples of the so-called Chinglish signs do contain linguistic errors – at least in terms of so-called native speaker English standards. They contain errors in grammar and/or choice of vocabulary. Some are literal translations and provide an incorrect interpretation in English of the Chinese message on these signs. However, similar linguistic mistakes in English can be found on many signs in other countries around the world, including the US and the UK. Mair (2010) gives many good examples of these kinds of mistranslations in other countries such as: “Foot Wearing Prohibited: Strictly Prohibited” (Myanmar), “Physically Impossible Entry” (Spain), “Soft Drinks Inside Toilet” (Thailand), “Exit: No Way Out” (Singapore), “Because You Are Dangerous, You Must Not Enter” (Japan), “Fish & Ships” (United Arab Emirates), “Take Luggage of Foreigner: No Charge” (Vietnam), “Dangerous Not to Swim” (Mexico), “Fresh Garbage” (Ireland), “No Celery Phones” (Yellowstone National Park, US), “Dumplings Human” (Vietnam), “Drunken People Crossing” (Thailand), “Danger of Death: Keep out” (Scotland) – to name just a few.
Mair has been keeping track on his online blog called the Language Log of “countless examples of Chinglish, that inimitable brand of English spewed out by bad translation software and incompetent human translators.” He also keeps track of “the mirror of this phenomenon going in the other direction which has been referred to as Zhonglish,” which is defined in the Urban Dictionary as “The mangled, garbled, butchered, malapropriated or trashed Chinese spoken by native speakers of English.” The Urban Dictionary gives the following information about Zhonglish:
Origin: “zhong” is taken directly from the first syllable of the Mandarin word for Chinese; “lish” is from English, of course. Usage: Zhonglish is the mirror image of Chinglish but is less likely to be hurled as an insult. It is amusing, not abusing, and is usually applied to learners of Mandarin, although it could conceivably be applied to Wu, Cantonese, or others. History: “Zhonglish” has been used by learners of Chinese at least since the early 1960s. (Urban Dictionary, 2012)
Returning to Chinglish, it is important to point out that some so-called Chinglish signs in China are not the result of translation or sign maker errors. They are created for particular purposes such as for decorative, advertising, or other commercial reasons. In such circumstances, the expression on the signs is not a translation of a Chinese message but often a creative commercial use of English to attract English speaking customers and/or to communicate cosmopolitanism, for example, the sign on a store that sells “Passion Donuts” (Radtke, 2007, p. 92) and the Merry MASSAGE Mas sign (p. 23) placed in the window of a massage parlor in China during the Christmas holiday season.
Other so-called Chinglish signs reflect what are Chinese mindsets, a Chinese sense of humanity and/or Chinese sentiments. The English translations on these signs may be grammatically correct but appear somewhat “childish” or “quirky” when viewed from an ethnocentric Western mindset. For example, the signs “Your Careful Step Keeps Tiny Grass Invariably Green” (Radtke, 2007, p. 46) and “Do Not Disturb – Tiny Grass Is Dreaming” (see Figure 3). These signs contain accurate English translations of the Chinese messages on these signs. They may sound strange or childish to those with Western mindsets but they faithfully reflect the Chinese way of thinking and style of expression. They are likely to be misunderstood by Westerners who do not have an understanding of Chinese culture and the Chinese way of thinking. They may not realize or appreciate the fact that these kinds of signs appeal to the sensitivity of the Chinese people and are much more effective in China than Western style signs that state emphatically “Keep off the Grass.” According to Jeffrey Yao, an English translator and teacher at the Graduate Institute of Interpretation and Translation at Shanghai International Studies University, the Chinese versions of such signs “tend to anthropomorphize nature as a way to gently engage the stomping masses” (Yao is quoted in Jacobs, 2010, p. A12). He gives some good examples such as follows: “The Little Grass Is Sleeping. Please Don’t Disturb It” or “Don’t Hurt Me. I Am Afraid of Pain.”
