Agnes S. L. Lam and Wenfeng Wang
Chapter Outline
Introduction 147 The Language Education in China project 149 Conclusion 169 Note 169 References 169
learners, like the state, do covertly or overtly ascribe value to each of the languages in their repertoire. It is also argued that the apparent discrepancy between the offi -cial bilingual policy and the day-to-day trilingual or multilingual realities in learner experience is not an impracticable mode of trading language value and is, in fact, inherent in the process dynamics of the Multi-agent Model of Language Choice involving agents such as language planners, educators, family members, learners and other competent language users.
Introduction
In the making of language education policy, governments around the world need to take account of the various functions of languages used in their coun-tries and assign values to them as appropriate in their policy models. For example, languages can be valued for instrumental (Gardner and Lambert 1972) or cultural considerations (Kramsch 2001). Instrumental reasons may include using a language as a tool to gain knowledge, whereas cultural reasons may include using a language as a means of cultural expression or identity for-mation or integration. Such considerations also operate at the level of individ-ual learners, who may, of course, also enjoy learning a language just because they are intrinsically interested in the language, that is, to acquire linguistic competence for its own sake, and not primarily because they wish to use it for any practical or cultural purpose, though they may eventually do so as well. In reality, motivation in language learning often involves a host of motives within and surrounding the learner (Dornyei and Skehan 2003:
616–17). The interactions between national assignment of language value and individual learner apportionment of such are also complex, and not easily delineated, perhaps because there is a certain degree of fluidity inherent in such negotiation. This chapter is an attempt to address such concerns at both the national and individual levels in the context of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), with reference to some of the findings from the Language Education in China (LEDChina) project (Lam 2005).
Multilingual and multidialectal China is an interesting case in the study of the trading of language value. The majority ethnic group, the Han Chinese, speaks a number of Chinese dialects, falling into two main categories: the northern dialects and the southern dialects. The northern dialects can be sub-divided into seven sub-groups and the southern dialects into six sub-groups (Huang 1987: 33–45). Chinese dialects (especially the southern ones) often differ in pronunciation, vocabulary and some aspects of syntax but share one
writing script of about 3,500 years old. The national language, Chinese, is also known as Hanyu (Han Language). The standard dialect for oral interaction is Putonghua (Common Language) or Mandarin, a northern dialect correspond-ing well to Baihua, the written variety of Modern Standard Chinese propa-gated from around 1920. Among the ethnic minorities (106,430,000 people constituting about 8.4 per cent of the total population in China) (National Bureau of Statistics of the People’s Republic of China 2001), 55 groups are officially recognized and over 80–120 languages are spoken (State Language Commission 1995: 159; Zhou 2003: 23).
In the context of such linguistic complexity and with an enormous popula-tion, China has to make language choices that are both politically peaceable and practically implementable. The official language policy appears to pro-mote bilingualism and the reasons given have been both instrumental and cultural. The Han Chinese, the majority population, are expected to be bilin-gual in Chinese (Putonghua being the standard dialect) and English while the minorities are encouraged to be bilingual in Chinese (Putonghua) and a minority language. It is generally acknowledged that the value of English in China’s national agenda is to accelerate her economic progress and enhance her diplomatic profile in the global arena. The rhetoric surrounding the prop-agation of Putonghua has emphasized instead national integration, while the teaching of minority languages cites the maintenance of cultural identity.
While the official discourse stresses bilingualism and almost discrete roles for the languages in interplay, this chapter argues that, in reality, most learners in China often negotiate among at least three languages: Putonghua (the national standard Chinese dialect), English (the favoured foreign language) and a local Chinese dialect (for the Han Chinese) or, for the minorities, a minority lan-guage or at least a minority culture. In other words, the explicit bilingual policy is underpinned by an implicit trilingual model in practice.
It is also proposed that the value attached to each of the languages used in China is not discretely instrumental or cultural but is often a mixture of more than one type of motivation, a perspective quite consistent with current research on motivation (Dornyei and Skehan 2003: 614–21), or specifically on motivation in Chinese learners (Gao et al. 2004). In fact, whenever two or more languages, and hence cultures, are being negotiated within a learner or a group of learners, there is some degree of volatility in the incorporation of elements from different languages, which has also been observed in discus-sions of the formation of intercultural identity (Young 2001: 65–68).
Intercultural identity . . . is not a fixed psychological state . . . . As [learners]
undergo adaptive changes to host communication competence (most notably, language competence), their internal conditions change from a monocultural to an increasingly multifaceted character. At the same time, the host cultural ele-ments are increasingly incorporated into their self-concept. In this process, the [learners’] identities become more flexible. (Young 2001: 65–66)
Although this flexibility has been described above as a process within individ-ual learners, such a process may also, by spreading through a group of learners, result in multiplicity in the recognition of language value at the level of the society and hence the state. It is also argued that the apparent lack of perfect correspondence between the official bilingual policy and the day-to-day trilin-gual (and, for the minorities, sometimes even multilintrilin-gual) circumstances is in itself a solution not unfeasible, because the values attached to languages in a society are often, in any case, in an unavoidable state of flux and negotiation;
it may even be claimed that it is the very indeterminancy surrounding the value of each language involved that allows language users and the state to trade languages on a day-to-day basis and periodically assign and re-assign value as appropriate.
The argument in the chapter proceeds as follows: first, some background information on the LEDChina project is provided; second, the negotiation of language value at the national policy level in China is outlined; third, the tri-lingual or multitri-lingual experience of learners and the assignment of value to such languages by individual learners is illustrated with interview excerpts from six learners; finally, the dynamics of trading of language value by differ-ent stakeholders in language education are encapsulated in the Multi-agdiffer-ent Model of Language Choice (Lam 2007b).