While the Western approach is often more matter of fact and emphatic in these kinds of circumstances, it is not in any sense better than the Chinese approach – especially not in China. Nor are the statements on these signs childish or quirky when viewed in the Chinese cultural context. The Western approach is not more mature or more effective (except perhaps in the West). Viewed in terms of Western cultural and ideological norms, these signs may be considered idiosyncratic and/or reflective of a childish way of thinking. But this perspective reflects both Western ethnocentrism and the biased belief that Western norms are superior to Chinese norms and styles of expression. The implications of such thinking are that these signs should either be replaced by more “appropriate” wording or worse that they are derisively humorous examples of the quirky linguistic and cultural inferiority of the Chinese people.
However, so-called native speaker norms for written and spoken English can no longer be uncritically promoted as the only “correct” or authoritative norms of written and spoken English in this contemporary age of World Englishes. The derisive depreciation of other varieties of English is increasingly considered discriminatory and ethnocentric. As Williams has stated: “a definition of language is always, implicitly or explicitly, a definition of human beings in the world” (Williams, 1977, p. 21). When “good” English is defined strictly in terms of the language used by the so-called native speakers of English – the British, North Americans, Australians, New Zealanders, etc., then this implies the English used by the so-called non-native speakers of English is generally considered inferior and unworthy in comparison. This kind of differentiation supports ethnocentrism and linguistic hegemony based on notions of linguistic superiority and inferiority, and makes the people who speak the language “correctly” feel superior and those who speak it “incorrectly” feel inferior (see Pennycook, 1994, 1998; Phillipson, 2009).
When Chinglish is equated with the English written and spoken by the Chinese people, it tends to reinforce long held Western prejudices against the Chinese people and their culture. And these prejudices are not just about their linguistic abilities, it is about the Chinese people and their culture (Aldane, 2012). In this regard, when Chinglish is ridiculed by Westerners, it is also the Chinese people and their culture that are ridiculed. Neither the Chinese government nor the Chinese people want to be ridiculed and humiliated by these unrepresentative examples of Chinese English usage, for example, see the extensive public discussion about Chinglish at the China Daily Forum online (China Daily, 2012–2013). Regardless of the actual intent behind the efforts of Westerners to popularize and preserve Chinglish as a form of “cultural heritage,” it is by no means and under no circumstances considered an object of national pride or cultural heritage by the Chinese people. On the contrary, it is considered embarrassing and a national disgrace, and it tends to promote the ideological and cultural hegemony of the West in general and the English-speaking countries in particular over China (Florig, 2010; Phillipson, 2009). But this is the subject for further study and another article.
The effort to reverse and eliminate this unfortunate consequence of the glocalization of English in China continues unabated in China. It is impossible to predict what the future will be of the so-called Chinglish signs and the efforts of their Western aficionados. It appears that it is very difficult to reverse the consequences of glocalization once they have globalized.
Conclusion
The spread of English within China offers an excellent case study of the glocalization of English in the twenty-first century. In China it is possible to see how the glocalization of English is taking place within arguably the largest and one of the oldest societies in the world with an ancient culture and long history of contact with other cultures and languages. The brief examination of this case of glocalization in China provided in this article illustrates how local cultures assign their own meanings to globalizing phenomena – in this case English, and how these phenomena are received, modified, controlled, differentiated, and appropriated in accordance with local needs, local values, and local social structure. At the same time, this case study reveals how such globalizing phenomena modify local cultures, local values, and local social structure through adaptation and acculturation. It also shows how unintended consequences take place as a result of glocalization.
In his book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization (2012, p. 296), Friedman has argued that glocalization (which he refers to as “glocalism”) reveals the ability of a culture to absorb influences that naturally fit into and can enrich that culture as well as to resist those things that are truly alien to the culture and to compartmentalize those things that, while different, can nevertheless be enjoyed and celebrated as different. As this article has attempted to illustrate, the culture, government, and people of Mainland China have shown they have this ability. The glocalization of English in China demonstrates how China has absorbed the globalizing aspects of English that fit into and support Chinese culture and society while at the same time it has blocked those aspects which do not fit. The Chinese case also shows how the government and political leaders have compartmentalized and confined those aspects which are potentially threatening, and tried to reverse and eliminate the adverse effects of the unintended consequences of glocalization.